This  book  has  been  DIGITIZED 
and  is  available  ONLINE. 


OF  THE 

U N I VERS  ITY 
Of  ILLINOIS 


342.7712 

01.3 

1873  - 74d 

v.2 

r*-2 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/officialreportof22ohio 


O’ 


OFFICIAL  REPORT 

OF  THE 

PROCEEDINGS  AND  DEBATES 

OF  THE 

THIRD  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONTENTION 


OF  OHIO, 

ASSEMBLED  IN  THE  CITY  OF  CINCINNATI, 


OJST  TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1873. 


J.  G.  ADEL,  OFFICIAL  REPORTER. 


VOLUME  II— PART  2. 


CLEVELAND; 

W.  S.  ROBISON  & CO.,  PRINTERS  TO  THE  CONVENTION,  65  AND  67  FRANKFORT  ST 

1S74. 


INDEX. 


i 


A d- 


INDEX  TO  VOLUME  THREE. 


A 


Adair,  William,  Delegate  from  Carroll  County 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

propositions  introduced  by 

reports  submitted  by 

remarks  by 

resolutions  offered  by 

Albright,  Charles  J.,  Delegate  from  Guernsey  County — 


call  of  the  House  demanded  by 1164 

eall  for  the  yeas  and  nays 1224,  1237 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1577, 1661 

motions  made  by 1138,  1281,  1972,  2033 

motions  to  amend  by 1216 

petitions  presented  by 1122,  2128 

remarks  by 1657 


reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Reporting  and  Publication 1966 

resolutions  offered  by 


1514 

1629 

1507 


Alexander,  Isaac  X.,  Delegate  from  Van  Wert  County — 

call  of  a division  of  the  question  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

propositions  introduced  by 

remarks  by 1064,  2260,  2269, 

reports  submitted  by 

resolutions  offered  by 


1156 

2248 

2260 


2273 


Andrews,  Sherlock  J.,  Delegate  from  Cuyahoga  County — 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1059,  1661,  2228 

motions  made  by 1881,  1950,  2229 

motions  to  amend  by 1972 

petitions  presented  by 2129 

remarks  by 1972 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department 2229 

resolutions  offered  by 


Absence,  leave  of  given,  (See  names  of  members), 

resolution  X o.  176,  relative  to,  without  leave,  ^ffr.  Voris 


1703,  2065 


II 


INDEX 


Accounts  and  Expenses, 

resolution  for  tine  Committee  on,  to  negotiate  a loan,  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  Con- 
vention. Mr.  West 

“ No.  161,  giving  the  Committee  on,  control  of  contingent  expenditures.  Mr. 

Mueller 

report  from  Committee  on,  in  reference  to  expenses 1348,  1416,  1629,  1772,  2053, 

resolution  No.  166,  instructing  Committee  on,  to  report  cost  of  Stationery.  Mr. 

Kerr : 

Adams,  Rev.  John  G.,  prayer  by 1282, 

Adjournment 1180,  1366,  1514,  1515,  1591,  1628,  1699,  1700,  1701,  1917, 

resolution  No.  167,  to  adjourn  sine  die.  By  Mr.  Tyler 1550, 

“ to  a day  certain 

Agriculture, 

resolution  relative  to  the  encouragement  of.  Mr.  Hunt 

Alien  Suffrage, ...1839,  1846,  1876,  1881, 

Appeal,  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair.  Yeas  and  nays 

Apportionment  and  Representation, 

substitute  for  Section  3,  of  Proposition  No.  194.  Mr.  Baber.  

Apportionment  and  Representation — 

Proposition  No.  194,  a substitute  for  Article  11 1577,  1643, 

remarks  by — 

Mr.  Baber,  1594,  1610,  1616,  1623,  1627, 


1673,1688,  1695,  1705, 1719,  1724. 

Barnet 1723,  1724,  1729 

Bishop 1649,  1716 

Burns 1621 

Carbery 1648,  1676 

Chapin 1677 

Clay 1726,  1687 

Cook 1606,  1715 

Dorsey,  1577,  1592,  1599,  1666,  1690 

1693,  1717,  1721. 

Ewing 1622,  1684 

Griswold,  1584,  1593,  1607,  1618, 

1681,  1696. 

Gurley 1621,1626,  1707 

Hale 1696,  1706 

Herron 1647,  1728 

IIoadly 1711 


Mr.  Horton 

u 


1625, 

Hunt 1650, 

Johnson  1669, 

Kerr 

Mueller 

Neal 1602, 1653, 

Pease 1610,  1626,  1677, 

Powell.  . . .15S9,  1683,  1685,  1708, 

Pratt 1592,  1611, 

Root 

Rowland 1652, 

Sample 

Sears 1604,  1622,  1627, 

Steedman 

Townsend 

Voris 

West 

Woodbury 1597, 


1214 

1314 

2061 

1348 

1348 

2091 

1661 

1643 

1565 

1923 

1481 

1704 

1666 

1643 

1671 

1674 
1624 

1648 

1675 
1718 
1715 
1677 
1709 
1733 
1731 

1649 
1652 
1711 
1600 
1713 
I6O5 


33 


Baber,  Llewellyn,  Delegate  from  Franklin  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 1121,  1589,  1615, 16S0,  2178 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 1736 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 1121,  1181,  1236, 1260,  1432,  1504,1589,  1736 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1295,  1378,  1935 

motions  made  by 1566,  1613,  1699,  1736 

motions  to  amend  by 1157,  1420,  1457,  1936,  1937 

petitions  presented  by 2059,  2128,  2228 

propositions  introduced  by,  (No.  222)  substitute  for  Proposition  No.  211 1922 

remarks  by,  1117,  1156,  1108,  1228,  1233,  1240,  1266,  1426,  1430,  1442,  1448,  1461,  1477, 

1495,  1520,  1528,1571,  1573,1594,1597,  1607,  1610,  1616,  1623,  1627,  1632,  1673, 

1688,  1695,1705,1719,1753,  1756,1799,  1845,  1911,  1926,  1936,  2061,  2063,2135, 

2161,  2237,  2265. 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 1704 


INDEX. 


iii 


Bannon,  James  W.,  Delegate  from  Scioto  County- 

call  

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1156,  1702 

motions  made  by 1303,  1504 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by . . . 

remarks  by 


reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  County  and  Township  Organizations 1442 

resolutions  offered  by 


Barnet,  David,  Delegate  from  Preble  County— 

leave  of  absence  granted  to — 1138,  1550,  1843 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 10G0, 1068,  1541,  1550,  1723,  1724, 1729,  1808,  1970,  2279 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Beer,  Thomas,  Delegate  from  Crawford  County — 

call  of  House  demanded  by 2247,  2253 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 2247 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1243,  1661 

motions  made  by 1313,1347,  1348,  1378,  1452,  1576,  2159,  2164,  2246 

motions  to  amend  by 1060, 1061,  1143, 1167,  1180,  1347,  1372,  1374, 1518,  1574,  2176 

notice  of  intention  to  move  an  amendment  to  Pule  69 1213, 1214,  1348,  1452 


petitions  presented  by 

propositions  introduced  by 

remarks  by 1167,  1192,  1338, 13S5, 1453,1571,  1574,  2112,  2176 


reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department 2229 

resolutions  offered  by 1576 


Bishop,  Richard  M.,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 1259,  1367, 1487,  1504, 1735,  1771,  1843,  2017,  2093,  2246 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by ... . 1089, 1361,  1402, 1649,  1716,  1748, 1819, 188S,  1991,  2025,  2064,  2067,  2170,  2266 

reports  submitted  by  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Blose,  John  H.,  Delegate  from  Clarke  County — 

appointed  on  Special  Committee 2058 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1550 

motions  made  by 1280,  2128 


motions  to  amend  by 1215, 1237,  1548 

petitions  presented  by 1488,  1629,  1804,  2128 

remarks  by 1152, 1215, 1237,  1280, 1370, 1533,  1548,  1640,  1752,  1934 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses. . . .1348,  1416,  1772,  2053 
“ “ “ Select  Committee  on  the  death  of  Edmund  Smith 2256 

Bosworth,  Perry,  Delegate  from  Lake  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by . 

petitions  presented  by 1951 


IV 


INDEX, 


remarks  by 1943 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Comihittee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Bights 1737 

resolutions  offered  by  


Burns,  Barnabas,  Delegate  from  Richland  County — 

appointed  on  standing  committee 1181 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 

excused  from  voting 1396 

chairman  of  Committee  of  the  Whole 1577 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 2227 

motions  made  by 1121,  1452,  1504,  1619,  19J1,  1957 

motions  to  amend  by 1212, 1242,  1323,  1330,  1454,  1783, 1786, 1934,  1935 

petitions  presented  by 2194 

propositions  introduced  by 1702 

remarks  by 1126,  1199,  1225,  1242,  1324,  1412,  1425, 1434, 1559,  1565,  1621,1636, 

1749,  1783,  1798,  1901, 1938,  2084,  2145. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Judicial  Department 2229 

resolutions  offered  by 


Byal,  Absalom  B.,  Delegate  from  Hancock  County — 


call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1577 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 2027 

petitions  presented  by 2228 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Boyce,  Rev.  I.  T.,  prayer  by 1701,  1702,  1736,  1804,  1844 

Bill  of  Rights  agreed  to 2117 


0 


Caldwell,  John  L.,  Delegate  from  Pike  County — 


call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1844 

motions  made  by 1701,  1702 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Campbell,  Lewis  D.,  Delegate  from  Butler  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  bv 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by. 1072,“  1144,  1145 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1246 

motions  made  by 1171,  1844,  1876,  1917 

motions  to  amend  by 1141,  1796 

petitions  presented  by 

previous  questions  demanded  by 

propositions  introduced, 

No.  224:  In  relation  to  the  sale  and  manufacture  of  intoxicating  liquors 2033 

remarks  by 1070,  1799,  1807,  1815,  1&14,  1S77,  1906,  1913 


INDEX. 


v 


reports  submitted  by 
resolutions  offered  by 


1844 


Carbery,  Joseph  P.,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 1701 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1314,  1698, 2128,  2247 

motions  made  by 1225,  1396,1514,  1917,  2162 

motions  to  amend  by 1238,  1507 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 1085,  1088,  1150,  1232,  1238,  1365,  1431,  1453,  1510,  1535,  1648,  1664, 

1676,  1746,  1814,  1874,  2025,  2087,  2090,  2220,  2281. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Education 1367 

resolutions  offered  by - — 1633,  1982 


Chapin,  Harlow,  Delegate  from  Washington  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1452,  1550 

motions  made  by 1567,  1753,  1994 

motions  to  amend  by 1037 

petitions  presented  by • • 1022 

remarks  by 1377,  1560,  1677,  2012,  2018,  2142,  2153,  2258 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Clark,  Samuel  W.,  Delegate  from  Jefferson  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1550,  1881 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1156,  1181,  1213,  1243,  1314,  1348 

prayer  by 1156,  1699 

remarks  by 1743 

resolutions  offered  by 1071 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors 2163 


, Clark,  Milton  L.,  Delegate  from  Ross  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

leave  to  change  vote 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


1469,  2254 

1440 

1073,  1198,  1922,  1923 
1320 


1244,  1320,  1438,  2126,  2132,  2174,  2249 


Clay,  Adam,  Delegate  from  Montgomery  County — 
call 


leave  of  absence  granted  to 1122,  1702 

motions  made  by 2018 

motions  to  amend  by 1643,  1952 

petitions  presented  by 1568 

remarks  by 1626,  1687,  1952 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights 1737 


“ Corporations  other  than  Municipal 2060 


resolutions  offered  by 


Coats,  John  B.,  Delegate  from  Union  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

jnotions  to  amend  by , 

petitions  presented  by 


1059,  1348,  1661,  2054 

1506,  1549 

1563 

1629,1981 


VI 


INDEX. 


remarks  by 1122, 1241,  1457, 1482, 1512,  1530,  15  38,  1550, 15G4,  1575 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  County  and  Township  Organizations 1442 

“ Committee  on  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors  2163 

Cook,  Asher,  Delegate  from  Wood  County- 

call  

chairman  of  Committee  of  the  Whole 1171 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1772 

motions  made  by 1488,  1577,  1589,  1606,  1658,  1679, 1966,  2060,  2186,  2194,  2229,  2257 

motions  to  amend  by 2275 

petitions  presented  by 1922,  1981,  2018,  2128 

propositions  introduced  by 

remarks  by. . .1220,  1227,  1376, 1424,  1430, 1486, 1566,  1570,  1715,  1755,  1765,  1881,  1968, 

2066,  2181,  2186,  2262,  2264. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Education 1367,  1488 

resolutions  offered  by 

Cowen,  D.  D.  T.,  Delegate  from  Belmont  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 2253 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by  

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 1454,  1532,  2247,  2253 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1549,  1702 

motions  made  by 1145,  1532,  1666,  2253 

motions  to  amend  by 1453,  1455, 1485,  1498,  1638,  2118,  2154 

petitions  presented  by 2059 

remarks  by 1153,  1305,  1401,  1445, 1470, 1540,  1548,  2154,  2277 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Judicial  Department 2229 

resolutions  offered  by 

Cunningham,  T.  E.,  Delegate  from  Allen  County — 

appointed  on  Special  Committee 2054 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call 

chairman  of  Committee  of  the  Whole 1795 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1347 

motions  made  by 1256,  1919,  2112,  2178,  2248,  2270 

motions  to  amend  by 1139,  1142 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by,  1115,  1151,  1182, 1185,  1235,  1240,  1258, 1260,  1264,  1280,  1352,  1744,  1785, 

1808,  1863,  1929,  1955,  2056,  2086,  2091. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Com.  on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal 2060 

resolutions  offered  by 19S0,  2054,  2061 


Cantfield,  Rev.  I.  S.  Prayer  by 1314 

Church  property.  (See  Taxation.) 

Collins,  Rev.  S.  A.  Prayer  by 156S,  1629 

Committees,  standing — request  for  the  President  to  fill  vacancies  on  the 1059 

“ “ appointments  on  the , 11S1,  2112 

“ Special  “ on 1844 

Commissioner  of  Common  Schools,  resolution  requesting  information  from 1844 

Corporations — 

“ Proposition  No.  216,  to  amend  Article  13.  By  Mr.  Mueller 1597 

“ petition  to  relieve  stockholders  of,  from  individual  liability  of.  Mr.  Baber.  2059 

Corporations  other  than  Municipal — 

leave  granted  to  hold  sessions  during  the  sessions  of  the  Convention 1296 

report  from  Committee  on 2112 

County  officers — table  of  fees  of 1463 

Courts — petition  to  make  Franklin  County  a separate  district 1059 

“ “ “ Licking  “ “ “ “ 1314 

“ “ “ Montgomery  “ 1568 


INDEX, 


VII 


Criminal  jurisdiction— petition  on  the  subject  of.  Mr.  Thompson 
County  and  Township  Organizations — 

Proposition  No.  189,  a Substitute  for  Article  10 

remarks  by — 


1951 

1441,  1G35 


Mr. 

Baber 

1442,  1448,  1461,  1572 

Mr. 

Humph  reville 

1447 

a 

Barnet 

a 

Miner 

u 

Beer 

1571,  1574 

a 

Mullen 

1472 

a 

Blose 

1640 

il 

Neal 

1443,  1860 

u 

Chapin 

1560 

ll 

Okey 

1345 

u 

Coats 

.1457,  1482,  1550,  1564 

it 

Pond 1447,1472 

,1546,1557,  1638 

u 

Cook 

1486,  1572 

It 

Powell 

1549,  1554,  1637 

u 

Cowen 

(i 

Pratt 

1485,  1555,  4572 

iC 

Cunningham..  . 

il 

Sample 

1444,  1573,  1483 

a 

Doan 

1551 

il 

Tuttle . . . 

.1458,  1473,  1487 

a 

Dorsey 

1475 

il 

Voris 

1455,  1471 

u 

Ewing 

1468, 1554,  1557,  1636 

a 

West 

1466 

a 

Griswold,  1443 

,1447,1459,1467,  1569 

a 

White,  of  Brown. . . . 

< t 

Gurley 

1637 

a 

Wilson 

u 

Hale. . 

1465,  1470 

Yeas  and  nays  on  amendments 

U 

Hitchcock,  1469, 1553,1562, 1575,  1639 

1476, 1478,1483,  1485, 

, 1548,  1572, 

44 

Horton 

1576,  1643,  1646. 

D 


De  Steiguer,  Kodolph,  Delegate  from  Athens  County — 

appointed  on  Special  Committee . 1844 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1243,  1504,  1698,  2054 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Doan,  A.  W.,  Delegate  from  Clinton  Count}" — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 1589 

motions  to  amend  by 1222 

petitions  presented  by 1488,  1568,  2129 

remarks  by 1535,  1551 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Dorsey,  G.  Volney,  Delegate  from  Miami  County — 

appointed  on  Special  Committee 

call  for  a division  of  the  question 1216, 

leave  of  absence  granted  to ...  1550, 

motions  made  by 1628,  1734, 

motions  to  amend  by,  1349,  1400,  1482,  1606,  1608,  1625,  1693,  1706,  1727,  1745,  1938, 
1943,  1974,  1977,  2047. 

petitions  presented  by 

propositions  introduced  by. 

remarks  by,  1103,  1172,  1221,  1228,  1349,  1364,  1375,  1391,  1400,  1417, 1475,  1577, 1591, 
1599,  1615,  1621,  1625,  1666,  1690,  1706,  1717,  1721,  1861,  1888,  1938, 1974,  1994, 
2012,  2035,  2038,  2048,  2055,  2267,  2270,  2284. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Select  Committee  on  the  death  of  Edmund  Smith 

resolutions  offered  by 1703, 

rules,  notice  of  intention  to  suspend  70. 


2058 

1236 

2054 

2260 


2254 


2256 

2256 

1703. 


VIII 


INDEX. 


Debates  and  Proceedings,  resolutions  concerning  the  publication  of 1969 

Dogs,  petitions  praying  for  the  taxation  of 1243,  1577 

Dogs,  petitions  praying  for  the  annihilation  of 1488 

Dogs,  addition  to  section  9,  proposition  No.  189,  reference  to 1636 


E 

Ewing,  Thomas,  Delegate  from  Fairfield  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1246,1702,1772,  2094 

motions  made  by 1121,  1406,  1644,  1698, 1701,  1881,  2091 

motions  to  amend  by 1148,  1636,  1923,  1930 

petitions  presented  by 

propositions  introduced  by 1566 

remarks  by . . . . 1138,  1151,  1341, 1378,1383, 1393, 1406, 1408, 1419, 1436, 1468, 1476, 1494, 

1521,  1545,  1554,  1557,  1622, 1636, 1641,  1684,  1885,  1908,  197S,  2055. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal 2060 

resolutions  offered  by 1635,  2065,  2093 


Education — 

report  from  Committee  on 

“ “ “ submitting  additional  sections  to  Article  6 

petitions  relative  to  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 1922,  1981,  2018, 

remarks  by 

Elective  Franchise — 

proposition  No.  221,  an  additional  section  to  Article  5,  Mr.  Burns 

proposition  No.  203,  a substitute  for  Article  5,  from  Committee  on  

Evening  sessions — 

resolution  relative  to  holding,  on  and  after  March  10,  Mr.  Hoadly. 

Elective  Franchise — 

Proposition  No.  203,  a Substitute  for  Article  5,  from  Com.  on 

remarks  by — 

Mr.  Andrews 1972  Mr.  Miner 


Baber 

Blose 

Bosworth. 

Burns 

Campbell. 


1799,  1846,  1911,  1926 

1934 

1943 

1798,  1901,  1938 

.1799,  1815,  1877,  1913 

Carbery 1814 

Clay 1952 

Cook 1881 

Cunningham 1863,  1929 

Dorsey 1861, 1888,  1943,  1974 

Ewing 1887,  1908 

Foran 1865,  1915 

Gurley 1953 

Hale 1928,  1938 

Hitchcock 1959 

Hoadly 1876,  1923 

Kraemer 1913,  1925 

McCormick 1852 


Mueller 1855, 

Neal 1935, 

Page 

Philips 

Powell 1891, 

Root 

Rowland 1871,  1894, 

Russell  of  Meigs 

Sample 1796,  1857, 1940, 

Scribner 

Sears 

Steedman 1854,  1933, 

Townsend 

Tuttle 1904, 

V oris 1816, 

West 1856,  1867, 

White  of  Brown 

Wilson 1928, 


1367 

1488 

2059 


1702 

1795 

1704 


1883 

1931 

1952 
1882 
1871 
1960 
195S 
1924 

1955 

1953 
1953 
1945 
1889 

1956 
1974 
1896 
1892 
1953 


INDEX. 


IX 


F 


Foran,  Martin  A.,  Delegate  from  Cuyahoga  County — 


leave  of  absence  granted  to  1348,  2054 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1059,  1702 

propositions  introduced  by 


remarks  by 1079,  1757,  1865,  1915,  2081 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Freiberg,  Julius,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1566 

motions  made  by 1619 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 1411,  1635,  1751,  2257 

reports  by,  submitted  from  Committee  on  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors 2163 

resolutions  offered  by 

Female  Suffrage.  (See  Suffrage.) 

Finance  and  Taxation.  (See  Revenue  and  Taxation .) 


Franklin  County  Bar,  petition  from 1059,  2059 

French,  Rev.  W.  H.,  prayer  by 1772 


G 


Gardner  Mills,  Delegate  from  Fayette  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 1500 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1156,  1550 

motions  made  by 1260 

motions  to  amend  by 1323 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 1325,  1431,  1534,  1551 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Godfrey,  Thomas  J.,  Delegate  from  Mercer  County — 

appointed  on  Special  Committee i 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


2054 


1059 


1162 


1162,  1791,  2137 


2054 


Greene,  Jacob  J.,  Delegate  from  Defiance  and  Paulding  Counties — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 


1596 


INDEX. 


reports  submitted  by 
resolutions  offered  by. 


Griswold,  S.  O.,  Delegate  from  Cuyahoga  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 1250,  1295,  1396, 1442,  1455,  1515,  1537,  1577,  1680, 

motions  to  amend  by 1569,  1615,  1695, 

petitions  presented  by 

propositions  introduced  by,  No.  225,  a substitute  for  Article  13 

remarks  by 1229,  1235,  1243,  1248,  1259,  1266,  1283,  1285,  1306, 1323, 1359,  1369, 

1412,1424,  1443,  1459,  1467,  1476,1547,  1552, 1569, 15S4,  1593,  1607,  1618,  1681, 
2023,  2046. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Reporting  and  Publication 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal 

resolutions  offered  by 


1405 

1481 

1661 

2129 

2266 

1213 

2060 


1966 

2060 


Gurley,  John  J.,  Delegate  from  Morrow  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to .1138,  1156, 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 1730, 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by  1564,  1621,  1624, 1626,  1637, 1707,  1708, 1747,  1953,  2013  , 2038,  2062, 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


2227 

1935 

1762 

1596 

2086 


Guthrie,  Delegate  from  Shelby  County — 

appointed  on  standing  committees 

elected  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  death  of  Hon.  Edmund  Smith 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

oath  administered  to 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by • 

reports  submitted  by 

resolutions  offered  by 


Mr.  Rowland 


Gifts,  &c.,  to  Religious  Societies. 

proposition  No.  219,  not  to  be  made  except  upon  conditions 
God  in  the  Constitution — petitions  for  the  recognition  of — 
Presented  by — 

Mr.  Chapin 922 

“ Clark,  of  Jefferson,  1156,  1243,  348 

1181, 1314. 

“ Co  wen 2059 

“ Hostetter 1213 

“ Hunt 1844 

“ Kerr 1922 

“ King 1088 

petitions  against  the  recognition  of — 
presented  by — 

Mr.  Blose 1804 

“ Foran 1059,  1702 

“ Horton  1516 

“ McCauley 2094 


Mr.  Mueller 1635 


Russell,  of  Muskingum 

Shaw. 

Smith,  of  Shelby 

Towns  ley 

Waddle,  1059,  1736,1881,  1922, 
2059. 


1348 

1243 

1981 

1881 

1702 

1981 


Mr.  Thompson 
“ Reilly  . . 
“ Wilson... 


1282,  1314,  1416, 
1156, 


1795 

1452 

1378 


INDEX. 


XI 


See  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights,  discussed 
Gray,  Rev.  Richard— prayer  by 


1742 

1416 


H 


Hale,  John  C.,  Delegate  from  Lorain  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 1164 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1549,  2054 

motions  made  by 1164, 1533,  1643, 1701,  1734,  1S65, 1881,  1950,  2247 

motions  to  amend  by 1613,  1695 

previous  question  demanded  by 

petitions  presented  by 1488 

remarks  by,  1182,1321,  1360,1374,  1465,  1470,1476,  1547,  1614,  1694,  1695,  1706,  1734, 

1794,  1928,  1938,  1940,  2037,2101. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Judicial  Department 2229* 

resolutions  offered  by 


Herron,  John  W.,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County — 

appointed  on  Standing  Committee 1181 

leave  of  absence  gran  ted' to 

motions  made  by 1073,  1296,1303,  1514,1916,  1972,  2247 

motions  to  amend  by 1304,  1423,  1692,  228G 

petitions  presented  by 1921 

propositions  introduced  by,  No.  223,  to  amend  Article  6 1982 

remarks  by 1305,  1344,  1422,  1608, 1647,  1693,  1728,2286,  2288 


reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal 
resolutions  offered  by 


2060 


Hill,  George  William,  Delegate  from  Ashland  County — 


appointed  on  Special  Committee 2058 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1661 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 


remarks  by  1314,  1629,  1804, 1812,  2056,  223G 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses,  1348,  1416,  1629, 


2772,  2053. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Reporting  and  Publication I960 

“ “ “ Select  Committee  on  the  death  of  Edmund  Smith 2256 


Hitchcock,  Peter,  Delegate  from  Geauga  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 1060,  1576, 1589, 1597 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 

chairman  in  Committee  of  the  Whole 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1347 

motions  made  by,  1087,  1121,  1568,  1569,  1576,  1577,  1597, 1655,  1698,  1796,  1821,  1865, 

1956,  1977. 

motions  to  amend  by,  1138,  1139,  1144,  1162,  1199,  1226,  1231,  1255,  1322, 14S5,  1530, 

1552, 1562,  2129. 

petitions  presented  by 2094 

remarks  by,  1068,  1139,  1162,  1165,  1170,  1175,  1199,  1201,  1206, 1226, 1231,  1432,  1469 
1485,  1495,  1530,  1542,  1552,  1562,  1567,  1570,  1631,  1639,  1657,  1805, 1958,  2070, 

2130,  2138,  2265. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Select  Committee  on  the  death  of  Hon.  John  D.  O’Connor  1655 
resolutions  offered  by 1567,  1679, 1772. 


XII 


INDEX. 


Hoadly,  George,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 1073, 12G0,  1395,  1532,  2111 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 1212,  1514,  1532,  1980 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1156,  1543 

motions  made  by.  .1143, 1213,  1283,  1295, 1315, 1349,  1441,  1492,  1503,  1504,  1701,  1996,  2117 

motions  to  amend  by 1205,  1347,  1440,1507,  1779,  1813 

petitions  presented  by 2128 


remarks  by,  1062,  1068,  1073,  1142,  1143,  1147,  1204,  1247, 1261,  1288,  1303, 1317,  1320, 
1342,  1362,  1375,  1383,  1402,  1406,  1420,  1452, 1489,  1492,  1523,  1533,  1711,  1750, 


1779,  1876,  2003,  2095,  2107,  2119,  2164. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Select  Committee  of  One  on  Legislative  Department 1497 

“ “ “ “ Committee  on  Deporting  and  Publication 1966 

resolutions  offered  by 1704 


Horton,  Joseph  D.,  Delegate  from  Portage  County — 

•call  of 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 1090, 1153,  1533, 1571,  16  25, 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

“ “ u Committee  on  Judicial  Department. 


1630 

1213,1918 

1442,  1567,  1701, 1738 

1478,1618 

1516 

1634,  1643,  1738,  1760,  2223 


2229 


Hostetter,  James  C.,  Delegate  from  Stark  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1702 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 1646,  2014,  2147 

petition  presented  by 1213 

remarks  by 2011,  2016,  2147 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Humphreville,  Samuel,  Delegate  from  Medina  County- 

call  for  a division  of  the  question 1205 

chairman  of  Committee  of  the  Whole . . .2129,  2164,  2194 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1543 

motions  made  by 1156,  1181,  1214,  1243,  1281,  1282,  1287,  1288,  1487 

motions  to  amend  by 1205,  1215 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by, ....1065,  1147,  117e,  1173,  1197,  1211,  1216,  1224,  1247,  1403,  1423,  1447, 

1493,  1519,  1525,  1976. 

reports  submitted  by  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Hunt,  Samuel  F.,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County — 

appointed  on  Special  Committee 2058 

call  for  a division  of  the  question 2079 

chairman  of  Committee  of  the  Whole 

leave  of  absence  granted  to. . , 1702,  1981 

motions  made  by 1242,  1331,  1469,  1498,  1532,  1666,  2111,  2269 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1844 

remarks  by 1079,  1169,  1191,  1193,  1196,  1233,  1256,  1276,  128S,  1355,  1499,  1650,  1671 

report  submitted  by,  from  Select  Committee  of  One  on  Legislative  Department 1507 

resolutions  offered  by : 1565 

Halley,  Eben — prayer  by 1181, 1213,  1243 


INDEX. 


XIII 


Hills,  Rev.  O.  A.— prayer  by 
Hobbs,  Rev.  A.  J. 


2254 

,2128,  2163,  2194,  2228 


I 


Intoxication — 

Proposition  No.  218,  rendering  any  person  ineligible  to  hold  any  judicial  office  who 
is  guilty  of  habitual  or  occasional.  Mr.  Voris 


1577 


J 


Jackson,  Lyman  J.s  Delegate  from  Perry  County- 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Com.  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights, 
resolutions  offered  by 


1568,  1698,  2111 


1774,  1813,  2093 
1737 


Johnson,  Elias  H.,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County- 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1122>  loo() 

motions  made  by 139o>  17ol>  1786>  207a 

motions  to  amend  by 


petitions  presented  by . 


2118,  2144 

remarks  by '. ’**’’..'..*’** 1116,  1669,  1674,  2019,  2037,  2119 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Com.  on  County  and  Township  Organizations - 1442 

a « « Com.  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights 1737 

resolutions  offered  by 


Judicial  Department— report  of  the  Committee  on  the 


2229 


K 


Kerr,  William  P.,  Delegate  from  Licking  County — 

appointed  on  Special  Committee 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Education 
resolutions  offered  by 


1844 

1059,  1698,  2228 


1314,  1629,  1922 

1624,  1634,  1747,  2191 

1367 

1348,1844,  2061 


Kraemer,  Adolphus,  Delegate  from  Ottawa  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

personal  explanation 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


2128 

1917 


1952 

1344, 1409,  1839,  1914,  1925,  1932,  2013 


XIV 


INDEX 


King,  Rufus,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County,  and  President  of  the  Convention — 

committees  appointed  by 1181,  2112 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

excused  from  serving  on  Standing  Committee 1059 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1059,  1088, 1213, 1243,  1814,  1596,  1698,  1736 

remarks  by 1299 


L 


Layton,  W.  V.  M.,  Delegate  from  Auglaize  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 1533 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1550,  1568 

motions  made  by 1396 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 1152, 1262, 1327,  1426,  1512,  1535 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Legislative  Department- 

discussion  of  Proposition  No.  190 


remarks  by — 

Mr.  Albright 1217 

“ Alexander 1064 

“ Baber,  1117,  1156,  1168,  1228, 

1266, 1529. 

“ Barnet 1060,  1541 

“ Beer 1167,  1192 

“ Bishop 1089 

“ Blose 1152, 1215,  1237,  1280 

Burns 1126 

“ Campbell 1070,  1141 

“ Carbery,  1085, 1088,  1150, 1232, 

1238,  1510,  1535. 

“ Clark  of  R 1244 


Mr.  Johnson 1116 

“ Layton 1152, 1262,  1512 

“ Miner 1150,1230,  1509 

“ Mueller  . . 1065, 1101,  1241,  1502,  1516 

“ Mullen 1120, 1221,  1537 

“ Neal 1157,  1195,  1499,  1521,  1536 

“ Page 1170,  1186,  1529 

“ Pease .1111,  1527 

“ Pond 1174,  1210,1234,  1282,  152o 

“ Powell.  . .1176,  1188,  1255,  1261,  1274 
“ Reilly 1540 


“ Root,  1061,1077,1148,1162,1168, 
1200,  1203,  1238,  1283. 


“ Coats.  . . .1122, 1241,  1512,  1530,  1538 

“ Cook 1220 

“ Cowen 1153,  1539 

“ Cunningham,  1115,  1151,  1185, 


“ Rowland 1499,  1509 

“ Russell  of  Meigs 1207,  1250 


“ Sample,  1067,  1189,  1251,  1267, 
1491,  1526. 


1235, 1260,  1264. 

“ Dorsey 1103,  1172,  1221 

“ Ewing 1138,  1151,1494,  1521 

“ Foran 1079 

“ Gardner 1534 

“ Godfrey 1162 

“ Griswold 1235,1243,  1250,  1283 

“ Hale 1182 

“ Hitchcock,  1175, '1199, 1226, 1495,1530 

“ IIoadly,  1062,  1073,  1142,  1147, 

1204,1247,  1261, 1492. 

“ Horton 1090,  1153 


“ Humphreville,  1159, 1173,1197, 
1247,  1493, 1519,  1525. 

« Hunt,  1079,  1169,  1191,  1196, 


it 

Scofield 

ti 

Scribner 

.1065, 

1177,  1496 

it 

Sears 

.1275,  12S4 

it 

Townsend 

ii 

Towns  ley 

1239 

it 

Tuttle,  1066,  1159, 

1163, 

1175, 

1178,  1211,  1244, 
1523, 1533. 

1252, 

1270, 

a 

V oris 

.1134,  1527 

a 

West,  1093,  1170, 

1183, 

1249, 

1268,  1285, 1507. 

a 

White  of  B 

a 

Wilson 

.1153,  1222 

“ Woodbury 1219,  1230 

“ Young  of  C 1232,  1263,  1525 


1233, 1256,  1276,  1498. 


INDEX, 


XV" 


yeas  and  nays  on  amendments  to  proposition  No.  190 : 1061,  1067,  1069,  1221,  1141, 

1142,  1145,  1155,  1158,  1176,  1181,  1199,  1212,  1219,  1231,  1236,  1237,  1242,  1245, 

1247,  1255, 1259,  1276,  1281,  1287,  1501,  1503,  1504,  1506,  1515,  1537,  1541 

final  reading  of  Proposition  No.  190,  and  discussed 1490,  1543 

License,  petitions,  giving  to  the  Legislature  full  power  to  regulate,  1661,  1736,  1804,  2094, 

2128,  2194,  2228,  2254. 

Licking  County  Bar,  petitions  from  1314 

Liquors,  spirituous — 

petition  giving  to  Justices  of  the  Peace  final  jurisdiction  in  the  sale  of 1314 

proposition  No.  224:  in  relation  to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Mr.  Campbell 2033 

proposition  No.  226  : in  relation  to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Mr.  West 2094 

proposition  No.  228:  from  Committee  on 2163 

Lee,  Rev.  Thomas,  prayer  by 1566,  1881,  2059,  2094 

Library  Public,  invitation  from,  to  participate  in  the  dedication  of  the 1596 

resolution  in  response  to  invitation  of  the 1597 

M 

McBride,  John  K.,  Delegate  from  Wayne  County — 

appointed  on  special  committee 1844 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1577,  1698 

motions  made  by 1543,  1845 

motions  to  amend  by 1296,  1441 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 1441 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

McCauley,  John,  Delegate  from  Seneca  County — 

appointed  on  standing  committees 2112 

elected  to  fill  vacancy  caused  by  the  death  of  Hon.  J.  D.  O’Connor 1951 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

oath  administered  to 1951 

petitions  presented  by 2094 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors 2163 

resolutions  offered  by 

McCormick,  John  W.,  Delegate  from  Gallia  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1532 

motions  made  by 1432 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1314,  2228 

remarks  by 1852,  22C7 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Merrill,  Ozias,  Delegate  from  Fulton  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1596 

motions  made  by 

petitions  presented  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses. . .1348,  1416,  1702,  2053 


XVI 


INDEX. 


Miller,  George  D.,  Delegate  from  Darke  County — 


leave  of  absence  granted  to 1516 

motions  made  by 

petitions  presented  by 1804 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Miner,  John  L.,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County — 

appointed  on  Standing  Committee  1181 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1059,  1561 

motions  made  by 1415,  1718,  1803 

motions  to  amend  by 1193,  1759,  1980 

petitions  presented  by 


remarks  by,  1150,  1230,  1335,  1420,  1509, 1558,  1638,  1759,  1767,  1883,  1925,  2122,  2151, 

2244. 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Mitchener,  Charles  H.,  Delegate  from  Tuscarawas  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  to  amend  by , 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Judicial  Department 2229 

resolutions  offered  by 


Mueller,  Jacob,  Delegate  from  Cuyahoga  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1550,  1967 

motions  made  by 1247,  1454,  1635,  1698,  1738,  2065 

motions  to  amend  by 1205,  1248,  1319,  1516,  1930,  2079 

petitions  presented  by 

propositions  introduced  by 1452,  1635 

remarks  by,  1065,  1101,  1166,  1241,  1285,  1314,  1319,  1391,  1410,  1425,  1502,  1516, 

1518,  1533,  1633,  1648,  1746,  1855,  1931,  2079. 
reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses. . .1348,  1416,  1629,  1772 

Select  Committee  of  One 1518 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors 2163 

resolutions  offered  by 1314,  1643 


Mullen,  Thomas  J.,  Delegate  from  Adams  County — 

call . 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1296,  1698,  1881 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 2117 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 1120,  1221,  1223,  1472,  1537 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Miami  Coal  Company,  remarks  concerning 1813 

Mellish,  Rev.  T.  I.,  prayer  by 1661 

Montgomery  County,  petition  from 1568 

Moore,  Rev.  Wm.  T.,  prayer  by 1059,  1088 

Municipal  Corporations — 

yeas  and  nays  on  amendments  to  Proposition  No.  182,  1319,  1322,  1330,  1346,  1347, 

1366,  1372,  1391,  1396,  1400,  1429,  1433,  1441. 

final  reading  of  Proposition  No.  182 1489 

petition  from  City  Council  of  Toledo  requesting  the  Convention  not  to  adopt  sections 

2,  3 and  4,  of  Proposition  No.  182,  on.  Mr.  Steedman 1596 


INDEX. 


XVII 


Municipal  Corporations — 

Proposition  No.  182,  an  additional  Article  to  the 
remarks  by — 

Mr.  Baber 1-120,  142G,  1430 

“ Beer 1338,  1385 

“ Bishop 1361,  1402 

“ Blose 1370 

“ Burns 1324, 1412,  1427,  1434 

“ Carbary 1365,  1431 

“ Chapin 1377 

“ Clark,  of  Ross 1320,  1438 

“ Cook 1424 

“ Cowen 1305,  1401 

“ Cunningham 1322,1331,  1352 

“ Dorsey.  . .1349, 1364,  1375, 1391,  1401 

1417 

“ Ewing  ....  1341,  1343,  1378,  1383,  1393 

1406,  1408. 

u Freiberg 1411 

“ Gardner 1325,  1431 

“ Griswold,  1306, 1323, 1359, 1412,  1424 

“ Hale 1360,  1374 

“ Herron 1305,1344,  1422 

u Hitchcock 1432 

“ Hoadly.  .1288,  1317,  1342,1362,  1393 

1402, 1406,  1420,  1435,  1452. 

“ Humphreville 1373,1403,  1423 

“ Hunt 1354 

“ King 1299 


Constitution 1288 


Mr. 


Layton 1327, 

McBride 

Miner 1335, 

Mueller 1319, 

Neal 

Okey 

Page 1336,  1367, 

Pond 1346,1426, 

Powell.  . .1301,  1315,  1319,1323, 
1381. 

Pratt 1327,1414, 

Root 1298, 

Rowland 1328,1339, 

Sample 1328,  1334, 

Sears 

Smith,  of  Highland 

Smith,  of  Shelby 

Townsend 1296,  1309, 1317, 

1339,1353, 1373,1381,  1387, 1421. 
Tuttle,  1321,  1332,  1369,  1397, 
1425. 

Voris 1389, 

West,  1310,1330, 1337, 1343, 1355, 

White,  of  Brown 

Wilson 1340, 

Young,  of  Champaign 1368, 


1426 

1441 

1420 

1425 

1307 

1382 

1394 

1438 

1333 

1429 

1358 

1413 

1345 

1389 

1379 

1316 

1326 

1410 

1416 

1433 

1361 

1387 

1396 


N 


Neal,  Henry  S.,  Delegate  from  Lawrence  County- 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 


1521,  1589 

1348 

1521,  1545 

1218,  1445,  1499,  1935,  2262 

petitions  presented  by 1629 

remarks  by,  1157,  1195,  1254,  1307,  1443,  1460,  1499,  1521,  1536,  1574,  1602, 1653,  1659, 

1675, 1952,  1954,  2109,  2263. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Judicial  Department 2229 

resolutions  offered  by . . 

Nevins  & Myers,  letter  from,  with  reference  to  report  of  the  Committee  on  Education 1566 


o 


O’Connor,  John  D.,  Delegate  from  Seneca  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to.. 1150 

remarks  on  the  death  of,  by — 

Mr.  Okey 1655  Mr.  Cook 1658 

“ Albright 1657  “ Neal 1659 

“ Hitchcock 1657  “ Voris 1659 

report  of  the  Select  Committee  on  the  death  of 1655 

resolutions  on  the  death  of 1567,  1655 

“ “ expenses  of  funeral  of 16S0 


XVIII 


INDEX. 


Okey,  William,  Delegate  from  Monroe  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to  ... . .1550, 1577 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 1246,  1382 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by ^.1655,  1759,  2259 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Select  Committee  on  the  death  of  Hon.  John  D.  O’Connor  1655 
resolutions  offered  by 2256 

O’Connor,  J.  D.  Hon. 

resolutions  expressive  of  regret  and  sorrow,  at  the  death  of 1567,  1655 

Committee  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  funeral  ceremonies 1567,  1655 


resolutions  requesting  the  President  to  notify  the  Governor  of  the  death  of 1576 

remarks  by,  Mr.  Okey,  1655.  Mr.  Albright,  1657.  Mr.  Hitchcock,  1657.  Mr.  Cook, 

1658.  Mr.  Neal,  1659.  Mr.  Voris,  1659. 

resolution  directing  the  President  to  issue  a certificate  in  payment  of  the  funeral  ex- 
penses of 1679 


p 

Page,  Henry  F.,  Delegate  from  Pickaway  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

leave  to  record  vote 1314 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 1367,  1429,  1430,  1738,  1784,  1795 

petitions  presented  by 1243 

propositions  introduced  by 1702 

remarks  by,  1170,1186,1367,  1394,  1529,1003,1758,1778,  1784,  1790,  1882,  1949,  2063, 

2068,  2166,  2179,  2210,  2280. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Education 1367 

resolutions  offered  by 


Pease,  Anson,  Delegate  from  Stark  County — 

call 

excused  from  voting 1141 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1138 

motions  made  by 2186 

motions  to  amend  by 1769 

petitions  presented  by 1138,  1981,  2059 


remarks  by,  1111, 14S9,  1527,  1610, 1626, 1664, 1676,  1718,  1748,  1769,  1774,  1811,  2021, 
2042,  2092,  2115,  2135,  2149,  2157,  2214,  2284. 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Piiellis,  Charles,  Delegate  from  Madison  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1661 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 1236,  1486,  2133 

petitions  presented  by 1922 

remarks  by 2151 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights 1737 

resolutions  offered  by 


Philips,  William  H.,  Delegate  from  Hardin  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to  1181,  1516,  1577,  1S44, 2163 

motions  made  by  . 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 


INDEX. 


xix 


remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 
resolutions  offered  by 


1871 


Pond,  Francis  B.,  Delegate  from  Morgan  County — 

appointed  on  Special  Committee 2058 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 4473  jgjg 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 

chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 4288  1296 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1661 ? 2228 

motions  made  by 1145,  j3-8j  140g)  1606’,  2053 

motions  to  amend  by 1147,  1230,  1427,1460,  1546,  1552,  2033,  3049 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by,  1174,  1210,  1230,  1234,  1282,  1346,  1426,  1438,  1447,  1472, 1486,  1520,  *1527 
1546,  1552, 1557,  1632,  1638,  1804,  1810,  2034,  2119,  2124,  2134. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Com.  on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal 2060  2112 

resolutions  offered  by ’ 


Powell,  Thomas  W.,  Delegate  from  Delaware  County- 

call  for  a division  of  the  question 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 1176,  1396,1455,  1680, 1704,' 1734,  2011, 

motions  to  amend  by : . 1155,  1181,  1319,  1682,  1707, 17S7, 1976, 

petitions  presented  by 4577  242s 

remarks  by,  1140,  1174,  1176,  1186,  1240,  1261,  1274,  1301,  1315,  1319,’ 1323,  1333, ’l381  ’ 
1454,  1549,  1554,  1589,  1633,  1637,  1683,  1715,  1744,  17S7, 1806,  1828,  1891,1948 
1960,2096,  2132,  2171.  ’ 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


1192 

1059 

2229 

2049 

2254 


Pratt,  Albert  M.,  Delegate  from  Williams  County- 

appointed  on  Special  Committee 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by,  1327, 1404,  1414, 1424,  1429,  1485,1555, 1564, 
1786,  2021,  2051,  2076,  2136,  2150,  2173. 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


2054 

1180 

1423 

1804 


1428,  2021 


1572,  1592,  1611,  1631,  1677, 


2054 


Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights— 

report  of  Committee  on,  discussed 


remarks  by 

Mr.  Baber 

“ Blose 

. 1753, 

1756,  1768 

“ Burns 

“ Bishop 

1749, 

1783,  1787 

“ Carbery 

“ Clark, of  Jefferson. 
“ Cook 

1755,  1765 

“ Cunningham 

“ Dorsey 

“ Foran 

“ Freiberg 

“ Godfrey 

1736 


Mr.  Gurley 4774 

“ Hale 1794 

“ Hoadly 1750,  1779 

“ Horton 1738,  1760 

“ Jackson 4774 

“ Minee 1759,  1767 

“ Mueller g 

“ Okey " 1759 

“ Page 1758,  1778,  1784  ' 

“ PEiSE 1748,  1769,  1774,  1790 

“ Powell 1744,  1787 

“ Pbaw 1786 


XX 


INDEX. 


Mr.  Boot. 


1760,  1788  Mr.  Waddle 1742, 

“ Watson.  . 1737,  1744,  1773,  1782, 

“ West 1740, 

“ White,  of  Brown 1760,1768, 

“ Young,  of  Champaign 


1282, 

1701,  1702,  1736,  1804, 


“ Bowland 1745 

“ Sample 1778,  1782 

“ Sears 1746 

“ Tuttle.  . . 1761,  1763, 1777,  1786,  1792 

“ Steedman 1749 

Petitions.  ( See  names  of  members  and  subjects. ) 

Property,  private  for  public  uses  discussed 

Prayer  by,  Bev.  John  G.  Adams 

“ Bev.  J.  T.  Boyce 

“ Bev.  I.  S.  Cantfield 

“ Bev.  Samuel  W.  Clark 

“ Bev.  S.  A.  Collins 1568, 

“ Bev.  Bicliard  Gray 

“ Bev.  O.  A.  Hills 

“ Bev.  Eben  Halley 1181,  1213, 

“ Bev.  A.  J.  Hobbs 2128,  2163,  2194, 

“ Bev.  W.  H.  French 

“ Bev.  Thomas  Lee 1566,  1881,  2059, 

“ Bev.  T.  J.  Mellish 

“ Bev.  Wm.T.  Moore 1059, 

Bev.  M.  Scott 1378,  1452,  1488,  1516, 

“ Bev.  I.  C.  White 1918,  1951,  1981,  2018, 

Private  property  for  public  uses ; ; 

Prohibition,  petitions  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors 

presented  by, 

Mr.  Blose US8 

“ Byal • • • 2228 

« Coats 1629,  1981 

Gurley • 1596 

Kerr 1629 

McCormick 1314,  2228 

Bussell,  of  Meigs 1844,  2254 

Smith,  of  Highland 1982,  2254 

Townsley 1550,  1922 

Weaver 1516 

Proposition  No.  228,  to  amend  Article  6.  Mr.  Herron. 

Public  Debt  and  Public  Works.  No.  206 • 

Proposition  No.  217,  a substitute  for  section  6,  Article  8.  Mr.  Ewing 


Mr.  Clark,  of  Jefferson. 


1488, 


1596, 


Doan 

Herron 

King 

Bickley 

Shaw 1416,  1844, 

Phellis 

Waddle 1348,  1488,  1568, 

Woodbury 


1566, 


1750 

1785 

1762 

1789 

1747 


2095 

1348 

1844 

1314 

1156 

1629 

1416 

2254 

1243 

2228 

1772 

2094 

1661 

1088 

1550 

2054 

2097 


1213 

1568 

1921 
1736 
1088 
2018 

1922 
1922 
2094 

1982 

1922 

1568 


E 


Beilly,  James  W.,  Delegate  from  Columbiana  County- 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by • • 1698 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 150o>  22J7 

excused  from  voting 12<9 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1<3(i 

motions  made  by 1505,  1698,  2253 

motions  to  amend  by J 

petitions  presented  by 1282>  1314, 1416,  1452, 1566,  1680 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  J udicial  Department 

resolutions  offered  by 


Bickly,  John  J.,  Delegate  from  Franklin  County- 

appointed  on  Special  Committee 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 


2058 

1059,1318,1736,  2254 


INDEX. 


XXI 


motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1059,  1088, 1122,  2094 

remarks  by  

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors 2163 

a “ “ Select  Committee  on  the  death  of  Edmund  Smith 2256 

resolutions  offered  by 


Root,  Joseph  M.,  Delegate  from  Erie  County- 

appointed  on  Standing  Committee 1734 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  a division  of  the  question  by 1762 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  by 1762,  1787 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1348,  1981,  2269 

motions  made  by 1180, 1348,  2053 

motions  to  amend  by 1161,  1238 

petitions  presented  by 2094 


remarks  by,  1061,  1066,  1077,  1148,  1168,  1200,  1203,  1219,  1228,  1236,  1238,  1283,  1298, 
1349,  1358, 1709,  1788,  1895, 1958,  2169,  2241,  2255. 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Rowland,  Charles  W.,  Delegate  from  Hamilton  County — 


call  for  a division  of  the  question 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

remarks  by,  1328,  1339,  1413,  1499,  1509,  1652, 
2027,  2069,  2074,  2120,  2156. 


1215 

1378 

1366,  1532,  1565,  1700,  2144,  2193 


1348 


1663,1733,  1745,  1870, 1894,1924,  1987, 


Russell,  Daniel  A.,  Delegate  from  Meigs  County — 

call  for  the  previous  question 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Russell,  Charles  C.,  Delegate  from  Muskingum  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Railroads— petitions  to  prevent  the  giving  of  passes.  Steedman 

Reporting  and  Publication — resolution  offered  by  Committee  on 

Rules  and  Order  of  Business — 

notice  of  intention  to  offer  substitute  for  Rule  69,  by  Mr.  Beer 

motion  to  amend  Rule  69,  taken  from  the  table 

amendment  to  Rule  69,  offered  by  Mr.  Cowen 

notice  of  the  introduction  of  an  additional  Rule  70 

notice  of  suspension  of  Rule  64 


1287 

1550,  1918,  2128 


1844,  2254 

1207,  1250,  2088,  2116 


1348 


1243,  2228 


1921 

....  1966 

1214, 1348 
....  1452 

1455 

1703 

1773 


XXII 


INDEX 


Revenue  and  Taxation — 

Proposition  No.  220,  to  amend  Article  XLI,  by  Mr.  Page 1702 

“ 204,  a substitute  for  Article  XII,  from  Committee  on 1982.  206G 


remarks  by — 

Mr. 

Baber 

tt 

Barnet 

. 2050 

a 

Beer 

2176 

a 

Bishop 

.1991,  2067,  2085,  2170 

tt 

Burns 

C ( 

Carbep.y 

.2025,  2049,  2087,  2091 

tt 

Chapin  .... 

. 2012,  2018,  2142,  2153 

(i 

Clark,  of  Ross. 

2126,  2132, 2174 

tt 

Coats 

tt 

Cook 

tt 

Cowen 

(t 

Cunningham  . . 

it 

Dorsey 1994 

, 2012,  2035,  2038,  2048 

a 

Foran 

tt 

Godfrey 

2137 

a 

Griswold 

...  2023,  2046 

K 

Gurley 

2013,  2038 

it 

Hale 

2037 

it 

Hitchcock 

tt 

Hoadly  

2003,2119,2164 

tt 

Hostetter 

tt 

Kraemer 

It 

Johnson 

tt 

Miner 

yeas  and  nays  on  amendments 


Mr.  Mueller. 2079 

“ Mullen  2013 

“ Page 20GS,  2166,  2179,  2185 

“ Pease 2021,  2041,  2092,  2135,  2149 

“ Pond 2119,2124,2134 

“ Powell 2020,  2034;  2132,  2171 

“ Pratt,  2021,2041, 2051, 2076, 2136, 

2150, 2173. 

“ Root 2169 

“ Rowland,  1987,  2027,  2069,  2074, 

2120,  2148,  2156. 

“ Russell,  of  Meigs  2088,  2090 

“ Sample 2014,2029 

“ Scofield 2156 

“ Smith 1983,  2043,  2077,  2122,  2167 

“ Townsend,  2026,  2069,  2132,  2140, 2151 

“ Tuttle 2157 

“ Tyler 2009,  2015,  2153 

“ Voris 2040,  2140 

“ West 2020,  2077,  2082,  2151 

“ White  of  Brown 

“ Wilson 2088 

“ Woodbury 2045 

“ Young,  of  Champaign 2160 

2078,  2079,  208S,  2093,  2159,  2186 


INDEX, 


XXIII 


171 


172 


176 


192  i 


AUTHOR. 

TITLE. 

PROCEEDINGS. 

" West 

Directing  the  Committee  on  Accounts  to  devise 
and  report  a plan  for  negotiating  a loan  on 
the  credit  of  the  State,  &c 

1214 

5 Mueller ... 

Authorizing  the  Committee  on  Accounts  to  su- 
perintend and  control  the  Contingent  Fund.. 

1314 

3 Kerr 

Relative  to  reporting  cost  of  Stationery  to  each 

delegate 

Relative  to  sine  die  Adjournment  . 

7 Tyler 

,1348,  1631 

1550  lfifil 

3 Hunt 

Relative  to  vesting  the  right  of  property  in 
Fairs  and  Expositions,  acquired  for  such  pur- 
poses by  taxation 

) Hitchcock 

Relative  to  the  death  of  Hon.  John  D.  O’Connor 
Notifying  the  Governor  of  the  death  of  Hon. 
John  D.  O’Connor 

1567,  1655 

) Tlper 

Powell 

Thanks  of  the  Convention  be  returned  to  the 
City  Library 

Carbery 

Relative  to  the  amount  of  Stationery  used  per 
capita 

Ewing 

That  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Ac- 
counts and  Expenditures  be  transmitted  to 
the  General  Assembly 

Mueller 

Relative  to  Adjournment  until  Tuesday 

1643 

Shaw  

Thanks  of  the  Convention  tendered  to  the  Sis- 

ters  of  Charity 

1661 

> Hitchcock 

Instructing  the  President  to  draw  a certificate 
to  defray  expenses  in  the  removal  of  the  re- 
mains of  Hon.  J.  D.  O’Connor 

1679 

1703,  2065 

1704 

1703 

1772 

1844 

t Voris. 

Leaves  of  Absence  revoked  after  April  2d  . . 

Relative  to  holding  evening  sessions 

Relative  to  Senatorial  Apportionment 

Committee  appointed  on  Communication  from 
Secretary  of  State 

] Hoadly 

) Dorsey. 

) Hitchcock 

. Campbell 

Relative  to  the  Veto  power 

> Kerr 

Relative  to  requesting  the  State  Commissioner 
of  Common  Schools  to  report  certain  statistics 

1844 

5 Albright 

Relating  to  Binding  the  Debates  and  Proceeding 

1966 

t Clark,  of  Jefferson. . 
> Cunningham 

Instructing  the  Committee  on  Schedule  to  report 
a plan  for  separate  submission  of  Articles  of 

the  Constitution 

Relative  to  the  deaths  of  Ex-President  Millard 

1971 

Fillmore  and  Hon.  Charles  Sumner 

1 Carbery 

Relative  to  compensation  to  the  Secretary  for 
extra  services 

'Pond  

Instructing  the  Committee  on  Accounts  to  re- 
port the  probable  expenses  necessary  to  con- 
clude the  labors  of  the  Convention 

2018 

! Godfrey 

In  respect  to  the  memory  of  Hon.  Edmund 
Smith 

> Kerr 

Relative  to  informing  the  Governor  of  the  death 
of  Hon.  Edmund  Smith 

> Cunningham 

Returning  thanks  to  the  Authorities  of  Cin- 
cinnati  

. Ewing 

Requesting  the  President  to  transmit  to  the 
Governor  the  probable  termination  of  the 
Convention 

! Scribner 

Instructing  the  Secretary  to  transmit  to  the  Gov- 
ernor the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Ac- 
counts and  Expenses,  &c 

1314 

1666 


1597 


1680 


1773 


1844 

1967 


1980 


2054 

2061 

2061 


2164 


i 


l 


\ 

I 


XXIV 


INDEX. 


S 

Sample,  William,  Delegate  from  Coshocton  County — 


call 

excused  from  voting 1917 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1532 

motions  made  by 1796 

motions  to  amend  by 1172 

petitions  presented  by 


remarks  by,  1067,  1190,  1251,  1255, 1267,  1328,  1334,  1345,  1444,  1473,  1483,  1497,  1526, 
1731,  1778, 17S2,  1796, 1809,  1857, 1940,  1955,  1963,  2014,  2029,  2057. 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Scofield,  W.  E.,  Delegate  from  Marion  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call  for  a division  of  the  question 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by *. 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


1142 

1282 

1180,  1213,  2178 
1194,  1242,  2144 


1150,  1194,  1196, 1241,  2156,  2179 


Scribner,  Charles  H.,  Delegate  from  Lucas  County — 

call 

call  for  the  yeas  and  nays 1219 

excused  from  voting 1141 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1213,  1568,  2054 

motions  made  by 1505,  2065 

motions  to  amend  by 1144,  1158, 1176, 1198, 1200,  1545,  2118 

petitions  presented  by 1171 

remarks  by 1177, 1196, 1496,  1557,  1953 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Reporting  and  Publication 1966 

r“  “ Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors 2163 

“ “ “ “ “ “ Judicial  Department 2229 

resolutions  offered  by 2164 


Sears,  John  D.,  Delegate  from  Wyandot  County — 

call  

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1661 

motions  made  by 1451,  2117 

motions  to  amend  by 1246,  2118 

petitions  presented  by  

remarks  by  . . 1246,  1275,  1284,  1341,  1389,  1453,  1604, 1622,  1627, 1649,  1746, 1953,  1978,  2117 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Education 1367 

resolutions  offered  by 


Shaw,  John,  Delegate  from  Clermont  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1088,  1122,  1550,  1568,  1844 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1416,1702, 1844,  1981,  2018 

'remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 1661 


INDEX. 


XXV 


Shultz,  Emanuel,  Delegate  from  Montgomery  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1550,  1568,  1702,  1981 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  nresented  by 2128 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by 

resolutions  offered  by 

Smith,  John  A.,  Delegate  from  Highland  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1181 


motions  made  by 1704,  2159,  2186 

motions  to  amend  by 1428,  2045,  2156 

petitions  presented  by 1736, 1982,  2254 

remarks  by 1379,  1704, 1983,  2043,  2077,  2100,  2122,  2155,  2167,  2251,  2273,  2288 


reports  submitted  by,  from 
resolutions  offered  by 


Smith,  Edmund,  Delegate  from  Shelby  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1347,  1661 

motions  made  by 

petitions  presented  by 1881 

remarks  by 1315 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights 1737 

sudden  death  of 2054 

Steedman,  James  B.,  Delegate  from  Lucas  County — 

appointed  on  Standing  Committees 2112 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 1865 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 2054 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1596,  1921 

remarks  by 1652,  1749,  1854, 1933,  1945,  2241 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Select  Committee  on  the  death  of  Edmund  Smith 2256 

resolutions  offered  by 


Schedule,  Resolution  No.  179  instructing  the  Committee  on.  Mr.  Dorsey 1703 

Schools,  petition  against  the  proposed  restriction  of  tax  levies  for 1702 

“ (See  Education.) 

Scott,  Rev.  W.,  prayer  by 1378, 1452,  1488,  1516,  1550 

Secretary  of  State, 

communication  from 1698 

resolution  in  reference  to 1772 

committee  appointed  on  memorial  of 1795 

Remarks  by — 


Mr.  Bishop 

“ Cunningham 
“ Hitchcock  . . 

“ Pond 

“ Sample 

“ West 


1809 

1808 

1805 

1804,  1810 

1809 

1807 


Mr.  Campbell 

“ Hill 

“ Pease 

“ Powell  . . 
“ Tuttle  . . 


1807 

1804,  1811 

1811 

1806 

1812 


Sisters  of  Charity,  of  the  Good  Samaritan  Hospital,  resolution  of  thanks  to 1661 

Smith,  Edmund,  Hon. 

resolutions  expressive  of  regret  and  sorrow,  at  the  death  of 2054 

committee  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  remains  of 2058 

report  of  committee 2256 


XXYI 


INDEX, 


Remarks  by — 

Mr.  Cunningham 205G  Mr.  Dorsey 

“ Godfrey 2054  “ Hill 

“ Sample 2057  “ West 

Stationery- 

reports  of  the  Committee  on 

investigation  of  the  excessive  use  of 

Standing  Committees.  ( See  committees.) 

Suffrage,  women’s  petitions  relative  to,  presented  by,  Mr.  Shaw,  1702.  Mr.  Thompson, 
1243.  Mr.  Albright,  2128.  Mr.  Yoris,  1629. 

Proposition  No.  222,  woman’s  suffrage,  Mr.  Baber 


Remarks  by — 

Mr.  Baber 1845  Mr.  Rowland 

“ Cunningham 1864  “ Sample 

“ Foran 1865  “ Young,  of  Champaign 

“ Powell 1828,1948,1960  “ Cook 

“ Yoris 1816,  1946  “ Ewing 

“ West 1867  “ Philips 

“ Carbery 1874  “ Sears 

“ Dorsey 1862  “ Page 

“ Hitchcock 1958 


T 


Thompson,  Thomas  F.,  Delegate  from  Warren  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1348,  1549,  2094,  2128, 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1243,  1795, 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Townsend,  Amos,  Delegate  from  Cuyahoga  County — 

call 

Chairman  of  Committee  of  the  Whole 

excused  from  voting ..... 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1550, 

motions  made  by,  1121, 1295, 1416, 1504, 1615, 1691, 1704, 1787, 1795, 1865, 1875, 1898, 1982, 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by,  1066,  1140,  1296,  1309,  1317,  1326,  1339, 1353,  1373,  1380,  1386,  1421,  1431, 
1661,  1665, 1711, 1889,  2026,  2069,  2098,  2108,  2132,  2140,  2222. 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Townsley,  Thomas  P.,  Delegate  from  Greene  County — 


leave  of  absence  granted  to 1844, 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1550, 1702, 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by 

resolutions  offered  by 


Tripp,  James,  Delegate  from  Jackson  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 


2055 

2056 
2054 

1629 

1804 


1922 

1871 

1963 

1841 

1968 

1978 
1871 

1979 
1949 


2163 


1951 


1917 

2227 

2129 

2183 


2094 

1072 

1239 

1922 

1239 


1156 


INDEX. 


XXVII 


leave  to  record  vote 1282 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Tclloss,  Richard  S.,  Delegate  from  Knox  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  ol  Rights  1737 

resolutions  offered  by 

Tuttle,  George  M.,  Delegate  from  Trumbull  County — 


call  for  a division  of  the  question 1225,  1725 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1532,  2054,  2128 

motions  made  by 1207,  1248,  1515,  1957 

motions  to  amend  by 1163,  1792 

petitions  presented  by 


remarks  by,  1159,  1163,  1175,  1177,1211,  1244,  1252,1270,  1320,  1332,  1369,  1397,  1410, 

1425,  1458,  1473,  1487,  1495,  1523,  1533,  1537,  1761,  1763,  1777, 1786,  1792, 1904, 

1956,  1957,  2062,  2157,  2282. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal. . .2060,  2112 

“ “ “ “ “ “ Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors 2163 

resolutions  offered  by 

Tyler,  A.  H.,  Delegate  from  Henry  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to]  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from, 
resolutions  offered  by 

Taxation — 

petitions  praying  the,  of  Church  property 1213,  1282, 1566,  1680,  1804,  1951,  2094,  2129 


exemption  of  Church  property  from,  2079.  Yeas  and  nays  on,  2088. 

petitions  praying  for  the,  of  dogs 1243,  2129 

Toledo — petition  from 1596 

Trustees  of  Townships — resolutions  from  the  Legislature  concerning  the  election  of 1213 


1702 

1155,  1181, 1643,  1701 


1140,  1662, 1918,  2009,  2015,  2152,  2214 


1550 


v 


Van  Valkenburgh,  J.  S.;  Delegate  from  Sandusky  County — 

appointed  on  Special  Committee 2050 

leave  of  absence  granted  to. 1549 

motions  made  by 1701 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 1702 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  County  and  Township  Organizations 1442 

“ “ “ Select  Committee  on  the  death  of  Edmund  Smith 2256 

resolutions  offered  by 


XXVIII 


INDEX 


Van  Voorhis,  Daniel,  Delegate  from  Muskingum  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1661 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by ... . 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


Voorhes,  Carolus  F.,  Delegate  from  Holmes  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1661 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by ... 

petitions  presented  by . 

remarks  by 


reports  submitted  by,  from  Com.  on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal 2060,  2112 

resolutions  offered  by 

Voris,  Alvin  C.,  Delegate  from  Summit  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 1121,  1504,  1787 

■call  for  a division  of  the  question 1720,  1721 

•expressions  of  regret  by 1488 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1313 


•motions  made  by,  1122,1171,  1442, 1455,  1533,  1550,  1596,  1614,  1099,  1704,  1736,  1971, 
1980,  2008. 


motions  to  amend  by 1214,  1430,  1480,  1577,  2014 

petitions  presented  by 1122,  1629 

remarks  by,  1134, 1214, 1389,  1416,  1419,  1455,  1471,  1527,  1600,  1659,  1663,  1810,  1946, 

1973,  2014,  2040,  2062,  2110,  2140,  2226,  2229,  2262. 
reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal. . . 2060,  2112 
resolutions  offered  by 1663,  1702 


Veto  power,  resolution  in  reference  to.  By  Mr.  Campbell 1844 

Votes,  on  recording 1918 


w 

Waddle,  William  G-.,  Delegate  from  Harrison  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 137S,  1532,  2163 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by....  1059,  1088,  1348,  1488,  1568,  1661,  1736,  18S1,  1922,  1981,  2059 
remarks  by 1239,  1240,  1742,  1750 


reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  County  and  Township  Organizations 1442 

“ “ “ “ Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights 1737 

resolutions  offered  by 


Waite,  Morrison  R.,  Delegate  from  Lucas  County  and  President  of  the  Convention — 


Watson,  Cooper  K.,  Delegate  from  Huron  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to • 2094 

motions  made  by 1786,  1795 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 


remarks  by v.,.1177,  1737,  1741,  1744,  1767,  1773,  1782,  1785,  2114,  2116 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights 1736 

resolutions  offered  by . . 


INDEX. 


XXIX 


Weaver,  Samuel  P.,  Delegate  from  Putnam  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 


1213,  .1577,  1844 


1516. 


Wells,  Harvey,  Delegate  from  Vinton  County- 
leave  of  absence  granted  to 


West,  William  H.,  Delegate  from  Logan  County — 

call  of  the  House  demanded  by 

call 

excused  from  voting 1141, 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 1171,  1207,  1288,  1303, 1304,  1490,  2053,  2061, 

motions  to  amend  by 1210, 1322,  1337,  1372, 1419,  1433,  1479,  1481,  1496,1725, 1794, 

petitions  presented  by 

propositions  introduced  by. 

remarks  by,  1093,  1159,  1168,  1170,  1173,  1174,  1183,  1201,  1236,  1249,  1250,  1268,  1277, 
1285,  1310,  1322,  1330,  1337,  1342,  1355,  1433,  1437,  1439, 1466,  1507, 1713,  1762, 
1807,  1856,  1867,  1896,  2020,  2054,  2077,  20S2,  2104,  2151. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Select  Committee  of  One  on  Legislative  Department 

“ “ “ “ Committee  on  Judicial  Department 

resolutions  offered  by 


1505 

1155. 

1516 

2229 

1945 

1122 

2094 


1498 

2229 

1214 


White,  Chilton  A.,  Delegate  from  Brown  County — 

Chairman  of  Committee  of  the  Whole 1736 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1442,  1981 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 1768 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 1272,  1361, 1760,  1768, 1789, 1892. 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  County  and  Township  Organizations 1442 

resolutions  offered  by 


White,  Alexander,  Delegate  from  Hocking  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 

motions  made  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  County  and  Township  Organizations 
resolutions  offered  by 


1442. 


Wilson,  David  M.,  Delegate  from  Mahoning  County- 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1059,  1532,  2094 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 1457 

petitions  presented  by 1156,  1378 

remarks  by 1153, 1222,  1340, 1387,  1449, 1928, 1953,  2087 

Woodbury,  H.  B.,  Delegate  from  Ashtabula  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1314,  1S04 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 1219 

petitions  presented  by 2094 


XXX 


INDEX, 


remarks  by 1219,  1230, 1597, 1605,  2045,  2101 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

1918,  1951, 1981,  2018,  2054 

1629 

1088 


Young,  John  H.,  Delegate  from  Champaign  County — 

call 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1543,  1867,  1981,  2228 

motions  made  by 

motions  to  amend  by 1158 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 1232,  1263,  1368,  1396, 1453,  1525,  1747, 1841,  2160 

reports  submitted  by,  from 

resolutions  offered  by 

Ygung,  William  J.,  Delegate  from  Noble  County — 

leave  of  absence  granted  to 1156 

motions  made  by 

petitions  presented  by 

remarks  by 

reports  submitted  by,  from  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses 1416,  1629,  1772,  2053 

resolutions  offered  by 

Yeas  and  Nays — 

on  amendments  to  the  Bill  of  Rights 1758,  1765,  1767,  1769,  1779,  1792,  1795 

“ “ * to  Prop.  No.  194.  Apportionment  and  Representation,  1606,  1613, 

1618,  1627,  1680,  1692,  1695,  1720,  1725,  1727,- 1728,  1730,  1731. 
on  amendments  to  Prop.  No.  189.  County  and  Township  Organizations,  147S,  1483, 

1485,  1548,  1560,  1643. 

on  amendments  to  Prop.  No.  203.  Elective  Franchise,  1916,  1917,  1930,  1931,  1936, 

1937,  1946,  1957,  1971. 

on  agreeing  to  Prop.  No.  211.  Female  Suffrage 1976,  19S0 

on  agreeing  to  amendments  to  Prop.  No.  190.  Legislative  Department,  1161, 1166, 

1176, 1199,  1212, 1216,  1219,  1224,  1225,  1231,  1236,  1237,  1242,  1245,  1247,  1255, 

1259,  1276,  1281,  1287,  1528, 1537, 1541,  1543. 
on  agreeing  to  amendments  to  Prop.  No.  182.  Municipal  Corporations,  1319, 1322, 

1330, 1346, 1347,  1366,  1372, 1391, 1396,  1400, 1429,  1432,  1433, 1441, 1490, 1496. 

on  limiting  debate 1454,  1455 

on  amendments  to  Prop.  No.  204.  Revenue  and  Taxation,  2021,  2047,  2078,  2079, 

2088,  2093. 

on  giving  the  veto  power  to  the  Governor,  1061, 1067,  1069,  i 141, 1145, 1146, 1500,  1501, 

1503, 1504,  1505, 1506, 1507, 1514, 1515. 


White,  Rev.  J.  C. — prayer  by 

Woman  Suffrage — petition  in  relation  to.  (See  Suffrage ) 
Workhouse — invitation  to  attend  chapel  service  at 

T 


■ 


. 


_ 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Kicicly,  Waddle,  King,  Foran,  Scribner,  West. 


1059 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FIFTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FORTY-THIRD  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 

Wednesday,  February  4,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Wm.  T.  Moore,  of  the  Cen- 
tral Christian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  76  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Messrs.  Kerr,  Powell,  Coats,  and  Rickly 
were  excused  for  absence  yesterday. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  to  Mr.  Wilson, 
until  Friday  next;  to  Mr.  Andrews,  until 
Monday  next,  and  to  Messrs.  Godfrey  and 
Miner,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 


PRESENTATION  OF  PETITIONS. 


Mr.  RICKLY  presented  the  petition  of  J.  W. 
Baldwin,  M.  A.  Daugherty,  and  66  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Bar  of  Franklin  county,  which 
The  Secretary,  by  request,  read,  as  follows : 


To  the  Honorable,  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Ohio: 

The  undersigned,  members  of  the  Bar  of  the  county  of 
Franklin,  respectfully  represent,  that  the  business  in  the 
courts  of  said  county  requires  more  time  than  can  be 
given  to  it  under  the  present  arrangement,  whereby  the 
same  is  embarrassed  and  delayed  to  the  great  detriment 
of  the  public  and  individuals. 

We,  therefore,  respectfully  request  that  the  county  of 
Franklin  be  made  a separate  Common  Pleas  District,  with 
two  judges  to  be  elected  therein,  as  is  piovided  for  the 
counties  of  Montgomery  and  Lucas. 


J.  Wm.  Baldwin, 
Henry  C.  Noble, 
Otto  Dresel, 

G.  G.  Collins, 

J.  T.  Holmes, 

H.  B.  Albery, 

L.  J.  Critchfield, 
James  Watson, 
Gilbert  H.  Stewart, 

E.  P.  Sharp, 

J.  S.  Parcels, 

W.  H.  Dunnick, 

J.  D.  Sullivan, 

G.  F.  Castle, 

A.  Andrews, 

B.  F.  Stage, 

H.  J.  Wylie, 

Ivor  Hughes, 

Thos.  E.  Taylor, 
Horace  Wilson, 

C.  Loewenstein, 

P.  B.  Case, 

R.  C.  Hoffman, 

Jas.  F.  Hoffman, 
W.  T.  Wallace, 

P Lewis  Mark, 
John  G.  Mitchell, 
Geo.  L.  Converse, 
George  J.  Atkinson 

F.  W.  Merrick, 

A.  H.  Fritchey, 

A.  W.  Graham, 
David  Keller, 

M.  A.  Daugherty, 

J.  H. 


C.  N.  Olds, 

S.  W.  Andrews, 

W.  R.  Rankin, 

L.  English, 

John  C.  Groom, 

John  D.  Burnett, 

E.  L.  Taylor, 

R.  P Woodruff, 

G.  W.  W asson, 

J.  C.  Richards, 

J.  E.  Wright, 

Benj.  Woodbury, 

R.  B.  Smith, 

L.  G.  Byrne, 

F.  F.  D.  Albery, 

E.  L.  DeWitt, 

T.  J.  Duncan , 

Henry  T.  Chittenden, 
Chas.  E.  Burr,  jr., 

D.  W.  C.  Jones, 

D.  C.  Wax, 

John  G.  McGuffy, 

E.  P.  Evans, 

B.  F.  Martin, 

E.  Clay  Briggs, 

Lot  L Smith, 

Geo.  S.  Peters, 
George  Driggs, 

, Wm.  C.  Stewart, 

Geo.  K.  Nash, 

J.  S.  Matheny, 

G.  J.  Marriott, 

Jos.  H.  Outhwaite, 
Jos.  H.  Geiger, 

Heitmann. 


Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Judicial  Department. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of  John 
Stewart,  and  121  other  citizens  of  Belmont 
county,  for  an  acknowledgment  of  Almighty 
God  and  the  Christian  Religion  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  KING  presented  the  petition  of  John 
Cameron,  and  twenty-six  other  citizens  of  Jef- 
ferson county,  which 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  as  follows  : 

To  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of  Ohio: 

The  undersigned,  citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  respect- 
fully petition  your  honorable  body : 

1.  That  the  following  clause  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  in  our 
present  Constitution,  viz. : “Religion,  morality  and  knowl- 
edge  being  essential  to  good  government,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  General  Assembly  * * * * to  encourage 
schools  and  the  means  of  instruction,”  may  be  allowed  to 
remain  unchanged. 

2.  That  such  religious  acknowledgments  may  be  placed 
in  the  Preamble  of  the  Constitution  as  shall  indicate  that 
this  is  a Christian  Commonwealth,  and  shall  place  all 
Christian  laws,  institutions,  and  usages  of  the  govern- 
ment on  an  undeniable  legal  basis  in  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  FORAN  presented  the  petition  of  Joseph 
Gillson,  and  forty  other  citizens  of  Cleveland, 
which 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  as  follows : 
To  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of  Ohio: 

The  undersigned,  citizens  of  Ohio,  desirous  of  main- 
ing  the  impartiality  of  our  government  toward  all  its 
citizens,  do  earnestly  protest  against  such  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  as  are  asked  for,  by  petitions  now  under 
consideration  in  your  honorable  body,  praying  lor  the  in- 
corporation of  certain  religious  opinions  and  beliefs  into 
the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  beg 
leave  to  state  to  the  Convention,  that,  supposing 
it  to  be  improper  to  hold  a place  upon  the  Stand- 
ing Committees,  I would  ask  to  be  excused  from 
Standing  Committees  upon  which  I have  hereto- 
fore been  appointed. 

[Cries  of  “ agreed.”] 

Mr.  SCR1RNER.  I move  that  the  Chair  be 
requested  to  fill  the  vacancies  in  the  manner 
prescribed. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest,  Mr.  President, 
that  until  the  Lucas  county  election,  the  matter 
might  be  deferred.  They  might  possibly  want 
the  gentleman  elected  there  to  fill  the  position. 


1060 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Humphreville,  Beer,  Barnet,  Hitchcock,  Alexander. 


[105th 

[Wednesday, 


ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I move  that  the 
Convention  now  proceed  to  the  special  order  of 
the  day,  Proposition  No.  190. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  pending  question  is 
upon  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  to  section  18.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment  to  section  18. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  amendments  to  section  18  are  in  line  six, 
if,  after  such  reconsideration,  read  “ three- 
fifths;”  also,  in  line  eighteen,  after  the  word 
“law  ” read,  “ If  any  bill  presented  to  the  Gov- 
ernor contain  several  items  of  appropriation  of 
money,  he  may  object  to  one  or  more  of  such 
items,  while  approving  of  the  other  portions  of 
the  bill.  In  such  case,  he  shall  append  to  the 
bill,  at  the  time  of  signing  it,  a statement  of  the 
items  to  which  he  objects;  and  the  appropria- 
tions so  objected  to,  shall  not  take  effect.  If 
the  General  Assembly  be  in  session,  he  shall 
transmit  to  the  House  in  which  the  bill  origi- 
nated, a copy  of  such  statement,  and  the  items 
objected  to  shall  be  separately  reconsidered.  If, 
on  reconsideration,  one  or  more  of  such  items 
be  approved  by  three-fifths  of  the  members 
elected  to  each  House,  the  same  shall  be  part  of 
the  law,  notwithstanding  the  objections  of  the 
Governor.  All  the  provisions  of  this  section,  in 
relation  to  bills  not  approved  by  the  Governor, 
shall  apply  to  cases  in  which  he  shall  withhold 
his  approval  from  any  item  or  items  contained 
in  a bill  appropriating  money.”  In  line  thirty- 
four  insert  the  words  “ three-fifths.” 

Mr.  BEER.  I offer  an  amendment,  now,  to 
this  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 
the  practice  to  have  been  established,  that  the 
Convention  will  first  go  over  the  amendments 
proposed  by  Committee  of  the  Whole,  then  re- 
turn to  the  beginning,  and  take  up  the  entire 
Proposition,  section  by  section,  and  that  amend- 
ments to  the  text,  reported  by  the  Committee 
on  the  Legislative  Department,  would  not  be  in 
order  until  the  Committee  have  first  passed  upon 
the  amendments. 

Mr.  BEER.  I desire  to  propose  an  amend- 
ment to  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  in  order. 

Mr.  BEER.  The  amendment  that  I propose, 
Mr.  President,  is,  to  strike  out  the  amendment 
commencing  in  the  eighteenth  line,  and  ending 
in  line  twenty-nine. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I would  state  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  that  the  first 
question  would  be  upon  lines  six  and  eight— the 
words  “three-fifths.”  The  question  will  be 
upon  inserting,  in  lines  six  and  eight,  the  words 
“ three-fifths.” 

Mr.  BARNET.  I have  said  nearly  all  I have 
to  say  upon  these  proposed  amendments.  I am 
opposed  to  three-fifths.  I am  opposed  to  any- 
thing beyond  what  we  understand  to  be  a Con- 
stitutional majority  veto,  or  a majority  of  all  the 
members  elected,  after  the  exercise  by  the 
Governor  of  his  veto  power.  And  I now  rise 
tor  the  purpose  of  saying  that  I must  vote 
against  this  whole  proposition,  if  such  a propo- 
sition, or  such  propositions  as  are  instituted 


here  shall  remain,  to-wit : three-fifths.  I know, 
sir,  that  there  are  fewer  objections  to  three- 
fifths  than  two-thirds,  but  this  does  not  satisfy 
my  mind.  I am  not  for  setting  up  the  one- 
man  power  anywhere  in  this  country.  We  are 
Democrats  in  principle;  we  are  believers  in 
the  sovereignty  of  the  people;  we  believe  in 
their  equality ; we  believe  in  their  absolute  con- 
trol; and  I do  not  see  any  connection  with  the 
principle  as  established  here  and  acknowledged 
everywhere  in  these  United  States,  as  well  as 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  why  we  should  set  up  the 
power  of  one  individual  to  thwart  our  action 
^upon  important  business — upon  every  descrip- 
tion of  business  that  may  be  under  the  section 
of  law  passed  by  the  Legislature.  I think  it  is 
inconsistent,  inharmonious  with  the  great  rad- 
ical acknowledged  principle  of  the  sovereignty 
of  the  people.  Now,  that  we  may  have  the 
benefit  of  his  views  in  regard  to  a measure  that 
may  come  before  him  in  the  shape  of  a bill  or 
resolution,  and  enlighten  the  Legislature  by  his 
views,  I do  not  object  to.  I concur  in  it,  and  I 
am  willing  to  accept  it  in  that  form.  But  after 
we  have  thus  received  the  benefit  of  the  views 
of  the  Governor,  I hold  that  the  Legislature 
ought,  by  its  Constitutional  majority,  to  have 
the  ability  to  decide.  I cannot  see  how  he  is 
more  the  representative  of  the  people  than  the 
Representatives  themselves, who  are  elected  and 
sent  up  for  the  very  purpose  of  legislation.  I 
cannot  see  how  a reference  from  the  decisions 
thus  obtained  can  fairly  be  said  to  be  referred 
back  to  the  people  in  the  shape  of  re-election. 
Why,  there  are  a thousand  things  that  enter 
into  the  question  of  the  re-election  of  Governor. 
There  are  as  many  entering  into  the  question 
of  the  re-election  of  Representative,  and  when 
we  decide,  we  decide  in  reference  to  all  these 
matters,  and  not  to  this  particular  matter  of 
the  veto  question.  Now,  I do  not  wish  to  go 
on  taking  the  time  of  this  Convention.  I wish 
merely  to  state  my  objections  to  this  matter, 
and  to  say  that  I feel  myself  compelled  to  vote 
against  this  provision,  unless  it  can  be  amended 
in  the  manner  I have  indicated.  I will,  how- 
ever, accept  it  cheerfully,  if  “three-fifths”  be 
stricken  out  and  “a  majority”  instituted  in  its 
stead.  For  the  purpose  of  testing  that,  I move 
to  strike  out  “three-fifths”  where  it  occurs  in 
the  sixth  line,  and  insert  “majority.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  for  a division  of 
the  question. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  Is  the  question  now 
upon  sustaining  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  concurring  in  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  to  strike  out  “two-thirds”  and 
insert  “three-fifths.” 

Mr.  VORIS.  I think  the  Chair  mistakes  the 
proposition.  He  says  “two-thirds.”  It  is  to 
strike  out  “three-fifths.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  strik- 
ing out  two-thirds  and  inserting  three-fifths. 
The  Chair  will  state  the  question  exactly.  The 
Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department  re- 
ported a proposition  containing  the  words  two- 
thirds.  “if,  after  such  reconsideration,  three- 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  4,  1874.]  Carbery,  Yoris.  Hitchcock,  Tuttle,  Albright,  etc. 


1061 


fifths  of  the  members  elected  agree  to  pass  the 
same,  it  shall  be,”  etc.  The  Committee  of  the 
Whole  have  amended  by  striking  out  the  words, 
“two-thirds,”  and  inserting,  “three-fifths.” 
The  question  now  is  on  agreeing  to  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  a division 
of  the  question  being  asked  for,  the  question 
now  is  upon  striking  out  “ two-thirds.” 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I understand  the  Conven- 
tion is  called  on  to  act  on  the  amendment  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  which  contains  the 
words,  “three-fifths.”  It  strikes  me  the  ques- 
tion is  on  striking  out  “ three-fifths.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  No;  the  question  is  on 
concurring  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  which  struck  out  “ two-thirds,”  and 
inserted  “ three-fifths.” 

Mr.  YORIS.  Then,  as  I understand  the  pro- 
position, if  the  Convention  refuses  to  strike  out, 
it  will  be  a concurrence  on  the  part  of  the  Con- 
vention in  the  Report,  as  it  came  from  the 
Standing  Committee.  It  will  be  a disagree- 
ment if  they  refuse  to  strike  out  all  recom- 
mendation by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  I 
simply  want  to  say  one  word,  and  that  is  this : 
that  if  we  attempt  at  all  to  confer  the  veto 
power  upon  the  Governor,  we  ought  to  make  it 
effective.  Two-thirds  will  do  this,  or  will  much 
more  tend  to  do  this,  than  the  three-fifths  vote. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I suppose  the  amend- 
ment to  strike  out  does  not  agree  to  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  but  leaves  it 
afterwards  to  be  filled  by  whatever  matter  may 
be  determined  by  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I would  state  to  the 
Convention  that,  by  mistake,  the  word  two- 
thirds  was  not  printed  in  brackets,  as  it  should 
have  been. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  Convention  should 
determine  to  adopt  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  so  far  as  striking  out  is  con- 
cerned, would  it  then  be  in  order  to  move  the 
amendment  of  the  amendment  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  by  inserting  something  else 
in  place  of  three-fifths? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  would  be  competent 
for  the  Convention  to  fill  the  blank  as  it  chooses. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I move  the  vote  be  taken 
also  on  the  word  three-fifths  where  it  occurs  in 
line  thirty-four. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  37,  nays  37,  as  follows : 
Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  Barnet, 
Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Campbell,  Carbery, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  Doan, 
Ewing,  Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Johnson, 
McCormick,  Miller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Pond,  Rick- 
ly,  Rowland,  Scofield,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
Waddle,  Watson,  West — 37. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Bannon,  Beer,  Burns,  Byal,  Caldwell, 
De  Steiguer,  Foran,  Gardner,  Greene,  Herron, 
Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Humphreville,  Hunt, 
Jackson,  Kerr,  McBride,  Mitehener,  Mueller, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Russell 
of  Meigs,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yan  Voor- 
his,  Voris,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, President — 37. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 


Mr.  BEER.  I offer  the  following : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Crawford  moves  to  strike  out  the  amendment, 
commencing  in  line  eighteen,  and  ending  in 
line  twenty-nine,  and  insert  the  following  sub- 
stitute. The  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  Governer  shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any 
item  or  items  of  any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money, 
embracing  distinct  items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the  bill 
approved  shall  be  the  law,  and  the  item  or  items  of  ap- 
propriation disapproved  shall  be  void,  unless  re-passed 
according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the 
passage  of  other  bills  over  the  executive  veto.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  this  a motion  to  strike 
out  the  provision  which  gives  the  Governor 
power  to  veto  separate  items  of  an  appropria- 
tion bill  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
answer? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  does  not.  It  accomplishes 
what  is  sought  to  be  accomplished  by  the 
amendment  already  in  italics,  but  it  accom- 
plishes it  with  about  one-fourth  the  words. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  be  so 
kind  as  to  explain  how  this  is  done — how  it  ac- 
complishes it  by  striking  out  that  which  was 
put  in  for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  it? 

Mr.  BEER.  I cannot  do  that  without  read- 
ing the  amendment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then  I will  ask  the  Clerk  to 
read  it  again. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I ask  a division  on  striking  out. 

Mr.  POND.  It  appears  to  me,  there  is 
nothing  to  strike  out.  If  the  gentleman  will 
notice,  this  is  simply  a recommendation  to  move 
this  substitute. 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  is  a substitute  for 
the  amendment. 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  is  attempted  to  amend  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole.  It  does  not  make  any  difference  what- 
ever offer  is  to  amend  an  amendment  proposed 
by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  is  right. 

Mr.  ROOT.  One  word.  I do  not  suppose  it 
is  of  the  least  consequence  to  anybody  but  my- 
self for  what  reason  I will  vote  to  strike  this 
out;  but,  as  I am  in  favor  of  vesting  a clearly 
defined  veto  power  in  the  Executive,  as  this 
proposition  now  stands,  I am  opposed  to  the 
amendment  made  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
If  we  were  to  have  annual  elections  of  members 
of  the  House,  we  could  very  well  afford  to  dis- 
pense with  the  veto  power.  We  got  along  well 
enough  without  it,  under  the  first  Constitution. 
Now,  everything  is  to  be  biennial.  Nothing  is 
to  happen  oftener  than  once  in  two  years,  not 
even  county  or  township  elections.  I think, 
that  if  the  Representatives  were  to  go  up  from 
their  districts  every  year,  it  would  be  better ; 
but,  as  it  is,  I think  safety  and  good  policy  re- 
quire there  should  be  a veto  power  in  the  exec- 
utive. Now,  what  is  proposed  ? It  looks  very 
specious ; it  is,  seemingly,  a very  well  devised 
thing,  and  it  may  be.  I do  not  say  it  is  bad,  on 
general  demurrer ; but,  I do  say,  it  would  not 
require  any  high  skill  to  get  round  it.  It  is  in 
violation  of  principle,  as  I regard  it.  Whilst  I 
would  give  to  the  Executive  the  power  to  suspend 
the  operation  of  the  acts  of  the  legislative  de- 


1062 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  [105th 

Root,  Hoadly.  [Wednesday, 


partment,  when  the  action  had  been  hasty,  and 
inconsiderate,  and  evil,  in  his  opinion,  and  give 
time  for  consideration,  and  careful  examination, 

I never  would  clothe  him  with  anything  that 
had  the  semblance  of  legislative  power.  He 
might,  he  ought,  as  I think,  to  have,  under  the 
Constitution,  the  suspension— if  I may  he  al- 
lowed the  expression — the  suspension  power, 
for  putting  on  brakes  when  you  are  running  too 
fast,  or  too  carelessly,  over  a dangerous  road, 
short  curves,  or  bridges,  yet  I never  would 
allow  him  to  have  any  part  in  framing  laws. 
Now,  this  provision  substantially  vests  him  with 
legislative  power.  It  gives  the  opportunity  for 
dickering  between  the  Governor  and  the  two 
Houses.  I do  not  say  that  all  such  opportuni- 
ties would  be  improved ; but  I never  knew  one 
neglected,  yet.  It,  furthermore,  gives  the  op- 
portunity of  dickering  between  either  House 
and  the  Governor.  Well,  we  have  never  had  an 
opportunity  to  witness  the  effects  of  this,  for  the 
Governor  never  has  had  any  such  power  in  this 
State.  We  have  never  had  an  opportunity  to  ob- 
serve to  what  extent  this  evil  may  be  carried.  I 
will  illustrate  very  briefly : There  is  a project  for 
creating  a new  court.  Some  counties  fancy  them- 
selves insufficiently  provided  for.  They  want  a 
superior  court.  Well,  I reckon,  as  a general 
thing,  that  ought  not  to  be  provided — it  is  not 
best.  One  man,  or  member,  is  very  anxious  to 
have  horses,  that  Morgan  did  not  get,  paid  for, 
or  has  got  some  other  axe  to  grind.  Look  here, 
my  friend,  just  vote  to  put  in  my  horse,  or  vote 
to  putin  my  anything  else.  The  Governor  will 
veto  it,  but  it  will  satisfy  my  constituents. 

Now,  I wish  you  to  vote  for  my  bill.  Never 
mind ; we  know  how  the  Governor  feels  about  | 
it.  And  you  may  want  a little  moonshine  for  I 
your  constituents ; now,  I will  go  for  that  and  ! 
the  Governor  will  take  care  that  no  harm  is  j 
done.  The  bill  passes  somehow  and  goes  to  the 
Governor.  Now,  I do  not  know  who  we  are 
going  to  have  for  Governors  exactly;  but  I do 
not  believe  in  giving  anybody,  high  or  low, 
good  or  bad,  an  opportunity — for  as  often  as 
you  give  an  opportunity  you  hold  out  a tempta- 
tion to  do  wrong.  “Yes,  you  put  something  in 
there  that  I do  not  mean  to  stand,  and  I shall 
spot  that.”  “Well,  now  look  here  Governor, 
just  between  us.”  Sir,  you  make  your  Legis- 
lature and  your  Executive  liable  to  the  suspi-  j 
cion  of  dickering,  of  doing  dirty  work,  because  j 
you  put  it  in  their  power  to  do  it.  And  men 
who  fail  in  getting  what  they  want,  or  who  1 
have  something  put  upon  them  that  they  do  not  j 
want,  are  ready  enough  to  assert,  or  ready 
enough  to  believe  that  the  very  worst  means 
possible,  have  been  used  to  attain  that  end.  So 
I say  that  I think  this  a most  dangerous  reser- 
vation. It  is  investing  the  Executive  with  a 
power  which  he  should  never  hold  in  any  wise. 
It  is  not  for  the  Executive  to  dictate  to  the  Leg- 
islature. k‘llere,  if  you  had  passed  this  bill  so 
and  so,  or  left  out  this  item,  or  put  in  that  item, 
it  would  have  been  fixed  up  to  suit  me  and 
would  have  been  all  right.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  not  the  argument  the 
gentleman  is  making  apply  to  every  matter 
subject  to  the  veto  power  of  the  Governor  as 


well  as  to  appropriations  ? Would  it  not  be  an 
objection  against  the  veto,  in  regard  to  other 
biils  as  well  as  to  appropriation  bills  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  I am  opposing  merely  the  wrong 
application  of  the  veto  power.  I am  not  op- 
posed to  it  as  applying  to  that  or  any  other  bill 
where  the  veto  stops  or  prevents  the  act. 
Whether  they  have  the  veto  power  or  not,  I 
do  not  believe  in  depositing  in  the  Executive 
Department  this  mighty  power  to  be  peddled 
about  and  dealt  out  in  small  doses,  for  an  infant 
under  four  or  five  years  of  age,  only  five  drops, 
and  for  an  adult  possessing  full  strength,  forty 
drops.  That  is  the  way  this  thing  will  work. 
Whilst  I admit  that  it  looks  as  if  there  was 
something  great  and  good  in  it,  whilst  I admit 
that  gentlemen  who  favor  this  provision  do  so 
from  the  very  best  motives,  while  others  may 
be  right  and  I wrong,  I think  it  dangerous 
where  the  principle  to  which  I have  referred  is 
involved,  and  therefore  we  ought  to  have  a 
veto  power  that  will  effectually  veto  an  act,  or 
none  at  all.  Clothe  the  Executive  with  the  veto 
power  and  make  him  responsible  for  it,  or  else 
let  us  not  have  it  at  all. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  plan  of  granting  to  the 
Governor  the  veto  power,  as  to  separate  items  in 
an  appropriation  bill,  I concede,  may  place  the 
Governor,  sometimes,  in  this  position  : tha£  by 
putting  together,  in  one  nominal  item,  in  an 
j appropriation  bill,  things  that  have  no  proper 
| connection  with  each  other,  the  Governor  will 
| be  forced,  in  order  to  defeat  apart  of  that  appro- 
i priation,  to  veto  the  whole  item.  Thus,  for  in- 
I stance,  if  there  be  in  the  bill  an  appropriation 
! of  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  the  sup- 
port of  benevolent  institutions,  the  Governor 
may  be  of  opinion  that  nothing  should  be  ap- 
propriated to  a particular  institution,  or  that 
there  ought  not  to  be  any  doubt  that  there 
should  be  a denial  of  an  appropriation  for  a 
, particular  institution ; therefore,  he  may  be 
I compelled  to  veto  the  whole  item,  in  order  to 
strike  out  the  part  which  has  been  improperly 
joined  to  the  other  portion. 

Or,  to  take  a case  that  would  be  more  plain, 
perhaps,  in  its  application  : there  may  be  united, 
j in  one  item,  an  appropriation  of  three  hundred 
I thousand  dollars,  to  pay  two  distinct  claims 
against  the  State ; as,  for  instance,  for  repairs  of 
the  Miami  canal,  and  repairs  of  the  Ohio  canal, 
or  repairs  of  the  Miami  canal,  and  Morgan  raid 
claims.  If  the  Legislature  place  the  Governor 
in  opposition  to  its  work  in  this  manner,  he 
will  have  to  put  his  foot  down,  if  he  has  the 
power  of  veto,  for  the  very  reason  of  such  im- 
proper action  of  the  Legislature,  in  joining 
j together,  in  one  item,  two  matters  that  ought 
| to  be  separated  into  two  items.  I submit 
! that  if  that  is  an  objection,  it  is  as  well 
an  objection  to  the  whole  veto  power; 
because,  that  is  to  say  it  is  an  objection  to  the 
kind  of  a veto  which  my  friend  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  favors.  The  President  of  the  United 
! States  has  the  right  to  veto  an  entire  bill,  and 
: not  by  items.  He  must  veto  all  or  none,  and  is 
thus  "exposed  to  the  very  danger  under  discus- 
! sion.  In  like  manner,  the  Governor,  unless  he 
has  the  severable  veto,  will  always  be  in  the 
j position  of  not  being  able  to  separate  a single 
; item,  but  be  compelled  to  allow  the  whole  of 
! the  improper  appropriation  or  defeat  the  entire 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT, 

Hoadly,  Root,  Burns,  Hitchcock. 


1063 


Day.] 

February  4,  1874.] 


bill.  Now,  I submit  that  the  idea  of  a several 
veto  ought  to  be  incorporated  in  this  provision 
in  some  form.  I have  not  compared  the  amend- 
ment of  the  delegate  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer], 
with  that  adopted  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  see  which  is  in  the  most  fitly  chosen 
form  of  words.  I understand  the  object  of 
both  is  the  same;  but  I submit  that,  inasmuch 
as  the  appropriation  bill  consists  of  the  union 
in  a single  bill  of  a series  of  matters  that  have 
no  connection  with  each  other,  except  that  they 
may  be  united  in  a common  reservoir  by  the 
Legislature,  the  power  should  be  granted  to  the 
Governor — if  we  are  to  give  him  the  veto  power 
at  all — of  selecting  items  and  vetoing  them  sep- 
arately. Why,  Mr.  President,  we  have  a pro- 
vision in  our  present  Constitution  which  re- 
quires that  every  law  shall  relate  to  a single 
subject,  and  that  subject  properly  described  in 
the  title.  But,  practically,  we  defeat  that  by 
the  fact  that  an  appropriation  bill  is  called  a 
single  subject,  and  described  as  an  appropria- 
tion bill  in  the  title,  whereas,  the  truth  is,  as 
we  all  know,  that  every  appropriation  bill  con- 
tains disconnected  items,  or  matters  divided 
apd  isolated,  or  which  might  be  very  properly 
isolated  or  disconnected  from  each  other. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  to  inquire  of  the  gentle- 
man whether  this  would  have  an  evil  effect 
upon  the  Legislature  when  they  are  putting  in 
any  of  their  shoddy  appropriations?  Whether 
it  would  be  understood  as  injuring  their  appro- 
priation bill  by  it  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I have  had  no  experience 
as  a member  of  the  Legislature,  therefore  I can- 
not speak  from  experience,  but  from  observa- 
tion. I say  I think  the  evil  exists,  but  that  it  will 
exist  all  the  more  if  the  Governor  be  compelled 
to  choose  between  killing  the  whole  appropria- 
tion bill,  or  letting  some  obnoxious  items  go 
through.  Just  like  the  matter  in  which  Gen- 
eral Garfield  was  tested,  and  failed  at  the  last 
session  of  Congress.  His  excuse  in  voting  for 
the  back  salary  grab  was,  that  he  could  not  have 
voted  against  it  without  killing  the  whole  ap- 
propriation bill,  and,  being  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations,  and  respon- 
sible for  the  bill,  he  had  not  the  courage  to  ac- 
cept the  alternative  of  killing  the  whole  bill,  as 
he  ought  to  have  done,  instead  of  voting  for 
what  he  knew  to  be  wrong.  And  he  voted  to 
adopt  it  against  his  own  conscience,  because  to 
kill  that  item,  would  be  to  kill  the  whole  bill. 
And  that  is  exactly  the  position  in  which  the 
Governor  will  sometimes  be  placed,  if  he  have 
not  a several  veto. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
further  question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly ; with  pleasure. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Do  you  believe  one  word  Gen- 
eral Garfield  says  about  it  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  I do.  I do , sir — I an- 
swer the  gentleman  directly.  I do  not  know 
General  Garfield  personally.  I have  never  seen 
him  in  my  life.  But  I have  always  been  told 
that  he',  was  a man  whose  word  was  as  good 
as  his  bond — an  honorable  gentleman.  Having 
been  educated  on  the  Western  Reserve  where 
he  lived,  and  in  his  vicinity,  I have  always 
heard  him  spoken  of  as  a man  of  pure  life  and 
honest  purposes.  I deplore  the  fact,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  die  had  not  the  courage  to  embrace 


the  one  grand  opportunity  of  his  life — for  such 
it  was — to  put  that  whole  infamous  bill  under 
his  feet.  The  timidity  which  he  showed  on  that 
occasion,  is  a precedent  which  teaches  me  that 
the  same  fearfulness  may  be  shown  on  the 
part  of  our  Legislature,  and  argue  that  the 
Governor  should  have  the  right  to  choose  in 
such  matters,  and  to  separate  and  veto  these 
items  that  may  be  wrong.  Why,  suppose  there 
should  be  sent  to  the  Governor  an  appropria- 
tion bill  containing, as  one  item, an  appropriation 
for  the  Morgan  Raid  claims,  which  may  be  voted 
for  by  members  to  get  the  appropriation  bill 
through.  The  Governor  says : “I  do  not  believe 
the  people  of  Ohio  are  bound  to  pay  this  Mor- 
gan raid  bill,”  yet  he  is  under  the  necessity  of 
sending  the  whole  bill  back  according  to  the 
theory  of  my  friend  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  with 
his  veto  upon  it,  or  allowing  this  objectionable 
item  to  remain  in  the  bill.  Therefore,  it  seems 
to  me,  we  did  right  in  Committee  of  the  Whole 
in  inserting  this  provision,  and  it  ought  to  be 
retained  in  the  section  somehow  or  other.  My 
friend  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  may  be  right, 
in  saying  that  his  amendment  provides  for  the 
same  thing  with  fewer  words. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer],  to  strike  out  all  after  the  word  “law” 
in  line  18  to  the  end  of  line  29,  and  insert  the 
substitute  he  has  proposed.  The  gentleman 
from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  demands  a division  of 
the  question  to  strike  out  and  insert. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  know  that  it  would 
make  any  difference  in  the  vote,  and  I do  not 
desire  to  put  myself  in  antagonism  to  the  Chair ; 
but  is  that  really  the  question  ? Is  it  not  a sub- 
stitute for  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  strike 
out  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  and  insert  what  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  proposed. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  is  simply,  as  I understand, 
a substitute  for  the  amendment  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  it;  and  it,  of 
course,  involves  striking  out  the  amendment  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Suppose  the  Convention  should 
vote  to  strike  out  the  amendment  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  that  simply  leaves  it  a 
blank. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  strikes  out  that  amend- 
ment, and  that  would  be,  under  the  rule  which 
the  Convention  has  adopted,  equivalent  to  dis- 
agreeing to  the  amendment. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  the  Chair  will  allow  me, 
this  is  notan  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  which  strikes  out  something  and  puts 
in  something ; it  is  simply  an  addition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  occurs  to  me,  Mr. 
President,  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  is  to  strike  out,  not 
from  the  Article  or  section  a provision  in  that 
Report,  but  to  strike  out  the  amendment  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  It  is  to  strike  out 
that  matter  recommended  by  the  Committe  of  the 
Whole,  and  insert  some  matter  instead  of  that 
they  have  recommended. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  understand  how  it  is 
possible  to  strike  out  and  insert,  because  the 


1064 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  

Burns,  Barnet,  West,  Hoadly,  Beer,  Hunt,  Root,  etc. 


[105th 


[Wednesday, 


amendment  of  the  Committee  does  not  propose 
to  strike  out  anything  from  the  original  Report. 
It  is  in  addition  to  what  is  in  that  Report,  and 
it  is  simply  an  amendment  proposed  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  for  the  action  of  this  Con- 
vention. Now,  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]  offers  a substitute  for  that  amend- 
ment: if  a member  of  this  Convention  votes 
“aye”  on  this  proposition,  while  he  disagrees 
to  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  by  that  vote  he  does  not  insert  or  agree 
to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer].  Now,  as  I take  it,  as  the 
question  is  put  as  a substitute  for  the  amend- 
ment of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  the  mem- 
ber who  votes  “aye”  not  only  agrees  to  the 
amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
but  agrees  to  the  amendment  or  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Objection  is  made,  that  a 
member  may  disagree  to  the  action  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  and  yet  not  be  willing  to 
accept  the  substitute.  Now,  the  vote  to  strike 
out,  if  the  motion  prevails,  will  be  to  disagree 
to  the  amendment  made  by  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  and,  then,  the  question  would  be, 
whether  we  should  substitute  anything  in  its 
stead  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  not  able  to  see,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, how  you  can  strike  out  anything  that  has 
not  been  put  in.  Now,  this  amendment  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  stands  here  in  the 
form  of  an  amendment,  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  a simple  recommendation  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  that  this  amendment  be  in- 
serted. That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
submit  a proposition  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  Could  we  not  strike  out  one- 
half  of  this  provision  and  put  in  something  else  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  You  could  put  in  something 
else. 

Mr.  WEST.  But  could  we  not  strike  out  one- 
half  and  insert  something  else? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I suppose  we  could. 

Mr.  WEST.  Could  we  not  strike  out  one- 
half,  or  the  whole  of  the  amendment,  which  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  proposes,  and  insert 
something  else?  You  do  not  strike  out  the 
proposition,  but  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  BURNS.  You  disagree  to  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  strike 
out.  The  Chair  thinks  the  question  is  clearly 
divisible;  because  the  Convention  may  agree  to 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and 
not  agree  to  the  substitute.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion,  therefore,  that  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  is  in  order.  The 
question  will  be  first  on  striking  out  the  amend- 
ment of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  to  inquire  of  the 
mover  of  this  substitute — the  delegate  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer] — what  other  reason  there 
is  for  the  substitute,  except  that  it  expresses 
the  same  thought  more  briefly, or  whether  there 
is  anything  more  in  it? 

Mr.  BEER.  That  is  all  it  accomplishes;  but 
it  accomplishes  it  by  using  only  about  one- 
fourth  as  many  words  to  convey  the  same 
ideas. 


Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I desire  to  say  a word 
or  two  in  regard  to  this  matter. 

Mr.  HUNT.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me 
a moment;  I wish,  Mr.  President,  to  understand, 
correctly,  parliamentary  procedure,  in  this 
matter.  If  I understand  rightly,  if  the  Con- 
vention votes  to  strike  out  this  matter  recom- 
mended by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  the 
question  will  recur  upon  the  substitute  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  ; 
and  if  that  substitute  is  not  adopted  by  the 
Convention,  after  this  matter  has  been  stricken 
out,  section  eighteen,  up  to  and  including  the 
word  “ law,”  in  the  eighteenth  line,  will  stand 
as  the  action  of  the  Convention  upon  the  prop- 
osition, as  reported  by  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I was  about  to  remark 
in  regard  to  the  substitute 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Van  Wert  [Mr.  Alexander]  will  allow  the 
Chair  one  moment : The  Chair  did  not  under- 
stand whether  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt]  addressed  his  question  to  the  Chair. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I simply  want  to  understand 
the  matter.  The  proposition  now  before  the 
Convention  is  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  to  strike  out  all  of 
section  eighteen,  after  the  word  “ law,”  in  line 
eighteen.  If  that  motion  is  agreed  to,  the 
question  will  then  recur  upon  the  substitute 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford' [Mr. 
Beer]  ; and  if  that  substitute  is  voted  down, 
then  section  eighteen,  up  to  and  including  the 
word  “ law,”  In  line  eighteen,  as  reported  orig- 
inally, will  stand  as  the  action  of  the  Conven- 
tion upon  that  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  opinion  of 
the  Chair. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wis'b  that  the  gentleman  from 
Van  Wert  [Mr.  Alexander]  would  grant  me 
one  moment.  Now,  I do  not  want  to  interfere 
with  other  gentlemen’s  b usiness.  The  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  is  here  in  his 
place;  I need  not  say  that  he  is  in  very  feeble 
health;  I need  not  remind  the  Convention  that 
he,  some  days  since,  gave  notice  of  a substitute 
that  he  intended  to  move  for  a part  of  this  sec- 
tion, and  the  Convention  was  so  courteous  as  to 
order  that  to  be  printed.  Now,  I do  not  think 
that,  even  if  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  B$er]  should  be 
voted  upon,  it  would  preclude  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  frohu  offering  his 
proposed  substitute.  However,  wihile  I do  not 
commit  myself  in  that — I am  inclined  to  be  op- 
posed to  his  substitute— but,  while  I may  say 
that,  I asked  for  a division  here,  stf>  that  we 
might  first  settle  the  question  on  striding  out, 
and  then  let  the  Convention  choose  w.hat  they 
will  put  in  the  place  of  it.  If  they  are  satisfied 
with  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  let  them  saT  so;  if 
not,  let  us  take  somebody  else’s  substitute,  or, 
take  none  at  all. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  As  I was  abcmt  pro- 
ceeding to  remark,  in  view  of  the  explanations 
given  by  the  delegate  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer],  as  to  the  effect  of  his  amendment,  I am 
inclined  to  think  that  if  it  effects,  prec  isely,  the 
same  thing  that  is  effected  by  the  amendment 
as  adopted  by  the  Committee  of  the  vi/hole,  that 


1065 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  4, 1874.]  Alexander,  Mueller,  Scribner,  Humphreyille. 


the  Committee  on  Revision  will  be  able  to  fix 
that  up  very  satisfactorily;  that  if  it  means, 
precisely,  the  same  thing,  they  would  be  per- 
fectly justified  in  making  the  change  of  verbi- 
age that  would  make  it  about  one-third  its 
present  length.  I am  not  very  certain  as  to  its 
effect,  not  having  had  an  opportunity  of  exam- 
ining it;  and,  if  pressed  to  a vote  before  ad- 
journment, will  not  have,  probably. 

As  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears],  adopted  by  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  allowing  the  Governor  to  veto 
items  of  the  appropriation  bill,  it  occurs  to  me, 
that  is  one  of  the  most  important  matters  in  this 
Legislative  Article;  that  it  is  one  we  ought  to 
see  to;  that  it  is  due  the  people  that  their  Gov- 
ernor may  have,  at  least,  some  voice  in  the 
passage  of  their  appropriation  bills. 

It  is  a fact,  that  we  cannot,  ought  not,  shut 
our  eyes  to,  that  the  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, from  the  various  parts  of  the  State,  con- 
tract with  each  other,  and  by  reason  or  means 
of  these  contracts,  get  appropriation  bills  passed 
that  ought  never  to  have  been  passed.  To  il- 
lustrate what  I mean,  and  I will  not  refer  to 
any  specific  case,  take  the  delegation  from  Cuy- 
ahoga. An  appropriation  is  wanted  or  re- 
quired, for  something  or  other,  for  that  particu- 
lar locality — it  may  be,  possibly,  a relief  bill  for 
some  of  their  constituency — and  the  county  of 
Hamilton,  possibly,  is  in  the  same  condition, 
and,  possibly,  the  county  of  Lucas,  and  other 
interior  counties.  Now,  when  neither  of  these 
appropriation  bills,  standing  alone,  by  itself, 
could  receive  a majority,  yet,  by  this  contract — 
this  “You  help  me,  and  I will  help  you” — appro- 
priation bills  are  passed  which  never  ought  to 
be  passed ; which  are  simply  corrupt  in  them- 
selves; which  are  simply  wrong;  which,  if 
each  item  were  left  to  stand  upon  its  own  basis, 
would  never  have  been  passed.  Now,  give  the 
Governor  the  power  of  vetoing  each  or  any 
of  these  items,  and  the  attention  of  the  State 
is  called  to  it.  And  it  occurs  to  me,  that 
allowing  the  Governor  to  have  a veto  upon  the 
items  of  an  appropriation  bill,  is  one  of  very 
great  value  to  the  State;  one  that  we  ought 
not  to  ignore;  one  which,  I think,  has  been 
extremely  popular  with  our  constituents;  one, 
indeed,  which  they  will  do  themselves  the  honor 
to  approve. 

This  is  not  a mere  matter  of  form.  It  is  a 
matter  of  substance.  It  is  a matter  that  is  to 
pass  through  the  life  of  this  Constitution,  either 
for  its  weal  or  its  woe — one  which,  1 think,  the 
necessities  of  the  case  have  demonstrated,  be- 
yond question.  That  there  is  corruption  abroad 
in  the  land,  is  so  well  demonstrated  there  is  no 
need  of  refuting  it  here,  and  our  people  will 
not  vote  appropriations  to  encourage  these  fast 
proclivities.  The  tendency  of  the  age  is  to  be 
fast.  The  tendency  of  our  legislative  bodies, 
everywhere,  is  to  be  extravagant,  and  we  will 
have  performed  a very  great  service  to  the  peo- 
ple of  our  State  if  we  will  do  something  that 
will  retard  this  headlong  course  towards  profli- 
gacy. I,  therefore,  hope  and  trust  that  there 
will  be  a suitable  check  put  upon  our  Legis- 
lature, in  the  passage  of  these  appropriation 
bills. 

Now,  then,  if  there  be  an  appropriation  bill 
that  is  really  meritorious — one  that  commends 


itself  to  the  Legislature — it  will  recommend 
itself  to  the  members  from  all  over  the  State 
alike;  it  will  not  be  local  in  its  character.  If 
it  does  not  so  commend  itself  to  the  sense,  the 
judgment  and  the  discretion  of  the  legislative 
body,  it  shows  that  it  lacks  merit.  I hope  that 
we  will  not  recede  from  this  principle,  which 
we  have  adopted  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
I shall,  therefore,  for  the  reason  that  it  can  be 
remedied  by  the  Committee  on  Revision,  vote 
against  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  and  for  that  reason 
only. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Before*the  question  is  put, 
I would  like  to  say  a word.  I think,  myself, 
that  it  is  a matter  of  great  importance  that  this 
question  be  correctly  decided.  I hold  that  this 
question  under  consideration  is  not  divisible. 
It  cannot  be  divided,  for  this  reason : Suppose 
this  Convention  agree  to  strike  out  the  amend- 
ment which  is  sought  to  be  amended,  what  is 
there  left  before  the  Convention  ? By  striking 
the  first  amendment  out,  there  will  be  nothing 
left  to  which  the  second  amendment  may  at- 
tach. The  link  between  the  original  section 
and  the  second  amendment  would  be  thereby 
removed,  leaving  the  second  amendment  sus- 
pended in  the  air.  If  the  Convention  agrees  to 
strike  out  what  is — or,  better,  refuses  to  concur 
in— the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  then  the  time  has  arrived  to  offer  this 
other,  or  second,  amendment;  but  if  offered 
before,  it  can  only  be  voted  upon  : Whether  it 

should  take  the  place  of  the  former  amendment, 
without  dividing  the  question  ? There  is,  there- 
fore, no  possibility  of  any  division  in  this  case; 
and  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  coming  in  con- 
flict with  well  established  parliamentary  rules, 
I think  the  Chair  ought  not  to  permit  a division 
of  a question  that  is  clearly  indivisible. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I must  say  that  I most 
heartily  concur  in  the  view  of  the  matter  as 
stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Mueller].  I cannot  understand  how  the  ques- 
tion is  divisible.  It  appears  to  me  that  it  is 
simply  upon  agreeing  to  the  substitute  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer], 
for  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole;  that  is  the  question.  If,  as  suggested 
by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  it  is 
proposed  to  amend  that  amendment,  it  is  another 
thing.  If  we  propose  to  amend  the  amendment 
by  striking  out  a part,  and  inserting  new  mat- 
ter, there  would  be  a question,  of  course,  divis- 
ible; but  here,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
proposes  an  amendment  to  the  section,  and  the 
question  is  upon  agreeing  to  that,  first;  then 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  pro- 
poses a substitute;  the  second  question,  then,  is 
upon  agreeing  to  that  substitute.  I do  not  see 
how  it  is  possible  that  there  can  be  a division  of 
this  question,  though  there  can  be  of  the  ques- 
tion to  strike  out  and  insert.  But  both  the 
gentlemen  who  differ  with  me,  I acknowledge, 
are  my  superiors  in  parliamentary  law. 

The  PRESIDENT.  In  order  to  save  time,  it 
may,  perhaps,  be  better  to  put  the  question  on 
the  substitute;  but  the  Chair  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  question  is  fairly  divisible. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  As  this  is  a par- 
liamentary question,  it  is,  perhaps,  not  debat- 
able ; but,  as  the  Chair  has  been  so  kind  and 


1066 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  [105th 

Humphreville,  Burns,  Townsend,  Tuttle,  Root.  [Wednesday, 


indulgent  in  permitting  suggestions,  I will  offer 
one. 

The  Committee  of  the  Whole  proposed  an 
amendment  to  section  18;  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  proposed  a substitute  for 
that  amendment;  now,  what  condition  does  that 
place  the  question  in  ? Strictly,  in  parliamentary 
law,  no  such  thing  as  a substitute  is  known.  It 
is  a sort  of  American  growth  that  has  sprung 
up  to  avoid  certain  rules.  What,  then,  is  the 
question?  You  cannot  substitute  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer],  until  you  get  rid  of  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  It  re- 
solves itself  into  this,  then : that  it  amounts  to 
a motion  to  strike  out  and  insert ; and  if  I under- 
stand anything  about  parliamentary  law— 
and,  I admit,  I do  not  know  very  much — the 
President  was  right  in  his  ruling  that  the 
question  is  one  that  is  divisible;  because,  it  is  a 
question  on  striking  out  and  inserting,  in  sub- 
stance. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  [allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Yes,  sir;  and  if  I 
can  answer  it,  I will. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Suppose  that  the  bill  was  un- 
der discussion  now,  in  the  Convention,  and  the 
gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville], 
should  offer  the  amendment  that  has  been 
offered  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole ; sup- 
posing that  the  gentleman  from  Medina  offered 
this  amendment  to  section  18,  and  suppose  that 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  arose, 
and  offered  his  as  a substitute  for  your  amend- 
ment— not  to  amend  your  amendment,  but  as  a 
substitute  for  your  amendment — now,  what 
would  the  question  be  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  The  question  would 
be  upon  striking  out  my  amendment,  and  in- 
serting the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford. 

Mr.  BURNS.  But  yours  is  not  yet  inserted. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Certainly  not;  but 
it  is  under  consideration;  and  in  some  way 
must  be  got  rid  of  to  make  room  for  his  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Very  well,  I do  not  agree  with 
the  gentleman  from  Medina,  at  all.  The  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  offers  an  amendment,  and 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  offers  a substitute 
for  that;  then  they  are  both  presented  to  the 
Convention,  and  the  Convention  says  which 
they  will  take.  The  first  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford. 
If  they  take  that,  as  a matter  of  course,  this 
dies;  and  if  they  do  not  take  that,  then  the 
question  is  upon  this. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  so  under- 
stand the  effect  of  the  amendment.  It  is  in 
substance,  though,  perhaps,  not  strictly  in  form, 
a question  upon  striking  out  and  inserting. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I submit  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville],  that 
the  difficulty  is,  perhaps,  upon  striking  out  that 
which  has  never  been  voted  in.  It  is  merely 
proposed  for  the  Convention  to  adopt.  I take 
it,  Mr.  President,  that  it  will  be  necessary  to 
vote  upon  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  but  if 
we  vote  directly  upon  the  proposed  substitute  of 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  it 


would  be  that  this  substitute  should  take  the 
place  of  that  amendment,  and  nothing  is  strick- 
en out,  and  there  is  no  question  to  be  divided. 

Mr.TUTTLE.  It  seems  to  me  that  here  is  real- 
ly a great  tempest  in  a teapot.  A question  of  the 
order  of  business  has  arisen,  and  that  question 
is,  whether  the  question  should  be  first  put  so  as 
to  take  the  sense  of  the  Convention  upon  striking 
out,  or  upon,  in  some  way,  getting  rid  of  the 
proposition  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
then  acting  upon  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  to  put  some- 
thing in;  or,  whether  we  should  keep  the 
proposition  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  in 
reserve,  and  act  upon  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford,  first.  Now,  I would 
have  my  own  idea  as  to  what  was  a proper 
course  and  true  order  of  that  matter ; but  the 
Chair  has  decided  upon  that  subject — a matter 
proper  for  it  to  do — and  nobody  has  taken  an 
appeal  from  it.  Now,  what,  nevertheless,  do 
we  hear  or  have  we  heard,  but  half-a-dozen  ar- 
guments, not  directed  to  the  expediency  or  pol- 
icy of  the  proposition  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  but  to  the  question  of  what  is  the  proper 
order  of  business;  and,  nevertheless,  as  though 
it  was  an  objection  to  striking  out;  as  though  it 
was  a criterion  for  us  to  vote  by,  when  we 
come  to  vote,  whether  we  will  strike  out,  or 
ignore,  or  disregard,  or  get  rid  of  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  It  seems 
to  me  that  now  the  question  is  not,  what  would 
be  the  best  or  most  orderly  course  of  business? 
the  question  is,  whether  or  not  we  like  the 
proposition  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
better  than  we  do  that  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  or  better  than  we  do 
any  other  that  we  may  desire  to  put  in  its  place. 
If  we  do,  we  want  to  vote  against  striking  out; 
if  we  do  not,  then  we  want  to  vote  in  favor  of 
striking  out,  so  as  to  have  that  in.  This  is  the 
question,  I take  it,  that  we  are  to  consider  here ; 
and  the  question  that  we  have  been  arguing 
here  so  much  with  regard  to  the  proper  course 
of  business,  has  now  nothing  to  do  with  it — 
that  is,  as  it  seems  to  me,  Mr.  President. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  we  had  attended  a little 
more  to  what  was  said  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga,  [Mr.  Hitchcock].  If  I understood 
him  rightly,  it  made  this  thing  very  plain. 
Now,  let  us  see:  The  question  now  is:  How 
are  we  to  get  along  ? It  is  a question  of  order, 
as  I understand;  at  least  that  lies  at  the  bottom, 
that  is  the  foundation  of  the  difficulty.  Now, 
let  us  put  to  ourselves  one  or  two  questions  and 
see  where  we  will  come  to.  Is  there  any  doubt 
in  the  world,  that  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford, [Mr.  Beer],  was  perfectly  in  order,  when 
he  proposed  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  the 
amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to 
strike  it  all  out,  and  insert  other  matter  in 
place  of  it  in  that  form  ? Is  there  any  doubt, 
that  any  member  upon  this  floor  has  the  right 
to  demand  a division  of  the  question,  so  that  we 
shall  vote  first  upon  striking  out?  If  there  is, 
I would  like  to  see  it  made  manifest  by  the 
usual  sign.  Why,  sir,  there  is  no  doubt  about 
it  at  all,  and  it  is  all  in  order;  the  Chair  put 
the  question  right.  It  is  one  of  those  ques- 
tions, whether  right  or  wrong,  that  it  is  more 
important  whether  they  are  decided  promptly 
than  how  they  are  decided,  for  it  is  all  goat’s 


1067 


DayJ THE  GOVERNOR’S  VETO  POWER. 

February  4, 1874.]  Rowland,  Barnet,  Sample,  Scribner,  Hoadly. 


wool,  and  I think  that  goats  never  have  any 
wool. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I wish  to  say,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  I believe  the  decision  of  the  Chair 
was  right;  and  I trust  that  the  Chair  will  ex- 
ercise his  prerogative  and  stop  this  debate  upon 
the  question,  and  we  will  have  a vote. 

MEMBERS.  “Agreed;  agreed.’’ 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
question.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole  have 
made  a Report,  and  in  that  Report  have  pro- 
posed an  amendment;  it  is  now  proposed  to 
strike  out  that  amendment,  and  insert  the  sub- 
stitute offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford, [Mr.  Beer]  : upon  that,  the  gentleman  from 
Erie,  [Mr.  Root],  has  demanded  a division; 
the  Chair  decided  that  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
was  in  order  and  that  this  division  can  be 
made;  the  question,  therefore,  will  be  upon 
striking  out. 

Upon  which  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I call  for  the  reading  of  the 
substitute. 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute,  which  is 
as  follows : 

The  Governor  shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any 
item  or  items  of  any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money, 
embracing  distinct  items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the 
bill  approved  shall  be  the  law,  and  the  item  or  items  of 
the  appropriation  disapproved  shall  be  void,  unless  re- 
passed  according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed 
for  the  passage  of  other  bills  over  the  executive  veto. 

The  yeas  and  nays 'were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  40,  nays  34,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Bannon,  Barnet,  Beer,Blose,  Burns, 
Campbell,  Carberv,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook, 
Gardner,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humphre- 
ville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McCormick,  Muel- 
ler, Mullen,  Neal,  Pond.  Powell,  Rickly,  Root, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Scofield,  Shaw, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
Waddle,  West— 40. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Bishop,  Bos- 
worth,  Caldwell,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Foran,  Greene,  Gurley,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hoadly,  Horton,  McBride,  Miller, 
Mitchener,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pratt,  Sam- 
ple, Scribner,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Vo- 
ris,  Watson,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Champaign,  President— 34. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I regard  this  as,  by  very 
far,  the  most  important  provision  connected 
with  the  conferring  of  the  veto  power  upon  the 
Governor.  It  has  been  so  recently  introduced 
that,  I think,  it  has  not  had  that  consideration 
which  the  importance  of  the  provision  requires. 

I think  it  would  be  premature  for  this  Conven- 
tion, now,  to  proceed  to  exercise  their  judgment 
in  passing  upon  its  adoption.  If  it  be  adopted, 
as  I understand,  it  becomes  the  action  of  the 
Convention.  Its  adoption  now,  in  these  pro- 
ceedings, I understand,  will  be  a declaration  of 
this  Convention  in  favor  of  it;  and  whether  it 
will  be  open  to  amendment,  or  not,  I am  not 
prepared  to  say. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I would  suggest,  that  agree- 
ing to  this  amendment  will  not  make  it  a part  of 


the  Constitution,  unless  inserted  in  it  by  another 
vote. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  But,  if  it  be  adopted  now,  it 
will  be  adopted,  as  I understand  it,  by  the  Con- 
vention, as  a subject  which  is  to  become  a part 
of  the  Constitution.  If  adopted  into  the  Consti- 
tution, so  far,  it  becomes  a matter  that,  I sup- 
pose, will  be  placed  before  the  Convention  in 
such  a form  as  to  be  either  rejected  or  adopted 
as  a part  of  the  Constitution.  So  that,  it  seems 
to  me,  Mr.  President,  that  it  is  a matter  of  so 
much  importance  that  the  Convention  should 
consider  this  proposition  carefully, beforeadopt- 
ing  it,  and  before  taking  any  action  upon  it.  It 
may  be  all  right.  I am  not  prepared  to  say  that 
it  is  not;  but  I am  prepared  to  say  that  it  ought 
to  be  right  before  it  is  acted  upon  by  the  Con- 
vention, so  as  to  place  it  in  such  a situation  as 
that  the  Convention  may  be  embarrassed  in  get- 
ting rid  it,  if  it  should  not  be  found  to  be  cor- 
rect. I think  there  is  much  more  importance  to 
be  attached  to  this  provision  than  any  other  pro- 
vision conferring  this  power  upon  the  Governor. 
In  matters  of  ordinary  legislation,  it  may  be 
less  desirable  that  the  Governor  should  possess 
this  power ; but,  in  matters  of  this  kind,  where 
responsibility  can  be  thrown  upon  the  Governor 
in  reference  to  every  single  provision  in  an  ap- 
propriation bill,  and  where  the  three  distinct 
representatives  of  the  popular  will,  created  by 
the  Constitution,  and  elected  by  the  people,  are 
required  to  exercise  a supervisory  care  upon 
every  provision  which  goes  into  an  appropria- 
tion bill,  I think  it  is  a matter  of  very  great 
importance  that  the  right  of  review  by  the  Gov- 
ernor should  be  conferred,  if  not  in  reference 
to  any  other  matter,  whatever.  Now,  it  is  no 
encroachment,  as  has  been  assumed,  here,  upon 
the  exercise  of  the  popular  will.  Especially  is 
this  so  in  reference  to  appropriation  bills.  The 
public  have  not  any  very  great  interest,  ordina- 
rily, in  appropriation  bills,  other  than  to  have 
them  regulated  by  the  [proper  principles,  and 
limited  to  proper  amounts.  And  there,  cer- 
tainly, can  be  no  danger  in  requiring  every  act 
appropriating  the  money  of  the  people — every 
single  act  appropriating  any  sum,  for  any  spe- 
cific purpose,  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  State — 
to  be  submitted  to  each  House,  and  require 
specific  action  upon  every  item  of  a private  ap- 
propriation by  each  House ; and  to  require  of 
the  Governor  the  duty  of  scrutinizing  every 
item  in  an  appropriation  bill,  and  passing  upon 
it,  and  determining  whether  it  ought  to  be  im- 
posed upon  the  treasury  of  the  State,  or  not. 
For  these  reasons,  then,  I suggest  that  this  pro- 
vision ought  to  be  considered  with  the  greatest 
care,  before  it  shall  be  adopted;  and  if  it  be 
adopted,  it  should  be  in  such  form  as  to  fully 
carry  out  the  provision  which  was  contained  in 
that  which  has  been  stricken  out.  If  it  is  so,  I 
am  ready  to  vote  for  it;  but  I hesitate  to  do  so 
under  the  present  circumstances,  without  fur- 
ther and  fuller  consideration. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  allow  me 
to  ask  whether,  if  it  is  rejected,  the  effect  is  not 
going  to  be  to  prevent  our  having  this  veto  ap- 
plicable to  separate  parts  of  an  appropriation 
bill? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  If  it  is  voted  down,  I suppose 
that  will  be  the  effect  of  it;  and,  therefore,  the 
importance  of  the  vote.  I am  exceedingly 


1068 


THE  GOVERNOR’S  VETO  POWER. 

Sample,  Hoadly,  Barnet,  Hitchcock. 


anxious  that  it  shall  go  into  the  Constitution; 
hut  want  it  adopted  by  the  Convention  in  such 
a shape  as  will  make  it  most  agreeable  to  the 
Convention,  and  in  the  best  form  to  be  incorpo- 
rated into  the  Constitution.  I would  not  be 
willing  to  vote  against  it,  even  if  put  to  vote 
now.  I shall  vote  in  favor  of  it;  but  I hesitate, 
because  I am  afraid  it  is  not  as  it  should  be. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I asked  the  question,  be- 
cause I was  afraid  that  I,  with  those  who  think 
with  me,  were  losing  the  powerful  aid  of  the 
gentleman.  But  I see  that  we  are  not.  I shall 
vote  in  favor  of  inserting  his  substitute.  I 
voted  against  striking  out,  because  I was  not 
then  satisfied  that  it  would  accomplish  the  ob- 
ject sought,  although,  no  doubt,  sincerely  in- 
tended to  work  the  same  result.  It  seems  to 
me,  upon  consideration,  it  ought  to  be  adopted. 
If  there  is  any  defect  in  the  language,  it  can  be 
corrected  afterwards  by  the  Committee  on  Re- 
vision. If  there  is  any  defect  in  explicitness 
— but  I presume  there  is  not — I think,  probably, 
reading  it  again  at  the  Secretary’s  desk  would 
satisfy  us  all.  But  what  I wish  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to,  is  that  now  is 
our  last  chance,  substantially,  to  put  into  the 
Constitution  a provision  which  will  enable  the 
Governor — if  we  are  going  to  have  the  veto  at 
all — to  treat  an  appropriation  bill  as  being  what 
it  really  is,  a collection  of  separate  provisions, 
and  not  an  entity  by  itself,  a single  thing. 
Now,  if  he  ought  to  have  the  power  at  all,  he 
should  have  it  as  to  each  particular,  separate 
portion  of  an  appropriation  bill;  and  I hope, 
therefore,  that  the  friends  of  the  separate  veto 
will  not  be  divided  on  this  proposition,  but 
unite  in  the  endeavor  to  support  the  motion  of 
the  delegate  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer.] 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  Governor  shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any 
item  or  items  oi  any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money, 
embracing  distinct  items;  ana  the  part  or  parts  of  the 
bill  approved  shall  be  the  law,  and  the  item  or  items  of 
appropriation  disapproved  shall  be  void,  unless  re-passed 
according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the 
passage  of  other  bills  over  the  executive  veto.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  substitute.  The  yeas  and  nays 
are  demanded. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I regret,  extremely,  that  I 
have  to  be  placed  in  the  situation  that  I am.  I 
favor  the  substitute,  if  the  Article  passes  in  its 
present  shape  generally,  in  regard  to  the  veto. 
I think  it  is  proper  that  this  substitute  should 
be  adopted ; I shall  insist  on  the  whole.  I very 
much  dislike  to  vote  for  it.  I do  not  want  to 
give  the  thing  any  advantage  in  its  present 
shape;  and,  yet,  I should  propose  to  vote  to 
help  to  mature  what  seems  important.  I shall 
vote  for  it,  but  I shall  certainly  vote  against  the 
whole  thing  when  it  comes  up. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  I understand  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  correctly, 
his  view  is,  that  whatever  maybe  the  determi- 
nation of  the  Convention  at  this  point,  it  de- 
cides the  question  as  to  the  eighteenth  section. 
Am  I correct? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Perhaps  I put  it  too  strong- 
ly in  saying  it  decided;  but  it  certainly  throws 


[105th 

[Wednesday, 


a very  great  obstacle,  if  not  a final  one,  in  the 
way  of  those  who  desire  to  have  a joint  and 
several  veto. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I understand  that  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
thought  that  if  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  were  now  to  be 
voted  down,  that  would  preclude  the  possibility 
of  a provision  of  this  kind  being  inserted  in  the 
section. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  necessarily.  There 
might  be  a further  amendment. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  I am  correct,  Mr. 
President,  the  Convention  is  now  considering 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
can  consider  no  part  of  this  Article  until  that 
Report  has  been  entirely  disposed  of.  That  Re- 
port having  been  disposed  of,  under  the  rule 
which  has  heretofore  been  adopted  and  prac- 
ticed in  the  Convention,  we  commence  with  the 
first  section  of  the  Article,  and  go  through  with 
it  section  by  section,  each  several  section  being 
open  to  all  the  amendments  the  Convention 
may  desire  to  make.  This  rule  being  absolute, 
except  so  far  as  it  might  relate  to  striking  out 
the  precise  language  that  has  been  before  in- 
serted as  an  amendment,  or  inserted  in  the  pre- 
cise language  in  the  section  that  the  Convention 
has  before  refused  to  insert. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  will,  however,  be  per- 
fectly practicable,  if  the  Convention  adopt  the 
substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer],  that  the  delegate  from  Coshocton 
[Mr.  Sample],  proposes — if  I may  use  the  ex- 
pression without  being  considered  disrespectful 
to  my  friend  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer] — to 
lick  it  into  a shape  that  is  satisfactory  to  its 
friends,  if  they  happen  to  be  in  a majority. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I did  not  hear  the  re- 
mark of  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr. 
Sample],  and  have  no  idea  but  that  any  addi- 
tional language  may  be  inserted  in  this  section 
that  the  Convention  wishes ; but  that  we  can- 
not strike  out  the  language  heretofore  inserted 
at  the  present  stage  of  the  proposition.  Per- 
haps I should  differ  with  other  gentlemen  in 
my  opinion  upon  the  final  reading.  Until  it 
has  been  ordered  to,  and  received  its  final  read- 
ing, we  could  not  strike  out  the  same  language 
inserted,  unless  including  with  it  such  other 
words  as  to  change  the  nature  of  the  proposi- 
tion. Neither  by  itself  can  we  strike  out  a 
part  of  that  language.  In  order  not  to  be  mis- 
understood, I will  say  that  we  can  add  to  that, 
but  anything  which  the  Convention  has  deter- 
mined upon  at  this  time  to  leave  out  or  insert  in 
the  same  language,  cannot  be  changed  at  all  at 
this  time,  but  may  after  the  final  reading  of  the 
proposition. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
inserting  the  substitute. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded, taken,  and  resulted — yeas  60,  nays 
14,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  Bannon, 
Barnet,  Beer,  Bishop,  Bos  worth,  Burns,  Cald- 
well, Campbell,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cun- 
ningham, De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Greene, 


THE  GOVERNOR’S  VETO  POWER. 

Cook,  Campbell,  Humphreville,  Beer,  Hunt. 


1069 


Day.] 

February  4,  1874.J 


Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride, 
Miller,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Neal,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Scofield,  Scribner, 
Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thompson,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis, 
Voris,  Watson,  Weaver,  West,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Champaign,  President — 60. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Coats,  Cook,  Gardner,  Gurley, 
Hitchcock,  McCormick,  Mueller,  Root,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Waddle — 14. 

The  PRESIDENT.  So  the  substitute  is 
adopted. 

Mr.  COOK.  I understand  that  this  does  not 
adopt  the  amendment.  The  question  was  on 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  made  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole ; the  question  was  to  strike 
that  out,  and  insert  the  amendment  of  the 
I member  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  We  are 
now  just  where  we  began ; the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  has 
been  agreed  to,  in  lieu  of  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole.  The  question  now  comes 
on  the  adoption  of  this  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  is  right. 
The  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment  as  amended. 

On  this  the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded, 
and  objected  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Objection  is  made. 

The  vote  being  taken  on  sustaining  the  de- 
mand for  the  yeas  and  nays,  21  members  voted 
in  the  affirmative,  and  the  demand  was  declared 
sustained. 


On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  47,  nays  27,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery, 
Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing, 
Greene,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton, 
Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  McBride,  Mil- 
ler, Mitchener,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Sample,  Scribner, 
Shaw,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tyler, 
Van  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Watson,  Weaver,  West, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  President 


Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Barnet,  Blose,  Campbell,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Foran,  Gardner,  Gurley, 
Hitchcock,  Hunt,  Johnson,  McCormick,  Muel- 
ler, Mullen,  Neal,  Pond,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Scofield,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Waddle— 27. 
So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 


Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I suppose  it  will  not,  ac- 
cording to  usage,  be  strictly  in  order  to  offer  a 
substitute;  but  I will  ask  that  section  18  of  the 
substitute  may  be  considered  now.  It  is  doubt- 
ful whether  I shall  be  able  to  be  here  this  after- 
noon. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  requests  that  section  18 
shall  be  taken  up  first  for  consideration.  If 
there  is  no  objection,  it  is  so  ordered. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I wish  to  inquire 
whether  these  words  “three-fifths,”  in  the 


thirty-fourth  line,  were  included  in  the  former 
motion  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  They  were  included  in 
the  motion  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  All  right. 

Mr.  BEER.  I have  no  desire  to  interfere 
with  the  expressed  wish  of  the  Convention  to 
take  up  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell].  Before 
leaving  here,  Mr.  Sears,  of  Wyandot,  left  an 
additional  section,  which  he  desired  to  have 
offered  to  this  Article.  I desire  to  give  notice  of 
his  intention  to  offer  it,  or  to  offer  it  myself,  and 
let  the  Convention  take  whatever  action  they 
may  see  fit  upon  it,  and  not  take  up  time  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  yield? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I suggest  to  the  gentleman  that 
he  have  the  section  read.  It  is  not  in  order,  I 
apprehend,  at  this  time,  to  offer  it  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  section.  It  will  be  in  order  here- 

affcer 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is,  simply,  a de- 
sire to  have  it  read  for  information,  and  printed. 
The  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  Governor  shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any 
item  or  items  of  any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money, 
embracing  distinct  items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the  bill 
approved  shall  be  law,  and  the  item  or  items  of  appropria- 
tion disapproved  shall  be  void,  unless  re-passed  accord- 
ing to  the  iules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the  passage 
of  other  bills  over  the  executive  veto.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  be  no  objection, 
it  will  be  ordered  to  be  printed  and  laid  over. 
The  Secretary  will  now  read  the  substitute  of 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr,  Campbell],  for 
section  18. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  18.  Every  bill  passed  by  the  General  Assembly 
shall,  before  it  becomes  a law,  be  presented  to  the  Gov- 
ernor, at  least  three  days  before  its  adjournment  sine  die. 
If  he  approve  it  he  shall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it  shall 
become  a law;  but  if  he  do  not  approve,  he  shall  send  it 
to  the  House  in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  and  he 
may  either  return  with  it  his  objections  in  writing,  or  he 
may  state  them  orally  to  the  House;  and  the  House  shall 
then  proceed  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  the 
bill.  If  after  such  reconsideration,  a majority  of  the 
members  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be  sent  to  the 
other  Hou&e,  to  which,  also,  the  Governor  may  state  his 
objections  either  in  writing  or  orally ; and  thereupon  that 
House  shall  likewise  reconsider  the  vote  on  its  passage. 
If  after  such  reconsideration  a majority  of  the  members 
elected  to  that  House  agree  to  pass  the  same,  >t  shall  be- 
come a law.  If  any  bill  shal  I not  be  returned  by  the  Gov- 
ernor within  three  days  (Sundays  excepted)  after  it  shall 
have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  become  a law 
in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  per- 
ceive that  this  substitute  as  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  is  now 
somewhat  amended,  in  line  two  and  line  twelve, 
by  inserting  in  line  two,  after  the  word  “Gov- 
ernor”, the  words  “at  least  three  days  before  its 
adjournment  sine  die ”,  and  in  line  twelve,  after 
the  word  “not”,  by  inserting  the  word  “be”, 
striking  out  the  word  “five”  and  inserting 
“three.”  With  those  alterations  the  printed 
substitute  is  the  substitute  now  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  has  the  floor.  Does  the 
gentleman  yield  ? 


1070 


THE  GOVERNOR’S  VETO  POWER. [105th 

Campbell,  Hunt,  Hitchcock,  Root.  [ Wednesday, 


Mr.  CAMPBELL.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  HUNT.  Simply  for  the  purpose  of  hav- 
ing an  understanding  as  to  the  way  in  which 
this  Report  should  be  considered.  I under- 
stand that  we  have  passed  in  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  all  of  these  sections. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HUNT.  And  that  it  is  now  in  order  to 
consider,  section  by  section,  the  proposed 
amendments  as  may  be  desired  by  the  dele- 
gates ; and  upon  the  suggestion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  we  now 
proceed  to  the  consideration  of  section  18,  in 
preference  to  the  preceding  sections. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Having  introduced  the  propo- 
sition, I very  cheerfully  yield  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me  a question  ? If  I understand  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, he  suggests  that  while  the  consideration 
of  the  gentleman’s  substitute  is  now  to  be  had, 
before  a vote  is  taken  upon  it,  there  will  be  an 
opportunity  for  offering  amendments  to  the 
original  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  After  disposing  of  sec- 
tion 18,  the  Convention  will  return  to  section  1. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I mean  section  18.  There 
will  be  an  opportunity  to  offer  amendments  to 
section  18  after  the  vote  is  taken. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Certainly.  The  ques- 
tion is  now  on  the  substitute,  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  It  is  a great  indiscretion 
on  my  part  to  attempt  to  speak  at  all  to-day, 
being  feeble  from  indispositiou,  and  it  will  be 
still  greater  if  I attempt  to  enter  into  any  elab- 
orate discussion  of  this  great  question.  If  I 
were  in  the  very  best  possible  condition,  phys- 
ically and  intellectually,  I should  be  inclined 
rather  to  retire  from  any  active  discussion  of 
so  great  a subj  ect.  I shall  content  myself,  there- 
fore, by  stating  very  briefly  what  are  the  pecu- 
liar characteristics  of  the  proposed  substitute. 
It  will  be  observed  that  it  is  two-fold.  In  the 
first  place,  it  provides  that  no  bill  shall  be  pre- 
sented to  the  Governor  within  three  days  of  the 
sine  die  adjournment  of  the  General  Assembly. 
This  is  one  guard  against  hasty  and  imprudent 
legislation.  I may  safely  assert,  and  will,  no 
doubt,  be  borne  out  by  the  testimony  of  all  gen- 
tlemen who  have  served  in  legislative  bodies, 
that  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  hasty,  impru- 
dent, and  vicious  legislation  is  carried  through 
in  the  latter  days,  and  especially  in  the  latter 
nights  of  the  session.  If  I may  not  be  consid- 
ered egotistic  I will  state  a little  of  the  experi- 
ence I have  had  myself.  It  has  fallen  to  my  lot 
— some  might  call  it  fortune,  but  I am  inclined 
to  consider  it  in  many  respects  a misfortune — to 
have  served  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  about  eleven  years.  Two  years  of  that  time 
I had  the  honor  of  occupying  a very  important 
relation  to  that  body,  the  Chairmanship  of  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Under  the  old  regulations. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  And  that,  too,  as  sug- 
gested by  my  friend  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root], 
under  the  old  regulations,  when  that  Commit- 
tee had  charge  of  all  the  revenue  bills  and  all 
the  appropriation  bills.  Now  the  labors  have 


been  divided  between  an  Appropriation  Com- 
mittee, of  which  Mr.  Garfield  is  now  chairman, 
and  a Ways  and  Means  Committee,  of  which 
Mr.  Dawes,  of  Mass.,  is  chairman.  In  that  ser- 
vice I learned  very  much  of  the  ways  by  which 
bad  laws  are  carried  through  in  the  last  days 
and  nights  of  the  session ; when  many  mem- 
bers are  worn  out,  when  but  few  know  really 
what  is  going  on,  when  great  subjects  are  re- 
ferred to  committees  of  conference,  and  passed 
upon  their  report  under  the  screws  of  the  pre- 
vious question.  One  of  this  class  was  the  pro- 
position to  which  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  referred  this  morning.  I allude 
to  the  measure  which  has  recently  attracted  so 
much  attention,  namely,  the  salary  bill.  Gen. 
Garfield,  the  chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee,  was,  at  first,  opposed  to  that  amend- 
ment, which  had  been  offered  to  an  appropria- 
tion bill,  against  the  wise  rule  of  the  House 
that  provided  that  every  appropriation  bill 
should  be  kept  entirely  clear  of  all  independent 
legislation.  It  went,  finally,  late  in  the  night 
of  the  last  night  of  the  session,  to  a committee 
of  conference;  Gen.  Garfield,  chairman  of  the 
committee  of  conference,  on  the  part  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  reported  in  favor  of 
a concurrence,  and  the  House  yielded.  I regret, 
as  much  as  any  man,  that  Gen.  Garfield  did  not 
remain  firm ; but  he  yielded  in  order  to  save 
his  appropriation  bill.  But  that  is  not  all.  All 
the  steamship  subsidies,  and  other  great  steals 
and  grabs  are  rushed  through  Congress  in  a 
similar  way.  This  salary  matter  is  a mere  drop 
in  the  bucket  compared  to  the  grand  robberies 
that  are  carried  through  there  the  closing  nights 
of  the  session.  I remember  very  well  one  im- 
portant instance  of  this  class,  when  in  less  than 
twenty-four  hours  before  the  expiration  of  the 
Thirty-fourth  Congress,  just  prior  to  the  in- 
auguration of  Mr.  Buchanan,  and  during  the 
latter  hours  of  the  Pierce  administration,  and 
at  the  time  when  I had  the  responsibilities  that 
now  devolve  on  Gen.  Garfield,  there  came,  on 
the  third  day  of  March,  ninety-five  amendments 
in  one  single  appropriation  bill  from  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  involving  millions  of  dol- 
lars of  appropriation.  There  was  no  time  to 
have  them  printed,  scarcely  time  to  have  them 
read  at  the  Clerk’s  desk.  Deliberation  was  im- 
possible. The  only  way  in  which  they  could  be 
prevented  from  being  carried  was  to  have  them 
sent  to  a conference  committee.  I had  the 
honor  of  being  chairman  of  that  committee  on 
behalf  of  the  House,  and  Mr.  Hunter,  of  Vir- 
ginia, the  chairman  of  the  finance  committee  of 
the  Senate,  was  chairman  of  the  conference  on 
the  part  of  the  Senate.  These  ninety-five 
amendments  were  submitted  by  the  conference 
committee  to  Mr.  Hunter  and  myself.  I em- 
phatically told  him  that  if  he  insisted  on  the 
amendments  carried  by  the  Senate,  they  never 
could  pass  through  the  House;  and  that  upon 
him  rested  the  responsibility  of  having  the 
Buchanan  administration,  then  coming  in  on 
the  next  day,  call  an  extra  session  for  the  pas- 
sage of  the  appropriation  bills.  Mr.  Hunter  at 
last  told  me  to  take  the  amendments  and  decide 
upon  those  I would  be  willing  to  attempt  to 
carry  through  the  House  of  Representatives.  I 
did  so,  and  struck  out  at  least  two-thirds  of 
them.  The  conference  report  was  made  and 


1071 


Day.]  LEGISLATION  DURING  CLOSING  HOURS  OF  SESSIONS. 


February  4,  1874.] 


Campbell,  Hunt. 


carried  through  both  Houses,  and  under  the 
screw  of  the  previous  question,  when  perhaps 
not  twenty-five  members  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives knew  the  character  of  these  amend- 
ments. They  placed  some  degree  of  confidence 
in  myself;  the  amendments  were  carried  upon 
that  confidence,  the  appropriation  bill  was 
saved,  and  an  extra  session  avoided.  I never 
knew  any  of  the  members,  or  any  member  of 
the  press  attack  those  appropriation  bills  after 
they  were  so  carried.  I could  go  on  and  con- 
sume the  attention  of  the  Convention  for  a long 
while,  giving  interesting  details  of  the  manner 
in  which  in  the  late  night  sessions  important 
bills  were  rushed  through  without  deliberation, 
and  when  a majority  of  members  were  ignorant 
of  the  contents. 

But  gentlemen  may  say,  that  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  State  of  Ohio.  I am  only  giving 
these  facts  relative  to  what  is  done  in  the  Na- 
tional Legislature  to  illustrate  what  may  be 
done  in  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  President,  I never  but  once  had  the  honor 
— 1 suppose  I may  venture  to  call  it  an  honor — 
of  being  a member  of  the  Ohio  Senate.  One 
session  I was  sent  up  there  to  try  to  defeat  the 
ratification  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment.  I 
ran  against  a pretty  hard  customer,  at  the  same 
time,  in  the  person  of  my  friend  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  who  came  down  from  the  lake  shore  to 
have  it  ratified.  Now,  as  to  the  last  nights  of 
our  session,  then,  there  was  a great  deal  of 
legislation  carried  through  gushingly,  on  the 
last  two  nights.  How  much  of  it  was  good  I do 
not  know,  for  I had  not  time  to  examine.  I 
know  this,  that  the  Senate  was  in  session 
through  the  whole  night,  presided  over  very 
ably,  temporarily,  by  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hunt].  And,  as  is  the  case  in  Con- 
gress, and  other  legislative  bodies  where  they 
hold  these  night  sessions,  there  was  a great 
abundance  of  refreshments,  and  some  of  a pecu- 
liar kind,  that  were  not  calculated  to  keep  the 
heads  of  the  members  very  cool  and  very  level. 
The  Senate  was  in  session  through  the  night, 
until  daylight.  I believe  then  it  was  that 
measures  were  carried  through.  It  might  be 
called  hasty  or  improvident  legislation.  Nine 
o'clock  was  the  hour  set  for  adjournment,  and 
I recollect  noticing,  about  half-past  eight,  that 
the  clock  had  been  stopped — [laughter] — or  set 
back,  perhaps  both,  in  order  that  they  might 
get  bills  through  that  were  hanging  between 
the  two  houses,  some  of  which  I desired  myself 
to  defeat,  and  others,  which  I know  the  gentle- 
man from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  and  others,  desired 
to  defeat,  although  we  were  of  opposite  political 
parties.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms  was  directed  to 
start  the  clock  again,  and  he  did  so,  and  when 
the  hour  of  nine  came,  the  presiding  officer  was 
compelled,  by  the  joint  resolution,  to  declare 
the  body  adjourned,  and  I was  informed,  after- 
ward, that  after  the  adjournment  had  been 
declared,  that  some  of  the  bills  which  were 
required  to  be  signed  by  the  presiding  officers, 
were  signed  subsequently  to  adjournment. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I desire,  at  this  time,  to  say  a 
word. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I had  the  honor  of  being  the 
Presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  of  Ohio,  and  I 
desire,  now,  to  say  to  this  Convention,  and 


through  this  Convention  to  the  people  of  Ohio, 
that  there  was  no  bill  or  joint  resolution  signed 
after  I had  declared  the  Senate  of  Ohio  ad- 
journed. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Can  the  gentleman  speak 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I say  nothing  as  to  the  House. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Oh,  no;  I suppose  not. 
Well,  I will  ask  the  gentleman,  as  long  as  he  has 
arisen  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  it,  whether 
it  did  not  keep  him  busy  scratching  to  sign  the 
bills  presented  just  at  the  very  time  when  he 
had  to  proclaim  the  hour  of  nine  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman’s  time 
has  expired. 

Leave  was  given  the  gentleman  to  proceed. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I desire  to  say,  in  that  connec- 
tion, that  I did  go,  as  presiding  officer  of  that 
body,  to  the  extreme  limit  of  the  hour.  If  the 
clock  was  stopped  at  that  time,  I knew  nothing 
of  it.  But  I did  know  that  there  was  an  appro- 
propriation  bill  upon  which  depended  the 
maintenance  of  the  charitable  institutions  of 
the  State,  and  that  it  depended  upon  my  signa- 
ture to  make  it  a law,  and  I knew  that  if  that 
signature  were  not  given,  the  orphans  of  the 
soldiers  of  the  State  would  suffer ; and  it  was 
my  last  official  act  to  sign  that  appropriation 
bill,  in  order  that  I might,  as  presiding  officer 
of  that  Senate,  give  them  maintenance  and  sup- 
port. I was  very  glad  to  do  it  then,  and  it  is 
an  act  of  which  I am  proud  to-day. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I am  not  arraigning  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt].  I sim- 
ply state  these  facts  as  an  illustration  to  enforce 
the  argument  I am  making — that  bad  legislation 
may  be  run  through  in  these  last  night  ses- 
sions. If  there  are  railroad  rings,  or  canal 
rings,  or  public  institution  rings,  which  desire 
to  get  money  improperly  appropriated,  in  order 
that  they  may  have  fat  contracts,  they  will 
have  their  men  in  the  lobbies  watching  at  night 
to  bring  in  their  friends  to  be  there  at  the  clos- 
ing hour.  Now,  the  first  clause  of  this  amend- 
ment provides  that  those  bills  shall  be  present- 
ed to  the  Governor  three  days  before  the  sine 
die  adjournment. 

If  that  branch  of  it  be  adopted,  the  effect  will 
be  to  give  three  days  for  revision.  The  Gover- 
nor will  have  an  opportunity  to  revise  these 
laws  that  are  passed  at  the  closing  hours,  and 
see  whether  they  are  right.  He  will  have  an 
opportunity  of  revising,  and  it  will  take  away 
this  difficulty  of  hasty  legislation.  I am  op- 
posed to  giving  to  the  Executive  any  legislative 
power,  affirmatively  or  negatively.  I think  it 
does  not  belong  to  that  department.  I am  un- 
willing to  give  him  anything  more  than  the 
privilege  of  presenting  such  arguments  as 
may  occur  to  his  mind  against  the  legislation. 
I shall  not  go  back  into  the  history  of  the  veto 
power.  I would,  if  I were  well  enough  and 
had  time  enough.  I saw  a notice  in  a paper, 
in  tracing  the  history  of  our  worthy  President, 
went  back  to  the  days  of  the  ancient  Republic, 
and  showed  that  this  power  originated  in  the 
tribunes  of  the  people.  That  was  a veto.  I do 
not  profess  to  have  a mind  so  well  stored  in 
ancient  history  as  others,  but  there  was  where 
the  veto  power  was  claimed  by  the  people. 
Then  the  people  assembled,  and  when  the  Sen- 


1072 


LEGISLATION  DURING  CLOSING  HOURS  OF  SESSIONS.  [105th 

Campbell,  Hoadly,  Townsley.  [Wednesday, 


ate  passed  laws  that  were  wrong,  in  a m,ass 
meeting  they  pronounced  the  veto. 

Under  this  Constitution  we  have  lived  in 
Ohio  for  nearly  three  quarters  of  a century, 
and  there  has  been  no  serious  inconvenience 
resulting  to  the  people.  I have  not  heard  of  a 
single  man,  woman,  or  child  sending  here  a pe- 
tition asking  us  to  insert  the  veto  power  in  this 
new  Constitution.  I believe  if  you  were  to 
send  out  now  a member  of  this  body,  a cham- 
pion on  the  part  of  the  people,  and  one  against 
it,  to  any  of  the  rural  counties — the  counties  of 
Warren,  Butler,  or  Montgomery — and  call  a 
mass  meeting  of  the  people,  and  have  it  discuss- 
ed two  hours,  that  you  would  not  get  one  vote 
out  of  twenty  for  it. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  second  branch  of 
the  proposition  is  to  give  the  Governor  some- 
thing to  do.  Our  Governor  has  very  little 
power,  and  I think  we  are  none  the  worse  for 
that.  He  has  scarcely  enough  to  keep  his  mind 
employed.  I would  require  the  approval  of  the 
Governor  to  an  act  by  way  of  holding  him  re- 
sponsible for  the  proper  examination  of  the 
laws  that  are  passed  by  the  legislative  body, 
and  giving  him  the  power  to  send  his  reasons 
to  the  General  Assembly,  to  both  Houses.  This 
proposition  is,  to  some  extent,  the  object  of  my 
amendment;  but  if  I may  use  that  expression 
which  is  somewhat  common  in  connection  with 
the  currency,  it  is  an  elastic  veto.  We  hear  a 
good  deal  of  talk  about  an  elastic  currency. 
This  may  be  said  to  be  an  elastic  veto.  If  the 
Governor  does  not  approve  the  bill  that  has 
been  passed,  he  may  send  it  back  to  the  House 
in  which  it  originated,  with  his  objections  in 
writing,  if  he  sees  fit  to  communicate  them  in 
that  way;  but  if  he  prefers  to  go  before  the 
Senate  or  House  of  Representatives  and  give 
them  orally,  it  provides  that  he  may  do  that. 

Then,  Mr.  President,  after  these  arguments 
are  made  by  the  Governor,  either  orally  or  pre- 
sented in  writing,  he  will  have  discharged  his 
duty  in  sounding  the  alarm,  in  calling  the  at- 
tention of  legislators  to  the  objectionable  fea- 
tures of  the  bill.  And  upon  them  would  rest 
the  responsibility,  and  not  upon  the  Governor. 
And  I believe  that  we  shall  never  have  a Legis- 
lature where,  if  there  shall  have  been  hasty 
legislation,  or  improvident,  rash  legislation,  if 
their  attention  is  called  to  it  by  an  oral  or  by  a 
written  argument  of  the  Governor,  but  what 
they  will  retrace  their  steps  and  correct  them. 
But  I would  not  give  him,  as  this  bill  provides, 
a power  equal  to  eighty-four  members.  Three- 
fifths  of  a hundred  and  five,  I believe,  is  sixty- 
three;  and  three-fifths  of  thirty-six  members 
of  the  Senate  would  be  twenty-one.  That 
would  make  eighty-four.  And  you  propose  to 
give  to  the  Governor,  negatively,  a voice  in  the 
legislation  which  it  requires  eighty-four  votes 
to  overcome.  I will  clothe  no  one  man,  Mr. 
President,  with  such  powers  as  these.  I am 
perfectly  willing  to  give  him  an  opportunity  to 
present  his  objections  to  the  bill,  and  then  in 
favor  of  holding  legislators  responsible,  who 
are  elected  by  the  people  for  the  specific 
purpose  of  passing  laws.  I voted  for  the  prop- 
osition to  make  Senators  elective  every  two 


that  the  people,  when  they  have  elected  an  un- 
worthy servant  to  the  Senate  or  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, may,  at  the  next  annual  election, 
leave  him  out. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  proposition  of  the  del- 
egate from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  “indirect- 
ly,” is  equivalent,  I think,  and  I wish  to  ask  if 
that  be  so,  to  a direct  denial  to  the  General 
Assembly  of  a right  to  pass  a law  within  three 
days  before  its  adjournment,  except  a law 
which  it  passes  over  the  veto.  Am  I right  in 
that  construction  ? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I will  explain.  I have 
endeavored,  Mr.  President,  to  explain  the  mo- 
tive of  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  No,  sir,  excuse  the  word 
“ indirectly.”  I did  not  intend  to  impute  any- 
thing argumentative. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  intention  is  to  pre- 
vent the  Legislature  from  sending  to  the 
Governor  any  bill  within  the  last  three  days, 
with  a view  to  the  same  thing,  except  that  there 
are  three  extra  days.  If  they  would  fix  it  to 
adjourn  upon  the  third  day  of  February,  the 
last  day  of  January  would  be  the  last  day  on 
which  a bill  could  be  presented.  These  three 
days  then  would  be  given  for  the  Legislature 
to  transact  any  other  business  that  it  might  have, 
bring  up  its  Journals — they  are  never  brought 
up  before  the  adjournment,  and  not  for  a long 
while  afterwards — pass  resolutions,  settle  ac- 
counts and  various  things,  and  also  to  revise 
the  legislation  and  listen  to  such  arguments  as 
the  Governor  presented  for  the  reconsideration 
to  an  act  if  there  should  be  any,  where  the  Gov- 
ernor disapproved  an  act  upon  the  reconsidera- 
tion, to  give  the  additional  votes.  I think  the 
words  are  not  ambiguous. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I did  not  desire  to  suggest 
their  ambiguity,  but  ask  whether  the  conse- 
quence was  designed  by  him  which  struck  me 
as  being  likely  to  be  drawn.  I would  like  to 
ask  the  delegate, then,  whether  the  object  he  has 
in  view  in  this  part  of  his  substitute  would  not 
be  as  well  or  better  accomplished  by  a direct 
provision  that  the  General  Assembly  shall  pass 
no  bill,  except  over  a veto,  other  than  a bill 
sent  back  by  the  Governor  within  three  days 
before  its  adjournment. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I understand  that  to  be 
the  force  and  effect  of  the  proposition  as  it  is.  I 
freely  confess  that  I have  taken  a good  deal  of 
quinine  and  other  drugs,  and  my  head  is  not  as 
clear  as  it  might  be,  but  that  is  the  intention  of 
the  amendment.  I would  be  perfectly  willing 
that  it  should  embrace  the  idea.  If  it  is  thought 
no  act  shall  be  passed  or  sent  to  the  Governor 
within  the  last  three  days,  where  the  Governor 
has  sent  in  a disapproval,  there  will  be  a recon- 
sideration. It  would  be  a mere  reconsideration 
of  the  vote,  and  it  does  not  get  that,  for  I think 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  if 
he  will  carefully  examine  it,  will  see  that  it 
does  not  cut  off  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to 
vote  upon  a question  of  reconsideration. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]. 

Mr.  TOWNSLEY.  I move  that  we  take  a 
recess. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I wish  to  ask  for  the  yeas 


years,  instead  of  four.  I am  in  favor  of  having 
those  elections  as  often  as  possible  not  to  make 
it  inconvenient  and  expensive  to  the  people,  so  I and  nays. 


Day.] 

February  4,  1874.] 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hoadly,  Campbell,  Herron,  Townsley. 


1073 


The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
withdraw  his  motion  to  take  a recess? 

Mr.  TOWNSLEY.  I withdraw. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I,  for  one,  would  like  to 
have  some  opportunity  for  consideration  before 
being  compelled  to  vote  on  this.  It  was  with 
great  pleasure  that  I shouted  “leave”  and 
“agreed”  to  give  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell]  an  opportunity  of  being  heard, 
because  I sympathize  with  him  in  the  affliction 
of  his  illness.  And  if  it  is  proper,  I wish  that 
this  might  be  passed,  and  a vote  not  had  now. 
If  we  have  to  vote  to-day,  we  must  vote.  But 
is  it  not  practicable  to  go  to  the  first  section 
and  go  through  and  consider  this  section  here- 
after ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  has 
dispensed  with  the  rule  at  present,  on  the  re- 
quest of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell],  that  the  section  may  be  taken  up 
out  of  order. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Of  course,  Mr.  President, 
I must  not  be  misunderstood.  As  I said,  I re- 
gard this  as  one  of  the  most  important  duties 
which  we  have  to  discharge,  and  I should  be 
very  loth  to  force  the  Convention  hurriedly 
into  a vote.  My  indisposition,  or  situation,  is 
not  at  all  to  be  considered  in  connection  with 
the  proper  consideration  of  as  grave  a subject 
as  this. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I renew  the  motion 
to  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  (at  12  :20)  the 
Convention  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 :30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  before  the 
Convention  is  upon  agreeing  to  the  substitute 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]  to  section  eighteen. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I ask  for  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll,  and  the  fol- 
lowing members  answered  to  their  names  : 

Albright,  Alexander,  Bannon,  Barnet,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Campbell,  Car- 
bery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham, 
De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Foran,  Gardner, 
Greene,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCormick, 
Miller,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Riekly,Root,  Rus- 
sell of  Meigs,  Sample,  Scofield,  Scribner,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thomp- 
son, Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tut- 
tle, Yan  Voorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson,  Wea- 
ver, West,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
President — 68. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I move  that  all  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  There  is  a portion  of  the 
substitute  proposed  by  the  delegate  from  But- 
ler [Mr.  Campbell],  upon  which  his  views 
and  his  experience  are  such  as  to  commend 
it  to  the  most  careful  and  respectful  con- 
sideration of  this  Convention;  and  I must 
say  that,  as  far  as  I am  at  present  advised,  if  the 
delegate  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  had  pro- 

y.  n--70 


posed  to  limit  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to 
present  laws  to  the  Governor  for  his  approval 
to  that  portion  of  the  session  which  is  not  em- 
braced within  the  last  three  days,  I should  feel 
inclined  to  support  it.  If  any  practicable  plan 
can  be  devised  to  break  up  the  hurry  of  the 
last  part  of  the  session,  it  seems  to  me  that 
it  would  be  wise  to  adopt  it.  But  the  resi- 
due of  the  plan  of  the  delegate  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell]  amounts,  as  I understand  it, 
to  the  excision  of  the  most  useful  part  of 
the  veto.  It  leaves  the  Governor  with  the 
power,  orally  or  in  writing,  to  scold  the  Leg- 
islature for  having  passed  a law.  I do  not 
wish  to  be  understood  as  implying  any  dis- 
respect to  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]  by  using  this  phrase,  and  yeti  think 
it  describes,  substantially,  what  the  veto  may 
become  under  his  plan.  The  Governor  may,  by 
word  of  mouth,  or  in  writing,  rebuke  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  for  the  passage  of  a law,  and 
may  require  them  to  take  the  vote  over  again, 
and  that  is  the  end  of  it.  There  may  be  good 
in  it,  but  very  little  compared  with  a two-thirds 
or  three-fourths  veto. 

As  I listened  to  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell]  I was  carried  back  to  the  days 
of  my  youth,  when  this  question  of  veto  or  no 
veto,  was  a political  question  in  Ohio,  and  in 
the  United  States,  and  his  potent  voice  was 
heard  rallying  the  people  on  one  side,  while  the 
education  that  I received  was,  I must  say,  upon 
the  other;  and  I do  not  think,  though  I was 
very  immature  at  that  time,  and  he  much  more 
mature,  that  subsequent  consideration  and  re- 
flection have  altered  the  views  of  either  of  us. 
j Mr.  President,  the  history  of  Ohio  is  the  his- 
tory of  a State  without  a veto,  because  of  a mere 
fortuitous  series  of  circumstances.  The  refusal 
to  adopt  the  veto  was  not  an  independent  deter- 
mination by  the  people  of  Ohio.  The  people  of 
Ohio  never  did  it.  The  people  of  Ohio  never 
were  consulted  in  the  formation  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  1802  at  all.  The  men  that  made  that 
Constitution  refused  to  submit  it  to  the  people; 
and  for  fifty  years  it  was  the  organic  law  of 
Ohio,  without  ever  having  received  the  appro- 
val of  the  people  at  all.  So  I say  that  the  fact 
that,  in  our  history,  from  1802  to  1851,  there 
was  no  veto,  was  not  the  result  of  a determina- 
tion of  the  people  of  Ohio,  in  their  early  history, 
as  I shall  prove  presently,  by  reading  some  ex- 
tracts from  the  historian  of  the  early  times  of 
the  State.  So  much  only  by  way  of  meeting 
that  portion  of  the  argument. 

For  one,  I desire  the  veto  in  Ohio,  with  the 
right  of  two-thirds  of  the  Legislature  to  over- 
rule it,  and  not  of  three-fifths.  If  I cannot  get 
two-thirds,  I shall  take  three-fifths.  If  I can- 
not get  three-fifths,  rather  than  have  none,  I 
shall  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the  delegate 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  although  I regard 
it  as  but  little  better — still  it  islbetter — than  no 
veto  at  all.  So  much  of  objection  to  it  as  is 
found  in  that  fact,  that  it  omits  the  joint  and 
several  character  of  the  proposition,  it  is  not 
worth  while  now  to  discuss.  It  was  fully  dis- 
cussed this  forenoon.  The  point  that  I wish  to 
make  upon  it  is  this,  that  it  simply  confines  the 
power  of  the  Governor  to  compel  a recurrence 
and  a re-vote  in  the  Legislature.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, if  the  people  of  Ohio  were  prepared  to  sit 


1074 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hoadly,  Ewing,  West. 


down  and  frame  an  organic  law  which  should 
define  and  limit  the  powers  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, which  should  secure  my  liberty  and 
that  of  my  fellow-citizens  against  the  invasions 
of  the  General  Assembly,  I should  not  feel  half 
the  interest  in  the  subject  that  I do;  but  your 
Constitution,  from  the  time  of  its  adoption  in 
1802  down  to  the  present  time,  has  conferred 
upon  the  Legislature  of  Ohio,  except  in  a very 
few  respects,  an  unqualified  power  over  the 
liberties  of  the  people  of  Ohio,  and  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Legislative  Department  now  propose 
to  continue  in  the  General  Assembly  the  sove- 
reign power — a power,  sir,  which  is  restricted 
and  restrained  by  the  very  few  restrictions  and 
limitations  to  be  found  in  the  Preamble  and 
Bill  of  Eights. 

The  first  section  of  the  proposed  Article  on 
the  Legislative  Department  says,  the  legislative 
power  of  this  State  shall  be  vested  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly;  and  there  is  no  lawyer  within 
hearing  of  my  voice  who  does  not  know  that 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  have  decided,  time 
and  again,  that  this  delegation  of  power  to  the 
General  Assembly  is  an  absolute  delegation  of 
all  power  within  the  State,  except  so  far  as  it 
may  be  restrained  by  the  inhibitions  of  the 
State  Constitution,  or  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  legislative  power? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  legislative  power,  pre- 
cisely; but  the  power  to  legislate  is  the  power 
to  direct  execution.  It  is  a power  to  compel 
administration;  and  there  is  not,  to-day,  any 
thing  between  the  people  of  Ohio  and  the  worst 
species  of  sumptuary  laws — a law  fixing  the 
price  of  bread — a law  fixing  the  price  of  clothing 
— any  species  of  sumptuary  law,  regulating  the 
habits  of  the  people — there  is  nothing  between 
us  and  such  laws , except  the  good  sense  of  the 
General  Assembly;  and,  upon  one  subject,  at 
least,  the  adoption  of  sumptuary  laws  is  a mat- 
ter of  principle  with  a very  large  number  of 
the  people  of  Ohio,  and,  perhaps,  to  a majority 
of  the  members  of  this  Convention.  I refer  to 
the  subject  of  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors. 
Now,  with  this  terrible  grant — for  it  is  a terri- 
ble grant  of  power — I am  for  the  veto  power,  as 
a protection  to  individual  liberty.  My  politics 
are,  individual  liberty,  against  the  State;  State 
rights,  against  Federal  encroachments.  And,  for 
one,  because  I believe  that  the  Governor  is  much 
more  the  representative  of  the  people  than  a 
member  from  a single  county,  or  a majority  of 
the  members,  from  a majority  of  the  counties  in 
the  State,  I feel  inclined  to  confide  to  him  the 
power  to  exercise  a check  upon  the  Legislature 
— for  this  is  all  it  is — which  is  involved  in  send- 
ing a proposition  back  to  be  passed  by  a two- 
thirds  vote. 

Our  Governor  is  elected  by  the  people  of  the 
whole  State.  What  share  have  I in  the  election 
of  Representatives  in  Cuyahoga  county?  The 
people  in  this  county  have  not  the  same  habits, 
the  same  education,  the  same  pursuits  as  the 
people  of  the  Western  Reserve,  and  the  people 
of  the  Western  Reserve,  uniting  with  other 
counties  in  the  State,  have  the  absolute  right, 
under  this  delegation  of  legislative  power,  to 
bind,  hand  and  foot,  the  people  of  Hamilton 
county,  so  far  as  the  inhibitions  of  the  State 
and  Federal  Constitution  do  not  prevent.  But 


[105tll 

[Wednesday, 


the  Governor  of  Ohio,  we  have  a right  to  vote 
for.  He  is  our  servant,  by  our  choice;  and  I 
submit  that  he  does  not  stand  in  the  position  of 
a monarch.  He  does  not  stand  in  the  position 
of  one  holding  power  by  hereditary  right  or 
military  seizure,  but  he  is  the  servant  of  our 
very  choice;  whereas,  with  a majority  of  the 
members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  it 
often  may  happen,  and  always  almost  has  hap- 
pened, some  in  questions  dividing  opinion, 
that  in  the  adoption  of  the  law,  the  people  of 
some  partion  of  the  State  are  not  sharers,  in  any 
respect,  except  by  protest  against  it  through 
their  members  in  the  minority  voting  against 
it;  and  if  minority  representation  be  denied, 
when  that  question  shall  be  reached,  when  we 
come  to  the  discussion  of  representation,  and 
I can  shake  hands  freely  with  my  friend  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  if  the  majority  of  this 
Convention  deny  minority  representation — so 
much  the  stronger  will  become  the  argument. 
And  I care  not  if  it  be  said  that  this  is  the 
thousand-and-first  time  that  my  friend  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  has  heard  it;  that  the 
old  veto  power,  the  power  of  the  tribunes  of 
the  people,  was  in  the  hands  of  Andrew  Jack- 
son,  was  in  the  hands  of  John  Tyler,  and  would 
be  in  the  hands  of  the  Governor  of  Ohio,  a 
power  to  be  exercised  for  the  protection  of  the 
people. 

Mr.  President,  Judge  Burnet  states  how  it 
came  to  pass  that  the  power  of  the  veto  was 
not  introduced 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Mr.  WEST.  I believe  it  was  understood  that 
by  common  consent,  when  this  section  was 
under  discussion,  the  rule  should  be  suspended. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  that  is  the  under- 
standing, the  gentleman  may  proceed. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I read  from  page  350  of 
Burnet’s  Notes  on  the  North-western  Territory : 

“Tt  is  a fact,  worthy  of  some  notice,  that  those  who  ad- 
vocated the  immediate  formation  of  a State  government 
were  unwilling  to  refer  the  decision  of  that  question  to 
the  Legislature  of  the  Territory,  or  to  take  the  opinion  of 
the  inhabitants,  whether  a Convention  should  be  called 
or  not.  As  the  safer  way  to  accomplish  their  purpose,  they 
petitioned  Congress  to  take  the  power  into  their  own 
hands,  and  order  a Convention,  without  consulting  either 
the  Legislature  or  the  people  of  the  district. 

“The  application  of  those  individuals,  unauthorized  as 
it  was,  by  any  legitimate  authority,  recognized  in  the  dis- 
trict, was  sustained,  and  Congress  proceeded,  forthwith, 
to  pass  a law,  not  only  authorizing,  but  in  pretty  plain 
terms  urging  the  people  of  the  eastern  division  of  the 
Territory  to  form  a Constitution  and  State  government. 
That  law  prescribed  the  boundaries  of  the  State,  fixed  the 
number  of  members  of  which  the  Convention  should  con- 
sist, and  apportioned  the  number  to  be  chosen  to  each 
county.  It  also  changed  the  qualifications  of  electors, 
prescribed  by  the  ordinance,  and  appointed  the  time  and 
place  of  holding  the  election.” 

On  page  359, 1 read  again  with  regard  to  the 
work  that  the  Convention  did : 

“Probably  there  is  no  article  in  the  Constitution  that 
strikes  the  reader  with  more  surprise  than  that  which  de- 
fines the  powers  of  the  Governor.  They  are  so  limited 
and  restricted  as  to  be  almost  nominal.  It  is  made  his 
duty  to  recommend  to  the  consideration  of  the  Assembly, 
such  matters  as  he  shall  think  proper.  He  may  fill  va- 
cancies in  office,  happening  in  the  recess  of  the  General 
Assembly,  till  the  end  of  their  next  session.  He  may  re- 
prieve or  pardon  convicts;  and  is  authorized  to  appoint 
the  Adjutant  General  of  the  State;  but  he  cannot  inter- 
fere in  any  form,  with  the  action  of  the  Legislature,  or 
check  for  a single  hour  the  most  improvident,  or  uncon- 
stitutional movements  of  that  body.  He  has  not  any  par- 
ticipation in  the  appointing  power.  He  is  not  permitted 
to  imminate  candidates  for  office;  nor  can  he  remove  an 
I officer,  or  even  suspend  his  functions,  temporarily,  how- 


THE  VETO  POWEB 


1075 


Day.] 

February  4, 1874.]  Hoadly. 


ever  mischievous  his  conduct  in  office  may  be.  It  has  been 
intimated,  heretofore,  that  this  parsimonious  delegation  of 
power  to  the  Chief  Executive  may  be  attributed  to  a 
recollection  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Governor  of  the 
Territory  had  executed  the  powers  confided  to  him  by 
the  ordinance.  That  example  was  before  their  eyes;  and 
it  was  natural  to  expect,  that  while  they  were  studiously 
aiming  to  avoid  one  extreme,  they  would  fall  into  the 
other.” 

On  page  362,  with  reference  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  Judge 
Burnet  says : 

“A  view  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Convention  was 
called,  and  the  condition  of  the  Territory  at  the  time 
necessarily  give  rise  to  some  interesting  reflections. 
There  was  a Territorial  Legislature  then  in  existence, 
vested  with  full  and  complete  legislative  power,  which 
had  never  been  consulted  on  the  subject.  About  one- 
third  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  were  also  mem- 
bers of  that  Assembly.  No  power  had  been  given  to  Con- 
gress, in  the  ordinance  or  elsewhere,  to  interfere  with  the 
local  legislation  of  the  Territory,  after  the  establishment 
of  the  second  grade  of  government.  The  formation  of  a 
State  Constitution,  belonged  wholly  to  the  people  ot  the 
Territory,  and  their  Legislature,  neither  of  whom  had 
been  permitted  to  take  part  in  the  movement.  When  the 
people  of  the  district  amounted  to  sixty  thousand  in  num- 
ber, they  were  authorized  to  form  a Constitution  on  Re- 

ublican  principles,  and  become  a member  of  the  Union. 

rior  to  that  time,  it  was  understood  that  Congress  had 
power  to  permit  the  formation  of  a State  government;  but 
that,  when  that  permission  had  been  granted,  their  power 
was  exhausted.  As  to  everything  else,  connected  with 
that  subject,  the  Legislature  and  people  of  the  district 
had  the  exclusive  right  cf  prescribing  and  acting. 

“In  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of  the  view  here 
presented,  the  reader  is  requested  to  pause,  and  examine 
the  Appendix  annexed,  marked  K,  where  he  will 'find 
that  Mr.  Fearing,  the  delegate  then  representing  the  Ter- 
ritory in  Congress,  resisted  the  proposition  for  calling  a 
Convention,  on  the  same  grounds  which  are  here  stated 
—that  neither  the  people  of  the  Territory  at  large,  nor 
their  representatives  in  the  General  Assembly,  had  been 
consulted;  and  that  the  project  before  Congress  was 
neither  more  nor  less  than  a mandate  directing  the  citi- 
zens to  elect  a Convention;  and  ordering  that  body,  when 
assembled,  if  they  assented  to  the  conditions  proposed,  to 
proceed  and  form  a Constitution  for  the  people  of  the  Ter- 
ritory, without  ascertaining  whether  it  met  the  views  of 
the  majority  of  them  or  not.  The  reader  will  also  find 
that  other  members  of  Congress  viewed  the  project  in  the 
same  light,  and  opposed  it  for  the  same  cause;  and  that 
the  people  of  the  Territory  expressed  the  same  opinion  at 
their  public  meetings.  Yet  Congress,  without  consulting 
either,  ordered  a Convention,  and  directed  all  the  details 
concerning  it. 

“The  law  they  passed  extended  the  right  of  suffrage  to 
almost  every  person  residing  in  the  territory;  which  was 
a violation  of  so  much  of  the  ordinance  as  related  to  that 
subject.  The  authority  of  the  people,  and  their  immedi- 
ate representatives,  was  broken  down— the  power  of  the 
general  government  set  up  in  its  place,  and  a course  pur- 
sued which  was  completely  revolutionary  in  its  character 
and  tendency.  It  was,  however,  submitted  to,  and  no 
efforts  were  made  to  retard  or  embarrass  the  movements 
of  the  majority,  after  Congress  had  taken  the  manage- 
ment of  the  matter  into  their  own  hands.  Indeed,  such  an 
attempt,  if  it  had  been  made,  would  have  been  useless. 
That  being  the  case,  one  would  suppose  that  the  Constitu- 
tion, formed  under  such  circumstances,  by  an  authority  so 
remote  from  the  people,  would  have  been  submitted  to 
their  consideration,  to  be  accepted  or  rejected  at  their 
pleasure.  Such,  however,  was  not  the  fact.  The  resolu- 
tion offered  for  that  purpose  was  voted  down,  and  the  in- 
strument was  declared  to  be  obligatory  on  all  concerned, 
nolens  volens .” 

On  page  374, 1 read : 

“The  manner  in  which  he  [General  St.  Clair]  discharged 
the  duties  appertaining  to  the  office  of  Governor  of  the 
Territory  from  1787  till  1802,  inclusive,  and  of  commander 
of  the  western  army  in  1791,  may  be  collected  from  the 
preceding  narrative;  yet  a concise  recapitulation  of  some 
of  the  occurrences  in  the  official  course  of  that  distin- 
guished man,  while  administering  the  civil  government 
of  the  Territory,  cannot  be  uninteresting. 

“During  the  continuance  of  the  first  grade  of  that  im- 
perfect government,  he  enjoyed  the  respect  and  confidence 
of  every  class  of  people.  He  was  plain  and  simple  in  his 
dress  and  equipage,  open  and  frank  in  his  manners,  and 
accessible  to  persons  of  every  rank.  In  these  respects  he 
exhibited  a striking  contrast  with  the  Secretary,  Colonel 
Sargeant;  and  that  contrast,  in  some  measure,  incceased 


his  popularity,  which  he  retained  unimpaired  till  the 
commencement  of  the  first  Legislature.  During  that 
session  he  manifested  a strong  desire  to  enlarge  his  own 
powers,  and  restrict  those  of  the  Assembly;  which  was 
the  more  noticed,  as  he  had  opposed  the  usurpations  of 
the  Legislative  Council,  composed  of  himself,  or  in  his 
absence,  the  Secretary,  and  the  judges  of  the  general 
court;  and  had  taken  an  early  opportunity  of  submitting 
his  views  on  that  subject  to  the  General  Assembly. 

“The  first  symptom  of  a desire  to  extend  his  power, 
was  seen  in  the  construction  he  gave  to  some  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  ordinance,  the  tendency  of  which  was  to 
confine  the  action  of  the  Legislature,  as  for  example:  the 
ordinance  made  it  his  duty,  as  Governor,  to  proceed,  from 
time  to  time,  as  circumstances  might  require,  to  lay  out 
the  parts  of  the  district,  in  which  the  Indian  title  had 
been  extinguished,  into  counties  and  townships,  subject, 
however,  to  such  alterations  as  might  thereafter  be  made 
by  the  Legislature.  Although  the  entire  Territory,  sub- 
ject to  his  action,  had  been  laid  out  into  counties,  prior  to 
the  meeting  of  the  Legislature  in  1799,  yet  he  claimed  the 
exclusive  right  of  creating  new  counties,  by  the  division 
and  alteration  of  existing  ones. 

“In  opposition  to  that  assumption,  the  Legislature  in- 
sisted that  his  power  was  exhausted  by  what  he  had 
already  done;  and  that  the  right  of  altering  existing 
counties  was  vested  in  their  body,  subject  to  his  veto. 

“In  accordance  with  that  view  they  proceeded  to  pass 
bills  for  that  purpose,  and  sent  them  to  the  Governor  for 
his  concurrence.  He  not  only  withheld  his  approval,  but 
retained  them  in  his  hands  till  the  close  of  the  session, 
when  he  sent  a written  communication  to  the  Assembly, 
couched  in  offensive  language,  remonstrating  against 
their  proceedings  as  an  usurpation  of  power,  which  was 
contrary  to  his  usual  custom. 

“He  intimated,  in  pi-etty  plain  terms,  a want  of  confi- 
dence in  the  judgment  and  discretion  of  the  Assembly  in 
deciding  when  the  number  of  inhabitants,  or  the  situa- 
tion of  the  district,  rendered  it  necessary  or  proper  to  al- 
ter or  divide  it,  and  thereby  establish  a new  county;  and 
as  if  anxious  to  make  his  power  more  sensibly  felt,  he 
proceeded  immediately  to  create  and  organize  new  coun- 
ties out  of  old  ones,  varying  somewhat  from  the  plan 
adopted  by  the  Assembly;  and  to  establish  them  by  pro- 
clamation, without  consulting  the  Legislature. 

“On  the  ground  that  the  section  in  the  ordinance,  creat- 
ing the  General  Assembly,  declared  that  it  should  consist 
of  the  Governor,  Legislative  Council,  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, and  that  the  former  should  have  an  absolute 
veto  on  the  proceedings  of  the  two  Houses;  he  claimed  to 
be  a co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Legislature,  vested  with 
full  discretion  to  decide  on  the  propriety  and  expediency 
of  all  their  acts,  placing  his  own  opinion,  in  every  case, 
in  opposition  to  the  judgment  and  experience  of  both 
Houses. 

“The  effect  of  the  construction  he  gave  of  his  own 
powers,  may  be  seen  in  the  fact  that  of  the  thirty  bills, 
passed  by  the  two  Houses  during  the  first  session,  and 
sent  to  him  for  his  approval,  he  refused  his  assent  to 
eleven,  some  of  which  were  supposed  to  be  of  much  im- 
portance, and  all  of  them  calculated,  more  or  less,  to  ad- 
vance the  public  interest.  Home  of  them  he  rejected,  be- 
cause they  related  to  the  establishment  of  new  counties; 
others  because  he  thought  they  were  unnecessary  or  in- 
expedient. Thus  more  than  a third  of  the  fruit  of  the 
labor  of  that  entire  session  was  lost  by  the  exercise  of  the 
arbitrary  discretion  ot  one  man. 

“In  one  of  his  communications  he  begged  the  Assembly 
to  remember  that  he  was  a co-ordinate  branch  of  their 
body,  and  had  a right  to  receive  copies  of  all  bills,  re- 
ported in  either  House,  as  soon  as  they  were  piinted  and 
furnished  to  the  members.  It  was  understood  and  known 
that  no  act  of  the  Assembly  could  receive  the  force  of  a 
law  without  his  consent— that  his  veto  was  absolute  and 
final,  and  that  it  gave  him  a perfect  control  over  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  law-making  power;  but  it  was  not  admitted 
for  a moment  that  he  had  a right  to  engage  in  the  delib- 
erations, or  interfere  in  any  manner  with  the  transac- 
tions of  their  body;  or  to  require  them  to  communicate 
with  him  on  any  measure  pending  in  either  House,  as 
they  did  with  each  other;  yet  to  gratify  his  feelings  a joint 
order  was  immediately  made,  directing  the  officers  to 
send  the  bills  as  he  had  desired.” 

It  would  take  much  more  time  than  I have,  to 
continue  the  reading  of  this  interesting  passage 
from  an  early  history.  I have  read  enough  to 
show  that  what  Judge  Burnet  said  is  true  : that 
in  the  recoil  from  one  extreme,  which  was, 
that  the  Governor  had  an  absolute  veto, without 
check,  the  Constitutional  Convention  rushed 
into  the  other  extreme,  depriving  the  Governor 
of  all  veto  power ; and  then  this  Constitutional 


1076 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hoadly,  Campbell,  Voris. 


[105th 


Convention  of  Ohio  forced  the  Constitution 
upon  the  people,  against  the  protest  of  the 
people,  in  primary  assemblies,  and  by  petitions, 
against  the  voice  of  their  delegates  in  Congress. 
They  refused  to  submit  their  work  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  for  fifty  years,  this  extreme  measure, 
adopted  out  of  personal  hatred  to  General  Ar- 
thur St.  Clair,  and  out  of  dislike  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  had  exercised  his  absolute  veto, 
became  a part  of  the  law  of  Ohio,  and  was 
encrusted  in  the  history  of  Ohio ; so  that,  at  last, 
what  was  originally,  as  Judge  Burnet  justly 
calls  it,  an  extreme  step,  became  a part  of  con- 
servatism to  maintain. 

Now,  I submit  that  in  the  history  of  the  State 
there  is  nothing  to  justify  our  refusing  to  adopt 
the  plan  of  the  fathers  of  our  Federal  Consti- 
tution, upon  which  Alexander  Hamilton,  as 
well  as  James  Madison  agreed;  upon  which 
Patterson,  of  New  Jersey,  as  well  as  Edmund 
Randolph  agreed;  to  which,  in  order  to  de- 
prive it  of  its  force,  Thomas  Jefferson  offered 
no  amendment,  for  that  subject  was  never  after- 
wards sought  to  be  amended — I submit  that  that 
upon  which  Jefferson,  Randolph,  Madison 
and  Patterson  agreed,  and  which  has  ever 
since  been,  and  is  to-day,  the  law  of  the  land ; 
for  the  abolition  of  which  a great  political 
party*once  strove,  inscribing  upon  its  banners, 
“No  more  veto,”  but  which  as  a principle  is  no 
longer  heard,  of,  and  which  has  ceased  to  be 
numbered  among  men  as  a principle  worthy  of 
political  action — I submit  that  by  the  fact  of  the 
concurrence  of  the  wisest  of  the  fathers,  by  the 
fact  that  the  Whig  party  when  it  undertook  to 
abolish  the  veto  power  failed,  and  to-day  no 
voice  is  heard  for  its  excision  from  the  Federal 
Constitution.  I submit  that  by  the  history  of 
the  veto,  as  administered  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States — I recall  the  Marysville  road 
veto,  I recall  the  bank  veto  with  pride — they  are 
a part  of  the  proud  heritage  which  I have  in 
the  history  of  my  country,  of  the  wise  exercise 
of  the  judicious  powers  entrusted  by  our  fathers 
to  the  President.  I submit  that  by  all  these  ar- 
guments we  have  proved  that  in  this  Constitu- 
tion, by  giving  a two-thirds  or  a three-fifths 
veto  to  the  Governor,  we  are  providing  a power 
to  protect  our  people  against  representative  in- 
vasion of  individual  liberty. 

Gentlemen  talk  about  the  right  as  if  the 
Legislature  alone  represented  the  people.  The 
Governor  as  well  represents  them,  and  the  Leg- 
islature are  as  capable,  and  more  so,  of  an  in- 
vasion of  their  property  as  is  the  Governor. 
How  is  it  in  Kentucky,  in  New  York,  in  Penn- 
sylvania? Has  the  right  of  the  veto,  exercised 
this  last  year  by  Governor  Hartranft  of  Penn- 
sly  vania,  between  sixty  and  eighty  times,  been 
taken  away  from  him  ? Has  it  been  taken  from 
the  Governor  of  New  York?  Do  the  people  of 
Kentucky  propose  to  deprive  their  Governor  of 
it?  Not  at  all.  Proud  and  satisfied  with  the 
result,  is  the  verdict  of  State  history  in  every 
case  in  which  the  State  Constitution  has  con- 
ferred the  veto.  And  my  friend,  who  opposes 
the  veto,  will  look  in  vain  for  the  case  of  a 
State  which  has  risen  in  rebellion  against 
the  veto  power%as  confided  to  its  Governor,  and 
taken  it  from  him.  It  is  simply  because  by  a 
chapter  of  accidents,  an  old  military  hero 
waged  war  against  the  territorial  Assembly  in  I 


[Wednesday, 


early  times  in  Ohio,  and  by  another  chapter  of 
accidents  the  Constitutional  Convention,  by  his 
enemies,  refused  to  submit  their  work  to  the 
people,  that  we  are  in  this  condition  in  Ohio, 
that  he  who  is  the  representative  of  all  the  peo- 
ple has  not  a word  to  say  about  the  work  of  leg- 
islation ; but  that  the  work  of  legislation  was 
agreed  on  by  a majority  of  the  Representatives 
of  the  people  elected  from  the  several  counties. 
I submit  that  the  true  political  philosophy  is 
not  to  give  the  absolute  veto  that  Governor  St. 
Clair  had;  but  to  give  a qualified  veto ; a veto 
that  will  be  a check  on  over-legislation,  that 
the  very  thing  which  my  friend  from  Butler, 
[Mr.  Campbell],  desires  to  prevent  by  his  three 
days,  may  be  more  effectually  accomplished,  so 
that  it  may  apply  no  more  to  the  three  days, 
than  to  the  whole  session. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I wish  to  suggest  that  the 
proposition  does  not  confine  the  Governor  to 
three  days.  If  the  bill  be  passed,  during  the 
session,  he  can  send  in  his  reasons  for  vetoing  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  delegate  is  right,  and 
either  he  has  not  understood  me,  or  I have  not 
expressed  myself  as  clearly  as,  in  the  warmth 
of  debate,  I ought.  What  I desire  to  call  to  my 
aid  in  the  argument  is  the  zeal  with  which  the 
delegate  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  argued 
against  hasty  legislation  in  the  last  three  days, 
and  I wish  to  claim  that  it  might  be  well  to  adopt 
such  a principle  as  a qualified  veto,  which,  after 
all,  is  often,  if  there  be  a difference  between  the 
Governor  and  the  Legislature,  only  an  appeal 
to  the  sovereign  tribunal  — the  people.  You 
propose  to  make  your  Governor  hold  office  but 
two  years.  As  the  Convention  is  now  of  opinion, 
the  Legislature  will  hold  office  but  two  years. 
Your  veto,  even  if  the  Governor  is  sustained  by  a 
failure  on  the  part  of  two-thirds  to  pass  the  law, 
is  but  an  appeal  to  the  people  for  a decision, 
which  must  come  within  two  years.  I submit 
for  all  of  these  reasons,  that  the  two-thirds  veto 
is  the  principle  we  should  introduce. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Can  the  gentleman  give  an  in- 
stance where  the  veto  power  has  been  exercised 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  people? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I cannot. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Is  there  such  on  record  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  believe  there  is,  in 
the  history  of  the  United  States,  or  in  that  of 
any  of  the  States.  I never  heard  of  it,  and  that 
accounts  for  the  fact  that  when  the  Whig  party 
made  its  appeal  to  the  people,  in  1844,  against 
the  veto,  they  died.  They  died  with  the  words, 
“ no  veto,”  engraved  on  their  shield.  The  peo- 
ple would  not  follow  them,  and  they  failed.  The 
people  of  the  United  States,  and  of  this  State,  I 
respectfully  submit,  will  sustain  a measure,  the 
necessary  effect  of  which  is  to  counteract,  in 
some  degree,  the  general  habit  of  hasty  legisla- 
tion, over-legislation,  and  rotten  legislation. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  gentleman  referred 
a moment  ago  to  the  political  campaign  of  1840. 
The  question  of  veto  was  made  squarely  an  is- 
sue between  Harrison  and  Van  Buren,andit 
strikes  me  that  Harrison  was  elected  by  an 
overwhelming  majority. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I was  a boy  fourteen  years 
of  age  at  that  time,  and  I took  just  as  lively  an 
interest  in  what  was  going  on,  as  a mischievous 
boy  at  that  age  might,  and  I venture  to  say,  if 
my  friend  will  take  out  the  singing  and  hard 


Day.]  THE  VETO  POWER.  1077 

February  4, 1874.]  Hoadly,  Campbell,  Carbery,  Burns,  Root. 


•cider,  and  the  log  cabins,  and  the  coon  skins, 
that  General  Harrison  would  have  been  beaten 
to  death  in  that  election. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  the  gentleman  will  al- 
low me,  I think  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  fact 
that  General  Jackson  whipped  the  British  at 
New  Orleans,  he  would  not  have  been  elected, 
and,  I think,  perhaps,  if  it  had  not  been  that 
General  Harrison  whipped  the  Indians  and 
British  at  Tippecanoe,  on  the  plains,  he  would 
not  have  been  elected. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Undoubtedly,  I thank  my 
friend  for  the  concession. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Going  the  whole  hog  for 
“Old  Hickory”  carried  him  through,  and  prob- 
ably coon  skins  and  hard  cider  carried  Harri- 
son through. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  has  admitted 
that  coon  skins,  hard  cider,  and  the  battle  of 
Tippecanoe  did  it. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Helped  do  it.  The  point 
I make  is  this:  That  the  veto  was  every  where 
made  an  issue.  It  was  upon  the  banners  of  the 
Whig  party  of  1840. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  And  I remind  my  Whig 
friend  of  this,  as  Martin  Van  Buren  once  said, 
“the  sober  second  thought  of  the  people  is  al- 
ways right,”  and  after  1840,  when  John  Tyler 
had  no  friends  to  his  back,  except  Caleb  Cush- 
ing, Henry  A.  Wise,  and  enough  more  to  make 
a corporal’s  guard,  when  he  tried  on  the  veto 
power,  my  friend  and  his  friends  went  to  the 
people  with  Henry  Clay,  the  great  opponent 
of  the  veto,  as  a candidate  for  President  in  1844, 
and  on  the  question  of  veto  or  no  veto,  went 
down,  and  their  favorite  principle  of  no  veto 
has  never  emerged  since. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  inquire  what  became  of  his  friend  John 
Tyler,  who  exercised  his  veto  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  veto  lived,  although 
Tyler  died. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  He  never  was  heard  of 
again,  and  will  not  be  until  Gabriel  blows  his 
last  horn. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  No;  thank  God  for  that. 
The  last  I heard  of  him  he  was  a rebel  before 
he  died,  and  was  down  on  a neck  of  worn-out 
land  in  Virginia,  this  side  of  Chesapeake  Bay. 
But  the  veto  lived. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Did  his  rebellion  consist 
in  his  adhering  to  what  the  gentleman  stated 
he  was  in  favor  of,  State  Rights? 

Mr  HOADLY.  His  rebellion  consisted  in 
his  adhering  to  State  Sovereignty.  Did  I say 
State  Sovereignty  ? I said  State  Rights,  not  State 
wrongs. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I submit  that  it  is  unfair  to 
discuss  the  merits  of  Harrison,  Jackson,  and 
Tyler,  without  giving  them  a chance  to  be 
heard. 

Mr.  PRATT.  They  have  got  some  friends 
here. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  not  objecting  to 
interrogatories,  but  I tell  my  colleague 
Mr.  [Carbery],  that  he  and  I agree  on 
most  subjects;  but  he  is  troubled  on  a 
point  that  I was  a little  surprised  to  hear 
him  trouble  himself  about,  that  I prefer 
individual  liberty  to  State  encroachments, 
State  rights  to  Federal  encroachments.  I 
do  not  propose  to  be  caught  in  committing 


myself  to  what  I do  not  believe  in,  State  Sover- 
eignty. No,  Mr.  President,  though  the  ques- 
tion of  what  my  politics  are,  has  nothing  to  do 
with  this  thing,  I can  tell  the  gentleman  that  I 
stand  on  Jackson’s  proclamation  and  force  bill 
which  was  the  Democratic  doctrine  in  1833, 
although  it  had  a little  vacation  at  one  time,  by 
the  aid  of  my  friend,  during  the  last  war.  I 
trust  to  God  that  the  national  principles  which 
underlie  the  proclamation  and  force  bill  are 
again  true  Democratic  principles  as  in  the  days 
of  Andrew  Jackson  and  Martin  Van  Buren. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Some  gentlemen  deem  it  of  great 
Democratic  importance  to  vest  the  Governor 
with  a veto  power.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I believe 
I have  always  been  more  anxious  to  do  what  is 
right  than  to  accomplish  that  which  is  either 
Republican  or  Democratic.  I have  often 
thought  of  the  advice  that  Lord  Mansfield  gave 
to  his  military  friend,  who  had  been  appointed 
Governor  of  a certain  island  colony,  and  who 
went  to  him  for  his  congratulations,  saying,  that 
he  had  served  his  king,  as  a soldier,  until  he  was 
more  than  three  score,  and  now,  thank  God,  his 
gracious  master  had  made  him  comfortable  for 
the  rest  of  his  life;  for,  although  the  climate  of 
his  island  was  rather  unhealthy,  he  had  served 
in  India,  and  even  if  he  died  soon  he  would  die 
happy.  The  next  day  he  came  back  to  the  great 
chief  justice  and  said — for  they  were  on  very 
intimate  terms : “Why,  Willie,”  (not,  my  Lord), 
“ there  is  a mistake  about  this  governorship.  I 
cannot  take  it.  I have  learned  that  the  Gover- 
nor of  that  island  is,  ex-officio , the  chancellor. 
Now,  my  God,  what  could  I do  as  chancellor?” 
“ It  is  the  very  thing  for  you,”  said  Lord  Mans- 
field. “ Do  right  in  all  cases,  and  nine  times 
out  of  ten,  you  will  hit  the  law.  In  the  tenth 
instance,  if  you  fail  to  hit  the  law,  you  will  hit 
where  the  law  ought  to  be.” 

Perhaps  if  we  were  all  more  solicitous  to 
make  our  actions  conform  to  the  right,  than  to 
any  party  creed,  we  should  do  our  constituents 
better  service.  It  was  through  Democratic- 
Jeffersonian  influence  that  the  veto  was  left  out 
of  the  Constitution  of  1802.  A majority  of  the 
people  were  Democrats, and  their  Democracy  was 
of  the  true  Jeffersonian  stamp.  The  way  Gov- 
ernor St.  Clair  had  used  and  abused  the  veto 
disgusted  them  with  the  whole  thing.  They 
dreaded  St.  Clair’s  influence  over  the  territo- 
rial Legislature,  and  they  determined  to  get 
around  it.  Hence,  they  proceeded  to  elect 
delegates  to  a Convention,  who  formed  a Con- 
stitution, without  asking  leave  from  either  the 
territorial  Legislature  or  Congress.  The  veto 
was  carefully  excluded  from  the  Constitution 
thus  framed,  and  was  approved  by  the  people; 
and  under  it  Ohio  was  admitted  into  the  Union 
of  States;  and  for  the  next  quarter  of  a century 
there  was  not  a more  Democratic  State  in  the 
Union.  Whether  our  ancestors  of  that  time 
were  right  or  wrong  is  not  a question  here.  My 
opinion  is,  that  their  jealousy  of  the  veto  power 
was,  in  their  circumstances,  quite  excusable. 
Doubtless,  Governor  St.  Clair  was  a first-class 
old  gentleman,  wore  clean  linen,  high  top  boots, 
and  had  three  kinds  of  liquor  on  his  table  at 
dinner,  which,  I believe,  go,  in  part,  to  make 
up  the  definition  of  a gentleman  in  those  days. 
He  was  a man  of  very  considerable  parts,  too, 
and,  I doubt  not,  of  good  intentions ; but  that  he 


1078 


THE  VETO  POWER. [105th 

Boot,  Hoadly,  Cunningham,  Tuttle, Ewing,  Beer.  [Wednesday, 


committed  grave  errors  and  grave  blunders  can 
hardly  be  doubted.  Surely  the  thorn  that 
wounded  him  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  was 
of  the  tree  he  had  planted. 

But,  sir,  I rose  chiefly  to  say  this : I would  be 
for  a limited  veto  power,  especially  since  you 
have  decided  to  make  the  election  of  your  Rep- 
resentatives biennial.  I would  be  for  such  a veto 
as  has  been  used  by  Washington  and  Madison; 
and  l would  have  a veto  pure  and  simple,  to  be 
overcome  by  a two-thirds  vote  of  each  branch  of 
the  Legislature  —not  confined  to  appropriation 
bills  merely ; for  God  knows  that  some  of  the 
most  iniquitous  legislation,  some  of  that  kind 
of  legislation  which  we  may  class  as  special, 
and  intended  to  benefit  classes  or  peculiar  in- 
terests outside  of  all  appropriation  bills,  are 
more  vicious  than  any  appropriation  bill  can 
be,  for  those  are  only  temporary. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  the  gentleman  under- 
stand that  anybody  proposes  to  confine  the  veto 
to  appropriation  bills  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  What  else  have  you  got  of  it 
now  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  As  I understand  it,  it  ex- 
tends to  everything;  but  in  respect  to  appro- 
priation bills,  it  has  a joint  and  separate  action. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Exactly.  It  has  got  twisted. 
Let  us  have  the  veto  pure  and  simple,  or  none 
at  all.  I do  not  want  it  mixed  up  with  legis- 
lative power.  I cannot  bring  my  mind  to  con- 
sent to  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell];  I cannot  co- 
incide with  him  in  all  the  views  that  he  stated. 
He  stated  them  with  great  modification ; and  I 
never  in  my  life  regretted  more  than  I did  this 
morning,  that  he  was  not  the  Lew  Campbell  of 
twenty  years  ago;  that  he  had  not  all  his  old 
physical  strength;  for  he  could,  and  I hope 
would,  have  a tale  unfolded,  that  would  have 
startled  some  of  us  into  a grave  consideration 
of  this  subject.  There  is  something  in  his, 
what  do  you  call  it — his  elastic  veto.  He  al- 
ways had  an  eye  for  the  graceful,  and  I for  the 
substantial.  I like  things  not  very  elastic.  1 
like  those  that  have  backbone  in  them ; so  does 
the  gentleman.  But  the  veto  provided  for  in 
the  proposition  of  the  Committee,  would,  in 
my  opinion,  prove  worse  than  useless. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  “ Every  bill  passed  by 
the  General  Assembly  shall,  before  it  becomes  a 
law,  be  presented  to  the  Governor.”  How  much 
more  pure  and  simple  could  you  have  a veto  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  Go  on  to  your  eighteenth  sec- 
tion, and  read  what  is  in  italics. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  “ If  he  approve  it  he 
shall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it  shall  become  a law; 
but  if  he  do  not  approve  it,  he  shall  return  it  with 
his  objections,  to  the  House  in  which  it  shall 
have  originated,  which  House  shall  enter  the 
objections  at  large  upon  its  Journal,  and  proceed 
to  reconsider  the  bill.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  That  is  not  the  way  it  stands. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I am  reading  from 
the  proposition. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Not  as  it  now  is,  since  the 
amendment  agreed  to  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I am  reading  from 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
with  the  amendment  in  italics,  just  as  we  have 
been  considering  it  to-day. 


Mr.  ROOT.  Have  you  read  it  through  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I have  read  as  far  as 
it  affects  this  matter — the  matter  of  veto  pure 
and  simple. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Let  us  see — you  say  you  have? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ROOT.  “ If  any  bill  presented  to  the 
Governor  contain  several  items  of  appropria- 
tion of  money,  he  may  object  to  one  or  more  of 
said  items,  while  approving  of  the  other  por- 
tions of  the  bill.  In  such  case,  he  shall  ap- 
pend— 

Mr.  HOADLY.  You  will  have  to  take  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Let  me  read  for  you. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  you  would. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  “In  such  case  he  shall  ap- 
pend to  the  bill,  at  the  time  of  signing  it,  a 
statement  of  the  items  to  which  he  objects,  and 
the  appropriation  so  objected  to  shall  not  take 
effect.  If  the  General  Assembly  be  in  session, 
he  shall  transmit  to  the  House  in  which  the 
bill  originated,  a copy  of  such  statements,  and 
the  items  objected  to  shall  be  separately  recon- 
sidered. If,  on  reconsideration,  one  or  more  of 
such  items  be  approved  by  three-fifths  of  the 
members  elected  to  each  House,  the  same  shall 
be  a part  of  the  law,  notwithstanding  the  ob- 
jections of  the  Governor.  All  the  provisions  of 
this  section,  in  relation  to  bills  not  approved  by 
the  Governor,  shall  apply  to  cases  in  which  he 
shall  withhold  his  approval  from  any  item  or 
items  contained  in  a bill  appropriating  money.” 

Mr.  EWING.  That  was  stricken  out.  Here 
is  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  The  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer],  was  a substitute  for  all  that  passage  that 
has  been  read,  and  the  passage  was  stricken  out 
and  the  amendment  adopted  as  a substitute. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  substitute  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  was 
adopted. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Exactly;  but  it  does  not  cover 
this  case  at  all.  I tell  you  your  veto,  as  you 
have  got  it  fixed  now,  is  not  worth  preserving. 
There  is  nothing  of  it  that  is  a veto.  The 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Craword  [Mr.  Beer],  does  not  touch  this  point 
at  all. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  is  on  that  point. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  part  in  italics,  to 
which  reference  has  been  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  and  the 
gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  was  stricken 
out,  and  thereupon  the  substitute  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  was  in- 
serted, and  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  now  has  that  substitute  in  his  hands. 

Mr.  ROOT.  There  is  more  to  this  substitute 
than  I supposed.  It  incorporates: 

“No  items  in  the  bill  making  appropriations 
of  money  embracing  distinct  items,  and  the 
part  or  parts  of  the  bill  approved  shall  be  the 
law,  and  the  item  or  items  of  the  appropriation 
disapproved,  shall  be  void,  unless  passed  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed 
for  other  bills  over  the  executive  veto.” 

Now,  if  you  agree  to  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  then 
J all  his  objections  amount  to  a reconsideration 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Boot,  Hoadly,  Foran,  Hunt. 


1079 


Day.] 

February  3.  1874.] 


and  a re-vote.  If  you  do  not  agree  to  that,  then 
you  have  the  veto  power  applied  to  a part  of 
the  bill  and  not  the  whole. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  So  far  only  as  appropriation 
bills  are  concerned. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Precisely.  I understand  that. 
It  should  not  be  confined  to  appropriation  bills. 
The  principle  is  unsound.  He  should  veto  the 
whole,  or  leave  untouched  the  whole,  and  here 
is  the  reason : In  Congress  they  are  apt  to 

know  the  President,  and  with  all  respect  I say 
that,  the  breeds  of  Washingtons  and  Jeffersons 
have  nearly  run  out.  In  Jackson’s  time,  it 
was  a matter  of  notoriety  that  members  of  Con- 
gress were  shy  of  the  President,  for  they  knew  if 
they  passed  any  bill  which  he  thought  improper 
he  would  veto  it  without  hesitation,  and  it  had 
a good  effect  upon  the  Houses,  and  whenever 
they  have  had  a President  of  any  nerve  and  in- 
dependence they  have  always  looked  cautiously 
to  details,  especially  in  reference  to  grabbing 
provisions,  because  a good  President  does  not 
allow  them  to  pass  if  he  knows  it.  A good 
President  never  has  a share.  A good  President 
will  not  let  anybody  have  a share,  if  he  knows 
it,  and  it  exercises  a wholesome  influence : “Be 
careful  that  you  insert  none  of  this  bad  stuff, 
for  if  you  do,  you  will  poison  the  whole  bill  and 
have  it  upon  your  own  hands.” 

But  here  you  are  going  to  soften  down  your 
veto.  You  are  going  to  make  it  so  that  the 
Governor  can  strike  out  some  little  item  or 
some  little  items  and  let  the  rest  of  the  bill  go. 
You  do  not  know  what  he  will  strike  out.  If 
anybody  can  get  anything  in,  and  can  manage 
to  have  the  Governor  overlook  or  approve  it, 
all  right.  A man  that  gets  something  in,  and 
cannot  manage  it,  is  simply  unfortunate.  I 
say  that  it  is  very  far  from  the  veto  pure  and 
simple.  It  is  very  far  from  a veto  that  will  be 
of  any  benefit  to  the  people.  It  will  be  a col- 
lusion. It  would  raise  suspicion  that  there 
had  been  dickering  between  members  of  the 
same  House,  between  the  two  Houses,  between 
one  House  and  the  Governor,  and  between  both 
Houses  and  the  Governor.  Let  the  Houses  pass 
only  such  bills  as  they  think  right,  and  when 
they  come  to  the  Governor  if  he  finds  them 
wrong,  let  him  veto  them  and  send  them  back. 
That  would  be  a veto  power  that  we  could  re- 
spect. That  would  be  a veto  power  that  the 
Legislature  would  respect;  but  so  long  as  you 
leave  it  retailed  out  by  the  small,  you  make  it 
anything  but  respectable  or  useful ; you  invite 
its  abuse. 

Mr.  FORAY.  The  question  under  consider- 
ation, being  one  of  more  than  ordinary  impor- 
tance, I desire  to  place  upon  record  a few  of 
the  reasons  which  govern  the  vote  I shall  cast 
when  the  ayes  and  noes  are  called.  I will  pre- 
sent my  views  briefly,  and  will  not  occupy  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  more  than  three 
minutes,  as  my  opinions  are  founded  upon 
first  or  fundamental  principles,  which  can  be 
very  tersely  stated. 

Mr.  President,  I am  opposed  to  the  adoption 
of  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  because  I am 
not,  and  never  will  be,  a believer  in  the  abso- 
lute omnipotence  of  the  majority.  That  the 
will  of  the  majority  is  the  will  of  the  people, 
and  hence  the  will  of  God,  is  a superstitious, 


political  heresy,  I am  unable  to  reconcile  with 
the  teachings  of  moral  law,  or  the  instincts  of 
natural  freedom.  The  logic  of  socialology  and 
social  statics  applied  to  the  science  of  govern- 
ment, prove  conclusively  the  impregnable  truth 
of  the  proposition, that  the  absolute,  unchecked 
and  unrestrained  rule  of  the  majority,  is  the 
rule  of  tyranny  and  despotism.  To  use  the 
words  of  Herbert  Spencer,  “The  rule  of  the 
many  by  the  few  we  call  tyranny ; the  rule  of 
few  by  the  many  is  tyranny  also,  only  of  a less 
intense  kind.”  But  I hear  you  ask,  would  you 
destroy  the  power  of  the  majority  ? Yot  at  all, 
sir.  I would  merely  restrain  and  curb  it — 
make  it,  if  possible,  less  omnipotent,  less  ab- 
solute and  unlimited,  and  force  those  exercis- 
ing it,  to  do  so  with  discretion  and  moderation, 
and  with  some  show  of  reverential  respect  for 
the  natural  and  social  rights  of  the  minority. 
I believe  with  DeTocqueville,  “ that  some  one 
social  power  must  always  be  made  to  predomi- 
nate over  the  others;  but  I think  that  liberty 6is 
endangered  when  this  power  is  checked  by  no 
obstacles  which  may  retard  its  course  and  force 
it  to  moderate  its  own  vehemence.”  To  sup- 
ply that  check,  I would  clothe  the  Executive 
with  a veto  power  which  could  not  be  counter- 
vailed or  over-ridden,  except  by  a majority 
power  of  two-thirds,  or  at  least  three-fifths  of 
the  legislative  body ; and,  sir,  I really  believe 
we  would  have  better  laws,  less  special  or  class 
legislation  of  a questionable  character,  if  every 
enactment  having  the  virtue  of  law,  required 
for  its  passage  a two-thirds  vote  of  the  General 
Assembly. 

The  founders  of  our  institutions  provided  for 
a division  of  the  legislative  power,  in  order 
that  one  branch  of  the  Legislature  might  be  a 
check  upon  the  other.  The  experience  of  near- 
ly a century  has  convinced  us,  that  this  division 
of  legislative  power  is  a principle  of  such  vital 
necessity,  that  to  destroy  it  would  be  to  intro- 
duce a reign  of  anarchy  and  chaos.  Pennsyl- 
vania tried  the  experiment  at  one  time,  and  in 
doing  so  had  the  approval  of  Mr.  Franklin  him- 
self. But  even  the  genius  of  that  grand  old 
statesman  and  philosopher  had  to  succumb  to 
the  workings  of  moral  law.  My  native  State 
was  compelled  to  return  to  the  principle  of 
having  two  Houses. 

These  are  a few  of  my  reasons  for  advocating 
the  veto  power.  I desire  to  see  it  incorporated 
in  our  Constitution,  because  I desire  to  see  the 
absolute  power  of  the  majority  checked  as 
much  as  possible. 

Mr.  HUNT.  There  is  no  principle  so  essen- 
tial to  free  Constitutional  Government  as  the 
limitation  placed  upon  the  Executive,  the  Leg- 
islative and  the  Judicial  branches.  In  the 
formation  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  it  was 
recognized  as  the  basis  of  all  government.  The 
necessity  of  reciprocal  checks  in  the  exercise  of 
political  power,  by  distributing  and  dividing  it 
into  different  departments,  each  the  guardian 
of  the  public  goods  was  considered  by  all  of  the 
earlier  statesmen.  They  were  careful  to  desig- 
nate the  attributes  of  each  department  and  to 
insert  terms  of  limitation  and  exclusion.  They 
assigned  to  the  different  departments  their  re- 
spective powers.  The  great  object  of  a written 
Constitution  is  to  keep  the  various  branches  of 
i government  as  separate  and  distinct  as  possi- 


1080 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hunt. 


[105th 

[Wednesday, 


ble,  and  for  this  reason  restraints  are  imposed. 
This  idea  has  become  fixed  in  the  national  sen- 
timent and  in  the  national  character.  It  has 
been  incorporated  into  every  State  Constitution. 
These  restraints  are  necessary  to  secure  perma- 
nency and  stability  in  the  administration  of 
public  affairs.  The  preservation  of  our  political 
well-being — both  State  and  National — depends 
upon  these  distinctions  and  limitations.  Every 
department  of  Government  is  then  alike  under 
the  same  obligation  to  defend  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws.  The  powers  of  each,  although 
separate  and  defined,  are  still  united  in  advanc- 
ing and  promoting  the  public  good.  The  prin- 
ciple of  balance  in  the  organization  of  Govern- 
ment must  be  kept  in  constant  operation.  This 
is  the  history  of  all  governments  where  the 
royal  will  is  not  the  supreme  law.  Centraliza- 
tion of  power  becomes  political  despotism.  In 
all  the  monarchies  of  Western  Europe,  during 
the  Middle  Ages,  there  existed  these  restraints 
on  the  royal  authority.  Kingly  power  must  be 
tempered  with  fundamental  laws  and  repre- 
sentative assemblies,  to  render  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  uniform  throughout  the  land. 
It  is  in  this  country  that  there  has  been  applied 
to  a Republican  form  of  government  the  true 
principle  of  limitation,  whereby  each  depart- 
ment may  be  kept  within  its  proper  sphere  of 
action.  The  Judiciary  must  be  separate  from 
the  Executive  and  Legislative  branches,  and 
provide  for  the  decision  of  private  rights  wholly 
uninfluenced  by  reasons  of  State  or  consider- 
ations of  party  or  policy.  It  is  the  glory  of  the 
British  Constitution  to  have  led  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  this  important  principle.  It  is  the 
theory  of  the  Constitution  to  restrain  the  Leg- 
islature and  to  subject  their  acts  to  judicial 
decision  whenever  it  appears  that  such  acts  in- 
fringe constitutional  limits.  In  the  absence  of 
such  a check  no  certain  limitation  could  exist 
in  the  exercise  of  legislative  discretion.  Power 
is  of  an  encroaching  nature,  and  should  be 
effectually  restrained  from  passing  the  limits 
assigned  to  it. 

When  the  courts  of  justice  go  beyond  the 
work  of  construing  and  applying  the  principles 
of  law,  they  no  longer  become  the  citadels  of 
popular  liberty  and  the  temples  of  private  jus- 
tice. When  the  Legislature  usurps  the  power 
of  the  Executive,  as  well  as  the  functions  of  the 
judicial  department,  there  is  no  longer  any 
protection  against  illegal  or  unconstitutional 
acts.  When  the  Executive  assumes  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  legislative  and  judicial  depart- 
ments, and  the  “will  of  the  prince”  becomes 
the  law,  there  is  no  further  security  for  private 
rights  and  the  upright  administration  of  justice. 
It  has  been  well  said  by  Madison,  that  “ the 
accumulation  of  all  power,  legislative,  execu- 
tive and  judicial,  in  the  same  hands,  whether  of 
one,  a few,  or  many,  and  whether  hereditary, 
self-appointed,  or  elective,  may  justly  be  term- 
ed the  very  definition  of  tyranny.” 

The  veto  power  is  necessary,  in  our  system  of 
government,  to  maintain  this  idea  of  limitation 
and  the  independence  of  each  department.  Th  e 
framers  of  the  Federal  Constitution  contended 
that  it  was  not  inconsistent  with  Republican 
institutions,  and  made  it  a part  of  the  organic 
law.  The  same  reasoning  will  apply  to  the 
State  Constitution.  The  power  of  self-defense 


is  as  necessary  as  the  right  of  self-defense.  The 
theory  of  limitation  of  power  cannot  be  main- 
tained as  long  as  one  of  the  co-ordinate  depart- 
ments of  government  is  not  strong  enough  of 
itself  to  assert  its  independence  within  the  strict 
limit  of  constitutional  enactment.  The  judicia- 
ry is  vested  with  the  power  of  a negative  in  de- 
claring unconstitutional  the  acts  of  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly.  The  Executive  should  be 
vested  with  the  power  of  a qualified  negative 
in  a revision  of  the  acts  of  the  Legislature,  on 
the  ground  of  their  impolicy  as  well  as  their 
unconstitutionality.  The  effectual  organization 
of  the  several  departments  of  government  is  the 
surest  guaranty  against  the  encroachments  of 
the  other  departments.  It  is  only  when  the 
executive,  the  legislative  and  the  judicial 
branches  shall  each  be  armed  with  a power 
sufficient  within  itself,  that  the  system  of  bal- 
ance can  be  maintained.  “ Experience,”  said 
one  of  our  ablest  political  thinkers,  “ has  taught 
us  a distrust  of  that  security,  and  that  it  is 
necessary  to  introduce  such  a balance  of  power 
and  interests  as  will  guarantee  the  provision  on 
paper.”  It  is  not  alone  in  the  separation  of  the 
the  power  of  government,  but  in  the  ability  to 
assert  their  individuality,  that  we  have  the 
surest  guaranty  of  governmental  protection. 
Personal  liberty  can  have  no  security  without 
it.  There  is  never  any  security  for  freedom 
when  there  is  nothing  that  limits  or  restrains 
the  exercise  of  arbitrary  will.  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  in  the  celebrated  case  of  Marbury  vs. 
Madison,  says:  “The  Constitution  is  either  a 
superior  or  paramount  law,  unchangeable  bjr 
ordinary  means,  or  it  is  on  a level  with  ordina- 
ry legislative  acts,  and,  like  other  acts,  is  alter- 
able when  the  Legislature  shall  please  to  alter 
it.  If  the  former  part  of  the  alternative  be 
true,  then  a legislative  act  contrary  to  the  Con- 
stitution is  not  a law;  if  the  latter  part  be  true, 
then  written  Constitutions  are  absurd  attempts 
on  the  part  of  the  people  to  limit  a power  in  its 
nature  illimitable.” 

The  veto  power  invests  the  Executive  with  a 
defense  and  strength  not  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  of  representative  government,  and 
enables  that  department  to  defend  itself  against 
encroachments.  There  must  bean  efficient  Ex- 
ecutive. There  must  be  a dignity  and  an  inde- 
pendence attaching  to  the  office.  The  indepen- 
dence should  be  important  enough  to  manifest 
itself,  it  should  be  strong  enough  to  defend  it- 
self. The  Federalist  thus  speaks  of  this  pow- 
er; “ * * * * * The  insufficiency  of  a 

mere  parchment  delineation  of  the  boundaries  of 
each,  has  also  been  remarked  upon,  and  the  ne- 
cessity of  furnishing  each  with  constitutional 
arms  for  its  own  defense  has  been  inferred  and 
proved.  From  the  clear  and  indubitable  prin- 
ciples result  the  propriety  of  a negative,  either 
absolute  or  qualified,  in  the  Executive  upon  the 
acts  of  the  legislative  branches.  Without  the 
one  or  the  other,  the  former  will  be  absolutely 
unable  to  defend  himself  against  the  usurpa- 
tions of  the  latter.  He  might  gradually  be 
stripped  of  his  authority  by  successive  resolu- 
tions, or  annihilated  by  a single  vote.  And  in 
the  one  mode  or  the  other,  the  legislative  and 
Executive  powers  might  speedily  come  to  be 
blended  in  the  same  hands.  If  even  no  pro- 
pensity had  ever  discovered  itself  in  the  legisla- 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER. 1081 

February  4,  1874.J  Hunt. 


tive  body  to  invade  the  rights  of  the  Executive, 
the  rules  of  just  reasoning  and  theoretic  pro- 
priety would,  of  themselves,  teach  us  that  the 
one  ought  to  possess  a constitutional  and  effec- 
tual power  of  self-defense.”  “There  cannot 
be,”  said  Montesquieu,  “any  liberty  when  the 
legislative  and  executive  powers  are  united  in 
the  same  person  or  body  of  magistrates.” 

The  veto  power  is  necessary  to  prevent  legis- 
lative encroachments.  In  the  Convention, 
which  framed  the  Federal  Constitution,  there 
seemed  to  be  no  question  as  to  the  necessity  of 
some  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. All  agreed,  as  Mr.  Gorham  said  in  that 
body,  that  there  should  be  some  check  upon  the 
legislative  branch.  The  only  question  was, 
whether  the  negative  in  law  should  be  limited 
or  absolute,  and  whether  it  should  be  intrusted 
jointly  to  the  executive  and  Judiciary.  Madi- 
son insisted  that  it  would  be  useful  to  the  Ju- 
diciary Department,  by  giving  it  an  additional 
opportunity  of  defending  itself  against  legisla- 
tive encroachments,  and  would  be  useful  to  the 
Executive  by  inspiring  additional  confidence 
and  firmness  in  exercising  the  revisionary 
power.  The  history  of  the  Federal  Congress, 
as  well  as  the  General  Assemblies  of  all  the 
States,  shows  the  necessity  of  settled  limits  to 
legislative  discretion.  The  ordinance  of  1787, 
which  has  exerted  such  a mighty  and  perma- 
nent influence  upon  the  people  of  the  North- 
western States,  prohibited  legislative  interfer- 
ence with  private  contracts,  and  secured  to  the 
people,  as  an  inalienable  inheritance,  the  bene- 
fits of  habeas  corpus , of  trial  by  jury,  of  judi- 
cial proceedings  according  to  the  common  law, 
and  of  a representative  government.  This  pro- 
hibition has  been  to  a great  population  the  safe- 
guard of  the  public  morals  and  individual 
rights.  The  future  of  this  people  will  show 
that  more  is  to  be  feared  from  legislative  usur- 
pation than  from  Executive  interference.  This 
is  the  tendency  of  all  Republican  governments. 
The  legislative  department  derives  a superiori- 
ty in  the  State  as  well  as  in  the  National  gov- 
ernment from  the  very  nature  of  its  organiza- 
tion. Its  constitutional  powers  are  at  once  more 
extensive  and  less  susceptible  of  definite  limits. 
It  can,  therefore,  with  the  greater  facility  in- 
vade the  limits  of  the  other  departments  of 
government.  The  Legislature  controls  the  pub- 
lic funds.  It  carries  with  it  great  force  of  pub- 
lic opinion.  The  Representatives  of  the  people 
are  frequently  brought  in  contact  with  one  an- 
other and  with  their  constituencies.  The  peo- 
ple are  seldom  on  their  guard  again t legislative 
encroachments.  The  history  of  the  English 
Parliament  proves  most  conclusively  the  ten- 
dency of  all  legislative  bodies.  It  has  absorbed 
the  whole  power  of  the  English  government. 
Blackstone,  in  alluding  to  its  influence,  re- 
marks: “The  power  and  jurisdiction  of  Par- 
liament, says  Sir  Edward  Coke,  is  so  transcen- 
dent and  absolute,  that  it  cannot  be  confined 
either  for  causes  or  persons,  within  any 
bounds.  * * * * * It  hath  sovereign  and 
uncontrollable  authority  in  the  making,  con- 
firming, enlarging,  restraining,  abrogating,  re- 
pealing, reviewing  and  expounding  of  laws  con- 
cerning matters  of  all  possible  denominations, 
ecclesiastical  or  temporal,  civil,  military,  mari- 
time or  criminal ; this  being  the  place  where 


that  absolute  despotic  power,  which  must,  in  all 
governments,  reside  somewhere,  is  intrusted  by 
the  Constitution  of  these  kingdoms.  All  mis- 
chiefs and  grievances,  operations  and  remedies 
that  transcend  the  ordinary  course  of  the  laws 
are  within  the  reach  of  this  extraordinary  tri- 
bunal. It  can  regulate  or  new  model  the  suc- 
cession to  the  Crown,  as  was  done  in  the  reign 
of  Henry  VIII,  and  William  III.  It  can  alter 
the  established  religion  of  the  land  as  was  done 
in  a variety  of  instances  in  the  reign  of  King 
Henry  VIII  and  his  three  children.  It  can 
create  and  change  afresh  even  the  Constitution 
of  the  Kingdom  and  of  Parliaments  themselves, 
as  was  done  by  the  act  of  union  and  the  several 
statutes  for  triennial  and  septennial  elections. 
It  can,  in  short,  do  every  thing  that  is  not  nat- 
urally impossible  to  be  done,  and  therefore  some 
have  not  scrupled  to  call  its  power  by  a figure 
rather  too  bold — the  omnipotence  of  Parlia- 
ment.” 

The  future  danger  to  our  free  institutions 
does  not  consist  so  much  in  executive  usurpa- 
tions, as  in  legislative  encroachments.  We  have 
more  to  fear  from  a Long  Parliament  than  from 
a Cromwell.  Caesarism  is  not  of  this  day  nor 
of  this  generation.  The  Conventions  which 
recently  framed  the  Constitutions  for  the 
great  Central  States  of  Pennsylvania  and  Illi- 
nois, realized  this  growing  tendency  in  the 
administration  of  government,  by  placing  ad- 
ditional restrictions  upon  the  law-making 
department. 

When  France  adopted  universal  suffrage  as 
the  basis  of  her  representation,  Lamartine  re- 
marked in  its  favor,  that  it  was  the  strongest 
basis  which  any  government  could  adopt,  by 
reason  that  all  occasions  for  revolution  were  ex- 
tinguished, when  a people  can  at  all  times 
legally  adapt  public  measures  to  their  own  will. 
The  veto  power  enables  the  people  to  legally 
adapt  public  measures  to  the  public  will.  It  is 
simply  an  appeal  to  the  people  as  supreme 
arbiter.  It  is  a reference  to  the  ballot  box.  Its 
exercise  can  enact  no  legislation.  It  can  defeat 
no  policy  demanded  by  the  public  interest. 
The  term  of  the  executive  is  so  limited,  that  in 
the  event  of  withholding  assent  from  a measure 
required  by  public  necessity,  the  people  can 
pass  upon  it  at  the  next  election.  The  approval 
of  the  people  can  make  it  a law.  The  history 
of  all  Federal  and  State  legislation,  proves  most 
conclusively  that  the  prerogative  will  not  be 
exercised  to  the  injury  of  the  public  good. 
There  is  more  danger  to  be  apprehended  from 
the  passage  of  an  unwise  law,  than  from  the 
postponement  of  judicious  legislation,  until 
public  sentiment  can  be  considered.  The  mis- 
taken application  of  the  veto  power  can  only 
delay  for  a time  that  which  may  be  improperly 
delayed.  It  is  not  the  one-man  power,  it  is 
rather  every  man’s  power.  It  is  not  a kingly 
prerogative,  but  one  of  the  highest  privileges 
that  pertains  to  a free  people.  The  qualified 
negative  is  less  of  the  monarchy  than  of  the  re- 
public. No  measure  demanded  by  public  senti- 
ment can  be  defeated  by  the  exercise  of  the  veto 
power.  This  was  well  illustrated  in  the  attempt 
to  abolish  the  continuance  of  the  nobility  by  the 
Norwegian  Diet  in  1828.  The  veto  power  is 
vested  in  the  king,  but  if  three  successive  Diets 
repeat  the  decree,  it  becomes  a law  without  the 


1082 


[105th 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hunt.  [Wednesday, 


royal  assent.  In  this  respect,  it  is  a qualified 
and  not  an  absolute  negative.  The  King,  on 
two  occasions,  had  disapproved  of  the  law  passed 
by  the  Parliament,  against  the  further  con- 
tinuance of  the  nobility,  but  the  third  Diet 
confirmed  the  decree  of  the  two  former  sittings, 
and  it  became  the  law  of  the  land,  notwithstand- 
ing the  royal  negative.  There  is  a power 
higher  than  Governor,  or  President,  or  King, 
and  this  power  will  ultimately  prevail.  It  is 
the  judgment  of  a free  people.  De  Tocqueville, 
in  his  “ Democracy  in  America,”  in  comment- 
ing upon  our  institutions,  says  of  the  veto 
power : “ The  President,  moreover,  is  provided 
with  a suspensive  veto,  which  allows  him  to 
oppose  the  passing  of  such  laws  as  might  des- 
troy the  portion  of  independence  which  the 
Constitution  awards  him.  The  struggle  between 
the  President  and  the  Legislature  must  always 
be  an  unequal  one,  since  the  latter  is  certain  of 
bearing  down  all  resistance  by  persevering  in 
its  plans ; but  the  suspensive  veto  forces  it,  at 
least,  to  reconsider  the  matter,  and  if  the  motion 
be  persisted  in,  it  must  be  backed  by  a majority 
of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  House.  The  veto 
power  is,  in  fact,  a sort  of  appeal  to  the  people. 
The  executive  power,  which,  without  this 
security,  might  have  been  secretly  pressed, 
adopts  this  measure  of  pleading  its  cause  and 
stating  its  motives.” 

Congress  considered  the  force  of  this  appeal 
to  the  people  when,  in  1832,  it  presented  to 
President  Jackson  the  bill  for  the  re-charter  of 
the  United  States  Bank,  at  the  time  he  was  a 
candidate  for  re-election.  “I  have  now  done,” 
said  he,  “my  duty  to  my  country.  If  sustained 
by  my  fellow-citizens  I shall  be  grateful  and 
happy;  if  not,  I shall  find,  in  the  motives  which 
impel  me,  ample  grounds  for  contentment  and 
peace.” 

The  exercise  of  the  veto  power  is  further 
designed  to  prevent  hasty  and  inconsiderate 
legislation  by  subjecting  it  to  the  revision  and 
judgment  of  the  executive.  It  is  evident  that 
much  of  unlegislation  is  enacted  in  haste,  some 
of  it  through  passion,  and  much  of  it  through 
great  carelessness.  It  is  not  an  absolute  and  an 
arbitrary  power.  It  is  only  an  intimation  of 
dissent  to  what  the  executive  considers  impol- 
itic or  unconstitutional  legislation.  The  Gov- 
ernor is  elected  by  the  people  of  the  whole 
State.  The  Commonwealth  is  his  constituency. 
The  office  represents  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people.  There  belongs  to  it,  properly,  a super- 
vision over  every  bill  before  it  becomes  a law. 
Laws  may  be  unwise;  laws  may  be  dangerous — 
laws  may  be  impolitic  when  passed  by  a tem- 
porary majority,  in  times  of  public  excitement, 
and  moved  by  violent  prejudice. 

If  such  legislation  be  subjected  to  some  revis- 
ionary power,  there  will  be  an  opportunity  to 
counteract,  by  the  weight  of  opinion,  the  im- 
proper views  of  the  Legislature.  Wise  legisla- 
tion will  not  be  defeated.  Unwise  legislation 
may  be  arrested  until  there  is  an  expression  of 
popular  will.  The  separation  of  the  Legislature 
into  two  Houses,  each  with  a different  constitu- 
ency, and  the  necessity  of  the  concurrent  vote 
of  both  Houses  to  an  act  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, were  all  intended  to  prevent  inconsiderate 
and  unwise  legislation.  The  Constitution  of 
the  State  further  provides,  as  an  additional 


check  against  immature  measures,  that  every 
bill  shall  be  fully  and  distinctly  read,  on  three 
different  days,  unless,  in  case  of  emergency, 
three-fourths  of  the  House  in  which  the  ques- 
tion may  be  pending  shall  dispense  with  the 
rule.  Sectional  feeling  and  local  prejudice  may 
enact  such  legislation  as  will  not  stand  the 
test  of  calm  reflection  and  deliberate  judgment. 
The  disapproval  of  the  executive  is  not  pex’sonal 
— it  is  of  the  people.  It  belongs  to  the  office, 
not  to  the  individual.  When  properly  exer- 
cised it  becomes  the  safeguard  of  popular  rights. 
It  fastens  no  policy  of  legislation  upon  the 
State.  It  is  the  voice  of  the  people,  speaking 
through  the  representative  of  the  whole  people. 
Instead  of  the  kingly  power,  its  proper  use  be- 
comes the  authoritative  power  of  the  people. 
It  originated  in  the  very  idea  of  protecting  the 
public  against  oppressive  legislation.  It  is 
intended  to  guard  the  citizen  against  the  pas- 
sage of  bad  measures,  through  haste,  inadvert- 
ence or  design.  Justice  Story,  in  his  Commen- 
taries on  the  Federal  Constitution,  thus  speaks 
of  the  veto  power,  in  this  connection:  “In 

the  next  place,  the  power  is  important  as 
an  additional  security  against  the  enactment  of 
rash,  immature  and  improper  laws.  It  estab- 
lishes a salutary  check  upon  the  legislative 
body,  calculated  to  preserve  the  community 
against  the  effects  of  faction,  precipitancy,  un- 
constitutional legislation  and  temporary  ex- 
citement, as  well  as  political  hostility.  It  may, 
indeed,  be  said,  that  a single  man,  even  though 
he  be  President  (or  Governor),  cannot  be  pre- 
sumed to  possess  more  wisdom,  or  virtue,  or  ex- 
perience, than  what  belongs  to  a number  of 
men.  But  this  furnishes  no  answer  to  the 
reasoning.  The  question  is  not,  how  much 
wisdom,  or  virtue,  or  experience  is  possessed  by 
either  branch  of  the  government  ? Though  the 
executive  magistrate  may  well  be  presumed  to 
be  eminently  distinguished  in  all  these  re- 
spects, and  therefore  the  choice  of  the  people ; 
but  whether  the  Legislature  may  not  be  mis- 
led by  a love  of  power,  a spirit  of  faction,  a 
political  impulse,  or  a persuasive  influence,  lo- 
cal or  sectional,  which  at  the  same  time  may  not, 
from  the  difference  in  the  election  and  duties 
of  the  executive,  reach  him  at  all,  or  not  reach 
him  in  the  same  degree.  He  will  always  have 
a primary  inducement  to  defend  his  own  pow- 
er; the  Legislature  may  well  be  presumed  to 
have  no  desire  to  favor  them.  He  will  have 
an  opportunity  quietly  to  examine  the  acts  and 
resolutions  passed  by  the  Legislature,  not  hav- 
ing partaken  of  the  feelings  or  combinations 
which  have  procured  their  passage,  and  then 
to  correct  what  will,  sometimes,  be  wrong  from 
haste  and  inadvertence,  as  well  as  design.  His 
view  of  them,  if  not  more  wise,  or  more  elevat- 
ed, will,  at  least,  be  independent  and  under  an 
entirely  different  responsibility  to  the  nation 
irom  what  belongs  to  them.  lie  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  whole  nation  in  the  aggregate; 
they  are  the  representatives  only  of  distinct 
parts,  and  some  times  of  little  more  than  sec- 
tional or  local  interests.”  The  exercise  of  the 
veto  power  is  as  well  demanded  in  the  State  as 
in  the  Federal  system.  The  same  tendency  in 
legislation  exists  in  the  one  as  in  the  other. 
The  history  of  all  State  governments  has  dem- 
onstrated that  the  errors  committed  in  legisla- 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hunt. 


1083 


Day.] 

February  4,  1874.] 


tion  proceed  from  the  fact  that  the  members  are 
not  unwilling,  sometimes,  to  sacrifice  the  com- 
prehensive and  permanent  interests  of  the 
whole  State  to  the  particular  and  separate  in- 
terests of  the  constituencies  which  they  rep- 
resent. 

It  has  been  urged  by  the  gentleman  from  Pick- 
away [Mr.  Page],  that  the  veto  is  a relic  of  the 
Stuarts  and  the  Norman  conquerors.  It  is  true 
that  the  Stuarts  made  it  an  instrument  of  op- 
pression, by  withholding  their  assent  from  ben- 
eficial laws,  until  Parliament  would  increase 
the  royal  prerogative ; yet,  since  the  accession 
of  the  House  of  Brunswick,  the  negative  has  not 
been  exercised.  It  is  no  argument  against  the 
principle  itself  that  it  has  not  been  applied.  It 
is  sufficient  that  it  has  been  frequently  exercised 
in  our  own  country  in  the  interests  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  very  organization  of  the  English 
Government  prevents  the  necessity  of  a royal 
negative  on  the  acts  of  Parliament.  The  power 
vested  in  the  crown  has  not  been  exercised 
since  1692.  The  legislative  power  of  Parliament 
has  almost  become  omnipotent.  Royal  author- 
ity, through  the  Ministry,  can  so  direct  the  pro- 
ceedings of  Parliament  as  to  accommodate  the 
wants  and  necessities  of  the  crown.  The  House 
of  Commons  is,  of  itself,  the  representative  of 
public  opinion.  The  fact  that  responsibility  in 
public  affairs  is  taken  away  from  the  monarch, 
and  vested  in  a Cabinet,  which  changes  with 
public  sentiment,  never  creates  an  emergency 
for  the  exercise  of  the  royal  negative.  A want 
of  confidence  in  the  miniftry  is  followed  by  an 
appeal  to  the  people,  and  England,  to-day,  is 
agitated  from  center  to  circumference  by  the 
adherents  of  Disraeli  and  Gladstone.  The 
king,  too,  retains  his  position  for  life,,  and  his 
veto  is  not  susceptible  of  a review  by  the  peo- 
ple, or  a reversal  by  a two-thirds  vote  of  the 
Legislature.  The  greatest  danger  to  which  the 
English  Constitution  is  now  exposed  is  from 
the  omnipotence  of  Parliament.  The  crown, 
itself,  is  even  at  its  mercy.  It  depends,  very 
greatly,  for  its  existence,  upon  tradition,  and  the 
power  of  patronage  and  preferment.  Even  the 
courts  of  law  are  subject  to  Parliament,  and  the 
separate  branches  of  the  legislative  department, 
on  several  occasions,  have  asserted  their  supe- 
riority over  the  judiciary.  Each  House  has 
claimed  large,  if  not  unbounded,  immunity  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  law  courts,  and  the  latter 
have  hesitated,  lest  they  should  be  intruding 
upon  the  privileges  of  Parliament.  In  the 
English  Government,  an  absolute  Legislature 
makes  what  law  it  will,  and  the  crown  cannot 
interfere,  in  any  way,  whatever,  without  the 
possibility  of  revolution.  The  judges  have  no 
power  to  say  of  any  law  which  has  passed 
through  the  form  of  an  enactment,  that  it  has 
not  the  full  force  of  law.  In  our  own  country, 
these  relations  are  almost  reversed.  The  Leg- 
islature may  make  laws,  but  it  is  competent  for 
the  supreme  court  to  pass  upon  them,  as  being 
in  excess  of  the  power  of  the  law-making 
branch,  as  defined  by  the  Constitution.  The 
authority  of  the  supreme  court  is  only  limited 
by  the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  as  expressed 
in  the  Constitution,  or  as  it  may,  hereafter,  be 
expressed,  in  solemnly  ratified  amendments  to 
the  organic  law.  The  founders  of  the  Republic 
expressly  intended  that  this  great  court,  con- 
sisting of  members  holding  for  life,  should  be, 


and  remain,  the  standing  guardian  of  the  Char- 
ter of  the  Nation,  raising  its  august  front  above 
the  designs  of  politicians  and  the  shifting 
changes  of  parties.  Indeed,  the  whole  structure 
of  our  government  is  so  different  from  that  of 
England,  where  the  Executive  is  not  elective, 
that  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  face 
that  the  veto  power  has  not  been  exercised  for 
nearly  two  hundred  years. 

While  it  is  an  essential  element  in  all  free 
governments  that  the  majority  should  rule,  it 
is  as  necessary  that  the  majority  should  govern 
according  to  certain  restrictions.  If  a differ- 
ent rule  should  prevail,  our  legislative  bodies 
would  soon  degenerate  into  a parliamentary 
despotism  like  that  of  the  Long  Parliament  in 
England,  or  the  Constituent  Assembly  in 
France.  The  right  of  the  majority  to  rule  ex- 
ists only  by  virtue  of  civil,  and  not  of  national 
law.  It  is  conferred  by  force  of  positive  enact- 
ment. We  live  under  a government  of  law  in 
principle,  and  not  under  a government  of  will, 
whether  of  the  majority  or  the  minority.  There 
are  certain  fixed  rules  by  which  all  legislation 
must  be  determined.  If  these  limits  may  be 
passed  at  any  time  by  those  intended  to  be  re- 
strained, there  is  no  longer  any  necessity  for  a 
written  Constitution.  The  veto  is  calculated  to 
protect  the  rights  of  the  minority  against  the 
aggression  of  the  majority.  The  expediency  or 
unconstitutionality  of  a measure  is  not  unques- 
tionable, which  is  opposed  by  one-third  of  the 
members  of  a legislative  body.  It  affords  the 
minority  an  opportunity  of  being  heard,  for  it 
assumes  the  character  of  a mere  appeal  to  the 
Legislature  itself.  It  simply  asks  for  a revi- 
sion. It  is  in  the  nature  of  a re-hearing.  It  is 
a reconsideration.  Where  a measure  is  oppos- 
ed by  a strong  minority,  it  may  well  claim  the 
most  considerate  judgment.  The  idea  that  the 
veto  is  a monarchial  institution,  had  advocates 
when  the  minority  attempted  to  assert  its  priv- 
lege  in  the  Constituent  Assembly  in  France. 

President  Harrison,  in  his  inaugural  ad- 
dress, urged  the  protection  of  the  minority  as 
one  reason  for  favoring  the  exercise  of  the  veto 
power.  “I  consider  the  veto  power,  there- 
fore, given  by  the  Constitution  to  the  Execu- 
tive of  the  United  States,  solely  as  a conserva- 
tive power  to  be  used  only,  first,  to  protect  the 
Constitution  from  invasion;  secondly,  the  peo- 
ple, from  the  effects  of  hasty  legislation,  where 
their  will  has  probably  been  disregarded  or  not 
well  understood ; and  thirdly,  to  prevent  the 
effects  of  combination  violative  of  the  rights 
of  minorities.” 

The  veto  power  had  its  origin  in  the  defense 
which  liberty  made  against  oppression.  It  did 
not  come  from  the  crown,  but  from  the  people. 
It  was  the  demand  for  the  enforcement  of  rights. 
It  was  the  protest  against  the  commission  of 
wrong.  In  early  Rome,  where  it  originated,  it 
was  the  stand  of  the  plebean  against  the  patri- 
cian. It  was  the  first  attempt  of  the  common 
people  toward  securing  their  liberties.  The 
people  contended  that  they  should  elect  magis- 
trates whose  persons  should  be  held  sacred  and 
inviolate,  to  whom  they  could  commit  the  pro- 
tection of  their  rights.  These  magistrates 
were  the  Tribunes.  They  stood  between  the 
people  and  the  oppression  of  power.  The  Tri- 
bunes could  prevent  the  discussion  of  any  ques- 
tion. Their  power  was  almost  absolute.  They 


1084 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hunt. 


[105th 


could  arrest,  by  the  utterance  of  the  word  | 
“veto,”  almost  the  entire  machinery  of  gov-  j 
ernment.  The  negative  was  unqualified.  I 
When  it  was  properly  used  it  was  the  measure  I 
of  the  people  for  the  protection  of  the  people.  J 
It  was  the  assertion  of  the  right  of  the  oppress-  I 
ed.  It  was  the  liberty  of  the  plebean  against  | 
the  tyranny  of  the  patrician.  The  person  of  | 
the  Tribune  was  held  sacred.  The  decree  of ! 
the  Senate  bowed  to  its  supremacy.  The 
power  of  itself,  in  its  origin,  assisted  in  the  re- 
dress of  wrongs  as  well  as  in  the  maintenance 
of  liberty.  It  limited  royal  authority  and  the  | 
decree  of  the  Senate.  When  the  tribunitian  [ 
power  and  royal  supremacy  became  united — 
like  the  centralization  of  power  in  all  govern-  | 
ments — it  overthrew  the  liberty  of  the  citizen. 
In  the  hands  of  the  Tribune — the  servant  of  the 
people — it  was  the  exponent  of  the  people’s 
will.  In  the  hands  of  imperial  authority,  and 
separate  from  the  people,  it  became  the  instru- 
ment of  despotism.  It  was  only  when  the  Em- ! 
peror  Augustus  had  the  Tribuneship  conferred  I 
upon  him  that  the  veto  power  became  concen-  : 
trated  with  imperial  authority,  and  the  liberty 
of  the  citizen  was  made  subject  to  arbitrary  j 
will. 

i 

The  framers  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
were  almost  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that ! 
the  Executive  should  have  a revisionary  j 
power  over  the  acts  of  the  Legislature.  The  : 
English  Executive  had  a negative  in  the 
acts  of  Parliament,  and  the  Colonial  Gov- 
ernors in  the  Colonial  Legislatures.  The 
power  of  veto  was  recognized  as  an  essen- 
tial element  in  the  formation  of  the  Govern- 
ment. There  was  a sentiment  in  the  Conven- 
tion in  favor  of  constituting  the  Judiciary  a 
part  of  the  Revisionary  Council.  Madison  con- 
tended that  this  power  would  be  useful  to  the 
Judiciary  Department  by  giving  it  an  addi- 
tional opportunity  of  defending  itself  against 
legislative  encroachments,  and  would  be  useful 
to  the  Executive  by  inspiring  additional  confi- 
dence and  firmness  in  exercising  the  revision- 
ary power.  Luther  Martin,  on  the  other 
hand,  insisted  that  it  would  bring  the  two  de- 
partments under  the  influence  of  each  other, 
and  would  commit  the  judiciary  against  the 
constitutionality  of  the  disapproved  bills.  An 
absolute  negative  was  advocated  by  Wilson,  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  Alexander  Hamilton.  It 
was  opposed  by  Franklin,  Madison,  Sherman, 
Mason  and  Butler,  of  South  Carolina.  The 
proposition  of  Mr.  Gerry,  to  intrust  a limited 
negative  to  the  Executive,  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  eight  of  the  States.  Connecticut  and 
Maryland  alone  voted  in  the  negative.  Mr. 
Bedford,  of  Delaware,  was  the  only  member 
of  the  Convention  to  oppose  it  in  debate  in  any 
form.  It  was  at  first  ordered  that  a two-thirds 
vote  could  overrule  the  revisionary  check  of 
she  Executive,  but  this  was  afterwards  changed 
to  a three-fourths  vote.  The  two-thirds  pro- 
vision was  finally  restored,  and  the  veto  power, 
as  expressed  in  the  eleventh  section  of  Article 
I,  became  a part  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
which  has  been  the  model  for  our  State  Consti- 
stutions,  and  which,  for  nearly  three  genera- 
tions of  men,  has  stood  the  judgment  of  pos- 
terity, and  commanded  the  approval  of  the 
American  people. 


[Wednesday, 


The  fact  that  the  veto  power  has  not  become 
a part  of  the  State  Constitution — while  nearly 
every  other  State  has  adopted  it  in  some  form — 
may  be  attributed  to  the  abuse  of  the  power 
by  Governor  St.  Clair.  In  the  year  1789, 
the  first  Congress  passed  an  act,  recog- 
nizing the  binding  force  of  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  and  adopting  its  provisions  into 
the  Federal  Constitution.  Before  the  year  1795, 
no  laws,  strictly  speaking,  were  adopted.  They 
were  generally  framed  by  the  Governor  and 
judges,  to  answer  particular  public  ends,  while 
in  the  enactment  of  others,  including  all  the 
laws  of  1792,  the  Secretary  of  the  Territory 
discharged  the  functions  of  Governor,  under 
the  authority  of  an  act  of  Congress.  In  1792, 
Congress  passed  another  act,  giving  the  Gov- 
ernor and  judges  authority  to  repeal,  at  their 
discretion,  the  laws  by  them  made.  The  ordi- 
nance provided,  that  upon  giving  proof  to  the 
Governor  that  there  were  five  thousand  free 
males,  of  full  age,  in  the  Territory,  the  people 
should  be  authorized  to  elect  Representatives 
to  a Territorial  Legislature,  with  power  to 
make  any  laws  not  repugnant  to  the  Federal 
Constitution,  or  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  The 
judges  were  thenceforth  to  be  confined  to 
purely  judicial  functions.  The  Governor  was 
to  retain  his  appointing  power,  his  general  ex- 
ecutive authority,  and  have  an  absolute  nega- 
tive on  all  the  legislative  acts.  The  power  of 
the  Governor  was  even  more  absolute  than  be- 
fore. Governor  St.  Clair,  on  the  nineteenth  day 
of  December,  1799,  terminated  the  first  session 
of  the  Legislature.  In  his  speech,  he  enumer- 
ated eleven  acts  to  which,  in  the  course  of  the 
session,  he  had  thought  fit  to  apply  an  abso- 
lute veto.  Six  of  the  eleven  acts  then  nega- 
tived, related  to  the  erection  of  new  counties. 
These  were  disapproved,  for  various  reasons, 
but  principally,  because  the  Governor  claimed 
that  the  power  exercised  in  enacting  them  was 
vested,  by  the  Ordinance,  in  himself,  and  not  in 
the  Legislature.  This  abuse  of  the  veto  power 
excited  much  dissatisfaction  among  the  people, 
and  the  bitter  controversy  which  followed,  be- 
tween the  Governor  and  the  Legislature,  as  to 
the  extent  of  their  respective  powers  had  a ten- 
dency to  strengthen  the  public  discontent. 

The  second  session  of  the  Territorial  Legis- 
lature assembled  at  Chillicothe.  The  unpopu- 
larity of  Governor  St.  Clair  was  manifested  in 
the  debates  and  the  votes  in  answer  to  his 
speech.  A remonstrance,  relative  to  the  mode 
of  exercising  the  veto  power,  was  presented  to 
him,  in  behalf  of  both  Houses,  to  which  he  re- 
turned a long  and  labored  reply.  The  Gov- 
ernor claimed  to  be  a co-ordinate  branch  of  the 
Legislature,  vested  with  full  discretion  to  de- 
cide on  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  all 
their  acts,  placing  his  own  opinion,  in  every 
case,  in  opposition  to  the  judgment  and  experi- 
ence of  both  Houses.  Many  of  the  acts  which 
he  refused  to  approve  were  demanded  by  public 
sentiment  and  the  interests  of  the  people.  The 
exercise  of  this  arbitrary  discretion  prevented 
the  enactment  of  important  legislation.  The 
action  of  the  Governor  created  a bitter  contro- 
versy. The  two  Houses  had  respectfully  re- 
quested him  to  return  the  bills  he  could  not 
approve,  before  the  close  of  the  session,  with 
his  objections,  so  that  it  might  be  in  their  power 


1085 


Day.]  THE  VETO  POWER. 

February  4,  1874.]  Hunt,  Carbery. 


to  remove  any  objections  by  amendment.  In 
his  reply,  the  Governor  said : “As  to  your  re- 
quest, gentlemen,  that  when  any  bill,  or  bills, 
may  be  presented  for  approbation,  which  may 
not  be  approved,  I shall  return  them,  in  ten 
days,  to  the  House,  where  they  originated,  with 
the  objections  I may  have  to  them,  I am  sorry 
to  tell  you  that  it  is  altogether  out  of  my  power 
to  comply  with  it.  The  Ordinance  for  this 
Government  has  placed  in  the  Governor  an 
absolute  negative  on  the  bills  of  the  two  Houses, 
and  you  request  that  it  may,  by  me,  become 
vested  into  a kind  of  qualified  negative.  You 
do  not,  indeed,  require  that,  should  the  objec- 
tions be  thought  of  little  weight,  your  acts  may 
become  laws  without  the  Governor’s  assent. 
That  would  have  been  too  direGtly  in  the  face 
of  the  Ordinance ; though,  without  it,  I must 
own  I cannot  see  any  use  in  sending  the  objec- 
tions to  you.”  The  difference  between  the 
Executive  and  the  Legislature  increased  until 
they  terminated  in  his  removal  from  office  be- 
fore the  expiration  of  the  Territorial  Govern- 
ment. 

The  first  Constitutional  Convention  of  Ohio, 
which  assembled  on  the  first  day  of  November, 
1802,  at  Chillicothe,  refused  to  incorporate  the 
veto  power  in  the  organic  law.  The  abuse  of 
its  exercise,  and  the  course  of  Governor  St. 
Clair — like  the  Stuarts,  in  withholding  their 
assent  from  beneficial  laws — prejudiced  the 
Convention  against  its  adoption.  It  was  re- 
garded, because  of  its  flagrant  abuse,  as  an  ar- 
bitrary infringement  on  the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  territorial  Governor  was  not  an 
elected  but  an  appointed  officer.  His  authority 
had  frequently  conflicted  with  that  exercised 
by  the  territorial  Representatives  of  the  people. 
The  framers  of  the  first  Constitution,  to  some 
extent,  were  influenced  by  the  feeling  which 
the  course  of  Governor  St.  Clair  had  provoked 
in  the  abuse  of  the  veto  power.  In  Michigan, 
where  the  same  feeling,  for  the  same  cause,  ex- 
isted, the  veto  power  was  not  vested  in  the  Ex- 
ecutive, in  framing  the  organic  law.  The 
dissatisfaction  with  the  Governor  even  mani- 
fested itself  in  a remonstrance  addressed  to 
Congress,  against  the  unqualified  veto  so  arbi- 
trarily exercised  over  the  acts  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  against  the  exclusive  right  he  claimed 
of  dividing  and  subdividing  counties,  after  they 
had  been  created  and  organized  by  himself, 
without  their  concurrence. 

It  is  not  enough  to  say,  that  the  people  have 
suffered  no  inconvenience  from  a want  of  the 
exercise  of  this  power.  It  is  not  enough  to 
say,  that  the  present  Constitution,  without  this 
provision,  has  stood  the  test  of  twenty  years, 
and  has  become  interwoven  with  our  habits, 
and  our  associations.  It  should  be  recognized 
that  we  occupy  our  present  position  at  the  call 
of  a great  people;  and. the  obligation  is  imposed 
upon  us  of  framing  a Constitution  and  a funda- 
mental law,  not  for  the  past,  nor  alone  for  the 
welfare  of  our  present  population,  but  for  the 
generations  that  shall  come  in  the  future.  In 
this  age  of  improvement  and  rapid  advancement 
in  material  development;  in  this  age  of  pro- 
gress and  concentration  of  influence  and 
power,  there  is  a greater  necessity  for  care  in 
our  legislation.  It  is  a question  of  no  small 
moment,  to  what  extent  these  great  corpora- 


tions, so  rapidly  increasing  in  wealth  and 
power,  can  be  controlled  by  legislative  action. 
If  they  are  kept  under  the  reasonable  control 
of  the  government,  they  may  accomplish  the 
purposes  of  their  organization  and  prove  a 
blessing  to  civilization  and  not  destructive  of 
government.  There  must  be  greater  care  under 
these  influences,  if  the  State  would  maintain 
that  honorable  regard  for  private  rights  and 
public  morals  which  now  characterizes  her  leg- 
islation. We  must  not  only  act  for  the  present, 
but  for  the  future,  and  the  possibilities  of  that 
future.  It  has  been  well  said  by  Jefferson,  in 
his  Notes  on  Virginia,  in  speaking  of  the  growth 
of  power  : “ Nor  should  our  Assembly  be  de- 

luded by  the  integrity  of  their  own  purposes, 
and  conclude  that  these  unlimited  powers  will 
never  be  abused,  because  themselves  are  not 
disposed  to  abuse  them.  They  should  look  for- 
ward to  a time,  and  that  not  a distant  one,  when 
a corruption  will  have  seized  the  heads  of  gov- 
ernment, and  be  spread  by  them  through  the 
body  of  the  people,  when  they  will  purchase 
the  voices  of  the  people  and  make  them  pay  the 
price.  The  time  to  guard  against  corruption 
and  tyranny  is  before  they  shall  have  gotten 
hold  on  us.  It  is  better  to  keep  the  wolf  out  of 
the  fold,  than  to  trust  to  drawing  his  teeth  and 
talons  after  he  shall  have  entered.” 

All  government,  to  operate  uniformly,  must 
be  the  government  of  reciprocal  control.  Law, 
of  itself,  is  but  limited  liberty.  There  should 
be  the  greatest  freedom  to  every  citizen  consis- 
tent with  social  order  and  the  public  good.  The 
Constitution  is  simply  the  will  of  the  people 
expressed  through  an  organization  by  balanced 
power.  The  State  can  well  lay  claim  to  the 
warmest  affection  and  the  noblest  zeal  of  every 
citizen.  In  that  spirit  it  should  be  our  highest 
duty  to  frame  a Constitution  wise,  strong,  and 
durable,  and  which,  in  its  practical  operation, 
will  secure  to  us,  and  to  those  who  shall  come 
after  us,  the  blessings  of  peace,  liberty,  and 
good  government. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I am  sure,  it  must  be  very 
flattering  to  the  delegate  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell],  that  the  proposition  which  he  intro- 
duced here  to-day,  has  elicited  such  varied  and 
profound  discussion  from  different  parts  of  the 
House.  I had  no  idea  at  all,  sir,  that  this  dis- 
cussion would  take  so  wide  a range  as  it  has, 
and  that  the  adverse  side  would  take  us,  by  one 
agent  or  another,  so  far  into  the  past,  among 
the  tombs  of  the  great  men  who  lived  at  the 
time  of  the  origin  of  our  country’s  independ- 
ence. Great  names,  indeed,  we  were  familiar- 
ized with  during  the  exordium  of  my  colleague, 
Judge  Hoadly,  and  glorious  names,  of  which 
every  American  may  well  be  proud ; and  it  is 
well  for  them  that  they  live  in  the  eternal  light 
— in  a light  eternal  as  the  Sun  of  Tabor — which 
the  clouds  of  the  present  cannot  obscure,  and 
that  the  criticisms  of  to-day  cannot  affect  their 
good  standing.  I,  sir,  had  not  the  great  privi- 
lege of  first  feeling  the  throbs  of  manhood  un- 
der the  sky  of  America,  having  formed  my 
youthful  experience  in  another  hemisphere; 
but  I took  delight,  the  most  insatiable,  as  an 
Irish  lad,  in  dwelling  upon  this  grand  proces- 
sion of  Americans,  who  had  dared  to  do  what 
was  right  against  kingly  power,  and  even  to  die 
for  their  cause.  And  I cannot  very  well,  or 


1086 


THE  VETO  POWER. [105th 

Carbery,  Burns.  [Wednesday, 


with  a good  grace,  submit  to  have  my  ideal  des- 
troyed by  the  rough  hand  of  modern  criticism. 
Perhaps  it  is  not  the  most  courteous  way  to  be- 
gin with  the  youngest  gentleman ; but,  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  that  at  this  late  hour  of  the  day, 
being  within  a few  minutes  of  the  usual  time 
for  adjournment,  it  would  be  as  well,  if  what  I 
had  to  say  with  reference  to  that  gentleman’s 
argument,  should  be  said  first.  The  gentleman 
who  has  just  resumed  his  seat  [Mr.  Hunt],  after 
giving  us  a very  valuable  historical  resume , 
carrying  us  to  the  wilds  of  Norway,  to  the 
sunny  plains  of  France,  and  to  the  Bridge  of 
Sighs — and,  by  the  way,  I sighed  in  perfect 
sympathy  with  him  as  he  proceeded — and  it  is 
quite  as  well  that  I should  say  a word  that  will 
apply  to  him,  first. 

It  struck  me,  sir,  as  he  spoke,  that  his  whole 
argument  would  be  perfectly  admirable,  if  ap- 
plied to  our  national  system;  but,  it  appeared 
to  me,  that  its  sonorous  sentences  were 
entirely  inapplicable  to  the  State  of  Ohio, 
and  to  the  actualities  of  our  present  position 
here.  It  is  too  grand  a thing  to  be  applied 
to  a subject  like  the  State  of  Ohio;  for  we 
must  recollect  that  there  is  a higher  law  than 
anything  that  can  be  devised  in  Columbus, 
which  will  keep  in  check  the  Legislature  of  our 
State ; and  a higher  law  than  anything  which 
can  be  conceived  of  in  the  brain  of  William 
Allen,  or  any  such  Governor,  and  that  is,  the 
supreme  law  of  the  United  States  is,  after  all,  the 
law  of  the  land.  There  is  no  fear,  therefore,  of 
any  incursions  on  the  part  of  one  department  of 
our  State  government  upon  any  other  depart- 
ment; because  all  the  pomp,  and  power,  and 
circumstance  of  this  whole  nation  is  pledged  to 
maintain  a Republican  form  of  government  in 
every  State  of  the  Union.  It  is,  therefore,  sir, 
scarcely  in  order  to  marshal  this  long  array  of 
historical  facts,  that  have  direct  reference  only 
to  the  affairs  of  a nation,  when  considering  a 
matter  that  is  local  in  its  influence ; and,  there- 
fore, I do  not  feel  obliged  to  accompany  my 
young  friend  on  his  journey — no  matter  how 
eloquent  the  guide  is,  and  no  matter  how  pleas- 
ant he  makes  the  way.  On  the  contrary,  I 
prefer  to  get  a glimpse  of  him,  as  he  comes 
back  to  real  life,  in  about  the  last  fifteen  min- 
utes of  his  speech.  There  he  proposes  to  say 
something  about  what  it  is  necessary  to  do  in 
the  State  of  Ohio,  in  the  year  1874.  But,  sir,  in  j 
order  to  render  it  at  all  reasonable,  the  demand 
he  makes  here,  and  which  others  will  make  after  j 
him,  from  the  Representatives  of  the  people  of 
Ohio  in  Convention  assembled,  I think  it  was 
obligatory  upon  him  to  show  that,  somewhere 
in  this  broad  State,  there  had  arisen  a demand 
that  this  extraordinary  power  should  be  vested 
in  the  Governor;  that  in  some  place  or  another 
some  wrong  had  been  perpetrated,  and  that 
somebody  had  begun  to  deposit  the  germ  of  j 
something  horrible,  which  would  develop  in 
the  future,  to  the  utter  ruin  of  the  State.  Yet, 
notwithstanding  the  fecundity  of  the  gentle- 
man’s imagination— notwithstanding  all  his 
exhaustive  reading  upon  the  subject,  has  he 
given  us  a single  fact  to  prove  that  any  such  ! 
demand  as  that  was  made  by  the  people?  Has 
he  given  us,  here,  a substantial  reason  that  the 
mode  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  I 
[Mr.  Campbell],  to  arrest  hasty  legislation  at 


the  close  of  the  session,  is  not  a complete  rem- 
edy for  every  fault  and  every  wrong  that  has 
been  pointed  out  by  any  gentleman  on  the  other 
side?  In  the  light  of  common  sense,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, which,  after  all,  cannot  be  disregarded, 
even  by  the  poets,  something  of  this  kind  should 
be  shown  us,  in  evidence  of  the  disease,  before 
gentlemen  undertake  to  apply  this  extraordinary 
corrective.  I have  seen  no  such  evidence — none 
at  all — either  from  Judge  Hoadly,  or  from  my 
young  friend ; and  as  for  the  pleasantries  of  the 
gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  although  he 
will  vote  against  us,  if  I understand  his  reason- 
ing at  all,  it  was  entirely  in  our  favor,  so  that 
the  gentleman  may  be  considered  as  only  half 
in  opposition.  Something  was  said,  during  the 
discussion  of  other  matters  upon  this  floor,  a 
day  or  two  ago,  in  regard  to  how  degrading  it 
was,  and  how  unseemly,  to  admit 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  ask  my  es- 
teemed friend  a question. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Go  on,  sir;  I could  not 
refuse  anything  to  so  venerable  a gentleman  as 
yourself. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  a compliment,  coming 
from  my  young  friend,  which  I did  not  expect. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  1 will  give  way  with  pleas- 
ure, sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  gentleman  speaks  of  a 
remedy  provided  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell],  for  hasty  legislation.  I would 
like  to  inquire  where  the  remedy  is,  and 
whether  the  same  vote  which  passes  in  the  first 
place  does  not  pass  in  the  second? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Well,  sir,  in  answer  to  the 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  and  to 
give  him  a familiar  illustration,  I would  say, 
that  I should  think  that  he  himself  might  have 
learned  from  the  history  of  the  last  ten  days  in 
the  Convention,  that  there  is  some  virtue  in  re- 
consideration. So  much  for  the  present. 

I was  about  to  say,  Mr.  President,  that,  some 
time  ago,  some  remarks  were  made  to  the  effect 
that  it  was  an  unmanly  thing  for  any  sovereign 
citizen  to  confess  that  he  could  follow  a leader, 
or  that  any  such  thing  as  following  a leader 
was  at  all  compatible  with  the  dignity  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  portions  of  the  people  in  Con- 
vention assembled.  It  struck  me  very  forcibly 
at  the  time,  that  gentlemen  were  forgetting  that 
the  great  God  who  made  us  has  not  made  us  all 
alike;  that  there  were  some  men  born  to  be 
kings — the  strong  men  of  whom  Carlyle  speaks 
— men  who  were  destined  for  kingly  power 
when  their  brain  walls  first  began  to  be  erected, 
who  were  kings  at  their  birth;  and,  al- 
though no  mortal  hand  may  have  put  the 
scepter  in  their  hands,  the  King  of  Kings 
and  Lord  of  Lords  gave  them  a com- 
mission and  told  them  to  go  forth  and  rule, 
in  a less  absolute  sense,  in  society,  in  politics, 
in  social  life,  in  literature,  or  wherever  there 
are  men  to  rule — to  rule  by  the  light  of  intel- 
lect, by  the  light  of  quick  perception  and 
strong  judgment.  And  these  are  the  men 
whom  it  is  an  honor  to  follow ; these  are  the 
men  whose  names  a man  may  inscribe  in  his 
heart  of  hearts,  and  to  whom  he  may  be  leal  and 
passionately  devoted  while  his  life  lasts.  Some 
such  men  as  we  have  amongst  us,  and  the  long 
past  is  strewn  with  them,  as  is  the  firmament 
with  stars.  Where  would  England’s  history 


Day.] 

February  4, 1874.] 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Carbery,  Hoadly,  Burns,  Hitchcock, 


1087 


be,  without  the  leaders  of  her  democracy— not 
to  mention  the  men  who  stood  against  the 
Stuarts,  an  epoch  in  history  to  which  allusion 
has  been  playfully  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  ? What  would  England 
be  except  for  the  Democrats  of  that  day? 
What  would  England  be  without  her  Cobden 
and  her  Bright,  who  live  as  common  men? 
What  would  France  be  in  literature,  and  per- 
haps in  politics,  without  her  Voltaire  or  her 
Bousseau?  These  men  were  all  leaders,  and 
yet  common  people,  who  brushed  against  their 
fellow-men,  shoulder  to  shoulder,  and  lent 
their  inspiration  to  other  men,  and  national  re- 
demption and  national  safety  followed  them. 
What  would  American  history  have  been, 
think  you,  in  the  very  beginning,  except  for 
the  surveyor  of  Virginia,  except  for  the  loyal- 
hearted  orator,  Patrick  Henry?  Or  without 
such  a man  as  Adams  ? Or,  in  a later  day, 
what  would  she  have  done  but  for  the  rugged 
boy  of  Irish  descent,  who,  behind  his  cotton- 
bales,  gave  a lesson  to  the  flag  of  St.  George 
which  it  has  never  forgotten?  And,  sir,  to 
narrow  down  the  reasoning,  so  as  to  apply  it  to 
myself,  and  to  my  surroundings — here,  in  this 
Hall,  we  have  men  whom  I am  proud  to  follow, 
and  whose  intuitions  and  knowledge  of  the 
past,  and  whose  strong  minds  have  thrown  a 
light  upon  this  very  subject  under  discussion 
that  is  “ a light  unto  my  feet,”  and  I feel 
thankful  to  them  for  it.  I feel  thankful  to  my 
friend  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  who  has 
sounded  so  timely  a tocsin  of  alarm,  which  I 
hope  will  draw  in  the  stragglers  who  have  been 
seduced  away  from  the  old  flag  of  the  State  to 
follow  some  new  and  gaudy  butterfly  banner. 
I hope  it  will  bring  them  back — bring  the  solid 
men,  the  thoughtful  men  of  the  State,  back  to 
the  facts  of  our  history. 

We  do  not  want  an  experiment  of  this  kind 
for  many  reasons,  and  for  one  reason  in  particu- 
lar. There  are  many  men  in  the  State  whom  I 
should  not  like  to  endow  with  the  extraordinary 
power  which  is  sought  to  be  given  to  the  Exec- 
utive of  the  State ; for,  although  a good  man 
might  use  the  power  given  to  him  for  the  goo$ 
of  the  people,  a bad  man,  sir,  in  that  place,  might 
act  in  complicity  with  great  interests  in  this 
State  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  the  people 
of  the  State  of  the  right  to  govern  themselves. 
It  is  true  that  the  power  returns  to  the  people 
periodically  and  often,  and  that  that  might  make 
against  the  conclusion  which  I have  drawn ; but, 
if  it  does,  it  is  equally  fatal  to  the  reasoning  of 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side.  The  power 
goes  back  to  the  people — and,  by  the  way,  in 
the  course  of  this  discussion,  something  wassaid 
about  professions  of  faith,  referring  to  what  a 
man’s  politics  were,  and  what  they  were  not, 
and  it  was  boldly  asserted  that  coercion — force 
— was  the  true  Democratic  doctrine.  Sir,  I re- 
spectfully dissent  from  such  an  assertion. 


Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  my  colleague  permit 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  that  gentleman  mean 
us  to  understand  that  it  would  not  be  proper  to 
maintain  the  integrity  of  the  Union,  public 
order,  by  coercion  ? Did  Jackson  support  such 
a doctrine  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  That  is  too  broad  an  as- 
sertion. But  I do  maintain  that  he  was  a truer 
and  more  philosophical  Democrat  than  ever 
Andrew  Jackson  was,  who  said  that  all  virtue 
in  the  Government  comes  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  All  virtue? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Well,  yes,  perhaps  that  is 
not  literally  what  is  written  down,  but  it  has 
the  essence  of  what  is  written — but  I am  not  a 
lawyer,  and,  therefore,  I cannot  quibble  on 
these  things. 

I was  about  to  say  that  a modern  Democrat, 
born  on  the  other  side,  John  Stuart  Mill — of 
whom  I have  no  doubt  that  my  friend  is  a dili- 
gent student,  because  I find  some  splendid  phi- 
losophy, and  many  beautiful  ideas  sparkling 
out  in  his  discourses — themselves  always  elo- 
quent and  instructive — has  not  written  down 
that  coercion  is  the  first  and  fundamental  law 
of  Democracy,  but  something  very  different 
from  that;  and  he  has  written  some  glorious 
sentences  to  prove  that  there  is  no  tyranny  so 
monstrous  as  the  tyranny  of  a mere  majority. 

Mr.  BURY S.  Right  there  I want  to  stick  a 
pin . We  want  to  guard  against  that  tyranny  of 
the  majority  by  referring  questions  back  to  the 
people. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I am  afraid  the  gentleman 
is  going  the  wrong  way  so  reach  his  object. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Not  a bit  of  it. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I cannot  understand  the 
reasoning  by  which  the  gentlemen  arrive  at 
that  conclusion,  especially  when  we  transfer 
our  views  from  Ohio  to  the  broader  field  of  Fed- 
eral politics,  to  which  my  mind  has  been  di- 
rected, and  if  I did  not  succeed  in  carrying  my 
friend  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  along  with 
me,  it  is  owing  entirely  to  the  weakness  of  the 
pinion — I was  not  equal  to  the  load.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

I would  ask  the  favor  of  this  Convention  now 
of  permitting  me  to  suspend  what  I have  to  say. 
It  is  now  nearly  half-past  five  o’clock,  and  I 
should  like  to  resume  to-morrow. 

[“Agreed!”  “agreed.”] 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  will  give  way,  I will  move  that  the 
Convention  do  now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:20  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


1088 


[106th 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Waddle,  Rickly,  Humphreville,  Carbery.  [Thursday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  SIXTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 


FORTY-FOURTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Thursday,  February  5,  1874. 


NINE  AND  ONE-HALF  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assemhied  pursuant  to 
adjournment:  the  President  in  the  Chair. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  W.  T.  Moore,  of  the  Central 
Christian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  eighty  members  an- 
swered to  their  names. 

EXCUSED. 

Mr.  Shaw  was  excused  from  answering  at 
Roll-call. 

Mr.  White,  of  Hocking,  was  excused  for  ab- 
sence yesterday  and  Tuesday. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

INVITATION  TO  VISIT  WORK-HOUSE. 

The  PRESIDENT  laid  before  the  Convention 
a communication  from  W.L.  Thompson,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Cincinnati 
Workhouse,  tendering  an  invitation  to  the 
President  and  members  to  be  present  at  the 
chapel  services  of  that  institution  on  Sunday 
morning,  the  8th  instant. 

PRESENTATION  OF  PETITIONS. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of  Ham- 
ilton Scott,  and  thirty-two  other  citizens  of 
Coshocton  county,  for  an  acknowledgment  of 
Almighty  God  and  the  Christian  Religion  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  RICKLY  presented  the  petition  of  Syl- 
vester M.  Douglass,  and  four  other  citizens  of 
Franklin  county,  asking  that  the  manufacture 
and  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors,  as  a bever- 
age, in  this  State,  shall  hereafter  be  prohibited. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

CONSIDERATION  OF  PENDING  PROPOSITION. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  As  there  seems  to 
be  no  miscellaneous  business  offered,  I move 
that  the  Convention  now  proceed  to  the  con- 
sideration of  Proposition  No.  190. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  is 
on  agreeing  to  the  substitute  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell].  The 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  has 
the  floor. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  When  the  Convention  ad- 
journed last  evening,  we  were  in  the  midst  of 
the  discussion  of  a very  interesting  subject,  and 
I was  engaged  in  the  review  of  the  speech  of 


my  colleague  [Mr.  Hunt].  I want  to  say  here, 
that  I hope  nobody  will,  for  one  moment,  im- 
agine that  the  facetiousness  with  which  I re- 
ferred to  the  gentleman’s  remarks  was  in  any 
way  disrespectful ; quite  the  contrary.  There 
is  nobody  in  this  Convention  or  elsewhere  who 
has  a higher  appreciation  of  the  talent  and 
genius  of  my  young  friend,  than  I have.  I can 
predict  for  him  a brilliant  future;  and  if  I 
should  not  be  permitted  to  be  personally  pres- 
ent on  the  day  when  his  success  culminates,  I 
hope  that  in  the  spirit,  at  all  events,  I shall  be 
present  to  offer  my  congratulations. 

Mr.  Hunt  dwelt  long  upon  the  necessity  there 
was  of  keeping  separate  the  three  Departments 
I of  government  in  the  State — the  Legislative, 
i the  Judicial  and  the  Executive.  His  theory  he 
stated  with  great  lucidity  and  at  great  length, 
but  I mistake  very  much  if  the  same  felicity 
was  displayed  in  the  application  practically  to 
the  question  under  discussion : 

I.  The  Legislative  Department  is  to  make  the 
laws. 

II.  The  courts,  to  define  and  construe  them, 
and, 

III.  The  Executive,  to  enforce  them. 

But  my  friend  proposes  to  invade  the  first,  by 
giving  to  the  Governor  a negative  voice  equal 
to  three-fifths  of  the  Representatives  of  the 
people;  thus  stepping  out  of  his  sphere  to  ob- 
struct and  hinder  the  popular  branch  of  the 
government. 

But  it  is  said  this  is  done  to  save  the  people 
from  bad  laws,  to  save  the  people  from  them- 
selves, to  interdict  their  chosen  ones,  and  to  say 
to  them  dictatorially,  “thus  far  shalt  thou  go, 
and  no  further.” 

This  would  be  the  inauguration  of  disorder. 
How  much  more  simple,  how  vastly  more  in 
consonance  with  the  spirit  of  our  government 
and  the  habits  of  the  people,  is  the  mode  pro- 
posed by  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from 
Butler,  [Mr.  Campbell].  He  proposed  that  the 
Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  State  shall  sub- 
mit his  objections  to  the  obnoxious  law  as  the 
chosen  one  of  the  whole  people,  in  the  light 
of  reasonable  authority  and  with  all  the  dignity 
of  his  high  office,  calling  on  the  General  As- 
sembly to  weigh  well  and  reconsider  their  ac- 
tion, and  then  leaving  where  it  belongs  the  en- 
tire responsibility.  Should  it  turn  out  that  the 
Legislature  more  correctly  interpreted  the  peo- 
ple’s will,  all  well.  No  man  has  any  reason  to 
complain,  and  the  people  will  think  well  of  their 
Chief  Magistrate,  whose  vigilance  prompted 
him  to  interfere.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Garber y,  Bishop. 


1089 


Day.] 


February  5, 1874.] 


Legislature  shall  have  misjudged  the  popular 
symptoms,  is  the  fault  of  the  General  Assembly 
irreparable ; are  the  law  or  laws  irrepealable  ? 
Not  at  all.  The  power  inherent  in  the  people 
will  reveal  itself  in  the  next  election,  and  again 
the  will  of  the  freemen  of  Ohio  will  be  reflect- 
ed in  the  Legislature.  Sir,  this  is  the  true  rem- 
edy ; it  is  that  course  which  will  leave  no  sore- 
ness behind.  It  is  the  course  that  will  not  lead 
to  estrangement  and  rivalry  between  two  great 
departments  of  our  State  government.  And 
since  the  refrain  of  the  gentlemen  who  oppose 
this  substitute  generally  starts  from  the  same 
note  in  the  gamut,  and  through  all  its  variations 
of  high  pitch  and  low,  is  characterized  by  a 
wondrous  agreement,  perhaps  the  answer  to  my 
younger  colleague  will,  in  a measure,  be  taken 
for  an  answer  to  all.  If  there  was  any  addi- 
tional reason  urged  by  my  friend  who  last 
spoke,  I fail  to  recall  it,  and  I am  obliged  to 
weigh  his  advocacy  by  this  hard  standard  of 
facts,  and  refuse  all  credit  to  the  wealth  of 
rhetoric  by  which  they  were  embellished. 

With  reference  to  the  argument  of  my  distin- 
guished friend,  Judge  Hoadly,  I must  say  what 
all  feel  who  presume  to  cross  his  keen-edged 
Damascus  blade,  that  in  any  attempt  to  do  so,  I 
find  myself  realizing  a genuine  solicitude  for  my 
own  dearly  beloved  cuticle.  But  I feel  encourag- 
ed somewhat  by  the  reflection  that  my  poor  criti- 
cism may  be  applied  to  the  elegant  extracts  with 
which  he  favored  the  Convention, andwhich  com- 
prised much  the  larger  part  of  the  argument.  The 
honorable  gentleman,  by  himself  and  witness- 
es, proceeded  to  prove  that  it  was  a mere  fortui- 
tous accident  which  excluded  the  veto  from  our 
former  Constitution — or,  at  least,  from  the  old- 
est one.  I feel  like  complimenting  fate  and  the 
irascible  Governor  St.  Clair,  for  procuring  this 
most  useful  accident,  which  resulted  in  the 
peace  and  happiness  of  the  State  for  seventy 
years.  It  reminds  me  of  an  anecdote  related 
of  the  late  President  Lincoln,  and  his  humor- 
ous and  caustic  reply  to  some  soreheads  who 
were  urging  complaints  against  Grant  on  ac- 
count of  his  fondness  for  a certain  liquor, 
“ that  he  sincerely  wished  that  some  of  his 
maligners  might  be  induced  to  try  some  of  it 
too,  and  mayhap  the  experiment  might  result 
in  something  like  the  success  which  distinguish- 
ed the  man  whom  they  assailed.”  So  I say  to 
the  gentleman : God  bless  the  accident  and 
make  it  perpetual,  which  has  resulted  so  well 
for  our  good  State. 

Sir,  1 can  see  in  the  attempt  to  imbed  this 
strange  thing  in  the  organic  law,  more  of  the 
zeal  of  the  doctrinaire  than  the  calm  wisdom 
of  the  statesman ; and  I am  inspired  to  say  to 
to  this  body,  reflect  well  upon  the  great  tri- 
bunal to  which  your  work,  with  all  its  imper- 
fections, has  finally  to  be  submitted. 

Remember  that  strong  common  sense  and 
strong  conservatism  which  mark  the  masses  of 
our  fellow-citizens,  and  refrain  from  inviting 
them  to  stamp  with  the  seal  of  their  approba- 
tion this  new  feature,  whose  presence  in  the 
.Constitution  was  entirely  unsought  by  them. 

I thank  the  Convention  for  the  attention, 
much  beyond  their  deserts,  which  they  have 
accorded  to  my  remarks.  They  present,  per- 
haps, more  warmth,  both  of  commendation  and 
disapproval,  than  is  common  in  debate;  but  I 

y.  n-71 


beg  to  say  that,  although  passing  two-thirds  of 
my  life  among  them,  I have  utterly  faded  to 
acquire  the  phlegm  of  the  Anglo-Saxon,  and 
therefore  express  love  and  hate  with  all  the  ar- 
dor of  Rob  Roy,  McGregor,  of  Owen  Roe  O’Neil. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I have  listened  to  my  dis- 
tinguished friend  and  colleague  [Mr.  Hunt], 
with  a great  deal  of  pleasure.  I had  thought  of 
making  some  remarks  on  the  veto  power;  but 
had  come  to  the  conclusion,  after  hearing  the 
arguments  of  my  young  friend  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt],  that  it  was  wholly  unnecessary, 
and  I should  certainly  not  have  done  so,  had 
not  the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat 
[Mr.  Carbery],  asked  the  friends  of  the  veto 
measure,  to  show  when  a demand  for  the  veto 
had  been  made.  I propose,  sir,  in  a very  few 
words,  to  give  the  gentleman  an  instance  where 
a demand  has  been  made,  and  that,  very  close 
at  home. 

The  gentleman  will  doubtless  remember  that 
the  people  of  our  city  asked  the  Legislature  to 
give  the  Mayor  the  veto  power.  He  will  re- 
member, sir,  that  that  power  was  granted  to  the 
Mayor,  and  he  will  also  remember  that  an  or- 
dinance was  presented  to  the  common  council 
of  this  city,  which  was  very  adroitly  drawn  up ; 
it  was  very  ingeniously  worded;  so  much  so, 
that  the  most  astute  minds  in  both  of  those 
bodies  did  not  discover  its  bearing  until  after  it 
had  been  referred  to  the  Committee,  was  in- 
dorsed by  the  Committee,  and  was  presented  to 
the  lower  Board.  It  passed  that  Board,  went 
to  the  Board  of  Aldermen,  and  went  through 
almost  unanimously.  Finally,  it  was  discovered 
that  there  were  some  very  ingenious  parts  in 
that  ordinance ; something  that  was  calculated 
to  take  from  the  city,  powers  which  it  did  not 
wish  to  delegate  to  anybody.  What  was  the 
demand  made  upon  our  Mayor  ? The  papers, 
I believe  I may  say,  unanimously,  after  they 
saw  the  force  of  the  bill,  demanded  that  he 
should  veto  it  within  the  time  prescribed  by 
law.  The  demand  was  made  just  before  the 
election,  and  he  was  threatened  with  defeat  if 
he  did  not  exercise  the  power  that  was  delegated 
to  him.  He  did  not  doit;  he  failed.  Perhaps 
he  thought  it  was  not  best,  according  to  his 
judgment — I will  put  the  best  and  most  chari- 
table construction  upon  it — but  what  was  the 
result?  The  people  of  Cincinnati  decided 
against  him.  They  demanded,  almost  unani- 
mously, that  the  measure  should  be  vetoed  ; he 
failed  to  do  it,  and  the  result  of  it  was  (whether 
that  was  the  cause  of  it  or  not,  I will  leave  the 
people  to  judge)  that  although  he  belonged  to 
the  then  dominant  party,  he  was  defeated  for 
re-election. 

I will  say,  that  had  not  my  colleague  asked 
for  an  instance,  I should  not  have  made  the  re- 
marks that  I have. 

I am  aware  that  there  is  much  opposition  to 
the  veto  po.wer  being  incorporated  in  the  organic 
law  of  our  State,  but,  notwithstanding  the  per- 
tinent arguments  eloquent  speakers  have  made 
against  it,  I am  still  of  the  opinion  that,  as  a 
safeguard  against  haste  and  improper  legisla- 
tion, it  is  important  that  we  should  retain  it,  as 
provided  in  the  section  reported  from  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole.  It  is,  certainly,  not  vest- 
ing too  much  power  in  an  efficient  Executive, 
a man  of  experience  and  decision  of  character, 


1090 


[106th 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Bishop,  Barnet,  Horton. 


such  as  should  always  occupy  the  gubernatorial 
chair  of  our  great  and  growing  State,  to  place 
upon  him  the  responsibility  of  criticising,  with 
watchful  care,  every  hill  that  passed  the  Legis- 
lature, with  the  power,  if  he  deemed  it  in  any 
way  prejudicial  to  public  interest,  to  return  it, 
with  his  objections,  for  a more  careful  and 
thoughtful  consideration.  The  effect  of  this 
safeguard  has  been  felt,  and  appreciated,  in 
States  where  the  tests  of  its  efficiency  have  been 
tried.  The  great  complaint  of  the  day  is,  that 
private  interests  and  private  welfare  are  daily 
sacrificed  before  the  increasing  power  of  mon- 
eyed monopolies  and  corporations.  Their  influ- 
ence is  too  often  felt  in  the  halls  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. But,  if  higher,  and  beyond  the  circle  of 
their  influence,  there  is  another  authority, 
which  has  the  power  to  apply  the  brake  to 
hasty  and  ill-considered  legislation,  and  call  for 
a searching  analysis  of  its  objects  and  aims,  the 
welfare  of  the  public  is  better  guarded,  and  their 
protection  better  insured.  It  is  too  often  the 
case — in  the  General  Assembly,  as  in  the  city 
government — that  measures,  seemingly  of  minor 
importance,  but,  in  truth,  big  with  evil  conse- 
quences to  the  people,  skillfully  engineered, 
without  attracting  notice  or  comment,  are 
pressed  to  a vote,  and  passed.  No  one  is  to 
blame,  for  no  censor  exists,  whose  dutj'-  is  co- 
extensive with  tne  State.  If,  however,  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  Executive,  before  such  bills  become 
law,  to  carefully  examine  them,  in  all  their  re- 
lations and  bearings  to  the  public,  their  evil 
points  are  brought  to  the  surface,  and,  on  re- 
turning them  to  the  Legislature,  with  his  rea- 
sons for  not  signing,  their  improprieties  are  fully 
laid  before  the  body,  and  an  opportunity  given 
them  to  correct  their  former  error.  Another 
great  advantage  of  the  Chief  Executive  of  the 
State  possessing  this  power  is  this : Every  bill 
introduced,  and  passed,  in  the  Legislature,  re- 
ceives a strict  and  scrutinizing  investigation. 
It  is  often  the  case  that  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, as  we  all  know,  vote  upon  bills  presented 
without  fully  understanding  either  their  merits 
or  demerits.  And  I do  not  say  this  in  derogation 
of  the  members,  for  it  would  be  a physical  im- 
possibility for  any  one  member  to  understand, 
thoroughly,  all  the  measures  voted  upon  in  the 
House ; and,  in  this  way,  bills  are  often  passed, 
which,  had  they  received  closer  study,  would 
have  been  indignantly  rejected.  This  hasty, 
careless  legislation,  is  productive  of  evil,  but  the 
evil  is  much  lessened,  if  not  completely  eradi- 
cated, by  the  careful  attention  which  will  be 
given  it  by  the  Chief  Executive.  The  power  to 
veto  has  been  conferred  upon  the  Governors  of 
a large  majority  of  the  States;  also,  upon  the 
Chief  Executive  of  the  United  States,  and  has 
been  exercised,  upon  several  occasions,  to  the 
manifest  advantage  and  benefit  of  the  people. 
Andrew  Jackson,  the  hero  and  patriot  of  the 
Hermitage,  arrested,  by  his  veto,  the  Maysville 
Road  Bill,  and,  also,  the  act  rechartering  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  in  1832 — vetoes,  at 
that  time,  unpopular,  but  which,  experience  has 
proved,  were  wise  and  important.  Much  has 
been  said  about  taking  away  the  liberties  of  the 
people,  by  conferring  the  veto  power  upon  the 
Governor.  It  does  not  strike  me  as  such,  but, 
rather,  as  the  preservation  of  their  liberty.  No 
law,  sir,  is  worthy  of  going  upon  our  statute 


[Thursday, 


books  which  has  not  the  merit,  in  itself,  to  com- 
mand the  approval  of  two-thirds  of  the  members 
of  the  Legislature,  after  it  has  been  condemned 
by  the  first  officer  of  the  State.  The  arresting 
of  a bill  by  the  Governor  is  not  killing  the  meas- 
ure, but  simply  referring  it  back  to  the  people, 
or  the  Representatives  of  the  people,  for  a more 
mature  consideration,  before  that  becomes  a 
law,  which,  in  his  judgment,  is  antagonistic  to 
principles  of  justice  and  prudence.  Had  Pres- 
ident Grant  exercised  this  power  of  veto  in  the 
late  obnoxious  bill,  known  as  the  “ salary 
grab,”  it  would  have  redounded  greatly,  not 
only  to  his  honor,  but  would  have  fully  illus- 
trated the  importance  of  such  a power  being 
vested  in  the  Chief  Executive  of  a nation.  Un- 
fortunatety,  he  was  not  equal  to  the  occasion, 
and  left  for  a subsequent  Congress  to  perform, 
influenced  by  a general  and  spontaneous  out- 
burst of  indignation,  a duty  which  he,  himself, 
should  have  executed. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  before  he  takes  his  seat?  If 
General  Grant  was  clothed  with  the  veto  pow- 
er and  did  not  exercise  it,  is  not  that  an  argu- 
ment against  the  measure  itself,  and  is  it  not 
an  argument  for  the  other  side  of  this  question  ? 
Here  is  an  officer  clothed  with  this  power,  and 
he  fails  to  exercise  it  when  gentlemen  suppose 
he  ought  to  exercise  it. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  That  only  argues,  sir,  that  the 
next  time  we  must  put  in  a man  who  is  worthy 
of  the  place  and  capable  of  doing  his  duty. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I had  not  intended  to  take 
part  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  at  all.  I 
confess  my  mind  was  not  very  clearly  made  up 
at  the  commencement  of  this  debate;  but  there 
are  two  or  three  questions,  or  two  or  three 
practical  difficulties,  which  suggest  themselves 
to  my  mind,  which  I have  not  been  able  to 
clear  up,  and  which  have  not  yet  been  satisfac- 
torily cleared  up  to  me;  and  I desire  to  present 
them  now,  merely  that  the  friends  of  the  mea- 
sure may  have  opportunity  to  offer  such  argu- 
ments and  reasons  as  will  settle  the  questions 
and  doubts  in  my  mind. 

Now,  sir,  it  matters  very  little  to  us  what 
may  have  been  the  history  of  the  veto  power; 
it  matters  very  little  to  us  whence  it  may  have 
come  or  what  may  have  been  its  practice  in 
other  countries.  I apprehend  that  nowhere  can 
it  be  found  that  in  a representative  democratic 
government  has  the  veto  power  been  applied 
except  in  this  country;  and  it  will  avail  us 
very  little  to  search  for  precedents  in  the  old 
world. 

For  seventy  years,  the  people  of  Ohio  have 
had  a government  under  which  they  have  pros- 
pered and  flourished  without  it.  And  the  prac- 
tical question  now  presented  to  us  is,  does  it 
furnish  a remedy  for  any  ills,  or  guard  against 
any  dangers  to  which  the  State  is  subject?  The 
burden  of  showing  this  rests  on  those  who  pro- 
pose the  change.  The  veto  is  no  part  of  law- 
making, it  is  simply  a power  to  prevent  the 
making  of  laws,  and  the  only  reason  which  has 
or  can  be  adduced  in  its  favor  is,  that  it  is  a 
j check  upon,  and  tends  to  prevent  the  enactment’ 
of  bad  laws.  There  is  no  pretense  that  it  is 
designed  to  create  good  laws ; it  is  purely  and 
essentially  negative  in  its  character.  Does  it 
* then  accomplish  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  de- 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Horton,  IIoadly. 


1091 


Day.] 


February  5,  1874. 


signed?  Does  it  have  a tendency  to  prevent 
the  enactment  of  had  laws?  If  so,  then  most 
cheerfully  will  I vote  in  favor  of  it.  The  friends 
of  the  measure  offer  us,  for  its  support,  argu- 
ments drawn  from  theory,  and  in  support  of  their 
their  theory,  cite  us  to  experience  of  the  result  of 
the  exercise  of  the  power  where  it  has  existed. 
We  are  told,  and  this  is  the  theory  of  the  friends 
of  the  measure,  that  it  will  be  a check  upon  hasty, 
ill-considered,  improper  legislation;  that  the 
Governor,  being  vested  with  this  power,  will 
thereby  be  enabled  to,  and  will  interpose  it  to  pre- 
vent the  enactment  of  laws  of  this  character.  This 
may  be,  and  doubtless  is,  to  some  extent,  true, 
and  I have  no  doubt  that  much  benefit  may  be  ex- 
pected, and  will  result  from  the  judicious  exer- 
cise of  the  power.  But,  sir,  there  are  other 
considerations  than  this.  It  will  not  do  for  us 
to  inquire  simply,  whether  the  Governor  may 
make  this  an  instrument,  powerful  as  it  is  in 
his  hands,  for  doing  good,  without  inquiring 
what  its  effect  will  be  in  other  departments  of 
the  government. 

Sir,  a skillful  player,  when  he  decides  to 
move  a piece  upon  the  board,  not  only  considers 
the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  the  forward 
movement  of  the  piece  in  question,  but  he  must 
also  consider  the  effect  the  change  of  position 
will  have  upon  the  balance  of  his  men,  and  the 
danger  to  which  the  change  may  subject  them. 
He  will  look  well  to  see  what  he  is  in  danger  of 
losing,  as  well  as  what  he  may  hope  to  gain. 
Mr.  President,  it  is  not  so  much  the  doubt  as  to 
what  we  may  gain,  as  the  fear  of  what  we  may 
lose,  that  induces  me  to  distrust  the  propriety  of 
the  proposed  change  in  the  organic  law  of  the 
State.  Under  the  present  Constitution,  the  sole 
responsibility  for  the  enactment  of  laws  rests 
upon  the  General  Assembly ; its  determination 
is  final.  If  bad  laws  are  passed,  there  is  no 
escape  from,  no  shifting  of,  the  responsibility. 
The  people  know  just  where  to  look  to  find  the 
wrong-doers,  and  there  is  no  escape  for  them 
from  the  condemnation  due  to  their  conduct. 
This  fact  of  the  immediate,  undivided,  and  com- 
plete responsibility  of  the  General  Assembly 
for  all  laws  passed,  is  one  of  paramount  im- 
portance, and  of  which  we  should  not  lose 
sight.  It  ought  to,  and  beyond  all  question 
does,  exert  a powerful  conservative  and  tonic 
influence  upon  that  body.  There  is  nothing 
which  more  strongly  tends  to  keep  men  hon- 
est, upright,  and  straightforward,  in  any  posi- 
tion, than  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  great 
responsibilities  rest  upon  them ; it  has  an  enno- 
bling, elevating,  and  strengthening  influence, 
which  stands  peerless  in  its  power  over  the  ac- 
tions of  men.  Strike  down  in  a man  all  sense 
of  responsibility  for  his  conduct,  and  you  de- 
stroy all  probability  that  his  actions  will  be 
worthy  of  respect;  but  hold  him  to  a high  re- 
sponsibility, and  then,  if  there  be  any  good  in 
him,  it  will  surely  come  forth.  That  the  veto 
power,  in  the  hands  of  the  Governor,  will  arrest 
much  bad  legislation,  is  no  doubt  true;  but 
will  it  not,  by  releasing  the  General  Assembly 
from  the  sole  responsibility  for  bad  laws,  so  far 
reduce  the  tone,  standing,  and  character  of  that 
body  that  bad  laws  will  much  more  easily  find 
their  way  through  it  ? I fear  that  it  will ; and  I 
think  that  by  it  you  will  have  lost  to  your 
General  Assembly  more  than  you  will  have 


gained  from  your  Executive.  After  all,  say 
what  you  will,  the  Leg;slature  is  the  power  that 
makes  your  laws;  it  is  there  they  are  con- 
ceived; it  is  there  they  are  brought  forth,  and 
the  Legislature  must  continue,  always,  to  be 
the  real  responsible  party  for  the  laws  of  your 
country.  And  is  it  not  better,  Mr.  President, 
that  we  should  hold  them  to  a strict,  entire, 
and  undivided  responsibility,  than  that  we 
should  enable  them  to  throw  oft  upon  somebody 
else  the  responsibility  that  ought  to  devolve 
upon  them  ? 

When  the  General  Assembly  may  pass  crude 
and  illy  considered  laws,  and  then  throw  the 
responsibility  of  arresting  their  further  pro- 
gress, over  upon  the  Executive,  I very  much 
fear,  sir,  that  the  little  check  that  we  shall  have 
gained  from  the  Executive,  we  shall  have  pur- 
chased by  a surrender  of  the  greatest  measure, 
the  greatest  safe-guard  that  we  have,  or  can 
possibly  have,  in  the  fact  that  there  is  a sense 
of  responsibility,  and  is  a responsibility,  upon 
the  part  of  the  General  Assembly,  that  their 
actions  shall  be  final. 

“Divide,  and  then  conquer,”  was  the  maxim 
of  a nation  that  carried  its  conquests  to  the 
furthest  parts  of  the  known  world.  “Divide, 
and  you  can  conquer,”  is  a maxim  as  true  in 
political  as  in  military  science,  and,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I know  of  no  device  among  men  more  po- 
tent for  bringing  great  disasters  upon  any  cause 
than  a divided  responsibility.  And,  it  is  because 
I fear,  because  I very  much  fear,  that  when  we 
have  divided  the  responsibility,  when  we  have 
placed  the  General  Assembly  in  such  a position 
as  that  they  may  hastily  pass,  hastily  consider, 
and  then  throw  the  responsibility  over  upon  the 
Governor,  instead  of  gaining  something,  we 
shall  have  lost  much  that  I distrust  the  value 
of  the  proposed  change  in  the  organic  law. 
Why,  we  are  referred  to  the  example  of  some 
of  our  sister  States ; we  are  told  that  Governor 
Hartranft  vetoed  some  sixty  bills  passed  by 
the  last  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania.  If  that 
be  true,  Isay,  in  my  judgment,  no  more  startling 
statement  has  been  made  on  this  floor,  and  none 
goes  further  to  convince  me  of  the  dangerous  ex- 
ercise of  this  power.  Sixty  bills  vetoed  by  the 
Governor  of  Pennsylvania! 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  HORTON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Supposing  these  vetoes  to 
have  been  followed,  as  I believe  they  have,  by 
the  general  approval  of  the  people  of  the  State, 
would  it  be  an  argument  against  or  for  ? 

Mr.  HORTON.  It  is,  to  my  mind,  an  argu- 
ment against,  and  for  this  reason  : That  when 
the  General  Assembly  can  feel  that  they  can 
pass  laws,  and  throw  the  responsibility  upon 
the  Executive,  I believe  that  you  have  so  far  re- 
duced the  tone,  and  the  character,  and  standing 
of  the  General  Assembly,  that  reform  through 
them  is  hopeless.  Now,  sir,  I venture  to  say 
that  we  have  not  had  sixty  bills  passed  within 
the  State  of  Ohio  for  the  last  sixty  years,  the 
veto  of  which  would  have  been  sustained  by 
the  people ; and  I believe  there  would  not  have 
been  sixty  passed  in  Pennsylvania  that  would 
have  demanded  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power, 
if  the  General  Assembly  had  been  alone  re- 
sponsible to  the  people. 


1092 


THE  VETO  POWER. 


[106th 


Hoadly,  Horton,  Yoris,  Pond. 


[Thursday, 


Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a qestion  ? 

Mr.  HORTON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman — from 
the  information  which  he  has,  which  1 presume 
will  enable  him  to  answer  the  question — will 
the  gentleman  say  that  it  is  not  true  that  at  least 
as  many  as  sixty  bills  have  passed  any  one  ses- 
sion of  our  General  Assembly,  in  direct  conflict 
with  the  Constitution,  for  conferring  corpo- 
rate power? 

Mr.  YORIS.  1 would  like  to  answer  the  gen- 
tleman by  saying  that  there  are  fifty  acts  in  the 
last  general  statutes  that  ought  to  have  been 
vetoed,  if  such  a power  had  existed. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Well,  I am  not  afraid  to-day 
to  compare  the  history  of  legislation  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  for  the  last  twenty  years  with 
that  of  New  York  or  that  of  Pennsylvania, 
where  they  have  had  the  veto  power  in  full 
force. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
another  interruption,  to  set  myself  right?  I 
cannot  acquit  any  legislative  power  of  legisla- 
tive corruption,  as  I think  Pennsylvania  has 
often  done,  and  I cannot  acquit  the  Legislature 
of  Ohio  for  violating  the  Constitution.  That 
they  have  done  in  many  cases,  more  than  fifty, 
which  are  violations  of  those  provisions  of 
your  Constitution  which  forbade  the  confer- 
ring of  corporate  power  by  special  legislation. 

Mr.  POND.  It  strikes  me  the  courts  are  open. 
I think  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  knows  that  by  experience. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  After  the  mischief  is  done, 
precisely.  It  is  true  we  do  succeed  with  the 
aid  of  Mr.  Kitt&edge,  our  agent,  in  stopping  a 
good  deal  of  mischief  before  it  is  done.  But 
when  bonds  are  issued,  as  they  are  to  a very 
large  extent,  my  friend  knows  as  well  as  I, 
those  bonds  coming  into  the  hands  of  bona  fide 
holders,  are  held,  though  issued  under  a law 
which  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  organic  law. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I have  no  doubt  that  many 
bad  laws  are  passed  by  the  General  Assemblies 
of  every  State  in  the  Nation,  but  I am  arguing 
more  for  the  right ; and  what  troubles  me  most 
is,  that  it  seems  to  me  that,  just  in  proportion 
as  you  divide  the  responsibility,  just  in  propor- 
tion as  you  place  part  upon  one  branch  of  the 
government  and  part  upon  another,  just  in  that 
proportion  do  you  decrease  the  chances  of  good 
legislation  and  increase  the  chances  of  bad.  I 
fear,  sir,  that  you  will  find  it  much  easier  to 
get  bad  laws  through  the  General  Assembly 
when  they  may  pass  them  inconsiderately  and 
trust  to  the  veto  power  of  the  Governor  to  pre- 
vent their  injurious  influence.  I am  strongly 
impressed  with  the  idea  that  the  truest  guaran- 
ty is  to  hold  the  General  Assembly  solely,  and 
and  entirely,  and  strictly  to  account,  and  no 
other  power.  If  the  friends  of  the  measure  can 
answer  me  this  argument,  or  can  explain  to  me 
that  this  additional  responsibility  will  tend  as 
an  additional  check  without  increasing  this 
danger,  it  will  remove  one  objection  I have  to 
the  exercise  of  this  power. 

Now,  one  word  more.  By  the  Constitution 
of  our  State  we  require,  to  pass  a law,  a major- 
ity of  all  the  members  elected  to  the  General 
Assembly.  In  the  National  Congress,  a major- 
ity of  a quorum  passes  a law.  Now,  then,  we 


have  in  the  lower  branch  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, one  hundred  and  five  members.  Fifty- 
three  constitute  a quorum.  Twenty-seven  of 
that  number  can  pass  a law.  If  twenty-seven 
of  that  number  could  pass  a law,  under  the  rule 
as  it  is  now  for  the  general  government,  or  in 
any  State,  so  far  as  I know,  where  the  veto 
power  exists,  suppose  they  have  a law  to  be 
passed  by  the  general  government;  twenty- 
seven  men  can  pass  the  bill,  and  even  over  the 
Executive  veto,  two-thirds  of  a quorum  can 
pass  it.  Two-thirds  of  fifty-three  would  be  thir- 
ty-six, so  that  in  the  general  government,  and 
under  the  law  prevailing  in  Pennsylvania  and 
New  York,  and  in  all  the  States  where  the  veto 
power  exists,  thirty-six  members  out  of  a hun- 
dred and  five  could  pass  a law  over  the  veto. 
But,  sir,  before  a law  can  be  passed  in  the  first 
instance  in  Ohio,  you  require  a majority  of  all 
the  members  elected  to  the  body — in  all,  fifty- 
three  votes ; so  that  it  is  possible,  if  you  place 
the  veto  upon  the  same  footing  it  has  been 
placed  elsewhere,  you  may  pass  a law  over  the 
Executive’s  veto,  with  a less  number  of  votes 
than  you  now  require  to  pass  it  in  the  first  in- 
stance. But  suppose  that  you  require  two- 
thirds  of  the  General  Assembly  to  pass  a law 
over  the  executive  veto;  you  virtually  give  to 
the  Governor  an  absolute  and  unlimited  veto. 
Why?  Because  you  must  first  have  a ma- 
jority of  all  to  pass  the  bill  — that  is 
fifty-three.  Then,  if  it  is  vetoed,  you  must 
have  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  elected  to 
pass  it  over  the  veto — that  is  seventy.  In  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
it  would  take  seventy  members  to  pass  an  act 
over  the  executive  veto.  Seventy  members 
constitute,  if  I am  correctly  informed,  a tolera- 
bly full  attendance  of  that  body.  I leave  it  to  gen- 
tlemen here  who  have  more  experience  than  I, 
whether  you  have  not  adopted  a rule  which  vir- 
tually enables  the  Governor  to  place  an  absolute 
and  unqualified  veto  upon  every  act  of  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly;  whether  you  have  not  so  fixed 
your  rule  that  you  must  have  substantially  a 
unanimous  vote  of  the  body  to  pass  it  over  the 
veto,  and  even  then,  with  a unanimous  vote  in 
favor  you  may  have  not  strength  enough  to  pass 
it?  I say,  then,  that  it  strikes  me  that  this  two- 
thirds  majority  part  of  the  rule  is,  practically, 
an  absolute  veto.  It  is,  beyond  all  question,  the 
most  powerful  veto  power  that  was  ever  con- 
ferred upon  the  executive  in  a Republican  gov- 
ernment. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I would  ask  the  gentleman,  if 
we  are  not  providing  in  the  Constitution  we 
are  now  framing  for  the  passage  of  certain  acts 
by  the  two-thirds  vote  of  both  branches  of  the 
General  Assembly? 

Mr.  HORTON.  That  is  true.  And  there 
were  strong  reasons  for  that;  but  in  this  case 
you  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  Governor  to  ar- 
rest the  progress  of  any  bill  that  may  pass  the 
General  Assembly;  and  when  arrested,  it  must 
be  passed  over  his  veto  by  a two-thirds  of  all, 
which,  in  most  cases,  would  be  more  than  the 
vote  of  every  member  present  upon  the  floor; 
and  I say,  then,  that  practically,  it  amounts  to 
an  absolute  veto;  practically,  it  amounts  to 
placing  in  the  hands  of  the  executive  the  abso- 
lute power  to  suspend  all  law,  or  the  passage  of 
all  law. 


Day.]  THE  VETO  POWER.  1093 

February  5,  1874.]  West,  Hoadly. 


Mr.  WEST.  I have  had  occasion  to  state  be- 
fore, Mr.  President,  that  it  is  a matter  of  doubt- 
ful propriety  to  incorporate  into  the  proposed 
plan  of  the  Constitution  we  are  to  submit  to 
the  people,  any  provision  that  experience  or 
reason  has  not  demonstrated  to  be  desirable. 
If  the  necessity  of  any  provision  be  not  clear, 
certainly  we  ought  to  pause  and  reflect  with 
great  deliberation  before  incorporating  it,  and 
ask  the  people  to  adopt,  ratify  and  confirm  it  as 
against  themselves.  I have  listened  to  this  de- 
bate with  a very  considerable  degree  of  interest. 
I believe  that  the  grounds  upon  which  the  Ex- 
ecutive veto  is  urged,  can  be  resolved  into 
three,  which  I will  consider  in  their  order,  and 
they  are  these : First,  that  it  is  calculated  to 
arrest  unconstitutional  legislation:  Second,  that 
it  is  calculated  to  prevent  partisan  legislation : 
and  third,  it  is  calculated  to  restrain  hasty, 
inconsiderate  or  improvident  legislation.  And 
if  there  be  any  other  ground  or  reason  that  can 
be  urged  in  behalf  of  this  extraordinary  power, 
I have  failed  thus  far  to  notice  it.  And  I de- 
sire to  be  candid  and  frank,  and  to  combat 
each  proposition  in  its  order,  and  test  its 
strength  and  its  utility,  so  to  speak. 

It  is  urged  that  to  clothe  the  Executive  with 
the  power  of  vetoing  or  prohibiting  the  passage 
of  laws  will  prevent  unconstitutional  legisla- 
tion ; and  an  array  of  statutes  are  produced  to 
show,  that  af  the  power  had  been  possessed  by 
the  Governor  during  the  last  ten  or  twenty 
years,  that  probably  very  many  of  the  statutes 
now  upon  the  statute  book  would  not  have  be- 
come laws ; for  that  he  would  have  interposed 
his  power  and  prevented  their  passage.  I do 
not  so  understand  that  the  Governor  would,  in 
all  cases,  or  in  any  one  case,  have  interposed 
his  power  to  have  prevented  the  passage  of  any 
one  of  these  laws.  But  I will  suppose,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  he  might  have  done  so. 
We  must  look,  however,  Mr.  President,  to  the 
facts  and  circumstances  that  surround  the  gu- 
bernatorial election,  and  the  character  of  the 
incumbent.  As  a general  rule,  he  is  not  select- 
ed with  a view  to  his  profound  learning  in  con- 
stitutional law.  He  is  not  intended,  designed 
or  supposed  to  be  one  that  has  experience  and 
skill  in  the  mysteries  of  constitutional  inter- 
pretation ; but  is  generally  selected  because,  it 
may  be,  of  his  personal  popularity,  because  he 
is  one  upon  whom  a large  number  of  votes  may 
be  concentrated,  on  account  of  some  distin- 
guished military  or  other  service  rendered  for 
the  Republic;  and  a feeling  or  sense  of  grati- 
tude goes  out  towards  him,  and  he  is  re- 
warded for  those  distinguished  services. 
He  is  called  to  the  Chair,  not  with  a view  to 
his  law-understanding  capacity  or  law-making 
capacity,  but  rather  with  a view  to  securing  the 
strength  requisite  to  his  elevation,  and  with  a 
view  simply  to  his  fitness  to  execute  the  laws 
enacted  by  the  proper  department,  and  ex- 
pounded by  the  proper  tribunal.  Now,  Sir,  for 
what  purpose  is  our  Judicial  Department  crea- 
ted, but  to  expound  the  Constitution  and 
Daws?  We,  to-day,  are  engaged  in  the  busi- 
ness of  creating  a veto  and  nothing  more. 
To-day  we  are  engaged  in  the  important  and 
responsible  duty  of  fixing  a permanent  and 
organic  veto  upon  the  tyrannical  power  of  the  I 


majority.  That  is  what  we  are  engaged  in  to- 
day, and  nothing  else — the  fundamental  law, 
that  the  people  themselves,  otherwise  than  in 
the  mode  provided  by  that  law,  shall  not  in- 
fringe or  contravene.  And  we  are,  to-day,  en- 
gaged in  providing  a judicial  tribunal,  whose 
duty  it  shall  be,  and  whose  function  it  shall  be — 
because  of  their  profound  learning,  because  of 
their  great  wisdom,  because  of  their  deep 
knowedge  of  the  law  and  of  legal  interpreca- 
tion— to  say  to  the  people,  when  their  voice 
shall  have  been  expressed  through  the  law- 
making tribunal,  that  they  are  not  correct, 
that  you  have  mistaken  the  limit  of  your  power 
— the  fundamental  law  that  you  have  enacted ; 
this  great  organic  veto  upon  your  powers  inter- 
poses, and  prevents  your  ever  giving  validity 
and  effect  to  so  much  of  your  law  as  you  have 
expressd  in  the  statute.  Is  not  that  sufficient? 
Is  it  not  sufficient  that  we  have  a judicial  tribu- 
nal, open  at  all  times,  to  which  application 
shall  be  made,  whose  decisions  are  final,  whose 
interpretations  shall  be  enforced,  and  shall  be- 
come a rule  of  law,  and  of  the  Constitution? 

But,  it  is  said,  your  Governor  should  have  the 
power  to  interpose  his  veto  upon  legislative  en- 
actment upon  the  ground  that  it  is  unconstitu- 
tional. Does  that  make  it  unconstitutional, that 
he  vetoes  it?  Does  it  make  it  constitutional 
that  he  approves  it?  By  no  means.  Neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  proposition  is  true.  He 
may  give  his  Executive  sanction  to  unconstitu- 
tional law;  he  may  affix  his  veto  to  constitu- 
tional law,  and  yet  return  to  the  General 
Assembly  that  his  only  reason  for  attaching  his 
veto  is,  that,  in  his  opinion,  it  is  unconstitu- 
tional ; and  yet,  neither  the  one  nor  the  other 
affects,  in  any  degree,  the  fact  of  its  constitu- 
tionality, nor  the  legal  effect  of  the  enactment, 
nor  the  principle  incorporated  in  it.  Your 
court  is  the  tribunal  of  resort  wherein  those 
great  questions  of  constitutional  law  are  to  be 
decided,  and  become  rules  of  action,  rules  to 
your  General  Assembly,  rules  to  your  Execu- 
tive, rules  to  your  people,  rules  to  your  repub- 
lic ; and  no  other  tribunal  can  be  safely  trusted 
with  that  great  and  high  exercise  of  power. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  ask  him  a question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  the  gentleman  aware  that 
this  state  of  facts  exists — that  the  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States  has  decided  that  all 
kinds  of  municipal  bonds,  issued  in  the  State 
of  Iowa,  are  binding,  although  the  supreme 
court  of  Iowa  has  decided  that  they  were  issued 
contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  that  State? 
And  is  not  that  an  evil  that  could  have  been 
prevented  by  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power  by 
the  Governor? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly,  sir.  There  are  many 
laws,  mischievous  laws,  that  might  have  been 
prevented  by  the  Intelligent  exercise  of  the 
veto  power,  and  they  might  have  been  prevent- 
ed by  the  intelligent  exercises  of  senatorial 
power,  or  by  the  intelligent  exercise  of  repre- 
sentative power.  There  are  many  mischiefs  that 
creep  into  our  statute  books  for  want  of  proper 
intelligence.  But  does  any  gentleman  suppose 
that  we  shall  place  in  the  Executive  Chair  Om- 
niscience? Shall  we  elevate  to  that  high  posi- 


1094 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

West,  Hoadiy. 


[106th 


tion  of  the  first  honor  in  the  State  a God,  whose 
decrees  are  infallible,  guided  and  directed  by 
divine  and  infallible  intelligence?  You  know 
we  never  have  and  you  know  we  never  will ; 
and  although  the  intelligent  exercise  might 
prevent  mischief ; its  unintelligent  exercise 
may  do  great  wrong  and  injustice. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
another  question? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes;  fifty. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  not  his  argument,  pin 
it  to  the  ultimate,  amount  to  this,  that  there 
would  he  no  check  at  all  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  not  here,  Mr.  President, 
now,  to  chop  logic  and  go  to  the  ultimate  con- 
sequences of  refined  casuistry.  There  must 
be  a reasonable  mean ; there  must  be  a middle 
ground  in  all  human  transactions  and  human 
affairs,  and  although  the  nice  results  of  logical 
reasoning  might  lead  to  fine  consequences,  hu- 
man reason,  human  institutions,  human  action, 
must  be  governed  by  the  practical  and  practi- 
cable, and  not  by  engaging  in  chopping  logic 
and  refining  casuistry. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  allow  me  another  question? 

Mr.  WEST.  A great  many  of  them. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Only  one ; perhaps  there  will 
be  a great  many.  Did  not  our  fathers  define 
the  just  mean  ? Would  the  delegate  propose  to 
amend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  so 
as  to  take  away  the  qualified  veto  which  the 
President  has,  if  he  had  the  power  to  do  it  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  We  are  not  now  engaged,  Mr. 
President,  in  that  discussion,  and  at  the  proper 
time  I may  allude  to  the  exercise  of  the  veto 
power,  by  the  Executive  of  the  United  States. 
But  I appeal  to  gentlemen  to  tell  me  whether 
there  has  been  in  the  Executive  Chair  for  the 
last  twenty  years  or  thirty  years  more  than  one 
man  who  could  intelligently  exercise  the  veto 
power  so  well,  so  ably  and  so  learnedly  as  at 
least  four-fifths  of  the  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives whom  his  veto  might  control.  As  much 
as  I respect  the  man  who  now  occupies  the 
Chair,  I could  select  from  this  body,  at  least  a 
dozen  or  three  dozen  who  have  more  capacity 
to  exercise  the  veto  power,  than  the  chief  mag- 
istrate who  now  occupies  the  Presidential  chair. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  asks  a ques- 
tion and  answers  it  himself.  I don’t  agree 
with  the  estimate  he  has  placed  upon  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Ohio,  or  President  of  the  United 
States.  I don’t  know  which  he  refers  to,  but  I 
will  take  them  both ; for,  I take  it,  there  have 
been  a great  many  superior  men  in  both  offices. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  not  talking  about  the 
Governors  of  Ohio.  They  are  generally  a good 
deal  better  men  than  our  Presidents,  because 
we  have  a much  smaller  field  in  selecting. 
[Laughter.]  We  know  our  wants,  and  select 
better  men.  Spread  out  large,  double  districts, 
and  you  do  not  know  who  you  are  going  to 
strike. 

Allusion  has  been  made,  Mr.  President,  to 
Iowa.  I have  not  read  the  Constitution  of 
Iowa;  but  I venture  to  guess,  and  I know  my 
friend  is  learned  in  the  constitutional  law  of 
Iowa,  and  can  inform  me,  does  not  the  Gover- 
nor of  Iowa  possess  the  veto  power? 

A MEMBER.  He  does,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  informed  by  the  gentle- 


[Thursday, 


man  on  my  left  [Mr.  Neal]  that  the  Governor 
of  Iowa  possesses  the  veto  power,  and  re- 
quires two-thirds  of  the  General  Assembly  to 
overcome  him.  Now,  either  one  or  the  other  of 
two  things  is  true : Those  bankruptcy  laws, 
that  he  speaks  of,  were  carried  over  his  veto  by 
a two-thirds  vote,  and  hence  the  inefficiency  of 
the  veto  power,  or  else  the  non-exercise  of  the 
veto  power  ratified  these  unconstitutional  laws, 
and  made  them  constitutional,  I suppose.  Now, 
Mr.  President,  you  see  that  it  does  not  prevent 
bad  laws,  if  the  very  case  that  is  introduced  is 
an  illustration ; that  it  does  not  in  all  cases, 
and  does  not  in  very  many  cases,  prevent  the 
passage  of  bankruptcies  and  bad  laws.  I will 
point  you  to  the  legislation  of  our  country  for 
the  last  eighty  years.  Tell  me  how  frequently 
the  Executive  veto  has  been  exercised  over  the 
legislation  of  the  United  States?  and  the  times 
when  it  has  been  exercised  are  not  certainly 
established  to  have  in  all  cases  been  judicious.  I 
know  it  is  claimed  that  the  veto  of  the  United 
States  bank  saved  America  from  a great  financial 
calamity.  Sir,  I do  not  know  that  this  is  true. 
I do  know,  however,  that  it  reduced  the  Na- 
tional bank  to  a State  institution.  I do  know, 
that  upon  the  heels  of  that  veto  sprang  into 
existence  more  than  nine  hundred  shin-plaster 
institutions,  under  State  authority.  I know 
that  by  inflation  the  whole  commercial  business 
of  the  country  became  deranged,  demoralized, 
and  disorganized.  The  consequence  was  na- 
tional bankruptcy.  From  that  bankruptcy,  the 
young  and  vigorous  energies  of  a young  and 
vigorous  nation  ultimately  recuperated  and,  in 
spite  of  the  veto,  we  became  a great,  and  pow- 
erful, and  prosperous,  and  wealthy  people. 
Whether  the  veto  brought  that  prosperity,  or 
whether  we  reached  it  in  spite  of  that  veto, 
neither  the  gentleman  nor  I,  nor  any  but  Om- 
niscience can  tell ; yet  despite  of  it,  we  came  to 
what  we  are.  What  we  might  have  been,  had 
it  not  been  exercised,  God  only  knows.  They 
are  inclined  to  ascribe  to  his  veto  a quality  it  did 
not  possess.  I have  no  objection.  It  is  an 
innocent  kind  of  patriotism,  and  reflects  great 
honor  upon  Old  Hickory,  whom  I love,  and 
always  did. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  it  is  said  that  it  will  pre- 
vent the  enactment  of  unconstitutional  laws, 
and  we  have  instanced  the  parallel  of  the  Brit- 
ish Parliament  and  the  veto  of  the  British 
crown.  I beg,  sir,  to  say  to  you  and  to  the 
Convention,  that  no  parallel  exists  between  the 
British  government  and  the  government  we 
are  about  to  establish,  and  under  which  we  have 
lived  for  a long  period  of  time.  The  govern- 
ment of  Great  Britain  is  without  a written  Con- 
stitution. Her  Parliament  exercises  unlimited 
and  uncontrolled  authority.  Her  Constitution 
is  simply  the  embodiment  of  unwritten  cus- 
toms that  have  grown  up  in  times  past  out  of 
the  experience  and  the  necessities  of  past  ages. 
The  branches  of  the  British  Parliament,  of  the 
legislative  power  of  England,  consists  of  the 
three  estates,  King,  Lords  and  Commons,  and 
without  the  consent  of  any  one  of  these  three 
no  law  can  be  enacted.  It  is  supposed  that  the 
British  crown — the  dignities  and  independence 
1 of  the  British  crown — require  in  it  the  posses- 
I sion  of  certain  personal  prerogatives.  They 
' have  been  assigned,  the  people  of  England  as- 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER.  1095 

February  5,  1874.]  West,  Root. 


certaining  and  measuring  these  prerogatives, 
and  believing  their  existence  in  the  crown  to  be 
entirely  consistent  with  the  liberties  of  the 
people,  they  consent  that  those  prerogatives 
shall  remain  in  the  possession  of  the  crown. 
And  the  Great  Charter — the  approval  of  the 
Great  Charter  was  wrested  from  King  John. 
The  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  extorted  from  a 
later  monarch.  When  this  had  become  law  the 
Lords  or  the  Commons  of  England  alone  could 
not  repeal,  abrogate  or  destroy.  They  are  the 
established  statutes  of  England  and  govern  to 
secure  it  in  its  liberties. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I come  to  the  preroga- 
tive veto.  It  is  permitted  to  be  possessed  by 
the  crown  of  England  for  one  single  purpose 
and  none  other,  and  it  has  not  been  exercised, 
and  never  can  be  exercised  by  a British  mon- 
arch, unless  he  attempts  to  trample  down  the 
liberties  of  his  nation.  It  is  the  possession  of 
the  veto  power  to  protect  him  in  the  possession 
of  his  personal  prerogatives,  nothing  more. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Upon  a careful  reading  of  the 
history  of  England,  I will  ask  the  gentleman,  if 
he  can  hear  without  interrupting  his  argument, 
if  he  does  not  understand  that  since  the  time 
of  William  of  Orange,  the  dissolution  of  Parlia- 
ment affords  the  authority  in  the  crown  which 
the  veto  before  that  time  had  given  him  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROOT.  And  that  the  Prime  Minister, 
being  really  the  ruling  heart  of  England  for 
the  time  being,  when  Parliament  votes  any- 
thing indicating  a want  of  confidence  in  tiie 
minister  in  authority,  he  can  dissolve  Parlia- 
ment? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well  now,  is  it  not  practically 
the  veto  power,  that  is,  the  one  man  power, 
when  called  by  a plain  name,  and  is  it  not  exer- 
cised as  effectually  under  the  practice  of  the 
dissolution  of  Parliament  now,  as  it  was  under 
William  of  Orange,  who  used  it  most  freely? 

Mr.  WEST.  I thank  the  gentleman- 
That  is  all  true.  I am  speaking  now  of 
the  veto  power,  pure  and  simple.  The 
possession  of  the  power  to  negative  the  passage 
of  laws  is  retained  by  the  crown,  in  order 
that  the  crown  may  protect  itself  against 
infringements  upon  its  prerogative.  Those 
prerogatives  are  familiar  to  every  reader  of 
English  law,  and  that  the  veto  power,  pure  and 
simple,  is  authorized  to  control  in  England  in 
its  ordinary  and  usual  mode  of  exercise.  Now, 
the  dissolution  of  Parliament,  I am  aware,  is 
simply  an  appeal  of  the  British  crown  to  the 
British  nation.  When  measures  of  the  minis- 
try are  defeated,  and  there  is  danger  of  opposi- 
tion to  Securing  control  of  the  enactment  of 
laws  that  are  not  acceptable  to  the  crown,  or 
for  the  prevailing  party,  for  the  time  being,  an 
appeal  by  dissolution  is  taken  at  once  to  the 
people  of  England,  and  they  send  up  their  rep- 
resentatives to  the  House  of  Commons,  who  are 
instructed,  by  force  of  their  election,  to  do  the 
will  of/  the  people  of  England.  That,  sir,  is  not 
necessary  in  a country  where  elections  are  so 
frequent  as  they  are  in  this,  where,  at  the  end 
of  each  period  of  two  years,  an  appeal,  by  force 


of  the  Constitution  and  laws,  is  taken  directly 
to  the  people.  Any  and  every  obnoxious  law 
that  may  have  crept  upon  the  statute  book  is 
repealed  if  the  people  are  not  satisfied  with  its 
enactment.  If  their  representatives  have  gone 
counter  to  their  will,  if  they  have  done  wrongly 
or  mischieviously,  an  appeal,  by  an  election,  to 
the  sovereign  people,  to  instruct  their  General 
Assembly  in  the  ways  of  well  doing,  is  taken, 
and  from  that  we  secure  the  same  result  that 
the  dissolution  of  Parliament  in  England,  the 
period  of  which  is  for  three,  or  four,  or  seven 
years — I do  not  remember  now  which,  and  the 
result  is  secured  and  maintained. 

Now,  sir,  we  have  this  in  this  country  that 
they  do  not  have  in  England,  to  which  I desire 
to  call  attention.  In  England  there  is  no  writ- 
ten Constitution,  as  I have  said,  which  measures 
the  power  of  the  British  Parliament.  What- 
ever becomes  the  solemn  enactment  of  the 
House  of  Commons  and  the  Crown,  becomes  the 
law  of  England,  and  there  is  no  great  establish- 
ment to  expound  the  British  Constitution,  and 
ascertain  whether  it  be  infringed  by  the  enact- 
ments of  Parliament.  They  have  no  funda- 
mental veto,  in  the  form  of  a written  Constitu- 
tion, because  the  law  of  Parliament,  expressed 
by  the  concurrence  of  the  three  estates,  becomes 
the  law  of  the  land,  anything  in  the  British 
Constitution  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
Not  so  in  America.  We  have  our  written  fun- 
damental law,  prescribing  the  limitations  of 
power.  We,  now,  are  here  preparing  that  fun- 
damental law,  prescribing  the  limits  within 
which  the  legislative  power  shall  be  exercised. 
We  say  to  the  General  Assembly,  “all  powers 
not  withheld  from  you  by  this  fundamental  and 
original  veto,  may  be  properly  exercised  by 
you.  If  you  attempt  to  exercise  powers,  and  do 
exercise  them,  inconsistently  with  this  funda- 
mental law,  there  stands  the  majesty  of  the 
judicial  tribunal  between  you  and  it.”  There  is 
the  tribunal  to  which  the  people  of  Ohio  may 
ultimately  appeal,  if  all  things  else  shall  fail. 
And,  if  this  fundamental  veto  shall  have  been 
disregarded  by  the  legislative  power,  the  judi- 
cial majesty  interposes  its  strong  hand  to  strike 
down  the  offensive  and  offending  statute.  That 
is  something  that  belongs  not  to  the  British 
Government.  It  is  peculiar  to  our  American 
governments  and  institutions  and  laws.  We 
have  our  written  Constitution,  over  which  the 
legislative  power  shall  not  pass,  upon  which  it 
shall  not  infringe,  unless  the  majesty  of  the  ju- 
diciary shall  interpose.  Now,  sir,  what  neces- 
sity is  there  of  clothing  the  Governor  with  power 
to  veto  laws  because  they  may  happen  to  be 
unconstitutional?  None,  sir,  whatever.  My 
friend  has  said  that  the  mischief  will  have  been 
done.  True,  it  may  have  been  done.  The  law 
may  have  passed,  improperly  and  unconstitu- 
ally;  but  we  cannot  expect,  as  I have  said,  om- 
niscience in  the  General  Assembly ; we  cannot 
expect  it  in  the  Governor.  We  must  trust  to 
human  nature  as  it  is ; we  must  trust  to  the  im- 
perfections of  our  human  institutions,  as  they 
are;  we  must  frame  and  adapt  them  to  circum- 
stances the  best  we  can;  we  must  conserve  the 
liberties  of  mankind,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
conserve  the  ends  and  purposes  of  justice  be- 
tween individual  members  of  the  same  family. 
We  can  only  do  this  by  the  constitution  of  a 


1096 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

West,  Yoris. 


[106th 


[Thursday, 


proper  tribunal,  with  proper  checks  and  bal- 
ances. Our  Constitution  is  the  great  funda- 
mental check.  Outside  of  that,  the  legislative 
power  is,  and  must  be,  omnipotent.  We  cannot 
restrain  it.  There  is  no  necessity,  then,  for 
the  exercise  of  the  veto  power.  As  I have  said, 
the  court  may  interpose,  and  set  aside  unconsti- 
tutional laws.  I know  that  mischiefs  may  tem- 
porarily result,  and  may,  sometimes,  perma- 
nently result.  They  are  the  accidents  of  our 
institutions,  against  which  we  cannot  guard, 
and  we  must  not  create  a greater  mischief  in 
order  that  we  may  destroy  a smaller  one. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I shall  pass  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  next  reason  urged  for  the  veto 
power ; that  it  will  prevent  partisan  legisla- 
tion. I have  never  in  my  life  heard  of  a politi- 
cal Governor  vetoing  a political  measure,  ad- 
vocated by  his  political  party.  Such  an 
anomaly  may  have  happened,  but  I have  yet 
to  hear  of  it.  Why,  sir,  your  Governor  is  the 
standard-bearer  and  the  representative  head  of 
a political  faction.  Generally  they  are  elevat- 
ed to  power  upon  the  crest  of  some  partisan 
billow.  They  are  generally  in  accord  with  the 
legislative  majority.  The  same  tempest  that 
carries  an  Executive  into  the  Chair,  carries  a 
majority  of  his  political  friends  with  whom  he 
sympathizes  in  sentiment,  into  official  position. 
This  is  the  general  rule  and  the  exceptions  are 
rare.  Such  being  the  case,  if  the  political  ma- 
jority incorporate  a statute,  embodying  the  pe- 
culiar political  partisan  principles  of  that  ma- 
jority, do  you  not  know,  sir,  that  that  Gover- 
nor, elected  by  the  same  political  party,  sympa- 
thizing in  the  same  sentiment,  will  not  rebuke 
his  friends  who  have  embodied,  in  the  form  of 
law,  that  for  which  they  have  struggled  in  the 
political  contest,  and  will  accord  to  them  the 
exercise  of  power,  by  ratifying  the  political 
principle  or  political  measure  whatever  it  may 
be?  Such  is  the  rule  always.  Now,  the  idea 
that  the  veto  power  prevents  partisan 
legislation,  is — well  I have  no  words  to  ex- 
press my  astonishment  that  such  an  idea  pre- 
vails. [Laughter]. 

Now,  I pass  to  the  next  proposition — but  I 
fear,  Mr.  President,  that  I am  occupying  too 
much  time. 

[Several  MEMBERS.  “ Go  on.”] 

Mr.  WEST.  The  next  proposition  is  this, 
that  the  possession  of  the  veto  power  will  pre- 
vent hasty,  rash  or  improvident  legislation.  I 
concede,  sir,  that  it  sometimes  may  do  so,  but 
that  will  rarely  be  the  case,  and,  as  an  example, 
I instance  that  the  eighty  years’  possession  of 
the  veto  power  by  the  Chief  Executive  of  the 
United  States,  has  simply  required  him  to  sit  in 
the  ante- room  of  the  Senate  Chamber  upon  the 
last  day  of  any  session  of  Congress,  and  register 
his  name  approvingly  to  the  bills  as  they  are 
poured  in  by  page,  clerk,  and  messenger,  and 
whatever  other  force  or  power  is  adequate  to 
overwhelm  him  with  the  llood  of  bills  that  are 
then  crowded  upon  him.  Hasty  and  inconsider- 
ate legislation  prevented  by  the  veto  power! 
When,  in  the  last  nights  of  the  session,  not  only 
the  President  himself,  but  sometimes,  I am  told, 
one  or  two  clerks  are  authorized  to  write  for 
him  in  his  presence,  his  signature,  because  of 
the  irritability  he  is  suffering  for  want  of  suf- 
ficient strength  to  write  his  name  as  fast  as  the 


bills  are  presented  to  him.  “ Prevent  hasty  and 
inconsiderate  legislation ! ” Why,  sir,  the  Presi- 
dent does  not  read,  and  does  not  and  cannot 
know  what  is  in  the  bills  presented  to  him,  and  he 
does  not  pretend  to  know  only  some  of  the  great 
important  political  measures — it  may  be  where 
an  opposition  to  his  political  faction  might  be  in- 
corporated, which  demands  that  he  should  look 
to  it.  Why,  sir,  was  there  not  a case  for  the 
exercise  of  the  veto  power  very  recently? 
Might  not  President  Grant  have  placed  himself 
upon  the  highest  pinnacle  of  immortality  by 
the  judicious  timely  exercise  of  his  veto  power, 
in  reference  to  the  infamous  bill  which  passed 
Congress  on  the  third  of  March  last?  Hasty 
legislation  is  not  prevented,  as  a general  rule,  by 
the  executive  veto.  But,  suppose  it  to  be  so.  If 
simply  the  haste  of  legislation  is  to  be  averted, 
then,  the  same  measure,  which,  if  passed 
hastily,  will  be  vetoed,  if  passed  with  deliber- 
ation and  consideration  ought  to  be  ratified, 
ought  it  not,  if,  to  prevent  hasty  legislation,  is 
the  only  consideration  ? Then,  if  deliberation 
is  secured,  if  calm  deliberate  thought  and  re- 
flection shall  have  been  attained,  the  same  mea- 
sure that  the  President  ought  to  veto,  because 
of  its  haste,  he  ought  not  to  veto  when  it  is 
calmly  and  deliberately  considered.  That  is 
the  result  of  the  logic,  and  there  is  no  escape 
from  that  proposition. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I will  ask  the  gentleman,  if  he 
wants  us  to  understand  him  to  claim  that  all 
deliberate  legislation  is  just,  and  proper,  and  ex- 
pedient? 

Mr.  WEST.  My  friend  does  not  want  me  to 
say  that  I would  do  that. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Then  your  reasoning  is  cer- 
tainly inconsistent  with  your  belief. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  not  my  reasoning  I am  em- 
ploying now,  I am  using  your  reasoning  to 
show  you  how  fallacious  it  is,  and  that  gentle- 
men may  understand  directly  where  it  leads. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  gentleman’s  position  was, 
the  use  of  the  veto  power  was  only  needed  to 
check  hasty  and  inconsiderate  legislation,  and 
the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  his  remarks, 
was,  that  there  were  no  evils  attending  calm  and 
deliberate  legislation. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  does  not  seem 
to  comprehend  what  I did  say.  I will  state  it 
again.  I say  to  you  this : if  the  Governor  is  to 
exercise  the  veto  merely  because  the  bill  upon 
which  it  is  exercised  has  been  hastily  passed — 
now  you  understand  it. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEST.  And  that  is  the  only  reason, 
simply  because  the  bill  has  been  hastily  passed. 
Then,  if  that  reason  be  removed,  if  it  be  passed 
with  deliberation,  the  reason  for  the  exercise  of 
it  is  taken  away,  and,  therefore,  it  ought  not  to 
be  exercised. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I have  never  claimed,  and  if 
anybody  has  ever  claimed  that,  that  was  the 
only  reason  I never  knew  it  before. 

Mr.  WEST.  I never  did  either,  nor  never 
expect  to,  for  I have  answered  two  other  rea- 
sons and  am  now  answering  a third.  Now, 
Mr.  President,  the  proposition  is  unanswerable, 
if  it  simply  provides  that  the  veto  should  be 
exercised  because  a measure  has  been  hastily 
considered.  If  that  is  the  only  reason,  then  if 
deliberation  and  mature  consideration  be  given 


THE  VETO  POWER, 

West,  Hoadly. 


109? 


Day.] 

February  5,  1874.] 


to  the  measure,  the  absence  of  that  reason  fol- 
lows, and  the  Governor  has  no  right  to  exer- 
cise his  veto  upon  that  ground.  That  is  the 
point  I make.  He  may  have  other  grounds, 
but  upon  that  he  has  no  right;  and,  if,  after  he 
has  exercised  his  veto  upon  that  ground  the  bill 
can  be  sent  back,  and  deliberation,  considera- 
tion and  mature  reflection  secured  to  the  re-pas- 
sage  of  that  bill  by  the  same  majority,  if  re- 
passed it  is  divested  of  the  reason  that  before 
existed,  which  justified  the  exercise  of  the  veto 
on  its  first  passage;  and,  hence,  the  bill  when 
re-enacted  with  deliberate  calmness  and  consid- 
eration should  become  a law,  if  no  other  rea- 
son exists  against  it.  That  is  the  point,  and 
my  friend  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  may  an- 
swer it  at  the  proper  time.  These  are  the  prin- 
cipal considerations  that  lead  me  to  oppose  this 
measure ; but  I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  two  or  three  minor  points. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Before  the  delegate  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  proceeds,  I desire  that  he 
would  allow  me  to  call  his  attention  to  another 
matter.  Has  the  delegate  never  known  a case 
in  which,  by  reason  of  the  distribution  of  dis- 
tricts, the  majority  in  the  Legislature  really  rep- 
resented a minority  of  the  people?  Is  it  an  un- 
usual thing  to  the  country  that  that  should  be 
so? 

Mr.  WEST.  That  is  true;  and  I hardly  ever 
knew  a Governor  in  my  life  that  was  not  elect- 
ed by  a minority — scarcely  ever.  The  present 
Governor  was  elected  by  a small  minority. 
You  have  your  Prohibitionists,  you  have  your 
New  Departurists,  and  your  Grangers,  and 
your  old-line  Democracy,  and  your  Republicans, 
all  in  the  field,  and  each  of  them  has  his  force 
to  back  him ; and  the  one  whose  gubernatorial 
candidate  happens  to  come  out  a few  votes 
ahead,  although  he  may  not  have  half  the  votes 
of  Ohio,  becomes  Governor.  That  occurs,  and 
will  more  frequently,  sir,  than  your  Legislature 
shall  represent  the  minority  of  the  people. 
Y"ou  have  now  in  your  gubernatorial  chair  one 
that  does  not  represent  a majority  of  the  voters 
of  Ohio,  but  a minority  only  of  some  twenty  or 
thirty  thousand.  That  may  be:  these  matters  oc- 
cur, and  in  the  future,  will  occur  very  fre- 
quently. For,  let  me  say  to  gentlemen,  that  the 
fogs  are  gathering  in  the  distance,  and  when 
the  election  of  next  November  shall  be  counted 
out,  the  slates  of  the  old  liners  will  be  smashed 
to  pieces. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Both  sides ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir ; both  sides.  And  your 
Grangers  will  flourish  their  banners  in  triumph 
over  the  graves  of  both  the  old  parties. 
[Laughter.]  They  may  be  dug  up  and  resur- 
rected, reanimated  and  revived ; but  they  will 
be  buried  for  the  time  being.  [Laughter.] 
Gentlemen  who  look  to  the  political  effects  of 
the  existing  political  parties,  just  now,  reckon 
without  their  host.  That  is  dead  sure.  What 
I was  about  calling  attention  to,  was  the  great 
peculiarity  of  some  portion  of  this  Constitu- 
tion. It  is  this : I speak,  first,  of  the  practical 
workings.  My  venerable  friend  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Bishop],  who  sits  nearest  me,  has 
given  an  instance  of  the  terrible  virtue  of  the 
veto  power  being  possessed  by  the  mayor  of  the 
city  of  Cincinnati — that  veto  power  when,  by 
some  species  of  fraud  or  chicanery,  a measure 


had  gone  through  the  Common  Council,  unwit- 
tingly, and  the  people  of  Cincinnati,  in  their 
majesty,  appealed  to  their  chief  executive  to 
veto  it ; and  it  was  a case  in  which  he  had  the 
veto  power,  by  which  he  might  have  secured 
the  salvation  of  the  city.  It  turned  out  that 
the  mayor  did  not  veto  it.  He  did  not  exercise 
the  veto.  What  good  did  the  possession  of  it 
then  do  ? 

A MEMBER.  It  killed  him.  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  it  would  kill  many  a Gov- 
ernor. I submit  it  would  kill  him  if  he  did 
veto  it,  and  it  would  kill  him  if  he  did  not. 

A MEMBER.  That  was  what  he  was 
afraid  of. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  that  was  what  he  was 
afraid  of ; and  no  matter  which  way  he  should 
have  exercised  the  power,  that  would  have  been 
the  consequence. 

Again,  Mr.  President,  the  veto  power  was 
not  always  exercised,  when  it  might  have  been, 
judiciously.  Andrew  Johnson  exercised  it  at 
onetime;  and  under  what  circumstances?  He 
had  been  approached,  as  will  always  be  the  case 
where  the  Executive  possesses  the  veto  power, 
by  members  of  Congress,  desiring  to  conciliate 
his  favor,  desiring  to  secure  his  approval,  with 
hat  in  hand,  bowing  obeisance  to  the  Executive, 
and  framing  their  legislation  in  accordance  to 
his  wish  and  will,  if  there  be  anything  in  it  that 
is  likely  to  excite  his  opposition.  The  approval 
of  the  Executive  becomes  a great  law-making 
power  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  State. 
His  will  will  be  consulted  in  advance,  and  your 
House  of  Representatives  and  your  Senate, 
when  a possible  controversy  may  arise  between 
them  and  the  Executive,  will  “cringe  the  supple 
hinges  of  the  knee”  at  the  Executive  ante- 
chamber, in  order  “that  thrift  may  follow  fawn- 
ing.” It  is  done  to-day,  sir,  in  Washington 
City.  It  is  done  every  day.  It  was  done  with 
Andrew  Johnson.  You  remember  how  Trum- 
bull exposed  the  secrets  of  the  charnel  house, 
when  Johnson  had  vetoed  the  Personal  Liberty 
bill.  Trumbull  declared  that  Johnson  himself 
had  written  in  the  body  of  the  bill  certain  provi- 
sions, that  made  it  acceptable  to  his  majesty,  and 
even  with  all  that,  vetoed  it.  I do  not  want  the 
period  to  arrive  when  I am  a legislator — if  I ever 
should  be  called  to  hold  that  position— that  I 
should  be  required  to  so  humiliate  myself  as  to 
bow  obediently  to  a minority  Governor,  and  ask 
him  to  incorporate  in  a law  that  was  j ust,  such  a 
modification  as  would  make  it  acceptable  to  him. 

Now,  I come  to  a peculiarity  we  have  in  our 
Constitution,  a provision  that  certain  bills 
shall  not  be  passed  and  become  laws  unless 
they  receive  a two-thirds  majority  of  the  two 
Houses.  No  claim,  not  provided  for  by  pre-ex- 
isting law,  shall  be  paid  by  appropriation,  un- 
less it  receives  a majority  of  two-thirds.  Now, 
Mr.  President,  that  is  a just  law.  It  is  a right- 
eous provision  in  our  Constitution,  to  prevent 
these  fraudulent  claims  from  being  hurried  or 
rushed  through  the  body,  and  the  passage  cor- 
ruptly obtained  through  the  General  Assembly, 
or  any  other  tribunal.  And,  what  is  the  effect? 
It  goes  to  the  Executive  for  his  approval.  He 
disapproves  it  It  goes  back  to  the  General 
Assembly.  What  is  the  consequence?  Do  you 
require  of  one  of  these  extraordinaiy  bills  that 
it  shall  be  re-enacted  by  a larger  vote  than  it 


1098 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

West,  Hoadly. 


was  originally  enacted  by  ? No,  sir.  It  sim- 
ply goes  for  reconsideration  and  deliberation, 
and,  if  it  be  again  re-enacted  by  the  same  ma- 
jority that  it  was  originally  enacted  by,  it  be- 
comes a law,  the  Governor’s  veto  notwithstand- 
ing. That,  sir,  is  what  ought  to  be  asked  of 
any  other  law  that  might  be  less  objectionable 
and  less  calamitous  in  its  consequences.  If  this 
extraordinary  species  of  legislation  be  car- 
ried over  a Governor’s  veto  by  the  same 
majority  that  originally  enacted  it,  why  shall 
not  the  ordinary  and  general  legislation  of  the 
State  be  carried  over  a Governor’s  veto  by  the 
same  majority  that  originally  passed  it?  Is 
there  any  reason,  sir,  for  the  distinction? 
None,  whatever.  If  a naked  majority  be  suffi- 
cient to  pass  a law  in  the  first  instance,  a bare 
majority,  after  deliberate  action  and  considera- 
tion, should  be  sufficient.  If  two-thirds  are  re- 
quired in  the  first  instance,  why  shall  not  more 
than  two-thirds  be  required  in  the  second  in- 
stance? It  is  unreasonable  to  so  require  it, 
and  it  need  not  and  should  not  be.  But,  sir,  if 
the  Executive  veto  is  of  so  much  consequence 
and  importance,  why  not  now,  to-day,  incorpo- 
rate into  our  Constitution  a provision  that  no 
bill  shall  become  a law  that  does  not  receive 
three-fifths  or  two-thirds  majority?  Why  not 
do  that  now  ? Why  leave  it  to  the  discretion  or 
whim,  or  caprice  of  one  man,  and  throw  back 
into  your  legislative  power  some  bills  that  may 
be  of  the  most  importance,  and  the  most  saluta- 
ry measures,  and  say  to  them,  it  shall  not  be 
accepted  without  increasing  the  number  of 
votes  by  which  it  was  originally  enacted.  And 
yet,  these  other  bills  may  be  passed  by  the 
same  majority.  Let  us  provide  in  the  Consti- 
tution, to-day,  if  it  be  so  important  to  prevent 
hasty  legislation,  that  three-fifths  or  eleven- 
twentieths,  or  some  other  greater  number,  shall 
be  required  to  fix  it  as  a permanent  rule  of 
your  Constitution,  and  not  give  it  into  the  hands 
of  a single  man  to  control  the  legislation. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I am  nearly  done.  It  is 
said  that  mischiefs  may  be  prevented  by  the 
possession  of  the  veto  power,  and  the  accident 
that  it  was  not  given  to  the  Governor  by  our 
original  Constitution  is  cited.  A mere  accident. 
The  people  were  not  consulted ; but  if  the  peo- 
ple had  been  consulted,  they  certainly  would 
have  given  the  veto  power  originally.  I read 
in  that  old  Constitution  that  continued  to  exist 
for  fifty  years,  that  after  the  year  1806,  the 
people  might,  by  amendment,  incorporate  any 
new  provision  into  it  which  they  saw  proper. 
But,  notwithstanding  that  provision,  for  a 
period  of  fifty  years,'  they  quietly  acquiesced 
in  the  provisions  of  that  Constitution,  and 
never  complained  that  the  Governor  did  not 
have  possession  of  the  veto  power.  Never  ! 
Fifty  years  I know  they  conformed  to  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Convention  that  framed  that  Con- 
stitution. When  the  new  Convention  was 
called,  the  question  came  up  for  discussion,  as 
it  came  up  here.  The  Convention  rejected  the 
veto  proposition,  and  again  the  people  acqui- 
esced for  three  and  twenty  years  more;  and, 
when  this  Convention  was  called,  I venture  the 
assertion  that  there  were  not  in  the  broad  State 
of  Ohio  a dozen  voices  heard  to  complain 
against  that  provision  that  excluded  the  Gov- 
ernor’s veto.  I never  heard  of  one  until  I came 


[106th 

[Thursday, 


into  this  Convention.  The  people  do  notask 
it.  They  do  not  want  it.  They  are  not  com- 
plaining of  it.  They  are  satisfied.  They  have 
prospered.  They  have  done  well  without  it. 
Why  shall  we,  then,  embark  in  some  new,  un- 
tried experiment,  amongst  our  people?  Oh! 
but  mischiefs  have  resulted  from  its  want. 
Greater  mischiefs  may  result  from  its  exercise 
and  use.  I remember  an  instance,  of  which 
my  friend  is  probably  cognizant,  when,  in  this 
same  city  of  Cincinnati,  your  City  Council  had 
prepared  to  enter  into  a contract  for  a new  let- 
ting of  your  gasworks  for  a period  of  five-and- 
twenty  years.  There  assembled  at  the  hall  of 
conclave,  the  instrument  was  about  to  be  signed, 
when  a telegraphic  dispatch  came  down  from 
Columbus,  announcing  to  the  astonished  con- 
spirators that  a law  had  passed  the  two  Houses, 
and  been  signed  by  the  presiding  officers  for- 
bidding the  ratification  of  their  infamous  swin- 
dle, that  was  to  consign  the  people  of  Cincin- 
nati to  darkness  or  a burden  of  huge  taxation 
for  another  twenty-five  years. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  say,  if  he  will  take  the  trouble  to  read 
the  statute,  he  will  find  that  it  had  no  effect 
whatever,  in  point  of  law,  on  the  proposition 
which  it  was  intended  to  defeat.  That  it  prac- 
tically defeated  the  proposition  may  be  true; 
but  that,  in  point  of  law,  it  was  so  drawn  that 
as  the  attorney  of  the  gas  company  devised  his 
plans,  it  did  not  defeat  the  measure,  is  beyond 
all  doubt. 

Mr.  WEST.  That  may  be  true,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. I do  not  remember  anything  about  the 
wording  of  the  law.  I know  it  was  passed. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I can  tell  the  gentleman  the 
point  in  a moment.  The  law  did  not  prevent 
it,  for  it  was  not  to  go  into  operation  during 
the  terms  of  members  then  elected. 

Mr.  WEST.  Well,  there  is  one  consolation. 
If  the  mere  shadow  of  a law  had  the  effect  of 
doing  so  much  good,  what  would  the  law  itself 
have  done?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  HOADLY.  T will  answer  the  gentle- 
man. That  depends  on  whether  any  good  was 
done  by  it.  In  my  judgment,  none  whatever 
was  accomplished.  He  simply  misunderstood 
the  whole  measure  which  that  was  intended  to 
defeat,  and  it  is  to-day  the  law  of  the  city  of 
Cincinnati. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  merely  giving  the  history 
of  it  at  the  time.  I do  not  know  anything 
about  it  since.  But  if  the  Governor  had  been 
there  with  a veto,  a few  shares  of  gas  stock  in 
the  pocket  of  the  Governor,  would  not  have 
cost  as  much  as'  a good  many  shares  in  the 
pockets  of  a good  many  members.  Corruption 
is  to  be  avoided.  Now,  it  is  said, Mr.  President, 
that  the  Governor  is  to  be  clothed  with  the  veto 
power  in  order  that  he  may  protect  the  people 
against  combinations  of  the  great  corporations 
of  the  State,  the  great  moneyed  interests.  I 
say  to  you,  Mr.  President,  that  that  result  will 
not  and  cannot  be  attained.  If,  sir,  it  be  neces- 
sary to  secure  the  elevation  of  one  favorable  to 
the  interests  of  these  great  corporations  in  the 
executive  chair,  the  combination  and  concen- 
tration of  the  political  and  financial  power  of 
these  great  corporations  to  secure  that  elevation 
will  be  absolutely  irresistible.  If  the  thirty  thou- 
sand employes  of  your  Pittsburgh  Railroad, the 


1099 


Day.] 


THE  VETO  POWER. 


February  5, 1874.] 


West. 


twenty  thousand  of  your  Baltimore  and  Ohio 
Railroad,  the  thirty  thousand  of  your  Lake 
Shore  Railroad,  he  instructed  and  directed  that 
Mr.  A B is  the  railroad  candidate  for  Governor, 
that  we  must  have  him  elevated  to  power,  in 
order  that  he  will,  or  will  not,  exercise  the  veto 
power  in  our  interest,  my  word  for  it,  we  will 
he  like  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  State 
of  New  York,  only  once  in  a great  while,  when 
the  uprising  of  an  indignant  and  outraged  peo- 
ple shall  come  to  the  rescue,  that  you  will  se- 
cure a Governor  in  the  executive  chair  that  will 
he  anything  else  than  a mere  tool  of  these  great 
corporations. 

A MEMBER.  The  Grangers  will  attend  to 
that. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes;  the  Grangers  may,  sir — 
but  they  will  go  to  sleep  after  a while.  People 
are  not  always  vigilant — never  so  vigilant  as 
they  ought  to  he.  All  those  great  moneyed 
institutions  are  ever  watchful,  ever  grasping 
for  success,  until  the  indignation  of  an  outraged 
public  sentiment  shall,  temporarily,  defeat  and 
thwart  them.  That  is  the  case  now  in  Pennsyl- 
vania. It  is  the  case  in  New  York,  with  Gov- 
ernor Dix  at  the  head  of  it.  When  Governor 
Dix  shall  pass  away,  and  the  scenes  of  the  last 
four  years  shall  have  been  forgotten ; when 
Governor  IIartranft  shall  leave  the  Chair,  and 
all  the  good  that  he  has  accomplished  shall  be 
settled  down  to  quiet  the  people’s  minds,  again, 
the  Pennsylvania  Central  Railroad  will  become 
the  owner  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  in  fee 
simple,  and  of  her  Governors,  as  it  has  been, 
for  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years.  These  cor- 
porations exercise  the  veto,  not  the  Govern- 
or. They  approve,  and  not  the  Governor. 
We  must  leave  the  executive  free  to  execute 
the  laws,  and  not  allow  him  to  interfere  in  the 
making  of  the  laws.  My  friend  has  said  that  the 
Governor  has  no  partin  the  law-making  power. 
I differ  from  him  in  that.  If  a law  originates 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  it  does  not 
become  a law  because  it  passes  that  body,  until 
it  receives  the  ratification  of  the  Senate.  If  the 
Senate  rejects  it,  it  is  the  Senate,  nevertheless, 
a part  of  the  law-making  power.  And  it  can- 
not become  a law  until  the  Senate  affirms  it. 
If  it  pass  the  House  and  the  Senate,  it  goes  to 
the  Governor,  and  cannot  become  a law  until  he 
votes  affirmatively,  just  as  the  Senate  voted  af- 
firmatively, and  if  he  votes  negatively  he  defeats 
the  law  absolutely,  except  upon  the  happening 
of  a certain  subsequent  contingency.  He  is  a 
part  and  parcel  of  the  law-making  power.  He 
exercises  an  affirmative  and  a negative  power 
over  the  enactment  of  laws. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I shall  not  say  a good 
many  things  that  I ought  to  have  said  : I simply 
desire  to  say  that  I have  no  objection  to  a prop- 
osition that  simply  requires  that  the  Legisla- 
ture shall  reconsider  its  action,  shall  again  de- 
liberate calmly,  shall  reflect  maturely  after  they 
have  passed  an  act,  if,  peradventure,  it  may  oc- 
cur to  the  executive  that  they  have  passed  over 
a point  of  importance,  to  consider  and  call  their 
attention  to  it,  and  they  can  again  re-enact  the 
law,  and  it  becomes  a law.  It  ought  to  become 
a law  until  the  supreme  judiciary,  alone,  shall 
set  it  aside  for  unconstitutionality.  The  Legis- 
lature is  the  will  of  the  people.  If  the  people 
have,  constitutionally,  expressed  their  will 


about  a matter  on  which  the  Constitution  per- 
mits an  expression,  the  will  of  the  people  thus 
expressed,  ought  to  become  the  rule  of  action. 
It  is  said  that  a mere  majority  rule  is  despotic. 
Sir,  it  is  not  a majority  rule.  It  is  a limited 
exercise  of  the  majority  power.  Your  Consti- 
tution is  a restraint  upon  the  majority.  It  is 
an  expression  of  will,  which  the  Constitution 
permits.  It  cannot  be  tyrannically  exercised, 
because  it  is  constitutionally  permitted.  It  can- 
not be  discriminatingly  exercised,  because  your 
Constitution  forbids  discriminating  laws.  You 
cannot  take  away  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
from  the  people ; your  Constitution  forbids  it. 
You  cannot  take  away  private  property 
for  public  uses,  without  compensation ; your 
Constitution  forbids  it.  There  is  your  Bill 
of  Rights,  there  is  your  Legislative  Article, 
there  is  your  Executive  Department — these  are 
the  limits  upon  the  otherwise  uncontrolled 
power  of  the  majority  which  permits  the  ex- 
ercise of  despotism. 

But  we  are  treated  to  a comparison,  and 
when  I have  alluded  to  that  I shall  conclude. 
We  are  pointed  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  as 
an  example;  we  are  pointed  to  the  State  of 
New  York  as  an  example;  we  are  pointed  to 
the  State  of  Kansas  as  an  example,  of  the  pos- 
session of  the  veto  power  in  the  Executive. 
And  we  are  pointed  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  I said  to  the  gentleman,  if  I 
had  strength  I would  speak  of  that.  I know, 
or  at  least,  I think  I understand  how 
that  power  was  vested  in  the  President  of  the 
United  States.  But  no  reason  exists  for  vesting 
it  in  the  Governor  of  Ohio  that  did  for  vesting 
it  in  the  President.  There  was  a new  govern- 
ment, a new  and  untried  experiment  about  to 
be  launched  upon  the  Western  Continent.  We 
had  no  forms  of  government  but  those  that 
were  derived  from  the  old  world  as  models. 
That  government  was  to  be  one  of  the  people 
in  the  first  sense.  It  was  to  be  a confederation 
of  States  that  had  been  sovereign,  but  were 
then  about  to  surrender  their  sovereignty.  Each 
State  was  to  be  the  equal  of  the  other  in  the 
highest  department  of  the  Government.  The 
State  of  Delaware  and  the  State  of  Rhode  Island 
were  to  be  the  equal  of  the  State  of  New  York 
and  of  Pennsylvania.  In  the  Senate,  Rhode 
Island  with  her  thirty  thousand  voters,  should 
be  equal  to  New  York  with  her  million  of 
voters.  Again,  the  lower  House  was  to  be  es- 
tablished and  the  vote  for  members  of  Congress 
was  then  by  general  ticket,  each  State  voting 
for  the  entire  number  that  was  to  be  sent  up, 
not  by  single  districts,  but  in  the  aggregate,  by 
general  ticket.  The  interests  of  the  several 
members  of  the  Confederacy  were  diverse. 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  were  cotton  States; 
Massachusetts,  and  the  other  New  England 
States,  were  manufacturing  and  seafaring 
States;  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  were 
commercial  or  iron . Their  interests  were  some- 
what different,  and  yet  the  powers  that  were 
vested  in  the  Government,  of  taxation,  of  ex- 
cise, of  revenue,  of  tariff  duties,  and  the  like, 
were  of  such  a character  that  a combination  of 
one,  two,  or  three  of  the  Eastern  States  might 
be  such  as  to  secure  the  enactment  of  such  leg- 
islation, by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
as  would  be  utterly  destructive  to  the  growing 


1100 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

West,  Yoris,  Campbell,  Hitchcock,  Tuttle,  Root. 


[106th 

[Thursday, 


energies  of  the  Western  States.  Or,  it  might  be 
that  New  England  and  Virginia  would  com- 
bine against  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  or 
that  some  other  combination  of  interests  should 
arise  that  would  work  unjustly,  work  serious 
wrong  to  some  particular  locality,  whose  inter- 
ests were  different  form  other  localities  that  had 
been  combined  against  it.  In  order  to  guard 
against,  and  to  prevent  these  combinations,  it 
was  supposed  that  the  possession  of  the  veto 
power,  by  the  chief  magistrate,  elected  by  the 
people  of  all  the  States,  might  be  interposed  to 
prevent  the  combination  of  the  local  interests 
of  a few  States  against  the  local  interests  of 
the  other  States,  and  thus  prevent  the  work- 
ing of  great  wrong  in  and  through  the  power 
vested  in  the  General  Government,  of  discrim- 
inating taxation,  excise,  and  custom  laws,  by 
which  the  interest  of  one  locality  could  be 
crushed,  while  that  of  another  locality  could  be 
built  up.  There  was  the  secret  of  leaving  the 
veto  power  in  the  possession  of  the  Chief  Mag- 
istrate of  the  United  States.  No  such  reason 
exists  in  Ohio.  We  are  a homogeneous  people. 
We  are  one  people.  There  can  be  no  discrimi- 
nating legislation,  taxation,  or  otherwise.  All 
the  laws  that  operate  upon  one  section,  operate 
upon  all  of  them.  There  can  be  no  combina- 
tion, or  conspiracy,  or  laws,  by  which  the  people 
of  one  portion  of  the  State  can  oppress  the  in- 
terests, whatever  they  may  be,  of  the  people  of 
another  part  of  the  State.  No  necessity,  there- 
fore, exists,  for  any  restraint  of  power  over  the 
legislative  will,  as  vested  by  the  Constitution, 
under  the  limitations  of  that  instrument. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Then  there  is  no  danger  from 
the  overweening  power  of  these  moneyed  cor- 
porations in  Ohio? 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  yes,  my  friend,  there  is 
danger  from  the  overweening  corporations ; but, 
whenever  you  vest  in  your  Governor  the  power 
to  restrain  these  corporations,  you  vest  in  him 
the  power  to  promote  the  interests  of  those  cor- 
porations. And,  as  the  motive  of  these  corpo- 
rations will  be  to  corrupt  your  Executive,  in 
order  to  advance  their  own  interests,  your  cor- 
porations will  succeed  in  securing  your  Gov- 
ernors, as  they  have  only  to  concentrate  the 
power  which  they  control,  and  throw  it  upon 
this  side  or  that  side  of  a nominating  conven- 
tion, at  Columbus,  to  secure  the  nominee,  and 
then  throw  their  power  and  influence  into  the 
scale  of  the  election,  favorable  to  the  candi- 
date, and  they  will  secure  the  Governor.  There 
is  but  one  man  to  secure;  whereas,  in  your  Gen- 
eral Assembly  there  are  140  men  to  secure, 
many  of  them  remote  from  your  railroads,  and 
their  interest  and  influence.  Less  liable  are 
they  to  corrupt  the  Legislature  than  they  are  to 
corrupt  the  Governor.  Now,  sir,  we  are  pointed 
to  those  immaculate  States  of  New  York,  and  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  of  Kansas,  and  Indiana. 
Mr.  President,  seventy  years  have  rolled  over 
the  young  State  of  Ohio.  To-day  she  stands  a 
giantess  among  her  sister  States;  to-day  she 
points  with  pride  to  the  head  of  the  American 
army,  and  names  her  Sherman.  To-day  she 
looks  to  the  Executive  Mansion,  and  names  a 
son  of  Ohio;  to-day  she  points  with  pride 
to  the  highest  office  in  the  gift  of  man- 
kind, the  First  Magistrate  of  the  Ameri- 
can Judiciary,  and  he  is  an  adopted  son 


of  Ohio.  To-day,  in  her  Cabinet  is  a son 
of  Ohio.  For  the  last  ten  or  fifteen  years 
Ohio,  in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  has  led  the 
van.  In  purity  of  character,  in  bravery  and 
courage  upon  the  battle  field,  in  the  wisdom 
of  her  councils,  in  the  Cabinet,  and  upon  the 
floor  of  the  National  Legislature — wherever 
you  have  seen  the  sons  of  Ohio,  there  Ohio’s 
sons  may  point  with  pride,  and  name  them  as 
their  brothers.  This  we  have  attained  in  point 
of  personnel.  Look  to  our  material  interests : 
with  a network  of  iron  railways  threading  and 
thwarting  our  State,  over  and  across  which  the 
commerce  of  India  passes  and  is  debarked  upon 
the  coasts  of  the  Atlantic.  The  manufactures 
and  stuff’s  of  the  Atlantic  States  necessarily 
find  their  way  through  our  midst  by  our  topo- 
graphical and  geographical  position,  to  the 
great  market  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  Missouri 
valley.  Ohio  in  point  of  wealth,  in  point 
of  prosperity,  in  point  of  material  devel- 
opment, in  point  of  her  high  personnel 
in  the  councils  of  the  State  and  Nation, 
whether  it  be  at  the  Court  of  St.  James  or  the 
Court  of  Madrid,  or  whether  it  be  at  the  Coun- 
cils of  Washington  or  the  Councils  of  Colum- 
bus, or  whether  it  be  the  great  material  devel- 
opment that  makes  America  happy  and  prosper- 
ous ; whether  it  be  in  the  religious  liberty  by 
her  guaranteed  to  her  people  by  the  fundament- 
al principles  of  her  Constitution,  or  whether  it 
be  in  the  highly  developed  character  of  our  ed- 
ucational institutions,  Ohio  stands  to-day  upon 
the  proud  pinnacle — the  highest  summit  of  Na- 
tional glory.  God  bless  Ohio  without  her  veto ! 
Do  not  intrust  it  to  her,  if  we  are  what  we  are 
without  it ; for  it  may  place  us  in  the  position 
that  to-day  finds  Pennsylvania,  and  New  York, 
and  Kansas,  and  other  States,  where  the  cor- 
rupting influence  of  executive  power  has  abso- 
lutely demoralized  and  crushed  out  the  ener- 
gies and  independence  of  the  people.  [Ap- 
plause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell.] 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Before  the  vote  is  taken, 
I notice  a clerical  error  in  the  seventh  line.  I 
will  ask  the  unanimous  consent  to  have  the 
word  “ elected  ” inserted  after  the  word 
“ members,”  so  that  it  may  prevent  a seeming 
ambiguity. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  be  no  objection, 
the  amendment  will  be  ordered. 

Mr.  FORAN.  I move  that  the  Convention 
take  a recess. 

MEMBERS.  No!  No! 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Is  it  in  order  to  ask  that 
the  question  be  divided? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  in  order.  A divi- 
sion is  called  for.  The  first  question  will  be 
on  striking  out  section  18. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  but  that 
would  be  more  agreeable  to  the  views  of  the 
mover.  As  I understand  it,  where  it  is  pro- 
posed to  substitute  one  thing  for  another,  the 
question  is  not  in  that  manner  divisible. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman,  if  it  is  not  his  understanding,  that 
anything  that  involves  two  propositions  is  di- 
visible ? 


Day.]  THE  VETO  POWER.  

February  5,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Hitchcock,  Scribner,  Powell,  Mueller. 


1101 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  the  question  is  divisible. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  understand  that  it  is 
always  divisible.  I do  not  understand  that  it 
applies  to  this. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  is  to 
strike  out  section  18  and  insert  the  substitute. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  it  is  in  that  form  I am 
wrong.  I understand  it  differently. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  form  ex- 
actly. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I understand  that  if  the 
Convention  refuses  to  strike  out,  it  will  be 
agreeing  to  the  matter  in  its  present  form.  Will 
it  not  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  rule  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I desire,  then,  to  offer  an 
amendment  to  the  matter  proposed  to  be  strick- 
en out,  if  the  opportunity  will  hereafter  be  pre- 
cluded. I do  not  desire  to  urge  a vote  on  this 
question  of  the  substitute,  but  if  we  are  to 
decide  simply  upon  striking  out,  I will  ask  to 
amend  the  matter  proposed  to  be  stricken  out. 
The  President  is  no  doubt  correct. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Rule  XXXIN  is,  that  a 
motion  to  strike  out  and  insert  shall  he  deemed 
divisible. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I will  ask  the  Chair  to 
notice  whether,  by  the  same  Rule,  it  is  not  pro- 
vided that  the  failure  of  a motion  to  strike  out 
does  not  preclude  further  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  does  not  preclude 
further  amendments  in  the  nature  of  an  addition 
or  striking  out  a word  and  inserting  other  lan- 
guage. The  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  has  a right  to  better  the  section  as 
it  stands,  before  it  goes  to  a vote. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  the  reading  of  section 
eighteen,  as  it  is  now  amended,  before  striking 
out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  requests  that  section 
eighteen  be  read,  as  amended  yesterday.  The 
Secretary  will  read  the  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Section  18.  Every  bill  passed  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly shall  before  it  becomes  a law,  be  presented  to  the 
Governor  at  least  three  days  before  its  adjournment  sine 
die.  If  he  approve  it  he  shall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it 
shall  become  a law;  but  if  he  do  not  approve,  he  shall 
send  it  to  the  House  in  which  it  originated,  with  his  ob- 
jections in  writing,  and  the  House  shall  then  proceed  to 
reconsider  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill.  If,  after 
such  reconsideration,  a majority  of  the  members  elected 
thereto,  sufficient  for  its  passage  in  the  first  instance, 
agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be  sent  to  the  other  House, 
with  the  objections  of  the  Governor,  and  thereupon  that 
House  shall  likewise  reconsider  the  vote  on  its  passage. 
If,  after  such  reconsideration,  a like  majority  of  the 
members  elected  to  that  House  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it 
shall  become  a law.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by 
the  Governor  within  three  days  (Sundays  excepted)  after 
it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  be- 
come a law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it. 

The  Governor  shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any 
item  or  items  of  any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money, 
embracing  distinct  items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the  bill 
shall  be  the  law,  and  the  item  or  items  of  appropriation 
disapproved  shall  be  void,  unless  re-passed  according  to 
the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the  passage  of 
entire  bills  after  the  disapproval  of  the  Governor, 

Every  order,  resolution  or  vote  to  which  the  concur- 
rence of  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly  may  be 
necessary  (except  on  a question  of  adjournment  or  ques- 
tions pertaining  to  the  transaction  of  businses  of  the  two 
Houses),  shall  be  presented  to  the  Governor;  and  before 
the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him,  or 
being  disapproved  by  him,  may  be  re-passed  by  both 


Houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  according  to  the  rules 
and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a bill. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  My  intention  was  to 
move  to  amend,  in  the  thirty-first  and  thirty- 
second  lines  of  this  section.  A gentleman  here 
desires  to  take  the  vote  on  the  motion  to  strike 
out  the  entire  section,  at  this  time,  as  a test 
vote.  The  amendment  sought  to  be  made  sure 
of,  if  this  provision  is  to  be  retained,  I think 
would  be  agreed  to  by  common  consent.  At 
all  events,  1 will  take  the  risk  of  introducing 
my  motion  to  amend,  and  leave  the  question  to 
turn  upon  the  vote  on  this  motion  to  strike  out. 
The  Chairman  of  the  Committee  who  reported 
this  Article  desires  that  I read  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  read 
the  amendment  prbposed,  for  information. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  is  to  strike  out,  in  the 
thirty-first  line,  the  words  “except  on  a motion 
to  adjourn,”  and  insert,  in  place  thereof,  “ques- 
tions relating  to  the  transaction  of  business  by 
the  two  Houses.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  parts  are  in  paren- 
theses, which  the  gentleman  proposes  to  strike 
out. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I was,  myself,  a member 
of  the  Committee,  and  was  opposed  to  the  in- 
corporation of  this  provision  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. I think  I owe  it  to  a great  many  of  my 
old  personal  friends,  for  whom  I have  a great 
deal  of  respect  (who  differ  with  me  on  this  ques- 
tion), as  well  as  to  myself,  to  give  the  reasons 
why  I shall  vote  against  the  incorporation  of 
this  veto  power  into  the  new  Constitution.  I 
take  my  position  and  found  my  objections  on 
principle.  And  in  so  doing,  I shall  admit 
frankly  that  the  veto  power,  if  intrusted  to 
the  Governor,  would,  in  many  cases,  do  a great 
deal  of  good.  There  is  no  doubt  about  it.  But 
it  is  merely  and  only  an  expedient.  In  princi- 
ple, the  veto  power,  in  a Democratic  State,  is 
wrong.  The  people  of  the  State  elect  their 
Legislature  for  the  purpose  of  making  their 
laws.  The  Legislative  Article  provides  that  the 
Legislative  power  shall  be  vested  in  the  General 
Assembly.  Here  you  establish  a great  prin- 
ciple, which,  in  a later  section,  is  materially 
modified. 

We  find,  afterwards,  that  the  Legislature  is 
intrusted  with  that  power;  but  there  is  another 
person,  called  a Governor,  who  has  the  right  to 
say  whether  a certain  Legislative  measure  shall 
become  a law  or  not.  I say  the  veto  power  is 
inconsistent  with  the  Article  itself.  It  is  in- 
consistent with  what  I call  good  Democracy. 
The  members  of  the  Legislature  are  elected  by 
the  people,  or  their  agents.  They  do  the  busi- 
ness for  which  they  have  been  sent,  while  the 
Governor  of  the  State  is  but  an  executive  offi- 
cer, and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  legislative 
business.  I know  it  will  be  claimed  that  he  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  legislative  business,  in 
the  exercise  of  the  veto  power;  but  he  is  doing 
more  than  meddling  with  legislative  business. 
He  actually  may  prevent  the  taking  effect  of 
measures  which  the  Legislature  has  seen  fit  to 

Mr.’  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  In  what  sense  are  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 


1102 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hoadly,  Mueller,  Hunt,  Horton. 


f 106th 


tives  from  Cuyahoga  county  Representatives  of 
the  people  of  Hamilton  county?  Is  not  this  a 
scheme  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  po- 
litical power,  by  which  we  construct  our  Leg- 
islature ? Is  not  the  Governor  the  representa- 
tive of  the  whole  people  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I answer  the  gentleman 
that  the  Senators  and  Representatives  from 
Cuyahoga  county  are  not  the  Representatives  of 
that  locality ; but  they  are  the  Representatives 
in  the  General  Assembly  for  the  State  of  Ohio : 
That  each  county  electing  its  members,  im- 
plies not  that  these  are  local  Representatives.  It 
is  only  a mode  of  electing  them.  I never  consid- 
ered that  to  be  local  representation;  and  I be- 
lieve the  time  will  come,  when  the  Represen- 
tatives to  the  Legislature  will  be  elected  not  by 
this  or  that  locality,  but  by  the  people  of  the 
State  at  large  ; or  at  least  that  one  county  may 
he  entitled  to  elect  a man  from  another  county, 
if  they  think  proper  to  do  so. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  if 
he,  as  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate,  does  not 
know  that  two-thirds,  or  a large  proportion  of 
the  legislation  of  the  State,  is  determined  by 
sectional  interest  and  local  prejudice? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  That  is  true.  I will  admit 
that.  But  what  I claim  here,  and  the  reason 
why  I take  my  position  against  this  amend- 
ment, is,  that  it  is  relying  on  a mere  expedient 
which  will  not  help  us.  Instead  of  removing 
the  evil  by  tearing  up  its  roots,  we  are  apply- 
ing patent  medicine  for  every  disease.  This  is 
only  patent  medicine. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question  on  that  subject  of  local  laws, 
whether  it  is  not  a fact  that  these  local  laws  are 
generally  passed  by  substantially  a unanimous 
vote  of  the  General  Assembly,  so  that  no  veto 
could  arrest  it  ? I have  been  told  that  such  is 
the  fact. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  That  is  actually  the  fact. 
Now,  we  should  be  very  careful  in  incorporat- 
ing new  principles  in  the  organic  law.  I am  not 
in  favor  of  trying  experiments  in  this  Consti- 
tution that  we  are  framing.  If  adopted  by  the 
people,  it  may  stand  twenty  or  thirty  years. 
This  power  given  to  one  man,  to  override  the 
decision  of  a majority,  or  even  two-thirds  of 
the  Representatives  of  this  State,  is  a very  im- 
portant one.  If  it  is  desired  to  be  experiment- 
ed on,  it  should  be  done  by  law,  and  not  by  the 
Constitution.  I know  that,  on  account  of  the 
prevailing  corruption  and  evils  in  our  public 
affairs,  we  are  very  much  disposed  to  apply  all 
these  trifling  remedies.  The  evil  will  not  be 
cured  by  it.  If  the  principle  of  self-govern- 
ment is  correct,  we  ought  to  live  up  to  it, 
though  it  may  sometimes  be  a little  inconve- 
nient. Your  practice  will  be  right  if  your 
theory  is  correct.  The  theory,  however,  of 
giving  one  man  such  a power,  real  kingly  pow- 
er, to  prostrate  and  neutralize  the  acts  of  the 
people’s  Legislature,  I think  is  wholly  undem- 
ocratic, and  should  find  no  recognition  in  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  State. 

There  is  one  argument  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  IIoadly].  I think,  if 
intrusting  the  veto  power  to  the  Governor 
would  remedy  that  evil  which  he  refers  to,  I 
would,  perhaps,  vote  for  it.  The  gentleman 
suggested  that  our  Legislature  passes  what  he 


[Thursday, 


calls  sumptuary  laws.  I know  they  do ; but  I 
have  yet  to  hear  of  the  Governor  of  any  of  our 
States  who  dared  to  veto  them.  The  Governor 
of  Wisconsin,  the  Governor  of  Indiana,  the 
Governor  of  Illinois,  and  others,  have  sanc- 
tioned such  sumptuary  laws,  and  the  Governor 
will  do  it  here.  I advise  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  that  there  is  another  way  to  prevent 
this,  and  I am  willing,  at  the  proper  time,  to 
have  this  way  tried.  I want  the  enacting  of 
these  sumptuary  laws  prevented  by  a proper 
inhibitory  provision  in  the  Bill  of  Rights. 
There  is  the  place  to  provide  against  it.  I 
would  not  rely  on  the  Governor  of  the  State  to 
counteract  that  sort  of  unauthorized  legislation. 
As  far  as  I am  acquainted  with  the  history  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  we  always  have  had  excellent 
and  worthy  men,  as  the  Governors  of  this  State. 
But  as  soon  as  you  intrust  them  with  that 
power,  the  veto,  you  will  find  that  persons  of  a 
different  character  will  be  put  forward  by  the 
politicians.  Governors  then  will  be  elected 
chiefly  with  a view  to  that  veto  power,  and  thus, 
the  highest  office  in  the  State  will  be  dragged 
down  in  the  whirlpool  of  politics  and  contest- 
ing interests.  The  Governor  of  this  State  has 
always  been  purely  an  executive  officer  and 
should  remain  so.  It  has  been  claimed  that 
much  goodwill  be  derived  from  this  veto  power 
and  much  bad  legislation  prevented.  I,  myself, 
have  seen,  during  two  years,  a great  many  laws 
passed  which  ought  never  to  have  become  laws 
of  this  State.  But,  I doubt  that  it  will  be  much 
different  if  you  intrust  that  power  to  the  Gov- 
ernor. If  there  is  a majority  of  a political 
party  in  the  General  Assembly,  you  will  rarely 
find  the  Governor  belonging  to  the  same  politi- 
cal party,  vetoing  their  measures.  So  it  will, 
in  that  respect,  as  far  as  political  measures  are 
concerned,  work  no  remedy  whatever,  and 
nothing  will  be  accomplished  by  it.  The  Leg- 
islatures of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  have 
been  corrupted,  notwithstanding  of,  and  per- 
haps because,  that  power  has  been  in  the  hands 
of  their  Governors. 

There  is  another  reason,  gentlemen,  to  which 
I call  your  attention,  and  which  ought  to  pre- 
vent us  from  incorporating  this  power  into  our 
Constitution,  and  that  is  this : We  fail  to  recog- 
nize that  the  evils  that  are  complained  of,  are, 
to  a great  extent,  to  be  chargable  to  the  people 
themselves.  We  are  starting  out  with  the  great 
principle  of  universal  suffrage,  giving  the  right 
of  suffrage  to  every  man,  the  intelligent  and  the 
ignorant,  the  rich  and  the  poor,  and  rightly  so; 
but  is  it  not  folly  to  expect,  under  this  universal 
suffrage  regime,  everything  to  move  on  per- 
fectly? Why,  if  correctives  are  to  be  applied, 
do  you  not  go  back  to  the  source  of  all  authority, 
and  of  all  deflections — to  the  people?  The  cor- 
ruption in  the  National  Congress,  the  corruption 
in  Columbus,  or  anywhere  else,  I consider  only 
as  symptoms,  reflecting  the  moral  deflections  of 
the  people  themselves ; and  the  way  to  cure  the 
evil  is  to  have  the  attention  called  to  the  neces- 
sity of  making  the  people  more  intelligent, 
moral  and  patriotic,  and  not  be  deluded  that 
remedies  would  lie  in  these  petty  measures  of 
vetoes,  or  checks  and  bars.  As  I said,  these 
proposed  checks  are  only  patent  medicines, 
which  may,  perhaps,  work  beneficially  in  a 
special  case,  but  will  have  no  effect  in  ninety 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Mueller,  Dorsey. 


1103 


Day.] 

February  5,  1874.] 


out  of  a hundred  cases.  Let  the  people  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  understand  that  it  is  their  business 
to  elect  good  legislators,  and  that  if  they  send 
incompetent  men,  they  must  bear  the  conse- 
quences. You  can  not  take  away  the  responsi- 
bility from  them,  and  the  more  reason  they  have 
to  be  dissatisfied  with  public  administration, 
the  more  they  find  out  the  necessity  of  partici- 
pating more  diligently  in  political  affairs.  A 
great  portion*  even  of  the  best  of  our  citizens  do 
not  pay  any  attention  to  political  affairs,  at  all, 
leaving  it  to  “rings,”  and  inferior  classes  of 
patriots,  to  carry  on  our  political  affairs.  I 
want  our  people  to  understand  that  if  they, 
themselves,  cease  to  be  virtuous,  patriotic  and 
honest,  they  cannot  expect  that  their  Governors, 
their  legislators,  and  other  officers,  will  be  other- 
wise. They  will  reflect,  more  or  less,  their  own 
virtues,  and  their  own  vices. 

As  there  have  been  such  able  and  forcible  ar- 
guments made  on  both  sides  of  this  question,  it 
would  be  carrying  water  to  the  ocean,  if  I should 
try  to  add  anything  to  what  I have  said. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Although  this  question  has 
been  pretty  thoroughly  discussed,  I wish  to 
make  an  argument  on  the  side  of  this  much 
abused  veto  power ; but,  as  the  time  for  recess  is 
about  here,  I move,  for  the  present,  that  the 
Convention  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12:20  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2:30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  DORSET.  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen 
of  the  Convention  : I am  aware  that  this  sub- 
ject of  the  veto  power,  embraced  in  the  eigh- 
teenth section  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  the  Legislative  Department,  has  been  very 
thoroughly  discussed  already,  and  I have  no 
doubt  that  the  Convention  is  anxious  to  come  to 
a vote  on  the  question ; but,  holding  that  it  is  one 
of  those  important  questions  which  it  becomes 
this  Convention  carefully  to  consider,  I trust 
that  I shall  have  the  indulgence  of  the  Conven- 
tion while  I offer  a few  remarks  in  behalf  of 
incorporating  this  veto  power  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State.  I know  that  it  will  be  said 
that  we  have  passed  through  three-fourths  of  a 
century  successfully  without  any  provision  of 
this  kind  in  our  Constitution.  But  the  same 
may  be  said  of  many  other  matters  of  import- 
ance; and  I hold  it  to  be  no  argument  at  all 
against  the  insertion  of  any  provision  of  this 
kind,  that  two  preceding  Conventions  have  failed 
to  incorporate  such  a provision  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State.  If  we  can  find  good  and  suf- 
ficient reason  for  introducing  it  at  the  present 
day,  that  is  sufficient,  without  looking  back  to 
see  what  has  been  done  in  times  past.  And  I 
do  hold  that  we  are  able  to  bring  before  the 
minds  of  the  Convention,  and  before  the  minds 
of  the  people  of  the  State,  reasons  sufficient  to 
indicate  why  we  should  insert  a provision  of 
this  kind  in  the  organic  law. 

It  has  been  said,  by  a very  able  writer  on 
civil  government,  that  a just  division  of  power 
is  absolutely  necessary  to  insure  success  in  any 


form  of  government.  I hold  this  to  be  a great 
and  important  truth,  and  in  looking  over  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  it  does  appear 
to  me  that  here  we  find  one  of  the  defects  which 
is  incorporated  into  this  Constitution  of  ours. 
There  is  not  that  just  division  of  power  between 
the  executive,  the  legislative  and  the  judicial  de- 
partments of  the  government  which  ought  to  ex- 
ist in  a well  regulated  system.  This,  it  seems  to 
me, will  be  obvious  to  any  one  who  has  examined 
our  present  Constitution.  The  judicial  depart- 
ment has,  to  a very  considerable  extent,  control 
over  the  action  of  the  legislative  department,  for 
they  can  review  their  enactments,  and  should 
they  be  found  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution 
of  the  State,  they  declare  them  null  and  void. 
The  legislative  department  has  the  power  to  re- 
strain the  executive  action,  but  what  power  has 
the  executive  of  the  State  ? After  laws  have  been 
passed  by  the  two  Houses  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, they  are  submitted  to  him,  and  he  sim- 
ply performs  the  clerical  duty  of  affixing  his 
name,  in  order  to  render  them  efficient  in  their 
action  throughout  the  State.  This  ought  not  so 
to  be.  There  should  be,  in  order  to  a proper 
distribution  of  power,  in  the  executive  depart- 
ment of  the  government,  at  least  some  power 
enabling  him  to  exercise  some  degree  of  influ- 
ence over  the  legislative  department  of  the 
State.  The  Governor  is,  no  less  than  every 
member  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  Represen- 
tative of  the  people  of  the  State.  He  does  not 
represent  any  particular  locality  in  the  State ; 
but  he  does  represent  the  whole  people,  in  their 
collective  capacity.  He,  just  as  well  as  the 
members  of  the  General  Assembly,  is  re- 
sponsible and  amenable  to  public  opinion 
for  the  manner  in  which  he  performs  the 
duties  of  his  office.  He  receives  the  plaudits 
or  he  receives  the  condemnation  of  the  peo- 
ple when  the  term  of  his  office  expires,  if  he 
be  presented  for  re-election  before  the  voters  of 
the  State,  and  yet  held,  as  he  is,  to  a very  great 
extent,  responsible  for  the  acts  that  may  be 
performed  during  his  term  of  office,  liable  to 
be  sustained,  or  liable  to  fall,  with  the  men  of 
his  party  who  are  in  power,  and  who  give  tone 
and  mark  to  the  acts  of  the  government  during 
his  office.  He  occupies  the  executive  chair, 
perfectly  powerless  for  giving  any  efficiency 
to  the  acts  of  the  Legislature,  or  imposing  on 
them  any  restraint. 

I desire,  Mr.  President,  to  state  some  of  the 
beneficial  effects  which,  in  my  opinion,  can 
grow  out  of  the  use  of  the  veto  power  by  the 
Executive  of  the  State.  It  is  only  in  this  way 
that  we  can  make  an  argument  in  favor  of  the 
exercise  of  this  power.  If  we  are  unable  to 
show  any  good  use  which  may  result  from  its 
exercise,  then  it  ought  not  to  be  incorporated 
into  the  organic  law  of  the  State.  But  if  we 
can  show  that  this  power  can  be  used  and  ex- 
ercised for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  or  that  it 
may  produce  important  results  to  the  people  of 
the  State,  that  is  sufficient  for  us.  Whether  the 
people  have  asked  us,  or  whether  they  have  not 
asked  us,  to  incorporate  such  a provision  into 
the  Constitution,  it  matters  not. 

Very  little  was  said  by  the  electors  of  the 
State  while  proceeding  to  call  this  Convention, 
with  regard  to  the  special  matters  which  were 
to  be  acted  upon  by  the  Convention.  Lawyers, 


1104 


[106th 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Dorsey,  Powell. 


perhaps,  talked  of  the  necessity  of  amending 
the  Judicial  Article  of  the  Constitution;  but  I 
have  failed  to  hear  many  of  the  people  of 
the  State  demand  any  great  and  important 
reforms;  and  yet,  if  there  are  great  and  im- 
portant reforms  needed,  I submit  to  this  Con- 
vention, if  we  would  not  he  derelict  to  that 
duty  imposed  upon  us  by  our  constituents,  if 
we  failed  to  incorporate  them  in  the  organic 
law.  I say  that,  in  my  opinion,  this  power 
would  be  beneficial  in  preventing  hasty  legisla- 
tion, in  preventing  unconstitutional  legislation, 
and  even  in  preventing  party  legislation.  It  is 
precisely  those  three  points  which  were  desig- 
nated by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 
this  morning,  in  his  remarks,  in  which  he  en- 
deavored to  show  to  this  Convention  that  the 
veto  power  would  have  no  beneficial  effect; 
and  I say  to  my  friend,  that  I hope  to  demon- 
strate that  it  is  just  precisely  in  that  way  that 
the  Executive  veto  may  be  usefully  and  benefi- 
cially exercised  in  behalf  of  the  people.  It 
may  prevent  unconstitutional  legislation.  It 
may  prevent  partisan  legislation,  and  it  may, 
and  will,  prevent  hasty  and  inconsiderate  leg- 
islation in  the  State. 

We  are  told  that  the  mere  veto  of  the  Gover- 
nor, or  the  refusal  of  the  Governor,  to  ap- 
pend his  signature  to  a law  and  allow  it  to 
become  an  enactment  of  the  State,  unless  two- 
thirds  of  the  members  elected  to  the  General 
Assembly  shall  concur  in  the  passage  of  that 
law,  does  not  render  the  law  unconstitutional, 
or  does  not  prevent  its  enactment  even  if  it  be 
unconstitutional,  provided  two-thirds  of  the 
members  of  the  General  Assembly  concur  in 
passing  it.  That  is  true,  but  remember  this, 
that  if  the  Governor  has  the  power  by  his  veto 
to  prevent  a law  being  passed,  save  with  the 
concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  members 
elected  to  the  General  Assembly,  he  will  very 
often  prevent  the  passage  of  a law  which  other- 
wise might  be  enacted  by  a majority,  and  may 
very  often,  in  this  way,  prevent  the  enactment 
of  an  unconstitutional  law  ; and  it  is  not  enough 
to  tell  me  that  the  proper  place  for  that  matter 
to  be  determined  is  in  the  Judiciary  of  the 
State.  I am  perfectly  well  aware  of  that  fact, 
and  I am  perfectly  aware  of  the  fact  that  if  you 
wait  until  the  Judiciary  of  the  State  determine 
whether  a law  be  or  be  not  unconstitutional, 
you  may  wait  until  great  evils  have  grown  up 
under  the  law. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No  question  can  be  brought 
up  until  there  is  some  question  between  two 
individuals. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  As  a matter  of  course,  it  re- 
quires action  under  the  law  before  a question 
can  be  brought  up  before  the  Judiciary  of  the 
State.  It  requires  that  an  issue  should  be  made 
up  before  it  can  be  known  and  properly  adjudi- 
cated by  the  Judicial  Department  of  the 
government,  and  determined  by  them  whether 
the  law  is  constitutional  or  whether  it  is  not  so. 

I ask  any  gentleman  to  remember  that  only  a 
short  time  ago,  by  the  action  of  the  legislative 
power  of  the  State,  a law  was  passed  which  al- 
most every  man  in  the  State  considered  to  be 
unconstitutional.  I refer  to  the  celebrated  Boe-  j 
sel  law.  Action  went  on  under  that  law 
Six  millions  of  bonds  for  the  purpose  of  mak-  I 
ing  internal  improvements  were  issued  by  the  [ 


[Thursday, 


various  counties  in  the  State.  In  some  cases, 
those  bonds  were  even  thrown  upon  the  market, 
and  so  fell  into  the  hands  of  innocent  holders. 
Finally,  the  law  was  decided  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional. Now,  I cannot  say,  nor  can  any  mem- 
ber of  this  Convention  say,  that  had  the  Gov- 
ernor of  the  State  possessed  the  veto  power,  he 
could,  or  would  have  used  it,  for  preventing  the 
enactment  of  that  law ; but,  at  least,  I say,  that 
it  would  have  been  a safeguard  which  could 
have  been  placed  between  the  Legislature  and 
the  people ; and  might  have  been  beneficially 
used  to  prevent  the  enactment  of  an  unconsti- 
tutional law.  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  we 
do  not  know  whether  the  veto  power  would 
have  been  exercised  or  not,  even  if  the  Govern- 
or did  possess  it.  It  is  not  enough  for  gentle- 
men to  say  that  even  where  that  power  has 
been  vested,  it  has  not  always  been  used  as  it 
should  be.  It  is  for  us  to  determine  whether 
in  the  possession  of  that  power,  a beneficial 
use  can  be  made  of  it ; and  if  that  can  be  done, 
it  is  right,  it  is  just  and  it  is  proper,  that  we  give 
that  power  to  the  Governor,  and  allow  him  to 
exercise  it  when,  in  his  opinion,  it  can  be  done 
for  the  best  interests  of  the  people. 

But  with  regard  to  partisan  legislation,  we 
have  been  told  that  it  is  utterly  powerless. 
Nay,  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 
said  that  this  expression  was  not  sufficiently 
strong,  that  he  was  unable  to  use  any  word 
sufficiently  strong  to  convey  his  idea  of  the  ut- 
ter inability  of  any  thing  like  the  veto  power 
to  arrest  the  legislation  of  a partisan  character. 
Now,  with  all  the  respect  I have  for  the  judg- 
ment of  the  gentleman,  and  I want  to  say  here, 
in  his  absence,  that  I appreciate  the  excellence 
of  his  judgment  and  his  intelligence,  and  am 
second  to  no  gentleman  in  my  respect  for  any 
thing  that  may  fall  from  his  lips,  still  I confess 
that  I think  I can  see  just  precisely  how,  under 
many  circumstances,  partisan  legislation  can 
be  arrested  by  the  exercise  of  this  veto  power. 
I think  that  cases  may  arise,  time  and  again,  in 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  State,  where  a 
party,  being  dominant  and  strongly  in  the  as- 
cendency, would  take  upon  itself,  in  the  Gener- 
al Assembly,  as  one  branch  of  the  authority  of 
the  State,  to  pass  certain  acts,  put  them  before 
the  people,  and  place  them  upon  the  statute 
books  of  the  State,  if  they  did  not  know  that 
there  was  a co-ordinate  branch  of  authority, 
even  if  that  branch  held  the  same  partisan  opin- 
ions as  themselves,  which  had  the  power  to 
place  a veto,  at  least  a qualified  veto,  upon  their 
partisan  action. 

It  is  not  very  often  that  you  will  find  two  co- 
ordinate branches  of  the  authority  of  the  State, 
however  strongly  they  may  be  tinctured  with 
partisanship,  that  will  coolly  and  deliberately 
enter  into  the  performance  of  an  act,  which 
can  be  shown  to  be  wrong  or  improper  so  far 
as  the  interests  of  the  State  are  concerned. 
One  branch  of  the  authority  of  the  State  may  do 
it  where  there  is  no  restraining  power  in  anoth- 
er co-ordinate  branch.  But  if  they  feel  that  two 
important  branches  of  the  authority  which 
they  hold  in  the  State  must  shoulder  the  re- 
sponsibility of  performing  this  act,  before 
it  can  be  spread  upon  the  statute  books  of  the 
State,  they  will  hesitate  before  they  will  ven- 
ture to  enact  any  piece  of  partisan  legislation 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Dorsey,  Gurley,  West,  Hoadly. 


1105 


Day.] 


February  5,  1874.] 


which  may  he  shown,  in  time  to  come,  to  he 
against  the  best  interests  of  the  State.  Now,  I 
can  imagine,  very  easily,  that  just  precisely  in 
this  way,  it  has  a very  important  bearing  upon 
partisan  legislation  in  the  State.  I have  no 
doubt  that  there  have  been  apportionment  bills, 
dividing  the  State  into  districts  for  electing 
members  of  Congress,  passed  by  one  or  another 
of  these  parties  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  placed  upon 
the  statute  books  and  become  a part  of  the  law 
of  the  State  for  ten  years,  where  the  grossest 
injustice  was  done  to  the  electors  of  the  State, 
which  the  General  Assembly  would  have  hesi- 
tated to  do ; nay,  which  they  would  have  re- 
fused to  do,  if  they  had  known  that  an  Execu- 
tive veto,  even  of  a man  of  their  own  party, 
could  be  placed  upon  that  law,  and  would  be 
placed  upon  it,  rather  than  that  the  party 
should  be  saddled  with  the  responsibility  of 
enacting  such  a measure. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  him,  as  a matter  of 
fact,  knowing  he  is  a man  of  information  and 
knowledge,  if  we  have  any  more  partisan  legis- 
lation in  Ohio,  than  there  is  in  any  other  West- 
ern State,  where  the  Governor  possesses  this 
veto  power? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I cannot  answer  the  question. 
I am  not  entirely  familiar  with  the  legislation 
of  the  Western  States  of  this  Union.  It  is 
enough  for  me  to  know  that  we  have  had  parti- 
san legislation  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  which  did 
need  a curb,  and  I am  willing  to  apply  that 
curb,  when  I can  apply  it  in  a particular  case. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  he 
has  ever  known  the  veto  power  to  check  parti- 
san legislation  in  any  State? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I shall  merely  state  how  it 
might  be  done.  It  is  not  absolutely  necessary 
that  we  point  to  facts.  It  is  not  necessary,  I 
say,  to  do  this,  althongh  ihave  very  little  doubt 
if  we  were  perfectly  familiar  with  all  the  legis- 
lative enactments  in  all  of  the  various  States 
where  this  veto  power  exists  that  we  could 
point  the  gentleman  once  and  again  to  some 
particular  enactments  where  the  restraining 
power  of  the  veto  has  been  useful.  But  it  is 
enough  for  me  to  know,  and  it  is  enough  for  me 
to  say,  that  I can,  as  I have  already  done,  lay 
before  this  Convention,  a case  where  the  exer- 
cise of  the  veto  power  could  have  been  properly 
applied  and  where  it  could  have  been  useful  in 
restraining  partisan  legislation. 

But,  I go  further,  and  I come  to  the  point 
which  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
touched  upon,  that  we  could  not  restrain  hasty 
legislation  in  this  way.  Now, if  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  had  simply  said  that 
it  could  not  always  be  applied  in  restraining 
hasty  legislation,  I would  have  agreed  with  his 
remarks ; but  I cannot  agree  with  the  correct- 
ness of  his  remarks  when  he  says  it  would 
have  no  power  or  would  be  likely  to  have 
no  power  in  restraining  hasty  legislation 
in  this  State.  It  seems  to  me  a very  sin- 
gular argument  to  come  from  a gentleman 
so  well  informed,  and  who  is  usually  so  candid 
in  his  remarks,  to  say  that,  if  a subject  has  been 
well  and  thoroughly  considered,  that  then,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  the  executive  veto  has  no 

y.n-72 


power,  has  no  efficiency.  I think  that  was  the 
remark  of  the  gentleman.  I do  not  wish  to 
misrepresent  him,  and  he  will  correct  me  if  I 
have  improperly  stated  his  remarks. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  I stated,  clearly,  this  to 
be  the  point:  if  haste  in  legislation  was  the 
ground  and  reason,  if  the  enactment  of  a meas- 
ure had  been  deliberate  and  careful,  then  there 
could  be  no  ground  for  the  veto  in  that  case. 
I said  if  that  was  the  only  ground. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  Governor,  the  executive 
officer  of  the  State,  is,  in  his  executive  capacity, 
to  be  the  judge  of  that  matter.  As  the  Repre- 
sentative of  the  people  of  the  whole  State,  he  is 
to  judge  for  the  people  of  the  whole  State.  He 
is  to  stand  up  and  say  that  a matter  has  not 
been  maturely  considered  in  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  State.  Will  it  be  said,  because  a 
certain  amount  of  time  has  been  used  in  its 
consideration,  that,  therefore,  it  has  been  ma- 
turely considered  ? Will  it  be  said,  because  a 
bare  majority  of  the  members  elected  to  the 
General  Assembly  have  concurred  in  its  enact- 
ment, that,  therefore,  it  has  been  maturely 
considered  ? No  gentleman  in  this  Convention 
will  answer  in  the  affirmative,  either  to  one  or 
the  other  of  those  propositions.  It  does  not 
follow  that,  because  day  after  day  has  been 
consumed  in  the  consideration  of  any  proposi- 
tion, or  because  a majority  of  all  the  members 
elected  have  united  in  agreeing  to  a certain 
proposition  in  the  General  Assembly,  that, 
therefore,  the  matter  has  received  all  the  ma- 
ture and  careful  consideration  of  which  it  is 
worthy,  and  that,  therefore,  it  ought  to  receive 
the  executive  approval.  Not  by  any  means. 

For  what  purpose  do  we  claim  the  necessity 
of  the  executive  approval?  That  when  it  is 
used  the  matter  may  be  again  brought  before 
the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  that  all  of  the  arguments  made  in 
favor  and  against  a certain  proposition  may  be 
carefully  considered — reconsidered,  if  you  please 
— carefully  weighed,  carefully  adjudicated,  and 
then,  if  not  only  a majority,  but  two-thirds — 
for  I confess  that  is  the  way  in  which  I would 
be  anxious  to  see  the  veto  put  into  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  State — if  two-thirds  of  the  mem- 
bers elected  to  the  General  Assembly  are  in 
favor  of  the  passage  of  the  law,  it  shall  become 
a law,  and  the  Governor  shall  affix  his  signa- 
ture thereto.  That  I consider  to  be  carefully 
considered,  well  weighed  and  well  matured 
legislation. 

Mr.  WEST.  Why  not  require,  in  the  Consti- 
tution, in  the  first  instance,  that  no  bill  should 
become  a law  if  it  should  not  receive  two-thirds  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Because  I do  not  consider  it 
absolutely  necessary  so  to  do. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  Governor  may  agree 
with  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  Governor  may  agree 
with  the  Legislature;  but  not  only  so.  There 
are  hundreds  of  unimportant  measures  which 
come  up  before  the  (General  Assembly  which 
only  require  the  concurrence  of  a majority. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  point  I make  is  this:  If  it 
requires  two-thirds  to  vote,  on  mature  consid- 
eration, why  not  put  it  in  the  Constitution,  so 
that  you  have  the  fact  before  you  all  the  time? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Ah  ! That  is  precisely,  what 
we  do.  That  is  precisely  what  we  propose  to 


1106 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Dorse  y,  West,  Powell. 


[106th 


[Thursday, 


do;  that  where  we  wish  to  have  a vote  mature,  i 
and  well  considered ; where  we  wish  to  say  to  £ 
the  people  of  the  State,  this  matter  has  been  t 
well  and  duly  considered,  and  although  the  ] 
Governor,  as  your  Representative,  does  not  i 
concur  with  us,  yet  we  have  taken  that  careful,  1 
well  weighed  and  considerate  view  of  the  mat-  i 
ter  which  enables  us  to  bring  two-thirds  of  all  ] 
the  members  elected  to  the  General  Assembly 
to  concur  with  us.  3 

Mr.  WEST.  I understand  the  gentleman  is  j 
in  favor  of  requiring  that  no  hill  shall  become  1 
a law  until  it  receives  two-thirds.  I 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  not.  As  I said  before, 
there  might  be  many  cases  that  do  not  require  ( 
a two-thirds  vote. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  no  bill  were  regarded  or  , 
could  be  regarded  as  maturely  considered,  un- 
less  it  received  two-thirds,  why  not  put  it  in  the 
Constitution  and  require  it  in  all  cases  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  exactly  the  point  of 
difference  between  the  gentleman  and  myself. 

I do  not  say  that  a bill  could  not  be  maturely 
considered,  unless  by  a vote  of  two-thirds,  but 
I say  that  the  fact  that  two-thirds  did  concur  in 
the  passage  of  a bill,  was,  so  far  as  it  is  an  al- 
ternative matter,  a very  good  reason  for  be- 
lieving that  it  had  had  a mature  and  well 
weighed  consideration.  That  is  all.  I do  not 
say  that  there  are  not  many  cases  brought  be- 
fore the  Legislature  where  it  is  not  necessary 
that  the  Governor  should  interpose  his  objec- 
tion and  force  the  bill  to  be  passed  by  a two- 
thirds  majority.  It  is  not  always  that  you  can 
get,  on  many  important  matters,  two-thirds. 
We  know  very  often  that  the  House  is  thin. 
There  may  not  be  a large  number  of  members 
in  attendance,  and  it  may  sometimes  be  very 
difficult  to  get  two-thirds  to  concur  in  the  pas- 
sage of  an  unimportant  measure. 

Mr.  POWELL.  And  nobody  might  re- 
quire it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  But  whenever  there  is  a 
great  and  important  measure  before  the  people 
of  the  State,  when  from  every  locality  of  the 
State  the  people  demand  that  their  Representa- 
tives be  in  their  places,  and  that  they  give  that 
due  consideration  to  that  important  measure 
which,  as  Representatives  of  the  people,  is  de- 
manded of  them,  then  you  will  find  that  they 
will  be  on  the  ground,  and  if  it  be  necessary 
that  two-thirds  be  brought  to  support  the  meas- 
ure, and  if  it  be  so  palpably  right  that  two- 
thirds  can  be  secured,  my  word  for  it,  that  in 
spite  of  the  veto  of  the  Governor,  this  two- 
thirds  will  be  found  supporting  the  measure. 

It  has  been  said  that  we  may  lose  much  more 
than  we  gain  by  this  matter ; that  it  is  an  un- 
tried experiment ; that  we  have  gone  on  very 
well  for  three-quarters  of  a century  without  it, 
and  now  we  propose  to  insert  this  in  the  organ- 
ic law  of  the  State,  and  do  not  know  precisely 
the  result  that  may  arise  from  it.  We  have 
been  told  by  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr. 
Horton],  that  we  ought  not  to  divide  the  re- 
sponsibility with  any  other  department  of  gov- 
ernment. He  would  hold  the  General  Assembly 
responsible  for  the  laws  which  they  enact  before 
the  people  of  the  State.  I agree  with  the  gen- 
tleman entirely."  I would  hold  the  General  As- 
sembly responsible,  and  I would  desire  that 
they  should  feel  that  responsibility ; but  allow 


me  to  say,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  that  in 
giving  the  Governor  the  veto  power,  and  in 
thus  making  him  a part  of  the  responsible 
power  in  the  legislation  of  the  State,  you  will 
not  be  guilty  of  that  kind  of  division  which 
weakens  the  responsibility.  So  far  from  that, 
you  strengthen  the  responsibility  before  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State.  ' 

I am  not  one  of  those  who  deprecate  the  ex- 
istence of  parties  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  or  in  any 
State,  or  in  the  general  government.  I believe 
that  parties  are  great  and  useful  interests  in  the 
State,  and  in  the  general  government.  Even  if 
I do  not  believe  so,  and  if  no  gentleman  in  the 
Constitutional  Convention  is  of  that  belief,  still 
the  fact  would  exist  that  there  are  parties  in  the 
Government.  There  always  have  been  parties, 
and  there  always  will  be  parties  in  the  Govern- 
ment. As  a general  rule,  parties  are  in  power 
at  the  same  time  in  the  General  Assembly  and 
in  the  Executive  Department  of  the  State.  But 
it  is  not  always  so.  Sometimes  parties  are  di- 
vided. We  sometimes  have  an  Executive  of  one 
party,  and  a majority  in  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  other  party ; but,  as  a general  rule  here 
in  Ohio,  we  find  that  the  Executive  is  put  into 
office  by  the  same  party  which  has  a majority 
in  the  Legislature  of  the  State.  Will  any  gen- 
tleman tell  me  that,  by  placing  a part  of  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  act  upon  the  shoulders  of 
the  Executive,  as  well  as  upon  the  General  As- 
bly,  that  you  divide  or  weaken  the  responsibil- 
ity? Not  a bit  of  it.  They  are  both  responsible 
to  the  people.  They  are  both  the  Representa- 
tives of  their  party  in  the  State,  and  for  their 
acts  they  know  full  well  that,  before  the  people 
of  the  State,  their  party  will  be  held  responsi- 
ble, and  for  that  very  reason,  instead  of  weak- 
ening the  responsibility  by  giving  it  to  to  both 
the  Executive  and  Legislative  Department  in 
the  Government,  you  strengthen  the  responsi- 
bility, and  make  it  two-fold  weightier  than  it 
was  before.  You  make  those  men  feel  that,  in 
their  Executive  capacity,  as  well  as  in  their 
Legislative  capacity,  they  are  doing  acts  for 
which  their  party  will  be  held  responsible  be- 
fore the  people ; and  they  move  slowly  and  cau- 
tiously, and  with  carefully  considered  steps, 
when  they  perform  any  act  which  is  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  test  of  the  popular  voice. 

But,  I say  again,  that,  not  only  is  the  respon- 
sibility increased  and  strengthened,  but  the 
rights  of  the  people  are  strengthened  by  this 
double  responsibility.  This,  to  my  mind,  is  a 
great  argument  in  favor  of  the  veto  power.  It 
is,  with  me,  one  which  has  far  more  weight  than 
any  other,  in  my  support  of  this  eighteenth 
section  of  the  Legislative  Article.  The  General 
Assembly  represents  the  local  interests  of  the 
people  of  the  State.  Every  county,  in  the 
Lower  House — every  Senatorial  district,  in  the 
Upper  House,  sends  into  this  Assembly  their 
Representatives,  who  care  for  the  local  interests, 
the  local  wants,  and  the  local  demands,  of  their 
constituents.  The  Governor — the  executive  offi- 
cer of  the  State — is  the  Representative  of  the 
general  interests  of  the  State,  uninfluenced  by 
any  local  question,  whatever.  Let  gentlemen 
remember  that  these  two  great  interests,  the 
local  interests,  and  the  general  interests,  of  the 
people  of  the  State,  are  here  connected,  and 
never  can  be  antagonistic.  Duly  and  properly 


Day.]  THE  VETO  POWER. 

February  5,  1874.]  Dorsey,  Horton,  Humphreville,  Hoadly,  West. 


1107 


considered,  they  are  one  and  the  same.  They 
stand  upon  the  same  footing,  upheld  by  the 
same  force,  and  require  the  same  legislation. 
But  do  they  always  get  it  in  the  State  of  Ohio  ? 
Do  they  always  get  it  in  any  State?  I appre- 
hend not.  We  all  of  us  know  full  well  how 
local  legislation  is,  by  necessity,  made  to  bear, 
first,  upon  one  portion  of  the  State,  and,  then, 
upon  another,  brought  in  antagonism  with  the 
general  interests  of  the  State.  This  never  ought 
to  be;  and,  if  we  can  introduce  anything  into 
the  organic  law  which  will  prevent  this  antag- 
onism, it  is  our  duty  to  do  it,  and  we  will  be 
subserving  the  best  interests  of  the  people  of  the 
State  by  so  doing. 

There  was  a great  deal  of  truth  in  the  re- 
mark made  this  morning — or,  perhaps,  I should 
say,  in  the  admission  made — by  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  who  was 
asked  by  some  gentleman  of  the  Convention,  if 
it  were  not  true  that  local  bills,  as  a general 
rule,  got  almost  a unanimous  vote  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  He  said  it  was  apt  to  be  so. 
He,  perhaps,  said  it  was  unanimous.  If  so,  it 
was  only  stronger.  He  has  had  an  opportunity 
of  observing  that  matter,  as  much  as  any  gen- 
tleman in  the  Convention,  and  his  experience 
was  that  local  measures  in  the  State,  very  fre- 
quently, get  almost  a unanimous  support  in  the 
General  Assembly. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Then  what  good  would  your 
veto  do  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  What  good  would  your  veto 
do  ? At  least,  it  would  cause  the  matter  to  be 
considered;  and  if  it  was  unanimous,  as  a mat- 
ter of  course,  the  veto  would  do  no  good.  But 
I wish  to  say,  it  shows  us,  precisely,  how  these 
local  measures  may  be  made  antagonistic  to  the 
general  interests  of  the  State ; and  if  we  can 
throw  anything  into  the  Constitution  which 
will  prevent  that  from  being  done,  we  ought  to 
do  it. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Sometimes  they 
are  passed  without  consideration. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  do  not  want  them  passed 
without  consideration.  We  want  this  veto  to 
force  mature  and  careful  consideration  on  any 
matter.  I say  it  is  a very  important  item,  in 
the  consideration  of  this  question,  the  admis- 
sion which  was  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  that  local  measures 
were  often  passed  almost  unanimously. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  ask  the  delegate 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  this  question: 
whether  it  has  not  happened,  in  the  last  two 
years,  that  in  the  case  of  Dr.  John  M.  Best, 
claiming  for  damages  of  property,  at  Paducah, 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  without  re- 
flection, adopted  a principle  which  would  have 
given  away  millions  upon  millions  of  dollars, 
which  was  arrested  in  consequence  of  the  veto 
of  President  Grant? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I remember,  very  well,  the 
matter  to  which  the  gentleman  refers,  and  I 
know,  also,  that  there  are  a set  of  claims  which 
are  being  persistently  urged  before  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  the  Morgan 
raid  claims,  upon  which  men  are  trying  to  pro- 
duce the  same  state  of  affairs.  They  are  trying 
to  get  up  an  interest,  first  in  one  part  of  the 
State,  and  then  in  another  part  of  the  State,  for 
the  purpose  of  getting  a.  majority  of  the  mem- 


bers of  the  Legislature  elected  to  favor  those 
claims.  Now,  I say  that,  if  we  have  the  veto  of 
the  Governor,  we  have  a safeguard  against  the 
consideration  and  admission  of  improper  claims 
of  this  kind. 

Mr.  WEST.  Does  not  the  gentleman  know 
that  no  such  claim  can  be  paid  except  by  a two- 
thirds  vote? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I believe  that  is  true. 

Mr.  WEST.  Then  what  good  would  the 
veto  do? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I did  not,  for  the  moment, 
remember  that  fact;  but,  after  all,  it  is  only  an 
additional  argument  for  a provision  in  the  Con- 
stitution making  a two-thirds  majority  neces- 
sary in  a large  class  of  doubtful  and  important 
cases. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I want  to  suggest  to  the 
delegate  that,  even  if  that  is  true,  the  amend- 
ment of  the  delegate  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell] sends  the  matter  back  for  a reconsidera- 
tion. 

Mr.  WEST.  How  much  better  is  that? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How  much  worse  is  it? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I was  coming  to  that  point; 
and  I was  going  to  say  that,  instead  of  that  be- 
ing an  argument  against  the  Executive  veto,  it 
is  a strong  argument  in  favor  of  it;  that  we 
absolutely  find  it  necessary  to  put  this  two- 
thirds  requisition  into  the  Constitution,  with 
regard  to  a certain  number  of  laws,  and  de- 
clare that  they  shall  not  be  passed  except  by 
a two-thirds  majority. 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  gentlemen  to 
one  fact,  that  you  never  can  make  a good  point 
out  of  special  legislation,  in  the  Constitution. 
You  never  can  take  all  of  the  cases  which 
should  require  a two-thirds  vote,  and  place 
them  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State.  The 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  has  called 
my  attention,  very  properly,  to  the  fact  that 
these  Morgan  raid  claims,  as  they  are  called, 
cannot  be  paid  without  a two-thirds  vote,  and 
no  claims  of  that  character  can  be  paid  without 
a two-thirds  vote.  That  is  true.  But  I say  it  is 
totally  impossible  for  us,  in  framing  an  organic 
law  to  determine  all  of  the  different  classes  of 
cases  that  ought  to  be  brought  under  the  two- 
thirds  rule.  Gentlemen  know  that  just  as  well* 
as  I do.  They  know  perfectly  well  that  it  is 
perfectly  impossible  for  us,  in  making  an  or- 
ganic law,  to  include  all  the  cases  that  would 
require  a two-thirds  vote,  whenever  they  should 
become  proper  subjects  of  enactment  before  the 
people.  What  then  should  we  do?  Let  us 
make  a general  provision  that  the  Governor 
shall  have  an  executive  veto,  and  that  he  shall 
have  power,  whenever  a class  of  cases  arises, 
or  whenever  a single  case  arises,  where  he 
deems  it  right  and  proper  that  two-thirds  should 
be  demanded  for  the  passage  of  a bill,  to  enforce 
that  two-thirds  majority;  and  that  he  shall 
have  power  so  to  interpose  his  executive  veto, 
that  it  will  be  impossible  for  a bill  to  go  through 
without  the  two-thirds  required  by  the  Consti- 
tution. That  is  one  safeguard  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  people. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  gentleman  is  arguing 
in  favor  of  the  two-thirds  vote.  The  sugges- 


1108 


THE  VETO  POWER. [106th 

Campbell,  Dorsey,  West.  [Thursday, 


tion  I wish  to  make  to  him  is  this : whether, 
for  practicable  purposes,  it  would  not  be  better 
to  give  the  Governor,  by  a constitutional  pro- 
vision, the  power  directly  to  cast  this  vote.  The 
difference  in  the  House  of  Representatives  be- 
tween a two-thirds  vote  of  seventy,  and  a bare 
majority,  which  is  fifty-three,  is  seventeen.  In 
the  Senate,  the  difference  between  a majority 
and  a two-thirds  vote,  is  six,  making,  in  all, 
twenty-three  votes.  But  a doubt  has  been 
stated,  and  with  good  force,  as  to  the  propriety 
and  economy  of  these  twenty -three  votes, 
which  would  be  the  affirmative  power  the  gen- 
tleman proposes  that  the  Governor  should  be 
clothed  with.  The  per  diem  of  these  twenty- 
three  would  amount,  in  ordinary  sessions  of  the 
Legislature,  which  is  about  four  months,  to 
something  like  fourteen  thousand  dollars ; and 
as  the  veto  which  he  proposes  is  practically  to 
clothe  the  Governor,  affirmatively,  with  the 
power  of  these  votes,  why  not  at  once  say  in 
the  Constitution,  we  shall  give  to  the  Governor 
the  power  to  go  into  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives upon  every  bill,  and  cast  seventeen  votes, 
and  then  go  into  the  Senate  and  cast  six.  I 
would  like  to  know  why,  for  practicable  pur- 
poses, it  is  not  better  to  give  him  this  power  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I think  it  not  at  all  difficult  to 
answer  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell.] We  do  not  intend  to  revolutionize  this 
government.  We  do  not  intend  to  give  the 
Governor  power  to  vote  for  seventeen  Repre- 
sentatives in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Does  he  not  do  it  when 
he  vetoes  ? Is  not  that  the  practical  effect  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  sir.  I deny  that  it  is  the 
practical  effect,  because  the  Governor  does  not 
force  those  men  to  vote  in  that  way.  He  asks 
them  to  give  this  matter  due  consideration,  and 
presents  arguments  before  them  on  one  side. 
They  have  the  arguments  on  the  other.  It  is 
not  true  that  the  practical  eftect  is  the  same. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  When  they  come  to  take 
the  second  vote,  so  that  this  bill  shall  become  a 
law,  the  veto  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding, 
does  it  not  then  require  this  additional  vote  of 
seventeen  Representatives  and  six  Senators  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  As  a matter  of  course,  it 
does. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Then  why  not  give  him 
the  power,  directly,  by  a Constitutional  pro- 
vision ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Simply,  because  we  have  no 
right  and  no  authority  to  do  anything  of  the 
kind,  and  would  not  do  it,  if  we  had.  We  do 
not  propose  any  revolutionary  action  of  that 
kind. 

Mr.  WEST.  Would  not  that  be  carrying  out 
cumulative  voting? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  not  making  a speech  in 
favor  of  cumulative  voting,  or  anything  of  that 
kind,  at  the  present  time.  Whenever  I am  asked 
a question  which  is  germane  to  the  subject  un- 
der consideration,  I shall  answer  it;  but  I do 
not  propose  to  answer  any  questions  of  that 
kind.  I say  this,  that  it  is  not  the  same,  and 
does  not  have  even  the  same  practical  effect  in 
the  legislation  of  the  State,  as  if  the  Governor 
had  the  power  to  cast  a certain  number  of  votes. 
It  is  true,  that  the  Governor  can  require,  before 
the  law  shall  be  efficient  on  the  statute  book, 
and  before  a bill  can  become  a part  of  the  law  of 


the  State,  that  seventeen,  or  a certain  number 
of  votes  be  cast ; but  these  votes  must  be  cast  by 
the  free  act  of  the  Representatives  who  cast 
them.  It  is  very  different  from  the  Governor 
casting  them  himself.  There  is  no  necessary 
relation  between  the  two  acts,  and  I hold  that 
it  is  by  no  means  the  proper  or  practical  ques- 
tion in  the  case. 

I desire,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  to  go 
back  for  a moment,  to  the  proposition  which  I 
was  arguing,  when  I was  interrupted  by  the 
questions  which  have  been  put  to  me.  I said, 
that  the  very  fact  that  it  was  required  that  cer- 
tain measures  be  passed  in  the  General  As- 
sembly by  a two-thirds  vote,  was  the  strongest 
possible  reason,  or  one  of  the  strongest  reasons 
for  giving  this  veto  to  the  Governor.  I said 
that  it  was  totally  impossible  for  us  to  make 
provisions  for  all  the  cases  in  which  that  two- 
thirds  majority  ought  to  be  required,  and,  there- 
fore, that  it  was  right  and  proper  that  we  should 
make  a general  provision  for  the  requirement 
of  this  two-thirds,  when,  in  the  opinion  of  a co- 
ordinate branch  of  the  authority  of  the  State, 
it  was  deemed  right  and  proper  so  to  do.  If  the 
General  Assembly  could  stand  before  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State  of’  Ohio,  and  declare  that,  in  all 
cases  whatever,  the  Constitution  only  requires 
that  there  shall  be  a majority  of  the  members 
elected  for  the  purpose  of  passing  any  bill  and 
causing  it  to  become  a law,  and  that  your  Con- 
stitution did  not  consider  it  a matter  of  any 
importance  to  require  in  any  case  a two-thirds 
majority,  then  we  would  have  much  less  reason 
to  argue  in  favor  of  an  executive  veto.  The 
two-thirds  majority  is  required  in  many  cases 
at  the  present  time.  But  when  the  Constitution 
has  recognized  the  fact  that  there  is  a large  class 
of  cases — an  important  class  of  cases — in  which 
it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  there  should  be  a 
two-thirds  majority,  then  it  becomes  patent  to 
every  man  that  it  will  be  far  better  instead  of 
endeavoring  to  specify  the  particular  cases  in 
which  that  two-thirds  majority  should  be  re- 
quired, to  give  some  general  power  to  the 
executive  to  let  him  call  the  attention  of  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  to  those  bills,  where  it 
is  right,  where  it  is  proper,  that  two-thirds 
should  be  required.  That  is  what  we  say. 

Let  me  refer  for  a moment  to  the  effect  which 
this  would  have  upon  the  over  weening  power 
of  corporations  growing  up  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 
I know  a great  deal  is  said  daily,  about  the 
growing  and  increasing  power  of  corporate 
authority  in  the  State — a great  deal  has  been 
said  upon  that  subject  in  the  Convention — and 
the  difficulty  with  which  we  can  act  upon  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  State  with  regard  to 
these  corporations.  Whether  this  be  true,  or 
not,  I shall  not  say,  I am  not  going  to  stand  up 
to-day  and  take  either  one  side  or  the  other  of 
this  matter;  but  I appeal  to  gentlemen  if  this 
be  not  true,  that  where  a corporation — for  ex- 
ample, a railroad — is  passing  through  a State, 
and  requires  certain  provisions,  as  a matter  of 
course,  the  members  representing  in  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  those  portions  of  the  State  through 
which  the  corporation  passes,  will  be,  as  a 
general  rule,  in  favor  of  supporting  the  de- 
mands and  requirements  of  the  corporation. 
What  is  the  ordinary  action  ? They  go  to  their 
friends  in  different  portions  of  the  State,  who. 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Dorsey,  Hoadly. 


1109 


Day.] 

February  5,1874.] 


perhaps,  have  also  some  local  measure,  and  they 
ask  their  assistance  in  carrying  through  their 
measure,  with  the  promise  that  they  will  give 
like  assistance  when  the  measure  in  which  these 
others  may  be  interested  comes  up.  In  this 
way,  a majority  is  frequently  secured  for  some 
measure  of  local  interest  to  the  people,  and 
which  may  be,  and  very  frequently  is,  antago- 
nistic to  the  general  interests  of  the  State.  The 
Executive  veto  would  be  useful  for  the  purpose 
of  arresting  the  judgment  and  action  of  the 
Legislature,  unless  two-thirds  of  the  members 
of  the  General  Assembly  would  concur  in  the 
action  required  by  the  Representatives  of  cer- 
tain localities,  which  think  they  may  be  inter- 
ested in  carrying  forward  certain  measures  and 
supporting  the  demands  of  certain  corporations 
in  the  State. 

I am  told  that  it  is  much  easier  to  secure  the 
concurrence  of  the  Executive  than  it  is  to  se- 
cure the  concurrence  of  a majority  of  the  legis- 
lative authority ; that  it  is  easier  to  bribe  the 
Executive  than  it  is  to  bribe  a majority  of  the 
Legislature.  Well,  gentlemen,  that  may  be 
true.  I do  not  presume  or  expect  to  stand  here 
to  make  provision  against  all  moral  evils  that 
may  creep  into  the  legislation  of  the  country. 
We  cannot  do  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  ask  whether  there 
has  been  a cheaper  method  referred  to  than  that 
which  has  been  charged  in  this  body,  a charge 
which  has  been  sustained  by  a majority  of  tbe 
votes  of  this  Convention  ? I refer  to  that  which 
has  been  universally,  successfully  exercised  up- 
on the  General  Assembly ; namely : Railroad 
Passes. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  aware  that  a good  deal 
has  been  said  upon  that  subject,  but  I did  not 
think  it  necessary  even  to  refer  to  it ; but  I do 
say  I have  sufficient  confidence  in  the  Execu- 
tive, as  I have  sufficient  confidence  in  the 
legislative  authority  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  I 
have  sufficient  confidence  in  their  purity,  to  be- 
lieve that  they  are  not  to  be  influenced  by 
bribery.  I had  much  rather  believe  that  gen- 
tlemen would  argue  themselves  into  the  belief 
of  the  necessity  and  propriety  of  according  cer- 
tain gifts  and  certain  privileges  to  a corporation 
which  would  benefit  their  particular  locality, 
and  that  they  were  endeavoring  to  get  other 
gentlemen  in  different  localities  of  the  State 
to  assist  them  in  getting  those  privileges,  when 
they  honestly  believed  that  those  privileges 
they  created  were  not  contrary  to  the  best  in- 
terests of  the  State,  than  to  believe  that  gentle- 
men could  be  swayed  by  a bribe,  or  that  the  ex- 
ecutive authority  of  the  State  could  be  bought  or 
corrupted  by  corporations  which  desired  cer- 
tain privileges  in  the  State.  But  it  is  right, 
and  certainly  proper,  to  say,  that  if  we  are  to 
provide  against  the  corrupting  influence  of  cor- 
porations, let  us,  at  least,  have  the  two  co-ordi- 
nate branches  of  the  authority  of  the  State,  the 
executive  and  the  legislative  branches,  both  of 
them,  to  be  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  utility 
and  propriety  of  granting  certain  privileges,  be- 
fore they  can  be  granted  by  the  enacting  author- 
ities of  the  State.  That,  certainly,  is  right.  That, 

* 


certainly,  is  vindicating  and  guarding  the 
rights  of  the  people. 

But  I go  farther  with  regard  to  this  matter, 
and  I would  not  consume  the  time  of  this  Con- 
vention if  I did  not  believe  that  in  sustaining 
this  provision,  I was  sustaining  a principle  in 
which  the  people  of  Ohio  have  an  abiding  inter- 
est; and  I do  think,  Mr.  President,  and  gentle- 
men of  the  Convention,  that  if  we  cannot  insert 
this  veto  proper,  I am  willing  to  take  even  the 
veto  provided  by  the  substitute  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  if  1 can  do 
no  better,  although  I hardly  think  it  amounts 
to  a veto.  I think  it  can  hardly  be  honored  with 
the  name  of  a veto.  It  is  a mere  act  of  restric- 
tion ; but  I would  be  willing  to  take  that  if  I 
could  not  get  one  any  better.  I remember  very 
well,  that  in  the  Convention  of  1850  and  1851,  a 
proposition  very  similar  to  that  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  was  intro- 
duced by  the  venerable  gentleman  from  Clarke 
(Mr.  Mason).  I supported  the  proposition, 
which  would  amount  to  nothing  more  than  a 
restriction.  I do  not  know  that,  in  the  twenty- 
three  years  that  have  elapsed  since  that  time,  I 
have  grown  wiser,  but  I do  say  to-day,  from  the 
experience  that  I have  had,  trom  what  I have 
seen  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  I am  will- 
ing to  go  a step  further  in  the  matter  than  I 
was  in  1850  and  1851;  and  while  at  that  time  I 
was  only  willing  to  vote  for  the  restriction 
proposed  by  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Clarke  (Mr.  Mason),  I am  willing,  to- 
day, to  vote  for  a two-thirds  veto,  if  I can  get 
it.  If  I cannot  get  a two-thirds  veto,  then  I 
am  willing  to  vote  for  a three-fifths  veto.  If  I 
cannot  get  a tbree-fifths  veto,  I then  am  willing 
to  vote  for  a mere  restriction  : but  I would  cer- 
tainly like  to  vote  for  a provision  that  goes  fur- 
ther than  that. 

I remember  very  well  that  in  the  Convention 
of  1850-’51,  a proposition  was  introduced  by  a 
delegate  from  Fairfield,  which  provided  that  if 
a proposition,  vetoed  by  the  Governor,  could 
not  get  two-thirds  majority  in  the  House  of  the 
General  Assembly,  after  that  veto  was  given, 
then  it  should  be  re-committed  to  the  next 
House  of  the  General  Assembly  elected  after 
the  question  was  thrown  before  the  people,  and 
then,  if  they  determined  it  by  a bare  majority, 
it  should  become  a law  in  spite  of  the  veto  of  the 
Governor.  There  was  a great  deal  of  sense  in 
that  provision ; and  I do  not  know  but  I would 
prefer  it  to  the  provision  of  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  hasty  and  inconsiderate  legislation, 
and  I would  be  entirely  willing  to  insert  some- 
thing of  this  kind  in  the  organic  law  of  the 
State.  I do  not  want  gentlemen  to  tell  me,  in 
regard  to  this,  that  we  are  retrograding,  that 
we  are  going  backward  in  the  legislation  of  the 
State.  I do  not  want  gentlemen  to  tell  me  that 
we  are  proposing  to  give  the  Governor  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  a power  which  the  crown  of 
England  has  not  exercised  for  nearly  two  hun- 
dred years.  I beg  leave  to  tell  gentlemen  who 
use  this  argument,  that  the  veto,  as  exercised  in 
this  country,  is  a very  different  thing  from  the 
veto  as  exercised  and  held  by  the  crown  of 
England.  Why  is  it, I would  ask  gentlemen,  since 
the  accession  of  the  first  House  of  Hanover,  they 
have  had  no  veto  in  England  ? It  was  freely 


1110 


THE  VETO  POWER. 


[106th 


Dorsey,  Barnet,  Humphreville,  West. 


[Thursday, 


used  by  the  first  that  came  to  the  throne  in  that 
line;  but  since  the  days  of  William  of  Orange 
the  executive  veto  has  not  been  used  in  Eng- 
land. Why  is  it?  Simply  because  the  execu- 
tive veto  was  used  there,  for  the  purpose  of 
supporting  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown,  as 
against  the  rights  of  the  people.  Since  the  rev- 
olution of  1680,  we  have  seen,  year  by  year,  de- 
cade by  decade,  age  by  age,  the  power  of  the 
people  of  England  growing  in  such  wise  that 
the  Executive  of  that  country  dared  not  use  its 
veto  against  the  interests  of  the  people.  But, 
does  the  veto  power,  in  this  country,  grow  up  ? 
and  is  it  held  as  against  the  interests  of  the 
people?  Most  assuredly  not.  The  executive 
power  which  we  give  to  the  Governor  of  the 
State  is  exercised  by  a man  who  holds  his  whole 
power  from  the  people.  It  is  a power  given  by 
the  people,  and  for  the  people,  of  the  State ; and 
cannot  be  used,  and  will  not  be  used,  as  against 
the  interests  of  the  people.  This  is  answer 
enough,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  to  the 
declaration  that  we  are  going  backward — that 
we  are  retrograding — in  thus  giving  the  veto 
power  to  the  Governor  of  the  State. 

Nor  is  there  any  more  force  in  the  argument, 
which  has  been  persistently  urged,  and  has  been 
used  by  every  gentleman  who  has  opposed  the 
veto  power,  that  we  have  gotten  along  well 
enough  for  seventy-five  years,  without  this 
veto,  and  that  the  framers  of  the  first  Consti- 
tution, of  1802,  and  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1851,  refused  to  insert  it  in  the  organic 
law.  As  I said,  in  the  very  commencement  of 
my  remarks,  that  cannot  be  any  argument 
against  the  use  of  the  veto  power.  I believe — 
for  I was  not  present  yesterday — but,  from  the 
remarks  that  I have  seen  published  in  the  news- 
papers of  the  city,  the  delegate  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  referred  to  reasons  why,  proba- 
bly, the  veto  was  not  put  in  the  first  Constitution, 
and  to  the  manner  in  which  it  had  been  used  by 
the  Governor  of  the  Northwestern  Territory, 
which  was  admitted  to  be  adverse  to  the  views 
and  rights,  and  the  best  interests,  of  the  people 
of  the  territory.  That  is,  very  probably,  cor- 
rect, and  I have  been  asked,  to-day,  if  it  was 
true,  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of 
1802  refused  to  put  into  it  the  veto  power,  be- 
cause it  had  been  used  adversely  to  what  they 
had  considered  the  rights  and  interests  of  the 
people,  by  the  territorial  Governor,  why  is  it 
right  to  put  that  veto  in  to-day,  in  the  year  of 
grace,  1874,  and  give  to  the  Executive  that 
power  that  was  refused  to  be  given  to  him  in 
1802?  The  answer  appears  patent  to  me.  I see 
no  difficulty,  at  all,  in  it. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Can  it  not  be  abused  now,  as 
well  as  then  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  might  be  abused,  but,  let 
me  say,  it  was  abused  by  a man  who  was  not 
put  in  power  by  the  people.  It  was  abused  by  a 
man  who  held  his  power  from  the  Federal 
Government. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  And  he  had  an  ab- 
solute veto. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I was  going  to  refer  to  that. 
He  had  an  absolute  veto ; but  this  is  a restricted 
veto  which  grows  up  from  the  people.  It  is 
given  by  the  people,  to  be  exercised  for  the  in- 
terests of  the  people.  There  is  all  the  differ- 
ence in  the  world  between  the  two  cases. 


And  now,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I 
have  very  little  more  to  say  upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  explain 
why  it  is  that  there  has  been  no  demand  for  the 
veto ; and  why  it  is  that,  during  the  last  twenty- 
three  years,  there  has  never  been  a proposition 
in  the  General  Assembly  to  amend  the  Consti- 
tution in  that  respect  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I can  make  the  same  general 
answer  to  that,  that  I have  made  time  and  again, 
that  the  people  have  not  asked  for  all  the  re- 
forms that  present  themselves,  and  will  present 
themselves  before  this  Convention.  We  are 
here  as  the  Representatives  of  the  people  of 
the  State.  We  are  to  judge  what  great  and  im- 
portant reforms  are  needed,  for  the  benefit  of 
the  people. 

Mr.  WEST  That  does  not  answer  the  point. 

I allude  to  the  historical  reference  which  was 
made  yesterday,  that  the  people  would  have  put 
it  in,  if  they  had  had  the  opportunity,  in  1802. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  was  not  so  stated. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I care  not  whether  it  was,  or 
was  not.  I am  making  my  own  argument.  I 
did  not  hear  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  ; consequently,  I merely  referred  in- 
cidentally to  that  part  of  his  argument,  and  I 
referred  to  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
the  veto  power,  that  we  are  proposing  to  erect 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  stands  on  a totally  differ- 
ent basis  than  the  veto  power  exercised  by  Gov- 
ernor St.  Clair,  and,  consequently,  an  argument 
against  that  cannot  be  an  argument  against  the 
veto  which  we  propose  to  insert  in  the  present 
Constitution.  Gentlemen  stand  up  here  and 
tell  me  that  the  State  of  Ohio  has  grown  to 
greatness,  and  has  gone  on,  at  an  ever-increa- 
sing rate  of  prosperity,  without  this  veto.  I 
certainly  subscribe  to  everything  which  the 
eloquent  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
said,  to-day,  in  that  behalf,  and  I was  much 
pleased  to  hear  his  remarks ; but  I beg  leave  to 
say  to  the  gentleman,  that,  while  he  was  telling 
us  of  the  great  and  increasing  prosperity  of  the 
State,  telling  us  that,  placed  as  we  are,  on  the 
gjeat  highway  between  the  Pacific  and  the  At- 
lantic, making  the  passage  way  for  the  trade  of 
the  Indies,  from  the  Pacific  to  the  Atlantic 
coast,  and  telling  us  of  the  great  and  important 
benefits  that  were  to  grow  up  within  the  State 
from  that  trade,  as  a matter  of  course,  I could 
not  help  subscribing  to  every  word  of  it.  But 
I must  also  ask  the  gentleman  to  remember  that 
the  history  of  the  world  shows  that  those 
countries  that  have  been  so  fortunately  placed 
as  to  stand  upon  the  highway  for  that  trade, 
have  always  grown  to  great  importance,  and 
into  great  power,  and  into  great  wealth ; and, 
knowing  all  that,  it  did  seem  to  me  a singular 
deduction,  a singular  corollary,  to  a statement 
of  that  kind,  that  the  gentleman  should  say  that 
during  all  these  years,  we  did  not  have  the  veto 
power  in  the  Constitution.  I say  to  the  gentle- 
man, that  he  knows,  and  I say  to  the  gentlemen 
of  this  Convention,  that  they  all  know,  that,  in 
spite  of  the  many  defects  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  the  State  has  still  gone  on  in 
her  course  of  prosperity,  and  progress,  and 
wealth.  In  spite  of  the  defects  of  your  judicial 
system,  in  spite  of  one  of  the  worst  tax  systems 
with  which  any  State  has  ever  been  burdened, 
the  State  has  gone  on  in  her  road  to  prosperity 


1111 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER. 

February  5,  1874.]  Dorsey,  Gurley,  Pease,  Hitchcock. 


and  greatness ; and  will  gentlemen  tell  me,  that 
because  we  have  overcome  all  these  difficulties, 
because  we  have  gloriously  triumphed,  by  the 
innate  power  of  a vigorous  State,  over  all  these 
evils  and  defects  in  the  present  Constitution, 
that,  therefore,  we  ought  not  to  amend  it? 
No,  not  for  a moment,  gentlemen.  Let  us 
see  all  the  defects  that  are  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State.  Let  us  recognize  them,  and, 
recognizing  them,  let  us  make  a Constitution 
which  will  blot  out  all  these  evils,  and  give  to 
the  people  of  this  State  just  such  a Constitution 
as  they  have  a right  to  expect  at  our  hands. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I understood  the  gentleman 
to  say  that  he  was  in  favor  of  this  two-thirds 
proposition,  for  the  reason  that  it  increases  the 
safety  of  the  people.  Now,  I want  to  have  the 
gentleman  inform  me,  if  by  conferring  upon 
the  Governor  a power  that  is  equal  to  two- 
thirds  of  the  Legislature,  why  the  safety  of 
the  people  would  not  be  proportionately  in- 
creased by  conferring  upon  him  the  absolute 
power? 


Mr.  DORSEY.  All  I have  to  say  to  the  gen- 
tleman is,  that  when  he  wants  to  cool  himself 
he  does  not  necessarily  have  to  go  to  the  North 
Pole.  We  do  not  have  to  run  into  extremes 
when  we  want  to  make  reforms.  It  may  be 
preferred,  and  I hold  it  is  right,  to  give  the 
Governor  a qualified  veto.  I do  not  think  it  is 
right  to  give  him  an  absolute  veto.  There  is 
reason  in  all  things.  I propose  to  go  as  far  as  is 
right  and  proper.  I do  not  propose  to  go  to  un- 
necessary and  improper  extremes.  That  is  all 
the  answer  I have  tomrxke  to  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Whfin  this  proposition  first 
came  up,  I did  not  design  to  take  up  the  time  of 
the  Convention  in  making  any  argument  in  con- 
nection with  it.  I do  not  know  but,  perhaps,  it 
would  have  been  just  as  profitable  if  we  had 
voted  upon  the  proposition  this  morning,  with 
the  views  we  then  entertained  in  regard  to  it. 
The  subject  of  vetoes  is  not  new,  either  to 
this  Convention,  or  to  the  people  whom  we  have 
the  honor  to  represent.  It  is  not  new  to  this 
government.  It  is  one  of  the  early  incorpor- 
ations of  that  power  in  the  early  history  of  our 
government,  and  it  is  one  that  has  been  talked 
of  ever  since  we  have  been  a people,  and  have 
had  a government  by  the  people.  It  has  been 
talked  of  in  connection  with  this  matter  of 
absolute  power.  Coming  as  we  did  from  an 
ancestry  across  the  waters,  where  absolute 
powet-  was  the  rule,  it  was  a thing  that  our 
fathers  would  be  naturally  suspicious  of.  It  was 
a question  that  they  naturally  would  approach 
with  a great  amount  of  prejudice,  and  there 
worild  have  to  be,  necessarily,  strong  reasons 
whir  they  would  retain  any  feature  of  that  ab- 
solute, one-man  power.  It,  nevertheless,  was 
retrained,  and  the  history  of  those  times  will 
sauisfy  any  one  that  it  was  retained  on  prin- 
ciple. It  was  retained,  as  has  been  suggested 
helre,  over  and  over  again,  not  as  a mere  figure- 
head, not  as  a mere  absolutism,  but  as  a needed 
C jheck,  necessary  to  control  the  acts  of  the  ma- 
jority— as  a thing  necessary  to  the  protection 
l the  people  themselves.  Gentlemen  seem  to 
ave  difficulty  in  understanding  why  it  was  that 
tli  us  principle  was  interposed,  and  this  power 
“ as  retained  in  the  manner  it  was,  for  the  pur- 


pose of  protecting  the  rights  of  all  the  people 
of  the  nation  and  of  the  State. 

While  very  much  has,  doubtless,  been  sug- 
gested during  the  debate  upon  this  question, 
that,  in  view  of  the  time  occupied,  might  well 
enough  have  been  left  unsaid,  nevertheless,  it 
is  now,  as  heretofore,  proper  to  recur  to  first 
principles.  And  hence,  I feel  grateful  to  my 
young  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  who 
has,  by  his  research  and  industry,  presented  us 
with  many  excellent  views  which  were  enter- 
tained in  those  early  periods,  and  we  are  under 
just  as  great  obligations  to  our  friend  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  who  has  given  us  the 
benefit  of  his  large  experience  in  Congress,  and 
the  reference  he  has  made  to  the  closing  scenes 
of  the  Legislature  of  this  State  for  1870-71,  has, 
in  my  judgment,  fully  demonstrated  the  neces- 
sity for  such  a guard  as  we  now  seek  to  intro- 
duce into  our  Constitution.  I believe  it  is 
always  profitable  to  recur  to  first  principles,  and 
that  it  is  instructive  to  go  back  to  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence.  I believe  the  Fourth  of 
July  to  be  a glorious  institution,  and  I regret 
to  see  that  these  national  periods  of  rejoicing 
are  not  held  in  as  high  estimation  now,  as  they 
were  in  the  early  days.  We  have  now  other 
enterprises.  We  are  all  after  the  “almighty 
dollar,”  and  we  seem  to  see  nothing  else.  I feel 
that  it  is  occasionally  refreshing  to  be  called 
back,  as  I was  by  the  speech  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  to  those  old  land- 
marks. I think  it  is  always  instructive  and 
advisable  to  note  the  signals  along  the  great 
highway  of  civilization,  and  notice  the  mile- 
stones by  which  our  fathers  have  traveled  on 
the  great  road.  All  these  are  valuable  in  their 
way,  and  teach  an  instructive  lesson. 

It  seems  to  be  conceded,  all  over  this  Hall, 
that  it  is  a fact  that  we  have  hasty  legislation. 
It  is  conceded  that  we  have  illegal  legislation ; 
so  that,  apparently,  there  is  no  difference  of 
opinion  about  that,  and  we  do  not  seem  to  dis- 
agree on  that  point  of  the  argument.  The 
simple  question  is,  what  shall  be  the  remedy? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  the  gentleman  to 
define  illegal  legislation.  I understand  him  to 
say,  that  it  is  conceded  that  we  have  illegal 
legislation. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I sympathize  with  the  gentle- 
man. He  is  not  a lawyer;  but,  I apprehend 
there  is  no  lawyer  in  this  Hall,  who  will  seri- 
ously ask  that  question.  Have  we  not  had  illegal 
legislation  ? Of  course,  I mean  by  the  use  of 
the  word  illegal,  unconstitutional  legislation — 
that,  I regard,  as  illegal  legislation. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  whether  the  veto  power 
is  the  remedy,  or,  whether  there  is  any  remedy 
that  will  approximate  the  evil,  is,  perhaps,  a 
grave  question.  There  seem  to  be  three  classes 
of  persons  in  this  Hall,  from  the  manner  in 
which  this  debate  proceeds,  and  I hardly  know 
in  what  manner  to  reconcile  all  their  different 
views ; and,  of  course,  I shall  not  expect  to  do 
so.  But,  I find  two  classes  of  persons  that  agree 
upon  one  thing,  however  widely  they  may  be 
apart  in  their  arguments.  One  of  these  classes 
of  persons  support  the  resolution  that  has  been 
passed  by  this  body,  which  was  introduced  by 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  The 
other  class  is  represented  by  a resolution  intro- 
duced by  the  gentleman  from  Butler,  [Mr. 


\ 


1112 


THE  VETO  POWER. 


fl06tli 


Pease,  West. 


[Thursday, 


Campbell].  Both  of  these  classes  are  in  favor  of 
some  veto.  One  would  think  it  a little  surprising 
that  our  distinguished  friend  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  listening  to  his  argument,  was  in  favor 
of  a veto ; but  if  I understood  him,  when  he 
closed  his  elaborate  and  very  able  argument, 
although  the  whole  of  it  was  against  the  veto 
power,  and  although  he  said  he  would  feel 
humiliated  if  he  were  a member  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  an  act  should  be  vetoed  by  the  Gov- 
ernor, still,  if  he  was  not  in  favor  of  the  veto 
when  he  started  in  with  his  speech,  he  certainly 
convinced  himself,  before  he  closed,  that  he  was 
in  favor  of  the  veto  as  presented  by  the  substi- 
tute offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell],  and  as  I understood  him,  he  will 
vote  for  that  proposition. 

There  is  another  class  of  gentlemen,  opposed 
entirely  to  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power,  and 
it  is  to  that  class  that  I shall  first  say  a few 
words.  I shalFnot  stop  to  enumerate  what,  in  my 
judgment,  are  the  benefits  resulting  from  this 
Veto  power ; it  would  be,  substantially,  but  a 
re-statement  of  the  arguments  which  have  been 
very  ably  presented  upon  this  floor ; and  I shall 
not  hazard  the  chance  of  weakening  those  argu- 
ments by  any  imperfect  manner  in  which  I 
might  present  them.  I shall  adopt  the  conclu- 
sions to  which  these  arguments  lead,  however, 
as  the  basis  of  what  I have  to  say  in  speaking  of 
the  objections  which  are  urged  against  the  veto 
power.  I do  not  know  how  numerous  the  gen- 
tlemen are  who  are  opposed  to  the  veto  power. 
I have  heard  it  from  a few,  however,  and  I con- 
ceive that  they  have  all  the  same  view  of  the 
subject.  I have  a friend  at  my  right  [Mr.  Gur- 
ley] for  whom  I have  the  highest  regard  and 
respect,  who  I know  is  opposed  to  the  veto 
power. 

Now,  what  are  the  objections  that  are  urged 
by  these  gentlemen  against  this  power  ? They 
say  it  is  a dangerous  power.  I do  not  know 
that  they  have  succeeded  in  demonstrating  to 
anybody  that  it  is  a dangerous  power.  They 
have  enunciated  it;  but  I have  yet  to  listen  to 
the  evidence  of  it. 

Perhaps  I ought  to  except  the  instance  re- 
ferred to,  of  the  Territorial  Governor  of  Ohio, 
in  which,  it  is  said,  he  exercised  that  power  to 
the  injury  of  the  people  of  the  Territory.  And 
so  far  as  that  is  an  argument,  I might  say, what 
has  already  been  said,  that  that  veto  was  not  in 
any  regard  like  the  veto  we  propose  to  place  in 
this  Constitution.  It  would  be  as  unfair  to 
object  to  this  veto  because  of  the  unpopularity 
of  that  veto,  as  it  would  be  to  object  to  the  of- 
fice of  President  of  the  United  States  because 
in  some  things  he  resembles,  perhaps,  the  Kings 
of  Great  Britain,  or  any  other  monarch  in 
Europe.  That  veto  power  was  an  absolutism. 
The  Territorial  Legislature  could  not  pass  the 
act  over  that  veto.  The  Governor,  in  that  case, 
was  responsible  to  nobody,  unless  it  might  have 
been,  perhaps,  the  administration  that  gave 
him  the  appointment.  In  no  sense  was  he  re- 
sponsible to  the  people.  The  people  had  no 
power  to  review  his  acts,  and  he  felt  that  inde- 
pendence, and  he  exercised  it  in  such  a man- 
ner as  made  the  veto  power  unpopular,  at  the 
time  the  first  Constitution  of  Ohio  was  adopted. 
But  it  seems  to  me  that  that  instance  is  not  suf- 
ficient to  warrant  these  gentlemen  in  saying  that 


it  is  a dangerous  power.  I think  we  can  say, 
without  fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that  it 
is  the  only  instance  to  which  gentlemen  upon 
this  floor  can  refer,  where  this  power  has  been 
improperly  exercised. 

In  all  the  other  instances,  I say  all , because  I 
shall  not  stop  to  particularize,  where  the  veto 
has  been  exercised,  both  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  in  all  the  States,  having 
this  power,  it  has  been  popularly  sustained  by 
the  people  at  home. 

I say  substantially  in  nearly  every  other  in- 
stance, and  they  are  numerous,  running  along 
through  the  history  of  our  Government,  clear 
down  to  the  present  time,  and  the  people  have 
very  uniformly,  almost  without  an  exception, 
sustained  the  exercise  of  the  power. 

I think  that  is  an  answer  to  this  bugbear  of 
this  territorial  Governor’s  improper  exercise  of 
this  power. 

Mr.  WEST.  What  gentleman  upon  this 
floor,  opposing  the  veto,  has  ever  alluded  to 
Governor  St.  Clair,  during  his  abusive  exercise 
of  the  power,  as  a reason  why  it  should  not  be 
incorporated  here?  Was  not  Governor  St. 
Clair’s  name  first  introduced,  and  has  it  not 
been  employed  by  the  friends  of  the  veto  here 
all  the  time,  and  not  by  those  opposed  to  it? 

Mr.  PEASE.  With  proper  deference  to  the 
gentleman,  I think  not.  Of  course,  he  is  cor- 
rect, in  so  far  as  to  its  being  presented  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly].  In 
making  his  opening  argument,  in  referring  to 
the  history  of  the  veto  power,  he  read  from 
Judge  Burnet’s  History  of  Ohio,  and  that  is 
the  only  way  it  has  been  referred  to  here,  by 
the  friends  of  the  veto,  and  I have  heard  it  fre- 
quently from  two  or  three  gentlemen  upon  the 
other  side,  who  have  urged  that  as  an  argument 
against  it,  just  as  I have  stated  it.  I think  I am 
not  mistaken  about  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  Those  statements  must  have 
been  made  outside  of  the  discussion,  for  they 
have  not  been  heard  in  this  part  of  the  Hall. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Does  the  gentleman  insist  that 
I am  unfair  in  stating  their  argument?  It 
seems  to  me  no  gentleman  can  take  exception 
to  the  manner  in  which  I have  presented  it. 
At  any  rate,  it  does  not  drive  me  from  the  ar- 
gument I propose  to  submit.  Refer  me  to  any 
other  instance  where  it  has  been  used  by  any 
State  or  United  States  authority  where  the 
people  have  not,  substantially,  sustained  the 
veto. 

But  it  is  said  that, if  it  is  not  a dangerous  power, 
it  is  a novel  power.  The  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West],  in  his  flight  of  imagination 
and  brilliancy,  which,  with  its  force,  might 
carry  away,  as  by  a strong  wave,  those  who 
did  not  carefully  and  logically  look  into  it, 
says  it  is  a novel  power,  if  I understand  him 
rightly. 

Mr.  WEST.  In  Ohio. 

Mr.  PEASE.  In  Ohio?  I did  not  understand 
that  it  was  limited  to  Ohio.  But  if  it  is  good 
anywhere  it  will  be  good  in  Ohio,  but  if  it  is 
bad  it  would  very  likely  be  crossed  out  some- 
where, and  it  would  not  be  necessary  for  us  to 
try  it  in  Ohio  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  a bad 
principle  and  a bad  policy.  Why,  sir,  as  novel 
! as  it  seems  to  be,  it  has  been  established  by  the 
irovernment  of  the  United  States  from  its  or- 


Day.] 

February  5, 1874.] 


THE  VETO  POWER- 

PEASKj  GURLEY. 


1113 


ganization.  We  had  the  principle  in  starting 
out  with  our  original  thirteen  States.  It  is 
possible  that  but  one  or  two  of  those  States 
engrafted  upon  their  Constitutions  the  veto 
power.  I wish  to  say,  however,  in  answer  to 
any  such  argument,  that  to-day,  if  I remember 
rightly,  only  eight  States  of  this  Union  are 
without  the  veto  power,  and  one  of  them  is  the 
State  of  Ohio.  All  the  other  States  have  re- 
garded it  as  a conservative  and  wholesome 
power,  and  such  has  been  the  expedience  of  the 
Federal  Government.  I refer  the  gentleman 
to  the  fact  that  in  all  the  States  where  they 
have  had  Conventions  for  the  purpose  of  reor- 
ganizing the  organic  law,  in  none  of  them  have 
they  dropped  out  of  their  new  Constitutions 
the  veto  power.  They  all  retain  it,  after  hav- 
ing tried  it  for  years.  When  they  come  to  re- 
model the  organic  law,  they  reinstate  that 
power,  which  is  called  here  a bad  element  in 
our  organic  law.  The  argument,  in  my  judg- 
ment, Mr.  President,  is  unfounded.  It  is 
without  support  in  fact.  It  is  a fear  without 
the  foundation  of  a single  reason  for  that  fear. 

Gentlemen  say  this  is  taking  away  from  the 
people  the  power  of  self-government.  Now, 
perhaps,  at  a first  blush,  and  without  any  fur- 
ther examination,  it  might  have  that  appear- 
ance. Figures  have  been  given  here,  by  the 
distinguished  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell],  endeavoring  to  show  that  the  Gov- 
ernor would  have,  in  effect,  the  power  to  cast, 
in  one  case,  seventeen  votes,  and  in  another,  six, 
and  says  this  is  giving  him  a power  that  is  su- 
perior to  that  of  the  Representatives.  The  ar- 
gument does  not  so  impress  me,  with  all  defer- 
ence to  the  conclusion  of  the  gentleman.  It  is 
no  new  element  that  we  seek  to  create  here. 

What  is  a Constitution  but  a veto  power?  In 
all  the  people  resides  sovereignty ; but  all  the 
people  have  consented  to  send  these  delegates 
here,  as  they  did  in  1850,  and  they  have  said, 
we  authorize  you  to  place  restraint  upon  our 
power.  We  authorize  you  to  prescribe  the 
boundaries  of  our  power.  We  ask  you  to  do  it 
by  means  of  a written  Constitution.  We  ask 
you  to  put  a limit  and  restraint  upon  certain 
things  that  we  shall  not  do,  and  permit  certain 
things  which  we  may  do.  In  that  lies  the  very 
essence  of  a veto.  It  is  the  Constitution  of  Ohio 
to-day  as  adopted  in  1851.  That  great  veto  was 
adopted,  also,  in  1802,  when  the  people  assem- 
bled together  through  their  honored  Represent- 
atives, and  permitted  their  liberties  to  be  re- 
strained in  certain  directions  and  for  certain 
purposes.  Just  so  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I tell  you  that,  in  a Democratic 
Government,  in  a Republican  Government,  this 
principle  is  necessary  to  protect  the  people,  to 
protect  the  weak  against  the  strong  in  numbers. 
Take  away  these  Constitutions,  and  we  are  re- 
mitted to  the  wager  of  battle ; the  weak  against 
the  strong,  and  the  fleet  against  those  who  are 
not  so  rapid.  These  are  restrained  by  this 
power;  so  that  it  is  not  dangerous,  it  is  not 
novel,  and,  in  my  judgment,  it  is  an  additional 
safeguard  that  this  Convention  should  incorpo- 
rate as  an  additional  means  of  securing  these 
rights  and  liberties. 

Gentlemen  inquire  how  is  it  that  the  people 
are  protected  by  the  veto?  I have  answered 
the  inquiry  just  now.  They  are  protected  by  | 


this  veto  power  precisely  as  they  are  protected 
by  this  Constitution,  precisely  as  the  people  of 
the  Nation  are  protected  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  A Constitution  is  but  a veto 
in  another  form.  That  is  the  way  the  people 
are  protected. 

Some  have  an  idea,  that  in  the  Legislature 
alone  resides  the  power  of  sovereignty.  In  the 
Legislature  there  is  the  legislative  power,  but 
it  is  no  more  sovereign  than  is  the  executive. 
The  executive  is  no  more  sovereign  than  is  the 
judicial;  the  three,  are  the  representation  of 
the  sovereignty  of  the  people. 

Will  not  the  veto  power,  in  the  hands  of  your 
Governor,  in  making  his  opposition  to  this 
hasty  legislation,  to  this  illegal  legislation,  pro- 
tect the  people  ? 

But,  says  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  the  Governor  has  no  right  to  determ- 
ine whether  the  laws  are  unconstitutional  or 
not.  Why,  sir,  if  you  will  give  him  the  veto 
power  he  will  have  the  right  to  exercise  it, 
and  that  is  the  only  reason  I propose  to  give 
it  to  him.  It  is  conceded,  I have  said,  by  eve- 
ry gentleman  who  has  made  an  argument 
upon  this  question,  that  illegal — unconstitu- 
tional, is,  perhaps,  the  better  phrase — leg- 
islation, has  found  its  way  into  the  halls 
of  legislation,  and  if  you  clothe  the  Gover- 
nor with  this  power,  if  you  have  a Governor  who 
understands  his  duties,  he  would  have  the  right 
to  veto  it,  would  he  not?  Now,  is  it  fair  to 
presume  that  he  would  not  do  it  ? Certainly,  he 
cannot  do  it  unless  you  give  him  that  right. 
He  cannot  do  it  unless  you  give  him  the  power 
to  do  it ; and  if  you  have  given  him  that  power, 
he  is  responsible  to  the  people  for  the  manner 
in  which  he  exercises  that  power.  The  gentle- 
man also  says  that  it  is  the  Judicial  Department 
only  that  can  be  safely  intrusted  with  these 
legal  rights.  That  is  true,  sir ; but  I take  it, 
there  is  a vast  difference  between  the  Governor 
exercising  his  veto  upon  the  constitutionality 
of  an  act  before  it  becomes  a law,  and  the  Su- 
preme Court  doing  it  after  it  becomes  a law. 
In  the  first  instance,  no  rights  have  been  ac- 
quired under  the  act;  in  the  second,  rights  have 
been  acquired  under  it,  and  it  has  become  a rule 
of  property.  When  these  rights  have  been 
acquired,  it  is  well  that  these  questions  should 
go  to  the  highest  tribunal  of  the  State ; but  I 
submit,  that  before  it  becomes  a rule  of  proper- 
ty, before  it  has  done  its  mischief,  there  should 
be  no  earthly  reason  why  the  Governor,  seeing 
that,  might  not  pronounce  his  veto  upon  it. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Does  the  gentleman  presume 
that  we  shall  have  always  elected  men  to  occu- 
py the  Executive  Chair  who  will  have  the  abil- 
ity and  judgment  to  pass  upon  the  constitu- 
tional acts  of  the  Legislature? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I will  answer  that  by  saying, 
that  I believe  the  people  of  Ohio  will  be  fortu- 
nate enough,  as  long  as  this  is  a Government, 
to  elect  as  good  and  true  men  to  the  position  of 
Governor  as  they  have  done  from  the  forma- 
tion of  the  State  up  to  the  present  time. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Then,  I will  ask  another 
question  : If  it  is  not  a fact,  that  in  every  Leg- 
islature during  the  last  fifty  years,  there  have 
been  scores  of  men  in  either  branch  thereof, 
who  have  been  as  competent  to  pass  upon  Con- 
stitutional law  as  the  Governor? 


1114 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Pease. 


[106th 

[Thursday, 


Mr.  PEASE.  I do  not  know  but  that  may  be 
so,  and  I do  not  know  that  it  is  not  so.  But 
this  I do  know,  as  a general  thing,  and  every- 
body of  any  experience  knows,  that  in  a leg- 
islative body,  as  in  every  other  large  body 
where  party  interests  and  selfish  motives  are 
involved,  the  persons  composing  that  body  be- 
come absorbed  in  a measure,  until  they  have 
but  one  idea  of  that  measure,  and  they  lose 
sight  of  other  ideas  and  interests ; and  in  that 
way,  frequently,  legislation  is  carried  through, 
and  many  excellent  men  give  their  consent  to 
it.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  a Governor,  occu- 
pying a position  away  from  that  body,  not  be- 
coming excited  in  the  process  of  adopting,  or 
interested  in  bringing  forward  the  measure, 
coolly  looking  it  over,  would  be  more  likely  to 
hit  the  nail  on  the  head,  than  the  men  who 
have  been  engaged  in  the  conflict  and  excite- 
ment of  carrying  it  through.  It  seems  to  me, 
these  objections  which  have  been  so  urged,  can- 
not be  well  founded.  I would  give  this  power 
to  the  Governor  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
him,  when  any  of  this  improper  legislation — if 
he  considered  it  such — had  been  passed,  to  put 
a stop  to  it.  In  my  judgment,  no  harm  can  be 
done  by  such  a course,  and  much  evil  may  be 
prevented. 

There  are  one  or  two  other  considerations 
which  I had  in  my  mind,  but  these  interrup- 
tions occasionally  throw  me  off  the  track,  for 
the  time,  and  like  a locomotive,  it  may  take 
some  time  to  get  me  back  again  and  in  motion. 
Another  objection  has  been  urged:  that  we, 
probably,  would  be  doing  more  harm,  by  giving 
this  constitutional  power  to  the  Governor,  by 
withdrawing  responsibility  from  the  Legisla- 
ture. If  that  were  true,  I would  hesitate  long 
before  I would  consent  to  the  veto  power.  But 
the  objection  does  not  strike  me  with  force.  1 
believe  it  to  be  the  experience  of  every  body  in 
all  their  lives,  and  I can,  perhaps,  refer  to  their 
schooldays  as  an  illustration  of  the  idea  I have; 
and  I submit  it  is  an  entire  answer  to  the  objec- 
tion that  was  intimated  by  the  gentleman  from 
Portage  [Mr.  Horton].  His  argument  is:  if 
there  is  any  responsibility  resting  anywhere 
else,  the  Legislature  will  not  feel  under  as  high 
an  obligation  as  they  would  if  they  could  not 
shift  the  responsibility.  Is  that  idea  borne  out 
in  the  experience  of  any  one?  Take  the  school 
exercises,  or  your  college  exercises.  Is  it  a fact 
in  these  cases  that  you  have  been  less  careful 
when  you  knew  that  your  work  was  to  be  ex- 
amined by  a teacher  or  a professor  ? It  seems 
to  me  that  the  very  idea  of  review  by  either 
Governor  or  teacher,  is  a stimulant,  an  incen- 
tive, a reason  why  care  would  be  taken, 
why  they  would  preceed  cautiously  in  what 
they  are  about  to  do.  If  the  legislators 
felt  that  they  were  responsible  to  the  people 
only,  they  might  flatter  themselves  with  the 
idea  that  they  would  escape  observation. 
It  is,  they  might  say,  something  in  which  my 
people  are  not  interested,  in  my  locality,  and, 
therefore,  we  shall  vote  for  it,  and  no  attention 
will  be  paid  to  it.  It  never  will  be  called  up, 
and  put  under  review,  and  we  shall  escape  the 
responsibility.  It  strikes  me,  that  is  the  way 
they  would  reason;  whereas,  if  they  know  that, 
whatever  the  act  is,  whatever  measure  they 
consent  to  pass,  it  is  to  come  under  review  be- 


fore the  Governor  of  the  State,  and  be  approved 
or  rejected  by  him,  and,  if  rejected,  his  reasons 
therefor  given  in  writing,  and  these  objections 
go  broadcast  over  the  State,  and  every  one  of 
their  constituents  becomes  familiar  with  the  ob- 
jections made  by  the  Governor,  they  will  move 
cautiously.  This  is,  to  my  mind,  a sound  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  veto,  instead  of  an  argument 
against  it,  and  is  an  additional  safeguard  to  se- 
cure careful  and  wise  legislation. 

My  friend  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  says  he 
would  support  it,  if  it  would  secure  good  legis- 
lation. I have  only  to  say,  in  reply  to  that,  if 
we  can  incorporate,  in  this  Constitution,  that 
which  will  secure  good  legislation,  we  will,  in- 
deed, secure  a prize,  which  we  should  give  to 
the  world.  If  we  could  devise  any  measure, 
and  give  it  form  and  expression  in  a sentence 
or  two,  or  in  the  whole  Constitution,  that  will 
secure,  without  danger  of  miscarriage,  good 
legislation : we  have  got  that  which  the  world 
has  been  looking  for,  from  the  historic  period 
to  the  present  time.  We  have  found  what  is 
better  than  the  ancient  philosopher’s  stone — the 
means  by  which  we  can  secure  good  legislation. 
I dare  not  claim  for  it  any  such  eminence  and 
value  as  that;  but,  I say,  in  my  judgment,  the 
veto  power,  in  the  hands  of  the  Governor,  will 
tend  that  way.  It  is  among  the  few  things  that 
poor,  erring  human  nature  may  grasp,  and  bring 
to  their  aid,  in  the  endeavor  to  secure  good  leg- 
islation, and  it  may  not  be  in  our  power  to  do 
more  than  that. 

Without  stopping  any  longer  to  make  any 
further  observation  upon  a class  of  gentlemen 
who  are  opposed  to  any  veto  power,  I want  to 
spend  a few  moments  with  the  gentlemen  who 
are  in  favor  of  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell].  You  gen- 
tlemen of  the  Convention  who  believe  with 
me  that  the  veto  is  a desirable  institution,  that 
it  is  a conservative  power,  that  it  is  an  instru- 
ment which  is  not  dangerous  to  be  used,  and 
one  that  may  be  productive  of  better  legisla- 
tion and  protect  the  rights  of  the  minority,  and 
cannot  damage  anybody’s  rights;  let  us  in- 
quire, is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell] — the  simple  majority 
veto — the  thing  that  will  do  it  best?  I frankly 
say,  if  it  is  all  we  can  get,  I shall  support  it.  I be- 
lieve it  will  have  its  good  results.  I believe  a 
veto  power  that  has  only  the  effect  to  make  the 
body  vetoed  review  their  acts,  and  make  them 
halt  in  their  career,  even  but  for  a day,  and  on  a 
simple  majority,  is  better  than  none.  But  I 
have  my  apprehensions  that  this  limited  veto 
will  not  do  all  the  good  that  the  veto  power 
should  do,  or  that  it  may  do.  I know  the  pop- 
ular idea  is,  the  majority  should  rule.  That  is 
regarded  as  a democratic  principle,  and  for  or- 
dinary purposes  and  for  ordinary  and  proper 
legislation,  it  is  what  I would  always  adhere  to ; 
but  as  a negative  power,  is  a mere  majority 
veto  sufficient?  Do  we  accomplish  all  we  de- 
sire to  reach  by  the  simple  majority  power? 
Suppose,  to  illustrate,  a bill  has  been  passed  by 
the  Legislature  through  the  influence  of  rings. 
Suppose  a railroad  bill  has  been  carried 
through  the  Legislature  by  means  of  a rail- 
road ring,  and  by  a mere  majority,  and 
is  regarded  by  the  Governor  as  hasty  and 
improper  legislation ; or,  it  may  be,  that  it  is  re- 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Pease,  West,  Cunningham. 


1115 


Day.] 

February  5,  1874.] 


garded  by  the  Governor  as  unconstitutional  leg- 
islation, and  the  Governor  vetoes  the  bill  when 
it  comes  to  him.  Now,  is  anybody  so  verdant 
as  to  believe  that  if  a ring  has  been  formed  for 
the  purpose  of  crowding  through  that  legisla- 
tion, the  simple  veto  of  the  Governor,  when 
they  can  re-enact  it  by  a mere  majority  vote,  is 
going  to  arrest  that  class  of  improper  and  ille- 
gitimate legislation?  It  strikes  me  that  it  is 
not.  But,  gentlemen  say,  would  that  not  be  the 
result  if  the  bill  should  go  back  to  the  Legisla- 
ture with  the  veto  attached,  and  it  should  pass 
by  a two-thirds  vote?  Certainly  it  would. 
That  is  true.  I admit  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment that,  if  the  ring  is  big  enough,  if  they 
have  a two-thirds  majority,  they  can  pass  their 
measure  in  spite  of  the  veto.  Then  it  must  go 
to  the  people.  Then  it  must  go  to  the  courts. 
But  is  it  as  probable,  I ask;  is  it  as  likely  that 
two-thirds  will  be  secured  for  that  measure,  as 
it  is  that  a mere  majority  can  be  secured  to  pass 
it? 

There  is  another  reason  why,  it  seems  to  me, 
this  majority  should  be  two-thirds  to  overcome 
the  veto.  We  have  already  provided  that  it 
shall  require  a two-thirds  vote  to  carry  certain 
appropriations.  Now,  suppose  the  Governor 
vetoes  a bill  containing  such  appropriations. 
It  goes  back  to  the  House,  and  in  order  to  pass,  it 
must  then  receive  its  two-thirds  majority.  It  can- 
not pass  by  a simple  majority,  as  would  seem 
to  be  the  indication  of  this  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell].  If  the 
bill  went  back — assuming  that  that  proposition 
will  be  secured  in  the  Constitution — would 
there  not  be  danger  that  an  appropriation  bill, 
which  required  a two-thirds  vote  to  pass  it, 
which  had  received  that  two-thirds  vote  and 
which  had  gone  to  the  Governor  and  been  ve- 
toed by  the  Governor,  and  returned  by  him  with 
his  veto,  might  become  a law  by  a mere  majority 
vote  ? I submit,  could  not  such  a bill  go  back 
to  the  House,  receive  a majority  vote,  and 
become  a law?  In  my  judgment  it  could.  I 
say,  then,  there  must  he  something  more  than  a 
mere  majority  to  overcome  the  veto.  I am  not 
particularly  insisting  upon  the  two-thirds  ma- 
jority : perhaps  that  is  too  large,  and  perhaps  a 
smaller  number  would  be  sufficient;  surely, 
there  ought  to  be  a majority  required,  larger 
than  a mere  majority,  to  re-pass  any  measure 
over  the  veto. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  say  to  the  gentleman 
from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease]  that,  so  far  as  appropri- 
ations are  concerned,  I do  not  take  issue  with 
the  proposed  amendment. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I hope  the  amendment  will 
not  be  needed ; but  it  evidently  would  be  need- 
ed, if  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  But- 
ler [Mr.  Campbell]  should  succeed. 

Mr.  WEST.  Whilst  I am  up,  permit  me  to 
make  a correction  in  regard  to  another  matter. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Proceed. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  not  in  favor  of  any  veto  : 
but  if  we  are  to  have  a veto,  I do  not  want  to 
go  any  further  than  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  with  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]  at  the  foot  of  it.  I insist  that  that 
amendment  shall  be  added  at  all  hazards,  if 
there  is  to  be  any  veto  at  all. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I understood  that  the  gentle- 


man from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  directed  the  force 
of  his  argument  against  all  veto  power ; but  I 
also  understood  him,  at  the  close  of  his  argu- 
ment, to  be  in  favor  of  the  mild  form  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]. 
It  would  seem  to  me,  however,  that  this  would, 
substantially,  be  a failure.  It  could  not  in 
any  way  prohibit  this  improper  legislation. 
It  might  call  attention  to  the  question  in  hand. 
It  might  increase  the  length  of  time  that  would 
have  to  be  devoted  to  it.  But  it  would  seem 
that  it  is  powerless  for  any  good  beyond  that ; 
and  in  a measure  that  has  resulted  in  so  much 
good  to  the  different  States,  and,  in  my  judg- 
ment, so  much  good  to  the  United  States,  I do 
not  believe  that  it  is  advisable  to  attach  a 
condition  that  will  defeat  its  object.  Nearly 
all  the  States  that  have  the  veto  power  have 
adopted  the  two-thirds  rule.  Only  two  or  three 
of  them  have  adopted  the  majority  rule.  The 
great  majority  of  the  States  that  have  adopted 
the  veto  power  have  followed  the  rule  wrhich 
has  been  adopted  by  the  United  States  Consti- 
tution. I do  not  know  that  I will  be  in  favor 
of  having  this  veto  presented  to  both  Houses 
by  the  Governor ; but  that  is  simply  a matter 
of  business  form  to  which  I have  no  serious 
objection.  It  seems  to  me,  however,  unneces- 
sary that  the  veto  should  be  sent  to  both 
branches ; and  I shall  be  in  favor  of  having  the 
Governor  present  his  reasons  in  writing  rather 
than  orally.  I would  have  it  so  because  the 
Governor  would  then  give  the  matter  more 
formal  and  considerate  attention.  He  would 
be  more  deliberate,  and,  besides,  that  would 
insure  its  becoming  a matter  of  record,  which 
I deem  important,  and  the  merely  verbal  veto 
might  not  get  on  record.  I think  it  sufficient 
to  send  the  veto  to  the  House  in  which  the  bill 
originated,  and  require  that  House  to  send  it  to 
the  other  House.  I think  that  would  be  suffi- 
cient. I would  hardly  require  the  Governor 
to  go  through  with  the  performance  of  appear- 
ing, either  in  person  or  by  message,  in  both 
branches — but  this  a mere  matter  of  form,  and 
may  be  easily  corrected. 

These,  Mr.  President,  are  the  views  I enter- 
tain as  regards  the  veto  power.  I regret  that 
I have  taken  so  much  of  the  time  of  the  Con- 
vention in  presenting  them,  but  I did  not  feel 
at  liberty  to  let  the  question  go  by  default, 
when  I know  that  so  many  of  my  constituents 
are  in  favor  of  this  measure.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested here  that  the  Convention  of  1850  did  not 
see  fit  to  engraft  such  a provision  in  the  Consti- 
tution. I have  to  say,  in  answer  to  that,  that 
so  far  as  my  observation  and  experience  go, 
it  has  been  the  regret  of  many  of  the  people  in 
my  county  that  it  was  omitted  in  that  Constitu- 
tion; and,  although  no  petitions  have  been 
presented  here  to  that  effect,  I guarantee  that 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention  hear  among  their 
constituents  the  inquiry,  “Are  you  not  going  to 
adopt  this  veto  power  in  the  Constitution  you 
are  framing  ? ” I hear  that  inquiry  wherever  I 
go,  and  I presume  that  is  the  experience  of 
other  gentlemen  of  this  Convention.  I shall, 
therefore,  vote  against  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  and  in 
favor  of  the  proposition  to  invest  a two-thirds 
veto  power  in  the  Governor. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I wish  to  state,  in  a 


1116 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Cunningham,  Johnson. 


few  words,  and  to  place  on  record,  the  reason 
that  dictates  my  course  in  supporting  the  pro- 
vision to  clothe  the  Governor  with  the  veto 
power.  The  Executive  officer  alone,  of  all  the 
political  officers  of  the  State  Government, 
represents  the  people  of  the  State  in  the 
aggregate.  The  General  Assembly,  supreme 
throughout  the  State,  is,  nevertheless,  made 
up  of  Representatives  of  localities,  and  these 
localities  have,  severally,  interests  which  do 
not  appertain  to  the  others,  or  to  the  people 
of  the  State  at  large.  The  combination  of  va- 
rious local  interests  is  an  old  and  successful 
means  of  procuring  legislation,  and  the  result 
is  that,  while  the  general  effect  is,  in  many 
cases,  pernicious,  the  members  of  the  Assem- 
bly who  accomplish  it,  are  answerable  only  to 
their  local  constituents. 

I would  make  the  Governor  a Tribune  of  the 
people,  and  upon  his  direct  responsibility  to 
them,  I would  have  him  exercise  a negative 
power  in  legislation.  I would  make  it  the  ex- 
ercise in  his  hands  of  a power  which  never 
passes  from  the  hands  of  the  people.  To  make 
myself  understood:  There  is  a power,  vested 
nowhere,  either  in  the  Executive,  Legislative, 
or  Judiciary  Department,  but  which  remains 
with  the  people.  It  is  from  this  source  that  this 
Convention  derives  its  existence.  It  derives 
none  of  its  prerogatives  from  the  legislative  en- 
actment which  called  it  together,  but  from  the 
people  themselves,  independent  and  outside  of 
legislation.  I would  take  a fraction  of  that 
power  and  charge  the  Governor  with  its  exer- 
cise, restrained  and  controlled,  as  he  will  be, 
by  his  consciousness  of  direct,  personal  ac- 
countability to  the  whole  people  of  the  State. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I am  opposed  to  the  princi- 
ple involved  in  any,  or  all,  propositions  for  con- 
ferring the  veto  power  on  the  Governor  of  our 
State.  I don’t  like  the  one-man  power  in  any 
form  in  which  you  can  put  it.  It  is  inconsist- 
ent, in  theory,  with  the  fundamental  principle 
which  all  our  Governments,  both  State  and  na- 
tional, are  founded  on,  and,  in  practice , I think 
the  effect  has  oftener  been  wrong  than  other- 
wise. 

I don’t  think  that  all  the  wisdom  of  the  coun- 
try has  ever  been  concentrated  in  one  man,  or 
ever  will  be.  And  I don’t  suppose  that  the  act 
of  making  any  man  Governor,  or  President, 
imbues  him  with  much  more  wisdom  than  he 
had  before. 

But,  in  order  to  accommodate  myself  to  the 
views  of  a very  considerable  portion  of  very 
highly  respected  gentlemen  in  this  body,  I am 
willing  to  support  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Butler.  I think  it  embraces,  sub- 
stantially, the  feelings  of  the  very  practical  and 
common-sensed  gentleman  from  Preble  [Mr. 
Barnet],  also,  as  it  does  of  many  other  valua- 
ble members. 

I think  that  proposition  embraces  all  that  we 
should  concede,  towards  preventing  the  will  of 
the  people  from  becoming  the  law  of  the  land 
in  any,  or  all  cases.  Sir,  1 know  that  the  veto, 
even  in  this  mild  form,  cannot  be  tolerated  dur-  i 
ing  a single  session  of  the  legally  constituted 
law-making  power,  without  detracting  some- 
thing from  what  we  all,  in  theory,  concede  to 
be  the  unlimited  right  of  the  people  to  govern 
themselves  by  laws  of  their  own  making,  to  be  1 


[106th 

[Thursday, 


executed  by  a Governor,  or  President,  of  their 
own  selection. 

The  idea  of  a veto  in  our  country,  had  its 
origin  in  the  formation  of  our  National  Consti- 
tution. It  was  derived  from  the  British  poli- 
tical system.  It  was  a favorite  political  bantling 
of  the  old  Federal  party,  in  framing  our 
National  Constitution;  and  through  their  in- 
fluence, (they  being  largely  in  the  majority  in 
the  old  Convention),  that  it  was  adopted,  and 
made  part  of  our  national  political  system. 

If  General  Washington  had  not  abstained,  as, 
I think,  entirely,  from  exercising  it,  during  the 
eight  years  which  he  administered  the  govern- 
ment, I have  no  doubt  but  it  would  have  been 
one  of  the  loudest  and  most  potent  causes  of 
complaint  by  the  people,  which  culminated  in 
the  overthrow  of  the  Federal  party,  after  its 
twelve  years  of  administration,  and  the  success 
of  the  Republicans — the  real  party  of  the  peo- 
ple— under  the  leadership  of  Thomas  Jefferson. 

I am  not  sufficiently  conversant  with  English 
history,  to  feel  justified  in  saying  whether  its 
ear’ly  use  in  that  country  was  in  behalf  of  the 
people,  or  not;  but  I do  say,  that  for  along 
series  of  years  just  passed,  it  has  not  been  used 
at  all,  but  has  laid  as  a dead  letter  in  the  British 
Constitution.  I have  always  understood  that 
the  present  Queen  declines  to  exercise  the  veto 
power;  because  the  demand  for  it, should  there 
be  one,  would  likely  be  in  the  interest  of  the 
House  of  Lords.  They  are  the  special  repre- 
sentatives of  the  nobility,  and  are  generally 
regarded  by  the  toiling  millions,  in  the  sweat 
of  whose  brows,  and  by  whose  toil-nerved  arms 
the  world  is  supplied  with  so  large  a portion  of 
its  wealth  and  happiness,  as  their  worst  ene- 
mies. 

As  to  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power  in  our 
country,  it  was  always  followed  by  the  bitterest 
denunciations  of  a large  portion  of  our  most 
intelligent  and  enterprising  citizens,  and  it  is  a 
fact,  well  known,  that  its  use  by  President 
Jackson,  in  vetoing  the  bill  re-chartering  the 
United  States  Bank  in  1832,  was  a spiteful  and 
revengeful  act,  to  punish  the  officers  of  that 
institution  for  refusing  to  enter  the  cesspool  of 
party  politics. 

The  President  became  very  much  embittered 
and  enraged  at  the  president  of  one  of  the 
branch  banks,  1 think,  at  Lexington,  Kentucky, 
and  demanded  his  dismissal  by  the  parent  bank 
at  Philadelphia;  but  the  board  of  directors 
there,  who  knew  the  Lexington  president  to  be 
an  honest  and  capable  servant,  and  who  con- 
sidered such  a demand  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  as  an  impertinent  attempt  to  in- 
terfere in  a matter  entirely  outside  of  his  legi- 
timate duty,  very  properly,  as  I think,  refused 
to  comply  with  the  demand.  Hence,  the  veto, 
and  as  the  result,  the  bank  was  forced  to  close 
up,  and  driven  out  of  existence. 

It  is  frequently  claimed  that  the  people  sanc- 
tioned the  veto  in  this  case,  by  re-electing 
General  Jackson.  I deny  that  this  is  the  fact. 
Although  he  was  largely  re-elected,  his  second 
election  would  have  been,  by  a still  larger  ma- 
jority, if  he  had  sanctioned  the  Bank  Bill,  in- 
stead of  vetoing  it.  By  so  doing,  he  would  not 
only  have  still  received  the  large  vote  that  was 
given  him,  but  would  have  retained,  as  his 
Iriends,  a very  large  portion  of  the  most  talent- 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Johnson,  Baber,  Hoadly. 


1117 


Day.] 

February  5,  1874.] 


ed,  enterprising  and  efficient  business  men  in 
the  United  States,  who,  on  account  of  that  veto, 
solely,  felt  it  their  duty  to  separate,  and  with- 
draw their  political  support  from  that  very  re- 
markable man  forever. 

Sir,  I will  not  deny  that  the  veto  has  any 
good  properties.  I say,  frankly,  that  there  is 
seldom  a proposition  offered  in  this  Convention, 
in  which  I cannot  see  something  to  commend. 
But  it  is  our  duty  to  weigh  both  sides  carefully, 
and  if  the  disadvantages  outweigh  the  advan- 
tages, to  reject  it. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I do  think  that  all  the 
desirable  properties  of  the  veto,  are  secured  in 
the  substitute,  which  I was  glad  to  see  offered 
by  the  distinguished  delegate  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]. 

That  proposition  provides  that,  if  the  Gover- 
nor thinks  a bill  too  hastily  passed,  he  shall  in- 
terpose, and  prevent,  for  the  time  being,  its 
becoming  a law,  but  must,  in  so  doing,  give  his 
reasons  for  so  objecting.  Here,  we  have  the 
full  benefit  of  all  the  wisdom,  and  valuable 
judgment  which  our  Governor  may  possess,  ad- 
ded to  that  of  the  Legislature,  who  are  the  di- 
rect agents  of  the  people,  before  any  legislation 
whatever  can  become  fastened  on  our  statute- 
books  as  law. 

Sir,  I hope,  that  in  voting  on  this  proposition, 
gentlemen  will  not  forget  that,  in  case  the  Gov- 
ernor refuses  to  sign  a bill,  and  offers  his  rea- 
sons for  so  doing,  that  it  will  scarcely  ever 
become  a law  by  a simple  majority  voting  for 
it  over  the  veto ; but  that  a majority  of  all  the 
members  elected  to  both  Houses  must  be  first 
secured,  before  the  law  can  take  effect.  Gener- 
ally speaking,  from  10  to  15  per  cent,  of  our 
legislators,  at  Columbus,  are  absent,  and,  con- 
sequently, quite  a large  majority  of  those  pres- 
ent, frequently  three-fifths,  and,  sometimes,  a 
two-thirds  majority,  will  be  necessary,  under 
our  proposition,  to  pass  a bill  over  the  Gov- 
ernor’s veto. 

It  has  been  claimed  here,  that  the  Governor 
is  a better  Representative  of  the  people  than  the 
Legislature ; for,  while  the  individual  members 
are  elected  by,  and  represent,  small  localities, 
only,  the  Governor  was  elected  by  the  people  of 
the  entire  State.  This, in  one  sense  of  the  word, 
is  true;  but,  as  reasoning,  is  deceptive.  Our 
political  system  makes  the  Legislature  the  direct 
agent  of  the  people,  for  the  specific  purpose  of 
framing  and  enacting  laws  for  their  govern- 
ment, throughout  the  State.  And  it  defines 
the  duties  ol  Governor  quite  as  plainly,  by  say- 
ing, that  he  shall  see  that  the  laws  are  faithfully 
executed ; recommend  to  the  General  Assembly 
the  enactment  of  such  laws  as  he  deems  expe- 
dient; be  commander-in-chief  of  the  military 
and  naval  forces  of  the  State,  &c. ; with  several 
other  duties,  which  are  distinctly  defined.  But 
the  power  to  veto  legally  enacted  laws  by  a 
clear  majority  of  the  law-making  power,  is  not 
among  them — neither  do  I think  it  should  be. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  intend  to  argue  this 
question  which  has  been  so  completely  ex- 
hausted bv  the  able  gentlemen  who  have  al- 
ready addressed  this  Convention.  I think  the 
argument  upon  that  question  has  been  fully 
gone  over,  and  I do  not  propose  to  weary  this 
Convention,  by  any  repetition  of  what  I have 
heretofore  said  upon  this  subject;  but  I rise  for 


the  purpose  of  trying  to  vindicate,  upon  this 
floor,  the  truth  of  history.  The  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  who  with  such 
elaborate  preparation  addressed  this  Conven- 
tion, endeavored  to  enforce  upon  the  minds  of 
gentlemen  in  this  body,  the  idea  that  this  veto 
power  was  a favorite  measure  of  the  fathers  of 
the  Constitution,  and  particularly  that  portion 
of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  who  were 
afterwards  known  and  designated  as  the  foun- 
ders of  the  Democratic  party,  were  especially 
favorable  to  this  veto  power. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I beg  the  gentleman’s  par- 
don, if  he  will  allow  me  to  interrupt  him — 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  speaking  now  of  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt].  I did 
not  know  that  the  delegate  [Mr.  Hoadly],  had 
spoken  to  this  question. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  so  far  from  that  being 
the  case,  the  founders  of  this  government  act- 
ed upon  a distinction  in  this  matter.  While 
there  was  very  generally  a feeling  prevailing 
in  favor  of  the  veto  power  in  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, for  the  reason  that  it  was  a govern- 
ment of  delegated  and  limited  powers,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  enforcing  the  limitations  con- 
tained in  the  Federal  Constitution ; yet,  so  far 
as  the  State  Governments  were  concerned,  the 
history  of  the  time  shows  that  this  veto  power 
was  not  a favorite  doctrine  with  the  fathers  of 
the  Constitution.  I have  taken  the  pains  since 
I have  been  on  this  floor  to-day,  hastily  to 
examine  the  matter — the  only  preparation 
I have  been  able  to  make  after  reading 
the  notes  in  the  daily  Cincinnati  papers 
of  the  elaborately  prepared  speech  of  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton,  [Mr.  Hunt] — and 
I find,  Mr.  President,  upon  an  examina- 
tion of  a book  called  the  “Collection  of  Amer- 
ican Constitutions”  of  the  first  twenty-four 
States  admitted  into  the  Union,  that  all  those 
States — but  I am  getting  along  a little  too  rap- 
idly. I wish  to  speak  of  the  old  original  thir- 
teen before  I come  to  these.  I find,  that  of  the 
original  thirteen  States  at  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  there  were  only  four,  to  wit:  the 
State  of  Massachusetts,  the  State  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, the  State  of  New  York,  and  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  that  incorporated  this  two-thirds 
veto  into  their  Constitution.  All  the  other 
States  had  either  a majority  or  reconsideration 
veto,  or,  as  was  the  case  with  most  of  them,  no 
veto  at  all.  And  here  I wish  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  my  Democratic  friends,  who  appear  to 
have  been  led  off  by  the  ideas  of  General 
Jackson  with  reference  to  the  exercise  of  this 
veto  power  in  the  Federal  Government,  to  the 
fact,  that  the  States  which  were  considered  the 
old  Democratic  States  at  the  time  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  and  afterwards  in  the 
original  division  between  the  Federal  party  and 
the  old  Republican  party,  did  not  adopt  this 
veto.  The  State  of  Virginia — the  State  of  Jef- 
ferson— never  contained  a provision  in  its  Con- 
stitution upon  the  subject  of  this  veto  at  all, 
until  the  carpet-baggers  and  the  scalawags,  in 
1867,  incorporated  such  a provision  into  the 
Constitution,  which,  under  military  reconstruc- 
tion, was  adopted  in  1870.  Mr.  President,  the 
old  Constitution  of  1776,  framed  by  Patrick 
Henry  and  Thomas  Jefterson,  and  the  men  of 
the  Revolution,  contained  no  provision  for  a 


1118 


THE  VETO  POWER. [106th 


veto  power ; and  in  1830,  when  the  new  Con- 
vention was  called,  and  some  of  the  most  illus- 
trious of  the  fathers  of  the  Republic  were  sum- 
moned by  their  fellow-citizens  to  come  from 
their  retirement  and  take  part  in  the  formation 
of  that  Constitution — the  Marshalls,  and  Mon- 
roes and  Madisons — in  that  Convention  there 
was  not  a word  breathed  on  the  subject  of 
this  veto,  no  provison  was  made  for  it, 
and  they  made  no  change,  whatsoever,  upon 
this  subject.  I take  it,  then,  that  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  veto  power  derive  no  support,  so 
far  as  the  question  of  State  government  is  con- 
cerned, from  the  example  of  Virginia — from 
whose  Constitution,  by  the  way,  our  own  State 
Constitution  was  copied  in  this  respect ; for  it 
is  a well  known  fact  that  the  Convention  which 
framed  the  Constitution  was  presided  over  by 
Governor  Tiffin,  who,  with  Governor  Worth- 
ington, also,  was  from  my  native  county,  Jef- 
ferson, in  the  State  of  Virginia.  Indeed , a large 
number  of  the  leading  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1802  were  from  that  State.  Yet  there 
was  no  provision  incorporated  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  this  veto  power ; and  it  is  perfectly  well 
known  that  the  administration  of  Jefferson, 
the  Democratic  administration  then  in  power, 
and  with  whose  approbation  that  Constitution 
was  framed,  did  not  sanction  any  such  idea,  at 
all. 

Passing,  now,  from  the  State  of  Virginia,  I 
come  to  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  whose  Con- 
stitutional Convention  was  presided  over  by  Cas- 
well ; to  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  the  State  of 
Georgia,  the  State  of  Delaware,  the  State  of  Mary- 
land— all  old,  original  States — in  none  of  which 
was  there  any  veto  power,  with  the  exception  I 
have  named.  Coming  down  further : what  was 
the  history  of  the  first  States  admitted  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States?  The 
State  of  Vermont,  which  is  the  most  perfect 
specimen  of  a Democracy  which  we  have  in  this 
country,  contained  no  provision  with  reference 
to  the  veto  power.  The  same  was  the  case  with 
reference  to  the  State  of  Kentucky,  except  that 
a provision  for  a majority,  or  reconsideration, 
veto  was  inserted  in  its  Constitution.  And, 
coming  to  the  next  State,  I wish  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt] 
to  the  record  of  Andrew  Jackson  upon  this 
subject. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I wish  to  ask  the  gentleman, 
who  spoke  of  Vermont  being  a perfect  Democ- 
racy, if  that  is  in  consequence  of  there  being  so 
few  Democrats  in  that  State  ? 

Mr.  COATS.  If  I may  be  allowed  to  answer, 
as  the  only  Representative  upon  this  floor  of  that 
State,  I do  not  think  that  would  prove  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  allow  me  to  ask,  whether 
the  carpet-baggers  and  scalawags  have  done  as 
much  for  North  Carolina,  and  South  Carolina, 
and  Georgia,  as  he  says  they  have  done  for 
Virginia? 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  sir;  except  they  have  in- 
serted a two-thirds  veto  in  the  Constitutions  of 
those  States,  which  did  not  exist  under  the  old 
Constitutions. 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton,  who  has  referred  the  Convention 
to  the  authority  of  Old  Hickory. 


ilton  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Either  one  that  referred  to  this 
veto  power. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  There  are  ten  of  us. 

Mr.  BABER.  Either  one  of  the  two  who 
argued  the  question,  [Messrs.  Hunt  and 
Hoadly].  In  the  Constitutional  Convention  of 
Tennessee,  held  at  Knoxville,  in  1796,  on  the 
6th  of  February,  amongst  the  members  of  that 
Convention  was  Andrew  Jackson,  afterwards 
President  of  the  United  States.  His  name  is 
signed  as  a member  of  that  Convention,  and 
yet,  in  the  Convention  which  framed  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  where,  if 
this  veto  power  had  been  so  very  dear  to  the 
men  of  that  day,  some  provision  securing  it 
would  have  been  made.  So  far  from  that  being 
the  case,  there  was  only  provision  made  in  that 
Constitution,  that  the  Governor  should  have  the 
majority  or  reconsideration  veto,  as  provided 
for  in  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  which  I shall  most 
cordially  support. 

Mr.  COATS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  suggest,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  was  modeled  from  the  Constitution  of  the 
State  of  Tennessee?  If  he  will  go  over  the  two 
Constitutions,  section  by  section,  as  I have,  he 
will  find  over  twenty  sections,  I believe,  that 
are  identical. 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  no  doubt  the  gentleman 
from  Union  [Mr.  Coats],  is  correct  about  this 
matter. 

Coming  down  still  further,  take  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State  of  Kentucky,  framed  August 
17,  1799.  Nobody  doubts  of  what  party  were 
the  class  of  men  who  controlled  the  politics  of 
the  State  of  Kentucky.  Every  one  knows  that 
the  power  of  the  Jefferson  administration  was 
the  power  dominant  there,  and  yet  the  Consti- 
tution of  Kentucky  contained  a provision  pro- 
viding only  for  this  majority  or  reconsideration 
veto. 

Not  to  go  further  into  detail,  examine  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  of  1802 ; the 
Constitution  of  Indiana,  adopted  June  10, 1816; 
the  Constitution  of  Illinois,  adopted  August  26, 
1818;  the  Constitution  of  Alabama,  adopted 
August  2,  1819;  the  Constitution  of  Missouri, 
adopted  June  12, 1820,  and  the  Constitutions  of 
what  were  called  the  old  twenty-four  States, 
previous  to  the  agitation,  with  regard  to  the 
exercise  of  the  veto  power  by  General  Jackson, 
in  the  Federal  Government,  and  you  will  find 
no  support  for  your  two-thirds  veto ; but  seven 
had  it.  Of  the  eleven  States  that  came  in  after- 
wards, the  States  of  Mississippi  and  Louisiana 
were  the  only  ones  that  adopted  this  veto. 
Louisiana  adopted  it  for  the  reason  that  she  had 
a large  foreign  population  of  French,  and  dis- 
affected Spaniards ; and  it  was  thought  neces- 
sary, for  the  safety  of  the  government,  that  the 
Governor  should  exercise  the  veto  power. 
Therefore,  this  record,  which  has  been  got  up  so 
fancifully  by  my  young  friend  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt],  when  tested  by  the  facts  of  history, 
will  not  stand  for  a moment.  Why,  Mr.  Presi- 
i dent,  he  went  away  back  to  ancient  history, 
and  cited  the  Tribunes  of  the  People  of  Rome, 
as  if  there  were  any  analogy  between  their 
case  and  ours.  The  Tribunes  of  the  People  of 


Baber,  Yoris,  Coats,  Hoadly.  [Thursday, 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Which  gentleman  from  Ham- 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Baber,  Hunt,  Hoadly. 


1119 


Day.] 

February  5, 1874.] 


Kome,  as  the  representatives  of  the  common 
people,  were  in  contest  with  the  patricians. 
We  have  no  patricians  in  this  country.  Our 
representatives  stand  as  the  representatives  of 
the  people.  The  parallel  of  the  gentleman, 
therefore,  falls  to  the  ground,  and  the  whole  of 
the  fine-spun  argument  which  he  has  built  upon 
it,  goes  with  it.  But,  Mr.  President,  coming 
down  still  further  in  the  history  of  this  matter, 
we  find  that,  as  I have  stated,  only  nine  of  the 
twenty-four  States  had  this  provision.  Com- 
ing down  further  still,  we  find  that  it  was  not 
until  after  the  excitement  that  commenced  with 
the  exercise  of  the  veto  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  with  the  questions  growing 
out  of  the  national  banking  system  in  1836,  that 
they  commenced  to  engraft  this  veto  power 
into  the  Constitutions  of  the  new  States.  I 
recollect  well,  sir,  hearing,  when  I was  a boy, 
in  Virginia,  the  remark  made  calling  attention 
to  the  difference  between  the  legislation  of  the 
State  of  Virginia  and  the  legislation  of  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania.  In  the  latter  State,  the  Gov- 
ernor became  a sort  of  autocrat,  exercising  a 
power  that  required  a two-thirds  vote  to  over- 
rule it.  The  matter  became  notorious,  and  the 
report  was  circulated  that,  after  bills  were 
passed  through  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylva- 
nia, the  signature  of  the  Governor  was  either 
bought  or  sold,  for  the  purpose  of  vetoing  or 
passing  the  bill ; and  it  was  a very  profitable 
thing  for  the  Governor.  There  never  was  any 
such  disgraceful  legislation  as  this  existing  in 
the  States  where  the  veto  power  was  not  con- 
ferred ; and  it  seems  to  me,  looking  back  at  the 
history  of  the  past,  looking  at  the  distinction 
between  the  exercise  of  this  power  in  the  Fed- 
eral Government,  and  its  exercise  in  the  gov- 
ernments of  the  States,  that  gentlemen  on  this 
floor  make  a very  great  mistake  when  they  seek 
here,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  where  the  people  have 
never  asked  for  it,  and  where  the  majority  of 
them  have  been  opposed  to  it,  to  establish  a sort 
of  one-man  power.  Who  is  the  Governor? 
How  much  greater  is  he  than  any  other 
representative  of  the  people,  in  either 
branch  of  the  Legislature,  in  regard  to  qualifi- 
cations, that  he  should  exercise  this  power  of 
stopping  the  action  of  the  majority  of  the  Leg- 
islature ? I concur  with  the  remarks  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  and  by 
other  gentlemen  upon  this  floor,  that  it  would 
be  well  to  have  a reconsideration  veto.  I think 
that  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  providing  that 
bills  shall  be  presented  within  three  days  be- 
fore the  adjournment,  would  prevent  all  this 
trouble  in  regard  to  hasty  legislation,  this  dif- 
ficulty of  rushing  everything  through  at  the 
end  of  the  session.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  ve- 
to power  thus  conferred  upon  the  Governor 
would  be  effectual  enough  for  all  purposes. 
But  gentlemen  reply,  that  unless  you  give  a 
two-thirds  veto,  it  does  not  amount  to  anything. 
I cite  them  to  the  fact,  that  in  ten  or  eleven 
States  of  this  union,  including  the  States  of 
Indiana,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  Missouri, 
the  State  of  old  Democratic  “ hard  money,” 
Tom  Benton,  the  only  veto  power  that  ever  ex- 
isted there,  was  this  majority,  or  reconsider- 
ation, veto.  It  is  a well  known  fact,  that 
ninety-nine  out  of  every  hundred  bills  that  are 


passed,  are  non-political,  and  the  veto  of  the 
Governor,  calling  the  attention  of  the  Legisla- 
ture to  any  matter,  and  asking  for  a reconsider- 
ation of  it,  has  always  had  the  effect  of  defeat- 
ing bad  measures  in  the  Legislature.  If  it 
should  not  have  that  effect,  and  if  the  Represen- 
tatives of  the  people  choose  to  take  the  respon- 
sibility of  supporting  a bad  law,  why  let  them 
take  it,  and  let  them  answer  to  their  constitu- 
ents, and  not  seek  to  shelter  themselves  behind 
any  Governor’s  coat  tail. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I do  not  intend  to  pro- 
long this  debate  any  further.  I simply  rise  for 
the  purpose  of  correcting  the  history  of  this 
matter.  My  friend  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease]  has 
said,  as  I understand  him,  that  there  were  only 
some  three  or  four  States  that  possessed  this 
majority  re-consideration  veto.  The  fact  is, 
that  there  are  twenty-one  States  of  the  Union 
now  requiring  this  two-thirds  veto ; one  State, 
— Maryland — a three-fifths  veto.  There  are  ten 
that  possess  the  majority  veto,  and  five — Dela- 
ware, Ohio,  North  Carolina,  Rhode  Island  and 
West  Virginia — that  have  no  veto  at  all.  If 
anybody  will  look  at  the  legislation  of  these 
States,  I think  he  will  find  that  there  is  less  to 
be  complained  of  with  regard  to  the  legislation 
of  Ohio,  and  the  States  of  this  class,  than  in  the 
States  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  where 
they  have  had  this  veto  power.  What  would 
be  gained  by  giving  the  Governor  a veto  in 
this  State?  If  you  fear  corruption,  as  my 
friend  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  has  said,  it  is  a 
great  deal  easier  to  corrupt  one  man,  than  it  is 
to  corrupt  a hundred.  There  is  nothing  at  all 
in  their  argument;  and  it  seems  tome  that  if, 
after  having  been  without  this  veto  power  in 
Ohio  for  the  last  seventy  years,  you  now  go  to 
work  and  insert  it  in  this  Constitution,  you 
will  cause  a very  large  vote  to  be  cast  against 
the  Constitution  itself.  If  you  turn  to  the  Re- 
port of  the  Debates  of  the  old  Convention, 
Volume  II,  page  293,  you  will  find  that  even 
upon  the  very  mild  proposition  offered  by  Mr. 
Mason,  of  Clarke  county,  to  allow  this  re-con- 
sideration veto,  the  vote  stood — yeas  41,  nays 
50.  And  I want  to  call  attention  to  the  number 
of  distinguished  Democrats  who  voted  against 
conferring  even  the  majority,  or  veto  power : 
Blair,  Clark,  Collings,  Hawkins,  Johnson,  Ken- 
non,  Lawrence,  Manon,  Patterson,  Ranney — 
who  impeaches  his  Democracy? — Smith  of  Wy- 
andot, Thompson  of  Shelby,  Warren  and  Way: 
showing  that  that  Convention  would  not  adopt 
the  veto,  even  in  its  mildest  form. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Which  Convention  does  the 
gentleman  refer  to,  the  Ohio  Convention  or  the 
Federal  Convention  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  The  Ohio  Convention  Reports, 
page  293  of  Volume  II.  That  is  the  trouble 
with  the  gentleman.  He  has  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution in  his  head  all  the  time ; and  when  he 
rose  to  speak,  he  read  his  arguments  with  refer- 
ence to  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power  in  the 
Federal  Government.  If  people  would  study  the 
horn  book  of  Democracy — the  writings  of  Jef- 
ferson and  Madison — they  would  learn  to  un- 
derstand the  difference  between  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment and  a State  Government;  and  that 
what  applies  to  the  one,  does  not  apply  to  the 
other. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How  recently  has  the  gen- 


1120 


THE  VETO  POWER. [106th 

Baber,  Hoadly,  Mullen.  [Thursday, 


tleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  studied  the 
horn  book  he  speaks  of? 

Mr.  BABER.  I was  raised  in  tlie  State  of 
Virginia,  and  I understood  what  were  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  party  that  governed  the  State  of 
Virginia,  long  before  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly]  ever  did. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  But  how  long  is  it  since  the 
gentleman  undertook  to  study  the  Constitution 
and  reform  the  politics  of  Ohio? 

Mr.  BABER.  Long  before  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  undertook  to  re- 
form the  country  by  running  an  independent 
machine.  [Laughter.] 

Now,  the  idea  of  these  men — and  I do  not 
wish  to  be  diverted  from  my  argument — was 
this : that  the  State  governments  rested  on  an 
entirely  different  basis  from  that  of  the  Federal 
Government.  The  Federal  Government  was 
possessed  of  limited  powers,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  guarding  these  limited  powers  this  veto  was 
entrusted  to  the  Federal  Executive.  But  that 
is  not  the  case  with  the  State  government. 
There  is  no  such  necessity  for  any  such  thing 
in  a State.  The  people  of  a State  are  able  to  take 
care  of  their  own  interests,  and  the  gentleman 
well  understands  that,  “when  the  reason  of  the 
rule  ceases,  the  rule  itself  should  there  cease.” 
I hope  this  proposition  will  be  voted  down,  and 
that  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  MULLEN.  I desire,  as  this  appears  to 
be  a general  class  meeting  upon  section  18,  to 
state  the  reasons  that  will  control  me  in  the  vote 
that  I may  give  upon  the  question  now  before 
the  House.  As  a delegate  to  this  Constitutional 
Convention,  I feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  make  such 
changes  in  the  organic  law  of  the  State  as  wis- 
dom and  experience  may  dictate  to  be  proper, 
and  only  such  changes  as  experience  warrants 
me  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  should  be  made 
in  the  organic  law  of  the  State.  I am  not  will- 
ing, Mr.  President,  to  go  out  upon  the  sea  of 
wild  experiment  in  the  formation  of  a Con- 
stitution for  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 
In  my  judgment,  the  proper  course  to  be  pur- 
sued by  ourselves,  as  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion, is  that  which  may  be  dictated  by  wisdom 
and  sound  judgment.  In  the  light  of  experi- 
ence, I ask  you,  Mr.  President,  if  there  is 
anything  in  the  history  of  Ohio  for  the  last 
three-quarters  of  a century,  to  warrant  this 
Convention  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  people  of  this  State  desire  the  veto  power  to 
be  vested  in  the  chief  executive  of  the  State  ? 
If  there  has  been  such  a desire  on  the  part  of 
any  considerable  portion  of  the  citizens  of  Ohio, 
I have  failed — utterly  failed — to  discover  it. 
I speak,  especially,  Mr.  President,  from  a 
knowledge  of  the  citizens  of  my  own  county 
with  whom  I have  conversed,  and  I undertake 
to  say,  that  not  ten  men  out  of  the  entire  popu- 
lation of  the  county,  are  desirous  of  having 
this  veto  power  conferred  upon  the  Governor. 
Why,  then,  Mr.  President,  seeing  that  this  is 
not  a progressive  movement,  should  we  be  asked 
to  go  baek.  This  is  not  a new  and  untried  ex- 
periment; it  is  older  than  the  government  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  or  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  not  the  outgrowth  of  a 
Republican  form  of  government;  because  I say, 
most  emphatically,  that  it  is  anti- Democratic ; 


that  it  is  opposed  to  every  principle  and  mea- 
sure of  a Republican  form  of  government.  It  is 
subversive  of  the  principles  of  a Republican  form 
of  government,  for  our  government  is  formed 
upon  the  basis  and  theory  of  self-government; 
and  it  was  for  the  reason  that  our  fathers  had 
suffered  from  this  extraordinary  power — this 
one-man  power — that  they  looked  about  them 
for  a more  liberalized  form  of  government.  I 
say  this  veto  power  is  the  outgrowth  of  an  il- 
liberal form  of  government.  It  suppresses  the 
majority  in  a Republican  form  of  government, 
and  our  theory  of  government  is  that  a majori- 
ty only  shall  rule  in  this  cpuntry,  and  if  a po- 
litical organization  has  succeeded  in  obtaining 
power  in  a State  or  in  the  Nation,  everybody  ac- 
cords to  that  organization  the  rightful  authority 
to  govern  according  to  the  rules  and  organization 
of  such  a body.  To  throw  in  this  extraordina- 
ry power,  which  is  illiberal  and  anti-democratic 
in  theory,  subverts  the  very  principles  of  our 
government — the  government  of  the  people  by 
the  people. 

And,  Mr.  President,  by  conferring  this  ex- 
traordinary power — the  veto  power — we  make 
three  distinctive  powers  of  legislation  in  the 
State  of  Ohio.  The  very  Article  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department  provides  that  the  legislative 
power  shall  be  vested  in  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives;  and  now  we  proceed 
further  and  say  that  this  legislative  power  of  the 
veto  shall  be  vested  in  the  Governor  of  the 
State,  thus  constituting  three  Legislative  De- 
partments in  the  State  of  Ohio. 

I am  opposed,  Mr.  President,  to  the  exercise 
of  the  veto  power,  or  to  vesting  the  exercise  of 
the  veto  power  in  the  Executive  of  the  State,  in 
any  form  or  in  any  shape ; but  if  we  are  to  have 
this  power,  I prefer  that  it  should  be  in  the 
mild  form  which  is  suggested  in  the  substitute 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell].  Yet  I am  opposed  to  the  substitute 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler;  but 
whether  this  latter  proposition  shall  become  a 
part  and  parcel  of  the  organic  law  of  the  land, 
or  whether  the  section,  as  it  now  stands,  shall 
become  a part  and  parcel  of  the  organic  law, 
would  it  not  be  a pitiable  spectacle  to  see  the 
Governor  of  the  State  enter  the  Senate  Chamber, 
or  the  Chamber  of  the  Representatives,  and 
have  the  members  bow  submissively  before 
him,  asking  him  what  law  they  should  or  should 
not  pass?  And  if  the  substitute  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  be  adopted, 
then  the  Governor  may  come  into  the  legislative 
halls,  not  only  to  exercise  this  veto  power,  but 
he  may  enter  them  as  an  advocate  for  the  mea- 
sure he  may  desire  to  have  passed,  pettifogging 
before  the  high  tribunal,  the  legislative  author- 
ity of  the  State  of  Ohio,  either  by  way  of  the 
veto,  or  by  asking  that  they  may  pass  certain 
measures  that  may  coincide  with  his  views. 
Then  I say,  Mr.  President,  that  you  cannot  pos- 
sibly present  the  proposition  for  conferring 
this  power,  in  any  form  that  I will  favor,  and  I 
am  satisfied  that  the  people  of  Ohio  desire  no 
such  thing.  For  three-quarters  of  a century, 
we  have  had  a Legislature  that  will  compare 
favorably  with  the  Legislature  of  any  other 
State,  or  with  the  legislative  body  of  the  Union. 
Where  has  been  the  extraordinary  legislation 
that  we  are  now  asked  to  prohibit  by  conferring 


Day.]  THE  VETO  POWER.  _ 

February  5,  1874.]  Mullen,  Burns,  Baber,  Boot,  Clark  of  R.,  West,  etc. 


1121 


this  veto  power?  Has  there  been  anything 
hastily  enacted  ? Suppose  there  has  been  legis- 
lation that  is  improper ; suppose  a law  is  enact- 
ed in  1874  that  is  not  a good  law,  and  that  should 
not  have  been  passed,  the  people  will  right 
themselves  in  1875,  without  this  extraordinary 
veto  power  vested  in  the  Governor.  Let  the 
matter  remain,  therefore,  as  our  fathers  estab- 
lished it  in  1802,  and  re-established  in  1851 ; 
and  I am  satisfied  that  the  people  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  will  coincide  with  their  views. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  section  18. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

[“No!  No!”] 

Mr.  BxlBER.  I demand  a call  of  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

Objection  was  made.  Eighteen  members 
rose  to  support  the  demand,  but  the  President 
declared  it  not  sustained. 

The  question  was  then  put  upon  the  motion 
to  adjourn,  which,  without  a division,  was  not 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  not  able  to  see  the  ne- 
cessity of  forcing  this  question  to  a vote  to- 
night. Several  gentlemen,  I know,  have  left 
the  Hall  under  the  impression  that  there  would 
be  no  vote  taken  to-night.  While  the  gentle- 
man from  Adams  [Mr.  Mullen],  was  talking, 
several  gentlemen,  I know,  left  under  that  im- 
pression. The  question  is  one  of  great  impor- 
tance, and  several  gentlemen,  upon  both  sides, 
desire  to  say  something  upon  the  subject.  It  is 
now  near  six  o’clock. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  like  to  know  what  is  the 
question  before  the  House. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  section  eighteen. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I think  the  demand 
for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  sustained.  There 
were  eighteen  gentlemen  who  voted  for  it,  and 
that  is  more  than  one-fifth. 

Mr.  ROOT.  That  question  has  been  decided 
and  is  past. 

Mr.  CLARK.  That  does  not  make  any  dif- 
ference. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I never  desire  to  speak  against 
time.  I never  did  in  my  life,  and  do  not  ad- 
mire the  practice ; but  I shall  be  forced  to  do  it 
at  this  moment,  until  a reasonable  hour  for  ad- 
journment. I simply  desire  to  say  that  the 
announcement  I made  is  not  a captious  one.  I 
desire  to  say  something  upon  this  question  in 
the  morning,  and  I know  that  the  gentleman 
from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample],  who  is  sitting  be- 
fore me,  desires  to  be  heard  upon  this  question 
to-morrow,  but  could  not  be  heard  to-day  on  ac- 
count of  the  condition  of  his  health.  And  there 
are  other  gentlemen — the  gentleman  from  Sum- 
mit [Mr.  Vobis],  if  I am  not  out  of  order  to 


name  them,  and  others — who  wish  to  speak  to 
the  question.  We  certainly  could  not  gain 
more  than  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  time  by 
going  on  now,  and  I think  it  is  a little  unkind 
to  force  any  gentleman  into  an  argument  on  this 
question  at  this  hour. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  that  the  Convention 
do  now  adjourn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  motion  is  not  in 
order,  as  it  was  the  last  motion  made. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns]  yield  the  floor  a moment  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Roll  was  then  called,  and  seventy-three 
members  answered  to  their  names,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Barnet,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Caldwell,  Campbell,  Carbery,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Foran,  Greene,  Gurley,  Hale, 
Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Johnson,  Layton,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips, 
Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Root,  Sample, 
Scofield,  Scribner,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tul- 
loss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Voorhis,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Watson,  Weaver,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Wil- 
son, Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  Presi- 
dent— 73. 

Mr.  WEST.  I ask  that  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  be  excused  at  this  call, 
as  he  came  to  me  previous  to  his  departure,  and 
asked  me  to  pair  with  him. 

No  objection  was  raised,  and  the  excuse  was 
granted. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  to  suspend  furth- 
er proceedings  under  the  call. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion do  now  adjourn. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  was  put,  and  declared 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I desire  to  inquire  for 
information  upon  a parliamentary  question 
whether,  pending  a motion  for  a call  of  the 
House,  a motion  to  adjourn  is  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  believes  it  is. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Pending  a call  of  the  House? 

The  PRESIDENT.  So  the  Chair  understands. 
The  Chair,  however,  will  put  the  motion  to  dis- 
pense with  further  proceedings  under  the 
call. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion do  now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon,  at  (5:40  p.m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


y.ii-73 


1122 


THE  VETO  POWER. 


[107  til 


Rickly,  Albright,  West,  Voris,  Burns,  Coats.  [Friday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  SEVENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FORTY-FIFTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Friday,  February  6,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  W.  F.  Black,  of  Indianapolis. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  83  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Messrs.  Johnson  and  Clay,  until  Monday  next, 
and  for  Mr.  Shaw,  for  an  indefinite  length  of 
time. 

Mr.  Clay  was  excused  for  absence  this  week. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PRESENTATION  OF  PETITIONS. 

Mr.  RICKLY  presented  the  petition  of  Thos. 
Jackson,  and  250  other  citizens,  of  both  sexes, 
of  Smith  township,  Belmont  county,  praying 
that  the  following  clause  may  be  adopted  in  the 
Constitution : 

No  license  shall  hereafter  be  granted  for  the  traffic  in 
intoxicating  liquors  in  this  State;  but  the  General  Assem- 
bly may  have  power  to  legislate  against  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  all  intoxicating  beverages. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT  presented  the  petition  of 
Wm.  Logan,  and  89  other  citizens  of  Guernsey 
and  Harrison  counties,  for  the  acknowledgment 
of  Almighty  God  and  the  Christian  Religion  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  WEST  presented  the  petition  of  David 
C.  Hockettand,  and  253  other  citizens  of  Logan 
county,  praying  for  an  acknowledgment  of 
Almighty  God  and  the  Christian  Religion  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  WEST  presented  the  petition  of  E.  D. 
Smith,  and  44  other  citizens  of  Logan  county, 
asking  that  the  clause  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  re- 
lating to  religion,  morality  and  knowledge, 
remain  unchanged,  and  that  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  this  as  a Christian  Commonwealth  be 
inserted. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  WEST  presented  the  petition  of  W.  N. 
Vance,  and  eighty  other  citizens  of  Logan 
county,  against  license,  and  asking  that  the 
Legislature  have  power  to  provide  against  the 
evil  resulting  from,  and  prohibit  the  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors. 


Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr. VORIS  presented  the  petition  of  President 
S.  H.  McCollister,  and  105  other  citizens  of 
Summit  county,  praying  that  no  license  in  in- 
toxicating liquors  be  granted;  but  that  the 
General  Assembly  may  adopt  a local  option 
law. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

SPECIAL  ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  that  the  Convention 
now  proceed  to  the  special  order  of  the  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  moved  and  second- 
ed, that  the  Convention  proceed  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  special  order  of  the  day,  being 
Proposition  No.  190. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  under  con- 
sideration is  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  to  strike  out  section  18, 
on  which  question  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I did  not  understand  that  I 
was  entitled  to  the  floor. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I understood  the  gentle- 
man to  yield  the  floor,  on  yesterday,  for  a mo- 
tion to  adjourn. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I yield  the  floor  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Union  [Mr.CoATs],  who,  I understand, 
desires  to  be  heard  upon  the  question. 

Mr.  COATS.  In  justice  to  myself,  I will  say, 
that  I do  not  entertain  the  belief  that  the  re- 
marks 1 shall  make,  in  the  brief  time  alloted  to 
me,  in  the  present  stage  of  the  discussion  of  this 
question,  will,  materially,  influence  the  judg- 
ment of  members,  or  affect  their  action,  in  re- 
gard to  the  votes  that  they  may  have  already 
determined  to  give,  either  in  support  of,  or 
against,  the  proposition  now  under  considera- 
tion. Yet  a sense  of  duty  prompts  me  to  raise 
my  voice,  at  this  time,  to  the  end  that  I may,  in 
this  way,  as  well  as  with  my  vote,  stand  here, 
in  my  place,  as  a member  of  this  Convention, 
and  be  found  recorded,  now,  as  well  as  through 
coming  time,  in  opposition  to  this  grant  of 
power  to  the  Executive  of  our  State — a State 
that,  during  more  than  three  score  years  and  ten 
of  its  existence  has  lived,  prospered,  and  grown 
great,  among  the  family  of  States,  denying  to 
the  Executive,  during  the  whole  of  that  time, 
this  prerogative.  I am  opposed  to  clothing  the 
Executive,  now,  with  this  prerogative,  in  any 
I and  all  forms  that  it  has  or  may  assume  here, 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER. 1123 

February  6, 1874.]  Coats. 


with  a view  of  being  incorporated  into  our  fun- 
damental law.  Yet,  as  a matter  of  compromise, 

I may  support  the  proposition  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  as  that 
places  it  in  the  least  obnoxious  form  possible  in 
this  direction,  and,  as  I think,  renders  the  prin- 
ciple harmless  in  practical  results.  If,  there- 
fore, I must  drink  this  cup,  or  take  the  pre- 
scribed dose,  I prefer  to  take  it  in  a diluted  form 
— the  weaker  in  form,  the  better  it  will  commend 
itself  to  my  judgment  and  support.  I oppose 
conferring  this  grant  of  power  by  and  in  our 
fundamental  law,  because,  I believe,  in  principle 
it  is  anti-Democratic,  anti-Republican,  and,  in 
all  its  features,  opposed  to  the  progressive  spirit 
of  the  present  age;  and,  in  like  opposition  to  the 
present  temper  and  will  of  the  people — to  their 
present  temper,  at  least. 

This  power  was  granted  to  our  National  Ex- 
ecutive by  a constitutional  provision,  as  a mat- 
ter of  compromise  between  the  friends  and  ad- 
vocates of  a free,  liberal,  government  of  the 
people,  for  the  people,  based  on  the  sovereignty 
of  the  people,  and  the  friends  and  advocates  of 
a strong,  centralized  government,  in  which  the 
people  should  have  but  a small  and  restricted 
voice.  In  other  words,  this  grant  of  power,  as 
we  find  it  in  our  National  Constitution,  was  a 
concession  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  privi- 
lege, made  to  the  friends  and  advocates  of  prerog- 
ative against  privilege;  these  two  parties  being 
represented  (and,  probably  nearly  equally  di- 
vided in  sentiment)  in  the  Convention  that 
formed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
The  student  learns,  very  early  in  his  researches 
into  the  history  of  representative  governments, 
that  there  have  ever  been  found  in  existence, 
therein,  two  parties.  In  the  early  history  of 
the  English  Government,  these  parties  were 
known  as  the  “ court  party  ” and  the  “ country 
party  ” — the  one  in  favor  of  a strong,  central- 
ized, power — the  friends  of  the  monarch ; the 
other,  or  country  party,  in  favor  of  a diffusive 
power,  emanating  from  the  consent  of  the  gov- 
erned. These  last — the  people,  and  the  friends 
of  the  people — ever  contending  for  the  rights  of 
the  masses  of  the  people  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  the  monarch. 

These  two  parties  existed  in  England  for 
many  years;  in  course  of  time,  taking  the 
names,  respectively,  Whig  and  Tory.  In  our 
own  country,  very  early  in  its  history,  these 
same  parties  were  found  to  exist;  which,  after 
the  war  of  the  Revolution,  took  the  names,  re- 
spectively, Federal  and  Republican.  The  Fed- 
eral party  was  friendly  to,  and  its  adherents 
were  the  zealous  advocates  of  a strong  govern- 
ment— a centralized  government,  with  officers 
to  administer  it  elected  for  life,  during  good  be- 
havior, or  for  long  terms  of  years.  The  Re- 
publican party,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  re- 
mark, was  opposed  to  centralization  of  power 
in  any  and  all  forms  whatsoever.  This  last 
named  party,  I assume,  then,  like  the  “country 
party  ” of  earlier  time,  .was  the  party  of  the 
people;  and  its  adherents,  the  firm  friends  and 
earnest  advocates  of  popular  government:  a 
government  based  on  the  expressed  will  and 
voice  of  the  people,  as  the  legitimate  source  of 
power.  In  support  of  this  assumption,  I now 
propose  to  refer,  briefly,  to  the  Debates  in  the 
Convention  that  formed  our  National  organic 


law,  as  preserved  and  found  in  the  “Madison 
Papers ;”  by  reference  to  which,  I find,  that  the 
distinguished  and  able  men  in  that  body  who 
opposed  the  veto  principle  of  power,  then 
sought  to  be  conferred  on  the  Executive  by  a 
Constitutional  provision,  in  any  form  or  modi- 
fication whatever,  were — Benjamin  Franklin, 
George  Mason,  Pierce  Butler,  Roger  Sherman 
and  Gunning  Bedford.  Those  who  favored  the 
veto  principle  in  a mild  or  modified  form,  were 
— James  Madison  and  Elbridge  Gerry.  The  ad- 
vocates of  an  absolute  and  unqualified  veto, 
were — Alexander  Hamilton  and  James  Wilson. 
These  are  all  the  names  found  to  be  recorded 
for  or  against  the  principle  of  veto  in  that  Con- 
vention. From  these  old  “Madison  Papers,” 
meager  though  they  are — and  unfortunately  so, 
as  I think — I find  some  of  the  reasons  given  by 
some  of  these  distinguished  men  before  named. 
Roger  Sherman  opposed  this  grant  of  power 
being  conferred  on  the  Executive,  for  the  rea- 
son that  he  was  unwilling  to  confer  a grant  of 
power  that  would  “ enable  one  man  to  stop  the 
will  of  many.  He  did  not  believe  that 
one  man  could  be  found  so  far  above 
all  others  in  wisdom.”  Mr.  Madison  was 
in  favor  of  a qualified  veto,  yet  he 
believed  that  a modified  veto  might  be 
so  regulated  as  to  be  made  virtually  absolute, 
and,  therefore,  he  seems  to  have  doubted  its  ex- 
pediency. It  nowhere,  I think,  appears  that 
he  was  a very  strong  advocate  of  the  veto 
power,  in  even  a modified  form.  Alexander 
Hamilton  was  the  advocate  of  an  absolute  and 
unqualified  veto,  and,  so  far  as  I can  learn,  he 
was  the  only  one  in  that  Convention  whose 
voice,  to  any  considerable  extent,  was  heard  in 
its  advocacy — he  was  doubtless  its  real  cham- 
pion. He  thought  “there  was  no  danger  to  be 
apprehended  of  the  abuse  of  such  power,  under 
our  Constitution,  and  under  our  form  of  govern- 
ment, as  the  King  of  England  had  not  exerted 
his  negative  since  the  Revolution  of  1688.” 
As  a matter  of  history,  I may  here  remark,  just 
one  hundred  years  had  then  elapsed,  since  a 
monarch  had  resorted  to  its  use.  To  further 
sustain  and  make  clear  the  truth  of  the  position 
I have  taken  in  this  matter,  to  some  extent  at 
least,  I will  now  read,  as  a part  of  my  remarks 
on  this  proposition,  what  is  found  in  “Elliott’s 
Debates,”  by  reference  to  which,  I find  Alex- 
ander Hamilton’s  plan  of  government,  sub- 
mitted by  him  to  the  Convention  then  engaged 
in  preparing  the  present  Constitution  of  the 
United  States;  Edmund  Randolph, of  Virginia, 
Charles  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina,  and 
William  Patterson,  of  New  Jersey,  having  pre- 
viously submitted  draughts  of  a Constitution  or 
plan  of  government,  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Convention.  The  portion  of  Mr.  Hamilton’s 
plan,  which  I will  now  read,  is  as  follows : 

“3.  The  Senate  to  consist  of  persons  elected,  to  serve 
during  good  behavior;  their  election  to  be  made  by  elec- 
tors chosen  for  that  purpose  by  the  people.  In  order  to 
this,  the  States  to  be  divided  into  election  districts.  On  the 
death,  removal,  or  resignation  of  any  Senator,  his  place 
to  be  filled  out  of  the  district  from  which  he  came. 

“4.  The  supreme  executive  authority  of  the  United 
States  to  be  vested  in  a Governor,  to  be  elected  to  serve 
during  good  behavior.  His  election  to  be  made  by  elec- 
tors, chosen  by  the  people  in  the  election  districts  afore- 
said. His  authorities  and  functions  to  be  as  follows: 
******* 

“10.  All  laws  of  particular  States,  contrary  to  the  Con- 
stitution or  laws  of  the  United  States,  to  be  utterly  void. 


1124 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Coats. 


[107th 

[Friday, 


And  the  better  to  prevent  such  laws  being  passed,  the 
Governor  or  President  of  each  State  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  general  government,  and  shall  have  a negative 
upon  the  laws  about  to  be  passed  in  the  State  of  which  he 
is  Governor  or  President. 

“11.  No  State  to  have  any  forces,  land  or  naval;  and 
the  militia  of  all  the  States  to  be  under  the  sole  and  ex- 
clusive direction  of  the  United  States;  the  officers  of 
which  to  be  appointed  and  commissioned  by  them.” 

The  following  are,  in  part,  Mr.  Hamilton’s 
comments  upon,  and  in  support  of,  his  plan : 

“1  believe  the  British  Government  forms  the  best  model 
the  world  ever  produced,  and  such  nas  been  its  progress 
in  the  minds  of  the  many  that  this  truth  gradually  gains 
ground.  This  government  has  for  its  object  public 
strength  and  individual  security.  It  is  said  with  us  to  be 
unattainable.  If  it  was  once  formed  it  would  maintain 
itself.  All  communities  divide  themselves  into  the  few 
and  the  many.  The  first  are  the  rich  and  the  well  born, 
the  other,  the  masses  of  the  people.  The  voice  of  the  peo- 
ple has  been  said  to  be  the  voice  of  God:  and  however 
generally  this  maxim  has  been  quoted  and  bel  ieved,  it  is 
not  true  in  fact.  The  people  are  turbulent  and  changing ; 
they  seldom  judge  or  determine  right.  Give,  therefore, 
to  the  first  class  a distinct,  permanent  share  in  the  govern- 
ment. They  will  check  the  unsteadiness  of  the  second,  and 
as  they  cannot  receive  any  advantage  by  a change,  they, 
therefore,  will  ever  maintain  good  government.  Can  a 
Democratic  Assembly,  who  annually  revolve  in  the  mass 
of  the  people,  be  supposed  steadily  to  pursue  the  public 
good?  Nothing  but  a permanent  body  can  check  the  im- 
prudence of  Democracy.  Their  turbulent  and  uncon- 
trolling disposition  requires  checks  ” * * * * 

“Let  one  body  of  the  Legislature  be  constituted  during 
good  behavior  or  life.  Let  one  executive  be  appointed 
who  dar<  s execute  his  powers.  It  may  be  asked,  is  this 
a Republican  system?  It  is  strictly  so  as  long  as  they 
remain  elective.  And  let  me  observe  that  an  executive 
is  less  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  people  when  in 
office  during  life,  than  for  seven  years. 

“It  may  be  said  that  this  constitutes  an  elective  mon- 
archy. Pray  what  is  a monarchy  ? May  not  the  Govern- 
ors of  the  respective  States  be  considered  in  that  light? 
but  by  making  the  executive  subject  to  impeachment,  the 
term  monarchy  cannot  apply.  These  elective  monax-chs 
have  produced  tumult  in  Rome,  and  are  equally  danger- 
ous to  peace  in  Poland;  but  this  cannot  apply  to  the  mode 
in  which  I would  propose  the  election.  Let  electors  be 
appointed  in  each  of  the  States  to  elect  the  executive,  to 
consist  of  two  branches,  and  I would  give  to  them  the  un- 
limited power  of  passing  all  laws  without  exception.  The 
Assembly  to  be  elected  for  three  years  by  the  people  in 
districts— the  Senate  to  be  elected  by  electors  to  be  chosen 
for  that  purpose  by  the  people,  and  to  remain  in  office 
during  life.  The  executive  to  have  the  power  of  negativ- 
ing all  laws;  to  make  war  or  jxeace,  with  the  advice  of 
the  Senate— to  make  treaties  with  their  advice,  but  have 
the  sole  direction  of  all  military  operations,  and  to  send 
ambassadors,  and  appoint  all  militarv  officers,  and  to 
pardon  all  offendei-s,  treason  excepted,  unless  by  advice 
of  the  Senate.  On  his  death  or  removal,  the  President  of 
the  Senate  to  officiate,  with  the  same  powers,  until  an- 
other is  elected.  Supi’eme  i udicial  officers  to  be  appointed 
by  the  executive  ana  the  Senate.  The  Legislature  to  ap- 
point courts  in  each  State,  so  as  to  make  the  State  gov- 
ernments unnecessary  to  it. 

“All  State  laws  to  be  absolutely  void,  which  contravene 
the  general  laws.  An  officer  to  be  appointed  in  each 
State  to  have  a negative  on  all  State  laws.  All  the  mili- 
tia, and  the  appointment  of  officers,  to  be  under  the 
National  government.”— [Elliott’s  Debates,  Yol.  4,  page 
82,  Secret  Proceedings.] 

I cannot  commend  this  plan  of  government 
to  the  people  of  this  country  for  adoption.  Its 
principles  do  not  accord  with  my  ideas  of  pop- 
ular government,  or  my  sense  of  right;  and 
yet,  had  the  friends  of  a strong  government 
prevailed  at  that  time,  this  plan  might  have 
been  adopted  by  the  Convention  that  framed 
the  organic  law  of  our  nation ; the  beauties  of 
which  we  might  have  practically  tested  long 
ere  this.  I do,  however,  commend  this  Federal 
Hamiltonian  plan  to  the  careful  and  candid 
consideration  of  all  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion ; and  especially  do  I commend  it  to  the 
consideration  of  such  as  are  now  advocates  of 
the  veto  in  our  State  Constitution.  I ask  that 


they  shall  study  well  the  arguments,  and  ana- 
lyze the  reasoning  employed  by  General  Ham- 
ilton in  favor  of  this  prerogative,  and  his 
reasons,  also,  for  advocating  a strong,  central- 
ized Executive  Federal  Government;  and 
if  this  plan,  and  the  arguments  in  its  favor, 
accord  with  their  ideas  of  what,  in  the  light  of 
past  experience,  of  the  practical  working  of  our 
system  of  government,  should  have  been  adopt- 
ed then  by  our  forefathers,  or  ought  now  to  be 
adopted  by  us,  for  the  government  of  our  State, 
then  they  should  begin  by  advocating  and  se- 
curing the  incorporation  of  the  prerogative 
now  under  consideration  into  our  State  Consti- 
tution ; and  with  this  retrograde  movement  as 
a beginning,  all  other  matters  and  things  neces- 
sary to  secure  centralized  power,  and  a strong 
Federal  government  of  this  country  against 
the  people — now  the  sovereigns — will  be  the 
more  easily  attained.  All  great  evils  result 
from  small  beginnings,  is  our  experience. 

In  the  course  of  this  debate,  I have  been  forci- 
bly reminded  of  the  striking  similarity  that  the 
arguments  and  reasonings  here  used,  by  the 
friends  and  advocates  of  prerogative,  bear  to  the 
arguments  and  reasoning  employed  by  the  early 
friends  of  prerogative  against  privilege,  to 
which  I have  before  alluded ; these  were,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  the  arguments  and  reason- 
ing employed  by  Alexander  Hamilton,  to 
whose  memory  and  fame  I would  not  do  injus- 
tice. He  was  a man  of  great  executive  ability, 
of  large  mental  endowments,  a genius  of  high 
order,  as  a lawyer,  advocate  and  orator,  with 
few  equals  and  no  superiors,  in  and  of  his 
time ; but  with  all  his  greatness,  and  his  many 
good  qualities  of  head  and  heart,  he  was  a 
monarchist,  in  his  theory  of  government — hon- 
estly so,  I believe.  His  arguments  were  the 
old  arguments  of  monarchists;  against  popular 
government.  He  lacked  confidence  in  the  peo- 
ple. He  was  patriotic,  and,  without  doubt,  sin- 
cere in  his  views  and  expressions.  His  patri- 
otism led  him  to  desire,  and  labor  to  effect  the 
overthrow  of  the  monarchical  power  of  Eng- 
land over  the  American  colonies,  that  he 
might  establish  a like  monarchical  power  at 
home,  over  those  colonies.  The  experience  of 
more  than  three-quarters  of  a century  proves 
to  the  satisfaction  of  reflecting  minds  that 
he  was  in  error  in  his  estimate  of  the  people,  as 
well  as  in  his  theory  of  government,  as  we  all 
now  believe.  And  the  enemies  of  Republican 
government,  everywhere,  have  been  forced  to 
concede  that  our  form  of  government,  of  the 
people,  deriving  all  its  just  powers  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed,  is  the  strongest  and 
best  government  ever  devised  by  human  wis- 
dow,  and  now  having  existence  on  the  face  of 
the  entire  globe.  The  kingly  prerogative  of 
veto,  like  a plague  spot,  is  fastened  upon  our 
National  Government,  in  the  organic  law,  having 
been  put  there  by  the  means  that  I have  before 
described,  where  it  is  festering,  disfiguring  the 
beauty  of  that  instrument,  and  marring  the  har- 
mony of  its,  otherwise,  symmetrical  propor- 
tions. It  may  have  accomplished  some  good,  but 
I have  failed  to  discover  when  and  where  its  exer- 
cise has  resulted  in  good  to  the  people.  Practic- 
ally, it  has  been,  in  its  effect,  an  absolute  negative, 
when  resorted  to  and  employed  by  an  Executive, 
except  when  interposed  by  Andrew  Johnson 


THE  VETO  POWER- 


1125 


Day.] 


February  6,  1874.] 


Coats. 


to  thwart  the  will  of  the  people,  expressed 
through  their  Representatives,  so  strong  and 
unequivocal  in  its  expression,  that,  for  once,  in 
the  history  of  its  exercise,  it  failed — signally 
failed — in  accomplishing  its  object,  and  the  will 
of  the  people  triumphed  over  executive  domi- 
nation ; and  I now  venture  the  opinion,  that  if 
this  prerogative  were,  to-day,  plucked  by  the 
roots  from  the  organic  law  of  the  nation,  it 
would  prove,  in  effect,  promotive  of  the  public 
good.  It  is  the  last  relic  of  monarchy  remain- 
ing to  disfigure  that  instrument.  I sincerely 
regret,  Mr.  President,  that  I am  unable 
to  see  the  force  of  the  arguments  em- 
ployed, and  the  reasoning  urged,  by  the  very 
able  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  here,  in 
behalf  of  this  proposition,  and  that,  seeing  and 
feeling  the  strength  and  force  thereof,  cease 
my  opposition  thereto,  and  give  it  my  aid  and 
support;  but,  being  wholly  unable  to  see  or 
feel  the  force  of  these  arguments  and  reasons, 
thus  far  presented  for  my  consideration,  I must, 
therefore,  consistent  with  my  convictions  of 
right,  still  stand  arrayed  against  it. 

And  now,  lest  I may  seem  obtuse  in  percep- 
tion, and  slow  of  understanding,  or  be  deemed 
captious  in  my  opposition  to  a measure,  sin- 
cerely regarded  by  its  advocates  as  meritorious, 
and  correct  in  principle,  I propose,  in  conclu- 
sion, to  notice,  very  briefly,  and,  to  some  ex- 
tent, analyze,  some  of  the  arguments  before  re- 
ferred to,  and  then  submit  to  the  candid  judg- 
ment of  this  Convention,  to  decide  whether  I 
ought  to  be  converted  thereby,  and  yield  my 
support  to  the  veto  power. 

The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Gris- 
wold] argued  in  favor  of  the  veto,  because  he 
believed,  in  Ohio,  the  people  were  burdened 
with  too  much  legislation,  too  many  laws; 
hence,  the  necessity  and  the  utility  of  the  veto 
power,  as  a remedy  for  this  evil ; claiming  that, 
in  the  State  of  New  York,  where  the  Executive 
is  now,  and,  during  its  existence  as  a State,  has 
been,  armed  with  this  prerogative,  this  evil  of 
which  we  complain  did  not  exist;  and  claim- 
ing, also,  as  a logical  deduction,  that  the  non- 
existence of  said  evil  was  due  to,  and  attributable 
directly,  to  this  power  of  Executive  negative — 
failing,  however,  to  show  that  this  power  had 
ever  been  exerted  by  any  executive  of  that 
State.  To  sustain  this  conclusion,  moreover, 
the  fact  has  been  developed  here,  and  demon- 
strated by  actual  comparison,  that  the  legisla- 
tion of  the  State  of  New  York  is  in  excess  of 
that  of  Ohio,  annually,  by  nearly,  or  quite,  a 
ratio  of  ten  to  one,  both  in  the  number  of  pages 
of  matter  and  legal  enactments.  So  much  for 
the  illustration,  and  the  deductions  of  the  gen- 
tleman therefrom.  The  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton, who  now  occupies  the  Chair  [Mr.  King], 
favored  conferring  this  power  on  the  Executive 
for  the  reason  that  it  had  once  been  demanded 
and  obtained  by  the  people  of  Rome,  as  a con- 
cession to  them,  and  for  their  protection  against 
the  tyranny  and  oppression  of  the  patricians, 
who,  I will  here  remark,  were  the  aristocracy 
of  Rome,  the  party  of  prerogative  against  priv- 
ilege; they  were  the  oppressors  of  the  people, 
who  were  the  plebeans.  I should  have  yielded 
to  this  reasoning,  and  this  very  plausible  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman,  but  for  the  reflection 
that  the  reasons  that  existed  for  its  demand  and 


use  then  and  there,  do  not  exist  here — never 
did  exist  with  us,  and  in  the  very  nature  and 
constitution  of  our  Government,  both  State  and 
National,  never  can  exist.  Therefore,  as  the 
reasoning  upon  which  this  argument  rested 
fails,  I trust  I will  be  pardoned  in  refusing  to 
be  converted  to  the  doctrine  by  the  argument 
aforesaid.  The  gentleman  from  Coshocton,  is 
strongly  in  favor  of  the  veto  principle,  for  the 
reason,  that,  in  his  judgment,  it  is  a great  Dem- 
ocratic measure.  I would  respectfully  ask  if 
the  doctrine  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  which 
was  rank  and  odious  Federalism  in  the  earty 
history  of  our  country,  has  now  become  a car- 
dinal principle  of  Democratic  faith  and  doc- 
trine ? If  so,  when,  I would  ask,  did  it  cease 
to  be  Federalism,  and  become  Democratic  in 
principle?  Surely  not  when  the  Constitution 
of  the  State  of  Tennessee  was  formed.  Gener- 
al Jackson,  whose  name  has  been  mentioned 
here,  by  members  in  favor  of  the  veto  princi- 
ple, was  a member  of  that  Convention.  The  veto 
power  was  not  conferred  on  the  Executive,  by 
any  provision  in  that  Constitution,  which  was 
formed  in  1796. 

It  is  a well  authenticated  historical  fact,  con- 
nected with  the  formation  of  the  first  Consti- 
tution of  Ohio,  that  came  to  my  knowledge 
nearly  a quarter  of  a century  ago,  that  the 
Convention  engaged  in  its  formation,  took  this 
Constitution  of  Tennessee  as  a model,  and  I 
have  compared,  in  my  place  here,  forty-seven 
sections  of  the  Ohio  Constitution  of  1802,  with 
the  Constitution  of  Tennessee  of  1796 — both 
now  before  me — and  find  them  with  slight  ver- 
bal alterations,  word  for  word,  and  letter  for 
letter,  identical ; the  one  a transcript  of  or  from 
the  other.  I think  more  than  sixty  sections  of 
the  Ohio  Constitution  of  1802,  were  copied  from 
that  of  the  State  Constitution  of  Tennessee, 
which  had  then  been  some  eight  years  in  opera- 
tion, and  found  to  work  well.  Jackson  used  the 
power — he  did  not  create  it.  I think  it  is  but 
simple  justice  to  the  character  and  memory  of 
the  good,  true  and  able  men  of  which  the  Ohio 
Convention  of  1802  was  composed,  to  attribute 
the  reason  of  their  action  in  this  matter  of  the 
veto  power  to  the  fact,  that  they  followed  a good 
Democratic  model — a Jacksonian  model — rather 
than  to  claim  it  as  the  result  of  their  prejudice 
against,  or  hostility  to  General  St.  Clair,  who 
had,  it  is  true,  interposed  his  veto,  to  an  odi- 
ous extent.  How  did  a proposition  of  this  kind 
meet  the  views  of  the  able  men  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1850-’51,  largely  Democratic,  as  has 
been  already  shown,  by  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin,  [Mr.  Baber]  ? The  proposition  was 
introduced  in  that  Convention  in  a form  exceed- 
ingly mild,  yet  it  met  with  little  favor,  with 
Democrats  then,  nor  can  I find  that  it  was 
claimed  to  be  a Democratic  measure  at  that 
time.  The  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns],  is  in  favor  of  conferring  this  power, 
because  it  merely  gives  to  the  Executive  the  right 
to  say,  “I  forbid  it,”  and  thereby  check  the 
passage,  by  the  General  Assembly,  of  such 
laws,  as  he  does  not  incline  to  approve,  and  thus 
refer  the  matter  back  to  the  people.  My  reply 
to  this  argument  is,  that  if  it  shall  require  two- 
thirds  or  even  three-fifths  of  the  members  of 
the  General  Assembly  to  pass  a law  over  the 
l Executive  veto,  then,  as  in  times  past,  it  becomes 


1126 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Coats,  Burns. 


ri07th 

[Friday, 


an  absolute  and  final  barrier,  interposed  against 
all  such  legislation  as  shall  fail  to  receive  the 
Executive  sanction — and  the  King’s  prerogative 
could  not  thwart  the  will  of  a majority  of  the 
people  more  effectually  and  finally. 

The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  has 
made  a lengthy,  eloquent  and  forcible  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  veto  power,  followed  and  sus- 
tained by  his  very  able  colleague  [Mr.  Hoadly]  ; 
and  while  their  arguments  and  reasoning  failed 
to  convince  me  of  the  utility,  or  crowning 
beauty,  of  this  Federal,  anti-Democratic,  anti- 
Republican  doctrine,  yet  I was  again  reminded 
of  the  striking  similarity  of  their  views  and 
arguments  as  compared  with  the  arguments 
and  reasoning  of  Alexander  Hamilton  ; and  I 
think  their  views  and  arguments  are,  and,  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  must  be,  the  views 
of  all  who  now  advocate,  or  in  times  past  have 
advocated,  a strong  government,  of  executive 
prerogative  against  privilege.  The  views  and 
arguments  of  these  able  gentlemen  from  Ham- 
ilton are  truly  Hamiltonian  in  spirit,  form  and 
ability.  General  Hamilton,  as  I have  before 
remarked,  was  a sincere  and  able  man ; and,  on 
my  part,  in  a spirit  of  sincerity,  I concede  to 
the  gentlemen  from  Hamilton  the  possession  of 
these  noble  qualities  of  mind  and  heart  ascribed 
to  him;  but,  I think  their  talents,  exhibited 
here  in  the  advocacy  of  this  proposition, 
are  worthy  of  a better  cause;  for,  like 
General  Hamilton,  I think  they  are,  also, 
in  the  wrong  in  their  advocacy  of  this  doc- 
trine. 

Mr.  President,  the  people  of  Ohio  are  intelli- 
gent, honest  and  patriotic;  and  I firmly  be- 
lieve they  will  repudiate  the  doctrine  advocated 
by  the  friends  of  this  prerogative,  if  the  propo- 
sition now  under  consideration  shall  prevail 
here,  and  be  submitted  to  them  as  an  integral 
part  of  a Constitution,  for  their  approval  or 
rejection.  Incorporate  this  principle  of  Exec- 
tive  veto  into  this  Constitutional  plan,  and  we 
shall  have  planted  the  seeds  of  death  in  its 
organism,  and,  in  the  language  of  John  Ran- 
dolph,  of  Roanoke,  it  will  come  from  our  hands 
with  the  “sardonic  grin  of  death”  stamped 
upon  its  features,  and,  I may  add,  with  a hor- 
rible squinting  towards  monarchy.  Verily, 

“ monster,  of  so  foul  a mien, 

To  be  hated,  needs  but  to  be  seen.” 

Such  a plan  may  live,  and  possess  feeble 
vitality,  with  this  virus  coursing  through  its 
system,  until  the  morning  of  the  day  when  the 
people  shall  pass  judgment  upon  it;  but  its  life 
will  be  such  as  is  described  in  language  usually 
employed  in  criminal  pleading,  after  alleging  a 
mortal  injury — it  will  languish,  and,  languisli- 
ingly,  will  live;  and  on  that  day  of  the  mortal 
injury,  wounding  and  poisoning  aforesaid,  dealt 
to  and  administered  by  this  Convention,  in  in- 
corporating into  its  system  this  proposition,  it 
will  die,  will  be  buried,  and  by  an  indignant 
people  consigned  to  that  deep  described  by 
Milton — 

“Below  the  lowest  deep,  a lower  deep.” 

I do  not  use  this  language  by  way  of  threat- 
ening, or  in  a threatening  sense,  nor  for  the 
purpose  of  intimidation,  and  trust  my  remarks 
will  not  be  received  in  that  light.  Such  use  of 
language,  here  or  elsewhere,  is  in  bad  taste.  I 


have  merely  given  expression  to  my  views,  and 
utterance  to  my  firm  and  candid  convictions,  in 
the  performance  of  what  I have  conceived  to  be 
my  duty,  connected  with  my  position  in  this 
Convention,  as  an  humble  member  thereof. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Were  it  not  for  the  fact,  Mr. 
President,  that  the  Convention  did  me  the  fa- 
vor, last  night,  to  adjourn  over  to  this  morning, 

I would  not  feel  disposed  to  say  anything  on 
the  question  under  discussion.  I am  not  at  all 
anxious  to  be  heard  in  this  Convention  upon 
this  subject.  I have  no  ambition  whatever  to 
be  prominent  upon  this  or  any  other  question 
that  comes  before  this  Convention,  further  than 
to  discharge  what  I believe  to  be  my  duty.  I 
generally  content  myself  with  a vote  upon  all 
questions  upon  which  I do  not  feel  an  especial 
and  particular  interest. 

When  this  question  was  before  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  for  discussion,  I took  occasion  to 
submit,  in  brief,  my  views  upon  it.  The  action 
of  the  Committee  was  in  accordance  with  my 
views  by  a very  large  majority.  Hoping  and 
believing  that  such  will  be  the  result  of  the  ac- 
tion of  this  Convention,  I have  contented  my- 
self with  the  idea  that  it  would  be  submitted  to 
a vote  without  any  particularly  extended  dis- 
cussion. But,  as  this  question  is  now  to  be  dis- 
posed of,  perhaps  finally,  I feel  a disposition  to 
say  what  I have  to  say,  now. 

I cannot  hope  or  expect,  Mr.  President,  to 
change  the  mind  of  a single  gentleman  on  this 
floor,  by  anything  I may  say;  for, probably, 
all  have  made  up  their  minds,  and  come  to  the 
conclusions  upon  which  they  expect  to  vote. 

My  eloquent  and  distinguished  friend  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery],  in  his  flights  of  im- 
agination and  eloquence,  undertook  to  carry  the 
humble  delegate  from  Richland  with  him  to 
his  lofty  heights,  and,  in  mid-air,  feeling  the 
weight  of  the  load,  and  the  weakness  of  his 
pinions,  he  was  forced  to  abandon  the  under- 
taking, and  leave  the  unfortunate  delegate  from 
Richland  in  mid-air  to  take  care  of  himself  as 
best  he  could,  while  he  proceeded  onward  and 
upward  in  his  flights  of  eloquence,  to  the  high- 
est pinnacle.  We  are  told,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  mother  eagle,  when  teaching  the  young 
fledgling  to  fly,  places  it  upon  her  back,  and 
soars  away,  and,  by  a sudden  movement,  slips 
from  under  the  young  bird,  and  leaves  it  to  take 
care  of  itself,  excepting  to  keep  a watchful  eye 
upon  it,  and,  if  it  fails  to  use  its  pinions  to  save 
itself,  she,  by  a sudden  swoop,  flies  down  and 
receives  it  upon  her  back,  and  carries  it  to  a 
place  of  safety.  With  regard  to  my  friend  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery],  he  had  not  so  much 
care  as  that;  but  he  soars  aloft,  and  leaves  me 
to  take  care  of  myself  as  best  I can. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  said,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  the  veto  power  is  an  arbitrary  power,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  a Democratic  prin- 
ciple. Without  entering  into  an  argument  to 
sustain  either  view  of  the  question,  at  all,  I 
may  be  permitted  to  say  that,  when  a boy,  not 
out  of  my  “teens” — and  scarcely  entered  them 
— 1 learned  to  admire  and  appreciate  the  prin- 
ciples involved  in  the  veto  by  the  Chief  Execu- 
tive of  the  United  States,  on  reading  the  cele- 
brated veto  message  of  Andrew  Jackson,  in 
1832.  It  is  too  late,  in  my  judgment,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, for  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 


Day.]  THE  VETO  POWER.  1127 

February  6, 1874.]  Burns,  Johnson,  Coats. 


Carbery],  to  undertake  to  claim  that  this  exer- 
cise of  the  veto  power  is  anti-Democratic  or  ar- 
bitrary, after  it  has  been  exercised — repeatedly 
exercised — by  nearly  all,  if  not  quite  all,  of  the 
Presidents  of  the  United  States  for  the  last 
eighty  years.  I believe  that  no  Chief  Execu- 
tive has"  ever  occupied  that  high  and  exalted 
position,  but  what  has,  at  one  time  or  another, 
exercised  this  restraining  power  over  the  law- 
making power  of  the  nation.  Gentlemen  talk 
of  the  veto  power  as  if  it  were  an  absolute 
power;  they  contend  that  it  is  a one-man 
power — a power  which  thwarts  the  will  of  the 
people;  as  if  it  were  a principle  injected  into 
our  Republican  form  of  government,  with  its 
roots  extending  back,  and  finding  a lodgment 
in  the  dark  ages,  and  in  monarchical  govern- 
ments. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? Was  the  veto  power  exercised 
by  Mr.  Jefferson? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Well,  Mr.  President,  I only 
speak  from  memory;  if  my  memory  is  not  at 
fault,  it  was. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Once  more.  Was  it  by  all 
three  of  his  predecessors  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Madison  and  Monroe?  Yes, 
sir ; it  was. 

I say  that  gentlemen  speak  of  the  veto  power 
as  if  it  were  an  absolute  power;  as  if  it,  in  the 
hands  of  the  Executive,  either  of  the  State 
or  Nation,  could  be  so  wielded  as  to  com- 
pletely, and  for  all  time,  thwart  the  will  of 
the  people.  And,  while  gentlemen  argue  in 
favor  of  it,  and  seem  willing  to  admit  that 
the  veto1  power,  in  the  hands  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  may  be  safely 
entrusted  there,  they  deny  that  the  same 
principle  and  same  rule  of  action  would  lodge 
in  the  Governor  of  the  State.  They  say  that 
the  United  States  are  formed  of  different  States, 
having  different  manners  and  customs,  govern- 
ed by  different  motives  and  different  laws  of 
trade,  and,  therefore,  the  representatives  com- 
ing up  from  these  different  localities  do  not 
represent  a homogeneous  people ; that  their  in- 
terests are  so  diverse  and  so  antagonistic  to  each 
other  that  their  action  in  the  form  of  a law, 
does  not  express  the  entire  will  of  the  Ameri- 
can people,  and,  therefore,  it  is  right  and  prop- 
er to  lodge  the  power  of  the  negative  veto  in 
the  hands  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I undertake  to  say  that, 
in  proportion  to  the  territory  occupied  by  the 
State  of  Ohio  and  that  occupied  by  the  United 
States,  the  interests  of  the  people  of  the  differ- 
ent sections  of  Ohio  are  as  different  from  each 
other  as  are  those  of  the  different  portions  of 
the  United  States.  More  than  that,  the  legisla- 
tive body  does  not  always  represent  the  will  of 
the  majority  of  the  people.  What  I mean  by 
that,  is  this : that  a political  party  may  have  a 
majority  of  votes  in  either  or  both  of  the 
branches  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  yet  in  the 
aggregate  vote  of  the  entire  State  cast  for  those 
very  same  legislators,  the  majority  may  be  on 
the  other  side.  Take,  for  instance,  the  Legisla- 
ture of  1867-’68 — if  I am  not  very  much  mis- 
taken in  my  recollection,  the  Democratic  party 
had,  in  that  Legislature,  a majority  in  both 
branches ; yet,  the  popular  vote  of  the  State  for 


members  of  the  Legislature,  was  on  the  other 
side.  There  was  a majority,  taking  the  differ- 
ent districts  in  the  State,  of  Republican  votes. 
While  there  was  a Democratic  majority  in  both 
branches  of  the  Legislature,  there  was  a Re- 
publican majority  on  the  State  officers  and  for 
Governor,  of  about  3,000  votes. 

Gentlemen  argue  very  forcibly  and  very  elo- 
quently, that  the  voice  of  the  people  should  al- 
ways rule;  that  the  majority  of  the  people  is 
the  test  of  the  Republican  form  of  government. 
I know  that  it  is  an  expression  as  old  as  the 
government,  and  older,  that  “ the  voice  of  the 
people  is  the  voice  of  God.”  Well,  in  the 
sense  in  which  it  is  sometimes  applied,  I deny 
it ; whether  it  is  Democratic  or  un-Democratic,  I 
deny  it.  I say  “the  voice  of  the  people  ” is  not 
always  “the  voice  of  God.” 

Mr.  COATS.  I would  ask  if  that  is  not  pre- 
cisely the  language  of  General  Hamilton? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  know  whether  it 
was  or  not.  General  Hamilton  said  a great 
many  good  things  and  a great  many  bad  things. 
Will  the  gentleman  say  now,  that  “ the  voice  of 
the  people  is  the  voice  of  God?”  I think  that 
God  expresses  his  voice  in  a more  decided  and 
more  intelligent  and  more  sensible  manner. 

Mr.  COATS.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me, 
I will  say  that  the  voice  of  God  is  always  right ; 
and  in  so  far  as  the  voice  of  the  people  is  right, 
it  is  the  voice  of  God. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  true;  in  so  far  as  the 
voice  of  an  idiot  is  right,  it  is  the  voice  of  God. 

Mr.  COATS.  I will  say,  that  very  generally 
the  voice  of  the  people  is  right,  and  is  the  voice 
of  God. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I admit  that  the  voice  of  the 
people  is  very  often  right,  and  notwithstanding 
that  is  true,  it  is  very  often  wrong.  What  do 
you  mean  by  the  voice  of  the  people  ? Why, 
Mr.  President,  the  voice  of  the  people,  by  an 
overwhelming  majority,  crucified  the  Savior; 
the  voice  of  the  people  burned  men  at  the  stake ; 
the  voice  of  the  people  hung  witches  in  New 
England,  in  an  early  day ; the  voice  of  the  people 
mobbed  your  churches, for  the  time  being;  the 
voice  of  the  people  does  a great  many  things 
that  ought  not  to  be  done ; the  voice  of  the  people, 
in  a certain  locality,  is  in  favor  of  one  thing, 
and  the  voice  of  the  people  in  another  locality, 
is  directly  opposed  to  that  thing.  In  a Repub- 
lican form  of  government,  after  mature  deliber- 
ation and  careful  consideration,  we  have  to  take 
the  voice  of  the  people  as  the  nearest  approach 
to  the  voice  of  God,  and  to  the  right,  of  any- 
thing that  human  morals  can  get  in  this  world 
of  imperfection.  But,  Mr.  President,  what  are 
we  doing  here  in  this  Convention  ? We  are  en- 
deavoring to  frame  a fundamental  law  for  the 
government  of  the  people  in  the  future,  not  for 
the  government  of  the  people  in  the  past.  I 
have  heard  it  repeatedly  announced,  upon  this 
floor,  that  the  legislative  authority  is  vested  in 
the  General  Assembly.  Well,  Mr.  President, 
it  may  be  all  vested  in  the  General  Assembly, 
but  that  is  the  very  point  that  we  are  con- 
troverting here — that  it  shall  not  all  be  abso- 
lutely vested  in  the  General  Assembly.  We  are 
endeavoring — those  of  us  who  favor  a qualified 
veto — to  provide  that  the  unlimited,  uncon- 
trolled power  of  legislation  shall  not  be  vested 
in  the  General  Assembly,  alone.  My  friend 


1128 


[170th 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Burns,  Carbery,  West,  Campbell.  [Friday, 


from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery],  for  whom  I 
have  the  very  highest  respect,  in  every  sense  of 
the  word,  used  an  unfortunate  expression,  for 
him,  I think : he  said  that  they  were  “ endeav- 
oring to  place  a check  which  would  control 
them” — I want  to  quote  him  exactly  — “we 
want  to  guard  against  the  tyranny  of  a mere 
majority;”  and  when  I called  his  attention  to 
that  unfortunate  expression,  that  was  the  time 
when  his  pinions  became  weakened,  and  he 
abandoned  the  load  which  he  was  carrying,  and 
said  he  was  referring  to  the  National,  and  not 
to  the  State  Legislature. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  a privilege  which  my 
“youthful  friend”  shall  always  have  of  me. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  There  is  no  doubt  at  all,  of 
his  correctness ; but  then  he  has  not  allowed  for 
the  flap  of  his  wings,  and  may  be  mistaken  in 
the  character  of  the  load,  and  when  he  discov- 
ers the  nature  of  his  load  he  drops  it.  Again, 
he  may  have  been  mistaken,  and  what  he 
thought  to  be  an  eagle  up  in  mid-air  may  have 
turned  out  to  be  a herron.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  BURNS.  Well,  sometimes  a bird  may 
mistake  itself  for  an  eagle;  but,  after  soaring 
to  mid-heaven,  suddenly  finds  it  is  nothing  but 
a common  buzzard.  [Renewed  laughter.] 

Now,  Mr.  President,  my  friend  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Carbery]  said  that  they  want  to 
guard  against  the  “tyranny  of  a mere  majority.” 
That  is  just  what  the  friends  of  the  qualified 
veto  desire  to  do.  We  desire  to  place  in  the 
hands  of  the  executive  of  the  State  the  power 
to  check,  for  the  time  being — not  absolutely  and 
forever — this  tyranny  of  a mere  majority.  I 
could  cite  numerous  instances  where  a majority 
of  one  or  two  in  a legislative  body,  presuming 
that  they  were,  for  all  time  to  come,  the  law- 
making power  of  the  State,  have  passed  laws 
for  which  the  people  did  not  ask ; that  were 
obnoxious  to  the  people ; that  were  objectiona- 
ble in  every  form ; and  they  became  laws  of 
the  State,  and  acquired  the  force  and  effect  of 
law.  They  fix  the  rights,  duties  and  responsi- 
bilities of  citizens,  in  many  instances,  beyond 
the  power  of  the  supreme  court  to  undo  or  set 
right  in  the  future.  For  example,  the  law  of 
descent  and  distribution,  which  could  not  be 
changed  by  the  future  action  of  the  supreme 
court.  The  very  next  Legislature  following 
that  repealed  these  very  same  laws,  and  sent 
the  men  who  had  been  active  in  their  passage 
into  retirement, because  they  were  unwholesome 
laws.  But  they  could  not  cure  that  which  had 
been  accomplished  during  the  time  they  re- 
mained laws ; whereas,  if  the  chief  executive 
of  the  State  had  had  the  power  to  veto,  or  inter- 
pose his  objection,  and  stay  the  passage  of  those 
laws,  until  the  question  of  their  utility  and 
constitutionality  could  have  been  submitted  to 
the  people  of  the  State  at  the  ensuing  election, 
then  they  would  have  had  the  opportunity  of 
saying,  by  their  votes,  whether  thejr  were  salu- 
tary or  not. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I will  certainly  permit  a ques- 
tion, but  will  not  promise  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  Suppose  that,  after  the  passage 


of  the  obnoxious  law,  a subsequent  Legislature 
should  repeal  it,  and  the  Governor  should  affix 
his  veto  to  the  repealing  act,  how  would  you 
get  along  then  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Well,  Mr.  President,  it  is  not 
at  all  likely  that  the  s;  me  Governor  who  sanc- 
tioned the  obnoxious  law  would  veto  the  repeal 
of  it,  and  vice  versa.  The  simple  result  would 
be,  that  the  law  would  not  be  repealed,  and  it 
would  have  to  take  its  course  for  a future  elec- 
tion and  future  Governor;  and  it  would  have 
the  beneficial  effect  that  it  would  send  it  back 
to  the  people,  and  make  an  issue  between  the 
Governor  and  Legislature  as  to  which  was 
right;  and  this  omnipotent  voice  of  the  people, 
which  is  claimed  to  be  the  voice  of  God,  would 
have  an  opportunity  to  determine  which  was 
right.  If  the  Governor  should  veto  the  repeal 
of  the  obnoxious  law — if  it  was  an  obnoxious 
law — the  Legislature  could  repeal  it  over  the 
Governor’s  veto.  And  that  is  the  very  point 
we  desire  to  make  by  the  incorporation  of  the 
veto  into  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Gentlemen  have  argued  here,  and  have  an- 
nounced it  upon  this  floor,  that  it  would  be 
much  easier  to  bribe  one  man,  to-wit:  the 
Governor,  than  it  would  be  to  bribe  a great 
many  men  in  the  Legislature.  Well,  that  ar- 
gument, if  it  has  any  force  at  all,  is  quite  as 
effective  under  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  as  it  is  under  the 
section  which  is  sought  to  be  stricken  out.  The 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler,  if 
I understand  it,  is  simply  this,  and  nothing 
more : It  simply  calls  upon  the  Legislature  to 
reconsider,  or  to  vote  again,  upon  the  passage  of 
a law  that  they  have  once  passed;  and,  if  the 
same  number  of  men,  or  the  same  men  exactly, 
vote  for  it  the  second  time  that  voted  for  it  the 
first  time,  it  becomes  a law,  notwithstanding 
the  objection  of  the  Governor.  I believe  that 
is  the  scope  and  effect  of  the  proposition.  Very 
well.  Now,  the  proposition  allows  the  Gover- 
nor himself,  in  person,  to  appear  upon  the  floor 
of  either  House,  and  occupy  the  floor  in  stating 
his  objection  orally,  by  making  a speech  to  the 
body  in  which  the  bill  may  be  pending,  to  be 
rejoined  to  by  others  on  the  opposite  side;  or, 
it  permits  him  to  go  into  the  body,  and,  one  by 
one,  getting  their  ear,  orally  to  make  known  to 
them  his  objections.  Or,  it  gives  to  anybody 
who  desires  the  opportunity  to  approach  a mem- 
ber of  that  body  with  a bribe,  if  they  see  prop- 
er to  do  so,  as  much  in  one  instance  as  it  does 
in  another ; and  I ask  you  right  here,  how  many 
men  the  Governor  or  his  friends  would  have  to 
bribe,  in  order  to  defeat  the  passage  of  a bill 
which  once  received  a majority  of  all  the  votes? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me? 

Mr.  BURNS.  In  a moment.  If  I understand 
it,  Mr.  President,  although  the  bill  may  have 
been  once  passed  by  a bare  majority,  say,  for 
instance,  53  in  a House  of  105,  it  may  have  re- 
ceived 53  votes  on  its  first  passage.  Now,  on 
the  second  attempt  to  pass  it,  the  Governor,  or 
somebody  else,  by  the  offer  of  money  or  some 
other  favor  in  the  way  of  a bribe,  may  succeed 
in  changing  the  mind  of  a single  man,  and  on  a 
second  trial,  it  will  receive  only  52  votes.  It 
1 then  fails  to  become  a law. 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER. 1129 

February  6,  1874.]  Campbell,  Burns. 


Now,  I will  hear  the  gentleman’s  question. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I would  inquire  of  the 
gentleman,  whether  he  does  not  know  that  in 
the  earlier  stages  of  the  Federal  government, 
Washington,  Adams,  Jefferson,  and  others, 
delivered  their  messages  to  Congress,  orally? 
and,  further,  whether  now  the  Governor  does 
not  communicate  his  recommendations  and  ar- 
guments to  the  Legislature  by  message,  and 
whether  he  does  rot  have  the  right  now,  if  he 
sees  fit,  to  button-hole  (to  use  the  expression) 
members  of  the  House  upon  the  subject?  Again, 
whether  he  does  not  have  the  same  power  now, 
if  he  is  corrupt  enough  to  do  so,  to  attempt  to 
bribe  members  to  vote?  If  that  be  the  case, 
whether  there  is  any  force  in  the  gentleman’s 
argument? 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  gentleman  asks  questions 
the  answer  to  which  is  patent  to  everybody. 
That  they  did  deliver  their  messages  orally,  I 
admit,  and  they  may  do  it  now.  Governor 
Wood,  when  he  was  first  inaugurated — I hap- 
pened to  be  a member  of  the  Legislature  at  that 
time — did  deliver  his  inaugural  message,  in  the 
presence  of  both  Houses,  orally — perhaps  read 
it  from  manuscript.  In  the  recent  inaugura- 
tion of  our  Governor,  he  delivered  his  inaugural 
in  the  presence  of  the  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture ; it  is  true,  not  in  the  Legislative  Hall,  but 
in  the  Legislative  Assembly.  He  may  do  it 
now ; he  may  communicate  his  messages  orally, 
to  the  body,  or  to  the  majority  of  them;  but, 
communicating  a message,  and  making  a speech 
in  the  body,  upon  the  passage  or  defeat  of  a 
law  pending  in  the  body,  are  two  different 
things. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  proposition  intro- 
duced by  myself  is,  if  I may  be  permitted  to 
speak,  that  he  may  return  the  bill,  with  a mes- 
sage containing  his  objections. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Orally  ? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Or  in  writing.  What  is 
the  difference  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Well,  if  the  gentleman  can 
state  the  difference  between  making  a speech 
or  delivering  a message,  he  can  “chop  logic,”  to 
use  the  expression  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  better  than  I can.  If  he  can  de- 
monstrate the  difference  between  coming  into 
the  Legislative  Hall,  and  making  his  objections 
known  orally,  and  that  of  making  a speech,  he 
can  draw  a finer  distinction  than  I can.  That 
the  Governor  now  has  the  power,  if  he  sees  fit 
to  embrace  the  opportunity,  to  button-hole 
members — I did  not  use  that  word,  but  I will 
adopt  it  now— to  button-hole  members  of  the 
Legislature,  he,  unquestionably,  has  the  right 
to  do  so.  But,  suppose  that  the  Governor  of  the 
State  was  to  come  into  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives, or  the  Senate,  when  a bill  is  under  dis- 
cussion, and  go  from  seat  to  seat  of  members  of 
that  body,  and  undertake  to  whisper  into  their 
ears  his  objections,  or  his  arguments  in  favor 
of  or  against  any  particular  measure.  I under- 
take to  say,  that  the  Governor  who  would  thus 
demean  himself,  would  receive  the  universal 
condemnation  of  both  parties,  in  whatever  body 
he  undertook  to  do  it.  Why,  Mr.  President, 
one  of  the  greatest  complaints  that  I heard 
uttered  against  the  gentleman  who  retired, 
recently,  from  the  Chief  Executive  Chair 
of  this  State,  was  his  habit,  whether 


correctly  charged  or  not,  I am  not  here  to  say,  of 
electioneering  with  the  membersof  the  Legisla- 
ture, for  or  against  the  passage  of  any  particular 
bill.  My  friend,  the  gentleman  from  Portage 
[Mr.  Horton],  who  does  not  speak  often  upon 
this  floor,  but  when  he  does,  he  generally 
speaks  to  the  point,  and  with  sense,  says  that  it 
would  release  the  General  Assembly  from  the 
responsibility  of  the  law.  I am  not  able  to 
comprehend  the  force  of  that  objection.  It  is 
true,  that,  to  some  extent,  it  would  divide  the 
responsibility ; but  if  I am  not  mistaken  in  my 
course  of  reasoning,  I think  it  would  make  the 
Legislature  more  careful  in  the  passage  of  a 
law ; so  that  it  would  not  receive  the  executive 
veto,  and  thus  strengthen  it  before  the  people, 
because  it  had  received  not  only  the  sanction  of 
the  Legislative,  but  the  sanction  of  the  Execu- 
tive authority  of  the  State,  and  thus  go  out  to 
the  people  with  more  force  and  with  more  pow- 
er, than  otherwise  it  would  do. 

Gentlemen  talk  about  the  power  of  the  ma- 
jority, and  this  being  a government  in  which 
the  majority  rule.  Why,  Mr.  President,  there 
are  a great  many  questions,  a great  many 
things  that  come  before  the  Legislature  of  this 
State,  in  which  a mere  majority  cannot  rule — 
where  the  29th  section  of  the  second  Article  of 
the  Constitution  under  which  we  now  live,  pro- 
vides in  emphatic  and  unmistakable  terms  that 
the  Legislature  of  the  State,  the  law- 
making power  of  this  State,  shall  not  have  the 
privilege  and  the  right  to  pass  laws  for  the  ap- 
propriation of  money  for  the  payment  of  cer- 
tain claims,  unless  that  law  shall  receive  the 
sanction  of  two-thirds  of  the  members 
elected  to  both  branches  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. For  instance,  and  I refer  to  what 
is  well  known  to  every  gentleman  upon 
this  floor,  it  is  provided  in  section  29 
of  Article  II  of  this  Constitution:  “Nor  shall 
any  money  be  paid  on  any  claim,  the  subject 
matter  of  which  shall  not  have  been  provided 
for  by  pre-existing  law,  unless  such  compensa- 
tion or  claim  be  allowed  by  two-thirds  of  the 
members  elected  to  each  branch  of  the  General 
Assembly.”  Now,  why  is  that?  Why,  it  is  for 
the  purpose,  Mr.  President,  as  I understand  it, 
of  guarding  against  the  payment  of  unjust  and 
improper  claims  by  a bare  majority  of  the  Leg- 
islature, unless  a provision  for  the  payment  of 
these  claims  shall  have  been  made  by  the  prior 
Legislature,  and  that  law  shall  have  gone  out 
to  the  country  and  been  passed  upon  by  the  peo- 
ple ; so  that  when  a subsequent  Legislature  un- 
dertakes to  appropriate  money  to  pay  these 
claims,  they  shall  have  the  sanction  of  law  pre- 
viously passed  for  that  purpose ; otherwise  it 
shall  receive  the  sanction  of  a majority  of  two- 
thirds  before  it  shall  be  paid.  What  becomes 
of  the  omnipotent  power  of  the  majority  in  a 
case  of  that  kind  ? Why,  we  have  had  a most 
potent  example  of  the  salutary  effect  of  that 
law  in  our  own  State.  In  one  of  the  past  Leg- 
islatures— I am  not  now  able  to  say  which, 
perhaps,  18G6-’67,  or  ’68,  a law  was  passed  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  this  State  by  a bare 
majority  and  signed  by  the  Speakers  of  both 
Houses,  to  pay  what  is  known  as  the  “Morgan 
Raid  Claims.”  It  was  passed  and  became  a 
law,  but  it  was  found  to  be  unconstitutional,  be- 
cause it  had  not  been  previously  provided  for  by 


1130 


THE  VETO  POWER. [107th 

Burns,  West,  Pond.  [Friday, 


a prior  Legislature,  and  it  did  not  receive  a 
two-thirds  vote,  and,  therefore,  became  null  and 
void  upon  the  statute  book,  and,  I believe,  it  was 
so  declared.  Since  which  time,  Mr.  President,  I 
believe  every  Legislature  which  has  convened 
has  been  vainly  trying  to  pass  a law  for  the 
payment  of  these  claims.  I am  not  now  argu- 
ing whether  these  claims  ought  to  be  paid  or 
not.  I have  never  given  that  sufficient  inves- 
tigation to  determine  upon  their  justness;  but 
I know  this,  that  the  State,  geographically,  is 
very  nearly  divided  upon  the  propriety  of  pay- 
ing these  claims.  The  northern  part  of  the 
State  is  opposed  to  paying  them,  as  a general 
rule,  while  the  southern  part  of  the  State,  as  a 
general  rule,  is  largely  in  favor  of  paying 
them. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  Does  the  gentleman  suppose 
that,  prior  to  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court 
upon  this  subject,  any  Governor  that  could  be 
elected  in  Ohio  would  have  back-bone  enough 
to  face  the  political  power  of  southern  Ohio,  and 
veto  a bill  that  passed  the  General  Assembly 
providing  for  the  payment  of  those  claims,  with 
the  fifty  thousand  votes  that  are  down  along  the 
river  here  against  him  ? 

Mr.  BURis  S.  If  I was  to  answer  the  gentle- 
man’s question,  it  would  require  me  to  be  able 
to  determine  how  much  back-bone  prominent 
men  in  this  State  have.  I cannot  answer  the 
question ; nor  do  I think  the  gentleman  can  an- 
swer it.  I think  it  would  require  as  much  back- 
bone for  the  Governor  of  this  State  to  face  the 
hundred  thousand  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State  that  are  opposed  to  it  in  order  to  sign  it. 

I think  it  would  require  back-bone  in  every  di- 
rection, and  I am  willing  to  believe,  and  do  be- 
lieve, that  there  are  a great  many  men  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  who  have  back-bone  enough  to  do 
right,  fearless  of  consequences.  They  have  back- 
bone enough  to  do  what  they  believe  the  Consti- 
tution requires  at  their  hands  and  take  the  con- 
sequences, whatever  that  may  be. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POND.  I merely  wish  to  inquire,  wheth- 
er, in  the  judgment  of  the  gentleman,  the  sec- 
tion just  read  does  not  afford  ample  protection 
against  such  claims  without  the  interposition  of 
the  veto  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  think  the  section  affords  I 
ample  protection  against  such  claims  without 
the  veto.  But  that  is  the  very  point  I desire  to 
make.  It  is,  in  itself,  a veto  upon  this  power 
of  the  majority,  that  has  been  so  eloquently  in- 
sisted upon  on  this  floor . Gentlemen  argue  that 
we  are  to  be  governed  by  a bare  majority.  I 
say  we  are  not.  We  have  ourselves  incorpo- 
rated into  the  Constitution  a provisional  in- 
junction, if  I may  use  the  expression,  against 
the  encroachments  of  an  unscrupulous  majority. 

I am  perfectly  satisfied  with  that  section.  If  it  | 
only  applied  to  more  subjects  than  it  does  I 
would  be  better  satisfied  with  it.  If  this  pro- 
vision extended  to  the  enactment  of  those 
pernicious  laws  which  authorize  a bare  majority 
of  the  citizens  of  a township  or  city  to  vote  a I 
tax  upon  the  people  to  build  a railroad,  1 1 


would  like  it  very  much  better.  Mr.  President, 
I have  a very  great  desire  to  place  in  this  Con- 
stitution a provision  authorizing  the  Governor, 
if  he  sees  fit,  in  his  judgment,  to  place  his  veto 
upon  such  laws  in  the  future,  and  say  to  the 
Legislature  that  those  laws  are  not  the  will  of 
the  people,  and  you  must  send  them  back  to  the 
people  for  their  sanction  before  I will  consent 
to  sign  your  bill,  unless  passed  by  the  majority 
required  by  the  twenty-ninth  section,  in  relation 
to  these  very  claims  about  which  we  have  been 
talking. 

Gentlemen  talk,  again,  about  what  is  the 
power  of  the  majority.  I wish  to  cite  the  gen- 
tleman, and  I need  only  refer  to  it,  though  I 
prefer  to  read  it,  to  the  present  Constitution, 
under  which  we  are  now  living.  It  provides 
that,  before  the  people  of  the  State  can  change 
their  Constitution,  however  odious  it  may 
be  in  any  of  its  features,  before  they  can 
have  the  privilege  of  changing  that  Con- 
stitution, in  one  section,  it  requires  a vote 
of  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  the  Leg- 
islature to  change  it,  and  before  we  can 
have  the  privilege  of  voting  whether  we  have 
a Convention  or  not,  it  requires  a majority  of 
two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
to  even  submit  the  question  to  the  people.  It 
is  in  this,  as  it  is  in  a great  many  other  things. 
We  are  all  in  the  habit  of  talking  about  majori- 
ties, and  about  the  voice  of  the  people,  without 
reflecting,  Mr.  President,  that  we  are  under 
certain  rules  and  regulations,  long  since  sanc- 
tioned and  adopted  by  the  people,  by  which  a 
bare  majority  cannot  control  a minority  of  the 
people. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I want  to  refer  to  another 
provision  in  this  Constitution  under  which  we 
are  now  living,  to  show  how  the  political  ba- 
rometer rises  and  falls,  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  circumstances  under  which  it  acts,  and 
according  to  the  state  of  the  atmosphere  in 
which  it  is  placed.  The  Constitution  of  this 
State  provides  that  the  sessions  of  the  General 
Assembly  shall  be  held  with  open  doors,  not  in 
the  sense  to  which  my  friend  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  referred  as  having  been  given  to  the  ex- 
pression by  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  of  the  Michi- 
gan Legislature — that  the  doors,  swinging  upon 
hinges,  should  be  open — but  the  law  provides 
that  the  General  Assembly  shall  sit  with  open 
doors.  There  is  a restriction  upon  that,  how- 
ever. The  thirteenth  section  of  the  second 
Article  provides — what?  The  proceedings  in 
both  Houses  shall  be  public,  except  in  cases 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  two-thirds  of  those 
present,  require  secrecy.  What  is  that?  Tsvo- 
thirds  of  a quorum,  two-thirds  of  fifty-three 
can  order  the  doors  of  the  legislative  halls  to 
be  closed,  and  the  Legislature  can  transact 
their  business  in  secret,  excluding  the  public, 
for  the  time  being,  from  observation  of  what 
they  are  doing,  if,  in  the  judgment  of  these  two- 
thirds  of  fifty-three,  it  be  deemed  expedient. 
I ask  gentlemen,  what  becomes  of  your  boasted 
majority  in  a case  of  that  kind?  I am  not  in 
favor  of  that  section.  It  ought  not  to  find  a 
place  in  the  Constitution  of  any  State  in  this 
Union.  It  is  anti-Democratic,  and  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  our  laws. 

But  my  friend  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell], 
put  the  question  to  certain  gentlemen,  whether 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER. 1131 

February  6, 1874.]  Burns,  Campbell. 


it  would  not  be  better  to  give  the  Governor,  in 
the  popular  branch  of  the  Legislature,  sixteen 
votes,  and  in  the  Senate,  six  votes,  and  allow 
him  to  go  into  the  House  and  vote  them  ? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Cannot  he  send  a page  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Well,  he  can  as  well  send  a 
page  to  do  that,  as  he  can  send  in  a page  with 
his  message.  Why,  Mr.  President,  the  Gover- 
nor has  no  vote  to  pass  anything.  He  can- 
not vote  for  anything.  If  he  had  the 
right  to  vote  against  a measure,  by  coming 
in  and  casting  his  six  or  his  sixteen  votes,  he 
would,  as  a matter  of  fact  and  a matter  of 
course,  have  his  sixteen  or  his  six  votes  to  cast 
in  favor  of  one ; so  that  the  gentleman’s  ques- 
tion is  without  any  point  that  I,  at  least,  have 
been  able  to  discover.  It  may  have  a very  sharp 
one,  perhaps,  or  a very  blunt  one,  and  I be  un- 
able to  discover  it. 

Mr.  President,  the  veto  is  simply  a negative, 
simply  an  objection,  a lock  put  upon  the  wheel 
of  legislation  for  the  time  being,  which  may  be 
unlocked  by  the  requisite  number  of  votes. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  gentleman  seems  to 
think  there  is  no  point  to  the  question  I put. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  simply  my  opinion. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  gentleman  is  entitled 
to  it.  But  will  he  allow  me  to  ask  the  question 
whether  he  would  be  willing  to  insert  in  the 
Constitution,  a provision  that  the  Governor 
should  cast  a vote  of  sixteen  in  the  House  and 
six  in  the  Senate, against  any  measure  pending? 
Is  the  gentleman  willing  to  put  it  in  that  form 
in  the  Constitution,  instead  of  the  veto?  Upon 
any  pending  proposition,  before  its  final  pas- 
sage, would  the  gentleman,  instead  of  giving 
the  Governor  an  affirmative  vote,  give  him  a 
negative  vote  of  sixteen  in  the  House  and  six 
in  the  Senate  ? Now,  perhaps,  the  question  may 
have  some  point. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I will  answer,  Mr.  President, 
in  brief,  that  I would  not. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I did  not  know  whether 
you  would. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I should  be  perfectly  willing, 
Mr.  President,  to  sit  down,  if  I was  about  to  en- 
gage in  any  enterprise,  and  take  the  advice  of 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  in 
any  matter  that  I wish  to  be  engaged  in  : I 
would  hear  his  advice,  and  if  it  was  good,  I 
would  adopt  it,  and  if  it  was  not  good,  I would 
not;  but  I should  not  be  willing  that  he  should 
go  against  me,  when  I undertook  to  carry  out 
my  own  project.  It  shows  the  strait  to  which 
the  gentleman’s  proposition  reduces  him.  If  it 
is  worth  anything,  he  says  it  ought  to  give  the 
Governor  the  power  and  the  right  to  go  into  the 
legislative  body,  and  vote  “no”  sixteen  times  in 
one  House  and  six  in  the  other. 

The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  in 
his  always  forcible,  and  always  eloquent  man- 
ner of  advocating  or  opposing  a measure,  eulo- 
gizes Ohio  as  one  of  the  greatest  States  in  this 
Union.  I will  not  mar  the  beauty  of  his  eu- 
logy by  repeating  a single  word  of  it.  I in- 
dorse it  all.  But,  Mr.  President,  while  Ohio 
has  assumed  and  maintained  a proud  position 
among  the  States  of  this  Union,  I ask  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  whether  the 


United  States  has  not  achieved  an  enviable  rep- 
utation among  the  nations  of  the  world  ? Has 
not  the  United  States  placed  itself  upon  an  em- 
inence which  challenges  the  admiration  of  the 
world,  and  has  not  the  government  of  the 
United  States  always  had  in  its  fundamental 
law  a provision  for  this  veto  power  to  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  this 
great  nation  ? The  gentleman,  in  the  remarks 
he  made  the  other  day,  while  he  did  not  dispar- 
age the  great  attainments  of  the  Chief  Magis- 
trate of  this  Union,  said  that  he  could  select 
twenty  men  out  of  this  body  as  well  qualified 
for  the  position  as  the  present  Chief  Magistrate. 
That  may  all  be  true.  But  I ask  the  gentleman 
to  run  over  in  his  historical  memory,  and  name 
any  veto  that  has  ever  been  interposed  by  any 
Chief  Magistrate  of  this  nation  that  was  not 
sustained  by  the  subsequent  action  of  the  peo- 
ple. General  Jackson,  in  the  celebrated  na- 
tional bank  question  of  1832,  pending  his  re- 
election,  threw  out  to  the  American  people  his 
veto  against  the  combined  money  power  of  the 
country,  and  was  overwhelmingly  sustained  in 
that  veto.  Even  John  Tyler,  with  all  his  want 
of  popularity  with  the  great  masses  of  the 
people,  was  fully  and  completely  sustained  by 
the  American  people  in  his  veto  of  the  fiscal 
agency,  or  exchequer,  or  bank,  or  whatever  the 
name  it  assumed,  in  1841. 

It  is  said,  Mr.  President,  that  it  will  not 
check  hasty  legislation.  Well,  I can  conceive 
of  a case,  I can  imagine  instances  where  it  might 
not  have  the  effect  of  preventing  hasty  legisla- 
tion. I will  concede  that  there  may  be  instan- 
ces, at  the  close  of  the  session  of  the  General 
Assembly,  when  bills  are  poured  in  upon  the 
Governor  for  his  approval,  for  his  signature, 
when  it  would,  perhaps,  be  physically  impossi- 
ble for  him  to  give  them  all  due  consideration. 
It  is  30  with  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
I have  no  manner  of  doubt;  and  there  may  be 
instances  when  the  Governor  or  President,  for 
want  of  time  to  consider  a bill,  may  fail  to  veto 
it,  when  it  ought  to  have  been  done.  But  this 
is  the  exception,  and  not  the  rule.  If  I 
am  not  mistaken,  he  has  ten  days  in  which  to 
return  his  veto;  and,  if  it  is  not  returned  within 
that  time,  the  bill  shall  become  a law  notwith- 
standing. It  is  said  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States  spends  hours,  and  nights  even,  in 
the  ante-room  of  the  Senate  Chamber,  in  sign- 
ing bills  that  are  passed  at  the  close  of  the  ses- 
sion. I do  not  know,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
fact  that  he  should  fail  to  veto  bills  for  want  of 
time,  would  make  it  any  worse  than  it  is  now. 
He  has  to  go  through  with  the  farce  of  approv- 
ing bills  before  they  become  a law,  at  all  events ; 
and  if  he  has  the  power  to  veto,  it  certainly 
makes  it  no  worse  than  if  he  had  not.  But  I 
claim  for  it  more  than  this : I claim  that  it 
will  prevent  the  passage  of  partisan  measures 
— purely  partisan  measures.  We  all  know  that, 
in  the  history  of  the  State,  when  one  party  has 
been  out  of  power  for  a series  of  years,  and  the 
other  party  has  had  control  of  the  law-making 
power,  especiallj'  when  they  have  had  large 
majorities,  the  party  in  the  ascendant  become 
arrogant  and  oppressive ; they  become  reckless, 
and  are  induced  to  do  many  things  which  they 
would  not  do  if  they  were  in  a smaller  majority, 
or  if  they  were  not  entrenched,  as  they  believe 


1132 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Burns,  Baber. 


[107th 

[Friday, 


they  are,  behind  the  power  of  an  overwhelming 
majority.  Then, when  in  the  turn  of  the  political 
wheel  of  fortune,  this  majority  is  supplanted  by 
a majority  on  the  other  side,  this  new  majority 
regard  it  as  the  first  duty  they  have  to  perform 
to  take  up  the  statute  book  and  repeal  all 
laws  that  have  been  passed  by  their  predeces- 
sors without  reference  to  whether  they  are 
wholesome,  or  not.  Now,  Mr.  President,  in 
both  views,  I think,  the  majorities  act  wrongly. 
I do  not  think  that  a law  that  has  been  passed 
by  one  political  party  should  be  repealed  by  the 
other  political  party,  simply  because  it  was 
passed  by  that  party.  The  law  ought  to  stand 
upon  its  merits.  If  it  is  a good  law,  it  ought  to 
remain  upon  the  statute  book,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  it  may  have  been  passed  by  the 
Republican  party,  or  the  Democratic  party,  as 
the  case  may  be.  In  a case  of  that  kind,  I am 
in  favor  of  placing  in  the  hands  of  the  Governor 
of  this  State,  whether  he  agrees  with  the  polit- 
ical majority  at  the  time  in  power,  or  not,  the 
power  to  say  to  them,  “ I object  to  this  meas- 
ure, and,  unless  you  pass  it  by  a two-thirds 
vote,  it  shall  go  back  to  the  people,  for  their  ap- 
proval, or  their  disapproval.” 

The  veto  power,  Mr.  President,  is  found  in 
twenty-nine  States  out  of  the  thirty-seven  States 
of  this  Union.  In  some  form  or  other,  the  veto, 
or  a modified  veto,  is  found  in  twenty-nine 
States,  including  the  great  belt  of  States  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  with  the  single  ex- 
ception of  Ohio,  I believe.  It  is  found  in  In- 
diana, and  in  Illinois,  on  the  west,  and  in 
Pennsylvania,  on  the  east;  it  i9  found  in  the 
great  State  of  New  York,  and  in,  perhaps,  a 
majority  of  the  New  England  States,  or  in  some 
of  them,  at  least.  Why,  Mr.  President,  the 
present  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
the  venerable  John  A.  Dix,  a statesman  of  tried 
integrity  and  long  experience,  in  National  and 
State  affairs,  was  elected  to  the  Chief  Magis- 
tracy of  the  State  by  an  overwhelming  major- 
ity. He  had,  in  both  branches  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  that  State,  a political  majority  of 
his  own  party,  and  yet,  during  the  two  years 
that  he  has  occupied  that  high  and  exalted  po- 
sition, he  has  placed  the  Executive  veto  upon 
more  bills  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  that 
State,  than  any  other  Executive  officer  of  any 
other  State  in  this  Union,  with  the  exception, 
perhaps,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  yet,  not  one  sin- 
gle veto  has  been  condemned  by  any  election 
that  has  occurred  since  he  interposed  the  veto. 

It  is  said,  Mr.  President,  that  the  fact  that 
the  present  Governor  of  Pennsylvania  has  been 
called  upon  to  exercise  the  veto  power  some 
sixty  or  seventy  times,  is  an  argument  against 
the  veto  power.  If  it  was,  would  not  the  peo- 
ple of  Pennsylvania  long  since  have  elected  a 
Legislature  that  would  have  voted  down  his 
veto  messages?  and  if  they  be  unpopular,  if  it 
should  so  result  that  they  are  in  antagonism  to 
the  popular  will,  the  people  have  the  power, 
and  they  will  exercise  it  in  due  time,  and  send 
such  a majority  to  both  branches  of  the  Legis- 
lature as  will  overcome  the  veto  of  the  Govern- 
or. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way 
to  a question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  I want  to  ask  the  gentleman 


from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  whether  in  the 
States  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  in 
which  the  veto  power  has  existed  from  the  ori- 
gin of  those  governments,  there  has  not  been 
more  corruption  and  rascality,  and  rascally  bills 
passed,  than  there  have  ever  been  in  Ohio  and 
Indiana,  and  the  States  where  it  does  not  ex- 
ist? 

Mr.  BURNS.  So  far  as  Pennsylvania  is  con- 
cerned— though  I do  not  want  to  reflect  on  the 
neighboring  State  of  Pennsylvania — I am  in- 
clined to  think  that  there  has  been  in  that  State 
more  corruption  in  legislation  than  in  any  other 
State  in  the  Union;  and  it  has  resulted  from 
the  corruption,  not  only  of  the  Legislature  but 
of  the  Executive,  or  else  it  results  in  spite  of  the 
veto  and  not  because  of  it.  They  have  both  been 
corrupted,  and  the  veto  power  is  not  a panacea 
against  corruption,  even  in  the  executive  of  the 
State.  But  if  he  is  an  honest  man,  as  he  ought 
to  be,  it  will  be  a power  against  corruption  in 
the  legislative  body.  So  far  as  the  State  of 
New  York  is  concerned,  I think  that  it  is,  per- 
haps, not  liable  to  the  charge  which  the  gentle- 
man brings  against  it,  at  least,  to  a very  great 
extent. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I have  said  nearly  all  I 
desire  to  say  upon  this  subject,  except  on  one 
other  question.  Much  of  the  time  of  the  su- 
preme court  of  this  State  is  taken  up  in  deci- 
ding the  constitutionality  of  laws.  A number 
of  them  have  passed  under  the  supervision  of 
the  supreme  court  of  this  State  as  to  their  con- 
stitutionality, and  quite  a number  of  them  have 
been  declared  unconstitutional.  The  tax  ques- 
tion, in  its  different  forms,  has  been  disposed 
of  by  the  supreme  court  when  that  question  has 
been  made.  The  Boesel  law  question,  that  has 
worked  so  much  injury  and  so  much  wrong  in 
many  sections  of  the  State,  if  it  had,  upon  its 
passage,  been  submitted  to  the  intelligent  and 
honest  Executive  of  the  State,  as  to  its  constitu- 
tionality, in  my  judgment,  it  would  have  saved 
not  only  the  supreme  court  from  that 
labor,  but  it  would  have  saved  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State  from  loss  and  injury  to 
an  untold  amount.  Other  laws,  that  I might 
enumerate,  have  shared  the  same  fate,  but  too 
late  to  repair  the  injury  which  they  have  in- 
flicted upon  the  people  while  they  were  in 
existence.  It  is  said  that  there  are  scores  of 
men  in  the  Legislature,  in  either  branch,  or  at 
least  in  the  most  numerous  branch,  as  capable 
of  judging  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  law 
as  the  Governor.  Grant  it.  But  we  all  know 
that  a member  of  the  Senate,  or  a member  of 
the  House,  considers  himself  a Representative 
of  his  particular  locality,  of  his  particular  sec- 
tion of  the  State,  or  of  his  particular  party  in 
politics.  And  we  all  know,  by  past  experience 
and  observation,  to  what  great  lengths  a Sena- 
tor or  a Representative  will  go,  even  against 
his  better  judgment,  in  order  to  accommodate 
what  he  believes  to  be  the  popular  will  of  his 
constituents.  We  all  know  in  how  many  in- 
stances a member  of  the  Senate,  or  a member  of 
the  House,  will  do  what  is  called  dodging  a vote ; 
conveniently  absenting  himself  from  the  Cham- 
ber when  the  passage  of  a bill  is  about  to  take 
place,  that  he  cannot  consistently  or  conscien- 
tiously vote  for;  but  will  find  it  convenient  to 
be  absent  just  at  that  particular  time,  rather 


1133 


Day.] 


THE  VETO  POWER. 


February  6,  1874.]  Burns,  Baber,  West,  Campbell. 


than  shoulder  the  responsibility  of  voting 
against  it,  and  thus  come  in  contact 
with  the  will  of  his  constituents.  We  all 
know,  however  reprehensible  that  con- 
duct may  be,  that  it  is  frequently  done 
rather  than  take  the  responsibility,  or  in  the 
language  of  my  excellent  friend  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  he  has  not  the  back-bone  to  stand 
up  and  say  “no,”  when  he  believes  that  a ma- 
jority of  his  constituents  if  they  were  there, 
would  say  “ yes,”  and  he  finds  himself  conve- 
niently absent.  And  thus  there  may  be  placed 
upon  the  statute-book,  a law  contrary  to  his 
better  judgment,  which,  if  he  were  present  and 
voted  against  it,  would  fail  to  become  a law,  or 
vice  versa.  In  a case  of  that  kind,  in  my  judg- 
ment, it  is  eminently  proper  that  the  Governor 
of  the  State,  who  knows  no  locality,  who  is  not 
a Representative  of  any  constituency,  aside 
trom  the  whole  people  of  the  State,  who  has 
not  so  to  vote  as  to  please  Hamilton  county,  or 
Logan  county,  or  Richland  county,  or  Cuyaho- 
ga county,  should  have  the  veto  power.  He  is 
under  no  special  obligation  to  those  counties  as 
to  locality,  and  he  is  the  Representative  of  all 
the  people  of  the  State.  It  is  true,  if  you 
please,  he  may  be  a Democrat,  or  he  may  be  a 
Republican,  and,  if  it  is  a political  question,  he 
may  feel  disposed  to  favor  his  own  political 
party;  but  where  it  is  a question  of  the  con- 
stitutionality of  a measure,  he  cannot  dodge 
the  vote.  He  cannot  by  absenting  himself  from 
his  office,  shirk  the  responsibility  of  passing  up- 
on the  constitutionality  of  that  law,  whether  it 
be  one  way  or  the  other. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land give  way  to  a question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  I want  to  know  how  that  ar- 
gument can  have  any  application  in  Ohio, 
where  it  takes  an  absolute  majority  of  all  the 
members  elected  to  pass  a bill,  and  the  absence 
of  a member  will  count  against  it? 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  two-thirds  rule  that  I 
have  read  from  the  Constitution,  it  seems  to  me, 
might  affect  the  proposition  very  materially. 
It  might  not,  on  a bare  majority,  but  it  would 
under  the  29tb  section  that  I have  read. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  explain 
how? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I think  the  proposition  an- 
swers itself.  I think  it  explains  how. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  rather  the  gentleman 
would  explain. 

Mr.  BURNS.  He  stands  there  to  vote 
against,  to  argue  against,  to  dispute  and  give 
his  reasons,  to  object,  and  by  every  means  in- 
terpose his  objection,  and  on  the  final  vote  to 
vote  against  the  proposition.  It  is  true  that 
you  might  say  that  a two-thirds  majority  can- 
not be  changed  by  a negative  vote.  I admit 
that,  and  yet  it  does  not  do  away  with  the  force 
of  the  proposition  that  I have  put,  that  if  he 
were  there  in  his  place,  discharging  the  duties 
of  his  office  to  vote,  it  would  have  the  effect, 
either  one  way  or  the  other,  upon  the  majority 
— either  a bare  majority  or  two-thirds.  Why, 
if  the  position  of  the  gentleman  be  true,  the 
other  one-third  might  as  well  retire  from  the 
Hall  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  passage 
of  the  law.  Or,  in  the  other  instance,  the  mi- 
nority might  as  well  retire  and  have  nothing 


to  do  with  the  passage  of  a law,  for  their  pres- 
ence and  negative  vote  amount  to  nothing.  The 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell],  it  seems  to  me,  with  all  due  respect 
and  deference  to  the  long  experience  of  that 
gentleman,  and  to  his  knowledge  and  judgment 
in  legislative  bodies  and  in  parliamentary  law, 
and  in  everything  that  pertains  to  the  success- 
ful and  intelligent  legislator,  has  submitted  to 
this  body  a veto  power  which  amounts  to  noth- 
ing— really  nothing.  The  very  same  vote  that 
passes  it  once,  passes  it  the  second  time.  And 
it  is  simply  calling  upon  the  body  in  which  the 
bill  may  be  pending,  to  reconsider  its  vote.  It 
may  be  done  by  any  member  of  the  body  in 
which  the  bill  may  be  pending.  Any  member 
of  the  body  having  voted  for  the  bill,  may  move 
a reconsideration  of  it  within  a certain  limited 
time,  and  it  is  calling  upon  the  members  that 
have  passed  it  once,  to  reconsider  their  action, 
and  go  over  the  work  which  they  have  done 
once  before.  It  is  merely  giving  to  the  Gover- 
nor the  power  which  any  member  of  the  body, 
voting  in  the  majority,  already  possesses. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Suppose,  however,  there 
are  a dozen  objectionable  bills  passed  at  8 
o’clock  in  the  morning,  and  the  General  Assem- 
bly adjourns  at  9 o’clock  by  general  resolution. 
Who  is  going  to  move  to  reconsider  them? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Well,  what  would  your  veto 
do  in  such  a case  ? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  proposition  is,  that 
no  bills  shall  be  passed  within  the  last  three 
days.  There  shall  be  three  days  for  reconsid- 
eration, and  the  Governor  may  invite  attention 
to  the  objectionable  measures,  and  there  will  be 
an  opportunity  to  move  a reconsideration. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  practically  a provision, 
then,  that  the  Legislature  shall  enact  no  bills 
three  days  prior  to  the  final  adjournment  of 
the  General  Assembly — that  legislation  shall 
be  suspended  three  days  before  the  final  ad- 
journment. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Not  upon  everything. 
Only  on  bills ; not  on  joint  resolutions,  or  reso- 
lutions having  the  effect  of  a law. 

Mr.  BURNS.  We  do  not  enact  laws  by  reso- 
lution. The  concurrence  of  both  Houses  is  re- 
quired to  all  laws  and  to  all  resolutions,  if  there 
be  such  a thing  as  a resolution  having  the  effect 
of  a law,  which  I do  not  admit,  for  the  Consti- 
tution provides  that  all  laws  shall  be  by  bill, 
and  the  style  shall  be,  “ Be  it  enacted,”  &c.,  so 
that  the  gentleman’s  explanation  does  not  help 
him  out  of  the  difficulty. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Does  the  gentleman  con- 
tend that  neither  branch  has  power  to  pass  a 
resolution  of  any  kind  without  the  concurrence 
of  the  other  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I did  not  say  so.  They  have 
power  to  pass  resolutions  affecting  their  own 
body  without  the  concurrence  of  the  other;  but 
that  resolution  does  not  become  a law,  nor  have 
the  force  and  effect  of  law.  I said  no  such  thing, 
that  neither  branch  could  pass  any  resolution 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  other.  I may 
say  a great  many  things  that  are  foolish,  but 
that  is  not  one  of  them. 

Mr.  President,  I have  done  with  all  I desire 
to  say.  I hope  and  trust  that  the  majority  of 
this  Convention  will  incorporate  into  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  that  we  are  about  to 


1134 


THE  VETO  POWER 


fl07tli 


VORIS. 


[Friday, 


frame,  a veto  power,  limited  and  negative  in  its 
form  and  application.  I am  not  particular 
whether  a two-thirds  or  a three-fifths,  although  I 
prefer  the  former.  I am  decidedly  in  favor  of 
one  or  the  other,  but  I will  be  content  with  the 
three-fifths  majority,  if  I cannot  obtain  the  two- 
thirds. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Discussion  has  taken  a very 
wide  range  on  this  question.  I,  therefore,  pro- 
pose to  offer  a few  considerations  to  explain  the 
vote  I expect  to  give,  and  intended  to  apply 
generally  to  this  great  State  question. 

The  law-making  power  is  the  highest  politi- 
cal function  exercised  by  any  people. 

Though  our  State  system  divides  the  powers 
of  government  into  three  great  departments, 
the  legislative,  executive  and  judicial — which, 
in  the  appropriate  exercises  of  their  respective 
functions  are  each  independent  of  the  other, 
yet  the  law-making  power  is  the  supreme,  sov- 
ereign power,  except  so  far  as  limited  by  con- 
stitutional provisions  that  define  the  powers  and 
duties'of  both  the  Executive  and  J udicial  De- 
partments, and  commands  every  human  being 
within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  Common- 
wealth. The  laws  thus  made  become  the  rule 
of  conduct  for  the  officers  as  well  as  the  private 
citizen.  In  fact,  no  station  in  life  is  so  high  or 
so  low,  but  his  or  her  social  relations  are  made, 
or  unmade,  fostered  or  prostrated,  by  the  law- 
making power  of  the  State.  It  is  this  power 
that  gives  form  to  all  organized  society,  with- 
out which,  human  frailty  holds  irresistibly  all 
the  human  possibilities  in  the  lowest  state  of 
beastly  degradation  and  barbarism. 

The  capacity  to  make  wholesome  laws,  and 
give  stability  to  them;  to  justly  regulate  the 
intercourse  of  the  members  of  society,  one  with 
another,  are  the  great  distinguishing  qualities 
that  make  the  difference  between  the  best  soci- 
eties and  the  barbarous  state. 

The  laws  of  a people  are  the  standard  by 
which  mankind  measure  the  greatness,  good- 
ness and  individual  significance  and  happiness 
of  any  people.  As  the  laws  are  just,  enlight- 
ened and  properly  adapted  to  the  needs  of  a 
people,  do  they  enjoy  the  appropriate  blessings 
of  life;  as  these  are  wanting  do  they  fail  to 
realize  these  blessings — do  they  sink  in  the 
scale  of  human  accomplishments. 

This  power  defines  all  our  relations,  both 
public  and  private;  lets  that  which  is  proper 
and  forbids  that  which  is  wrong.  Life,  liberty, 
property  and  human  happiness — all  are  com- 
pletely within  its  mercy.  All  the  domestic 
relations,  whether  of  husband  and  wife,  parent 
and  child,  master  and  servant;  the  civil  rela- 
tions, whether  of  public  officer,  citizen,  or  mere 
sojourner,  from  the  birth  of  the  infant  to  the 
burial  of  the  octogenarian,  are  the  subjects  of 
the  inexorable  demands  of  human  law,  in  gross 
and  in  detail,  for  every  conceivable  incident 
that  marks  any  of  these  as  social  beings.  It  is 
this  power  that  enabled  our  fathers  to  achieve 
their  independence,  to  organize  a system  of 
government  in  justice  and  human  equality; 
that  inspired  their  descendants  to  repel  all 
encroachments  on  their  liberties,  and  to-day 
fortifies  this  great  Republic  against  all  that 
dares  doubt  or  assail  it.  It  is  the  same  power 
that  assures  you,  sir,  every  delegate,  myself, 


and  all  we  have  associated  with  us,  that  we  are 
free. 

What  the  distinguished  delegate  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  said  the  other  day,  in  regard  to  the 
power  of  the  judiciary  to  conserve  the  liberties 
of  the  people,  is  thoroughly  and  doubly  true  of 
the  legislative  power. 

The  practical  unfolding  of  all  our  social  insti- 
tutions being  wholly  subordinate  to  the  law- 
making power,  of  what  moment  is  it  to  the 
people  that  this  power  be  most  carefully  guard- 
ed, intelligently  constituted,  and  conscientiously 
and  understanding^  exercised? 

The  veto  is  one  of  the  means  that  may  be  ad- 
vantageously employed  in  that  behalf.  The 
practical  development  of  the  law-making  power 
calls  into  exercise  the  highest  qualities  of  states- 
manship, the  most  abstruse  of  the  sciences,  for 
it  involves  a knowledge  of  all  the  needs  and 
conditions  of  society,  to  master  which  requires 
long  and  pains-taking  training  and  experience. 

The  people  cannot  exercise  the  law-making 
power  inhering  in  them  as  citizens,  in  their 
collective  capacity,  directly  or  immediately.  It 
must  be  done  by  delegated  agencies.  This  we 
do,  in  our  system,  by  and  through  our  agents, 
selected  for  that  purpose.  In  our  State  all  pub- 
lic offices  are  instruments,  and  only  instru- 
ments, of  the  people,  used  to  carry  into  effect 
some  power  of  the  State.  All  the  rights  and 
powers  exercised  in  or  by  any  of  these  depart- 
ments are  purely  delegated  rights  and  powers, 
and  only  exist  by  consent  of  the  govern- 
ed— we  recognize  none  other  as  existing ; 
they  are  simply  the  rights,  powers  and  immu- 
nities of  the  individual  members  composing  the 
body  politic.  The  rights  of  government  are  a 
mere  fiction  when  spoken  of,  being  another 
mode  of  stating  those  of  the  people. 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  aristocracy  of,  or  in 
the  instrumentalities  employed  by  the  people 
in  giving  effect  to  the  powers  of  government. 
It  is  inconsistent  to  predicate  of  the  legislative, 
executive  or  judicial  arms  of  the  government 
that  they,  or  either  of  them,  or  any  part  there- 
of, are  aristocratic,  or  in  any  sort  combine  the 
elements  of  the  one  man  power,  or  are  antag- 
onistic to  the  people.  /Every  manifestation  of 
the  governing  power  exhibited  by  any  of  our 
public  officers,  in  any  of  the  departments,  is 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  manifest  maj- 
esty of  the  people,  whether  exhibited  by  one 
man  as  the  Governor,  by  five  men  as  the  su- 
preme court,  or  by  one  hundred  and  forty, 
more  or  less,  as  the  General  Assembly,  unless 
the  agent  be  guilty  of  mal-administration  in 
office,  which  is  a breach  of  the  trust  committed 
to  him — a perversion  and  not  a legitimate  use  of 
his  functions.  In  each  of  these  exalted  places, 
ever  since  the  State  had  an  existence,  have  we 
put  it  in  the  power  of  one  man  to  control  the 
policy  of  the  State  in  his  special  department. 
A majority  of  one  in  the  General  Assembly,  or 
in  the  supreme  court,  finally  and  beyond  any 
power  of  appeal  makes  or  decides  the  law,  and 
fixes  the  policy  of  the  State  as  absolutely  as 
though  the  measure  had  the  unanimous  concur- 
rence of  the  whole  body.  The  Governor  acts 
the  same  way,  not  as  an  individual,  but  as  the 
exponent  of  the  people  through  the  great  office 
he  holds,  except  that  there  can  be  no  division 
if  opinion  in  his  office. 


THE  VETO  POWER 


1135 


VORIS. 


Day.] 

February  6,  1874.] 


But,  in  all  this,  though  it  is  in  the  power  of 
one  man,  when  the  judgment  of  the  aggregate 
body  is  evenly  divided,  to  dietate  the  policy  of 
the  body,  yet  the  act,  when  completed,  is 
the  act  of  the  aggregate  body,  and  this,  again, 
is  the  sovereign  act  of  the  people.  Why,-  in 
this  Convention,  the  most  important  body  the 
people  can  call  into  being,  charged  with  the 
highest  political  duties  man  can  perform,  fre- 
quently, the  gravest  questions  we  are  called 
upon  to  consider,  are  made  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution,  or  are  stricken  from  the  old,  by 
the  balance  of  one  vote.  Thus  it  is,  frequently, 
in  the  power  of  a single  delegate  to  fix  or 
alter  the  most  important  provision  of  the  organic 
law  of  the  State  by  his  vote.  Is  not  he  an  aris- 
tocrat, a despot — is  not  his  the  accursed  one- 
man  power?  As  a free  people,  capable  of  self- 
government,  can  we  tolerate  it?  This  being  a 
government  where  divisions  of  sentiment  are 
settled  by  majorities,  the  judgment  of  one  man 
must,  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  fre- 
quently, dictate  State  policy,  not  by  the  exer- 
cise of  arbitrary  powers,  as  in  absolute  govern- 
ments or  aristocracies,  but  as  one  of  the  accidents 
incident  to  the  government  of  majorities,  in  a 
free  State.  But  we  may  always  determine  what 
that  majority  shall  be.  It  is,  by  no  means, 
always  a mere  majority,  in  our  system.  Those 
who  have  assailed  the  veto  power,  because  it  is 
exercised  by  one  man,  and,  therefore,  makes 
the  power  vested  by  the  people  in  one  man  de- 
cisive of  the  legislative  will,  under  certain  re- 
strictions, would  hardly  apply  the  legitimate 
conclusions  of  their  logic  to  the  election  of  any 
of  our  public  officers,  to  the  powers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  or  the  appellate  courts,  or  the 
other  aggregate  administrative  bodies. 

Certainly,  the  friends  of  minority  representa- 
tion cannot  follow  this  logic  to  its  ultimate 
results. 

But  to  remove  the  law-making  power  as  far 
as  possible  from  the  accidents  of  the  mere  judg- 
ment of  one  man  in  doubtful  cases,  we  propose 
to  apply  the  veto  power  so  that  one-sixth  of 
the  General  Assembly  shall  concur,  in  such 
doubtful  cases  as  preponderate  by  the  vote  of 
this  one-man  power,  if  the  Governor  does  not 
approve. 

Any  measure  that  is  of  such  doubtful  expe- 
diency, as  to  be  unable  to  secure  the  concur- 
rence of  one-sixth  of  the  General  Assembly 
over  a mere  majority  after  its  veto,  had  better 
not  go  into  the  statutes. 

The  application  of  the  veto  power  to  our  sys- 
tem is  one  of  the  most  important  and  conser- 
vative agencies  we  can  devise.  It  is  simply  a 
check  upon  doubtful  legislation,  and  is  a most 
salutary  safe-guard  of  the  people  and  their 
rights. 

The  balance  of  power  as  now  exercised  in  the 
Legislature  is  never  responsible  to  the  people. 
Who  casts  the  balance  of  power  vote,  never 
will  and  never  can  be  told.  A Representative 
elected  by  one  of  the  smallest  counties  in  the 
State  and  one  Senator  of  two  average  counties 
who  know  and  care  little  or  nothing  for  the  rest 
of  the  State,  so  their  immediate  constituents  are 
satisfied,  can  rule  and  ruin  the  great  cities  of  the 
State,  in  time  of  rural  or  sectional  hostility, 
and  feel  not  a whit  of  responsibility  to  the  State 
at  large,  whereas,  if  the  Governor  is  made  a 


constituent  part  of  the  law-making  body,  he 
will  feel  himself  the  representative  of  the  whole 
State,  instead  of  a representative  of  a senatorial 
district,  and  will  act  with  reference  to  the  in- 
terests of  the  Commonwealth  as  a whole. 

The  Legislature  is  no  more  the  popular 
branch  of  the  government  than  the  Governor; 
is  not  half  so  near  the  people,  for  the  legisla- 
tors represent  only  a small  constituency,  while 
the  Governor  stands  for  the  whole  State. 

The  former  is  largely  controlled  by  sectional 
and  local  causes,  and  knows  and  cares  but  little 
for  matters  that  do  not  directly  concern  his 
constituency.  What  cares  the  member  from 
Ottawa  for  the  concerns  of  Scioto,  of  Medina 
with  Hamilton,  Conneaut  with  Cincinnati.  But 
your  Governor  counts  in  his  constituency  every 
man,  and  recognizes  every  interest  in  the  State. 

Conservatism  in  legislation  is  an  anomaly  in 
the  history  of  the  State.  Legislative  power  in 
an  aggregate  body  is  in  its  very  nature  irre- 
sponsible. Who  can  say,  thou  art  the  man  ? 

Power  exercised  by  one  man  in  popular  gov- 
ernments is  more  conservative,  and  always 
safer  than  if  exercised  by  an  aggregate  body. 

One  man  feels  the  sense  of  individual  respon- 
sibility, an  aggregate  body  only  a divided  re- 
sponsibility. 

The  fallacy  consists  in  comparing  dissimilars, 
and  drawing  the  same  conclusions  from  them. 

The  one-man  power  in  absolute,  or  aristo- 
cratic government  is  entirely  different  from  the 
exercise  of  political  power  by  one  man  in  a 
popular  government,  and  rests  upon  a totally 
different  foundation. 

In  the  former  it  is  the  government  of  absolute 
force,  regardless  of  the  will  of  the  people;  in 
the  latter  it  is  only  a manifest  exhibition  of  the 
people’s  will.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  power  of  the 
people  speaking  through  their  organ. 

From  whence  may  we  expect  encroachment 
upon  the  rights  of  the  people,  upon  the  Con- 
stitution, from  the  Legislative  or  Executive 
Departments  ? Has  it  ever  been  from  the  Gov- 
ernor’s office  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  has 
had  a large  State  experience  in  the  Legislative, 
Administrative  and  Judicial  Departments.  I 
ask  him  if  he  ever  was  called  upon,  in  all  his 
public  life,  to  defend  against  the  encroachments 
of  the  Executive?  But  who  does  not  know 
that  the  supreme  court,  at  every  term,  is  com- 
pelled to  throw  up  new  judicial  barriers  against 
legislative  usurpations.  Yet  the  General  As- 
sembly must  be  trusted,  and  the  Governor  may 
not  be.  This  is  consistency  with  a vengeance. 

The  commanding  qualities  the  Governor 
brings  into  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  espe- 
cially as  compared  with  the  average  legislator, 
are  a very  strong  practical  reason  why  he  should 
be  clothed  with  the  veto  power. 

The  Governors  of  Ohio  have  uniformly  been 
statesmen,  always  men  of  character.  Not  one 
of  the  twenty  odd  ever  disgraced  himself  or 
brought  the  State  into  disrepute.  Whatever 
may  said  of  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  office 
itself,  no  man  can  say  that  the  Governors  have 
not  been  men  who  fairly  represented  the  char- 
acter, intelligence,  and  moral  sense  of  our  peo- 
ple; and  always,  when  challenged,  stood  by  the 
people  and  their  rights.  Vastly  more  than  you 


1136 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Voris,  Hitchcock. 


[107th 


[Friday, 


dare  affirm  of  many  of  the  legislative  bodies  of 
Ohio. 

Ignorance,  inexperience  and  utter  unfitness 
for  high  State  duties,  have  characterized  the 
majorities  of  many  a General  Assembly  since 
the  organization  of  the  State.  The  office  of  leg- 
islator, the  most  important  filled  by  the  people, 
have  never  been  held  in  high  esteem  by  them. 
Men  of  mediocre  abilities,  possessing  neither 
the  fitness, abilities  or  accomplishments  of  states- 
men, have  been  considered  as  abundantly  qual- 
ified to  go  to  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me  a question  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I wish  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man if  he  is  speaking  from  personal  experience 
when  he  speaks  of  the  ignorance  and  incompe- 
tence of  legislators  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I am  speaking  of  what  I do 
know;  though  painful  to  me,  I am  compelled 
to  make  the  statement  as  a matter  of  duty. 

Every  two  years  the  office  has  been  passed 
around,  to  reward,  or  keep  quiet,  some  ambi- 
tious ward  or  township  politician,  who  feels 
that  he  ought  to  be  elevated  one  peg  higher 
than  constable  or  township  trustee.  Do  not  tell 
it  in  this  body,  that  such  men  do  not  need  some 
responsible  statesman  to  stand  between  them 
and  the  people  when  they  attempt  to  make  laws. 
That  the  people  have  been  exceedingly  heedless 
in  the  selection  of  their  law  makers  is  lament- 
ably too  true. 

We,  as  their  servants,  are  put  here  to  revise 
the  whole  system  of  State  government;  and 
what  therein  is  found  defective,  to  modify  and 
rectify.  Now,  are  we  to  wait  until  petitions  are 
sent  us  for  that  purpose  ? That  is  what  we  were 
sent  here  for,  the  argument  of  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding. 

The  legislation  of  the  State  under  the  present 
Constitution  has  been  unstable,  frequently 
trifling,  always  profuse,  and  controlled  largely 
by  sectional  and  selfish  considerations. 

Nothing  so  much  tends  to  unsettle  confidence 
in  the  laws  of  a State,  as  unstable  legislation. 
It  opens  the  gates  of  your  courts  to  a flood  of 
litigation,  unsettles  legal  adjudications,  and 
property  titles,  and  opens  wide  the  doors  to 
social  confusion. 

Safeguards  and  limitations,  the  veto  included, 
placed  upon  the  mode  of  exhibiting  legislative 
intent,  are  no  more  an  attack  on  the  sovereignty 
and  popular  will  of  the  people  than  those  that 
hedge  in  the  offices  of  Governor  or  the  courts. 

It  is  simply  the  will  of  the  people  directing 
that  this  or  that  public  office  shall  exercise  only 
so  much  of  their  sovereign  power  as  they  are 
willing  to  confer,  and  in  the  mode  they  see  fit 
to  have  it  exercised ; which  offices  possess  no 
original  or  inherent  powers.  All  are  reflected 
powers.  A Legislature  of  one  body,  or  of  one 
man  even,  in  a popular  government,  is  no  more 
a government  of  one-man  power  than  if  you 
had  a Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 
augmented  by  the  chief  executive  office  possess- 
ing the  veto  power.  The  source  of  power  is 
the  same,  the  people — in  whom  inheres  all  poli- 
tical power.  Every  properly  executed  public 
act,  whether  of  an  aggregate  body  or  of  one 
man,  is  the  act  of  the  people,  and  just  as  popular 


in  its  origin  and  significance,  if  exerted  by  one 
man  as  if  by  a thousand.  It  is  the  act,  after  all, 
of  all  the  people. 

But  it  is  said  the  Governor  possesses  an  ad- 
visory power,  as  if  that  had  merits,  and  there- 
fore dispenses  with  the  necessity  of  the  veto. 
So  it  has  merits,  but  this  advisory  power  is 
puissant  weakness  if  he  has  no  other  power  in 
the  legislative  branch.  Make  his  approval  or 
disapproval  an  essential  prerogative  of  his  office, 
a factor  to  be  taken  into  account  in  the  passage 
of  every  bill,  and  you  make  his  advisory  power 
effectual,  and  then  the  people  have  a direct 
source  to  which  they  can  go  for  protection 
against  hasty,  unadvised  and  improvident  legis- 
lation, and  where  they  can  challenge  an  un- 
divided individual  responsibility. 

The  sense  of  individual  irresponsibility  felt 
by  the  legislator  emasculates  the  virtue  of  legis- 
lation, and  frequently  makes  a mere  town  meet- 
ing of  the  highest  court  of  the  people. 

To  fortify  ourselves  against  this,  we  devise 
cumbrous  and  vexatious  modes  of  legislative 
proceedings.  If  all  legislators,  or  a majority 
of  them,  were  wise,  capable,  and  true  to  their 
trust,  who  would  think  of  providing  in  the 
Constitution  for  three  readings,  on  three  dif- 
ferent days,  and  the  ayes  and  nays  on  the  pas- 
sage of  every  bill,  and  other  delays  and  hin- 
drances in  the  mode  of  making  laws? 

The  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton] 
says  the  veto  puts  it  in  the  power  of  the  Execu- 
tive to  suspend  the  passage  of  alllaws.  Notso; 
he  can  in  no  instance  prevent  legislation  when 
two-thirds  of  the  General  Assembly  are  com- 
mitted to  the  measure.  But  is  the  passage  of 
new  enactments,  whether  or  no,  of  so  much 
importance  that  so  judicious  a safeguard  as  the 
veto  may  not  be  thrown  round  the  legislative 
power  ? 

Gentlemen  reason  as  if  there  must  be  some 
irreconcilable  antagonism  between  the  legisla- 
tive and  chief  executive  offices,  and  that  the 
legislative  must  always  be  with  the  people, 
and  executive  always  against  them — an  in- 
consistent and  untruthful  presumption.  The 
Governor  is  as  much  the  servant  and  the 
representative  of  the  will  of  the  people  as 
the  majority  of  the  legislative  bodies. 
And,  individually,  much  nearer  to  the  whole 
body  of  the  people  than  any  Representative  or 
Senator,  whose  constituency  are  never  larger 
than  one  thirty-sixth  of  the  people  of  the  State. 
Says  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  we 
are  a homogeneous  people.  So  we  are,  and  our 
system  of  government  is  homogeneous.  Then 
the  safe  guards  thrown  round  the  powers 
the  people  confer  on  their  public  agents,  cer- 
tainly ought  never  to  create  antagonism  in  the 
government. 

If  it  does,  it  clearly  proves  that  the  people 
have  not  wisely  selected  their  public  officers, 
and  that  the  agents,  in  that  behalf  selected,  are 
not  fit  for  the  places  they  attempt  to  fill.  But 
does  a homogeneous  people  less  need  the  safe- 
guards to  personal  freedom,  and  against  the  ag- 
gressive nature  of  official  power  and  corruption, 
because  it  is  homogeneous  ? If  so,  please  do  ex- 
plain how  and  why  it  is  so. 

Now  for  a little  buncombe.  It  is  proper  to 
fight  the  devil  with  fire.  The  distinguished 
member  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  glorified  the 


Day.] 

February  6,  1874.] 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

VORIS. 


1137 


matchless  achievements  of  Ohio  on  the  field,  in 
the  cabinet,  and  for  her  unequaled  progress  in  the 
pathway  of  material  development,  and  all  with- 
out a veto,  in  a brilliant  peroration  that  would 
have  made  a splendid  Fourth  of  July  sensation, 
and  been  quite  as  fitting  on  such  an  occasion  as  in 
an  argument  on  the  propriety  of  conferring  the 
veto  power  on  the  Governor.  I concede  all  that 
is  claimed  for  the  glory  of  Ohio.  Here  she 
stands,  a beautiful  virgin,  peerless  among  our 
sisterhood  of  States ; as  a bride,  waiting  for  the 
embrace  of  her  lover,  rich,  beyond  all  computa- 
tion, in  all  the  perfections  of  person,  virtue  and 
intelligence,  and  full  to  overflowing  of  all  the 
wealth  that  human  desire  can  imagine,  and  ex- 
erting a more  than  magic  influence  over  the 
destiny  of  her  sisters.  Notwithstanding  all  her 
transcendent  prosperity  and  glory,  has  the  dis- 
tinguished delegate  forgot,  that  in  the  very 
acme  of  her  glory,  she  called  him  from  his  re- 
tirement, and  all  of  us,  104  delegates,  to  make  a 
new  Constitution,  because  of  the  unbearable 
imperfections  of  the  old? 

During  the  last  twelve  years,  Ohio  has  given 
a President  of  the  United  States  for  two  terms, 
three  cabinet  ministers,  two  chief  justices,  and 
one  justice  of  the  supreme  court,  three  generals 
of  the  army,  several  first-class  foreign  minis- 
ters, and  some  of  the  liveliest  and  most  potent 
of  the  members  of  Congress.  In  fine,  Ohio  has, 
for  all  this  time,  held  a controlling  position  in 
the  councils  of  the  nation,  by  reason  of  her 
deserts,  because  of  her  pre-eminent  talents  for 
State  affairs,  and  her  devotion  to  patriotic  duty, 
and  at  a time,  too,  when  amendments  to  the 
Federal  Constitution  were  made  for  the  asking, 
yet  a lisp  never  came  from  all  these  Ohio  states- 
men, that  the  tyranny  of  the  veto  demands  its 
modification  or  repeal  in  that  document. 

Why  the  gentleman  from  Logan,  in  the  fer- 
vor of  devotion  to  the  absolute  freedom  of  the 
legislative  power,  heightened  by  his  sacrifices 
and  services  on  the  tented  field,  supinely  per- 
mitted the  golden  moments  of  this  opportunity 
to  pass,  when  the  Thirteenth,  Fourteenth  and 
Fifteenth  Amendments  were  waxy,  and  the 
whole  body  of  the  Federal  compact  was  in  a 
nascent  state,  and  still  the  Federal  veto  stands. 
My  God,  sir,  who  knows  what  the  country  has 
lost  by  this  painful  oversight  on  the  part  of  this 
political  reformer ! Alas ! the  day  for  the  great 
work  of  redeeming  the  Federal  Union  has,  I 
fear,  passed,  forever  passed. 

You  who  have  tears  to  shed,  prepare  to  drop 
them  now ! [Loud  and  prolonged  laughter.] 
Seriously,  now — [vehement  laughter] — but  did 
not  Ohio  win  her  laurels  in  the  councils  of  the 
nation,  where  the  veto  power  is  exercised  ? She 
is  only  one  of  the  factors  that  make  this  mighty 
Confederacy,  that  to-day  challenges  the  admi- 
ration of  mankind.  She  would  have  held  her 
own  peerless  in  the  race  of  inter-state  suprem- 
acy, though  your  General  Assembly  met  only 
once  in  two  years  and  simply  made  the  appro- 
priations, and  then  adjourned — with  or  without 
the  veto. 

Let  us  for  a moment  look  at  what  we  accom- 
plished under  the  circumstances  of  the  greatest 
social  disturbance. 

The  stupendous  efforts  we  put  forth  to  over- 
come the  Rebellion,  stimulated  enterprise  and 
developed  powers  we  never  dreamed  of  before. 

V.II— 74 


One  great  effort  only  gave  us  vigor  and  confi- 
dence to  accomplish  other  and  grander  enter- 
prises. Internal  improvements,  of  every  sort, 
never  lagged  a day.  Manufacture  and  com- 
merce were  never  more  prosperous,  agriculture 
never  so  remunerative,  and  never,  in  all  history, 
were  all  the  elements  of  success  so  happily 
combined  as  for  us  during  the  war. 

An  enterprise  that  was  too  great  for  accom- 
plishment while  the  South  was  the  great  polit- 
ical power  in  the  nation,  became  one  of  the 
unquestionable  efforts  of  the  very  daj’r  the 
monarchies  of  Europe  were  prophesying  our 
overthrow. 

While  one  hand  was  extended  to  break  the 
power  of  the  Rebellion,  and  the  other  was  bus- 
ily employed  to  supply  the  army,  and  keep  the 
necessary  enterprises  of  the  State  in  a healthy 
condition,  we  undertook  the  greatest  public 
work  ever  devised  by  man. 

I refer  to  the  project  of  forcing  a railroad 
through  the  vast,  uninhabited  plains  of  the 
central  basin,  leaping  the  Rocky  Mountains 
with  our  locomotives,  and  bringing  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  coasts  together  by  the  distance-an- 
nihilating powers  of  iron  and  steam. 

But  my  most  sanguine  friend  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  would  hardly  say  because  we 
accomplished  all  this  in  a state  of  war,  that 
we  should  always  have  the  stimulant  of  the 
sword. 

Logic  plays  sad  havoc  with  his  rhetoric.  I do 
not  mean  “ chop  logic”  I think  that  is  his  phrase, 
but  the  genuine  stuff  that  dares  own  its  legiti- 
mate deductions. 

But,  sir,  if  he  would  deny  the  power  to  the 
Governor  because  it  does  not  always  prevent 
vicious  legislation,  do  tell  me  what  you  will  do 
with  that  power  that  sets  on  foot  and  gives  effect 
to  improper  legislation  ? 

That  the  Legislature  does  this  is  confirmed  by 
the  very  Article  we  are  now  considering. 
That  the  members  composing  the  legislative 
bodies  are  just  as  indifferent,  illy  qualified,  and 
as  liable  to  be  controlled  by  improper  motives 
as  the  Governors,  is  beyond  all  question,  true. 

Will  the  gentleman  from  Logan  apply  the 
same  rule  to  them  he  does  to  the  Governors.  If 
not,  in  the  name  of  political  consistency,  tell  us 
why  ? 

But  if,  indeed,  the  Governor  may  be  bought 
up  by  the  great  monied  monopolies,  how  can 
his  use  of  the  veto  hurt  legislation  unless  a 
majority  of  the  Legislature  can  be  brought  into 
collusion  with  the  same  agencies  that  bribe  the 
Governor  ? In  the  latter  case,  two  departments 
of  the  Government  must  be  bought  up  instead 
of  one.  But  apply  another  part  of  his  argu- 
ment, and  say  it  matters  not  any  way — the 
supreme  court  stands  ready,  in  the  plentitude  of 
its  virtuous  power,  to  do  ready  justice,  though 
both  Legislature  and  Governor  fail  to  do  their 
duty.  But  this  proves  too  much ; but  it  is  the 
legitimate  outcome  of  his  reasoning.  It  must 
be  confessed  that  the  citation  of  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania,  in  favor  of  the  veto  power,  is 
not  happy,  for  if  corruption  has  run  riot  any- 
where in  Christendom,  it  is  in  these  States. 
But  this  has  been  true  despite  of  the  veto,  not 
because  of  it.  Before  the  veto  power  can  be 
efficient  in  corrupting  the  legislation  of  a State, 
the  majority  of  both  the  legislative  branches 


1138 


THE  VETO  POWER. 


[107th 


Voris,  Albright,  Pease,  Hitchcock,  Ewing,  etc.  [Friday, 


must  be  corrupted.  The  Governor  possesses 
great  influence  and  advisory  powers,  whether 
he  has  the  veto  or  not.  He  is  too  conspicuous 
a mark  to  go  into  the  lobby ; but  if  he  does, 
how  does  the  veto  help  him — he  has  no  vote  ? 
If  a majority  of  the  General  Assembly  be  cor- 
rupt, the  evil  is  not  augmented  by  the  veto 
power.  If  a majority  are  pure,  it  can  never 
overcome  that  majority. 

But,  the  reason,  for  the  low  state  of  legisla- 
tion in  the  States  cited  is  not  in  the  veto,  but  in 
their  system  of  Legislation.  Both  these  States 
tolerate,  yea,  provide  for  special  legislation  of 
almost  every  conceivable  sort.  Every  moneyed 
or  private  corporation,  as  well  as  all  their  mu- 
nicipal bodies,  are  the  creatures  of  special  leg- 
islation— the  most  corruting  species  of  legisla- 
tion known  to  politics. 

It  has  fearfully  undermined  the  integrity,  not 
only  of  these  States,  but  of  Illinois,  Connecti- 
cut and  a host  of  others.  Everything  that  has 
been  urged  against  the  exercise  of  the  veto 
power  by  the  Governor,  exists  in  its  fullest 
force  against  the  exercise  of  the  law-making 
power  by  the  Legislature.  Do  we,  therefore, 
deny  all  power  to  the  Legislature?  Not  at  all; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  we  set  ourselves  to  make 
as  perfect  an  organization  of  that  department, 
and  throw  round  it  all  the  safeguards  that 
may  be  available  to  keep  legislation  in  proper 
and  safe  relation  to  the  great  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple. I shall  vote  for  conferring  the  veto  upon 
the  Governor.  I want  to  have  the  approving 
or  forbidding  power  of  the  whole  people  set 
down  by  the  side  of  the  mere  legislative  major- 
ity. It  will  give  dignity  and  importance  to  the 
office  we  have  much  neglected,  and  be  a con- 
servative element  in  the  legislation  of  the  State : 
though  not  able  to  prevent  all  the  evils  of 
hasty,  inconsiderate  or  vexatious  legislation,  it 
will  tend  to  remedy  their  evils.  It  places  the 
power  where  it  may  be  exercised,  and  often 
will  be  exercised — and  always  for  good.  It  is  a 
move  in  a safe  direction.  Nor  do  I want  any 
half-and-half  veto  that  means  nothing.  Give 
the  Governor  the  power  strongly,  and  hold  him 
responsible  for  its  exercise. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12:20  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 $30  p.  m. 
presentation  of  petition. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I desire  universal  consent  of  the 
Convention  to  introduce  a petition. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  PEASE  presented  the  petition  of  Hon. 
J.  W.  Underwood,  and  nineteen  other  mem- 
bers of  the  bar  of  Canton,  Stark  county,  pray- 
ing that  Stark  county  may  form  one  common 
pleas  district. 

The  petition  was  referred  to  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee on  the  Judicial  Department. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  A few  days  ago,  I gave 
notice  of  my  intention  to  introduce  a substi- 
tute for  section  twenty-three  of  the  Proposition 
now  under  discussion.  I ask  that  it  be  now  re- 
ceived and  ordered  printed. 


Leave  was  granted,  and  the  substitute  was 
ordered  printed. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I find  myself  under  the  neces- 
sity of  being  absent  some  days  on  professional 
business,  and  I ask  to  be  excused  from  to-mor- 
row indefinitely. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  GURLEY  asked  and  obtained  indefinite 
leave  of  absence  from  after  to-day. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER  asked  and  obtained  indefi- 
nite leave  of  absence  for  Mr.  Barnet,  from 
and  including  to-day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  section  eighteen,  in  Proposition  No. 
190. 

Mr.  EWING.  I shall  vote  to  strike  out  the 
section  requiring  a vote  of  two-thirds  of  each 
House  to  pass  a bill  over  a veto ; and  also  to  in- 
sert the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  But- 
ler [Mr.  Campbell],  authorizing  a majority  of 
each  House  to  override  a veto.  To  which  I 
hope  will  be  added  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  which 
provides  that  the  Governor  may  veto  any  item 
or  items  of  an  appropriation  bill,  while  approv- 
ing other  parts  of  it.  I think  it  would  be  well 
to  give  the  Governor  power  to  send  back  a bill 
to  the  Legislature,  with  reasons  why  it  should 
not  become  a law.  This  would  be  a sufficient 
check  on  hasty,  improvident,  and  unconstitu- 
tional legislation ; in  short,  on  all  vicious  legis- 
lation, except  such  as  may  involve  party  inter- 
ests. It  is  true  that  when  a bill  is  passed,  in 
respect  of  which  there  is  division  by  party  lines, 
such  veto  would  be  ineffectual.  But  in  those 
cases  the  Governor  would  be  quite  as  likely  to 
be  controlled  by  partisan  considerations  as  the 
majority  of  each  House,  and  where  such  con- 
siderations are  to  triumph,  it  is  quite  as  well 
that  the  party  represented  by  a majority  of  each 
House  should  control  such  legislation  and  be 
responsible  for  it,  as  the  party  represented  by 
the  Governor.  I do  not  regard  the  veto  ques- 
tion as  one  of  the  first  importance.  Ohio  has 
never  given  her  Governor  a veto,  and  no  great 
evil  is  charged  or  chargeable  to  the  omission. 
We  have  had  very  little  corrupt  legislation,  and 
if  we  fear  it  in  the  future,  it  is  not  clear  that 
the  veto  power  would  tend  to  check  it.  As  to 
improvident  and  unconstitutional  legislation, 
this  power  would  be  somewhat  of  a safe- 
guard ; but  the  majority  veto,  as  proposed  by 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler, 
will  be  almost  always  effectual  to  check  such 
legislation.  All  that  is  needed  in  such  cases, 
generally,  is  to  have  the  blunder  in  the  bill 
pointed  out  to  secure  its  correction.  The  spe- 
cial local  legislation,  so  much  complained  of  as 
unconstitutional,  and  vicious  per  se,  cannot, 
probably,  be  stopped  by  any  veto.  Bills  em- 
bodying such  legislation  are  almost  invariably 
passed  without  opposition,  as  a concession  to 
local  demands,  but  with  a full  appreciation  of 
their  unconstitutional  character.  If  passed 
over  a veto  at  all,  they  would  generally  pass  by 
a two-thirds  as  easily  as  by  a majority  vote. 

As  to  the  historic  instances  which  have 
been  invoked  here,  I do  not  regard  them 
as  lamps  to  our  feet.  In  Republican  Rome,  the 
veto  was  a right  of  the  people,  but  it  is  not, 
therefore,  a bulwark  of  popular  rights  in  Ohio ; 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER. 1139 

February  6,  1874.]  Ewing,  Hitchcock,  Cunninghan. 


and  in  monarchical  England  it  was  a kingly 
prerogative,  but  it  is  not,  therefore,  a check  on 
popular  power  here.  These  historic  instances 
are  not  parallel  with  our  experience  and  situa- 
tion. We  need  not  resort  to  them  nor  to  ab- 
stract a priori  reasoning,  nor  to  the  experiences 
of  our  Federal  Government  to  learn  the  practi- 
cal effect  in  our  State  legislation  of  conferring 
the  veto  power.  Better  than  all  philosophic 
reasoning,  than  all  Roman  or  English  history, 
and  all  national  controversies  between  the 
Whig  and  the  Democratic  parties  on  the 
nature  and  effect  of  the  veto  power,  is  the 
actual  and  ample  experience  of  Ohio  and  her 
sister  States  respecting  it.  Twenty-three 
States  have  the  veto,  requiring  two-thirds 
or  three-fifths  of  each  House  to  over-ride 
it.  Ten  States  have  the  veto,  requiring  a 
majority  only  of  each  branch  to  overcome  it — 
such  a veto  as  is  proposed  by  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Butler.  These  States  are 
Connecticut,  Indiana,  New  Jersey,  Missouri, 
Alabama,  Arkansas,  Vermont,  Kentucky,  Ten- 
nessee, and  California.  While  Ohio,  West  Vir- 
ginia, Rhode  Island,  North  Carolina,  and  Del- 
aware, have  no  veto  at  all.  Each  State  is  appa- 
rently satisfied  with  its  system.  No  complaint 
arises  in  any  of  them  respecting  the  veto  pow- 
er. No  parties  have  organized  for  its  abolition 
where  it  is,  or  its  establishment  where  it  is  not; 
for  increasing  a majority  veto  to  a two-thirds 
or  three-fifths  veto ; or  for  reducing  the  strong- 
er to  the  less  effective  form  of  that  power. 
This  want  of  all  political  agitation  on  the  sub- 
ject, proves  that  the  conferring  of  that  power 
on  the  Executive  is  neither  essential  nor  inimical 
to  the  best  government  of  a State  of  the  Amer- 
ican Republic. 

The  veto  in  Ohio  would  be  but  a mode 
of  exercise  of  the  same  popular  power  hereto- 
fore wholly  vested  in  the  Legislature.  The 
Governor,  the  Senate,  and  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives will  be  chosen  on  one  day  and  for  the 
same  two  years’  term.  The  Governor  and  each 
House,  collectively,  are  equally  Representatives 
of  the  whole  people,  and  will  all  equally  and 
eagerly  consult  the  opinion  and  strive  to  satisfy 
the  wants  of  the  public  at  large.  The  legisla- 
tive power  of  the  people  will  probably  be  as 
promptly,  effectively,  and  honestly  exercised 
through  one  agency  as  through  the  other.  The 
veto,  therefore, does  not  stand  as  the  bulwark  of 
the  masses,  as  in  Rome,  or  of  one  estate,  as  in 
Great  Britain ; but  only  as  an  instrument  of  the 
exercise  of  the  sovereign  legislative  power 
which  the  experiences  of  our  sister  States  show 
may  be  exercised  by  the  Legislature  alone,  or  by 
the  Legislature  and  the  Governor  together,  to 
the  entire  satisfaction  of  the  people.  I prefer 
to  change  our  present  Constitution  in  this  re- 
spect so  far  as  to  give  a majority  veto  to  the 
the  Governor  as  a check  on  hasty,  inconsider- 
ate, and  unconstitutional  legislation,  leaving  it 
in  the  power  of  the  Legislature,  through  a ma- 
jority of  the  members  elect  to  each  branch,  to 
override  the  veto,  if  in  their  judgment  the  Gov- 
ernor’s objections  are  not  sufficient.  This 
change  we  can  make,  certainly  with  safety,  and 
probably  with  public  approval.  But  in  the  ab- 
sense  of  any  popular  demand  or  strong  reason 
for  establishing  a two-thirds  veto,  I am  not  in 
favor  of  so  great  a change  as  that  in  the  imme- 


morial custom  of  the  State  respecting  the  exer- 
cise of  the  law-making  power. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  amend  the 
section. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment,  as 
follows : 

Insert  after  the  word  “adjournment”,  in  line  thirty- 
two,  “and  on  questions  pertaining  to  the  transaction  of 
business  by  the  two  Houses.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  This  provision,  which  I 
seek  to  amend,  requires  that  every  order,  reso- 
lution, or  vote,  to  which  the  concurrent  action 
of  both  bodies  is  required,  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  Governor  for  his  approval,  except  upon 
questions  of  adjournment.  I ask  that  there  be 
added  to  the  exception,  “questions  pertaining 
to  the  transaction  of  business  by  the  two 
Houses.”  The  object  is,  to  save  from  present- 
ing to  the  Governor  those  numerous  resolu’ions, 
of  mere  form,  passed  between  the  two  Houses. 
Now,  if  it  shall  be  adopted  without  this  amend- 
ment, we  shall  see  that,  at  the  organization  of 
the  General  Assembly,  on  the  passage  of  a res- 
olution by  the  two  Houses,  directing  the  ap- 
pointment of  a Committee  to  wait  upon  the 
Governor,  and  inform  him  that  the  two  Houses 
have  met  and  organized,  and  are  ready  to  re- 
ceive any  communications  he  may  desire  to 
make  to  them,  they  will  have  to  wait  until  this 
resolution  has  been  sent  to  the  Governor,  and 
indorsed  by  him;  showing  that  he  is  willing  to 
be  visited  by  them.  There  are  numerous  reso- 
lutions of  this  kind,  which  are  simply  formal, 
in  the  transaction  of  the  business  of  the  two 
Houses,  which,  it  seems  to  me,  ought  not  to  be 
required  to  be  presented  to  the  Governor  for 
his  approval. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  At  the  request  of 
several  members  of  the  Convention,  I desire  to 
submit  to  the  President  a question  of  order, 
and  power,  perhaps,  under  the  rules : Whether 
we  can  now,  in  considering  the  section,  inter- 
fere with  the  words  “two-thirds,”  as  they  were 
introduced,  after  striking  out  “three-fifths,”  as 
it  came  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  those  words,  merely, 
but  in  connection  with  other  words,  the  Con- 
vention have  a right  to  make  any  amendment 
that  they  mav  see  proper. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Under  the  ruling,  I 
move  to  amend  the  section,  by  striking  out,  in 
line  sixth,  the  words  “two-thirds,”  and  insert- 
ing “three-fifths.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  this  is  tantamount  to  striking  out 
the  same  words  which  were  substituted  by  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  Chair  will  re- 
collect that  the  question  was  raised  by  myself, 
at  the  time  that  we  were  considering  it  before, 
as  to  whether,  upon  reconsideration  of  the  sec- 
tion, the  insertion  of  these  words  might  be  con- 
sidered ; and  the  opinion  of  the  Chair,  at  that 
time,  was  that  they  might. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  ruling  of  my  prede- 
cessor, heretofore,  upon  this  subject,  as  I under- 
stand it,  has  been  this : that  the  words,  them- 
selves, are  not  susceptible  of  being  stricken  out, 
but  a part  of  the  words,  themselves,  or,  a part 
of  the  words,  in  connection  with  other  words, 
may,  in  order  to  make  it  a new  proposition.  If 


1140 


[107th 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Cunningham,  Hitchcock,  Townsend,  Powell,  Tyler.  [Friday, 


the  gentleman  chooses  to  re-cast  the  sentence,  or 
shall  have  it  in  a different  form,  the  idea  may 
he  gotten  at  by  taking  out  those  words,  with 
others.  I submit  that  for  the  consideration  of 
the  gentleman. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I am  sure  that  there 
are  some  members  of  the  Convention  that  de- 
sire, very  much,  that  these  words,  “three-fifths,” 
should  be  inserted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 
that  the  effect  of  Rule  thirty-nine  is,  that  if  a 
motion  to  strike  out,  on  division,  is  decided  in 
the  affirmative,  and  other  words  substituted,  a 
motion,  thereafter,  cannot  be  made  to  strike  out 
the  same  words,  or  the  substantial  part  of  the 
same  words;  but  that  an  amendment  may  be 
introduced  to  strike  out  those  words,  in  connec- 
tion with  other  words,  so  as  to  make  it  a distinct 
and  new  proposition,  or  motion.  The  Chair 
thinks  that  is  the  manner  in  which,  heretofore, 
this  has  been  considered. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  my  recollection  i3 
correct,  a motion  was  made,  by  some  gentleman, 
to  strike  out  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  at  this  point,  and  insert 
other  matter.  I am  not  certain  whether  I am 
correct  or  not. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  thinks  not. 
Some  gentleman  expressed  his  intention  of  of- 
fering an  amendment  of  that  sort,  but  none  was 
offered. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  There  was  a division  of 
the  question  on  striking  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I think  the  Chair  is  cor- 
rect. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I am  not  one  of  those 
who  believe  that  the  future  destinies  of  this 
State  hinge  on  the  determination  of  this  ques- 
tion of  executive  veto.  As  a State,  we  have 
grown  great  and  prosperous  without  the  veto, 
and,  I think,  would  continue  so  in  the  future. 

But  I also  believe  our  State  would  be  better 
governed  if  the  right  of  veto,  in  restricted  form , 
was  conferred  on  the  Governor.  So  believing, 
I shall  vote  to  retain  it  in  this  section,  as  re- 
ported by  the  Committee. 

The  change  in  the  law-making  power  of  the 
State — contemplated  by  conferring  this  right  of 
veto — is  not  radical  or  in  any  sense,  new.  It  is 
as  old  as  the  government  itself,  and  is  simply  a 
question  of  policy  for  us  to  determine  whether 
sufficient  reason  exists  for  us  to  make  it  a part 
of  the  law-making  power  of  our  own  State.  We 
now  have  two  branches,  and  we  will  then  have 
three  necessary  to  pass  a law. 

In  determining  this  great  question  we  need  not 
and  should  not  assume  that  the  legislative  body 
is  corrupt,  or  in  any  sense  incompetent.  I be- 
lieve that  our  legislative  bodies  are  to-day,  and 
always  have  been,  composed  of  honest  men, 
who  are  anxious  to  do  their  duty.  That  this 
rule  has  its  exceptions  is  also  true.  A few  men 
in  those  bodies  generally  engineer  all  the  bad 
legislation.  The  large  majority  intend  to  make 
no  laws  but  good  ones.  In  the  early  history  of 
this  State,  the  habits  of  the  people  were  sim- 
ple, and  they  wanted  but  few  laws,  and  the  ne- 
cessity and  advantage  of  the  Executive  veto 
were  not  felt  or  desired.  But  the  growth  of 
our  State  has  brought  a corresponding  demand 
for  more  laws,  and  a greater  opportunity  is  of- 


fered for  sharp,  designing  men  to  rush  through 
jobs — special  legislation,  and  laws  not  well  con- 
sidered. The  Governor,  should  he  be  clothed 
with  the  veto,  will  be,  to  a considerable  degree, 
responsible  for  improper  or  bad  laws;  and  not 
being,  like  the  Legislature,  able  to  divide  this 
responsibility  with  fifty-four  others,  he  will 
look  sharp  and  veto  what,  in  his  judgment,  is 
unwise  and  dangerous. 

The  Legislature  knowing  this,  will  be  far 
more  guarded  and  enact  more  mature  and  bet- 
ter considered  legislation,  and  you  will  find  the 
exercise  of  the  veto,  will  occur  but  rarely.  The 
Governor  will  feel  the  responsibility  and  will 
hesitate  and  use  it  with  judgment — and  only 
when  constrained  by  public  considerations  to 
do  so. 

I think  this  duty  of  revising  all  the  legisla- 
tion before  it  becomes  law,  is  wisely  conferred 
on  the  Governor.  Let  one  intelligent,  unpreju- 
diced, independent  mind  be  charged  with  this 
duty,  and  responsible  to  the  whole  State  for  re- 
sults, and  in  my  judgment,  you  have  made  a 
long  stride  toward  elevating  the  legislative  de- 
partment of  the  State,  and  the  future  will 
prove  the  wisdom  of  our  actions. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  which  of  the 
two  propositions  is  now  in  the  section,  two- 
thirds,  or  three-fifths? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Two-thirds. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  say  before  I sit 
down,  that  the  question  here  should  be,  the 
choice  between  the  two-thirds,  and  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell].  That  to  adopt  the  number  three- 
fifths,  would  not  be  consistent  with  what  we 
have  already  agreed  should  go  into  the  Con- 
stitution. That  is : that  we  have  required  that 
a two-thirds  majority  should  pass  some  laws ; 
and  to  make  it  consistent,  we  should  insist  that, 
if  we  adopt  the  veto  as  it  is  now  before  us,  it 
should  be  two-thirds  instead  of  three-fifths; 
because  three-fifths  is  less  than  what  we  now 
require  for  the  passage  of  some  laws  with  ref- 
erence to  some  kinds  of  appropriations.  I, 
therefore,  think  that  the  choice  should  be  be- 
tween two-thirds  and  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  I 
shall  support  the  two-thirds. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I have  listened  with  a great 
deal  of  interest  and  pleasure,  to  the  arguments, 
both  pro  and  con,  presented  by  the  different 
gentlemen  who  have  addressed  this  Conven- 
tion upon  the  proposition  now  under  discussion 
— the  veto  power;  and  thus  far,  sir,  I believe, 
the  affirmative  of  this  proposition  has  the 
weight  of  the  argument  in  its  favor.  But,  sir, 
I am  not  equally  satisfied  that  there  has  been 
made  one  single  convert  for  or  against  this  prop- 
osition through  the  influence  of  the  very  many 
most  able  arguments  that  have  been  presented 
by  gentlemen  upon  this  very  important  subject. 

As  for  myself  (and  I believe  the  same  is  true 
of  almost  every  delegate  in  this  Convention) 
my  mind  was  fully  made  up  when  this  proposi- 
tion was  first  reported  by  the  worthy  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment to  this  Convention. 

I am  in  favor  of  the  proposition  as  it  was  re- 
ported by  the  Committee,  to  this  Convention — 
of  which  Committee  I have  the  honor  of  being 
a member — and  opposed  to  the  amendment  of 


DayJ THE  VETO  POWER. 

February  6,  1874.]  Tyler,  Scribner,  Cunningham,  Eeer,  Campbell. 


1141 


the  able  and  worthy  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]. 

In  almost  every  instance  when  the  veto  has 
been  exercised,  either  by  the  President  or  by 
the  Governor  of  any  of  the  different  States,  it 
has  been  sustained  by  the  people. 

We  might  say  with  equal  propriety,  perhaps, 
that  it  has  been  interposed  for  their  protection 
— to  arrest  corrupt  and  hasty  legislation. 

This,  Mr.  President,  I believe  to  be  no  party 
measure,  but  one  thoroughly  Democratic — the 
sayings  of  gentlemen  upon  this  floor  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding. 

Now,  sir,  I believe  that  in  just  such  propor- 
tion as  monopolies  and  rings  increase  among 
us,  in  just  that  ratio  does  the  necessity  for  the 
veto  power  increase;  but  a veto  that  can  be 
over-ruled  by  a less  vote  than  a two-thirds,  in 
my  opinion,  would  be  of  little  use. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  section  eighteen. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  Upon  that  question  I de- 
sire to  be  excused  from  voting,  having  paired 
with  the  gentleman  from  Preble  [Mr.  Barnet]. 

The  request  was  granted. 

Mr.  West  was  excused  from  voting,  he  hav- 
ing paired  with  Mr.  Hunt. 

Mr.  Pease  was  also  excused  from  voting, 
he  having  paired  with  Mr.  Hill. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  ask  a ques- 
tion of  the  Chair.  Suppose  the  Convention, 
upon  a division  of  the  question,  refuse  to  strike 
out,  then,  can  the  section  be  amended  even  by 
a motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  upon  which  the 
section  is  retained  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  A motion  to  reconsider 
would  still  be  in  order,  this  afternoon  and 
within  three  days. 

Mr.  BEER.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  section 
eighteen,  which  is  proposed  to  be  stricken  out. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  18.  Every  bill  passed  by  the  General  Assembly 
shall,  before  it  becomes  a law,  be  presented  to  the  Gov- 
ernor. If  he  approve,  he  shall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it 
shall  become  a law;  but  if  he  do  not  approve,  he  shall  re- 
turn it,  with  his  objections,  to  the  House  in  which  it  shall 
have  originated,  which  House  shall  enter  the  objections 
at  large  upon  its  Journal,  and  proceed  to  recon  ider  the 
bill.  If,  after  such  reconsideration,  two  thirds  of  the 
members  elected  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be  sent, 
together  with  the  objections,  to  the  other  House,  by  which 
it  shall  likewise  be  reconsidered.  And,  if  approved  by 
two-thirds  of  the  members  elected  to  that  House,  it  shall 
become  a law. 

But  in  all  such  cases  the  vote  of  both  Houses  shall  be 
determined  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  the  names  of  the  per- 
sons voting  for  and  against  the  bill  shall  be  entered  upon 
the  Journal  of  each  House  respectively. 

If  any  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  Governor  within 
ten  days  (Sundays  excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  pre- 
sented to  him,  the  same  shall  be  a law,  in  like  manner  as 
if  he  had  signed  it,  unless  the  General  Assembly,  by  their 
adjournment,  prevent  its  return;  in  which  case  it  shall  be 
filed,  with  his  objections,  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  within  te  i days  after  such  avijournment  or  become 
a law.  If  any  bill  presented  to  the  Governor  con- 
tain several  items  of  appropriation  of  money,  he  may  ob- 
ject to  one  or  more  of  such  items,  while  approving  of  the 
other  port  ons  of  the  bill.  In  such  case  he  shall  append 
to  the  bill,  at  the  time  of  signing  it,  a statement  of  the 
items  to  which  he  objects;  and  the  appropriations  so  ob- 
jected to  shall  not  take  effect.  If  the  General  Assembly  be 
in  session,  he  shall  transmit  to  the  House  in  which  the 
bill  originated,  a copy  of  such  statements,  and  the  items 
objected  to  shall  be  separately  reconsidered.  If,  on  re- 
consideration, one  or  more  of  such  items  be  approved  by 
two-thirds  of  the  members  elected  to  each  House,  the 
same  shall  be  part  of  the  law,  notwithstanding  the  ob- 
jections ol  the  Governor.  All  the  provisions  of  this  sec- 
tion, in  relation  to  bills  not  approved  by  the  Governor, 
shall  apply  to  cases  in  which  he  shall  withhpld  his  ap- 


proval from  any  item  or  items  contained  in  a bill  appro- 
priating money. 

Every  order,  resolution  or  vote  to  which  the  concurrence 
of  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly  may  be  neces- 
sary (except  on  a question  of  adjournment),  shall  be  pre- 
sented to  the  Governor;  and  before  the  same  shall  take 
effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him,  or  being  disapproved  by 
him,  shall  be  repassed  by  two-thirds  of  both  Houses  of  the 
General  Assembly,  according  to  the  rules  and  limitations 
prescribed  in  the  case  of  a bill.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  41,  nays  34,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Camp- 
bell, Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook, 
Cowen,  Doan,  Ewing,  Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Hor- 
ton, Layton,  McCormick,  Miller,  Miner,  Muel- 
ler, Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond, 
Rickly,  Root,  Scofield,  Shultz,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley, 
Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Waddle,  Watson,  White 
of  Hocking,  Wilson — 41. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer, 
Dorsey,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene, 
Hale,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Kerr, 
McBride,  Mitchener,  Powell,  Pratt,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Town- 
send, Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris, Wea- 
ver, Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  Presi- 
dent— 34. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  section  eighteen 
was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  But- 
ler [Mr.  Campbell]. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  When  I prepared  this 
substitute,  I was  not  aware  that  section  24  pro- 
vided that  no  extra  compensation  should  be  paid 
to  any  officer,  except  by  a two-thirds  vote : I, 
therefore,  move  to  amend,  so  that  it  will  pro- 
vide, that  after  the  objections  of  the  Governor, 
it  shall  require  a like  vote,  that  was  required  in 
the  first  instance,  and  also  by  substituting  the 
word  “ may”  in  two  instances,  for  the  word 
“shall.”  The  modification  is  to  agree  with  the 
provision  of  the  twenty-fourth  section,  which, 
if  adopted,  will  require  a two-thirds  vote  to 
vote  any  extra  compensation  to  officers.  This 
modification  is  to  provide  that  in  such  a case,  a 
like  vote  shall  be  required  after  the  objections  of 
the  Governor  have  been  stated. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  modifications. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amended  section  as 
follows : 

“Sec.  18.  Every  bill  passed  by  the  General  Assembly 
shall,  before  it  become  a law,  be  presented  to  the  Govern- 
or at  least  three  days  before  its  adjournment  sine  die.  If 
he  approve  it,  he  .-hall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it  shall  be- 
come a law;  but  if  he  do  not  approve,  he  shall  send  it  to 
the  House  in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  and  he  may 
either  return  with  it  his  objections  in  writing,  or  he  may 
state  them  orally  to  the  House;  and  the  House  may  then 
proceed  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
If  after  such  reconsideration,  a majority  of  the  members 
elected  thereto,  sufficient  for  its  passage  in  the  first  in- 
stance, agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be  sent  to  the  other 
House,  to  which  also,  the  Governor  may  state  his  objec- 
tions, either  in  writing  or  orally;  and  thereupon,  that 
House  may  likewise  reconsider  the  vote  on  its  passage. 
If,  after  such  reconsideration,  a like  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers elected  to  that  House  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall 
become  a law.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the 
Governor  within  five  days  (Sundays  excepted)  after  it 
shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  become  a 
law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it.” 


1142 


[107th 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Cunningham,  Scofield,  Baber,  Carbery,  Hoadly,  etc.  [Friday, 


The  amendments  proposed  by  Mr.  Campbell, 
were  agreed  to. 

They  are  as  follows : 

In  the  sixth  line,  after  the  word  “House”,  strike  out 
“shall”  and  insert  “may.”  In  the  seventh  line,  after  the 
word  “members”,  insert,  “elected  thereto,  sufficient  for 
its  passage  in  the  first  instance.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move  further  to 
amend  the  section  by  striking  out  the  word 
“ majority”  in  line  seven,  and  insert  the  words 
“three-fifths,”  and  also  a like  amendment  in 
line  ten. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I call  for  a division  of  the 
question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be 
upon  striking  out  the  word  “ majority”  in  lines 
seven  and  ten. 

Mr.  BABER.  There  was  a vote  on  this  three- 
fifths,  but  it  was  at  another  stage  of  the  pro- 
ceedings. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  was  a different  section, 
the  section  which  has  just  been  stricken  out. 
This  is  an  amendment  to  the  substitute. 

Mr.  BABER.  I think  the  three-fifths  is  just 
as  bad  as  the  two-thirds. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is, in  the  opinion 
of  the  gentleman  fromF  ranklin  [Mr.  Baber]. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I look  upon  this  as  an  at- 
tempt to  get  the  veto  into  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  One  single  word.  It 
seems  to  me  that  if  the  Convention  intend  to 
give  the  veto  to  the  Governor  at  all,  it  should 
confer  with  it  enough  power  to  make  it,  at  least, 
respectable.  It  will  only  require  in  the  House 
nine  more  votes,  than  a majority ; but  still  it 
would  be  a power — and  the  veto  would  come 
with  power  sufficient,  at  least,  to  make  it  re- 
spectable. Under  the  section  as  it  is  now  pro- 
posed, it  would  give  the  Governor  a formal  leave 
to  scold  the  Legislature,  without  anything  else. 
It  would  be  a wordy  war  in  the  General  As- 
sembly. 

Upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Cunningham  to 
strike  out  “ majority”  and  insert  “ three-fifths,” 
a division  having  been  demanded,  and  the 
question  being : “ Shall  the  Convention  strike 
out  a majority?” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  35,  nays  43,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Bannon,  Beer,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey, 
Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Hale,  Hoad- 
ly, Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Mc- 
Bride, Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Russell 
of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Town- 
send, Tripp,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis,  Voris, 
Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
President — 35. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Camp- 
bell, Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook, 
Cowen,  Doan,  Ewing,  Gurley,  Hill,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Layton,  McCormick,  Miller,  Miner, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Phellis,  Philips, 
Pond,  Rickly,  Root,  Scofield,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Towns- 
ley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Voorhes,  Waddle,  Watson, 
West,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson — 43. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  to  strike  out  the 


words,  “ or  he  may  state  them  orally,”  in  line 
five,  and  in  line  nine,  the  word  “ either  ” be- 
fore the  words  “ in  writing,”  and  “ or  orally  ” 
after  the  words  “ in  writing.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Let  me  suggest,  as  I had  an 
amendment  on  that  subject,  that  the  gentleman 
include  the  word  “either,”  in  the  fourth  line. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly ; and  if  the  gen- 
tleman has  his  amendment  in  writing,  let  him 
substitute  it  for  mine. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I simply  desire  to  strike  out 
from  the  fourth  line  the  word  “either,”  from 
the  fifth  line  “or  he  may  state  them  orally,” 
and  in  line  nine  the  words  “ either  in  writing 
or  orally,”  and  insert  “in  writing.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I suggest  that  unless 
some  other  changes  are  made,  it  will  not  be  in- 
telligible in  that  form. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  may  be,  but  what  I 
wish  to  reach  is,  a vote  upon  the  question 
whether  the  Governor  shall  be  permitted  to  give 
his  reasons  for  his  veto  orally.  I am  one  of 
those  who,  though  disappointed  by  the  recent 
vote  of  the  Convention,  are  disposed  to  try  the 
plan  of  the  delegate  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell]. I believe  it  will  be  better  than  to  have 
no  veto.  It  will  require  the  Governor  to  take 
the  responsibility  of  saying  to  the  Legislature 
with  regard  to  every  act,  whether  he  deem  it 
Constitutional  or  wise.  And  in  the  hands  of 
an  upright  Governor — while  I do  not  regard  it 
as  valuable  as  the  proposition  that  we  have 
voted  down — I believe  it  will  enure  to  the  good 
of  the  State,  and  I shall  support  it.  What  I 
object  to  is  this:  that  the  Governor  may  state 
his  reasons  by  word  of  mouth;  leaving  the 
question  to  chance,  as  to  whether  there  be  a 
reporter  present,  or  as  to  the  accuracy  of  that 
reporter — whether  the  appeal  to  the  people 
which  the  Governor  makes  shall  be  presented  to 
the  people  as  he  makes  it.  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  will  be  a very  valuable  State  paper  which 
he  will  send  in,  however  brief  it  may  be.  Or  if 
the  Governor  may  be,  as  the  delegate  from  But- 
ler [Mr.  Campbell]  suggests,  incapacitated 
from  writing  by  accident  or  illness,  as  the  pres- 
ent Governor  is,  it  will  only  require  him  to  em- 
ploy an  amanuensis.  There  is  no  difficulty  in 
his  stating  his  reasons  in  writing,  and  the  ap- 
peal to  the  people  can  be  made  on  the  basis  of 
his  statement.  More  than  that,  I think,  Mr. 
President,  it  may  involve  the  Governor  in  un- 
dignified squabbles. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  the  gentleman  will  al- 
low me  a moment,  it  may  save  some  time. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  With  pleasure. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I am  by  no  means  tena- 
cious with  regard  to  the  verbiage  of  this  prop- 
osition; and  am  disposed,  so  far  as  I can,  with- 
out sacrificing  any  material  point,  to  agree  with 
the  general  disposition  of  the  Convention.  It 
occurred  to  me  that,  at  the  close  of  the  session, 
perhaps,  there  might  be  quite  a number  of 
bills  that  the  Governor  would  disapprove;  and 
he  could  much  more  speedily  and  readily 
appear  before  the  Legislature  and  state  briefly 
his  objections.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  as  has 
been  well  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly],  there  might  appear  to  be  some- 
thing undignified  in  his  coming  before  the  Leg- 
islature, though  I do  not  exactly  see  that  it 
would  be  undignified  for  the  Governor  to  state 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Campbell,  Beer,  Burns,  Hoadly. 


1143 


Day.] 

February  6,  1874.] 


his  reasons  orally.  I have  no  objections,  with 
the  common  consent  of  the  Convention,  to  have 
the  amendment  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  adopted ; and  leave  the 
Governor,  in  all  instances,  to  present  in  writing 
his  reasons,  so  that  it  may  he  filed  among  the 
archives  of  the  State.  I would  not  have  them 
go  upon  the  Journal,  because  that  is  an  unne- 
cessary thing. 

Mr.  Hoadly’s  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  substitute,  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Seo.  18.  Every  bill  passed  by  the  General  Assembly 
shall,  before  it  become  a law,  be  presented  to  the  Gov- 
ernor at  least  three  days  before  its  adjournment  Bine  die. 
If  he  approve  it,  he  shall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it  shall 
become  a law;  but  if  he  do  not  approve,  he  shall  send  it 
to  the  House  in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  and  he 
may  return  with  it  his  objections  in  writing  to  the  House; 
and  the  House  shall  then  proceed  to  reconsider  the  vote 
on  the  passage  of  the  bill.  If  after  such  reconsideration, 
a majority  of  the  members  elected  thereto,  sufficient  for 
its  passage  in  the  first  instance,  agree  to  pass  the  same, 
it  shall  be  sent  to  the  other  House,  to  which,  also,  the 
Governor  may  state  bis  objections  in  writing;  and  there- 
upon that  House  may  likewise  reconsider  the  vote  on  its 
passage.  If  after  such  reconsideration  a like  majority  of 
the  members  elected  to  that  House  agree  to  pass  the 
same,  it  shall  become  a law.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be  re- 
turned by  the  Governor  within  five  days  (Sundays 
excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the 
same  6hall  become  a law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had 
signed  it.” 

Mr.  BEER.  I offer  an  amendment,  at  the 
request  of  several  delegates. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Amend  section  18  by  adding  thereto  the  following : 

“The  Governor  shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any 
item  or  items  of  any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money, 
embracing  distinct  items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the  bill 
approved  shall  be  the  law,  and  the  item  or  items  of  ap- 
propriation disapproved  shall  be  void,  unless  repassed  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the 
passage  of  entire  bills,  after  the  disapproval  of  the  Gov- 
ernor.” 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  By  way  of  giving  furth- 
er evidence  that  I am  not  pertinacious,  I have 
no  objection  to  that  amendment. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  very  much  to  vote 
for  that  amendment,  if  it  shall  stand  on  its  own 
merits.  If  it  is  voted  in,  I shall  have  either  to 
vote  against  the  whole  or  for  the  whole. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Vote  for  the  whole. 

Mr.  B URNS.  I do  not  desire  to  do  that.  I 
do  not  wish  to  make  any  captious  objections ; 
but  if  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  as  it  now  stands,  should 
be  adopted,  I should  then  very  cheerfully  vote 
for  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  ; but  if  it  is  now  present- 
ed io  me  as  a whole,  I shall  feel  myself  more 
embarrassed. 

r-jChe  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  objects 
to  the  amendment,  as  the  Chair  understands? 

(Mr.  BURNS.  I object  to  it. 

j The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be 
ujpon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Qrawford,  [Mr.  Beer]. 

) Mr.  BEER.  With  the  leave  of  the  Conven- 
tion, I withdraw  it  at  present. 

I Upon  the  question,  Shall  Mr.  Beer  have 
‘leave  to  withdraw  his  amendment?  a division 
jwas  called  for,  and  being  taken,  resulted,  af- 
firmative 24,  negative  37. 

So  the  Convention  refused  to  allow  the 
; imendmentto  be  withdrawn. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  not  venture  to  say 


a word,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  dele- 
gate from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  with  whom  I 
think  I am  in  unison  on  this  subject,  and  with 
whom  I have  acted  upon  this  subject,  has  taken 
a view  that  surprises  me. 

The  delegate  fails  to  see,  I think,  that  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Convention  have  decided,  and  by 
so  emphatic  a vote  as  to  leave  very  little  proba- 
bility of  change  of  opinion,  against  the  two- 
thirds  and  the  three-fifths  veto.  Therefore,  we 
shall  have  no  veto  at  all,  or  be  content  with  the 
majority  veto.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  amend- 
ment of  the  delegate  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer] 
is  all  the  more  important  because  of  this  state 
of  affairs.  It  will  enable  the  Governor,  if  this 
amendment  be  adopted,  to  send  any  item  of  an 
appropriation  bill  back  to  be  passed  on  its  own 
merits,  and  help  to  prevent  the  wrong  so  many 
of  us  have  been  objecting  to,  namely:  when 
appropriations  are  passed  by  minorities  swap- 
ping votes  with  each  other — those  who  are  in 
favor  of  one  proposition  being  a minority,  and 
those  who  are  in  favor  of  another  proposition 
being  a minority,  trading  votes  and  making 
themselves  a majority,  when  the  real  majority 
of  the  whole  House,  voting  independently, 
would  not  favor  the  proposition  on  its  own 
merits.  This  amendment  of  the  delegate  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  accepted  by  the  delegate 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  will  put  it  in 
the  power  of  the  Governor  to  require  a recon- 
sideration of  a single  item,  and  thus  force  an 
honest  expression  of  opinion  from  the  Legisla- 
ture; if,  at  any  time,  he  should  become  of  the 
opinion  that  such  trading,  or  log-rolling  had 
been  indulged  in,  and  improper  legislation  had 
been  the  result.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  a most 
valuable  addition ; and  as  my  friend  is  in  favor 
of  it  on  its  merits,  for  the  life  of  me,  I cannot 
see  why — as  we  have  to  take  the  veto  of  the  del- 
egate from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell] — he  should 
not  be  in  favor  of  adding  it  to  the  substitute. 
Perhaps  he  can  explain. 

Mr.  BURNS.  My  reasons  for  making  the 
distinction  that  I did  may  not  be  sound,  but 
they  are  these : the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  as  it  stands, 
does  not  meet  my  approbation;  but  if  it  be- 
comes a part  of  the  Constitution,  by  a vote  of 
this  Convention,  then,  I desire  to  vote  in  favor 
of  attaching  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  to  it.  Because,  if 
there  is  any  value  in  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  ftom  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  it  be- 
comes more  valuable  by  having  the  other 
attached  to  it;  but  I do  not  regard  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell] as  of  sufficient  consequence,  in  my  judg- 
ment, to  put  it  in  the  Constitution;  and, 
therefore,  I expect  to  vote  against  it,  but  in 
voting  against  it,  I do  not  want  to  be  driven  to 
the  alternative  of  voting  against  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  vote  on  the  amendment 
must  be  taken  before  the  vote  on  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell]. My  friend  would  like  to  record  his  vote 
against  the  proposition  of  the  delegate  from 
Butler  [Mr  Campbell],  and,  if  it  is  defeated,  he 
would  like  to  support  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer];  but  is 
not  the  proper  way  to  do,  to  make  the  amend- 


1144 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hoadly,  Burns,  Campbell,  Scribner,  West,  etc. 


[107th 


[Friday, 


ment  of  the  delegate  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell] as  perfect  as  possible?  Are  not  the 
friends  of  the  amendment  entitled  to  have  it 
made  as  perfect  as  possible,  before  it  is  submit- 
ted to  a vote— does  not  parliamentary  law  re- 
quire it  to  be  done  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I suppose  they  have  that  right. 
I am  not  questioning  their  right,  at  all. 

Mr.  Beer’s  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  substitute  as  amended. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  On  that  I ask  for  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I have  not  been  able  to 
write  out  the  amendment  which  I proposed; 
but  I can  state  what  is  sufficient  to  inform  the 
Convention.  It  is,  simply,  to  attach  to  the  sub- 
stitute, as  already  amended,  the  concluding  par- 
agraph of  the  original  section:  substituting  the 
word  “ majority  ” in  the  place  of  “ two-thirds,” 
so  as  to  make  it  conform  to  the  substitute.  The 
objectbeing  to  make  it  embrace  joint  resolutions 
within  the  prescribed  veto. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  offers  the 
following  amendment  as  in  addition  to  the  sub- 
stitute : 

“Every  order,  or  resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  concur- 
rence of  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly  may  be 
necessary,  except  on  the  question  of  adjournment,  and  on 
questions  pertaining  to  the  transaction  of  business  by  the 
two  Houses,  shall  be  presented  to  the  Governor,  and  be- 
fore the  same  shall  take  effect  shall  be  approved  by  him, 
or  being  disapproved  by  him  shall  be  repassed  by  both 
Houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  according  to  the  rules 
and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a bill.” 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I have  no  objection  to 
that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  being  no  objec- 
tion, the  amendment  will  be  considered  as 
added.  The  question  now  recurs  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  substitute  as  amended. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  after  having 
stricken  out  so  much  of  the  provision  as  relates 
to  the  oral  statement  in  the  House,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  change  the  word  “may”  into  “shall,” 
in  the  third  and  fourth  lines. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  That,  in  order  to  conform 
with  the  other,  will  be  necessary. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  It  seems  to  me, 
that  it  requires  a veto  message  to  be  sent  to 
each  House.  Is  that  so?  It  has  been  amended 
so  much,  that  I have  not  the  whole  amendment 
before  me. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  same  message  may 
be  sent. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I suggest,  also,  “that  he  may,” 
in  line  eight,  ought  to  be  changed  to  the  word 
“shall.” 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  That  has  the  same  con- 
nection with  the  subject.  The  word  “shall” 
should  also  be  inserted  in  line  eight. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  strike  out, 
from  the  eighth  and  ninth  lines,  the  words,  “to 
which,  also,  the  Governor  may  state  his  objec- 
tions in  writing,”  and  insert  the  following 
words:  “House,  with  the  objections  of  the 
Governor  thereto”;  so  that  it  will  read  : “after 
such  reconsideration,  it  shall  be  sent  to  the 
other  House,  with  the  objections  of  the  Gov- 
ernor thereto.”  That  obviates  the  suggestion 


of  the  gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphre- 
ville]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  pre- 
pare his  amendment? 

Mr.  ROOT.  One  suggestion.  I hope,  in 
preparing  the  amendment,  the  gentleman  will 
bear  in  mind  to  use  such  language  as  to  delay 
the  message  in  the  House  that  first  passes  the 
bill,  until  they  are  through  with  it.  Though 
there  should  be  two  messages,  they  should  be 
sent  to  both  Houses  the  same  time  the  bill  is 
sent  to  the  one. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  I understand  the 
reading,  this  first  part  of  the  section  provides 
for  the  reconsideration  of  this  bill  in  the  House 
to  which  it  shall  be  sent  by  the  Governor.  If, 
after  such  reconsideration,  a majority  of  the 
members  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be 
sent  to  the  other  House,  with  the  objections  of 
the  Governor  thereto.  Will  there  be  any  diffi- 
culty ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  message  ought  to  go  to  both 
Houses  as  early  as  possible. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  will  yield  to  me  a 
moment,  I shall  propose  modifications  which,  I 
think,  will  place  the  proposition  in  much  better 
shape.  It  was  the  striking  out  of  the  oral 
branch,  as  was  suggested  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton,  [Mr.  Hoadly],  that  has  thrown 
the  section  somewhat  into  confusion;  and, 
therefore,  I propose  to  strike  out  the  words  in 
the  fourth  line,  “and  he  may  either  return.” 
And  the  word  “it,”  after  “in  order,”  so  that  it 
will  read:  “but  if  he  do  not  approve,  he  shall 
send  it  to  the  House  in  which  it  shall  have  orig- 
inated, with  his  objections  in  writing.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  That  is  what  I desire. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Then,  in  the  eighth  line, 
strike  out  the  words  “to  which  also,”  and  in- 
sert in  lieu  thereof,  “with  the  objections  of  the 
Governor,”  so  that  it  will  read : 

“If  after  such  reconsideration  a majority  of  the  mem- 
bers elected  thereto,  sufficient  for  its  passage  in  the  first 
instance,  agree  to  pass  the  same  it  shall  be  sent  to  the  other 
House  with  the  objections  of  the  Governor.” 

And  then  strike  out  “objections,  either  in 
writing  or  orally,”  in  the  next  line,  and  then 
I think  it  will  conform  to  all  the  suggestions 
that  have  been  made,  and  be  placed  in'  proper 
shape.  \ 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell], will  ask  to- modify’ it  in 
that  form,  I shall  be  very  glad  to  accept  the 
suggestion,  for  that  was  what  I was  seeking1. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  section  as  amended  with  the  alterations  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell], 

The  Secretary  read : » 

“Sec.  18.  Every  bill  passed  by  the  General  Asseml'ly 
shall,  before  it  becomes  a law,  be  presented  to  the  Gov- 
ernor at  least  three  days  before  its  adjournment  sine 
If  he  approve  it  he  shall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it  sha  11 
become  a law;  but  if  he  do  not  approve,  he  shall  send  i't 
to  the  House  in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  with  hui 
objections  in  writing,  and  the  House  may  then  proceed  t<  > 
reconsider  the  vote  on  the  passage  ot  the  bill.  If,  afte:r 
such  reconsideration,  a majority  of  the  members  electee* 
thereto,  sufficient  for  its  passage  in  the  first  instance.'* 
agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be  sent  to  the  other  House  , 
with  the  objections  of  the  Governor;  and  thereupon,  tha’t 
House  may  likewise  reconsider  the  vote  on  its  passage'!- 
If,  after  such  reconsideration,  a like  majority  of  the  menv- 


Day.]  THE  VETO  POWER. 1145 

February  6, 1874.]  Scribner,  Pond,  Root,  Campbell,  etc. 


bers  elected  to  that  House  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall 
become  a law.  If  auy  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the 
Governor  within  three  days  (Sunday  excepted)  after  it 
shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  become 
a law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it. 

“The  Governor  shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any 
item  or  items  of  any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money, 
embracing  distinct  items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the  bill 
approved  shall  be  the  law,  and  the  item  or  items  of  ap- 
propriation disapproved,  shall  be  void,  unless  repassed 
according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the 
passage  of  entire  bills,  after  the  disapproval  of  the  Gov- 
ernor. 

“Every  order,  resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  concur- 
rence of  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly  may  be 
necessary  (except  on  a question  of  adjournment,  or  ques- 
tions pertaining  to  the  transaction  of  business),  shall  be 
presented  to  the  Governor;  and  before  the  same  shall 
take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him,  or  being  disap- 
proved by  him  shall  be  repassed  by  both  Houses  of  the 
General  Assembly,  according  to  the  rules  and  limitations 
prescribed  in  the  case  of  a bill.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  substitute  for  section  eighteen, 
as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  52,  nays  28,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Bannon,  Blose,  Cald- 
well, Campbell,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats, 
Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Godfrey,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly, 
Horton,  Hostetter,  Hunt,  Layton,  McBride,  Mil- 
ler, Miner,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Rickly,  Russell 
of  Muskingum,  Scofield,  Scribner,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thomp- 
son, Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Voorhis,  Wad- 
dle, West,  Wilson,  President — 52. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Beer,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Cowen,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Greene, 
Hitchcock,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  McCormick, 
Mitchener,  Pratt,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sam- 
ple, Townsley,  Tripp,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Vo- 
ris,  Watson,  Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Wood- 
bury, Young  of  Champaign — 28. 

So  the  substitute  was  inserted  in  the  place  of 
the  original  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  adoption  of  the  substitute. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  The  substitute  having  been 
inserted,  is  there  any  question  at  this  stage  of 
the  proceedings  upon  the  adoption  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  true.  The  ques- 
tion of  its  adoption  will  come  up  afterwards. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  to  reconsider  the  vote 
just  taken,  upon  which  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  was 
agreed  to,  and  upon  that  I demand  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  like  to  inquire  if  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  is  in  favor 
of  it? 

Mr.  POND.  I am  not. 

Mr.  ROOT.  That  is  a great  way  to  do  busi- 
ness> 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I suppose  the  object  is  to 
have  this  finished  so  that  we  may  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  the  other  sections,  and  that  this 
cannot  be  re-opened.  If  we  vote  down  the  mo- 
tion to  reconsider  it,  that  finishes  it. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I move  to  lay  the  motion  upon 
the  table. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Upon  that  motion,  I de- 
mand the  yeas  and  nays 


Mr.  BURNS.  It  is  not  debatable. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I think  I understand  that 
as  well  as  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns],  that  it  is  not  a debatable  question,  and 
I do  not  propose  to  debate  it,  but  it  is  in  order 
to  make  an  inquiry  of  the  Chair.  The  gentle- 
man is  probably  a good  deal  on  that  system 
himself. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  will  proceed  to  make 
his  inquiry.  The  gentleman  is  in  order  and 
has  a right  to  make  an  inquiry. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  It  is  this : whether,  if  the 
vote  to  reconsider,  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  be  voted  down,  that  will 
not  determine  the  discussion  finally ; or,  whe- 
ther, if  the  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table  pre- 
vails, it  may  not,  at  any  time,  be  taken  up  when 
a majority  are  present,  and  the  whole  subject  be 
reopened  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state, 
that  the  vote,  which  the  gentleman  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond],  moves  to  reconsider,  is  simply 
upon  the  vote  to  insert  and  not  upon  the  adop- 
tion of  the  substitute,  and  it  would  prevent, 
hereafter,  simply  a motion  to  reconsider  the 
vote  to  insert. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Would  it  not  prevent  any 
consideration  of  this  eighteenth  section? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  thinks  not. 
It  is  simply  a motion  to  reconsider  the  motion 
to  insert. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  will  withdraw  his  motion 
to  reconsider  the  question,  we  take  a vote,  ac- 
cording to  the  suggestion  of  the  Chair,  upon 
the  motion  to  adopt. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  the  vote  upon  which  the  gentleman 
demands  a reconsideration,  was  simply  upon 
the  vote  to  insert,  and  not  upon  the  merits  of 
the  question.  The  question  is,  therefore,  now 
upon  the  motion  to  lay  the  motion  to  reconsider 
upon  the  table. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  to  ask  whether  there 
is  any  motion  to  adopt,  until  the  whole  Article 
is  submitted  for  adoption  by  the  Convention  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 
not. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Whether  the  separate  sec- 
tions are,  by  any  rule,  submitted  to  a separate 
vote  upon  the  question  of  adoption? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Such  has  not  been  the 
practice  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then  the  adoption  will  be  of 
the  whole  Article? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then  why  will  not  the  re- 
fusal to  reconsider  be  the  end  of  this  section  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Because  the  question  to 
reconsider  is  a vote  to  insert  and  not  to  adopt. 
The  question  to  adopt  is  yet  to  come. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Did  I understand  the  Chair 
to  say  that  the  question  of  adoption  will  be 
upon  the  whole  Article,  and  not  upon  the 
separate  section  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Let  me  make  one  inquiry  : 
whether  there  is  any  vote  to  be  taken  with 
reference  to  section  eighteen,  as  a separate  and 
distinct  branch  of  Proposition  190? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 


1146 


THE  VETO  POWER. 


[107th 


Campbell,  Cunningham,  Root,  Pond,  Neal. 


[Friday, 


that,  according  to  the  practice  established  here- 
tofore, there  is  no  rule  found  to  regulate  the 
matter.  The  practice  has  been  under  Rule  69 — 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  What  I desire  to  know  is, 
the  ruling  of  the  Chair. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  intended  to 
state  that,  under  the  practice  under  the  Rule 
sixty-nine,  the  Convention  has  taken  up  the 
proposition  section  by  section,  and,  after  acting 
upon  each  section,  the  ruling  of  the  Chair  was 
that  the  Convention  should  not  go  back  except 
by  common  consent,  but  that  by  common  con- 
sent the  Convention  may  go  back  and  recon- 
sider the  Article. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  Chair  state 
whether  it  rules  that  this  section  is  to  be  finally 
acted  upon  as  a separate  section  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  With  that  understand- 
ing ; that,  by  universal  consent,  it  may  be  taken 
up.  There  is  no  rule  regulating  the  matter; 
but  the  former  President  of  the  Convention 
stated  it  as  a rule,  and  I believe  the  practice  has 
been  since,  that,  after  going  over  a Proposition 
section  by  section,  it  would  not  be  permitted  to 
go  back  to  any  section  except  by  common  con- 
sent. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  Chair  will  allow  me 
a moment.  It  was  by  universal  consent,  the 
other  day,  that  this  section  eighteen  was  taken 
up  out  of  its  order  for  final  disposition.  It  was 
taken  up  to  be  finally  disposed  of  in  advance. 
If  the  Chair  rules  that  it  has  been  finally  dis- 
posed of,  the  question  will  arise  whether  it  is 
possible  hereafter  to  take  it  up  again  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands, 
and  has  already  said,  that,  under  the  practice 
established,  this  section  is  not  susceptible  of 
any  further  amendment,  except  by  general  con- 
sent. If  I am  wrong  in  my  impression,  I shall 
be  happy  to  be  corrected.  I understand  that  to 
be  the  practice  established  by  the  Convention. 
There  is  no  rule  regulating  it. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Then,  Mr.  President,  if 
the  friends  of  this  proposition  desire  to  have  it 
finally  disposed  of,  they  will  vote  down  the  mo- 
tion to  lay  the  motion  to  reconsider  upon  the 
table,  and  then  vote  down  the  motion  to  recon- 
sider. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  make  an 
inquiry  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  principle  of 
disposing  of  an  important  proposition  like  this, 
before  the  Convention  has  had  an  opportunity 
to  look  at  it,  even.  There  have  been  a dozen 
amendments  offered  here,  and  accepted,  by  the 
gentleman  who  proposed  the  section,  none  of 
which  the  Convention  has  had  the  opportunity 
to  examine,  and  now  it  is  proposed  to  lock  the 
door,  and  prevent  the  Convention  from  looking 
at,  and  examining,  and  carefully  revising,  their 
action  in  the  premises. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Is  that  any  inquiry  of  the  Chair  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Al- 
len [Mr.  Cunningham],  is  not  in  order.  A mo- 
tion to  lay  upon  the  table  is  not  debatable. 
The  question  is  upon  laying  upon  the  table  the 
motion  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  POND.  If  it  is  in  order,  I ask  leave  of 
the  Convention  to  withdraw  my  motion  to  re- 
consider. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order  unless 
the  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table  is  first  with- 
drawn. 


Upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Cowen  to  lay  the  mo- 
tion upon  the  table,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  or- 
dered, and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  33,  nays 
47,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Beer,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Foran7 
Greene,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humph- 
reville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  McBride,  Mitchener,  Pease, 
Philips,  Pratt,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Smith 
of  Highland,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tyler, Van  Voor- 
his,  Voris,  Waddle,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, President— 33. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Bannon,  Blose,  Caldwell, 
Campbell,  Carberv,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook, 
De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Freiberg,  Godfrey, 
Gurley,  Hale,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Layton, 
McCormick,  Miller,  Miner,  Mueller,  Mullen, 
Neal,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Rickly,  Root, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Scofield,  Scribner, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend, 
Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Yoorhes,  Watson,  Weaver, 
West,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson — 47. 

So  the  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table  was  not 
agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond],  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the 
substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell],  was  inserted  in  lieu  of  the  orig- 
inal section  eighteen. 

Mr.  NEAL.  If  this  motion  prevails,  as  I un- 
derstand the  rules  of  this  Convention,  when 
the  proposition  comes  up  for  the  adoption  of  the 
substitute  as  an  Article  of  the  present  Consti- 
tution, it  will  be  proper  for  any  one  who  wishes 
to  amend  this  section,  or  any  other,  by  moving 
to  refer  the  same  to  a Committee  of  one,  with 
instructions  to  amend? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I make  that  statement  because 
there  seemed  to  be  an  impression  upon  the  part 
of  some  persons  that,  if  this  motion  to  recon- 
sider was  not  carried,  then,  any  amendment  to 
this  particular  section  will  be  beyond  the  con- 
trol of  this  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  still  be  liable  to 
amendment,  with  instructions. 

On  the  motion  to  reconsider,  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  ordered,  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas 
29,  nays  51,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Beer,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Cowen,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Greene, 
Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kerr, 
McBride,  Mitchener,  Pratt,  Root,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Sample,  Tripp,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis, 
Yoris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Champaign,  President — 29. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Bannon,  Blose,  Cald- 
well, Campbell,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats, 
Cook,  DeSteiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Freiberg,  God- 
frey, Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Hor- 
ton, Layton,  McCormick,  Miner,  Mueller,  Mul- 
len, Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond, 
Powell,  Rickly,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sco- 
field, Scribner,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley, Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Voorhes,  Watson,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson — 51. 


1147 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  6,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Humphreville,  Hitchcock,  Pond,  Hoadly. 


So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  having 
disposed  of  section  18,  it  will  now,  under  Rule 
sixty-nine,  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Proposition,  section  by  section.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  first  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  1.  The  legislative  power  of  this  State  shall  be 
vested  in  the  General  Assembly,  which  shall  consist  of  a 
Senate  and  a House  of  Representatives.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  objec- 
tions, the  Secretary  will  proceed  to  read  section 
2. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  2.  The  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
shall  be  electod  biennially  by  the  electors  in  the  respec- 
tive counties  or  districts  on  the  Tuesday  sucoeeding  the 
first  Mondav  of  November.  Their  term  of  office  shall  com- 
mence on  the  first  of  January  next  thereafter  and  con- 
tinue two  years,” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Mr.  President,  if  in  order,  I 
had  proposed  to  have  that  question  considered 
while  the  Convention  was  fuller  than  it  was 
when  the  question  was  acted  upon,  the  other 
day.  I refer  to  the  term  of  office  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Representatives.  It  is 
suggested  that  no  proposition  is,  at  this  time,  in 
order.  I make  the  inquiry. 

The  PRESIDENT.  What  is  the  question  of 
the  gentleman? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Whether  it  is  in  order  to 
move  to  strike  out,  or  amend,  the  section,  so  as 
to  provide  a term  of  one  year,  instead  of  two 
years,  for  members  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  has  re- 
fused to  adopt  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  section  is  now 
open  for  amendment  in  any  way  which  does 
not  strike  out.  It  is  open  to  amendment  by 
adding,  or  by  any  other  material  addition  to  the 
proposition. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  There  was  a direct 
vote  taken  upon  striking  out  section  two,  as  it 
now  stands ; and  that  vote  was  decided  in  the 
negative,  and  by  our  rule  that  is  equivalent  to 
agreeing  to  the  matter.  As  it  now  stands,  the 
vote  was  against  striking  out,  and  I suppose,  by 
the  rules,  the  only  amendment  that  can  now  be 
made  to  this  section,  is  by  way  of  addition ; but 
no  portion  of  the  section,  as  it  now  stands,  can 
be  stricken  out  and  other  words  be  substituted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Only  by  addition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville], 
whether  there  was  a division  called  for  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  There  was. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  propose  to  offer 
an  amendment? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  No,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection 
to  the  section  as  read,  the  Secretary  will  read 
section  three. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  3.  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  reside  in 
their  respective  counties  or  districts  one  year  next  pre- 
ceding their  election,  unless  they  shall  be  absent  on  the 
public  business  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  State,  and 
shall  continue  to  reside  in  their  respective  districts  or 
counties  during  their  terms  of  service.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  other 
amendments  to  be  proposed  to  this  section  ? 


Mr.  POND.  I move  to  strike  out  of  section 
three,  the  word  “ shall”  in  the  first  line,  down 
to  the  words  “continue  to”  in  the  fourth 
line.  It  will  then  simply  read : 

“Senators  and  Representatives  shall  continue  to  reside 
in  their  respective  districts  or  counties  during  their 
terms  of  office,”  striking  out  the  words,  “shall  reside  in 
their  respective  counties  or  districts  one  year  next  pre- 
ceding election,  unless  they  shall  have  been  absent  on 
the  public  business  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  State.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  strike 
out  all  after  the  word  “shall,”  in  line  one, 
down  to  the  word  “ continue,”  in  line  four. 

Mr.  POND.  I can  see  no  good  idea  in  this 
limitation,  or,  not  in  the  words  proposed  to  be 
stricken  out,  that  Representatives  and  Senators 
shall  have  to  reside  in  their  respective  dis- 
tricts or  counties,  one  year  next  preceding 
their  election. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I see  no  reason 
why  a citizen  of  the  State,  who  shall  move 
from  one  county  to  another,  and  who  shall  be 
deemed  a fit  person  to  represent  that  county  in 
the  Legislature  of  the  State,  may  not  be  put  in- 
to that  position  before  he  shall  have  resided  in 
that  county  for  one  year.  He  may  be  the  best 
man  they  can  get  for  the  place.  Unless  some- 
body can  give  some  reason  for  the  limitation,  I 
cannot  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I suppose  the  object  of  the 
limitation  was  to  prevent  gentlemen  from  mov- 
ing from  one  county  to  another  to  offer  them- 
selves as  candidates  for  the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  inquire  whether 
there  could  be  any  objection  to  that  ? 

Mr.  SCRIBNER,  i think  there  would. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  If  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  is  adopted,  it  is  not  necessary 
that  a man  should  reside  in  the  district  where  he 
is  elected.  If  he  moves  into  a district  or  a 
county  before  his  term  of  office  commences, 
that  is  sufficient.  The  county  of  Cuyahoga 
can  elect  a resident  of  the  county  of  Hamilton 
to  represent  it  in  the  General  Assembly,  and  if 
that  gentleman  saw  fit  to  accept  the  office  and 
move  into  Cuyahoga  county  on  the  last  day  of 
December  next,  before  his  term  of  office  com- 
mences, he  would  be  eligible  to  hold  that  office. 
I do  not  believe  that  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  want  any  such  thing.  Thi3  is  a literal 
copy  of  what  is  in  our  present  Constitution,  re- 
lating to  this  matter,  and  I do  not  know  that 
the  people  demand  any  change  in  that  respect. 
I believe,  myself,  that  a man  ought  to  reside  in 
the  county  or  district  where  he  is  elected  for 
any  office,  for  a given  length  of  time ; so  that 
the  people  may  become  somewhat  acquainted 
with  him — at  least  long  enough  that  they  may 
know  whether  he  is  a suitable  person  to  rep- 
resent them  or  not.  I am  opposed  to  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I shall  vote  with  the  delegate 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  to  strike  out;  because 
the  clause  he  proposes  to  strike  out  is  a part  of  a 
section  of  which  I should  be  glad  to  erase  the 
whole.  I do  not  know  why  the  people  of  any 
county  in  this  State,  if  they  choose  to  elect  a, 
man  who  does  not  live  in  the  county,  should 
not  have  that  privilege.  I do  not  see  any  such 
great  outrage  likely  to  be  perpetrated,  or  any 
such  danger  that  we  may  become  liable  to,  as  to 
I require  a constituional  provision  in  the  form  of 
this  limitation.  I know  nothing  in  the  history 


1148 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [107th 

Hoadly,  Wilson,  Humphreville,  Tuttle,  Root, Ewing.  [Friday, 


of  Ohio  for  many  years  past,  or  ever,  that  calls 
for  a constitutional  provision  to  prevent  the 
great  mischief  of  people  electing  somebody  to 
represent  them  who  may  not  live  in  their  coun- 
ty. They  are  very  little  likely  to  do  it — a great 
deal  less  likely  than  they  ought  to  be — in  mv 
humble  judgment.  I do  not  believe  in  the 
truth  of  that  political  philosophy  which  con- 
siders territorial  representation  superior  to  the 
representation  of  brains  and  public  service. 
If  the  people  of  Hamilton  county  can  secure 
the  services  of  a better  man  from  Butler  county 
to  represent  them  than  they  find  among  their 
own  citizens,  they  ought  to  thank  God  for  the 
opportunity  to  elect  him. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Would  it  be  pleasant  to  see  a 
gentleman  trundling  a hoop  through  the  State 
of  Ohio? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  We  should  have  but  few 
gentlemen  trundling  hoops  through  the  State  of 
Ohio  with  the  people  to  applaud  the  perform- 
ance. I respectfully  submit  that  if  we  could 
adopt,  as  a basis  of  political  action,  supported 
by  the  concurrence  of  sentiment  among  the 
people,  that  geographical  qualifications  should 
be  removed — if  we  could  adopt  it  as  a principle 
of  political  action  in  Ohio,  that  residence  in  a 
particular  territory  be  not  necessary,  we  should 
gain  greatly.  Why,  sir,  we  all  know  most  val- 
uable public  men  in  Ohio  condemned  to  exile 
from  the  public  service,  which  they  desire  to 
take  part  in,  and  which  thousands  of  their  fel- 
low-citizens desire  them  to  take  part  in,  because 
they  live  in  counties  or  senatorial  districts  in 
which  the  majority  is  largely  against  them. 
The  Democracy  of  the  Western  Reserve  have 
never  been  represented  in  the  councils  of  Ohio ; 
and  yet,  there  is  not  a gentleman  here  who 
does  not  know  that  in  the  ranks  of  that  Democ- 
racy are  some  of  the  ablest  men,  the  purest 
men,  and  the  best  men  in  Ohio.  And  it  is  just 
as  true,  sir,  that  in  the  counties  of  Butler,  Mon- 
roe, Holmes,  Crawford  and  Fairfield,  the  Re- 
publican party  has  never  had  an  opportunity  of 
sending  its  leaders,  its  best  and  ablest  men,  to 
any  position  in  public  life  where  they  could 
contribute  to  the  welfare  of  the  State,  because 
of  this  constitutional  provision. 

Now,  I do  not  know,  but  I am  inclined  to 
think,  that  this  idea  of  geographical  limitation 
has  grown  into  the  public  mind,  until  it  has  be- 
come a principle  of  political  action;  so  that 
there  is  not  much  chance,  even  if  the  Constitu- 
tional disqualification  were  out  of  the  way,  of 
making  the  reform  which  I believe  would  be 
effectual  by  securing  the  election  of  non-resi- 
dent Senators  or  Representatives. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Will  the  gentle- 
man allow  me  a question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I want  to  know 
whether  the  gentleman  is  in  favor  of  this  sys- 
tem of  carpet-bagging  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  consider  it  a sys- 
tem of  carpet-bagging  at  all.  When  the  people 
of  Glasgow  did  themselves  the  honor  of  electing 
Thomas  Babington  Macaulay  member  of  Par- 
liament, although  he  did  not  live  among 
them;  and  when  the  people  of  Greenwich, 


day  before  yesterday,  did  themselves  the  honor 
of  electing  William  E.  Gladstone  their  member 
of  Parliament,  the  case  did  not  involve  carpet- 
bagging at  all.  It  is  the  English  system.  The 
gentleman  desires  to  prevent  the  people  from 
having  the  opportunity  of  doing  what  they  have 
the  right  to  do;  for  it* is  a question  of  popular 
right  I am  arguing.  The  gentleman  proposes  to 
put  into  this  Constitution,  what  was  in  the  last 
Constitution — a provision  that,  if  the  people 
desire — aye,  unanimously  desire — to  elect  a 
man  who  does  not  reside  within  their  borders, 
they  shall  not  have  the  privilege.  It  is  simply 
tying  the  hands  of  the  people. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  In  the  course  of  a hundred 
years,  how  many  times,  does  the  gentleman 
suppose,  anybody  will  be  elected  out  of  his  own 
district? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  has  shown 
the  futility  of  this  very  Constitutional  provision 
by  his  question.  Lex  neminem  ad  vana  cogit. 
Why  does  the  gentleman  ask  me  to  vote  into 
the  Constitution  a provision  to  foster  a system 
which  he  says  in  a hundred  years  the  Constitu- 
tion will  not  operate  to  assist?  It  is  a mere 
vain  provision,  according  to  his  theory.  Ac- 
cording to  mine,  it  is  more  than  vain : it  pre- 
vents the  education  of  the  public  in  the  right 
direction,  which  is  the  direction  of  freedom  of 
public  choice,  no  matter  where  the  candidate 
may  live.  And  I say  that,  in  some  of  these 
strong  Republican  counties,  they  would  do 
themselves  honor  to  choose  Republicans  that  do 
not  live  in  those  particular  counties,  and  vice 
versa. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
one  word  of  explanation  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I did  not  say  that  the  at- 
tempt would  never  be  made.  I was  looking  at 
the  mischief  that  might  arise  from  the  presence 
of  political  jugglers  all  over  the  State.  I only 
suggest  that  a mere  attempt,  without  any  prac- 
tical result,  would  always  be  the  end  of  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  may  be;  but  I do  not 
think  so.  But  I do  not  propose  to  take  up  the 
time  of  the  Convention  any  further.  I simply 
wished  to  deliver  myself  upon  a subject  upon 
which  I feel  pretty  strongly.  I shall  vote  with 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  to 
strike  out  of  this  section  all  I can  strike  out.  If 
I could  strike  the  whole  of  it  out,  I should  be 
greatly  pleased. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  the  motion  were  to  strike 
out  the  whole  section. 

Mr.  EWING.  If  the  gentleman  will  yield 
the  floor,  I move  to  amend  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  by  stri- 
king out  the  whole  section. 

The  question  was  first  put  upon  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond], 
which,  without  a division,  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  to 
strike  out  section  three. 

The  President  was  on  the  point  of  putting 
the  question,  when  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root],  was  recognized  as  having  the  floor. 

Mr,  ROOT.  I thought  I had  manifested  a 


1149 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  6, 1874.]  Root,  Sample. 


disposition  to  speak  to  the  question.  I concur 
in  all  that  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  and  go  a little  further. 
If  you  strike  out  this  section,  you  do  not  force 
upon  the  people  of  any  county  the  necessity  of 
going  out  of  their  limits  to  select  a candidate 
for  member  of  the  General  Assembly ; but  you 
take  away  a restriction.  You  do  not  confine 
them  in  their  choice  to  their  own  county.  Now, 
far  be  it  from  me  to  intimate  that  there  is  a 
county  in  this  State  that  has  not  a man  com- 
petent, and  eminently  fit  to  represent  its  people 
in  the  General  Assembly.  But,  sir,  this  is  an 
age  of  progress,  an  age  of  reform.  With  some 
of  the  attempts  at  innovation,  I confess  that 
I do  not  sympathize  at  all;  some  others  I 
have  a little  leaning  towards,  and  it  may  get  to 
be  stronger  and  more  decided ; and  some  of  them 
I give  my  whole  heart  to.  Suppose  a case  where 
there  is  in  a county  a majority  of  the  people 
who  desire  minority  representation,  and  sup- 
pose that,  in  another  county,  the  county,  for 
instance,  represented  by  our  eloquent  friend 
— I will  not  say  venerable,  but  our  middle-aged 
friend — from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  the  majority 
of  the  people  do  not  agree  with  him  in  senti- 
ment, and  are  not  in  favor  of  minority  repre- 
sentation. How  the  fact.stands,  I neither  know 
nor  care.  I only  put  the  case  for  illustration. 
Or,  take  another  case : Suppose  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  when  he  goes  home, 
finds  that  his  constituents  have  been  robbing 
the  treasury  so  long  that  they  cannot  appreciate 
his  statesmanlike  views  on  the  subject  of  mi- 
nority representation.  And,  suppose  there  is 
another  county — you  may  have  it,  if  you  please, 
the  county  of  Ottowa,  or  you  may  have  it,  if 
you  please,  the  county  of  Carroll — that  does 
appreciate  his  ability,  and  does  want  a first- 
class  man  in  the  Legislature,  why  should 
you  deny  them  the  right  to  go  out  and  look 
among  all  the  statesmen  and  able  men  of  the 
State  for  a man  to  do  what  they  desire,  above 
all  things,  to  have  done?  Why  forbid  them? 
The  prejudice  of  men  in  favor  of  home,  in 
favor  of  their  own  neighbors  who  might  be 
aspiring  to  these  places  will  always  prevent 
their  electing  a man  living  outside  of  their  own 
county,  unless  there  is  some  good  sound  reason, 
and  if  there  is  a good  sound  reason,  why  for- 
bid their  doing  it?  For  the  life  of  me,  I cannot 
see  why.  We  have  heard  cited  here,  in  behalf  of 
those  who  favored  a provision  for  giving  the 
Governor  the  veto  power,  instances  of  men  be- 
ing so  trammeled,  so  hampered — I think  I did 
not  misunderstand  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns] — by  local  prejudices  that  they 
hardly  lelt  at  liberty  to  disregard  the  prejudices 
of  their  constituents,  no  matter  how  great  the 
doubt  they  entertained  of  their  being  well- 
grounded.  They  were  thus  rather  the  repre- 
sentatives of  a county  and  of  local  questions, 
rather  than  of  the  people  at  large.  Sir,  if  the 
people  chose,  they  might  very  well  improve 
their  representation  in  the  General  Assembly 
by  dispensing  with  the  services  of  some  of  their 
residents  and  employing,  as  their  representa- 
tives fellow-citizens  living  in  other  counties.  I 
do  not  say  this  with  reference  to  any  particular 
case,  but  I apply  it  generally.  Now,  the  in- 
stances mentioned  by  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly]  are  exactly  in  point.  A 


great  many  others,  indeed,  might  be  cited. 
Every  man,  from  his  own  recollection,  could 
cite  numerous  instances — and  I venture  to  say 
in  many  more  cases  than  than  the  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  seems  to  suppose 
— where  the  people,  if  they  would  take 
men  from  other  counties — men  who  could  not 
be  elected  in  their  own  counties — whose  gene- 
ral views  were  in  sympathy  with  their  own, 
and  would  be  more  likely  to  represent  them 
ably  than  any  one  they  could  find  in  their  own 
county.  Why,  sir,  just  let  me  ask  the  members 
generally,  without  reference  to  any  locality,  or 
to  any  particular  instances,  if  the  people  of  this 
State  in  the  choice  of  their  delegates  to  this 
Convention,  had  been  at  liberty  to  pick  and 
choose  wherever  they  pleased,  do  not  gentle- 
men believe  there  would  have  been  members 
here  from  other  counties  than  those  in  which 
they  lived  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do  not  believe  so. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  gentleman  from  Coshocton 
[Mr.  Sample]  is  not  a fair  judge  in  this  matter. 
He  is  a very  fair  judge  in  most  cases;  but,  up 
in  the  county  where  he  lives,  he  is  so  univer- 
sally beloved  and  admired  that  there  is  no  use 
of  talking  about  anybody,  outside,  coming  into 
competition  with  him.  But  all  the  counties 
in  this  State  do  not  have  such  eminent 
public  citizens,  and  citizens  so  eminent  in  the 
public  service,  as  the  county  of  Coshocton.  I 
remember,  sir,  though  it  is  a good  way  back, 
that  Martin  Van  Buren,  who  never  slept  a 
night  in  Otsego  county,  and  whose  residence 
was  in  Columbia  county,  New  York,  where, 
perhaps,  he  could  not  have  been  elected,  was 
elected  from  Otsego  county  to  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1823.  Everybody  knows  that  he 
was  a member  of  that  Convention : few,  per- 
haps, know  or  care  what  county  he  represented ; 
but  he  did  not  represent  the  county  in  which  he 
resided.  He  represented  a county  in  which  he 
never  had  resided,  and  which  was  eighty  or 
ninety  miles  away  from  the  county  in  which  he 
lived  before  the  choice.  It  looks  as  if  we,  in  this 
Convention,  countenanced  and  favored  county 
pride,  and,  indeed,  made  it  absolutely  necessary 
that  county  pride  and  county  prejudice  should 
be  fostered  by  constitutional  provision.  I say 
this  is  illiberal,  and  I do  not  care  how  many 
Constitutions  it  has  been  put  into.  An  abuse, or 
a folly, has  no  more  of  my  respect,  because  itis 
antique,  than  it  would  have  if  it  were  new. 
Venerable  abuses,  and  venerable  follies,  deserve, 
in  my  estimation,  very  little  veneration;  but 
they  are  hard  to  eradicate,  and  the  fight  against 
them  has  to  be  begun  as  early  as  possible,  and 
to  be  continued  a very  long  time.  There  is 
nothing  more  favorable  to  this  local  prejudice 
than  having  our  Representatives  go  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  carrying  up  the  narrow  views 
which  they  get  in  their  own  county — a practice 
which  this  provision  is  calculated  to  foster.  I 
wish  it  were  out.  The  people  will  not  be  com- 
pelled to  select  men  outside  of  their  own  coun- 
ties; but  we  wish  to  give  them  the  right  to  do 
so,  if  they  choose.  The  gentleman  from  Co- 
shocton [Mr.  Sample]  does  not  believe  there  is 
a county  in  the  State  that  would  do  it.  I need 
not  remind  him  that  there  are  a good  many  other 
counties  in  the  State  beside  Coshocton. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I knew  it. 


1150 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [107th 

Root,  Tuttle,  Scofield,  Hoadly,  Carbery,  Miner.  [Friday, 


Mr.  ROOT.  And  every  county  does  not  have 
its  Ewing,  any  more  than  its  Sample.  I might 
bother  you  a good  deal  by  asking  you  to  look  at 
Erie,  hut  I do  not  wish  to  be  personal. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Erie  could  furnish  men  for 
other  counties. 

Mr.  ROOT.  She  will  do  as  she  pleases  about 
it,  and  I wish  her  to  he  left  at  liberty;  if  she 
thinks  she  can  find  a better  man  outside  of  her 
own  limits,  to  take  him.  I want  that  liberty  for 
my  constituents. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  correct  him  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  is  a misfortune  that  whenever 
the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle] 
asks  me  a question,  the  President’s  hammer  is 
about  to  come  down.  As  I said  before,  the  gen- 
tleman must  go  it  on  his  own  hook ! 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I want  to  explain  that  the 
gentleman  did  not  understand  me.  I did  not 
say  that  the  people  in  Erie  would  have  elected 
a representative  somewhere  else,  but  that  prob- 
ably some  other  county  would  have  elected  a 
man  from  Erie. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I do  not  know  how  that  may  be. 
They  could  not  have  had  me  anywhere  else, 
and  I do  not  think  they  would  have  troubled 
themselves  about  anybody  else — if  the  gentle- 
man considers  that  a fair  answer. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I hope  that  the  motion  will 
not  prevail — and  for  several  reasons.  It  is  an  in- 
novation upon  a principle  that  has  been  in  opera- 
tion ever  since  we  have  had  a State — for  near- 
ly three-quarters  of  a century — and  if  you  de- 
stroy and  break  down  these  county  lines  in 
your  system  of  representation,  and  introduce 
this  carpet-bagging  system,  you  will  have  in 
counties  in  the  State  of  Ohio  what  the  South- 
ern States  now  have — indignation  upon  the 
part  of  the  minority,  that  has  worked  the  peo- 
ple even  to  a state  of  rebellion,  bloodshed  and 
war. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Do  not  these  carpet-baggers, 
every  one  of  them,  live  in  the  districts  which 
they  represent? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  No,  sir  ; not  in  the  true 
sense  of  that  term.  They  live  there,  sir,  but 
they  are  imposters.  They  live  there,  as  you 
would  have  these  parties,"  should  this  motion 
prevail,  representing  people  with  whom  they  do 
not  live,  as  resident  citizens — with  whom  they 
have  no  interest  in  common — they  have  but  a 
temporary  residence  among  those  people,  whom 
they  are  said  to  represent.  The  minority  in 
those  districts  have  even  been  imposed  upon  to 
such  an  extent,  as  I said  before,  it  has  almost 
produced  rebellion.  And  so  it  will  be  in  these 
counties  throughout  the  State  of  Ohio.  Gentle- 
men have  pointed  out  no  sound  reason  for  this 
change.  There  has  been  no  call  for  it  by  the 
people  of  any  county  in  this  State,  and  we  are 
taking  up  the  time  of  the  Convention  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  people,  in  seeking  to  destroy  pro- 
visions here  that  have  stood  the  test  of  three- 
quarters  of  a century  without  any  complaint. 
It  involves  great  expense  to  the  people,  and 
they  are  now  crying  out  throughout  the  differ- 
ent counties,  “ when,  in  the  name  of  God,  will 
this  Convention  get  through  with  its  business?” 


I believe,  sir,  in  letting  well  enough,  alone. 
This  is  a provision  that  has  stood  the  test  in  our 
old  Constitution  without  any  complaint,  and  I 
think  it  is  time  to  go  to  work  to  do  something 
that  has  some  merit  in  it,  and  get  through  with 
the  business  of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I am  opposed  to  striking 
out,  though  not  for  the  same  reasons  as  those 
which  have  influenced  my  friend.  I admit, 
however,  that  reasons,  and  some  very  plausible 
reasons,  have  been  urged  for  striking  out.  One 
not  least  attractive  to  my  mind,  is  that  it  is  the 
English  system  to  leave  the  electors  at  liberty 
to  choose  from  the  nation  at  large  a man  of  the 
largest  capacity  for  the  purpose  of  representing 
them  in  the  public  service.  I think  that  is  a 
good  reason ; but  whether  or  not  it  is  a reason 
strong  enough  to  outweigh  the  old  custom  in 
the  State,  is  a question  to  my  mind. 

And  then,  again,  there  is  another  question : 
Suppose,  for  instance,  that  the  party  of  the  ma- 
jority in  Hamilton  county  have  this  privilege 
of  going  into  the  adjoining  county  of  Butler 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  a representative. 
Now,  sir,  is  not  the  inference  one  that  you  can- 
not escape  from  : that  if  they  go  into  that  coun- 
ty, they  must  either  select  one  of  the  same  party 
feeling  in  Butler  county,  and  thus,  by  implica- 
tion, admit  that  there  is  not  a man  in  their  own 
county,  of  the  same  political  faith  as  themselves, 
fit  to  "represent  them;  or  they  must  pass  over 
into  that  county  to  elect  a man  of  the  opposite 
political  faith.  Is  not  that  an  inevitable  deduc- 
tion from  the  premises  ? I ask  of  this  Conven- 
tion, frankly,  where  is  the  use,  even  for  the 
purpose  of  having  this  attractive  feature  in  our 
Constitution,  which,  perhaps,  presents  the  more 
plausible  face  to  the  casual  observer — what  is 
the  use  of  striking  out  a provision  of  this  kind, 
when  we  cannot,  thereby,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  and  from  the  constitution  of  human 
nature,  effect  any  reform  whatever,  as  elections 
are  now  held? 

Mr.  MINER.  If  the  electors  of  any  county 
or  district  will  never  select  a candidate  to  rep- 
resent them  who  does  not  reside  in  such  county 
or  district,  as  is  claimed,  then  the  restriction  is 
a needless  one,  and  this  is  sufficient  reason  for 
striking  it  out.  I have  not  much  considered 
the  subject;  but  I fail  to  see  any  evils  likely  to 
result  from  leaving  any  constituency  free  to 
choose  a Representative  from  any  other  part  of 
the  State,  if  they  should,  at  any  time,  desire  to 
do  so.  As  a general  rule,  they  would  select  the 
Representative  from  among  themselves,  but  ex- 
ceptions might  occur,  when  they  would  most 
honor  themselves,  as  well  as  subserve  their  best 
interests,  by  departing  from  the  general  prac- 
tice. When  this  Convention  was  called,  I re- 
member to  have  expressed  my  regret  that  the 
people  of  some  other  county  than  that  of  his 
residence,  where  the  majority  are  of  opposite 
politics,  had  not  the  power  to  select  Judge  Ran- 
ney  a delegate  to  this  Convention.  He  was  in 
the  Convention  of  1850-’51 ; was  a very  able 
and  leading  member;  has  been  increasing 
in  experience  and  in  knowledge  and  wisdom 
ever  since;  and  no  one  who  knows  him  can  but 
feel  that  he  would  be  a great  acquisition  to  this 
body.  I confess,  Mr.  President,  that  I like  that 
feature  of  the  English  system,  that  allows  the 
local  constituency,  when  they  see  fit,  to  look 


1151 


DayJ THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


February  6,  1874.]  Voris,  Miner,  West,  Hoadly,  Ewing,  etc. 


abroad  over  all  England  for  a Representative 
in  Parliament.  What  has  so  distinguished  in 
history  the  people  of  the  city  of  Bristol,  as 
electing  Edmund  Burke  to  Parliament  in 
1774? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I simply  want  to  raise  the  ques- 
tion whether  there  is  any  limitation  in  our 
Constitution  that  would  have  prevented  the 
county  of  Ottawa  or  Paulding  from  electing 
Judge  Ranney  of  Cuyahoga  to  this  body,  had 
he  desired  to  stand  as  a candidate,  and  had  the 
people  desired  him  to  run  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  I will  not  answer  positively; 
but  my  impression  is,  the  Constitution  or  the 
law  forbids  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  He  would  be  required  to  have 
resided  in  the  county  thirty  days. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  my  colleague,  [Mr. 
Miner],  allow  me  to  suggest  the  answer,  if  he 
is  not  prepared  to  give  it  ? If  the  gentleman 
from  Summit,  will  look  at  the  statute  organi- 
ing  this  Convention,  he  will  find  that  members 
of  this  Convention  are  required  to  have  the 
same  qualifications  as  members  of  the  General 
Assembly. 

Mr.  MINER.  So  I supposed  the  law  to  be. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man that  I think  that  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee upon  Elective  Franchise  upon  the  case 
of  Mr.  Wells,  settled  what  the  law  was  for  this 
Convention. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  candidate  must  have 
resided  in  the  county  for  thirty  days. 

Mr.  MINER.  Now,  sir,  I was  reminded  of 
the  case  of  Mr.  Burke,  representing  the  city  of 
Bristol  especially,  because  it  called  forth  from 
him,  when  he  came  before  them  for  re-election, 
the  greatest  speech  ever  made  by  him,  or,  per- 
haps, by  any  other  man  in  ancient  or  modern 
times.  It  seems  to  me,  that  gentlemen  who 
adhere  to  this  restriction,  have  at  bottom  a feel- 
ing which  I do  not  participate  in,  and,  there- 
fore, count  myself  in  that  respect,  a better 
Democrat  than  the  best  of  Democrats  who  en- 
tertain that  feeling — namely,  a fear  to  trust 
the  people.  I am  in  favor  of  giving  the  people 
the  largest  liberty  upon  this  subject;  and  of  let- 
ting them  settle  the  question  for  themselves.  I 
know  that  It  is  a case  which  will  rarely  occur ; 
but  there  might  arise  circumstances  in  a coun- 
ty or  district,  which  would  lead  the  people  to 
look  to  another  county  or  to  other  constituen- 
cies for  their  Representative ; and  it  is  a privi- 
lege which  I think  they  ought  to  have,  and, 
therefore,  I shall  vote  to  strike  out  the  section. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  demanded. 

Mr.  EWING.  I wish  to  say  a word  upon 
this  question.  As  has  been  stated  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner],  who  was 
just  up,  the  fact  that  there  is  no  necessity  for 
this  section,  is  a sufficient  reason  for  striking 
out.  It  is  a limitation  on  the  power  of  the 
people;  that  is  all.  It  ties  up  their  hands,  and 
is  admitted  to  be  unnecessary. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Permit  me  to  ask,  is  not 
the  Constitution  that  we  propose  to  submit  to 
the  people  itself  a limitation  upon  the  people? 

Mr.  EWING.  Of  course,  the  Constitution 
contains  necessary  limitations  upon  the  exercise 
of  the  power  of  the  majority ; but  no  limita- 
tion can  be  justified,  except  upon  the  ground 
that  it  is  to  prevent  some  evil.  But,  if  the 


thing  provided  against  may  possibly  be  useful, 
and  can,  under  no  circumstances,  be  harmful, 
the  limitation  is  unreasonable,  even  though  the 
thing  provided  against  is  not  likely  to  occur. 
And  that  is  just  this  case.  The  sole  argument 
in  favor  of  retaining  this  section  is  that  the  peo- 
ple do  not  want  carpet-baggers.  I suppose  that 
is  so,  and  that  they  will  not  elect  carpet-bag- 
gers, whether  this  section  be  left  in  or  stricken 
out,  but  it  is  idle  to  talk  of  the  striking  out 
of  the  provision  as  a thing  that  will  work 
in  favor  of  the  carpet-baggers.  If  Judge  Ran- 
ney had  been  elected  from  some  district  in 
the  north-west  to  this  Convention,  he  would 
have  remained  a citizen  of  Cleveland.  He 
would  not  have  pretended  to  be  a citi- 
zen of  such  county,  but  he  would  have 
come  to  this  Convention  and  represented 
well  the  people  who  elected  him.  Why  should 
not  the  people  of  Fairfield  county,  if  they  had 
desired,  have  had  the  privilege  of  electing 
Judge  Ranney  to  sit  in  the  deliberations  of  this 
Convention?  The  limitation  is  only  useless 
where  it  is  not  mischievous. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  this  is  not  a 
trivial  question.  We  are  to  have,  within  the 
term  of  existence  of  this  amended  Constitution, 
a great  many  engrossing  and  thrilling  ques- 
tions, that  will  come  before  the  Legislature  for 
decision.  There  will  be  a contest  between  the 
Representatives  of  the  people  and  private  cor- 
porations, the  power  of  which  is  growing  to  be 
so  enormous  in  the  State ; and  the  people  will 
want  the  best  minds  who  have  studied  the  sub- 
ject, no  matter  in  what  counties  they  may  live. 
I hope  there  are  many  counties  in  this  State, 
whose  people,  upon  a question  of  that  character, 
would  send  the  ablest  men  in  the  State  to  rep- 
resent their  ideas,  rather  than  confine  them- 
selves to  the  selection  of  those  persons  who  had 
not  studied  the  subject,  although  living  in  their 
county.  I think  it  important  to  give  the  people 
the  amplest  latitude  in  the  selection  of  their 
servants.  We  need  not  be  afraid  to  trust  them. 
The  pride  and  jealousy  of  locality,  and  attach- 
ment of  people  to  their  neighbors,  will  always 
lead  to  the  selection  of  men  from  counties  in 
which  they  reside,  unless  there  be  some  public 
necessity  inducing  the  people  to  select  an  able 
man  abroad ; and  whenever  they  choose  to  do 
that,  they  take  a step  in  the  direction  of  better 
government ; they  take  a step  which  tends  to  en- 
courage men,  no  matter  in  what  locality  they 
may  live,  to  give  their  attention  and  study  to 
questions  of  great  public  interest,  feeling  that 
their  talent  may  be  called  for  and  employed  by 
the  people  of  some  other  county  in  the  State,  if 
their  political  opinions  differ  from  those  of  the 
majority  of  the  people  in  the  county  in  which 
they  live. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  remind 
the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  that 
some  of  the  physic  which  he  administered  to 
the  Convention  to-day  upon  another  question, 
is  applicable  to  this  proposition ; and  that  one 
of  the  strings  upon  which  he  played  against 
conferring  the  veto  power  upon  the  Governor, 
was  that  it  was  bad  policy  to  abandon  an  imme- 
morial custom  of  the  State,  unless  there  was 
some  public  demand,  or  some  great  public  ne- 
cessity for  it.  That  was  a mighty  good  argu- 


[107th 


1152 THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Ewing,  Cunningham,  Layton,  Blose. 


ment  then,  and  I suggest  that  it  is  just  as  good  I 
an  argument  now. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  ; 
to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM.  I will. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  gentleman  certainly  mis- 
understood my  statement.  I do  not  at  all  ad- 
mit that  it  is  improper  for  us  to  make  a change 
in  the  organic  law  of  the  State  unless  we  are 
driven  to  it  by  some  great  public  necessity. 
What  I said  was — and  I cannot  he  mistaken 
about  my  language — that  I objected  to  the 
change  of  an  immemorial  custom  of  the  State 
unless  there  was  a public  demand  or  a strong 
reason  for  it — not  an  imperative,  driving  neces- 
sity, but  a good  reason. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Well,  I do  not  see 
that  I misunderstood  the  gentleman.  Substan- 
tially his  position  was  as  I have  stated  it : there 
must  be  some  strong  reason  for  abandoning  the 
immemorial  custom  of  the  State,  some  public 
demand,  or  some  public  necessity.  Now, 
where  is  it?  My  friend  anticipates  some  thrill- 
ing scenes  in  the  Legislature.  My  imagination 
is  not  so  lively  as  the  imagination  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing];  for  I cannot 
imagine  a contingency  in  public  affairs  which 
the  people  of  the  various  localities  of  this  State 
have  not  the  timber  to  meet;  and  it  is  but  a 
poor  compliment  to  this  body  to  say  that  the 
several  counties  do  not  contain  within  them 
citizens  of  integrity,  learning,  and  ability,  and 
all  the  necessary  qualifications,  in  sufficient 
measure  to  meet  any  contingency  that  may 
occur.  This  Convention  here  is  an  illustration 
of  what  county  representation  is.  Now,  there 
may  occasionally  be  a thrilling  scene  in  the 
House,  but  I think  the  local  Representatives 
will  be  equal  to  it.  It  may  be,  that  when  the 
Legislature  passes  some  act,  and  under  the  pro- 
vision which  the  Convention  has  adopted  to-day, 
the  Governor  scolds  at  them  like  a fish-woman, 
it  may  be  that  some  other  gentleman,  who  can 
scold  back  like  a fish-woman,  should  be  there  to 
answer  him.  But  as  to  the  thrilling  scenes,  the 
gentleman  will  grow  gray  before  there  will  be 
an  occasion  for  the  people  of  one  county  to  go 
out  of  their  borders  to  find  a person  competent 
to  represent  them. 

I submit,  Mr.  President,  that  you  can  scarcely 
find  a locality — no,  you  cannot  find  any  county 
in  the  State — that  has  not  within  it  men  who  can 
better  represent  the  people  of  that  locality  than 
the  brightest  man  you  can  find  in  any  other 
part  of  the  State.  This  proposition,  to  some 
extent,  lets  out  the  business  of  legislation  by 
contract,  and  if  you  are  going  to  do  that,  do  not 
confine  us  to  the  limits  of  the  State ; for  I doubt 
not  that,  if  we  would  be  right  industrious,  we 
might  find,  outside  of  this  State,  some  man  of 
even  more  brilliant  parts  than  may  be  found  in 
some  given  locality  in  Ohio.  If  you  abandon 
local  representation  at  all,  follow  it  out,  and 
let  the  people  go  where  they  may — let  them 
range  from  Maine  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  to  se- 
lect their  Representatives. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  As  a Representative  of  a 
Democratic  county,  my  Democracy  dating  back 
a little  farther  than  1866,  1 am  opposed  to  strik- 
ing out  this  section,  which  is  intended  to  pre- 
vent carpet-bagging.  I will  say  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  that  1 1 


[Friday, 


| presume  the  Democrats  of  the  Northwest  are 
| able  to  take  care  of  themselves ; and  I presume 
| that  there  is  not  a man  of  them  who  very  par- 
ticularly desires  that  Judge  Ranney,  or  General 
Ewing,  or  any  other  so-called  great  man  should 
represent  them  in  this  Convention.  And,  it 
may  be,  that  the  personal  popularity  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  which 
elected  him  in  his  own  county  would  not  have 
been  so  great  in  some  of  the  counties  of  the 
Northwest,  upon  the  Democratic  platform.  The 
proposed  amendment  is  anti-Democratic  in  its 
spirit,  not  in  the  party  sense,  but  in  the  true 
meaning  of  the  word  Democratic.  The  people 
desire  to  have  persons  with  whom  they  are 
acquainted,  and  who  are  acquainted  with  them ; 
who  know  their  wants,  their  disposition,  and 
their  means  and  manners  of  doing  business,  to 
represent  them  in  the  legislative  halls.  They 
do  not  ask  anything  of  this  kind,  and  this  is 
the  first  hint  I have  heard  that  this  matter 
would  be  attempted  to  be  foisted  upon  this 
Convention,  and  placed  as  a provision  in  the 
Constitution.  A great  deal  of  our  legislation, 
sir,  is  local  legislation,  and  that  local  legislation 
needs  the  services  of  persons  who  are  acquaint- 
ed with  the  wants  of  the  community  which 
they  represent.  We  might,  with  the  same 
propriety,  say  that  we  could  go  to  Posey  county, 
Indiana,  to  get  a man  to  elect  as  Governor  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  as  that  Auglaize  county  could 
go  to  Ashtabula  and  elect  some  person  from 
that  county  to  represent  them  in  the  legislative 
hall.  Why,  sir,  even  the  Lord’s  prayer  is 
against  this  amendment,  for  it  says  “ Lead  us 
not  into  temptation,”  and  we  should  not  at- 
tempt to  lead  the  people  into  temptation  to 
form  rings  of  carpet-baggers  in  different  parts 
of  the  State.  I know  but  few  men  who  would 
support  this  measure;  and  I am  astonished 
that  men  of  such  good  sense  and  judgment 
should  advocate  any  such  proposition.  I hope 
it  will  be  voted  down. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  And  I am  surprised  that  this 
innovation  should  now  be  attempted  to  be  made 
in  an  old  fundamental  law  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
that  has  stood  for  twenty  years.  None  of  the 
people  of  my  county  ask  for  this  innovation. 
For  myself,  I am  apt  to  be  looking  at  things, 
when  first  brought  forward,  in  their  most  un- 
attractive shape — I see  them  on  their  worst 
side — and  this  proposition  comes  to  me,  as  some 
others  have  come,  in.  that  respect.  I am  afraid 
that  the  best  qualifications  that  could  be  gotten 
for  a representative,  who  lives  outside  of  the 
county  which  elects  him,  would  be  the  qualifica- 
tions of  which  Governor  Bullock  was  possessed. 
He  went  down  to  old  Georgia,  with  his  quali- 
fications in  his  pocket,  and  when  he  came  back 
he  did  not  only  have  what  he  took  in  his  pock- 
et, but  he  had  Georgia  there,  too.  That  is  just 
my  idea,  in  a few  words,  with  reference  to  this 
matter.  But  then,  in  addition  to  that,  it  may 
bring  me  into  trouble.  It  is  an  innovation. 
The  people  have  not  asked  me  to  support  it.  I 
want  to  keep  out  of  hot  water  if  I can.  I live 
about  a mile  from  the  north  boundary  line  of 
my  county.  Just  north  of  me  is  my  native 
county,  the  county  of  Champaign,  which  my 
honorable  friend,  General  Young,  represents. 
Now,  suppose  that  the  people  of  that  gentle- 
I man’s  county  should  forget  that  General  Young 


Day.] 

February  6,  1874.] 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Blose,  Cowen,  West,  Horton,  Wilson. 


1153 


lived  there,  and  should  come  down  and  ask  me 
to  represent  them  in  the  Legislature.  That 
would  he  all  right,  on  the  theory  now  put  for- 
ward. But  suppose  my  own  county  wanted  me 
— wouldn’t  I be  in  hot  water?  How  could  I 
settle  that  matter?  [Laughter].  This  might 
engender  a quarrel  between  the  counties,  the 
result  of  which  might  be  that  I would  fail  to 
get  that  title  of  Hon.  at  all. 

Oh,  no!  gentlemen,  you  can’t  fool  me  that 
way. 

Mr.  COWEN.  The  yeas  and  nays  have  been 
demanded  upon  this  motion  to  strike  out;  and 
earnest  and  able  arguments  have  been  made  in 
favor  of  the  motion.  I should  like  to  say  a few 
words  upon  the  question.  I trust  that  the  Con- 
vention will  at  least  be  consistent  with  itself  in 
its  action,  and  try  to  have  something  like  har- 
mony in  this  Constitution,  whatever  small  er- 
rors may  creep  into  it.  I recollect,  very  well, 
that  when  this  Convention,  a few  weeks  ago, 
was  discussing  the  substitute  otfered  to  the 
eighth  section  of  the  J udicial  Article,  by  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  a motion 
was  made  to  so  amend  that  substitute,  as  to  pro- 
hibit the  people  of  this  State  from  voting  for 
anybody  for  common  pleas  judge,  who  did  not 
reside  within  a certain  small  territory.  The 
amendment  was  to  incorporate  two  words  into 
that  section — “residing  therein” — and  if  I 
recollect  aright,  every  member  of  this  Conven- 
tion supported  that  amendment,  without  one 
solitary  exception.  It  was  incorporated  by 
unanimous  consent.  There  were  differences  of 
opinion  among  members,  as  to  how  large  the 
held  of  choice  should  be ; but  upon  the  single, 
isolated  proposition,  that  the  people  ought  not 
to  be  permitted  to  vote  for  anybody  for  judge 
who  did  not  live  in  their  own  particular  district, 
whatever  the  size  of  that  district  might  be,  the 
Convention  were  unanimous. 

Mr.  WEST.  Did  I consent? 

Mr.  CO  WEN.  My  present  impression  is  that  it 
was  accepted  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West].  If  not,  it  was  certainly  adopted  unani- 
mously, without  a dissenting  voice. 

Mr.  WEST.  I recollect  that  I spoke  about  it. 
I do  not  remember  that  I voted  for  it. 

Mr.  COWEN.  It  occurred  to  me  that  there 
ought  to  be  an  enlargement  of  the  held  of 
choice  for  judges.  But  it  strikes  me  that  there 
are  proprieties  and  reasons  which  should  ope- 
rate upon  us  in  requiring  members  of  a legisla- 
tive body  to  live  within  certain  localities,  that 
reach  further  and  ought  tc  have  greater  weight 
in  inhuencing  our  judgment  than  those  which 
would  apply  in  the  selection  of  judges. 
There  is  a propriety  in  having  them  so  situated 
that  they  can  have  means  and  opportunities  of 
acquiring  the  local  knowledge  and  ac- 
quaintance necessary  to  enable  them  to 
represent  a particular  portion  of  the  State. 
I am  wholly  unable  to  see  any  good 
reason  in  the  arguments  that  have  been  urged 
upon  us,  for  considering  this  provision  as  one 
of  the  very  few  things  in  our  old  Constitution 
which  it  is  proposed  to  leave  untouched,  that 
ought  to  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  HORTON.  The  gentleman  from  Belmont 
[Mr.  Cowen],  in  speaking  of  the  fact  that  this 
Convention  had  inserted  a provision  like  this, 
in  reference  to  the  judges,  doubtless  overlooked 

y.  h-75 


the  fact  that  there  is  a difference  in  the  class  of 
officers.  Now,  we  must  all  recollect  that  it  is 
necessary  that  the  judge  should  live  within  his 
district;  because  it  is  necessary  that  he  should 
be  within  easy  reach  of  the  men  who  have  busi- 
ness to  transact  with  him.  There  is  a most  ex- 
cellent reason  why  it  should  be  required  that 
the  judge  should  live  within  the  district  for 
which  he  was  elected ; but  I can  conceive  of  no 
such  reason  that  would  apply  to  the  case  of  a 
Representative. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I should  like  to  make  the  in- 
quiry, why  should  not  the  people  of  another 
district  be  permitted  to  elect  Judge  Ranney 
judge  of  the  court  of  common  pleas,  if  they 
want  to  ? 

Mr.  HORTON.  Because  every  man  residing 
in  that  district  has  a right  to  have  the  means  of 
justice  brought  home  to  his  own  door;  so  that 
the  judge  shall  be  within  easy  reach  of  him 
when  he  has  a matter  of  business  to  transact  in 
the  court,  or  at  chambers,  or  anywhere  else. 

But,  sir,  I am  in  favor  of  this  amendment,  be- 
cause I am  in  favor  of  giving  to  the  people  the 
broadest  and  most  extended  liberty,  with  just 
as  few  restrictions  upon  their  rights  as  it  is 
possible  to  get  along  with.  I have  heard  no 
reason  given  why,  if  the  people  of  one  county 
desire  unanimously  to  be  represented  in  the 
General  Assemby  by  some  man  who  did  not 
happen  to  live  among  them,  they  should  not  be 
allowed  to  do  it.  I believe  in  the  people  in  the 
broadest  and  most  Democratic  sense  of  the  word  ; 
and  when  no  good  reason  can  be  given  why 
this  restriction  should  be  placed  upon  their 
rights,  I can  see  no  good  reason  for  putting  it 
into  the  Constitution.  The  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  has  stated  that  it  will 
never  operate,  and  that  it  will  not  happen  once 
in  a hundred  years,  that  the  people  will  elect  a 
man  who  does  not  live  in  their  own  county.  If 
that  be  true,  it  certainly  is  a satisfactory  reason 
why  no  such  useless  provision  should  be  put 
into  the  Constitution.  I do  most  earnestly  hope 
that  this  Convention  will  rise  to  the  level  of  ap- 
preciating the  importance  of  this  question,  and 
confer  upon  the  people  of  any  county  in  the 
State,  the  right  to  be  represented  by  any  citizen 
of  the  State  of  Ohio,  that  they  may  desire  to 
select. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I do  not  know  but  that  I fully 
appreciate  the  importance  of  this  question.  It 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  one  of  vast  importance — 
of  more  importance  than  we  may  be  aware  of  at 
the  first  blush.  This  system  of  electing  a Rep- 
resentative of  the  people,  without  regard  to  res- 
idence, from  any  part  of  the  State,  is  a new 
thing  to  me,  at  least.  We  have  what  we  call  a 
Representative  Republic.  That  is  the  nature  of 
our  government.  Our  fathers,  in  their  wisdom, 
saw  fit,  for  the  purpose  of  apportioning  repre- 
sentation, to  divide  this  Republic  into  counties, 
and  they  provided  that  each  county  should  have 
one  Representative,  with  additional  Represen- 
tatives in  proportion  to  the  population.  For  the 
purpose  of  constituting  a body  of  Senators,  they 
divided  the  State  into  districts,  and  provided  that 
a Senator  should  be  elected  from  each  district. 
The  proposition,  now,  is  to  elect  Representatives 
promiscuously,  wherever  the  people  desire  to 
select  them  from.  This  is  not  in  accordance 
with  our  system  of  government.  The  idea  of 


1154 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [107th 

W ilson,  Hoadly,  W est.  [ Friday, 


government  in  our  country  has  seemed  to  me  to 
be,  that  each  locality  should  be  specially  repre- 
sented. Each  county  should  send  a Representa- 
tive from  amongst  its  own  citizens,  for  the  rea- 
son that  a person  living  there  is  presumed  to 
understand  the  wants  and  the  interests  of  that 
particular  portion  of  the  community.  Each 
person  representating  a Senatorial  district  is 
required  to  live  in  that  district,  for  the  same 
reason ; and  now  it  is  proposed  that  Mahoning 
county,  for  instance,  may  choose  her  Represen- 
tative from  Hamilton  county.  Why,  what  does 
a citizen  of  Hamilton  county  know,  except  from 
information, about  the  interests  and  the  wants  of 
the  citizens  of  Mahoning  county?  Nothing  at 
all.  The  original  theory  of  the  government  of 
the  people  was,  that  all  the  people  should  assem- 
ble together  and  pass  their  own  laws ; but,  as  it 
is  inconvenient  to  do  that,  each  locality 
sends  a Representative.  A man  elected  by 
the  citizens  of  Mahoning  county,  and  re- 
siding in  Cincinnati,  could  not  be  said 
to  be  the  Representative  of  the  citizens 
of  Mahoning  county.  When  he  should  arise  in 
his  place  in  the  General  Assembly,  how  would 
he  be  addressed  by  the  speaker  ? “The  gentle- 
man from  Cincinnati  representing  Mahoning 
county!”  It  strikes  me  that  would  be  very 
mortifying  to  the  citizens  of  Mahoning  county. 
Mahoning  county  would  have  one  Representa- 
tive, and  Hamilton  county  would  have  two,  in 
the  same  person,  because,  if  a citizen  from 
Hamilton  county,  and  living  in  that  county,  be 
elected  by  the  citizens  of  Mahoning  county,  he 
certainly  would  not  turn  a deaf  ear  to  the  cit- 
izens of  Hamilton  county ; he  would  represent 
them,  also,  becamse  he  lives  there.  For  one,  I 
would  not  prefer  to  transfer  all  my  political 
rights  into  hands  that  were  not  quite  safe,  es- 
pecially when  some  question  might  arise  where 
the  interests  of  Mahoning  county  and  Hamil- 
ton county  should  conflict.  Why,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, it  saps  the  entire  foundation  of  our  Re- 
public, and  our  theory  of  government.  The 
idea  of  our  Government  is,  that  the  interests  of 
each  locality  shall  be  represented — not  merely 
great  principles,  because  those  principles  spring 
from  the  heart  of  humanity — but  the  interests 
of  each  locality  shall  be  represented.  But  this 
idea  that  we  must  have  high-blooded  men  to 
form  our  government  has  got  to  be  quite  popu- 
lar in  this  country,  as  well  as  in  England.  I 
hope  we  shall  not  pattern  after  that  aristocratic 
idea  which  centralizes  the  most  powerful  tyr- 
anny over  the  British  Isles.  Let  us  diffuse  leg- 
islative power.  When  a man  is  elected  to  rep- 
resent Mahoning  county,  or  Hamilton  county, 
while  he  represents  the  interests  of  his  particu- 
lar locality,  he  is  no  less  the  Representative  of 
the  entire  State.  If  it  be  said  that  we  want 
such  a man  as  Judge  Ranney  to  represent  us  in 
Mahoning  county,  or  in  Fairfield  county,  I can 
tell  gentlemen  that  great  talent  is  always 
blended  with  modesty,  and  that  Judge  Ran- 
ney is  too  modest  a man,  and  too  much  of  a 
gentleman  to  assume  any  such  range,  and 
it  is  no  compliment  to  him  to  ask  him 
or  even  indicate  that  he  would  be  willing  to 
accept  the  position  of  Representative  of  any 
other  county  than  his  own.  I hope  that  this 
proposition  will  not  find  any  place  in  this 
Constitution,  unless  we  adopt  the  further  pro- 


vision that  if  Representatives  may  be  chosen 
promiscuously  throughout  the  State,  the  entire 
State  shall  vote  for  their  election ; so  that  they 
shall  be  the  Representatives  of  the  State.  A 
man  chosen  by  Mahoning  county,  from  Cuya- 
hoga county,  Gould  not  be  said  to  be  the  Rep- 
resentative of  the  people  of  Mahoning  county. 
How  could  he  be  said  to  be  their  Representative  ? 
He  is  their  chosen  spokesman,  but  how  is  he 
their  agent?  He  is  not  from  Mahoning  county, 
he  does  not  speak  for  their  interests,  he  is  not 
of  them,  he  is  not  from  among  them.  Why, 
the  result  would  be,  the  very  moment  you  adopt 
this  principle,  you  are  on  the  high  road  to  an 
aristocracy.  [Laughter.]  Gentlemen  laugh; 
but  let  me  tell  you  that  when  once  you  strike 
down  the  principle  of  diffusing  representation 
among  the  different  localities,  and  adopt  the 
plan  of  electing  high-blooded  gentlemen,  they 
would,  for  convenience,  move  to  the  capital, 
and  in  a few  years  you  would  have  local  Repre- 
sentatives all  in  the  city  of  Columbus.  The 
people  would  not  care  to  trouble  themselves  in 
their  different  counties  and  in  the  senatorial  dis- 
tricts, but  they  would  select  out  Bourbons,  send 
them  up,  and  let  them  reside  at  Columbus;  and 
thus  free  the  people  from  this  terrible  care  of 
sending  up  Representatives,  and  release  them- 
selves from  the  great  troubles  of  government, 
compartively.  We  should  have  our  Representa- 
tive from  Mahoning  at  Columbus ; the  citizens  of 
Cuyahoga  would  have  their  standing  Represent- 
ative at  Columbus;  little  Meigs  would  have  her 
standing  Representative  there,  and  how  conve- 
nient it  would  be!  What  a splendid,  high- 
blooded  government  we  should  have  there  at 
the  capital,  all  representing  different  localities 
that  they  knew  nothing  about.  That  would  be 
centralizing  power  with  a vengeance,  and  we 
should  have  a high-blooded  government,  which 
is  next  thing  to  a monarchy. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Ma- 
honing [Mr.  Wilson]  tell  me  whether  the  peo- 
ple of  Mahoning  have  not  got  a Bourbon  now  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Yes;  but  he  does  not  reside 
at  Columbus.  If  he  had  a dead  sure  thing  on 
the  citizens  of  Mahoning — and  he  does  not 
know  but  that  he  has — he  could  go  to  Colum- 
bus. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Allow  me  to  ask  another 
question.  Is  the  fact  that  you  have  such  a 
dead  sure  thing  the  reason  why  you  oppose  this 
change? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Although  I am  personally  so 
popular,  Mr.  President,  yet  1 have  a high  re- 
gard for  the  wants  of  the  people,  and  a great 
respect  for  the  people  of  my  county.  But 
suppose  I had  a sure  thing  on  them,  and  no 
one  could  ever  beat  me  for  Representative  or 
anything  else,  I might  just  as  well  go  and  live 
at  Columbus.  It  would  save  mileage,  and  I 
should  be  cut  off  from  the  necessity  of  getting 
a pass.  I should  be  one  of  your  high-blooded 
fellows,  living  at  Columbus  in  grand  style,  at 
the  people’s  expense.  The  next  thing  to  be 
done  would  be  to  have  a Governor  elected  for 
life,  make  a little  crown  for  him,  and  you  have 
the  thing  completed. 

Mr.  WEST.  What  would  you  do  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  the  mean- 
time? 

Mr.  WILSON.  That  is  passing  the  same 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. H55 

February  6,  1874.J  Wilson,  Blose,  West,  Powell,  Tyler. 


way  that  we  are  going.  They  are  centralizing 
the  government.  Carpet  baggers  from  New 
York  represent  Georgia  and  Louisiana,  so  that 
the  member  from  Georgia  is  spoken  of  as  “ the 
gentleman  from  New  York  representing  Geor- 
gia.” And  that  is  just  the  way  it  is  going  here 
if  we  don’t  scotch  it. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  In  reference  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  I ask  the  gentleman 
from  Mahoning  [Mr.  Wilson]  whether  that  has 
been  unrolled  as  yet,  that  he  knows  of? 

Mr.  WILSON.  I am  not  aware  that  it  has 
been  for  several  years.  I am  opposed  to  this 
entire  scheme.  It  breaks  up  the  long-standing 
practice  of  the  people.  It  strikes  down  their 
theory  of  government.  The  whole  theory  of  a 
representative  government,  as  I understand  it, 
is  this : that  the  homes  and  firesides  of  the 
people  shall  be  represented,  and  that  their 
agents  shall  come  from  their  homes,  knowing 
the  wants  of  the  people — and  while  they  rep- 
resent these  particular  localities,  they  are  no 
less  the  Representatives  of  the  entire  interests  of 
the  State. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  ordered,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  13,  nays  59,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Bannon,  Ewing,  Foran,  Hoad- 
ly,  Horton,  Miner,  Mueller,  Neal,  Pond,  Pow- 
ell, Root,  President — 13. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Beer,  Blose,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Campbell,  Carbery, 


Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cunning- 
ham, De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gur- 
ley, Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter, 
Humph reville,  Kerr,  Layton,  McBride,  McCor- 
mick, Miller,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Page,  Pease, 
Philips,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sam- 
ple, Scofield,  Scribner,  Shultz,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss, 
Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris, 
Waddle,  Watson,  Weaver,  White  of  Hocking, 
Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign — 59. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  not  agreed 
to. 

Mr.  WEST  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  be 
excused  from  voting,  having  paired  off  with  Mr. 
Hunt. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  to  submit  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Article  before  the  Convention,  for 
the  purpose  of  having  it  printed  with  that  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Powell  offers  the  following  amendment  to  section 
16  of  Article  2 of  the  present  Constitution : 

“No  law  shall  go  into  effect  earlier  than  ninety  days 
after  the  termination  of  the  session  of  the  Legislature  at 
which  it  was  enacted,  unless  by  a subsequent  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  each  House  some  earlier  day  may  be  specified. 
No  law  shall  apply  to  proceedings  in  a suit  pending  at 
the  time  of  the  passage  thereof.” 

No  objections  were  offered,  and  the  amend- 
ment was  ordered  to  be  printed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  TYLER, 

The  Convention,  (at  5:45  p.  m.)  adjourned. 


1156 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [108th 

Wilson,  Clark  of  J.,  Humphreville,  Baber.  [Saturday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  EIGHTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONTENTION. 


FORTY-SIXTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF- PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment: the  President  in  the  Chair. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Sam’l  W.  Clark,  a delegate 
in  the  Convention. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  72  members  answered 
to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  Alexander  was  excused  for  absence  yes- 
terday, and  granted  leave  of  absence  for  an  in- 
definite length  of  time. 

Mr.  Gardner  was  excused  for  absence  on 
yesterday,  and  granted  leave  for  to-dajr. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  to  Mr.  Tripp, 
until  Tuesday  next;  to  Mr.  Hoadly  for  to- 
day; and  to  Messrs.  Bannon,  Gurley  and 
O’Connor,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

Mr.  Young,  of  Noble,  was  excused  for  past 
absence,  and  granted  leave  for  an  indefinite 
length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PRESENTATION  OF  PETITIONS. 

Mr.  WILSON  presented  the  petition  of  Enos 
Heacock,  and  thirty-six  other  citizens  of  Go- 
shen, Mahoning  county,  protesting  against  such 
amendments  as  are  sought  to  be  engrafted 
upon  the  Constitution  by  the  incorporation  of 
certain  religious  opinions  therein. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Jefferson,  presented  the  pe- 
tition of  John  Sharp,  and  552  other  citizens  of 
Jefferson  and  Columbiana  counties,  praying 
that  such  religious  acknowledgments  may  be 
placed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State  as  will 
indicate  that  this  is  a Christian  Common- 
wealth. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

THE  ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I move  that  the 
Convention  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
Proposition  No.  190. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Proposition  No.  190  be- 
ing now  before  the  Convention,  the  Secretary 
will  proceed  to  read  section  four. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  4.  No  person  holding  office  under  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office  under  the  au- 
thority of  this  State,  shall  be  eligible  to,  or  have  a seat 


Saturday,  February  7,  1874. 

in,  the  General  Assembly;  but  this  provision  shall  not 
extend  to  township  officers,  justices  of  the  peace,  nota- 
ries public,  or  officers  of  the  militia. 

Mr.  BABER.  There  was  an  amendment  to 
this  section,  and  in  order  to  make  it  conform  to 
the  old  Constitution,  I propose  an  amendment 
which  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  intended  to  offer,  but  I see  that  he  is 

not  in  his  seat,  and  I move . I see  that  I 

have  got  the  wrong  amendment.  1 will  state 
my  amendment  verbally,  and  will  then  reduce 
it  to  writing.  It  is  in  the  fourth  section,  after 
the  words  “eligible  to,”  insert  the  words  “be 
chosen;”  so  that  it  will  read,  “eligible  to  be 
chosen  to  the  Legislature.” 

The  object  of  the  amendment  is  this:  tore- 
move  doubt.  I will  state  that  the  language  of 
the  old  Constitution,  twenty-sixth  section,  as 
anybody  will  find  by  examining,  says,  that  a 
person  shall  not  “ be  eligible  as  a candidate  for, 
or  have  a seat  in  the  General  Assembly.” 

In  that  shape  the  proposition  passed,  origin- 
ally, but  went,  afterwards,  to  the  Committee  on 
Revision,  and  for  the  sake  of  euphony,  the  words 
“ candidate  for”  were  dropped,  and  by  a deci- 
sion, the  language  of  the  old  Constitution  was 
held  not  as  intending  to  prevent  a man  from 
holding  one  of  these  offices,  or  to  prohibit  him 
from  being  a candidate.  In  other  words,  a man 
who  was  sheriff,  as  in  the  case  in  Clinton 
county — the  celebrated  test  case  in  the  election 
of  Chase,  United  States  Senator — the  member 
elect  was  a sheriff,  and  did  not  resign  until 
after  the  election,  and  it  was  held  that  he  was 
not  eligible,  and  the  election  was  sent  back  to 
the  people.  A question  was  raised  again,  at  the 
session  of  1870,  before  the  Legislature,  with  re- 
gard to  the  case  in  Scioto  county,  of  Mr.  Glover, 
a United  States  register  in  bankruptcy,  which 
was  an  exactly  similar  case,  and  the  House  of 
Representatives  held,  although  I doubted  the 
decision  at  the  time,  that  the  dropping  of  these 
words  “candidate  for”  changed  the  rule  of  the 
old  Constitution  upon  this  subject.  A great 
many  lawyers  doubted  whether  that  decision 
was  right.  I do  not  believe  it  was  intended  to 
make  a change  in  the  Constitution  in  this  res- 
pect. There  are  two  evils  to  be  remedied,  that 
is,  being  eligible  to  the  seat,  which  relates  back 
to  the  date  of  the  election,  and  having  a seat  in 
the  Legislature.  I desire  the  language  to  be 
put  back  just  where  it  was  under  the  old  Con- 
stitution, in  order  to  carry  out  the  intent  and 
remove  the  doubt  existing  in  reference  to  the 
original  construction.  Therefore,  I hope  it  will 
be  adopted. 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


1157 


Pond,  Baber,  Tuttle,  Neal. 


Day.] 

February  7,  1874.] 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  moves  to  amend  as  fol- 
lows : In  line  three,  after  the  words  “eligible 
to,”  insert  the  words  “be  chosen,”  so  that  it 
will  read,  “shall  be  eligible  to  be  chosen.” 

Mr.  POND.  It  appears  to  me  that  it  will  be 
unnecessary  to  insert  those  words  here.  The 
word  “eligible”  has,  in  our  language,  as 
clearly  defined  a meaning,  as  can  be.  It  means 
“capable  of  being  elected  to.”  “ Eligible  to,” 
then  means  “capable  of  being  elected  to,  or 
chosen.”  It  means  all  that  the  other  does. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  a 
moment? 

Mr.  POND.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BABER.  I know  that  is  the  opinion  of 
my  honorable  friend,  the  Attorney  General, 
and  was  his  opinion  at  the  time  that  this  Glover 
case  was  before  the  Legislature ; but  the  Legis- 
lature held  otherwise,  at  that  time ; which  deci- 
sion, I think,  was  erroneous.  I agree  with  the 
gentleman  on  this  point ; but  wish  to  clear  that 
point  with  regard  to  the  change,  and  insert 
language  upon  which  there  has  been  judicial 
decision  and  legislative  action.  The  language 
of  the  old  Constitution  contained  the  words 
“candidate  for,”  but  they  were  dropped  by  the 
Committee  on  Revision,  and  I merely  want  to 
put  these  words  in  to  meet  that  point.  The 
Legislature  did  not  all  think  it  necessary.  I 
have  the  protest  of  fifty-two  members,  pre- 
sented to  the  House  of  Representatives — the 
gentleman  is  familiar  with  it — dated  April  13th, 
1870,  House  Journal,  p.  825 : wherein  there  is 
an  argument,  just  exactly  the  same  as  the  gen- 
tleman’s, protesting  against  that  construction; 
but  the  Legislature,  having  made  that  construc- 
tion, and  having  decided  that  it  was  necessary, 
I think  that  we  had  better  remove  all  doubt. 

Mr.  POND.  Under  the  old  Constitution,  the 
Legislature  thought  that  those  words  “candi- 
date for”  meant  nothing,  and,  consequently, 
they  were,  very  wisely,  stricken  out  by  the  fra- 
mers of  the  Constitution  of  1851.  The  words 
“eligible  to”  appear  to  me  to  be  as  clear  and 
definite  as  it  is  possible  to  be  in  the  English 
language.  The  word  “eligible”  is  taken  from 
an  old  Latin  word,  which  means  just  what  it 
now  seeks  to  express — “capable  of  being  elec- 
ted.” A person  who  is  eligible,  is  a person 
capable  of  being  elected;  capable  of  being 
voted  for.  If,  then,  he  is  incapable  of  being 
voted  for,  or  elected,  he  cannot  be  elected;  can- 
not hold  a seat.  It  appears  to  me,  that  if  you 
put  the  words  “be  chosen”  after  the  words 
“eligible  to,”  you  have  got  a tautology  that  is 
unnecessary,  and  disfigures  the  Constitution. 
I agree  with  my  friend  from  Franklin  [Mr. 
Baber],  that  they  did  refuse  a seat  to  Mr.  New- 
man, perhaps,  on  that  construction ; but  there 
is  no  individual  here,  who  can  read  the  English 
language,  but  knows  that  it  would  not  warrant 
any  such  construction ; no  man  but  knows  that 
“eligible”  means  “capable  of  being  elected  to,” 
and  then,  if  you  insert,  right  after  that,  the 
words  “be  chosen,”  you  would  have  “capable 
of  being  elected  to  be  chosen,”  which,  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  would  be  language  that  ought  not 
to  be  in  the  organic  law.  I appreciate  the  mo- 
tive of  my  friend  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber], 
in  introducing  it;  but,  at  the  same  time,  I 
think  that  we  can  avoid  the  use  of  this  double 


term,  just  as  easily  as  they  did  what  was  illogi- 
cal, as  I think  they  did  then,  by  leaving  this  as 
it  stands  now. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I wish  to  ask  that  the  amend- 
ment might  be  read.  I do  not  think  that  I ex- 
actly understood  what  it  was. 

The  Secretary  read : 

After  the  word  “to”,  in  the  third  line,  insert  the  words 
“be  chosen”,  so  that  it  will  read: 

“No  person  holding  office  under  the  authority  of  the 
United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office  under  the  authority 
of  this  State,  shall  be  eligible  to  be  chosen  to,  or  have  a 
seat  in,  the  General  Assembly,”  &c. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  agreed 
by  both  gentlemen  who  have  jusfe  spoken,  and 
likely  by  others,  that  the  true  policy  is,  that 
there  shall  be  no  person  chosen  to  the  seat  who 
is  in  the  condition  described  in  the  section. 
The  expression  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber] — 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  give  way  one  moment? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BABER.  I will  suggest  that,  in  order  to 
remove  all  doubt,  I will  move  to  strike  out  the 
word  “elig'ble,”  and  substitute  “ elected.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  That  is  exactly  what  I was 
going  to  suggest:  whether  that  would  not  be 
better. 

Mr.  BABER.  I think  so.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested to  me  by  gentlemen  to  substitute  the  word 
^ olGctcd#^ 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be  first 
upon  inserting  the  word  “chosen” — does  the 
gentleman  withdraw  that? 

Mr.  BABER.  I withdraw  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Has  the  gentleman  leave 
to  withdraw  his  amendment? 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  moves  to  strike  out  the 
word  “ eligible,”  and  insert  “ elected,”  so  that  it 
will  read  : “ Shall  not  be  elected  to,  or  have  a 
seat  in,  the  General  Assembly.” 

Mr.  NEAL.  I hope  that  amendment  will  not 
be  adopted.  Upon  yesterday,  I voted  with  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber] — with  a 
very  small  minority  of  this  Convention,  it  is 
true,  but  a very  respectable  one — to  give  the 
people  of  any  county  the  right  to  select  their  can- 
didates from  whatever  part  or  section  of  the  State 
they  may  choose,  and  I do  not  propose  now,  by 
any  vote  of  mine,  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
vote  I so  gave  on  yesterday.  What  does  this  do  ? 
Why,  it  is  to  fetter  the  people  in  their  right  to 
choose  whom  they  please  to  represent  them  in 
the  General  Assembly.  It  is  inconsistent  with 
Democratic  government.  Let  me  give  an  illus- 
tration : Under  the  present  Constitution,  a man 
who  is  elected  to,  and  holds  the  office  of,  Prose- 
cuting Attorney,  but  who  goes  out  of  office  on 
the  1st  of  January,  can  be  elected  at  the  Octo- 
ber election  prior,  and  be  eligible  to  a seat  in 
the  General  Assembly,  as  has  been  decided  over 
and  over  again.  If  we  make  this  change,  he 
would  be  ineligible. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  What  does  the  gentleman 
conceive  the  real  meaning  of  the  language  as  it 
now  stands,  to  be  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Eligible  to  ? 


1158 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [108th 

Tuttle,  Neal,  Root,  Scribner,  Burns,  Young  of  C.,  Powell.  [Saturday, 


Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I conceive  that  if  the  disability 
provided  for  in  this  section,  be  removed  at  any 
time  before  he  is  required  to  assume  the  duties 
devolved  upon  him,  by  virtue  of  his  election  to 
the  General  Assembly,  renders  him  eligible. 
Such  is  also  the  case  with  any  other  county  of- 
fice, the  term  of  which  expires  before  the  in- 
cumbent is  called  upon  to  take  his  oath  of  office 
as  member  of  the  General  Assembly,  he  is,  un- 
der this  provision,  eligible  to  that  office ; but  if 
you  make  this  change,  if  the  people  of  his 
county  or  district  want  him  to  represent  them 
in  the  General  Assembly,  he  will  be  compelled  to 
resign  his  office  the  day  before  election,  in  or- 
der to  make  himself  eligible  as  a candidate  for 
the  General  Assembly.  What  is  the  result? 
Simply  this : Where  a man  is  holding  some 

county  office,  he  will,  the  day  before  election, 
resign,  and  will  forward  his  resignation  to  the 
Governor  by  mail.  After  the  election  is  over,  if 
he  is  defeated,  he  will  telegraph  to  the  Gover- 
nor that  he  withdraws  his  resignation.  Thus  it 
will  end,  and  you  will  have  accomplished  noth- 
ing but  attempting  to  deny  to  the  people  the  right 
to  have  whom  they  wTish,  to  represent  them. 
The  provision,  as  it  stands  in  the  present  Con- 
stitution, is  restrictive  enough,  and  I trust  the 
Convention  will  not  make  more  stringent  this 
provision. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  19,  nays  50,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Baber,  Beer,  Bishop,  Cook,  Cunning- 
ham, De  Steiguer,  Kerr,  Pond,  Root,  Scribner, 
Thompson,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Yoorhes, 
Yoris,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, President — 19. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Camp- 
bell Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Coats,  Doan,  Ewing,  Foran,  Greene, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Ho«tet- 
ter,  Humphreville,  Layton,  McBride,  McCor- 
mick, Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mul- 
len, Neal,  Page,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskin- 
gum, Sample,  Scofield,  Shultz,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Tyler,  Yan- 
Voorhis,  Waddle,  Watson,  Weaver,  West,  Wil- 
son, Woodbury — 50. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  and  insert,  was 
not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I move  to 
strike  out  the  whole  section,  and  insert  the  fol- 
lowing : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Champaign  moves  to  strike  out  section  four, 
and  insert  as  a substitute,  what  the  Secretary 
will  now  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  4.  No  person  holding  office  under  authority  of 
theUDited  States, or  any  lucrtive  office  under  theauthority 
this  State,  not  including  as  such,  township  officers,  jus- 
tices of  the  peace,  notaries  public,  or  officers  of  the  mili- 
tia, shall  be  eligible  to,  or  have  a seat  in,  the  General 
Assembly,  nor  shall  any  person  holding  or  interested  in 
any  government  contract,  under  the  authority  of  this 
State,  be  eligible  to,  or  have  a seat  in,  the  General  As- 
sembly.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  What  is  that?  A substitute,  or 
the  section  itself? 

The  PRESIDENT.  A substitute  for  the  en- 
tire section. 


Mr.  ROOT.  Has  the  Secretary  read  the  sec- 
tion or  the  substitute? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  substitute. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  he  might  read  the  sec- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  section. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Sec.  4.  No  person  holding  office  under  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office  under  the  au- 
thority of  this  State,  shall  be  eligible  to,  or  have  a seat  in, 
the  General  Assembly;  but  this  provision  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  township  officers,  justices  of  the  peace,  notaries 
public,  or  officers  of  the  militia. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I will  send  up  to  be  read 
for  information,  a substitute  for  the  section, 
that  the  Convention  may  have  both  substitutes 
before  them. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Lu- 
cas [Mr.  Scribner],  sends  up  to  be  read,  for  in- 
formation, the  following  substitute  which  he 
will  offer  hereafter,  and  which  the  Secretary 
will  read. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  4.  No  person  holding  office  under  the  autority  of 
the  United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office  under  the  au- 
thority of  this  State,  or  interested  in  any  contract  or 
claim  involving  an  appropriation  from  the>tate  treasury, 
or  to  which  the  State  is  a party,  shall  be  eligible  to,  or 
hold  a seat  in,  the  General  Assembly;  but  the  term  “lu- 
crative office,”  in  this  section,  shall  not  beheld  to  include 
ju'tices  of  the  peace,  notaries  public,  township  officers,  or 
officers  of  the  militia.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  inquire  Tvheth- 
er  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  printed  in  italics  here,  was  disagreed 
to? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  was  disagreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  There  is  a difference  of  opin- 
ion among  members ; some  think  it  -was  and 
some  think  it  was  not. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Champaign 
[Mr.  Young]. 

Mr.  YOUNG.  The  words  in  italics  in  section 
four,  as  reported,  were  stricken  out,  because,  I 
apprehend,  they  were  not  in  their  proper  place. 
As  they  stood  in  the  section,  they  were  out  of 
place,  and  it  was  in  contemplation  of  that,  that 
I drew  the  substitute  I now  offer,  so  as  to  put 
them  in  their  proper  place.  It  would  then  be 
simple,  plain  and  distinct,  and  no  dispute  about 
it.  The  substitute  offered  by  me  is  the  section 
as  it  stood  when  the  words  were  stricken  out, 
with  the  words  stricken  out,  inserted  in  proper 
form,  at  the  end  of  the  section. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I rise  principally  upon  the 
suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner],  in  having  his  proposition  offered  to 
be  read,  and  not  as  an  amendment  now.  I ask 
the  President  if  the  original  section  is  not  to 
be  considered  as  original  matter,  and  that  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Champaign 
[Mr.  Young],  is  a proposition  to  amend,  and 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Lucas 
[Mr.  Scribner],  may  be  received  as  an  amend- 
ment to  an  amendment.  Now,  as  I think,  one 
rule  (my  eyes  are  so  poor,  I cannot  hunt  them 
up)  is,  that  this  proposed  substitute  may  be  re- 
ceived as  an  original  one. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  is  right.  The  provis- 
ion is  a substitute  for  the  entire  section,  and 
not  for  a part  of  the  section. 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  7,  1874.]  Powell,  West,  Burns,  Humphreville,  Neal,  etc. 


1159 


Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  the  Chair,  is 
not  that  an  entirely  original  proposition,  and  is 
not  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Champaign  [Mr.  Young],  the  first  amendment, 
and  that  of  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner],  an  amendment  to  the  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  They  are,  each  of  them, 
offered  as  a substitute  for  one  thing,  not  one 
for  the  other. 

A division  of  the  question  was  called  for. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  first 
be  on  striking  out. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  WEST.  Did  I understand  the  Chair  to 
say  that  the  amendment  offered  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I certainly  then  shall  favor 
striking  out  and  inserting  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner].  As  it 
now  stands,  I prefer  it  to  that  of  the  gentleman 
from  Champaign  [Mr.  Young],  Though  they 
are  very  nearly  alike,  that  of  the  gentleman 
from  Lucas  extends  over  a little  more  ground. 
It  excludes  holders  of  claims  from  payment 
which  would  require  the  appropriation  of 
money  and  voting  upon  appropriation  bills.  I 
do  not  believe  that  the  gentleman  who  holds  a 
claim,  or  interested  in  a claim  which  he  is 
prosecuting  against  the  State,  of  a good  many 
hundreds  or  thousands  of  dollars,  ought  to  be 
the  person  to  vote  upon  that  claim — to  vote  an 
appropriation.  I have  been  in  the  General  As- 
sembly, when  as  high  as  $90,000  were  voted  out 
of  the  treasury  by  men  who  put  the  money  in 
their  pockets ; and  I did  not  think  it  looked 
very  well  when  they  had  done  so.  It  is  true  it 
was  not  upon  any  contract  of  the  State,  but  a 
claim  upon  the  adjustment  of  a matter  not 
necessary  to  speak  of  here.  But  it  was  a good 
deal  of  money  to  be  voted  out  of  the  State 
treasury,  and  into  the  pockets  of  men  who  voted 
it.  There  ought  to  be  some  provision  to  stop 
such  things. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  rise  to  dispute  the 
ruling  of  the  Chair,  because  my  memory  does 
not  serve  me,  but  to  inquire  whether  the  Chair 
has  examined  the  Journal  to  know  whether  he 
is  correct  or  not  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  I have  inquired.  The 
Journal  shows  it  did  not  prevail. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Some  are  of  a different  opinion. 
If  so,  I shall  vote  to  strike  out  this  section.  I do 
not  like  it  in  its  present  form. 

Mr.  HUMPREYILLE.  I think  I can  inform 
the  gentleman.  The  Chair  is  right.  That 
amendment  was  not  agreed  to,  not  because 
members  did  not  agree  to  the  principle  involved 
in  the  amendment,  but  because  it  was  out  of 
place.  It  made  the  section  of  doubtful  con- 
struction, and  it  was  found  advisable  in  con- 
sidering the  section,  that  that  amendment  should 
not  be  there,  but  should  be  added  at  the  end  of 
the  section.  I believe  it  was  a pretty  general 
expression  of  opinion  that  an  amendment  ought 
to  be  in  the  section  in  some  shape,  but  not  in 
the  form  proposed  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole.  1 have  a distinct  recollection  it  was 
disagreed  to,  because  I have  tried  to  keep  pace 
with  the  progress  of  this  discussion. 


Mr.  BURNS,  I do  not  call  it  in  question.  I 
did  not  remember  whether  it  was  or  not. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I distinctly  remem- 
ber that  it  was  not  concurred  in ; and  I remember 
the  principal  reason  assigned  was,  that  it  was 
out  of  place. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  like  to  inquire  whether 
or  not  a contractor  building  a bridge  in  a county 
or  township,  or  building  a chimney  of  an  in- 
firmary, or  doing  any  work  of  that  character 
under  contract,  whether  he  would  be  ineligible 
under  this  amendment?  It  seems  to  me  if  we 
are  to  have%  provision  of  that  kind,  it  should  be 
expressed  in  such  a clear  and  concise  way,  that 
it  will  be  confined  to  contracts  in  which  the 
State  is  directly  interested. 

Mr.  YOUNG.  That  is  precisely  my  intention 
and  understanding  of  it. 

Mr.  NEAL.  That  is  not  what  might  be  un- 
derstood as  the  meaning  of  it. 

Mr.  YOUNG.  Have  it  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Champaign  [Mr.  Young]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  4.  No  person  holding  office  under  the  authority 
of  the  United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office  under  the 
authority  of  this  State,  not  including  township  officers, 
justices  of  the  peace,  notaries  public,  or  officers  of  the 
militia,  shall  be  eligible  to,  or  have  a seat  in,  the  General 
Assembly ; nor  shall  any  person  holding  or  interested  in 
any  government  contract,  under  the  authority  ot  this 
State,  he  eligible  to,  or  have  a seat  in,  the  General  As- 
sembly.” 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  the  Secretary  now  read  the 
substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas 
[Mr.  Scribner]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  4.  No  person  holding  office  under  the  authority 
of  the  United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office  under  the 
authority  of  this  State,  or  interested  in  any  contx*act  or 
claim  involving  an  appropriation  from  the  State  treasury, 
or  to  which  the  State  is  a party,  shall  be  eligible  to,  or 
hold  a seat  in,  the  General  Assembly;  but  the  term  lu- 
crative office  in  this  section  shall  not  be  held  to  include 
justices  of  the  peace,  notaries  public,  township  officers, 
or  officers  of  militia.” 

Mr.  HALE.  I submit  that  the  substitute 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner],  has  not  the  objections  mentioned  by 
the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
striking  out  section  4. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I wish  to  submit  for  the  con- 
sideration of  members  whether  the  proposed 
substitute  is  not  too  extensive.  Conceiving 
that  the  term  “ eligible,”  may  bear  the  con- 
struction properly  given  to  it  by  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  making  it  equivalent 
to  the  words,  incapable  to  be  “ chosen  to,”  or 
“ elected  to,”  so  that  by  the  clause,  as  it  now 
stands,  or  rather,  as  the  substitute  now  stands, 
it  would  make  a person  absolutely  incapable  of 
being  chosen,  should  he  have  any  such  contract, 
or  be  interested  in  any  such  contract,  or  appro- 
priation. Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  a provision 
so  extensive  as  that  might,  many  times,  work 
mischief.  Nothing  is  said,  and,  of  course,  no- 
thing can  be  intelligently  said  about  the  extent 
of  that  interest,  or  the  nature  of  that  interest, 
or  the  manner  in  which  that  interest  shall 
arise ; and  it  seems  to  me,  it  might  happen  in  a 
great  many  cases  that  a man  might  be  elected 
to  that  office  without  even  knowing  himself,  or 
at  least,  without  himself  recurring  to  the  fact 


1160 THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [108th 

Tuttle,  Humphreville,  Powell,  Pond,  Cunningham,  etc.  [Saturday, 


that  he  had  any  such  interest.  Much  more 
might  the  people  be  ignorant  of  the  existence 
of  any  such  interest  or  contract.  And  yet,  it 
might  be  in  reality  very  immaterial  to  his  elec- 
tion or  to  his  capacity  to  serve  the  public  well, 
provided  he  should  be  disposed  to  acquit  him- 
self of  that  interest  as  soon  as  it  was  discovered 
by  him.  Now,  it  appears  to  me,  that  every 
good  purpose  of  a provision  of  this  kind  would 
be  attained  by  making  him  simply  incapable  of 
holding  a seat,  without  at  all  affecting  his  right 
to  be  elected  to  office  on  that  account.  And  the 
difference,  practically,  might  be  ^pry  great; 
because,  before  he  came  to  hold  his  seat,  he 
might  discover  the  existing  incompetency  and 
acquit  himself  of  it.  In  that  case,  I do  not  be- 
lieve any  mischief  would  result  from  allowing 
him  then  to  retain  his  seat,  at  least,  no  such 
great  mischief  as  might  result  from  excluding 
him  on  account  of  any  interest  that  would 
come  within  this  exclusion  ; any  interest  that 
might  be  within  the  fair  meaning  of  this 
amendment;  any  interest  in  a contract  of  the 
government;  and  I,  therefore,  hope  the  substi- 
tute will  not  be  adopted  in  that  form.  And  for 
the  purpose  of  taking  the  sense  of  the  House  up- 
on that  subject,  I propose  to  amend  the  present 
section  by  adding  at  the  end  of  it  these  words : 
“ Nor  shall  any  person  holding  or  interested  in 
any  contract  with  the  State  hold  any  seat  in  the 
General  Assembly.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  amendment. 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  up- 
on the  original  motion  to  strike  out  and  insert. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  believe  a 
quorum  voted  on  the  amendment.  I think  it 
the  best  amendment  offered  yet  and  ought  to  be 
adopted. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  that  the  vote  be  taken 
by  division. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
the  amendment,  upon  which  a division  is 
asked. 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  understand  the  con- 
struction of  the  language  very  well.  If  I am 
correct,  it  is  hardly  grammatical — “ holding  or 
interested  in.” 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Nor  shall  any  person  holding  or  interested  in  any  con- 
tract with  the  State  hold  a seat  in  the  General  As- 
sembly.” 

Mr.  POND.  I desire,  if  this  is  to  be  voted  on 
again,  to  have  added  after  the  word  “contract” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me?  I desire  to  say  that  the  amendment  was 
drawn  very  hastily;  and,  if  the  gentleman  will 
suggest  anything  that  will  accomplish  the  pur- 
pose I have  sought,  I will  very  gladly  let  it  take 
the  place  of  my  amendment. 

Mr.  WEST.  After  the  word  “with,”  insert 
“or  money  claim  against.”  “Interest  in  any 
contract  with,  or  money  claim  against.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  there  is  no  objection  to 
that,  I am  willing  to  accept  the  amendment. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I presume  that  that 

The  PRESIDENT.  One  moment.  Will  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  repeat  his 
amendment? 


Mr.  WEST.  After  the  word  “with,”  or 
“claim  against.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a moment? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  that  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  used  the  word 
“money”  there. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  what  I meant 
to  indicate. 

A MEMBER.  No,  no;  he  left  it  out. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  to  strike  out  the  words 
“holding  or,”  and  then  read  “any  person  in- 

t6F6St6d  ^ 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  no  objection  to  that. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would' like  to  inquire 
whether  there  is  any  danger  of  excluding 
members  of  the  Convention  under  the  amend- 
ment proposed?  [Laughter], 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  now 
reads : “Nor  shall  any  person  interested  in  any 
contract  with,  or  claim  against,  the  State,  hold 
any  seat  in  the  General  Assembly.” 

A division  being  called  for,  44  voted  in  the 
affirmative.  So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  striking  out  the  section  as  amended. 

Mr.  MINER.  I would  like  to  have  the  sec- 
tion read  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read. 

“Sec.  4.  No  person  holding  office  under  the  authority 
of  the  United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office  under  the 
authority  of  this  State,  shall  be  eligible  to,  or  have  a seat 
in,  the  General  Assembly;  but  this  provision  shall  not 
extend  to  township  officers,  justices  of  the  peace,  notaries 
public,  or  officers  of  militia;  nor  shall  any  person  inter- 
ested in  any  contract  with,  or  claim  against,  the  State 
hold  any  seat  in  the  General  Assembly.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  on 
striking  out. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I desire  the  reading  of  the 
proposed  amendment  by  the  gentleman  from 
Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  4.  No  person  holding  office  under  the  authority 
of  the  United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office  under  the 
authority  ot  this  State,  or  interested  iu  any  contract  or 
claim  involving  an  appropriation  from  the  State  treasury, 
or  to  which  the  State  is  a party,  shall  be  eligible  to,  or 
hold  a seat  in  the  General  Assembly;  but  the  term  ‘lucra- 
tive office’  in  this  section  shall  not  be  held  to  include  jus- 
tices of  the  peace,  notaries  public,  township  officers,  or 
officers  of  militia.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  1 am  not  sure  as  to 
the  construction  of  this  amendment,  and  I 
merely  suggest  the  possibility  of  a construction 
being  given  to  this  section  not  intended  by  the 
Convention,  a construction  being  given  in  some 
high  excitement  of  party  interest.  The  use  of 
the  words  “claim  against,”  is  an  objection. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
simply  upon  the  striking  out  of  the  section  as 
amended. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  And  upon  that  ques- 
tion I am  trying  to  talk — the  necessity  to  strike 
out.  Would  it  hot  be  possible,  and  would  there 
not  be  a semblance,  at  least,  of  fairness  in  say- 
ing that  the  owner  of  a bond — one  of  the  bonds 
issued  by  the  State — would  be  ineligible  to  a seat 
in  the  Legislature.  Now,  that  is  a claim — a 
claim  against  the  State — I am  aware  that,  or- 
dinarily, it  is  not  classed  in  that  way;  but  it  is 
a claim  against  the  State;  and  I can  imagine 


Day.] 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Root,  Burns,  Tuttle,  Humphreville. 


1161 


February  7,  1874.] 


sometimewhere  there  is  a close  balance  of  part- 
isan legislation,  and  where  there  are  difficulties 
in  the  State  on  the  part  of  the  party  to  carry 
some  measure  through,  such,  for  example,  as 
that  which  occurred  a few  years  ago  on  the 
adoption  of  the  15th  amendment,  when  it  might 
be  determined  to  oust  the  party  from  his  seat 
because  he  happened  to  be  the  owner  of  a city 
bond.  Now,  we  can  place  this  matter  beyond  a 
peradventure  or  doubt.  It  seems  to  me  we 
ought  to  do  so. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out,  upon  which  the  yeas  and  nays  are 
demanded. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted — 
yeas  33,  nays  35,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Beer,  Bishop,  Burns, 
Campbell,  Cunningham,  Ewing,  Hostetter, 
Kerr,  McBride,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mullen, 
Page,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly, 
Root,  Scribner,  Thompson,  Tulloss,  Voorhes, 
Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson,  Weaver,  West,  White 
of  Hocking,  Young  of  Champaign,  President 
—33. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Bosworth,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Coats,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey, 
Foran,  Greene,  Hale,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hum- 
phreville, Layton,  McCormick,  Miller,  Mueller, 
Neal,  Pond,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Rus- 
sell of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scofield,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis, 
Woodbury — 35. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
proceed  to  read  section  4. 

The  Secretary  read  the  section  as  amended. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will 
pardon  the  Chair  one  moment.  The  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  desires,  instead 
of  the  word  “any,”  to  insert  “a,” — hold  “a” 
seat. 

Mr.  ROOT.  If  it  is  competent,  I would  make 
a motion.  I want  to  suggest  to  those  who 
framed  this  provision  one  thing,  to  obviate  the 
objection  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Allen 
[Mr.  Cunningham],  which,  perhaps,  is  well 
taken.  Before  the  word  “claim”  insert  “unad- 
justed.” If  the  gentleman  from  Champaign 
[Mr.  Young]  has  this  in  charge,  I wish,  espe- 
cially, to  call  his  attention  to  it.  Before  the 
word  “claim”  insert  the  word  “unadjusted;” 
then,  the  objection  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  which,  I think, 
if  not  well  taken,  is  certainly  plausible,  would 
be  removed  by  putting  in  the  word  “unad- 
justed.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root]  moves  to  insert  the  word  “un- 
adjusted.” Is  there  any  objection  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I object;  not  because  I think  it 
ought  not  to  be  in  there,  but  the  section,  as  it  now 
stands,  is  such  an  incongruity,  such  a patched- 
up  section,  that  I would  like,  very  much,  to 
see  it  out  of  the  way,  and  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner],  or 
something  else,  in  its  place. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
ask  one  question  ? 


Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  is  bad  as  it  is.  I understand 
the  gentleman  to  say,  “ I wish  to  say  that  this 
does  not  make  it  any  worse,  but  rather  im- 
proves it.”  Now,  let  us  have  it  as  good  as  we 
can,  lest  we  may  have  to  take  it  without  this 
improvement.  I hope  there  will  be  no  objec- 
tion to  this  amendment. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If,  by  that  means,  we  could 
have  some  revision  of  the  section,  I would  in- 
sist upon  the  objection.  But  rather  than  have 
the  section  as  it  is,  I would  consent  to  the 
amendment vof  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root].  I withdraw  my  objection. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  say  that  the  only 
object  that  I had  in  suggesting  the  amendment 
was  to  get  rid  of  what  I think  would  be  a very 
serious  objection,  if  it  should  be  so  framed  that 
the  fact,  which  might  be  unknown  to  the  can- 
didate himself,  of  his  being  in  any  way  inter- 
ested in  a claim  against  the  government  that 
would  make  his  election  void.  To  get  rid  of 
that  objection  was  the  object  of  my  amendment, 
and  I have  no  objection,  if  the  Convention  is 
agreed,  to  the  insertion  of  the  word  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root].  I think 
it  would  be  an  improvement. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  if  the  word  “ ad- 
justment” does  not  make  this  distinction?: 
In  a claim  already  adjusted  the  holder  is  a 
mere  creditor  of  the  State;  in  an  unadjusted 
claim  he  has  “ an  ax  to  grind,”  perhaps. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  That  is  the  reason  why  I 
think  the  insertion  of  that  word,  so  far  as  I now 
see,  would  be  an  improvement.  I do  not  at 
present  see  any  reason  why  the  holder  of  a 
bond,  for  instance,  against  the  State,  or  any 
other  claim  that  has  been  adjusted  and  stands 
merely  as  a money  claim,  to  be  paid  at  some 
proper  fixed  time,  ascertained  and  determined 
upon,  should  be  incapable  of  holding  a seat  in 
the  Legislature. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I hope  there  will 
be  no  objection  to  inserting  that  word.  I be- 
lieve it  will  remove  the  difficulty.  If  there  are 
objections  I will  submit,  as  it  would  be  out  of 
order  to  insert  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection,  it 
will  be  inserted. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  To  be  placed  at  the 
end  of  the  section,  I suppose,  and  not  in  the 
body  of  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  being  no  objec- 
tion, the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root],  to  insert  the  word  “unad- 
justed,” will  be  accepted.  The  Secretary  will 
read  section  5. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Seo.  5.  No  person  convicted  of  an  embezzlement  of  the 
public  funds,  shall  hold  any  office  in  this  State;  nor  shall 
any  person,  holding  public  money  for  disbursement,  or 
otherwise,  have  a seat  in  the  General  Assembly,  until  he 
shall  have  accounted  for  and  paid  such  money  into  the 
treasury.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  I understood  the  reading 
itself,  the  word  “hereafter  ” 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  was  stricken  out. 
If  there  are  no  amendments,  the  Secretary 
will  read  section  6. 

The  Secretary  read : 


1162 


[108th 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Godfrey,  Hitchcock,  Root.  [Saturday, 


“Sec.  6.  Each  House  shall  be  judge  of  the  election  re- 
turns and  qualifications  of  its  own  members;  a majority 
of  all  the  members  elected  to  each  House,  shall  he  a quorum 
to  do  business,  but  a less  number  may  adjourn  from  day 
to  day,  and  compel  the  attendance  of  absent  members  in 
such  manner,  and  under  such  penalties,  as  shall  be  pre- 
scribed by  law.” 

There  being  no  amendments,  the  Secretary 
read  sections  7 and  8 : 

Sec.  7.  The  mode  of  organizing  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, at  the  commencement  of  each  regular  session, 
shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

“Sec.  8,  Each  House,  except  as  otherwise  provided  in 
this  Constitution,  shall  choose  its  own  officers,  may  deter- 
mine its  own  rules  of  proceeding,  punish  its  members  for 
disorderly  conduct;  and  with  the  concurrence  of  two- 
thirds,  expel  a member,  but  not  the  second  time  for  the 
same  cause;  and  shall  have  all  other  powers,  necessary 
to  provide  for  its  safety,  and  the  undisturbed  transaction 
of  its  business.” 

Mr.  GODFREY  offered  the  following  amend- 
ment to  section  8 : Amend  line  three  by  adding, 

after  the  word  “ two- thirds,”  the  words,  “of  all 
the  members  elected  thereto.” 

Mr.  GODFREY.  In  the  present  Constitution, 
several  sections  designate  what  portion  of  the 
body  are  authorized  to  do  a certain  thing.  Some 
of  the  sections  require  that  a certain  portion  of 
a quorum — that  is,  the  requisite  constitutional 
portion  of  members  of  either  branch  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  then  present  and  doing  business. 
Some  sections  provide  that  two-thirds,  some 
three-fifths,  and  some  three -fourths,  as  the  case 
may  be,  of  all  the  members  elected  thereto,  shall 
be  required  for  certain  purposes.  In  the  present 
Constitution  there  are  two  sections  that  are  left 
somewhat  indefinite  as  to  whether  the  entire 
body  elected  is  meant,  or  whether  it  means  that 
portion  of  the  quorum  then  present  and  doing 
business.  These  are  sections  8 and  16,  especi- 
ally so  with  section  16.  Differences  of  opinion 
have  been  expressed  as  to  what  is  the  meaning 
of  “ the  House,”  in  the  present  section  16.  Our 
Committee  have  thought  to  remedy  that,  by  the 
adoption  of  section  16  as  reported,  instead  of 
section  16  as  it  now  stands  in  the  Constitution. 
This  question  should  be  well  defined,  and 
stripped  of  all  doubt.  I have  known  the  presi- 
ding officers  of  the  two  Houses  of  the  General 
Assembly  deciding  differently  in  regard  to  this 
point,  one  holding  that  “ the  House  ” means  all 
the  members  elected  to  it,  while  the  presiding 
officer  of  the  other  branch  held  that  it  only  re- 
quired a certain  proportion  of  the  members 
present  and  doing  business.  We  had  those  two 
officers,  holding  these  different  opinions  as  to 
the  meaning  of  that  expression,  at  one  time  in 
the  General  Assembly.  But,  as  I have  said,  our 
Committee  have  remedied  that  difficulty  in  that 
section.  Let  us  make  section  8 so  it  will  show 
clearly  what  is  meant  by  saying  that  the  num- 
ber required  to  expel  a member  shall  be  two- 
thirds  of  a quorum,  or  of  all  the  members 
elected.  I think  it  proper  that  it  should  be 
made  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  elected.  I 
propose  to  make  it  definite  and  clear  by  saying 
two-thirds  of  all  elected.  Hence,  I have  offered 
the  amendment. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  Secretary  read  the  next  section  : 

“Sec.  9.  Each  House  shall  keep  a correct  Journal  of 
its  proceedings,  which  shall  be  published.  At  the  desire 
of  any  two  members,  the  yeas  and  nays  shall  be  entered 
upon  the  Journal;  and.  on  the  passage  of  every  bill  or 
joint  resolution  having  the  effect  of  law,  in  either  Hoase 
the  vote  shall  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  entered  up- 


on the  Journal;  and  no  such  bill  or  joint  resolution  shall 
be  passed,  in  either  House,  without  the  concurrence  of  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  elected  thereto.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK  moved  to  amend  the  sec- 
tion by  striking  out,  in  line  two,  the  words, 
“ any  two  members,”  and  inserting,  “ one-fifth 
of  the  members  present.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  wish,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, to  detain  the  Convention,  as  I made  some 
remarks  a few  days  since,  giving  my  reasons  for 
this  change.  The  Constitution  requires  the 
yeas  and  nays  to  be  taken  upon  the  passage  of 
all  bills,  and  all  joint  resolutions,  and  the  ma- 
jority of  those  elected  to  each  House  to  concur 
in  that  passage.  This  requiring  the  yeas  and 
nays  on  the  demand  of  any  two  members 
amounts  simply  to  a hindrance  of  the  business 
of  the  body  by  any  one  disposed  to  compel  a 
call  upon  a dilatory  motion.  It  seems  to  me  un- 
necessary. We  have  adopted,  in  this  Conven- 
tion, a Rule  like  that  proposed  for  this  section . 

Mr.  ROOT.  I hope,  Mr.  President,  that  will 
be  defeated.  How  do  you  know  that  you  will 
have  dilatory  motions?  I know  there  may  be 
times  when  to  have  a vote  taken  by  yeas  and 
nays  may  possibly  delay  business ; but  if  it  is  a 
right  of  so  much  importance,  instead  of  requir- 
ing even  two  members  to  demand  it,  I would 
greatly  prefer  that  on  the  demand  of  any  mem- 
ber, the  yeas  and  nays  shall  be  taken.  I have 
seen  enough  and  more  than  enough  to  satisfy 
me  that  the  time  occupied  in  taking  a vote  on 
appropriation  bills  and  on  items  in  appropria- 
tion bills,  is  more  than  compensated  for  by  hav- 
ing members  face  the  music  and  go  on  the  re- 
cord. I have  seen,  sir,  some  of  the  most  cor- 
rupt jobs  go  through,  when  it  would  have  been 
difficult,  nay,  impossible,  to  have  obtained 
one-fifth  of  the  members  present  to  demand  the 
ayes  and  noes,  and  yet  it  would  have  been  very 
improbable  that  it  could  pass  at  all  if  the  call 
for  the  ayes  and  noes  had  been  sustained.  This 
is  a matter  of  very  great  importance,  and  no 
consideration  of  expediting  the  passage  of  a 
bill  or  saving  time,  when  you  are  spending  the 
people’s  money  by  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands, would  induce  me  to  part  with  the  right, 
I say,  of  any  member  demanding  a vote. 

Again,  if  the  gentleman’s  amendment  does 
not  prevail  here,  I would  have  the  section 
amended  in  another  way.  I can  see  by  the 
provision  of  this  section,  as  it  stands  unamended, 
there  might  be  some  confusion.  It  says,  “on 
the  passage.”  Now,  I would  have  these  votes 
on  items  demandable,  and  taken  on  the  final 
reading,  which  is  something  different  from  the 
passage.  And  when  they  have  been  taken  on 
the  final  reading  as  you  may  reach  them,  then 
I would  require  the  ayes  and  noes  to  be  taken 
on  the  whole  bill  engrossed.  1 know,  sir,  that 
it  will  be  very  difficult  to  provide  perfect  se- 
curity. I know  how  easy  it  is  to  make  up  items 
as  you  make  up  mail  bags,  throwing  in  a great 
many  separate  matters,  and  call  it  an  item. 
Suppose,  for  instance,  that  my  friend  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  were  a member  of 
the  Legislature,  and  he  wanted  a great  many 
things  done  for  the  benefit  and  advancement  of 
the  institution  for  idiotic  youth,  to  which  he 
has  given  a great  deal  of  attention,  and  to  which 
| he  has  rendered  valuable  service.  Now,  per- 
! haps,  they  may  want  an  ice-house  built  there; 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1163 

February  7, 1874.]  Root,  Hitchcock,  Tuttle. 


perhaps  they  may  want  a drain  constructed, 
and,  perhaps,  a wall  built.  I do  not  know  what 
all  they  might  want;  but  he  could  introduce 
into  one  item  thirty  thousand  dollars  for  com- 
pleting and  repairing  the  building  for  that  in- 
stitution, the  buildings  attached  thereto,  and  the 
grounds  on  which  the  same  stand.  Where  are 
your  items  now  ? Why,  you  will  have  all  these 
things  there  just  as  certainly  to  be  jumbled  to- 
gether, and  made  up  in  a batch  as  that  the  Leg- 
islature meets,  and  acts  upon  them.  And  there 
is  a manifest  propriety  in  putting  some  items 
in  a class,  or  some  specified  items  or  classes 
into  one  item  or  bill ; but  you  cannot  tell  where 
you  will  stop,  or  how  many,  or  how  few,  there 
shall  be.  We  cannot  provide  for  that.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  Article  on  this  subject  is  as  spe- 
cific, perhaps,  as  we  can  employ;  nevertheless, 
I hope  we  never  shall  facilitate  the  rushing 
through  of  these  appropriation  bills.  I hope  we 
will  give  to  one  man— if  there  be  but  one  man 
who  wishes  to  have  his  name  on  the  record — 
the  privilege  of  showing  that  he  was  not  one  of 
those  who  voted  for  it.  I hope  we  will  give 
them  that  privilege,  and  encourage  members 
who  are  disposed  to  oppose  the  power  of 
wrong-doing,  and  protect  the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple. I never  would,  and  I hope  the  Conven- 
tion never  will,  consent  to  any  such  thing. 

Now,  it  is  not  a very  great  compliment  to  any 
legislative  body  to  say  that  a measure  passed 
of  which  they  know  the  vote  is  doubtful — can- 
not furnish  one-fifth  of  its  members  to  demand 
the  ayes  and  noes ; but  such  is  the  fact,  and 
men  of  experience  have  seen  it,  and  know  it. 
Whether  they  can  pass  it  or  not,  let  '•those  who 
are  in  favor  of  it,  put  their  names  on  the  record ; 
and  let  those  who  are  opposed  to  it,  if  they  are 
a very  small  minority,  if  there  is  but  one  man 
opposed,  let  him  have  the  right  to  have  his  name 
recorded.  There  is  many  an  act,  sir,  in  your 
statute-book  that,  perhaps,  passed  without  any 
apparent  opposition,  that  it  would  have  been  an 
honor  to  any  statesman  who  had  a seat  in  the 
Legislature  at  the  time,  if  he  could  only  have 
had.it  appear  that  he  voted,  solitary  and  alone, 
against  them.  Many  appropriations  have  been 
made  there  which  never  should  have  been 
made ; and  it  ought  to  be  the  right,  not  of  any 
member  alone,  but  of  his  constituents,  and  the 
people  throughout  the  State,  that  he  should  go 
on  record  against  what  he  deems  an  improper 
appropriation— that  they  should  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  knowing  who  was  faithful  among  the 
faithless. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I presume,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I would  not  be  in  order,  as  I have  already 
spoken  upon  this. 

[“Leave,  leave.”] 

I do  not  regard  the  amendment  offered  by  my- 
self as  one  of  very  great  importance.  The  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root], 
relate  entirely  to  other  questions  if  those  re- 
marks were  correctly  understood.  The  provi- 
sion by  which  it  is  sought  to  amend  this  sec- 
tion with  the  other  provisions  in  this  Article, 
only  refer  to  votes  which  are  taken  in  the  ordi- 
nary transaction  of  business,  without  any  ref- 
erence whatever  to  the  passage  of  bills.  We 
have  an  additional  provision  in  this  same  sec- 
tion, that  requires  the  yeas  and  nays  to  be  taken 
upon  the  passage  of  all  bills,  and  to  be  entered 


upon  the  Journal,  with  an  additional  requir- 
ment,  that  not  only  all  bills,  but  all  joint  reso- 
lutions, shall  receive  a majority  of  all  the  mem- 
bers elected  to  each  House.  Then  this  only  re- 
lates to  the  calling  of  the  yeas  and  nays  upon 
incidental  questions  and  motions.  We,  also, 
have  an  additional  section — section  23 — which 
provides  especially  for  making  appropriations, 
to  which  the  gentleman  refers.  Therefore,  his 
remarks,  as  it  seems  to  me,  do  not  apply  to  the 
section  before  the  Convention.  My  only  object 
in  offering  the  amendment  was  to  meet  an 
objection  that  was  made  to  the  section.  Where 
a man  may  desire,  as  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root],  says,  to  make  a record,  or  may  de- 
sire to  make  other  men  make  a record,  it  may 
be  well  enough;  but  I do  not  think  that  a mat- 
ter of  special  importance.  Nor  is  the  amend- 
ment one  to  which  I should  ask  the  attention  of 
the  Convention  at  any  length,  but,  for  one,  I 
shall  favor  the  proposition  whether  it  be  agreed 
to  or  not. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [M«r.  Hitchcock]. 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  other 
amendments  to  the  section? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  an  amendment  which 
I want  to  suggest  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  offers  the  following 
amendment  to  section  nine. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Insert  at  the  end  of  line  three,  after  the  wo3'd  “resolu- 
tion” the  following  words: 

‘Except  joint  resolutions  relating  to  the  course  of  the 
business  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  not  requiring  the 
appropriation  ol  money.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  When  the  bill  was  originally 
reported,  it  did  not  provide  for  joint  resolutions 
at  all.  But  it  was  seen,  in  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  that  joint  resolutions  would,  in 
many  instances,  have  such  importance  as  to 
demand  equal  consideration  with  bills,  and  in 
that  view  the  amendment  was  made,  inserting 
the  words  “ or  joint  resolution  having  the  effect 
of  law.”  The  Committee  at  that  time  evidently 
conceiving  that  it  was  a provision  which  ought 
not  to  apply  to  all  joint  resolutions,  and,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  very  justly.  When,  however,  the 
subject  came  up  again  in  the  Convention,  it 
was  suggested,  and  I think  with  great  force, 
by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Leg- 
islative Department,  that  there  ought  to  be 
nothing  in  the  Constitution  conceding  or  even 
intimating  that  a joint  resolution  should  have 
the  effect  of  law.  And,  with  that  view,  the 
words  “ having  the  effect  of  law,”  which  had 
been  inserted  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
were  stricken  out  in  the  section,  so  that  it  now 
makes  these  provisions  in  regard  to  every  joint 
resolution.  Now,  what  I desire  to  submit  to 
the  Convention  is,  that  there  are  many  joint 
resolutions  which  relate  to  the  course  of  busi- 
ness in  the  Legislature,  which  should  not  re- 
quire a majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to 
the  House,  and  that,  in  many  cases,  it  might 
be  productive  of  great  evil  to  require  any  such 
majority.  And  I think  if  gentlemen  will  turn 
to  the  joint  resolutions  in  the  last  published 


1164 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Tuttle,  Hunt,  Horton,  Powell,  Young  of  C.,  Hale. 


[108th 

[Saturday, 


volume  of  our  statutes  they  will  find  instances 
where  mischief  might  be  done,  if  there  was  a 
disposition  to  do  it,  by  a refractory  minority, 
and  when  no  harm  could  be  done  by  allowing 
a majority  of  a quorum  present  to  act  in  the 
matter.  And  as  an  instance,  I take  the  very 
first  joint  resolution  which  I there  find,  and 
will  read  it  if  I may  be  allowed : 

“Joint  resolution  providing  for  the  appointment  of  a 
joint  Select  Committee  to  inform  the  Governor  that  the 
General  Assembly  is  in  session. 

“ Resolved^  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
That  a committee  of  two  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  and 
three  on  the  part  of  the  House,  be  appointed  to  wait  on 
the  Governor  and  inform  him  that  the  General  Assembly 
is  now  in  session,  and  ready  to  receive  any  communica- 
tion he  may  have  to  transmit.” 

Now,  I do  not  know  that  it  would  ever  hap- 
pen— very  likely  it  might  not — that  when  the 
two  Houses  were  nearly  ready,  or  ought  to  be 
ready  to  receive  such  a communication,  there 
would  be  any  such  refractory  minority,  who 
might,  for  the  time  being,  have  control,  under 
this  provision,  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Houses, 
who  would  refuse  to  concur  in  such  a resolu- 
tion. And,  on  the  other  hand,  all  these  provis- 
ions are  made  with  the  idea  that,  sometimes, 
such  things  may  be  done.  And  if  they  might 
not  in  this  case,  this  is  but  one  in  very  many 
instances  in  which,  under  this  provision,  a 
majority  of  the  whole  House  would  be  neces- 
sary, or  of  the  whole  number  of  members 
elected,  where,  after  all,  for  some  reason,  a 
minority  sufficient,  under  this,  to  control, 
for  the  time  being,  the  course  of  business, 
might  refuse  to  concur  in  the  joint  resolution 
necessary  to  proceed  with  the  business.  And 
it  is  for  the  purpose  of  making  what  seems 
to  me  a correction  that  could  not  do  any 
harm,  and  might  sometimes  do  good,  that  I sug- 
gest this  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  proposes  to  amend  by 
inserting,  at  the  end  of  line  three,  after  the 
word  “ resolution,”  the  following  words : 

“Except  joint  resolutions  relating  to  the  course  ot  the 
business  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  not  requiring  the 
appropriation  of  money.” 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  yeas  and  nays. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  yeas  and  nays  are 

agke(J# 

Mr.  HORTON.  I object  to  the  call. 

A vote  being  taken,  the  demand  for  the  yeas 
and  nays  was  not  sustained. 

On  the  question  of  the  adoption  of  the  amend- 
ment, a division  was  called  for  and  resulted,  five 
for,  and  forty  against. 

There  not  being  a quorum  voting,  no  decision 
was  made. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Before  the  vote  is  taken,  I 
would  be  glad  to  say  a word  or  two  to  the  Con- 
vention. Now,  this  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  is  necessary 
and  called  for.  In  another  section  we  have 
adopted  exactly  the  same  thing.  I think  it  was 
at  the  instance  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  I 
[Mr.  Hitchcock].  It  is  necessary.  We  have  ! 
adopted  it  in  another  section  upon  exactly  the 
same  arguments,  and  for  the  same  season,  i 
Now,  merely  from  indifference,  caring  nothing 
about  it,  we  refuse  to  put  it  here  when  it  is  as 
loudly  called  for.  I hope  the  Convention  will ! 
look  to  it  and  vote  right. 


Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  A friend  of 
mine  suggests  that  he  did  not  understand  the 
amendment.  I think  he  did  not  vote  for  that 
reason.  Possibly  other  gentlemen  failed  to  vote 
because  they  did  not  understand  the  amend- 
ment. I hope  it  will  be  reported  again. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
amendment.  The  gentleman  from  Trumbull 
[Mr.  Tuttle]  moves  to  amend  section  9 by  add- 
ing at  the  end  of  line  three,  after  the  word, 
“ resolution,”  the  following  words : “ except 
joint  resolutions  relating  to  the  course  of  the 
business  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  not  re- 
quiring the  appropriation  of  money  so  that 
the  section,  if  amended,  will  read  thus : 

“At  tbe  desire  of  any  two  members  the  yeas  and  nays 
shall  be  entered  upon  the  Journal;  and,  on  the  passage 
of  every  bill  or  joint  resolution,  excepting  joint  resolutions 
relating  to  the  course  of  business  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, and  not  requiring  the  appropriation  of  money,  in 
either  House  the  vote  shall  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays, 
and  entered  upon  the  Journal.” 

The  question  is  now  upon  inserting  the  words 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle]. 

On  which  question  a vote  was  taken,  but  there 
was  not  a quorum  voting. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I move  a call  of  the  House. 

The  call  was  ordered,  and  resulted  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  Campbell,  Carbery,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunning- 
ham, De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey, Ewing,  Foran, 
Godfrey,  Greene,  Hale,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Layton,  Mc- 
Bride, McCormick,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond, 
Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scofield,  Scrib- 
ner, Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shel- 
by, Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss, 
Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Yoris, 
Waddle,  W atson , W eaver,  W est,  White  of  Hock- 
ing, Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
President — 70. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  are  seventy  mem- 
bers present. 

Mr.  HALE.  I move  that  all  further  proceed- 
ings, under  the  call  of  the  House,  be  dispensed 
with. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HALE.  I demand  the  yeas  and  nays 
upon  the  pending  question. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I want,  if  the  Convention 
will  permit,  to  make  a slight  change  in  my 
amendment.  The  proposition,  as  now  made,  is 
to  insert  after  the  words  “joint  resolution”  in 
the  third  line,  and  by  that  means  it  exempts 
from  the  requisition  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  the 
resolutions  that  are  sought  to  be  made  an  ex- 
ception. That  I do  not  desire.  My  object,  as  I 
said,  was  to  provide  that  a joint  resolution, 
simply  having  reference  to  the  course  of  the 
business,  should  not  necessarily  require  a ma- 
jority of  all  the  members  elected  to  the  House. 
That  was  my  object.  It  may  be  that  other 
gentlemen  would  think  it  ought  to  go  further, 
but  if  I may  judge  from  the  vote  as  far  as  it 
went,  a good  many  thought  it  ought  not  to  be 
done  at  all.  But  my  object  is  to  provide  that 
mere  joint  resolutions  in  relation  to  the  course 
of  business  of  either  House,  and  not  in  any 
way  requiring  the  appropriation  of  money. 


1165 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  7,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Burns,  West,  Powell,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


should  not  require  a majority  of  all  the  mem- 
bers elected  to  the  House.  I propose,  if  the 
Convention  consents,  to  change  my  amendment, 
so  as  to  insert  the  words  in  the  fifth  line  instead 
of  the  third. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  not  the  object  of  the 
gentleman  be  better  accomplished  by  putting 
them  at  the  end  of  the  section : “ and  no  such 
bill  or  joint  resolution  shall  be  passed  in  either 
House,  without  the  concurrence  of  all  the 
members  elected  thereto?” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Perhaps  I have  got  my  amend- 
ment so  that  it  wants  other  change. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  proposes  to  ask  leave 
to  transfer  the  amendment  offered  by  him  from 
line  three  to  line  five. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  Chair  will  permit  me, 
I will  read  just  what  I want  to  make  this  read. 
Beginning  after  the  semicolon  in  line  five,  make 
it  so  that  it  shall  read  thus : “ and  no  such  bill 
or  joint  resolution,  excepting  joint  resolutions 
having  relation  to  the  course  of  business  in  the 
General  Assembly,  and  not  requiring  the  appro- 
priation of  money,  shall  be  passed  in  either 
House,  without  the  concurrence  of  a majority 
of  all  the  members  elected  thereto.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  After  the  word  “resolu- 
tion?” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  desires  to 
ask  leave  to  transpose  his  amendment  from  line 
five  to  line  three.  If  there  is  no  objection,  the 
gentleman  has  leave.  The  question  is  now  on 
the  adoption  of  the  amendment,  which  will 
read  as  follows : 

“And  no  bill  or  joint  resolution,  except  joint  resolutions 
relating  to  the  course  of  business  in  the  General  Assem- 
bly, and  not  requiring  the  appropriation  of  money,  shall 
be  passed  in  either  House  without  the  concurrence  of  all 
the  members  elected  thereto.” 

Upon  that  question  the  yeas  and  nays  are  de- 
manded. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  understand  it  exactly. 
Now,  there  may  be  a great  many  joint  resolu- 
tions, other  than  those  appropriating  money,  or 
other  than  those  relating  to  the  business  of  the 
House.  It  only  requires  a majority  of  all  the 
members  elected. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me?  This  does  not  affect  any  such  resolution 
as  that  suggested  by  the  gentleman.  It  does 
not  affect  resolutions.  It  specifies  resolutions 
other  than  those  which  relate  to  the  transaction 
of  business  in  either  House.  It  does  not  touch 
one  of  those. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  on 
the  amendment. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  that  I think 
the  latter  part  of  the  amendment  is  injudicious, 
that  money  may  not  be  appropriated  by  joint  res- 
olution, which  cannot  be  the  case  at  any  time. 
I think  if  he  would  withdraw  that  part  of  the 
amendment,  the  balance  of  it  would  be  very 
proper.  The  mere  ordinary  resolutions  affect- 
ing the  relations  of  the  two  Houses,  the  order 
of  the  transaction  of  business,  getting  up  rules 
or  notifications  of  business,  etc.,  need  not  be. 
The  latter  part  of  it  about  money  matters,  I 
think,  is  injudicious. 


Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  ? I do  not  know  whether  the  gentleman  is 
correct ; but  if  he  will  take  the  joint  resolutions 
of  the  last  Legislature,  which  I have  before  me, 
he  will  find,  I think,  that  a great  many  of  them 
do  require  the  appropriation  of  money. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I interrupt  a moment  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I will  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man— 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West],  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  might  be  involving  the  ex- 
penditure or  payment  of  money.  But  the  word 
“appropriation”  is  a bad  word,  ordering  the 
payment  of  money  or  directing  the  expenditure 
of  money. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  that  we 
have  in  the  Article,  provided  sufficiently  that 
no  appropriations  will  be  made  except  by  law. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  I may  be  allowed,  it  was 
looking  over  these  joint  resolutions,  seeing  the 
subject  of  them,  that  induced  me  to  put  in  that 
exception.  If,  however,  it  is  thought  to  be  ob- 
jectionable, I would  strike  out.  But  if,  for  in- 
stance, the  gentleman  will  look  at  the  joint 
resolution  on  page  400,  he  will  find,  after  divers 
preambles,  the  following : 

“Therefore,  be  it  Resolved , by  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  That  the  Trustees  of  the  Northern  Ohio 
Lunatic  Asylum  be,  and  are  hereby,  authorized  to  pay  to 
Messrs.  Brooks  and  Blair  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dol- 
lars, in  full  satisfaction  of  their  claims  aforesaid  for  re- 
moving the  extension  of  said  Asylum.” 

I do  not  know  but  there  may  be  that  in  the 
present  Constitution  that  would  prohibit  the 
passage  of  such  joint  resolutions  as  this. 

Mr.  POND.  That  was  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
moneys  that  had  been  appropriated  for  that 
building. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Very  likely;  but  my  object 
was,  instead  of  using  the  words,  appropriation 
of  money,  to  say  : requiring  the  expenditure  of 
money. 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  see  the  necessity  of 
making  any  allusion  to  it,  at  all.  If  you  simply 
except  resolutions  relating  to  the  order  of  busi- 
ness, that  is  all  the  exception  you  want. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  that  is  the  opinion  of  the 
gentleman,  I have  no  objection  to  that  change; 
and,  with  the  consent  of  the  Convention,  will 
accept  the  modification  striking  out  that  excep- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  asks  leave  to  strike  out 
from  his  amendment  the  words,  “ and  not  re- 
quiring the  appropriation  of  money.”  If  there 
is  no  objection,  the  words  will  be  omitted.  The 
question  is  now  upon  inserting  the  following 
words:  “except  joint  resolutions  relating  to 
the  course  of  business  in  the  General  Assembly.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  not  particularly 
opposed  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle].  The  vote  of  a majori- 
ty of  all  the  members  elected  to  each  branch, 
may  not  be  important  upon  such  questions  as 
are  involved  in  this  amendment.  Yet  it  seems 
to  me  well  enough  to  let  the  section  stand  as  it 
now  is,  requiring  this  vote  to  be  taken  upon 
agreeing  to  all  joint  resolutions.  While  I am 
inclined  to  think  that  is  all  well  enough,  it  is 
not  because  of  such  very  great  fears  of  the 


1166 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [108th 

Hitchcock,  Powell,  Mueller,  Tuttle.  [ Saturday, 


General  Assembly,  as  are  entertained  by  many 
gentlemen  in  this  Convention.  And  as  a part 
of  my  speech,  I wish  to  read  from  two  rules  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  of  this  State : 

“Upon  the  passage  of  all  joint  resolutions  and  all  House 
resolutions,  involving  the  expenditure  of  money,  the  yeas 
and  nays  shall  be  taken  and  entered  upon  the  Journal: 
but  no  such  resolution,  involving  the  expenditure  of 
money,  and  no  resolution  having  the  force  or  effect  of 
law,  shall  be  passed  unless  a majority  of  all  the  members 
elected  to  the  House  concur  therein.  No  compensation, 
allowance,  or  perquisite  shall  be  paid  to  any  officer,  em- 
ploye or  attache  of  the  House  other  than  that  prescribed 
by  law,  or  fixed  originally  by  resolution.  And  this  Rule 
shall  not  be  altered  or  suspended  except  on  three  days’ 
notice,  by  a two-thirds  majority  of  all  the  members 
elected  to  the  House.” 

My  object  in  reading  these  rules  is  to  show 
that!  while  I concur  in  leaving  this  provision 
as  it  now  stands,  in  accordance  with  the  sen- 
timent of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  that 
reported  this  Proposition,  the  General  Assem- 
bly is  not  entirely  derelict  in  regard  to  these 
matters.  These  rules  were  adopted  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  session,  in  1870,  and  have  been  the 
rules  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  from 
that  to  the  present  time.  And  I think  they  go 
even  farther  than  the  gentleman  has  proposed 
in  this  Report  to  the  Convention. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  rules  read  by  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  have 
nothing  to  do  with  this  question — nothing  in 
the  world  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  POWELL.  He  was  reading  for  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  that  the  change  was  unneces- 
sary; but  the  object  is,  to  avoid  having  the  dif- 
ficulty in  the  Legislature  that  requires  a majori- 
ty of  all  who  are  elected,  instead  of  a majority 
of  those  who  are  present  to  pass  resolutions 
relating  to  the  ordinary  business  of  the  House. 
And  in  accordance  with  the  suggestion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  a 
few  days  since,  we  made  in  another  section  an 
amendment  on  this  very  argument  in  relation 
to  another  matter. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me?  The  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell],  refers  to  remarks  made  by  myself  the 
other  day,  which  wrere  in  reference  to  sending 
to  the  Governor  this  class  of  resolutions  for  his 
approval.  When  the  resolution  which  I in- 
stanced for  the  appointment  of  a Committee  to 
wait  upon  the  Governor,  was  passed — the  ap- 
pointment of  such  Committee  would  necessari- 
ly be  deferred  until  the  resolution  could  be  sent 
to  the  Governor,  to  learn  whether  he  was 
willing  that  a Committee  should  visit  him  or 
not. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I call  the  gontleman’s 
attention  to  one  thing?  This  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  is 
precisely  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  This  relates  to  the  action 
of  the  General  Assembly.  The  other  related 
to  the  action  of  the  Governor,  in  vetoing  the 
action  of  the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I think  this  section  ought 
to  stand,  if  it  was  only  for  one  purpose.  These 
joint  resolutions  in  the  General  Assembly  are 
sometimes  made  for  no  other  purpose  than  to 
make  political  capital,  so-called  buncombe  reso- 
lutions, and  taking  up  the  time  of  the  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives  for  hours,  and 


days,  and  when  adopted  amounting  to  nothing 
at  all.  I think  this  is  a very  wise  provision, 
that  every  joint  resolution  ought  to  have  the 
support  of  a majority  of  all  the  members  elected 
to  both  Houses  of  the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.'POWELL.  May  I call  the  attention  of 
the  gentleman  one  moment? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  is  a difference  between 
a resolution  merely  for  buncombe  and  the  reso- 
lution of  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle],  in  reference  to  the  business  of  the 
House.  Business  of  the  House  is  not  bun- 
combe. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I will  answer  the  gentle- 
man. We  have  seen,  by  experience,  that  there 
has  never  been  any  harm  done  by  this  rule. 
The  principle  contained  in  this  section  has  been 
found  a good  one,  so  much  so  that  it  was  made 
the  rule  of  both  Houses  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly lor  many  years,  and  we  have  never  exper- 
ienced any  inconvenience  from  it.  It  requires 
that  any  joint  resolution,  as  any  other  enact- 
ment of  the  Legislature,  is  to  be  supported  by, 
at  least,  a majority  of  all  the  members  of  either 
House.  I do  not  see,  therefore,  why  we  should 
hesitate  to  make  it  a provision  in  the  organic 
law  of  the  State. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  is,  how  reducing  the  ma- 
jority necessary  to  passing  a joint  resolution,  is 
going  to  place  the  House  any  more  at  the  dispo- 
sal of  those  who  want  to  move  these  resolutions, 
or  discuss  them,  takes  up  the  time  of  the  House  ? 
or  how  requiring  a majority  of  the  members 
elected  to  the  House,  is  going  to  enable  the 
House  in  any  manner  to  protect  itself  against 
the  consumption  of  time  in  the  discussion  of 
such  matters? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  in- 
serting the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  as  now  amended. 

On  this  question,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded, taken,  and  resulted — yeas  20,  nays 
50,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Bos  worth,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cunningham,  Ewing, 
Hostetter,  Kerr,  Mullen,  Page,  Pond,  Powell, 
Rickly,  Sample,  Scofield,  Thompson,  Tuttle, 
Waddle,  Wilson— 20. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Baber,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose,  Burns, 
Campbell,  Carbery,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Dorsey,  Foran,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Hale,  Hitch- 
cock, Horton,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Layton,  Mc- 
Bride, McCormick,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Neal,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pratt,  Root, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Scrib- 
ner, Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis, 
Vorhes,  Voris,  Watson,  Weaver,  West,  White  of 
Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
President — 50. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  further 
amendments  to  this  section?  If  there  are  no 
further  amendments  to  this  section,  the  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  10. 

The  Secretary  read : 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  _ 1167 


Beer,  Cunningham,  Pond,  Baber,  Burns. 


February  7,  1874.] 


“Sec.  10.  Any  member  of  either  House  shall  have  the 
right  to  protest  against  any  act  or  resolution  thereof,  and 
such  protest,  and  the  reasons  therefor,  shall,  without  al- 
teration, commitment  or  delay,  be  entered  upon  the  Jour- 
nal.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  amend- 
ments to  section  10  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment to  section  10. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  offers  the  following 
amendment  to  section  10. 

The  Secretary  read  : 

“Mr.  Beer  moves  to  amend  the  section  as  follows: 

“ ‘After  the  word  “shall”,  at  the  end  of  line  two,  add 
“be  immediately  read  and.”  Strike  out  the  word  “be”, 
in  line  three.  Add  at  the  end  of  line  three  “by  the 
clerk.” ’ ” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Read  the  section  as  it 
will  be  if  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  10.  Any  member  of  either  House  shall  have  the 
right  to  protest  against  any  act  or  resolution  thereof,  and 
such  protest,  and  the  reasons  therefor,  shall  be  immedi- 
ately read,  and  without  alteration,  commitment  or  delay 
•entered  upon  the  Journal  by  the  clerk.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I would  like  to  make 
an  inquiry  of  the  author  of  this  amendment, 
as  he  is  an  old  member  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, whether  it  is  not,  ordinarily,  supposed  that 
the  Clerk  of  either  House  does  that  business,  or 
has  it  done  ? Of  course,  he  has  a reason  for  his 
amendment.  Now,  I want  to  know  what  that 
reason  is. 

Mr.  BEER.  I will  answer  the  gentleman 
with  the  greatest  pleasure.  The  Clerk  does  not 
always  attend  to  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  quite 
the  reverse.  When  this  matter  was  discussed 
before,  it  was  shown  that  cases  have  arisen  in 
our  General  Assembly  in  which  the  protesting 
parties  were  not  allowed  to  spread  their  pro- 
tests upon  the  Journal.  One  instance  came  un- 
der my  own  personal  observation.  The  Journal 
of  the  House  for  1870  will  show  that  a protest, 
signed  by  nearly  one-half  the  members  of  the 
House,  with  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  was  adopted,  was  not 
allowed  to  go  on  the  Journal.  If  gentlemen 
will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  the  Journal,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  protest  was  offered,  but 
was  not  allowed  to  be  spread  upon  the  Journal. 
The  provision  of  my  amendment  is,  that  when 
the  protest  is  presented,  it  shall  be  immediately 
read,  and  then,  without  alteration,  commitment 
or  delay,  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  by  the 
Clerk.  I make  the  addition  of  “ by  the  Clerk,” 
so  that  if  it  should  be  refused,  the  parties  de- 
siring the  protest,  if  they  are  particularly  anx- 
ious upon  the  subject,  so  anxious  that  they 
would  spoil  if  it  did  not  go  on  the  Journal, 
could  get  it  on  by  mandamus. 

Mr.  POND.  I concur  with  some  portion  of 
the  reasons  given  by  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer],  and  will  go  as  far  as  he  will 
in  requiring  these  protests  to  be  put  on  the 
Journal.  But  I submit  to  the  Convention,  that 
there  is  no  reason  given,  yet,  sufficient  to  war- 
rant the  Convention  in  requiring  the  General 
Assembly  to  listen  to  the  reading  of  a long  pro- 
test, and  all  the  reasons  for  that  protest,  after 
the  work  has  been  done  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly. Of  course,  in  the  progress  of  the  debate, 
the  reasons  that  actuated  the  members  in 


making  the  protest  have  been  given  by  the 
members  who  make  the  protest.  Doubtless, 
that  is  true.  It  is  always  the  case  in  debates, 
especially  where  there  is  a good  deal  of  interest 
manifested.  And  after  deliberation  has  been 
had,  and  the  House  has  voted  upon  the  matter, 
and  it  is  complete  and  finished,  I cannot  see  the 
use  of  reviving  the  subject,  and  compelling  the 
House  to  listen  to  the  reading  of  it,  especially 
when  it  will  effect  nothing.  It  has  got  to  go 
upon  the  Journal,  just  as  protests  go  upon  our 
Journal.  But  I do  not  see  the  propriety  of 
having  it  read.  That  it  should  go  upon  the 
Journal, I think,  is  eminently  proper;  but  the 
requirement  that  the  House  shall  listen  to  the 
reading,  in  all  cases,  without  any  chance  of 
getting  rid  of  it  or  answering  it,  I think,  is  un- 
wise. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  I understand  the  object  is  to 
prevent  a man  from  going  privately  and  having 
a protest  put  upon  the  Journal;  so  that  the 
matter  may  be  presented  to  the  House.  A man 
should  not  go  there  privately  and  have  his  pro- 
test entered  upon  the  Journal,  without  the 
knowledge  of  the  House.  That  is  the  object  of 
that  provision.  That  might  be  done  by  the 
Clerk  unless  there  was  some  limitation  upon  it. 

Mr.  POND.  I apprehend  that,  when  a pro- 
testis made  against  the  action  of  the  House,  it 
will  be  submitted  to  the  body ; and  any  body 
who  wishes  to  examine  it  can  do  so.  If  it  goes 
on  the  Journal,  it  will  be  read  the  next  day,  as 
a part  of  the  business  of  the  House  of  the  day 
before;  and  if  there  is  anything  wrong  in  it,  it 
will  be  corrected.  I do  not  see  the  necessity  of 
peremptorily  requiring  that  time  shall  be  con- 
sumed in  its  reading. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  a question.  The 
section,  as  it  stands, is  precisely  the  same  as  the 
present  Constitution.  I agree  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  that  the  pro- 
test ought  to  go  on  the  Journal;  but  the  ques- 
tion I desire  to  ask  is  this : By  what  authority 
was  it  claimed,  in  the  instance  he  refers  to,  that 
it  could  be  kept  off  the  Journal?  The  present 
Constitution  provides  that  it  shall  be  entered  on 
the  Journal ; by  what  process  was  it  kept  off? 

Mr.  BEER.  It  was  kept  off  by  main  strength. 
[Laughter.]  In  one  instance  that  I recollect,  it 
was  suggested  by  some  member  of  the  House 
that  it  was  disrespectful,  and,  therefore,  not  a 
protest.  And  the  speaker,  with  great  wisdom, 
held  that  that  was  the  fact,  and,  therefore,  it 
should  not  go  on  the  Journal.  That  was  one 
case.  In  the  15th  amendment  case,  I do  not 
know  exactly  the  process.  It  was  done  in  the 
same  way,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  disrespect- 
ful, or  that  there  was  something  in  it  not  true, 
and  it  should  not  go  on. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Done  by  a ruling  of  the  presid- 
ing officer,  directing  the  Clerk  to  disregard  the 
Constitution  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  by  saying  that 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Clerk  to  do  it,  he  will 
not  be  under  the  control  of  the  presiding  officer 
as  to  that  particular ; and  if  he  neglects  to  dis- 
charge the  duty,  he  can  be  compelled  to  per- 
form it;  but  if  it  be  left  simply  to  the  House, 


1168 


[108th 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Beer,  Pond,  West,  Baber,  Root,  Powell.  [Saturday, 


perhaps  you  cannot  obtain  a writ  of  mandamus 
against  the  members  or  presiding  officer. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  ask  one  ques- 
tion, whether  the  effect  of  that  would  not  be, 
if  the  House  was  not  to  have  any  control  of 
any  of  its  officers,  that  any  scurrilous  paper 
might  be  put  on  the  Journal  and  call  it  a pro- 
test. 

Mr. BEER.  I think  that  might  follow;  but 
any  member,  that  the  people  might  elect,  would 
take  the  responsibility.  If  he  had  the  back- 
bone to  write  a paper  of  that  kind  and  write 
himself  down  as  Dogberry  wanted  to  be,  it 
would  goon  the  Journal;  and  if  it  was  partic- 
ularly scurrilous  and  offensive,  so  as  to  be  ut- 
terly unfit  to  go  on  the  Journal,  perhaps  they 
might  punish  or  expel  him.  It  would  hurt  him 
worse  than  anybody  else. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  I will  support  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer],  after  striking  out  the  requirement, 
that  it  be  read.  It  is  a most  terrible  infliction 
to  have  the  General  Assembly  sit  and  get  them- 
selves scolded  most  vigorously  without  the  pow- 
er of  replying  to  it.  I remember  once,  when 
a protest  was  presented  there  that  was  terribly 
scathing,  bitter,  perfectly  ferocious ; and  there 
we  had  to  sit  and  listen  to  it,  because 
they  commenced  reading  and  got  under  head- 
way, and  we  could  not  stop  them.  And  it  was 
a pleasant  exercise  to  sit  there,  and  listen  to  it, 
against  our  consent.  We  had  no  objection  in 
the  world  to  having  it  go  on  the  Journal,  but 
the  idea  of  being  compelled  to  sit  “ under  the 
droppings  of  that  sanctuary  ” was  perfectly 
torturing.  It  was  like  to  have  gotten  up  a reg- 
ular row,  and  pistols  were  very  nearly  drawn. 
It  was  an  exciting  time  during  the  war.  There 
is  no  propriety  in  requiring 'compulsory  read- 
ing. If  the  House  wants  it  read,  they  can  order 
it  read,  and,  I suppose,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten, 
it  will  be  read;  but  to  compel  its  reading  is 
going  beyond  what  is  proper,  to  give  an  oppor- 
tunity to  scold  the  General  Assembly,  when  no- 
body can  scold  back.  Let  it  be  put  on  record 
by  the  Clerk.  That  is  all  the  Constitution  ought 
to  require.  If  that  part  of  it  is  left  out,  I will 
vote  for  the  balance  of  it.  I do  not  think  that 
part  ought  to  be  required. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  is  on  a special  demufrer  again. 
When  a protest  is  presented,  the  first  thing  to 
be  done — that  question  was  never  raised,  or 
thought  of,  in  the  General  Assembly — is  to  read 
it.  1 was  there  at  the  exciting  contest  over  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment,  and  a protest,  signed  by 
nearly  one-half  the  members,  was  presented. 
It  was  read,  and  we  had,  forthwith,  a decision 
by  the  gentleman  who  happened  to  be  in  the 
Chair,  that  it  was  disrespectful,  and  could  not 
go  on  the  Journal.  An  appeal  was  taken  from 
that  decision,  and,  by  a strict  party  vote,  that 
appeal  was  not  sustained;  and  that  protest  did 
not  go  on  the  Journal.  Now,  I never  before 
heard  of  this  objection  as  to  reading.  I suppose 
the  object  of  reading  was  to  prevent  a man  from 
going  there  under  a constitutional  right,  and 
putting  a protest  on  the  Journal,  without  the 
knowledge  of  the  House.  That  is  the  whole 
object  of  the  reading.  I claim,  in  this  country 
of  free  speech, that  where  the  Representatives  of 
the  people  come  forward  with  a paper,  they 


have  a right  to  have  it  read.  The  gentleman 
says  you  can’t  reply  to  it.  You  can  reply  to  it. 
Yon  may  have  a committee  appointed,  if  you 
choose,  to  do  in  this  matter  just  as  it  used  to  be 
in  protests  that  were  offered  in  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  I rec- 
ollect a precedent  of  that  sort.  A reply  can  be 
made  to  a protest.  If  the  members  have  been 
guilty  of  a breach  of  the  privileges  of  the  House, 
in  the  action  they  have  taken,  the  House  can 
censure  them;  and  I do  not  know  but  they 
might  go  still  further,  and  expel  them.  I do 
hope  that  the  Convention  will  not  endeavor  to 
evade  this  matter.  The  whole  object  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  as  I un- 
derstand it,  is  to  have  protests  entered  upon  the 
Journal;  to  make  it  the  duty  of  the  Clerk,  the 
recording  officer,  notwithstanding  any  ruling  of 
the  Speaker,  or  any  action  of  the  House,  and 
carry  out  the  intention  of  the  Constitution ; and 
if  he  does  not  carry  out  that  intention,  an  appli- 
cation may  be  made  to  the  supreme  court  for  a 
mandamus  to  compel  him  to  do  it.  If  they  pre- 
sent an  improper  protest,  they  are  responsible 
to  their  constituents  for  it.  The  House  may 
reply  to  it,  or  they  may  censure  them.  But 
this  little  special  demurrer  is  simply  an  attempt 
to  evade  the  question.  If  the  gentleman  can 
improve  the  language  of  the  amendment,  I have 
no  objection;  but  I maintain  that  a member 
has  the  right  to  have  his  protest  read,  and  be 
heard. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I was  not  a member  of  the 
House  at  the  time  the  XVth  Amendment  was 
ratified  by  the  Legislature  of  this  State ; but  I 
was  a member  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  I 
had  something  to  do  and  say  about  it;  and  I 
am  not  entirely  ignorant  of  what  occurred  in 
the  House.  I think  there  were  two  grand 
blunders  made  then.  In  the  first  place,  by 
drawing  up  and  presenting  such  a protest  as 
was  offered  by  Mr.  Hughes  and  others.  I would 
give  something  for  the  original  for  the  use  of 
the  biographers  of  the  subscribers  to  that  pro- 
test; but  1 do  not  believe  that  they  would  give 
much  to  have  it  preserved.  And  then  a greater 
blunder  was  made  by  the  Republican  members 
— for  I believe  it  was  pretty  nearly  a party 
question — in  sustaining  a decision  of  the  Chair 
that  the  protest  should  not  be  received,  because 
it  was  not  in  respectful  language.  I think  this 
was  a denial  of  a Constitutional  right,  and  being 
a blunder,  was  worse  than  a crime. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Was  it  not  so  much  a blun- 
der that  it  became  a crime? 

Mr.  ROOT.  I say  it  was  a great  deal  worse 
than  a crime,  it  was  a blunder.  [Laughter.] 
There  were  blunders  on  both  sides,  and  the 
blunder  of  the  Republicans  helped  the  other 
side  out  of  their  blunder,  which  was  equally 
gross  if  they  had  only  been  held  to  it.  Now, 
sir,  to  consider  this  question  of  reading  the 
protest : undoubtedly,  by  the  ancient  parliamen- 
tary law,  a member  or  members  of  the  House 
of  Lords  had  a right  to  have  a protest  en- 
tered on  the  Journal,  and,  undoubtedly,  sir,  it 
was  requisite  that  that  protest  should  be  in  re- 
spectful terms.  Well,  as  that  was  a matter  to  be 
adjudged  by  the  Chancellor — presiding  officer — 
subject  to  the  opinion  of  the  House,  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  have  it  read,  and  invariably  it  was 
read.  There  were  instances  that  you  will  find  in 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Root,  Hunt,  Cook,  Carbery,  Hitchcock. 


1169 


Day.] 

February  7,  1874.] 


the  history  of  Parliament,  where  the  member  or 
members  presenting  a protest,  asked  leave  to 
withdraw  it,  to  make  it  conform  to  the  j udgment 
of  the  body , or  withdraw  it  entirely,  or  sometimes 
to  have  it  ruled  out  because  of  its  disrespectful 
language.  Well,  now,  we  have  it  in  the  present 
Constitution,  and  it  is  proposed  that  we  shall 
have  a similar  provision  in  this  Constitution, 
that  any  member  may  enter  his  protest  on  the 
Journal,  be  it  what  it  may,  so  it  be  a protest. 
He  is  to  judge  of  the  language  which  he  will 
employ.  It  takes  away,  sir,  from  the  presiding 
officer,  and  it  takes  away  from  the  body  itself, 
all  right  of  criticism.  The  member  does  it  on 
his  own  responsibility. 

That  is  the  plain  meaning  and  intent  of  the 
provision  of  the  present  Constitution ; and  the 
provision  here  proposed.  Now,  why  read  it? 
The  presiding  officer  has  no  control  over  it. 
The  body  itself  has  no  control  over  it.  It  is 
made  simply  the  duty  of  the  Clerk  to  enter  it 
upon  the  Journal.  The  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin says  that  he  wants  to  have  it  read,  so  that 
the  member  shall  not  go  up  in  a sneaking  sort 
of  way,  and  hand  it  to  the  Clerk,  and  get  it  on 
the  Journal.  Then  he  should  alter  the  other 
part  of  this  proposition.  That  is  precisely 
what  it  authorizes  him  to  do.  We  do  not  say 
anything  abont  sneaking,  but  he  can  go  as 
quietly  as  he  pleases,  and  have  his  protest  en- 
tered. Now,  why  read  it  ? He  wants  no  leave. 
He  has  the  right,  as  some  folks  say,  “ the  sover- 
eign right,”  to  put  his  protest  on  the  Journal, 
and  he  is  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of  the  lan- 
guage. Well,  it  is  not  necessary  to  consider 
what  the  House  mightdo  in  a case  of  unbounded 
licentiousness  in  the  language  employed  in  a 
protest.  But  I think  it  would  be  a queer  sort 
of  business  for  any  body  else  to  undertake  to 
punish  a member  for  disrespectful,  disorderly 
conduct,  in  doing  just  what  the  Constitution 
authorized  him  to  do.  There  is  a protection 
suggested  by  the  honorable  mover  of  this  pro- 
vision. He  says  that,  if  any  member  desires  to 
be  written  down  as  Dogberry  wished  to  be,  let 
him  have  the  privilege.  Well,  sir,  he  takes  big 
chances  in  that  way,  when  he  indulges  in  any 
improper  language  in  a protest;  for  he  is  very 
sure,  if  he  does  not  write  himself  down  as  a 
donkey,  to  be  denominated  a donkey  forever 
afterwards,  by  those  who  read  his  protest. 
Now, it  is  no  great  matter,  and  really  there  is 
no  reason  for  having  such  a composition  read. 
Not  the  least.  It  is  a paper  with  which  the 
House  or  presiding  officer  has  nothing  to  do. 
It  is  the  constitutional  right  of  any  member  to 
draw  it — draw  it  as  to  him  seemeth  good — and 
have  it  put  upon  the  Journal  by  the  Clerk; 
whose  duty  it  is  made,  by  the  Constitution,  to 
disregard  all  that  is  done  by  the  presiding  offi- 
cer or  the  body  itself,  and  record  the  protest. 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  circumstance  to  which  the 
delegate  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  alluded, 
may  be  found  in  the  Journal  of  1870,  page  918. 
“ On  the  16th  of  A pril,  1870,  during  the  evening 
session,  Mr.  Hughes  presented  a paper  as  a 
protest,  signed  by  himself  and  thirty-eight 
members  of  the  House,  against  the  action  thereof 
in  having  ratified  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which 
was  read  by  the  Clerk.  Mr.  Dennis  raised  the 
point  that  the  paper  was  not  properly  a protest, 

y.  n-7  6 


because  it  contained  language  impugning  th© 
motives  of  the  majority,  and  language  disre- 
spectful towards  that  majority,  such  as  a mem- 
ber would  not  and  could  not  use  orally.  The 
Speaker  (Mr.  Hitchcock  in  the  Chair)  decided 
that  the  point  of  order  was  well  taken ; that 
while  the  right  of  any  member  or  members  to 
protest  was  undoubted,  still,  under  the  claim  of 
protest,  no  member  could  introduce  a paper 
containing  language  disrespectful  to  the  House, 
impugning  the  motives  of  members,  or  charging 
them  with  fraud;  nor  any  language  that,  be- 
cause written,  the  member  would  not  be  entitled 
to  use  standing  in  his  place  on  the  floor  of  the 
House.  That,  therefore,  the  said  paper,  pre- 
sented to  the  House  as  a protest,  would  not  be 
received  and  entered  upon  the  Journal.  Mr. 
Callen  appealed  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair, 
but  the  House  sustained  said  decision  by  a vote 
of  yeas  49,  nays  41.” 

It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
reasoning  of  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  or  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.WEST], 
why  a protest  should  not  be  read  in  the  presence 
of  the  Assembly.  The  party  offering  the  pro- 
test is  the  Representative  of  the  people,  and  it 
is  right  and  proper  that  the  House  should  have 
full  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  protest. 
It  should  be  read  from  the  Clerk’s  desk,  and  the 
party  protesting  should  be  secure  in  the  right 
to  have  it  entered  on  the  Journal. 

Mr.  COOK.  I will  ask  the  gentleman  if  it 
would  not  be  read,  as  a matter  of  course,  on  the 
day  when  the  Clerk  reads  the  Journal  of  the 
preceding  day,  unless  dispensed  with  by  order 
of  the  House? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I do  not  know  that  it  would 
always  be  read.  It  is  possible  that  the  protest 
would  be  treated  as  a petition  is  treated  in  our 
minutes,  or  on  the  Journals  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. You  find  the  Journal  states  that  a 
petition  for  a certain  object  was  presented  and 
referred  to  the  proper  Committee.  That  is 
about  all  that  appears  on  the  Journal. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  Constitution  requires  it  to 
be  put  on  the  Journal,  and  would  not  the  Clerk 
read  it  the  next  day,  necessarily? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Would  not  the  body  have  a 
right  to  expunge  anything  disrespectful  after- 
wards? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I apprehend  that  would  not  be 
true  in  the  case  of  a protest,  because  that  is  a 
Constitutional  right  secured  to  the  member; 
but,  at  any  rate,  there  seems  to  be  no  good  rea- 
son why  this  should  not  be  presented  in  the 
regular  order  of  business,  that  the  member 
should  present  the  protest  to  the  House,  and 
that  it  should  be  read  by  the  Clerk  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  House,  and  entered,  at  length,  upon 
the  Journal.  It  is  a right  which,  in  my  judg- 
ment, belongs  to  a Representative  of  the  people. 
It  should  be  secured  where  we  have  fixed  the 
right  of  protest  by  Constitutional  enactment, 
without  alteration,  commitment,  or  delay.  It 
properly  belongs  to  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and 
should  be  made  as  secure  as  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  or  the  rightof  trial  by  jury. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I see  no  necessity  for 
the  motion  to  amend  by  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  So  far  as  it  requires  the 
reading  of  the  protest,  I understand,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  no  paper  whatever  is  before  the  body 


1170 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [108th 

Hitchcock,  Beer,  Page,  Root,  West.  [Saturday, 


is  introduced,  until  it  is  read,  unless  the  reading 
is  dispensed  with  by  vote  of  the  body.  If  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  is,  that  the  protest 
shall  be  read,  notwithstanding  the  objection  of 
the  body,  there  might  be  an  object  in  requiring 
it  to  be  done.  Otherwise,  I see  no  such  object; 
for  a paper  must,  necessarily,  be  read,  in  order 
to  be  presented  to  the  body.  The  reading  from 
the  Journal  of  1870,  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  may  obviate  all  necessity 
of  my  adding  a remark  which  I had  intended  to 
make,  after  the  colloquy  between  the  gentleman 
from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  and  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  The  result  of  the 
colloquy  seemed  to  be  that,  by  direction  of  the 
presiding  officer  of  the  House,  the  protest  re- 
ferred to  was  omitted  from  the  Journal.  The 
reading  of  the  Journal  shows  what  was  the 
fact : that  a point  of  order  was  raised  upon  the 
reading  of  this  paper,  and  that  the  presiding 
officer  decided  that  the  point  of  order  was  well 
taken,  and  that  the  paper  could  not  be  entered 
upon  the  Journal.  There  was  not  such  an  abso- 
lute direction  to  the  Clerk  as  might  be  inferred 
from  the  colloquy  between  those  gentlemen. 
The  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer], 
however,  may  have  referred  to  the  other  in- 
stance, occurring  at  an  earlier  session. 

Mr.  BEER.  I certainly  did. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  So  far  as  this  question  is 
concerned,  the  Convention  will  recollect,  when 
this  Article  was  under  consideration  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  I sought  to  secure 
such  an  amendment  to  this  section  as  would  re- 
quire protests  to  be  made  in  language  such  as  a 
member  would  be  allowed  to  use  in  his  place 
upon  the  floor.  But  the  very  general  expres- 
sion of  the  Convention  was,  that  the  protest 
was  to  be  admitted,  no  matter  what  might  be  the 
character  of  the  language  used.  That  may  be 
the  correct  principle;  but  there  is  no  doubt  at 
all  that  the  presiding  officer  who  made  the  deci- 
sion at  the  time  of  the  ruling  that  was  made,  was 
not  only  then  well  satisfied,  but  is  still  satisfied, 
with  the  decision  made,  notwithstanding  what 
may  be  said  by  gentlemen  upon  this  floor.  I do 
not  believe  that  any  constitutional  provision  can 
be  made  which  will  compel  a paper  to  be  placed 
upon  the  Journal  of  the  House,  if  that  paper  is 
presented  in  language  which  the  rules  of  the 
House  would  forbid  utterance  upon  the  floor  by 
a member. 

It  is  intimated  that  the  decision,  at  the  time 
referred  to,  was  from  partisan  considerations, 
and  sustained  by  a partisan  majority.  From 
personal  knowledge  of  the  circumstances,  I do 
not  believe  that  this  decision  at  that  time  was  in 
any  sense  influenced  by  partisan  feeling  on  the 
part  of  the  presiding  officer.  There  is  the  very 
best  evidence  of  want  of  that  feeling  in  this,  that 
while  such  decision  was  made,  the  feeling  of  the 
minority,  not  only  at  that  time,  but  at  all  times, 
has  been  fully  as  cordial  toward  the  indi- 
vidual who  made  the  decision,  as  it  has  been  on 
the  part  of  the  members  of  the  majority,  and 
this  is  the  fact,  not  only  of  that  House  but  of 
other  Houses. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I am  in  favor  of  this  amend- 
ment, but  ldo  not  think  it  introduces  any  very 
material  alteration  in  parliamentary  law  on  the 
subject  of  protests.  It  would,  perhaps,  be  best 
in  times  of  high  party  excitement,  to  leave  the  I 


question  of  protests  to  the  courts.  And  it  is  per- 
fectly certain  that  no  court  would  ever  order, 
by  mandamus , a protest  to  be  entered  upon  the 
Journal,  if  it  was  in  disrespectful  or  insulting 
or  scurrilous  language.  If  an  appeal  was  made 
upon  that  subject  to  a court,  no  judge  would 
ever  order  such  a document  to  be  entered  upon 
the  Journals  of  the  Legislature.  I recollect  a 
case  in  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States 
where  a notice  was  given  in  language  that  was 
disrespectful  and  insulting,  and  the  supreme 
court  held  that  such  a notice  might  be  disre- 
garded by  the  party  on  whom  it  was  served,  and 
it  was,  in  fact,  no  notice  at  all.  Now,  the  party 
who  would  apply  to  the  court,  and  ask  to  have 
his  protest  entered  upon  the  Journals  of  the 
Legislature,  would  have  to  bring  into  court  a 
respectful  document,  or  it  would  not  be  listened 
to. 

Mr.  ROOT.  No  court  would  entertain  such 
a motion  for  whatever  alleged  cause. 

Mr.  PAGE.  Well,  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer]  claims  that,  under  his  amend- 
ment, where  the  Clerk  refuses  to  enter  his  pro- 
test upon  the  Journal,  he  might  appeal  to  the 
court.  It  being  a simple  clerical  duty,  I think 
he  might  ask  the  court  to  compel  the  Clerk  to 
enter  it  upon  the  Journal.  I say  the  Clerk  him- 
self would  be  authorized  in  refusing  to  enter  a 
scurrilous  or  insulting  document  upon  the 
Journals  of  the  Legislature.  And  it  would  be 
his  duty,  even  under  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  to 
refuse.  The  party,  then,  if  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  is  right  in  his  construction 
of  the  law,  and  I believe  he  is,  might  appeal  to 
the  court;  and  the  party  who  presented  a docu- 
ment that  was  insulting  or  scurrilous  would 
gain  nothing  by  his  motion.  The  judge  would 
compel  him  to  present  it  in  respectful  terms 
before  he  would  grant  an  order.  The  law  re- 
quires decency  and  courtesy  in  all  proceedings. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  not  objecting  to  this  amend- 
ment, except  the  portion  of  it  requiring  it  to  be 
read.  That  is  the  only  part  I have  found  fault 
with.  My  friend  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber], 
with  whom  I have  learned  to  harmonize  very 
cordially,  calls  that  a special  demurrer.  Gentle- 
men must  remember  that  this  is  an  amendment 
that  will  cut  both  ways.  It  is  a two-edged  in- 
strument. Whilst  there  may  be  a little  feeling 
on  one  side,  it  can  be  used  against  the  other 
party  when  it  is  in  the  ascendency.  It  operates 
both  ways.  What  we  do  here,  we  must  do  with- 
out reference  to  what  has  been  done  heretofore 
in  any  other  than  a mere  parliamentary  sense. 

Mr.  BEER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
word? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BEER.  I thought  of  that.  I expect  to 
be  in  the  majority  now,  for  a long  time  to  come. 
I am  doing  this  now  out  of  the  most  philan- 
thropic motives  towards  gentlemen  whom  I ex- 
pect to  be  in  the  minority. 

Mr.  WEST.  That  is  true.  I expect  the 
I Grangers  to  have  control  of  the  Legisla- 
I ture  now  in  a short  time  and  to  continue 
[ so.  I am  expecting  that  the  member  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  and  myself  will  oc- 
cupy a back  seat,  until  we  get  hay  seed  in 
our  hair.  The  proposition  is  simply  this, 
why  compel  a body  to  sit  and  listen  to  that 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1171 

February  7,  1874.]  West,  Beer,  Baber,  Campbell,  Scribner,  etc. 


which  the  body  would  not  be  required  to  listen 
to,  if  it  was  uttered  by  any  gentleman  in  argu- 
ment, in  his  place  upon  the  floor.  Now,  I 
want  to  leave  the  House  to  judge  whether  it 
will  listen  to  the  reading  or  not.  The  Con- 
stution  requires  the  document  to  go  upon  the 
Journal.  1 am  perfectly  willing  that  it  shall 
pass  to  the  Journal.  The  protest  is  to  the 
House,  and  it  passes  from  the  possession  of 
the  House  to  the  Journal  in  silence,  unless  it  be 
ordered  to  be  read,  or  required  to  be  read. 
Now,  when  the  reading  has  commenced,  and 
the  document  is  found  to  be  utterly  scurrilous 
and  indecent,  shall  not  the  House  have  an  op- 
portunity to  interpose,  and  say,  the  Clerk  shall 
not  read  that  document?  Place  it  upon  the 
table,  if  you  want  to;  but  do  not  require  that 
ears  of  sensitiveness  and  modesty,  shall  hear 
such  a paper : for  there  are  always  about  the 
House  persons  not  connected  with  the  House, 
that  might  be  slightly  shocked  by  a document 
of  that  kind.  There  may  be  persons  who  may 
be  perfectly  willing,  and  have  back-bone 
enough  to  write  themselves  down  as  Dogberry 
wanted  himself  written  down ; but  when  it  is 
discovered,  upon  reading,  that  the  document  is, 
in  itself,  unfit  to  be  read  in  the  hearing  of  any 
decent  body,  then  let  the  House  have  the  power 
to  stop  its  reading,  and  let  it  pass  to  the  Jour- 
nal, without  its  being  read.  I do  not  want  any 
compulsory  reading.  It  may,  and  I doubt  not 
will,  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a hundred,  be 
ordered  by  the  House  to  be  read ; but  if,  upon 
the  reading  of  it,  it  should  be  found  to  be  un- 
lit to  be  read  or  heard,  I want  the  power  of  the 
House  to  stop  its  reading,  and  let  it  go  to  the 
Journal — “the  tomb  of  all  the Capulets.” 

Mr.  BEER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
word? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BEER.  I will  ask  the  gentleman, 
whether  it  would  give  satisfaction  to  say,  it 
shall  be  immediately  read,  unless  objection  be 
made,  and  without  alteration,  commitment  or 
delay  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I want  the  House  to  have  con- 
trol of  the  reading. 

Mr.  BEER.  I say  insert  in  this  amendment, 
“ unless  objection  be  made.” 

Mr.  WEST.  If  objection  be  made,  it  may  be 
stopped.  Leave  that  to  the  House. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  is  going  on 
under  a misunderstanding  of  the  object  of  this 
word  “ reading.”  That  is  put  in  in  order  to 
give  the  House  an  opportunity  to  know  what  is 
going  on  the  Journal.  Now,  if  objection  is 
made,  the  question  will  be,  shall  it  be  read? 
Then  it  can  be  stopped.  I want  to  ask  the 
gentleman  how  the  document  can  be  there  un- 
til it  is  read  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  There  is  not  any  trouble  about 
it  in  the  world.  Does  not  the  gentleman  know 
that  every  day  this  Convention  is  in  session 
memorials  are  presented  at  the  Secretary’s 
desk,  and  nothing  except  their  name  or  title  is 
known?  We  do  nut  know  what  these  memori- 
als or  petitions  contain,  unless  the  reading  of 
them  is  called  for,  or  ordered,  or  consented  to. 
Now,  no  protest  can  go  upon  the  Journal  by 
the  Clerk  until  it  goes  through  the  legitimate 
channel.  The  Clerk  does  not  dare  to  put  it  on. 
A memorial  is  presented,  or  its  name  is  given, 


what  the  subject  of  the  memorial  relates  to. 
That  is  all  we  know  of  the  memorial.  The 
same  way  when  a protest  comes  in  : A,  B,  and 
C present  their  protest  against  the  action  of  the 
House  on  a certain  subject.  That  puts  the 
House  in  possession  of  it,  and  the  House  can  let 
it  pass  to  the  Journal,  or  order  it  read,  or  any- 
thing of  the  kind  that  it  sees  proper.  It  can 
not  go  to  the  Journal.  It  must  go  through  the 
House  to  the  Journal.  No  court  can  order  it 
there. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  We  have  done  a pretty 
good  week’s  work.  I move  that  the  Convention 
now  adjourn. 

leave  to  present  a petition. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I ask  the  gentleman  to 
withdraw  a moment.  I was  not  in  my  own 
seat  this  morning  when  petitions  were  called 
for.  I should  be  glad  to  ofler  a petition. 

Leave  was  given. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER  presented  the  petition  of  D. 
C.  Belts,  and  one  thousand  other  residents  of 
Lucas  county  and  its  vicinity,  praying  that  the 
adult  women  of  Ohio  maybe  admitted  to  all  the 
rights  of  citizenship ; and  asked  its  reference  to 
the  Committee  on  Woman  Suffrage. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  petition  will  have 
that  reference. 

Mr.  WEST.  I know  a question  for  adjourn- 
ment is  not  debatable.  Many  of  us  are  away 
from  home,  and  it  is  desirable,  while  we  are 
kept  away  so  long,  that  we  should  come  back 
and  try  to  get  a quorum. 

The  question  being  on  adjournment,  a divi- 
sion was  called  for,  and  the  motion  was  not 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I move  the  Convention  now 
take  a recess  until  two  and  one-half  o’clock  this 
afternoon. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I would  like  to  make 
a single  statement. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
yield  the  floor  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I will  withdraw  the  motion 
in  favor  of  the  gentleman  if  he  will  renew  it. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I will  renew  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham] 
has  the  floor. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  appears  to  me,  we 
might  remain  an  hour  longer,  and  make  that 
much  time.  I am  very  sure,  when  we  come 
here  this  afternoon,  there  will  be  no  quorum  in 
the  Hall. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman how  he  knows  that? 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  that  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion took  a recess,  at  12 : 45  p.  m. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  P.  M. : 
Mr.  Humphreville  in  the  Chair. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Last  summer,  at 
Columbus,  an  order  was  passed  by  the  Conven- 
tion, appointing  me  to  preside  in  the  absence  of 
the  President  and  Vice  President.  The  Presi- 
dent and  Vice  President  are  both  absent  this 
afternoon,  and  our  former  President  [Mr. 


1172 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [108th 

Humphreville,  Pond,  Sample,  Beer,  Hitchcock,  Burns,  Dorsey.  [Saturday, 


Waite],  and  our  present  President  [Mr.  King], 
both  considered  that  as  a standing  order,  and, 
hence,  I am  properly  the  presiding  officer.  I 
desire  to  state,  that  as  th§  Article  now  under 
consideration  was  reported  by  the  Committee 
on  the  Legislative  Department,  of  which  Com- 
mittee I am  a member,  I feel  some  delicacy  in 
presiding  during  the  consideration  of  this  Arti- 
cle; and,  besides,  I would  like  to  be  upon  the 
floor,  so  that,  if  I think  it  necessary,  I shall  be 
able  to  address  the  Convention  upon  the  subject 
matter  pending.  I shall,  therefore,  take  ad- 
vantage of  the  power  I have,  and  call  the  gen- 
tleman from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  to  the  Chair  to 
preside. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  (Mr.  Cook  in 
r the  Chair).  The  question  pending  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer]  to  amend  section  10.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  section,  as  amended,  will  read : 

“Sec.  10.  Any  member  of  either  House  shall  have  the 
right  to  protest  against  any  act  or  resolution  thereof,  and 
such  protest,  aud  the  reasons  therefor,  shall  be  immedi- 
ately read,  without  alteration,  commitment  or  delay,  and 
entered  upon  the  Journal  by  the  Clerk.” 

Mr.  POND.  I ask  for  a division  of  the  ques- 
tion, so  that  that  portion  that  applies  to  the 
reading  shall  be  voted  upon  separate  from  the 
other. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I offer  the  following  as  a 
substitute  for  the  words,  “ shall  be  immediately 
read,”  in  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  the  words  “be  immediately  read,”  after  the 
wofd  “shall”,  in  the  third  line,  and  insert  “on  being  pre- 
sented to  such  House.” 

Mr.  BEER.  I have  no  particular  amount  of 
stock  in  the  words,  “shall  be  immediately 
read,”  and,  if  the  Convention  will  consent,  I 
shall  accept  this  amendment. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  How  would  it  now  read  ? 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Any  member  of  either  House  shall  have  the  right  to 
protest  against  any  act  or  resolution  thereof,  anj  such 
protest,  and  the  reasons  therefor,  shall,  on  being  presented 
to  such  House,  without  alteration,  commitment  or  delay, 
he  entered  upon  the  Journal  by  the  Clerk.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]  that  the 
word  “such,”  where  it  last  occurs,  should  be 
stricken  out,  and  the  word  “ the”  inserted.  I 
am  not  particular,  but  it  seems  to  me  it  would 
read  better,  as  the  word  “ such  ” is  repeated. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  very  glad  that  the  gen- 
tleman from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample],  has  of- 
fered the  amendment  which  he  has  to  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Be^r].  I feel  disposed  to  vote 
for  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  at  least,  to  a certain  ex- 
tent; because  I feel  that  it  is  right  that  the  end 
sought  for  by  the  gentleman  should  be  attained 
by  the  Convention.  The  right  of  protest  is  a 
right  invaluable  to  the  minority,  and  aright 
which  the  majority  should  not  have  power,  in 
any  wise,  to  curtail  or  to  deny.  The  recogni- 
tion of  that  right,  and  the  power  to  enforce  it, 


ought  to  be  so  plainly  laid  down  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  State,  that  it  can  never,  by  any 
possible  means,  be  taken  away  from  the  minor- 
ity. 

The  amendment  of  the  delegate  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer],  tends  to  that  end;  but,  in  or- 
der to  obtain  that  end,  there  is  no  necessity  that 
the  declaration  should  be  made  that  such  pro- 
test should  be  read.  I suppose  that,  as  a matter 
of  course,  any  member  of  the  House  would 
have  the  right  to  call  for  the  reading,  and  it 
would  then  be  read.  I presume,  in  a great  ma- 
jority of  cases,  it  would  be  read;  that,  in  a 
great  majority  of  cases,  there  would  be  no  ob- 
jection to  reading.  The  mere  fact  that  it  might 
be  considered  a little  unpleasant  for  the  major- 
ity to  be  obliged  to  hear  certain  reprimands  by 
the  minority,  does  not  amount  to  anything  at 
all.  The  majority  would  probably  be  able  to 
stand  that  without  any  very  great  amount  of 
unpleasant  feeling. 

It  is  important  that  the  section  should  be  so 
amended,  that  the  responsibility  of  entering  the 
protest  on  the  Journal  should  be  fixed,  and  that 
we  should  know  precisely  where  it  belongs ; so 
that  if  there  is  a refusal  or  neglect  to  make  the 
entry,  the  proper  remedy  can  be  applied.  This 
is  done  by  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  without  the  neces- 
sity of  inserting  the  words  “ being  immediately 
read,”  and  it  is  done  effectually  by  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton 
[Mr.  Sample].  It  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  Clerk 
to  enter  the  protest  upon  the  Journal.  True,  it 
may  be  said  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Clerk ; that 
no  one  else  has  the  right  to  enter  it  upon  the 
Journal.  But  it  should  be  stated  in  so  many 
words  that  it  is  his  duty,  and  that  if  that  duty  is 
neglected,  he,  as  an  officer  of  the  House,  can  be 
brought  by  the  courts  to  perform  his  duty. 
That  is  precisely  what  is  required.  In  that  way 
the  rights  of  the  minority  can  be  secured ; and 
that  is  precisely,  as  I understand  it,  what  Con- 
stitutions are  for — that  the  rights  of  all,  the 
minority  as  well  as  the  majority  should  be  pro- 
tected. As  I said,  the  right  of  protest  is  an  in- 
valuable right;  and  I am  anxious  to  put  an 
amendment  into  the  Constitution  that  will 
secure  that  right  beyond  any  possibility  of 
denial.  For  that  reason,  I shall  vote  for  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton 
[Mr.  Sample],  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  and  then  shall 
hope  to  see  the  section  as  amended,  adopted  by 
the  Convention. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Before  the  gentleman  takes  his 
seat,  I would  like  to  have  him  explain  wherein 
the  right  of  protest  is  invaluable  to  the  minor- 
ity. 

Mr.  WEST.  Let  us  forego  that.  Let  us  vote 
this  in. 

Mr.  VORIS.  The  gentleman  does  not  need 
the  information  that  I do,  and  he  can  very  well 
afford  to  forego  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  needs  the 
information,  it  will  not  take  a great  many  words 
to  convey  it  to  him.  It  is  a right  which  every 
man  has  to  convey  his  opinions  to  his  constitu- 
ents, and  the  minority  may  have  no  other  way 
of  conveying  those  opinions,  except  by  having 
their  protest  entered  upon  the  Journal;  and  for 


1173 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  7, 1874.]  Dorsey,  Hitchcock,  Burns,  West,  Humphreville. 


that  reason  it  is  a valuable  right  to  the  minor- 
ity. 

Mr.  Sample’s  amendment,  as  accepted  by  Mr. 
Beer,  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  section  as  amended. 

The  section  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  eleven. 

The  Secretary  read : 


“Sec.  11.  All  vacancies  which  may  happen  in  either 
House  shall,  for  the  unexpired  term,  be  filled  by  election, 
as  shall  be  directed  by  law.’' 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  are 
no  amendments  to  section  eleven,  the  Secretary 
will  read  section  twelve. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  12.  Senators  and  Representatives,  during  the 
session  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  in  going  to  and 
returning  from  the  same,  shall  be  privileged  from  arrest 
in  all  cases,  except  treason,  felony,  or  breach  of  the 
peace;  and  for  any  speech  or  debate,  in  either  House, 
they  shall  not  be  questioned  elsewhere.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  There  being 
no  amendments  to  section  twelve,  the  Secretary 
will  read  section  thirteen. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  13.  The  proceedings  of  both  Houses  shall  be 
public,  except  in  cases  which,  in  the  opinion  of  two-thirds 
of  those  present,  require  secrecy.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  fourteen. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  14.  Neither  House  shall,  without  the  consent  of 
the  other,  adjourn  for  more  than  two  days,  Sundays  ex- 
cepted, nor  to  any  other  place  than  that  in  which  the  two 
Houses  shall  be  in  session.” 


The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  fifteen. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  15.  Bills  may  originate  in  either  House,  hut  may 
be  altered,  amended  or  rejected  in  the  other.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  amend  section 
fifteen  by  inserting  at  the  commencement  of 
the  section,  the  words,  “all  enactments  of  law 
shall  be  by  bill.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  My  memory  is  not  distinct 
enough,  but  I would  inquire  whether  that  pro- 
vision is  not  embraced  in  some  other  part  of  the 
Constitution,  that  “ all  enactments  shall  be  by 
bill.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  think  that  it  can 
be  found  anywhere  in  the  Article.  I have  con- 
sulted with  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
[Mr.  Humphreville],  and  believe  he  thinks  it 
is  not  embraced  in  the  Article.  So  far  as  appro- 
priations are  concerned,  there  is  a similar  pro- 
vision in  one  section,  which  relates  to  that  sub- 
ject; but  there  is  none  which  relates  to  the 
passage  of  other  than  appropriation  bills.  I do 
not  wish  to  consume  the  time  of  the  Convention 
at  all.  The  reasons  why  it  is  important  that 
this  should  be  done,  were  given  the  other  day. 
It  had  been  suggested  that  there  might  be  reso- 
lutions having  the  force  and  effect  of  law,  and 
this  would  settle  that  question.  With  this 
amendment,  there  would  be  no  danger  of  reso- 
lutions being  passed  having  such  effect. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  seems  to  me,  this  amendment 
is,  probably,  not  necessary.  I have  not  any 
doubt  in  the  world  but  a joint  resolution  of 


the  General  Assembly,  directing  the  trustees  of 
the  Imbecile  Institute  to  pay  certain  moneys,  is 
just  as  much  a law  as  a bill  is.  Why  that 
should  be  enacted  in  the  form  of  a bill,  and  go 
through  three  readings,  when  it  is  simply  to 
direct  some  public  functionary  to  pay  what  is 
justly  due,  I cannot  understand.  A resolution 
is  a law.  There  is  no  doubt  of  it  in  the  world. 
It  is  not  that  permanent  character  of  law  that 
goes  upon  our  statute  books  for  a permanent 
purpose.  To  say  that  all  enactments  of  law 
shall  be  by  bill,  would  be  to  say  that  anything 
that  is  not  a bill  cannot  be  treated  or  regarded 
as  a law.  A resolution  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, that  directs  anything  to  be  done,  is  a law. 
If  it  directs  any  public  functionary  to  do  any 
act,  it  is  the  rule  of  his  action.  It  is  an  order 
upon  him.  It  is  a law  governing  his  conduct. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I call  the  attention  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  to  the  19th 
section,  which  says  that  “the  style  of  the  laws 
in  this  State  shall  be : ‘Be  it  enacted  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio.’”  I 
am  not  prepared  even  to  give  my  judgment  as 
to  what  that  means.  It  is  in  the  present  Con- 
stitution in  the  same  form.  The  style  of  all 
laws  shall  be  as  herein  designated.  Now,  if 
that  be  the  fact,  then  a resolution  would  not 
comply  with  this  constitutional  requirement. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  If  there  is  any 
doubt  whether  a law  may  or  may  not  be  passed 
by  resolution,  I would  be  glad  to  have  that 
doubt  removed.  I desire  that  all  laws  shall  be 
by  bill;  and  that  no  resolution  shall  be  passed 
that  shall  have  the  effect  of  law,  and  if  there  is 
any  doubt  under  our  present  Constitution,  if 
resolutions  are  passed  with  the  provision  in  the 
Constitution  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from 
Richland,  [Mr.  Burns],  I want  to  make  it  still 
more  certain. 

I am  in  favor  of  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Geauga,  [Mr.  Hitchcock]. 
I believe  that  no  law  should  be  passed  by  reso- 
lution, but  that  all  enactments  of  law  should  be 
by  bill,  and  that  they  should  be  read  three 
times;  that  they  should  be  passed  with  all  the 
solemnity  of  law.  If  it  is  a law  directing  the 
payment  of  money,  it  certainly  should  be  well 
considered.  Whatever  the  object  of  a resolu- 
tion or  of  a bill,  if  it  has  the  effect  of  law,  it 
should  be  in  the  shape  of  a bill,  and  be  passed 
with  all  due  consideration. 

Resolutions  relating  to  the  organization  of 
each  House  are  a different  matter.  They  are 
generally  not  joint  resolutions.  There  are  few 
joint  resolutions  referring  to  the  business  of 
either  House,  unless  it  is  in  the  form  of  joint 
rules  for  the  government  of  the  two  Houses; 
and  they  ought  to  be  well  considered ; and  they 
ought  to  pass  by  a majority  vote  of  all  the  mem- 
bers elected  to  either  House. 

I do  not  believe  in  this  loose  way  of  paying 
money  out  of  the  treasury  by  a simple  resolu- 
tion. I recollect  once,  when  I was  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  the  question  was  discussed  fre- 
quently in  the  House,  as  to  whether  they  should 
elect  an  official  reporter.  It  was  successfully 
opposed  until  about  the  last  week  of  that  ses- 
sion. They  then  elected,  as  official  reporter, 
some  gentleman  who  had  been  reporting  for 
some  newspaper  in  the  State ; and,  by  a resolu- 


1174 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Humphreville,  Voris,  Powell,  Root,  Pond,  West,  Beer. 


r 108th 

[Saturday, 


tion,  actually  paid  him  for  the  whole  session  at 
the  same  per  diem  that  members  received.  Such 
acts  as  that  I consider  entirely  wrong.  I hope 
the  amendment  will  be  agreed  to. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  inquire  whether  there 
was  any  veto  power  to  be  interposed  in  that 
case? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  There  was  no  veto. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I only  wish  to  say  a few 
words  upon  the  matter  now  before  the  Conven- 
tion, and  they  are  with  regard  to  the  words 
“ law”  and  “resolution.”  It  has  been  said  by 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  that  a 
resolution  is  a law.  It  may  be  so  in  many 
cases,  but,  technically,  it  is  not  so.  If  a person 
is  asked  the  difference  between  a cottage  and  a 
house,  it  will  be  very  difficult  to  answer  the 
question.  A cottage  is  a house.  A house  may 
not  be  a cottage,  or  it  maybe  a house  that  is  not  a 
cottage.  So  with  regard  to  the  words  judgment 
and  order.  There  is  a technical  difference  be- 
tween an  order  and  a judgment,  which  is  readily 
recognized  by  every  lawyer.  A lawyer  under- 
stands what  we  mean  by  a judgment.  It  is  the 
final  order  of  court  in  the  decision  of  a cause ; 
but  there  may  be  orders  intermediate  that  are 
judgments,  as,  for  instance,  an  order  that  the 
plaintiff  or  defendant  pay  certain  costs  in  a 
case.  It  is  usually  called  an  order,  but  it  is 
equally  a judgment.  There  is  a technical  dif- 
ference between  them,  and  so  there  is  a tech- 
nical difference  between  a resolution  and  a law. 
A resolution  is  generally  considered  a tempo- 
rary thing,  for  a temporary  purpose,  and  local 
or  personal,  and  not  general  in  its  operation ; 
and  though  it  may  have  the  effect  of  a law,  so 
far  as  that  goes,  it  is  not  technically  a law. 
There  will  be  no  harm  in  passing  the  section 
under  consideration  with  the  different  under- 
standing entertained  by  the  members,  between 
what  is  technically  called  a law  and  what  is 
called  a resolution,  though  that  difference  is 
understood  by  every  lawyer. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  wheth- 
er he  is  not  aware  that  the  supreme  court  of  the 
United  States,  half  a century  since,  through  the 
mouth  of  John  Marshall,  pronounced  that  a 
joint  resolution  was  a law  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I had  forgotten  that.  T 
suppose  that  I once  knew  it,  but  it  did  not  occur 
to  me  just  now.  I admit  that  it  may,  in  some 
cases,  operate  as  a law ; but  there  is  a technical 
difference  between  a law  and  a resolution,  as 
there  is  between  a cottage  and  a house,  or  be- 
tween an  order  and  a judgment. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I always  supposed  there  was  a 
technical  difference  between  a bill  and  a joint 
resolution,  each  and  both  being  law. 

Mr.  POND.  I apprehend,  in  construing  this 
section,  the  elementary  principles  that  govern 
these  things  will  be  resorted  to  in  determin- 
ing what  the  effect  of  a joint  resolution  and  a 
bill  enacting  a law  is.  A law  is  simply  a rule 
of  action,  so  the  old  books  say,  if  1 remember 
rightly.  If  the  General  Assembly,  as  has  been 
done  in  several  instances,  by  a joint  resolution, 
direct  the  Attorney  General  of  the  State  to  go  to 
Cincinnati  and  make  a contract  with  the  Di- 
rectors of  Longview  Asylum  to  maintain  a cer- 
tain portion  of  the  insane  from  other  portions 
of  the  State  at  a certain  rate,  that  certainly 


would  be  the  rule  of  action  for  the  Attorney 
General,  and  he  would  be  compelled  to  do  it, 
just  exactly  as  much  as  if  it  was  in  the  shape 
of  a formal  bill.  We  have  recognized  this  in 
the  proceedings  which  we  have  just  gone 
through  with.  In  the  ninth  section  we  have 
thrown  a safeguard  around  the  passage  of  joint 
resolutions,  and  have  stated,  in  that  provision, 
that,  “on  the  passage  of  every  bill  and  joint 
resolution,  in  either  House,  the  vote  shall  be 
taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  entered  upon  the 
Journal.  No  bill  or  joint  resolution  shall  be 
passed  in  either  House  without  the  concurrence 
of  a majority  of  all  the  members  elected  there- 
to;” and  this  Convention  has  deemed  it  proper 
to  direct  a joint  resolution,  of  so  high  a charac- 
ter as  to  need,  and  receive,  and  have  all  the 
sanction  that  a bill  has  upon  its  final  passage, 
with  regard  to  the  number  of  votes  which  it 
shall  take  to  pass  it,  making  it  more  impera- 
tively a law  than  it  was  before — and  it  was  a 
rule  of  action  before.  It  appears  to  me  to  make 
the  Constitution  inconsistent  with  itself  to  say 
that  a law  shall  be  enacted  by  a bill,  after  you 
have  stated  that  a law  may  be  enacted  by  a joint 
resolution. 

Upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Hitchcock,  a divi- 
sion was  called  for,  and,  being  had,  resulted — 
affirmative  32,  negative  19. 

Mr.  POND.  There  is  not  a quorum  voting. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  this  amendment  is  agreed  to, 
you  might  as  well  strike  out  from  the  residue 
of  the  Article,  the  words  “joint  resolution,” 
where  they  occur,  because  they  never  can  have 
the  effect  to  other  than  prevent  the  passage  of 
joint  resolutions  by  the  two  Houses  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  for  any  purpose  whatever.  If  an 
enactment  of  law  must  be  by  bill,  let  us  not  en- 
cumber the  Article  by  joint  resolution,  because 
it  will  prohibit  the  passage  of  a joint  resolution. 

Mr.  BEER.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  allow  me  to  suggest:  Do  we  not 
instruct  our  Senators  and  members  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  by  joint  resolution  ? That 
is  not  a law. 

Mr.  ROOT.  That  is  buncombe. 

Mr.  BEER.  The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  would  cut  us  out  of  all  our  buncombe. 

Mr.  WEST.  Suppose  the  two  Houses  might 
direct  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  by  joint  reso- 
lution, to  make  an  investigation  into,  or  perform 
some  duty  upon  some  of  the  public  works. 
It  would  be  simply  a directory  resolution;  but 
it  would  be  a joint  resolution.  It  is  a law, 
without  doubt.  Just  as  much  of  a law  as  an}^- 
thing  else,  and,  yet,  it  is  not  in  and  of  itself  a 
thing  that  is  to  be  permanent  in  its  character, 
such  as  a statute.  But,  if  this  amendment 
passes,  I do  not  see  that  it  is  possible  for  the 
General  Assembly  to  direct  an)r  of  its  public 
officers  to  go  and  do  anything,  to  make  any  in- 
vestigation, or  seek  any  information,  or  any 
thing  of  that  kind,  unless  it  be  read  three  times 
in  each  House,  and  it  will  require  a month  to  be 
passed  through.  Certainly,  we  have  not  had 
any  trouble,  heretofore,  with  regard  to  this 
matter.  The  distinction  between  what  is  ordi- 
narily known  as  a resolution  ,und  what  is  a per- 
manent statute — a permanent  rule  of  action — is 
so  clearly  and  well  understood  by  all  legislative 
bodies  that  no  difficulty  has,  heretofore,  grown 
up  with  regard  to  it.  A House  may,  sometimes. 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  1175 

February  7, 1874.]  West,  Hitchcock,  Pond,  Powell,  Tuttle. 


have  passed  a resolution  which  was  not  itself 
legal.  The  officers  of  State,  the  Auditor  and 
Treasurer,  ought  to  have  disregarded  it.  There 
is  no  reason  why  this  should  be  passed,  at  all. 
This  would  not  prevent  an  abuse  of  that  kind — 
a single  House  electing  a reporter,  and  ordering 
the  reporter  to  be  paid,  illegally  and  improp- 
erly, and  the  public  officers  are  ordered  to  draw 
their  warrant  upon  the  illegal  order  of  that 
kind — an  illegal,  or  unconstitutional,  resolution. 
But  this  is  no  argument,  here,  why  we  should 
incorporate  this  matter,  because  such  an  illegal 
act  will  be  done  again,  every  day.  It  is  a reso- 
lution of  a single  House,  and  it  ought  not  to 
have  been  recognized  at  all.  I venture  to  say 
that  even  in  the  particular  case — although  I do 
not  know  what  the  facts  were — that  there  was 
not  a dollar  of  money  paid  on  that  resolution 
until  it  was  incorporated  in  a bill,  and  directed 
to  be  paid.  If  it  was,  it  was  wrong.  It  was  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution,  by  the  payment  of 
money  out  of  the  treasury  without  any  author- 
ity, and  it  ought  not  to  have  been  done.  This 
will  not  remedy  that.  It  will  not  prevent  a vio- 
lation of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Unfortunately  for  me,  as 
was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr. 
Pease]  the  other  day,  when  I desired  an  expia- 
tion of  some  language  used  by  him,  I am  not  a 
lawyer,  and,  therefore,  of  course,  it  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  anything  which  may  be  urged  by 
me  in  response  to  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  should  be  regarded  of  any  force. 
It  sounds  to  me  very  strangely,  indeed,  to  learn 
that,  if  we  say  a law  shall  not  be  passed  except 
by  bill,  it  deprives  the  General  Assembly  from 
ever  passing  any  joint  resolutions  whatever. 
The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  says 
that  it  does  that — that  you  might  as  well  strike 
joint  resolution  out  of  your  Article;  as  there 
will  be  no  possibility  of  passing  such  a resolu- 
tion, if  you  insert  this  provision  in  the  Consti- 
tution. 

Mr.  WEST.  Which  have  the  effect  of  law. 

Mr.  POND.  I was  going  to  ask  what  would 
be  the  effect  of  a joint  resolution,  then? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  is  because  I am  not  a 
lawyer,  and  want  to  find  out,  that  these  expla- 
nations are  sought.  Let  me  say,  right  here,  to 
members  of  this  Convention,  that,  although 
there  are  very  few  of  us  on  this  floor  that  can- 
not understand  these  things,  for  the  reason  that 
we  are  not  lawyers,  there  are  a great  many 
people  in  the  State  of  Ohio  who  are  not  lawyers, 
and  it  may  be  just  as  difficult  for  them  to  un- 
derstand these  things  as  it  is  for  us  upon  this 
floor  who  are  not  of  the  profession. 

It  is  not  a very  strange  thing  which  is  pro- 
posed. Let  me  read  from  the  first  section 
which  has  just  been  adopted  by  the  Convention 
in  Pennsylvania  and  ratified  by  the  people  of 
that  State.  The  first  section  of  the  Legislative 
Article  reads  : “ No  law  shall  be  passed  except 
by  bill.”  It  is  not  exactly  in  the  same  lan- 
guage, but  certainly  has  the  same  meaning  that 
is  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  the  amendment 
proposed  to  this  section. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  me  suggest,  that  the 
section  which  was  just  read  leaves  out  the 
word  “resolution,”  that  we  have  the  difficulty 
about.  There  is  no  “ resolution  ” there. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  That  may  be  very  true, 


but  that  makes  no  difference.  The  people  of 
Pennsylvania,  by  indorsing  this  Constitution, 
concluded  that  it  is  better  that  the  word  reso- 
lution shall  not  be  named  in  their  Constitution 
at  all ; but  I presume  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  that  State  will  be  able  to  pass  joint  reso- 
lutions, whether  it  be  so  named  or  not,  although 
they  do  say  that  “ no  law  shall  be  passed  except 
by  bill.”  If  gentlemen  will  turn  to  the  Con- 
stitutions of  other  States,  they  will  find  this 
identical  provision. 

The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  and 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  cited 
instances  in  which  joint  resolutions  might  be 
law.  There  is  no  doubt  that  members  of  the 
General  Assembly  by  joint  resolution  are 
directed,  and  that  officers  of  the  State  maybe 
directed  to  do  certain  acts.  This  may  be  law — 
a rule  of  action  to  those  thus  directed,  but  such 
direction  cannot  be  regarded  as  coming  within 
the  term  law , as  we  ordinarily  understand  that 
term,  as  the  statute  laws  of  the  State.  The 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  will  admit, 
and  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond] 
will  also  admit,  that  not  a dollar  can  be  paid 
out  of  the  State  treasury  under  that  directory 
power  of  the  Legislature,  unless  the  money 
therefor  had  been  appropriated  by  the  General 
Assembly,  with  all  the  forms  of  law. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  illustrations  adduced 
by  the  gentlemen  have  no  bearing  upon  this 
question  at  all.  There  may  be  no  necessity 
for  the  amendment;  but  the  general  expres- 
sionio  f opinion  upon  this  floor,  has  been 
that  laws  shall  only  be  enacted  by  bill.  In 
carrying  out  that  purpose,  the  words,  “ having 
the  effect  of  law,”  where  they  occurred  in 
connection  with,  “joint  resolutions,”  were 
stricken  from  the  ninth  section.  The  general 
expression  of  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  Con- 
vention has  been,  that  there  should  be  no  sort 
of  indorsement  given  by  this  Convention  to  the 
idea  that  a law  could  be  passed  by  resolution. 
It  was  in  carrying  out  this  same  view,  and  after 
consultation  with  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee, that  this  amendment  was  introduced. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Only  a word  in  aid  of  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  who 
modestly  says  that  he  is  not  a lawyer.  1 wish 
to  say  that  I think  there  may  be  a great  many 
joint  resolutions  that  are  not  law  within  the 
ordinary  definition  of  law,  and  that  the  proper 
office  of  a joint  resolution  should  be  something 
which  is  not  law.  I am  not  very  fresh  in  my 
reading  of  that  particular  part  of  Blackstone 
which  defines  what  a municipal  law  is. 

Mr.  POND.  If  a joint  resolution  may  be 
passed  that  is  not  a law,  then  what  effect  or 
value  has  it? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentleman  will  wait 
a few  minutes,  I will  give  him  my  ideas  upon 
that  subject.  If  I remember,  Blackstone  among 
other  things,  in  defining  what  a municipal  law 

is,  and  illustrating  it,  says  it  is  distinguished 
among  other  things,  from  an  order  which  is 
something  that  is  transient  and  temporary  in  its 
operations.  I shall  not  undertake  to  give  his 
language ; but  I undertake  to  say  from  my  rec- 
ollection of  it  that,  if  gentlemen  will  turn  to 

it,  they  will  find  that  he  makes  exactly  the 
distinction  between  a law  that  is  a rule  of  civil 
conduct,  permanent  in  its  character,  and  the 


1176 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Powell,  Tuttle,  Root,  Scribner,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


[108th 

[Saturday, 


mere  order  which  derives  its  effect  from  the 
supreme  power  of  the  State  indeed,  and  is 
supported  by  it,  but  is  temporary  in  its  charac- 
ter, and  is  not  a municipal  law. 

Mr.  POWELL.  As  temporary  and  transient. 

Mr. TUTTLE.  Yes;  that  is  "the  difference; 
and  I think,  Mr.  President,  that  this  Constitu- 
tion should  be  such  as  not  to  obliterate  that 
distinction,  so  as  to  enable  the  Legislature,  un- 
der the  guise  and  under  the  name  of  joint  reso- 
lutions, to  do  this  thing  which  we  only 
mean  shall  be  done  with  solemnity,  and  in  the 
form  prescribed  for  the  passage  of  a statute 
law.  I think  you  need  but  to  look  over  the 
joint  resolutions  that  are  passed  by  the  Legis- 
lature, at  almost  any  session,  to  find  instances 
where  that  has  been  done,  under  the  form  of 
joint  resolutions,  which,  if  it  should  continue 
to  be  done,  would  be  an  abuse  gross  enough  to 
subvert  the  entire  policy  which  you  are  seeking 
to  incorporate  into  this  Constitution ; and  by 
means  of  which  you  propose  to  furnish  protec- 
tion againstthis  species  of  legislation,  by  which 
great  abuses  creep  in;  by  which  the  public 
moneys  are  subverted  to  improper  purposes; 
by  which  men  are  no  longer  held  to  their  trusts, 
but  are  able  to  bend  or  otherwise  seduce  mem- 
bers from  the  true  line  of  their  duty. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I understood  the  gentleman  to 
say,  that  the  distinction  between  a joint  resolu- 
tion and  a law,  is,  that  one  is  temporary,  and 
the  other  permanent  in  its  effect. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  think  I did  say  that ; 
but  I said  that  Blackstone’s  distinction  between 
a rule  which  is  permanent — something  more 
than  temporary  and  transient  in  its  application 
— and  which  he  says  is  municipal  law,  and  that 
which  is  only  an  order,  transient  and  temporary 
in  its  operation.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is 
ample  scope  for  the  use  of  joint  resolutions 
outside  of  that  which  is  distinguished  in  the 
books  as  municipal  law. 

Mr.  ROOT,  If  I understand  the  gentleman, 
I would  like  to  inquire  whether  he  deems — 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man’s time  is  up. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  It  occurs  to  me  that  the 
language  of  the  Pennsylvania  provision  is  pref- 
erable to  that  embraced  in  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  the  delegate  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitch- 
cock]. I would  be  glad  to  hear  that  read  once 
more. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“All  enactments  of  law  shall  be  by  bill.  Bills  may  orig- 
inate in  either  House,  but  may  be  altered,  amended  or  re- 
jected in  the  other.” 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I move  to  amend  the 
amendment  by  inserting  these  words:  “No 

law  shall  be  passed  except  by  bill.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  I may  be  allowed,  I 
shall  accept  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner].  It  will  remove  all 
question  as  to  the  form  of  the  amendment. 

Upon  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Scribner,  as  ac- 
cepted by  Mr.- Hitchcock,  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  ordered,  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas 
50,  nays  11,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Beer,  Bishop,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  De 
Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Greene,  Hitchcock, 


Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  Layton,  Mc- 
Bride, McCormick,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Mullen,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell,  Root,  Russell 
of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scofield,  Scribner, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Towns- 
lev,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler, Yan  Yoorhis, Waddle, 
Watson,  Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign — 50. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Blose,  Doan,  Hale,  Herron, 
Neal,  Pond,  Pratt,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Yoris, 
West— 11. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  Secretary  read  section  sixteen,  as  fol- 
lows : 

“Sec.  16.  Every  bill  shall  be  fully  and  distinctly  read 
on  three  different  days,  unless,  in  case  of  urgency,  three- 
fourths  of  the  members  elected  to  the  House  in  which  it 
shall  be  pending,  shall,  by  a vote  of  yeas  and  nays,  which 
shall  be  entered  on  the  Journal,  dispense  with  this  rule; 
but  the  reading  of  a bill  on  its  final  passage  shall  in  no 
case  be  dispensed  with.  No  bill  shall  contain  more  than 
one  subject,  which  shall  be  clearly  expressed  in  its  title; 
and  no  law  shall  be  revived  or  amended,  unless  the  new 
act  contain  the  entire  act  revived  or  the  section  or  sec- 
tions amended;  and  the  section  or  sections  so  amended 
shall  be  repealed.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I move  that  the  section 
which  was  printed  under  my  motion  last  eve- 
ning be  added  as  an  addition  to  section  sixteen. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“No  law  shall  go  into  effect  earlier  than  the  ninetieth 
day  after  the  terminati  >n  of  the  session  of  the  Legisla- 
ture at  which  it  was  enacted,  unless  by  a subsequent  vote 
of  two-thirds  of  each  House  some  earlier  day  may  be 
specified;  and  no  law  shall  apply  to  proceedings  in  a 
suit  pending  at  the  time  of  the  passage  thereof.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  This  amendment  proposes 
two  important  principles  to  be  incorporated 
into  this  section.  One  is  with  reference  to  the 
time  when  a law  takes  effect  after  it  is  passed 
by  the  Legislature.  The  other  is  to  prevent  a 
matter  which  is  often  a subject  of  great  com- 
plaint, namely,  that  a law  is  amended  or 
adopted  by  the  Legislature  that  changes  the 
mode  of  proceedings  in  a case  then  pending, 
and  defeats  a person’s  right  of  action.  Both  of 
these  matters  are  of  great  importance,  and  are 
often  complained  of,  and  should  be  corrected  by 
this  Convention. 

A law  takes  effect  immediately  upon  its  pas- 
sage, and  very  frequently  it  is  a matter  of  great 
injustice  to  some  portions  of  our  community  in 
regard  to  a law  being  passed  and  taking  effect 
before  it  is  known  to  the  person  who  is  sub- 
jected to  it.  It  is  proposed  by  this  section  that 
it  shall  be  delayed  ninety  days  before  it  shall 
take  effect.  Some  time  should  be  allowed,  in 
every  case,  before  a law  comes  into  operation, 
that  every  person  may  become  acquainted  with 
the  fact  that  such  a law  exists.  It  is  proposed 
here  to  make  it  ninety  days.  I think  ninety 
days  is  proper.  The  Legislature  will  generally 
adjourn  some  time  in  April,  and  the  laws  go 
into  effect  in  July  or  August. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Would  the  gentleman  have  that 
limitation  extended  to  the  operation  of  bills 
making  appropriations? 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I do  not  see  any  exception ; but 
it  strikes  me  the  gentleman  could  hardly  have 
contemplated  that. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  think  it  should 
apply  to  the  operation  of  such  laws.  Perhaps, 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  7,  1874.]  Powell,  Mueller,  Watson,  Tuttle,  Scribner. 


1177 


it  would  be  well  to  put  in  an  exception  with 
regard  to  the  operation  of  acts  appropriating 
money;  but  I do  insist  upon  it,  that  from  my 
experience  for  many  years,  and  the  complaints 
from  the  people  in  various  parts  of  the  State, 
that  a law  had  been  passed  and  put  in  force  be- 
fore the  persons  affected  by  it  were  aware  that 
such  a law  had  been  passed,  they  had  violated 
it,  and  were  made  subject  to  some  sanction,  be- 
cause they  had  done  something  contrary  to  law, 
of  which  they  were  not  advised;  because  it 
went  into  effect  so  soon  after  its  passage  that 
they  had  no  opportunity  of  knowing  its  exist- 
ence. This  amendment  contains  a provision  in 
it,  that  by  a vote  of  the  General  Assembly,  an 
act  may  take  effect  as  the  Legislature  may  di- 
rect; and  this  would  obviate  the  question  put 
to  me  by  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]. 
But,  I think  it  would  be  well  also  to  amend  it 
by  putting  the  exception  in  as  to  appropria- 
tions in  this  amendment,  that  it  may  take  effect 
by  a resolution  of  the  Assembly.  Another 
thing  is  provided  for  in  this  resolution — a mat- 
ter that  has  been  frequently  complained  of — 
A person  brings  an  action  to  recover  some  right 
that  is  due  him  at  the  time,  and  that  depends 
upon  the  mode  of  proceeding  or  the  evidence  in 
the  case.  A lawyer  on  the  opposite  side  is,  per- 
haps, elected  to  the  Legislature,  and  immedi- 
ately gets  the  Legislature  to  pass  a law  to  alter 
the  rule  of  evidence,  or  the  mode  of  proceeding, 
in  order  to  defeat  that — this  very  thing  of 
members  of  the  Legislature  procuring  the  pas- 
sage of  a law  altering  the  proceedings  in  a case, 
or  the  evidence  in  a case  for  the  purpose  of 
defeating  a suit  that  has  been  brought.  That 
has  been  frequently  done  in  Ohio.  Those  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  who  have  been  members 
of  the  Legislature,  know  that  is  the  case.  I, 
therefore,  think  that  this  amendment  should  be 
adopted  as  a part  of  section  sixteen.  I would 
propose  an  amendment,  after  the  word  “ speci- 
fied” in  the  third  line,  insert  “ except  laws  ap- 
propriating money.  ” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  will  then 
read : “ No  laws  shall  go  into  effect  earlier  than 
ninety  days  after  the  end  of  the  session  of  the 
Legislature  at  which  they  are  enacted,  unless 
by  a subsequent  vote  of  two-thirds  of  each 
House,  some  earlier  day  may  be  specified,  except 
laws  appropriating  money.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  asked  the  amendment 
to  be  put  in  the  wrong  place.  I ask  that  these 
words  be  in  the  line  after  the  word  “ enacted” 
in  the  second  line. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  suggest  that  the 
amendment  be  inserted  after  the  word  “ law”  in 
the  first  line. 

Mr.  WATSON.  Let  us  get  the  amendment  in 
its  proper  place,  and  then  have  it  read,  for  I 
think  there  is  great  merit  in  it.  I think  the 
proper  place  is  after  the  word  “law”  in  the 
first  line. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  say  “ no  law,  ex- 
cept such  as  appropriates  money,  shall  go  into 
effect  &c.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  section  as  proposed  to  be  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“No  law,  except  such  as  appropriates  money,  shall  go 
into  effect  earlier  than  ninety  days  after  the  term  of  the 
session  of  the  Legislature  at  which  it  was  enacted,  unless 


by  a subsequent  vote  ol  two-thirds  of  each  House  some 
earlier  day  may  be  specified;  and  no  law  shall  apply  to 
the  proceedings  in  any  suit  pending  at  the  time  ot  the 
passage  thereof.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I accept  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment  as  now  amended. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  inquire  whether 
this  is  not  divisible.  There  are  two  proposi- 
tions. One  in  relation  to  the  time  when  laws 
shall  go  into  operation,  and  another  in  relation 
to  what  they  may  be  made  applicable;  and 
while  I am  inclined  to  think  the  first  provision 
beneficial,  I should  have  very  strong  objections 
to  the  last  clause  in  its  present  shape.  I move 
to  strike  out  from  the  amendment  as  proposed, 
all  that  follows  after  the  word  “specified”  in 
the  third  line. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I should  regret  very  much 
to  see  this  stricken  out.  In  the  last  clause  of 
this  section  consists  the  great  merit,  or  one  of 
the  merits  of  the  provision.  It  has  been  the 
habit,  for  many  years,  of  gentlemen  getting 
into  the  Legislature  to  legislate  their  cases,  and 
to  change  remedies,  and  the  rule  of  evidence. 
The  object  of  this  is  to  establish  a stability  in 
practice,  something  that  we  may  rely  on.  A 
man  quietly  sitting  in  his  office,  intending  no 
harm,  may  find  himself  legislated  out  of  his 
case,  by  a mischievous  politician,  who  happens 
to  be  nominally  a lawyer  and  gets  into  the  Leg- 
islature, and  for  this  reason,  I regard  this  as  a 
kind  of  sheet-anchor;  as  one  of  the  things  we 
should  adhere  to.  I should  extremely  regret 
to  see  it  stricken  out.  It  is  one  of  the  great 
merits  of  this  provision,  and  I do  not  know 
anything  that  has  been  proposed  in  this  Con- 
vention that  contains  more  merit  than  this  sim- 
ple little  thing  in  these  four  lines.  It  contains 
within  the  four  lines  a merit  that  will  chal- 
lenge comparison  with  anything  that  has  been 
offered  in  this  Convention. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I find  myself  compelled  to 
disagree  with  the  gentleman  from  Huron  [Mr. 
Watson],  for  whose  opinion  I have  very  great 
respect.  I agree  with  him  that  much  vicious 
legislation  has  been  done  in  the  manner  pointed 
out  by  him.  It  has  been  too  often  the  case  that 
acts,  having  reference  to  some  pending  action, 
have  gone  through  the  Legislature.  The  rem- 
edy for  that  should  be  found  in  the  supervisory 
action  of  the  proper  Committees  of  the  respective 
Houses.  With  the  clause  proposed  to  be  stricken 
out  retained  in  this  amendment,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  change  the  law  regulating  the 
practice  in  our  courts,  in  any  respect,  so  as  to 
reach  pending  cases.  For  instance,  if  a law 
were  passed  abolishing  second  trials  in  our 
courts,  the  result  would  be  that,  as  to  all  cases 
pending,  second  trials  would,  nevertheless,  be 
had.  If  a law  were  passed  directing  that  the 
supreme  court  should  be  relieved  of  the  duty  of 
considering  mere  questions  of  fact,  or  from  re- 
viewing the  findings  of  a jury  upon  rnereques- 
tions  of  fact,  as  to  the  mass  of  cases  pending  in 
the  several  courts  of  the  State,  it  would  be  ut- 
terly inoperative.  It  would  be  impossible,  as  to 
pending  cases,  with  this  provision  adopted,  to 
relieve  the  supreme  court,  in  any  respect,  of 
any  portion  of  the  burden  which  now  devolves 
i upon  it. 

If  the  practice  act  were  so  far  modified  as  to 
| relieve  the  supreme  court  of  the  necessity  o 


|"L08th 


1178 THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Scribner,  Cunningham,  West,  Beer,  Watson,  Powell,  etc. 


considering  whether  petitions  in  error  should 
he  filed  in  that  court,  as  to  the  pending  cases, 
it  would  be  impossible  to  relieve  the  court  of 
that  burden  and  duty.  I might  go  on  and  enu- 
merate a great  many  cases  in  which  it  might 
be  very  desirable  to  change  and  modify  our 
practice,  but  where  the  legislation  would  be 
wholly  ineffectual  with  this  provision  adopted. 
I might  instance  in  criminal  cases,  a statute 
that  has  been  in  force  for  the  last  five  or  six 
years,  allowing  criminals  to  testify  in  their  own 
behalf.  With  a provision  of  this  character 
adopted,  such  an  enactment  might  be  held  not 
to  apply  to  criminal  cases  pending.  Although 
I have  no  doubt  that  a great  deal  of  good  would 
be  accomplished  by  preventing  the  vicious  sys- 
tem of  legislation  which  my  friend  has  referred 
to,  I think  the  disadvantages  would  very  far 
outweigh  the  advantages;  and,  therefore,  I feel 
myself  compelled  to  oppose  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell.] 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Speaking  of  the  pas- 
sage of  the  amendment  to  the  criminal  code 
allowing  persons  charged  with  crime  to  testify, 
I would  ask  if  that  law  was  not  procured  for 
the  simple  purpose  of  cases  then  pending? 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I think  not. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I am  so  informed — 
that  it  was  passed  for  the  purpose  of  permitting 
an  individual  who  was  indicted  for  manslaugh- 
ter or  murder  committed  in  this  house. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I have  some  knowledge  of 
the  history  of  that  legislation,  and  although  it 
may  have  been  supported  by  the  friends  of  the 
accused  party  in  that  case,  and  I believe  it  was 
favored  by  the  friends  of  that  party,  I am  very 
confident  that  the  introduction  and  support  of 
the  measure  had  nothing  to  do  with  that  case. 
The  bill  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  by  my 
present  partner,  Frank  H.  Hurd,  and  its  pas- 
sage was  urged  by  him,  and  was  eventually  se- 
cured by  him;  and  I am  very  certain  that  he 
had  no  reference,  in  insisting  upon  its  passage, 
to  the  case  that  has  been  referred  to  here. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  that  provi- 
sion had  been  urged  at  one  or  two  sessions  be- 
fore it  passed  ? 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I believe  that  was  the  case. 

Mr.  BEER.  I introduced  the  bill  myself  the 
winter  before. 

Mr.  WATSON.  This  is  a matter  that  I re- 
gard of  too  much  importance  to  make  a strug- 
gle over.  I have  no  desire,  as  far  as  I am  con- 
cerned, to  impress  anything  upon  this  provision  ; 
but  I do  regard  it  as  a matter  of  importance, 
and  I think  that  we  ought  to  work  out  of  it 
something  of  benefit  to  the  Convention.  If 
there  is  anything  that  the  gentleman  from  Lu- 
cas [Mr.  Scribner],  can  do  to  modify  it,  I trust 
he  will  do  it. 

Mr  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a 
suggestion  ? 

Mr.  WATSON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  I doubt  whether  we  can  throw 
that  provision  into  shape  in  which  it  will  be 
safe  while  sitting  here  in  the  Convention.  If 
there  is  an  amendment  offered,  it  should  be  re- 
committed when  the  Article  is  recommitted  to 
the  Committee,  to  see  if  anything  can  be 
worked  out  of  it.  Sitting  here,  I doubt  whether 
we  can  get  anything  that  is  entirely  safe.  It  is 


[Saturday, 


of  too  much  importance  entirely  to  go  through 
hastily. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I think  so  myself.  I think 
it  outfit  not  to  go  through  hastily ; but  it  ought 
to  be  matured. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Lu- 
cas [Mr.  Scribner],  state  whether  it  would  not 
satisfy  his  ideas  to  add  to  the  end  of  it  these 
words,  “so  as  to  change  the  right  of  action  ?’* 
It  is  the  action,  not  the  principle. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  So  as  to  take  away  the  right 
of  action. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is,  that  we  shall  not  pass 
any  law  so  as  to  change  the  right  of  action. 

Mr.  PAGE.  That  will  take  away  the  whole 
effect  of  it.  It  would  be  worth  nothing  with 
that  amendment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  it  read  this  way ; “No 
law  shall  apply  to  a proceeding  in  a suit  pend- 
ing at  the  time  of  the  passage  thereof  so  as  to 
change  the  right  of  action.” 

Mr.  HORTON.  I want  to  make  a suggestion. 
1 think  we  ought  to  have,  somewhere  in  the 
Constitution,  a provision  of  a law  regarding  a 
crime  should  not  relieve  a party,  who  had  pre- 
viously committed  a crime,  of  his  liability.  I 
do  not  know  whether  this  is  the  proper  place  to 
put  it  in  or  not. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I think,  Mr.  President,  that 
that  thing,  as  it  now  stands  on  the  statutes,  is 
fully  established.  I think  there  is  no  trouble 
on  this  subject.  The  report  of  the  cases  will 
convince  my  friend  that,  in  so  far  as  criminals 
are  concerned,  there  is  no  trouble,  and  there  is 
no  need  of  further  provision.  I would  say  that  it 
is  a matter  in  which  we  are  so  deeply  interested 
that  I would  be  very  glad  to  have  the  co-opera- 
tion of  all,  that  we  might  get  it  up  in  proper 
shape,  and,  if  it  is  necessary,  to  make  a fur- 
ther provision  in  relation  to  criminals,  let  it  be 
done. 

Mr.  HORTON.  They  have  trouble  in  other 
States,  frequently. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I think  hardly  in  Ohio.  I 
think  the  matter  is  sufficiently  established  by  a 
provision  of  the  law. 

Mr.  HORTON.  We  want  to  put  it  in  the  Con- 
stitution. 

Mr.  WATSON.  It  is  sufficiently  provided 
for  in  the  law.  It  may  be  that,  so  far  as  that  is 
concerned,  it  would  be  better  to  be  settled  bjT  a 
provision  in  the  fundamental  law.  If  that  be 
so,  I am  ready  to  co-operate  with  the  gentleman; 
but  I think  this  other  matter  is  a thing  of  so 
much  importance  that  we  should  all  agree,  and 
act  upon  a provision  that  will  be  satisfactory. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  no  doubt  there  have 
been  abuses  such  as  have  been  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Huron  [Mr.  Watson]  and  that 
a wise  provision  might  be  made  in  the  Constitu- 
tion to  remedy  them.  But  I feel  very  much  in 
accord  with  the  sentiment  expressed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  upon  this 
subject:  that  whatever  might  be  done  in  that 
direction,  cannot  well  be  done  here.  I think  it 
ought  to  be  the  result  of  the  careful  considera- 
tion in  the  Committee,  and  I hope  the  matter 
will  take  that  turn;  but,  as  I suppose  it  is  in 
order  and  with  a view  to  suggest  some  things 
which  I think  ought  to  have  the  consideration 
I of  the  Committee,  and  which  ought  to  be  re- 
l ferred  to  them,  I shall  add  a few  words  in  addi- 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


1179 


Day.] 

February  7,  1874.] 


Tuttle. 


tion  to  what  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman 
from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner]. 

There  are  very  many  things  which  would 
come  within  the  provisions  of  this  Constitution, 
as  it  now  is,  which  1 do  not  think  the  gentleman 
from  Huron  [Mr.  Watson]  would  decide  to 
exclude.  Many  things  in  the  same  line,  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner],  remedies  provided,  for  instance,  in 
relation  to  the  impanelling  of  juries,  and  afford- 
ing safeguards  to  parties.  Many  such  have 
been  adopted  recently.  They  are  constantly 
being  provided.  Whenever  experience  points 
out  the  necessity  of  a new  provision,  it  is  the 
proper  province  of  the  Legislature  to  enact 
them,  and  nobody  can  be  harmed  by  their  ap- 
plication to  a cause  pending  at  the  time  of  in- 
troducing the  remedy,  any  more  than  by  their 
application  to  suits  brought  afterwards.  There- 
fore, 1 think  that  parties  in  suits  pendingought, 
in  such  cases,  to  have  the  benefit  of  such  reme- 
dies, though  one  party  or  the  other  might  ob- 
ject, just  as  much  as  in  another  suit  that  is 
atterwards  commenced.  And  there  are  some 
further  things,  Mr.  President,  I want  to  sug- 
gest in  that  direction,  which,  if  the  Committee 
should  take  under  consideration,  I hope  they 
will  consider. 

I might  say,  however,  in  relation  to  the  crim- 
inal statute  referred  to,  that  was  suggested  and 
passed  for  the  benefit  or  at  the  instance  of  some 
person  indicted  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  that 
if  that  was  so,  I do  not  see  what  there  was  in 
it  that  would  militate  against  the  view  expressed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner]. 
If  the  man  had  already  been  indicted  in  the 
city  of  Cincinnati,  and  it  was  known  by  his 
friends  that  be  could  give  very  material  evi- 
dence sustaining  his  innocence,  and  the  Legis- 
lature and  the  public  were  agreed  that  it  ought 
to  be  the  privilege  of  the  accused  party  to 
testify  in  his  own  favor,  I cannot  see  why  any 
man,  satisfied  of  his  innocence,  and  of  his  ina- 
bility thoroughly  to  manifest  it  without  his 
own  testimony,  should  not  be  justified  to  urge 
upon  the  Legislature  the  enactment  of  a rule 
which  all  pronounce  desirable  and  safe,  al- 
though it  might  be  material  to  his  defense,  and 
although  it  might  be  the  only  means  of  saving 
him  from  the  gallows.  I do  not  see  how  the 
urgency  of  the  case  could  make  any  difference 
in  the  world. 

But  beyond  what  is  suggested  with  regard  to 
mere  modes  of  proceeding,  I think  there  are 
other  considerations  that  ought  to  receive  the 
attention  of  the  Committee  or  of  the  Conven- 
tion, if  it  shall  act  upon  it  without  reference. 
For  instance.  I have  before  me  a statute  that 
was  made  in  1851,  entitled  “An  act  for  the  relief 
of  sureties  in  certain  cases.”  Turn  to  the  third 
section  of  it,  if  you  have  any  notion  of  consult- 
ing it,  and  you  will  find  it  is  made  especially 
applicable  to  suits  pending,  and  if  you  turn  to 
the  report  of  the  case  of  Atcheson  vs.  Miller, 
reported  in  the  Eighteenth  Ohio  Reports,  and 
then  turn  to  the  case  of  the  same  parties,  re- 
ported is  the  Second  Ohio  State  Reports,  and 
he  case  of  Gilbert  vs.  Sutliff,  in  the  Third  Ohio 
State  Reports,  you  will  find  that  that  law  was 
very  likely  made  for  the  express  purpose  of 
affecting  a suit  that  was  then  pending.  That  it 
was  the  only  means,  indeed,  by  which  the 


parties  were  enabled,  in  their  own  favor,  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  most  undoubted  justice, 
in  their  own  behalf,  and  against  the  decisions 
of  the  supreme  court,  which  statute  was  never- 
theless so  just  that  no  man  has  ever  lifted  his 
voice  against  it  since,  or  attempted  to  repeal  it, 
and  so  just  that,  while  it  was  assailed  as  un- 
constitutional in  the  supreme  court,  the  judges 
of  that  court  expressed  their  approval  of  the 
principles  that  were  involved  in  it,  and  as  ap- 
plicable to  the  case  before  them. 

Again,  we  have  in  this  proposition,  as  we 
have  in  our  present  Constitution,  this  provis- 
ion, and  I trust  it  will  be  retained  here : 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  have  no  power  to  pass  re- 
troactive laws,  or  laws  impairing  the'obligations  of  con- 
tracts, but  may,  by  general  laws,  authorize  courts  to 
carry  into  effect  upon  such  terms  as  shall  be  just  and 
equitable,  the  manifest  intention  of  parties  and  officers, 
by  curing  omissions,  defects,  and  errors,  in  instruments 
and  proceedings  arising  out  of  their  want  of  conformity 
to  the  laws  of  this  State.” 

If  gentlemen  should  turn,  as  they  very  likely 
have  no  need  to  turn,  to  the  case  of  Purcell  vs. 
Goshorn,  reported  in  the  Nineteenth  Ohio  Re- 
ports, they  will  find  a case  in  which  it  was  de- 
termined that,  under  the  then  existing  laws, 
the  complainant  in  that  suit  had  no  remedy. 
His  complaint  was  that  he  had  bought  a piece 
of  land  owned  in  the  right  of  a married  woman, 
and  that  this  married  woman,  in  conjunction 
with  her  husband,  had  undertaken  to  convey 
that  land  to  him',  but,  by  mistake,  the  deed  was 
said  to  be  inoperative  as  against  the  wife.  And 
under  the  law  of  the  State,  as  it  was  then,  the 
supreme  court  determined  that  he  had  no  rights 
against  the  title  of  the  wife.  After  this  present 
Constitution,  however,  was  adopted,  the  Legis- 
lature, in  looking  at  the  state  of  the  case,  in 
1857,  passed  a statute  exactly  meeting  the  claim 
of  Bishop  Purcell  in  that  case,  and,  under  that 
statute,  he  instituted  a suit  against  the  husband 
and  wife,  and  the  courts  of  this  county,  and, 
afterward,  the  supreme  court  of  the  State,  de- 
termined that,  notwithstanding  the  decision 
against  him  in  the  supreme  court,  in  the  first 
instance,  and  notwithstanding  the  defect  of  the 
law  which,  it  was  acknowledged,  existed  at  that 
time,  yet  that,  by  the  operation  of  this  constitu- 
tional provision,  together  with  the  statute  I 
have  referred  to,  he  had  a right  of  action,  and  a 
right  to  perfect  the  deed,  which,  by  mistake, 
had,  so  far,  been  inoperative,  and  was  entitled 
to  the  simple  justice  of  having  the  bene- 
fit of  that  contract  which  he  had  made  with 
Goshorn  and  his  wife,  and  which  they,  for  a 
long  time,  supposed  they  had  fully  carried  out 
by  their  deed.  Suppose  that  the  defect  in  that 
case  had  been  discovered  before  the  termina- 
tion of  the  first  suit,  and  that  the  Legislature, 
being  authorized  to  do  so  by  the  Constitution, 
had  provided  a law  enabling  the  courts  to  carry 
that  deed  into  effect  just  as  they  afterwards  did; 
I see  no  reason  why  it  should  not  justly  have 
been  made  to  apply  in  that  suit.  Why,  it  should 
have  been  necessary,  for  instance,  that  before 
he  could  have  the  benefit  of  that  law  and  that 
justice  in  his  favor,  it  should  be  necessary  for 
him,  at  great  cost  and  expense,  to  discon- 
tinue all  the  proceedings  in  that  suit,  and  travel 
precisely  the  same  road  over  again  to  accom- 
plish what  he  might  just  as  well  have  accom- 
plished in  the  first  suit.  Under  this  Constitu- 


1180 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [108th 

Tuttle,  Powell,  Root,  Baber,  Scofield,  etc.  [Saturday, 


tion,  the  supreme  court  have  told  us  that  the 
Legislature  have  not  exhausted  their  power  to 
make  provision  for  other  errors.  Cases  may 
again  arise  which  may  need  the  intervention  of 
the  legislative  power.  The  legislative  power 
may  be  exerted  in  their  behalf,  and  if  it  should 
happen  that  any  suits  are  pending  at  the  time 
tnat  should  need  that  intervention,  why  should 
they  not  have  the  benefit  of  it?  Why  should 
the  party  who  has  the  suit  pending  be  obliged 
to  discontinue  that  suit,  pay  all  the  costs  that 
have  been  incurred — attorneys’  fees  and  ex- 
penses of  other  description — and  be  subject  to 
travel  the  ground  over  again,  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  arriving  at  the  same  point,  where  he  can 
avail  himself  of  the  benefit  of  such  legisla- 
tion? 

Mr.  President,  I think  we  should  not  go  so 
far  as  that.  I agree  that  it  is  not  just  that  a 
man  should  be  legislated  out  of  court,  when  he 
has  honestly  and  properly  come  into  court.  I 
doubt  that  you  can  do  it  as  the  Constitution  now 
is,  though  provisions  may  be  made  which  may 
unjustly  embarrass. 

In  any  provision  touching  that  matter,  I 
would  provide  against  any  unreasonable  restric- 
tion or  burden  that  should,  in  effect,  defeat  a 
man  in  the  prosecution  of  any  just  claim.  I 
would  say  that  legislative  acts,  by  which  rights 
are  to  be  created  or  cut  off,  should  not  affect 
proceedings  that  are  pending,  and  should  not 
be  applicable  to  them.  It  seems  to  me  that  if 
it  might  sometimes  prevent  injustice  in  a great 
many  instances,  it  would  cause  a great  deal  of 
injustice  to  be  done. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I am  about  to  make  a motion. 
I shall,  previous  to  making  that  motion,  how- 
ever, say  to  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle],  that  the  reason  in  the  case  of  Purcell 
that  the  decision  was  rendered,  was,  that  he 
had  the  equity  with  him,  and  he  filed  his  bill  in 
equity. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Was  it,  nevertheless,  an 
equity  that  was  utterly  invaluable  at  law  by 
any  known  mode? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Certainly,  but  the  Legislature 
would  not  have  passed  that  law,  if  it  was  not 
for  the  equity  which  helped  him  out. 

I have  consulted  among  the  friends  of  this 
amendment,  and  have  come  to  this  conclusion, 
after  consulting  them,  that  I shall  ask  leave  to 
withdraw  this  for  the  present,  and  we  shall  get 
together  and  shape  it  in  some  such  way  as  it 
will  be  acceptable  to  all  parties  who  are  friendly 
to  it,  until  I bring  it  in  at  some  subsequent 
time. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
will  state,  that  without  general  consent,  it  will 
not  be  possible  to  return  to  this  section,  unless 
the  Convention  should  consent  that  it  be  passed 
over  in  a particular  way. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I ask  that  this  section  be 
passed  over  for  that  purpose,  and  I will  bring 
it  in  at  an  early  day  next  week. 

Mr.  BEER.  Before  this  section  is  passed,  I 
desire  to  offer  an  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

After  the  word  “title”,  in  line  six,  insert  the  following: 
“but  if  any  subject  shall  be  embraced  in  the  act  which 
shall  not  be  expressed  in  the  title,  such  act  shall  be  void 
only  as  to  so  much  thereof  as  shall  not  be  so  expressed.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  I believe  we  have  arrived  at  a 


good  stopping  point.  We  are  not  ready  to  pro- 
ceed in  a matter  of  very  great  importance.  I 
believe  time  as  well  as  reflection  upon  this  sub- 
ject, may  be  secured  by  an  adjournment.  I, 
therefore,  move  that  the  Convention  adjourn. 

Upon  this  question  a division  was  called  for, 
and  being  had,  resulted — affirmative  25,  nega- 
tive 24. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  There  is  no 
quorum  voting. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  Can  we  not  adjourn 
without  a quorum  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  That  is  true, 
but  the  yeas  and  nays  were  called  before  the 
Chair  made  any  announcement. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I object  to  the  call  of  the 
yeas  and  nays. 

The  call  was  sustained. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Would  it  be  in  order 
now  to  demand  a call  of  the  House  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Not  while  a 
motion  to  adjourn  is  pending. 

Upon  the  motion  to  adjourn,  the  yeas  and 
nays  being  taken,  the  yeas  were  30,  nays  31,  as 
follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Bosworth,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Herron, 
Horton,  Kerr,  Layton,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mul- 
len, Page,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sam- 
ple, Scofield,  Scribner,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thomp- 
son, Tuttle,  Van  Yoorhis,  Waddle,  Watson, 
Woodbury — 30. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose, 
Burns,  Coats,  Cook,  Foran,  Greene,  Hale,  Hitch- 
cock, Hostetter,  Humphreville,  McBride,  Mc- 
Cormick, Miller,  Mueller,  Neal,  Phellis,  Pratt, 
Rickly,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Voorhes, 
Yoris,  Weaver,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Wil- 
son, President — 31. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  PRATT.  1 demand  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Roll  was  called  and  fifty-eight  members 
answered  to  their  names,  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats, 
Cook,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Greene, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostet- 
ter, Humphreville,  Kerr,  Layton,  McBride,  Mc- 
Cormick, Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen, 
Neal,  Page,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Rus- 
sell of  Muskingham,  Scofield,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Thompson,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler, 
Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Weaver, 
West,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Woodbury, 
Presiden  [-“58 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  ques- 
tion is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  that  the  sixteenth  sec- 
tion be  passed  informally. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  call  of  the  House  is  still 
pending. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I raise  a point  of  order,  that 
further  proceedings  under  the  call  have  been 
dispensed  with  by  proceeding  to  other  business. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I move  that  all  further 
proceedings  under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Tyler,  Baber,  Clark  of  J.,  Humphreville. 


1181 


Day.] 

February  7,  1874.] 


The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
now  is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I move  the  Convention  ad- 
journ. 

Mr.  BABER.  I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 
Objection  being  made,  the  call  was  sustained, 
fourteen  members  rising  to  second  it. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted — 
yeas  30,  nays  29,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Bos  worth,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats, 
Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Herron, 


Humphreville,  Kerr,  Layton,  McCormick, 
Mitchener,  Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Philips,  Powell, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Sample,  Scofield,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Thompson,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Wood- 
bury, President— 30. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were  — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose, 
Burns,  Cook,  Foran,  Greene,  Hale,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Horton,  Hostetter,  McBride,  Miller,  Muel- 
ler, Phellis,  Pond,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Townsend, 
Tulloss,  Van  Voorhis,  Yoorhes,  Weaver,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson — 29. 

So  the  Convention,  (at  4:  30  p. m.)  adjourned. 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  NINTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FORTY-SEYENTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Eben  Halley,  of  the  Seventh 
Street  Congregational  Church,  Cincinnati. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  76  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Smith,  of  Highland,  for  to-day ; and  for  Mr. 
Philips,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

MEMORIAL  AND  PROTEST. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Jefferson,  presented  the  me- 
morial of  Rev.  H.  Y.  Leiper,  and  124  other  cit- 
izens of  Jefferson  county,  praying  for  such  a 
provision  in  the  Constitution  as  will  indicate 
this  State  to  be  a Christian  Commonwealth. 

Also,  the  protest  of  H.  IJeberling,  and  114 
other  citizens  of  Jefferson  county,  remonstra- 
ting against  the  incorporation  of  religious  opin- 
ions and  beliefs  in  the  Constitution. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS  — APPOINTMENTS  TO 
FILL  VACANCIES. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  desires  the 
Secretary  to  make  a report. 

The  SECRETARY.  The  Chair  reports  the 
following  appointments  to  fill  vacancies  on 
Standing  Committees,  occasioned  by  his  with- 
drawal : 

On  Committee  on  Schedule,  Mr.  Burns. 

On  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department, 
Mr.  Miner. 

On  Committee  on  Revision,  Mr.  Herron. 


Monday,  February  9,  1874. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I move  that  we 
now  proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  before  the 
Convention,  at  the  adjournment  on  Saturday, 
was  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  to  section  16,  and 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull 
[Mr.  Tuttle],  to  strike  out  from  that  amend- 
ment the  last  paragraph.  The  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Delaware  is  as  follows: 
“ No  law,  except  such  as  appropriates  money, 
shall  go  into  effect  earlier  than  the  ninetieth 
day  after  the  termination  of  the  session  of  the 
Legislature  at  which  it  was  enacted,  unless,  by  a 
subsequent  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  House, 
some  earlier  day  may  be  specified  ; and  no  law 
shall  apply  to  proceedings  in  a suit  pending  at 
the  time  of  the  passage  thereof.” 

The  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull 
[Mr.  Tuttle]  is  to  strike  out  “and  no  law 
shall  apply  to  proceedings  in  a suit  pending  at 
the  time  of  the  passage  thereof.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I propose  the  following  as  a 
substitute : 

Amend  section  16  by  adding  to  the  section  the  follow- 
ing: 

‘ No  law,  except  such  as  appropriates  money,  shall  go 
into  effect  until  n nety  days  after  the  passage  thereof,  un- 
less an  earlier  date  shall  be  named  iu  the  bill.  And  no 
law  shall  apply  to  proceedings  in  a suit  pending  at  the 
time  of  the  pas  age  thereof,  so  as  t<*  defeat  the  action  or 
change  the  rights  of  the  parties,  exi  ting  at  the  time  of 
the  commencement  thereof.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  substitute.  Is  the  Convention  ready  for  the 
question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I call  for  the  reading  of  the 
substitute. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 


1182 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [109th 


Hale,  Cunningham,  Humpreville. 


[Monday, 


Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  proposes  to  withdraw 
his  amendment  offered  on  Saturday  and  substi- 
tute what  the  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  proposed  sub- 
stitute. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  will  have  leave  to  withdraw  his 
amendment  and  offer  the  substitute. 

MEMBERS.  “Leave!”  “Leave!” 

Mr.  HALE.  I simply  heard  the  amendment 
read  from  the  Secretary’s  desk ; but  it  strikes 
me  that  the  first  part  of  it  is  wholly  without 
effect.  It  provides  that  a bill,  or  law,  shall  not 
go  into  effect  until  ninety  days  after  its  passage, 
unless  it  be  named  in  the  bill.  Now,  what  is 
that  but  leaving  it  entirely  to  the  discretion  of 
the  General  Assembly  to  name  in  the  bill,  as 
they  now  do,  the  time  when  it  shall  go  into 
effect?  It  is  saying,  that  unless  the  Legisla- 
ture shall  fix  a day  on  which  the  law  shall  go 
into  effect,  it  shall  take  effect  in  ninety  days; 
which  is  leaving  it  wholly  in  the  discretion  of 
the  Legislature  to  say  when  that  bill  shall  go  into 
effect.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  of  so  little  impor- 
tance that  it  ought  not  to  go  into  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

Again,  Mr.  President,  I believe  that  this 
matter  should  be  left  to  legislative  discretion. 
I do  not  believe  that  it  is  of  sufficient  impor- 
tance to  make  it  a constitutional  provision.  We 
leave  it  with  the  Legislature  to  say  what  rem- 
edy is  needed,  and  we  ought  to  leave  it  to  them 
to  say  when  the  remedy  should  go  into  effect. 
I do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  merit  in  that 
branch  of  the  substitute  offered. 

Now,  one  word  in  regard  to  the  balance  of 
that  substitute,  which  provides  that  no  law 
shall  affect  existing  suits.  It  is  claimed  that 
there  is  great  merit  in  that  branch  of  the  sub- 
stitute. I fail  to  see  it.  I do  not  believe  that 
the  experience  of  lawyers  upon  this  floor  will 
accord  with  the  experience  of  the  gentleman 
from  Huron  [Mr.  Watson],  and  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell].  It  may  be  that 
the  very  necessity  for  the  law  may  be  shown  by 
the  suit  that  is  pending;  the  very  want  of  the 
statute  may  grow  out  of  an  existing  suit — 
showing  that  without  the  remedy  that  is  pro- 
posed, great  injustice  will  be  done. 

I call  the  attention  of  gentlemen  here,  to  a 
single  fact.  We  learned,  in  the  discussion  of 
another  Article,  a few  days  since,  that  in  the 
great  northwest,  they  are  in  the  habit  of  ditch- 
ing, and  gentlemen  know  that  the  trustees  of 
townships  and  commissioners  of  counties  are 
empowered  to  lay  out  and  construct  ditches. 
Well,  now,  those  bodies,  not  being  familiar 
with  the  law,  frequently  make  mistakes;  and 
in  the  case  of  some  ditches  constructed  under 
the  statutes  existing,  through  some  defect  in 
the  record,  the  tax  levied  for  the  construction 
of  the  ditches,  could  not  be  collected.  A large 
land  owner  brings  suit  to  restrain  the  collec- 
tion of  the  tax.  What  is  to  be  done?  As  the 
matter  then  stands,  he  is  entitled  to  his  injunc- 
tion, and  the  man  who  has  got  the  benefit  of 
the  ditch,  goes  free  from  any  expense.  That 
very  state  of  things  existed  in  1864.  The  Leg- 
islature passed  a statute  remedying  that  defect 
and  providing  simply  that  in  this  class  of  cases, 
the  Court  before  whom  the  case  was  pending, 
should  not,  by  injunction,  restrain  the  collec- 


tion of  the  tax ; but  should  set  aside  the  pro- 
ceedings by  which  the  tax  was  levied,  take 
jurisdiction  of  the  case,  and  make  such  orders 
in  the  premises  as  were  equitable  and  just. 
They  paid  what  was  just  and  right  and  made 
the  man  who  had  received  the  benefit  of  the 
ditch,  pay  that  which  was  equitable  and  right. 
It  simply  provided  the  remedy  that  the  party 
was  entitled  to;  and  it  seems  to  me  just  and 
proper.  And  I believe  that  if  we  could  bring 
before  the  Convention  these  cases  where  the 
power  of  the  Legislature  has  been  called  upon 
to  legislate  in  a way  that  should  affect  existing 
cases,  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a hundred,  it 
has  been  in  furtherance  of  justice  and  against 
injustice.  I do  not  believe,  as  I said  before, 
there  is  any  merit  in  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  and  I 
should  regret  to  see  it  adopted. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  As  I understand  it, 
the  object  to  be  effected  by  the  clause  that  is 
first  objected  to,  by  the  gentleman  from  Lorain 
[Mr.  Hale],  is  this:  commonly,  the  rule  is  that 
unless  otherwise  provided  lor  in  the  bill,  it 
shall  take  effect  from  and  after  its  passage. 
That  is  the  general,  common  law  rule;  the  ex- 
ception is,  that  it  may  be  provided  in  the  bill 
that  the  law  shall  take  effect  at  some  other 
time. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I suppose  the 
gentleman  is  aware  that,  under  the  statutes  of 
this  State,  when  no  time  is  fixed,  a law  takes 
effect  on  the  1st  day  of  May  following  its 
passage. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes ; there  is  a rule  to 
that  effect,  but  is  it  a rule  fixed  by  statute. 
This  provides  a specific  time ; no  matter  when 
passed,  the  time  shall  be  ninety  days.  It  is  a 
modification  of  our  present  law. 

Mr.  HALE.  The  statute  we  have  now  is  not 
constitutional. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes ; and  the  Legisla- 
ture frequently  runs  into  April,  and  close  to 
May.  If  I mistake  not,  in  the  last  twenty 
years,  it  has  run  into  May,  so  that, substantially, 
little  is  accomplished  by  the  rule.  Now,  that 
which  is  sought  by  the  gentleman  from  Dela- 
ware [Mr.  Powell]  is,  that  unless  the  Legisla- 
ture, which,  of  course,  will  be  governed  by  fit 
reasons,  provides  specifically  that  the  law  shall 
go  into  effect  before  or  after  that  time,  then,  that 
ninety  days  shall  transpire  from  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  the  bill  until  it  shall  go  into  effect; 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  a wise  provision. 
This  gives  a specific  time,  and  puts  all  laws  on 
an  equal  footing.  It  will  then  be  for  the  member 
of  the  Legislature  introducing  a bill  to  satisfy 
the  Legislature  of  the  propriety  of  a departure 
from  the  general  rule  that  is  provided  for  in  the. 
Constitution. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE.  How  many  billsdoes 
the  gentleman  know  of  that  have  ever  passed 
the  General  Assembly  without  a clause  fixing 
the  time  when  it  shall  take  effect? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  1 never  was  a member 
of  the  Legislature.  1 do  not  know  that  1 ever 
looked  to  find  out.  It  may  be  there  have  been 
ten  in  all,  in  the  history  of  the  State. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I know  of  but  one. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I submit  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  it  does  not  affect  the  principle. 

The  next  objection  that  the  gentleman  makes 


1183 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


February  9, 1874.]  Cunningham,  Hale,  Tuttle,  West. 


is  to  the  last  clause : “ and  no  law  shall  apply  to 
the  proceedings  of  a suit  pending  at  the  time  of 
the  passage  thereof,  so  as  to  defeat, the  action,  or 
change  the  rights  of  the  parties,  existing  at  the 
time  of  the  change  thereof.”  Why,  that  is  the 
assertion  of  a principle  that  runs  throughout 
our  legislation,  in  so  far  as  property  rights  are 
affected.  Why,  I may  purchase  a piece  of  land 
at  a tax  sale,  and,  if  I did  it  at  a certain  period 
in  the  history  of  this  State,  the  lapse  of  a period 
of  seven  years  would  have  settled  every  ques- 
tion of  right  that  might  have  grown  out  of  that 
proceeding.  Undoubtedly,  sir,  except  the  rights 
of  minor  heirs. 

Mr.  HALE.  Do  you  mean  tax  sale? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir;  by  the  act 
of  1849. 

Mr.  HALE.  That  was  under  a judicial  sale. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir,  and  a tax 
sale.  I had  a case  of  that  sort.  1 know  I took 
advantage  of  the  application  of  the  rule  to  the 
case. 

I want  to  know  why  you  shall  not  protect  the 
rights  of  persons  who  go  into  court,  relying 
upon  their  rights  at  the  commencement  of  the 
action  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner], 
on  Saturday,  submitted  a criticism  upon  the 
original  amendment  proposed  here,  the  force  of 
which  the  author  of  this  proposition  and  other 
gentlemen,  who  looked  with  favor  upon  it,  con- 
ceded, and  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell],  withdrew  it  in  order  to  meet  the  crit- 
icism then  made. 

Now,  this,  as  I understand  it,  remedies  the  ob- 
jection. It  simply  provides  that  no  one  shall 
go  into  the  Legislature,  pending  a suit,  and 
procure  legislation  by  which  his  case  is  im- 
proved, and  his  opponent’s  interfered  with. 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HALE.  Does  the  gentleman  mean  to 
say,  that  under  the  Constitution  as  it  stands,  this 
statute  of  1849  could  be  changed  by  the  Legis- 
lature, so  as  to  affect  the  rights  acquired  un- 
der it  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
repeat  his  question  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  under 
that  statute  of  1849,  it  would  be  competent  for 
the  Legislature  to  affect  the  rights  of  parties  by 
legislation  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Why,  they  did ; and 
it  was  recognized  and  enforced  by  the  courts. 
The  statute  of  1849,  provided  for  settling  the 
question  of  title  and  limiting  the  rights  of  par- 
ties to  seven  years  from  the  time  the  right  of 
action  accrued. 

Mr.  HALE.  Now,  the  point  I want  to  get  at 
is  this : supposing  that  after  the  seven  years  are 
passed,  the  Legislature  should  repeal  that  law, 
would  your  rights  be  determined  under  the  law 
repealed  or  as  it  existed  after  that  was  re- 
pealed ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Under  the  law  that 
was  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  purchase,  or  ju- 
dicial sale,  or  whatever  it  might  be — of  course. 

Mr.  HALE.  Then  you  would  not  have  it 
affect  a sale  of  that  kind  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Notatall,sir.  I wish 


to  have  all  legislation  carried  on  on  that  prin- 
ciple. 

Mr.  President,  within  my  own  personal  ex- 
perience, in  a suit  in  which  I was  interested  as 
attorney,  it  was  sought,  deliberately,  to  legislate 
me  out  of  court;  and  we  are,  to-day,  trying  its 
force  and  effect  in  the  supreme  court  on  writ  of 
error.  We  are  trying  the  force  and  effect  of  the 
bill  that  was  passed  and  intended  to  affect  the 
rights  of  my  clients  in  a railroad  case. 

Mr.  POND.  In  1866  the  Legislature  passed 
an  act  fixing  it  substantially  in  the  form  as  now 
in  the  statutes.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me, 
I will  read  it  as  it  is  only  a few  lines : 

“Whenever  a statute  is  repealed  or  amended,  such  re- 
peal or  amendment  shall  in  no  manner  affect  pending 
actions,  prosecutions  or  proceedi  gs,  civil  or  criminal; 
nor  causes  of  such  acti  *n,  prosecution  or  proce  ding,  ex- 
isting at  the  time  of  such  amendment  or  repeal,  unless 
otherwise  expressly  provided  in  the  amending  or  repeal- 
ing act.” 

That  stands  as  the  law  now. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Suppose  the  Legisla- 
ture, to-morrow,  concludes  to  repeal  that  law, 
and  so  you  go  on,  ad  infinitum.  If  the  princi- 
ple upon  which  this  law  is  founded  is  a proper 
one,  and  it  is,  let  us  incorporate  it  into  the  fun- 
damental law. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? The  proposition  now  made  is  that 
the  Legislature  shall  have  no  power,  as  I under- 
stand, to  make  the  law  apply  to  proceedings 
that  are  pending : is  it  not  so  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Oh,  no.  It  is,  that  it 
shall  have  no  power  to  make  it  apply  so  as  to 
change  the  rights  of  parties  as  they  were  exist- 
ing at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  the 
suit.  They  may  change,  for  example,  the  rule 
of  evidence;  but  they  shall  not  affect  rights  as 
they  existed  at  the  time  of  the  commencemen 
of  the  suit. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Del- 
aware [Mr.  Powell],  in  place  of  the  amend- 
ment offered  on  Saturday  and  withdrawn  by 
consent  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  WEST.  On  last  Saturday  evening  this 
matter  was  up,  and  I had  occasion  to  suggest 
then,  that,  from  my  information  on  the  subject,  I 
doubted  whether  the  proposition  could  be  put  in 
a definite  form  so  as  to  be  satisfactory,  during 
the  hubbub  and  excitement  of  the  Convention; 
and  I subsequently,  in  private  conversation,  ex- 
pressed very  great  doubt  whether  it  could  be 
put  in  a form  to  be  satisfactory.  I have  given 
the  subject  thought  since  then,  and  I am  satis- 
fied that  we  ought  not  to  incorporate  the  prop- 
osition, as  it  now  stands,  into  the  Constitution, 
for  this  reason  : It  is  perfectly  clear  that,  under 
the  existing  provisions  of  the  old  Constitution, 
which  are  certain  to  remain  unchanged,  the 
Legislature  can  have  no  power  to  pass  any  law 
affecting  the  rights  of  parties — vested  rights. 
That  is  perfectly  well  settled.  The  only  power 
the  General  Assembly  shall  have,  goes  to  the 
remedy  in  furtherance  of  what  is  right, and  the 
enforcement  of  existing  right,  so  to  speak. 
Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  power  ought  not  to  be 
taken  away  from  the  General  Assembly.  If  an 
individual  have  a right  which  it  is  just  should 
be  enforced,  but  the  remedies  provided  by  the 
Legislature  are  insufficient  to  enable  him  to  en- 
force or  secure  that  right,  is  there  any  reason 


1184 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

West,  Cunningham,  Tuttle,  Burns,  Powell. 


[109th 

[Monday, 


why  the  Legislature  shall  not  pass  a law  per- 
fecting his  remedy,  and  enabling  justice  to  be 
done?  It  seems  to  me  not,  although  the  right 
is  an  existing  one.  Hence,  the  general  princi- 
ple is  correct,  that  the  law-making  power  which 
provides  the  remedy  ought,  at  all  times,  to  be 
able  to  pass  such  laws  as  will  perfect  the  rem- 
edy, or  provide  such  remedies  as  will  secure  the 
right. 

Well,  now,  it  is  said  that  if  a suit  is  com- 
menced, any  legislation  tending  to  secure  the 
enjoyments  of  right  in  that  suit,  ought  not  to  be 
made  applicable  to  it.  Let  us  suppose  a case. 
Yourself  and  I,  each  of  us,  has  a right  which 
is  precisely  the  same.  I am  exceedingly  ambi- 
tious to  bring  suit  to  perfect  my  right,  and,  in 
consequence  of  some  little  defect  in  the  remedy, 
I am  about  to  be  defeated;  the  Legislature 
passes  an  act  perfecting  the  remedy.  I may 
commence  a suit  in  which  it  cannot  be  en- 
forced ; for  it  is  not  made  applicable  to  my  case. 
The  next  day  after  the  law  is  passed,  you  com- 
mence your  suit  with  the  same  right — the  same 
principle  exactly — and  you  can,  after  that,  with 
a little  legislation,  have  your  right  enforced, 
because  you  are  a little  tardy  in  bringing  your 
suit;  but  I must  go  out  of  court,  because  I was 
a little  hasty  in  bringing  mine. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me  a question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I submit  to  the  gen- 
tleman what  sort  of  a system  of  law  it  would 
be  to  permit  an  individual  to  adopt  a principle 
that  would  tolerate  the  idea  that  an  individual 
may  commence  his  suit  without  law,  and  then 
rely  upon  the  Legislature  to  give  him  the  rem- 
edy afterwards? 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  not  claimed  any  such  thing 
as  that.  There  are  such  things,  Mr.  President,  as 
rights  and  remedies,  and  they  are  distinct.  The 
right  is  one  thing;  the  legal  modes  of  pro- 
cedure, by  which  that  right  may  be  enforced  or 
secured  to  the  party  possessing  it,  are  very  dif- 
ferent things.  Now,  it  is  improper  that  any 
authority  should  have  power,  any  tribunal 
should  have  power  to  create  rights  or  to  divest 
rights,  or  destroy  rights.  They  exist  indepen- 
dent of  legislation.  And  if,  by  virtue  of  legis- 
lation, they  have  accrued  and  are  existing 
rights,  the  Legislature  ought  to  have  the  power 
to  destroy  them.  But  the  right  may  often  ex- 
ist and  no  remedy  be  provided.  For  example, 
suppose  that  I had  lent  to  my  friend  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  a ten  dollar  green- 
back— though  I could  not  do  it  now,  until  the 
Legislature  appropriates,  if  I were  disposed 
to — [laughter] — and  the  Legislature  had  failed 
to  provide  a mode  of  bringing  suit  upon  my 
contract  with  the  gentleman  from  Allen.  I 
have  commenced  suit.  Suppose  that  the  reme- 
dies were  sufficient,  but  upon  judicial  investi- 
gation found  that  there  was  some  little  defect 
in  the  law  of  evidence,  that  I could  not  call  the 
gentleman  from  Allen  in  to  testify,  and  the 
laws  do  not  permit  me  to  testify  in  open  court. 
In  private  conversation  the  gentleman  from 
Allen  and  I would  agree  that  he  owed  me  the 
ten  dollars,  but  I could  not  call  him  into  court, 
and  could  not,  by  my  own  testimony  in  court, 
establish  the  indebtedness;  so  I must  go  out  of 
court,  because  I cannot  get  the  proper  testi- 


mony. It  is  an  honest  claim,  a just  claim,  but 
I cannot  get  witnesses  in  because  tbe  law  has 
not  provided  means  for  their  testimony.  Now, 
I go  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  with  my 
case.  Although  mine  is  an  individual  case 
then  pending,  there  may  be  ten  thousand  other 
cases  just  like  it  all  over  the  State — just  like  it 
exactly.  I have  investigated  and  ascertained 
the  defect  in  the  law,  and  have  procured  the 
passage  of  an  act  to  meet  all  such  cases.  But 
the  gentleman  from  Allen  says  it  shall  not  ap- 
ply to  that  case  of  mine,  because  you  have 
commenced  suit  on  that.  Is  not  mine  just  as 
fixed  and  honest  a claim  as  any  that  stand  on 
the  same  basis?  Gentlemen,  I think  the  legal 
remedies  apply,  although  I have  commenced 
the  suit,  and  have  found  out  and  provided  for 
the  defect  in  the  law.  1 know  it  is  a great  in- 
convenience to  a lawyer  prosecuting  an  unjust 
claim,  to  have  the  Legislature  step  in  and  up- 
trip  him.  I have  been  served  that  way  myself, 
and  have  occasionally  probably  used  language 
not  provided  for  in  the  Decalogue. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Provided  against,  perhaps. 

Mr.  WEST.  But  after  the  thing  was  over 
and  I cooled  down  and  had  taken  a good  sleep 
over  the  matter,  I could  commend  the  law,  for 
it  was  just.  My  adversary  had  justice  on  his 
side,  and  I did  not  have  on  mine.  The  Legis- 
lature interfered  and  lubricated  the  machinery 
on  his  side  and  dried  mine  up.  I was  defeated 
justly  and  properly.  I lost  a big  fee  by  it,  a 
big  case  and  some  glory;  but  I went  out  of 
court  properly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That’s  what  made  you  use  those 
words. 

Mr.  WEST.  I suppose  that  is  what  makes 
all  lawyers  use  such  words  sometimes.  Well,  I 
lost  the  case,  but  I could  not  condemn,  but 
must  commend  the  legislation  that  hesitates  not 
to  enforce  rights  and  further  justice.  Now, 
that  is  the  principle.  That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 
Such  legislation  can  only  go  to  the  remedy  and 
not  to  the  right  itself. 

There  is  another  thing  [in  this  amendment 
that  is  not  right  in  its  present  shape.  It  pro- 
vides that  no  law  shall  be  enacted  to  defeat. 
That  is  the  way  it  is  provided  now  in  this  pro- 
position— that  no  law  shall  be  passed,  by  reason 
of  which,  or  in  consequence  of  which,  a party 
shall  be  defeated.  That  means  that  you  may 
pass  a law  whereby  a defendant  shall  not  defeat 
an  unjust  claim  prosecuted  against  him  by  the 
plaintiff,  and  you  shall  not  pass  a law  by 
which  a just  claim  prosecuted  by  a plaintiff 
shall  be  enforced  by  a defendant. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I correct  the  gentle- 
man ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  proposition  contains  no 
such  thing.  It  does  not  contain  any  such  thing 
as  the  gentleman  represents.  It  is  not  to  defeat 
the  party;  but  it  shall  not  defeat  the  action. 
There  is  a difference  between  the  two.  He 
shall  not  be  thrust  out  of  court;  but  the  entire 
action  shall  remain  in  court.  The  gentleman 
misrepresents  the  whole  thing. 

Mr.  WEST.  No;  I do  not  misrepresent  it. 
I may  have  misunderstood  it.  I know  it  reads 
that  the  action  shall  not  be  defeated. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEST.  Very  well ; there  is  nothing  to 


1185 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  9,  1874.]  Powell,  West,  Mueller,  Burns,  Cunningham. 


prevent  recovering  and  maintaining,  is  there? 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  But  it  shall  not  apply  to  defeat 
the  party. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir ; that  is  misrepresen- 
tation again.  Anything  that  will  represent 
the  rights  of  either  party  shall  remain  in  court. 
It  is  the  action  and  not  the  party. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes;  I am  aware  it  is  the  action 
and  not  the  party.  It  is  the  action  that  I am 
speaking  of.  There  shall  be  no  law  passed  by 
which  to  defeat  the  action.  It  shall  go  on,  and 
it  shall  not  be  allowed  to  introduce  a witness 
that  is  excluded  now  by  reason  of  some  disqual- 
ification. 

The  gentleman’s  time  having  expired,  leave 
was  granted  for  him  to  continue. 

Mr.  WEST.  I may  misunderstand  that;  but 
the  other,  I think,  is  an  inherent  defect  in  the 
proposition,  which  ought  not  to  apply,  and  the 
General  Assembly  ought  to  have  power  at  all 
times  to  provide  for  the  doing  of  justice.  That 
is  all.  By  mistake,  they  may  sometimes  do  an 
injustice,  yet  generally,  in  ninety-nine  cases  out 
of  a hundred,  justice  is  done  as  a matter  of 
fact,  although  occasionally,  through  misappre- 
hension or  mistake,  injustice  is  done.  Well, 
one  act  of  injustice  against  ninety-nine  acts  of 
justice  ought  not  to  prevail. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  certainly. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Is  the  Legislature  the 
proper  body  to  correct  and  make  a judicial  de- 
cision ? Is  it  for  the  Legislature  to  decide  that 
my  case  is  a proper  one  or  not? 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  no;  certainly  not. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Then  the  remedy  you  ad- 
vocate will  gain  nothing.  I think  the  Legisla- 
ture has  nothing  to  do  with  my  special  case. 
That  is  all  the  difficulty  we  labor  under — be- 
cause they  do  so  much  to  decide  cases  judi- 
cially. 

Mr.  WEST.  Well,  the  gentleman  and  I will 
concur,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned.  Adjudica- 
tion of  causes  ought  not  to  be  tolerated  in  either 
branch  of  the  General  Assembly  in  any  form 
whatever.  But  to  illustrate,  so  as  to  be  perfect- 
ly understood.  There  was  a time  when  an  ad- 
verse party  could  not  be  heard  as  a witness  in  a 
cause  to  which  an  administrator  was  a party. 
There  was  a broad  provision.  An  administra- 
tor, therefore,  might  prosecute  an  action,  and 
there  was  abundance  of  witnesses  in  existence 
by  whom  the  injustice  of  the  action  might  be 
established;  but  by  reason  of  prohibitions  of 
statute  they  could  not  be  introduced  before  the 
court.  The  competency[of  parties  was  enlarged 
and  permitted  to  come  in  and  establish  a just 
defense  against  the  claim.  Well,  now,  that  is 
not  an  adjudication  by  the  General  Assembly. 
It  is  simply  enlarging  the  rule  of  evidence. 
That  is  all.  The  General  Assembly  do  not  de- 
cide whether  the  witnesses’  testimony  is  right 
or  wrong;  but  enlarge  the  rule  of  competency. 
Nothing  more.  Well,  justice  may  be  done,  and 
is  frequently  done,  by  it. 

Another  branch  of  the  case  is  this,  “that  no 
law  shall  take  effect  until  ninety  days  after  its 
passage.”  Well,  something  of  that  kind  would 
work  no  harm.  The  Legislature  has  already 
provided  that  no  law  shall  take  effect  until  the 

y.  n-77 


first  of  May  next  after  its  passage,  unless  other- 
wise provided  in  the  act  itself;  and  I think  it 
will  be  better,  if  this  provision  be  adopted  to  fix 
a day  certain — say  the  first  day  of  June  or  July, 
so  that  there  will  be  one  uniform  day,  and  the 
people  will  not  have  to  get  the  statute  book  and 
see  what  day  an  act  was  approved  by  the  Gov- 
ernor, and  then  cypher  down  when  it  went  into 
effect.  Let  a specific  day  be  fixed.  I think  it 
would  be  better  to  fix  a day  certain,  either  the 
first  day  of  May,  or  June,  or  some  specific  day ; 
so  that  all  statutes  shall  take  effect  upon  that 
day,  otherwise  it  may  have  the  effect  to  mis- 
lead the  people. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  inquire  if  the 
time  is  fixed  at  ninety  days,  whether  the  three 
days  of  grace  would  be  allowed? 

Mr.  WEST.  The  three  days  of  grace  proba- 
bly might  be  fixed.  I think  it  would  be  better 
to  fix  a day  certain,  say  the  first  day  of  June,  if 
the  General  Assembly  is  going  to  be  in  session, 
and  I think  it  will  if  it  keeps  on  with  this  ap- 
propriation bill  until  the  Convention  adjourns. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Keeps  on  supervising  the  Con- 
vention. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  supervising.  But  I do  not 
think  there  is  any  real  necessity  of  this  clause. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I would  like  leave  to 
say  a word  or  two. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Leave  is  granted. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I am  comparatively 
a young  member  of  the  profession ; but  I do 
utterly  protest,  coming  especially  from  the  high 
source  it  does,  from  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  against  the  bad  legal  morals  that 
his  remarks  have  involved;  and  I submit  to 
every  lawyer  and  to  every  gentleman  of  this 
Convention,  to  what  abuses  a practice  could  be 
brought,  carried  out  under  the  principles  enun- 
ciated by  him.  I can  imagine  a case.  Some 
citizen  of  Logan,  or  Champaign,  or  Shelby,  or 
Allen,  or  Marion,  or  the  various  other  coun- 
ties where  the  gentleman  practices  law,  calls 
upon  him  to  consult  about  a case,  and  he  exam- 
ines the  statutes  carefully  (as  he  always  does) ; 
finds  out  the  status  of  the  case,  both  as  to  fact 
and  law,  and  then  he  advises  his  client  what 
his  rights  and  remedies  are.  I know  very  well 
that  the  gentleman  himself  would  go  to  the 
Legislature  and  seek  to  forward  his  own  case, 
or  interfere  with  that  of  his  adverseries ; and 
the  case  would  go  on  through,  unquestionably, 
just  as  the  rights  of  the  parties  were,  as  far  as  he 
was  concerned.  But,  then,  suppose  that  the 
other  side  should  employ  somebody  who  was 
not  quite  so  conscientious  as  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  and  being  informed 
what  my  friend  from  Logan  had  said,  “West  is 
right;  but,  then,  we  will  go  down  to  the  Leg- 
islature and  get  a rail  under  him  and  we’ll 
hoist  him.  We  will  provide  ourselves  with  a 
* right.”  ’ Why  may  not  they  do  it  ? Your 
client  has  gone  into  the  courts.  He  has  re- 
tained you.  He  has  taken  upon  himself  the 
trouble  * and  responsibility  of  the  costs,  rely- 
ing upon  your  judgment  of  wThat  the  law 
is,  and  yet  you  would  put  it  into  the 
hands  of  your  adversaries,  who  had  less  con- 
science than  you,  to  go  into  the  Legislature 
and  reverse  the  remedies  upon  which  you  had 
relied. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  ? 


1186 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


[109th 


Cunningham,  West,  Mueller,  Page. 


[Monday, 


Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  Let  me  illustrate  for  his  bene- 
fit: Suppose  that  the  gentleman  from  Allen 

[Mr.  Cunningham]  should  enter  upon  the 
premises  of  his  neighbor  and  steal  his  neigh- 
bor’s pears.  I do  not  think  that  he  would  do 
it;  but  suppose  that  nobody  in  the  world  knew 
anything  about  it  but  his  neighbor’s  wife. 
Now,  she  informs  her  husband  that  the  gen- 
tleman had  been  there,  trespassed,  and  taken 
away  his  property,  and  no  other  mortal 
knew  it,  except  the  wife.  The  husband,  sup- 
posing he  can,  brings  his  action  to  recover  for 
the  lost  property.  He  institutes  suit.  Now,  it 
is  his  right— there  is  a clear  and  unquestionable 
right  to  bring  his  suit  against  the  gentleman 
from  Allen.  The  case  is  now  commenced.  The 
gentleman  from  Allen  comes  to  me  and  lays  his 
case  before  me,  and  I say,  “ Did  you  steal  the 
pears  ?”  “ Yes.”  “ Well,  you  need  not  pay  for 
them.  They  cannot  prove  it.  They  have  but 
one  witness— the  plaintiff’s  wife  is  the  only 
witness  that  knows  anything  about  it,  and  she 
is  not  competent  to  testify.”  “ Very  well,  then, 
we’ll  fight  it.”  Not  that  you,  or  my  client,  is  in 
the  right  or  in  the  wrong;  but  by  reason  of  a 
defect  in  the  law,  the  only  human  being  on  earth 
that  knows  anything  about  it,  except  the  defend- 
ant himself,  is  incompetent  as  a witness.  Now, 
the  plaintiff  goes  to  the  General  Assembly,  and 
procures  the  passage  of  a law,  whereby  an  hon- 
est woman  is  permitted  to  tell  the  truth  in  a 
court  of  justice,  and  the  defendant  is  now  com- 
plaining about  it. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  is  always  successful,  and  he 
has  succeeded  in  furnishing  the  finest  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  this  proposition  that  has  been 
before  the  Convention  this  morning.  Nobody 
proposes  to  interfere  with  the  right  of  my 
neighbor  to  sue  me  for  the  pears.  That  is  his 
right.  We  are  not  talking  about  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  testimony,  and  this  amendment  was 
drawn  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  criticisms 
that  were  made  upon  it  on  Saturday.  But  how 
is  it?  The  gentleman  would  leave  it  in  the 
power  of  the  other  party,  by  legislation,  to  de- 
feat the  right  of  my  neighbor  to  recover  against 
me  for  taking  the  pears. 

A MEMBER.  No,  no. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  the  logic  of  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  that’s  the  logic  of  it. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Yes,  exactly. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Now,  we  do  not  w’ant 
that.  It  appears  to  me,  Mr.  President,  serious- 
ly, that  there  is  a great  deal  of  force  and  wisdom 
in  the  proposition  introduced,  here,  by  the  ven- 
erable gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell], 
and  I think  this  Convention  ought  to  adopt  it. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I doubt  very  much  the  policy 
of  adopting  the  proposition  submitted  by  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  I 
refer  particularly  to  the  last  clause  of  it. 

Now,  let  us  consider  what  is  the  present  state 
of  the  law  before  we  propose  to  alter,  or  to 
amend  it.  We  have  already  the  28th  section  of 
the  Legislative  Article,  which  provides  “that 
the  General  Assembly  shall  have  no  power  to 
pass  retroactive  laws,  or  laws  impairing  the  ob- 
ligation of  contracts,  but  may,  by  general  laws, 
authorize  courts  to  carry  into  effect,  upon  such 
terms  as  may  be  just  and  equitable,  the  manifest 


intention  of  parties,  and  officers,  by  curing 
omissions,  defects,  and  errors,  in  instruments 
and  proceedings  arising  out  of  their  want  of 
conformity  to  the  laws  of  the  State.” 

Now,  that  was  probably  the  law  of  this  coun- 
try before  the  adoption  of  that  Constitution, 
and,  so  far  as  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to 
pass  retroactive  laws,  or  laws  impairing  the  ob- 
ligation of  contracts,  is  concerned,  that  was 
prohibited  long  ago;  and  it  has  been  considered 
as  contrary  to  the  rules  of  public  policy  and 
general  jurisprudence,  even  from  the  days  of  the 
civil  law.  It  is  laid  down  in  some  of  the  earli- 
est writers,  even  as  remote  as  Bracton,  that  ret- 
roactive laws  are  contrary  to  public  policy,  and 
our  various  courts  have  always  held  so.  What 
is  a retroactive  law  ? I read  from  Sedgwick : 
“A  statute  which  takes  away  or  impairs  any 
vested  right  acquired  under  existing  laws,  or 
creates  a new  obligation,  or  imposes  a new  duty, 
or  attaches  a new  disability  in  respect  to  trans- 
actions already  past,  is  to  be  deemed  retrospect- 
ive or  retroactive.”  I will  now  read  an  impor- 
tant section  from  Sedgwick,  to  which  I wish  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Convention.  He  says : 
“There  is  indeed  a large  number  of  cases  in  which  ap- 
peals are  made  for  legislative  assistance,  in  which  it 
would  be  very  injurious  to  assert  the  doctrine  that  the 
Legislature  is  incompetent  to  pass  laws  having  a retroac- 
tive effect.  Such  are  laws  declaring  valid  acts  of  official 
persons  irregularly  elected,  amending  charters  of  incor- 

f>orated  companies,  correcting  assessment  rolls  irregular- 
y made,  extending  the  time  for  the  collection  of  taxes  in 
the  time  required  by  law,  and  altering  and  amending  ju- 
dicial procedure.  In  these  and  many  other  cases  it  is 
difficult  to  avoid  giving  the  acts  of  the  Legislature  a re- 
troactive effect,  and  every  such  effect  must,  or  may,  influ- 
ence injuriously  some  individual  case.  But  the  interests 
of  the  community  are  paramount.” 

The  wisdom  of  curative  acts  is  universally 
recognized. 

Now,  the  laws  which  are  permitted  and 
authorized  by  the  twenty-eighth  section  of  the 
Legislative  Article,  and  authorized  by  the  laws 
of  this  country  prior  to  the  adoption  of  that 
Constitution,  are  those  which  cure  those  defects 
— defects  in  the  acknowledgment  of  deeds  and 
powers  of  attorney;  defects  in  marriage  cere- 
monies, and  laws  that  alter  or  take  away 
statutory  privileges,  and  also,  a large  class  of 
other  cases.  Everybody  admits  that  the  Legis- 
lature ought  to  have  power  to  change  and  alter 
the  laws  on  those  subjects,  so  far  as  they  apply 
to  existing  causes  of  action.  Nobody  doubts 
that;  because  to  declare  in  this  Constitution,  or 
in  a statute  of  the  State,  that  the  Legislature 
should  pass  no  laws  regulating  the  mode  of  pro- 
cedure as  to  existing  causes  of  action,  would 
certainly  be  a very  dangerous  policy.  It  would 
' be  attended  with  great  inconvenience,  and 
difficulty  and  confusion.  If  the  Legislature 
could  not  change  rules  of  evidence,  modes  of 
procedure,  and  cure  defects  in  instruments  and 
official  acts,  safar  as  related  to  existing  causes 
of  action,  these  courts  would  be  compelled  to 
resort  to  practice  acts  and  other  statutes,  half  a 
century  after  they  were  repealed.  In  every 
case  that  came  on  to  be  tried,  it  would  be  neces- 
j sary  to  conform  the  pleadings,  rules  of  evidence, 

: and  mode  of  conducting  the  trial,  with  refer- 
ence to  dead  statutes — a task  of  endless  trouble 
and  difficulty,  and  accompanied  by  no  beneficial 
result.  Nobody  doubts  the  wisdom  of  allowing 
the  Legislature  to  alter  or  abolish  such  statutes, 
! so  far  as  existing  causes  of  action  are  concerned. 


1187 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  9,  1874.]  Mueller,  Page,  Hale,  Powell. 


But  it  is  supposed  by  some  that  it  is  a great 
hardship  to  change  the  statutes  as  to  pending 
cases.  I see  no  hardship,  unless  it  is  in  regard 
to  the  payment  of  costs. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  gentleman  says  there 
would  be  no  hardship.  Suppose,  that  under 
the  laws,  I would  be  incompetent  to  be  a wit- 
ness myself,  and  had,  in  doing  a great  business, 
trusted  to  this  man  a thousand  dollars,  and  to 
another  a thousand  dollars,  and  so  on,  relying 
upon  the  right,  if  I would  have  to  bring  suit,  to 
introduce  the  evidence  allowed  under  the  law. 
Suppose  I have  in  this  way  a hundred  thou- 
sand dollars  owing  to  me;  but  before  I come 
into  the  court,  the  Legislature  has  repealed  the 
law  which  allowed  me  to  be  a witness  in  my 
own  case,  so  that  I would  have  to  sacrifice  fifty 
or  a hundred  thousand  dollars.  This  would 
apply  in  many  cases;  and  I would  ask  if  it 
would  not  be  a hardship  to  abolish  that  rule 
of  evidence  which  would  thus  deny  me  mv 
right?  J y 

Mr.  PAGE.  Well,  the  case  put  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  is  not 
reached  by  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  unless  he  has 
actually  instituted  his  action.  Because,  under 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Dela- 
ware, it  is  competent  for  the  Legislature  to 
change  and  alter,  in  their  discretion,  the  rules 
of  evidence  as  to  existing  causes  of  action ; and 
if  the  cause  of  action  has  accrued  in  the  case 
put  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga,  but  no 
suit  is  pending,  the  Legislature  may  still  alter 
the  rule  of  evidence,  so  as  to  defeat  his  cause  of 
action. 

This  subject  must  be  left  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
Legislature.  We  cannot,  of  course,  incorpo- 
rate the  rules  of  procedure  in  the  Constitution. 
If  a person  should  bring  suit,  and  under  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell],  could  not  avail  himself  of  the 
statute  regulating  the  rules  of  evidence  or  mode 
of  procedure,  what  has  he  to  do  ? Why,  he  may 
simply  dismiss  the  action  and  go  out  of 
court,  pay  his  costs  and  commence  the  suit 
again.  So,  by  a little  strategy,  he  may  escape 
from  what  is  regarded  here  as  a very  impor- 
tant amendment.  If  he  can  do  that,  what  is 
gained  by  this  constitutional  provision  ? 

I think  no  lawyer  would  desire  to  apply  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell],  to  all  causes  of  action  that  had 
accrued.  It  is  to  be  confined  to  those  actions 
that  are  actually  pending  in  courts ; and  I see 
no  objection  to  such  alterations  in  the  statutes 
as  affect  pending  suits,  except  the  matter  of 
costs.  As  to  costs,  it  is  entirely  competent  for 
the  Legislature,  in  cases  where  a party  is  de- 
feated by  a change  in  the  statutes,  to  require 
his  adversary  to  pay  costs.  I have  known  many 
instances  where  acts  of  the  Legislature  materi- 
ally affected  pending  suits,  but  I have  never 
known  a single  instance  where  injustice  was 
done  or  a good  cause  defeated.  I have  known 
instances  where  actions  were  defeated  that  had 
no  other  foundation  than  some  technical  de- 
fect. I knew  a number  of  actions,  instituted 
lor  the  recovery  of  lands  that  had  been  sold 
and  conveyed  by  virtue  of  powers  of  attorney, 
that  were  defectively  executed. 

Now,  in  1851,  an  act  was  passed— Swan  and 


Critchfield,  page  474— that  cured  these  defects 
and  defeated  these  actions.  What  injury  or 
outrage  was  there  in  defeating  these  unjust  ac- 
tions? Many  instances  of  a similar  kind  are 
within  the  knowledge  of  every  lawyer. 

The  rule  referred  to  by  Sedgwick  is  applica- 
ble here,  when  he  says,  “ the  effect  of  legisla- 
tion may  influence  injuriously,  some  individual 
case,  but  the  interests  of  the  community  are 
paramount.”  It  is  not  possible  for  the  Legisla- 
ture, as  some  persons  fear,  to  apply  this  kind  of 
legislation  to  statutes  of  limitation.  They  may 
shorten  the  period,  but  they  cannot  wholly  de- 
prive the  party  of  his  right  of  action  or  de- 
fense. They  can  only  shorten  the  period  in  a 
reasonable  manner.  Therefore,  it  occurs  to  me, 
Mr.  President,  that  there  is  no  necessity  for 
this  provision,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  may  do  a 
great  deal  of  harm. 

I hope  the  Convention  will  well  consider  the 
provision  that  is  contained  in  the  proposed 
amendment,  and  not  go  off  upon  it  without  due 
consideration.  This  amendment  has  not  been 
brought  here  without  considerable  considera- 
tion and  a very  considerable  experience.  Now, 
for  many  years  have  I known  persons  to  bring  a 
suit,  and  the  opposite  party,  the  defendant  in 
the  case,  would  employ  a lawyer,  and  that  law- 
yer has  been  a member  of  the  Legislature,  or  is 
a member  of  the  Legislature,  or  has  a friend  in 
the  Legislature,  who  will,  without  giving  notice 
to  the  opposite  party,  procure  the  passage  of  an 
act  that  will  deprive  that  party  of  his  rights 
and  drive  him  out  of  court.  This  I have’ 
known.  There  is  a number  of  just  such  cases, 
and  those  who  have  been  long  in  the  profession 
know  this  is  the  case.  Now,  on  this  subject, 
let  me  say— and  I wish  to  answer  the  gentle- 
man from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  upon  this  matter— 
this  provision  is  merely  to  prevent  this  kind  of 
malpractice— by  going  into  the  Legislature  and 
depriving  a party  of  his  rights,  by  procuring 
the  passage  of  a statute  which  the  party  knows 
nothing  about,  and  who  is  not  in  the  Legisla- 
ture to  represent  his  rights  there,  and  the  in- 
justice done  him. 

Mr.  HALE.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me 
I would  like  to  ask  him  a question. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Very  well. 

Mr.  HALE.  In  your  experience,  running 
over  many  years,  how  many  cases  do  you  novv 
recollect,  of  just  and  equitable  cases,  that  have 
been  thus  defeated  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I cannot  now  mention  the 
names.  At  my  time  of  life,  it  is  not  so  easy 
for  me  to  recollect  names  of  cases  as  it  was 
thirty  years  ago. 

Mr.  HALE.  Do  you  remember  any  case  that 
was  really  meritorious,  just  and  equitable,  that 
has  been  thus  defeated  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I cannot  recollect  the  names 
of  cases,  but  I suppose  I could,  by  taking  the 
time  and  pains,  point  them  out  to  you. 

But,  Mr.  President,  let  me  say  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  and  also  to  the 
gentleman  from  Wood  county  [Mr.  Cook]  who 
spoke  of  a case,  or  suggested  to  me  the  case 
where  the  Legislature  helped  parties  to  what 
was  an  equitable  right,  in  a case  that  was  pend- 
ing there  for  an  injunction.  In  both  those 
cases— the  one  suggested  by  the  gentleman 
from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  and  the  one  suggested 


1188 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


[109  th 


Powell,  Hale,  Tuttle. 


[Monday, 


by  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook], — the 
action  was  not  defeated,  but  the  action  remain- 
ed. The  new  law  enabled  the  court,  however, 
to  proceed  to  settle  the  rights  of  the  parties  up- 
on equitable  principles,  without  defeating  the 
action.  Take  the  court  in  Wood  county,  for 
instance,  where  the  party  brought  action  to  en- 
join them  because  they  had  not  gone  exactly 
acc  rding  to  law.  The  new  law  was  not  to 
dri  e the  party  out  of  court,  and  defeat  him, 
but  the  action  was  permitted  to  remain  there ; 
and  they  were  allowed  to  proceed  to  re-investi- 
ga  the  equities  of  the  parties  and.  settle  ac- 
cordingly. 

Mr.  HALE.  But  in  the  case  to  which  you 
refer,  was  not  the  defendant  driven  out  of 
court,  and  the  plaintiff  had  his  remedy  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HALE.  He  brought  his  suit  for  an  in- 
junction; he  was  entitled  to  his  injunction, 
which  would  have  been  made  perpetual,  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  suit.  Now,  the  suit  would 
not  allow  them  to  have  perpetual  injunction. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir;  but  the  party  had 
the  same  right  as  before  the  suit  was  brought; 
and  it  was  provided  that  the  parties  should  set- 
tle their  respective  rights  in  equity,  and  hot 
take  any  advantage. 

Mr.  HALE.  Could  it  have  been  done  in  a 
suit  in  equity  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I presume  not,  sir.  But  I 
say  this,  that  we  should  prevent  the  Legisla- 
ture passing  any  law  of  a remedial  nature  that 
would  hinder  them  going  on  with  the  case,  and 
should  keep  parties  from  going  to  the  Legisla- 
ture surreptitiously,  and  driving  the  other  par- 
ty out  of  court. 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  the  gentleman  then  ex- 
plain this  language,  “ at  the  time  the  action  on 
which  the  rights  of  the  party.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  gentleman  from  Pick- 
away [Mr.  Page],  has  just  enlightened  the 
gentleman  on  that  point,  by  the  extracts  he  has 
read.  Those  words  do  not  go  to  the  equity  of 
the  case,  or  to  the  mere  remedy,  but  to  the  sub- 
stantial rights  that  exist  and  sustain  an  action ; 
and  he  cited  from  Sedgwick  and  other  authors 
there,  to  show  the  distinction. 

Mr.  HALE.  Then,  if  the  gentleman  will 
excuse  me,  one  word  further.  Do  I under- 
stand the  gentleman  to  say  that  by  this  princi- 
ple, he  simply  proposes  to  say,  the  Legislature 
shall  not  affect  the  vested  rights  of  parties,  and 
does  intend  to  leave  to  the  Legislature  the  pow- 
er to  legislate  as  to  the  remedies  that  may  be 
applied  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir; 
the  party  out  of  court. 

Mr.  HALE.  Then  the  Constitution  does  that 
now. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a remark? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like,  if  the  gentle- 
man will  permit,  to  brielly  state  a case.  1 would 
ask  him  what  he  would  do  with  a case  like  one 
in  1866,  where  A and  B — husband  and  wife — 
commenced  suit  against  C.  C had  a deed  of 
conveyance,  as  he  supposed,  from  A and  B;  but 
on  examination,  found  it  defective — the  land 
being  held  in  the  right  of  the  wife.  He  filed 


without  driving 


an  account  to  correct  the  mistake  and  it  was 
demurred  to.  The  case  was  pending  in  1867, 
when  the  Legislature  passed  a law  in  pursuance 
of  the  28th  section  of  this  Article  of  the 
Constitution,  enabling  the  court  to  correct  such 
mistakes.  A suit  was  pending,  and  the  statute 
was  applicable  to  that  suit,  after  the  statute 
was  passed,  and  protected  C.  But  if  the  suit 
had  not  come  in  and  had  not  been  applicable  to 
the  case,  the  plaintiffs  would  have  succeeded ; 
but  as  it  was,  they  were  defeated.  Now,  what 
I wish  to  know  is,  whether  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  thinks  that  ought  not 
to  have  been,  and  that  the  Constitution  ought 
to  have  protected  A and  B,  having  commenced 
the  suit  against  the  consequences  of  that  leg- 
islation ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would,  Mr.  President,  be 
pleased  that  this  gentleman  and  all  would  lis- 
ten to  me.  That  case  did  not  defeat  the  action. 
Now,  let  the  gentleman  keep  that  in  mind. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I ask,  did  not  the  Legislature 
defeat  it? 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir;  the  action  was 
brought  to  cover  the  defect  in  the  acknowl- 
edgment. The  action  stood.  The  law  that 
was  passed  did  not  defeat  the  action  of  itself ; 
but  enabled  the  party  to  go  into  equity,  and  if 
equity  existed,  that  he  might  go  into  equity  and 
perfect  his  title ; but  the  action  stood  and  it 
was  enjoined  upon  the  proceedings.  Now,  with- 
out that  equity,  he  could  do  nothing,  and  this 
proposition  does  not  intend  to  interfere  with 
equity,  it  only  intends  that  a party  shall  not  go 
into  the  Legislature  surreptitiously  to  defeat 
the  action  by  legislative  proceeding;  and  if 
there  is  any  proceeding  to  be  had  upon  equity 
independent  of  that,  it  does  not  interfere  with 
it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
one  other  question? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir,  certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Under  this  provision,  would 
not  the  court  probably  hold  that  the  statute  of 
1857 — if  this  had  been  in  the  Constitution  at  the 
time — applied  to  the  case  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  1 think  not,  sir.  I did  say 
that  remedies  are  always  liable  to  be  looked 
into,  and  that,  provided  the  act  itself  did  not 
defeat  the  action,  a party  should  be  enabled  to 
file  a petition  in  error,  and  if  he  can  show  equity 
that  would  enable  him  to  enjoin  a party  from 
proceeding  further  on  the  ground  of  that  equity. 
The  object  is  to  prevent  legislation  from  send- 
ing a party  out  of  court  by  the  force  of  the  act; 
and  that  is  a very  different  thing  from  defeat- 
ing the  right  by  means  of  equity  that  is  outside 
of  that  matter,  that  equity  might  control  the 
litigation  of  the  proceedings.  It  is  a very  dif- 
ferent case,  and  1 am  surprised  that  lawyers  of 
experience  here  do  not  see  the  difference  and 
understand  it. 

Here  the  President  announced  that  the  gen- 
tleman’s time  had  expired.  By  unanimous  con- 
sent of  the  Convention,  however,  the  gentleman 
was  permitted  to  proceed  with  his  remarks. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  is  no  better  provision 
of  constitutional  law,  Mr.  President — of  the 
real,  substantial  rights  of  the  parties  protected 
by  law — than  this,  namely : that  a party  shall 
not  be  defeated  by  a retroactive  law.  I know, 
however,  that  laws  of  this  kind  have  been 


1189 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  9,  1874.]  Powell, Sample. 


passed,  which  did  operate  retroactively,  and  by 
which  parties  have  been  thrown  out  of  court. 
Now,  whether  the  fact  was  enforced  and  pushed 
upon  the  court  that  the  law,  in  a particular 
case,  was  retroactive,  and,  therefore,  unconsti- 
tional,  I cannot  say;  but,  without  doing  that,  I 
wish  to  have  this  principle  adopted,  so  that  it 
be  plain  that  no  man’s  action,  and  no  substan- 
tial right,  shall  be  defeated  by  legislative  pro- 
ceedings. It  is  everywhere  intended  that  par- 
ties’ rights  shall  be  decided  by  the  court,  and 
that  the  Legislature  never  shall  interfere  with 
the  rights  of  the  parties.  That  is  a principle 
established,  not  only  by  our  constitutional  law 
throughout  the  United  States,  but,  as  I believe, 
by  the  practice  of  the  civilized  world.  And  yet, 
our  Legislature  have  done  it,  and  gentlemen  of 
experience  on  this  floor,  have  advocated  that 
they  may  do,  and  should  be  left  at  liberty  to  do, 
that  very  thing,  to  the  effect  that,  when  a suit 
is  brought,  a party  may  go  surreptitiously  into 
the  Legislature,  and  get  an  act  passed  which 
will  throw  the  other  party  right  out  of 
court.  Now,  if  there  are  equities  behind 
the  action,  that  will  defeat  the  party,  and  the 
Legislature  enable  those  equities  to  be  exam- 
ined, so  that  it  may  be  seen  that  it  is  equity, 
and  not  the  mere  ipse  dixit  of  the  Legislature 
that  procures  the  result,  I have  no  objection. 
The  difference  between  myself  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  is  perfectly  plain 
and  obvious,  when  he  says  that  this  question 
should  be  left  for  decision  upon  general  princi- 
ples, which,  as  I maintain,  do  not  touch  this 
case.  All  that  I contend  for  is  that  the  Legis- 
lature shall  not  defeat  an  action  by  a mere  leg- 
islative proceeding,  which  may  be  obtained  by 
one  party  knowing  anything  about  it.  I believe 
such  a law  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  yet  it 
has  not  been  so  decided — and  let  me  say,  that  a 
court  never  will  decide  an  act  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional, if  they  can,  by  any  excuse,  get  over  it, 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  generality  of  cases.  But, 
if  you  have  this  act  passed,  it  becomes  plain 
and  palpable,  so  that  everybody  will  under- 
stand that  it  ought  not  to  be  done.  But,  if  you 
maintain  the  action,  if  you  let  the  action  stand, 
and  there  is  an  equity  outside  of  that,  then,  un- 
doubtedly, it  may  be  so  operated  upon  as  that 
the  action  shall  stop  there.  Then  it  will  be  a 
matter  for  the  court  to  say,  in  point  of  equity, 
which  party  in  the  case  shall  pay  the  costs.  It 
was  a case  of  that  kind  to  which  the  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  referred  the 
other  day,  under  the  name  of  Purcell,  where  an 
action  was  brought  to  recover  land,  and  an  act 
was  passed  to  remedy  the  defect  in  the  acknowl- 
edgment, upon  the  ground  of  the  equity.  They 
did  not  say  that  that  should  defeat  the  action, 
but  that  the  party  might  file  a bill  in  chancery 
to  ascertain  whether  or  not  the  equity  existed ; 
and,  if  it  did  exist,  then,  an  injunction  might 
be  made,  and  it  would  remain  for  the  court  to 
say  who  should  pay  the  costs;  but  they  did  not, 
by  the  act  itself,  put  the  party  out  of  court. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I wish  to  say  a few  words 
upon  the  other  branch  of  the  case.  You  can- 
not mention  anything  with  regard  to  the  time 
when  the  law  shall  go  into  effect.  A law  estab- 
lishing that  time  as  the  first  of  May,  or  the  first 
of  July,  or  on  any  other  day,  will  not  answer 
the  purpose.  That  will  not  do,  because  the 


Legislature  may  be,  sometimes,  in  session  up  to 
that  very  day.  This  section  proposes  that  acts 
of  the  Legislature  shall  not  take  effect  until 
ninety  days  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Legis- 
lature; for,  until  the  Legislature  adjourns,  and 
their  acts  begin  to  be  published,  we  know 
nothing  of  what  they  have  been  doing,  or  what 
the  law  is.  Very  frequently  we  suppose  that 
we  understand  the  law,  and  are  proceeding 
under  it,  when,  the  first  thing  we  know  is,  that 
an  act,  quite  unexpectedly  to  everybody,  comes 
up  and  trips  up  the  whole  proceeding.  But  if 
something  like  ninety  days  were  given,  after 
the  adjournment,  when  they  would  begin  to 
publish  the  laws,  that  would  give  everybody  an 
opportunity  to  know  and  understand  how  the 
law  stood.  And  according  to  this  amendment, 
it  gives  sufficient  further  time,  so  as  to  obviate 
all  the  difficulties  that  have  arisen.  It  is  a very 
great  objection  to  the  numerous  laws  that  have 
been  passed  by  the  Legislature,  that  very  fre- 
quently, when  proceedings  in  a case  have  been 
entered  upon,  the  first  thing  that  is  known  is 
that  parties  are  tripped  up  by  an  unexpected 
statute,  brought  up  upon  the  very  occasion.  If, 
however,  ninety  days  after  the  adjournment 
are  given,  it  can  be  ascertained  when  the  Leg- 
islature adjourned,  and  we  shall  know  exactly 
the  day  when  the  law  takes  effect — namely, 
ninety  days  after  that  time.  Now,  to  put  the 
time  at  ninety  days  after  the  passage  of  the  act, 
would  not  do.  It  should  be  ninety  days  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature,  unless  the 
Legislature  determine  otherwise.  Some  laws 
are  passed,  and  it  is  never  mentioned  when 
they  go  into  effect;  and  they  go  into  effect  im- 
mediately upon  their  passage,  at  common  law, 
without  this  amendment.  Under  this  amend- 
ment, when  the  act  is  passed,  the  Legislature 
need  not  trouble  themselves  with  regard  to  the 
time  when  the  law  shall  take  effect;  for  this 
law  establishes  that  time  at  ninety  days  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature,  unless  the 
Legislature,  for  some  reason  or  other,  should 
determine  that  it  should  be  otherwise.  I think 
this  is  right.  It  will  obviate  a great  many  of 
the  difficulties  and  troubles  which  we  have  had 
in  the  courts. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I hope  this  provision  will 
not  be  adopted — nor  any  part  of  it.  The  first 
clause  of  it,  I think,  is  a matter  of  very  little 
importance — of  too  little  importance,  I think, 
to  be  incorporated  into  the  Constitution.  It 
provides,  merely,  that  if  the  Legislature  fail  to 
say  anything  as  to  when  a law  shall  go  into 
effect,  it  shall  not  take  effect  until  ninety  days 
after  the  close  of  the  session  of  the  Legislature 
at  which  it  is  passed.  That  is  a matter  of  so 
little  importance,  that  it  seems,  to  my  mind, 
that  it  ought  not  to  be  incorporated  as  a sub- 
stantial provision  in  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  put  a question  to  him? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir:  with  pleasure. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Suppose,  for  instance,  that 
a penal  act  is  passed,  and  the  Legislature  shall 
say  that  the  act  shall  take  effect  on  the  first  day 
of  May  next.  In  three  days  after  the  first  day 
of  May  next,  a person  does  an  act  which  he 
had  no  idea  was  a penal  act  at  the  time ; but  it 
becomes  penal  under  such  a provision.  Now, 
I ask  gentlemen,  is  that  just?  Is  it  right  that 


1190 


[109th 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


Powell,  Sample. 


[Monday, 


a person  should  so  suffer,  in  that  short  time, 
after  the  act  has  gone  into  effect? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  answer  I make  to  that 
question  is,  that  the  provision  offered  by  the 
gentleman  does  not  remedy  that  kind  of  case ; 
because  it  leaves  it  in  the  power  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  declare  a particular  act  to  be  criminal, 
and  to  provide  in  the  act  itself  that  it  shall  take 
effect  from  and  after  its  passage. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  me  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man, then,  that  unless  the  Legislature  have 
some  good  reason  for  it,  they  will  not  make  it 
so.  If  they  shall  have  so  provided,  it  will  be 
because  they  see  good  reason  for  it.  But  here 
we  have  had  acts  taking  effect,  nobody  knowing 
or  noticing  at  what  time  they  would  take 
effect. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I say  that  we  have  been 
living  a long  time  without  such  a provision  in 
the  Constitution,  and  in  an  uninterrupted  ex- 
perience of  more  than  a quarter  of  a century,  I 
have  never  known  a man  to  be  indicted  for  the 
commission  of  an  act  made  penal  by  a law,  the 
existence  of  which  he  had  not  the  means  of 
knowing,  and  this  provision  does  not  afford  any 
protection  at  all  against  such  an  evil  or  such  an 
injury,  if  it  were  a fact  that  it  did  exist.  Un- 
der the  Constitution,  our  Legislature  has  de- 
clared that  unless  there  be  a particular  provision 
in  the  bill  specifying  the  time,  it  shall  take 
effect  from  the  first  day  of  May  following  its 
enactment;  but  in  looking  over  the  statutes,  I 
fail  to  find  a single  statute  in  which  the  Legis- 
lature has  not  declared,  as  a part  of  the  act  it- 
self, when  it  should  take  effect.  That  has 
become  the  habit  of  the  Legislature,  and  it  is 
to  be  supposed  that  the  Legislature  will  continue 
in  the  habit,  and  that,  as  a matter  of  form — as 
a formal  appendage  to  every  act  that  is  passed 
in  the  Legislature — they  will  declare  when  it 
shall  go  into  effect;  so  that  I have  no  objection 
to  the  provision  here,  except  this : that  it  has 
no  significance,  and  is  not  a provision  which, 
in  my  judgment,  is  of  sufficient  importance  to 
be  made  a part  of  the  Constitution.  I think 
there  are  thousands  of  other  matters,  of  more 
importance  than  this,  to  which  the  attention  of 
this  Convention  may  be  reasonably  directed, 
which  will  swell  the  Constitution  to  the  capacity 
to  which  it  is  proper  it  should  be  extended. 

But  the  other  provision,  Mr.  President,  is  not, 
I think,  of  this  indifferent  character.  I think 
it  is  one  which  ought  not,  upon  principle,  to  be 
adopted  by  this  Convention.  It  provides  that 
no  law  shall  apply  to  proceedings  in  a suit  pend- 
ing at  the  time  of  the  passage  thereof,  so  as  to 
defeat  the  action  or  change  the  rights  of  the 
parties  existing  at  the  time  of  the  commence- 
ment thereof.  What  does  that  assume  ? It  as- 
sumes, if  there  is  any  virtue  in  it  at  all,  that 
the  Legislature  have  the  right  to  change  the 
rights  of  the  parties  by  legislation.  That  is 
an  assumption  which  ought  never,  by  any  im- 
plication, to  find  a place  in  a Constitution,  or  in 
any  provision  of  this  Constitution.  Parties 
have  their  rights,  they  go  into  court  for  the 
purpose  of  enforcing  these  rights,  and  upon 
those  rights  the  Legislature  have  no  power  to  ad- 
judicate. The  Legislature  cannot  by  any  act,  or 
in  any  way,  interfere  with  the  existence  of  those 
rights.  But  it  does  not  prevent  the  Legislature 
from  affecting  pending  actions.  If  the  Legis- 


lature can  pass  a law,  under  this  provision, 
which  does  not  change  the  rights  of  parties,  it 
may  be  done,  and  it  may  have  an  application  to 
existing  actions  as  well  as  to  causes  of  action  on 
which  actions  have  not  been  brought.  Is  there 
any  principle  why,  because  a man  has  institu- 
ted an  action  he  may  not  be  subjected  to  the 
same  rules  in  the  determination  of  his  rights  in 
the  progress  of  that  action  to  which  an  indi- 
vidual who  had  exactly  a similar  right  of  action 
existing,  but  had  not  commenced  action,  would 
be  subjected  in  the  prosecution  of  his  right?  I 
can  imagine  none.  I can  see  no  reason  why, 
merely  because  a man  has  commenced  an  ac- 
tion, he  should  have  a privilege  which  another 
man,  having  equal  rights  and  being  entitled  to 
equal  benefits  under  the  law,  should  not  pos- 
sess. 

Assuming,  then — and  it  is  too  plain  for  ar- 
gument before  this  Convention,  and  before 
intelligent  men — that  the  Legislature  have  no 
power  to  act  upon  existing  rights,  and  that 
those  rights  are  fixed  and  permanent,  and  can- 
not, in  any  way,  be  affected  by  legislative  action 
— the  action  of  the  Legislature  can  only  affect 
remedies,  which,  I suppose,  by  universal  assent, 
are  admitted  to  be  wholly  under  the  control 
of  the  Legislature — the  statute  of  limitations, 
the  rules  of  evidence,  the  mode  of  procedure, 
and  everything  relating  to  the  instrumentalities 
or  means  by  which  a party  obtains  the  aid  of 
the  law  in  the  vindication  of  his  rights.  The 
principal  difficulty,  I suppose,  has  grown  out 
of  the  change  of  the  law  of  evidence.  The 
Legislature,  by  the  enactment  of  the  code  of 
1853,  abrogated  the  arbitrary  principles  of  the 
common  law,  which  had  previously  been  in 
force  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  by  which  truth 
was  excluded,  in  consequence  of  its  hav- 
ing to  be  drawn  from  an  interested  source ; and 
they  provided  that  even  parties  to  a case  might 
be  witnesses.  They  undertook  to  abrogate 
those  provisions,  but  only  in  part  accomplish- 
ing it;  and  the  changes  which  have  been  made, 
from  time  to  time,  in  the  application  of  the 
principle  which  was  adopted  by  that  Legisla- 
ture, have  only  gone  further  and  further  in 
every  successive  enactment  in  tearing  away  the 
barriers  which  were  interposed  in  the  progress 
of  a case,  and  by  which  the  introduction  of 
evidence  tending  to  establish  the  truth  of  the 
facts  in  the  case  was  prevented  by  arbitrary 
rule.  Well,  now,  it  is  proposed,  by  this  pro- 
vision, not  that  enactments  of  the  Legislature 
changing  the  rules  of  evidence  or  the  mode  of 
procedure  shall  not  apply  to  existing  causes  of 
action,  but  that  they  shall  not  apply  to  existing 
action.  I have  said  there  is  no  reason  in  that; 
but  I say  there  is  great  injustice  in  it,  as  has 
been  shown  here  by  way  of  illustration.  A 
party  has  brought  his  action ; he  finds  that  he 
has  not  the  means  of  furnishing  the  requisite 
evidence  to  enable  him  to  maintain  his  case. 
The  Legislature  passes  a law  which,  if  it  had 
been  passed  before  he  brought  his  action, 
would  have  enabled  him  to  produce  the  requi- 
site evidence,  and  to  accomplish  his  purpose; 
but,  having  brought  his  action,  he  is  not  enti- 
tled to  the  privilege  or  to  the  benefit  of  that 
law,  and  it  cannot  apply  to  his  case.  What 
does  he  do  then?  He  just  abandons  his  case. 
He  submits  to  a nonsuit  or  to  a dismissal  with- 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  1191 

February  9,  1874.]  Powell,  Sample,  Hoadly,  Hunt. 


out  prejudice,  under  the  present  practice,  and 
immediately  afterward  brings  action,  and  works 
his  case  through. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  gentleman  ought  to  no- 
tice that  the  word  “defeat”  is  there.  Anything 
that  will  help  the  action  will  not  prevent  it  at 
all.  The  party  need  not  go  out  of  court  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  in  anything  the  Legisla- 
ture may  give  him  to  help  the  action  through. 
It  merely  prohibits  a party  from  defeating  the 
action  of  the  opposite  party. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Then  this  is  a kind  of  auxil- 
iary provision  in  favor  of  plaintiffs ; but  it  is 
death  on  defendants.  That  is  the  point.  Ac- 
cording to  the  explanation  of  the  gentleman, 
if  such  law  is  an  auxiliary  that  will  come  in 
and  enable  the  plaintiff  to  make  his  case,  all 
right;  but  if  it  has  a tendency  to  aid  the  de- 
fendant, who  is  brought  into  court  without  his 
consent,  and  prevents  him  from  introducing 
evidence  in  his  case  in  his  own  defense,  then 
that  will  be  a violation  of  the  Constitution.  I 
have  no  respect  for,  and  no  confidence  in,  that 
kind  of  a Constitutional  provision — if  such  be 
its  character.  I am  in  favor  of  even-handed 
justice.  If  a principle  applies  in  favor  of  one 
party  to  a suit,  I ask  that  it  may  be  made  to 
apply  in  favor  of  the  other  party,  that  they  may 
stand  on  terms  of  equality,  and  that  equal  j ustice 
may  be  administered. 

We  have  illustrations  of  this  kind  of  legislation 
in  Ohio.  The  Code,  when  it  changed  the  rules 
of  evidence,  provided  that  that  change  should 
not  affect  actions  then  pending.  What  was  the 
effect  of  it?  A man  who  had  a cause  pending, 
and  found  it  necessary  to  examine  his  client  for 
the  purpose  of  establishing  his  case,  would  sub- 
mit to  a non-suit,  dismiss  his  action,  and  avail 
himself  of  this  provision ; but,  if  the  defense 
rested  upon  the  testimony  of  the  defendant,  the 
plaintiff  would  hold  on,  and  not  give  him  an 
opportunity  to  testify.  Now,  I say,  any  law 
that  will  operate  that  way  is  unjust.  And  I 
know  it  did  operate  that  way,  because  it  did  so 
in  my  own  experience.  It  did  enable  a plaintiff 
to  dismiss  his  action,  and  bring  an  action  under 
the  law,  and  sustain  it,  by  availing  himself  of 
the  provisions  of  the  Code.  Whilst,  instead  of 
being  in  favor  of  the  defendant,  if  the  defense 
had  been  within  his  own  knowledge,  and  could 
have  been  established  most  conclusively  by  his 
own  testimony,  he  had  no  remedy,  nor  any  re- 
lief, and  must  have  submitted  to  a verdict 
against  him.  Such,  then,  being  the  nature  of 
this  provision,  a provision  which,  in  my  judg- 
ment, can  do  no  good,  and  if  it  has  any  operation 
whatever,  it  must  be  an  operation  which  may 
work  injustice ; may  work  justice  in  a particular 
case,  but  can  be  of  no  general  benefit.  I hope 
it  will  not  be  adopted. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Co- 
shocton [Mr.  Sample]  allow  me  a question  be- 
fore he  takes  his  seat  ? It  is : whether  the  30th 
section  does  not  furnish  all  the  remedy  that  is 
needed  for  all  the  evils  that  really  exist? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I think  there  is  no  doubt  of 
it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  This  has  been  amended  to 
correspond  with  the  opinions  and  best  judg- 
ment of  some  individuals,  and  some  words  have 
got  in  that  I,  in  the  first  instance,  did  not  labor 
for.  I thought  possibly  there  might  be  a diffi- 


culty in  the  way,  and,  therefore,  I move  to  strike 
out  these  words : “or  change  the  rights  of  par- 
ties.” I move  to  strike  those  words  out  in  order 
to  see  if  that  will  be  acceptable  to  a larger  num- 
ber of  the  members  of  the  Convention  than  it 
would  to  keep  them  in. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I do  not  wish  to  occupy  the  time 
of  the  Convention 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
simply  on  striking  out  the  words,  “or  changing 
the  rights  of  parties.” 

Mr.  HUNT.  I shall  not  confine  my  remarks 
to  that  question  alone,  but  shall  speak  against 
the  entire  amendment  as  amended.  The  Com- 
mittee on  the  Legislative  Department  discussed 
this  proposition  in  their  meetings.  The  same 
amendment  was  offered  in  Committee  by  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell].  It 
was  almost  the  unanimous  opinion  that  there 
should  be  some  provision  in  our  Constitution 
in  regard  to  remedial  legislation.  It  will  be 
conceded  that  our  statutes  are  sometimes  de- 
fective, and  it  will  further  be  conceded  that 
such  a contingency  may  arise  that  the  only 
remedy  for  a great  wrong  can  be  found  through 
the  General  Assembly.  The  necessity  will 
sometimes  exist.  When  the  evil  becomes  appar- 
ent there  should  be  some  power  to  rectify  it. 

The  whole  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  is  based  upon  the 
idea,  that  it  is  not  safe  to  trust  the  Legislature 
in  this  matter,  and  that  evil  and  not  good 
would  more  frequently  result  from  the  rule. 
This  is  a mistake.  The  presumption  is  always 
in  favor  of  the  equitable  action  of  the  General 
Assembly.  The  Representatives  of  the  people 
are  more  likely  to  do  right  than  to  do  wrong, 
in  the  enactment  of  a statute.  They  are  the 
guardians  of  the  public  interests.  It  is  contend- 
ed, by  gentlemen,  that  the  effect  of  such  a pro- 
vision would  operate  against  the  right  of  inno- 
cent parties.  This  does  not  follow.  There 
may,  indeed,  be  individual  cases,  where  the 
jury  may  be  worked,  but  such  cases  would  be 
the  exception.  They  would  rarely  occur  in 
our  legislation.  In  the  absence  of  such  au- 
thority to  legislate,  the  injured  party  would 
be  without  any  remedy,  whatever,  either 
through  the  courts  of  law,  or  through  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  State.  Cases  may 
arise  in  which  there  should  be  an  appeal  to  a 
higher  power.  The  Legislature  should  be  that 
tribunal.  It  would  be  a great  error  to  prohibit 
this  discretion  by  constitutional  enactment. 

The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly], 
has  called  attention  to  section  30  of  the  Report. 
This  places  a limitation  upon  the  power  of  the 
General  Assembly.  The  Constitution  prohib- 
its the  Legislature  from  passing  retroactive 
laws,  or  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  con- 
tracts. There  is,  therefore,  no  danger  to  be 
apprehended  from  any  retroactive  legislation. 
The  power  is  limited  by  express  provision.  It 
was  intended  bjT  the  framers  of  the  present 
Constitution,  that  some  such  discretion  should 
rest  in  the  General  Assembly,  for  it  is  provided 
that  the  Legislature  may,  by  general  laws, 
authorize  courts  to  carry  into  eftect,  upon 
such  terms  as  shall  be  just  and  equitable,  the 
manifest  intention  of  parties  and  officers,  by 
curing  omissions,  defects  and  errors  in  instru- 


1192 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [109th 

Hunt,  Townsend,  Powell,  Cunningham,  Burns,  Beer.  [Monday, 


ments  and  proceedings,  arising  out  of  a want 
of  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  State. 

If  the  rights  of  a party  are  affected  by  the 
repeal  of  a statute  which  is  wrong  of  itself, 
the  rights  of  the  party  should  be  subservient  to 
the  public  good.  The  citizen  must  give  way 
for  the  State.  The  one  for  the  many.  The 
right  to  legislate  should  be  left  to  the  General 
Assembly.  Statutes  are  enacted  for  the  advan- 
tage of  the  whole  people.  The  individual  ben- 
efit must  give  way  for  the  public  welfare.  The 
highest  consideration  in  the  framing  of  laws 
should  be  the  good  of  the  entire  people,  with- 
out reference  to  how  the  individual  citizen  may 
be  affected.  There  need  be  no  fear,  as  inti- 
mated by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell],  that  the  General  Assembly  will  be 
influenced  by  the  private  interest  of  some  party 
whose  action  is  pending  in  court.  The  party 
invoking  legislative  interference  must  show  a 
good  cause.  The  fact  alone  that  he  seeks  such 
aid  will  be  a presumption  against  him,  and  he 
will  be  compelled  to  convince  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  necessity  of  remedial  legislation. 
It  will  not  be  sufficient  that  a pending  litigation 
will  be  benefited  so  much  as  that  a principle 
should  be  established. 

The  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
has  been  unable,  in  his  long  experience,  to  cite 
an  instance  where  the  Legislature  has  not  acted 
equitably  in  the  matter.  There  may  be  dele- 
gates on  this  floor  who  have  been  interested  in 
cases  where  further  legislation  has  been  de- 
manded from  the  very  necessity  of  the  case. 
This  may  have  been  done  to  remedy  a wrong 
without  reference  to  the  condition  of  the  par- 
ties to  the  suit.  It  is  better  that  a precedent 
should  early  be  established  rather  than  an  evil 
rule  should  be  followed.  The  Representatives 
of  the  people  are  presumed  to  act  for  the  whole 
people.  There  should  be  some  discretionary 
power  vested  in  the  law-making  department. 
There  should  be  no  prohibition.  The  fact  that 
a cause  is  pending  should  be  no  reason  why  a 
wrong  should  be  without  a remedy.  Courts 
and  Legislatures  should  not  be  prevented  from 
doing  right  in  any  case.  Remedial  legislation 
may  be  as  necessary  as  the  courts  themselves  to 
protect  property  and  to  defend  the  injured  and 
the  oppressed. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  In  order  that  we  may 
progress  somewhat  with  the  legislation  of  this 
body,  I move  the  previous  question. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell]  to  strike  out  from  his  amendment 
the  words,  “or  change  the  rights  of  parties  ” ; 
so  that  the  amendment,  if  amended,  will  read 
thus : 

“No  law,  except  such  as  appropriates  money,  shall  go 
into  effect  until  ninety  days  after  the  passage  thereof,  un- 
less an  earlier  date  shall  be  named  in  the  bill;  and  no 
law  shall  apply  to  proceedings  pending  at  the  time  of  the 
passage  thereof,  so  as  to  defeat  the  action  existing  at  the 
time  of  the  commencement  thereof.” 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  that  a division  of  the 
House  be  taken. 


The  PRESIDENT.  There  has  been  no  vote 
taken  yet. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I mean  a vote  by  rising. 

On  a vote  being  taken  by  standing,  four  mem- 
bers voted  affirmatively,  whereupon  the  Presi- 
dent declared  the  amendment  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]  to  amend  section  sixteen  by  insert- 
ing after  the  word,  “ title,”  in  line  six,  these 
words : 

“And  if  any  subject  shall  be  embraced  in  the  Act  whic*1 
shall  not  be  expressed  in  the  title,  such  Act  shall  be  void 
only  as  to  so  much  thereof  as  shall  not  be  expressed  in 
the  title.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I rise  to  a point  of 
order ; whether  we  can  amend,  after  having 
refused  to  strike  out  the  original  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  not  the  question. 
The  question  is  upon  striking  out  the  words 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  As  I understand,  the 
Convention,  the  other  day,  refused  to  strike  out 
the  original  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir;  I think  there 
has  been  no  such  vote.  The  only  question, 
thus  far,  has  been  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]. 
The  question  is  on  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

The  reading  of  the  amendment  was  called 
for. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  read  the 
amendment  again.  The  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer]  moves  to  amend  section  16,  by 
inserting,  after  the  word  “title,”  in  line  6,  these 
words : 

“And  if  any  subject  shall  be  embraced  in  any  Act  which 
shall  not  be  expressed  in  the  title,  said  Act  shall  be  void 
only  as  to  so  much  thereof  as  shall  not  be  expressed  in  the 
title.”  So  that  the  section,  if  amended,  will  read  thus: 

“No  bill  shall  contain  more  than  one  subject,  which 
shall  be  clearly  expressed  in  its  title;  but  if  any  subject 
shall  be  embraced  in  an  Act  which  shall  not  be  expressed 
in  the  title,  such  act  shall  be  void  only  as  to  so  much  there- 
of as  shall  not  be  so  expressed;  and  no  law  shall  be  re- 
vived or  amende  1,  unless  the  new  Act  contain  the  entire 
Act  revived,  or  the  section  or  sections  amended;  and  the 
section  or  sections  so  amended  shall  be  repealed.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  hear  some  sug- 
gestion from  the  gentleman  who  offers  this 
amendment.  I believe  this  is  an  exact  copy  of 
the  section  of  the  present  Constitution.  Has  it 
been  established,  I w;ould  inquire,  by  any  deci- 
sion of  the  supreme  court,  that  this  provision  is 
mandatory,  or  is  it  simply  directory  ? Is  it  the 
settled  rule  that  a law  that  contains  a subject 
not  expressed  in  its  title,  is  void  ? I think  the 
very  reverse  is  true.  This  would,  by  infer- 
ence, at  least,  say  that  the  subject  matter  of  a 
law,  not  expressed  in  the  title,  was  void.  I 
have  no  objections  to  the  amendment,  provided 
it  is  made  apparent  to  me  that  it  is  necessary  or 
useful.  But  I do  not  really  see  the  necessity  or 
propriety  of  it.  I simply  make  this  suggestion 
by  way  of  inquiry. 

Mr.  BEER.  The  supreme  court  of  our  State 
has  decided  that  these  words,  in  our  present 
Constitution,  are  simply  directory,  and  that  a 
departure  from  them  will  not  render  any  part 
of  the  act  void.  In  other  words:  An  act  may 
have  forty  different  subjects,  and  only  one  of 
them  need  be  expressed  in  tiie  title,  and  yet  the 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Beer,  Hoadly,  Hunt,  Baber. 


1193 


Day.] 

February  9,  1874.] 


act  is  constitutional.  The  decision  I refer  to 
will  be  found  in  the  case  of  Miller  vs.  the  State, 
3 Ohio  State,  and  Pim  vs.  Nicholson,  6 Ohio 
State ; and  there  are  more  recent  decisions  to 
the  same  effect. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  permit  me  to  ask  a ques- 
tion? 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  not  the  adoption  of  his 
amendment  give  rise  to  a large  crop  of  litiga- 
tion founded  on  legislative  doubts  as  to  whether 
the  title  of  the  act  really  described  the  contents 
fairly?  And  will  it  not  lead,  in  all  such  cases, 
where  there  is  attempted  litigation,  to  the  deci- 
sion that  a mere  legislative  blunder  in  describ- 
ing the  contents  of  an  act,  has  the  effect  to 
annul  a part  of  the  act? 

Mr.  BEER.  In  reply,  I will  say,  I think  not. 
It  evidently  was  the  intention  of  the  framers  of 
the  old  Constitution  to  provide  that  there  should 
be  but  one  subject  in  an  act.  And  I suppose 
that  but  very  few  acts  have  since  been  passed  in 
violation  of  this  provision  of  the  Constitution. 
But  there  have  been  some  violations  of  it.  A 
provision  similar  to  the  one  I now  make  in  this 
amendment  will  be  found  in  the  Constitutions 
of  a great  many  States — Indiana,  Illinois,  Ore- 
gon, Iowa,  Tennessee,  New  Jersey,  all  have 
similar  provisions.  That  is,  they  go  further 
than  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and 
provide  that  that  part  of  a statute  which  is  not 
described  in  the  title,  is  void,  but  that  the  bal- 
ance of  the  act,  that  part  of  it  which  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  title,  shall  be  in  force.  The  lan- 
guage I have  used  is  exactly  the  language  of  the 
Illinois  Constitution.  In  Indiana,  the  section  is 
in  these  words : “ Every  act  shall  embrace  but 

one  subject  and  matter  properly  connected  there- 
with, which  subject  shall  be  expressed  in  the 
title;  and  if  any  subject  shall  be  expressed  in  an 
act  which  shall  not  be  expressed  in  the  title, 
such  act  shall  be  void  only  as  to  so  much  thereof 
as  shall  not  be  expressed  in  the  title.”  The 
same  provision  is  copied  into  the  Constitution 
of  Oregon,  and  into  the  Constitution  of  Iowa. 
When  this  matter  was  pending  before  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  I made  such  explanations 
as  I thought  it  demanded,  and  I have  no  desire 
to  take  any  further  time. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I object. 

The  demand  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  not 
sustained. 

The  question  being  on  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  the 
amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  other 
amendments  to  section  16  ? If  not,  the  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  17. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  presiding  officer  of  each  House  shall  sign,  public- 
ly, in  the  presence  of  the  House  over  which  he  presides, 
while  the  same  is  in  session  and  capable  of  transacting 
business,  all  bills  and  joint  resolutions  passed  by  the 
General  Assembly  ” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  amend- 
ments to  section  17  ? If  there  are  no  amend- 


ments to  section  17,  section  18  having  been  dis- 
posed of,  the  Secretary  will  read  section  19. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  19.  The  style  of  the  laws  of  this  State  shall  be, 
‘Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
Ohio.’  ” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  amend- 
ments to  section  nineteen,  the  Secretary  will 
read  section  twenty. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  20.  No  Senator  or  Representative  shall,  during 
the  term  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected,  or  for  one 
year  thereafter,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  office  under  this 
State,  which  shall  be  created,  or  the  emoluments  of  which 
shall  have  been  increased  during  the  term  for  which  he 
shall  have  been  elected,” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  amend- 
ments to  section  twenty  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  I move  to  amend  section  twen- 
ty by  inserting  in  the  second  line  after  the 
word  “be,”  the  words  “elected  or,”  so  that  it 
will  read,  “be  elected  or  appointed.” 

Now,  there  may  be  some  reason  for  leaving 
out  the  word  “elected,”  and  I make  the  motion 
to  call  forth  the  reasons.  If  it  ought  not  to  be 
there  I shall  acquiesce,  but  I do  not  understand 
why  it  should  not  as  well  apply  to  persons 
elected  to  an  office,  as  to  persons  appointed  to  an 
office. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Hamilton,  [Mr.  Miner],  moves  to  amend  section 
twenty,  by  inserting  in  the  second  line  after  the 
word  “be,”  the  words  “elected  or.” 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  amendment  proposed  by 
my  colleague  [Mr.  Miner],  was  under  discus- 
sion in  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment. The  motive  that  influenced  the 
Committee  in  submitting  the  Report  in  the  form 
suggested,  was,  that  in  an  elective  office  the 
matter  was  referable  to  the  people,  and  they 
could  determine  whether  or  not,  under  all  the 
circumstances,  the  candidate  was  fit  to  repre- 
sent them.  The  word  “ elected”  was  opposed, 
and  it  was  deemed  best  to  apply  the  principle 
to  appointed  offices  under  the  General  Assem- 
bly. Offices  created  under  the  General  As- 
sembly, which  are  filled  by  appointment,  might 
be  secured  by  a combination  of  the  members  of 
the  General  Assembly,  and  then,  through  ex- 
ecutive influence,  a member  of  the  General 
Assembly  could  be  appointed  to  the  office  he 
had  assisted  to  create.  The  same  objection  that 
would  apply  to  an  “ appointive  office”,  we  held 
in  the  Committee,  would  not  apply  to  an  elective 
office,  because  there  would  be  the  intervention 
of  the  people.  Therefore,  we  preferred  leaving 
the  question  to  the  people,  instead  of  restricting 
it.  The  privilege  of  selecting  their  own  Repre- 
sentatives pertains  to  the  people,  and  should 
never  be  denied  to  them  by  Constitutional 
enactment.  The  granting  to  the  General  As- 
sembly the  right  of  creating  an  office,  to  be 
filled  by  a member  of  that  body,  might  lead  to 
combination,  aided  by  the  executive,  destructive 
of  the  public  interest. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that 
the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt],  is  consistent  with  his  great  con- 
fidence in  the  Representatives  of  the  people. 
On  another  question,  he  thinks  that  the  veto 
power  could  save  this  State  from  all  corruption. 

I do  not  see  the  consistency  between  the  two 


1194 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT, [109th 

Baber,  Burns,  Hunt,  West,  Scofield,  etc.  [Monday, 


arguments.  Now,  he  wishes  to  trust  the  people 
with  everything,  and  before,  he  thought  their 
Representatives  could  not  be  trusted. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  inquire  whether 
the  gentleman’s  position  on  the  veto  question, 
was  consistent  with  minority  representation  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I will  argue  that  question 
when  I come  to  it.  I will  come  directly  to  the 
question  of  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I desire  to  ask  the  gentleman, 
if  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  veto  power,  why 
do  gentlemen  support  the  revisionary  power 
upon  the  part  of  the  Governor. 

Mr.  BABER.  We  do  not  propose  to  re-argue 
that  question,  but  this  kind  of  a veto  cannot 
defeat  the  will  of  a majority. 

Mr.  WEST.  I suggest  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions after  one  Sunday  has  intervened  for  a 
reply.  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  BABER.  I will  come  to  the  argument 
of  the  gentleman.  He  has  a right  to  be  as  con- 
sistent or  as  inconsistent  as  he  pleases.  I do  not 
interfere.  His  argument  is  that  this  is  right  for 
the  people.  Now,  in  our  County  and  Township 
Organization  Article,  we  do  not  name  the 
county  or  township  officers,  but  leave  that  en- 
tirely to  the  Legislature.  As  county  and  town- 
ship officers  may  be  created  by  the  General 
Assembly,  why  might  there  not  be  a combina- 
tion or  interested  lobby  for  the  purpose  of 
creating  valuable  county  and  township  offices, 
and  might  not  men  get  themselves  sent  to  the 
Legislature  for  the  express  purpose  of  making 
elective  positions  for  themselves  ? It  seems  to 
me  there  is  no  reason  for  making  this  dis- 
tinction. I think  there  should  be  as  much  a 
limitation  in  that  case  as  in  the  case  of  an  ap- 
pointive officer.  I see  no  reason  for  making  the 
difference. 

The  question  being  on  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner],  the  motion 
was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  other 
amendments  to  section  20,  the  Secretary  will 
read  section  21. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  21.  The  General  Assembly,  in  cases  not  provided 
for  in  this  Constitution,  shall  fix  the  term  of  office  and 
compensation  of  all  officers;  but  no  change  therein  shall 
•affect  the  salary  of  any  officer  during  his  existing  term, 
unless  the  office  be  abolished.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  amend- 
ments to  section  21  ? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I offerthe  following  amend- 
ment to  section  21. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Scofield  moves  to  amend  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “officers”,  in  line  two,  and  inserting  the  follow- 
ing: 

“But  shall  in  no  case  extend  the  term  of  office  or  in- 
crease or  diminish  the  salary,  fees  or  compensation  of 
any  person  elected  or  appointed  to  any  office  or  position 
under  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  this  fetate,  after  such 
person  shall  have  been  elected  or  appointed.” 

So  that  the  section  would  read: 

“Sec.  21.  The  General  Assembly,  in  cases  not  provided 
for  in  this  Constitution,  shall  fix  the  term  of  office  and 
compensation  of  all  officers,  but  shall  in  no  case  extend 
the  term  of  office  or  increase  or  diminish  the  salary,  fees 
or  compensation  of  any  person  elected  or  appointed  to 
any  office  or  position  under  the  Constitution  or  laws  of 
this  State,  after,  or  during,  the  period  for  which  such  per- 
son shall  have  been  elected  or  appointed.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  what  he  means  by  “ after?”  After 
the  term  of  office  expires  ? 


Mr.  SCOFIELD.  No,  sir;  it  does  not  read 
that  way. 

The  PRESIDENT  directed  the  Secretary  to 
read  the  amendment  again. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I do  not  desire  to  occupy 
the  time  of  the  Convention.  The  amendment 
will  speak  for  itself.  The  object  is  to  cut  off 
all  such  legislation  as  has  been  passed  by  Con- 
gress, so  far  as  the  salary  grab  is  concerned, 
and  which  has  been  passed  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  Ohio,  at  the  closing  hours  of  the 
session,  and  in  voting  away  several  thousand 
dollars  of  the  people’s  money  to  employes. 
Clerks,  and  Sergeants-at-Arms.  The  object  of 
this  amendment  is  to  cut  that  off  also.  I have 
spoken  to  several  members  about  the  amend- 
ment and  it  seems  to  meet  with  their  approba- 
tion. I trust  the  Convention  will  give  it  care- 
ful consideration. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  think  I under- 
stood from  the  Secretary’s  reading,  how  the 
section  now  stands — whether  the  amendment 
made  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  was 
agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  stands  as  originally 
reported  by  the  Committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  so  read 
it. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  If  I understand  the  pro- 
posed amendment,  it  strikes  out  the  concluding 
clause  in  the  section  as  it  now  stands. 

The  PRESIDENT.  All  after  the  word  “ of- 
ficers ” in  line  two. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  The  concluding  line  pro- 
vides, substantially,  that  the  fees  and  emolu- 
ments may  be  cut  off,  in  case  the  office  is  abol- 
ished. I doubt  very  much  the  expediency  of 
striking  out  these  words. 

Mr.  BABER.  There  are  many  gentlemen 
favorable  to  the  idea  of  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman ; but  I am  in  favor  of  the 
provision  as  it  now  stands.  I do  not  want  to 
strike  that  out  about  abolishing  the  office.  I 
would  suggest  that  the  gentleman  can  make 
that  by  way  of  addition  to  the  section,  instead 
of  striking  out  what  is  good  in  the  section. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  If  the  gentleman  will  ex- 
amine the  amendment,  it  does  not  prevent  a 
bill  cutting  oft'  the  salary  or  emoluments,  as  he 
suggests.  It  simply  prevents  the  increase — pro- 
vides that  they  shall  not  increase  the  salaries, 
fees,  or  compensation  of  any  person  elected  or 
appointed  to  any  office  in  this  State,  after  or  du- 
ring the  period  for  which  they  shall  have  been 
elected  or  appointed.  It  is  on  the  principle 
that  among  citizens  every  man  has  to  live  up  to 
his  contract,  and  the  Legislature  cannot  inter- 
fere, and  does  not,  to  perfect  a bad  bargain  or 
furnish  a remedy.  And  it  is  upon  the  princi- 
ple that  the  citizen  making  a contract  with  the 
State  should  keep  his  faith  and  abide  by  his 
contract. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield],  to  what  officers  his 
amendment  extends? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  It  will  extend  to  all  offi- 
cers from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  to  all  men 
who  shall  have  been  elected  or  appointed  to  any 
office  or  position. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I would  inquire  again,  if  a per- 
son having  been  elected  Enrolling  Clerk  of  the 


1195 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  9, 1874.]  Hunt,  Scofield,  Pond,  Neal,  Hitchcock. 


Senate  or  House  of  Representatives,  and  in  the 
discharge  of  the  ordinary  duties  of  his  office  it 
should  become  necessary,  during  the  sittings  of 
the  General  Assembly,  to  impose  upon  him  ad- 
ditional duties,  whether  or  not  he  should  have 
additional  compensation  ? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  He  should  not  have  addi- 
tional compensation,  I answer  the  gentleman. 
He  accepted  the  office  with  the  under- 
standing as  to  what  his^er  diem  should  be,  and 
he  should  keep  his  faith  with  the  State  in  that 
contract.  If  the  General  Assembly  needs  more 
clerical  force,  let  them  furnish  an  additional  En- 
rolling Clerk  to  assist  him. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Very  well,  should  not  the  State 
keep  faith  with  him  in  limiting  him  to  certain 
duties  only? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  They  can  fix  that  by  law. 

Mr.  HUNT.  No,  sir;  they  cannot. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  It  has  been  the  practice  of 
the  General  Assembly  for  years,  at  the  closing 
hours  of  the  session,  to  vote  away  thousands  of 
dollars  of  the  people’s  money ; and  it  is  an  in- 
strument in  the  hands  of  politicians  in  voting 
these  compliments  to  the  employes  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  to  secure  their  influence  to  elect 
the  politicians  to  office.  It  is  a practice  that  the 
people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  have  complained  of, 
and  complain  of  now,  voting  away  their  money 
unceremoniously  and  without  consideration,  for 
services  that  were  never  performed. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Convention  to  section  twenty-four,  and 
see  whether  it  does  not  cover  all  that  the  mem- 
ber desires  to  reach  by  his  amendment. 

“No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any  officer, 

ublic  agent  or  contractor  after  the  services  shall  have 

een  rendered  or  the  contract  entered  into.” 

Is  not  that  safe-guard  enough  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I move  an  amendment  to  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Marion 
[Mr.  Scofield].  Insert  after  the  word  “office,” 
the  words,  “extend  the  terms  of  office;”  so  that 
it  shall  read:  “shall  in  no  case  extend  the 
terms  of  office  or  increase  the  salary.” 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  With  leave  of  the  Conven- 
tion, I will  accept  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  accepts 
the  amendment. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I think  this  amendment  is  one 
fit  to  be  made.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
by  a very  decided  vote,  struck  out  the  words 
which  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  proposes  to  strike  out, 
and  inserted  what  appears  in  italics,  and  which, 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lucas 
[Mr.  Scribner],  was  not  agreed  to  by  the  Con- 
vention ; because  the  inference  might  be  drawn 
that  we  proposed  to  authorize  the  abolishment 
of  constitutional  offices.  Now,  Mr.  President, 
the  experience  of  the  last  twenty  years  has 
demonstrated  one  thing : that  there  is  a very 
great  disposition  on  the  part  of  persons  elected 
to  office  to  complain  of  the  emoluments  or  sala- 
ries connected  with  their  respective  offices. 
They  take  the  office  knowing  what  the  fees  or 
salaries  are,  and  then  complain  because  their 
compensation  is  not  sufficient.  And  we  find 
them  going  to  the  Legislature,  in  troops,  to  have 
changes  made  in  this  respect.  And  the  conse- 
quence is,  that  the  fees  paid  to  the  clerks  of 
courts  and  sheriffs  of  our  counties  are  so  bur- 


densome in  their  character  as  almost  to  prevent 
persons  having  claims  of  small  amounts  from 
litigating  these  claims  in  the  courts  of  justice. 
The  fees,  now,  of  the  sheriff  in  the  neighboring 
county  of  Scioto,  of  31,000  inhabitants,  is  double 
the  salary  of  any  common  pleas  judge  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  outside  of  Cuyahoga  and  Hamil- 
ton counties.  That  is  something  which  ought 
not  to  be  permitted.  These  fees  and  salaries 
are  raised  by  the  log-rolling  of  officers — per- 
sons who  have  been  elected  to  office — before 
they  take  their  offices,  or  during  the  continu- 
ance of  the  same.  Again,  it  is  notorious  that 
the  auditors  of  the  State  of  Ohio  held  conven- 
tion after  convention  in  Columbus,  for  years, 
for  the  purpose  of  having  the  term  of  their 
office  extended,  and  that  they  finally,  by  per- 
sistent lobbying  and  log-rolling,  accomplished 
their  object.  That  ought  not  to  be  done.  We 
know,  again,  Mr.  President,  that,  time  and  time 
again,  gentlemen  have  been  elected  to  the  bench 
of  the  supreme  court,  and  their  salaries  have 
been  changed.  One  instance  occurred  when  I 
was  a member  of  the  Legislature.  The  salary 
of  the  supreme  judge  was  reduced  from  $3,000 
to  $2,500,  four  judges  receiving  $3,000,  and  the 
salary  of  one  judge  (Judge  Ranney)  was  re- 
duced to  $2,500.  The  consequence  was,  he  h§ld 
the  office  only  a short  time. 

We  know  that  there  are  often  persistent  ef- 
forts made,  after  the  election  of  some  man  to 
hold  office,  to  have  his  salary  increased ; so 
that  he  would  receive  a larger  compensation 
than  his  brethren  upon  the  bench.  I say,  let 
every  man  who  takes  any  office  whatever,  from 
the  highest  to  the  lowest,  be  satisfied  with  the 
fees,  emoluments  and  salary  which  is  given  to 
him  by  the  laws  under  which  he  was  elected. 
We  should  prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  any  in- 
ducement on  the  part  of  any  officer,  or  any  class 
of  officers,  to  lobby  and  “log-roll”  with  the 
members  of  the  Legislature  to  induce  any 
change  in  their  compensation.  As  it  is  now, 
there  are  eighty-eight  auditors  in  the  State  of 
Ohio.  There  are  eighty-eight  sheriffs  and 
eighty-eight  clerks.  They  are,  perhaps,  men  of 
influence  in  their  respective  counties.  The 
personages  in  the  Legislature  representing 
their  counties  want  their  support  for  the  future 
elections.  Consequently  they  are  very  willing 
to  make  such  changes  in  the  laws  as  may  be 
desired  by  those  officers ; and,  as  our  statute 
books  abundantly  testify,  laws  have  been 
changed,  time  and  time  again,  without  asking 
whether  the  people  demand  it,  without  inquir- 
ing whether  there  was  any  necessity  for  it,  and 
simply  to  oblige  these  patriotic  gentlemen  who 
have  assumed  the  duties  of  the  office,  and  who 
become  dissatisfied  because  they  are  not  reap- 
ing as  rich  a harvest  as  they  desire.  I trust, 
therefore,  that  this  amendment,  either  in  the 
shape  in  which  it  is  now  offered,  or  in  some 
other  shape,  willl  become  a part  of  this  Con- 
stitution, so  that  we  can  prevent  this  abuse  in 
the  future. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  1 would  like  to  ask 
whether  those  changes,  to  which  the  gentleman 
refers,  have  been  made  in  respect  to  elected 
officers  while  in  office  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  No,  sir;  so  far  as  fees  are  con_ 
cerned,  the  supreme  court  have  decided  that 
the  section  in  the  present  Constitution  does  not 


1196 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT, 

Neal,  Sample,  Hunt,  Scribner,  Scofield. 


[109th 

[Monday, 


apply  to  the  changing  of  fees.  But  what  this 
amendment  prevents  is  the  changing  of  the 
salary  after  a man  is  elected,  and  before  he  goes 
into  office.  Heretofore  the  effort  has  been  made 
to  change  the  salaries  after  the  election,  and 
before  the  man  is  sworn  into  office.  If  this 
amendment  is  adopted,  it  will  prevent  any 
change  after  the  election.  That  is  what  we 
want  to  stop. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  the 
amendment,  in  its  present  shape. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  all  of  the  said  section  after  the  word  “offi- 
cers”, in  line  two,  and  insert  the  following: 

“But  shall  in  no  case  extend  the  term  of  office,  increase 
or  diminish  the  salary,  fees,  or  compensation  of  any  per- 
son elected  or  appointed  to  any  office  or  position  under  the 
Constitution  or  laws  of  this  State,  after  such  person  shall 
have  been  elected  or  appointed.” 

Mr.  HUNT.  I simply  want  to  inquire  if  the 
word  “ employes  ” is  inserted  there? 

The  SECRETARY.  No,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  as  amended. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I agree  in  what  is  sought 
to  be  accomplished  by  the  amendment  pro- 
posed; but  it  seems  to  me  that  it  leaves  some 
imperfection  in  the  section  unless  an  additional 
amendment  is  made.  It  provides  that  no  term 
of  office  shall  be  extended.  That  is  all  right. 
It  provides  that  there  shall  be  no  increase  in 
the  salary  or  compensation  of  any  officer,  and 
that,  I suppose,  is  as  it  should  be.  But  it  does 
not  provide  that  there  shall  be  no  diminution 
in  the  compensation  of  any  officer,  during  the 
term  of  his  office.  Nor,  as  to  any  office  created 
by  the  Legislature,  does  it  provide,  inferentially 
or  otherwise,  that  the  office  may  be  abolished, 
and  that  thus  the  compensation  may  be  deter- 
mined. I will  move,  then,  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment— perhaps  that  will  accomplish  the  object 
that  I have — by  inserting,  after  the  word  “ in- 
crease,” the  words  “ or  diminish.” 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I have  no  objection  to  that 
amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  With  the  leave  of  the 
Convention,  the  gentleman  accepts  the  amend- 
ment. The  Secretary  will  read  the  amend- 
ment as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“But  shall  in  no  case  extend  the  term  of  office,  increase 
or  diminish  the  salary,  fees,  or  compensation  of  any  per- 
son elected  or  appointed  to  any  office  or  position  under 
the  Constitution  or  laws  of  this  State,  after  such  person 
shall  have  been  elected  or  appointed.’  ’ 

Mr.  HUNT.  If  I understand  rightly,  the 
Convention,  on  two  occasions,  in  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  voted  down  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Sco- 
field], by  a very  decided  majority,  and  sus- 
tained the  action  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department.  There  has  been  no 
argument  adduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Ma- 
rion [Mr.  Scofield] 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
a question? 

Mr.  HUNT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  They  have  never  voted  it 
down  as  proposed  in  this  section.  I offered  the 
amendment,  by  mistake,  to  another  section,  and 
it  was  voted  down  by  only  two  of  a majority. 


It  has  never  been  voted  down  as  an  amendment 
to  this  section. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Well,  the  principle  has  been  de- 
termined adversely  by  this  Convention. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  It  was  voted  down  because 
offered  in  the  wrong  place. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I am  not  speaking  as  to  the 
question  of  its  order,  and  where  it  should  have 
been  presented,  but  as  to  the  principle  involved 
in  the  amendment.  I am  in  favor  of  applying 
to  officers  of  the  General  Assembly  the  same 
principles  of  justice  and  equity  that  are  ap- 
plied in  the  ordinary  transactions  of  life.  If 
the  General  Assembly  shall  impose  additional 
duties  upon  an  officer,  it  should  provide  addi- 
tional compensation  for  those  additional  duties. 
If  a Sergeant-at-Arms,  or  a Clerk  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  should  perform  additional  du- 
ties, he  should  receive  additional  compensation 
for  those  services;  just  as  an  individual  in  the 
ordinary  transaction  of  business.  If,  by  rea- 
son of  some  adverse  circumstances,  a contractor 
should  be  subject  to  additional  expense  or  delay, 
which  he  could  not  reasonably  have  anticipated 
in  the  beginning,  he  is  entitled,  in  all  justice, 
to  additional  compensation.  It  should  be  the 
same  with  an  officer  of  the  General  Assembly. 
The  Legislature  cannot  always  anticipate 
these  things,  and  this  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion cannot  determine  as  to  the  amount  of  ser- 
vice which  their  officers  may  render  in  individ- 
ual cases. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
another  question  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Would  the  courts  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  afford  a remedy  in  the  case  of  in- 
dividuals such  as  the  gentleman  proposes  the 
Legislature  shall  work  out  between  it  and  its 
employes? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I can  readily  imagine  a case 
where  the  court,  in  its  equity  jurisdiction, 
would  interfere,  upon  proper  application,  and 
upon  a proper  showing.  But  whether  it  would 
interfere  or  not,  the  party  himself  should  inter- 
fere to  do  right.  The  contracting  party,  the 
General  Assembly,  which  employs  the  officers 
to  do  this  work,  and  imposes  additional  labor 
upon  them,  should  pay  them  for  that  service. 
There  should  be  no  Constitutional  prohibition 
to  prevent  the  Legislature  from  doing  justice. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  case  of  Mr.  Morgan,  an 
officer  of  this  body.  A resolution  has  been 
introduced  relating  to  the  compensation  of 
James  Morgan,  for  extra  services  in  this  Con- 
stitutional Convention.  The  Convention  elected 
him  an  officer  of  this  body.  They  elected  him 
with  the  understanding  that  he  should  receive 
live  dollars  per  diem.  Can  this  body  say  that,  in 
justice,  Mr.  Morgan  is  not  entitled  to  additional 
compensation  for  extra  time  that  he  spent  here 
in  furnishing  this  Hall  for  the  convenience  of  the 
members  ? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Was  not  Mr.  Morgan 
allowed  for  his  services  performed  here  during 
the  vacation  ? It  was  not  for  any  extra  ser- 
vices. It  was  for  services  performed  during  the 
vacation,  when  members  were  not  receiving 
per  diem,  and  the  officers  were  not  receiving  per 
diem.  He  was  engaged  in  furnishing  the  Hall, 
and  was  allowed  lor  that  service. 

Mr.  HUNT.  There  is  no  law  which  would 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. H97 

February  9,  1874.]  Hunt,  Scofield,  Humphreyille,  Baber. 


give  him  additional  compensation,  which  is  not 
given  to  any  member,  without  the  action  of  this 
Convention,  and  he  cannot  claim  beyond  that. 
It  is  within  the  discretion  of  this  body  to  say 
whether  he  shall  have  that  additional  compen- 
sation. He  is  justly  entitled  to  receive  it.  We 
engaged  him  to  work  during  the  sittings  of  this 
Convention,  during  the  hours  that  this  Con- 
vention is  in  session,  not  far  into  midnight,  and 
not  during  the  adjournment.  He  should  re- 
ceive additional  compensation  for  work  of  that 
character.  It  seems  to  me,  as  I suggested  irv 
my  remarks  before,  that  it  is  not  a matter  for 
this  Convention  to  determine.  We  have  assem- 
bled here  for  the  purpose  of  framing  an  or- 
ganic law,  which  shall  be  the  law  of  The  State 
for,  perhaps,  a half  century.  Th.^e  small  de- 
tails of  legislative  matter  should  be  referred  to 
the  Genera]  Assembly,  where" the  members  of 
the  Legislature,  sent  by  the  people,  are  better 
able  to  determine  the  expediency  of  each  case. 
Why  should  not  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  wh\£h  employed  these  officers, 
pass  upon  this  matter,  without  reference  to 
constitutional  Enactment?  But  if  a clerk  re- 
ceives additional  compensation,  the  gentleman 
says  it  will  be  given  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
electing naembers.  I question  whether  he  can 
cite  an  instance,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  where  a 
candidate  has  ever  been  defeated  or  elected 
Senator  or  Representative  by  reason  of  refusing 
or  giving  additional  pay  to  an  employe  of  the 
legislature ; or  whether  he  can  point  to  a single 
instance  where  the  influence  of  any  such  em- 
pl'bye,  in  any  Senatorial  or  Representative  dis- 
trict, because  of  any  refusal  to  vote  extra  pay 
extra  services,  has  had  very  much  influence 
ijn  defeating  or  electing  a member.  It  is  very 
^oubtful  if  a case  has  ever  occurred,  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  State.  I say,  then,  that  the  mem- 
lbers  of  the  General  Assembly  should  be  allowed 
rto  act  in  the  matter  just  as  the  delegates  of  this 
J*  Constitutional  Convention  are  permitted  to  act 
j in  the  matter,  with  regard  to  their  officers.  Let 
them  give  compensation  where  it  is  deserved, 
and  let  them  withhold  it  where  it  is  not  de- 
served. The  merits  of  each  individual  case 
should  govern  that  case. 

Let  us  here,  representing  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  not  turn  our 
guns,  as  I said  at  the  beginning,  upon  the  little 
pages  who  run  over  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and 
on  the  clerk  or  the  employes  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. We  have  higher  duties  before  us. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  another  question  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Has  he  ever  known  any 
instance  where  the  pages  have  received  addi- 
tional compensation?  Is  it  not  always  men 
employes  who  receive  it?  Nobody  proposes  to 
cut  off  the  compensation  of  the  little  pages. 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  pages  almost  always  have 
an  additional  pay  voted  them  at  the  rate  of  fifty 
cents  a day,  and  it  is  given  to  other  officers 
from  time  to  time,  in  such  casesi  if  they  deserve 
it.  That  discretion  should  be  vested  in  the 
General  Assembly.  With  all  due  respect  to  the 
Constitutional  Convention,  wisdom  will  not  die 
with  this  body.  Long  after  we  have  gone  from 
here,  and  the  youngest  have  gone  to  their 
graves,  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Ohio  will 


meet  in  its  annual  or  biennial  sessions.  The 
Representatives  will  be  there  directly  from  the 
people,  who  have  confidence  in  them.  They 
then  can  pass  upon  the  necessities  of  each  case. 
There  should  be  no  constitutional  provision  in 
a matter  of  so  much  detail  as  this ; and  we  ought 
to  ]be  content  to  indicate  certain  general  princi- 
ples of  legislation,  and  not  go  beyond  that  limit, 
lest  we  bring  upon  ourselves  the  just  criticism 
of  the  people.  There  may  have  been  abuses  in 
this  matter  of  voting  extra  compensation  to  the 
officers  of  the  General  Assembly.  The  remedy 
is  with  the  people  and  their  Representatives. 
The  responsibility  is  with  them.  We  have  a 
higher  duty  to  perform ; and  this  question  can 
safely  be  left  where  it  properly  belongs. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I am  very  loth  to 
consume  the  time  of  this  Convention  upon  this 
amendment;  but,  for  the  life  of  me,  I cannot 
see  any  necessity  for  it.  There  is  a clause  here 
that  looks  as  though  the  General  Assembly 
might  abolish  certain  offices.  I suppose  it  is 
right  that  they  should  have  that  power.  It  does 
not  imply  that  they  have  the  right  to  abolish 
constitutional  offices.  We  all  know  that  many 
officers  in  the  State  of  Ohio  hold  their  offices  by 
authority  of  legislative  enactment — that  they 
are  not  constitutional  offices.  As,  for  instance, 
the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury.  That  is  not  a 
constitutional  office ; neither  have  we  made  it 
such  in  passing  through  the  Executive  Article 
in  this  Convention.  It  is  left  still  a legislative 
office.  There  have  been  repeated  attempts  to 
abolish  the  office  of  comptroller.  Now,  sup- 
pose the  Legislature  should  see  fit  to  abolish 
that  office.  Will  the  gentleman  desire  that  the 
salary  of  the  office,  or  compensation,  should 
continue  after  the  office  is  abolished?  So  with 
other  offices.  The  Constitution  does  not  under- 
take to  prescribe  all  the  officers  that  shall  be 
elected  in  the  State.  It  does  not  name  all  the 
county  and  township  officers,  and  many  other 
officers  in  the  State,  that  are  merely  creations 
of  the  statute  law,  and  not  of  the  Constitution. 
The  Constitution  does  not  undertake  to  pre- 
scribe and  name  all  the  officers  who  may  hold 
office  in  the  State  of  Ohio;  and  if  an  office  is 
created  by  the  General  Assembly,  and  it  is 
afterwards  found  to  be  unnecesssary,  if  the 
General  Assembly  see  fit  to  abolish  it,  will  it  be 
contended  that  the  salary  ought  to  be  continued 
after  this  office  is  abolished?  This  gives  no 
power,  no  intimation  that  the  General  Assembly 
may  abolish  a constitutional  office. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  him  his  opinion  as  a law- 
yer: Has  not  the  Legislature  the  power  to 
abolish  any  legislative  office,  under  the  general 
legislative  power,  without  any  special  delega- 
tion in  this  Constitution? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  We  do  not  give 
them  any  special  legislation. 

Mr.  BABER.  Delegation,  I said. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  We  only  recognize 
the  power  that  they  have  to  abolish  legislative 
offices. 

Mr.  BABER.  Have  not  they  that  power  in 
the  general  clause? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  Yery  likely  they 
might  have.  I do  not  know  but  they  might. 
Whether  they  have  or  not,  I will  say  that  this 


1198 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  [109th 

Humphreville,  Neal,  Clark  of  R.,  Scofield,  Scribner.  [Monday, 


section,  as  originally  reported,  is  exactly  a 
transcript  of  the  section  in  our  present  Consti- 
tution. The  principle  change  that  this  section 
makes  is,  instead  of  providing  that  no  change 
of  office  shall  affect  the  sillary,  it  goes  a little 
further,  and  says  that  no  change  shall  affect  the 
salary  or  compensation  of  any  office , N°w,  if 
that  is  desired,  it  can  easily  be  amended  without 
striking  out  the  whole  of  this  latter  pro\isi^n’ 
and  putting  in  this  provision  of  doubtful  uW" 
ity.  The  Committee  had  the  matter  under  con- 
sideration, as  the  Convention  has  just  been  told 
by  a member  of  the  Committee,  whether  we 
would  put  in  a provision  prohibiting  the  Legis- 
lature from  passing  any  laws  that  could  affect 
the  fees  of  officers ; and  we  thought  it  advisable 
to  leave  that  out.  But  if  the  Convention  see  fit 
to  put  it  in,  a slight  amendment  can  be  made  in 
the  third  line,  and  insert,  after  the  word  “sala- 
ry,” if  you  please,  “compensation  or  emolu- 
ments of  any  office.”  I should  not  raise  any 
objection  to  that.  That  will  depend  upon  the 
good  sense  of  the  members  of  the  Convention. 
I do  not  believe  that  the  General  Assembly 
ought  to  be  prohibited  from  changing  the  fees 
of  certain  officers.  I do  not  think  any  very 
great  abuses  have  ever  taken  place  by  changing 
the  fees  or  compensation  of  officers.  My  im- 
pression is  that  the  fees  of  probate  judges  have 
not  been  changed  at  all.  If  they  have,  they 
have  not  been  materially  changed  since  they 
were  first  established  under  our  present  Con- 
stitution. It  is  true,  that  recently  the  fees  of 
recorders  have  been  increased  slightly,  from 
ten  cents  per  hundred  words  to  twelve  and  a half 
cents,  for  recording  deeds.  That  is  not  a very 
great  increase,  and  recorders,  in  the  majority  of 
counties,  are  certainly  not  overpaid.  The  fees 
of  justices,  for  the  business  they  do,  taking 
depositions,  etc.,  have  been  increased,  also, 
from  ten  cents  to  fifteen  cents  per  hundred 
words.  That  is  not  a very  great  increase,  and 
the  compensation  of  justices  has  not  been  in- 
creased more  than  necessary.  I do  not  see  any 
good  reason  why  this  whole  matter,  in  respect 
to  fees  and  emoluments  of  officers,  may  not  be 
left  to  the  good  sense  of  the  General  Assembly, 
without  being  restricted  by  the  Constitution. 

Some  gentlemen  seem,  in  framing  this  Article, 
to  have  the  idea  that  members  of  the  General 
Assembly  are  all  either  knaves  or  fools,  and 
that  it  is  not  safe  to  trust  them  with  anything. 
I do  not  hold  to  such  a doctrine.  I believe, 
sometimes,  we  have  members  of  the  Legislature 
that  are  as  capable  of  doing  justice  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State  of  Ohio  as  this  Convention  is, 
and  will  be  as  likely  to  do  j ustice.  I have  known 
no  very  serious  inconvenience  that  has  arisen 
under  our  present  Constitution,  so  far  as  the 
provisions  of  this  section  are  concerned.  I 
have  known  of  but  one  instance  when  the  terms 
of  any  officers  have  been  extended  beyond  the 
statutory  term  limiting  the  office.  That  was 
once  in  the  case  of  some  auditors  of  the  State. 
Their  terms  were  extended  for  a short  time  so 
as  to  meet  the  necessities  of  the  case,  that  the 
term  of  the  auditor  might  expire  after  the  sub- 
stantial work  of  the  year  had  been  accomplish- 
ed, and  not  put  him  out  of  office  during  the  time 
when  his  substantial  labors  were  being  per- 
formed. I do  not  know  that  any  injury  has 
arisen  to  anybody  by  that  extension.  It  is  the 


only  case  that  I now  remember.  I do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  General  Assembly  would  extend 
the  term  of  any  officer  unless  the  necessities  of 
the  case  required  it.  I do  not  believe  they 
would  do  it  corruptly,  or  to  the  great  injury  of 
the  people  of  the  State.  I am  opposed  to  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man a question. 

Mr.  HUMPIIREYILLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Under  the  section  as  reported 

the  Committee,  which,  I understand,  he  is 
in  rLvor  of,  the  Legislature  is  prohibited  from 
chan<>*ng  salaries.  Now,  I would  like  to  know 
why  hewould  have  these  fees  changed,  and  not 
salaries  ?'  whether  or  n°t  salaried  officers  are  not 
quite  as  mudl  entitled  to  the  consideration  of 
the  people  as  o$fters  who  are  Paid  hy  fees  are  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYille*  1 am  not  in  favor 
of  changing  fees ; but1  say  that  there  is  not  so 
much  danger  in  that;and  1 am  willing  to 
leave  it  to  the  good  sense  °f  the  General  As- 
sembly, whether  these  shall  changed  or  not. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Then  I would \ike  to  inquire: 
why  not  leave  the  other  to  the  go?d  sense  of  the 
General  Assembly  ? The  officers  that  are  paid 
by  fees  are  ten  to  one  of  those  paid^y  salaries. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Under  tf£  Pul- 
sion of  the  Constitution,  as  we  are  now  flaming 
it,  we  have  provided  that  almost  all  oPcers 
shall  be  paid  by  salaries. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I move  that  we  $ke 
a recess. 

On  this  question  a division  was  called  fob 
which  resulted — 33  for,  and  21  against. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12 : 30)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  With  the  leave  of  the  Con- 
vention, I would  like  to  introduce  a little  change 
in  the  proposition  I presented,  by  striking  out 
all  after  the  word  “after,”  and  inserting  these 
words : “such  persons  shall  have  been  elected 
or  appointed.”  It  makes  the  proposition  a 
little  more  brief,  and,  perhaps,  more  definite. 
If  the  Convention  will  grant  leave,  I shall 
make  that  change. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment  as  amended. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  1 offer  this  amendment: 
“If  any  office,  created  by  law,  be  abolished,  the 
salary  or  compensation  thereof  shall  thereupon 
cease  and  determine.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Lucas 
[Mr.  Scribner]. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield],  to  strike  out  all 
after  the  word  “officer,”  in  line  two,  and  insert 
the  following:  . 

“But  shall,  in  no  case,  extend  the  term  of  office,  or  in- 
crease or  diminish  the  salary,  fees,  or  compensation  of 
any  person  elected  or  appointed  to  any  office  or  position 
under  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  this  State,  after  such 
persons  shall  have  been  elected  or  appointed.  If  any 
office,  created  by  law,  he  abolished,  the  salary  attached 
thereto  shall  cease  and  determine.” 


1199 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  9,  1874.]  Hitchcock,  Burns. 


Upon  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  38,  nays 
25,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Baber,  Beer,  Blose, 
Burns,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Cunningham,  Greene, 
Herron,  Hill,  Hostetter,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Mc- 
Cormick, Mitchener,  Mullen,  Neal,  Phellis, 
Rickly,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Sco- 
field, Scribner,  Shultz,  Thompson,  Tulloss, 
Tuttle,  Tyler,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Young 
of  Champaign,  President — 38. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bosworth,  Coats,  De  Stei- 
guer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Gardner,  Hale, 
Hitchcock,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Miner,  Muel- 
ler, Okey,  Powell,  Pratt,  Russell  of  Musking- 
um, Townsend,  Townsley,  Van  Valkenburgh, 
Van  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Woodbury — 25. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  further 
amendments,  the  Secretary  will  read  section  22. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  22.  The  General  Assembly  shall  determine  by 
law,  and  before  what  authority,  and  in  what  manner,  the 
trial  of  contested  elections  shall  be  conducted.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  amend- 
ments to  section  22,  the  Secretary  will  read 
section  23. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  23.  No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury 
except  in  pursuance  of  an  appropriation  made  by  law; 
and  no  appropriation  shall  be  made  for  a longer  period 
than  two  years.  The  purposes  for  which  appropriation  is 
made  shall  be  distinctly  stated  in  the  bill,  and  any  bill 
appropriating  money  shall  be  read,  item  by  item,  and  a 
separate  vote  taken,  by  yeas  and  nays,  on  each  item , and 
any  item  failing  to  receive  a majority  of  the  votes  of  all 
the  members  elected  to  the  House  where  the  bill  is  pend- 
ing, shall  be  stricken  out,  and  no  amendment  to  incorpor- 
ate any  additional  item  into  such  bill,  or  to  increase  the 
amount  of  any  item,  shall  be  adopted,  unless  the  same 
shall  have  received  a like  majority  of  all  the  members 
elected.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  the  following  as 
a substitute  for  section  twenty- three. 

The  Secretary  read ; 

“Sec.  23.  Money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  only 
in  pursuance  of  specific  appropriation  made  by  law,  the 
purpose  of  which  shall  be  distinctly  stated  in  the  bill, 
and  no  appropriation  shall  be  for  a longer  period  than 
two  years. 

“Upon  the  passage  of  bills  appropriating  money,  a 
separate  vote  upon  any  one  or  more  items  therein  shall  be 
had,  by  yeas  and  nays,  entered  on  the  Journal,  upon  the 
demand  of  one-fifth  of  the  members  of  the  House  in 
which  the  same  is  pending,  and  each  item  failing  to  re- 
ceive the  vote  of  a majority  of  all  the  members  elected 
thereto  shall  be  stricken  from  the  bill.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I notice  that  the  words, 
“upon  such  separate  vote,”  which  I intended  to 
have  inserted  after  “item,”  in  the  next  to  the 
last  line,  are  not  found  in  the  printed  copy. 
These  words  I desire  to  have  retained  as  a part 
of  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  substitute. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  to  amend  the  substitute 
by  striking  out  of  line  sixth  the  words  “one- 
filth  of  the  members,”  and  inserting  “any  mem- 
ber,” so  that  it  will  read:  “Upon  the  passageof 
bills  appropriating  money  a separate  vote  upon 
any  one  or  more  items  shall  be  had  by  yeas  and 
nays,  entered  on  the  Journal  upon  the  demand 
of  any  member  of  the  House  in  which  it  is 
pending,  and  each  item  upon  such  separate 


vote  failing  to  receive  the  vote  of  a majority 
of  all  the  members  elected  thereto  shall  be 
stricken  from  the  bill.” 

If  this  amendment  is  to  become  a part  of  the 
section,  it  seems  to  me,  in  order  to  make  it  val- 
uable, those  who  desire  the  yeas  and  nays  ought 
not  to  be  prohibited  because  they  may  fail  to 
get  one-fifth  of  the  members  to  make  a demand 
therefor ; I desire  that,  on  this  particular  ques- 
tion, it  shall  be  the  privilege  and  right  of  any 
member  to  demand  the  yeas  and  nays.  A gen- 
tleman may  excuse  himself  afterwards  by  say- 
ing that  he  was  in  favor  of  having  the  yeas  and 
nays,  but  he  could  not  get  the  one-fifth  to  sus- 
tain them.  I desire  to  put  it  in  the  power  of 
any  member  to  demand  the  yeas  and  nays  on 
this  question. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  objection  of  the 
gentleman  in  its  present  form,  and  his  reasons 
for  favoring  the  change,  would,  to  my  mind, 
have  greater  force,  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that, 
in  the  consideration  of  this  bill  previous  to  the 
time  when  it  is  put  upon  its  passage,  under  the 
rule  which  has  been  adopted  in  section  nine, 
any  two  persons  have  the  right  to  demand  the 
yeas  and  nays  upon  any  question  whatever; 
and  all  of  these  items  being  considered  previous 
to  the  time  this  bill  is  put  upon  its  passage,  so 
far  as  recording  their  opposition  to  one  or  the 
other  items  of  that  bill,  is  concerned,  there  is 
full  opportunity,  upon  the  demand  of  two  per- 
sons, that  they  shall  be  taken  ; so  that  it  seems 
to  me  that  it  obviates  the  objection  which  the 
gentleman  raises,  which  is,  that  a member  ought 
to  have  the  right  to  record  himself  in  opposition 
to  any  items  in  the  appropriation  bill. 

With  regard  to  the  substitute,  I do  not,  at 
this  time,  desire  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Con- 
vention; nor  will  it  be  in  order  to  do  so  upon 
this  amendment  moved  by  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  any  further  than  to  call 
attention  to  what  is  sought  to  change  in  the 
original  proposition  by  this  substitute.  That 
embraces  two  things  which  are  not  embraced 
in  this  proposition.  One,  the  absolute  require- 
ment of  this  vote  upon  each  item  upon  the  bill, 
and  each  proposition  contained  in  the  bill  pre- 
vious to  the  time  the  bill  shall  be  put  upon  its 
final  passage,  and  the  final  vote  upon  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill  in  the  aggregate,  after  this  sep- 
arate vote  which  is  provided  for  in  this  substi- 
tute. With  regard  to  the  provisions  of  this  sec- 
tion great  care  is  very  properly  taken ; and, 
while  I have  no  doubt  each  member  of  this  Con- 
vention will  desire  to  reach  the  same  ultimate 
result  in  regard  to  the  Constitution  providing 
for  making  appropriations,  I find,  in  conversa- 
tion with  different  gentlemen,  that  we  enter- 
tain very  different  views  as  to  what  the  rule 
should  be.  With  that  view,  I do  not  desire  to 
take  up  the  time  of  the  Convention  until  I hear 
what  is  the  desire  of  gentlemen  upon  this  floor. 

The  reading  of  this  substitute  shows  the  pur- 
pose to  be  that,  when  a bill  has  been  finally 
read,  or  has  been  read  the  third  time,  and  the 
question  is,  shall  the  bill  pass  ? The  vote  is 
taken  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill  as  upon  the 
passage  of  all  other  bills,  unless  the  members 
of  the  House  in  which  the  bill  pending  shall 
desire  a separate  vote  upon  one  item,  or  upon 
any  particular  items,  and  that  wish  shall  be 
made  known,  and  the  vote  having  been  taken 


1200 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [109th 

Hitchcock,  West,  Burns,  Scribner,  Root.  [Monday, 


upon  all  the  parts  of  the  bill  to  which  this  re- 
quest does  not  apply,  then  it  will  be  separately 
taken  upon  those  items.  That  is  the  object 
sought  by  the  substitute. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
the  Secretary  to  read  the  proposed  modifica- 
tion ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK . Certainly. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Upon  the  passage  of  bills  appropriating  money,  or 
upon  concurring  in  any  amendment  thereto, a separate  vote 
upon  any  one  or  more  items  therein,  shall,  upon  the  de- 
mand of  any  member,  be  had  by  yeas  and  nays,  entered 
upon  the  Journal,  and  every  such  item  failing  to  receive 
the  vote  of  a majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to  the 
House  in  which  the  bill  is  pending  shall  be  stricken  there- 
from.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Is  that  offered  as  a substitute  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  not  been  offered. 
It  has  been  read  for  information. 

Mr.  WEST.  I shall  offer. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That,  I see,  embraces  the  idea 
that  I have  embraced  in  my  amendment ; there- 
fore, I ask  leave  of  the  House  to  withdraw  my 
amendment. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I desire  to  offer  an  amend- 
ment to  the  original  section,  which  I believe 
will  take  precedence  of  the  substitute. 

The  Secretary  read : 

In  line  sixth,  after  the  word  “and”,  where  it  first  oc- 
curs, insert  the  words,  “on  the  final  reading.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner]. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  The  object  of  that  amend- 
ment is  simply  to  make  the  original  section  con- 
form to  what  my  understanding  of  it  was  when 
it  was  considered  the  other  day — to  make  it 
provide  that,  on  the  final  reading  of  bills  ap- 
propriating money,  the  bill  shall  be  read  item 
by  item,  and  a separate  vote  taken  upon  each 
item,  and  not  make  it  necessary,  after  it  has 
been  acted  upon,  item  by  item,  to  take  another 
vote  upon  the  bill  as  an  entirety. 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas 
[Mr.  Scribner]  obviates  all  the  objections  that 
the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  and 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  find  in 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock].  This  amendment,  it  will  be 
observed,  proposes  that  this  vote  on  separate 
items  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  on  the  final  read- 
ing. Now,  the  effect  of  that  will  be  that,  on  the 
final  reading  of  a bill  any  person  desiring  the 
yeas  and  nays  can  have  them.  When  the  bill  is 
gone  through  with,  of  course,  the  question  will 
be  on  the  bill  as  a whole  on  its  final  passage. 
The  next  thing  before  the  final  passage  of  a 
bill  is  its  final  reading,  and,  of  course,  these 
separate  votes  will  be  previous  to  the  final  read- 
ing. There  should  be  no  confusion.  It  will 
prevent  confusion.  I am  reluctant  to  depart 
from  the  established  proceedings  of  any  body; 
but  in  a case  where  we  think  the  very  best  mode 
of  dealing  with  such  questions  has  been  ascer- 
tained by  long  experience,  and  which  seems  to 
be  the  very  best  mode,  it  would  be  dangerous 
to  make  a change. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I acted  under  a misapprehen- 
sion a moment  ago.  I supposed  that  the  gen- 


tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  had  offered  his 
proposition  as  an  amendment.  I understand 
that  it  was  only  read  for  information,  and  that 
it  is  not  before  the  House.  I,  therefore,  do  not 
withdraw  my  amendment  at  this  stage. 

Mr.  WEST.  I design  to  offer  it  as  soon  as  I 
get  the  floor;  and  if  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root]  will  permit  me  to  offer  it  now,  I 
shall  do  so. 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  makes  no  difference  to  me; 
and  I do  not  wish  to  obstruct  the  gentlemen  in 
anything  they  propose  to  do.  What  I way  try- 
ing to  reach  was  this:  If  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scrib- 
ner] prevails,  if  gentlemen  will  examine  the 
section  they  will  see  all  of  their  objections  ob- 
viated. All  that  they  seek  for  will  be  obtained 
by  the  amendment  to  the  original  section,  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scrib- 
ner], if  that  be  agreed  to.  I shall  proceed  to 
state,  and  I shall  do  it  very  briefly,  what  the 
effect  of  this  would  be  on  the  final  reading,  as 
it  is  read  section  by  section.  If  any  member 
desires  a separate  vote  and  demands  it, 
it  will  be  allowed  to  him.  The  practice  now  in 
Congress  on  appropriation  bills  is  this — and 
these  items  are  very  numerous  and  often  very 
large.  On  the  first  formal  reading  of  a bill, 
when  it  comes  from  the  Committee,  notice  is 
given  by  any  member  who  desires  a separate 
vote  on  any  item  or  amendment,  and  when  the 
House  comes  to  consider  it  by  separate  sections 
such  vote  is  had  accordingly.  If  you  carefully 
examine  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner]  you  will  see 
that  it  amounts  to  that  and  no  more. 

Mr.  WEST.  In  the  section  as  it  now  stands, 
is  there  a provision  to  demand  a vote  by  any 
member? 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  amendment  I am  speaking 
of. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner]  will  not  meet 
that. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I think  it  does.  The  trouble 
under  the  original  section  is  this,  in  my  mind, 
and  I think,  perhaps,  the  gentleman  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  will  see  it  in  the  same  light: 
There  is  a little  vagueness.  It  does  not  make  it 
definite  as  to  when  and  how  the  separate  vote  is 
to  be  taken.  In  the  amendment  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner],  it  is 
proposed  that  it  shall  be  taken  on  the  final  read- 
ing, and  not  on  the  passage  of  the  bill.  It  re- 
moves all  that  doubt. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  it  peremptory  in  all  cases  ? Or 
must  it  be  upon  the  demand  of  a member? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Peremptory. 

Mr.  ROOT.  “ Any  bill  appropriating  money 
shall  be  read  item  by  item,  and  on  final  reading 
a separate  vote  shall  be  taken,  by  yeas  and  nays, 
on  each  item ; and  any  item  failing  to  receive  a 
majority,”  &c.  1 believe  the  amendment  does 
not  extend  quite  so  far  as  I supposed  it  did.  It 
should  be  upon  the  demand  of  any  member  giv- 
ing notice,  that  a separate  vote  be  required.  I 
do  not  know  that  there  is  any  necessity  or  pro- 
priety in  requiring  a separate  vote  on  each 
item  in  the  bill — requiring  a vote  of  a majority 
of  members  elected  to  pass  it — unless  some  one 
demands  it,  because  on  the  final  passage  a vote 
of  the  majority  is  always  required. 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1201 

February  9,  1874.]  Humphreville,  Root,  Hitchcock,  West. 


Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  All  that  the  section 
requires  is  a majority  vote. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I desire  that  on  each  item,  if  any 
member  desires  it,  there  thall  be  a separate  vote ; 
and  to  pass,  that  there  shall  be  a majority  of  all 
members  elected. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner],  to  insert  in  line  six,  after  the  word 
“ and,”  the  words,  “ after  final  reading.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock.] 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I understand  that  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  moved  to 
amend  that,  in  the  latter  paragraph. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir.  I take  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  ]Mr.  Hitchcock], 
simply  changing  it  in  a few  words.  The  object 
of  the  proposition  is  that  the  demand  shall  be 
made  by  any  person  on  the  final  reading;  and, 
if  the  gentleman  will  permit  me,  I shall  state 
the  object  of  it.  His  proposition  precludes 
taking  a vote  by  yeas  and  nays  on  the  separate 
items,  except  upon  the  demand  of  one-fifth  of 
the  members.  That  destroys  individual  respon- 
sibility to  the  gentleman’s  constituents.  If 
each  member  may  be  permitted  to  make  a de- 
mand, and  if  he  fails  to  do  so,  he  cannot  go  to 
his  constituents  and  say  that  he  wanted  to  vote 
by  yeas  and  nays,  but  that  he  could  not  get  one- 
fifth  of  the  members  of  the  House  to  concur 
with  him.  If  he  has  the  individual  right,  and  he 
fails  to  make  a demand,  he  is  personally  respon- 
sible to  his  constituents.  He  cannot  screen 
himself  behind  the  impossibility  of  obtaining 
the  support  of  one-fifth  of  his  colleagues  to  back 
him  in  the  matter.  It  simply  substitutes  indi- 
vidual personal  responsibility  to  the  constitu- 
ency for  a divided  or  multiplied  responsibility. 
That  is  the  sole  objection  to  it.  It  was  suggest- 
ed, a few  days  ago,  that  if  it  be  made  peremptory 
to  take  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  each  item,  it 
would  occupy  several  days,  and  many  items 
would  be  carried  unanimously,  probably  nearly 
all  of  them,  and  but  few  be  objected  to,  and 
there  would  be  no  practical  necessity  of  a sep- 
arate vote,  by  yeas  and  nays,  upon  each  item. 

This  substitute  provides  that,  if  there  by  any 
item  in  a bill  to  which  any  gentleman  objects, 
he  may  demand  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  that 
item ; and  if  there  be  many  items  to  which  no 
member  objects,  there  is  no  necessity  for  taking 
the  yeas  and  nays  on  that  item ; but  if  there  be 
a single  objection  to  any  item,  the  member 
should  have  the  privilege  of  demanding  the 
yeas  and  nays  upon  that  item,  so  as  to  ascertain 
whether  that  single  item,  standing  alone,  can 
receive  these  fifty-three  or  fifty-five  votes,  as 
the  case  may  be.  Now,  if  the  yeas  and  nays  be 
taken  before  the  final  passage,  the  amendment 
is  attached  by  less  than  a majority;  but  it  can 
not  be  passed,  under  this  provision,  by  less  than 
a majority;  and,  although  gentlemen  record 
their  names  for  or  against,  that  is  not  the  ques- 
tion. The  question  is,  has  there  been  and  is 
there  shown,  at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings, 
an  opportunity  upon  its  final  passage,  or  the 
final  passage  of  that  individual  item,  standing 
alone,  a constitutional  majority  ? It  is  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  the  privilege  of  showing 

v.h-78 


that  there  is  such  a constitutional  majority  for  a 
single  item,  and,  at  the  same  time,  without  the 
necessity  of  taking  the  yeas  and  nays  upon 
an  item  to  which  nobody  has  any  objection. 
That  is  the  whole  object  of  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  does  not  un- 
derstand that  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  has  offered  his  amendment. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir ; I offer  it. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Upon  the  final  passage  of  a bill  appropriating  money 
or  upon  concurring  in  any  amendment  thereto,  a separate 
vote  upon  any  one  or  more  items  therein,  shall,  upon  the 
demand  of  any  member,  be  had  by  yeas  and  nays,  en- 
tered on  the  Journal.  Every  such  item  failing  to  receive 
a vote  of  the  majority  of  all  the  members  elected  in  the 
House  in  which  the  bill  is  pending,  shall  be  stricken 
therefrom.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I understand  that  the 
only  difference,  except  in  one  point,  that  there 
is  between  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  and  the  one  offered  by 
myself  is  as  to.  the  authority  to  call  for  this 
separate  vote.  While  my  convictions  are  not 
changed  as  to  the  rule  which  should  be  adopted, 
knowing  that,  as  before  stated,  in  a preceding 
stage  in  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  each 
individual  member  has  the  opportunity,  if  he 
so  desires,  of  making  his  record  upon  the  Jour- 
nal, on  the  call  of  yeas  and  nays,  yet  I presume 
that  the  sentiment  of  the  Convention  in  that 
regard  is  in  opposition  to  the  position  taken, 
and,  therefore,  I agree  in  so  much  as  relates  to 
making  demand  by  one  member. 

Mr.  BABER.  Cannot  this  matter  be  com- 
promised by  the  insertion  of  a provision  similar 
to  the  rule  we  have  here,  that  if  any  member 
desires  his  vote  recorded,  if  on  demand,  the 
yeas  and  nays  are  refused  by  one-flfth  of  the 
members  present,  he  may  still  do  so  ? 

[“Not  agreed.”] 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  There  seems  to  be  a 
general  objection  to  that  course.  The  insertion 
of  these  words,  “ or  upon  concurring  in  any 
amendment  thereto,”  is  not  necessary  in  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West].  I suppose,  upon  the  final  passage  of  a 
bill,  there  can  be  no  questions  upon  amendments 
in  the  House  in  which  the  bill  is  pending,  and, 
therefore,  this  must  necessarily  refer  to  the  bill 
as  it  comes  from  the  other  House.  As  the  bill 
comes  back  from  the  other  House,  there  is  a pow- 
er, without  this  provision,  to  call  for  a separate 
vote  upon  the  amendments  that  are  recommend- 
ed, or  have  been  agreed  to,  in  the  other  House, 
and  that  a separate  vote  is  almost  invariably 
taken.  The  fact  that  the  vote  upon  this  amend- 
ment, or  upon  those  amendments;  settles  the 
fate  of  the  bill,  and  is,  virtually,  the  passage  of 
the  bill,  if  it  shall  be  concurred  in  in  the  House, 
necessarily  requires  the  amendment  to  be  made 
by  a majority  of  all  the  members  elected. 

Mr.  WEST.  Does  not  that  depend  upon  the 
rules  of  the  House  simply?  May  there  not  be 
a combination  to  defeat  the  passage  by  chang- 
ing rules,  so  as  to  take  a vote  in  the  aggregate, 
instead  of  by  sections?  Cannot  that  be  possi- 
ble? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  understand  it 
to  be  governed  by  the  rules  of  the  House.  I 
understand  it  to  be  governed  by  the  provision 
of  the  Constitution,  which  requires  a majority 


1202 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

West,  Hitchcock,  Eoot,  Hoadly. 


[109th 


of  all  the  members  elected  to  concur  in  the 
passage  of  a bill. 

Mr.  WEST.  Concurring  in  the  amendment 
coming  from  the  other  House? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  That  is  necessary  on 
concurrence  in  the  passage  of  a bill.  If  either 
House  fails  to  give  the  concurrence,  by  a major- 
ity of  the  members  elected,  it  does  not  concur 
in  the  passage  of  the  bill  in  that  form. 

Mr.  WEST.  Might  there  not  be  a failure  to 
call  a division,  if  a combination  were  formed? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  gentleman  thinks 
that  there  might  be  danger  of  that,  I have  no 
special  objection  to  a provision  to  prevent  it, 
although  not  regarding  it  as  necessary. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  would  look  at  his 
amendment,  and  see  whether  he  can  accept  an 
amendment  to  it.  I shall  direct  attention  to  it, 
if  he  will  look.  In  the  amendment,  in  line 
four,  strike  out  the  word  “passage”,  after  the 
word  “upon”,  and  insert  the  words  “final  read- 
ing.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  I understand  the  pur- 
pose of  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root], 
and  from  remarks  previously  made  by  him  I 
think  I do,  he  desires  to  make  this  upon  final 
reading,  and  then,  that  there  shall  be  a subse- 
quent vote  taken  upon  the  passage  of  a bill  as  a 
whole.  Do  I understand  the  gentleman  cor- 

rpptl  v 9 

Mi\  ROOT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  not  like  to  ac- 
cept the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  with  that 
view.  I desire  that  this  separate  vote  upon 
items  shall  be  upon  the  final  passage  of  the  bill ; 
so  that  each  item  which  is  determined  is  thus 
finally  determined,  and  does  not  depend  upon 
the  contingency  of  what  may  be  the  result  of  a 
vote  upon  other  items  which  may  be  disposed 
of  hereafter.  Any  other  course  is  very  likely 
to  determine  the  course  of  many  members  when 
they  come  to  vote  upon  the  final  passage  of  the 
bill  as  a whole. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  the  gentleman  succeed 
in  accomplishing  his  object?  Is  not  an  amend- 
ment necessary  ? Does  not  the  section,  as  it  is 
left  by  the  delegate  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitch- 
cock], as  well  as  it  is  left  by  the'  delegate  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West],  leave  it  in  doubt,  after  all, 
whether  there  is  to  be  a further  final  vote, 
namely,  on  the  whole  bill,  containing  the  sepa- 
rate items  which  are  retained  and  not  voted  for 
on  the  separate  vote;  and  ought  there  not  to  be 
a provision  at  the  end,  expressly  providing  that 
each  separate  item  shall  be  declared  passed,  and 
that  no  vote  shall  be  taken  on  the  whole  bill? 
Is  not  that  necessary  to  accomplish  the  gentle- 
man’s purpose?  I concur  with  him  in  the  ob- 
ject he  is  desirous  of  getting  at;  but  I am  afraid 
he  is  not  getting  at  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  think  that  there 
is  any  danger,  as  suggested  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly].  I may  be  mis- 
taken, however.  It  is  upon  the  passage  of  bills 
appropriating  money.  Now,  upon  the  passage 
the  question  is:  “Shall  the  bill  pass?”  As  for 
instance,  the  question  before  the  Convention  is, 
Shall  a certain  proposition  be  agreed  to?  There 
may  be  resolutions  or  propositions  presented  as 
a whole  that  contain  several  distinct  proposi- 
tions. The  gentleman  lrom  Hamilton  [Mr. 


[Monday, 


Hoadly]  asks  a separate  vote  upon  one  of  those 
propositions,  to  which  he  may  be  entitled  under 
the  rule.  The  vote  is  taken  on  the  passage  on 
agreeing  to  the  proposition,  except  the  item 
upon  which  the  gentleman  asks  a separate  vote. 
Then  the  vote  is  taken  upon  agreeing  to  that 
item,  and  that  disposes  of  the  whole  question.  I 
do  not  think  that  there  is  any  danger  as  suggest- 
ed by  the  gentleman.  I understand  the  gentle- 
man and  myself  agree  as  to  the  object  sought. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Entirely. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root],  if  I understood  him,  does  not.  He 
thinks  there  should  be  a final  vote  upon  the 
passage  of  the  whole  bill.  I think,  as  before 
said,  in  some  remarks  which  I do  not  wrish  to 
repeat,  that  the  very  object  sought  to  be  gained 
by  taking  separate  votes  upon  items,  will  be 
frustrated,  if,  subsequentljr,  there  is  a vote  to  be 
taken  upon  the  passage  of  the  entire  bill,  for 
the  reason  that,  so  long  as  men  are  constituted 
as  they  are,  the  result  upon  some  item,  which 
has  been  lost,  will  determine  their  course  against 
the  passage  of  a bill,  ultimately.  In  my  expe- 
rience, one  thing  is  true,  that  it  is,  very  fre- 
quently, harder  to  gain  a sufficient  majority  for 
the  passage  of  any  law  which  ought  to  be  made 
than  to  prevent  the  passage  of  a law  that  ought 
not  to  be  enacted.  The  propriety  of  a measure 
does  not  determine  the  vote  it  will  receive. 
Appropriations  that  ought  to  be  made  will,  more 
frequently,  fail,  while  those  more  doubtful  will 
more  easily  secure  votes,  except  where  those 
propositions  are  to  pay  amounts  that  are  speci- 
fied and  fixed  by  law.  I think  a larger  vote 
can,  frequently,  be  secured  for  the  passage  of  a 
bill  which  ought  not  to  pass,  than  can  be  to  se- 
I cure  the  passage  of  a bill  that  ought  to  pass, 
i The  bills  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hoadly]  referred,  the  other  day,  are 
an  illustration  of  this — a large  number  of  which 
were  passed  at  the  last  session  of  the  General 
Assembly.  Some  fifty  or  seventy-five,  granting 
special  corporate  powers,  were  bills  of  a char- 
I acter  which,  almost  invariably,  pass  through 
j the  General  Assembly  with  scarcely  any  oppo- 
sition. at  all.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  votes 
> of  individuals  are  very  liable  to  be  turned,  upon 
the  final  passage,  against  the  bill,  because  their 
own  favorite  projects  have  been  defeated,  that 
we  ought  not  to  submit  the  bill,  as  a whole,  to  a 
vote  upon  the  final  passage,  after  having  sever- 
ally determined  upon  the  items  thereof. 

Again,  from  the  very  necessity  of  the  case, 
the  provision  of  a section  like  this  which  wre  are 
! attempting  to  secure  in  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, while  it  admits  of  grouping  together  in 
i the  bill  many  appropriations  and  a large  num- 
| ber  of  items,  intimates  that  those  items  are  of 
that  separate  character,  and  so  little  dependent 
upon  one  another,  that  a vote  may,  very  prop- 
erly, be  taken  separately  upon  many,  if  not  all, 
of  these  items.  Having  thus  voted,  at  a time 
when  no  opportunity  for  amendment  or  change 
can  be  given,  but  when  the  question  is  upon  the 
final  passage  of  the  bill;  having  once  voted  to 
pass  what  might,  properly  enough,  constitute  a 
j separate  bill,  why  should  we  take  a second  vote 
i upon  the  passage  of  that  bill?  It,  virtually, 

| amounts  to  that.  Having  voted  to  make  a spe- 
cific appropriation,  by  the  majority  required  in 
' the  Constitution,  shall  we  turn  around,  and 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1203 

February  9, 1874.]  Hitchcock,  Root. 


again  vote  to  make  that  specific  appropriation 
by  a similar  vote  ? 

I do  not  know  that  the  remark  would  be  in 
order  at  present ; but  if  I am  allowed  I will 
say  that,  while  I would  prefer  the  section  as  it 
now  stands,  with  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner],  to  the  origi- 
nal section,  I would,  very  much,  prefer  the 
substitute  amended,  as  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  although  that 
does  not  agree  entirely  with  my  views.  I pre- 
fer it  for  the  reason — and  it  is  not  a very  im- 
portant one,  perhaps — that,  in  a very  brief 
space,  in  the  first  paragraph  in  this  substitute, 
is  expressed  what  occupies  a much  larger  space 
in  the  original  section,  and  yet  this  expresses 
it  fully  as  clearly  and  definitely  as  it  is  express- 
ed in  the  other.  Then  I prefer  it  very  much 
more,  from  the  fact  that,  if  it  should  be  agreed 
to  in  this  form,  it  does  not  compel  this  separate 
vote  upon  each  item  in  the  bill,  but  only  allows 
that  separate  vote  to  be  taken  upon  demand. 

That,  as  suggested  by  myself,  when  making 
some  remarks  the  other  day,  was  the  principal 
point  aimed  at.  That,  while  preferring  that  the 
vote  should  be  only  upon  the  demand  of  one- 
fifth,  yet  the  difference  between  the  smaller 
number  and  that,  is  the  difference  in  time  occu- 
pied. Some  gentleman  may  demand  this 
vote  for  the  purpose  of  occupying  the  time  of 
the  House,  to  delay  action.  That,  perhaps,  is 
not  a very  important  consideration. 

One  other  remark  in  this  connection.  It  is  of 
no  very  great  consequence  to  this  Convention 
what  may  have  been  the  experience  of  any  mem- 
ber before  coming  here.  I listened,  with  some 
degree  of  interest,  to  the  relation  of  the  experi- 
ence of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell], the  other  day,  and  have  frequently  lis- 
tened, with  great  pleasure,  to  the  experience  of 
the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  in  the 
same  direction.  I do  not  wish  to  give  my  expe- 
rience in  connection  with  legislation  in  making 
appropriations;  but  I do  feel  a greater  interest 
in  the  subject,  from  the  fact  of  having  so  often 
witnessed  its  workings,  and  I desire  to  repeat, 
what  was  said  by  me  the  other  day,  that  appro- 
priations are  not,  ordinarily,  made  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  Ohio  with  carelessness  or 
recklessness ; but  there  is  very  great  care  exer- 
cised, very  much  time  spent,  and  each  item, 
almost,  or  a large  majority  of  items,  presented  to 
either  House,  are  very  closely  scrutinized ; and 
while  a very  large  portion  of  the  items  pre- 
sented are  proper  subjects  of  appropriations,  all 
are  very  carefully  considered.  In  connection 
with  this  matter,  I know  that  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  early  in  the  ses 
sion  of  this  Convention,  introduced  a proposi- 
tion by  which  he  sought  to  secure  the  same 
result.  I understand  that  the  gentleman,  al- 
though never  claiming  any  special  experience 
in  the  subject,  had  conferred  with  others  who 
had  experience,  and  he  was  not  satisfied  with 
the  scope  of  the  original  proposition,  or  the 
scope  of  the  present  section,  as  it  stands,  with- 
out any  modification.  The  change  which  has 
since  been  made  by  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner],  does  not 
well  accomplish  what  he  sought.  Permit  me  to 
say,  in  addition,  that  I have  had  conference 
with  a]  gentleman  that  has  had  as  much,  or 


more,  to  do,  perhaps,  than  any  other  man  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  in  our  Legislature,  with  making 
appropriations,  and  he  fully  agreed  with  me; 
and  the  substitute  which  I originally  intro- 
duced, is  in  accordance  with  the  recommenda- 
tions of  that  gentleman. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I find  that  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  does  not  want  the 
vote  on  separate  items  taken  at  a stage  previous 
to  the  final  passage  of  the  bill.  I shall,  there- 
fore, not  try  to  amend  his  amendment  in  this 
respect,  though  I think  it  would  be  well  to  have 
it  done.  Still,  I discover  from  his  amendment, 
and  from  the  support  that  it  receives,  or  the 
favor  that  has  been  given  to  it,  that  there  is  a 
disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Convention  to 
dispense  with  a vote  on  the  whole  bill,  on  its 
final  passage,  by  yeas  and  nays,  requiring 
majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to  the 
House  in  favor  of  its  passage.  That  is  sought 
to  be  got  around  and  dispensed  with.  I hope 
that  the  Convention  will  do  nothing  of  the 
kind.  If  you  do  that,  sir,  you  will  let  go  your 
sheet-anchor.  I defy  gentlemen  to  find  in  the 
history  of  any  country  that  has  a legislative 
body,  where  the  legislative  department  of  the 
government  is  carried  on  by  a deliberative  as- 
sembly, an  instance  of  the  kind.  It  is  only 
when  you  have  got  all  your  pieces  put  together 
and  constituted  a whole  bill,  and  the  question 
is,  “Shall  this  bill  pass?”  that  we  want  the 
yeas  and  nays,  above  all  things — that  we  want 
a majority  of  the  whole  body  elected,  and  when 
you  part  with  that,  sir,  I repeat,  you  throw 
away  your  sheet-anchor.  You  are  all  at  sea. 
You  establish  a new  precedent,  or  rather,  you 
establish  a new  mode  of  legislation,  utterly 
without  precedent,  and  go  upon  an  untried  ex- 
periment, the  result  of  which  is,  to  me,  suffi- 
ciently obvious.  You  foster,  you  contribute  to, 
you  invite  log-rolling  and  corruption  when  you 
dispense  with  that. 

I believe  it  would  be  a good  thing,  at  a stage 
previous,  as  shortly  previous  as  you  please — but 
at  a different  stage  of  the  proceedings—  to  have 
separate  votes  on  separate  items,  and  to  require 
a majority  of  the  whole  body  to  keep  an  item 
in  its  place.  I believe  that  would  be  a good 
thing;  but,  if  after  having  done  that,  you  could 
take  it  and  incorporate  it  as  a part  of  the  bill, 
and  you  are  not  to  have  another  vote  upon  it 
on  the  final  passage,  I say  you  have  purchased 
it  too  dearly,  you  have  cast  away  a certain  plan, 
before  the  sense  of  the  body  is  ascertained,  for 
what  may  be  a mere  trick.  It  would  be  a good 
thing  where  you  know,  as  members  may  know, 
and  as  some  members  do  know,  that  appropria- 
tion bills  have  influence,  in  that  they  depend 
upon  each  other,  and  depend  upon  log-rolling. 
It  would  be  a good  thing  to  call  on  men  who 
voted  for  an  appropriation  of  which  they  disap- 
proved in  order  to  get  in  an  appropriation 
which  they  had  approved,  to  say  that  they  are 
in  favor  of  an  appropriation  they  really  disap- 
prove. Let  them  go  on  record  where  all  the 
State,  as  well  as  their  constituents,  may  see  what 
they  have  done.  You  can  very  much  better  ac- 
complish it  by  a separate  vote  on  separate  items 
than  you  can  by  a vote  upon  the  whole  bill. 
But  still,  the  vote  upon  the  final  passage  of  the 
bill  is  the  more  important,  and  it  is  the  only 
safety  you  have  against  corrupt  legislation,  and 


1204 


[109th 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Root,  Hitchcock,  Sample,  Hoadly.  [Monday, 


that  does  not  always  secure  safety.  But  I hope 
we  shall  never  abandon  it,  but  shall  adhere  to 
it;  and  for  the  sake  of  getting  in  incidentally 
the  smaller  advantage,  the  supposed  advantage, 
we  shall  never  yield  up  this  great  safety,  that' 
upon  the  final  passage  of  the  bill  there  is  to  be 
a vote  of  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  there  must  be 
a majority  of  the  whole  House  to  pass  the 
bill. 

I do  not  know  that  instances  amount  to  much, 
nor  relations  of  our  experience ; but  I do  make 
an  appeal  to  any  candid  man  who  has  had  any 
experience  in  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  or 
any  other  legislature,  whether  he  does  not 
know  that  it  is  the  most  practicable  fact  in  the 
world,  not  to  get  the  same  members,  but  to 
get  a majority  lor  one  item  that  ought  not  to 
go  into  the  bill,  and  a majority  for  any  other 
item  that  ought  not  to  go  into  the  bill,  and  a 
majority  for  still  another  item  that  ought  never 
to  have  found  a place  in  the  bill,  and  then  have 
a bill  that  a majority  of  the  House  would  no 
more  dare  vote  for  than  they  would  dare 
stick  their  heads  into  a furnace.  Better,  much 
better,  adhere  to  the  legislative  provision  of  the 
section  as  amended  by  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner]  ; or  even 
vote  for  the  amendment  than  to  add  anything 
to  make  it  a constitutional  provision  which 
shall  dispense  with  a yea  and  nay  vote  on  the 
final  passage  of  the  bill,  and  which  shall  dispense 
with  a majority  of  the  whole  House  elected 
thereto  to  pass  a bill  when  it  is  consolidated. 
When  we  give  that  up,  we  give  up  our  safety. 
I should  regret,  above  all  things,  to  have  any 
provision  adopted  which  would  have  the  effect 
of  dispensing  with  the  final  vote. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  Convention  will 
allow  me,  I shall  accept  the  proposed  modifica- 
tion of  my  substitute  as  suggested  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposition,  as 
amended,  is  before  the  House. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I would  like  to  have  it  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Upon  the  passage  of  hills  appropriating  money,  or 
npon  concurring  in  any  amendment  thereto,  a separate 
vote  upon  any  one  or  more  items  therein,  shall,  upon  de- 
mand of  any  member  be  had  by  yeas  and  nays  entered 
upon  the  Journal,  and  every  such  item  failing  upon  such 
separate  vote  to  receive  a vote  of  the  majority  of  all  the 
members  elected  to  the  House  in  which  the  bill  is  pend- 
ing, shall  be  stricken  therefrom.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  We  have  provided  in  the  six- 
teenth section  that  no  bill  shall  contain  more 
than  one  subject,  which  shall  be  clearly  ex- 
pressed in  its  title;  this,  it  is  true,  is  directory 
to  the  Legislature;  but  it  is  the  expression  of 
our  own  judgment  of  what  is  wise,  and  what 
should  govern  the  General  Assembly  in  its 
business.  There  is  only  one  exception  to  it,  as 
I understand  it,  and  that  grows  out  of  the  fact 
that  appropriation  bills,  though  several  in  their 
character,  are  classed  as  one  subject,  and  named 
under  one  title.  If  it  were  practicable  to  have 
a separate  bill  for  each  appropriation,  and  pass 
each  appropriation  separately,  I do  not  believe 
there  is  a member  of  this  Convention,  includ- 
ing the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  who 
would  object  to  it;  but  would  feel  that  it  was  a 
«reat  reform.  What  those  desire  who  think  as 
I do,  is  to  get  the  substance  of  the  good  that  is 


in  the  idea  of  having  the  separate  character  of 
each  appropriation  separately  put  to  a vote, 
without  the  delay  and  expense  involved  in  hav- 
ing separate  appropriation  bills  of  each  item. 
What  the  gentleman  calls  a sheet-anchor,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  quite  different.  When  several 
votes  have  been  taken,  and  a majority  has  ex- 
pressed itself  in  favor  of  the  appropriation — 
perhaps  they  have  been  unanimously  carried  in 
many  cases — then  comes  an  appropriation 
which  is  barely  carried,  then  another  bare- 
ly carried,  and  each  by  the  votes  of  diff- 
erent members.  The  minority,  under  the 
gentleman’s  sheet-anchor,  of  each  of  these 
minorities,  uniting,  make  a majority  to  defeat 
the  whole  bill,  and  dictate  to  the  members  pro- 
visions inimical  to  the  views  of  the  real  major- 
ity of  the  House,  as  a condition  to  the  passage 
of  those  provisions  against  which  nobody  is  op- 
posed. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Did  the  gentleman  ever  know  a 
general  appropriation  bill  to  be  defeated  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I have  never  been  a member 
of  the  Legislature.  I have  known  the  President 
of  the  United  States  to  be  placed  in  this  posi- 
tion : A bill  having  passed  containing  a provi- 
sion of  which  he  must  have  disapproved,  name- 
ly: the  “backpay”  to  members  of  Congress, 
and  another  provision  which  it  is  known  he  did 
approve,  his  own  increase  of  salary,  was  com- 
pelled, in  order  to  save  the  virtue  of  the  bill — 
his  own  increase — to  allow  the  bill  to  go  into 
force,  although  it  increased  the  salary  of  mem- 
bers of  Congress.  I have  known  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  of  Appropriations,  in  Con- 
gress, to  avow,  publicly,  that  he  sacrificed  his 
views  and  feelings  in  regard  to  that  bill  rather 
than  to  allow  appropriations  for  the  support  of 
the  Government  to  be  defeated.  I think  there 
are  instances  in  point  in  answer  to  the  delegate 
from  Erie  [Mr.  Root].  When  the  vote  is  taken 
by  yeas  and  nays  on  the  final  passage  of  an  ap- 
propriation bill,  a single  item  that  has  received 
a majority  of  all  the  members,  ought  not  to  be 
again  voted  upon.  It  ought  not  to  be  subjected 
to  the  chance  of  being  defeated,  having  received 
this  majority,  because  other  items,  that  ought 
not  to  receive  a majority,  are  stricken  from  the 
bill. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I understand  the  gentleman  to 
say  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  was 
obliged  to  approve  the  bill,  though  it  contained 
items  which  everybody  knows  he  must  have 
been  opposed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Ought  to  have  been  op- 
posed to. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  inquire  the  source  of 
the  gentleman’s  information? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I have  none.  I am  going 
on  general  moral  principles,  in  which  my  edu- 
cation has  been  largely  developed,  owing  to  the 
contiguity  of  my  seat  to  that  of  the  gentleman 
from  Erie  [Mr.  Root].  I should  have  said 
ought , instead  of  must — that  is  all. 

It  is  clear  if  we  can  work  this  out  in  a practi- 
cal way,  and  for  that  I depend  upon  the  delegate 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  and  the  delegate  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  and  the  delegate  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root],  we  will  accomplish  a great 
reform.  I admit  the  delegate  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root]  is  right  in  saying  that  the  danger  is  im- 
mensely diminished  by  directing  the  yeas  and 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Hoadly,  Burns,  Humphreville,  Mueller,  etc. 


1205 


Day.] 

February  9,  1874.] 


nays  upon  final  passage.  When  a man  is  called 
to  vote  upon  the  final  passage  of  an  item,  and 
that  vote  is  a final  vote,  and  the  question  is, 
shall  I trade  away  my  vote  on  this  item  for  the 
promise  of  a vote  upon  another?  the  possibility 
of  bargaining  is  what  no  human  legislation,  no 
constitutional  provision,  can  prevent.  As  the 
delegate  from  Preble  [Mr.  Barnet]  said  to  me 
the  other  day,  you  can  correct  that  evil  only  by 
abolishing  legislation.  That,  I admit;  but,  Mr. 
President,  does  not  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root],  know  that  when  the  vote  is  a final 
one,  and  there  is  no  chance  for  a further  trade, 
and  that  it  will  go  into  the  law,  and  he  cannot 
use  the  passage  of  it  as  a means,  afterwards,  by 
saying,  I shall  go  back  on  this  if  the  promise  is 
not  kept — I shall  go  back  upon  this  if  some- 
thing else  is  not  done — Does  not  the  delegate 
see  that  the  opportunity  for  trading  is  enor- 
mously diminished  ? It  turns  an  appropriation 
bill,  as  nearly  as  it  is  practicable  for  human 
legislation  to  do,  into  what  it  really  is,  a con- 
geries of  separate  items  having  no  necessary 
connection.  ' Therefore,  the  passage  of  one 
ought  not  in  any  sense,  to  depend  upon  the  pas- 
sage of  another.  Suppose  we  take  the  gentle- 
man’s idea  that  there  is  to  be  a final  vote.  What 
does  the  restriction  amount  to?  What  is  the 
clause  good  for?  Men  that  have  been  disap- 
pointed, will  try  to  defeat  the  ordinary  appro- 
priations for  the  support  of  the  government, 
unless  the  other  members  of  the  real  majority 
of  the  Legislature  yield  to  them ; there  will  be 
cases,  if  there  have  been  none  already,  in  which 
the  minority  will  have  the  majority  by  the 
throat,  and  will  dictate  to  them  the  passage  of 
appropriation  bills  containing  items  which  the 
majority  do  not  want  to  have  thrust  upon  them. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  as  amended  by 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasm-y  only  in  pur- 
suance of  a specific  appropriation,  made  by  law,  the  pur- 
pose of  which  shall  be  distinctly  stated  in  the  bill,  and  no 
appropriation  shall  be  for  a longer  period  than  two  years. 
Upon  the  passage  of  bills  appropriating  money,  or  upon 
concurring  in  any  amendments  thereto,  a separate  vote 
upon  any  one  or  more  items  therein,  shall,  upon  demand 
of  any  member  be  had,  by  yeas  and  nays,  entered  on  the 
Journal;  and  every  such  item  failing,  upon  such  separate 
vote,  to  receive  the  vote  of  a majority  of  all  the  membrs 
elected  to  the  House,  in  which  the  bill  is  pending,  shall  be 
stricken  therefrom.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Do  I understand  this,  as  it 
now  stands,  to  be  a substitute  for  the  whole  of 
section  twenty-three? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
striking  out  of  section  twenty-three  and  insert- 
ing the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  as  amended. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Is  it  in  order  now 
to  offer  an  amendment  to  the  original  section? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  in  order. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I send  up  the  fol- 
lowing, which,  I think,  will  meet  the  objection 
of  the  gentleman,  and  make  the  thing  more 
definite. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  at  the  end  of  line  eight  the  words:  “and  each  item 
receiving  such  majority  shall  be  considered  as  passed 
without  another  vote.” 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 


Mr.  MUELLER.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment to  section  23 : 

In  line  seven,  after  the  word  “item”,  insert,  “provided 
such  yeas  and  nays  are  demanded.” 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
section  twenty-three  as  now  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“No  money  shall  he  drawn  from  the  treasury,  except  in 
pursuance  of  a specific  appropriation,  made  by  law,  and 
no  appropriation  shall  be  made  for  a longer  period  than 
two  years.  The  purpose  for  which  the  appropriation  is 
made  shall  be  distinctly  stated  in  the  bill,  and  any  bill 
appropriating  money  shall  be  read,  item  by  item,  and 
upon  the  final  reading  a separate  vote  shall  be  tafcen,  by 
yeas  and  nays,  on  each  item,  and  any  item  failing  to 
receive  a majority  of  the  votes  of  all  the  members  elected 
to  the  House  where  the  bill  is  pending,  shall  be  stricken 
out,  and  each  item  receiving  such  a majority  shall  be 
considered  as  passed  without  another  vote;  and  no 
amendment  to  incorporate  any  additional  item  into  such 
bill,  or  to  increase  the  amount  of  any  item,  shall  be 
adopted  unless  the  same  shall  have  received  a like  major- 
ity of  all  the  members  elected.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  to  amend  the  substi- 
tute by  adding  at  the  end  thereof,  these  words : 
“ and  each  item  receiving  such  a majority  shall 
be  declared  passed  by  such  House.” 

The  object  of  the  amendment  is  to  make  it 
conform  with  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville], 
to  the  original  section,  and  already  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be 
upon  adding  the  amendment  to  the  substitute. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I desire  the  yeas  and  nays  upon 
that  section. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  make  an 
inquiry.  There  was  an  important  provision  re- 
ported by  the  Committee,  and  stricken  out  by 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  with  the  under- 
standing that  it  would  be  inserted  somewhere, 
and  not  be  abandoned.  I would  like  to  inquire 
of  the  Chairman  of  this  Committee,  what  has 
become  of  this  provision  ? The  provision  I refer 
to  is  the  one  that  no  appropriation  shall  be 
made  by  the  Legislature,  the  subject  matter  of 
which  has  not  been  provided  for  by  law  pre- 
vious to  the  appropriation. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  That  is  still  in  the 
bill  in  the  twenty-fourth  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  section  23  and  inserting  the  sub- 
stitute. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I ask  for  a division 
of  the  question. 

Mr.  HERRON.  If  I understand  the  meaning 
of  the  provision,  it  is  to  defeat  combinations  in 
appropriation  bills,  and  the  result  is  simply 
this,  that  all  these  gentlemen,  whose  items  will 
be  voted  down,  will  combine  to  defeat  the  ap- 
propriation bills,  until  they  are  restored.  We 
are  simply  giving  rise  to  a new  combination  to 
defeat  appropriation  bills,  instead  of  the  old 
one. 

Mr.  NEAL.  How  in  the  world  is  that  diffi- 
culty to  be  obviated  by  requiring  the  yeas  and 
nays  to  be  called  on  every  item  ? 

Mr.  HERRON.  They  will  then  be  done  in 
their  order,  and  every  item  that  receives  a ma- 
jority will  pass  without  any  further  vote. 
Under  the  other  provision,  these  items,  on  which 
a separate  vote  is  required,  may  be  required  to 


1206 


THE  LEGISLATIVE,  DEPARTMENT. [109th 

Hitchcock,  Herron,  Burns,  Mueller,  West,  etc.  [Monday, 


be  voted  upon,  and,  if  they  are  defeated,  their 
friends  will  withdraw  them. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  objection  urged  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron] 
may  have  some  force,  if  the  course  he  points  out 
is  the  one  which  would  be  pursued ; but  if  that 
course  was  pursued,  it  would  be  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  all  practice.  I doubt  if  the  gentleman 
ever  knew,  certainly  I am  confident  that  I never 
knew,  an  instance  ^in  the  Legislature,  and 
doubt  whether  he  ever  did  in  any  other  deliber- 
ative body,  where,  a series  of  resolutions  being 
presented  for  consideration,  and  a separate  vote 
was  asked  upon  any  one  of  those  resolutions, 
that  separate  vote  was  taken  until  the  body  of 
the  resolutions  had  been  disposed  of.  Hence, 
from  the  very  wording  of  this  provision,  if  I 
can  understand  this  wording,  and  it  was  drawn 
with  special  reference  to  this  result.  - “Upon 
the  passage  of  the  bill.”  Upon  the  question, 
“Shall  the  bill  pass?”  a separate  vote  is  asked 
for  upon  certain  items  in  that  bill,  then  the 
question  will  be,  Shall  the  bill  pass  ? except  as 
to  the  item  2,  5, 10,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  the 
vote  is  first  taken  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill, 
with  these  exceptions,  and  then  the  separate 
vote  is  taken  upon  the  items  excepted.  This  is 
one  of  the  advantages  of  the  plan,  in  that  these 
disputed  items  cannot  affect  the  passage  of  the 
bill  as  far  as  it  relates  to  other  items. 

I know  that  the  judgment  of  the  gentleman 
may  be  superior  to  mine;  but  I am  constrained 
to  urge  what  I know  to  be  true,  and  what  would 
be  almost  necessarily  the  rule  adopted,  to  gov- 
ern the  action  of  the  two  Houses  in  the  consid- 
eration of  appropriation  bills. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman whether  there  is  anything  preventing 
the  House  or  Senate  requiring  that  the  vote 
be  first  taken  upon  those  provisions  upon  which 
a separate  vote  is  asked  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Not  any  specific  pro- 
vision in  the  Constitution.  That  question  will 
probably  be  determined  by  the  rules;  but  I 
hardly  think  that  any  body  of  men  passing  upon 
any  proposition  or  upon  a number  of  propo- 
sitions, because  one  member  alone  of  that  body 
may  desire  that  a provision  may  be  subjected  to 
a separate  vote,  will  agree  that  that  separate 
vote  shall  be  taken  at  a particular  time,  to  ac- 
commodate that  one  member.  It  seems  to  me 
that  would  be  a conclusion  without  much  prob- 
ability of  correctness.  I think  the  gentleman 
from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  stated  the  real  differ- 
ence between  the  two  parallel  positions  in  com- 
paring the  substitute  proposed  with  the  original 
proposition  as  to  its  arrangement  and  expres- 
sion. They  differ  somewhat,  so  far  as  the  first 
paragraph  is  concerned.  As  before  said,  that 
paragraph  expresses  the  same  idea  much  more 
briefly,  and,  it  appears  to  me,  fully  as  distinctly. 
Further  than  that,  I do  not  wish  to  say,  having 
prepared  the  substitute  myself. 

There  are  really  two  points  of  difference  in 
the  propositions.  One,  as  stated  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  and  the  other 
in  reference  to  the  use  of  the  words,  “ final 
reading,”  and  ‘‘upon  the  passage.”  The  latter, 
appears  to  me,  is  much  more  definite  than  the 
other.  I understand  very  well  that  the  passage 
of  the  bill  comes  after  the  final  or  third  reading, 
but  I understand  just  as  well  that  upon  the 


third  reading,  the  bill  is  open  to  amendment, 
and  whenever  a bill  is  put  upon  its  final  passage 
it  is  not  open  to  amendment.  The  difference, 
and  I regard  it  as  a difference  of  some  little 
importance,  is,  whether  the  words  “ upon  the 
passage  of  this  bill,”  are  used.  If  so,  rules  to 
carry  out  these  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
will  be  made  in  accordance  with  the  suggestion 
that  has  been  heretofore  made,  providing  that 
this  separate  vote  may  be  demanded  when  the 
House  comes  to  the  passage  of  the  bill,  and  not 
immediately  after  the  final  reading  when  it  is 
still  open  to  amendment,  by  instructions  or 
otherwise.  The  real  difference  of  importance 
between  the  two  propositions — the  question  to 
be  determined  is : Shall  we  say  in  this  consti- 
tutional provision,  that  absolutely  no  item  of 
any  appropriation  bill  of  a larger  or  smaller 
amount,  whether  of  greater  or  of  lesser  impor- 
tance, whether  an  amount  absolutely  fixed  by 
law,  or  not  so  fixed,  shall  be  passed  except  upon 
a separate,  specific  vote ; or,  shall  such  specific 
vote  only  be  had  upon  items  when  demanded  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I have  an  amendment  to  be 
added  at  the  end  of  the  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“A  general  appropriation  bill  shall  embrace  nothing 
but  appropriations  for  the  ordinary  expense  of  the  Exec- 
tive,  Legislative,  and  Judicial  Departments  of  the  State, 
and  of  the  behevolent,  punitive,  and  reformatory  institu- 
tions thereof;  for  the  payment  of  the  public  debt  and  in- 
terest thereon,  and  for  public  schools.  All  other  appro- 
priations shall  be  made  by  separate  bills,  each  embodying 
but  one  subject.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I raise'a  question  of  order. 
That  amendment  cannot  be  made.  The  Con- 
vention has  decided  not  to  strike  out  the  sec- 
tion. That  is  the  end  of  it  for  the  present. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  competent  to  add 
to  the  section.  The  practice  has  been  to  per- 
mit amendment  by  addition.  The  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  is, 
therefore,  in  order. 

Mr.  WEST.  1 rise  to  make  a request  of  some 
gentleman.  I really  feel  that  there  is  a neces- 
sity for  doing  it.  The  twenty-third  section  as 
it  is  made  up,  is  composed  of  amendments  made 
in  Committee  of  the  V^holejand  which  were  put 
together  in  a disorderly  manner.  I really  would 
not  like  to  see  it  go  out  as  the  work  of  this 
Convention  as  it  is  now.  Nobody  is  responsi- 
ble for  it  in  particular;  but  it  is  the  result  of 
‘ those  things  which  almost  always  occur.  1 sug- 
gest that  some  gentleman  move  a reconsideration . 
of  that  vote  and  strike  out  of  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  the 
words  “on  demand  of  any  member,”  and  then 
it  will  be  harmonious  and  accord  with  the  will 
of  the  Convention.  The  section  is  so  much 
more  condensed,  so  much  more  clear  and  spe- 
sific,  that  there  can  be  no  mistake  about  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I ask  to  have  section  twenty- 
three  read  precisely  as  it  stands,  in  order  that  we 
may  see  whether  it  is  so  incongruous  as  is  sup- 
posed. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I move  to  reconsider  the  vote 
upon  striking  out  section  twenty-three. 

The  Secretary  then  read  section  twenty- 
three,  as  follows ; 

“No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury,  except  in 
pursuance  of  a specific  appropriation,  made  by  law,  and 
no  appropriation  shell  be  made  lor  a longer  period  than 
two  years.  The  purpose  for  which  the  appropriation  is 
made  shall  be  distinctly  stated  in  the  bill,  and  any  bill 


1207 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  9,  1874.]  West,  Cook,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Cunningham. 


appropriating  money  shall  be  read,  item  by  item,  and  on 
the  linal  reading  a separate  vote  taken,  by  yeas  and  nays, 
on  each  item ; and  any  item  failing  to  receive  a majority 
of  the  votes  of  all  the  members  elected  to  the  House 
where  the  bill  is  pending,  shall  be  stricken  out,  and  each 
item  receiving  such  majority  shall  be  considered  as 
passed  without  any  other  vote,  and  no  amendment  to  in- 
corporate any  additional  item  into  such  bill,  or  to  increase 
the  amount  of  any  item,  shall  be  adopted,  unless, the  same 
shall  have  received  a like  majority  ol  all  the  members 
elected.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  that 
the  result  of  the  vote  upon  striking  out  section 
twenty-three,  was  announced  as  yeas  34,  nays 
37^  but  since  that  time  an  error  has  been  dis- 
covered, and  the  true  result  is,  yeas  34,  nays  36. 
The  question  is  now  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  to  re- 
consider the  vote  taken  upon  striking  out  sec- 
tion twenty-three. 

Upon  which  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded. 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  that  that  motion  be  laid 
on  the  table  for  the  present. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  suggest  to  the  friends  of 
this  measure  that  it  is  late  in  the  evening  now, 
and  if  this  section  were  re-committed  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department,  with 
the  understanding  that  it  should  not  lose  its 
place  on  the  calendar,  the  Committee  could, 
probably,  by  to-morrow  morning,  report  a sec- 
tion that  would  be  satisfactory  to  all  parties.  I 
do  not  think  we  should  lose  any  time  by  do- 
ing so. 

Mr.  WEST.  And  we  could  work  away  a 
while  on  the  other  sections. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded  upon  the 
motion  to  lay  on  the  table.  Objection  was  rais- 
ed, and  as  only  eight  gentleman  rose  to  support 
the  demand,  it  was  not  sustained. 

The  question  was  then  taken  upon  the  motion 
to  lay  on  the  table,  the  motion  to  reconsider  the 
vote  upon  striking  out  section  twenty- three. 
Upon  a division,  thirty-three  gentlemen  voted 
in  the  affirmative,  and  twenty-nine  in  the  nega- 
tive. So  the  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  mo- 
tion to  reconsider  was,  therefore,  laid  on  the 
table. 

The  Secretary  then  read  section  twenty-four 
as  follows : 


“No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any  officer, 

Eublic  agent,  or  contractor,  after  the  service  shall  have 
een  rendered,  or  the  contract  entered  into,  nor  shall  any 
money  be  paid  on  any  claim,  the  subject  matter  of  which 
shall  not  nave  been  provided  for  by  pre-existing  law.  un- 
less such  compensation  or  claim  be  allowed  by  two-thirds 
of  the  members  elected  to  each  branch  of  the  General 
Assembly.  No  such  allowance  shall  be  made,  except  by 
bill,  and  no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  items,  or  dif- 
ferent items  of  compensation  or  claim,  and  every  appro- 
priation for  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation  or 
claim  included  in  any  act  making  several  appropriations 
shall  be  void.” 


Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I move  to  strike 
out  all  after  the  word  “Assembly,”  in  the  sixth 
line.  I do  not  desire  to  detain  the  Convention 
but  a few  moments  in  discussing  this  amend- 
ment. I have  two  reasons  for'  offering  this. 
My  first  reason  is,  that  we  ought  not  to  tie  up, 
as  it  were,  the  hands  of  the  Legislature,  and 
prevent  them  from  passing  any  appropriation 
bill  for  appropriating  money  for  claims  not 
provided  for  by  pre-existing  law,  and  from  in- 
cluding more  than  one  item  or  claim.  Now, 
this  matter  of  one  item,  if  it  is  to  be  construed 
strictly,  means  but  a single  article  of  account. 
You  cannot  include  different  items,  and  no 


matter  what  shall  transpire;  no  matter  what 
claims  should  be  brought  against  the  State,  or 
what  valid  claims  any  party  might  have,  every 
single  item  of  that  claim  would  have  to  be  put 
in  a separate  bill.  Now,  if  there  is  any  reason, 
if  there  is  any  just  cause  for  it,  or  if  our  Legis- 
lature lias,  in  its  acts,  heretofore,  so  far  disre- 
garded its  duty  as  that  it  has  become  necessary 
for  us  to  guard  every  single  item  of  their  ap- 
propriations, it  is  beyond  any  information  that 
I have.  Why  is  it  necessary  to  have  inserted 
in  this  Constitution  a provision  that  no 
item  shall  be  provided  for  if  not  provided  for 
by  pre-existing  law?  No  bill  shall  be  passed 
including  any  item  more  than  one,  because  the 
claim  or  demand  has  not  arisen  or  been  provid- 
ed for  by  pre-existing  law.  I can  see  no  reason 
for  it,  and  with  the  present  restrictions,  which 
we  have  already  placed  upon  the  Legisla- 
ture, by  section  twenty-four,  requiring  each 
one  of  these  items  to  be  separately  voted  on,  in 
every  bill  passed  by  the  Legislature,  there  can- 
not be  any  reason  for  any  such  restriction  as 
this.  If  there  is  any  reason  for  it;  if  it  is 
necessary  to  guard  the  portals  of  the  Legisla- 
ture to  prevent  them  from  making  appropria- 
tions—if  is  is  necessary,  in  other  words,  to 
prohibit  the  people,  through  the  Legislature, 
from  making  appropriations  for  valid  claims, 
unless  each  and  every  one  of  them  shall  be 
provided  for  in  a separate  bill,  it  is  more  than 
I can  understand.  It  is  a reason — if  there  is 
any  reason  for  it— which  I am  not  able  to  per- 
ceive. 

Now,  in  the  second  place — and  it  is  a matter 
which  ought  to  be  weighed  well  by  this  Con- 
vention—there  is  a class  of  claims  urged  at 
present  against  the  State,  known  as  the  Morgan 
raid  claims,  and  for  which,  I fear,  this  provision 
was  introduced  by  the  Committee  on  Leg- 
islative Department,  to  prevent  the  Legislature 
from  ever  making  any  appropriation  on  these 
claims  and  accounts.  Now,  whatever  may  be 
the  reason  for  bringing  the  claims  forward,  and 
whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  the  claims,  they 
are  claims  that  are  presented  by  a large  portion, 
I will  say,  of  the  people  living  in  certain  por- 
tions of  the  State.  They  are  claims  that  grew 
out  of  incursions  made  by  a band  of  rebels  go- 
ing through  the  State.  Some  of  them  are  prob- 
ably valid  claims  against  the  United  States,  and 
some  are  probably  valid  claims  against  the 
State  of  Ohio,  while  others  are  claims  that  have 
been  disputed  from  the  first,  and  have  never 
been  allowed  at  all.  If  this  provision  is  intro- 
duced into  the  Constitution,  it  will  forever  pro- 
hibit the  Legislature  from  making  any  appro- 
priation for  them  whatever. 

Mr.  CUNN  INGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me  to  ask  him  a question  ? 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  Certainly,  I will. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Could  not  these  claims, 
if  they  are  just  and  should  properly  be  paid,  be 
provided  for  by  law  ? 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  Is  that  all  your 
question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  Certainly  they 
could  be;  but  it  would  be  such  an  endless  job 
that  the  Legislature  could  not  finish  the  appro- 
priation for  one  year,  unless  they  sat  there  and 
did  nothing  else.  I say  it  is  impracticable. 


1208 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [109th 

Russell  of  Meigs,  Tuttle.  [Monday, 


That  is  what  I say.  It  cannot  be  done,  or  will 
not  be  done,  by  any  Legislature  that  will  ever 
sit  in  Ohio.  Now,  I am  not  here  to  discuss  the 
propriety,  or  the  impropriety,  of  the  State  pay- 
ing these  claims.  I say,  we  have  thrown 
around  the  Legislature  a sufficient  guard  to 
keep  the  Legislature  from  ever  paying  them. 
The  present  Constitution  requires  a two-thirds 
vote  on  such  claims,  and  under  this  provision 
they  never  will  be  paid.  But  gentlemen  are 
not  satisfied  with  that  prohibition.  They  wish 
to  place  in  the  Constitution  a provision  which 
will  absolutely  and  forever  prohibit  any  provi- 
sion being  made  for  them  under  any  cir- 
cumstances whatever.  Now,  as  a matter  of 
practicability,  as  a matter  of  policy,  I ask  ought 
this  Convention,  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  off 
certain  claims,  claims  in  existence  at  present,  to 
make  any  such  provision  ? Secondly,  if  we  do 
pass  such  a provision,  what  will  be  the  result? 
Why  it  was  asserted  here  by  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West],  the  other  day,  that  there 
were  over  fifty  thousand  votes  in  Southern  Ohio 
that  any  Governor  would  lose  if  he  should  ever 
veto  a bill  in  which  this  appropriation  was  pro- 
vided for.  Taking,  then,  that  gentleman’s  as- 
sertion that  fifty  thousand  voters  are  interested 
in  this  proposition,  is  it  not  probable  that  they, 
on  the  day  of  election,  with  the  provision  in  the 
Constitution  submitted  to  them,  will  go  up  and 
vote  solid  against  it?  Then  look  over  the  State 
of  Ohio,  and  consider  the  other  objectionable 
features  that  will  be  found  to  every  article,  and 
where  will  you  have  your  Constitution  adopted  ? 
Then,  I say,  as  a matter  of  policy  alone,  we 
ought  to  hesitate  about  inserting  this  provision, 
for  every  man  who  is  interested  in  any  one  of 
these  claims,  and  every  one  of  his  neighbors, 
will  look  upon  it  as  a direct  thrust  at  him.  They 
may  say:  “We  could  not  get  them  paid  under 
the  old  Constitution,  but  we  do  not  propose  that 
any  Constitutional  Convention  or  Legislature 
shall  thrust  any  such  insult  as  that  into  our 
faces.  You,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
know  that  these  claims  are  inexistence;  we 
believe  they  are  valid  claims,  and  we  have  pre- 
sented them  against  the  State  of  Ohio  as  such. 
We  hold  them  to-day  as  such.  If  you  will  not 
pay  them,  you  cannot  expect  us  to  vote  for  a 
Constitution  that  will  load  down  the  Legislature 
worse  than  they  now  are,  so  that  they  never  can 
make  any  appropriation  whatever.  Now,  I say, 
as  a matter  of  policy,  if  gentlemen  expect  this 
Constitution  to  be  adopted,  and,  in  view  of  the 
objections  that  will  arise  in  different  portions  of 
the  State,  probably  against  every  Article,  we  ‘ 
ought  not  to  insert  a provision  here  which,  as  j 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  has! 
said,  will  create  an  opposition  to  any  man  or 
Constitution  of  fifty  thousand  votes.  It  seems  I 
to  me  that  it  would  be  the  worst  folly  in  the 
world.  Gentlemen  may  say  : “But  these  claims 
are  of  no  account ; the  State  never  ought  to  pay 
them.”  I am  not  arguing  that  question.  Icare| 
not,  so  far  as  this  argument  is  concerned,  | 
whether  the  State  ought  to  pay  them  or  not.  So 
far  as  the  legal  question  is  concerned,  I am  not ! 
discussing  that.  I say  if  you  place  the  last  por-  j 
tion  of  this  Article  in  the  Constitution,  and 
submit  it  to  the  people,  you  will  find  out  that, 
in  eighteen  or  twenty  counties  of  this  State  you  | 
will  receive  an  almost  solid  vote  against  it. 


Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Does  the  gentleman  think 
that,  in  that  part  of  the  State,  it  would  be  de- 
sired to  make  these  claims  a question  bearing 
upon  everything  else,  alter  the  whole  policy  of 
the  Constitution  in  so  far  as  it  requires  what  is 
here  required,  that  when  an  allowance  is 
made  it  should  be  made  by  bill,  and  not  by  joint 
resolution  ? 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  I do  not  think  the  gentle- 
man understands  my  position  at  all,  or  I do  not 
understand  him.  I do  not  ask,  nor  do  I believe 
that  any  one  of  these  men  would  ask,  that  pro- 
vision be  made  separately,  or  differently,  on 
their  account.  This  is  not  what  I am  arguing. 
I say  these  men  may  say:  “We  have  claims, 
and  you,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  knew 
it.  You  place  this  restriction  upon  the  action 
of  the  Legislature,  adding  on  a greater  restric- 
tion than  was  found  in  the  old  Constitution  in 
regard  to  these  claims  not  provided  for  by  a 
pre-existing  law ; and  you  propose  now  to  load 
them  down  with  another  amendment,  so  that  it 
will  be  impossible  ever  to  pass  them  through  the 
Legislature. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  is  already  provided  that 
every  law  that  is  passed  shall  be  by  bill.  Does 
the  gentleman  think  that  the  allowance  of  these 
claims  would  not,  in  some  way  or  other,  involve 
the  passage  of  a law,  or  that  there  is  any  way 
by  which  they  could  ever  be  paid  until  a law 
were,  in  some  form,  passed  establishing  the  va- 
lidity of  these  claims?  Does  the  gentleman 
claim  that  there  is  now  any  law  by  which  they 
are  entitled  to  be  paid,  and  that  they  ever  can 
be  paid  until  there  is  a law  ? And  does  not  the 
Constitution,  as  the  Article  now  stands,  require 
that  every  law  that  is  passed,  shall  be  passed  by 
bill? 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  The  gentleman  is  too  deep 
for  me.  I have  been  listening,  trying  to  dis- 
cover some  point.  I do  not  doubt  but  that  ev- 
ery appropriation  must  be  made  by  bill.  That 
is  provided  for  in  section  24. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Not  every  appropriation,  but 
every  law  passed. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  Well,  every  law  passed, 
then;  and  every  appropriation  shall  be  by  bill. 
But  you  do  not  stop  at  this.  That  is  what  I am 
complaining  of.  You  go  on  and  say  that  no 
bill  shall  contain  more  than  one  item  for  the 
payment  of  these  claims.  Does  the  gentleman 
see  the  distinction  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman’s  time 
is  up. 

By  unanimous  consent,  the  gentleman  was 
allowed  to  proceed. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  I am  sorry  to  trespass  upon 
the  time  of  the  Convention.  Under  section  24, 
all  other  appropriations,  all  bills  for  other  pur- 
poses, may  contain  a thousand  items,  or  as 
many  as  you  choose  to  add ; but  when  you 
come  to  this  class  of  claims,  that  require  a two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  Legislature,  you  go  on  to  say 
that  these  shall  contain  but  one  item  or  claim. 
Now,  the  gentleman  has  been  on  the  bench,  and 
I want  to  ask  him  what  is  meant  by  that  word 
“ item  ” there  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  want  to  make  a 
speech  at  this  time. 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Russell  of  Meigs,  Hale. 


1209 


Day.] 

February  9,  1874.] 


Mr.  RUSSELL.  Thank  you.  I should  dislike 
very  much  to  stand  up  here  and  wait  until 
you  got  through  with  the  speech.  I will  say, 
however,  what  I understand  by  the  meaning  of 
this  word  “ item.’1  It  is  a single  charge,  such 
as  a merchant  would  make  when  there  are 
several  things  bought.  Each  one  of  them 
would  constitute  an  item,  and  that  is  what  is 
intended  by  this  section.  Why  did  the  gentle- 
men who  were  on  the  Legislative  Committee, 
wish  to  restrict  this  class  of  claims,  and  place 
them  upon  a different  footing  from  other 
claims  ? Why  was  it  desired  that  a claim,  be- 
cause it  had  not  been  provided  for  by  pre-exist- 
ing law,  should  be  provided  for  by  bill,  with 
only  one  item  in  a single  bill? 

Mr.  HALE.  A man’s  claim  need  not  be 
itemized. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  This  says  : “ no  such  allow- 
ance shall  be  made,  except  by  bill,  and  no  such 
bill  shall  embrace  several  or  different  items,” 
— that  is,  different  items  of  claim. 

Mr.  HALE.  Different  items  of  compensa- 
tion or  claim. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  Well,  if  that  does  not  mean, 
under  the  ordinary  construction  of  the  Eng- 
lish language,  that  the  bill  cannot  contain  but 
one  single  item,  then  I cannot  understand  it. 
There  must  be  some  mystery  about  this  lan- 
guage used  by  the  gentlemen  of  the  Legislative 
Committee,  that  I am  unable  to  understand. 

Mr.  HALE.  I am  not  upon  that  Committee. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  That  is  just  what  I thought. 
As  my  friend  from  Hamilton  here  suggests,  it 
does  mean  that,  and  cannot  mean  anything  else. 
Why  do  the  Committee  desire  this  restriction 
when  these  claims  have  been  presented,  and 
when  they  are  known  to  exist?  No  other 
claims  over  the  State  are  urged,  and  the  gentle- 
men of  the  Committee  must  have  had  these  in 
their  eyes  at  the  time.  It  must  have  been  their 
very  object,  practically  to  prohibit  any  appro- 
priation for  the  payment  of  these  claims,  in 
placing  them  in  such  a situation  that  they  must 
require  a two-thirds  vote  of  the  Legislature  be- 
fore any  payment  could  be  made,  and  then  re- 
quiring that  every  bill  shall  contain  only  a sin- 
gle item.  I say  that  this  shows,  at  once,  that  the 
provision  was  aimed  expressly  at  these  claims, 
and  so  it  will  be  taken  throughout  all  the  dis- 
trict from  which  they  are  urged.  If  gentlemen 
are  so  desirous  of  having  the  Constitution  re- 
ceive this  opposition — why,  insert  the  provision, 
and  you  will  receive  it,  surely.  If  you  do  not, 
then  strike  it  out.  As  I was  saying,  as  far  as 
the  claims  are  concerned,  I do  not  believe  they 
will  be  paid  by  the  State,  and  have  not  believed 
it.  But  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  If  you 
place  this  in  your  Constitution,  you  simply 
strike  a blow  at  these  men,  whoever  they 
are,  which  is  undeserved.  There  never  was 
anything  done,  except  the  combination 
that  was  attempted  last  winter  in  the 
Legislature — and  that  I will  admit — but  while 
I felt  some  interest  in  that  direction,  I was 
sorry  the  opposition  was  made.  I think  it  was 
made  in  the  Legislature  during  an  exciting 
time ; and  I know  that  it  did  not  accord  with 
the  wishes  of  the  people  in  the  section  of  the 
State  that  had  been  ravaged  by  Morgan  and  his 
men.  I know  they  were  sorry  this  combination 


was  made  in  the  Legislature.  They  went  up 
there  and  asked  for  an  appropriation  fairly; 
they  did  not  send  any  lobbies  last  winter.  But 
it  was  owing  to  the  excitement  of  the  members 
of  the  Legislature  from  that  section  of  the  State, 
that  they  undertook  to  form  this  combination, and 
it  was  not  a combination  that  was  wished  for,  or 
desired,  or  encouraged,  by  the  people  through 
that  section.  They  wished  the  appropriation  to 
be  made  fairly,  if  it  could  be  done;  and  I know 
that  I heard  an  expression  from  a large  portion 
of  the  people  in  my  county.  When  the  com- 
bination broke  up  in  the  Legislature  they  said 
they  were  glad  of  it.  Men  who  had  suffered, 
and  who  had  put  in  claims  for  more  than  a thou- 
sand dollars,  did  not  ask  for  payment  in  any 
such  way.  They  believed  their  claims  were 
good  claims;  and  they  believed  that  if  the  State 
had  paid  them  in  the  first  place,  the  General 
Government  would  afterwards  have  paid  them, 
and  all  would  have  been  settled.  And  many  of 
them  believe  still  that  they  have  a just  claim 
against  the  State.  Why,  then,  do  you  wish  to 
insert  this  restriction  when  there  is  no  need  of 
it?  I will  say  that  in  all  the  legislation  that 
has  ever  been  enacted,  to  my  knowledge,  since 
the  destruction  of  this  property,  there  never 
has  been  any  lobbying  in  the  Legislature  to 
pass  it  through.  The  members  from  that  por- 
tion of  the  State  have  worked  for  it,  and  the 
members  from  this  county  of  Hamilton  have 
always  been  generous  in  regard  to  it,  and  have 
always  supported  it.  But  the  fight  seems  to  be 
conducted  by  one  section  of  the  State  against 
another.  The  northern  portion  of  the  State  are 
almost  a unit  against  it,  while  the  southern 
portion  of  the  State  are  in  favor  of  it.  Well, 
now,  I see  no  reason  why  we  ought  to  place 
anything  in  this  Article  which  we  propose  to 
submit  to  the  people  that  will  bring  upon  us 
any  such  war  as  that — bring  down  against  our 
Constitution  the  votes  of  from  fifty  to  sixty  thous- 
and people  in  this  State.  There  is  no  reason  for 
it.  The  matter  is  well  enough  guarded  against 
at  present.  If  more  than  two-thirds  of  the 
Legislature  would  decide  to  pay  a claim  of 
that  kind,  I think  it  would  be  according  to 
justice  and  equity  that  it  should  be  paid.  As 
is  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Law- 
rence [Mr.  Neal]  it  is  an  addition  to  the  present 
Constitution.  It  it  not  required  for  any  other 
purpose.  If  it  is,  I should  like  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department 
to  state  it,  so  that  I may  be  able  to  understand 
it.  If  there  is  any  other  reason  for  it,  except 
to  obstruct  the  road  which  these  men  expect 
to  travel,  in  obtaining  redress  for  the  wrongs 
and  injuries  they  have  suffered,  I should  like 
to  be  made  aware  of  it.  I know  there  is  a 
strong  feeling  on  this  subject.  There  are  men 
in  the  section  of  the  State  alluded  to  who  lost 
every  dollar  they  had  in  the  world.  Their 
houses  were  burnt;  and  in  cases  where  they 
kept  stores,  their  store-goods  were  taken  out 
and  strewed  in  the  streets  by  the  soldiers,  and 
they  themselves  were  ruined.  Well,  do  you 
suppose  these  men  will  vote  for  your  Constitu- 
tion, when  you  endeavor  to  place  upon  them 
any  such  restriction  as  is  proposed?  Hundreds 
and  thousands  of  them,  I will  say,  were  ruined 
just  by  that  raid.  Of  course,  they  have  the 
bitter  feeling  of  all  men  on  subjects  of  that 


1210 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  [109th 

Russell  of  Meigs,  Humphreville,  Dorsey,  Pond,  Burns,  Cook.  [Monday, 


kind.  You  touch  a man’s  property,  and  you 
touch  the  nearest  point  to  his  heart. 

Now,  there  is  one  other  reason  why  these 
men  feel  a little  more  as  though  the  State  of 
Ohio  ought  to  pay  this  bill,  and  which  makes 
them  feel  a little  bitterer,  probably,  than  they 
otherwise  would.  At  the  time  Morgan  started 
through  Ohio,  the  Governor  undertook  to  man- 
age the  militia,  and  to  manage  it,  as  bethought, 
for  the  interests  of  the  State  and  for  the  interests 
of  the  people.  He  called  out  all  the  militia  that 
was  organized  throughout  the  southern  portion 
of  the  State,  when  Morgan  was  making  his 
raids.  He  called  them  to  Marietta,  or  Chilli- 
cothe,  or  some  other  point,  and  Morgan  always 
took  good  care  not  to  go  near  them;  and  while 
the  Governor  had  his  fifteen  or  twenty  or 
thirty  thousand  militia  penned  up,  armed,  at 
Marietta,  Chillicothe,  and  other  points,  where 
Morgan  never  went,  Morgan  was  raiding 
through  the  country,  and  was  taking  every- 
thing from  the  homes  of  the  very  men  whom 
Brough  had  in  the  service  there,  and  who  were 
thus  compelled  to  leave  their  homes  and  families 
unprotected.  When  they  returned,  they  found 
all  their  property  destroyed ; and  wherever 
Morgan  had  been  along,  taking  away  all  their 
good  horses,  and  leaving  poor  ones  in  place  of 
them, the  Governor’s  men  afterwards  came  along 
and  took  what  was  left,  leaving  them  without 
anything.  Now,  I think  they  deserve  a little 
better  consideration  than  they  have  received  at 
the  hands  of  this  Committee.  I think  they 
ought  to  be  credited  for  their  resistance  to 
Morgan ; for  this  was  the  only  place  throughout 
the  whole  path  of  the  raid,  right  along  southern 
Ohio,  where  Morgan  ever  received  a blow  from 
anybody,  organized  or  unorganized,  until  he 
came  to  Buckingham’s  Island.  I shall  look 
anxiously  to  the  gentlemen  who  proposed  this 
amendment  for  an  explanation  of  the  reasons 
why  they  attempted  to  introduce  it  into  the 
Constitution. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Does  the  gentleman 
suppose  that,  because  citizens  of  the  State  may 
have  suffered  by  the  raid  of  Morgan,  it  there- 
fore devolves  upon  the  State  to  pay  for  their 
losses?  If  the  duty  of  paying  for  them  devolves 
upon  anybody,  it  devolves  upon  the  General 
Government.  Why  not  apply  to  Congress  for 
payment?  It  was  the  war  of  the  United  States, 
and  not  of  this  State;  and  the  State  of  Ohio  is 
no  more  liable  to  pay  for  those  losses  than  the 
State  of  Indiana  or  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  The  State  of  Indiana  did 
pay  theirs. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Congress  paid  for  them. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  No,  sir;  it  was  the  State. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Morgan’s  raid,  gentle- 
men, is  not  exactly  the  question  before  the 
Convention. 

The  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  ob- 
tained the  floor. 

Mr.  BURNS.  There  is  a Morgan  raider  be- 
fore the  Convention  now. 

Mr.  POND.  I am  not  going  to  speak  special- 
ly upon  Morgan’s  raid,  my  friend.  What  I 
want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to, 
is  this : whether  the  provisions,  sought  to  be  in- 
corporated here,  are  necessary  or  not?  The 
section  provides  that  “ no  such  allowance  shall 


be  made,  except  by  bill.”  That,  I apprehend, 
has  already  been  provided  for,  by  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock],  made  to  a section  passed  on  Satur- 
day. All  laws  and  everything  that  has  the  ef- 
fect and  force  of  law,  must  be  by  bill.  That  is 
all  fixed ; but  let  us  look  a little  further  : “ and 
no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several,  or  different 
items  of  compensation  or  claim.”  Now,  what 
objection  is  there  to  every  appropriation  bill 
containing  different  items  of  these  claims,  or 
any  items  of  these  claims,  or  any  other  claims, 
after  what  the  Convention  has  substantially 
agreed  upon,  as  to  what  shall  go  into  the  twenty- 
third  section,  which,  as  I understand  it,  is  that 
either  peremptorily  or  upon  demand  of  any 
member  of  either  House  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, the  vote  is  to  be  taken  upon  each  item  of 
the  appropriation  bill.  Suppose,  then,  any 
item  coming  under  this  class,  should  be  includ- 
ed in  the  general  or  partial  appropriation  bill, 
or  any  other  bill ; or  suppose  a bill  was  intro- 
duced that  should  include  quite  a number  of 
these  items  not  provided  for  by  pre-existing 
law,  then  a vote  may  be  taken  separately ; and 
it  must  be  so  taken,  if  the  Convention  agree  to 
establish  that  as  the  rule;  and  in  the  other 
case,  the  vote  may  be  taken  upon  demand  of 
any  one  member.  But,  independently  of  this, 
it  would  require  two-thirds  of  the  members 
elected  to  the  House,  where  the  bill  is  pending, 
to  pass  one  of  these  items,  because  they  will  not 
have  been  provided  for  by  pre-existing  law; 
and  the  vote  will  there  be  taken,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  section  23,  with  just  as  much  certain- 
ty as  it  can  be  if  this  provision  remains.  So 
that  I see  no  reason  for  this  other  clause : “ and 
no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or  different 
items  of  compensation  or  claim.”  We  have 
already  provided  that  if  the  bill  does  embrace 
several  different  items,  they  may  be  voted  on 
separately.  Why  not  save  the  time  that  would 
thus  be  taken  up?  Is  it  not  a great  saving  of 
time  to  have  these  different  claims  included  in 
one  bill,  inasmuch  as  you  provide  that  a separ- 
ate vote  must  or  may  be  had  upon  them  ? 

The  other  provision,  added  by  the  Commit- 
tee here,  provides  that  “every  appropriation 
for  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation  or 
claim,  included  in  any  act  making  several  ap- 
propriations, shall  be  void.”  I can  see  no  ne- 
cessity for  that.  Under  the  provisions  of  the 
23d  section,  you  vote  independently  and  separ- 
ately upon  each  item.  If  it  passes  by  a two- 
thirds  vote,  it  may  as  well  pass  in  any  other 
bill,  coupled  with  other  provisions,  as  to  be 
passed  separately,  causing  the  time  and  trouble 
of  a first,  second  and  third  reading,  and  the 
additional  votes  necessary  to  carry  it  through. 
For  that  reason  it  appears  to  me  unnecessary. 

Mr.  WEST.  I offer  an  amendment  to  be  in- 
serted in  lieu  of  what  is  proposed  to  be  stricken 
out,  in  the  event  that  it  is  stricken  out. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“But  no  such  compensation  or  claim  shall  be  included 
in  auy  partial  or  general  appropriation  bill,  making  pro- 
vision for  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the  government  and 
its  institutions.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I ask  that  the  Secretary  may 
read  the  words  proposed  to  be  stricken  out. 

The  Secretary  read : 


1211 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  9, 1874.]  West,  Tuttle,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Mueller. 


“No  such  allowance  shall  he  made  except  by  bill,  and 
no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or  different  items  of 
compensation  or  claim,  and  every  appropriation  for  the 
payment  of  any  such  compensation  or  claim,  included  in 
any  act  making  several  appropriations  shall  be  void.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  the  words  just  read. 

Mr.  WEST.  I wish  to  explain  the  amend- 
ment I offered  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell],  namely : that  no  such 
claim  or  compensation,  not  provided  for  by  pre- 
existing law,  shall  be  included  in  any  general 
or  partial  appropriation  bill  making  provision 
for  the  current  expenses  of  the  State  Govern- 
ment. It  is  plain  and  simple.  It  is  intended 
to  provide  that  the  fate  of  no  general  appropri- 
ation bill  shall  be  made  to  depend  upon  the  fate 
of  any  claim  of  this  kind.  This  provision  will 
keep  the  two  things  separate,  and,  if  inserted, 
will  obviate  the  trouble  which  the  gentleman 
from  Meigs  seems  to  anticipate  in  regard  to  the 
matter.  Those  claims  will  not  be  mixed  in  with 
the  general  appropriation  bill,  or  any  part  of  the 
general  appropriation  bill. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  seems  to  me  that,  in  this 
portion  of  the  section,  as  it  was  originally  re- 
ported from  the  Committee,  there  is  a principle 
that  ought  not  to  be  got  rid  of;  and  one  which, 
perhaps,  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  the 
object  which  the  gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr. 
Russell]  desires  to  accomplish.  It  seems  to  me, 
for  instance,  that  no  law,  by  which  the  payment 
of  claims  against  the  State  should  be  authorized, 
ought  to  embrace  claims  founded  upon  entirely 
different,  or  distinct,  considerations.  I do  not 
know  of  any  particular  claim  which  now  sug- 
gests itself,  and  yet,  I think,  I can  suggest  very 
many.  A man  may  have  undertaken  the  erec- 
tion of  a public  building — a lunatic  asylum,  for 
instance — and  he  finds  that  there  has  been  some 
mistake  about  the  compensation  to  be  allowed 
him,  or  that,  for  some  reason,  his  compensation 
is  not  what  it  ought  to  have  been,  and  he  thinks 
he  has  an  equitable  claim  against  the  State  for 
additional  compensation. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  ask  him  a question,  right  there? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  The  former  part  of  this  sec- 
tion prohibits  the  Legislature  from  ever  paying 
any  additional  money  on  such  a contract.  It 
says : “ No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made 
to  any  officer,  public  agent,  or  contractor,  after 
the  service  shall  have  been  rendered,  or  the  con- 
tract entered  into.”  Would  not  that  be  broad 
enough  to  cover  his  claim  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  understand  that  that 
prohibition  is  absolute.  It  provides  that  the 
extra  compensation  shall  not  be  made  except  by 
a vote  of  two-thirds.  I understand  that  clause 
relating  to  the  two- thirds  vote,  as  applying  to 
all  claims  against  the  State,  and  I think  that 
has  been  the  understanding  of  the  Committee. 

To  proceed,  then,  with  my  illustration.  An- 
other builder  in  another  part  of  the  State,  has 
built  another  building  for  another  lunatic 
asylum,  and  he  prefers  a similar  claim.  Now, 
I think  it  highly  important  that  these  two 
claimants  and  their  respective  friends  should 
not  be  invited  to  join  teams  and  bargain  to- 
gether to  get  their  respective  claims  through, 
each  assisting  the  other  in  return  for  assistance 
rendered  to  himself.  They  are  claims  having 


no  connection  with  each  other.  One  of  them 
might  stand  and  the  other  fall,  entirely  consis- 
tent with  some  principle  to  be  adopted  by  the 
Legislature  in  determining  upon  both.  And 
for  the  same  reason,  I should  suppose  that  if  a 
claim  be  made  against  the  State  on  account  of 
the  injuries  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from 
Meigs  [Mr.  Russell],  and  another  of  the  kind 
that  I have  suggested  be  made,  it  ought  not  to 
be  allowed  that  these  two  different  kinds  of 
claims  should  be  provided  for  in  the  same  bill. 
I should  think  that  would  be  wrong,  and  I 
should  think  that  a wise  provision  that  should 
provide  against  it. 

Now,  it  is  a distinct  thing,  and  a very  differ- 
ent question,  when  you  come  to  claims  of  which 
there  may  be  numbers,  but  which  all  rest  upon 
the  same  consideration,  and  which  are  of  the 
same  class  and  such  that  you  cannot,  upon  any 
sound  principle,  well  allow  one,  unless  you  de- 
termine upon  the  allowance  of  all  standing  in 
like  condition — it  is  a distinct  question  whether 
they  ought  not  to  be  considered  together  by  the 
Legislature,  and  whether,  indeed,  there  would 
not  be  much  less  risk  of  abuse  in  the  exercise 
of  the  power  of  the  Legislature  if  they  were  al- 
lowed or  required  to  pass  upon  all  the  particu- 
lar class  of  claims  by  a single  bill,  and  make 
provision  for  them  in  some  way ; so  that  when- 
ever it  should  be  determined  that  a particular 
claim  comes  under  the  operation  of  that  provi- 
sion, according  to  the  rule  of  equity  which  the 
State  had  determined  to  adopt,  the  same  deter- 
mination should  apply  to  all  of  that  class. 
That  is  a very  different  question.  Now,  if  some 
amendment  were  proposed  by  which  you 
could  impose  limits  and  provide  that  claims 
resting  upon  the  same  considerations  an<J 
involving  the  same  principle  should  be  classi- 
fied, so  that  when  you  have  allowed  one, 
you  will,  in  consistency,  allow  any  other  of 
its  class,  and  thus  allow  them  to  be  pro- 
vided for  in  the  same  bill.  I think  such  an 
amendment  would  have  a very  strong  basis 
upon  which  to  stand.  I do  not  understand, 
however,  that  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  provides  for  any  such 
discrimination.  I think  if  an  amendment  is 
submitted  looking  to  the  combining  of  different 
claims  in  the  same  bill — which  is,  undoubtedly, 
the  intention  of  the  present  amendment, offered 
as  it  is— it  should  go  further,  and,  nevertheless, 
exclude  and  cut  off  the  evil  which  I have  allu- 
ded to,  namely : that  of  persons  having  claims 
against  the  Slate,  but  resting  on  entirely  differ- 
ent considerations,  being  allowed  to  have  these 
claims  provided  for  in  the  same  act  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  Presented  in  the  shape  in 
which  it  is  presented,  I shall  be  opposed  to  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West.] 

Mr.  MUELLER.  To  my  knowledge,  there 
never  was  a word  uttered  in  Committee  about 
the  Morgan  raid  claims.  The  section  was  dis- 
cussed and  agreed  upon,  without  reference  to 
those  claims.  To  remove  the  objections  raised 
upon  that  ground,  I wish  to  amend,  by  striking 
out  of  line  seven,  the  word  “items,”  and  insert- 
ing the  word  “classes,”  so  that  the  clause  may 
read  : “several  or  different  classes  of  compensa- 
tion or  claim.” 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I believe  that 


1212 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  [109th  Day. 

Humphreville,  Neal,  Hoadly,  Hunt,  etc.  [Monday,  Feb.  9, 1874* 


amendment  is  a good  one.  If  the  clause  i£  left 
in  the  present  form — “no  such  allowance  shall 
be  made  except  by  bill,  and  no  such  bill  shall 
embrace  different  items  of  compensation  or 
claim” — it  may  lead  to  some  trouble  and  diffi- 
culty. If  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  succeeds,  it  will 
read : “no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or 
different  classes  of  compensation  or  claim.”  I 
believe  that  will  be  an  improvement  of  the  sec- 
tion, and  I hope  there  will  be  a full  vote  upon 
it,  and  that  the  amendment  will  prevail. 

Mr.  NEAL.  While  the  gentleman  from 
Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville]  has  the  floor,  I 
would  like  to  inquire  of  him  what  the  object  of 
the  Committee  was  in  making  this  addition  to 
the  same  section  in  the  old  Constitution? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Heretofore,  Mr. 
President,  it  has  been  the  practice  in  the 
General  Assembly  to  add  these  various  claims 
that  have  been  provided  for  by  general  law  to 
the  general  appropriation  bill,  or  to  some  par- 
tial appropriation  bill,  and  make  it  a part  of  the 
appropriation  bill.  The  Committee  thought 
it  would  be  advisable,  and  I still  think  it  would 
be  advisable,  that  all  these  claims  should  be  sub- 
mitted by  separate  bill,  and  not  attached  to  the 
general  appropriation  bill.  We  know  that 
days  and  weeks  have  been  lost  in  the  General 
Assembly  by  endeavors  to  get  these  claims, 
which  should  pass  by  a two-thirds  vote,  into  the 
general  appropriation  bill,  and  thereby  force  the 
General  Assembly  to  pass  these  appropriations 
or  lose  the  general  appropriation  bill.  The 
Committee  thought  it  would  be  best  to  let  each 
one  of  these  claims  stand  upon  its  own  merits, 
and  not  be  put  into  the  general  appropriation 
bill  to  load  it  down.  We  all  know  that  an 
amendment  incorporating  one  of  these  claims 
would  be  put  into  the  general  appropriation 
bill,  by  a bare  majority  of  those  present;  and 
that  a majority  of  a quorum  could  load  down 
an  appropriation  bill  with  these  objectionable 
appropriations,  and  thereby  prevent  the  passage 
of  a necessary  appropriation  bill,  unless  the 
General  Assembly  would  also  pass  these  ob- 
jectionable appropriations.  Let  each  claim 
stands  its  own  merits,  and  then,  if  it  will  pass 
by  a two-thirds  vote,  it  is  all  right.  I believe  I 
have  answered  the  gentleman’s  question. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller], 
upon  a division,  forty-two  gentlemen  voted  in 
the  affirmative,  and  nine  in  the  negative. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  quorum 
voting. 

Mr.  HOADLY  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays, 
but  afterwards  withdrew  the  demand. 

Mr.  HUNT  renewed  the  demand.  Objection 
was  made,  and  only  seven  gentlemen  rose  to 
support  the  demand,  which  was,  therefore,  not 
sustained. 

The  question  being  put  a second  time,  upon  a 
division,  forty-six  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affir- 
mative, and  seven  in  the  negative. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
striking  out. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I only  rise  to  say  that  I think, 
with  the  change  that  has  just  been  made,  the 
proposed  amendment  ought  to  fail.  With  that 


change  everything  is  provided  for  that  any- 
body can  ask.  I hope  the  motion  will  not  pre- 
vail. 

Mr.  MULLEN  called  for  the  reading  of  the 
amendment  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“No  such  allowance  shall  be  made  except  by  bill,  and 
no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or  different  classes  of 
compensation  or  claim,  and  every  appropriation  for  the 
payment  of  anv  such  compensation  or  claim,  included  in 
any  act  making  several  appropriations  shall  be  void.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  these  words. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  occurs  to  me  that  in 
the  last  line  there  should  be  some  modification 
now,  to  correspond  with  the  change  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller], 
Mr.  MUELLER.  I think  the  object  would 
be  accomplished  by  amending  lines  eight  and 
nine:  “and  every  appropriation  for  the  pay- 
ment of  any  such  compensation  or  claim,  in- 
cluded in  any  act  making  several  appropria- 
tions.” i would  move  that  these  words  be  so 
amended  so  to  read:  “any  act  making  appro- 
priation for  more  than  one  class.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion 
that,  under  rule  thirty-nine,  the  Convention 
having  concurred  in  the  motion  to  insert,  the 
present  motion  would  not  be  in  order. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr. 
Russell],  and  resulted — yeas  27,  nays  49,  as 
follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Beer,  Blose,  Burns, 
Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Gardner,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McCormick,  Mil- 
ler, Mitchener,  Mullen,  Neal,  Pond,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Scofield,  Shultz,  Townsend,  Townsley, 
Tulloss — 27. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Bishop,  Bos  worth, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cunningham, 
Doan,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Greene,  Hale,  Hill,  IIos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  McBride,  Mueller,  Okey, 
Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Root,  Sample, 
Scribner,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Yan  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Voor- 
hes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Champaign,  President — 10. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I have  a mere  verbal 
amendment  which  I wish  to  propose  here. 

The  Secretary  read : 

To  insert  in  line  three,  after  the  word  “be”,  the  words 
“appropriated  or”,  so  that  the  amended  clause  may  read : 
“No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any  officer, 
ublic  agent,  or  contractor,  after  the  service  shall  have 
een  rendered,  or  the  contract  entered  into,  nor  shall  any 
money  be  appropriated  or  paid  on  any  claim,  the  subject 
matter  of  which  shall  not  have  been  provided  for,”  &c. 

The  question  bein<£  taken,  the  motion  was 
agreed  to  without  a division. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I wish  to  further  amend  by 
adding  at  the  end  of  line  one,  the  word  “em- 
ploye,” so  that  the  amended  clause  may  read : 
“No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any 
officer,  public  agent,  employe,  or  contractor, 
after  the  service  shall  have  been  rendered,”  &c. 
Without  a division,  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 
No  further  amendments  were  offered  to  sec- 
tion 24. 


A LEGISLATIVE  REQUEST. 


1213 


Hoadly,  Scofield,  Griswold,  Clark  of  J.,  Hostetter,  Beer,  etc. 


The  Secretary  read  section  25  as  follows : 

“The  House  of  Representatives  shall  have  the  sole 
power  of  impeachment;  hut  a majority  of  the  members 
elected  must  concur  therein.  Impeachments  shall  be 
tried  by  the  Senate,  and  the  Senators,  when  sitting  for 
that  purpose,  shall  be  upon  oath  or  affirmation  to  do  jus- 
tice according  to  law  and  evidence.  When  the  Governor 
of  the  State  is  tried,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  shall  preside.  No  person  shall  be  convicted  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Senators.” 


Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn. 

Upon  which  motion  a division  was  called  for, 
and  thirty-one  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirma- 
tive, and  twenty-seven  in  the  negative. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon,  (at  5:45  p.  m.,)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONTENTION. 

FORTY-EIGHTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Tuesday,  February  10,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 


The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Eben  Halley,  of  the  Sev- 
Seventh  Street  Congregational  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  83  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 


leave  of  absence. 


Leave  of  absence  was  granted  to  Messrs 
Scribner  and  Weaver,  for  an  indefinite  length 
of  time. 

Mr.  Horton  was  excused  for  absence  for  yes- 
terday, and  granted  leave  of  absence  for  an  in- 
definite length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

communication  from  speaker  of  house  of 

REPRESENTATIVES . 


The  PRESIDENT  laid  before  the  Convention 
a communication  from  the  Speaker  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  covering  H.  R.  No.  67. 


Cist  General  Assembly, 

Regular  Session. 

Mr.  Sherrick. 


H.  R.  No.  67. 


Whereas,  The  present  Constitution  of  Ohio  provides 
that  township  trustees  shall  be  elected  annually;  and 

Whereas,  It  is  often  the  case  that  three  new  men  are 
elected  to  that  position  at  the  same  time,  and  for  want  of 
experience,  none  having  served  in  that  position  belore, 
find  it  difficult  to  perform  the  requirements  of  the  office ; 
and 

Whereas,  It  is  often  difficult  for  the  new  board  of 
township  trustees  to  settle  transactions  made  by  the  old 
board,  in  consequence  of  none  of  its  members  having 
served  on  the  old,  and  therefore  not  familiarly  acquainted 
with  the  nature  of  some  of  their  transactions  ;j  therefore 
be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitutional  Convention  be  re- 
quested to  take  into  consideration  the  expediency  of 
framing  the  new  Constitution  so  that  townships  shall 
elect  their  trustees  for  three  years,  and  arrange  so  that 
one  be  elected  every  year. 

Resolved , That  the  Speaker  of  the  House  be  required  to 
forward  a copy  of  this  resolution  to  the  President  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  at  Cincinnati. 

In  House  of  Representatives,  adopted  Feb.  9, 1874. 

Attest:  Thomas  Coughlin,  Clerk. 


On  motion  of  Mr.  SCOFIELD, 

Said  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  County  and  Township  Organizations. 

PRESENTATION  OF  PETITIONS. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD  pesented  the  petition  of  A. 
Burns,  and  147  other  citizens  of  Chagrin  Falls, 
praying  that  church  property  may  be  taxed  as 
other  real  estate. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Revenue  and  Taxation. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Jefferson,  presented  the  peti- 
tion of  Louis  Paine,  and  142  other  citizens  of 
Jefferson  county,  praying  that  no  license  be 
granted  to  sell  intoxicating  liquors,  and  that  the 
General  Assembly  may  have  power  to  legislate 
against  the  manufacture  and  sale  thereof. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER  presented  the  petition  of 
George  Walter,  and  48  other  citizens  of  Tusca- 
rawas and  Stark  counties,  praying  that  such  re- 
ligious acknowledgments  may  be  placed  in  the 
preamble  to  the  Constitution  as  shall  indicate 
that  this  is  a Christian  Commonwealth. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  BEER  gave  notice  of  his  intention  on  the 
third  day  hereafter,  or  some  subsequent  day  of 
the  session,  to  move  to  amend  Rule  69  of  the 
Rules  governing  the  Convention. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  The  Committee  on 
County  and  Township  Organizations,  have  made 
their  Report,  that  Report  has  been  acted  upon 
by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  is  now  be- 
fore the  Convention;  and  it  seems  to  me,  it 
would  not  be  very  proper  to  send  this  Resolu- 
tion of  the  Legislature  to  that  Committee,  unless 
we  send  the  Report  they  have  also  made.  I 
presume  it  ought  to  lie  on  the  table  to  be  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  Report. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I understand  that  several 
other  propositions  have  been  sent  to  that  Com- 
mittee since  they  made  their  Report,  and  it 


1214 


[110th 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Baber,  Humphreville,  Beer,  West,  Voris,  Tuttle,  etc.  [Tuesday, 


seems  to  me  proper  that  this  should  also  go 
there. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  remark  that  that  Re- 
port, when  acted  upon,  does  require  everything  } 
asked  by  the  Legislature,  and  provides  for  that  j 
very  matter. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I will  read  sec- 
tion six  of  that  Report  as  it  now  stands : 

Sec.  6.  Township  officers  shall  be  elected  at  such  times, 
in  such  manner,  and  for  such  term,  not  exceeding  three 
years,  as  mac  he  provided  by  law,  and  shall  hold  their 
offices  until  their  successors  are  elected  and  qualified. 

It  substantially  provides  for  the  same  thing. 
The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  objection  to 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr. 
Scofield]  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  make  any 
serious  objection. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  BEER.  I give  notice  of  an  intention  to 
move  to  amend  Rule  69. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Beer  gives  notice  of  an  intention  to  move  the  fol- 
lowing substitute  for  Rule  69: 

“In  general  debates,  no  member  shall  shall  spe.ilc  more 
than  ten  minutes,  nor  oftener  than  twice  on  the  same 
subject,  except  the  member  making  a Report  from  a Com- 
mittee, who  may  speak  thirty  minutes  in  opening  and 
ten  minutes  in  closing  debate. 

“A  majority  of  the  Convention,  or  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  may,  at  any  time,  fix  an  hour  at  -which  the 
general  debate  upon  pending  propositions  shall  termin- 
ate. 

“After  the  termination  of  genei*al  debate,  the  Proposi- 
tion shall  be  considered,  section  by  section,  and  amend- 
ments may  then  be  offered  to  any  section  in  its  order. 

“In  the  consideration  of  any  Proposition,  section  by 
section,  no  member  shall  speak  more  than  once,  nor 
longer  than  five  minutes  on  any  amendment. 

“A  majority  of  the  Convention,  or  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  may  fix  an  hour  at  -which  all  debates  shall 
close,  after  which  the  person  making  the  Report  may 
speak  ten  minutes,  as  above  provided;  and  all  amend- 
ments then  pending,  or  proposed  thereafter,  shall  be 
voted  upon  without  debate.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Under  the  rule,  the  mo- 
tion will  lie  over  one  day. 

Mr.  WEST.  I offer  for  adoption,  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Ex- 
penses be  directed  to  devise  and  report  a plan  for  nego- 
tiating a loan  on  the  credit  of  the  State,  by  the  issue  of 
bonds  or  otherwise,  to  meet  the  expenses  of  this  Conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  whether, 
in  that  resolution,  he  mentioned  the  name  of 
the  delegate  from  Franklin  county  as  Chair- 
man of  that  Committee? 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  like  to  know  what  the 
gentleman  means  by  using  my  name — [laugh- i 
ter]  what  he  intends  by  it? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I will  say  that  the  name  of  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  was  not 
used  in  that  connection.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  BABER.  Several  other  gentlemen  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  making  use  of  my  name 
and  making  insinuations  here,  and  I want  to 
know  what  it  means? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  insist  on  his  motion  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  1 give  notice  of  an  intention  to 
discuss.  [Great  laughter.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  submits  that 


the  resolution  is  one  hardly  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  this  body,  and  it  will  be  considered  as 
withdrawn. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  If  there  is  no  other 
miscellaneous  business,  I move  that  the  Con- 
vention now  proceed  to  the  special  order  of  the 
hour,  being  Proposition  No.  190. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  subject  under  con- 
sideration at  the  adjournment  last  evening,  was 
section  twenty-five.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  section. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same,  as  follows : 

Sec.  25.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  have  the 
sole  power  of  impeachment,  but  a majority  of  the  mem- 
bers elected  must  concur  therein.  Impeachments  shall  be 
tried  by  the  Senate:  and  the  Senators,  when  sitting  for 
that  purpose,  shall  be  upon  oath  or  affirmation  to  do  jus- 
tice according  to  law  and  evidence.  No  person  shall  be 
convicted  without  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the 
Senators. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  amend- 
ments offered,  the  Secretary  will  proceed  to 
read  section  twenty-six. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  26.  The  Governor,  Judges,  and  all  State  officers 
may  be  impeached  for  any  misdemeanor  in  office;  but 
judgment  shall  not  extend  further  than  removal  from 
office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  any  office  under 
the  authority  of  this  State.  The  party  impeached, 
whether  convicted  or  not,  shall  be  liable  to  indictment, 
trial  and  judgment,  according  to  law.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Some  little  reflection  that  I 
have  given  the  subject  since  yesterday,  leaves 
me  a little  in  doubt,  as  to  the  propriety  of  the 
present  state  of  the  concluding  paragraph  of 
section  twenty-four.  I have  not  consulted  with 
other  members  with  regard  to  it;  but,  with  a 
view  of  possibly  asking  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  it  hereafter,  1 desire  to  move  a re- 
consideration of  the  vote  upon  the  striking  out 
of  that  paragraph,  and  also  of  the  vote  upon  the 
proposition  to  amend  it  by  inserting  the  word, 
“classes;”  and  I would  ask  that,  if  it  be  in 
order  at  this  time,  the  motion  be  laid  upon  the 
table. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Did  the  gentleman  vote 
in  the  negative? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir;  I voted  with  the 
prevailing  side. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  laid  upon 
the  table.  Are  there  any  amendments  to  sec- 
tion twenty-six? 

Mr.  VORIS.  An  amendment,  it  occurs  to  me, 
ought  to  be  made  to  this  section.  I have  been  a 
little  negligent  in  not  keeping  watch,  and  have 
not  yet  prepared  it;  but  I wish  to  suggest  to  the 
Convention  that  I think  this  provision  is  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  in  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. The  question  has  never  been  decided,  I 
think,  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
whether  a party  may  be  impeached  for  an  offense 
committed  during  some  other  term  than  the  one 
in  which  he  is  serving. 

Mr.  COOK.  It  was  decided  that  he  could  be. 
Mr.  VORIS.  Well,  it  ought  to  be  settled,  so 
that  there  can  be  no  question  in  our  State  as  to  the 
propriety  of  impeaching  a man  for  a misdemean- 
or in  office,  committed  in  some  other  term  than 
the  one  in  which  he  may  be  at  present  serving. 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  1215 

February  10,  1874.)  Voris,  West,  Burns,  Blose,  Rowland, etc. 


I think  the  judgment  of  this  Convention  will 
certainly  accord  with  the  propriety  of  settling 
that  question  here.  I know  that  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  it  is  an  open  ques- 
tion. It  never  has  been  certainly  settled 
whether  an  officer  may  he  so  impeached,  or  not. 
If  a moment’s  indulgence  is  given  me,  I will  re- 
duce my  amendment  to  writing. 

I move  to  insert,  after  the  word  “office,”  in 
the  second  line,  “whether  committed  during 
the  existing  term  of  office,  or  otherwise.”  I 
will  reduce  it  to  writing. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  gentle- 
man could  save  himself  the  trouble,  if  he  re- 
flected a moment. 

Mr.  VORIS.  It  is  suggested  to  me  that  I 
modify  it  so  as  to  read,  “ whether  committed  in 
the  existing  or  a former  term.” 

Mr.  WEST.  Very  well;  it  may  he  in  a for- 
mer term  of  the  same  office,  or  a former  term  of 
some  other  office. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Well,  I am  formulating  this  to 
meet  my  ideas.  It  will  be  competent  ^to  amend 
it,  of  course. 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  you  would  better  let  it  alone. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Voris  moves  to  amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
‘office”,  in  the  second  line,  the  following  words:  “Wheth- 
er committed  in  the  existing  or  a former  term.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
adopting  the  amendment. 

The  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  was 
not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  now 
read  section  27. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same,  as  follows : 

“Sec.  27.  All  regular  sessions  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly shall  commence  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January 
annually.  The  first  session,  under  this  Constitution,  shall 
commence  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and .” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Would  it  not  be  well  enough 
to  fill  the  blank  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Oh,  not  now;  not  now. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I desire  to  offer  an  amendment 
to  section  27. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Mr.  Blose  moves  to  amend  section  27  by  striking  out 
the  word  “annually”,  in  line  two,  and  inserting  in  lieu 
thereof  “biennially,  and  continue  not  more  than  ninety 
days;  and  no  extra  sessions  shall  be  held  except  in  case 
of  great  emergency,  when  the  Governor  may  convene 
them:  but  when  so  convened  they  shall  attend  to  no  other 
business  than  that  specified  in  his  proclamation  by  which 
he  convenes  them.” 

Mr.  BLOSE.  This  I regard  as  being  exactly 
what  the  framers  of  our  former  Constitution  in- 
tended ; that  we  should  have  biennial  sessions.  I 
do  not  believe  in  amending  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, except  where  it  is  actually  necessary ; but  if 
we  find  violations,  upon  the  part  of  our  Represen- 
tatives, of  the  Constitution  made  by  the  former 
framers,  that  is  no  reason  why  we  should  amend 
that  instrument,  simply  so  as  to  comply  with 
those  violations,  but  had  better  hold  our  Repre- 
sentives  responsible  for  such  violations.  I do 
not  see  why  we  cannot  get  along,  in  the  State 
of  Ohio,  with  biennial  sessions.  I believe  that 
ninety  days,  every  two  years,  is  sufficient.  We 
have  so  much  law  in  the  State  of  Ohio  that  the 


citizens  of  the  State  do  not  know  what  the  law 
is,  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  they  are  violating 
the  law. 

I have  had  some  little  experience  in  this.  I 
have  had  the  honor  of  being  a justice  of  the 
peace  for  ten  years,  and  I have  had  other  busi- 
ness outside  of  that;  and  1 assure  you  it  made 
me  sweat  sometimes  when  I had  a case,  espe- 
cially when  I had  lawyers  there,  one  on  each 
side  of  me,  both  of  them  smart  fellows,  one 
saying  one  thing,  and  the  other,  another. 
[Laughter.]  There  is  no  mistake,  in  my  opinion 
but  what  there  is  a necessity  for  biennial  ses- 
sions, little  legislation,  and  few  laws,  and  then 
you  can  live  up  to  the  law.  I believe  with  Gen- 
eral Grant — it  is  one  thing  in  which  I concur 
with  him — in  having  a bad  statute  enforced  to 
the  letter,  thereby  getting  rid  of  it  early.  But 
I believe  that  a session  of  ninety  days  is  suffi- 
cient, except  in  cases  of  great  emergency; 
then  throw  the  responsibility  upon  the  Gov- 
ernor, and  the  people  will  concur  with  him,  if 
there  is  an  emergency,  in  calling  that  Assembly 
together. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  HUMPH REVILLE.  I move  to  amend 
the  amendment  by  striking  out  “and  continue 
not  more  than  ninety  days.”  If  we  have  bi- 
ennial sessions,  it  seems  to  me  that  ninety  days 
may  not  be  long  enough  to  do  the  business. 
Strike  out  all  that  part  that  relates  to  the  con- 
tinuance or  length  of  the  session. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I call  for  a division  of 
this  question,  so  as  to  be  first  on  striking  out, 
then,  as  to  what  may  be  inserted. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  first  question  is  upon 
striking  out  the  word  “annually,”  and  a divi- 
sion is  called  for  upon  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville],  moVes  to  strike, 
out  “and  continue  not  more  than  ninety  days.” 

Mr.  ROWDAND.  I do  not  know  that  I un- 
derstand the  gentleman’s  motion.  As  I under- 
stand it,  the  gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr. Blose], 
has  submitted  a proposition  containing  three 
separate  items.  First,  to  strike  out;  then  he 
proposes  to  insert  a change  to  biennial  sessions, 
and  then  insert  a clause  defining  the  length  of 
the  sessions.  What  is  the  status  of  the  question 
now? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  first  upon  striking 
out. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I insist  upon  my  motion 
for  a parliamentary  division  of  the  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  cannot  be  taken  up 
until  we  have  first  disposed  of  the  amendment 
offered. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  motion  is  to  strike 
out,  and  a division  is  called  for  upon  that — that 
is  the  proper  motion;  but  the  first  question 
pending  is  upon  striking  out  the  word  “annu- 
ally.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  so  happens  that  there 
are  two  motions  to  strike  out  now  pending. 
First,  to  strike  out  the  word  “annually,”  and 
the  question  now  pending  is  to  strike  out  “and 
continue  not  more  than  ninety  days.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  suggest  to  the 
Chair  that  the  question  upon  striking  out  “an- 
nually” is  the  precedent  question ; because  if 
that  is  not  stricken  out,  there  is  no  occasion  for 


1216 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Cook,  Powell,  Baber,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  etc. 


the  amendment,  and  there  is  a division  called 
upon  the  motion  to  strike  out,  and  the  first 
question  is  upon  striking  out  the  word  “annu- 
ally.” 

Mr.  COOK.  When  a motion  is  made  to  strike 
out,  the  friends  of  the  matter  sought  to  be 
stricken  out  have  the  right  to  perfect  that  first, 
before  any  action  is  taken  upon  the  matter  to  be 
inserted.  If  the  motion  to  strike  out  prevails,  a 
blank  is  created ; then  the  friends  of  the  matter 
may  perfect  that,  for  the  reason  that  if  no  blank 
is  created,  there  is  no  necessity  of  perfecting  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  is  great  reason  for  the 
opinion  of  the  Chair.  A person  may  be  dis- 
posed to  strike  out  previous  to  the  time  when  he 
sees  how  the  matter  is  proposed  to  be  put  in, 
but  would  vote  against  if  not.  Therefore,  a 
person  may  be  disposed  to  see  how  the  matter 
stands  before  he  is  willing  to  vote  for  striking 
out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville]  is  first  in  order. 
The  gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  moves 
to  strike  out,  in  the  second  line,  “biennial,”  and 
insert.  The  gentleman  from  Medina  moves  to 
amend  the  amendment,  by  striking  out  the 
words  “not  continuing  more  than  ninety  days.” 
A division  is  called  for  on  the  adoption  of  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Clarke.  The 
Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  first  question 
will  be  upon  the  amendment  to  the  amendment 
— that  is  to  say,  those  who  favor  the  amend- 
ment, have  the  right  to  improve  it. 

Mr.  BABER.  A portion  of  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr. 
Blose],  I am  ready  to  vote  for,  under  a proper 
division — that  is,  that  there  shall  be  no  extra 
session  unless  called  by  the  Governor.  But 
upon  this  question  of  striking  out  “ninety 
days,”  I shall  vote  against  that.  And  I would 
suggest,  in  reference  to  that  matter,  that  we 
have  decided  this  biennial  question ; but  if  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr. 
Blose]  should  come  up  by  way  of  division,  that 
there  should  not  be  extra  sessions,  I would  be  in 
favor  of  biennial  sessions.  Therefore,  I shall 
vote  against  striking  out  the  lgjrger  session. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  .1  am  very  earnestly 
in  favor  of  a provision  in  the  Constitution  for- 
bidding extra  sessions  of  the  Legislature,  and 
providing  for  biennial  sessions  only.  We  fought 
that  fight  early  in  the  session,  for  several  days, 
and  this  Convention  was  clearly  against  the  pro- 
vision. I think  it  satisfactorily  demonstrated 
that  the  overwhelming  sentiment  of  the  Con- 
vention was  for  annual  sessions  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, even  in  the  face  of  biennial  elections;  and 
I suggest  that  we  ought  not  to  spend  a great 
deal  of  time.  Let  us  vote  upon  this  question. 

Cries  of  “Agreed!”  “Agreed!” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville],  that  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr. 
Blose]  be  amended,  by  striking  out  the  words 
“not  continuing  more  than  ninety  days.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I call  for  a division  of  the 
question. 

On  a vote  being  taken,  by  division,  as  called 
for,  it  resulted— yeas  30,  nays  33. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 


[110th 

[Tuesday, 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
striking  out  the  word  “annually.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  21,  nays  55,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Cunningham,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville, Layton,  McBride,  McCormick,  Mil- 
ler, Mitchener,  Mueller,  Phellis,  Powell,  Root, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Scofield,  White  of  Hocking, 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Bosworth,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Foran,  Frei- 
berg, Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron, 
Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphre- 
ville, Johnson,  Kerr,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mullen, 
Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pond,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample, 
Scribner,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Voor- 
hes,  Voris,  Waddle,  West,  White  of  Brown, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  President, 
— 55. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  not  agreed  to. 
Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I move  to  add  at  the  end 
of  the  section,  the  words  “seventy-six.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me?  If  so,  I will  make  a motion  to  strike 
that  whole  paragraph  out.  It  properly  belongs 
to  the  Schedule.  It  does  not  belong,  it  appears 
tome,  in  this  section,  and  ought  not  to  be  in 
the  body  of  the  Article,  but  should  be  fixed  by 
the  Schedule. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  The  section  would  be  in- 
complete. I see  no  difficulty  about  fixing  the 
time  of  the  meeting  of  the  first  Legislature, 
under  this  Constitution,  by  inserting  the  time 
in  this  section.  I prefer  to  maintain  my  mo- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  up- 
on inserting  the  words  “seventy-six,”  so  that 
it  wilJ  read : “ The  first  session  under  this  Con- 
stitution shall  commence  on  the  first  Wednes- 
day in  January,  1876.” 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  My  impression  is, 
that  amendment  ought  not  to  be  made  now.  I 
hope  that  we  will  get  through  with  this  Con- 
stitution and  have  it  submitted  to  the  people 
for  adoption,  so  that  the  first  election  under  it 
will  be  held  in  1874,  and  that  all  the  subsequent 
elections  will  come  upon  even  years.  If  we 
are  to  have  biennial  elections,  elections  for 
President  come  on  the  even  years,  the  elections 
for  members  of  Congress  come  on  even  years, 
and  we  want  all  the  elections,  if  we  are  to  have 
biennial  elections,  come  upon  even  years.  The 
objection  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold],  as  to  the  proper  place  to  put  this, 
is  answered,  perhaps,  by  referring  to  the  twen- 
ty-sixth section  of  the  Constitution,  which 
provides  for  the  commencement  of  the  sessions, 
that  they  shall  be  biennial,  and  provides  when 
the  first  session  shall  commence,  under  this 
Constitution,  and  I believe  that  this  Article  is 
the  place  to  have  that.  But  this  blank  can  be 
filled  at  any  time  hereafter,  and  I hope  we  will 
be  able  to  fill  it  at  an  early  day,  that  it  shall 
be  in  1875,  or,  if  not,  it  will  be  in  time  to  fill  it 
with  1876,  or  1877,  or  at  some  future  time.  It 


1217 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  10,  1874.]  Humphreville,  Albright,  Cunningham,  Root,  Baber. 


was  passed  and  left  blank  in  the  body  of  it. 
We  could  not  tell  when  we  would  get  through, 
hut  1 still  have  some  faint  hope  that  we  will 
get  through  with  this  Constitution  so  as  to  sub- 
mit it  to  a vote  some  time  during  the  summer, 
perhaps  immediately  after  haying,  and  let  it  be 
voted  upon,  so  that  the  election  may  he  held 
under  it  in  1874. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
what  he  would  do  with  the  present  General 
Assembly  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Just  as  we  did  with 
the  General  Assembly  when  our  present  Con- 
stitution was  adopted,  and  with  the  Governor 
also.  Just  let  them  step  out.  The  Constitution 
legislated  them  all  out  of  office,  and  I presume 
this  will  do  the  same.  I do  not  know.  I hope 
it  will. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I would  suggest  to  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  that  it  would  be 
better  to  think  over  this  matter  a little  or  yield 
to  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Guern- 
sey [Mr.  Albright],  because  we  are  to  consider 
a slight  sensibility  now  in  the  State  about  leg- 
islating out  a portion  of  the  present  govern- 
ment. We  do  not  want,  although  we  may  be 
following  a precedent  given  by  the  last  Consti- 
tutional Convention,  that  a portion  of  the  in- 
terests of  any  party  in  Qhio  shall  be  challenged 
against  this  Constitution. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  That  is  just  what  I 
want — to  let  this  thing  remain  there — the  blank 
not  filled  at  the  present  time.  If  gentlemen 
think  there  is  any  danger  of  legislating  the 
present  very  amiable  General  Assembly  out  of 
office,  and  thereby  influence  their  action  upon 
the  appropriation  bill,  I am  willing  to  leave 
that  question  open.  [Laughter.]  I do  not  want 
to  fill  the  blank  at  all. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I was  not  talking 
about  that.  I was  talking  about  the  question 
generally  understood  upon  the  floor. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I think  I under- 
stand language  and  allusion,  and  I understand 
delicacy,  and  all  that  kind-’o-thing.  I have  no 
delicacy  at  all — [laughter]— no  delicacy  upon 
that  point,  I mean.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Oh! 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I don’t  wish  to 
have  my  words  extended  beyond  their  legiti- 
mate application.  Although  I have  not  much 
money  now,  I believe  in  Medina  my  credit  is 
good,  and  I can  get  enough  to  bear  my  expenses 
through,  if  the  Legislature  does  not  make  an 
appropriation,  therefore  I shall  not  change  my 
acts  at  all  in  consideration  of  any  such  delicacy 
as  the  gentleman  refers  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  simply  going  to  suggest 
that  my  resolution,  when  I discuss  it,  will  bring 
money.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I have  nothing 
else  to  say,  Mr.  President,  but  am  opposed  to  fill- 
ing the  blank. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I wish  to  say  that  I 
had  no  reference  to  this  matter  of  appropria- 
tion. What  I wish  to  say  is  this : All  of  us 

desire  that  our  work  should  come  to  something, 
and  there  are  thousands  and  thousands  and 
thousands  pf  men  in  Ohio  who  would  believe, 

v.h-79 


and  would  insist  upon  believing,  whatever 
might  be  said,  that  any  attempt  to  elect  a new 
Legislature  or  new  State  officers  this  fall,  would 
be  undertaking  to  supersede  Governor  Allen, 
and  a Democratic  Legislature,  and  you  thereby 
challenge  a large  portion  of  the  Democratic 
party  against  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  seems  to  me,  my  friend  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  has  taken  a wrong 
course  to  effect  a very  good  purpose.  And  I 
want  to  suggest  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee, the  delegate  from  Medina  [Mr. 
Humphreville],  something  that  would  per- 
haps be  useful  hereafter.  You  had  better  not 
get  excited  over  this  little  mattter  now.  We 
will  keep  cool  and  use  civil  language  now  ; but 
let  it  be  understood  that  if  things  do  not  go  bet- 
ter than  they  have  been  going  in  some  other 
places,  we  know  how  to  expunge  and  wipe  out 
the  whole  Constitution.  Let  them  go  on  in 
terrorem , understanding  that  there  is  danger  of 
having  this  whole  affair  expunged.  Then  I 
think  they  will  think  better  of  us. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I think  it  will  be  impos- 
sible for  this  Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  a 
vote  of  the  people  before  the  October  election 
next  fall,  unless  it  should  be  submitted  at  a 
special  election,  to  which  I am  opposed;  and 
we  cannot  elect  a General  Assembly  under  the 
Constitution  until  after  its  adoption.  If  it 
should  be  adopted  at  the  election  next  October, 
the  first  election  would  be  held  in  the  fall  of  the 
succeeding  year,  1875.  That  is  as  early  as  we 
can  elect  the  General  Assembly  under  the  Con- 
stitution. For  this  reason,  I am  in  favor  of 
fixing  the  time  of  the  first  election  of  the 
Genera]  Assembly  under  the  Constitution  on  the 
first  Wednesday  in  January,  1876. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  know  but  that  the 
suggestion  of  the  Chairman  of  this  Committee 
to  pass  by  this  matter,  is  correct.  There  is  no 
necessity  of  any  urgent  action  upon  this,  until 
after  we  have  acted  upon  the  Schedule.  But 
seeing  the  question  has  been  brought  up  here, 
and  we  have  to  vote  upon  it,  I would  say  this : 
that  this  Convention  yield  to  the  suggestions 
made  here  by  the  gentleman.  I think  it  would 
be  better,  perhaps,  to  let  it  lie  over.  I am,  how- 
ever, if  the  thing  is  to  be  settled,  if  the  vote  is 
to  be  taken,  I am  in  favor  of  fixing  this  in  1876, 
because  I know  that  the  suggestions  made  here 
are  true.  I don’t  believe  we  ought  to  go  to 
work  and  legislate  the  State  officers  out,  or  legis- 
late the  General  Assembly  out.  I think  it  would 
have  a bad  effect,  and  1 think  now,  perhaps, 
there  is  a bad  impression  made  by  the  remarks 
of  the  Chairman  of  this  Committee.  I do  not 
desire  to  have  that  question  raised  now.  I 
would,  myself,  be  in  favor  of  submitting  the 
Constitution  at  a special  election,  provided  we 
can  get  through  with  the  matter  in  time  to  have 
that  fixed  in  June.  If  the  matter  is  pressed  to 
a vote,  I hope  the  Convention  will  vote  for  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Guernsey 
[Mr.  Albright]. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  we  had  probably  better 
let  it  pass  for  the  present;  but  when  the  time 
comes,  I intend  to  vote  fearlessly,  because  I be- 
lieve it  is  right  and  just  to  wipe  from  the  slate 
every  officer  save  township  officers  of  the  State 
of  Ohio,  and  have  a clean  new  deal.  That  is 
my  ticket  now. 


1218 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Burns,  West,  Cunningham,  Hoadly,  Dorsey,  Neal,  etc. 


Mr.  BURNS.  Is  that  the  Granger  ticket? 

Mr.  WEST.  I don’t  care  who  comes  in,  we 
must  start  this  Constitution  so  that  our  elections 
shall  come  at  one  time;  otherwise,  our  whole 
purpose  of  fixing  biennial  elections  is  de- 
stroyed. We  cannot  have  an  election  of  the 
General  Assembly  to  take  effect  in  1876  without 
destroying  the  whole  idea  of  the  biennial  sys- 
tem, because  it  is  in  the  wrong  year,  and  we 
must  either  have  it  in  1875  or  1877.  Either  ex- 
tend it  or  shorten  it,  so  that  when  the  time 
comes  for  acting  upon  that,  I am  prepared  for 
it,  and  prepared  to  go  further.  If  any  gentle- 
men have  any  sensitiveness  about  it,  I am  in 
favor  of  putting  in  this  Constitution  that  the 
present  Governor  shall  hold  over  an  additional 
year. 

A MEMBER.  Two  of  them. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes.  I say  extend  his  term 
one  year  so  as  to  make  it  three  years,  but  we 
must  make  it  correspond  with  our  presidential 
and  congressional  elections,  or  it  will  not 
amount  to  anything. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I would  suggest  to 
the  gentleman  that  the  biennial  system  of  State 
election  is  all  that  we  are  seeking,  and  I am  not 
sure,  but  by  this  course  we  should  entirely  di- 
vorce national  from  State  issues.  We  could  in 
our  State  and  county  affairs  discuss,  without 
any  embarrassment,  other  questions — State  and 
county  affairs — and  then,  when  national  con- 
cerns were  disposed  of  by  the  election  of  mem- 
bers of  Congress  or  President,  we  would  be  free 
from  any  collateral  issues  that  would  otherwise 
arise. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yres,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  We  have  for  more  than 
twenty  years  had  the  State  intervening  election. 
Has  the  gentleman  ever  known  a State  election 
to  depend  upon  State  issues?  Do  not  national 
issues  control  State  elections  in  the  odd  years, 
as  well  as  congressional  elections  control  State 
elections  in  even  years  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Well,  that  is  a good 
deal  true;  but  this  sort  of  setting  apart  one 
year  for  State  affairs  and  another  year  for  Fed- 
eral concerns — we  have  never  had  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  add- 
ing the  word,  “ seventy-six.” 

Mr.  POND.  I move  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment by  striking  out  the  word  “ six,”  and  in- 
serting the  word  “ five.” 

Mr.  PRATT.  I move  to  amend  that  by  in- 
serting four. 

A division  was  called  for,  and  a vote  taken. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  quorum  vot- 
ing. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I hope  this  matter  will  be 
postponed.  At  this  time  it  is  entirely  impossi- 
ble to  decide  this  question  until  the 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  is  not  in  order. 
The  question  is  on  striking  out  “six”  and  in- 
serting “five.” 

Mr.  POND.  I will,  if  I have  leave,  withdraw 
my  amendment. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I wish  to  refer  to  one  matter 
which  has  not  been  referred  to  by  any  gentle- 
man. If  the  Constitution  should  be  adopted,  it 


[liotl- 

[Tuesday, 


will,  of  course,  abolish  the  old  Constitution,  I 
should  judge,  and  no  election  could  be  had  un- 
der that,  unless  some  special  provision  should 
be  made.  We  would  then  be  without  any  Leg- 
islature for  a year,  if  the  first  Legislature  should 
be  elected  in  1876. 

Mr.  POWELL!.  I would  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  that  all 
that  can  be  regulated,  unquestionably,  in  the 
Schedule.  Leave  that  until  the  Schedule  comes 
around. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I hope,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  Convention  will  agree  to  pass  this  matter 
by.  It  must  be  evident  to  every  gentleman  that 
we  cannot  vote  intelligently  on  the  subject  at 
the  present  time. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Voting  it  down  will  pass 
it  by. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Voting  it  down  may  pass  it, 
or  may  not  pass  it  by.  But  certainly,  it  does 
appear  to  me  that  the  Convention  will  be  acting 
with  a greater  degree  of  propriety  by  simply 
passing  this  matter  by ; because  it  is  evident  to 
every  gentleman  that  we  cannot  vote  intelli- 
gently upon  it  at  the  present  time.  We  are 
wasting  time.  Let  us  get  on  with  our  work; 
and  when  the  time  comes  to  insert  in  this  sec- 
tion the  proper  year,  which,  I trust,  will  be 
1874,  we  can  do  it  without  consuming  time. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  adding  the  word  “seventy-six”  at  the 
end  of  the  section. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for,  objection 
! was  made,  and  the  demand  was  not  sustained, 
i A vote  was  then  taken  and  the  amendment 
not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  other 
! amendments  to  section  27?  If  not,  the  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  28. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  28.  All  laws  of  a general  nature  shall  have  a 
uniform  operation  throughout  the  State;  nor  shall  any 
act,  or  part  of  any  act,  except  such  as  relates  to  public 
schools,  public  buildings  and  public  bridges  be  passed  to 
j take  effect  upon  a vote  of  the  people  affected  thereby,  or 
the  execution  of  which  shall  depend  upon  siich  vote,  or 
upon  the  approval  of  any  other  authority  than  the  Gen- 
' eral  Assembly,  except  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Cou- 
I stitution.  Nor  shall  any  act  be  passed  conferring  special 
powers  or  privileges  upon  any  county,  city,  village, 
township  or  other  municipality  that  shall  not  be  con- 
ferred upon  all  counties,  cities,  villages,  townships  and 
municipalities  of  the  same  general  class.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands, 
the  Convention  proposes  to  adopt  section  27  in 
| its  present  form.  Without  general  consent, 
hereafter,  it  cannot  betaken  up  again. 

Mr.  NEAL.  By  motion  it  can  be  taken  up  at 
any  time. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  The  blank  can  be 
filled  at  any  time. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I offer  the  following  amendment 
to  amend  section  28,  by  striking  out  all  of  the 
1 same  after  the  word  “ Constitution”  in  the  sixth 
line.  That  will  leave  section  28  as  the  section 
' is  now  in  the  present  Constitution.  This  latter 
clause  is  an  amendment  which  has  been  made 
bjr  the  Standing  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department.  The  members  of  the  Convention 
will  observe  by  referring  to  the  Report  of  the 
i Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations,  that  a 
similar  provision  is  incorporated  in  section  1. 
That  is  the  proper  place,  in  my  opinion,  where 
the  clause  should  be  incorporated.  I do  not 


1219 


Day,]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  10,  1874.]  Neal,  Scribner,  Tuttle,  Griswold,  Woodbury,  Boot. 


think  it  has  any  part  in  the  Legislative  Article. 
The  Convention  will  also  observe  that  in  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Works,  of 
which  the  gentleman  from  Ross  [Mr.  Clark]  is 
Chairman,  that  the  same  questions  are  involved, 
and  which  will,  probably,  give  rise  to  consider- 
able debate.  I do  not  propose  to  debate  the 
merits  of  this  proposition  at  this  time ; hut  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  should  not  be  made  a part 
of  the  Legislative  Article,  but  should  be  left 
where  it  more  properly  belongs,  as  provided  for 
in  Proposition  182,  from  the  Committee  on  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  27,  nays  48,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bannon,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Cunningham,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Freiberg, 
Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Johnson,  Lay- 
ton,  McCormick,  Miner,  Neal,  Pond,  Pratt, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Townsend, 
Tripp,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  West,  President — 27. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Beer,  Blose,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Coats,  Cook,"De  Steiguer,  Foran,  Gardner, 
Greene,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  Mc- 
Bride, Merrill,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Mullen,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Powell,  Rickly, 
Root,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scofield, 
Scribner,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Yoorhis, 
Voorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  White  of  Brown, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign— 48. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

No  further  amendments  to  section  28  were 
offered. 

The  Secretary  then  read  section  29,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Sec.  29.  The  election  and  appointment  of  all  officers, 
and  the  filling  of  all  vacancies,  not  otherwise  provided 
for  by  this  Constitution,  or  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  shall  be  made  in  such  manner  as  may  be  directed 
bylaw;  hut  no  appointing  power  shall  he  exercised  hy 
the  General  Assembly,  except  as  prescribed  in  this  Con- 
stitution, and  in  the  election  of  United  States  Senator; 
and  in  these  cases  the  vote  shall  be  taken  viva  voce. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  suggest  a change  in 
punctuation  after  the  word  “ Constitution”  in 
the  fifth  line. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  Committee  on  Re- 
vision can  attend  to  that. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  want  to  make  any 
motion. 

No  amendments  to  section  29  were  offered, 
and  the  Secretary  read  sectiou  30,  as  follows : 

Sec.  30.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  no  power 
to  pass  retroactive  laws,  or  laws  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts;  but  may,  by  general  laws,  authorize  courts 
to  carry  into  effect,  upon  such  terms  as  shall  be  just  and 
equitable,  the  manifest  intention  of  parties  and  officers, 
by  curing  omissions,  defects,  and  errors  in  instruments  or 
proceedings  arising  out  of  their  want  of  conformity  to 
the  laws  of  this  State. 

No  amendments  were  offered  to  this  section, 
and  the  Secretary  read  section  31,  as  follows : 

Sec.  31.  No  new  county  shall  contain  less  than  four 
hundred  square  miles  of  territory,  nor  shall  any  county 
be  reduced  below  that  amount;  and  all  laws  creating 
new  couuties,  changing  county  lines,  or  removing  county 
seats,  shall,  before  taking  effect,  be  submitted  to  the  elec- 
tors of  the  several  counties  to  be  effected  thereby,  after 


the  next  general  election  after  the  passage  thereof,  and 
be  adopted  by  a majority  of  all  the  electors  voting  at  such 
election  in  each  of  said  counties;  but  any  county  now,  or 
hereafter,  containing  one  hundred  thousand  inhabitants 
may  be  divided,  whenever  a majority  of  the  voters  resid- 
ing in  each  of  the  proposed  divisions  shall  approve  of  the 
law  passed  for  that  purpose ; but  no  town  or  city  within 
the  same  shall  be  divided,  nor  shall  either  of  the  divi- 
sions contain  less  than  twenty  thousand  inhabitants. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I offer  the  following  as  a 
substitute  for  section  31. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“No  new  county  shall  contain  less  than  four  hundred 
square  miles  of  territory,  nor  shall  any  county  be  re- 
duced below  that  amount;  and  all  laws  creating  new 
counties,  or  changing  county  lines,  shall,  before  taking 
effect,  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  the  several  counties 
to  be  effected  thereby,  at  the  next  general  election  after 
the  passage  thereof,  and  be  adopted  by  a majority  of  all 
the  electors  voting  at  such  election  in  each  of  said  coun- 
ties; and  no  county  seat  shall  be  removed  until  the  point 
to  which  it  is  proposed  to  be  removed  shall  be  fixed  in 
pursuance  of  law,  and  two-thirds  of  the  voters  of  the 
county,  to  be  ascertained  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  pro- 
vided by  law,  shall  have  voted  in  favor  of  its  removal  to 
such  point,  except  when  an  attempt  is  made  to  remove 
the  county  seat  to  a point  nearer  to  the  center  of  the  coun- 
ty, a majority  only  shall  be  necessary. 

Any  county  now,  or  hereafter,  containing  one  hundred 
thousand  inhabitants  may  be  divided,  whenever  a major- 
ity of  the  voters,  residing  in  each  of  the  proposed  divi- 
sions, shall  approve  of  the  law  passed  lor  that  purpose; 
but  no  town  or  city  within  the  same  shall  be  divided,  nor 
shall  either  of  the  divisions  contain  less  than  twenty 
thousand  inhabitants.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  I do  not  desire  to  discuss  this  ques- 
tion ; but  I submit  that  the  provision  contained 
in  that  section  relating  to  an  attempt  to  remove 
county  seats  nearer  to  the  geographical  center, 
and  which  provides  that,  in  such  case,  a simple 
majority  may  change  the  county  seat,  is  out  of 
place.  I cannot  designate  the  true  center  of  a 
county,  and  it  cannot  he  designated.  I would 
suggest  to  the  mover  of  this  amendment  to 
strike  out  that  provision.  The  mere  geograph- 
ical center  in  a county  that  has  been  settled,  de- 
termines nothing.  It  does  not  determine  the 
question  of  convenience.  If  other  questions 
and  other  considerations  are  to  be  left  to  be 
acted  upon  hy  the  people  interested  in  the  re- 
moval, and  are  to  require  a two-thirds  majority, 
this  change  effecting  the  removal  of  a county 
seat  to  a point  nearer  the  geograpical  center 
ought  not  to  be  an  exception  to  that  rule.  Let 
any  member  of  the  Convention  consider  what 
he  knows  of  his  own  county,  or  of  other  coun- 
ties, and  he  will  he  able  to  determine,  after  a 
moment’s  reflection,  I think,  that  the ^nere geo- 
graphical center  has,  or  should  have,  very  little 
consideration  indeed  in  changing  the  county 
seat.  I do  not  see  why  that  case  should  form 
an  exception,  and  I hope  the  mover  of  the 
amendment  will  strike  out  the  provision  which 
makes  it  such. 

Mr.  COOK.  I demand  a division  of  the 
question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  there- 
fore be  upon  striking  out  the  section. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  The  only  alteration  that 
I have  made  in  section  31,  is  simply  that  re- 
quiring a two-thirds  vote  in  the  removal  of  a 
county  seat.  The  object  of  making  this  amend- 
ment is  to  settle,  as  far  as  possible,  this  ques- 
tion of  the  removal  of  county  seats.  As  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  well  know  it  is  one  of 
those  questions  which  is  hardly  ever  settled 
when  once  it  is  agitated  in  a county.  It  is 
within  the  experience  of  every  one  of  us,  that 
such  questions  continue,  and  even  after  such 


1220 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Woodbury,  Cook. 


[110th 

[Tuesday, 


questions  have  been  submitted  to  a vote  of  the 
people,  they  are  not  then  settled  satisfactorily 
to  the  people;  but  the  question  continues  to  be 
agitated  year  after  year,  before  the  Legislature 
or  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State.  There 
seems  to  be,  in  fact,  no  need  of  such  agitation. 
It  seems  to  me  that  it  must  be  conceded  that  a 
county  seat  ought  to  be,  other  things  being 
equal,  in  the  center  of  the  county.  There  is 
where  it  accommodates  best,  the  citizens  of  the 
county;  there  it  is  where  they  meet  on  equal 
terms,  and  at  equal  expense;  and  whenever  an 
attempt  is  made  to  remove  the  county  seat  from 
the  center  of  a county,  to  the  border,  or  to 
one  of  the  remote  corners  of  the  county,  then 
it  is,  that  a bare  majority  is  not,  in  my  judg- 
ment, sufficient,  or  in  other  words,  a bare  ma- 
jority of  the  people  of  a county  ought  not  to 
have  the  right  or  the  power  to  remove  a county 
seat  to  a border  of  a county,  and  cast  upon  the 
people  of  the  remote  parts  of  the  county,  the 
additional  burden  which  such  a change  must 
necessarily  impose,  or  to  cast  upon  them  the 
additional  expense  incurred  in  litigation  or  in 
reaching  the  county  seat  for  the  purpose  of  do- 
ing all  manner  of  county  business.  And  the 
principle  may  be  applied  to  a State  as  well  as 
to  a county.  In  the  State  of  Ohio,  for  instance, 
ought  a majority  of  one  to  have  the  right  or 
the  power  to  remove  the  State  capital  from  the 
city  of  Columbus  to  Hamilton  county,  and  cast 
upon  the  northern  part  of  this  State  the  burden 
and  expense  of  coming  clear  down  here  to  the 
county  of  Hamilton  for  the  purpose  of  doing 
business  at  the  capital?  Or,  on  the  other  hand, 
ought  a bare  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  to  have  the  right  to  remove  the  capital 
to  Cuyahoga  county,  and  compel  the  people  of 
the  southern  portion  of  the  State  to  go  clear 
across  the  State  to  do  business  at  the  capital? 
As  it  is  now  situated,  in  the  center  of  the  State, 
we  meet  on  equal  terms ; we  meet  there  at  com- 
paratively the  same  expense;  one  single  man,  a 
bare  majority  of  one  in  the  State,  or  in  a coun- 
ty ought  not  to  have  the  right  to  dictate,  and 
cast  these  additional  burdens  upon  the  rest  of 
the  State,  or  upon  the  rest  of  a county.  This 
ought  not  to  be  so,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
proposition,  as  I have  introduced  it,  ought  to 
commend  itself  to  the  Convention. 

Then,  again,  as  it  is  now  in  almost  every 
county  in  the  State,  the  county  seat  is  central 
in  the  county,  with  but  few  exceptions.  Will 
you,  then,  leave  that  question  open  ? Will  you 
leave  it  to  be  agitated,  if  the  question  comes  up 
in  one  part  of  a county,  or  in  a township  of 
that  county — will  you  leave  it  for  future  discus- 
sion and  future  agitation  in  the  county,  to  be 
kept  up  for  a series  of  years,  it  may  be,  for 
twenty  or  fifty  years,  and,  in  fact,  ruining  the 
county?  It  seems  to  me  that  this  matter  had 
better  be  settled  in  the  Constitution,  and  that 
such  quarrels,  so  far  as  the  county  seat  is  con- 
cerned, had  better  be  made  to  cease,  even  though 
it  should  be  by  an  absolute  prohibition  of  the 
removal  of  a county  seat  from  the  center  of  the 
county.  One  of  these  questions,  when  agitated, 
does  more  injury,  in  fact,  to  a county  in  these 
county  quarrels  than  a county  seat  can  do  good 
to  any  town  in  the  county.  And  then,  again, 
when  you  propose  to  remove  the  county  seat, 
in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  you  do  more  injury  to 


the  town  in  which  the  county  seat  is  situated 
than  you  can  possibly  do  good  by  its  removal  to 
any  town  in  the  county.  You  are  casting  addi- 
tional burdens  upon  that  town,  and  upon  those 
living  farther  from  the  county  seat, in  the  oppo- 
site direction  from  that  in  which  it  is  removed. 
In  the  majority  of  instances,  you  are  actually  de- 
stroying the  former  county  seat;  you  are  abso- 
lutely taking  money  from  the  town  where  the 
county  seat  has  been  situated,  by  the  removal, 
which,  in  the  majority  of  instances,  is  done 
simply  for  personal  ends  and  for  personal  ag- 
grandizement, for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the 
value  of  property  somewhere  else,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  those  living  where  the  county  seat  was 
formerly  situated. 

Mr.  COOK.  I trust,  Mr.  President,  that  this 
Convention  will  not  turn  itself  into  a local  po- 
litical convention,  for  the  purpose  of  making 
easy  or  difficult  the  removal  of  county  seats.  I 
trust  they  will  stand  by  the  rule  established  in 
the  present  Constitution,  which  leaves  that 
question,  as  all  others  in  which  the  people  are 
interested,  to  a decision  by  the  majority.  We 
submit  all  State  questions,  all  National  ques- 
tions, all  county  and  local  questions,  to  a major- 
ity vote ; and  1 would  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury]  by  what  authority 
will  he  deprive  that  majority  of  the  right  of 
settling  this  question  as  to  the  location  of  a 
county  seat?  Why,  he  would  establish  one 
rule  for  removing  a county  seat  from  one  village, 
and  another  rule  for  removing  it  to  another 
village.  Is  there  any  justice  or  reason  in  that? 
The  rule  should  be  uniform;  and  there  is  no 
rule  so  reasonable  as  the  rule  of  the  majority. 
I represent  a county  which,  unfortunately,  is 
agitated  by  one  of  these  county  seat  removal 
questions;  and  in  the  convention  in  which  I 
was  nomitated,they  passed  a resolution,  saying 
they  were  satisfied  with  the  rule  as  it  exists  in 
the  Constitution,  and  desired  to  have  that  re- 
main; and,  under  these  instructions,  although 
I live  in  a place  where  the  county  seat  is  not 
located,  I ask  the  Convention  to  stand  by  the 
rule  established  in  the  present  Constitution. 
Our  people  are  entirely  willing  to  take  the  con- 
sequences and  the  chances  upon  a majority  vote; 
and  I can  see  no  better  or  more  equitable  rule, 
or  a rule  which  is  more  in  consonance  with  our 
political  principles,  than  the  rule  which  re- 
quires a county  seat  to  be  removed  or  estab- 
lished by  a majority  vote  of  the  people  of  the 
county. 

The  gentleman’s  argument  is  that  the  center 
is  more  easy  of  access.  Well,  now,  as  a rule, 
we  know  that  the  people  of  Hamilton  county 
can  more  easily  come  to  Cincinnati  to  transact 
their  business  than  they  could  go  to  the  center 
of  the  county.  In  the  county  of  Lucas,  the 
people  are  much  better  accommodated  by  going 
to  Toledo  than  they  would  be  if  required  to  go 
to  the  center  of  that  county,  for  the  reason  that 
the  railroads  all  meet  or  terminate  at  that  point. 
It  is  not  a question  of  travel  by  wagon  or  bug- 
gy. All  travel  at  the  present  time  is  chiefly  by 
railroads.  And  in  voting  for  the  removal  of  a 
county  seat,  the  people  look  to  see  at  what  point 
they  are  best  accommodated.  If  the  majority 
are  required  to  go  from  the  circumference  to 
the  center,  they  will  have  greater  burdens 
thrown  upon  them  than  if  the  minority  is  re- 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT, 

Dorsey,  Pond,  Coats,  Mullen. 


1221 


Day.] 

February  10,  1874.] 


quired  to  go  from  the  center  to  the  circumfer- 
ence. The  question  is  one  of  ease  of  commu- 
nication; and,  therefore,  I hope  that  the 
Convention  will  allow  the  rule  established  in 
the  former  Constitution  to  remain. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I just  desire  to  say,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, that  this  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury]  is  precisely 
one  of  those  amendments  that  ought  not  to  be 
made  in  the  Constitution.  Any  gentleman  who 
looks  at  this  section  in  the  present  Constitution, 
as  it  now  stands,  will  be  convinced  that  it  is 
sufficiently  stringent,  that  the  difficulties  there 
in  the  way  of  the  removal  of  county  seats  are 
amply  sufficient  for  the  security  and  peace  and 
quiet  of  counties,  and  nothing  further  should 
be  added  in  this  Constitution.  But  above  all, 
nothing  should  be  added  making  the  invidious 
distinction  proposed  by  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury], 
that  a different  rule  should  obtain  with  regard 
to  the  removal  from  one  part  of  a county  to  an- 
other, or  a different  rule  in  behalf  of  a village 
or  town  located  in  one  part  of  the  county  from 
those  located  in  another  part  of  the  county. 
The  rule  is  wrong.  As  the  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  has  very  truly  observed,  it  is 
not  always  the  central  location  that  is  most  con- 
venient to  a majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
county  for  the  transaction  of  the  county  seat 
business.  It  may  depend  upon  many  other 
matters,  and  frequently  does  so  depend.  It  is 
so  in  the  county  of  Hamilton.  It  is  so  in 
the  county  Lucas.  It  is  so  in  many  other 
counties  of  the  State.  But  what  we  ask, 
and  all  that  we  ask  in  this  matter  is,  that  you 
will  allow  the  people  to  determine  for  them- 
selves, by  a majority  vote,  when  they  desire  to 
move  a county  seat  and  when  they  do  not 
desire  to  move  it.  I remember  very  well 
that  I introduced  at  one  time  a proposition 
facilitating,  to  some  extent  the  removal  of 
county  seats,  by  a vote  of  the  majority  of 
the  people,  by  permission  of  the  county 
commissioners,  because  I thought  it  was  right 
that  it  should  be  so  done.  I submitted  that 
proposition  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department,  and  asked  that  it  be  introduced  as 
a part  and  portion  of  the  Legislative  Report. 
They  did  not  see  fit  so  to  introduce  it.  I acqui- 
esced in  the  decision  of  the  Committee.  I do 
not  complain  of  it  at  all.  It  was  making  a 
change  with  regard  to  the  old  Constitution 
which  I thought  proper  to  be  made;  but  the 
Committee  did  not  think  proper  to  make  it,  and 
I agreed  with  them.  Let  it  be  so.  But  I ask 
you,  at  least,  that  you  do  not  introduce  a more 
stringent  amendment  in  the  present  Constitu- 
tion than  you  have  in  the  one  under  which  we 
now  live.  In  God’s  name,  that  is  stringent 
enough.  We  do  not  want  anything  more  so. 
You  have  placed  sufficient  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  the  action  of  the  people,  and  we  are 
willing  to  acquiesce  in  that.  But  we  say,  if 
you  propose  to  introduce  here  a proposition 
which  requires  that,  when  you  move  a county 
seat  in  one  direction,  you  shall  have  a majority 
vote,  and  when  you  move  it  in  another  direction, 
you  shall  have  a two-thirds  vote  of  the  people, 
it  is  unjust.  It  is  not  right.  It  is  treating  im- 
properly the  inhabitants  of  a county,  and  we 
do  not  desire  any  change  of  that  kind  to  be 


I made.  We  are  willing  to  take  the  present  Con- 
stitution as  it  stands.  We  do  not  propose  to 
vote  for  the  introduction  of  any  more  stringent 
measures,  and  I trustit  will  notbedone. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a ques- 
tion ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POND.  Is  is  not  proper  that  the  minor- 
it}'  should  be  represented  in  some  way  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  not  talking  about  a mi- 
nority, but  a majority.  I will  say  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  I presume  that 
the  minority  will  be  represented  by  their  vote 
on  the  Constitution.  The  gentleman  cannot 
make  anything  out  of  that  proposition. 

Mr.  COATS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COATS.  Is  not  this  a war  between  the 
Greeks  and  the  Trojans? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  a matter  with  which 
the  gentleman  from  Union  [Mr.  Coats],  has 
nothing  to  do. 

Mr.  MULLEN.  The  substitute  now  before 
the  House  strikes  me  as  one  eminently  fitting  to 
be  made.  It  strikes  me  that  the  change  pro- 
posed by  the  substitute  should  be  made.  It  has 
the  concurrence  of  my  judgment,  at  least,  as 
one  that  is  eminently  proper  and  equitable. 
Now,  Mr.  President,  it  has  been  my  province  to 
experience  one  of  those  extraordinary  wrang- 
ling fights  on  the  county-seat  question,  and,  as 
has  been  well  remarked,  it  is  a struggle  and 
contest  that  never  ends.  There  is  more  embit- 
tered feeling  originating  from  such  contests, 
than  any  thing  that  I have  ever  witnessed. 
Why,  sir,  you  go  to  the  different  contesting 
parts  of  the  county,  and  it  is  impossible  for  a 
friend  of  either  side  to  get  a meal  of  victuals 
on  the  other  side  of  the  line;  and  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  says  there  is  no 
reason  why  this  distinction  should  be  made. 
Well,  now,  I ask  you,  Mr.  President,  if  it  is  not 
reasonable  that  a county  seat  should  be  in  the 
center  of  a county,  or  the  location  of  a school 
house  should  be  in  the  center  of  a school  dis- 
trict ? Is  it  not  intended  for  the  accommodation 
of  all  the  citizens  of  the  county  alike,  as  well 
as  the  school  district,  and  is  it  not  unjust  to  lo- 
cate a school  house  at  the  extreme  portion  of 
the  school  district,  simply  because  they  have  the 
numerical  strength  and  the  power  to  do  so?  Is 
it  equitable?  Is  it  not  reasonable  that  every 
citizen  of  the  county  should  be  equally  accom- 
modated? Now,  we  have  a county  that  is  for- 
ty-five miles  from  one  corner  of  it  to  the  other. 
There  has  been  a proposition  presented  to  re- 
move the  county  seat  from  the  center  of  the 
county  to  the  extreme  portion,  leaving  a large 
portion  of  our  citizens  a distance  of  forty-five 
miles  to  travel  in  order  to  reach  the  county 
seat.  I ask  if  for  the  reason  that  this  locality 
has  the  numerical  strength,  it  has  the  right  to 
take  it  to  that  extreme  portion  of  the  county? 
Is  it  right?  Might  does  not  make  right  in 
this  country.  Then  I say  that  this  discrimi- 
nation should  be  made  in  favor  of  retain- 
ing the  county  seat  in  the  center  of  the 
county.  In  my  judgment,  this  thing  of 
removing  county  seats,  ought  to  be  made  a 
very  difficult  matter.  Why?  Because  it  is 
continually  changing  the  valuation  of  property. 
Property  near  or  adjacent  to  the  county  seat 


1222 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [110th 

Mullen,  Doan,  Albright,  W ilson.  [Tuesday, 


acquires  a value  by  reason  of  the  location  of  the 
county  seat.  By  removing  it  to  another  local- 
ity you  change  the  value  of  that  property  and 
make  it  worthless.  Another  reason.  Where 
the  county  seat  has  been  established,  public 
roads  and  highways  are,  of  necessity  built,  for 
the  convenience  of  the  people  traveling  to  and 
from  the  county  seat.  Remove  your  county 
seat,  and  your  public  highways  and  roads  are 
all  changed,  and,  as  a matter  of  economy,  as  a 
matter  of  dollars  and  cents  to  litigants  who  are 
compelled  to  go  to  the  county  seat  for  the  tran- 
saction of  legal  business,  the  payment  of  taxes, 
it  is  a matter  of  importance  that  the  county 
seat  should  be  retained  in  the  center  of  the 
county.  Then,  I say  this  substitute  proposed  is 
one  eminently  proper  to  be  made.  And  there 
should  be  that  discrimination  in  favor  of  right 
and  in  favor  of  justice.  I hope,  Mr.  President, 
that  the  substitute  will  prevail,  and  that  the 
motion  will  prevail  to  strike  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out.  On  this  the  yeas  and  nays  are 
demanded. 

Mr.  DOAN.  Is  it  in  order  before  that  mo- 
tion is  put  to  make  a motion  to  amend  the  orig- 
inal section  by  striking  out  a word? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  send 
up  his  amendment. 

Mr.  DOAN.  It  is  to  strike  out  the  word 
“ four,”  in  line  one,  so  that  instead  of  four 
hundred  it  will  read  three  hundred  square 
miles. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Clinton  [Mr.  Doan]  moves  to  amend  the  origi- 
nal section  by  striking  out  the  word  “ four,” 
in  line  one,  and  inserting  the  word  “ three,”  so 
that  it  will  read : “ No  new  county  shall  con- 
tain less  than  three  hundred  square  miles.” 

Mr.  DOAN.  My  purpose  in  offering  that  mo- 
tion is  to  accommodate  some  localities  of  the 
State;  the  people  of  which  are  put  to  incon- 
venience by  reason  of  large  counties.  Now,  in 
the  southern  part  of  the  State,  there  are  coun- 
ties having  from  five  to  six  hundred  square 
miles,  and  their  size  renders  it  an  inconven- 
ience to  those  who  reside  on  the  outside  limits 
of  those  counties.  In  looking  over  the  territo- 
rial condition  of  those  counties  we  find  that 
new  counties  cannot  be  organized  from  their 
surplus  territory,  however  much  it  may  accom- 
modate the  people  of  those  remote  localities. 
I have  made  this  motion,  providing  for  an  or- 
ganization of  new  counties  with  three  hundred 
square  miles  of  territory. 

The  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Clinton 
[Mr.  Doan],  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 

upon  striking  out  section  31.  A division  of  the 
question  has  been  asked. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I move  to  amend  the  orig- 
inal section  by  the  following : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 

Guernsey  [Mr.  Albright]  moves  the  following 
amendment  to  the  original  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Albright  moves  to  amend  section  31  by  inserting 
in  the  third  line,  between  the  words  “seats”  and  “shall”, 
the  following  words: 

“Shall  be  passed  by  a vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  mem- 
bers of  each  House  or  the  General  Assembly,  and.” 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  The  object  of  it  is  to  re- 


quire a two-thirds  vote  of  the  two  branches  of 
the  Legislature  before  the  law  shall  be  submit- 
ted to  the  people  to  be  voted  upon. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I supposed  that  under  the 
Constitution  now  existing,  the  people  of  the 
entire  State  were  satisfied  with  the  provision 
for  removal  of  county  seats.  Under  the  Con- 
stitution of  1802,  there  was  no  provision  for  the 
removal  of  county  seats.  There  was  a provision 
for  the  changing  of  county  lines,  and  whatever 
act  was  made  by  the  General  Assembly  in  re- 
lation to  county  seats,  must  have  been  simply 
an  implied  power.  The  Constitution  of  1851 
provided  that  before  a county’s  lines  should  be 
changed  or  a county  seat  removed,  it  required  a 
majority  of  the  people  of  the  county  to  be 
affected  thereby  to  vote  therefor.  The  Consti- 
tution of  1851  provided  for  the  submission  to 
the  people  of  the  locality  or  county  as  to 
whether  their  county  seat  should  be  removed  or 
not — a very  wise  provision,  and  they  left  it  to  a 
majority  of  the  people.  As  I understand  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Ashtabula 
[Mr.  Woodbury],  it  is  that  it  shall  require  a 
two-thirds  majority.  That  is,  as  if  one  man’s 
vote  was  worth  more  than  another’s.  And  how 
the  gentleman  explains  that  discrimination  I 
do  not  understand.  I suppose  that  one  man’s 
vote  in  this  Republic  is  just  as  good  as  another’s. 
If  a majority  of  the  people  desire  to  change 
their  place  of  business,  that  majority  ought  to 
rule.  That  is  what  the  gentleman  has  been 
teaching  us  in  his  speeches  heretofore,  with  re- 
gard to  all  questions  upon  which  I have  heard 
his  voice.  Now,  he  claims  that  a majority  of 
two-thirds  must  be  necessary  to  change  the 
place  where  the  people  transact  their  business 
in  the  county.  What  is  a county  seat?  It  is 
simply  a place  where  the  people  of  a county 
transact  their  business.  A business  firm  may 
have  an  office  to  transact  their  business,  and 
may  have  need  to  change  it.  A majority  of  the 
firm  ought  to  control  in  that  matter.  It  is 
simply  a business  transaction. 

Now,  the  gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr. 
Woodbury]  lives  in  a little  bright  sunbeam 
town  called  Jefferson.  [Laughter].  What  I 
mean  by  that  is,  you  may  travel  through  that 
town  fifty  times  a day,  and  not  see  many  people 
walking  on  the  streets.  [Laughter],  While,  if 
you  go  up  to  Ashtabula — the  main  town  in  that 
county — you  will  find  a stirring  business  place. 
Just  so  with  the  gentleman  from  Adams  [Mr. 
Mullen].  He  is  away  up  at  a place  called 
West  Union,  or  East  Union,  or  South  Union,  or 
North  Union,  I do  not  know  which.  He  wants 
it  to  be  a Union,  at  all  events. 

Right  down  on  the  Ohio  River,  where  their 
commercial  business  place  is,  he  does  not  want 
the  county  seat  removed  there;  and  in  order  to 
fasten  it  to  those  places,  they  want  land,  and 
barns,  and  gardens,  and  all  those  things,  to  rep- 
resent people.  [Laughter.]  Now, that  would  be  a 
nice  little  county  seat — representing  farms,  and 
lands,  instead  of  people,  as  a county  seat,  as  a 
place  of  business,  because  it  happens  to  be  the 
geographical  center.  I suppose  the  proper  cen- 
ter for  the  people  to  transact  business  is  the 
center  of  population,  the  center  of  business, 
and  whenever  the  people  find  that  it  is  incon- 
venient to  be  fastened  to  this  place  of  business. 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1223 

February  10,  1874.]  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Pond,  Mullen. 


or  that  place  of  business,  they  may  change  it 
by  the  law  of  the  land.  That  is  the  object  of 
passing  a law,  by  a vote  of  the  people,  designat- 
ing as  to  where  they  shall  have  their  county 
seat  or  place  of  transacting  business.  Now,  I 
am  somewhat  personally  interested  in  the  mat- 
ter myself.  In  Youngstown  we  are  in  favor  of 
removing  the  county  seat  from  a little,  quiet, 
pious  town,  by  the  name  of  Canfield,  to  the 
city  of  Youngstown.  Canfield  has  a population 
of  about  five  or  six  hundred.  Many  a time  you 
can  stand  upon  the  streets  there,  when  the 
Lord  sends  his  sun  down,  and  you  can  see 
nobody  moving  on  the  street  except  yourself. 
[Laughter.]  Still  it  is  a nice,  healthy  town. 
That  is  a forlorn  condition.  We  have  a little 
court  house  there,  seven  by  nine.  It  is  more  of  a 
geographical  center  than  Youngstown,  but 
Youngstown  is,  ten  times  over,  the  center  of 
population,  and  more  than  twenty  times  the 
center  of  business.  More  than  nine-tenths,  of 
the  litigation  arises  immediately  in  the  vicinity 
of  Youngstown.  Parties  and  witnesses  have 
to  go  ten  miles  to  transact  their  business. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Would  there  be  any  dif- 
ficulty in  obtaining  a two-thirds  vote  for  the 
removal  of  the  county  seat  to  Youngstown  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Not  a bit.  The  reason  of 
that  is,  it  is  urged  by  such  a strong  expression 
of  the  people.  Who  has  the  right  to  say  that 
one  man’s  vote  is  not  just  as  good  as  another’s, 
and  a good  deal  better  ? Who  shall  say  that  one- 
third  of  the  people’s  voice  is  equal  to  two- 
thirds?  Nobody,  except  him  who  claims  that 
the  county  seat  in  the  geographical  center  shall 
demand  that  of  the  people.  I am  opposed  to 
any  change  whatever  of  the  old  Constitution. 
Leave  it  as  it  is.  It  has  been  satisfactory  to 
the  people.  The  Legislature  of  the  State  have 
no  power  to  pass  a law  to  remove  a county  seat 
or  to  change  a county  line,  except  by  the  voice 
of  the  people,  and  wisely  the  framers  of  the 
old  Constitution  left  that  matter  with  the  peo- 
ple. And  why?  Simply  because  the  people 
living  there  know  the  status,  know  the  condi- 
tion and  necessities  of  the  case,  and  the  Legis- 
lature has  no  means  of  knowledge  except  by 
information.  They  leave  the  merits  of  the 
matter  to  a vote  of  the  people.  And  why,  in 
the  passing  of  any  law,  should  not  the  voice  of 
the  people  be  expressed  by  a majority  ? Why 
make  this  an  exception  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POND.  Why  should  not  this  be  gov- 
erned, to  some  extent,  by  the  same  principle 
advocated  by  the  gentleman  in  regard  to  re- 
stricted voting? 

Mr.  WILSON.  In  regard  to  the  election  of 
judges?  That  represents  a sentiment;  the  other 
represents  a place  of  transacting  business  by 
the  people.  The  location  of  a county  seat  rep- 
resents no  sentiment.  It  is  simply  a place  of 
business  for  the  people;  and  the  question  is, 
whether  they  have  a right  to  choose  their  own 
place  of  transacting  business  ? It  would  be  un- 
just— it  would  be  wrong  to  claim  that  a three- 
fifths  or  two-thirds  vote  should  be  necessary  to 
remove  a county  seat. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
Jtriking  out  section  31. 


Mr.  MULLEN.  Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT.  Has  the  gentleman  from 
Adams  [Mr.  Mullen]  leave? 

Leave  was  granted  to  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  MULLEN.  I discover  that  my  friend 
from  Mahoning  [Mr.  Wilson]  has  an  “ axe  to 
grind  ” in  this  matter.  It  is  not  the  principle 
that  is  involved  in  this  section  that  the  gentle- 
man desires  to  apply,  so  much  as  it  is  the  beau- 
tiful melody  of  Younstown,  a city  in  Mahoning 
county  of  about  fifteen  thousand  inhabitants, 
where  the  wealth  of  the  county  and  the  aris- 
tocracy are  congregated.  He  refers  to  the  little 
town  of  Canfield,  as  a little  sun-burnt  place, 
where  some  poor  men  reside.  Now,  that,  Mr. 
President,  is  the  sequel  of  the  gentleman’s  op- 
position to  the  substitute.  Here  is  Youngstown, 
a city  of  wealth  and  aristocracy,  that  desires 
by  a majority  vote  to  take  the  county  seat  from 
the  center  of  the  county  down  to  Youngstown, 
disregarding  the  interest  of  the  solid  yeomanry 
of  the  county,  the  farming  interests  of  Maho- 
ning county.  They  have  no  rights  that  the 
citizens  of  Youngstown  need  respect.  I tell 
you,  Mr.  President,  that  the  farming  interest — 
the  farming  community  of  the  county — have 
rights  to  be  regarded  just  as  well  as  citizens 
that  are  congregated  in  a city,  men  of  wealth 
and  aristocracy.  The  poor  have  as  much  right 
in  this  country  and  ought  to  have;  and  if  there 
is  any  discrimination,  it  should  be  made  in 
favor  of  the  poor  farming  community. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  MULLEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Does  the  county  seat  of 
Adams  county  furnish  a good  market  for  the 
provisions  and  farming  products  of  Adams 
county  ? 

Mr.  MULLEN.  The  best  in  the  county.  The 
very  highest  market  price  that  is  paid  for  the 
products  of  Adams  county  is  there. 

Mr.  WILSON.  What  is  the  population  of 
West  Union  ? 

Mr.  MULLEN.  About  eight  hundred. 

It  is  a delicate  matter  to  refer  to  our  own 
county,  and  I do  not  wish  to  do  so.  It  is  the 
principle  I wish  to  combat;  and  if  gentle- 
men will  take  pains  to  examine,  they  will  find 
that  Proposition  No.  36  was  submitted  by  me  to 
this  Convention  upon  the  removal  of  county 
seats.  It  was  a proposition  that  I obtained  by 
the  examination  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State 
of  Illinios.  It  is  a verbatim  copy  of  a section  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois.  They 
have  thought  it  was  an  extraordinary  matter. 
They  have  thought  it  was  a matter  worthy  of 
their  consideration,  and  that  a two-thirds  vote 
should  be  required  to  remove  a county  seat 
from  the  center  of  the  county  to  an  extreme 
portion  of  the  county.  And  to  illustrate  the 
feeling  of  animosity  that  exists  in  these  local 
fights,  I will  refer  you  to  the  county  of  Wayne 
in  the  State  of  Indiana.  Every  member  of  this 
Convention,  I presume,  is  conversant  with  the 
facts  with  regard  to  that.  Look  at  the  mobs 
and  riots  that  have  been  engendered  by  the  re- 
moval of  the  county  seat  of  that  county,  from 
the  center  to  an  extreme  portion  of  the  county. 
Then,  I say,  let  us  regard  the  interests  of  the 
farming  community  who  are,  of  necessity,  dis- 
persed all  over  the  county,  and  who,  although 


1224 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [110th 

Albright,  Humphreville,  Cunningham,  Dorsey.  [Tuesday, 


in  a minority,  have  rights  that  should  he  re- 
spected. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Guernsey  [Mr.  Albright]  to  in- 
sert in  line  three  after  the  words  “county  seats,” 
the  following  words:  “shall  be  passed  by  a 
vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  each 
House  of  the  General  Assembly  and  ” ; so  that 
it  will  read  thus : 

“And  all  laws  creating  new  counties,  changing  county 
lines,  or  removing  county  seats,  shall  be  passed  by  a vote 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  each  House  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  shall,  before  taking  effect,  he  sub- 
mitted to  the  electors  of  the  several  counties  to  he  affect- 
ed thereby. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I ask  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Objection  was  made. 

A vote  being  taken  on  sustaining  the  demand 
for  the  yeas  and  nays,  the  call  was  sustained. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  28,  nays  47,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Blose,  Burns, 
Coats,  Cunningham,  Foran,  Kerr,  Miller,  Muel- 
ler, Mullen,  Phellis,  Pond,  Rowland,  Russell 
of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scofield,  Smith  of  Shel- 
by, Thompson,  Van  Voorhis,  Yoris,  Watson, 
West,  White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hocking, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  President 
—28. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Ban  non,  Beer,  Bosworth,  Byal, 
Carberv,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Gard- 
ner, Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Johnson,  Layton,  Merril,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Okey,  Page,  Powell,  Pratt,  Root,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Scribner,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Yoorhes,  Waddle, 
Wilson — 47. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  striking  out  the  section. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  The  section  as  it 
stands,  is  a literal  transcript  of  the  section  in 
the  present  Constitution.  The  majority  of  the 
Committee  were  in  favor  of  reporting  it  as  it 
is  now  reported.  There  were  some  dissenting 
voices  in  the  Committee.  If  I understand  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr. 
Woodbury],  to  strike  out  this  section  and  in- 
sert the  substitute,  the  only  change  he  makes  in 
the  section  is  that  where  a proposition  is  made 
to  remove  a county  seat  to  a point  more  remote 
from  the  center  than  that  where  it  now  is,  it 
shall  require  a vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  people 
of  the  county.  I think,  myself,  Mr.  President, 
that  there  is  some  merit  in  that  proposition. 
Where  a county  seat  has  been  established,  lands 
sold,  buildings  erected  with  reference  to  that 
point  being  the  county  seat,  the  people  there 
have  a sort  of  vested  interest  in  that  county 
seat,  and  that  interest  ought  not  to  be  sacrificed 
and  taken  away  for  slight  causes. 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
ask  a question  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COOK.  Suppose  a county  seat  is  at  one  I 


side.  Would  not  the  same  rule  apply  when 
they  take  it  from  that  to  the  center? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Probably  it  would. 
But  other  considerations  enter  into  the  question 
when  a proposition  is  to  remove  the  county 
seat  nearer  the  center  than  where  it  is.  In 
either  case  it  ought  to  be  done  with  great  con- 
sideration, and  for  no  slight  cause.  Especially 
where  the  proposition  is  to  remove  the  county 
seat  from  the  center  of  the  county  to  a point 
nearer  one  corner  of  the  county,  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  argument  comes  with  greater  force 
than  it  does  where  the  proposition  is  to  remove 
it  nearer  the  center  of  the  county. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I would  ask  the  gen- 
tleman if  people  do  not,  when  investing  about 
a county  seat  or  any  other  town,  depend  en- 
tirely upon  the  importance  and  growth  of  that 
community;  and  would  ask  him  to  point  out 
what  right  an  individual  has  to  insist  on  the 
location  of  the  county  seat  after  the  public  in- 
terests require  it  to  be  removed  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  If  the  public  in- 
terests are  so  great  as  to  command  a two-thirds 
vote,  probably  that  ought  to  prevail.  I know 
that  private  individual  improvements  are  to  be 
sacrificed  for  the  public  good;  but  it  is  just  as 
hard  for  ten  men  to  go  twenty  miles  to  a county 
seat,  as  it  is  for  twenty  men  to  go  ten  miles.  It 
costs  the  whole  ten  as  much  to  go  twenty  miles 
as  it  will  the  twenty  to  go  ten  miles. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I do  not  know  but 
my  argument  is  having  more  effect  than  was 
intended  by  the  way  it  stirs  up  gentlemen. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  ask  the  gentleman  if 
he  does  not  know  a large  number  of  counties 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  where  a majority  of  the 
people  would  be  better  accommodated  by  hav- 
ing the  county  seat  not  in  the  center,  than  they 
would  if  it  were  in  the  center  of  the  county? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I can  imagine 
that. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Does  not  the  gentleman  know 
that? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  Perhaps  I know  of 
some.  I presume  I do.  But,  as  a general  rule, 
the  people  are  better  accommodated  with  the 
county  seat  at  the  center  of  the  county,  than 
they  are  if  it  is  at  one  side  of  the  county.  I 
presume  the  people  of  Hamilton  county,  take 
them  as  a body,  are  better  satisfied  and  better 
accommodated  with  the  county  seat  in  Cincin- 
nati, than  they  would  be  if  it  was  at  the  center 
of  the  county.  I have  no  doubt  that  the  people 
of  Cuyahoga  county  are  better  accommodated 
with  the  county  seat  at  Cleveland,  than  they 
would  be  with  the  county  seat  in  the  center  of 
the  county.  But  still  that  does  not  militate 
against  the  argument  that  I am  trying  to  im- 
press upon  the  minds  of  the  Convention — that 
it  ought  to  be  some  very  great  necessity  that 
shall  remove  the  county  seat  away  from  the 
center;  and  my  impression  is  that  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr. 
Woodbury]  would  be  doing  no  more  than  jus- 
tice. And  as  it  does  not  change  materially  the 
section  as  to  removing  the  county  seat,  I am  in- 
clined to  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Will  the  gentleman  from 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATYE  DEPARTMENT. 1225 

February  10,  1874.]  Humphreville,  Wilson,  Dorsey,  Burns,  Tuttle,  etc. 


Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville]  allow  another 
question  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I understand  the  gentleman 
says  twenty  men  going  ten  miles  would  be  equal 
to  ten  men  going  the  same  distance? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  No,  sir;  I did  not 
say  that. 

Mr.  WILSON.  How  is  it? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I said  it  would 
cost  ten  men  as  much  to  go  twenty  miles,  as  it 
would  cost  twenty  men  to  go  ten  miles. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Is  not  that  upon  the  theory 
of  the  two  Irishmen,  who,  when  they  had 
traveled  twenty  miles,  thought  it  was  only  ten 
miles  apiece?  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Not  quite.  It  only 
demonstrated  the  idea  that  in  such  a case,  ten 
men  ought  to  have  just  as  much  weight  in 
deciding  a question  as  twenty  men. 

Nr.  DORSEY.  Ought  they  to  have  twice  as 
much  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Each  one  of  the 
ten  would  have  twice  as  much  as  each  one  of 
the  twenty,  so  that  a vote  of  two-thirds  of  the 
whole  number  will  be  no  more  than  doing  jus- 
tice between  the  whole  people  of  the  county. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
another  question  ? The  gentleman  from  Medina 
[Mr.  Humphreville]  was  a member  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention  of  1851. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  He  was  on  the  Committee 
that  reported  on  this  question,  and  has  acted  on 
it  twice. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  know  that 
I was  on  that  Committee  in  the  other  Conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  gentleman  voted  for  that 
in  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I voted  for  it  in 
the  Constitution,  and  will  again,  if  it  is  not 
altered. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I offer  an  amendment  to  the 
original  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  offers  the  following 
amendment  to  the  original  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out,  in  the  sixth  line,  the  words  “at  such  elec- 
tion,” and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  words  “on  such 
question.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  object  of  that  amendment 
is  apparent,  and  it  meets  my  own  views,  at 
least.  As  the  section  now  stands,  it  requires  a 
majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  at  the  general 
election.  The  amendment, if  adopted, will  require 
a vote  to  be  taken  directly  upon  that  question 
alone,  and  if  it  receives  a majority  of  the  votes 
cast  on  that  question,  namely,  the  erection  of  a 
new  county,  or  the  changing  of  a county  line, 
or  the  removal  of  a county  seat,  that  question 
shall  stand  or  fall  upon  its  own  merits,  whether 
it  receives  a majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  at  the 
general  election  or  not.  There  may  be  a great 
many  voters  who  are  indifferent  either  way, 
and  will  not  vote  upon  the  question  at  all  if  it 
is  not  presented  in  the  simple  form  of  standing 
upon  its  own  merits.  This  amendment  sub- 
mits that  question  fairly  to  the  electors.  So  far 
as  I am  individually  concerned,  Mr.  President, 
or  the  county  I represent,  I do  not  know  that 


we  are  interested  either  one  way  or  the  other. 
We  have  been  shorn  of  our  ’strength,  so  far  as 
territory  is  concerned,  by  repeated  acts  of  the 
Legislature,  under  the  Constitution  of  1802, 
until  we  stand  in  no  danger  either  way,  as  I 
apprehend;  at  least  there  is  no  agitation  upon 
that  subject,  and  I cannot  conceive  how  any 
agitation  could  arise  so  as  to  affect  my  county. 
Therefore,  I have  no  personal  motive,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  an  amendment  eminently 
proper  to  be  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  moves  to  amend  by 
striking  out,  in  line  six,  “at  such  election,”  and 
inserting,  in  lieu  thereof,  “ on  such  question,” 
so  that  it  will  read,  “ and  all  laws  creating  new 
counties,  changing  county  lines,  or  removing 
county  seats,  shall,  before  taking  effect,  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  electors  of  the  several  counties  to 
be  affected  thereby,  at  the  next  general  election 
after  the  passage  thereof,  and  be  adopted  by  a 
majority  of  all  the  electors  voting  on  such 
question.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I ask  a division  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A division  of  the  ques- 
tion being  asked,  the  question  is  on  striking  out 
the  words  “ at  such  election.” 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on striking  out  section  31. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  29,  nays 
46,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Byal,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  De  Steiguer, 
Doan,  Greene,  Hitchcock,  Humphreville,  Mil- 
ler, Mueller,  Mullen,  Phellis,  Rowland,  Russell 
of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Tuttle,  Van 
Voorhis,  West,  White  of  Brown,  White  of 
Hocking,  Woodbury — 29. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Beer,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Cunningham, 
Dorsey,  Foran,  Gardner,  Griswold,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hill,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
Layton,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pond,  Powell,  Root,  Scofield, 
Scribner,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Townsley, 
Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voor- 
hes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Watson,  Wilson,  Young  of 
Champaign,  President — 46. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  further 
amendments  to  section  31?  If  not,  the  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  32. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  receive  a 
fixed  annual  salary*  with  deductions  for  absence  during 
sessions,  and  mileage  to  be  prescribpd  by  law,  and  noother 
allowance  or  perquisites,  either  in  the  payment  of  postage 
or  otherwise,  and  no  change  in  their  compensation  shall 
take  effect  during  their  term  of  office.” 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I move  the  Convention 
now  take  a recess. 

On  this  question  a division  was  called  for, 
and  resulted  36  for,  and  32  against. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12  : 15  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


1226 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. [110th 

Hitchcock,  Carbery,  Townsend,  Hoadly.  [Tuesday, 


AFTERNOON-  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  At  the  time  of  the  recess 
the  Convention  had  under  consideration  sec- 
tion 32. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  amend  the 
section. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment,  as  fol- 
lows: 

Insert  in  line  two,  after  the  word  “salary”,  the  words 
“with  deductions  lor  absence  during  sessions.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  This  amendment  was 
offered  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  disa- 
greed to,  but  I feel  like  trying  the  sense  of  the 
Convention  upon  it.  Some  gentleman  suggest- 
ed to  me,  in  making  this  amendment,  that  we 
should  provide  for  a specific  deduction.  My 
purpose  was,  to  leave  the  question  of  deduction 
to  be  determined  by  the  General  Assembly, 
only  requiring  that  it  be  made.  The  fact  that 
very  much  embarrassment  frequently  occurs 
in  the  Legislature,  from  the  want  of  constant 
attendance  of  members,  which  may  be  supposed 
to  be  more  or  less  influenced  by  the  fact  that  no 
difference  has  been  made  in  their  compensation, 
whether  present  or  absent,  is  my  inducement 
for  offering  this  amendment.  A greater  reason, 
perhaps,  in  my  mind,  in  favor  of  this  amend- 
ment, is  in  the  fact  of  this  compensation  having 
been  allowed  and  received  by  members  of  the 
General  Assembly  during  absence,  has  been 
made  use  of  to  lower  the  dignity  of  the  Repre- 
sentative in  the  estimation  of  the  public.  As  I 
have  once  before  remarked,  we  ought  to  strive 
rather  to  create  a feeling  of  confidence  in  the 
Representative,  a feeling  of  importance  attached 
to  the  position  which  he  occupies,  which  cannot 
result  if  he  is  open  to  the  accusation  of  being 
absent  from  his  seat,  or  careless  in  the  dis- 
charge of  his  duty,  from  the  fact  that,  whether 
present  or  absent,  he  receives  the  same  compen- 
sation. It  is  a question  upon  which  men  are 
apt  to  see  only  one  motive,  and  that  a motive  of 
personal  consideration. 

I do  not  now  base  what  I say,  in  favor  of  the 
adoption  of  this  amendment,  so  much  upon  any 
charge  of  want  of  faithfulness  on  the  part  of 
the  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  as  that 
the  pay  should  be  received  in  such  a way,  and 
the  amount  be  determiued  so  that  they  shall  not 
be  open  to  any  charge  of  the  kind  to  which 
I have  referred. 

I believe  that  the  provision  is  a just  one,  and 
one  that  ought  to  be  made.  I think  that  the 
rule  of  compensation  fixed  in  this  section  is 
the  one  that  ought  always  to  prevail  in  the  pay- 
ment of  officers,  where  such  a rule  of  compen- 
sation can  be  made  applicable.  Most  certainly 
so  with  regard  to  the  members  of  the  General 
Assembly.  If  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly shall  see  fit,  from  time  to  time,  to  take  an  ad- 
journment of  a day,  or  three  days,  or  a week, 
as  the  case  may  be,  as  this  Convention  has  seen 
fit  to  do,  they  are  not  open  to  any  charge  of  be- 
ing dilatory  in  the  dispatch  of  the  business  of 
the  State;  from  the  fact  that  during  their  vaca- 
tion they  may  have  received  their  compensa- 
tion. If  they  are  paid  by  a fixed  salary,  it 
makes  no  difference  at  all  whether  they  occupy 
a longer  or  a shorter  time  in  the  dispatch  of  the 


business  entrusted  to  them,  provided  they  give 
to  that  business  the  attention  which  its  impor- 
tance demands. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Does  this  amendment  pre- 
clude the  possibility  of  having  this  absence 
overlooked  by  a vote  of  the  body  to  which  the 
members  belong  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  In  answer  to  that,  I 
would  state,  that  the  provision  would  not  abso- 
lutely preclude  an  absence  being  overlooked, 
but  can  hardly  see  how  an  absence  would  be 
overlooked  when  a correct  Journal  was  kept, 
which  would  show  the  attendance  upon  the 
session.  By  the  Journal  would  be  determined 
the  fact  whether  a member  was  present  or  not. 
Then,  whether  that  member  was  entitled  to 
absence  by  any  rule  adopted  by  the  General 
Assembly  would  be  a question  to  be  settled  by 
whether  such  leave  of  absence  had  been  given 
to  the  gentleman  as  would  entitle  him  to  it. 
We  cannot  very  well  fix  an  absolute  rule  as 
to  what  deduction  should  be  made.  That  is  a 
matter  of  detail ; it  should  be  left  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  We  do  not  absolutely  fix  the 
salary.  We  do  not  attempt  to  do  so.  We  have 
not  attempted  to  do  so  with  regard  to  but  one 
officer  in  the  State.  We  only  fix  the  rule  of 
compensation,  and  leave  the  General  Assembly 
to  fix  the  salary;  hence  we  must  leave  that 
body  also  to  fix  the  rule  of  deduction,  if  any  is 
to  be  made. 

Perhaps  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to 
say  more  in  presenting  this  amendment  to 
the  consideration  of  the  Convention.  Since 
writing  it,  it  occurred  to  me — but  not  the 
moment  of  sending  it  up — that  the  word 
“proportionate”  might  have  been  inserted 
before  the  word  “deduction,”  though,  as  my 
own  proposition,  I prefer  to  let  it  stand  as  it 
now  does.  It  will  read,  “ a fixed  annual  salary, 
with  deduction  for  absence  during  sessions,  and 
mileage  to  be  prescribed  by  law,”  &c.  The 
whole  question  of  salary,  of  mileage,  and  of  the 
rule  of  deduction,  is  left  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly. With  these  remarks,  without  detaining 
the  Convention  longer,  I leave  the  amendment 
to  your  consideration. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Would  not  the  Legisla- 
ture have  that  power  without  this  amendment? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I have  no  doubt  that  the 
General  Assembly  has  the  power,  but  I cannot 
say  that  they  would  exercise  it.  With  these 
words  inserted,  they,  would  necessarily  have  to 
make  these  deductions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  section  will  read  : 

“The  General,  Assembly  shall  receive  a fixed  annual 
salary,  with  deductiens  for  absence  during  sessions,  and 
mileage,  to  be  prescribed  by  law,  and  no  allowance,  or 
perquisites,  either  in  the  payment  of  postage  or  other- 
wise, and  no  change  in  compensation  shall  take  effect 
during  their  term  of  office.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  delegate  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock],  just  answered  the  delegate 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  that  he 
thought  the  Legislature  would  have  this  power 
without  this  amendment.  I would  like  to 
know,  in  view  of  the  iact  that  the  Article  as  it 
now  reads,  requires  a fixed  salary  to  be  paid, 
where  the  delegate  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitch- 
cock] finds  the  power  in  the  Legislature  to 
prescribe  deductions  for  absence  from  the  fixed 
annual  salary.  I object  to  the  concession  of  the 


Day.] COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. 1227 

February  10,  1874.]  Cunningham,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Cook. 


delegate  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  It 
seems  to  me,  that  the  words  forbid  the  Legis- 
lature from  making  this  deduction ; and  it  is 
for  this  reason,  that  I am  disposed  to  favor  his 
amendment.  If  he  has  a reason  to  give  other- 
wise, I would  like  to  hear  it 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Let  me  supplement 
with  the  gentleman’s  question  the  further  pro- 
vision that  no  change  shall  take  place  during 
their  term. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  very  much  obliged 
to  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
for  saying  that  he  favors  my  proposition,  and 
hope  that  the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cun- 
ningham] intimates  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do,  unless  the  concession 
of  the  gentleman,  that  it  is  unnecessary,  is  cor 
rect.  I do  not  believe  that  it  is  unnecessary. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I made  no  concession  of 
the  kind,  that  it  was  unnecessary.  I did  not  so 
answer  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Townsend],  I only  answered  him  that,  I 
supposed  that  the  General  Assembly  might 
make  a rule  of  deduction ; but  by  the 
insertion  of  these  words,  they  would  be 
required  to  make  such  a rule.  Without 
these  words,  they  would  not  be  so  required. 
I think  they  have  the  power.  In  this  I may  be 
mistaken,  and  acknowledge  my  friend  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  is  very  much  better 
calculated  to  judge  as  to  that.  I shall  only  say 
this,  that  it  appears  to  me  that  in  fixing  the  pay 
of  any  officer,  although  that  pay  may  be  by  a 
fixed  annual  salary,  the  law-making  power 
must  prescribe  the  rule  under  which  that  salary 
shall  be  paid,  and  may  also  prescribe  the  rule  to 
which  the  payment  thereof  shall  be  subjected. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  this,  and  construing 
this  section  together  that  is  all  that  is  involved. 
Itwasonlyin  answer  to  the  question  of  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend] 
that  this  power  was  recognized  in  the  General 
Assembly.  I did  not  say  that  this  provision 
was  necessary ; for  I think  it  not  only  neces- 
sary, but  important.  Important,  not  only,  or 
so  much  to  prevent  men  from  spending  time  as 
they  ought  not  to  spend  it — having  been  elected 
to  serve  the  State — but  important  for  the  de- 
fense of  the  Representative  and  taking  away 
that  which  is  so  often  taken  advantage  of  by  in- 
terested parties  to  prejudice  the  public  against 
the  character  of  their  Representatives. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  may  be  that  the 
Legislature,  in  a general  law  fixing  the  annual 
salary  and  mileage  of  members,  may  be  able  to 
establish  a rule  that  will  practically  lead  to  the 
result  sought  by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock];  nevertheless, this  last  clause 
of  the  section  is  sweeping  in  its  character,  and 
it  appears  to  me  that  we  ought  to  leave  much  to 
the  Legislature. 

I am  very  well  satisfied  that  the  gentlemen 
who  constitute  this  Convention  are  as  consci- 
entious as  any  General  Assembly  that  may, 
perhaps,  meet  in  many  years,  yet,  here  we  have 
continued  day  after  day  to  modify  rules  that 
werethougt  important  at  the  commencement  of 
the  session,  until  they  have  now  become  obsolete. 
I send  to  the  Secretary’s  desk  an  amendment 
which  I give  notice  I shall  offer,  in  case  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitthcock]  is  not  agreed  to.  His  may  be  better 


than  mine ; butmine  disposes  of  that  last  general 
qualifying  clause  of  the  section,  I think.  I ask 
that  it  be  read  for  information. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“But  this  provision  shall  not  he  construed  so  as  to  pre- 
vent either  House  from  deducting  irom  the  salary  of 
members  what  may  he  deemed  right,  on  account  of  ab- 
sence during  the  session.” 

So  that  the  section  will  read: 

“The  members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  receive  a 
fixed  annual  salary  and  mileage,  to  he  prescribed  by  law, 
and  no  other  allowance  or  perquisites,  either  by  payment 
of  postage  or  otherwise,  and  no  change  in  compensation 
shall  take  effect  during  their  terms  of  office;  hut  this 
provision  shall  not  be  construed  so  as  to  prevent  either 
House  from  deducting  from  the  salary  of  members  what 
may  be  deemed  right  on  account  of  absence  during  ses- 
sions.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  to  insert  after  the 
word  “salary,”  in  line  two,  “ deductions  for 
absence  during  sessions.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  like  to  amend  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock]  by  adding  to  it  the  words, 
“ without  leave.”  It  will  then  read,  “deduc- 
tions for  absence  without  leave.”  In  case  of 
sickness  of  a member  or  of  his  family,  it  is 
necessary  for  him  to  go  home  and  to  obtain 
leave  of  absence,  the  business  of  the  State 
will  proceed  notwithstanding  this,  and  I can 
see  no  necessity  of  making  a deduction. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  ask,  whether  the  gen- 
tleman can  cite  a single  instance,  either  from 
observation  or  from  reading,  wThere  any  mem- 
ber of  any  General  Assembly  has  been  refused 
leave  of  absence? 

Mr.  COOK.  I know  of  none;  but  that  is  no 
reason  why  there  should  not  be  a distinction ; 
and  there  is  no  reason  why  a party  that  is  neces* 
sarily  called  away  for  a few  days  should  be  re- 
quired to  lose  any  portion  of  his  salary.  There 
is  such  a thing  in  the  State  of  Ohio  as  justice; 
and  we  ought  to  do  justice  to  the  General  As- 
sembly, as  well  as  require  them  to  do  justice  to 
the  State.  If  a member  is  necessarily  called 
away  and  his  absence  does  not  interrupt  public 
business,  I cannot  see  why  you  should  deduct 
his  pay.  The  clause  is  very  sweeping.  It  says 
“ with  deductions  for  absence  during  sessions.” 
Suppose  there  is  an  adjournment  for  a week. 
That  is  an  absence  during  session;  must  a de- 
duction be  made  for  that  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  “ With  deduction  for  ab- 
sence, as  prescribed  by  law.”  The  gentleman’s 
objection  as  to  granting  leave  of  absence  on  ac- 
count of  a member  being  sick,  or  of  his  family 
being  sick,  I think,  is  not  well  taken.  Do  you 
not  prescribe  in  your  laws  your  rule  of  deduc- 
tion, so  that  you  do  not  deduct  when  a man  is 
absent  ? You  may  do  so. 

Mr.  COOK.  If  the  gentleman  says  that  his 
amendment  is  intended  to  allow  a party  leave  of 
absence  and  not  deduct  pay,  I do  not  desire  to 
present  my  amendment.  If  his  amendment  is 
so  general  as  to  meet  that  class  of  cases,  I am 
content  with  it.  I ask  the  gentleman,  here,  to 
put  it  upon  record.  Does  he  so  understand  this  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  understand  the 
amendment,  so  far  as  I am  concerned,  as  giving 
to  the  General  Assembly  full  liberty  to  deter- 
mine what  the  rule  shall  be. 

Mr.  COOK.  And  they  cannot  deduct  for  a 


1228 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. 

Hitchcock,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Hoot,  Baber. 


[noth 


[Tuesday, 


party  who  has  leave  of  absence,  if  they  choose 
to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I have  no  doubt,  if  they 
made  such  a rule  of  deduction  as  they  saw  fit, 
they  might  allow  leave  for  each  other  without 
deduction.  I cannot  see  why  they  may  not. 

Mr.  COOK.  With  that  declaration,  contem- 
poraneous with  the  amendment,  I am  content, 
and  withdraw  my  amendment. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I hope  none  of  these  amend- 
ments will  be  adopted.  It  strikes  me  that  we 
are  engaged  in  a very  small,  a microscopically 
small  business;  and  I do  think  that,  if  gentle- 
men will  take  this  section  in  the  old  Constitu- 
tion, and  read  it  over,  they  will  see  that  it 
makes  ample  provision  for  fixing  the  salary, 
mileage,  and  so  on,  of  the  members  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  I beg  leave  to  say  to  gentlemen 
that  I do  suppose  that  the  members  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  who  may  meet  at  Columbus  after 
this  Convention  shall  have  terminated  its  ses- 
sion, will  be  gentlemen  who  will  be  sufficiently 
capable  of  distinguishing  what  is  right,  what  is 
just,  what  is  due  to  the  State,  and  what  is  proper 
with  regard  to  economy,  to  allow  them  to  fix 
their  own  rules,  and  to  regulate  their  own  mode 
of  prescribing  absence,  and  sitting  with  the 
members,  so  far  as  may  be  necessary,  in  pre- 
scribing what  they  shall  be  paid,  and  what  shall 
be  deducted  from  their  pay  in  cases  of  absence. 
I hold  that  this  is  one  of  those  matters  in  which 
this  Convention  has  no  concern  whatever.  I 
trust  that,  for  the  honor  and  dignity  of  this 
Convention,  they  will  cease  the  attempt  to  in- 
troduce any  amendment  of  this  kind.  I hold 
that  it  is  a matter  with  which  we  have  nothing 
to  do,  and  that  we  would  consult  our  own  honor, 
and  our  own  dignity,  and  the  dignity  of  the 
State  which  we  represent,  by  allowing  the  old 
section  of  the  Constitution  to  prevail,  or,  at 
least,  by  allowing  this  section  reported  by  the 
Committee  to  prevail  without  further  amend- 
ment. There  has  been  a slight  change  made  in 
the  section.  The  old  section  reads,  “members 
and  officers  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  re- 
ceive a fixed  salary  to  be  prescribed  by  law.” 
We  have  gone  a little  further.  The  Committee 
have  placed  in  the  section  “a  fixed  annual  sal- 
ary and  mileage.”  I have  no  objection  to  that; 
but  to  go  farther  than  that,  and  to  talk  about 
fixing  the  amount  of  deduction  which  shall  be 
allowed,  or  prescribing  the  rule  by  which  the 
General  Assembly  shall  make  deductions  for 
its  members,  I think  is  a matter  that  does  not 
belong  to  this  Convention  at  all,  and  ought  not, 
fora  moment,  to  be  considered  by  the  members. 

Mr.  ROOT.  If  we  concede,  and  I suppose  we 
must,  out  of  self-respect, concede  that  this  body 
has  not  abused  or  transcended  its  duty  or  discre- 
tion in  taking  adjournments  or  granting  leave 
of  absence  to  its  members,  I think  we  may 
safely  trust  any  future  legislation.  I do  not 
regard  this  as  a very  important  matter.  I do 
not  regard  the  proposed  remedy — if  it  be  at  all 
remedial — as  efficient;  and  I submit,  now,  in 
all  candor,  whether  we  are  exactly  the  body 
that  should  lecture  and  prescribe  stringent 
rules  for  any  body  on  account  of  non-attend- 
ance, adjournment,  or  granting  leave  of  ab- 
sence. To  a very  great  extent,  this  has  been  in 
the  power  of  the  General  Assembly;  and  this 
little  picayune  attempt  at  restriction  will  effect 


very  little,  and  if  you  will  permit  me  to  say  it, 
is  in  exceedingly  bad  taste  for  us. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  glad  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  has  offered  this 
amendment;  because  it  brings  directly  before 
this  Convention  the  distinction  between  absence 
during  the  session , and  the  absenteeism  which 
results  from  the  adjournment  of  the  body  to 
which  members  belong. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  at  the  time  of  my  nom- 
ination to  this  Convention,  and  during  the  cam- 
paign, perhaps  this  matter  was  more  canvassed 
in  my  part  of  the  State  than  elsewhere;  and 
the  universal  sentiment  of  my  constituents  was 
against  it,  because  they  see,  daily,  this  evil  ex- 
isting in  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
at  the  Capital;  and  for  the  last  six  or  eight 
years,  except  upon  Wednesday  and  Thursday — 
two  days  in  a week — there  has  not  been  a ma- 
jority of  members  elect,  or  fifty-three,  pres- 
ent, to  pass  a law  that  was  contested.  It  is  a 
great  evil.  It  is  a growing  evil;  and  the  peo- 
ple demand  that  something  should  be  done  to 
check  it.  The  demand  is  universal,  I think, 
throughout  the  State,  that  something  should  be 
done  to  remedy  this  absenteeism.  The  Legis- 
lature have  not  done  it.  Everybody  knows  that, 
under  this  rule  of  granting  leaves  of  absence  at 
everybody’s  request,  it  never  will  be  done.  But 
there  has  been  a great  deal  of  misconception, 
and  a great  deal  of  strife  about  this  matter; 
and  because  my  constituents  were  in  favor  of 
having  a universal  rule — a rule  that  would  re- 
quire members  to  be  present  during  the  sessions 
— an  endeavor  has  been  made,  there  and  else- 
where, to  put  a construction  upon  the  matter,  to 
justify  an  attempt  to  control  the  adjournments 
of  this  Convention — an  independent  and  co-or- 
dinate body.  As  far  as  this  question  of  ad- 
journing over  is  concerned,  this  question  of 
absenteeism  has  nothing  to  do  with  it;  and, 
therefore,  I say  that  the  effort  which  has  been 
made  in  another  body  to  control  the  action  in  this 
body,  by  attempting  to  apply  a rule  which  re- 
fers merely  to  absenteeism  during  session  from 
this  body  itself,  is  an  entire  misapplication  of  a 
good  principle.  This  question  of  adjournment 
has  nothing  to  do  with  it  at  all.  I regard  it  as 
an  infringement  upon  the  rights  and  preroga- 
tives of  this  body.  It  is  a well-known  fact  that 
I voted,  as  a member  of  this  body,  against  pay 
during  adjournment.  But,  for  another  body, 
while  not  enforcing,  that  rule  upon  themselves, 
(though  they  have  a bill  now  pending  to  carry 
out  the  instructions  of  the  people  of  a portion 
of  the  State,  that  there  shall  be  deductions  for 
absenteeism,  although  scarcely  able  to  keep  a 
quorum  themselves,  to  do  business)  this  attempt 
made  to  infringe  upon  the  rights  and  preroga- 
tives of  another  independent  body,  strikes  me  as 
perfectly  absurd  and  inconsistent. 

This  is  not  a question  of  feeling.  It  is  a ques- 
tion whether  it  is  right  and  proper  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  this  State  (there  being  this  existing 
evil),  that  we  should  provide  some  check  for  it. 
This  body  would  not  go  as  far  as  I wanted  to. 
I would  have  been  very  glad,  as  my  friend  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root]  suggested  to  me,  across  the  hall, 
to  provide  that  there  should  be  a deduction  at 
the  rate  of  five  dollars  a day — the  same  rule  that 
was  voted  down  in  this  body.  The  question 
comes  up  in  a different  form,  here.  It  is, 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. 

Baber,  Root,  Townsend,  Griswold. 


1229 


Day.] 

February  10,1874.] 


whether  we  ought  to  take  notice  of  the  fact, 
patent  to  the  people  of  the  whole  State,  that  in 
the  General  Assembly,  for  years,  this  enormous 
evil  of  constant  absenteeism,  has  existed,  which 
has  been  referred  to  by  my  friend  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock],  who  has  had  great  experience 
in  this  matter.  I know,  personally,  from  having 
resided  in  the  city  of  Columbus  for  the  last 
twenty-one  years,  that  it  has  become  a matter  of 
notorious  scandal,  a perfect  disgrace  to  the 
State — and  it  is  the  duty  of  this  body  to  put  such 
a clause  in  the  Constitution  that  the  people  may 
remedy  the  evil. 

I agree  with  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
HoADLY],and  with  the  gentleman  from  Allen 
[Mr.  Cunningham],  that  if  we  put  a fixed  salary 
into  the  Constitution,  without  some  power  by 
which,  under  the  rule  to  be  prescribed  by  the 
Legislature  themselves,  a deduction  can  be  made, 
it  is  very  doubtful  whether  it  can  be  done.  We 
do  not  attempt  to  say  that  it  shall  be  five  dollars ; 
we  do  not  attempt  to  prescribe  what  the  grounds 
shall  be  for  granting  leave  of  absence;  but  we 
simply  make  it  the  duty  of  the  Legislature  to 
deal  with  the  matter  and  provide  some  remedy 
for  this  absenteeism,  which  prevents  those  who 
remain  in  their  seats  in  the  Legislature  from 
passing  bills  in  four  out  of  the  six  working  days 
in  the  week.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  body 
would  only  be  carrying  out  the  demand  of  the 
people  of  this  State  by  putting  this  provision  in 
— that  there  shall  be  a rule  upon  the  subject; 
and,  then,  if  the  Legislature  does  not  prescribe 
a rule  by  which  this  absenteeism  can  be  pre- 
vented, they  will  be  responsible  for  their  own 
delinquencies  to  their  constituency. 

I am  not  astonished  that  the  ancient  class  of 
politicians  under  the  old  regime — my  friend 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  and^my  Congressional 
friend  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  who  has  acquired 
a great  many  Washington  habits,  some  of  which 
he  desired  to  introduce  into  this  Convention, 
with  regard  to  the  matter  of  its  daily  sessions — 
should  have  this  sort  of  feeling.  Public  life  at 
Washington  is  doing  pretty  much  what  they 
please  upon  this  subject;  and  it  may  be  consid- 
ered an  infringement  upon  the  right  and  high 
prerogative  of  these  gentlemen  to  attempt  to 
control  their  elegant  leisure,  even  if  the  people 
indicate  to  them  what  they  ought  to  do. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
suggestion  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I never  knew  of  a member  being 
absent  at  Washington  so  much  as  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  was  from  his  seat 
while  we  were  at  Columbus. 

Mr.  BABER.  In  reply  to  the  gentleman  : I 
never  missed  but  one  roll  call  in  that  city  while 
I was  there,  nor  a single  day  of  the  session.  I 
was  in  my  seat  a great  deal  more  than  the  gen- 
tleman from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  or  any  other 
member  here. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  gentleman  was  not  in  his 
seat  more  than  one-fourth,  or  one-third,  of  the 
time,  and  I was  there  all  of  the  time. 

Mr.  BABER.  So  far  as  the  statement  of  the 
gentleman  is  concerned,  everybody  in  this  Con- 
vention can  judge  between  him  and  me,  and  the 
daily  Journal  of  the  Convention  will  sustain 
my  statement;  but  I put  it  upon  record,  that  I 
have  been  in  my  seat  as  much  as  any  member 


here,  and  I defy  any  gentleman  to  show  to  the 
contrary.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken.  Per- 
haps he  cannot  see  as  well  as  he  used  to.  He 
talks  about  it  as  a sort  of  joke;  but  if  the  gen- 
tleman makes  it  a serious  question,  lam  willing 
for  the  members  of  this  Convention,  and  my 
constituency,  to  judge  of  that  fact.  I was  in 
my  seat  when  I would  not  have  been  there  if  I 
liadobeyed  the  orders  of  my  physician.  Let 
us  not,  in  this  matter,  express  any  feeling  or 
prejudice.  Let  us  do  what  is  right.  Let  us  say 
that  there  shall  be  deductions  for  absenteeism, 
and  leave  the  Legislature  to  prescribe  what  the 
rule  shall  be.  The  other  day,  an  indefinite 
leave  of  absence  was  granted  to  a gentleman 
who  has  been  away  all  the  time.  I do  think 
that  the  idea  of  allowing  men,  who  are  absent 
without  what  would  be  a good  excuse,  to  receive 
compensation,  is  absurd,  if  not  something 
worse.  It  appears  to  me,  that  it  is  time  that  this 
matter  should  be  stopped ; and  I do  hope  that 
this  proposition,  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  in  the  form  that  he 
puts  it,  will  be  favorably  considered  and  passed. 
It  is  useless  to  say  that  the  Legislature  has  the 
power,  as  my  friend  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Townsend]  says,  if  they  fail  in  exercising  it. 

Mr.  TOYVNSEND.  I would  like  to  inquire 
of  my  friend,  who  is  distinguished  in  the  State 
for  his  legal  ability,  whether,  under  the  provi- 
sions of  this  Constitution,  without  this  amend- 
ment, the  Legislature  will  not  have  the  power 
to  fix  a salarv  of,  say,  one  thousand  dollars,  and, 
if  they  see  proper,  a provision  in  that  law  that, 
for  every  day  a member  is  absent  without 
leave,  there  shall  be  five  dollars  deducted  from 
his  salary  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  With  reference  to  my  friend 
saying,  “absent  without  leave,”  I would  say 
that  it  is  simply  ridiculous.  It  amounts  to 
nothing. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  That  might  be  an  unwise 
thing  to  do;  but  would  it  be  law?  That  is 
what  I want  to  know. 

Mr.  BABER.  I doubt,  very  much,  under 
this  fixed  salary,  without  some  express  provision 
is  made,  as  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  whether  a deduction 
can  be  made,  and,  therefore,  I am  in  favor  of 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock].  In  the  Canadian 
Parliament,  I believe,  there  has  been  such  a 
provision  in  existence  for  many  years.  They 
receive  a fixed  salary  of  some  six  hundred  dol- 
lars, and  a deduction  is  made,  at  the  rate  of  five 
dollars  a day,  during  absence.  The  result  has 
been  that  the  body  meet  and  transact  its  busi- 
ness in  about  two  months.  I have  talked  with 
gentlemen,  members  of  the  Canadian  Parlia- 
ment, who  spoke  of  the  law  as  working  well  in 
this  matter. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  says  it 
would  be  perfectly  useless  to  put  in  any  thing 
to  give  the  Legislature  power  to  act  upon  the 
matter,  and,  yet,  he  proposes  to  leave  it  to  this 
very  Legislature  to  prescribe  the  rule  for  ab- 
senteeism. Suppose  they  prescribe  a rule  that, 
unless  a man  is  taken  away  by  force,  and  kept 
away  by  force,  he  should  not  have  his  salary. 
What  would  be  the  use  of  putting  in  such  a 
provision,  if  the  Legislature  are  of  the  charac- 
ter that  he  intimates  they  are  ? Does  he  sup- 


1230 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. 

Baber,  Griswold,  Miner,  Pond,  Woodbury. 


pose  this  would  have  the  force  and  effect  of  de- 
ducting pay  when  a man  is  detained  in  his 
room  by  sickness,  at  Columbus  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way 
for  a moment? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  No;  I will  not  give  way. 
I am  only  putting  the  case  that  he  has  admitted  : 
that  it  will  not  do  to  leave  it  to  the  Legislature 
to  regulate  the  rule;  but  he  proposes  to  have 
the  Legislature  make  this  very  rule.  When 
we  have  put  in  the  word  deduction,  if  they 
prescribe  the  rule,  they  can  prescribe  that  no 
one  shall  have  his  pay  deducted  except  in  case 
he  is  forcibly  kept  away  from  the  Legislature. 
They  can  adopt  that  rule,  or  any.  rule  they 
please;  so  that  there  is  nothing  contained  in 
the  proposition  that  is  not  in  the  law  now ; but 
it  provides  that  there  shall  be  a fixed  salary  to 
be  prescribed  by  law.  The  terms  of  that  salary 
can  be  fixed  by  the  Legislature,  and  this  is  only 
lumbering  up  the  section,  when  it  will  have 
no  possible  benefit  whatever.  It  does  not  com- 
pel the  Legislature  to  say  that,  when  a man 
shall  be  absent,  without  leave,  he  shall  have  his 
pay  deducted.  No  gentleman  who  defends  this 
can  say  that  this  section  has  this  force  or  this 
effect.  Then  what  force  or  effect  does  it  have 
except  to  leave  it  just  as  the  Legislature  says? 
It  is  all  buncombe  and  nothing  else. 

Mr.  MINER.  There  is  a great  evil  of  absen- 
teeism, I have  no  doubt;  but  what  is  the  prop- 
er remedy  for  it?  At  times  I have  thought  I 
might  possibly  vote  for  something  in  the  Con- 
stitution tending  to  the  prevention  of  that  evil ; 
but  upon  further  reflection  and  hearing  argu- 
ments, I am  not  inclined  to  vote  for  any  amend- 
ment to  the  section  now  under  consideration, 
unless  it  may  be  something  similar  to  that  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cun- 
ningham]. As  this  section  stands,  that  would 
not  be  my  construction  of  it;  but  such  a con- 
struction may  possibly  be  put  upon  it.  The 
Legislature  would  say  that  they  have  no  power, 
even  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  this  abuse 
of  absenteeism,  to  make  deduction  from  the 
salary  for  absence  during  sessions.  If  we  put 
in  “entire”  in  order  to  make  that  clear,  a cer- 
tain provision  like  that  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  that  will  be 
as  far  as  I shall  be  disposed  to  go.  It  is  the  bu- 
siness of  the  Legislature  and  of  the  people  to 
see  to  it,  and  if  they  do  not  do  it,  as  I have  had 
occasion  to  say  heretofore,  in  regard  to  their 
delinquencies,  they  must  take  the  consequen- 
ces. Why  is  it  that  gentlemen  are  permitted 
to  be  absent  one-half  of  the  season,  and  to 
wholly  neglect  their  duties,  and  yet  be  return- 
ed to  that  body  ? That  is  determined  by  the 
people,  and  that  is  sufficient  for  us.  It  is  at  all 
events  a matter  of  their  own  concern,  and  that 
of  the  body  of  which  they  are  members ; and 
there  is  where  I am  disposed  to  leave  it. 

I do  not  propose  to  correct  all  the  evils  that 
exist  in  the  State  by  constitutional  provisions; 
because  I do  not  consider  it  at  all  possible.  You 
cannot  correct  your  men,  your  individuals, 
your  constituencies  in  this  respect,  and  I say  let 
them  submit  to  them,  if  they  want  them,  until 
they  are  sick  of  them. 

Mr.  POND.  There  were  two  amendments 
proposed  here,  one  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  and  one  by  the  gen- 


[110th 

[Tuesday, 


tleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham].  The 
latter  amendment  has  not  yet  been  offered,  as  I 
understand  it;  but  it  has  been  read  to  inform 
the  Convention  what  the  gentleman  proposes  to 
offer.  Such  an  amendment  as  that,  I think,  will 
cover  this  whole  territory.  As  I understand 
it,  the  great  trouble  arising  out  of  this  section 
is  this : that  it  prescribes  that  a fixed  annual 
salary  shall  be  paid  in  the  first  place;  and,  sec- 
ondly, that  that  compensation  shall  not  be 
changed  so  that  it  shall  take  effect  during  the 
term  of  the  member  of  the  General  Assembly. 
What  I propose  is  this : “but  the  General  As- 
sembly shall  provide  for  ratable  deduction 
therefrom,  on  account  of  unnecessary  absence 
during  its  sessions.”  Add  that  to  the  end  of 
the  section,  as  it  now  stands,  and  it  will  obviate 
the  difficulty. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  As  one  of  the  members 
of  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Depart- 
ment, I was  in  favor  of  putting  this  provision  in 
section  thirty-two ; and  I hope  that  none  of  the 
amendments  which  have  been  suggested  here 
will  be  adopted.  I was  in  favor  of  a provision, 
providing  for  a fixed  annual  salary,  for  two 
reasons : First,  I think  its  tendency  would  be  to 
shorten  the  sessions  of  the  Legislature;  but 
whether  those  sessions  would  be  long  or  short, 
it  would  make  no  difference  to  the  State.  If 
they  propose  to  meet  in  Columbus,  and  to  con- 
tinue in  session  the  entire  year,  so  far  as  the 
pay  of  the  member  is  concerned,  it  would  make 
no  difference  to  the  State. 

There  was  another  reason  to  my  mind  why  I 
prefer  a fixed  annual  salary,  and  it  was  this : a 
large  portion  of  the  time  of  that  body  during 
the  last  few  years  has  been  consumed  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  very  question  of  absenteeism. 
In  my  judgment,  the  State  of  Ohio  has  been 
greatly  injured  and  damaged,  not  only  in  dol- 
lars and  cents,  but  in  its  just  influence,  and  its 
just  standing  among  the  States,  by  this  kind  of 
pettifogging  in  the  Legislature.  I believe  it  to 
be  the  foundation  of  more  cheap  reputations 
than  any  one  other  thing;  that  it  is,  and  has 
been,  the  sole  cause  of  a large  portion  of  the 
consumption  of  time,  by  discussion,  in  the 
Legislature;  that  it  has  stood  in  the  way  of 
legislation,  and  that  it  has  prolonged  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Legislature. 

We  have  seen  the  same  course  pursued  in  this 
body ; and  more  time  has  been  consumed  by  the 
question  of  absenteeism,  or,  in  other  words,  it 
has  cost  the  State  of  Ohio  more  than  can  be 
readily  estimated.  Take  the  time  of  every  mem- 
ber that  has  been  absent,  and  give  him  his 
salary,  or  his  per  diem,  and  the  amount  of  time 
that  has  been  consumed  in  this  body  has  taken 
up  that  ten  times  over.  Then  why  should  we 
be  taking  up  time  here,  and  why  should  the 
Legislature  be  consuming  time  over  it. 

Another  reason  why  I was  in  favor  of  the 
proposition  giving  a fixed  annual  salary  was, 
that  it  would  take  it  out  of  the  field  of  politics — 
take  it  away  from  the  Legislature.  If  a county 
or  a district  shall  send  a man  to  the  Legis- 
lature, if  he  does  not  attend  to  their  busi- 
ness, let  them  see  to  it.  Let  them  be  responsible, 
and  let  the  member  be  responsible  to  his  con- 
stituency for  the  manner  in  which  he  shall  look 
to  their  interests  and  shall  look  to  his  duties. 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. 


1231 


Day.] 

February  10,  1874.] 


Woodbury,  Hoadly,  Hitchcock,  Root,  Griswold. 


This  was  another  reason  why  I prefer  to  have 
this  provision  placed  here. 

Then,  I say,  let  us  fix  it  here.  Let  us  take 
this  eternal  clamor  with  regard  to  salary  and 
absenteeism  out  of  the  Legislature  for  ever,  and 
we  shall  save  more  dollars  and  cents  than  can 
be  saved  in  any  other  way  on  this  proposition. 
But,  on  the  contrary,  if  you  do  not  do  so,  but 
leave  the  proposition  so  that  it  may  be  discussed 
and  brought  up  every  day  in  the  Legislature, 
you  will  have  left  this  same  bone  of  contention, 
so  that  time  may  be  consumed,  and  the  State  be 
the  loser  by  it.  By  this  proposition,  fixing  a 
salary,  when  it  is  fixed  the  members  have  only 
one  thing  to  do,  and  that  is  to  look  after  their 
business ; and  they  can  perform  their  business 
in  better  shape,  and  receive  better  pay  for  what 
they  do,  for  it  will  have  a tendency  to  shorten 
the  length  of  the  sessions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock],  to  insert  after  the  word  “ salary” 
in  line  two,  the  words  “ with  deduction  for  ab- 
sence during  sessions.”  So  that  it  will  read: 
“Members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  re- 
ceive a fixed  annual  salary,  with  deduction  for 
absence  during  sessions,  and  mileage  to  be  pre- 
scribed by  law.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  is  not  before 
the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  yet. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Some  gentlemen  desire 
me  to  withdraw  my  amendment,  and  leave  the 
question  to  be  determined  by  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond],  There  is  a wish  on  the  part  of  some 
that  the  vote  be  taken  on  the  original  amend- 
ment. I am  not  at  all  particular  about  the  mat- 
ter. Perhaps,  I can  do  no  better  than  to  let  the 
vote  go,  and  if  this  fails,  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  can  introduce  his  amendment. 

Upon  Mr.  Hitchcock’s  amendment,  the  yeas 
and  nays  were  ordered,  and  being  taken,  re- 
sulted— yeas  32,  nays  44,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were— 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham, 
Freiberg,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  Miller, 
Mitchener,  Page,  Phellis,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Sample,  Scofield,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Van 
Yoorhis,  Yorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  White 
of  Hocking — 32. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were— 

Messrs.  Albright,  Bannon,  Blose,  Bosworth, 
Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Foran, 
Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale, Herron,  Hunt, 
Layton,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller, 
Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Root, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shultz,  Smith 
of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson, 
Townsend,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Yalken- 
burgh,  Watson,  West,  White  of  Brown,  Wood- 
bury, Young  of  Champaign,  President— 44. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  amend  by 
adding  the  following : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  at  the  end  of  the  section: 

“But  the  General  Assembly  shall  provide  for  rateable 


deductions  therefrom,  on  account  of  unnecessary  absence 
during  its  sessions.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  This  is  the  amendment 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond].  I have  offered  quite  a number  of  amend- 
ments during  the  consideration  of  this  Article, 
and  am  very  grateful  for  the  fact  that  one  of 
them  has  been  agreed  to.  I do  not  regard  this 
amendment  as  a question  of  principle,  but  as  a 
question  of  expediency.  The  vote  just  taken 
indicates  that  the  sense  of  the  Convention  is  in 
opposition  to  my  views ; and  I would  not  offer 
this  amendment  were  it  not  for  the  fact,  that 
some  gentlemen  had  desired  me  to  withdraw 
the  other  amendment  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
an  opportunity  to  vote  upon  this ; and  that  leads 
me  to  suppose  that  the  result  may  be  different 
upon  this  than  it  was  upon  the  other.  In  oppo- 
sition to  the  amendment  before  us,  which  con- 
tains the  same  proposition  virtually  as  the 
other,  we  were  told  by  one  gentleman  that  it 
was  a “picayune  business,”  and  by  another  that 
it  was  simply  “buncombe.”  Either  one  of 
these  charges  is  not  calculated  very  much  to 
disturb  my  equanimity. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
word? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  the  gentleman  would  do 
me  the  justice  to  remember  that  which  I said 
about  it  being  a picayune  business  was,  with 
reference  to  the  amendment  which  was  first  of- 
fered, simply  on  the  fact,  that  it  would  prove 
entirely  inefficient. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  refer  especially 
to  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  although  my  remark,  if  he  made  the 
statement  which  he  says  he  did,  would  have 
been  applicable  to  him  without  his  explana- 
tion. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  same  reasons  apply 
to  my  remarks,  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
amendment  that  the  Legislature  had  not  full 
authority  over ; and  to  put  it  in,  and  talk  about  it, 
and  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  it,  was  purely 
buncombe;  and  I think  so  still.  I think  the 
Legisiature,  under  the  law,  has  precisely  the 
same  power  that  was  proposed  to  be  given  them 
by  this  amendment. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  These  explanations,  it 
seems  to  me,  make  no  difference,  whatever,  with 
the  position  occupied,  and  the  remarks  that  I 
was  about  to  make.  I am  very  well  aware  that 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga,  [Mr.  Griswold] 
called  this  a matter  of  buncombe,  and  am  also 
very  well  aware  that  the  gentleman  from  Mi- 
ami [Mr.  Dorsey]  thought  it  “ very  small  busi- 
ness,” but  the  remark  that  I was  making  was, 
that  things  of  that  kind  do  not  very  much  dis- 
turb my  equanimity.  The  habit  of  my  life  has 
been  such,  that  I have  been  compelled  to  look 
somewhat  after  small  matters,  and  am  apt  to  be 
a little  careful  about  my  own  personal  expen- 
ditures; and  one  who  is  so,  perhaps,  is  a little 
more  apt  to  look  carefully  at  the  expenditures 
of  the  State.  That  may  be  the  reason  why  I 
notice  matters  of  a “picayune”  nature,  small 
as  they  may  be.  It  may  be,  as  charged  by  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
that  this  matter  is  simply  “ buncombe;  ” and  it 
may  have  been  the  fact,  that  those  with  whom 
I have  been  associated  from  year  to  year  have 


1232 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. 

Hitchcock,  Freiberg,  Griswold,  Pond,  Carbery,  etc. 


[110.th 

[Tuesday, 


felt  that  I was  governed  by  such  motives.  It 
may  be  the  charge  comes  from  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  not  only  with 
reference  to  this,  but  what  he  may  have  known 
in  times  past;  and  so  far  as  the  charge  of  “bun- 
combe” is  concerned,  it  may  not  be  anything  so 
bad  after  all.  I am  inclined  to  think,  Mr. 
President,  that  we  all  of  us  vote  sometimes  in 
accordance  with  what  we  believe  to  be  for  the 
interests  of  our  constituents.  If  there  be  any- 
thing wrong  in  wishing  to  represent  the 
wishes  of  our  constituents,  it  is  something  new 
to  me. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I would  like  to  hear  the 
definition  of  the  word  “ buncombe.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Not  being  a dictionary, 
I cannot  answer  the  question  of  the  gentleman 
satisfactorily  to  myself.  But  what  1 do  say  is, 
that  if  there  be  anything  in  it,  I suppose  that 
we  all  are  guilty  of  it — if  it  be  guilt— as  we  all 
sometimes  seek  to  vote  as  we  think  shall  repre- 
sent the  wishes  of  our  constituents.  If  we  do  not 
do  so,  we  do  not  discharge  our  duty  as  members 
of  the  Convention.  Not  that  we  should  vote  es- 
pecially as  to  how  the  result  should  affect  us 
personally  in  the  estimation  of  our  constituents, 
but  we  should  seek,  whenever  we  know  the 
wishes  of  our  constituents,  to  carry  out  those 
wishes.  When  we  do  not  know  what  those 
wishes  are,  upon  questions  as  to  which  we  are 
not  advised  of  the  wishes  of  our  constituents, 
no  member  ought  to  vote  upon  any  question 
submitted  to  him  in  a deliberative  body  solely 
with  reference  to  any  result  personal  to  him- 
self which  may  be  produced  by  that  vote. 
If  votes  have  been  given  by  myself,  in  which  I 
was  governed  by  considerations  of  that  kind,  I 
do  not  recollect  the  instance  at  this  time. 

With  regard  to  the  proposition  before  the 
Convention,  it  is  in  a different  form.  It  says, 
at  the  close  of  this  section,  “that  the  General 
Assembly  shall  make  ratable  deductions  for  un- 
necessary absence,”  and  is  attached  to  that  part 
of  the  section  which  provides  that  “the  com- 
pensation of  members  during  the  term  shall  not 
be  changed,  but  ratable  deductions  for  unnec- 
essary absence  shall  be  provided  for.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  like  to  inquire 
what  the  gentleman  means  the  Legislature  to 
understand  by  ratable  deductions?  Ratable  in 
proportion  to  our  salary,  or  for  the  time  of  ab- 
sence for  the  whole  year,  or  for  the  session  ? 
How  are  they  going  to  provide  for  it  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Fix  the  time  according  to  the 
days  of  absence. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  does  not  do  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  does  not  do  it  here, 
but  it  says  the  General  Assembly  shall  do  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  “Shall  provide,”  is  the 
language  used. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  In  answer  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  it  is  not 
in  the  Constitution  anywhere  provided  how  the 
General  Assembly  shall  do,  only  that  they  shall 
do  certain  things,  and  shall  not  do  certain  other 
things,  leaving  them  to  determine  the  mode  in 
which  it  shall  be  done. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I fully  sympathize  in  the 
solicitude  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  on  account  of  the  rejection  by  this 
Convention  of  the  very  interesting  progeny  that 
he  has  brought  forward,  from  time  to  time,  and 


recommended  for  its  adoption.  And  I can  also 
sympathize  with  that  well-pronounced  grati- 
tude with  which  he  announced  the  fact  that  one 
of  those  poor  little  things  had  been  taken  by  the 
hand  and  been  adopted.  Furthermore,  I do 
give  him  credit  for  his  paternal  interest  in 
this  child  of  doubtful  parentage,  that  has  been 
running  around,  and  offering  it  to  this  body, 
only  to  suffer  the  fate  of  perishing  out  in  the 
cold  like  most  of  its  unfortunate  relatives. 

This  body,  which  has  given  unlimited  leave 
of  absence  to  at  least  one  gentleman,  and  that 
has  dealt  out  leaves  of  absence  constantly  du- 
ring the  whole  of  our  session,  proposes  to 
change  the  nature  of  the  legislators  and  make 
it  obligatory  upon  them  to  make  deductions  for 
absence.  I am  not  skillful  enough  in  lexicog- 
raphy to  define  the  meaning  of  the  word  “ bun- 
combe,” but  I do  know  the  meaning  of  the 
good  old  English  word  “humbug,”  and  it  does 
seem  to  me  that  word  is  sufficiently  definite  to 
describe  the  course  of  action  which  it  is 
proposed  to  take.  Sir,  we  are  assuming  a virtue 
which  I fear  we  have  not.  I think  it  is  a cheap 
kind  of  humbug  and  I hope  the  vote  killing  this 
last  project  will  be  a more  pronounced  one,  if 
necessary,  than  that  which  has  preceded  it. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  to  amend  by 
striking  out  the  word  “shall,”  and  inserting  the 
word  “ may.”  It  will  relieve  it  of  its  manda- 
tory wants  and  make  it  permissible. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  upon  that  question. 

Objection  being  made  to  a demand  for  the 
yeas  and  nays,  it  was  not  sustained. 

The  motion  to  strike  out  “ shall”  and  insert 
“ may,”  was  not  agreed  to,  there  being  on  di- 
vision, affirmative  30,  negative  32. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  to  amend  by  striking 
out  the  word  “ unnecessary.”  I propose  to  vote 
against  the  whole  thing  when  it  comes  up  on  its 
final  passage,  but  I do  not  want  that  word  re- 
tained, if  the  amendment  is  adopted.  It  will 
give  rise  to  an  endless  variety  of  construction, 
debate,  and  excuses.  It  may  be  little  business 
to  stretch  the  truth  by  those  who  have  not  a 
very  great  regard  for  it. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I think  the 
offer  of  this  amendment  was  in  good  faith,  and 
no  man  ought  to  say  that  it  was  done  for  mere 
buncombe. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Nobody  said  he  did  it  for 
that. 

Mr.  Y'OUNG,  of  Champaign.  No,  only  that 
such  things  sometimes  were  for  buncombe.  I 
shall  vote  against  the  amendment,  and  that  is 
what  I rose  to  say,  because,  otherwise,  I might 
be  misapprehended.  If  I thought  it  could  ac- 
complish anything,  I should  favor  it.  If  I 
thought  you  could  establish  any  rule  that 
could  prevent  unnecessary  absence.  But  if 
you  go  to  work  and  fix  the  amendment 
in  the  Constitution,  in  my  estimation,  it  will 
be  utterly  impracticable — a thing  that  would 
be  a subject  of  discussion,  dispute,  and  a waste 
of  time,  as  the  gentleman  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns]  very  sensibly  says.  You  will 
accomplish  nothing  by  it  in  the  Legislature. 
It  will  be  a thing  that  will  constantly 
need  defining  and  will  be  a source  of  constant 
difficulty.  Why  ? We  should  leave  that  be- 
tween the  Representative  and  his  constituents. 


Day.] 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. 

Young  of  C.,  Baber,  Cunningham,  Hunt,  etc. 


1233 


February  10,  1874.J 


It  would  be  better,  instead  of  leaving  the  salary 
to  the  Legislature,  to  fix  it  in  the  Constitution ; 
and  a friend  of  mine,  upon  the  left,  is  going  to 
frame  an  amendment,  directly, adding  the  words, 
“a  salary  of  six  hundred  dollars  a year.”  Let 
us  fix  that  as  a distinct  salary  and  leave  nothing 
for  the  Legislature  to  do  in  the  way  of  fixing 
the  salary,  and  nothing  for  them  to  do  in  the 
way  of  fixing  some  rule  in  regard  to  absence. 
There  ought  not  to  be  absences.  We  ought  not 
to  make  a provision  contemplating  them ; and 
there  ought  to  be  a fixed  salary  in  the  Consti- 
tution. It  would  have  been  well  if  Congress  j 
had  not  had  the  fixing  of  their  own  salaries,  I 
and  I do  not  wish  to  leave  that  work  for  our  ! 
Legislature  to  do. 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  voted  for  some  rule  upon 
this  subject  ever  since  I have  been  in  this  body. 
Now,  I shall  not  vote  for  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns],  who  has  acted  with  me  upon  this  ques- 
tion, simply  because  this  amendment  has  been 
offered  by  gentlemen  who,  for  divers  reasons, 
have  heretofore  opposed  any  action  on  this  sub- 
ject. I think  the  amendment  offered  by  my 
friend  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  was  offered  in 
good  faith,  for  the  purpose  of  endeavoring  to 
compromise  this  matter  of  conflicting  ideas. 
That  word  “unnecessary”  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  matter  at  all.  The  Legislature  are 
to  decide  that  question,  of  whether  it  is  neces- 
sary or  unnecessary.  I think  that  word  is  sur- 
plusage. I do  not  think  it  amounts  to  one  thing 
or  another,  and  I hope  we  shall  take  the  amend- 
ment exactly  as  it  has  been  offered  to  us,  and  then 
we  shall  have  a vote,  and  say,  under  the  rule  of  a 
fixed  salary,  that  the  Convention  is  willing  that 
the  Legislature,  beyond  all  doubt,  may  have  the 
power  of  remedying  these  unnecessary  ab- 
sences. Because,  as  my  friend  from  Allen  [Mr. 
Cunningham]  suggested,  should  we  fix  the  sal- 
ary with  no  deductions  allowed  during  the 
term  of  office,  I doubt  very  much  whether  the 
Legislature  can  make  deductions  in  a case  of  ab- 
sence. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  this  word  “unnec- 
essary” is  stricken  out,  the  rule  will  be,  it  shall 
provide  for  pro  rata  deductions  for  all  absences ; 
so  that,  if  a member  were  absent  at  the  Neil 
House,  sick  in  bed,  under  the  rigid  rule  that  it 
prescribes,  the  Legislature  would  be  bound  to 
deduct  from  his  salary  for  his  absence  from  the 
session.  Nobody  proposes  that;  so  that  that 
word  “unnecessary”  is  important. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  him  a question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Whether,  if  that  word  is 
stricken  out,  the  Legislature  could  not  excuse 
for  absence  on  account  of  sickness,  or  any  other 
reason  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly  not;  if  I 
understand  the  amendment. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Then,  would  not  the  Legislature 
have  the  power,  if  that  is  true,  to  decide  whether 
the  absence  was  necessary  or  not  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  They  would,  if  you 
give  them  the  power ; but  if  you  do  not,  they 
would  not. 

Mr.  BURNS.  They  have  the  power  to  do  so. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I think  they  have. 

Y.  n-80 


Mr.  BABER.  I think  there  is  some  weight 
in  what  the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cun- 
ningham] has  stated  upon  this  matter;  and  I 
hope,  therefore,  that  this  word  “ unnecessary  ” 
will  not  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I trust  the  amendment,  as 
well  as  the  amendment  to  the  amendment,  will 
not  be  adopted  by  the  Convention.  This  ques- 
tion has  all  been  regulated  by  statutory  enact- 
ment. By  referring  to  Swan  and  Savler,  page 
696,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  provided  that  a 
member  of  the  General  Assembly  of  this  State 
shall  be  entitled,  for  each  day’s  actual  attend- 
ance during  the  session  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, to  the  sum  of  five  dollars.  By  a subsequent 
statute,  found  in  the  Laws  of  1869,  Volume 
sixty-six,  a construction  is  given  to  the  words 
“actual  attendance,”  and  that  is  really  the 
question  before  the  Convention.  That  law  pro- 
vides that  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President 
of  the  Senate  and  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  to  ascertain  the  number  of 
days  of  actual  attendance  of  each  member  and 
officer  of  their  respective  Houses  during  the 
session  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  the  num- 
ber of  miles  traveled  by  each  member  to  and 
from  the  seat  of  government ; and  after  provid- 
ing further  as  to  mileage,  it  provides  that  the 
words  “actual  attendance,”  used  in  the  prece- 
ding section,  and  in  the  act  to  which  this  is 
supplementary,  namely:  the  act  that  I have 
just  read,  “shall  be  construed  to  include  all 
days,  from  the  opening  to  the  closing  of  the 
session,  except  such  days  of  absence  as  are  not 
excused  by  the  House  to  which  the  member  or 
officer  belongs.” 

Therefore,  it  is  apparent  that  the  question  is 
purely  one  of  legislative  discretion.  The  Con- 
stitution vests  in  the  General  Assembly  the 
power  and  the  authority  to  fix  the  compensa- 
tion of  members  of  the  Legislature.  It  also 
places  a construction  upon  the  words  “ actual 
attendance,”  and  no  member  of  the  General 
Assembly  can,  under  the  statute,  in  good  con- 
science, draw  his  per  diem  when  he  is  away 
from  the  Senate  or  House,  unless  excused  by 
the  House  of  which  he  is  a member. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  In  what  way  in  the 
world  does  that  affect  any  proposed  section  of 
the  Constitution  that  provides  a salary  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I am  speaking  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1851,  and  that  instrument  does  not  give 
the  members  of  the  General  Assembly  a fixed 
salary,  nor  does  the  Constitution  now  under 
discussion,  or  which  we  are  about  to  frame, 
give  the  members  a fixed  salary. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly;  the  very 
section  under  discussion  provides  for  a fixed 
annual  salary. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I was  not  here  at  the  time  that 
was  discussed,  and,  possibly,  have  misappre- 
hended the  exact  question ; but  even  in  that  case, 
it  is  my  j udgment  that,  if  the  Constitution  of  the 
State,  or  if  the  General  Assembly,  fixes  the  com- 
pensation of  the  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a member  can  draw  that  salary,  and  will 
do  it,  just  as  now,  for  an  indefinite  leave  of  ab- 
sence is  always  granted  upon  application.  The 
same  rule  applies  in  this  Convention.  It  is  a 
question  for  the  General  Assembly  itself  to  de- 
termine. 

It  is  a matter  of  legislative  discretion  alone, and 


1234 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. [110th 

Hunt,  Baber,  Pond,  Hale,  Griswold,  etc.  [Tuesday, 


not  one  of  constitutional  enactment;  and,  more 
than  that,  it  is  by  no  means  consistent  for  the 
members  of  this  Convention,  after  having  voted, 
some  weeks  ago,  to  give  a,  per  diem  to  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  during  the  thirteen 
days’  absence  without  “actual  attendance,”  to 
prescribe  a rule  of  action  for  the  General  As- 
sembly. This  Convention  is  in  no  position  to 
set  an  example,  either  by  precept  or  practice,  to 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  after 
that  action. 

Mr.  BABER.  Is  there  not  a wide  difference 
between  an  adjournment  and  absence  during  the 
session?  How  can  a person  attend  when  the 
body  is  not  in  session  ? Are  not  the  two  cases 
entirely  different  and  distinct? 

Mr.  HUNT.  In  reply  to  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  I will  say,  that  it  all  cen- 
ters at  the  same  point,  whether  by  adjournment 
or  absenteeism ; and  the  same  constitutional 
enactment  which  would  prevent  a member  of 
the  General  Assembly  from  receiving  pay  for 
non-attendance  during  the  sessions  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembiy,  should  prevent  him  from  receiv- 
ing  pay  during  the  tri-weekly  adjournments. 
The  principle  is  identical.  The  whole  question 
is  the  actual  service  rendered  to  the  State  by  the 
presence  of  the  member ; and  I care  not  whether 
that  member  is  absent  by  way  of  adjournment, 
or  whether  he  is  absent  by  way  of  “absentee- 
ism,” as  it  is  technically  termed.  He  is,  in  no 
instance,  if  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  is  correct,  entitled  to  re- 
ceive compensation  for  his  services.  I say, 
therefore,  away  with  this  amendment,  and  place 
the  power  in  the  General  Assembly  alone.  Let 
them  determine  whether  a member  is  absent 
necessarily  or  unnecessarily.  Let  the  General 
Assembly  determine  whether  or  not  he  is  enti- 
tled to  a pro  rata  compensation,  just  as  this  body 
has  done  from  the  beginning  of  the  session  until 
this  time.  If  there  is  to  be  a per  diem , let 
the  General  Assembly  deduct  for  absenteeism ; 
if  there  is  to  be  a fixed  salary,  let  the  General 
Assembly  deduct  for  non-attendance.  In  a 
word,  put  the  whole  power  of  action  in  the  Leg- 
islature. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  This  amendment  ac- 
complishes just  what  you  are  asking  for. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I do  not  ask  for  anything.  Let 
the  Legislature  settle  it  without  constitutional 
provision. 

Mr.  POND.  I am  surprised  at  the  course 
this  debate  has  taken,  to  some  extent.  I think 
it  is  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  this  body 
that  any  one  has  intimated  to  anybody  else  that 
he  has  not  a right  to  frame  an  amendment.  I 
did  not  offer  this  amendment  myself.  My  friend 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  did,  and  I think 
this  Assembly  ought  to  accord  to  him  purity  of 
auotive  in  offering  it.  I think  it  is  an  amend- 
ment that  ought  to  be  adopted,  and  I think  it 
ought  to  be  adopted  for  just  the  reason  which 
my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  has 
given  against  its  adoption.  The  old  Article  of 
the  Constitution  left  it  to  the  General  Assembly 
to  fix  this  matter.  It  simply  provided  that 
members  of  the  General  Assembly  should  re- 
ceive a fixed  compensation.  What  that  com- 
pensation should  be,  how  that  compensation 
should  be  paid — whether  by  the  dajr,  by  the 
month  or  by  the  year,  or  by  the  day,  with  de- 


ductions for  absenteeism,  or  anything  of  that 
sort — was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  General 
Assembly.  Here  it  is  not  left  to  the  discretion 
of  the  General  Assembly. 

It  is  true,  perhaps,  that  this  body  has  acted  in 
a manner  that  has  received  the  animadversion 
of  some  of  the  good  people  in  this  State,  on 
account  of  having  voted  to  draw  pay  for  the 
adjournment  during  the  holidays,  over  which 
they  adjourned.  I do  not  know  as  that  has 
anything  to  do  with  this  question.  I do  not 
know  as  that  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  tying  up 
the  hands  of  the  General  Assembly,  so  that 
they  shall  not  deduct  for  absenteeism.  It  ap- 
pears to  me  it  cannot  make  an  argument  for 
that.  If  it  is  reprehensible  on  our  part,  it  does 
not  make  an  argument  by  which  we  shall  tie 
up  the  hands  of  the  General  Assembly  from  ever 
punishing  absenteeism,  or  for  their  trying  to 
have  a quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business. 
This  Constitution,  as  it  now  is,  says  these  mem- 
bers shall  receive  an  annual  fixed  salary,  so 
much  by  the  year,  six  hundred  dollars,  we  may 
say.  It  says,  further,  that  the  salary  shall  not 
be  changed  during  the  term  of  the  members 
establishing  it.  If  it  is  fixed,  there  is  no  chance 
for  a deduction  for  absenteeism.  It  is  simply  a 
fixed  thing.  If  you  must  have  the  power  in 
this  body  of  saying  that  when  the  members 
are  not  there,  attending  to  their  duties,  but  are 
absent  on  their  private  affairs,  and  not  kept 
away  by  sickness,  there  should  be  a provision 
of  this  sort,  so  as  to  enable  the  General  Assem- 
bly to  make  a provision  that  shall  deduct  a 
ratable  proportion  of  this  fixed  salary  from  the 
member  in  consequence  of  his  unnecessary  ab- 
sence— 

Mr.  HALE.  Would  it  be,  as  this  section  now 
stands,  competent  for  the  Legislature,  in  pre- 
paring the  law,  as  they  must  if  they  fix  the 
salary,  to  provide  in  that  law  that  members 
absent  without  excuse  shall  have  a certain 
amount  deducted  from  their  compensation? 

Mr.  POND.  I think  not. 

Mr.  HALE.  Why  not? 

Mr.  POND.  If  I understand  the  meaning  of 
a fixed  salary,  it  means  a sum  to  be  established 
by  the  General  Assembly,  as  the  annual  stipend 
which  its  members  shall  receive — no  more,  no 
less.  It  is  a fixed  salary.  It  is  not  subject  to 
fluctuation  by  deductions  that  might  or  might 
not  depend  upon  the  question  of  absentee- 
ism. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  What  is  the  difference 
between  a fixed  salary  and  a fixed  compensa- 
tion ? 

Mr.  POND.  A fixed  compensation  may  be 
fixed  in  what  way  you  please. 

Mr.  HALE.  What  effect,  one  way  or  the 
other,  has  the  word  “ fixed  ? ” You  say  a salary 
shall  not  be  increased  or  decreased  during  the 
term  of  office.  When  you  pass  a statute  in  re- 
gard to  that  salary,  what  effect  has  this  word 
“fixed  ” in  the  Constitution  here? 

Mr.  POND.  As  it  was  in  the  old  Constitution 
the  term  was,  “fixed  compensation.”  That  is, 
each  member  was  paid  by  the  day,  as  I said  be- 
fore. It  might  be  by  the  week  or  month  or  in 
any  other  way,  or  it  might  be  for  so  many 
days — any  way  they  saw  fit  to  fix  it.  And  now, 
there  is  to  be  a fixed  annual  salary,  and  it  has 
been  already  suggested  that  the  amount  should 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. 

Pond,  Griswold,  Cunningham. 


1235 


Day.] 

February  10, 1874.] 


be  fixed  by  this  Convention,  and  an  amendment 
has  already  been  prepared  to  do  it.  I under- 
stand the  spirit  of  this  Convention  to  be  that  it 
is  to  be  fixed  for  the  whole  of  the  year,  no  more, 
no  less.  It  is  to  be  $600  or  $500  or  $1000  a year, 
as  the  General  Assembly  may  by  law  determ- 
ine, no  more  nor  less.  That  is  a fixed  annual 
thing  for  the  whole  year.  You  say  that  shall 
stand  for  all  time  to  come,  and  that  it  not  only 
shall  stand,  but  that  it  shall  not  lie  in  the  pow- 
er of  the  General  Assembly  to  change  it.  I be- 
lieve that  is  not  what  the  people  would  desire 
to  have  in  the  Constitution.  The  unnecessary 
absence  from  attendance  upon  the  Legislature, 
by  a member,  being  a neglect  on  the  part  of  the 
absentee,  disturbs  the  quorum,  affects  the  trans- 
action of  public  business  and  public  duty,  and 
has  a corrupting  influence,  and  there  should 
be  some  provision  by  which  such  absenteeism 
can  be  prevented.  Unless  some  such  provision 
is  inserted  in  the  Constitution,  a member  may 
draw  the  yearly  salary  which  is  provided,  and 
not  be  in  attendance  one  day  during  the  time. 
And  more  than  that,  he  is  entitled  to  draw  it  by 
virtue  of  his  having  been  sworn  in,  as  a mem- 
ber, if  you  cannot  make  a deduction  for  absen- 
teeism. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  seems  to 
lose  all  sight  of  the  power  given  to  the  General 
Assembly  to  impose  a penalty  upon  members, 
which  it  is  provided  they  shall  do ; and  if  this 
amendment  is  not  adopted,  then  the  power  to 
impose  a penalty,  or  punish  them  by  bringing 
them  before  the  House,  and  compelling  atten- 
dance upon  the  body,  cannot  be  imposed.  It  is 
a common  practice  to  fine  a man  if  he  is  absent. 
They  can  do  it. 

Mr.  POND.  Did  the  gentleman  ever  know  it 
to  be  done  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  has  been  done  in  a leg- 
islative body ; and  the  power  is  given. 

Mr.  POND.  In  the  State  of  Ohio? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do  not  know  of  any 
instance,  but  they  have  the  power  to  do  so. 
You  can  compel  their  attendance.  If  you  fix 
the  salary,  and  a man  does  not  attend,  under 
the  order  of  the  House,  you  can  impose  just 
such  a penalty  upon  him  as  the  House  sees  fit. 
They  can  send  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  and  bring 
him  there,  and  fine  him  for  not  appearing — for 
contempt  of  the  House.  When  you  talk  about 
there  being  no  power  of  that  kind,  because  the 
salary  is  fixed,  you  are  talking  without  the 
book.  Absolute  power  is  given.  It  is  pro- 
posed there  to  provide  ratable  deductions  for 
absence.  What  rate  is  to  be  fixed?  By  such 
fine  as  they  shall  determine?  They  have  full 
power;  and,  therefore,  it  is  that  we  are  de- 
scending into  legislation,  which  they  have  full 
power  and  control  over. 

There  should  be  some  respect  paid,  I submit, 
to  the  intelligence  and  to  the  honor  of  the  rep- 
resentative body ; and  when  you  provide  that 
they  shall  fix  the  salary — fix  an  annual  salary — 
and  at  the  same  time  give  them  full  control 
over  the  attendarice  of  the  members,  you  have 
given  them  all  the  power  that  is  necessary  to 
accomplish  the  object  which  we  seek  to  accom- 
plish, when  you  establish  a fixed  rule  of  gov- 
ernment; and  when  you  are  deciding  this 
thing,  you  fix  it  by  no  rule  whatever,  except 
the  same  rule  that  they  have  without  it.  To 


say  that  they  can  take  the  salary,  whether  they 
attend  or  not,  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
Article,  when  you  give  them  power  to  compel 
attendance.  They  can  fix  the  terms;  and,  if 
the  salary  is  fixed,  they  can  provide  these  very 
penalties  for  non-attendance,  without  any  such 
legislation  as  this.  And  I submit  that  some- 
thing should  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  Leg- 
islature, and  to  their  responsibility  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  not  attempt,  in  this  way,  to  regu- 
late this  matter;  when  we  have  given  them  the 
full  power  to  compel  attendance. 

When  we  have  given  them  the  power  to  pay  a 
fixed  salary,  they  have  something  to  answer  for 
to  their  constituents.  They  cannot  go  on  in  de- 
fiance of  the  House,  and  draw  their  salary. 
Their  salary  has  to  be  drawn  in  accordance  with 
the  rules  which  the  Legislature  establish  for 
the  attendance  of  members,  and  they  have  full 
power  over  it,  and  ample  power  in  every  way. 
If  you  say  they  shall  fix  “ ratable  deductions,” 
you  say  that  there  shall  be  no  penalty  imposed 
upon  them.  The  Legislature  ought  to  have  full 
power  to  impose  just  such  penalties,  as  they  in 
their  wisdom  see  fit,  upon  a member  who  wil- 
fully neglects  his  duty.  While  they  have  this 
power,  you  would  fix  a rule  so  that  the  Legis- 
lature can  make  no  distinctions  between  those 
who  are  wilfully  absent  and  those  absent  with 
good  excuse,  or  with  leave — you  undertake  to 
establish,  by  a fixed  rule,  to  govern  every  con- 
tingency and  every  possible  case  that  may  arise. 
No  Constitution  should  ever  attempt  to  inter- 
fere in  these  matters. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  say  a word 
in  reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr. 
Woodbury J.  1 admit  the  great  force  of  the 
argument  he  submitted,  and  the  reasons  he  gave 
why  the  salaries  should  be  fixed  and  taken  out 
of  the  discretion  of  the  General  Assembly ; and 
were  it  not  for  one  very  important  consider- 
ation, I would  concede  that  he  is  right.  There 
is  undoubtedly  great  force  in  his  idea,  that  the 
Representative  is  responsible  to  his  constituents, 
and  that  after  having  been  elected  to  the 
General  Assembly,  if  he  shall  neglect  his  pub- 
lic duty,  when  the  time  shall  again  arrive  for 
his  election,  they  can  place  the  seal  of  their 
condemnation  upon  him  and  refuse  to  send  him 
back.  That  is  very  sound;  but  there  is  one 
thing  lacking,  and  that  is,  that  the  responsibility 
of  the  Representative  is  not  alone  to  his  con- 
stitutents,  the  people  who  sent  him  to  the  Legis- 
lature by  their  votes,  but  there  is  a responsi- 
bility to  the  House  of  which  he  is  a member, 
and  he  cannot  disregard  his  duty  as  a member 
of  the  Legislature,  without  affecting  the  people 
of  the  State.  The  Legislature  is  made  up  of 
units.  Whenever  an  individual  absents  him- 
self, he  in  so  far  prevents  the  transaction  of  the 
public  business,  and  the  general  complaint  now 
is,  as  I understand  it,  that  half  of  the  time  since 
the  meeting  of  the  present  Assembly,  there  has 
been  great  difficulty  in  obtaining  a quorum  to 
do  business.  As  far  as  I am  concerned,  I desire 
that  the  House  of  which  the  person  is  a 
member,  shall  have  the  power  to  reach  him 
directly. 

We  have  provided  in  this  section  for  a fixed 
annual  salary,  and  unless  this  amendment  or 
something  like  it,  is  adopted,  it  matters  not 
what  may  be  the  extent  of  the  absence  of  any 


1236 


COMPENSATION  AND  ABSENTEEISM. 

West,  Hoadly,  Baber,  Phellis,  Boot. 


[1 10th 

[Tuesday, 


member,  so  far  as  this  salary  is  concerned,  the 
Legislature  will  have  no  power  at  all  to  reach 
him. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  very  possible,  sir,  that  the 
provision,  without  this  amendment,  would  vest 
the  power  in  the  General  Assembly  to  make 
deductions,  as  contemplated  by  the  amendment. 
I say  it  is  barely  possible  that  that  may  be  the 
case,  but  even  if  it  be  so,  it  is  a matter  of  incon- 
venience and  of  construction,  and  if  it  is  desired 
to  incorporate  that  idea  into  the  Constitution  at 
all,  you  might  as  well  do  it  in  plain  words,  so 
there  will  be  no  dispute  and  controversy,  as  to 
the  powers  of  the  General  Assembly,  in  that 
behalf, and  to  that  extent;  and  itis  always  right 
and  proper  to  give  expression  to  ideas  in  such 
plain  terms  and  language  that  the  wayfaring 
man,  though  not  very  bright,  may  not  err 
therein. 

So  far  as  the  argument,  as  to  the  clause  that 
vests  the  power,  is  concerned,  I do  not  consider 
that  itis  good,  as  against  the  propriety  of  incor- 
porating the  amendment.  Second  : If  the  Con- 
stitution reads  in  plain  terms,  then  every  gen- 
tleman who  becomes  a member  of  the  General 
Assembly,  can,  for  himself,  read  and  under- 
stand it,  and  he  may,  at  least,  think  that  when 
he  takes  his  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of 
the  State,  he  has  sworn  to  support  this  particu- 
lar clause  of  the  Constitution,  and  he  will  carry 
out  its  spirit  without  any  enforcing  act;  and, 
therefore,  the  clause  may  be  a sort  of  club  to 
be  held  in  terrorem  over  him,  during  his  term 
of  service,  and  it  may  have  a profound  moral 
effect  in  that  respect  and  in  that  way.  Beyond 
that,  I do  not  know  that  the  clause  will  ever  be 
very  practicable. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  it  not,  at  least,  put  it 
even  beyond  a doubt  as  to  the  power  of  the 
Legislature  to  make  deductions  for  unneces- 
sary absence  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  That  is  what  I said;  and  for 
that  reason,  I intend  to  vote  for  it.  It  makes  it 
clear  and  explicit  what  we  intend,  so  that  there 
will  be  no  doubt  about  it ; and  if  it  do  no  good 
in  the  end,  it  can  certainly  do  no  harm.  It 
can  indicate  an  expression  of  our  inten- 
tion as  to  what  shall  be  the  power  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  that  behalf ; and  although 
the  Legislature  may  have  authority  to  provide 
for  the  compulsory  attendance  of  the  members, 
sending  out  the  Sergeant-at-Arms,  and  imposing 
penalties  and  punishment  in  divers  and  sundry 
ways;  yet  here  is  another  mode  that  is  also 
prescribed,  and  a very  easy  mode  it  may  be,  or 
it  may  be  a very  difficult  mode. 

The  only  trouble  with  regard  to  enforcing  a 
provision  of  this  kind  is  this:  there  are  very 
lew  people  who,  when  sitting  in  judgment  upon 
their  own  conduct,  decide  against  themselves ; 
very  few ; and  the  General  Assembly,  or  each 
of  the  Houses  thereof,  may,  or  may  not,  be 
properly  left  to  be  the  judges  of  their  own 
members.  They  will,  probably,  not  be  very 
exacting  in  enforcing  the  rule;  and  although 
the  General  Assembly  may  provide  all  those 
laws  for  punishing  or  deducting,  it  may  be  es- 
tablished now,  as  a consequence,  that  the  pun- 
ishment will  be  light,  and  the  House  will  not 
enforce  the  rules  against  them.  Each  member 
may  excuse  himself.  Each  member  will  pro- 
tect himself  behind  the  indulgence  of  his  co- 


members of  the  same  body.  The  General 
Assembly,  under  this  provision,  however,  may 
provide,  and  possibly  will  provide,  that 
each  member  shall,  when  the  session  con- 
cludes, take  an  oath,  such  as  the  Roman  Con- 
suls were  required  to  take : “ that  they  had 
suffered  no  detriment  to  the  public.”  Under 
this  clause  there  could  be  required  an  affidavit, 
or  an  oath,  or  declaration,  to  the  effect  that  this 
clause  of  the  Constitution  had  not  been  violated, 
as  a condition  precedent  to  their  drawing  their 
salary,  or  certain  portions  of  it.  This  may  be 
done,  and  it  would  have  a check  upon  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  It  is  plain  and  easy  to  be  un- 
derstood, and  although,  practically,  in  the  end, 
so  far  as  compulsion  is  concerned,  it  may  never 
be  enforced  in  the  world,  still  it  vests  the  power, 
and  it  will  have  its  good  results,  and  for  that 
reason,  I shall  vote  for  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns],  to  strike  out  the  word  “ unnecessary.’7 
Mr.  BABER.  On  that  I demand  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

Objection  being  made,  the  demand  was  not 
sustained. 

Mr.  Burns’  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock.] 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  44,  nays  27,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Blose,  Burns, 
Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook, 
Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Freiberg,  Herron, 
Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Ilostetter,  Humphreville, 
Kerr,  McBride,  McCormick,  Miller,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Root, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Scofield,  Shultz, 
Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Van  Voorhis,  Voor- 
hes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  White  of 
Hocking,  President— -44. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Bosworth,  Carbery,  Doan, 
Dorsey,  Foran,  Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Hale,  Hill,  Hunt, Johnson,  Merrill,  Miner,  Pow- 
ell, Russell  of  Muskingum,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Tyler, 
Van  Valkenburgh,  Watson,  White  of  Brown, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign — 27. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  I move  to  strike  out  of  the 
second  line  the  words  between  the  word  “sal- 
ary” and  the  word  “and,”  and  insert  “of  six 
hundred  dollars  each.”  Also,  strike  out  all 
after  the  word  “otherwise,”  in  the  third  line,  to 
the  end  of  the  fourth  line. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  first  question  will  be 
upon  the  amendment  in  line  two,  striking  out 
the  words  “mileage  to  be  prescribed  by  law,” 
and  inserting  “six  hundred  dollars  each.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  I hope  we  shall  not  undertake  to 
fix  the  salary.  I do  not  know  whether  this 
Constitution  that  we  are  trying  to  make  will  be 
accepted  by  the  people,  and,  if  it  is  accepted  by 
the  people,  we  can  hardly  safely  foretell  how 
long  they  will  be  content,  or  how  long  it  will 
last.  There  may  be  very  important  changes 
within  ten  years,  or  twenty  years,  in  the  value 
of  money,  upon  which  depends  all  other  values ; 
and,  besides,  I do  not  think  it  really  belongs  to 


Day.] CONCERNING  COMPENSATION. 1237 

February  10, 1874.]  Root,  Dorsey,  Johnson,  Blose,  etc. 


us.  There  is  really  very  little  danger  to  be  ap- 
prehended from  leaving  to  the  Legislature  the 
power  to  fix  their  own  salary.  If  they  provide 
by  law  a salary  higher  than  the  people  of  the 
State  think  is  just,  they  go  to  their  account  very 
soon,  and  they  will  be  corrected,  and  the  law 
changed  very  speedily,  so  that  there  is  really 
but  very  little  danger  of  the  people  being  re- 
quired to  pay  a greater  salary  than  they  think 
fair.  As  I first  remarked,  it  would  be  rather 
presumptive  in  this  body  to  fix  now,  with  the 
laws  that  we  have  at  present,  and  the  darkness 
we  arc  in  as  to  the  future,  what  would  be  a just 
salary.  If  we  put  it  in  the  Constitution,  it  may 
not  be  changed.  If  we  leave  it  to  the  Legisla- 
ture, it  may  be.  I hope  we  shall  not  undertake 

Ia  f] "v"  flid  csqIqt’tt" 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  the  words  “and  mileage  to  be  pro- 
vided by  law,”  and  inserting  the  words  “six 
hundred  dollars  each.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I call  for  a division  on  the 
striking  out. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I hope  the  Convention  will 
not  attempt  to  fix  the  salary  for  members  of  the 
Legislature.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  business 
of  fixing  the  salaries,  in  such  cases,  is  the  proper 
province  of  the  law-making  power  of  the  State, 
and  that  it  does  not  legitimately  belong  to  this 
body,  or  any  other  law-making  body  than  the 
law-making  power,  which  is  the  Legislature  of 
the  State.  I hope  this  Convention  will  not  fix 
the  salary. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  first 
be  taken  upon  striking  out  the  words  “mileage 
prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  upon  that  question. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I object  to  the  call  for  the 
yeas  and  nays. 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted 
— yeas  7,  nays  63,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats, 
Phellis,  Townsley,  West,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign—7. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Blose,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Dorsey,  Foran,  Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Hale,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphre- 
ville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCor- 
mick, Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Muel- 
ler, Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pond,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Sample,  Scofield,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Town- 
send, Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valk- 
enburgh,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Wad- 
dle, Weaver,  White  of  Brown,  White  of 
Hocking,  Woodbury,  President — 63. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  motion  to  strike  out  all  after  the  word 
•“otherwise,”  in  line  3. 

By  general  consent,  the  motion  was  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I move  to  further  amend  sec- 
tion 32. 

The  Secretary  read : 


Mr.  Blose  moves  to  amend  by  inserting,  after  the  word 
“postage”,  in  line  three,  the  words  “stationery  and  so 
forth,”  so  that  the  section  may  read : 

“The  members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  receive  a 
fixed  annual  salary  and  mileage,  to  be  prescribed  by  law; 
and  no  other  allowance  or  perquisite,  either  in  the  pay- 
ment of  postage,  stationery,  and  so  forth,  or  otherwise; 
and  no  change  in  their  compensation  shall  take  effect 
during  their  term  of  office.” 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Gentlemen  laugh  at  that  “and 
so  forth,”  but  I think  every  member  of  this  body 
has,  at  the  least  calculation,  about  twenty-five 
dollars’  worth  of  that  “and  so  forth”  in  or  on  his 
desk,  and  yet  he  is  unable  to  find  it.  As  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and 
Expenses,  it  would  be  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  I should  not  get  so  much  of  that  “and  so 
forth,”  but  I do  believe  I have  received  my 
full  share.  But  where  it  is,  I do  not  know. 
This  is  a leak  from  the  State  treasury  that  is 
worth  stopping,  in  my  opinion.  If  I am  right 
about  it,  there  is  about  thirty-five  dollars’ 
worth  of  stationery,  and  so  forth,  that  each 
member  has  got — no,  is  charged  with — and 
possibly,  if  we  had  not  made  that  Report,  last 
summer,  to  that  effect,  we  might  have  had 
seventy-five  dollars’  worth  more.  I want  to 
give  our  Representatives  a salary — a reasonable 
salary — that  will  cover  all  expenses,  and  I want 
them  to  buy  their  own  stationery,  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose],  whether 
that  “and  so  forth”  represents  stationery,  and 
various  articles  that  are  used  in  that  connec- 
tion, or  whether  it  is  of  a liquid  nature? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  That  “and  so  forth”  may  mean 
what  a certain  boy,  I once  heard  of,  bought 
with  the  remainder  of  his  money,  after  he  had 
spent  a portion  of  it  for  candy.  That  boy  lived 
in  Akron,  and  possibly  he  may  have  been  the 
same  who  now  represents  Summit  county  on 
this  floor ; and  if  so,  he — the  gentleman  from 
Akron— can  better  describe  the  article  he 
bought  than  I can. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded.  Objec- 
tion was  raised,  but  the  demand  was  sustained. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I wish  to  ask  whether 
the  question  is  divisible;  so  that  we  may 
take  a vote,  first,  on  inserting  the  word  “sta- 
tionery,” and,  secondly,  the  words  “and  so 
forth.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  unable  to 
state  whether  it  is  divisible  or  not,  not  knowing 
what  the  “and  so  forth”  is. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I will  not  insist  upon 
the  division,  if  the  Chair  is  in  doubt. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  14,  nays  54,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cunning- 
ham, Doan,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Kerr,  McBride, 
Mitchener,  Phellis,  Root,  Scofield,  Thompson, 
Tyler — 14. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Coats,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Gard- 
ner, Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  McCormick,  Merrill, 
Miller,  Miner,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pond, 
Powell,  Pratt,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Van 
Yalkenburgh,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris, 


1238 


[HOtb 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Root,  Humphreville,  Carbery.  [Tuesday, 


Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  White  of  Brown,  Wood- 
bury, Young  of  Champaign,  President — 54. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

No  further  amendments  were  offered  to  section 
32,  and  section  33  was  read,  as  follows : 

“Sec.  33.  The  General  Assembly  shall  grant  no  di- 
vorce, nor  exercise  any  judicial  power  not  herein  ex- 
pressly conferred.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  Before  passing  the  section— this 
last  section — I ask  that  it  be  amended.  I move 
to  strike  out  the  words,  “ not  herein  expressly 
conferred.”  I am  not  aware,  Mr.  President, 
that  there  is  any  judicial  power  herein  expressly 
conferred  on  the  Legislature.  If  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  is 
aware  of  any  such  provision,  I wish  he  would 

St&t6  it# 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Being  called  upon, 
I will  state  that  this  is  a transcript  of  the  pres- 
ent Constitution.  I am  inclined  to  believe  that 
when  the  House  prefers  articles  of  impeach- 
ment, they  are  exercising  a sort  of  judiciary 
power.  The  Senate  certainly  is,  when  trying 
an  impeachment.  I do  not  know  that  these 
words  will  do  any  good  here,  but  they  certainly 
can  do  no  harm.  They  have  judicial  power  to 
try  their  own  members.  They  also  exercise  ju- 
dicial power  in  deciding  contested  elections,  and 
in  other  matters  which  are  expressly  conferred, 
either  upon  the  General  Assembly,  or  upon  one 
or  the  other  of  the  Houses ; and  I believe  that 
the  words  are  well  put  in,  and  ought  to  remain 
in. 

Mr.  ROOT.  If  the  Chairman  of  the  Legislative 
Committee  knows  of  no  other  judicial  authority 
herein  conferred  upon  the  General  Assembly,  I 
beg  leave  to  difier  with  him  in  the  conclusion  he 
has  arrived  at.  In  the  trial  of  impeachments 
the  General  Assembly  does  not  exercise  any  ju- 
dicial authority  . The  one  House  is  the  accuser, 
and  the  other  sits  for  the  single  purpose  of 
forming  the  tribunal.  The  General  Assembly, 
as  such,  exercises  no  judicial  power  in  that  case. 
It  is  a court,  specially  created,  a high  court  of 
impeachment,  and  it  is  so  known  and  under- 
stood, always.  The  lower  House  is  the  accuser 
— the  prosecutor ; the  Senate,  under  the  regula- 
tions, is  the  trier ; and  that  is  not  the  action  of 
the  General  Assembly  at  all,  as  such. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  the  Houses  may  punish 
their  own  members.  They  may  go  further: 
they  may  punish  offenses  committed  against 
their  body  by  persons  not  belonging  to  it.  But 
in  so  acting,  they  do  not  ever  act  together.  The 
House  acts  for  itself,  and  the  Senate  acts  for  it- 
self, and  in  neither  case  does  the  General  As- 
sembly exercise  any  judicial  power.  All  that 
can  be  said  for  this  provision  is  what  has  been 
said  for  some  others,  and  that,  I think,  is  say- 
ing very  little  for  it — “if  it  does  not  do  any 
good,  it  does  not  do  any  harm.”  I wish  to  ex- 
clude the  idea,  absolutely,  that  the  General 
Assembly  can  exercise  any  judicial  power 
whatever.  Under  the  first  Constitution  they 
never  had  any  right  to  do  it,  and  so  our  supreme 
court  decided  ; but  in  imitation  of  the  House  of 
Lords,  or  rather  of  Parliament,  they  supposed 
they  were  the  highest  court  in  the  State,  and 
they  went  on  year  after  year  granting  divorces. 
Well,  the  court  said  that  the  abuse  had  gone  on 
so  long,  and  any  change  would  make  such  a 
disturbance  in  families,  that  they  would  not 


correct  it ; but  they  admitted  that  the  authority 
never  had  belonged  to  the  Legislature,  and 
never  should  have  been  exercised. 

I believe  that  it  would  not  at  all  diminish,  or 
in  any  way  affect  the  power  to  impeach,  nor 
the  power  to  punish  members,  nor  the  power  to 
punish  those  who  had  encroached  upon  the 
liberties  of  either  House,  because  in  such  cases 
the  two  Houses  never  act  together.  Each  House 
acts  for  itself,  and  acts  under  that  law  of  neces- 
sity, the  higher  law,  under  the  right  of  self- 
protection— that  is,  in  the  case  where  they 
punish  their  members,  or  where  they  punish 
any  encroachment  upon  their  privileges.  As  to 
the  case  of  impeachment,  it  is  no  judicial 
authority  which  is  exercised  by  the  General  As- 
sembly ; but  a court  of  impeachment  is  consti- 
tuted in  which  the  House  are  the  prosecutors, 
and  the  Senate  form  the  court  to  try  the  case. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  motion  to 
strike  out  the  words,  “ not  herein  expressly 
conferred,”  without  a division,  the  motion  was 
not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CARBERY  moved  to  insert  an  additional 
section  in  the  Legislative  Article. 

The  Secretary  read  the  section,  as  follows: 

“Sec.  34.  Columbus  shall  be  the  capital  of  the  State 
until  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy- 
six,  and  no  law  changing  the  location  of  the  capital  of 
the  State  shall  be  valid  until  the  same  shall  have  been 
submitted  to  the  qualified  electors  of  the  State,  at  a Gen- 
eral election,  and  ratified  and  approved  by  them.” 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I rise  to  a question 
of  order.  Proposition  Ho.  191,  which  was  sub- 
mitted to  this  Convention  by  some  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislative  Committee,  was,  by  order 
of  the  Convention,  submitted  to  be  considered 
in  connection  with  Proposition  No.  190.  That 
proposition  has  not  yet  been  acted  upon ; and  I 
suppose  it  is  out  of  order  now  to  offer  additional 
sections  to  Proposition  No.  190,  until  Proposition 
No.  191,  proposed  by  a portion  of  the  Committee 
on  the  Legislative  Department  has  been  acted 
upon. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  If  there  is  any  rule  inter- 
fering with  the  introduction  of  this  section  now, 
I ask  leave  to  withdraw  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion 
that  the  gentleman  is  in  order.  Proposition 
No.  191  was  laid  upon  the  table  for  considera- 
tion in  connection  with  Proposition  No.  190, 
and  will  not  be  in  order  unless  the  mover  of 
the  proposition  or  some  other  person  makes  a 
motion  to  take  it  from  the  table.  The  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Car- 
bery] is,  therefore,  in  order. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Intelligence  has  reached 
me — or,  at  all  events,  the  air  is  full  of  rumors — 
of  a determination  to  bring  the  capital  of  the 
State  down  here.  This  determination  has  grown 
in  strength  in  exact  proportion  to  the  eloquence 
that  has  been  expended  in  this  Convention  in 
regard  to  centers  of  population.  It  has  also 
sprung  up,  unconsciously,  perhaps,  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  spirit  of  the  old  adage,  “All  roads 
lead  to  Rome.”  It  may  be  considered  that  all 
roads  in  this  State  lead  to  Cincinnati.  It  is  the 
center  of  capital,  the  center  of  trade  and  com- 
merce, and  it  is  the  place  where  great  masses  of 
people  have  to  come,  at  all  events,  many  times 
a year.  My  cynical  friend  on  the  left  suggests 
that  it  is  also  the  center  of  sin,  but  I should  say 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  ltf,  1874. ] Carbery,  V oris,  Townsley,  W addle,  Hoadly. 


1239 


not.  [Laughter.]  I should  say,  in  view  of  the 
crusade  waged  outside  of  Cincinnati  just  at 
present,  it  is  the  very  center  of  sanctity.  We 
have  churches  representing  every  creed  under 
the  sun,  and  some  institutions  without  a creed, 
and  I should  say  that  this  is  the  very  place  where 
sanctity  really  does  abound,  and  the  very  place, 
therefore,  for  the  Legislature  to  come  to.  And 
who  knows,  Mr.  President,  but  that,  if  once 
brought  within  our  curative  atmosphere,  they 
might  come  to  a more  proper  consideration 
of  economy,  and  cease  drawing  money  -for 
labor  not  performed,  as  they  are  doing  in  Co- 
lumbus. 

It  is  true  that  leaving  Columbus  would  de- 
volve upon  the  people  of  the  State  the  task 
of  solving  another  problem — a sort  of  architect- 
ural problem — as  to  what  they  would  do  with 
that  magnificent  Capitol,  the  style  of  whose 
architecture  was  once  very  happily  described  by 
William  M.  Corry,  of  Cincinnati.  He  inverted 
a teacup  on  a brick,  and  stated,  at  the  same 
time,  that  that  very  well  represented  the  theory 
upon  which  the  Capitol  was  erected.  The  re- 
moval of  the  capital  down  here,  I say,  would 
involve  that  problem  as  one  of  the  consequences 
to  the  people  of  the  State.  However,  I wish  for 
a little  time  to  help  us,  so  that  people  near  Cin- 
cinnati, and  we  who  are  laboring  here,  may 
get  far  enough  away  from  the  vengeance  of 
those  people,  on  whom  we  have  been  passing 
such  strictures  during  the  last  two  or  three 
days. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Did  I understand  that  Cincin- 
nati was  to  be  inserted  in  place  of  Columbus, 
and  Columbus  to  be  stricken  out? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir;  that  was  not 
the  proposition. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for.  Objec- 
tion was  raised,  and  as  only  nine  gentlemen 
rose  to  support  the  demand,  it  was  not  sus- 
tained. 

Upon  a division,  twenty-nine  gentlemen 
voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  thirty-two  in  the 
negative. 

So  the  motion  to  insert  the  additional  section 
was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TOWNSLEY.  I offer  the  following  ad- 
ditional section  for  adoption : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  — . The  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  be- 
fore they  enter  upon  the  duties  of  their  office,  shall  take 
and  subscribe  the  following  oath  or  affirmation:  ‘I  do  sol- 
emnly swear  (or  affirm)  that  I will  support  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and 
will  faithfully  discharge  the  duties  of  Senator  or  Repre- 
sentative according  to  the  best  of  my  ability;  and  that  I 
have  not  knowingly  or  intentionally  paid  or  contributed 
anything,  or  made  any  promise,  in  the  nature  of  a bribe, 
to  directly  or  indirectly  influence  any  vote  at  the  election 
at  which  I was  chosen  tc  fill  said  office,  and  have  not  ac- 
cepted, nor  will  I accept  or  receive,  directly  or  indirectly, 
any  money  or  other  valuable  thing  from  any  corporation, 
company,  or  person,  for  any  vote  or  influence  I may  give 
or  withhold  on  any  bill,  resolution,  or  appropriation,  or 
for  any  official  act.’ 

“This  oath  shall  be  administered  by  a judge  of  the  su- 
preme court  in  the  Hall  of  the  House  to  which  the  mem- 
ber is  elected,  and  the  Secretary  of  State  shall  record  and 
file  the  oath  subscribed  by  each  member.  Any  member 
who  shall  refuse  to  take  the  oath  herein  prescribed  shall 
forfeit  his  office,  and  any  member  who  shall  be  convicted 
of  having  sworn  falsely  to,  or  of  violating  his  said  oath, 
shall  forfeit  his  office,  and  be  disqualified  thereafter  from 
holding  any  office  of  profit  or  trust  in  this  State.” 

Mr.  TOWNSLEY.  The  section  offered  by 
myself  is  the  same  as  Proposition  No.  98,  which 


I presented  whilst  at  Columbus.  It  was  refer- 
red to  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department, 
and  when  their  Report  came  in,  I found  the 
proposition  was  ignored.  I was  disposed  at  that 
time,  to  let  it  remain  buried ; but  when  I found, 
in  the  course  of  our  discussions  here,  that  the 
Convention  was  disposed  to  talk  for  a day  or 
two  over  a lesser  evil,  namely;  that  of  receiv- 
ing free  passes  from  railroads,  and  to  condemn 
that  evil,  I thought  it  was  well  enough  to  re- 
present the  proposition  I had  formerly  present- 
ed, thinking  there  was  some  virtue  in  it  to,  at 
least,  arrest  the  corruption  that  we  find  extant, 
not  in  counties  alone,  but  wherever  men  offer 
themselves  for  office,  where  money  and  other 
valuable  things,  and  things  that  are  not  so  val- 
uable, are  used  as  a means  of  corruption.  This 
corrupt  condition  has  been  represented  to  us  on 
this  floor.  For  myself,  I know  nothing  about 
it,  never  having  been  in  the  Legislature.  But 
I think  there  is  some  merit  in  the  proposition. 
It  was  so  considered  by  the  Convention  which 
framed  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
and  this  is  a section  out  of  that  Constitution, 
and  copied  from  it.  Since  that  time  the  people 
of  Pennsylvania  have  approved  of  the  Consti- 
tution prepared  by  their  Convention  by  a ma- 
jority of  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand,  and 
in  that  Constitution  they  have  the  same  provi- 
sion, except  that  it  is  made  more  comprehen- 
sive, and  is  made  to  reach  not  only  legislators, 
but  all  State  and  county  officers. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  I have  thought  that 
it  would  not  be  trespassing  upon  the  patience 
of  the  Convention,  or  upon  their  time,  to  sug- 
gest that  this  matter  be  at  least  ventilated  here. 
For  that  reason,  I have  proposed  this  additional 
section. 

Mr.  WADDLE.  I do  not  feel  willing  to  vote 
for  this  amendment.  I object  to  it,  since  it  pro- 
fesses to  be  that  which  it  certainly  is  not,  in  my 
judgment.  The  wording  is,  “1  do  solemnly 
swear  (or  affirm)  that  I will  support  the  Con- 
stitution,” and  that  is  said  to  be  an  oath.  But 
my  understanding  of  an  oath  is  that  it  is  an 
affirmation  or  declaration,  with  a solemn  appeal 
to  God  for  the  truth  of  that  which  is  affirmed ; 
and  as  there  is  no  appeal  to  God  in  this  form  of 
words,  I think  it  a misnomer  to  call  it  an  oath. 
When  a person  swears,  according  to  the  techni- 
cal and  true  signification  of  that  language,  he 
solemnly,  with  an  appeal  to  God , declares  his 
purpose  and  his  obligation  to  speak  the  truth. 
Now,  as  there  is  no  such  appeal  to  God  in  this 
so-called  oath,  I must  look  upon  it  as  no  oath  at 
all.  I shall  very  certainly  object  to  having  a 
form  of  words  like  this,  written  in  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  called  an 
oath.  As  I understand  it,  it  is  required  by  that 
God  with  whom  we  have  to  do,  that  when  we 
swear  at  all  we  shall  swear  by  his  name. 
“ Thou  shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  serve 
Him,  and  shalt  swear  by  His  name.”  I am  op- 
posed to  calling  that  an  oath  which  is  not  an 
oath,  either  in  fact  or  in  spirit. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  In  reference  to  the  observa- 
tions that  have  just  fallen  from  the  lips  of  the 
gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle],  I de- 
sire to  read  the  latter  clause  of  the  first  section 
of  the  second  Article  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  having  reference  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States : 


1240 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Ho adly,  Waddle,  Powell,  Baber,  Cunningham. 


[110th 


[Tuesday, 


“Before  he  enters  on  the  execution  of  his  office  he  shall 
take  the  following  oath  or  affirmation:  ‘I  do  solemnly 
swear  (or  affirm)  that  I will  faithfully  execute  the  office 
of  President  of  the  United  States,  and  will  to  the  best  of 
my  ability,  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.’  ” 

And  that  is  the  end  of  it;  so  that  the  delegate 
from  Greene  [Mr.  Townsley]  has  ample  author- 
ity for  calling  the  form  of  words  he  has  pro- 
posed an  oath.  He  has  what,  to  an  American, is 
the  very  best  authority,  for  the  passage  to 
which  the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Wad- 
dle] alludes,  as  being  the  characteristic  of  an 
oath,  was  left  out  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  by  our  fathers  on  purpose,  in  or- 
der that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
should  not  contain  one  word  that  would  grate 
harshly  on  the  feelings  of  any  citizen,  or  inter- 
fere with  the  religious  convictions  of  any  single 
citizen  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  WADDLE.  For  that  very  reason,  Mr. 
President,  I may  he  allowed  to  say,  if  I have 
leave  to  speak  again,  [“Leave!”]  that  I could 
not  lift  up  my  hand  and  pretend  that  I was 
taking  an  oath,  according  to  my  convictions  of 
what  an  oath  is,  without  an  appeal  to  God.  I 
believe  that  I am  bound,  when  called  upon  to 
swear,  to  swear  in  the  name  of  God.  I believe 
that  that  is  the  sanction  of  an  oath,  and  I could 
not  conscientiously  take  an  oath  that  leaves  out 
the  name  of  God,  whose  name  alone  can  give  it 
sanction.  For  that  reason,  I shall  be  compelled 
to  vote  against  the  proposition.  I am  uncom- 
promisingly opposed  to  calling  that  an  oath  at 
all  which  is  not  so,  technically,  according  to 
the  definition  of  that  term  given  by  our 
standard  lexicographers.  I am  very  well 
aware  of  the  fact  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  enters  upon  the  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  of  his  office  without 
having  taken  what  1 would  concede  to  be  an 
oath  at  all ; but  that  is  no  reason  why  I should 
agree,  in  my  place  as  a member  of  this  Conven- 
tion, to  vote  into  the  Constitution  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  a similar  insult,  as  I understand  it,  to 
the  God  of  Heaven  and  Earth. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  frequently  seen  the 
oath  referred  to  in  various  newspaper  publica- 
tions of  the  oath  prescribed  for  members  of  the 
Legislature  of  Illinois.  The  gentleman  who 
introduced  this  section  says  it  is  a copy  of  that, 
and  I take  it  to  be  so.  I have  not  seen  that  form 
referred  to  in  newspaper  correspondence  except 
with  approbation ; and  I think  the  gentleman  is 
right  in  saying  that  it  has  been  adopted  also  into 
the  new  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania.  I think 
it  is  well  that  it  should  be  adopted,  and  I hope 
that  no  vote  will  be  given  against  it  without 
consideration.  I shall  vote  for  it,  and  I think  it 
is  well  that  we  should  adopt  it  into  this  Con- 
sitution.  Every  one  who  has  referred  to  this 
oath  in  correpondence  and  letter  from  Illinois, 
in  answer  to  inquiry  as  to  how  the  Constitution 
of  that  State  was  operating,  and  what  there  was 
in  it  that  was  producing  good  effects,  has  spoken 
of  the  oath  as  one  of  the  means  that  has  pro- 
duced good  effect,  and  changed  the  character  of 
the  administration  of  law  and  justice  in  that 
State.  I hope,  therefore,  that  this  form  of  oath 
will  be  adopted. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  objection  urged  by 
the  gentleman  at  the  west  end  of  the  Hall  [Mr. 
Waddle]  that  he  could  not  consider  it  a proper 


oath,  because  it  did  not  contain  an  appeal  to 
Almighty  God.  I hope  that  objection  will  not 
influence  anybody’s  mind;  for,  universally, 
throughout  this  country,  they  have  permitted 
persons  to  swear  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  own  consciences,  and  to  adopt  just  such 
words  as  they  pleased.  And  in  the  same  spirit, 
they  have  permitted  men  to  make  affirmation 
instead  of  taking  an  oath.  A great  many  per- 
sons think,  upon  scriptural  authority,  that  they 
ought  not  to  swear  at  all.  It  is  written,  they 
say,  “ Swear  not  at  all,”  and  a great  many  good 
Christians  will  hesitate  to  make  use  of  the  very 
words  the  gentleman  contends  for.  I,  there- 
fore, hope  that  we  shall  adopt  this  section,  and 
consider  the  objections  thus  made  as  amounting 
to  nothing. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  this  Convention 
will  consider  the  proposition  which  is  presented 
by  the  gentleman  from  Greene  [Mr.  Townsley] 
respectfully.  This  form  of  oath  that  is  here 
presented  to  us,  is  copied  from  the  fifth  section 
of  the  third  Article  of  the  Constitution  of  Il- 
linois. The  same  oath  has  been  adopted  in 
Pennsylvania.  I understand  that  its  object  is 
to  provide  against  the  evils  of  bribery  and  cor- 
ruption existing  at  our  elections.  This  oath 
may  not  have  any  more  sanctity,  or  any  more 
binding  effect  upon  the  conscience  than  the  oath 
which  we  now  have  prescribed  in  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  Ohio,  which  provides  for  an 
oath  exactly  the  same  in  form  and  effect  as  that 
objected  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr. 
Waddle];  still,  it  strikes  me  that  it  will  have 
one  beneficial  effect.  If  the  oath  is  violated, 
and  the  party  is  afterwards  convicted  of  viola- 
tion of  his  oath,  the  penalty  can  be  put 
upon  him  of  forfeiture  of  his  office,  and  in- 
capacity to  hold  office  in  future.  It  is  on  ac- 
count of  the  peculiar  penalty  that  may  be  vis- 
ited upon  men  who  violate  their  obligations 
that  I think  that  this  is  a valuable  provision.  I 
have  long  considered  that  a provision  punish- 
ing men  for  perjury  by  imprisonment  or  fine 
does  not  amount  to  very  much.  Such  laws  are 
not  enforced.  But  if  this  oath  should  be  re- 
quired of  members  of  the  Legislature,  and  they 
should  violate  it,  the  violation  of  the  obligation 
would  probably  enforce  its  own  punishment. 
Parties  interested  would  probably  enforce  it, 
so  as  to  produce  conviction  of  bribery  in 
these  men,  and  show  up  the  bribery  and  cor- 
ruption which  they  were  guilty  of.  Therefore, 
I hope  that  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Greene  [Mr.  Townsley]  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I cannot,  myself,  see 
any  difficulty  about  the  form  of  this  proposition. 
It  contains  a provision  both  for  oath  and  affirm- 
ation. Now,  some  people  are  conscientiously 
opposed  to  invoking  the  wrath  of  Deity  upon 
themselves  if  they  fail  to  tell  the  whole  truth; 
hence  they  make  affirmation  under  the  pains 
and  penalties  of  perjury.  Undoubtedly,  the 
force  and  effect  of  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Greene  [Mr.  Townsley]  is,  that  the 
individual  shall  either  take  an  oath  in  the  form 
of  words  proposed,  or  shall  make  affirmation 
in  those  words.  To  illustrate:  suppose  that 
there  was  added  the  language  which  the  gentle- 
man from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  would  em- 
ploy— “ this  do  as  you  shall  arswer  to  God  at 
the  great  day  ” — following  that  we  should  have 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Scofield,  Coats,  Mueller. 


1241 


Day.] 

February  10,  1874.] 


the  ordinary  termination  of  the  affirmation — 
“ and  this  I do  as  I shall  answer  under  the 
pains  and  penalties  of  perjury.”  That  which  is 
sought  for,  and  undoubtedly  accomplished  by 
this  is,  that  a party  shall  either  affirm  or  shall 
swear  under  forms  that  have  become  venerable, 
not  only  in  this  country,  but  in  others — invok- 
ing the  Deity  to  witness  the  truth  of  what  has 
been  said  or  done. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I trust  that  this  proposi- 
tion will  not  meet  with  the  favor  of  this  Con- 
vention. No  necessity  has  arisen  in  Ohio  for 
the  introduction  of  any  such  proposition  into 
our  Constitution.  While  I have  the  highest 
respect  for  the  gentleman  from  Greene  [Mr. 
Townsley],  who  introduced  this  proposition,  I 
am  of  opinion,  sir,  that  it  will  not  secure  the 
objects  he  seeks  to  attain  by  having  it  incorpo- 
rated into  our  Constitution.  It  will  stir  up  the 
hardest  feelings  and  encourage  a spirit  of  per- 
secution among  our  fellow-citizens,  in  place  of 
encouraging  peace  an  earth  and  good  will  to 
men.  I can  imagine  no  good  that  can  be  ac- 
complished by  having  such  a proposition  in  our 
Constitution,  and  I trust  that  the  amendment 
attaching  this  proposition,  as  a section,  to  the 
Legislative  Article,  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  COATS.  I desire  to  say  a few  words 
concerning  the  principle  involved  in  this  ques- 
tion. I am  inclined  to  favor  an  oath  of  the  kind 
proposed.  If  we  incorporate  into  our  organic  law 
an  oath  or  affirmation  of  any  kind  and  for  any 
purpose,  to  be  taken  by  any  and  all  persons 
elected  to  office,  to  be  administered  by  any  and 
all  officials  of  the  State,  authorized  to  adminis- 
ter oaths,  I am  in  favor  of  it,  as  couched  in  the 
language  of  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Greene  [Mr.  Townsley].  And,  sir,  I 
favor  it  for  these  reasons,  among  others : It 
is  the  notary  public,  the  justice  of  the  peace, 
and  officers,  who  by  law  are  empowered 
to  administer  this,  as  well  as  all  other  oaths, 
who  will  use  the  language  of  the  oath,  in 
the  administration  thereof;  and  with  due 
deference  to  the  opinions  and  views  of 
the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle], 
I must  differ  with  him  as  to  the  propriety  of 
making  them  use  the  words  he  desires,  which 
are,  as  I understand  it,  words  containing  an 
appeal  to  the  name  of  God.  These  officers, 
who,  as  I have  before  stated,  will  have  the 
power  to  administer  the  oath,  are  frequently 
themselves  men  in  practice,  in  life  and  in 
conversation  blaspheming  the  name  of  God, 
yet  they  may,  and  often  do,  under  the  present 
practice,  command  a man  to  hold  up  his  hand 
and  swear  to  speak  the  truth  or  perform  duties 
as  he  will  answer  to  God,  at  the  same  time 
involving  an  absurdity  in  this,  that  the  man 
administering  the  oath  may  not  believe  in  a 
God,  and  is  not  a God-fearing  man  in  his  prac- 
tice and  dealings  with  his  fellow  men  or  with 
his  God.  1 have  witnessed  such  examples,  and 
have  been  shocked  by  them ; and  I have  long 
since  been  of  the  opinion  that  the  practice  of 
calling  upon  a man  to  tell  the  truth  or  perform 
a duty,  as  he  shall  answer  to  God,  should  be 
stricken  from  the  prescribed  form  for  adminis- 
tering an  oath,  and  never  should  be  required 
for  the  reasons  I have  here  stated.  It  is  no 
light  matter,  Mr.  President,  to  treat  God  with 
the  contempt  which  is  often  done  by  those 


holding  up  their  hands  and  professing  to  take 
this  oath,  as  well  as  by  exhibiting  in  the  face 
of  the  world  the  spectacle  of  men  blaspheming 
the  name  of  God  in  their  every-day  practices, 
administering  an  oath  of  that  kind.  I think, 
then,  that  to  leave  out  entirely  the  words,  “ as 
you  shall  answer  to  God,”  or  equivalent  words, 
in  the  form  of  administering  an  oath,  for  all 
purposes,  would  prevent  the  commission  of  sin 
— the  sin  of  blasphemy — and  I believe  this  form 
was  wisely  omitted  by  our  Constitution  makers 
when  they  framed  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  should  be  left  out  of  our 
State  Constitution,  and  believing  so,  I shall 
vote  for  the  proposition  under  consideration,  in 
precisely  the  language  in  which  it  now  stands, 
as  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Greene  [Mr. 
Townsley].  I do  not,  by  any  means,  contend, 
nor  would  I,  for  a moment,  be  understood  as 
conveying  the  idea  that  all  the  officers  I have 
enumerated  are  of  the  class  indicated,  nor  even 
that  a large  class  or  proportion  of  them  are  not 
good,  moral,  and  even  Christian  gentlemen,  as 
I know  many  such  to  be,  but  there  are  those 
not  of  this  character,  and,  therefore,  to  avoid 
legalizing  what  I conceive  to  be  judicial  blas- 
phemy, I support  the  form  of  oath  above 
indicated. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  like  to  say  a word 
upon  this  proposition.  I hope  this  Convention 
will  not,  in  this  regard,  follow  the  footsteps  of 
the  Convention  of  Illinois.  I must  confess  that 
I am  utterly  astonished  to  And  in  this  Conven- 
tion a predisposition  to  incorporate  into  this 
Constitution  a section  amounting  to  nothing 
else  than  that  it  establishes  a prima  facie  rule, 
that  all  men  are  presumed  to  be  corrupt,  and 
that  all  public  affairs  are  rotten,  and  that  the 
people  have  ceased  to  be  virtuous  and  capable  of 
self-government.  I say  that  it  contains  an  ad- 
mission which,  if  your  wives  and  children 
should  read  it,  would  cause  them  to  blush. 
They  could  not  help  but  blush.  Have  we  come 
to  such  a state  of  affairs  as  to  be  compelled  to 
recur  to  such  a remedy  ? And  would  this  actu- 
ally be  a remedy  ? If  the  person  who  may  be 
sent  by  his  constituency,  by  his  own  neighbors 
and  friends,  to  take  a position  as  a member  of 
the  Legislature,  shall  not  have  resting  in  him 
conscience  and  honesty  enough  to  be  faithful  to 
his  trust,  what  reason  is  there  to  expect  that  he 
will  not  be  bribed  in  spite  of  your  oath  ? If  he 
ceases  to  be  an  honest,  true  and  patriotic  man, 
if  he  ceases  to  have  a conscience  within  him, 
would  he  shrink  from  swearing  the  oath  re- 
quired by  the  proposition  now  under  consider- 
ation? It  has  in  modern  times  become  very 
fashionable  to  attempt  the  cure  of  every  evil  by 
such  absurd  expedients.  You  cannot  do  it.  If 
I had  lost  confidence  in  our  people  so  far  as  to 
believe  that  they  were  not  able,  by  their  own 
intelligence  and  their  own  virtue,  to  correct 
existing  evils,  I would  decline  to  occupy  any 
public  position.  The  presumption  that  men 
will  only  be  honest  if  bound  to  be  so  by  an  oath, 
is  abhorrent  to  me.  The  oath  will  be  ineffec- 
tual, and  the  requirement  of  the  swearing  of  the 
same  is  equivalent  to  an  admission  of  a state  of 
depravity  on  the  part  of  your  constituents,  to 
which  I am  not  willing  to  subscribe.  I would 
not  say  a word  upon  this  matter,  if  it  was  not 
to  express  my  indignation.  I hope  that,  for  the 


1242 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [110th  Day. 


Carbery,  Burns,  Yoris,  Griswold,  etc.  [Tuesday,  Feb.  11, 1874* 


sake  of  the  honor  of  your  State,  you  will  never 
consent  to  the  adoption  of  so  preposterous  a 
proposition. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  If  the  Convention  had  not, 
a little  while  ago,  by  such  a very  decisive  vote 
refused  to  place  the  Legislature  within  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Christian  atmosphere  of  Cincin- 
nati, I do  not  think  there  would  be  so  much 
necessity  for  this  oath  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man upon  the  other  side  of  the  Hall;  but,  in- 
asmuch as  the  Convention,  in  its  wisdom,  has 
determined  that  the  Legislature  shall  remain  in 
Columbus,  I do  not  know  but  that  it  is  very 
necessary  to  introduce  this  corrective.  I shall, 
therefore,  have  to  support  it. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded.  Objec- 
tion was  raised,  but  the  demand  was  sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  23,  nays  49,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Car- 
bery, Chapin,  Coats,  Cunningham,  Gardner, 
Hill,  Hostetter,  Ilumphreville,  Mullen,  Neal, 
Page,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Root,  Sample, 
Townsley,  Young  of  Champaign,  President — 
23. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bannon,  Bosworth,  Byal, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Clay,  Cook, 
De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCormick, 
Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Okey,  Pond,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Scofield,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Tripp, 
Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes, 
Waddle,  West,  White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hock- 
ing, Woodbury — 49. 

So  the  section  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I offer  the  following  additional 
section : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  — . "When  the  General  Assembly  shall  be  con- 
vened in  special  session,  there  shall  be  no  legislation  upon 
subjects  other  than  those  designated  in  the  proclamation 
of  the  Governor  calling  such  session.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I believe  that  this  is  not  pro- 
vided for  in  any  other  provision  of  the  Consti- 
tution, and  I think  it  is  eminently  proper  that 
it  should  become  a part  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I am  decidedly  in  favor  of  that 
amendment,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  the  most 
significant  vindication  of  the  veto  power  that 
the  Constitution  conveys,  and,  if  adopted,  will 
certainly  show  that  we  are  returning  to  a sense 
of  what  we  ought  to  do  in  regard  to  conferring 
that  power  upon  the  Governor.  I shall,  there- 
fore, support  the  amendment. 

Mr.  BURNS.  By  leave  of  the  Convention,  I 
will  say,  I hope  this  section  will  be  adopted.  I 
have  looked  over  this  Article,  and,  so  far  as  I 
can  see,  and  so  far  as  I can  recollect  of  the 
amendments  proposed,  this  provision  is  not  any- 


where contained  in  the  provision  as  it  now 
stands,  and  I certainly  think  it  ought  to  be  in. 

A MEMBER.  Why? 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  reason  is  this : special  ses- 
sions are  not  to  be  encouraged,  anyhow;  but 
there  may  be  occasions  for  the  call  of  a special 
session  by  the  Governor,  and  I am  opposed  to 
allowing  the  General  Assembly  to  launch  out 
into  general  legislative  business  when  the  Gov- 
ernor calls  them  for  a special  purpose.  The  neces- 
sity for  a special  session  does  not  very  often  occur, 
but  it  may,  sometimes,  become  necessary,  and 
when  it  is  necessary,  the  Governor  designates  in 
his  call  what  subjects,  in  his  judgment,  need  the 
action  of  the  General  Assembly;  and,  I think, 
this  Constitution  ought  to  provide  against  the 
General  Assembly,  thus  called  for  a special  rea- 
son, launching  out  into  general  legislative  busi- 
ness. I simply  state  the  proposition,  and  leave 
gentlemen  to  draw  their  own  arguments  from 
it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Borns]  what 
objection  would  there  be  to  the  Legislature  en- 
acting anything  else,  if,  in  their  wisdom,  they 
should  consider  that  the  interests  of  the  State 
demanded  it?  There  can  be  no  pecuniary  ob- 
jection to  their  having  an  extra  session,  because 
they  get  a fixed  salary,  and  if  they,  in  their  wis- 
dom, see  something  else  beside  what  the  Gov- 
ernor has  seen,  that  needs  their  consideration, 
why  should  they  be  prevented  from  giving  it? 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  salary  of  the  Legislature 
is  not  the  only  expense  attending  the  session  of 
the  General  Assembly — perhaps  not  half  the  ex- 
pense. Therefore,  for  that  and  other  reasons,  I 
am  opposed  to  general  legislation  at  special  ses- 
sions. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I think  that  more  good  may 
come  from  this  amendment  than  is  generally  ap- 
prehended. These  adjourned  sessions  are  not 
like  new  sessions.  The  unfinished  business  of 
the  first  session  all  goes  over  to  the  adjourned 
session,  and,  not  infrequently,  throws  a very 
useless  burden  upon  the  members.  Now,  such 
a provision  as  the  gentleman  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns]  proposes,  will  relieve  them  from 
all  this,  unless  some  very  important  bill  has 
failed  to  be  matured  and  pass,  and  in  such  case, 
it  is  fair  to  suppose  that  the  Governor  will  men- 
tion it  in  his  call.  Though,  at  first,  I could  not 
see  any  great  advantage  in  the  proposition,  a 
moment’s  reflection  satisfies  me  that  very  great 
good  may  come  from  it. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment to  the  proposition — to  prefix  the  words, 
“There  shall  be  no  adjourned  session  of  the 
General  Assembly,  but.” 

Mr.  HUNT.  It  is  evident  that  these  amend- 
ments which  are  now  submitted  will  consume 
considerable  of  the  time  of  the  Convention.  I 
move,  therefore,  as  it  is  now  a quarter  to  six, 
that  the  Convention  do  now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon,  the  Convention  (at  5:45  P.  M.) 
adjourned. 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Clark  of  J.,  Thompson,  Russell  of  Musk.,  etc. 


1243 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  ELEVENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FORTY-NINTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Eben  Halley,  of  Seventh 
Street  Congregational  Church,  Cincinnati. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  84  members  answered 
to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  DeSteiguer,  for  to-day;  and  for  Mr.  Beer, 
until  Monday  next. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PETITIONS  AND  MEMORIALS. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Jefferson,  presented  the  peti- 
tion of  William  Huggins,  and  38  other  citizens 
of  Muskingum  county,  praying  for  a constitu- 
tional recognition  of  Almighty  God  and  the 
Christian  Religion. 

Also,  of  Anna  M.  Glade,  and  72  other  citizens 
of  same  county,  on  same  object. 

Which  were  referred  to  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  THOMPSON  presented  the  memorials  of 
Mary  B.  Harvey,  and  65  other  citizens,  Lida  Sa- 
bin, and  69  other  citizens,  Henry  B.  Kelly,  and 
53  other  citizens,  of  A.  F.  Sabin,  and  61  other 
citizens,  of  Warren  county,  setting  forth  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  asking  that  the  present 
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio  be  so  amended 
that  the  rights  of  citizenship  shall  not  be 
abridged  or  denied  to  any  adult  citizen,  unless 
for  crime  or  insanity. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Select  Committee 
on  Woman  Suffrage. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Muskingum,  presented  the 
petition  of  Samuel  Frazier,  and  22  other  citizens 
of  Muskingum  county,  praying  for  the  recogni- 
tion of  Almighty  God  and  the  Christian  Re- 
ligion in  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

The  PRESIDENT  laid  before  the  Convention 
a communication  from  H.  Page,  of  Delaware 
county,  calling  the  attention  of  the  Convention 
to  the  necessity  of  taxing  dogs,  per  capita. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ag- 
riculture. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  HUMPHRE YILLE . I move  that  the 
Convention  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the 
special  order  of  the  hour,  Proposition  No.  190. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 


Wednesday,  February  11,  1874. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  under  con- 
sideration at  adjournment,  last  evening,  was 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns]  to  amend  the  Article  [II],  by 
adding  thereto  the  following  section  : 

“Seo.  — . When  the  General  Assembly  shall  be  con- 
vened in  special  session,  there  shall  be  no  legislation  upon 
subjects  other  than  those  designated  in  the  proclamation 
of  the  Governor  calling  such  session.” 

To  which  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr. 
Scofield]  proposed  to  offer  an  amendment,  but, 
I believe,  he  did  not. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I did  not  offer  it,  and  will 
not  insist  upon  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question,  then,  is 
upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I see  no  necessity  for 
adopting  that  section,  as  the  Article  already  calls 
for  annual  sessions  and  also  provides  that  the 
pay  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  be  by  salary. 
The  chief  objection  to  an  adjourned  session 
would  be  that  old  business  would  be  continued 
over,  which  could  not  happen  to  a convened 
session.  The  business  properly  coming  before 
that  session  would  be  business  upon  the  subject 
for  which  the  Governor  had  called  them  spe- 
cially to  act;  but  I submit  that  it  would  be  un- 
wise, when  the  General  Assembly  were  called 
together  on  what  the  Governor  should  think  an 
important  matter,  if, when  thus  assembled,  some 
other  matter  should  grow  out  of  that  which 
would  be  proper  and  wise  to  take  into  consid- 
eration, that  their  hands  should  necessarily  be 
tied.  We  must  leave  something  to  the  wisdom 
and  discretion  of  the  legislative  body.  Having 
had  their  annual  session,  the  probability  is  that 
a convened  session  will  be  a thing  unknown  in 
general.  Still,  it  may  arise,  and  if  that 
thing  should  happen,  there  is  no  reason  why, 
if,  when  they  assembled  to  take  into  considera- 
tion matter  that  the  Governor  shall  present, 
some  other  matter  shall  also  be  of  importance, 
in  their  wisdom,  they  may  not  enact  it;  as  there 
will  be  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  to  remain  in  session  a longer 
time  than  the  public  necessities  and  good  re- 
quire. They  will  not  remain  in  session  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  their  per  diem — as  now  inti- 
mated that  they  sometimes  do — because  they  are 
there  at  their  own  expense  and  with  no  allow- 
ance ; as  their  salary  is  already  earned  by  hav- 
ing a general  session,  and  they  are  thereat  a 
cost  to  themselves,  without  any  additional  pay. 
Now,  to  say  that,  under  no  circumstances,  they 
shall  take  into  consideration  any  other  subject. 


1244 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [lllth 

Burns,  Griswold,  Clark  of  R.,  Tuttle.  [Wednesday, 


it  seems  to  me,  is  not  leaving  anything  to  the 
discretion  of  the  body  itself,  and  is  undertak- 
ing, in  advance,  to  impeach  their  general  intel- 
ligence. I hope  the  amendment  will  not  be 
adopted. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  I do  not  propose  to  repeat  any- 
thing! have  said  on  this  subject  before.  I believe 
I have  occupied  all  the  time  I am  permitted  to, 
and  simply  call  the  attention  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  the  fact  that  this  section  is  literally 
copied  from  the  Pennsylvania  Constitution; 
and  I find  it,  upon  examination,  in  a great 
many  of  the  Constitutions  of  the  States.  I cer- 
tainly think  it  is  a wise  provision,  if  it  had  no 
other  merit  than  that  it  prevents  the  Legisla- 
ture, when  convened  in  special  session  by  order 
of  the  Governor,  for  a particular  purpose,  from 
doing  any  other  business  than  that  for  which 
they  were  called  together. 

Now,  it  is  said  that  we  have  had  no  special 
sessions,  heretofore,  in  the  history  of  the  State. 
My  recollection  is,  that  we  have  had  two ; but  I 
may  be  mistaken. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I did  not  say  we  had  not 
had;  but  I said  that,  under  annual  sessions,  it 
would  not  be  very  likely  to  happen ; not  that 
they  had  never,  or  would  not  ever  happen. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  is  said  that  when  they  re- 
ceive an  annual  salary,  they  would  not  be  likely 
to  continue  that  session  very  long,  and  that  the 
expense  would  not  be  increased  by  continuing 
the  session,  by  reason  of  their  annual  salary. 
Well,  they  would  be  entitled  to  mileage.  The 
necessary  expenses  arising  from  an  extra  ses- 
sion does  not  apply  alone  to  the  per  diem  of 
members. 

It  is  said  that  it  is  new ; that  we  never  had  it 
in  the  Constitution  before.  I think  that  is  one 
reason  why  we  ought  to  have  it  in  this  Consti- 
tution. If  we  are  to  put  nothing  in  this  Con- 
stitution that  we  have  not  had  before  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  State,  it  seems  to  me  that  our 
business  here  is  of  little  moment.  Ido  not  care 
to  take  up  the  time  of  the  Convention  upon  this 
subject  any  longer.  It  recommends  itself  upon 
its  reading;  if  it  does  not,  it  must  fail;  let  it 
stand  upon  its  own  merits.  I ask  for  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I have  only  a few 
words  to  say.  The  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  does  not  strike 
me  favorably.  Perhaps,  though,  it  is  for  want 
of  discrimination  on  my  part.  It  seems  to  me, 
however,  that  we  had  better  not  adopt  the 
amendment.  The  Legislature  is  called  together ; 
of  course,  it  is  the  same  body  of  men  that  com- 
pose the  annual  session  of  the  Legislature,  and 
would  be  equally  competent  to  legislate  upon 
any  other  subject  than  the  one  for  which  it  may 
be  convened.  Now,  the  Governor,  in  convening 
the  Legislature,  would  hardly  anticipate  all  the 
subjects  that  might  be  needing  Jegislation.  It 
would  be  a very  great  care  to  impose  upon  him 
to  determine  in  advance,  everything  that  the 
people  of  the  State  might  want.  Now,  I do  not 
see  why,  if  there  should  be  any  other  legislation 
needed,  it  might  not  as  well  be  done  at  a called 
session,  as  at  any  other.  The  Governor  might 
omit  certain  matters  of  importance.  In  addi- 
tion to  that,  even  after  he  had  called  the  session, 
important  matters  of  legislation  might -arise 
that  could  not  at  all,  of  course,  have  been  fore- 


seen. The  Legislature  is  called  together,  140 
or  141  of  them,  familiar  with  the  wants  of  the 
people  throughout  the  State ; of  course,  they 
would  have  knowledge  that  it  would  be  impos- 
sible, perhaps,  for  the  Governor  to  have.  When 
called  together,  an  appropriation  will  have  to 
be  made  for  them  for  the  expense  of  stationery, 
and  other  things  will  have  to  be  prepared. 
Now,  it  will  cost  very  little  more,  as  far  as  those 
things  are  concerned,  for  twenty  or  thirty  days 
than  for  a ten  days’  session.  While  they  are 
together,  I do  not  see  why  they  cannot  go  on 
and  do  all  the  legislation  that  is  required  by  the 
people.  It  is  said  that  a similar  proposition  has 
been  adopted  in  Pennsylvania  and  some  other 
States;  if  so,  those  instances  are  mere  experi- 
ments, and  so  far  as  I remember,  at  this  time,  1 
do  not  recollect  what  the  wording  of  the  prop- 
osition has  been.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  had 
better  not  adopt  it;  our  former  Constitution 
has  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I am  in  favor  of  the  proposi- 
tion now  before  the  Convention;  and  if 
gentlemen  will  bear  with  me  I will  state  the 
reasons  why  it  commends  itself  to  my  approba- 
tion. 

I think,  Mr.  President,  that  I may  find  a 
little  illustration  in  the  provision,  which  is 
made  applicable  to  the  called  or  special  session 
of  a court.  It  is  required  that  notice  shall  be 
given  of  the  call  of  such  a session,  and  the  busi- 
ness which  is  to  come  before  the  term  shall  be 
stated  in  the  notice,  and  no  other  business  shall 
be  done  at  that  term.  What  is  the  reason  of  it  ? 
It  is  because  suitors  are  naturally  not  looking  out 
for  their  own  business  to  be  brought  before  the 
court  at  special  terms ; they  are  not  looking  out 
for  the  term ; and  it  is  highly  proper,  if  their 
business  may  be  acted  upon  at  that  time,  that 
they  shall  be  specially  informed ; the  probabil- 
ity is,  that  otherwise,  they  will  not  give  it 
attention.  How  is  it  in  regard  to  a special  ses- 
sion of  the  Legislature  ? The  Governor  calls  a 
session,  and  very  naturally  he  states  the  reason. 
The  reason  has  been  discussed  and  made  known. 
He  states,  in  his  proclamation,  something  with 
regard  to  it ; if  not,  it  has  otherwise  been  dis- 
cussed and  brought  before  the  public ; the  pub- 
lic is  not  looking  out  for  their  business  to  be 
brought  before  the  General  Assembly ; the  pub- 
lic are  parties  to  everything  that  can  be  done 
by  the  General  Assembly,  and  the  public,  as 
parties,  are  to  look  out  and  see  what  the  Legis- 
lature does.  The  Legislature,  we  provide, 
shall  sit  with  open  doors.  Why?  That  the 
public  may  be  well  informed  in  regard  to  what 
is  going  on  in  the  sessions  of  that  body;  that, 
if  anything  is  proposed  that  is  inexpedient,  the 
public  may,  in  all  suitable  ways,  make  opposi- 
tion to  it,  remonstrate  against  it,  discuss  it  in 
the  public  prints,  delegate  persons  to  appear 
before  the  proper  committees,  and  oppose  all 
unreasonable  provisions.  The  people  are  nat- 
urally put  off  their  guard  in  regard  to  general 
legislation  coming  before  the  body  at  such  a time ; 
but  beyond  that,  the  very  reasons  that  have  been 
stated  among  others,  why  we  need  not  antici- 
pate evil  from  the  Legislature  at  a called  ses- 
sion, to  my  mind,  are  reasons  which  act 
in  exactly  the  contrary  direction.  “ It  is  not  to 
be  supposed,”  it  is  said,  “that  the  Legislature 
will  take  any  more  time  than  they  consider 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1245 

February  11,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Yoris. 


themselves  under  the  necessity  of  doing,  be- 
cause they  get  nothing  for  it.  They  have 
already  received  their  wages,  and  they  get  no 
more  pay  or  compensation.”  I agree  that  they 
will  make  their  sessions  as  short  as  possible. 
What  is  the  consequence?  Why,  whatever 
legislation  they  undertake  at  that  time  will  be 
hasty  legislation.  They  will  crowd  it  through, 
in  the  very  shortest  possible  space  of  time  that 
will  enable  them  to  perform  it.  Not  only, 
therefore,  will  it  not  receive  the  ordinary  con- 
sideration of  the  Legislature,  which,  under 
other  circumstances,  is  prolonged,  but — permit 
me  here  to  remark  that,  when  there  are  many 
matters  of  business  before  the  Legislature,  the 
natural  result  is,  that  bills,  to  some  extent,  are 
considered  each  in  connection  with  others,  or 
each  give  way,  for  a time,  for  others,  and  they 
lie,  for  a time,  upon  the  table,  and  the  ideas  of 
members  have  time  to  ripen.  They  have  time 
for  reflection,  and  more  consideration  is  given, 
for  that  reason — but,  as  I was  proceeding  to 
say,  when  the  session  is  short,  and  when  the 
members  feel  that  they  are  not  to  be  paid; 
when  they  feel  that  all  their  time  is  given  away, 
and  that  they  are  incurring  expense  every  day, 
they  will  be  hasty,  and  will  consider  as  fast 
and  act  as  fast  as  they  are  able  to  do.  The  nat- 
ural consequence  will  be,  that  legislation  will 
be  hasty,  and  it  will  not  only  result  that  the 
consideration  will  be  hasty,  and  the  attention 
and  action  inconsiderate,  but  the  public  will 
have  little  time  to  be  informed  of  what  is  going 
on;  little  time  to  consider  and  know  whether 
what  is  proposed  is  proper  or  not;  little  time 
to  make  opposition;  little  time  to  discuss  the 
matter,  and  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the 
Legislature,  and,  therefore,  I think  that,  when- 
ever such  a thing  happens,  if  it  should  ever 
happen,  as  that  an  extra  session  of  the  Legisla- 
ture should  be  called,  if  they  be  allowed  to 
enter  upon  general  legislation,  or  any  other 
matter  of  which  the  people  are  not  notified,  in 
the  first  instance,  there  will  be  danger  of  hasty 
legislation.  And  more  than  that,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I suspect  that  if  anybody  has  any  special 
thing  to  be  done,  that  they  are  apprehensive 
will  not  bear  the  light — will  not  bear  to  receive 
the  attention  of  the  public — and  which  they 
want  to  press  through  before  it  can  have  time 
to  receive  such  consideration,  they  will  regard 
themselves  as  especially  invited  to  come  up  at 
such  time  and  place,  where,  if  anything  is  done 
at  all,  it  must  be  done  upon  the  moment,  and 
before  it  can  have  opportunity  to  receive  such 
consideration. 

It  is  said  that  it  would  be  a hardship,  if  the 
Governor  were  required  to  specify  every  sub- 
ject upon  which  the  Legislature  might  be  called 
to  act.  I think  not.  If  it  be  true,  that  we  have 
never  yet  had  but  two  extra  sessions,  and  if  we 
are  never  to  have  any,  except  upon  some  pecu- 
liar emergency,  some  occasion  demanding  that 
the  extra  expense  and  the  labor  and  the  trouble 
of  the  session  shall  be  incurred,  it  will  be  when 
something  peculiar  and  urgent  exists,  and  only 
for  that  reason.  And  I submit  that  it  is  not  to 
be  expected  that  the  Governor  will  feel  it  a 
hardship  to  point  out  the  subjects ; that  they 
will  not  be  so  numerous  but  that  he  can  easily 
do  it;  and  when  the  Legislature  shall  have 
done  that,  there  will  be  no  more  reason,  in  the 


simple  fact  that  the  Legislature  are  together, 
that  they  shall  act  upon  other  subjects,  than 
there  should  be  why  they  should  be  called  to- 
gether for  action  upon  such  other  subjects,  or 
why  there  should  be  semi-annual  sessions  in- 
stead of  annual  sessions. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  affairs  of  this  State 
are  constantly  increasing  in  importance.  The 
peculiar  railroad  system,  the  corporation  sys- 
tem and  the  whole  public  policy  in  regard  to  a 
great  many  matters,  is  branching  out  into  many 
details  of  great  importance,  increasing  in  num- 
ber, daily.  The  importance  of  this  question  is 
constantly  increasing ; and  I have  no  doubt  that 
it  is  true  what  rumor  has  said  about  it,  that  in 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  they  have  found  it 
to  be  a very  great  evil.  You  have  but  to  read 
the  debates  in  the  framing  of  that  Constitution, 
to  see  how  thoroughly  their  attention  was  chal- 
lenged to  the  subject.  I have  no  doubt  that  they 
have  found,  and  passed  their  deliberate  judg- 
ment upon  it,  that  one  of  the  great  sources  of 
danger  in  legislation  was  such  that  it  should 
have  a peculiar  opportunity  and  peculiar  occa- 
sion to  show  itself  in  those  special  sessions; 
and,  therefore,  it  is,  and  for  that  reason,  they 
have  inserted  such  a provision  in  their  Consti- 
tution. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman,  if  we  have  not  provided  in  our  Con- 
stitution, against  that  very  class  of  legislation 
of  which  he  is  now  speaking? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  What  legislation  ? 

Mr.  VOKIS.  Special  legislation. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Oh,  I do  not  mean  special  leg- 
islation, in  that  sense;  I mean  legislation  by 
which,  under  the  guise,  and,  perhaps, under  the 
grant  of  general  power,  that  is  done  which  is 
needed  by  some  particular  persons,  or  some 
particular  corporation,  or  some  particular  class 
of  corporations,  if  you  please,  for  the  benefit  of 
corporations  which  nevertheless  (I  do  not  mean 
to  specify  corporations  alone,  but  as  an  instance 
only)  they  know  perfectly  well,  will  not  bear 
the  light  of  an  enlightened  public  considera- 
tion. We  have  had  enough  of  that;  we  have 
had  many  instances  of  that  nature  to  convince 
us  that  we  ought  to  provide  that  they  may  not 
have  opportunities,  upon  such  occasions, if  they 
should  ever  arise,  as  this  clause  has  reference  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns], 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  19,  nays  54,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Baber,  Bishop,  Burns,  Doan,  Frei- 
berg, Greene,  Hill,  McBride,  Miller,  Rickly, 
Root,  Sample,  Scofield,  Sears,  Thompson, 
Townsley,  Tuttle,  White  of  Brown,  Young  of 
Champaign — 19. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Bos- 
worth,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Clark  of  Ross,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Foran, 
Gardner,  Griswold,  Hale,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly, 
Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Muel- 
ler, Okey,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Smith 
of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Tul- 


rmth 


1246 THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Root,  Bannon,  Okey,  Hoadly,  Sears,  etc. 


loss,  Tyler,  Van  Yalkenburgh,  Yan  Yoorhis, 
Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  West,  White  of  Hock- 
ing, Woodbury,  President — 54. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I desire  the  indulgence  of  the 
House  to  make  an  application.  I have  just  re- 
ceived intelligence  from  Mr.  Campbell  that  he 
is  detained  at  home  on  account  of  sickness  in 
his  family.  I ask  that  he  have  indefinite  leave 
of  absence,  and  that  he  be  excused  for  absence 
during  the  last  two  days.  I will  answer  for  it 
that  he  will  return  here  as  soon  as  he  ought  to 
come. 

There  being  no  objection,  leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  BANNON.  I desire  to  ask  leave  of  ab- 
sence for  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr. 
Ewing]. 

Leave  was  granted. 

RESUMPTION  OF  ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I offer,  for  adoption,  the  follow- 
ing amendment,  as  an  additional  section  to 
Proposition  No.  190. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  — . The  General  Assembly,  and  each  House 
thereof,  shall  have  power  by  proper  enactment,  to  com- 
pel the  attendance  of  parties  in  interest,  and  witnesses 
on  the  hearing  of  any  matter  before  them.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
amendment. 

Upon  the  vote  being  taken,  a division  was 
called  for,  resulting  in  8 votes  in  the  affirmative, 
and  35  in  the  negative.  There  being  no  quorum 
voting,  a re-count  was  demanded. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I know  it  is  out  of  order, 
but  I would  like  to  ask  a question  of  some  gen- 
tleman who  has  experience. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is,  whether  there  is 
any  doubt  that  the  General  Assembly  has 
this  power  now?  If  there  is  no  doubt  about  it, 
then  I propose  to  vote  against  it ; but  if  there  is 
any,  the  power  ought  to  be  granted,  beyond  all 
peradventure. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I understand,  from  the  news- 
papers, the  members  of  the  Legislature  are  now 
discussing  this  very  question:  whether  they 
have  power  to  send  for  witnesses  to  contest  the 
election  case  of  the  State  Treasurer.  That  is 
the  reason  why  this  proposition  is  offered.  I 
think,  myself,  they  have  the  power. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  OKEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I understand  the  decision  is 
not  on  the  constitutional  grounds,  but  on  the 
legal  grounds.  We  have  no  law  providing  for 
a contested  election  of  this  officer.  The  law 
does  not  provide,  in  detail,  for  the  manner  in 
which  the  contest  is  to  be  conducted,  and  they 
are  discussing  the  propriety  of  passing  a law 
compelling  them  to  attend. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I have  not  been  reading  the  re- 
ports particularly,  but  I know  they  have  the 
matter  under  consideration.  That  is  the  reason 
why  I ottered  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  to  which 
objection  was  made.  The  demand  was  not  sus-  ! 


[Wednesday, 

tained.  A division  was  then  called  for,  result- 
ing in  10  votes  in  favor  of  the  motion,  and 
49  against  it.  So  the  motion  was  not 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I offer,  for  adoption,  the  fol- 
lowing amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Sears  proposes  to  amend  by  addins:  the  following 
section:  ° 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe,  by  law,  the 
number,  duties  and  compensation  of  the  officers  and  em- 
ployes of  each  House,  and  no  payment  shall  be  made  from 
the  State  treasury,  or  be  in  any  way  authorized  to  any 
person,  except  to  an  officer  or  employe  elected  or  ap- 
pointed in  pursuance  of  law.” 

Mr.  SEARS.  The  section  which  I have  pro- 
posed is  taken  from  the  Constitution  recently 
adopted  in  Pennsylvania,  and  I see  no  reason 
why  it  is  not  applicable  to  the  latitude  and  long- 
itude of  Ohio.  The  evil  which  it  seeks  to  reme- 
dy, if  not  one  of  the  first  magnitude,  is  yet  one 
that  is  very  apparent,  I think,  to  every  gentle- 
man in  the  Convention.  Whenever  a legisla- 
tive body  convenes  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  it  be- 
comes painfully  apparent  that  there  are  not  of- 
fices enough  to  go  round,  but  there  is  a dispo- 
sition always  on  the  part  of  good  natured  mem- 
bers to  make  them  go  as  far  as  possible ; and 
it  usually  results  in  a system  of  trading  and 
dickering,  by  which  the  support  of  one  man’s 
friends  is  set  off  against  the  support  of  another 
man’s  friends,  and  the  result  is  generally,  if  not 
always,  that  the  officers  and  employes  are  made 
so  numerous  that  they  are  in  each  other’s  way, 
and  the  Senate  and  House  almost  always  find 
themselves  with  a lot  of  supernumerary  offi- 
cers, which  practically  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
get  rid  of.  The  getting  rid  of  them  is  an  un- 
gracious task,  which  is  seldom  undertaken,  and 
never  accomplished.  I think  that  the  provision 
is  one  that  should  commend  itself  to  the  good 
judgment  of  every  member. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  a question.  Does  this  limit  them  in 
their  number  ? 

Mr.  SEARS.  It  does  not;  but  it  provides  that 
there  shall  be  a general  law  defining  the  num- 
ber and  duties  of  the  employes  of  each  House, 
instead  of  leaving  it  entirely  within  the  control 
of  the  body  itself,  to  be  regulated  and  acted  I 
upon  as  their  own  feelings  and  inclinations 
may  prompt  at  the  commencement  of  each  ses- 
sion. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Is  there  not  a law  now 
regulating  it,  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man ? 

Mr.  SEARS.  I do  not  think  there  is  any  such 
law. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  agree- 
ing to  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  I 
from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears]. 

By  request  the  amendment  was  read  again. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I would  like  to  ask  1 
the  author  of  that  amendment  to  define  how  he  I 
is  going  to  do  that,  how  he  would  proceed  to  de-  I 
fine  the  duties?  Suppose  he  would  proceed  this  I 
morning  to  define  the  duties  of  this  Conven-  J 
tion,  how  would  he  go  about  it? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  like  to  ask  if  this  I 
would  allow  them  to  dispense  with  anybody,  1 
if  it  is  found  that  they  have  got  more  than  .1 
they  need?  They  may  find  that  extra  officers  i 
could  be  dispensed  with.  If  we  have  this  law 


1247 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  11, 1874.]  Mueller,  Tuttle,  Hoadly,  etc. 


the  Legislature  will  have  no  power  to  dispense 
with  any  officer. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted— yeas  32,  nays  45,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jef- 
ferson, Coats,  Greene,  Hale,  Hoadly,  Humphre- 
ville,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Mi- 
ner, Mitchener,  Powell,  Pratt,  Boot,  Scofield, 
Sears,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van 
Yoorhis,  Yoris, Waddle, West,  White  of  Brown, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury, Young  of  Cham- 
paign— 32. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Bishop,  Bosworth,  Clark  of  Eoss, 
Clay,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer, 
Doan,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Gris- 
wold, Hill,  Hostetter,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Layton, 
Miller,  Mueller,  Okey,  Phellis,  Pond,  Eeilly, 
Kickly,  Kowland,  Kussell  of  Meigs,  Bussell  of 
Muskingum,  Sample,  Shultz,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Tripp,  Tul- 
loss,Yan  Yalkenburgh,Yoorhes,  President — 45.. 
So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  MUELLEB.  I move  now  that  the  Con- 
vention take  from  the  table  the  motion  to  re- 
consider the  motion  by  which  the  Convention 
refused  to  strike  out  section  23. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  MUELLEB.  There  is  a motion  on  the 
table  by  which  the  Convention  refused  to  strike 
out  section  23.  I make  a motion  to  call  it  up. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  inquire  who  mov- 
ed to  reconsider  that? 

A MEMBEB.  The  gentleman  from  Trumbull 
[Mr.  Tuttle]. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  There  is  a mistake  then.  If 
I moved  to  reconsider  section  23,  I was  in 
error. 

The  PBESIDENT.  The  votes  that  I have 
show  that  the  reconsideration  was  refused. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  motion  I made  was  to 

reconsider  the  vote  upon  which 

The  PBESIDENT.  If  the  gentleman  will 
wait  a moment,  we  will  examine  and  have  the 
question  settled. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  the  record  may  be 
referred  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  from  Trumbull 
(Mr.  Tuttle]  made  both  motions  on  both  sec- 
tions. There  is  no  doubt  the  gentleman  made 
the  motion. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I think  I am  in  error. 

The  PBESIDENT.  The  Journal  shows  that 
on  Monday  afternoon  Mr.  Tuttle  moved  to  re- 
consider the  vote  striking  out  section  23.  On 
motion  of  Mr.  West,  said  motion  was  laid  on  the 
table.  The  Convention  has  now  taken  the 
question  from  the  table. 

Mr.  HUMPHBEYILLE.  The  question  is  now 
upon  reconsidering  the  vote  refusing  to  strike 
out  sectiou  23  ? 

The  PBESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  MUELLEB.  Now,  with  the  permission 
of  the  Convention,  I have  sent  up  to  the  Sec- 
retary, to  be  read  for  information,  the  substitute 
which  I will  offer,  in  case  the  Convention  agrees 
to  strike  out  that  section,  and  I hope  the  Con- 
vention will  permit  the  reading  of  the  substi- 
tute, which  embodies  in  substance  all  the  senti- 
ments expressed  by  the  Convention,  and  the 


amendments  made  with  the  approval  of  all  del- 
egates who  had  offered  amendments,  which 
were  agreed  to. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Mueller  moves  the  following  substitute  for  section 
23,  Proposition  19U: 

“Sec.  23.  Money  shall  be  di*awn  from  the  treasury  only 
in  pursuance  of  specific  appropriation,  made  by  law,  the 
purpose  of  which  shall  be  distinctly  stated  in  the  bill, 
and  no  appropriation  shall  be  for  a longer  period  than 
two  years.  Upon  the  passage  of  bills  appropriating 
money,  or  upon  concurring  in  amendments  thereto,  a 
separate  vote  upon  any  one  or  more  items  therein  shall, 
upon  demand  of  any  member,  be  had  by  yeas  and  nays, 
entered  upon  the  Journal;  and  every  such  item  failing 
upon  such  separate  vote  to  receive  the  vote  of  a majority 
of  the  members  elected  to  the  House  in  which  the  bill  is 
pending,  shall  be  stricken  therefrom;  and  each  item 
receiving  such  majority  shall  be  declared  passed.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  object  of  this  substitute 
is  to  secure  the  advantage  of  the  succinct  lan- 
guage which  the  delegate  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  employed  in  his  original  substitute. 
It  will  be  found  on  comparing  the  two  sections 
that  there  is  but  a single  difference  between 
them,  which  I will  explain  in  a moment.  The 
advantage  is  that  this  substitute  is  in  a more 
condensed  form.  There  is  no  difference  in  sub- 
stance between  them,  save  this : As  the  section 
now  stands,  it  absolutely  and  peremptorily  re- 
quires the  yeas  and  nays  to  be  called  on  each 
item  of  an  appropriation  bill.  As  the  substitute 
proposes  to  provide,  it  allows  the  yeas  and  nays 
when  any  member,  any  one  member  calls  for 
them.  In  other  words,  it  permits  an  appropria- 
tion as  to  which  no  member  wishes  the  yeas 
and  nays,  to  be  passed  without  yeas  and  nays, 
and  saves  or  will  save  the  consumption  of  time 
in  calling  yeas  and  nays  upon  undisputed 
items  of  appropriation  bills.  Although  no  one 
member  wishes  the  yeas  and  nays,  they  will, 
nevertheless,  be  required  by  the  section  as  it 
stands.  The  section,  as  it  now  stands,  abso- 
lutely and  peremptorily  requires  the  yeas  and 
nays  upon  every  item  of  an  appropriation  bill, 
although  the  House  may  unanimously  desire  to 
proceed  to  the  next  item.  I think,  in  that  re- 
spect, the  substitute  of  the  delegate  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Mueller]  will  be  an  improvement 
over  the  original  section.  By  allowing  any  one 
member  to  demand  the  yeas  and  nays,  it  cer- 
tainly secures  the  rights  of  all  the  members, 
and  each  one  of  them.  And  then,  as  to  the 
rest,  as  I said  before,  its  change  of  form  tends, 
it  seems  to  me,  to  throw  the  section  into  better 
shape  than  it  was  in.  The  section,  as  it  origi- 
inally  came  from  the  Committee  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  was,  of  course,  framed  by 
one  hand,  and  was  homogeneous.  But  it  was 
amended  and  changed  until  it  is  in  an  awkward 
shape  and  bad  language.  It  was  for  this  rea- 
son, I understand,  that  this  amendment  has 
been  submitted  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Legisla- 
tive Department.  He  can  answer  for  himself. 
He  was  favorable  to  it,  I understand.  I should 
like  to  hear  him  speak,  because  his  opinion  is 
entitled  to  especial  consideration  on  this  matter. 

Mr.  HUMPHBEYILLE.  I ask  leave  of  the 
Convention  to  say  a few  words  upon  this 
amendment.  As  has  been  very  well  remarked 
by  the  delegate  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly], 
the  original  section  23  has  been  very  materially 
changed,  and  its  usefulness  very  materially 
affected.  The  original  section  did  not  require 
the  yeas  and  nays  upon  every  item  of  an  appro- 


1248 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Humphreville,  Mueller,  Tuttle,  West,  etc. 


[tilth 

[Wednesday, 


priation  bill,  but  left  it,  like  all  other  questions, 
to  be  taken  if  demanded.  It  was  provided  that 
the  bill  should  be  read  item  bj^  item,  and  a sep- 
arate vote  taken  upon  each  item,  but  that  vote 
need  not  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  unless  the 
yeas  and  nays  were  demanded.  The  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  saw  fit  to  add  the  words 
that  the  voting  should  be  taken  by  yeas 
and  nays,  and  it  has  been  demonstrated  by  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  and 
others  upon  this  floor,  that  that  will  be  a very 
burdensome  duty  to  perform ; would  consume 
a vast  deal  of  time  unnecessarily;  and  that 
there  would  be,  perhaps  upon  more  than  nine- 
tenths  of  the  items,  no  necessity  for  calling 
the  yeas  and  nays  upon  each  item  separately. 
If  the  vote  to  strike  out  is  reconsidered,  and 
the  section  is  stricken  out,  and  the  substitute 
which  will  be  offered  adopted,  it  will  effect  eve- 
rything that  the  Committee  originally  desired  to 
effect.  It  will  guard  carefully,  and,  as  I be- 
lieve, sufficiently,  the  passage  of  these  appro- 
priation bills,  and  it  will  relieve  the  General 
Assembly  from  a very  great  burden  that  the 
section,  as  it  now  stands,  would  place  upon  it. 
I hope  the  vote  upon  striking  out  section  23 
will  be  reconsidered,  and  that  it  will  be  stricken 
out,  and  the  substitute  adopted  substantially  as  it 
has  been  read.  I do  not  know  how  many  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  that  substitute  has  been 
submitted  to.  I have  seen  it,  compared  it  care- 
fully with  the  original  section,  and  I give  it  my 
hearty  approval,  and  hope  it  will  succeed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  whether 
the  vote  by  which  the  Convention  refused  to 
strike  out  section  23,  shall  be  reconsidered. 

The  motion  to  reconsider  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I now  offer  this  substitute 
to  be  inserted  in  place  thereof. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  would  be 
upon  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  With  the  leave  of  the 
Convention,  I will  withdraw  my  substitute,  if 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller] 
desires  to  offer  his. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  substitute  which  is  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  The  Sec- 
retary will  read  the  substitute. 

The  Secretary  read  the  proposition. 

Upon  the  vote  being  taken,  the  substitute  was 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I move  now  to  take  from  the 
table  the  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which 
the  Convention  refused  to  strike  out  the  last 
clause  of  section  24,  as  moved  by  the  gentleman 
from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
reconsidering. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  hear  the  section  j 
read  as  it  stands. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Sec.  24.  No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any 
officer,  public  agent,  or  contractor  alter  the  service  shall 
have  been  rendered  or  the  contract  entered  into,  nor  shall 
any  money  be  paid  on  any  claim,  the  subject  matter  of 
■which  shall  not  have  been  provided  for  by  pre-existing 
law,  unless  such  compensation  or  claim  be  allowed  by 
two-thirds  of  the  members  elected  to  each  branch  of  the 
General  Assembly.  No  such  allowance  shall  be  made  ex- 


cept by  bill,  and  no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or 
different  items  of  compensation  or  claim,  and  every  ap- 
1 propriation  for  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation  or 
claim  included  in  any  act  making  several  appropriations, 
shall  be  void. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]  was  to  strike 
out  all  following  “ Assembly”  in  line  six,  which 
the  Convention  refused  to  strike  out.  The  mo- 
tion now  is  to  reconsider  that  vote. 

Mr.  WEST.  I know  it  is  out  of  order,  Mr. 
President,  but  I desire  to  make  a suggestion  to 
the  House.  [“Agreed,  agreed.”]  His  purpose 
is  to  strike  out  all  the  section  after  the  word 
“ bill”  in  the  sixth  line,  and  then  insert  the  fol- 
lowing : “ No  provision  directing  the  payment 
of  any  such  compensation,  claim  or  allowance, 
or  authorizing  the  expenditure  or  payment  of 
any  money  for  any  purpose  not  provided  for  by 
pre-existing  law,  shall  be  included  in  any  bill 
making  appropriations  for  a purpose  which 
shall  have  been  so  provided  for,”  so  as  to  keep 
the  general  appropriation  bill  and  all  these  others 
separate.  I think  it  will  correct  all  the  trouble 
the  gentleman  from  Meigs  contemplates.  It 
makes  it  brief,  comprehensive  and  clear,  as  I 
think. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Is  discussion  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order  now. 
The  question  now  is  on  reconsidering. 

Upon  the  vote  being  taken,  a division  was 
called  for,  resulting  in  37  votes  in  the  affirma- 
tive, and  28  in  the  negative. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
striking  out  all  that  part  of  the  section  follow- 
ing the  word  “Assembly.”  “No  such  allow- 
ance shall  be  made  except  by  bill,  and  no  such 
bill  shall  embrace  several  or  different  items  of 
compensation  or  claim,  and  every  appropria- 
tion for  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation 
or  claim  included  in  any  act  making  general 
appropriations,  shall  be  void.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  previous  clause  will 
not  be  stricken  out.  The  proposition  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  still 
permits  the  evil  which  this  clause  of  the  section 
was  intended  to  prevent:  that  is,  that  in  all 
these  bills  appropriating  money  in  this  sort, 
different  claims  shall  not  be  included,  so  that  the 
object  of  this  is  is  to  prevent  omnibus  bills,  and 
allow  different  classes  of  claims  put  together  to 
get  money  out  of  the  treasury.  If  this  is  left  in 
the  shape  it  is,  then  every  attempt  to  get  money 
out  of  the  treasury,  in  this  sort  of  a way,  must 
stand  upon  its  own  merits,  and  does  away  with 
the  excuse  men  have,  that  when  they  have  a bill 
that  should  be  passed,  they  have  to  vote  for  a 
bad  measure  in  order  to  get  a good  one.  Now, 
we  want  no  such  thing  to  happen  to  the  Legis- 
lature at  all.  When  it  is  attempted  to  get 
| money  out  of  the  treasury,  let  the  appropriation 
stand  upon  its  own  merits  alone,  and  not  get 
the  measure  lost  by  coupling  it  with  a bad 
^ measure. 

The  object  of  this  Is  not  only  that  it  shall  be 
directory  and  mandatory  upon  the  Legislature 
not  to  put  different  classes  of  claims  into  this 
6ort  of  a bill,  but  it  makes  it  absolutely  void  if 
they  do  so — and  that  is  the  only  way  you  can 
reach  it,  you  leave  it  so  they  can  effect  this,  and 
then  you  lose  the  whole  benefit  attempted  by 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

West,  Griswold,  Humphreyille,  Powell. 


1249 


Day.] 

February  11, 1874.] 


the  amendment  to  the  original  section  in  the 
Constitution. 

Mr.  WEST.  Mr.  President 

The  Secretary  being  requested,  read  the 
part  of  the  amendment  to  be  inserted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  Chair  under- 
stand the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  to 
insert  this  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  If  that  part  is  incorporated,  it 
will  reach  the  object  which  I will  now  state.  I 
am  well  aware  of  the  propriety  of  what  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  has 
just  stated.  But  requiring  these  classes  of 
claims  to  be  placed  in  separate  bills  will  not 
prevent  combination.  A dozen  or  twenty  bills 
may  be  framed,  each  embracing  a single  claim, 
and  the  friends  of  each  bill  will  combine  to  vote 
for  all  the  bills,  precisely  as  they  would  do  if 
classes  of  claims  were  all  combined  in  one  bill; 
because  we  have  just  now  drafted  a proposition 
authorizing  any  member  to  demand  the  yeas 
and  nays  upon  each  item,  and  when  the  yeas  and 
nays  may  be  demanded  upon  each  single  item, 
that  item  stands  as  though  it  was  an  indepen- 
dent bill — just  the  same:  a separate  and  inde- 
pendent vote  is  taken  upon  it.  So  that,  if  com- 
binations can  be  made  upon  items  upon  which 
a separate  vote  can  be  taken,  then  combinations 
can  be  made  upon  separate  bills  upon  which 
separate  votes  may  be  taken.  Precisely  the 
same  way.  And  I see  nothing  that  is  to  be  se- 
cured by  this  provision  that  is  not  already  se- 
cured by  section  23,  which  has  already  provided 
for  a separate  vote  on  each  item.  Now,  this,  I 
think,  is  clear,  and  must  be  understood  by  every 
gentleman.  Now,  the  point  that  I desire  to 
reach  by  the  proposition  that  I have  sub- 
mitted is  this:  oftentimes  a project  is  in- 
corporated in  the  appropriation  bill — an  orig- 
inal project — as,  for  example,  it  is  pro- 
posed as  an  original  project  that  some  drift- 
wood shall  be  cleaned  out  of  some  river  or 
creek,  and  that  the  General  Assembly  shall  in- 
corporate in  the  general  appropriation  bill  such 
original  project,  and  make  an  appropriation  o'f 
money.  Now,  it  has  always  been  held  that 
that  is  competent,  and  may  be  done,  that  if  the 
original  provision  authorizes  the  work  to  be 
done  incorporated  in  the  bill,  and  the  appro- 
priation for  the  performance  of  the  work  shall 
also  be  incorporated  in  the  bill.  It  requires 
only  a two-thirds  majority  to  pass  it.  If  it  be 
embodied  in  the  general  appropriation  bill, 
such  original  project  for  such  purpose  as  the 
gentlemen  may  be  combined  upon  all  over  the 
State,  and  may  be  carried  through.  Now,  what 
I desire  is  this,  that  such  projects  shall  be  kept 
out  of  general  appropriation  bills,  and  that  gen- 
tlemen shall  have  no  pretext  to  vote  against  a 
legitimate  and  proper  appropriation,  because 
some  pet  measure  might  be  incorporated  in  it 
as  an  amendment  to  the  original  proposition. 
Keep  that  out  of  the  general  appropriation 
bill,  also.  And,  hence,  my  proposition  pro- 
vides that  no  provision  directing  the  payment 
or  expenditure  of  money  for  a purpose  not  pro- 
vided for  by  pre-existing  law,  shall  be  included 
in  any  appropriation  bill  making  appropriations 
for  purposes  which  shall  have  been  provided 
for  by  pre-existiug  law,  to  keep  the  gen- 
eral appropriation  bill  for  general  current  ex- 
penses of  the  State  separate  and  distinct  from 
Y.  11-81 


any  of  those  original  projects  gentlemen  may 
have,  and  want  to  carry  through,  by  putting 
them  into  the  general  appropriation  bill,  and 
then  refusing  to  vote  for  separate  and  merito- 
rious items  of  the  bill. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  call 
the  attention  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  to  the  fact  that  the  amendment  offered 
on  Monday  is  still  pending.  It  is  anticipated, 
then,  that  it  will  be  inserted  in  case  this  prop- 
osition is  stricken  out.  He  now  moves  to  in- 
sert, I understand.  The  motion  which  the  gen- 
tleman made  on  Monday  was  to  add  this  same 
matter  in  the  place  he  now  proposes  to  insert 
it. 

Mr.  WEST.  My  proposition  was  to  add  it. 
I do  not  care ; it  may  be  inserted  right  after 
that.  But  I think  it  is  sufficient. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  amend 
the  original  section  by  inserting  in  line  six, 
after  the  word  “bill,”  the  words  that  have  been 
read. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Will  the  Secretary  read 
the  section  as  it  would  read  if  the  words  are 
inserted? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  is  not  aware  of  the 
fact  that  the  same  matter  which  it  is  now  pro- 
posed to  insert  by  way  of  amendment  in  the 
original  section,  was  offered  the  other  day  as  a 
substitute  in  case  the  clause  should  be  stricken 
out.  And  the  motion  now  is  to  insert.  The 
question,  therefore,  is  upon  inserting  in  the 
original  section,  in  line  six,  after  the  word 
“bill,”  these  words 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I understand  the 
motion  to  be  to  strike  out  all  after  the  word 
‘ bill,”  in  line  six,  and  insert. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  not  particular  whether  the 
words  are  stricken  out  or  not.  The  two  propo- 
sitions are  entirely  consistent  with  each  other. 
If  it  is  simply  inserted,  it  will  reach  the  pur- 
pose. I make  the  motion  to  insert. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  motion  as 
the  Chair  understands;  to  insert  in  line  six, 
after  the  word  “bill,”  the  language  which  has 

been 

Mr.  RC SSELL,  of  Meigs.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  POWELL.  If  it  is  inserted  there  with- 
out striking  out,  will  it  not  make  it  inconsis- 
tent? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
case  as  it  now  stands.  On  Monday,  the  gentle- 
man from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]  moved  to  strike 
out  all  that  part  of  section  twenty-four  following 
the  word  “ Assembly,”  in  line  six.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  thereupon 
moved  to  insert  in  place  of  the  clause,  if  strick- 
en out,  the  following  words:  “And  no  such 

compensation  or  claim  shall  be  included  in  any 
partial  or  general  appropriation  bill,  making 
provision  for  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the 
Government  and  its  institutions.”  It  would 
now  be  in  order,  and  the  gentleman  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  now  proposes  to  insert  the  same 
matter  in  the  original  text  by  inserting  in  line 
six  after  the  word  “ bill,”  the  following  amend- 
ment: “But  no  provision  directing  the  pay- 
ment of  any  such  compensation  or  allowance 
or  authorizing  the  expenditure  or  payment  of 
money  for  any  purpose  not  provided  for  by  pre- 
existing law,  shall  be  included  in  any  bill 


1250 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


[111th 


Burns,  Russell  of  Meigs,  West,  Mueller. 


[Wednesday, 


making  appropriation  for  a purpose  which  shall 
have  been  so  provided  for.” 

The  question  is  upon  inserting  those  words  in 
line  six  of  the  original  section  of  the  proposi- 
tion. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  That  is  the  matter  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir;  it  is  the  same 
matter.  He  now  proposes  to  insert  it  in  the 
original  section  after  the  word  “ bill.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Before  the  question  is  taken 
on  striking  out? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  exactly 
the  state  of  the  case. 

The  gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell] 
has  the  floor. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I hope  this  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  will  not  be  adopted.  I do  not  un- 
derstand the  object  which  has  induced  the 
gentleman  to  make  this  motion.  At  the  time 
this  section  was  under  consideration,  and 
at  the  time  that  I made  the  motion  to 
strike  out  all  after  the  word  “Assembly,” 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Muel- 
ler] moved  to  amend  by  inserting  “ the 
several  different  classes.”  That  seemed  to  be 
perfectly  satisfactory  to  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West].  Since  that  time  he  has  re- 
ceived new  light.  Thinking  that  he  had  not 
entirely  clinched  this  class  of  claims,  on  which 
we  had  the  discussion  the  other  day,  he  pro- 
poses now  to  make  an  amendment  which  will 
meet  his  views  upon  that  subject.  Now,  I hope 
this  amendment  will  not  be  adopted.  As  I said 
the  other  day,  it  will  be  taken  by  those  persons 
interested  in  those  claims  as  a direct  blow  at 
them.  And  if  the  gentleman  desires  it — if  he 
insists  on  placing  in  this  Article  a provision 
that  will  receive  at  the  polls  the  condemnation 
of  all  those  men  who  are  interested  and  all 
their  neighbors,  let  him  put  it  in,  and  he  will 
surely  receive  it.  I hope,  on  that  ground,  if 
on  no  other,  that  the  Convention  will  vote  it 
down.  I consider  the  section,  as  it  is,  very 
stringent,  but  think  it  will  be  satisfactory.  I 
believe  that  this  section,  as  it  now  stands,  may 
be  made  satisfactory  to  those  parties,  and  they 
will  not  consider  that  it  is  made  as  a direct 
blow  at  them,  as  they  certainly  will  if  the  pro- 
vision is  inserted  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West].  I care  not  about  rearguing  the 
question  or  occupying  any  more  of  the  time  of 
the  Convention,  but  merely  wish  to  say  that,  if 
you  desire  opposition  to  this  Article  that  you 
propose  to  submit,  place  in  it  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

Mr.  WEST.  Pardon  me 

The  PRESIDENT.  Has  the  gentleman  leave  ? 

Leave  was  given. 

Mr.  WEST.  I regret  to  leave  the  impression 
that  my  friend  from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]  does 
not  comprehend  the  purpose  of  this  amendment.  | 
It  was  framed  with  a view  to  help  him  out  of 
what  he  conceived  to  be  a difficulty, and  I am  very 
positive  that  he  does  not  comprehend  it;  other- 
wise, he  would  not  speak  of  it  as  he  does.  For, 

I have  to  inform  the  gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr. 
Russell],  that  I voted  in  the  General  Assembly 
for  the  payment  of  his  Morgan  raid  claims  al- 
most before  he  ever  heard  that  they  existed. 
And  the  single  proposition  I make  now  is,  that 


no  claim  of  that,  or  any  other  kindred  to  it,  shall 
be  embraced  in  the  general  appropriation  bill. 
That  is  all.  The  clause,  as  it  now  stands,  says 
that  no  two  classes  of  claims  of  that  character 
shall  be  included  in  the  same  bill.  It  already 
provides  that.  My  proposition  provides  not 
exactly  that,  but  it  provides  that  no  claim  of 
that  class  shall  be  included  in  a general  appro- 
priation bill.  A dozen  of  them  may  be  included 
in  one  bill  of  that  class,  but  they  shall  not  go 
into  a different  class  of  claims ; that  is  all.  As  it 
now  stands,  his  Morgan  raid  proposition  would 
have  to  be  included  in  one  bill  by  itself,  and  never 
can  be  included  in  any  oth^r  bill,  even  of  the 
same  kind.  That  is  the  difficulty  of  a class  by 
itself.  Well,  now,  if  he  wants  that,  and  thinks 
that  his  constituents  are  ready  for  it,  all  right; 
I have  no  objection  at  all.  What  I desired  was, 
that  other  claims  of  the  same  kind  might  or 
might  not  be  included  in  the  same  bill,  inas- 
much as  a separate  vote  was  to  be  taken  on 
them.  It  made  no  particle  of  difference  whether 
they  were  included  in  the  same  bill  or  different 
bills ; and  none  of  those  classes  of  claims  should 
go  into  a general  appropriation  bill.  It  cannot 
do  it  with  the  proposition  as  it  now  stands. 
That  is  not  all.  There  is  still  a further  propo- 
sition that  I desire  to  be  incorporated,  as  I have 
endeavored  to  state,  in  confining  it  to  those 
extra  claims  for  damages  which  are  not  provid- 
ed for  by  pre-existing  law,  and  the  original 
proposition  to  create  a necessity  for  the  expen- 
diture of  the  money,  incorporating  them  into 
the  general  appropriation  bill,  and  carrying 
them  through  with  the  general  appropria- 
tion bill,  that  ought  to  stand  upon  their 
own  merits,  as  they  would  before  they 
go  into  that  bill.  As  I have  endeavored 
to  illustrate — suppose  it  be  to  build  a bridge 
across  the  Ohio  river.  Now,  sir,  there  is  no 
propriety  in  incorporating  a provision  in  the 
general  appropriation  bill,  authorizing  the  con- 
struction of  a bridge  across  the  Ohio  river,  and 
appropriating  ten  millions  of  dollars  to  build  it; 
because  that  measure  ought  to  stand  upon  its 
own  merits,  and  yet,  under  this  clause,  as  we  are 
now  preparing  it,  a provision  for  an  original 
project  of  that  kind  should  be  included  in  the 
general  appropriation  bill.  A great  measure, 
by  being  attached  to  a general  appropriation 
bill,  and  all  that  appropriation  made  for  its  con- 
struction, where  there  is  no  pre-existing  law 
authorizing  it  at  all,  would  require  but  a naked 
majority  to  carry  it  through  in  an  Appropriation 
bill.  I want  to  keep  projects  of  that  kind  out 
of  the  general  appropriation  bill,  and  that  is 
the  object  of  my  bill  more  than  anything  else. 
It  is  not  to  disturb  the  gentleman  from  Meigs 
[Mr.  Russell] — the  provision,  as  it  already 
stands,  is  sufficient  for  that — but  it  is  to  cut  up 
by  the  roots  those  gambling  projects  that  are 
forced  through  the  General  Assembly,  by  incor- 
porating them  into  the  general  appropriation 
bill. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  moves  to  amend  the  original 
section  by  inserting  in  line  six,  after  the  word 
“ bill,”  the  words  read. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  like  to  hear  the 
amendment  read  again. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment. 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Hoadly,  Sample,  Russell  of  Meigs. 


1251 


Day.] 

February  11,1874.] 


The  Secretary  read : 

“Acd  no  provision  directing  the  payment  of  any  such 
compensation,  claim,  or  allowance,  or  authorizing  the  ex- 
penditure or  payment  of  money  for  any  purpose  not  pro- 
vided for  by  pre-existing  law,  shall.be  included  in  any 
bill  making  appropriation  for  a purpose  which  shall  have 
been  so  provided  for.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Read  the  clause  with  the 
amendment  added. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  24.  No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any 
officer,  public  agent,  employe,  or  contractor  after  the  ser- 
vice shall  have  been  rendered  or  the  contract  entered  into, 
nor  shall  any  money  be  appropriated  or  paid  on  any 
claim,  the  subject  matter  of  which  shall  not  have  been 
provided  for  by  pre-existing  law,  unless  such  compensa- 
tion or  claim  be  allowed  by  two-thirds  'of  the  members 
elected  to  each  branch  of  the  General  Assembly.  No 
such  allowance  shall  be  made  except  by  bill,  and  no  pro- 
vision directing  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation, 
claim,  or  allowance,  or  authorizing  the  expenditure  or 
payment  of  money  for  any  purpose  not  provided  for  by 
pre-existing  law,  shall  be  included  in  any  bill  making  ap- 
propriation for  a purpose  which  shall  have  been  so  provid- 
ed for;  and  no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or  different 
classes  of  compensation  or  claim,  and  every  appropria- 
tion for  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation  or  claim, 
included  in  any  act  making  several  appropriations,  shall 
be  void.” 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  To  my  mind  this  is  a very  im- 
portant provision,  and  certainly  cannot  be  ob- 
jectionable to  any  member  who  has  taken  into 
view  the  distinct  object  which  is  attempted  to 
be  accomplished  by  section  24.  Now,  it  will  be 
noticed  that  the  functions  of  these  sections  are 
entirely  different.  Section  23  was  intended  to 
make  a provision  for  claims  existing  against  the 
government,  and  the  only  object  to  be  accom- 
plished by  section  23  is  to  make  provision  for 
the  payment  of  claims,  the  obligation  to  pay 
which  is  recognized  by  the  Legislature ; whilst 
the  object  of  section  24  is  to  authorize  the  Leg- 
islature to  pass  laws  which  shall  have  the  dou- 
ble effect  of  creating  a liability  on  behalf  of  the 
State  which  did  not  previously  exist,  and  also 
appropriate  money  to  pay  that  liability.  There  is 
a distinction  made  as  to  the  number  of  votes  by 
which  these  respective  laws  shall  be  passed. 
Under  the  provision  of  section  23,  an  appropria- 
tion bill  may  be  passed  by  an  ordinary  majority. 
It  requires  no  greater  number  of  votes  than  are 
required  in  the  passage  of  any  other  law  under 
the  general  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 
And  as  an  act  passed  under  section  24  is  of  more 
importance,  answering  the  double  purpose  of 
creating  a liability  against  the  State,  and  draw- 
ing money  from  the  treasury  to  pay  that  liabil- 
ity, it  is  provided  that  it  shall  be  passed  by  a 
two- thirds  vote. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  Will  the  gentle- 
man allow  me  to  ask  a question  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  With  pleasure,  sir. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  What  impropriety 
would  there  be  in  the  Legislature  including 
both  classes  of  cases  ? And  as  they  have  to  vote 
on  them,  under  this  provision,  item  by  item,  if 
these  claims  should  not  receive  a two-thirds 
vote,  they  would  be  stricken  out  of  the  bill. 
What  would  prevent  the  Legislature  from  pass- 
ing a bill  ot  that  kind  ? One  class  of  claims 
would  receive  a majority  and  become  a law,  and 
the  other  class,  if  they  failed  to  receive  two- 
thirds,  would  not  become  a law. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Well,  I will  respond,  by  ask- 
ing the  gentleman  a question.  When  these 
separate  appropriations  cannot  be  made  by  the 


same  majority,  and  by  the  votes  of  the  same 
members,  why  should  they  be  included  in  the 
same  bill?  It  seems  to  me,  that  where  a differ- 
ent rule  is  adopted,  and  where  the  same  number 
of  votes  cannot  carry  one  object  which  is  suffi- 
cient to  pass  another  object,  it  is  better,  and 
every  principle  of  propriety  and  reason  re- 
quires, that  they  should  be  put  in  different  bills. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I will  answer  the 
gentleman,  if  he  will  allow  me.  I will  say  that 
it  is  a matter  that  could  be  done  very  readily. 
There  is  no  difference  in  the  claims,  except  that 
one  requires  a larger  majority  than  the  other. 

I believe  the  gentleman  was  an  advocate  of  the 
veto  power,  if  I recollect  rightly,  and  in  favor 
of  the  two-thirds  majority. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Certainly,  I was.  I despise 
your  majority  veto. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  Now,  in  the  veto 
power,  the  gentleman  proposes  to  give  the 
Governor  power  to  veto  any  item. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Certainly,  I do. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  Then,  if  he  wrould 
veto  an  item,  it  would  require  two-thirds  to 
carry  it;  while  if  he  did  not  veto  it,  a majority 
would  be  sufficient  to  carry  it  into  a law. 
Now,  what  would  be  the  difference  between 
that  and  this  class  of  claims  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I hardly  know  now,  there 
has  been  so  much  colloquy ; but  it  seems  to  me 
evidently  proper  that  these  classes  of  claims 
should  be  preserved  distinct  from  each  other ; 
that  they  should  not  be  included  in  the  same 
bill,  and  the  object  of  this  part  of  the  section  is 
to  provide  that  they  shall  not  be.  I do  not  un- 
derstand that  any  gentleman  here  is  in  favor  of 
striking  out  section  24,  and  allowing  that  these 
claims  shall  be  included  in  the  general  appro- 
priation bill,  but  shall  be  passed  in  the  way  the 
gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]  indicated. 
Then,  if  there  is  to  be  a separation  at  all,  if 
these  claims  are  to  be  in  a separate  class,  and,  I 
think  it  is  very  important  they  should  be — it  is 
very  important,  in  my  judgment,  that  they 
should  be  incorporated  in  that  section.  I think 
it  is  the  only  object  of  it.  It  does  not  affect  the 
claims  of  those  in  whose  interest;  the  gentleman 
seems  to  be  enlisted.  But,  so  far  as  that  is  con- 
cerned, if  these  Morgan  raid  claims  required  a pe- 
culiar provision  to  be  incorporated  in  the  Consti- 
tution, which  may  become  the  instrument  of  in- 
justice and  wrong  during  the  whole  existence  of 
this  Constitution,  I am  ready  to  see  voted  down 
the  $500,000  of  Morgan  raid  claims,  or  whatever 
they  may  be,  rather  than  put  in  a provision 
which  may  be  destructive  to  the  business  of  the 
State,  and  plunder  its  treasury  during  the  whole 
life  of  the  Constitution  in  which  it  is  incorpo- 
rated. But  this  provision  does  not  affect  them 
at  all.  It  would  not  be  expected  by  any  reason- 
able man  that  these  claims  should  be  included  in 
an  appropriation  bill  and  give  rise  to  the  dis- 
cussion and  controversy  in  the  passage  of  an 
ordinary  appropriation  bill  (about  which  there 
is,  ordinarily,  no  difficulty  at  all),  which  must 
arise,  and  must  be  encountered,  in  the  passage 
of  a bill  providing  for  the  payment  of  those 
claims.  It  is  a matter  that  ought  to  be  consid- 
ered by  itself,  and  ought  to  be  passed  upon  by 
the  Legislature  without  having  it  involved,  in 
any  way,  with  any  other  subject  which  might 


1252 


[111th 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


Tuttle,  Humphreville.  [Wednesday, 


affect  the  action  of  the  Legislature,  either  in  its 
favor  or  against  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
striking  out  the  last  clause  as  amended. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  submit  one  other 
matter,  about  which  there  appears  not  to  he  an 
entire  agreement  between  gentlemen  who  have 
advocated  the  amendment  and  myself.  And  it 
is  for  the  purpose  of  providing  that,  whenever 
an  allowance  on  claims  shall  be  made,  there 
shall  be  separate  action  upon  the  different  items 
of  allowance.  Suppose,  for  instance,  the  Mor- 
gan raiders  should  come  in  in  force.  It  would 
be  very  easy  to  say  and  to  prove,  doubtless,  that 
every  man  who  had  suffered  from  the  Morgan 
raid,  and  every  claim  made  by  him  for  such  in- 
jury, would  be  one  of  a class,  and  the  same  bill, 
under  this  provision,  might  make  appropriation 
for  every  one  of  these  claims.  And  I cannot 
say  that  I see  any  objection  to  that.  It  seems  to 
me,  without  undertaking  now  to  determine  any- 
thing about  whether  or  not  they  ought  to  be 
paid,  yet,  if  one  of  them  ought  to  be  paid,  all 
of  them  standing  in  like  condition  ought  to  be 
paid ; that  it  would  not  be  right  for  the  State  to 
say,  we  will  pay  one  claimant  suffering  from 
this  cause,  and  at  the  same  time  say,  we  will 
not  pay  another  claimant  suffering  from  the 
same  cause,  and  whose  claim  stands  upon  the 
same  ground  in  every  other  respect.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that  when  the  Legislature  should 
determine  to  pay  any  one,  it  ought  to  have  made 
up  its  mind  that  they  are  all  proper  subjects  for 
compensation.  At  all  events,  under  the  pro- 
vision, as  it  stands,  every  one  of  them  may  be 
comprehended,  I should  think,  in  one  bill. 
Now,  of  course,  in  that  state  of  the  case,  a great 
many  men  would  be  enlisted  in  favor  of  putting 
through  a bill  that  would  make  provision  for 
the  payment  of  each  claim,  and  each  claimant 
would  be  prepared  to  overlook  the  merits  of 
any  other  man’s  claim  ; provided,  that  by  it  he 
could  secure  support  to  a provision  for  the  pay- 
ment of  his  own  claim.  It  would  contain  all 
the  elements  of  what  has  been  styled  here  an 
omnibus  bill.  All  claimants  in  the  several 
counties  along  the  route  of  the  Morgan  raid, 
would  be  in  that  condition  that  they  would  be 
stimulated  to  club  together,  and  each  man  sup- 
port the  others’  claim  without  any  reference  to 
what  might  be  its  intrinsic  justice,  in  order  to 
obtain  payment  of  his  own.  Well,  now,  this 
Constitution  has  undertaken,  in  a measure,  to 
provide  against  that.  But,  how?  Simply  by 
providing  that  each  item  of  appropriation  shall 
be  voted  upon  separately,  and  that  each  item  of 
appropriation  which  does  not  receive  the  requi- 
site majority  of  all  the  votes  cast,  shall  be 
stricken  out.  But  nevertheless,  what  will  that 
amount  to  towards  correcting  the  action  of  the 
Legislature  relative  to  the  object  of  the  appro- 
priation ? The  appropriation  is  to  succeed  the 
action  by  which  the  claim  shall  have  been 
allowed,  and  when  the  State  shall  have  allowed 
claims  it  is  not  very  likely  that  the  Legislature 
are  going  to  refuse  their  payment.  There  is  in 
such  cases  a good  excuse,  if  not  a demand,  for 
each  member  to  vote  for  the  appropriation. 


The  State  has  been  pressed  for  payment,  it  has 
acknowledged  the  justice  of  the  claim,  and  has 
determined  that  it  shall  be  paid.  It  has  been 
admitted  to  be  a just  debt  against  the  State,  and 
now,  what  can  be  said  against  its  payment? 
What  stand  will  any  one  then  be  able  to  make 
against  it,  whatever  may  be  their  opinion  upon 
it  ? We  know  the  importance  of  placing  guards 
about  an  appropriation  bill  which  shall  provide 
for  the  payment  of  pre-established  debts.  But, 
if  we  are  going  to  effect  any  good  by  all  these 
provisions,  we  must  begin  back  a little.  The 
time  to  prevent  this  clubbing  together — to  re- 
move this  temptation  to  bargaining,  this  temp- 
tation to  log-rolling,  is,  when  the  claims  come 
before  the  Legislature  for  allowance,  to  require, 
then  and  there,  that  one  man  who  has  a claim 
that  is  unjust  shall  not  be  enabled  to  defeat  the 
claim  of  another  man,  whose  claim  is  just,  by 
voting  against  every  one,  until  all  shall  be 
allowed.  There  is  the  place,  it  seems  to  me, 
where  we  are  bound  to  make  a stand,  and, 
therefore,  Mr.  President,  I propose  that  the 
following  amendment  be  incorporated  in  this 
section.  I do  not  doubt  that  it  will  make  some 
work  for  the  Committee  on  Revision,  but  it  can 
easily  be  accomplished  there.  It  is  to  insert, 
after  the  word  “claim,”  in  the  seventh  line,  the 
words : 

“And  when  any  such  bill  shall  contain  different  items 
of  compensation  or  claim,  a separate  vote  sha’l  be  taken 
on  each  item,  which,  on  demand  of  any  member,  shall  be 
by  yeas  and  nays,  and  any  item  which,  on  such  vote, 
shall  not  receive  such  majority,  shall  be  stricken  from  eaiu 
bill.” 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Is  not  that  provided 
for  in  section  23  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  That  is  exactly  what  I have 
been  trying  to  present  to  the  Convention.  It  is 
not  at  all  provided  for  in  section  23,  which  re- 
lates to  the  appropriation  of  money  to  pay 
claims  which  have  been  allowed. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  No;  that  matter 
has  been  stricken  out.  That  provides  for  the  pay- 
ment of  claims,  the  subject  matter  of  which 
shall  have  been  provided  for  by  pre-existing 
law. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Exactly;  and  you  cannot 
appropriate  a dollar  of  money  under  the  section 
until  the  claim  has  been  allowed.  That  is  what 
I have  been  endeavoring  to  impress.  You  can- 
not appropriate  one  single  dollar  of  money  un- 
der section  23,  until  the  claim  has  been  allowed ; 
but  when  the  claim  has  been  allowed,  you  are 
perfectly  certain,  at  some  time  or  other,  to  ap- 
propriate money  to  pay  it.  You  need  not  talk 
about  making  a stand,  then;  about  being  very 
careful  to  require  a vote  to  be  taken  on  every 
item  of  appropriation ; about  requiring  it  to 
have  a majority  of  all  the  members.  I tell 
you  that  when  the.claim  has  been  allowed  by 
the  State,  and  is  ascertained  to  be  an  existing 
debt,  and  the  law  has  declared  that  it  shall  be 
paid,  you  are  as  certain  as  the  sun  rolls  round 
in  the  heavens,  to  make  an  appropriation.  In 
all  probability,  the  very  Legislature  that  es- 
tablishes the  claim,  will  make  an  appropriation 
to  pay  it.  Section  23  does  not  touch  the  subject 
of  making  an  allowance  of  claims  at  all.  It 
onljT  provides  for  action  that  is  to  be  had  after 
a claim  has  been  established  as  an  existing 
debt  against  the  State. 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Humphreville,  Tuttle,  Powell,  Neal. 


1253 


Day.] 

February  11,  1874.] 


Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  applies  to  all 
appropriation  bills. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Of  course,  it  does.  The  sug- 
gestion of  the  gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr. 
Humphreville]  is,  that  it  applies  to  all  appro- 
priation bills.  So  it  does.  But  I was  going  to 
say  that  an  appropriation  bill  is  to  pay  money 
after  a claim  has  been  allowed,  and  not  before. 
A bill  which  establishes  a claim  by  law  is  not 
an  appropriation  bill  in  any  sense  whatever,  if 
S understand  anything  about  legislation. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Unless  it  contains  both. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir;  unless  it  contains 
both.  But  it  need  not  contain  both.  The 
amendment  already  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is  founded  upon  the 
idea  that  one  law  might  establish  the  validity  of 
a claim,  and  another  law  appropriate  money  for 
its  payment,  and  that  you  ought  not  to  include 
both  in  the  same  law. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I put  a question  to  the 
gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  whether,  since 
we  have  adopted  the  amendment  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  his 
amendment  now  does  not  contain  tautology  ? 
whether  one  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  other  ? 
I agree  with  him,  that  there  should  be  a dis- 
tinction between  the  allowance  of  a claim  and 
the  appropriation  for  its  payment;  but  I fear 
that,  by  adopting  all  that  the  gentleman  pro- 
poses, there  would  be  tautology,  and  inconsist- 
ent language  between  the  two  amendments. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  I may  be  allowed  to  sug- 
gest in  answer  to  that,  it  is  very  likely  that  it 
may  be  so.  These  two  amendments  have  been 
drawn  under  somewhat  different  ideas,  as  I sug- 
gested at  the  start.  It  is  possible  that  they  do, 
to  some  extent,  cover  the  same  ground,  but  also 
different  grounds,  as  I think;  but  that,  1 think, 
is  a matter  that  can  be  entirely  remedied  by  the 
Committee  on  Revision.  And,  if  it  is  the  de- 
sire of  the  Convention,  if  there  is  anything  in 
this  that  ought  to  be  adopted,  it  can  be  done 
now,  or  else  be  referred  t$  the  Committee.  I 
wish  now  to  inquire,  as  the  gentleman  from 
Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]  suggests  to  me  that  the 
matter  of  this  clause  has  been  stricken  out, 
whether  it  is  so  understood  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  not  having 
heard  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman,  is  not 
able  to  answer. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Whether  any  part  of  the  con- 
cluding clause  of  section  24  has  been  stricken 
out? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  be 
kind  enough  to  send  up  his  amendment  so  that 
it  may  be  read  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  to 
the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle] 
that  no  part  except  the  words  in  italics  have 
been  stricken  out.  That  was  agreed  to  by  the 
Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  offers  the  following 
amendment  to  the  original  section  in  line 
seven. 

The  Secretary  read : 


“And  when  any  such  bill  shall  contain  different  items 
of  compensation  or  claim,  a separate  vote  shall  be  taken 
on  each  item,  which,  on  demand  of  any  member,  shall  bo 
by  yeas  ^nd  nays,  and  any  item  which,  on  such  vote, 
shall  not  receive  such  majority,  shall  be  stricken  from 
said  bill.” 

Mr.  NEAL.  It  seems  to  me  that  section  23, 
as  amended  this  morning,  provides  for  the  same 
thing  that  this  amendment  proposes  to  provide 
for.  I do  not,  therefore,  see  the  necessity  for 
it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  tell  the 
Convention  how  it  at  all  provides  for  anything 
about  the  allowanqe  of  a claim,  as  to  a separate 
vote  being  taken  on  the  different  items  of  it? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Section  23  provides  that,  on  all 
appropriation  bills  a separate  vote  shall  be  taken 
upon  each  item  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  if  any  one 
item  is  not  agreed  to  by  a majority  of  the  mem- 
bers present,  then  that  item  is  rejected  from  the 
appropriation  bill. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Is  any  bill  which  merely 
provides  that  certain  claims  shall  be  considered 
as  debts  against  the  State,  in  any  sense  an  ap- 
propriation bill?  For  instance,  suppose  a dozen 
men  make  application  to  the  Legislature  to  have 
claims  paid  for  damages  occasioned  by  Morgan 
and  his  men,  and  the  Legislature  should  declare 
that  they  ought  to  be  paid,  and  that  they  shall 
be  paid.  Would  that  be,  in  any  proper  sense,  an 
appropriation  bill? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I do  not  know  that  it  would  be, 
in  any  proper  sense,  an  appropriation  bill;  but 
I fail  to  see  the  force  and  effect  of  any  such  a 
declaration  upon  the  part  of  the  Legislature. 
It  becomes  a matter  of  necessity,  after  such  a 
declaration  be  made,  that  the  appropriation  be 
passed  to  pay  those  claims ; and  the  Legislature, 
under  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  them 
by  section  23,  as  already  agreed  to,  have  pre- 
cisely the  same  power  to  make  appropriation 
for  those  claims  that  they  would  have  after  a 
declaration  made  in  a separate  one  by  the  Legis- 
lature, that  these  claims  were  to  be  regarded  as 
debts  owing  by  the  State. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  another  word  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Is  not  the  pre-existing  law 
which  is  provided  for  in  the  beginning  of  this 
section  (24),  precisely  such  a law  as  I have  been 
speaking  of? — not  an  appropriation  bill,  but  a 
bill'by  which  the  claim  has  been  established  as 
a debt  against  the  State  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I do  not  so  understand  section 
24.  I understand  it  to  mean  this : that  no  ap- 
propriation can  be  made  for  any  claim  of  any 
contractor — or  any  service  rendered — the  claim 
for  which  was  not  created  or  service  was  not 
rendered  under  and  by  authority  of  provisions 
of  a pre-existing  law;  and  that  the  Legislature 
after  the  services  have  been  rendered  without 
law  or  in  violation  of  law,  cannot  come  in  and 
say  that  that  is  a debt,  and  that,  therefore,  it 
can  be  provided  for  under  this  provision,  that 
it  is  made  so  by  pre-existing  law. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  On  yesterday  I stated,  in  the 
hearing  of  the  Committee,  and  several  gentle- 
men, that  1 understood  it  the  other  way,  and 
that  such  a claim  as  that  might  be  allowed  by  a 


1254 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [111th 

Neal,  Tuttle,  Mueller,  Burns,  West.  [Wednesday* 


two-thirds  vote,  and,  certainly,  several  gentle- 
men assented  to  it.  If  that  is  not  the  meaning 
of  it,  this  section  is  certainly  very  liable ,to  mis- 
construction. 

Mr.  NEAL.  It  is,  undoubtedly,  the  meaning 
of  this  section,  that,  by  a two-thirds  vote  of 
both  Houses,  a claim  can  be  allowed  and  an 
appropriation  made  which  is  not  provided  for 
by  pre-existing  law. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Then  I ask  the  question, 
would  it  not  be  that  pre-existing  law  which  is 
here  provided  for,  and  would  it  be,  in  any  sense, 
an  appropriation  bill  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  It  would  be  just  such  an  appro- 
priation bill  without  a pre-existing  law,  if  it 
passed  by  a two-thirds  vote,  as  it  would  be  if  a 
claim  had  been  created  under  a pre-existing 
law.  But  the  effect  of  this  amendment  would 
be  this : It  will  define  what  the  words  “ pre- 
existing law  ” mean.  That  is  to  say,  that  any 
service  that  has  been  rendered,  or  claim  made, 
in  defiance  of  law,  or  without  law,  can,  by 
authority  of  this  amendment,  be  declared  a 
debt  against  the  State,  thereby  putting  it  within 
the  power  of  a majority  of  the  Legislature,  in 
the  first  instance,  to  declare  that  a claim  of  that 
character  is  a debt  against  the  State;  and  then, 
under  and  by  virtue  of  section  twenty-three, 
provide  for  an  appropriation  by  a bare  major- 
ity of  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature.  In  other 
words,  the  effect  will  be,  according  to  the  in- 
terpretation the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle]  puts  upon  it,  to  take  away  the  force 
and  effect  of  this  section,  which  requires  two- 
thirds  of  each  House  to  make  an  appropriation 
for  the  payment  of  a claim  not  created  under 
some  pre-existing  law. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me?  I desire  to  correct  the  gentleman.  My 
provision  is  drawn  with  express  reference  to 
the  majority  already  provided  for  in  the  sec- 
tion, and  it*  provides  that  it  shall  be  by  such 
majority. 

Mr.  NEAL.  There  is  one  of  two  things: 
Either  the  interpretation  I place  upon  it  is  cor- 
rect, and,  therefore,  a majority  will  have  a right 
to  make  an  appropriation,  after  they  have  de- 
clared the  claim  a debt  against  the  State,  or 
else  the  amendment  is  of  no  force  and  effect 
whatever.  Because,  under  this  section,  two- 
thirds  of  the  Legislature  have  a right  to  provide 
for  the  payment  of  any  claim,  whatsoever,  that 
they  may  consider  a just  and  equitable  debt 
against  the  State,  which  has  been  created  in 
defiance  of  law,  or  in  the  absence  of  any  law. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  like  to  hear  the 
section  read  as  amended  by  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 

The  Secretary  read : 

“No  extra  compensation  sliall  be  made  to  any  officer, 
public  agent,  employe,  or  contractor,  after  the  service 
shall  have  been  rendered,  or  the  contract  entered  into, 
nor  shall  any  money  be  paid  on  any  claim  the  subject 
matter  of  which  shall  not  have  been  provided  for  bv  pre- 
existing law,  unless  such  compensation  or  claim  shall  be 
allowed  by  two-thirds  of  the  members  elected  to  each 
branch  of  the  General  Assembly.  No  such  allowance 
shall  be  make  except  by  bill,  and  no  provision  directing 
the  payment  of  any  such  compensation,  claim  or  allow- 
ance, or  authorizing  the  expenditure  or  payment  of 
money  lor  any  purpose  not  provided  for  by  pre-existing 
law,  shall  be  included  in  any  bill  making  appropriation 


for  a purpose  which  shall  have  been  so  provided  for;  and 
no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or  distinct  classes  of 
compensation  or  claim,  and  every  appropriation  for  the 
payment  of  any  such  compensation  or  claim  included  in 
any  act  making  several  appropriations,  shall  be  void.” 

Mr.  NEAL.  Let  us  have  the  section  read  so 
as  to  see  how  it  will  read  if  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  is 
agreed  to. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“No  such  allowance  shall  be  made  except  by  bill,  and 
no  provision  directing  the  payment  of  any  such  compen- 
sation, claim  or  allowance,  or  authorizing  the  expendi- 
ture of  money  for  any  purpose,  not  provided  for  by  pre- 
existing law,  shall  be  included  in  any  bill  making 
appropriation  for  a purpose  which  shall  have  beeu  so 
provided  for;  and  no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or 
different  classes  of  compensation  or  claim,  and  when  any 
such  bill  shall  contain  different  items  of  compensation  or 
claim,  a separate  vote  shall  be  taken  on  each  item,  which, 
on  demand  of  any  member,  shall  be  by  yeas  and  nays; 
and  any  item  which,  on  said  vote,  shall  not  receive  such 
majority,  shall  be  stricken  from  said  bill;  and  every  ap- 
propriation for  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation 
or  claim  included  in  any  act  making  several  appropria- 
tions, shall  be  void.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  I understand  the  amend- 
ment proposed,  there  is  a contradiction  in  the 
language  between  that  and  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West].  The 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  provides  that  it  shall  not  contain  more 
than  one  subject.  The  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  provides 
that,  if  they  do  contain  more  than  one  claim* 
a separate  vote  shall  be  taken  upon  each. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  refer  me 
to  any  language  in  the  amendment  which  con- 
tains any  such  statement? 

Mr.  WEST.  The  last  clause  was  amended  by 
the  Committee. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Then  I desire  to  ask  whether 
claims  are  not  made  up  of  items,  and  whether 
a dozen  items,  if  they  are  all  of  one  class,  can- 
not, under  that  provision,  be  included  in  one 
bill? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I speak  from  the  information 
1 gained  from  hearing  the  amendment  read.  I 
may  not  have  heard  it  correctly,  but  it  strikes 
me  that  way. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Let  me  suggest,  as  I said  be- 
fore: Suppose  one  hundred  men  should  claim 
to  have  suffered  from  the  Morgan  raid,  and  ask 
provision  for  their  payment,  and  have  it  incor- 
porated, item  by  item,  in  one  bill.  Can  we  say 
that  they  would  not  all  belong  to  one  class,  as 
being  founded  upon  one  ground?  And  the 
claim  could  not  exist  as  to  one  and  not  exist  as 
to  all,  if  the  facts  sustained  them.  And  yet, 
would  not  there  be  one  hundred  items,  or  one 
hundred  individuals,  if  you  so  speak,  belonging 
to  one  class  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I cannot  answer  that  question, 
for  I do  not  know. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Objection  was  made. 

A vote  being  taken,  the  call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  was  not  sustained. 

On  the  question  of  agreeing  to  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle], 
a division  was  called  for,  upon  which  nine 
members  voted  affirmatively,  and  the  Presi- 
dent declared  the  amendment  not  agreed  to. 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  11,  1874.]  Powell,  Sample,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Hitchcock. 


1255 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
striking  cut. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I merely  wish  to  say  in  re- 
lation to  this  matter,  before  the  vote  is  taken  to 
strike  out,  that  there  is  certainly  a distinction 
which  has  not  been  sufficiently  considered,  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle]  ; that  there  is  a difference  between  a 
bill  making  an  allowance  for  a claim  and  an 
appropriation  for  the  payment  of  it.  And  I 
think  that  idea  was  entirely  overlooked  here, 
until  it  was  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  ; and  the  vote  of  the 
Convention,  I think,  is  not  very  consistent. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  is  a little  difficult  to  know 
exactly  what  this  section  means  after  the  man- 
ner in  which  it  has  been  amended;  and  what 
this  provision  is  which  is  sought  to  be  stricken 
out.  But  it  does  strike  me  that  the  object  and 
the  motive  which  prompted  the  gentleman  from 
Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]  to  make  the  motion  to 
strike  out  this  provision  at  first,  cannot  now 
prompt  him  to  desire  that  this  motion  should 
prevail,  since  the  section  has  been  amended. 
Now,  I agree  with  that  gentleman  that  it  would 
be  folly  in  this  Convention  to  provide  that,  in 
a class  of  cases  such  as  these  of  which  he  speaks, 
every  one  should  be  made  the  subject  of  a dif- 
ferent bill.  And  I think  it  would  be  just  as 
impolitic  and  just  as  unwise  to  say  that  each 
one  should  be  made  a separate  item  in  a com- 
mon bill,  because  the  Legislature  would  have 
to  resolve  itself  into  a jury  to  try  the  validity 
of  claims  which  might  be  presented,  and  all  of 
which  must  be  determined  upon  the  facts.  It 
would  occupy  a large  amount  of  the  time  of  the 
Legislature,  which  would  be  a body  peculiarly 
unfitted  for  making  such  investigations.  Now, 
my  idea  of  what  I believe  would  be  proper, 
without  having  any  knowledge  of  legislative 
proceedings,  but  what  I believe  would  be  a 
proper  course  of  proceeding,  in  the  class  of 
cases  under  the  provision  of  this  section,  as  it 
now  stands,  would  be  this : to  make  a general 
appropriation  for  the  payment  of  claims  of  that 
character  and  constitute  some  commission, 
some  body  of  men,  some  tribunal,  to  determine 
upon  the  merits  and  revise  each  individual 
claim  as  to  the  existence  of  the  right,  and  the 
amount  to  which  the  party  was  entitled,  if  any- 
thing. Now,  it  strikes  me,  that  is  certainly 
within  the  power  of  the  Legislature,  under  the 
provisions  of  this  section,  as  amended,  and  it 
ought  to  be  satisfactory,  I think,  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell],  and  those  who 
are  seeking  to  get  rid  of  it. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  Will  the  gentle- 
man allow  me’?  I did  not  bring  this  motion  up. 
It  was  done  by  the  opponents,  those  who  voted 
against  striking  out  the  other  day,  who  were 
not  satisfied  with  the  amendment  they  had 
already  made.  I have  not  brought  it  forward. 

I am  satisfied  with  the  amendment  that  was 
made  the  other  day. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I understand  the  question 
now  is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Meigs  [Mr.  Russell],  to  strike  out  this  provi- 
sion. Therefore,  as  there  is  no  reason  for  it, 
as  there  can  be  no  ground  for  it  now  why  this 
motion  should  prevail,  and  as  there  are  very 
strong  reasons  why  it  should  not — very  strong 
reasons,  indeed — because  every  person  knows 


the  danger  there  is  of  men  combining  together 
and  drawing  money  from  the  Treasury  of  the 
State,  unless  there  are  the  most  stringent  pro- 
visions by  which  such  combinations,  or  such 
effort,  shall  be  prevented,  placed  in  the  Consti- 
tution. These  go  no  farther  than  is  necessary, 
and  they  cannot  affect  claims  of  the  character 
and  class  of  which  the  gentleman  has  spoken. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  know  what  may 
be  the  sense  of  the  Convention  as  to  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]; 
but  in  the  event  that  that  motion  should  pre- 
vail, I will  move  to  insert  in  the  place  of  the 
matter  which  the  gentleman  moves  to  strike 
out,  what  I will  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  gives  notice  of  a mo- 
tion he  will  make  in  case  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]  prevails. 
It  will  then  be  in  order. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  is  as  follows : 

“No  provision  authorizing  or  directing  the  expen- 
diture or  payment  of  money  for  purposes  not  provided 
for  by  pre-existing  law,  shall  be  included  in  any  bill 
making  appropriation  for  purposes  so  provided  for,  nor 
shall  more  than  one  class  of  claims  be  included  in  the 
same  bill.” 

This  change  which  I have  read,  is  read  sim- 
ply for  notice  to  the  House,  that  if  the  motion 
should  be  agreed  to,  it  will  be  moved.  It  seems 
to  me,  Mr.  President,  that  while  probably  all 
that  we  seek  is  accomplished  as  the  section  now 
stands,  that  really  the  same  thing  would  be 
accomplished  by  the  words  which  I have  read, 
and  they  are  more  concise.  The  object  sug- 
gested is  more  concisely  expressed  in  these 
words.  And  yet  I do  not  urge  anything  with 
regard  to  the  motion  to  strike  out.  I do  not 
wish  to  urge  anything  with  regard  to  that  mo- 
tion. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  Committee  on  Revision  can 
condense  if  necessary. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr. 
Russell]  to  strike  out  all  that  part  of  section 
24  after  the  word  “Assembly”  in  line  six,  on 
which  the  gentleman  demands  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  13,  nays  59,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Dorsey,  Hitchcock,  Hunt, 
Johnson,  McCormick,  Mullen,  Neal,  Pond, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Waddle,  White  of 
Brown — 13. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Cha- 
pin, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  Cow- 
en,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Foran, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly, 
Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  Layton,  Mc- 
Bride, Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Muel- 
ler, Okey,  Phellis,  Powell,  Reilly,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Sample,  Scofield  Sears,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thomp- 
son, Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Van 
Valkenburgli,  Van  Yoorhis,  Voorhes,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, President — 59. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  other 


1256 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. flUth 

Baber,  Humphreyille,  Cunningham,  Hunt.  [Wednesday, 


amendments  to  this  Proposition,  Proposition 
No.  191  is  now  for  consideration. 

Mr.  BABER.  On  the  section  with  reference 
to  appropriation,  a motion  to  reconsider  was 
made.  Have  all  the  motions  to  reconsider  been 
disposed  of? 

The  PRESIDENT.  They  are  both  disposed 
of.  The  question  is  now  upon  Proposition  No. 
191.  The  Secretary  will  read. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Those  amendments 
are  all  through  with.  I move  the  bill  be  now 
engrossed  on  its  third  reading. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  now 
come  up  on  Proposition  No.  191,  which  is  to  be 
considered  in  connection. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Oh,  I beg  pardon. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Proposition  No.  191,  by  Mr.  Hunt,  from  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Legislative  Department: 

“Sec.  — . The  General  Assembly  shall  not  ratify  any 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  until 
a general  election  for  members  of  the  General  Assembly 
shall  have  been  held,  after  such  amendment  shall  have 
been  proposed  by  Congress  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  re- 
spective States.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move  the  Conven- 
tion do  now  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  agreeing  to  Proposition  No.  191. 

Mr.  HUNT.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  occupy 
the  time  of  the  Convention  to  any  great  extent 
in  the  discussion  of  the  principle  involved  in 
section  thirty  of  the  Supplementary  Report  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department, 
The  Report  of  the  Committee  is  as  follows : 

“We,  the  undersigned,  representing  a majority  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department,  submit  the 
following  Supplementary  Report  in  relation  to  incorpo- 
rating in  the  Constitution  a section  providing  for  the  ra- 
tification by  the  General  Assembly  of  amendments  to  the 
Federal  Constitution.  Believing  that  good  government 
rests  upon  the  consent  .of  the  governed,  and  that  there 
should  be  no  change  in  the  organic  lawof  the  land,  with- 
out full  consideration  by  the  people  of  all  the  States, 
through  the  ballot-box;  and.  believing,  further,  that 
such  a provision  does  not  conflict  with  either  the  spirit 
or  the  letter  ot  the  Federal  Constitution,  we  recommend 
the  adoption  of  the  following  section  as  a part  of  the 
State  C .institution : 

“Sec.  — . The  General  Assembly  shall  not  ratify  any 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  until 
a general  election  lor  members  of  the  General  Assembly 
shall  have  been  held,  after  such  amendment  shall  have 
been  proposed  by  Congress  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  re- 
spective States.” 

The  Fifth  Article  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
provides,  in  reference  to  the  ratification  of 
amendments,  that,  “the  Congress,  whenever 
two-thirds  of  both  Houses  shall  deem  it  neces- 
sary, shall  propose  amendments  to  this  Consti- 
tution, or,  on  the  application  of  the  Legislatures 
of  two-thirds  of  the  several  States,  shall  call  a 
Convention  for  proposing  amendments,  which, 
in  either  case,  shall  be  valid  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  as  a part  of  this  Constitution,  when 
ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  several  States, 
or  by  Conventions  in  three-fourths  thereof, 
as  the  one  or  the  other  mode  of  ratification  may 
be  proposed  by  the  Congress.” 

The  members  of  the  Convention  will  observe 
that  two  forms  are  here  provided  for  the  ratifi- 
cation of  amendments  to  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. One  is  by  submitting  the  amendment  to 
the  Legislatures  of  the  respective  States;  the 
other  is  by  Conventions  called  in  the  several 
States,  to  which  the  delegates  can  be  directly  , 


elected  by  the  people.  It  was  evidently  the  in" 
tention  of  the  framers  of  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  to  secure  an  expression  of  the  people  of  the 
several  States  in  reference  to  any  amendment  to 
the  organic  law  of  the  land.  It  is  the  intention 
of  this  measure  to  first  have  the  consent  of  the 
people  of  the  several  States  before  any  further 
alteration  or  change  is  made  in  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution. It  is  designed  to  prevent  the  Legis- 
lature from  disregarding  the  will  of  the  people. 
The  most  important  question  the  citizen  is 
called  upon  to  consider  is  the  expediency  of  a 
change  in  the  fundamental  law.  It  involves  the 
political  well-being  of  the  whole  country.  It 
may  affect  the  happiness  and  welfare  of  a great 
people.  Whatever  construction  may  be  given 
to  the  Fifth  Article  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  ultimate  validity  of 
all  law  should  depend  upon  the  consent  of  the 
people. 

When  an  amendment  is  submitted  by  Con- 
gress to  the  Legislature  of  Ohio,  the  people 
should  have  an  opportunity  of  electing  their 
Representatives  with  reference  to  the  nature  of 
the  amendment  itself.  In  no  other  way  can 
there  be  an  expression  of  the  people  at  the  bal- 
lot box  in  regard  to  the  expediency  of  the  meas- 
ure. The  Legislature  may  at  once  disregard  the 
public  sentiment  of  the  entire  State.  The  gov- 
ernments of  Europe  rested  their  foundations 
upon  the  authority  of  kings  to  govern  by  divine 
right,  and  claimed  by  force  the  submission  of 
the  people  to  the  dictation  of  the  sovereign. 
The  fathers  claimed  that  all  power  is  vested  in 
the  people : that  all  governments  derive  their 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed, 
and  that  the  people  have  the  right  to  alter  the 
existing  form,  and  to  institute  another  upon 
such  principles  as  will  most  effectually  secure 
their  safety  and  their  happiness.  This  is  the 
Republican  idea,  and  the  very  spirit  of  the 
Federal  Constitution.  This,  too,  is  the  princi- 
ple of  the  Report.  It  seeks  to  accomplish,  in 
the  ratification  of  amendments  to  the  Federal 
Constitution,  what  is  now  guaranteed  by  the  pro- 
vision of  our  State  Constitution  in  reference  to 
amendments  to  that  instrument.  The  Thir- 
teenth Article  of  the  Constitution  of  Ohio  pro- 
vides that  “ either  branch  of  the  General  As- 
semble may  propose  amendments  to  this  Consti- 
tution ; and,  if  the  same  shall  be  agreed  to  by 
three-fifths  of  the  members  elected  to  each 
House,  such  proposed  amendments  shall  be  en- 
tered on  the  Journal,  -with  the  yeas  and  nays, 
and  shall  be  published  in  at  least  one  newspaper 
in  each  county  of  the  State  where  a newspaper 
is  published,  for  six  months  preceding  the  next 
election  for  Senators  and  Representatives,  at 
which  time  the  same  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
electors  for  their  approval  or  rejection,  and, 
if-a  majority  of  the  electors  voting  at  such  elec- 
tion shall  adopt  such  amendment,  the  same  shall 
become  a partof  the  Constitution.”  No  amend- 
ment can  take  effect  until  after  a direct  submis- 
sion to  the  people,  and  there  must  be  the  appro- 
val of  a majority  of  the  electors. 

The  basis  of  the  political  code  of  the  nation 
is,  that  the  people  are  the  source  of  all  power, 
and  that  the  Federal  Government  is  simply  the 
delegation  of  power.  Cardinal  Bellarmine  well 
says:  “ The  supreme  power  is  given  by  God  to 
the  men  who  compose  a State,  or  a regularly 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Hunt,  Cunningham,  Hoadly. 


1257 


Day.] 

February  11,  1874.] 


constituted  political  community.  There  in  no 
such  thing  as  an  organization  of  government, 
holding  power  by  any  positive  institution,  or 
any  giving  over  of  rights  distinct  from  the 
natural  constitution  of  the  people,  but  only  as 
the  natural  consequence  of  the  principles  upon 
which  the  government  has  been  framed.  There- 
fore, the  sovereign  power  can  never  be  given 
over  to  one  person  nor  to  any  set  forever,  but 
abides  in  the  whole  constituted  body  of  the  ! 
people.”  Every  nation  is  based  on  an  idea. 
With  England,  it  is  her  representative  system  of  ( 
government.  With  America,  it  is  the  right  in- 
herent in  the  people  to  rule.  A government 
that  has  its  citadel  in  the  heart,  and  rules  by 
moral  force,  is  the  strongest  of  all  governments. 
It  then  becomes  the  interest  as  well  as  the  duty 
of  all  to  maintain  it.  A government,  to  be  per-  | 
manent,  must  not  be  divorced  from  the  people.  ! 
Legislation,  to  be  operative,  must  conform  to  the 
living  sentiment  of  the  governed.  There  must 
be  a direct  sympathy  between  the  subject  and 
the  sovereign — between  the  ruler  and  the  ruled. 
It  was  the  inherent  right  of  the  people  to  deter- 
mine their  system  of  government  for  them- 
selves which  awakened  the  fearless  eloquence 
of  Chatham,  and  Fox,  and  Burke,  and  Barre. 
It  was  this  which  brought  to  us  in  our  early  ; 
struggle  for  independence,  the  sympathies  of 
the  cultivated  scholarship  and  liberal  philo- 
sophy of  the  age.  It  is  the  will  of  the  people, 
not  territorial  domain ; the  right  of  self-govern- 
ment, not  the  assumed  right  to  govern  others ; 
a Constitution  which  secures  the  greatest  liberty 
consistent  with  the  greatest  good — the  right  of 
conscience,  the  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the 
press — the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  and  the  pro- 
tection of  property,  which  constitutes  a great 
nation.  Territorial  boundaries  and  geograph- 
ical limits  are  the  subject  of  conventional  agree- 
ment, subject  alike  to  the  conditions  of  policy 
and  convenience,  but  the  enjoyment  of  liberty 
and  Constitutional  freedom  are  held  as  a sacred 
trust  to  be  transmitted  to  the  future.  The 
government  is  simply  the  will  of  the  people  as 
expressed  through  a written  Constitution.  The 
proposition  submitted  by  the  Committee  is  de- 
signed to  secure  to  the  people  of  the  State  such 
an  expression  of  popular  will.  It  is,  therefore, 
not  a violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution. It  is  rather  a recognition  of  the  great 
principle  that  the  people  are  the  source  of  all 
political  power. 

The  Fifth  Article  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
only  provides  for  a submission  of  amendments 
to  the  Legislatures  of  the  respective  States. 
The  manner  of  ratification  is  vested  in  the 
State.  There  is  no  limitation,  either  by  expres- 
sion or  implication,  in  the  Federal  Constitution 
upon  the  power  of  the  General  Assembly.  It 
simply  says,  “when  ratified  by  the  Legislatures 
of  three-fourths  of  the  several  States”  it  shall 
become  apart  of  the  fundamental  law. 

^ The  General  Assembly  is  the  creature  of  the 
State  Constitution,  and  subject  to  it.  All  leg- 
islative acts  must  be  in  accordance  with  its 
provisions.  It  organizes  the  Legislature,  and 
provides  for  the  enactment  of  all  laws.  The 
General  Assembly  is  such  only  by  virtue  of  the 
State  Constitution,  and  must  act  in  obedience 
to  the  laws  of  its  own  creation.  It  is  not  con- 
tended that  the  State  can  add  to  or  diminish 


from  the  requirements  prescribed  in  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution ; but  it  is  insisted  that  such 
condition  may  be  imposed  as  will  not  contra- 
vene that  instrument.  It  is  evident,  from  the 
language  of  the  Fifth  Article,  that  nothing 
more  was  contemplated  than  a mere  submission 
to  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States.  No 
power  was  delegated  to  Congress.  It  remains 
alone  for  the  State  to  act;  and  if  the  State  is 
supreme  in  all  powers  not  prohibited,  either 
expressly  or  by  fair  implication  by  the  terms  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  it  follows  that  such  an 
amendment  as  proposed  is  not  an  interference, 
but  the  just  exercise  of  an  inherent  power.  It 
does  not,  in  any  way,  affect  the  discretion  of 
the  Legislature,  but  simply  prescribes  a time 
for  the  exercise  of  a discretionary  power.  It 
must  be  admitted  that  Congress  is  silent  on  the 
subject*  and  that  all  authority  not  delegated  to 
that  body  must  remain  in  the  State.  What, 
then,  can  prevent  the  Constitution  of  the  State — 
the  superior  power  to  the  Legislature — from 
prescribing  the  manner  of  ratifying  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Federal  Constitution,  after  sub- 
mission to  the  State? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I entirely  sympathize 
with  the  proposition;  but  what  obligation 
would  there  be,  on  the  part  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  to  go  back  of  the  action  of  the  Legisla- 
lature,  and  ascertain  whether  the  amendment 
was  ratified  in  accordance  with  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State?  When  it  shall  have  been 
ratified  by  the  Legislature,  query:  would  there 
be  any  right,  on  the  part  of  an  officer  of  the 
Federal  Government,  to  go  back  and  inquire 
whether,  in  the  mode  of  performing  that  duty, 
they  had  followed  the  dictates  of  the  Consti- 
tution ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I will  answer  the  gentleman 
from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  by  saying  that, 
when  an  amendment,  in  my  judgment,  is  sub- 
mitted to  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  and  the 
amendment  is  ratified,  even  with  this  provision 
in  the  State  Constitution,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
the  Secretary  of  State  would  inquire  beyond 
the  mere  formal  act  of  ratification.  This  would 
be  a proper  question  for  the  supreme  court  to 
determine.  The  gentleman  must  remember 
that  if  this  provision  becomes  a part  of  the  State 
Constitution,  the  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly will  have  taken  a solemn  oath  not  to 
ratify  any  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion until  after  such  submission  and  election  for 
members  to  the  Legislature  shall  have  inter- 
vened. This  oath  would  be  binding  on  the 
conscience  of  every  legislator,  and,  doubtless, 
would  be  respected. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  to  ask  my  colleague 
two  questions.  The  first  is,  whether  it  is  not 
the  uniform  habit,  both  of  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives,  when  a question  of 
the  qualification  for  members  of  Congress  is 
before  them,  to  disregard  disqualifications  con- 
tained in  State  Constitutions?  Whether  it  lia3 
not  been  repeatedly  decided,  at  Washington, 
that  a Slate  cannot  add  to  the  qualifications  re- 
quired by  the  Federal  Constitution  for  election 
to  office  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  It  has  been  so  decided. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  In  the  next  place,  I desire 
to  submit  to  my  friend  this  consideration : 
whether  the  philosophy  of  his  amendment  does 


1258 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  [llith 


Hunt,  West,  Burns,  Mueller,  Cunningham.  [Wednesday, 


not  require  us  to  provide,  especially  as  we  are 
going  to  have  biennial  elections,  that  the  Leg- 
islature shall  have  no  new  matter  under  consid- 
eration until  after  the  election  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I see  the  force  of  the  gentle-  j 
man’s  argument.  But  this  proposed  Article  of 
the  Constitution  takes  nothing  from  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  but  just  simply  allows  the  inter- 
vention of  time  for  the  consideration  of  the 
people  of  the  State.  When  it  is  submitted  by 
Congress  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  it  is 
then  referred  to  the  people  of  the  State,  and 
they  ratify  by  the  mode  prescribed  in  the  Con- 
stitution. It  is  true  that  a State  cannot  add  to 
the  qualifications  required  by  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution for  election  to  office.  This  simply  in- 
dicates a time,  without,  in  any  way  interfering 
with  the  exercise  of  a discretion. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  ask  one  question  : If  it 
be  in  the  power  of  the  State  to  postpone  it  for 
one  General  Assembly,  might  it  not  be  within 
its  power  to  postpone  until  the  tenth  or  twen- 
tieth ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  It  is  within  the  power  of  the 
Legislature  to  postpone  the  ratification,  and  that 
would  be  equivalent  to  a rejection  of  the  mea- 
sure. The  phraseology  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion is  “ when  ratified  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State,”  and  if  it  is  continued  indefinitely,  it  is 
no  ratification  at  all. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question,  although  I am  on  his  side  of ! 
the  question,  but  it  would  apply  to  the  question  [ 
asked  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West].  | 
Suppose  the  General  Assembly  in  being  at  the  | 
time  the  amendment  is  submitted,  should  de- ' 
cline  to  act  upon  it  at  all,  whether  the  next 
succeeding  Legislature  could  not  adopt  it. 

Mr.  HUNT.  That  question  has  already  been 
determined,  although  not  judicially  determined. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Suppose  the  Legislature  should 
refuse  to  ratify.  Could  the  next  succeeding 
Legislature  ratify  it  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I can  only  say  in  reply  to  the  j 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  that  the 
question  has  already  been  settled  with  regard 
to  the  ratification  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment 
by  the  new  State  Legislature. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Very  well,  then.  The  gentle- 
man says  if  the  Legislature  can  postpone  it  one  j 
session,  they  can  postpone  it  indefinitely. 

Mr.  WEST.  I said  if  they  could  prohibit  it j 
from  being  ratified  by  one  Legislature,  they  J 
could  prohibit  it  forever. 

Mr.  HUNT.  This  is  not  a prohibitory  clause 
at  all.  It  simply  delays  or  prevents  action  at ; 
that  time.  It  is  merely  directory.  The  Legis-  : 
lative  Article  which  now  becomes  a part  of  the 
Constitution  is  merely  directory  in  its  provi- 
sions. And  that  is  what  is  proposed  by  this 
amendment.  It  is  not  a question  as  to  how  long 
this  power  should  continue,  or  whether  there  is 
a continuing  power  in  Article  V of  the  Federal 
Constitution.  The  phraseology  is  that  when 
ratified  by  the  Legislatures  of  three-fourths  of 
the  States,  it  shall  become  a part  of  the  Consti- 
tution. If  it  is  continued  from  time  to  time  by 
the  General  Assembly,  it  is  not  a ratification. 
Delay,  without  action,  would  be  equivalent  to 
rejection.  That  is  a sufficient  answer  to  the 
position  assumed  by  the  delegate  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West].  It  provides  what  form  shall  be 


adopted.  First,  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  delegates  the  power  to  the  Legislature, 
then  the  Constitution  of  our  State  delegates  to 
the  people  through  the  Legislature.  It  is  all 
j directory  and  nothing  else.  The  Legislature 
itself  must  ratify. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Would  not  the  purpose  be 
accomplished  without  this  provision?  It  is 
claimed  the  people  are  the  source  of  all  power. 
If  this  goes  to  the  Legislature,  as  to  ratifying, 
why  not  leave  it  to  the  people  themselves  of  the 
separate  districts  to  instruct  their  agents  and 
vote  themselves.  If  you  have  no  confidence  in 
the  agents  of  the  people,  I do  not  see  why  you 
should  have  more  confidence  if  you  elect  them, 
and  afterwards  they  do  not  come  up  to  the  re- 
quirements. I say,  therefore,  this  whole  thing 
can  be  left  with  the  people. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Does  the  gentleman  mean  di- 
rectly from  Congress  to  the  people  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  No.  As  in  the  case  of  the 
amendment,  let  Hamilton  county  say  to  her 
Representatives  and  Senators,  we  want  you  to 
vote  so  and  so  in  regard  to  this  amendment. 
Would  not  that  accomplish  all  you  can  by  this 
section  ? I think  this  ought  not  to  be  enacted. 
All  of  it  could  be  accomplished  without  it. 

Mr.  HUNT.  If  I comprehend  the  position  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller], 
I think  it  is  totally  impracticable.  This  simply 
provides  that  the  Legislature  shall  act  upon 
what  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  pro- 
vides. This  provides  that  an  election  of  the 
members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  inter- 
vene after  the  amendment  is  submitted. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  HUNT.  In  order  that  there  may  be  an 
expression  of  the  people  of  the  State  as  to  the 
necessity  of  the  proposed  measure. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Suppose  a question  comes 
up  after  the  election,  could  not  the  people  say 
they  think  so  and  so  upon  this  question  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  That  would  be  simply  going  in- 
to detail  for  what  can  as  well  be  done  in  the 
aggregate.  A direct  reference  to  the  people  is 
preferable. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Although  the  gentle- 
man concedes  what,  I have  no  doubt,  is  true,  that 
as  far  as  the  Federal  Government  is  concerned 
there  would  be  no  obligation  at  all  to  look  back 
to  the  acts  of  any  Legislature ; yet  this  provi- 
sion would  certainly  have  its  effect  and  influ- 
ence upon  conscientious  members  of  the  Leg- 
islature, and  ought  to  be  adopted.  I have  no 
disposition  to  fight  the  battle  over  again.  It  is 
past.  But  as  it  is  a very  notable  instance  in 
the  history  of  this  country,  illustrating  after  all 
that  our  Congresses  and  Legislatures  ignore, 
not  only  the  pledge  of  their  parties,  but  the  ac- 
tion of  the  people.  Take  the  case  of  the  Fif- 
teenth Amendment.  I assert  it  here,  now,  that 
the  amendment  was  proposed  in  Congress  in 
violation  of  the  pledged  faith  of  the  party  that 
proposed  it,  made  at  the  opening  of  the  cam- 
paign that  preceded  the  amendment,  and  was 
adopted  by  Legislatures  that  had  been  elected 
in  States  where  the  people,  when  they  were 
voting  upon  the  matter,  by  overwhelming  ma- 
jorities pronounced  against  it.  It  is  a fact,  that 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Cunningham,  Griswold,  Hoadly. 


1259 


Day.] 

February  11, 1874.] 


the  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  adopted  directly 
in  the  teeth  of  what  the  people  had  expressed 
as  their  will.  Take,  for  example,  the  Legisla- 
ture of  Michigan.  At  the  same  election  at 
which  the  Legislature  of  Michigan  was  chosen, 
which  afterwards  gave  their  ratification  to  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment — at  that  same  election 
the  people,  by  40,000  majority,  voted  against 
negro  suffrage’  in  the  State  of  Michigan.  So  it 
was  in  other  States.  Now’,  the  idea  of  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
amounts  to  this : It  is  directory  upon  the  Leg- 
islature ; it  is  an  instruction  to  the  Legislature 
that,  upon  great  questions  that  always  must  be 
and  are  involved  in  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution, the  people  ought  to  he  consulted ; and 
when  the  Legislature  acts,  it  ought  to  act  in 
accordance  with  what  the  people  express  as 
their  desires,  and  not  in  contravention  of  them. 
For  this  reason — not  that  I believe  it  will  he 
binding  on  the  Federal  Government,  but  for 
the  purpose  of  controlling  and  directing  the 
Legislature  in  those  great  matters — I favor  that 
an  election  may  be  allowed,  and  time  given  to 
properly  consider  the  subject  before  final  action 
is  tcik6n. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt]. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded, taken,  and  resulted — yeas  39,  nays  36, 
as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose, 
Burns,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Cun- 
ningham, Doan,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hill,  Hos- 
tetter,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Layton,  McBride, 
Miller,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Okey,  Powell, 
Reilly,  Rowland,  Sample,  Scofield,  Sears,  Smith 
of  Highland, Smith  of  Shelby, Townsley,Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Yoorhes,  White  of 
Brown,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign— 39. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Bosworth,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,De  Steiguer, 
Dorsey,  Gardner,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  McCormick,  Merrill, 
Miner,  Mueller,  Neal,  Phellis,  Pond,  Root, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shultz,  Thompson, 
Townsend,  Tuttle,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle, 
Watson,  West,  Woodbury,  President — 36. 

So  the  proposition  wras  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  the  Convention  now 
take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  (at  12:35p. 
m.)  the  Convention  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I rise  to  a privileged  ques- 
tion. Before  the  recess  a vote  was  had,  adopt- 
ing, as  an  amendment  to  the  Legislative  Article, 
a proposition  called  up  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  ; and,  upon  the  suggestion 
made,  that  this  proposition,  as  adopted,  is  in 
contravention  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  matter  re- 
considered, I move  a reconsideration  of  the  vote 
by  which  that  section  was  adopted. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I demand  a call  of  the 
House. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  the  gentleman  will 
give  way,  I shall  make  a speech,  and  the  mem- 
bers will  all  be  in  by  the  time  I get  through.  I 
had  not  yielded  the  floor. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I rise  to  a point  of 
order.  The  question  was  put  to  the  House. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  states 
that  he  had  not  yielded  the  floor,  although  the- 
Chair  was  stating  the  question. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I made  the  motion,  and  I 
propose  to  say  a word  upon  the  considera- 
tion that  has  led  me  to  make  the  motion.  As  I 
said,  it  has  been  suggested  that  a constitutional 
difficulty  arises  in  this  matter.  The  effect  of 
the  proposition,  as  I understand  it,  is  this : that 
the  Legislature  which  may  be  in  session,  is  pro- 
hibited from  acting  upon  any  proposition  which 
may  be  in  future  submitted  by  Congress.  And 
while,  if  there  were  no  such  difficulty  existing,. 
I would  be,  myself,  on  general  policy,  in  favor 
of  postponing  any  consideration  until  the  mat- 
ter could  be  discussed  by  the  people  at  large,, 
by  electing  a Legislature  to  act  upon  them,  be- 
lieving that  general  policy,  if  it  could  be  adopt- 
ed, would  be  a wise  one.  Under  that  consider- 
ation, I voted  t or  the  measure.  But  there 
arises  this  difficulty,  which  has  been  suggested : 
that  Congress,  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  is  authorized  to  submit  these  amend- 
ments to  the  Legislatures  of  the  States,  and  the 
action  of  the  Legislatures  upon  them,  when 
three-fourths  unite,  make  it  a j>art  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  The  effect  of 
this  proposition  is,  that  the  Legislature  in  ses- 
sion shall  not  act,  but  the  question  must  be 
postponed  until  a future  Legislature  is  elected 
by  the  people.  If  we  can  put  a limit  upon  the 
power  of  the  State  in  this  matter,  by  saying 
that  one  Legislature  shall  not  act,  can  we  not 
also  limit  a second  Legislature,  or  a third,  or 
a fourth,  and  so  on,  and  say  that  a hundredth 
Legislature  shall  be  elected  before  that  can  be 
submitted ; and,  in  fact,  practically  nullify  this 
provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  by  saying  that  the  Legislature  of  the 
State,  to  which  it  is  to  be  submitted,  must  not 
act  upon  it  ? As  this  question  has  become  wor- 
thy of  discussion,  it  seems  to  me  that  point  is 
well  taken.  If  we  can  limit  the  power  of  the 
Legislature  for  one  year,  we  may  limit  it  for 
five  years,  or  ten  years,  or  a hundred  years ; so 
that  we  may,  by  constitutional  enactment,  pro- 
vide that  the  State  of  Ohio  shall  not  accept  a 
constitutional  amendment  to  be  offered  by  Con- 
gress. In  this  view  of  it,  and  for  this  purpose 
alone,  as  actuated  by  the  force  of  this  argu- 
ment, I have  made  this  motion  to  reconsider. 

I see  nothing  in  this,  as  has  been  suggested 
by  some  gentleman,  that  it  reflects  upon  any 
past  Legislature.  If  I could  conceive  it  to  have 
that  effect  at  all,  I would  oppose  it.  We  are 
here  framing  a Constitution  for  the  future 
State,  and  not  for  the  past ; and  as  this  question 
has  arisen,  and  as  it  seems  to  me  that  it  has 
force  and  effect,  and  that  it  does  supplement 
what  Congress  has  full  power  over — inasmuch 
as,  if  any  such  legislation  is  to  be  enacted  upon 
that  subject,  it  falls  to  them — it  seems  to  me 


1260 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [llltli 

Hoadly,  Gardner,  Voris,  Baber,  Cunningham.  [Wednesday, 


that  this  question  deserves  more  full  considera- 
tion than  was  given  to  it  before  the  recess. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I ask  for  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll,  and  seventy- 
six  members  answered  to  their  names,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Clark 
of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook, 
Cowen,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dor- 
sey, Foran,  Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Layton,  Mc- 
Bride, McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Phel- 
lis,  Pond,  Powell.  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Root, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sam- 
ple, Scofield,  Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend, 
Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Yalken- 
burgh,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle, 
Watson,  West,  White  of  Brown,  White  of 
Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
President — 76. 

Those  not  present  were — 

Messrs.  Alexander,  Barnet,  Beer,  Bishop, 
Caldwell,  Campbell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Ewing, 
Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Gurley,  Horton,  Hunt, 
Jackson,  Kreamer,  O’Connor,  Page,  Pease, 
Philips,  Rowland,  Scribner,  Shaw,  Tripp, 
Weaver,  Wells,  Wilson,  Young  of  Noble — 28. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I move  that  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  does  appear  to  me,  that 
some  indication  should  be  made  to  certain  gen- 
tlemen on  this  floor,  that  their  presence  is 
needed  here,  and  that  if  we  continually  dis- 
pense with  the  call  of  the  House,  when  the  Roll 
is  called,  we  shall  not  bring  any  moral  force  to 
bear  upon  that  class  of  gentlemen.  I think  that 
by  sending  out  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  and  bring- 
ingthem  in,  would  have  a greater  effect. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  that  all  further  proceedings  be  dispensed 
with. 

Mr.  BABER.  I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted — 
yeas  42,  nays  32,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon, 
Bosworth,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cowen, 
De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Gardner,  Griswold, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostet- 
ter, Humphreville,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Miner,  Neal,  Phellis,  Pond,  Pratt,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley, Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Waddle,  Watson, 
West,  Woodbury,  President — 42. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Clay,  Cook,  Cunningham,  Foran,  Greene, 
Johnson,  Kerr,  Layton,  McBride,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Powell,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Sam- 
ple, Scofield,  Sears,  Thompson,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Yan  Valkenburgh,  Yoris,  White  of 
Brown,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign— 32. 

So  all  further  proceedings  under  the  call 
were  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  There  has  been  a very 
grave  Constitutional  question  raised  by  my 


friend  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  upon 
which  alone  he  justifies  the  motion  which  he 
has  made  for  a reconsideration  of  the  vote  that 
was  taken  before  the  recess.  There  may  be  a 
doubt;  we  are  bound  to  believe  that  a great 
doubt  has  arisen  in  the  mind  of  the  distinguish- 
ed gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
during  his  dinner  hour — a doubt  about  the  pro- 
priety of  his  vote.  If  I understand  the  point 
that  was  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Griswold],  it  is  that  it  is  in  contravention 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  is  said 
we  are  endeavoring  to  modify  that  provision  of 
the  Constitution  that  provides  that  amendments 
shall  receive  the  indorsement  of  the  Legislature, 
and  that  we  have  no  right  here  to  say  how,  and 
in  what  manner,  and  in  what  time,  a proposed 
amendment  shall  be  acted  upon  by  the  Legis- 
lature; and  he  illustrates  the  idea  by  saying 
that,  if  we  may  prohibit  them  from  acting  one 
year,  we  may  prohibit  them  from  acting  at  all. 
Now,  it  is  not  claimed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  who  was  the  author  of 
this  proposition,  that  in  any  way  it  is  expected 
to  effect  the  action  of  the  Federal  Government. 
On  the  contrary,  he  concedes  that  the  Secretary 
of  State,  when  he  comes  to  make  up  the  list  of 
the  Legislatures,  which  have  indorsed  a prop- 
osition for  amendment,  will  not  go  back  of  the 
certificate.  This  provision  is  alone  intended  to 
control  our  own  Legislature. 

It  always  has  been  understood  thatthe  Legis- 
lature is  not  bound  to  act  the  first  time  it  shall 
meet  in  session  after  the  amendment  is  proposed. 
It  may  act  at  the  next  session,  or  the  next,  or 
the  next,  even  to  the  twentieth  session.  I believe 
there  is  a case  within  the  history  of  Ohio, 
wherein  the  Legislature  did  consider  a proposi- 
tion of  that  sort  after  the  lapse  of  many  years. 
This  provision  is,  therefore,  nothing  more  than 
a direction  of  the  order  of  time  when  the  Leg- 
islature of  Ohio  shall  consider  any  proposition 
for  amending  the  Constitution  that  may  be  sub- 
mitted by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States; 
and,  certainly,  is  no  more  in  contravention  of 
the  Constitution — no  more  an  interference  with 
its  provisions,  where  the  Legislature  of  a State 
is  to  be  consulted — than  the  one  contained  in 
section  twenty-nine,  which  provides  that  where 
a Senator  of  the  United  States  is  to  be  elected 
the  vote  shall  be  taken  viva  voce . The  Constitu- 
tution  of  the  United  States  provides  that  Sena- 
tors shall  be  elected  by  the  Legislatures  of  the 
States;  and  we,  here,  in  this  Constitution,  pro- 
posed to  provide  a mode  by  which  the  Legisla- 
ture shall  elect  a Senator  of  the  United  States. 
I ask  my  friend  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold], 
wherein  he  finds  the  difference,  so  far  as  his 
objection  is  concerned,  between  the  proposition 
sought  to  be  recousidered  and  the  provision  that 
directs  the  mode  that  Senators  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  voted  for  by  the  General  As- 
sembly ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Would  not  Congress  have 
full  power  to  direct  how  Senators  should  be 
elected,  and  if  they  should  act  upon  it,  would 
not  that  be  controlling? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  would  not  have  been 
in  the  old  days  of  the  Republic.  It  might  be, 
under  the  days  of  the  Empire.  But  it  has  gener- 
ally been  understood  that  the  States  have  the 
power,  and  the  sole  power,  of  directing  how  their 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1261 

February  11,  1874.]  Cunningham,  Powell,  Hoadly. 


General  Assembly  shall  act.  It  is  enough  for 
the  Federal  Government  to  ask  of  us  to  perform 
these  functions,  so  necessary  to  secure  the  full 
representation  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  in  both  branches;  but  how  we  shall  per- 
form it,  in  what  manner  the  Legislature  shall 
make  the  selection,  is  for  us  to  determine,  and 
always  has  been,  I believe,  throughout  the 
history  of  this  country.  If  we  are 'wrong  in 
this,  if  we  violate  an  important  principle,  then 
we  have  violated  similar  principles  for  the  pe- 
riod of  twenty  years,  and  this  Convention  pro- 
poses to  continue  it  as  long  as  this  Constitution, 
if  adopted,  shall  exist. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  to  speak  only  to  one 
question  in  relation  to  the  matter  now  before 
the  Convention,  and  that  is  the  objection  which 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
suggested,  with  regard  to  the  reason  why  he 
made  this  motion  for  reconsideration,  that  we 
have  no  constitutional  right,  under  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  to  postpone  the 
consideration  of  the  question,  when  the  ques- 
tion is  submitted  to  the  Legislature  by  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States.  Now,  there  has 
been  always  a distinction  upon  this  question, 
dependent  upon  the  reasonableness  of  it.  You 
may,  therefore,  delay  one  year  when  you  could 
not  delay  ten  years,  and  the  distinction  depends 
upon  the  reasonableness  of  the  thing.  Because 
you  have  a right  to  object  to  one  thing  that  is 
reasonable,  that  is  no  reason  you  should  have 
the  right  to  object  to  that  which  is  much  larger, 
and  therefore  is  unreasonable.  You  may  raise  an 
objection  to  one  when  you  cannot  do  it  to  ten  ; 
and  I shall  cite  a celebrated  case  that  came  up 
long  since  in  the  English  courts,  which  has 
been  referred  to  repeatedly  in  our  courts. 

A case  was  brought  before  Chief  Justice  Holt 
to  recover  the  payment  of  a bill  of  goods  furn- 
ished to  a wife,  and  it  was  objected  that  the  de- 
fendant had  forbidden  the  merchantwho  brought 
the  suit  from  trusting  her,  and  the  question 
was,  whether  the  objection  was  valid,  for  if  he 
could  object  to  one  he  might  to  ten  or  all  of  the 
merchants  in  the  city?  That  was  answered  by 
Holt  in  this  way : It  is  reasonable  that  he  should 
object  to  this  or  that  particular  one,  but  it 
would  be  unreasonable,  and  a violation  of  law, 
were  he  to  be  permitted  to  object  to  all.  It  is 
proper  that  some  should  trust  the  wife  under 
those  circumstances ; but  it  would  be  reasona- 
ble that  he  should  object  to  some  particular  one 
who  was  his  enemy,  and  therefore  he  had  for- 
bidden him.  It  is  just  so  here. 

The  same  rule  applies  to  this  case.  It  is  rea- 
sonable that  we  should  be  able  to  transfer  the 
adoption  of  a proposed  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stititution  of  the  United  States  from  the  Leg- 
islature then  in  session,  that  never  thought 
that  this  question  would  come  before  them,  to 
be  decided,  to  be  transferred  to  the  next  Legis- 
lature, elected  with  a view  to  the  question. 
Because  we  can  postpone  it  to  one,  it  does  not 
prove  that  we  have  the  power  to  postpone  to  ten 
Legislatures,  or  indefinitely.  We  might  do  it 
reasonably  when  we  cannot  do  it  unreasonably. 
It  is  nothing  more  than  reasonable  that  we 
should  postpone  it  from  the  first  Legislature; 
because  that  question  was  not  submittted  to 
them ; for  they  were  not  elected  to  decide  that 


question ; and  it  should  be  before  some  Legis- 
lature who  are  properly  instructed  upon  the 
subject.  To  postpone  it,  for  the  purpose  of  let- 
ting it  come  before  a Legislature  who  are 
elected  with  a view  to  that  purpose  is  nothing 
more  than  reasonable ; and  the  argument  that, 
if  it  be  postponed  one  session,  it  may  be  post- 
poned ten  sessions,  is  a false  reason,  and  con- 
trary to  rule  and  principle. 

It  is  reasonable,  when  we  consider  the  va- 
rious provisions  made  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  to  submit  questions  of  this 
kind  to  the  States,  that  we  should  have  a fail; 
expression  of  the  will  of  the  people  of  the  State 
upon  the  subject.  In  most  instances,  unless  it 
is  in  this  particular  way,  it  is  required  that 
there  should  be  a particular  Convention  of  the 
people  to  decide  upon  the  question.  Therefore, 
I am  most  decidedly  against  reconsidering  this 
question  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold].  The  other 
objections  that  have  been  raised  here  I do  not 
intend  to  delay  the  Convention  in  discussing, 
because  I think  those  questions  have  been  fully 
answered. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  provides  that  no  law  shall  be 
passed  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts. 
The  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  have 
decided  that  a stay  of  execution  beyond  that 
permitted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  at  the 
time  of  making  the  contract,  is  a violation  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I submit 
that  is  an  answer  to  all  that  the  delegate  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  has  said.  The  post- 
ponement of  that  right  of  execution  which  ex- 
isted at  the  time  the  contract  was  made,  has 
been  solemnly  adjudicated  to  be  a violation  of 
that  principle  of  the  Constitution  which  pro- 
hibits the  impairment  of  the  obligation  of  con- 
tracts, and  it  is,  because  to  add  a burden,  is  to 
impose  a further  condition  to  the  obligation  of 
the  contract,  is  to  impair  the  obligation  of  the 
contract,  just  as  much  as  to  take  it  away. 

Now,  the  matter  to  which  the  delegate  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  refers,  is  a thing 
which  adds  no  burden,  creates  no  imposition, 
but  simply  directs  the  form  and  method  of  as- 
certaining the  result,  and,  therefore,  is  some- 
thing not  apropos  to  the  argument  at  all.  But 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which 
this  Convention  undertook,  this  morning,  to 
amend — because  that  is  exactly  what  we  tried 
to  do,  that  or  nothing — says,  in  Article  five, 
that,  whenever  two-thirds  of  both  Houses  shall 
deem  it  necessary,  they  shall  propose  an  amend- 
ment to  this  Constitution,  or  on  the  application 
of  the  Legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the  States, 
shall  call  a Convention  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
posing amendments,  which,  in  either  case,  shall 
have  validity,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as 
part  of  this  Constitution,  when  ratified  by 
three-fourths  of  the  several  States.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, it  becomes  valid  when  ratified,  and  I say 
that  the  action  of  this  Convention  postponing 
the  time  of  ratification  is  either  null  and  void, 
or  frivolous,  and,  therefore,  ought  to  be  voted 
down ; for  the  reason  that,  if  it  be  effective  at 
all,  it  is  effective  as  a violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  which  we  have  sworn 
to  support. 


[111th 


1262 THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Cunningham,  Hoadly,  Hunt,  Layton. 


Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I ask  the  gentleman 
to  state  whether  there  is  any  obligation,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  on  the  part  of  any  State, 
to  ratify  any  proposition  to  amend  the  Consti- 
tution, submitted  by  Congress  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Then,  if  there  is  no 
obligation,  how  will  it  be  a violation  of  good 
faith  for  the  State  to  direct  the  Legislature  how 
and  by  what  means  they  shall  ratify  it? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I answer,  by  asking  the 
gentleman,  whether  it  would  be  an  attempt  at  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  for  this  Convention  to  provide  that  the 
Legislature  of  Ohio  shall  not  have  power  to 
ratify  any  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  the  gentleman  will 
permit  me,  I shall  answer  him  now.  The  an- 
swer to  it  is  contained  in  this  proposition. 
There  being  no  obligation  to  ratify  at  all,  then, 
as  a matter  of  course,  there  can  be  no  violation 
of  the  Constitution  in  our  dictating  terms  by 
which  the  Legislature  shall  do  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I thank  the  gentleman  for 
his  candor.  The  gentleman  is  extremely  candid. 
I am  sorry  that  he  has  no  spectacles  to  enable 
him  to  see  a little  further  from  his  nose.  He  is 
as  short-sighted  as  he  is  honest  and  candid. 
The  Constitution  says  that  it  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  Legislatures  of  the  States ; and  he  does 
not  see  that  a provision  taking  from  the  Legis- 
lature the  power  that  the  Federal  Constitution 
gives  to  the  Legislature,  is  a provision  in  viola- 
tion of  the  Constitution, and  it  is  just  as  much 
in  violation  of  the  Constitution  to  restrict  the 
Legislature,  as  it  is  to  deprive  the  Legislature 
of  power. 

I wish  to  say  another  word  before  I take  my 
seat.  I shall  vote  to  reconsider,  for  another  rea- 
son. That  which  makes  the  gentleman  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  and  his  coadjutors 
earnest  in  this  matter,  induces  me  to  be  earnest 
against  it.  The  occasion  which  dictated  this 
Proposition  No.  191  is  an  occasion  of  which  I 
am  more  proud  than  any  event  in  the  history 
of  the  country — the  ratification  of  the  fifteenth 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  by  which  Ohio  gave  her  adhesion  to  the 
complete  enfranchisement  of  four  millions  of 
God’s  creatures,  as  much  entitled  to  that  free- 
dom as  I,  or  any  other  citizen  of  the  State  of 
Ohio;  and  I do  not  sympathize  with  the  spirit 
which  dictated  this  Proposition  No.  191 ; and  I 
am  proud  of  the  occasion  which  has  been  the 
subject  of  animadversion  this  morning. 

Mr.  HUNT.  It  was  precisely  such  a proposi- 
tion as  this  that  caused  Ohio  to  ratify  the  Fif- 
teenth Amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution. 
The  first  Legislature,  after  the  submission  on 
the  part  of  Congress,  declined  to  ratify  it. 
There  was  then  really  an  appeal  to  the  people, 
because,  in  the  very  succeeding  election  for 
members  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  ratification  of  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment was  one  of  the  issues  of  the  campaign. 
The  people  of  Ohio,  in  the  election  of  their 
Representatives,  declared,  by  a majority  vote 
in  the  General  Assembly,  that  it  should  become 


[Wednesday* 

a part  of  the  organic  law  of  the  land,  and  the 
Legislature  ratified  it.  It  was  a submission  to 
the  people,  in  fact,  and  secured  the  very  object 
which  this  amendment  is  intended  to  accom- 
plish, namely,  an  expression  of  the  will  of  the 
people. 

I can  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly],  with  all  frankness,  that  this 
proposition  was  not  dictated  by  any  spirit  of 
unfriendliness  to  the  manner  of  ratification. 

The  Fifteenth  Amendment  now  stands  as  a 
part  of  the  law  of  the  land,  and  it  will  remain 
there  until  our  whole  system  of  government  is 
changed.  When  the  right  of  suffrage  is  vested 
in  a people  it  can  only  be  taken  away  by  revo- 
lution. It  was  not  the  Fifteenth  Amendment 
conferring  impartial  suffrage  to  which  I ob- 
jected, as  a member  of  the  Ohio  Senate,  but  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  depriving  the  State  of 
determining  a question  which  should  belong  to 
the  State. 

I voted  as  I did  because  the  State  should  have 
the  right  of  regulating  the  question  of  suffrage 
within  its  own  limits,  and  because  1 was  not 
willing  to  be  unfaithful  to  the  constituency 
which  had  honored  me  with  a trust.  The  reso- 
lution of  the  State  Convention  expressly  de- 
clared this  to  be  the  ground  of  objection  to  the 
ratification  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment. 

The  opposition  consisted  in  the  fact  that  it 
withheld  from  the  respective  States  the  right 
to  determine  the  privilege  of  franchise  within 
their  own  limits.  In  the  earliest  formation  of 
the  government  there  was  the  theory  of  central- 
ization against  the  idea  that  the  general  offices 
of  the  government  should  be  performed  by  the 
States.  The  War  of  the  Revolution  made  the 
colonies  States — a common  defense  made  the 
Articles  of  Confederation — and  the  interests  and 
hopes  and  necessities  of  a common  future  made 
the  Federal  Constitution.  Each  State  reserved 
to  itself  the  residuary  mass  of  government. 
The  national  question  of  unity  was  based  upon 
the  internal  question  of  liberty.  This  was  the 
cardinal  idea  upon  which  our  system  of  govern- 
ment is  based,  and  with  it  there  should  go  the  not 
less  important  one,  that  no  man,  nor  class  of 
men,  can  assert  greater  political  privileges  than 
can  be  granted  to  all,  without  endangering  the 
welfare  of  society. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I cannot  say  that  I am  par- 
ticularly wedded  to  this  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  HuNTj,  but  for 
a very  similar  reason  to  the  one  which  the 
distinguished  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  referred,  and  the  strange  and  peculiar 
turn  which  this  matter  has  taken,  under  the 
particular  energy  of  its  opponents,  it  would 
cause  me,  too,  to  vote  for  it,  if  I had  not  origi- 
nally done  so.  I very  well  understood,  when 
the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Griswold]  voted  for  this  proposition, that 
it  was  done  tor  the  purpose  of  making  the 
motion  which  he  has  already  made  to  recon- 
sider. I do  not  believe  that  he  was  honest  in 
voting  for  it.  I know  the  gentleman’s  radical 
proclivities  too  well  to  think,  for  a moment, 
that  he  would  vote  for  a measure  of  that  kind 
honestly,  and  without  a purpose.  That  purpose 
fully  developed  itself  in  a few  moments  after 
the  re-assembling  of  this  Convention.  If  I did 
not  know  the  distinguished  ability  of  the  gen- 


1263 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  11,  1874. J Layton,  Griswold,  Young  of  C. 


tleman — if  I did  not  know  his  learning,  his 
good  sense,  and  his  unchangeableness,  I 
could  be  led  to  believe  that  from  half-past 
twelve  o’clock  until  half-past  two  o’clock  he 
had  considered  the  subject  fully,  and  changed 
his  mind. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I stated,  when  I made  my 
motion,  and  I do  now  state,  that  in  the  general 
policy  of  this  I believe ; and  I would  vote  for 
the  proposition  again  if  I thought  we  could 
lawfully  pass  it.  I think  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  should  be  considered  by  the  people, 
if  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  law  to  so  limit 
the  power  of  the  Legislature ; and  I voted  for 
it,  believing  in  it,  without  having  this  question 
suggested  or  raised — without  consideration  on 
this  point,  because  I believed  in  this  policy.  I 
think  it  would  be  a wise  policy,  because  I do 
not  believe  that  an  amendment  should  be  taken 
up  hastily  and  passed  by  a State.  But  it  was 
suggested  that  there  was  a difficulty,  and,  with- 
out myself  having  decided  upon  it,  believing 
that  it  is  a question  to  be  fairly  considered,  in 
order  that  it  might  be  argued,  and  argued  more 
fully  than  It  was  this  morning,  and  that  mem- 
bers might  vote  intelligently  upon  the  question, 
and  not  desiring  to  do  anything  that  would  be 
in  contravention  of  the  Constitution,  I made 
the  motion,  and  the  gentleman’s  remarks  are 
entirely  uncalled  for  so  far  as  that  part  of 
the  speech  which  has  reference  to  myself  is 
concerned. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  “Upon  what  meat  doth  this 
our  Caesar  feed  that  he  hath  grown  so  great.” 
I made  it  out  of  no  ill  spirit,  but  made  it  believing, 
as  I still  believe,  that  there  was  an  object  in  his 
vote  for  that  measure;  and  I would  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
what  new  light  has  been  thrown  upon  this 
question,  in  the  last  two  hours,  that  has  caused 
him  to  make  such  a summersault  ? This  propo- 
sition has  been  submitted  for  weeks ; has  been 
printed  for  months;  and  the  gentleman  has 
had,  if  not  in  this  Convention,  at  least  during 
his  absence,  time  enough  to  have  fully  talked 
over  the  question,  and  have  fully  considered  all 
that  was  in  it. 

I cannot  think  for  a moment  that  it  can  have  a 
retroactive  effect.  I was  opposed  to  the  spirit 
of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment,  and  if  it  could  be 
affected  now,  I say,  for  one,  I would  not  vote  to 
affect  it;  but,  believing  that  I have  that  much 
knowledge  of  law,  that  anything  we  might  pass 
that  would  tend  toward  that  matter  could  have 
no  retroactive  effect.  I cannot  see  why  the 
gentlemen  are  so  particularly  zealous  in  moving 
this  reconsideration.  I trust  that  this  practice 
of  passing  upon  a measure  by  a majority  one 
day,  and  the  next  day  moving  to  reconsider, 
and  opening  up  the  whole  subject,  and  wasting 
the  people’s  money,  will  be  put  a stop  to.  It 
has  been  the  habit,  on  many  occasions,  to  vote 
with  the  successful  party  for  the  purpose  of 
moving  a reconsideration.  I think  that  the 
strictures  that  have  been  passed  upon  us  are 
beginning  to  be  realized : that  we  are  here  idling 
away  our  time,  by  voting  upon  a question  and 
then  moving  a reconsideration,  and  thus  open- 
ing up  the  debate  upon  questions  which  have 
been  presented  to  us  for  months.  I trust  this 
motion  will  be  voted  down,  and  henceforth  we 


shall  have  no  more  of  this  child’s  play,  by 
moving  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I am  satisfied 
that  no  gentleman  who  voted  for  this  amend- 
ment had  in  his  mind  anything  that  has  occur- 
red with  regard  to  the  fifteenth  amendment.  I 
think  we  all  regard  that  as  a part  of  the  Consti- 
tution. Certainly,  I was  glad  it  was  carried, 
and  very  much  gratified  that  that  subject  was 
ended,  and  the  colored  people  were  given  the 
right  to  vote.  I think  no  one  who  has  discussed 
this  question  has  discussed  it  with  reference 
to  any  feeling  connected  with  the  passing  of 
that  provision.  If  this  amendment  contem- 
plated any  contravention  of  that  provision  of 
the  Constitution,  contemplating  the  ratification 
by  the  Legislature,  it  might  be  objectionable. 
But  it  does  not.  It  is  a misapprehension  of  it 
to  say  that  this  amendment  means  to  interfere 
at  all  with  the  ratification  by  the  Legislature  of 
this  State,  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  It  does  not.  In  its  terms, 
rather,  it  recognizes  this  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  providing  for  the 
ratification  by  the  Legislatures  of  amendments 
made  to  that  Constitution.  It  contemplates 
that  in  its  terms : “The  General  Assembly  shall 
not  ratify  any  amendment  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  until  a general  election  for 
members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  have 
been  held.”  It  was  simply  postponing.  It  is  a 
recognition  of  that  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion which  contemplates  that  an  amendment 
shall  be  ratified  by  a certain  number  of  States. 
It  is  a recognition  of  that  provision,  but  simply 
provides  that  the  Legislature  may  not  proceed  to 
do  it  until  there  shall  be  an  election,  and  not 
that  the  General  Assembly  may  defer  action 
upon  that  subject  from  time  to  time. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  O,  yes. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  we  have  the  power  to 
say  that  the  Legislature,  in  session,  shall  not 
act  upon  it,  but  shall  postpone  it  to  the  General 
Assembly  to  be  hereafter  elected,  may  we  not 
postpone  it  to  a second  General  Assembly  ? Is 
there  any  distinction  between  the  power  we 
have  to  say  that  it  shall  be  postponed  to  one 
future  General  Assembly,  and  the  power  to  say 
that  it  may  be  postponed  to  a second  General 
Assembly  ? 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I think  that 
does  not  follow.  This  is  not  a proposition  to 
postpone  for  a certain  number  of  years;  but  it 
is  a proposition  to  postpone  until  the  people  of 
the  State  shall  have  acted.  There  is  in  this  pro- 
vision of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
the  alternative  that  ratification  may  be  made  by 
the  Legislatures  of  the  States,  or  by  a Conven- 
tion of  the  people.  The  principle  of  this  ratifi- 
cation by  the  Legislature  is,  certainly,  but  an 
expression  of  the  people.  It  is  another  mode  of 
accomplishing  that  thing,  either  by  a conven- 
tion of  the  people,  through  delegates,  at  once, 
or  by  the  Representatives  in  the  Legislature, 
and,  in  the  spirit  of  it,  contemplates  the  ex- 
pression of  the  will  of  the  people.  If  this  provi- 
sion of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
contemplated  that  there  should  be  immediate 
action  by  the  Legislature,  or  contemplated  that 


1264 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [111th 


Young  of  C.,  West,  Hoadly,  Layton,  Cunningham.  [Wednesday? 


this  should  he  done  at  once,  there  would  he 
force  in  the  suggestion  that  this  is  an  inter- 
ference with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  But  that  provision  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  contemplating  these 
amendments,  and  the  submission  thereof  to  the 
Legislature,  does  not  contemplate  immediate 
action;  for,  so  far  as  this  language  is  con- 
cerned, the  Legislature  of  this  year  may  act 
upon  it,  or  the  Legislature  of  another  year. 

As  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  has 
said,  when  this  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  pre- 
sented in  our  Legislature,  in  May,  1869,  it  was 
rejected ; and  it  was  understood  in  Ohio,  by 
those  who  composed  the  Legislature,  and  by 
the  people,  that  that  was  not  the  end  of  that 
question.  It  was  submitted  to  the  people,  and 
in  the  winter  of  1870,  after  the  question  had 
been  met,  the  proposition  was  again  brought 
before  the  Legislature,  and  carried ; and  at  that 
session  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  sus- 
tained. It  was  not  contemplated  then  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  is  not 
now  understood,  that  the  action  of  the  Legisla- 
ture was  to  follow  immediately  upon  the  propo- 
sition being  presented.  It  may  not  be  the  first 
year;  it  may  not  be  the  second, or  the  fourth, 
or  the  fifth.  It  is  not,  necessarily,  to  be  imme- 
diate. Hence,  a provision  in  the  Constitution  of 
Ohio,  that  the  Legislature  shall  not  ratify  until 
after  an  election,  is  not  in  contravention  of  this 
provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  unless  the  provision  of  the  Constitution 
requires  immediate  action — and  it  does  not. 

Mr.  WEST.  Suppose,  after  adopting  this 
proposition,  that  the  General  Assembly  in  ex- 
istence at  the  time  of  the  submission  of  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  should  act  upon  it,  and  ratify  it,  not- 
withstanding this  clause  in  the  Constitution. 
Would  the  Government  of  the  United  States  be 
bound  to  reject  the  ratification,  or  accept  it? 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  In  the  first 
place,  I do  not  apprehend 

Mr.  WEST.  That  will  not  do. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  It  may  not 
suit  your  purpose;  but  if  the  distinguished 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  will  allow 
me,  I shall  answer  it  in  the  way  that  suits  me. 
The  gentleman  says,  that  will  not  do.  I think 
it  will  do.  1 do  not  apprehend  that  the  Legis- 
lature of  Ohio  would  disregard  a plain  provi- 
sion of  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  and,  there- 
fore, the  suggestion  is  not  a practical  one,  nor  a 
thing  likely  to  occur  at  all. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  me 
to  ask  if  it  is  not  likely  to  occur,  what  is  the 
use  of  adopting  an  amendment  to  prevent  its 
occurrence  ? 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  If  this  view, 
that  it  will  be  disregarded,  is  correct,  as  the 
gentleman  thought,  it  would  not  be  necessary 
to  adopt  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  What  is  the  object  of  this 
amendment,  except  to  prevent  its  occurrence? 
If  it  is  not  likely  to  occur,  why  is  not  the 
amendment  frivolous? 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  It  will  do  no 
harm. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I would  like  to  know  why 
the  gentleman  did  not  vote  the  other  day  to  al-  I 


low  persons  in  the  southern  part  of  the  State  to 
represent  the  northern  part? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  be  glad  to  have  that 
occur,  if  they  could  get  better  men. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  If  the  gentle- 
men can  settle  that  matter  between  them,  I shall 
be  entirely  content.  I was  only  going  to  add  a 
word  or  two  more,  and  I confess  I had  no 
thought  of  saying  what  I have  said  on  this  prop- 
osition. My  indisposition  to  discuss  any  sub- 
ject that  is  before  the  Convention,  would  have 
precluded  me  from  saying  as  much  as  I have. 
1 would  much  rather  we  would  get  through 
with  our  labors.  I was  only  going  to  remark 
that  I hoped  that  this  amendment  may  be  a part 
of  the  Constitution  of  our  State.  I regard  it  as 
very  important,  without  regard  to  what  may  be 
the  complexion  of  politics  in  the  future.  If 
the  Democrats  in  the  future  shall  be  fortunate 
enough  to  succeed  in  Ohio,  and  the  power  and 
the  offices  shall  be  in  their  hands,  perhaps  it 
may  change  the  feeling  of  some.  I had  no  con- 
sideration of  politics  in  this  question  at  all,  and 
I hope  that  no  man  considers  it  in  proposingan 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  whether  he  be 
a Democrat  or  a Republican. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  like  to  have  permis- 
sion to  say  one  word.  I think  it  but  due  from 
myself  to  my  colleague  [Mr.  Hunt]  that  I should 
entirely  exculpate  him  from  any  imputation 
which  might  be  derived  from  anything  I have 
said,  as  suggesting  that  his  course  in  this  matter 
is  founded  upon  political  considerations  grow- 
ing out  of  the  adoption,  by  Ohio,  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment,  and  so  I may  say  to  the  delegate 
from  Champaign  [Mr.  Young],  But  I do  not, 
and  cannot,  forget  that  the  one  reason  given, 
this  morning,  for  the  adoption  of  this  amend- 
ment was  a charge  made  by  the  delegate  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  that  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  was  adopted  by  fraud,  and  he 
claimed  that  the  existence  of  just  such  a provi- 
sion as  this  would  have  prevented  its  adoption, 
and  referred,  as  an  instance  in  point,  to  the 
election  in  Michigan,  in  which  the  people,  by 
forty  thousand  majority,  had  rejected  a like  pro- 
vision in  the  State  Constitution,  and  elected  a 
Legislature,  at  the  same  time,  which  adopted 
the  Fifteenth  Amendment  when  presented  by 
Congress,  without  waiting  for  the  election  of  a 
Legislature  after  its  submission.  In  view  of 
that  argument,  I think  I am  justified  in  the 
claim  I made,  that  the  feeling  which  dictated, 
not  on  the  part  of  my  colleague,  but  certainly 
on  the  part  of  one  or  more  of  the  advocates  of 
this  proposition,  was  a feeling  of  disappoint- 
ment and  anger,  growing  out  of  the  adoption  of 
the  Fifteenth  Amendment. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Most  of  that  which 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
has  just  said,  as  to  the  character  of  my  remarks, 
this  morning,  is  correct.  Not  quite,  perhaps, 
to  the  extent,  however,  that  he  has  stated  the 
case ; but  I do  say,  and  I say  it  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  that  I think 
it  is  a statement  which  is  borne  out  by  history, 
that  the  fifteenth  amendment  was  carried 
through  Congress,  and  through  the  Legislatures 
of  the  several  States,  in  direct  violation  of  the 
pledges  made  in  the  National  Convention,  and 
in  the  teeth  of  the  action  of  the  people  of  the 
States  when  they  were  electing  those  Legisla- 


Day.]  RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  1265 

February  11,1874.]  Cunningham,  Hoadly,  Sample,  Root,  Baber. 


tures.  Is  not  that  a fact?  I ask  the  gentleman. 
I do  not  find  it  necessary  to  call  it  a fraud,  but 
anything  that  works  a fraud  is  a fraud,  and  I 
challenge  the  gentleman  to  deny  the  state- 
ment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I did  not  hear  the  state- 
ment. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  statement  is,  that 
the  fifteenth  amendment  was  passed  in  viola- 
tion of  the  public  pledge  of  your  party  in  Na- 
tional Convention,  and  indorsed  by  the  Legis- 
latures, in  express  violation  of  the  wishes  of  all 
the  people  of  the  several  States. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  talks  about 
my  party.  I belong  to  no  party. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  You  did. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  1 have  been  a Republican, 
and  would  be  again — 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  not  answering 
my  question.  Was  it  not  done  in  violation  of 
the  pledge  of  the  Republican  party  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  No,  sir!  I deny  the  state- 
ment from  beginning  to  end,  and  challenge  its 
proof.  It  was  the  noblest  measure  that  ever 
was  adopted  in  the  United  States,  and  its  record 
is  stained  by  no  fraud  whatever.  If  that  is  not 
broad  enough,  I shall  make  it  broader.  [Ap- 
plause.] 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Since  the  gentleman 
helped  to  write  the  Greeley  platform  here,  he 
has  forgotten  what  was  written  at  Chicago, 
years  before  that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  But  I have  not  forgotten 
that  the  platform  written  here  indorsed  the 
fifteenth  amendment.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Then  it  is  a pity  that 
the  gentleman  did  not  back  up  that  platform  by 
his  vote.  [Applause.]  Now,  Mr.  President, 
the  gentleman  has  seen  fit — 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  state 
that  the  debate  is  getting  a little  wild. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  But  it  is  all  very  good 
natured.  The  gentleman  has  chosen  to  ques- 
tion the  extent  of  the  vision  of  the  gentleman 
from  Allen,  and  he  feels  guilty  of  the  charge, 
for  he  does  not  claim  to  have  the  capacity  to 
see  plumb  through  a gravel  bank,  and  I doubt 
whether  anybody  in  this  Convention,  other 
than  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoad- 
ly], would  have  thought  of  bringing  in,  as  a 
reinforcement  to  his  side  of  the  case,  that  pro- 
vision of  the  Constitution  that  provides  that  no 
]aw  shall  be  passed  by  a State  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts.  I imagine  now  that 
my  friend  would  apply  to  the  Chief  Justice  and 
Associate  Justices  of  the  United  States  for  a 
writ  of  mandamus  against  the  Legislature  of 
Ohio  to  compel  it  to  carry  out  a contract.  A 
contract  for  what?  It  has  always  been  said 
that  it  takes  two  parties  to  make  a contract,  and 
I sought,  in  my  weak  way,  to  state  a proposi- 
tion that  I thought  carried  the  whole  legal  re- 
sult of  that,  that  there  being  no  obligation  at 
all  on  the  part  of  the  State  to  act  in  the  matter, 
therefore,  the  manner  in  which  the  State  con- 
cludes to  act  belongs  strictly  to  itself,  and  no- 
body else,  and  I say  that  the  gentleman  himself 
will  admit  that  that  is  the  logic  of  the  case,  and 
it  cannot  be  anything  else. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  as  to  this  Fifteenth 
Amendment.  I am  glad  to  know  that  my  friend 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  has  not  only  ac- 
V.  11-82 


quiesced  in  the  Fifteenth  Amendment,  but  has 
made  good  time  and  open  confession  that  it  ac- 
corded precisely  with  his  sentiments  at  the 
time.  1 am  frank  enough  to  admit,  that  at  the 
time  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  passed,  it 
did  notaccord  with  my  sentiments,  and  while  I 
do  not,  in  my  weak  way,  propose  to  question  it 
now,  neither  the  principle  nor  the  manner  in 
which  that  amendment  was  adopted  ever  re- 
ceived my  assent.  The  time  may  elapse  when 
it  will  be  vindicated.  I am  sure,  I hope  its  wis- 
dom will  be  vindicated;  but  the  time  has  not 
come  yet.  And  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong 
that  the  colored  man  in  this  country  should  have 
been  clothed  with  the  ballot  at  that  time — just 
at  a moment  when  he  was  emerging  from  ser- 
vitude— I have  yet  to  give  my  consent  to  that 
old  false  proposition  of  law  and  of  fact:  that 
the  end  justifies  the  means.  Mr.  President,  it 
was  the  boldest,  the  baldest,  the  most  palpable 
assertion  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment that  our  people  no  longer  govern;  but 
that  they,  like  the  subjects  of  an  empire,  or 
kingdom,  are  governed  by  men  who  know  bet- 
ter what  is  good  for  them  than  they  do  for 
themselves.  And  so,  the  Republican  party,  at 
Chicago,  when  it  placed  General  Grant  first  in 
nomination,  distinctly  pledged  to  the  people 
that  the  status  of  the  ballot,  in  the  several  States, 
should  be  left  to  the  people  of  the  States.  And 
upon  that,  when  it  wras  charged  by  the  oppon- 
ents of  General  Grant,  at  his  first  election,  that 
the  intention  was  to  accomplish  this  by  in- 
direction, it  was  denied,  and  the  history  of  the 
battles  in  Ohio,  and  other  States,  were  pointed 
to.  But  no  sooner  had  that  Congress,  that  had 
been  elected  almost  two  years  before,  gone  back 
to  Washington,  than — before  the  smoke  of  the 
battle  had  lifted — a joint  resolution  was  intro- 
duced into  Congress,  passed  hastily  through, 
and  sent  abroad  through  the  States,  under  the 
dictation  of  the  regency  at  Washington  that 
controlled  at  that  time,  and  perhaps  controls 
yet.  The  people  were  not  consulted.  I say  it 
here,  and  I charge  it  to  be  tru«,  that  whatever 
may  have  been  the  result,  whether  good  or 
evil,  the  people  of  the  Northern  States,  who 
alone  have  any  control  of  this  matter,  were  not 
consulted  when  this  fifteenth  amendment  was 
engrafted  upon  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I call  the  gentleman  to  or- 
der. He  is  wandering  from  the  case  under 
consideration,  and  consuming  time. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I was  making  a mighty 
good  speech,  anyhow. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I hope  the  gentleman  will  be 
allowed  to  proceed  with  his  discourse.  It  has 
provoked  a good  deal  of  commentary,  and  I 
hope  it  will  be  finished,  because  he  has  stated 
here  what  he  honestly  believes,  doubtless,  but 
which  is  as  far  from  the  truth  as  heaven  is  from 
hell. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  want  to  have  this 
political  discussion  on  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment on  this  floor,  and  I rise,  if  possible,  for 
the  purpose  of  composing  the  differences  be- 
tween these  mighty  champions  of  the  two  great 
parties — the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  who  runs  the  independent  machine, 
and  my  friend  of  the  People’s  Party,  the  gentle- 
man from  Allen 


1266 


RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS. 


[111th 


Baber,  Humphreville,  Herron,  Burns,  Griswold. 


[Wednesday, 


Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  What  machine  do  you 
run  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  With  reference  to  the  Fif- 
teenth Amendment,  I think  the  suggestk  n of 
the  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample] 
was  wise — that  it  really  has  nothing  to  do  with 
this  question.  When  the  proposition  was 
brought  forward,  by  a majority  of  the  Legisla- 
tive Committee,  on  which  I recognized  the 
names  of  some  well-known  Republican  gentle- 
men upon  this  floor 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Which  one? 

Mr.  BABER.  Colonel  Doan,  of  Clinton,  a 
Quaker  of  the  Quakers,  who  laid  his  coat  off  and 
went  to  the  war — a gallant  soldier.  I do  not 
think  there  is  any  doubt  of  his  Republicanism 
or  loyalty.  When  that  was  brought  forward.  I 
did  not  take  any  part  in  this  question. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I rise  to  a point  of  order.  Is 
a question  of  order  debatable? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  question  of 
order  before  the  Convention.  The  gentleman 
from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  yielded  the 
floor. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Only  for  the  decision  of  the 
Chair. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  was  of  the 
opinion  that  the  debate  was  taking  a wide  lati- 
tude, and  so  stated  to  the  Convention  at  the 
time.  A point  of  order  was  made  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample].  The 
gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  yield- 
ed the  floor. 

Mr.  BABER.  I claim  the  floor.  What  point 
of  order  does  the  gentleman  raise  on  me  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  raise  any  point  on 
you  at  all. 

Mr.  BABER.  On  the  question  of  reconsider- 
ation made  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Griswold],  as  I said,  I did  not  intend  to 
have  uttered  a word ; but  I find  that  if  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  had 
given  his  evidence  in  full — and  I take  what  he 
has  said  in  this  matter  to  be  true — that  his 
original  impulse  was,  that  the  propositionwa  s 
in  the  right  direction,  and  that  there  was  no 
legal  or  constitutional  objection  to  putting  such 
a provision  as  this  in  the  Constitution.  But, 
upon  considering  the  matter,  he  came  to  doubt 
whether  we  had  any  legal  or  constitutional 
right  to  adopt  it.  I confess  myself  that  I con- 
sider that  a question  worth  looking  at;  but 
it  seems  to  me,  that  when  the  vote  was  taken 
upon  this  floor — and  I notice  the  vote  was  with- 
out reference  to  party  divisions  or  party  ante- 
cedents, some  whose  standing  in  the  Republican 
ranks  is  doubted  by  no  one,  sustained  it — I sat- 
isfied myself  on  the  legal  question,  if  I had  any 
doubt  in  the  matter,  that  I was  safe  in  follow- 
ing the  lead  upon  the  vote  given  in  its  favor  by 
the  able  and  venerable  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Judicial  Department  [Mr.  Andrews], 
who  recorded  his  vote  in  the  affirmative  upon 
this  question.  If  I had  any  doubt  upon  this  le- 
gal point  I would  have  been  guided  very  much 
by  the  action  of  the  head  of  that  Committee, 
which  I have  sustained  generally  through  thick 
and  thin  upon  this  floor ; and  if  I have  made  any 
mistake  with  regard  to  the  law,  I think  I am  in 
very  good  company. 

I think  there  has  been  too  much  feeling  ex- 
hibited in  this  matter  upon  this  floor.  1 hope 


we  are  not  going  to  spend  the  afternoon  in  talk- 
ing about  the  Fifteenth  Amendment.  My 
friend,  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root], 
and  myself  were  in  the  Legislature  at  the  time 
that  matter  was  fought  out.  That  fight  is  over 
and  I do  not  propose  to  renew  it  here.  Per- 
haps, some  gentlemen  who  were  not  there, 
like  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly], 
and  my  friend,  the  distinguished  gentleman 
from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  may  be  dis- 
posed to  re-open  the  question.  These  Represen- 
tative “ Independents  ” have  exhibited  more 
party  heat,  and  talked  more  politics  in  this 
Convention  than  has  ever  before  been  heard  in 
this  body,  and  as  one  of  the  Begulars , whom 
they  are  accustomed  to  exhort  to  moderation,  I 
protest  against  their  course  as  calculated  to  pre- 
judice  the  case.  T simply  propose  to  vote  upon 
this  question  as  standing  upon  its  own  merits; 
and  after  due  reflection,  and  due  consideration, 
I believe  that  the  natural  impulse,  which  seem- 
ed to  strike  the  members  in  the  Convention, 
that  this  was  a wise  and  fair  provision,  and  that 
it  ought  to  be  put  into  the  Constitution  of  Ohio, 
was  the  right  one ; and  I do  not  think  that  gen- 
tlemen who  have  raised  legal  objections  to  the 
question  have  made  points  that  are  valid ; be- 
cause there  is  nothing  in  the  question,  that  if 
we  prohibit  the  first  Legislature  from  acting 
upon  it  they  may  be  prohibited  from  acting 
upon  it  altogether. 

I agree  with  the  remarks  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  that  this  is 
merely  directory  to  the  Legislature.  I admit 
that  the  government  of  the  United  States  upon 
the  ratification  of  an  amendment  by  a Legisla- 
ture has  it  in  its  province  to  pass  upon  the  mat- 
ter, but  I desire  that  there  be  some  barrier 
placed  as  a safe-guard  against  this  kind  and 
class  of  ratification  in  the  future.  In  the  future 
the  government  of  the  United  States  may  be 
controlled  by  a violent  party  majority,  and  they 
may  propose  an  amendment  establishing  a king 
or  establishing  an  empire.  They  might  have  the 
Legislatures  of  the  States  filled  with  their  crea- 
tures. These  Legislatures  may  adopt  the 
amendment  without  submitting  the  question  to 
the  people  by  delaying  action  for  the  election 
of  new  Legislatures,  and  the  ratification  of  the 
amendment  be  thus  fraudulently  imposed  on  the 
country,  and  our  only  remedy  would  be  revo- 
lution. Therefore,  I think  it  is  wise  and  proper 
that  this  barrier  should  be  thrown  up;  and  I 
hope  that  the  gentlemen  who  have  voted  this 
morning  for  this  proposition  will  vote  for  it 
again.  I see  no  reason  in  this  attempt  to  get 
up  a reconsideration  and  a party  excitement. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  1 think  that  the  sugges- 
tion that  was  made,  as  to  this  Constitutional 
question,  has  been  fairly  presented.  No  one 
has  as  yet  answered  the  argument  at  all,  that  if 
we  can  limit  this  power  to  any  particular  Leg- 
islature, we  may  not  limit  it  to  any  number. 
For  no  one  has  shown  that,  if  we  have  the 
I question  submitted  by  Congress  to  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State,  if  we  can  say  that  it 
must  be  submitted  to  a particular  Assembly,  or 
have  the  power  to  name  any  particular  time  we 
may  limit  it  to  the  General  Assembly  that  will 
sit  a hundred  years  hence,  and,  therefore,  we 
can  say,  by  a constitutional  provision,  that  the 
I State  shall  never  act  upon  the  proposition  sub- 


Day.]  RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  1267 

February  11,  1874.]  Voris,  Sample,  Tuttle. 


mitted.  That  argument,  it  seems  to  me,  has  not 
been  answered  by  anybody,  and,  as  it  follows 
incontestibly  that  this  is  in  contravention  with 
the  Constitution. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  strikes  me  as  if  the  discus- 
sion had  degenerated  into  anything  else  than 
what  it  ought  to  be  upon  this  question.  I think 
the  Convention  is  prepared  to  take  a vote,  and, 
therefore,  I move  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I hope  the  gentleman  will 
withdraw  that  motion. 

Mr.  YORIS.  With  the  consent  of  the  Con- 
vention, I withdraw  it,  if  the  gentleman  desires 
to  be  heard.  I know  he  will  confine  himself  to 
the  question. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I desire,  as  much  as  possible, 
to  avoid  obtruding  myself  upon  this  Conven- 
tion, especially  when  I suppose  they  do  not  de- 
sire to  have  their  time  occupied  by  anything  I 
may  say.  I have  no  interest,  I have  no  feeling, 
in  this  matter.  I scarcely  have  any  anxiety 
about  it  at  all ; and  I say,  now,  before  this  Con- 
vention, that  if  either  party  in  this  contest  had 
conducted  the  debate  with  any  reasonable  pro- 
priety, I would  have  felt  inclined  to  support 
that  side;  but  neither  one  has,  and,  therefore,  I 
shall  act  according  to  my  ow  n view  of  the  mer- 
its of  the  case. 

I have  no  feeling  on  the  subject,  for  it  is  not 
likely  a case  will  occur,  during  my  life,  that 
will  make  it  necessary  for  this  power  to  be  ex- 
ercised by  the  Legislature.  But  it  has  been 
brought  forward  here,  and  this  motion  has  been 
advocated  upon  grounds  which  I do  not  feel  at 
liberty  to  permit  to  go  unanswered.  It  has 
been  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  that,  “after  having  taken  an  oath  to 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
we  this  morning,  undertook  to  amend  it.” 

Mr.  President,  I claim  to  understand  the  na- 
ture of  the  oath  I have  taken.  I claim  to  be 
responsible  for  my  acts,  and  I unqualifiedly 
deny  the  imputation  of  the  gentleman.  I ad- 
mit that  I took  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States;  but  that  I undertook 
to  amend  it,  I unequivocally  deny. 

I have  favored  this  proposition  without  any 
reference  to  any  other  question  than  the  merits 
of  the  case,  and  I have  not  the  least  hesitancy 
in  renewing  that  vote  whenever  an  opportuni- 
ty is  presented;  and  if  there  be  no  stronger 
arguments  than  those  that  have  been  presented, 
in  favor  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  this  ques- 
tion, I have  no  hesitation  in  the  future, time  after 
time,  and  day  after  day,  whenever  occasion 
may  occur,  to  vote  for  the  very  same  proposi- 
tion. 

What  are  the  duties  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment in  reference  to  the  amendments  of  the 
Constitution?  They  are  to  pass  a resolution. 
Congress  passes  a resolution,  and  whether  it  is 
approved  by  the  President  or  not,  I believe  is 
not  very  well  ascertained ; but  they  pass  a res- 
olution. Then,  what  further  obligation  does 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  impose 
upon  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in 
reference  to  this  matter?  They  adopt  an 
amendment.  They  send  it  out  to  the  States. 
Then  the  functions  of  Congress  are  exhausted ; 
their  powers  are  at  an  end,  and  they  have  no 
more  control  over  the  action  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  than  they  have  over  the  government  of 


Mexico.  They  have  no  more  right  to  enforce 
an  obligation  upon  the  Legislature  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  than  they  have  to  enforce  a regulation, 
or  an  obligation  of  any  kind,  upon  the  people  re- 
siding in  theSandwich  Islands.  What  is  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Constitution  ? It  is,  that  Congress 
shall  adopt  this  amendment.  It  does  not  even 
provide  that  it  shall  be  forwarded  to  the  State. 
There  is  no  provision  on  the  subject  looking  to 
the  exercise  of  any  control  over  the  State,  or 
anything  looking  in  that  direction ; but  it  says 
that,  when  ratified  by  the  Legislatures  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  States,  it  shall  be  valid.  Now, 
that  is  what  the  Legislatures  have  to  do.  They 
are  not  under  any  obligation  from  Congress. 
It  is  a matter  of  domestic  regulation.  It  is  a 
matter  resting  in  the  discretion  of  the  State,  and 
the  Legislature  may  ratify,  or  it  may  refuse  to 
ratify  such  amendment,  no  obligation  being 
imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

What  is  the  provision  which  is  proposed  to  be 
adopted  ? It  is  a provision  regulating  the  action 
of  the  State  in  such  ratification.  The  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  says  the 
State  has  no  power  to  provide  for  the  proper 
performance  of  its  duties  in  ratifying  such  an 
amendment.  Is  it  possible  that  without  any 
direct  provision  of  the  Constitution  denying 
such  power,  when  that  instrument  itself  de- 
clares that  everything  that  is  not  interdicted  to 
the  State,  or  that  is  not  in  direct  conflict  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  reserved 
to  the  States,  respectively,  or  to  the  people, 
that  such  power  does  not  exist?  When  Con- 
gress adopted  a resolution  proposing  for  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  is  it  not  the  duty  of  the  State,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  due  deliberation,  in  order  to  have  the 
voice  of  the  people  represented — to  have  a 
knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  wishes  of 
the  whole  people,  in  reference  to  that  amend- 
ment— to  submit  it  fairly  and  independently  to 
the  people  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  that  I fully 
understand  what  the  gentleman  from  Coshoc- 
ton [Mr.  Sample]  means  to  claim : whether  it  be, 
that  it  is  improper  to  make  these  regulations,  or 
whether  he  means  that  if  the  State  makes  them, 
any  ratification  by  the  Legislature,  before  the 
time  provided  for  in  the  State  Constitution, 
would  be  valid.  What  I desire  to  understand 
is,  does  the  gentleman  claim  that,  if  this  consti- 
tutional provision  should  go  into  effect  and  then 
an  amendment  is  proposed,  and  it  should  never- 
theless be  acted  upon  by  the  Legislature,  that 
that  ratification  would  be  invalid  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Does  this  come  out  of  my 
ten  minutes?  It  is  most  too  much  time  to  be 
taken  out  of  the  barley-corn  of  time  allowed 
under  Rule  69.  The  gentleman  asks  the  ques- 
tion : Suppose  this  clause  be  put  in  the  Consti- 
tution-repeating the  question  put  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  and  suppose 
the  Legislature,  elected  under  the  Constitution 
with  this  clause,  should  proceed  to  do  what  they 
had  sworn  when  they  went  into  office  they 
would  not  do — that  is  the  case  stated  by  both  of 
these  gentlemen — would  their  action  be  valid  ? 
In  the  first  place,  in  answering  that,  it  is  not  to 
be  assumed  that  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  would  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  State 


1268 


RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  [llltfa 

Sample,  Griswold,  Powell,  Wilson,  West.  [Wednesday, 


of  Ohio.  That  is  an  assumption  that  is  not  to 
be  tolerated,  and  which  requires  no  other 
answer  than  to  say  that  it  would  be  a part  of 
the  obligation  of  the  Legislature  to  refrain 
from  any  such  action ; and  as  to  the  other  de- 
partment, or  branch  of  the  inquiry,  I suppose 
it  would  depend,  when  the  amendments,  with 
the  State’s  action,  went  to  Washington,  whether 
that  action  was  in  harmony  with  the  views  of 
the  government,  or  whether  it  was  not.  If  it 
was,  it  would  be  ratified;  if  not,  it  would  not.  j 
That  is  what  I suppose.  Such  are  my  views 
upon  the  subject,  that  this  is  a mere  regulation 
ot  the  manner  in  which  this  right  is  to  be  exer- 
cised. The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]  says  his  objection  of  want  of  power 
has  not  been  answered : that  if  the  State  can 
extend  the  time  of  ratification  for  one  day,  for 
one  session,  that  it  can  extend  it  ad  infinitum — 
for  a hundred  years.  It  cannot  be  answered. 
It  needs  no  answer;  because  the  gentleman 
knows  as  well  as  I do  that  the  right  can  be  ex- 
ercised reasonably  and  properly ; but  it  is  not 
necessarily  implied  that  it  shall  be  exercised 
unreasonably  and  improperly.  The  gentleman 
knows  very  well  that  it  is  a principle  of  law, 
wherever  a duty  is  imposed  all  the  means  and 
all  the  rights  that  are  necessary  to  discharge 
that  duty  are  necessarily  employed. 

The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Gris-  j 
wold]  says,  that  it  would  be  well  for  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State  to  have  an  opportunity 
of  investigating  a constitutional  amendment 
before  they  are  called  upon  to  adopt  that  Con- 
stitutional amendment.  Now,  I say  that,  if  this 
is  done,  upon  every  principle  upon  which  con- 
tracts are  made,  upon  every  principle  upon 
which  judicial  decisions  are  framed,  in  the  reg- 
ulations of  the  rights  of  individuals  in  deter- 
mining their  relations  to  each  other,  that,  nec- 
essarily, time  should  be  allowed  for  prepara- 
tion. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Leave  was  granted  to  Mr.  Sample  to  proceed. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  There  is  another  point  to 
which  I wish  to  call  attention.  It  was  said  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly], 
that  another  ground  why  he  favored  this  mo- 
tion was,  that  certain  gentlemen  named,  and 
their  coadjutors,  by  which  I understand  him  to 
mean  all  the  members  who  have  voted  in  favor 
of  this  proposition,  were  stimulated  to  it  by  the 
consideration  of  extrinsic  circumstances  apart 
from  the  merits  of  the  proposition  itself.  1 do 
not  know  upon  what  authority  the  gentleman 
undertook  to  say  to  this  Convention  that  I had 
supported  it  from  any  other  motive  than  a 
proper  motive  in  giving  my  vote  in  its  favor. 
The  only  consideration  which  could  influence 
me,  and  the  only  consideration  which  did  influ- 
ence me  in  voting  in  favor  of  it,  was  because  I 
thought  it  was  proper.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  himself  admits  that 
it  is  a proper  provision  to  he  incorporated  into 
the  Constitution,  and  one  which  it  would  be 
well  enough  to  incorporate,  so  that  I repel  any 
imputation  that  1 had  any  other  motive  to  adopt 
the  proposition  than  which  I believe  would  be 
proper  and  right  to  be  incorporated  into  the 
Constitution.  That  is  all  I wishtosay. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Before  the  gentleman 
takes  his  seat  I wish  to  ask  him  a question.  The 


gentleman  saj^s  that  it  is  a question  of  regula- 
tion. Is  it  not,  after  all,  a question  of  power? 
Have  we  any  power  to  regulate  it  at  all?  Do 
you  not  assume  the  whole  point  in  dispute* 
when  you  say  that  we  can  regulate  it  at  a rea- 
sonable manner  as  to  time?  Then  it  comes  to 
the  question  what  is  a reasonable  time  ? If  we 
can  say  we  have  the  power  to  regulate  that,  and 
can  put  it  off  to  the  next  General  Assembly ; if 
we  decide  that  it  is  to  be  ten  years,  who  can  say 
j that  it  is  not  a reasonable  regulation  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  whole  world. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  difficulty  in  the  mat- 
ter is,  that  we  have  no  power  to  regulate  it  at 
all.  The  Constitution  provides  that  it  shall  be 
submitted  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State.  Now, 
if  it  is  submitted  to  any  Legislature  of  the 
State  there  is  no  power  to  regulate  it  whatever. 
The  Legislature  may  act  upon  it.  They  may 
refuse  to  ratify;  but  Congress  has  the  power  to- 
submit  it  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State. 
If  they  submit  it  to  the  General  Assembly  in 
session,  that  General  Assembly  has  the  power 
to  act  upon  it;  and  my  view  of  it,  upon  consid- 
eration is,  that  we  have  no  power  to  regulate  it 
at  all.  If  we  decide  that  the  State  has  the 
right  to  act  upon  it,  and  say  that  they  shall  take 
ten  years  or  one  year  in  which  to  act,  I would 
like  the  gentleman  to  answer  whether  it  is  not 
i a question  of  regulation  or  a question  of 
power  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman why  he  did  not  think  of  this  before  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do  not  think  of  every- 
thing. 

Mr.  WEST.  Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample],  has  not  yielded  the 
floor. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do  not  know  that  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  is 
through  with  his  question  or  not. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Was  it  not  assuming  the 
whole  argument  when  the  gentleman  said  it  is 
an  assumption  that  we  have  any  power  to 
make  it? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  No,  sir ; I thought  we  had  all 
the  power  necessary  to  discharge  that  duty,  and 
if  this  was  necessary  in  order  to  a proper  dis- 
charge of  that  duty,  that  we,  unquestionably, 
have  the  right  to  exercise  that  power.  That  is 
a proper  exercise  of  power  we  have,  unques- 
tionably. We  have,  unquestionably,  the  right 
to  the  proper  exercise  of  that  power. 

Mr.  WEST.  There  is  in  our  present  Consti- 
tution a provision  declaring  that  no  person 
holding  a judicial  office  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
shall  stand  or  be  voted  for  as  a candidate  for 
any  federal  office,  and  that  all  votes  cast  for 
such  judicial  officer,  as  such  candidate  for  Con- 
gress, or  otherwise,  shall  be  void.  There  is  a 
positive  declaration,  a positive  prohibition,  and 
a declaration  that  the  act  exercised  shall  be  void 
and  of  no  effect  whatever.  Yet,  in  the  face  of 
that  declaration,  Lawrence  W.  Hall,  of  Seneca 
county,  and  William  Lawrence,  of  Guernsey 
county,  while  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  Ohio,  and  Hall,  while  a judge  of  a court 
in  Ohio,  and  Ben.  Eggleston,  were  voted  for  as 
members  of  Congress.  The  question  came 
before  Congress  whether  the  people  of  the 
State  had  the  power  to  regulate  the  casting  of 


Day.]  RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  1269 

February  11,  1874.]  West,  Cunningham,  Sears. 


votes  for  the  Congressional  candidates,  or  in 
other  words,  to  declare  what  should  be,  or  what 
should  not  be,  the  qualifications  of  members  of 
Congress,  for  whom  the  people  might  vote,  and 
it  was  held,  unanimously,  in  all  cases  of  that 
kind,  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
could  determine  all  questions  concerning  the 
powers  of  that  Government  respecting  its  offi- 
cers, and  the  qualifications  of  the  officers  under 
it.  That  being  so,  that  clause  in  our  Constitu- 
tion is  perfectly  nugatory,  so  far  as  it  affects 
the  voting  for  Federal  officers. 

I am  not  looking  at  the  Fifteenth,  Fourteenth, 
or  Tenth  Amendments ; for  I care  nothing  about 
them.  The  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  adopted 
in  Ohio,  after  a vote  of  the  people,  by  a Legis- 
lature subsequently  elected,  and  hence  no  part 
of  this  question  can  apply  to  Ohio,  and  I shall 
not  trouble  myself  about  that  question.  I do 
not  care  how  that  is.  It  is  the  single  question, 
now,  of  the  propriety  of  incorporating  into  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio  a provision  that 
must,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case, be  utterly  and 
absolutely  nugatory,  and  binds  nobody.  Now,  I 
am  not  in  favor  of  incorporating  such  a provi- 
sion in  the  Constitution,  and  I now  and  here 
say,  that  the  member  from  Coshocton  [Mr. 
Sample] 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me  one  question,  right  here  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Eight  there?  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Without  this  proposi- 
tion incorporated  into  the  Constitution,  requir- 
ing that  an  election  should  be  held  first,  would 
it  be  obligatory  upon  a member  of  the  Legisla- 
ture who  had  sworn  to  support  the  Consti- 
tution ? 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  sir.  That  is  the  very  thing 
which  I say  is  not  obligatory  upon  the  members 
of  the  General  Assembly.  Not  a bit  of  it. 
That  is  the  very  trouble.  If  we  could  make 
such  a provision, or  proposition,  as  that,  binding 
upon  anybody,  I should  have  no  objection ; not 
only  have  no  objection,  but  I would  favor  it.1 
and  I am  so  firmly  and  thoroughly  convinced 
that  no  act  of  this  Convention,  or  the  action  of 
the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  can  interfere 
with  the  constitutional  power  vested  in  the 
General  Assembly  of  Ohio,  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  that  any  act  that  we  do 
here  must  be  utterly  nugatory,  and  void  in  that 
particular.  Why  ? The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  has  vested  in  certain  tribunals 
the  power  of  amending  that  Constitution. 
There  is  the  question.  It  has  designated  certain 
tribunals,  throughout  these  United  States,  in 
which  the  power  of  amendment  is  vested. 
Now,  having  vested  that  power  in  these  tribu- 
nals, there  is  no  other  power  upon  earth, 
among  men,  by  which  those  tribunals  can  be 
divested  of  that  authority  and  right. 

Suppose,  after  this  proposition  will  have  been 
adopted,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  will 
submit  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  pro- 
hibiting the  incorporation  into  the  general 
appropriation  bill  of  these  plundering,  swind- 
ling propositions  by  which  the  people  are 
robbed  of  so  many  millions,  and  asks  that  there 
be  a constitutional  amendment  prohibiting  that 
thing,  and  it  is  submitted  to  the  General  As- 
sembly of  Ohio,  just  elected,  before  the  adoption 
of  the  resolution  by  Congress,  and  suppose  that 


General  Assembly  assumes  to  exercise  the 
authority  vested  in  it  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  May  it  not  do  so?  If  it 
does  so,  will  not  the  act  be  a recognition  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  as  a valid 
constitutional  act  by  that  General  Assembly? 
It  will.  Then,  if  it  be  a valid  act,  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  what  effect 
can  be  given  to  the  prohibitory  clause  in  the 
Constitution  declaring  that  it  shall  not  be  ex- 
ercised— for,  if  there  is  any  weight — if  it  can 
have  any  effect  upon  this  proposition,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  must  be  denied  the  power  to  act 
in  the  premises.  If  they  are  not  denied  the 
power  to  act,  the  clause  is  nugatory  and  useless. 
If  they  are  denied  the  power  to  act,  then  the 
government  of  the  United  States  could  not 
expect  action  to  be  felt  or  prohibited  or  denied 
by  the  State.  The  result  simply  is,  that  it 
produces  a collision  and  a conflict.  If  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  in  apparent  contravention  of 
this  provision,  should  go  on  and  exercise  the 
power  vested  in  them  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  they  would  appear  to  be 
violating  their  oath  to  support  the  Constitution 
of  the  State,  while  they  were  vindicating  their 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  I do  not  want  to  put  any  member  of 
the  General  Assembly  in  that  exceedingly 
awkward  position,  wherein,  while  exercising 
the  power  given  him  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  acting  as  a tribunal  of  amend- 
ment, he  will  appear  to  be  violating  the  oath 
taken  to  support  the  Constitution  of  his  State, 
and  yet,  the  oath  to  support  the  Constitution 
cannot  render  his  act  nugatory,  when  exercised 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
It  is  not  right  to  put  the  General  Assembly 
in  that  category,  and  to  place  it  in  that  posi- 
tion. 

Let  us  abstain  from  putting  in  the  Constitu- 
tion anything  that  would  seem  to  come  in 
conflict  with  that  power  over  which  we  have 
no  control.  I think  that  we  ought  to  take  out 
of  the  Constitution  that  prohibition  that  the 
people  shall  not  vote  for  a j udicial  officer  for  a 
candidate  for  Federal  office,  because  it  is  utterly 
in  conflict  with  the  power  of  Congress.  I say 
it  is  unnecessary,  entirely,  and  the  people  do  not 
appear  to  violate  their  oath  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State,  when,  under  a provision 
of  that  clause,  they  vote  for  a man  of  that 
character  for  a Federal  office,  because  they  have 
not,  in  fact,  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State.  But  a member  of  the 
General  Assembly  is  in  a different  position.  He 
swears  to  support  both  the  power  of  the  General 
Government,  and  the  constitutional  power  of 
his  own  State,  and  here  is  his  oath  staring  him 
in  the  face.  If  he  goes  forward  and  discharges 
his  duty,  as  a part  of  the  tribunal  of  amendment, 
he  trifles  with  the  Constitution  of  his  State.  If 
he  observes  the  injunction  of  the  Constitution 
of  his  State,  he  has  neglected  the  discharge  of 
his  duty  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  imposes  upon  him. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man a question. 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SEARS.  If  I understand  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  does  it  not  give 
Congress  the  power  to  prescribe  the  mode  or 


1270 


RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  [111th 

West,  Sears,  Tuttle.  [Wednesday, 


the  time  when  the  State  Legislature  should  act 
on  the  proposed  amendment? 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SEAES.  Then  does  not  that  power  ne- 
cessarily belong  to  the  State  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  sir ; it  is  an  independent 
tribunal.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
has  designated 

Mr.  SEAES.  It  is  regulated  by  the  Constitu- 
tion wherever  the  powers  of  Congress  do  not 
conflict. 

Mr.  WEST.  Now,  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  vests  in  the  probate  and  common 
pleas  and  district  court  judges,  and  the  several 
judges,  the  power  to  naturalize  foreigners.  It 
is  a power  vested  in  those  officers  by  designa- 
tion. Is  there  any  power  in  the  Constitution  of 
Ohio  that  can  deprive  those  officers  of  the  au- 
thority to  naturalize  foreigners  ? 

Mr.  SEAES.  We  can  abolish  the  offices. 

Mr.  WEST.  You  can  abolish  the  Legisla- 
ture. 

Mr.  SEAES.  We  can  make  it  meet  once  in 
twenty  years. 

Mr.  WEST.  Or  once  in  a thousand  years,  or 
as  often  as  you  please ; but  when  your  Legisla- 
ture is  in  existence,  it  is  just  like  your  court, 
when  it  is  in  existence — the  power  vested  in  it 
by  the  Federal  Government  may  be  exercised 
by  it,  anything  in  your  State  Constitution  or 
laws  to  the  contrary,  noth  withstanding. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell,  but  by  common  con- 
sent, Mr.  West  was  permitted  to  proceed.] 

Mr.  WEST.  And  when  your  Legislature  is 
in  existence,  and  a proposition  for  amendment 
is  submitted  to  it,  it  can  exercise  the  power  of 
amendment,  anything  in  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  In  the  Fifth  Article  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  it  is  provided 
that  Congress,  “whenever  two-thirds  of  both 
Houses  shall  deem  it  necessary,  shall  propose 
amendments  to  this  Constitution,  or  on  applica- 
tion of  the  Legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the  sev- 
eral States  shall  call  a Convention  for  proposing 
amendments,  which,  in  either  case,  shall  be 
valid  to  all  intents  and  purposes  as  a part  of  the 
Constitution,  when  ratified  by  the  Legislatures 
of  three-fourths  of  the  States,  or  by  Conven- 
tions in  three-fourths  thereof,  as  the  one  or  the 
other  mode  of  ratification  may  be  proposed  by 
the  Congress.’’  The  next  Article  provides 
this: 

“This  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
which  shall  be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treat- 
ies made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  authority  of  the 
United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  aud 
the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any- 
thing in  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  any  State  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding.” 

Now,  Mr.  President,  on  the  first  day  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1865,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
by  a joint  resolution  of  the  two  Houses,  sub- 
mitted to  the  States  to  be  acted  upon,  what  is 
now  known  as  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution.  At  that  time  the  Legislature 
of  the  State  of  Ohio  was  in  session,  and  on  the 
10th  day  of  February,  1865,  they  acted  upon 
this  amendment,  and  ratified  it.  Of  course,  the 
question  under  discussion  has  no  particular 


application  to  that;  because,  at  that  time,  there 
was  no  such  provision  in  the  Constitution  as  we 
are  proposing  to  add  to  it;  but  it  may  be  used 
by  way  of  illustration,  and  it  may  be  supposed 
that  at  that  time  there  had  been  a provision  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio  similar  to 
that  one  which  it  is  now  proposed  to  insert.  In 
the  first  place,  we  may  remember  that  here  is  a 
provision  of  the  Constitution  that  was  made  be- 
fore Ohio  was  a State ; but  if  it  had  not  been  it 
would  not  have  made  any  difference,  for  it 
acted  upon  a new  State  the  same  as  upon  any 
other.  That  provision  of  the  Constitution  pro- 
vided that  Congress  might  have  the  power  to 
propose  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  by 
submitting  it  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State. 
Then  it  provided  that  a Legislature  of  the  State 
should  have  power  to  act  upon  and  ratify  that 
amendment  to  the  Constitution.  I take  it, 
whatever  might  be  said  to  the  contrary,  that 
that  was  a law  of  the  United  States,  made  pur- 
suant to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  declared  by  it  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of 
any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
And  I take  it,  Mr.  President,  as  a point  too 
plain  to  be  argued,  and  a point  which  no  gen- 
tleman has  attempted  to  dispute,  upon  this  floor, 
that  it  gave  to  any  Legislature  that  was  then  in 
session  within  the  limits  of  this  broad  domain, 
the  power  to  act  upon  and  ratify  or  reject  that 
constitutional  amendment  as  they  saw  fit;  or  if 
they  saw  fit  to  postpone  the  action  upon  it  un- 
til some  future  day,  or  until  they  chose  to  take 
action  upon  it.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
says  they  may  do  so,  and  if  they  do  it,  that  it 
shall  make  an  additional  Article,  an  additional 
power  on  the  one  hand,  or  an  additional  restric- 
tion upon  power  on  the  other,  whenever  a suf- 
ficient number  of  Legislatures  should  concur 
in  ratification. 

Let  us  suppose,  on  the  other  hand,  that  this 
provision  were  inserted  in  the  Constitution  of 
Ohio.  What  does  that  say  ? The  General  As- 
sembly shall  not  ratify  any  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  until  a general 
election  for  members  of  the  General  Assembly 
shall  have  been  held,  after  such  an  amendment 
shall  have  been  proposed  by  Congress  to  the 
Legislatures  of  the  respective  States.  If  it  had 
been  in  the  Constitution  at  that  time,  it  would 
have  said  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  to  all  intents  and  purposes : That,  while 
Congress,  pursuant  to  the  Constitution,  has 
authorized  you  to  pass  upon  this  amendment,  to 
the  effect  that  when  not  less  than  three-fourths 
of  the  States  have  concurred,  it  shall  be  ratified. 
The  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio  would 
have  said  you  may  not  act  upon  this  provision 
of  the  Constitution,  you  may  not  ratify  it  at 
all,  but  your  term  of  office  must  expire,  the  sun 
of  the  day  of  your  existence  must  go  down 
upon  you,  and  another  Legislature  must  be 
elected,  and  another  Legislature  alone  shall 
have  the  power  to  act  upon  this  provision.  I 
desire  to  know  how  any  gentleman,  looking  at 
it  in  that  light,  can  say  that  here  is  not  a<lirect 
collision  between  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  a law  of  Congress,  made  pursuant  to 
that  Constitution,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  of  Ohio,  on  the  other  ? 


Day.]  RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  1271 

February  11,  1874.]  Rowland,  Tuttle,  West,  Wilson. 


Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  a question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Whether,  if  we  were  to 
adopt  in  this  Constitution  a clause  which  should 
require  that  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  should  pass  a proposed  amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  by  a two-thirds  vote  or  a three- 
fourths  vote,  that  provision  would  be  in  contra- 
vention of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  That  is  entirely  another 
thing. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I want  you  to  answer  that 
if  you  please. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I shall  not  answer  it.  It  has 
no  application  to  the  case.  You  must  first  deter- 
mine whether  a majority  vote  of  a Legislature 
is  an  act  of  the  Legislature  or  not.  If  a 
majority  vote  upon  the  ratification  would 
in  such  case  be  the  act  of  the  Legislature, 
and  if  by  such  act  the  Legislature  has  pro- 
nounced a ratification  and  it  is  a ratifica- 
tion, and  whatever  says  anything  more  than 
a majority  shall  be  required,  is  unquestionably 
in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  by  providing  that  which  is  in  fact  a 
• ratification  shall  be  no  ratification.  On  the 
other  hand,  if,  under  that  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution, three-fourths  of  the  members  would 
be  required  to  make  a ratification,  then  I would 
say  that  the  provision  was  not  in  contravention 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  be- 
cause, in  that  case,  until  the  three-fourths 
should  have  been  had,  there  would  have  been 
no  ratification  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State 
of  Ohio.  It  depends  simply  upon  the  construc- 
tion you  give  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  rati- 
fication— a question  with  which  we  have  noth- 
ing to  do.  The  question  is  not  how  it  may  be 
ratified,  but  when  it  may  be  ratified ; and  I am 
sorry  that  the  gentleman  sees  fit  to  interpose  a 
question  of  that  kind  here  now.  It  relates  not 
to  the  question  whether  this  proposed  provision 
would  be  valid  or  not.  It  relates  not  to  whether 
it  is  in  contravention  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  or  not,  a question  which  gentle- 
men here  have  been  challenged  upon,  without 
denying  that  if  the  Legislature,  notwithstand- 
ing, go  forward  and  act,  and  ratify,  the  ratifica- 
tion will  be  valid.  I do  not  propose  to  discuss 
it ; but  I assume  that  if  the  Legislature  shall  act 
upon  and  ratify,  pursuant  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  act  of  Congress  pur- 
suant to  it,  then,  notwithstanding  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State,  it  would  be  a ratification.  It 
would  be,  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  a ratification. 

Does  the  gentleman  pretend  to  say  that  that 
Legislature  or  General  Assembly  sitting  in  Co- 
lumbus on  the  first  day  of  February,  1865,  was 
not  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Ohio?  Was 
it  not  the  Legislature  specified  in  this  Constitu- 
tion? and  if  the  Legislatures  of  all  the  States 
had  been  in  session,  would  not  all  of  them  have 
been,  within  the  meaning  of  this  provision, 
the  Legislatures?  If  they  had  acted  upon  the 
subject  affirmatively,  would  they  not  have  rati- 
fied the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  ? The 
Constitution,  I again  repeat,  provides  that  they 
can  do  it.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  Leg- 
islatures are  acting  co-ordinately  with  the  Gov- 


ernment of  the  United  States.  They  are  not 
acting  merely  as  authorities  of  the  States,  but 
as  a co-ordinate  power  of  the  United  States, 
just  exactly  as  I am  when  I go  to  the  polls  and 
vote  for  President,  and  when  1 am  not  then 
acting  in  my  capacity  as  a citizen  of  the  State, 
but  in  my  capacity  as  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  I am  exercising  the  power  conferred 
upon  me,  not  by  the  State  of  Ohio,  but  by  the 
Constitution  and  law  of  the  United  States.  The 
power  of  the  Legislature  in  question  is  derived 
from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  be- 
stowed, to  be  sure,  only  upon  the  Legislatures 
of  the  States,  but  bestowed  upon  those  authori- 
ties without  limit,  and  by  an  authority  para- 
mount to  the  authority  of  any  State  sought  to 
be  embodied  in  its  Constitution  or  elsewhere. 
I submit,  Mr.  President,  that  it  can  be  nothing 
else  than  that,  whilst  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  has  said  that  the  Legislature 
may  ratify,  and  ratify^at  once — for  there  is  no 
restriction  whatever — it  is  proposed  by  the 
Constitution  of  this  State  to  say  that  they  may 
not  ratify  until  some  considerable  period  of 
time  has  elapsed. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  desire  to  speak  fur- 
ther. 

Mr.  WEST.  I wish  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland],  whether  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio  can  incorpo- 
rate a provision  declaring  that  no  man  should 
be  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate  who  had 
not  received  two-thirds  of  the  votes  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  No,  sir;  but  I do  say  that 
it  is  competent  for  this  Convention  to  deter- 
mine what  shall  constitute  a number  large 
enough  to  make  a legal  majority;  and  that, 
while  it  might  be  determined  as  either  a mere 
majority,  or  a two-thirds  majority,  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  would  not  be  af- 
fected thereby. 

Mr.  WEST.  Can  the  Constitution  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  require  that  there  shall  be  no 
Senator  elected  who  does  not  receive  a two- 
thirds  vote? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I should  think  not,  unless 
you  require  the  same  vote  upon  everything. 
This  is  a body  to  establish  fundamental  prin- 
ciples, and  you  cannot  require  a two-thirds 
vote  upon  a single  proposition. 

Mr.  WEST.  Why  cannot  you  require  that? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I am  assuming  that  we 
have  the  power  to  determine  what  number  of 
the  Legislature  may  make  a law  upon  any  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  WEST.  This  is  not  making  a law ; it  is 
asking  and  exercising  a power,  and  not  making 
a law  at  all.  It  is  assenting  to  what  Congress 
has  declared  to  be  a law,  and  to  what  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  has  declared  shall 
be  a majority.  It  is  not  the  Constitution  of  our 
State  which  declares  it;  but  it  is  the  Constitu- 
tion and  authority  of  the  United  States  which 
counts  and  decides  what  shall  be  received  as  a 
sufficient  number. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I suggest  that  that  is  making 
a law. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  making  a law  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States — not  under  the 
authority  of  Ohio.  It  is  the  authority  of  the 


1272 


RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  [111th 


Hoadly,  Rowland,  West,  Tuttle,  White  of  B.  [Wednesday, 


United  States  which  declares  what  is  the  law, 
and  not  that  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I simply  wish  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland], 
whether  l am  right  in  supposing  that  his  con- 
victions lead  him  to  the  conclusion  that  if  we 
should  require  the  unanimous  action  of  the 
General  Assembly  to  give  sanction  and  force  to 
the  ratification,  our  requisite  of  unanimous  ac- 
tion would  be  valid  ? 

Mr.  RO  WL  AND.  I should  say  that  if  you  made 
a specification  of  that  particular  case,  not  apply- 
ing the  rule  to  other  acts  of  the  Legislature,  it 
would  not  be  valid.  But  you  might  require  it 
in  everything.  This  body  has  unlimited  power 
over  its  Legislature.  It  creates  that  Legisla- 
ture. Much  has  been  said  here  about  the  ac- 
tion of  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
What  did  they  do  with  the  Southern  States? 
Why,  sir,  they  would  not  allow  them  to  act  in 
the  ordinary  capacity  of  a State  at  all,  but  held 
in  terrorem  over  them  their  assent  in  the  exer- 
cise of  the  functions  of  the  people  to  the  pro- 
vision of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
which  admitted  every  man  to  a vote,  and  yet 
refused  it  in  the  lower  order  of  legislation. 
Do  you  call  that  legal  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with 
this  question. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  It  is  the  most  flagrant  out- 
rage ever  perpetrated  upon  a free  people,  worse 
than  the  partition  of  Virginia.  And  yet  gen- 
tlemen qualify  these  acts  as  constitutional  and 
legal. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Yes,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Brown  [Mr.  White],  yield  the  floor? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I do. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  question  I was  going  to 
put,  was  the  counterpart  of  the  question  put  to 
myself. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I did  not  suppose  I was 
going  to  give  so  much  trouble. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Suppose  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  of  Ohio  did  require  a three-fourths 
majority,  and  suppose  that  a three-fourths  ma- 
jority of  the  State  of  Ohio  should  ratify,  would 
it  be  a ratification  or  not? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I did  not  get  the  gentle- 
man's question;  but  I will  ask  the  gentleman, 
in  turn,  whether  the  partition  of  Virginia  was 
legal,  constitutional  or  anything  else? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Brown  [Mr.  White],  has  only  six  minutes 
left. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  justice  and  propriety  of  the  question  now 
before  the  Convention  for  consideration  is  such 
as  will  be  conceded.  Our  system  of  govern- 
ment is  based  upon  the  representative  theory — 
upon  the  theory  that  all  powers  of  government 
are  derived,  directly  or  remotely,  from  the 
people,  and  that  the  will  of  the  people  is  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land.  The  practical  effect 
of  the  provision  now  before  the  Convention  is 
to  secure  upon  any  amendment  to  the  Federal 
Constitution  which  may  be  made,  an  expression 
of  the  will  of  the  people  of  the  State,  by  the 
only  mode  known  to  our  laws  whereby  expres- 
sion can  be  given  to  it — at  the  ballot  box,  that 


is,  by  a resort  to  the  means  appointed  by  law* 
where  the  collective  will  of  the  mass  of  the 
people  of  the  State  is  made  known  and  expressed 
according  to  the  forms  prescribed  by  law,  and 
where  it  can  be  made  known  and  felt  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  affairs  of  the  government. 
The  object  of  this  provision  is,  that  before  an 
amendment  shall  be  made  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  by  the  ratification  of  the 
people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  through  their  Rep- 
resentatives, the  people  of  the  State  shall  have 
an  opportunity  to  be  first  consulted  and  heard 
upon  the  question ; and  the  question  is  now, 
whether  we  will  make  a provision  whereby 
they  shall  be  heard  and  their  will  shall  be  made 
known  and  felt  in  the  ratification  of  amend- 
ments to  the  Federal  Constitution,  or  whether 
amendments  to  that  Constitution  may  be  made 
without  consulting  the  will  of  the  people,  and 
without  reference  to  the  express  will  of  the  peo- 
ple? Now,  the  merits  of  the  various  amend- 
ments that  have  been  made  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States — fifteen  in  number — have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question  now  under 
consideration.  As  to  those  provisions  which 
secure  to  every  citizen,  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  the  land,  the  benefit  of  trial  by 
jury,  and  which  declare  that  no  man  shall 
be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property, 
except  by  due  process  of  law — provisions  that 
have  received  the  universal  sanction  of  our 
whole  people  for  nearly  three-quarters  of  a 
century — whether  these  provisions  were  adopt- 
ed with  or  without  consulting  the  will  of  the 
people,  is  a matter  that  has  absolutely  nothing 
to  do  with  this  question.  The  question,  then, 
viewed  upon  its  intrinsic  merits,  as  a question 
of  abstract  right,  and  viewed  in  the  light  of  our 
theory  of  government,  is  one  which  commends 
itself  to  the  consideration,  I think,  of  this  entire 
body.  The  only  question,  apparently,  upon 
which  there  is  any  doubt,  or  can  be  any  doubt, 
is  one  of  power — namely:  whether,  under  the 
provisions  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  we  have 
the  power  to  prescribe  the  mode  and  manner  in 
which  the  power  conferred  upon  the  State  by 
the  Federal  Constitution  may  be  exercised,  and 
upon  that  question,  Mr.  President,  I hold  this 
to  be  the  law:  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  provides  that  amendments  to  the  Federal 
Constitution  may  be  submitted  by  two-thirds  of 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  for  ratifica- 
tion by  the  Legislatures  of  the  different  States. 
All  propositions  to  amend  may  be  submitted  by 
a vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  and  ratified  by  three-fourths  of 
the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States.  The 
power  of  ratification  is  given  in  order  to  con- 
summate and  effect  an  amendment  to  the  Fede- 
ral Constitution  in  that  mode  among  others. 
All  there  is  of  it  is  a delegation  of  power,  be- 
cause all  power  belonged  to  the  States  before; 
and  the  powers  which  the  Federal  Government 
has  are  just  such  as  the  States  delegate  to  it. 
This  is  a power  reserved  to  the  State;  but 
whether  it  is  a reserved  or  inherent  power 
which  appertains  to  the  State — in  any  light  in 
which  you  may  view  it — it  is  a power  which  the 
Federal  Constitution  gives  the  States  the  right 
to  exercise.  The  mode  and  manner  in  which 
that  power  may  be  exercised  is  not  prescribed 
in  the  Federal  Constitution, and  it  is  with  me, 


Day.]  RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  1273 

February  11,  1874.]  White  of  B.,  West,  Tuttle. 


sir,  a very  doubtful  question  whether  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  have  even  the  power, 
if  they  would  attempt  to  exercise  it,  to  pre- 
scribe the  mode  and  manner  in  which  the  power 
thus  conferred  can  be  exercised.  Admitting 
even  that  they  have  the  power,  I claim  that  un- 
til they  have  exercised  that  power,  it  is  per- 
fectly competent  for  the  State  to  exercise  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  Upon  the  gentleman’s  hypoth- 
esis, that  the  power  is  reserved  to,  or  is  inherent 
in,  the  States,  can  we  here,  or  can  the  people  by 
a constitutional  amendment  prescribe  a differ- 
ent tribunal  for  the  ratification  of  a constitu- 
tional amendment  than  that  which  is  prescribed 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Certainly  not. 

Mr.  WEST.  Then  we  cannot,  by  constitu- 
tional amendment,  say  that  it  shall  be  submitted 
to  a vote  of  the  people  first. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I will  reply  to  that 
by  putting  another  question.  Would  it  not  be 
perfectly  competent  for  us  to  say  that,  after  the 
General  Assembly  first  assembled  after  the  sub- 
mission of  the  proposed  amendment,  should 
pass  upon  it,  fixing  the  time  when  they  should 
pass  upon  it?  The  same  provision  applies  to 
the  election  of  United  States  Senators. 

Mr.  WEST.  We  do  not  fix  that. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  We  did  fix  it,  and 
all  the  States  fixed  the  time  and  prescribed  the 
mode  of  electing  United  States  Senators,  until 
Congress,  in  1866,  passed  a law  prescribing  the 
mode  and  fixing  the  time  when  United  States 
Senators  should  be  elected. 

Mr.  WEST.  Now,  then,  just  there  I want  to 
put  a question.  Suppose  we  had  provided  a 
fixed  time  and  a fixed  mode  in  the  Constitution, 
could  not  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  have 
controlled  it? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I doubt  very  much 
whether  they  could. 

Mr.  WEST.  They  have  the  right  to. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  It  is  a question,  to 
my  mind,  whether  they  could.  But  the  ques- 
tion is  not  one  of  power,  for  the  power  to  do 
this  thing  is  clearly  given  to  the  States,  and  it 
is  a fundamental  rule  of  construction  that 
wherever  and  whenever  a power  is  given,  every 
power  necessary  to  exercise  the  power  so  con- 
ferred, is  implied  and  goes  with  the  delegation 
of  the  power  conferred.  If  it  is  necessary  for 
the  Legislature  to  prescribe  the  mode  and  man- 
ner in  which  the  power  given  shall  be  exercised, 
they  may  do  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  To  use,  as  an  illustration,  the 
case  of  the  Senator : Suppose  the  Constitution  of 
Ohio  should  prescribe  that  whenever  a Senato- 
rial term  expired,  there  should  be  no  Senator 
elected  by  any  Legislature  that  might  be  in 
session,  until  after  a new  Legislature  was 
elected;  and  suppose  the  Legislature  was  in 
session  on  the  fourth  day  of  March,  and  the 
Senatorial  term  had  expired  on  the  third  day  of 
March;  if  the  Legislature  should  proceed  to 
elect  a Senator,  does  the  gentleman  claim  that 


that  act  must  not  be  respected,  under  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I suppose  that, 
whether  the  United  States  confers  upon  a State 
the  power  to  do  a thing,  or  whether  the  power 
be  concurrent  in  the  Federal  Government,  and 
in  the  State  Government,  it  is  perfectly  compe- 
tent for  the  people  to  exercise  that  power ; and 
as  the  Federal  Government  has  remitted  the 
power  to  the  State  Government,  the  power  ex- 
ercised by  the  State  Government  is  binding  and 
obligatory  until  the  Federal  Government  acts. 
The  law  confers  upon  the  Federal  Government 
the  power  to  provide  a uniform  system  of  bank- 
ruptcy; but,  until  the  Federal  Government  ex- 
ercises that  power,  it  is  perfectly  competent  for 
every  State  in  the  Union  to  exercise  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allowmo 
to  ask  this  question  ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Very  good. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Is  not  the  provision  of  the 
Constitution,  together  with  the  act  of  Congress, 
in  itself,  and  by  its  very  nature,  a concession  of 
power  to  the  Legislature  to  act  immediately  ? 
Is  there  any  restriction  of  the  power  of  the 
Legislature  to  act  immediately,  if  they  see  fit, 
and  if  they  be  in  session  ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  The  power  which 
the  Legislature  may  exercise,  or  rather,  the 
mode  and  manner  in  which  they  may  exercise 
that  power  is  fixed  and  prescribed  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State — that  instrument  which 
it  is  our  mission  to  make — and  the  powers 
that  they  exercise  under  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, are  exercised  in  the  mode  and  in  the  man- 
ner prescribed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 
The  Legislature  is  the  creature  of  the  State  Con- 
stitution ; it  is  created  by  it,  and  the  mode  and 
manner  in  which  it  may  exercise  the  powers 
that  pertain  to  it,  and  are  conferred  upon  it,  are 
matters  of  Constitutional  regulation,  and  unless 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State 
conflict  with  the  provisions  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  or  some  law 
of  the  United  States,  they  are  legal  and 
binding.  Now,  there  is  no  provision  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  with  which 
this  provision  conflicts,  and  there  is  no  provision 
in  any  law  of  the  United  States  with  which  this 
conflicts.  It  is  simply  a regulation  of  the  mode 
and  manner  of  exercising  power,  and  this  ex- 
ercise of  power  does  not  imply  the  power  of 
prohibition.  It  is  a reasonable  exercise  of 
power  conferred  upon  the  General  Assembly, 
and  we  have  a right  to  prescribe  any  reasonable 
mode  in  which  this  power  may  be  exercised. 
If  the  manner  and  mode  prescribed  are  such  as 
would  tend  in  themselves  to  render  the  exer- 
cise of  the  power  nugatory,  then  it  would  be 
another  and  a very  different  thing. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me, I would  like  to  ask  whether,  whilst  there  is 
no  express  declaration  in  the  Constitution  that 
the  Legislature  may  act  upon  the  matter  imme- 
diately, that  is  not  implied?  And,  if  it  be  not 
implied,  has  the  Legislature  the  power,  in  the 
absence  of  a Constitutional  provision,  to  act  im- 
mediately ? Where  did  they  get  the  power  to 
act  immediately,  unless  under  the  Constitu- 
tion ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I will  answer  the 
gentleman’s  question  by  putting  another.  The 


1274 


RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  [111th 

White  of  B.,  Tuttle,  Powell,  Dorsey.  [Wednesday, 


Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  he  com- 
posed of  two  Senators  from  each  State,  to  be 
elected  by  the  Legislatures  of  the  respective 
States.  Now,  does  not  that  power  imply  that 
the  Legislature  may  immediately,  or  at  any 
time  they  may  take  it  into  their  heads,  exercise 
that  power? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  But  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  have  taken  it  into  their 
heads  to  fix  a time  and  prescribe  a mode  in 
which  this  power  shall  be  exercised.  I ask  if 
that  law  or  act  of  Congress  is  constitutional  or 
unconstitutional,  because  it  deprives  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  power  of  immediately  exercising 
powers  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Undoubtedly  it  would  be  con- 
stitutional, if  it  did  not  postpone  the  action  of 
the  Legislature  beyond  the  time  when  the  Sen- 
ator should  be  needed.  If  it  did,  it  would  be 
unconstitutional,  in  my  opinion. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Well,  this  is  not  an 
attempt  to  postpone  the  amendment  beyond  the 
time  when  the  amendment  is  needed.  It  gives 
time  to  consult  the  people,  and  it  gives  no  fur- 
ther time.  Just  as  soon  as  that  sentiment  which 
underlies  the  whole  structure  of  our  State  gov- 
ernment can  be  embodied  and  expressed  accord- 
ing to  the  forms  of  law,  as  soon  as  the  people’s 
will  can  be  made  manifest,  then  the  ratification 
may  be  given,  and  not  before.  It  is  a reasona- 
ble exercise  of  power,  and  being  reasonable,  it 
is  a constitutional  exercise  of  power.  But, 
aside  from  all  this,  I claim  that  when  Congress 
has  submitted  the  proposed  amendment  to  the 
States,  then  their  power  is  at  an  end,  and  the 
action  of  the  States  upon  the  proposed  amend- 
ment must  be  free  and  voluntary,  without  any 
dictation  or  interference  on  the  part  of  Con- 
gress ; and  any  interference  by  Congress  would 
be  unwarranted  and  impertinent.  It  is  for 
them  to  propose,  and  for  us  to  dispose;  the 
power  of  submission  and  of  ratification  are  dis- 
tinct and  independent  of  each  other;  the  one  is 
for  Congress,  the  other  for  the  States. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  leave,  Mr. 
President,  to  express  my  opinions  upon  this 
subject  once  more. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I united,  Mr.  President, 
with  the  majority  of  the  Committee  upon  Leg- 
islative Department  in  agreeing  to  adopt  this 
provision,  and  to  report  it  as  a provision  prop- 
er to  be  incorporated  in  the  Constitution.  If  I 
was  satisfied  that  the  assertions  made  by  a num- 
ber of  gentlemen  upon  this  floor  gave  the  true 
construction  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  provision  in  regard  to  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution,  I should  have  imme- 
diately backed  out  from  that  expression  of  opin- 
ion, that  it  was  proper  to  be  incorporated  into 
our  Constitution.  But  I failed  to  be  thus  con- 
vinced, and  I must  raise  my  voice,  at  least, 
against  the  assertions  that  have  been  made  here 
upon  that  subject  by  a number  of  gentlemen. 
One  assertion  was,  that  when  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  provides  that  when  the 
Congress  pass  a resolution  in  favor  of  amend-  j 
ing  the  Constitution,  it  shall  be  referred  to  the 
Legislatures  of  the  several  States  to  pass  their 
opinions  on  the  subject,  it  refers  to  the  Legisla-  | 


ture,  the  then  Legislature.  Now,  upon  that 
subject  I entirely  disagree  with  them.  If 
I were  satisfied  that  that  were  the  meaning 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  I would 
change  my  opinion  immediately.  But  such  is 
not  the  meaning.  The  words  “the  Legislature” 
do  not  mean  the  present  Legislature — the  Legis- 
lature now  in  session — or  the  first  one  that  shall 
meet,  or  the  first  one  that  can  take  it  up.  It 
does  not  mean  that.  If  it  did,  then  the  con- 
struction put  upon  it  by  our  Legislature — in 
which  I concur — that  if  the  first  Legislature 
fail  to  take  it  up,  then  the  next  Legislature  may 
take  it  up,  was  false  and  wrong,  and  a violation 
of  the  principles  of  the  Constitution.  The  gen- 
tlemen who  have  thus  contended,  labor  under 
this  dilemma : either  the  Legislature  did  wrong 
then,  or  the  construction  that  gentlemen  con- 
tend for  is  wrong.  Now,  I hold  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  referred  to  any 
Legislature  that  might  take  the  amendment  up ; 
and  the  intention  was  to  get  an  expression  of 
the  will  of  the  people  upon  that  subject.  If  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  is  attempted  to 
be  got  up  by  the  several  States,  it  must  be  sub- 
mitted to  a convention  called  by  the  States.  It 
is  the  intention  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  that,  in  every  instance,  the  voice 
of  the  State  should  be  heard,  and  it  is  intended 
that  the  Legislature  should  be  the  expression  of 
the  voice  of  the  State.  There  is  no  instance 
where  you  can  draw  the  conclusion  that  the 
Legislature  might  express  their  opinion  as  to 
whether  it  was  in  accordance  with  or  against 
the  will  of  the  people.  In  every  instance,  you 
must  draw  the  conclusion  that  the  intention  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  that 
the  voice  of  the  Legislature  should  be  a fair 
expression  of  the  opinions  and  wishes  of  the 
State. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Allow  me  to  ask  a question 
there  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Are  we  not  bound  to  receive 
the  voice  of  the  General  Assembly,  always,  as 
the  voice  of  the  people  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  so. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then,  of  one  General  Assem- 
bly just  as  much  as  of  another? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  me  answer  that  ques- 
tion. It  has  been  said,  here,  that  if  one  Legis- 
lature has  acted  upon  the  matter,  another  may; 
and  that  the  voice  of  one  is  of  the  same  weight 
as  the  voice  of  another.  Now,  let  me  say,  that 
if  the  construction  put  upon  it,  for  instance,  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly], 
be  the  true  one,  namely : that  is  is  “ the  Legis- 
lature ” which  is  alluded  to,  that  is,  either  the 
existing  Legislature  or  the  first  one  convened — 
if  the  meaning  is  “ the  Legislature,”  then  it  is 
that  Legislature,  and  when  that  Legislature  at- 
tend to  the  matter,  and  have  decided  it,  it  is 
functus  officio,  and  no  other  Legislature  can  take 
it  up.  1 challenge  any  lawyer  to  answer  that 
question — if  it  was  the  Legislature,  and  that 
only,  that  could  take  it  up,  arid  if  they  have  ex- 
pressed an  opinion  upon  it,  their  duty  is  dis- 
charged. It  is  functus  officio,  and  no  other  Leg- 
j islature  can  take  it  up.  But,  as  I say,  it  is  not 
the  first  Legislature,  or  the  Legislature,  but  it  is 
any  Legislature  of  the  State  to  whom  the  people, 

| by  their  authority,  submit  the  question  for  de- 


Day.J  RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  1275 

February  11,  1874.]  Powell,  Griswold,  Sears. 


cision,  and  it  is  not  functus  officio  by  the  first 
Legislature  deciding  it.  There  is  no  getting  rid 
of  this  argument. 

Now,  again,  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  leaves  the  question  to  the  Legislature  of 
the  State,  and  the  people  may  constitute  that 
Legislature^ ust  as  they  please.  They  may  con- 
stitute it  of  but  two  or  three  men,  and  I do  not 
know  but  less — a Committee  only;  and  they 
may  make  it  a large  body,  constituted  of  five 
hundred  or  a thousand  men — a kind  of  Conven- 
tion. And  they  may  leave  that  Legislature  to 
consist  of  but  one  House,  or  of  two  Houses,  or 
of  three  Houses;  and  in  whatever  way  they 
may  say  that  the  Legislature  shall  act,  so  they 
must  act,  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  does  not  interfere,  nor  can  Congress  inter- 
fere. Congress  is  not  presumed  to  know  what 
kind  of  a Legislature  the  State  may  have,  nor 
can  Congress  say  when  the  Legislature  shall 
sit  or  when  it  shall  not  sit.  Just  exactly  as  the 
people  say,  so  the  Legislature  is  organized.  The 
people  are  the  power  which  is  to  decide,  and 
there  is  no  way  of  getting  rid  of  these  positions. 
If,  as  contended  by  the  gentleman  from  Trum- 
bull [Mr.  Tuttle],  and  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton,  the  submission  is  to  be  made  to  the 
first  Legislature  that  may  exist,  then  we  have 
no  power  whatever  to  interfere  with  it;  but  if, 
as  I believe,  that  is  not  the  true  construction, 
then  we  have  a right  to  discharge  our  duty  upon 
this  subject  by  saying  when  and  how  the  ques- 
tion shall  be  acted  upon,  and  by  determining 
what  kind  of  a Legislature  we  shall  have,  and 
what  power  it  shall  be  clothed  with ; and  the 
decision  of  the  Legislature  must  be  given  in  the 
manner  which  we  prescribe  in  enacting  and 
establishing  the  laws.  Precisely  in  the  way 
which  we  enact  as  proper  and  binding  any  other 
law,  so  they  must  decide  this  question,  because 
the  Legislature  act,  and  must  act,  as  we  provide, 
and  not  as  Congress  or  the  United  States  pro- 
vides. 

Believing  this,  I am  of  the  same  opinion  as 
when  1 joined  with  the  seven  or  eight  persons 
who  recommended  this  proposition  in  urging 
it  as  a proper  Article  to  go  into  the  Constitution. 
That  opinion  I have  not  changed,  and  shall  vote 
for  the  proposition. 

There  is  one  thing,  however,  which  I thought 
very  singular.  After  I had  made  an  argument 
on  this  question,  which  I thought  was  a toler- 
able argument,  though  I did  not  say  it  was  the 
best  in  the  world,  I was  a little  surprised  to 
find  that  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]  should  get  up  and  say  that  no  argu- 
ment had  been  made  upon  that  subject,  and  that 
what  I said  was  nothing. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  misunder- 
stood me. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir ; I did  not. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I said,  no  argument  that 
I could  understand. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  gentleman  said  there 
was  no  argument  made  upon  that  subject. 
Afterwards,  however,  I was  surprised  to  find 
that  he  did  take  notice  of  the  fact  that  there  is 
a difference  between  one  and  ten. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I wish  to  say,  before  this  dis- 
cussion closes,  that  I voted  for  the  section  upon 
my  view  of  its  intrinsic  merits.  I had  no  desire 
to  punish  anybody.  I had  no  feelings  of  my  | 


own  to  gratify,  and  I did  not  intend  to  be  made 
the  instrument  of  gratifying  improper  feelings 
on  the  part  of  others.  I voted  for  it  simply 
because  I thought  there  was  an  obvious  pro- 
priety that,  in  a question  of  so  great  moment 
as  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  Legislatures  should  represent  the 
people  for  whom  they  act ; and  all  the  argu- 
ments that  have  been  adduced  in  opposition — 
none  of  which  have  gone  to  the  question  at  all, 
in  this  view  of  it — have  failed  to  convince  me 
that  there  is  anything  unconstitutional  or  im- 
proper in  the  vote  I gave  upon  the  question  this 
forenoon. 

Now,  certainly,  we  are  not  intending  that 
our  action  here  shall  have  any  retroactive  effect 
on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  on 
any  part  of  it;  and,  hence,  the  argument  of  my 
friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  and  his 
analogy,  drawn  from  the  prohibition  of  inter- 
ference with  the  obligation  of  contracts,  have, 
as  I take  it,  very  little  application  to  the  case. 
It  is  not  designed,  nor  is  it  possible,  that  our 
action  can  have  any  effect  upon  any  pending 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  only  question — conceding  the 
propriety  of  the  claim  that  our  representatives 
should,  in  a matter  so  important,  actually  rep- 
resent their  constituents — is  the  question  of 
power.  Have  we  the  power  to  do  what  is  pro- 
posed ? No  one  of  the  many  constitutional 
lawyers  who  have  spoken  on  this  question, 
have  claimed,  as  I understand,  that  Congress 
has  the  power  to  regulate,  by  the  Constitution, 
the  mode  and  manner  in  which,  or  time  at 
which,  these  amendments  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  Legislatures  of  the  States.  If  Congress 
has  such  power,  if  they  possess  it  in  the  same  way 
that  they  possess  power  to  regulate  commerce 
between  the  States,  or  to  adopt  a uniform  rule 
of  bankruptcy,  then  I concede  that  there  would 
be  some  doubt  as  to  the  propriety  of  our  acting 
upon  it  at  all.  If  Congress  possesses  such 
power,  they  undoubtedly  could,  if  we  should 
fail  to  do  it,  provide  a Legislature.  I do  not  know 
but  that  they  could  draft  one.  They  could  as- 
semble them  under  the  power  of  the  General 
Government,  and  regulate  and  control  their 
acts  by  all  the  forces  within  the  control  of  the 
Federal  Government.  They  could  provide  for 
their  assembling,  provide  for  the  manner  in 
which  the  ratification  should  be  made  known, 
and  regulate  it  in  every  step  of  the  proceedings. 
But  I do  not  understand  that  any  of  my  friends 
claim  that  Congress  possesses  any  such  power 
as  this ; and  I do  claim  that,  unless  Congress 
has,  by  the  Constitution,  the  power  to  prescribe 
the  mode  in  which  and  the  time  when  this  sub- 
ject shall  be  acted  upon,  from  necessity  the 
whole  power  over  the  subject  remains  within 
the  control  of  the  State  Government,  and  can 
be  controlled  and  regulated  here — we  may  de- 
termine the  whole  matter.  And  that,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  conclusive,  upon  this  constitutional 
question.  If  we  have  the  right  to  say  anything 
at  all  about  this,  if  we  have  the  right  even  to 
divide  our  Legislature  into  two  branches,  and 
say  that  they  shall  separately  concur  in  the 
ratification,  if  we  have  the  right  to  provide  that 
these  amendments  shall  be  read  three  times  be- 
fore they  are  finally  acted  upon,  we  have  the 
right  to  control  and  direct  the  whole  matter— 


1276 


RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  \1 1 1 tli 


Sears,  Tuttle,  Reilly,  Hunt. 


[Wednesday, 


not  the  right,  perhaps,  to  prevent  action  alto- 
gether, hut  the  right  to  regulate  it  within  rea- 
sonable bounds,  which  is  an  entirely  different 
thing. 

As  has  been  suggested  by  the  delegate  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  these  amendments  are 
not  submitted  to  the  existing  Legislature,  com- 
posed of  certain  Representatives  now  occupying 
a position  in  the  Legislature,  but  they  are  sub- 
mitted— and  this  is  the  practical  construction  of 
this  section — to  the  Legislature  as  a continuing 
part  of  the  government  of  the  State,  not  for  one 
year,  but  from  year  to  year,  until  favorable  ac- 
tion shall  have  been  taken  upon  the  particular 
amendment  submitted.  However  much  adverse 
action  there  may  have  been,  the  settled  con- 
struction is  that,  at  any  time  after  the  amend- 
ment has  been  proposed,  it  may  be  ratified,  and 
that  ratification  can  never  be  withdrawn. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I should  like  a question. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  What  I desired  to  ask  is,  if  it 
is  not  the  gentleman’s  understanding  that  the 
question  is  not,  whether  by  Constitution  or  law 
we  may  regulate  the  mode  in  which  the  Legis- 
lature shall  act  upon  this  subject,  but  whether 
we  shall  interdict  a particular  Legislature  from 
acting  altogether,  or  in  any  manner? 

Mr.  SEARS.  Yes,  sir;  I think  we  can  do 
that.  I think  that  if  Congress,  after  adopting 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  can  submit  it  to  our  Legislature  under 
such  terms  that,  if  at  any  time  within  the  next 
twenty,  or  fifty  years,  even,  it  shall  be  adopted, 
it  becomes  a part  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  United  States,  we  may  well  say  that  action 
upon  it  shall  be  postponed  one  or  two  years,  so 
that  action  can  be  authoritative  and  deliberative, 
uoruing  from  the  people,  and  representing  the 
people,  as  it  is  designed  to  do.  It  is  an  entirely 
different  question  from  the  question  of  electing 
a United  States  Senator.  Congress  may,  per- 
haps, well  claim,  under  the  Constitution,  the 
power  to  declare  that  no  State  shall  be  unrepre- 
sented in  the  Senate;  but  Congress  have  not, 
under  the  section  of  the  Constitution  now  under 
consideration,  the  power,  as  I claim,  to  provide 
that  these  amendments  shall  even  be  consid- 
ered, or  voted  upon,  by  a State  Legislature.  I 
claim  that,  notwithstanding  this  provision  of 
the  Federal  Constitution,  the  Legislature  is  our 
Legislature,  and  that  we  may  prescribe  its  mode 
of  action,  and  regulate  its  conduct;  and  if  it 
were  necessary,  we  might  prohibit, indefinitely, 
any  action  upon  any  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution. We  might  determine,  in  our  capac- 
ity as  fundamental  lawmakers,  that  the  Federal 
Constitution,  as  it  is,  is  good  enough  for  us,  and 
forbid  concurrence  in  any  amendments. 

I have  been  asked  by  several  gentlemen  how 
the  General  Government  would  treat  the  action 
of  the  Legislature,  if  it  was  in  contravention  of 
our  Constitution.  That  is  a matter  for  which 
we  are  not  responsible,  and  which  is  clearly  be- 
yond our  control.  But  I claim  that  this  entire 
subject — the  manner  in  which  it  shall  be  treated, 
the  time  and  the  mode — within  reasonable 
bounds,  is  clearly  within  the  power  and  control 
of  the  Legislature,  under  the  rules  which  we 
may  prescribe  in  the  Constitution. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  demanded  upon 
the  motion  to  reconsider. 


Mr.  REILLY  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  be 
excused  from  voting,  having  paired  off  with 
the  gentleman  from  Fayette  [Mr.  Gardner]. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  44,  nays  34,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon, 
Bosworth,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Dorsey,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Johnson,  McCormick, 
Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller,  Neal,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Pratt,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tut- 
tle, Van  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West, 
Woodbury,  President — 44. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal, 
Carbery,  Cunningham,  Foran,  Freiberg, 
Greene,  Hill,  Hostetter,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Layton, 
McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Okey, 
Powell,  Rickly,  Sample,  Scofield,  Sears,  Smith 
of  Highland,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yan  Yalkenburgli, 
Yoorhes,  White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hocking, 
Wilson,  Young  of  Champaign — 34. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  concurring  in  the  amendment. 

Mr.  HUNT.  With  the  consent  of  the  Con- 
vention, I will  occupy  the  time  simply  in  offer- 
ing an  additional  suggestion,  and  to  correct  any 
misapprehension  which  may  be  entertained, 
and  which  has  been  expressed  by  some  of  the 
delegates,  in  reference  to  the  object  of  the  pro- 
posed amendment. 

When  this  matter  was  under  consideration  by 
the  Committee,  there  was  nothing  whatever 
mentioned  in  all  the  discussion  it  received  in 
regard  to  the  political  bearing  it  would  have. 
For  myself,  I very  much  regret  the  direction 
the  debate  has  taken  in  that  respect.  I should 
very  much  have  preferred,  as  doubtless  would 
the  Committee,  that  the  question  should  be  con- 
sidered simply  as  a constitutional  measure ; and 
if  the  objections  that  have  been  urged  against 
it  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 
and  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoad- 
ly], are  potent  enough  to  overthrow  the  con- 
victions of  its  friends,  then  it  should  be  voted 
down,  but  if  not,  then  it  should  be  incorpor- 
ated into  the  State  Constitution.  That  was  the 
simple  motive  which  prompted  the  Committee 
in  presenting  it  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Convention.  I do  not  regret,  however,  the  ex- 
tent to  which  the  debate  upon  the  matter  has 
been  carried,  in  another  respect.  The  ques- 
tion is  one  of  great  moment  to  the  Conven- 
tion, to  the  people  of  the  State,  and,  to  a cer- 
tain extent,  to  the  people  of  the  entire  country. 
In  framing  the  organic  law  of  a State,  there 
should  be  nothing  placed  there  which  will  con- 
flct  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land ; but  I am  free  to 
confess  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  arguments 
which  have  been  adduced  by  the  opposition,  to 
convince  me  that  the  measure  is  unconstitution- 
al or  inexpedient.  The  only  real  argument,  in 
my  judgment,  that  has  been  urged  against  its 
validity  is,  that  it  takes  from  the  Legislature, 
then  in  session,  the  power  of  passing  upon  an 
amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  after  a 
a submission  of  it  by  Congress.  That  position. 


Day.]  RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  1277 

February  11,  1874.]  Hunt,  West,  Sears. 


however,  is  met  by  the  argument,  that  inasmuch 
as  Congress  has  not  legislated  upon  the  subject, 
and  simply  gives  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State 
the  power  to  pass  upon  these  amendments,  it 
lies  with  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  or  with 
the  people  of  the  State,  to  determine  the  mode 
and  manner  of  ratification.  If  the  Constitution 
is  silent  upon  the  subject,  and  if  Congress  is  si- 
lent upon  the  subject,  then,  in  the  absence  of 
legislation,  the  question  is  properly  referable 
to  the  people  of  the  State,  speaking  through  the 
Constitution,  to  direct  how  the  General  Assem- 
bly shall  act  in  the  matter,  and  they  may  act 
as  the  Constitution  shall  prescribe. 

Now,  the  argument  of  the  delegate  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  appears  to  me,  with 
all  respect  to  the  gentleman,  to  have  no  force  in 
it.  This  power  is  a continuing  power.  The 
Fifth  Article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  does  not  say  that  these  amendments  shall 
be  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  States;  but 
when  ratified  by  them.  We  had  an  evidence  of 
that  in  the  action  of  the  New  York  Legislature, 
and  we  had  an  evidence  of  it,  afterwards,  in  the 
action  of  the  Ohio  Legislature.  Whether  it  be 
this  year  or  next  year — or  in  the  subsequent 
twenty-five  years,  for  that  matter — when  it  re- 
ceives the  votes  of  three-fourths  of  the  Legis- 
latures of  the  States,  it  becomes  a valid  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
I do  not  concur  in  the  idea  which  was  advanced 
even  by  some  of  my  party  friends,  that  the 
General  Assembly,  having  once  rejected  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion, had  exhausted  its  power  in  the  matter.  I 
believe  that  a subsequent  Legislature  had  a right 
to  pass  upon  it,  under  that  provision  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  which  provides  that  when 
the  Legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  States 
so  decide,  a proposed  amendment  shall  become 
a valid  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I cannot  see,  therefore,  that  we, 
in  any  way,  violate  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  or  that  this  provision  is  inconsis- 
tent with  that  instrument.  It  is  evident  to  my 
mind  that  the  Federal  Constitution  did  intend 
that  the  people  of  the  State  should  pass  upon 
these  amendments,  because  it  has  prescribed  an 
additional  method  for  their  ratification,  namely, 
by  submitting  them  to  the  Conventions  of  the 
several  States  to  pass  upon.  In  the  election  of 
delegates  to  these  Conventions,  they  pass  upon 
the  very  question  at  issue.  It  is  proposed  by 
this  amendment  to  incorporate  into  our  State 
Constitution  a provision  which  will  prevent  a 
Legislature  in  session  from  wholly  disregarding 
the  will  of  the  people,  and  setting  their  judg- 
ment at  defiance.  This  is  the  pivotal  point  of 
the  whole  case — does  this  Constitutional  Con- 
vention, by  incorporating  that  provision  into 
the  Constitution  of  this  State,  prohibit  or  pre- 
vent the  Legislature,  then  in  session,  from  ex- 
ercising this  discretion?  That  is  the  point 
which  is  urged  against  the  measure,  with  some 
considerable  reason. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  the  Legislature  then  in  ses- 
sion, may  ratify,  unless  prohibited  by  some 
clause  like  this,  whence  does  the  Legislature,  in 
existence  at  the  time  the  amendment  is  sub- 


mitted, derive  its  power  to  ratify  the  amend- 
ment? 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  Legislature  then  in  exist- 
ence, possibly,  may  not  have  the  power,  under 
this  provision. 

Mr.  WEST.  Suppose  this  provision  were  in 
the  Constitution,  whence  does  the  Legislature 
derive  its  power  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  My  only  answer  to  that  question 
is  this : If  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  in  ses- 
sion, should  disregard  a constitutional  provision 
of  this  kind,  and  ratify  an  amendment 

Mr.  WEST.  That  is  not  the  question. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I will  come  to  it  in  a moment — 
if  the  Legislature  should  ratify  an  amendment 
to  the  Federal  Constitution,  I apprehend  it 
would  still  be  a valid  ratification,  and  to  that 
extent,  it  does  take  away  from  the  Legislature 
in  session  the  power  of  ratification. 

Mr.  WEST.  Whence  does  the  Legislature 
obtain  the  power  to  ratify  an  amendment? 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  Legislature  obtains  it  under 
that  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  which  provides  for  a submission  of 
amendments,  after  the  proper  action  on  the  part 
of  Congress,  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  several 
States.  I refer  to  the  Fifth  Article  of  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution. 

Mr.  WEST.  Very  well.  If  this  amendment 
proposes  to  take  away  from  the  existing  Legis- 
lature that  power,  does  it  not  propose  to  take 
away  a power  vested  in  it  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States? 

Mr.  HUNT.  To  that  extent  it  does  take  away 
the  power.  It  limits  a time  for  the  exercise  of 
a discretion,  but  it  does  not,  in  any  way,  affect 
the  exercise  of  the  discretion.  The  Constitu- 
tion has  given  to  the  State  Legislatures  the 
power  of  ratifying  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution. The  point  urged  by  the  delegate 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is  the  only  argument 
that  has  potency  in  it,  as  against  the  incorpora- 
tion of  this  provision  into  the  Constitution.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  Congress  is  silent,  and  the 
Constitution  is  silent,  why  should  not  the  Con- 
vention of  the  State  direct  the  General  Assem- 
bly in  what  manner  and  in  what  form  it  should 
ratify  these  amendments  to  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution ? 

Mr.  SEARS.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  me 
the  floor  a moment? 

Mr.  HUNT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I wish  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  if  he  supposes  that  the 
power  was  given  exclusively  to  the  existent 
Legislature? 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Then,  if  it  is  given  to  that  Leg- 
islature, and  also  to  succeeding  Legislatures,  it 
remains  to  state  the  authority  that  is  to  deter- 
mine which  may  exercise  the  power. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hunt]  will  permit  me  to  answer  that 
question,  1 will  state  that  the  power  is  vested  in 
any  General  Assembly  which  may  be  in  exist- 
ence at  the  time  the  amendment  is  pending. 

Mr.  SEARS.  They  cannot  all  ratify. 

Mr.  WEST.  That  is  true;  but  when  the 
ratification  is  once  passed,  then  it  is  done  with. 
There  is  another  point  which  I wish  to  notice. 
It  is  said  that,  until  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  shall  act,  the  power  may  be  exercised  by 


1278 


RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  f 111th 


West,  Hoadly,  Voris,  Hunt,  White  of  B.  [Wednesday, 


the  State  Government.  That  has  reference  to 
powers  that  are  derived,  not  from  the  General 
Government,  but  from  the  State  Government. 
I will  reply  to  that  proposition,  and  then  take 
my  seat.  By  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  Congress  has  the  power  to  pass  a general 
bankrupt  law.  By  the  Constitutions  of  the 
several  States,  by  the  powers  inherent  in  the 
States,  the  State  Legislatures  may  pass  local 
bankrupt  laws.  Now,  the  State  derives  its 
power  to  pass  a State  bankrupt  law  from  the 
State  itself.  But  the  two  powers  are  incompat- 
ible. When  Congress  has  exercised  the  Federal 
power,  it  destroys  the  State  power ; but  until 
the  Congress  has  exercised  its  Federal  power, 
the  State  power,  derived  from  State  authority, 
may  be  exercised.  They  cannot,  however,  both 
he  exercised  simultaneously.  Here  is  a power, 
continuously  vested, by  the  Constitution,  in  the 
Legislature,  and  any  act  of  ours  taking  away 
from  the  Legislature  this  power  to  ratify  takes 
away  power  vested  in  the  Legislature  continu- 
ously by  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  permit  a question? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Jf  I am  not  in  order,  I will 
sit  down ; but  the  gentleman  who  has  the  floor 
had  conceded  it  to  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  and  it  was  with  his  assent,  1 
thought,  that  I was  asking  a question  of  the 
gentleman  from  Logan. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
yield  the  floor  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  For  the  question  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Well,  then,  I withdraw  my 
point  of  order.  I arose  simply  to  protect  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  on  my  left  [Mr. 
Hunt],  who  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  perfectly  aware  of 
that,  and  supposed  I was  proceeding  with  that 
gentleman’s  consent,  as  I now  understand  lam. 
My  question  is,  whether  the  power  in  Congress 
is  not  exclusive  of  the  power  of  the  States,  as  it 
has  been  decided  by  the  supreme  court  that  the 
power  of  Congress  to  regulate  commerce  is  ex- 
clusive, and  cannot  be  exercised  by  the  State 
at  all  ? And  has  any  State  the  right  to  pass  a 
State  bankrupt  bill?  I am  distinguishing  be- 
tween bankrupt  and  insolvent  bill. 

Mr.  WEST.  I had  overlooked  the  distinc- 
tion. A State  insolvent  bill,  however,  incon- 
sistent with  Congressional  provision,  cannot 
stand ; but  until  Congress  has  exercised  its 
power,  the  State  insolvent  law  will  stand. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I desire  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  a question. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Certainly,  if  I have  leave  to 
finish  my  remarks. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Does  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  confer  upon  Con- 
gress any  power  in  the  matter,  beyond  that  of 
mere  submission  of  the  proposition? 

Mr.  WEST.  The  Constitution  has  declared 
that  a ratification  by  three-fourths  of  the  State 
Legislatures  shall  be  sufficient,  and  Congress 
has  no  power  to  do  anything  except  submit  it 
to  the  Legislatures.  Congress  has  not  any 
other  power,  but  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  vests  in  the  Legislature,  independently 


of  Congress,  the  power  to  act,  and  anything  we 
do  which  contravenes  that  is  a contravention  of 
the  power  vested  in  the  Legislature  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  That  is  the 
point  I make. 

Mr.  HUNT.  What  I wish  to  say  further  upon 
the  point  relative  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  is 
simply  this : Article  V of  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution vests  in  the  State,  or  the  Legislature  of 
the  State,  the  power  of  ratification.  Its  power 
is  simply  that  of  submission,  and  when  the 
power  of  submission  is  exhausted,  the  power 
of  the  Federal  Constitution  in  directing  it  is 
exhausted.  The  power  incorporated  in  the 
Federal  Constitution,  under  Article  V,  is  the 
power  of  submission,  and  with  that  its  power  is 
limited  and  exhausted.  After  the  power  of 
submission  to  the  Legislature,  comes  the  power 
of  the  General  Assembly  itself,  and  of  the  State 
itself,  to  act  upon  the  proposition.  The  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  provides  that  when 
it  is  ratified  by  three-fourths  of  the  Legislatures 
of  the  several  States,  it  shall  become  a part  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Now, 
after  the  submission  of  the  proposition  to  the 
Legislature,  the  power  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion in  that  respect  is  exhausted,  as  this  follows 
from  its  very  phraseology — “ Congress  shall 
propose  amendments  to  this  Constitution,  or  on 
the  application  of  the  Legislatures  of  two-thirds 
of  the  several  States,  shall  call  a Convention 
for  the  proposition  of  amendments,  which,  in 
either  case,  shall  be  valid,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  as  a part  of  this  Constitution,  when 
ratified  by  the  Legislatures  of  three-fourths  of 
the  several  States.”  It  then  remains  for  the 
Legislature  to  take  action  under  the  direction 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  State.  The  Federal 
Constitution  goes  no  further  than  that.  The 
State,  through  its  Legislative  Department,  rati- 
fies or  rejects  the  proposed  amendment  to  the 
Federal  Constitution.  And  they  get  that  power, 
whqre  ? The  Legislature  is  simply  and  only  the 
creature  of  the  people  themselves.  They  get 
that  power  from  the  people  alone. 

Here  the  hammer  fell,  but  by  unanimous  con- 
sent, the  gentleman  was  allowed  to  proceed. 

Mr.  HUNT.  And  now,  Mr.  President,  there 
is  one  other  point  of  the  discussion  to  which  I 
have  not  yet  alluded.  I regret,  as  I said  a few 
moments  ago,  that  the  question  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  measure  to  the  Fifteenth  Amendment 
entered  into  the  discussion  at  all.  It  does  not 
belong  here.  It  never  for  a moment  prompted 
the  action  of  any  member  of  the  Committee,  in 
submitting  this  proposition.  It  should  stand  or 
fall  on  its  own  merits.  If  it  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  if  it 
is  an  innovation  which  will  not  stand  the  test  of 
law,  it  should  be  voted  down  by  this  Conven- 
tion. If  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  if  it  is  not  a violation 
of  that  instrument,  then  the  people  of  Ohio 
ought  to  pass  upon  these  questions  which  so 
vitally  affect  them.  There  can  be  no  more 
important  work  of  legislation  than  that  of 
incorporating  an  amendment  into  the  organic 
law  of  the  land.  It  is  not  a question  for  Ohio 
alone,  or  for  this  State  or  that  State,  but  for  the 
people  of  all  the  States;  and  it  is  a question, 
not  alone  for  the  present,  but  for  the  future  of 
the  country.  Individuals  who  are  to  be  affected 


RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS 


1279 


Day.] 

February  11, 1874.] 


Hunt,  Cunningham,  Cowen. 


by  it  should  have  an  opportunity  of  passing  di- 
rectly upon  the  merits  or  demerits  of  the  proposi- 
tion when  submitted.  That  is  just  exactly  what 
was  done  in  the  ratification  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  in  this  State.  It  is  the  truth  of  his- 
tory that  on  the  4th  of  May,  1869,  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio  refused  to  ratify 
the  Fifteenth  Amendment.  It  is  also  the  truth 
of  history  that  in  the  canvass  for  the  following 
election  for  Representatives,  which  was  one  of 
the  most  hotly  contested  elections  ever  held  in 
the  State,  the  question  of  the  ratification  of  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  was  an  issue  presented 
to  the  people,  and  upon  that  issue  Representa- 
tives were  elected  to  the  General  Assembly. 
Afterward,  on  the  27th  day  of  January,  1870, 
that  amendment,  as  my  friend  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root]  well  remembers,  was  ratified  by  the  State 
of  Ohio.  The  people  then  had  passed  upon  it, 
and  the  people  did  then,  in  my  judgment,  ratify 
it,  whatever  may  have  been  the  action  of  the 
other  States.  The  delegate  to  my  left,  the  gen- 
tleman from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  says,  1 
have  been  frank  enough  now  to  avow  my  sym- 
pathy with  the  object  of  that  amendment.  To 
the  extent  that  it  conferred  impartial  suffrage 
it  had  my  sympathy,  for  my  Democracy  is  of 
that  character  which  gives  to  all  that  which  I 
assume  for  myself.  All  the  blessings  of  gov- 
ernment which  I claim  for  myself,  I am  willing 
to  concede  to  every  other  individual,  however 
poor,  however  humble,  however  lowly.  It  was 
owing  to  the  fact  that  I believed  the  power  of 
regulating  the  question  of  suffrage  properly 
belongs  to  the  State  government  that  I opposed 
the  ratification  of  the  amendment.  True 
Democracy  consists  in  a thorough  faith  in  hu- 
manity. It  consists  as  well  in  impartial  suf- 
frage, and  prompted  by  these  motives  I was 
willing  to  vote  for  the  repeal  of  the  so-called 
Visible  Admixture  Bill,  because  they  were 
within  the  control  of  the  State,  and  were  simply 
matters  of  legislative  discretion.  To  that  ex- 
tent, as  intimated  by  the  gentleman  from  Allen 
[Mr.  Cunningham],  the  Fifteenth  Amendment 
had  my  sympathy.  In  the  earliest  formation  of 
the  Government  there  was  the  theory  of  cen- 
tralization against  the  idea  that  the  general 
offices  of  the  Government  should  be  performed 
by  the  States.  It  was  determined  that  as  little 
power  and  duty  as  possible  should  be  confided 
to  the  General  Government.  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  tendency  of  such  legislation  would  be 
to  overthrow  the  very  theory  upon  which  the 
Federal  Constitution  was  framed,  and  destroy 
all  the  guarantees  of  political  freedom  vested 
in  the  State.  It  might  be  the  attempt  to  confer 
liberty,  but  it  is  possible  that  under  such  agres- 
sions against  the  rights  of  States,  that  the  Re- 
public might  be  destroyed.  In  the  discussion 
of  the  measure,  at  that  time,  I contended  that 
“While  the  franchise  is  a conventional  right, 
and  should  be  regulated  by  the  State,  there 
should  be  no  injustice  done  by  the  State  in 
withholding  it.  There  would  have  been  less 
discontent  in  the  South  to-day  among  those 
ostracised  from  participation  in  the  govern- 
ment, because  of  the  rebellion,  if  there  had 
been  more  ballots  and  less  bayonets.  The  word 
‘serf  ’ has  lost  itself  in  the  term  citizen ; the 
freedman  has  become  the  freeman.  History 
teaches  that  it  is  not  safe  to  have  a disfranchised 


element  in  the  Republic.  Philosophy  teaches 
that  the  only  way  to  educate  a people  to  the 
standard  of  true  citizenship  is  by  giving  them 
a participation  in  governmental  affairs.  Jus- 
tice teaches  that  the  consent  of  the  governed  is 
necessary  in  the  government,  and  that  caste  is 
a crime  against  society.  The  party  that  repu- 
diates the  right  in  the  name  of  policy  will  at 
last  be  repudiated  by  the  people  in  the  name  of 
liberty.  The  Almighty  has  written  beauty  and 
utility  on  every  feature  of  our  landscape.  Let 
us  write  justice  in  every  enactment  on  our  stat- 
ute books.” 

The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
believes  that  the  adoption  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  was  one  of  the  results  of  the  war. 
It  does  seem,  Mr.  President,  when  we  read  the 
history  of  the  last  ten  years,  that  the  flag  fell 
at  Sumter  for  the  reason  that  when  it  should 
be  raised  up  again  it  would  lift  up  all  men  with 
it.  Humanity  must  henceforth  be  the  oracle 
and  law-giver  of  a great  people. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  was  not  con- 
ceived in  any  spirit  of  censure  upon  the  passage 
of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment.  It  originated  in 
a higher  purpose.  It  is  an  appeal  to  the  people. 
It  seeks  for  nothing  wrong.  It  is  an  assertion 
of  the  right  of  the  citizen  to  be  heard  on  the 
most  important  of  all  political  measures.  It  is, 
moreover,  a protest  against  consolidation  of 
power  in  the  central  authority.  It  concedes 
something  to  the  State — statehood  is  civil  lib- 
erty. Centralization  becomes  political  despot- 
ism. The  fundamental  principle  of  our  Demo- 
cratic system  of  government  must  rise  from  the 
level  of  mere  abstraction  to  that  of  living  real- 
ity. There  must  be  something  more  than  a 
State  which  can  only  be  brought  into  the  line  of 
real  political  vision  by  some  such  contrivance  as 
that  employed  by  the  German  playwright,  who, 
in  a drama  on  the  subject  of  “Creation,”  repre- 
sented Adam  crossing  the  stage,  going  to  be 
created.  This  measure  insists  that  the  State 
may  prescribe  the  manner  of  ratification  of 
amendments,  and  that  the  consent  of  the  people 
should  be  had  before  any  change  is  made  in  the 
organic  law.  It  will  be  a difficult  matter  to 
convince  those  who  sent  us  here  that  such  a 
proposition  is  in  violation  of  the  spirit  and  let- 
ter of  the  Federal  Constitution. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I apologize,  in  ad- 
vance, for  asking  the  floor,  and  I do  not  know 
but  that  I owe  an  apology  to  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  who  introduced 
this  amendment,  for  coming  in,  in  my  awkward 
way,  and  introducing  into  this  discussion  a 
subject  matter  that  appears  to  have  alarmed 
him  very  much. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I do  not  like  to  be 
scolded  about  it  over  somebody  else’s  shoulders. 
I recollect  that,  two  or  three  years  ago,  there 
were  some  very  distinct  opinions  avowed  about 
what  had  been  done,  and  I was  honest  in  what  I 
said  about  it ; and  while  I do  not  propose  to 
disturb  the  existing  status  of  affairs,  I am  will- 
ing to  let  the  record  remain  as  it  is,  because  no 
sort  of  wiggling  can  get  the  Democratic  party 
out  of  the  position  it  occupied  at  that  time. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  all. 

A motion  to  adjourn  was  lost,  upon  a divi- 


1280 


RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  [111th 

Blose,  West,  Cook,  Hitchcock.  [Wednesday, 


sion,  by  a vote  of  45  in  the  negative,  against  21 
in  the  affirmative. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I should  like  to  be  allowed  the 
privilege  of  saying  a few  words  on  this  ques- 
tion. Possibly  I may  not  understand  the  prin- 
ciples upon  which  it  rests,  and  if  I do  not,  I as- 
sure the  Convention  that  I desire  to.  Now,  let 
us  look  at  the  books.  Now,  I open  here  upon 
the  Preamble  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  I hope  that  while  I am 
reading  this  gentlemen  will  at  least  bear  with 
me  for  consuming  time  over  an  Article  of  so 
little  interest  to  some  persons.  I read : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form 
a more  perfect  uuion,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic 
tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote  the 
general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to 
ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this 
Constitution  lor  the  United  States  of  America.” 

Now,  that  is  the  object  for  which  it  was  done. 
In  establishing  this,  there  was,  as  I understand, 
great  trouble  encountered.  They  had  to  travel 
much  harder  and  rougher  roads  than  we  have 
had  in  trying  to  establish  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  although  our  constituents 
are  complaining  of  our  lengthened  term.  We 
gave  certain  rights  to  the  General  Government, 
and  it  required  a compromise  to  frame  this 
Constitution  under  which  our  liberty,  our  lives, 
and  our  property  are  secured.  Those  rights 
which  our  fathers  then  gave,  I,  as  one  of  their 
sons,  propose  to  stand  by  to  the  last  day;  but 
the  rights  which  they  did  not  give,  I will  never 
surrender. 

I read  now  from  Article  IX : 

“The  enumeration  in  the  Constitution  of  certain  rights, 
shall  not  be  construed  to  deny  or  disparage  others  re- 
tained by  the  people.” 

That  is,  rights  which  we  gave  shall  not  be 
construed  to  deny  or  disparage  others  which  we 
did  not  give.  That  is  what  I understand. 

Now,  with  all  due  respect  to  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  HoADLY],for  whom  no  one 
has  a higher  respect  than  myself,  I think  that 
this  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hunt  J,  is  no  violation  of  rights  or 
innovation  or  infringement  upon  the  provi- 
sions of  the  Constitution.  I will  read  a little 
further : 

“ARTICLE  X. 

“The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the 
Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  re- 
served to  the  States,  respectively,  or  to  the  people.” 

And  I will  read  a little  further  still,  if  gen- 
tlemen will  bear  with  me,  from  Article  V : 

“The  Congress,  whenever  two- thirds  of  both  Houses 
shall  deem  it  necessary,  shall  propose  amendments  to  this 
Constitution.” 

We  agree  that  they  may  propose  amendments. 
That  is  what  I will  stand  by.  The  Article  con- 
tinues : 

‘ Or,  on  the  application  of  the  Legislatures  of  two-thirds 
of  the  several  States,  shall  call  a Convention  for  the  pur- 
pose of  proposing  amendments,  which,  in  either  case, 
shall  be  valid  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  part  of  this 
Constitution,”  &c. 

I suppose  that  when  the  Convention  is  called, 
it  will  be  a Convention  of  the  people.  And 
there  it  shows  again,  Mr.  President  and  gentle- 
men of  the  Convention,  that  the  power  of  this 
government  rests  in  the  hands  of  the  people. 


What  is  the  Legislature  but  an  Assembly  of  the 
Representatives  of  the  people?  They  are  not 
the  State  of  Ohio;  they  are  simply  the  agents 
of  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  Look  at  this 
matter  from  a business  point  of  view.  Were  I 
to  constitute  some  individual  as  my  agent  for 
the  transaction  of  certain  business,  he  would  be 
authorized  to  take  charge  of  that  business  with 
the  instructions  which  I had  given  him.  But 
suppose  something  of  material  importance 
should  arise,  which  might  be  very  detrimental 
to  my  interests,  or  very  beneficial  to  my  inter- 
ests— he  could  not  tell  which.  Now,  if  there 
were  nothing  to  prevent  that  agent  from  call- 
ing to  see  me  and  discuss  this  matter,  would  he 
be  an  agent  worthy  of  serving  any  honorable 
gentleman,  if  he  should  neglect  or  refuse  to  call 
and  consult  at  headquarters  before  acting  in  a 
matter  where  his  action  might  be  the  death  of 
the  power  which  created  him  ? 1 say,  there- 
fore, that  I think  this  measure  is  no  infringe- 
ment upon  the  Constitution.  It  simply  main- 
tains the  power  wrhere  it  belongs.  It  is  simply 
a veto.  It  requires  no  more  pressure  to  put  the 
matter  through  after  consideration  than  it 
would  to  put  it  through  hastily.  Let  the  Leg- 
islature, which  you  have  elected  for  another 
purpose,  do  the  work  assigned  to  it.  When 
questions  like  the — I do  not  like  to  refer  to  the 
amendment,  really,  because  it  would  seem  like 
introducing  politics — when  a question  like 
that  turns  up,  I will  cast  no  vote  for  the  Demo- 
cratic cause,  no  vote  for  the  Republican  cause. 
I am  here  simply  as  an  independent  citizen, 
unexpectedly  to  myself,  but  determined  to  do 
right,  as  I understand  it,  at  all  hazards. 

And  here  is  another  thing,  which  has  occurred 
this  afternoon,  and  which  is  in  perfect  keeping 
with  what  has  been  occurring  in  this  body.  I 
cannot  exactly  understand  it.  This  question 
was  fairly  disposed  of  at  one  time  to-day,  but 
we  seem  to  have  come  round  the  corner  this 
afternoon,  and  to  be  undoing  what  we  have 
done.  I assure  you,  gentlemen,  your  ways  are 
almost  past  finding  out.  Be  sure  you  do  not 
act  hastily.  Let  us  consider  this  matter  well, 
because  I assure  you  it  is  material.  You  must 
not  expect,  gentlemen,  that  the  Republican 
party  is  always  going  to  maintain  the  power 
in  this  country.  You  must  remember  that  pos- 
sibly the  Democratic  party  may  be  in  the  ascen- 
dency some  time  over  the  Republican  party, 
and  even  that  party  might  do  wrong. 

Mr.  WEST.  What  has  the  Republican  party 
to  do  with  this  question  ? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I am  trying  to  show  that  they 
have  nothing  to  do  with  it  1 [Laughter.-!  That 
party  of  mine  might  attempt,  through  the  Leg- 
islature, to  thrust  some  bankruptcy  measure,  or 
some  other  measure,  which  would  materially 
affect  the  rights  of  every  citizen  of  the  State ; 
and  if  it  should  do  so,  then  1 should  like  to  have 
some  provision  of  this  kind  intervene.  And  for 
the  reason,  Mr.  President,  that  I would  like  to 
give  this  matter  a little  more  consideration,  I 
move  that  the  Convention  do  now  adjourn. 

Mr.  COOK.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
We  have  transacted  no  parliamentary  business 
since  the  last  motion  to  adjourn  was  disposed  of. 

Mr.  Hitchcock  rose  to  address  the  Chair. 

[“  Sit  down  ! Sit  down  !”] 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  President  decides 


Day.]  RATIFICATION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  1281 

February  11, 1874.]  Hitchcock,  Humphreville,  Pond. 


me  out  of  order,  I shall  sit  down.  I ask  the 
President  to  read  the  Rule  which  determines 
whether  this  motion  to  adjourn  is  in  order.  I 
suppose  this  question  might  as  well  he  settled 
now  as  at  some  other  time. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Rule  36  reads : 

“A  motion  to  adjourn  shall  he  always  in  order;  hut 
being  decided  in  the  negative,  shall  not  he  again  enter- 
tained until  some  motion,  call,  or  order,  shall  take 
place.” 

The  motion,  therefore,  is  not  in  order. 

The  question  recurring  upon  concurring  in 
the  amendment  proposing  to  insert  Proposition 
No.  191,  as  an  additional  section  to  Proposition 
No.  190,  the  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted 
— yeas  34,  nays  44,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal, 
Carhery,  Cunningham,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Greene, 
Hill,  Hostetter,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Layton,  McBride, 
Miller,  Mitchener,  Mullpn,  Okey,  Powell, 
Rickly,  Sample,  Scofield,  Sears,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yan  Valkenburgh,  Yoorhes, 
White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson, 
Young  of  Champaign — 34. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon, 
Bosworth,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 


Dorsey,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Johnson,  McCormick, 
Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller,  Neal,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Pratt,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tut- 
tle, Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West, 
Woodbury,  President — 44. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I suppose  the  Ar- 
ticle is  now  through  with.  I move  that  the  Ar- 
ticle be  engrossed,  in  order  to  its  third  reading 
at  some  future  time,  say,  to-morrow. 

Mr.  POND.  Before  that  motion  is  enter- 
tained, and  before  the  Proposition  is  referred, 
I should  like  to  make  another  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville]  is 
simply  to  engross  the  Article  for  its  third  read- 
ing. There  will  still  be  an  opportunity  to  make 
the  motion. 

Mr.  POND.  Then,  I give  notice  that  I will 
move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  Con- 
vention, this  morning,  refused  to  agree  to  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr. 
Sears],  to  amend  Proposition  No.  190,  by  in- 
serting therein  an  additional  section. 

Thereupon,  on  motion  of  Mr.  ALBRIGHT, 

The  Convention  (at  6 : 00  p.  m.)  adjourned. 


y.ii-83 


1282 


[112  th 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Reilly,  Tripp,  Humphreville,  Pond.  [Thursday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWELFTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FIFTIETH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  John  G.  Adams,  of  the  First 
Universalist  Church,  Cincinnati. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  85  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Scofield,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

petitions. 

Mr.  REILLY  presented  the  following  peti- 
tions : 

From  John  Frost  and  John  Pitcarn,  of  Co- 
lumbiana county,  praying  that  churches  be  tax- 
ed as  other  property  is  taxed. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Rev- 
enue and  Taxation. 

From  N.  B.  Watson,  Jonathan  Bolen,  and  28 
other  citizens  of  Columbiana  county,  earnestly 
remonstrating  against  the  recognition  of  any 
form  of  religious  opinions  or  belief  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State.  Also,  from  Jacob  Heaton, 
Isaac  Trescott,  and  50  other  citizens  of  Colum- 
biana county;  fromB.  C.  Gilbert,  Jos.  Faucett, 
and45  other  citizensof  Columbiana  county ; from 
John  Pitcarn,  Robert  Shearer,  and  98  other 
citizens  of  New  Lisbon,  Columbiana  county, 
all  on  the  same  subject. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS — LEAVE  TO  RECORD 
VOTE. 

Mr.  TRIPP.  I was  absent  on  yesterday  eve- 
ning at  the  time  the  vote  was  taken  upon  Prop- 
osition No.  191,  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hunt].  If  it  is  a privileged  question, 
I would  ask  leave,  now,  to  record  my  vote  upon 
that  Proposition. 

The  SECRETARY.  Mr.  Tripp. 

Mr.  TRIPP.  “No.” 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I now  move  that 
the  Convention  proceed  to  the  special  order  of 
the  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  moved  and  seconded 
that  the  Convention  now  proceed  to  the  special 
order  of  the  day,  being  Proposition  No.  190. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  All  the  amendments  pro- 
posed to  Proposition  No.  190,  have  how  been 
disposed  of  by  the  Convention,  and  the  ques- 


Thursday,  February  12,  1874. 

tion  is  upon  ordering  it  to  be  engrossed  for  a 
final  reading,  and  fixing  the  time. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  My  impression  is 
that  there  was  a motion  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  to  reconsider  the 
vote  by  which  the  Convention  refused  to  agree 
to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Wy- 
andot [Mr.  Sears]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  did  move  to  reconsider 
that  vote. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I suppose  that  the 
motion  has  gone  to  the  table  by  the  adjourn- 
ment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  a 
reconsideration. 

The  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  to  recon- 
sider was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POND.  It  is  not  always,  Mr.  President, 
the  most  agreeable  thing  to  a person’s  feelings, 
to  acknowledge  that  he  may  have  been  wrong. 
I happen  to  stand  in  that  category  now,  and  I do 
not  know  that  it  hurts  my  feelings,  particularly, 
to  do  so.  When  I voted  against  this  provision 
the  other  day,  I did  it  without  a very  great  deal 
of  consideration.  From  the  very  fact  or  rea- 
son that  the  most  of  these  amendments  that  are 
sprung  upon  the  Convention,  admit  of  so  little 
consideration  and  debate  before  their  passage, 
we  are  very  apt  to  pass  them  without  that  care- 
ful consideration  that  their  merits  deserve. 
Since,  however,  casting  that  vote,  I have  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  I ought  to  have  voted  in 
favor  of  it;  hence,  I make  the  motion  that  I do, 
to  reconsider,  in  good  faith.  The  amendment 
reads  thus : 

“Sec.  — . The  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe  by 
law  the  number,  duties  and  compensation  of  the  officers 
and  employes  of  each  House,  and  no  payment  shall  be 
made  from  the  State  treasury,  or  be  in  any  way  authorized 
to  any  person,  except  to  an  acting  officer  or  employe,  elect- 
ed or  appoiuted  in  pursuance  of  law.” 

The  General  Assembly,  sir,  created  by  this 
Constitution,  will  be  a body  substantially  fixed 
in  number.  It  will  meet  at  the  same  place.  The 
necessities  of  each  House  of  Representatives 
and  each  Senate,  as  they  meet  year  after  year, 
will  be  substantially  the  same ; and  it  appears 
to  me,  sir,  that  there  is  no  objection,  then,  that 
the  officers,  their  duties  and  compensation, 
shall  be  prescribed  by  a permanent  act. 

There  is  a grave  reason  for  this,  as  I appre- 
hend, Mr.  President.  I have  had  no  great  deal 
of  legislative  experience,  but  I have  had  a little. 
Perhaps  members  of  this  Convention  can  call 
to  mind  some  things  that  took  place  in  the  or- 
ganization of  this  body,  looking  in  this  same 
direction.  When  the  House  of  Representatives 
and  the  Senate  meet,  they  proceed  to  organize 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Pond,  Griswold,  Root. 


1283 


Day.] 

February  12,  1874.] 


by  electing  a few  officers,  such  as  a Clerk,  and 
perhaps  an  assistant  or  two,  a Sergeant-at-arms 
and  perhaps  one  assistant.  After  they  have 
progressed  a little  time,  the  disappointed  candi- 
dates— there  being  no  limit  at  all  to  the  number 
which  the  House  or  Senate  may  have — become 
more  clamorous  for  places,  and  it  becomes  a very 
elastic  machine.  The  pressure  of  the  friends 
of  the  candidates,  and  of  the  candidates  them- 
selves, becomes  more  and  more  oppressive,  and 
the  thing  expands,  until  more  officers  and  more 
employes  are  attached  to  the  House  and  Senate 
than  there  is  any  necessity  for.  And  just  be- 
cause that  persistent  pressure  is  brought  to  bear 
upon  members,  and  rather  than  have  that  con- 
tinually occurring  and  pressed  upon  their  no- 
tice, they  employ  them,  and  pay  them  for 
their  services.  It  always  happens,  under 
a sort  of  partial  promise,  that  this  thing 
may  be  done.  Officers  and  employes  have 
been  employed,  at  a late  period  of  the 
session,  perhaps  the  last  day,  in  the  hurry 
and  turmoil,  and  provision  has  been  made  that 
they  should  receive  pay  from  the  beginning  of 
the  session.  Now,  this  everlasting  pressure  is 
very  annoying  to  the  two  Houses ; and,  more 
than  that,  the  trouble  arises  that  one  of  the 
Houses  desires  an  official  reporter,  and  the  other 
does  not  require  one,  and,  in  this  way,  more 
time  is  consumed  in  deciding  whether  or  not  an 
official  reporter,  or  an  assistant  clerk,  or  ser- 
geant at- arms,  or  a messenger  boy,  shall  be 
employed,  and  more  money  is  squandered  in 
these  little  bickerings  about  these  officers,  than 
the  amount  of  their  pay  in  both  Houses.  For 
these  reasons,  I have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  we  should  support  this  amendment,  that 
there  shall  be  enacted  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a law  prescribing  what  officers  and  em- 
ployes both  branches  of  the  same  shall  have; 
so  that  when  they  come  together,  they  shall,  in 
the  outset,  proceed  to  elect  them  and  let  that 
end  the  matter.  More  than  that,  the  last  clause 
provides  they  shall  not  be  authorized  to  pay, 
from  the  State  treasury,  any  person  except 
those  officers  and  employes  that  shall  be  elected 
or  appointed  in  pursuance  of  said  law.  It  will 
be  observed  that  this  does  not  limit  the  number, 
but  provides  that  the  number  shall  be  prescrib- 
ed by  law,  for  both  branches  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  so  enable  them  to  obviate  any 
difficulty  that  might  arise.  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  would  not  only  be  useful  as  a saving  to  the 
finances  of  the  State,  but  that  the  General  As- 
sembly will  be  very  glad  if  this  body  would 
thus  relieve  them  from  a trouble  and  responsi- 
bility that  is  very  annoying. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  appears  to  me  that  the 
gentleman’s  argument  is  a hit  at  his  own  meas- 
ure, as  it  permits  the  General  Assembly  to  pass 
any  law  that  they  choose  upon  this  subject. 
They  have  full  power,  full  authority,  and  even 
if  they  are  directed  to  pass  a law,  they  can  re- 
peal that  law,  and  enact  another  one  at  the 
same  session,  and  it  only  gives  to  the  Legisla- 
ture power  that  they  now  have,  and  does  not 
put  any  limit  on  the  power  that  they  should  ex- 
ercise under  it.  This  idea  that  we  have  got  to 
get  up  so  many  moral  supports  lor  the  General 
Assembly,  as  if  that  body  of  men  did  not  have 
some  virtue  in  them.  It  seems  to  me  as  equiva- 
lent to  saying  that  the  General  Assembly  is  not 


competent  to  manage  its  own  affairs,  and  the 
things  that  peculiarly  belong  to  it— its  domestic 
business  and  the  management  of  its  officers. 
Now,  sir,  saying  that  the  General  Assembly 
has  not  the  necessary  wisdom,  or  the  necessary 
virtue,  to  go  on  and  do  that  which  is  incident 
to  their  ordinary  duties,  is  going  too  far.  There 
ought  to  be  something  left  to  the  intelligence, 
and  to  the  supposed  virtue  of  men.  We  have 
provided,  already,  all  that  is  required  of  this 
body.  Now,  this  says  that  it  shall  be  prescribed 
by  law — that  is  already  done  by  a law  now  ex- 
isting— whom  they  shall  elect;  and,  if  they 
find  it  necessary  to  elect  others,  they  do  it,  and 
this  proposition  does  not  change  that  in  a single 
respect.  They  can,  during  the  session,  repeal 
any  existing  law  on  the  subject,  and  they  can 
enact  any  new  law  to  meet  any  additional  case. 
Now,  to  put  upon  the  General  Assembly,  when 
they  find  that  another  clerk  is  needed,  the  ne- 
cessity of  going  to  work  and  passing  a bill  for 
that  purpose,  and  making  them  all  that  trouble, 
when  it  is  in  their  power  to  determine  it  without, 
it  seems  to  me,  is  going  into  that  sort  of  detail, 
that  sort  of  legislation,  which  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, entirely  unnecessary  and  unbecoming. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I do  not  deem  this  as  grave  a 
matter  as  many  that  we  have  considered ; but 
since  it  is  brought  before  us,  I do  deem  it  of 
sufficient  importance  that  we  should  act  under- 
standingly  and  judiciously.  I think  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  is 
entirely  mistaken  as  to  the  way  things  are  done 
now.  Unless  change  has  been  made  very  re- 
cently, each  House  is  in  the  habit,  on  its  own 
caprice  or  its  own  judgment,  at  any  time,  when 
such  a resolution  can  be  passed,  to  pass  a reso- 
lution increasing  the  number  of  clerks  or 
assistant  clerks,  the  number  of  assistant  ser- 
geants-at-arms, the  number  of  pages,  and  the 
like. 

Well,  it  is  said  that  we  ought  to  trust  some- 
thing to  the  General  Assembly.  So  I say,  and, 
in  many  respects,  I trust  very  much  to  them — 
much  more  than  I would  to  the  Convention — 
but  it  is,  nevertheless,  an  abuse.  I do  not 
believe  that  there  has  been  a solitary  instance, 
in  the  last  ten  years,  when  either  House  has 
confined  itself  to  the  necessary  subordinate 
assistants.  They  have  always  had  more  than 
were  necessary,  and  then,  generally,  that  has 
been  followed  by  an  additional  appropriation 
for  their  services.  All  this,  to  be  sure,  will  not 
greatly  impoverish  the  State — it  is  not  a very 
great  public  burden ; but  it  is  wrong.  It  offers 
inducements  for  men  who  had  better  stay  away 
to  come  and  hang  about  in  the  House  or  Senate, 
to  get  some  of  those  little,  subordinate  places; 
and  its  worst  influence,  sir,  is  in  inducing 
small  boys,  who  ought  to  be  learning  some- 
thing better  than  they  will  learn  in  waiting 
on  either  House  of  the  General  Assembly, 
to  leave  their  schools,  or  leave  their  homes, 
or  some  better  employment,  and  hang  about 
there.  It  has  a demoralizing  effect  upon 
the  employes,  it  has  a demoralizing  effect 
upon  the  members  of  the  General  Assembly. 
Why,  sir,  I have  seen  some  very  remarkable 
conversions,  not  from  one  party  to  another,  but 
from  one  side  of  a question  to  the  other.  It 
seems  almost  as  wonderful  as  that  of  St.  Paul. 
You  would  find  some  particular  friend  of  some 


1284 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


Root,  Powell, 


particular  member  had  been  appointed  to  a new 
clerkship  that  had  been  made  for  the  purpose, 
perhaps.  I have  more  than  one  instance  in 
my  own  memory,  where  that  very  thing  has 
been  done.  And  I hope  that  this  will  be  recon- 
sidered for  another  reason.  1 hope  when  it  is 
reconsidered,  that  we  shall  act  with  a little  more 
consideration  on  another  subject.  The  gentle- 
man from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  made  a motion 
which  was  received  with  very  little  favor,  about 
“stationery  and  so  forth.”  It  is  said  that,  too, 
is  no  great  matter;  but,  sir,  I give  it  as  my  ex- 
perience, and  think  that  the  gentlemen  who  are 
most  indi  strious  in  the  use  of  stationery  about 
their  appropriate  duties  will  bear  me  out  in  it, 
that  ten  dollars  should  suffice  to  supply  any 
member  with  stationery  during  an  ordinary 
session  of  the  General  Assembly.  I will  ven- 
ture to  say,  however,  that  the  actual  cost  to  the 
State  is  not  less  than  twenty-five  dollars,  at 

Mr.  POWELL.  Can  you  tell  where  it  goes? 

Mr.  ROOT.  No ; I cannot  tell  where  it  goes, 
but  I can  tell  where  it  comes  from ; 1 know 
where  the  cost  comes  from.  Sir,  this  is  an 
abuse  that  is  all  the  time  increasing,  and  it  is 
demoralizing  in  the  highest  degree*  It  re-acts, 
not  on  the  members  alone,  but  upon  the  em- 
ployes of  any  body  like  this,  or  like  either 
House  of  the  General  Assembly.  There  are 
contracts,  and  there  are  favorites  who  can  get 
contracts,  and  others  who  cannot  get  them. 
There  are  occasionally  some  little  purchases 
made  on  the  presumption  that  they  will  be 
needed,  and  having  been  made,  though  rather 
irregularly  done,  to  make  it  all  straight  the  ap- 
propriation is  made.  Never  going  to  do  so 
again,  but  it  is  always  repeated,  over  and  over 
again. 

Now,  one  other  thing  I will  mention.  I re- 
member, at  one  time  this  very  abuse  had  grown 
to  be  so  great  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
at  Washington,  that  the  average  was,  I forget 
whether  a little  over  or  a little  under  fifty  dol- 
lars to  each  member  during  the  session.  A 
Committee  was  raised — there  never  was  a more 
judicious  thing  done — and  it  was  ascertained 
that  one  of  the  members  of  Congress  who  was 
carrying  on  a printing  press  a great  way  from 
Washington,  to  wit : Chicago,  had  taken  home 
bill  paper  to  the  amount  of  $200,  which  he  used 
in  his  own  printing  establishment.  Well,  sir, 
the  action  upon  that  was,  that  each  member 
might  have  stationery,  not  to  exceed  the  amount 
of  twenty-five  dollars,  for  a long  session — usu- 
ally about  eight  months — and  not  to  exceed  fif- 
teen dollars,  for  a short  session — usually  about 
one  hundred  days. 

I hope  that,  since  we  have  this  matter  brought 
to  our  attention,  and  I think  it  is  well  that  it  has 
been  done,  we  will  take  care  so  to  provide  that 
the  salary  shall  be  sufficient  to  cover  any  ne- 
cessary expense,  and  they  shall  not,  by  hook  or 
crook,  get  anything  beyond  the  salary — cut  ofi 
all  these  little  accessions. 

Mr.  HILL.  May  I interrupt  the  gentleman 
a moment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman 
yield  the  floor? 

Mr.  ROOT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HILL.  I concur  with  what  the  gentle- 
man has  said.  I would  also  ask  him  to  consid- 


[112th 

Hill,  Bannon.  [Thursday, 


er  that  this  Convention  has  already  expended 
about  forty  dollars  per  head  for  stationery. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I am  glad  of  the  information, 
sir,  and  ashamed  of  the  fact.  Forty  dollars 
apiece ! We  should  be  ashamed  for  every  dol- 
lar over  fifteen  to  the  member.  But  I appeal  to 
the  experience  of  our  largest  business  men— 
and  we  have  certainly  some  who  know  much 
about  this — who  are  engaged  in  commercial 
pursuits  and  professional  pursuits.  Why, 
sir,  at  home,  I will  venture  to  say  that  there  is 
not  a lawyer  upon  this  floor  that  would  not  have 
been  well  supplied  in  his  office  with  all  that 
could  have  been  called  stationery,  for  fifteen 
dollars. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  ten  dollars. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  the  gentleman  is  about  as 
much  of  a paper  butcher,  I think,  as  we  have 
amongst  us.  He  neither  spares  pen  nor  ink, 
time  nor  paper,  and  he  thinks  that  he  can  get 
along  with  ten  dollars  worth,  and  I am  not  dis- 
posed to  contradict  him. 

Mr.  BANNON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BANNON.  Does  he  know  that  any  gen- 
tleman upon  this  floor  has  received  forty  dol- 
lars worth  of  stationery  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  I am  a little  surprised  that 
the  gentleman  from  Scioto  should  ask  me  that 
question.  I got  the  information  from  the  gen- 
tleman from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill].  I said  I was 
glad  I got  the  information  ; but  I was  ashamed 
of  the  fact.  No,  I do  not  know  it;  but  I ven- 
ture this,  that  the  gentleman  from  Ashland 
does  not  venture  on  a wild  statement.  If  the 
gentleman  from  Scioto  [Mr.  Bannon]  wants 
any  information,  let  him  address  himself  to  the 
source  of  my  knowledge,  and  he  will  get  all  the 
information  he  wants,  I have  no  doubt. 

Mr.  HILL.  I will  be  very  much  pleased, 
Mr.  President,  to  give  anybody  any  informa- 
tion upon  that  subject.  I have  the  figures. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I wish  to  say  one  word,  sug- 
gested by  the  remarks  of  the  delegate  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold].  He  says  here  and 
now,  what  we  have  heard  repeated  on  numer- 
ous occasions,  that  we  ought  to  trust  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  that  we  ought  to  confide  in 
them.  They  are  the  Representatives  of  the 
people,  and,  in  all  their  acts,  must  govern  and 
control  the  general  legislation  of  the  State. 
Now,  I wish  to  say  to  my  friend  that  that  is 
just  what  this  amendment  proposes  to  do : to  im- 
pose on  the  General  Assembly,  as  such,  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  creation  and  payment  of 
these  officers  and  employes.  It  is  now,  as 
many  members  have  asserted  here,  without 
contradiction,  the  practice  of  each  House  to 
create  these  officers,  to  fix  their  compensation, 
and  to  quarter  them  upon  the  Treasury  with- 
out those  forms  of  legislation  which  we  have 
prescribed  in  all  other  cases  affecting  the  State 
to  the  most  trifling  extent.  This  is  just  what 
we  propose  to  do,  to  take  away  this  unusual, 
and,  in  my  opinion,  improper  power  from  the 
separate  branches  of  the  Legislature,  which  are, 
in  no  respect,  the  General  Assembly,  and  place 
the  responsibility  upon  the  General  Assembly 
as  such,  constituting,  as  we  have  constituted  it, 
of  the  two  Houses,  whose  concurrence  is  nec- 
essary to  the  passage  of  any  law. 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


1285 


Day.] 

February  12,  1874.]  Mueller,  Pond,  West,  Griswold. 


Mr.  MUELLER.  One  word  in  reference  to 
this  proposition.  I hope  the  Convention  will 
agree  to  it.  It  will  do  away  with  many  abuses 
in  the  General  Assembly.  I have  no  doubt  that 
nine-tenths  of  the  members  of  either  House  of 
the  General  Assembly  will  be  glad  to  see  this 
provision  incorporated  in  our  Constitution,  be- 
cause, as  long  as  the  number  of  officers  is  not 
fixed,  they  will  be  bothered,  and  continually 
annoyed  by  men  who  want  to  be  employed  as 
officers.  There  is  only  one  difficulty,  however, 
upon  which  I ask  the  opinion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond].  The  Senate  and 
House  immediately  before  they  adjourn  sine  die , 
are  usually  making  an  allowance  to  the  clerks 
of  either  House  to  continue  their  services  after 
adjournment  three  or  four  months,  to  complete 
their  work,  and  finish  their  Journal.  Now, 
would  not  the  Legislature,  under  this  provision, 
be  prevented  from  making  the  proper  allowance 
for  that  class  of  necessary  work?  If  not,  I 
would  be  in  favor  of  having  this  provision 
adopted. 

Mr.  POND.  I will  answer  the  gentleman’s 
question.  This  provides  that  the  number,  du- 
ties, and  compensation  of  officers  shall  be  pre- 
scribed bylaw,  and  the  duty  of  completing  the 
Journal  might  be  prescribed  by  law,  as  well  as 
any  other  duty. 

The  motion  to  reconsider  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  agreeing  to  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears].  The 
Secretary  will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Sears  moves  to  amend  said  Proposition  190  by  add- 
ing the  fellowing  addition  thereto: 

^Sec.  — . The  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe  by 
law  the  number,  duties  and  compensation  of  officers  and 
employes  of  each  House,  and  no  payment  shall  be  made 
from  the  State  treasury,  or  be  in  any  way  authorized,  to 
any  person  excepting  the  officer  or  employe  elected  or  ap- 
pointed in  pursuance  of  law.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  word  “acting,”  was 
proposed  to  be  inserted,  by  some  one,  before 
“officer.”  I have  it  so  noted. 

Mr.  WEST.  I simply  wish  to  add  my  testi- 
mony in  behalf  of  this  proposition.  I think  it 
very  desirable  and  ought  to  be  incorporated,  or 
something  similar  to  it  even  more  stringent 
than  this.  This,  I understand,  has  been  well 
prepared  and  well  considered  and  it  ought  to  be 
adopted.  It  ought  to  be  adopted  for  the  reason 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Mueller];  for  if  there  be  any  one  thing 
more  annoying  than  another,  it  is  to  be  pestered 
by  a perfect  cloud  of  place-seekers,  who  con- 
tinually hang  upon  the  skirts  of  the  Legisla- 
ture for  the  first  two  or  three  months,  abso- 
lutely overwhelming  them ; and  in  order  to  get 
rid  of  their  importunity,  they  are  employed. 
And  I never  knew  an  officer  or  an  employe  to 
be  discharged.  That  thing  never  occurred  in 
the  history  of  the  Legislature.  But  they  will 
continually  add  another,  and  another,  and 
another.  And  this  thing  occurs  almost  invaria- 
bly. A resolution  about  every  three  months  is 
passed  : Pesolved,  that  A B be  employed  as  en- 

rolling clerk,  and  that  his  compensation  be 
commenced  with  the  beginning  of  the  session, 
three  months  of  which  probably  have  gone  by. 
That  has  oftentimes  occurred.  Almost  invari- 
ably the  time  of  commencing  compensation 
dates  back,  and  it  is  said,  this  gentleman  has 


been  here  ever  since  the  opening  of  the  session 
and  has  been  rendering  valuable  assistance  to 
the  clerk,  and  he  ought  to  be  compensated. 
Another  is,  that  Sebastian  Somebody  be  em- 
ployed as  assistant  porter,  and  his  compensa- 
tion begin  with  the  beginning  of  the  session, 
for  he  has  been  cleaning  spit-boxes  for  the  last 
three  months,  and  has  received  no  compensa- 
tion for  it.  Nobody  knows  how,  and  his  com- 
pensation is  dated  back,  and  the  result  of  the 
thing  is,  by  the  end  of  the  session,  they  have 
ten,  or  fifteen,  or  twenty  messengers,  clerks,  and 
porters.  I have  seen  an  official  reporter,  three 
months  after  the  session  commenced,  appointed, 
and  his  compensation  dated  from  the  first  day 
of  the  session.  I am  told  there  is  a resolution 
now  pending  in  reference  to  the  employment 
of  an  official  reporter  for  the  House,  and  I have 
no  doubt  he  has  been  reporting  for  the  news- 
papers since  the  opening  of  the  session,  and  it 
will  not  be  considered  right  that  he  should 
render  his  services  for  nothing.  They  will 
recognize  his  official  services  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  term.  Now,  these  things  should 
be  stopped;  and,  under  this  proposition,  they 
would  be  checked.  It  is  true,  it  is  not  a very 
large  sum,  not  more  than  a thousand  or  two 
thousand  dollars  a session — not  a very  large 
amount  to  the  State  of  Ohio;  but,  in  the  course 
of  ten,  or  fifteen,  or  twenty  years,  it  would 
amount  to  a handsome  sum.  It  ought  to  be 
stopped.  The  General  Assembly,  by  general 
law,  may  do  all  that  is  necessary,  and  it  will  re- 
lieve the  two  Houses  from  the  annoyance  and 
from  the  temptation.  Why,  just  think  of  it, 
Mr.  President.  Here  are  a dozen  or  twenty 
gentlemen  importuning  their  friends  for  posi- 
tions. Their  mutual  friends  get  together.  Well, 
he  is  a mighty  clever  fellow,  and  would  like  to 
have  a position.  Another  says,  I have  a friend, 
a very  clever  fellow.  Those  fellows  have  been 
exceedingly  clever,  and  ought  to  be  provided 
for.  We  don’t  want  them,  at  all.  We  have  four 
or  five  clerks,  when  two  could  discharge  the  du- 
ties— four  or  five  Sergeants-at-Arms,  when  the 
whole  duties  can  be  performed  by  messenger- 
boys  and  scavengers. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  When  there  is  a little 
cheap  economy  of  this  kind,  no  matter  in  what 
form  it  is,  it  seems  to  be  very  popular ; but  the 
very  argument  itself,  that  it  is  necessary  to  pro- 
tect the  General  Assembly  from  such  things,  it 
seems  to  me,  proceeds  upon  such  a low  estimate 
of  human  nature  that  it  ought  not  to  find  weight 
anywhere.  But  there  is  a thing  beyond  this, 
and  that  is  the  fact  that  the  General  Assembly 
— either  branch — shall  not  have  the  domestic 
management  of  their  own  affairs ; shall  not 
have  the  privilege  of  proceeding,  when  they  find 
an  additional  clerk  necessary,  to  elect  him,  but 
they  must  go  to  work  and  pass  a bill  for  that 
purpose.  It  may  be  that  the  General  Assembly 
is  of  such  character  that  men  may,  by  impor- 
tunity, get  them  to  pay  money  out  of  the 
treasury,  which,  in  conscience  and  good  faith, 
they  ought  not  to  do.  I have  never  had  a groat 
deal  of  legislative  experience,  but  I never  found 
any  trouble  of  that  sort.  You  go  on  to  say  that 
the  Legislature  shall  prescribe  for  all  future 
Legislatures  what  clerks  are  necessary  for  them. 
If  an  exigency  arises  for  an  additional  clerk, 
the  General  Assembly  must  stop  in  its  ordinary 
course  of  business  and  pass  a law  to  employ  a 


1286 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT 

Griswold,  West,  Tuttle,  Cunningham. 


clerk  for  a special  service,  for  one  week  may  be. 
They  cannot  employ  him  for  any  additional 
service.  Or,  if  they  want  an  additional  mes- 
senger for  a special  purpose,  as,  for  instance, 
to  serve  subpoenas,  they  must  go  to  work  to  pass 
a bill.  It  seems  to  me  we  are  interfering  with 
the  domestic  business  of  the  Legislature,  with 
matters  which  belong  to  their  own  internal 
household,  as  if  they  were  not  competent  to 
determine  this  matter  for  themselves.  It  often 
happens  that  they  do  need  an  additional  clerk. 
There  is  an  accumulation  of  business  to  require 
it;  and  the  peculiar  exigencies  of  either  House 
may  require  this  sort  of  thing.  If  either  House 
want  an  additional  clerk  or  page,  they  have  to 
pass  a bill  upon  that  subject.  As  I say,  it  im- 
poses altogether  too  much  labor  upon  them, 
taking  away  from  them  their  discretion  and 
judgment. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  seems  to  me  the  gentleman 
misapprehends  the  whole  thing,  altogether. 
The  general  law  does  provide  for  all  such  con- 
tingencies. All  that  is  required  is  that  there 
shall  be  a general  law  providing  for  general  em- 
ployment, and  for  contingencies,  and  that  they 
have  the  authority  to  employ  a gentleman  for 
one  week,  and  shall  not  have  the  power  to  pay 
him  for  six  months. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Suppose  they  provide  in 
their  bill  that  either  House  may,  if  they  choose 
at  any  time,  by  a majority  vote,  add  an  addition- 
al clerk,  or  a messenger,  what  difference  have 
you  got?  The  amendment  would  allow  that. 
So  that  you  are  doing  an  entirely  nugatory 
thing,  so  far  as  the  economy  is  concerned ; and 
we  have  already  a section  which  provides  that 
nobody  shall  have  extra  compensation,  except 
by  a two-thirds  vote. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Well,  if  you  will  ask  that 
question  in  ten  minutes,  I will. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentleman  objects,  I 
will  not  press  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
yield  the  floor? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  appears  to  me  a very  differ- 
ent thing,  when  it  must  be  done  by  general  law, 
read  three  times  in  each  House,  passed  by  both 
Houses  on  different  days,  from  what  it  is  when 
it  can  be  done  by  a single  resolution  of  one 
House,  passed  in  simply  time  enough  to  take  the 
yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  just  what  I object 
to  entirely.  It  is  such  a different  thing  that  it 
ought  not  to  be  imposed  upon  either  branch  of 
the  General  Assembly.  We  have  taken  it  upon 
ourselves  to  make  laws  for  them.  They  ought 
to  be  left  to  say  how  many  clerks  they  need. 
If  they  are  not  competent  to  do  so,  they  ought 
not  to  be  allowed  to  be  legislators. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
another  question  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes;  goon. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  My  question  was  this  : If  we 
should  deny  them  the  power  by  simple  resolu- 
tion of  each  House,  at  any  time,  they  could 
accomplish  the  same  thing  by  general  law;  and 
what  1 put  the  question  to  the  gentleman  for, is 


[112th 

[Thursday, 


to  inquire  if  it  would  not  very  likely  remedy 
these  abuses? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Not  at  all;  because  you 
have  provided,  already,  that  no  money  shall  be 
drawn  from  the  treasury  except  upon  a bill 
that  is  passed,  requiring  a majority  of  both 
Houses,  and  be  read  on  different  days.  We 
have  provided  against  taking  money  out  of  the 
treasury  by  resolution.  You  must  have  your 
bill  to  get  your  money  to  pay  your  clerks,  and 
you  have  to  put  separately  in  your  bill  your 
item,  and  have  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  it  in 
both  Houses.  You  seem  to  forget  what  you 
have  done  in  reference  to  saving  money.  You 
have  provided  to  put  every  possible  guard  upon 
taking  money  out  of  the  State  Treasury,  when 
you  have  provided  that  no  money  shall  be 
drawn,  in  the  language  of  my  colleague  [Mr. 
Mueller],  only  upon  a bill  that  is  read  at  dif- 
ferent times,  and  has  a majority  of  all  the  votes 
of  both  Houses.  You  provide  against  their 
going  to  work  to  pay  a clerk  by  resolution.  It 
is  entirely  unnecessary  to  put  in  this  clause  for 
the  purpose  of  saving  money.  It  is  putting  a 
trammel  and  a limit  upon  what  should  be  left 
to  the  General  Assembly.  They  cannot  get  the 
money  for  employing  men  except  by  bill;  and 
to  say  that  the  General  Assembly — either  House 
— may  not  decide  for  itself  what  employes  it 
wants,  but  that  they  must  go  to  work  to  pass  a 
general  law  upon  that  subject,  requiring  during 
the  session,  perhaps,  half-a-dozen  laws,  is,  in  my 
judgment,  taking  away  the  discretion,  and 
what  should  be  left  to  the  judgment ‘of  such  a 
body.  The  idea  that  they  could  get  money  for 
services  not  rendered  cannot  be  done  by  reso- 
lution as  formerly.  It  must  be  passed  by  bill, 
and  the  danger  that  arises  out  of  that  does  not 
exist — cannot  by  possibility  exist.  In  order  to 
get  the  pay,  you  have  to  go  through  all  the  re- 
quirements of  the  twenty-third  or  twenty- 
fourth  section,  and,  hence,  that  part  of  the 
argument,  it  seems  to  me,  utterly  fails.  The 
objection  I find  to  it  is 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  answer  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEST.  Has  the  gentleman  ever  known 
of  a specific  item  incorporated  in  a general  appro- 
priation bill  to  pay  a particular  employe?  Is  it 
not  the  general  rule  to  make  an  appropriation 
to  cover  the  expenses  of  the  General  Assembly  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes;  but  I understand, 
now,  you  have  a new  principle  in  appropria- 
tion. Everybody7  can  inquire  what  this  is  for. 
Again,  if  you  put  in  an  appropriation  for 
clerks  that  has  not  been  earned — you  undertake 
that — you  can  do  it;  but,  if  we  have  endeavored 
to  put  a guard  upon  it,  it  shall  not  be  by  requir- 
ing the  yeas  and  nays  upon  each  item.  Hence, 
it  seems  to  me,  it  is  unnecessary;  but,  still,  as 
I say 

Mr.  WEST.  Where  is  your  pre-existing  law 
to  pay  it? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Have  you  not  a provision 
for  pre-existing  law? 

Mr.  WEST.  We  want  to  provide  for  pre-ex- 
isting law. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  \Ve  don’t  want  any  such 
thing. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  a word  or 


1287 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  12,  1874.]  Cunningham,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Humphreville,  etc. 


two  in  reference  to  why  I shall  vote  against  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Wyandot 
[Mr.  Sears].  It  seems  to  me,  we  are  loading  a 
very  large  gun  to  shoot  a very  small  flea,  by  in- 
corporating into  the  Constitution  a provision 
that  only  assumes  to  regulate  the  matter  of 
what  might  be  termed  the  police  of  the  different 
Houses  of  the  Legislature.  It  is  simply  a po- 
lice regulation.  I suggest  to  the  Convention 
that  there  is  some  little  sensitiveness  felt,  here, 
at  what  is  assumed  by  some  gentlemen,  on  the 
part  of  the  Legislature,  to  constitute  itself  the 
guardian  of  the  morals  of  this  Convention.  Do 
not  we,  by  this  action,  subject  ourselves,  some- 
what, to  the  countercharge  that  we  are  seeking 
to  constitute  ourselves  their  guardians  in  very 
small  and  minute  matters?  I have  no  doubt 
but  that  there  is  an  abuse  in  the  Legislature, 
but  it  seems  to  me  better  to  be  left  to  the  sense 
of  the  Legislature  itself,  and  not  incorporate  a 
proposition  of  this  sort  in  the  Constitution. 
There  are  a few  things  that  would  be  right, 
which  everybody  would  concede  to  be  right — 
the  details  of  the  administration  of  the  State 
government,  or  county  government,  for  that  mat- 
ter, but  that,  certainly,  would  be  out  of  place  in 
the  Constitution  of  this  State.  For  that  reason, 
and  for  that  reason  alone,  I shall  uvote  against 
the  proposition. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I believe  that  the 
question  has  been  fully  discussed  on  both  sides. 
We  had  it  up  the  other  day,  and,  for  fear  we  go 
on  and  discuss  it  the  whole  day,  I would  move 
the  previous  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is, 
whether  the  main  question  shall  be  put  ? 

Agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
concurring  in  the  amendment. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  61,  nays  12,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ew- 
ing, Foran,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Greene,  Hale, 
Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphre- 
ville, Johnson,  Keir,  Layton,  McBride,  Mer- 
rill, Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Neal, 
Okey,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly, 
Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sco- 
field, Sears,  Shultz,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Voor- 
hes,  Voris,  Waddle,  West,  White  of  Brown, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  President 
—61. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Dor- 
sey, Griswold,  Hunt,  McCormick,  Reilly,  Rus- 
sell of  Meigs,  Sample,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Thompson — 12. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  As  there  is,  prob- 
ably, no  other  amendment  to  this  Article,  I now 
move  that  it  be  engrossed  for  its  third  reading 
for  to-morrow. 

Agreed  to. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I suppose  that  it  is  intended  to 
bring  up  that  Article,  for  its  third  reading,  on 
to-morrow. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  order. 


Mr.  YORIS.  Some  radical  changes  have  been 
made  in  the  Article. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  par- 
don the  Chair  one  moment? 

Mr.  YORIS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  section  just  adopted  will  be  numbered  34. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  is  certainly  one  of  the  most 
important  Articles  of  the  Constitution,  and,  to 
myself,  it  would  be  exceedingly  gratifying  if 
the  engrossment  of  the  Article  be  put  so  far  off 
with  its  third  reading,  that  we  could  get  it 
printed  and  put  upon  our  tables  before  it  is 
finally  passed.  There  is  so  much  in  it,  it  seems 
to  me,  that  we  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  to 
consider  it  section  by  section,  or  clause  by 
clause,  before  we  are  required  to  vote  upon  it. 
I,  therefore,  suggest  to  the  Chairman  of  the 
Standing  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Depart- 
ment— I would  like  to  have  the  attention  of  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  a moment — that  it 
is,  in  my  estimation,  a matter  of  primary  im- 
portance that  we  have  an  opportunity  of  exam- 
ining the  engrossed  Article  carefully,  clause  by 
clause,  before  we  take  the  final  vote  upon  it. 
The  suggestion  I want  to  make  is  this : that  the 
third  reading  of  the  bill  be  put  off  until  it  can 
be  printed  and  laid  upon  our  tables,  as  an  en- 
grossed bill,  before  we  take  the  final  vote 
upon  it. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  know  how 
long  it  will  take  to  print  the  bill.  I suppose  it 
can  be  done  so  as  to  have  it  here  by  to-morrow 
morning.  I suppose  if  it  is 

The  SECRETARY.  It  cannot  be  done. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  motion.  Do 
you  propose  to  reconsider  the  vote  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  No;  but  I suggested  it  as  sup- 
plementary to  the  order  of  the  Convention  just 
made. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I desire  this  Arti- 
cle should  be  disposed  of  by  to-morrow.  It  is 
absolutely  necessary  that  I should  go  home  the 
latter  part  of  this  week,  and  if  this  bill  is  not 
disposed  of  to-morrow,  I cannot  go  this  week ; 
otherwise,  I would  be  willing  to  have  the  further 
consideration — the  third  reading — postponed.  I 
had  hoped  it  could  be  printed,  so  as  to  be  dis- 
posed of  this  week.  Still,  my  private  wishes 
must  be  sacrificed  to  the  will  of  the  Convention 
and  public  necessity.  If  the  desire  of  the  Con- 
vention is  that  the  reading  should  be  postponed 
until  the  bill  can  be  printed,  I will  submit. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  suggests 
that  the  bill  cannot  be  printed  before  Monday. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  Chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee does  not  desire  to  have  it  acted  upon,  of 
course,  until  it  is  printed. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  If  any  member 
desires  to  see  the  whole  bill  in  print,  I have  no 
desire  to  press  my  objection. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I have  heard  others  express  the 
same  opinion. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I want  to  ask  whether  he  ex- 
pedites the  bill  at  all  by  ordering  its  engross- 
ment before  printing,  or  whether  it  would  be 
better  to  reconsider  the  order  of  engrossment 
and  make  it  an  order  to  print,  and  to  have  it 
printed  by  such  a day  ? It  seems  to  me  that  if 


1288 MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [112th 

Humphreville,  Hoadly,  West,  Root,  Okey.  [Thursday, 


it  be  engrossed,  and  then  printed,  it  will  involve 
the  necessity  of  recommitting  with  instruc- 
tions. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I have  no  pride  in 
this  matter.  My  impression  now  is  that  per- 
haps it  would  be  better  not  to  engross  the  bill 
now,  and  I,  therefore,  move  to  reconsider  the 
vote. 

Which  motion  was  ageed  to. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Now,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I will  move  that  the  bill  be  printed  and 
laid  on  the  table,  and  the  order  to  engross  can 
be  made  at  any  time  hereafter,  and  members 
can  have  an  opportunity  to  examine  it  fully. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  "gen- 
tleman from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville]  is, 
that  the  Proposition  lie  on  the  table  and  be 
printed.  Does  the  gentleman  from  Medina 
[Mr.  Humphreville]  propose  that  this  Propo- 
sition shall  retain  its  order  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  No,  sir;  I am  not 
strenuous  about  that.  I am  willing  the  third 
reading  should  be  postponed  until  after  I return, 
if  I go  the  latter  part  of  the  week.  I am  not 
certain  that  I shall  go,  and  am  not  anxious 
about  the  third  reading. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  that  the  Convention 
resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  order  of  the  day,  Proposition  182,  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions. 

Mr.  WEST.  Why  not  discharge  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  and  bring  it  back,  and  not  go 
over  the  whole  work?  Why  not  discharge  the 
Committee  and  have  it  in  the  Convention  at 
once? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I have  no  sort  of  objection, 
but  I do  not  think  it  would  come  very  grace- 
fully from  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  to 
make  that  suggestion. 

Mr.  WEST.  Then  I move  that  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  be  discharged,  and  that  it  be 
brought  into  the  Convention. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  like  to  make  one  sug- 
gestion to  the  gentleman.  I believe  that  the 
present  President  has  given  very  considerable 
attention  to  this  Proposition.  I agree  in  the 
views  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  ; 
but  I think,  perhaps,  it  will  lose  no  time,  and 
it  will  give  better  opportunity  for  discussion. 
There  is  one  question  on  which,  perhaps,  there 
will  be  some  discussion,  and  I would  like  to 
have  a fair  opportunity  for  the  President  to 
participate  in  that,  because  it  is  his  proposition. 
Let  us  have  some  discussion,  and  then  we  can 
acc  upon  the  Report  at  any  time  on  the  motion 
of  any  member.  Will  not  that  be  better  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest  that  there  will 
be  no  difficulty  about  the  President  having  an 
opportunity  to  participate  in  the  discussion. 
He  can,  at  any  time,  leave  the  Chair,  and  invite 
another  member  to  occupy  it  for  the  time  being. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  that  the  Convention  resolve  itself  into 
Committee  of  the  Whole. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  Mr.  POND 
called  to  the  Chair. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  order  of  the  day  is 
the  consideration  of  Proposition  No.  182. 
Proposition  is  as  follows : 


Proposition  No.  182,  submitting  an  additional  Article  to 
the  Constitution: 

MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Section  1.  The  General  Assembly  shall,  bv  general 
laws,  provide  lor  the  organization  and  classification  of 
Municipal  Corporations;  the  number  of  such  classes  shall 
not  exceed  six,  and  the  powers  of  each  class  shall  be  de- 
fined by  general  laws,  so  that  no  such  corporation  shall 
have  any  other  powers,  or  be  subject  to  any  other  restric- 
tions than  other  corporations  of  the  same  class.  The 
General  Assembly  shall  restrict  the  power  of  such  corpo- 
rations to  levy  taxes  and  assessments,  borrow  money  and 
contract  debts,  -o  as  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  such  power. 

Sec.  2.  No  Municipal  Corporation  shall  loan  its  credit 
to  any  person  or  corporation,  or  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever. 

Sec.  3.  No  assessment  shall  be  levied  by  any  Munici- 
pal Corporation  upon  any  property  which  shall  require 
the  payment  in  any  one  year  of  more  than  ten  per  centum 
of  its  value,  as  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate. 

Sec.  4.  The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion shall  never  exceed  in  the  aggregate  five  per  centum 
of  the  value  of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as 
ascertained  from  time  to  time,  by  the  tax  duplicate  there- 
of, without  the  consent  first  obtained  of  at  least  two- 
thirds  of  the  taxpayers  of  such  corporation,  and  in  no 
case  shall  such  indebtedness  exceed  ten  per  centum  of 
said  taxable  value.  In  ascertaining  such  indebtedness  at 
any  time,  there  shall  be  included  an  amount  which,  at  the 
rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum,  will  produce  a sum 
equal  to  the  aggregate  amount  payable  by  such  corpora- 
tion for  the  rent  of  property  leased  to  it. 

This  section  shall  not  be  construed  to  prevent  any  Mu- 
nicipal Corporation  from  incurring  any  indebtedness 
authorized  by  law  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitu- 
tion, nor  shall  the  restrictions  of  this  section  apply  to 
necessary  expenditures  for  military  purposes  in  time  of 
war. 

Sec.  5.  No  tax  or  assessment  shall  be  levied  or  collect- 
ed by  any  Municipal  Corporation,  except  in  pursuance  of 
law  for  purposes  specified  by  law,  nor  shall  money  raised 
by  taxation  or  assessment  for  one  purpose  ever  be  divert- 
ed to  another. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  under  considera- 
tion before,  I believe  the  question  pending  was 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Mon- 
roe [Mr.  Okey]  to  strike  out  of  the  first  section 
that  portion  which  the  Secretary  will  read. 

The  SECRETARY.  On  the  ninth  day  of 
July  the  gentleman  from  Monroe  [Mr.  Okey] 
offered  the  following  amendment  to  the  first 
section : 

“Strike  out  all  after  the  word  ‘corporations’,  in  the  sec- 
ond line,  to,  and  to  include,  the  word  ‘and’,  in  the  third 
line.” 

It  will  then  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  1.  The  General  Assembly  shall,  by  general 
laws,  provide  for  the  organization  and  classification  of 
Municipal  Corporations;  the  powers  of  each  class  shall 
be  defined  by  general  laws,  so  that  no  such  corporation 
shall  have  any  other  powers,  or  be  subject  to  any  other 
restrictions  than  other  corporations  of  the  same  class. 
The  General  Assembly  shall  restrict  the  power  of  such 
corporations  to  levy  taxes  and  assessments,  borrow  monev 
and  contract  debts,  so  as  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  such 
power.” 

Mr.  OKEY.  I desire  to  withdraw  the  amend- 
ment I offered. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  the  amendment  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  to  ascertain  the 
pleasure  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  so  far 
as  my  own  duty  is  concerned.  When  this  mat- 
ter was  before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  last 
summer,  we  discussed  that  part  of  the  subject 
growing  out  of  the  first  section  of  this  Article, 
and  so  far  as  my  own  views  and  judgment  were 
concerned,  expressed  them,  as  may  be  found 
between  pages  578  and  595  of  the  first  volume 
of  the  published  Debates.  Since  that  time  we 
adopted  a rule  concerning  debate,  assigning  to 
the  Chairman  of  a Committee  one  hour  in  open- 
ing the  discussion ; and  I suppose  this  is  the  time 


The 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  Humphreville. 


1289 


Day.] 

February  12,  1874.] 


for  general  debate,  and  if  considered  proper,  I 
suppose  it  is  my  duty  to  go  on  and  state,  not 
merely  with  reference  to  the  first  section — be- 
ing the  matter  which  was  under  consideration 
last  summer — but  also  with  regard  to  other  sec- 
tions, the  views  and  considerations  which  led 
to  the  results  arrived  at  by  the  Committee.  If 
it  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  I will  pursue  that  course. 

[“Agreed,”  “agreed.”] 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  gentleman  has  leave. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  being  understood,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I desire  to  say,  in  the  first  place, 
that  little  or  nothing  upon  the  subject  assigned 
to  this  Committee  was  to  be  found  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  1851,  and  the  question  which  first 
presented  itself  to  us  was : whether  we  were  to 
engage  in  the  undertaking,  or  endeavor,  in  view 
of  the  history  of  the  State  under  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1851,  to  present  restrictions  and  limita- 
tions to  the  powers  of  municipal  corporations, 
which  might  guard  against  the  evilsknown  to 
have  existed.  In  submitting  this  Proposition 
as  an  additional  Article  to  the  Constitution,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  we  do  not  even  suggest  to  the 
Convention,  and  do  not,  by  that  use  of  language, 
even  desire  to  suggest  to  the  Convention,  that 
the  subject  of  municipal  corporations  is  so  sep- 
arated from  the  subject  of  county  and  township 
organizations  as  to  require  classification,  or  lo- 
cation in  a separate  Article ; but  only  that,  as 
it  came  to  us — a separate  Committee — as  a sepa- 
rate matter,  therefore  we  present  it  in  a sepa- 
rate form.  My  own  idea  has  been  that,  when 
the  Convention  shall  decide  what  powers,  what 
restrictions  it  is  best  for  the  Constitution  to 
provide  with  regard  to  municipal  corporations, 
it  will  be  found  that  they  will,  in  a large  meas- 
ure, be  applicable  to  counties,  townships,  and 
school  districts;  and  that  the  Article  of  the 
Constitution,  when  it  comes  from  the  Commit- 
tee on  Revision,  will  be  likely  to  embrace  both 
of  these  topics. 

The  first  subject  to  which  the  Committee  ad- 
dressed itself  was  that  embodied  in  the  propo- 
sition of  my  colleague,  the  President  of  the 
Convention  [Mr.  King].  It  involved  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  policy  of  general  legislation 
should  be  adopted  for  the  government  of  Muni- 
cipal Corporations,  or  whether  we  should  throw 
the  doors  open  for  special  legislation,  as  it  ex- 
isted under  the  Constitution  of  1802.  If  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  will  read 
the  Debate  to  which  I referred — pages  578  to 
595  inclusive — they  will  find  there,  as  already 
stated,  the  views  presented  by  which  they  may 
be  enabled  to  refresh  their  memories  with  re- 
gard to  the  reasons  of  your  Committee  in  deter- 
mining not  merely  that  general  legislation  was 
the  proper  method  of  government  for  municipal 
corporations,  but  also  that  governed  the  Com- 
mittee to  offer  this  section  to  accomplish  that 
result.  We  have  found  that  the  clause  of  the 
present  Constitution  intended  to  require  general 
legislation,  was  very  easily  evaded;  evaded  in 
consequence  of  a suggestion  made  in  the  Con- 
vention of  1850,  first  by  Benjamin  Stanton,  of 
Logan,  and  acquiesced  in  by  other  members  of 
the  Convention,  and  subsequently  carried  out 
by  the  first  Legislature  which  met  under  the 
Constitution  of  1851,  and  ever  since  resorted 
to ; so  that  this  matter  of  general  legislation  in 


the  form  of  classification,  has  become  a custom 
of  the  State;  and  the  supreme  court,  in  the 
eighteenth  volume  of  the  Ohio  State  Reports, 
on  page  85,  in  the  case  of  Welker  against 
Potter,  decided  that  such  classification  was  not 
inhibited  by  the  Constitution,  but  that  legis- 
lation of  the  character  I refer  to,  and  which  was 
more  fully  described  last  summer,  was  within 
the  scope  of  the  present  Constitution,  and  not 
forbidden  by  it.  But,  inasmuch  as  general  leg- 
islation by  classification,  without  limit  of  the 
classes,  is  simply  special  legislation,  and,  in- 
asmuch as  the  number  of  classes  may  be  as 
many  as  the  number  of  villages  and  cities,  and 
inasmuch  as  the  power  to  change  classes  is 
unrestiricted  by  the  present  Constitution,  it 
has  proved  that,  under  the  Constitution  intend- 
ed to  secure  the  benefits  of  general  legislation, 
we  have  really  had  special  charters  and  special 
powers,  granted  by  special  laws,  to  all  those 
cities  whose  interests  required  them,  or  seemed 
sufficiently  to  require  them  to  give  attention 
enough  to  the  subject  to  go  to  the  Legislature 
to  ask  them.  The  evil  of  special  legislation 

is,  that  such  legislation  does  not  command  the 
careful  attention  of  every  member  of  the  Legis- 
lature, but  only  of  the  very  few  who  may 
represent  the  county  in  which  the  particular 
city  or  town  may  be  located.  One  man  says  to  a 
brother  legislator,  “this  is  my  bill.  My  people 
want  this.  I will  be  obliged  to  you  if  you  will 
vote  for  it.”  “ Well,”  says  this  brother  legis- 
lator, “ our  people  want  this  thing,  and  if  you 
will  vote  for  this,  I will  vote  for  what  your 
people  desire.”  This  thing  has  grown  under 
our  present  Constitution,  as  I am  informed  by 
gentlemen  who  have  had  experience  in  the 
Legislature,  until  it  has  become  as  bad  as  it  was 
under  the  Old  Constitution,  when  the  laws 
filled  a volume  embracing  nine  hundred  pages, 
a large  portion  of  which  was  taken  up  in  spe- 
cial legislation  for  cities  and  towns.  In  view 
of  the  action  taken  the  other  day  on  the  propo- 
sition to  exscind  from  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Legislative  Department  the  clause 
relating  to  this  matter,  and  the  very  strong 
vote  given  to  sustain  the  provision  of  that  Re- 
port prohibiting  the  grant  of  powers  to  cities 
and  other  municipalities  of  one  class  different 
from  those  of  cities  and  municipalities  of  an- 
other class,  I think  I may  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  general  sense  of  the  Convention  is  not 
in  favor  of  attempting  to  inaugurate  and  en- 
force special  legislation  for  Cincinnati,  Cleve- 
land, and  other  cities  and  towns  by  the  Legis- 
lature. I voted  with  the  minority,  but  it  was 
not  because  I disapproved  of  the  general  policy, 
but  simply  because  I regarded  it  as  a subject 
more  proper  to  be  considered,  as  suggested  by 
the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  at 
another  time. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Will  the  gentleman 
permit  a question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  As  I understand 

it,  this  only  refers  to  cities  and  villages,  while 
the  other  refers  to  counties,  townships,  and 
school  districts. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  is  right;  and 
I ought  to  say,  with  regard  to  it,  that  it  will  be 
a matter  to  be  considered  when  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  on  County  and  Township  Organ- 


1290 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly. 


izations  is  taken  up.  But,  while  it  is  in  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions, it  is  not  alluded  to  in  that.  But  that  is  a 
matter  of  no  consequence.  I am  quite  content 
with  the  vote  taken,  and  very  glad  the  Conven- 
tion should,  by  so  strong  a vote,  express  the 
determination  that,  in  regard  to  counties, 
townships,  school  districts,  villages,  and  all 
other  municipal  and  local  corporations,  general 
legislation  should  be  the  method  by  which  their 
power  should  be  granted  and  provided  for, 
rather  than  by  special  legislation.  I only  refer 
to  this,  now,  because  I think  that  vote  justifies 
me  in  abstaining  from  naming  any  other  reason 
that  governed  the  Committee,  except  one,  viz, 
that,  under  the  practice  that  has  grown  up  in 
Ohio,  and  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court, 
to  which  I have  referred,  unless,  in  some 
way  or  other,  you  limit  the  power  of  the 
Legislature  to  classify,  you  might  as  well 
pass  no  provision  at  all;  because,  under  the 
right  to  legislate  for  classes,  and  to  make  new 
classes,  you  can  have  just  as  many  new  classes 
as  there  may  be  clamorous  cities  and  villages 
desirous  to  aid  in  building  machine  shops — I 
believe  that  was  what  was  done  for  Delaware — 
or  any  other  subject  of  special  legislation. 
Your  Committee  considered  this  subject,  wres- 
tled with  it — to  use  the  modern  phrase — and  we 
found  no  escape,  except  in  doing  that,  which,  I 
admit,  looks  like  legislation,  viz  : limiting  the 
number  of  classes  the  Legislature  may  establish.  ! 
For  myself,  I will  say  this— and  I think  I may  j 
say  for  every  member  of  this  Committee— 
that  we  would  be  very  grateful  for  any  sugges- 
tion that  would  enable  us  to  avoid  this  appear- 
ance of  legislation,  and  secure  the  same  result 
we  are  all  (or,  at  least,  a majority)  striving  to 
accomplish,  without  the  objection  just  referred 
to.  But  we  found,  after  a great  deal  of  consid- 
eration— and  I think  I may  justly  claim  for 
the  Committee,  that  it  has  labored  most  faith- 
fully—we  found  no  outlet,  no  escape  from  the 
difficulty  except  by  limiting  the  number  of 
classes.  I know  it  will  be  said,  you  do  not  limit 
the  power  of  the  Legislature  to  change  the 
classes,  but,  by  limiting  the  number  of  classes, 
you  accomplish  this : that  any  change  in  the 
number  of  classes  will  involve  the  interests  and 
rights  of  every  member  of  every  class,  and 
will,  therefore,  compel  the  attention  of  every 
member  of  the  Legislature  to  the  subject,  so 
that  even  a change  of  class  may  fairly  be  be- 
lieved to  be  a change  which  would  be  itself  gen- 
eral legislation,  and  I do  not  think,  therefore, 
that,  although  we  have  not  prohibited  the 
Legislature  from  re-arranging  the  classes,  we 
have  left  a real  opportunity  of  evasion. 

We  make  the  number  of  classes,  six— there 
are  now  four  general  classes  of  corporations  of 
a municipal  character  under  the  present  Consti- 
tution, namely  : cities  of  the  first  class,  cities  of 
the  second  class,  villages  incorporated  for 
general  purposes,  and  villages  incorporated  for  ! 
special  purposes,  which  were  more  familiarly 
known  under  the  old  Constitution  as  special  ! 
road  districts.  At  any  rate,  we  have  these  four  j 
classes;  and  under  these  four  great  classes,  all 
the  subordinate  classes  of  municipalities  have 
been  arranged.  Cities  having  a population  of 
over  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand,  have  been 
made  one  class,  allowing  the  mayor  a veto 


[112th 

[Thursday, 


power,  and  a board  of  aldermen — not  to  speak 
of  minor  details;  whereas,  these  safeguards 
have  been  withheld  from  cities  having  less  than 
one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  inhabitants. 
So  with  regard  to  cities  of  the  second  class : they 
have  been  mainly  subdivided  in  respect  to  the 
subject  of  taxation.  Upon  examination  it  will 
be  found  that,  in  arranging  the  powers  of  cities 
for  taxation,  cities  and  villages  have  been  di- 
vided into  as  many  as  eight  subdivisions,  I think ; 
that  is,  eight  different  sets  of  restrictions  have 
been  provided.  Now,  your  Committee  thought 
the  interests  of  municipalities  might  be  as  well 
provided  under  six  classes,  and  that  all  these 
minute  subdivisions  were  unnecessary  and  im- 
proper, and  were  created  by  special  legislation, 
and  nothing  else.  Still,  considering  that  we 
were  making  a Constitution  to  last  for  many 
years,  we  thought  that  if  we  gave  the  power  to 
make  two  classes  more,  as  a margin,  if  I may 
use  the  phrase,  we  would  then  be  within  the 
bounds  of  safety,  and  that,  in  the  years  to  come, 
there  could  never  arise  the  necessity  for  estab- 
lishing more  than  six  classes.  Possibly  it  may 
prove  that  there  will  never  be  the  necessity  for 
establishing  so  many.  But,  surely,  by  adding 
two  to  the  general  divisions  that  now  exist,  we 
avoid  the  danger  of  cutting  them  down  too 
closely. 

So  much  for  this  section.  Perhaps  I ought  to 
add  what  the  delegate  from  Medina  [Mr.  Hum- 
phreville]  may  remember  was  made  a matter 
of  explanation  last  summer.  As  the  difficulty 
then  presented  itself  to  so  experienced  a mem- 
ber as  himself,  it  may  again  occur.  I ought  to 
add  that  by  the  last  clause  of  the  first  section 
the  General  Assembly  is  required  so  to  restrict 
the  power  of  Municipal  Corporations  to  levy 
taxes  and  assessments,  borrow  money  and  con- 
tract debts,  so  as  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  the 
power.  This  power  is  copied  from  the  old 
Constitution  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  a 
conclusion;  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the 
Legislature  still  further  to  limit  Municipal 
Corporations  without  having  it  objected  that 
the  specific  limitations  of  the  Constitution  are 
conclusive,  and,  therefore,  that  no  other  limita- 
tions can  be  imposed.  We  believed  it  to  be  our 
right  and  duty  to  impose  certain  general  restric- 
tions, and  then,  so  that  it  should  not  be  said  that 
these  were  the  only  restrictions,  to  empower, 
and  not  onty  to  empower,  but  to  direct  and  im- 
pose the  duty  upon  the  Legislature,  as  from 
time  to  time"  it  might  become  necessary,  by 
way  of  preventing  abuse,  still  further  to  limit 
these  powers.  We  separate  the  loan  of  credit 
which  is  found  in  collocation  with  the  other 
powers  in  the  old  Constitution,  because  we  be- 
lieved that  unless  the  people  should  sanction 
railroad  aid  in  another  Article  of  this  Consti- 
tution's is  sought  by  man y persons  in  the  State, 
and  has  been  recommended  by  a Committee  of 
this  body — we  believed,  I say,  that  the  loan  of 
credit  by  any  Municipal  Corporation  to  be  a 
thing  vicious  in  principle,  without  principle, 
unsustained  by  principle,  and  that  it  ought  to 
be  eradicated,  torn  up  by  the  roots. 

And  now,  I pass  on  to  the  second  section, 
which  we  propose : 

“No  Municipal  Corporation  shall  loan  its  credit  to  any 
person  or  corporation,  or  lor  any  purpose  whatever.” 

I admit  that  we  have  coupled  more  negatives 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1291 

February  12,1874.]  Hoadly,  King,  Cunningham. 


than  are  necessary.  The  words  “ for  any  pur- 
pose whatever,”  are,  perhaps,  superfluous.  If 
we  had  said,  no  Municipal  Corporation  shall 
loan  its  credit  for  any  purpose  whatever,  that 
would,  perhaps,  have  been  sufficient.  We  must 
be  pardoned  if  we  have  used  a very  few  more 
words  than  necessary,  because  we  desired  to 
emphasize  the  unanimous  judgment  of  this 
Committee,  that  the  loan  of  credit  by  a Muni- 
cipal Corporation,  was  a matter  which  could  not 
be  sustained  by  any  right  principle  whatever. 

Mr.  KING.  Why  did  you  leave  the  power  to 
loan  at  all  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Simply  because  the  estab- 
lishment of  a sinking  lund  may  require  the  loan 
of  funds,  and  for  no  other  reason.  But  if  an 
amendment  be  proposed  that  no  Municipal 
Corporation  shall  loan  its  credit  or  property,  I, 
for  one,  will  vote  for  it  with  good  will;  and  I 
have  to  say  that  it  has  been  a matter  of  confer- 
ence with  some  members  of  the  Committee, 
whether  we  could  not  propose  this.  It  has  been 
a matter  of  conference  between  the  delegate 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  and  other 
members  of  the  Committee,  and  it  is  only  be- 
cause of  a little  hesitation  — I thank  my  col- 
league [Mr.  King],  for  the  suggestion — because 
we  did  not  desire  to  interfere  with  the  estab- 
lishment of  sinking  funds,  or  the  loans  of  mon- 
ey by  the  way  of  investment  in  sinking  funds, 
that  we  did  not  ourselves  so  propose.  For  one, 
I should  be  satisfied  if  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  would  amend  the  Report  and  say,  no 
Municipal  Corporation  shall  loan  its  credit  or 
property,  because  I believe  the  best  sinking 
fund  would  be  the  purchase  of  the  debt  of  the 
Corporation  itself;  no  matter  at  what  price  that 
debt  may  be  selling,  I believe  it  will  always  be 
cheaper  lor  the  Corporation  to  buy  up  the 
claims  against  it,  even  above  par,  than  to  invest 
its  sinking  fund  in  any  other  manner  what- 
ever. 

I wish  to  say  this,  however.  It  is  due  to  the 
delegate  from  Ross  [Mr.  Clark] — I do  not  see 
him  in  his  seat— it  is  a matter  in  which  he 
has  taken  a good  deal  of  interest — it  is  due  to 
him  and  others  to  say,  that  this  Committee  on 
Municipal  Corporations  did  not  consider  itself 
charged  with  the  duty  of  providing,  by  antici- 
pation, against  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Public  Debt  and  Public  Works,  and  we  had  no 
idea,  whatever,  in  reporting  this  section,  that  it 
should  apply  to  loans  of  credit  which  might  be 
permitted  by  other  Articles  of  the  Constitution. 
And  while,  for  one,  1 am  opposed  to  anything 
like  what  may  be  called,  for  short,  the  Boesel 
bill,  yet,  knowing  that  a Committee  of  this  body 
has  reported  a clause  of  that  character  for  adop- 
tion, if  the  Convention  choose,  by  amendment, 
to  insert  the  words,  “ unless  otherwise  provided 
in  this  Constitution,”  or  “ except  so  far  as  may 
be  otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitution,”  so 
that  the  second  section  shall  not,  and  cannot, 
be  brought  into  conflict  with  other  Articles  of 
the  Constitution,  I,  for  one,  shall  not  object. 
When  it  comes,  however,  to  the  question, 
whether  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public 
Debt  and  Public  Works  shall  be  adopted,  I shall 
feel  free.  But  I wish  it  understood,  that  the 
Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations  did  not 
consider  themselves  charged  with  the  duty  of 
considering  that  subject,  and  did  not  intend,  by 


the  use  of  the  language  of  this  second  section, 
to  anticipate  and  prevent  action  upon  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Pub- 
lic Works. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  a question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Ivith  pleasure. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  the  insertion  of  the 
qualifying  clause  in  the  section  that  he  has  re- 
ferred to,  would  not  render  the  second  section 
entirely  inoperative  and  meaningless? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  What  qualifying  clause  does 
the  gentleman  refer  to? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  “ Except  as  otherwise 
provided  in  this  Constitution.”  Suppose  that  in 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  which  the  gen- 
tleman from  Ross  [Mr.  Clark]  is  Chairman, 
that  section  should  be  incorporated,  then  it 
would  be  otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitu- 
tion. Would  not  that  render  section  2 inopera- 
tive? I ask  the  question  in  good  faith. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly  ; I do  not  doubt  it. 
The  gentleman  is  right,  quoad  the  matter  that 
may  be  disposed  of  by  the  Convention,  or  the 
people,  adopting  the  proposition.  That  is  all. 
The  section  remaining,  and  adopted,  will  then 
prohibit  the  loan  of  credit  for  every  other  pur- 
pose except  that  permitted  by  the  Constitution. 

I pass  on  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  the  third 
section,  which  involves  the  only  difference  of 
opinion  in  the  Committee.  The  third  section, 
as  reported  by  the  Committee,  is  in  these  words : 

“Sec.  3.  No  assessment  shall  be  levied  by  any  Munici- 
pal Corporation  upon  any  property  which  shall  require 
the  payment  in  any  one  year  of  more  than  ten  per  centum 
of  its  value,  as  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate.7’ 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Municipal 
Corporations  shows  that  a minority  of  the  Com- 
mittee, consisting  of  Messrs.  De  Steiguer,  Beer, 
Campbell  and  McBride,  while  concurring  in 
the  residue  of  the  proposed  Article,  submit  the 
following,  which  they  desire  to  be  added  to  the 
third  section : 

“Nor  shall  more  than  one-half  the  cost  of  any  imnrove- 
ment  be  collected  by  assessment,  unless  the  consent  of  at 
least  two-thirds  in  numbers  and  value  of  the  owners  of 
the  property  to  be  assessed  shall  have  been  first  ob- 
tained.” 

The  discussion  of  this  section  involves  a sepa- 
rate consideration.  Two  separate  matters  are 
presented.  In  the  first  place,  is  the  limitation 
which  the  majority  of  the  Committee  propose, 
right  and  sufficient?  We  have  copied  it  from 
the  laws  of  Ohio,  as  they  are  now  in  force.  It 
is  the  present  system  in  force  in  this  State,  as  to 
the  amount  which  may  be  collected  in  any  one 
year.  The  648th  section  of  the  Municipal  Code, as 
amended  on  the  2d  day  of  May,  1871,  contains 
this  proviso,  which  is  now  the  law  of  the  State. 
It  is  to  be  found  on  page  136  of  the  68th  volume 
of  the  Session  Acts,  or  as  may,  perhaps,  be  more 
convenient  to  some  members,  it  will  be  found 
on  page  2l2  of  Walker’s  Municipal  Code.  It  is 
in  these  words : 

“Provided,  further,  that  no  person  or  property  charged 
with  any  special  local  assessment  fur  any  improvement, 
shall  be  compelled  to  pay  tnerelor  in  any  one  year  more 
than  one-tenth  of  the  value  of  the  property  on  which  the 
assessment  was  made,  as  valued  on  the  county  duplicate 
lor  taxation.” 

It  is  from  this  provision  of  the  existing  law 
that  we  copied  this  restriction.  It  has  been  the 


1292 


[112th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  Tuttle.  [Thursday, 


law  of  the  State  for  nearly  three  years.  We 
have  heard  no  complaint.  I should,  perhaps, 
qualify  that.  We  have  heard  complaint  from 
one  source  since  our  Report,  that  the  limitation 
was  too  great.  One-tenth  of  the  value  on  the 
tax  duplicate  is,  probably,  in  most  cases,  about 
one-twentieth  of  the  actual  value.  W e suppose, 
first,  that  the  power  to  levy  local  assessments 
is  not  only  necessary,  but  also  beneficial.  And 
I am  strengthened,  individually,  in  this 
opinion,  by  the  votes  which  the  majority  of  the 
Convention  gave  upon  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  County  and  Township  Organizations 
We  believe  that  the  development  of  cities  and 
villages  is  not  possible  without  the  power  of 
assessment;  and  we  also  believe  that  there 
should  be  not  merely  a duty  imposed  upon  the 
General  Assembly,  but  a constitutional  restric- 
tion, and  we  regard  the  adoption  of  the  restric- 
tion which  is  now  part  of  the  legislation  of  this 
State,  a sufficient  restriction.  I am  speaking 
for  the  majority  of  the  Committee.  We  place 
no  restriction  upon  the  total  amount  of  any 
assessment.  We  leave  that  to  the  Legislature. 
We  simply  undertake  to  protect  the  owner 
against  the  imposition  of  a burden  which 
should  be  too  great  at  any  one  time ; and  the 
source  from  which  we  derive  the  proposed  re- 
triction,  has  been  already  sufficiently  stated. 

Mr.  Chairman,  a difference  of  opinion  exists 
as  to  whether,  in  making  assessments,  any  part 
of  the  cost  should  be  charged  on  the  general 
treasury,  and,  while  occupying  the  negative, 
still,  representing  the  majority  of  the  Commit- 
tee, it  is  proper  that  I should  say  here  now,  why 
we  are  unable  to  concur  in  the  views  presented 
by  the  minority,  which  will  be  advocated  by 
them.  I cannot  find  a better  place  whence  to 
draw  an  illustration  than  the  one  in  which  I 
stand.  I stand  here  on  one  of  the  spots  first 
settled  in  this  city.  Every  street  surrounding 
this  House  has  been  made  at  the  expense  of 
those  who  own  this  property;  and  while  it 
might  have  been  better — I think  not — but  still 
it  might  have  been  better — to  have  established, 
originally,  the  plan  of  making  these  improve- 
ments at  the  general  expense,  that  plan  was  not 
in  fact  adopted.  And  for  seventy-five  years 
and  more,  the  streets  of  this  city  have  been 
made,  and  its  works  of  improvement  have  pro- 
gressed, at  the  expense  of  the  adjacent  property. 
This  is  so,  with  some  qualification,  as  to  sewers ; 
but  certainly  is  wholly  true  as  to  streets.  The 
grading  and  paving  of  our  streets  and  side- 
walks have  been  at  the  expense  of  the  adjacent 
property;  and  the  proposition, at  this  day,  that 
the  suburbs  of  Cincinnati,  or  Cleveland,  or 
Youngstown,  or  Columbus,  any  growing  city 
should  be  improved  at  the  expense  of  the  older 
portions,  which  have  borne  the  heat  and  burden 
of  the  day,  and  paid  their  own  charges,  would 
be,  in  my  opinion,  wrong.  And,  therefore, 
for  one,  I cannot  concur  with  the  views  of  the 
minority  of  the  Committee.  I do  not  believe 
that  the  general  fund  ought  to  contribute  one 
dollar  toward  the  expense  of  improving  the 
property  where  I live.  I am  a resident  of  a 
suburb,  four  miles  or  more  from  this  spot.  The 
Platting  Commission  of  this  city  has  laid  out, 
on  paper,  twenty  or  thirty  new  streets,  that  will 
be  made,  if  not  in  my  life-time,  within  the  gen- 
eration to  which  I belong.  In  my  judgment,  as 


an  owner  of  suburban  property,  I ought  to  bear 
every  burden  that  those  bore  who  owned  the 
property  in  the  center  of  the  city.  The  argument 
also,  I may  say,  in  favor  of  charging  upon  the 
general  treasury  some  portion  of  these  local  as- 
sessments, is  founded  on  a total  misconception  of 
the  facts.  It  is  founded  upon  the  theory  that 
the  property  in  the  suburbs  of  a city  is  owned 
| by  poor  people,  whereas,  in  truth  and  in  fact, 
l as  I think  every  member  must  know,  the  su- 
burbs of  a city  are  mainly  owned  by  persons 
who  are  not  poor,  and  who  hold  it  in  large 
tracts,  with  reference  to  future  subdivisions, 
when  the  labor  of  others  shall  have  made  that 
land  so  valuable  that  its  subdivision  cannot  be 
delayed,  or  its  subdivision  will  become  profita- 
ble. Right  across  the  river,  in  view  of  this 
House,  is  a most  striking  illustration  of  the 
very  point  I wish  to  present.  By  the  system 
prevailing  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  the  city  of 
Newport  cannot  be  extended  over  the  great 
Taylor  estate  lying  east  of  that  city,  until  the 
owners  of  that  property  are  willing  to  subdi- 
vide and  lay  it  out,  and  form  it  into  streets. 

; And  they  are  not  willing  to  do  it  any  faster 
than  they  are  able  to  sell  it  to  others,  and  let 
those  others  bear  these  burdens.  And  the  same 
thing  which  is  true  in  an  extreme  degree  in  the 
| city  of  Newport,  is  true  in  less  degree  of  the 
i suburbs  of  every  city  in  this  State.  I was 
shown,  in  Columbus,  two  streets — no,  rather 
the  continuity  of  two  streets — broken  by  an 
an  estate,  the  owners  of  which  are  unwilling  to 
let  the  street  pass  through.  And  now  to  pro- 
pose that  the  general  treasury  should  bear  the 
expense  of  making  that  street,  when  the  making 
of  it  would  put  thousands  of  dollars  into  the 
pockets  of  the  owners  of  that  estate,  is,  to  my 
mind,  to  suggest  a very  great  wrong.  If  the 
fact  were  that  suburbs  are  owned  by  poor  peo- 
ple, and  that  these  poor  people,  by  reason  of 
their  povery,  are  entitled  to  sympathy,  and, 
therefore,  that  their  wealthier  neighbors  inhab- 
iting the  denser  portions  of  the  city  should  bear 
some  part  of  the  burden  of  improving  their 
estates,  my  friend  would  appeal  to  the  weakest 
side  of  my  character.  But  the  fact  is  not  so. 
It  may  be  so  at  the  points  where  these  gentle- 
men who  made  the  Minority  Report  reside.  I 
do  not  know.  I am  not  informed.  But  it  is 
not  so  here;  it  is  not  so  in  Columbus;  and  I 
should  think  it  can  not  be  so  anywhere,  except 
in  very  exceptional-  cases.  I pass  on  to  the 
fourth  section  of  the  proposed  Report. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  before  he  passes  on  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  section,  I suppose,  does 
not  define  the  amount  that  can  be  assessed  in 
any  one  year.  It  simply  provides  for  the  time 
of  payment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  all.  We  supposed 
that  that  provision  which  made  it  easy  as  to 
payment,  would  operate  a sufficient  limitation 
on  the  total  amount.  That  was  the  idea  of  the 
majority  of  the  Committee. 

The  fourth  section  I regard,  Mr.  Chairman — 
I will  not  say  the  most  important  of  all — but 
as  a very  important  proposition.  It  is  an  at- 
tempt— and,  if  adopted,  I hope  a very  successful 
attempt — to  limit  the  progress  of  municipal 
degeneration  in  the  matter  of  contracting  debts. 


Day.]  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS.  1293 

February  12,  1874.]  Hoadly,  Herron. 


But,  I hear  a gentleman  ask,  where  is  the 
Minority  Report?  There  is  no  other  Minority 
Report  than  the  statement  of  the  wishes  of  the 
minority  as  to  this  section  in  the  Report  of  the 
Committee.  In  order  that  the  views  of  your 
Committee  may  be  understood,  I will  read  the 
whole  fourth  section : 

“Sec.  4.  The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion shall  never  exceed  in  the  aggregate  five  perfcentum 
of  the  value  of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as 
ascertained  from  time  to  time  by  the  tax  duplicate  there- 
of, without  the  consent  first  obtained  of  at  least  two- 
thirds  of  the  tax  payers  of  such  corporation,  and  in  no 
case  shall  such  indebtedness  exceed  ten  per  centum  of 
said  taxable  value.  In  ascertaining  such  indebtedness  at 
any  time,  there  shall  be  included  an  amount  which,  at 
the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum,  will  produce  a sum 
equal  to  the  aggregate  amount  payable  by  such  corpora- 
tion for  the  rent  of  property  leased  to  it. 

“This  section  shall  not  be  construed  to  prevent  any  Mu- 
nicipal Corporation  from  incurring  any  indebtedness 
authorized  by  law  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitu- 
tion, nor  shall  the  restrictions  of  this  section  apply  to 
necessary  expenditures  for  military  purposes  in  time  of 
war.” 

Mr.  Chairman,  if  precedent  be  necessary  for 
this  section,  I have  only  to  say  that  the  five  per 
cent,  clause  is  borrowed  from  the  Constitution 
of  Illinois.  I wish,  before  proceeding  further 
in  the  consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  section, 
if  it  have  any,  to  anticipate  and  explain  one 
matter  connected  with  it,  though  out  of  regular 
order.  It  is  the  provision  beginning  in  the 
sixth  line : 

“In  ascertaining  such  indebtedness,  at  any  time,  there 
shall  be  included  an  amount  which,  at  the  rate  of  six  per 
centum  per  annum,  will  produce  a sum  equal  to  the  ag- 
gregate amount  payable  by  such  corporation  for  the  rent 
of  property  leased  to  it.” 

There  has  grown  up  in  this  city — I do  not 
know  how  it  may  be  elsewhere — a method  of 
running  the  city  into  debt  by  lease-holds,  taken 
with  privileges  of  purchase,  and  they  are  just 
as  truly  debts,  and  just  as  severely  burdens 
upon  the  taxpayers,  as  any  other  indebtedness. 
It  will  be  obvious  that,  if  property  be  bought 
by  a city  for  $500,000,  in  the  form  of  a lease, 
at  six  per  cent,  on  $500,000,  the  burden  on  the 
taxpayer  is  precisely  the  same  as  if  that  city 
had  bought  their  property  for  cash,  and  issued 
its  six  per  cent,  bonds  to  the  amount  of  $500,- 
000  to  pay  the  debt — precisely  the  same.  In 
this  city  a very  large  debt  has  been  contracted — 
nearly  $2,000,000  — in  this  form.  The  city 
auditor,  last  July,  in  answer  to  a letter  of 
inquiry  I addressed  to  him,  informed  me  that 
the  total  yearly  rentals  payable  by  the  city  of 
Cincinnati  amounted  to  $117,396,  which  repre- 
sents a capital,  calculating  the  interest  at  only 
six  per  cent.,  of  $1,956,600.  It  is  obvious  that 
the  taxpayer  has  just  as  much  to  pay  on  this 
theory  of  rental  for  property,  with  the  privilege 
of  purchase,  as  he  does  on  the  theory  of  debt. 
What  he  has  to  pay  is  the  interest — just  as 
much,  except  that  he  would  not  have  to  redeem 
the  bonds.  But  as  the  bonds  are,  practically, 
never  redeemed,  but  only  a new  bond  substi- 
tuted, I feel  the  force  of  my  friend’s  sugges- 
tion. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Is  not  the  burden  less  than 
you  suggest,  by  reason  of  rent  received  from 
tenants  to  whom  the  city  has  sub-let? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Of  course  it  may  be,  but  the 
great  bulk  of  it  is  not,  for  the  reason  that  the 
debt  for  the  Garden  of  Eden  amounts  to  about 
three-fourths  of  a million  dollars — yes,  more 


than  that;  it  amounts  to  about  a million.  You 
take  the  Roman  Nose,  with  the  rest  of  the  Gar- 
den of  Eden,  and  the  Burnet  Woods  Park,  and 
the  whole  is  much  more  than  a million  dollars. 
My  colleague  is,  perhaps,  right  in  the  sugges- 
tion that  there  is  some  reimbursement  from  the 
wharf  property  at  the  west  end  of  the  city,  but 
what  it  amounts  to,  I do  not  know.  I do  know 
that,  when  I was  city  solicitor,  the  leased  wharf 
property  stood  at  about  half  a million  dollars. 
This  was  nearly  twenty  years  ago ; but  we  did 
not  get  two  per  cent,  on  it.  My  colleague  may 
be,  probably  is,  to  some  extent,  in  the  right. 
At  any  rate,  whether  we  have  this  in  the  right 
form  or  not,  I think  I have  suggested  enough  to 
show  that  we  would  adopt  a very  unwise  pro- 
vision unless,  in  some  way  or  other,  we  should 
include  a capitalized  sum,  so  as  to  make  an  in- 
come equal  to  those  leases.  This  is  our  duty, 
if  we  propose  to  restrict  debts,  and  we  must  in- 
clude this  kind  of  indebtedness  in  order  to  make 
the  restriction  effectual. 

In  regard  to  restrictions  upon  debt, it  seems  to 
the  Committee  that  one-twentieth  of  the  tax 
duplicate  is  as  much  as,  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances, Municipal  Corporations  ought  to  be  al- 
lowed to  owe.  But  it  was  represented  to  us  by 
members  of  our  own  Committee  and  others,  that 
there  are  certain  Municipal  Corporations  in  the 
State  which  are  about  to  incur  debts,  mainly  for 
water  works,  that  will  involve  debt  to  a larger 
proportion.  We  do  not  believe  it  right  to  allow 
so  great  a debt  to  be  incurred  without  some 
further  restriction,  and  we  have  suggested  that 
in  no  event  should  the  indebtedness  of  a muni- 
cipality be  permitted  to  an  amount  more  than 
one-tenth  of  the  tax  duplicate.  It  is  a terrible 
burden — one-tenth  of  the  tax  duplicate.  If 
the  State  of  Ohio  owed  one-tenth  of  its  tax  du- 
plicate, we  would  all  be  shaking  with  fear  for 
the  solvency  of  our  State.  It  is  suggested  by 
the  Committee,  that  if  it  be  permitted  to  incur 
the  debt  of  one-tenth  of  the  tax  duplicate,  the 
consent  of  two-thirds  of  those  who  must  foot 
the  bill  should  be  obtained.  This  is  because, 
Mr.  Chairman,  this  kind  of  indebtedness  is  not 
of  a governmental  character.  It  is  not  indebt- 
edness incurred  for  the  protection  of  life  and 
property,  for  the  discharge  of  the  simple  police 
duties  which  government  is  organized  to  per- 
form, but  it  is  because  it  is  in  the  performance 
of  duties  really  of  private  obligation,  assumed 
for  convenience  by  Municipal  Corporations, 
that  we  believe  and  recommend  that  the  tax 
payers — the  persons  who  are  privately  interest- 
ed— should  be  consulted,  and  the  consent  of 
two-thirds  of  them  obtained,  before  the  debt  be 
permitted  to  be  increased  to  more  than  one- 
twentieth  of  the  tax  duplicate.  It  will  not 
have  failed  to  excite  attention,  that  we  do  not 
propose  to  allow  this  section  to  interfere  with 
powers  granted  and  in  process  of  execution  un- 
der legislation  heretofore  taken  place.  I,  for 
one,  would  be  unwilling  to  adopt  a section  that 
did  not  recognize  the  fact  that  there  are,  here 
and  elsewhere,  throughout  the  State,  projects 
in  course  of  present  execution,  that  might  be 
interfered  with  and  destroyed  by  this  section,, 
unless  an  exception,  such  as  we  recommend 
in  the  tenth  line,  were  adopted  : 

“This  sectien  shall  not.  be  construed  to  prevent  any 
Municipal  Corporation  from  incurring  any  indebtedness 
authorized  by  law  before  the  adoption  of  this  section.” 


1294 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [112th 

Hoadly,  Tuttle,  Rowland.  [Thursday, 


Mr.  Chairman,  before  concluding  the  discus- 
sion of  this  section,  I wish,  so  far  as  I am  in- 
dividually concerned,  to  say,  that  if  I thought 
it  would  meet  the  views  of  a majority  of  the 
people  of  Ohio,  I would  be  glad  to  procure  the 
adoption  of  a section,  that  no  Municipal  Cor- 
porations shall  incur  any  debt  for  any  purpose 
whatsoever.  I believe  that  the  incuring  of  debt 
by  Municipal  Corporations  is  one  of  the  great 
vices  and  evils  of  this  age. 

Charles  O'Conor  wrote  a letter  to  the 
Louisville  Convention  which  nominated  him, 
not  on  the  subject  of  National  politics,  but  on 
the  subject  of  the  debts  of  cities;  and,  although 
the  occasion  seemed  inopportune  for  such  de- 
liverance, there  has  not  been  a wiser  deliver- 
ance laid  before  the  people  of  this  generation, 
in  my  opinion. 

The  debt  of  the  city  of  New  York,  to-day, 
runs  up  to  an  amount  which  twenty  years  ago 
would  have  been  considered  utterly  incredi- 
ble— nearly  $200,000,000.  Debt  everywhere  is 
the  rule;  and  every  corporation,  from  the 
greatest  to  the  least,  is  straining  to  get  more 
and  more  into  debt  under  the  delusive  expecta- 
tion, or  promise,  or  hope  of  some  gigantic  profit 
to  be  derived  at  some  future  time,  although  the 
certainty  of  an  increased  burden  upon  the  tax- 
payer is  more  and  more  apparent.  I do  not 
suppose  it  is  practicable  for  us  to  adopt  so  radi- 
cal a proposition.  Therefore,  with  the  rest  of 
the  Committee,  I concur  in  recommending  the 
adoption  of  what  I suppose  will  meet  with  fa- 
vor at  the  hands  of  the  people  of  the  State.  The 
extent  to  which  corporations  in  Ohio  have  trav- 
eled in  this  race  of  degeneration  is  not  nearly  so 
great  as  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  York.  We 
have  not  been  so  progressive  as  the  cities  of  New 
York  and  Philadelphia,  nor  as  the  cities  of  Chi- 
cago and  St.  Louis.  But  it  does  appear  that, 
during  twelve  years, between  1860  and  1872.  the 
debts  of  cities,  towns,  townships,  and  school 
districts  in  Ohio,  increased  from  $5,227,428  to 
$13,794,071,  making  an  annual  increase  of  $713,- 
053.  When  the  time  shall  come  that  these  fig- 
ures may  be  reversed,  and,  having  climbed  to 
the  top  of  the  “Hill  Difficulty,”  Ohio  shall 
again  descend  to  the  fertile  plains  of  Freedom 
and  emancipation  from  debt,  that  lie  beyond,  1 
shall  begin  to  believe  that  it  is  safe  for  us  to  ab- 
stain from  restrictions.  But,  in  view  of  the 
past,  the  progress  is  up,  up,  up  towards  heaving 
a larger  ball  of  debt  to  be  rolled  away  hereafter. 
And,  with  these  facts  in  view,  it  seems  to  me 
that  no  duty  is  more  pressing  upon  this  Con- 
vention than  the  duty  of  recommending  to  the 
people  to  tie  the  hands  of  cities  and  villages 
against  this  constant  increase  of  debt.  That 
debt  must  be  paid.  The  property  must  pay  it. 
This  man  and  that  man  may  escape,  as  this 
man  and  that  man  have  escaped  from  taxation 
in  this  city,  by  moving  to  Covington  and  else- 
where; but  the  people  that  cannot  run  away, 
the  man  that  rents  a little  shop,  or  a little  house, 
that  finds  his  rental  increased  by  the  amount 
of  taxes,  he  has  it  to  pay.  The  labor  of  Ohio, 
the  labor  of  our  cities  and  villages,  is  weighed 
down  and  burdened,  nearly  overwhelmed  by 
this  increase  of  debt  and  its  consequent  taxa- 
tion. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me? 


Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I am  not  quite  sure  that  I 
understand  what  is  intended  by  indebtedness 
now  authorized  by  law. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  propose  to  array  the 
people  of  this  city  against  the  Constitution.  It 
means  any  indebtedness  actually  authorized; 
any  present  indebtedness. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  but  that  there 
may  be  general  laws  that  authorize  money  in- 
debtedness upon  which  no  action  has  been 
taken. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  not  what  is  meant. 
If  the  delegate  thinks  there  is  a difficulty  there, 
and  will  make  a suggestion  that  will  obviate  it, 
I will  vote  with  him  with  pleasure. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  that  there  is ; 
I only  inquire. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  glad  the  suggestion 
has  been  made,  because  it  was  not  intended  by 
the  Committee,  as  I believe,  in  placing  this  ex- 
ception here  to  do  more  than  to  exempt  those 
which  are  in  actual  course  of  execution,  now  au- 
thorized by  law,  certainly  not  to  continue  in 
force  unwise  legislation  permissive  of  future 
schemes  and  projects,  and  in  direct  conflict 
with  this  Constitution. 

This  section  needs  no  explanation,  I think. 
It  is  simply  to  prevent  stealing  money  from  the 
people  for  one  purpose,  under  the  guise  of  an- 
other. It  is  done  all  the  time.  There  was 
raised  in  this  county,  some  years  ago,  a fund 
called  the  Columbia  Avenue  fund,  and  after 
spending  part  of  it  for  the  avenue,  a larger  por- 
tion of  it  has  since  been  used  for  any  number 
of  various  other  purposes.  Only  now,  I be- 
lieve, are  our  authorities  beginning  to  resume 
expenditure  for  the  purpose  for  which  this 
money  was  raised.  And  it  is  so  in  all  cities. 
Money  is  raised  for  one  purpose,  and  then  it  is 
expended,  or  not,  for  that  purpose,  just  as  may 
seem  convenient  to  the  municipal  authorities. 
If  they  do  not  choose  to  expend  it  for  that  pur- 
pose, they  borrow  it  for  another;  and  there  it 
stays  borrowed  until  they  choose  to  enter  upon 
the  original  undertaking. 

I do  not  know  whether  I have  consumed  the 
time  allotted  to  me  or  not,  but  I have  finished 
the  discussion,  certainly,  so  far  as  it  is  made  my 
duty  to  do  so,  by  the  obligation  implied  in  the 
Rule,  that  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
should  lay  before  the  Convention  fully  the 
reasons  which  governed  its  members  in  the  re- 
commendations they  have  made.  I think  I 
have  omitted  nothing  which  it  was  my  duty  to 
present. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  for  information,  how  line  ten  of  sec- 
tion 4 would  affect  the  interests  of  the  city  of 
Cincinnati,  so  far  as  concerns  the  purchase  of 
the  Markley  farm  ? How  it  would  affect  that 
expenditure? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I understand  the  Markley 
farm  has  been  already  paid  for,  or  it  is  partly 
paid  for.  it  is  a two-penny  affair.  $22,500  is 
the  cost  of  the  Markley  farm,  one-half  or  two- 
thirds  paid  for.  It  is  a very  small  matter.  It 
is  a little  bit  of  a fine,  but  it  may  spread  and 
cause  a great  deal  of  danger  and  difficulty.  I 
do  not  understand  that  there  is  any  authority 
of  law  at  present  to  build  a culvert  from  Cin- 
cinnati to  the  Markley  farm,  and  I do  not  sup- 


Day.]  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  12,  1874.]  Hoadly,  Bishop,  Tuttle,  West,  Griswold,  Pond. 


1295 


pose  that  this  fourth  section  would  prevent  the 
building  of  such  a culvert  or  line  of  water- 
conduit,  except  by  debt.  Pay  as  you  go,  and 
build  what  you  need,  is  our  proposition.  It  will 
prevent  its  being  done  by  incurring  debt  for 
that  purpose,  unless  the  tax-duplicate  bear  a 
relation  to  the  debt,  which  is  not  likely,  at 
least,  until  after  we  have  built  the  Southern 
Railroad,  and  realized  its  promised  blessings ! 
There  is  no  use  of  discussing  the  subject.  The 
money  may  be  paid  out  of  the  profits  of  the 
water-works,  but  it  cannot  be  paid  by  debt. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Is  the  debt  of  Cincinnati  not 
now  nearly,  if  not  quite,  five  per  cent.  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  X will  state  the  fact  as  I un- 
derstand it.  It  is  about  this : I took  some  pains, 
last  summer,  to  get  information.  I was  in- 
formed by  the  city  officers  that  we  had  left 
leeway  enough.  I understand  the  debt  of  the 
city  of  Cincinnati,  exclusive  of  the  floating 
debt — that  I do  not  know  anything  about — it  is 
an  uncertain  kind  of  account — but  I understand 
the  debt  of  the  city  of  Cincinnati  is  about  one 
million  of  dollars — less  than  5 per  cent,  of  the 
tax  duplicate.  The  assistant  auditor,  Mr.  Snell- 
baker,  made  a calculation,  at  the  auditor’s  of- 
fice, last  summer,  and  it  was  about  $750,000  less 
than  5 per  cent,  of  the  tax  duplicate.  That  is 
the  present  debt,  including  those  leaseholds 
capitalized  as  part  of  the  debt.  I have  the  ex- 
act figures;  but  it  would  take  some  time  to 
gather  them  up  from  the  official  reports  on  my 
desk. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Does  that  include  the  debt  of 
the  Southern  Railroad  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  count  that,  at  all. 
That  would  make  it  amount  to  more  than  5 per 
cent.  It  will  amount  to  enough  to  make  this 
count  up  as  it  goes,  without  any  more.  I un- 
derstand the  facts  to  be,  so  far  as  Cincinnati  is 
concerned,  that  the  Southern  Railroad  will  be 
built,  and  is  now  in  a position  in  which  there 
can  be  no  other  result,  notwithstanding  the 
Legislature  is  in  session.  My  idea  of  this  fourth 
section  is  that  it  puts  an  end  to  the  incurring  of 
further  debt  by  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  until  the 
tax  duplicate  be  increased. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  How  much  is  the  tax  dupli- 
cate? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  About  $185,000,000,  in  round 
numbers. 

[Here  the  gentleman’s  time  expired,  but  he 
had  leave  to  proceed.] 

I will  explain  with  more  particularity:  The 
debt  of  the  city  of  C incinnati  is  a little  over 
$6,000,000,  viz. : that  which  is  understood  and 
recognized  to  be  its  debt.  Its  leasehold  debt  is 
$2,000,000.  Five  per  cent,  on  the  tax  duplicate 
is  $925,000. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  She  owns  the  leasehold  prop- 
erty. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  She  owns  the  leasehold,  and 
she  owns  its  increase  of  value. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Is  not  the  leasehold  property 
worth  its  price  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  is  worth  the  money  now, 
There  is  no  doubt  about  that.  It  is  worth  a 
great  deal  more,  now,  than  it  cost.  I have  not 
yet  persuaded  myself  it  was  worth  as  much  as 
it  cost  when  it  was  bought.  Some  portions  of 
it  were.  Why,  the  city  of  Cincinnati  owns 
plenty  of  property  already  paid  lor.  We  own 


any  number  of  engine  houses,  but  we  cannot 
spare  them  to  pay  debts.  We  own  water  works. 
They  are  all  paid  for.  We  shall  not  sell  them. 

Mr.  WEST.  Leaseholds  are  annuities. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  sir.  I have  not  looked 
to  anything,  in  this  matter,  except  the  burden 
on  tax  payers.  Your  fire-engine  houses,  and 
your  grounds  that  are  used  for  markets,  have 
paid  you  nothing.  Your  markets  may.  They 
pay;  but  none  of  the  others  pay  in  the  form  of 
a direct  contribution  of  money.  As  far  as  fire- 
engine  houses  are  concerned,  the  municipal 
corporation  is  largely  burdened  to  support 
them.  The  value  is  there.  You  cannot  use  it 
to  pay  the  debt.  The  debt  really  represents  the 
burden  upon  the  tax-payer,  for  which  it 
stands,  and  ought  not  to  be  diminished — cannot 
be  diminished.  At  any  rate,  there  are  no  ma- 
terials for  exactly  and  fairly  calculating  the 
diminution.  It  may  be  that,  in  view  of  these 
deductions,  the  limit  ought  to  be  more  than  five 
per  cent.  That  is  not  my  judgment,  as  an  indi- 
vidual member  of  the  Committee.  As  I have 
said,  I would  rather  it  would  be  a total  prohibi- 
tion ; but  I think  five  per  cent,  is  margin 
enough — permission  sufficient  for  the  councils 
of  cities  and  villages,  under  the  authority  of  the 
Legislature,  granting  them  power  to  involve  the 
fortunes  of  tax-payers.  Now,  in  the  city  of 
Cleveland,  there  is  a different  condition  of 
things.  They  have  a very  large  property  there. 
They  have  been  speculating  in  railroads  there, 
and  making  money — the  only  municipal  corpo- 
ration I know  of,  in  Ohio,  that  ever  did  make 
money.  They  have  made  money  speculating 
in  railroad  stock.  The  investments  of  the  city 
of  Cleveland  in  the  Lake  Shore  Railroad  and 
the  Cleveland,  Columbus  & Cincinnati  Rail- 
road, were  very  proper,  and  there  is  no  diffi- 
culty, as  far  as  Cleveland  is  concerned — no  diffi- 
culty whatever — in  using  their  sinking  fund  for 
the  diminution  of  their  debt.  And  they  have 
leeway,  plenty,  to  go  on,  inside  of  five  per  cent. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  the  Committee 
rise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

On  this  question,  a division  was  demanded, 
and  38  members  voted  affirmatively. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  resumed  the  Chair. 

Mr.  POND.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole 
have  had  under  consideration  Proposition  182, 
made  some  progress  in  considering  the  same, 
but  have  come  to  no  conclusion,  and  ask  leave 
to  sit  again. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
leave  will  be  granted. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  leave  of  absence  until 
Saturday. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  has  leave. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  the  Convention 
now  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12:05  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 :30  p.  m. 

COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  that  the  Convention 


1296 


[112th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Griswold,  Mullen,  Hoadly,  McBride,  Herron,  Townsend. 


resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  upon 
the  order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Before  that  motion  is  put, 
I desire  to  ask  leave  of  the  Convention,  for  the 
Committee  on  Corporations  other  than  Munic- 
ipal, to  hold  a session  during  the  session  of  the 
Convention. 

Leave  was  granted. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  MULLEIn  asked  and  obtained  indefinite 
leave  of  absence  after  to-morrow. 

Mr.  HOADLY’S  motion  was  agreed  to. 

MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

So  the  Convention  resolved  itself  into  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  Mr.  POND  in  the  Chair, 
resuming  the  consideration  of  the  Article  re- 
ported from  the  Committee  on  Muncipal  Cor- 
porations. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  the  Committee 
rose,  it  had  under  consideration,  in  general  de- 
bate, Proposition  No.  182. 

Mr.  McBRIDE.  At  the  proper  time,  I shall 
offer  an  additional  section  to  this  Municipal 
Article.  I would  like  to  have  it  read  for  infor- 
mation. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  — . The  corporate  limits  of  cities  shall,  in  no  case, 
he  extended  so  as  to  include  land  used  exclusevely  for 
farming  purposes,  without  the  consent  of  the  owner  of 
such  land.” 

Mr.  HERRON.  I move  that  the  general  de- 
bate now  close. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  As  I desire  to  see  the 
rules  of  this  body  pretty  closely  enforced,  and 
as  I desire  to  make  a few  remarks  in  relation  to 
this  Report,  which  may  extend  somewhat  be- 
yond ten  minutes,  I shall  take  occasion  to  make 
them  at  this  time. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I withdraw  my  motion. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I am  entirely  satisfied 
with  the  Report  as  it  was  made  by  the  majority 
of  the  Committee.  It  is  not  precisely  such  a 
Report  as  I would  make  myself,  perhaps ; but 
conceding  something  to  the  other  members  of 
the  Committee,  we  arrived  at  a Report  that  is 
entirely  satisfactory  to  the  entire  Committee, 
and  with  which  I am  entirely  satisfied.  I have 
consulted  with  a number  of  my  constituents 
that  1 have  met  since  this  Report  was  made, 
and  I have  heard  no  criticism  which  has  been 
adverse  to  it;  and  until  I have  heard  something 
attacking  it,  I shall  confine  my  remarks  entirely 
to  the  amendment  to  the  third  section  of  the 
Report,  which  is  recommended  by  a portion  of 
the  Committee,  and  which  is  a proper  subject 
for  consideration. 

The  questions  involved  in  the  determination 
of  this  Article  of  the  Constitution,  and  particu- 
larly the  section  under  discussion,  are  of  great 
importance,  and  directly  affect  the  rights  and 
interests  of  every  one  living  within  the  corpor- 
ate limits  of  any  town  or  city  in  the  State.  I 
desire,  therefore — with  the  indulgence  of  the 
Convention — to  state  some  of  the  reasons  that 
will  govern  my  actions,  and  influence  the  votes 
I shall  be  called  upon  to  give  in  perfecting  this 
Article. 

I am  opposed  to  the  amendment  recommend- 
ed by  a minority  of  the  Commit.ee  to  the  third 
section,  as  it  in  effect  subjects  all  property  in 


[Thursday, 

| towns  and  cities  to  taxation  for  special  improve- 
ments made  in  particular  localities. 

This  third  section,  proposed  by  the  Commit- 
tee, is  in  itself  an  innovation,  a new  matter,  not 
heretofore  a part  of  the  organic  law . It  is,  ho  w- 
ever,  properly  a subjectfor  constitutional  action, 
as  it  is  a limitation  upon  the  powers  of  Munici- 
pal Corporations,  and  as  such  I was  willing  to 
unite  in  its  recommendation  by  the  Committee. 
Subject  to  this  limitation,  the  matter  is  left 
where  it  properly  belongs — to  the  General  As- 
sembly. 

But  the  amendment  proposed  is  entirely  of  a 
different  kind.  It  is  simply  a matter  of  legis- 
lation, and  legislation  of  the  very  worst  char- 
acter. It  proposes  to  declare  how,  in  all  future 
cases,  taxes  for  special  improvements  shall  be 
levied.  It  leaves  no  discretion  whatever  to  the 
General  Assembly,  but  declares,  no  matter 
what  circumstances  may  arise,  what  may  be  the 
condition  of  any  particular  city  or  town,  how  it 
has  been  improved,  or  what  may  be  wise  or  just 
in  the  future,  whether  or  not  the  rule  proposed 
shall  operate  wisely  or  unwisely,  justly  or  un- 
justly, the  law  shall  stand.  This  undertaking, 
Mr. Chairman,  on  our  part,  absolutely  to  provide 
for  all  the  changing  circumstances  of  the  future, 
ought,  from  its  very  assumption  of  infallibility, 
to  defeat  it. 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  feature  of  this  sort  of 
legislation.  Not  only  does  it  undertake  to  pro- 
vide for  all  the  future,  but  it  utterly  ignores 
the  past.  Such  a provision  incorporated  into 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  State  would  not 
only  work  great  injustice  to  the  tax-payers  of  a 
city  circumstanced  as  Cleveland  is,  with  respect 
to  its  improvements,  but  it  would  be  absolutely 
ruinous.  Such  a system  of  taxation  would 
render  a large  proportion  of  the  property  in 
the  central  portion  of  our  city  almost  valueless 
— the  rents  would  scarcely  pay  the  taxes. 

That  you  may  more  readily  appreciate  why 
this  must  necessarily  be  so,  take  a few  facts 
with  reference  to  the  first  three  wards  of  Cleve- 
land, which  contain  the  principal  part  of  its 
business  property. 

To  present  this  subject  intelligently  before 
the  Convention,  I must  have  facts  and  figures  as 
a basis  for  my  conclusions.  I trust  I may  be 
pardoned  for  referring  frequently  to  Cleveland, 
as  I am  somewhat  familiar  with  its  past  and 
present  condition,  and  doubt  not  what  is  true 
of  Cleveland  is  to  a greater  or  less  degree  true 
of  other  towns  and' cities  in  the  State. 

The  property  in  these  wards  has  been  assessed 
for  special  improvements  the  past  ten  years  $1,- 
134,274  46.  That  is,  it  has  paid  this  amount  for 
grading,  paving,  sewering  and  improving  the 
streets  upon  which  it  abuts.  And  about  nine- 
tenths  of  all  improvements  required  in  these 
wards  have  already  been  made,  and  all  paid  for 
by  the  property  in  the  wards. 

The  above  amounts,  paid  for  special  improve- 
ments by  the  property  in  this  small  territory, 
is  but  little  less  than  half  of  all  special  taxes 
paid  in  the  entire  city — seventeen  wards — in 
the  time  specified,  the  total  amount  of  special 
taxes  in  the  city  being  $2,767,479.78. 

Now,  this  portion  of  territory, being,  perhaps, 
one-twentieth  of  the  whole  area  of  the  city,  in 
addition  to  its  proportion  of  taxes  for  general 
purposes,  has  also  paid  nearly  one-half  of  all 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


1297 


Day.] 

February  12,  1874.]  Townsend. 


special  taxes  assessed  in  the  entire  city.  It  has 
paid  for  making  nine-tenths  of  all  the  perma- 
nent improvements  needed  within  its  limits. 

The  other  fourteen  wards  made  and  paid  for, 
perhaps,  one-tenth  of  the  permanent  improve- 
ments they  require.  The  value  of  property  in 
these  wards  has  been  greatly  increased  by  these 
very  improvements,  as  appears  from  the  dupli- 
cate. It  now  stands : 

Realty <J13,748  335 

Personal 13,337,933 

Total $27,086,268 

The  valuation  upon  the  entire  duplicate  is  but 
a trifle  over  $56,000,000.  Of  all  taxes  collected 
upon  the  general  duplicate,  therefore,  this 
small  section  of  the  city  pays  nearly  half. 

The  new  system  proposed  to  be  authorized 
would,  therefore,  affect  the  property  in  this 
section  as  follows : By  making  improvements 
for  which  it  paid  in  full  it  has  become  valuable, 
and  now  it  is  forced  to  pay  in  proportion  to 
this  increased  value  for  improvements  in  all 
other  parts  of  the  city,  which  improvements 
are  of  no  direct  advantage  to  it  whatever.  The 
property  in  these  three  wards — a very  small 
fraction  of  the  whole  city — is  assessed  for  all 
its  own  improvements  and  for  half  of  all  the 
other  improvements  made  in  every  part  of  the 
city — a tax  which  it  could  by  no  possibility 
pay,  and  for  very  obvious  reasons. 

If  the  cost  of  improvements,  or  any  large 
portion  of  it,  is  collected  upon  the  general  tax 
duplicate,  the  outside  wards  having  large  terri- 
tory of  inconsiderable  value  will  constantly  con- 
tinue to  secure  improvements  which  will 
almost  exclusively  benefit  their  property, 
which,  by  reason  of  its  low  value,  will  pay  but 
a comparatively  small  amount  of  the  cost.  In 
representation  these  wards  are  equal  to  the  inner 
wards,  and  by  uniting  their  common  interests 
they  will  combine,  and  can  almost  invariably 
secure  such  improvements;  not  as  shall  be  most 
advantageous  for  the  city  at  large — but  such  as 
shall  most  benefit  particular  localities. 

Cleveland  has  now  forty-one  miles  of  paved 
streets  and  fifty-two  miles  of  main  and  branch 
sewers,  all  paid  for  by  the  property  abutting 
on  the  streets  thus  improved.  Now,  by  reason 
of  these  very  improvements  the  adjoining  prop- 
erty is  vastly  increased  in  value  and  stands  so 
on  the  tax  duplicate  to-day.  Would  it  not  be 
rank  injustice  to  tax  this  property  to  pay  for 
similar  improvements  for  their  less  enterpris- 
ing neighbors  ? It  would,  in  effect,  offer  a pre- 
mium for  parsimonious  old  fogyism  and  tax 
public  spirited  enterprise  to  pay  the  premium. 

What  I have  said,  refers  to  the  injustice  and 
inequality  of  the  rule  proposed  as  applied  to 
improvements  already  made,  and  the  facts  pre- 
sented in  support  of  my  arguments  I have  giv- 
en from  personal  knowledge.  I cannot  doubt 
the  same  thing  must  be  true  of  other  towns  and 
cities  whose  growth  and  development  have  been 
similar  to  that  of  Cleveland. 

But  this  argument  of  mine,  Mr.  Chairman, 
has  proceeded  upon  the  assumption  that  our 
cities  and  towns,  under  a Constitution  with  this 
rule  adopted,  will  continue  to  make  in  the  fu- 
ture, improvements  such  as  the  growth  and  en- 
terprise will  require. 

But,  sir,  if  this  rule  be  adopted  and  become 

Y.  11—84 


the  supreme  law,  the  effect  thereof  will  sub- 
stantially prevent  and  forbid  these  improve- 
ments, for  if  we  add  to  the  levy  for  general 
municipal  purposes  the  amount  necessaryfor  the 
special  improvements  needed  by  a rapidly  grow- 
ing city,  the  levy  would  be  swelled  to  such  an 
enormous  amount  as  to  be  unendurable  by  the 
public.  The  parts  of  a city  not  needing  these 
special  improvements  would  never  consent 
thereto,  and  your  paving,  your  sewering,  your 
grading  and  opening  of  streets  would  come  to 
an  end. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  a few  facts  illus- 
trating this  point.  During  the  years,  from 
1867  to  1872  inclusive,  there  was  paid  in  the  city 
of  Cleveland  for  special  improvements  actually 
made,  sums,  as  follows : 


For  Main  and  Branch  Sewers 8811,731  10 

For  grading  streets 155,482  77 

For  paving  streets 150  404  41 


Total $2,419,638  28 


I have  purposely  omitted  from  this  statement 
the  amounts  paid  for  opening,  widening,  and 
extending  streets,  as  this  class  of  expenditures 
are  not  always  called  special  assessments , but 
are,  nevertheless,  included  in  the  scope  of  the 
amendment  proposed. 

But  I will  state,  however,  that  in  addition  to 
what  I have  named  as  special  assessments,  there 
has  been  paid  since  1870,  for  opening,  widening, 
and  extending  streets,  $1,167,017.34,  all  paid  by 
those  directly  benefited,  and  on  whose  petition 
the  work  was  done.  It  will  be  seen  that  these 
services  amount  to  over  $400,000  per  year. 

Now,  sir,  if  these  amounts  had  been  added  to 
the  general  levy,  the  burden  thereof  would  have 
been  unendurable. 

It  may  be  said  this  special  taxation  is  exces- 
sive, and  that  gentlemen  desire  this  rule  in  order 
to  prevent  so  great  expenditure.  I am  aware 
that  $400,000  per  year  may  look  like  excessive 
and  burdensome  taxation,  but  the  argument 
against  it  is  altogether  specious.  Why,  sir,  this 
money  was  in  great  part  expended  upon  the  re- 
quest of  the  great  bulk  of  the  tax  payers  them- 
selves. It  was  expended  for  their  own  benefit, 
and  was  no  more,  in  fact,  taxation  in  a techni- 
cal sense  than  the  building  of  store  rooms  and 
other  buildings  on  the  property  which  paid  the 
sums.  Not  only  was  this  money  expended  at 
the  request  of  a majority  of  the  property  own- 
ers, but  it  was  expended  for  the  improvement  of 
their  own  property. 

By  the  main  and  branch  sewers  their  property 
could  be  healthfully  occupied  by  a denser  pop- 
ulation. By  grading  and  paving  their  streets, 
the  lots  abutting  thereon  could  be  easily  ap- 
proached, and  the  streets  become  capable  of 
accommodating  extensive  traffic.  These  ex- 
penditures render  their  property,  their  houses, 
their  hotels,  and  their  residences  more  desirable, 
more  profitable,  and  far  more  valuable. 

But  gentlemen  talk  about  assessing  the  prop- 
erty of  poor  men  for  the  benefit  of  the  rich  man. 
This  is  an  old  charge,  always  made  to  prejudice 
any  measure  that  cannot  be  successfully  de- 
feated by  sound  reasoning,  and,  in  this  case,  has 
no  foundation  in  fact.  The  truth  is,  nearly  all 
unimproved  property  on  the  avenues  and  streets 
in  Cleveland  is  owned  by  rich  men,  or  land 
speculators,  who  will  not  sell,nordo  they  of  ten 


1298 


[112  th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


Townsend,  Herron,  Root,  Griswold. 


[Thursday, 


build,  or  willingly  pay  to  improve  the  streets  or 
sidewalks.  But  the  poor  man,  the  mechanic, 
who  owns  one  lot  and  house,  in  which  he  lives, 
and,  perhaps,  carries  on  some  kind  of  business, 
wants  to  make  it  accessible  and  valuable,  and 
attract  business  to  his  street  and  locality — he  is 
always  willing  and  anxious  to  make  all  such  im- 
provements. But  the  opposition,  if  any,  comes 
from  some  old  drone,  who  has  grown  rich  by 
holding  on  to  lands  he  inherited,  or  bought 
cheaply  at  an  early  day,  while  other  men’s  en- 
terprise makes  them  valuable. 

This  is  the  history  of  the  city  in  which  I live, 
and  it  is  the  history  of  every  town  and  city  in 
this  State. 

Then,  gentlemen,  I beg  of  you,  do  not  place 
this  inflexible,  iron  rule  in  the  Constitution, 
where  it  cannot  be  altered  or  changed  for 
twenty  years,  but  must  remain  a perpetual 
curse,  whose  blighting  influence  will  dwarf  the 
growth,  cripple  the  enterprise,  and  mar  the 
beauty  of  every  town  and  city  in  the  State. 

So  far  as  it  can  be  done  within  safe  limita- 
tions, I am  in  favor  of  leaving  municipal  corpo- 
rations, and  each  community,  to  manage  their 
own  local  affairs.  The  right  of  self-government, 
and  the  right  to  manage  our  own  affairs,  is  dear 
to  the  heart  of  every  American  citizen.  The 
genius  of  our  government,  and  spirit  of  our 
free  institutions,  inspire  this  sentiment.  Under 
well  defined  limitations  and  restrictions,  and  a 
due  regard  for  the  rights  of  others,  we  can  all 
enjoy  this  inestimable  privilege. 

The  National,  State,  county,  and  municipal 
governments,  when  properly  organized,  each 
moving  within  its  own  legitimate  sphere,  pro- 
duce no  discord,  but  work  in  perfect  harmony. 
And  while  every  one  yields  obedience  to  supe- 
rior authority,  each  man,  and  each  community, 
should  be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  the 
largest  liberty,  and,  in  the  truest  and  highest 
sense,  be  permitted  to  “ manage  their  own  affairs 
in  their  own  way.” 

But,  to  accomplish  this  result,  unwise  and 
unnecessary  restraints  must  not  be  placed  in 
the  organic  law  of  the  State.  Something  must 
be  left  to  the  elasticity  of  the  human  mind.  New 
circumstances  will  arise,  which  the  wisest  cannot 
foresee.  With  these  new  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions, the  energies  and  genius  of  our  people  will 
always  prove  adequate.  Now  the  danger  of 
those  constitutional  limits  and  restrictions  is, 
that  the  energies  of  the  people  will  be  fettered 
and  hampered,  and  prevented  from  meeting 
these  new  conditions.  Our  limits  and  restraints 
should  only  be  those  experience  has  proved  ne- 
cessary, and  not  invade  the  forbidden  domain  of 
doubtful  experiments,  under  the  rule  indicated. 
We  must  remit  to  the  Legislature — elected  by 
the  people — representing  every  county  in  the 
State,  the  dutyand  the  privilege  of  making  such 
laws  as  the  people  themselves  demand.  And 
municipal  corporations  must  frame  ordinances, 
and  conduct  their  governments,  in  strict  subor- 
dination to  all. 

Then,  indeed,  will  the  majority  govern,  and 
the  rights,  the  interests,  and  the  happiness  of 
all  be  best  subserved  and  promoted.  Leave  all 
questions  of  detail  to  the  Legislature;  accept 
and  adopt  the  Report  as  it  comes  from  the  hands 
of  the  Committee;  it  has  been  well  considered, 
is  carefully  guarded,  and  sufficiently  flexible  to 


meet  the  future  demands  and  growing  wants  of 
the  State. 

Mr.  HERRON.  If  there  is  no  one  else  that 
desires  to  speak,  I renew  my  motion  that 
general  debate  now  close. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I offer  an  amendment  to  section 
four,  line  five. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Under  the  rule  as  it  is 
now,  amendments  are  not  in  order  until  the 
general  debate  is  closed.  When  the  Article  is 
taken  up  section  by  section,  amendments  will 
be  in  order  as  the  sections  are  read. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  may  give 
notice  of  his  amendment. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I give  notice,  then,  that,  at  the 
proper  time,  I shall  offer  an  amendment  in  line 
five,  section  four.  Strike  out  the  word  “ten” 
where  it  occurs,  and  insert  “seven.” 

I do  not  wish  to  say  much  on  this  proposition, 
or  contemplated  amendment,  but  I feel  bound 
to  say  that,  in  my  opinion,  there  is  too  much 
latitude  allowed  here  for  running  into  debt.  A 
debt  of  ten  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  real  es- 
tate of  a city,  though  to  private  persons  it 
might  not  seem  very  much,  is  really  something 
towards  municipal  bankruptcy.  It  is  a debt 
that  no  thriving  town  will  carry.  It  is  a debt 
that  no  thriving  town,  if  well  governed,  ever 
will  incur.  It  is  simply  enormous.  It  maybe 
said,  leave  it  to  the  city  to  determine  how  much 
debt  they  will  have.  The  proposition  does  con- 
template that,  to  a limited  extent,  but  the  lim- 
itation gives  entirely  too  much  power  in  that 
way. 

The  United  States,  instead  of  paying  off  their 
debt  regularly,  and  as  rapidly  as  the  national 
means  would  have  allowed,  have  lost  sight  of 
that  great  object ; and,  instead  of  paying  as  they 
go,  they  are  going  in  debt.  The  State  of  Ohio 
has  a sinking  fund.  We  are  just  finding  out 
that  it  has  sunk.  But  the  most  alarming  thing 
about  this  whole  subject  of  debt,  is  the  ten- 
dency of  every  district,  city  or  township  that 
can  run  into  debt,  to  do  so.  They  will  try  the 
most  chimerical  experiment  in  the  world,  if 
they  can  only  do  it  on  credit.  Every  little  four 
corners  in  the  State,  if  they  can  get  a majority, 
decide  that  they  will  be  the  next  Chicago,  if 
they  can  only  have  the  privilege  of  building  up 
their  city  on  credit.  Ana,  sir,  it  is  not  very 
difficult  to  get  a majority  vote  for  any  scheme. 

A large  proportion  of  the  voters  are  men  who 
will  remain  in  town,  if  the  new  railroad  is  to 
be  built,  or  the  new  water-works  are  construct- 
ed; but  will  go  somewhere  else,  unless  they  set 
about  the  railroad  or  water-works  right  off. 
When  they  come  to  tax  paying,  it  is  of  little 
consequence  whether  they  go  or  stay.  They 
pay  very  little  taxes. 

I make  the  assertion  which  I have  made  be- 
fore in  this  Convention,  that  there  is  not  a 
Christian  country  on  the  face  of  the  earth 
where  private  property  and  private  right  is  so  i 
little  respected  as  they  are  in  the  United  States ; , 
and  there  is  no  part  of  the  United  States,  where  i 
they  are  less  respected,  than  in  Ohio. 

If  the  Boesel  law  had  had  the  force  and  ef- 
fect that  was  claimed  for  it,  who  can  tell  how  ) 
much  the  aggregate  of  our  municipal  debts  ' 
would  have  been?  We  have  some  facts  as  to  jf 
how  much  debt  was  stopped  in  transitu , if  I | 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1299 

February  12, 1874.]  Root,  King. 


may  be  allowed  the  expression ; but  we  have  no 
facts  that  sufficiently  inform  us  how  much 
more  would  have  been  started  immediately  if 
that  law  could  have  been  made  effective.  There 
is  just  the  same  necessity  for  imposing  restric- 
tions upon  cities  of  ail  classes  that  there  is  for 
imposing  restrictions  upon  the  Legislative  De- 
part ment  of  the  State  government  as  to  creating 
debts  and  incurring  liabilties.  Let  us,  sir,  pro- 
vide that  something  of  the  old  adage  shall  be 
put  in  practice,  “pay  as  you  go.”  Pay  a part. 
In  cities  desiring  a great  improvement,  if  it 
were  required  to  pay  twenty-five  per  cent, 
within  the  first  year,  and  the  work  were  not 
more  than  a quarter  complete,  they  would  stop 
and  consider,  very  carefully,  the  prospect  of  its 
ultimate  utility. 

The  men  who  would  vote  the  taxes  are  by  no 
means  the  men  who  would  have  to  pay  them. 
Some  would  have  taxes  to  pay,  and  would  doubt- 
less vote  for  them,  j ust  as  some,  who  are  compelled 
to  pay,  buy  unproductive  oil  wells,  and  mines 
without  minerals.  Some  few  had  money  and 
they  lost  it.  Some  had  credit  and  they  lost  that. 
Some  had  neither  money  nor  credit,  and  if 
there  was  anything  made  they  generally  made  it. 
They  were  on  the  safe  side.  Like  some  of  the 
provisions  in  the  contemplated  Constitution — 
if  it  did  not  do  them  any  good,  it  did  not  do  them 
any  harm. 

I do  not  think  there  is  any  party  considera- 
tion involved  in  this  question,  but  I do  believe 
that  it  is  wise  policy  to  provide  that  neither  the 
government  of  the  State  nor  of  any  city  or  mu- 
nicipality shall  be  permitted  to  go  headlong 
into  debt.  Hence,  I am  in  favor  of  limiting  the 
power  of  all  cities  to  seven  per  cent,  of  the  tax 
duplicate,  as  the  utmost  amount  of  debt  that 
they  can  have  upon  them  at  any  one  time. 

There  are  other  portions  of  this  bill  that  have 
been  so  ably  discussed  by  the  honorable  Chair- 
man [Mr.  Hoadly],  and  so  well  supported  by 
the  honorable  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Townsend],  that  I do  not  wish  to  repeat  any- 
thing they  have  said,  and  I do  not  know  that  I can 
add  anything.  Though  not,  perhaps,  giving  as 
much  attention  to  their  remarks  as  I ought  to 
have  given,  there  is  one  consideration  that  I 
wish  to  submit  to  this  Committee,  and  that  is, 
there  is  a great  deal  of  art,  and  not  a little  arti- 
fice, sometimes,  in  making  a case  for  new 
streets  and  new  improvements  in  outside  terri- 
tory, where  annexations  to  the  original  or  late 
plat  of  a city  have  been  made.  The  holders  of 
these  lands  have  been  so  graphicly,  and  so 
truly,  described  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Townsend]  that  I leave  his  picture 
untouched.  I admire,  but  I do  not  meddle.  He 
has  had  great  experience  in  dealing  with  men 
of  this  class ; for  we  know  very  well  that  he  has 
held  a very  responsible  position  in  the  govern- 
ment of  his  city;  and  whatever  of  thrift  and 
good  management  has  distinguished  that  city  of 
late,  is  largely  attributable  to  him.  His  expe- 
rience must  have  made  him  acquainted  with  the 
way  the  thing  is  sometimes  done. 

A gentleman  who  has  held  on  until  either 
business  necessities,  or  the  importunities  of  his 
prospective  heirs,  perhaps,  who  have  made  a 
bargain  something  like  the  bargain  I once  heard 
of,  made  between  the  grandson  of  a usurer  and 
the  usurer  himself.  The  old  usurer  said  to  the 


grandson : “I  have  made  my  will,  and  I have 
left  you  a plum.”  “God  bless  you,  sir,”  was 
the  reply,  “may  I be  kept  out  of  it  a thousand 
years.”  “But,”  said  the  usurer,  “on  what  terms 
would  you  take  a post  obit?”  He  thought  the 
young  man  would  discount  about  thirty-three 
and  a third  per  cent.,  and  he  would  pay  the 
money  down.  Whether  any  such  arguments 
are  ever  used  by  the  owners  of  this  outside  ter- 
ritory to  induce  them  to  bring  their  land  into 
market,  I know  not.  After  they  have  held  it 
for  a quarter,  or  a half  century,  strange  to  say, 
they  do  sometimes,  while  they  yet  live,  bring 
their  lands  partially  into  market;  but  how  do 
they  do  it?  They  will  sell  on  contract,  with 
the  conditions  all  in  their  own  favor.  The  pur- 
chasers, not  of  the  most  promising  kind — or, 
rather,  they  promise  enough,  but  not  of  the 
most  paying  kind — after  having  made  the  pur- 
chase want  streets,  want  sidewalks,  want  lamps, 
want  water-works,  and  they  want  them  all 
made  at  the  expense  of  the  city.  These  are  the 
poor  suffering  men  on  whose  behalf  we  are 
asked  to  act  with  great  caution.  Now,  suppose 
these  poor  sufferers  get  the  attention,  first,  and 
the  favor,  finally — the  ordinance  that  they  re- 
quire, or  desire,  from  the  city  council.  Sup- 
pose they  do,  contrary  to  the  expectation,  not 
only  of  the  vender  of  these  scattered  lots,  the 
poorest  ones,  and  contrary  to  everybody’s  ex- 
pectation, pay  for  a few  lots,  or  make  payment 
so  much  that  they  can  get  a specific  perform- 
ance of  the  contracts,  who  gets  the  most  benefit  ? 
Who  gets  three-quarters,  or  nine-tenths,  of  all 
those  public  taxes  spread  over  the  whole  city. 
It  is  the  nice  old  gentleman  that  holds  all,  or 
almost  all,  of  the  property,  and  through  the  in- 
tercession made  by  his  vendees,  and  the  sym- 
pathy they  excite,  he  pockets  large  profits.  Is 
not  that  taxing  the  city  for  the  benefit  of  “old 
Hunks”  atlast?  So  it  seems  tome.  Whatright 
and  justice  is  there  in  that? 

But  I am  trespassing  upon  the  ground  gone 
over  by  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me.  I 
may  not  be  here;  and  if  I am,  I may  not,  and, 
probably,  shall  not,  allude  again  to  my  amend- 
ment, so  as  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the 
Committee;  but  I hope  it  will  be  borne  in  mind 
that  it  does  behoove  us  as  faithful  servants  of 
the  people,  as  those  who  have  been  sent  here  to 
look  forward  as  well  as  right  around  us,  and  see 
how  best  we  may  provide  for  their  future  safety 
and  their  future  welfare. 

Mr.  KING.  I proposed,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  session  at  Columbus,  an  amendment  (Pro- 
position No.  3)  to  this  Article  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. I appeared  before  the  Committee  for  the 
purpose  of  vindicating  it,  if  possible,  but  was 
wholly  unfortunate.  I am  not  aware  that  I 
converted  a single  member  of  the  Committee 
to  my  views;  and,  after  the  very  significant 
vote  which  the  Convention  gave  yesterday 
morning,  prohibiting  the  Legislature  from  pas- 
sing any  but  general  and  uniform  laws  for  the 
government  of  cities  as  well  as  counties  and 
townships,  I despair  of  any  better  success  in 
converting  the  Convention  to  the  views  which 
I had  the  honor  to  submit.  As  I have  an  abhor- 
rence of  consuming  time  unnecessarily  in  de- 
bate, I propose  simply  to  state,  in  a few  words, 
why  I shall  dissent  from  the  proposition  now 
before  the  Committee. 


1300 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS 

King. 


The  Convention  of  1851  attempted  an  impossi- 
bility. It  sought  to  force  uniformity  upon 
the  cities  and  villages  of  Ohio,  by  the  passage 
of  this  Thirteenth  Article  on  corporations — one 
being  that  “ The  General  Assembly  shall  pass 
no  special  act  conferring  corporate  powers,” 
which  applies,  as  will  be  seen,  to  all  corpora- 
tions, public  as  well  as  private.  The  other  is 
the  sixth  paragraph,  where  it  is  declared  that 
the  General  Assembly  “ shall  provide  for  the 
organization  of  cities  and  incorporated  villages 
by  general  laws,  and  restrict  their  powers.” 

Now,  sir,  I have  no  objection  to  the  first 
paragraph,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  private  cor- 
porations. For  all  their  purposes  general  laws 
will  suffice.  What  I object  to,  in  the  existing 
Constitution,  and  in  the  Proposition  now  before 
us,  is,  this  idea  of  governing  cities  and  villages 
upon  the  same  principle  that  you  regulate 
banks,  railroads,  cotton  factories  and  private 
corporations  of  every  sort;  thus  assuming  to 
place  the  people  of  our  cities  or  towns  upon 
the  same  footing  in  respect  to  the  great  func- 
tions of  municipal  government,  upon  which  you 
administer  the  dollar  and  cent  operations  of 
private  corporations,  created  for  mere  trade  and 
commerce. 

But,  sir,  no  history  has  more  significance  than 
the  experiment  at  innovation,  in  this  Article 
XIII  of  the  existing  Constitution.  It  shows 
us  that  “ there  is  a spirit  in  man”;  that  there 
are  certain  great,  general  causes  which  no  laws 
are  competent  to  restrain  or  withstand;  and 
and  that  men  are  not  machinery,  nor  mere  pup- 
pets of  Constitutions.  The  Convention  of  1851 
found  the  State  enjoying,  in  a high  degree,  the 
privileges  and  benefits  of  municipal  indepen- 
dence—I do  not  mean  by  this  a total  independence 
of  law ; because,  as  a matter  of  course,  I concede 
that  all  municipalities  must  be  subject  to  the 
general  restraining  power  of  the  State.  But 
what  I mean  is,  the  independence  of  the  vari- 
ous cities  from  any  control  or  interference  of 
each  other.  What  I mean  is,  that  until  the 
Constitution  of  1851  imported  this  new-fangled 
uniformity  into  the  Constitution,  every  city, 
town  and  village  had  enjoyed  its  little  system 
independent  of  all  the  others.  No  collisions 
between  them,  no  interferences  of  each  with 
the  other,  were  invited  or  permitted.  But,  sir, 
unfortunately  this  mania  for  over-government, 
this  sort  of  centralizing  which  exists  under  the 
French  model — consisting  of  a central  power 
exerting  perpetual  control,  not  only  over  all 
commercial  and  private  corporations,  which  is 
proper  enough,  as  I have  already  admitted,  but 
over  every  municipal  government  in  the  State 
— seized  upon  the  Convention  of  1851, 

It  is  destructive  of  local  self-government — a 
right  which  has  been,  not  only  the  mainspring 
of  the  revival  of  liberty,  arts  and  letters,  during 
the  middle  ages,  but,  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
is  one  of  the  most  important  political  franchises 
enjoyed  by  men.  It  comes  more  directly  home 
tous  than  any  other  political  rule  or  govern- 
ment, and  pertains  more  to  our  daily  life  and 
comfort,  and  our  daily  wants,  than  all  of  our 
existing  institutions  of  the  State  or  General 
Government.  It  comes  directly  to  our  homes. 
The  power  of  every  municipal  government  to 
organize  and  administer  its  own  affairs,  subject 
to  be  restrained  by  the  State  within  due  limits, 


[112th 

[Thursday, 


is  and  always  has  been  an  axiom  of  American 
politics.  De  Tocqueville  declares  town  inde- 
pendence to  be  the  life  and  source  of  the  Amer- 
ican liberty  of  the  present  day.  In  it  he  finds 
the  germ  of  our  free  institutions.  In  America, 
he  tells  us,  it  may  be  said  that  the  township 
was  organized  before  the  county,  the  county 
before  the  State,  and  the  State  before  the  Union. 
Without  dwelling  upon  this  fruitful  subject  of 
thought  for  statesmen,  all  I have  now  to  say  is 
this : that  of  all  this  independence,  which  the 
people  of  Ohio  were  thus  enjoying,  the  Consti- 
tution of  1851  deprived  us.  It  repealed  at  one 
stroke,  and,  so  far  as  I can  discover,  without 
debate  or  murmur,  the  independent  charters 
under  which  all  our  cities  and  towns  were  en- 
joying, each  their  own,  little  system  of  organi- 
zation and  management.  Some  gentleman, im- 
bued with  this  central  idea  of  French  politics — 
who  he  was  I do  not  know,  for  the  record  does 
not  tell — put  this  thing  in  their  bonnets,  and  it 
seems  to  have  buzzed  about  like  a bumble  bee, 
till  it  got  into  the  heads  of  everybody,  and  was 
passed  without  any  dissenting  voice.  It  under- 
took to  amend  every  charter  of  every  city  and 
town  in  Ohio,  and  to  compel  the  Legislature  to 
put  them  all  under  general  and  uniform  laws. 

But,  sir,  it  has  proved  a total  failure.  The 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  admits  that  it  is  a 
failure.  The  people  of  the  State,  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  the  courts,  have  virtually  repealed  it, 
long  since,  by  evasions  directly  in  violation  of 
its  letter  and  spirit.  It  could  not  be  kept.  It 
was  an  impracticability — a mere  abstraction. 
The  only  object  which  it  was  to  subserve  was  to 
get  rid  of  special  legislation ; but  it  has  rather 
served  to  multiply  such  legislation,  and  has  in- 
troduced confusion  far  worse  than  any  that  can 
be  found  under  the  legislation  prior  to  1851. 
Legislation  has  become  so  special  and  intricate, 
under  these  “general  laws,”  that  it  is  now  al- 
most impossible  for  any  man,  except  he  be  a 
lawyer,  and  it  is  difficult,  even,  for  many  of 
them,  to  tell  what  the  law  is  with  regard  to 
many  points  in  municipal  government.  It  is 
“ searching  for  a needle  in  a haystack.”  If  gen- 
tlemen will  consult  our  statute  books,  under  the 
head  of  municipal  corporations,  for  the  last 
twenty  years,  they  will  be  utterly  overwhelmed 
with  the  confusion.  I tried,  the  other  day,  to 
find  a single  and  very  simple  point  in  the  mu- 
nicipal law  regulating  the  city  of  Cincinnati, 
and,  after  much  effort,  have  not  found  it  yet. 

It  is  said  there  was  once  a monarch,  named 
Procrustes,  who,  by  a general  law,  decreed 
every  man  in  his  kingdom  to  be  of  the  same  size, 
and  he  put  them  in  a uniform  machine  which 
cut  off  their  heads  or  their  feet,  just  as  circum- 
stances required.  It  seems  very  much  like  the 
same  thing  when  we  require  municipal  govern- 
ments in  Ohio  to  be  all  of  one  and  the  same  or- 
ganization. It  has  proved  a failure.  The  Leg- 
islature and  the  supreme  court  have  disre- 
garded it,  and  the  people  of  Ohio  are  living  in 
plain  violation  of  their  Constitution.  They 
have  been  compelled  to  violate  the  Constitution. 
They  cannot  live  under  it;  and  the  proposition 
now  brought  forward  by  the  Committee  as  a 
substitute  is,  in  my  judgment,  calculated  to 
make  the  evil  worse  than  it  already  is.  For, 
sir,  while  the  Legislature  and  the  courts  have 
driven  a coach  and  four  through  this  uniform- 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1301 

February  12,  1874.]  King,  Tuttle,  Powell. 


ity  clause  in  the  present  Constitution,  by  a sys- 
tem of  classification  and  circumlocution,  which 
has  become  the  laughing  stock  of  the  people  of 
the  State,  it  is  now  proposed  to  amend  by  divi- 
ding all  the  cities,  towns  and  villages  in  Ohio, 
into  six  classes,  and  to  hedge  in  each  of  these 
classes  by  a cast  iron  provision  of  theProcrustean 
sort,  so  terrible  as  to  defy  opposition,  and  I call 
the  attention  of  the  Committee  to  the  clause: 
“ The  powers  of  each  class  shall  be  defined  by 
general  laws,  so  that  no  such  corporation  shall 
have  any  other  powers , or  he  subject  to  any  other 
restrictions  than  any  other  corporations  of  the 
same  class.”  In  other  words,  that  all  laws 
which  are  passed,  having  reference  to  the 
wants  or  wishes  of  a city  specifically  designated, 
shall  be  totally  void  unless  the  same  powers, 
franchises,  or  restrictions,  shall  be  imposed 
upon  every  other  city  of  the  same  class,  wheth- 
er they  will  or  no.  That,  I take,  as  a matter  of 
course,  to  be  the  scope  and  object  of  this  amend- 
ment. This  means  that  such  laws  shall  be  void ; 
and  it  is  fondly  imagined  there  will  be  no  more 
such  evasion  as  is  openly  practiced  under  the 
existing  laws. 

To  show  how  this  matter  of  dividing  all  the 
municipalities  of  Ohio  into  just  six  classes  will 
operate,  I beg  leave 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I only  desire  to  say,  if  there 
are  any  instances  at  hand  that  occur  now  to  the 
gentleman,  so  that  he  can  mention  them  during 
his  argument,  where  the  Legislature  has  clearly 
violated  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  a provi- 
sion that  we  could  not  do  without— if  the  in- 
stances occur  to  the  gentleman,  if  he  would 
mention  some  of  them  during  the  course  of  his 
argument,  at  any  convenient  time,  I shall  be 
glad  to  hear  them. 

Mr.  KING.  I have  made  out  a budget  of 
them  which  I shall  be  very  glad  to  read  to  my 
friend  on  some  other  occasion.  I will  not  take 
the  time  of  the  Convention  in  arguing  this 
matter  at  length,  because  I know  it  is  in  vain; 
but  will  call  attention  to  a few  facts  bearing  on 
classification  which  I have  taken  from  the  cen- 
sus. The  Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations 
propose  to  compel  the  Legislature  to  divide  all 
such  corporations  whatever — cities,  towns  and 
villages — into  six  classes,  the  powers  and  re- 
strictions of  each  class  to  be  defined  by  general 
laws,  so  that  no  corporations  shall  have  any 
powers  or  be  subject  to  any  restrictions  but 
those  whieh  are  prescribed  to  all  others  of  the 
same  class,  and,  vice  versa , all  to  be  inflicted 
with  every  change  which,  either  by  superior 
influences  or  arts,  can  force  upon  them. 

Now,  sir,  here  is  a list  from  the  last  census  of 
cities  and  towns  of  Ohio,  as  I have  classified 
them.  Cincinnati  has  216,239  inhabitants,  and 
Cleveland  92,829.  It  will  be  difficult,  I take  it, 
to  get  two  cities  so  unequal  and  unlike  into  one 
class.  It  would  be  the  old  story  of  the  brass 
and  the  earthen  vessels,  and  you  will  remember 
what  became  of  the  earthen  one  when  floating 
in  company  with  the  other.  I understand  it  is 
conceded  that  Cincinnati  and  Cleveland  must 
necessarily  constitute  two  of  the  classes.  Next 
we  have  the  three  cities  of  Toledo  31,584,  Co- 
lumbus 31,274,  and  Dayton  30,473.  These  three, 
we  may  assume,  might  be  happy  together,  and 
well  form  the  third  class.  They  could  not  be 
identified  with  the  cities  already  mentioned  nor 


with  those  which  follow.  I now  come  to  a 
group  a little  larger,  in  which  I find  six  cities  : 
Sandusky,  Springfield,  Hamilton,  Portsmouth, 
Zanesville  and  Akron,  ranging  from  10,000  to 

13.000  in  population,  and  which,  with  some, 
perhaps,  of  those  next  mentioned,  will  compose 
the  fourth  class.  But  now  we  come  to  another 
family  of  seventeen,  containing  from  5,000  to 

9.000  inhabitants:  Chillicothe,  Canton,  Steu- 
benville, Youngstown,  Mansfield,  Newark, 
Xenia,  Piqua,  Pomeroy,  Ironton,  Tiffin,  Dela- 
ware, Fremont,  Wooster,  Circleville,  Marietta 
and  Massillon.  This  fills  up  five  of  our  six 
classes.  Then  we  have  sixteen  towns  with  a 
population  ranging  between  3,000  and  5,000, 
and  twenty-three  which,  by  the  census  of  1870, 
contain  between  2,000  and  3,000  inhabitants. 
So,  counting  these  twenty-nine  as  one,  we  have 
six  well  defined  classes,  all  with  a population 
exceeding  2,000.  Thus  our  classification  is  ex- 
hausted, without  counting  or  providing  for 
towns  and  villages  having  a population  of  less 
than  2,000. 

Now,  sir,  it  is  an  utter  impossibility  to  com- 
bine or  unite  all  the  cities  which  I have  enu- 
merated upon  any  other  scale,  and  it  is  simply 
futile  to  suppose  that  they  will  submit  to  it. 

The  objection  to  the  whole  system  is  this,  that 
it  compels  the  different  cities  which  must  thus 
be  grouped  together  into  one  class,  to  be  per- 
petually interfering  with  each  other,  engaging 
in  a constant,  internecine  war  with  each  other, 
with  regard  to  all  of  the  small  details  of  their 
home  government.  It  necessarily  puts  them  at 
war  with  each  other  upon  every  diversity  which 
either  or  any  of  the  class  may  seek  from  the 
Legislature  in  organization,  power,  or  liabili- 
ties. 

But  with  regard  to  this  question  I will  trou- 
ble the  Committee  no  further,  although  I had 
intended  to  have  spoken  at  some  length,  had 
the  prospect  been  more  auspicious. 

In  respect  to  the  last  section — the  power  of 
assessment — I have  been  equally  unfortunate. 
The  minority  of  the  Committee  have  reported 
a compromise,  which,  however,  the  Convention 
will  evidently  not  adopt.  My  objection  to  the 
power  of  assessment  is  grounded  chiefly  upon 
this,  that  it  is  a method  of  secret  taxation  and  spe- 
cial taxation,  and  most  fearfully  abused.  It  is 
not  only  partial  and  oppressive,  but  what,  in  my 
judgment,  renders  it  still  more  obnoxious,  it  is 
the  source  and  cover  of  almost  all  the  corrup- 
tion which  has  crept  into  our  municipal  gov- 
ernment. It  is  here  that  the  secret  tie  takes 
place  between  the  small  politicians  and  the  job- 
bers, who  mutually  reciprocate  favors ; the  one 
supporting  the  other  by  putting  him  in  power 
for  the  purpose  when  he  is  in  power  of  serving 
him  by  giving  him  patronage. 

These  are  the  objections  I have  to  this  Prop- 
osition ; and  I do  not  desire  to  occupy  any  more 
time  upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I occupy  the  attention  of 
the  gentleman  a few  moments  before  he  closes? 
I should  be  glad  to  understand  exactly  his  ob- 
jection to  uniformity  of  acts  of  incorporation 
for  different  towns  of  the  same  class.  I see  no 
objection  to  that.  There  has  been  a time  in  Ohio 
when  every  town  in  the  State  had  a separate  cor- 
porate act,  and  our  statutes  are  filled  with  in- 
corporations of  that  kind ; and  it  had  become  a 


1302 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [112th 


Powell,  King,  Hoadly,  Tuttle. 


[Thursday* 


perfect  nuisance.  I do  not  see  any  objection 
to  cities  of  such  a class  being  organized,  say 
with  a Mayor,  Aldermen  and  Council.  Another 
lower  class  with  Council  and  Mayor  only.  I 
see  no  objection  to  that  arrangement.  I agree 
with  the  gentleman  that  each  town  should  be 
permitted  to  govern  itself  with  regard  to  taxa- 
tion. If  people  are  disposed  to  be  liberal,  and 
improve  the  town,  the  right  to  tax  themselves 
should  be  given  them.  Let  me  say  that  almost 
all  ot  these  attempts  at  classification  have  been 
objectionable  on  the  score  of  taxation.  I have 
never  known  of  any  objection  on  any  other 
ground  to  putting  corporations  into  classes  for 
municipal  organization.  But  when  you  come 
to  bring  it  down  to  taxation,  it  is  a very  seri- 
ous objection  that  the  people  cannot  govern 
themselves. 

Mr.  KING.  I make  no  objection  to  general 
laws  regulating  municipal  corporations  to  a 
certain  extent — proper  checks,  prohibiting  or 
restraining  abuses — for  instance,  the  abuse  of 
taxation.  I have  no  objection  to  general  laws 
of  that  character.  I am  objecting,  now,  to 
compelling  the  Legislature  to  regulate  the  or- 
ganization of  all  the  cities  and  towns  by  classes, 
irrespective  of  their  several  wants,  and  by  gen- 
eral laws.  I object  to  putting  different  cities 
together  in  one  class,  and  compelling  them  to 
live  under  one  and  the  same  organization,  with- 
out regard,  if  I may  be  allowed  the  expression, 
to  their  idiosyncrasies.  It  is  an  interference 
with  that  proper  municipal  independence  which, 
I maintain,  each  of  them  ought  to  enjoy,  and, 
with  the  greatest  public  benefit,  enjoy  in  its 
local  institutions.  To  illustrate:  the  city  of 
Cincinnati  has  a mayor  with  veto  power.  The 
city  of  Cleveland  would  not  agree  to  that.  The 
city  of  Cincinnati  has  found  it  extremely  ad- 
vantageous to  have  two  bodies  in  the  council — 
a board  of  aldermen  and  a board  of  councilmen 
— which  no  other  city  in  the  State  wishes  to 
have.  If  you  put  these  two  cities  into  the  same 
class,  you  would  compel  them  to  be  constantly 
engaged  in  a rivalry  or  war  with  regard  to 
every  detail  of  their  organization,  whenever 
either  of  them  chose  to  come  before  the  Legis- 
lature with  a petition  for  amendment.  You 
must  have  every  power,  duty,  immunity  or 
franchise,  exactly  alike.  It  must  be  in  a cast 
iron  mould,  stereotyped.  Of  what  advantage 
would  it  be?  The  consequence  is  that  you  wall 
interfere  with  the  reasonable  autonomy,  which, 
I say,  each  city  or  town  is  entitled  to  enjoy,  ac- 
cording to  its  own  will  and  wish,  without  mo- 
lestation. There  are  many  worse  evils  than 
special  legislation.  I beg  to  say,  that  there  is, 
probably,  some  mistake  with  regard  to  the  bulk 
of  legislation  in  the  old  statutes,  prior  to  1851, 
in  the  matter  of  municipal  corporations.  I 
think  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Pow- 
ell] will  find  that  not  one-sixth  of  the  bulk 
of  those  huge  volumes,  annually  issued,  prior 
to  1851,  is  occupied  with  municipal  legislation. 
The  greater  portion  consists  of  legislation  with 
regard  to  private  corporations.  Upon  that  sub- 
ject, I go  with  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  to 
the  whole  extent.  I am  in  favor  of  having  all 
corporations,  other  than  municipal,  exactly  as 
provided  for.  But  municipal  government,  sir, 
is  far  too  important  to  be  put  upon  that  level. 

I would  give  to  every  city  and  town  in  Ohio  ! 


that  constitution  and  charter  which  its  people 
might  seek — subject,  always,  to  the  general 
restraining  power  of  the  General  Assembly. 

Adopt  this  new  plan,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
what  results  ? Wherever  either  of  the  cities  of 
a particular  group  become  disposed  to  have  a 
little  change  in  its  organization,  there  must  not 
be  an  agitation,  or  revolution,  of  all  the  others 
of  its  class.  I can  see  no  benefit  in  it.  I would 
rather  have  all  the  evils  of  a statute-book  of 
two  thousand  pages,  annually,  than  that  the 
people  of  any  city  or  town  should  be  compelled 
to  go  to  Columbus  annually,  to  battle  with  all 
the  amendments  that  each  of  the  happy  class 
might  seek  to  introduce  into  their  family 
affairs.  It  is  destructive  to  all  liberty  and  in- 
dependence. It  is  destructive  to  all  repose  or 
happiness. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  the  gentleman  propose 
to  emancipate  them  altogether  from  the  control 
of  the  Legislature  ? 

Mr.  KING.  I have  twice  said,  not. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then  they  would  go  to  Co- 
lumbus every  time  they  wanted  a change. 
How  does  that  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  ? 

Mr.  KING.  I am  in  favor  of  some  small  de- 
gree of  liberty;  and  I am  opposed  to  your 
French  ideas  of  centralism.  Marshal  McMa- 
hon has  just  secured  the  control  of  all  the 
mayors  of  France,  and  he  drives  the  machinery 
there  as  a skillful  driver  does  his  horse. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  King]  another 
question : Whether  he  has  reflected  upon  the 
subject,  so  as  to  say  whether  many  of  these 
matters  relating  to  our  cities,  or  about  which  he 
supposes  cities  of  the  same  class  would  differ, 
might  not,  as  I understand  him  they  ought, 
somehow,  practically  be  determined  by  submit- 
ting the  matter  to  the  people  themselves  ? Some 
form  might  be  adopted  so  that  nothing  but  a gen- 
eral law  would  be  needed,  getting  at  each  of  these 
differences,  but  leaving  it,  after  all,  so  far  as 
actually  necessary,  to  the  determination  of  the 
people.  And  as  the  gentleman  has  finished  his 
argument,  allow  me  to  make  a suggestion.  If 
is  just  this:  I understand  the  objection  is,  that 
it  does  not  need  aid  to  be  granted  by  the  Legis- 
lature, at  the  solicitation  of  the  municipal  cor- 
poration itself,  and  upon  the  determination  of 
municipal  corporations  that  want  it.  If  that 
was  to  be  done,  the  question  I have  to  submit  is, 
whether  modes  might  not  be  pointed  out  giving 
effect  to  the  will  of  each  individual  within  the 
corporations,  within  the  proper  limits,  without 
any  particular  application  to  the  Legislature 
therefor? 

Mr.  KING.  All  I can  say,  is,  that  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  does  not  so  provide.  On  the 
contrary,  it  takes  this  power  away  from  the 
people  and  declares  that  the  General  Assembly 
shall  provide  for  the  organization  and  classifi- 
cation of  municipal  corporations  under  six 
heads.  I am  contending  for  delegating  more 
of  this  power  to  the  people,  subject  always  to 
the  general  control  of  the  General  Assembly, 
so  that  we  may  go  back  to  the  old  fashion — 
every  town  and  city  standing  upon  its  own  in- 
stitutions, governed  by  its  own  law,  enjoying 
its  own  little  cosmogony,  and  so  that  neither 
shall  interfere  with  another.  We  must  regulate 
our  own  local  affairs  in  our  own  way.  Observe, 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  12, 1874.]  Powell,  King,  Bannon,  Hale,  Pond,  Hoadly,  etc. 


1303 


also,  that  the  Legislature  is  compelled  to  act 
without  any  power  of  delegating.  I see  no 
escape  in  the  plan,  such  as  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  refers  to. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  is  such  a thing  as  a 
general  Constitution,  and  such  a thing  as  by- 
laws. I think  there  is  a great  deal  gained  if  we 
can  possibly  enact  a general  Constitution  alike 
for  the  cities  in  general,  or  the  cities  in  a class ; 
but  for  the  sake  of  giving  liberty  for  them  to 
act  with  regard  to  their  own  necessities,  with 
regard  to  their  own  convenience,  with  regard 
to  their  own  location,  with  regard  to  their 
being  on  a river,  or  a lake,  et  cetera;  they  should 
regulate  their  own  institutions;  that  is  their 
right.  But  I think,  at  the  same  time,  we 
should  give  them  the  utmost  liberties  to  have 
their  own  institutions  managed  in  their  own 
way,  as  they  deem  right  and  proper;  and  yet, 
have  general  laws,  applicable  to  the  several 
cities  of  the  same  class,  that  would  be  all  alike, 
giving  sufficient  liberty  within  that  for  any 
special  by-laws  to  regulate  their  own  municipal 
corporations. 

Mr.  KING.  I will  again  state  briefly,  that 
what  I contend  for,  is  a power  in  the  General 
Assembly  to  provide  for  the  organization  and 
government  of  each  city  and  town  by  special 
laws,  subject  always  to  such  general  laws,  as 
may  be  found  necessary  to  restrain  any  and  all 
abuses.  I do  not  object  to  general  laws,  as  I 
have  said  twice,  so  far  as  is  necessary  for  the 
regulation  of  abuses  of  any  sort,  especially  for 
taxes.  I concur  in  all  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root]  said  on  that  subject,  and  shall  go 
further;  but  I am  in  favor  of  givingthe  Legis- 
lature authority  to  provide  for  each  city,  and 
town,  and  village,  its  own  local  organization. 
In  other  words,  if  I were  at  liberty,  1 would 
amend  section  one  by  striking  out  all  of  it  after 
the  word  “corporations,”  in  the  second  line, 
and  inserting  this : “ and  may  provide  for  the 
separate  organization  of  any  city  or  cities  con- 
taining   thousand  inhabitants  or  more, 

by  a special  act  of  incorporation ; but  all  such 
laws, general  or  special,  may,  from  time  to  time, 
be  amended  or  altered.” 

Mr.  BANNON.  I move  that  the  general  de- 
bate upon  this  question  now  close. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HALE.  I suppose  we  have  arrived  at  a 
point  when,  under  the  rule,  this  proposition 
should  be  taken  up,  section  by  section,  and 
amendments  offered.  Of  course,  I have  had 
very  little  experience  in  this  matter,  but  my 
observation  is,  that,  under  the  system  we  have 
heretofore  adopted,  the  labor  of  the  Convention 
is  about  doubled,  and  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
at  the  sense  of  this  body,  I now  move  that  the 
Committee  rise,  report  this  Article  back  to  the 
Convention  without  recommendation,  that 
amendments  may  thereby  be  offered  and  dis- 
posed of  by  going  through  with  the  Article  at 
once. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I would  like  to  offer 
an  amendment  to  the  second  section. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  can  be  done  in  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  Hale’s  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the 
Committee  rose. 


IN  CONVENTION,  THE  PRESIDENT  RESUMING  THE 
CHAIR. 

Mr.  POND.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole 
have  had  under  consideration  Proposition  No. 
182,  and  have  instructed  me  to  ask  leave  to  be 
discharged  from  its  further  consideration,  with- 
out recommendation. 

The  Report  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  discharged. 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  that  the  Report  be  made 
the  special  order  for  this  hour,  and  from  now 
henceforth  until  disposed  of. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Proposition  is  now 
open  for  general  debate. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I move  that  the  general  de- 
bate now  close. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  now 
read  section  one. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  shall,  by  general  laws,  provide 
for  the  organization  and  classification  of  Municipal  Cor- 
porations. The  number  of  such  classes  shall  not  exceed 
six,  and  the  powers  of  each  class  shall  be  defined  by  gen- 
eral laws,  so  that  no  such  corporation  shall  have  any 
other  powers,  or  be  subject  to  any  other  restrictions  than 
other  corporations  of  the  same  class.  The  General  As- 
sembly shall  restrict  the  power  of  such  corporations  to 
levy  taxes  and  assessments,  borrow  money  and  contract 
debts,  so  as  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  such  power.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  to  say  a word  with 
regard  to  the  remarks  of  the  President.  If  I 
were  in  France,  I would,  perhaps,  be  a com- 
munist, as  my  friend,  the  President  of  this  Con- 
vention, would  seem  to  be,  for  what  he  said 
was  an  argument  for  the  commune.  The  com- 
mune, the  most  misunderstood  to-day  of  men 
who  ever  met  on  earth;  history  will  some  day 
enlighten  the  world  as  to  the  motives  of  some 
of  those  actors  in  those  great  events.  Copimun- 
ism  was  organized  officially  and  formally,  not 
to  revolutionize  society,  but  to  revolutionize 
the  government  of  France  by  decentralization. 
It  was  a movement  for  independent  Paris.  I f I 
w~ere  in  France,  being  a Republican,  I should, 
perhaps,  with  those  men,  make  common  cause 
for  the  independence  of  my  city,  as  against  the 
centralization  that  there  prevails. 

Mr.  VAN  YALKENBURGH.  I rise  to  a point 
of  order;  there  is  no  question  now  before  the 
Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
section  one.  The  gentleman  has  overlooked 
the  fact,  that  the  Convention  has  gone  out  of 
the  general  debate,  and  is  considering  the  Prop- 
osition section  by  section.  Section  one  has  been 
read,  and  is  now  under  consideration. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  In  this,  I hope  I shall  not  be 
misunderstood.  By  referring  to  his  position 
as  that  of  the  commune,  I do  not  apply  an  offen- 
sive epithet  to  the  President  of  the  Convention. 

I have  no  such  feeling,  but  simply  wish  to  draw 
as  sharply  as  I can  the  line  between  the  extreme 
independence  for  which  the  President  con- 
tends, and  that  rational  independence  which 
municipal  corporations  in  the  State  of  Ohio, 
necessarily,  have  ever  enjoyed.  I think  I 
should  be  the  last  man  in  this  Convention,  with 
my  feelings  upon  the  subject,  to  give  up  the 
decentralized,  self-governed  local  corporation. 
They  are  the  centers  of  liberty,  the  nervous 


1304 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  Beer,  Herron,  West,  Pond. 


[11 2 tli 


[Thursday’ 


ganglia  of  our  system.  A.re  the  municipal  cor- 
porations of  Ohio  to  be  disconnected  from  the 
State  ? Are  they  to  do  as  they  please,  irrespect- 
ive of  the  State  in  which  they  exist?  Are  they 
more  than  political  subdivisions  in  aid  of  the 
grand  object  of  general  good  government?  Is  it 
not  the  law  of  the  United  States  that  these  corpo- 
rations exist  at  the  will  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  State,  are  created  by  it,  and  by  it 
may  be  abolished  also  ? Is  it  not  the  idea  of  de- 
centralization, that  which  preserves  freedom  by 
localizing,  and  thus  bringing  closely  home  to 
the  voter  by  subdivisions,  his  government? 

Now,  I understand  that,  by  proposing  to 
limit  the  number  of  classes,  to  six,  we  are,  in 
no  degree,  invading  the  independent  rights 
of  the  municipal  corporations  apd  their  voters 
in  Ohio.  If  I thought  otherwise,  I should  join 
my  excellent  friend  who  presides  over  this  body, 
in  his  attack  on  this  clause,  but  I do  not  so  un- 
derstand it. 

With  regard  to  the  classification  which  has 
been  attempted,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  city  of 
Youngstown  and  the  city  of  Toledo,  yea,  the 
city  of  Mt.  Yernon  and  the  city  of  Delaware, 
may  be  governed  by  the  same  general  system 
of  laws  without  any  difficulty  whatever,  and  I 
am  at  a loss  to  see  how  it  can  "become  necessary 
to  have  more  than  six  classes,  during  the  ex- 
istence of  the  present  Constitution. 

Mr.  BEER.  I rise  to  a point  of  order.  I 
understand  that  the  Proposition  has  been  con- 
sidered in  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  re- 
ported back,  and  that  by  a vote  of  the  Conven- 
tion general  debate  has  terminated.  No  amend- 
ment has  been  offered  to  the  section,  and  unless 
an  amendment  is  offered,  I do  not  understand 
from  the  rules  that  any  debate  is  in  order. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  interrupt  him  a moment?  It  is  very 
likely  that  I am  out  of  order.  I was  speaking, 
really,  to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  Pres- 
ident. If  I am  out  of  order,  I shall  be  glad  to 
be  corrected. 

Mr.  B1£ER.  My  point  of  order  is,  that,  until 
an  amendment  is  offered,  no  discussion  of  any 
section  is  in  order. 

Mr.  HERRON.  With  the  permission  of  my 
colleague  [Mr.  Hoadly],  I have  an  amendment 
which  I offer  that  will  bring  the  question  di- 
rectly before  the  Convention. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  in  the  second  and  third  lines  the  words,  “the 
number  of  such  classes  shall  not  exceed  six.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  By  the  permission  of  the 
Convention 

Mr.  WEST.  In  order  that  the  gentleman  may 
have  a wider  range  of  latitude,  I move  a further 
amendment,  “that  the  entire  section  be  strick- 
en out.”  That  will  open  up  France  and  the 
Commune,  and  the  gentleman  can  proceed. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I was  invited  out  of  my 
country  by  others.  It  is  a painful  thing  to 
leave  America,  but  being  invited  I strayed;  but 
I returned  as  quickly  as  I could  to  my  own 
sheepfold. 

When  I was  interrupted,  by  the  delegate 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  I was  out  of  order. 
I was  really  discussing  the  suggestions  made  by 
the  President.  That  point  is  with  regard  to 
these  classes.  It  is  admitted  that  without  limit- 


ing classification  we  accomplish  nothing.  The 
real  question  is,  whether  we  have  established 
classes  enough  for  the  purpose  which  has  been 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Townsend.] 

I said  all  I wish  to  on  the  subject  in  my  open- 
ing statement.  There  is  another  matter,  how- 
ever, to  which  I will  call  attention  before  I take 
my  seat.  In  what  other  way  can  we  accom- 
plish the  desired  result?  The  desired  result  is, 
while  municipal  corporations  shall  have  all 
that  independence  which  will  secure  to  them 
local  self-government,  to  a rational  extent, 
nevertheless,  that  they  may  be  so  limited  and 
restricted  as  that  they  shall  not  be  per- 
mitted to  injure  the  rest  of  the  State.  They 
shall  not  be  permitted  to  convert  themselves 
from  useful  institutions — auxiliaries  in  govern- 
ing the  community — into  nuisances,  so  that 
they  shall,  instead  of  being  inviting  places  of 
abode  for  citizens  of  their  part  of  the  State, 
become  injurious  and  repulsive  to  the  rest  of 
the  State.  I say  the  problem  is,  how  to  secure 
the  independence  that  is  desired  on  one  hand, 
and  limit  them  so  that  they  shall  not  abuse 
that  independence  on  the  other,  for  they  are  a 
part  of  the  whole  State.  They  derive  their 
powers  from  the  whole  State;  therefore,  the 
whole  State  is  interested  in  their  government; 
and  what  I particularly  object  to  in  the  amend- 
ment which  the  President  read  is,  that  the 
direct  effect  of  that  amendment  would  be  so  far 
to  decentralize  and  separate  them  that  the  rest 
of  the  State  would  lose  interest  in  the  govern- 
ment of  these  corporations,  and  the  amendment 
of  their  charters  that  would  be  made  would  be 
simply  to  comply  with  the  wishes  of  those 
members  of  the  Legislature  who  have  been 
elected  from  the  various  counties  in  which  such 
cities  exist.  Thus,  the  delegation  from  Hamil- 
ton county  goes  to  Columbus.  There  are  thir- 
teen of  them  altogether.  They  take  their 
seats,  and  say,  we  desire  an  amendment  to  the 
charter  of  Cincinnati.  A member  from  Cleve- 
land rises  and  objects.  The  answer  is  immedi- 
ately made,  “ What  is  that  to  you?  It  will  not 
affect  you.”  This  is  the  history  of  past  legisla- 
tion in  Ohio 

Mr.  POND.  Are  not  Cleveland  and  Cincin- 
nati under  this  general  classification  to  belong 
to  one  general  class  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I cannot  answer  that  ques- 
tion. That  will  be  for  the  Legislature  to  an- 
swer. What  I am  answering  is,  whether  we 
have  classes  enough  to  accommodate  the  vary- 
ing circumstances  of  the  corporations  as  they 
may  be  developed  during  the  history  of  this 
Constitution  ? Whether  Cincinnati  and  Cleve- 
land will  be,  at  first,  or  at  some  subsequent 
time,  governed  by  the  same  charter,  I cannot 
answer.  I can  only  express  the  hope  that  if 
they  are  not  now  in  the  condition  to  be  gov- 
erned by  the  same  charter,  they  will  soon  be ; 
because  I believe  that  it  is  essential  to  the  good 
government  of  Cincinnati  that  somebody,  be- 
sides the  delegation  from  Hamilton,  should 
take  an  interest  in  the  laws  that  may  be  passed 
in  the  General  Assembly  for  the  government  of 
the  city  of  Cincinnati.  Those  laws  have  hereto- 
fore been  assented  to  in  a functory  way  by  mem- 
bers from  the  other  counties;  they  merely  yield 
out  of  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  thede!ega- 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1305 

February  12, 1874.]  Hoadly,  Herron,  Powell,  Cowen. 


tion  from  Hamilton  or  Cuyahoga,  and  that  be- 
cause the  delegation  from  Hamilton  or  Cuyahoga 
being  associated  with  no  one  else  having  an  in- 
terest in  the  matter;  and  I desire  to  so  arrange 
the  classes  as  that  this  evil  shall  not  continue 
to  exist  with  regard  to  the  city  of  Cincinnati, 
and  that  there  shall  be  associated,  as  soon  as 
possible,  with  that  city,  other  corporations,  so 
that  there  shall  be  an  interest  in  the  legislation 
of  Ohio,  that  has  not  heretofore  been  felt,  in 
the  management  of  this  and  other  municipal 
corporations,  by  the  General  Assembly.  What- 
ever they  may  be  or  ought  to  be  in  France,  such 
corporations  in  Ohio  cannot  be  dissevered,  as 
if  they  were  separate  members  of  the  body 
politic,  and  while  I do  not  believe,  and  never 
shall  consent  to  such  a centralization  as  has 
been  suggested,  viz:  the  present  French  system, 
I do  not  feel  that  it  will  interfere  with  rational 
self-goverment  in  the  local  centers,  as  repre- 
sented by  municipal  corporations,  to  restrict 
their  powers  or  to  provide  that  these  powers 
shall  be  granted  by  General  Assemblies,  and  in 
being  granted  by  the  General  Assembly  shall 
receive  the  careful  consideration,  founded  on 
self-interest,  of  all  the  members  of  the  General 
Assembly. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I have  moved  to  strike  out 
the  part  of  the  sentence  which  was  read ; for  it 
does  seem  to  me  that  for  this  Convention  to 
undertake  to  fix,  by  an  arbitrary  rule,  for  the 
next  twenty  or  twenty-five  years,  exactly  what 
number  of  classes  of  Municipal  Corporations 
shall  exist,  is  going  beyond  our  ability.  I do 
not  believe  that  there  are  any  two  members  of 
this  Convention  who  could  sit  down  to-day  and 
agree  upon  a classification  of  the  Municipal 
Corporations  of  the  State  of  Ohio  into  six  classes, 
and  say  where  the  boundary  of  each  class  should 
be;  and  if  you  cannot  do  it  to-day,  if  no  two 
men  can  agree  to-day  upon  such  a classifica- 
tion, shall  we  say  that  such  arbitrary  principle 
shall  be  the  law  of  the  Constitution  of  Ohio  for 
the  next  twenty-five  years?  By  what  rule 
shall  the  classification  be  governed?  By  the 
different  circumstances  of  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions or  by  population  ? The  interests  of  a city 
with  a population  below  100,000  may  be  the 
same  as  of  a city  above  100,000;  or  the  interests 
of  a city  located  in  one  corner  of  the  State  may 
be  entirely  different  from  those  of  a city  located 
in  another  part  of  the  State.  If  you  have  a clas- 
sification in  force,  according  to  the  circum- 
stances, or  conditions,  or  surroundings  of  each 
Municipal  Corporation;  then,  the  character  of 
the  wants  of  each  Municipal  Corporation  de- 
pends upon  its  position,  location  and  a variety 
of  circumstances ; and  I say,  if  you  adopt  any 
such  system  as  that,  we  cannot  to-day  fix  an 
arbitrary  number  of  classes  which  shall  answer 
the  wants  of  the  State  for  the  next  twenty  or 
twenty-five  years.  Three  will  answer  as  well 
as  six, — namely : cities,  towns,  and  villages. 
These  are  the  three  general  classes,  and  if  you 
are  to  be  governed  simply  by  words,  three  is  the 
better.  Now,  if  you  undertake  to  change  from 
three  to  six,  what  is  the  principle  upon  which 
you  will  make  the  change?  Why  do  you  fix 
upon  that  particular  number?  It  is  merely 
arbitrary,  and  neither  the  Chairman  nor  any 
member  of  that  Committee  can  give  a valid  rea- 
son for  settling  upon  this  special  number.  | 


They  cannot  themselves  to-day  sit  down  and 
make  the  division ; and  if  they  cannot  do  it  to- 
day, why  shall  they  ask  the  people  of  Ohio  for- 
th e next  twenty-five  years  to  be  governed  by 
that  arbitrary  rule  ? 

The  section  provides,  in  the  first  place,  for 
the  organization  and  classification  of  cities, 
towns  and  villages  by  general  laws.  This  clas- 
sification may  be  regulated,  not  so  much  by  the 
population  as  by  the  circumstances  and  wants 
of  each  particular  case,  or  by  the  particular- 
cases  of  cities,  towns  and  villages  which  may  be 
classified  together.  The  Legislature  can  pro- 
vide a classification  by  such  general  laws,  and 
this  classification  may  be  changed  as  the  cir- 
cumstances and  wants  of  the  municipalities 
change.  It  is  then  provided  that  whatever  laws 
shall  be  passed  in  relation  to  one  of  each  class 
shall  apply  to  all  others  of  the  same  class. 

When  this  is  done,  it  seems  to  me  that  we 
have  gone  as  far  as  it  is  prudent  for  us  to  go  in 
the  organic  law  of  the  State. 

Look  at  the  past  legislation  of  the  State.  As  I 
now  recollect,  but  a year  or  two  ago,  when  the 
citizens  of  the  city  of  Dayton  applied  to  the 
Legislature  for  a metropolitan  police  board,  and 
the  application  was  granted,  it  was  found,  after 
the  law  was  passed,  by  the  classification  in  ex- 
istence, that  Columbus  had  a metropolitan  po- 
lice board,  too.  A thing  they  did  not  want  was 
provided  for  them.  Dayton  did  want  it;  Co- 
lumbus did  not.  Why  was  it  necessary  ? Sim- 
ply because  two  cities  have  nearly  the  same 
population,  and,  therefore,  are  embraced  in  the 
same  general  classification,  to  grant  to  both,  or 
to  deny  to  either,  an  important  matter  of  mu- 
nicipal government,  which  is  necessary  to  the 
protection  of  the  one,  but  not  of  the  other.  I do 
not  think  that  population  is  the  best  basis  for 
classification  that  can  be  adopted.  I think  the 
location  and  wants  of  each  municipality  should 
govern  more  than  the  population.  If  we  provide 
that,  by  general  laws,  the  General  Assembly 
shall  provide  for  the  organization  and  classifi- 
cation of  cities,  towns,  and  villages,  and  that 
whatever  law  is  made  with  reference  to  one 
shall  apply  to  all  of  any  class,  then  we  have  pro- 
vided sufficient  restrictions ; and  it  is  not  neces- 
sary for  us  to  establish  an  arbitrary  number, 
for  which  no  one  can  give  an  explanation,  and 
say  that  that,  and  that  only,  shall  be  the  classi- 
fication for  the  next  twenty  years. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I move  to  amend  the  first 
section 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  first 
upon  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron]. 

Mr.  COWEN.  The  object  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron],  in  moving 
this  amendment,  will  be  obvious  to  the  Conven- 
tion upon  a moment’s  reflection.  I apprehend 
its  object,  indirectly,  is  to  promote  special 
legislation.  I should  much  prefer  to  see  the 
question  more  directly  raised.  One  of  the  very 
objects,  and  one  of  the  principal  objects,  which 
the  Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations 
sought  in  this  Report  was  to  prevent  this  in- 
direct special  legislation  which  has  grown  up 
under  the  present  Constitution.  The  framers 
of  the  present  Constitution  sought — and  be- 
lieved they  had  accomplished  their  object — to 
prevent  special  legislation.  Experience  proved 


1306 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [112th 


Cowen,  Root,  Griswold. 


[Thursday, 


that,  so  far  as  Municipal  Corporations  were 
concerned,  they  had  failed.  The  Legislature 
had  not  the  power,  under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, to  pass  a law  in  which  they  could  provide 
that  the  city  of  Dayton,  for  instance,  should  have 
power  to  do  this  thing  or  that  thing;  hut  in  the 
classification  of  cities  and  villages, in  endeavor- 
ing to  avoid  this  difficulty,  there  are  several 
cases  in  which,  with  the  doors  wide  open,  they 
have  proceeded  to  legislate  for  single  cities  and 
particular  Municipal  Corporations. 

I have  before  me  a striking  illustration  of  the 
statement  which  I have  just  made.  It  will  be 
found  on  the  seventieth  page  of  the  sixty-ninth 
volume  of  the  laws  of  Ohio.  The  title  is,  “An 
act  to  authorize  cities  and  villages  of  a popula- 
tion of  5,641,  by  the  Federal  census  of  1870,  to 
appropriate  money  to  construct  car  shops,  &c., 
within  the  limits  of  such  village  or  city.” 

The  provision  is,  that  villages  or  cities  con- 
taining a population  of  5,641,  and  no  more,  by 
the  Federal  census  of  1870,  published  in  the 
last  volume  of  Ohio  Statistical  Reports,  if  the 
council  thereof  by  a resolution  shall  declare, 
etc# 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen],  allow  me  one  question  ? 

Mr.  COWEN.  Cheerfully. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Does  he  believe  that  that  makes 
that  any  more  a general  law  than  it  would  have 
been. if  it  had  been  the  town  of  Delaware? 
Was  it  not  just  as  much  a special  act,  as  if  it  had 
said  the  town  of  Delaware  ? 

Mr.  COWEN.  Whether  that  law  is  a consti- 
tutional law  or  not,  I do  not  say.  We  have  just 
such  laws,  almost  innumerable,  upon  our  stat- 
ute books,  and  they  have  been  acted  upon.  I 
consider  it  a question  of  grave  doubt  whether 
the  Legislature  have  the  right  to  violate  what 
would  seem  to  be  the  spirit  of  a provision  of  the 
Constitution,  but  they  have  done  it  repeatedly. 
There  are  cases  equally  absurd  and  reckless,  and 
I trust  some  of  the  gentlemen  from  Hamilton, 
who  are  familiar  with  some  of  the  modes  by 
which  the  Legislature  has  undertaken  to  avoid 
this  provision  of  the  Constitution,  in  relation  to 
the  city  of  Cincinnati,  may  call  the  attention 
of  the  Convention  to  them. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I can  tell  the  gentleman,  if  he 
will  allow  me,  of  one,  the  city  of  Zanesville, 
which  got  to  be  called  in  charter  language,  “a 
city,  containing  10,130  inhabitants,  by  the  last 
census.” 

Mr.  COWEN.  There  is  another  statute  with 
reference  to  cities  that  contain  an  avenue  by 
the  name  of  Eggleston  avenue. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  There  are  plenty  of  stat- 
utes in  which  the  city  of  Cleveland  is  alone 
named,  and  which  could  apply  to  no  other  city, 
and  nobody  has  considered  them  unconstitu- 
tional, and  money  without  limit  has  been  ex- 
pended under  them. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I do  not  propose  to  argue  or  to 
attempt  to  discuss  this  matter.  I believe  I have 
accomplished  the  object  sought  and  that  was  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  de- 
sire of  the  Committee  in  introducing  this  Re- 
port. If  this  provision  is  stricken  out,  it  will  re- 
sult, judging  the  future  by  the  past,  in  much 
special  legislation  of  some  indirect  kind. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I did  not  intend  to  discuss 
this  matter,  and  yet  this  question  of  city  govern- 


ment is  so  important,  and  is  so  connected  with 
the  life  of  everything  in  the  State,  that  I desire 
to  say  a word  upon  the  subject — not  that  I op- 
pose this  section,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is 
reaching  at  the  evil  in  the  wrong  manner.  The 
instance  suggested,  in  which  the  law  was 
gotten  up,  giving  special  privileges  to  the  city 
of  Delaware,  by  which  they  were  authorized  to 
build  a car  shop,  is  not  got  rid  of  by  any  provi- 
sion at  all  like  that.  The  difficulty  is,  that  there 
should  be  no  power  in  the  Legislature  to  grant 
any  such  privileges,  and  I take  it  that  this  is 
what  is  intended  to  be  done  by  this  Article. 
Now,  the  problem  of  city  government — how  to 
manage  the  affairs  of  a municipality  so  as  to 
secure  property,  and  at  the  same  time  preserve 
liberty  and  universal  suffrage,  is  a problem 
which  arrests  the  attention,  at  this  time,  of 
all  thoughtful  believers  in  republican  govern- 
ment. 

But  if,  in  our  action  here,  we  do  anything 
towards  the  solution  of  this  problem,  we  shall 
have  done  our  duty,  and  done  an  important 
duty.  The  framers  of  the  present  Constitution 
supposed  that,  when  they  had  provided  for 
general  laws  relating  to  the  credit  of  municipal 
corporations,  prohibiting  them  from  loaning 
money,  etc.,  as  was  provided  in  that  other 
Article,  they  had  succeeded  in  prohibiting  this 
special  legislation  for  cities.  But,  as  the  Pres- 
ident said,  when  addressing  the  Convention  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  a coach  and  four  has 
been  driven  through  that  Article,  and  a coach 
and  four,  I think,  could  be  driven  through  this 
Article  in  the  same  manner.  I think  it  is  easy 
to  conceive  how  it  can  be  done.  And  when 
once  a coach  and  its  equipage  has  gone  through, 
who  can  tell  what  crowd  of  ragamuffins  will  fol- 
low? 

The  fact  is  that,  upon  this  subject  of  city  gov- 
ernment, we  are  all  laboring  under  the  influ- 
ence of  traditions,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  city, 
that  have  found  lodgment  in  the  minds  of  men, 
and  which  must  be  dispensed  with  in  order  that 
we  may  understand  city  government  in  modern 
times.  In  the  ancient  days  the  city  was  the 
State,  and  when  that  time  existed  in  which  the 
city  was  the  ideal  of  a State,  it  was  undoubt- 
edly the  most  splendid  era  in  the  history  of  the 
human  intellect.  But  that  idea  of  government 
necessarily  proved  a failure;  because  the  exer- 
cise of  the  duties  of  the  citizen  required  too 
great  a strain  upop  the  faculties  of  men  to  in- 
sure its  continuance.  When  every  man  was  a 
soldier,  a legislator,  a governor,  the  tendency 
was  to  develop  the  faculties  of  the  citizen  to  the 
highest  degree;  but  the  human  mind  is  incapa- 
ble of  sustaining  that  continued  tension  which 
such  a condition  requires  of  men.  Now, 
I say  that  these  ideas  of  city  government 
which  existed  at  the  time  when  the  State  and 
the  city  were  identical,  have,  so  far,  continued, 
and  have  such  a hold  upon  the  minds  of  men, 
that  we  are  under  their  influence  to-day,  and 
our  government  has  been  affected  thereby. 

The  city,  as  it  now  exists,  is  only  an  aggre- 
gate of  individuals  within  the  nation ; and,  if 
we  look  at  it  properly — and  we  can  only  arrive 
at  good  results  by  so  considering  it — the  city 
has  a two-fold  character.  It  is,  in  one  sense,  a 
private  business  corporation;  and,  in  another 
sense,  it  exercises  such  functions  of  State  gov- 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Griswold. 


1307 


Day.] 

February  12,  1874. J 


ernment,  and  of  sovereignty,  as  shall  be  dele- 
gated to  it;  and,  although  these  considerations 
are  properly  to  be  addressed  to  the  Legislature, 
rather  than  to  a body  like  this,  yet  we  cannot, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  properly  perform  our  duty  in 
this  respect,  unless  we  keep  these  distinctions 
in  mind. 

Again,  the  city  has  what  the  nation  at  large 
does  not  have — a criminal  class.  The  criminal 
of  the  nation  at  large  is  hidden  and  concealed, 
his  habit  is  unknown,  and  his  discovery 
is  equivalent  to  his  detection  and  detention. 
But  in  the  city  he  finds  a refuge,  and  he  be- 
comes an  important  element  in  the  city  com- 
munity; and  when  we  consider  that  the  city  is 
to  be  governed  by  unrestricted  suffrage,  we 
must  take  this  element  into  account. 

And  again,  in  reference  to  city  government, 
we  should  also  remember  that  the  city  is  a sub- 
ject of  perpetual  growth.  The  city  is  never 
fenced  in  and  finished.  It  is  true,  that  particu- 
lar cities  may  reach  their  limit  in  population, 
and  some  may  recede;  but  “the  continuing 
city”  is  a city  of  growth;  and  we  must  take  all 
these  elements  into  consideration,  when  we 
come  to  frame  a fundamental  law  for  the  city. 
We  must  take  into  account  that,  as  I say,  the 
city  is  only  an  aggregate  of  citizens  for  their 
mutual  convenience,  exercising,  in  a local  way, 
a portion  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State. 
Now,  the  difficulty  has  been  that  the  power 
delegated  to  the  cities  has  not  received  proper 
limitation,  nor  proper  discrimination,  at  the 
hands  of  the  General  Assembly.  We  have  been 
under  the  influence  of  traditions  of  the  old 
time,  when  the  city  was  the  State.  The  very 
decision  of  our  supreme  court,  when  they  got 
through  your  Ferguson  bill,  goes  upon  the 
assumption  that  it  is  within  the  proper  munici- 
pal power  of  a city  to  engage  in  the  building  of 
a railroad.  That  was  true  in  the  time  when  the 
city  was  the  government;  but  to  say  now  that 
an  aggregation  of  citizens,  for  mutual  conve- 
nience, shall  engage  in  such  an  enterprise,  is  to 
go  entirely  beyond  proper  municipal  power, 
and  should  never,  in  any  way,  be  permitted ; 
and  so  these  proper  limitations  upon  the  power 
of  cities,  should  be  incorporated  into  this  act. 
As  I understand  it,  this  is  what  the  Committee 
have  done,  as  far  as  practicable,  and  yet  they 
have  not  gone  to  the  full  extent.  Our  General 
Assembly,  in  laying  down  the  powers  of  cities, 
have  gone  on  and  defined  what  powers  cities 
should  have ; and  they  are  to  be  found  on  page 
158  of  Volume  I of  the  statutes.  Sections  51 
and  52  contain,  substantially,  an  enumeration 
of  all  the  powers  that  are  given  to  cities.  I 
need  not  enumerate  them.  Eleven  clauses  of 
section  52  refer  to  the  power  over  streets  and 
highways,  and  various  other  powers ; but  here 
we  have  the  twelfth  clause ; and  I ask  the  Con- 
vention to  consider,  for  a moment,  what  is 
allowed  to  be  done  under  this  delegation  of 
power.  Paragraph  twelve  provides  that  they 
may  legislate  for  the  prosperity  of  the  city,  and  to 
improve  their  morals;  and,  under  this  general 
power,  is  there  anything  they  cannot  do? 
Under  the  power  to  enact  legislation  for  the 
prosperity  of  the  city,  they  may  engage  in 
building  railroads,  just  as  much  under  your 
present  provision  as  they  ever  did.  And  they 
may  build  car  shops — for  where  is  the  tribunal 


to  decide  upon  what  shall  be  for  the  prosperity 
of  the  city?  And  so  far  as  your  classes  are 
concerned,  they  may  pass  a law  dividing  the 
cities  into  tfie  six  classes.  They  may  single 
out  Cincinnati,  and  make  it  a class  by  itself, 
and  -authorize  it  to  build  a railroad ; or  they 
may  authorize  a city  to  engage  in  a line  of 
steamers  on  Lake'  Erie;  and  after  they  have 
passed  that  law,  they  can  repeal  it  again,  hav- 
ing left  the  city,  for  the  time  being,  in  a class 
by  itself. 

The  difficulty  of  the  question  lies  just  here, — 
not  that  I object  to  this  measure,  for  I think  it 
is  a step  in  the  right  direction,  so  far  as  it  goes. 
I understood  its  effect,  and  I feel  the  force  of  the 
argument  of  the  worthy  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee; that,  by  classifying  the  cities,  you  make 
it  more  difficult,  and  put  obstructions  in  the 
way  of  performing  these  things.  But  there 
should  be  a limit  placed  upon  this  delegated 
power  in  framing  the  fundamental  law,  and  no 
such  general  authority  as  that  of  promoting  the 
welfare  and  prosperity  of  the  city  should  be 
allowed  at  all.  And  so  in  reference  to  the  gen- 
eral city  government.  The  rules  and  regula- 
tions for  the  government  of  cities  at  large  can 
be  made  general,  but  this  does  not  prevent  the 
doing  of  those  things  which  this  special  legisla- 
tion complained  of  does.  Now,  I am  not  finding 
fault  with  this  Report,  so  far  as  it  goes.  I am  in 
favor  of  it,  and  will  support  it.  But  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  effect  that  this  is  only  in  the  way  of 
obstruction  and  not  prevention.  If  we  carry 
the  idea  into  the  fundamental  law  of  limiting 
the  power  of  cities  simply  to  that  which  is 
properly  municipal,  limit  it  to  those  things 
which  are  for  the  mutual  convenience  of  the 
citizens,  and  then,  within  that,  you  may  give 
them  the  largest  possible  liberty,  and  this  special 
legislation  complained  of  may  be  prohibited. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I shall  vote  for  this  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  to  strike  out, 
as  also  for  every  other  amendment  which  may 
be  offered  that  will  in  any  way,  according  to 
my  opinion,  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  General 
Assembly  to  legislate  upon  this  matter  of  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations  as  they  may  from  time  to 
time  deem  advisable.  I do  not  believe  that  it  is 
politic  or  right  for  us  to  undertake  in  this  Con- 
vention to  tie  up  the  hands  of  the  people  so  that 
they  may  not,  through  their  legally  elected 
legislators,  make  such  provision  as  will  meet 
their  wants,  whether  as  members  of  Municipal 
Corporations  or  of  township  or  county  organi- 
zations. I believe,  Mr.  President,  that  we  are 
here  simply  to  set  in  motion  the  machinery  of 
government  and  not  to  legislate.  Now,  it  may 
be  said  that  this  is  simply  a limitation  upon  the 
power  of  the  Legislature.  In  one  respect  that  is 
true.  But  it  goes  further : it  undertakes  to  pre- 
scribe what  the  people  shall  not  do  through 
their  legislators,  in  a way  which,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  the  experience  of  the  past  twenty  years  has 
shown  to  be  exceedingly  detrimental  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  people.  In  1851,  as 
was  very  well  stated  by  our  President 
when  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  the  Con- 
vention undertook,  by  a general  provision,  to 
provide  for  a method  of  organizing  Municipal 
Corporations,  and  of  governing  the  same, 
which  had  never  been  known  in  this  State 
since  its  first  organization.  That  undertaking 


1308 


i 


[112th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


Neal,  Hoadly,  Voris. 


[Thursday, 


upon  their  part  was  a miserable  failure;  and  I 
do  not  believe  there  is  a gentleman  upon  this 
floor  who  will  for  a moment  question  that  it 
was.  Why?  Because  they  undertook  to  do 
that  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  was  im- 
possible to  do:  to  govern  the  people  of* this 
State,  in  their  municipal  organizations,  embra- 
cing, as  they  do,  a diversity  of  interests,  a diver- 
sity of  pursuits,  a diversity  of  soil  and  a 
diversity  of  productions,  by  general  laws;  ma- 
king the  same  laws  applicable  to  the  manufac- 
turing districts  of  southern  Ohio  as  are  applica- 
ble to  the  farming  and  agricultural  communities 
of  north-eastern  Ohio;  to  the  swamp-lands  of 
north-western  Ohio  the  same  laws  as  are  ap- 
plicable to  the  plains  of  the  Western  Reserve. 
I say  that  the  experience  of  thirty  years  has 
shown  that  that  experiment  has  proved  to  be  a 
miserable  failure.  How?  The  very  first  Gen- 
eral Assembly  that  met  under  that  Constitution, 
an  Assembly  in  which  the  friends  of  that  instru- 
ment were  largely  in  the  ascendant,  tried  by 
general  laws  to  provide  for  the  government  of 
these  municipalities ; and  no  doubt,  Mr.  Presi-  i 
dent,  they  supposed,  in  their  wisdom,  just  as  it  j 
is  thought  upon  this  floor,  that  they  had  dis-  | 
covered  a panacea  for  all  the  evils  which  had  i 
resulted  from  local  legislation.  What  was  the  | 
result  ? Laws  were  passed  in  the  first  General ! 
Assembly  providing  for  the  organization  of 
cities  and  villages,  and  from  that  time  to  the 
present,  for  twenty -two  years,  the  General  As- 
sembly has  every  year  amended  and  changed 
those  laws  so  as  to  make  them,  as  far  as  prac- 
ticable, to  the  diverse  interests  and  wants  of 
the  different  municipalities  throughout  the 
State.  Cincinnati  claimed  one  system  of  laws; 
Cleveland  asked  for  another  mode  of  govern- 
ment ; Toledo  set  up  claims  which  no  other  city 
in  the  State  of  Ohio  advanced ; and  so  it  has 
gone  on.  The  attempts  to  patch  up  those  gen- 
eral laws  in  such  a way  as  to  provide  for  the 
wants  of  the  municipalities  throughout  the 
State,  has  created  more  than  twenty  volumes  of 
statutes,  and  given  three  large  volumes  of  gen- 
eral laws  of  something  like  three  thousand 
pages.  Why,  Mr.  President,  any  one  who  will 
reflect  for  a moment,  must  see  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  govern  a manufacturing  city,  where 
the  population  is  composed  principally  of  two 
classes,  the  owners  of  manufacturing  establish- 
ments and  their  operatives,  by  the  same  laws 
as  you  would  rule  a simple  agricultural  com- 
munity, where  an  aggregation  of  houses,  which 
the  people  by  courtesy  denominate  a city,  is  in- 
habited principally  by  traders,  merchants,  and 
the  few  mechanics  who  are  necessary  to  do  the 
work  of  such  a community.  The  people  are 
different,  their  wants  are  different,  and  they 
differ  in  many  other  respects. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  as  has  been  well  asked, 
upon  this  floor,  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Herron],  how  do  we  know  that  six 
classes  are  sufficient?  Where  is  the  evidence  of 
that  fact  ? What  experience  demonstrates  any-  I 
thing  of  the  sort?  Where  is  there  a State  in  the  j 
Union  that  has  tried  the  experiment,  and  shown  ' 
from  experience  that  it  was  sufficient?  Not 
one;  and,  if  I am  correctly  informed,  no  single  ! 
State,  with  the  exception  of  Iowa — particularly 
where  the  interests  and  pursuits  of  the  people 
are  as  diverse  as  they  are  in  Ohio — ever  under-  ! 


took  to  govern  these  corporations  by  any  system 
of  general  laws. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  has  occurred,  at  least,  in 
the  State  of  Illinois.  The  Legislature  of  Illi- 
nois is  forbidden  to  pass  any  special  law  with 
regard  to  the  organization  of  cities  and  villages  ; 
and  the  pending  amendments  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State  of  New  York,  reported  by  the 
Constitutional  Commission,  expressly  forbid 
the  Legislature  from  legislating,  except  by  gen- 
eral laws,  for  the  organization  of  cities  and 
villages.  There  are  other  instances,  but  these 
are  enough. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I am  unable,  Mr.  President,  to 
state  here  fully,  all  the  provisions  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  of  Illinois.  But  there  is 
one  thing  which  I do  know.  There  is,  in  the 
Constitution  of  Illinois,  special  legislation  in 
behalf  of  Chicago  and  the  county  of  Cook.  The 
new  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania,  also,  legis- 
lates especially  in  behalf  of  Philadelphia  and 
Allegheny. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I call  the  gentleman’s  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  new  Constitution  of 
Pennsylvania  forbids  the  Legislature  from 
passing  any  law,  except  general  laws,  for  the 
organization  of  cities  and  villages.  It  forbids 
the  Legislature — I am  not  speaking  of  what  the 
Constitution  may  do. 

Mr.  NEAL.  That  may  be ; but  I apprehend 
that  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoad- 
ly], if  he  will  examine  that  Constitution 
closely,  will  find  that  it  contains  no  such  restric- 
tive clauses  as  are  contained  in  this  section; 
and  I do  know,  though  I have  not  made  a criti- 
cal examination  of  it,  that  the  Constitution 
itself  expressly  legislates  in  behalf  of  Philadel- 
phia and  Allegheny. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  * I will  ask  the  gentleman, 
if  he  will  allow  me,  whether  that  which  he 
styles  legislation  in  the  Constitution  was  not 
rendered  necessary  by  the  legislation  that  grew 
out  of  the  fact  that  the  Legislature  of  Penn- 
sylvania had  the  power,  and  universally  exer- 
cised it,  to  legislate  specially  for  the  govern- 
ment of  Philadelphia? 

Mr.  NEAL.  That  may  be.  I know  that  in 
Pennsylvania  there  were  very  grave  abuses 
charged  against  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Was  not  that  the  result  of  the 
special  legislation  that  was  tolerated  in  the 
State  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Those  abuses,  Mr.  President, 
grew  out  of  the  fact  that  the  people  of  Penn*- 
sylvania  elected  men  to  the  General  Assembly 
who,  while,  perhaps,  they  represented  the  wish- 
es of  their  constituents,  yet  did  not,  in  all 
respects,  do  that  which  was  right.  As  to  the 
question  of  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
V oris],  I will  only  say  that  if  the  people  of 
Pennsylvania  had  been  careful  to  elect 
upright,  honest,  competent  men  to  make  their 
laws  for  them,  no  such  evils  would  have  grown 
up  as  his  question  seemed  to  indicate  existed 
there. 

As  I stated  a while  ago,  for  twenty  years  the 
people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  through  their  Rep- 
resentatives, have  been  trying  to  get  rid  of  a 
provision  in  the  old  Constitution  similar  to 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Neal,  Tuttle,  Townsend,  Mueller. 


1309 


Day.] 

February  12,  1874.] 


those  contained  in  this  section ; and  they  have 
gone  to  such  an  extent,  that,  as  it  has  been  as- 
serted upon  this  floor,  a coach  and  four  has  been 
driven  through  the  Constitution  by  the  General 
Assembly  and  by  the  courts.  Why  was  this? 
Simply  because  it  was  found  that  to  construe 
this  section  strictly  would  create  greater  evils 
— evils  which  could  not  be  remedied  except  by 
constitutional  amendment — than  would  result 
from  such  liberal  construction  as  has  been 
given  to  this  section  by  the  Legislature  and  the 
courts.  The  very  instances  cited  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  show  the 
necessity  of  giving  the  Legislature  very  liberal 
powers  under  this  section.  Would  those  laws 
which  have  been  referred  to  as  obnoxious  to 
this  provision  of  the  Constitution  ever  have 
been  passed  if  it  had  not  been  that  the  necesi- 
ties  of  the  people  demanded  it?  And  now  we 
propose  to  do  more.  We  propose,  instead  of 
relaxing  the  restrictions  and  limitations  which 
the  present  Constitution  places  upon  the  power 
of  the  Legislature,  to  make  them  still  stronger, 
so  as  to  prevent  the  Legislature, even  by  the  most 
liberal  construction,  from  providing  for  that 
which  they  deem  to  be  necessary  to  meet  the 
wants  of  the  people. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Does  the  gentleman  think 
that  the  fact  that  the  Legislature  have  been  able 
to  find  ways  of  getting  through  the  Constitution 
without  being  interrupted  by  the  courts,  is  an 
argument  against  making  the  Constitutional 
provision  stronger,  so  that  they  cannot  get 
through  very  well  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  If  we  are  going  to  put  a pro- 
vision of  this  kind  into  the  Constitution,  then  I 
suppose  it  would  be  well  enough  to  make  it  so 
strong  that  neither  courts  nor  General  Assem- 
blies could  get  through;  because  it  is  very 
humiliating  for  a citizen  of  the  Slate  of  Ohio  to 
know  that  the  General  Assembly  or  the  courts 
have  been  compelled  to  violate  either  the  spirit 
or  the  letter  A>f  the  Constitution,  even  when  it  is 
for  the  best  interests  of  the  people  of  this  State 
that  they  should  do  so. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I would  like  to  inquire 
of  my  friend  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  if  it  is 
not  competent  for  the  Legislature  to  make  laws 
for  these  different  classes?  For  instance,  they 
could  constitute  one  class  of  cities  having  a 
population  of  not  more  than  twelve  thousand  and 
not  less  than  four  thousand  ? Would  it  not  then 
be  competent  for  them  to  make  a law  that  should 
be  general  to  all  cities  of  that  class  ? Those  who 
desired  to  avail  themselves  of  it  might  do  so, 
and  those  who  did  not  desire  need  not  do  so. 
For  instance,  they  could  pass  a law  allowing 
any  city  with  the  population  named  to  build  a 
machine  shop,  not  confining  the  privilege  to 
Delaware  alone,  but  allowing  it  to  any  city  or 
town  in  the  State,  of  that  class,  which  wanted 
to  make  a machine  shop.  That  would  be  a 
general  law  applying  to  all  the  cities  of  a cer- 
tain class ; and  I apprehend  that  under  such 
regulation  cities  of  such  population  could  get 
all  the  legislation  they  want  and  are  fairly  en- 
titled to. 

Here  the  PRESIDENT  announced  that  the 
time  of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 


Neal]  had  expired.  By  unanimous  consent, 
however,  the  gentleman  was  permitted  to  pro- 
ceed. 

Mr.  NEAL.  In  answer  to  the  question  of  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  I 
will  say  that  I have  no  doubt  the  Legislature 
can  pass  a law  of  that  character.  They  could 
probably  classify  cities  so  as  to  make  a law  of 
that  character  applicable  to  all  cities.  But 
I ask,  Mr.  President,  where  is  the  pro- 
priety of  doing  that?  If  Delaware  wanted 
to  have  a law  passed  which  would  author- 
ize her  to  build  machine-shops,  why  should 
we  adopt  a miserable  subterfuge  and  say 
that  all  cities  of  the  class  containing  4,401  in- 
habitants should  be  authorized  to  build  ma- 
chine-shops? Why  not  say  at  once  that  the 
city  of  Delaware  should  do  that?  It  would  be 
more  manly  and,  in  my  opinion,  more  in  ac- 
cordance with  good  sense,  good  judgment,  and 
good  taste.  Let  us  suppose  a case:  Suppose 
that  the  law,  instead  of  providing  that  a city 
having  such  a number  of  inhabitants  by  the  last 
Federal  census,  should  say  that  every  city  hav- 
ing a population  of  from  five  to  ten  thousand 
might  build  machine-shops,  what  would  be  the 
result?  I will  take  the  town  of  Ironton  as  an 
illustration.  A large  majority  of  the  people  of 
that  town  are  laborers  working  in  the  mills,  the 
foundries,  and  the  factories  of  that  place.  They 
take  a notion  into  their  heads  that  they  want  a 
machine-shop  in  that  town,  and  they  go  to 
work  at  the  next  municipal  election  and  pro- 
vide for  the  building  of  that  shop ; while,  in 
point  of  fact,  the  tax-payers  of  that  town  might 
not  want  it  at  all,  and  there  might  be  no  real 
necessity  for  it.  Again,  a law  is  passed  author- 
izing cities  of  a certain  class  to  borrow  money 
to  the  amount  of  fifty  thousand  dollars  for  the 
purpose  of  improving  the  streets.  Very  well ; 
take  the  town  of  Ironton  still  as  an  illustration  : 
A large  number  of  men  there  support  their 
families  by  laboring  on  the  streets  at  this  present 
time;  and  though  the  town  may  be  badly  in 
debt,  they  can  go  to  the  polls  and  compel  the 
tax-payers  to  borrow  the  money.  Manufactur- 
ing towns  like  Ironton,  and  others,  perhaps, 
that  I might  name,  are  under  the  control  of 
that  class  of  people,  because  they  constitute  a 
large  majority  of  the  voters. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Suppose  the  General  As- 
sembly, instead  of  passing  a law  which  should 
give  Delaware  alone  the  right  to  build  a car- 
shop,  should  so  frame  the  law  that  it  should 
apply  to  your  city  and  to  mine,  and  to  a dozen 
other  cities  of  the  same  class,  does  the  gentle- 
man not  think  that  the  Representatives  in  other 
sections  of  the  State  would  object  to  the  passage 
of  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Most  undoubtedly.  And  that  is 
just  what  I would  provide  against.  A law  that 
might  be  highly  beneficial  to  Cleveland,  for 
instance,  would  be  detrimental  to  the  interests 
of  Dayton,  or  Franklin,  or  Toledo,  and  vice 
versa.  I had  the  honor,  a few  years  ago.  to  be 
a member  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State. 
The  county  of  Lawrence,  as  every  one  knows 
who  has  ever  been  there,  is  a very  rugged,  hilly 
county.  It  is  valuable  chiefly  for  its  mineral 
resources.  The  principal  road  by  which  access 
could  be  obtained  to  the  county  seat  ran  along 
the  Ohio  River  a distance  of  some  forty  miles, 


1310 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


[112th 


Neal,  Tuttle,  Humphreville,  West. 


[Thursday^ 


but  heavy  freshets  had  washed  off  the  entire 
road  in  some  places,  so  that  nothing  was  left, 
and  any  gentleman  who  would  have  undertaken 
to  go  through  the  county  of  Lawrence  in  a car- 
riage, in  1862,  would  have  found  it  the  most 
difficult  task  he  ever  undertook.  The  people  of 
Lawrence  county,  very  generally,  petitioned 
the  Legislature  for  authority  to  tax  themselves 
for  the  purpose  of  making  roads  that  would  be 
suitable  for  their  purposes.  If  I had  asked  for 
a general  law,  I could  not  have  obtained  it. 
There  is  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold],  who  was  a member  of  the  same 
Legislature,  and  who,  no  doubt,  voted  for  the 
bill.  He  would  have  opposed  it.  The  gentle- 
man from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  was  a member  of 
the  same  Legislature,  and  he  would  have  op- 
posed it.  The  gentleman  from  Fayette  [Mr. 
Gardner]  is  another  who  would  have  opposed 
it.  And  yet,  it  was  a law  which  was  demanded 
by  the  best  interests  of  the  people  of  my  county. 
The  law  was  passed,  however,  and  the  conse- 
quence is,  that  we  have  now  as  good  roads  as 
any  county  in  Southern  Ohio.  This  is  an  illus- 
tration showing  the  benefits  of  authorizing  the 
people  of  different  localities  to  do  that  which 
their  owh  interests  demand. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Right  there  I wish  to  put  an 
inquiry,  with  a view  to  seeing  whether  the  gen- 
tleman does  not  misapprehend  the  scope  of  the 
proposition  that  is  now  before  us.  The  inquiry 
I propose  to  put  is,  in  the  first  place,  at  whose 
expense  ought  the  Legislature  to  exercise  this 
power?  I understand^” the  gentleman  that  it 
ought  to  be  at  the  expense  of  the  people  to  be 
affected  by  it. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  What  I want  to  get  at  is, 
whether  there  cannot  be  some  general  law  by 
which  this  will  of  the  people  shall  find  expres- 
sion, and  be  carried  into  effect,  so  that,  in  ev- 
ery particular  case,  where  the  will  of  the  peo- 
ple in  that  particular  instance  is  in  that  direc- 
tion, it  can  be  carried  into  effect  without  going 
to  the  Legislature  for  it? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I will  answer  the  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  simply  by  citing 
the  very  illustration  which  has  been  given  here. 

If  the  law  which  was  passed  a few  years  ago, 
authorizing  the  city  of  Delaware  to  build  ma- 
chine shops,  had  been  required  to  be  a general 
law,  authorizing  all  cities  of  a certain  class  to 
build  machine  shops,  that  law  would  not  have 
received  any  support  in  the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  That  is  so.  But  was  it  not 
passed  because  the  people  of  Delaware  wanted 
it? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Ought  such  a thing  to  be 
done  for  Delaware,  because  the  people  there 
want  it;  and,  yet,  ought  it  not  to  be  placed 
equally  within  the  power  of  any  other  city  that 
has  the  same  want  to  provide  for  that  want?  Is 
there  any  reason  wdiy  the  Legislature  should 
have  the  power  to  give  the  privilege  to  the  city 
of  Delaware,  because  the  people  of  Delaware 
want  it,  and  yet  not  give  it  also  to  any  other 
city  of  like  population,  and  situated  in  similar 
circumstances,  when  they  want  the  same  thing? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Without  expressing  any  opin- 
ion, Mr.  President,  as  to  the  propriety  of  the 
legislation  in  question,  because  I am  r.ot  famil- 


iar with  the  facts  and  circumstances,  I will  say, 
generally,  that  I believe  that  the  people  of  any 
section,  county,  or  municipality,  ought  to  be 
permitted  to  have  such  laws  passed  as  they  deem 
essential  for  their  best  interest  and  for  their 
well-beiner. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Well,  now,  will  the  gentle- 
man allow  me  this  simple  inquiry  ? Is  there 
anything  in  this  Article  which  will  prevent  the 
Legislature  from  providing,  by  general  laws, 
ways  by  which  the  will  of  the  people  of  a par- 
ticular city  shall,  to  all  just  extent,  find  expres- 
sion, and  go  into  effect,  on  all  reasonable  sub- 
jects? 

Mr.  NEAL.  If  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  is  going  to  adopt  the  policy  which  has  been 
adopted  for  the  last  twenty  years — seeking  ev- 
ery plausible  means  of  evading  the  provisions 
of  this  Article,  and  the  courts  shall  sustain 
them  in  it,  I will  say — no. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  this  provision  is  to  be 
strictly  construed  by  the  General  Assembly, 
and  the  courts  shall  sustain  constructions  of 
that  character,  I will  say,  yes.  But  I do  claim, 
here,  that  we  should  allow  counties  and  mu- 
nicipalities to  govern  themselves  in  such  a way 
as  they  deem  for  their  best  interests ; and  that 
when  we  undertake  to  fetter  the  Legislature  in 
the  manner  in  which  it  is  proposed  to  do  here, 
by  limiting  these  classes  to  six,  arbitrarily,  and 
without  any  reason,  we  do  that  which  will  be 
found  highly  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the 
people,  and  which  will  result,  if  it  is  adopted, 
in  a change  in  the  Constitution  in  a very  few 
years  by  a much  larger  majority  than  that  by 
which  it  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Did  the  Legisla- 
ture find  any  difficulty  in  passing  our  present 
municipal  code,  providing  for  the  government 
of  cities  and  villages  ? And  are  there  any  more 
than  four  classes  provided  for  in  that  code  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  In  answer  to  that,  I will  say, 
that  I presume  they  found  no  difficulty  in  pass- 
ing that,  or  any  other  general  law,  whether  it 
is  satisfactory  to  the  people,  or  in  accordance 
with  their  best  interests,  or  not.  In  regard  to 
the  classification,  the  Legislature  is  not  re- 
stricted by  any  constitutional  provision  what- 
ever; so  that  when  Cincinnati  asks  for  any 
legislation,  she  gets  it,  precisely  as  if  the  word 
Cincinnati  was  there;  and  when  Cleveland 
goes  and  asks  for  legislation,  she  also  gets  it; 
and  it  is  the  same  with  regard  to  every  other 
city  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  not  any  clearly  defined 
opinions  upon  this  subject,  and  yet  I am  going 
to  say  something,  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to 
elicit  some  clearly  defined  opinions.  If  I do 
not  know  enough  to  say  anything  upon  this 
subject,  I shall  not  know  enough  to  vote,  and  I 
might  as  well  be  out  of  here.  There  is  a diffi- 
culty occurs  to  my  mind,  and  I wish  some  gen- 
tleman who  is  skilled  in  municipal  law  and 
municipal  government,  would  give  me  a full 
and  clear  elucidation  of  it.  It  is  this : I un- 

derstand that  there  are  two  kinds  of  power,  or 
rather  they  may  be  styled  two  kinds  of  power; 

I for  I am  not  familiar  enough  with  the  language 
of  municipalities  to  distinguish  them  by  proper 
! names;  but  I think  I can  give  expression  to  the 
idea  that  I have.  There  are  two  classes  of 
power  : one  is  purely  political,  and  is  exercised 


Day.] 

February  12,  1874.] 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

West,  Tuttle,  Powell. 


1311 


in  the  government — the  moral  government,  so  1 
to  speak — of  the  municipality;  the  other  class  ] 
of  power  may  be  regarded  or  styled  physical—  ( 
having  relation  to  the  physical  condition  of  the  1 
city,  the  improvement  of  streets,  walks,  manu- 
factories, and  other  things  connected  with  the  < 
city  proper.  These  are  the  classes  of  power  1 
which,  I presume,  may  be  exercised  by  munici-  I 
palities,  if  they  are  authorized  to  exercise  them.  5 
Now,  the  point  of  difficulty  that  occurs  to  my 
mind  is  this : The  proposition  of  the  Commit-  < 
tee  is  a confession  that  uniformity  of  law  cannot  < 
be  applied  to  the  government  of  municipalities. 

It  provides  for  six  several  classes  of  municipal-  i 
ities,  and  provides  that  a different  system  of  ; 
laws  may  be  applied  to  each  different  class. 
Why  so  ? Because,  as  I suppose,  of  the  inhe- 
rent difficulty  of  applying  uniiformity  in  the 
legislation  necessary  for  the  government  of  all  i 
municipalities  alike.  Now,  why  should  we  < 
have  six  classes,  if  a general  law  can  be 
made  to  apply  to  all  municipalities  in  the 
same  way?  There  would  be  no  necessity 
whatever.  But,  if  it  be  impossible  to  apply 
general  and  uniform  laws  to  the  government  of 
our  municipalities,  what  is  the  reason  of  that 
impossibility?  How  does  it  arise?  I suppose 
that  it  arises  from  some  peculiarity  of  locality, 
or  physical  condition,  or  the  number  of  the  pop- 
ulation, or  the  peculiar  topography  or  geogra- 
phy of  each  particular  city,  or  something  or 
other,  that  renders  one  class  of  legislation  ne- 
cessary for  that  particular  locality,  or  class  of 
localities,  and  another  class  of  legislation  ne- 
cessary for  another  and  different  locality,  or 
class  of  localities.  I suppose  that  is  the  case. 
Well,  now,  if  the  same  kind  of  legislation  will 
not  apply  to  class  B which  it  is  proper  to  apply 
to  class  A,  how  many  of  our  municipalities 
must  go  into  class  B?  That  is  the  question. 
And  how  many  into  class  A?  Why,  if  you 
make  a mistake,  and  get  one  that  ought  to  belong 
to  class  A,  and  put  it  into  class  B,  or  get  one 
that  ought  to  belong  to  class  B,  and  put  it  into 
class  C,  or  take  one  that  ought  to  be  in  class  C, 
and  put  it  into  class  D,  do  you  not  see  that  we 
get  mixed  up  at  once,  so  that  the  legislation 
which  will  apply  to  a particular  class  must 
apply  to  some  of  the  cities  within  that  class  in- 
juriously, just  the  same  as  would  be  the  case 
if  you  should  apply  uniform  legislation  to  all 
the  classes,  which,  the  proposition  of  the  Com- 
mittee confesses,  would  be  improper;  otherwise, 
they  would  not  make  provision  for  classes,  at 
all?  These  are  the  difficulties  that  occur  to  my 
mind,  right  along. 

The  first  thing  to  consider  is,  where  will  be 
class  No.  1 ? I suppose  it  will  be  said  that  Cin- 
cinnati will  form  class  No.  1.  Very  well ; now, 
the  City  of  Cincinnati  stands  aloof  and  inde- 
pendent, a sort  of  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  a 
free  city.  She  may  have  any  kind  of  special 
legislation  she  pleases,  which  the  Legislature 
sees  proper  to  give  to  her,  because  she  stands 
alone  in  class  No.  1.  Cleveland  will  be  inclu- 
ded in  class  No.  2,  and  Cleveland  may  have  any 
kind  of  legislation  that  Cleveland  desires,  be- 
cause nobody  else  is  affected  by  it.  It  is  special 
legislation  for  Cleveland,  although  you  may 
call  it  a class.  It  is  simply  putting  Cleveland 
where  special  legislation  shall  apply  to  it,  and 
is  putting  Cincinnati  in  a position  where  special 


legislation  shall  apply  to  Cincinnati.  Why? 
Because  nothing  but  special  legislation  will  suit 
Cincinnati,  and  nothing  but  special  legislation 
will  suit  Cleveland,  and  that  is  the  result. 

But  in  what  condition  do  you  leave  the  rest 
of  us?  Here  are  we  small  municipalities 
throughout  the  State,  numbering  a dozen  or 
twenty,  of  a particular  size,  or  about  the 
same  size,  and  what  do  you  do  with  us? 
We  are  scattered  all  over  the  State.  Some 
of  us  are  located  on  the  hill-tops,  and  some 
over  in  the  swamps.  Some  of  us  require 
particular  kinds  of  legislation  and  power  for 
the  construction  of  our  streets,  avenues,  roads, 
and  other  physical  improvements;  others  of  us 
require  a totally  different  kind  of  improve- 
ments, because  we  are  located  in  a different 
kind  of  country.  Some  of  us  may  be  on  a 
stream,  and  want  bridges;  others  of  us  may  be 
on  a plain,  where  there  is  no  stream,  and  do  not 
want  any  bridges.  How  are  you  going  to  get 
along  with  the  matter  ? They  say  you  shall  not 
give  to  one  any  power  which  you  do  not  give 
to  another ; and,  therefore,  a town  that  ought  to 
have  full  power  to  build  a bridge  shall  not 
have  it,  unless  you  give  to  ten  other  towns  that 
do  not  want  bridges,  the  power  to  build  bridges. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  you  allow  one  town,  when 
that  town  wants  to  build  a bridge,  to  build  it, 
why  should  you  not  allow  to  every  other  town, 
although  these  towns  may  not  yet  have  come  to 
the  point  when  they  want  it,  the  right  to  build 
a bridge  when  they  do  want  it? 

Mr.  WEST.  Exactly.  That  being  the  case, 
why  should  you  limit  these  towns  to  a class? 
Why  should  you  not  allow  to  all  the  towns  in 
the  State  the  power  to  build  a bridge  when 
they  want  it? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I ask,  why  not  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I ask  you  why  not?  You  are  the 
man  to  answer  that  question.  Why  should  you 
limit  it  to  a class?  Why  shall  it  not  spread  all 
over  the  State  ? That  is  the  proposition.  Put 
them  all  in  one  class. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  a question? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  difficulty  is  here  : We 
class  by  population,  and  not  by  physical  or 
moral  wants. 

Mr.  WEST.  Well. 

Mr.  POWELL.  You  bring  in  moral  wants, 
which  do  not  belong  as  an  element  in  this  clas- 
sification. We  classify  them  by  population. 
The  physical  and  moral  wants  will  be  deter- 
mined by  the  people  themselves,  individually. 
You  bring  in  elements  of  difficulties  that  do  not 
belong  to  the  question. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  What  I want  to  suggest  is 
this : When  I say,  ‘‘allow  them,”  1 do  not  mean 
“compel  them.”  I understand  by  the  gentle- 
man’s argument  that  he  makes  “allowing 
them”  equivalent  to  “compelling  them.” 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  city  of  Youngstown 
to-day,  wants  a bridge,  and  you  are  going  to  give 
it  a bridge  because  it  wants  it,  what  difficulty 
is  there  in  making  a provision  that  shall  in- 
clude Youngstown  and  a good  many  other 
towns  that  do  not  yet  want  a bridge 


1312 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Tuttle,  West,  Hoadly. 


A MEMBER.  And  never  will. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  So  that  when  they  do  want 
it,  and  in  an  authentic  way,  that  cannot  be  mis- 
taken, declare  that  they  want  it,  they  shall  have 
it?  What  is  the  difficulty  in  doing  that,  and 
doing  it  by  a provision  that  shall  apply  to  a 
class  of  cities? 

Mr.  WEST.  W ell,  sir,  not  the  slightest  in  the 
world. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Does  this  Article  require  any- 
thing more  than  that? 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  ought  to  have 
answered  my  question  first;  but  I have  an- 
swered his  now — there  is  not  the  slightest  dif- 
ficulty in  the  world  in  doing  it.  ^Tow,  will  he 
answer  me  one  question?  Why  will  you  limit 
the  extension  of  that  power  to  a particular 
class  of  cities,  and  not  give  it  to  all  other  cities 
in  the  State,  that  belong  to  other  classes,  up  or 
down,  high  or  low?  Please  answer  me  that. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  not  said  I would 
not. 

Mr.  WEST.  Do  you  want  classes  or  do  you 
not  want  them? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  not  the  floor,  and  I am 
not  fully  prepared  to  explain  my  own  views. 

Mr.  WEST.  You  can  state  briefly  whether 
you  do  or  do  not  want  classes.  Do  you  want 
to  trap  me  into  a class,  or  trap  me  out,  which? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  want  to  do  either, 
but  I want  to  see  the  ground  which  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  means  to  take 
upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  WEST.  Very  well,  if  that  is  all.  My 
friend  from  Delaware  asked  me  a question.  I 
stated,  at  the  outset,  that  my  ideas  were  not 
clearly  defined  upon  this  subject,  but  I will  try 
to  answer  that  question,  according  to  my  best 
light.  The  question  is  this : Is  population  the 
proper  basis  for  classification  ? If  you  classify  by 
population,  is  that  the  proper  mode  of  classifica- 
tion? Ought  you  to  ascertain,  simply,  the 
number  of  inhabitants,  in  order  to  determine 
that  all  towns  falling  within  certain  limits  of 
population  are  so  similarly  situated  that  the 
same  class  of  legislation  ought  to  apply  to  them 
all  ? Ought  you  not  to  take  the  physical  condi- 
tion, and  say  that  all  who  are  physically  condi- 
tioned in  the  same  way  should  belong  to  the 
same  class,  rather  than  that  all  who  have  the 
same  population  shall  belong  to  the  same  class  ? 
Population  is  a standard  which,  I think,  ought 
not,  in  any  way,  to  govern  anybody  very  much. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  permit  me  to  suggest  that  there 
is  nothing  in  the  Article  that  restricts  the  ex- 
ercise of  legislation  as  to  what  shall  constitute 
the  standard  of  classification. 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  understand  that  there 
is.  I was  answering  the  question  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  and  I 
state  that  I do  not  think  that  population  would 
be  a safe  standard  of  classification,  because  one 
town,  having  a population  of  ten  thousand, 
might  be  situated  in  a certain  condition,  and 
another  town,  having  the  same  population, 
might  have  a situation  wholly  and  entirely  dif- 
ferent, in  every  respect,  and  each  of  them 
would  require  a different  kind  of  government. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  the  gentleman  will 
not  deem  it  insidious  if  I suggest  another  in- 
quiry. 


[112th 

[Thursday, 


| Mr.  WEST.  Certainly  not.  I shall  deem  it 
! a great  pleasure. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit 
me,  I will  say  that  the  provision  in  the  first  sec- 
! tion  struck  me  favorably,  though  I may  be 
j wrong  about  it.  The  question  I wish  to  suggest 
| is : Suppose  the  Legislature  determine  the 
matter  in  each  particular  case,  must  they  not  act 
upon  some  principle?  Must  they  not  determine, 
I for  themselves,  some  principle  upon  which  they 
will  act  when  they  are  invited  to  act  for  a par- 
ticular city  ? And  will  there  be  any  more  diffi- 
culty in  fixing  a general  principle  that  shall  be 
applicable  to  every  case  that  may  come  before 
them  than  there  would  be  in  adopting  a prin- 
ciple for  a single  case,  when  it  shall  come  before 
them  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  it,  very  probably,  is  as 
the  question  indicates.  But  the  point  I have 
have  been  driving  at  is  this : can  we  safely  re- 
: strict  the  number  of  classes  to  six?  Are  we  not 
| in  danger  of  doing  a very  great  wrong  to  cer- 
! tain  of  our  towns  and  cities,  by  compelling  the 
| legislation  to  put  them  into  a class  to  which 
they  do  not  belong?  Ought  we  not,  rather,  to 
| leave  them  unrestrained  and  unlimited,  so  that 
i they  can  classify  each  town  and  city  according 
to  its  particular  rank  or  necessities  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  me 
to  say,  that  if  the  classification  is  unrestrained, 
is  not  the  attempt  at  classification  frustrated  ? 
Are  we  not,  then,  in  the  precise  position  of  hav- 
| ing  allowed  special  legislation  in  substance,  but 
not  in  name  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  that  is  so,  and,  before 
this  subject  is  finally  disposed  of,  I will  submit 
a resolution,  instructing  and  directing  the 
Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations  to  make 
out  and  furnish,  for  the  purpose  of  being  put 
into  the  Schedule,  a classification,  to  inaugurate 
a system,  conferring  power  upon  the  Legisla- 
ture to  change  that  classification  whenever  they 
see  proper,  and  if  they  do  not  have  a red-hot 
job  of  it,  I am  mistaken.  And,  if  they  are  going 
to  torture  the  Legislature  with  a classification 
of  six,  that  cannot  be  done  by  this  body,  it  is 
too  hard. 

Here  the  hammer  fell,  but  by  leave  the  gen- 
tleman was  allowed  to  proceed. 

Mr.  WEST.  I want  to  say  but  a single  word 
more,  and  then  I will  quit;  for  I do  not  want 
to  trespass  beyond  the  rule.  If  this  Conven- 
tion will  proceed  to  limit  and  restrain  Munici- 
pal Corporations  from  the  exercise  of  improper 
power,  if  they  will  put  into  this  Constitution  a 
prohibition  against  such  infamous  legislation 
as  that  which  authorized  Delaware  to  build  a 
| machine  shop,  and  prohibit  all  towns  of  every 
class  from  the  exercise  of  improper  powers, 
i and  then  leave  the  Legislature  free  to  confer, 
by  special  legislation,  upon  any  town  in  the 
i State  the  authority  to  do  what  is  legitimate  in 
a proper  manner,  withholding  from  all  the  ex- 
i ercise  of  improper  powers — the  power  to  go 
j into  railroading,  the  power  to  build  machine 
shops,  the  power  to  build  shoemakers’  or  tail- 
I ors’  shops,  and  the  power  to  do  ten  thousand 
j things  that  ought  to  be  left  to  private  individ- 
! ual  enterprise,  or  to  private  corporations  alone 
— if  they  will  do  that,  distinguishing  between 
the  powers  they  ought  to  exercise  and  the 
powers  they  ought  not  to  exercise,  and  give  the 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

West,  Townsend,  Hoadly,  Beer,  Yoris. 


1313 


Day.] 

February  12,  1874.] 


General  Assembly  fall  and  unlimited  authority 
to  confer  upon  all,  in  any  manner  they  see 
proper,  legitimate  power,  withholding  from 
them  absolutely  and  forever  illegitimate  power, 
they  will  have  rendered  the  people  of  this  State 
a service  for  which  their  memory  will  be  can- 
onized. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I would  like  to  inquire 
of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  if  the 
laws  of  the  State  are  not  all,  or  a very  large 
proportion  of  them,  applicable  to  cities  and 
towns,  and  if  what  is  intended  by  this  special 
classification  does  not  refer  to  Municipal  Cor- 
porations in  their  proper  capacity,  for  instance 
in  the  framing  of  police  regulations  to  control 
the  sale  of  wood  or  butter  by  a granger  or  any- 
body of  that  kind?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  think  a granger  ought 
to  have  any  restraint  put  upon  him. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
I submit  that  it  is  not  in  order  to  interrupt  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  with  a 


statement  which  is  entirely  unintelligible  to  a 
majority  of  the  Convention.  It  is  the  duty  of 
delegate  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  or  the 
delegate  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  one  or  the 
other,  or  both  of  them  together,  to  make  this 
statement  so  that  we  can  understand  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion 
that  the  matter  can  be  made  more  specifically 
certain  after  an  adjournment  than  now. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

leave  of  absence. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I rise  to  a question  of  privilege. 
I desire  leave  of  absence  for  to-morrow  and  the 
next  day. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  question  was  then  taken  upon  the  motion 
to  adjourn,  which  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon,  (at  5 : 30  p.  m.),  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


y.  n-S5 


1314 


PETITIONS  AND  EXTRAVAGANT  ACCOUNTS [113th 

McCormick,  Clark  of  J.,  Reilly,  Kerr,  King,  Page,  Mueller,  Hill.  [Friday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTEENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FIFTY-FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  S.  Cantfield. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  83  members  answered 
to  their  names. 

leave  of  absence. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Carbery,  for  this  afternoon ; and  granted 
to  Mr.  Johnson,  until  Tuesday  next;  and  to  Mr. 
Woodbury,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  McCORMICK  presented  the  petition  of 
Rev.  I.  Z.  Hanning,  and  one  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  twenty-one  other  citizens  of  Gal- 
lia county,  asking  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion to  submit  to  the  citizens  of  this  State  a 
section  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
spirituous  and  malt  liquors,  except  for  medici- 
nal and  mechanical  purposes. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Jefferson,  presented  the  pe- 
tition of  William  George,  and  one  hundred  and 
six  other  citizens  of  Muskingum  county,  pray- 
ing for  a recognition  of  Almighty  God  and  the 
Christian  Religion,  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
State.  Also,  of  Rev.  Faris  Brown,  and  forty- 
seven  other  citizens  of  the  same  county,  on  the 
same  subject. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  REILLY  presented  the  petition  of  S.  C. 
Sillay,  and  forty-five  other  citizens;  of  C.  W. 
Noland,  and  fifty  other  citizens;  of  Samuel  B. 
Hoover,  and  seventy-six  other  citizens,  all  of  Co- 
lumbiana county,  earnestly  protesting  against 
the  incorporation  of  certain  religious  opinions 
and  beliefs  into  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Also,  the  petitions  of  Rev.  S.  Batchler,  Mrs. 
Kemble,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty-three  legal 
voters  and  other  citizens  of  Columbiana  county, 
and  of  Enos  Hilles  and  Chas.  Hilles,  and 
twenty -five  other  citizens  of  Stark  and  Colum- 
biana counties,  and  of  Robert  P.  King,  E.  Mc- 
Millen,  and  five  hundred  and  twenty  other 
citizens  of  Columbiana  county,  earnestly  pro- 
testing against  the  incorporation  of  certain  re- 
ligious opinions  and  beliefs  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  State. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  KERR  presented  the  petition  of  the  bar 


Friday,  February  13,  1S74. 

of  Licking  county,  asking  that  said  county  may 
have  the  entire  services  of  one  common  pleas 
judge. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Judicial  Department. 

Mr.  KING  presented  the  petition  of  Mrs.  F. 
M.  Wright,  and  229  other  citizens  of  Clinton 
county,  praying  that  final  jurisdiction  be  given 
justices  of  the  peace  for  punishing  illegal  sales 
of  spirituous  liquors  in  certain  cases. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I was  not  in  my  seat  when  the 
vote  was  taken  on  Proposition  No.  191.  I was 
satisfied  that  it  was  in  conflict  with  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  and  intended  to 
vote  against  it,  and  ask  the  privilege  of  record- 
ing my  vote. 

The  SECRETARY.  Mr.  Page. 

Mr.  PAGE.  “ No.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I offer  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

The  SECRETARY.  Resolution  No.  161— by 
Mr.  Mueller  : 

“ Resolved , That  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Ex- 
penses be,  and  they  are  hereby,  authorized  and  instructed 
to  superintend  and  control  the  contingent  expenditures  of 
the  Convention,  and  that  no  such  expenditures  shall  be 
allowed  unless  incurred  by  the  advice  and  consent  of  said 
Committee.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  like  to  explain 
why  this  Resolution  has  been  offered.  It  has 
been  offered  with  the  consent  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expen- 
ditures, for  this  reason  : As  things  now  stand, 
there  is  nobody  in  this  Convention  who  is  au- 
thorized to  order  things  to  be  done  or  materials 
to  be  furnished ; nobody  to  manage  the  expenses 
of  the  Convention.  Now,  to  this  Committee 
many  claims  have  been  or  will  have  to  be  sub- 
mitted for  its  approval,  while  it  knows  nothing 
whether  they  were  necessary  to  be  incurred  or 
not.  The  Committee  was  never  consulted 
about  it,  so  all  they  have  to  do  is  to  approve  of 
it,  after  the  expense  has  been  incurred.  The 
Committee  thought  it  was  worth  while  to 
recommend  a discontinuance  of  this  no-head 
policy.  The  contingent  expenses  are  running 
up  to  a great  amount;  and  the  Committee 
thought  it  was  time  that  somebody  was  made 
responsible  for  these  expenses.  Before  they 
are  paid,  the  Convention  should  be  satisfied,  by 
a report  of  a Committee  nominated  for  that 
purpose,  that  the  items  of  claims  are  not  only 
correct,  but  also  were  authorized  to  be  con- 
tracted. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  bills  for  contingent  ex- 


1315 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hill,  Hoadly,  Powell,  Smith  of  S. 


Day.] 

February  13,  1874.] 


penses,  since  this  Convention  met  in  Cincinnati, 
have  accumulated  rapidly,  and  now  amount  to 
nearly  a thousand  dollars.  It  was  the  under- 
standing that  this  Hall  was  to  be  furnished 
to  the  Convention  free  of  expense  to  the 
State.  So  far  as  the  Committee  was  aware, 
at  the  time  the  Hall  was  accepted,  that  en- 
gagement was  complied  with;  but  immedi- 
ately after  convening  here,  without  consulting 
the  Committee,  or  anybody  else,  a large  amount 
of  indebtedness  was  created  for  additional  re- 
pairs, and  changes  in  the  Hall;  and,  the  first 
this  Committee  knew,  bills  to  the  amount  of 
eight  hundred  or  nine  hundred  dollars  were 
presented  for  auditing.  The  Committee,  on 
inquiry,  in  many  instances,  could  find  no  au- 
thority for  contracting  those  debts;  and,  in 
others,  the  authority  of  employes  of  the  Con- 
vention was  given ; and,  when  the  total  amount 
was  ascertained,  it  was  found  to  be  enormous. 
The  ex-president  of  this  Convention,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  authority,  ordered  the  construc- 
tion of  one  hundred  and  five  little  book  desks 
for  the  use  of  members,  without  consulting  as 
to  the  actual  expense,  or  anything  connected 
with  it,  and  we  find  a bill  of  three  dollars  each 
for  them,  added  to  which  is  the  sum  of  twenty- 
three  dollars  for  staining  and  oiling  the  same. 
There  are  many  other  things  in  the  same  propor- 
tion of  expense ; and  the  Committee  not  know- 
ing anything  about  the  price  to  be  paid  for 
lumber,  or  the  amount  the  mechanics  were  to 
charge  for  their  labor,  are  unable  to  act  intelli- 
gently in  the  premises. 

We  conceive  that  it  is  now  about  time  to  stop ; 
and  if  the  Committee  on  accounts  and  expenses 
is  to  take  charge  of  it,  we  can  do  so;  but,  if  the 
Convention  intends  to  run  on  loosely,  we  do 
not  propose  to  audit  such  claims. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  there  is  no  further  mis- 
cellaneous business,  I move  that  the  Convention 
proceed  to  consider  the  special  order  of  the  day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  before  the 
Convention  at  the  adjournment,  was  Proposi- 
tion No.  182,  and  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron]  to  strike  out,  in 
section  1,  lines  2 and  3,  the  words,  “the  number 
of  such  classes  shall  not  exceed  six.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I hope  that  these  words  will 
not  be  stricken  out — not  that  I disagree  with 
what  was  said  here  by  the  President,  yesterday : 
that  we  should  leave  to  each  town,  city,  or  mu- 
nicipal authorities,  to  work  out  their  own  inter- 
ests and  prosperity  in  the  best  way  possible — 
but  I think  that  by  preserving  this  classification 
of  cities,  much  may  be  saved  by  way  of  legis- 
lation. Possibly  the  Legislature,  themselves, 
will  adopt  this  classification  ; possibly  that  will 
be  the  case ; but  I think  it  is  well  enough  that  it 
should  be  retained  here,  and  that  the  classifica- 
tion should  not  go  to  the  extent  contemplated, 
by  limiting  everything  a corporation  may  do. 
But  those  general  powers  that  should  be  con- 
ferred upon  a corporation,  should  be  by  classi- 
fication, and  if  it  can  be  done  well,  it  will  save 
a great  deal  of  legislation;  and  so  avoid  the 
necessity  of  every  corporation  applying  for  its 
own  act  of  incorporation.  I hope,  therefore, 


that  the  words  will  not  be  stricken  out;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  I am  disposed  to  strike  out 
other  portions  of  the  same  section ; so  as  to  give 
each  corporation  more  extended  power  to  work 
out  their  own  interests  and  prosperity. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  I desire  to  detain 
the  Convention  but  a moment  or  two  upon  the 
subject  matter  now  before  it.  I doubt  very 
much,  Mr.  President,  whether  the  attempt  to 
improve  the  present  section  of  Article  XIII  of 
the  Constitution,  which  provides  for  the  organ- 
ization of  the  cities  and  towns  of  the  State,  will 
succeed.  This  provision  of  the  present  Consti- 
tution attempts  no  classification  of  the  towns 
and  cities  upon  the  score  of  population 
or  otherwise,  and  it  makes  no  discrimina- 
tion in  the  powers  conferred  upon  one  city  over 
another;  but  it  leaves  the  Legislature  open  to 
confer  upon  any  town  or  city,  any  privilege 
they  may  desire,  that  will  be  beneficial  to  them, 
and  not  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  State. 
Now,  why  is  not  that  the  true  principle  ? Why 
is  not  that  the  true  test  of  the  powers  that 
should  be  conferred  upon  the  Legislature? 
The  question,  it  seems  to  me,  should  be,  “ Will 
the  right  or  privilege  asked  for  be  beneficial 
to  the  town  or  city  asking  for  it?”  That 
should  be  the  first  question;  and  the  next: 
“Will  it  be  detrimental  to  other  interests  of 
the  State?”  If  beneficial,  and  not  detrimental 
to  the  interests  of  the  State,  why  not  grant  it  ? 

Now,  Mr.  President,  for  the  purpose  of  test- 
ing this  question,  I suggest  this:  Cincinnati 
is  a city  of  the  first-class,  and  under  this  sec- 
tion— section  one  of  this  substitute — it  is  pro- 
vided that  certain  powers  may  be  conferred 
upon  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  that  may  not  be  con- 
ferred upon  any  other  city,  because  Cincinnati 
is  a city  of  the  first-class.  Now,  the  question, 
if  the  powers  asked  for  by  the  city  of  Cincin- 
nati will  be  beneficial  to  the  city  of  Cleveland, 
why  not  confer  them  upon  the  city  of  Cleve- 
land also,  irrespective  of  any  question  of  pop- 
ulation ? It  is  certainly  the  duty  of  the  Leg- 
islature, and  certainly  the  duty  of  this  Conven- 
tion, so  far  as  it  may,  to  promote  and  foster 
the  interests  of  every  city  and  town  in  the 
State. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  city  of  Cleveland — 
which  is  a city  of  the  second-class.  That  city 
asks  for  a particular  privilege,  asks  for  some 
right  to  be  granted,  that  will  be  of  particular 
advantage  to  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  a question  ? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  What  is  to  prevent  the  city 
of  Cleveland  from  being  in  the  first-class? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  is  a city  of  the  first-class. 
He  is  mistaken. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  That  depends  upon 
the  classification  that  may  be  made  by  the  Leg- 
islature. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  it;  it  is  all  left  to  the 
Legislature  to  designate  which  shall  be  of  the 
first  or  second  class. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  Then  why  not  make 
all  cities  above  20,000,  cities  of  the  first-class  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  will  per- 
mit me  the  statement,  that  is  the  law  of  Ohio, 
to-day.  All  cities  of  over  20,000  are  in  the 
first-class;  Cleveland  is  a city  of  the  first- 
class. 


1316 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Smith  of  S.,  Hoadly,  Townsend,  Hunt,  Mueller. 


[113th 


Mr.  SMITH, of  Shelby.  This  section  confers 
upon  the  Legislature  the  power  to  discriminate 
between  the  city  of  Cincinnati  and  the  city  of 
Cleveland  or  Toledo.  If  that  which  may  be 
beneficial  to  Cincinnati  may  also  be  beneficial 
to  Cleveland,  why  not  grant  it  to  Cleveland, 
without  respect  to  population?  That  should 
be  the  test  question,  in  my  judgment. 
What  has  the  question  of  population  to  do  with 
it?  It  seems  to  me,  nothing  at  all.  Take  the 
city  of  Cleveland.  She  is  a city  of  the  second 
class,  and,  as  such,  may  have  powers  conferred 
upon  her  which  may  not  be  conferred  upon  a 
city  of  the  third  class.  Now,  if  the  power  that 
is  conferred  upon  the  city  of  Cleveland  would 
be  advantageous  to  the  city  of  Toledo,  and  not 
detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  State,  why, 
in  the  name  of  justice, do  you  not  confer  it  upon 
the  city  of  Toledo?  Why  make  the  discrimina- 
tion between  the  people  of  the  city  of  Cleve- 
land and  the  people  of  Toledo?  For  the  life  of 
me,  I cannot  see  why  this  discrimination  should 
be  made  on  the  score  of  population,  alone.  I 
am  aware,  Mr.  President,  that  the  city  of  Cin- 
cinnati, because  of  its  large  population,  may 
require  some  legislation  that  other  cities  do  not 
want,  and,  therefore,  would  not  ask  for  it.  But 
would  it  be  right  to  confer  power  upon  the 
city  of  Cincinnati  what  you  would  not  upon 
Cleveland,  if  she  needed  it,  on  the  score  of  pop- 
ulation alone  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from 
Shelby  [Mr.  Smith]  answer  me,  what  it  may  be 
in  this  section  that,  in  any  degree,  interferes 
with  the  power  of  the  Legislature  to  do  just 
what  he  suggests  ? We  do  not  classify ; we  only 
say  the  Legislature  shall. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  This  section  pro- 
poses to  discriminate — to  confer  powers  upon 
one  city  that  cannot  be  conferred  upon  another 
because  not  of  equal  population. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  We  do  not  require  the  Legis- 
lature to  make  more  than  one  class.  We  simply 
say  that  there  shall  not  be  more  than  six. 
They  may  put  them  all  in  one  class  if  the  Leg- 
islature thinks  best.  I will  also  ask  the  dele- 
gate how  he  would  meet  a case  of  this  nature : 
Suppose  the  Legislature  tried,  as  they  did  in 
New  York,  to  govern  the  people  of  a particular 
city,  against  the  will  of  the  people  of  that  city, 
aud  make  them  do  something  that  they  do  not 
want  to  do.  How  is  he  going  to  manage  that, 
except  by  classification  ? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  If  there  be  no  neces- 
sity for  classification,  why  provide  for  it? 
You  have  undertaken  to  provide  for  it,  and  it  is 
very  likely  it  will  be  carried  out.  I am  opposed 
to  classification  at  all,  because  I do  not  see  upon 
what  principle  it  can  benefit  any  city  or  town 
in  the  State.  If  the  construction  you  put  upon 
this  section  is  correct,  the  Legislature  will  have 
full  power  to  confer  the  same  privileges  upon 
all,  and  then  this  classification  is  unnecessary. 
I cannot  see  why  classification  is  proposed  at  all, 
unless  it  is  intended  to  confer  upon  certain  cities 
powers  that  other  cities  cannot  have. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I beg  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  gentleman  to  one  fact : That  there 
is  no  class  of  cities  or  towns  that  want  any  par- 
ticular power  conferred  upon  them  that  any 
other  class  may  not  ask  for  and  claim  to  be 
entitled  to  if  they  want  it.  It  does  not  dis- 


[Friday, 


criminate.  If  class  No.  1 wants  a law  and  class 
No.  6 wants  the  same  law,  they  may  obtain  it. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  Then,  if  that  be  so, 
I see  no  purpose  in  putting  in  this  section,  at  all. 
It  is  claimed  here  that  some  cities  may  want 
powers  that  you  may  not  confer  upon  others : if 
this  is  so,  then  discrimination  follows.  There 
is  no  reason  why  this  discrimination  should  be 
made  between  different  cities.  This  is  the  ob- 
jection I have  against  the  whole  thing.  The 
present  Constitution  provides  just  what  I think 
should  be  retained : “The  General  Assembly 
shall  provide  for  the  organization  of  citie«  and 
incorporated  villages  by  general  laws,  and  re- 
strict their  power  of  taxation,  assessment,  bor- 
rowing money,  contracting  debts  and  loaning 
their  credit,  so  as  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  such 
power.”  Now,  here  are  all  the  rights  con- 
ferred that  may  be  asked  for ; here  are  all  the 
rights  necessary ; but  if  you  attempt  to  go  into 
detail  and  discriminate  between  different  cities 
and  confer  different  powers,  you  will  make  at 
once  unjust  and  improper  distinctions  by  con- 
ferring rights  upon  one  city  that  cannot  be  con- 
ferred upon  another,  because  of  class.  One 
Legislature  may  confer  upon  Cincinnati  par- 
ticular rights  asked  for;  and  at  another  session 
the  same  privilege  may  be  asked  by  another 
city,  to  which  it  will  be  answered  that  the  right 
was  conferred  upon  Cincinnati  because  it  is  a 
city  of  the  first  class,  therefore  you  are  not  enti- 
tled to  it.  It  has  been  said  (and  I do  not  lose 
sight  of  that)  that  any  of  these  privileges  may 
be  conferred  upon  any  city,  without  reference 
to  class.  If  that  be  so,  then  strike  out  classifi- 
cation altogether,  because  there  can  be  no  object 
in  having  it  in  the  Constitution  unless  there  is 
a purpose  to  be  accomplished  by  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a question  ? Does  he  not  recognize,  in  view 
of  the  past  history  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
and  some  cities  in  Ohio,  the  danger  that  the 
Legislature,  for  partisan, political  reasons,  may 
take  the  government  of  a city  out  of  its  hands  ? 
Is  it  not  possible  that  it  may  occur,  that  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  the  people  of  Dayton,  or 
Columbus,  or  Toledo,  or  Cleveland,  or  Cincin- 
nati from  organizing  their  own  police  in  their 
own  way,  the  Legislature  may  take  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  police  from  the  hands  of  the  people, 
and  vest  it  in  a Board  appointed  by  the  Gover- 
nor, under  special  legislation,  as  was  done  in 
New  York? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  Such  a condition 
of  things  might  possibly  arise  in  any  of  our 
cities. 

Mr.  HUNT.  It  has  arisen  in  cities  in  this 
State. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  In  Columbus  and  Dayton, 
and  in  Cleveland  also. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  Well,  if  such  a law 
should  be  passed,  if  such  a power  should  be  con- 
ferred by  the  Legislature,  it  is  in  the  power  of 
any  subsequent  Legislature  to  repeal  that  law 
and  make  it  right.  The  people  of  the  State 
would  be  quick  to  perceive  whether  It  would 
operate  unfairly,  or  not,  and  if  it  did,  they 
would  soon  right  legislation  upon  that  subject.  1 1 
appears  to  me  that  if  difficulty  should  arise  in 
that  way,  it  would  not  be  as  great  as  the  danger 
of  making  this  discrimination  favoring  one  city 
over  another.  Now,  it  may  be  said  that  the 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1317 

February  13,1874.]  Smith  of  S.,  Hoadly,  Townsend. 


city  of  Cincinnati,  by  reason  of  its  peculiar 
location  and  physical  condition,  needs  particular 
legislation,  and,  therefore,  asks  for  it  upon 
special  grounds,  that  might  not  be  applicable 
to  any  other  city  in  the  State. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  ask  how,  under  the 
present  Constitution,  the  very  same  partiality 
and  discrimination  the  gentleman  complains  of, 
may  be  prevented  ? Has  it  not  been  the  case, 
for  more  than  twenty  years,  under  the  present 
Constitution,  that  very  thing  has  been  done? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  Yes;  under  the  pre- 
sent Constitution,  that  thing  has,  doubtless, 
sometimes  been  done.  By  this  classification  of 
your  towns  and  cities,  you  confer  right  upon 
the  city  of  Cincinnati,  and  if  there  happens  to 
be  another  city  of  the  same  class,  that  city  also 
has  that  right. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  But  no  city  of  any 
other  class  has  that  right. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  city  has  that  power; 
but  is  there  any  difficulty  in  providing  that  the 
city  may  or  may  not  exercise  the  right  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  its  people? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  I did  not  hear  the 
gentleman. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I say  the  same  authority 
must  be  granted  to  all  cities  of  the  same  class ; 
but  is  there  any  difficulty  in  granting  the 
authority  to  provide  that  the  exercise  of  it  may 
or  may  not  be  according  to  the  will  of  the 
people,  as  expressed  by  their  votes  ? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby.  Why,  certainly, 
there  may  be  no  difficulty  about  that;  but  that 
does  not,  it  seems  to  me,  do  away  with  the  evil 
of  classification.  The  question  is : if  we  grant 
a right  to  Cincinnati,  because  of  class,  and 
Cleveland  or  Toledo,  or  a city  of  the  third  class, 
should  want  the  same,  why  should  they  not 
have  it,  irrespective  of  class?  No  such  dis- 
crimination should  be  made.  It  seems  to  me, 
that  the  Constitution  should  be  framed  upon  a 
basis  that  will  authorize  the  Legislature  to 
confer  upon  any  city  any  privileges  that  may 
be  desired  by  its  people,  that  will  not  be  detri- 
mental to  the  other  interests  of  the  State.  I 
think  that  is  the  true  principle,  and  the  plain 
duty  of  this  Convention.  For  the  reasons  I 
have  suggested,  I shall  vote  for  the  motion  to 
strike  out  this  classification  and  this  discrimi- 
nation, in  granting  power  to  one  city  over 
another. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I desire  to  say  a single 
word,  only,  in  regard  to  this  matter.  I think 
that  this  question  of  classification  is  magnified 
into  a great  deal  more  of  importance  than  it 
deserves.  A large  majority  of  the  laws  passed 
in  the  State,  in  regard  to  cities,  towns  and  vil- 
lages, are  general  in  their  application.  Many 
of  them  are  silent,  and  only  used  when  the  city 
or  town  desires  it ; for  instance,  a law  authori- 
zing a town  or  municipal  corporation  to  levy  a 
tax  for  the  construction  of  a bridge,  is  a useful 
law  to  a city  or  town  that  has  a river  near  it ; 
while  a city  that  has  not  a river,  does  not  want 
it  at  all,  and  never  asks  for  it.  This  classifica- 
tion simply  authorizes  the  Legislature  to  confer 
certain  powers  upon  those  cities,  towns  or  vil- 
lages, and  exercise  it  for  themselves,  as  they 
may  see  proper.  This  proposition  does  not  say 
that  the  Legislature  shall  make  six  classes ; it 


simply  says  that  they  shall  not  make  more  than 
six;  and  it  was  thought  wise  to  limit  the  num- 
ber, for  this  reason : If  we  did  not,  they  might 
run  the  number  up  to  as  many  as  there  are 
cities  and  towns  in  the  State.  I think  it  safe  to 
say  that  there  are,  at  least,  fifteen  hundred 
cities,  towns  and  villages,  in  Ohio;  and  if  each 
one — this  is  an  extreme  case,  but  it  is  fair  to 
suppose  that  each  one  of  these  would  want  ten 
laws  within  the  next  ten  years — that  would 
make,  probably,  ten  to  fifteen  thousand  laws ; 
it  would  take  up  a whole  library  to  contain  the 
laws  sufficient  for  this  legislation.  Take  a towui 
of  a population  of  ten  thousand,  down  to  four 
thousand,  and  it  will  generally  want  the  same 
kind  of  laws  and  the  same  class  of  legislation  ; 
and  if  there  is  a law  made  conferring  power 
upon  those  towns  and  cities,  it  does  not  exclude 
other  towns  and  cities  from  the  privileges  of  the 
same  law,  if  they  want  it.  There  has  got  to  be 
some  limit.  Some  of  the  members  of  our  Com- 
mittee wanted  one,  some  two,  others  four ; and 
it  was  finally  agreed,  after  careful  examination 
and  consideration,  that  six  would  be  a safe  lim- 
itation. And  I think  that  upon  that  classifica- 
tion, every  town  and  city  in  the  State  can  be  so 
classified  as  to  obtain  all  the  class  legislation 
they  ought  to  have,  and  will  desire. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  I can  have  leave  of  the 
Convention,  I desire  to  say  a few  words;  I sup- 
pose it  is  out  of  order. 

MEMBERS.  “ Leave,  leave.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I wish  to  say  a few  words, 
for  the  purpose  of  calling  attention  to  a branch 
of  this  subject,  which,  it  is  obvious  from  the 
remarks  of  the  delegate  from  Shelby  [Mr. 
Smith],  has  failed  to  attract  his  attention,  and 
may  have  failed  to  attract  the  attention  of 
others. 

It  was  very  candidly  admitted  by  the  delegate 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  last  evening,  that,  un- 
less we  attempt  to  fix  the  number  of  classes,  we 
leave  the  classification  open,  which  is  equiva- 
lent to  inviting  as  many  classes  as  there  maybe 
corporations.  In  other  words,  it  is  equivalent 
to  allowing  special  legislation.  It  cannot  be 
forgotten — must  not  be  forgotten — that,  under 
the  special  legislation  permitted  in  the  State  of 
New  York,  the  government  of  the  city  of  New 
York  was  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  its  people, 
and  exercised  by  the  Governor  of  New  York, 
through  boards  appointed  by  the  Governor  and 
Legislature.  There  is  danger  on  that  side.  The 
delegate  from  Shelby  [Mr.  Smith]  seems  to 
think  that  all  the  laws  passed  for  the  govern- 
ment of  municipal  corporations  are  grants  of 
power  that  the  corporations  desire.  He  forgets 
that,  in  the  warmth  of  political  partisanship, 
the  time  may  come,  has  already  been,  in  Ohio, 
and  will  come  again,  when  the  revenues  of  one 
of  these  larger  cities,  or  smaller  cities,  and  the 
patronage  involved  in  the  disbursement  of  these 
revenues,  will  be  a bait  for  the  political  parties 
of  the  State — a bait  that  will  attract  them,  if 
special  legislation  be  the  order  of  the  day,  into 
attempting  to  control  those  cities  for  party 
ends — as  the  Republican  party  did  attempt  to 
control  the  city  of  New  York,  and  as  has  been 
done  in  this  State,  heretofore,  in  the  matters 


1318 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Okey,  Hoadly,  Pond,  Johnson. 


[113  th 


referred  to  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  Hunt]  and 
the  delegate  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I desire  to  know  whether,  if 
Cincinnati  forms  one  class,  he  means  to  prevent 
the  same  thing  occurring  in  Cincinnati,  that 
occurred  in  New  York? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  There  is  no  proposition  that 
Cincinnati  shall  form  one  class;  but  the  dele- 
gate suggests  the  only  doubt  I have  had  about 
this  matter,  viz:  whether  six  classes  may  not 
be  too  many.  I have  said,  half-a-dozen  times, 

I hope  the  day  will  come,  and  I think  it  has 
arrived  already,  when  Cincinnati  and  Cleve- 
land, and,  perhaps,  Toledo,  may  be  classed  to- 
gether. I do  not  see  a particle  of  difficulty 
about  it.  The  Supreme  Court  decided,  as  early  as 
the  first  volume  of  the  Supreme  Court  Reports, 
that  it  was  not  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution 
to  grant  powers  to  be  exercised  by  the  authorities 
of  the  city,  according  to  the  will  of  a majority  of 
the  people;  and  that  this  is  not  in  contra- 
vention of  the  provision  requiring  a law  to  take 
effect  on  no  other  authority  than  that  of  the 
General  Assembly.  In  the  case  of  Giesy  against 
the  commissioners  of  Clinton  county,  it  was 
decided  that  the  law  authorizing  the  commis- 
sioners of  Clinton  county  to  subscribe  stock  to 
a railroad  was  not  rendered  unconstitutional 
by  the  requirement  that  the  execution  of  the 
law,  that  action  under  the  law  should  be  op- 
tional with  the  people.  From  that  time  until 
the  vote  of  this  city  upon  the  building  of  the 
Cincinnati  Southern  Railroad,  constitutionality 
has  been  sustained,  of  providing  that  the  exe- 
cution of  the  law  might  depend  upon  the  votes 
of  the  people;  and  by  the  uniform  current  of 
decisions,  that  powers  might  be  granted  to  be 
exercised,  or  not,  according  to  the  judgment  of 
the  people  of  a particular  city  or  locality. 
There  will  be  no  difficulty,  whatever,  in  the 
application  of  that  principle,  in  classifying 
Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  Columbus  and  Toledo, 
together.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  saying  that 
in  all  of  these  cities,  the  mayor  shall  have  the 
power  to  veto,  subject  to  the  choice  of  the  peo- 
ple, whether  they  shall  adopt  that  power  or  not ; 
or,  to  take  another  example,  they  may  have  a 
Board  of  Aldermen,  or  not,  or  in  one  of  these 
cities  and  not  in  another,  as  may  be  the  will  of 
the  people  in  such  city. 

But  classification  is  important,  because,  if  we 
can  only  reduce  the  classes  to  a number  so 
small  as  to  require,  substantially,  a rule  of  clas- 
sification for  the  State,  you  break  up  the  mis- 
chief practiced  under  special  legislation,  of 
governing  cities  from  without;  and  by  requir- 
ing that  all  cities,  towns  and  villages  of  the 
same  class,  shall  have  the  same  powers,  you  ' 
compel  the  Legislature  to  establish  a general  I 
system,  under  the  organic  law,  for  all  corpora- 1 
tions  of  the  same  class;  and  then  the  people,; 
under  that  Constitution,  within  that  organic 
law,  may  govern  themselves,  and  there  will  be 
no  possibility  of  the  Legislature  taking  away 
those  powers  which  those  people  ought  to  exer- 
cise, unless  they  take  them  also  from  the  other 
cities  of  the  same  class,  at  the  same  time. 

Now,  I admit  that  there  is  a practical  diffi- 
culty about  it.  It  is  in  making  the  number  of 
classes  so  large  that,  in  the  future,  all  the  vari- 
ous contingencies  that  may  require  classification 
shall  be  provided  for,  and  at  the  same  time,  so 


[Friday, 


small,  that  war  cannot  be  waged  by  the  domi- 
nant political  party,  or  any  political  party,  in 
any  particular  locality  of  the  State  or  any  cor- 
poration, as  was  done  in  New  York,  and  as  has 
been  done,  or  attempted  to  be  done,  in  Ohio. 
But  I do  not  contend  that  your  Committee  are 
wise  enough  to  be  sure  that  they  have  the  right 
number  in  the  word  “six;”  but  there  are  four 
classes  of  cities  and  villages  in  Ohio,  now,  and 
in  my  judgment,  all  the  cities  and  villages  in 
Ohio,  could  be  embraced  within  the  four-fold 
subdivision  now  in  force ; and  the  only  reason 
why  the  Committee  suggested  a larger  number 
was  because  they  did  not  think  they  were  in- 
fallible, or  had  the  necessary  wisdom,  but  that, 
in  the  change  of  circumstances  and  times,  the 
classification  might  be  so  increased  as  to  require 
a larger  number. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  ask  a question. 
Has  not  some  change  been  made  in  this  section, 
in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  the  laws  en- 
acted by  the  General  Assembly  shall  take  effect  ? 
Look  at  section  twenty-eight  and  compare  that 
with  section  twenty-six  of  the  present  Consti- 
tution. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  be  kind 
enough  to  read  it  ? 

Mr.  POND.  The  section  reads  now  “All  laws 
of  a general  nature  shall  have  a uniform  opera- 
tion throughout  the  State;  nor  shall  any  act, 
or  part  of  any  act,  except  such  as  relates  to 
public  schools,  public  buildings,  and  public 
bridges,  be  passed,  to  take  effect  upon  a vote  of 
the  people  affected  thereby,  or  the  execution  of 
which  shall  depend  upon  such  vote,  or  upon  the 
approval  of  any  other  authority  than  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  except  as  otherwise  provided  in 
this  Constitution.”  Now,  is  there  any  material 
difference  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  may  be 
right.  I cannot,  without  more  consideration 
than  I have  time  to  give  it  now,  suggest  an  an- 
swer to  his  views. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
whether  the  action  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  New  York  was  detrimental  to  the  in- 
terests of  the  people  of  the  city  of  New  York? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I cannot  answer  the  ques- 
tion. Yes,  I can,  easily.  Experience  has 
proved  that  it  was  the  worst  blow  at  the  pros- 
perity of  the  city  of  New  York  that  ever  was 
struck. 

Mr.  President,  I will  explain  myself.  The 
men  who  were  politically  with  me,  as  I thought 
then,  and  still  think,  believed  that  because  New 
York  was  so  badly  governed  by  itself,  it  was 
wise  to  take  away,  in  the  matter  of  police,  the 
control  of  its  affairs  from  Mayor  Wood,  and  give 
that  control  to  a Board  appointed  by  the  Gover- 
nor. I confess  I thought  then — of  course,  cit- 
izens of  Ohio  do  not  have  much  opportunity  to 
form  correct  opinions  as  to  the  civil  polity  of 
New  York — I thought  then  it  was  wise  legisla- 
tion. But  how  has  it  turned  out?  The  vil- 
lains of  the  Democratic  party,  learned  the 
trick  at  once,  went  to  Albany  and  had  the  Leg- 
islature pass  a special  law  appointing  a special 
Board  of  Audit  to  audit  all  the  claims  against 
the  city  of  New  York,  and  under  that  law  Wil- 
liam M.  Tweed,  Richard  B.  Connelly,  A.  Okey 
Hall  and  Peter  B.  Sweeney  were  rendered 
masters  of  the  city  of  New  York;  and  three  of 


1319 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPOBATIONS. 


February  13,  1874.]  Hoadly,  Ewing,  Mueller,  Powell. 


those  men  stole  more  money  from  the  city  of 
New  York,  more  in  one  year,  than  the  whole 
debt  of  the  city  of  Cincinnati  to-day — a great 
deal  more.  What  next?  Now,  I say  it  has 
proved  that  that  which  was  intended  for  the  in- 
terest of  good  municipal  government,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, was  founded  on  the  great  distrust  of  the 
ability  and  capacity  of  the  people  of  the  city 
of  New  York  to  govern  themselves.  It  turned 
out  to  be  a most  miserable  pretext,  and  resulted 
finally  most  mischievously  to  the  welfare  of  the 
people  of  the  city  of  New  York.  I believe  if 
they  had  been  let  alone  to  have  gone  on  in  the 
race  of  maladministration  that  the  revolution 
which  occurred  in  the  city  of  New  York  two 
years  ago,  under  the  Committee  of  Seventy, 
would  have  occurred  five  years  sooner,  and  from 
fifty  to  seventy-five  millions  of  dollars  been 
saved  to  the  city  of  New  York.  I do  not  be- 
lieve you  can  cure  intestine  disorder  by  outside 
application.  You  must  begin  where  the  disease 
is.  If  the  people  are  able  to  govern  themselves, 
they  ought  to  be  allowed— through  their  own 
agencies — to  correct  their  follies  and  mistakes, 
and  return  to  the  better  way.  You  cannot  cure 
them  by  external  application. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Herron],  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  EWING.  I would  ask  that  the  amend- 
ment be  reported  to  the  Convention. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  27,  nays  52,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Bannon,  Bishop,  Blose,  Byal,  Clay, 
Coats,  Cunningham,  Doan,  Ewing,  Hill,  Krea- 
mer,  Layton,  McCormick,  Miller,  Neal,  Okey, 
Pond,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Shel- 
by, Tripp,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voorhes,  White 
of  Hocking,  Young  of  Champaign,  President 
—27. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Beer,  Burns,  Car- 
bery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Cook,  Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Foran, 
Freiberg,  Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale, 
Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  Merrill,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Mueller, Page3Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Rickly,  Root,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Sample,  Sears,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thompson, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler, 
Van  Voorhis,  Waddle,  White  of  Brown,  Wilson, 
Woodbury— 52. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
W est],  to  strike  out  the  whole  section. 

Mr.  WEST.  I ask  leave  to  withdraw  my  mo- 
tion, if  there  is  no  objection. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I now  offer  the  following: 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  offers  the  following 
amendment : 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  offered  an  amendment 
previous  to  that. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Mueller,  as  follows : 

After  the  words,  “and  the  powers  of  each  class,”  in  the 
third  line,  insert,  “as  such  shall  be  conlined  to  matters 


relating  to  their  internal  improvement  only,”  so  that  it 
will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  shall,  by  general  laws,  provide 
for  the  organization  and  classification  of  Municipal  Cor- 
porations; the  number  of  such  classes  shall  not  exceed 
six,  and  the  powers  of  each  class  as  such,  and  shall  be 
confined  to  matters  relating  to  their  internal  improve- 
ment only.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  While  I am  willing  to  have 
all  these  Municipal  Corporations  emancipated 
from  the  influence  of  the  General  Assembly,  I 
think,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  very  poor  policy 
to  allow  each  township  or  each  corporation  to 
have  its  own  public  policy.  My  intention  by 
this  amendment  is  to  accomplish  this  purpose, 
to  emancipate  Municipal  Corporations  in  doing 
what  they  please,  as  far  as  building  school- 
houses,  bridges,  as  far  as  township  matters  are 
concerned  ; but  I do  not  want  them  to  have  the 
power  of  establishing  a public  policy  of  their 
own;  for  I think  the  State  is  a unit,  and  should 
not  be  governed  by  the  people  as  a township, 
but  by  the  General  Assembly,  the  Representa- 
tives of  the  people  of  the  State.  I think  this 
amendment  will  obviate  all  the  difficulties,  and 
I hope  it  will  be  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Mueller]. 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I sent  up  yesterday  to  the 
Chair  a proposed  amendment,  which  I now 
move. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  offers  the  following 
amendment : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Before  the  word  “power”,  in  the  third  line,  and  the 
same  word  in  the  fourth  line  insert  the  word  “general”, 
and  strike  out  all  after  the  word  “powers”,  in  thhe  fourth 
line,  to  the  end  of  the  sentence,  and  insert  instead  thereof 
the  following:  “but  subject  thereto.  Such  corporation 
may  adopt  such  by-laws  as  their  several  interests  and 
welfare  may  require.”  So  that  it  will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  shall,  by  general  laws,  provide 
for  the  organization  and  classification  of  Municipal 
Corporations;  the  number  of  such  classes  shall  not  ex- 
ceed six,  and  the  general  powers  of  each  class  shall  be 
defined  by  general  laws,  so  that  no  such  corporation  shall 
have  any  other  general  powers,  but  subject  thereto.  Such 
corporations  may  adopt  such  by-laws  as  their  several  in- 
terests and  welfare  may  require.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  object  of  this  amend- 
ment, Mr.  President,  is  this:  to  confine  the 
power  that  is  given  to  the  different  classifica- 
tions, to  general  powers,  leaving  the  minutia  of 
attending  to  the  interest  and  welfare  of  each 
corporation  to  be  carried  on  by  their  by-laws. 
There  is  a great  distinction  between  those 
powers  that  are  given  to  corporations — to  these 
Municipal  Corporations — for  the  purpose  of  or- 
ganizing their  government,  which  operates,  as 
was  well  expressed  by  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee,  as  their  Constitution.  But  when 
you  come  to  the  minutia  of  what  they  shall  do, 
when  to  do  it,  and  how  to  do  it;  for  instance, 
to  make  sidewalks,  to  pave  their  roads,  to  build 
a bridge,  or  anything  else  that  is  merely  a mat- 
ter of  their  own  interest  and  welfare,  that 
should  be  left  not  to  be  regulated  by  the  general 
laws — the  powers  sriven  to  them  in  their  incor- 
poration— but  left  to  themselves  to  be  adminis- 
; tered  by  their  by-laws;  you  should  only  say 
j that  these  corporations  shall  have  power  to  con- 
I struct  side-walks,  make  roads,  build  bridges,  or 


1320 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [113th 

Powell,  Bosworth,  Clark  of  R.,  Hoadly,  Tuttle,  etc.  [Friday, 


docks,  or  anything  else,  that  they  may  think 
proper;  leaving  the  execution  of  all  this  to 
their  own  judgment  and  sense  of  propriety,  as 
to  what  they  should  do,  and  the  amount  of  money 
they  may  expend  in  any  one  of  these  improve- 
ments. The  object  of  this  is  to  insert  the  word 
“general”  before  the  word  “powers,”  so  that 
those  laws,  given  to  each  corporation,  shall  be 
confined  to  general  powers,  leaving  the  minutia 
to  be  exercised  by  the  several  corporations,  as 
they  may  deem  best,  to  subserve  their  interest 
and  welfare. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  to  which 
objection  being  made,  it  was  not  sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
amendment. 

Which  not  being  agreed  to,  a division  was 
asked,  and  it  was  found  that  no  quorum  was 
voting.  A recount  was  demanded. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  vote  is  lost  certainly,  Mr. 
President,  and  need  not  be  recounted. 

Mr.  BOSWORTH.  Before  that  vote  is  taken, 
I would  like  to  have  the  amendment  reported. 
I do  not  understand  it. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment. 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  other 
amendments  to  section  1 ? If  not,  the  Secretary 
will  read  section  2. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  2.  No  Municipal  Corporation  shall  loan  its  credit 
to  any  person  or  corporation,  or  lor  any  purpose  what- 
ever. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I offer  the  following 
amendment : 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Clark,  of  Ross, 
offers  the  following  amendment  to  section  2 : 
By  adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  following 
words,  “except  as  otherwise  provided  in  this 
Constitution.”  So  thatitwill  read:  “No  muni- 
cipal corporation  shall  loan  its  credit  to  any 
person  or  corporation,  or  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever, except  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Con- 
stitution.” 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I have  submitted  that 
amendment  to  the  distinguished  Chairman  of 
the  Committee,  and  I understand  from  him  that 
he  has  no  objection  to  it.  I believe  he  inti- 
mated as  much  in  his  very  able  opening  re- 
marks on  the  proposition  now  under  considera- 
tion. The  object  of  the  amendment  is  to 
prevent  any  conflict  happening  between  the 
adoption  of  this  section  and  the  future  action  of 
the  Convention,  if  the  Convention,  in  consider- 
ing the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public 
Debt  and  Public  Works,  should  adopt  the  sixth 
section  of  that  Committee’s  Report,  or  any  other 
similar  provision.  It  is  not  desirable,  at  this 
time,  to  precipitate  discussion  on  that  qnestion. 
It  would  be  interfering  with  the  due  consider  - 
tion  of  the  proposition  under  consideration. 
Besides  that,  members  of  the  Committee  do  not 
desire  argument  upon  it  at  this  time.  If  this 
provision  is  adopted,  it  will  answer  every  pur- 
pose, and  if  there  should  be  a provision  made 
in  that  section,  or  any  other  section  of  the  Con- 
stitution, inconsistent  with  this  section,  there 
will  then,  of  course,  be  no  conflict.  I,  therefore, 
hope  that  the  amendment  will  be  adopted.  I 
understand  that  there  will  be  no  objection  to  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
amendment.  I 


Mr.  BURNS.  I hope  that  the  amendment 
will  not  prevail.  I can  conceive  of  no  reason 
why  it  should  prevail,  unless  it  is  to  hedge 
against  a proposition,  or  in  favor  of  a proposi- 
tion, that  may  be,  or  may  not  be,  submitted  to 
a subsequent  Article  to  be  inserted.  It  is,  in 
my  judgment,  leaving  a place  to  put  in  another 
section — principles  incorporated  or  embraced  in 
what  is  known  as  the  “Boesel  law” — so  that 
when  that  proposition  comes  to  be  considered, 
it  cannot  be  said,  we  have  already  provided 
against  its  application  to  towns  and  cities.  I 
do  not  believe  in  making  a place  in  this  Consti- 
tution for  the  application  of  the  principles  of 
the  “Boesel  law,”  when  it  shall  become  neces- 
sary to  consider  it  in  a future  section.  There- 
fore, I hope  this  amendment  will  be  voted 
down. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I said,  in  my  opening  state- 
ment, that  there  was  no  intention,  on  the  part 
of  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations,  to 
anticipate  and  provide  against  the  possible 
action  of  the  Convention  upon  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Public 
Works.  Another  thing,  the  Committee,  when 
we  made  this  Report,  did  not  observe  any  dan- 
ger, and  it  was  called  to  our  attention  after- 
wards. While  not  authorized  to  speak  for  the 
whole  Committee,  I know  enough  to  be  sure  of 
the  fact — we  did  not  intend  to  anticipate  the 
action  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and 
Public  Works;  and  it  seems  to  me,  it  would  be 
rather  forestalling  the  action  of  the  Conven- 
tion on  that  Report,  and  perhaps  appear  like 
discourtesy  to  that  Committee,  to  take  up  the 
subject  now,  whether  we  will  permit  corpora- 
tions to  loan  their  credit  for  the  building  of 
railroads.  Therefore,  as  I said,  individually,  I 
have  no  objection  to  vote  with  the  delegate 
from  Ross  [Mr.  Clark],  to  amend  the  Article  so 
as  to  prevent  even  the  appearance  of  interfer- 
ence with  the  programme  submitted  to  his 
Committee. 

If  we  refuse  to  submit  to  the  people  a propo- 
sition to  allow  municipal  corporations  to  loan 
their  credit,  or  to  refuse  to  adopt  such  a provi- 
sion, then  the  words  “except  as  may  be  provi- 
ded” can  be  stricken  out  by  the  Committee  on 
Revision.  It  seems  to  me,  that  the  whole  matter 
can  thus  be  adjusted,  and  we  need  not  now  go 
into  the  discussion  of  the  matter  which  one  of 
our  Committees  has  had  in  charge,  has  care- 
fully considered,  and  has  reported  upon.  Some 
of  the  members  of  that  Committee  are  absent, 
not  anticipating  the  discussion  upon  the  Re- 
port; and  it  is  hardly  fair  to  them, or  ourselves, 
to  enter  upon  the  debate.  For  that  reason,  I 
shall  vote  with  the  gentleman,  in  favor  of  the 
proposed  amendment. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I wish  to  say  that,  so  far  as  I 
am  concerned,  I hope  that  the  proposed  amend- 
ment will  not  be  made.  I do  not  see,  if  it  should 
be  put  in  here,  how  the  Committee  on  Revision 
can  strike  it  out,  because  that  would  involve  a 
judicial  act  or  office,  to  be  performed  by  the 
Committee  on  Revision,  namely:  to  determine 
for  themselves,  as  a Constitutional  question, 
whether  or  not  any  part  of  the  Constitution  had 
conferred  upon  Municipal  Corporations  the 
power  to  loan  credit  for  any  purpose  whatever. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  May  I put  a question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1321 

February  13,  1874.]  Hoadly,  Tuttle,  Hale,  Ewing,  etc. 


Mr.  HOADLY.  If  we  adopt  this  amendment 
and  these  words  are  inserted  here,  if  the  Con- 
stitution does  not  give  any  other  power  contrary 
to  that,  would  not  they  be  nugatory  words,  and 
do  no  harm  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  it  should  be  perfectly  clear 
that  the  Constitution  had  conferred  no  such 
power,  then  they  would  be  nugatory  words; 
but  if  it  should  happen  that,  as  on  a former  oc- 
casion, language  which  was  supposed  to  be  per- 
fectly explicit  and  in  itself  clear  enough,  as 
excluding  the  power,  should  turn  out  to  be  in- 
definite and  admit  of  two  constructions,  this 
would  most  certainly  be  adduced  as  an  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  that  construction  which  would 
admit  of  the  exercise  of  such  a power.  That 
is  the  objection  I have  to  it.  Now,  I wish  to 
say,  Mr.  President,  I have  no  wish  to  precipi- 
tate the  consideration  of  the  question  which 
will  arise  when  the  Report  from  the  Committee 
on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works  shall  be  be- 
fore us,  and  if  the  proposition  were  to  defer 
the  consideration  of  this  section  until  that  sub- 
ject should  have  been  considered,  I would  vote 
for  the  proposition ; but  if  it  be  proposed  not  to 
do  that,  but  to  put  in  something  here  which  may 
materially  and  prejudicially  operate  hereafter  in 
the  construction  of  what  other  parts  of  the  Con- 
stitution may  provide  for,  I certainly  must  vote 
against  the  amendment  proposed  to  be  made. 
I would,  therefore,  hope,  Mr.  President,  while 
I do  not  know  as  I shall  do  it  myself,  I would 
hope  that  it  would  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Con- 
vention rather  to  postpone  the  consideration  of 
this  second  Article  until  the  whole  matter  shall 
come  up  for  the  consideration  of  the  Conven- 
tion. But,  if  it  is  proposed,  instead  of  doing 
that  by  amendment  to  this  section,  to  putin  that 
which  looks  like  anticipating  and  qualifying 
what  may  be  the  action  of  the  Convention  upon 
any  other  subject,  and  thereby  afford  ground  of 
argument  in  favor  of  the  construction  which  it 
may  receive,  I hope  it  wrill  be  the  pleasure  of 
the  Convention  in  every  way  to  exclude  it  from 
the  Constitution.  I must  oppose  it. 

Mr.  HALE.  As  I understand  this  question, 
It  is  simply  the  policy  to  hold  in  suspension  the 
idea  contained  in  this  section.  Now,  if  that 
prohibition  goes  into  the  Constitution  any- 
where, it  is  sufficient.  The  proposition  is  sim- 
ply to  leave  that  question  open  until  it  shall 
come  directly  before  the  Convention,  when 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt 
and  Public  Works  comes  to  be  considered,  and 
if  it  shall  have  been  considered  before  the  final 
reading  of  this  Article,  then  this  can  be  stricken 
out  by  the  Convention.  I have  no  doubt  if  this 
whole  subject  was  considered  in  this  Article, 
and  the  Convention  votes  on  it,  they  would  vote 
precisely  in  the  same  way  as  if  the  whole  sub- 
ject was  considered,  as  when  the  Report  of  the 
other  Committee  comes  to  be  considered.  Now, 
I can  see  that  no  harm  can  come  to  this  ques- 
tion, in  any  shape,  by  leaving  this  entirely 
open.  I am  with  the  gentleman  from  Trum- 
bull [Mr.  Tuttle],  and  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  upon  this  question;  but 
vve  cannot  be  prejudiced  by  leaving  that  ques- 
tion open,  and  meeting  it  fairly  and  squarely 
upon  the  Report  when  it  comes  to  be  considered. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 


Mr.  HALE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Then  why  not  postpone  the 
consideration  of  this  question  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  For  the  very  reason  that  we 
will  leave  everything  hanging  by  the  gills  and 
finish  nothing  up.  If  we  finish  up,  and  leave  it 
as  proposed  by  this  amendment,  when  it  comes 
to  the  third  reading,  if  by  that  time  we  shall 
have  considered  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  Public  Debt,  then  this  can  be  stricken  out. 
But  if  the  gentleman  insists  upon  this  amend- 
ment being  discussed  here,  we  will  have  this 
Article  before  us  for  weeks. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not,  or,  at  least,  I do  not 
as  a number  of  members  of  this  Convention  did, 
oppose  the  principle  of  the  “Boesel  law.”  1 do 
not  desire  to  open  the  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion on  this  proposition  at  all.  When  it  comes 
legitimately  to  be  discussed,  if  it  shall  finally 
succeed,  it  would  be  more  consistent  and  much 
more  easily  put  in  this  proposition  than  to  be 
stricken  out  after  it  is  in,  because  if  it  is  con- 
signed now,  that  Committee  will  come  in  here 
and  say  it  is  outside  of  the  domain  of  its  pro- 
priety. 

Mr.  HALE.  I do  not  so  understand  it,  Mr. 
President. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Why  is  it  desirable  to  forestall 
the  sentiment  of  this  Convention  by  injecting 
at  this  point  a proposition  which  it  may  be 
necessary  hereafter  to  strike  out? 

Mr.  HALE.  That  is  not  the  question  at  all. 
We  don’t  propose  to  put  it  into  this  Article  one 
way  or  the  other.  We  simply  propose  to  say 
that  that  question  shall  not  be  considered  here, 
but  shall  be  held  in  abeyance  until  otherwise 
ordered. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Suppose  the  principle  of  the 
“Boesel  law”  is  not  incorporated  into  the  Consti- 
tution, what  possible  effect  could  these  words 
have  if  they  are  retained  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  None  whatever.  Then,  Mr. 
President,  it  depends  wholly  and  exclusively  on 
what  shall  be  done  hereafter,  whether  they 
have  effect  or  not.  Now,  the  point  I make  is 
this:  If  it  depends  upon  the  future  action  of 
this  Convention,  and  whether  they  shall  have 
effect  or  not,  then,  Mr.  President,  we  do  not 
decide  in  this  proposition  the  one  way  or 
the  other,  but  leave  it  for  their  future  ac- 
tion. Now,  that  is  all  we  ask.  I agree  with 
the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  and 
with  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tut- 
tle]. I am  as  firm  upon  that  side  of  the  ques- 
tion as  they  can  be,  but  I do  not  seek  to  go  into 
the  discussion  of  that  question  at  the  present 
time. 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  a portion  of  this  Arti- 
cle may  be  obviated  if  the  gentleman  from  Ross 
[Mr.  Clark]  will  modify  his  amendment  some- 
what. His  amendment  is,  “ except  as  other- 
wise provided  in  this  Constitution,”  carrying, 
as  some  gentlemen  think,  the  implication  that 
there  are  other  provisions  in  this  Constitution 
authorizing  municipal  corporations,  under  cer- 
tain circumstances,  to  loan  their  credits  to  per- 
sons or  corporations.  Now,  I suggest  that 
instead  of  saying  “except  as  otherwise  provided 
in  this  Constitution,”  he  modify  his  amendment 
so  as  to  read  “except  as  may  be  otherwise  pro- 
vided in  this  Constitution.” 


1322 MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [113th 


Clark  of  R.,  Hitchcock,  Griswold,  Hoadly,  West,  Cunningham.  [Friday, 


Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I have  no  objection  to 
that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  accepts 
the  amendment.  The  gentleman  from  Ross 
[Mr.  Clark]  proposes  to  amend  section  two  by- 
adding  the  following  words:  “except as  maybe 
otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitution.” 

On  this  question,  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  46,  nays 
32,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Bannon,  Bishop,  Byal,  Car- 
bery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Clay,  Coats,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Dorsey,  Ewing,  Foran,  Gardner,  Griswold, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Hunt,  Johnson, 
Kreamer,  Layton,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner, 
Mueller,  Neal,  Okey,  Pond,  Powell,  Rickly, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Thompson,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh, 
Waddle,  White  of  Brown,  Wilson,  Young  of 
Champaign — 46. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Cowen, 
Freiberg,  Greene,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Kerr,  McBride,  Mitchener,  Page, 
Phellis,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Root,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Sample,  Sears,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Van  Voorhis, ! 
Voorhes,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury, 
President — 32. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  strike  out  the 
words  “ for  any  purpose  whatever.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  j 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  moves  to  strike  out,  j 
in  line  ten,  the  words  “ for  any  purpose  what- ! 
ever.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do  not  think  that  amend-  j 
ment  ought  to  be  adopted. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I only  made  the  motion  J 
because  I suppose  these  words  are  really  of  no 
effect. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Ge- 
auga [Mr.  Hitchcock]  allow  me  a question  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  not  he  accomplish  his 
object  by  striking  out  the  word  “ or?  ” Is  not 
that  better? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I suppose,  if  the  word 
“ or  ” be  stricken  out,  it  will  make  the  language 
good,  and  accomplish  all  I desire.  I modify 
my  motion,  and  move  to  strike  out  the  word 
“ or,”  in  the  second  line. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  moves  to 
strike  out,  in  line  two,  the  word  “or,”  so  that 
it  will  read : “ No  municipal  corporation  shall 

loan  its  credit  to  any  person  or  corporation 
for  any  purpose  whatever,  except  as  may  be 
otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitution.” 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  want  to  recognize  the  | 
idea  that  we  authorize  anything  of  that  kind. 

I offer  this  as  an  addition  to  the  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  j 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  offers  the  following  amend- 
ment to  section  two.  The  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Nor  be  empowered  to  levy  any  tax  or  assessment,  or 
incur  pecuniary  liability,  or  contribute  or  expend  money 
by  donation  or  otherwise  for  the  establishment  or  main- 
tenance of  any  carrying,  transportation,  commercial,  : 
manufacturing,  or  other  business  or  trade,  or  for  ary 


other  than  an  exclusively  public  object,  purpose  or  enter- 
prise wholly  distinct  from,  and  disconnected  with,  any 
private  interest  or  corporation  whatever.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I hope  that  this 
amendment  will  not  pass,  or  the  section  be  un- 
necessarily weighed  down.  I suggest  to  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  that  it  is 
unnecessary.  Those  of  us  who  are  in  favor  of 
the  adoption  of  some  such  provision  as  claimed 
in  section  six  of  the  Article  upon  Public  Debt 
and  Public  Works,  feel  that  the  vote  that  has 
just  been  taken  is  no  test  vote,  but  was  carry- 
ing out  the  liberal  ideas  of  the  Committee  that 
have  this  matter  in  charge,  that  nothing  the 
Convention  may  change  upon  that  subject  shall 
now  be  anticipated. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  going  to  request,  at  the 
time  I offered  the  amendment,  as  soon  as  it  was 
read,  that  the  Convention  do  not  act  upon  it 
now.  When  they  pass  through  the  other  sec- 
tion, it  may  be  brought  up.  Let  it  lie  on  the 
table,  or  be  recommitted.  Let  my  amendment 
still  continue.  If  it  is  rendered  unnecessary 
by  the  action  of  the  Convention,  by  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Public 
Works,  why,  of  course,  it  will  be  rejected. 
Otherwise,  it  is  very  proper  in  this  place,  and 
something  of  the  kind,  I think,  ought  to  be 
adopted;  for  this  reason,  that  all  the  restric- 
tions, all  the  limitations  you  propose  to  put 
upon  municipal  corporations  by  classification 
or  general  legislation,  do  not  amount  to  any- 
thing, unless  there  be  an  inhibition  of  power. 
That  is  the  only  thing  that  will  do  any  good  in 
the  world.  Your  classifications,  generaliza- 
tions, and  all  limitations  that  do  not  inhibit  the 
exercise  of  power,  will  amount  to  nothing ; be- 
cause the  Legislature  will  find  ways  to  evade 
and  avoid  all  those  general  provisions.  There 
must  be  a negation  of  power.  If  we  do  not 
make  such  provision,  we  fail,  in  my  judgment. 
The  existing  Constitution  was  supposed  to  be  a 
protection,  and  it  has  been  evaded,  because  there 
is  no  inhibition  ol  the  power.  My  proposition 
is  to  prohibit,  forbid  the  exercise  of  this  power 
in  certain  particulars.  If  the  Convention  pre- 
fer to  pass  it,  I would  be  very  much  gratified. 
Ido  not  care  about  having  a vote  on  it  now. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  the  Convention 
shall  determine  not  to  adopt  section  6,  or  some 
provision  like  it,  I know  of  nothing  more  fitting 
than  what  the  Committee  itself  has  reported  to 
the  Convention ; for  the  language  is  clear  and 
explicit,  and  I shall  cheerfully  vote  for  it,  in 
case  the  Convention  has  determined  not  to  make 
the  exception.  So  that  all  that  will  be  reached 
by  a multitude  of  words  is  reached  in  the  simple, 
direct  language  reported  by  the  Committee. 
Above  all  things,  the  Convention  desires  that 
the  Constitution  should  be  consistent  with  itself ; 
and  if  we  determine  to  make  no  exception,  then 
what  other  language,  and  what  number  of 
words,  can  convey  more  than  this:  “No  mu- 

nicipal corporation  shall  loan  its  credit  to  any 
person  or  corporation  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  simply  ask  the  gentle- 
man from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  if  that  is  not 
an  inhibition  upon  the  authority  of  a municipal- 
ity to  donate  money,  or  loan  it  for  any  purpose 
whatever?  May  they  not  donate  money,  or 
property  of  any  kind,  by  way  of  donation  or 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 132ft 

February  13,1874.]  West,  Cunningham,  Townsend,  Hoadly,  Powell,  Griswold,  etc. 


gift,  or  in  any  manner,  whatever,  they  see 
proper,  and  in  any  amount,  whatever,  to  build 
a railroad,  or  give  a million  dollars  to  somebody 
else  to  do  it? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  criticism  may  be 
a just  one ; but,  as  I understand  it,  the  object  of 
the  section  is  to  provide,  in  simple  phraseology, 
that  the  credit,  or  the  property,  of  the  corpora- 
tion shall  not  be  invested  in  any  way  or  manner, 
except  for  the  obvious  and  ordinary  purpose  of 
municipal  government. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  As  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  does  not  propose  to  press 
this  amendment  to  a vote  at  this  time,  but  sim- 
ply has  it  read  for  information,  before  laying  it 
on  the  table,  to  be  used  in  the  future  as  the  oc- 
casion may  require,  I do  not  see  any  propriety 
in  changing  it  or  the  Convention  discussing  it. 
I think  we  had  better  take  that  course. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  move  to  in- 
formally pass  this  section? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all.  Will  the  dele- 
gate from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  allow  me  to  express 
a wish  that  he  withdraw  this  now,  and  offer  it  as 
an  amendment  when  the  sixth  section  of  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and 
Public  Works  is  under  consideration  ? Then  the 
Committee  on  Revision  can  place  this  in  its 
proper  place  in  the  Constitution.  That  is  the 
right  way  to  get  at  it,  I think. 

Mr.  WEST.  With  that  understanding,  I will 
withdraw  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  asks  leave  to  withdraw  his 
amendment.  If  there  is  no  objection,  he  has 
leave. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I should  like  that  amend- 
ment should  be  printed  and  laid  upon  our  desks, 
so  that  we  can  see  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  now.  That  can  be  at- 
tended to  afterwards. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  other 
amendment  to  section  2,  the  Secretary  will 
read  section  3. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  3.  No  assessment  shall  be  levied  by  any  Munici- 
pal Corporation  upon  any  property  which  shall  require 
the  payment  in  any  one  year  ot  more  than  ten  per  centum 
of  its  value,  as  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  to  strike  out  the  word 
“ten,”  in  line  three,  and  insert  the  word  “six.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  moves  to  strike  out  the 
word  “ten,”  in  line  three,  and  insert  the  word 
“six.” 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I move  to  insert  the  word 
“five.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I accept  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fayette  [Mr.  Gardner],  to  fill 
the  blank  with  five,  instead  of  six. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  strike 
out  the  word  “ten,”  in  line  three,  and  insert 
“five.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I hope  that  will  not  be 
stricken  out.  I think  that  the  gentlemen  who 
are  in  favor  of  striking  out  “ ten  ” and  inserting 
“ five  ” do  not  look  closely  to  the  question  that 
this  is  applicable  to.  This  is  applicable  only  to 
assessments.  For  instance,  a corporation  may 
direct  that  a certain  street  shall  be  graded, 
paved,  and  sidewalks  made,  and  the  cost  of  it 
shall  be  assessed  per  foot  or  according  to  the 


valuation  of  the  property  bordering  on  that 
street  pro  rata.  Well,  now,  ten  per  cent,  will 
not  do  any  such  thing  as  that  ordinarily,  be- 
cause the  valuation  of  the  property  on  the  street 
is  low,  and  making  the  pavements,  grading, 
etc.,  will  double  in  value  the  property  itself, 
and,  therefore,  five  per  cent,  on  the  original 
valuation  of  the  property  would  never  pay  it. 
At  least,  if  you  levy  only  five  per  cent,  a year,  it 
would  never  pay  it  within  a reasonable  time,, 
and  for  that  reason  would  greatly  increase  its 
costs.  It  would  require  an  unreasonable  length 
of  time  and  costs  in  its  adjustment  and  settle- 
ment. I have  no  doubt  at  all,  however,  that 
the  Report  of  that  Committee  has  been  well 
considered  by  the  Committee  that  reported  it,, 
and  ten  per  cent,  is  as  low  as  it  should  be  made. 
Now,  there  is  a provision  in  our  statutes  that 
such  assessment  shall  not  be  more  than  one- 
half  the  value  of  the  property.  Well,  that  is 
reasonable,  but  there  is  a vast  difference  be- 
tween five  per  cent,  and  fifty  per  cent,  or  ten 
per  cent,  and  fifty  per  cent.  Now,  to  put  it 
down  to  five  per  cent,  is  equivalent  to  saying 
that  these  improvements  shall  not  be  made  at 
all;  and  I think  that  ten  per  cent,  bears  very 
hard  that  way.  Therefore,  I hope  the  word 
“ten”  will  not  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  This,  as  the  gentleman 
j from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  has  well  said,  has 
relation  to  assessments,  and  has  reference  to  the 
tax  duplicate,  and  not  to  the  value  of  property. 
It  generally  happens  where  there  is  outlying 
property  attached  to  the  city,  the  owners  of 
which,  on  their  own  application,  will  mske 
streets,  the  valuation  of  land  is  only  nominal. 

| In  the  city  of  Cleveland,  during  the  last  year,, 
we  have  annexed  at  the  request  of  the  inhabi- 
tants, a number  of  square  miles  of  territory, 
where  their  tax  duplicate  did  not  exceed  one 
hundred  or  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  per 
j acre,  and  they  desired  to  have  roads  built.  So 
if  you  assess  but  five  per  cent,  on  the  tax  dupli- 
cate, inasmuch  as  the  value  on  the  tax  duplicate,, 
the  same  as  it  was  before  it  was  annexed,  this 
per  centage  would  be  inadequate  for  any  useful 
purpose.  I have  known  of  three  or  four  streets 
which  have  been  made  upon  this  kind  of  prop- 
erty, where  this  rate  would  be  of  no  use,  and 
to  say  that  this  rate  on  the  value  of  others  on 
the  tax  duplicate  shall  be  the  limit,  is  simply  to 
! say  that  they  shall  not  make  this  improvement 
! at  all 

Mr.  BURNS.  Five  per  cent,  in  one  year? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Five  per  cent,  in  one  year. 
Five  per  cent,  on  the  tax  duplicate  on  this  sort 
of  property  is  nothing  at  all,  as  compared  with 
its  actual  value.  The  limit  is  ten  per  cent.,  and 
we  have  now  a law  of  this  character  upon  the 
statute  book,  and  have  had  for  several  years,, 
and  it  is  found  by  experience  to  work  well. 
There  may  be  some  exceptional  cases,  as  my 
friend  from  Fayette  [Mr.  Gardner]  mentions. 
The  lady  that  he  speaks  of,  who  had  a side- 
walk put  down,  may  have  had  to  borrow  money 
to  do  it.  But  one  such  exceptional  case  as  that 
ought  not  to  interfere  with  the  general  improve- 
ment of  towns  and  cities.  And  for  us  to  say, 

! that  under  all  circumstances,  the  valuation  upon 
J the  tax  duplicate,  the  assessment  on  special  im- 
| provements  for  the  opening  and  grading  of  a 
1 street,  where  two-thirds  of  the  parties  them- 


1324 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Griswold,  Hoadly,  Tuttle,  etc. 


[113th 


selves  who  own  the  land  ask  for  it,  to  say  they 
shall  expend  but  five  per  cent,  in  one  year  on 
their  tax  duplicate,  is  legislating,  it  seems  to  me, 
without  taking  into  account  the  possible  con- 
tingencies that  may  arise. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
a question  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I may  have  misunderstood 
the  gentleman.  Where  does  he  get  his  author- 
ity for  the  statement  that  two-thirds  of  the 
property  holders  must  ask  for  it  ? Is  he  not 
aware  that  two-thirds  of  a city  council  can 
make  an  improvement  against  the  will  of  all 
the  tax-payers  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  When  you  can  get  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  council  to  do  it,  you  can  do 
that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  my  friend  permit  me? 
I do  not  know  how  it  is  in  Cleveland,  but  I 
would  like  to  know,  and,  therefore,  I will  ask, 
whether  contractors  of  Cleveland  have  not  in- 
fluence enough  to  get  two-thirds  of  the  City 
Council  at  any  time? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  very  glad  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  We  have  no  such  a ring 
of  contractors  at  all.  The  work  is  done  accord- 
ing to  its  value.  They  do  not  go  to  work  and 
levy  assessments  without  regard  to  economy, 
but  their  work  is  performed  with  just  as  much 
economy  as  any  private  work  in  the  State  of 
Ohio. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  my  friend  allow  me 
another  interruption  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I will  inform  him  that  they 
appear  faster  than  the  trichinae  a good  deal,  and 
that  Cleveland  will  have  them  before  the  next 
twenty  years  roll  around. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I speak  from  my  own  per- 
sonal observation,  that  I have  never  known  of 
a street  to  be  graded  where  there  was  a large 
cost  for  the  work,  except  upon  the  application 
of  the  people  themselves.  It  is  the  rule  not  to 
open  streets  or  to  pave  them,  except  upon  ap- 
plication, unless  it  is  in  the  heart  of  the  city — 
and  all  outlying  property  is  only  taken  as  the 
people  themselves  desire  it.  And  to  say  that 
you  shall  not  levy  more  than  five  per  cent,  on 
the  tax  duplicate  when  such  property,  as  every 
one  knows,  is  not  valued  on  the  tax  duplicate 
in  accordance  with  its  real  value,  is  putting  it 
at  a limit  that  no  improvements,  done  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  majority  of  the  owners,  can  be  car- 
ried on.  If  it  is  done  at  all,  it  must  be  done  in 
a way  that  will  make  it  far  more  burdensome 
to  the  property  holders. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Does  the  gentleman  see  any 
difficulty  where  any  such  a case  should  occur, 
in  having  a re-assessment  provided  for  by  law 
to  put  the  property  at  its  real  value  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  cannot  be  done.  They 
have  not  any  power.  Here  is  the  tax  duplicate. 
You  have  a constitutional  rule  that  the  tax  du- 
plicate shall  govern,  and  the  city  cannot  do  any- 
thing else.  I know  of  my  own  knowledge  a 
little  exception  of  this  sort,  where  a city  coun- 
cil assessed  ten  per  cent,  on  the  tax  valuation 
of  property,  being  a great  deal  less  than  its  ac- 
tual value,  losing  signtof  this  prohibition,  and 
put  on  a little  assessment  and  was  stopped  by  it. 
They  had  to  regulate  it  and  make  the  assess-  | 


[Friday, 


ment  run  through  a long  period.  To  say  that 
under  no  circumstances,  where  the  people  of 
any  city  desire  a special  improvement,  they  can 
exceed  this  amount,  is  altogether  too  stringent. 
Why,  sir,  a whole  village  outlying  made  appli- 
cation by  vote  of  the  people  in  advance  to  be  an- 
nexed to  the  city  of  Cleveland,  and  in  annexing 
it,  we  annexed  more  than  two  square  miles  of 
uninhabited  territory,  connecting  the  munici- 
palities; and  to  say  we  could  not  levy  any 
taxes  upon  that,  except  five  per  cent,  on  the 
tax  duplicate,  is  an  assumption  of  protecting 
care  such  as  the  world  has  never  seen  before. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes ; but  how  is  it  about  the 
eels  ? The  gentleman  has  heard  of  the  old  wo- 
man who  skinned  the  eels ! How  about  the  eels  ? 
Does  not  the  gentleman  represent  the  people 
that  live  on  the  two  square  miles?  Does  he 
think  that  one-tenth  of  the  tax  duplicate  is  a 
small  burden  for  them  to  bear  in  any  one  year  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I think,  that  if  they  de- 
sire to  improve  it,  they  ought  to  have  an  op- 
portunity. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  there  anything  here  that 
prevents  their  having  an  opportunity  of  con- 
tributing as  much  as  they  want  to? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  there  is.  How  are 
you  going  to  contribute  ? You  cannot  do  that. 
You  prevent  them  from  contributing. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  You  cannot  carry  round 
contribution  books.  You  have  got  to  do  this 
thing  by  systematic  effort. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  not  this  it?  That  you 
prevent  the  minority  being  compelled  to  con- 
tribute by  others?  Is  not  that  it?  If  men  want 
to  contribute,  their  pocket  books  can  be  opened. 
They  can  shell  out,  in  some  way  or  other. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I know  there  are,  occa- 
sionally, some  old  hunks  that  will  hold  on  to  a 
piece  of  property,  and  stand  right  in  the  way  of 
public  improvement;  stand  there  waiting  for 
the  energy  and  industry  of  the  city  to  make  him 
a millionaire,  without  using  a single  atom  of 
industry,  only  by  standing  in  the  way  of  in- 
dustry. We  have  just  that  kind  of  men;  and 
where  you  put  this  sort  of  an  obstruction,  you 
allow  some  man,  who  sees  that  all  the  rest  of  the 
world  is  industrious,  to  stand  by  and  reap  from 
the  industry  of  others,  whose  efforts  will  con- 
tribute to  his  wealth,  and  make  him  a nabob. 
And  you  are  trying,  by  this  sort  of  legislation, 
to  help  this  class  of  men. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  present  law,  under  which 
cities  and  villages — at  least,  cities  of  the  class  of 
that  in  which  I live — are  improved,  authorizes  an 
assessment  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  on  the  value 
of  property.  There  was  a law,  prior  to  that, 
which  authorized  an  assessment  of  fifty  per 
cent. ; but  it  was  found  to  operate,  really,  to  the 
confiscation  of  certain  portions  of  property, 
where  streets  were  made,  and  the  amount  was 
reduced  to  twenty-five  per  cent.  Even  that 
amount,  in  one  or  two  instances,  in  the  town  in 
which  I live,  operated  to  confiscate  certain 
pieces  of  property.  The  property  would  not 
pay  the  street  assessment,  for  the  reason  that 
there  were  streets  on  three  sides  of  the  lot. 
Lots  are  occasionally  laid  out  in  a village  where 
there  is  a street  on  three,  or  sometimes  on  four 
sides  of  it.  You  assess  twenty-five  per  cent,  on 
each  separate  improvement  upon  the  value  of 
that  lot,  and  the  result  is  confiscation.  On  one 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1325 

February  13,  1874.]  Griswold,  Carbery,  Cunningham,  Gardner,  etc. 


occasion,  particularly,  a lot  owned  by  a widow 
woman  had  to  be  sold  to  pay  the  assessment, 
and  did  not  realize  enough  to  pay  that ; and  the 
citizens  raised  money  and  paid  the  assessment, 
and  allowed  her  to  keep  her  property.  Now,  if 
live  per  cent,  is  inserted,  instead  of  ten,  in  this 
section,  I propose,  if  no  other  one  does  it,  to 
offer  another  amendment  to  this  section,  saying 
that,  in  no  event,  shall  the  assessment  exceed 
twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty, in  any  five  years;  so  that  twenty-five  per 
cent,  may  be  assessed,  five  per  cent,  every  year 
for  five  years. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  On  the  tax  duplicate? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes.  Now,  every  gentleman 
is  perfectly  aware  that  the  great  burden  upon 
the  owners  of  small  properties  in  cities  of  the 
second  class,  and  villages,  is  the  street  im- 
provement. You  cut  out  a new  street.  You 
cut  down  the  hills,  fill  up  the  hollows,  and 
make  sidewalks  and  gutters  and  improvements ; 
so  that  it  really  confiscates  a large  number  of 
lots  lying  along  the  line  of  such  street.  In  my 
judgment,  twenty-five  percent,  is  all  that  ought 
to  be  assessed  upon  this  class  of  property  in  the 
aggregate,  and  it  ought  to  be  extended  over  a 
period  of  five  years,  making  five  per  cent,  a 
year. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Is  there  not  a tendency  in 
the  improving  of  streets  to  enhance  the  value  of 
property  through  which  they  pass  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Of  course,  they  have  that  ten- 
dency to  some  extent.  I do  not  deny  that;  but 
not  always;  and  while  they  improve  the  value 
they  ought  not  to  eat  it  up. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  could  put  grading 
on  one  year,  paving  the  next,  and  so  on,  run- 
ning it  through  in  ten  years  to  the  sidewalks. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  understand  the  gen- 
tleman’s question. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I have  no  doubt  in 
the  world  but  there  has  been  great  difficulty  in 
almost  all  the  towns  and  villages  in  this  State 
with  this  power  of  assessment;  but,  after  all, 
it  is  reduced  to  the  question,  now,  whether  the 
small  towns  shall  be  invested  with  the  power  to 
make  substantial  improvements  at  all.  And  I 
suggest  to  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns]  that,  if  his  amendment  is  adopted,  in 
four-fifths  of  the  towns  of  the  State  public  im- 
provements would  be  substantially  stopped.  I 
live  in  a town  of  about  six  thousand  inhabit- 
ants, and  have  it  to  say,  that  the  average  valua- 
tion of  lots  there,  upon  the  grand  duplicate, 
will  not  amount  to  over  $500,  perhaps  not  so 
much  as  that.  Lots  in  the  outskirts  of  town 
are  appraised  at  $50,  $75  and  $100.  Now,  apply 
the  rule  that  the  gentleman  proposes.  Sup- 
pose you  want  to  build  a sidewalk.  Everybody 
knows  that  a sidewalk  could  not  be  constructed 
within  the  limits  proposed  by  the  gentleman, 
and  I very  much  doubt  whether  they  could  be 
constructed  within  the  limits  proposed  by  the 
Committee.  Certainly  they  could  not  do  it 
with  the  five  per  cent,  that  the  gentleman  pro- 
poses. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  me 
to  ask  him  what  average  proportion  to  the  real 
value — that  is,  the  selling  value,  upon  the  usual 
terms  as  to  time — the  tax  duplicate  in  Lima 

Mr.'  CUNNINGHAM.  I should  think  not 


more  than  one-half — it  may  be  not  so  much  as 
that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then  the  ten  per  cent,  re- 
ported by  the  Committee  is  about  equal  to  five 
per  cent,  of  the  actual  value? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Not  any  more  than 
that.  Take,  for  example,  lots  fronting  on  a 
street.  In  the  town  in  which  I live  they  are 
fifty  feet  in  width.  The  sidewalks  are  fifty  feet 
by  ten.  We  know  they  could  not  be  built,  and 
nobody  would  take  the  contract  to  build  the 
sidewalk  and  receive  his  pay  in  annual  install- 
ments running  five  years.  While  I sympathize 
with  the  cases  that  have  been  referred  to,  and 
they  occur  in  every  town,  we  must  not  forget 
that  the  comfort  and  convenience  and  pros- 
perity of  every  town  in  the  State  depend  upon 
the  power  of  the  government  of  that  town  to- 
make  such  necessary  public  improvements  as 
the  public  interests  shall  require;  and  this 
would  be  substantially  forbidding  it. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Mr.  President,  I trust  that 
the  amendment  now  offered  will  be  adopted. 
There  is  no  evil  that  is  so  great  in  the  villages 
of  the  State  as  this  unlimited  power  of  assess- 
ment upon  contiguous  property;  and  none  that 
has,  in  my  judgment,  worked  more  hardships 
upon  property  owners.  I know  that  it  is  said 
that  there  are  a lot  of  old  hunks  and  fogies  in 
most  of  our  towns  who  are  impeding  the  pro- 
gress of  improvement.  But,  after  all,  Mr. 
President,  it  is  these  men  who  have  made  their 
money  and  accumulated  property  by  rigid  econ- 
omy, who  are  the  salvation  of  the  towns ; and 
it  is  a source  of  great  gratification  that  there  are 
a few  of  them  left  as  balance  wheels  in  our 
towns,  cities  and  villages.  If  it  were  not  so,  the 
Lord  above  only  knows  where  young  America 
would  carry  us.  Now,  this  excessive  taxation 
has  not  only  been  in  the  past,  but  is  a growing 
evil.  The  mind  and  attention  of  the  people  are 
directed  that  way.  Everybody  who  is  in  busi- 
ness in  town  wants  to  enlarge,  to  spread  outr 
and  to  bring  into  the  town  everybody  else  and 
tax  their  property  for  the  purpose  of  building 
up  the  town.  My  friend,  the  delegate  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  and  my  friend,  the 
delegate  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  have 
seemed  to  ignore  the  fact  that  this  provision  can 
apply  to  anything  except  lots  or  farms  on  the 
outskirts  of  the  city  or  village.  It  has  never 
entered  into  their  minds  that  this  provision  can 
reach  the  heart  of  a city  or  town,  and  that 
property  that  is  worth  thousands  of  dollars  is 
subject  to  this  tax;  and  if  it  was  applied  to  the 
residence  of  my  friend  on  the  left  [Mr.  Gris- 
wold]— I do  not  know  how  much  his  property 
is  worth,  but  I suppose  not  less  than  $10,000 — it 
would  make  an  assessment  upon  him,  by  the 
operation  of  this  provision,  of  $1,000  in  one 
year,  an  onerous  burden  of  taxation.  I would 
remind  the  gentleman  that  there  is  property  in 
towns  and  villages  subject  to  taxation,  besides 
that  in  the  outskirts ; that  these  old  hunks  that 
have  got  their  homes  on  the  outskirts  and  want 
to  live  in  them  and  enjoy  them,  and  they  are 
not  the  only  persons  that  have  property  there. 
While  you  desire  to  take  what  they  have  got 
and  appropriate  it  for  the  purpose  of  improving 
your  towns  and  cities,  still,  remember  that  the 
people  in  the  towns  and  cities  have  some  proper- 
ty that  is  liable  to  taxation  as  well.  I think 


1326 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. fUSth 

Griswold,  Gardner,  Powell,  Cunningham,  Carbery,  Townsend,  etc.  [Friday, 


this  rule  may  strike  where  it  may  not  be  ex- 
pected sometimes. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Where  property  is  so  val- 
uable, what  the  improvement  would  cost  on  a 
single  lot,  are  you  not  stating  a case  that  is  not 
within  the  power  of  the  imagination  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Let  us  see  if  I am.  A 
lady  in  my  town,  a widow,  owns  a little  piece 
of  property  on  a corner  of  the  street.  On 
the  north  side  ran  a street,  on  the  brow  of  a hill, 
overlooking  a meadow.  The  village  authori- 
ties concluded  to  grade  and  gravel  the  road, 
and  proceeded  to  cut  down  the  hill  along  the 
widow’s  property,  six  or  eight  feet,  by  which 
her  fences  tumbled  over  into  the  street.  They 
macadamized  and  graded  the  street,  and  as- 
sessed the  cost  upon  her  little  property,  worth 
about  $2,000.  It  was  all  the  property  she  had  in 
the  world,  and  no  means  of  support  but  her 
needle,  and  the  assessment  upon  that  property  j 
was  absolutely  out  of  her  power  to  pay  without 
great  embarrassment. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Will  the  gentleman  insist 
that,  because  people  have  done  a very  foolish 
thing,  he  will  make  a rule  of  it? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  It  is  the  history  of  munic- 
ipal corporations  that  have  the  power.  It  is 
i not  the  people  who  control  the  property,  but 
those  who  are  elected  make  the  assessments. 
It  is  a growing  abuse ; and, in  my  judgment,  some 
restraint  should  be  imposed  on  municipal  cor- 
porations ; they  should  be  put  under  some  re- 
striction and  limitation. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  not  ten  per  cent,  a limita- 
tion ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Of  course  it  is,  and  so  is 
100  per  cent,  a limitation;  but,  in  either  case, 
would  it  not  be  onerous  and  outrageous? 
Ten  per  cent,  on  a property  of  $2,000  is  $200, 
and,  if  the  owner  is  unable  to  pay  it,  it  is  just 
as  much  as  if  it  was  100  per  cent. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  a question  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Would  not  that  case 
of  the  poor  widow  have  been  a fine  matter  for 
the  council  in  the  gentleman’s  town  to  consider 
wrhen  they  determined  to  lay  out  that  street  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I think  it  would. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Might  they  not,  under 
this  provision,  as  they  may  under  the  present 
Constitution,  assess  the  cost  of  that  improve- 
ment upon  the  whole  street — that  is,  average 
it? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I suppose  they  might. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Then,  an  exceptional 
case  should  not  govern  the  general  rule. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  An  exceptional  case  shares 
the  abuse  of  power — that  is  the  reason  I make 
the  illustration.  What  they  might  have  done, 
is  one  thing;  what  they  did  do,  is  another 
thing. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Have  not  persons  that  are 
injured  by  such  improvements,  recourse  in  law 
for  damages? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  When  you  make  your  con- 
stitutional provision,  there  is  no  remedy  for  the 
evil  then.  What  I complain  of  is,  that  you 
propose  to  give  unlimited  power  to  these  mu- 
nicipal corporations  to  make  these  assessments 
to  this  extent,  and  when  you  shall  have  done 


this,  I submit  to  my  friend  on  the  right,  where 
is  the  remedy  for  the  evil? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
whether  there  is  not  a legal  remedy  for  dam- 
ages, where  a grade  is  changed  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  The  remedy  suggested  by 
the  gentleman  is  w*orse  than  the  evil.  If  the 
assessment  is  larger  than  the  people  can  bear, 
he  must  resort  to  litigation  and  expend  double 
the  amount  to  correct  the  evil.  Now,  I pro- 
pose not  to  place  in  the  hands  of  these  Munici- 
pal Corporations  such  unlimited  power  and 
control  over  the  property  of  a place  and 
the  rights  of  the  people,  and  so  not  require 
them  to  go  into  the  courts  for  redress,  with  the 
uncertainty  of  the  law,  and  its  vexatious  de- 
lays, and  then  expend  twice  as  much  money  in 
order  to  get  justice,  as  the  remedy  is  worth 
after  it  is  obtained. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Is  there  not  a provision  in 
the  first  section  to  provide  against  the  abuse  of 
this  power  ? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I know  what  the  gentle- 
man has  reference  to.  I undertake  to  say,  with 
all  respect,  that  this  power  is  left,  after  all,  to 
the  Municipal  Corporations,  they  being,  in  some 
sense,  a judicial  tribunal ; they  are  left  with  the 
right  of  judgment  as  to  the  extent  of  the 
power.  The  exercise  of  that  power  involves 
the  making  of  assessments.  How  could  it  be 
remedied,  if  in  the  opinion  of  the  council  the 
property  ought  to  be  assessed  ten  per  cent  ? 
They  are  to  judge  and  determine  whether  it  is 
valuable  to  the  property  or  not.  Now,  Mr. 
President,  I cannot  see  in  this  anything  but 
mischief.  Your  Municipal  Corporations  will  use 
all  the  power  with  which  you  clothe  them ; 
and  it  is  a fact  that  the  people  want  to  exercise 
all  the  power  they  have,  and  they  will  exercise 
it  to  the  utmost  limit  of  their  power.  There- 
fore, I would  restrict  it  to  five  per  cent,  on  the 
taxable  property.  That  is  an  enormous  tax,  in 
ciddition  to  the  other  taxes  that  are  paid ; it 
makes  it  in  fact  burdensome  and  onerous.  Five 
per  cent,  is  enough,  and  I trust  the  Convention 
will  not  go  beyond  it. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I think  the  mistake  in 
considering  this  subject  is,  that  we  are  not  a leg- 
islative body,  but  a body  making  a Constitution. 
Now,  this  question  is  not  one  of  conferring 
i power  to  tax,  but  it  is  a question  of  limitation 
upon  the  General  Assembly  to  confer  power. 
It  does  not  follow,  at  all,  that  because,  in  ex- 
j treme  cases,  and  under  certain  circumstances, 

! they  may  be  authorized  to  assess  property  not 
to  exceed  ten  per  cent.,  that  there  is  a necessity 
that  they  shall  assess  property  to  that  amount. 
It  may  be  that  they,  in  their  wisdom,  will  only 
j assess  three  per  cent.,  and  may,  after  experi- 
j ence,  limit  them  to  five  per  cent.  That,  I think 
it  possible,  they  may  do.  But  circumstances 
j may  arise,  wherein  they  may  find  that  ten  per 
cent,  would  be  allowable.  The  present  law 
! governing  this  question — and  that  is  the  proper 
way  to  govern  it,  not  by  laws  made  here,  but 
laws  made  by  the  General  Assembly — limits  the 
j assessment  for  all  purposes,  upon  any  lot  or  any 
species  of  property,  to  25  per  cent.  Take  a lot 
worth  $100,  and  it  costs,  perhaps,  $300  to  make 
a street  in  front  of  it.  It  can  not  be  taxed  more 
| than  $25  for  that  improvement,  and,  in  nine 
cases  out  of  ten,  by  reason  of  this  very  improve- 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Townsend,  Pratt',  Layton. 


1327 


Day.] 

February  13,  1874.] 


ment,  the  lot  is  made  worth  a thousand  dollars. 
There  are  many  cases  of  that  kind  in  the  central 
portion  of  a city.  Now,  in  cutting  down  a 
street,  a deep  cut  in  front  of  property,  which  ; 
costs  a large  amount  of  money,  the  rule  govern-  j 
ing  this,  and  it  is  a proper  rule,  is,  that  if  some- 
body is  injured  and  damaged,  somebody  else  is  | 
benefited  to  an  equal  amount.  If  that  has  not  | 
been  found  to  be  true,  or  demonstrated  before,  the  j 
improvement  had  better  not  be  made,  and  never  is  I 
made  so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes.  And  the  prop- 
erty benefited,  not  only  in  front  of  these  cuts  and 
grades,  but  those  leading  to  them  and  beyond 
them,  are  taxed  for  these  benefits,  and  made  to 
contribute  to  the  improvement  of  the  street, 
although  not  directly  in  front  of  their  own 
premises,  yet  because  that  lying  beyond  benefits 
them  materially.  Under  the  present  law  that 
is  practiced,  and  it  is  a wise  provision. 

But  the  point  I desire  to  make  is,  that  this  is  a 
limitation,  not  a conferring  of  power.  That  is 
a matter  for  the  Legislature.  And  I have  no 
doubt,  that  at  the  proper  time,  they  will  deter- 
mine it  wisely  and  properly,  having  heard  all 
the  facts,  and  getting  all  the  various  views  from 
all  the  various  portions  of  the  State  as  to  what 
the  people  want.  If  they  make  an  unwise  law, 
future  legislation  will  correct  it. 

Mr.  PRATT.  This  matter  being  of  general 
application,  as  well  to  the  small  corporations  as 
the  large  ones  in  the  State,  it  interests  those 
who  represent  the  small  towns  and  the  country 
places,  on  this  floor.  There  has  been  an  asser- 
tion made,  in  this  debate,  that  a tax  of  even  five 
per  cent,  upon  the  duplicate  value  of  real 
estate  in  any  particular  town,  would  be  an 
enormous  tax.  I think  that  due  consideration 
has  not  been  given,  by  the  gentleman  who 
made  that  assertion,  to  the  valuations  as  they 
have  been  in  the  past,  upon  the  duplicates  of 
the  State.  It  is  a well  known  fact,  and  one  to 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  real  estate  of  the  State 
does  not  stand  upon  the  duplicate  at  over  fifty 
per  cent.,  in  any  part  of  the  State,  and  in  many 
portions  at  less  than  forty  per  cent,  of  its  real 
value.  There  is  another  fact  connected  with 
the  assertion,  and  with  our  action  upon  this 
proposition.  It  is  this : that  a long  period  has 
intervened  in  the  past,  and  probably  will  in  the 
future,  between  the  different  assessments  of 
real  property.  As,  for  instance,  the  last  assess- 
ment, before  that  of  1870,  was  made  in  1859. 
In  the  meantime,  the  State  had  made  a general 
progress  in  the  value  of  her  real  estate,  unpre- 
cedented, and,  in  particular  localities,  in  greater 
ratio  than  the  general  advancement.  To  illus- 
trate whether  there  be  truth  in  the  assertion 
that  the  five  per  cent,  tax  upon  the  property  of 
any  village  or  municipal  corporation  of  the 
State,  as  ascertained  by  the  duplicate,  would  be 
enormous,  refer  to  the  case  of  a village  in  my 
own  part  of  the  State — and  I will  name  it,  so 
that  the  delegate  from  that  county  can  verify 
or  contradict  the  statement.  The  village  of 
Wauseon,  the  present  county  seat  of  Fulton 
county,  was  platted  as  a village,  first,  in  either 
1853  or  1854,  being  valued  as  all  new  towns  are 
by  law  required  to  be.  It  went  upon  the  du- 
plicate under  the  assessment  of  real  estate 
equalized  generally  throughout  the  State,  first 
in  1859,  and  was  not  re-appraised  until  1870. 
It  was  first  appraised  and  equalized  in  1859, 


and  the  re-valuation  and  equalization  was  taken 
and  made  in  1870.  When  the  valuation  was 
taken  in  1859,  it  was  a village  of  some  three  or 
four  hundred  inhabitants.  Its  unimproved  lots 
were  placed  on  the  duplicate  at  a valuation 
ranging  from  five  to  twenty  dollars  per  lot,  and 
it  remained  so  for  that  whole  period.  In  the 
meantime,  the  village  had  grown  from  a village 
of  four  hundred  to  fifteen  or  eighteen  hundred 
inhabitants,  had  become  a place  of  importance, 
and  those  same  lots,  that  stood  duplicated  at  five 
to  twenty  dollars  per  lot,  were  selling,  actually, 
at  from  three  to  five  hundred  dollars  per  lot. 
Now,  in  the  process  of  building  up  that  village, 
between  the  periods  of  valuation,  it  had  be- 
come necessary,  as  it  was  elsewhere,  to  grade 
streets,  provide  sewerage  or  drains,  construct 
sidewalks,  and  to  do  those  things  that  render 
any  place  habitable.  I ask  gentlemen  who 
would  fix  this  limitation  of  five  per  cent., 
what  amount  of  sidewalk  structure,  what 
amount  of  sewerage,  what  amount  of  street 
grading,  could  have  been  accomplished  in  that 
one  village,  with  the  assessment  limited  on  the 
duplicate  valuation,  at  even  ten  per  cent.,  as 
provided  in  the  Report  of  this  Committee? 
Why,  the  amount  realized  would  not  have  paid 
the  interest  on  the  cost  of  any  reasonable  appli- 
ances for  the  use  of  the  people  of  that  village, 
even  if  levied  perpetually.  I hope,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  the  amendment  will  not  prevail,  for 
I think  the  instance  given  is  by  no  means  a 
solitary  one;  and  if  you  so  limit  the  power  cf 
assessment,  you  might  as  well  say  that  the  new 
and  growing  villages  of  the  State  shall  be  utter- 
ly barred  in  the  future  from  all  improvement 
of  their  streets,  their  sidewalks  and  their  sewers, 
and  then  they  might  as  well  be  abandoned. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Representing,  as  I do,  one  of 
the  newer  counties  of  the  State,  I trust,  sir,  that 
this  motion  to  strikeout  will  not  prevail.  From 
my  acquaintance  with  the  gentleman  from 
Fayette  [Mr.  Gardner]  I had  formed  the  opin- 
ion that  he  possessed  a very  large  soul  for  a 
small  body,  and  I am  now  assured  of  it,  by  his 
reference  to  that  unfortunate  widow  of  his 
town.  Now,  if  her  property  was  so  badly  in- 
jured by  the  action  of  the  Council  in  ordering  a 
grade  to  be  made  which  injured  her  property  in 
any  respect,  her  remedy,  as  the  gentleman  knows 
as  a lawyer,  was  ample  in  two  ways : First,  by 

a suit  for  damages  for  injury  to  her  property ; 
and,  second,  by  injunction  if  the  matter  was 
illegal,  or  it  was  wrongful  to  assess  her  that 
amount.  And  with  that  great  heart  of  his,  I 
have  no  doubt  if  she  had  gone  to  him, 
he  would  have  volunteered  to  have  taken 
her  case  and  tried  it  in  court.  I say 
to  this  Convention,  and  I hope  that 
they  will  consider  it  well,  in  voting  upon  the 
subject,  if  this  amendment  prevails,  and  the 
limit  is  fixed  at  five  per  cent.,  it  effectually  and 
forever,  so  long  as  this  Constitution,  if  adopted, 
shall  be  in  force,  prevents  the  improvement  of 
the  newer  towns  and  newer  settled  portions  of 
the  State.  I know  that  it  touches  the  pockets 
of  some  gentlemen  of  Cincinnati  and  other 
points  who  are  wealthy,  and  who  have  their 
properties  and  their  streets  all  fixed  up  nicely, 
and  who  do  not  desire  to  be  taxed  to  benefit 
other  portions  of  that  municipal  corporation 
that  are  not  so  well  fixed  as  they  are.  I will 


1328 


[113th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


Layton,  Rowland,  Sample. 


[Friday, 


ask  the  gentlemen,  when  they  speak  about  rob- 
bing the  rich,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  how  did 
they  acquire  their  wealth?  Why,  by  having  a 
property  to  start  with,  and  accumulating  more 
property  there ; by  having  a particular  portion 
of  the  town  fixed  up  to  suit  themselves,  thereby 


is  no  restriction  at  all.  The  Legislature  has 
full  power  to  grant  it.  But  there  are  remedies 
at  law  for  all  the  difficulties  the  gentleman  sug- 
gested; and  I have  never  known  an  instance 
where  a just  claim  was  presented  where  dam- 
But,  sir,  are  all  the 


monopolizing  the  money-making  power  and  j cities  in  this  State,  seeking  to  improve  their  out- 
becoming  rich.  Now,  sir,  if  they  have  acquired  lying  property,  and  make  sewers  and  highways, 
their  wealth  in  the  village,  town  or  city,  why  ! to  be  bound  down  by  such  restrictions  as  will 
should  they  not,  out  of  their  abundant  wealth,  j utterly  fetter  them?  Less  than  ten  per  cent, 
contribute  to  improve  the  other  portions  inside  ! of  the  valuation  of  outlying  property  will 
of  the  corporation,  and  make  it  equally  valua-  scarcely  pave  any  street.  As  to  the  question  of 
ble  with  their  own  ? As  a general  rule,  those  \ general  taxation,  it  is  not  involved  in  this  pro- 
in authority  do  not  abuse  their  power  by  asses-  position  at  all.  You  have  no  power  to  tax  a 
sing  too  much  taxes.  I church,  but  you  may  assess  it  for  a sewer  or 

Mr.  BURNS.  I say  this  amendment  should  sidewalk.  It  is  a different  power  entirely, 
prevail,  because  they  do  abuse  that  power  most  \ And,  yet,  you  could  not  do  the  simplest  of  these 
shamefully.  things  upon  the  basis  assumed  without  as  much 

Mr.  LAYTON.  If  they  do,  they  elected  a I Per  centage  as  is  allowed  here. 

Republican  treasurer  in  Richland  county,  and  j Mr.  SAMPLE.  There  appear  to  be  certain 
my  friend  went  on  his  bond.  They  are  that  j propositions  about  which  there  is  no  contro- 
kind  of  people  there.  They  maj^  abuse  it.  Now,  j versy  at  all.  There  is  no  disposition  to  deny 


they  do  not  in  my  little  village.  We  made 
test  there  upon  an  assessment.  They  attempted 
to  defeat  the  old  council,  who  assessed  up  to  the 
last  mill  that  they  had  power  to  assess,  and  we 
elected  that  council  by  three  votes  to  one. 
There  may  be  an  isolated  case  where  they 
assess  too  much.  I admit  that  they  do  it, 
sometimes.  But  being  responsible  to  the 
people,  elected  every  year,  there  are  but  few 
who  will  take  the  risks  of  being  forever  de- 


this  power  to  Municipal  Corporations — the 
power  to  make  provision  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  territory  within  the  limits  of  the 
corporation,  by  means  of  special  assessment 
upon  the  property.  That  power  is  liable  to  be 
abused.  It  has  been  abused  under  the  present 
Constitution,  so  as  to  amount,  in  fact,  to  an 
actual  confiscation  of  the  property,  so  that  the 
property  is  carried  away  from  the  owner  en- 
tirely and  no  benefit  derived  whatever,  either 


barred  from  holding  office  by  the  people,  liav-  j from  the  property  which  was  previously  of 
ing  exceeded  their  powers.  I am  satisfied,  sir,  i some  value,  or  from  the  improvements  made, 
that  in  the  county  I represent,  the  jiroperty  on  | That  has  been  the  operation  of  the  law  under 
the  tax  duplicate  is  not  over  forty  per  cent,  of  j the  present  Constitution ; and  only  in  so  far  as 
the  true  valuation,  which  would  make  it  equiv-  ] it  has  been  limited  by  legislation  during  a part 
alent  to  eight  per  cent,  if  this  limit  of  ten  per  of  that  time,  has  the  property-holder  had  any 
cent,  is  fixed.  I trust,  then,  that  you  will  well  j protection  or  any  assurance,  whatever,  that  his 
consider  before  you  say  to  us  representing  i property  might  not  be  assessed  to  such  an 
these  villages  and  small  corporations,  that  you  j amount  as  would  destroy  its  value,  and  work  a 
shall  not  levy  to  improve  your  streets,  you  shall  practical  confiscation  of  that  property.  Now, 
travel  through  the  mud  upon  your  sidewalks;  i we  are  about  making  a provision  which,  in  the 
where  there  should  be  sidewalks  shall  be  mud ; j light  of  the  experience  we  have  had  under  the 


that  your  streets,  instead  of  being  macadamized, 
shall  be  mud  roads,  and  that  you  shall  be  in  a 
state  of  semi-barbarism,  so  far  as  improvements 


are  concerned.  I trust,  sir,  that  we  are  verg- 
ing towards  a state  of  civilization,  at  least. 

And  we  ask  that  we  may  be  allowed  to  levy  at 
least  ten  per  cent.,  if  we  choose,  for  these  im- 
provements. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I think  that  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  should  be  sustained.  The  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman  last  on  the  floor  is  not 
at  all  pertinent.  If  it  were  a matter  of  general 
taxation,  about  which  we  were  talking,  it  would 
be  proper.  But  I understand  assessment  to  be 
a very  different  thing.  And  it  strikes  me  that, 
assuming  the  fact  that  property  is  not  on  the 
duplicate  at  an  average  of  over  fifty  or  sixty 
per  cent.,  and  that  the  assessment,  as  was  re- 
marked by  some  gentleman,  will  not  occur  gen- 
erally in  its  heaviest  form  upon  property  that 
may  be  at  its  maximum  of  value,  but  upon  out- 
lying property,  which,  upon  our  usual  system 
of  assessment,  will  generally  bring  it  at  about 
one-fourth  of  its  value,  ten  per  cent,  upon  it  is 
a very  small  tax.  But,  sir,  I concede  the  neces- 
sity of  placing  some  limit  upon  the  taxing  | w _ _ 

power  of  the  Legislature,  as  to  the  assessments  i to  enhance  the  property  through  which,  ami 
upon  this  property.  Without  some  limit,  there  ! adjacent  to  which,  the  improvements  are  made, 


present  Constitution,  requires  that  this  Conven- 
tion should  impose  some  limit  by  which  the 
property-holder  in  one  of  those  Municipal  Cor- 
porations, shall  be  protected  and  his  property 
shall  not  be  liable  to  be  confiscated  and  taken 
away  from  him.  But  it  is  not  disputed,  I be- 
lieve, by  any  gentleman  on  this  floor  that  the 
improvements  shall  be  made,  and  that  a rea- 
sonable power  shall  be  exercised  in  the  assess- 
ment of  the  cost  of  improvements  upon  the 
property.  It  is  a necessary  power,  it  is  a just 
power ; and  I think  the  argument  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  on 
yesterday,  was  conclusive  to  every  mind 
of  the  injustice  of  making  an  assessment 
for  the  improvement  of  outlying  property,  and 
for  the  enhancement  of  its  value,  upon  a city 
which  has  already  been  improved  by  the  expen- 
diture of  money  collected  by  assessment  from 
the  owners  of  property  within  it.  The  reason- 
ableness of  making  these  assessments  is  disputed 
by  no  one.  Well,  then,  it  is  assumed  that  they 
are  to  be  made.  They  are  to  be  made  for  the 
purpose  of  benefiting  the  public;  for  the  com- 
mon benefit  of  all,  and  their  effect  will  be 
largely,  and,  in  many  instances,  very  largely, 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1329 

February  13, 1874.]  Sample,  Root,  West,  etc. 


and  that,  in  consequence  of  that  improvement, 
and  of  the  tendency  of  such  improvements  to 
benefit  city  property,  the  assessment  ought  to 
be  made  upon  that  property.  But  it  ought  to 
be  limited,  as  I have  stated,  so  that  the  property 
holder  may  be  protected.  Upon  these  proposi- 
tions we  all  agree,  and  the  only  question  now, 
I think,  which  is  a question  of  practical  econ- 
omy more  than  a question  of  municipal  govern- 
ment, is,  how  shall  this  amount  be  ascertained, 
and  in  what  proportion  shall  it  be  paid  ? Now, 
to  my  mind,  it  seems  that  there  ought  to  be  a 
limit  to  the  amount  of  assessment,  so  that  the 
municipality  should  not  be  authorized  to  assess 
a tax  beyond  a given  per  cent,  of  the  actual 
value  of  any  piece  of  property,  under  any  pre- 
text, whatever;  so  that  the  owner  may  have  a 
residuum  of  interest  there ; that  he  may  not  be 
ousted  and  driven  from  his  property,  but  have 
an  interest  there  of  a valuable  character,  and 
one  that  it  will  be  his  interest  to  protect  by 
paying  an  assessment  which  is  made  against 
it.  To  this,  if  there  is  no  other  proposition 
offered,  I propose  to  offer  an  amendment,  limit- 
ing it  to  what,  I suppose,  would  be  a proper 
amount.  And  I suppose  that  the  question  now 
before  the  Convention  is,  what  proportion  of  it 
shall  be  collected  in  any  one  year,  and  how 
shall  it  be  distributed?  The  mover  of  the 
amendment  now  before  the  Convention,  sug- 
gested that  the  amount  to  be  assessed  upon  any 
property  should  not,  at  any  time,  exceed 
twenty-five  per  cent,  of  its  value  upon  the  tax 
duplicate.  Well,  suppose  that  to  be  so.  Then, 
how  shall  this  twenty-five  per  cent,  be  paid, 
and  how  long  shall  it  run  ? In  what  proportion 
shall  he  be  required  to  pay  it?  Well,  that  is  a 
question  of  economy  merely.  What  would  be 
most  to  the  interest  of  the  property-holder? 
What  would  be  most  to  the  general  interest  of 
the  community,  of  the  property-holder,  and 
the  tax-payer  ? Would  it  be  to  fasten  upon  his 
property  a debt  which  should  extend  through 
five  years,  as  contemplated  by  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  ? 
I think  not.  I do  not  suppose  that  there  is  a 
man  in  this  Convention  now  that  would  be 
willing  to  undertake  an  improvement  which 
would  be  expected  to  extend  through  five  years, 
and  upon  the  terms  that  the  payments  would  be 
made  in  five  annual  installments  to  the  con- 
tractor who  would  make  that  improvement, 
I think  that  every  man  who  has  any  experience 
at  all,  will  know  that  this  would  be  the  most 
costly  improvement.  I think  that  this  delay 
would  be  the  most  unproductive  investment 
that  could  be  attempted  by  any  individual  who 
was  interested  in  the  matter.  What  would  be 
the  eflfeGt  of  it  ? Suppose  that  an  assessment  is 
made  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  on  a piece  of 
property,  for  making  an  improvement  in  con- 
nection with  the  property,  and  it  is  a part  of 
the  arrangement  that  that  shall  be  paid  in  five 
annual  installments  not  drawing  interest;  and 
that  the  contractor,  by  whom  these  improve- 
ments which  are  to  be  made,  shall  receive  these 
annual  installments  as  they  shall  fall  due. 
What  would  be  the  terms  on  which  he  would 
expect  to  take  that  contract?  Would  it  be  such 
terms  as  any  person  would  say  were  consistent 
with  the  principles  of  prudence  and  economy  ? 
I think  not.  Now, . it  is  said  it  is  burdensome 

y.  n-86 


to  pay  taxes.  Certainly  it  is.  It  is  always  bur- 
densome to  pay  taxes ; but  the  question  is  one 
of  economy  in  paying  taxes.  The  payment  of 
taxes  for  an  improvement  is  regulated  by  pre- 
cisely the  same  principles  of  economy  which 
regulate  the  payment  of  any  other  improve- 
ment that  is  to  be  made.  If  a man  were  going 
to  make  a contract  for  the  improvement  of  his 
lot,  what  would  be  to  his  interest?  I say  it 
would  be  to  his  interest  to  mortgage  his  home, 
or  the  house  that  was  to  be  erected  upon  it,  so 
as  to  raise  the  ready  money,  and  pay  ready 
money  for  the  improvement  of  his  lot.  And 
if  a man  is  going  to  buy  a horse,  it  is  better  for 
him  to  go  to  a usurer  and  borrow  money  at  ten 
per  cent.,  aye,  one  per  cent,  a month,  and  pay 
the  cash  for  his  horse;  better  than  for  him  to 
go  in  debt  for  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  What  is  the  difference?  Might 
he  not  as  well  go  in  debt  for  the  horse  as  to  go 
in  debt  for  the  money  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes;  but  he  goes  into  the 
horse  market  to  buy  a horse  with  the  money  in 
his  pocket.  He  has  choice  of  all  the  horses  in 
the  market,  to  pick  and  choose.  But  if  he  has 
not  the  money,  he  must  go  to  a man  that  is  wil- 
ling to  sell  on  credit.  There  is  the  difference. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  gentleman  from  Coshocton 
[Mr.  Sample]  is  a better  horse-jockey  than  the 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns].  Laugh- 
ter. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I thank  the  gentleman  for 
his  compliment.  It  is  the  first  one  I have  re- 
ceived lately.  I am  proud  of  it.  [Laughter]. 

I say  that  I think  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention will  agree  with  me,  that  it  is  not  deter- 
mined by  the  principles  which  regulate  the 
amount  of  taxation.  It  is  assumed  that  a given 
sum  is  to  be  assessed  on  a given  lot,  and  the 
only  question  is,  what  is  it  to  the  interest  of  the 
owner  of  that  lot,  what  provision  is  most  con- 
clusive to  the  interest  of  the  holder  of  the  title 
to  that  lot  in  reference  to  that  payment?  My 
judgment  is,  it  is  not  that  it  shall  be  strewn 
over  five  years,  but  that  it  shall  be  limited  to  a 
much  briefer  period  of  time.  Now,  I would 
suggest  that  twenty-five  per  cent,  is  the  maxi- 
mum that  may  be  assessed.  Let  the  payment 
be  limited  according  to  the  provisions  of  this 
Report  to  ten  per  cent,  the  first  year,  ten  the 
second,  and  five,  the  third.  That,  I think,  will 
be  so  extended  as  not  to  be  burdensome  upon 
any  individual  who  may  own  property.  And 
it  will  be  better  for  the  individual,  if  it  becomes 
necessary  to  pledge  his  property  to  raise  the 
money  to  make  the  payment  in  that  way,  than 
to  have  the  contract  let  with  the  understanding 
that  the  payment  must  be  so  extended.  Then 
look  at  this : Who,  ordinarily,  would  go  into 
the  contracting  business  in  making  valuable  im- 
provements, if  the  payments  were  to  extend 
through  a period  of  five  years?  Why,  it  would 
be  a man  that  had  capital,  one  that  had 
means  to  invest,  and  he  would  do  it  in  such  a 
way  as  to  make  the  money  he  invested  in  the 
present  performance  of  the  work  that  he  under- 
took to  perform,  a profitable  investment,  as  an 
investment  of  capital,  in  addition  to  the  expense 
of  the  labor  of  performing  the  work. 

Mr.  WEST.  I believe  the  amendment  pro- 
vides that  the  indebtedness  is  not  to  exceed  five 
per  cent,  in  any  one  year  on  the  tax  duplicate. 


/ 


1330 MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

West,  Root,  Sample,  etc. 


[113th 

[Friday, 


The  PRESIDENT.  “ No  assessment  shall  be 
levied  by  any  Municipal  Corporation  upon  any 
property  which  shall  require  the  payment  in 
any  one  year  of  more  than  five  per  centum  of 
its  value,  as  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate.” 
Mr.  BURNS.  I suggest  in  connection  with 
that,  that  it  shall  not  in  the  aggregate  exceed 
twenty-five  per  cent. 

Mr.  WEST.  I understand  his  proposition  is 
to  limit  the  assessment  for  any  one  year  to  five 
per  cent.  Now,  I would  differ  with  my  friend 
from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample],  with  regard  to 
his  views  of  economy,  and  my  difference  of  opin- 
ion grows  out  of  some  observations  in  the  mat- 
ter. We  have  instituted  in  my  county,  and  I 
believe  the  same  thing  prevails  in  many  coun- 
ties of  the  State,  the  policy  of  constructing 
public  roads  by  assessment,  the  improvement 
of  public  roads,  graveling,  grading,  etc.,  and 
the  assessments  run  five  years.  Bonds  are  is- 
sued for  their  payment,  at  the  rate  of  six  or 
seven  per  cent,  interest,  drawn  on  the  county 
and  payable  at  the  county  treasury.  Now, 
those  county  bonds  are  all  easily  and  readily 
negotiated  and  the  money  raised  upon  them. 
There  is  no  difficulty  in  negotiating  them,  be- 
cause they  are  payable  at  the  county  treasury, 
and  the  money  is  always  to  be  had.  They  are 
generally  negotiated  at  very  nearly  par.  They 
are  negotiated  on  much  more  favorable  terms 
than  the  mortgaged  private  securities  of  any  pri- 
vate individual  or  individuals  would  be  nego- 
tiated. Therefore,  it  results  in  a very  large 
saving,  which  the  usurer  does  not  put  in  his 
pocket  against  the  private  individual,  because 
the  negotiating  of  a private  security  generally 
requires  the  payment  of  much  more  excessive 
usury  than  the  negotiation  of  a public  bond. 
Bonds  are  usually  issued  to  run  five  years,  pay- 
able with  interest,  and  the  assessment  is  distrib- 
uted for  five  years.  We  have  experienced  that 
it  is  the  easiest  and  best  mode  of  doing  busi- 
ness. It  can  be  done  in  that  way  much  more 
cheaply  than  to  borrow  money  at  private  secu- 
rity, and  the  result  is  that  we  can  get  our  pub- 
lic works  built  on  tolerably  reasonable  and  fair 
terms.  And,  besides,  it  does  not  oppress  any- 
body scarcely,  not  very  greatly,  at  all  events. 
Now,  an  assessment  of  ten  per  cent.,  or  fifteen, 
or  twenty  per  cent,  sometimes  involves  the  sell- 
ing of  a portion  of  the  entire  farm,  in  order  to 
meet  the  liability.  Although  it  does  not  take 
the  whole  farm  there  must  be  a sale  of  some  of 
its  parts.  But,  if  it  be  extended  through  a pe- 
riod of  five  or  ten  years,  the  owner,  in  the 
meantime  may,  by  daily  labor  or  the  products 
of  his  farm,  raise  the  amount  in  himself,  by  his 
own  resources,  by  his  own  industry;  where- 
as, if  it  is  put  upon  him  so  rapidly  he 
cannot  do  it.  If  he  is  compelled  to  bor- 
row, he  goes  into  the  hands  of  the  usurer 
who  may  put  upon  him  ten  or  twenty  per 
cent.;  the  per  cent,  he  pays  depending  upon  his 
ability  and  promptness  as  a pay-master.  My 
judgment  is,  that  it  is  better  to  limit  this,  and 
the  amount  can  be  made  by  the  individual,  by 
his  own  resources.  Let  the  General  Assembly 
provide  for  the  issuing  of  bonds  payable  out  of 
the  treasury  and  met  by  the  assessment  as  it  be- 
comes due  and  payable  each  year. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 


Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Whether  it  is  not  the  fact,  gener- 
ally, that  the  credit  of  counties  is  better  than  the 
credit  of  individuals,  in  negotiating  bonds? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Whether  he  does  not  deem  the 
credit  of  counties,  generally,  better  than  the 
credit  of  towns  in  negotiating  bonds? 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  yes;  as  a general  rule  it  is 
better.  But  the  credit  of  towns  is  better  than 
the  credit  of  a great  many  individuals  residing 
in  the  town. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  1 wish  to  ask  the  gentleman 
one  question. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I understand  the  theory  upon 
which  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West],  is  based  to  be  this : that  the 
town  shall  go  on  upon  its  own  credit,  make  the 
improvement  and  then  look  to  the  assessment  to 
reimburse  the  town. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  the  way. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Is  it  the  understanding  that 
the  same  principle  should  be  applied  to  Munic- 
ipal Corporations  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  The  bonds  are  issued.  They  are 
payable  at  the  county  treasury  and  they  are 
payable  out  of  the  assessments  after  they  are 
annually  collected. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  strik- 
ing out  ‘‘ten”  and  inserting  “five.” 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded, taken,  and  resulted — yeas  35,  nays  44, 
as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright, Beer, Blose, Burns,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson, Coats,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Gard- 
ner, Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Kerr,  McBride,  Mc- 
Cormick, Mitchener,  Neal,Okey,Phellis,  Reilly, 
Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sears,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley, 
Tuttle,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  West,  White  of 
Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
President — 35. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bannon,  Bishop, Bosworth, 
Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Clay,  Cowen, 
Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kreamer,  Layton, 
Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller,  Page,  Pond,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Sample,  Shultz,  Townsend,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Ty- 
ler, YanYalkenburgh, Waddle,  White  of  Brown, 
Wilson— 44. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  to  amend,  by  inserting 
after  the  words  “per  centum,”  and  before  the 
word  “if,”  in  line  three,  these  words:  “and 
shall  not  in  the  aggregate  exceed  twenty-five 
per  cent.,”  so  that  it  will  read  : “shall  require 
the  payment  in  any  one  year  of  more  than  ten 
per  centum,  nor  in  the  aggregate  more  than 
twenty-five  per  centum  of  its  value,  as  ascer- 
tained by  the  tax  duplicate. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  offers  the  following 
amendment:  “Insert  in  section  3,  third  line, 

after  the  words  ‘ per  centum,’  the  following 
words : ‘ and  shall  not  in  the  aggreate  exceed 
twenty-five  per  centum,’  so  that  it  shall  read  : 
* No  assessment  shall  be  levied  by  any  munici- 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1331 

February  13, 1874.]  Hunt,  Beer,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  CunninghaxM,  etc. 


pal  corporation  upon  any  property,  which  shall 
require  the  payment  in  any  one  year  of  more 
than  ten  per  centum,  and  shall  not,  in  the  ag- 
gregate, exceed  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  its 
value,  as  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate.’” 

Mr.  HUNT.  I move  that  the  Convention 
take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12:35  p.  m.,)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  P.  M. 

Mr.  BEER.  Is  there  any  amendment  pend- 
ing? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns] 
is  pending. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  to  suggest,  with  the 
leave  of  the  Convention,  a little  addition  to  my 
amendment,  so  that  it  will  make  it  what  I in- 
tended it  to  be.  The  amendment  was  drawn 
up  hastily, and  without  time  to  prepare  it;  and 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hoadly],  I propose  to  add,  at  the  end 
thereof,  these  words,  “ in  any  period  of  ten 
years,”  so  that  it  will  read:  “or  shall  in  the 
aggregate  exceed  twenty-five  per  centum  in 
any  period  of  ten  years.”  With  the  leave  of 
the  Convention,  I shall  add  that  to  it. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  amendment  as  proposed. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Or  shall  in  the  aggregate  exceed  twenty-five  per 
centum  in  any  period  of  ten  years-”  So  that  the  section 
will  read: 

“No  assessment  shall  be  levied  by  any  Municipal  Cor- 
poration upon  any  property  which  shall  require  the  pay- 
ment in  any  one  year  of  more  than  ten  per  centum,  or  in 
the  aggregate  exceed  twenty-five  per  cent,  in  any  period 
of  ten  years,  ot  its  value,  as  ascertained  by  the  tax  du- 
plicate.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  suggests  that  I change  the  word 
“ assessment”  to  assessments. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I wish  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. Burns]  whether, 
in  the  form  he  presents  it,  he  intends  it  to  refer 
to  an  assessment  for  any  one  purpose  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I intend  it  to  cover  all  assess- 
ments. That  is  the  reason  for  the  suggestion  to 
change  the  word  “ assessment.”  With  the 
leave  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  I shall  add  “s”  to  the  word  “assess- 
ment.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  a separate  matter, 
which  can  come  up  afterwards. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  rather  that  would 
stand  until  the  vote  is  taken  upon  the  other. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  in  line  three:  “Or  shall  in  the 
aggregate  exceed  twenty-five  per  centum  in 
any  period  of  ten  years.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  it  never  be  in 
order  to  say  anything  upon  that? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Y'es,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  “It  shall  not,  in  the 
aggregate,  exceed  twenty-five  per  centum  in 
any  period  of  ten  years.”  It  appears  to  me 
that  this  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  there  shall 
be  no  assessment  at  all. 


Mr.  POWELL.  Certainly  it  is,  and  that  is 
what  is  intended. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I simply  mean  this,  if  I may 
be  allowed,  that  there  may  be  twenty-five  per 
centum  of  the  value  assessed.  It  may  be  ten 
per  cent.,  one  year,  or  it  may  be  divided  into 
amounts  of  two  and  a half  per  cent,  each  year, 
so  that  in  ten  years  there  shall  be  no  more  than 
twenty-five  per  cent,  upon  the  property. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  to  say  that  if 
twenty-five  per  cent,  is  assessed  for  improve- 
ments, there  shall  be  no  more  assessments  upon 
that  property  until  ten  years  shall  have  elapsed. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  what  I intend  exactly. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly  the  Conven- 
tion does  not  propose  to  adopt  such  a provision. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  1 would  like  to  inquire  of 
the  gentleman  what  he  would  do,  if  there  was 
are-assessment  of  the  duplicate  in  that  time? 
Tie  up  the  city  for  that  time? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Certainly,  that  is  intended. 
You  cannot  put  any  other  intention  upon  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I am  opposed  to  under- 
taking to  legislate  in  any  such  way.  The  du- 
plicate might  be  reduced  or  might  be  raised  in 
ten  years,  and  who  is  going  to  decide  what  the 
provision  shall  be  applied  to? 

Mr.  BEER.  How  will  it  be  under  the  section 
as  it  now  stands  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  ten  per  cent,  for  a 
year,  and  whatever  the  duplicate  is  for  that 
year  it  will  be  controlled  by. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  see  that  the  applica- 
tion on  the  duplicate  has  anything  to  do  with 
the  assessment  at  all,  except  to  increase  or  di- 
minish the  amount  that  may  be  received  accord- 
ing to  the  per  cent. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  inquire — I did 
intend  to  have  inquired  of  the  gentleman  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  and  perhaps  will  now 
if  he  will  consider  himself  entitled  to  be  inter- 
rogated— what  does  he  understand  about  it? 
Does  he  wish  there  shall  be  no  limitation?  Does 
he  wish  the  General  Assembly  shall  have  power 
to  make  assessments  equal  to  the  entire  value  of 
property  in  a period  of  ten  years,  or  make 
assessments  subject  to  no  limitations,  except 
that  no  more  than  ten  per  cent,  shall  be  paid 
each  year  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I shall  answer  what, 
if  I were  fixing  it,  I would  desire  to  do.  1 
would  limit  any  assessment  upon  property  to 
twenty-five  per  cent.,  so  that  the  property  should 
not  any  time  bear  more  than  that  amount.  I 
am  surprised  at  the  terms  of  the  amendment.  I 
would  not  so  tie  up  the  authority  of  a town 
that  after  twenty-five  per  cent,  had  been  levied, 
no  more  public  improvements  should  carry  un- 
til the  period  of  ten  years  had  elapsed.  The 
idea  I had  in  this  is,  that  you  should  not  tax  in- 
dividuals or  property  so  that  payment  would 
become  burdensome;  I would  have  it  so  that 
the  municipal  authorities,  after  this  burden  of 
twenty-five  per  cent,  had  been  removed,  and 
there  was  a further  necessity  of  further  im- 
provement, might  provide  for  further  taxation. 

Mr.  WEST.  How  many  times  a year  would 
you  put  it  on  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  I were  a member 
of  a municipal  government,  I would  not  put  on 
twenty-five  per  cent,  in  one  year  or  two  years 
or  three  years:  but  I would  continue  the  sys- 


1332 


[113th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


Cunningham,  Sears,  Tuttle,  Griswold,  etc.  [Friday, 


tern  of  taxation  to  the  extent  that  the  public 
interest  required.  This  proposition  is,  that 
there  shall  be  only  an  average  assessment  upon 
property  to  the  extent  of  two-and-a-half  per 
cent,  per  annum,  on  the  tax  duplicate.  That  is 
the  average  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns].  Twenty -five  per  cent, 
for  the  period  of  ten  years  would  be  two-and-a- 
half  per  cent,  per  annum.  It  would,  in  fact, 
make  it  entirely  useless  and  profitless  to  make 
assessments  at  all.  After  the  limit  has  been 
reached,  then  the  public  improvement  about 
property  which  is  affected  by  the  first  assess- 
ment, shall  be  stopped. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  him  a question? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Is  not  the  assessment,  as  it 
appears  on  the  tax  duplicate,  the  basis  of  the 
value  of  the  assessment  of  all  kinds? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Would  you  establish  a different 
valuation  for  the  assessment  of  these  particular 
taxes  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No,  sir;  of  course  I 
would  not. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Then  you  cannot  reach  it  in 
any  way. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  What  I mean  to  say 
is  this:  that  by  the  terms  of  the  amendment,  an 
assesment  of  only  twenty-five  per  cent,  can  be 
made  in  any  period  of  ten  years,  and,  at  the 
outside,  that  assessment  can  be  collected  in  three 
years.  The  town  council,  or  the  town  author- 
ities, shall  have  no  power  to  provide  for  fur- 
ther assessments.  Every  year  we  pay  taxes  to 
the  State.  Every  year  we  pay  taxes  to  the 
county.  Every  year  we  pay  taxes  to  the  town. 
And  it  would  be  just  like  this  body  limiting  the 
amount  of  general  taxes  that  may  be  assessed 
in  any  given  period.  How  do  we  know  what 
the  necessities  of  the  public  may  be  in  the  fu- 
ture ? While  the  contingency  of  war  may  be 
provided  for  by  a subsequent  section,  it  would, 
nevertheless,  be  wrong  in  practice  for  us  to 
limit  the  exact  amount  which  should  be  levied 
even  by  the  State  or  by  a county  in  any  given 
period  of  time. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Does  the  gentleman  think  that 
a man’s  property  ought  all  to  be  taken  for  pub- 
lic improvements? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Does  he  think  it  ought  all  to 
be  taken  in  ten  years  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Is  not  one-quarter  enough  to 
take  in  ten  years  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  may  be  that  the 
public  interests  would  be  such  that  even  one- 
quarter  would  be  a great  deal  too  much ; but 
in  the  course  of  a series  of  years  all  of  our 
property,  of  whatever  value,  is  taken  by  the 
State. 

Mr.  SEARS.  That  is  enough,  without  having 
it  taken  by  the  corporation  in  addition  to  that. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  does  not  apply. 
It  illustrates  nothing.  What  I mean  to  say  is 
this:  Whenever  you  limit  the  amount  to  ten 
years,  it  will  have  the  effect  of  cutting  off  a 
large  portion  of  the  necessary  improvements. 
We  must  recollect  that  a system  of  taxation  and 
assessments  is  necessary.  In  our  towns,  both 


great  and  small,  it  must  of  necessity  be  left  to 
the  men  who  are  in  authority  in  the  town. 
While  you  say  they  shall  not  tax  to  an  extent 
that  will  become  burdensome  and  oppressive 
upon  the  people,  it  is  not  right  to  say  that,  in  a 
period  of  ten  years,  or  so  long  as  this  taxation 
shall  be  so  limited,  assessments  cannot,  in  case 
of  emergency,  be  levied. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  the  amendment — the 
principle  of  it,  at  least— will  prevail.  I do  not  say, 
absolutely,  that  twenty-five  per  cent,  is  enough. 
If  it  is  not  enough,  let  it  be  increased ; though  I 
think  it  is.  If  any  body  wants  forty  or  fifty,  let 
them  say  so.  If  that  is  not  sufficient,  and  if 
they  want  to  take  the  whole,  let  them  say  that; 
but  let  us  understand  what  we  are  required  to 
submit.  In  reference  to  this  matter  of  assess- 
ments, it  is  very  easy  to  see,  as  it  stands,  with- 
out some  such  provision  as  the  one  proposed,  it 
really  amounts  to  nothing,  only  as  to  the  time 
of  payment.  A city  undertakes  to  lay  out  a 
street.  The  first  thing  is  to  provide  compensa- 
tion to  the  land  owners.  What  do  they  do? 
They  compensate  him  by  assessing  the  amount 
on  his  own  land  and  making  him  pay  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  levy  it  on  the  whole 
length  of  the  streets,  and  on  the  streets  adjoin- 
ing it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  On  the  street  itself,  the  law 
says  it  may  be  levied,  sometimes  even  on  a part 
of  it.  There  is  no  limit  fixed  to  that,  at  all.  In 
the  next  place,  they  say,  we  must  sewer  this 
street.  They  do  that,  and  they  assess  the  cost 
of  it  upon  the  adjoining  land.  That  is  the 
second  assessment;  yet  this  is  necessary,  and 
made  necessary  when  the  city  says,  we  shall 
establish  a street  and  open  it.  The  next  thing 
is  to  grade  and  pave  the  street,  and  the  first 
thing,  after  they  have  made  an  ordinance  deter- 
mining to  do  that,  is  to  call  upon  the  land  own- 
ers to  put  in  a claim  for  damages.  If  any  body 
thinks  it  is  going  to  leave  him  way  up  in  the 
heavens  above  that  street,  that  it  is  going  to  set 
him  down  here  twenty  or  thirty  feet  below  the 
surface,  he  puts  in  a claim  for  damages,  which 
are  awarded  to  him,  and  then  another  assess- 
ment upon  him  is  made  to  pay  that.  That  makes 
three  assessments.  The  next  thing  is  to  assess 
the  expense  of  grading  and  paving.  That  is 
the  fourth  assessment  that  comes  from  laying 
out  a street.  Not  always,  although  they  may 
all  come,  and  naturally  do  come.  Of  course,  I 
do  not  suppose  it  always  takes  twenty-five  per 
cent,  for  each — sometimes,  perhaps,  not  for  all. 
I know  it  does  not,  but  I know  it  might  take 
twenty-five  per  cent,  to  pay  any  one  of  them, 
and  if  it  does  not  take  twenty-five  per  cent,  for 
each,  it  may  take  enough  so  that  they  will,  alto- 
gether, amount  to  a great  deal  more  than  twenty- 
five  per  cent. 

Suppose  you  take  this  section  just  as  it  is, 
without  the  amendment.  What  is  there  to 
prevent  assessing,  in  any  one  year,  the  entire 
amount  of  all  these  four  assessments,  although, 
in  the  aggregate,  they  may  amount,  as  they 
sometimes  do,  to  the  entire  value  of  the  prop- 
erty? The  provision  does  not  prevent  that. 
The  lot  may  be  a corner  lot,  or  it  may  be  that 
it  is  of  peculiar  depth 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me  to  interrupt  him? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  In  one  moment and  there 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1333 

February  13,  1874.J  Cunningham,  Tuttle,  Griswold,  Powell. 


is  a street  on  the  other  side  of  the  land,  and 
they  go  through  with  the  same  process  again. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Did  I understand  the 
gentleman  to  say  four  assessments  might  be 
made,  under  the  section,  as  it  is  now,  in  one  year, 
above  ten  per  cent.  ? 

Mr,  TUTTLE.  I do  say  they  might  be  made 
in  one  year. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
permit  me  to  call  his  attention  to  the  lan- 
guage ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I know  how  it  reads.  I know 
you  can  make  him  pay  but  ten  per  cent,  in  one 
year;  but  there  is  no  limitation  as  to  the  time 
over  which  this  payment  may  be  extended,  and 
that  may  be  any  number  of  years  that  may  be 
necessary  to  pay  the  whole  assessment  at  ten 
per  cent,  per  annum. 

The  gentlemen  talk  about  this  just  as  if  a 
provision  of  this  kind  would  have  the  effect  of 
preventing  improvement  in  cities.  I do  not  so 
understand  it,  nor  do  I understand  it  will  stop 
improvements  being  made  just  as  they  ought  to 
be  made — just  as  our  supreme  court,  when  they 
had  the  matter  before  them,  early  stated  they 
ought  to  be  made.  If  the  public  want  a street 
through  my  land,  let  the  public  pay  for  it.  If 
they  do  not  want  it  enough  to  pay  for  it,  let  it 
alone. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Suppose  that  nine-tenths 
of  the  people  that  own  the  land,  want  a street? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Then,  let  nine-tenths  pay 
for  it.  I do  not  mean  to  say  I would  establish 
that  principle.  I do  not  mean  to  say  that  would 
be  exactly  just ; but  I do  mean  to  say  that,  there 
would  be  a limit  to  which  I would  not  allow 
them  to  go  in  the  other  direction. 

Let  us  see  if  there  is  any  principle  involved. 
I can  refer  to  my  own  city  for  an  illustration. 
Before  the  passage  of  the  municipal  code,  they 
undertook  to  pave  the  streets,  and  they  begun, 
of  course,  upon  those  that  were  most  important, 
where  men  were  in  the  possession  of  lots  from 
sixteen  to  twenty-five  feet  front,  and  where  the 
land,  without  any  buildings  upon  it,  was  worth, 
perhaps,  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  a foot, 
and  where  the  buildings  would  rent  for  (for  the 
first  story)  from  six  hundred  to  one  thousand 
dollars  a year.  They  assessed  them  for  paving 
the  street,  and  every  dollar  they  paid  out  for 
pavements,  benefited  those  who  were  doing 
business  a great  deal  more  than  it  did  people 
that  lived  in  the  outskirts  of  the  town.  They 
were  assessed  a very  small  portion  even  of  the 
rental  value.  It  amounted  to  a bagatelle,  to 
nothing  hardly  upon  the  duplicate  value  of  the 
property ; but" then  the  municipal  code  was  en- 
acted and  provided  that  assessments  should  not 
be  more  than  twenty-five  per  cent.  But  they 
went  on  extending  and  grading  the  other  streets 
a considerable  distance  out.  Some  people 
wanted  it  done,  and  some  did  not.  The  prop- 
erty owners  in  the  center  said,  we  have  paid  for 
our  pavement,  they  had  paid,  some  of  them,  much 
more,  but  some  not  more,  perhaps,  than  a cent 
and  a-half  on  the  dollar  of  the  full  value  of  their 
property,  while  twenty-five  per  cent,  assessed 
upon  other  property  would  not  pay  for  paving, 
grading  and  the  other  improvements.  So  they 
went  to  the  Legislature,  under  this  special  sys- 
tem of  legislation,  which  some  gentlemen  wish 
to  preserve  so  much,  and  got  the  Legislature  to 


provide  that  they  might  assess  fifty  per  cent,  on 
the  dollar,  and  went  forward  and  graded  and 
assessed  where  it  was  necessary,  limited  only 
by  the  fifty  cents  on  a dollar. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  any  one  to  tell  me  that 
there  is  any  justice  in  that,  for  there  is  no  justice 
in  it.  I was  very  glad  to  have  the  improvements 
made.  I thought  I could  raise  the  money,  as, 
in  fact,  I have,  by  divine  permission,  except  the 
last  half  of  the  "last  year’s  payment,  which  is 
one  hundred  dollars,  the  whole  being  six  hun- 
dred dollars  upon  the  lot  I happen  to  live  on. 
But  it  was  not  so  with  every  man,  and  I think 
we  should  be  allowed  a little  liberty  in  this 
country  with  regard  to  this  matter. 

I do  not  declaim  at  all  against  the  justice  of 
making  those  who  own  property  about  a city 
contribute,  to  some  extent,  to  the  benefits. 
There  should  be  a limit.  If  twenty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  property  is  not  enough  to  be  taken 
every  ten  years,  let  it  be  larger ; nevertheless, 
let  there  be  a limit.  If  forty  per  cent,  is  not 
enough,  make  it  fifty.  If  fifty  is  not  enough, 
make  it  seventy-five.  If  seventy-five  is  not 
enough,  make  it  the  entire  amount;  but  do  not 
charge  anything  extra.  Let  it  be  fixed  so  that 
a man  may  know  something  where  he  stands. 
It  is  my  opinion,  that  twenty-five  per  cent,  is 
enough. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I am  thinking  that  this 
Convention  is  throwing  a great  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  towns  and  cities  making  that  improve- 
ment that  the  people  are  calling  for  themselves. 
It  has  been  overlooked  here  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  these  assessments  are  generally  made. 
They  are  not  estimated  by  the  value  of  the 
property.  That  is  one  way ; but  the  statute  and 
our  practice  has  been  in  two  ways  instead  of 
one.  It  provides  that  when  an  improvement  is 
made,  the  cost  of  the  improvement  may  be 
assessed  upon  the  lands  upon  the  street,  either 
according  to  the  value  of  the  property,  pro  rata , 
or  by  the  foot,  so  that  each  lot,  according  to  its 
number  of  feet,  pays  pro  rata  for  the  expense  of 
making  the  improvements.  There  is  a street  in 
my  neighborhood,  in  Delaware,  that  has  grown 
up  very  rapidly  within  a few  years,  and  the 
street  is  not  yet  graded;  but  there  is  very  little 
grading  to  be  done.  It  is  not  macadamized,  but 
they  intend  it  shall  be,  nor  are  the  pavements 
laid.  They  are  now  about  proceeding  to  do 
this,  at  the  request  of  the  people  who  live  on 
that  street.  I think  that  the  statute  requires 
that  it  shall  be  done  at  the  instance  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  proprietors  of  the  street.  It  may 
be  a majority,  but  I think  it  is  two-thirds. 
They  petition  that  the  corporation  proceed  to 
have  the  improvements  made,  grading,  macad- 
amizing, and  laying  the  pavements  of  the  street, 
and  charge  it  to  each  lot  according  to  the  value 
of  each  lot,  or  pro  rata  per  front  foot.  It  is  ex- 
pected to  be  assessed  pro  rata  per  foot  front,  as 
that  is  the  most  equitable,  according  to  advan- 
tage accruing  to  each  lot. 

Now,  how  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  to  apply,  where  the 
people  themselves  ask  that  it  shall  be  done,  and 
determine  to  have  these  improvements  ? Is  it 
right  for  me  to  say  to  the  others,  if  I do  not 
wish  the  improvements,  that  I shall  not  pay  for 
it,  although  I receive  the  benefit  of  it?  I think 
we  should  not  reduce  it  down  to  what  has  been 


1334 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Powell,  Sample,  Root,  Cunningham. 


[1  1 3 th 

[Friday^ 


proposed  here.  I do  not  know,  now,  whether 
the  sum  of  five  or  ten  per  cent,  is  fixed;  hut  I 
believe  no  sum  can  be  fixed,  and  do  what  is 
just  and  right  in  all  cases.  It  is  best  to  leave  it 
open  for  the  Legislature  and  the  people  to  fix 
it  at  what  the  exigency  of  each  ease  may  re- 
quire. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Ten  per  cent. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Ten  per  cent,  per  annum  is 
enough ; but  if  you  confine  that  to  the  extent  of 
twenty-five  per  cent,  in  ten  years,  you  cannot 
get  these  improvements  made  in  those  parts  of 
the  towns  and  cities  that  are  new.  That  would 
answer  very  well  in  the  old  parts  of  the  towns, 
but  where  these  are  most  likely  to  be  wanted,  in 
the  new  parts  of  towns,  it  will  not  answer  at  all  ; 
because  it  will  not  be  sufficient  to  make  the 
improvements.  I think  we  ought  to  give  more 
latitude  to  the  Legislature  to  determine  these 
things,  as  progress  and  time  determine  them, 
and  as  the  people  may  want  them.  We  ought 
to  say,  if  the  limit  is  to  be  fixed  at  all  as  to  the 
value  of  property,  it  should  be  fifty  per  cent. 
Fifty  per  cent,  in  ten  years,  possibly  would  do, 
but  twenty-five  per  cent.,  in  the  way  these  gen- 
tlemen propose,  will  not  do.  It  will  stop  the 
improvements  altogether. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  Proposition,  as  it  came 
from  the  hands  of  the  Committee,  limits  the 
amount  to  be  assessed  at  ten  per  cent,  per  an- 
num, but  that  may  be  continued  every  year. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Proposition  that  will 
prevent  municipal  authorities  from  making  as- 
sessment upon  every  parcel  of  real  estate,  with- 
in the  limits  of  the  Municipal  Corporation,  of 
ten  per  cent.  That,  I think,  all  will  agree,  is  a 
burden  that  no  property  can  bear;  and  that  it 
will  practically  amount  to  confiscation ; for 
that  amount  would  be  in  addition  to  the  annual 
taxes,  which  are  imposed  for  State,  county  and 
municipal  purposes.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  these  are  not  all  the  taxes  that  are  assessed, 
that  municipal  taxes  are  assessed  upon  all 
property.  In  addition  to  these  special  assess- 
ments there  are  State  taxes,  and  county  taxes, 
and  township,  and  all  other  taxes,  whatever 
they  may  be,  of  every  character,  which  are  ac- 
cumulating in  Municipal  Corporations,  towns 
and  cities,  to  such  an  extent  as  to  make  them 
burdensome  to  holders  of  property.  All  of 
these  taxes  will  have  to  be  paid  in  addition  to 
the  ordinary  taxes  which  are  assessed  as  regu- 
lar taxes.  These  assessments  come  in  for  the 
purpose  of  making  special  improvements.  The 
question  then  is  whether  these  assessments 
shall  be  without  limit.  To  say  that  corpora- 
tions are  assessed  ten  per  cent,  annually,  and 
that  they  shall  be  limited  to  that  amount,  and 
shall  be  at  liberty  so  to  shape  the  municipal 
regulations  and  assessments  as  to  impose  a tax 
of  ten  per  cent,  annually  upon  any  piece  of 
property  indefinitely,  is  to  say  that  they  have 
a right  to  destroy  its  value  entirely.  Now,  for 
the  purpose  of  avoiding  that,  the  gentleman 
from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  has  introduced  his 
amendment,  which  provides  that,  while  there 
shall  be  no  more  than  the  ten  per  cent,  assessed 
in  any  one  year,  and  the  aggregate  assessment 
for  ten  years  shall  not  exceed  twenty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  greater  value  of  all  the  property  as 
it  appears  upon  the  tax  duplicate.  Now,  the 
question  is  whether  this  is  enough  or  not.  It 


will  be  observed  that  property  is  subject  to  tax- 
ation without  any  special  assessment,  which  I 
suppose,  ordinarily,  does  not  fall  below  two  per 
cent.,  and  I suppose  it  is  generally  more  than 
that. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I think  there  is  not  a city  or 
town  in  Ohio,  between  ten  and  fifty  thousand 
inhabitants,  in  which  the  taxes,  aside  from  as- 
sessments, does  not  exceed  three  per  cent. 

I Mr.  SAMPLE.  Suppose  it  to  be  two  and  a 
half  per  cent.,  which  is  certainly  an  assumption 
most  favorable  to  those  who  oppose  this  reduc- 
tion of  assessment.  Suppose  the  assessment  for 
general  purposes,  other  than  special  assess- 
ments, is  two  and  a half  per  cent.  The  provi- 
sion here  is  to  add  another  two  and  a half,  and 
allow  the  town  authorities,  year  after  year,  dur- 
ing the  whole  life  of  this  Constitution,  to  put  on 
an  addition  of  two  and  a half  per  cent.  It  will, 
at  the  very  least  assumption,  make  an  annual 
assessment  upon  every  parcel  of  property  in 
every  Municipal  Corporation  within  the  State 
of  Ohio  of  five  per  cent.,  during  the  life  of  this 
Constitution;  and  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  if  that  would 
not  satisfy  almost  every  individual  in  the  State 
of  Ohio — to  pay  an  annual  assessment  of  five 
per  cent,  upon  every  piece  of  property  which 
he  may  hold?  Will  not  that  satisfy  any  ordin- 
ary tax  payer  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I assume  that  the  local 
authorities  would  have  some  sense  of  the  pro- 
priety of  an  assessment  they  are  authorizing, 
and  there  would  be  no  necessity  for  that 
amount  of  taxation. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I call  the  gentleman’s  atten- 
tion to  something  which  is  not  a matter  of  spec- 
ulation, but  is  a matter  of  record.  I read  from 
the  eighteenth  volume  of  the  Ohio  State  Re- 
ports, to  show  with  what  discretion  corporate 
authorities  exercise  this  power.  The  case  is 
one  which  was  brought  from  the  city  of  Toledo, 
and  I shall  read  one  clause  of  the  syllabus : 

“Under  the  Municipal  Corporation  Act  of  1852,  as 
amended  March  11th,  1853,  the  city,  by  ordinance,  deter- 
mined to  make  certain  streets,  and  to  assess  the  expenses 
upon  abutting  lands.  The  contractor  accordingly  went 
on  to  do  the  work,  the  city  binding  itself  to  pay*  him  a 
certain  specified  price  in  the  following  manner.” 

The  contract  then  recited,  “that  when  the 
work  was  done,  the  amount  should  be  assessed 
by  the  city,  and  the  assessment  assigned  to  the 
contractor ; held  that  the  city  was  not  liable  for 
any  deficiency  resulting  from  the  fact  that  the 
assessment  upon  the.  land  exceeded  the  value.” 
That  was  one  of  the  discreet  acts  of  a city  cor- 
poration. The  plaintiff  went  on  and  did  the 
work.  The  assessments  were  made  upon  the 
abutting  lots,  and  were  assigned  to  the  con- 
tractor. The  plaintiff  instituted,  in  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court,  for  the  Northern  District  of 
this  State,  suits  to  enforce  the  collection  of  the 
amount  due  on  the  assessment  from  the  prop- 
erty, which  suits  were  brought  to  a successful 
termination,  and  resulted,  in  respect  to  several 
lots,  in  their  sale,  and  after  applying  the  pro- 
ceeds to  the  payment  of  the  costs,  it  terminated 
in  leaving  a considerable  amount  of  assessments 
unpaid.  There  is  the  record  of  an  instance 
showing  the  operation  of  this  unlimited  author- 
ity of  a city  corporation,  and  the  discretion 
with  which  city  corporations  exercise  their 
power.  There  were  several  lots  which  were 


Day.]  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS.  1335 

February  13,  1874.]  Cunningham,  Sample,  Miner. 


assessed  to  such  an  amount  that  when  the  lots 
were  sold,  and  applied  to  the  payment  of  assess- 
ments, the  owners  were  set  free  from  any  con- 
cern about  the  lots,  and  the  men  who  had  the 
assignment  of  the  assessment  did  not  receive 
their  money  in  full;  so  that  these  lots  were 
assessed  beyond  their  value,  and  utterly  confis- 
cated, so  far  as  the  rights  of  the  property- 
holders  were  concerned. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  the  gentleman  will 
permit  me,  the  result  of  his  argument  is  this : 
that  no  odds  what  the  necessity  may  he,  the 
filling  up  of  a hole,  swamp  or  pond,  in  the 
middle  of  a city,  which,  in  its  condition  is  of 
no  value  at  all,  the  work  shall  not  be  carried 
forward  by  the  corporation  unless  the  cost  is 
confined  to  the  limit  that  is  proposed.  That  is 
the  proposition. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  case  that  the  gen- 
tleman refers  to,  I venture  to  say,  was  an  ex- 
traordinary case.  These  lands  were  either  very 
low  or  very  high.  Some  prime  necessity  of  the 
city  required  the  exercise  of  this  extraordinary 
assessment.  Without  this,  such  a work  never 
would  be  put  in  practice  in  the  State.  The  re- 
sult would  be  this : Suppose  there  were  a neces- 
sity for  a street  to  be  cut  down.  It  is  necessary  for 
the  improvement  of  the  street,  and  for  the  busi- 
ness of  the  street.  The  council,  in  the  exercise  of 
its  discretion — and  a wise  discretion — say,  with 
reference  to  it,  whether  that  street  be  opened. 
The  gentleman  would  have  stopped  all  proceed- 
ings, unless  the  cost  was  within  the  limit  that 
is  proposed. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  gentleman  says  that  the 
necessities  of  the  case  require  it.  We  have  an 
old  maxim  that  necessity  is  always  the  tyrant’s 
plea ; and  I am  in  favor  of  relieving  these  cor- 
porations from  this  necessity.  The  principle  is 
unjust.  No  necessity  will  justify  a corporation 
in  taking  a man’s  property  from  him  without 
paying  any  consideration  for  it.  On  what  prin- 
ciple will  any  man  undertake  to  advocate  such 
an  appropriation  of  a man’s  property  in  taking 
it  away,  and  turning  him  off  without  any  show 
of  title,  and  divesting  him  of  his  title  to  prop- 
erty which  he  holds  under  a right  to  which  he 
was  entitled.  I say  I would  interfere  with  any 
proposition  to  carry  on  a system  of  improve- 
ments which  would  have  the  effect  to  authorize 
a town  council  of  any  town  in  this  State  to  en- 
ter upon  a man’s  property,  and  turn  him  out  of 
possession,  and  appropriate  it  for  the  use  of  the 
town,  without  compensation,  in  express  viola- 
tion of  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  and 
the  bill  of  rights. 

It  is  for  that  purpose,  then,  I favor  the  adop- 
tion of  some  rule  by  which  the  rights  of  men 
shall  be  protected;  that  they  shall  have  some 
rights  which  a town  council  shall  be  bound  to  re- 
spect. I do  not  profess  to  be  acquainted  with 
the  subject.  It  is  one  with  which  I am  prac- 
tically entirely  unacquainted.  But  I think 
there  ought  to  be  some  rule  which  will  operate 
as  a restraint  upon  the  exercise  of  this  arbitrary, 
this  inequitable,  unjust,  oppressive  and  tyran- 
nical power.  There  ought  to  be  something 
which  will  say  to  a town  corporation  that  they 
shall  not  confiscate  a man’s  property ; and,  if 
twenty-five  per  cent,  is  not  enough — if  five  per 
cent,  per  annum  is  not  enough  for  town  prop- 


erty to  be  taxed,  let  it  be  increased.  Let  there 
be  an  addition;  but  let  there  be  some  point  fixed 
where  the  property-holder  may  stand  against 
the  encroachment  and  usurpations  of  a town 
council ; so  that  he  will  feel  that  there  is  some 
security,  so  that  he  will  know  that  he  possesses 
something  that  he  can  call  his  own. 

Mr.  MINER.  I entirely  agree  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample],  that  this 
mode  of  confiscating  property  should  not  be 
permitted.  There  is  no  justice  in  it,  whatever ; 
but  I would  say  to  gentlemen  that,  in  my  expe- 
rience, the  doctrine  has  been  attempted  to  be 
carried  further  than  that,  and  I am  told  that  it 
has  practically  been  carried  to  that  extent  in  the 
city  of  Toledo.  I do  not  know  how  that  may 
be.  When  I was  on  the  superior  bench,  a suit 
was  tried  before  me  to  recover  against  the 
owner  a personal  judgment  for  the  balance  of 
an  assessment,  after  exhausting  his  entire  prop- 
erty assessed  for  the  improvement. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  To  keep  him  from  running 
away  after  his  lot  had  gone  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  Yes,  sir;  and  that  is  carrying 
the  doctrine  a good  deal  further. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Was  judgment  re- 
covered in  your  court  in  that  case  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  Not  much.  There  seems  to 
me  to  be  some  misapprehension  about  the  nature 
of  these  assessments.  This,  as  I understand  it, 
is  not  in  the  nature  of  taxes,  is  not  a thing  that 
you  can  properly  apportion  through  a series  of 
years,  putting  it  at  two-and-a-half  per  cent, 
like  the  general  taxes,  or  five  per  cent,  a year, 
or  anything  of  that  sort.  That  does  not  meet 
the  case.  An  improvement  of  a certain  char- 
acter is  contemplated ; grading  and  paving  a 
street,  making  sidewalks,  and,  probably  con- 
nected with  it,  the  sewerage  of  the  street. 
These  improvements  have  to  be  made,  and  it  is 
prudent  and  economical  to  do  all  the  work  at 
once,  so  that  when  finished  it  may  remain  un- 
disturbed, and  not  be  torn  up  for  one  purpose 
after  another,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  mainly 
to  make  jobs  for  contractors — one  job  after  an- 
other, doing  one  thing  at  a time.  Suppose  you 
confine  it  to  opening  and  grading  and  paving 
streets  and  sidewalks.  These  of  themselves 
often  constitute  an  expensive  job,  and  you 
want  to  assess  the  expense  of  it  upon  the  abut- 
ting property.  Suppose,  upon  the  valuation  of 
the  tax  duplicate  that  whole  expense  amounts 
to  fifty  per  cent.  There  are  plenty  of  instances 
in  this  city  where  improvements  have  been 
made  costing  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the 
the  property  as  assessed  for  taxation,  and  yet  the 
owners  were  greatly  enriched  thereby.  That, 
perhaps,  is  too  high,  as  a general  rule.  Per- 
haps there  ought  to  be  a limit  preventing  any 
improvements  that  will  cost  so  large  a propor- 
tion of  the  value  of  the  property  ; unless  all  the 
property-holders  interested  voluntarily  agree 
to  it.  I think  there  should  be  a fixed  limit  of 
the  amount  assessable  for  such  improvements. 
But  difficulty  will  arise  in  attempting  to  dis- 
tribute such  assessments  through  a series  of 
years,  and  providing,  at  the  same  time,  that  the 
maximum  assessment  for  a given  number  of 
years  shall  not  exceed  a fixed  per  cent.  The 
great  cost  is  in  the  first  instance.  Tf  the  entire 
improvement  is  done  at  once,  and  well  done,  it 
will  not  soon  want  to  be  done  again;  the  after 


1336 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS [118tb 

Miner,  Sample,  Powell,  Tuttle,  Page.  [Friday, 


expense  in  keeping  it  in  repair  will  be  very 
small,  and  needs  not,  it  seems  to  me,  be  limited. 
When  we  limit  the  first  outlay,  that  is  for  mak- 
ing the  improvement,  I think  we  have  done  all 
that  prudence  requires. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  theory  is  that  it  may  be 
all  assessed  within  three  years,  but  the  whole 
assessment  for  the  ten  years  shall  be  included 
within  the  three  years  assessment. 

Mr.  MINER.  I understand  that;  but  you 
exhaust  your  power  of  assessment  in  three 
years.  You  have  nothing  left  for  contingencies ; 
nothing  for  ordinary  repairs,  and  the  work  may 
go  to  destruction  for  want  of  a small  outlay  at 
the  proper  time,  which  you  have  no  power  to 
make.  I cannot  vote  for  the  amendment  as  it 
is,  and  I have  not  the  ability  to  suggest  what 
ought  to  be  done,  for  the  whole  subject  to  me  is 
one  of  difficulty,  and  has  been  since  it  has  been 
under  discussion. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  not  fifty  per  cent,  the 
least  rate  that  should  possibly  be  fixed? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  these  im- 
provements oftentimes  have  to  be  repeated  on 
account  of  mistakes  in  the  grade  in  the  first 
instance?  For  instance,  in  the  city  of  Chicago, 
was  not  that  city  graded  some  four  times,  and 
in  several  instances  walks,  etc.,  had  to  be 
changed  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  That  has  not  been  the  case  to 
any  great  extent,  here.  Mistakes,  of  course, 
occur,  but  I do  not  think  they  amount  to  much. 

I would  not  know  how  to  meet  a mistake  of  that 
sort.  The  abuse  that  we  have  most  to  complain 
of  is  doing  piecemeal.  It  very  frequently  oc- 
curs, that  very  shortly  after  a street  is  graded 
and  paved,  it  is  broken  up  for  the  purpose  of 
laying  down  water  or  gas  pipes,  or  the  con- 
struction of  a sewer,  as  it  has  seemed  to  me  for 
the  mere  purpose  of  making  extra  jobs. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I shall  vote  for  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns],  and  I think  the  result  of  that  amend- 
ment will  lead  to  an  adoption  of  the  principle 
that  will  be  brought  before  the  Convention,  as 
I understand,  at  the  close  of  the  consideration 
of  this  Article,  by  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer].  The  Committee  that  reported 
this  Article  were  not  agreed  on  this  subject  of 
local  assessments.  Some  of  the  Committee 
were  in  favor  of  compelling  the  owner,  as  here- 
tofore had  been  the  practice  in  this  State,  to  pay 
the  whole  cost  of  the  assessment.  Others  were 
in  favor  of  paying  it  out  of  the  general  treasury 
of  the  proper  corporation.  Others  thought  it 
should  be  apportioned.  The  Report  was  signed 
by  a mere  majority,  as  appears  from  that  Re- 
port. Three  members  were  in  favor,  by  way  of 
compromise,  of  having  this  assessment  appor- 
tioned between  the  owners  of  the  property  and 
the  municipal  treasury.  Now,  if  we  adopt  this 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns],  the  result  will  be  that,  if  cities  or 
towns  or  villages  desire  improvements  that  ex- 
ceed the  sum  fixed  in  that  limitation  of  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  the  residue  can  be  paid  out  of  the 
treasury  of  the  city,  town,  or  village,  as  the 
case  may  be,  and  that  is  probably  where  it 
ought  to  come  from  in  all  cases.  This  subject 
is  attended  with  a great  deal  of  difficulty,  and 
whatever  rule  you  may  adopt,  is  accompanied 
by  inconvenience  and  instances  of  hardship  and  ‘ 


injustice.  I think  if  we  adopt  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns], 
we  can  get  out  of  the  difficulty  by  allowing 
the  residue  of  the  money  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
general  treasury  of  the  proper  corporation. 

I shall  read  upon  the  subject  some  remarks 
from  a case  decided  in  Wisconsin,  where  the 
judge  considered  this  matter  of  compelling  the 
owner  of  the  property  to  pay  the  whole  assess- 
ment. The  remarks  are  somewhat  brief,  and 
he  considers  the  matter  in  a more  striking  and 
forcible  manner,  than  I have  seen  it  treated  in 
any  other  place : 

“This  equality  in  the  burden  constitutes  the  very  sub- 
stance designed  to  be  secured  by  the  rule.  But  the  prin- 
ciple upon  which  these  assessments  rest  is  clearly 
destructive  of  this  eq  iality.  It  requires  every  lot  owner 
to  build  whatever  improvements  the  public  may  require 
on  the  street  in  front  of  his  lot,  without  reference  to  in- 
equalities in  the  value  of  the  lots,  in  the  expense  of  con- 
structing the  improvements,  or  the  question  whether  the 
lot  is  injured  or  benefited  by  their  construction.  Corner 
lots  are  required  to  construct  and  keep  in  repair  three 
times  as  much  as  other  lots;  and  yet,  it  is  well  known 
that,  the  difference  in  value  bears  no  proportion  to  their 
difference  in  burden.  In  front  of  one  lot  the  expense  of 
building  the  street  may  exceed  the  value  of  the  lot,  and 
its  construction  may  impose  on  the  owner  additional  ex- 
pense to  render  his  lot  accessible.  In  front  of  another  lot 
of  even  much  greater  value,  the  expense  is  comparitive- 
ly  slight.  These  inequalities  are  obvious;  and  I have  al- 
ways thought  that  the  principle  of  such  assessments  was 
radically  wrong.  They  have  been  very  extensively  dis- 
cussed, and  sustained  upon  the  ground  that  the  lot  should 
pay  because  it  receives  the  benefit.  But  if  this  be  true, 
that  the  improvements  in  front  of  a lot  are  made  for  the 
benefit  of  the  lot  only,  then  the  right  of  the  public  to  tax 
the  owner  at  all  for  that  purpose  fails;  because  thepublie 
has  no  right  to  tax  the  citizen  to  make  him  build  improve- 
ments for  his  own  benefit  merely.  It  must  be  for  a public 
purpose;  and  it  being  once  established  that  the  construc- 
tion of  streets  is  a public  purpose  that  will  justify  taxa- 
tion. I think  it  follows,  if  the  matter  i3  to  be  settled  up  >n 
principle,  that  the  taxation  should  be  equal  and  uniform, 
and  that  to  make  it  so,  the  whole  taxable  property  of  the 
whole  political  division  in  which  the  improvement  is 
made,  should  be  taxed  by  a uniform  rule,  for  the  purpose 
of  construction. 

“But  in  sustaining  these  assessments,  when  private  prop 
erty  was  wanted  for  a street,  it  has  been  said  that  the  State 
could  take  it,  because  the  use  of  a street  was  a public  use; 
in  order  to  justify  a resort  to  the  power  of  taxation,  it  is 
said  the  building  of  a street  is  a public  purpose.  But,  then, 
having  got  the  land  to  build  it  on,  and  the  power  to  tax, 
by  holding  it  for  a public  purpose,  they  immediately 
abandon  that  idea,  and  say  that  it  is  a private  benefit, 
and  make  the  owner  of  the  lot  build  the  whole  of  it.  I 
think  this  is  the  same  in  principle  as  it  would  be  to  say, 
that  the  town  in  which  the  county  seat  is  located  should 
build  the  county  buildings,  or  that  the  county  where  the 
capital  is  should  construct  the  public  edifices  of  the  State, 
upon  the  ground  that,  by  being  located  nearer  they  de- 
rived a greater  benefit  than  others.” 

I said  that  there  were  three  different  modes 
of  requiring  payment  of  this  assessment;  one 
wholly  by  the  land  owner,  and  I have  read  the 
opinion  of  the  Wisconsin  judge,  which  shows 
how  inequitable  this  is.  Another  is,  to  have 
the  whole  sum  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury. 
I shall  read  some  extracts  from  the  opinion  of 
Judge  Slidell,  in  a case  in  tenth  volume  of  the 
Louisiana  Reports  on  that  subject.  He  says : 

“For  thirty  years  the  rule  has  been  followed  of  impos- 
ing a portion  of  the  *cost  of  paving  upon  the  owner  of 
property  adjoining  the  street  paved. 

“My  conviction  is,  that  the  system  of  paying  for  local 
improvements  wholly  out  of  the  general  treasury  is  in- 
equitable and  will  result  in  great  extravagance,  abuse 
and  injustice. 

“I  think  the  system  of  making  particular  localities, 
which  are  specially  benefited,  bear  a special  portion  of 
the  burden,  is  safer  aud  more  just  to  the  citizens  at  large, 
by  whose  united  contributions  the  city  treasury  is  sup- 
plied.” 

I have  discovered  that  this  latter  system, 
which  has  prevailed  in  Louisiana  for  a great 


Day.] 

February  13,  1874.] 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Page,  Hoadly,  West,  etc. 


1337 


many  years — the  apportionment  of  the  cost  of 
the  assessments  between  the  owners  and  the 
public  treasury — has  also  prevailed  in  many 
other  States,  and  we  have  applied  it,  in  some 
instances,  in  Ohio.  The  minority  of  this  Com- 
mittee that  made  this  Report,  were  in  favor  of 
an  apportionment,  and  would  adjust  this  matter 
between  the  owner  and  the  public,  say,  upon 
the  proportion  of  fifty  per  cent.,  to  be  paid  out 
of  the  public  treasury,  and  the  residue  by  the 
owner.  I signed  the  Majority  Report,  but  did 
it  with  considerable  reluctance,  and  stated,  at 
the  time,  that  when  this  matter  came  up  for 
consideration,  if,  upon  further  reflection  or 
hearing  of  arguments,  I should  change  my 
opinion,  I would  vote  for  this  provision  recom- 
mended by  the  minority,  and  1 feel  inclined  to 
so  vote.  I think  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  will  lead  to  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment  that  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  proposes  to  offer. 
It  seems  to  me,  that  these  assessments  ought  to 
be  paid  in  this  way. 

There  are  inconveniences  and  advantages  on 
both  sides  of  the  question,  and  we  can  only  do 
in  this  as  in  all  other  matters,  strike  a balance. 
That  is  the  only  way  that  any  advancement  in 
matters  of  policy  is  made  which  will  lead  to 
the  most  beneficial  results — striking  a balance 
between  advantages  and  disadvantages  in  re- 
gard to  all  questions  of  a similar  nature.  I 
think  the  proper  thing  for  us  to  do  is  to  adopt 
the  principle  that  prevails  in  the  State  of  Lou- 
isiana. 

I shall  make  one  more  remark  with  regard  to 
the  suggestion  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Richland- [Mr.  Burns],  as  to  this  word  assess- 
ment, in  the  third  section  of  the  Municipal  Ar- 
ticle. I am  clearly  of  opinion  that  that  ought 
to  be  assessments.  It  might  be  held  that  no 
assessment  meant  no  single  assessment,  and  if 
the  construction  should  be  adopted  that  the 
Supreme  Court  laid  down  with  regard  to  the 
Ferguson  bill,  there  might  be  a place  for  Mr. 
Ferguson  to  put  in  a crowbar,  and  throw  this 
provision  out  of  the  Constitution ; nullifying  it 
by  judicial  construction. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  simply  to  say  that  if  the  section  remains  as 
it  is,  I am  instructed  by  the  Committee  to  report 
unanimously  their  desire  that  the  word  “ assess- 
ment” be  changed  to  the  plural — that,  of  course, 
depends  upon  whether  it  remains  as  it  does. 

Mr.  WEST.  Listening  to  the  various  re- 
marks and  propositions,  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  if  he 
will  accept  a substitute  making  some  little 
modification  of  his  amendment,  having  at  the 
end  of  the  section  these  words : 

“Nor  shall  the  aggregate  assessments  thereon,  in  any 
period  of  ten  years,  lor  all  purposes  other  than  repairs, 
exceed  twenty -five  pn*  cent,  on  the  highest  taxable  val- 
uation thereof  during  the  same  period.” 

Mr.  BURN'S.  I have  great  confidence  in  the 
ability  of  the  gentleman  to  condense  in  a very 
few  words  an  important  proposition,  but  I cannot 
now  say  whether  it  will  meet  my  approbation  or 
not. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

The  Secretary  read : 


“Nor  shall  the  aggregate  assessment  thereon,  in  any 
period  of  ten  years,  lor  all  purposes,  other  than  repairs, 
exceed  twenty-five  per  cent,  on  the  highest  taxable  valu- 
ation thereof  during  the  same  period.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  a substitute  I shall  not 
be  willing  to  accept,  because  it  does  not  limit  as 
to  repairs. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  willing  to  strike  out  the 
words  “other  than  repairs.”  There  is  some 
plausibility  in  the  suggestion  that  property  may 
advance  by  reason  of  repairs  around  it  very 
rapidly  during  the  period  of  ten  years,  and  if  a 
limit  is  to  be  founded  on  the  original  valuation,- 
on  the  twenty-five  per  cent.,  it  may  operate  as 
too  great  a limitation.  For  example,  a lot 
worth  a hundred  dollars  may  increase  to  the 
value  of  a thousand  dollars.  Twenty-five  per 
cent,  on  the  hundred  dollar  valuation  would 
probably  operate  unwisely;  but  at  every  peri- 
od of  five,  six,  or  eight  years  there  is  a re-valu- 
ation, and  this  twenty-five  per  cent,  aggregate 
on  the  assessment  will  be  increased  by  that  re- 
valuation, it  being  twenty-five  per  cent,  on  its 
highest  valuation. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  my  amendment  does  not 
reach  what  I intend  it  shall  reach,  I shall 
gladly  accept  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West].  For  instance,  there 
is  an  assessment  made  on  a piece  of  property  of 
ten  per  cent.,  and  it  is  valued  at  ten  thousand 
dollars.  At  the  end  of  five  years  from  this 
time,  the  authorities  desire  to  make  another  as- 
sessment of  ten  per  cent.  Between  the  two  pe- 
riods the  property  had  been  re-appraised,  and  it 
may  be  either  higher  or  lower  than  it  was.  My 
understanding  of  my  amendment  is,  that  the 
second  assessment  would  apply  to  the  valuation 
as  it  stood  at  the  time  the  assessment  was  made, 
and  then  at  a period  of  five  years  more — that  is, 
at  the  end  of  ten  years,  they  desire  to  assess 
five  per  cent.  more.  That  five  per  cent,  would 
be  assessed  upon  the  second  valuation,  the  same 
as  the  second  assessment  was.  If  my  amend- 
ment does  not  reach  that,  I am  willing  to  accept 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West], 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  my  impression  that  it 
does  not.  That  is  the  reason  I make  that  slight 
modification. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I thought  it  did,  but  I may  be 
mistaken. 

Mr.  WEST.  I desire  to  make  a single  re- 
mark, and  then  I shall  sit  down.  The  hardship 
that  has  been  suggested  will  necessarily  exist 
under  this  system  of  assessments,  in  our  towns 
and  villages.  It  will  be  impossible  to  avoid  it 
by  any  rule  that  may  be  adopted,  and  yet  such 
is  the  policy  of  our  modern  civilization,  that 
every  gentleman  who  comes  into  a village  comes 
in  under  the  legal  contemplation  that  he  be- 
comes a part  and  parcel  of  that  community,  under 
a system  of  laws  that  subjects  him  to  this  kind 
of  assessment  and  taxation.  He  does  it  know- 
ingly, because,  such  being  the  law,  he  enters 
into  the  community  with  the  understanding 
and  implied  agreement  that  he  will  bear  with 
this  assessment,  and  submit  to  the  rules  that  ap- 
ply to  the  government  and  control  of  the  vil- 
lage. He  goes  there  with  the  understanding 
that  the  town  or  village  or  city  may  grow  up 
around  him,  and  he  plants  himself  upon  a piece 
of  property  with  the  implied  determination  and 


1338 


[113th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

West,  Powell,  Beer,  etc. 


understanding  that,  probably,  the  growth  of  our 
civilization  and  our  enterprise  may  build  up  a 
town  or  city  about  him,  and  in  the  event  that 
that  occurs,  there  is  an  implied  agreement  upon 
his  part,  that  he  will  bear  a part  and  parcel  of 
the  burdens  that  follow  the  improvements  in 
which  his  lot  is  cast.  That  being  the  case  it  will 
give  an  enormous  extraordinary  power  to  this 
community  to  do  a great  deal  of  hardship,  un- 
less there  are  restraints  and  limitations.  These 
restraints  and  limitations  certainly  ought  to  he 
imposed. 

If  we  could  always  have  such  a Board  of  Al- 
dermen as  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervis- 
ors, as  doubtless  would  be  elected  in  Lima,  there 
would  not  be  any  danger  of  that,  but  sometimes 
we  have  such  men  elected  in  Logan  county, 
and  other  counties  that  I might  name,  that  are 
not  so  entirely  scrupulous  as  they  otherwise 
might  be  if  elected  elsewhere,  and  sometimes 
they  run  jobs.  Sometimes  you  get  men  in  the 
Council  of  Cincinnati  that  are  not  particular  as 
to  the  extent  of  the  jobs  run,  and  I have  seen  it 
done  in  other  towns  and  localities.  We  must, 
therefore,  guard  against  this  slight  infirmity  of 
human  nature,  for  it  is  a slight  infirmity ; that  is 
all  there  is  of  it.  But  it  is  prudent  to  guard 
against  the  existence  of  such  things  as  do  ex- 
ist in  some  localities,  not  up  at  Lima,  I want 
that  to  be  understood,  but  elsewhere. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  the  gentleman  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Under  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  I appre- 
hend this  to  be  the  case,  that  greater  payment 
than  ten  per  cent,  would  not  be  collected  in 
one  year. 

Mr.  WEST-  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Nor  twenty-five  per  cent,  in 
ten  years? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Now,  take  a lot  upon  a new 
street,  where  a lot  is  worth  a thousand  dollars. 
They  put  on  twenty-five  per  cent,  at  once,  col- 
lecting ten  per  cent,  during  that  year,  and  the 
twenty-five  per  cent,  answers  for  the  ten  years. 
Suppose  in  three,  or  four,  or  five  years  after 
that,  that  lot  should  be  worth  ten  thousand  dol- 
lars, instead  of  one  thousand  dollars — 

Mr.  WEST.  Very  well;  do  you  mean  that  it 
is  taxed  at  ten  thousand  dollars  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is  put  upon  the  duplicate 
at  one  thousand,  and  it  was  taxed  twenty-five 
per  cent,  at  once  to  pay  for  the  improvement  of 
the  street,  and  the  owner  will  say,  I am  free  for 
ten  years;  but  in  three,  or  four,  or  five  years 
that  lot  goes  up  to  ten  thousand, — he  will  claim 
the  same  thing.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
what  he  would  do,  provided  they  did  not  make 
the  assessment  by  valuation,  but  by  the  foot,  as 
they  do  in  most  cases? 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  think  they  will  assess  | 
it  by  the  foot,  under  this  proposition. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I think,  upon  a close  examina-  ; 
tion,  I shall  accept  the  amendment  suggested  | 
by  the  gentleman  from  LoganHMr.  West]. 

Mr.  WEST.  I shall  answer  the  venerable  ; 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  that  | 
twenty-five  per  cent,  on  one  thousand  is  less  , 
than  twenty-five  per  cent,  on  ten  thousand,  j 
When  they  desire  to  make  another  assessment,  | 


[Friday, 


they  will  get  a duplicate,  and  say  how  much 
that  property  is  valued  at,  or  they  will  add  to 
the  original  assessment  twenty-five  per  cent,  on 
the  thousand,  or  twenty-five  per  cent  on  the  in- 
creased valuation,  and  thus  get  twenty-five  per 
cent,  on  ten  thousand  dollars,  just  what  this 
provides.  There  is  an  increase  in  valuation,  and 
there  will  be  an  increase  of  assessment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Does  not  the  gentleman  see 
that  that  does  wrong  ? There  has  been  at  least 
one  thousand  dollars  assessment  in  the  ten 
years.  If  he  is  going  to  put  it  on  at  ten  thou- 
sand dollars,  the  increased  value,  you  will  tax 
one  thousand  dollars  twice  over. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  you  will  read  the  proposi- 
tion, you  will  find  that  it  is  not  so,  “or  the  ag- 
gregate assessment  shall  not  exceed  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  of  the  valuation.” 

The  highest  assessment  is  ten  thousand  dol- 
lars. The  aggregate  assessment  will  be  twen- 
five  per  cent,  of  ten  thousand  dollars : they  are 
all  to  be  included,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned, 
and  I think  that  that  limitation  which  is  so 
reasonable  and  just  ought  to  be  adopted. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  is  a matter  of  great  regret 
that  the  minority  of  the  Committee  could  not 
agree  with  the  majority  on  the  section  reported* 
The  minority  of  the  Committee  reported  in  fa- 
vor of  amending  this  section  by  adding,  at  the 
end  of  it,  these  words : 

“Nor  shall  more  than  one-half  of  the  cost  of  any  im- 
provement be  collected  by  assessment,  unless  the  consent 
of  at  least  two-thirds,  in  number  and  value,  of  the  own- 
ers of  the  property  to  be  assessed,  shall  have  been  at  first 
obtained.” 

This,  as  has  been  remarked  by  the  gentleman 
from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  adding  to  it  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns],  as  amended  by  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  would  relieve  the  sec- 
tion of  all  difficulty.  If  there  is  any  necessity 
in  any  case  for  making  such  improvements  as 
the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham] 
has  suggested,  if  the  public  has  such  great  need 
of  them,  they  can  be  made  by  the  public  pay- 
ing therefor.  That  will  make,  instead  of  twen- 
five  per  cent.,  fifty  per  cent.,  which  will  pay  for 
all  the  improvements  that  could  be  asked  for. 

There  is  another  matter,  however,  that  is  not 
met  by  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  minor- 
ity of  the  Committee,  or  by  the  majority  of  the 
Committee.  I believe  it  to  be  a great  piece  of 
wickedness,  as  sometimes  practiced  in  a city,  of 
appropriating  private  property  to  public  uses 
and  assessing  the  cost  on  the  owner;  and  yet 
the  principle  is  sustained  under  our  Constitu- 
tion by  a decision  of  the  supreme  court  found 
in  the  Eighteenth  Ohio  State  Reports,  (case  of 
Cleveland  vs.  Wick).  That  is,  the  council  may, 
by  the  terms  of  that  decision,  appropriate  pri- 
vate property  for  the  purposes  of  a street  or  an 
alley,  and  under  the  Constitution, before  taking 
possession,  the  city  is  bound  to  make  the  owner 
compensation.  They  do  that  out  of  the  trea- 
sury, and  to  reimburse  the  treasury,  they  turn 
around  and  assess  the  whole  cost  of  the  property 
taken  and  the  expenses  of  appropriating  it,  in 
addition,  upon  the  other  property  of  the  owner. 
To  illustrate  : they  find  lot  A,  and  they  want  to 
make  lot  A and  lot  B out  of  it,  by  driving  a street 
through  the  center  of  it.  They  declare  by  or- 
dinance that  public  necessity  requires  this  to  be 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  13, 1874.1  Beer,  Cook,  Howland,  West,  T utile,  Hoadly,  Townsend. 


1339 


done.  They  go  to  the  probate  court  and  call  in 
to  their  assistance  twelve  men  and  appraise  the 
value  of  the  property  and  then  assess  the  dam- 
ages, and  go  to  the  county  treasury  and  get  the 
money  and  pay  the  owner  of  the  property  for 
the  land  taken  and  the  damage  done.  As  soon 
as  this  is  accomplished,  they  undertake  to  re- 
imburse the  treasury.  They  have  now  made 
lot  A and  lot  B,  and  they  assess  the  owner  one- 
half  the  cost  of  the  land  taken  on  lot  A,  and 
the  other  half  on  lot  B,  and  the  expenses  of  the 
jury  and  the  city  officers  incurred  in  making 
the  appropriation,  and  then  bless  the  Lord  that 
they  have  a Constitution  that  will  protect  them 
in  such  injustice.  Now,  to  meet  that  case,  I do 
not  know  whether  it  will  meet  the  views  of  all 
that  Committee  or  not,  I have  drawn  an  amend- 
ment which  I propose  to  offer  as  soon  as  the 
residue  of  the  section  is  disposed  of.  It  reads 
in  these  words : 

“ In  cases  where  private  property  shall  be  taken  for 
public  use  no  assessment  shall  be  made  upon  the  owner 
for  any  part  of  the  compensation  or  the  cost  of  making 
the  appropriation.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I suggest  that  the  gentleman 
had  better  make  that  amendment  in  the  Bill  of 
Rights  in  section  nineteen,  where  that  subject  is 
referred  to. 

Mr.  BEER.  The  Committee  on  the  Bill  of 
Rights  have  reported  in  favor  of  making  no 
change  in  that  Article,  and  it  will  fit  in  this 
section  exactly.  I am  afraid  if  it  is  put  into 
the  Bill  of  Rights  corporations  would  never 
find  it. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I am  at  a loss  to  under- 
stand the  argument  of  the  gentleman  last  upon 
the  floor.  He  assumes  that  in  the  construction 
of  a street  between  lots  A and  B,  the  ground  is 
paid  for  by  a corporation  and  then  assessed  up- 
on these  lots.  I would  like  to  know  of  the 
gentleman  if  he  ever  knew  of  a case  where  the 
cost  of  the  ground  taken  was  not  paid  out  of 
the  general  taxable  property  of  the  corpora- 
tion, and  whether  assessments  must  not  be  for 
improvements  made  upon  the  streets,  and 
whether  it  must  not  be  for  actual  labor  per- 
formed, and  whether  assessments  ever  include 
the  cost  of  the  ground  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  The  case  that  I referred  to  in 
Eighteenth  Ohio  State  Reports,  where  the  ques- 
tion was  carried  to  the  supreme  court,  decides 
that  it  can  be  done. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  But  you  have  no  such 
case. 

Mr.  WEST.  I know  of  such  a case. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  There  are  some  strange 
things  in  the  courts,  T admit. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  I can  inform  the  gentle- 
man of  one.  Judge  Ranney  informed  me  that 
one-half  of  his  lot  had  been  appropriated,  and 
then  they  took  the  other  half  to  reimburse  the 
treasury. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I ask  the  gentleman  wheth- 
er that  was  true  or  not  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  He  said  it  was. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I ask  you. 

Mr.  WEST.  I suppose  it  was.  The  supreme 
court  said  it  was. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  less  of  such  law  we 
have,  the  better — it  is  a fraud  on  a party  to  pre- 
tend to  pay  him  for  property  condemned,  and 


then  by  a process,  under  power  of  assessment, 
to  take  it  from  him  at  once. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Does  not  the  statute  expressly 
provide  for  that  very  thing — assessing  the  cost 
of  the  land  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  No,  sir.  When  property 
is  condemned,  as  I understand  it,  the  cost  in- 
curred for  that  condemnation  comes  out  of  the 
general  taxable  fund. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  My  colleague  will  permit  me 
to  interrupt  him.  He  is  no  doubt  correct  in 
describing  the  practice  as  it  exists  in  this  city. 
I am  not  aware  of  a single  case  in  which  the 
corporation  of  Cincinnati  has  yet  failed  to  re- 
imburse a man  with  money,  paid  out  of  the 
general  treasury,  for  the  condemnation  of  land. 
I understand  it  is  the  familiar  practice  in  Cleve- 
land. But  in  this  city,  for  some  reason  or  other 
that  I have  not  been  able  to  understand,  for  the 
last  four  or  five  years,  ever  since  the  case  of 
Cleveland,  our  city  solicitor  has  interposed  ob- 
jections of  a nature  that  I do  not  understand, 
and  although  now  there  are  five  or  six  cases 
upon  the  docket  in  which  the  city  proposes  to 
re-assess,  the  cases  have  not  yet,  in  this  city, 
been  carried  to  a consummation. 

My  colleague  is  right  as  to  what  the  practice 
has  been,  but  he  is  quite  wrong  as  to  the  law. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I think  if  any  case  of  that 
kind  comes  up,  it  will  be  fought  to  the  end  of 
the  law. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  has  been  fought  to  the  end 
of  the  law. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  It  is  useless  to  assume  that 
any  real  equity  can  be  determined  upon  the 
basis  of  per  centage.  Take  property  on  Fourth 
Street,  that  is  worth  two  thousand  dollars  per 
front  foot.  You  cannot  project  any  assessment 
that  will  greatly  improve  the  value  of  that 
property,  nor  can  you  well  conceive  of  any  con- 
dition of  that  property  in  which  one-and-a- 
half  per  cent,  o^  mere  assessment  would  not  be 
an  excessive  burden  upon  it.  This  is  not  the 
case  with  the  suburbs.  Property  there,  in  ac- 
cessible localities,  would  be  worth  say  twenty- 
five  dollars  a foot,  and  yet  the  city  may  con- 
struct a road  which  will  double  the  value. 
Where  is  the  rule  of  per  centage  in  that  case? 
One  man  receives  in  increased  value  double  the 
amount  which  he  may  be  taxed,  and  the  other 
is  oppressed  when  you  tax  him  even  a very 
small  per  centum. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  discussion  of  this 
question  but  illustrates  the  fact  that  we  always 
get  into  difficulty  when  we  attempt  to  do  what 
properly  belongs  to  the  Legislature,  or  when 
we  attempt  to  establish  great  principles  which 
should  govern  this  matter,  and  fortify  our  argu- 
ment with  exceptional  cases.  I have  no  doubt 
that  the  cases  referred  to,  that  occurred  twenty 
years  ago,  in  Toledo,  when  the  property  there 
was,  comparatively,  of  little  value,  in  the  out- 
lying portions  of  the  city,  if  the  parties  had 
paid  their  assessments  on  the  property,  what 
was  then  worth  ten  dollars  a foot,  is  to-day 
worth  ten  thousand  dollars  for  a hundred  feet. 
That  is  a fact  with  reference  to  a great  many 
kinds  of  property.  Toledo  has  grown  with  other 
cities,  and  I think  that  this  limitation  upon  the 
extent  of  the  power  of  taxation,  is  a very  proper 
subject  for  the  Legislature  to  consider,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  they  would  consider  it,  and  re- 


1340 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [113th 

Townsend,  West,  Powell,  Wilson.  [Friday, 


mit  to  the  authorities  of  the  various  cities  and 
towns  certain  rights,  privileges  and  authority, 
under  well-defined  limitations,  and  they  can 
only  exercise  them  in  that  direction. 

So  far  as  the  special  assessments  are  con- 
cerned, so  far  as  1 know,  there  are  but  three 
classes.  One  for  grading  streets,  one  for  sew- 
ering, and  the  other  for  paving  them.  When 
that  is  done,  your  special  assessments  are  ex- 
hausted, and  you  may  occupy  a piece  of  prop- 
erty for  the  next  twenty-five  years,  and  have  no 
occasion  to  make  a special  assessment.  But 
sometimes  they  may  authorize  the  city  to  re- 
pave at  the  expense  of  the  property-holder,  and 
they  may  pay  it  out  of  the  general  public  fund. 
These  assessments  are  generally  made  at  one 
time,  and  it  is  provided  that  they  shall  not  ex- 
ceed twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the 
property.  I venture  to  say,  in  nine  times  out 
of  ten,  in  the  various  cities,  where  the  streets 
are  paved  and  sewered,  the  cost  does  not  amount 
to  two  per  cent,  on  the  valuation  of  the  prop- 
erty, and  the  way  of  taxing  and  making  up  this 
assessment,  is  done  as  by  the  foot  front,  and  we 
pay  for  the  paving  so  much  per  square  foot, 
and  it  amounts  to  so  much  per  foot  front,  and  it 
is  made  up  in  that  way.  The  value  of  the 
property  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Hence, 
you  see  the  difficulty,  when  you  come  to  talk 
about  the  limitation  upon  the  value  of  property. 
It  costs  as  much  to  make  a pavement  in  front  of 
a piece  of  property  worth  a hundred  dollars  a 
foot,  as  it  does  where  the  property  is  worth 
one  thousand  dollars  a foot.  Many  of  these 
pieces  of  property,  lying  in  the  outskirts  of  the 
town  or  city,  by  reason  of  their  improvement, 
are  doubled  and  quadrupled  in  value.  What 
was  before  a lot  that  was  scarcely  accessible,  be- 
comes accessible  and  of  value,  and  the  improve- 
ment upon  it  has  become  a source  of  profit,  and 
has  enhanced  the  value  of  the  lot. 

It  is  almost  impossible  for  the  members  of  the 
Convention  to  arrive  at  any  rule  which  will  not 
have  its  objections  and  meet  with  some  difficul- 
ties. Hence,  in  my  judgment,  within  a proper 
and  legitimate  limit,  the  whole  question  should 
be  left  to  the  Legislature;  and  they,  from  time 
to  time  and  front  year  to  year,  will  adjust  the 
legislation  to  suit  these  various  wants  and 
necessities,  and  if  they,  unfortunately,  make  a 
mistake  in  one  class  of  laws,  the  people  will 
very  soon  find  that  it  works  badly,  and  they 
will  have  it  changed,  as  the  case  may  be,  in  one, 
two,  three,  or  four  years.  This  has  been  the 
custom  of  the  State,  and  it  is  the  proper  way. 
The  people  have  such  laws  as  they  want,  and 
the  Legislature  will  have  full  authority  to  make 
them.  Our  present  streets,  so  far  as  I know, 
under  the  existing  laws  and  regulations,  have 
always  been  made  and  paid  for  by  the  owners 
of  property  abutting  on  the  streets  improved. 
After  a man  has  paved  a street,  and  puts  it 
properly  in  shape,  it  is  for  the  public  to  use 
and  the  public  to  take  care  of.  And  the  more 
the  public  use  it,  the  more  valuable  becomes  the 
property  on  the  street,  and  rents  grow  propor- 
tionately high.  One  gentleman  was  speaking 
about  property  located  upon  a corner,  where  it 
is  bounded  by  two  streets,  It  being  an  expense 
calling  for  him  to  pay  for  both  sides.  That  is 
true,  but,  under  proper  legislation,  that  matter 
can  be  provided  for. 


Mr.  WEST.  It  is  provided  for. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir,  it  is  properly 
adjusted.  A corner  lot  is  much  more  valuable 
than  any  other  lots  on  the  street,  and  the  street 
crossings  and  street  intersections  are  paid  for  out 
of  the  general  fund,  and  I hear  of  no  com- 
plaints. 

Mr.  POWELL.  We  have  found,  in  our  part 
of  the  country,  that  the  best  way  to  levy  these 
assessments  is  by  the  foot. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  That  is  the  custom  in 
every  place. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  there  not  a danger,  by  this 
provision,  of  preventing  that? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  There  is,  perhaps,  some 
danger  in  that  direction ; but  the  point  I wish 
to  impress  upon  this  Convention  is  this  : that  it 
will  not  do  to  settle  the  great  principle  that  is 
involved  here,  which  is  to  govern  and  exist  for 
twenty  years,  or  during  the  life-time  of  the  Con- 
stitution, upon  exceptional  cases  that  occur  but 
rarely  in  the  State,  and  about  which,  very  sel- 
dom, anything  is  done  or  said.  Where  property 
has  been  taxed  out  of  existence,  you  trace  it  up 
to  its  proper  cause,  and  you  will  find,  in  nine 
cases  out  of  ten,  it  is  on  "account  of  the  neglect 
of  the  owner  of  the  property.  We  had  better 
leave  much  of  this  detail  to  the  Legislature,  and 
they  will  provide  for  it,  and  if  they  make  mis- 
takes, they  will  be  remedied  and  corrected. 

Mr.  WILSON.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  have 
considered  this  subject  so  much,  and  talked 
about  it  so  long,  that  we  have  all  become  some- 
what imbued  with  the  idea  that  we  are  a city 
council,  or  a village  council ; and  I think  we 
had  better  resolve  ourselves  into  a Constitu- 
tional Convention  again,  and  not  legislate  upon 
these  matters  too  much.  I think  that  when  we 
have  put  a limit  of  ten  per  cent,  within  a year, 
we  have  gone  about  as  far  as  this  Convention 
ought  to  go,  and  leave  statute  making  to  the 
current  government  which  we  expect  to  run 
after  we  adjourn. 

I think  as  little  legislating  as  we  can  do  after 
we  have  formed  a government,  is  the  better 
plan  for  us  to  adopt.  I presume  that  the  Legis- 
lature will  be  composed  of  men  of  some  little 
judgment  and  discretion : and  all  we  are  to  do 
is  to  offer  a general  line  of  landmarks,  to  be 
followed  by  the  people  and  by  the  Legislature; 
and  when  we  put  that  limit,  let  us  stop  there, 
and  not  tie  our  own  hands,  or  tie  the  hands  of 
the  Legislature.  We  must  go  upon  the  hypo- 
thesis that  discretion,  good  sense  and  judgment 
will  always  follow  deliberative  bodies  such  as 
will  be  clothed  with  the  legislative  power  of 
this  State.  If  we  could  go  into  piecemealing 
this  Constitution,  by  passing  statutes  here,  it  is 
very  certain  it  would  not  meet  with  the  appro- 
bation of  the  people.  The  first  proposition  to 
amend  the  provision  reported  by  the  Committee 
was  to  reduce  it  from  ten  per  cent,  to  five  per 
cent.  That  was  voted  down — so  that  ten  per 
cent,  a year  stands  as  a part  of  the  Report  pro- 
posed and  presented  by  the  Committee. 

Mr.  WEST.  Would  there  be  anything  to  pre- 
vent their  assessing  ten  per  cent,  every  year  if 
this  amendment  were  left  out? 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  next  proposition,  as  I 
understand,  is  the  one  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  by  which  not 
over  twenty-five  per  cent,  shall  be  assessed  in 


Day.] 

, February  13, 1874.] 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Wilson,  Sears,  Ewing. 


1341 


any  ten  years ; so  that  the  gentleman  has  ac- 
complished not  only  what  he  attempted  to  ac- 
complish by  the  five  per  cent,  law,  but  has 
accomplished  it  doubly,  for  he  has  reduced  it 
to  two  and  a half  per  cent.  It  is  a very  cun- 
ning device.  Instead  of  five  per  cent.,  he  gets 
it  down  to  two  and  a half  per  cent.,  by  very 
shrewd  management,  which  he  proposes  in  this 
Convention.  You  cannot  assess  over  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  during  any  ten  years.  You  say 
the  property  will  rise  in  value.  Who  knows 
anything  about  that?  That  is  merely  chimeri- 
cal. You  cannot  place  any  reliance  upon  any 
such  hypothesis  as  that;  and  when  you  present 
this  Constitution,  as  the  Committee  reported  it, 
so  far  as  this  proposition  is  concerned,  I am 
sure  it  will  be  heartily  adopted  by  the  people ; 
and  the  discretionary  power,  allowing  the  ther- 
mometer to  rise  and  fall,  should  be  left  with 
the  people  and  General  Assembly. 

When  I look  over  this  State,  and  reflect  on 
what  it  was  thirty  years  ago,  and  see  what  it  is  to- 
day— our  State  dotted  all  over  with  flourishing 
cities  and  villages,  and  prosperity  and  enterprise 
in  every  one  of  them — nearly  all  of  them  touched 
by  railroads — I am  compelled  to  say,  and  so  is 
every  thinking  man,  that  a great  deal  of  that 
which  caused  this  enterprise  in  this  State,  so  far 
as  cities  and  villages  are  concerned,  was  the 
wise  municipal  regulations  of  these  cities  and 
villages.  And  I undertake  to  say  that  no  State 
in  this  Union  has  had  its  municipalities  admin- 
istered with  more  discretion,  good  sense,  and 
with  a view  to  enterprise,  than  the  State  of 
Ohio,  with  regard  to  its  towns,  cities  and  vil- 
lages. It  is  true,  that  abuses  sometimes  arise ; 
we  can  never  have  anything  exactly  perfect 
on  earth;  but  while  one  abuse  arises,  ten 
thousand  blessings  shower  themselves  down 
upon  the  people.  Yow,  let  us  be  content,  and 
not  make  this  so  inconsistent,  and  carry  out  our 
little  local  ideas  of  legislation,  by  legislating 
just  as  if  we  were  a municipal  corporation — 
just  as  if  this  whole  Convention  were  a town 
council  of  five,  in  a village,  having  the  whole 
thing  in  our  hands,  with  regard  to  the  whole 
town  or  city,  convened  to  legislate  with  regard 
to  this  matter ; and  if  we  do  that,  it  is  all  that 
can  be  asked  of  us  by  the  people. 

So  far  as  this  Proposition  was  reported — I 
being  one  of  the  members  of  the  Committee — 
it  was  matured  after  a full  consideration,  and 
I am  willir  g to  adopt  it  just  as  it  stood  when  it 
came  from  the  hands  of  the  Committee. 

When  you  take  apart  one  of  these  Reports  of 
the  Committee,  after  they  are  fully  matured, 
you  will  get  it  worse  and  worse  in  nine  cases 
out  of  ten.  We  had  better  leave  it  just  as  the 
Committee  has  reported  it — do  our  work  on  a 
broad  scale,  transact  our  business,  draw  our  pay, 
and  go  home. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Is  the  gentleman  willing  to 
take  the  Report  of  the  original  Article  as 
adopted  by  the  Committee,  without  the  Minor- 
ity Report  ? 

Mr.  WILSON”.  My  remarks,  as  far  as  the 
Minority  Report  is  concerned,  have  been  en- 
tirely confined  to  the  judiciary.  That,  I believe, 
we  have  settled,  and  I believe  we  have  settled  it 
in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I am  not  content  with  this  sec- 


tion as  it  stands,  and  I am  in  favor  of  the  pend- 
ing amendment.  I would  rather  have  no  pro- 
vision whatever  upon  the  subject  of  assessments 
than  have  one  that  might  be  construed  as  an 
invitation  to  the  powers  that  be,  or  shall  be,  to 
confiscate  all  the  property  within  their  juris- 
diction every  ten  years.  That  is  the  way  this 
might  be  construed  without  this  amendment. 
I think,  however  much  gentlemen  may,  when 
it  suits  their  own  purposes,  deprecate  and  ques- 
tion the  propriety  of  our  legislating,  and  going 
into  details,  that  one  of  the  most  important  du- 
ties of  this  Convention  is  to  impose  proper  re- 
strictions upon  the  power  of  taxation.  I think 
the  experience  of  everybody  shows  that  it  is  in 
that  direction  that  the  powers  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  the  powers  of  all  subordinate  jurisdic- 
tions throughout  the  State,  need  to  be  limited 
and  controlled.  And,  further,  sir,  as  I have 
before  stated,  the  landed  property  of  the  State 
will  not  bear  a greater  burden  than  may  be  im- 
posed upon  it,  under  this  Constitution,  if  the 
amendment  shall  be  adopted. 

When  you  consider  that  it  always  has  been 
and  always  will  be  subject  to  taxation  for 
general  purposes,  in  addition  to  the  burden 
which  may  be  imposed  upon  it  under  this  pro- 
vision ; when  you  restrict  it,  as  we  propose  to 
do  by  this  amendment,  you  still  leave  it,  as  it 
has  been  shown  by  the  gentleman  from  Co- 
shocton [Mr.  Sample],  liable  to  pay  in  taxes  and 
assessments,  at  least  five  per  cent,  of  its  value 
every  year,  and  there  is  no  real  estate  that  will 
bear  a heavier  burden  than  that. 

I shall  vote  for  this  amendment  with  the  hope 
that  it  will  be  followed  by  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment  suggested  by  the  majority  of  the 
Committee.  I think,  myself,  that  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  false  logic  used  to  justify  the  pay- 
ment of  these  matters  by  assessment  upon  the 
adjacent  property.  If  it  be  for  private  pur- 
poses, if  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  owner,  there 
is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  owner  should 
not  be  left  to  his  unrestricted  choice,  whether 
he  will  have  that  benefit  or  not.  If  it  be  for 
the  benefit  of  the  public,  let  the  public  pay  for 
it.  My  own  impression  is,  that  in  most  cases, 
it  is  a combination  of  the  two,  and  that  the  bur- 
den ought  to  be  proportioned  accordingly.  I 
think  the  amendment  which  we  have  intro- 
duced, fairly  provides  for  such  apportionment. 
For  my  part,  I am  satisfied  that  under  this 
amendment  municipalities  will  possess  all  the 
power  that  they  should  have  over  real  estate 
within  their  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  EWING.  I am  not  in  favor  of  this 
amendment,  for  the  reason  that  I am  unwilling 
to  place  in  the  Constitution  any  restriction 
upon  the  power  of  the  Legislature,  or  of  the 
people,  unless  it  seems  to  be  called  for  by  an 
obvious,  existing,  or  threatened  evil ; and,  I see 
no  such  evil  now  existing,  or  threatened,  that 
this  restriction  would  obviate.  I ask  the  Con- 
vention to  consider  where  are  the  towns  in 
Ohio  in  which  the  paving,  guttering,  curbing, 
or  lighting  of  the  streets,  has  been  done  to  a 
greatly  extravagant  extent  ? I know  of  no  such 
town.  I know,  in  my  own  town  of  Lancaster, 
which  is,  perhaps,  one  of  the  best  paved  and 
lighted  in  the  State,  we  have  no  more  of  such 
improvements  than  the  public  needs  call  for. 
It  is  so  in  Columbus.  There  has  been  extrava- 


1342 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Ewing,  West,  Hoadly. 


[118th 


gance,  and,  possibly,  corruption,  in  some  places, 
in  the  matter  of  contracts  for  such  work  ; but  it 
is  very  rare,  indeed,  in  my  opinion,  that  the  city 
councils  are  improvident  in  pushing  improve- 
ments of  that  character.  To  put  a limit  on  the 
amount  authorized  to  be  assessed  in  any  one 
year,  is,  perhaps,  desirable.  1 have  known 
cases  in  which  the  assessments  falling  in  one 
year  have  been  exceedingly  burdensome;  but 
there  are  cities  in  the  State  in  which  the  assess- 
ments are  distributed  over  several  years,  as  in 
Cleveland,  where  they  issue  a bond,  running 
for  five  years,  payable  by  assessments  on  the 
street  where  the  improvement  is  made.  When 
a square  should  be  paved,  curbed,  guttered,  and 
the  sidewalks  and  sewers  made,  these  improve- 
ments are  all  called  for,  substantially,  at  once, 
and  it  is,  therefore,  reasonable  to  insert  this 
constitutional  limitation,  which  says  that  not 
over  ten  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  property 
shall  be  taken  for  such  assessment  in  one  year. 

But,  gentlemen,  I submit  if  we  undertake  to 
say  that  not  over  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the 
value  shall  be  taken  in  ten  years,  if  the  limita- 
tion could  be  made  effective,  it  would  check  the 
healthy  growth  of  the  cities  and  towns  of  this 
State — a growth  of  which  the  people  are  proud, 
and  which  they  would  be  very  unwilling,  as  a 
rule,  to  see  checked.  But  in  practice  this 
limitation  will  be  evaded  by  simply  raising  the 
valuation  of  outside  property  on  the  tax  dupli- 
cate, and  in  that  way  the  improvement  called 
for  by  the  necessities  of  the  town  will  be  ob- 
tained in  spite  of  your  Constitutional  limita- 
tion. But  the  improvements  will  be  got  at  the 
cost  of  a very  great  injury  and  injustice  to  the 
holders  of  suburb  property,  as  such  property 
will  be  put  on  the  general  tax  duplicate  at 
greatly  beyond  its  fair  taxable  value,  in  order 
to  make  such  local  improvements  practicable, 
and  the  owners  will,  in  consequence  of  such  in- 
creased valuation,  be  required  to  bear  an  undue 
share  of  the  general  State  and  county  taxes.  I 
am  opposed  to  inserting  a provision,  which,  if 
effective,  would  check  the  present  healthy  and 
pleasing  growth  of  our  cities  and  towns ; but 
which  will  induce  the  citizens  to  evade  this  re- 
sult by  a subterfuge,  which  will  do  such  injus- 
tice to  the  holders  of  suburb  property. 

Mr.  WEST.  How  would  the  taxable  valua- 
tion be  increased,  except  in  the  mode  prescribed 
by  law,  for  an  assessment  and  taxation  of  all 
property,  to  be  regulated  and  equalized  by  a 
local  board,  and  again  regulated  and  equalized 
by  a State  board.  Does  the  gentleman  suppose 
that  all  these  officers  will  corruptly  perjure 
themselves  for  the  mere  purpose  of  avoiding 
this  Constitutional  limitation? 

Mr.  EWING.  Not  quite  that;  but  if  the  city 
of  Columbus  wants  these  improvements  to  go 
on,  and  finds  that  this  constitutional  prohibition 
operates  against  them,  the  popular  sentiment  of 
the  city  will  demand  an  increase  of  valuation  of 
outside  property,  and  it  will  be  made,  and  the 
local  Board  of  Equalization,  sharing  in  that  de- 
sire, will  assent  to  it.  We  may  correct  abuses, 
we  may  lighten  the  burdens  which  now  fall  so  ! 
heavily  upon  the  people,  in  any  one  year,  by 
requiring  that  they  be  distributed  over  a term 
of  years;  but  we  can’t  stop  the  growth  of  the 
towns  and  cities,  which  the  people  want,  and  of 
which  they  are  proud.  If  they  cannot  get  it  in 


[Friday, 


one  way,  they  will  get  it  in  another.  They 
will  get  it  by  an  increase  of  the  value  of  sub- 
urban property,  to  the  injury  of  the  people, 
who  will  submit  to  an  increase  of  valuation 
rather  than  lose  the  improvements. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  When  the  matter  was  before 
the  Committee,  as  I understood,  from  the  study 
that  was  given  it,  we  were  in  this  position': 
The  question  was  how  far  the  evil  existed  which 
required  a constitutional  inhibition.  We  agreed 
that  there  ought  to  be  in  the  Constitution  an  in- 
hibition protecting  the  individual  tax-payer 
against  extortions  of  excessive  assessments  in 
any  one  year,  and  the  Convention,  by  a vote  this 
morning,  has  seemed  to  approve  of  the  view  we 
took,  and  when  it  came  to  the  subject  suggested 
by  the  amendment  of  the  delegate  from  .Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns],  so  far  as  my  own  mind  was 
concerned,  I went  through  this  process,  and  I 
may  as  well  describe  it.  It  states  my  reason 
for  being  unwilling  to  vote  for  the  amendment 
of  the  delegate  from  Logan  [Mr.  We3t].  For 
some  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  present 
Constitution,  no  restrictions  were  placed  by  law 
upon  the  power  of  local  taxation  by  local 
boards,  and  in  the  fifth  volume  of  Ohio  State 
Reports,  the  supreme  court  decides  that  the  ju- 
dicial power  was  incompetent  to  furnish  that 
remedy,  but  that  the  injured  property  owner 
must  bear  the  burden  unless  the  legislative 
power  should  interpose.  Then  the  legislative 
power  did  interpose,  and  a restriction  of  fifty 
per  cent,  was  by  law  provided  as  the  extent  of 
any  assessment  on  property.  Experience  proved 
that  that  was  too  high,  and  in  the  municipal  code 
twenty-five  per  cent,  has  been  substituted,  but, 
by  what  I consider  a mischievous  change,  be- 
cause that  twenty-five  per  cent,  has  been,  at 
least  since  1871,  applied  unequally — that  is  to 
say,  in  villages  it  is  twenty-five  per  cent,  of  the 
taxable  value,  in  cities  it  is  twenty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  actual  value,  after  the  work  is  done; 
and,  while  I do  not  believe  that  the  inequality 
in  legislation  for  cities  and  villages  is  right, 
nevertheless,  the  course  of  legislation  of  the 
State  on  the  subject  indicates  that  the  Legisla- 
ture has  grasped  the  subject,  and  is  fully  com- 
petent to  protect  the  property-holder  against 
the  extortion  of  excessive  assessments;  and 
when  l consider,  Mr.  President,  the  dangers  in- 
volved even  in  attempting  to  fix  the  amount 
which  shall  be  collected  in  any  one  year,  and 
restricting  it  by  one-tenth  of  the  taxable  value, 
or  one-twentieth  of  the  real  value,  it  does  not 
seem  to  me,  as  an  individual,  and  I presume  1 
am  stating  the  course  that  governed  the  other 
members  of  the  Committee  who  concurred  with 
me,  that  there  is  that  danger  in  the  future,  that 
mischief  which  requires  the  constitutional  in- 
hibition now  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West].  For  these  reasons,!  think 
the  Legislature  can  fairly  be  trusted  with  the 
full  command  of  this  subject,  and  that  the  prop- 
osition should  not  receive  support. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
I amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  amendment  of  the 

clause  of  the  section,  by  the  addition  of  the 
letter  “ s”  to  the  word  assessment  in  the  first 
line,  remedies  some  objection  that  existed  to  it 
before;  but  in  my  judgment,  it  does  not  remedy 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

West,  Ewing,  Griswold,  Beer,  Powell. 


1343 


Day.] 

February  13,  1874.] 


all  the  objections.  If  the  argument  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  he  sound 
at  all,  ten  percent,  is  no  limitation,  no  restraint ; 
for  all  the  people  of  Columbus,  or  Cincinnati, 
or  of  Lancaster  have  to  do  is  to  get  up  a Board 
of  Valuation,  under  the  statute  for  the  revalu- 
ation of  property,  and  put  the  valuation  so  high 
that  ten  per  cent,  will  amount  to  forty  per  cent, 
in  fact,  or  fifty  per  cent.,  and  the  ten  per  cent, 
is  no  limitation  at  all,  according  to  that  logic; 
and  because  it  is  no  limitation,  and  because  it 
will  retard  the  growth  of  such  cities,  the  ten 
per  cent,  must  be  stricken  out,  on  the  philo- 
sophy that  some  board  of  valuation  will  put  the 
valuation  at  such  enormous  figures  that  ten  per 
cent,  will  not  be  any  limitation  at  all.  If  the 
philosophy  is  good  as  to  the  ten  per  cent,  limita- 
tion, I supposed  that  the  object  of  putting  ten  per 
cent,  in,  was  not  as  a limitation  on  the  aggre- 
gate, but  that  the  ten  per  cent  should  be  paid 
on  the  assessment,  in  order  that  the  improve- 
ment might  be  expedited,  and  that,  probably, 
ten  per  cent,  was  little  enough  for  expeditious 
improvement;  and  they  might  commence  a 
number  of  improvements,  grading,  guttering, 
sewering,  and  the  like,  which  should  be  done 
simultaneously,  and  five  per  cent,  would  prob- 
ably be  too  small  a sum  to  distribute  as  the  first 
payment  upon  these  improvements;  therefore, 
the  ten  per  cent,  limitation  was  fixed,  not  in- 
tended as  a limitation  -upon  the  aggregate 
amonnt  of  the  assessment,  but  simply  as  en- 
larging the  amount  of  the  yearly  assessment, 
that  might  be  proper  for  the  improvements,  in 
order  to  expedite  them  more  rapidly. 

Now,  sir,  I think  that  a limitation  upon  the 
aggregate  is  desirable.  Ten  per  centum  in  ten 
years  would  amount  to  one  hundred  per  cent- 
um; and  there  is  no  contingency,  in  my  judg- 
ment, which  would  justify  the  imposition  of  an 
assessment  of  one  hundred  per  centum  upon  the 
property  of  any  suburban  property  holder,  in 
addition  to  the  general  taxes  that  are  necessa- 
rily assessed  in  our  towns,  and  usually  amount 
to  from  two  to  three  per  centum  per  annum, 
making  thirty  per  centum  for  taxes,  and  one 
hundred  per  centum  for  assessments,  during  a 
period  of  ten  years.  It  is  too  much.  It 
amounts  to  confiscation.  It  not  only  does  not 
advance  the  healthy  growth  and  prosperity  of 
our  towns  and  cities,  but  it  saddles  them  with 
mortgages  and  burdens  of  taxation  which  re- 
tard their  healthy  growth.  It  may  enforce  a 
spurious  growth;  it  may  develop  such  a 
growth  as  our  great  city  of  Washington  is  now 
developing,  the  end  of  which  is  the  glorious 
luxury  of  an  investigating  committee  to  ascer- 
tain the  enormous  frauds  which  have  been  per- 
petrated in  the  development  of  that  growth.  I 
do  not  want  any  investigating  committee  to  be 
sent  out  to  ascertain  whether  the  growth  of  my 
town  is  founded  on  corruption  or  not.  I want 
a restraint  imposed ; so  that  the  growth  may 
correspond  with  a legitimate  expenditure,  and 
that  my  people  may  not  be  groaning  beneath 
the  burden  of  taxation,  as  they  would  groan 
beneath  the  nether  millstone;  but  that,  having 
improved  their  property,  they  may  have  some- 
what wherewith  to  enjoy  their  property  after 
it  is  improved,  and  may  not  be  driven  as  beg- 
gars and  exiles  from  their  homes  merely  to 
gratify  the  corrupt  projects  of  corrupt  men, 


who  will  creep  into  our  public  places  in  spite 
of  all  constitutional  limitation.  Let  us,  then, 
restrain  them,  so  far  as  we  can. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  interprets  this  clause,  fixing  ten 
per  centum  as  the  limit  of  assessments  in  any 
one  year,  as  certainly  leading  to,  if  not  requir- 
ing, improvements  that  will  cause  a ten  per 
centum  assessment  evenj  year. 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  EWING.  Well,  that  is  the  drift  of  the 
argument,  or  it  amounts  to  nothing.  Where  is 
the  constitutional  limitation  on  assessment  now, 
I would  ask? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  There  is  none. 

Mr.  EWING.  Where  are  the  big  towns  filled 
with  beggared  homes  resulting  from  improve- 
ments ? 

A MEMBER.  There  are  plenty  of  them. 

Mr.  EWING.  None,  anywhere  that  I have 
seen  or  heard  of.  I challenge  gentlemen  to 
show  a town  in  this  State. 

Mr.  BEER.  Did  not  the  gentleman  hear  the 
cases  cited,  where  they  took  all  the  property 
and  got  judgment  for  the  balance  ? Is  not  that 
enough  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  I ask,  where  is  the  case  of  a 
town  or  city — not  of  an  individual  ? Individual 
hardships  will  occur  now  and  then  under  any 
system,  and  you  must  leave  the  local  author- 
ities some  discretion.  You  cannot,  because 
some  good  lady,  in  a certain  town,  has  suffered 
greatly  from  assessments,  venture  to  insert  a 
constitutional  prohibition  here  that  will  prevent 
the  ordinary  healthy  growth  and  improvement 
of  the  cities  and  towns  of  the  State.  It  would 
be  unreasonable  to  do  it,  and  the  provision  will 
be  evaded,  if  adopted. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  corporation  ought  to  set 
a limitation  of  their  own  accord. 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes.  We  are  no  better  than 
the  rest  of  the  people.  The  people  of  the  towns 
exercise  their  powers  with  sense,  and  honesty, 
and  humanity,  as  a rule.  We  do  not  need  to  tie 
them  up  by  constitutional  provision  to  keep 
them  from  robbing  the  people  and  reducing 
them  to  beggary,  as  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  anticipates,  if  this  provision  which 
he  has  proposed,  is  not  inserted.  I say,  again, 
there  is  not  a city  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  in  which 
the  paving,  curbing,  guttering,  and  lighting 
of  streets  have  been  pushed  to  an  extravagant 
extreme,  as  a rule — not  one.  There  are  excep- 
tional cases,  no  doubt;  but  these  exceptional 
cases  will  have  to  be  trusted  to  the  good  sense 
and  honesty  of  the  local  authorities.  We  can- 
not take  an  exceptional  or  a mere  conjectural 
case,  such  as  that  propounded  by  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  as  a justification  for  a 
limitation  upon  the  powers  of  the  people  of 
these  towns  and  cities  which  would  check  their 
growth.  The  apprehensions  of  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  are  purely  imaginary. 
There  is  no  limitation  on  assessments  under  the 
present  Constitution,  and  if  we  insert  no  limit- 
ation in  the  new  Constitution,  the  people  of  the 
State  will,  as  a rule,  continue  to  conduct  their 
local  affairs  with  good  sense — even  without  our 
aid.  It  is  true  there  are  occasional  cases  of 
hardship,  resulting  from  putting  the  assessment 
for  lighting,  curbing,  guttering,  and  paving  all 
in  one  year  on  the  owners  of  the  adjacent  lots.  It 


1344 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [113th 

Ewing,  Kraemer,  Herron.  [Friday, 


falls  upon  the  property-holders  at  once,  because 
these  improvements  are  all  done  at  once.  But 
when  once  done,  they  are  done  for  a term  of 
years,  and,  therefore,  it  is  reasonable  for  us  to 
save  the  owners  of  adjacent  property  from  the 
hardship  which  would  result  if  the  cost  of  these 
improvements,  made  as  they  would  be,  all  in 
one  year,  should  fall  upon  them  in  one  assess- 
ment. That  is  the  object  of  the  provision  lim- 
iting the  assessment  to  ten  per  cent,  in  any  one 
year.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  the  people  of 
the  towns  will  undertake  to  put  an  assessment 
of  ten  per  centum,  each  year,  on  every  man's 
property ; and  the  fact  that  they  will  not  do  it 
under  the  new  Constitution,  is  abundantly  dem- 
onstrated by  the  fact  that  they  do  not  do  it  un- 
der the  old.  I think  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  will  be 
mischievous  in  the  respect  that  I indicated — in 
that  it  will  be  a provision  that  will  be  nugatory, 
just  to  the  extent  that  if  operative  it  would  limit 
and  check  the  present  ordinary  healthy  growth 
of  these  towns  and  cities,  and  result  in  injury 
to  the  persons  whom  he  seeks  to  protect,  for  the 
reason  that  these  local  boards  will  increase  the 
valuation  of  suburb  property,  in  order  to  get 
needed  improvements  without  exceeding  the 
twenty-five  per  cent,  limit.  Now,  it  does  not 
follow  that  because  the  local  boards,  in  order  to 
make  some  improvements  of  the  towns  possible, 
under  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West],  if  it  should  be  adopted, 
would  increase  the  value  of  the  suburban  prop- 
erty— it  does  not  follow  that,  in  order  to  collect 
more  than  ten  per  centum  of  an  assessment,  in 
every  year,  they  will  resort  to  that  subterfuge, 
because  this  provision,  limiting  the  assessment 
to  ten  per  centum  of  the  value  of  the  property, 
in  any  one  year,  does  not  prevent  the  improve- 
ments at  all.  It  simply  requires  that  provision 
be  made  in  the  contract,  whenever  the  cost  of 
the  proposed  improvement  amounts  to  more 
than  ten  per  centum  of  the  assessed  value  of 
the  property,  that  payment  for  the  work  done 
will  be  taken  in  annual  installments,  of  not 
more  than  ten  per  centum  of  the  value  of  the 
property  along  the  line  of  the  improvement. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  There  has  been  a good 
deal  said  about  the  large  towns  of  Ohio,  while 
not  a word  has  been  said,  at  any  time,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  little,  one-horse  towns,  and  the  im- 
provements they  ought  to  have.  We  have 
plenty  of  towns  in  our  county  where  lots  are 
worth  from  twenty-five  to  one  hundred  dollars, 
and  if  this  per  centage  is  fixed  upon  us,  what 
sort  of  an  improvement  in  paving  or  in  con- 
structing a plank  sidewalk  could  we  make  upon 
that?  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  have  obtained 
plank  sidewalks,  and  a fire  or  a flood  comes  and 
destroys  them,  we  are  prohibited  from  levying  a 
tax  for  the  next  ten  years ; and  if  this  amend- 
ment is  adopted  we  shall  not  be  able  to  make 
the  necessary  improvements,  unless  by  general 
subscription.  The  gentleman  speaks  of  confis- 
cation. If  a man  owns  a lot  that  is  worth  fifty 
dollars,  and  builds  a sidewalk  worth  twenty- 
five  dollars,  before  his  own  door,  is  that  confis- 
cation? Certainly  not.  It  adds  so  much  to  the 
value  of  his  property.  There  have  also  been 
cases  cited  here  where  property  really  had  been 
sold,  and  had  not  brought  enough  to  pay  the 
taxes.  Well,  now,  let  me  tell  you  of  a case  that 


happened  in  Ottawa  county,  where  property 
was  sold  to  pay  the  taxes,  and  where  the  owner 
stood  by  and  had  it  sold,  and  made  money  by  it. 
He  had  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land, 
and  the  taxes  upon  it  accumulated  for  several 
years,  until  finally  they  amounted  to  about 
eighty  or  ninety  dollars,  and  they  sold  five  acres 
from  the  north-west  corner  to  pay  the  taxes.  A 
pretty  sharp  lawyer,  who  had  bought  it,  offered 
the  owner  to  let  him  redeem  the  land,  but  he 
declined — the  land  was  well  sold.  The  north- 
west corner  was  in  a marsh,  about  five  feet 
under  water. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I do  not  understand  that 
there  has  been  any  proposition  made  here  to 
restrain  these  local  boards  from  making  im- 
provements, the  payment  of  which  is  to  be 
provided  for.  The  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  came  nearest  to  favor- 
ing some  such  proposition  of  any  person  who 
has  taken  the  floor  upon  this  question.  If  th*>re 
was  any  foundation,  as  applicable  to  the  cities 
and  towns  of  Ohio,  for  the  remarks  which  he 
made,  then  we  should  make  some  provision 
limiting  the  power  of  corporations  to  make  im- 
provements. But  there  is  no  such  proposition 
here.  The  power  to  make  improvements  is 
left  unlimited.  The  simple  question  is,  who 
shall  pay  for  them  ? The  question  is  not  whether 
corporations  shall  make  contracts  for  improve- 
ments, or  wrhether  they  shall  build  sewers,  or 
open  streets,  but  who  shall  pay  for  them — the 
persons  benefited  by  them,  or  the  community  at 
large  ? Shall  they  be  paid  for  by  assessment — 
assessment  made  in  such  a manner  as  to  be  col- 
lected from  the  property  improved — or  must 
they  be  paid  for  by  placing  the  cost  upon  the 
general  tax  duplicate  ? That  is  the  only  ques- 
tion— not  whether  improvements  shall  be  made, 
but  whether  they  shall  be  paid  for  by  the  prop- 
erty benefited,  or  by  the  people  at  large.  Now, 
there  are  other  persons  residing  in  cities  be- 
sides owners  of  real  estate.  In  the  city  of  Cin- 
cinnati— and  I presume  it  is  the  case  in  every 
other  city  in  this  State — one-third  of  the  prop- 
erty on  the  tax  duplicate  consists  of  personal 
property — the  property  of  the  merchants  and 
manufacturers  of  these  cities,  the  men  who,  by 
their  energy  and  business  tact,  built  up  the 
city.  One-third  of  the  tax  duplicate  consists  of 
the  personal  property  of  these  merchants  and 
manufacturers,  and  it  is  proposed  to  compel 
them  to  pay  one-third  of  the  expense  of  im- 
proving the  real  estate  of  the  cities.  The  mer- 
chants and  manufacturers  already  pay  more 
taxes  than  the  owners  of  real  estate,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  amount  they  have  invested ; because 
they  are  compelled  to  return  their  property  at 
its  true  value  in  money,  while  real  estate  is 
assessed  at  about  one-half  its  value.  A mer- 
chant with  a capital  of  a hundred  thousand 
dollars,  is  compelled  to  return,  at  least,  two 
hundred  thousand  dollars  for  taxation,  under 
the  laws  of  this  State  as  they  are  now.  In  ad- 
dition to  this,  shall  we  cripple  the  energies  of 
our  merchants  and  manufacturers  by  compelling 
them  to  pay  one-third  of  the  cost  of  improve- 
ments by  sewers,  by  opening  streets,  and 
everything  of  that  kind — improvements  which 
are  made  for  the  benefit  of  real  estate? 

But  there  is  another  matter : and  on  this 
point  I cannot  agree  with  the  statement  made 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Herron,  Sample. 


1345 


Day.] 

February  13,  1874.] 

by  my  colleague,  the  President  of  this  Conven- 
tion, yesterday,  in  regard  to  the  corruption 
which  exists  in  this  matter  of  assessments.  I 
think  the  experience  of  every  person  who  has 
looked  into  the  matter  will  satisfy  him  that  it  is 
in  the  expenditure  of  money  belonging  to 
the  general  fund  of  the  city  that  the  extrava- 
gance and  corruption  exist;  it  is  not  in  the  im- 
provements which  are  made  at  the  expense  of 
the  property  holders.  When  you  come  to 
make  an  improvement,  the  expense  of  which  is 
to  be  assessed  upon  the  property,  it  first  has  to 
go  through  the  Board  of  Improvements;  it  then 
has  to  go  through  the  City  Council,  one  board 
apd  the  other;  and  during  all  this  time,  the 
owners  of  property,  who  must  pay  for  the  im- 
provements, have  ample  opportunity  of  looking 
into  the  matter,  of  protesting  against  it,  if  it  is 
a hardship  upon  them,  and  of  bidding,  even, 
for  the  work.  They  have  all  that  right;  and 
when  a contract  is  let,  and  the  work  is  being 
done,  these  men,  knowing  that  they  are  to  pay 
for  it,  will  see  that  the  work  is  done  ac- 
cording to  contract.  In  our  city,  we  have 
known  cases,  time  and  again,  where  the  proper- 
ty holders  have  watched  the  work  which  they  i 
knew  they  had  to  pay  for,  and  have  compelled 
the  contractors  to  do  it  properly. 

Now,  when  the  expense  is  to  be  paid  out  of 
the  general  fund,  no  person  is  interested  in  the 
matter  at  all.  What  is  the  business  of  every- 
body is  the  business  of  nobody.  No  one  is  per- 
sonally interested  as  to  whether  that  work  is 
being  done  properly  or  not,  and  the  conse- 
quence is,  that  the  work  is  permitted  to  go  on 
just  as  the  contractors  and  the  city  officials  see 
proper  to  permit  it.  The  bad  work,  the  dis- 
honest performance  of  contracts,  occur  where 
the  work  is  to  be  paid  for  out  of  the  general 
fund,  and  not  by  assessment  upon  the  property. 

I know  of  exceptional  cases.  I know  th<A, 
even  in  the  case  of  assessments,  there  are  cases 
of  undoubted  fraud,  where  there  is  poor  work 
done ; but  1 say  that  in  the  majority  of  these 
cases  the  work  is  done  much  better  according 
to  the  contract,  and  more  honestly  done  than 
where  it  is  paid  for  out  of  the  general  fund. 

Again,  if  the  improvements  are  to  be  paid  for 
out  of  the  general  fund,  then  the  man  who  has 
the  most  interest  in  the  city  council,  who  can 
control  the  most  votes  either  by  his  personal  in- 
fluence or  by  his  money,  is  the  man  who  gets 
work  done  upon  his  property.  It  is  not  at  the 
place  where  work  is  most  needed  that  the  work 
will  be  done,  but  it  is  where  these  men  have 
interests  which  can  be  subserved  by  doing  that 
work.  If  their  property  can  be  benefited  and 
they  can  control  city  councils,  they  can  have  the 
work  done  upon  their  property,  while  other 
citizens  needing  the  work  even  more  than  they 
do,  stand  no  chance  of  improvements  at  all. 

It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  President,  that  there  is 
no  practical  way  of  any  city  doing  its  work 
properly  and  of  making  its  improvements  prop- 
erly, except  in  the  manner  which  has  been 
adopted — of  assessment  upon  the  property  bene- 
fited. Now,  to  say  that  that  shall  not  in  ten 
years  exceed  twenty-five  per  centum  of  the 
taxable  value  of  the  property,  is  simply  saying 
that  in  the  important  cases  it  shall  not  be  done 
at  all.  For  gentlemen  must  remember,  that  ten 
per  centum  is  sufficient,  generally.  Take  the 

v.  n-87 


improvement  of  the  streets  through  the  center 
of  our  cities  and  towns,  and  ten  per  centum 
will  pay  the  expenses.  It  is  not  in  the  center 
of  cities,  or  about  improved  property,  or  the 
valuable  property,  where  the  question  arises: 
it  is  in  the  outskirts,  where  extensive  improve- 
ments are  being  made,  by  the  opening  of  new 
streets,  and  other  improvements  which  benefit 
the  property  alone,  and  where  the  property  is 
generally  assessed  at  not  one-fourth — sometimes 
not  one-tenth  of  its  real  value.  It  is  in  such 
cases  that  the  question  can  apply  at  all ; and  to 
say  that  in  such  cases  no  more  than  twenty-five 
per  centum  can  be  paid  in  ten  years,  taking  the 
tax  duplicate  rate  as  the  basis,  is  to  say  that  such 
improvements  shall  never  be  made. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I have  not  said  a word  in 
reference  to  this  amendment,  although  I think 
this  is  a subject  on  which  the  Convention  ought 
now  to  take  a deeper  interest  than  ever  before.  I 
have  been  surprised,  I must  say,  at  the  grounds 
which  have  been  assumed  in  opposition  to  this 
amendment.  We  have  been  told  that  this 
amendment  will  be  useless  and  nugatory — first, 

I that  this  amendment  will  be  hurtful;  next,  that 
it  will  be  nugatory  and  useless.  Why  will  it 
be  useless  ? Why  is  it  asserted  here  that  it  will 
be  useless?  It  is  said  that  the  cities  and  towns 
of  this  State  are  prosperous,  and  that  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  general  bankruptcy  in  any 
city  or  town  resulting  from  excess  of  assess- 
ment made  by  the  corporate  authorities  of  that 
city  or  town.  Why,  Mr.  President,  it  is  not  to 
protect  the  masses  of  the  people  that  laws  are 
enacted ; it  is  to  protect  those  who  may  be  op- 
pressed by  the  majority  for  their  own  aggrand- 
izement, and  who  may  be  prejudiced  in  their 
view  of  what  may  render  the  town  or  the  city 
prosperous;  and  it  is  to  protect  the  minority 
against  the  tyranny  which  may  be  thus  exer- 
cised by  the  majority  for  their  own  aggrandize- 
ment at  the  expense  of  the  minority.  And  it  is 
said  that  they  will  get  rid  of  it,  and  that  these 
cities  and  towns  have  grown  up  into  such  a shape 
that  now,  in  this  Convention,  acting  for  the 
State,  if  you  attempt  to  impose  restrictions  upon 
these  corporate  authorities,  they  will  get  rid  of 
them,  and  break  through  your  restraints;  that 
they  have  grown  to  such  magnitude  that  this 
Convention  cannot  control  them,  and  that, 
whatever  restraint  this  Convention  attempts  to 
exercise  over  them,  they  will,  by  chicanery,  or 
some  other  means,  exercise  their  will  despite 
the  action  of  this  Convention.  Now,  if  there  is 
anything  which  shows  to  this  body  that  it  is 
necessary  to  act,  and  act  now,  it  is  the  ground 
upon  which  this  argument  is  based.  It  is  not 
that  the  mass  of  the  people  may  be  free 
from  embarrassment,  but  it  is  that  they 
may  not  have  it  in  their  power  by  their 
action  and  for  their  own  benefit,  to  oppress 
others.  Why  are  these  improvements  made? 
It  will  not  be  pretended  that  they  are  made  for 
the  benefit  of  the  land  of  the  property-holders; 
it  will  not  be  pretended  that  any  municipal 
authority  has  power  to  make  an  assessment 
upon  a man’s  property  for  his  benefit — in  order 
that  his  property  may  be  enhanced  in  value, 
and  he  may  derive  the  benefit  from  it.  On  what 
principle  is  it  then  ? It  is  that  the  benefit  ac- 
crues to  the  city  or  town.  It  is  because  it  is 
necessary  for  the  public  good  that  these  im- 


1346 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Sample,  Pond. 


[113th 

[Friday, 


provements  should  be  made,  and,  therefore, 
they  are  made.  The  burdens  are  thrown  upon 
the  people,  and  there  is  a reasonable  propriety 
in  throwing  his  proportion  of  it  upon  the  party 
who  may  be  benefited  thereby.  But  it  does  not 
depend  at  all  upon  whether  the  property  is  im- 
proved in  value  or  not.  The  assessment  is 
made,  and  may  be  made,  and  will  be  made  pro- 
bably, and  often  is  made  without  any  reference 
to  the  question  whether  it  is  an  improvement  to 
the  property,  or  whether  it  operates  to  its  pre- 
judice. But  improvements  it  is  said  will  be 
prevented  from  being  made.  Why  cannot  they 
be  made?  This  assessment,  by  the  terms  of  the 
Report,  and  with  the  concurrence  of  all  the  gen- 
tlemen who  have  spoken  upon  the  subject,  is  re- 
duced to  ten  per  centum  in  any  one  year. 
It  cannot  be  more  than  that.  But,  by  the  terms 
of  the  proposition  before  the  Convention,  it  may 
be  ten  per  centum  for  every  year,  it  may  be  ten 
per  centum  for  an  indefinite  period  of  time; 
and,  therefore,  it  may  be,  as  was  said  by  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  working  a 
practical  confiscation  of  the  property  that  is 
thus  subjected  to  liability.  It  is  for  the  protec- 
tion of  parties  who  are  thus  affected,  and  who 
own  property  of  no  great  value,  that  this  pro- 
vision is  sought  to  be  incorporated  into  the 
Constitution,  and  not  for  the  protection  of  those 
who  have  already  made  improvements — nor  for 
the  protection  of  those  who  own  property  of 
large  value.  It  is  because  improvements  may 
be  made  and  pushed  by  parties  who  own  prop- 
erty of  larger  value,  to  such  an  extent  that 
other  property,  which  is  affected  thereby,  may 
be  so  small  in  value  that  it  will  be  absorbed  by 
the  assessments  which  may  be  made  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  improvements,  unless  there  is 
some  circumstance  that  shall  raise  its  value. 

Now,  it  is  said  by  gentlemen  that  it  is  not 
according  to  the  value  of  the  property  to  be  im- 
proved that  assessments  are  to  be  made,  and 
that  no  effect  is  to  be  given  to  that,  but  that  it  is 
according  to  the  amount  of  front  that  borders 
upon  the  line  of  the  improvement.  Now,  there 
is  no  reason  in  that,  because  one  piece  of  prop- 
erty is  of  much  more  value  than  another ; and 
if  it  is  raised  a given  per  centum,  the  increased 
gain  by  the  improvement  will  be  much  more. 
The  true  criterion  would  be  to  have  reference, 
not  to  the  frontage  of  the  property,  but  to  the 
value  of  the  property,  and  the  amount  of  benefit 
it  would  derive  from  the  improvement  to  be 
made. 

Mr.  POND.  I concur  with  a good  deal  that 
has  been  said  with  regard  to  the  necessity  of 
some  limitation  upon  the  power  of  corporations 
to  make  assessments,  and  I think  that  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee  goes  a good  way  in  the 
right  direction,  but,  perhaps,  not  far  enough. 
Yet,  it  appears  to  me,  that  this  amendment  goes 
too  far,  when  we  realize  that  the  towns  of  Ohio 
are  still  growing  and  spreading,  and  that  this 
is  a new  country,  a new  State  as  yet.  I do  not 
want  to  consume  the  time  of  this  body,  but  I 
wish  to  say  that,  in  my  judgment,  the  period 
for  the  limit  within  which  this  twenty-five  per  I 
centum  assessment  shall  be  levied,  is  too  long,  i 
In  the  first  place,  we  have  a provision  that  has  I 
been  ratified  by  the  Convention  as  the  Report  of 
a Committee,  that  ten  per  centum  of  this  assess-  i 
ment  may  be  levied  each  year.  This  will  be  J 


exhausted  in  three  years,  or,  at  any  rate,  maybe 
exhausted  in  three  years.  The  proposition,  as 
it  is  now  before  the  Convention,  provides  that 
within  a period  of  ten  years  twenty-five  per 
centum  of  the  highest  valuation,  as  I under- 
stand it,  shall  be  the  amount  that  may  be  real- 
ized from  this  levy.  It  will  be  impossible,  in 
my  judgment,  to  settle  upon  that.  It  may  be 
exhausted  in  three  years,  and  it  appears  to  me 
that  a shorter  period  than  ten  years  ought  to  be 
adopted,  if  any  such  limit  ought  to  be  adopted 
at  all.  I move,  therefore,  that  the  word  “ten” 
be  stricken  out  of  the  amendment,  and  the  word 
“five”  inserted. 

The  Chair  stated  the  question,  and  a division 
of  the  question  was  then  called  for. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  the  word  “ten,”  in  the  third  line. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded.  Objec- 
tion was  made,  but  the  demand  was  sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  38,  nays  40,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Clay,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Ewing, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kraemer,  Lay- 
ton,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller, 
Okey,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Townsend,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tyler, 
Yan  Valkenburgh,  Waddle,  Wilson,  Young  of 
Champaign,  President — 38. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Andrews,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Coats,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Frei- 
berg, Gardner,  Hill,  Hostetter,  Kerr,  McBride, 
Miller,  Mitchener,  Page,  Phellis,  Reilly, 
Rickly,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Sears, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Townsley,  Tuttle,  Yan  Voorhis,  Yoorhes,  West, 
White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hocking,  Wood- 
bury— 40. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West!. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  37,  nays  40,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Gardner, 
Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Kerr,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Page,  Phellis, 
Reilly,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Sample,  Sears,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Ty- 
ler, Yan  Yoorhis,  West,  White  of  Brown, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  President 
—37. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop,  Bos- 
worth,  Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Clay, 
Coats,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Doan,  Ewing,  Fo- 
ran, Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kraemer,  Layton,  Mer- 
rill, Miner,  Mueller,  Okey,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Rickly,  Rowland,  Shultz,  Townsend,  Tulloss, 
Van  Valkenburgh,  Yoorhes,  Waddle,  White  of 
Hocking,  Wilson — 40. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Root  obtained  the  floor,  when  the  gen- 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Root,  Beer,  Hoadly. 


1347 


Day.] 

February  13,  1874.] 

tleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  rose  to  ad-  | 
dress  the  Chair. 

Mr.  ROOT.  If  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford  [Mr.  Beer]  has  an  amendment  to  the  third  | 
section  to  offer,  I do  not  wish  the  attention  of  j 
the  Chair. 

Mr.  BEER.  I have. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Then  I yield  the  floor. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Beer  moves  to  amend  section  3 by  adding  thereto 
the  amendment  proposed  as  a Minority  Report  from  the 
Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations,  to  wit: 

“Nor  shall  more  than  one-half  of  the  cost  of  any  im- 
provement he  collected  by  assessment,  unless  the  consent 
of  at  least  two-thirds,  in  number  and  value,  of  the  own- 
ers of  property  to  be  assessed  shall  have  been  first  ob- 
tained.” 

The  question  being  taken,  without  a division, 
the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

After  the  announcement  of  the  decision,  upon 
call  of  Mr.  Beer,  and  with  the  unanimous  con- 
sent of  the  Convention,  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  34,  nays  43,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  De  Steiguer,  Dor- 
sey, Gardner,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Kerr, 
McBride,  McCormick,  Mitchener,  Page,  Phellis, 
Pond,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Sample,  Sears,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsley,  Van  Voorhis,  West,  i 
White  of  Brown,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham-  ! 
paign,  President — 34. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop,  Bos- 
worth,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Clay,  Cook, 
Cowen,  Cunningham,  Doan,  Ewing,  Foran, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Kraemer,  Layton,  Merrill,  Mil- 
ler, Miner,  Mueller,  Okey,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly, 
Root,  Rowland,  Shultz,  Townsend,  Tripp,  Tul- 
loss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voorhes,  1 
Waddle,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson — 43. 


So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  By  direction  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Municipal  Corporations,  I move  that  the 
word  “assessment,”  which  is  the  second  word 
of  the  third  section,  be  changed  to  “assess- 
ments.” 

No  objection  was  offered,  and  the  amendment 
was  agreed  to,  by  consent  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  BEER  moved  a further  amendment  to  the 
section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Beer  moves  to  amend  the  section  by  adding  thereto 
the  following  words: 

In  cases  where  private  property  shall  be  taken  for  pub- 
lic use,  no  assessment  shall  be  made  upon  the  owner  for 
any  part  ol  the  compensation,  or  the  cost  of  making  the 
appropriation.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hope  that  the  delegate 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  will  withdraw  this 
amendment,  and  offer  it  as  an  amendment  to  the 
nineteenth  section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  It  is 
no  more  applicable  to  condemnations  for  mu- 
nicipal purposes  than  it  is  for  county  and 
township,  or  State  purposes,  or  any  other  gen- 
eral purpose.  If  it  is  true  in  principle,  it  is 
true  generally,  and  ought  to  be  added  to  the  Bill 
of  Rights.  1 respectfully  submit  that  it  is  sim- 
ply anticipating  the  proper  time  for  discussion. 

Pending  the  motion  to  amend,  Mr.  BEER 
moved  to  adjourn. 

leave  of  absence. 

Before  the  motion  was  put,  leave  of  absence 
was  granted,  as  follows : 

To  Mr.  Smith,  of  Shelby,  for  Saturday  and 
Monday  at  roll-call. 

To  Mr.  Hitchcock,  for  same. 

To  Mr.  Cunningham,  indefinitely. 

The  qestion  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  to 
adjourn,  which  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:30  p.  m.)  the  Convention 


1348 


PETITIONS— GAS-STATIONERY. [114th 

Rowland,  Clark  of  J.,  Waddle,  Hill,  Kerr,  Root,  Beer.  [Saturday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FOURTEENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FIFTY-SECOND  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION.  - 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  John  G.  Adams,  of  the  Plum 
St.  Universalist  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  74  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Rickly,  until  Wednesday  next ; and  granted 
to  Messrs.  Neal,  Root,  Coats,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  and  Foran,  for  an  indefinite 
length  of  time;  also  to  Mr.  Thompson,  until 
Tuesday  next. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  ROWLAND  presented  the  petition  of  the 
Evangelical  Ministerial  Association  of  Cincin- 
nati. 

Which  the  Secretary  read,  by  request,  as 
follows : 

Western  Tract  and  Book  Society,! 
and  American  Tract  Society,  J 
No.  176  Elm  Street,  f 
Cincinnati,  February , 1874.  j 

The  undersigned  begs  leave  to  present  to  your  honora- 
able  body  the  following  action  of  the  Evangelical  Minis- 
terial Association  of  Cincinnati  and  vicinty,  adopted 
Feb.  9, 1874,  as  its  petition,  for  the  important  amendment 
asked: 

We  think  you  will  see  the  need  of  such  an  amendment 
from  the  fact  that  the  Superior  Court  of  Cincinnati,  and 
the  Supreme  Court  of  our  State,  have  given  entirely  di- 
verse interpretations  to  the  word  “religion”,  in  the  sec- 
tion to  which  we  refer.  The  following  is  the  action  of  the 
Association: 

Resolved , That  we  petition  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion, now  in  session  in  our  city,  to  amend  section  7,  “Bill 
of  Rights,”  of  the  Constitution  of  Ohio,  so  that  the  words, 
“Religion,  morality  and  knowledge,”  &c.,  shall  read, 
“The  Christian  religion,  morality  and  knowledge,”  &c. 

In  behalf  of  the  Association. 

A.  Ritchie,  Sec’y. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Jefferson,  presented  the 
petition  of  Cyrus  Massey,  and  30  other  citizens 
of  Jefferson  county,  praying  for  a constitutional 
recognition  of  Almighty  God  and  the  Christian 
Religion. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  j 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of  Rev. 
J.  Drummond,  D.  D.,  and  183  other  citizens  of 
Harrison  county,  for  a provision  in  the  new 
Constitution,  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and 


Saturday,  February  14,  1874. 

sale  of  alcoholic  liquors,  or  giving  entire  control 
thereof  to  the  General  Assembly. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

REPORT  FROM  COMMITTEE  ON  ACCOUNTS  AND 
EXPENSES. 

Mr.  HILL  submitted  the  following  Report: 

The  Commi'tee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses,  having  had 
the  account  of  the  Cincinnati  Gas  Light  and  Coke  Com- 
pany for  gas  furnished  the  Constitutional  Convention  for 
December,  1873,  and  January,  1874,  under  consideration, 
recommend  that  said  bill,  amounting  to  $343  58,  be  paid 
out  of  the  appropriate  fund. 

G.  W.  Hill, 

Jacob  Mueller, 
John  H.  Blose, 
Ozias  Merrill. 

The  Report  was  agreed  to,  and  the  bill  ordered 
to  be  certified  and  paid. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  KERR.  I offer  for  adoption,  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as  fol- 
lows : 

Resolution  No.  166,  by  Mr.  Ivebr: 

“ Resolved . That  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Ex- 
penditures be  instructed  to  report  the  cost  for  stationery 
furnished  this  Convention  to  February  1st  inst.,  and  the 
average  amount  for  each  delegate.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  I move  to  amend  that  resolution 
by  striking  out  the  word  “average,”  so  that 
we  will  know  how  much  each  delegate  has  had. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  lrom  Lick- 
ing [Mr.  Kerr],  which  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root]  moves  to  amend  by  striking  out  the 
word  “ average” ; is  the  Convention  ready  for 
the  question  on  the  amendment? 

The  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  was 
agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  adoption  of  the  resolution  as  amended. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  to  take  from  the  table, 
for  consideration,  the  substitute  offered  by  my- 
self for  Rule  69. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  substitute.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  substitute. 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute,  which  is 
as  follows : 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  14, 1874.]  Powell,  Beer,  Root,  Hale,  Hoadly,  Dorsey. 


1349 


“In  general  debates  no  member  shall  speak  more  than 
ten  minutes,  nor  oftener  than  twice  on  the  same  subject, 
except  the  member  making  report  from  a Committee,  who 
may  speak  thirty  minutes  in  opening  and  ten  minutes  in 
closing  debate.  . 

“A  majority  of  the  Convention,  or  of  the  CommCtee  of 
the  Whole,  may  at  any  time  fix  an  hour  at  which  the  gen- 
eral debate  upon  pending  propositions  shall  terminate. 

“After  the  termination  of  general  debate,  the  proposi- 
tion shall  be  considered  section  by  section,  and  amend- 
ments no  ay  then  be  offered  to  any  section  in  its  order. 

“In  the  consideration  of  any  proposition,  section  by 
section,  no  member  shall  speak  more  than  once,  nor 
longer  than  five  minutes,  on  any  amendment. 

“A  majority  of  the  Convention,  or  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  may  fix  an  hour  at  which  all  debates  shall  close, 
after  which  the  person  making  the  report  may  speak  ten 
minutes,  as  above  provided;  and  all  amendments  then 
pending,  or  proposed  thereafter,  shall  be  voted  upon  with- 
out debate.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  the  substitute  pro- 
poses an  alteration  to  a Standing  Rule,  it  re- 
quires a majority  of  all  the  Convention;  the 
yeas  and  nays  will  therefore  be  called. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  Chair  be  so  good  as 
to  inform  me  whether  this  substitute  is  offered 
by  an  individual  or  by  a Committee  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

The  Secretary,  by  request  of  a member,  re- 
read the  proposed  substitute. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  inquire  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  whether  or  not 
I have  the  amendments  correctly.  In  the  first 
line  you  change  thirty  minutes  to  ten  minutes, 
and  in  the  third  line  you  change  one  hour  to 
half-an-hour,  where  it  first  occurs,  and  in  the 
second  place  where  it  occurs,  you  change  it  to 
ten  minutes;  is  that  correct? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  last  paragraph, 
alone,  is  changed. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Where  it  occurs  first,  it  is  to  be  j 
changed  to  half-an-hour,  is  it? 

Mr.  BEER.  Half-an-hour. 

Mr.  BURNS.  And  where  it  occurs  the  second 
time,  it  is  changed  to  ten  minutes. 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  And  in  the  fourth  line,  ten  ! 
minutes  is  changed  to  five  minutes,  and  in  the 
fifth  paragraph,  one  hour  is  changed  to  ten 
minutes. 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  There  are  a number  of  these 
amendments  that  I cannot  particularly  com- 
mend. 

Mr.  ROOT.  This  seems  to  me  very  much  like 
locking  the  stable  after  the  horse  is  stolen.  At 
the  last  session,  a majority  of  the  Committee  on 
Rules,  as  you  are  perfectly  well  aware,  did  re- 
port a rule  which  we  believed  would  operate  to 
save  time,  and  yet  not  unreasonably  restrict 
debate.  Well,  there  was  a great  outcry  against 
that,  and,  if  I mistake  not,  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  was  not  at  all  favorable 
to  the  proposed  restriction. 

Mr.  BEER.  The  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  1 beg  leave  to  say,  is  mistaken  upon  that 
subject.  I moved  to  cut  down  the  amount  of  j 
time  proposed  by  the  Committee. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Yes,  I have  seen  such  things  ! 
before.  [Laughter.]  I understand,  perfectly  j 
well,  the  policy  of  making  a proposition  a great ! 
deal  worse  than  it  is  reported,  for  the  sake  of  j 
defeating  it,  and  although  I may  be  mistaken  in 
the  gentleman’s  policy  at  the  time,  I think  that  i 
was  the  effect  of  it.  1 


Sir,  our  Rule  was  settled  after  a great  deal  of 
consultation,  and  a great  deal  of  discussion,  and 
that  Rule  is  now,  substantially,  well  enough,  if 
we  will  only  adhere  to  it;  but  until  I see  a dis- 
position on  the  part  of  the  Convention,  to  ad- 
here to  and  enforce  the  Rule  we  already  have,  I 
shall  be  very  hopeless  of  any  good  effect  being 
derived  from  the  new  and  more  stringent  Rule. 
Let  any  one  come  to  a halt  in  his  speech  because 
the  President  raps,  and  what  happens  ? “Leave,” 
“leave,”  “leave,”  “leave.”  [Laughter.]  If  he 
indicates  a wish  to  go  any  further — “Leave.” 
Leave  once  given,  it  is  most  ungracious  to  inter- 
pose an  objection  after  that,  and  as  long  as  we 
are  in  the  way  of  giving  leave,  what  is  the  use 
of  any  Rule?  I say,  now,  that  we  have  got 
Rule  enough,  if  we  only  stick  to  it,  and  if  we 
cannot  stick  to  the  mild  Rule  that  we  have  now, 
I do  not  suppose  that  we  are  going  to  live  up  to 
a Rule  which  is  more  stringent,  harsh  and  re- 
strictive. But,  as  I am  going  away,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I am  the  most  disinterested  person  in  the 
Hall.  I do  not  care  how  you  spend  the  next 
two  or  three  weeks,  I shall  not  be  here.  [Laugh- 
ter]. 

Mr.  HALE.  As  the  vote  upon  this  question 
requires  a majority  of  all  the  members  elected 
to  this  Convention,  and  as  there  is  a very  thin 
attendance  here  this  morning,  I move  that  the 
substitute  lie  upon  the  table. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  further  mis- 
cellaneous business? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  that  the  Convention 
proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

order  of  the  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  is 
Proposition  No.  182,  and  the  pending  question 
is  upon  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  to  section  3. 

Mr.  BEER.  Mr.  President,  I ask  consent  of 
the  Convention  to  withdraw  that  amendment. 

Which  leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment to  section  3 of  Proposition  No.  182 : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  offers  the  following,  which 
the  Secretary  will  read  : 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  as  fol- 
lows : 

Amend  section  3 by  striking  out,  in  line  two,  the  words 
“one  year”,  and  insert,  “period  of  three  successive 
years.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Read  the  section  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

“Sec.  3.  No  assessment  shall  be  levied  by  any  Munici- 
pal Corporation  upon  any  property  which  shall  require 
the  payment,  in  any  period  of  three  successive  years,  of 
more  than  ten  per  centum  of  its  value,  as  ascertained  by 
the  tax  duplicate.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I offer  that  amendment  as  a 
protection  to  the  tax  payers  of  the  State,  espec- 
ially those  of  the  smaller  or  the  moderate  sized 
towns  of  the  State.  All  the  amendments  that 
seemed  to  look  towards  that  protection,  were, 
yesterday,  voted  down ; and  they  seemed  to  me 
to  have  been  voted  down  by  a very  singular 
combination  between  the  Representatives  of  the 
large  cities  of  the  State  and  those  from  the  very 
small  towns. 


1350 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Dorsey,  Pond,  Hoadly,  Greene. 


[114th 

[Saturday, 


But,  aside  from  these  two  classes,  there  are 
those  who  represent  the  moderate-sized  towns 
and  smaller  cities  of  the  State,  where,  more 
than  in  any  other  place,  and  more  than  among 
any  other  class,  the  taxpayers  of  the  State  have 
been  made  to  feel  the  weight  and  burden  and 
injustice  of  these  assessments. 

I wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention 
to  another  fact.  These  assessments  in  the  State, 
and  in  the  smaller  towns  of  the  State,  have 
gone  on,  step  by  step,  in  connection  with  the 
increased  local  taxation;  and  as  one  has  been 
made  to  bear,  in  a burdensome  manner,  upon 
the  taxpayers,  so  also  do  these  assessments  con- 
tinue to  be  made  to  bear  more  and  more  upon 
the  taxpayers,  year  by  year.  It  is  well  known 
to  every  member  of  this  Convention,  that  the 
burden  of  local  taxation  is  becoming  every 
year  greater  and  greater  throughout  the  State, 
and  I do  not  see  any  chance  of  a termination  of 
its  increase.  Not  only  has  it  increased  many- 
fold  in  the  last  dozen  years,  but,  if  we  look  at 
the  Report  of  the  Auditor  of  State,  we  shall  see 
that  there  is  a proposition  to  increase  it  yet  more 
and  more.  I refer  you  to  pages  29  and30  of  the  last 
Report  of  the  Auditor  of  State,  by  which  it  will 
be  seen  that  while  the  amount  collected  for 
taxes,  for  the  year  1873,  is  $23,248,000,  it  is  pro- 
posed that  the  tax  for  1874  shall  amount  to  $26,- 
131,000— an  increase  of  between  two  and  three 
millions  of  dollars  in  a year;  and  that  is  grow- 
ing up  mainly  out  of  local  taxation.  Now,  I 
want  to  observe,  that,  although  we  are  not  dis- 
cussing, at  this  time,  the  matter  of  local  taxa- 
tion, yet  I wish  it  to  be  noticed,  that  this  matter 
of  assessment  has  gone  on,  in  the  State  of  Ohio, 
step  by  step,  with  an  increase  of  power  and 
burden  upon  the  people  equal  to  that  of  local 
taxation. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man, what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  “succes- 
sive,” in  the  amendment  proposed;  whether  it 
means  on  each  of  the  three  years  succeeding 
each  other,  there  may  be  ten  per  centum  levied 
for  each  of  the  years,  or  three  and  one-third  for 
each  year  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Only  three  and  one-third  for 
each  year. 

Mr.  POND.  Does  it  mean  that? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I think  it  does  mean  that, 
very  clearly.  It  reads,  “ in  any  period  of  three 
successive  years,  not  more  than  ten  per  cen- 
tum.” 

Mr.  POND.  Why  do  you  put  the  word 
“ successive”  in  there  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Perhaps  it  is  not  necessary ; 
I am  not  particularly  wedded  to  the  expression ; 
it  may  not  be  necessary  to  put  in  the  word 
“successive,”  and  I will  not  object  to  its  being 
left  out. 

Mr.  IIOADLY.  I do  not  quite  understand 
what  is  wanted.  If  my  understanding  is  cor- 
rect, it  is  this : The  delegate  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  proposes  that  in  any  period  of  three 
successive  years,  the  entire  amount  of  all  assess- 
ments shall  not  exceed  ten  per  centum — an 
equivalent  of  three  and  one-third  per  centum — 
on  the  taxable  value,  for  each  year 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  what  it  means. 

Mr.  IIOADLY.  So  that  there  never  could 
be,  on  an  average,  more  than  three  and  one- 


third  per  centum  assessed  on  the  taxable  valu  e 
of  the  lands 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  it,  precisely. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  And  this,  then,  is  about  two 
per  centum  on  the  real  value. 

Mr.  POND.  Then  it  is  the  same  thing.  I 
did  not  understand  that  the  word  “ period”  was 
in  there ; T thought  that  all  that  was  inserted 
was  “three  successive  years.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  A period  of  three  successive 
years. 

Mr.  POND.  Is  that  the  language  of  the 
amendment? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POND.  I did  not  so  understand  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposition  is  to 
strike  out,  in  line  2,  the  words  “ one  year,”  and 
insert  the  words  “ period  of  three  successive 
years.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I did  that  for  this  reason  : 
That  it  might  be  better  to  collect  ten  percentum 
in  three  successive  years  than  to  scatter  it  along 
any  longer  period,  in  order  that,  in  making  our 
contracts  for  the  performance  of  the  work, 
they  could  be  made  better  if  the  payments  came 
on  year  by  year,  for  three  successive  years. 
But  now,  gentlemen  talk  about  this  being  too 
small  an  assessment;  that  you  cannot  make  the 
necessary  improvements  with  this  assessment. 
I beg  leave  to  say  to  gentlemen  that  it  is  not  a 
small  tax,  when  this  assessment  is  added  to  the 
ordinary  annual  tax.  Let  gentlemen  look  at 
the  ordinary  annual  tax  in  any  of  the  small 
towns : what  is  it  ? From  two  up  to  three  per 
centum  per  annum.  Now,  you  add  this  assess- 
ment of  three  and  one-third  per  centum  to  the 
ordinary  annual  tax  of  two  and  one-half  to 
three  and  a half  per  centum,  and  you  have  from 
five  and  one-half  to  seven  per  centum  of  tax  on 
property,  year  by  year. 

Mr.  GREENE.  It  is  not  upon  the  whole 
town ; it  is  upon  the  property  of  the  particular 
street,  that  the  assessment  is  made. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  perfectly  aware  that 
it  is  not  on  the  whole  town,  but  I ask  the  gen- 
tleman from  Defiance  [Mr.  Greene]  if  its  not 
being  on  the  whole  town,  helps  the  taxpayer 
upon  whom  it  is  assessed  ? If  it  gives  him  very 
great  aid  or  assistance  in  paying  his  tax  ? I 
state  the  fact,  that  the  tax  made  by  this  assess- 
ment is  onerous  upon  the  man  who  is  required 
to  pay  it.  It  is  as  much  as  he  is  able  to  pay ; it 
is  a tax  of  from  five  and  one-half  to  seven  per 
centum,  or  over,  in  some  cities  of  the  State, 
levied  year  by  year.  Now,  in  behalf  of  the  tax- 
payers of  the  State,  I ask  some  limit  be  placed 
upon  this  matter  of  local  assessments,  local 
taxes.  It  is  absolutely  necessary.  It  will  not 
do  for  gentlemen  to  stand  here  and  tell  us  we 
are  putting  a barrier  in  the  way  of  the  improve- 
ments of  the  State;  we  do  not  propose  to  do 
anything  of  the  kind.  The  improvements  of 
the  State  will  go  on ; and  I beg  leave  to  say  to 
gentlemen  that  they  do  not  have  to  make  all 
these  improvements  in  a single  year.  They  do 
not  have  to  make  them,  even  in  one,  two  or 
three  years;  it  gives  owners  time  to  spread 
these  assessments  over  a sufficient  number  of 
years,  and  the  improvements  will  go  on,  though 
burdening  and  weighing  down  the  people  of 
the  different  cities  of  the  State,  and  burdening 
thousands  that  are,  it  may  be,  illy  able  to  bear 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Dorsey,  Townsend,  Pratt,  Carbery. 


1351 


Day.] 


February  14,  1874.] 


it.  I know,  and  every  gentleman  knows,  that 
complaint  is  already  being  made  in  the  larger 
number  of  our  smaller  cities  and  towns,  of  the 
burden  of  municipal  assessments  and  muni- 
cipal taxes.  If  there  i3  any  one  thing  that  the 
people  of  the  State  expect  us  to  do  in  framing 
this  Constitution,  it  is  that  we  are  to  place  some 
barrier,  some  limitation  to  the  matter  of  muni- 
cipal assessments  and  municipal  taxes.  I con- 
fess that  I was,  on  yesterday,  very  much  sur- 
prised to  see  the  persistent  manner  in  which  this 
Convention  voted  down  every  amendment  limit- 
ing this  power. 

Now,  I am  just  as  little  in  favor  of  legislating 
in  this  Constitution  as  any  man  upon  the  floor 
of  this  Convention.  I want  to  do  as  little  of  it 
as  possible;  but  when  we  undertake  to  say 
what  municipalities  shall  do  and  what  they 
shall  not  do,  in  the  State,  why,  then,  I say,  we 
have  a right,  so  far  as  we  can  do  it,  to  protect 
the  people.  We  have  a right  to  place  some 
limit  to  the  amount  of  burden  that  shall  be  put 
upon  their  shoulders.  Gentlemen  say  that  they 
are  perfectly  willing  that  you  shall  limit  the 
amount  to  be  paid  in  any  one  year.  That  is  all 
right,  they  say.  You  shall  not  pay  more  than 
ten  per  centum  in  any  one  year,  but  we  will  not 
tell  you  how  many  successive  years  you  shall  put 
that  ten  per  centum  on.  You  may  put  it  on  for 
three  years,  or  for  five  years,  or  for  ten  years, 
and  run  it  up  to  thirty  per  cent.,  fifty  per 
cent.,  or  a hundred  per  cent,  of  the  whole 
value  of  the  property.  They  tell  us  that  it 
would  be  wrong  to  place  any  limit  in  this  direc- 
tion, though  they  are  willing  to  place  a limit 
so  that  you  shall  not  pay  more  than  ten  per 
cent,  in  any  one  year.  Now,  I appeal  to  gen- 
tlemen of  this  Convention,  if  it  is  not  just  as 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  people  of  the 
State,  that  you  limit  the  number  of  years  in 
which  you  will  impose  this  ten  per  cent,  taxa- 
tion, as  it  is  that  you  limit  the  ten  per  cent,  to  a 
single  year.  Have  not  the  people  of  the  State 
the  right  to  demand  this  of  you,  as  much  as 
they  have  to  demand  that  you  shall  not  place 
upon  their  shoulders  more  than  ten  per  cent,  in 
any  one  year  ? Are  they  going  to  be  satisfied 
with  the  restriction  of  only  being  made  to  pay 
ten  per  cent,  in  any  one  year,  when  you  may 
go  on  and  place  this  ten  per  cent,  on  them  year 
after  year,  until  you  swallow  up  the  whole 
value  of  their  property?  I will  not  believe  it. 

Mr. TOWNSEND.  I ask  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  if  the  Legislature  are  not 
supposed  to  have  considerable  intelligence,  and 
a reasonable  amount  of  integrity,  and  to  know 
what  are  the  wants  of  the  different  localities  of 
the  State?  And  have  they  not  full  authority, 
under  this  provision  of  the  Constitution,  to  limit 
the  amount  paid  each  year  to  one  per  cent.,  or 
two  per  cent.,  or  five  per  cent.?  It  does  not 
necessarily  follow  that  they  shall  give  the  ten 
per  cent.,  but  they  shall  not  exceed  that  limit. 
They  also  have  the  power  to  limit  the  assess- 
ment to  twenty-five  per  cent.,  for  all  purposes, 
for  any  ten  years. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  say,  in  answer  to  the 
question  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Townsend],  that  there  is  no  delegate  upon  this 
floor  who  has  shown  a stronger  disposition  to 
crust  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio 
than  I have.  I have  been  willing  to  trust  them 


where  other  gentlemen  have  shown  an  unwill- 
ingness to  do  it.  But  I apprehend  that  the 
General  Assembly  is  very  likely  to  be  composed 
of  just  precisely  the  same  kind  of  material — 
not  a whit  better  and  not  a whit  worse — as  is 
that  of  which  this  Convention  is  composed ; 
and  from  the  experience  of  yesterday  I am  in- 
clined to  think  that  if  we  are  going  to  put  any 
limit  at  all  on  this  matter,  it  would  be  just  about 
as  well  to  do  it  here.  I apprehend  that  just 
precisely  the  same  kind  of  influence  can  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  General  Assembly,  at 
Columbus,  as  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
Constitutional  Convention,  at  Cincinnati. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PRATT.  What  influence  has  been 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention in  the  city  of  Cincinnati? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  not  particularizing  any 
influence  that  has  been  brought  to  bear.  I am 
only  speaking  of  the  result  of  the  votes  of  yes- 
terday, and  I presume  the  effect  will  be  just  the 
same  in  the  Legislature  as  it  is  here  in  the  Con- 
vention. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Does  the  gentleman  mean 
to  indicate  that  this  assessment  is  to  be  imposed 
by  some  external  body,  somebody  outside  of  the 
parties  to  be  benefited  by  it?  I had  the  impres- 
sion that  it  originated  among  them. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  And  I have  very  much  the 
same  impression  on  my  mind. 

Here  the  President  announced  that  the  gen- 
tleman’s time  had  expired,  but  by  leave  of  the 
Convention  he  was  allowed  to  proceed. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  very  little  more  to  say 
on  this  matter ; but  I want  the  opportunity 
briefly  to  answer  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Carbery].  I am  perfectly  well  aware 
where  these  assessments  originate.  I know 
that  they  originate  with  the  community  that  is 
to  be  taxed;  but  I also  know  that  very  fre- 
quently they  do  not  originate  with  the  men 
who  are  to  be  taxed.  It  very  often  happens 
that  the  interests  of  the  persons  who  pay  the 
taxes  stand  directly  antagonistic  to  those  of  the 
persons  who  assess  the  taxes.  And  I know  very 
well  that  if  the  people  could  be  consulted  in  a 
large  number  of  these  cases,  if  the  voters  who 
pay  the  taxes  along  a certain  street  in  any  of 
our  cities,  or  in  a certain  ward,  could  be  con- 
sulted, their  views  would  often  be  found  direct- 
ly opposed  to  that  of  the  Common  Council,  who 
assess  the  taxes.  I have  seen  that  matter  tested 
more  than  once  in  various  places  in  the  State. 
That  is  one  reason  why  I propose  to  distribute 
the  amount  over  a period  of  three  years ; and  I 
ask  the  attention  of  gentlemen  particularly  to 
that  matter.  Here  is  a Common  Council  that 
levies  an  assessment  upon  a certain  portion  of  a 
city,  upon  a certain  street,  or  upon  a certain 
ward,  for  the  purpose  of  making  improvements 
in  property  along  that  street,  or  in  that  ward. 
I propose  that  that  shall  be  extended  over  three 
years,  in  the  first  place,  in  order  that  the  assess- 
ments may  not  bear  too  heavily  upon  the  shoul- 
ders of  the  tax  payers  in  any  one  year;  and, 
in  the  second  place,  in  order  that,  having  paid 
up  one  assessment,  they  shall  have  a chance  at 
least  to  exercise  their  privilege  as  electors, 
when  the  election  comes  on  at  the  end  of  two 


1352 MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. f 114th 

Carbery,  Dorsey,  Cunningham,  Pratt,  Byal,  Hoadly.  [Saturday, 


years,  in  endeavoring  to  put  in  a City  Council 
who  will  better  represent  their  views. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  believe  in  grading,  paving, 
constructing  a sewer,  and  then  taking  it  up 
again  for  the  laying  of  water  pipes  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  in  favor  of  making  im- 
provements such  as  may  be  laid  out  by  the  com- 
mon council,  and  of  making  contracts,  so  far  as 
the  assessment  of  ten  per  centum  will  allow,  and 
then,  if  the  taxpayers  on  that  street  see  fit  to  stop 
the  improvement  after  having  opened  the  street, 
they  may  wait  for  the  grading,  paving,  and  con- 
struction of  the  sewers  until  some  future  day. 
I am  in  favor  of  letting  them  have  a chance,  at 
least,  to  express  their  opinions  on  that  subject. 
I do  not  presume  that  the  whole  work  is  to  be 
done  in  one  year,  or  in  three  years ; and  I do 
not  presume  that  an  amount  of  tax  is  going  to 
be  levied  sufficient  to  carry  through  the  whole 
work  in  one  year,  or  in  three  years.  If  a street 
is  opened  at  an  expense  of  ten  per  cent.,  and 
assessed  on  the  taxpayers  by  one  assessment, 
payable  in  three  years,  I propose  then  to  give 
the  taxpayers  a little  breathing  time,  in  order 
that  they  may  determine  whether  they  will,  or 
will  not,  agree  to  have  any  further  assessment 
made.  For  this  reason,  Mr.  President,  I am  in 
favor  of  this  amendment,  and,  believing  it  to 
be  dictated  by  the  proper  spirit,  and,  while  be- 
lieving that  it  will  take  off  a burden  from  the 
shoulders  of  the  taxpayers,  I am  perfectly  sure 
that  it  will  not  interfere  with  the  progress  of 
improvement  in  any  of  the  towns  or  cities  of 
the  State,  and,  at  the  same  time,  I am  perfectly 
sure  that  it  will  meet  with  the  approval  of  the 
people  of  the  State.  For  that  reason,  I shall 
support  the  amendment. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  There  is  a very  formi- 
dable argument  which  has  been  used  by  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  and 
which  has  been  used  very  frequently  in  this 
Convention  in  debates  upon  various  topics,  to- 
wit : the  enormous  increase  of  the  aggregate  tax- 
ation of  the  State.  And,  while  it  has  some  consid- 
erable semblance  of  force,  and,  in  fact,  ought  to 
be  considered  to  a certain  extent,  there  are  some 
other  facts  which  ought  to  be  considered  along 
with  it.  One  of  these  facts  will  be  found  in  the 
changed  condition  of  affairs  in  the  State.  For 
example,  take  the  case  of  my  own  town : Fif- 
teen or  twenty  years  ago  it  was  no  more  than  a 
little  village,  making  no  pretensions,  and  hav- 
ing little  ambition, and  less  expectation  of  ever 
ranking  among  the  important  towns  of  the 
State.  We  had  no  system  of  sewerage,  and 
very  few  people  dreamed  that  we  needed  one. 
We  had  no  macadamized  streets,  and  our  people 
were  content  to  wade  through  the  mud  without 
sidewalks. 

A MEMBER.  Along  the  sheep  paths? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir.  We  got  along 
in  our  quiet  way  just  as  best  we  could. 

Mr.  RRATT.  And  footed  it  through  the 
mud? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir.  How  did  we 
get  out  of  the  mud?  Simply  by  adopting  a 
series  of  improvements  which  involved  the  ex- 
penditure of  money.  As  the  town  grew,  and 
its  necessities  grew,  the  expenditures  naturally 
grew,  and,  consequently,  the  larger  was  the 
aggregate  amount  of  money  raised  by  taxation. 


As  it  was  with  Lima,  so  it  has  been  with  a hun- 
dred other  towns  or  localities  in  the  State.  On 
the  west  of  us  the  important  town  of  Van  Wert, 
immediately  south  of  us  the  important  town  of 
Wapakoneta,  east  of  us  the  beautiful  town  of 
Kenton — as  handsome  a little  city  as  there  is  in 
the  State — northeast  of  us  the  town  of  Findlay, 
all  them  grown  in  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty 
years,  from  small  towns  into  nicely  improved 
little  cities,  and,  of  course,  there  had  to  be  a 
large  increase  in  the  aggregate  of  the  sums  of 
money  raised  by  taxation. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  ask  the  gentleman, 
if  he  will  allow  me,  were  not  these  sums  of 
money  raised  by  taxation  upon  the  whole 
body  of  the  town,  and  not  by  particular  assess- 
ment? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No,  sir;  partly  by 
taxation  and  partly  by  assessment.  We  built 
our  sidewalks  almost  invariably,  did  our  grad- 
ing, and  stoned  our  streets  by  a system  of  as- 
sessment; and  so  it  has  been  done  throughout 
the  State. 

Now,  I can  illustrate  further  by  taking 
the  history  of  the  town  of  Findlay.  The 
gentleman  from  Hancock  [Mr.  ByalJ  is  famil- 
iar with  the  facts.  It  was,  for  a great  number 
of  years,  the  leading  town  of  Northwestern 
Ohio.  But  it  fell  behind  some  of  its  neighbors, 
largely,  by  reason  of  the  difficulty  of  building 
cellars  in  the  town.  The  condition  of  its 
streets  was  good.  They  put  stone  upon  them 
years  before  any  of  the  neighboring  towns  were 
improved;  but  the  one  great  complaint  against 
the  town  was  that  they  could  not  build  any 
cellars  there.  In  the  last  three  or  four  years, 
they  have  adopted  a system  of  sewerage,  that 
has  already  redeemed  the  town  from  the  diffi- 
culty under  which  it  had  labored  for  so  long  a 
time.  Of  course,  there  was  increased  taxation 
for  that;  and  yet,  I undertake  to  say,  although 
I have  no  knowledge  of  the  details,  that,  as  a 
rule,  the  people  of  Findlay  do  not  regret  that 
increased  taxation,  nor  has  the  result  shown 
that  it  was  improperly  entered  into.  It  was  a 
great  public  necessity,  both  for  the  health  and 
convenience  of  the  town. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Was  not  that  system  of 
drainage  and  sewerage  paid  for  by  taxation 
upon  the  whole  property  of  the  town? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I think  not. 

Mr.  BYAL.  By  assessment  on  the  adjacent 
property.  I will  say  to  the  gentleman  from 
Allen  that  the  great  advantage  derived  from  it 
was  sanitary  rather  than  pecuniary. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I ask,  what  did  the  assess- 
ment amount  to? 

Mr.  BYAL.  About  one  dollar  and  a half  per 
front  foot. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I tell  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  that  when  he  goes 
into  the  various  localities,  he  will  find  that  this 
increased  expenditure,  about  which  so  much  is 
said,  is  all  based  upon  some  such  reason  as  this. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Allen  allow  me  to  ask  him,  in  the  experience 
which  he  has  had,  and  with  which  he  is  familiar 
in  Findlay,  how  often  are  these  assessments 
liable  to  be  repeated  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Not  very  often,  of 
course.  When  the  improvements  are  accom- 
plished once,  they  last  for  a term  of  years. 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1353 

February  14,  1874.]  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Byal,  Rowland,  Townsend,  Hoadly. 


A MEMBER.  When  well  done. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir;  when  they 
are  well  done.  Of  course,  you  cannot  limit  the 
exact  expenditure  on  them. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  ask  another  question, 
with  the  gentleman’s  permission,  and  perhaps 
the  gentleman  from  Hancock  [Mr.  Byal]  will 
assist  him  in  answering.  How  many  years 
was  it  necessary  to  continue  that  assessment 
in  order  to  make  the  necessary  payment?  Was 
it  all  assessed  in  one  year,  or  through  a number 
of  years? 

Mr.  BYAL.  One  year.  Some  of  the  back 
streets  were  thrown  into  districts,  but  on  Main 
street  it  was  all  assessed  m one  year  upon  the 
front  foot. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Was  it  all  paid  in  one  year? 

Mr.  BYAL.  It  was. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Good. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir.  Just  in 
proportion  to  the  extent  of  the  town,  or  to  the 
amount  of  work  involved,  time  and  money  will 
be  required  to  accomplish  it.  I submit,  that 
while  we  are  looking  with  careful  scrutiny  into 
this  matter  of  expenditure,  we  ought  to  take  into 
consideration  the  moving  causes  of  this  expen- 
diture, when  we  are  determining  whether  the 
expenditures  were  properly  or  improperly 
m ade.  There  is  scarcely  a county  in  the  State 
that  does  not  contain  some  town  that  is  ambi- 
tious of  holding  some  respectable  position 
among  its  neighbors ; and  it  costs  as  much,  as  a 
rule,  to  grade  and  Macadamize  a street  in  the 
country  as  it  does  in  the  city;  and  while  even 
one  per  cent.,  or  one-half  of  one  per  cent.,  or 
one  mill,  would,  perhaps,  be  enormous  taxation 
on  Pearl  street,  or  on  Fourth  street,  it  would  be 
nothing  in  our  little  towns. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  And  nothing  in  our  sub- 
urbs. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  And  nothing  even  in 
the  suburbs  of  the  city  of  Cincinnati. 

So,  Mr.  President,  I submit,  first,  that  this 
Convention  should  seek  to  do  no  wrong  thing; 
and  next,  that  it  should  not  undertake  to  do 
that  which  will  be  a vain  thing.  I am  sure  that 
the  influences  which  ordinarily  control  the  ac- 
tion of  local  authorities  are  about  the  same  as 
those  which  control,  for  example,  the  action  of 
this  honorable  body.  Men  do  not  ordinarily 
place  themselves  in  opposition  to  public  opinion  ; 
and  their  interests  are  so  closely  connected  with 
the  interests  of  the  people  whom  they  repre- 
sent, that  they  cannot  do  any  wrong  to  the 
masses  of  the  people,  without  that  wrong  reach- 
ing and  affecting  the  men  who  perpetrate  it. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I desire  to  say  a few 
words  in  relation  to  this  matter.  The  great 
embarrassment  which  attaches  to  this  question, 
is  the  difficulty  of  knowing  and  defining  the 
difference  between  the  various  classes  of  ex- 
penditures of  the  city  or  towns.  Now,  what 
are  known  as  special  assessments,  are  really 
confined  to  but  three  things,  certainly  not  over 
four — grading  the  streets,  paving  the  streets, 
and  putting  down  sewers.  All  the  other  ex- 
penditures are  generally  the  current  expenses 
indident  to  the  city.  When  these  assessments 
are  once  made,  and  paid  for  by  the  property- 
holders,  they  are  not  called  upon  during  a life- 
time to  make  them  again.  A sewer,  if  it  is  well 
made,  will  last  from  twenty-five  to  fifty  years. 
A street  which  is  once  graded,  never  wants 


grading  again.  A street  which  is  well  paved 
with  stone — which  I am  satisfied  is  going  to  be 
the  great  paving  material  of  this  country,  wood 
to  the  contrary,  notwithstanding — does  not 
want  repaving  for  ten,  fifteen,  or  even  twenty 
years.  Sometimes  the  stone  wants  taking  up 
and  relaying,  but  scarcely  ever  do  the  streets 
want  repaving,  and  the  property-holders  them- 
selves are  not  frequently  called  upon  to  repave 
the  streets,  as  has  been  alleged.  Now,  these 
three  classes  of  improvements  are  generally,  and 
should  always  be,  made  at  one  time.  When  a 
street  has  been  graded,  that  is  the  proper  time 
to  put  down  the  sewers 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  delegate  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Townsend],  will  permit  me  to  make  a sug- 
gestion, which  is,  perhaps,  not  in  accordance 
with  his  own  experience.  In  Cleveland,  you 
make  no  fills,  as  I understand,  your  grading  is 
all  done  by  cutting. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  We  have  but  very  litile 
filling. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  In  regard  to  the  comments 
which  are  made  here  upon  the  work  being 
divided  in  point  of  time,  it  ought  to  be  remem- 
bered that  when  a heavy  fill  is  made,  such  as  is 
necessary  about  this  city,  a sewer  cannot  be  put 
in  until  after  the  work  has  settled,  perhaps  not 
until  one  or  two  years,  until  after  the  work  has 
settled.  That  is  the  reason  why  it  often  neces- 
sarily happens  that  the  gas-pipe,  water-pipe, 
and  sewers  are  obliged  to  go  in  afterwards. 
Sometimes  it  is  done  unnecessarily;  but  very 
often  people  complain  without  knowing  the 
engineering  difficulty. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Well,  that  matter  must, 
of  course,  be  governed  by  the  local  surround- 
ings in  each  particular  case.  They  all  should 
certainly  be  made  before  the  paving  is  put 
down.  The  sidewalks,  water  pipes,  sewers,  and 
such  improvements,  should  all  be  put  down  be- 
fore the  paving  is  done.  Whan  that  is  once 
done,  nothing  further  is  required  for  years. 
That  is  the  end  of  that.  That  street  is  made, 
and  there  is  nothing  to  consider  but  the  ordi- 
nary wear  and  tear.  Now,  these  assessments 
cost  anywhere  from  two  to  seven,  eight,  nine, 
or  ten  dollars  a lineal  foot  front,  owing  to  the 
circumstances — the  size  of  the  sewer,  width  of 
street,  and  all  those  matters — but  it  does  not 
follow  that  all  that  shall  be  taxed  upon  the 
property  in  one  year.  In  our  city,  under  a 
State  law,  which  we  now  have,  and  can  get 
again — and  which  any  other  city  can  get  again, 
at  any  time,  because  it  is  right — we  issue  bonds 
of  the  city  to  do  this  work.  The  bonds  are  pay- 
able in  from  one  to  five  years,  and  are  at  par  in 
the  market.  The  contractor  receives  them  in 
payment  for  his  work,  which  he  does  at  cash 
price,  and  that  kind  of  pay,  and  paid,  as  the 
work  progresses,  induces  a large  number  of 
bidders,  because  payment  is  made  as  fast  as  the 
work  progresses,  and  it  does  not  require  men  of 
large  capital  to  bid  upon  the  contract — a poor 
man  can  do  it.  These  bonds  are  issued,  and  the 
city  provides  for  their  redemption  from  year  to 
year.  Any  man  has  the  privilege  of  giving  the 
pay  for  his  entire  improvement  into  the  city 
treasurer,  and  it  is  credited  to  him,  and  that  is 
the  end  of  it.  If  he  fails,  the  amount  is  taxed 
upon  his  property,  the  same  as  any  other  assess- 
ment, and  it  is  distributed  over  from  three  to 
five  years.  It  is  paid  without  being  seriously 


1354 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Townsend,  Hunt. 


felt,  and  by  the  time  the  last  payment  is  made, 
the  property  is  enhanced  in  value,  by  reason  of 
these  very  improvements,  to  treble  and  some- 
times fifty  times  what  it  cost.  And  there  is  no 
man  that  I know  of  who  complains.  Even  if 
he  wants  to  sell  his  property,  he  gets  three 
and  four  times  the  cost  of  the  improvements 
back. 

Then,  the  sanitary  condition  of  a city  is  an 
important  matter.  As  cities  grow  older,  they 
find  that  they  have  to  pay  more  attention  to 
sanitary  considerations.  A small  village  wants 
but  little  sewerage ; but  when  it  gets  to  be  a 
city  of  from  ten  to  fifteen  thousand  inhabitants, 
the  increased  filth  and  accumulations  of  that 
kind  must  necessarily  be  taken  away,  or  your 
city  will  have  every  year  a visitation  of  malaria 
and  disease.  Now,  these  special  assessments 
and  expenses  are  not  felt.  They  are  not  the 
expenses  complained  of  by  the  public,  and 
spoken  of  by  the  Governor  in  his  message,  and 
which  are  so  often  referred  to  in  the  city.  They 
are  local  and  necessary,  and  are  cheerfully  met. 
They  benefit  the  property,  and  the  persons  who 
pay  for  them  want  them.  A law,  under  these 
restrictions,  can  be,  and,  I have  no  doubt,  will 
be,  framed,  so  that  these  improvements  will  be 
made  upon  the  petition  of  a majority ; and  they 
can,  if  they  see  proper,  go  to  the  extreme,  and 
require  two-thirds  or  more,  which  I think 
would  be  unwise;  but  it  would  be  entirely 
within  the  control  of  these  men  themselves. 

Now,  the  class  of  expenses  which  rest  heavily 
on  the  city,  and  increase  the  levy,  and  which 
often  become  very  burdensome,  and  add  much 
to  the  tax  duplicate,  are  paid  out  of  the  general 
fund  from  the  grand  levy  to  pay  necessary  cur- 
rent expenses.  The  support  of  the  police  force, 
which,  in  a large  city,  is  an  important  item ; for 
the  fire  department,  which  is  also  necessary  for 
the  protection  of  property ; for  fire  hydrants  in 
various  streets,  and  at  different  corners ; for  the 
paving  of  street  intersections  between  various 
squares,  which  costs  a large  sum,  and  is  usually 
paid  out  of  the  general  fund ; for  the  support 
of  the  poor,  in  the  various  poor  houses;  for  the 
outdoor  relief  of  the  poor,  which  in  large  cities 
is  a very  large  item,  requiring  a levy  of  one- 
half  of  one  mill  perhaps;  for  street  repairs, 
which  are  done  by  the  public,  and  which  go  on 
from  year  to  year,  where  such  things  as  the  cav- 
ing in  of  sewers,  the  wearing  out  of  streets,  and 
the  tearing  up  of  streets  render  them  necessary ; 
for  the  city  authorities  have  to  make  these  re- 
pairs all  the  time,  and  pay  for  them  out  of  the 
general  levy,  frequently  employing  fifty  or  a 
hundred  men  in  this  city,  I venture  to  say,  more 
than  two-thirds  of  the  year,  upon  just  that  kind 
of  work;  for  the  police  court  and  its  sur- 
roundings, its  expenses  and  officials;  for  gas 
lighting,  which  is  a large  item,  costing  in  this 
city,  I venture  to  say,  from  two  hundred  and 
fifty  to  three  hundred  thousand  dollars  a year; 
and  for  public  wharfs,  intended  for  public  use. 
In  cities  which  have  a river  frontage,  as  this 
has,  or  a lake  frontage,  as  Cleveland  has,  the 
frontage  has  to  be  kept  up  for  th«  public  benefit 
and  at  the  public  expense ; bridges  to  cross  the 
river  are  made  at  the  public  expense,  and  the  re- 
pair of  these  bridges,  from  year  to  year,  of  course, 
causes  a large  expenditure  of  money;  public 
parks,  and  their  various  improvements  are  made 


[11 4 th 

[Saturday, 


at  the  expense  of  the  public.  These  are  the 
necessary  services  which  swell  the  taxation  of 
cities,  and  increase  the  levy.  These  are  what 
are  complained  of.  It  is  not  the  special  assess- 
ments that  are  complained  of  as  increasing  tax- 
ation. 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention 
to  another  thing,  and  that  is  the  difference  be- 
tween the  functions  of  this  Convention  and 
those  of  the  Ohio  Legislature.  One  is  called  to 
make  the  organic  law  of  the  State,  to  place 
limitations  and  restrictions  which  shall  govern 
all  departments  and  all  transactions  of  the 
State.  That  is  our  duty,  and  when  that  is  done 
we  have  finished  our  work.  But  when  we  at- 
tempt to  legislate  for  special  localities — to  frame 
provision  here  to  meet  the  wants  of  Lima,  for 
instance — why,  we  find  that  these  provisions 
rest  heavily  upon  some  of  the  larger  cities,  and 
are  not  proper  for  some  of  the  smaller  ones 
even.  We  see  at  once  that  that  is  a duty  which 
should  be  remitted  to  the  Legislature,  who  have 
ample  authority  under  this  provision  to  make 
laws  that  will  reach  the  wants  and  the  growing 
necessities  of  these  various  cities,  under  the 
classification  of  six  or  less.  One  set  of  laws 
may  be  framed  for  towns  and  villages,  with  a 
population  ranging  from  five  hundred  to  five 
thousand.  Their  wants  are  few,  and  they  do 
not  need  these  heavy  expenditures.  But  the 
larger  cities  want  different  legislation.  Cities 
like  Cincinnati  want  an  almost  entirely  differ- 
ent class  of  legislation.  But  we  cannot  pos- 
sibly frame  any  provision  here  that  will  cover 
them  all.  Some  one  must  suffer  if  we  attempt 
it.  Hence  the  great  propriety  of  referring  this 
whole  matter  to  the  Legislature.  I have  con- 
fidence that  they  will,  from  time  to  time,  meet 
the  reasonable  wants  of  the  community,  and 
with  this  advantage : if  they  make  a law  that  is 
found  to  be  bad  in  its  working,  although  it  may 
not  seem  so  when  it  is  made — many  laws  look 
well  on  the  surface,  but  when  you  come  to  put 
them  into  operation,  they  are  found  to  work 
badly — it  can  be  changed  or  repealed.  Public 
sentiment  will  demand  it,  and  the  Legislature 
will  cheerfully  yield  it.  But  if  we  put  it  into 
the  Constitution,  no  matter  how  badly  it  may 
be  found  to  work,  it  will  stay  there.  Hence,  I 
hope  the  amendment  will  not  be  adopted,  and 
that  the  Article  will  stand  as  it  is. 

Mr.  HUNT.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, that  the  Legislature  has  the  power  of 
assessing  the  cost  of  local  improvements  upon 
the  property  benefited ; and  whether  this  ex- 
pense should  be  entirely  appropriated  from  the 
public  treasury,  or  assessed  upon  the  property 
benefited,  or  upon  the  property  legislatively 
declared  to  be  benefited,  are  questions  of  purely 
legislative  discretion.  Indeed,  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Pennsylvania  has  gone  so  far,  where 
there  was  no  prohibition  in  the  Constitution,  as 
to  declare  an  act  unconstitutional,  on  the 
ground  that  it  grew  out  of  the  very  limitation 
in  the  subject  itself.  This  was  a case  where  the 
Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  authorized  the  city 
of  Philadelphia  to  purchase  and  lay  out  a cer- 
tain street.  They  assessed  the  whole  cost  of  its 
improvement  upon  the  adjacent  property  hold- 
ers; but  this  was  declared  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Pennsylvania  to  be  unconstitutional. 
The  Court,  in  passing  upon  that  subject, said, in 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hunt,  West. 


1355 


Day.] 

February  14,  1874.] 


effect,  that  the  original  opening  of  the  street 
brings  the  property  bounding  upon  it  into  the 
market  as  building  lots.  Before  that  it  is  a road 
and  not  a street.  It  is,  therefore,  a local  im- 
provement, with  benefits  almost  exclusively 
peculiar  to  the  adjoining  properties.  Such  a 
case  is  clearly  within  the  principle  of  assessing 
the  costs  upon  the  lots  lying  upon  it.  But 
when  a street  is  once  opened  and  paved,  and 
thus  assimilated  with  the  rest  of  the  city,  and 
made  a part  of  it,  all  the  particular  benefits 
derived  from  the  improvements  have  been  re- 
ceived and  enjoyed.  Repairing  streets  is  as 
much  a part  of  the  ordinary  duties  of  a muni- 
cipality, for  the  general  good,  as  cleaning, 
watching  and  lighting.  It  would  be  a mon- 
strous injustice  and  inequality,  should  such 
general  expense  be  provided  for  by  local  assess- 
ment. Chief  Justice  Showers  went  further, 
and  said  that  local  assessments  can  only  be  con- 
stitutional when  imposed  to  pay  for  local  im- 
provements, clearly  from  special  benefits  upon 
the  property  assessed, and  to  the  extent  of  those 
benefits.  They  cannot  be  so  imposed  when  the 
improvement  is  either  expressed  to  be,  or  ap- 
pears to  be,  for  the  general  benefit.  All  streets 
which  are  open  for  public  uses  are  necessa- 
rily public  benefits,  and  it  is  only  upon  this 
ground  that  the  city  or  municipality  can  take 
the  property;  but  the  cost  of  opening  and  im- 
proving them  is  assessed  already  on  the  adjoin- 
ing owners  on  the  theory  of  private  benefit. 

The  other  case  is  from  the  Pennsylvania  State 
Reports,  decided  in  1869,  and  I cite  this  author- 
ity, not  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  any 
position  of  my  own,  but  simply  to  indicate 
to  what  extent  the  Courts  of  Pennsylvania 
have  gone  in  that  question,  as  antagonistic  to 
the  Courts  of  Louisiana,  cited  yesterday  by  the  i 
gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  and  sim- 
ply to  show  to  the  Convention,  if  possible,  the 
impossibility  of  fixing  any  constitutional  pro- 
hibition in  reference  to  assessment  for  improv- 
ments  on  private  property. 

The  other  case  cited  as  authority  in  that 
direction,  I take  from  the  Pennsylvania  State 
Reports  of  the  same  year.  It  was  held  to  be 
beyond  the  power  of  the  Legislature  to  require 
new  and  foreign  lands,  lying  within  one  mile 
upon  either  side  of  a public  highway,  to  pay  for 
improvements,  by  assessment  upon  their  lands 
by  the  acre.  The  highway  in  question  was 
seven  miles  long,  and  was  not  within  the 
bounds  of  the  municipality;  but  its  improve- 
ment and  management  was  placed  in  the  hands 
of  aboard  of  commissioners.  The  main  ground 
upon  which  the  decision  was  based  was  that  the 
improvement  would  be  a general  public  benefit. 
The  secondary  ground  was  that  the  rule  of 
charging  benefits  by  frontage  would  apply  only 
to  cities  and  large  towns,  where  the  density  of 
the  population  along  the  street,  and  the  small  size 
of  the  lots,  makes  it  a reasonable  and  certain 
mode  of  arriving  at  the  true  result ; but  to  ap- 
ply it  to  country  and  foreign  lands,  or  lands 
with  outlying  lots  would  lead  to  inequality  and 
injustice. 

I say,  therefore,  that  while  the  Legislature 
has  the  constitutional  right  to  confer  upon  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations  this  power  of  assessment, 
the  question  as  to  how  it  shall  be  assessed  is 
simply  and  purely  one  of  legislative  expediency 


and  legislative  discretion.  We  have  seen,  by 
the  authorities  which  have  been  cited  already, 
that  our  Supreme  Courts,  throughout  the  vari- 
ous States,  have  differed  very  materially  in 
their  decisions;  and  if  the  Supreme  Courts  of 
the  States  have  differed  in  their  decisions  it 
would  be  impolitic,  if  not  impossible,  to  lay 
down  any  provisions  or  any  settled  rule  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  State,  to  determine  this 
question  of  assessment.  As  has  been  remarked 
in  general  debate  upon  this  question,  our  cities 
and  towns  are  growing;  legislation  must  be 
flexible,  and  must  adapt  itself  to  their  various 
wants  and  necessities.  That  which  might  be  a 
benefit  to  a city  of  the  second  class,  or  a city  of 
the  sixth  class,  under  the  classification  indi- 
cated in  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  might 
work  wisely  and  well  to-day,  and  unwisely  and 
injudiciously  some  years  hence.  It  is  difficult 
to  lay  a certain  fixed  and  determinate  rule  upon 
the  question ; and  whether  these  assessments 
shall  be  made  upon  the  property  benefited  or 
upon  the  property  legislatively  declared  to  be 
benefited,  or  whether  it  shall  be  taken  wholly 
from  the  general  treasury,  should  be  a*  question 
left  simply  and  wholly  with  the  Representa- 
tives of  the  people,  who,  coming  from  the  vari- 
ous sections  of  the  State,  can  determine,  from 
time  to  time,  what  may  be  necessary  and  expe- 
dient in  the  matter.  We  cannot  lay  down  a 
fixed  rule,  and  a constitutional  provision  upon 
the  matter.  The  whole  question  should  be  re- 
ferred to  legislative  action. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  may  be  too 
stringent,  may  be  too  rigid  a limit,  but  I desire 
to  speak  simply  upon  the  general  proposition, 
as  briefly  as  possible.  This  whole  Legislative 
Article  is  designed  and  intended  to  be  a re- 
straint upon  legislative  discretion,  and  nothing 
more.  In  the  absence  of  this  Article,  in  the 
absence  of  any  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the 
Legislature,  it  may  grant  to  municipalities  the 
authority  to  make  assessments.  Now,  sir,  the 
whole  object  of  this  Article  is  to  fix  a limit 
upon  this  legislative  discretion.  Gentlemen, 
after  the  arguments  propounded  and  the  diffi- 
culties suggested,  answer  by  saying  in  a very 
flippant  manner,  that  this  is  a question  of  legis- 
lation, and  all  objections  to  the  unlimited  power 
of  the  Legislature  that  are  here  proposed,  are 
answered  by  the  pert  response  that  that  is 
legislation.  Why,  Mr.  President,  in  one  sense, 
all  that  we  do  here  is  legislation.  We  are  now 
legislating  to  frame  a fundamental  law,  a law 
of  limitation  and  restriction,  and  that  is  the 
object  of  this  Legislative  Article.  What  is  the 
first  section  ? It  is  that  your  Municipal  Cor- 
porations shall  be  divided  into  six  classes,  or 
not  exceeding  six  classes.  Why  so?  It  is  to 
restrain  legislative  discretion;  for  in  the  ab- 
sence of  that  legislation,  the  General  Assembly 
may  divide  them  into  as  many  classes  as  there 
are  cities  and  villages.  But  one  who  is  opposed 
to  a limitation  or  classification  says : leave  it  to 
the  legislative  discretion.  The  Legislature  has 
already  provided  but  four  classes.  Why  cannot 
we  trust  the  Legislature?  It  is  because  we 
desire  to  restrict  the  authority,  the  power  of 
the  Legislature,  arid  the  possibility  of  abusing 
their  discretion.  And  that  is  the  object  of  the 
limitation.  Therefore,  we  provide  for  classifica- 


1356 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

West,  Wilson,  Cunningham,  Griswold. 


tion.  The  next  question  is,  why  do  we  impose 
a limit  of  ten  per  cent.,  payable  annually? 
Why  not  trust  to  the  discretion  of  the  General 
Assembly  ? Is  not  its  discretion  as  competent 
to  determine  the  amount  that  shall  be  assessed, 
or  made  payable,  in  any  one  year,  as  this  body  ? 
Why,  it  is  confessed,  sir,  that  if  that  discretion 
be  without  limitation,  it  may  be,  and,  in  time 
past  has  been,  greatly  abused.  Because  of  that 
great  abuse,  it  is  proposed  that  a limit  of  ten 
per  cent.,  annually,  shall  be  placed  upon  the 
amount  to  be  paid  of  these  assessments.  Why 
ten  ? Somebody  gets  up  and  answers,  that  is 
legislation.  Why  put  any  limitation?  I say  to 
gentlemen,  it  is  not  legislation  in  the  proper 
legislative  sense.  It  is  a restraint  upon  legisla- 
tive power,  and  that  is  the  object  of  constitu- 
tional, or  fundamental  law;  to  limit,  to  restrain, 
legislative  discretion.  In  the  absence  of  a par- 
ticular constitutional  provision,  the  Legislature 
would  have  all  discretion.  It  would  have  un- 
controlled authority,  as  the  British  Parliament 
has.  But  we  propose  to  limit  that  uncontrolled 
authority,  and  this  limit  we  are  now  endeavor- 
ing to  prescribe.  If  they  are  reasonable  limita- 
tions, we  ought  to  adopt  them . If  the  limitations 
are  unreasonable,  enlarge  the  liberty.  If  the 
nature  of  the  subject  is  such  as  that  it  is  inca- 
pable of  being  abused,  then  let  them  go  without 
limitation ; or,  if  the  abuse  should  be  so  insig- 
nificant as  not  to  be  worth  the  time  expended 
in  prescribing  limitations,  leave  it  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  General  Assembly.  But,  if  the 
matter  be  of  a character  such  that  great 
abuse  is  possible,  oppression  may  grow  out  of 
it,  unwittingly,  perhaps,  or  in  consequence  of 
the  earnest  desire  of  many  gentlemen  to  build 
up  magnificent  and  palatial  improvements.  If, 
I say,  oppression  or  hardship  may  be  the  result 
of  these  things,  it  is  prudent,  sir,  that  we  im- 
pose limitations  upon  legislative  discretion, such 
as  are  reasonable.  Now,  sir,  we  do  not  ask  any 
limitations  that  are  unreasonable.  Whatever 
is  reasonable  and  proper,  let  it  be  imposed,  and 
nothing  more.  In  my  judgment,  a limitation 
upon  legislative  discretion,  or  municipal  dis- 
cretion, that  will  give  up  to  the  public  fifty  per 
cent,  of  one’s  possessions,  is  certainly  not  an 
unreasonable  limitation.  If  I am  willing,  sir, 
to  give  up  one  half  of  my  estate  to  the  benefit  of 
the  public,  certainly  the  public  ought  not  to  re- 
gard it  as  unreasonable  to  retain  and  enlarge 
the  other  half.  That,  certainly,  seems  to  my 
mind  to  be  not  an  unreasonable  limitation  upon 
legislative  power.  Now,  what  do  these  gentle- 
men in  the  city  say  ? Why,  the  benefit  is  to 
inure  to  the  suburban  property  that  is  im- 
proved, and  the  assessment  ought  to  be  imposed 
upon  the  property  adjacent  to  the  improve- 
ment. I know  there  is  some  philosophy  in 
that.  It  sounds  well.  But  why  is  it  that  the 
central  portions  of  your  cities  and  your  towns 
are  so  anxious  to  have  suburban  improvements 
made?  It  is  because  every  improvement  of 
your  suburbs  adds  to  the  value  of  your  central 
possessions.  It  adds  to  your  central  possessions 
in  this : it  brings  upon  the  tax  duplicate  an  in- 
creased valuation,  thereby  diminishing  the 
general  rate  of  taxation,  which  inures  to  the 
benefit  of  the  property  within  the  central  and 
more  valuable  or  business  parts  of  your  city. 
Now,  sir,  look  at  your  own  glorious  city  of 


[114th 

[Saturday’ 


Cincinnati,  and  at  Cleveland,  the  pride  of  the 
lake.  Upon  the  summit  of  Cleveland,  where 
the  central  business  portion  of  the  city  stands, 
the  ability  to  make  the  improvements  was  less, 
the  facility  for  making  improvements  was  less, 
the  cost  of  improvement  was  less,  than 
in  the  suburbs  of  either  of  the  cities  of 
Cincinnati  or  Cleveland;  and  yet  you  pro- 
pose to  impose  upon  these  suburbs,  thrown 
out  upon  the  rocks  and  ravines  and  hill-sides 
of  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  where  grading,  and 
filling,  and  paving,  and  sidewalks, and  sewerage, 
and  other  improvements,  are  ten-fold  more  ex- 
pensive than  they  were  upon  Fourth  street, 
Fifth  street,  and  Sixth  street — you  propose  to 
compel  those  suburban  portions  of  the  city  of 
Cincinnati,  among  her  rocks  and  cliffs  and 
mountain  sides,  to  endure  ten-fold  the  amount 
of  expense  for  the  purpose  of  improving  the 
value  of  those  hill  side  and  ravine  property, 
in  order  that  the  general  duplicate  of  Cincin- 
nati shall  be  enlarged,  that  the  rate  shall  be  di- 
minished upon  your  central  property  holders. 
I say  it  is  unjust.  It  is  not  fair.  You  increase 
the  value  of  rentals  in  the  center  by  every  dol- 
lar of  improvement  you  add  to  the  suburbs. 
Now,  compare  the  relative  values  of  your  prop- 
erty here.  Upon  Third  street,  Fourth  street, 
and  Pearl  street,  rentals  are  of  the  value  of  a 
hundred  dollars  per  foot,  and  a thousand  dol- 
lars, perhaps,  in  the  central  portions  of  your 
city. 

Mr.  WILSON.  How  much  has  this  Spencer 
House  property  been  increased  ? This  must  be 
a center. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  aware  that  the  centers  of 
business  and  of  trade  change.  But  will  any 
man  say  that  it  is  fair  or  honest  that  the  Spen- 
cer House  now,  having  declined  into  a second, 
third,  or  fourth  rate  locality,  should  be  assessed 
the  same  enormous  sums  that  may  be  necessary 
to  keep  up  the  palatial  portions  of  your  city*? 
No,  sir.  It  is  unjust,  it  is  unfair  to  do  so. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  just  precisely 
what  we  say. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  decidedly  not  what  you 
say.  It  is  decidedly  the  reverse  of  what  you 
say.  Now,  sir,  here  is  property  in  the  center 
of  Cincinnati  where  your  lots  bring  a thousand 
or  ten  thousand  dollars  per  foot.  Men  can  af- 
ford to  pay  a little  more  for  the  improvement  of 
business  houses  of  that  value,  than  upon  the 
hill  side  five  miles  off,  where  the  digging  and 
grading  is  ten  times  as  costly  and  expensive 
as  it  is  here.  Cannot  they  afiord  to  pay  a little 
more  here  than  they  can  afford  to  pay  out  there  ? 
And  yet  you  compel  the  owners  out  in  the  sub- 
urbs to  pay  for  the  improvement  of  a grade 
equally  with  the  central  portions,  whatever  mu- 
nicipalities and  authorities  shall  prescribe  ac- 
cording to  their  own  dictates,  and  not  according 
to  the  wish  of  the  suburban  owners. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Does  not  the  improvement 
of  the  properties  pay  all  these  expenses  by  the 
increase  of  their  values  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly  they  do,  sir. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Do  not  they  bear  that  bur- 
den? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly  they  bear  that  por- 
tion of  it.  Here  are  your  central  portions  of 
the  city.  They  are  anxious  about  the  suburbs. 
Why  is  it  that  Superior  street  in  Cleveland  is 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  14,  1874.]  West,  Griswold,  Powell,  Hoadly,  Carbery,  Cunningham. 


1357 


so  anxious  that  three  miles  distant  across  the 
Cuyahoga  river  there  shall  be  local  improve- 
ments and  graded  streets  and  walks  made? 
It  is  that  the  price  of  property  there  shall  be  so 
far  augmented  that  the  general  duplicate  of  the 
city  shall  be  reduced  in  rate,  although  increased 
in  the  aggregate.  That  is  what  you  labor  for  in 
Superior  street. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  We  paid  merely  for  the 
special  improvements,  and  now  if  we  pay  for 
the  others,  we  do  not  think  that  is  right. 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  ask  you  to  do  that.  All 
I ask  of  you  is  that  you  do  not  take  away  from 
the  suburbs  more  than  twice  the  value  of  the 
suburban  property  to  improve  it,  for  the  privi- 
lege of  being  taxed  on  the  general  duplicate 
for  the  benefit  of  the  city  at  large. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  a question? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Allow  me  to  suggest  in  the 
first  place,  that  these  improvements  upon  the 
country  property  raise  the  value  of  that  proper- 
ty ; and  the  people  in  towns  say  that  they  do  not 
want  to  be  taxed,  and  they  consider  it  unjust 
that  they  are  taxed  to  increase  the  value  of 
property  in  the  suburbs,  when  the  improve- 
ments in  the  suburbs  can  be  made  to  pay  for 
themselves. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir,  I understand  all  that 
philosophy.  Their  all  I ask  of  you  is  that  the 
people  in  the  central  improved  portions  of  the 
city  keep  their  hands  off  the  suburban  proper- 
ty, and  let  them  take  care  of  themselves. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Whatis  it  that  has  given  the 
suburban  property  value  ? Is  it  not  the  im- 
provement of  the  central  parts  of  the  city  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I will  tell  you  what  has  given  it 
value.  It  is  one  of  the  incidents  of  building  up 
a city.  But  what  made  your  city?  It  is  the 
hard  industries  of  the  country  that  has  made 
your  city.  It  is  sharp  trading,  by  which  you 
have  absorbed  the  industry  of  the  country  and 
piled  it  up  on  Third  street,  and  Fourth  street, 
and  Pearl  street.  Now,  you  want  to  claim  that 
it  is  your  city,  and  the  enterprise  of  your  city, 
that  has  made  the  country  valuable,  when  it  is 
by  the  absorption  of  the  industry  of  the 
country,  piled  into  your  city,  that  has  made  it 
valuable.  That  is  what  has  done  it. 

[The  time  having  expired,  the  gentleman  had 
leave  to  proceed.] 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I would  ask  if  the  ex- 
changes conducted  by  the  commercial  centers 
do  not  improve  the  country  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly  they  do.  But  I do  not 
want  gentlemen  in  the  city  to  say  to  me,  “ That 
is  our  enterprise.  That  is  our  industry.  That 
is  our  skill;  ” and  what  you  have  absorbed  in 
the  successful  exchange  of  property;  what 
you  have  absorbed,  and  accumulated,  and  piled 
up  upon  Fourth  street.  It  is  the  industry  of  the 
State  that  you  have  accumulated  that  has  made 
it  valuable.  Now,  that  species  and  character  of 
argument  has  two  sides  to  it.  I know  when 
the  city  of  Lima  was  made,  and  I know  what 
clamor  there  was  from  the  poor  people  appeal- 
ing to  the  Legislature  for  relief  against  the 
outrageous  oppression  that  was  imposed  upon 
them. 


Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
name  an  instance  where  the  Legislature  was 
troubled  upon  that  subject? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yres,  sir,  I can  name  them;  for 
I was  in  the  Legislature.  I know,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  improvements  add  to  the  value  of  any 
locality.  I know  that  every  dollar  that  is  ex- 
pended in  improvements,  properly  and  econom- 
ically, adds  to  the  general  value  and  the  gene- 
ral wealth.  I know  that  when  a gentleman  is  an 
owner  of  forty  acres  of  land  and  builds  upon  it 
a palatial  residence,  there  is  added  to  the  value 
of  that  property  to  the  extent  of  the  value  of 
the  residence  placed  upon  it.  But,  sir,  if  he  be 
so  impecunious  as  to  be  utterly  unable  to  pay 
for  the  improvement  placed  upon  it  and  must 
give  it  over  to  the  hands  to  the  sheriff,  he  is  not 
I the  enjoyer  of  the  expenditure  there  made,  and 
| must  go  forth  from  his  home  a beggar,  whilst 
the  property  remains  to  be  enjoyed  by  some 
more  fortunate  successor,  and  goes  into  the  ag- 
gregate wealth  of  the  State.  Thus  it  is  with 
your  improvements.  If  by  oppression,  you  are 
compelled  to  drive  a class  of  the  suburban  pop- 
ulation into  exile  and  poverty,  I know  that  the 
improvement  and  the  increased  value  remains 
to  increase  the  aggregate  of  the  city  prosperity; 
but  unfortunately,  those  who  have  been  com- 
pelled to  bear  the  burden  and  brunt  of  the 
storm  are  not  benefited  thereby,  and  must  go 
forth  and  give  up  their  properties  and  homes  to 
others  that  come  after  them.  I do  not  want  to 
see  that.  If  such  a system,  rule  or  principle  is 
to  prevail,  let  us  strike  from  our  Bill  of  Rights 
the  declaration  that  private  property  shall  be 
held  inviolate,  subject  only  to  the  public  use 
when  properly  compensated  and  paid  for.  Let 
us  strike  that  provision  from  our  Bill  of  Rights, 
and  say  that  private  property  is  inviolate  only 
to  the  extent  that  the  municipal  authorities  may 
have  the  discretion,  the  condescension,  to  per- 
mit us  to  enjoy;  that  no  private  member  of  the 
municipality  has  any  rights  that  the  municipal 
authorities  are  bound  to  respect,  if  those  rights 
may  be  in  conflict  or  antagonism  with  the  gen- 
eral progress  and  general  improvement  of  the 
municipality.  Sir,  in  my  judgment,  individuals 
have  some  rights.  I am  willing  to  see  prosper- 
ity carried  forward  by  legislation,  or  by  enter- 
prise, or  by  economies  properly  applied ; but  I 
am  unwilling  that  the  general  apparent  pros- 
perity and  wealth  shall  be  aggregated  at  the 
expense  of  individuals,  by  the  operation  of  in- 
dividuals. Therefore,  it  seems,  sir,  that  now 
and  here  we  should  put  a proper  limitation 
upon  legislative  discretion ; so  that  the  pro- 
perty of  no  man,  more  than  one-half  in 
value,  at  least,  shall  be  taken  from  him ; but 
that  the  property-owner  shall  be  permitted, 
man  or  woman,  orphan  or  widow,  whatever 
be  the  condition,  class  or  race,  color  or  char- 
acter, at  least  the  poor  privilege  of  retain- 
ing one-half  the  value  of  the  little  accumu- 
lated property.  Now,  to  take  fifty  per  cent, 
taxes  in  a single  year,  that  is  the  power 
they  have  here.  I speak  of  your  own  city,  be- 
cause I see  that  in  the  cities,  together  with  the 
small  towns,  the  combination  is  to  enforce  this 
provision  without  limitation.  I know  it  is  an 
improvement  to  Wauseon  to  have  her  streets 
graded  and  graveled.  I know  it  is  an  improve- 
ment to  Findlay  to  have  ditches  and  water 


1358 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

West,  Cunningham,  Root,  Dorsey. 


r 114th 

[Saturday, 


courses;  but,  if  gentlemen  will  stand  up,  now, 
and  justify  them,  and  say  to  this  Convention, 
that,  notwithstanding  the  member  from  Han- 
cock [Mr.  Byal]  was  benefited  by  the  improve- 
ment, and  all  other  property-holders  who  had 
the  means  to  pay  were  benefited  by  it,  there 
were  individual  cases  of  hardship  and  oppres- 
sion in  the  very  matter  that  he  speaks  of.  That 
hardship  and  oppression  inured  to  the  general 
benefit,  but  it  did  not  inure  to  the  individual 
benefit,  because  of  the  inability  of  the  individual 
to  meet  the  enormous  and  oppressive  taxes  that 
were  imposed. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me  a question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Can  you  make  any 
rule  that  will  remedy  these  cases  of  individual 
hardship? 

Mr.  WEST.  I can  make  a rule,  sir,  that  the 
interests  of  the  public  shall  not  be  superior  to 
the  rights  of  individuals,  unless  it  be  for  the 
general  protection  of  life  and  liberty.  The 
mere  pecuniary,  the  mere  financial,  interests  of 
the  city,  are  not  superior  to  the  rights  of  the 
individual,  and  should  never  be  so  recognized. 
Life  and  liberty  are  superior  to  individuals;  but 
the  mere  property  interests  of  the  public,  the 
mere  advance  of  the  aggregate  prosperity  of  the 
nation,  is  not  such  as  should  be  secured  §at  the 
expense  of  the  individual  citizen.  I know  the 
doctrines  that  are  preached  in  some  quarters : 
that  it  is  a great  principle  of  economy  that 
builds  up  our  enormous  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments at  the  expense  of  other  industries  and 
labors.  It  is  claimed  to  be  a proper  principle 
of  economy,  because  the  aggregate  wealth  of  the 
nation  is  increased.  I am  not  in  favor  of  the 
policy  that  increases  the  aggregate  wealth  in 
the  hands  of  individuals  at  the  expense  of  other 
individuals.  Let  prosperity  be  increased,  but 
let  it  be  diffused  and  unindividualized.  Do  not 
concentrate  or  contract  your  wealth  to  centers. 
Do  not  build  up  properties  in  particular  local- 
ities at  the  expense  of  other  localities.  Do  not 
aggrandize  individuals  in  one  quarter  at  the  ex- 
pense of  individuals  in  any  other  quarter,  but 
let  the  rights,  especially  property  rights,  of  all 
be  secured  by  proper  restrictions,  proper  limit- 
ations, that  the  general  prosperity,  although  not 
aggregated  in  particular  localities,  may  be  dif- 
fused amongst  our  whole  people ; that  each  lo- 
cality shall  share  at  least  some  portion  of  the 
general  aggregate. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I desire  that  the  Convention 
should  go  back  to  the  consideration  of  the  mo- 
tion now  before  it,  and  that  is,  to  restrict  the 
levies  for  improvements  to  ten  per  cent,  for  any 
three  successive  years.  Now,  sir,  I have  voted 
heretofore  with  those  who  have  attempted  to 
impose  a limit  upon  this  power  of  taxation,  and 
I shall  do  so  hereafter,  if  kept  within  what  I 
deem  reasonable  bounds.  I do  not  believe,  sir, 
that,  practically,  it  would  be  found  a good 
policy  to  limit  the  taxation  to  ten  per  cent,  in 
any  three  years.  I do  not  believe,  sir,  that  ten 
per  cent,  in  that  time  would  be  found  sufficient. 
Generally,  a street  improvement  involves  three 
kinds  of  work.  There  is,  first,  the  making  and 
improving  of  the  street  and  the  surface  drain- 
age. Next,  the  sidewalks,  and,  after  a while, 
depending  somewhat  upon  the  speed  with 


which  a new  street  is  settled  or  occupied,  we 
come  to  the  sewerage,  if  it  is  necessary,  as  in 
the  larger  towns  it  is  apt  to  be ; and  thus  there 
are  three  successive  parcels  of  work.  Now,  I 
was  willing  to  limit  the  assessment  to  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  upon  the  assessed  value  of  the 
property;  but  to  limit  it  to  ten  per  cent.,  and 
spread  that  over  three  years,  is,  I think,  going 
too  far. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  interrupt  him  for  one  moment? 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  rather  the  gentleman 
would  take  the  floor.  1 do  not  intend  to  speak 
more  than  five  or  ten  minutes.  I do  not  inter- 
rupt others  if  I can  help  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Go  right  ahead,  sir. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Of  course,  I intend  to  go  ahead. 
That  is  why  I -would  not  stop.  [Laughter.] 

I say  I believe  it  is  insufficient.  I do  not  be- 
lieve, whilst,  probably,  you  will  have  all  these 
within  three  years — improving  the  streets,  the 
surface  drainage,  first,  then,  sewerage  and  side- 
walks, all  of  which  should,  in  most  cases,  be 
done  within  the  first  three  years — it  cannot 
generally  be  done  for  a ten  per  cent,  assessment. 
Again,  many  other  towns  having  learned  the 
trick  which  Toledo  has  practiced,  will  assign 
their  assessment  to  a contractor.  Well,  in  such 
cases,  there  might  be  allotments  of  no  more 
than  three  and  one-third  per  cent,  a year.  If 
he  paid  in  allotments,  and  in  such  little  driblets, 
which  he  certainly  would,  raise  his  price  suffi- 
ciently high  to  cover  all  this  delay  and  incon- 
venience. Such  a practice  might  bring  small 
grists  to  the  lawyer’s  mill,  but  I hope  that  my 
professional  brethren  will  be  willing  to  forego 
this  doubtful  advantage  for  the  public  good. 

For  these  reasons,  I am  opposed  to  this  amend- 
ment. Now,  we  have  had  something,  I think, 
a little  outside  of  the  question  itself,  from  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West].  He  says 
the  country  builds  up  the  cities.  They  have 
drawn  the  substance  from  the  country.  Well, 
who  proposes  to  tax  the  country  to  make  streets 
in  the  suburbs  of  cities?  There  is  no  such 
thing  in  contemplation.  No  such  thing  ever 
can  be  done.  It  is  not  pretended  that  the  hill- 
sides, or  the  hilltops,  in  or  about  Cincinnati 
should  build  up  Cincinnati.  The  best  use  that 
could  be  made  of  them  would  be  to  lay  them 
out  into  pig  and  goat  pastures.  But,  sir,  what 
has  given  value  to  your  city  here;  what  has 
given  value  to  the  land  immediately  about  it? 
Why,  the  growth  of  the  city,  and  nothing  else. 
Of  course,  cities  will  be  benefited  by  all  im- 
provements of  the  rural  disticts  in  their  vicin- 
ity; therefore,  the  whole  city  ought  to  pay  a 
part  of  the  expense  of  city  improvements, 
whilst  the  most  of  the  benefit  accrues  to  the 
owners  of  the  land  adjoining  the  improvements. 
I do  not  see  the  force  of  the  argument  so  roundly 
and  eloquently  put  forth  by  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West],  about  the  case  of  building 
up  a city,  as  if  we  were  going  out  into  Logan, 
or  Champaign,  or  Allen  county,  where  they 
j have  their  cities  of  Lima,  Urbana,  and  Bellefon- 
taine,  and  make  them  contribute  to  the  building 
up  of  Cincinnati.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me?  I wished  simply  to  answer  the  argument 
I that  the  city  made  the  suburbs.  I say  the 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  14,  1874.]  Root,  West,  Griswold,  Dorsey,  Tuttle,  etc. 


1359 


same  thing.  If  the  city  made  the  suburbs,  the 
country  made  them  both. 

Mr.  ROOT.  But  the  country  is  not  to  be 
taxed  in  any  event. 

Mr.  WEST.  I know  that. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  let  the  city  and  the  sub- 
urbs take  it  out  between  them,  and  the  country 
stand  back  a disinterested  spectator  of  the  fight. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  propose  to  give  glory 
to  the  city  for  that  which  does  not  belong  to  it. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I do  not  believe  it  does  belong 
to  the  question  before  us.  I do  not  wish  to  de- 
tain the  Convention  longer.  I have  stated  why 
1 am  opposed  to  this  amendment.  Whilst  I am, 
and  always  will  be,  in  favor  of  putting  a limit 
to  this  power,  by  correct  means,  or  by  any 
plain,  fair  means,  I will  not  do  anything  to  crip- 
ple wholesome  needed  improvements  within  a 
reasonable  compass  or  expense. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  argument  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  it  seems  to 
me,  proceeds  upon  very  singular  ground,  to  es- 
tablish a constitutional  rule.  He  says  that  he  has 
been  surprised  that  the  large  cities  and  the  small 
towns  united  to  defeat  what  he  considers  neces- 
sary, and  he  speaks,  I believe,  in  the  interest  of 
Piqua  and  cities  of  that  class.  Now,  the  very 
fact  that  there  are  these  different  interests  and 
different  requirements,  shows  that  he  should 
not  undertake  to  establish  a rule  that  he  wants 
applied  to  them  to  be  the  constitutional  rule. 
Where  we  have  limited  to  ten  per  cent,  the 
amount  of  special  assessments,  it  leaves  all  his 
class  of  cities  to  apply  to  the  Legislature  to 
have  a rule  fixed  under  which  they  shall  be 
limited,  and  the  final  section  of  the  Article  gives 
them  full  liberty ; and  when  he  applies  to  the 
General  Assembly,  the  interest  of  that  class  of 
cities  will  stand  upon  its  own  merits,  and  they 
will  not  be  embarrassed  by  the  other  cities  that 
require  a different  rule. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  How  do  you  propose  to  pass 
that? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  We  have  given  you  a 
large  liberty  in  the  first  section.  It  increases 
the  number  of  the  classes  of  cities ; so  that  cities 
of  one  class  will  not  be  embarrassed  by  cities 
of  another  class.  Hence,  when  we  are  talking 
about  this  limitation  to  which  the  gentleman 
has  referred,  we  have  passed  this  general  limi- 
tation. Moreover,  gentlemen  seem  to  forget 
that  the  law  of  the  State  has  been,  and  is  now, 
that  twenty-five  per  cent,  is  the  limit,  and  who 
has  shown  any  disposition  to  change  that? 
Now,  this  is  a proper  limitation,  and  it  is  not 
legislation.  The  argument  has  not  been  that  it 
is  legislation  that  you  are  proposing ; but  that 
you  are  proposing  that  a particular  class  shall 
govern  all  the  classes.  In  my  judgment,  that 
is  not  the  way  to  establish  a constitutional 
rule.  The  Committee  have  given  this  thing 
full  consideration.  They  have  heard  from 
your  large  cities,  and  from  your  moderate- 
sized cities,  and  they  have  heard  from  what  the 
gentleman  from  Ottawa  [Mr.  Kraemer]  calls 
the  “one-horse”  towns;  and,  considering  this 
subject,  they  find  that  the  general  sense  of  the 
State,  and  the  general  sense  expressed  in  the 
legislative  will,  has  been  that  every  city  shall 
be  limited  to  twenty-five  per  cent.  But  when 
we  come  to  put  on  this  constitutional  limit,  we 


must  do  it  guardedly,  and  with  care,  and  having 
regard  to  the  interests  of  all. 

Mr.  WEST.  I will  ask  the  gentleman,  if  the 
twenty-five  per  cent,  limitation  is  now  not  for 
any  single  assessment? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  statute  now  prohibits 
an  assessment  beyond  twenty-five  per  cent,  in 
value. 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly.  You  shall  not  do 
that  in  any  one  assessment. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  You  cannot  do  it  at  any 
one  time. 

Mr.  WEST.  But  you  can  do  it  at  any  two 
times. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  You  cannot  do  it  to  apply 
upon  any  one  year’s  taxation . 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  of  course  not;  but  this  is 
the  point:  Is  it  not  competent  for  the  Legisla- 
ture to  authorize  a municipality  to  put  on  five 
hundred  per  cent.  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  No,  sir ; not  at  all. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I speak  from  actual  experience, 
and  I assert  that  in  the  little  city  in  which  I live, 
within  a period  of  three  years,  there  was  as- 
sessed upon  some  property  one  hundred  per 
cent.,  by  four  different  assessments. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  When  was  that  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Within  the  last  six  years. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  Legislature  have 
remedied  that  very  thing.  They  have  provided 
by  law  to  prevent  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  How  long  will  it  take  the  Leg- 
islature to  re-enact  the  law  again? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I trust  the  Legislature 
have  some  sense  upon  the  subject.  They  under- 
take to  govern  the  people  of  Ohio,  and,  as  a 
general  rule,  do  it,  and  when  they  find  an  evil 
occurs,  they  have,  ordinarily,  corrected  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I cannot  stop  for  the  gen- 
tleman’s question,  for  I have  but  ten  minutes. 
The  objection  is  not  that  we  are  legislating,  but 
that  we  are  undertaking  to  put  such  a constitu- 
tional limit  to  every  particular  locality,  that  a 
city  cannot  live  under  it.  When  you  are  fixing 
a constitutional  limit,  you  should  undertake  to 
fix  such  a general  rule  that  all  can  live  under 
it,  and  trust  to  the  Legislature  that,  in  a par- 
ticular case,  in  a particular  class  of  cities,  they 
will  reduce  it  below  this  if  it  is  not  needed. 
What  the  Committee  have  done  here,  is  only 
that  which  general  experience  has  shown  to 
be  necessary.  The  gentleman  from  Logan  has 
repeatedly  brought  his  beggar  before  this  Con- 
vention, but  that  beggar,  so  far  as  I know,  gene- 
rally rides  on  horse-back.  Talk  about  the 
suburban  property  being  owned  by  poor  men. 
The  poor  men  of  your  cities  do  not  own  it.  It 
is  owned  by  your  capitalists,  and  I do  not  sup- 
pose that  there  is  a poor  man  who  owns  an  acre 
of  this  outside  land  in  Cincinnati.  So  far  as 
Cleveland  is  concerned,  I never  knew  a poor 
man  own  any  outside  land. 

Mr.  WEST.  I wish  to  inform  the  gentleman 
that  we  have  a limit;  that  the  assessment  on 
any  single  improvement  is  twenty-five  per  cent. 
You  may  make  an  assessment  for  improving 
streets,  twenty-five  per  cent. ; an  assessment  for 


1360 MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS.  [114th 


Griswold,  Hale. 


[Saturday. 


drainage  twenty-five  per  cent. ; an  assessment 
for  sidewalks  twenty-five  per  cent.  You  can 
impose  a hundred  per  cent,  to-day  under  that 
statute. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Mow,  then,  I say  his  beg- 
gar on  horseback  ought  not  to  scare  anybody. 
What  we  want  is  a proper  limit,  and  that  ex- 
perience has  proved  to  be  a safe  one,  and  one 
that  shall  not  cripple  the  cities  that  need  it. 
So  far  as  concerns  the  poor  being  oppressed, 
the  poor  men  of  your  cities  are  the  men 
of  labor  and  men  who  are  engaged  in  manu- 
facturing labor.  And  what  builds  up  the  city 
is  the  labor  of  these  men  within  the  city,  where 
there  is  an  opportunity  of  diposing  of  their 
manufactured  products.  Your  mere  trade  does 
not  make  a city  great,  ordinarily.  There  are  a 
few  great  centers  where  the  trade  may  build  up 
a city,  but  Cleveland  has  grown  by  its  manu- 
facturing industry,  and  it  is  these  men  who 
have  their  small  homes,  who  live  near  the 
places  where  they  can  engage  in  the  labor,  that 
are  interested  in  this  matter.  They  want  all 
the  benefits  they  can  have  in  cities.  They 
want  parks,  and  all  these  things  that  make  this 
hard  life  of  theirs  endurable,  and  they  desire 
and  will,  if  they  can,  have  that  proper  legisla- 
tion. Mow,  I say,  our  city  grows  by  this  indus- 
try, and  it  is  the  men  who  own  these  outlying 
lots  that  are  benefited.  Men  who  have  the 
foresight  to  see  that  the  ordinary  labor  and 
industry  of  men  will  build  up  a town  and  make 
them  rich,  invest  their  money  in  it.  When  a 
poor  man  has  a lot  there  he  is  surrounded  by 
others  who  have  great  lots,  and  who  hold  their 
lands.  He  wants  a street  to  get  to  his  shop,  to 
his  manufactory,  and  in  this  manner  your  sub- 
urban property  here  is  benefited  and  made 
rich,  as  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root] 
has  said,  by  the  industry  of  men  within  the 
hills ; and  to  say  that,  when  they  want  to  make 
these  improvements;  when  they  find  that  the 
growth  of  the  city  is  such  that  they  can  make 
it  beneficially  by  having  this  sort  of  thing  done, 
that  they  shall  not  do  it;  when  you  undertake 
to  establish  a limit  that  shall  suit  Piqua,  and 
cities  of  its  class,  it  is  not  a rule  to  be  estab- 
lished throughout  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  HALE.  On  yesterday  the  question  was 
fairly  submitted  to  the  Convention  whether  the 
policy  should  be  inaugurated  of  paying  for  these 
improvements  by  general  taxation  in  part  and 
in  part  by  special  assessment.  That  amend- 
ment being  further  presented  was  voted  down 
by  this  Convention.  To-day  is  offered  an 
amendment  to  the  same  section,  which  would 
inaugurate  precisely  that  policy  if  carried  out. 
For  it  will  not  be  pretended  that,  under  the 
limitation  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  the  necessary  improve- 
ments of  a village  or  city  could  be  carried  out 
without  adding  to  the  special  assessments 
therein  authorized  a general  tax.  If  the  Con- 
vention were  serious  in  its  action  yesterday,  if 
it  was  the  true  judgment  of  the  Convention,  it 
is  a sufficient  reason  why  this  amendment 
should  be  voted  down.  Mr.  President,  I pro- 
pose to  state  one  or  two  reasons  that  will  influ- 
ence me  in  giving  my  vote  upon  the  general 
principle  involved  in  this  amendment.  It 
seems  to  me  we  are  in  danger  of  forgetting  that 
there  is  between  this  Convention  and  the  Mu- 


nicipal Corporations  of  the  State  another  body 
besides  this  Convention  that  has  full  power  to 
control  the  action  of  Municipal  Corporations. 
It  is  not  proposed  to  fix  a limitation  upon  the 
Legislature ; but  it  is  proposed  to  pin  up  that 
body  by  fixing  a limitation  upon  Municipal 
Corporations.  Take  it  entirely  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  Legislature,  and  fix  your  limit 
upon  Municipal  Corporations  instead  of  upon 
the  Legislature.  No  attempt  is  made  here  to 
limit  the  improvements  that  a village  or  city 
may  make;  but  you  allow  a corporation  or  town 
council  to  fix  exactly  the  kind  of  improvement, 
and  say  when  and  where  it  shall  be  made. 
But  when  the  improvement  has  been  made  you 
propose  to  regulate  by  Constitutional  provision 
the  mode  in  which  that  payment  shall  be  made. 
It  seems  to  me  that,  if  we  start  at  all,  we 
should  fix  this  limitation  upon  the  Legislature. 

The  town  or  city  council  must  judge  as  to  the 
improvements  to  be  made.  They  must  judge 
when  and  where  to  make  them.  But  when  you 
come  to  payment,  you  say  it  is  of  sufficient  im- 
portance to  regulate  by  constitutional  improve- 
ment. I demur.  If  cities  were  made  in  a day, 
and  all  improvements  perfected  at  the  same 
time,  there  would  be  no  trouble  of  getting  at 
the  justice  of  this  matter.  But  the  fact  is,  a city 
grows  up  year  by  year.  As  soon  as  one  im- 
provement is  perfected,  you  add  another,  and 
one  improvement  is  made  after  another,  extend- 
ing through  many  years.  Now,  it  is  in  that 
state  of  affairs  that  we  are  called  upon  to  act. 
The  just  mode  of  payment  of  the  last  improve- 
ments, depend  upon  the  manner  in  which  the 
first  have  been  made.  The  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  says,  that  every  improve- 
ment upon  the  outside  portion  of  a city,  in- 
creases the  value  of  the  inside.  Mow,  I ask  the 
gentleman  from  Logan,  what  difference  it 
makes  whether  you  make  those  improvements 
all  in  one  year,  or  part  in  one  year,  and  part  in 
another?  If  they  were  all  to  be  made  in  one 
year,  there  would  be  no  injustice  in  letting 
the  improvements  on  each  street  be  paid  for 
by  the  owners  of  the  property  benefited.  A 
part  of  these  improvements  have  been  so  paid 
for;  it  is  but  justice  that  all  others  should 
be  so  made.  The  improvements  that  have 
been  made  in  the  heart  of  a city  have  been 
paid  for  by  those  that  reside  in  that  portion  of 
the  city.  We  propose  that  those  upon  the  out- 
skirts be  paid  for  by  the  men  who  live  upon 
the  outskirts.  This  amendment  brings  us  to  the 
main  question  that  was  discussed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  : Nvhether 
these  improvements  shall  be  made  by  general 
tax  or  by  special  assessment?  Mow,  our  Su- 
preme Court,  having  this  question  before  it, 
long  before  this  Convention  was  thought  of,  as 
to  the  policy  of  making  these  improvements 
by  general  or  special  assessment,  Judge  Ran- 
ney,  in  the  argument  of  the  case,  says : “As 
to  the  policy  or  justice  of  such  legislation,  very 
different  opinions  might  be  entertained;  but  as 
to  the  policy  of  local  assessments — and  even  in 
that  view  it  should  be  remembered  that  most  of 
the  improvements  in  cities  have  all  been  made 
at  the  expense  of  the  adjoining  lot  holders — to 
subject  them  again  to  taxation  to  improve  other 
streets,  for  the  direct  benefit  of  those  owning 
lots  upon  the  improvement,  would  be  very 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1361 

February  14,  1874.]  Hale,  Bishop,  White  of  B. 


great  injustice.”  The  policy  has  been  inaugu- 
rated in  the  State  to  pay  for  these  improvements 
by  local  assessments  upon  the  lots  benefited. 
That  policy  cannot  be  changed  without  doing 
injustice.  And  if  you  propose  to  fix  a limita- 
tion that  will  necessarily  change  from  the 
special  local  assessment  to  general  taxation,  I 
am  against  any  such  amendment  or  any  such 
policy.  And  such  is  the  effect  of  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey].  By  the  policy  proposed  by  the 
Committee  no  injustice  is  done  to  anybody.  I 
would  like  to  know  what  has  made  valuable  the 
outskirts  of  your  city,  or  of  the  village?  What 
has  given  it  value?  Why,  it  is  the  improve- 
ments that  have  been  made  upon  the  inside. 
Your  land,  that  was  sold  by  the  acre,  now  sells 
by  the  foot,  by  reason  of  such  improvements; 
and  it  is  but  just  that  those  lands  on  the  out- 
skirts, that  have  been  raised  in  value  in  that 
way,  should  bear  the  expense  of  their  own  im- 
provements. We  have  gone  too  far  with  the 
policy  of  these  local  special  assessments  to  now 
change,  in  my  judgment. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  There  is  to  doubt,  sir,  that 
there  are  cases  that  are  oppressive  in  local 
assessments,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  a 
very  difficult  thing  to  make  a law  that  will  work 
equally  upon  all.  And  there  is  no  doubt,  as  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  has  said, 
that  cities  are  dependent  upon  the  suburbs  and 
upon  the  country  by  which  they  are  sur- 
rounded. We  who  live  in  the  city  appreciate 
this.  We  appreciate  the  fact,  or,  at  least, 
Cincinnati  appreciates  the  fact,  that  we  are  sur- 
rounded by  a great,  growing  country,  and  that 
we  are  under  obligations  to  the  country  around 
for  assisting  in  building  us  up.  But  this  is  re- 
ciprocal. The  country  is  also  benefited  by  the 
city.  The  principal  business  parts  are  benefited 
by  the  suburbs,  and  the  suburbs  by  the  business 
portions  of  the  city.  Consequently,  anything 
that  is  calculated  to  create  a feeling  between 
the  country  and  the  city,  or  between  the  sub- 
urbs and  the  city,  is  always  to  be  regretted.  I 
regret  to  hear  any  remarks  calculated  to  make 
any  feeling  of  this  kind.  That  these  assess- 
ments are  often  hard  upon  certain  individuals, 
and  upon  certain  pieces  of  property,  is  doubt- 
less true;  yet,  as  a general  rule, it  is  also  true 
that  the  property  that  is  benefited  should  bear 
the  expense  of  that  improvement.  I,  myself, 
own  property  in  a suburban  city — it  is  hardly 
a suburban  city — I allude  to  the  city  of  Leaven- 
worth. It  is  a great  and  growing  city  now. 
Owning  property  along  a certain  street,  one  of 
my  lots  was  so  assessed  that  it  took  the  whole 
of  it,  but  others  were  benefited  enough  to  make 
that  up,  by  paying  an  assessment  upon  the 
front  foot.  This  will  sometimes  be  the  case,  and 
sometimes  individuals  will  be  oppressed  by 
assessments;  but,  as  a general  rule,  as  has 
been  remarked  by  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  suburban  prop- 
erty usually  belongs  to  men  of  wealth 
and  affluence,  and  their  property  will  be  bene- 
fited equal  to  the  expense  of  the  assessment 
made  upon  it.  There  is  another  fact  to  be  con- 
sidered. The  imoperty  is  not  assessed  unless 
two-thirds  of  the  property-holders  ask  this 
improvement  to  be  made.  If  two-thirds  of  the 
property-holders  do  not  ask  the  improvement 
Y.II-88 


to  be  made,  it  requires  two-thirds  of  the  city 
council  to  order  it.  Consequently,  it  is  not  apt 
to  be  the  case  that  improvements  will  be  made 
injudiciously.  I admit  that  it  occasionally  will 
be  the  case  that  improvements  are  made  which 
are  really  oppressive.  Where  that  occurs  once, 
it  will  be  a hundred  times  necessary  and  benefit 
the  property  much  more  than  the  expense  in- 
curred. I am  opposed  to  making  any  law  that 
would  be  oppressive  on  any  individual  if  we 
could  avoid  it;  but  that  is  impossible.  Like 
others  who  have  spoken,  I feel  that  it  is  im- 
proper for  this  Convention  to  be  legislating — to 
be  passing  the  details  of  laws  that  are  to  come  be- 
fore the  people.  Our  business  is  to  make  organic 
law,  and  place  proper  restrictions,  which  should 
be  done.  Furthermore,  every  gentleman  who 
has  had  any  experience  in  public  improvements, 
knows  that  ten  per  cent,  in  three  years  is  often 
insufficient  to  make  the  necessary  improve- 
ments, and  it  has  been  so  clearly  demonstrated, 
I feel  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  add  any- 
thing more  upon  this  subject.  The  amendment 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  has 
offered  would  certainly  be  very  injudicious  to 
incorporate  in  this  Constitution. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  The  question  now 
under  consideration  is  one  which,  to  my  mind,  is 
of  great  practical  importance.  The  power 
sought  to  be  restrained  is  one  which,  notwith- 
standing the  limitation  imposed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture upon  its  exercise,  has  been  the  source  of 
greater  abuse,  perhaps,  than  the  exercise  of 
any  other  power  under  the  authority  of  the 
Government.  This  power  of  assessment  for  the 
purpose  of  constructing  improvements  of  vari- 
ous kinds,  is,  in  my  judgment,  eminently  a 
proper  subject  for  the  power  of  limitation;  and 
while  I would  not  so  limit  it  as  to  retard  or  ob- 
struct the  progress  of  improvement,  the  growth 
and  development  of  the  State ; while  I would 
give  all  the  energies  of  government  full  power 
of  expansion,  yet,  at  the  same  time,  I would 
limit  the  abuse  of  this  powder,  which  may  in 
in  itself  be  a good  one.  There  is  as  much  dan- 
ger of  retarding  the  growth,  the  progress,  the 
development  of  the  country  by  excessive  taxa- 
tion as  there  is  by  too  little  taxation.  By  ex- 
cessive taxation  we  prevent  capital  from  being 
brought  into  our  State  and  invested,  by  laying 
undue  burdens  upon  the  real  estate  of  the  coun- 
try. We  prevent  capital  from  being  invested  in 
that  species  of  property  because  it  can  be  more 
profitably  invested  in  other  species  of  property. 
View  it  as  a question  of  right  and  justice,  and  I 
doubt  very  much  the  propriety  of  laying  the 
burden  of  all  these  improvements  upon  the  real 
estate  of  the  country;  and,  for  that  reason,  I 
favored  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  that  the  burden  might  be 
distributed  among  the  tax-payers  of  the  com- 
munity at  large,  and  among  those  who  are  es- 
pecially benefited;  those  who  are  engaged  in 
commercial  pursuits  in  the  great  cities,  the 
great  centers  of  wealth,  and  of  capital  and  of 
commerce,  as  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati.  The 
merchant  and  the  manufacturer  have  an  inter- 
est in  the  improvement  of  the  streets  for  the 
transportation  of  their  merchandise  as  much  as 
the  owner  of  real  estate  is  interested  and  bene- 
fited by  the  improvement  of  the  streets.  Yet 
this  large  class  of  community,  if  they  are  so 


1362 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS 

White  of  B.,  Hoadly. 


fortunate  as  not  to  be  owners  of  real  estate,  go 
altogether  untaxed,  and  bear  none  of  the  bur- 
dens for  the  construction  of  these  improve- 
ments; while  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  they,  of 
all  classes  in  the  community,  are  more  largely 
benefited  than  any  other  class,  even  the  owners 
of  real  estate  themselves.  Their  business  is  en- 
hanced, their  means  of  transporting  their  pro- 
ducts over  the  streets  and  from  their  places  of 
business  are  facilitated ; and  yet  this  large  class 
in  the  community  bear  none  of  the  burdens  im- 
posed upon  the  property  holders  for  the  con- 
struction of  these  improvements.  This,  to  my 
mind,  is  an  injustice  and  an  inequality  that  de- 
mands remedy.  But  I see,  from  the  temper  of 
the  Convention,  that  it  would  be  impossible  to 
distribute  these  burdens  as  in  my  mind  justice 
and  equity  demand  they  should  be  distributed, 
and  that  the  system  of  assessment  upon  real  es- 
tate is  to  be  adopted.  That  being  the  case,  it  is 
eminently  necessary,  to  my  mind,  that  there 
should  be  some  limitation  and  some  restraint 
imposed  upon  the  power  of  assessment.  Mu- 
nicipal independence  does  not  mean  municipal 
confiscation.  The  conflict  now  going  on  here 
is  between  two  elements.  It  is  not  a new  one. 
It  is  the  right  of  the  individual  citizen  strug- 
gling to  maintain  his  individuality,  his  rights 
of  person  and  of  property,  against  the  right  of 
the  community  to  swallow  up  him  and  his  at 
pleasure,  and  to  absolutely  destroy  his  indi- 
vidual identity  and  convert  him  into  a mere 
machine,  to  be  used  and  worked  like  a piece  of 
mechanism  in  the  interest  of  community.  This 
kind  of  communism  I have  no  respect'  for ; it 
leaves  the  citizen  nothing  which  he  dare  call 
his  own,  not  even  his  own  soul.  The  commu- 
nity say  they  have  great  public  interests  which 
must  be  held  paramount  to  the  private  interests 
of  the  citizen  ; that  it  is  their  right  to  confiscate 
his  property.  And  that  is  what  this  proposi- 
tion without  limitation  means.  Every  ten  years 
it  gives  to  the  community  the  power  to  confis- 
cate absolutely  by  assessment  the  entire  real 
estate  of  the  citizen.  In  a less  period  than  ten 
years  it  may  be  done ; because,  if  the  property 
is  to  be  appraised  for  purposes  of  assessment,  as 
it  will  be,  it  will  be  appraised  with  the  en- 
hanced value  yearly,  and  the  result  is,  by  tax- 
ing it  at  its  enhanced  value,  in  a period  less 
than  ten  years  the  entire  ownership  of  the 
property  may  be  transferred  from  the  private 
citizen  for  the  public  benefit.  Now,  it  does 
seem  to  me  that  this  ought  not  to  be  allowed. 
Ten  years  is  too  short  a period.  While  I think, 
perhaps,  the  limitation  imposed  by  the  amend- 
ment suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
l Mr.  Dorsey]  may  be  too  great,  three  and  a 
third  per  cent,  a year,  or  ten  per  cent,  in  any 
period  of  three  years;  yet,  I desire  to  see  some 
limitation  imposed,  say  fifteen  percent,  in  any 
period  of  five  years,  or  twenty-five  in  any  period 
of  ten  years.  Then  let  it  be  provided  that  not 
more  than  a stated  per  cent,  of  this  amount  so 
taxed  shall  ever  be  collected  in  any  one  year, 
so  that  the  burdens  may  not  be  too  great  for  the 
property  owners  to  bear.  I think  that  in  com- 
munities the  rights  of  individual  citizens  ought, 
to  some  extent,  to  be  recognized;  ought,  to 
some  extent,  to  be  under  the  protection  of  law, 
for  he  at  last  is  the  great  source  of  our  prosper- 
ity. 


[114th 

[Saturday, 


Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Are  not  the  individual  citi- 
zens represented  by  the  general  tax  duplicate 
on  which  this  expense  is  made? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Are  they  not  entitled  to  pro- 
tection against  these  assessments  for  the  benefit 
of  others? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Certainly,  they  are 
entitled  to  protection ; and  I desire  to  extend 
this  protection  to  all.  It  is  the  abuse  of  power 
that  I seek  to  restrain,  and  not  the  exercise  of 
the  power  itself;  and  the  question  is,  where  is 
the  place  to  lay  the  line?  To  what  extent  shall 
the  individual  citizen  be  protected  against  the 
power  of  the  community  ? That  is  the  ques- 
tion. While  I would  recognize  the  right  of  the 
community,  I would,  at  the  same  time,  recog- 
nize the  rights  of  the  individual.  For,  as  I was 
going  to  say,  at  last  the  great  source  from 
which  all  our  prosperity  emanates,  is  from  the 
industry  of  the  individual  citizen.  It  is  his 
enterprise,  it  is  his  painstaking,  it  is  his  saving ; 
he  is,  at  last,  the  source  of  all  our  wealth,  and 
we  ought  to  be  careful  never  to  cripple  his  en- 
ergies. And  another  thing,  Mr.  President,  we 
should  not  fetter  the  energies  of  the  country  to 
too  great  an  extent.  To-day  there  is  no  species 
of  property  in  the  country  that  yields  so  little 
profit  as  the  real  estate  of  the  country.  Capi- 
tal invested  in  anything  else,  as  a general  thing, 
yields  a larger  profit  than  it  does  in  real  estate ; 
and  if  we  would  build  up  our  cities,  and  en- 
courage men  to  erect  these  magnificent  edifices 
w»th  which  we  are  surrounded  here 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  the  gentleman  speak 
of  farming  property,  or  suburban  city  prop- 
erty ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I am  speaking  of 
farming  property  and  suburban  city  property. 

If  we  would  encourage  persons  to  invest  their 
money  in  real  estate,  in  the  construction  of 
magnificent  business  houses  and  dwellings,  we 
must  not  lay  too  great  burdens  upon  the  real 
estate.  We  must  act  with  a view  of  making 
investments  in  real  estate  and  buildings  prof- 
fitable,  or  we  will  retard  improvement;  and, 
in  order  to  do  that,  I think  it  is  desirable  that 
these  burdens  should  be  distributed  more  than 
they  are. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Disguise  it  as  you  may,  the 
real  question  here  is  : whether  the  enterprise  of 
our  cities,  represented  by  the  general  tax  dupli- 
cate, real  and  personal,  shall  be  taxed  for  the 
purpose  of  improving  suburban  property  ? That 
is  what  it  is.  The  effect  of  these  amendments  i 
! will  be  either  to  stop  the  improvements  al- 
together, or  to  put  some  portion  of  their  cost  on  j 
the  general  tax  duplicate,  real  and  personal.  , 
And  it  is  because  I believe  that  putting  any  of  ! 
I it  on  the  real  tax  duplicate,  is  killing  the  goose  j 
I that  lays  the  golden  egg,  that  I,  although  the  I 
j bulk  of  what  I own  is  suburban  property,  am  « 
opposed  to  any  scheme  that  will  put  one  single  > 

I dollar  of  this  necessary  tax  on  the  general  tax  I 
duplicate.  And  it  is  because,  in  the  history  of  i 
this  city,  we  have  been  killing  the  goose  that  if 
laid  the  golden  egg,  by  imposing  an  enormous  i 
disproportion  of  this  amount  on  the  general  tax 
duplicate,  that  I look  to  the  Report  of  this  Com-  ' 


Day.] 

February  14,  1874.] 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  West. 


1363 


mittee  as  a great  reform.  1 have  some  figures 
here.  The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
appealed  to  the  experience  of  this  city,  by 
showing  what  this  city  has  done  in  two  years 
recently,  and  why  it  is  that  the  manufacturing 
industries  of  Cincinnati  are  taxed  out  of  exis- 
tence, and  driven  across  the  river,  for  the  benefit 
of  these  schemes  which  can  have  only  one  good 
issue,  which  is,  to  enrich  men  that  live  in  the 
suburbs,  who  ought  to  pay  the  bills  themselves. 

I have  here  the  Report  of  the  City  Auditor  of 
Cincinnati,  for  the  year  ending  on  the  29th  of 
February,  1872.  I collocate  the  items,  and  out 
of  a total  expenditure  in  money  of  $1,064,869.67 
for  improvements  of  this  character,  only 
$189,365.47  were  taxed  upon  adjacent  land- 
owners — less  than  one-fifth  of  the  whole  ex- 
pense, and  I purpose  to  read  the  detailed  items. 
For  sewerage,  there  was  paid  out  of  the  general 
treasury  of  the  city  of  Cincinnati  $427,560.77, 
and  there  was  charged  upon  the  adjacent  prop- 
erty only  $95,624,26.  For  boulder  pavement  of 
new  streets,  there  was  charged  upon  the  adjacent 
property  $68,352.23;  for  grading  $9,335.63 ; for 
locust  paving,  $2,762.05;  for  Macadamizing, 
$13,291.30;  making,  in  addition  to  the  $95,624.26, 
assessed  for  sewerage,  already  referred  to,  the 
total  sum  of  $189,365.47,  as  the  entire  amount  of 
special  assessment  for  the  year  ending  Febru- 
ary 29,  1872,  as  the  figures  are  shown  on  page 
316  of  the  city  auditor’s  report  of  that  date. 
There  was  paid,  at  the  same  time,  the  very 
same  year,  out  of  the  general  fund  collected 
from  the  total  personal  and  real  property  on 
the  general  tax  duplicate,  as  I stated,  for  sew- 
ers, $427,560.77 ; for  iron  gutter  plates,  $1,174.26  ; 
for  bouldered  accepted  streets,  $86,862.54.  That 
is,  for  keeping  in  repair  bouldered  streets,  of 
which  the  original  cost  of  making  the  street  had 
been,  in  years  previously,  paid  by  the  adjacent 
property-holder.  For  wooden  pavements,  $23,- 
628.89 ; for  Macadamizing,  $31,356.01 ; for  side- 
walks, $1,368.19;  for  the  purchase  and  condem- 
nation of  land  for  streets,  $273,850.98;  for 
Gilbert  Avenue,  $10,285.72;  for  improving 
streets  and  alleys,  $19,416.84;  making  as 
the  total  result,  the  figures  that  I read  in  the 
beginning.  And  for  the  ten  months  beginning 
on  the  29th  of  February,  and  ending  on  the  31st 
December,  1872,  which  is  the  last  published 
Report  of  the  City  Auditor,  I have  made  an  ex- 
amination, and  find  that  during  those  ten 
months  there  was  expended  in  all,  for  improve- 
ments of  this  character,  $872,868.90,  of  which 
only  $134,307.38  was  charged  upon  adjacent 
property,  and  the  remaining  $738,561.52  was 
paid  out  of  the  general  fund,  paid  by  the  tax- 
payers at  large,  the  owners  of  manufactured 
goods,  the  owners  of  merchants’  stocks,  or  the 
owners  of  personal  and  real  estate,  being  out 
of  the  whole  amount  between  one-sixth  and 
one-seventh  only  charged  upon  the  ad- 
jacent property.  The  end  of  this  is  plain. 
The  end  of  it  is  the  ruin  of  the  man- 
ufacturers of  Cincinnati.  And  it  is  be- 
cause I am  opposed  to  this  whole  thing;  it  is 
because  we  who  live,  as  I do,  in  the  suburbs, 
who  look,  as  I do,  to  the  prospective  increase 
of  property  in  the  suburbs  as  sources  of  wealth, 
ought  to  bear  the  burden,  by  right  bear  the 
burden, of  improving  our  property,  which  gives 
comfort  in  our  residences,  and  wealth  in  our 


pockets.  It  is  because  we  have  advantages 
enough,  without  charging  on  the  improvement 
of  the  streets  of  a city,  and  on  the  personal 
property  its  burdens,  that  I,  for  one, have  acted, 
voted,  and  shall  continue  to  act  and  vote  as  I 
do.  It  is  because,  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
where  I have  also  had  some  personal  experi- 
ence, I have  seen  the  development  of  the  upper 
part  of  that  city  go  on  without  any  burden 
upon  the  general  fund.  The  general  fund  of 
that  city  has  been  robbed,  but  it  has  not  been 
robbed  in  this  way.  If  it  had,  there  would 
have  been,  long  since,  an  end  to  the  growth 
of  New  York  and  its  prosperity.  The  plateaus 
on  which  the  main  portion  of  this  city  is  built, 
the  two  lower  plateaus,  paid  their  own  bills, 
and  I do  not  see  any  sense  or  reason, 
any  justice  or  right  in  this  innovation  whereby 
that  property,  which  has  paid  its  own  expenses, 
should  be  compelled  to  contribute  to  the  devel- 
opment of  the  surrounding  suburbs.  On  the 
contrary,  Mr.  President,  as  my  colleague  [Mr. 
Herron]  well  remarked  yesterday,  when  the 
assessment  is  made,  the  owners  of  that  property 
about  to  be  improved  are  watchful,  eager,  care- 
ful, and  keep  a close  scrutiny  of  the  work,  and 
the  expense;  but  money  flows  out  of  the  gen- 
eral treasury  without  watchful  eyes,  and  it  is 
just  by  the  fact  that  in  Cincinnati  we  have  been 
doing  what  my  friend  desires — just  by  the  fact 
that  we  have  paid  five,  six  and  seven  dollars  out 
of  the  general  treasury  to  one  that  has  been 
charged  on  the  property,  and  have  had  no  jeal- 
ous, vigilant  eyes,  scrutinizing  the  expenses — 
that  we  have  been  robbed.  As  Disraeli  said, 
we  have  “blundered  and  plundered”  all  the  way 
along.  It  is  time  to  reform,  and  the  real  re- 
form is  to  make  the  property  which  receives  the 
benefit  pay  the  bill ; and  I,  for  one,  am  against 
every  scheme  intended,  directly  or  indirectly, 
to  saddle  upon  the  manufacturing  industries  of 
this  city,  or  Cleveland,  or  Youngstown,  and 
weigh  them  down,  any  part  of  the  cost  of  the 
development  of  the  suburbs  of  those  cities.  It 
is  not  right.  It  ought  not  to  be  done.  I should 
like  to  know  how  much  good  will  be  done  to 
this  part  of  Cincinnati  by  the  building  of  streets 
around  the  seven  and  one-half  acres  on  which  I 
live  ? The  benefit  will  be  to  me,  sir.  It  will  go 
out  of  my  pocket  in  the  form  of  assessment,  and 
return  in  the  form  of  increased  value.  If  I 
choose  to  sell,  I realize  the  value.  If  I do  not 
choose  to  sell,  the  time  will  come  when  I shall 
go  under  the  sod,  and  my  heirs  will  realize  the 
value.  It  returns  to  me  the  comfort  while  1 
occupy,  the  increase  of  value  when  I sell.  I 
see  no  reason,  no  justice,  in  attempting  to  shift 
any  part  of  that  burden,  which  is  mine,  upon 
those  of  my  neighbors,  who,  by  their  manufac- 
turing establishments,  their  stores,  their  com- 
merce and  enterprise,  are  developing  the  pros- 
perity of  the  city,  and  trying  to  make  the  city 
one  of  life,  and  of  growth,  and  of  wealth,  to  all 
the  citizens,  whether  suburban  or  urban. 

Mr.  WEST.  I simply  wish  to  correct  an  im- 
pression that  the  gentleman,  as  far  as  my  own 
action  is  concerned,  1 think  I can  speak  impar- 
tially, for  I have  no  city  or  town  property, 
either  central  or  suburban,  that  can  be  aif- 
fected. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Do  they  not  propose  to  an- 
nex the  gentleman  ? 


1364 


[114th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


West,  Ewing,  Pond,  Sears,  Townsend,  Dorsey.  [Saturday? 


Mr.  WEST.  No,  sir,  they  do  not  propose  to 
annex  him,  and  if  they  do,  they  will  catch  a 
tartar,  [laughter]  for  there  will  be  a big  job  on 
hand.  What  I desire  to  remark  is,  there  is  no 
purpose  or  disposition,  as  far  as  my  own  knowl- 
edge is  concerned,  my  own  judgment,  to  throw 
the  burden  upon  the  central  property,  the  prop- 
erty that  has  borne  a portion  of  it,  although  I 
believe  that  is  just.  But  it  is  this:  that  there 
will  be  within  the  municipality  a power  which 
shall  so  precipitate  improvements  as  to  swallow 
up  the  property.  Now,  that  is  all  there  is  of  it. 
We  desire  simply  to  limit  it.  You  will  never 
doit.  I do  not  know  what  is  done  here.  But 
my  friend  has  just  told  us  that  they  swallowed 
upon  one  of  his  lots,  and  if  he  had  been  so  un- 
fortunate as  to  have  owned  no  other,  I think 
his  situation  would  not  have  been  enviable. 

Mr.  EWING.  That  was  in  Kansas. 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  care  where  it  was.  1 i 
only  speak  of  the  practical  operation  of  the 
principle.  It  does  seem  to  me,  that  if  an  in- 
dividual is  required  to  give  up  one-half  of  his 
possessions  to  the  public  each  ten  years,  that  is 
enough.  They  say  the  individual  is  benefited. 
How  can  he  be  benefited  when  the  whole  of  his 
possessions  may  be  taken  in  order  to  create  that 
benefit?  The  benefit  is  offset  by  the  expense. 
How  is  he  benefited  ? His  property  is  increased 
in  value,  it  is  true,  but  all  that  increase  is  set 
ofl  in  creating  the  increase.  I am  perfectly 
willing  that  the  public  shall  bear  a portion  of 
that  benefit;  but  I am  unwilling  to  vote  to  give 
the  power  by  which  the  public  improvement — 
because  it  is  on  the  theory  that  all  those  im- 
provements are  for  the  benefit  of,  or  demanded 
by,  the  public,  if  that  public  sweep  away  all 
the  benefits  and  I get  nothing.  I want  a share 
of  it.  That  is  all.  If  all  the  improvements 
that  are  desired  cannot  be  made  in  five  years, 
let  them  be  extended  to  ten  years ; and  if  they 
cannot  all  be  met  in  ten  years,  let  it  be  extend- 
ed to  fifteen  years.  But  the  trouble  of  these 
gentlemen  is,  that  they  are  so  anxious  to  have 
the  improvements  made  at  once,  that  they  are 
willing  to  swallow  up  all  the  benefit  of  the  in- 
dividual, and  assign  it  over  to  the  public.  I 
want  a share  of  it,  that  is  all.  Fix  a scale  by 
which  no  more  than  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  in- 
creased value  shall  go  to  the  public,  and 
fifty  per  cent,  of  the  increased  value  shall 
go  to  the  individual,  or  some  scale  of  that 
kind.  In  heaven’s  name  do  not  fix  a 
scale  by  which,  by  constitutional  authority, 
by  constitutional  recognition,  it  may  be  all 
swallowed  up,  and  the  individual  have  no  legal 
remedy,  or  right  to  complain.  I want  to  guard 
against  such  a possibility  as  that.  Let  us  have 
a division.  Let  the  individual  share  something, 
whilst  the  public  shares  something.  Do  not  give 
the  power  to  the  public  to  take  it  all.  Now,  some 
reasonable  limitation  is  demanded,  and  ought 
to  be  conceded.  Why,  this  whole  principle  of 
assessment  is,  in  its  origin,  oppressive.  The 
whole  principle  is  contrary  to  our  general  rule, 
the  principle  of  equal  taxation.  It  is  because 
the  individual  or  locality  receives  more  benefit 
than  the  general  public,  that  more  of  the  ex- 
pense should  be  placed  upon  it;  but  we  do  not 
justify  taking  away  his  entire  possession  for  the  | 
benefit  of  the  public.  Let  us  have  some  scale  by  i 
which,  at  least,  one-half  of  a man’s  property  1 


shall  be  held  inviolate,  and  the  other  half  sub- 
servient to  the  public  use  gratis.  Some  princi- 
ple of  that  kind  we  must  have.  I have  drawn 
carefully  an  amendment  that  will  meet  the  de- 
mand I have  now  suggested,  by  Avhieh  one- 
half  shall  be  taken  away  from  the  individual, 
and  if  his  property  is  increased,  that  the 
additional  -increase  may  be  shared,  one-half  to 
the  individual  and  one-half  to  the  public.  But 
some  gentlemen  seem  determined  to  place  it  in 
the  power  of  the  municipality  to  take  the  whole 
of  it,  if  the  public  demands  it,  without  compen- 
sation. I never  can  and  never  will  assent  to 
any  such  principle.  I will  fight  it  here,  and  I 
will  fight  it  hereafter.  I can  not  and  will  not 
consent  to  it. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  the  Convention  now  take 

a recess. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I move  we  adjourn. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I should  be  very  glad  to 
have  the  vote  taken  on  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  and  if  it 
is  voted  down,  as  I hope  it  will  be,  it  will  leave 
room  for  my  friend  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  to 
offer  his  amendment.  This  has  been  thoroughly 
discussed;  let  us  vote  it  down  if  we  can. 

Mr.  SEARS.  If  it  is  desired  to  proceed  fur- 
ther, 1 do  not  want  to  press  my  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  adjourn  is 
withdrawn.  The  question  now  is  on  the  motion 
to  take  a recess. 

Mr.  POND.  I withdraw. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  take  a re- 
cess is  withdrawn.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  With  the  leave  of  the  Con- 
vention, I wish  to  make  a few  remarks  before 
the  vote  is  taken. 

Objection  was  made,  and  a vote  being  taken 
on  the  question  of  giving  the  gentleman  leave, 
it  was  decided  in  the  affirmative. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  has  leave 
to  proceed. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  not  been  in  the  habit 
of  troubling  gentlemen  of  the  Convention  with 
any  great  amount  of  talking,  and  I would  not 
say  a word  on  this  subject,  now,  if  I did  not 
feel  a deep  interest  in  having  the  matter  rightly 
and  properly  adjudicated  and  settled  by  the 
Convention.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  true, 
as  argued  by  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr. 
Hale],  that  this  is  a question  simply  between 
local  assessment  and  general  taxation.  It  does 
not  lead,  necessarily,  to  that.  The  proposition 
which  1 submit  is  sufficient  to  carry  on  all  the 
necessary  improvements  in  any  particular  town. 
If  not  in  the  large  cities,  certainly  it  is  in  the 
smaller  towns  and  cities,  by  the  assessment  of 
ten  per  cent.,  collected  in  a period  of  three  suc- 
cessive years.  In  our  small  towns,  we  do  not 
make  the  whole  of  these  improvements  at  one 
time.  We  do  not  open  our  streets,  grade  them, 
make  our  sewerage,  and  put  down  our  pave- 
ments, all  in  one  year.  But,  when  the  street  is 
opened,  it  probably  continues  unpaved,  and 
without  sewerage,  for  a period  of  half  a dozen 
years,  and,  then,  as  the  wants  or  necessities  of 
the  city  require  it,  the  other  improvements  are 
made.  Now,  I ask  gentlemen  to  notice  this  in 
the  amendment  which  I have  submitted.  It  is 
not  simpty  an  assessment  of  ten  per  cent.  It  is 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Dorsey,  Carbery. 


1365 


Day.] 

February  14, 1874.] 


an  assessment  of  ten  per  cent,  for  three  succes- 
sive years.  And,  at  the  end  of  that  three  years 
period,  you  can  assess  ten  per  cent,  more,  and, 
at  the  end  of  three  years,  ten  per  cent,  more, 
until  you  get  twenty-five,  thirty,  forty,  or  even 
fifty  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  property. 
And  yet,  gentlemen  tell  me,  this  is  an  unjust 
and  improper  restriction.  Why,  I ask,  have  in- 
dividuals no  rights  at  all  as  against  the  munici- 
pal authorities  ? We  do  not  say  to  you  that  you 
shall  not  take  fifty  per  cent,  of  our  property, 
but  we  do  say,  do  not  ask  us  to  take  fifty  per 
cent.,  and  pay  all  of  it  even  in  five  years.  Al- 
low it  to  be  extended  over  a term  of  years.  Al- 
low us  to  appeal  to  the  people  in  their  elective 
capacity,  in  order  that  they  may,  if  they  so  de- 
sire, change  the  men  who  represent  them  in  the 
common  council.  We  have  a right,  at  least,  to 
this  poor  privilege;  we  have  a right,  at  least,  to 
ask  this.  We  do  not  intend  to  offer  any  im- 
proper obstructions  to  the  improvement  of  the 
country.  Not  at  all;  not  for  a moment  do  we 
propose  to  do  anything  of  this  kind ; nor  do  we 
propose  to  put  an  unjust  burden  of  taxation  on 
tthose  who  are  not  to  be  directly  benefited  by 
these  improvements.  But  I will  say,  in  answer 
to  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hoadly],  when  he  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that,  in  the  improvements  made  in  the 
city  of  Cincinnati,  so  large  a portion  had  been 
borne  by  those  who  were  not  immediately  in- 
terested, and  where  the  improvement  would 
never  have  been  made  under  a local  assessment 
laid  on  the  general  property  holders,  and  on 
the  business  men  of  the  community.  We  have 
a system  of  taxation  in  the  State  of  Ohio  which 
we  hope,  in  time  at  least,  under  the  action  of 
this  Constitution,  to  have  amended.  But  to 
come  right  back  to  this  matter  on  which  I want 
to  appeal  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
I do  say  that  the  amendment  which  I offer,  so 
far  as  the  smaller  of  cities,  villages  and  towns 
of  the  State  of  Ohio  are  concerned,  is  amply 
sufficient  for  carrying  on  all  the  improvements 
that  are  required  there.  Ten  per  cent,  can  be 
levied  every  three  years,  and  the  common  coun- 
cil can  divide  that  into  three  payments,  graded 
as  they  desire.  You  can  levy  six  per  cent,  the 
first  year,  and  two  per  cent,  the  two  next  years, 
if  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  carry  on  the  im- 
provement, or  you  can  levy  five  per  cent,  the 
first  year,  and  two  and  a half  the  two  next 
years,  making  ten  per  cent,  in  the  three  years. 
If  it  is  necessary,  you  can  levy  ten  per  cent, 
again  at  the  end  of  that  time.  Now,  I 
do  not  contend,  gentlemen  of  the  Conven- 
tion, that  we  are  offering  a proposition  suf- 
ficiently broad  for  all  purposes,  but  I do  say 
that  we  want  some  limitation  in  this  matter. 
It  was  well  remarked  by  one  gentleman  that, 
whenever  you  make  local  assessments,  take  the 
property  of  private  individuals  for  the  public 
benefit,  you  are  departing  from  the  great  prin- 
ciple under  which  we  act  as  freemen  in  Ohio. 
It  is  a departure  from  the  principle  of  our  gov- 
ernment, which  is  the  protection  of  private 
property,  and  making  all  property  bear  equal 
burdens.  You  depart  from  that  in  the  first  step 
you  take  in  this  matter  of  local  assessments; 
and  for  that  reason,  when  you  make  so  great  a 
departure  from  the  first  and  most  important 
principle  of  our  government,  we  have  a right 
to  make  some  limitation ; and  I call  upon  you, 


as  Representatives  of  the  people  of  Ohio,  as 
those  who  speak  for  the  people  in  this  Conven- 
tion, in  making  this  Constitution,  to  place  some 
limitation  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  If  you  own  a suburban 
house,  it  is  greatly  to  your  benefit  to  have  a 
road  made  to  it  for  a fire  engine  to  reach  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  might  be  ; but  I would 
answer,  that  if  I am  the  owner  of  a small 
amount  of  suburban  property,  it  might  not  be 
very  much  to  my  advantage  to  have  it  so  as- 
sessed that  seventy-five  or  one  hundred  per 
cent,  of  it  would  be  taken  away  from  me.  This 
is  a matter  that  works  both  ways.  It  is  a sword 
which  has  two  edges.  For  that  reason,  I want 
to  control  it,  to  some  small  extent,  for  the  ben- 
efit of  the  people.  It  is  not  true,  taking  our 
country  towns  and  our  small  cities,  that  a large 
amount  of  suburban  property  is  owned  b}r 
wealthy  men.  As  a general  rule,  it  is  not  so 
owned  and  held.  It  is  owned  by  the  men  of 
moderate  means  in  the  community,  and  they 
ought  not  to  be  taxed  to  a very  large  extent  for 
the  advantage  of  those  gentlemen  who  live  in 
the  center.  There  should  be  no  clause  in  the 
Constitution  that  will  allow  the  common  coun- 
cil, representing  the  central  portions  of  the 
city,  to  impose  upon  the  suburban  portions 
a tax  of  which  they,  themselves,  are  unable  to 
see  the  benefit  that  they  are  to  derive  from  it. 
And  yet,  it  is  done  every  day  in  small  towns  and 
cities  of  the  State.  Men  are  taxed  in  the  suburbs 
for  assessments  made  upon  them  for  the  purpose 
of  improving  their  property,  when  they  do  not 
see,  and  no  man  can  see,  any  particular  advan- 
tage that  is  to  result  from  it.  I know  such 
cases,  occurring:  time  and  again,  in  my  own 
town,  and  in  neighboring  towns  of  the  State; 
and  every  gentleman  who  is  at  all  acquainted 
with  the  legislation  on  this  subject,  can  call  to 
mind  instances  of  like  character.  It  is  one  of 
the  peculiar  operations  of  common  councils, 
that  they  are  continually  stretching  their  pow- 
ers, and  placing  assessments  upon  suburban 
property  for  the  purpose  of  improving  it,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  central  portions  of  the  town. 
Now,  while  that  may  be  right  to  a certain  ex- 
tent, yet  I say  to  gentlemen,  that  they  ought  to 
impose  a limit  upon  the  manner  in  which  it  may 
be  done.  I do  not  believe  that  the  amendment 
I offered  this  morning,  proposes  any  thing  more 
than  a just  limit.  I feel  like  supporting  it,  and 
I lay  it  before  gentlemen  of  the  Convention  for 
their  approval  or  their  disapproval. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I ask  the  indulgence  of  the 
Convention  to  make  a few  remarks.  I have  not 
spoken  a word  on  this  subject,  except  to  ask 
a question  now  and  then.  I will  attempt  to 
say  one  word  before  the  question  comes  to  a 
vote.  I have  heard  a great  deal  said  hereabout 
the  outraging  of  private  rights  by  those  im- 
provements. Now,  sir,  in  every  community — 
in  the  cities,  the  large  towns  and  small  towns 
of  the  State — there  is  some  man  or  some  group 
of  men  who  can  see  what  the  necessities  of  the 
place  are,  and  its  possibilities,  long  before  oth- 
ers. That  is,  there  is  a portion  of  the  people 
who  think  and  act,  and  a portion  that  are  acted 
upon  by  the  thinkers.  These  men  foresee  the 
necessity  of  projecting  certain  improvements. 
Mr.  Rip  Van  Winkle,  reposing  in  his  country 
seat,  never  knows  what  is  going  on  until  he 
wakes  up  some  fine  morning  to  an  improve- 


1366 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [114th 

Carbery,  Hoadly,  Tuttle,  Sample,  Dorsey,  etc.  [Saturday, 


ment.  That  is  very  troublesome  to  him.  It 
disturbs  his  sleep,  his  repose.  In  the  course  of 
a few  years  rolling  over,  this  gentleman  finds 
his  property  quadrupled  in  value.  There  is  not 
a single  improvement  that  has  been  undertaken 
in  Cincinnati  but  some  Rip  Van  Winkle  has 
opposed.  Everything  has  been  opposed,  every- 
thing thus  conceived  in  the  minds  of  enterpris- 
ing men  for  sanitary,  mercantile  and  other 
practical  purposes,  with  the  view  of  making 
Cincinnati  accessible  from  all  sides,  to  make  it 
a pleasant  place  to  live  in,  to  make  it  a pleasant 
and  profitable  place  to  sell  goods  in.  And, 
under  the  operations  of  this  very  rule,  that  has 
exempted  the  surrounding  country  from  the 
cost  of  improvements,  it  has  been  a difficult 
problem.  The  conception  of  every  improve-  j 
ment  was  in  the  interest  of  true  progress,  and 
for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  community,  by  in-  ! 
telligent  minded  men.  There  has  never  been  j 
a single  improvement,  from  the  establishment  I 
of  street  railroads,  against  which  a crusade  has 
not  been  waged,  up  to  the  present  time.  Our  ! 
sewerage  projects,  making  sidewalks  uniform,  j 
taking  the  crown  off  of  streets — everything 
that  has  been  done  in  that  way,  through  pursu- 
ance of  enlightened  and  progressive  sciences, 
has  been  opposed  by  some  little  group  or  parcel 
of  men.  And  though  thus  bitterly  opposed, 
these  undertakings  afterwards  received  almost 
the  unanimous  approval,  even  of  these  men 
originally  in  opposition,  who  could  not  at  first 
see  in  what  way  they  were  going  to  be  bene- 
fited by  these  improvements.  Therefore,  I can 
say  it  will  be  the  part  of  this  Convention  to 
give  opportunities  enough  to  carry  out  these  j 
improvements  in  a given  space  of  time,  and  not 
wait,  as  my  friend  who  has  just  taken  his  seat 
says,  until  the  improvements  have  become  j 
valuable  enough  to  pay  them.  That  is  a good 
deal  like  the  policy  of  a certain  countryman  of 
mine,  who  was  making  his  horse  live  on  a very 
small  amount  of  food,  and  when  he  had  brought 
him  down  to  a straw  a day  he  suddenly  de- 
parted this  life.  That  is  about  the  way  with  j 
some  delegates  in  this  Convention.  They  would  j 
perish  from  inaction  before  they  were  improved. 
They  would  be  utterly  left  behind  by  the  pro- 
gress of  the  age. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  As  something  has  been  said 
here  about  the  frequency  of  assessments,  and  J 
as  my  colleague  has  had  some  experience,  I j 
believe,  I desire  to  ask  him  if  he  knows  how 
long  since  the  last  assessment  was  levied  on  the 
property  on  which  he  lives  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I have  lived  twenty-five 
years  on  one  street,  and  have  been  assessed  | 
twice. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I move  we  take  ! 
a recess. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon  j 
the  motion  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Mi-  j 
ami  [Mr.  Dorsey]. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  rise  for  the  purpose 
of  discussing  the  question,  but  merely  to  ex- 
plain my  own  vote.  I am  in  favor  of  restrict- 
ing the  exercise  of  this  power,  but  nevertheless,  | 
I feel  that  I shall  be  compelled  to  vote  against  the 
particular  proposition  now  before  the  Conven-  ! 
tion.  I desire  that  it  may  be  understood  that  it  is  I 
not  from  any  unfriendliness  to  or  abandonment 


of  the  ground  I have  taken  heretofore  in  rela- 
tion to  it;  for  if  the  proposition  shall  fail,  I 
hope  to  see  something  which  will  accomplish 
that  which  I think  is  absolutely  necessary  for 
the  government  of  the  State,  and  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  people  against  the  despotic  and 
arbitrary  exercise  of  power  by  corporations. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I wish  to  say  a single  word, 
occupying  less  than  a minute.  That  is,  that 
the  views  I expressed  yesterday  and  entertain 
now,  compel  me  to  vote  against  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey], 
although  I retain  the  same  views  that  I ex- 
pressed yesterday  as  to  the  great  importance, 
the  absolute  necessity,  of  imposing  some  limita- 
tion on  the  general  amount. 

The  reading  of  the  amendment  was  called 
for. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
question.  The  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  proposes  to  amend  section  3 by  strik- 
ing out  in  line  2 the  words  “one  year”  and  in- 
serting the  period  of  three  successive  years,  so 
that  it  will  read  thus : “No  assessment  shall  be 

levied  by  any  corporation  on  any  property 
which  will  require  the  payment  in  any  period 
of  three  successive  years  of  more  than  ten  per 
centum  of  its  value  as  ascertained  by  the  tax 
duplicate.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  not  necessary  to  take  a 
vote  on  this  matter.  If  it  is  going  to  be  voted 
down, I submit,  as  a matter  course;  and  for  the 
purpose  of  opening  the  way  for  some  other 
proposition  which  can  be  supported  more  gen- 
erally by  gentlemen,  with  the  leave  of  the  Con- 
vention, 1 will  withdraw. 

Leave  was  not  given. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  22,  nays  45,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Blose,  Burns,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Hill,  Hostetter, 
Kerr,  McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Page,  Phel- 
lis,  Reilly,  Sears,  Townsley,  VanVoorhis,  Voor- 
hes,  White  of  Hocking,  Y"oung  of  Cham- 
paign— 22. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were— 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Ban  non,  Bishop, 
Byal,  Carbery,  Clay,  Cowen,  Cunningham, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Foran,  Gardner,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  Kraemer,  Layton,  McCormick,  Merrill, 
Miner,  Mueller,  Okey,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Townsend,  Tripp, 
Tulloss,  Tyler, Van  Valkenburgh, Waddle, West, 
Wilson,  President — 45. 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  1 move  the  Convention 
now  adjourn. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Objection  was  made,  but  the  demand  was  sus- 
tained. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted— yeas  24,  nays  43,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Beer,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay, 
Cunningham,  Doan,  Gardner,  Herron,  Hoadly, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kraemer,  Layton,  Mer- 
rill, Miner,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs, 


Day.]  REPORT  FROM  COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION.  _ 1367 

February  14,1874.]  Bishop,  Cook,  Page,  Powell. 


Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Townsley, 
Vail  Valkenburgh,  Wilson — 24. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Cowen, 
De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Foran,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Hale,  Hill,  Hostetter,  McBride,  Mc- 
Cormick, Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Okey, 
Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Reilly,  Root,  Sam- 
ple, Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van 
Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Waddle,  West,  White  of 
Hocking,  Young  of  Champaign,  President — 43. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  the  Convention  take  a 
recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  (at  1 o'clock 
p.  m.)  the  Convention  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION. 

Mr.  COOK  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  make 
a Report  from  the  Committee  on  Education. 
The  Secretary  read  the  Report  as  follows : 

Your  Committee,  after  a careful  consideration  of  all  the 
petitions  and  propositions  referred  to  them,  are  of  the 
opinion  that  the  following,  as  section  3,  should  be  added 
to  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution: 

Sec.  3.  Women,  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  office,  under  the  school  laws  of  this  State. 

The  undersigned  member.'  of  the  Committee  recommend 
that  the  following  clause  be  added  to  section  2 of  Article 
VI  of  the  Constitution,  namely : 

The  power  of  taxati  >n,  conferred  by  this  section,  shall 
be  limited  to  a sum  sufficient  to  educate  all  the  children 
of  the  State,  in  such  common  and  necessary  branches  of 
learning  as  shall  be  provided  by  law. 

Jxo.  D.  Sears, 

Benry  F.  Page, 

Wm.  P.  Kerr, 

J.  P.  Carbery. 

The  undersigned  dissent  from  the  above  recommenda- 
tion. 

Asher  Cook, 
li.  DeSteiguer. 

The  undersigned  members  of  the  Committee  are  of  the 
opinion  that  the  following  should  be  added,  as  section  4, 
to  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution : 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  require 
that  every  child,  of  sufficient  mental  and  physical  abili- 
ty, shall  attend  the  public  free  schools,  during  the  period 
between  the  ages  of  and  years,  for  a term 

equivalent  in  the  aggregate  to  years,  unless  edu- 

cated by  other  means  to  the  same  extent. 

Asher  Cook, 

Jxo.  D.  Sears, 

Henry  F.  Page, 

It.  DeSteiguer. 

We  dissent  from  the  rest  of  the  Committee,  in  opinion, 
as  to  the  addition  of  section  4. 

W.  P.  Kerr, 

J.  P.  Carbery. 

Mr.  Carbery  proposes  to  amend  section  2 of  Article  VI, 
of  the  Constitution,  so  that  it  shall  read: 

The  General  Assembly  shall  make  such  provisions,  by 
taxation  or  otherwise,  as,  with  the  income  arising  from 
the  school  trust  fund,  will  secure  a thorough  and  suffi- 
cient system  of  common  schools  throughout  the  State. 

Joseph  P.  Carbery. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  that  the  Report  lie  on 
the  table  and  be  printed,  and  made  the  special 
order  of  the  Convention  immediately  after  the 
disposal  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  I would  also  add 
to  that,  a motion,  that  three  hundred  extra 
copies  be  printed.  The  Report  proposes  some 
radical  changes  in  the  school  system ; and  I 
think  the  people  of  the  State  would  like  to  be  in- 
formed of  it,  in  order  that  they  may,  either  by 


! petition  or  remonstrance,  let  us  know,  before  we 
act,  their  views  upon  the  subject. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  state 
that  there  are  three  special  orders  succeeding 
the  disposal  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Bill  of  Rights:  Propositions  Nos.  203,  204, 
and  205. 

Mr.  COOK.  I then  move  to  make  it  the  spe- 
cial order  in  Convention  immediately  after  the 
disposal  of  Proposition  No  205. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to, and  three  hundred 
extra  copies  of  the  Report  were  ordered 
printed. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I wish  to  offer  an  amendment 
to  the  section  now  under  discussion. 

The  Secretary  read : 

And  the  General  Assembly  shall  provide  for  the  pay- 
i ment  of  an  equitable  proportion  of  the  special  assess- 
ments out  of  the  treasury  of  Municipal  Corporations. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I doubt  very  much  whether 
there  is  a quorum  present,  and  whether  these 
matters  ought  to  be  disposed  of  with  so  few 
members  in  attendance. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Has  the  gentleman  any  ob- 
jections to  having  the  word  “ may  ” inserted  in 
the  place  of  “ shall.” 

Mr.  PAGE.  I propose  to  make  it  obligatory, 
and  require  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Legislature. 

In  my  remarks,  yesterday,  Mr.  President,  I 
| said  that  there  is  an  inconsistency  in  the  claim 
of  the  public  in  regard  to  such  assessments. 

: The  public  order  an  improvement  to  be  made, 
and,  at  the  commencement,  they  declare  that 
the  public  utility  requires  that  the  improvement 
should  be  made,  and  the  property  taken  for  the 
public  benefit;  but,  after  they  have  proceeded 
so  far,  they  turn  about,  when  the  question  of 
payment  is  concerned,  and  say  it  is  a matter  of 
private  benefit,  and  require  the  owner  to  pay 
for  it.  That  is  virtually  abandoning  the  first 
claim,  and  the  two  claims  are,  consequently,  in- 
j consistent  and  suicidal.  I think  the  fact  of  the 
matter  is,  that  they  are  cases  of  mixed  benefit, 
benefit  to  the  public,  and  benefit  to  the  indi- 
vidual who  is  concerned,  and,  as  I said  yester- 
day, I think  an  equitable  rule  would  be  to 
require  that  both  the  public  and  the  individual 
should  pay  for  the  improvements. 

The  objection  to  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  is, 
that  it  goes  on  to  declare  the  amount  that  should 
be  paid,  beyond  which  the  individual  should  not 
be  assessed.  In  my  amendment,  just  offered,  I 
propose  simply  to  fix  the  principle — the  duty 
on  the  part  of  the  Legislature — leaving  it  dis- 
cretionary on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  to  de- 
fine what  is  equitable  under  all  circumstances. 
Where  the  public  order  an  improvement  to  be 
made,  on  the  theory  that  it  is  a public  ben- 
efit to  a certain  extent,  to  that  extent  the 
public  ought  to  contribute.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  a benefit  to  the  individual,  it 
might  be  equitable  to  compel  him  to  pay 
some  portion  of  the  burden.  In  this  case, 
the  Legislature  may  require  the  public  to  pay 
five  per  cent.,  and  the  individual  ninety-five  per 
cent.,  if,  under  the  circumstances,  it  is  equita- 
ble; or  they  may  require  the  public  to  pay 
ninety-five  per  cent.,  and  the  individual  five 
per  cent.  Whatever  the  benefit  is  to  the  indi- 


1368 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


[114th 

Young  of  C.  [Saturday, 


vidual  and  the  public,  it  ought  to  be  apportioned 
in  an  equitable  manner,  and  this  provision  sim- 
ply places  that  duty  upon  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I think  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  is  a good  one.  I have  ap- 
prehended the  difficulty  of  making  any  provi- 
sion that  might  suit  the  purpose  of  the  cities 
and  villages  of  the  State,  and  I think  it  is  a 
very  difficult  question  to  arrive  at  any  mode 
that  shall  reconcile  these  two  classes  of  corpo- 
rations: I find  that  cities  of  the  larger  class 

are  content  with  the  section  as  it  reads.  They 
think  that  it  best  accomplishes  their  purpose; 
and  I listened,  the  other  day,  with  great  in- 
terest, to  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  and  I appreciate 
what  he  said  with  reference  to  its  adaptation  to 
Cleveland,  and  the  same  thing  mi^ht  be  said 
as  to  its  adaptation  to  Cincinnati.  But  I think 
it  is  manifest,  from  what  has  been  said  during 
this  discussion,  that  the  rule  that  may  apply  to 
Cincinnati,  and  the  rule  that  may  apply  to 
Cleveland,  with  regard  to  taxation,  might  not 
suit  the  smaller  towns  of  the  State.  It  is  very 
difficult,  if  you  undertake  to  restrict  the  amount, 
to  fix  it  so  as  to  arrive  at  a rule  that  would  be 
satisfactory. 

How  is  it  in  the  smaller  towns?  What  is  the 
experience?  What  has  been  my  experience, 
may  be  the  experience  of  many  other  gentle- 
men. Let  us  suppose  that  this  occurs  in  my 
town : It  is  deemed  needful  for  public  purposes 
to  open  a street  in  a certain  drection.  It  often 
happens  that  the  persons  by  whose  property 
the  street  is  to  be  opened  may  be,  and  are,  poor 
people.  But  it  is  important  to  the  town  as  an 
outlet,  important  to  the  people  who  live  beyond, 
that  the  street  should  be  opened.  Those  per- 
sons by  whose  property  it  is  to  be  opened,  and 
through  whose  property  it  is  to  pass,  may  be 
unable  to  pay  the  assessment,  and  it  may  ope- 
rate very  oppressively  upon  them.  You  do  not 
satisfy  them  by  the  suggestion  that  it  is  to  ben- 
efit them  very  largely,  for  the  truth  is  that  it  does 
not  benefit  them.  The  man  has  his  home,  his  little 
place  that  he  wants  for  his  family,  and  it  is  no 
great  consolation  to  him  to  be  told  that  the  half 
of  his  home  shall  be  taken  away  for  public  im- 
provements, and  that  its  value  will  be  enhanced. 
At  some  distant  period  it  may  be,  if  the  small 
town  grows  up  to  be  a very  considerable  one; 
but,  for  a long  time,  it  will  not,  and  for  the 
present  he  can  illy  afford  to  pay  it.  He  cannot 
afford  to  pajr  it  in  anticipation  of  a rise  in  value 
that  may  compensate  him  for  the  taxes  thus 
paid — a time  that  may  never  come  to  him. 

Again,  it  operates  unjustly.  I recollect  now 
an  instance  of  this  sort  in  my  town,  in  which  I 
am  personally  interested.  A street  is  to  be 
widened,  and  it  cuts  off  part  of  my  property, 
and  I am  to  be  assessed  for  that  purpose.  It  is 
right  enough  for  the  public  and  for  the  interests 
of  the  town  that  the  street  should  be  widened. 
If  I am  content  with  it  as  it  is,  I would  be  dis- 
satisfied if  you  coolly  tell  me  it  is  to  enhance 
the  value  of  my  property.  I am  very  much 
obliged  to  you.  I desire  no  guardian.  I am 
content  as  it  is.  If  you  make  the  improvement, 
the  result  is  that  there  must  be  a special  assess- 
ment upon  me  of  five  hundred  dollars.  Why? 
The  theory  is,  that  it  is  to  enhance  the  value  of 


my  property.  I would  not  speak  of  it  now,  but 
for  the  fact  that  when  the  proposition  of  the 
| gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  was  under 
! discussion,  an  instance  was  referred  to  where 
j claims  were  made  for  compensation.  I recollect 
' very  well  that  I proposed  to  the  city  council, 
that  if  they  would  save  me  from  the  assessment, 
I would  make  no  claim  for  compensation.  You 
i have  allowed  me  five  hundred  dollars — now,  I 
shall  say  nothing  about  it  if  you  will  save  me 
J from  the  assessment.  Let  us  look  at  it  in  the 
! view  claimed  that  it  is  to  enhance  the  value  of 
j my  property.  In  time,  if  the  town  improve 
j rapidly,  it  will  enhance  its  value,  but  not  now. 
The  increase  would  be  very  slight  in  propor- 
tion to  the  amount  to  be  paid  for  it.  That  street 
is  to  be  opened  for  the  public  benefit,  and  not 
! mine.  It  is  important  for  the  town  that  it 
; should  be  opened.  But  I and  a half  dozen 
i others  are  assessed  to  pay  for  the  improvement, 
j I must  pay,  say,  five  hundred  dollars.  It  does 
not  benefit  me  especially,  any  more  than  it  does 
the  town.  It  is  important  to  the  town  generally. 
It  is  important  to  the  people  who  live  in  it  that 
it  shall  be  widened  and  improved.  I canappre- 
| ciate  what  is  said  about  the  necessity  for  that 
rule,  contemplated  by  this  third  section  as  it 
stands,  for  Cincinnati.  Those  portions  of  the 
suburbs  which  have  been  referred  to  are  the 
better  portion  of  the  city,  and  when  you  make 
an  assessment  in  the  suburbs,  you  make  it  upon 
| people  who  can  afford  to  pay,  and  the  people 
! are  willing  to  pay,  where  the  property  is  of 
that  character  and  of  that  great  value,  that  the 
opening  of  a street  or  the  improvement  of  that 
street  does  add  to  its  convenience  and  enhance 
j its  value.  I can  appreciate  that. 

I recollect  another  case  in  my  town,  and  it  is 
just  as  well  to  talk  about  this  practically,  if  you 
| know  anything  about  it.  If  anything  has  oc- 
curred in  the  town  or  city  of  an  individual,  it 
is  just  as  well  to  speak  of  "the  thing  practically, 
because,  probably,  what  might  be  applicable  in 
one  town,  might  be  applicable  elsewhere.  I 
recollect  another  street  which  it  was  of  very 
great  importance  to  open.  I recollect  in  open- 
ing that  street,  in  making  a special  assessment, 
i along  the  line,  there  were  poor  people  whose 
S property «was  assessed  very  largely  because  it 
cost  considerable  to  make  the  improvement.  In 
i one  instance,  I recollect  a poor  man  had  his 
property  sold  to  pay  for  the  improvement.  That 
i is  but  one  instance,  but  that  is  sufficient. 

I do  not  propose  to  detain  the  Convention  at 
all  to  discuss  this  question,  but  merely  to  cite 
what  has  been  my  experience,  and  what  proba- 
bly, in  that  view,  would  be  of  some  value.  Do 
you  say,  because  it  may  suit  the  purpose  of  a 
city  to  adopt  a rule  of  this  sort,  that,  therefore, 
it  must  suit  the  town  and  smaller  cities  of  the 
State  ? The  fact  is,  that  it  does  not.  The  fact  is 
that  to  apply  the  rule  is  oppressive.  Therefore, 
I think  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  is  a proper  one.  First, 
because  it  contemplates  a provision  by  which, 
as  between  the  large  cities  and  the  small  ones, 
and  villages,  some  rule  may  be  adopted,  so  that 
there  will  be  some  distinction  between  cities 
and  villages  that  ought  to  be  equitable  and 
I right.  The  amendment  contemplates  that  such 
a rule  shall  be  adopted  as  shall  be  equitable. 
For  cities  of  the  firs*-  class,  you  adopt  a certain 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS.  1369 

February  14,  1874.]  Young  of  C.,  Griswold,  Page,  Tuttle. 


rule,  say  of  ten  per  cent,  per  annum.  Of  the 
second  class,  you  might  adopt  a rate  of  not  less 
than  eight  per  cent,  per  annum,  and  yet  that 
might  not  be  sufficiently  flexible.  It  might  not 
be  practicable.  There  might  be  trouble  about 
it;  therefore,  it  strikes  me  that  the  suggestion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page] 
is  the  right  proposition.  It  provides  for  an  equit- 
able adjustment  of  assessments  between  the 
individual  and  the  public  in  a given  case,  so 
that  a rule  shall  be  fixed  which  shall  not  be 
unjust,  and  operate  harshly. 

I ought  to  say  that  I have  thought,  since  the 
discussion  has  been  going  on,  that  it  would  be 
just  as  well  to  leave  this  section  of  the  Thir- 
teenth Article  just  as  it  was  in  the  old  Consti- 
tntion;  for  I have  been  a good  deal  undecided, 
and  a little  in  the  fog,  with  regard  to  the  first 
section.  I was  troubled  about  it,  and  I was 
afraid  that  the  people  of  the  State  would  be  in 
trouble  about  it.  I am,  also,  afraid  in  reference 
to  the  third  section,  that  there  would  be  trouble. 
I am  afraid  there  will  be  difficulty  in  adapting  it 
to  the  wants  of  the  people,  and  to  the  conditions 
of  the  various  cities  and  towns  in  the  State.  I 
confess  to  you,  that  I am  not  talking  about  it 
inadvertently,  but  talking  about  it  because  I 
have  looked  at  it  in  this  way,  and  because  I am 
anxious  to  arrive  at  some  rule  that  shall  be  ap- 
plicable, that  shall  be  practicable  and  useful. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I have  spoken  several 
times  upon  this  subject,  but,  I believe,  I have 
only  spoken  once  upon  each  amendment.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  gentleman,  in  offering  this 
amendment,  misconceives  the  force  of  this  sec- 
tion. It  does  not  declare  that  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  General  Assembly  to  provide  that 
special  assessments  shall  be  levied  for  these 
amounts.  This  matter  of  whether  it  shall  be  by 
special  assessment,  or  be  paid  out  of  the  general 
treasury,  is  a matter  left  to  the  wisdom  and 
discretion  of  the  General  Assembly.  We  do 
not  undertake  to  say  how  this  thing  shall  be 
done.  We  simply  put  a limitation  upon  the 
power  of  the  General  Assembly  to  say,  if  they, 
in  their  discretion,  decide  that  the  mode  of 
special  assessments  shall  be  adopted  for  the  pay- 
ment of  these  local  improvements,  then  there 
shall  be  a limitation  upon  the  power  which  they 
shall  exercise  in  any  given  year.  I am  willing 
to  go  further.  I am  willing  to  put  a limitation 
upon  it  that  in  any  given  period  it  shall  not  ex- 
ceed a reasonable  sum.  A limitation  upon  the 
power  I am  perfectly  willing  to  give,  and  that 
is  what  this  section  proposes. 

The  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page] 
generally  understands  what  he  is  about  when 
he  draws  an  amendment,  and  he  generally 
knows  its  force.  His  proposition  is,  that  there 
shall  be  a rule  by  which  the  Legislature  shall 
act,  and,  under  which  they  shall  not  exercise 
discretion.  They  shall  do  it  in  an  equitable 
manner.  Who  is  to  be  the  judge  of  the  equitable 
manner  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  Legislature. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  Legislature  shall  pro- 
vide equitable  rules.  They  have  that  power 
now,  to  provide  any  mode  of  taxation  that  they 
see  fit,  and  you  make  it  their  duty  that  they 
shall  provide  that  it  shall  be  equitably  divided. 
Suppose  they  do  not  do  it  equitably,  what  then  ? 
Where  is  your  provision,  and  what  is  the  effect 


of  it?  Shall  everybody  have  the  right  to  go 
into  court  and  say  this  tax  is  not  assessed  in  an 
equitable  manner,  and  so  put  the  question  of  the 
ultimate  validity  of  your  tax  in  every  case  in 
jeopardy  and  let  the  court  decide  what  is  equita- 
ble under  the  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  No,  sir,  the  Legislature  is  the 
final  judge. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I am  not  so  certain  about 
that.  In  your  amendment  you  declare  that  they 
shall  provide  for  an  equitable  division.  You 
do  not  leave  it  in  that  manner.  There  must  be 
some  authority  to  decide  whether  they  act 
equitably  or  not.  If  you  require  them  to  act 
equUably  you  will  leave  itopen  to  the  judgment 
of  the  courts,  instead  of  leaving  it  to  the  Legis- 
lature which  now  has  the  authority,  and  is  not 
compelled  by  any  rule  to  apply  the  cost  of  these 
improvements  upon  local  property. 

Mr.  PAGE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
call  his  attention  to  similar  language  in  section 
twenty-eight  of  the  present  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  General  Assembly  may,  by 
general  laws,  authorize  the  courts  to  carry  into 
effect  upon  such  terms  as  may  be  just  and  equi- 
table, the  manifest  intention  of  parties.  Who 
is  to  be  the  judge  there? 

Mr.  GRIS  WOLD.  The  court  is  to  be  the  equi- 
table judge. 

Mr.  PAGE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir,  the  courts  decide 
whether  or  not  it  is  equitable.  It  is  not  done 
by  the  statute.  It  is  the  ultimate  judgment  of 
the  courts,  the  common  pleas  and  the  supreme 
courts,  and  you  take  it  away  from  the  Legisla- 
ture, where  it  properly  belongs,  and  give  it  over 
to  the  courts,  by  adopting  such  an  amendment 
as  this.  No  such  power  properly  belongs  to  the 
Judicial  Department.  It  is  their  business  to  see 
that  the  law  is  properly  administered,  and  if  these 
authorities  go  beyond  the  law  the  courts  will 
interfere  for  the  benefit  of  citizens.  Hence,  it 
seems  to  me,  not  only  is  it  going  further  than 
we  ought,  in  any  manner,  to  go,  but  it  is  direct- 
ing the  Legislature  how  to  exercise  their  wis 
dom,  because  this  section  does  not  propose 
anything  of  this  kind  whatever.  It  only  im- 
poses a limit  upon  that  general  discretion  which 
they  have  a right  to  exercise,  and  which  prop- 
erly falls  to  the  Legislature,  and  nobody  else, 
and,  as  I conceive,  it  is  not  only  bad  in  princi- 
ple, but  it  would  be  mischievous  in  practice. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  For  myself,  I am  very  anx- 
ious that  something  shall  be  provided  in  the 
Constitution  by  which  some  security  will  be 
afforded  against  the  excessive  exercise  of  power 
on  the  part  of  corporations  in  the  respect  of 
making  improvements.  The  power  that  is  nat- 
urally granted  to  corporations  is  very  extensive, 
and  perhaps  the  principles  of  our  legislation 
may  be  referred  to  as  illustrating  it.  In  the 
first  place,  where  shall  the  corporation  extend 
to,  or  over  whom?  I would  agree,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  if  it  should  be  at  a man’s  option 
whether  he  should  be  in  a corporation  or  not, 
or  whether  his  land  should  be  in  the  corporation 
or  not,  the  question  would  be  presented  in  a 
very  different  form.  But,  by  the  law  of  Ohio, 
at  the  present  time,  a corporation  may  take  a 
vote  whether  they  shall  take  in  adjoining  terri- 
tory; and  although  every  vote  in  the  territory 


1370 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Tuttle,  Griswold,  Blose. 


that  is  proposed  to  be  taken  in  may  be  against  I 
it — every  man,  woman  and  child  who  lives  in  : 
the  proposed  territory,  and  who  has  land  within  I 
the  proposed  limits,  maybe  truly  and  entirely  j 
opposed  to  it,  and  ask  nothing  of  your  corpora-  i 
tion,  only  to  let  them  alone,  yet,  if  there  are  votes  I 
enough  in  the  corporation  to  overcome  the  ma-  j 
jority  of  votes  in  the  suburbs,  then,  if  you  can 
get  that  very  slender  obstacle  of  the  county  | 
commissioners  out  of  the  way,  the  territory  is  j 
annexed. 

I speak  now  of  the  Nvay  in  which  villages  and 
cities  of  the  second  class  are  governed ; for  I do  j 
not  know  so  much  about  larger  cities.  I do  not  i 
remember  how  that  is.  You  may  extend  the  j 
city,  acre  by  acre,  and  half  square  mile  by  half 
square  mile,  until,  if  you  please,  you  can  incor- 
porate the  whole  county  in  the  same  manner  ; 
and,  at  all  events,  whatever  you  do,  it  is  never  a 
question  as  to  whether  the  people  interested 
consent  to  it  or  not.  We  naturally  stop  to  ask,  for 
whose  good  is  this  done?  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  and  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  argued  this  yes- 
terday, just  as  though  it  was  a simple  question 
of  whether,  when  property  was  improved  out- 
side, or  anywhere  about  the  corporation,  the 
persons  benefited  by  the  improvement  should 
pay  for  it.  The  persons  benefited ! Who  is 
benefited  wrhen  a corporation  says : “Messrs.  A 
and  B,  we  are  going  to  take  your  land  into  our 
corporation,”  and  Messrs.  A and  B say  : “Please 
don’t;  we  are  well  enough  satisfied  as  it  is.” 
This  magnanimous  and  disinterested  corpora- 
tion says:  “O,  no,  Mr.  A and  Mr.  B,  you  are  j 
not  sensible  of  your  own  good.  We  are  per-  j 
fectly  disinterested.  We  propose  to  take  you 
into  our  corporation,  and  then  we  are  going  to 
build  some  roads  through  your  land,  and  we 
are  going  to  make  you  pay  for  them.”  That  is 
the  way  corporations,  under  these  laws,  act  for 
the  benefit  of  property-owners.  These  prop- 
erty-owners don’t  know  anything  about  what  is 
for  their  good  until  the  corporation,  or  the  very 
excellent  gentlemen  who  control  the  corpora- 
tion, tell  them.  A and  Bsay:  “Please  let  us 
alone;  we  are  well  enough  satisfied  as  it  is.” 

I say  it  is  not  very  often  that  you  find  corporat- 
ors shameless  enough  to  stand  up  and  face  their 
neighbors,  and  say  they  are  doing  this  iustfor 
the  good  of  A and  B. 

But  we  are  told,  leave  it  to  the  Legislature. 
If  we  do  not  make  any  provision  here  the  Leg- 
islature will  make  all  necessary  provisions. 
There  are  some  gentlemen  that  talk  on  this 
subject  just  exactly  as  I can  imagine,  and  as  I 
know  in  fact,  the  regular  old  tories,  during  the 
times  of  James  II,  would  have  talked  in  the 
parliament  of  Great  Britain  ; and  did  talk  when 
they  undertook,  not  by  any  pre-existing  law, 
but  by  bill  of  pains  and  penalties,  to  try  the 
queen  for  misdemeanors  that  it  was  alleged  she 
had  indiscreetly  committed,  when  she  was  trav- 
eling through  the  south  of  Europe,  where  the 
infidelity  of  her  husband  had  compelled  her  to 
go  unprotected  and  alone.  Leave  it  to  the  Leg- 
islature to  do  this.  Some  gentlemen  talk  that 
way  because  they  are  ready  to  talk  anything 
upon  any  side  of  any  question  that  will  carry 
any  demagogical  point.  That  is  the  way  some 
talk ; and  they  will  talk  one  way  to-day  and  | 
right  the  other  way  to-morrow,  according  to  the  I 


[114th 

[Saturday, 


particular  point  they  wish  to  carry ; others  are 
always  that  way  from  the  natural  proclivities 
of  their  ways.  We  find  gentlemen  here  of 
whom  we  can  be  cei  tain  before-hand  how  they 
will  incline  to  go  when  any  reduction  of  legis- 
lative power  is  proposed,  and  who  seem  to  feel 
that  it  is  an  insult  to  the  Legislature  to  propose 
any  reduction  upon  their  power.  They  have  got 
such  an  infinite  confidence  in  the  Legislature. 
This  morning  we  were  gravely  told  that  the 
Legislature  had  provided  against  any  excessive 
assessment.  Let  us  turn  and  see  how.  This, 
sir,  is  the  law  of  Ohio  to-day.  It  is  the  way 
the  Legislature  has  provided.  “ In  no  case  shall 
any  tax  or  assessment,  specially  levied  and  as- 
sessed upon  any  lot  of  land,  for  any  improve- 
ment, amount  to  more  than  twenty-five  per 
centum  of  the  value  of  such  lot  or  land  as 
assessed  upon  the  tax  duplicate.  The  cost  ex- 
ceeding said  per  centum  that  would  otherwise 
be  payable  on  such  lot  or  land  shall  be  paid  by 
the  corporation  out  of  its  general  revenue.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Read  the  last  section. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  This  is  the  last  section  ; but  if 
the  gentleman  please,  I would  rather  he  would 
make  his  speech  after  my  ten  minutes  were  up. 
I wanted  to  propose  a question  this  morning  10 
the  gentleman,  how  we  could  restrict  the  power 
of  the  Legislature  from  levying  twenty-five  per 
cent.,  and  then  sometime,  before  long,  levying 
another,  and  the  gentleman  seemed  to  divine 
the  nature  of  the  question  I wanted  to  put,  and 
he  stated  he  would  not  have  time  in  his  ten 
minutes,  and  the  gentleman  was  exactly  right. 
It  was  not  from  any  mere  lack  of  time  on  his 
part.  I was  anxious  to  see  him  try  his  teeth  on 
that  point.  I was  anxious  to  hear  him  answer. 
I know  his  profundity,  and  so  do  we  all,  and 
that  his  profundity  is  only  equalled  by  his  wit 
and  his  propensities,  and  what  he  lacks  in 
depth,  it  makes  up  in  breadth.  But,  sir,  he 
must  observe  that  there  was  nothing  in  all  the 
wide  circumference  of  law  that  would  prevent 
a corporation  from  going  on  and  making  addi- 
tional assessments.  I do  not  know  but  that 
sometime  or  other  hereafter,  he  will  think  he 
has  discovered  a method ; but  he  will  put  it  for- 
ward, I venture  to  say,  where  there  is  not  a 
good  opportunity  to  answer  it. 

Now,  sir,  I desire  to  say  that  we  have  no  bus- 
iness to  trust  the  Legislature  upon  this  point. 
Our  business  here  is  to  see  if  we  can  make  it 
certain  that  the  Legislature  will  not  abuse  this 
power.  There  are  but  two  things  to  be  said  : 
One  is  to  say  that  the  Legislature  is  infallible — 
just  as  might  have  been  urged  in  the  English 
parliament  of  1820 — and  leave  them,  if  they  see 
fit,  to  confer  the  power  without  limit;  and  the 
other  is,  to  admit  that  it  is  a power  which  is  liable 
to  abuse,  and  so  to  confer  it  upon  municipali- 
ties that  the  council  for  the  municipality 
may  use  it  and  not  abuse  it.  There  is  no  other 
way  to  put  it.  If  there  are  restrictions  to  be 
applied,  this  is  the  place  to  apply  them. 

The  President  temporarily  vacated  the 
Chair. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore  [Mr.  Hum- 
piireville  in  the  chair].  The  question  is  upon 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Mr.  President,  and  gentlemen 
of  the  Convention,  l intended  to  confine  my- 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Blose. 


1371 


Day.] 

February  14, 1874.] 


self,  in  my  humble  manner,  to  a proposition  a 
day  or  two  ago,  and,  in  doing  so,  I had  to  refer 
to  the  books.  I have  again  referred  to  the  books 
in  what  few  remarks  I shall  make  now.  The 
first  thing  to  which  I refer  is  the  Preamble  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  said 
Constitution  itself,  and  I believe  that  is  a good 
book  or  document  to  refer  to.  It  is,  to  our 
political  government,  just  what  the  Bible  is  to 
the  Christian  world,  the  foundation  on  which 
they  should  build,  as  we  should  on  the  Consti- 
tution. I now  read : 

“ We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form 
a more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic 
tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote  the 
general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  xo  our- 
selves and  our  posterity , do  ordain  and  establish  this  Con- 
stitution for  the  United  States  of  America.” 

That  word  liberty , gentlemen,  I would  have 
you  remember  that.  That  is  what  I always  want 
to  guard.  Please  don’t  forget  that  word,  neither 
its  full  scope.  I find  again  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  State  of  Ohio,  adopted  in  the  year  1802, 
in  Article  VIII,  section  1,  that  reads  like  this : 

“ That  all  men  are  born  equally  free  and  independent, 
and  have  certain  natural  inherent  and  inalienable  rights : 
amongst  which  are  the  enjoying  and  defending  life  and 
iberty,  acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  property, 
and  pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety.” 

It  might  be  a very  happy  thing  to  some  of 
you  to  have  some  fellow,  or  power,  if  you  please, 
come  and  take  off  your  property  by  unlimited 
taxation  or  otherwise.  It  would  not,  however, 
be  pleasant  to  me.  Some  gentlemen  seem  to 
think  it  would  be  very  pleasant  to  them.  I read 
again : 

“And  every  free,  Republican  government,  being  found- 
ed on  their  sole  authority,  and  organized  for  the  great 
purpose  of  protecting  their  rights  and  liberties,  and  secur- 
ing their  independence;  to  effect  these  ends,  they  have  at 
all  times  a complete  power  to  alter,  reform  or  aboli'h 
their  government,  whenever  they  may  deem  it  neces- 
sary.” 

By  chance,  so  to  speak,  by  misplacing  papers, 
I got  on  to  that  before  I was  ready ; but  no  dif- 
ference, these  doctrines  are  good  at  all  times, 
and  anywhere.  I want  to  read  here  the  ninth 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Our  fathers  had  made,  as  they  supposed, 
a good  Constitution,  but  after  trying  it  a short 
time,  they  found  it  necessary  to  make  some  im- 
portant amendments  to  that  Constitution.  The 
rights  that  they  intended  to  guard  were  not 
sufficiently,  in  their  opinion,  protected,  and  they 
put  in  an  amendment  like  this.  Amendment 
Article  IX : 

“The  enumeration,  in  the  Constitution,  of  certain  rights 
shall  not  be  construed  to  deny  or  disparage  others  retain- 
ed by  the  people.” 

And  this  right  to  retain  hard  earned  property, 
unless  for  extraordinary  purposes,  was  never 
yielded  by  them. 

The  section  I read  previously  properly  comes 
in  here,  but  no  difference,  as  before  said ; these 
doctrines  are  good  whenever  found.  I find  by  the 
Constitution  of  1851,  that  “ private  property 
shall  ever  be  held  inviolate ; but  subservient  to 
the  public  welfare  only.  Don’t  forget  that  ob- 
ject, please,  subservient  to  the  public  welfare.  I 
want  you  to  understand,  first,  that  I do  not  claim 
to  be  possessed  with  extraordinary  knowledge, 
and  if  you  take  what  I say  to  be  extraordinarily 
valuable,  you  will  probably  be  disappointed. 


But  I have  some  ideas,  and  they  are  mine.  I do 
not  ask  anybody  else  to  adopt  them,  and  I do  not 
propose  to  adopt  those  of  anybody  else  without 
my  consent.  I have  been  taught,  or  learned  it 
somehow  or  somewhere,  that  this  glorious 
country  of  ours,  the  United  States  of  America, 
is  the  home , is  the  asylum  of  the  down-trodden 
and  oppressed  of  every  land.  Our  fathers  found- 
ed this  glorious  liberty.  They  fell  out,  first, 
with  their  oppressors  about  a little  tax  on  tea — 
and  if  I had  been  one  of  them,  I would  have 
fallen  out  too,  because  their  oppressors  had  no 
right  to  tax  tea,  especially  without  representa- 
tion. But  these  foreign  foes,  these  enemies  from 
without,  were  encroaching  upon  their  rights. 
When  they,  by  arms  and  bloodshed,  established 
their  independence,  they,  by  ordinance  and 
otherwise,  agreed  to  do  certain  things  for  the 
general  welfare.  Among  those  things  are 
these:  to  provide  for  a standing  army,  for  a 
navy,  for  the  building  of  forts,  &c.,  in  order  to 
make  this — then  the  colonies,  now  the  great 
United  States  of  America — a home , and,  in  fact, 
an  asylum;  in  other  words,  a play  house,  in 
which  they  and  we,  my  friends,  every  one  of 
us,  should  have  the  right,  in  my  opinion,  to  do 
what  we  please  therein,  so  that  we  do  not  in- 
jure anybody  else  thereby.  I have  the  right 
to  make  money  as  I please,  so  I do  not  injure 
any  one  else  in  so  doing.  So  have  you,  Mr. 
President;  so  have  you,  gentlemen,  everyone 
of  you;  and  when  you  have  made  that  money, 
nobody,  nor  any  power  in  this  government,  in 
my  opinion,  has  the  right  to  take  a solitary  cent 
of  it  away  from  any  one  of  us,  in  any  manner, 
without  your  full  consent,  except  for  the  gene- 
ral welfare,  to  keep  the  ships  and  forts,  and 
every  other  thing  of  like  character  in  trim,  so 
that  no  power  from  without  could  come  in  and 
despoil  us. 

My  distinguished  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Bishop]  tells  us  here  that  in  a city  in  Kansas 
they  had  taken  from  him  one  lot.  That  is  to 
him,  as  he  says,  all  right,  because  he  had,  prob- 
ably, a hundred  other  lots  left;  but  suppose  he 
had  been  as  some  of  my  constituents,  who  are 
glad  to  have  half  a lot,  would  you,  or  he,  then 
impose  upon  him,  or  mine,  this  tax,  to  lay  a 
pavement,  when  to  do  so,  he,  or  they,  would 
have  no  house  left,  nowhere  to  lay  their  hum- 
ble heads?  Is  that  the  country  or  government 
for  which  our  fathers  fought,  and  bled,  and 
died?  If  so,  I do  not  so  understand  it.  This 
government  was  organized  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  the  weak  as  against  the  strong,  and 
not  for  the  benefit  of  the  strong,  to  the  degrada- 
tion and  blotting  out  of  the  weak.  No  member 
of  this  Convention  must  forget  that,  although 
to-day,  he  may  be  as  once  was  a Jay  Cooke, 
to-morrow  he  may  be  sweeping  the  streets  of 
Cincinnati,  or  even  lower.  That  may  be  our 
portion,  gentlemen,  before  death.  Let  us  not, 
therefore,  slap  a newsboy  in  the  face  because  he 
comes  along  and  says,  “Paper,  sir?  paper, 
sir?”  all  for  the  support  of  a widowed  mother, 
possibly.  Remember  we  might  possibly  be 
glad  to  be  there.  Better  be  there  than  in  the 
penitentiary, or  jail,  or  station  house,  for  crimes 
committed  against  our  fellow  man. 

Upon  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Page, 
the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  31,  nays  30,  as  follows : 


1372 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

West,  Mueller,  Powell,  Beer,  etc. 


[114th 

[Saturday, 


Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Bannon,  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Boss,  De 
Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Hill,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Kerr,  McBride,  McCormick,  Miller,  Mitchener, 
Page,  Phellis,  Keilly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sam- 
ple, Sears,  Smith  of  Highland,  Tuttle,  Van 
Voorliis,  Yoorhes,  West,  Young  of  Champaign, 
President — 31. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop,  Carbery, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Ewing,  Foran,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Kraemer,  Layton, 
Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller,  Okey,  Pond,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Root,  Rowland,  Shultz,  Tripp,  Tulloss, 
Van  Valkenburgh,  Waddle,  Wilson — 30. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I propose  this  aggregate  limita- 
tion to  go  in  preceding  the  amendment  just 
offered. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Nor  shall  the  aggregate  assessment  for  all  purposes 
thereon,  in  any  period  of  ten  years,  exceed  lifty  per 
centum  on  the  highest  taxable  valuation  thereof  during 
the  same  period.” 

Mr.  BURN'S.  I beg  leave  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  if  that  is 
not  the  same  that  I introduced,  having  fifty  per 
cent,  instead  of  twenty-five. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  the  same  except  the  fifty 
per  cent.  I have  prepared  it  because  a number 
of  gentlemen  who  voted  against  the  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  said,  if  that  limitation  were  fifty 
per  cent,  they  w'ould  vote  for  it.  I have  now 
offered  it  as  the  last  hope  of  salvation. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  to  consume  a moment 
of  time  in  giving  the  reasons  why  I shall  vote 
for  that  proposition.  While  I believe  the  per 
centage  is  too  high,  and  more  than  I would  de- 
sire to  vote  for  if  I thought  there  was  any  pros- 
pect of  getting  a lower  per  centage,  I believe 
twenty-five  per  cent,  is  high  enough.  Thirty- 
three  and  a third  I would  be  willing  to  vote 
for;  but,  beyond  that,  I would  not  feel  dis- 
posed to  favor,  if  I believed  we  could  obtain  a 
majority  vote  at  that  figure.  But  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  old  proverb,  that  “half  a loaf  is 
better  than  no  bread,”  I propose  to  vote  for  that 
amendment. 

Mr.  WEST.  Just  one  word,  and  that  is  all  I 
shall  say  upon  this  subject.  It  provides  that 
fifty  per  cent.,  generally,  of  the  property  may 
be  taken  from  a man  every  ten  years ; and  I 
think  that  is  about  as  much  as  the  public 
ought  to  ask  from  him.  One-half  of  his  prop- 
erty, every  ten  years,  is  enough.  They  ought 
not  to  have  the  power  to  take  it  all  in  ten  years, 
or  five  years.  We  limit  to  one-half  in  ten 
years. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Up  to  this  time,  I have 
voted  against  all  amendments  of  the  section,  be- 
cause I find,  more  or  less,  that  they  destroy  the 
force  of  the  section.  I had  it  in  my  mind  to 
offer  a similar  amendment.  While  I am  in 
favor  of  municipal  corporations  being  assessed 
but  ten  per  cent,  a year,  for  five  years,  if  it  is 
necessary,  I think  it  is  very  judicious  and  wise 
not  to  apply  the  assessment  ad  infinitum , and  for 
these  reasons  I shall  vote  for  this  amendment — 
that  within  ten  years  they  can  assess  no  more 
than  fifty  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  the  property. 


Mr.  POWELL.  I think  it  would  be  well  to 
read  the  section,  as  it  is  now  proposed  to  stand. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  3.  No  assessment  shall  be  levied  by  any  Munici- 
pal Corporation  upon  any  property  which  shall  require 
the  payment,  in  any  one  year,  of  more  than  ten  per 
centum  of  its  value,  as  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate; 
nor  shall  the  aggregate  assessment,  for  all  purposes  there- 
on, in  any  period  of  ten  years,  exceed  fifty  per  centum 
on  the  highest  taxable  valuation  thereof  during  the  same 
period;  and  the  General  Assembly  shall  provide  for  the 
payment  of  an  equitable  proportion  of  said  assessment 
out  of  the  treasury  of  the  Municipal  Corporation.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  35,  nays  24,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  wTere — 

Messrs.  Bannon,  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  De- 
Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Griswold,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCormick, 
Miller,  Mueller,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Reilly,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Sears, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Van  Voorliis, 
West,  White  of  Hocking,  President— 35. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop,  Byal, 
Carbery,  Cowen,  Ewing,  Greene,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hoadly,  Kraemer,  Layton,  Merrill,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Van  Yalkenburgh,  Yoorhes,  Wilson — 24. 

So  Mr.  West’s  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BEER.  I now  renew  the  motion  which 
was  withdrawn.  I move  to  amend  the  second 
section,  by  adding  at  the  end  thereof,  that 
amendment : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“In  cases  where  private  property  shall  be  taken  for 
public  use,  no  assessment  shall  be  made  upon  the  owner 
for  any  part  of  the  compensation,  or  the  cost  of  making 
the  appropriation.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  I understand  that  amend- 
ment, it  is  broader,  I think,  than  the  gentleman 
intends.  It  is  broader  than  I would  feel  dis- 
posed to  vote  for.  If  private  property  is  taken 
for  public  use,  and  the  cost  is  assessed  on  the 
entire  village  or  city,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  pay 
for  it,  I should  feel  disposed  myself  to  say  that, 
where  the  party  is  paid  for  his  land,  the  assess- 
ment should  be  made  equally  upon  him,  with 
the  rest  of  the  citizens. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Is  that  an  assessment  at  all  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Then  I do  not  understand  the 
proposition. 

Mr.  BEER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly;  I shall  be  glad  to 
hear  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  BEER.  The  amendment  proposed  sim- 
ply provides  that  where  private  property  is 
taken  for  public  use,  no  part  of  the  compensa- 
tion shall  be  assessed  upon  the  owner.  That  is, 
the  assessment;  not  that  he  shall  not  pay  his 
share  of  the  general  tax,  if  it  is  paid  by  general 
tax,  at  all;  and  that  they  cannot  turn  around 
and  assess  the  value  of  the  property  taken  upon 
the  owner.  That  is  all — to  prevent  assessing, 
not  taxing. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  this  amendment  is  liable  to 
no  other  construction  than  that,  I have  no  ob- 
jection to  it. 

Mr.  BEER.  The  "words  “assessment”  and 
“ taxation”  are  both  used  in  this  Article,  and 
they  are  so  distinct,  that  there  can  be  no  mistake 
about  them. 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


1373 


Day.] 

February  14, 1874.] 


Griswold,  Beer,  Hoadly,  Townsend,  etc. 


Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  a question. 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Suppose  you  had  assessed 
it  where  the  street  is  opened  upon  the  adjoining 
property,  and  a man  owns  live  lots  on  the 
street,  would  you  say  he  should  not  be  assessed, 
while  the  other  people  should  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  I propose,  when  you  undertake 
to  pay  a man  for  his  land,  you  shall  pay  for  it, 
and  not  steal  the  money  out  of  his  pocket  to 
pay  him  with.  It  is  a provision  against  thieves. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  Y"es,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Under  our  system,  not 
merely  the  land,  but  the  materials  of  which  the 
street  is  made,  the  gravel,  the  macadamizing, 
the  stone  and  paving  may  all  be  acquired,  by 
appropriation  and  condemnation.  I wish  to 
know  if  the  gentleman  intends  by  this,  that  no 
part  of  the  cost  of  those  materials,  thus  ac- 
quired, shall  be  charged  back  upon  the  owners 
of  the  land,  through  which  the  street  lies,  if  he 
happens  to  be  the  person  from  which  they  were 
acquired  by  condemnation? 

Mr.  BEER.  If  I understand  the  gentleman 
rightly,  I say,  I mean  exactly  that  very  thing, 
if  I understand  him.  I suppose  that  when 
private  property  is  appropriated  lor  public 
uses,  they  may  dig  down  and  take  the  gravel 
off.  I suppose  that  the  gravel  that  is  on  it  be- 
longs to  the  public. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  does  not  un- 
derstand me.  You  cannot  only  take  the  gravel 
that  is  on  it,  but  the  gravel  in  some  other  places, 
but  you  must  pay  for  it.  Having  taken  the  man’s 
quarry  and  paid  him  for  it,  I want  to  know,  if 
because  this  same  man  happens  to  be  the  owner 
of  the  land  which  is  taken  for  a street,  you  shall 
not  assess  upon  him  a part  of  the  costs  that  go 
to  pay  for  his  quarry  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  I think  I mean  that.  1 think 
that  when  you  undertake  to  appropriate  the 
urivate  property  of  an  individual  with  one 
hand,  you  shall  not  reach  the  other  hand  into 
the  same  pocket  and  steal  the  money  back  again. 
I mean  that. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I understand  there  is  no  objec- 
tion to  subjecting  his  property  by  general  tax- 
ation to  contribute  a portion. 

Mr.  BEER.  Not  a bit;  the  word  “assess- 
ment” is  used. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  what  I understand— 
it  shall  not  be  done  by  assessment,  but  by  tax- 
ation. He  comes  in  with  the  rest  of  the  prop- 
erty-holders, and  must  pay  a portion  of>  the 
tax,  but  it  shall  not  be  all  taken  off  him  by  the 
assessment. 

The  President  resumed  the  Chair. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I am  very  clearly 
in  favor  of  the  principle  involved  in  this  amend- 
ment, but  I am  equally  of  opinion  that  this  is 
not  the  proper  place  for  it.  The  proper  place 
for  this  provision,  if  it  is  put  into  the  Constitu- 
tion, is  in  the  nineteenth  section  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights.  I shall  not  read  the  whole  of  the  sec- 
tion, but  enough  of  it  to  show  that  it  would  be 
more  appropriate  there  than  here : 

“And  in  all  other  cases  where  private  property  shall 
be  taken  for  public  use,  the  compensation  therefor  shall 
first  be  made  in  money,  or  first  secured  by  the  deposit  of 


money,  which  compensation  shall  be  assessed  by  a jury, 
without  deduction  for  benefits  to  any  property  holder  or 
owner.” 

And  here  would  come  in,  very  properly,  a 
provision  similar  to  that  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  It  is  partial 
in  its  operation,  put  it  into  this  section  where  it 
properly  should  go.  It  is  only  applicable  where 
private  property  is  taken  by  Municipal  Corpo- 
rations. If  put  in  at  all,  I want  it  put  into  the 
section  where  it  will  be  applicable  in  cases 
where  private  property  is  taken  for  public  use. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I sincerely  hope  that 
this  amendment  will  not  be  adopted.  It  con- 
templates, in  its  scope,  that  all  moneys  paid  for 
the  purpose  of  opening  streets  shall  be  paid  out 
of  the  general  fund.  That  is  what  it  means. 
If  any  one  has  a street  opened  through  his 
property,  it  is  fair  to  suppose  that  somebody  is 
benefited  as  much  as  he  is  damaged.  That  is 
the  theory  upon  which  these  streets  are  always 
opened.  He  gets  paid  for  his  land  at  its  full 
value,  and  very  often  at  an  extravagant  price. 
All  the  testimony  is  heard  in  relation  to  its 
value,  and  it  is  assessed  by  a jury  of  disinter- 
ested men  who  are  themselves  owners  of  prop- 
erty. He  is  paid  for  his  land,  and  that  is  the  end 
of  it.  He  stands,  in  relation  to  that  improve- 
ment, the  same  as  any  other  man  on  the  street. 
Now,  it  is  contemplated  to  equalize  the  benefits 
by  the  Board  of  Equalization.  They  are  organ- 
ized under  the  forms  of  law,  and  they  hear  the 
testimony,  and,  having  heard  all  there  is  in  the 
case,  they  proceed  to  adjust  and  equalize  the 
benefits,  and  the  amount  that  it  actually  costs 
to  open  the  street.  This  Board  of  Equalization 
do  not  only  assess  the  benefits  upon  the  prop- 
erty on  either  side  of  the  street,  or  avenue, 
which  has  been  appropriated,  but  they  go  to 
the  other  end  of  the  street  on  both  sides,  and 
they  assess  the  supposed  benefits  running  from 
five  dollars  a foot  down  to  fifty  cents.  In  that 
way  those  that  are  benefited  by  this  improve- 
ment pay  it,  and  the  public  fund  is  relieved  of 
this  enormous  fund  of  money,  which  would 
swamp  any  public  fund  in  the  world  that  I ever 
heard  of,  and  would,  in  effect,  make  this  street 
opening  an  impossibility.  It  will  be  remem- 
bered that,  about  the  time  the  present  munici- 
pal code  was  enacted,  it  contemplated  and  re- 
quired that  all  this  amount  assessed  for  open- 
ing streets  would  be  paid  from  the  grand  lev}7- 
of  the  city,  that  is,  from  the  public  iund.  The 
practical  effect  of  the  operation  of  that  law  was 
that  not  one  street  in  any  city  that  I know  of 
was  opened  at  all.  Parties  wanted  to  open 
streets  through  the  property,  but  they  found 
that  the  law  prevented  it.  There  was  but  one 
prescribed  way,  and  it  had  to  be  done  in  that 
way : and,  of  course,  the  public  rebelled  against 
taxation  for  any  such  purpose,  which,  in  fact, 
benefited  private  property  and  interest.  After 
trying  that  mode  of  operations  for  two 
years,  a demand  came  up  from  all  portions  of 
the  State  to  have  it  changed  and  repealed,  and 
that  portion  of  the  law  was  changed,  and  then 
citizens  went  on  improving  their  cities.  As 
they  wanted  streets,  they  would  open  them,  and 
lands  were  divided  into  lots.  No  one  was  in- 
jured. If  a street  is  not  desired,  it  will  not  be 
opened.  I regard  this  amendment  as  exceed- 
ingly mischievous,  and  hope  this  Convention 


1374 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hale,  Byal,  Beer,  Hoadly. 


[114th 

[Saturday, 


will  consider  seriously  before  they  attempt  to 
adopt  it;  and  if  they  do  so,  it  will,  undoubtedly, 
be  rejected. 

Mr.  HALE.  I wish  to  add  but  a word  or  two 
to  the  remarks  made  by  the  gentleman  from  5 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend].  This  provision,  1 1 
fear,  is  broader  in  its  scope  than  we  anticipated,  j 
I suppose  that  it  is  intended  to  apply  to  munic-  I 
ipal  corporations ; but  its  language  would  ex- 
tend it  further.  If  this  principle  is  good  at  all,  j 
it  is  good  in  its  application  to  other  matters  than  j 
those  before  the  Convention  at  the  present  time,  | 
and  we  need  to  put  it  into  the  Constitution  but  | 
once,  if  we  have  it  at  all.  Now,  let  me  call  the  I 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  fact  that  we  | 
appropriate  private  property  for  the  purpose  of  | 
a county  or  township  road,  and  for  the  purpose  | 
of  ditches.  It  may  be  appropriated  for  school- 
house  sites,  and  there  are  various  other  purposes  j 
for  which  private  property  may  be  taken  by  the 
public.  A county  road  can  only  be  laid  out 
when  the  public  interest  demands  it,  and  yet 1 
that  public  interest  is  very  slight.  When  these 
roads  are  petitioned  for,  the  petition  comes  be- 
fore the  commissioners.  A few  individuals  are 
particularly  interested  in  the  road.  There  is 
but  little  advantage  to  the  whole  county;  the 
chief  advantage  is  to  a few.  As  the  law  now 
stands,  the  county  commissioners  can  refuse  to 
lay  out  that  road  unless  the  parties  interested 
pay  the  expenses  of  it,  and  they  can  make  their 
order  opening  the  road,  provided  the  parties  di- 
rectly interested  pay  the  amount  required. 
Then  we  have  township  roads.  The  man  that  j 
has  a lot  away  from  a county  road,  and  has  no  | 
way  of  getting  out,  may  petition  for  a township 
road.  The  trustees  establish  the  road  because 
it  is  of  some  public  interest;  but  they  also  pro- 
vide that  the  man  who  is  directly  interested 
must  pay  the  expenses  incurred  by  opening  the 
road  through  the  lands  of  another,  so  that  the 
man  benefited  pays  the  loss  to  the  man  whose 
land  is  taken.  The  same  thing  occurs  in  a vil- 
lage. Suppose  a man  has  ten  acres  of  land  j 
lying  along  a street,  and  it  is  just  wide  enough 
for  a lot.  It  is  desired  to  put  a street  through  to  ' 
the  land  lying  back  of  that.  It  will  not  benefit  j 
the  owner,  for  his  lots  are  fronting  on  a street. 
The  projected  street  is  located  through  his 
land,  to  the  land  lying  back;  it  does  not  benefit  j 
him,  and  the  expense  should  not  be  charged  to 
him.  But,  supposing  the  width  is  more  than 
sufficient  for  one  set  of  lots,  and  in  opening  up 
the  street  you  give  the  opportunity  to  him  of 
making  lots  fronting  on  the  new  street,  so  that  it 
shall  be  a great  advantage  to  him.  In  the  one 
case,  he  should  not  be  paid  for  going  through 
his  land,  and  it  should  not  be  assessed  upon 
him.  In  the  other,  you  take  his  land,  and  at 
the  same  time  make  valuable  the  balance  for 
lots,  and  you  increase  its  value;  hence,  it 
should  be  assessed. 

If  I may  be  allowed  here  to  make  use  of  the 
expression  that  I have  not  heard  upon  this  floor 
and  I never  expect  to  hear  it  again,  “ I am  op- 
posed to  putting  this  iron  rule  in  the  organic 
law  that  may  last  some  twenty  years.”  I say 
when  you  undertake  to  legislate  upon  that  ques- 
tion, you  are  doing  that  which,  in  the  future, 
will  work  a hardship,  whichever  way  you  leave 
it.  If  you  say,  it  shall,  in  all  instances,  be 
assessed  upon  the  adjacent  land,  that  would  not 


be  right.  If  you  say  it  shall  always  come  out 
of  the  public  treasury,  it  will  be  unjust,  because 
you  have  benefited  the  man  at  the  same  time 
that  you  have  taken  his  land.  We  do  not  pro- 
pose to  interfere  with  the  Article,  as  it  has  been 
in  the  Constitution  since  1852,  that  if  you  would 
appropriate  land,  you  must  pay  for  it  without 
regard  to  the  benefits  and  pay  the  value;  but 
we  do  say  that  the  discretion  should  be  left  to 
the  village  and  city,  so  that  when  a man  has 
been  benefited  by  this  improvement,  you  may 
turn  around  and  balance  the  books  with  him 
to  the  extent  of  the  benefits.  And  he  and 
others  benefited  by  such  appropriation,  should 
be  compelled  to  contribute  to  pay  the  cost  of  the 
improvement.  Mr.  President,  any  inflexible 
rule  that  we  might  adopt  here  will  work  injus- 
tice in  particular  cases.  Let  us  remember  that 
before  injustice  can  be  done  to  individuals,  the 
Legislature,  and  the  Municipal  Governments 
must  be  corrupt  and  unjust.  They  stand  in 
the  way,  and  I do  believe  that  any  injustice  that 
is  being  done  will  right  itself  through  the  mu- 
nicipal government  and  the  Legislature;  for 
those  men,  both  the  members  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment and  the  General  Assembly,  are  directly 
I responsible  to  the  people,  and  any  abuses  of 
power  on  their  part  will  be  righted.  In  my 
! judgment,  Mr.  President,  the  trouble  here  is 
that  we  are  undertaking  to  fix  rules  instead  of 
establishing  principles. 

Mr.  BYAL.  I rise  to  a question  of  privilege. 
Upon  the  amendment  which  was  just  adopted, 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page],  I voted  under  a misapprehension.  I in- 
tended to  have  voted  “aye,”  and  voted  “no.” 
I,  therefore,  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  it  was  adopted. 

Mr.  BEER.  Is  there  not  another  question 
pending? 

The  PRESIDENT.  A motion  to  reconsider 
must  be  entertained ; but  it  will  lie  upon  the 
table  until  the  question  now  before  the  Conven- 
tion is  disposed  of.  The  gentleman  has  a right 
to  make  his  motion  and  have  it  entered,  but  it 
cannot  be  considered  until  the  question  pending 
has  been  disposed  of. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 
Does  not  the  rule  absolutely  require,  according 
to  the  decision  of  the  Chair  the  other  day,  that 
we  should  proceed  with  this  amendment, 
nothing  else  being  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  was  so  dis- 
I posed  to  hold,  but  members  of  the  Convention 
, of  more  experience,  suggested  the  parliamentary 
i rule,  that  a motion  to  reconsider  must  take  pre- 
j cedence  of  any  other,  but  it  will  lie  over  until 
I the  pending  question  is  disposed  of.  That  seems 
i to  be  the  general  parliamentary  rule,  and  our 
rule  is  supposed  to  be  subject  to  that  qualifica- 
tion. The  question  is  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  BEER.  In  order  to  perfect  the  amend- 
ment offered,  I desire  to  interline  two  or  three 
! words.  I offer  the  following  amendment : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Insert  after  the  word  “close”,  “by  any  Municipal  Cor- 
poration.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  objection  to 
j the  modification? 

There  being  no  objection,  the  amendment  was 
I agreed  to. 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1375 

February  14,  1874.]  Beer,  Hoadly,  Cook,  Dorsey. 


Mr.  BEER.  This  amendment  relieves  the 
section  from  what  might  be  deemed,  by  some, 
to  be  offensive  to  our  brethren  in  the  North- 
west, on  the  subject  of  ditches,  and  confines  it 
exclusively  to  appropriation  of  property  in 
cities  and  villages. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  it  is  right  to  be  adminis- 
tered in  Municipal  Corporations,  is  it  not  right 

0 be  administered  in  the  condemnation  of  a 
ditch  by  a county  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  I say  to  the  gentleman  that  I 
introduced  this  amendment  to  relieve  it  of  the 
feature  that  is  objectionable  to  some  of  my 
brethren  in  the  Northwest,  and,  in  answer  to 
the  gentleman’s  question,  I would  state  that,  if 
he  did  not  misunderstand  me,  he,  perhaps, 
heard  me  say  before,  that  I believe  all  assess- 
ments are  wrong;  and  I have  never  yet  seen 
a defense  of  assessments  by  any  elementary  law 
writer,  or  any  judge  of  any  court,  that  defended 
an  assessment  upon  first  principles,  and,  if  any 
gentleman  upon  this  floor  will  furnish  me  the 
decision  of  any  court,  or  the  opinion  of  any 
recognized  law  writer,  from  the  time  of  Mon- 
tesquieu down,  that  defends  an  assessment  upon 
first  principles,  I shall  make  no  further  objec- 
tion to  anything  that  gentlemen  may  ask  upon 
the  subject. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I understand  the  gentleman 
to  admit  that,  this  being  right  with  regard  to 
municipal  corporations,  is  also  right  with  re- 
gard to  the  condemnation  for  ditches? 

Mr.  BEER.  I did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then,  1 understand  the  gen- 
tleman to  distinguish  between  the  two,  and  to 
deny  it. 

Mr.  BEER.  I have  not  said  anything  upon 
the  subject. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  he 
does? 

Mr.  BEER.  I said  to  the  gentleman  that  I 
believe  all  assessments  are  wrong;  and  when 
you  come  down  to  that,  there  is  no  difference 
between  any  of  them.  It  is  robbery,  the  whole 
of  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then,  I do  understand  the 
gentleman  has  admitted  that,  if  it  is  meet  for 
municipal  corporations,  it  is  meet  for  counties  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  That  is  my  opinion. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  what  I want  to 
know. 

Mr.  COOK.  I must  be  frank  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  I did  not 
take  exception  to  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  because  I 
was  satisfied  that  it  would  stop  all  improvement 
in  the  Northwest,  or  in  the  new  country.  It 
would  be  impossible,  under  the  amendment, 
to  locate  a road  or  a ditch,  and,  although 
he  has  relieved  the  section  from  that  difficulty, 

1 cannot  vote  to  force  municipal  corporations 
to  a rule  which  I do  not  think  right.  I shall, 
therefore,  vote  against  it,  and  shall  expect  aid 
for  the  municipal  corporations  whenever  they 
come  to  the  pinching  time  of  trouble. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I shall  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer],  I shall  vote  for  it  because  it  is  right, 
as  the  gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humpiire- 


ville]  has  said,  in  principle,  and  I shall  vote 
for  putting  it  in  here,  because,  here  is  pre- 
cisely the  place  where  we  need  it;  because 
it  is  here  that  this  principle  has  been  de- 
manded more  than  in  any  other  proceed- 
ing in  the  State.  In  the  Constitution  of  1851, 
as  has  been  already  said,  in  the  nineteenth 
section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  it  is  provided 
that  where  private  property  is  taken  for 
public  use,  a compensation  shall  be  made, 
and  such  compensation  shall  be  assessed  by  a 
jury  without  deductions  for  benefits  to  any 
property  of  the  owner.  As  a matter  of  course, 
there  was  a reason  for  the  insertion  of  this  Arti- 
cle into  the  Constitution  of  1851,  and  the 
reason  was  that  great  and  important  abuses 
had  grown  up  in  the  State  in  the  construction 
of  our  public  works.  Taking  the  property  of 
private  individuals  for  the  construction  of  canals 
in  the  State;  injuring  them  very  materially, 
and  then  repaying  them  in  benefits,  or  rather 
refusing  to  allow  them  damages  on  the  prop- 
erty they  had  taken,  claiming  that  they  had 
been  compensated  by  the  increase  of  the  value 
of  other  property  which  belonged  to  them. 
Precisely  this  mode  of  operation  has  been 
carried  on  in  the  laying  down  of  streets,  and  in 
the  widening  of  streets,  by  Municipal  Corpo- 
rations. Here  is  a tract  of  land  in  a city,  town, 
or  village.  The  Municipal  Corporation  wishes 
to  run  a street  through  it.  They  run  a street 
through  the  ground,  take  a certain  portion  of 
it,  pay  the  owner  of  the  ground  the  value  as  it 
may  be  assessed  by  a jury;  but  the  very  mo- 
ment they  pay  that  valuation  out  of  the  public 
treasury,  they  assess  an  equal  or  a greater 
amount  upon  the  land.  I do  not  say  they  do  it 
for  the  purpose  of  compensation,  for  that  would 
be  a violation  of  the  Constitution ; but  they 
assess  it  as  a part  of  the  payment  which  they 
had  granted  to  him,  as  they  say,  for  the  privi- 
lege of  having  a street  run  through  his  land. 
Now,  I submit,  that  it  is  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses, a violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Con- 
stitution, contained  in  the  nineteenth  section 
of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  It  is  a violation  of  the 
principle  that  the  Convention  of  1851  supposed 
they  had  secured  to  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  in  order  to  prevent  the  abuses  under 
which  they  had  been  laboring  up  to  that  day. 
A similar  thing  takes  place  in  regard  to  widen- 
ing streets.  A Municipal  Corporation  declares 
a street  ought  to  be  widened.  I have  a case  of 
precisely  that  kind  in  my  own  town  at  this 
time.  They  propose  to  widen  a street.  They 
cut  off  a certain  portion  of  the  ground  upon 
each  side  of  the  street,  in  some  cases  carry  the 
street  up  to  the  very  doors  of  men  living  on  it, 
taking  their  property  and  injuring  their  domi- 
cile to  a very  considerable  extent.  They  say 
you  can  put  in  your  bill  for  damages,  you  can 
present  a bill  for  the  amount  of  ground  taken 
from  you,  and  you  will  be  paid  out  of  the  public 
treasury ; but  we  warn  you  beforehand,  that 
when  you  do  that,  we  shall  assess  you  an  amount 
equal  to  the  amount  we  have  paid  you  out  of 
the  public  treasury. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  it  be  not  proper  to  re- 
assess the  cost  of  the  land  upon  the  man  who 
owns  that  land,  because  he  happens  to  be  the 
owner  of  more  land  adjacent,  why  should  the 
cost  of  that  land  be  assessed  upon  anybody  ? 


1376 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Dorsey,  Hoadly,  Cook. 


[114th 


Mr.  DORSEY.  Suppose  he  does  not  happen 
to  be  the  owner  of  more  land  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then  it  is  assessed  upon 
other  people. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  assessed  upon  those  who 
are  supposed  to  be  benefited  by  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Why  should  it  be  assessed  on 
them,  if  it  is  not  proper  to  be  assessed  upon 
him  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  He  pays  his  proportion,  as  a 
taxpayer,  and  he  ought  not  to  be  called  upon  to 
pay  more. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Why  should  they  pay  more? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  They  do  not  pay  more. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I beg  the  gentleman’s  par- 
don. Here  is  aline  between  two  men,  and  the 
street  lies  all  on  one.  The  street  is  all  taken 
from  it.  I want  the  gentleman  to  tell  me  on 
what  principle  he  refuses  to  tax  A,  and  taxes 
B ? Why  should  not  the  exemption  be  given 
to  both  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  one  of 
the  plainest  things  in  the  world.  You  take  the 
property  from  A. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then  you  pay  A for  the 
amount  of  the  land  you  had  from  him. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  A and  B are  both  tax-payers 
in  the  corporation.  You  levy  a tax  on  each  of 
them ; but  you  do  not  put  an  assessment  on  ei- 
ther of  them. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  what  I want  to  know ; 
why  the  gentleman  does  not  propose  to  prevent 
the  charging  of  the  cost  of  the  land  by  assess- 
ing in  all  cases  ? 

3Ir.  DORSEY.  1 say  that  is  precisely  what 
I propose  to  do. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  amendment  does  not  say 
that. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I propose  to  prevent  the  pay- 
ment for  land  by  assessment  in  any  case. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  answer,  j 
why  should  a man  who  does  not  own  property 
within  five  miles  of  the  place,  and  does  own  j 
stock,  contribute  anything  toward  the  improve-  I 
ment  of  that  street  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  arises  out  of  the  fact  j 
that  you  have  a bad  system  of  taxation  in  the 
State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  You  are  making  it  worse. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  A owns  a tract  of  land.  You  I 
propose  to  put  a street  through  A’s  land.  A I 
does  not  ask  atou  to  put  a street  there,  but  he  tells  j 
you  he  would  prefer  not  to  have  a street  put 
through  his  land ; but  you  put  the  street  through 
his  land.  You  take  his  land  and  pay  him  for 
it,  it  is  true,  but  have  you  any  right  to  turn 
round  and  assess  upon  it  the  value  of  that  j 
street  equal  to  the  amount  of  money  that  you 
paid  him  for  the  street  to  be  made  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Precisely. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I believe  you  have  no  right 
to  do  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Just  as  much  right  to  do  it 
as  you  have  to  assess  for  materials  to  make  the 
street. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  You  have  no  right  to  assess 
for  the  materials  that  make  the  street,  if  they  j 
are  private  property.  If  the  stone,  and  if  the  j 
gravel,  are  on  the  ground  of  a man  lying  ad- 
jacent to  the  street,  you  have  no  right  to  take  1 


[Saturday^ 


that  gravel,  and  you  have  no  right  to  take  the 
stone  for  the  purposes  of  paving  and  grading 
the  street  without  paying  that  man  for  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly  not. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  And  if  the  common  council 
of  the  town,  or  municipality,  say  that  it  is  for 
the  interest  of  the  public,  or  for  the  public 
welfare  that  a street  should  be  made,  and 
that  the  street  should  be  graveled,  and 
should  be  paved,  it  is  for  the  public  welfare 
that  a tax  should  be  levied,  in  order  to  pay  for 
it,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  does  not  admit  of  any 
doubt.  It  is  a plain  matter,  grounded  upon 
every  principle  of  right,  and,  unless  gentlemen 
are  willing  to  stand  up  and  maintain  the  doc- 
trine that  you  have  the  right  to  take  a man’s 
private  property,  and  not  pay  him  for  it,  but 
pay  him  in  improvement,  and  the  municipal 
corporation  equalizes  the  benefits,  you  cannot 
sustain  this  principle  fora  moment.  If  you  are 
prepared  to  take  that  position,  take  it;  and  take 
it  in  violation  of  the  first  principles  of  our  Gov- 
ernment, and  in  violation  of  the  Constitution, 
as  it  reads,  but  do  not  attempt  to  go  behind  the 
matter,  and  tell  me  you  are  paying  the  man  for 
his  land,  and  paying  him  in  benefits  in  direct 
violation  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  it  is  a plain 
principle  that  we  have  to  uphold  here.  We 
say,  if  you  take  a man’s  property,  you  should 
pay  him  for  it.  If  you  want  to  open  a street, 
you  open  a street,  and  take  a portion  of  the  land 
that  lies  upon  each  side  of  it.  They  say  to 
you — as  I know  of  a case  now,  where  a street  is 
widened — the  street  is  wide  enough  for  our 
purpose,  and  we  believe  it  ought  not  to  be 
opened.  A majority  of  the  tax-payers  and 
property-holders  on  the  street  say  they  do  not 
desire  to  have  it  opened,  but  the  Council  say 
that  they  believe  it  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  the 
municipality  to  have  it  opened.  They  go  on 
and  open  it.  They  take  a portion  of  the  ground 
from  the  property-holders  on  each  side.  They 
open  the  street;  they  pay  the  men  for  the 
ground  which  they  took,  and  they  assess  upon 
them  a sufficient  amount  to  reimburse  the  treas- 
ury for  the  amount  which  they  took  out  of  it  in 
order  to  pay  these  men.  I say  to  the  gentlemen , 
it  is  nothing  more  than  legalized  robbery,  and 
you  cannot  make  anything  else  out  of  it.  It  is 
wrong  in  practice,  and  it  is  wrong  in  principle  ; 
and  for  that  reason,  because  it  is  wrong,  and 
because  it  cannot  be  defended  upon  any  princi- 
ple of  right,  I shall  vote  for  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  COOK.  I think  the  gentleman  from  Mi- 
ami [Mr.  Dorsey]  is  entirely  mistaken.  The 
Constitution,  as  it  now  stands,  requires  that, 
wherever  private  property  is  taken  for  public 
use,  the  owner  shall  be  paid  a compensation  in 
money,  and  he  is  entitled  to  that,  although  he 
may  be  more  benefited  by  the  improvement 
than  any  other  man  in  the  neighborhood. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Does  not  the  Constitution 
say,  without  any  deductions  for  benefits? 

Mr.  COOK.  I say  he  is  entitled  to  his  pay  in 
money,  although  he  is  more  benefited  than  any 
other  man  in  the  neighborhood.  Then,  after 
he  has  received  the  cash  value  for  his  property, 
the  next  thing  is,  who  shall  bear  the  burden  for 
making  the  improvement.  By  the  cash  value 
of  his  land,  you  have  made  him  even  with  his 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Powell,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Hoadly,  Chapin. 


1377 


Day.] 

February  14, 1874.] 


neighbors;  there  is  no  difference  between 
them.  He  has  sold  some  of  his  land,  and  re- 
ceived payment  for  it,  and  now  it  is  proposed 
to  go  on  and  complete  the  road,  or  ditch,  or  the 
street,  and  why  should  you  exempt  him  from 
any  portion  of  the  assessment  simply  because 
yon  have  taken  his  land  and  paid  for  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  is  no  answer  to  it.  It 
cannot  be  answered. 

Mr.  COOK.  Let  me  illustrate.  A and  B own 
adjoining  lands,  and,  for  some  reason,  or  some 
peculiarity  in  the  construction  of  that  land,  a 
street  is  laid  out,  but  it  is  all  taken  out  of  A’s 
land.  The  community  pay  him  a thousand  dol- 
lars for  that  piece  of  land.  Has  he  lost  any- 
thing? Is  he  in  any  worse  condition  than  his 
neighbor  B?  Has  he  not  money  to  compensate 
him  for  the  land?  Certainly.  It  is  now  pro- 
posed to  make  that  street.  Is  he  not  to  be  as 
much  benefited  as  B,  upon  the  other  side,  and 
if  he  is,  upon  what  principle  will  you  exempt 
him  from  the  assessment? 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  cannot  be  answered. 

Mr.  COOK.  There  is  no  answer  to  it.  The 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]  should  go  this  far,  and  no  farther, 
that  nothing  should  be  assessed  upon  his  land 
to  pay  any  part  of  the  damages  assessed  to  him. 
He  should  be  protected  from  that,  and  that  is 
all. 

Mr.  DOKSEY.  How  will  you  make  the  dis- 
tinction ? 

Mr.  COOK.  After  the  assessment  is  made,  he 
is  entitled  to  pay  for  his  land.  After  you  have 
paid  him  for  his  land,  he  is  in  no  worse  nor  dif- 
ferent condition  than  anybody  else.  He  has 
contributed  nothing  to  pay  for  it.  He  is  enti- 
tled to  that  pay.  You  should  exempt  his  land 
from  assessment  to  pay  that  damage,  but  you 
should  not  exempt  it  from  assessment  to  pay 
the  improvement. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  you  exempt  his  land  from 
the  payment  of  that  cost,  who  will  have  to  pay 
the  deficiency. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  others  benefited,  as  a matter 
of  course. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  others  will  have  to  pay 
more  than  their  share,  and  he  will  get  ofl. 

Mr.  COOK.  He  is  entitled  to  the  cash  value 
of  the  land  taken. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  He  has  got  it. 

Mr.  COOK.  I say  that  he  should  be  ex- 
empted entirely  from  paying  any  part  of  the 
cash  value. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  part  of  the  cash  value 
is  to  be  put  upon  somebody. 

Mr.  COOK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  it  is  put  on  the  others, 
would  not  they  be  taxed  too  much  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  A little. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Which  is  the  greater  wrong, 
that  he  should  pay  his  share  of  the  cost,  or  that 
they  should  pay  more  than  their  share? 

Mr.  COOK.  I am  not  going  as  far  as  the  gen- 
tleman from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  He  would 
prevent  him  from  being  assessed  for  making 
any  part  of  the  improvements.  I say  he  should 
pay  his  proportion  of  the  improvements.  Un- 
der the  Constitution,  as  it  now  stands,  he  is  en- 
titled to  compensation  without  any  deduction. 

v.  11-89 


If  the  damage  assessed  be  a thousand  dollars, 
let  him  have  it,  but  after  he  has  got  that,  give 
him  no  further  exemption.  He  is  entitled  to 
no  further  immunities,  and  should  be  placed 
upon  an  equality  with  his  neighbors.  And  when 
you  make  the  improvement,  he  should  bear  his 
proportion  in  proportion  to  the  benefits  of  his 
property. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I merely  wish  to  ask  the  del- 
egate a question. 

Mr.  COOK.  Certainly. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  you  take  A’s  land,  and 
pay  him  a thousand  dollars  for  the  land — you 
say  now  he  has  got  all  he  ought  to  have  for  the 
land — and  you  assess  on  him  a thousand  dollars 
for  the  improvements.  I ask  you  how  much 
pay  he  gets  for  his  land  ? Recollect  A does  not 
want  the  road,  and  prefers  not  to  have  it. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  gentleman  asks  this  ques- 
tion : Suppose  you  take  from  A a piece  of  land, 
and  pay  him  a thousand  dollars  for  it,  and  then 
you  assess  him  a thousand  dollars  to  pay  for 
that,  what  has  he  got?  He  is  just  one  thousand 
dollars  better  off  than  his  neighbors,  who  are 
each  assessed  a thousand  dollars  apiece  to  make 
the  improvement, 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  it.  Don’t  it  end  in 
this,  that  he  has  stolen  a street  from  his  neigh- 
bor? 

Mr.  COOK.  He  has  got  it  by  simply  giving 
his  land. 

Mr.  CHAPIN".  I know  but  little  about  law, 
but  I have  had  some  experience  in  this  matter 
of  assessments.  I have  an  interest  in  some 
property  in  Toledo.  The  corporate  authorities 
wished  to  lay  out  an  avenue  upon  one  side  of 
it,  including  the  avenue.  The  corporation  asked 
us  to  give  one-half  of  the  land,  which  request 
we  acceded  to,  and  we  gave  them  half,  about  a 
mile  in  length.  We  said  we  shall  give  our 
half,  provided  the  others  will  give  tne  other 
half.  The  corporation  refused  to  accept  our 
offer.  They  preferred  to  condemn  the  land, 
and  did  so.  We  were  awarded  damages,  and 
paid  in  corporation  bonds,  due  in  one,  two,  and 
three  years. 

Mr.  HOADLY".  You  would  not  have  been 
required  to  take  the  bonds ; any  lawyer  would 
have  said  that. 

Mr.  CHAPIN".  Then  the  corporation  went 
to  work  and  levied  an  assessment  upon  the 
avenue,  so  that  we  had  more  money  to  pay  than 
our  bonds  called  for. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Was  it  not  your  proposition 
to  give  the  land  or  one-half  the  land  necessary, 
upon  the  condition  that  you  would  not  be 
charged  for  making  the  avenue. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I do  not  recollect. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I understand  that  proposi- 
tion well  enough. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How  much  was  the  land 
worth  afterwards,  compared  with  what  it  was 
before  the  work  was  done? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I don’t  know.  They  did  not 
allow  us  as  much  for  the  land  as  it  cost  us;  but 
when  they  came  to  assess  the  amount  we  would 
have  to  pay,  they  assessed  it  at  more  than  they 
had  paid  us  for  the  land.  I do  not  know  any- 
thing about  law,  but  I do  know  what  they  did 
in  that  case.  It  cost  us  four  or  five  hundred 
dollars,  besides  giving  one-half  the  land. 


1378 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [115th 

Bishop,  Chapin,  Beer,  Wilson,  Pond,  Ewing,  Tuttle.  [Monday, 


Mr.  BISHOP.  How  many  feet  in  length  did 
it  cost  you  five  hundred  dollars  for? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  One  hundred  and  thirty-two 
rods.  I do  not  care  anything  about  it.  I only 
made  this  statement  to  show  what  had  been 
done,  and  what  might  be  done  hereafter. 


Mr.  BEER.  I move  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  there  being  on 
division,  affirmative  31,  negative  15. 

So  the  Convention  (at  4:30  p.  m.  ) ad- 
journed. 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FIFTEENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FIFTY-THIRD  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Monday,  February  16,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  M.  Scott,  of  the  Sixth  Street 
Methodist  Church,  Cincinnati. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  68  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

EXCUSED. 

Messrs.  Waddle  and  Rowland  were  excused 
from  Roll-call  this  morning. 

Mr.  Baber  was  excused  for  absence  on  Friday 
and  Saturday. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 
remonstrance. 

Mr.  WILSON  presented  the  remonstrance  of 
Louis  Heiliger,  and  ninety-nine  other  citizens 
of  Canalville,  Mahoning  county,  protesting 
against  the  incorporation  into  the  Constitution 
of  certain  religious  beliefs  and  opinions. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  that  the  Convention  now 
proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  of  the 
day  is  Proposition  No.  182,  and  the  question 
pending,  at  adjournment  on  Saturday, was  upon 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  | 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  which  the  Secretary 
will  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same,  as  follows : 

Mr.  Beer  moved  to  further  amend  the  section  as 
amended,  by  adding: 

‘•In  cases  where  private  property  shall  be  taken 
by  Municipal  Corporations  for  a public  use,  no  assess- 
ment shall  be  made  upon  the  owner  for  any  part  of  the 
compensation,  or  the  cost  of  making  the  appropriation.1’ 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  Convention  ready 
for  the  question  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  I think,  Mr.  President,  that 
this  amendment  is  wrong  in  principle,  and  not  I 
justified  or  sustained  by  any  of  the  considera-  I 
tions  that  were  presented  in  favor  of  adding  j 
these  words  to  this  section.  Whatever  may  be  I 


the  equities  between  the  owners  of  suburban 
property  and  the  general  public  or  munici- 
pality, this  amendment  directly  affects  only  the 
equities  between  the  several  owners  of  the 
property  benefited  by  the  local  improvement. 
If  the  cost  of  such  improvement  is  to  be  put 
upon  the  adjacent  owners,  it  ought  to  be  dis- 
tributed in  proportion  to  benefits.  There  is  no 
other  fair  rule. 

This  proposed  amendment  does  not  tend  to 
throw  any  part  of  local  improvements  upon  the 
general  public.  Such  improvements  are  as- 
sessed now  on  owners  of  adjacent  property, 
and  this  amendment  does  not  change  the  pres- 
ent custom,  which  will,  doubtless,  be  kept  up, 
notwithstanding  this  provision,  if  it  be  adopted. 
Hence,  the  amendment  leads  to  this,  that  as 
between  the  persons  benefited  by  the  local 
improvement,  the  burden  shall  not  be  distrib- 
uted equally,  because  no  part  of  the  cost  of  the 
land  shall  fall  upon  the  person  from  whom  it  is 
taken.  It  is  grossly  unjust.  Look  at  it.  A 
and  B own  two  tracts  of  land,  and  a street  is  laid 
out  along  the  boundary  between  them,  the  bound- 
ary being  one  line  of  the  street.  Now,  all  this 
street  comes  off  of  A.  The  value  of  the  land 
taken  is,  say  $1,000,  but  A has  as  much  benefit 
from  the  street  as  B.  Now,  is  it  right  that  the 
entire  cost  of  opening  that  street — the  whole 
$1,000 — should  be  put  upon  B?  Why,  no.  If 
A and  B are  equally  interested  in  opening  it, 
the  cost  of  the  street  should  be  borne  by  each 
equally.  And  yet,  under  the  amendment  pro- 
I posed  by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 

! Beer],  if  the  whole  of  the  street  comes  off  of 
| A,  B must  bear  the  whole  cost  of  it.  Mind  you, 
it  is  not  a question  between  the  local  owners 
and  the  general  public.  The  simple  question 
is,  whether  the  local  owners,  as  between  them- 
selves, shall  bear  the  burden  of  opening  the 
streets  equally,  according  to  their  respective 
interests. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question?  I simply  want  to  say  that  I 
did  not  understand  that  to  be  the  effect  of  the 
proposition.  I would  like  to  see  how  it  is  con- 
sidered that  that  results.  Possibly  I have  not 
correctly  read  it. 


Day.]  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  16,  1874.]  Ewing,  Tuttle,  Dorsey,  Powell,  Smith  of  H.,  etc. 


1379 


Mr.  EWING.  I would  ask  the  Secretary  to 
read  the  amendment  again. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me  ? It  may  look  that  way,  but  it  does  not  re- 
quire that  anybody  shall  be  taxed,  and  only 
protects  the  owner  and  says  he  shall  not. 

Mr.  EWING.  Exactly;  but  then,  if  the  bur- 
den is  to  fall,  as  it  in  fact  does  fall,  upon  the 
local  owners,  in  whole  or  in  part,  this  amend- 
ment prevents  it  from  falling,  as  it  ought,  in 
proportion  to  respective  benefits.  That  is  the 
point. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  does  not  fall  upon  the 
local  owners. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  amendment  does  not 
throw  it  upon  the  local  owners,  but  it  permits 
it  to  be  thrown  upon  them,  as  is  done  now. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  amendment  throws  it 
on  the  general  public. 

Mr.  EWING.  Not  at  all.  The  amendment 
has  no  relation  to  the  question  whether  the  ex- 
pense shall  fall  on  the  general  public  or  on  the 
local  owners. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  there. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  corporation  may  put  it 
on  the  local  owners. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  corporation  will  put  it  on 
the  local  owners,  undoubtedly,  then  as  now. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  Upon  the  ground 
of  principle,  it  strikes  me,  this  amendment 
ought  to  be  sustained.  I may  be  mistaken,  but 
I propose  to  give  you  my  views. 

We  found  it  necessary,  in  the  Constitution  of 
1851,  and  we  find  it  necessarv  in  the  proposed 
Constitution  of  1874,  to  insert,  as  a principle, 
this  : That  no  property  shall  be  taken  for  public 
use  without  full  compensation,  irrespective  of 
resultant  benefits.  Now,  that  is  the  principle 
that  underlies  the  appropriation  of  all  property 
within  the  State.  If  this  principle,  which  gov- 
erns the  State  in  the  appropriation  of  property 
for  public  use,  and  that  is  the  only  one  upon 
which  property  can  be  appropriated,  where  do 
you  get  the  rule  now  sought  to  be  adopted,  in 
reference  to  the  appropriation  of  property 
within  the  limits  of  a corporation  for  public 
use?  Now,  we  do  not  take  property  within 
a corporation  for  private  use ; that  would  not 
do. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
a question  ? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  it  not,  in  principle,  just 
as  applicable  to  ditching  laws  as  to  cities? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I do  not  care 
about  ditch  laws ; I am  not  advocating  ditch 
laws,  just  now,  but  only  laying  down  what  I 
conceive  to  be  adopted  and  recognized  as  a prin- 
ciple by  the  State  of  Ohio,  in  regard  to  the  ap- 
propriation of  property  for  public  use.  If  the 
recognition  of  such  a rule  is  accepted  as  right 
and  just  in  the  exercise  of  the  general  power 
by  the  State,  that  principle  teaches  me  that  the 
theory  on  which  you  now  propose  to  change  its 
results  by  adopting  the  new  fangled  doctrine  of 
assessment  to  be  exercised  by  municipal  au- 
thorities is  practically  and  radically  wrong.  It 
may  so  happen,  in  the  application  of  the  rule 
modified  as  you  ask  it,  that  when  you  take  prop- 
erty for  public  use  by  running  a street  through 
the  home  of  an  individual,  that  the  property 


abutting  upon  the  street,  and  upon  which  you 
propose  to  assess,  may  all  be  his.  How  do  you 
do  it  by  your  rule  ? You  take  the  property  for 
public  use  and  pay  him  for  it,  and  then  you 
turn  around  and  levy  an  assessment  upon  the 
abutting  property  for  the  whole  sum,  which 
you  gave  him.  Now, is  not  that  mockery?  Is 
there  any  good  reason  for  the  amendment  say- 
ing that,  within  corporate  limits,  under  an  ap- 
propriation for  a street  through  a gentleman’s 
property,  when  that  street  is  opened  we  will 
not  pay  him  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  his 
property  thus  taken,  for  that  is  it  in  plain  Eng- 
lish ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I beg  to  correct  the  gen- 
tleman in  one  thing.  The  amount  paid  for  this 
property  is  taxed  back,  is  assessed  in  opening 
property  benefited,  not  upon  this  street  alone, 
but  upon  all  the  property  adjacent  thereto;  and 
in  making  up  the  award  there  is  no  reference 
to  this  property  or  any  assessments  of  prop- 
erty. It  is  numbered  so  that  it  may  be  bene- 
fited, and  twelve  disinterested  men  hear  the  tes- 
timony and  award  its  benefits — equalization  it 
is  CBillcd 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I do  not  doubt 
the  effect,  still,  to  the  extent,  that  you  assess  his 
abutting  property,  and  compel  him  to  pay  back 
in  assessments  the  damages  to  which  he  is  en- 
titled under  the  general  principle  of  your  Con- 
stitution, you  make  a violation  of  and  an  inroad 
upon  that  cardinal  principle,  and  there  is  no 
reason  for  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  you  pay  it  out  of  the 
general  fund  you  make  him  pay  a part  of  it. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  That  is  on  the 
principle  of  general  taxation,  to  which  1 have 
no  objection.  We  are  now,  however,  discuss- 
ing the  unjust  operation  of  the  doctrine  of  as- 
sessment, as  proposed  to  be  given  to  municipal 
corporations.  We  are  aiming  to  place  some 
check  or  limitation  to  it.  It  strikes  me,  that  in 
the  presentation  of  this  proposition  that,  while 
you  put  some  check  upon  everything  else,  you 
leave  this  question  of  assessment  totally  at  sea. 

Now,  further:  suppose  there  is  a gentleman 
who  sits  down,  with  a broad  domain  adjoining 
your  city,  and,  governed  by  motives  of  avarice, 
refuses  to  let  you  have  a street,  or  other 
improvement,  for  the  public  interest,  yet  you  go 
and  appropriate  his  property ; now,  is  it  not  a 
great  deal  better  that  his  avarice  should  be 
gratified,  by  paying  him  every  dollar  of  it, 
rather  than,  in  making  an  appropriation  of 
property  for  a street,  or  other  public  use,  you 
appropriate  all  that  a poor  man  has,  and  no 
protection  can  be  given  to  him  ? That  is  the 
operation  of  the  rule.  It  is  better  to  suffer  it, 
and  pay  him  fairly  and  squarely,  according  to 
the  rule  that  governs  all  our  property  in  Ohio, 
under  the  Constitutional  provision,  even  if  it 
inures  to  the  avarice  and  meanness  of  the  man, 
rather  than  to  go  through  by  the  corporate 
power,  and  absorb  the  whole  of  one  man’s  pro- 
perty, if  he  is  poor,  in  order  to  obtain  a public 
highway. 

Now,  unless  you  can  give  a good,  and  some- 
what satisfactory  reason  why,  in  the  manage- 
ment of  a corportion,  for  the  government  of  a 
special  locality,  which  demands  a reasonable 
rule  to  be  set  aside,  which  governs  the  property 
and  general  interests  of  Ohio,  when  it  is  sought 


1380 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


[115th 


Townsend,  Hoadly,  Beer. 


to  be  appropriated  for  the  public  use,  I cannot 
see  why  you  will  oppose  this  proposition  to 
amend,  by  adopting  this  clause. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  This  section  three  as  it 
now  stands,  does  not  seek  to  take  anybody’s 
property,  it  seeks  to  impose  no  rule,  but  leaves 
the  whole  question  open  to  the  future,  to  be  de- 
termined as  circumstances,  and  as  the  growifig 
wants,  necessities,  and  changing  sentiments  of 
the  State  may  require;  and  leaves  this  matter 
to  be  governed  by  the  Legislature,  so  that  it  can 
adjust  this  principle  to  the  wrants  and  peculiar- 
ities of  the  different  towns  and  cities  in  the 
State.  Some  of  the  smaller  villages,  or  larger 
towns,  might  find  it  to  their  advantage  to  have 
one  rule  adopted  ; but  larger  cities,  by  reason  of 
their  growth  and  their  age,  which  prevents  any 
other  mode,  may  find  it  absolutely  necessary  to 
have  another  system  adopted,  and  the  Legis- 
lature could  adopt  such  a system,  as  the  various 
cities  require;  but  if  this  rule  be  adopted,  and 
this  be  placed  in  the  organic  law  of  the  State,  it 
is  final,  and  cannot  be  altered  or  changed  dur- 
ing the  lifetime  of  this  Constitution. 

Now,  the  great  mistake  that  gentlemen  who 
argue  this  question  make,  is  just  here,  and  it  is 
at  the  very  outset.  The  mistake  is  in  assuming 
that  all  those  streets  that  are  opened  are  for  the 
public  benefit,  and  they  assume  that  the  open- 
ing of  new  streets,  no  matter  how  long  or  how 
short,  or  where  located,  must  necessarily  be  for 
the  public  benefit. 

Now,  the  reverse  of  this  rule  is  exactly  true. 
New  streets  are  almost  invariably  made  neces- 
sary by  defects  in  the  original  platting,  or 
allotment,  or  additions,  which  are  intended  to 
correct  these  mistakes,  and  make  the  streets 
conform  to  each  other.  Put  new  streets,  where 
they  ought  to  have  been  put  in  the  original 
allotment,  and  nine  times  in  ten,  they  are  in 
the  improved  portions  of  towns  and  cities,  and 
new  streets  are  generally  platted  by  those  who 
are  making  their  own  streets,  and  making  an 
allotment.  They  make  their  own  streets,  and 
are  made  a part  of  the  original  plat,  and  are  so 
recorded.  Now,  these  new  streets  that  are 
widening  and  extending  themselves,  and  im- 
proving our  towns,  are  petitioned  for  by  those 
directly  benefited,  and  those  directly  owning 
property  on,  and  receiving  the  advantage,  and 
the  benefits  are  entirely  local.  The  interest  and 
benefit  of  parts  of  the  city,  thus  improved,  ab- 
solutely injure  certain  other  localities,  by  open- 
ing up  new  avenues  of  business  that  had  been 
heretofore  obstructed;  thus  drawing  business 
away  from  certain  other  localities,  and  thereby 
injuring  the  value  of  their  property.  I have 
seen  certain  streets  almost  ruined  by  the  open- 
ing of  new  streets,  and  new  blocks  being  con- 
structed thereon,  taking  the  tenants  and 
occupants  to  other  portions  of  the  city.  Now, 
the  idea  of  taxing  those  parts  of  the  city  abso- 
lutely injured,  by  a per  centage  of  the  property, 
and  the  commercial  and  manufacturing  invest- 
ments, for  the  purpose  of  compensating  those 
who  have  already  been  paid  the  full  value  of 
their  property,  having  reference,  as  the  law 
requires,  to  the  time  the  value  was  assessed,  and 
the  injury  done  to  the  remaining  portion  of  the 
property,  without  taking  into  account  the  benefit 
to  what  remains — is  an  absurdity,  and  the 
doctrine  is  so  absurd  and  outrageously  wrong, 


[Monday, 


that  it  is  only  equaled  by  the  still  greater  wrong 
of  placing  it  in  the  Constitution,  where  it 
cannot  be  altered  or  changed  during  the 
existence  of  that  instrument,  notwithstanding 
it  has  been  found  to  work  wrong,  and  great 
injury  and  injustice.  If  we  were  making  State 
law  a mere  matter  of  experiment,  as  it  would 
be,  and  has  been,  one  or  two  years,  this  wrong 
could  be  borne,  because  it  would  correct  itself  ; 
but  here  it  is  proposed  to  place  it  where  it 
cannot  be  changed,  and  where  the  authorities 
have  no  control  over  it,  whatever.  If  this  be 
adopted  in  this  Constitution,  which  I hope  it 
will  not,  it  will  have  one  of  two  effects : It  will 
defeat  the  instrument  itself,  because  the  people 
are  not  going  to  cripple  themselves  by  this  rule, 
and  tie  their  own  hands, — it  will  either  have 
that  effect,  or  it  will,  for  all  practical  purposes, 
defeat,  and  stop  the  opening  and  widening  of 
streets,  during  the  next  twenty  years,  or  the 
lifetime  of  this  Constitution. 

I feel  deeply  upon  this  subject,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. The  city  which  I partly  represent  is 
growing.  They  have  many  short  streets  that  it 
is  necessary  to  open,  and  to  widen,  and  correct 
mistakes,  and  supply  streets  omitted  in  platting ; 
and  they  find,  also,  that  the  growing  expenses 
cf  the  city,  absolutely  necessary  for  the  pur- 
pose of  carrying  on  the  city  government,  are 
so  great  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  open 
these  streets  and  tax  the  general  public ; for  the 
costs  would  weigh  it  down,  and  the  practical 
results  would  be  that  there  would  be  no  streets 
opened.  As  I had  occasion  here  to  say,  at  one 
time,  that,  after  the  adoption  of  the  present  mu- 
nicipal code,  which,  in  effect  or  substance, 
adopted  this  provision,  it  was  found  that  not 
one  street  in  the  city  of  Cleveland,  and,  I un- 
derstand, other  cities  in  the  State,  was  opened 
during  these  two  years.  Committees  from  all 
over  the  State  came  up  for  its  repeal,  and  it  was 
modified  so  as  to  admit  of  this  opening  of 
streets,  and  taxing  of  the  property  benefited 
thereby,  and  the  people  began  then  to  get  what 
they  wanted. 

Now,  another  mistake  is  argued  here,  that  is 
quite  suspicious,  and  it  is  a little  difficult  to  un- 
derstand. When  this  property  is  taken, 
whether  it  be  one  hundred  or  six  hundred  feet, 
the  party  from  whom  it  is  taken  is  paid,  and 
generally  amply  paid,  due  reference  being  had 
to  the  damage  done  to  the  remaining  portion  of 
his  or  her  property,  whatever  it  may  be. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir;  with  pleasure. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  the  street  should  be  after- 
wards vacated,  would  not  the  land  go  back  to 
him. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BEER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
ask  a question  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BEER.  If  the  appropriation  is  made, 
wt1io  gets  the  easement? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Why,  the  public. 

Mr.  BEER.  The  public  does;  how,  if  the 
individuals  are  paid  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Who  gets  the  benefit? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  public  takes  care  of 
it,  and  gets  the  benefit. 

Mr.  BEER.  And  gets  the  easement? 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  16,  1874.]  Hoadly,  Townsend,  Pratt,  Griswold,  Powell. 


1381 


Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Why,  after  that  has  been 
done,  and  the  city  has  paid  him  for  his  property, 
he  stands  in  the  same  relation  about  that  as 
any  other  man,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned, 
and  there  is  another  jury  or  Board  of  Equali- 
zation, so-called,  appointed  to  hear  all  the  tes- 
timony and  determine  all  those  questions  and 
find  out  who  shall  pay  this  $10,000  or  this 
$100,000,  whatever  it  may  be.  Now,  they  go  to 
work  without  reference  to  the  ownership  of 
property  benefited.  Knowing  no  one  by  name, 
they  take  the  lots  by  numbers — no  odds  where 
situated  or  who  owns  them — abutting  the  streets 
just  opened  and  adjacent  thereto,  that  is  bene- 
fited in  any  way — some  lots  are  benefited  ten 
dollars,  some  six  dollars,  some  four  dollars,  and 
some  one  dollar  per  foot.  They  run  up  and 
down  the  streets,  and  in  the  collateral  streets 
until  this  sum  is  absorbed,  and  that  is  the  ad- 
justment that  comes  to  the  city  government  for 
approval.  If  any  party,  before  it  is  finally  ac- 
cepted, thinks  that  his  property  has  been  une- 
qually assessed,  he  has  the  right  to  appeal  from 
that  assessment,  and  demand  a new  Equaliza- 
tion Board ; and  it  must  be  granted.  It  is  some- 
times done,  but  generally  it  is  satisfactory. 
Now,  the  fact  is,  that  this  man  who  has  lost  his 
property,  if  he  is  fortunate  enough  to  own  the 
other  side  of  the  street,  as  very  often  happens, 
he  is  generally  made  rich  by  this  improvement, 
and  has  petitioned  for  it  himself;  he  wants  it 
done,  and  the  next  year  the  frontage  upon  that 
street  is  worth  from  ten  to  one  hundred  dollars 
a foot, and  sometimes  one  thousand  dollars;  and 
persons  have  thus  been  made  worth  two,  three, 
or  four  hundred  thousand  dollars  by  the  open- 
ing of  streets.  Now,  the  idea  of  saying  that 
this  cost  of  opening  shall  not  be  levied  upon  the 
property  benefited — the  taxes  necessary  to  pay 
for  those  local  improvements,  for  those  local 
benefits— is  so  absurd  that  I can  scarcely  have 
any  patience  with  it. 

The  city  of  Cleveland  feels  deeply  upon  this 
subject,  and  they  have  written  and  telegraphed 
to  me  in  regard  to  it,  all  parties,  every  body, 
the  poor  man  and  the  rich  man.  These  open- 
ings generally  benefit  the  rich  man,  seldom 
ever  the  poor  man.  The  man  owning  a large 
amount  of  property,  in  cities  where  these 
streets  are  opened,  is  generally  the  rich  man. 
There  is  one  street  being  opened  there  now — 
my  mind  has  been  recalled  to  it  this  moment — 
known  as  Payne  avenue.  It  is  only  an  exten- 
sion of  Payne  avenue,  opening  and  widening 
it.  It  is  a street  now,  being  sixty  feet  wide,  and 
the  owners  of  property  on  that  street  want  it 
eighty  feet  wide;  they  want  it  an  avenue,  and 
to  connect  it  with  Erie  street.  It  is  not  simply 
improved.  This  avenue  is  owned  by  large  land- 
holders. Messrs.  Wade,  Payne,  Hoyt,  Hickox, 
and  Bingham  own  three-fourths  of  the  land 
along  this  avenue,  unimproved. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Five  men? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir;  they  own 
three-fourths  of  the  unoccupied  land  upon  this 
avenue.  They  have  been  trying  for  three  years 
to  get  it  opened;  but  the  project  was  so  large, 
and  the  city  was  resisting  it,  that  they  would 
not  touch  it  until  three-fourths  of  not  only  the 
owners  of  property,  but  of  every  one  on  the 
street,  petitioned  for  it,  and  these  five  or  six 


men  had  to  get  three-fourths  of  all  the  balance. 
The  assessment  was  put  down  at  about  $355,000. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  More  than  that;  $400,000. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  $390,000,  and  yet  these 
six  men  paid  three-fourths  of  that  sum ; and 
they  want  to  do  it;  and  if  they  succeed  in  it, 
it  will  make  those  few  men  $500,000.  It  makes 
property  worth  $30  a foot,  in  the  remoter  por- 
tions of  that  avenue  worth  to-day,  $100  per 
foot,  and  they  want  to  pay  the  money,  although 
the  sum  is  large. 

Now,  the  idea  of  riding  down  the  general  levy 
of  the  city  of  Cleveland  for  this  improvement, 
to  benefit  three  or  four  of  the  richest  men  in 
the  city,  taxing  the  grand  levy  with  three  or 
four  hundred  thousand  dollars,  is  an  outrage 
that  any  city  would  not  stand,  and  they  would 
be  unable  to  get  their  improvement,  not- 
withstanding they  desire  and  are  willing  to  pay 
for  it. 

I trust,  gentlemen,  that  this  amendment  will 
not  be  adopted,  and  that  the  whole  question  of 
restrictions  will  find  a place  in  the  Schedule, 
where  it  properly  belongs,  and  not  burden  this 
Article  with  what  does  not  belong  there;  it  is 
sufficiently  amended  now.  My  friend  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  proposed  an  amentment  last 
Saturday,  which  restricts  assessments  for  im- 
provements on  streets  to  ten  per  cent,  in  any 
one  year  on  its  taxable  value,  and  not  to  exceed 
fifty  per  cent,  in  ten  years  on  its  taxable  value. 
This  amendment  is  intended  as  claimed — to 
protect  owners  of  lots  in  the  outer  portions 
of  municipal  corporate  limits.  Often  in  those 
parts  of  cities  lots  are  taxed  at  a nominal  value. 
A lot  is  valued  at  one  hundred  dollars;  it  may 
cost  that  sum  to  grade  the  street  in  front  of  it; 
this  ten  foot  limit  could,  therefore,  forbid  im- 
provements of  all  kinds.  We  cannot  safely  fix 
any  rule  in  this  Convention ; it  is  a question  of 
detail  that  will  vary  according  to  circumstances, 
and  should  have  no  place  in  this  Constitution. 
It  belongs  to  the  law-making  power  of  the 
State.  Under  the  classification  for  towns  and 
cities  already  provided  for,  my  friend  from 
Logan  will  be  able  to  obtain  such  laws  on  this 
and  other  points  as  will  be  satisfactory  to  him- 
self and  all  towns  in  his  classification ; and 
those  of  us  who  are  unfortunate  enough  to  live 
in  the  larger  cities  will  take  our  chances  in 
securing  such  laws  as  will  best  suit  our  condition 
and  meet  the  wants  of  our  population.  We  can 
all  be  suited ; but  if  we  attempt  to  fix  an  un- 
alterable rule  in  the  Constitution,  it  will  result 
in  fully  satisfying  no  one,  and  displeasing 
three-fourths  of  all  the  towns  and  cities  in  the 
State,  retarding  and  restricting  their  growth, 
improvement  and  prosperity.  Let  us  not  at- 
tempt to  make  laws,  but  content  ourselves  with 
making  a Constitution. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I rise  with  a great  deal  of 
reluctance  to  speak  upon  this  subject,  because 
I am  anxious  not  to  consume  the  time  of  the 
Convention,  and  desire  that  we  get  through  as 
soon  as  possible;  but  this  proposition  is  so 
wrong  in  principle  that  if  I should  keep  my 
tongue  silent  and  not  protest  against  it,  I should 
think  myself  very  derelict  in  my  duty.  I think 
we  are  under  great  obligations  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  for  the 
elucidation  he  has  given  us  in  relation  to  these 
matters.  But  there  is  another  question,  in  ad- 


1882 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Powell,  Okey. 


dition  to  that,  which  I hope  the  Convention  wi^ 
take  into  consideration  and  understand  before 
they  make  their  decision.  If  this  proposition 
were  to  be  inserted  into  a legislative  act,  that 
might  he  changed  the  year  following,  or  some 
other  year  when  we  should  see  its  injurious  con- 
sequences, it  might  be  tolerated;  but  to  have  it 
go  in  as  a Constitutional  provision,  would  be 
terrible,  as  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Townsend]  has  represented.  Now,  the  great 
difficulty  there  is  in  this  case  is  that  persons  in- 
sist upon  the  application  of  the  provision  in  our 
present  Constitution,  and  which  I doubt  not 
will  be  renewed  in  the  Constitution  which  we 
shall  adopt;  that  in  the  confiscation  or  appro- 
priation of  lands  to  public  use  you  shall  ascer- 
tain the  value  of  the  property,  and  give  that  in- 
dependently of  any  advantage  the  owner  may 
derive  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  public. 
The  difficulty,  I say,  in  regard  to  the  question 
now  before  us  is,  that  persons  have  tried  to 
place  this  constitutional  provision  to  this  sec- 
tion. Now,  they  misapprehend  entirely  the 
object  and  scope  of  that  constitutional  provi- 
sion in  applying  it  here.  There  is  a difference 
between  the  appropriation  and  confiscation  of 
lands,  and  the  assessment  of  damages,  or  the 
cost  of  making  improvements.  They  are  en- 
tirely two  different  things,  and  yet  members  of 
this  Convention  have  confounded  the  two,  and, 
by  that  means,  have  introduced  difficulties 
which  would  be  perfectly  clear  if  they  kept  the 
two  things  entirely  separate.  Now,  the  consti- 
tutional provision  is  to  the  effect  that,  if  you 
appropriate  or  confiscate  land  for  any  public 
purpose,  you  shall  not  take  into  account  the  ad- 
vantages which  the  person  whose  land  is  taken 
derives  therefrom  as  any  reduction  from  the 
payment  of  the  real  value  of  the  land.  That 
in  many  cases,  operates  hardly,  and  yet  I agree 
that  that  is  the  constitutional  provision,  and  I 
am  willing  that  it  should  be  applied  here,  to 
those  cases  where  it  rightfully  belongs.  Let 
us  see  how  it  acts.  Suppose,  for  instance,  that 
the  land  to  be  appropriated  was  for  the  purpose 
of  building  a market-house.  The  market-house 
covers  the  land,  and  there  is  an  end  of  the  mat- 
ter. But  when  you  appropriate,  the  constitu- 
tional provision  comes  in,  and  says  that,  in  es- 
timating the  amount  to  be  paid  for  the  land, 
you  should  estimate  the  true  value  of  the  land, 
without  taking  into  consideration  that  a man 
had  land  off  at  some  distance  that  would  be 
benefited,  or  some  other  benefit  that  he  would 
get  in  common  with  other  men.  Why  ? Be- 
cause other  men  receive  that  benefit  by  the 
building  of  the  market-house,  and  why  should 
it  be  deducted  from  his  land  ? There  is  no  rea- 
son that  can  well  be  given.  Recollect  that  in 
this  appropriation  there  is  the  end  of  it. 

Suppose,  now,  the  appropriation  is  to  be  made 
for  the  purpose  of  making  a street.  If  the 
street  covers  the  whole  land  it  is  the  same  thing. 
If  it  covers  the  whole  land  taken,  there  is  an 
end  of  it,  as  in  the  case  of  a market  house.  You 
can  never  put  any  charge  on  the  land  that  has 
been  taken  away  from  the  party.  But  if  he  has 
land  elsewhere,  that  is  another  question.  After 
the  land  is  taken  and  the  money  has  been  paid 
to  the  owner  of  the  land,  there  is  an  end  of  the 
appropriation  question.  Now  comes  an  en- 
tirely different  question — the  making  of  the 


[115th 

[Monday, 


street.  And  how  is  the  street  to  be  made? 
How  is  the  street  to  be  paid  for?  Some  corpo- 
rations say  : “in  the  appropriation  of  the  lands 
we  will  pay  for  ourselves,  and  only  the  making 
of  the  street  we  will  charge  for.”  Others  say : 
“we  will  put  in  the  cost  of  the  land  and  the 
making  of  the  street  together,  and  assess  it,  not 
alone  upon  the  man  who  owns  the  land,  but 
upon  every  man  who  has  land  in  the  vicinity 
abutting  upon  the  street,  who  is  benefited  by 
the  making  of  the  street,  and  we  will  divide  out 
equally  and  equitably  the  assessment  upon  those 
who  are  benefited  by  the  improvement.”  Well, 
now,  if  the  man  whose  land  was  taken  has 
other  land  abutting  upon  some  portion  of  that 
street,  ought  he  not  to  pay  for  his  proportion 
of  the  benefit  received  like  any  other  man? 
Undoubtedly  he  ought.  This  assessment  for 
the  cost  of  the  improvement  of  the  street  is  an 
entirely  different  question,  done  by  different 
men  and  by  a different  operation  from  that 
which  is  applied  to  appropriation  or  confisca- 
tion. The  two  are  entirely  separate;  and  all 
the  difficulties  that  members  have  found  have 
arisen  from  their  confounding  the  two  things 
together ; because  the  Constitution  operates  upon 
one,  but  does  not  operate  upon  the  other. 

Now,  some  persons  in  the  Convention  have 
so  bemuddled  themselves  as  to  say  that,  if  stone 
or  gravel,  in  some  distant  part  of  the  lot,  is 
taken  and  confiscated  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing or  improving  a road,  and  the  person 
whose  property  it  was  is  paid  the  full  value  of 
the  stone  or  gravel,  because  it  is  thus  taken  and 
paid  for,  under  the  law  which  enables  the  pub- 
lic to  do  so,  and  put  it  upon  the  street,  you 
cannot  assess  back  upon  that  man  the  benefit 
derived  by  the  improvement  of  his  lot,  which 
is  equal,  and  no  more,  to  that  which  is  assessed 
to  every  other  man — just  as  you  do  with  every 
other  man  who  has  land  abutting  upon  that 
street.  The  idea  is  preposterous.  Let  a person 
think  of  it  but  for  a moment,  and  he  will  see 
how  outrageously  wrong  it  is.  So  they  befud- 
dle themselves  by  bringing  in  this  constitu- 
tional provision  to  operate  in  all  cases,  when  it 
has  no  effect  whatever,  except  in  the  appropria- 
tion of  the  land. 

Now,  I hope  that  this  will  not  be  put  into  the 
Constitution.  If  the  Legislature  have  a mind 
to  adopt  it  let  them  them  adopt  it,  badly  as  it 
would  operate.  If  it  should  operate  badly  we 
can  get  it  repealed  another  year.  But  if  you 
put  it  into  the  Constitution,  it  will  be  a dire  ca- 
lamity upon  the  State,  as  has  been  well  illus- 
trated by  the  gentleman  from  Cleveland  [Mr. 
Townsend]. 

Mr.  OKEY.  If  it  is  in  order,  Mr.  President, 
I move  to  amend  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  by  striking  out, 
at  the  end  thereof,  the  words,  “ or  the  cost  of 
making  the  appropriation.” 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  as  pro- 
posed to  be  amended : 

“In  cases  where  private  property  shall  be  taken  by 
Municipal  Corporations,  for  a public  use,  no  assessment 
shall  be  made  upon  the  owner  for  any  part  of  the  com- 
pensation.” 

Mr.  OKEY.  I can  vote  for  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  with  this 
amendment,  but  without  this  I shall  be  pre- 
pared to  vote  against  it.  I can  see  a very 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Okey,  Ewing,  Hoadly,  Pratt,  etc. 


1383 


Day.] 

February  16, 1874.] 


good  reason  why  the  owner  of  private  property 
condemned  for  public  use  should  not  be  specially 
assessed  to  pay  for  his  own  property,  but  1 can 
see  no  reason  why  he  should  not  be  assessed 
for  making  the  improvement,  the  same  as  other 
parties. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  I simply  desire  to  say  that 
I think  the  gentleman  from  Monroe  [Mr.  Okey] 
is  mistaken  as  to  the  language.  This  does  not 
reach  the  cost  of  improving  a street  at  all. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I understand  it  does. 

Mr.  BURNS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  EWING.  With  the  consent  of  the  Con- 
vention, I would  like  to  have  read  a passage 
from  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court  of  Ohio 
in  the  case  of  the  city  of  Cleveland  against 
Wick.  I preface  it  simply  by  the  remark  that 
it  has  been  argued  here  that  the  nineteenth  sec- 
tion of  the  Bill  of  Rights  which  provides  that 
compensation  shall  be  assesed  by  a jury,  with- 
out deduction  for  benefits  to  any  property  of  the 
owner  precludes  the  assessment  of  the  owner 
for  the  cost  of  the  land  taken  from  him, 
and  paid  for  to* him.  Upon  that  point,  I ask 
that  this  paragraph,  from  the  unanimous  deci- 
sion of  the  supreme  court  be  read  : 

By  request,  Mr.  Ewing  read  the  citation  him- 
self (Eighteenth  Ohio  State  Reports,  page  310). 

Mr.  EWING  (reading).  “What  was  the 
object  of  the  provision  in  question,”  say  the 
supreme  court,  in  reference  to  this  provision  in 
the  Bill  of  Rights,  “ what  was  the  evil  intended 
to  be  remedied  by  it?  Surely  it  was  no  part  of 
its  object  to  remedy  any  supposed  inequality  or 
abuse  of  the  power  of  local  taxation.  No  such 
evil  was  complained  of.  The  mischief  which 
existed  under  the  old  Constitution  was  that  the 
benefits  which  were  common  to  his  neighbor 
without  charge  wTere  deducted  from  the  price 
paid  to  the  owner  of  the  land  taken.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  it  exactly. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  evil  might  well  be  denom- 
inated an  inequality  of  benefits  and  burdens 
among  the  adjoining  land  owners.  You  paid 
for  the  owner’s  land  in  privileges,  and  left  him 
still  liable  equally  with  his  neighbor,  whose 
lands  were  untaken,  to  any  and  all  local  assess- 
ments that  might  afterwards  be  imposed.  This 
was  unequal,  and,  therefore,  deemed  unjust. 
Experience  proved,  moreover,  that  it  led  to 
much  abuse  of  the  power  of  condemnation.  A 
full  remedy  for  this  evil  is  found  in  the  pro- 
vision in  question,  without  at  all  making  it  to 
interfere  with  the  power  of  assessment.  Con- 
strued thus,  it  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the 
leading  principle  of  taxation  in  the  new  Con- 
stitution— uniformity  and  equality  of  burdens. 
It  simply  guarantees  the  owner  of  land  con- 
demned a full  price.  When  that  is  paid,  he 
stands  on  a perfect  equality  with  all  other 
owners  of  adjoining  lands,  being  equally  liable, 
as  he  ought  to  be,  to  be  taxed  upon  his  other 
lands  with  them.  He  has  the  full  price  of  his 
land  in  his  pocket,  and  is  an  equal  participant 
with  them  in  benefit  to  adjoining  land.  To 
throw  the  whole  burden  upon  others  in  such  a 
case,  would  be  to  do  them  the  precise  injustice 
that  was  done  to  him  under  the  old  Constitu- 
tion. To  do  so  would  be  to  avoid  one  evil  by 
running  into  another.  It  would  be  to  avoid 
the  evil  of  withholding  from  him  a fair  price 
for  his  land  only  to  run  into  the  coil  of  paying 


him  two  prices  for  it,  the  second  price  being  at 
the  expense  of  his  neighbors. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Convention  to  the  fact  that,  in  deciding 
this  motion — I do  not  refer  now  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Monroe  [Mr.  Okey], 
but  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer] — members  are  engaged  in 
that  which  will  carry  them  a great  deal  further, 
if  they  are  true  to  the  principle  involved  in  the 
amendment,  than  the  mere  form  of  the  amend- 
ment itself  would  indicate.  If  this  provision  is 
made  for  cities,  it  is  also  made  for  the  north- 
western part  of  Ohio,  which  needs  ditching, 
and  by  the  law  of  the  State  to-day  the  land  that 
is  taken  from  a man  to  make  a ditch  is  charged 
upon  the  adjacent  property.  The  party  must 
give  it,  or  if  he  claims  damages,  those  damages 
to  the  value  of  that  land  are  charged  upon  the 
adjacent  property ; and,  if  it  is  true  in  princi- 
ple that  that  ought  not  to  be  done  when  a 
street  is  made  in  a city,  it  is  just  as  true  that  it 
ought  not  to  be  done  when  land  is  taken  for  a 
ditch.  The  amendment  should  be  to  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  and  the  fallacy  and  falsehood  of  this 
theory  cannot  be  better  stated  than  in  the  pas- 
sage just  read  by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  from  the  eighteenth  volume  of  the 
Ohio  State  Reports,  and  I intend  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Convention  to  the  practical  mis- 
chief of  it  in  its  application  to  this  city.  This 
land  on  which  we  stand  has  helped  to  pay  for 
the  making  of  every  street  surrounding  it. 
The  streets  were  laid  out  by  Ludlow  and  his 
associates.  Wherever  a new  street  was  made, 
before  the  passage  of  the  present  Constitution, 
the  adjacent  land  paid  every  cent,  unless  the 
street  had  been  dedicated,  and  what  is  proposed 
is  that  this  mischief  having  been  uprooted  by 
the  decision  in  the  case  of  Cleveland  against 
Wick,  we  make  it  a part  of  the  new  Constitu- 
tion of  Ohio  for  ever,  or  as  long  as  the  Consti- 
tution shall  last,  that  the  cost  of  that  part  of  a 
street  which  may  be  taken  from  any  of  the 
owners  of  the  benefited  property  shall  not  be 
charged  on  him ; in  other  words,  that  he  shall 
have  a benefit,  over  and  above  his  neighbors, 
that  they  do  not  share  in. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Allow  me  an  inquiry. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PRATT.  If  the  party  owns  land  or 
property  along  the  street,  outside  the  line  of 
improvements  that  might  be  assessed,  that 
property,  by  this  amendment,  is  exempt,  is  it 
not? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly  it  is.  And  if  he 
own  gravel  or  limestone  that  may  be  taken  for 
use  in  constructing  the  street,  he  will  be  ex- 
empt by  this  amendment  to  the  extent  of  the 
cost  of  that  material.  It  is  not  merely  the  land 
that  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer] 
has  included ; it  is  every  particle,  and  every 
species  of  property  that  enters  into  the  cost  of 
the  improvement  from  which  he  proposes  to  ex- 
empt the  owners — those  near  the  improvement, 
the  very  men  more  benefited  than  anybody  else 
— and  charge  it  on  the  live  people,  who,  by 
their  mercantile  and  manufacturing  industry, 
are  giving  all  the  value  there  is  to  that  town. 
My  friend  says  it  is  a war  on  the  thieves.  I 
say  it  is  a premium  to  thieves  he  is  offering. 
It  is  a war  on  the  live,  busy,  vigorous  men  of 


1384 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  Carbery,  Sears. 


[115th 

[Monday, 


our  cities,  in  favor  of  a parcel  of  suburban  ob- 
structives, of  whom  it  is  said  in  this  city — I 
cannot  say  how  truly — “thirty  first-class  fu- 
nerals are  all  that  are  necessary  to  make  Cincin- 
nati as  prosperous  as  she  should  be.”  And  how 
this  thing  has  worked  in  this  city,  I propose  to 
show  you,  Mr.  President. 

In  the  year  ending  February  29, 1872,  there 
was  paid  out  of  the  general  treasury  of  the 
city  of  Cincinnati  $273,850.98  for  the  purchase 
and  condemnation  of  property  for  streets  and 
the  increase  of  parks— one  and  a half  mills  on 
every  dollar  of  mercantile  stock,  manufacturers’ 
stock,  and  manufacturers’  tools  in  this  city, 
which,  I venture  to  say,  does  not  result  in 
any  appreciable  benefit  to  any  one  of  them. 
I will  read  a list  of  the  streets  and  the 
amounts  paid  out;  and  my  friends,  who 
are  familiar  with  the  city,  can  judge  whether 
I am  right  in  making  this  contest  which  I 
am  trying  to  make,  to  save  the  men  who 
are  making  and  sustaining  Cincinnati  from 
the  thieves,  who  are  using  these  condemnations 
and  purchases  as  methods  of  stealing  through 
our  city  council,  and  the  men  who  are  benefited 
by  it  are,  at  the  same  time,  eating  their  cake 
and  having  it — getting  the  money  for  their  land 
and  the  enormous  benefits  of  these  improve- 
ments, also. 

McLean  avenue,  $129,295,  paid  out  of  the 
general  treasury  in  one  year ; Coleman  street, 
$911;  widening  of  Wood  street,  $54,255.60; 
Oregon  street,  $1,355;  Eggleston  avenue,  $1,500; 
Barton  street,  $275;  Cleveland  street,  a little 
street,  one  square  or  a square  and  a-half  long, 
that  is  of  no  interest  to  anybody,  except  the 
people  who  live  on  Walnut  Hills  and  in  the  val- 
ley of  Deer  creek — a great  deal  of  use  to  me,  as 
a citizen  of  East  Walnut  Hills,  but  of  no  earthly 
use  to  dwellers  in  the  western  part  of  Cincin- 
nati— $30,021.50;  Hamilton  road,  $30;  enlarge- 
ment of  Eden  Park,  $23,550.25;  Sergeant  street, 
$8,610.93;  Brown  street  bridge,  $11,685.63.  Will 
any  gentleman  who  is  familiar  with  that  job, 
tell  me  that  it  would  ever  have  gone  through 
our  City  Council,  if  the  money  was  to  be 
assessed  on  the  adjacent  or  benefited  property? 
It  is  the  beginning  of  a gigantic  waste.  That 
is  what  it  is.  It  means  to  take  another  piece  of 
property  of  the  same  value  for  the  abutments 
of  Brown  street  bridge,  and  then  take  Brighton 
House  for  the  place  to  make  an  approach  from 
the  Hamilton  road  to  Brown  street  bridge, 
costing  $150,000  or  $160,000  of  the  people’s 
money,  in  a job  that  is  of  no  benefit  to  more 
than  a few  people.  Brown  street,  $2,100; 
another  part  of  the  same  job;  Branch  street, 
$6,450;  Pete  street,  $3,225;  sundries,  $586.67. 
I would  ask  my  colleague  [Mr.  Carbery]  how 
much  benefit  the  property  on  which  he  lives 
has  derived  from  the  expenses  which  it  has  thus 
been  called  upon  to  pay. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Not  a farthing. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Will  the  gentleman  before  he 
closes  allow  me  a question? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Do  I understand  the  gentleman 
to  say  that  the  public  have  no  interest  in  these 
improvements? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  say  the  public;  I 
say  the  city  generally. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Upon  what  principle,  then, 


does  the  gentleman  justify  interference  in 
making  them  at  all? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Because  the  word  “public” 
does  not  mean  what  you  think  it  does. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Can  you  make  a man  rich  in 
spite  of  himself,  and  then  charge  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  word  « public  ” shall  be 
construed  in  the  sense  in  which  my  friend  con- 
strues it,  then  good-bye  to  the  right  of  eminent 
domain.  I would  like  to  see  any  improvement, 
or  one  out  of  a hundred,  by  which  the  whole  pub- 
lic, and  every  member  and  constituent  element 
of  that  public,  shall  be  benefited.  On  what  theory 
do  you  condemn  land  for  a railroad  from  here  to 
Portsmouth?  Will  Cleveland  be  benefited  by 
it?  On  what  theory  does  the  State  of  Ohio,  by 
her  power  of  eminent  domain — for  it  is  her 
power  that  exercises  this  right  of  eminent  do- 
main, and  not  that  of  Cincinnati,  except  by 
delegation  from  the  State — by  what  right  does 
she  take  a farm  in  Clermont  county  for  a rail- 
road from  here  to  Portsmouth  ? It  is  on  the 
theory  that  “the  public”  means  a sufficient 
number  of  the  community  to  stand  for,  and  in 
the  place  of  a general  necessity.  By  what 
theory  do  you  take  land  for  a township  road — a 
township  road  which  may  be  an  advantage  to 
their  farms,  perhaps  ? Did  any  man  ever  go  into 
court  and  say  that  land  for  a township  road 
could  not  be  taken  because  “ the  public  ” were 
not  interested  in  it  at  all  ? Our  supreme  court 
has  laid  down  the  distinction  between  a private 
road  and  a township  road.  A township  road 
is  a public  benefit — but  not  because  even  the 
whole  township  may  be  interested  in  it,  but 
only  because  an  appreciable  portion  of  the 
public — more  than  a single  man  or  two  men, 
and  enough  to  take  it  out  of  the  category  of 
private  interest — may  be  interested  in  it.  That 
is  what  is  meant  by  the  word  public.  What  I 
claim,  Mr.  President,  is,  that  inasmuch  as  the 
improvements  may  be  for  the  public  benefit, 
then,  in  the  sense  in  which  I use  the  word 
“public,”  and  in  which  the  law  uses  the  word 
“public,”  let  those  who  secure  the  advantage 
foot  the  bill.  That  is  all  I ask.  Suppose  a 
strip  of  land  lies  between  two  farms  just  where 
a ditch  ought  to  be  located,  and  it  is  condemned 
for  ditch  purposes.  Would  not  the  cost  of  that 
strip  be  charged  on  the  adjacent  farms,  not- 
withstanding the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]?  But  if  it  happens 
that  that  strip  is  owned  by  one  of  the  men  who 
own  the  adjacent  farms,  then  that  gentleman 
receives  his  pay  for  that  strip,  puts  it  in  his 
pocket,  and  says : “ You  shall  not  assess  me, 
because  the  amendment  of  the  delegate  from 
Crawford  carried,  and  the  Constitution  con- 
taining it  was  adopted.”  He  may  be  free  from 
all  charge,  although  his  neighbor,  who  owns 
on  the  other  side,  may  be  charged,  and  although 
if  his  neighbor  is  not  charged,  it  comes  from 
the  general  treasury,  and  he  is  charged  on  the 
tax  duplicate : men  who  have  no  earthly  interest 
in  the  ditch,  men  who  have  no  connection  with 
it,  will  be  compelled  to  pay  that  man  for  that 
property. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  it  is  just  because  the  true 
rule  for  making  assessments  is,  that  that  portion 
of  the  public  which  enjoys  the  benefits,  ought 
to  bear  the  costs,  that  I,  for  oue,  cannot  agree 
to  put  this  very  plausible,  but  very  fallacious, 


Day.] 

February  16, 1874.] 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  Beer,  Powell,  Hale. 


1385 


proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]  into  the  Constitution.  The  whole 
effect  of  the  provision  will  be  either  to  kill  im- 
provements, or  to  charge  the  cost  of  them  to 
men  who  should  not  he  compelled  to  bear  them, 
and  to  add  to  the  enormous  burdens  of  taxation, 
which  in  all  our  cities  and  towns  are  interfering 
with  the  progress  of  human  industry.  Why, 
the  gentleman  forgets  that  there  is  only  one 
thing  in  this  world  that  has  any  real  value,  or 
that  gives  value  to  anything  else,  and  that  is 
labor.  That  is  all  which  has  value,  or  gives 
value  to  anything.  Capital  is  only  accumulated, 
hoarded  labor.  The  gentleman  forgets  that 
nothing  exists  in  this  world  except  for  its  uses ; 
the  labor  which  we  may  expend  upon  it  for  the 
use  of  ourselves  and  others.  And  yet  he  pro- 
poses by  this  proposition  to  load  down  the 
laborers  of  the  community, — and  by  laborers  I 
do  not  mean  merely  the  working  men  who  may 
be  hired  by  the  day ; but  I mean  those  who 
work  with  head,  hands,  and  heart,  for  the 
building  up  of  Municipal  Corporations, — he 
proposes  to  load  down  the  laborers  of  the  com- 
munity, in  favor  of  the  drones.  That  is  pre- 
cisely what  it  is.  The  drones  of  the  hive  are  to 
have  the  benefit  of  the  honey  which  the  labor- 
ers bring  home;  and  it  is  just  because  that  is 
not  the  law  of  human  nature,  and  human  pro- 
gress, that  I think  the  motion  ought  to  be  voted 
down. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  is  with  considerable  re- 
luctance that  I rise  to  say  anything  on  this 
amendment.  I am  charged  with  being  be- 
fuddled on  the  subject,  or  I would  not  under- 
take to  say  anything  more.  This  amendment  is 
offered  because  of  the  decision  which  the 
supreme  court  made  in  the  case  of  Cleveland 
against  Wick,  from  which  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  read.  It  is  simply  to 
meet  that  case.  It  appears  from  that  decision 
that  the  nineteenth  section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights 
is  a flaunting  lie,  and  I propose  to  tear  down 
that  flaunting  lie,  by  the  addition  of  this 
amendment  to  section  three,  which  will  make  it 
effectual,  and  give  it  force.  It  will  prevent  the 
public  from  reaching  into  a man’s  pocket  to  steal 
the  money  with  which  they  pay  him  for  the 
private  property  taken  from  him  for  public 
use. 

Now,  let  us  see  who  it  is  that  misunderstands 
the  doctrine  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain.  It 
is  said  that  those  of  us  who  advocate  this 
amendment  do  not  understand  what  is  meant  by 
the  word  “ public,”  or  the  words  “public  neces- 
sity.” I will  read  from  a decision  of  our  own 
supreme  court  on  that  subject : 

“This  clause  clearly  prohibits  the  taking  of 
private  property  for  public  use,  without  the 
owner’s  consent.”  Reeves  vs.  Treasurer  of 
Wood  Co.,  8 Ohio  State,  333-345.  “Nor 
could  it  be  so  taken,  were  there  no  Consti- 
tutional provision  on  the  subject.”  Shaver  vs. 
Starrett,  4 Ohio  State,  494-498 — Thurman 
C.  J. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I interrupt  the  gentle- 
man ? 

Mr.  BEER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  is  not  a man  upon 
this  floor  who  sides  with  those  who  oppose  this 
amendment  but  will  readily  consent  to  that — 
the  whole  of  it.  There  is  no  use  in  reading  it. 


Mr.  BEER.  Does  the  gentleman  insist  upon 
it  that  I shall  not  read  it? 

Mr.  POWELL.  No, sir,  but  you  are  doing  a 
useless  thing  in  reading  it. 

Mr.  BEER.  Well,  it  may  be  “casting  pearls 
before  swine.”  I continue : 

“The  power  of  eminent  domain  is  not  conferred  either 
by  this  section  or  by  the  fifth  section  of  Article  XIII. 
They  simply  prescribe  modes  lor,  and  limitations  upon, 
its  exercise.  The  power  is  an  insuperable  incident  of 
sovereignty,  and  its  exercise  tor  the  accomplishment  of 
lawful  objects  is  conferred  upon  the  General  Assembly  in 
the  general  grant  of  legislative  authority  f Art.  I,  Sec.  1) 
Giesy  v.  G.  W & Z.  R.  R Co.,  4 Ohio  State , 308.” 

“It  may  be  used  to  appropriate  lands  for  a public  high- 
way ot  any  kind,  and  this  whether  the  road  is  built  and 
owned  by  the  public  or  by  a corporation  as  a public  in- 
strumentality, provided  it  is  kept  open  for  public  u>e  as 
a matter  of  right,  or,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  work, 
the  corporation  is  made  a common  carrier  ol  goods  or  of 
passen  gers .— Ibidem.''1 

“It  may  be  exercised  directly  or  indirectly  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  withoutthe  intervention  of  the  Judiciary, 
except  for  determining  the  amountof  compensation.  But 
the  Courts  possess  full  power  to  determine  its  proper 
limits,  and  to  prevent  abuses  in  its  exercise  "—Ibidem. 

“The  power  rests  upon  public  necessity,  and  can  only 
be  exercised  where  such  necessity  exists.” — Ibidem. 

Mr.  HALE.  Let  me  put  a question  right 
there,  to  get  the  bearing  of  that.  Does  the  gen- 
tleman take  the  position  that  wherever  you  may 
appropriate  private  property  for  public  benefit, 
the  public  should  pay  for  it?  Is  that  the  gen- 
tleman’s position? 

Mr.  BEER.  I am  coming  to  that  in  a mo- 
ment. I take  these  words  from  the  supreme 
court  decision  as  a text : “the  power  rests  upon 
public  necessity,  and  can  only  be  exercised 
where  such  necessity  exists.” 

Now,  there  are  two  ways  for  laying  out 
streets  and  highways — by  dedication,  or  con- 
demnation. Our  statutes  provide  that  where 
parties  desire  to  make  any  addition  to  any  town 
or  city,  they  may  make  it  by  recorded  plat,  lay- 
ing down  the  streets  and  alleys;  and  these  may 
be  given  to  the  public  by  dedication.  There  is 
no  law  given  under  heaven  among  men  that 
will  prevent  a man  from  laying  out  an  addition 
to  a city  or  town  on  his  land,  and  getting  all 
the  streets  and  alleys  be  wants  on  it.  He  may 
lay  them  out  and  dedicate  them  to  public  use, 
and  if  he  is  the  only  individual  benefited,  there 
is  no  way  of  restraining  him  from  making  that 
dedication ; so  that  the  people  in  Cleveland,  or 
in  any  other  place — in  Cincinnati,  for  instance 
— who  desire  streets  upon  their  land,  cannot  be 
restrained  by  the  adoption  of  this  amendment 
of  the  Constitution.  They  can  be  dedicated, 
and  the  title  passes  to  the  corporation  as  it  al- 
ways did.  Each  man’s  private  property  stands 
on  an  equality  with  every  other  man’s  private 
property.  He  has  the  right  to  enjoy  it  as  pleases 
him  best,  so  that  he  does  not  interfere  with  his 
neighbor  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  property. 
When  “ public  necessity  exists,”  and  that  pub- 
lic necessity  is  so  great  that  a part  of  his  proper- 
ty is  needed  for  a public  use,  then,  the  public, 
speaking  through  the  corporation,  may  enter 
upon  his  ground  and  appropriate  a portion  of  it 
to  the  public  use.  But  before  this  can  be  done 
he  must  be  paid,  he  must  be  compensated  in 
full ; and  the  old  Constitution  provided  that 
this  compensation  must  be  made  without  de- 
ducting resulting  benefits.  Now,  then,  in  spite 
of  that  provision,  our  supreme  court  found  a 
way  of  dodging  it;  and  in  the  case  of  Cleveland 


1386 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Beer,  Griswold,  Hoadly,  Townsend. 


[115th 


against  Wick,  held,  that  the  resulting  benefits 
could  be  assessed  back  upon  the  owner,  and 
they  went  so  far  as  to  appropriate  Wick’s  prop- 
erty for  a public  use,  and  paid  him  out  of  the 
city  treasury,  re-imbursing  the  city  treasury 
out  of  the  pocket  of  Wick. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Did  they  do  him  any  in- 
justice? Was  not  the  property  left  worth 
double  of  what  it  was  before  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  I will  come  along  to  that.  Gen- 
tlemen, let  us  carry  this  thing  out  to  its  legiti- 
mate conclusion.  The  gentleman  from  Cincin- 
nati asks  if  the  same  principle  is  not  involved 
in  the  construction  of  ditches.  I say,  no.  I 
say  the  title  acquired  in  the  location  of  a ditch, 
is  not  the  same  kind  of  a title  as  that  which  is 
acquired  in  the  appropriation  of  a street.  It 
does  not  proceed  upon  the  same  theory. 

It  proceeds  upon  the  doctrine  of  police  power 
for  the  abatement  of  a nuisance,  and  not  upon 
that  of  public  necessity  for  a public  highway. 
Not  at  all.  The  same  doctrine  does  not  apply. 
But  let  us  go  along  now.  If  it  is  right  to  appro- 
priate private  property  to  public  use,  and  then, 
if  a benefit  results  to  the  person  from  whom  the 
property  is  appropriated,  to  make  him  bear  the 
burden  of  the  appropriation  for  the  benefit  of 
the  public,  let  us  carry  it  out.  A owns  a farm 
along  the  line  of  the  Little  Miami  railroad. 
The  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  and 
a few  other  enterprising  individuals,  become  in- 
corporated as  a railroad  company,  and  say  that 
the  public  necessity  demands  the  construction 
of  a railroad  between  the  town  of  Lancaster  and 
the  city  of  Indianapolis.  They  get  the  right  to 
construct  a road  from  Lancaster  to  the  State 
line  by  becoming  a corporation,  and  they  go 
into  the  courts  in  some  county  along  the  line 
of  the  Little  Miami  railroad  at  the  point  where 
it  crosses  to  procure  right  of  way.  They  go  to 
the  owner  A,  and  say  to  him  : “ We  are  going  to 
build  a railroad  across  your  land,  make  us  a 
deed  for  the  right  of  way,  it  is  going  to  benefit 
you.”  A says,  “ however  much  in  your  opin- 
ion it  may  benefit  me,  I bought  this  land  to  use  it 
in  my  own  way,  and  I propose  to  keep  it,  and  if 
you  want  my  land  you  will  have  to  get  it  by  due 
process  of  law.”  Well,  by  due  process  of  law 
they  go  into  court,  and  under  the  exercise  of 
this  right  of  eminent  domain,  they  get  the  State 
to  resume  the  possession  of  a portion  of  his  prop- 
erty for  the  use  of  the  public,  for  the  coustruc- 
tion  of  this  public  highway  over  it.  Now,  it  is 
a railroad  crossing  where  the  property  will,  un- 
doubtedly, become  valuable.  It  is  the  site  of  a 
town  or  city  in  consequence  of  its  being  a rail- 
road crossing.  It  is  going  to  benefit  Mr.  A.  He 
will  be  the  only  individual  benefited.  The  pub- 
lic has  only  a very  remote  interest  in  the  ap- 
propriation of  that  property. 

The  time  having  expired,  the  gentleman  had 
leave  to  proceed. 

Mr.  BEER.  These  few  gentlemen,  as  I said,  are 
authorized  to  become  common  carriers  for  the 
public,  and  the  public  has  a very  remote  interest 
in  their  railroad ; but  it  is  going  to  benefit  A , and 
make  a town  upon  his  land.  Now,  if  it  is  right 
in  principle  for  a city  to  assess  back  the  benefit 
resulting  from  the  appropriation  of  his  ground 
for  the  purpose  of  a street,  it  is  just  as  logical 
and  equitable  to  assess  back  upon  the  owner  of 
the  land  the  cost  of  appropriating  it  for  the 


[Monday, 


purpose  of  a railroad.  There  is  no  difference. 
The  keenest  whitling  of  logic  cannot  make  any 
difference.  He  is  benefited ; the  property  oc- 
cupied by  the  railroad  is  taken  for  the  public 
use ; therefore,  he  ought  to  pay,  instead  of  be- 
ing paid.  And  if  you  made  the  appropriation 
in  the  first  place  without  deducting  the  bene- 
fits, the  next  year  you  may  go  to  the  county 
auditor  and  have  them  assessed  upon  the  dupli- 
cate. It  is  in  principle  the  same.  The  whole 
matter  of  assessment  is  wrong  in  theory.  You 
only  have  a right  to  lay  out  a street  across  a 
man’s  land,  and  appropriate  it  to  the  use  of  the 
public  when  the  public  necessity  requires  it. 
That  is  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court.  And 
when  the  public  necessity  requires  it,  and  you 
do  it,  the  public  should  pay.  What  do  you  get? 
You  get  an  easement,  a right  of  way  over  the 
land  now  and  forever.  It  is  to  be  used  by  the 
city  forever.  The  title  passes  into  the  city,  or 
into  the  town ; into  the  municipal  corporation, 
whatever  it  maybe. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  ask  him  a question  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Whom  does  the  property  go 
to  when  the  street  is  vacated  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  Whenever  the  public  abandons 
it,  it  reverts,  I suppose,  to  the  original  owner. 
That  is  a question  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman. I have  just  filed  a motion  in  the  su- 
preme court  to  find  out  whom  it  does  revert  to 
in  certain  cases.  That  is  one  of  the  things  I 
would  like  to  know. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  reverts  to  somebody,  does 
it  not  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  It  reverts  to  somebody;  but  who 
it  is,  “is  one  of  those  things  that  no  fellow  can 
find  out”  without  going  to  the  supreme  court. 

Mr.  BEER.  Now,  then,  as  I said,  the  title 
goes  into  the  city  forever,  unless  it  abandons  it. 
It  is  not  a street  laid  out  for  to-day.  It  is 
not  a street  laid  out  for  the  benefit  of  those 
few  individuals  that  live  in  the  neighborhood 
for  to-day ; but  it  passes  into  the  hands  of  the 
city  forever.  It  is  to  be  used  now,  it  is  to  be 
used  fifty  years  from  now.  It  is  to  be  traveled 
over  and  over  again  by  every  inhabitant  of  the 
city,  and  by  the  people  of  every  other  place, 
going  into  the  city,  forever.  And  the  city  is 
benefited,  and  the  manufacturers  in  the  central 
part  of  the  city  are  benefited  by  the  construc- 
tion of  these  streets  and  ways  from  the  outside 
limits  into  the  city.  It  is  a passageway  by 
which  the  people  from  the  country  and  from 
other  places  pass  into  the  city  to  trade  and  buy 
the  articles  manufactured  there.  They  all 
have,  directly  or  indirectly,  an  interest  in  the 
making  of  these  streets.  And  the  only  equita- 
ble way  of  payment  is  to  pay  out  of  the  general 
fund.  But  I am  not  making  any  particular 
fight  on  that — all  I say  is,  that  if  in  violation  of 
this  “ first  principle ” for  the  payment  of  all 
matters  inuring  to  the  benefit  of  the  public,  a 
town  wishes  to  make  assessments,  it  shall  not 
assess  the  cost  of  appropriating  a man’s  proper- 
ty upon  himself. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I want  to  ask  a ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  If  this  party  whose 
property  has  been  taken  from  him  upon  his 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1387 

February  16,  1874.]  Townsend,  Beer,  Pratt,  Hoadly,  Wilson. 


own  petition  and  to  his  own  benefit,  receives 
pay  for  it  in  money  to  the  full  value  without 
reference  to  the  resulting  benefits,  that  matter 
is  not  taken  into  account  at  all.  He  is^paid  its 
full  value,  and  if  he  has  any  property  near  it  or 
abutting  thereon,  there  is  no  reference  made  to 
that  benefit  at  all.  Now,  should  not  he  in  jus- 
tice and  equity  stand  in  the  same  relation  to 
that  matter  that  everybody  else  does  near  it,  in 
equalizing  this  amount  upon  the  property 
abutting  thereon  and  adjacent  thereto  that  are 
benefited  ? If  he  is  benefited  ought  he  not  to  be 
forced  to  pay  some  of  the  benefit?  If  he  is  not 
benefited  he  does  not  pay  any  of  it.  That  has 
been  found  to  work  very  advantageously. 

Mr.  BEER.  I have  no  objection  to  that  rule. 
Allow  him  to  pay  his  share  of  it  with  everybody 
else  in  his  taxes.  He  pays  his  taxes  in  common 
with  others.  Let  him  pay  no  assessments ; but 
his  taxes  along  with  everybody  else.  He  is 
interested  in  the  body  politic  the  same  as  others. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  will  permit  me,  I desire 
to  say  a few  words,  by  way  of  explanation,  on 
what  has  been  so  often  referred  to  here  as  the 
“Wick  case,”  and  has  been  made  the  basis  of 
all  the  arguments  against  assessing  property 
benefited  by  opening  streets. 

It  so  happened  that  Mr.  Wick,  a gentleman 
of  large  wealth,  wanted  a street  opened  through 
from  one  street  to  another — a distance  of  about 
four  hundred  feet.  He  and  others  petitioned  to 
have  it  opened,  and  as  no  remonstrance  was 
made,  and  on  examination  it  seemed  proper  to 
have  it,  the  necessary  steps  were  taken  by  the 
city  authorities  to  have  it  opened.  The  land 
necessary  was  appropriated  ; a competent  jury 
awarded  the  full  value  of  the  land  taken — with- 
out any  reference  to  the  benefits  to  the  land  re- 
maining— and  Mr.  Wick  was  paid  for  it,  and 
was  entirely  satisfied  with  the  price.  This  was 
the  end  of  that  part  of  the  transaction.  In  pur- 
suance of  the  law,  another  board  of  equalization 
was  appointed,  composed  of  intelligent,  disin- 
terested freeholders,  to  equalize  the  benefits 
and  assess  the  amount  paid,  on  property  bene- 
fited by  opening  the  street.  They  heard  testi- 
mony, and  examined  the  lots  supposed  to  be 
benefited,  and  graduated  it — the  eight  hundred 
feet  abutting  on  the  new  street  paying  the 
larger  share,  of  course;  but  all  property  on 
streets  running  at  right  angles,  and  all  property 
adjacent  thereto,  was  assessed  its  due  propor- 
tion. The  board  did  not  know,  or  care,  who 
owned  the  property,  but  the  assessments  were 
placed  on  lots  by  their  numbers.  No  objection 
being  made,  and  the  board  of  city  improve- 
ments approving  it,  the  award  was  confirmed 
by  the  council.  Now,  it  so  happened  that  Mr. 
Wick,  owning  a large  amount  of  property,  and 
all  the  lots  on  the  street  thus  opened,  all  lots 
assessed  were  found  to  stand  in  his  name.  He 
thought  it  pretty  hard,  and  refused  to  pay.  He 
was  sued,  judgment  obtained,  and  appealed, 
finally,  to  the  supreme  court,  who  decided  that 
everything  had  been  done  according  to  law, 
and  confirmed  the  decisions  of  the  courts  be- 
low; and  Mr.  Wick  had  to  pay  it.  Mr.  Wick 
had  no  injustice  done  him,  and  his  only  misfor- 
tune was  that  he  owned  all  the  property  benefited 
by  opening  this  short  street.  Property  hereto- 
fore worth  but  little,  was  made  very  valuable  by 


opening  this  street,  and  has  continued  to  in- 
crease in  value  ever  since;  and  his  only  regret 

is,  that  some  one  else  could  not  be  made  to  help 
pay  for  benefits  exclusively  to  his  own  property. 

This  is  an  exceptional  case;  and  the  apparent 
hardship  is  in  consequence  of  all  the  property 
benefited,  as  well  as  all  the  land  taken,  happen- 
ing to  be  owned  by  the  same  man — a thing  that 
rarely  occurs,  and  when  explained  and  under- 
stood, is  found  to  be  no  hardship  at  all. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I wish  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  a question  or  two. 
He  says  that  he  would  charge,  if  I understand 
him  correctly,  not  only  the  cost  of  appropria- 
tion of  the  property,  but  of  the  construction  of 
the  street  upon  the  public,  because  the  public 
are  the  parties  to  be  benefited. 

Mr.  BEER.  Part  of  the  improvement. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I understood  that  to  be  a part 
of  the  argument. 

Mr.  BEER.  Well,  if  I said  so,  I will  stick  to 

it.  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Was  that  the  argument? 

Mr.  BEER.  I do  not  remember  saying  that, 
but  I will  say  so  now,  if  it  be  any  accommoda- 
tion. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Where  would  that  public  be 
limited?  He  told  us,  also,  that  the  citizens  of 
the  county  of  Hamilton  were  interested  in  these 
streets  constructed  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati. 
Why  should  the  city  of  Cincinnati  pay,  and  not 
the  county  of  Hamilton? 

Mr.  BEER.  Well,  in  a case  of  that  kind,  it 
is  the  city  of  Cincinnati  that  makes  the  improve- 
ment. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  is  not  the  only  one  in- 
terested. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  is  the  city  of  Cincinnati  that 
owns  the  property. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir.  I am  here  to  be 
catechised  and  to  give  information. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Do  not  the  Grangers,  from 
outside  of  Cincinnati,  use  these  streets  to  sell 
wood  and  butter  on  ? [Laughter]. 

Mr.  BEER.  Well,  sir;  I think  they  do,  and 
in  the  country  we  practice  on  that  theory. 

Now,  then,  in  answer  to  the  question  of  the 
gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  : on  the 
north  side  of  my  county,  where  the  people  who 
live  on  the  south  side  never  see,  when  there  is 
a bridge  to  be  built  across  Honey  creek,  it  is 
built  with  funds  out  of  the  county  treasury; 
and,  although  the  person  through  whose  farm 
the  stream  passes,  and  by  which  the  north  side 
and  south  side  of  his  farm  are  cut  off,  is  bene- 
fited more  than  any  person  else  in  the  world. 
But  it  is  paid  out  of  the  county  treasury,  be- 
cause the  county  owns  the  road ; because  it  is  a 
public  institution. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I only  want  to  arrive  at  the 
location  of  the  public  that  are  interested  and 
should  pay. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  is  the  public  that  makes  the 
appropiation  wherever  you  find  it. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I understand  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  that  the  principle  of 
eminent  domain  shall  be  applied  to  the  con- 
demnation of  streets,  and  full  compensation  in 
money  paid  for  them.  Now,  I have  a little  job 
on  hand  this  morning,  to  which  I propose  to 


1388 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Wilson,  Sears,  Powell. 


[115th 

[Monday, 


apply  the  gentleman’s  doctrine.  The  gentleman 
lives  in  a beautiful  little  town  by  the  name  of 
Bucyrus.  I am  going  to  suppose  that  there  is 
not  a house  or  dwelling  of  any  kind  in  that 
town.  I will  call  it  Bucyrus,  where  the  town 
is  to  be  located.  The  land  is  owned  by  one  or 
two  persons.  Now,  you  proceed  to  lay  out  the 
town.  Of  course  a town  must  have  streets, 
and  corners,  and  you  condemn  the  land.  Now, 
who  pays  for  it  ? You  cannot  start  a town  on 
the  gentleman’s  theory,  at  all.  [Laughter.]  It 
runs  into  the  ground  the  first  leap.  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I would  like  to  ask  my  neigh- 
bor here  a question.  Whether  he  can  start  a 
town  on  anybody’s  land  against  his  will? 
Whether  he  must  not  have  somebody  else’s  land 
to  begin  with,  and  have  it  voluntarily  given  for 
chat  purpose. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Well,  as  a matter  of  course 
you  must  get  the  owner’s  will  in  order  to  start 
a town. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I call  your  attention  to 
one  thing?  There  is  a statute  of  Ohio  which 
provides  that  when  a county  seat  is  established, 
the  commissioners  shall  stick  a stake  where  the 
town  is  to  be  laid  out.  Now,  how  can  you  get 
along  with  the  gentleman’s  theory  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  You  let  the  imaginary  in- 
habitants of  that  county  levy  and  pay  the  taxes. 
[Laughter.]  The  trouble  with  the  gentleman’s 
theory  is,  that  you  cannot  start,  and  it  never 
applies  except  where  some  industrious  men 
have  started  a town ; then,  these  old  hunks  come 
in  for  their  share.  Now,  every  State,  as  was 
said,  has  towns  that  are  fenced  in,  and  towns 
that  are  not  fenced  in,  and  always  will  have. 
And  it  is  very  easy  to  distinguish  them.  If  the 
gentleman’s  theory  were  adopted  in  this  Con- 
stitution, it  would  be  over  fifty  millions  of  dol- 
lars damage  to  the  State  of  Ohio,  in  point  of 
its  industrial  interests,  in  less  than  five  years 
after  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution.  All 
the  towns  would  have  to  be  fenced  in,  as  well 
remarked  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly].  But  the  only  theory  of  the  gentle- 
man is  this : that,  after  a town  is  started  by 
some  generous  man  who  dedicates  the  streets 
and  by  that  very  dedication  puts  money  in  his 
pocket  in  the  price  of  his  lots  to  be  sold ; and 
any  person  living  outside  of  the  suburbs  of  the 
town  must  prey  upon  the  inhabitants  living 
upon  the  first  dedication,  and  not  himself  dedi- 
cate as  the  first  man  did,  and  he  seeks  it  as  an  op- 
portunity to  make  money.  Suppose  that  in  the 
nice  little  village  of  Bucyrus, or  any  other  village 
or  city,  some  man  living  in  a splendid  house  in 
town  has  a cow-pasture  of  five  or  six  acres, 
right  on  the  borders  of  the  town,  and  his  old 
cow  must  not  be  disturbed  under  any  circum- 
stances. Now,  mechanics,  manufacturers, 
merchants,  lawyers,  preachers,  doctors,  and  all 
good  men,  congregate  in  the  manufacturing 
districts,  villages  or  cities.  They  want  houses 
and  Jots.  Well,  the  rents  are  so  high  in  the 
city  they  think  it  more  profitable  to  build  a 
house  themselves,  and  there  is  no  place  except 
upon  this  cow-pasture  where  they  can  build. 
Now,  the  owner  will  not  sell  a lot  to  a poor 
mechanic,  because  he  wants  the  whole  thing  to 
raise  grass  for  his  old  cow,  and  the  necessities 
of  the  whole  town  must  yield  to  the  glorious 
necessities  of  that  old  animal.  He  has  fenced 


the  town  in,  and  that  old  cow  commands  that 
whole  town — has  taken  it  by  siege.  She  cannot 
give  milk  enough  for  all  these  little  children, 
and  neither  the  mechanic  or  the  manufacturer 
can  buy  a lot,  and  the  owner  will  not  let  a 
street  go  through  it.  He  will  not  dedicate 
unless  he  gets  his  pay,  foot  by  foot,  and  the 
cash  down.  Well,  now,  what  kind  of  a man  is 
that?  I do  not  suppose  that  a man  is  placed  on 
this  earth  simply  to  make  money  and  nothing 
else.  I never  understood  it  to  be  the  highest 
duty  of  man  in  society  simply  to  aggregate 
property,  but  I understand  that  government, 
property,  and  all  these  material  interests  are 
but  an  incident  to  society;  and  that  man,  as  a 
man,  owes  to  society  and  to  the  world  a higher 
duty  than  simply  aggrandizing  upon  his  neigh- 
bor. He  is  not  a good  citizen  who  merely  skims 
along  and  does  not  violate  the  law,  claims  every 
cent  as  his  own,  and  holds  it  with  a niggardly 
fist.  But  he  is  the  good  man  who  yields  to  the 
wishes  of  advancing  society. 

A great  deal  has  been  said  here  with  regard 
to  the  injustice  of  taking  a man’s  land  without 
paying  him  for  it.  Let  me  suppose  the  gentle- 
man’s theory  to  be  adopted ; that  before  a street 
is  taken  the  public  treasury  shall  pay  him  for 
every  foot  of  that  street.  In  our  manufactur- 
ing and  growing  towns  the  measure  would  be  so 
oppressive  upon  the  poor  people  that  it  would 
be  unendurable.  Look  at  any  of  the  busy  hives 
of  industry,  and  you  will  see  that  it  is  the  la- 
boring population  that  makes  a city  move  on 
and  reach  out  for  more  land.  You  adopt  the 
theory  that  the  landed  proprietor  owning  his 
common  in  the  vicinity  of  a manufacturing 
town,  forinstauce,  shall  have  it  laid  out  by  the 
city  and  paid  for  in  money.  Of  course,  the  pub- 
lic treasury  would  shrink  from  the  burden  of 
taking  the  land  and  paying  him  for  it.  But 
after  they  had  taken  it,  the  same  doctrine  would 
apply,  and  I understand  they  desire  it  to  apply 
to  improvements.  When  a purchaser  would  go 
to  a landed  proprietor  and  say,  I desire  to  buy 
one  of  these  lots.  The  proprietor  would  say, 
this  city  is  going  to  lay  out  a street  here,  going 
to  pay  for  all  the  improvements,  and  I will 
charge  you  $1,000  for  that  lot.  And  from  the 
fact  that  the  city  was  going  to  lay  out  streets 
and  pay  for  the  improvements,  he  would  ask 
twenty  or  fifty  per  cent,  more  than  he  would  if 
it  was  not  for  this  appropriation. 

How  is  it  that  our  cities  grow  ? Sometimes 
a city  grows  into  a village,  and  takes  it  in  with- 
out any  appropriation.  It  has  been  the  custom 
and  practice  in  this  State,  and  everywhere  else, 
that,  when  a man  owns  land  adjoining  a city, 
he  must  make  a plat  of  his  addition  to  the  town. 
He  must  record' that.  He  must  lay  out  streets, 
and,  by  that  very  act,  he  dedicates  the  streets 
to  the  public.  But  the  idea  of  the  gentleman  is 
to  cut  off  this  liberal  practice  that  has  been  go- 
ing on  ever  since  the  organization  of  this  State, 
and  induce  the  land  owners  who  own  the  sub- 
urbs of  a city,  to  wait  nntil  the  city  takes  action, 
raises  the  money  for  them,  and  forces  them  to 
make  an  addition  to  the  city.  That  would  be 
the  result.  It  is  very  seldom,  in  forming  an  ad- 
dition to  a city,  that  an  individual  is  ever  asked 
to  pay  for  the  streets.  Men  understand  that, 
before  they  can  bring  their  land  into  the  mar- 
ket, they  must  plot  it  by  a certain  name,  lay  out 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1389 

February  16, 1874.]  Wilson,  Okey,  Voris,  Sears. 


their  streets,  number  their  lots;  and  there  is  a 
statute  against  selling  them  without  being  num- 
bered, and  being  upon  some  street.  And  it  is 
only  where,  within  the  heart  of  a city,  one 
street  may  cross  to  another  street,  that  any  hard- 
ship, under  any  circumstances,  might  possibly 
arise.  And  then  the  law  always  has  been,  and 
probably  always  will  be,  that  it  is  discretionary 
in  a city  council  to  lay  the  assessment  upon  the 
whole  street,  or  any  portion  of  the  city  that 
they  desire.  They  may  lay  it  upon  a ward,  or 
two  wards,  so  as  to  make  it  just  and  equal. 
This  is  all  that  gentlemen  care  in  relation  to 
this  matter.  I think  that  this  system  of  the 
gentleman  would  interfere  with  the  general  sys- 
tem of  forming  additions  to  cities,  at  least  to 
discourage  them,  and  induce  land  owners  to 
hold  back  until  the  city  would  seize  upon  the 
property,  for  the  purpose  of  making  money,  and 
to  the  injury  and  damage  of  every  town,  and 
the  damage  of  the  laboring  classes  that  must 
have  residences  within  those  corporate  limits. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Mon- 
roe [Mr.  Okey],  to  strike  from  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer], 
these  words : “ or  the  cost  of  making  the  ap- 
propriation.” 

Mr.  OKEY.  I discover  that  I was  mistaken 
as  to  the  last  word  of  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  I un- 
derstood it  to  read  differently.  I ask  leave  to 
withdraw  my  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  has  leave.  The  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Monroe  [Mr.  Okey]  is  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I do  not  desire  to  make  an  ar- 
gument upon  the  proposed  amendment,  but 
simply  wish  to  criticise  the  effect  of  the  prop- 
osition contained  in  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  I 
believe  that  gentlemen  who  favor  the  adoption 
of  this  amendment,  and  those  who  are  opposed 
to  it,  all  agree,  that,  if  private  property  is  made 
subservient  to  the  public  use,  the  public  must 
pay  for  the  property  involved  in  that  improve- 
ment. I understand  from  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  and  every  other  gentle- 
man who  has  been  on  the  floor,  that  there  is  no 
question  as  to  the  obligation  of  the  public  to 
make  such  payment  if  the  appropriation  be 
made.  Now,  who  are  the  public?  Why,  is 
not  a man,  whose  property  is  so  appropriated, 
just  as  much  a member  of  the  body  politic,  as 
the  man  who  is  benefited  by  it,  but  whose  prop- 
erty is  not  taken?  I take  it  that  every  man, 
whether  he  owns  property  or  does  not,  who  is 
a citizen,  or  a fixed  member  of  the  social 
body,  is  one  of  the  public,  and  the  obligation, 
if  he  has  anything  wherewith  to  respond, 
exists  upon  him  equally  with  that  of  any 
other  citizen,  whether  he  has  property  that 
may  be  made  subject  to  the  public  use  or 
not.  This  provision  makes  a distinction, 
and  foists  into  your  Constitution  class  legisla- 
tion, that  exempts  a man  from  any  liability  to 
make  any  contribution  for  property  thus  appro- 
priated, if,  by  chance,  the  improvements  be 
such  that  he  may  call  upon  the  public  to  com- 
pensate him  for  his  property  taken  in  that  be- 
half. I do  not  think  this  is  fair.  It  would  be 


unjust  to  every  other  member  of  the  public.  It 
would  not  be  just  to  the  party  who  is  entitled  to 
this  compensation.  Now,  this  is  just  exactly 
what  this  amendment  means,  and  nothing  else. 
I do  not  care  what  gentlemen  say  they  are  in 
favor  of.  We  must  construe  this  amendment  as 
the  courts  will  construe  it,  if  it  be  made  a part 
of  the  Constitution.  What  does  it  provide?  It 
is  this:  that  in  case  private  property  shall  be 
taken  by  municipal  corporations  for  the  public 
use,  no  assessment  shall  be  made  upon  the 
owner  for  any  part  of  the  cost  of  making  the 
appropriation.  Take  the  case — and  I do  not 
know  of  any  that  illustrates  it  better  than  that 
given  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Townsend] — in  which  an  assessment  of  $290,000 
was  made  upon  one  street  in  Cleveland,  where 
four-fifths  of  the  benefit  accrued  to  three  or 
four  different  parties.  These  three  or  four 
gentlemen  got  three-fourths  of  the  benefit  of  the 
appropriation  which  they  were  seeking  to  have 
made,  and  the  expenses  thereof  levied  pro  rata 
upon  the  property  benefited ; but,  under  the 
provision  of  this  amendment,  they  would  not 
have  to  pay  a dollar  of  the  assessment  or  any 
tax  other  than  the  city  tax ; if  it  should  be  made 
a general  assessment  on  the  whole  city  duplicate, 
notwithstanding  these  parties  receive  full  com- 
pensation for  all  their  property  taken,  are  ex- 
empted wholly  and  totally  from  any  part  of  this 
assessment.  It  separates  these  men,  who  have 
got  full  compensation  for  their  property,  from 
the  mass  of  tax  payers  in  the  city,  or  the 
mass  of  those  persons  who  are  assessed  upon 
the  streets,  and  relieves  them  from  all  liability 
or  obligation,  as  members  of  the  public,  to  pay 
for  what  they  have  been  asking.  This  is  the 
sort  of  legislation  certain  gentlemen  are  seek- 
ing to*  foist  into  this  Constitution.  The  point 
I intend  to  make  is  this : that  by  this  provision 
you  relieve  these  parties  from  the  general  bur- 
den of  the  body  politic ; you  relieve  them  from 
the  general  burden  put  upon  this  special  sort  of 
improvements,  simply  because  they  got  com- 
pensation for  their  property  thus  appropriated. 
It  proposes  to  tax  over  to  property  belonging  to 
parties  who  may  get  no  benefit  out  of  it  at  all, 
or  only  such  benefits  as  all  may  get.  It  is  an 
incident  of  these  improvements,  that  a man  who 
receives  compensation  for  his  property  gener- 
ally gets  just  as  much  public  benefit  as  any 
other  individual;  but  your  provision  here  ex- 
empts him  from  any  part  of  the  burdens  by 
which  he  is  as  much  benefited  as  any  other 
man.  Now,  this  is  a necessary  conclusion  from 
the  language  used  in  this  amendment,  and  gen- 
tlemen cannot  escape  it.  You  thus  seek  to  re- 
lieve certain  persons,  because  special  injury 
occurs  to  them,  and  for  which  they  get  compen- 
sation. Your  amendment  seeks  to  exclude 
them  from  the  general  liabilities  of  the  commu- 
nity, for  which  they  get  a like  benefit  with 
every  other  individual  in  the  community — a 
sort  of  class  legislation  the  people  never  will 
tolerate  in  this  State.  I thinly  no  gentleman, 
not  even  those  advocating  this  amendment, 
when  they  come  to  consider  it  properly,  will 
be  willing  that  it  should  go  into  our  Constitu- 
tion. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I do  not  propose,  sir,  to  make 
a formal  argument  upon  this  question,  but 
merely  to  state  a few  thoughts  that  have  oc- 


1390 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Sears,  Hoadly. 


[115th 


[Monday, 


curred  to  me  during  the  discussion.  In  ray 
opinion,  the  difficulty  arises  from  our  having 
already  gone  too  far  in  the  wrong  direction.  I 
think,  sir,  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  assess- 
ments is  wrong  in  principle;  and  that  it  grows 
out  of  the  Government  abandoning  its  proper 
functions,  and  interfering  with  things  that  are 
unnecessary  and  improper.  I think  that  is  the 
origin  of  the  whole  matter.  If  our  Democratic 
Government  had  been  confined  within  its 
proper  sphere,  we  would  not  have  undertaken 
to  afford  protection  to  individuals  during  their 
whole  course  of  life,  by  interfering  with  the 
management  of  their  private  affairs,  and  doing 
every  thing  else  that  it  is  not  incumbent  upon 
the  government  to  do.  Had  it  not  undertaken 
to  do  entirely  too  much,  we  never  would  have 
heard  of  this  doctrine.  In  the  first  place,  it  is 
attempted  to  be  sustained  upon  the  theory  that 
the  public  does  not  mean  any  particular  muni- 
cipality, any  particular  division,  or  defined 
portion  of  the  community,  but  that  it  means 
anybody,  any  locality,  any  neighborhood  ; that, 
however  local  an  improvement  may  be  in  its 
character,  however  few  the  individuals  may  be 
that  are  interested  in  it  and  benefited  by  it, 
yet,  it  still  may  be  done  under  the  plea,  that  it 
is  necessary  for  the  public  welfare. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me?  He  does  not  quite  understand  my  position. 
My  view  is  this,  that  the  word  “ public  ” does 
not  necessarily  involve  everybody. 

Mr.  SEARS.  But  my  idea  is,  that  the  word 
“public”  necessarily  involves  an  appreciable 
portion  of  the  community.  If  it  is  not  the 
State,  it  is  a subdivision  of  the  State ; if  it  is  not 
the  county,  it  is  a subdivision  of  the  county ; if 
it  is  not  a municipal  corporation,  it  is  a defined 
subdivision  and  portion  of  that  corporation,  and 
if  it  is  not  territorial  at  all,  it  is  a private  cor- 
poration. It  is  something,  at  all  events,  that 
you  can  put  your  finger  upon. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Now,  if  it  is  a neighborhood, 
— I thought  from  his  statement  it;  may  be, — 
why  should  not  that  neighborhood  pay  bills  for 
improvements  they  are  benefited  by,  instead  of 
putting  them  on  the  other  neighbors,  who  join 
with  them  to  make  the  corporate  entity  called  a 
township  or  city  ? 

Mr.  SEARS.  I will  agree  with  the  gentleman, 
if  he  organizes  that  neighborhood,  and  allows  it 
to  determine  its  own  wants,  and  then  imposes 
upon  the  same  neighborhood  the  burden  of 
making  the  improvement.  That  is  the  doctrine. 
Not  let  one  public — for  instance,  a city  or 
township — which  has  no  interest  in  the  im- 
provements, determine  what  improvements 
shall  be  made  by  some  particular  neighborhood 
or  locality. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  not  his  proposition  lead 
to  the  negativing  of  all  assessments  of  every 
kind?  Is  it  necessary  to  consider  general 
taxation  as  the  only  method  of  providing  funds 
for  local  improvement? 

Mr.  SEARS.  Yes,  sir;  I would  make  the 
general  taxation  upon  that  public  which  is  in- 
terested. The  opponents  of  this  amendment 
concede  that  there  is  a public  which  is  author- 
ized to  determine  the  necessity  of  those  im- 
provements, and  yet  is  not  sufficiently  interested 
in  them  to  pay  for  them,  and,  therefore,  shall 
not  be  compelled  to  pay,  but  may  impose  the 


burden  upon  others.  I say,  no  matter  how 
much  you  limit  it,  invest  that  public  with  the 
power  of  determining  its  own  wants,  its  own 
necessities,  and  then,  in  accordance  with  the 
provision  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  compel  it  to  pay 
in  proportion  to  its  necessities.  That  is  my  doc- 
trine. This  other  doctrine,  that  the  public  may 
be  two  or  three  individuals  who  own  real 
estate  in  a certain  locality,  reminds  me  of  the 
celebrated  memorial  to  Parliament  in  the  name 
of  the  people  of  Great  Britian,  signed  by  the 
three  tailors  of  Tooley  street.  This  is  exactly 
analagous,  and  I believe  nobody  has  claimed, 
however  radical  their  doctrines  may  have  been 
upon  the  subject  of  what  constitutes  the  public, 
that  the  three  tailors  actually  were  the  people 
of  Great  Britain.  The  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing]  states  the  matter  accurately 
when  he  says  it  is  not  a question  between  the 
municipality  and  the  owner  of  the  property, 
but  it  is  between  the  adjacent  owners.  That  is 
just  what  I claim — just  what  I assert.  The 
“public”  here,  that  claims  to  take  it  under 
the  Constitution  as  a public  necessity,  has,  as 
the  gentleman  well  says,  in  most  of  those  cases 
no  interest  whatever  in  it.  It  is  merely  a ques- 
tion between  adjacent  owners.  Well,  now,  that 
being  the  question,  Mr.  President,  what  right 
has  the  public  to  step  in  and  say  that  these 
adjacent  owners  shall  enter  into  a real  estate 
partnership,  and  lay  off  and  improve  their  lands 
so  as  to  be  mutually  convenient  and  profitable? 
I say,  sir,  that  the  public  has  no  more  right  to 
do  that  than  they  have  to  determine  that  these 
same  men  shall  invest  their  personal  property 
in  some  joint  speculation.  Not  a bit  more  right. 
Why,  sir,  where  is  this  all  tending?  I think 
the  arguments  that  we  have  heard  urged  here, 
over  and  over  again,  show  the  mischievous 
tendency  of  this  doctrine.  I find  that  all  those 
gentlemen  representing  the  flourishing  cities  of 
Cincinnati,  Cleveland  and  Youngstown  are 
troubled  about  somebody  whom  they  designate 
by  the  general  name  of  “old  Hunks,”  who  is 
sitting  upon  their  skirts  and  impeding  their 
progress.  They  are  “cabined,  cribbed,  con- 
fined ” by  this  obstinate  old  fellow,  who  insists 
upon  the  right  to  have  his  own,  and  to  use  his 
own  as  he  pleases.  The  whole  of  it  is,  that  these 
improving  municipalities  want  to  retain  what 
they  have  already  got,  by  the  absurd  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  they  want  Constitu- 
tional recognition  of  the  right  to  cut  up  all 
old  Hunks’  property  in  spite  of  him;  to 
divide  up  his  farm,  and  compel  him  to 
sell  it,  and  then  appropriate  the  money 
to  its  improvement.  That  far,  I imagine, 
this  doctrine  of  eminent  domain  will  soon 
go  if  we  allow  it  to  go  unrestrained.  Old 
Hunks  is  troubling  them.  Here  is  a man  who 
has  a home — a farm,  perhaps, — which  he  insists 
on  keeping  for  a cow  pasture  or  for  the  home  of 
his  children.  He  desires  to  live  upon  it,  and  to 
be  buried  upon  it;  and  yet  these  improving  gen- 
tlemen would  like  to  improve  him  and  his  home 
out  of  existence;  to  cut  it  up  into  streets;  make 
a city  of  it  in  spite  of  him.  Now,  I say  that,  as 
against  old  Hunks,  the  city  has  no  such  rights, 
that,no  one  can  be  compelled  to  make  a city  or 
town  of  his  lands  against  his  will,  if  his  indi- 
vidual rights  are  duly  protected.  And  this  is 
exactljr  the  tendency  of  this  doctrine.  That 


Day.]  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  16,  1874.]  Sears,  Hoadly,  Dorsey,  Tuttle,  Pond,  Mueller. 


1391 


you  may,  in  short,  take  a man’s  land  in  spite  of 
him,  and  then  charge  him  with  the  expense.  I 
say,  Mr.  President,  that  government  was  insti- 
tuted for  no  such  purpose,  and  that  it  has  no 
such  duties;  and  the  sooner  we  return  to  the 
true  doctrine  upon  that  subject  the  better. 

The  reading  of  the  amendment  was  called  for. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Beer  moves  to  amend  said  section  by  adding 
thereto  the  following: 

“In  cases  where  private  property  shall  be  taken  by  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations  for  a public  use,  no  assessment  shall 
be  made  upon  the  owner  lor  any  part  ol  the  compensa- 
tion, or  the  cost  of  making  the  appropriation.” 

The  reading  of  the  section  as  amended,  was 
called  for. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  3.  No  assessments  shall  be  levied  by  any  Muni- 
cipal ( orporation  upon  any  property  which  shall  require 
the  payment,  in  any  one  year,  ot  more  than  ten  per 
centum  of  its  value,  as  ascertained  upon  the  tax  dupli- 
cate. Nor  shall  the  aggregate  amount  of  assessment  for 
all  purposes  thereon,  in  any  period  of  ten  years,  exceed 
fifty  per  cent,  on  the  highest  taxable  valuation  thereof, 
during  the  same  period.  And  the  General  Assembly 
shall  provide  lor  the  payment  of  an  equitable  proportion 
of  such  assessment  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  Municipal 
Corporation.  In  cases  where  private  property  shall  be 
taken  by  Municipal  Corporations  for  a public  use,  no 
assessment  shall  be  made  upon  the  owner  for  any  part  of 
the  compensation,  or  the  cost  of  making  the  appropria- 
tion.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded, taken,  and  resulted — yeas  18,  nays  45, 
as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Dorsey,  Hostetter, 
Kerr,  McBride,  Reilly,  Sample,  Sears,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Champaign,  Pres- 
ident— 18. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bishop,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Clark  of  Ross,  Cowen,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Krae- 
mer,  Layton,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller,  Mi- 
ner, Mitchener,  Mueller,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis, 
Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Shultz,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voris, 
Waddle,  Wilson— 45. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to.  • 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  question  on  reconsid- 
eration. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  will  suspend  a moment. 
The  question  which  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly]  called  for,  is  the  motion  to 
reconsider — the  motion  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  on  Saturday. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I inquire  if  that  does  not  lie 
upon  the  table  until  there  has  been  an  order  to 
take  it  up  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  my  calling  for  it  is  a mat- 
ter of  any  consequence,  I will  withdraw  the  call 
so  that  the  delegate  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey] 
may  introduce  his  amendment. 

Mr.  POND.  I understood  the  ruling  to  be 
the  other  day,  that  this  motion  to  reconsider 
would  come  up,  as  a matter  of  course,  as  soon  as 
the  pending  question  was  disposed  of. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  in 
regard  to  Rule  Fifteen,  that  the  language  seems 
to  be  very  clear  and  absolute,  that  the  question 
for  reconsideration  shall  take  precedence  of  all 
other  questions,  except  a motion  to  adjourn. 
The  Chair  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  language 
of  the  Rule  is  so  stringent  as  to  require  that  it 
shall  take  precedence  of  any  other  motion,  with 
the  exception  of  a motion  to  adjourn;  in  other 
words,  that  the  exception  proved  the  Rule;  but 
upon  consulting  the  authority  referred  to  in  the 
last  Rule  of  the  Convention — “Cushing’s  Man- 
ual”— the  Rule  seems  to  be,  that  a motion  to  re- 
consider must  have  precedence  for  the  purpose 
of  being  entered,  and  that  it  lies  upon  the  ta- 
ble pending  the  question,  and  then  it  may  be 
called  up.  The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  proposes  to  call  it  up,  and  it  would 
have  been  in  order,  but  he  now  withdraws  that, 
and  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey] 
proposes  an  amendment  to  the  section.  The 
Secretary  will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Dorsey  moves  to  ampnd  the  section  as  follows : 

“Strike  out  of  the  original  section  the  words  ‘than  ten 
per  centum  of  its  value,  as  ascertained  on  the  tax  dupli- 
cate,’ and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  ‘ten  per  centum  of  its 
va’ue  for  cities  of  the  first  class,  eight  per  centum  for 
cities  of  the  second  class,  and  six  per  centum  for  Muni- 
cipal Corporations  belonging  to  any  other  class,  as 
shall  be  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate.’  ” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“Sec.  3.  No  assessment  shall  be  levied  by  any  Munici- 
pal Corporation  upon  any  property  which  shall  require 
the  payment,  in  any  one  year,  of  more  than  ten  per 
centum  of  its  value,  for  cities  of  the  first  class,  eight  per 
centum  for  cities  of  the  second  class,  and  six  per  centum 
for  Municipal  Corporations  belonging  to  any  other  class, 
as  shall  be  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate,  nor  shall  the 
aggregate  assessments  for  all  purposes  thereon,  in  any 
period  of  ten  years,  exceed  fifty  per  cent,  on  the  highest 
taxable  valuation  thereof  during  the  same  period.  And 
the  General  Assembly  shall  provide  for  the  payment  of 
an  equitable  proportion  of  such  assessments  out  of  the 
treasury  of  the  Municipal  Corporation.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  wish  to  consume  the 
time  of  the  Convention.  It  will  be  observed, 
that  the  amendment  which  I offer  simply 
changes  the  original  assessment  in  cities  of  the 
different  classes ; from  ten  to  eight  in  cities  of 
the  second  class,  and  six  in  cities  of  every  other 
class,  as  they  may  be  formed  by  the  General 
Assembly.  And  I am  induced  to  offer  this 
amendment,  from  the  simple  fact,  that  it  is  very 
evident  some  different  rule  must  be  made  for 
the  larger  and  smaller  towns  and  cities  of  the 
State.  A classification  will  be  made  by  the 
General  Assembly,  and  if  we  are  to  introduce 
anything  of  this  kind  into  the  Constitution, — 
and  I confess  I do  not  feel  very  favorable  to  the 
introduction  of  any  portion  of  this  section — 
then,  1 propose  to  modify  the  assessment  accord- 
ing to  the  class  of  the  city  or  town  upon  which 
the  assessment  shall  be  made.  I believe  it  is 
right;  and  I think  it  will  commend  itself.  I 
think  the  justness  of  this  proposition,  and  its 
fairness  and  propriety,  will  commend  it  to  the 
Convention.  It  does  not  interfere  with  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]*,  nor  does  it  interfere  with  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page]. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I only  want  to  reply  to  the 
gentleman,  that  tile  Constitution  now,  does  not 
establish  any  of  the  classes;  so  that  this  amend- 
ment would  be  of  no  value  whatever.  It  only 


1392 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [115th 

Mueller,  Dorsey,  Hoadly,  Cowen,  Hale,  Wilson,  etc.  [Monday, 


contemplates  that  the  Legislature  may  have  the 
right  to  divide  and  classify  Municipal  Corpor- 
ations. So  that  this  amendment,  as  it  now 
stands,  in  certain  contingencies,  would  he  of  no 
practical  value  whatever;  and  as  this  question 
has  been  decided  several  times  as  to  this  modi- 
fication and  classification,  I now  move  the 
previous  question. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  leave  simply  to  explain 
to  the  gentleman  that  I think  it  has  value  for 
this  reason  : that  the  first  section  of  this  prop- 
osition does  divide  and  classify  the  cities  and 
towns,  the  municipal  corporations  in  the  State 
of  Ohio,  into  six  classes;  and  I think  the  course 
of  the  argument  made  here,  upon  this  subject, 
has  abundantly  shown  that  we  must  have  a 
different  assessment  for  the  different  classes  of 
corporations  of  the  State.  And  that  is  just  pre- 
cisely what  this  amendment  proposes. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Until  the  classification  is 
actually  adopted  it  is  left  to  the  Legislature. 
How  can  we  tell  what  the  effect  of  the  proposi- 
tion will  be  ? Is  not  that  body  wise  enough  to 
make  the  classification,  wise  enough  to  make 
the  distinction? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Exactly;  I presume  so;  and 
inasmuch  as  we  provide  that  there  shall  be 
classification,  1 do  not  desire  that  you  shall  levy 
the  unvarying  sum  of  ten  per  centum  each  year, 
or  be  permitted  to  levy  that  amount  on  all  the 
different  classes  of  cities  of  the  State. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  understand  there  is 
any  prescription  in  the  Constitution.  It  simply 
says  you  shall  not  levy  more  than  ten  per  cent,  of 
the  tax  duplicate  by  way  of  assessment;  but  it 
does  not  provide  but  that  the  General  Assembly 
may  make  that  ten  per  cent,  five  or  three  or  two 
in  any  of  the  classes. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  all  very  true;  but  I 
beg  leave  to  say  in  explanation  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  that  he 
knows  very  well  that  the  rule  by  which  all 
municipal  authorities  over  the  State  of  Ohio  are 
guided,  is  to  go  just  as  high  as  the  limit  will  al- 
low them. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  We  are  talking  about  the 
Legislature,  not  the  Common  Council. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  it  is  not  legal,  the  Legis- 
lature will  confine  it. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Have  the  Legislature  ever 
gone  as  high  as  the  present  Constitution  allows 
them  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  maybe. 

Mr.  COWEN.  One  other  inquiry:  May 

not  cases  occur  in  which  those  villages  of  the 
third  class,  according  to  this  amendment,  might 
very  well  answer  for  the  ultimate  amount  that 
the  city  might  demand  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  might  be;  but  I beg 
leave  to  say  that  there  is  an  other  value  in  this 
amendment:  that  it  will  give  a rule  by  which 
the  General  Assembly  may  be  guided  in  making 
a classification  of  the  different  cities  and  towns 
of  the  State. 

Mr.  HALE.  You  provide  ten  per  cent,  in 
cities  of  the  first  class,  and  eight,  in  cities  of 
the  second.  Do  you  intend  that  the  larger  per 
cent,  should  apply  to  the  larger  Municipal  Cor- 
porations or  the  smaller  ? 


Mr.  DORSEY.  The  larger  applies  to  cities  of 
the  first  class. 

Mr.  HALE.  I think  in  practice  you  will 
find  that  it  ought  to  be  the  other  way. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  sir;  exactly  the  con- 
trary. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  me 
to  ask  what  there  is  in  the  Constitution  to  pre- 
vent the  Legislature  from  making  the  small 
cities  cities  of  the  first  class,  just  as  at  Wash- 
ington, the  clerks  of  the  first  class  are  paid  the 
small  salaries  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  General  Assembly  might, 
of  course,  change  that;  but  I presume  the 
General  Assembly  will  follow  the  same  rule 
which  has  always  been  followed:  beginning 
with  the  larger  cities  and  making  them  cities  of 
the  first  class. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I suppose  the  gentleman  in- 
tends to  feed  men  with  a table  spoon,  and  ba- 
bies with  a teaspoon. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Feed  them  just  as  they  ought 
to  be  fed.  I contend  it  will  give  to  the  General 
Assembly  a rule  by  which  they  can,  with  more 
propriety,  divide  and  classify  the  towns  and 
cities  of  the  State ; and  it  is  for  that  reason  I 
offer  the  amendment. 

Mr.  POND.  The  suggestion  of  my  friend 
from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  appears  pertinent.  I 
want  to  know  whether  the  cost  of  an  improve- 
ment in  the  smaller  towns  is  not  about  the 
same  as  the  cost  of  an  improvement  of  the  same 
extent  in  the  larger  towns  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No. 

Mr.  POND.  It  is  clearly  the  same. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Only  approximating. 

Mr.  POND.  We  are  talking  about  making 
an  improvement.  The  value  of  property  in  the 
smaller  towns  is  much  less  than  in  the  larger 
towns.  On  what  principle  is  it  proper  to  re- 
duce the  rate  of  levy  in  the  smaller  towns  from 
what  it  is  in  the  larger  towns? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  precisely  for  the  reason 
that  the  same  amount  of  improvement  is  not  re- 
quired in  the  smaller  towns  as  in  the  larger, 
and  the  same  amount  of  improvement,  as  a gen- 
eral thing,  is  not  required  in  the  smaller  towns 
as  is  demanded  in  the  city.  For  instance,  a 
street  is  opened  in  the  smaller  town.  We  con- 
tent ourselves  with  simply  opening  the  street. 
We  do  not  go  on  to  grade,  pave,  and  sewer,  as 
you  do  in  the  large  cities.  That  is  the  reason 
why  a smaller  assessment  is  generally  required 
in  a small  town  than  in  the  larger  ones. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I would  like  to  ask  a ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Well. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Suppose  they  do  that  way 
in  the  town  of  Piqua,  is  that  any  reason  that 
we  do  not  want  to  do  otherwise  in  other  towns  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Oh,  no.  If  they  want  to 
put  so  much  on  the  little  town  of  Wapakoneta, 
that  is  half  the  time  under  water,  they  have  a 
right  to  do  it. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Well,  we  want  to  have  the 
privilege,  if  we  wish  to  do  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  do  not  propose  to  adopt 
that  rule. 

Mr.  WEST.  I propose  that  general  interrog- 
atories now  cease.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I insist  upon  the  previous 
question. 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  16, 1874.]  Powell,  Dorsey,  Humphreville,  Bishop,  Ewing,  etc. 


1393 


Mr.  POWELL.  I second  tlie  motion;  and 
call  the  Chair’s  attention  to  the  fact  that  that 
motion  has  been  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  say  to 
the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
that  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Muel- 
ler] yielded  the  floor  to  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]. 

Shall  the  main  question  now  be  put? 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]. 

Upon  this,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Objection  was  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Mi- 
ami [Mr.  Dorsey]  moves  to  strike  out  of  the 
original  section  the  words,  “than  ten  per  cen- 
tum of  its  value  as  ascertained  on  the  tax  du- 
plicate,” and  insert  in  lieu  thereof,  “ten  per 
centum  of  its  value  for  cities  of  the  first-class, 
eight  per  centum  for  cities  of  the  second-class, 
and  six  per  centum  for  Municipal  Corporations 
belonging  to  any  other  class,  as  shall  be  ascer- 
tained by  the  tax  duplicate.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I ask  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  whether  he  intends 
his  previous  question  to  apply  to  anything  more 
than  the  section  under  consideration  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  cannot,  of  course. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I demand  a divi- 
sion of  the  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Objection  is  made  to  the 
demand  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I rise  to  a question  of  order, 
not  because  of  any  opposition,  for  I have  not 
made  up  my  mind,  but  we  once  refused  to  strike 
out  the  word  “ ten.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  word  “ten”  is  not 
stricken  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  proposes  to  strike 
out  other  words  in  connexion  with  the  word 
“ ten.”  The  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey] moves  to  strike  out,  in  line  three,  “ than 
ten  per  cent,  of  its  value,  as  ascertained  by  the 
tax  duplicate,”  and  insert  his  amendment.  A 
division  of  the  question  is  demanded. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  If  I understand  the  gentle- 
man’s motion,  it  is  to  strike  out  and  put  a per 
cent,  upon  some  classes  different  from  others. 
If  you  strike  out  ten  per  cent,  how  will  it  be 
then? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  not  only  strikes  out  the 
word  “ten,”  but  the  words  “than  ten  per  cent,  of 
its  value,  as  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate,” 
and  insert  these  words : “ Ten  per  centum  of  its 
value  for  cities  of  the  first  class,  eight  per 
centum  for  cities  of  the  second  class,  and  six 
per  centum  for  municipal  corporations  belong- 
ing to  any  other  class,  as  shall  be  ascertained 
by  the  tax  duplicate.”  The  question  is  now 
upon  striking  out. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were  tak- 
en, and  resulted — yeas  12,  nays  51,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Dorsey,  Hostet- 
ter,  Kerr,  McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Voorhes, 
White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Champaign — 12. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bishop,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 

v.  n-90 


son,  Clark  of  Ross,  Co  wen,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kraem- 
er, Layton,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller, 
Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Sample,  Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Voris, 
Waddle,  West,  Wilson,  President — 51. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hope  the  vote  will  be  taken 
on  reconsideration. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hancock 
[Mr.  Byal]  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  that  will  not  be  taken 
at  this  time.  I suppose  it  is  not  in  order  to  dis- 
cuss that  question.  I am  told,  however,  that 
it  is  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  take  it 
from  the  table. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  is  a question  upon  which 
we  really  ought  to  know  what  the  mind  of  the 
Convention  is.  We  have  now  only  a little 
more  than  one-half  of  the  Convention  present. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  was  only  adopted  by  one 
vote,  and  by  a mistake  at  that. 

Mr.  EWING.  I hope  the  Convention  will 
reconsider.  I think  the  amendment  was  adopt- 
ed without  sufficient  consideration,  and  it  is  an 
exceedingly  important  one.  It  requires  the 
General  Assembly  to  provide  for  the  payment 
of  an  equitable  proportion  of  such  assessments 
out  of  the  treasury  of  the  municipal  corpora- 
tions. That  is,  it  requires  some  portion  of  the 
cost  of  every  local  improvement  to  be  paid  out 
of  the  general  treasury.  Now,  the  Legislature 
has  ample  authority,  under  the  Constitution  as 
it  stands,  to  require  that  if  it  sees  fit. 

Mr.  BEER.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  state 
the  point  of  order. 

Mr.  BEER.  I understand  the  previous  ques- 
tion has  been  sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  has  been  disposed 
of.  The  only  question  was  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  The 
question  now  is  to  take  from  the  table. 

Mr,  BEER.  When  did  it  get  on  the  table  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  By  adjournment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that  the  question  really  is  to  take  the  motion 
to  reconsider  from  the  table.  It  will,  therefore, 
not  be  debatable. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How  did  it  get  on  the  table  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  By  adjournment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  put  the 
question  to  take  from  the  table. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  for  recon- 
sideration is  now  before  the  Convention. 

Mr.  EWING.  This  amendment  requires  the 
General  Assembly  to  provide  that  some  portion 
of  each  assessment  for  the  local  improvement 
shall  be  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury.  It 
says : “shall  provide  for  the  pa3Tment  of  an 
equitable  proportion.”  That  is,  in  every  case, 
some  proportion,  because  the  public  is  benefited, 
somewhat,  by  every  local  improvement.  Now, 
what  proportion  shall  be  paid  ? Who  shall  de- 
termine? In  the  first  instance,  the  local  au- 
thorities will  determine.  What  will  be  the  re- 


1394 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [115th 

Ewing,  Pratt,  Page.  [Monday, 


suit?  Why,  whenever  a local  improvement  is 
about  to  be  made,  the  adjoining  property  hold- 
ers will  have  a struggle  with  the  representa- 
tives of  the  municipality,  to  put  as  much  as 
possible  of  the  load  on  the  corporation.  The 
result  will  be  that  in  every  case,  or  in  very 
many  cases,  the  owners  of  the  adjacent  prop- 
erty will  demand  that  an  undue  proportion  of 
the  cost  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  general  treas- 
ury, and  give  the  city  council  the  alternative 
of  a lawsuit,  or  compliance  with  the  demand. 
If  the  city  council  do  not  grant  the  demand,  the 
question  will  go  into  the  courts,  and  the  im- 
provement be  stopped  until  the  case  shall  be 
ended  by  a compromise  or  litigation.  This 
provision  is  a breeder  of  lawsuits,  and,  conse* 
quently,  an  injury  to  all  parties;  for  the 
fomenting  of  litigation  is  about  the  wTorst  thing 
that  can  be  done  by  a constitutional  provision. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  not  the  provision  ambigu- 
ous on  the  face  of  it?  It  provides  that  a part 
of  the  assessment  shall  be  paid  from  the  public 
fund,  not  a part  of  the  cost  of  the  improve- 
ment, but  of  the  assessment. 

Mr.  EWING.  Well,  that  is  a matter  of 
phraseology.  The  intention,  doubtless,  is  a 
part  of  the  cost  of  improvement.  But  it  leaves 
the  question  as  to  what  is  an  equitable  propor- 
tion, a judicial  question,  and  the  courts  will  be 
applied  to  to  determine  it.  And  city  councils, 
rather  than  have  a lawsuit,  will  concede  the 
demands  of  the  adjoining  property-holders,  and 
will,  as  a rule,  put  an  undue  proportion  on  the 
general  public.  I think  the  provision  a mis- 
chievous one,  and  hope  a reconsideration  will 
be  ordered. 

Mr.  PAGE.  This  proposition  is  merely  the 
declaration  of  a just  and  reasonable  principle, 
which  ought  to  be  incorporated  in  the  Consti- 
tution for  the  guidance  of  the  Legislature.  Its 
application  is  left  to  their  discretion.  We  can- 
not make  an  application  of  it  ourselves  to  the 
great  variety  of  circumstances  without  framing 
a statute.  This  is  beyond  our  province.  As 
experience  has  shown  that  great  injustice  has 
been  done  in  Ohio  by  the  application  of  the 
principle  of  assessing  private  property  for  pub- 
lic improvements,  that  the  Legislature  has  not 
adopted  and  applied  any  uniform  and  constant 
rule;  that  one  principle  has  been  applied  atone 
town  or  place,  and  another,  in  another  town 
and  place;  that  the  doctrine  of  assessment  is 
one  of  great  importance,  and  affects  a large 
portion  of  the  people  of  the  State,  it  is  necessary 
that  this  Convention  should  establish  a leading 
principle,  for  certainly,  some  great  principle  of 
equity  policy  underlies  the  subject,  and  should 
enjoin  upon  the  General  Assembly  the  impor- 
tant duty  of  carrying  out  that  principle  in  all 
its  legislation. 

Is  not  this  subject  one  of  sufficient  magnitude 
to  demand  that  a fundamental  rule  should  be 
declared  in  the  organic  law  ? Does  it  not  affect 
a sufficient  number  of  persons,  and  a sufficient 
amount  of  property?  Have  not  injury  and 
outrage  enough  been  perpetrated  under  legisla- 
tive acts  in  regard  to  the  assessment  of  private 
property  for  public  benefits? 

But  some  persons  ask  why  not  leave  the  whole 
subject  to  the  Legislature’s  wisdom  ? 1 reply  by 
another  question : why  not  leave  the  whole 
Bill  of  Rights  to  the  Legislature’s  wisdom? 


Is  it  not  competent  for  the  Legislature  to  guar- 
antee to  every  citizen  every  right  that  is  found 
in  that  instrument  ? Why  declare  therein  that 
private  property  shall  be  inviolate?  Why 
guarantee  therein  the  right  to  life  and  liberty  ? 
Cannot  the  Legislature  pass  statutes  securing  to 
every  man  his  life,  liberty,  and  property  ? I 
say  there  is  no  visible,  or  plain  line  of  demar- 
cation between  constitutional  law  and  legis- 
lation. They  merge  into  each  other  like  the 
colors  of  the  rainbow. 

The  only  rule  for  our  discretion  in  forming  a 
Constitution  is  this : Establish  general  and 
fundamental  principles  in  regard  to  important 
rights  and  interests,  and  leave  matters  of  detail 
to  the  statutory  laws. 

The  amendment  now  under  discussion  does 
this  and  nothing  more.  It  declares  a funda- 
mental rule  as  broad  and  general  as  the  declar- 
ation that  private  property  shall  be  inviolate. 
It  enjoins  upon  the  Legislature  the  duty  of 
doing  equity  where  private  property  is  required 
to  be  improved  or  appropriated  for  public  use ; 
and  it  inculcates  the  doctrine  that  equity  con- 
sists in  apportioning  benefits  and  injuries.  It 
condemns  that  other  prevalent  doctrine  that 
intermeddles  with  private  property  in  the  pre- 
tense that  the  public  utility  requires  its  appro- 
priation or  improvement,  and  then  compels  the 
owner  to  pay  a large  assessment,  in  the  pretense 
that  the  improvement  is  his  private  and  peculiar 
benefit,  when  the  fact  may  be  that  his  property 
is  not  benefited  at  all,  but  is  injured  or  de- 
stroyed. This  amendment  authorizes  and  re- 
quires the  Legislature  to  establish  rules  appli- 
cable to  every  variety  of  circumstances.  It 
may  apply  one  rule  to  cities  of  one  class,  and 
another  rule  to  another  class — for  they  are  not 
all  similarly  situated. 

What  may  be  an  equitable  apportionment  of 
benefits  or  damages  in  large  cities  may  not  be 
equitable  in  small  cities  and  villages.  " It  does 
not,  like  the  present  doctrine  of  assessing  prop- 
erty, establish  an  invariable  rule  which  ignores 
circumstances.  It  assumes  the  fact  to  be  that 
the  improvements  required  of  the  owner  are 
sometimes  a benefit  to  him  and  are  sometimes 
an  injury.  It  assumes  that  the  public  is  always 
benefited  by  such  improvements,  for  it  is  only 
in  that  pretense  thej’-are  made.  If  the  pretense 
is  false  it  ought  not  to  be  made  at  all.  It 
assumes  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  public  to 
contribute  its  share  in  proportion  to  its  benefit. 

The  present  rule  of  assessments  is  not  varia- 
ble according  to  circumstances  and  often  does 
injustice.  The  owner  of  property  is  sometimes 
required  to  make  a fill  in  front  of  his  premises, 
so  that  they  are  left  several  feet  below  the 
pavement  or  street,  and  his  dwelling  house  is 
made  inaccessible  and  useless,  unless  he  fills  up 
his  lot,  and  raises  up  his  house,  or  destroys  and 
rebuilds  it. 

Again,  the  owner  is  required  to  cut  down 
the  ground,  thus  leaving  his  dwelling  upon  an 
inaccessible  peak,  like  a Dutch  castle,  in  the 
middle  ages.  In  both  cases,  the  improvement 
is  ordered  on  the  plea  of  public  utility,  and  he 
is  compelled  to  pay  for  it,  under  the  false  pre- 
text that  he  has  received  a benefit. 

He  is  made  to  pay,  like  Dr.  Franklin’s 
Frenchman,  for  having  a hot  iron  run  into  him. 
! Again,  the  owner  is  required  to  lay  out  and 


1395 


Day.]  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


Page,  Hoadly. 


February  16, 1874.] 

improve  another  street,  when  he  has  already  as 
many  as  his  premises  require,  and  the  new 
street  is  a positive  injury.  This  amendment 
seeks  to  frame  a rule  which  will  do  justice  in 
all  these  cases. 

It  was  formerly  the  law  of  the  State,  when 
private  property  was  appropriated  for  the  use 
of  railroads  or  other  public  purposes,  and  the 
owner  claimed  damages,  there  might  be  an  off- 
set of  benefits  to  his  other  property,  and  thus 
he  was  compelled  to  pay  for  the  constructions 
of  public  works,  while  men  equally  benefited 
contributed  nothing. 

The  injustice  of  that  rule  came  to  be  acknow- 
ledged, and  was  condemned  by  the  present 
Constitution.  Was  the  former  rule,  in  this 
class  of  cases,  more  unjust  than  the  present 
law  in  regard  to  local  assessments  ? No  doubt, 
the  former  rule  found  many  defenders  who 
cried  out,  leave  it  to  the  Legislature,  and  who 
cited  cases  where  men  were  paid  for  the  lands 
taken  from  them  without  their  consent,  and 
were  made  rich  by  the  enhanced  value  of  the 
residue. 

For  it  is  in  this  manner  some  persons  argue, 
who  have  seen  individuals  made  rich  by  the  pros- 
perity and  growth  of  cities.  Where  an  improve- 
ment is  made  through  the  lands  of  a suburban 
gentleman, it  usually  augments  the  value  of  them 
in  a very  great  degree ; and  the  mind  revolts  at 
the  idea  of  making  him  rich  at  the  public  ex- 
pense, and  then  paying  him  into  the  bargain. 
But  such  instances  are  not  numerous.  They 
are  confined  to  a dozen  cities,  at  most,  in  the 
State.  But  the  persons  who  are  cognizant  of 
these  cases  are  not  able  to  perceive  the  fact  that 
inferences  drawn  from  this  condition  of  things, 
are  not  applicable  to  one  thousand  villages, 
towns,  and  inferior  cities  in  Ohio. 

They  ignore  the  fact  that  there  are  a good 
many  hundred  thousand  persons  who  do  not 
reside  in  these  few  large  cities.  Thus  we  have 
constantly  seen  some  gentlemen  in  this  Con- 
vention attempting  to  frame  a Constitution  for 
two  or  three  cities.  They  make  the  vain  at- 
tempt to  confine  the  giant  Ohio  in  their  little 
iron  bed;  but  when  they  succeed  in  placing 
his  body  upon  it,  his  hands  and  feet  will  flop 
out  and  project  in  a ridiculous  manner. 

Some  persons  find  difficulty  in  the  application 
of  this  principle  of  the  proposed  amendment 
to  particular  cases.  Now,  I perceive  none  at 
all.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  to 
pass  laws  declaring  and  defining  the  rules  that 
shall  govern  the  courts,  and  courts  must  apply 
the  rule  as  in  other  cases.  May  not  the  Legis- 
lature devolve  upon  the  jury  or  commissioners 
who  act  in  the  premises,  the  duty  of  finding,  in 
the  verdict,  the  amount  which  each  party  ought, 
in  equity,  to  contribute  ? 

In  aliases  where  property  is  condemned,  or 
improvements  ordered,  or  assesssments  made,  a 
jury  or  commissioners  act  upon  the  case.  What 
difficulty  is  there  in  allowing  to  the  parties  a 
trial  by  jury,  as  to  the  question  of  mutual 
benefits  and  as  to  an  equitable  apportionment  of 
them?  The  objection  of  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  amounts  to  a distrust  of 
jury  trials,  and  he  thinks  it  is  better  that  a 
man’s  property  should  be  confiscated  than  that 
there  should  be  litigation. 

This  amendment  is  not  liable  to  the  objection 


of  vagueness  or  indifiniteness,  any  more  than 
many  other  propositions  in  this  Constitution. 
Does  not  the  first  section  of  the  Article  on  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations  say  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly shall  restrict  the  power  of  taxation  so  as  to 
prevent  abuse?  Nobody  has  objected  to  this 
Article  on  the  ground  that  it  is  vague,  indefinite, 
or  incapable  of  practicable  application.  If  any 
provision  of  the  kind  is  objectionable,  the  pres- 
ent Constitution  will  require  extensive  revi- 
sion. 

The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
asks  what  is  meant  by  the  “public?”  The 
word  “public,”  is  very  extensive  in  its  mean- 
ing. It  may  mean  the  general  body  of  man- 
kind, or  the  general  body  of  a particular  com- 
munity. In  this  case — I refer  to  assessments — 
it  means  the  general  body  of  that  community 
that  exercises  the  powers  of  assessing,  or  con- 
demning property  for  public  use.  If  it  means 
less  than  that,  where  will  you  draw  the  line? 
Can  you  draw  a line  at  so  many  rods  or  miles 
from  the  particular  lot  or  property?  You  can- 
not circumscribe  it  by  any  other  limit,  than  the 
Municipal  Corporation  which  exercises  the 
given  power. 

Now,  because  there  may  be  some  streets  that 
are  not  benefited  in  an  equal  degree  with  the 
owner  or  adjoining  owners,  that  is  no  reason 
why  the  public  should  not  pay  an  equitable 
share  of  the  assessment.  To  assert  that  the 
inhabitants  of  the  center  of  a city  or  village 
are  not  benefited  by  laying  out  improvements 
in  the  suburbs,  is  not  true.  From  the  nature  of 
the  case  it  is  impossible  to  define  the  extent  of 
the  benefits,  or  spread  them  equally  over  every 
part  of  the  corporation.  Therefore,  the  nearest 
approximation  to  equality  of  burdens,  is  to  pay 
an  equitable  share  out  of  the  common  funds  of 
the  city,  town,  or  village.  There  are,  in  all 
cases,  general  benefits  and  particular  benefits, 
and  it  is  the  former  kind  which  should  be  paid 
by  the  public. 

This  principle  of  apportioning  such  benefits 
is  now  applied,  by  the  laws  of  the  State,  in 
numerous  instances.  It  is  no  novel  principle  or 
innovation.  What  is  now  the  law  in  some  in- 
stances, I think,  should  be  the  universal  rule. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12: 30  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  at 
the  recess  was  on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hancock  [Mr.  Byal]  to  reconsider  the  vote 
taken  by  the  Convention  on  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page]. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I ask  for  a call  of  the  House. 

Objection  being  made,  the  call  was  sustained, 
twenty-four  members  rising  to  their  feet. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  the  fol- 
lowing members  answered  to  their  names  : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Bishop,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook, 
Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Hale,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter, 


1396 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Layton,  Carbery,  Powell,  Hill,  Young  of  C.,  etc. 


[1 15th 

[Monday, 


Humphreville,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Lay- 
ton,  McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Mitchener,  Mueller,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Sample,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss, 
Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis, 
Yoorhes,  Voris,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Wil- 
son, Young  of  Champaign,  President — 64. 

The  absentees  were — 

Messrs.  Alexander,  Barnet,  Beer,  Bosworth, 
Caldwell,  Campbell,  Clay,  Coats,  Cunningham, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Foran,  Gardner,  Godfrey,  Gur- 
ley, Herron,  Hill,  Horton,  Hunt,  Jackson, 
Miner,  Mullen,  Neal,  O’Connor,  Pease,  Philips, 
Rickly,  Root,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Scofield, 
Scribner,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Waddle, 
Watson,  Weaver,  Wells,  White  of  Brown,  Wood- 
bury, Young  of  Noble— 40. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
will  close  the  doors.  What  order  will  the  Con- 
vention take  with  regard  to  further  proceedings  ? 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I move  that  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I move  that  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms  be  dispatched  after  the  absentees. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Would  it  be  in  order  to  move 
to  suspend  all  further  proceedings  under  the 
call? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I then  make  that  motion. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
Can  we  vote  twice  successively  on  the  same 
motion  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  has  been  a further 
order  since  the  vote  was  taken. 

Mr.  BURNS.  What  was  it? 

The  PRESIDENT.  An  order  for  the  Ser- 
geant-at-Arms to  bring  in  the  absentees. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Is  that  an  order  of  the  Con- 
vention, or  simply  an  order  of  the  presiding 
officer  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  An  order  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

Upon  Mr.  Powell's  motion  to  suspend  all 
further  proceedings,  a division  was  called  for, 
and  being  taken,  resulted — affirmative  22,  nega- 
tive 33. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  absentees  without 
leave  are  four  in  number.  Messrs.  Herron, 
Hill,  Hunt  and  Miner.  Mr.  Hill  is  attending 
a Committee  meeting  in  an  adjoining  room,  and 
is  probably  not  aware  of  the  call  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Herron  presented  himself  at  the  bar  of  j 
the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from ! 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron]  will  come  forward  and  I 
submit  to  such  order  as  the  Convention  will  j 
make.  What  order  will  the  Convention  be  | 
pleased  to  make  with  respect  to  the  absence  of i 
the  member  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I presume  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
presiding  officer  to  call  the  gentleman  before  I 
the  bar  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  HERRON.  My  excuse  is,  that  I came  j 
here  by  way  of  the  court-house;  and  I came  as 
rapidly  as  I could. 

Mr.  IIerron  was  excused. 

Mr.  HILL.  1 believe  I shall  have  to  put  this  I 


upon  the  shoulders  of  the  President.  I was 
detained  by  some  city  gentlemen,  and  could  not 
get  away  from  them. 

Mr.  Hill  was  excused. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  that  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  suspended. 

The  motion  wras  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
I the  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the 
j amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
I Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  was  agreed  to  on  Saturday 
| last. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I ask  to  be  excused  from  vot- 
ing, having  paired  off  with  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt], 

Mr.  Burns  was  excused. 

Upon  the  motion  to  reconsider,  the  yeas  and 
nays  were  ordered,  and  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  38,  nays  27,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Bishop,  Byal,  Carbery,  Cook,  Cowmen, 
Ewing,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hoadly,  Kraemer,  Layton,  Merrill,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Mueller,  Okey,  Phellis,  Pond,  Pow- 
ell, Pratt,  Reilly,  Rowland,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Town- 
send, Tulloss,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voorhes, 
Voris,  Wilson — 38. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCor- 
mick, Page,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Sears, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  West,  White  of  Hocking, 
Young  of  Champaign,  President— 27. 

So  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  recurs  upon 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I ask  that  the  amendment  be 
read. 

The  Secretary  read  : 

“And  tbe  General  Assembly  shall  provide  for  the  pay- 
ment of  an  equitable  proportion  of  such  assessments  out 
of  the  treasury  of  the  Municipal  Corporation.” 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I suppose  that 
this  motion  to  reconsider  arises  from  the  feel- 
ing in  the  Convention  that  the  section,  as  re- 
ported by  the  Committee,  is  right;  that  we 
must  adhere  to  some  fixed  rule;  that  the  plan 
suggested  by  the  Committee,  of  classification, 
and  fixing  an  inflexible  rule,  must  be  abided 
by,  although  it  may  be  demonstrated,  and  might 
be  conceded,  that  to  enforce  it  would  operate 
unjustly.  The  difference  between  a city  and 
town  would  demonstrate  there  ought  to  be  some 
flexible  rule ; because,  if  you  are  going  squarely 
by  precisely  the  same  rule  for  cities  and  towns, 
adhering  to  it  strictly,  and  allowing  it  to  be  in- 
flexible, it  does  operate  unjustly.  And  yet,  if 
there  be  necessity  for  that,  if  there  be  some  pe- 
culiar reason  for  a section  making  the  rule  ap- 
ply without  any  consideration  to  cities,  as  well 
as  towns,  it  ought  to  be  adhered  to.  There  must 
be  some  peculiar  reason  for  that.  The  gentle- 
man from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  suggests  that 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Picka- 
way [Mr.  Page]  is,  probably,  not  practicable, 
and  raises  the  query,  how  will  you  go  to  work 
and  apportion  this  assessment;  because,  so  far 
as  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Pick- 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Young  of  C.,  Hoadly,  Griswold,  Tuttle. 


1397 


Day.] 

February  16, 1874.] 


away  [Mr.  Page]  is  concerned,  it  is  implied  that 
the  public  shall  pay  a portion  of  this  expense. 
It  is  implied  that  the  individual  shall  pay  a 
portion.  It  is  said  to  be  difficult,  therefore,  to 
make  an  apportionment,  and  that  it  is  unjust 
and  improper  to  say  that  other  parties  shall  pay. 

Is  it  possible  to  regulate  this  thing  so  as  to 
make  it  practicable  ? The  gentleman  from  Pick- 
away [Mr.  Page]  said,  we  have  other  things  in 
the  State  to  which  the  rule  of  apportionment  is 
applicable,  and  that  is  true.  You  take,  for  in- 
stance, the  provision  in  the  law  of  Ohio  provid- 
ing for  road  improvements.  There  it  is  pro- 
vided that  in  the  apportionment  of  the  taxes, 
they  may  be  apportioned  as  between  the  one 
holding  a fee  simple,  and  the  one  holding  a life 
estate  in  the  proportion  of  those  estates,  and  the 
viewers  go  to  work  to  make  that  apportion- 
ment, on  the  principle  that  the  one  holding  the 
fee  simple  should  pay  the  larger  proportion  of 
that  tax.  It  would  be  wrong  that  the  one  hold- 
ing the  life  estate  should  pay  it  all ; and  it  is 
very  proper  that  there  should  be  some  rule  ap- 
portioning the  tax  between  the  one  holding  the 
life  estate  and  the  other  holding  the  fee  simple. 
It  would  be  wrong  to  say  that  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page] 
is  wrong  in  principle,  because  it  would  not  seem 
to  be  practicable.  If  you  are  satisfied  that  some 
such  rule  ought  to  be  adopted,  if  you  are  satis- 
fied that  there  are  instances  in  which  it  would 
be  oppressive  to  compel  an  owner  of  property 
who  is  not  benefited  to  pay  the  whole  assess- 
ment, let  us  devise  some  other  way — some  mode 
of  doing  justice. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Suppose  this  amendment  of 
the  delegate  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  is  voted 
down.  What  is  there  in  the  section  to  prevent 
the  Legislature  from  providing  for  such  cases  ? 
What  we  object  to  is  that  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  provides  that  the  Legis- 
ture  shall  put  part  on  the  general  treasury, 
whereas  I propose  to  leave  it  to  the  Legisla- 
ture— the  whole  of  it. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I may  be 
wrong;  but  it  is  precisely  because  I think  that 
the  Legislature,  under  this  section  three,  as  you 
reported  it,  will  not  apportion  this  assess- 
ment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  They  are  pre- 
vented from  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  delegate  will  permit 
me?  Leaving  out  the  amendment  of  the  dele- 
gate from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  section  three 
will  simply  contain  two  restrictions  upon  the 
Legislative  power;  one  of  them  providing  that 
no  more  than  ten  per  cent,  of  the  taxable  value 
shall  be  collected  in  any  one  year,  under  the 
name  of  assessments.  The  other  provides  that 
no  more  than  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  taxable  value 
shall  be  collected  in  any  period  of  ten  years 
under  the  shape  of  assessments.  I believe  I 
have  the  amendment  of  the  delegate  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  correct.  These  are  both  in  the 
negative,  and  both  restrictive — subject  to  this : 
that  the  legislative  power  is  free  to  act. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I am  not  now 
talking  about  the  amount  which,  under  this 
section,  as  it  reads,  may  be  assessed  upon  prop- 
erty in  any  given  year.  I do  not  complain  of 
that.  If  the  gentleman  is  correct,  I must  be 


terribly  mistaken.  If,  while  I concede  that  the 
section  itself  provides,  distinctly,  a rule  that 
the  amount  of  the  assessment  shall  not  exceed, 
in  any  given  year,  ten  per  cent. ; that  the  Leg- 
islature may  go  to  work  and  provide  for  appor- 
tioning the  amount  of  the  assessment,  I am 
mistaken.  If,  for  instance,  a man  is  not  bene- 
fited at  all ; if,  in  other  words,  he  does  not  want 
it;  if  it  be  a case  in  which  the  public  ought  to 
pay  the  whole  assessment;  if,  under  this  sec- 
tion, the  Legislature  may  so  provide,  I misappre- 
hend it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  You  certainly  do. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I think  it  is  a 
mistake.  I ought  to  say  this : the  trouble  about 
it  was  under  the  Constitution  of  1851.  In  the 
sixth  section  of  the  thirteenth  Article,  giving  to 
the  Legislature  the  general  power  as  to  the  or- 
ganization of  cities  and  villages,  and  their  pow- 
ers, provisions  were  made  for  assessments  on 
property  on  the  line  of  improvements,  and  this 
inflexible  rule  was  adhered  to ; and  it  was  held 
that  this  was  right,  and  that  it  was  constitution- 
ally right.  It  is  provided  in  the  Bill  of  Rights 
that  private  property  should  not  be  taken  for 
public  use  without  compensation  in  money,  and 
no  deductions  should  be  made  on  account  of 
benefits;  and  yet,  in  the  face  of  that,  it  was 
held  and  decided  that  this  rule  of  assessments 
is  constitutional.  It  was  decided  here,  in  Cin- 
cinnati, that  assessments,  whether  by  the 
front  foot,  or  upon  the  value  assessed  for  taxa- 
tion, must  be  uniform,  operating  alike  on  all 
lots  and  land  abutting  on  the  improvement; 
and  the  fact  that  only  one  or  more,  out  of 
many,  can  be  benefited  by  the  improvements, 
will  not  render  the  assessment  invalid.  That 
was  the  rule. 

The  difference  between  taxes  and  assessments 
is,  the  former  are  levied  for  general  purposes ; 
the  latter  are  made  for  local  purposes,  for  local 
objects,  and  they  are  recompensed  in  local  ben- 
efits and  improvements;  and  the  man  is,  there- 
fore, paid  for  the  local  assessments  upon  his 
property  by  the  benefits  conferred  upon  him. 
Now,  I regard  all  that  is  done  in  this  third  sec- 
tion as  simply  an  affirmance  of  what  the  Legis- 
lature have  heretofore  done,  under  the  general 
section  and  under  the  law.  Under  the  Consti- 
tution of  1851  that  power  was  abused. 

Mr.  President,  my  impression  about  it  is,  that 
we  had  better  not  attempt,  in  the  adoption  of 
this  sort  of  Article  for  the  municipal  corpora- 
tions, to  legislate.  An  objection  is  made  to  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page],  because  it  attempts  to  legislate. 
The  Article  itself  is  but  legislation.  It  is  said, 
leave  it  to  the  Legislature.  I should  be  better 
satisfied  if  that  were  done  than  thus  to  legislate 
and  fix  it  by  a special  provision  in  the  Constitu- 
tion ; for  then  there  might  be  hope  for  some 
flexible  rule. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  but  that  gen- 
tlemen who  are  present  have  made  up  their 
minds  substantially,  and  there  is  no  use  saying 
anything  about  it.  But  I propose,  in  a few 
words,  to  state  my  objections  to  the  result  sought 
now  to  be  obtained  by  the  motion  to  reconsider; 
in  other  words,  assign  some  reasons  why  this 
amendment  ought  to  remain  as  a part  of  the 
section.  All  the  objections  that  I have  heard 
against  it  amount  to  one  of  these  three:  The 


1398 


[115th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Tuttle,  Burns. 


first  is,  if  you  allow  such  a provision  as  this, 
there  will  be  no  improvements  in  any  city,  and 
the  other  two  are  only  different  forms  of  the 
proposition,  that  it  does  not  subserve  any  pur- 
pose of  justice.  One  of  them  is,  that  the  owner 
of  the  property  is,  in  effect,  the  only  person  to 
be  benefited  by  the  street  being  laid  out,  and, 
therefore  he,  only,  ought  to  pay  the  entire 
amount ; or,  in  other  words,  that  the  corpora- 
tion has  no  benefit,  and,  therefore,  ought  not  to 
pay  any  share  of  the  expense.  Another  is,  that 
other  persons  in  these  corporations  are  to  be 
supposed  to  have  paid  their  shares  by  improv- 
ing other  property,  or  are  about  to  pay  it,  by 
improving  some  other  property  in  the  future. 

With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  objections, 
that  no  more  improvements  will  be  made  unless 
you  are  allowed  to  assess  the  cost  upon  the  own- 
ers of  property  irrespective  of  whether  it  is 
just  or  not,  all  I have  to  say  is,  if  they  cannot 
be  made  and  paid  for  by  those  who  are  benefited 
by  them,  and  who  want  them  to  be  made,  let 
them  not  be  made. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a short  question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  How  are  we  to  determine  who 
wants  the  improvenent,  when  the  city  council, 
or  the  village  council,  pass  an  ordinance  to 
make  an  improvement  against  the  wish  of  the 
owner? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I presume  if  the  city  council 
determine  it  to  be  done  and  the  owner  objects, 
that  the  city,  or  those  in  whose  name  the  city 
council  have  the  right  to  speak,  want  it  to  be 
done,  and  if  they  do  not,  and  the  owner  does 
not,  I would  like  to  know  upon  what  principle 
they  are  allowed  to  compel  it  to  be  done,  against 
the  wishes  of  the  individual?  The  council  do 
it  for  the  reason  that  they  know  that  the  city 
will  be  benefited  by  it;  for  the  reason  that  they 
know  they  will  be  benefited,  and  for  the  rea- 
son that  they  know  that  they  have  the  power  to 
take  from  the  private  individual  part  of  his 
property  and  put  it  to  the  use  of  the  public. 
There  is  nothing  else  about  it.  You  may  talk 
about  it  as  long  as  you  please.  When  the  cor- 
porate authorities  undertake  to  improve  my 
property  at  my  expense,  they  do  it  because  they 
know  that  thereby  they  can  put  money  into 
their  pockets  at  my  expense ; and  every  living 
man,  woman,  and  child,  that  is  old  enough  to  be 
responsible  for  its  acts,  knows  that  to  be  the 
tact.  Every  man  that  pretends  to  deny  it  states 
that  which  sometime  he  will  wish  he  had  not 
said. 

What  I was  saying  was,  that  if  improvements 
cannot  be  made,  except  at  the  expense  of  those 
who  may  reap  no  benefits,  but  to  whom,  per- 
haps, they  are  simply  injurious,  and  without 
those  who  reap  the  benefit  paying  any  part  of  the 
expense,  why  then  let  the  improvements  rest. 
Let  the  improvements  stop,  and  let  them  remain 
so  until  so  much  sense  of  justice  shall  accom- 
pany the  aspiration  for  improvement  that  they 
may  be  done  without  rank  injustice.  But,  Mr. 
President,  I do  not  think  it  will  be  exactly  that 
way.  I think  that  when  the  public  finds  out 
that  it  cannot  make  improvements  without 
those  who  are  to  be  benefited  by  them  sharing, 
in  some  degree,  the  expense  of  the  improve- 
ment, and  in  some  proportion  to  the  benefits  to 


[Monday, 


be  received,  still,  just  as  soon  as  it  seems  to  be 
really  necessary  to  have  the  improvements,  you 
will  have  them.  If  a man  wants  a road  through 
my  land,  because  it  will  do  him  a great  deal  of 
good,  and  cannot  get  it  without  paying  some- 
thing, the  argument  of  his  pocket,  if  not  his 
conscience,  will  induce  him  to  come  forward 
contribute  his  reasonable  share  of  expense. 
That  is  my  opinion,  Mr.  President. 

Further,  it  is  said  after  all  we  have  heard  here 
that  in  general  it  is  for  the  benefit,  and  it  is  put 
as  if  for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the  owner  of 
the  property  that  you  are  making  these  im- 
provements. It  has  also  been  said  to  be  one  of 
those  incidental  things  that  we  cannot  help; 
but  that,  for  the  sake  of  improvements,  for  the 
sake  of  having  the  great  affairs  of  government 
go  mightily  on,  the  individual  has  got  to  suffer 
for  the  benefit  of  all  the  rest.  Now,  that  I de- 
ny ; and  I do  not  propose  to  argue  it  because 
every  body  knows  it  is  not  so.  That  is  to  say, 
he  knows  that  these  improvements,  when  they 
are  made  by  corporations,  are  not  made  for  the 
benefit  of  the  owner  of  the  property.  Every 
man,  woman,  and  child  knows  that  when  the 
corporate  authorities  start  out  to  make  improve- 
ments to  some  property,  they  are  not  doing  it 
for  the  sake  of  the  owner,  but  doing  it  for  what 
they  deem  to  be  the  advantage  of  the  public. 
Not  but  that  the  owner  of  the  property  may 
have  some  benefit;  yet,  that  benefit  is  not  the 
reason  why  they  make  the  improvement,  and 
especially  unless  he  asks  them  to  do  it.  Every 
body  knows  that.  It  is  useless  to  talk  about  it. 
Every  body  knows  it  is  so. 

Why  is  it  that  in  those  villages  where  there 
are  one,  or  two,  or  three  streets,  with  places  for 
doing  business,  merchants’  stores,  shops,  manu- 
factories on  a small  scale,  cabinet  shops,  shoe- 
maker shops,  blacksmith  shops,  and  a thousand 
things  where  industry,  in  the  effort  to  benefit 
those  who  exercise  it  by  its  own  productiveness, 
and  not  by  taking  money  uncompensated  out  of 
other  people’s  pockets — why  is  it  that  a com- 
munity thus  situated,  undertake  to  improve 
land  that  is  away  outside  of  its  principal  streets 
and  business  centers?  Of  course,  when  that  is 
done,  it  will,  as  a general  rule,  to  some  extent, 
improve  the  property  there;  but  so  will  it  also 
improve  the  property  that  is  in  the  heart  of  the 
town.  It  will  improve  the  rental  value  of  the 
merchant’s  store  that  fronts  upon  the  business 
street.  It  will  improve  the  value  of  the  busi- 
ness where  the  merchant,  and  the  blacksmith, 
and  the  cabinet  maker,  and  the  shoemaker,  and 
each  other  man  who  is  engaged  in  some  branch 
of  business  has  located  himself,  waiting  for 
customers  to  come  and  patronize  his  establish- 
ment. It  is  too  plain  for  argument,  and  every- 
body knows  it;  but  if  anybody  does  not  know 
it,  it  is  because  he  shuts  his  eyes  to  the  fact. 

But  it  is  said  that,  generally,  it  does  not  work 
very  badly.  If  any  suffer,  they  do  not  suffer 
very  much.  I think  it  likely  that  may  be  so  in 
cases  where  justice  is  administered  wisely.  I 
do  not  know  but  that  up  in  the  city  of  Cleve- 
land, it  is  so.  I know  some  of  the  gentlemen 
who  have  been  in  the  management  of  affairs 
there.  We  have  the  honor  to  have  some  of 
them  here.  One  in  particular,  who  has  spoken 
upon  this  subject,  and  I know  that  his  sense  of 
justice  is  such,  and  his  ability  and  judgment 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Tuttle,  Carbery. 


1399 


Day.] 

February  16,  1874.] 


are  such,  that  he  is  not  likely  either  to  do  or  to 
advise  injustice  willingly,  nor  to  he  insen- 
sible to  what  justice  demands;  and  I have 
no  doubt  that  under  the  management  of  such 
gentlemen,  very  little  real  unjust  hard«hip 
has  been  experienced.  But  I know,  never- 
theless, that  it  very  often  happens  that  some 
one  suffers  injustice.  I have  a case  in  my 
mind,  of  a man  who,  twenty-five  years  ago, 
built  him  a house,  where  he  could  spend  the 
declining  years  of  his  life;  after  having  spent 
all  of  the  earlier  part  of  it  in  that  honest, 
earnest  industry  which,  while  it  benefits  the 
individual,  does  reciprocal  good  to  the  commu- 
nity. He  built  him  a house  on  an  elevated 
ground,  in  the  neighborhood  of  a city ; and  the 
city  increased  in  business,  and  extended  its 
limits,  and  the  property  that  was  upon  the 
main  street,  from  being  worth  ten  and  twenty 
dollars  a foot,  came  to  be  worth  three  or  four 
hundred.  Then  the  city  wanted  more  streets ; 
and  what  did  they  do,  but  cut  along  right  by 
this  house,  making  a precipice  of  ten  or  eleven 
feet  directly  in  front  of  his  lot;  and  then,  on 
the  other  side  of  it,  another  street,  making 
another  precipice  of  some  ten  feet,  down  to 
some  two  or  three  feet  in  depth,  the  whole 
length  of  it,  and  left  him  there  to  get  up  as  best 
he  might,  or  as  some  of  the  city  authorities  told 
him,  when  they  were  building  it  against  his  re- 
monstrance, to  be  sent  up  in  a balloon,  or  go 
around  to  the  back  side  of  his  lot,  and  effect  an 
entrance  through  the  barn. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell]. 

By  general  consent,  leave  was  granted  to  Mr. 
Tuttle  to  proceed. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  He  brought  suit  to  obtain 
compensation,  and  it  was  tried  before  a jury, 
and  the  jury  awarded  what  they  thought  a fair 
and  honest  compensation ; but  the  city,  in  the 
spirit  of  resistance,  obtained  a second  trial,  and 
it  was  tried  again.  The  jury  gave  him,  substan- 
tially, the  same  compensation  as  before.  The 
city  took  it  to  the  district  court.  In  that  court 
an  error  was  found  upon  a point  which  had 
very  little  affected  the  amount  found,  but  it 
was  reversed  and  sent  back.  It  was  tried  the 
third  time.  Nearly  the  same  amount  was  al- 
lowed. But  again  error  crept  in,  and  again  the 
judgement  was  reversed,  and  now  it  must  be 
tried  once  more.  The  old  gentleman  entered 
upon  the  fourth  trial  at  the  last  term  of  court ; 
but  some  of  his  witnesses  who  had  testified  on 
the  previous  trials  finally  went  away.  They 
could  not  stay;  and  the  plaintiff  had  to  get  his 
case  continued  at  a cost  to  him  of  two  or  three 
hundred  dollars.  The  case,  I think,  is  but  one 
of  very  many  that  illustrate  that  the  men  who 
conduct  a municipality  are  not  more  just  than 
men  in  general — not  more  disinterested,  not  less 
persistent  in  carrying  litigation  to  its  bitter  end, 
when  once  they  have  entered  upon  it,  or  are 
committed  to  it. 

I maintain  it  is  not  necessary  that  any  man 
should  suffer  systematic  injustice  at  the  hands 
of  government.  I say  a law  can  be  so  planned 
that  the  public  shall  not  rob  a citizen.  I say  it 
is  not  true,  when  you  tell  me  that,  for  the  sake 
of  public  improvements,  any  man’s  private 
property  may  be  taken  from  him  without  full 
compensation.  It  is  not  a great  Juggernaut  car 
that  must  roll  on  notwitstanding  whom  it  may 


crush.  The  public  is  not  mammon  which  we 
must  fall  down  and  worship;  nor  have  they  a 
right  to  dictate  how  our  private  affairs  shall  be 
managed. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Does  the  gentleman  think 
it  necessary  that  a constitutional  provision 
should  be  abused  in  order  to  make  the  courts  do 
justly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  No,  sir;  but  I am  saying 
it  is  not  true  that,  for  the  sake  of  public 
improvements,  which  may  be  beneficial  to 
the  public,  it  is  necessary  to  do  systematic 
injustice  to  anybody;  or  that  a corporation 
which  is  just  as  much  interested,  and  is 
just  as  much  a party  upon  one  side,  as  when 
a controversy  arises  between  two  individuals, 
should  have  the  power  to  say  how  much  of  a 
man’s  property  it  will  take  without  any  com- 
pensation. It  is  not  necessary.  That  is  not  the 
definition  of  law  that  I have  been  accustomed 
to  hear.  When  the  divine  Hooker  told  what 
he  thought  to  be  law,  in  language  of  incompar- 
able elegance,  and  what  is  more,  in  languageof 
truth  and  philosophy,  he  said  that,  “of  law, 
nothing  less  can  be  said  than  that  her  seat  is  in 
the  bosom  of  God ; her  voice  the  harmony  of 
the  world ; all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  unite 
to  do  her  homage ; the  very  least  as  feeling  her 
care,  and  the  greatest  as  not  exempted  from  her 
power.”  It  is  not  necessary  to  falsify  the  name 
of  law,  and  blaspheme  against  the  authority  of 
all  law.  Laws  can  be  provided  by  which  the 
same  justice  can  be  done  between  an  interested 
corporation  village,  or  a city,  and  a citizen,  that 
can  be  done  between  two  private  individuals. 
For  I tell  you  that  whatever  you  may  say  about 
it,  the  government  of  these  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions is  no  more  just  in  its  nature,  than  are  the 
individuals  that  compose  it.  Indeed,  a few  men 
united  together  in  the  accomplishment  of  a pro- 
ject about  which  they  are  interested,  will  do 
things  which  they  alone  would  be  ashamed  and 
abashed  at  attempting  to  do. 

But  it  is  said,  can  you  not  get  along  without 
a constitutional  provision — can  you  not  leave 
the  matter  to  the  Legislature  ? What  do  you 
have  the  Constitution  for?  It  is  not  necessary 
to  put  anything  in  the  Constitution  for  those 
that  have  such  an  infinite  trust  in  the  Legisla- 
ture. The  Legislature  of  Great  Britain,  consist- 
ing of  the  King,  Lords  and  Commons,  has  not 
one  solitary  restriction  upon  its  power  in  all 
the  boasted  Constitution  of  England.  Why  not 
make  it  that  way  here?  All  that  is  necessary 
in  the  Constitution  of  Ohio  is  to  declare  what 
your  Legislature  shall  be,  and  then  say  to  the 
Legislature,  “Do  the  rest,  and  you  may  go 
home  to-morrow^.”  There  is  just  as  much  neces- 
sity in  providing  a safeguard  against  abuse  by 
a corporation  in  taking  a man’s  property  from 
him,  as  there  is  any  other  single  matter;  and, 
sir,  how  have  we  seen  to  it?  In  1850,  the  people 
thought  they  had  got  tired  of  having  their  prop- 
erty taken  from  them,  to  be  paid  for  it  in  bene- 
fits. It  had  been  practiced  for  a period  of 
fifty  years,  and  the  occasions  had  not  been  few, 
nor  had  they  wanted  in  plausibility  in  the 
making  of  public  improvements,  building  ca- 
nals, building  railroads,  and  building  common 
highways.  If  they  wanted  a man’s  mill  site,  or 
his  land  in  building  a canal,  they  took  it,  and  paid 
him  in  anticipated  benefits.  In  many  cases,  the 


1400 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Tuttle,  Hoadly,  Dorsey. 


[115th 

[Monday, 


benefits  failed  altogether ; but  if  they  did  not, 
then  the  result,  in  general,  was  that  they  paid 
for  the  benefits  which  they  received  from  the 
public  work,  while  those  whose  property  was 
not  taken  received  equal  benefits,  and  paid 
nothing.  In  1850,  the  people  said  we  have  had 
enough  of  it,  and  they  put  into  the  Constitution 
a provision  which  seemed  to  say  that  this  thing 
should  be  done  no  longer.  In  the  case  of  a pri- 
vate corporation,  although  it  were  but  quasi 
private,  it  seemed  to  have  succeeded  pretty 
well.  But  in  the  case  of  municipal  corpora- 
tions, it  was  only  the  occasion  for  a new  device 
by  which,  in  the  shape  of  assessments,  they  get 
over  the  whole  provision,  and  they  have  prac- 
ticed it  for  twenty-five  years ; and  the  reason 
why  I want  a constitutional  provision  is,  be- 
cause it  is  demonstrated  that  if  you  do  not  have 
one,  the  abuse  will  continue  for  fifty  years 
longer — seventy-five  years  longer— just  as  they 
have  for  seventy-five  years  past.  That  is  the 
reason  why  I desire  it  in  the  Constitution. 

It  is  said  that  the  ditch  laws  will  be  in  the 
same  category.  I think  that  matter  was  well 
answered  by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer],  who  said  there  is  a fundamental 
difference.  I think  the  right  involved  in  the 
exercise  of  power  for  the  construction  of  ditches 
is  founded  upon  an  entirely  different  ground. 
The  right  to  take  a man’s  land,  and  the  charge 
consequent  on  a swamp  which  is  drained,  which 
is  in  the  nature  of  a nuisance,  while  they  ought 
not  to  charge  more  than  the  value  of  the  land 
for  the  improvements,  the  question  whether 
they  may  charge  it  or  not,  stands  upon  an  en- 
tirely different  footing. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me?  Is  it  not  sometimes  true,  that  in  ditching 
these  swamp  lands,  you  have  to  run  the  ditch 
through  a dry  piece  of  land,  in  order  to  carry 
off  the  water  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Suppose  it  is.  But  do  you 
charge  the  man  who  owns  the  dry  land  for 
taking  it  from  him?  You  can  take  a man’s 
land,  and  pay  him  for  it.  When  you  go  through 
a man’s  dry  land,  you  do  not  make  him  pay  for 
going  there,  unless  he  has  some  land  to  drain. 
Now,  I want  to  ask  the  gentleman  a question, 
when  he  gets  time  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I shall  answer  it  now. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  want  him  to  answer 
it  now.  I want  to  suggest  it  for  his  consider- 
ation. I want  to  know  if  that  matter  of  mak- 
ing county  roads  and  State  roads  through  the 
State  of  Ohio,  does  not  stand  upon  the  same 
principle?  I want  to  know  if  there  is  any 
principle  of  civil  polity  by  which  you  can  dis- 
tinguish between  a street  made  through  the 
suburbs  of  a city,  and  a road  through  any  part 
of  the  county.  In  the  Article  that  has  been 
reported,  it  is  proposed  to  make  counties  into 
corporations,  and,  of  course,  they  are  Munici- 
pal Corporations.  I do  not  say  that  such  cor- 
porations would  be  brought  within  this  Article, 
but  the  principle  would  certainly  come  within 
this  pro vision,  which  would  give  a county  the 
power  to  lay  out  a road  through  any  man’s 
land,  without  ever  stopping  to  inquire  whether 
it  did  him  benefit  or  harm,  or  whether  he  would 
suffer  damage  by  it.  The  principle  is  the  same. 
Take  his  land  and  pay  him  nothing  for  it,  and, 
in  addition  to  that,  make  him  build  the  road 


and  pay  for  it.  As  I look  at  the  Article  as  it  is 
reported,  I see  there  is  no  limitation.  The 
Article  provides  that  a corporation  shall  have 
just  such  power  as  the  Legislature  may  give  to 
it,  and  I would  like  to  know  why,  under  the 
constitutional  provision,  the  Legislature  could 
not  give  them  power,  and  why,  if  the  power 
should  be  given,  it  would  not  be  founded  upon 
exactly  the  same  ground  that  it  is  now  sought 
to  give  the  right  to  take  a man’s  property  in  the 
suburbs  of  a city  ? The  suburbs  of  a city  may 
not  be  within  the  limits  of  the  corporation  at 
all.  The  city  say  we  want  to  control  them. 
We  want  roads  there,  and  we  want  to  take 
them  at  your  expense.  We  shall  take  you  into 
our  city,  and  when  we  get  you  in  we  can  do  all 
these  things.  I would  like  to  know  upon  what 
principle  it  can  be  done,  which  may  not  extend 
to  the  roads  throughout  the  country  as  well  as 
those  in  the  suburbs  of  the  city?  I thank  the 
Convention  for  the  courtesy  they  have  shown 
me,  and  I would  desire  not  to  abuse  it.  I hope 
I have  not  already. 

The  PEESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]. 

Upon  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  31, 
nays  38,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCor- 
mick, Miller,  Mitchener,  Page,  Reilly,  Russell 
of  Meigs,  Sample,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Townsley,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis, 
Yoorhes,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of 
Champaign,  President — 31. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Bishop,  Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Ewing,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Hale, Herron,  Hoadly,  Johnson,  Kraemer, 
Layton,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller,  Okey,  Phellis, 
Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Shultz,  Town- 
send, Tripp,  Tulloss,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Yoris, 
Waddle,  Wilson— 38. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  disposes  of  section 
three  under  the  previous  question.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  four. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  4.  The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion shall  never  exceed,  in  the  aggregate,  five  per  centum 
of  the  value  of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as 
ascertained  from  time  to  time  by  the  tax  duplicate  thereof, 
without  the  consent  first  obtained  of  at  least  two-thirds 
of  the  tax-payers  of  such  corporation,  and  in  no  case 
shall  such  indebtedness  exceed  ten  per  centum  of  said 
taxable  value.  In  ascertaining  such  indebtedness,  at  any 
time,  there  shall  be  included  an  amount  which  at  the  rate 
of  six  per  centum  per  annum  will  produce  a sum  equal 
to  the  aggregate  amount  payable  by  such  corporation  for 
the  rest  of  the  property  least  to  it. 

“This  section  shall  not  be  construed  to  prevent  any  Mu- 
nicipal Corporation  from  incurring  any  indebtedness 
authorized  by  law  before  the  adoption  ot  this  Constitu- 
tion, nor  shall  the  restrictions  of  this  section  apply  to 
necessary  expenditures  for  military  purposes  in  time  of 
war.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  of  section  four  all  after  the  word  “thereof,’’ 
in  line  three,  to  the  end  of  the  sentence. 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Dorsey,  Cowen. 


1401 


Day.] 

February  16,  1874. 


The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  down  to  the 
word  “ value”  in  line  six. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  not  been  very  success- 
ful in  the  amendments  which  I have  offered  to 
this  proposition,  and  I may  not  be  any  more 
successful  in  the  one  which  I now  offer  to  the 
fourth  section  of  it.  It  arises,  perhaps,  from 
the  fact  that  I had  some  old-fashioned  ideas 
about  the  rights  of  property,  and  the  rights 
which  parties  have  acquired,  and  which  this 
Convention  has  not  seemed  to  agree  to.  I have 
another  antiquated  idea,  which  is,  that  corpora- 
tions should  not  go  largely  in  debt.  This  is, 
perhaps,  an  antiquated  idea,  but  it  is  one  that  I 
hold,  and  hold  honestly. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman whether  he  entertained  that  idea  when 
he  was  a member  of  the  Convention  that  framed 
the  present  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I held  just  about  the  same 
ideas  then.  I may  have  become  some  wiser 
since,  but  it  is  somewhat  doubtful.  The  first 
part  of  this  section  permits  the  indebtedness  of 
Municipal  Corporations,  to  the  amount  of  five 
per  centum  of  the  value  of  the  property  within 
the  corporation,  as  ascertained,  from  time  to 
time,  by  the  tax  duplicate  thereof,  and  the 
words  which  I propose  to  strike  out  allow  that 
indebtedness  to  be  increased  by  a vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  voters  up  to  ten  per  cent.  I am 
opposed  to  allowing  the  corporation  to  run  in 
debt  to  the  amount  of  ten  per  cent,  of  the  value 
of  its  whole  property ; Ido  not  think  it  is  right. 
I may  be  in  favor  of  allowing  some  special 
debts  to  be  created,  but  I am  not  in  favor  of  al- 
lowing the  general  indebtedness  of  a corpora- 
tion to  run  to  ten  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  its 
whole  property.  I do  not  think  it  is  a good 
plan.  I do  not  think  it  is  safe.  I do  not  think 
it  is  a safe  individual  rule;  and  a rule  which  is 
good  for  individuals  is  equally  good  for  corpo- 
rations. If  we  allow  all  the  corporations  of 
the  State  of  Ohio  to  have  an  indebtedness  equal 
to  five  per  cent,  of  the  taxable  value  of  their 
whole  property,  it  is  amply  sufficient.  If  we 
choose,  hereafter,  to  vote  for  particular  privi- 
leges in  that  regard,  I shall  hold  myself  at  lib- 
erty to  do  so.  I shall  not  vote  to  favor  the  gen- 
eral proposition  that  all  corporations  through- 
out the  State  may  carry  a burden  equal  to  ten 
per  cent,  of  the  value  of  their  property.  I do 
not  think  it  is  right.  I shall  vote,  for  that  rea- 
son, for  striking  out  this  part  of  section  four. 

Mr.  COWEN.  The  question  involved  in  this 
proposition  is  certainly  a very  important  one, 
and  it  was  regarded  as  such  by  the  Committee 
on  Municipal  Corporations.  The  question  was 
considered  by  that  Committee,  according  to  my 
recollection,  for  some  weeks.  Great  pains  were 
taken  to  examine  statistics,  to  consult  with  per- 
sons who  had  peculiar  means  of  knowledge 
upon  the  subject,  before  the  provisions  in  rela- 
tion to  the  extent  of  this  limitation  were  finally 
determined  upon  by  the  Committee.  The  result 
of  these  examinations  was  that  the  Committee 
unanimously  agreed  upon  this  section,  and  it 
was  unanimously  reported. 

The  attack  that  is  made  upon  this  section  is 
somewhat  of  the  same  character  as  that  which 
was  made  upon  the  section  immediately  prece- 
ding it;  but  I think  they  ought  not  to  be 
confounded.  I am  strongly  inclined  to  the 


I opinion  that  this  attack  comes  from  a wrong 
standpoint;  and  the  expression  of  the  author  of 
this  amendment,  it  occurred  to  me,  when  he 
commenced  his  argument,  was  an  illustration  of 
what  my  idea  is  upon  this  subject.  This  Com- 
mittee upon  Municipal  Corporations,  and  the 
advocates  of  these  limitations,  have  been  at- 
tacked here  as  if  they  were  incorporating  into 
this  Article  authority  to  legislative  bodies,  and 
the  members  of  councils  of  municipal  corpora- 
tions, to  go  abroad  and  rob  and  steal,  and  those 
very  words  have  been  bandied  around  in  the 
Convention. 

The  learned  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  was  a member  of  the  Convention  that 
framed  the  present  Constitution.  It  does  not 
seem  ever  to  have  occurred  to  him,  or  to  any- 
body else  there,  to  make  any  limitation  of  this 
character.  Under  the  present  Constitution, 
which  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey] 
assisted  in  framing,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent 
the  Legislature  from  authorizing  municipal 
corporations  to  levy  a tax  to  the  amount  of  a 
hundred  per  cent.,  or  even  more.  We  have  pro- 
posed here  to  make  a great  revolution  upon  this 
subject.  We  have  proposed  to  restrict  this 
power  to  what  we  believed  were  the  safest  pos- 
sible limits,  and  we  are  met  with  the  charge 
that  we  are  attempting  to  rob  the  people.  I 
suppose  that  these  words  were  used  in  the  heat 
of  debate,  and  those  who  used  them  did  not 
mean  just  what  they  seemed  to. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  not  used  the  language 
which  the  gentleman  refers  to,  but  I merely 
want  to  ask  him  a question.  Will  he  not  allow 
that  a man  may  learn  something  in  twenty 
years  ? 

Mr.  COWEN.  Certainly.  The  gentleman’s 
remark  was,  that  this  was  an  old  notion  with 
him.  I have  just  referred  to  the  fact,  to  show 
that  it  is  not  much  more  than  twenty  years  old 
at  any  rate,  because  it  did  not  occur  to  him 
when  he  was  a member  of  the  other  Conven- 
tion. That,  however,  is  a mere  personal  mat- 
ter. I repeat  that  this  is  a very  important 
clause  and  demands  the  careful  attention  of  this 
Convention,  and  that  is  my  apology  for  taking 
the  floor  for  the  first  time  in  the  discussion  upon 
this  Article. 

There  is  a case,  in  the  county  which  I have 
the  honor  to  represent,  that  illustrates  the  ne- 
cessity, or,  at  least,  the  strong  propriety,  of 
fixing  these  figures  no  lower  than  they  are.  In 
the  county  of  Belmont  we  have  what  was  a few 
years  ago,  a small  village.  Circumstances, 
mining  facilities,  the  consequent  attraction  of 
capital,  and  enterprise,  the  building  of  a rail- 
road bridge  across  the  river,  caused  that  obscure 
village  to  spring  rapidly  into  the  proportions  of 
a city,  and  it  now  contains,  within  its  borders,  a 
population  of  about  six  thousand  inhabitants, 
and  it  is  of  no  ephemeral  growth.  It  has  been 
built  up,  though  suddenly,  upon  a substantial 
and,  I believe,  an  enduring  basis.  We  had  diffi- 
culty there  in  getting  water.  It  could  not  be 
got  for  a city  of  that  size  by  the  sinking  of 
wells,  or  by  ordinary  means,  and  it  became  al- 
most a matter  of  absolute  necessity,  for  the 
convenience  of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  pro- 
tection of  the  city  from  dangers  by  fire,  to  fur- 
nish water  works.  It  could  not  be  done  by 
taxation,  and  the  city  borrowed  $100,000  upon 


1402 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Cowkn,  Bishop,  Hoadly. 


[115th 


[Monday, 


its  own  bonds,  and  built  the  water  works,  at 
that  expense.  And  it  so  happened,  that  this 
city  of  rapid  growth,  had  upon  its  tax  duplicate 
only  a small  amount  over  two  millions  of  prop- 
erty, so  that  the  $100,000  took  nearly  all  the  five 
per  cent,  provided  for. 

After  we  had  canvassed  this  whole  matter 
over  in  the  Committee,  and  given  our  experi- 
ence, and  consulted  with  others,  we  fixed  upon 
that,  as  being  an  extreme  case,  and  it  was 
thought  safe  to  bringdown  the  limit  in  the  first 
clause  of  this  section  to  five  per  cent.  They 
need  a school-house.  They  need  other  improve- 
ments, and  they  are  going  on  to  pay  for  what 
they  have  done,  by  taxation ; and  it  was  thought 
unsafe  and  unwise  to  limit  this  matter  abso- 
lutely to  five  per  cent.  What  should  be  done? 
Objection  was  made  to  a mere  majority  in  cities 
imposing  a tax  upon  the  minority,  merely  be- 
cause they  were  a majority,  and  we  finally  set- 
tled upon  what  I think  is  the  proper  protection 
of  the  minority  in  that  regard,  by  clothing  the 
clause,  which  the  gentleman  now  proposes  to 
strike  out,  in  the  language  to  which  I desire  to 
call  the  especial  attention  of  the  Convention, 
“without  the  consent  first  obtained  of,  at  least, 
two-thirds  of  the  tax-payers  of  such  corpora- 
tion, and  in  no  case  shall  such  indebtedness  ex- 
ceed ten  per  centum  of  such  value.” 

The  question  that  was  discussed  in  the  Com- 
mittee was,  whether  we  should  not  require  a 
majority  in  values  of  property  as  ascertained 
by  the  tax  duplicate?  That  was  difficult  to  ar- 
rive at;  it  would  be  somewhat  obnoxious  in  its 
terms,  and  we  concluded — according  to  my  rec- 
ollection, at  least,  that  was  the  conclusion  to 
which  I brought  my  mind  upon  the  subject — if 
we  would  fix  the  number  at  two-thirds  of  the 
actual  tax-payers,  that  would  be  a sufficient 
safeguard  in  this  respect. 

I respectfully  submit  to  the  members  of  the 
Convention  that  this  clause,  with  these  figures, 
not  only  addresses  itself  to  the  good  sense  and 
the  sound  judgment  of  this  Convention,  but  it 
does  anything  else  than  invite  the  attacks  which 
have  been  made  against  this  Committee  upon 
these  subjects. 

The  vote  being  taken  on  Mr.  Dorsey’s  amend- 
ment, it  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  to  amend  section  four, 
by  inserting  in  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
“indebtedness,”  the  words  “necessary  to  com- 
plete any  work,”  and  after  the  word  “law,”  in 
the  same  line,  the  word  “undertaken,”  so  that 
the  section  will  read  as  amended,  “This  section 
shall  not  be  construed  to  prevent  any  Municipal 
Corporation  from  incurring  any  indebtedness 
to  complete  any  work,  authorized  by  any  law, 
and  undertaken  before  the  adoption  of  this  Con- 
stitution ; nor  shall  the  restrictions  of  this 
section  apply  to  necessary  expenditures  for 
military  purposes  in  time  of  war.” 

The  object  I have  in  view  in  offering  this 
amendment  I shall  briefly  state.  It  is  known 
to  you  all  that  Cincinnati  has  undertaken  what 
she  conceives  to  be  a great  and  important  un- 
terprise, — the  Cincinnati  Southern  Railroad. 
It  may  be  necessary  to  make  some  further  con- 
tributions for  the  completion  of  that  work,  and 
the  object  of  this  is  not  to  interfere  with  any 
arrangement  or  laws  that  have  been  passed,  or 
improvements  which  have  been  already  under- 


taken, and  are  under  way.  This  road,  no  doubt, 
before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  will 
all  be  let  out,  and  probably  half  of  it  completed, 
and,  consequently,  we  do  not  wish  any  Article 
in  this  Constitution  to  interfere  with  its  com- 
pletion, in  the  event  that  the  city  of  Cincinnati 
should  be  disposed  to  make  any  further  appro- 
priation for  that  purpose.  I hope  the  Conven- 
tion will  see  the  propriety  of  adopting  the 
amendment  without  opposition. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire,  before  a vote  shall 
be  taken  upon  this  subject,  that  there  be  a dis- 
tinct understanding  of  the  amendment,  and  of 
the  consequences  of  leaving  the  section  without 
the  adoption  of  such  an  amendment.  I think 
an  amendment  of  some  kind  is  necessary.  My 
attention  was  not  called  to  the  subject,  and  I 
do  not  think  the  attention  of  any  member  of 
the  Committee  was  called  to  the  indefiniteness 
and  ambiguity  of  this  language,  until  the  dele- 
gate from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  interrupted 
me  during  the  course  of  my  remarks.  He  then 
called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  these  words 
“ from  incurring  any  indebtedness  authorized 
by  law,”  are  very  indefinite  and  capable  of  a 
very  large  expansion,  and  this  the  Committee 
do  not  intend. 

By  the  municipal  code,  a very  large  power 
has  been  conferred  upon  municipal  corpora- 
tions to  incur  debts;  and  I confess  I am  not 
sufficiently  advis«d,  by  my  own  knowledge  of 
the  subject,  to  be  able  to  say  how  far,  if  the  sec- 
tion should  be  adopted  as  originally  proposed, 
this  provision  to  permit  any  municipal  corpo- 
tion  from  incurring  any  indebtedness  authorized 
by  law,  will  extend.  It  would  seem  as  if  the 
provisions  of  the  municipal  code  allowing  bonds 
to  be  issued  for  parks,  etc.,  at  the  will  of  the 
municipal  councils,  with  the  assistance  of  the 
Legislature,  might  be  indefinitely  continued. 

The  amendment  which  is  suggested,  is  for  the 
purpose  which  has  been  explained  by  my  col- 
league [Mr.  Bishop],  but  it  will  have  the  effect, 
if  adopted,  of  restricting  the  section  very  much 
more  than  was  originally  proposed  by  the  Com- 
mittee. In  other  words,  it  will  have  the  effect 
of  preventing  any  indebtedness  authorized  by 
law  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution, 
unless  that  indebtedness  be  necessary  to  com- 
plete some  work  authorized  by  law  and  under- 
taken before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution. 
The  Convention  will  notice  that  the  former 
part  of  the  section  restricted  debt  to  five  and 
ten  per  cent.,  as  the  case  may  be.  Then  fol- 
lows the  provision  intended  to  prevent  inter- 
ference with  works  which  have  been  autho- 
rized. Thus  it  read,  at  first.  The  amendment 
will  cut  down  this  enlargement  of  the  power  of 
incurring  debt,  and  the  very  case  my  colleague 
alluded  to — the  case  of  the  city  of  Cincinnati — 
and  there  may  be  other  like  cases,  for  aught  I 
know,  in  which  cities  may  be  found  with  in- 
complete waterworks  and  unfinished  school- 
houses,  which  cannot  be  built  without  exceed- 
ing the  limit  prescribed  in  the  former  part  of 
the  section. 

My  colleague  [Mr.  Bishop]  has  stated,  very 
candidly,  that  his  motion  lias  reference  to  a 
particular  public  trust  with  which  he  js 
charged.  Nevertheless,  there  may  be  cases  in 
which  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution  will  find 
other  cities  and  villages  with  unfinished  works 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  Humphreville. 


1403 


Day,] 

February  16,  1874.] 


of  the  kind  alluded  to,  the  completion  of  which 
may  require  an  expenditure  in  excess  of  the 
limit  fixed  in  the  section.  In  order  that  such 
works  may  not  be  left  incomplete,  this  provi- 
sion is  proposed  to  be  inserted,  that  the  provi- 
sion here  made  shall  not  extend  beyond  works 
that  have  been  commenced,  but  shall  be  confined 
to  those  that  have  really  been  begun ; and  for 
that  purpose  this  amendment  has  been  intro- 
duced. 

To  speak  a little  more  definitely  with  regard 
to  the  particular  object,  I do  not  know  that  I 
can  add  anything  to  what  my  colleague  [Mr. 
Bishop]  has  said.  The  city  of  Cincinnati,  by 
the  authority  of  law,  has  undertaken  to  build  a 
railroad  to  Chattanooga,  and  five  of  our  best 
citizens  have  been  charged  with  the  duty,  and 
are  authorized  to  spend  a certain  sum  of  money 
in  the  work,  and,  as  my  colleague  says,  by  the 
time  the  Constitution  can  be  adopted  their  con- 
tracts will  be  made  for  the  building  of  the 
whole  work ; and  he,  being  charged  with  the 
trust,  does  not  favor  a provision  that  will  pre- 
vent the  completion  of  the  work,  if  it  should 
prove  that  the  present  appropriation  is  insuf- 
ficient. It  is  an  anomalous  situation,  but  it  is 
the  situation  in  which  we  find  ourselves.  Our 
delegation  may  possibly  be  divided  in  opinion 
about  the  scheme,  and,  for  one,  had  I been  a 
voter  in  Cincinnati,  when  this  matter  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  popular  vote,  I should  have  voted, 
unhesitatingly,  in  the  negative;  because  I do 
not  believe  that  municipal  railroad  aid  is  wise, 
or  that  the  particular  project  is  wise;  but, 
nevertheless,  I find  myself  now,  having  become 
by  annexation  a citizen  of  Cincinnati,  and 
being  a tax-payer,  in  this  situation.  The  plan 
has  been  entered  upon ; the  city  is  committed  to 
it ; contracts  have  been  made  for  the  building 
of  eighty  miles  of  the  road,  and  the  rest  will  be 
contracted  for,  I am  told,  before  the  Constitu- 
tion can  be  adopted ; and  all  this  in  pursuance 
of  a law,  the  constitutionality  of  which  has  been 
affirmed  by  the  supreme  court.  In  addition,  I 
wish  to  say,  in  explanation  of  my  personal  po- 
sition, that  the  people  of  this  city  have  favored 
it  by  such  an  overwhelming  vote  as  to  leave  no 
doubt  of  their  determination  and  desire  that 
this  project  shall  go  on ; and,  although  I was 
elected  a member  of  this  Convention  without 
opposition,  I have  no  doubt  that,  had  I said  to 
my  constituents  that  I should  use  the  power 
vested  in  me  to  defeat  this  project,  I would  have 
been  defeated,  not  quite  as  unanimously,  but 
very  nearly  so,  as  I was  elected.  So,  as  a faith- 
ful Representative,  I am  bound  to  do  nothing  to 
obstruct  the  will  of  my  constituents,  but  am 
also  bound  to  lay  the  matter  honestly  and  fairly 
before  the  Convention,  so  that  they  may  vote 
with  understanding. 

I shall  vote  for  the  amendment  of  my  col- 
league [Mr.  Bishop]  ; but  it  is  a matter  which 
did  not  come  before  the  Committee  of  which  I 
am  the  Chairman  at  all.  The  provision  that  was 
reported  by  the  Committee,  was  intended  in  the 
same  general  direction,  but  as  I have  said,  it  is 
much  more  latitudinarian  than  the  provision  of 
my  colleague  [Mr.  Bisnop].  But  I desire  to 
submit  to  the  Convention  the  exact  state  of  the 
facts,  so  that  there  may  be  an  intelligent  vote 
upon  the  subject;  for  I do  not  think  it  is  the 
desire  of  the  Convention  to  put  this  city  in  the 


position  she  will  occupy  if  she  is  left,  at  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  with- 
out legal  power,  and  without  the  ability  to  pro- 
cure legal  power  to  utilize,  to  make  perfect,  the 
work  which  will  then  be  in  such  a state  of  for- 
wardness. It  may  prove,  and  I hope  it  will, 
that  the  debt  already  authorized  will  build  the 
road ; but  it  is  possible  that  it  may  not,  and  it 
is  this  which  induces  me  to  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment of  my  colleague  [Mr.  Bishop]. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I am  not  directly 
interested  in  this  particular  question  now  im- 
mediately before  the  Convention ; but  I believe 
the  whole  matter  of  this  Ferguson  Bill,  and  the 
tax  of  the  people  of  Cincinnati  to  build  this 
Southern  Railroad,  is  vicious.  I believe  it  is  un- 
constitutional, and  I do  not  believe  it  ought  to 
be  encouraged  in  any  way  here ; but  that  is  not 
what  I desire  principally  to  say.  1 would  like 
to  know  what  necessity  there  is  anywhere  for 
this  fourth  section  that  is  proposed  ? I doubt 
whether  there  is  a city  or  town  in  the  State 
whose  debt  amounts  to  as  much  as  this  section 
suggests  cities  and  towns  may  incur. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  will  per- 
mit me,  it  was  because  the  facts  were  otherwise 
that  we  introduced  this  section,  and  I can  say 
to  the  gentleman,  if  he  will  be  a little  patient 
with  the  people  of  Cincinnati,  say  for  about 
two  years  longer,  if  the  Convention  be  then  in 
session,  we  shall  show  him  a city  that  will  be 
fully  up  to  the  five  per  cent.,  if  not  the  ten. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Then,  if  there  is 
any  city  or  town  that  is  incurring  a debt  be- 
yond the  limit  here  given,  why  not  leave  it  open 
to  the  Legislature,  and  to  the  people  of  those 
cities  to  say  how  much  debt  they  will  incur? 
Their  power  to  levy  a tax  under  our  present 
Constitution,  or  to  incur  debts,  have  not  been 
limited.  There  has  been  a limit  upon  the  State 
debt,  but  no  limit  upon  municipalities  that  I am 
aware  of,  only  that  the  General  Assembly  shall 
restrict  their  powers  of  taxation,  and  that 
amounts  to  nothing  at  all.  They  never  have,  so 
far  as  I know,  restricted  the  power  of  any  of 
these  municipal  corporations ; and  when  they 
had  the  power,  when  they  desired  to  incur 
debts  to  five  per  cent,  for  sundry  purposes, 
building  school-houses,  building  town-houses, 
making  waterworks,  buying  hearses,  building 
hearse  houses,  and  all  these  various  subjects, 
wherever  they  have  ever  been  asked  for,  they 
have  been  granted.  I would  be  willing  to  put 
some  restriction  upon  them;  but  this  restric- 
tion goes  so  far  beyond,  so  far  as  I know,  any 
indebtedness  incurred  by  very  many  of  the  mu- 
nicipal corporations  of  the  State.  I do  not 
know  of  any  that  go  so  far  as  to  incur  debts  to 
the  amount  of  ten  per  cent,  on  the  taxable  value 
of  property  in  the  cities  or  villages.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  says  there 
are  such. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  wish  to  be  so  un- 
derstood. What  I say  is,  that  we  were  informed 
there  were  cities  which  had  already  exceeded, 
and  others  about  to  exceed,  the  five  per  cent, 
limit,  and  the  representation  was  made  by  the 
delegate  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  that  it  was 
necessary  to  allow  a larger  limit  with  proper 
safeguards,  and  the  Committee  were  of  the 
opinion  that  if  two-thirds  of  the  tax  payers 
should  give  their  consent,  the  larger  limit,  not 


1404 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Humphreville,  Pratt,  Hoadly,  etc. 


to  exceed  ten  per  cent.,  might  be  permitted,  and 
it  was  on  that  ground  that  the  action  of  the 
Committee  was  based,  whether  wisely  or  un- 
wisely. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  My  impression  is, 
that  the  good  sense  'of  the  General  Assembly, 
and  the  good  sense  of  the  officers  of  Municipal 
Corporations  would  be  to  put  a limit  upon  tax- 
ation greater  than  that  suggested  in  this  fourth 
section.  This  is  a suggestion  that  such  an 
amendment  would  be  proper,  whereas,  my  im- 
pression is,  that  it  would  strike  a great  many  of 
these  cities  with  horror,  to  suppose  that  the 
debts  of  their  cities  were  going  to  amount  to 
even  that  the  Convention  would  fix  in  this 
section. 

I have  a report  of  the  Auditor  of  State  before 
me.  On  page  sixty-four  commences  a list  of 
some  of  the  principal  towns  and  cities  in  the 
State,  and  the  aggregate  amount  of  taxable 
property  in  1873,  commencing  with  Akron. 
The  total  valuation  of  that  city  is  $6,865,979. 
This  section  would  authorize,  without  a vote  of 
the  people,  five  per  cent,  on  that  amount,  which 
would  be  $343,000.  Does  Akron  want  to  incur 
a debt  of  $343,000  for  any  legitimate  purpose  ? 
I presume  not.  So  with  a great  many  other 
towns.  Champaign,  $5,000,011.  That  would 
authorize  a debt  of  $250,000  without  a vote  of 
the  people  of  that  town.  It  would  strike  them 
with  a good  deal  of  horror,  I believe,  if  they 
thought  their  town  council  would  put  anything 
that  would  incur  a debt  of  that  amount  upon 
the  incorporation.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  limit 
set  in  this  fourth  section  is  so  far  beyond  the 
debt  that  ninety-nine  out  of  one  hundred  of 
the  towns  and  cities  in  the  State  would  ever 
desire  to  go,  were  it  not  for  this  section,  that  it 
is  vicious  in  its  operation,  and  will  establish  a 
limit  upon  which  they  will  be  apt  to  go,  I fear. 

I would  rather  the  whole  section  should  be 
stricken  out.  If  we  undertake  to  fix  a limit, 
let  us  fix  such  a limit  as  would  be  reasonable. 
This,  if  carried  out  to  the  fullest  extent,  would 
increase  the  local  tax  of  this  State,  perhaps, 
more  than  double  what  it  now  is,  and  it  is  now 
enormous.  More  than  five-sixths  of  the  whole 
tax  paid  in  the  State  of  Ohio  is  paid  for  local 
taxes. 

Our  State  tax,  properly  as  such,  is  not  very 
burdensome.  Deduct  the  tax  paid  for  school 
purposes,  the  tax  paid  to  support  charitable  and 
punitory  institutions  of  the  State,  and  they  are 
but  trifling.  The  legitimate  government  ex- 
penses, outside  of  these  necessary  objects,  are 
but  trifling.  The  whole  State  tax,  including 
taxes  for  school  purposes  and  for  the  support 
of  benevolent  institutions  of  the  State,  are 
hardly  one-half  of  our  taxes  paid  in  a city. 
They  are  for  local  purposes.  I don’t  know  that 
we  can  properly  fix  a limitation  to  prevent 
these  local  taxes.  I think  it  would  be  well, 
perhaps  the  best  thing  we  could  do  to  leave  it 
with  the  General  Assembly  and  the  local  au- 
thorities themselves.  If  we  undertake  to  fix  a 
limit,  we  will  fix  it  so  high  that  it  will  suggest 
a rate  of  debt  for  those  towns  and  cities  which 
might  operate  injuriously.  I would  rather  fix 
no  limit  and  leave  them  to  decide  for  them- 
selves. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 


[11 5tli 

[Monday, 


the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Bishop] 

Mr.  PRATT.  I hope  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Bishop] 
will  prevail.  If  I understood  it  correctly,  I 
was  not  in  the  room  when  the  motion  was  made, 
it  authorizes  the  continuance  of  such  works 
that  are  already  begun,  whether  the  result 
should  be  a debt  of  five  or  ten  per  cent,  per  an- 
num upon  the  tax  duplicate.  I have  not  the 
particular  statute,  but  I am  under  the  impres- 
sion that  without  amendment  Toledo  would  be 
limited,  stumped,  in  the  improvements  she  has 
already  entered  upon.  Her  water  works,  the 
estimated  cost  of  which  is  $500,000,  and,  as  is 
the  case  in  all  works  of  that  nature,  the  esti- 
mated cost  hardly  ever  covers  the  real  cost,  and 
the  work  may  carry  her  into  an  expenditure  of 
six  or  seven  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  According  to  the  Secretary 
of  State’s  volume  of  statistics,  page  71,  the  tax 
valuation  of  the  city  of  Toledo  was  $16,052,788, 
five  per  cent,  of  that  amount  would  be  about 
$800,000. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Wholly  inadequate  upon  a five 
per  cent,  basis,  for  the  reason  that  she  has  al- 
ready incurred  expenses  in  the  construction  of 
the  Toledo  railroad  of  over  $400,000;  so  that 
the  debt  for  these  two  purposes,  for  which 
bonds  have  been  already  issued,  would  amount 
to  a million.  Now,  I say  to  the  Convention 
fairly,  that  I have  had  no  opportunity  to  ex- 
amine the  statistics  either  of  her  debt  or  of  her 
tax  duplicate.  I had  presumed  it  was  $16,000.- 
000 ; that  was  my  recollection.  But  even  with 
this  provision,  with  reference  to  ten  per  cent., 
she  will  not  be  enabled  to  complete  the  works 
upon  which  she  has  entered,  and  which  would 
be  detrimental  in  the  highest  degree  to  our 
prosperity.  I hope,  sir,  this  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Bishop]  will 
prevail. 

Mr.  Bishop’s  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  to  ask  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  [Mr.  Hoadly]  whether  the 
subject  matter  was  discussed  in  the  Committee; 
and  if  not,  what  his  idea  is  with  reference  to 
the  fourth  line,  which  says,  “shall  not  exceed, 
in  the  aggregate,  five  per  centum  of  the  value 
of  the  property,  without  the  consent  first  ob- 
tained of  two-thirds  of  the  tax-payers” ; how  is 
that  consent  to  be  ascertained  ? 

Mr.  HOADLYL  We  propose  that  it  be  left 
to  the  Legislature  to  prescribe  the  method.  An 
explanation  has  been  given  by  the  delegate 
from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  and  myself,  how 
the  matter  came  about.  The  Committee  first 
looked  through  the  Constitutions  of  other  States, 
and  considered  the  necessities  of  our  own,  as 
far  as  we  could,  and  we  were  first  of  the  opinion 
that  the  limit  should  be  five  per  centum,  pre- 
cisely as  proposed  by  the  delegate  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey].  I think  that  was  the  opinion  of 
the  entire  Committee,  but  it  was  brought  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  Committee  by  the  delegate 
from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  that  there  were 
cases  in  which  the  limit  would  work  mischiev- 
ously, and  the  city  of  Bellaire  was  referred  to  as 
a case  in  point,  and  the  proposition  was  made  to 
increase  the  limit  to  ten  per  cent.,  and  after  a 
comparison  of  views  and  considerable  consulta- 
tion, I cannot  say  it  was  exactly  compromised 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  16, 1874.]  Hoadly,  Pratt,  Mueller,  Cowen,  Page,  Sears,  etc. 


1405 


in  the  Committee,  but  as  the  result  of  consider- 
ation and  reflection,  we  concluded  to  raise  the 
limit  to  ten  per  cent.,  provided  reasonable  re- 
strictions should  be  imposed  in  incurring  the 
additional  debt,  with  the  consent  of  two-thirds 
of  the  tax-payers,  and  we  reported  it  in  this 
form.  We  supposed  if  the  case  arose,  in  which 
general  legislation  should  be  necessary  to  pro- 
cure this  permission,  the  Legislature  would 
provide  accordingly,  without  having  any  spe- 
cial plan  in  our  own  minds.  I do  not  think  we 
considered  the  matter  as  to  how  this  consent 
should  be  obtained. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  The  difficulty  created  in  my 
mind  was  with  reference  to  the  consent  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  tax-payers.  There  are  a great 
many  tax-payers  in  towns  and  cities  who  are 
not  voters — foreigners,  widows,  and  minors. 

Mr.  PRATT.  We  are  going  to  let  them  vote. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  We  shall  not  let  minors  vote. 
How  will  they  give  their  consent? 

A DELEGATE.  By  their  guardians. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Why  not  make  it  tax-pay- 
ing citizens? 

Mr.  COWEN”.  I would  like  to  inquire  if 
there  is  any  question  before  the  Convention? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  not. 

Mr.  COWEN.  If  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns]  can  do  any  better  than  the 
Committee,  I would  like  to  hear  from  him. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  who  is  not  now  in  his  seat,  requested  me 
to  offer  an  amendment  to  this  section. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  from  Pick- 
away [Mr.  Page]  will  permit  me,  one  moment, 
before  we  pass  from  the  subject 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  amendment  is  offered  upon 
this  subject. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I beg  pardon ; if  it  is  the 
amendment  of  the  delegate  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  it  does  not  relate  to  this  subject. 

Mr.  PAGE.  Yes,  sir ; it  does. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Amend  section  four,  line  five,  by  striking  out  the  word 
“ten”  and  inserting  the  word  “seven,”  so  that  it  will 
read: 

“In  no  case  shall  the  indebtedness  exceed  seven  per 
cent,  of  said  taxable  value.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  for  a division  of  the 
question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  first 
be  taken  upon  striking  out  the  word  “ten.” 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  SEARS.  The  difficulty  suggested  by  the 
member  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  is  really 
one  of  some  seriousness,  and,  with  all  def- 
erence to  the  Committee,  it  seems  to  me  that 
there  is  much  improvement  needed.  We  can, 
in  my  estimation,  improve  it  by  an  amendment 
which  shall  strike  out,  in  line  four,  the  words 
“payers,”  and  insert  “paying  voters,”  so  that 
it  will  read  “ tax-paying  voters.” 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  That  would  cut  off 
the  women  from  voting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  not  in 
order,  as  it  proposes  to  strike  out  the  words 
which  are  contained  in  the  clause  which  the 
Convention  has  refused  to  strike  out.  The 
Chair  will  entertain,  unless  objection  is  made. 

Mr.  EWING.  I object. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  be  necessary, 
then,  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  whicn  the 


amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Would  not  that  exclude 
a class  of  men  that  sometimes  are  large  prop- 
erty-holders—foreign  citizens,  who  would  not 
be  naturalized  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  I withdraw  the  objection  to 
the  motion. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I second  the  objection. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will,  then,  be  neces- 
sary to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  was  not  agreed  to,  in  order  to  get 
at  this  clause.  The  Convention  having  refused 
to  strike  out  that  clause,  the  rule  is  imperative. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Can  we  strike  out  any  part 
of  it? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  EWING.  We  may  strike  out  and  insert. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir;  you  may  add 
to  it. 

Mr.  YORIS.  If  the  objection  depends  upon 
myself,  I shall  withdraw  it.  1 do  not  wish 
to  stand  alone,  and  impede  the  progress  of 
business. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  that  amendment  is  not  in 
order,  I desire  to  offer  an  amendment  which 
will  be  in  order. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I simply  suggest,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  member  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns]  that  I do  not  think  that  this  section 
contemplates  voting.  It  says  the  consent  of 
the  tax-payers. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That’s  what  I wanted  to  find 
out.  An  idiot  owns  property.  Who  is  going 
to  consent  for  him  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  that 
there  is  nothing  before  the  Convention. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Idiots  will  count  in  the 
negative.  Widows,  minors  and  idiots,  the  same 
as  under  the  municipal  code. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  difficulty  is  met  by 
the  thirty-ninth  rule,  which  decides  that  a mo- 
tion to  strike  out  on  the  division  being  nega- 
tived, a motion  to  insert,  being  decided  in  the 
affirmative,  shall  be  equivalent  to  agreeing  with 
the  matter  in  that  form.  The  Convention  have 
refused  to  strike  out  this  clause.  It  is  not  now 
competent  to  strike  out  any  part  of  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  there  not  a provision  that  the 
Convention,  refusing  to  strike  out,  shall  not 
preclude  further  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  refers  to  an  amend- 
ment which  is  objectionable,  and  the  matter 
they  have  proposed  to  strike  out  is  a part  of  the 
very  language  which  the  Convention  has  de- 
cided to  retain.  A motion  to  reconsider  upon 
the  vote  on  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  would  be  the  only 
way  in  which  it  could  be  gotten  at. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  to  reconsider  the  vote 
by  which  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  was  defeated. 

Mr.  SEARS.  With  the  leave  of  the  Conven- 
tion, I will  withdraw  my  amendment,  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  out  of  the  trouble  that  seems 
to  have  arisen. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  does  not  affect  the 
question  of  reconsideration.  The  words  “tax- 
payers” include  everybody  that  pays  a tax. 


1406 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Pond,  Ewing,  Cowen,  Mueller,  Hoadly. 


[115th 

[Monday, 


Mr.  POND.  If  it  is  not  desired  to  amend  the 
section,  I withdraw  my  motion  to  reconsider, 
with  the  leave  of  the  Convention. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  EWING.  I have  just  noticed  that  this 
paragraph  contains  a most  anomalous  provision, 
which  1 am  not  willing  to  let  go  unchallenged. 
I,  therefore,  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  it  was  agreed  to.  I do  this  in  order  that 
I may  then  move  to  strike  out  the  word  tax- 
payers, and  insert  the  word  “ electors .” 

[‘‘No!  No!”] 

Mr.  EWING.  I make  the  motion  to  recon- 
sider with  the  view  of  offering  that  amendment, 
and  I have  something  to  say  on  the  subject. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  it  is  wrong  in  princi- 
ple to  submit  to  the  tax- payers  only  of  a mu- 
nicipal corporation  questions  that  concern  the 
whole  body  of  the  public — questions  like  the 
construction  of  school-houses,  high  schools,  and 
waterworks,  which  affect  the  whole  of  the  peo- 
ple. Tax-payers  are  not  the  only  persons  in- 
terested. They  are  not  the  only  persons  who 
make  the  city,  or  the  wealth  of  the  city.  Ev- 
ery man  who  has  his  home,  his  wife,  his  chil- 
dren, in  the  city,  has  such  a stake  in  it  as  to 
have  the  right  to  vote  upon  the  question  of  mak- 
ing a general  public  improvement,  and  impos- 
ing a general  public  burden.  It  is  wholly  dif- 
ferent from  the  case  of  an  assessment  for  some 
special  improvement.  The  questions  touched 
by  this  amendment  relate  to  the  general  wel- 
fare of  the  people,  old  and  young,  rich  and 
poor ; and  the  genius  and  spirit  of  our  institu- 
tions justify  every  man  who  has  his  abode  in  a 
community  in  demanding  the  power  to  say,  for 
one,  whether  or  not  the  debt  shall  be  incurred, 
or  improvement  entered  upon. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman,  whether  he  proposes  to  exclude  the 
tax-payers  who  are  not  voters  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  I propose  to  leave  it  to  the 
electors  only,  where  every  other  question  af- 
fecting the  municipality  is  left. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Suppose  that,  in  Cleveland, 
there  are  live  thousand  people  paying  from  five 
dollars  to  a hundred  dollars  a year  in  taxes,  and 
who  are  not  citizens.  I agree  with  you  that 
it  is  not  the  tax- payers,  but  the  people,  who 
should  vote  on  these  questions,  since  the  poor 
man  is  as  much  interested  in  them  as  the  rich 
man.  But  what  will  you  do  with  the  case  of  the 
non-citizen  residents,  paying  taxes  of  hundreds 
or  thousands  of  dollars  each,  perhaps  ? I would 
like  them  to  be  included,  too.  If  there  were  a 
good  way  of  doing  it,  I would  like  to  give  not 
only  every  citizen,  but  to  non-citizens  paying 
taxes,  the  right  to  vote  on  such  questions. 

A MEMBER.  Women,  too. 

Mr.  EWING.  It  is  not  a question  of  owner- 
ship, or  non-ownership,  of  property  that  should 
determine  the  right  of  participation  in  munici- 
pal government.  If  you  establish  a rule  of 
property  qualification  in  this  class  of  questions, 
you  should  extend  it  to  other  questions  involving 
large  public  expenditures.  I say  that  the  propo- 
sition, as  it  now  stands,  restricting  to  tax-payers 
the  right  to  vote  upon  the  question  whether  a 
political  community  shall  enter  upon  a great 
public  work,  is  contrary  to  the  genius  and  spirit 


of  our  Government,  and  if  carried  out  and  ap- 
plied logically,  would  strip  the  non-taxpaying 
voter  of  his  suffrage  as  to  all  matters  of  gov- 
ernment. I will  not  vote  for  the  section  as  it 
stands,  nor  for  the  Article,  if  the  section  re- 
mains a part  of  it;  and  I hope  the  motion  to 
reconsider  will  prevail,  in  order  that  there  may 
be  a full  and  free  discussion  of  the  subject. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I wish  the  delegate  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  were  here,  from  whose 
pen  this  portion  of  the  section  orignated,  for  he 
has  had  practical  experience  upon  this  subject, 
such  as  very  few  members  of  the  Convention 
have  had.  He  tried  to  save  Franklin  county 
from  the  debt  which  was  incurred  for  the  agri- 
cultural college  by  inserting  precisely  this  pro- 
vision, and  afterwards  the  very  argument  which 
the  delegate  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  has 
made  was  employed  in  the  celebrated  contest 
between  himself  and  Mr.  Schenck,  and  was 
urged  by  the  latter  as  the  reason  why  Mr. 
Campbell  should  not  be  elected  to  Congress. 
But  Mr.  Campbell  met  Mr.  Schenck,  and  over- 
threw him  at  the  polls  on  that  identical  propo- 
sition. The  question  whether  this  sort  of  debt 
may  not  fairly  be  submitted  to  the  taxpayers 
when  there  is  no  limitation  as  to  the  right  to 
impose  the  enormous  debt  of  five  per  cent.,  is  a 
question  upon  which  I believe  the  genius  and 
spirit  of  American  institutions  are  with  the  del- 
egate from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  He  made 
this  proposition  in  our  Committee,  and  the  Com- 
mittee that  reported  the  proposition  do  not  pro- 
pose to  apply  this  limit  below  five  per  cent., 
but  we  do  think  that  when  you  consider  the 
class  of  expenditures  into  which  your  Munici- 
pal Corporations  are  perpetually  running — ex- 
penditures that  are  purely  private  in  their  na- 
ture as  any  that  can  be  named — when  we  find 
that  we  cannot  successfully  limit  their  power  so 
as  to  exclude  these  private  expenditures,  which 
have  become  public  by  lapse  of  time,  by  cus- 
tom and  the  usage  of  the  world,  I say,  Mr. 
President,  that  the  proposition  to  give  those 
who  are  to  pay  the  debt,  those  who  are  to  bear 
the  burden,  the  right  to  say  whether  it  shall  be 
increased  from  five  per  cent,  to  ten  per  cent,  is  not 
anti-American  at  all.  Taxation  and  representa- 
tion are  as  closely  allied  in  this  proposition  as 
they  were  allied  in  the  bosoms  of  those  patri- 
otic men  who  threw  the  tea  overboard  in  Bos- 
ton Harbor — taxation  and  representation. 

Mr.  EWING.  That  means  no  representation, 
unless  you  own  property  and  pay  taxes.  That 
means  property  qualification  for  suffrage. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  My  dear  sir,  we  do  not  pro- 
pose to  interpose  any  limit  on  the  right  of  the 
non-tax-payer  to  run  the  tax-payer  into  debt 
to  the  extent  of  one  twentieth  of  the  whole 
property.  The  limit  proposed  is  that  before 
that  one-twentieth  shall  become  one-tenth,  the 
tax-payer — the  man  who  will  have  to  foot  the 
bill — shall  be  consulted,  and  we  propose  that 
two-thirds  of  those  tax-payers  shall  vote  affirm- 
atively, thus  counting  women,  minors  and 
idiots  in  the  negative,  where  they  ought  to  be 
counted.  Our  object  was  to  restrict  and  not  to 
encourage  indebtedness. 

Mr.  EWING.  Does  the  gentleman  mean  to 
count  all  the  women  who  are  tax-payers  in  the 
negative  under  his  proposition  as  it  stands? 


Day.]  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1407 

February  16, 1874.]  Hoadly,  Ewing,  etc. 


Mr.  HOADLY.  I mean  the  Legislature  will 
have  the  power  to  do  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  Women  who  are  tax-payers  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Possibly  I am  wrong.  I do 
not  propose  to  go  into  the  details  of  the  matter. 
We  propose  to  insist  that  two-thirds  of  the  tax- 
payers shall  be  found  in  the  affirmative. 

Mr.  EWING.  I should  like  the  gentleman,  as 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  who  reported  this 
section,  to  explain  whether  it  is  the  intention  of 
the  Committee  by  the  section  to  exclude  women, 
as  he  just  now  said  they  would  be  excluded, 
even  if  tax-payers,  from  voting  upon  the  ques- 
tion ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  desires  me 
to  answer  his  question,  I will  say  that  my 
opinion  is,  that  in  ascertaining  the  number  of 
persons  who  are  to  be  counted  as  two-thirds  of 
the  tax-payers  giving  consent,  women,  chil- 
dren, idiots  and  lunatics  are  to  be  counted  in 
the  negative,  and  that  those  only  are  to  be 
counted  in  the  two-thirds,  who,  by  the  laws  of 
the  State,  are  to  be  so  counted.  That  is  my 
understanding  of  it.  Possibly  I am  wrong.  I 
shall  not  be  greatly  disturbed,  however,  if  the 
gentleman’s  construction  proves  correct. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  gentleman  modifies  his 
statement  already.  He  said  at  first  that  women 
are  to  be  counted  in  the  negative ; but  now  I 
understand  that  if  women  by  law  are  capable  of 
giving  consent,  they  may  vote. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly.  It  is  because 
the  gentleman  draws  a distinction  between 
special  assessments  and  this  indebtedness— a 
distinction  which  I cannot  draw — that  he  calls 
this  an  anomaly.  In  the  540th  section  of  the 
municipal  code,  I find  this  provision  now  in 
force : “ And  in  incorporated  villages  having  a 
less  population  than  four  thousand,  no  special 
assessment  shall  be  made,  except  for  side  walks, 
unless  first  having  received  the  assent  of  a ma- 
jority of  the  owners  to  be  charged  therewith.” 
it  is  precisely  the  application  of  that  principle 
to  the  case  of  an  increase  of  the  debt  from  five 
per  cent,  to  ten  per  cent.,  that  your  Committee 
have  recommended  to  the  Convention. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  applies  only  to  special 
assessments. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  true.  And  this  ap- 
plies only  to  the  increase  of  the  debt  from  five 
per  cent,  to  ten  per  cent. 

Mr.  EWING.  It  applies  to  general  taxes. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  does  not  apply  to  taxes 
at  all.  It  applies  to  the  increase  of  indebted- 
ness. 

Mr.  EWING.  It  involves  general  taxes. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Aye,  it  involves  general 
taxes  because  by  means  of  general  taxes  this 
must  be  paid.  But  what  are  these  debts  for? 
Take  the  case  of  water  works,  which  was  the 
case  we  had  under  consideration  in  Committee. 
Are  water  works  things  that  come  within  ordi- 
nary municipal  power?  Is  it  not  just  as  com- 
petent to  water  a city  by  the  action  of  private 
corporations?  It  was  done  in  this  city  for  a 
great  many  years.  For  a great  many  years  the 
old  Cincinnati  Water  Works  Company  fur- 
nished all  the  water  to  the  city.  They  built  the 
water  works  and  the  reservoir  we  are  now 
using  water  from.  Is  it  necessary  that  the  gas 
works  should  be  owned  by  corporations?  Not 
at  all.  They  are  not  in  this  city,  though  they 


are  in  Philadelphia.  And,  Mr.  President,  the 
supreme  court  of  New  York  and  the  supreme 
court  of  Ohio  have  decided  that  the  relation  of 
a city  to  its  water  works,  its  gas  works,  its  uni- 
versity, is  the  relation  of  a private  owner  to 
his  private  property.  If  the  gentleman  will 
refer  to  the  31st  volume  of  the  Pennsylvania 
State  Reports,  he  will  find  two  cases  in  which 
the  distinction  is  most  elaborately  laid  down ; 
and  in  the  5th  volume  of  Hill’s  Report,  in 
the  case  of  Bailey  against  the  city  of  New 
York,  he  will  also  find  that  there  the  supreme 
court  of  New  York  most  elaborately  dis- 
tinguishes between  the  relation  which  a city 
holds  as  the  administrator  of  ordinary  govern- 
ment, and  the  relation  the  city  holds  as  the 
supplier  of  light  and  water,  or  as  a cleanser  by 
sewerage  and  otherwise.  Now,  I do  say  that 
where  a city  becomes  a private  corporation, 
builds  a railroad — why,  there  was  a statute  re- 
ferred to  the  other  day,  which  contains  a pro- 
vision that  any  city  having  a population  of  nine 
thousand  and  something,  may  build  a street 
railroad,  and  go  to  transferring  people  for  five 
cents  apiece  from  one  end  of  the  street  to  the 
other — I say  when  a city  goes  out  of  the  prov- 
ince of  government,  in  which  I will  join  heart 
and  hand  with  the  gentleman  in  saying  that 
one  man’s  vote  is  as  good  as  another  man’s  vote, 
and  property  qualification  is  a thing  to  be  put 
under  foot,  and  when  a city  becomes  a private 
corporation  to  engage  in  the  building  of  rail- 
roads, to  engage  in  business  of  pumping 
water  and  selling  it  for  money,  to  engage  in 
the  business  of  making  gas  and  selling  it  for 
money,  it  is  a question  for  the  taxpayer, 
and  the  taxpayer  is  entitled  to  be  considered. 
When  Columbus  engaged  in  the  business  of 
buying  land  for  the  purpose  of  putting  an 
agricultural  college  on  it,  it  was  justly  and 
legitimately  a question  for  the  consideration  of 
her  taxpayers.  The  ordinary  citizen  has  his 
proper  place,  his  equal  right,  if  he  is  the 
very  poorest  man  in  the  community.  He  shall 
not,  by  my  voice  or  my  vote,  be  deprived  of 
his  full  right  to  take  his  part  in  the  government 
of  his  country.  But  when  he  goes  to  turning 
the  government  of  his  country  into  a private 
corporation  to  compel  other  people  to  pay 
money — for  that  is  what  it  is — he  stands  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  position  as  the  community 
do  when  they  undertake  to  compel  local  assess- 
ments. Here  is  a question  for  the  consideration 
of  those  men  that  own  the  property.  I do  not 
want  to  put  it  into  this  Constitution,  but,  never- 
theless, it  is  proper  for  the  Legislature  to 
consider  the  matter  of  local  assessment.  It  is 
in  the  municipal  code.  These  debts  are  not 
contracted  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the 
peace;  they  are  not  contracted  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  those  objects  which  are  within 
the  ordinary  sphere  of  government.  They  are 
contracted  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  people 
of  that  city  rich,  and  they  are  contracted  at  the 
expense  of  the  tax-payer ; and,  therefore,  I say 
that,  when  the  debt  has  already  reached  five 
per  cent.,  it  should  not  be  lifted  to  ten  per 
cent,  without  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of 
the  tax-payers.  It  is  not  to  interfere  with 
the  inborn  or  acquired  rights  of  the  citizen. 
For  one,  I feel  so  stj^^ly  upon  this  subject 
that,  rather  than  hai^^Kis  restriction  go  out, 


1408 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [115th 


Hoadly,  Ewing,  Voris,  Griswold,  Coaven. 


[Monday, 


I would  prefer  to  have  the  wThole  provision 
go  out.  It  is  a restriction.  The  delegate  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  moved  to  keep  within  five 
per  cent. ; and  it  is  better  to  keep  within  five 
per  cent,  than  to  open  the  gateway  and 
invite  an  indebtedness  of  ten  per  cent. 

Mr.  EWING.  I ask  the  indulgence  of  the 
Convention  to  say  a few  words  in  reply  to 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]. 
I ask  attention  to  the  clause : 

“The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corporation  shall 
never  exceed,  in  the  aggregate,  five  per  cent,  of  the  value 
of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as  ascertained 
from  time  to  time  by  the  tax  duplicate  thereof,  without 
the  consent,  first  obtained,  of  at  least  two-thirds  of  the 
tax  payers  of  such  corporation,  and  in  no  case  shall  such 
indebtedness  exceed  ten  per  cent,  of  said  taxable  value.” 


Does  this  mean  only  that  there  are  certain 
purposes  for  which  no  indebtedness  shall  be 
incurred  after  the  debt  has  reached  five  per 
cent. — purposes  which  the  gentleman  describes 
as  outside  of  the  powers  of  municipal  corpo- 
rations ; purposes  which  he  says  are  not  public 
purposes,  but  which  the  supreme  court  of  Ohio, 
and  of  almost  every  State  in  the  Union,  say 
are  public  purposes,  as,  for  example,  build- 
ing water-works,  gas-works  or  railroads? 
No,  not  these  only.  The  limitations  apply  to 
all  public  indebtment  incurred  for  any  and 
all  purposes.  When  the  city  has  reached  its  five 
per  cent,  of  taxation,  then,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  amendment  reported  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  if  the 
city  proposes  to  incur  a debt  to  build  a high 
school,  the  question  of  constructing  it  -will  be 
left,  not  to  the  electors  of  the  city,  as  now,  but 
to  the  tax-payers.  Two-thirds  of  the  tax-pay- 
ers must  consent. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
interrupt  him  a moment? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  VORIS.  May  not  they  build  their  school 
house  without  going  into  debt,  or  just  as  well 
with  an  indebtedness  of  five  per  cent,  as  by  cre- 
ating an  additional  indebtedness  if  they  are  able 
to  build  it  at  all  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  It  is  possible  to  do  it;  but  as  a 
matter  of  fact  we  all  know  that  almost  every 
town  in  the  State  borrows  money  to  build 
school-houses.  I am  speaking  of  things  as  they 
are , and  not  as  they  might,  could,  wrould,  or 
should,  be.  1 say  that  when  the  five  per  cent, 
limit  has  been  reached,  if  this  provision  became 
part  of  the  Constitution,  no  municipality  can 
incur  a debt  for  any  purpose  whatsoever  by  the 
authority  of  the  electors  only. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  After  you  have  paid  that 


up  you  can. 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes;  but  if,  wThen  the  five  per 
cent,  is  reached,  you  want  to  incur  a debt  to 
build  a high  school,  jtou  must  go — not  to  the 
electors  who  now  determine  the  question — but 
to  another  body  of  citizens,  a select  body,  ex- 
cluding a large  proportion  of  the  population  who  | 
are  most  deeply  interested  in  the  question.  It ! 
is  not  alone  debts  for  such  public  improve-  ■ 
ments  as  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  denounces,  which  fall  within  this  pro-  I 
vision.  All  debts  for  all  purposes  for  w’hich 
public  expenditures  are  now  made  and  public 
debts  incurred  fall  wfithHi  it.  And  this  section 
takes  the  question  of^Lh  additional  expendi- 
ture from  the  hands  o^^^electors  and  puts  it 


into  the  hands  of  a new  body — an  aristocracy 
created  by  this  section — gentlemen  and  ladies 
who  are  wealthy.  Now,  I say  this  is  anti-repub- 
lican. I say  that  each  elector  dwelling  in  the 
city  of  Cincinnati,  and  every  other  town  and 
city  in  Ohio,  has  a right  to  an  equal  voice  upon 
every  question  of  public  indebtment  and  expen- 
diture. 

Mr.  CO  WEN.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man why  he  does  not  make  it  a majority  instead 
of  two-thirds,  if  he  wants  to  get  to  actual  repub- 
licanism ? 

Mr.  EWING.  I do  not  insist  that  a majority 
of  the  electors  shall  have  the  power  to  incur 
this  extreme  indebtedness ; but  I say  that  the 
persons  who  are  to  be  consulted  on  the  subject 
must  be  the  electors,  and  no  other  body  of  men. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Is  there  anything  to  pro- 
hibit them  from  levying  any  such  tax,  for  an 
actual  expenditure,  as  they  may  desire?  It  does 
not  limit  them  in  that. 

Mr.  EWING.  Not  from  levying  a tax,  but  as 
a matter  of  fact  and  experience,  large  public 
works  or  buildings  are  rarely  constructed  ex- 
cept by  public  loans. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I simply  say,  after  you 
are  one-twentieth  in  debt,  when  you  go  further 
you  must  pay  as  you  go,  and  not  mortgage  the 
whole  property. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  section  does  not  say  so. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  the  effect  of  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  Not  at  all.  The  effect  of  the 
section  is,  that  after  the  electors  have  controlled 
all  the  affairs  of  the  municipality  up  to  the  time 
when  its  debt  reaches  five  per  cent.,  then  the 
question  of  future  public  expenditures  for  which 
debts  must  be  incurred  shall  be  taken  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  electors  and  put  into  the 
hands  of  the  select  men  and  women  who  own 
property. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  forgets 
that  they  may  levy  as  much  tax  as  they  w;ish. 
That  is  in  the  power  of  the  electors.  After 
the  non-paying  voters  have  mortgaged  the 
property  to  the  extent  of  five  per  cent.,  even 
then  there  is  nothing  to  limit  them  from  levy- 
ing as  much  regular  tax  as  they  may  think 
proper 

Mr.  EWING.  Of  course. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  But  you  shall  not  mort- 
gage the  property  beyond  that. 

Mr.  EWING.  Why  is  it  right  to  mortgage 
the  property,  in  the  first  instance,  by  the  votes 
of  the  electors,  if  it  is  not  right  in  the  second 
instance? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Because  all  government 
is  a matter  of  compromise,  and  we  think  it  is 
wise  to  place  a limit  somewhere.  If  we  allow 
the  non-taxpayers  to  go  in  debt  five  per  cent, 
of  the  whole  value,  we  think  that  is  a reason- 
able limit.  That  is  all.  There  is  no  principle 
involved. 

Mr.  EWING.  Then  you  will  give  it  to  an- 
other set  of  people  to  control  the  question  of 
public  expenditure  involving  public  debt  beyond 
that? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Not  at  all.  Simply  the 
question  of  running  into  debt  further  than  that. 
It  does  not  limit  them  from  levying  just  as  much 
tax  as  they  desire. 

Mr.  EWING.  I understand  that  perfectly; 
but  as  a practical  matter  of  fact,  if  a Municipal 


1409 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS.  

February  16,  1874.]  Ewing,  Griswold,  Carbery,  Tuttle,  Kraemer,  etc. 


Corporation  that  is  in  debt  to  the  extent  of  five 
per  cent,  wants  to  build  water-works,  it  must 
issue  bonds  to  build  them.  It  cannot  levy  a 
tax  to  pay  for  them  at  once.  If  it  wants  to 
build  a high  school,  it  will  issue  bonds  and  not 
put  the  cost  all  on  the  tax  duplicate  in  one  or 
two  years,  and,  therefore,  I say  that,  practically, 
as  to  these  large  expenditures,  where  towns  and 
cities  have  found  it  necessary  to  issue  bonds  to 
enter  upon  them,  you  take  the  whole  control 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  electors,  and  give  it 
into  the  hands  of  a select  aristocracy  created  by 
this  section — the  tax-payers. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Aristocracy  means  best, 
not  richest. 

Mr.  EWING.  That  is  an  obsolete  definition. 
The  aristocracy  of  modern  history  is  distin- 
guished oftener  by  wealth  or  hereditary  title, 
than  by  virtue. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  a misnomer. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Is  it  not  true  that  persons 
living  in  a Municipal  Corporation  and  paying 
rent  are  very  often  indirectly  heavy  taxpay- 
ers'? 

Mr.  EWING.  Undoubtedly.  Take  the  prop- 
erty owners  of  Cincinnati,  and  where  do  they 
put  their  taxes ? On  their  tenants.  The  ten- 
ant pays  the  tax  in  rent,  and  there  is  no  citi- 
zen in  Cincinnati,  or  in  any  town  or  city  in  the 
State,  who  does  not  contribute  to  the  welfare 
and  wealth  of  the  municipality,  and  bear  on  his 
shoulders,  unless  he  be  incapacitated,  a part  of 
the  general  burden. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Suppose,  after  providing,  in 
effect,  that  a municipality  might  run  into  debt 
to  the  extent  of  five  per  cent.,  there  were  a 
prohibition  that  they  should  not  exceed  that 
amount,  unless  all  the  taxpayers  would  con- 
sent. Would  that  be  objectionable? 

Mr.  EWING.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Would  it  be  objectionable  to 
restrict  them  so  that  they  should  not  under  any 
circumstances? 

Mr.  EWING.  It  would  not  be  objectionable 
on  this  ground,  of  course.  This  section  is  based 
upon  the  false  theory  that  it  is  only  the  men  who 
are  now  taxpayers,  that  are  going  to  pay  these 
debts. 

If  the  theory  were  true,  which  it  is  not,  I would 
not  admit  the  reason  to  be  sufficient — for  who 
shall  say  on  whom  the  burdens  of  a debt  which 
may  be  paid  twenty,  thirty,  or  forty  years  hence, 
will  fall  ? Will  they  fall  on  the  children  of  the 
present  tax-payers  only?  Will  they  not  fall, 
also,  on  the  children  of  those  who  are  not  tax- 
payers now,  but  who  are  struggling  along  to 
rear  their  families,  and  make  good  citizens  of 
their  boys?  The  ragged  children  of  the  hod 
carriers  of  to-day  will  be  the  city  fathers  a gen- 
eration hence,  when  the  curled  darlings  of  the 
rich,  and  their  fortunes,  will  be  scattered. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  him  a question  ? It  is  simply  this : Does 
the  gentleman  understand  that,  under  this  pro- 
vision, the  non-taxpaying  voter  does  not  have 
a vote  upon  running  into  debt?  Does  he  un- 
derstand that  they  cannot  prevent  the  munici- 
pality from  running  into  debt,  although  the 
debt  cannot  be  created  without  the  consent  of 
two-thirds  of  the  tax-payers  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  The  Legislature  may  say,  un- 
doubtedly, if  it  see  fit,  that,  in  addition  to  I 
V.  II-9 1 


two-thirds  of  the  tax-payers,  two-thirds  of  the 
electors,  also,  shall  assent  to  such  increase  of 
iadebtment. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I want  to  know  if  it  is  not  a 
necessary  consequence  of  the  other  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  that  the  entire  voting  pop- 
ulation must  authorize  everything  for  which 
the  debt  is  created,  before  it  can  be  created? 

Mr.  EWING.  I do  not  understand  that  to 
be  so,  at  all.  I know  of  no  other  provision  in 
the  Constitution  which  would  require  the  Leg- 
islature to  submit  the  question  of  issuing  bonds 
to  build  new  school- houses  in  a town  that  has 
already  reached  its  five  per  cent,  limit,  to  any- 
body but  the  tax-payers.  The  Legislature 
could  provide  that,  when  two-thirds  of  the  tax- 
payers decided  in  favor  of  issuing  bonds  to 
build  such  school-houses  in  such  towns,  then 
the  work  should  be  entered  upon,  and  not  be- 
fore. That  would  be  in  strict  conformity  to  the 
purpose  of  the  amendment,  and  would  be,  as  I 
said  before,  stripping  the  electors  of  the  mu- 
nicipality of  that  control  of  its  affairs  which 
belongs  to  them  as  electors,  and  not  as  tax-pay- 
ers. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  Permit  me  to  say  that  this 
principle  has  already  received  practical  appli- 
cation in  Ohio,  under  the  law  permitting  roads 
to  be  built.  I read  from  page  675  of  the  supple- 
ment to  the  revised  statutes : 

“Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  that  section  five  of  the  above  recited  Act  be  so 
amended  as  to  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  5.  Upon  the  return  of  the  report  mentioned  in 
the  last  section,  the  commissioners  shall,  if  in  their  opin- 
ion public  utility  requires  it,  enter  upon  their  records  an 
order  that  the  improvement  be  made,  which  order  shall 
shall  state  the  kind  of  improvement  to  be  made,  and  the 
width  and  extent  of  the  same,  and  the  lands  which  shall 
be  assessed  for  the  expense  of  the  same;  but  such  order 
shall  not  be  made  until  a majority  of  the  resident  land 
holders  of  the  county,  whose  lands  are  reported  as  bene- 
fited and  ought  to  be  assessed,  shall  have  subscribed  the 
petition  mentioned  in  the  second  section  of  this  Act.  And 
in  determining  said  majority,  minor  heirs  shall  not  be 
counted  for  or  against  said  improvement,  unless  repre- 
sented by  legal  guardian,  and  the  action  of  such  guardian 
shall  be  binding  upon  such  minor  heirs,  and  all  heir^ 
either  adults  or  minors,  to  any  undivided  estate,  shall 
only  be  entitled  to  one  vote  for  or  against  such  improve- 
ment.” 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I ask  the  gen- 
tleman if  there  is  any  analogy  between  assess- 
ments to  be  levied  directly  on  a man’s  land  and 
the  property  he  owns,  and  a debt  created  for 
the  purpose  of  paying  which  you  must  levy  on 
the  town  or  city  ? 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  The  analogy  is  this:  This 
debt  is  created  to  be  paid  in  five  years.  Hence 
it  comes  out  of  the  pocket  of  the  same  man 
from  whom  it  would  come  if  it  is  levied  gen- 
erally upon  the  county,  or  upon  the  municipal 
corporation,  if  he  is  a member  of  it. 

Mr.  RUSSELL.  Yes,  if  he  is  a member  of  it. 
Mr.  KRAEMER.  This  provision  gives  the 
right  of  giving  consent  to  every  man,  woman 
and  child  who  owns  an  interest  in  any  of  the 
land  that  is  proposed  to  be  taxed.  That  is  what 
I understand  this  provision  to  mean. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  ? 
The  case  he  speaks  of  is  the  case  of  an  assess- 
ment for  local  improvements,  the  tax  falling 
immediately  upon  the  property,  in  proportion 
to  its  benefit  by  the  improvement.  But  the 
case  we  are  speaking  of  now,  is  the  incurring, 
by  a municipal  corporation,  of  debts  to  run’ 


1410 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  Ewing,  Mueller,  Kraemer,  Tuttle,  etc. 


[115th 

[Monday^ 


'probably,  twenty  years,  the  burden  of  which 
'will  fall  upon  no  man  knows  whom. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  it  not  a mortgage  upon 
4he  property  of  the  tax-payer  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  It  is  not.  The  principal  is  a 
burden,  to  fall,  in  the  remote  future,  upon  the 
general  industries  and  values  of  the  municipal- 
ity as  they  may  then  exist.  The  interest  is  an 
annual  burden  on  such  industries  and  values. 
The  burden,  whether  near  or  remote,  falls  on  j 
the  labor,  as  well  as  the  property,  of  the  city. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I understand,  pretty  well, 
that  it  is  not  a tax  or  a lien  upon  special  prop- 
erty, but  it  is  a tax  upon  the  property,  gener- 
ally, of  the  municipality;  and  every  man  who 
sells  property  there,  must  sell  it  subject  to  that 
incumbrance;  and  every  person  who  buys 
►property  there,  buys  with  the  same  understand- 
ing. He  may  be  the  descendant  of  some  one 
who  was  excluded  from  voting  because  he  was 
not  the  owner  of  property;  but  he  steps  into 
that  man’s  shoes,  and  buys  property  whose 
value  is  less,  by  so  much,  as  the  assessment  upon 

• that  property  amounts  to. 

Mr.  EWING.  Suppose  the  bonds  mature 

• twenty  years  hence.  In  twenty  years,  the  real 
-and  personal  property  upon  which  those  bonds 
will  call  for  payment,  may  be  five  times  in 
vquantity  and  value  the  amount  in  the  present 
city  limits,  and  but  little  of  it  may  be  in  the  i 
same  hands,  or  even  the  same  families,  that 
would  now  vote  upon  the  question.  It  is  not  a 
mortgage  on  the  real  estate.  It  is  a burden 
that  will  fall  upon  the  future  city  at  it  stands, 
when  the  bonds  mature,  on  its  personalty,  and 
its  reality,  whatever  they  may  be,  and  by  whom- 1 
soever  owned,  and  no  man  can  tell  what  they  j 
will  be,  and  who  may  own  them. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  Well,  according  to  that,  I 
no  man  except  those  who  will  pay  in  the  future,  j 
ought  to  vote. 

Mr.  EWING.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me — he  has  at  once  stated  the  rationale  and  de- 
monstrated the  absurdity  of  his  proposition  in 
saying  that  no  man  but  the  man  who  owrns  in  j 
the  future  ought  to  vote.  If  no  man  is  to  vote  i 
except  the  man  who  is  to  pay,  then  we  have  to  | 
wait  for  the  twenty  years  to  find  who  shall  pay. 
And  if  no  man  should  vote  on  such  questions  ! 
but  the  tax  payer,  then  each  man’s  vote  or  in-  j 
iluence  should  be  in  proportion  to  his  taxes;  for  ! 
it  would  be  unreasonable  to  give  a man  who  i 
paid  only  five  dollars  of  taxes  the  same  influ-  ! 
ence  you  give  the  man  who  paid  five  hundred  ! 
dollars  of  taxes.  In  short,  the  store-houses,  j 
and  vacant  lots,  and  horses,  and  jackasses  would  i 
vote  through  their  owners  as  proxies ; while  j 
mere  men,  whose  labor  makes  all  the  wealth,  j 
would  have  no  voice ! 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I understand  that  the  prin-  i 
ciple  upon  which  this  is  proposed  to  be  done  is,  j 
that  the  persons  who  are  directly  interested  j 
shall  give  their  consent.  Now,  it  is  held  upon  j 
the  one  side  that  the  tax  payers,  the  persons  | 
who  own  taxable  property  at  the  time,  are  the 
men  directly  interested.  On  the  other  hand,  the  J 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  main- 
tains that  by  reason  of  the  natural  changes  t 
which  occur  to  property  in  the  course  of  twenty  i 
years,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  one  generation  j 
of  tax  payers  may  die  out,  and  a new  genera- 
tion come  in,  the  present  tax  payers  ought  not 


to  control  the  matter,  but  the  progenitors  of  the 
future  tax  payers. 

Mr.  EWING.  No,  sir,  I say  every  elector, 
and  not  every  tax  payer,  at  all.  Tax  paying, 
present  or  prospective,  is  no  qualification  for 
suffrage  in  a Democratic-Republican  State. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  elector  is  the  progeni- 
tor of  the  future  party  who  is  to  pay  this  in- 
cumbrance. 

Mr.  EWING.  Probably. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Very  well,  sir;  if  the 
electors  are  so  fortunate  as  to  become  the 
owners  of  property  they  will  have  to  pay,  and 
if  they  are  not  to  have  property  then  they  will 
not  have  to  pay. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  But  they  might  be  adverse 
to  incurring  that  debt  at  all. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  They  must  incur  the  risk. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  this  reconsideration 
will  not  take  place,  unless  the  Convention  de- 
sire to  restrict  this  matter  still  further.  It  is 
said  that  this  policy  is  contrary  to  the  general 
policy  of  our  government.  That  depends  upon 
what  the  general  policy  of  our  government  is. 
Let  me  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  this  does 
not  restrict  the  right  of  the  general  mass  of  the 
voters  to  act  upon  any  matter  of  public  concern 
that  is  otherwise  within  the  power  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Corporation.  It  does  not  act  upon  their 
power  to  build  school-houses,  or  upon  their 
power  to  act  in  any  matter  that  is  within  the 
power  of  the  corporation.  The  only  thing  that 
it  does  act  upon  is  the  power  of  the  corporate 
authorities  to  run  the  corporation  into  debt. 
In  the  first  place,  then,  when  you  say  it  is 
against  the  general  policy  of  the  State,  the  ques- 
tion arises,  what  is  the  general  policy  of  the 
State  in  regard  to  running  in  debt?  We  have 
a provision  here  which  restricts  the  general 
power  of  the  corporation  to  five  per  cent,  when 
they  run  into  debt.  Is  there  anything  in  our 
general  policy  which  demands  that  the  corpora- 
tion shall  be  allowed  to  run  into  debt  at  all  be- 
yond the  limit  of  five  per  cent.  ? If  there  is,  a 
further  inquiry  arises ; but  if  there  is  not,  then 
it  cannot  be  said  that  anything  which  is  a mere 
restriction  upon  the  power  of  running  into 
debt  beyond  five  per  cent.,  can  be  against  the 
general  policy  of  the  State  in  regard  to  Muni- 
cipal Corporations.  The  greater  includes  the 
less.  The  general  policy  that  cuts  off  all  in- 
debtedness beyond  five  per  cent.,  authorizes 
every  and  any  matter  that  operates  as  a mere 
restriction  upon  the  power  of  running  in  debt 
beyond  five  per  cent.  If  it  is  not  in  accordance 
with  policy — and,  for  the  purposes  of  the  argu- 
ment, I may  say,  if  it  is  not  in  accordance  witli 
good  policy — to  run  in  debt  beyond  five  per 
cent.,  then  anything  which  makes  it  harder  to 
run  in  debt  beyond  that  amount  cannot  be  op- 
posed to  good  policy,  nor  with  any  policy  of  the 
State. 

Now,  nobody  can  deny  that  for  all  the  ordin- 
ary purposes  of  municipal  government  the 
power  to  levy  such  taxes  as  may  be  according 
to  the  views  of  the  body  as  expressed  by  the 
proper  authorities,  and  the  power  to  add  to  that 
five  per  cent,  upon  the  entire  duplicate  value  of 
the  property  by  going  in  debt,  is  sufficient  for 
all  the  purposes  of  ordinary  government;  and, 
unless  the  city  has  become  extravagant  indeed 
when  it  is  proposed  to  go  beyond  that  amount, 


1411 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  16,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Ewing,  Hoadly,  Carbery,  Freiberg. 


there  must  be  something  contemplated  that  is 
not  within  the  ordinary  scope  of  municipal  gov- 
ernment. I suppose  there  may  be  possible  ex- 
ceptions to  that,  but  the  exceptions  must  be 
very  few  indeed.  You  have  provided  that,  for 
the  purposes  of  laying  out  streets,  and  con- 
structing streets,  sewers  and  sidewalks,  you 
may  make  an  assessment  upon  the  property- 
holder.  For  all  the  ordinary  purposes  of  gov- 
ernment you  may  levy  a tax;  and  I undertake 
to  say  that  when  you  run  into  debt  five  per 
cent,  it  is  enough.  I agree  with  the  Committee, 
a portion  of  whom,  so  we  are  informed,  are  of 
the  opinion — and  perhaps  the  entire  Committee 
would  have  centered  upon  that — that  it  was  ex- 
tremely doubtful  policy  that  the  power  should 
be  given  at  all  to  run  into  debt  more  than  five 
per  cent.  Well,  now,  it  is  said  that  extraordin- 
ary cases  may  arise  in  which  it  is  necessary.  It 
may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  construct- 
ing water-works,  for  the  purpose  of  affording 
light,  and  possibly  for  other  purposes.  School 
houses  may  be  desirable.  I deny  that  it  can  be 
necessary,  but  it  may  be  desirable  for  the  pur- 
pose of  building  school  houses.  Permit  me  to 
say  that  when  it  is  necessary  to  build  a school 
house,  there  is  nothing  which  I can  see  in  the 
Constitution  from  beginning  to  end,  as  there  has 
not  been  in  the  law  heretofore,  that  prevents 
the  ordinary  voter,  irrespective  of  his  property 
qualification,  from  voting  the  school  house,  and 
provide  for  its  construction,  and  then  from 
voting  to  levy  all  the  tax  that  may  be  neces- 
sary, under  ordinary  circumstances,  to  build  the 
school  house. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  general  voter  can  vote  to 
build  the  school-house.  But  in  my  native  town 
of  Lancaster,  for  instance,  where  we  have  just 
completed  one  costly  school  building,  and  are 
entering  upon  the  construction  of  another — the 
two  will  cost  in  the  neighborhood  of  five  per 
cent,  of  the  taxable  property  of  the  place — it 
would  be  impossible  to  get  a vote  to  build  these 
two  expensive  houses, if  the  whole  burden  were 
to  be  put  upon  the  tax-payers  at  once,  and  the 
only  possible  way  of  getting  them  is  to  issue 
bonds,  payable  in  five  or  ten  years.  Upon  a 
question  of  that  character,  the  elector  would  be 
shut  out  from  decision  by  the  clause  as  it  now 
stands. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  You  do  not  have  to  borrow 
the  whole  amount? 

Mr.  EWING.  Most  of  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  believe,  if  it  is  true 
in  Lancaster, that  it  can  be  true  in  half  a dozen 
towns  in  this  State,  that  they  cannot  build  all 
the  school-houses  they  need,  and  ought  to 
build,  by  levying  a tax  sufficient  to  support  the 
schools,"  and  pay  every  single,  solitary  item  of 
reasonable  expense  for  the  government,  with- 
out more  than  five  per  cent.  If  there  be  any 
town  in  the  State  where  it  cannot  be  done,  it  is 
no  reason,  in  my  judgment,  why  exception 
should  be  made.  It  is  said  that  the  electors 
would  not  be  willing  to  vote  the  tax.  I do  not 
see  what  that  means,  unless  it  means  that  whilst 
the  mass  of  the  community  are  against  incurring 
the  expenditure,  yet,  if  you  present  it  in  the  se- 
ductive and  plausible  form  of  running  into 


debt,  and  creating  a fund,  to  be  followed  by  all 
its  attendant  train  of  corruption  and  extrava- 
gance, it  can  be  done.  I do  not  believe  there  is 
any  city  in  the  State  where  it  cannot  be  done. 

Mr.  EWING.  Allow  me  to  interrupt  you  a 
moment.  I think  it  is  the  commonest  thing  in 
the  towns  of  this  State,  generally,  to  construct 
fine  school  buildings,  and  issue  bonds  payable 
in  two,  three,  four,  five,  or  even  ten  years,  in 
installments,  as  we  did  and  are  doing  in  Lan- 
caster. We  have  thrown  the  burden — I speak 
of  it  because  I am  on  the  board  of  education, 
and  know  about  it — we  have  thrown  the  burden 
on  the  public  through  ten  years.  The  burden 
would  have  been  intolerable  if  it  had  been  im- 
posed all  in  one  or  two  years,  but  is  easily  and 
willingly  assumed  and  paid  when  distributed 
through  a larger  term  of  years.  I think  our 
experience  is  a very  common  one  in  the  towns 
of  the  State. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know,  and,  of 
course,  cannot  speak  with  certainty  of  the 
details  in  this  matter,  because  I have  not  inves- 
tigated them.  I can  only  speak  from  my  own 
little  circle  of  observation,  so  far  as  that  is 
concerned ; but  I do  not  think  it  can  be  true 
in  the  State  generally,  and,  if  it  is,  I do 
think  it  is  time  there  was  a gate  shut  down 
upon  such  a system  of  expenditure  as  that. 

All  that  is  proposed  here  is,  that,  in  addi- 
tion to  all  the  restrictions  that  are  otherwise 
imposed,  you  shall  leave  some  peculiar  voice  to 
the  tax-payer,  and  I say  that,  in  any  possible 
light  in  which  I can  look  at  it,  there  is  nothing 
that  merits  the  opprobrium  of  saying  that  it 
is  the  creation  of  an  aristocracjr.  It  is  not 
a matter  in  which  the  ordinary  voter,  as  I see  it, 
is  interested,  except  as  to  whether  he  shall  have 
the  benefit  of  it  or  not.  To  that  extent — that 
he  is  interested  in  saying  whether  he  shall  take 
the  money  out  of  the  pockets  of  those  who  have 
to  pay  it— he  is  interested,  I admit;  but  beyond 
that  he  is  not. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Is  not  a young  man,  who 
is  no  voter,  and  who  is  under  twenty-one, 
liable, to  military  service? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I suppose  he  is. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Has  he  not  a stake  in  the 
community? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  A stake  in  the  community? 
Yes,  he  has  a stake  in  the  community;  but  it 
does  not  follow  that  he  has  a right  to  bind 
all  the  property-holders  in  the  community  to 
that  stake,  until  he  can  take  their  property  and 
run  off  with  it.  I do  not  see  any  ground  of 
interest  he  has  in  it,  except  that  he  has  an 
interest  in  voting  money  out  of  the  pocket 
of  the  tax- payer  into  his  own  pocket,  or  for  his 
own  benefit.  I concede  that  he  may,  in  a 
remote  and  indirect  way,  to  a certain  extent, 
contribute  to  the  taxes,  but  it  is  not  true  as 
a rule,  it  is  not  true  as  a principle,  that  the  tax 
devolves  upon  his  industry.  His  industry  gets 
pay  for  itself.  He  may  pay  rent,  but  whether 
or  not  the  rent  will  include  the  taxes  to  be 
paid,  depends  upon  a great  many  circumstances 
— upon  the  general  prosperity  of  the  town 
or  city. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I am  in  favor  of  reconsid- 
ering this  question,  if  only  in  order  to  give  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  a chance 
for  his  motion,  for  which  I will  cast  my  vote  in 


1412 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [115th 

Freiberg,  Burns,  Griswold.  [Monday, 


the  affirmative,  for  two  reasons:  There  is  an 

unfair  and  unjust  discrimination  in  this  ques- 
tion before  us,  limiting  the  vote  to  the  tax 
payers  only.  I assure  you  I am  not  selfish  in 
this,  because  I am  a tax  payer  myself,  to  a large 
extent.  I recognize  in  this  country  two  kinds 
of  franchise.  One  kind  of  franchise,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, is  based  simply  and  solely  upon  member- 
ship in  a society,  or  citizenship  in  a commu- 
nity, or  State,  where  every  voter  has  the  same 
right,  where  one  man’s  “ aye  ” is  as  good  as  an- 
other man’s  “aye,”  and  one  man’s  “no”  as 
good  as  another  man’s  “ no.”  1 recognize,  also, 
another  kind  of  franchise,  which  is  based  solely 
and  singly  upon  capital  or  capital  stock.  If 
gentlemen  club  together  and  form  a company 
for  a certain  purpose,  they  issue  capital  stock, 
and  each  member  has  a right  to  vote  in  propor- 
tion to  the  amount  of  stock  he  possesses— no 
more  and  no  less.  In  my  opinion,  this  kind  of 
franchise,  which  is  based  on  capital,  or,  as  you 
will  have  it  in  this  proposition,  that  only  tax 
payers  should  vote,  would  act  just  as  unjustly 
as  the  other.  For  which  of  the  two  modes  of 
voting  is  the  more  unjust — that  in  which  every 
voter  of  the  city  or  of  the  corporation  should 
have  the  right  to  vote  on  the  question;  or  that 
mode  in  which  a man,  who  pays  only  one  dollar 
tax  should  have  just  as  much  right  to  vote  away 
thousands  of  dollars,  as  another  man  who  pays 
live  thousand  dollars  taxes?  I am  satisfied, Mr. 
President,  that  the  mode  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  is  the  right 
one,  and  I shall,  therefore,  vote  for  a reconsid- 
eration of  the  question  now  before  the  Con- 
vention. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  glad  that  the  suggestion 
which  I made  to  the  Chairman  of  this  Commit- 
tee, as  to  how  this  vote  was  to  be  taken,  has 
given  rise  to  this  discussion,  although,  at  the 
time,  I did  not  offer  any  amendment.  I am  glad 
it  has  brought  to  the  front  on  this  question  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing].  I 
think  that  the  principle  involved  in  this  sec- 
tion, as  it  now  stands,  will,  if  carried  out,  be 
the  complete  reversal  and  overthrow  of  the 
principle  of  Republican  government  as  wre  now 
understand  it.  It  would  be  the  entering  wedge, 
by  which  we  should  take  piecemeal  from  the 
voter  of  the  land,  his  right  in  determining  the 
character  of  the  government  under  which  he 
lives,  and  transfer  it  to  that  of  the  property 
holder  alone.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  revival 
of  the  old  property  right  to  the  elective  fran- 
chise. There  is  an  inconsistency  in  the  section 
itself.  For  instance,  Mr.  President,  the  first 
part  of  the  section  authorizes  the  village  or 
city  council  to  vote  a debt  of  five  per  cent,  upon 
the  taxable  property  of  the  city  or  village,  and 
yet  the  qualification  for  a member  of  the  city 
council  or  village  council  is  that  of  an  elector, 
unless  the  qualification  is  changed  hereafter. 
To  my  certain  knowledge,  in  some  of  the  vil- 
lages and  smaller  cities  of  this  State,  there 
is  a majority  of  the  council  who  are 
not  taxpayers.  They  are  active  laboring 
men,  though  they  may  be  small  taxpayers — 
very  small  taxpayers — to  be  sure.  There  the 
principle  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Freiberg]  will  apply,  and  of  that  I will  take 
notice  as  I pass.  But  the  village  council  or 
city  council  may  vote  a debt  of  live  per  cent. 


upon  the  taxable  property.  Now,  when  you 
come  to  vote  ten  per  cent.,  you  take  the  question 
away,  not  only  from  the  council,  but  also  from 
the  people  who  live  in  that  city,  and  transfer 
it  to  the  taxpayers  alone.  If  you  seek  to  equal- 
ize matters,  and  say  that  nobody  but  those  who 
pay  taxes  shall  vote,  then  you  ought  to  go  a 
step  further  and  say  that  the  man  who  only 
pays  one  dollar  shall  only  have  one-hundredth 
part  of  the  power  of  the  man  who  pays  one 
hundred  dollars  in  taxes.  The  man  who  pays 
a hundred  dollars  in  taxes  ought  to  have  the 
right  to  one  hundred  votes  for  the  one  vote  of 
the  man  who  pays  only  one  dollar.  If  you 
undertake  to  make  this  discriminating  qualifi- 
cation in  the  right  to  vote,  what  right  has  a 
man  who  has  but  one  dollar  to  pay  to  an  equal 
vote  with  the  man  who  pays  a hundred  dollars? 
If  you  undertake  to  say  that  a man  must  have 
a property  qualification  before  he  has  the  right 
to  vote,  you  must  go  a step  further  and  ascer- 
tain how  much  tax  he  pays,  and  then  let  his 
ballot  have  proportional  influence,  and  then,  to 
use  a common  expression,  “ whittle  it  down  to 
the  little  end  of  nothing,”  when  you  come  to 
the  man  who  pays  twenty  cents  tax,  he  should 
have  one-fifth  as  much  power  as  the  man  who 
pays  a dollar.  There  is,  in  my  judgment,  Mr. 
President,  no  other  way  of  determining  the 
will  of  the  people  on  this  subject  but  by  allow- 
ing it  to  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  the 
municipality  in  which  the  debt  is  proposed  to 
be  incurred,  It  may,  in  some  instances,  possi- 
bly, work  hardship.  It  may  result  in  voting  a 
tax  upon  the  property-holders  which  they 
would  not  vote,  but  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of 
every  hundred,  it  will  result  beneficially  to  the 
corporation.  I hope,  therefore,  that  the  vote 
will  be  reconsidered,  and  that  this  proposition 
will  be  so  amended  as  to  remove  from  it  this 
obnoxious  feature  that  is  now  contained  in  it, 
and  which,  if  retained,  certainly  cannot  receive 
my  vote. 

Mr.  GRTSWOLD.  I fail  to  understand  the 
logic  of  the  gentleman.  I do  not  understand 
that  there  is  any  inherent  right  in  the  elector 
as  such.  It  is  entirely  a matter  of  agreement, 
a matter  of  policy,  as  to  who  shall  vote.  The 
man  under  twenty-one  is  often  just  as  capable 
of  voting  as  the  man  over  twenty-one.  It  is 
only  a matter  of  general  convenience  as  to  who 
shall  vote.  The  gentleman  has  been  here  for 
four  or  five  days  trying  absolutely  to  restrict  any 
expenditure  down  to  the  very  last  limit. 

Now,  what  is  proposed  to  be  done  here  ? We 
do  not  interfere  with  the  reserved  rights  of  any- 
body; for  it  is  all  a matter  of  convenience. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me,  I will  say  that  I voted  against  the  ten  per 
cent.,  and  to  strike  out  everything  that  I could 
get  out.  Having  failed  in  that,  I desired  to  do 
the  best  I could. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  And  because  you  cannot 
get  ten  per  cent,  stricken  out  and  reduced  to  five 
per  cent.,  then  you  will  not  let  anybody  put  the 
limit  where  they  please.  I say  there  is  an  in- 
consistency in  this.  There  is  no  inherent  right 
of  voting  that  belongs  to  any  person.  All  ad- 
mit that  in  the  argument.  It  is  all  a mere 
question  of  public  policy,  and  so  far  as  the 
general  power  of  government  is  concerned, 
nothing  can  go  upon  any  inexorable  rule  of 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Griswold,  West,  Rowland,  Dorsey. 


1413 


Day.] 

February  16,  1874.] 


logic.  All  government  is  a matter  of  com- 
promise. One  of  the  greatest  writers  of  our 
age  has  said  : “ No  man  can  go  down  a crowded 
street  with  his  arms  akimbo.”  He  has  to  yield. 
In  this  matter  we  have  provided,  that  under  the 
general  power  which  is  given  to  electors,  a city 
may  run  in  debt,  if  necessity  require  it,  and  the 
judgment  of  its  people  sanction  it,  to  the  extent 
of  live  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  property  on 
the  duplicate.  Now,  the  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing]  brings  up  the  school-house 
question.  That  school-house  is  a good  deal  like 
the  beggar  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West].  It  does  not  touch  the  question. 

Mr.  WEST.  Leave  my  beggar  alone ! 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Well,  the  beggar  and  the 
school-house  do  not  add  to  the  argument.  We 
say  that  on  the  question  of  general  power,  of 
levying  general  taxes,  of  the  management 
and  control  of  your  city,  every  voter, 
whether  he  has  property  interest  or  not, 
has  his  voice  in  the  government.  As  the 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  well 
says:  The  whole  city  council  may  not  con- 
tain an  individual  interested  in  property 
and  yet  that  council  has  the  power  to  levy  all 
the  taxes  that  are  expended  for  all  the  ordin- 
ary purposes  of  government;  and  under  that 
condition  of  things  no  complaint  is  made.  We 
say  that  is  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  our 
institutions.  The  general  judgment  of  the  com- 
munity expresses  itself  in  that  way.  Up  to  the 
limit  of  running  the  government,  of  all  the 
powers  delegated  by  the  State  to  the  municipal- 
ity they  should  exercise — all  these  powers  they 
have  the  full  right  to.  There  is  no  limit  upon 
their  power  to  impose  a yearly  tax.  Nothing  in 
the  Constitution  imposes  any  such  limit.  All 
these  things  are  left  to  the  general  power,  to 
the  general  good  sense  of  the  community.  But 
we  do  say  that  when,  exercising  these  powers 
in  this  manner,  you  have  not  been  able  to  pay 
your  current  expenses,  and  you  have  put  your 
property  under  a mortgage  of  five  per  cent, 
upon  its  value,  there  is  room  for  a suspicion 
that  you  have  not  been  wise  in  your  expendi- 
ture. When  your  yearly  current  expenses  have 
run  behind  and  your  deficit  has  reached,  in  way 
of  a funded  debt,  to  one-twentieth  of  the  whole 
value  of  the  property,  the  question  arises 
whether  or  not  you  have  been  wise ; and  is  it 
not  best  for  you  to  stop  and  put  a check  upon 
debt?  It  does  not  interfere  with  any  man’s 
right.  He  continues  to  run  the  government  all 
the  same  from  year  to  year.  He  can  levy  all  the 
tax  that  the  people  will  stand ; and  the  man 
who  has  no  property  has  the  greatest  interest 
in  having  the  taxes  light,  and  in  making  the 
government  as  light  as  possible;  for  if  the  gov- 
ernment is  run  so  that  the  taxes  are  heavy,  it 
bears  hardest  of  all  upon  the  man  who  is  with- 
out property. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Then  he  ought  to  vote. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I say  that  he  ought  to 
vote.  He  does  vote  and  he  levies  all  the  taxes. 
But  we  say,  as  a matter  of  compromise, 
when  he  is  not  able,  with  the  power  to  levy 
taxes  unlimited,  to  pay  the  current  expenses, 
but  not  to  the  extent  of  putting  a mortgage  of 
one-twentieth  of  the  whole  value  of  the  prop- 
erty. At  this  point  there  ought  to  be  a check 
on  extravagance.  That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 


There  is  nothing  else.  It  does  not  interfere  with 
any  right  or  power.  It  is  a mere  question  of 
policy  as  to  what  shall  be  wise  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, and  how  far  we  shall  allow  the  peo- 
ple themselves  to  run  the  city  into  debt;  and  the 
judgment  of  the  Committee  is  that  when,  aside 
from  the  current  expenses,  five  per  cent,  has 
been  put  into  the  future  to  pay,  then,  unless 
there  is  some  great  public  necessity,  such  that 
the  whole  community  have  an  interest  in  doing 
it,  they  ought  to  wait  until  they  are  able  to  pay 
as  they  go.  When  they  have  mortgaged  for  the 
public  interest — that  is,  what  they  supposed 
would  be  for  the  public  interest — one-twentieth 
of  all  the  property,  real  and  personal,  they  are 
in  a bad  way  for  the  government,  and  there  is 
room  for  a fair  suspicion  that  they  have  not 
managed  wisely  and  that  they  need  a check  im- 
posed upon  them. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I had  always  believed  that 
men,  after  they  were  twenty-one,  learned  a 
little  more  than  they  knew  before.  But  we 
have  had  some  new  light  from  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  upon  that 
question.  Now,  sir,  I have  concurred  in  the 
course  that  has  been  taken  upon  this  Report, 
save  in  the  vote  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  and  I presume 
that  he  intended  to  strike  out  the  limitation  of 
per  centum,  and  had  no  reference  to  the  man- 
ner by  which  that  restriction  might  be  put  upon 
the  city. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  None  at  all. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  None  at  all.  The  gentle- 
man says  so  himself.  Before  any  reference  had 
been  made  to  .this  question  in  public,  I sug- 
gested to  the  Chairman,  in  whose  judgment 
I have  great  confidence,  that  I thought 
a mistake  had  been  made  in  that  re- 
spect. I believe  it  to  be  such.  I be- 
lieve that,  if  pursued  in,  it  will  be  a mistake 
fatal  to  the  Constitution.  In  no  manner  could 
more  strenuous  opposition  be  aroused  against 
the  Constitution  than  by  that  little  clause. 
And  I believe  that  the  opposition  would  be  well 
grounded.  I believe  in  the  old  theory  that  tar- 
iffs are  paid  by  the  consumers,  and  that  the 
taxes  diffuse  themselves,  the  laborers  of  the 
country  assisting  in  paying  them.  Further- 
more, capital  has  great  control  of  labor.  We 
know  how  voters  are  intimidated.  I believe  in 
the  theory  of  the  gentleman  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns],  that  if  there  is  any  equity  in  the 
principle  of  the  property  qualification,  the  vote 
should  be  in  accordance  with  the  amount  of 
property  held;  and  I think  that  there  is  no  jus- 
tice in  any  other  rule.  By  this  rule,  you  inter- 
dict the  young,  the  ardent,  the  aspiring,  nearly 
every  man  below  twenty-five,  including  the 
enterprise  and  energy,  and  a great  proportion 
of  the  brains  of  the  country.  These  men  pay 
their  taxes.  When  you  levy  a tax  of  three  per 
cent,  in  Cincinnati,  I contend,  sir,  that  every 
honest  laboring  man  pays  his  just  proportion  of 
that  tax,  and  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that 
he  is  entitled  to  a vote.  And,  sir,  he  will  have 
it,  if  you  put  this  Constitution  to  a vote.  You 
are  “sowing  to  the  wind,  and  you  will  reap  the 
whirlwind,”  if  you  put  this  into  your  Constitu- 
tion. I do  not  blame  these  men.  They  have 
rights.  I know  of  no  right  by  which  you  can 
prescribe  a limit  beyond  which  you  cannot  go 


1414 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [115th 

Rowland,  Cowen,  Ewing,  Pratt.  [Monday, 


unless  sanctioned  by  the  property  holders. 
AVhat  sort  of  a vote  will  you  have  at  the  polls  if 
you  give  the  property  holders  the  exclusive 
right  to  vote?  You  would  have  a riot  every 
time  you  held  an  election  of  that  sort. 

You  could  not  hold  an  election  under  that 
sort  of  rule,  without  a riot  in  these  great  cities, 
and  all  the  police  power  you  could  bring  to 
bear  could  not  restrain  it. 

I think  this  motion  ought  to  be  reconsidered, 
and  I believe  that  when  it  is  calmly  discussed, 
we  shall  do  away  with  this  discrimination.  I 
have  very  great  confidence  in  that  Committee. 
They  have  made  a good  report,  and  yet  I disa- 
gree with  them  in  that  matter ; and  I disagree 
with  them  so  vitally  that  I believe  that  clause 
will  be  fatal  to  this  section  of  the  Constitution, 
if  you  put  it  in.  I shall,  therefore,  vote  for  a 
reconsideration  and  for  the  substitution  of  some 
other  plan.  If  the  Convention  desire  to  put  a 
restriction  requiring  the  consent  of  two-thirds 
of  the  voters,  all  well  and  good.  Perhaps  a 
bare  majority  should  not  have  the  power  to  run 
beyond  the  limit  indicated.  But  if  you  are  as- 
certaining the  will  of  the  people,  take  the  will 
of  the  whole  people.  The  burden  bears  upon 
them  all,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  they 
should  not  have  a voice. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  which,  in  his  opinion,  creates  the  greater 
limitation — the  proposition  as  reported  by  the 
Committee,  or  the  one  as  reported  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I do  not  recollect  what 
was  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield. 

Mr.  EWING.  My  proposition  is  to  strike  out 
“ two-thirds  of  the  tax-paying  citizens,”  and 
insert  “ two-thirds  of  the  voters.” 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I should  say  that  yours 
contains  the  greater  limitations. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Another  question  : Does  the 
gentleman  believe  that  Ohio  is  going  to  vote 
down  the  Constitution  because  of  the  restriction 
which  we  impose  upon  taxation  and  indebted- 
ness, rather  than  by  reason  of  that  proposed  bj7- 
the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  answer  you  in  this 
way,  sir.  Any  power  of  general  taxation  is  as 
compared  with  that  of  assessment,  as  the  little 
finger  to  the  thigh.  And  yet,  you  allow  any 
man,  any  non-tax  payer,  even,  to  come  into  the 
common  council,  and  vote  an  assessment,  by  the 
very  rule  you  have  adopted  here,  fifty  per  cent, 
in  ten  years.  Gentlemen  then  come  in,  after 
giving  this  enormous  power  to  the  voters  who 
are  not  tax-payers,  and  claim  that  they  shall 
be  restricted  upon  a limitation  of  the  amount 
of  the  general  debt.  Is  the  question  answered? 

Mr.  PRATT.  I also  hope  that  the  motion  to 
reconsider  will  prevail.  I hope  so,  not  so  much 
for  the  reasons  which  have  been  assigned  by 
others,  as  from  the  fact  that  I discover,  on  ex- 
amination of  some  of  the  statistics  of  one  city 
in  the  State,  that  the  provision  can  have  no 
practical  application  to  her,  for  she  has  al- 
ready exceeded  the  utmost  limit  of  indebted- 
ness fixed  by  this  section.  By  the  Report  of 
the  Auditor  of  the  State  of  Ohio  for  the  fiscal 
year  1873 — page  64 — it  appears  that  the  city  of 
Toledo  had  a tax  duplicate  aggregating 
$10,821,720.  She  was  paying  a rate  of  taxation 
of  three  cents,  four  mills,  and  six-tenths  of  a i 


mill — nearly  three  and  a half  per  cent. — a pret- 
ty high  rate  of  taxation,  I am  free  to  concede. 
But  her  indebtedness  was  $1,768,609.06.  Now, 
I am  bound  to  conclude,  that  this  indebtedness 
does  not  include  a defalcation  that  has  taken 
place  in  the  treasury  of  that  city,  amounting  in 
the  aggregate,  I believe,  to  $105,000,  for  which 
I think  they  are  already  seeking  from  the  Leg- 
islature of  the  State,  liberty  to  issue  bonds  and 
make  the  defalcation  a part  of  the  funded  debt 
of  the  city.  This,  then,  if  conceded  to  her, 
would  carry  her  indebtedness  to  $1,873,000, 
nearly,  or  about  twelve  per  cent,  of  the  tax  du- 
plicate as  it  stood  in  1873.  Thus  she  has  al- 
ready passed  the  limit  provided  for  by  the  Com- 
mittee. In  addition  to  that,  I know  that  she  has 
commenced  and  is  prosecuting  her  water  works 
system,  upon  an  estimated  cost  of  half  a mil- 
lion or  more  dollars.  For  that  reason,  I sup- 
ported the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  But  that  does  not 
cover  the  necessities  of  her  situation.  It  may 
be  contended  that  a city  which  has  incurred 
such  an  indebtedness  as  this,  is  already  bank- 
rupt. I think  it  would  hardly  be  conceded  by 
her  citizens  that  the  city  of  Toledo,  whose 
bonds  are  yet  in  the  market,  and  sell  well  on 
that  condition,  and  that  the  consequences  which 
would  result  from  such  a condition  apply  to 
her  property  as  yet.  Her  business  is  thriving 
in  the  face  of  such  indebtedness,  and  in  the 
face  of  this  taxation,  and  the  course  of  her 
real  estate  is  continually  upward.  She  has 
gained,  since  the  assessment  upon  which  this 
duplicate  was  founded  was  made,  namely,  in 
the  year  1870,  more  than  twenty-five  per  cent, 
upon  her  population,  and  the  increase  is  going 
on  rapidly. 

Now,  oppressive  as  this  is,  compared  with  her 
duplicate  of  property,  it  is  not  so  exceedingly 
oppressive,  probably,  as  compared  with  her  real 
condition.  I have  thought  it  necessary  that 
some  one  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  her  con- 
dition should  represent  them  to  the  Convention. 
I shall  support  the  motion  to  reconsider,  for  the 
purpose  ot  moving,  at  the  proper  time,  to  strike 
out  the  word  “ten,”  and  leave  the  whole  prop- 
osition in  a condition  so  that  it  can  be  moulded 
to  suit  her  wants,  if  her  delegates  should  appear 
in  proper  time. 

Now,  I do  not  speak,  in  referring  to  the  city 
of  Toledo,  from  my  own  convictions  of  what  is 
best,  and  what  is  the  most  proper  course  in  re- 
gard to  a municipal  debt.  Were  I to  speak 
from  my  own  convictions,  I would  say,  and  I 
would  vote  in  this  Convention,  that  no  munici- 
pality should  have  the  power  to  contract  any 
indebtedness  whatever.  I would  hold  each  year 
and  each  generation  responsible  for  the  ex- 
penses of  that  year  and  that  generation.  I 
would  apply  the  principle,  “Pay  as  you  go;” 
and  I believe  it  would  be  the  most  wholesome 
principle  for  municipalities  to  adopt.  But  that 
is  not  the  question  here.  We  have  not  done  it 
in  the  past.  Our  cities  have  contracted  in- 
debtedness, and  they  are  to  be  provided  for,  and 
their  future  growth  is  also  to  be  considered. 
Now,  if  this  limitation,  as  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee, is  to  be  applied  to  the  city  of  Toledo,  it 
will  be  impossible  for  her  to  build  another 
school-house,  unless  the  expense  thereof  be 
added  immediately  to  her  duplicate.  It  will  be 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1415 

February  16,  1874.]  Pratt,  Miner. 


impossible  for  her  to  undertake  any  improve- 
ment whatever  on  her  streets  or  her  sewers, 
except  by  direct  assessment — which  was  so 
strongly  objected  to  this  forenoon — unless  car- 
ried upon  the  duplicate,  and  her  condition 
would  certainly  become  one  of  such  heavy  tax- 
ation, in  the  immediate  present,  that  it  would 
be  impossible  to  realize  sufficient  for  the  ad- 
ministration of  her  municipal  affairs.  I think 
that  is  easy  to  be  seen,  and  I desire,  in  the  mo- 
tion which  I shall  make  upon  this  matter, 
chiefly  to  obtain  time  for  her  delegates  to  make 
their  appearance,  and  represent  her  condition 
to  the  Convention,  in  order  that  such  action 
may  be  taken  as  may  be  suitable  to  her  case. 

Then,  again,  we  have  ventured  upon  the  great 
experiment  of  universal  suffrage  as  the  found- 
ation of  all  our  institutions  and  for  the  conduct 
of  all  our  affairs ; and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is 
a little  late  in  the  day  to  retract  from  it,  regard- 


ing any  part  of  the  administration  of  public 
affairs.  Our  institutions  may  be  a compromise. 
It  will  be  well,  however,  for  us  to  remember 
that  our  work  has  to  undergo  the  scrutiny  of 
the  people,  and  to  stand  the  test  of  the  ballot 
box.  If  it  were  ever  known  that  a person  pos- 
sessing the  elective  franchise  surrendered  it 
willingly,  however  remotely  he  was  interested 
in  the  object  that  would  result  from  the  exer- 
cise of  his  ballot,  I have  yet  to  hear  of  that 
instance.  I canrot  persuade  myself  but  that 
every  person  in  the  State  of  Ohio  who  is  not 
possessed  of  property  will  consider  the  distinc- 
tion that  is  made  between  him  and  the  taxpayer, 
such  an  invidious  one  as  to  be  a direct  insult  to 
him,  such  as  he  will  resent  by  a strong  “ No  ” 
when  this  Constitution  is  submitted  to  him  with 
any  such  provision  in  it. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  MINER  (at  5 : 55  p.  m.)  the 
Convention  adjourned. 


1416 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [116th 

Shaw,  Reilly,  Hill,  Townsend,  Voris,  Hoadly.  [Tuesday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  SIXTEENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FIFTY-FOURTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF- PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 


The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Richard  Gray,  of  Christ 
Church,  Cincinnati. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  82  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PRESENTATION  OF  PETITIONS. 


Mr.  SHAW  presented  the  petition  of  J.  N. 
Penn,  Wm.  Pease,  and  about  three  hundred 
other  citizens  of  Clermont  county,  praying  that 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors 
in  this  State  be  prohibited. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  REILLY  presented  the  petition  of  Elijah 
Whinnery,  and  ninety-five  other  citizens  of 
Columbiana  county,  earnestly  protesting  against 
the  incorporation  of  certain  religious  opinions 
and  beliefs  in  the  Constitution. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
‘Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Also,  that  of  Thomas  N.  Boyle,  and  twenty- 
three  other  citizens  of  Columbiana  county,  on 
the  same  subject,  which  received  like  reference. 

Mr.  HILL  submitted  the  following  Report : 


The  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses  having1  had 
the  following  accounts  under  consideration,  viz: 

1.  Bill  of  Mary  Quinn,  for  washing  217  towels  for 

Convention  in  December,  1873,  and  January, 

1874 ...  $ 21  70 

2.  Milton  Moppins,  for  cleaning  boiler  in  engine 

room 1 50 

3.  Terrence  Kettell,  for  repair  and  painting  in 

Convention  room 52  58 

4.  Cincinnati  Ice  Company,  for  ice  in  December, 

1873,  and  January,  1874 22  65 

5.  Bill  of  T.  M.  Storns,  for  wheelbarrow  for  engine 

room 6 50 

6.  Bill  of  Jno.  G.  Jones,  for  2100  bushels  of  coal 

for  Convention,  at  19  cts 399  00 


Total $503  93 

Find  the  same  correct,  and  recommend  that  said  bills  be 
paid  out  of  the  appropriate  funds. 

Geo.  W.  Hill, 

Jacob  Mueller, 

Ozias  Merrill, 

John  H.  Blose, 

W.  J.  Young. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion now  proceed  to  the  special  order  of  the  day, 
being  Proposition  No.  182. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  being 
Proposition  No.  182,  the  question  pending  at ' 


Tuesday,  February  17,  1874. 

adjournment  on  yesterday  was  upon  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing] 
to  reconsider  the  vote  taken  on  yesterday  on 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  to  amend  section  four  by 
striking  out  from  the  word  “ thereof,”  in  line 
three,  to  and  including  the  word  “value,”  in 
line  six. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I do  not  desire — *- 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  give  way  one  moment?  I 
simply  want  to  make  a statement  on  behalf  of 
the  Committee. 

Mr.  VORIS.  It  may  defeat  the  object  for 
which  I rose.  What  is  the  suggestion?  an 
amendment? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  instructed  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Municipal  Corporations,  in  view  of 
the  very  generally  expressed  opinion,  to  ask  the 
Convention  to  unite  on  the  motion  to  reconsider, 
with  the  view  to  considering  a proposition  from 
the  Committee,  to  substitute  for  the  words  “two- 
thirds  of  the  taxpayers,”  the  words  “three- 
fourths  of  the  electors.” 

MEMBERS.  “Agreed;  agreed.” 

Mr.  VORIS.  I do  not  desire  to  make  an  ar- 
gument, at  any  length,  upon  this  proposition ; 
but  1 find  it  very  healthful  to  the  soul,  some- 
times, to  reconsider  preconceived  opinions,  and 
in  that  view,  I suggested  to  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  EwingI,  who  addressed  the  Con- 
vention, yesterday  at  considerable  length,  and 
with  a great  deal  of  warmth,  on  this  question, 
that  I thought  he  had  not  thoroughly  considered 
the  proposition  he  was  urging.  A mutual  feel- 
ing seemed  to  exist  between  us  that  both  of  us 
might  be  in  the  same  inconsiderate  state.  On 
going  to  my  room  last  night,  I saw  fit  to  thor- 
oughly search  the  foundations  of  my  belief  on 
this  matter,  and  I came  fully  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  inalienable  and  unquestionable  prero- 
gative of  the  poor  man  to  run  into  debt,  and  to 
force  the  community  in  which  he  resides  into 
debt,  was  one  of  the  inalienable  rights  which, 
on  principle,  we  ought  not  to  put  into  the  Con- 
stitution. Mjr  reconsideration,  therefore,  has 
led  me  to  the  belief,  that  restraint  upon  the 
right  or  power  to  indefinitely  force  these  Muni- 
cipal Corporations  into  indebtedness,  that  may 
create  a lien  upon  the  property  of  every  tax- 
payer of  the  community,  is,  to  say  the  least 
about  it,  vicious,  and  ought  not  to  be  carried 
into  the  Constitution.  But  what  astonishes  me 
most  is,  that  among  all  the  bountiful  blessings 
bestowed  upon  us  by  Divine  Providence,  the 
chaplain  forgot,  this  morning,  to  thank  God 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Voris,  Dorsey,  Hoadly. 


1417 


Day.] 

February  17,  1874.] 


that  it  was  the  privilege  of  the  poor  man,  as 
well  as  the  rich  man,  to  run  the  community  in- 
definitely into  debt. 

The  remarks  that  I propose  to  make,  if  the 
suggestion  just  made  by  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations  is 
adopted  by  this  Convention  would,  perhaps,  be 
unnecessary  at  this  time;  but,-  from  indications 
that  appear  to  manifest  themselves  upon  this 
floor,  that  it  is  the  intention  to  insert  “three- 
fourths  of  the  electors”  instead  of  “two-thirds 
of  the  tax-payers,  which  would  probably  be 
about  as  equivalent  a thing,  I do  not  know  but 
it  would  be  well  enough  for  us  to  reconsider. 
But  the  argument  made  here,  that  it  is 
abridging  the  rights  of  the  elector  to  say  that 
he  may  not  indefinitely  mortgage  every  dollar 
of  property  in  his  community,  that  which  he 
does  not  own  as  well  as  that  which  he  does  own, 
is  not,  certainly,  well  considered.  They  have 
the  right  of  the  elector  now  to  determine 
whether  improvements,  such  as  come  legiti- 
mately within  the  scope  of  these  municipal 
bodies,  shall  be  made  or  not.  They  have  the 
right,  by  their  voice  in  the  elections  of  their 
communities,  to  determine  whether  any  given 
improvement  shall  be  undertaken  by  the  body 
politic  or  not.  This  section  is  simply  a limita- 
tion upon  the  power  to  create  indebtedness; 
and  the  fallacy  underlying  the  whole  thing, 
in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  not  willing  that 
the  tax-paying  voters  shall  settle  the  question, 
is  manifested  in  the  fact  that  the  very  same 
gentlemen  favor  ten  per  centum  as  the  maxi- 
mum amount  of  indebtedness  that,  in  any  event, 
may  be  created,  and  that  the  elector  shall  have 
no  power  to  increase.  The  whole  scramble 
here  is  simply  between  the  five  and  ten  per 
centum,  and  the  time  of  levying  that  indebted- 
ness. The  principles  they  seek  to  apply,  apply 
only  to  the  second  five  per  centum  of  indebted- 
ness, but  would  not  apply  if  effect  was  given  to 
the  logic  they  used  for  the  entire  ninety  per 
centage  of  the  property  that  goes  upon  your 
duplicate,  which  you  will  not  allow  the  elector 
to  involve  or  encumber  by  any  larger  amount 
of  indebtedness. 

I do  think  that  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  expect  that  this  mania  for  getting  into 
debt  should  be  stayed  by  Constitutional  pro- 
visions. If  they  do  not  expect  this  of  the  Con- 
vention, I would  like  to  know  what  under 
heaven  they  do  expect  of  us!  Why,  that  the 
owners  of  property,  the  men  who  have  to  pay 
it,  may  be  controlled,  so  far  as  the  entire  value 
of  their  property  is  concerned,  by  the  man  who 
does  not  own  a dollar  in  the  world,  is  simply 
unjust  and  ridiculous,  and  ought  not  to  have 
any  application  in  our  political  arrangements. 
If  to  reconsider  this  is  to  put  additional  safe- 
guards upon  the  power  of  municipal  bodies  to  | 
involve  the  property  within  their  corporations  i 
in  indebtedness,  deep  and  irremediable,  is  pro- 
posed, why,  I am  prepared  to  go  for  it ; but  if 
it  is  to  relax,  if  it  is  to  open  the  door,  so  that 
these  communities  may  flood  the  entire  taxable 
property  with  indebtedness  for  anything  that 
irresponsible  voters  may  see  fit  to  foist  upon  it, 

I am  opposed  to  it;  and  the  sense  and  judgment 
of  most  of  the  people,  it  strikes  me,  are  in  the 
same  direction. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I desire,  Mr.  President,  to 


i 


say  a few  words  on  this  subject  of  reconsidera- 
tion, and  I favor  the  reconsideration  of  that 
vote,  not  because  I am  particularly  impressed 
with  the  value  of  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  but 
because  I shall  hope,  in  the  reconsideration  of 
this  matter,  to  have  this  section  put  in  some 
form  that  will,  to  my  mind,  be  less  objectiona- 
ble than  that  which  it  occupies  now.  But  I 
will  say  here,  that  I always  differ  from  a Com- 
mittee with  diffidence.  I do  not  desire  to  differ 
with  the  report  of  a Committee  who  have  care- 
fully and  with  all  the  judgment  which  they 
possess,  made  a report  to  this  Convention  on 
subjects  that  have  not  been  so  carefully  con- 
sidered, perhaps,  by  other  members  of  the  Con- 
vention ; but  in  the  exercise  of  my  privilege  as 
a delegate  from  the  people,  I must  be  allowed 
here,  to  differ,  very  materially,  from  some  mat- 
ters presented  by  this  Report. 

I hold  that  it  is  a matter  of  very  great  im- 
portance for  us  to  endeavor  to  restrain  the  ten- 
dency which  we  find  in  the  people  of  the  State, 
at  the  present  time,  through  their  Municipal 
Corporations,  to  involve  themselves  in  debt; 
and  if  we  can,  by  any  means,  place  any  right 
and  proper  limit  upon  this  disposition,  we  ought 
to  do  so. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  the  Constitution  of 
1851  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  place  any  limit 
upon  it.  That  is  a decided  mistake.  They  did 
not,  in  precisely  the  form  in  which  we  propose 
to  apply  it  at  the  present  time;  but  it  will  be 
found  that  when  there  was  a disposition  to  run 
headlong  into  debt,  by  the  various  municipal- 
ities of  the  State,  the  Constitution  of  1851  went 
even  further  than  this  Constitution  proposes  to 
go  at  the  present  time,  and  much  farther,  I think, 
than  it  ought  to  have  gone,  at  that  time,  and 
framed  an  inflexible  rule  by  which  the  people 
of  the  State  could  never  make  subscriptions 
through  Municipal  Corporations  to  any  improve- 
ment, whatever  might  be  the  propriety  of  mak- 
ing such  public  improvement ; but  here  we  have 
a provision,  which  allows  the  people  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations  of  the  State,  by  a vote  of  a 
small  majority,  I suppose,  of  all  the  electors — 
and  here  I would  like  to  ask  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee,  if  the  intention  was,  when  this 
Report  was  made,  to  allow  a levy  of  five  per 
centum  to  be  made  by  a majority  of  the  electors  ? 
was  that  the  intention  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  We  intended  to  place  no 
other  restrictions  in  the  way  of  the  five  per 
centum  than  such  as -the  Legislature,  in  its  wis- 
dom, might  see  fit  to  prescribe.  The  delegate 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  will  bear  with  me 
when  I call  his  attention  to  the  last  clause  of  the 
first  section : 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  restrict  the  power  of 
such  corporations  to  levy  taxes  and  assessments,  borrow 
money,  and  contract  debts,  so  as  to  prevent  the  abuse  of 
such  power.” 

And,  as  was  fully  understood  when  that  first 
section  was  under  debate,  that  language  was 
inserted  so  as  to  place  it  beyond  all  doubt,  that  in 
addition  to  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  Con- 
stitution, the  General  Assembly  might  impose 
further  restrictions;  but  we  did  not  propose,  to 
the  extent  of  five  per  centum,  to  impose  any  re- 
strictions by  constitutional  interposition. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I so  understand  it,  Mr. 


1418 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Dorsey,  Hoadly,  Hale. 


[110th 

[Tuesday, 


President,  and  when  you  propose  to  go  above 
live  per  centum,  the  Committee  have  thought 
proper  to  place  an  additional  restriction,  and 
they  have  made  it  in  two  forms:  One  by  a 

three-fourths  vote,  and  another  by  allow- 
ing tax-payers  only  to  vote  for  an  increase  over 
live  and  up  to  ten  per  centum.  Now,  I hold 
that  this  is  a wise  restriction.  Gentlemen  have 
supposed  that  there  was  no  very  great  danger 
of  our  corporations  going  even  up  to  the  five 
per  centum  of  indebtedness  allowed  under  this 
clause. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  will  per- 
mit me,  I want  to  say  to  him  that  that  fear  is 
not  shared  by  this  Committee.  This  Commit- 
tee was  of  the  opinion  that  there  was  very  great 
danger,  not  of  the  debt  going  up  to  five,  but  of 
its  going  up  to  ten,  and  the  restriction  we 
placed  between  five  and  ten  was  intended  as  an 
extreme,  severe  restriction. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I was  referring  more  par- 
ticularly to  the  remark  of  my  friend  from 
Medina  [Mr.  IIumphreville],  that  it  would  not 
get  up  to  anything  like  five  per  centum.  I beg 
leave  to  say  that  you  will  find  the  levies  for  a 
large  number  of  Municipal  Corporations  in  the 
Report  of  the  Auditor  of  State  (page  64),  and  it 
will  be  seen  that  several  of  them  are  fully  up  to 
five  per  centum,  and  many  of  them  very  much 
above. 

I need  only  refer  to  my  own  town  of  Piqua, 
Miami  county,  where,  with  an  estimated  valu- 
ation in  1873  of  $2,843,209,  we  already  have  a 
debt  of  $142,700,  being  entirely  up  to  the  five 
per  centum,  and  this  being  for  the  purpose  of 
constructing  water  works,  which  are  yet  incom- 
plete, and  it  is  very  likely  the  debt  may  be  car- 
ried up  to  very  nearly,  if  not  quite,  ten  per  cen- 
tum. For  that  reason,  I voted  for  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Bishop],  which  proposed  that  where  there 
was  work  already  in  progress,  or  authorized  by 
law,  but  not  completed,  nothing  in  this  Consti- 
tution shall  be  construed  to  prevent  or  throw 
any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  its  completion.  That 
is  all  right  and  proper;  but  where  nothing  of 
the  kind  exists,  I hold  that  the  Committee  have 
done  very  wisely  in  placing  restrictions  upon 
the  power  of  corporations  to  travel  up  in  in- 
debtedness, all  the  way  from  five  to  ten  per 
centum  upon  their  valuations.  I say  here,  I 
care  very  little  how  strongly  these  restrictions 
may  be  placed  in  the  Constitution.  They  are 
right;  they  are  proper;  they  will  produce  a 
valuable  effect  in  the  State;  and,  unless  we  do 
something  of  this  kind,  we  shall  see  the  whole 
State  running  rapidly  into  bankruptcy.  There 
can  be  no  other  termination  of  this  matter. 
That  will  be  the  end  of  it,  and  it  can  have  no 
other  end. 

I said  that  I did  not  know  that  I was  really 
particularly  impressed  with  the  propriety  of 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing],  striking  out  the  word  “tax- 
payers” and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof,  the  word 
“voters.”  Now,  I am  perfectly  willing  that 
there  shall  be  no  such  provision  up  to  five  per 
centum,  or  where  the  tax  is  for  the  purpose  of 
building  school-houses;  but  here  1 will  say  that 
in  the  construction  of  school-houses  in  the  dif- 
ferent portions  of  Ohio,  you  will  find,  in  nine 
cases  out  of  ten,  that  the  amount  of  tax  in  the 


corporation  will  not  go  over  two  or  two  and  a 
half  per  centum,  not  more  than  half  way  up  to 
five  per  centum  on  the  grand  levy.  Therefore, 
as  it  is  the  interest  of  every  man  in  the  State, 
the  poor  and  the  rich,  to  have  the  children  of 
the  State  educated,  and  to  have  school  houses 
built  for  educating  the  children,  I am  in  favor 
of  allowing  every  man,  every  voter,  to  vote  on 
building  school-houses ; and  I would  not  abridge 
that  right  up  to  five  per  centum  of  the  grand  levy 
of  the  corporation.  I would  not  do  it;  but  it  is  a 
very  different  matter  when  you  go  beyond  that, 
and  when  you  propose  to  increase  the  indebt- 
edness of  the  corporation  from  five  to  ten  per 
centum.  There  I hold  that  every  man  who 
holds  property  in  the  corporation  has  the  right 
to  cry,  “Stop!  hold  on!  Be  very  careful  how 
you  involve  me,  and  everything  I have,  in  this 
undue  amount  of  taxation!”  Why,  you  have 
already  provided  in  this  Article,  that  an  assess- 
ment may  be  made  by  which  fifty  per  centum 
of  my  property  may  be  taken  away  for  the  ben- 
efit of  the  corporation ; and  if  this  is  done  ev- 
ery ten  years,  it  will  fritter  away  the  whole  of 
it  in  twenty  years,  and  now  you  will  further 
vote  a tax  of  ten  per  centum  additional,  and 
make  this  a perpetual  debt.  I ask  gentlemen  if 
they  can  see  any  plainer  and  more  direct  high- 
way to  bankruptcy  for  the  State  than  this?  If 
they  can,  I confess  that  I cannot.  Gentlemen 
need  not  tell  me  that  restriction  of  this  kind  is 
unrepublican  or  undemocratic.  Perhaps  I do 
not  understand  precisely  what  is  meant  by  the 
term  “undemocratic”  at  the  present  time;  but  if 
I know  anything  about  what  Democracy  is, 
and  I think  I did  once  know,  I hold  that  it  is  a 
principle  that  asks  only  what  is  right,  and  re- 
fuses to  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  any  man  for 
the  benefit  of  any  other  man.  Democracy,  I 
say,  demands  only  what  is  right,  and  never,  for 
one  moment,  desires  to  trample  upon  the  rights 
of  others.  If  this  be  Democracy,  why,  then,  1 
say  this  provision  does  not  violate  any  Demo- 
cratic principle  whatever. 

Why,  I am  told  that  the  men  who  own  no 
property  to-day  may  be  the  very  men  who  will 
hold  property  twenty  years  ijience,  or  in  a gen- 
eration to  come.  It  is  true,  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  and  I rejoice  that  it  is  true.  I re- 
joice that  the  boys  who  black  our  boots,  and 
the  men  who  wash  our  buggies  at  the  present 
time,  are  to  be,  perhaps,  in  the  next  generation, 
or  the  next  twenty  years,  the  millionaires  of 
the  State,  and  that  their  children,  under  the 
operation  of  our  beneficent  school  law,  and 
the  broad  road  which  is  opened  to  them  for 
political  preferment,  are  to  become  the  leaders 
in  political  society,  and  the  elite  in  the  social 
society  of  the  country.  I rejoice  at  that;  I re- 
joice that  a way  of  that  kind  is  open ; but  that 
does  not,  for  one  moment,  convey  to  my  mind 
the  idea  that  these  men,  standing  here  without 
property,  have  the  right  to  impose  what  1 be- 
lieve, and  every  person  in  Ohio  believes,  to  be 
an  undue  burden  upon  the  taxable  property  of 
the  State.  I do  not  claim  that  I have  that  right, 
and  I do  not  claim  that  my  neighbor,  who  is  a 
property  owner,  has  that  right;  and  more  than 
that,  I claim  that  my  neighbor,  who  has  no 
property,  although  I have  just  as  much  respect 
for  him  as  for  the  man  of  wealth,  has  not  that 
right. 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  17,  1874.]  Dorsey,  West,  Hoadly,  Ewing,  Yoris,  Mueller,  etc. 


1419 


Here  the  gavel  fell. 

MEMBERS.  “Leave;”  “leave.” 

Mr.  HALE.  It  does  seem  to  me,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  we  ought,  sometime,  to  commence 
the  enforcement  of  the  rules  of  the  Conven- 
tion, and  I object  to  leave  being  granted. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Very  well,  I consent. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question,  then,  is 
on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  to  reconsider. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  WEST.  I offer  the  following  substitute 
for  the  entire  section  : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  offers  the  following  substi- 
tute for  the  entire  section,  which  the  Secretary 
will  read : 

The  Secretary  read  the  same,  which  is  as 
follows : 

“Sec.  4.  No  Municipal  Corporation  shall  ever  contrac 
or  have  an  indebtedness  exceeding,  in  the  aggregate,  five 
per  centum  of  the  taxable  valuation  on  its  grand  dupli- 
cate. But  obligations  on  account  of  any  indebtedness 
existing  at  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  or  which 
may  be  contracted  in  the  completion  of  any  public  work 
authorized  by  law,  and  actually  undertaken  before  that 
time,  or  which  may  be  authorized  by  law,  and  by  two- 
thirds  of  the  electors  of  the  municipality,  for  the  erection 
of  public  school  buildings,  shall  not  be  impaired.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  As  the  substitute  and  the 
original  section  run  on  in  parallel  lines,  and  it 
is  perfectly  proper  to  perfect  one  while  the 
other  is  under  consideration,  according  to  our 
rules,  will  it  be  in  order  to  move  to  amend  the 
motion  of  the  delegate  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey], who  proposes  to  strike  out  all  the  words 
beginning  with  the  word  “ without”  thence  to 
the  end  of  the  section?  I believe  that  is  it. 
Would  it  be  in  order  to  amend  that  so  as  to  limit 
the  words  struck  out  to  the  words  “two-thirds  of 
the  taxpayers,”  and  insert  “ three-fourths  of  the 
qualified  electors  of  such  corporation  ?” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  so,  I make  that  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  moves  to  amend  the 
section  by  striking  out  in  line  four  “ two-thirds  of 
the  taxpayers”  and  inserting  “three-fourths  of 
the  qualified  electors  in  such  corporation.”  The 
question  will  be  upon  striking  out  and  insert- 
ing. 

Mr.  EWING.  I have  accomplished  the  only 
purpose  I had  yesterday  in  moving  the  recon- 
sideration, by  obtaining  what  seems  now  to  be 
general  consent,  that  the  question,  whether  or 
not  a Municipal  Corporation  shall  incur  a debt 
beyond  five  per  cent,  shall  be  left  to  the  electors 
of  that  corporation,  and  not  to  a mere  body,  to- 
wit:  the  taxpayer — a body  as  distinct  from 
electors,  unknown  as  rulers  to  the  Republican 
Government  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  That  being 
done,  sir,  I have  no  objection,  whatever,  to  the 
amendment  now  presented  from  the  Committee, 
that  is,  that  where  a Municipal  Corporation  pro- 
poses to  increase  their  indebtedness  beyond  five 
per  cent.,  they  shall  first  obtain  the  consent  of 
three-fourths  of  the  electors  of  that  municipal- 
ity. That  means,  I presume,  of  course,  three- 


fourths  of  the  men  who  appear,  by  some  mode 
to  be  provided  by  the  Legislature,  to  have  the 
right  of  suffrage  in  the  municipality — not  three- 
fourths  of  the  men  voting  at  any  election. 

Mr.  WEST.  How  will  you  do  that? 

Mr.  EWING.  That  is  a matter  for  the  Legis- 
lature to  determine.  Now,  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Yoris]  wholly  misunderstands 
me  in  asserting  that  I proposed  by  my  motion 
to  reconsider  yesterday,  to  make  it  more  easy  to 
pile  on  municipal  debts  after  the  five  per  cent, 
has  been  reached.  Not  at  all.  That  was  no 
part  of  my  purpose.  My  purpose  was  to  pre- 
vent the  insertion  of  an  anti-republican  feature 
in  the  Constitution,  and  my  effort  has  met  the 
general  approval  of  the  Convention,  and, 
finally,  of  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Corpor- 
ations, as  is  shown  by  the  amendment  now  pro- 
posed by  the  Chairman  of  that  Committee,  Mr. 
Hoadly. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I would  like  to  know  whether 
restricting  beyond  ten  per  cent,  is  not  as  much 
anti-republican  as  five  per  cent.? 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  I have  explained  my 
view  of  the  subject  sufficiently.  My  objection 
is  not  to  limiting  the  power  of  electors  in  incur- 
ring debt;  but  it  is  to  taking  the  government  of 
the  affairs  of  municipalities  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  electors,  and  placing  it  in  the  hands  of  an 
aristocracy  of  property -holders. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
I would  like,  at  least,  to  know  what  is  going  on 
here?  There  is  another  question  before  the 
House. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  to  strike  out  “two-thirds  of  the 
taxpayers,”  and  insert  “three-fourths  of  the 
qualified  electors  in  such  corporation.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Was  there  not  a previous 
motion  to  strike  out  the  whole  section  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  explain. 
The  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  is  to  strike  out  lines  four,  five  and  a 
part  of  line  six,  and  the  other  motion  is  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  to 
amend  the  original  section  by  striking  out 
“two-thirds  of  the  taxpayers”  and  inserting 
“ three-fourths  of  the  qualified  electors  in  such 
corporation.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  claim  that  they 
all  cannot  be  in  order.  Three  motions  would 
not  be  in  order  before  any  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Rule  39  provides  that, 
“ A motion  to  strike  out  and  insert  shall  be 
deemed  divisible;  and  a motion  to  strike  out 
on  a division  being  negatived,  or  a motion  to 
insert  being  decided  in  the  affirmative,  shall  be 
equivalent  to  agreeing  to  the  matter  in  that 
form,  but  shall  not  preclude  further  amend- 
ment; provided,  that  substitutes  for  pending 
propositions  shall,  for  the  purposes  of  amend- 
ment, be  treated  as  original  propositions.” 

Mr.  YORIS.  I think  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  entirely  misapprehends 
what  I said.  I certainly,  if  I recollect  what  I 
did  say,  imputed  nothing  to  the  motive  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  in  so  stating  the  effect 
of  his  argument.  Now,  I submit  to  the  candor 
of  delegates  upon  this  floor  whether,  if  the  ar- 


1420 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Voris,  Baber,  Miner,  Hoadly. 


['ll  6th 

[Tuesday, 


gument  does  not  lead,  beyond  question,  to  the 
very  results  that  I claim  for  it?  And  that  is 
this,  that  those  who  are  interested  in  paying  the 
indebtedness  may  not  vote,  but  those  who  have 
no  interest  under  heaven  in  a county  debt,  with 
no  property,  may  vote,  and  must  vote  as  may  be 
necessary.  Now,  why  bring  this  element  into 
the  county?  Why  put  them  into  the  scale,  so 
that  this  indebtedness  may  be  created  by  those 
who  are  not  interested  in  the  obligation  to  pay 
it,  and  not  by  those  who  are  not,  unless  it  be 
to  open  the  door  so  that  irresponsibility  may 
control  as  against  those  who  are  responsible? 
If  that  is  not  the  effect  of  his  argument,  I fail  to 
know  what  it  is.  I believe  that  he  means  what 
he  says  of  his  argument;  but  his  argument 
must  stand  or  fall  by  its  own  logical  analysis, 
and  not  by  the  conclusions  that  subjectively 
affect  himself. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  motion  is  on  perfecting,  I 
believe. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  IIoadly.] 

Mr.  BABER.  I wish  to  give  my  reasons  for 
supporting  that  amendment,  and  to  offer,  before 
I sit  down,  language  for  the  purpose  of  perfect- 
ing and  carrying  out  the  object  of  that  amend- 
ment. And,  in  the  first  place,  I would  say  that 
I believe  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Convention  to  re- 
strict this  running  into  debt,  to  limit  it  as  to 
what  is  the  best  mode  of  doing  it;  whether  the 
mode  originally  proposed  by  the  Committee  pre- 
senting the  amendment,  or  the  suggestions 
made,  to  which  my  friend  from  Fairfield  [Mr. 
Ewing]  objected,  that  is  a question  about  which 
there  may  be  a difference  of  opinion.  But  I rise 
wholly  to  dissent  from  the  doctrine  announced 
by  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris], 
that  a non-taxpayer,  although  a voter,  has  no 
interest  in  this  question.  Why,  Mr.  President,  I 
I think,  perhaps,  he  is  in  danger  of  running  in 
the  opposite  extreme  of  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side.  I believe  that  most  electors  have  an 
interest  in  this  matter.  They  may  not  be  prop- 
erty holders,  they  may  not  be  taxed  directly, 
but  the  fact  that  when  the  taxes  are  raised, 
property  holders,  who  rent  property,  raise  their 
rents,  and  thereby  the  burden  is  increased  on 
labor  and  the  class  who  own  no  property — this 
is  sufficient  response  to  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris].  I know 
myself,  from  experience  in  the  city  of  Colum- 
bus, having  some  practical  management  of  this 
matter,  both  as  agent  and  property  holder,  that, 
wherever  the  taxes  are  raised,  it  comes  out  of 
the  bone,  sinew  and  muscle  of  the  laborer.  I 
know  a great  many  working  men  are  beginning 
to  see  this  thing.  A proposition  was  made  in 
my  city  to  vote  a large  amount  of  money  for 
some  local  improvement,  and  a very  large  op- 
position came  from  the  working  men ; because 
they  are  beginning  to  see  and  to  understand 
that,  though  they  do  not  pay  taxes  directly, 
they  pay  them  in  the  long  run.  I,  therefore, 
wholly  dissent  from  the  argument  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris];  but  at  the 
same  time,  J say,  let  us  restrict  this  right  of 
going  in  debt.  Let  us  put  a limitation  upon  it. 

I think  that  the  amendment  of  the  Committee 
meets  all  the  clap-trap  argument  that  can  be 
made  against  it.  Therefore,  I will  favor  it.  It 


requires  three-fourths  of  the  qualified  electors, 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  objections  raised  by 
the  gentleman  from  Fayette  [Mr.  Gardner ^ 
might  be  met  by  perfecting  the  amendment.  It 
is  now  three-fourths  of  the  qualified  electors. 
How  is  that  to  be  ascertained  ? Is  it  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  a census,  or  registration,  by  the  Leg- 
islature, or  is  it  to  be  submitted  to  judicial  con- 
struction? Does  the  word  qualified  elector 
mean  three-fourths  of  those  voting,  or  of  all  the 
electors  qualified  ? I say  to  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention  that  I think  we  ought  to  remove  all 
doubt  upon  this  subject,  and  by  laying  down 
some  basis,  some  rule.  Therefore,  I offer  for 
the  consideration  of  the  Convention  the  follow- 
ing amendment,  which  I will  read  and  send  to 
the  Chair : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  moves  to  amend  the 
amendment  by  adding  the  following  words : 
“As  ascertained  by  the  last  preceding  general 
election 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  to  insert  the  word  “fall,” 
so  as  to  be  specific. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“As  .ascertained  by  the  last  preceding  general  fall 
election,”  so  that  it  will  read: 

“Without  the  consent  first  obtained  of  at  least  three - 
fourths  of  all  the  qualified  voters  of  such  election,  as  as- 
certained by  the  last  preceding  general  fall  election.” 

Mr.  MINER.  I want  to  know  how  this  fact 
is  to  be  ascertained  before  I am  content  with 
the  amendment  proposed  by  Judge  Hoadly. 
Now,  it  is  possible  that  we  may  have  a registra- 
tion of  the  qualified  voters  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 
I would  be  in  favor  of  such  a system,  and  I 
think  every  State  ought  to  have  such  a registry, 
to  know  who  the  voters  are.  But  it  is  a well- 
known  fact  that  there  is  scarcely  any  election 
in  the  State  when  more  than  three-fourths  of 
j the  actual  persons  qualified  to  vote  do  vote  at  an 
election.  I think  experience  will  show  that 
about  one-fourth  or  one-fifth  of  the  qualified 
electors  of  the  State  hardly  ever  turn  out  to  an 
election  to  vote.  Now,  therefore,  if  you  cor- 
rectly ascertain  the  actual  number  of  qualified 
electors,  and  require  three-fourths  of  them,  the 
probability  is  that  you  never  can  accomplish 
anything  under  this  amendment.  The  practical 
idea,  the  practical  mode,  I think,  is  suggested 
by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber], 
and  that  we  ought  to  sustain  his  amendment. 
Put  it  in.  Let  that  be  the  rule — the  guide. 
“Three-fourths  of  those  who  have  voted  at  the 
last  general  election,”  it  seems  to  me,  is  the 
proper  mode  of  ascertaining  the  fact. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  object  that  I have  in 
view,  as  one  member  of  the  Convention,  is  not 
to  make  it  easy  to  run  corporations  into  debt, 
but  to  make  it  difficult.  The  argument  made 
last  evening,  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  Rowland], 
is  one  that  I think  will  bear  repetition  now  in 
reference  to  this  very  matter  in  hand.  While 
it  is  quite  true,  as  said  by  the  delegate  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  that  these  debts  are 
easily  contracted  on  long  terms,  and  the  princi- 
pal is  not  payable  until  many  years — perhaps,  by 
renewals,  it  may  be  generations — nevertheless, 
the  tax  for  the  interest  is  immediately  payable; 
and  who  pays  that  tax?  If  I may  use  the  ex- 
pression, every  man  from  whose  immediate 
pocket  the  money  is  payable  into  the  county 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  Powell,  Townsend,  Pratt. 


1421 


Day.] 


February  17,  1874.] 


treasury,  passes  it  along  just  as  fast  as  he. can, 
and  so,  as  my  colleague  has  said,  the  tax  is  at 
once  distributed.  If  I am  owner  of  a block  of 
stores,  I add  to  my  rent,  so  that,  my  tax  being 
paid,  I shall,  nevertheless,  receive  adequate  re- 
turn, in  the  form  of  interest  upon  my  invest- 
ment. If  I am  a lessor  of  a dwelling,  I strive 
to  fasten  that  tax  upon  the  man  who  rents  of 
me.  Just  so  it  is  in  regard  to  tariff  taxation, 
and  internal  revenue  taxation;  perhaps  not 
quite  so  obvious^,  but  just  as  truly.  The  tax 
upon  tea  and  coffee  is  paid  by  the  man  who 
drinks  tea  and  coffee.  The  tax  upon  manufac- 
tured goods  is  paid  by  the  man  who  consumes. 
The  tax  upon  whisky  is  paid  by  the  person 
who  imbibes.  The  money  flows  into  the  na- 
tional treasury  immediately  from  the  distillery, 
but  the  tax  is  really  paid  by  the  imbibers.  This 
is  the  evil  of  all  indirect  taxation ; that  he  who 
bears  the  burden  does  not  know  he  is  paying 
the  tax,  and,  therefore,  is  not  quickened  in  his 
sense  of  public  duty  by  the  payment.  But 
gentlemen  who  are  here  to  make  a Constitution 
must  not  forget  that  this  increase  from  five  to 
ten  per  cent,  is  an  increased  burden  on  every 
lessee,  upon  every  man  who  has  a store,  or 
dwelling,  or  contributes  by  consumption  to- 
wards the  property  upon  which  the  tax  is  paid. 
In  other  words,  as  my  colleague  has  suggested, 
to  a very  large  extent  this  tax  is  paid  by  the 
poor,  and  not  by  the  rich.  For  that  reason,  it  is 
our  duty  to  provide  restrictions,  and  not  to 
grease  the  wheels  of  debt.  And  it  is  our  duty 
to  make  it  difficult  for  corporations  to  run  into 
debt,  and,  therefore,  I have  proposed  this 
amendment.  It  reads : “all  the  qualified  elec- 
tors” ; leaving  it  to  the  Legislature  to  ascertain, 
from  time  to  time,  as  best  they  may,  how  many. 
It  will  not  be  very  difficult  to  ascertain  how 
many  constitute  the  number  of  qualified  elec- 
tors, and  the  manner  in  which  their  consent 
shall  be  secured.  It  seems  to  me,  the  language, 
as  proposed  by  the  Committee,  is  a little  more 
severe  than  my  friend  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Ba- 
ber]. One  thing  is  certain,  that  three-fourths 
of  all  the  qualified  electors  is  a higher  number 
than  three-fourths  of  those  who  chose  to  vote  at 
the  last  general  election.  Therefore,  I,  for  one, 
am  disposed  to  sustain  the  Report,  as  it  came 
from  the  Committee,  without  conceding,  as 
suggested  by  the  delegate  from  Franklin  [Mr. 
Baber].  The  Legislature  can,  by  law,  ascer- 
tain how  many  may  be  three-fourths  of  the 
qualified  voters. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
if  there  is  no  danger  that  there  may  be  a liti- 
gated question  arise  there  between  what  the 
Constitution  says,  and  the  manner  in  which 
the  Legislature  will  express  it  in  their  action  r* 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I answer  that  I have 
never  known  any  reason  for  increased  litiga- 
tion, except  the  fact  that  it  helped  me  to  live 
and  enjoy  life,  being  the  source  of  my  liveli- 
hood. But  if  my  friend  can  suggest  a con- 
struction increasing  the  probability  of  prevent- 
ing the  increase  of  debt,  I would  be  very  glad 
to  adopt  it.  I do  not  think,  however,  that  the 
section  as  it  reads  is  susceptible  of  two  inter- 
pretations. It  reads : “three-fourths  of  the 
qualified  electors,”  and  it  will  always  be  a 
question  of  fact,  of  course,  how  many  electors 
constitute  this  necessary  number  at  any  election. 


Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I desire,  Mr.  President, 
to  say  a few  words  on  the  subject  of  the  bonded 
indebtedness  of  towns  and  cities,  in  answer  to 
the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  [Mr. 
Hoadly].  I am  not  opposed  to  Municipal  Cor- 
porations using  their  credit  to  pay  for  necessary 
public  improvements , when  such  improvements 
are  demanded  by  the  general  public  sentiment 
of  all  classes,  and  particularly  those  who  own  the 
taxable  property,  and  the  improvements  are  of 
a substantial  and  permanent  character,  such  as 
will  increase  the  value  of  all  property  and  con- 
tribute to  the  general  prosperity  and  conven- 
ience of  the  public.  This  class  of  improve- 
ments I am  in  favor  of,  and  nearly  every  city  in 
the  State  finds  some  of  them  necessary,  the  cost 
of  which  is  too  great  to  be  borne  in  any  one 
year.  No  good  reason  exists  why  they  may  not 
run  their  credit  by  creating  a bonded  indebted- 
ness, and  let  the  future  increased  value  of  prop- 
erty help  pay  it.  The  city  always  has  some 
thing  substantial  to  represent  this  liability  in 
the  way  of  water  works,  school  buildings,  en- 
gine houses  and  fire  department,  bridges,  parks, 
or  something  that  is  for  the  public  convenience 
and  necessities.  Within  reasonable  limitations 
this  kind  of  indebtedness  is  not  oppressive. 
The  public  gets  full  value  for  it,  and  provides 
for  its  payment,  with  but  little  inconvenience, 
and  it  is  in  strict  conformity  with  the  spirit  of 
the  age  in  which  we  live.  But  this  is  not  the 
kind  of  indebtedness  that  threatens  our  cities 
and  towns  with  bankruptcy,  and  subjects  them 
to  just  criticism. 

There  is  a strong  and  growing  tendency  in 
towns,  cities,  and  some  counties,  to  live  beyond 
their  income — to  spend  more  money  every  year 
than  they  provide  by  taxation.  Every  fund 
and  each  department  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal 
year  is  found  to  be  largely  overdrawn,  and  no 
money  provided  to  pay  it.  The  result  is,  it  is 
floated  over  till  the  next  year,  and  the  funds 
levied  for  the  current  expenses  of  the  next  year 
are  used  to  pay  this  liability,  which  properly 
belonged  to  the  preceding  year ; and  thus  a large 
floating  debt  has  accrued,  increasing  from  year 
to  year,  and  is  finally  bonded  and  becomes  a per- 
manent debt.  The  same  thing  is  done  over 
again,  and  in  time  your  city  has  a large  bonded 
debt,  and  not  a single  permanent  improvement 
to  show  for  it — all  created  for  current  expenses 
that  should  have  been  paid  each  year,  but  have 
not,  for  fear  of  making  the  tax  too  high . Now, 
Mr.  President,  sound  policy  would  seem  to  re- 
quire that  there  should  be  some  limitation  to 
indebtedness  created  in  this  way.  In  my  judg- 
ment, five  per  cent,  is  as  large  a permanent  lia- 
bility as  any  city  should  ever  carry,  only  in 
exceptional  cases  and  for  very  good  reasons. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  allow  a question  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  With  pleasure. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Have  you  examined  the  statis- 
tics as  to  how  many  towns  are  taxed  above  five 
per  cent.  ? Let  me  call  your  attention  to  Lon- 
don, Zanesville,  Marietta,  etc. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I have  examined  these 
statistics,  and  will  refer  to  them  hereafter.  1 
had  not  overlooked  them.  This  is  enough  for 
any  city  to  carry ; for  it  is  a mortgage  upon  the 
property,  and  has  to  be  provided  for.  The  idea 
that  it  is  all  comfortably  postponed  and  put  out 


1422 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Townsend,  Pond,  Herron. 


of  the  way  until  the  bonds  mature,  is  a mistake. 
It  is  not  done  in  fact.  The  interest  annually 
accruing  on  these  deferred  bonds  must  be  paid 
every  year,  and  a tax  must  be  collected  for  that 
purpose,  and  a sinking  fund  should  be  created 
to  pay  the  bonds  when  due ; this  will  also  re- 
quire a levy  every  year.  Take  this  on  a large 
debt  and  add  it  to  the  taxes  for  necessary  cur- 
rent expenses,  and  you  will  find  that  a large 
debt  is  an  expensive  and  uncomfortable  thing 
to  carry,  and  five  per  cent,  on  the  taxable  value 
of  the  property  is  heavy  enough.  This  rule  has 
its  exceptions,  and  I will  now  refer  to  them. 

There  is  a class  of  cities  and  towns  in  the 
State  whose  rapid  growth  and  prosperity  has, 
within  comparatively  few  years,  demanded  and 
secured  many  improvements  of  a public  char- 
acter, and,  for  this  purpose,  as  well  as  others, 
have  used  their  credit  and  their  liabilities  on 
some  of  them  fully  five  per  cent.,  and,  in  some 
cases,  more,  and  they  actually  need  still  further 
improvements,  to  keep  pace  with  their  growth 
in  other  directions.  These  I regard  as  excep- 
tional cases,  and  we  have  provided  for  them  in 
two  ways:  first,  by  permitting  all  improve- 
ments authorized  by  law  and  commenced,  to  be 
completed,  no  difference  what  it  costs,  and  how 
much  it  may  increase  the  bonded  debt  of  the 
corporation.  This  is  certainly  ample  provision 
for  this  class.  The  other  remedy  is  to  allow 
any  and  all  municipal  corporations  to  increase 
their  present  indebtedness  up  to  ten  per  cent, 
on  the  taxable  value  of  their  property,  under 
certain  conditions,  which,  briefly  stated,  is  on 
a vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  electors  in  the 
corporation  first  being  obtained,  approving  the 
incurred  indebtedness.  This  will  practically 
prevent  the  credit  of  cities  being  wrongfully 
used  for  improvements  local  in  character,  bene- 
fiting private  individuals  more  than  the  public, 
and  done  under  the  guise  of  public  improvement. 
It  also  provides  for  needed  improvements,  that 
the  public  generally  demand,  and  public  neces- 
sities require.  Some  sudden  calamity  may  visit 
a city— the  loss  of  water-works,  or  great 
destruction  by  fire,  or  any  other  cause — may 
require  the  credit  of  a city  to  be  pledged  for  ten 
per  cent.,  and,  in  these, 'or  any  other  proper 
cases,  public  sentiment  would  be  almost  unani- 
mous, and  no  trouble  would  be  had  in  obtain- 
ing the  necessary  three-fourths  vote  for  all 
improvements  after  a city  is  permanently  in 
debt  five  per  cent.  Where  public  sentiment 
does  not  almost  unanimously  approve,  it  would 
be  well  to  wait  until  it  does,  or  pay  off  some 
portion  of  the  old  liability,  and  then  you  can 
add  to  it  again.  If  the  object  is  a good  one,  it 
will  be  carried;  if  not,  it  will  fail  to  obtain  the 
necessary  approval;  it  will  be  defeated,  as,  no 
doubt,  it  ought  to  be.  I,  therefore,  trust  that 
this  provision  will  be  adopted.  It  is,  perhaps, 
preferable  to  a two-thirds  of  all  the  tax-pay- 
ers. It  looks  better  on  its  face. 

Mr.  POND.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  non-tax- 
paying population  in  our  towns  is  less  than  the 
tax-paying? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I think  it  is,  sir. 

Mr.  POND.  Then  is  it  not  true  that  they 
have  a majority  of  all  the  tax-payers? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I think  so.  I believe  it 
is  a wise  and  safe  provision,  and,  therefore, 
hope  it  will  be  adopted. 


[116th 

[Tuesday, 


Mr.  IIERRON.  May  I ask  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  a question? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  ask  if  he  has  ever 
known  three-fourths  of  the  electors  of  his 
county  to  vote  at  any  except  Presidential  elec- 
tions? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I am  not  quite  prepared 
to  answer  that  question.  My  best  impressions 
would  be  that  I have.  But  elections  for  all 
such  purposes  would  not  be  in  the  county,  but 
confined  to  the  city,  and  would  be  a special 
election.  I am  of  the  opinion,  when  public  at- 
tention was  directed  to  one  subject,  and  that  a 
worthy  one,  and  the  improvement  contem- 
plated necessary  for  the  safety,  convenience  and 
advantage  of  the  whole  city,  the  friends  of  the 
measure  could  get  out  a full  vote,  and  it  would 
be  carried.  If  it  was  not,  it  would  probably 
fail  for  want  of  the  requisite  vote,  and  the 
project  would  be  lost  or  defeated.  This  idea  of 
placing  limitations  upon  municipal  corpora- 
tions is  no  pet  theory  of  mine.  I think,  under 
good  State  laws,  each  town  and  city  may  be 
safely  left  to  manage  their  own  affairs;  but  if 
we  impose  limitations  at  all,  the  conditions 
proposed  are  as  near  right  as  anything  this 
Convention,  with  its  varied  opinions  and  pres- 
ent temper,  will  be  likely  to  agree  to. 

Mr.  HERRON.  As  I intimated  in  the  ques- 
tion which  I asked  the  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Townsend],  I am  confident  that  the 
statistics  of  elections  in  the  State  will  show 
that,  except  in  the  case  of  the  Presidential 
election,  there  has  never  been  three-fourths  of 
the  vote  of  the  city  cast — that  is,  of  all  those 
who  by  law  are  entitled  to  vote — in  the  cities  I 
mean — and  to  confine  the  question  to  three- 
fourths  of  those  who  are  entitled  to  vote,  is 
simply  saying  that  no  debt  shall,  under  any 
circumstances  whatever,  be  contracted.  Such  a 
vote  never  was  obtained,  and  never  can  be. 
And  yet,  I agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Cuy- 
ahoga [Mr.  Townsend]  in  his  attempt  to  limit 
this  increase  of  tax  to  such  an  amount,  and  in 
such  a manner,  as  to  make  it  very  difficult,  un- 
less the  matter  is  one  of  very  great  importance. 
I believe  that  if  three-fourths  of  the  voters  who 
vote  at  a State  election  are  in  favor  of  any  par- 
ticular measure,  by  which  the  indebtedness  of 
any  municipality  may  be  increased,  we  may 
safely  permit  such  increase  up  to  the  limit  of 
ten  per  cent,  of  its  taxable  property.  Now,  I 
think,  Mr.  President,  that  this  matter  should 
not  be  left  in  the  Constitution  in  any  doubt,  or 
to  any  difficult  mode  of  ascertaining  the  fact  as 
to  what  the  number  of  qualified  electors  is.  We 
have  no  registry  of  voters  in  this  State.  We  do 
not  desire  to  compel  the  State  to  go  to  the  ex- 
pense of  taking  a special  census  of  electors, 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  a particular  vote,  or 
to  have  litigation  to  ascertain  exactly  what  the 
number  of  electors  is.  But  I think  we  can 
place  it  in  such  a way  that  it  will  be  simple  and 
easy  to  ascertain  what  the  number  of  votes 
required  is,  and,  therefore,  I am  in  favor  of  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber].  I think  the  number  of 
votes  at  the  preceding  general  State  election 
should  determine  the  number  of  electors  of  the 
State  for  the  purposes  of  this  vote,  and  that  the 
measure  which  obtains  three-fourths  of  the 


1423 


Day.]  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  17, 1874.]  Herron,  Baber,  Hoadly,  Humphreville,  etc. 


votes  which  are  cast  at  that  general  State  elec-r 
tion  shall  be  the  number  which  the  Constitution 
requires.  And  I,  therefore,  favor  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr. 
Baber],  with  one  modification,  which  I think 
easy.  The  amendment  which  I would  favor  is 
this : “As  ascertained  by  the  last  preceding 
election  for  State  officers.”  It  seems  to  me  that 
that  expresses  the  idea  of  the  gentleman  in 
better  form.  I do  not  offer  it  as  an  amendment 
now,  but  suggest  it. 

Mr.  BABER.  That  is  exactly  what  I intend- 
ed, but  in  the  hurry  of  drafting,  it  was  not  per- 
fected, and,  therefore,  I ask  leave  to  withdraw 
my  amendment  and  accept  the  amendment  of-  j 
fered  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Herron]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection 
the  gentleman  has  leave. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I now  offer  as  an  amend- 
ment, to  come  in  after  the  word  “ corporation,” 
to  the  amendment  of  Judge  IIoadly,  the  fol- 
lowing words : “ as  ascertained  by  the  last 

preceding  election  for  State  officers.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  as  amended,  so  that  it 
will  read  thus : 

“Sec.  4.  The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion shall  never  exceed,  in  the  aggregate,  five  per  centum 
of  the  value  of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as 
ascertained  from  time  to  time,  by  the  tax  duplicate  there- 
of, without  the  consent  first  obtained  of  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  qualified  electors  of  such  corporation, 
as  ascertained  by  the  last  preceding  election  for  State 
officers.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Would  it  be  in  order  to  offer  an 
amendment  to  that? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order  now. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  seems  to  me  the  Conven- 
tion will  not  object  to  putting  this  in  an  intelli- 
gible form. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  can  with- 
draw his  amendment  and  put  it  into  proper 
shape. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hope  it  will  be  allowed  by 
general  consent  [“Agreed,  agreed,”]  so  that  it 
will  read : “three-fourths  of  the  qualified  elec- 
tors of  such  corporation,  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  preceding  election  for  State  officers.” 

Mr.  HERRON.  My  intention  was  to  insert 
after  the  word  “corporation.”  I hope  it  will 
be  so. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  How  will  it  read  now?  I de- 
sire to  offer  an  amendment  if  it  is  in  order. 

The  Secretary  read  the  section  as  amended. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire,  Mr.  President,  to  ac- 
complish this : That  amendment,  as  it  now 
stands,  does  not  provide  how  that  assent  shall  be 
ascertained,  and  I desire  to  have  it  so  that  it 
will  read  “by  ballot,”  and  I desire  to  offer  this 
amendment  at  the  end  of  that  amendment,  “to 
be  determined  at  a general  or  special  election  as 
may  be  provided  by  law.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  will  not  at  present  offer 
his  amendment.  The  question  now  is  on  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
(Mr.  Hoadly]  as  amended. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I call  for  the  veas  and  nays. 

Mr.  IIUMPHREVILLE.  This  thing  has 


been  tinkered  up  already  so  as  to  entirely  spoil 
it,  although  it  was  bad  enough  to  begin  with. 
By  the  amendment  just  adopted,  having  about 
four  votes  in  favor  of  it,  and  three  against  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber],  the  action  has  entirely  done  away 
with  the  restriction  proposed  by  the  Committee 
upon  this  Art;cle.  It  is  to  be  ascertained  by  the 
last  preceding  general  State  election.  We  have 
State  elections  when  not  more  than  two-thirds 
of  the  actual  electors  of  the  State  are  out.  I 
think  that  was  the  case  last  fall  ut  our  State 
election.  The  people  took  no  special  interest 
in  the  matter  in  Ohio. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  We  have  already  adopted  a 
scheme  whereby  our  State  and  Congressional 
election  will  be  at  the  same  time,  so  that  it  will 
hardly  happen  that  the  biennial  election  will 
not  be  one  of  general  interest. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  We  are  trying  to  do 
that.  I do  not  know  whether  it  will  be  adopted 
or  not.  No  matter,  however.  We  may  have  Con- 
gressional elections  that  will  not  call  out  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  voters ; and  then  to  say  that 
three-fourths  of  the  voters  in  number  may 
saddle  this  enormous  debt  upon  a corporation 
will  leave  it  so  that  less  than  a majority  of  all 
the  legal  voters  in  the  city  or  corporation  may 
vote  this  enormous  debt  upon  a city.  As  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  by  the  amendment 
offered  this  morning  left  it,  that  it  should  be 
three-fourths  of  the  qualified  electors  within 
the  corporation,  I would  be  substantially  satis- 
fied; but  to  prescribe  the  mode  of  ascertaining 
that  number,  it  destroys  the  limit  substantially 
and  leaves  it  to,  perhaps,  less  than  a majority  of 
all  the  voters  to  decide  upon  running  the  cor- 
poration into  debt  in  this  manner.  If  it  had 
been  left  as  the  Committee  reported  it,  it  would 
be  very  easy  for  the  Legislature  to  point  out 
how  the  number  should  be  ascertained.  If  a 
city  desires  to  vote  upon  the  question  of  incur- 
ring indebtedness,  it  will  be  an  easy  matter  to 
say,  a registry  law  should  be  enacted  in  the  city 
of  all  the  voters,  and  then  require  three-fourths 
of  the  number  registered.  It  would  be  easy  to 
ascertain  all  the  electors  in  the  city.  But  this 
mode  of  ascertaining  is  so  fallacious  that  it  will 
never  arrive  at  any  correct  estimate.  I am  op- 
posed to  the  amendment  as  it  now  stands.  If 
this  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin [Mr.  Baber]  has  been,  as  declared  by  the 
Chair,  adopted,  although  not  ten  voted  for  it — 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Will  the  gentleman  

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  ask 

Mr  HUMPHREVILLE.  Well,  there  are 
three  gentlemen  desiring  now  to  ask  a question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  To  which  will  the  gen- 
tleman yield  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  To  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Medina  whether  putting  this  rule  that 
three-fourths  of  all  the  qualified  electors,  as 
ascertained  by  the  last  preceding  election  for 
State  officers,  would  not  make  a majority  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I say  there  are 
very  important  cases  in  which  it  would  not  re- 


1424 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


[116th 


Baber,  Humphreville,  Griswold,  Pratt,  Cook,  Hoadly.  [Tuesday, 

quire  a majority  of  all  the  electors  in  a corpo-  | ment;  and  I hope  that  those  cities  which  are 
ration.  fenced  in  will  not  interfere  with  this  matter,  that 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle-  I cities  that  are  growing  and  desire  to  have  their 
man  whether  the  statistics  of  elections  in  the  affairs  wisely  administered  when  an  occasion 
State  of  Ohio  do  not  show  that  eight-tenths  of  ; arises  when  they  must  have  this  opportunity, 
the  voters  of  the  State  have  voted  at  every  State  | that  they  will  be  made  in  compliance  with  o-ood 
election  for  the  last  ten  or  twenty  years?  [rules  and  good  sense,  so  that  prudence  and 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  No,  sir;  I think  I good  statesmanship  shall  regulate  their  affairs, 
not.  I think  I can  show  that  frequently  elec- 1 Mr.  PRATT.  I hope  that  the  proposition  as 
tions  are  had  when  not  three-fourths  of  the  j amended,  will  not  be  adopted.  I think  the  true 
electors  in  the  State  have  come  out.  Now,  if  j rule  as  to  what  number  of  voters  shall  be  fixed, 
there  are  any  other  questions,  I am  ready  to  ■ whether  a majority  of  two-thirds  or  three- 


answer. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville] 
takes  too  desponding  a view  of  this  matter. 
The  great  object  of  arranging  our  elections  so 
that  they  shall  not  be  frequent,  that  we  shall 
only  have  biennial  elections,  is,  that  there  will 
be  a greater  interest  taken  in  an  election  when 
the  election  happens.  And  that  is  the  great  ob- 


fourths,  it  should  be  the  voters  voting  at  the 
specific  election.  If  there  are  vital  questions 
regarding  the  administration  or  regarding  the 
indebtedness  of  a municipality  pending,  those 
who  refuse  to  vote  or  refuse  to  take  an  interest 
in  the  election,  should,  by  no  manner  of  means, 
be  counted  in  any  way,  whatever,  in  ascertain- 
ing the  will  of  the  people.  The  will  of  the 
people  should  be  ascertained,  in  my  judgment. 


ject  of  this  particular  reform  that  is  proposed  j by  leaving  it  to  the  voters  who  resort  to  the 
to  be  adopted  in  the  present  Constitution,  that  j polks  and  there  express  their  will  on  a given 
the  elections  shall  not  be  so  frequent  that  the  j subject.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  proposition  of 
great  body  of  the  people  who  are  busy  about ; three-fourtlis  of  the  voters,  ascertained  by  any 
their  own  matters,  shall  pay  no  attention  to  { pther  rule  than  by  their  votes  at  the  ballot  box, 
them.  By  having  the  elections  less  frequent,  | is  faultyin  the  extreme.  Novv,  for  example,  at 
and  in  requiring  all  the  officers  to  be  elected  at  the  election  in  the  year  preceding,  a given  num- 
one  time,  we  make  the  election  of  such  charac-  i ber  of  persons  may  have  cast  their  ballots;  out 
ter  and  such  interest  that  all  good  citizens  will  °f  a voting  population  of  eight  thousand,  six 
take  part  in  them.  Then,  again,  under  our  sys-  J thousand  only  may  have  voted.  It  would  require 
tem,  as  proposed  to  be  adopted,  at  every  second  then,  Mr.  President,  to  fasten  upon  the  city, three- 
election  the  Presidential  election  wilJ  happen,  j fourths  of  that  six  thousand,  or,  in  other  words, 
and  if  cities  wish  to  run  into  debt,  they  will ! the  votes  of  four  thousand  five  hundred  electors 
have  to  wait  and  postpone  this  matter  until  ! °f  the  city.  The  very  question  pending,  how- 
after  the  Presidential  election,  and  so  postpone  over,  may  have  called  to  the  polls  the  entire 
the  evil  day.  But  it  seems  to  me  that,  under  j voting  population,  and  it  would  require,  if  the 
the  system  as  proposed,  we  make  the  Congres-  limit  was  three-fourtlis  of  those  voting,  a ballot 
sional  election  and  State  election  to  combine,  I of  six  thousand  to  incur  an  indebtedness.  Now, 
and  all  the  State  officers  and  General  Assembly  i 1 wish  to  know  when  the  question  comes  before 
to  be  elected,  and  this  great  election  taking  | the  people,  when  every  voter  comes  out  to  cast 
place  once  in  two  years,  we  will  have,  substan-  j bis  ballot,  if  there  is  any  virtue  whatever  in  the 
daily,  on  those  occasions,  nearly  the  whole  vote  three-fourths  rule,  why  it  should  not  be  applied 


of  the  State  polled.  At  present,  such  is  not 
the  case,  because,  under  the  existing  system, 
we  have  so  divided  up,  and  made  our  elec- 
tions so  piecemeal,  that  people  had  not  voted. 
On  a Presidential  election  they  turn  out  and 


then  and  there,  and  upon  the  basis  of  the  vote 
actually  cast? 

Mr.  COOK.  My  opinion  is  that  the  proper 
rule  would  be  to  fix  it  at  two-thirds  or  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  voters  voting  on  the  question 


vote,  because  it  is  a matter  of  public  interest.  1 at  that  particular  election. 
All  whose  votes  are  worth  counting  vote  on  I Mr.  HOADLY. 
those  occasions. 

neglecting  their  duty,  and  it  is  of  little  conse- 
quence whether  we  take  their  consent  in  the 
management  of  affairs  or  not.  So  I support 
and  am  in  favor  of  this  amendment,  as  1 was 


Will  the  delegate  from  Wood 
If  men  refuse  to  vote  they  are  ! allow  me  a question? 

• * ■ — ' ; Mr.  COOK.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  ask,  if  the  gentle- 
! man  does  not  know  .that  such  a restriction  as 
that  would  be  overcome  by  spending  a little 
J money  and  a little  whisky  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  A little  money  and  a little 
whisky  would  not  do  it  in  the  town  in  which  I 
reside. 

Mr.  IIOADLY.  The  gentleman  must  recol- 
lect this  is  for  cities. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  gentleman  must  remember 
that  I speak  in  reference  to  its  application  in 
cities,  and  I have  made  a calculation  from  some 
statistics  which  may  illustrate  the  evil  that  may 
attend  the  application  of  such  a system.  In  a 
city  there  may  be  thirteen  thousand  voters,  and 
at  a State  election  there  may  not  be  more  than 
eight  thousand  votes  cast;  but  in  the  following 
year  there  may  be  a question  involved  in  the 
election  in  which  every  man  has  an  interest, 


yesterday  in  favor  of  the  amendment  by  the  | 

Committee.  I am  in  favor  of  this  principle, 
because  it  is  a Democratic  principle,  and  there 
is  nothing  undemocratic  in  it.  The  motion  of  | 
the  gentleman  from  Huron  [Mr.  Watson]  yes-  [ 
terday  was  laid  aside.  We  submit  that  in  these 
matters  there  must  be  checks  and  rules  to  con- 
trol the  expenditure  of  the  money  of  the  State. 

And  when  you  provide  these,  you  are  interfer- 
ing in  no  way  with  any  Democratic  principle  at 
all ; and  the  vote  that  requires  three-fourths  of 
all  the  electors,  requires  the  substance  of  the 
community  having  an  interest  in  the  question, 
to  say  who  shall  conduct  its  affairs.  It  would 
be  unwise  to  give  the  control  of  this  expendi- 
ture to  those  who  have  no  interest  at  stake.  It 
is  possible  to  depopulate  a city  by  mismanage-  and  every  man  goes  to  the  polls.  In  order  to 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Cook,  Tuttle,  Mueller,  etc. 


1425 


Day.] 

February  17,  1874.] 


carry  the  project,  it  is  only  necessary  to  get 
three-fourths  of  eight  thousand,  which  would 
he  only  six  thousand  votes.  But  there  are 
thirteen  thousand  voters  in  your  city,  and  the 
other  seven  thousand  come  up  and  vote  solid 
against  your  proposition : notwithstanding 

that,  under  this  rule,  these  six  thousand  would 
carry  the  proposition  against  seven  thousand — 
a majority  of  one  thousand  against  it.  That  is 
the  predicament  under  which  we  are  placed 
by  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  by  fixing 
the  rule  to  apply  to  the  previous  election. 
And  I will  repeat  what  I have  said,  in  order 
that  gentlemen  may  clearly  understand  it. 
Suppose  there  are  thirteen  thousand  voters  in 
a city,  and  at  a certain  election  only  eight 
thousand  of  them  vote.  The  next  year  you 
submit  the  question  as  to  whether  the  indebted- 
ness of  that  city  shall  be  increased,  and  at  that 
election  every  voter  comes  out  and  votes.  The 
thirteen  thousand  votes  are  polled ; but  you 
have  cast  in  favor  of  your  proposition  six 
thousand  votes — three-fourths  of  all  those  who 
registered  at  the  preceding  election, — and  that 
proposition  would  be  adopted  by  six  thousand 
votes,  against  seven  thousand  votes  cast  in  op- 
position to  the  measure.  Now,  I can  support 
no  proposition  that  will  work  out  such  results. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I simply  desire  to  present  what 
I think  to  be  a necessary  amendment.  It  is  in 
reference  to  the  manner  of  ascertaining  this 
consent.  I propose  to  add,  “to  be  determined 
by  ballot  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  law.” 

The  section,  as  it  now  stands,  if  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  is  adopted,  requires  the  consent  of 
three-fourths  of  the  voters  of  a corporation  to 
sanction  an  indebtedness,  but  it  does  not  pro- 
vide how  that  consent  shall  be  ascertained ; 
whether  by  petition  or  by  ballot.  I desire  to  fix  it 
so  that  there  shall  be  no  doubt  on  that  subject, 
by  providing  that  it  shall  be  by  ballot. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I certainly  hope,  if  something 
of  this  kind  is  to  be  adopted,  it  will  first  be 
made  somewhat  different  from  what  it  now  is. 
If  that  is  not  done,  I hope  the  thing  will  fail. 
The  amendment  offered  certainly  does  not  meet 
the  objection  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  and  that  is,  that  under  a sup- 
posable  case,  actually  less  than  a majority  of  the 
voters  voting  at  the  time,  upon  a question  of 
increasing  taxation,  would  be  able  to  carry  the 
measure. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
an  explanation  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  amendment  does  not 
reach,  nor  pretend  to  reach,  the  objection  of  the 
gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook].  That  is  on 
another  branch  of  the  section  entirely.  The 
amendment  I offer  simply  goes  to  the  manner 
of  getting  the  consent  of  the  voters  of  the  cor- 
poration, so  as  to  put  it  beyond  the  power  of  the 
Legislature,  or  anybody  else,  to  provide  for 
going  around  with  a petition  getting  signatures 
secretly  and  without  a knowledge  of  the  people 
generally;  the  assent  when  ascertained  shall  be 
by  ballot ; but  it  does  not  at  all  affect  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  it  shall  be  by  a majority 

y.ii-92 


of  three-fourths  of  the  voters  at  that  election  or 
three-fourths  of  the  voters  in  the  corporation. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Of  course,  Mr.  President,  the 
explanation  which  the  gentleman  makes  is  well 
enough.  With  this,  but  one  of  many  restric- 
tions which  may  be  proposed,  the  objection 
urged  by  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook] 
is  still  unanswered.  And  beyond  the  objection 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Wood, it  is  true 
that,  especially  in  manufacturing  and  mining 
portions  of  the  State,  where  these  questions  are 
most  likely,  I should  apprehend,  to  arise,  theie 
is  a very  great  disparity  between  the  number  of 
votes  cast  at  the  d ifferent  elections.  The  unions 
that  exist  among  the  laboring  classes  tend  to 
produce  that  result.  At  times  they  will  exhibit 
a very  great  and  united  indifference  with  re- 
gard to  the  election.  Something  may  occur,  so 
that  at  the  next  election  they  will  take  a great 
interest  in  it,  and,  besides  that,  there  is  the 
large  incoming  number  of  persons  as  the  natu- 
ral result  of  business.  Thus  you  will  see  that 
a wonderful  fluctuation  may  take  place  in  the 
number  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  different  elec- 
tions. No  definite  estimate  can  be  formed  of 
the  difference  in  the  number  of  voters  growing 
out  of  the  causes  to  which  I have  referred. 

I have  consulted  the  gentleman  from  Maho- 
ning [Mr.  Wilson],  as  to  how  it  was  at  the  last 
election  in  his  city,  compared  with  the  Presi- 
dential election,  and  his  statement  as  to  the  in- 
crease was  less  than  I supposed ; but  he  thinks 
it  was,  at  least,  two  hundred  and  fifty.  In 
villages  in  my  own  county,  I think  they  vary 
as  much  as  fifty  per  cent,  in  the  course  of  a 
year.  And  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  such 
is  to  be  the  general  policy — at  least  indicated  by 
the  Convention  thus  far — that  there  are  to  be 
two  years  elapsing  between  the  elections,  and 
it  will  often  happen  that  there  will  be  from 
various  causes  a very  large  increase  in  the  vote 
from  one  election  to  the  time  another  election 
is  held.  I had  hoped  that  some  person  would 
add  something  to  require  not  only  three-fourths 
the  number  voting  at  the  preceding  election,  but 
three-fourths  of  those  voting  at  the  very  elec- 
tion, or  something  in  that  way,  so  that  it  would 
read  something  like  this:  “by  the  majority  of 
the  electors  voting  thereon,  and  not  less  than 
three-fourths  of  those  voting  at  the  preced- 
ing State  election.”  That  would  certainly 
make  a very  great  difference.  But  in  its  pres- 
ent shape,  1 cannot  support  it. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  In  case  this  amendment 
should  be  disagreed  to,  I have  prepared  the  fol- 
lowing, which  I think  would  meet  the  approval 
of  members  of  this  Convention.  If  1 under- 
stand the  proposition  aright,  that  section  in- 
tends to  prohibit  municipal  corporations  from 
incurring  more  than  five  per  centum  of  debts, 
except  under  certain  restrictions.  I am  in  fa- 
vor of  that  provision,  and  perhaps  it  might  be 
well  to  stop  right  there,  and  make  it  five  per 
centum,  and  no  more.  But  there  may  be  cir- 
cumstances requiring  the  borrowing  of  money 
for  certain  purposes,  which  are  indispensable, 
and  lor  this  reason  it  maj^  be  necessary  to  have 
another  provision,  for  corporations  to  borrow 
money  beyond  the  five  per  centum  of  their  tax- 
able property,  under  certain  restrictions.  Now, 
if  there  are  restrictions,  I want  them  to  be 
such  as  will  be  efficient,  and  will  properly  pro- 


1426 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


[116th 


Mueller,  Hoadly,  Baber,  Layton,  Pond. 


[Tuesday, 


tect  the  rights  of  the  people.  Under  the  rule 
now  proposed,  it  might  occur  that,  in  some 
cases,  even  less  than  half  of  the  qualified  voters 
who  vote  for  the  increase  of  municipal  indebt- 
edness, are  sufficient  to  make  up  the  required 
majority  of  those  voting  at  the  previous  State 
election.  I say,  if  a city  intends  to  contract 
debts  beyond  five  per  cent,  of  its  taxable  prop- 
erty, the  people  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  of 
assenting  or  dissenting,  at  a special  election,  at 
which  the  measure  is  to  be  voted  upon.  If,  for 
instance,  Cincinnati  wants  to  increase  its  debt  to 
the  extent  of  half  a million  dollars,  or  more,  for 
waterworks,  or  any  other  purpose,  this  would  be 
a very  important  question,  and  the  people 
ought  to  be  allowed  to  decide  the  matter  by 
their  votes.  I think  the  amendment  a very 
practical  and  just  one.  It  makes  the  decision 
in  favor  of  an  increase  depend  upon  an  affirm- 
ative vote  of  at  least  three-fourths  of  all  the 
electors  voting  at  such  election,  when  such 
question  is  submitted.  In  determining  such 
questions,  the  majority  vote  may  work  great 
iniquity  upon  minorities. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
a question  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Yes. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  he  not  aware  that  when 
these  special  elections  occur,  the  grossest  in- 
justice prevails,  which  it  is  impossible  to  pre- 
vent, by  means  of  the  importation  of  votes  by 
the  party  interested  in  carrying  their  measure 
through,  and  that  by  the  use  of  money  in  treat- 
ing, the  importation  of  votes,  etc.,  it  is  the  easi- 
est thing  in  the  world  to  get  three-fourths  of 
those  who  vote  at  that  election  to  vote  to  suit  the 
interested  party?  Instead  of  a restriction, it  is 
an  invitation  to  unprincipled  parties  to  run  the 
taxes  up  to  ten  per  cent.  I desire  to  accomplish 
the  same  results  the  gentleman  wishes  to  secure ; 
but  I think  he  would  take  the  wrong  road  to  do 
this  by  simply  restricting  it  to  three-fourths  of 
those  who  vote  at  that  election.  The  restric- 
tion will  be  so  easily  overcome  as  to  amount  to 
no  restriction  at  all. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  answer  the  gen- 
tleman that  my  experience  proves  this  to  be 
exactly  the  other  way.  In  special  elections 
the  attention  of  the  people  is  called  to  the  one 
question  before  them,  but  in  a general  election 
it  might  happen  that  the  proposition  to 
tax  the  corporation  for  building  a bridge 
or  making  some  other  public  improve- 
ments involving  the  expenditure  of  millions  of 
money  would  not  receive  the  attention  it  should. 
I want  these  matters  submitted  at  a special 
election,  and  if  the  people  of  Cincinnati,  or 
Cleveland,  or  other  cities,  are  not  competent 
enough  to  decide  this  question  judiciously  by 
their  votes,  they  ought  to  stop  voting  entirety. 
It  is  always  my  opinion  that  the  people  must 
understand  that  they  are  responsible  for  their 
votes. 

Mr.  BABER.  I submit,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  last  speeches  have  not  been  made  upon  the 
question.  The  question  before  us  is,  whether 
we  shall  adopt  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  that 
three-fourths  of  the  electors  voting  at  the  pre- 
ceding election  shall  be  determined  by  ballot, 
and  not  by  taking  a paper  around  and  getting 
men  to  sign  their  names  to  petitions.  I hope 


that  amendment  will  be  adopted.  The  gentle- 
men have  been  talking  upon  another  question, 
which  the  Convention  has  decided,  and  which 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  one  now  property 
under  consideration.  The  statement  that  the 
majority  of  three-fourths  of  the  electors  voting 
at  the  preceding  general  election  is  not  a suffi- 
cient protection,  is  a mistake.  I hold  in  my 
hand  the  statistics  of  the  votes  cast  at  the  gene- 
ral elections  for  the  last  twenty  years.  On 
pages  142-3  of  the  Secretary  of  State’s  Report 
for  1872 — I will  not  weary  the  Convention  by 
running  through  it,  but  will  state  here,  that  in 
all  these  elections  for  the  last  twenty  years 
there  has  not  been  less  than  eight-tenths  of  the 
entire  vote  polled,  and,  therefore,  three-fourths 
of  that  eight-tenths  vote  would  be  more  than 
a majority  of  all  the  electors.  The  great 
trouble  here  is  that  we  are  fighting  two  sets  of 
men — one  who  are  very  ultra  restrictionists,  and 
the  other  those  that  favor  no  restriction  at  all; 
and  they  are  combining  their  forces  to  prevent 
moderate,  'practical  common-sense  restriction, 
such  as  would  be  had  by  this  amendment.  I do 
hope,  therefore,  that  this  Convention  will  vote 
for  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  and  then  for  the  whole 
section,  as  amended,  because  it  retains  all  the 
restrictions  that  are  needed.  If  we  do  not  have 
some  such  restriction,  perhaps,  we  will  have 
some  more  frauds  like  those  which  have  been 
perpetrated  under  the  Boesel  law  in  special 
elections.  The  objection  of  the  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  is  without  any  foundation  in 
fact,  as  the  statistics  will  show. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  “It  seems  to  me” — to  use  the 
phrase  of  my  friend  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Ba- 
ber]— that  there  is  a difficulty  attending  this 
matter,  as  it  now  stands  before  the  Convention, 
in  ascertaining  in  some  parts  of  the  State  who 
may  be  the  voters  in  the  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions; for  the  reason  that,  as  in  my  town,  the 
voters  of  the  township  and  town  cast  their  bal- 
lots together  in  one  ballot  box  at  the  same  elec- 
tion. Now,  at  the  following  election,  how  are 
we  to  ascertain  who  are  the  electors  of  that  cor- 
poration? I know  that  this  is  the  practice  in  a 
large  number  of  towns  in  Ohio,  and  under  this 
arrangement  I cannot  see  any  way  to  ascertain 
who  are  the  qualified  voters  at  that  election.  I 
think  the  votes  cast  at  the  spring  election  should 
be  taken  instead  of  the  fall  election,  in  order  to 
ascertain  who  are  qualified  electors,  and  how 
many  there  are  in  the  corporation.  I think, 
where  I reside,  the  voters  of  the  township  are 
about  equal  to  the  voters  in  the  corporation,  and 
it  would  be  impossible  to  ascertain  by  the  tally 
sheet  or  any  other  method,  how  many  of  the  elec- 
tors should  be  credited  to  the  corporation. 

Mr.  POND.  It  appears  to  me,  that  in  the 
limitation  which  has  been  prescribed  in  the 
substitute  offered  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee [Mr.  Hoadly],  it  should  read  “three- 
fourths  of  all  the  electors.”  The  word  “ all  ” 
is  not  there,  but  certainty  should  be. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  what  was  under- 
stood bv  it. 

Mr.  ‘POND.  “Three-fourths  of  all  the 
electors  of  the  corporation.”  Now,  I think 
when  you  have  said  that  you  have  said  about  all 
| we  ought  to  sayKon  this  point  in  the  Constitu- 
I tion.  But  I wo'uld  add,  at  the  end,  “to  be  as- 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


1427 


Day.] 

February  17,  1874.] 


Pond,  Baber,  Hoadly, 


Cowen,  West,  etc. 


certained  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law.”  I 
believe  when  we  have  done  that  we  have  done 
all  we  should  do.  It  appears  to  me  that  these 
amendments  are  more  matters  of  legislation 
than  properly  comes  within  the  scope  of  this 
Convention,  and  should  be  left  subject  to  legis- 
lative control.  You  may  make  the  limit,  fixing 
that  firmly,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  such  debt 
incurred  without  the  concurrence  of  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  electors,  to  be  ascertained  in 
the  manner  prescribed  by  law,  but  the  matters 
of  detail  should  not  go  into  this  Constitution. 
I therefore,  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BABER.  I think  that  suggestion  is  best, 
perhaps— to  drop  all  these  amendments,  and 
vote  for  a reconsideration,  for  the  purpose  of 
allowing  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  to 
insert  the  language,  “electors  of  the  corpora- 
tion,” and  then  add  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman, “in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law.” 
I hope  it  will  be  reconsidered. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Franklin  TMr.  Baber]. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hope  the  gentleman  will 
withdraw  that. 

Mr.  BABER.  I will  withdraw  it  with  the 
consent  of  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin [Mr.  Baber]  is  withdrawn. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I now  move  to  amend  by 
inserting  the  word  “ all”  as  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber];  “at 
least  three-fourths  of  all  the  qualified  electors.” 
If  the  delegate  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  will 
add  his  language,  I have  no  objection. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  language  is  “ three- 
fourths;”  strike  out  from  line  four  the  words 
“two-thirds  of  the  tax-payers,”  and  insert 
“three-fourths  of  the  electors.”  If  there  is  no 
objection,  the  gentleman  has  leave  to  modify 
his  amendment,  so  that  it  will  read  “three- 
fourths  of  all  the  qualified  electors,”  instead  of 
the  municipality. 

Mr.  POND.  The  amendment  I desire  to  offer 
in  place  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  is  this:  “To  be 

ascertained  and  taken  in  the  mode  prescribed 
by  law.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  What  is  the  use  of  the  words 
“and  taken?”  “To  be  ascertained”  is  suffi- 
cient. 

Mr.  POND.  “To  be  ascertained”  will  do. 
Leave  it  all  to  the  General  Assembly  to  be 
ascertained  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I will  accept  that  amend- 
ment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  consent  to  a withdrawal 
by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Does  the  withdrawal  of  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber]  necessarily  take  my  amendment 
with  it? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir ; it  will  be  in  or- 
der still  as  an  annexation  to  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  The 


gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  proposes 
to  amend  as  follows : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  at  the  end  of  Mr.  Hoadly’s  amendment:  “to  be 
ascertained  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be  first 
on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns],  to  add  the  words,  “and  to  be  de- 
termined by  ballot  in  such  manner  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  COWEN.  If  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  is 
now  in  order,  I desire  to  offer  an  amendment  to 
that  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I should  like  to  read  it  for  in- 
formation, at  least,  as  I desire  to  offer  it  in  the 
event  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  is  adopted.  It  is  to  this 
effect,  that  there  shall  be  added  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns]  these  words:  “and  the  ballot  shall  be 
on  plain,  white  paper,  without  any  device  or 
mark  whatever  to  distinguish  one  ticket  from 
another,  or  by  which  one  ticket  may  be  known 
from  another  by  its  appearance,  except  the 
words  at  the  head  of  the  ticket.” 

If  we  are  going  into  the  details  of  legislation 
on  this  subject  of  ascertaining  how  a majority 
of  three-fourths  is  to  be  ascertained,  I should 
like  to  go  clear  through  with  it  and  fix  the 
whole  code. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  ballots  should  be  on  paper 
manufactured  in  Ohio. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I am  willing  to  accept  that. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  object  of  my  amendment 
is  apparent  on  its  face,  and  ought  not  to  be  ob- 
jected to  by  any  one.  It  is  simply  this : the 
section  as  it  now  stands,  provides  that  this  will 
and  consent  of  the  elector  shall  be  ascertained, 
but  it  does  not  say  how.  I want  to  provide 
against  the  idea  of  allowing  petitions  to  be  cir- 
culated secretly,  and  by  interested  parties,  to 
get  the  signatures  of  electors  to  a petition  to  the 
city  or  town  council,  to  have  such  an  ordinance 
or  law  passed.  I want  it  definitely  fixed  in  the 
Constitution  how  that  will  shall  be  ascertained 
by  law.  Whether  it  shall  be  at  a special  or 
general  election,  makes  no  difference  to  me ; but 
I desire  it  shall  be  by  ballot ; and  if  the  gentle- 
man from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  wants  it  on 
clean  white  paper,  I have  no  objection.  But  I 
want  it  distinctly  settled,  how  it  shall  be  ascer- 
tained, and  what  shall  be  the  way  of  taking  the 
public  judgment  upon  any  question  of  this 
kind. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  to  add  the 
following  words:  “and  to  be  determined  by 
ballot  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
law.” 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond],  to  add,  at  the  end  of  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  the  following  words : “ to  be  ascer- 
tained in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I should  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  one  ques- 
tion. On  a little  more  reflection,  is  not  this 


1428 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [116th 

Hoadly,  Pond,  Powell,  Miner,  Tuttle,  Smith  of  H.,  etc.  [Tuesday, 


really  in  the  section  as  it  now  stands  ? Is  it  not 
adding  unnecessary  words  to  the  section  ? Will 
not  the  Legislature  have  the  right  without  this 
language  to  provide  the  means  of  ascertaining 
the  necessary  vote  ? Is  it  not  by  the  general 
grant  of  legislative  power  necessarily  implied  ? 
And,  then,  I will  suggest  to  him  whether  the 
force  of  the  word  “all”  may  not  be  weakened? 

Mr.  POND.  It,  perhaps,  may  be  true,  that 
the  Legislature  will  find  in  this  section  author- 
ity to  provide  for  thus  getting  at  this  judgment 
of  three-fourths.  I think  very  likely  the  sug- 
gestion of  my  friend  is  right.  I offered  it  for 
the  purpose  of  obviating  what  I deemed  was 
legislative  matter,  that  was  sought  to  be  put  in 
this  Article.  That  was  the  object,  and  the  only 
object.  If  the  Convention  think  these  words 
unnecessary,  I shall  be  perfectly  satisfied  to  have 
them  vote  it  down.  I put  them  in  there  think- 
ing it  would  obviate  any  doubt  as  to  what  might 
be  the  effect  of  that. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I hope  that  the  words  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond]  will  be  adopted.  I am  much  inclined  to 
vote  against  this  whole  thing,  because  it  re- 
stricts it  in  such  a way  as  to  make  it  very  diffi- 
cult for  the  Legislature  to  have  that  necessary 
control  over  the  matter  that  will  bring  about 
the  necessary  machinery  to  carry  it  into  effect. 
Now,  to  avoid  difficulties  of  that  kind,  to  avoid 
setting  up  the  express  words  of  the  Constitu- 
tion against  the  law,  I wish  to  have  it  expressly 
stated  that  it  shall  be  regulated  by  law.  With- 
out those  words  in,  I would  vote  against  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond]. 

Mr.  MINER.  I would  like  to  have  the 
amendment  reported  without  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond], 
and  also  with  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Including  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  the  section  will  read  thus : “Without 
the  consent  first  obtained  of  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  qualified  electors  of  such 
corporation,  and  in  no  case  shall  such  indebted- 
ness exceed  ten  per  centum  of  said  taxable 
value.”  With  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  including  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly],  it  will  read  thus: 

“Without the  consent  first  obtained  of  at  least  three- 
fourths  oi  all  the  qualified  electors  of  such  corporation, 
and  in  no  ca»e  shall  such  indebtedness  exceed  ten  per 
centum  of  s id  taxable  value,  to  be  ascertained  in  the 
mode  prescribed  by  law.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond]. 

On  this  question  a division  was  called  for, 
and  resulted — affirmative,  thirty-six;  negative, 
nineteen. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I move  now  to  strike  out  the 
word  “ten,”  and  insert  “twenty.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  moves  to  strike  out  the 
word  “ten,”  in  the  filth  line,  and  insert 
“twenty.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I want  to  suggest  that  there 
was  no  quorum  voting. 


The  PRESIDENT.  There  was  a quorum 
voting.  Thirty-six  in  the  affirmative,  and  nine- 
teen in  the  negative. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I wish  the  gen- 
tleman from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  to  withdraw 
his  amendment  for  a moment.  I want  to  offer 
an  amendment  to  the  section  before  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  the  Chair  understands 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt],  it  is  not  now  in  order.  The 
Chair  wishes  to  know  what  the  motion  is. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I want  to  ascertain  whether  it 
is  order  or  not.  The  motion  is  to  strike  out  the 
word  “ten”  preceding  per  centum,  in  the  fifth 
line  of  the  fourth  section,  and  insert  “twenty.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  amendment  would 
not  now  be  in  order.  The  question  is  now  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  to  strike  out  the  words  in  the 
preceding  line.  The  gentleman’s  motion  will 
be  in  order  after  that  is  disposed  of. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I thought  that  was  disposed  of 
by  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  disposed  of. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I wish  to  offer  an 
amendment  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  if  it  is  in 
order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  in  order. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Highland,  moves  to  amend  Mr.  Hoadly’s 
amendment  by  adding  after  the  word  “law”  the  words, 
“to  said  increase  of  indebtedness,  and  the  approval  of  the 
object  for  which  the  same  is  created.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  section  as  proposed  to  be  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corporation  shall 
never  exceed,  in  the  aggregate,  five  per  centum  of  the 
value  of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as  ascer- 
tained, from  time  to  time,  by  the  tax  duplicate  thereof, 
without  the  consent  firstobtained  of  at  least  three-lourths 
ot  all  the  qualified  electors  ot  such  corporation,  to  be  as- 
certained in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law,~to  avoid  increase 
of  indebtedness,  and  the  approval  of  the  objects  for 
which  the  same  is  created;  and  in  no  case  shall  such  in- 
debtedness exceed  ten  per  centum  of  said  taxable  value.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hope  this  amendment  will 
be  adopted.  The  object  of  it  is  this : If  it  is  to 
prevent  a vote  being  proposed  to  the  people  to 
increase  the  debt,  and  then  the  object  of  the 
increase  held  in  suspense  for  a subsequent 
J scramble,  so  that  men  who  do  not  agree  about 
how  the  money  shall  be  expended,  may  agree 
to  incur  the  debt  and  postpone  the  quarrel  as  to 
the  division  of  the  spoils — the  grab — until  after 
the  vote  may  be  taken.  In  other  words,  it  is  to 
prevent  log-rollers  or  schemers  combining  to 
increase  the  debt,  irrespective  of  the  purpose 
for  which  the  money  shall  be  spent.  That  is 
my  understanding  of  the  object  of  this  amend- 
ment, and  so  understanding,  it  strikes  me,  that 
by  requiring  consent  to  be  given  both  to  the 
increase  and  the  object  for  which  the  increase 
is  to  be  voted,  it  will  subserve  a good  purpose. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  The  gentleman 
| is  perfectly  right. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Highland 
[Mr.  Smith]. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

1 The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Page,  Dorsey,  Pratt,  Griswold. 


1429 


Day.] 

February  17,  1874.] 


on  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly],  as  amended.  The  Secre-  . 
tary  will  now  read  the  section  including  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read: 

“The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corporation  shall 
never  exceed,  in  the  aggregate,  five  per  centum  of  the 
value  of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as  ascer- 
tained, from  time  to  time,  by  the  tax  duplicate  thereof, 
without  the  consent  first  obtained  of  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  qualified  electors  of  such  corporation, 
to  be  ascertained  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law,  to  said 
increase  of  indebtedness,  and  the  approval  of  the  objects 
for  which  the  same  is  created;  and  in  no  case  shall  such 
indebtedness  exceed  ten  per  centum  of  said  taxable 
value.” 

Mr.  PAGE.  If  it  is  in  order,  I will  offer  the 
amendment  that  I offered  yesterday  in  behalf 
of  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  would  not  now  be 
in  order.  It  is  in  the  next  line.  The  question 
now  is  on  striking  out  the  words  in  the  fourth 
line.  The  words  referred  to  are  in  the  fifth 
line. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I wish  to  understand  whether, 
if  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly]  is  voted  down,  it  then 
leaves  the  section  as  now  printed  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  I believe  there  has  been 
no  alteration  in  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  that  be  so,  I hope  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  will  be  voted  down,  so  that  we 
will  have  the  section  in  its  purity  just  as  it 
stands,  and  the  gentleman  will  understand  that 
it  is  the  tax  payers  of  this  country  that  are  to 
vote  a tax  upon  themselves  over  and  above  five 
per  centum  of  the  taxable  valuation  of  the 
property.  » 

Upon  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  60,  nays  19,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Bishop,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly, 
Horton,  Hostetter,  Hunt,  Kraemer,  Layton, 
McBride,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Sample,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Townsend,  Townsley, Tripp,  Tulloss, 
Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Yoorhes,  Yo- 
ris,  Waddle,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Young 
of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble — 60. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Cowen,  Dorsey,  Gurley,  Hill,  Hum- 
phreville,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McCormick,  Neal, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Yan  Voorhis, 
West,  President — 19. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  the  amendment  I propose 
now  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  now  in  order. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I move  to  strike  out  “ten,” 
and  insert  “ twenty,”  for  the  reason  I gave  last 
evening. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  moves  to  strike  out 


I “ten,”  in  line  five,  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof, 

I “ twenty.” 

Mr.  PRATT.  I make  this  motion  not  from 
any  disposition  of  my  own  to  increase  and  en- 
large the  limit  that  shall  be  fixed  to  the  indebt- 
edness of  any  municipality;  but  in  deference  to 
the  actual  condition  of  the  city  of  Toledo,  as  I 
mentioned  last  night.  Her  debt  already  amounts 
to  about  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  duplicate  value 
of  her  property.  Her  debt,  absolutely  funded, 
may  not,  perhaps,  amount  to  that  sum;  but  in 
the  process  of  contraction.  By  her  system  of 
water  works  her  debt  will  be  increased  to  at 
least  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  tax  duplicate  as  as- 
certained last  year.  If  this  section,  with  a lim- 
itation of  ten  per  cent.,  becomes  a part  of  the 
Constitution,  as  to  all  future  indebtedness,  that 
city  will  be  entirely  cut  off  and  will  have  no 
power  to  contract  any  debt,  however  pressing 
her  necessities  might  be.  She  has  in  her  limits 
two  navigable  streams  that  add  greatly  to  the 
expenses  of  the  city.  She  is  a city  that  requires 
extensive  sewerage ; a city  that  is  not  yet  fenced 
in  and  done  for ; a city  growing  rapidly. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  will  have  a new 
valuation  and  can  get  it  then. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  valuation  will  come  at 
an  uncertain  time.  By  the  valuation  of  1870, 
the  real  estate  of  the  city  was  $10,519,652 . 
A part  of  the  very  debt  that  she  now  bears, 
and  a large  part  of  it,  has  been  devoted  to  the 
construction  of  railroads,  just  as  this  city  pro- 
poses to  devote  $10,000,000  to  a similar  purpose 
and  contract  a debt  accordingly.  By  this  ex- 
penditure she  has  secured  connection  with  the 
great  Pennsylvania  system  of  railroads,  and 
also  by  the  Canada  Southern,  a new  route, 
north  of  Lake  Erie,  eastward,  both  of  which 
connections  are  made.  The  influence  of  these 
connections  upon  the  financial  condition  of  her 
citizens,  upon  her  property,  her  business  pro- 
spects, have  already  been  immense.  I think  I 
hazard  nothing  in  saying,  that  the  increased  val- 
ue of  her  real  estate  from  improvements  secured 
through  this  very  indebtedness,  if  added  to  the 
duplicate  now,  would  raise  her  valuation  so  far 
beyond  the  present  valuation  that  this  limitation 
would  not  hamper  her.  It  has  doubled  the  value 
of  that  real  estate,  and  if  her  property  was  to- 
day reappraised  and  reduplicated,  there  would 
be  no  difficulty  in  her  situation.  Her  real  es- 
tate duplicate  would  rate,  instead  of  ten  mil- 
lions, at  more  than  twenty  or  twenty-five  mil- 
lion dollars.  But  the  time  when  that  redupli- 
cation will  occur  is  in  the  indefinite  future.  It 
is  fixed  by  law  that  it  shall  be  done  once  in  six 
years,  but  that  the  reduplication  will  occur  at 
any  particular  period  in  the  future  no  one  can 
affirm.  We  are  all  aware  that,  while  the  dupli- 
cation was  made  in  1859  and  was  provided  by 
law  to  be  made  every  six  years  thereafter,  a pe- 
riod of  eleven  years  intervened  before  a reap- 
praisal of  the  real  estate  of  the  State  was  made. 
In  the  meantime,  the  enhancement  and  growth 
of  property  continued,  as  it  is  going  on  in  that 
city  now.  When  it  comes  to  the  practical  con- 
sideration of  their  business  affairs,  as  to  their 
ability  to  bear  a given  amount  of  indebtedness, 
they  are  in  the  same  condition  in  one  year  that 
they  were  in  the  year  previous.  There  is  no 
advancement  in  their  power  in  proportion  to 
I their  wealth  from  one  period  of  appraisement 


1430 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Pratt,  Baber,  Yoris,  Page,  Beer,  Cook,  etc. 


to  the  next.  I cannot  but  think  that  the  inhab- 
itants of  that  city  will  take  such  a restriction  as 
this  as  a hostile  act,  and  will  find  themselves 
compelled  to  vote  to  reject  the  Constitution 
with  such  a limitation  in  it.  I am  not  speaking 
my  own  sentiments  here,  but  simply  what  I 
think  the  interests  of  that  city  demand.  And 
I say  I would  strike  out  the  limitation  that 
would  prevent  the  municipal  indebtedness.  We 
are  to  deal  with  facts  as  they  exist.  We  must 
deal  with  things  in  the  condition  in  which  we 
find  them  in  the  State,  and  we  find  the  munici- 
pal indebtedness  of  the  cities  and  fifteen  of  the 
larger  towns  has  already  gone  to  the  great  sum 
of  $15,188,095.05.  We  have  practical  questions 
to  deal  with,  not  wholly  for  a great  number  of 
cities,  but  for  each  particular  city  and  munici- 
pality in  the  State. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  will  not 
be  adopted.  It  is  not  so  long  that  Toledo  will 
have  to  wait  for  another  duplicate  to  be  made. 
I was  in  the  Legislature  at  the  time  this  revalu- 
ation was  made,  in  1870,  and  my  recollection  is 
that  in  1875  or  1876,  at  furthest,  this  revaluation 
will  take  place  again.  I know  the  fact,  because 
the  matter  was  acted  upon  by  the  Legislature  at 
the  request  of  the  Board  of  Equalization,  and 
there  were  some  very  strange  things  said  about 
this  Toledo  valuation.  The  valuation  of 
Toledo,  as  is  stated  by  the  gentleman,  was 
something  like  $10,000,000,  whereas  the  valu- 
ation of  the  city  of  Columbus  was,  I believe, 
$24,000,000,  and  that  of  the  city  of  Dayton, 
$19,000,000.  And  yet  Toledo  is  a first  class 
city,  and  claims  to  stand  in  a great  deal  better 
position,  and  to  be  worth  more  money  than 
either  Dayton  or  Columbus.  If  she  has  gone  to 
work  and  made  a valuation  too  low,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  escaping  State  taxation,  I will  not  say 
it  is  very  easy  to  have  that  remedied.  It  can  be 
remedied  in  1875,  or  in  1876.  Toledo  has  had  a 
very  recent  election,  and  several  days  ago 
elected  a gentleman  to  represent  her  here, 
in  place  of  Chief  Justice  Waite,  and  if  the 
people  of  that  city  were  very  much  inter- 
ested in  this  matter,  I think  they  might 
be  represented  on  this  floor.  I,  therefore, 
hope  that  this  Convention  will  not  disorganize 
and  change  this  whole  matter  of  limitation  on 
taxation  for  the  benefit  of  the  city  of  Toledo. 
I still  further  suggest,  and  the  Chair  will  correct 
me  if  I am  wrong,  that  a vote  has  been  once 
taken  to  strike  out  “ ten”  and  has  been  rejected, 
and  the  question  is  whether  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  is  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  in  order, 
but  was  not  in  order  at  the  time  it  was  first 
made. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I am  impressed  with  a great 
deal  of  sympathy  with  those  situated  in  a like 
place  with  Toledo.  To  avoid  any  complications 
that  may  arise  in  the  submission  of  our  Con- 
stitution from  cities  fixed  in  like  condition,  I 
propose  to  offer  the  following  amendment,  as 
soon  as  it  is  competent  for  me  to  do  so,  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  governing  this  body. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  desires  leave  to  have  the 
following  read.  If  there  is  no  objection  it  will 
be  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 


[116th 

[Tueshay, 


Mr.  Yoris  gives  notice  that  at  the  proper  time  he  will 
offer  the  following  amendment,  to  be  inserted  in  lieu  of 
that  offered  by  the  delegate  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  : 

“Sec.  — . The  right  of  Municipal  Corporations  to  create 
indebtedness  shall  be  inviolate.” 

Mr.  YORIS.  That  I think  will  cover  the 
whole  ground. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I suppose  it  is  in  order  now  to 
offer  an  amendment  to  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  to  insert 
“ seven”  in  place  of  “ twenty.”  I,  therefore, 
offer  that  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  moves  to  insert  the  word 
“ seven  ” in  place  of  the  word  “ twenty.” 

A division  was  called  for  on  striking*out. 

Mr.  BEER.  I desire  to  give  notice,  that  if 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt]  prevails,  I will  offer  the  following 
amendment:  “Provided,  that  any  such  debt 
may  be  repudiated,  in  case  three-fourths  of  the 
qualified  electors  shall  so  declare,  by  a vote  at 
any  general  election.”  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  YORIS.  I accept  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  the  word  “ten.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I hope  the  Convention  will  not 
press  this  to  an  immediate  vote.  It  is  due  the 
growing  city  of  Toledo,  that  young  giant  of  the 
Northwest,  that  her  interests  should  be  consid- 
ered. And  her  prosperity  ought  not  to  be 
crippled  by  constitutional  provision.  The  time 
is  coming  when  she  will  be  able  to  take  care  of 
herself;  but  now,  in  her  infancy,  it  is  very 
unkind,  indeed,  for  any  of  those  gentlemen 
representing  the  cities  of  Columbus  and  Dayton, 
or  others  who  are  her  rivals,  to  seek  to  smother 
her  in  her  cradle.  And  I hope  gentlemen  who 
have  the  power  will  be  magnanimous  to  this 
young  city,  and  give  her  a fair  opportunity  in 
the  race  for  wealth  and  prosperity.  Columbus, 
and  Cincinnati,  and  Cleveland,  and  Dayton, 
have  enjoyed  this  luxury  without  stint,  until 
they  have  grown  and  become  powerful ; and 
now,  as  they  are  luxuriating  in  their  grandeur, 
it  is  very  unkind  to  put  a restriction  upon  other 
growing  cities,  for  fear  that  they  may,  in  the 
race,  be  eclipsed.  Unfortunately  for  that  city, 
at  this  moment,  while  gentlemen  are  engaged 
in  the  discussion  of  this  proposition,  her  Repre- 
sentatives are  called  from  this  Hall. 

Mr.  POWELL.  What  is  the  name  of  that 
city? 

Mr.  COOK.  That  is  Toledo. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir ; the  other  city  that 
the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt] 
speaks  of. 

Mr.  COOK.  Toledo  is  the  one  of  which  the 
gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  and 
myself  are  speaking,  in  the  absence  of  her 
Representatives.  I hope  that  the  Convention 
will  either  accede  to  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  or  let  this 
matter  be  postponed  until  their  Representatives 
can  appear.  I understand  they  have  been 
telegraphed  to,  and  probably  will  be  here  this 
evening  or  to-morrow  morning.  I am  not 
interested  myself,  personally,  in  her  affairs,  and 
only  speak  for  her  in  the  absence  of  her  Repre- 
sentatives. Possibly,  when  they  come  upon 
this  floor,  they  may  be  able  to  give  explanations 
! that  will  satisfy  gentlemen  here  to  vote  for  the 


1431 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  17, 1874.]  Cook,  Voris,  Carbery,  Wilson,  Pratt,  etc. 


amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt],  or  they  may  not  desire  it.  There 
may  be  something  in  these  statistics.  They 
may  not  fully  represent  the  situation  of  that 
city.  I hope,  therefore,  that  nothing  will  be 
done  by  this  Convention  that  looks  like  crip- 
pling the  prosperity  of  any  portion  of  the  State. 
It  should  be  our  interest  to  promote,  and  not  to 
destroy,  the  whole  interest  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
and  that  of  every  city  within  her  borders.  I 
hope  this  delay  will  be  conceded.  It  is  a matter 
in  which  I have  no  immediate  personal  interest; 
but,  her  Representatives  being  absent,  I hope 
either  that  the  proposition  will  be  acceded  to, 
or  that  delajr  will  be  granted  until  her  Repre- 
sentatives arrive. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Before  the  gentleman  takes  his 
seat,  I would  like  to  inquire  of  him,  if  the 
amendment  which  I have  proposed  to  offer  does 
not  cover  the  ground  more  effectually  than  that 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt]  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  No;  I answer,  it  does  not.  The 
amendment  the  gentleman  offers  cannot  be 
accepted  by  this  or  any  other  sensible  body  of 
men.  Therefore,  it  offers  nothing. 

Mr.  YORIS.  But  it  covers  the  whole  ground. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I fully  sympathize  with 
my  friend  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  with 
reference  to  the  difficulty  in  the  case  of  Toledo, 
yet  I cannot  see,  Mr.  President,  but  the  case  is 
one  that  can  be  regulated  by  the  municipal 
authorities  of  Toledo.  It  could  be  done  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  the  amendment  offered 
yesterday  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Bishop].  That  is  to  say,  I think  the 
authorities  there  can  classify  the  indebtedness, 
so  as  to  include  within  ten  per  cent,  all  the 
local  disbursements  for  municipal  affairs,  and 
within  the  other  part  of  the  amendment,  pro- 
viding for  extra  outlays,  the  extraordinary 
disbursements  of  the  city  of  Toledo.  And  when 
she  comes  to  issue  bonds  for  finishing  water- 
works, building  school-houses,  or  other  matters 
of  that  kind,  they  can  be  put  in  that  category 
of  extraordinary  expenses.  It  is  provided  for 
by  the  amendment  adopted  yesterday.  I think 
the  complication  is  not  so  great  but  that  it  may 
be  entirely  solved  by  the  exercise  of  the  ordi- 
nary municipal  power  of  a city  like  Toledo.  I 
am  as  much  opposed  as  any  one  can  be  to  doing 
anything  that  would  trammel  the  progress  of  a 
city  like  Toledo,  and  yet  I cannot  see  that  we 
should  adopt  an  amendment  here  that  would  in 
fact  overturn  the  whole  work  of  the  last  two 
days,  for  the  purpose  of  providing  against  what 
may  prove  to  be  a difficulty  only  with  reference 
to  one  city  of  the  State. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  or  the  gen- 
tleman from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  if  they 
expect  the  delegates  from  Toledo  here  to-day  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  I cannot  answer  the  gentleman 
from  Mahoning  [Mr.  Wilson].  I have  had  no 
reply  to  the  communication  that  I addressed  to 
Mr.  Scribner. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I understand  that  they  have 
been  telegraphed  to. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  is  true.  It  may  be  very 
easy  to  ridicule  the  condition  of  the  city  of 
Toledo.  It  may  be  a very  insignificant  city, 
and  have  no  rights  upon  this  floor,  but  she  has 


been  heard  of  through  the  whole  Nation  during 
the  last  thirty  days. 

Mr.  WILSON.  If  it  will  be  any  accommoda- 
tion, I move  we  take  a recess  until  they  come. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I question  very  much 
the  propriety  of  this  Convention  making  any 
constitutional  provision  to  meet  the  wants  of 
any  one  city.  And  I am  very  well  satisfied, 
from  the  care,  and  prudence,  and  conservative 
views  that  Mr.  Scribner,  the  member  from 
Lucas,  holds  upon  this,  as  well  as  every  other 
subject,  that,  if  he  were  here  to-day,  he  would 
be  unwilling  to  ask  this  Convention  to  authorize 
any  city,  even  Toledo,  to  incur  a permanent 
indebtedness  of  twenty  per  cent.,  or  over  ten 
per  cent.  I think  twenty  per  cent,  would 
utterly  bankrupt  any  city  in  this  State  that 
would  attempt  to  carry  such  a load.  I under- 
stood, from  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  yesterday,  that  the  pres- 
ent indebtedness  of  Toledo  was  about  eight  per 
cent.,  including  $400,000  of  railroad  bonds. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Nearly  ten. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  My  idea  is,  if  they  have 
an  indebtedness  of  ten,  eleven,  or  twelve  per 
cent.,  that  the  best  thing  they  can  do  toward 
their  future  healthy  growth  and  prosperity, 
will  be,  first,  to  pay  off  some  of  that  indebted- 
ness. Let  it  mature,  and  retire  it,  and  then 
they  can  add  some  more.  In  the  meantime, 
their  property  will  be  increased  in  value,  their 
tax  duplicate  will  be  larger,  and  they  will  be 
able  to  increase  their  indebtedness  as  fast  as 
they  ought  to  increase  it.  If  gentlemen  make 
any  limitations  at  all,  let  us  make  them  within 
reasonable  limit.  I am  willing  to  leave  this 
question  of  indebtedness  to  State  legislation 
and  the  good  judgment  of  cities.  Toledo  can 
take  care  of  herself,  and  knows  what  is  for  her 
interest,  better  than  we  do;  but,  if  we  make 
limitations  at  all,  let  it  be  within  reasonable 
bounds,  and  not,  by  our  actions,  seem  to  invite 
or  sanction  this  wide  limitation,  the  effect  of 
which  would  be  worse  than  none. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I would  make  a 
suggestion,  whether  it  might  not  be  better, 
legislating  as  we  are,  to  legislate  a little  further, 
and  make  an  exception  in  this  Article  in  favor 
of  Toledo,  that  indebtedness  shall  not  exceed 
ten  per  cent.,  but,  in  the  city  of  Toledo,  it  may 
be  extended  to  twenty  per  cent,  if  they 
desire  it. 

Mr.  COOK.  Possibly  they  may  desire  that 
when  their  Representatives  come  in.  All  I have 
sought  of  this  Convention  is  a little  delay,  until 
her  Representatives  can  speak  for  themselves 
upon  this  floor.  And  I will  say  now  that  I am 
determined  they  shall  have  that  privilege.  If 
I have  to  vote  against  this  amendment  in  order 
to  put  myself  in  condition  to  reconsider,  I shall 
do  so,  that  they  may  have  the  thing  in  their 
own  hands.  I will  not  sit  in  this  Convention, 
or  anywhere  else,  and  see  the  interests  of  par- 
ties sacrificed  in  the  absence  of  their  Repre- 
sentatives 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I desire  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Convention  for  a few  moments,  in  the 
interest  of  the  citizens  of  Toledo,  to  their  pres- 
ent condition.  If  you  will  turn  to  the  Audit- 
or’s Report,  on  page  sixty-five,  you  will  find 
that  Toledo  is  now  taxed  three  and  a half  per 


[116th 


1432 MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Gardner,  Voris,  Hoadly,  Hitchcock,  Baber,  etc. 


cent,  a year  on  its  taxable  property,  and  their 
indebtedness  is  not  far  from  eight  per  cent. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Twelve  per  cent. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Twelve  per  cent. ; and  they 
propose  to  increase  it  at  least  one-third.  I sub- 
mit what  there  is  in  Toledo,  that  any  business 
man  can  invest  money  in,  to  make,  over  and 
above  his  taxes,  a support  for  his  family,  if  you 
permit  them  to  add  that  indebtedness  to  it.  They 
are  already  paying  three  and  a half  per  cent., 
and  I submit  that  if  their  city  authorities  tax 
them  that  amount  for  local  taxation  the  citizens 
of  Toledo  demand  at  our  hands  some  relief ; 
and  I appear  here  in  the  interests  of  the  citi- 
zens of  Toledo  to  plead  for  them,  that  they  are 
already  overburdened  with  more  taxation  than 
any  people  are  able  to  pay. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I protest  against  any  facts  be- 
ing offered  in  this  case  that  will  defeat  the 
proposition  that  I am  going  to  make  in  a little 
time.  If  we  are  going  to  vote  upon  facts  in  this 
matter,  I fear  very  much  the  amendment  we 
propose  to  the  Constitution  will  not  be  adopted 
either  in  favor  of  Toledo  or  any  other  city. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  delegate  from  Lucas 
[Mr.  Scribner]  was  one  of  the  authors  of  the 
municipal  code.  He  is,  therefore,  a gentleman 
who  is  as  familiar  with  municipal  law  in  this 
State  as  any  gentleman  in  this  Convention. 
That  being  the  case,  I felt  free  to  consult  him, 
sitting  near  him  as  I do,  and  he  had  the  oppor- 
tunity while  this  particular  section  was  i nder 
consideration,  to  object  to  it  if  there  had  been 
anything  objectionable.  And  it  does  strike  me 
that  if  either  he  or  President  Waite  had  had 
objections  to  it,  somebody  would  have  heard  of 
it.  No  member  of  this  Committee  has  ever 
heard  a word  of  dissent  from  this  provision  of 
the  Report,  and  I do  not  think  that  we  ought  to 
wait,  on  the  supposition  that  delegates  from 
Lucas  may  object. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  seems  to  me  very  sin- 
gular that  in  forming  a Constitution  for  the 
State  we  are  not  to  be  called  upon  to  consider 
the  present  condition  of  any  locality  in  the 
State,  except  so  far  as  it  may  illustrate  the 
necessity  for  some  provision  about  to  be  inserted 
in  the  Constitution.  The  remarks  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  were  lis- 
tened to  with  a great  deal  of  interest  on  last 
evening  by  myself,  from  the  fact  that  they 
seemed  to  me  to  offer  the  very  best  possible  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  some  limitation  of  the 
power  to  create  indebtedness  by  Municipal 
Corporations.  It  may  be  that  there  is  no  dis- 
position on  the  part  of  this  Convention  to  assent 
to  the  amendment  made  by  the  gentleman  at 
this  time;  but  it  is  urged  upon  us,  that  action 
should  be  delayed  because  that  some  locality 
in  this  State  has  already  assumed  as  large  a 
burden  of  taxation  as  the  Convention,  in  its 
wisdom,  has  seen  lit  to  allow  in  any  locality  in 
the  State.  This  question  of  limitation  is  one 
that  must,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  be 
considered  with  very  much  care.  It  is  true  that 
in  the  present  Constitution  there  is  no  limita- 
tion. Experience  has  taught  us  that  limitations 
are  necessary.  Then,  if  any  limit  whatever  is 
to  be  put  into  the  Constitution,  that  limit  should 
be  one,  not  that  which  we  suppose  may  be  pos- 
sibly reached  in  the  future,  but  which  we  may 
expect  will  probably  be  reached  by  all  those 


[Tuesday, 


coming  within  the  operation  of  that  limit.  That 
is  the  legitimate  result  of  fixing  limits.  When, 
in  legislating,  you  attempt  to  limit  the  exercise 
of  the  taxing  power  in  certain  localities,  the 
almost  inevitable  result  is  to  work  up  to  the 
limit  you  have  established.  Therefore,  what- 
ever may  be  the  condition  of  any  locality  in  the 
State,  at  the  present  time,  it  ought  not  to  be 
urged  as  a reason  why  we  should  exceed  a limit 
that  we  think  is  just  and  proper.  Never  make 
a limit  above  that  which  is  proper,  either  for 
levying  taxes  or  incurring  indebtedness. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  strik- 
ing out  the  word  “ ten.” 

On  this  question,  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  21,  nays 
54,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Hill,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McCormick,  Merrill, 
Mitchener,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Shultz,  Van  Voorhis, 
West,  Young  of  Noble — 21. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Bishop,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Cook,  Co  wen,  De  Steiguer,  Ewing,  Gardner, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Horton,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Layton,  Mc- 
Bride, Miller,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey, 
Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Phillips,  Pond,  Powell, 
Sample,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley, 
Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Voorhes,  Voris, 
Waddle,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Presi- 
dent— 54. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  McCORMICK.  I move  we  now  take  a 
recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  (at  12:30  p. 
m.)  the  Convention  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2:30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  at 
the  time  the  recess  was  taken,  was  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey],  to  strike  out  line  four  and  five  and  the 
first  four  words  in  line  six,  as  now  amended. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  the 
amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT,  All  that  part  of  the  sec- 
tion following  the  word  “thereof,”  at  the  end 
of  line  three,  and  concluding  with  the  word 
“ value  ” in  line  six. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  section  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

‘‘The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corporation  shall 
not  exceed,  in  the  aggregate,  five  per  centumof  the  value 
of  the  property  within  the  corporation,  as  ascertained 
from  time  to  time,  by  the  tax  duplicate  thereof,  without 
the  consent  first  obtained  ot  at  lea-t  three-io  irths  of  all 
the  qualified  voters  of  such  corpoiation  to  bcascertained 
in  a mode  to  be  prescribed  by  law,  to  such  increase  of  in- 
debtedness, and  the  approval  of  the  objects  f<  r which  the 
same  is  created;  and  in  no  case  shall  such  indebtedness 
exceed  ten  per  centum  of  said  tax  duplicate.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  now  is  to 
strike  out  the  words  “with  the  consent  first  ob- 
tained of  at  least  three-fourths  of  all  the  qual- 


1433 


Day.] 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


February  17, 1874. 


Powell,  Dorsey,  Voris,  West,  Hoadly. 


ified  electors  of  such  corporation,  to  be  ascer- 
tained in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law,  to  such 
increase  of  indebtedness  and  the  approval  of 
the  objects  for  which  such  indebtedness  is  ere- 
£Lfc6(l 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  the 
matter  proposed  to  be  inserted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Nothing  is  proposed  to  be 
inserted. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I desire  to  have  the  section 
read  as  it  will  stand  after  the  words  are  stricken 
out. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  4.  The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion shall  not  exceed  in  the  aggregate  five  per  centum 
of  the  value  of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as 
ascertained  from  lime  to  time  by  the  tax  duplicate  there- 
of, and  in  ascertaining  such  indebtedness  at  any  time, 
there  shall  be  included  an  amount  which,  at  the  rate  of 
six  per  centum  per  annum  will  produce  an  amount  equal 
to  the  aggregate  amount  payable  by  s ach  corporation  for 
the  rent  of  property  leased  to  it. 

“This  section  shall  not  be  construed  to  prevent  any  Mu- 
nicipal Corporation  from  incurring  any  indebtedness 
necessary  to  complete  any  work  authorized  by  law,  and 
undertaken  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  nor 
shall  the  restrictions  of  this  section  apply  to  necessary 
expenditures  for  military  purposes  in  time  of  war.” 

Mr.  YORIS.  I would  like  to  inquire  whether 
the  pending  question  is  not  a double  one,  to 
strike  out  and  insert? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir,  it  is  simply  to 
strike  out. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  original  section  has  been 
perfected  by  adding  certain  matter  to  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  passage  now  pro- 
posed to  be  stricken  out  includes  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoad- 
ly], as  amended  by  the  gentleman  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond],  and  the  gentleman  from  High- 
land [Mr.  Smith]. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  is  not  to  include  them. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  does  include  them. 
The  motion  now  is  to  strike  out  the  passage 
which  includes  the  amendments  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 

Upon  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  22, 
nays  49,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Burns,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Hitchcock,  Hum- 
phreville,  Kerr,  McCormick,  Miner,  Mullen, 
Page,  Pratt,  Sample,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Tuttle,  Yan  Yoorhis,  West 
—22. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Beer,  Byal,  Carbery,  Cook,  Co  wen,  De  Steiguer, 
Ewing,  Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley, 
Hale,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Hunt, 
Johnson,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Mueller,  Neal,  Okey,  Pease,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Powell,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Yoorhes,Yoris,  Wad- 
dle,White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, President — 49. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  to  strike  out  section  four. 

Mr.  WEST.  With  the  consent  of  the  Con- 


vention, I withdraw  that  motion,  and  offer  an 
amendment  to  a part  of  the  section. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  WEST.  I offer  this  as  a substitute  for  all 
of  the  section  down  to  the  end  of  the  words 
intended  to  be  stricken  out  by  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  member  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Down  to  the  word  “value” 
in  line  six  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  All  the  words  that  he  moved  to 
strike  out,  and  all  of  the  preceding  part  of  the 
section,  and  insert  these. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  from  the  section,  as  amended,  that  portion  of  it 
beginning  with  the  word  “the”,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
first  line,  to,  and  including,  the  word  “value”,  in  the  sixth 
line,  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  following: 

“Sec.  4.  The  indebtedness  of  no  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion shall  ever  exceed  ten  per  centum  of  the  taxable  val- 
uation on  its  grand  duplicate;  nor  shall  it  exceed  five  per 
centum  of  such  valuation,  unless  such  excess  be  incurred 
for  a specific  and  exclu  ively  public  object  named  in  the 
law  authorizing  it,  nor  unless  its  creation  and  object  shall 
have  been  first  assented  to  by  three-fourths  of  the  quali- 
fied electors  of  the  corporation,  to  be  ascertained  by  bal- 
lot, in  such  manner  as  the  General  Assembly  may  pre- 
scribe.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  endeavored  to  preserve 
as  much  of  the  section  as  has  been  approved  by 
the  Convention.  I desire  to  embody  in  one 
modification,  though  I could  not  see  exactly 
how  I could  so  embody,  not  being  able  to  read 
— [Mr.  West’s  sight  being  greatly  impaired] — 
all  the  amendments  that  arose  in  the  progress 
of  the  debate,  and  I have  inserted  in  the  section 
“purely  public.”  In  all  parts  it  is  substan- 
tially and  almost  literally  the  same  as  it  was, 
except  the  words  “by  ballot.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  ask  him  to  make  a further  modification 
by  inserting  the  word  “all”  before  the  words 
“qualified  electors  ? ” 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly.  The  principal  part 
of  the  amendment  is  to  have  a limitation  in 
such  a manner  as  that  the  indebtedness  cannot 
be  created  by  the  mere  will  of  three-fourths  of 
any  number,  above  five  per  centum,  unless  the 
object  be  one  of  a purely  public  nature  and 
character.  Oftentimes  municipal  corporations 
create  indebtedness  for  objects  not  of  a purely 
public  character.  I desire,  as  far  as  I am  con- 
cerned, to  have  that  excluded,  and  prevent  the 
creation  of  indebtedness,  other  than  that  of  the 
character  that  is  there  described.  Otherwise, 
this  amendment  is  substantially  as  it  was  before, 
only  I have  incorporated  the  words“by  ballot,” 
at  the  request  and  solicitation  of  a number  of 
gentlemen  who  desire  to  prevent  that  state  of 
things. 

The  General  Assembly  may  very  well  author- 
ize, as  the  General  Assembly  have  authorized, 
proceedings  of  a very  important  character  to 
create  public  indebtedness  by  petition,  as  for 
important  public  roads.  We  all  know  that 
some  of  the  fiercest  contests  that  ever  grew  up, 
have  grown  up  out  of  these  petitions,  where 
parties  go  about  with  a paper  and  procure 
names  of  petitioners,  and  present  the  applica- 
tion to  the  commissioners  of  a county  for  an  im- 
portant public  road.  In  a short  time  afterward, 
the  petitioners  suddenly  discover  that  they  have 
been  overreached,  that  they  have  signed  a paper 


1434 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. [116th 

West,  Burns,  Hoadly.  [Tuesday, 


unadvisedly.  A great  many  things  of  that 
kind  are  done  by  petition.  If  there  were  but  a 
few  petitioners  requisite,  it  could  be  done ; but 
in  a city  or  incorporated  village,  averaging  from 
a thousand  or  fifteen  hundred  up  to  forty  thou- 
sand voters,  to  do  those  things  by  petition  is  ut- 
terly impracticable.  It  cannot  be  done  with 
any  degree  of  safety;  and  the  grossest  frauds 
can  be,  and,  in  many  cases,  have  been,  perpe- 
trated, involving  tedious  and  protracted  litiga- 
tion. 

The  words  “ by  ballot”  are  incorporated  at  the 
suggestion  of  a number  of  gentlemen ; but  the 
principal  object  is  to  restrict  the  indebtedness 
for  anything  else  than  these  things  which  are 
of  an  exclusively  public  character.  I think 
that  is  highly  necessary  for  the  reasons  I have 
stated ; and  I desire  gentlemen  to  reflect,  if  they 
have  not  reflected,  and  to  consider  and  look  at 
the  statistics  of  the  Auditor’s  Report  of  the 
amount  of  taxable  property  in  each  of  their  in- 
corporated towns  and  cities,  and  when  they 
have  done  so,  to  compute  the  enormous  amount 
at  five  per  cent.,  and  they  will  be  exceedingly 
reluctant  to-  authorize  any  augmentation  of 
indebtedness,  unless  that  augmentation  is  re- 
stricted to  a limit,  in  a most  stringent  manner. 

In  my  own  village,  numbering  between  three 
and  four  thousand  inhabitants,  ten  per  centum 
upon  the  taxable  property  would  create  an  in- 
debtedness of  $150,000.  I do  not  want  my 
people  to  have  saddled  upon  them  an  indebted- 
ness of  $150,000,  for  any  purpose;  I care  not 
what  it  is.  It  is  too  much  to  be  saddled  upon 
any  corporation  with  the  limited  means  that 
my  town  has;  and  I apprehend,  if  other  gentle- 
men will  look  at  their  towns,  they  will  find  that 
the  enormous  sum  which  may  be  raised  by  ten 
per  centum  upon  the  taxable  valuation  of  their 
towns,  will  be  absolutely  overwhelming  and 
destructive  to  its  prosperity. 

Now,  it  is  said  that  in  some  places  the  con- 
dition of  affairs  is  such  that  they  must  have 
more ; and  the  village  of  Bellaire  has  been  cited. 
There  they  have  erected  water-works,  and 
being  peculiarly  situated,  have  nothing  left  out 
of  which  to  erect  school-houses ; therefore, 
there  must  be  an  exception  made  for  the  city  of 
Bellaire.  The  city  of  Toledo  has  exceeded  the 
limit  of  ten  per  cent.,  therefore,  there  ought  to 
be  an  exception  which  will  enlarge  its  powers 
and  liberties.  I am  entirely  inclined,  if  it  were 
practicable,  to  extend  to  those  unfortunate 
localities  that  are  not  enabled  to  perform  certain 
acts,  because  they  are  already  involved,  under 
this  rule,  to  extend  the  largest  liberty ; but  I am 
unwilling  that  a tax  duplicate  of  more  than 
two  billion  dollars  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  shall  be 
burdened  for  the  accommodation  of  Toledo  and 
Bellaire.  I think  the  exceptions  should  be  in 
behalf  of  general  interests,  and  not  in  behalf  of 
particular  localities.  This  amendment  gives  a 
latitude  of  ten  per  cent,  for  those  localities,  but 
it  surrounds  the  additional  indebtedness  with 
such  a stringency  that  it  would  probably  not  be 
indulged  in  unless  there  is  a paramount  neces- 
sity therefor.  I would  restrict  them,  if  I had 
the  power,  to  a more  stringent  law  than  even 
that.  I know  the  Convention  will  not,  and  we 
have  to  do  the  best  we  can.  If  we  incorporate 
this  provision  into  the  Constitution  of  the  State, 
we  have  done  the  best  we  can ; and  I am  un- 


willing to  leave  the  matter  at  loose  ends  to  ac- 
commodate any  one  city  or  village,  and  put  the 
State  at  large  under  a disadvantage  by  indebt- 
edness; and"  the  door  should  not  be  thrown 
open  even  for  the  accommodation  of  those  lo- 
calities that  are  not  so  well  situated.  Let  us 
provide  exceptions,  if  it  be  necessary,  for  those 
particular  cases;  but  let  us  not  permit  the  door 
to  be  thrown  wide  open  for  every  species  of 
gambling  and  extravagance  that  municipal 
corporations  may  endeavor  to  engage  in.  For 
these  reasons,  I do  hope  that  the  amendment 
will  be  incorporated. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  seems  to 
have  been  prepared  with  a great  deal  of  care, 
and  I feel  disposed  to  vote  for  it  in  preference 
to  the  section  as  it  now  stands.  If  we  are  to 
have  a section  of  that  kind  at  all,  I prefer  to 
have  it  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 

In  the  little  city  in  which  I live,  I find,  by  the 
auditor’s  report,  that  the  tax  duplicate  of  the 
municipality  is  $4,799,150.  There  is  a mistake 
in  this  report  as  to  the  indebtedness  of  the  city. 
They  have  put  it  down  here  at  only  $41,676, 
when,  to  my  certain  knowledge,  it  is  nearly 
$200,000.  This  report  cannot  include  the  in- 
debtedness created  for  the  construction  of  water- 
works. I see,  in  the  marginal  reference,  it 
says  : “Net  indebtedness,  September  1, 1873,  in- 
cluding debts  of  school  districts  in  the  city.” 
That,  perhaps,  is  the  indebtedness,  leaving  out 
that  created  for  water-works,  which,  itself, 
amounts  to  about  $150,000.  I find  that  we  paid, 
last  year,  an  assessment  of  twenty-three  and  a 
half  mills.  At  five  per  cent,  on  that  duplicate, 
it  would  create  an  indebtedness  of  $239,957.50. 
This,  I understand,  can  be  raised,  in  addition  to 
the  present  indebtedness.  Of  course,  at  ten 
per  cent.,  it  would  be  double  that,  and  would 
amount  to  $479,915;  and  I believe  we  have, 
as  judicious  a town  council,  perhaps,  on  an 
average,  as  there  is  in  the  State.  And  yet, 
judging  from  past  experience,  it  is  a very  easy 
matter  to  push  through  that  council  schemes 
which  do  not  tend,  to  a very  great  extent,  to  en- 
hance the  prosperity  of  the  city ; and  yet,  they 
create  jobs  for  somebody  to  profit  by;  and  I 
am  unwilling  to  authorize,  by  a vote  of  the  peo- 
ple, more  than  five  per  cent.  The  temper  of  this 
Convention  is,  I am  satisfied,  to  allow  the  peo- 
ple to  vote  more  than  that.  If  that  is  so,  I do 
not  propose  to  be  captious,  and  stand  up  here, 
after  I have  discovered  that  I am  fairly  in  the 
minority  upon  that  question  ; but  let  it  be  done 
by  a vote  of  the  people  finally,  so  that  it  can  be 
fairly  and  fully  discussed. 

I am  aware  that  it  will  be,  perhaps,  impossi- 
ble, in  a large  city  like  Cincinnati  or  Cleveland, 
to  procure,  by  petition,  the  names  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  tax-payers;  yet,  that  difficulty 
would  not  exist  in  smaller  towns,  villages,  and 
cities. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  told  that  the  delegate 
is  proceeding  upon  the  supposition  that  this 
section  is  intended  to  allow  five  per  cent,  in 
addition  to  the  present  indebtedness.  That  is 
not  the  intention  of  the  Committee.  We  have 


1435 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

February  17, 1874.]  Hoadly,  West,  Humphreville,  Clark  of  R.,  etc. 


been  very  dull  if  we  have  not  clearly  expressed 
ourselves. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  speaking  of  the  amend- 
ment of  the  delegate  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I beg  pardon.  The  delegate 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  states  that  his  is  the 
same. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I understand  that  it  author- 
izes a levy  of  five  per  cent,  in  addition  to  the 
present  indebtedness. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  glad  to  be  corrected  in 
that  respect.  I hope  we  shall  be  able  to  pay 
off  our  present  indebtedness  before  any  more 
is  incurred,  and  then  it  shall  only  extend  to 
five  per  cent.  I find  that  the  delegate  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  has  embodied  in  his  amend- 
ment what  I regard  as  material — that  this 
consent  shall  be  obtained  by  ballot  at  an  election 
to  be  held  for  that  purpose,  and,  therefore,  I 
shall  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I very  much  wish  that  the 
delegate  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  had  considered 
one  thing  before  he  made  his  proposition.  I am 
quite  sure  that  he  does  not  intend  what  the 
proposition  says.  The  proposition  says  that 
the  debt  shall  not  exceed  ten  per  cent.,  but  all 
over  five  per  cent,  shall  be  for  public  pur- 
poses. He  certainly  does  not  intend  to  invite 
a debt  of  five  per  cent,  for  private  purposes,  for 
that  is  the  way  in  which  his  proposition  is, 
negatively  considered.  So  much  as  exceeds 
five  per  cent,  he  invites  for  private  purposes. 
I would  suggest  to  the  delegate,  and  to  the 
Convention,  that  the  object — which  I believe  is 
a worthy  object — would  be  better  accomplished 
by  making  a slight  change  in  the  next  section. 
If  the  next  section  were  amended  so  as  to  read 
as  follows,  it  would  accomplish  his  object,  and, 
perhaps,  a still  further  one.  Suppose  the  fifth 
section  be  in  this  way : “No  taxes  or  assess- 
ments shall  be  levied  or  collected,  nor  any  debt 
contracted  by  any  municipal  corporation,  except 
in  pursuance  of  law,  for  a public  purpose, 
specified  by  law.”  That  would  accomplish,  in 
a few  words,  what  the  delegate  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  is  driving  at,  and  is  the  substance 
of  his  proposition.  I cannot  vote  for  his  prop- 
sition,  for  the  reason  that,  as  it  reads,  it  implies 
that  five  per  cent,  may  be  contracted  for  pur- 
poses other  than  public. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  my  friend  probably 
misunderstands  it.  The  words  “ exclusively 
public  object  ” are  here  used  so  that  it  shall  be 
expressed  in  the  statute  which  authorizes  this 
additional  levy  of  five  per  cent.  The  law  shall 
express  therein  the  specific  object.  But  debts 
shall  not  be  created  except  for  a specified  exclu- 
sively public  object  expressed  in  the  law  author- 
izing such  assessment.  Of  course,  private 
objects  are  provided  for  under  general  statute. 
It  is  not  understood  that  the  law  particularly 
specifies  what  the  objects  are.  There  are  divers 
and  sundry  things  of  general  indebtedness  up 
to  five  per  cent,  that  a corporation  has  to  incur 
or  may  incur  for  a great  many  objects,  but  when 
they  go  to  create  an  excess  they  shall  name  the 
particular  object.  It  is  certainly  desirable  to 
incorporate  in  that  clause  a prohibition  upon 
the  Legislature  to  name  anything  but  a public 
object.  When  they  come  to  naming  the  object, 
a specific  object  is  to  be  named  by  the  law  au- 


thorizing the  excess.  It  is  not  to  be  any  object 
in  the  discretion  of  the  Legislature,  but  an 
object  of  public  importance  exclusively.  They 
shall  not  name  anything  else  but  a public  object 
when  specifying  any  matter  in  the  statute 
authorizing  the  excess  for  an  object  that  the 
people  may  vote  for. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  know  that 
I can  say  what  a “ public  object  ” means.  I 
want  to  be  enlightened.  Suppose  a city  builds 
water-works,  and  then  sells  out  the  water.  Is 
that  public  or  private? 

Mr.  WEST.  Unquestionably  publiG. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  is  sometimes  done 
by  private  corporations.  So  in  reference  to  gas 
works.  If  a city  builds  gas  works  and  sells  out 
the  gas  to  the  citizens,  is  that  a public  or  pri- 
vate object? 

Mr.  WEST.  Public. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  is  sometimes 
done  by  private  corporations  or  private  compa- 
nies. The  gas  is  made  and  sold  by  a private 
corporation . 

Mr.  WEST.  I might  as  well  say  in  this  place 
as  in  any  other,  that  I do  not  want  the  power  of 
building  Boesel  railroads  to  be  covertly  incor- 
porated in  this  section.  That  is  the  thing  I am 
driving  at.  I do  not  want,  by  any  slight  or 
oversight,  that  there  shall  be  incorporated  into 
this  section  the  power  to  build  railroads  under 
the  Boesel  law.  If  the  five  per  cent,  of  addi- 
tional indebtedness  be  authorized,  there  will  be 
no  other  particular  objection  for  which  it  may 
be  raised,  and  any  gentleman  or  corporation  de- 
sirous of  embarking  in  any  Boesel  railroad  pro- 
ject will  get  the  Legislature  to  authorize  a levy 
of  five  per  cent,  for  a Boesel  railroad  project. 
Nine  out  of  ten  of  our  corporations,  possibly, 
are  running  wild  with  the  idea  that,  if  they  can 
only  get  another  railroad,  they  will  be  made, 
and  they  will  swamp  the  people  by  indebted- 
ness of  that  kind,  and  doing  themselves  no  good 
in  nine  times  out  of  ten.  If  somebody  has  a 
mining  interest  in  some  particular  locality,  or 
where  they  had  land  to  sell  for  a depot,  it  is  a 
good  thing  for  them;  but  when,  in  addition,  the 
people  become  utterly  wild  with  speculative 
projects  that  have  no  foundation,  in  nine  cases 
out  of  ten  they  will  vote  five  per  cent,  for  some 
moonshine  railroad  project.  That  is  just  what 
they  will  do,  and  I do  not  want  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I believe  I have  spoken  once 
and  I desire  permission  to  say  a few  words  fur- 
ther. I concur  with  the  delegate  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  entirely, — that  is,  with  the  purpose 
and  spirit  of  what  he  said.  We  made  the  con- 
cession the  other  day  that  there  should  be  noth- 
ing in  this  Article  to  interfere  with  a fair  pre- 
sentation of  what,  for  short,  I shall  call  the 
Boesel  railroad  project,  when  it  is  reached.  Of 
course,  the  delegate  is  right  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  covertly  favored.  It  is  not  right  either  to 
exclude  or  favor  it,  and  I do  not  think  the  dele- 
gate from  Ross  [Mr.  Clark]  has  any  such  pur- 
pose. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Not  at  all.  The 
proposition  is  not  the  Boesel  Law.  It  is  much 
more  restrictive  than  that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  My  friend  from  Ross  [Mr. 
Clark]  will  pardon  me.  He  has  forgotten 
that,  when  I spoke  of  it,  I called  it  the  Boesel 
Law  simply  for  short.  I do  not  use  this  as  a 


1436 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Hoadly,  Ewing. 


[116th 


term  of  reproach.  I believe  Mr.  Boesel  to  be  a 
very  respectable  man.  What  I said  was  this: 
That  my  friend  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  has 
drawn  liis  section  so  that  a town  which  has  no 
debt,  can  do  exactly  what  we  propose  it  shall 
not  do,  to  the  extent  of  five  per  cent. ; but  a 
town  that  is  in  debt  five  per  cent,  shall  not  do 
it.  That  is  not  what  he  really  intends.  The 
section  reads  thus:  “The  indebtedness  of  any 

municipal  corporation  shall  not  exceed  ten  per 
centum  of  its  taxable  valuation  on  its  grand 
duplicate ; nor  shall  it  exceed  five  per  centum  of 
such  valuation  unless  such  excess  be  incurred 
for  an  exclusively  public  object,  specifically 
named  in  the  law  authorizing  its  creation,”  &c. 
It  is  obvious  that  the  restriction  will  only  apply 
to  the  excess.  He  does  not  intend  this.  He 
does  not  paean  that  the  first  five  per  cent,  may 
be  expended  for  railroad  building,  and  the  sec- 
ond five  per  cent,  cut  off,  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  not  a public  object.  I say  that  the  section, 
therefore,  does  not  accomplish  the  object  its  au- 
thor designed,  and  I respectfully  suggest  that, 
if  it  is  right  to  prevent  this  excess  being 
expended  for  other  than  public  objects,  it  is  just 
as  right  to  prevent  the  first  five  per  cent,  being 
so  expended,  and  it  is  right  to  prevent  taxes 
being  as-essed  for  other  than  public  purposes. 
I submit  that  a very  few  words  added  to  the 
fifth  section  will  accomplish  the  object,  and 
restrict  the  power  of  taxation,  assessments 
and  indebtedness  to  a specific  public  purpose, 
and  the  words  necessary  are  simply  the  inser- 
tion, after  the  word  “collected,”  in  the  first 
line  of  the  fifth  section,  the  words,  “ nor  any 
debt  contracted,”  and  also  the  word  “ public” 
after  the  word  “for,”  in  the  second  line.  Then 
the  section  will  read : 

“Sec.  5.  No  tax  or  assessment  shall  be  levied  or  col- 
lected, nor  any  debt  contracted  by  any  Municipal  Cor- 
poration, except  in  pursuance  of  law,  for  public  purposes 
specified  by  law,  nor  shall  money  raised  by  taxation  or 
assessment  for  one  purpose  ever  be  diverted  to  another.” 

I shake  hands  with  my  friend,  and  go  farther 
than  he  does,  with  fewer  words,  by  the  sugges- 
tion I respectfully  make  here. 

Mr.  E VYING.  I think  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  and  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  are  both  needlessly 
groping  for  a prohibition  against  the  use  of 
public  funds  for  the  construction  of  railroads. 
When  we  get  to  the  question,  as  we  shall  when 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt 
and  Public  Works  comes  in 

Mr.  HOADLY.  As  far  as  1 am  concerned,  I 
am  not  groping  after  a prohibition  against  pub- 
lic debt  for  railroad  purposes  particularly.  It 
is  for  any  private  purpose. 

Mr.  EWING.  No  taxes  or  assessments  can 
be  made,  anvhow,  for  any  private  purpose. 

Mr.  HO  VDLY.  They  should  not  be. 

Mr.  EWING.  They  cannot  be. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  They  are  in  this  town. 

Mr.  EWIYG.  Then  stop  it,  as  you  would 
any  other  wrong.  We  have  a Committee  who 
have  considered  this  subject  of  public  aid  to 
railroads.  Their  report  is  upon  our  tables,  and 
when  that  report  comes  up,  1 hope  that  we  shall 
dispose  of  the  question  by  one  of  the  three 
methods  suggested  by  that  Committee,  either 
one  of  which  will  completely  settle  it. 

The  majority  of  the  Committee  have  recom- 


[Tuesday, 


mended  that  there  shall  be,  under  certain  pre- 
scribed safeguards,  power  to  permit  this  public 
aid  to  be  given  to  railroads;  the  minor- 
ity have  reported  a section  which  is  a pro- 
hibition against  any  kind  of  public  aid  to 
any  railroad ; and  one  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee— myself — has  recommended  that  two 
alternative  propositions  be  submitted  to  the 
people  for  their  consideration  and  action.  Ei- 
ther method  entirely  disposes  of  this  question ; 
and  I repeat,  that  any  attempt  to  dispose  of  it 
in  this  section  is  a mere  groping  after  a prohi- 
bition that  is  out  of  place,  and  ineffectual.  It 
is  ineffectual  for  this  reason : No  money  can  be 
appropriated  by  the  Legislature  under  this  leg- 
islative power,  except  for  a public  object.  The 
general  grant  of  legislative  power  in  our  Con- 
stitution includes  the  taxing  power,  which  is  a 
power  to  call  for  payment  of  money  from  the 
citizen  only  for  a public  purpose.  The  taxing 
power  being  limited  to  public  purposes,  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  will  be  superfluous,  because 
it  is  a mere  repetition  of  the  already  existing 
limitation  of  the  taxing  power. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Do  I understand  the  dele- 
gate from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  if  he  will  per- 
mit me,  to  claim  that,  under  the  Constitution 
we  are  framing,  such  a prohibition,  for  instance, 
as  one  to  pay  the  Morgan  raid  claims,  is  uncon- 
stitutional? 

Mr.  EWING.  I am  not  disposed  now  to  take 
up  the  question  of  the  Morgan  raid  claims,  and 
consider  it.  It  would  be  somewhat  out  of  place 
just  here. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I give  that  as  an  illustra- 
tion, that  is  all. 

Mr.  EWING.  This  proposed  limitation  is, 
therefore,  not  an  additional  limitation  at  all, 
upon  the  taxing  power,  but  one  already  existing. 
When  you  come  to  the  question,  What  is  a 
publicobject?  you  have  a judicial  question ; but 
the  Courts,  whenever  they  have  been  appealed 
to  upon  the  subject,  have  been  inclined  to  defer 
to  the  decision  of  the  law-making  power  on  the 
subject;  and  under  such  rulings  of  the  Courts, 
there  have  been  allowed  to  go  into  effect  laws 
taxing  for  objects  which  the  Legislature  has 
held  to  be  public,  but  which  the  Courts,  perhaps, 
if  free  from  all  feeling  of  deference  to  the 
opinion  of  the  Legislature,  would  declare  not 
to  be  public.  What  I especially  rose  for,  was 
to  ask  the  Convention  to  dispose  of  this  question 
of  public  aid  for  railroads,  squarely  and  openly, 
in  a section  by  itself.  Let  us  have  done  with 
any  attempt  to  dispose  of  it  in  this  indirect, 
feeble  and  futile  way. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  say,  that  I do  not  understand  the  delegate 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  and  I am  sure,  as  to 
myself,  I have  no  idea  to  foreclose  or  prevent, 
in  any  way,  the  action  of  this  Convention  upon 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt 
and  Public  Works.  The  object  is  to  prevent 
this  section  being  a license  upon  that  subject, 
or  any  other  kindred  subjects,  without  being  so 
intended  by  the  Convention;  and,  for  myself, 
I would  say,  that  I would  be  perfectly  willing 
for  a further  provision,  if  there  be  anything  in 
I the  fourth  or  fifth  sections  which  is  supposed 
i to  interfere  with  the  Report  of  that  Committee, 

I to  add  the  words  there  also,  which,  on  the  sug- 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. US7 

February  17, 1874.]  Hoadly,  Ewing,  West,  Baber. 


gestion  of  the  delegate  from  Fairfield  [Mr. 
Ewing],  have  already  been  added  to  the  second 
section,  “except  as  may  be  otherwise  provided 
in  this  Constitution.”  I am  not  in  favor,  in  the 
least  degree,  of  now  taking  up  and  disposing  of 
the  question  of  the  Boesel  railroad  law ; but  I 
say  1 am  not  in  favor  of  having  the  power  to 
build  such  railroads  without  the  consent  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  EWING.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  power 
of  taxation  is  restricted,  in  its  very  nature,  to 
exclusively  public  purposes  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  delegate  answered  that 
question  a moment  ago  himself ; because  when- 
ever the  power  of  taxation  is  exercised  for  a 
specified  purpose,  the  specification  of  the  pur- 
pose itself  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  judiciary, 
the  indication  of  the  public  character  of  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  it  not  be  so  if  you  put  in 
the  Constitution,  in  words,  what  is  already 
there,  in  effect,  in  the  grant  of  legislative 
power,  to-wit : that  taxes  shall  only  be  for  a 
public  object?  Will  it  not  still  leave  the  Court 
the  power  of  following  the  Legislature  in 
determining  the  question  of  what  is  a public 
object? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I think  we  converted  it  into 
a purely  judicial  question,  instead  of  leaving  it 
as  only  legislative  in  its  character. 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  not.  No  matter  whe- 
ther the  taxing  power  be  confined  to  a public 
object  by  established  definition,  or  by  express 
constitutional  provision,  the  judicial  question  is 
the  same,  and  the  courts  follow  the  Legislature, 
only  because  of  that  respect  for  a co-ordinate 
department  of  the  government,  which  would 
induce  them  to  follow  it  in  one  case  as  much  as 
in  the  other. 

Mr.  WEST.  Pardon  me  for  making  a re- 
mark. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  have 
leave  ? 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  is  unduly  sensitive  on 
this  point,  and  I think  that  he  really  misappre- 
hends the  object  proposed  by  our  action  here. 
No  money,  he  claims,  can  be  raised,  except  for 
a purely  exclusively  public  object.  The  taxing 
power  is  limited  to  pubBc  objects.  That  may 
or  may  not  be  so.  We  have  not  reached  the 
taxing  power,  and  have  not  disposed  of  it.  We 
have  not  reached  the  matter  of  public  indebted- 
ness, and  have  not  disposed  of  it.  We  may  put 
in  this  section  that  which  may  be  made  void  by 
another  section  of  the  Constitution.  The  whole 
instrument  must  be  submitted  together,  and  no 
one  clause  can  be  construed  without  reference 
to  all  other  clauses  bearing  upon  the  same  sub- 
ject, and  if  we  shall  incorporate  in  the  Consti- 
tution the  power  to  create  a public  debt,  and 
specify  the  authority  to  make  a subscription  to 
a Boesel  railroad  project,  it  will  control  what 
we  put  into  this  Article.  Undoubtedly  it  will 
so  control  it.  Or,  if  we  put  into  the  general 
power  of  taxation,  words  having  that  signifi- 
cance, then,  from  the  significance  here  specifi- 
cally expressed,  those  words,  clearly  expressed, 
will  control  in  the  matter  of  taxation.  Now, 


sir,  the  power  of  taxation  is  limited  to  public 
objects  only  to  the  extent  that  we  here  limit  it. 
That  is  all.  If  we  leave  the  door  open  to  the 
exclusive  discretionary  power  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, then,  probably,  it  may  create  a tax  for 
what  will  be  held  by  the  courts,  a proper  legiti- 
mate purpose,  whether  public  or  private. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EWING.  What  I said  was  that  the  tax- 
ing power,  in  its  very  nature,  was  restricted  to 
public  objects.  The  Legislature,  under  a 
general  grant  of  legislative  power,  has  no  other 
power  to  tax  except  for  a public  object,  and  my 
point  was  that  the  repetition  of  that  prohibition 
in  this  section,  was  merely  nugatory. 

Mr.  WEST.  I simply  desire  to  reply  that  our 
experience  for  the  last  thirty  years,  ought  to 
demonstrate  that  the  general  grant  of  legisla- 
tive power  carried  with  it  the  general  power  of 
taxation  for  whatever  purpose  the  General  As- 
sembly may  prescribe. 

Mr.  EWING.  May  the  Legislature  levy  a 
tax  on  you  to  pay  it  over  to  me,  without  any 
public  interest  being  involved  or  any  public  con- 
sideration ? 

Mr.  WEST.  The  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  if  not  mgatived  by  the  express 
words  of  the  Constitution,  have  the  uncon- 
trolled power,  under  the  general  legislative 
grant,  and  may  levy  a specific  tax  for  the  sup- 
port of  a private  hospital ; for  the  support  of 
the  poor  in  Ireland  ; for  the  support  of  the  poor 
in  any  city;  ior  the  relief  of  the  Chicago  suf- 
ferers after  the  fire;  for  entertaining  the  Pres- 
ident, or  Mr.  Greeley,  or  any  body  else,  if  the 
anthority  is  not  negatived.  General  and  abso- 
lute legislative  power,  for  such  a purpose,  is 
uncontrolled.  It  must,  therefore,  be  limited. 
Is  it  not  within  the  memory  of  every  man  that, 
twenty  years  ago,  each  county  and  municipality 
of  the  State  was  authorized  to  levy  a tax  and 
pay  it  over  to  the  private  corporations  of  the 
State,  and  the  last  General  Assembly  authorized 
the  levy  of  a tax  in  the  town  of  Delaware  for 
the  erection  of  a private  establishment  in  con- 
nection with  a private  railroad — a railroad 
which  was  the  private  property  of  a private 
corporation  ? 

I do  not  want  such  things  as  this  done.  As 
we  proceed,  let  us  incorporate  words  that  will 
exclude  these  things  unless  some  other  clause 
in  the  Constitution  uses  other  words  that  are 
controlling  in  themselves.  If  that  authority 
specifies  public  indebtedness  for  railroad  pur- 
poses, that  will  control  all  the  words  of  this 
Article;  and  if  we  authorize  it  for  any  other 
purpose,  it  will  control  the  words  of  this  Arti- 
cle, and  the  power  may  be  exercised  under  this 
specific  clause,  because  the  courts  will  con- 
strue the  Constitution  to  mean  that  the  Conven- 
tion intended  that  the  words  used  in  the  other 
clause  should  be  effective,  and,  therefore,  their 
object  carried  out. 

“ Public  taxes,”  under  the  general  power  of 
the  Legislature,  is  very  broad.  It  reaches  all 
the  objects  ol  public  charity,  of  public  benevo- 
lence, of  public  enjoyments,  of  public  hilarity 
at  times;  a great  many  things  that,  strictly 
speaking,  are  not  exclusively  public  objects. 

Mr.  BABER.  1 hope  that  the  substitute 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 


1438 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Baber,  Pond,  West,  Clark  of  R. 


West]  will  be  adopted.  I know  it  has  been 
subject  to  some  criticism  by  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  [Mr.  Hoadly];  but  I think  that 
the  whole  of  that  can  be  avoided,  when  we 
oome  to  the  fifth  section,  by  making  the  amend- 
ment to  that  section  suggested  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly].  One  of 
the  main  reasons  why  I shall  vote  for  this 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  is,  because  it  requires  the  will 
of  the  people,  at  least  three-fourths  of  them,  to 
be  ascertained.  It  shall  not  be  done  by  petition, 
because  it  is  a notorious  fact,  as  every  body  that 
has  known  any  thing  about  legislative  bodies, 
knows,  that  petitions  can  be  taken  around,  and 
under  private  representations  made,  names  be 
obtained;  and  although  it  is  not  likely  that  a 
Legislature  might  pass  a law  authorizing  that 
to  be  done,  as  it  was  in  the  case  of  building 
public  roads,  I do  not  want  to  give  them  an 
opportunity  for  having  it  done,  and,  therefore, 
for  these  reasons,  I shall  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
because  I think  it  expresses  in  a much  more 
succinct  manner,  what  is  the  object  of  the  Con- 
vention, than  the  proposition  as  it  now  stands. 
As  to  the  other  thing,  that  can  be  corrected 
when  we  come  to  the  fifth  section. 

Mr.  POND.  I rise  more  for  the  purpose  of 
getting  a more  thorough  understanding  of  this 
amendment  than  for  anything  else.  As  far  as 
what  little  light  I have  upon  the  subject  goes,  I 
cannot  support  this  amendment  offered  by  my 
distinguished  friend  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  ; 
because  the  words  “for  an  exclusively  public 
object,”  it  appears  to  me,  occur  here  in  a place 
that  renders  the  whole  amendment  illogical. 
Five  per  cent,  can  be  incurred  without  any  vote 
of  the  people,  or  their  consent  being  asked  at 
all.  Suppose  that  the  first  indebtedness  that  is 
sought  to  be  incurred  is  for  the  very  object  that 
is  sought  to  be  excluded  by  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  my  friend  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 
Five  per  cent,  indebtedness  is  incurred  for  that 
purpose.  That  is  the  first  indebtedness.  Now, 
then,  what  is  the  result?  You  wish  to  build  a 
school-house,  you  wish  to  build  gas-works,  or 
any  other  public  works  in  that  corporation. 
What  have  you  got  to  do?  You  have  already 
said  that  the  very  debt  that  the  gentleman  seeks 
to  prohibit  by  the  last  provision,  “exclusively 
public  object,”  is  all  the  debt  you  can  incur 
without  a vote,  and  now  you  have  got  to  take  a 
vote  of  the  people,  and  three-fourths  of  the 
electors  must  support  the  provision  in  order 
to  enable  you  to  go  in  debt  for  the  purpose  of  j 
building  a school-house, repairing  a school-house, 
or  for  any  other  exclusively  public  object.  It 
appears  to  me  that  is  not  what  is  desired ; but 
the  effect  of  this  provision  in  many  localities 
where  they  want  this  sort  of  thing,  where  they 
have  no  indebtedness  at  all,  will  be  this : The 
first  thing  for  them  to  do  will  be  to  incur  this 
indebtedness  for  the  purpose  of  building  a rail- 
road, and  then,  when  the  necessity  arises  for 
the  consideration  of  some  public  improvement, 
they  will  have  to  incur  an  additional  five  per 
cent,  by  a vote.  I cannot  see,  Mr.  President, 
and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  the  reason 
for  the  distinction  that  is  made  between  the  first 
five  per  cent,  and  the  other  five.  If  it  is  proper 
for  the  people,  through  their  Representatives, 


[116th 

[Tuesday, 


the  city  council,  or  town  council,  to  levy  any 
more  than  five  per  cent,  tax  for  the  purpose  of 
aid  in  the  construction  of  railroads,  why  is  it 
perfectly  proper  that,  with  all  the  safeguards 
you  have  thrown  around  the  other  five  per 
cent.,  to  require  three-fourths  of  the  people  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  In  what  condition  does  the 
amendment,  the  clause  as  it  already  stands, 
leave  the  first  five  per  cent.  ? 

Mr.  POND.  The  clause,  as  already  adopted, 
leaves  the  first  five  per  cent,  just  where  this  one 
would  leave  it.  I am  not  objecting  to  its  leav- 
ing it  there ; but  I am  arguing  that  this  amend- 
ment leaves  it  in  an  inconsistent  position.  The 
clause  where  we  require  the  consent  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  electors  of  a corporation  to  incur 
a liability,  it  appears  to  me,  might  be  left  en- 
tirely to  their  disposal. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  the  gentleman  not  slightly  in 
favor  of  the  Boesel  law  project? 

Mr . POND.  I am  not  slightly  in  favor  of  the 
Boesel  law  project. 

Mr.  WEST.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  POND.  I believe  this,  that  when  you 
have  called  upon  the  people  of  a corporation, 
and  three-fourths  of  them  vote  in  favor  of  five 
per  cent.,  if  the  will  of  the  people  expressed  by 
that  vote  is  that  they  shall  raise  money  for  the 
purpose  of  building  or  aiding  in  the  construc- 
tion of  a railroad,  they  ought  to  have  a right  to 
do  it;  and  I say  it  is  more  reasonable  that  they 
should  have  the  right  if  they  thould  be  disposed, 
and  should  vote  to  consent  to  it,  than  it  is  that 
a corporation,  without  such  a vote,  should  give 
the  first  five  per  cent. ; and  I say  that  it  is  fairly 
within  the  limit  that  is  prescribed.  But  I believe 
there  ought  to  be  a limit,  and  this  limit  of  ten  per 
cent.,  guarded  as  it  is  here,  appears  to  me  as  a 
very  wise  one.  I do  not  think  any  corporation 
would  go  beyond  it;  but,  having  fixed  that 
limit,  we  should  leave  the  corporation  with  the 
same  liberty  to  incur  what  indebtedness  they  see 
fit  to  incur  for  any  purpose.  If,  in  their  judg- 
ment, they  may  see  fit  to  dispose  of  funds  by 
vote  of  three-fourths  of  the  people,  they  should 
have  the  privilege  of  doing  so.  The  people  have 
had  some  experience  in  this  matter.  There  has 
been,  as  has  been  suggested  by  my  friend  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West],  a great  deal  of  excitement 
in  some  localities,  and  funds  have  been  used, 
perhaps,  unwisely.  But  this  excitement  is  sim- 
mering down,  like  the  oil  excitement,  and  is 
getting  to  be  legitimate  business,  and  I am  not 
afraid  to  trust  the  people  with  a limit  of  ten  per 
cent.,  to  do  with  the  funds  raised  as  to  them 
may  seem  proper. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I have  voted  thus  far, 
except  on  the  last  vote,  which  I cast  under  a mis- 
apprehension, having  just  come  into  the  room, 
with  the  Committee,  with  the  understanding 
that  there  would  be  nothing  inserted  in  this  Arti- 
cle that  would  in  any  way  conflict  with  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Public 
Works.  I earnestly  ask  the  Convention,  at  this 
time,  not  to  place  anything  in  this  Article  that 
will  conflict  with  the  Report  of  that  Committee. 
The  Committee  have  carefully  considered  the 
subject  submitted  to  them,  with  all  the  light 
that  they  could  obtain  upon  it;  and,  as  was 


Day.] 

February  17,  1874.] 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Clark  of  R.,  Ewing,  West. 


1439 


stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  rMr. 
Ewing],  three  different  propositions  will  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  Convention,  one  being  the  propo- 
sition of  the  majority  of  the  Committee  allow- 
ing aid  to  railroads  and  for  public  improve- 
ments, in  a very  guarded  manner,  more 
guarded,  perhaps,  than  any  other  proposition 
that  has  ever  been  submitted  in  Ohio;  another 
prohibiting,  by  explicit  prohibition,  any  aid 
whatever;  and  the  third,  as  stated  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  proposing 
to  submit  separate,  or  alternate  propositions  for 
and  against  this  aid. 

I suppose  the  Convention  will  not  be  opposed 
to  submitting  to  the  people  of  Ohio  alternate 
propositions,  even  if  it  shall  be  opposed  to 
adopting  the  proposition  of  the  majority  of  the 
Committee,  because  the  people  are  sovereign 
and  are  competent  to  govern  themselves,  and 
they  ought  to  have  the  right  to  do  so.  Suppose 
a proposition  of  the  majority  should  be  submit- 
ted and  there  should  be  a majority  of  votes  in 
favor  of  it,  and  there  exists  this  restrictive  pro- 
hibition proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  by  his  amendment.  What  would 
be  the  situation  or  condition  in  which  we  would 
be  placed  ? Therefore,  I deprecate  any  action 
upon  this  subject  at  this  time. 

It  is  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  that  when  we  come  to  the  consideration 
of  the  Report  of  that  Committee,  if  we  make  an 
affirmative  provision  there,  that  provision  will 
be  controlling.  I apprehend,  sir,  that  if  we 
adopt  his  amendment,  when  we  come  to  the  Re- 
port of  that  Committee,  it  will  be  used  as  an  ar- 
gument that,  as  far  as  municipal  corporations 
are  concerned,  the  question  has  been  settled  ad- 
versely. It  will  be  used  as  an  argument  against 
us;  and,  therefore,  the  action  of  the  Conven- 
tion, in  agreeing  to  this  amendment,  will  be 
forestalling  the  work  of  our  Committee. 

The  proposition  of  the  majority  provides  for 
a two-thirds  vote  of  all  the  voters  voting  at  the 
election.  It  seemed  to  our  Committee  that  that 
restriction  went  far  enough.  In  this  Article  I 
have  been  compelled  to  vote  for  it  in  the  shape 
in  which  that  restriction  has  been  placed,  at 
three-fourths,  contrary  to  my  better  judgment 
in  reference  to  the  matter.  Perhaps  I may  be 
wrong  in  this  respect,  but  it  does  seem  to  me 
that  two-thirds  of  the  voters,  the  voters  being 
intelligent  men  and  perfectly  understanding 
their  wants,  is  an  efficient  restriction ; but  I had 
to  vote  for  this  provision  being  placed  in  this 
Article,  or  to  vote  to  adopt  the  proposition  of 
the  Committee  which  submitted  the  question, 
confining  the  matter  exclusively  to  the  tax-pay- 
ers, a proposition  that,  under  no  circumstances, 
would  meet  my  approval  or  receive  my  assent. 
No  vote  or  act  of  mine  will  ever  be  given  to 
prevent  a man,  however  humble,  from  the 
privilege  of  voting  on  any  question  or  any  prop- 
osition that  any  other  man  has  a right  to  vote 
upon;  and  I shall  not,  in  this  Hall,  give  a vote 
that  will  say  to  a poor  man,  notwithstanding 
your  morality,  notwithstanding  your  intelli- 
gence, notwithstanding  your  interest,  you  are  a 
poor  man,  and  you  have  not  property  enough 
to  subject  you  to  a tax  of  even  one  dollar;  and, 
therefore,  you  shall  not  be  permitted  to  express 
your  opinion,  while  other  men  shall  have  the 
right  to  do  so.  Such  I hold  to  be  an  attempt  to 


establish  something  like  the  principle  of  prop- 
erty qualification.  What  is  it?  Is  it  not  the 
property  that  votes,  and  not  the  brains?  I 
never  could  assent  to  any  such  proposition  as 
that,  and,  therefore,  I was  compelled,  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  to  vote  for  a three- 
fourth  limitation;  and  I regret  that  I was  com- 
pelled so  to  do,  because  it  conflicts  with  our 
Article,  and  I think  it  is  more  restrictive  than 
is  necessary. 

For  these  reasons  I hope  no  action  will  be 
taken  by  the  Convention  that  will  embarrass 
the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Public 
Works,  and  that  when  we  arrive  at  that  ques- 
tion it  will  be  fully  considered,  and,  being  fully 
considered,  whatever  determination  the  Con- 
vention shall  reach  will  be  satisfactory  to  me.  I 
can  say  here,  as  one  member  of  that  Committee, 
my  own  desire  has  been  to  present  the  Report  in 
such  a shape  that  it  will  meet  the  approbation, 
in  the  first  instance,  of  this  Convention,  and 
then  of  the  people  of  this  State. 

Mr.  EWING.  I would  like  to  ask  the  mover 
of  the  amendment  a question  by  way  of  com- 
ing to  a distinct  understanding  with  regard  to 
its  purpose.  If  the  question  should  be  submit- 
ted to  the  people,  and  they  should  adopt  the 
clause  authorizing  aid  in  the  construction  of 
railroads,  such  aid  might  be  given  to  the  limit  of 
five  percent,  under  the  amendment  as  it  stands, 
but  it  could  not  be  given  if  it  ran  beyond  five 
per  cent.,  unless  there  was  something  in  the 
clause  submitted  to  the  people  especially  abro- 
gating this  last  clause  of  the  gentleman’s  amend- 
ment as  applicable  to  railroads.  Is  not  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  it  is  not  correct.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  abrogate  the  law;  the  Consti- 
tution abrogates  it.  The  Constitution  confers 
power  upon  the  Legislature  to  do  a thing,  not- 
withstanding these  words.  That  is  all  there  is 
of  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  gentleman  misunderstands 
me.  I think,  unless  there  was  something  sub- 
mitted to  the  people  abrogating  the  latter  part 
of  this  clause,  the  gentleman’s  amendment  is 
applicable  to  railroads. 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  that  would  not  at  all  be  ne- 
cessary. 

Mr.  EWING.  I so  understand  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  My  judgment  about  the  matter 
is,  that  this  whole  thing  could  have  been  gotten 
along  with  much  better  if  we  had  taken  up  that 
Report  upon  the  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works, 
and  disposed  of  it,  and  then,  we  could  have  got- 
ten ourselves  in  shape  where  we  could  have  run 
through  this  thing  in  half  the  time  and  disposed 
of  it.  I think  it  had  better  be  laid  aside  for  the 
present,  until  that  is  disposed  of.  We  cannot 
move  a step  without  leaving  the  bars  down  and 
the  doors  open  until  that  matter  is  disposed  of. 
Township  and  county  organization  have  to  be 
disposed  of  in  some  way, and  the  question  of  the 
public  debt  is  meeting  us  at  every  step.  If  they 
authorize  the  county  to  levy  a tax,  it  may  raise 
an  indebtedness  of  three  per  cent.;  townships 
may  be  authorized  to  incur  an  indebtedness  of 
three  per  cent.,  which  would  be  six,  and  this, 
authorizing  an  indebtedness  of  ten  per  cent., 
will  be  sixteen  per  cent,  inside  of  the  corpora- 
tion. If  the  county  can  be  authorized  to  levy 
five  per  cent.,  or  the  township  five  per  cent.,  that 


1440 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Clark  of  R.,  West,  Hoadly,  Hale,  Gardner. 


fll6th 

[Tuesday, 


will  be  ten  per  cent.,  and  this  ten  per  cent,  will 
make  it  twenty  per  cent.,  so  that  the  people  that 
live  inside  the  corporation  will  be  saddled  with 
a debt  of  twenty  per  cent. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  a suggestion? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  It  seems  to  me,  that 
this  matter  may  be  easily  provided  against  by 
an  amendment  such  as  I offered  to  the  second 
section,  “unless  otherwise  provided  in  this  Con- 
stitution.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  want  any  such  thing  as 
that  put  in,  unless  there  is  something  provided 
in  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Such  as  may  be  pro- 
vided. 

Mr.  WEST.  Suppose  there  is  nothing  pro- 
vided? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Then  the  Committee 
on  Revision  can  strike  it  out. 

Mr.  WEST.  They  have  no  business  to  strike 
out  what  has  been  deliberately  put  in  by  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  When  these  words  were  put 
in  they  were  put  in  with  the  understanding — 
all  around  the  Convention — that,  if  the  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works  failed 
to  carry  their  project  in  some  form,  the  Com- 
mittee on  Revision  should  strike  it  out;  there 
would  be  nothing  to  which  they  could  apply 
that. 

Mr.  WEST.  I simply  wish  to  call  upon  the 
gentlemen  to  keep  their  eyes  open.  That  is 
all. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Of  course,  I would  like  to 
ask  the  delegate  from  Ross  [Mr.  ClarkJ  a ques- 
tion. Do  I understand  him  to  impute  to  me  any 
purpose  of  attempting  to  forestall  any  opinion 
of  the  Convention  on  his  proposition  ? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Notin  the  slightest. 
I understood  him  to  assure  us  to  the  con- 
trary. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I wish  to  say  to  the  delegate 
that  I have  an  amendment  drawn  which,  if  this 
amendment  is  voted  down,  I shall  offer  to  sec- 
tion five,  so  as  to  make  it  read  in  these  words : 

“Except  as  may  be  otherwise  provided  in  this  Con- 
stitutiou,  no  tax  or  assessment  shah  be  levied  or  collected, 
nor  any  debt  contracted  by  any  Municipal  Corporation, 
except  in  pursuance  of  law  for  public  purposes,  specified 
by  law,  nor  shall  money  raised  by  taxation,  loan,  or  as- 
sessment for  one  purpose  ever  be  diverted  to  another.” 

I certainly  do  not  desire  to  forestall  the  action 
of  the  Convention , but  when  it  comes,  my  friend 
from  Ross  [Mr.  Clark],  and  I will  be  as  far 
apart  as  we  could  be,  and  both  remain  members 
of  this  body. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  That  may  be. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  give  his  word 
that  that  will  be  offered  to  the  fifth  section? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I shall  certainly  offer  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  should  be  put  in  in  someplace 
in  the  first,  last,  or  middle  of  the  section. 

Mr.  HALE.  I would  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  WestI  to  withdraw  his 
amendment  and  allow  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  to  offer  the  one  he  has 
read. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  willing  to  do  that.  With 
that  understanding,  I withdraw  my  motion,  with 
the  leave  of  the  Convention. 


Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  other 
amendments  to  section  four  ? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I would  ask  leave  to 
change  my  vote  upon  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  I 
gave  my  vote  under  a misapprehension,  having 
just  come  into  the  Hall  after  dinner. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Section  four  as  agreed  to  reads  as  follows : 

“Sec.  4.  The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion shall  never  exceed,  in  the  aggregate,  five  per  centum 
of  the  value  of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as 
ascertained  from  time  to  time  by  the  tax  duplicate  there- 
of, without  the  consent  first  obtained  of  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  qualified  electors  of  such  corpora- 
tion, to  be  ascertained  in  the  mode  prescribed  by 
law,  and  to  such  increase  of  indebtedness  and  the  ap- 
proval of  the  objects  foi  which  the  same  is  created;  and 
in  no  case  shall  such  indebtedness  exceed  ten  per  centum 
of  said  taxable  value.  In  ascertaining  such  indebted- 
ness at  any  time,  there  shall  be  included  an  amount 
which,  at  the  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum,  will  pro- 
duce a sum  equal  to  the  aggregate  amount  payable  by 
such  corporation  for  the  rent  of  property  leased  to  it. 

“This  section  shall  not  be  construed  to  prevent  any 
Municipal  Corporation  from  incurring  any  indebtedness 
necessary  to  complete  any  work  authorized  by  law  and 
undertaken  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  nor 
shall  the  restrictions  of  this  section  apply  to  necessary 
expenditures  for  military  purposes  in.  time  of  war.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
section  five. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  5.  No  tax  or  assessment  shall  be  levied  or  collect- 
ed by  any  Municipal  Corporation,  except  in  pursuance  of 
law,  for  purposes  specified  by  law,  nor  shall  money  be 
raised  by  taxation  or  assessment  for  one  purpose  ever  be 
diverted  to  another.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  to  amend  the  sec- 
tion by  inserting,  at  the  beginning  of  the  sec- 
tion, the  words : “Except  as  may  be  otherwise 
provided  in  this  Constitution.”  After  the  word 
“collected,”  in  the  third  line,  insert  “nor  any 
debt  contracted” ; in  the  second  line,  after  the 
word  “for,”  insert  “public” ; in  the  third  line, 
after  the  word  “tax,”  insert  the  word  “loan”; 
so  that  the  section  will  read  : 

“Except  as  may  be  otherwise  provided  in  the  Constitu" 
tion,  no  tax  or  assessment  shall  be  levied  or  collected? 
nor  any  debt  be  contracted  by  any  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion, except  in  pursuance  of  law  for  public  purposes 
specified  by  law,  nor  shall  money  raised  by  taxation, 
loan,  or  assessment  for  one  purpose  ever  be  diverted  to  an- 
other.” 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I desire  to  ask  the  Chair- 
man of  that  Committee  a question. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  GARDNER. . “No  money  raised  by  tax- 
ation, loan,  or  assessment,  for  one  purpose, 
shall  ever  be  diverted  to  another.”  Suppose 
that  money  is  raised  by  taxation  for  a specific 
purpose,  and  the  amount  raised  is  in  excess  of 
the  purpose;  what  are  you  going  to  do  with  it? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I propose  to  prevent  that  by 
this  section.  If  it  is  in  excess,  1 do  not  know 
what  can  be  done  except  to  return  it  to  the  peo- 
ple, who  paid  it. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  would  be  a practical 
impossibility. 

Mr.  WEST.  After  the  purpose  for  which  the 
fund  was  raised  has  ceased  to  exist,  and  the 
fund  proves  to  be  in  excess  of  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  raised,  the  excess  is  the  residuum 
after  the  object  has  ceased  to  exist,  and  it  may 
be  applied  to  any  other  purpose,  and  will  not  be 
diverted  from  the  purpose.  The  purpose  gone, 


Day.] MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 1441 

February  17, 1874.]  Pond,  Voris,  Hoadly,  McBride,  Humphreville. 


how  can  you  divert  it  from  the  purpose  that 
does  not  exist  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  that 
the  question  now  pending  is  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]. 
The  Secretary  will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

At  the  beginning  of  the  section  insert  the  words,  “ex- 
cept as  may  be  otherwise  provided  by  this  Constitution.” 
Alter  the  word  “collected”,  in  the  first  line,  insert,  “nor 
any  debt  contracted.”  In  the  second  line,  after  the  word 
“for”,  insert  “public.”  In  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
“taxation”,  insert  the  word  “loan.” 

Mr.  POND.  I desire  to  have  the  vote  taken 
on  the  word  ‘‘public”  separately. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  be  necessary  to 
take  them  all  separately.  The  question  will 
first  be  to  prefix  to  the  first  line  the  words 
‘ ‘except  as  may  be  otherwise  provided  by  this 
Constitution.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  next  question  will 
be  upon  inserting,  in  the  first  line,  after  the 
word  “collected,”  “nor  any  debt  contracted.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
inserting  the  word  “public,”  in  line  two,  be- 
tween the  words  “for”  and  “purposes.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  next  question  is 
upon  agreeing  upon  inserting  the  word  “loan,” 
in  line  three,  after  the  word  “taxation.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  whole  amendment, 
as  presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton, 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  is  agreed  to. 

Mr  YORIS.  It  occurs  to  me  that  the  word 
“ loan”  does  not  cover  everything  that  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  desires  to  have  in- 
serted in  this  section. 

Money,  in  Municipal  Corporations,  is  fre- 
quently raised  by  other  means  than  by  simple 
taxation  or  loans,  and  I think  the  section  ought 
to  cover  any  moneys  that  may  be  received  by  a 
corporation. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Money  that  is  raised  by  a 
sale  is  not  raised  for  any  particular  purpose. 
The  object  of  the  section  is,  that  whenever  a 
pledge  is  made  to  people,  that  pledge  shall  be 
kept  by  a faithful  appropriation  of  the  money 
for  the  purpose  for  which  it  has  been  raised; 
but  where  money  is  raised  by  a sale,  such  as 
a sale  of  an  engine  house  or  an  engine,  I do  not 
think  any  restriction  is  necessary. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I do  not  know  that  it  would  be, 
but  the  money  that  goes  into  the  treasury  from 
the  sale  of  that  property  is  diverted  from  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  originally  intended. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  there  is  no  other  amend- 
ment to  the  section,  I move  that  the  Article  be 
engrossed. 

Mr.  McBRIDE.  I propose  to  offer  an  addi- 
tional section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  corporate  limits  of  a village  or  city  shall  be  in  no 
case  extended  so  as  to  include  lands  used  exclusively  for 
farming  purposes,  without  the  consent  of  the  owners  of 
said  land.” 

Mr.  McBRIDE.  My  object  in  presenting 
this  additional  section  is  to  prevent  any  incor- 
porated villages  or  cities  from  attaching  to  their 
corporations  territory  owned  by  farmers,  and 

y.  H--93 


used  exclusively  for  farming  purposes.  It  is  a 
great  detriment  for  owners  of  land  to  have 
their  land  attached  to  cities  or  villages  for  the 
purposes  of  taxation.  The  farmers  are  not  in- 
terested in  the  government  of  cities  or  villages. 
They  derive  no  benefit  therefrom,  and  it  is  not 
an  infrequent  occurrence  if  a village  has  con- 
tracted a large  indebtedness,  and  it  becomes 
necessary  to  lighten  the  taxes  of  the  taxpayers 
of  the  village,  to  stretch  out  their  borders  to 
increase  the  amount  of  property  taxed ; and  it 
is  for  this  object  only,  to  prevent  farming  prop- 
erty being  taken  for  that  purpose,  that  I propose 
this  section.  In  sections  of  the  State  it  has  al- 
most become  chronic  in  the  extension  of  the 
boundaries  of  cities  and  villages. 

I saw,  only  a few  days  ago,  that  a member  of 
the  Legislature,  now  in  session,  had  introduced  a 
bill  to  prevent  any  such  thing  being  done,  un- 
less by  a unanimous  vote  of  the  citizens  of  the 
Municipal  Corporations.  It  seems  to  have  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  the  people  generally* 
and  particularly  those  farmers  who  own  lands 
adjoining  those  corporations,  and  I think  it  is 
incumbent  upon  this  Convention  to  adopt  this 
additional  section,  and  make  it  a part  of  the 
organic  law  of  our  State,  and  thereby  prevent 
cities  or  villages  from  gobbling  up  the  lands  of 
the  farmer  for  taxation,  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
ducing the  levy  on  property  within  the  original 
boundaries  of  the  old  corporate  limits  of  such 
municipality.  I hope  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention may  see  the  matter  as  I do. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  additional  section. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  Let  the  section  be 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  corporate  limits  of  a city  or  village  shall  in  no 
case  be  extended  so  as  to  include  lands  used  for  farming 
purposes,  without  the  consent  of  the  owners  of  such 
land.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  26,  nays  48,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Bannon,  Beer,  Blose,  Byal,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Cook,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Hill,  Hos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  McBride,  Mullen, 
Page,  Pratt,  Sample,  Sears,  Shaw,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  White  of  Hocking, 
Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble — 26. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Car- 
bery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Co  wen,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Dorsey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Hitch- 
cock, Hoadly,  Horton,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kraemer, 
Layton,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Neal,  Okey,  Pease,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Powell,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Smith 
of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Yan  Valken- 
burgh,  Yoris,  Waddle,  West,  Wilson,  President 
—48. 

So  the  section  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  that  the  proposition 
be  engrossed,  and  the  time  fixed  for  the  final 
reading  day  after  to-morrow. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  before 
the  Convention  now  is  Proposition  189,  the 


1442 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS.  [116th 

Voris,  Griswold,  Bannon,  Horton,  Herron,  Baber.  [Tuesday, 


Report  of  the  Committee  on  County  and  Town- 
ship Organizations. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I see  that  the  gentleman  from 
Brown  [Mr.  White],  who  is  Chairman  of  that 
Committee,  is  not  in  his  seat.  It  would  be  dis- 
courteous to  him,  and  to  the  disadvantage  of 
the  Convention,  if  we  take  it  up  in  his  ab- 
sence. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  that 
he  has  received  a note  from  the  gentleman  from 
Brown  [Mr.  White],  in  which  he  states  that  he 
is  now  engaged  in  an  important  trial  in  Brown 
county,  and,  as  soon  as  he  is  through  with  that, 
he  will  take  up  another,  which  will  occupy  the 
whole  of  the  week ; and  asks  leave  of  absence 
for  this  week. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I make  a motion  that  we  post- 
pone the  consideration  of  Proposition  189,  until 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  stand  in  its  order 
unless  the  Convention  refuses  to  take  it  up. 
That  is  the  only  special  order  remaining. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  that  we  proceed 
to  take  up  the  special  order  of  the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BANNON.  I ask  leave  to  offer  an  addi- 
tional Report  from  the  Committee  on  County 
and  Township  Organizations. 

The  Report  was  received. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  Committee  on  Township  and  County  Organizations, 
to  which  was  referred  Proposition  213,  introduced  by  Mr. 
Baber,  have  given  the  same  careful  consideration,  and 
now  report  the  same  back  to  the  Convention  without  re- 
commendation. 

Chilton  A.  White, 

James  W.  Bannon, 

Elias  H.  Johnson, 

David  M.  Wilson, 

J.  S.  Van  Valkenburgh, 
Wm.  G.  Waddle, 

John  B.  Coats. 

February  16, 1874. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I can  not  but  feel  as  if  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Convention  in  agreeing  to  take  up 
this  Report  at  this  present  time 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  the  gentleman  to 
order.  There  is  no  motion  before  the  Conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I make  a motion  to  reconsider. 
I voted  in  the  affirmative  for  that  purpose.  I 
move  that  we  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the 
Convention  agreed  to  take  up  Proposition  189, 
and  consider  it  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  de- 
sire to  lay  it  on  the  table  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  No,  sir;  I want  to  make  a 
remark  to  the  Convention  that  I think  will  tend 
to  the  postponement  of  this  Proposition  until 
the  return  of  the  gentleman  from  Brown  [Mr. 
White].  I wish  to  occupy  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  but  for  a moment.  The  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Township  and  County 
Organizations  must  necessarily  be  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  matters  contained  in  his 
Report,  and  in  the  subject-matter  involved  in 
this  Proposition,  than  any  gentleman  upon  the 
floor,  having  had  the  direction  and  manage- 
ment of  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  subject 
before  his  Committee ; and,  it  being  especially  j 
under  his  control,  it  does  appear  to  me  that  he  | 


ought  to  be  present  in  the  Convention,  and  aid 
in  the  deliberations  of  this  body  upon  the  sub- 
ject while  it  is  considered. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  There  are  plenty  of  the 
gentlemen  who  are  members  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  BANNON.  The  gentleman  from  Brown 
[Mr.  White]  told  me,  when  he  went  away,  on 
Monday,  that  the  time  of  his  absence  would  be 
somewhat  indefinite,  and  he  requested  me  not 
to  have  this  Proposition  delayed  on  account  of 
his  absence,  as  he  could  not  say  when  he  would 
be  back. 

Mr.  YORIS.  That  is  satisfactory  to  me.  1 
withdraw  the  motion  I made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  additional  section  will  be  taken  up  with  the 
original  Report. 

Mr.  HORTON.  For  the  purpose  of  bringing 
this  matter  before  the  Convention,  I move  that 
we  proceed  with  the  consideration  of  the  Arti- 
cle section  by  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  first  business  in 
order  will  be  to  consider  the  amendments  pro- 
posed in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  They 
are  printed  in  italics.  The  gentlemen  will  find 
them  with  the  Report.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  first  amendment. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I suppose  a motion  that  gen- 
eral debate  now  terminate  will  be  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  This  Proposition  has  been 
through  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  I do 
not  suppose  there  is  going  to  be  much  conten- 
tion over  the  Report  except  on  one  point.  I 
understand  that  the  Committee  are  pretty 
equally  divided  on  the  amendment  that  was  put 
in,  that  these  county  officers  should  be  paid  by 
salaries ; and  I suppose  upon  that  question  there 
ought  to  be  some  general  debate,  and  that  ques- 
tion should  be  left  open.  I would  here  remark 
to  the  Convention  that,  if  they  adhere  to  their 
decision  on  the  salary  question,  then  the  ques- 
tion will  arise,  whether  these  salaries  are  to  be 
fixed  by  the  Legislature,  or  by  a county  board 
established  for  that  purpose.  And  it  was  be- 
cause this  question  would  arise  that  the  propo- 
sition I had  the  honor  of  bringing  before  the 
Convention  to  have  this  matter  regulated  by  a 
county  board  rather  than  the  Legislature,  was 
reported  back  without  recommendation.  The 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  [Mr.  White],  and 
several  gentleman  upon  the  Committee,  were 
very  warmly  in  favor  of  it,  and  a portion  of  the 
Committee  were  opposed  to  it,  because  they 
did  not  want  to  commit  themselves  or  tie  their 
hands,  on  the  salary  question.  But  after  the 
Convention  should  decide  to  adopt  the  salaries, 
then,  the  other  proposition  would  come  up,  as 
to  how  this  salary  shall  be  regulated — whether 
the  thing  can  be  done  by  the  Legislature,  or 
whether  the  matter  will  have  to  be  thrown 
back  to  the  counties  themselves,  to  be  fixed  by 
a board  of  control.  I propose  to  offer  some 
modifications  to  the  additional  sections  pro- 
posed, and  say  something  to  the  Convention 
upon  that  subject;  but  until  this  question  of 
the  salary  is  determined,  I suppose  there  ought 
to  be  some  general  debate;  and  if  the  action  of 
the  Convention  would  be  facilitated  by  having 
that  question  settled,  I do  not  know  that  any 
gentleman  wants  to  speak  longer  than  ten 
minutes. 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1443 

February  17, 1874.]  Griswold,  Powell,  Neal,  Blose. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Herron]  that  general  debate  terminate. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  first  amendment  proposed  in  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  1.  Each  county  shall  he  a separate  body  corpor- 
ate, with  such  organization,  powers,  immunities  and  lia- 
bilities as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law,  and  suits  and  pro- 
ceedings by  or  against  the  county  shall  be  in  the  name 
thereof.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  to  amend  the  first 
paragraph  of  the  amendment  after  the  word 
“law,”  by  adding  these  words  which  I shall 
reduce  to  writing:  “and  the  General  Assem- 

bly shall  provide  for  the  classification  of  coun- 
ties.” Which  provides  that  the  counties  shall 
have  such  organization,  powers,  immunities  and 
liabilities  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

In  the  Legislative  Article,  section  twenty- 
eight,  there  is  a provision  which  contemplates 
that  counties  shall  be  divided  into  classes,  and 
it  provides  that  no  power  may  be  given  to  any 
county  which  is  not  given  to  other  counties  of 
that  class;  and  in  order  to  have  the  Article 
harmonious,  to  provide  for  the  contingencies 
that  may  arise,  I make  this  amendment.  In 
the  municipal  organization  we  have  provided 
for  the  classification  of  cities,  and  we  have 
provided  the  number  of  classes.  I do  not 
propose  anything  of  that  sort,  but  simply 
to  trust  the  General  Assembly  to  classify 
the  counties.  It  so  happens  that  certain 
of  the  counties  that  are  peculiarly  consti- 
tuted contain  cities  of  the  first  class,  and 
even  cities  of  the  second  class,  and  require 
some  special  legislation  that  is  not  applicable 
to  counties  without  them ; and  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  force  to  the  twenty-eighth  section  of 
the  Legislative  Article,  and  allowing  the  Leg- 
islature that  liberty,  I add  the  words,  with  the 
proposition  to  add  that  the  Legislature  may 
classify  the  counties.  My  amendment  is,  after 
the  word  “immunities,”  in  the  second  line,  add 
the  word  “ classification.”  That  will  reach  the 
point  I propose  to  attain  more  directly  and  with 
fewer  words. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I call  the  attention  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
one  moment  to  the  subject  now  under  consider- 
ation ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Cuy- 
ahoga [Mr.  Griswold]  has  not  yet  sent  up  his 
amendment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  But  my  object  was  to  sug- 
gest something  to  him  with  regard  to  the 
amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  moves  to  amend  the 
amendment  reported  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  by  inserting,  in  line  three,  after  the 
word  “ immunities,”  the  word  “ classification,” 
so  that  it  will  read : “ With  such  organization, 
powers,  immunities,  classification  and  liabili- 
ties as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  this 


idea,  that  to  say  to  classify  anything,  whether 
counties,  cities  or  anything  else  you  can  men- 
tion, without  saying  in  what  respect  you  clas- 
sify them,  is  simply  nonsense;  it  is  simply 
nothing.  Now,  a county  may  be  classified  as 
to  its  productions,  as  to  its  size,  as  to  its  popu- 
lation, as  to  anything  else  you  might  mention 
about  it;  but  if  you  say  to  classify  according  to 
population,  that  would  be  one  thing,  and  that 
we  can  understand ; but  if  you  say  they  shall 
be  classified,  the  Legislature  would  say,  in  what 
respect  shall  we  classify  them?  as  to  size?  as 
to  production  ? as  to  water  courses  ? as  to  wheth- 
er North,  South,  East  or  West?  We  do  not 
know. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  My  reply  to  that  is,  that  I 
imagine  the  Legislature  will  have  some  sort  of 
sense  upon  this  subject,  and  will  understand 
what  the  people  want,  and  simply  for  the  pur- 
pose of  providing  for  the  contingencies  that 
might  arise,  inasmuch  as  we  have  provided  in 
the  Legislative  Article  that  there  shall  be 
classes,  we  simply  leave  that  power  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  They  mayor  may  not  do  it; 
but  we  leave  that  power  to  them.  It  is  well 
known  that  a classification,  properly  made, 
which  applies  to  one  of  these  counties,  must 
apply  to  every  county ; but  if  the  Legislature, 
in  their  wisdom,  shall  see  fit  to  classify  the  coun- 
ties, they  may  do  so,  so  that  whatever  legislation 
may  be  applied  to  that  particular  class,  shall  be 
regulated  by  the  twenty-eighth  section.  It 
seems  to  me  that  is  necessary  and  important  to 
do  it. 

Mr.  NEAL.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  hardly 
necessary  that  this  amendment  should  be  made. 
The  Legislature  have  the  power,  without  this 
provision,  of  classifying  them,  and  have  exer- 
cised that  power  under  the  present  Constitution, 
for  at  least  twenty  years  past,  as  any  one  can 
ascertain  by  examining  the  statutes. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  In  what  way  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  They  have  provided  that  a 
county  having  a tax  duplicate  of  over  ten 
millions  of  dollars,  shall  have  certain  powers  of 
taxation.  A county  having  a tax  duplicate  of 
over  eight  and  less  than  ten  millions,  may  levy 
a tax  at  a certain  rate.  Towns  with  a tax 
duplicate  of  five  millions  of  dollars,  may  levy 
taxes  so  and  so,  or  the  Legislature  may  classify 
them  by  population.  They  have  done  so  over 
and  over  again ; therefore,  it  is  not  necessary 
for  us  to  say  that  organized  counties  may  be 
classified  by  law.  But  there  is,  in  my  opinion, 
another  very  serious  objection  to  it,  and  that  is, 
it  will  prevent  any  county  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
from  obtaining  any  special  powers,  as  of  levy- 
ing a tax  to  build  a bridge  across  a stream, 
unless  the  same  power  is  conferred  upon  the 
commissioners  in  every  other  county  in  the 
State  having  a stream  running  through  it.  It 
will  deprive  the  counties  along  the  Ohio  river, 
which  are  mountainous  and  hilly  in  their  char- 
acter, to  a very  great  extent,  from  having 
conferred  upon  their  respective  authorities,  the 
necessary  powers  of  taxation  for  road  purposes, 
unless  conferred  upon  every  other  county  in 
the  State.  Especially  will  this  be  the  case 
when  we  consider  this  amendment  in  connec- 
tion with  the  latter  clause  of  the  twenty- 
eighth  section  of  the  Legislative  Article,  which, 
I trust,  the  Convention  will  yet  see  the  pro- 


1444 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS.  [116th 

Griswold,  Neal,  Humphreville,  Townsend,  Sample.  [Tuesday, 


priety  of  eliminating — the  latter  part — from 
our  Constitution. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  How  can  you  get  along 
when  you  have  the  express  provision  in  the 
original  Article  that  there  is  to  be  no  such 
privilege  granted  to  any  county  except  to  all 
counties — how  are  you  to  get  along  with  that 
clause  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I say  that  I trust  the  Conven- 
tion will  yet  see  the  propriety  of  eliminating 
the  latter  clause  of  section  twenty-eight.  It 
was  adopted  by  the  Convention  without  any  dis- 
cussion whatever,  and  I hope  when  the  Con- 
vention comes  to  the  reconsideration  of  that 
Article  they  will  yet  eliminate  it.  I am  aware 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
evinces,  and  perhaps  gentlemen  representing 
other  large  counties  in  this  State  evince,  an  un- 
willingness to  allow  small  counties  the  power 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  well  being  of  the 
people  of  those  counties,  and  for  the  develop- 
ment of  their  industrial  and  their  material  in- 
terests 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Not  a bit  of  it. 

Mr.  NEAL.  But  I propose  to  assert  and 
maintain  the  rights  of  the  smaller  counties 
upon  all  proper  occasions,  and  if  I am  de- 
feated, well  and  good — I shall  go  before  the 
people  conscious  of  having  discharged  my  duty, 
as  I understand  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  is  entirely 
mistaken  in  imputing  any  such  motive  or  de- 
sire on  my  part. 

Mr.  NEAL.  If  I am  mistaken,  I am  happy  to 
know  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I contended  for  that  all 
through  this  Article.  I propose  that  they  may 
have  the  power  of  classification  so  as  to  provide 
for  any  county  without  that  limit. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Without  this  rule  of  classifica- 
tion the  Legislature  may  provide  that  the  coun- 
ties bordering  on  the  Ohio  river  shall  be  classi- 
fied, and  bestow  upon  them  powers  of  taxation 
for  road  purposes  and  bridge  purposes,  such  as 
are  necessary  from  the  physical  nature  of  the 
counties. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  You  cannot  do  it  under 
the  Legislative  Article  as  it  now  is. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Without  a particular  classifica- 
tion? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I submit  whether  the  Legisla- 
ture, having  exercised  that  power  for  twenty 
years,  it  is  too  late  for  us  to  say  they  have  exer- 
cised that  power  without  any  constitutional 
right  to  do  so. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  seems  to 
misapprehend  the  import  of  the  Legislative 
Article.  The  provision  is  something  which  has 
not  before  existed.  We  have  prevented  that 
very  thing  that  you  are  contending  for.  We 
have  provided  that  such  a county  for  such  a 
purpose  may  do  so  and  so  with  such  a tax 
duplicate.  That  is  the  force  and  effect  of  the 
twenty-eighth  section,  and  it  was  put  in  for  the 
express  purpose.  It  is  to  prevent  it,  and  I want 
to  get  around  it. 

Mr.  NEAL.  If  we  have  already  put  any  pro- 
vision of  that  sort  in  we  must  not  undertake  to 
put  something  else  in  another  Article  of  the 
Constitution  which  will  render  this  nugatory. 


Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  He  wants  to  make 
| it  effectual. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Exactly.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  says  he  wants  to  get  around  it,  and 
the  gentleman  from  Medina,  that  he  wants  to 
make  it  effectual.  The  General  Assembly  hav- 
ing, heretofore,  exercised  the  right  of  classify- 
ing counties  by  population,  by  their  wealth, 
and,  perhaps,  by  their  locality,  I do  not  see  that 
it  is  necessary  for  us  to  throw  any  shadow  of 
doubt  over  the  constitutional  rights  and  powers 
thus  exercised,  by  giving  them  express  powers 
of  classification.  If  gentlemen  can  show,  by 
any  good  reason,  why  it  is  necessary  for  us  to 
confer  this  power  upon  the  Legislature,  which 
they  already  possess,  I shall  withdraw  my  ob- 
jection and  vote  for  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  in- 
serting the  word  “classification.” 

The  President  put  the  question  to  the  Con- 
vention, and  before  the  result  was  announced, 
a division  was  called  for. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I hope  that  the 
amendment  will  be  adopted.  We  provided  in 
the  Article  which  was  finished  to-day,  for  the 
classification  of  cities  and  villages.  Why  not 
provide  for  the  classification  of  counties,  with- 
out saying  how  they  shall  be  classified.  Why 
may  it  not  be  put  in  this  Article  as  well? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  that 
the  Convention  being  in  the  act  of  voting 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Can  the  gentleman  make 
an  explanation  by  unanimous  consent? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Leave  was  granted  for  Mr.  Humphreville  to 
proceed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  have 
now  given  the  gentleman  leave  to  proceed. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  want  to 
talk  out  of  order.  I never  knew  that  debate 
was  out  of  order  before  the  vote  was  taken. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  was  in 
the  act  of  voting,  and  a division  was  called  for. 
The  Chair  does  not  wish  to  interfere  with  the 
gentleman’s  remarks. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I have  no  desire  to 
speak  out  of  order. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I shall  make  a single  remark 
by  way  of  answer  to  the  suggestion  from  the 
gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville]. 
He  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  Convention  adopt- 
ed a provision  in  tfie  Article  regulating  Muni- 
cipal Corporations,  providing  for  their  classifi- 
cation. The  gentleman  will  remember  that 
that  is  a limitation  upon  the  exercise  of  the 
legislative  power.  The  Legislature  has  gone 
on,  from  time  to  time,  and  created  as  many 
classes  of  municipal  corporations  as  the  exi- 
gency of  each  particular  case  seemed  to  demand, 
and  the  provision,  in  the  Article  which  has 
just  been  disposed  of,  is  a limitation  upon  the 
exercise  of  that  power,  so  that  it  has  reposed 
unqualified  and  unlimited  power  in  the  Legis- 
lature in  the  absence  of  any  limitation ; and  I 
suppose  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  at  all,  but 
that  the  Legislature  may  classify  counties  as 
readily  as  municipal  corporations,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  limitation  and  without  any  restric- 
tion, and  without  the  express  power  being 
granted ; and  the  insertion  of  this  amendment 
will  add  nothing  to  the  power  of  the  Legisla- 


1445 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  17, 1874.]  Griswold,  Tuttle,  Neal,  Hale,  Okey,  Cowen. 


ture  that  they  will  not  possess  without  this 
provision. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  that  is  the  understand- 
ing, I am  content.  I only  wanted  to  raise  this 
question  to  know  what  the  sense  of  this  Con- 
vention upon  it  was.  If  they  have  this  gene- 
ral power,  I do  not  care  anything  about  the 
amendment,  and  with  the  leave  of  the  Conven- 
tion, I shall  withdraw  it. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  striking  out  the  original  section 
and  inserting  the  substitute. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  hear  the  sub- 
stitute read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  1.  Each  county  shall  be  a body  corporate,  with 
such  powers,  immunities,  and  liabilities  as  shall  be  pre- 
• scribed  by  law.  All  suits  by  or  against  the  county  shall 
be  in  the  name  thereof.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDED T.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  next  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  provide,  by  law, 
for  the  election  of  such  county  and  township  officers  as 
may  be  necessary,  and  each  county  officer  shall  be  paid  a 
stated  salary  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  proper  county, 
and  shall  account  and  pay  into  the  treasury  all  fees  col- 
lected by  him,  under  such  regulations  as  may  be  pre- 
scribed by  law.” 

Mr.  NEAL.  I move  to  strike  out  of  this  sec- 
tion so  much  of  lines  two  and  three  as  read  as 
follows : “ and  each  county  officer  shall  be  paid 
a stated  salary  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  proper 
county.” 

Mr.  HALE.  I disagree  to  the  amendment. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I move  to  strike  out  all  after 
the  word  “ necessary,”  so  that  the  section  shall 
read,  “ the  General  Assembly  shall  provide  by 
law  for  the  election  of  such  county  and  town- 
ship officers  as  maybe  necessary.”  I desire  to 
state  briefly  my  reasons  for  making  this  motion. 
I made  some  statements  upon  this  matter  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  I shall,  therefore, 
state  very  briefly  my  reasons  here.  I do  not 
feel  that  it  is  practicable  to  provide  salaries  for 
all  the  county  officers.  This  provision  makes 
no  exception  whatever.  “ Each  county  officer 
shall  be  paid  a stated  salary.”  We  have  already 
provided  in  the  Article  on  the  Judiciary  that 
the  probate  judges  and  common  pleas  clerks 
shall  receive  salaries  and  pay  the  fees  of  their 
respective  offices  into  the  county  treasury.  I 
would  be  willing  that  the  auditor  should  be 
paid  a stated  salary;  also,  the  treasurer,  the 
sheriff,  and  the  prosecuting  attorney. 

Mr.  COOK.  Not  the  sheriff  or  the  prosecut- 
ing attorney. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  be  willing  that  the 
sheriff  should,  but  I am  not  particular  on  that 
point.  The  auditor  and  the  treasurer  should 
receive  a salary.  In  point  of  fact,  the  auditor 
does  at  this  time ; the  treasurer  does  not ; but 
it  is  impracticable  to  pay  the  surveyor  and  the 
county  recorder  and  the  coroner  salaries,  on 
account  of  the  great  disparity  of  the  services 
rendered  by  these  officers  in  their  respective 
counties.  Then,  again,  these  officers  are  not 
required  by  the  duties  of  their  offices  to  give 
attention  to  them  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
employments.  In  every  county  they  have  the 


privilege  of  attending  to  any  other  business 
that  they  may  wish  to  engage  in,  not  incom- 
patible with  their  official  duties.  For  instance, 
the  recorder  of  my  county  is  engaged  largely  in 
the  insurance  business.  Perhaps  his  fees  from 
insurance  are  larger  than  those  he  receives  from 
recording.  He  has  a deputy  who  does  most  of 
the  work — a most  estimable  lady,  by-the- 
by.  He  is  also  engaged  in  the  real  estate 
business.  The  propriety  of  allowing  him  to  do 
this  is  not  in  controversy,  but  is  a fact.  It  may 
be  so  in  other  counties  of  the  State.  The  same 
is  the  case  with  the  coroner. 

Again,  take  the  county  surveyor.  How  are 
you  going  to  pay  him  by  a salary  ? Most  of  his 
services  are  rendered  to  private  persons,  the 
public  not  being  at  all  interested.  When  he  is 
employed  exclusively  by  the  public,  the  Legis- 
lature may,  if  they  think  best,  compensate  him 
by  a fixed  salary.  We  should  not  undertake  to 
prescribe  any  inflexible  rule  which  may  be 
found  impracticable  or  inconvenient  in  practice. 
If  the  Legislature  shall  be  of  the  opinion  these 
officers  should  receive  salaries,  they  will  pro- 
vide for  those  salaries,  as  they  have  done  with 
reference  to  the  auditor  of  the  county.  Where 
the  fees  are  excessive,  as  they  are  in  some  coun- 
ties, they  can  provide  that  all  over  a certain 
sum  shall  be  paid  into  the  treasury,  as  they 
have  done  in  the  county  of  Hamilton,  and,  per- 
haps, some  other  counties  in  the  State. 

There  is  another  reason,  and  that  is  this : In 
the  larger  counties, where  there  are  large  cities, 
and  the  expenses  of  living  are  greater  than 
they  are  in  other  counties,  the  salaries  must 
necessarily  be  larger.  If  you  make  this  a con- 
stitutional provision,  you  have  either  to  regu- 
late the  salaries  according  to  the  population  or 
according  to  the  amount  of  business,  as  is  now 
done;  in  which  case  no  constitutional  provision 
is  necessary,  the  General  Assembly  having  full 
power  over  the  whole  subject. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I am  in  favor  of  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman;  and,  as  an  illustration,  take 
the  office  of  recorder,  in  those  counties  in  my 
part  of  the  State.  The  recorder  of  Monroe 
county  receives  $729.20 ; the  recorder  of  Noble 
county,  $432.35;  the  recorder  of  Guernsey  coun- 
ty, $550 ; the  recorder  of  Belmont  county , $1,645 ; 
the  recorder  of  Athens  county,  a county  hav- 
ing a less  population  than  the  county  which  I 
represent,  $1,478;  the  county  of  Morgan,  hav- 
ing, I believe,  more  population  than  Athens, 
$485.  How  are  you  going  to  fix  a salary  for  the 
county  recorder  that  will  pay  those  who  do  the 
work  a fair  compensation,  and  not  over-pay 
others  ? 

Mr.  COWEN.  The  reason  given  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Monroe  [Mr.  Okey],  who  has  just 
taken  his  seat,  for  advocating  a motion  to  strike 
out  this  whole  provision  in  relation  to  salaries, 
I think,  is  not  a tenable  one.  There  is  certainly 
good  ground  for  discussion  as  to  whether  the 
provision  ought  not  to  be  confined  to  county 
officers.  I suppose  the  provision  will  recall  the 
history  of  the  debate  upon  this  section  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole.  I had  the  honor,  myself, 
to  submit  a substitute  for  the  section  reported 
by  the  Committee,  of  which  the  gentleman 
from  Brown  [Mr.  White]  is  Chairman.  The 
substitute  which  I proposed,  specified  certain 
county  officers.  The  gentleman  from  Wyandot 


1446 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [116th 


Cowen,  Hale,  West,  Okey,  Powell,  Griswold.  [Tuesday, 


[Mr.  Sears]  proposed  the  section  as  it  now 
stands,  as  a substitute  for  the  section  proposed 
by  myself,  and  it  received  the  approbation  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  I should  be  very 
glad  if  the  Convention  would  now  go  back  to  a 
substitute  similar  to  the  one  which  I proposed ; 
but  I am  utterly  opposed,  and  I trust  that  this 
Convention  will  be  as  largely  opposed  as  they 
were  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  this  idea 
of  leaving  it,  any  longer,  to  the  Legislature,  and 
trusting  to  them  to  determine  whether  these 
officers  shall  be  paid  salaries  or  fees.  The 
proposition  to  fix  the  salaries  of  important 
county  officers,  has  addressed  itself  to  my  judg- 
ment favorably  for  a long  time.  I am  glad  to 
know — and  members  of  this  Convention,  if  they 
have  read  the  papers,  know — that  there  is,  per- 
haps, no  single  provision  that  has  been  proposed 
to  be  incorporated  into  this  Constitution  by  the 
Convention,  that  receives  more  cordial  support 
from  the  people  than  this.  I confess  my  sur- 
prise that  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal]  has  shut  his  eyes  so  much  to  what  is  the 
desire  of  the  people  upon  this  subject. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  been  waiting,  from 
year  to  year,  for  many  long  years,  for  the  Leg- 
islature to  fix  salaries  for  these  officers,  and 
they  will  not  do  it.  The  good  effects  of  this 
provision,  I think,  are  obvious.  Pay  these  offi- 
cers by  fees,  and  the  world  does  not  know  what 
they  get.  In  the  county  of  Belmont,  which  I 
have  the  honor  to  represent  in  this  body,  the 
probate  judge,  the  county  clerk,  and  the  auditor, 
each  of  them  get  larger  compensation  than  the 
supreme  judges  do.  The  probate  judge  of  Bel- 
mont county  gets  from  five  hundred  to  fifteen 
hundred  dollars  a year  more  than  the  supreme 
judge  gets.  That  would  not  be  tolerated  by  the 
people  of  Belmont  county  if  they  knew  what  he 
got.  True,  they  are  required  to  make  their  re- 
ports, and  they  are  printed  in  a book,  and  a few 
copies  of  them  are  sent  around;  but  it  is  not 
known  generally.  The  auditor  of  our  county, 
upon  an  average  for  the  last  six  years,  has  re- 
ceived between  five  and  six  thousand  dollars  a 
year. 

Mr.  HALE.  Does  he  get  it  by  fees  ? 

Mr.  COWEN.  He  does,  although  there  is  a 
sort  of  fixed-up  law  now  that  calls  it  a salary ; 
and  yet  they  work  it  up  to  that  point. 

Mr.  HALE.  I would  like  to  know  how  the 
auditor  can  work  it  up?  As  I understand  it, 
the  auditor  is  paid  by  a salary  depending  upon 
the  population  of  the  county.  He  only  has  fees 
for  transfers. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I will  explain  that  in  a mo- 
ment. I am  just  coming  to  that,  and  I want  to 
show  how  they  dodge  this  thing — how  the 
county  auditors,  in  their  conventions,  have  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  this  thing  so  buried  that  even 
the  learned  gentleman  from  Lorain  does  not 
seem  to  know  how  it  is  done;  yet,  it  is  done  in 
strict  accordance  with  law.  What  I was  about 
to  say  was,  that  the  Legislature,  occasionally, 
have  taken  a notion  to  reform  the  abuse,  and 
they  have  made  the  auditor’s  office  a salaried 
office;  but  it  has  only  remained  so  for  a short 
time.  The  law  as  it  now  stands  in  relation  to 
auditors,  is,  that  they  shall  receive  a certain 
fixed  salary,  in  accordance  with  the  population 
of  the  county ; but,  for  certain  services  rendered 
outside  of  their  ordinary  duties,  they  shall  re- 


ceive a reasonable  compensation.  That  is  the 
sum  and  substance  of  the  law. 

Mr.  HALE.  What  are  these  outside  ser- 
vices? 

Mr.  COWEN.  In  our  county  there  are  nine 
macadamized  roads,  and  the  law  requires  for 
each  a duplicate.  The  result  is,  that  when  a 
man  is  elected  Auditor  of  Belmont  county,  he 
may  go  in  a poor  man,  but  he  goes  out  with  a 
respectable  fortune.  Here  is  a case,  of  Gallup 
vs.  Commissioners  of  Lorain  county,  just 
handed  to  me  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly],  reported  in  20  Ohio  State 
Reports,  p.  324,  which  will  enlighten  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale] 

Mr.  HALE.  I know  all  about  that.  The 
gentleman  need  not  read  it. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I shall  read  the  decision  of  the 
court : “ The  forty-first  section  of  the  school 

law  of  1853  (S.  & C.,  1360),  which  authorizes 
County  Commissioners  to  make  allowances  to 
the  Auditor  for  services  under  said  law,  was 
neither  expressly  nor  impliedly  repealed  by 
the  act  of  February  7,  1861,  to  regulate  and 
limit  the  compensation  of  County  Auditors 
(58  O.  L.,  7),  and  such  allowances  could  be 
lawfully  made  by  the  Commissioners  after  the 
passage  of  said  act  of  1861.” 

Mr.  WEST.  Just  at  this  point  I wish  to  ask, 
if,  under  this  law  authorizing  the  improvement 
of  public  roads,  the  County  Auditor  is  not 
given  such  fees  as  are  allowed  to  County 
Auditors  for  like  services  in  other  cases,  under 
which,  in  all  counties  where  these  road  im- 
provements are  made,  they  are  paid  thousands 
of  dollars? 

Mr.  COWEN.  Certainly.  That  is  the  class 
of  cases  which  I referred  to  in  my  own  county. 
We  improved  nine  roads  in  our  county  under 
that  law,  and  a similar  law  as  to  free  turnpikes, 
and  that  is  what  is  making  our  County  Auditors 
rich. 

Mr.  OKEY.  Did  they  not  run  their  County 
Auditor  out  in  your  county,  last  fall,  on  that 
account? 

Mr.  COWEN.  No,  sir;  not  at  all.  Our 
Auditor  was  defeated  for  reasons  altogether 
different  from  that.  I am  satisfied  that  he  did 
not  receive  one  dollar  of  fees  which  he  was  not 
entitled  to  under  this  law,  although  he  conceded 
to  me,  in  conversation,  that  he  received  at 
least  two  thousand  dollars  per  year  more  than 
his  services  were  worth. 

What  I was  about  to  say  was,  that,  inasmuch 
as  it  so  happened  that  I introduced  this  amend- 
ment, I have  received  letter  upon  letter 
commendatory  of  this  amendment,  not  only 
from  immediate  acquaintances,  but  from  per- 
sons who  were  strangers  to  me,  and  from 
persons  in  whose  judgment,  from  what  I can 
learn  of  them,  I think  we  ought  to  place  some 
confidence.  I do  trust  that  this  Convention 
will  not  go  back  upon  this  great  reform. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  the  gentleman  to  what 
county  officers  he  would  apply  this  provision  for 
a fixed  salary  ? To  all  ? 

Mr.  COWEN.  I prefer  not  to  all.  I prefer 
to  except  the  Recorder,  Coroner,  and  Surveyor, 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  And  Sheriff. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Not  at  all.  Sheriffs  are  get- 
ting rich  in  our  part  of  the  State. 


1447 


Day,]  SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  17,  1874.]  Humphreville,  Cowen,  West,  Griswold,  Pond,  Neal,  Layton. 


Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I believe  in  pay- 
ing county  oilicers  by  general  salaries;  but 
there  is  a difficulty  in  fixing  the  salary  for  cor- 
oners, for  instance : In  the  county  where  I live 
the  coroner  sometimes  during  his  whole  term 
has  no  manner  of  business  whatever  to  per- 
form. It  has  frequently  been  so.  I have 
known  one  coroner  to  hold  office  for  two  suc- 
cessive terms,  and  have  no  business  whatever. 
Inquests  in  that  county  would  average  one  in- 
quest for  two  years,  and  I hope  there  will  not 
be  one  in  the  next  ten  years. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I leave  it  to  the  gentleman 
from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears]  to  answer  this  ob- 
jection. I agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Me- 
dina. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I am  in  favor  of 
a modification  of  this  section,  and  of  giving 
salaries  to  all  county  officers,  except  the  coro- 
ner and  county  surveyor,  where  there  is  also  a 
difficulty  in  fixing  the  amount  of  salary.  I do 
not  know  but  that,  perhaps,  it  would  be  well 
enough  to  give  the  county  recorder  a salary.  I am 
not  very  particular  about  that;  but  for  the  coro- 
ner and  county  surveyor  it  will  be  found  very 
difficult  to  fix  a salary  that  will  be  just  and  equit- 
able. It  is  possible,  that  by  a classification 
of  counties,  there  might  be  a classification  by 
which  the  coroner  should  be  paid  a salary.  I 
suppose  that,  in  this  county,  it  would  be  much 
better  to  pay  the  coroner  a salary  than  to  pay 
him  fees.  If  a proper  classification  of  counties 
could  be  made,  it  might  be  proper  to  pay  the 
coroner  in  some  counties  by  a salary  instead  of 
by  fees ; but  in  counties  generally — in  the  rural 
counties — it  will  be  found  exceedingly  difficult 
to  apply  this  provision,  and  give  a salary  to 
the  coroner,  or  to  the  county  surveyor.  The 
county  surveyor  does  not  work  for  the  public 
at  all,  or  but  very  little,  in  the  rural  counties. 
He  works  for  individuals,  and  his  fees  are  fixed 
by  law,  so  that  the  county  surveyor  does  not 
get  a very  great  per  centage  upon  his  labor, 
and  his  fees  are  not  excessive. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  very  willing  to  modify  the 
amendment  which  I proposed  by  striking  out 
simply  the  word  “officer,”  and  inserting  the 
words  “Auditor,  Treasurer,  Sheriff,  and  Prose- 
cuting Attorney. 

Mr.  COWEN.  And  Clerk  of  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  are  already  pro- 
vided for. 

Mr.  POND.  I wish  to  ask  if  it  is  in  order  to 
amend  the  original  section?  I suppose  it  would 
be.  It  has  not  been  stricken  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  it  would  be  in  or- 
der. 

Mr.  POND.  I propose  to  offer  an  amend- 
ment to  that  section,  as  follows : 

To  add  at  the  end  of  the  section : 

“And  the  County  Auditor,  County  Treasurer,  Prosecut- 
ing Attorney,  and  Sheriff  shall  each  be  paid  a stated  sal- 
ary out  of  the  treasury  of  the  proper  county,  and  shall 
account  for  and  pay  into  the  treasury  all  fees  collected 
by  him,  under  such  regulations  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
law.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I think  I can  offer  a bet- 
ter one  than  that. 

Mr.  POND.  It  strikes  me  that  this  would 
cover  the  ground  that  is  covered  by  the  other 
amendment. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I propose,  with  the  consent  of 


the  Convention,  to  modify  the  amendment 
which  I proposed,  simply  by  striking  out  the 
word  “officer,”  in  the  second  line,  and  insert- 
ing the  words,  “Auditor,  Treasurer,  Sheriff  and 
Prosecuting  Attorney.”  That  leaves  infirmary 
directors,  commissioners,  coroners  and  record- 
ers to  be  paid  as  the  Legislature  may  prescribe. 
The  common  pleas  clerks  and  probate  judges 
are  already  provided  for  in  the  Article  upon 
the  Judiciary  Department,  and,  therefore,  it  is 
not  necessary  for  us  to  specify  them  in  this  sec- 
tion. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I move  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment, if  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order.  The 
motion  now  is  to  amend  the  amendment  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  question  now 
is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond]  to  amend  the  original  section. 

Mr.  POND.  1 see  that  the  gentleman  from 
Lawrence  is  desirous  of  arriving  at  the  same 
conclusion  which  I desire ; but  the  trouble  is, 
that  no  offices  are  created  by  the  section  pro- 
posed to  be  substituted  for  the  original  in  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The 
General  Assembly  shall  provide  by  law  for  such 
county  and  township  officers  as  may  be  neces- 
sary. They  may  create  neither  of  them,  or 
have  neither  of  them.  The  original  section 
provides  for  having  them,  and  then  it  could  be 
provided  very  properly  that  some  of  them 
should  be  paid  by  salary.  An  amendment  of 
the  sort,  which  is  proposed  to  this  amendment, 
offered  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  would 
not  be  very  efficacious.  The  offices  have  not 
been  created.  There  is  no  provision  made,  so 
far  as  the  Constitution  is  concerned,  for  any 
such  officers  as  you  propose  to  pay,  and  there 
never  may  be.  Suppose  they  are  called  some- 
thing else.  It  appears  to  me,  then,  as  this  is 
the  only  distinction  between  the  two  proposi- 
tions, so  far  as  I can  see,  that  it  would  be  proper 
to  add  the  amendment  which  I proposed  to  the 
original  section,  and  so  provide  that  these 
officers  may  be  paid  by  salary. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  As  it  is  not  in  order  to 
offer  an  amendment  to  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  I give 
notice  that  if  that  is  not  adopted,  I will  offer  an 
amendment  to  strike  out  the  word  “each”  be- 
fore the  word  “ county,”  and  insert  the  word 
“ all,”  adding  to  the  word  “officer”  the  letter 
“s,”  and  then  add  the  following  words : “ex- 
cept Surveyor,  Coroner,  and  Recorder,”  so  as  to 
read,  “and  all  county  officers,  except  Surveyor, 
Coroner,  and  Recorder,  shall  receive,”  &c.  We 
do  not  name  in  the  amendment  any  officers,  but 
provide  that  all  county  officers  shall  have 
salaries,  except — according  to  my  proposition — 
certain  ones  named ; and  that  list  of  exceptions 
can  be  enlarged  to  meet  the  wants  and  wishes 
of  the  Convention.  I suggest  to  the  gentleman 
whether  that  is  not  a better  form  of  the  amend- 
ment to  get  what  he  desires.  If  he  will  put  his 
motion  in  that  form,  1 think  it  will  meet  the 
wishes  of  the  Convention ; and  we  can  add  to 
the  exceptions,  “Sheriff,  Infirmary  Director,” 
&c.,  as  the  Convention  desires. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I am  inclined  to  the  opinion 
that  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  is  not  open  to  the 
objection  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Mor- 


1448 


SALARIES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

Cowen,  Baber. 


gan  [Mr.  Pond].  It  is  true  that  we  make  no 
provision  naming  the  different  county  officers. 
It  is  precisely  so  in  the  present  Constitution, 
and  I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  that  fact.  The  first  section  of  the  pres- 
enrArticle  X provides  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly shall  provide  by  law  for  the  election  of  such 
county  and  township  officers  as  may  be  neces- 
sary, just  as  we  do  now ; and  then,  in  the  third 
section,  it  is  provided  that  no  person  shall  be 
eligible  to  the  office  of  sheriff  or  county  treas- 
urer for  more  than  four  years  in  any  period  of 
six  years.  And  there  are  many  other  provi- 
sions, of  which  that  is  a mere  illustration.  Xow, 
in  truth  and  in  fact,  I think  we  may  say  with 
perfect  safety  that  there  always  will  be  in  Ohio, 
as  there  always  have  been,  officers  such  as  are 
named  in  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal];  and  the 
Legislature  would  have  no  disposition,  I appre- 
hend, and  if  they  had,  they  certainly  would  not 
have  the  power,  for  the  purpose  of  evading  a 
provision  like  this,  to  give  another  name  to  an 
officer  and  then  confer  upon  him  the  same  du- 
ties which  now  belong  to  an  officer  named  in  this 
amendment.  I prefer  the  amendment  as  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal],  The  difficulties  are,  that  if  you  under- 
take to  except  certain  officers,  you  will  have  to 
make  a great  many  exceptions.  The  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond],  for  instance,  I believe  does  not  in- 
clude infirmary  directors  or  county  commis- 
sioners, and  perhaps  some  others  which  some 
would  desire  to  include. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that 
there  is  so  much  difficulty  about  this  section  as 
gentlemen  imagine.  It  is  a question  to  which 
1 have  paid  some  attention,  and  I will  say  that 
from  information  received  from  all  over  the 
State — and  I have  taken  some  pains  to  inform 
myself — I find  that  this  section,  which  was 
adopted,  I believe,  originally  upon  the  amended 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr. 
Cowen],  requiring  salaries  to  be  paid  to  these 
county  officers,  is  considered  one  of  the  best 
sections  proposed,  and  one  which  seems  to  the 
people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  to  be  more  practi- 
cally a reform  in  the  right  direction  than  any 
other. 

There  is  some  question  raised  as  to  the  prac- 
tical application  of  it.  That  appears  to  be  the 
difficulty  now.  It  is  proposed  to  make  an  ex- 
ception of  the  officers,  Coroner,  Surveyor,  Prose- 
cuting Attorney,  and,  I believe,  Infirmary 
Directors  and  County  Commissioners.  I think 
there  is  no  necessity  for  that,  although  I will 
vote  for  the  section  in  that  shape  rather  than 
lose  it  altogether.  The  trouble  about  this  mat- 
ter is  this : Gentlemen  are  troubled  with  the 
question  as  to  how  this  salary  matter  shall  be 
fixed  and  equitably  arranged.  Now,  we  can 
act  upon  that  subject  when  we  come  to  it,  and 
I do  not  propose  to  speak  to  that  question  at 
present,  except  to  draw  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  the  effect  of  the  adoption  of  an 
amendment  of  this  sort  in  Illinois,  and  I do  not 
conceive  that  it  is  any  more  difficult  for  us  to 
apply  the  principle  in  this  State.  What  trouble 
is  there  in  fixing  a stated  compensation?  Sup 
pose,  for  instance,  we  adopt  the  scheme  that  is 
employed  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  saj’  that  in 


[116th 

[Tuesday, 


all  counties  containing  less  than  twenty-five 
thousand  inhabitants  the  salary  should  be 
$1,700;  that  in  all  counties  of  over  twenty-five 
thousand,  and  not  exceeding  forty-five  thousand 
inhabitants,  the  salary  should  be  $2,500;  that  in 
counties  of  over  forty-five  thousand  and  up  to 
seventy  thousand  it  should  be  $3,000;  and  in 
counties  of  over  that  population  the  salary 
should  be  $4,000 ; there  would  then  be  no  trouble 
about  this  matter. 

I wish  to  call  the  attention  of  gentlemen 
to  the  fact  of  the  great  saving  that  might  be 
accomplished  simply  in  the  case  of  five  officers, 
about  which  there  is  no  dispute.  I hold  in  my 
hand  the  Report  of  the  Auditor  of  State,  which 
shows  that  the  auditors  received,  in  fees,  last 
year,  $282,633;  the  treasurers,  $270,629;  the 
clerks,  $225,066;  the  sheriffs,  $231,136 ; and  the 
probate  judges,  $190,887 — and  that  does  not  in- 
clude Butler  county — making  something  like 
twelve  hundred  thousand  dollars  paid  in  fees 
and  alllowances  from  the  county  treasury  to 
these  five  officers,  about  whom  there  would  be 
no  question  as  to  the  application  of  this  rule  of 
fixed  salaries.  If  we  pursue  the  policy  adopted 
by  Illinois,  and  fix  a maximum  salary,  and 
have  a county  board  for  the  stated  com- 
pensation, or  leave  the  Legislature  to  arrange 
that  matter,  taking  the  Report  of  the  Auditor 
of  State  for  1873,  page  115,  which  I hold  in 
my  hand,  showing  the  average  amount  paid  to 
these  five  officers  in  fees,  etc.,  it  would  appear 
that  if  you  put  the  forty-six  counties  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  as  having  a population  of  under 
twenty-five  thousand,  with  an  average  of  $1,700 
for  compensation — and  I do  not  believe  that  it 
would  come  up  to  that,  although  the  smaller 
counties  are  not  so  much  affected  by  this  rule, 
the  total  would  amount  to  $78,200.  In  thirty- 
six  counties  there  would  be  a population  of  over 
twenty-five  thousand  and  under  forty-five 
thousand,  and  the  compensation,  at  $2,500  each, 
would  aggregate  $90,000.  In  four  counties, 
Lucas,  Stark,  Montgomery  and  Franklin,  the 
compensation  would  aggregate  $12,000,  and  in 
Cuyahoga  and  Hamilton  $8,000.  This  would 
make  an  aggregate,  taking  the  maximum  rates, 
of  $188,200  for  each  of  the  five  classes  of  officers. 
Multiply  this  by  five  and  you  obtain  the  sum  of 
$941,000,  which,  compared  with  the  $1,200,000 
paid  last  year,  would  show  a saving  to  the  peo- 
: pie  of  the  State  of  over  $300,000,  with  regard  to 
| these  five  officers,  as  to  whom  there  is  no  dis- 
[ pute  about  the  application  of  this  rule.  I hope, 
therefore,  whatever  exception  this  Convention 
may  make  with  regard  to  the  application  of 
this  principle  to  recorders,  coroners,,  county 
commisioners,  county  surveyors,  infirmary  di- 
rectors, or  other  county  officers,  that  there  will 
be  no  exception  made  as  to  these  five  officers. 
I am  not  surprised  at  the  gentleman  from  Law- 
j rence  coming  in  here  with  regard  to  these, 
exceptions.  I find  that  in  the  county  of  Law- 
rence the  sheriff ’s  fees  are  $2,507.  The  clerk’s 
fees  in  that  county  amounted  to  nearly  $3,000 — 
as  much  as  the  salary  of  your  supreme  judge. 
The  recorder’s  fees  are  only  $972,  and  on  that 
ground  the  gentleman  argue*  for  an  exception. 
The  recorder  is  paid  according  to  his  work. 

Now,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  arrang- 
ing this  matter  by  a county  board  of  control,  if 
this  salary  principle  is  adopted.  There  is  no 


1449 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  17, 1874.]  Baber,  Gurley,  Wilson,  Powell. 


difficulty  in  saying,  as  is  said  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  the  compensa- 
tion shall  not  exceed  the  fees  actually  collected. 

That  is  the  provision  of  the  Illinois  Constitu- 
tion, and  the  returns  in  the  auditor’s  book  here 
show  that  there  is  not  a single  county  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  where  the  compensation  now 
paid  is  not  sufficient;  and  that  in  this  class  of 
large  counties,  by  the  collection  of  this  money 
and  the  payment  thereof  into  the  county  trea- 
sury, there  will  be  a large  saving  of  money. 

I do  not  propose,  until  we  get  further  along, 
to  argue  the  question  with  regard  to  the  man- 
ner and  mode  of  fixing  the  salaries.  I admit 
there  are  great  difficulties  in  the  way  of  doing  it. 
I believe  myself,  that  by  a general  classification 
law,  it  is  almost  impossible  for  the  Legislature 
to  do  it.  The  best  way,  I think,  would  be  to 
refer  it  to  the  counties  themselves,  and  let  the 
counties  regulate  this  as  a local  matter  by  a 
county  board  of  control,  elected  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  responsible  to  the  people.  I do  not 
propose  to  argue  the  question  now,  however,  as 
to  how  the  matter  shall  be  regulated.  That  is 
a subject  for  after  consideration.  But  I do  hope 
that  this  Convention  will  not  go  back  upon  the 
principle  of  fixed  salaries,  and  that  they  will 
adhere  to  it.  If  they  think  it  right  to  make 
exceptions  of  some  of  these  officers,  well  and 
good.  This  Convention  adopted  this  amend- 
ment by  a vote  of  fifty-four  to  twenty-five,  I 
believe,  and  I do  not  know  of  any  amendment 
which  meets  with  more  hearty  approbation 
from  the  tax  payers  of  the  State.  I know  that 
in  certain  counties  in  the  State  where  they  have 
these  court-house  rings  of  county  officers,  and 
those  very  nice  little  nests  spoken  of  by  my 
friend  from  Mahoning  [Mr.  Wilson],  where 
gentlemen  have  a nice  little  probate  judge’s 
nest,  or  a county  auditor’s  nest,  or  a sheriff’s 
nest,  fixed  up,  there  is  a good  deal  of  objection 
to  this  thing.  They  do  not  want  the  people  to 
know  exactly  what  they  are  getting.  I do  want 
the  people  to  know,  and,  therefore,  I hope  the 
Convention  will  adopt  this  principle,  so  that 
they  may  have  an  opportunity  to  know. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  state 
what  reason  or  what  justice  there  is  in  taxing 
the  people  of  the  county  to  pay  the  probate 
judge,  or  any  of  that  class  of  officers,  who  work 
for  individuals?  In  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  the 
public  never  have  any  business  for  them  at  all. 

Mr.  BABER.  My  answer  is,  that  the  Con- 
stitution provides  that  these  fees — and  I do  not 
propose  to  abolish  fees— are  to  be  paid  into  the 
county  treasury,  and  I would  put  in  a provision 
such  as  is  in  the  Constitution  of  Illinois,  that 
out  of  the  fees  these  salaries  shall  be  paid  and 
shall  not  exceed  the  fees. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Is  that  in  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Not  yet.  But  I hope  it  will 
be  before  we  get  through.  I want  the  salary 
principle  adopted,  and  I intend,  at  the  proper 
time,  to  offer  a proposition  which  I have  here, 
as  sections  ten  and  eleven  to  the  Article,  to 
provide  for  this  very  thing— not  now, but  I pro- 
pose to  provide  for  it  when  the  time  comes. 
You  cannot  provide  for  it  all  at  once.  We  have 
the  stated  salary  principle  to  dispose  of,  and 
when  that  is  settled,  I will  go  to  the  utmost  to 
arrange  the  question  as  to  what  basis  shall 
fix  the  salaries. 


Mr.  WILSON.  I think  it  would  be  advisable 
for  us  to  move  rather  slowly  in  this  matter,  for 
che  reason  that  it  introduces  an  entirely  new 
principle. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Do  we  not  proceed  slowly 
enough  to  suit  the  gentleman?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  WILSON.  Thankful  for  the  suggestion! 
Since  1802,  since  the  organization  of  the  govern- 
ment and  the  election  of  officers  under  that 
old  Constitution,  down  to  the  time  of  the  assem- 
bling of  this  Convention,  I never  heard — 
although  I have  not  lived  that  length  of  time — 
of  a single  complaint  about  the  manner  of  pay- 
ing county  officers  anywhere,  in  any  county. 
We  had  better  adopt  the  principle,  “Let  well 
enough  alone,”  before  we  attempt  to  interfere 
with  the  old  system  of  paying  public  servants. 
That  system  was  founded  upon  the  hypothesis 
that  we  paid  them  for  what  labor  they  per- 
formed, and  no  more;  and  for  the  purpose  of 
determining  the  amount,  the  Legislature  fixed 
a fee  bill  for  each  one  of  them.  During  the 
war,  when  their  fee  bills  were  too  low,  they 
raised  them;  and  if  they  are  too  high  now,  let 
them  lessen  these  fee  bills.  But  do  not  let  us 
depart  from  that  old  system  which  has  been 
handed  down  to  us,  and  sanctioned  by  experi- 
ence and  the  acquiescence  of  the  people  for 
nearly  one  hundred  years.  As  I understand  it, 
the  principle  upon  which  we  have  proceeded 
hitherto  in  the  payment  of  county  treasurers, 
auditors,  sheriffs,  coroners,  county  clerks,  and 
all  these  public  servants,  was  to  pay  them  for 
the  amount  of  labor  they  performed.  But  it  is 
said  now  that  they  perform  so  much  labor,  and 
their  fees  have  become  so  large  that  the  emolu- 
ments of  office  are  now  too  great  and  should, 
therefore,  be  diminished.  If  that  be  the  case, 
lessen  the  fees. 

This  grand  idea  of  remunerating  these  county 
officers,  these  public  servants,  with  fixed  sala- 
ries, is  the  stepping-stone  to  the  greatest  fraud 
that  was  ever  perpetrated  upon  this  State;  and 
the  people  will  find  it  so.  It  were  very  much 
better  for  us  to  leave  it  entirely  to  the  Legisla- 
ture to  determine  this  matter,  as  their  experi- 
ence in  trying  this  system  or  that  system  may 
determine  which  is  the  best  to  adopt. 

Fixing  a stated  salary ! Let  me  tell  you,  Mr  • 
President,  that  that  means,  fixing  a stated 
salary-grab.  Who  fixes  that  stated  salary  ? The 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  says, 
there  should  be  a board  in  each  county — a board 
to  be  courted  by  every  county  officer,  influential 
as  he  is;  a board  from  which  every  county 
clerk,  every  sheriff,  every  county  commissionei, 
every  county  treasurer,  and  every  county  audi- 
tor, with  their  immense  local  influence  in  every 
county  in  the  State,  courting  that  board  day 
and  night,  can  extort  any  salary  they  please. 
“You  tickle  me,  and  I’ll  tickle  you.”  And  in 
addition  to  that  you  will  find  that  every  officer, 
however  high  his  salary  may  be,  will  be  inform- 
ing that  board  that  he  cannot  live  at  that  salary  ; 
that  he  cannot  support  his  family  at  that  salary. 
“I  have  not  made  anything” — he  will  say — 
“ during  the  past  year,  you  must  raise  my  salary 
one,  two,  three,  four,  five  hundred,  or  a thousand 
dollars  a year.”  The  people,  if  they  adopt  this 
plan,  will  fasten  upon  themselves  a fixed  salary- 
grab,  that  will  cry  “ Give  me  more ! give  me 
more !”  every  year.  There  will  not  be  a prose- 


1450 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [116th 

Wilson,  Layton,  Bannon,  Griswold,  Cowen,  West.  [Tuesday, 


cuting  attorney,  there  will  not  be  a county 
commissioner,  there  will  not  be  a county  sur- 
veyor, or  a county  clerk,  or  a sheriff,  within  the 
broad  land  that  will  not  be  complaining  that  he 
cannot  live  at  his  salary.  And  each  officer  will 
combine  with  the  others,  and  they  will  apply  to 
the  board — if  you  adopt  a board — and  from  that 
board,  being  fellow-citizens  and  neighbors  of 
theirs,  they  will  demand  and  extort  just  such 
salary  as  they  please;  and  you  will  find,  in 
every  instance,  that  it  will  not  be  any  less  than 
the  fees  of  these  officers  under  the  present  ex- 
isting law.  The  chances  are  ten  to  one  that  it 
will  increase  and  be  higher.  The  people  will 
get  sick  of  this  plan,  before  they  have  followed 
it  for  five  years. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I ask  the  gentleman  from 
Mahoning  [Mr.  Wilson]  if  the  office  of  prose- 
cuting attorney  and  some  other  offices  is  not  a 
salaried  office,  with  the  exception  of  the  collec- 
tion of  fines  and  other  matters  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  It  is  fixed  by  each  court. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  It  is  according  to  population. 

Mr.  WILSON.  It  is  fixed  according  to  popu- 
lation by  each  court.  They  may  make  addi- 
tional allowance,  fixing  it  according  to  popula- 
tion. Suppose  you  take  the  county  of  Trumbull, 
where  the  work  of  the  county  clerk  is  enormous. 
He  has  from  five  hundred  and  fifty  cases  to  six 
hundred  cases  all  the  while.  The  clerk  of  the 
county  of  Portage  has  two  hundred  and  fifty 
cases.  He  will  say,  “I  cannot  live  on  my  low 
salary,  I must  have  about  as  much  as  the  clerk 
of  the  court  of  common  pleas  of  Trumbull 
county  gets,  I have  to  follow  that  business  all 
the  year  round.”  You  can  find  men  in  that 
county  who  will  take  it  at  the  ordinary  fees ; 
but  when  you  open  the  purse-strings,  he  will 
begin  to  reach  his  hands  in  and  say,  “I  am 
clerk  of  Portage  county,  and  I ought  to  have 
about  as  much  as  the  clerk  of  Mahoning  or 
Trumbull.” 

Mr.  BANNON.  It  is  not  proposed  to  elect 
them  oftener  than  once  every  four  years,  and 
some  are  in  favor  of  extending  that  time  to  six 
years ; so  that  it  will  not  be  possible  for  any 
county  officer  to  ask  that  his  salary  be  raised 
successively  each  year. 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  Board  of  Control  is  not 
created  yet.  You  will  find  that  when  you  put 
your  three  men — your  Board  of  Control — on 
the  ticket,  that  Board  of  Control  will  be  nomi- 
nated by  your  county  officers. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  Board  of  Control  is 
not  up  now  before  the  Convention. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I understand  that  the  Board 
of  Control  is  not  created  yet.  I was  replying 
merely  to  a suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Scioto  [Mr.  Bannon]. 

Suppose  you  leave  it  to  the  Legislature.  You 
will  send  all  the  sheriffs,  clerks,  auditors  and 
treasurers,  with  their  agents  and  lobbyists,  down 
to  the  Legislature,  and  they  would  beset  the 
Legislature  like  the  locusts  of  Egypt,  until  they 
would  give  them  almost  anything  they  desired 
in  order  to  get  rid  of  them.  I tell  you  if  you 
get  all  the  county  officers  in  the  State  combin- 
ed, with  their  intelligence,  ingenuity,  power 
and  grasp,  they  will  create  a lobby  that  no  Leg- 
lature  can  resist. 

Mr.  COWEN.  May  I ask  the  gentleman  a 
question  ? 


Mr.  WILSON.  No,  sir;  but  wants  to  get 
up 

Mr.  COWEN.  Is  there  not  some  danger, 
judging  the  future  by  the  past,  that  these  lob- 
byists may  go  to  Columbus  to  get  their  fees  in- 
creased also  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  That  may  be  true,  but  it  is 
equalized  throughout  the  State.  You  fix  each 
man’s  fee.  Every  man  is  just  alike,  and  it  is 
equal  throughout  the  State.  There  is  no  dan- 
ger. All  is  fixed  according  to  law. 

Again,  Mr.  President,  what  an  idea  it  is  that 
the  sheriff,  for  instance,  the  county  auditor,  or 
the  clerk,  should  collect  all  the  fees  that  he  can, 
pay  them  into  the  county  treasury,  and  after 
he  gets  them  paid  then  draw  a salary  ! He  han- 
dles the  money  twice.  Suppose  he  takes  it  into 
his  head  that  he  will  draw  it  anyhow — he  has  a 
right  to  do  that — and  then  pocket  the  fees.  You 
had  better  let  him  handle  his  own  money  as  he 
makes  it,  and  take  his  pay  out  of  his  labor  as  he 
goes  along,  the  same  as  any  other  laboring 
man. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  the  salary  is  unlimited  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  If  the  salary  in  any  county 
is  enormous,  and  he  gets  too  much,  so  that  he  is 
making  too  much  money — I do  not  know  of  any 
of  that  kind  in  this  State — let  us  leave  it  to  the 
Legislature  that  all  over  such  an  amount  be  paid 
into  the  public  fund,  into  the  county  treasury. 
Better  fix  it  that  way  than  endanger  the  public 
purse  by  leaving  this  to  any  Board  of  Con- 
trol. 

Better  still  to  leave  it  as  it  always  has  been. 
Who  ever  heard  any  word  of  complaint  until 
the  last  six  months  ? Nobody.  Go  to  the  farm- 
ing community,  go  to  any  enterprising  commu- 
nity throughout  this  State,  and  ask  them  how 
this  should  be — shall  the  clerk  of  the  court  of 
common  pleas,  shall  the  sheriff  be  paid  out  of 
the  county  treasury,  out  of  the  money  the  tax- 
payers have  just  paid  in  ? Not  at  all,  they  will 
say.  Let  those  having  lawsuits  pay  for  them. 
Let  the  clients  pay  the  fees  of  the  sheriff,  and 
the  clerk,  and  the  fees  of  the  lawyer. 

Here  the  hammer  fell ; but,  by  consent  of  the 
Convention,  the  gentleman  was  allowed  to  pro- 
ceed. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Again:  It  might  result  in 
hardship.  For  instance,  if  a clerk  desired  to 
make  it  appear  that  he  collected  more  fees  than 
the  amount  of  salary  awarded  him  by  your 
board,  he  might  follow  execution  after  exe- 
cution, and  keep  them  hot  upon  the  track  of 
poverty,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  to  the 
board,  and  to  the  Representatives  of  the  people, 
as  a political  manoeuvre.  He  might  oppress 
the  poor,  and  oppress  the  men  in  moderate  cir- 
cumstances, with  execution  after  execution. 
Why,  under  the  present  system,  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  men,  with  judgments  against  them 
in  the  court  of  common  pleas,  can  arrange  with 
the  clerk  for  further  time.  He  can  give  his 
note  for  security  for  hundreds  of  dollars.  It  is 
done  in  every  county  in  this  State,  and  the 
man  of  moderate  means  gets  leniency  and  time, 
whilst,  if  you  must  follow  him  with  executions, 
you  make  the  clerk  a means  of  oppression. 

Then  suppose  that,  for  political  purposes,  he 
desired  to  show  a large  increase  of  fees.  He  would 
demand, the  very  next  year,  a revision  of  his  sal- 
ary,and  ask  this  Board  to  give  him  more.  Why,  it 


1451 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  17,  1874.]  Willon,  Sears. 


is  unjust  and  wrong  in  its  very  inception.  In  the 
very  nature  of  it,  it  strikes  at  the  principles  of 
justice  and  equity  in  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice in  our  court  of  common  pleas.  It  places 
in  the  clerk’s  office  a man  who  follows  execu- 
tion after  execution  in  hot  haste  upon  the  com- 
munity, and  is  bound  to  do  it,  for  the  reason 
that  he  will  show  as  large  an  amount  collected 
as  he  possibly  can,  or  the  Board  of  Control  are 
at  his  heels.  Say  that  there  are  some  two 
thousand  or  five  thousand  dollars  of  costs  upon 
your  docket.  The  parties  come  to  see  him  and 
desire  further  time.  The  Board  say:  “We 
order  you  to  issue  execution  after  execution, 
and  pour  into  the  public  treasury  all  that  you 
possibly  can,  so  that  the  county  may  have  the 
benefit  of  it.”  As  an  attorney,  I do  not  want 
to  see  any  such  hot-house  of  unmitigated  cor- 
ruption connected  with  the  temple  of  justice. 
It  would  be  an  engine  of  oppression  against 
clients  and  litigants  in  Court  that  every  lawyer 
ought  to  repudiate  when  he  examines  the  sub- 
ject. I supposed  that  in  a government,  espe- 
cially in  a Republican  government,  when  a 
State  has  reached  for  the  land  that  lies  within 
its  borders,  reached  for  all  the  money,  reached 
for  all  the  manufacturing  establishments,  and 
all  the  personal  and  real  estate,  and  drafted  it 
within  the  power  of  taxation,  it  would  be  time 


to  stop.  But  no.  They  are  reaching  for  offi- 
cers’ labor  for  the  purpose  of  absorbing  it  as  a 
grand  basis  of  capital,  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing assessments.  The  principle  itself  is  wrong. 
Government  should  be  sustained  by  assessments 
upon  property,  by  assessments  upon  all  kinds 
of  property  equally.  But,  now,  you  are  throw- 
ing in  the  labor  of  the  public  servants  as  a com- 
mon fund,  and  raking  it  under  a Board  of  Con- 
trol, paying  them  a salary.  If  you  pay  them 
what  they  earn,  they  are  entitled  to  what  local 
fees  they  get.  If  you  pay  them  less,  it  is  mean, 
contemptible,  unworthy  of  a State  or  a Board 
of  Control.  I hope  the  entire  system  will  find 
no  foothold  in  this  Convention.  Let  us  be  satis- 
fied with  the  old  system,  as  handed  down  to  us 
by  our  forefathers,  and  by  our  second  fore- 
fathers, who  adopted  the  last  Constitution.  At 
all  events,  do  not  fasten  this  salary  grab  law  for 
future  years.  Leave  it,  at  least,  discretionary 
with  the  Legislature  to  modify  it,  in  case  they 
find  it  amenable  to  the  objections  I interpose. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I see  several  delegates  have 
their  overcoats  on,  and  I presume  it  is  time  to 
adjourn.  I,  therefore,  move  that  the  Convention 
do  now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5 : 40  p.  m.)  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 


1452 


AS  TO  LIMITING  DEBATES. 

Reilly,  Mueller,  Hoadly,  Beer,  etc. 


[117th 

[Wednesday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  SEVENTEENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

FIFTY-FIFTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to 
adjournment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  John  Scott,  of  the  Sixth 
Street  Methodist  Church. 

The  roll  was  called,  and  eighty- eight  mem- 
bers answered  to  their  names. 

EXCUSED  FOR  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  Chapin  was  excused  for  absence  yesterday. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PETITION. 

Mr.  REILLY  presented  the  petition  of  Joseph 
Ingram,  and  fifty-two  other  citizens  of  Colum- 
biana county,  earnestly  protesting  against  the 
incorporation  of  any  religious  opinions  or 
beliefs  in  the  Constitution. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

NEW  PROPOSITION. 

Mr.  MUELLER  introduced  the  following 
Proposition,  which  was  read  the  first  time : 

Proposition  No.  216,  to  amend  Article  XIII. 

Resolved,  That  a section  be  added  to  the  Article  on  Cor- 
porations other  than  Municipal,  to  read  as  follows: 

No  property  shall  be  held  for  religious  or  eleemosynary 
purposes  by  any  person  or  persons  other  than  corpora- 
tions organized  under  the  general  laws  ot  the  State. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS — LEAVE  TO  TRANSPOSE. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I ask  the  unanimous  consent 
of  the  Convention,  before  the  engrossment  of 
the  Article  on  Municipal  Corporations,  to  make 
a change  in  the  position  of  the  language  intro- 
duced upon  the  motion  of  the  delegate  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  In  the  sentence  as  it 
now  reads,  it  is  out  of  its  proper  place.  It 
reads  thus : “ Section  4.  The  indebtedness  of 

any  municipal  corporation  shall  never  exceed, 
in  the  aggregate,  five  per  centum  of  the  value 
of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as 
ascertained,  from  time  to  time,  by  the  tax  du- 
plicate thereof,  without  the  consent  first 
obtained  of  at  least  three-fourths  of  all  the 
qualified  electors  of  such  corporation,  to  be 
ascertained  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law,  and 
to  such  increase  of  indebtedness  and  the 
approval  of  the  objects  for  which  the  same  is 
created,”  &c.  These  words,  “ to  such  increase 
of  indebtedness  and  the  approval  of  the  objects 
for  which  the  same  is  created,”  ought  to  come 
in  after  the  word  “obtained,”  so  as  to  read, 
“without  the  consent  first  obtained  to  such 
increase  of  indebtedness  and  the  approval  of 
the  objects  for  which  the  same  is  created,  of  at 
least  three-fourths  of  all  the  qualified  electors 
of  such  corporation,”  &c. 


Wednesday,  February  18,  1874. 

A MEMBER.  The  Committee  on  Revision 
can  make  the  change. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Well,  we  can  just  as  well 
have  it  done  here,  and  now.  It  is  very  awk- 
ward in  its  present  form. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  change  but 
a mere  transposition  of  the  language,  as  I 
understand,  to  improve  the  construction. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  it  is  simply  a transpo- 
sition. 

Leave  was  granted  to  make  the  desired 
transposition  of  words. 

Mr.  BEER.  Is  miscellaneous  business  still 
in  order  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move,  then,  to  take  from  the 
table  my  motion  to  amend  Rule  69  of  the  Rules 
governing  this  Convention. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  proposed  amendment. 

The  Secretary.  Mr.  Beer,  pursuant  to 
notice,  moves  to  amend  Rule  69  of  the  Rules 
governing  the  Convention,  by  substituting 
therefor  the  following : 

“RULE  69. 

“In  general  debates  no  member  shall  speak  more  than 
ten  minutes,  nor  oftener  than  twice  on  the  subject,  ex- 
cept the  member  making  Report  from  a Committee,  who 
may  speak  thirty  minutes  in  opening  and  ten  minutes  in 
closing  debates. 

“A  majority  of  the  Convention,  or  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  may  at  any  time  fix  an  hour  at  which  the  gen- 
eral debate  upon  pending  propositions  shall  terminate. 

“After  the  termination  of  general  debate,  the  Proposi- 
tion shall  be  considered,  section  by  section,  and  amend- 
ments may  then  be  offered  to  any  section  in  its  order. 

“In  the  consideratio  of  any  Proposition,  section  by  sec- 
tion, no  member  shall  speak  more  than  once,  nor  longer 
than  live  minutes,  on  any  amendment. 

“A  majority  of  the  Convention,  or  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  may  fix  an  hour  at  which  all  debates  shall  close, 
after  which  the  person  making  the  Report  may'speak  ten 
minutes,  as  above  provided;  and  all  amendments  then 
pending,  or  proposed  thereafter,  shall  be  voted  on  with- 
out debate.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on 
agreeing  to  the  substitute.  Is  the  Convention 
ready  for  the  question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I ask  that  a separate  vote  be 
taken  on  each  question.  Some  of  them  I feel 
disposed  to  vote  for,  and  for  some  I do  not. 
I think  it  more  desirable  to  have  separate  action 
on  each  one. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  moves  that  a separate 
vote  be  taken  on  each  section  of  the  Rule.  The 
question  will,  therefore,  first  be  on  striking  out. 
The  first  clause  of  the  first  paragraph  of  the 
I present  Rule  69  reads  as  follows:  “In  general 

I debates,  no  member  shall  speak  more  than  thirty 


1453 


Day,] AS  TO  LIMITING  DEBATES. 

February  18,  1874.]  Beer,  Carbery,  Cowen,  Sears,  Young  of  C. 


minutes.”  The  motion  will  be  first  on  striking 
out  “thirty”  and  inserting  “ten.” 

Mr.  BEER.  My  object  in  proposing  this 
amendment  to  Rule  69  is  that  the  business  of  the 
Convention  may  be  got  along  with  more  rapidly 
than  we  seem  to  be  progressing.  I think  that 
there  is  hardly  a gentleman  in  the  Convention 
but  believes  that  there  is  a great  deal  of  time 
wasted  in  useless  discussion.  The  experience 
of  members  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial  De- 
partment, gathered  in  the  meetings  of  that 
Committee,  is,  that  short,  explanatory  speeches 
upon  any  amendment  or  other  matters  before 
the  Committee,  answer  the  purpose  quite  as 
well  as  long-winded  stump  speeches.  There 
can  scarcely  be  any  amendment  made  or  pro- 
posed to  a section  that  gentlemen  cannot  ex- 
plain in  five  minutes— not  time  enough  for  a 
long  stump  speech,  but  time  enough  to  explain 
an  amendment;  and  in  general  debate,  ten 
minutes  is  long  enough  for  any  one  to  speak. 
Some  of  us  are  getting  old  in  this  Convention. 
I came  in,  myself,  pretty  young,  and  I feel  that 
I am  getting  old  in  this  Convention.  [Laugh- 
ter.] We  should  terminate  our  labors  at  an 
early  day.  There  are  one  or  two  subjects  to  be 
discussed,  upon  which  I,  for  one,  am  quite  will- 
ing that  the  time  shall  be  extended  to  all  mem- 
bers and  to  the  Chairmen  of  Committees  who 
desire  to  be  heard  in  behalf  of  the  Reports  of 
their  Committees ; but  with  the  exception  of  one 
or  two  important  matters  to  come  before  the 
Convention,  the  length  of  time  named  in  this 
Rule  seems  to  me  to  be  sufficient  for  all  pur- 
poses. I think  that  the  amendment  ought  to 
prevail. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I desire  that  this  amend- 
ment shall  not  prevail.  I think,  now,  that  we 
are  on  the  eve  of  considering  the  reports  of  im- 
portant Committees,  such  as  the  Committee  on 
Public  Debt  and  Public  Works,  and  that  on 
Revenue  and  Taxation,  it  would  be  a most  in- 
opportune time  to  introduce  a rule  to  cut  off  de- 
bate. All  we  need  in  this  Convention  is  to 
abide  strictly  by  Rule  69,  to  get  through  our 
business  as  expeditiously  as  we  ought.  I hold 
that  it  is  not  always  a saving  of  time  to  go  hur- 
riedly through  this  Constitution.  Almost  in- 
variably things  that  were  done  in  a hurry  in 
the  Convention,  were  undone  afterwards,  and 
we  have  had  to  go  over  the  same  ground  twice.  I 
insist  'that  the  waste  of  time  here  is  not  by 
long  speeches,  but  in  the  repetition  of  speeches, 
and  that  can  be  obviated  under  the  rule  as  it 
now  stands. 

The  gentleman  says  he  is  getting  old ; that  is 
a facetious  expression.  [Laughter.]  The  gen- 
tleman looks  as  blooming  as  a May  rose.  [Great 
laughter.]  The  gentleman  looks  much  better 
already  than  when  he  came  to  Cincinnati,  and 
that,  of  course,  is  altogether  owing  to  the  good 
markets  and  pure  air ; and  I have  no  doubt  but 
the  Convention  will  bear  me  out  in  the  asser- 
tion, that  the  whole  body  is  improving  physic- 
ally, mentally  and  morally.  [Renewed  laugh- 
ter.] The  other  day,  when  this  matter  was  be- 
fore the  Convention,  a speech  covering  every 
point  of  the  question,  was  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  and  if  gentlemen 
will  look  at  those  arguments,  it  may  be  unnec- 
essary for  me  to  say  more.  This  eternal  chang- 
ing and  chopping  of  rules  is  not  the  way  to 


shorten  argument,  and  get  along  with  the  busi 

T1GSS# 

Mr.  COWEN.  I wish  to  offer  the  following 
amendment : 

The  PRESIDENT.  A division  has  been 
called  for,  and  the  question  now  is  on  the  first 
paragraph.  This,  in  the  present  rule,  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

“In  general  debates,  no  member  shall  speak  more  than 
thirty  minutes,  nor  oftener  than  twice  on  the  same  sub- 
iect,  except  the  member  making  report  from  a Committee, 
who  may  speak  one  hour  in  opening  and  one  hour  in 
closing  debate.” 

The  proposed  amendment  in  that  paragraph 
is  as  follows : 

“In  general  debates,  no  member  shall  speak  more  than 
ten  minutes,  nor  oftener  than  twice  on  the  same  subject, 
except  the  member  making  report  from  a committee,  who 
may  speak  thirty  minutes  in  opening  and  ten  minutes  in 
closing  debate.” 

The  question  now  is  upon  that  paragraph,  and 
to  that  amendment  the  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen]  offers  the  following  amend- 
ment, which  the  Secretary  will  read : 

The  Secretary  read  the  same  as  follows  : 

Add  the  following: 

“This  Rule  shall  not  be  suspended  except  by  unani- 
mous consent  of  the  Convention.” 

Mr.  SEARS.  I rise  to  a point  of  order.  Is 
this  amendment  now  in  order?  Does  not  that 
conflict  with  Rule  67,  which  provides  that  there 
must  be  one  day’s  notice? 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  is  an  amendment 
to  the  proposed  alteration,  so  that  it  is  in  order 
here. 

Mr.  SEARS.  It  may  be  well  to  look  and  see 
whether,  while  investing  in  any  new  rules,  they 
will  be  any  better  than  the  old  ones,  and  no 
less  elastic.  We  have  rules,  apparently,  very 
rigid  and  well  defined,  but,  within  my  remem- 
brance, they  have  not  been  enforced.  There 
may,  perhaps,  be  single  exceptions,  but  every 
member  has  been  allowed  to  occupy  just  as 
much  time  as  he  pleased.  If  we  had  another 
rule,  not  shortening  the  time,  but  preventing 
members  from  repeating  their  speeches,  and, 
perhaps,  throwing  out  and  hindering  them  from 
getting  back  upon  the  old  track,  and  consuming 
more  of  the  time  of  the  Convention,  it  seems 
to  me  that  the  present  rule  would  do  well 
enough,  and  if  we  would  live  up  to  and  enforce 
this  rule,  it  would  very  materially  shorten  the 
discussions. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I think  that  I 
should  like  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen],  if  made  to  the  rule 
as  it  now  stands,  and  then,  that  the  rule,  as  it 
now  stands,  should  be  enforced.  It  is  quite  im- 
possible for  the  President  of  the  Convention  to 
enforce  that  rule;  for,  it  seems  that  when  a 
gentleman,  upon  a ten  minutes’  discussion,  has 
exceeded,  or  is  about  to  exceed  his  ten  minutes, 
“leave”  is  cried  out,  all  over  the  House,  so 
that  the  President  is  not  allowed  to  enforce  the 
rule.  If  the  Convention  would  allowr  the  Presi- 
dent to  enforce  the  rule,  there  would  be  no 
trouble ; but  he  is  not  allowed  to  do  it. 

Now,  I think  I would  be  in  favor  of  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Belmont 
[Mr.  Cowen],  if  it  would  enable  the  President 
to  enforce  the  rule  absolutely,  unless  by  motion 
and  vote  it  is  suspended. 


1454 


[117th 


AS  TO  LIMITING  DEBATES. 

Young  of  C.,  Mueller,  Cowen,  Powell,  etc. 


A MEMBER.  Unanimous  consent? 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  Yes,  sir.  Ten 
minutes  are  long  enough.  We  have  grown  into 
the  habit, and  the  rule  has  been  utterly  inopera- 
tive; utterly  disregarded.  No  matter  who  the 
member  is — and  it  is  right,  there  ought  to  be  no 
difference — if  he  goes  beyond  his  ten  minutes, 
or  manifests  a disposition  to  speak,  if  the 
President  should  attempt  to  stop  him,  he 
goes  on  by  general  consent.  Then  why  have 
the  rule  unless  it  is  understood  that  the  Presi- 
dent shall  enforce  it;  and  when  this  “leave” 
is  called  all  over  the  House,  he  shall  disregard 
it,  unless,  upon  motion  and  a vote,  it  is  sus- 
pended ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I move  that  this  substitute, 
with  the  amendment,  lie  on  the  table. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Objection  being  made,  the  demand  was  sus- 
tained, and  the  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  re- 
sulted— yeas  37,  nays  44,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright.  Baber,  Bosworth, 
Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Doan,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Lay- 
ton,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Page,  Pond,  Poweil, 
Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Sample,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Thompson,  Tuttle,  Yan 
Yoorhis,  Yoris,  West,  Young  of  Noble — 37. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer,  Blose, 
Burns,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Cowen,  Dorsey,  Gard- 
ner, Hale,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Humphreville,  J ohnson, 
Kraemer,  McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Miner,  Mitchener,  Okey,  Pease,  Phellis,  Phil- 
ips, Russell  of  Muskingum,  Scribner,  Sears, 
Shaw,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Townsley, 
Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Yoor- 
hes,  Waddle, Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson, 
Young  of  Champaign,  President — 44. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I overlooked  the  fact  that  a 
demand  for  a separate  vote  upon  each  clause  of 
this  amendment  had  been  made,  when  I offered 
the  one  I have  submitted,  and  I ask  leave  to 
withdraw  it  and  put  it  in  its  proper  place,  at 
the  end  of  the  rule. 

Which  leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  inserting  the  amendments  in  the  first  par- 
agraph of  the  rule. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment where  it  first  occurs,  by  striking  out 
“ten,”  and  inserting  “ fifteen,”  so  that  it  will 
give  each  member  thirty  minutes — two  speeches 
of  fifteen  minutes  each. 

Upon  which  question  the  yeas  and  nays  being 
demanded,  were  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  19, 
nays  63,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Burns,  Doan,  Griswold, 
Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Hunt,  Mullen,  Pratt,  Row- 
land, Sample,  Sears,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Thompson,  Townsley,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Waddle, 
Wilson,  President — 19. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Beer,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery, Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Ewing,  Freiberg,  Gardner, 
•Greene,  Hale,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Humphre- 
ville, Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Layton,  Mc- 


[Wednesday, 


Bride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner? 
Mitchener,  Mueller,  Neal,  Okey,  Pease,  Phellis? 
Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell 
of  Muskingum,  Scribner,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Wea- 
ver, West,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble — 63. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  be  glad  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  position  now 
occupied  with  regard  to  the  progress  we  are 
making.  We  have  now  been  laboring  here  up- 
wards of  five  months,  and  not  a single  Article 
of  the  Constitution  is  completed — not  one.  We 
have  gone  through,  but  they  are  yet  to  be 
finally  disposed  of.  I long  since  expressed  my 
fear  to  this  Convention,  that  the  delay  we  make 
in  our  progress  is  so  objectionable  to  the  people 
that  they  will  vote  against  our  doings,  what- 
ever we  may  do,  as  a matter  of  spite  against  us, 
because  we  have  delayed  so  long.  I have  re- 
cently received  a letter  from  a good  friend  in 
Delaware  county,  saying  that  he  had  been  re- 
cently among  the  people  of  that  county,  and 
saw  a great  many  of  our  constituents,  and  that 
they  are  almost  universally  complaining  and 
protesting  against  our  long  continuance  here, 
and  he  fears  that  they  will  vote  against  our 
Constitution,  because  we  are  consuming  so 
much  time. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  rule  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  proposes,  I have  no 
objection  to  it,  and  if  we  could  adopt  that  at 
once,  I would  vote  readily  for  it;  but  there  has 
been  such  a great  deal  of  difficulty  about  the 
rules  that  we  have,  that  I fear  no  amendment  of 
them  will  aid  our  progress.  No  great  difficulty 
exists  in  getting  along,  so  far  as  the  rule  is  con- 
cerned ; but  if  there  is  any  difficulty  upon  that 
score,  at  all,  it  is  because  members  readily  give 
leave  to  a member  when  he  comes  to  the  end  of 
the  time  allotted  him.  I believe,  so  far  as  I 
know,  that  in  every  instance  that  leave  was 
given,  it  was  because  the  member  was  speaking 
upon  an  important  subject  and  we  wished  to 
hear  him. 

Now,  there  has  been  more  time  lost  in  making 
these  alterations  of  the  rules,  which  are  uncalled 
for.  It  is  wasting  time  that  should  be  occupied 
in  the  more  important  business.  I fear  we  will 
spend  more  time  on  such  subjects  than  for  the 
object  for  which  the  Convention  was  called — to 
amend  the  Constitution.  I was  glad,  indeed, 
when  the  motion  was  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  that  this  matter 
be  laid  upon  the  table.  I hoped  sincerely  that 
motion  would  be  carried,  but  it  did  not,  and  I 
hardly  know  how  to  get  rid  of  this  debate  on 
the  subject,  if  it  should  go  on  as  it  has  been.  I, 
therefore,  move  the  previous  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is,  Shall  the 
main  question  now  be  put? 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Is  a motion  to  indefinitely  post- 
pone in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  motion  to  strike  out  the  word  “thirty,”  in 
the  first  portion  of  Rule  69,  and  insert  “ten.” 

Upon  which  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  and,  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  43, 
nays  39,  as  follows : 


AS  TO  LIMITING  DEBATES. 

Griswold,  Powell,  Yoris,  Cowen. 


1455 


Day.] 

February  18,  1874.] 


Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer,  Blose,  Byal, 
Caldwell,  Cook,  Cowen,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Gur- 
ley, Hale,  Hoadly,  Johnson,  Kraemer,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Merrill, Miller,  Miner,  Okey,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Reilly,  Rickly, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Scribner  Shaw,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Van  Yalkenburgh, 
Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Waddle,  Weaver,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Noble,  President 
—43. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were— 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Baber,  Bos  worth, 
Burns,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Doan,  Ewing,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  Kerr,  Layton,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mul- 
len, Neal,  Page,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Sample,  Sears, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thompson,  Towns- 
ley,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yoris,  Wilson,  Young 
of  Champaign — 39. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  lost,  as  it 
requires  a majority  of  the  entire  Convention. 
The  question  is  now  upon  the  second  para- 
graph. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  to  lay  the  motion 
on  the  table. 

A MEMBER.  I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I will  withdraw  my  mo- 
tion by  leave. 

“Leave,  leave.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I object  to  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  the  gentleman  has 
leave  to  withdraw  it,  the  motion  may  be  re- 
newed, if  desired. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  the  motion  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I renew  the  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I move  the  Convention  proceed 
to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  a 
moment? 

Mr.  YORIS.  I will,  with  the  understanding 
that  the  gentleman  will  renew  my  motion. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I give  notice  that  I will  offer 
for  adoption  the  following  amendment  to  Rule 
69,  which  I desire  read  for  the  information  of 
the  Convention : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  thereto  the  following: 

“This  Rule  shall  not  be  suspended  except  by  the  unani- 
mous conseut  of  the  Convention.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  the  rule  be  sus- 
pended in  order  that  the  motion  may  be  enter- 
tained now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen]  proposes  an  amendment  to 
Rule  69.  A rule  of  the  Convention  requires,  in 
such  cases,  that  at  least  one  day’s  notice  be 
given  before  the  amendment  can  be  considered. 
The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
moves  the  suspension  of  the  rule,  that  the 
amendment  may  be  considered  at  the  present 
time. 

MEMBERS.  “Object;”  “object.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  With  the  leave  of  the  Con- 
vention, I will  withdraw  the  motion. 

MEMBERS.  “Agreed;”  “not  agreed.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  objection  to 


granting  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]  leave  to  withdraw  his  motion  ? 

Many  MEMBERS.  “Not  agreed;”  “not 
agreed.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  to  suspend  the  rules  for  the  purpose  of 
acting  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  now. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  45,  nays  36,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Bannon,  Beer,  Blose,  Bos- 
worth,  Byal,  Caldwell, Carbery,  Chapin, Clark  of 
Ross,  Cowen,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Griswold, 
Hale,  Hoadly,  Johnson,  McBride,  McCormick, 
Merrill,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Okey, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Reilly, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Scribner,  Shultz,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuhoss,  Yan 
Yalkenburgh,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Voorhes,  Waddle, 
Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Noble, 
President — 45. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Baber,  Burns,  Clark 
of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Doan,  Ewing,  Greene, 
Gurley,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Humphre- 
ville, Hunt,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Miner,  Mullen, 
Neal,  Page,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Sample,  Sears, 
Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thompson,  Tripp, 
Tuttle,  Tyler,  Voris,  West,  Wilson,  Young  of 
Champaign — 36. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Less  than  two-thirds  of 
all  the  members  of  the  Convention  having  vot- 
ed lor  the  motion,  it  is  lost. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I now  renew  my  motion  to  pro- 
ceed to  the  order  of  the  day,  being  Proposi- 
tion No.  189. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending 
upon  the  adjournment  yesterday,  was  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  which  the  Secretary  will 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“And  its  Auditor,  Treasurer,  Prosecuting  Attorney  and 
Sheriff  shall  each  he  paid  a stated  salary  out  of  the 
county  treasury,  and  shall  account  and  pay  into  the 
county  treasury  all  fees  collected  by  him,  under  such  reg- 
ulations as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

So  that  it  would  read : 

“Sec.  2.  In  each  county  there  shall  be  elected,  by  the 
qualified  electors  thereof,  the  following  county  officers : 
Probate  Judge,  Sheriff,  Coroner,  Clerk,  Auditor,  Treas- 
urer, Prosecuting  Attorney,  Surveyor,  and  such  other 
county  officers  as  the  Geiferal  Assembly  may,  from  time 
to  time,  create ; and  its  Auditor,  Treasurer,  Prosecuting 
Attorney  and  Sheriff  shall  each  be  paid  a stated  salary 
out  of  the  county  treasury,  and  shall  pay  into  the  county 
treasury  all  fees  collected  by  him  under  such  regulations 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond],  to  amend  the  original  section  two, 
by  adding  what  has  just  been  read. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I desire,  Mr.  President,  to  ad- 
dress the  Convention  only  for  the  ten  minutes 
accorded  to  me  by  the  rule.  It  appears  to  me, 
we  are  progressing  very  fast  in  the  direction  of 
inaugurating  a new  rule  that  may,  during  the 
life  of  the  Constitution,  embarrass  the  legisla- 
tion of  the  State.  The  question  is  squarely 


1456 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 


Voris,  Griswold. 


[117th 

[Wednesday, 


presented  in  this  amendment  now  under  consid- 
eration : Which  is  the  better  plan  for  us  to  adopt 
in  the  Constitution  for  the  payment  of  county 
officers— that  of  salaries  payable  out  of  the 
public  funds,  or  by  fees,  graduated  according 
to  the  amount  and  kind  of  the  services  ren- 
dered? 

In  answering  this  question,  it  should  be  re- 
membered that  any  provisions  we  may  make 
will  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  State  for  an 
indefinitely  long  time  in  the  future — that  our 
enactments  are  not  susceptible  of  amendment 
or  repeal  for,  probably,  one-fourth  of  a century. 

All  recognize  the  fact  that  it  is  bad  policy 
to  frequently  change  the  organic  law  of  a State, 
even  if  it  could  be  done  readily.  Hence,  the 
necessity  of  introducing  any  untried  experi- 
ments with  great  caution.  The  plan  of  paying 
all  our  county  officers  by  salaries,  instead  of  by 
fees,  is,  practically,  an  untried  experiment  in 
Ohio. 

I have  very  grave  fears  that,  in  our  anxiety 
to  correct  one  evil  we  may  fall  into  another 
and  worse  one.  This  is  one  of  those  experi- 
ments that  we  had  better  leave  to  legislative 
discretion,  rather  than  provide  for  it  by  the 
inexorable  decrees  of  constitutional  provisions. 
However,  I believe  we  may  safely  adopt  the 
following  rule : That  all  public  officers  whose 
duties  are  rendered  to  the  public  and  whose 
compensation  is  wholly,  rightfully,  and  directly 
derivable  from  the  public  fund,  may  be  paid  by 
fixed  salaries. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I arise  to  a question  of 
order.  The  gentleman  is  discussing  the  general 
proposition  and  not  the  amendment. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I thank  the  gentleman  for  his 
appreciation  of  the  subject  under  consideration, 
and  of  my  argument! 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Summit  will  keep  within  the  rule. 

Mr.  VORIS.  1 am  happy  to  assure  the  Chair 
that  I am  clearly  within  the  rule. 

But  when  the  services  are  rendered  to  private 
persons,  for  private  purposes,  those  receiving 
the  benefits  should  pay  therefor,  and  in  fees 
graduated  according  to  the  value  of  the  services 
rendered.  And  when  the  service  rendered  is  of 
a mixed  nature,  combining  both  the  elements 
just  given,  the  official  compensation  may  be 
paid  in  either  of  the  foregoing  modes,  as  the 
law-making  power  shall  think  best. 

On  principle,  this  rule  is  correct,  and  one  we 
may  safely  adopt.  What  propriety  or  justice  is 
there  in  the  public  assuming  to  pay  for  services 
never  rendered  to  it,  and  in  which  it  has  no 
other  interest  than  to  provide  the  proper  facili- 
ties, and  the  mode  of  selecting  and  regulating 
them,  so  as  to  protect  the  community  from 
abuses  therefrom  ? 

To  illustrate — what  justice  is  there  in  making 
the  public  pay  a fixed  salary  to  a county  re- 
corder, who  never  renders  any  public  service, 
unless  it  be  in  the  make-up  of  his  indexes, which 
are  as  much  matters  ol  private  as  of  public 
concern ; or  of  the  county  surveyor,  sheriff, 
coroner,  or  clerk  of  the  courts,  not  one  of  whom 
performs  any  service  for  the  public,  only  in 
exceptional  cases,  and  then  the  service  is  al- 
ways susceptible  of  an  ascertainable  fixed  value. 
The  palpable  injustice  of  the  plan  contained  in 


this  section  ought  to  settle  this  matter,  so  far  as 
the  Convention  is  concerned. 

This  scheme,  if  adopted,  is  intended  to  relieve 
part  of  the  public  from  an  abuse  that  has  grown 
out  of  extravagant  compensation  being  paid,  in 
many  of  the  counties,  into  some  of  the  offices  by 
the  fee  system ; and  this  has  arisen  more  from 
the  fact  that  fees  have  been  graduated  to  make 
official  services  compensatory  in  the  smaller 
counties,  than  from  any  other  motive.  But  do 
you  relieve  the  public  from  these  abuses  ? Cer- 
tainly not.  Those  who  pay  for  the  services 
rendered,  must  pay  in  the  mode  now  provided; 
and  to  make  the  offices  self-sustaining  in  the 
less  populous  and  less  wealthy  counties,  if  a 
general  law  be  adopted — and  that  must  be  done, 
unless  we  desire  some  safe  mode  of  classifica- 
tion of  counties — the  evil  will  be  just  as  great 
as  now,  the  abuse  just  as  oppressive  on  tho-e 
who  must  pay ; and  any  deficiency  in  the 
amount  of  the  salary,  from  the  revenues  of  the 
office,  must  be  cast  on  the  public  treasury.  The 
county  fund  thus  becomes  the  ultimate  source 
from  which,  and  upon  which,  all  county  offi- 
cers may  draw.  The  whole  county  becomes 
the  guarantor  for  all  official  salaries;  the  person 
who  has  the  work  performed,  and  the  benefit 
thereof,  is  a person  of  secondary  significance. 
But  this  salary  plan  only  aggravates  the  matter, 
so  far  as  the  county  is  concerned,  and  does  in 
no  sort  relieve  the  individuals  doing  business 
with  the  offices,  unless  the  officer  neglects  to 
collect  the  fees,  of  which  there  will  be  great 
danger.  The  officer  being  sure  of  his  salary, 
and  that  of  his  employes,  will  use  his  clemen- 
cy with  those  dealing  with  his  office  to  make 
‘Triends  of  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness” 
for  the  succession.  Practically,  the  mode  pro- 
posed by  the  section  under  consideration,  as  it 
now  stands,  does  not  attempt — nor  can  it  do  it — 
to  relieve  those  who  are  called  upon  to  pay  for 
the  given  services  rendered  by  the  officer.  It 
remains  as  oppressive  as  ever,  in  the  hands  of 
the  General  Assembly,  and  must  remain  so,  un- 
less relieved  by  legislative  power,  which  may  as 
readily  be  called  into  requisition  under  the  sys- 
tem of  paying  wholly  by  fees,  as  that  by  sala- 
ries out  of  the  public  treasury,  and  this 
returned  again,  so  far  as  it  may  go,  by  the  fees 
collected  of  those  having  the  services  rendered. 
If  the  latter  mode  is  not  contemplated  by  this 
section,  do  tell  us  what  is;  and  how  does  this 
change  the  mode  of  paying  for  the  services  per- 
formed ? 

This  is  reform  with  a vengeance.  It  does  not 
save  the  public  treasury,  that  now  is  under  no 
sort  of  obligation  to  pay  these  officers;  nor 
does  it  relieve  the  persons  having  the  official 
duties  performed  from  a single  abuse. 

So  far  as  the  counties  are  concerned,  it  is 
casting  a burden  on  them  that  heretofore  has 
been  purely  a matter  of  private  concern. 

Please  do  not  urge  this  measure  on  us  in 
the  name  of  economy  or  correction  of  public 
abuses. 

If  an  abuse  has  grown  out  of  the  fee  system, 
which,  in  many  of  the  counties,  exists  beyond 
all  question,  would  it  not  be  better  to  correct 
that  which  is  wrong  in  the  system,  and  do  it  by 
constitutional  provisions,  rather  than  leave  the 
abuse  in  full  vigor,  subject  to  the  delinquencies 
of  legislation,  under  the  provisions  of  this  sec- 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 


1457 


Day.] 

February  18,  1874.] 


Voris,  Wilson,  Baber,  Coats. 


tion  ? That  does  nothing  more  than  transfer  to 
the  public  the  obligation  to  pay  what  was  be- 
fore a matter  purely  private. 

If  this  absurdity  is  not  apparent,  I do  not  see 
how  it  can  be  made  manifest. 

The  same  measures  that  will  protect  the  citi- 
zens of  the  State  who  are  now  compelled,  in 
the  large  and  wealthy  counties,  to  pay  for  their 
transactions  with  these  offices,  from  extortion, 
will  correct  all  the  evils  sought  to  be  remedied 
by  the  provisions  of  this  section ; and  this  you 
are  perfectly  satisfied  to  leave  to  the  General 
Assembly,  to  regulate,  from  time  to  time,  as  its 
judgment  may  determine. 

The  people  will  analyze  this  section  if  we  put 
it  in  the  Constitution,  and  necessarily  come  to 
the  conclusions  just  indicated ; and  no  power  of 
sophistry  or  reasoning  can  lead  them  to  any 
other  conclusions. 

These  objections  do  not  lie  to  the  Auditors’, 
Treasurers’,  Prosecuting  Attorneys’,  Commis- 
sioners’, and  only  partially  to  the  Probate 
Judges’  offices.  For  the  nature  of  their 
services  are  public,  and  rendered  to  it,  and 
their  pay  comes  from  it.  But  your  Clerks’, 
Sheriffs’,  Coroners’,  Recorders’,  and  County 
Surveyors’  offices  cannot  be  justly  paid  by  sal- 
aries ; for  the  moment  you  make  them  salaried 
offices,  that  moment  does  the  public  step  in  and 
become  obligated  to  pay  these  salaries,  though 
the  public  may  not  have  a single  service  per- 
formed by  them  for  its  purposes. 

The  experiment  is  an  untried  one,  so  far  as 
the  last-named  offices  are  concerned,  and 
involves  so  many  complications,  that  the  wis- 
dom of  this  body  would  be  exhibited  in  a very 
unfavorable  light  if  we  undertook  to  put  it 
beyond  the  law-making  power  of  the  State,  for 
the  next  fourth  of  a century,  to  relieve  the  State 
from  the  evils  that  the  salary  system  would 
inflict  on  the  public  in  the  administration  of 
these  offices. 

The  legislation  of  the  State  has  wisely  been 
in  the  right  direction  for  the  last  three  or  lour 
years. 

Legislation  inquiring  into  the  amount  of  fees 
made  by  the  Auditors,  Treasurers,  County 
Commissioners,  Recorders,  Sheriffs  and  Probate 
Judges  per  annum,  as  exhibited  in  the  reports 
now  required  from  all  the  last-mentioned 
officers,  show  that  the  law-making  power  of 
the  State  is  awake  to  the  necessity  of  a reform, 
and  certainly  has  demonstrated  a tact,  and 
desire  to  know  wherefore,  and  how  it  ought  to 
be  done.  This  ought  to  secure  confidence  in 
the  future  intentions  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State.  The  law  requiring  these  reports  to  be 
made  is  the  safest  and  most  business-like  move 
in  the  right  direction  made  by  the  State  since  I 
have  been  an  observer  of  its  political  arrange- 
ments, and  will  shortly  furnish  the  data  for 
intelligently  correcting  the  abuses  we  are  so 
anxiously  striving  to  prevent  in  this  Article. 

As  wise  men,  we  ought  to  be  careful  how 
we  place  obstacles  in  the  way  of  perfecting  the 
reforms  now  in  progress  in  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  in  this  behalf. 

We  shall  have  done  our  whole  duty  when,  by 
general  principles,  we  provide  that  the  fees  of 
any  given  office  shall  not  exceed  a fair  compen- 
sative sum.  But  to  enter  into  details  in  the 
Constitution  would  be  committing  a folly  only 

v.  n-94 


equalled  by  making  these  offices,  when  the 
services  are  rendered  to  private  individuals* 
for  private  purposes,  salaried  offices. 

Arrange  matters  as  we  will,  we  must,  never- 
theless, trust  the  General  Assembly  for  all 
matters  of  detail.  Yea,  more;  for  the  great 
mass  of  our  social  arrangements,  we  must,  from 
the  very  nature  of  things,  trust  to  the  ordinary 
legislation  of  the  State;  and  this  is  peculiarly 
one  of  those  matters  where  legislation  should 
exercise  its  functions.  Safety  does  not  half  so 
much  exist  in  constitutional  provisions  as  in 
the  wisdom  and  justice  of  legislation. 

Make  your  Legislatures  what  they  should  ber 
and  your  Constitutions  will  become  old  musty 
records,  only  preserved  as  matters  of  history. 
Let  them  fall  into  insignificance,  and  no  organic 
law  can  save  us,  or  even  make  us  tolerably 
respectable. 

Except  the  people  themselves,  the  Legisla- 
ture is  the  vitalizing  power  that  preserves  our 
institutions  from  decay,  and  the  public  from 
abuses. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I would  inquire  if  it  is  in 
order  to  offer  a substitute  for  the  whole  of  sec- 
tion 2? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  whole  section  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  whole  of  section  2. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  at  present  an 
amendment  pending  to  an  amendment  of  that 
section.  It  would  not  be  in  order  at  this  time. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I would  give  notice  of  the 
following  substitute,  which  I desire  to  have 
read,  and  which  I propose  to  offer  at  the  proper 
time. 

There  being  no  objection,  the  substitute  was 
read  for  information. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Substitute  for  section  2,  Proposition  189: 

“In  the  county  there  shall  be  elected,  by  the  qualified 
electors  thereof,  a Probate  Judge,  Sheriff,  Coroner,  Coun- 
ty Clerk,  Auditor,  Prosecuting  Attorney,  Surveyor, 
County  Commissioners,  Infirmary  Director,  and  such 
other  officers  as  may  be  directed  by  the  General  Assembly ; 
and  such  officers  shall  be  paid  such  salary  or  fees  as  may 
be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  BABER.  I desire  to  perfect  the  original 
section,  because  I think  it  open  to  objections, 
by  offering  an  amendment,  which  I will  read 
and  send  to  the  Chair.  I move  to  amend  sec- 
tion 2 by  adding  at  the  end : 

“The  salaries  of  Probate  Judges,  Sheriffs,  Coroners 
and  Surveyors  shall  be  paid  wholly  out  of  the  fees  col- 
lected, and  in  no  case  shall  they  exceed  the  sum.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
the  amendment  to  section  2,  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 

Mr.  COATS.  I desire,  Mr.  President,  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  an  omission 
which  I think  is  running  through  the  entire 
proceedings  upon  this  Article.  It  was  an- 
nounced to  the  Convention  by  the  Chairman  of 
the  Standing  Committee,  on  his  attention  being 
called  thereto,  that  in  the  Report,  inadvertently, 
by  a clerical  error  or  mistake,  he  had  omitted 
the  office  of  recorder,  and  if  I am  not  mistaken, 
the  office  of  recorder  has  never  appeared  in  the 
reading  of  this  section  in  any  of  its  stages. 
The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
says  there  was  some  opposition  to  the  office  of 
recorder.  That  is  all  very  true ; but  the  Stand- 
ing Committee  reported  in  favor  of  retaining 
the  recorder,  and  the  omission  should  be  sup- 


1458 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [117th 

Coats,  Baber,  Neal,  Tuttle.  [Wednesday, 


plied,  it  having  been  by  a clerical  error,  omit- 
ted in  the  original  Report  of  the  Committee. 
The  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  in- 
forms me  that  upon  his  motion  it  was  ordered 
to  be  inserted,  when  under  consideration  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  I think  he  is  correct 
in  this  statement;  but  by  some  error  or  inad- 
vertence it  has  still  been  omitted,  and  that  we 
may  go  on  understandingly,  and  not  get  our- 
selves into  a predicament  that  it  would  be  hard 
to  extricate  ourselves  from,  I suggest  that  it 
should  so  be  perfected  that  we  shall  know  what 
we  are  doing. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  to  a 
suggestion  ? 

Mr.  COATS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  proposition  of  the  Com- 
mittee defining  the  officers  was  stricken  out. 
This  is  a new  section  put  in,  so  I believe  the 
first  question  will  be  whether  you  will  agree  to 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
That  question  is  not  now  before  the  Conven- 
tion. The  question  is  on  agreeing  to  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  COATS.  If  the  gentleman  will  under- 
stand me,  he  will  learn  that  1 am  not  making 
any  motion.  I am  only  suggesting  that  the 
Report  of  the  Standing  Committee  be  corrected 
or  perfected  so  as  to  be  what  the  Report  originally 
was.  I do  not  offer  an  amendment,  nor  do  I 
make  a motion,  but  simply  make  a suggestion. 
I think  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  is  mis- 
taken, in  relerence  to  the  matter  having  been 
stricken  out,  as  he  claims. 

The  PRESIDENT.  After  the  disposition  of 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond]  the  gentleman  from  Union  [Mr.  Coats] 
can  offer  an  amendment  to  that  effect. 

Mr.  COATS.  I do  not  offer  an  amendment. 
I merely  make  a suggestion  that  “ Recorder  ” 
should  be  inserted,  and  so  an  error  corrected. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Is  not  that  the  first  question 
before  the  Convention? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes;  that  is  the  first 
question.  The  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond]  proposes  to  perfect  that  section  reported 
by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  question 
is,  therefore,  upon  the  amendment  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  to  section  two. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  say  a word 
before  the  vote  is  taken ; and  I speak,  partly, 
because  I think  it  likely  the  experience,  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  State,  has  been  quite  different. 
I have  heard  a good  deal  of  complaint,  for  in- 
stance, upon  the  subject  of  constructive  fees ; 
and  I think  it  is  aground  of  complaint,  more  or 
less,  all  over  the  State.  It  certainly  exists,  to 
some  extent,  in  my  own  part  of  the  State,  and 
in  others  it  is  said  to  exist.  But  from  the  com- 
plaints, I think  it  must  exist  a great  deal  more 
in  other  parts  of  the  State  than  in  ours.  I have 
heard  mention  made  of  such  matters  to  a much 
greater  extent  than,  as  I think,  any  officer  in 
our  part  of  the  State  has  ever  ventured  upon. 
But  then,  it  seems  to  me,  that  this  is  the  way  to 
correct  that  matter.  If  officers  will  act  dishon- 
estly, or  will  do  that  which  looks  dishonest, 
under  the  pretense  of  construction  of  law 
which  they  adapt  to  themselves,  I do  not  believe 
you  can  come  at  them  by  substituting  any  plan 
of  this  sort.  If  an  officer,  when  the  fees 
are  his,  will,  in  defiance  of  law,  with  all 


the  penal  sanctions  of  law  arrayed  against 
him,  take  illegal  fees,  under  circumstances 
where  he  cannot  fail  to  know  better,  he 
will  do  the  same  stealing  in  some  other  way 
when  the  fees  are  not  to  be  his.  He  will  steal 
them  after  he  has  collected  them.  If  you  un- 
dertake to  correct  the  matter  by  fixing  a salary, 
and  then  providing  that  he  shall  account  for  the 
fees  that  he  shall  receive,  the  next  thing  that 
he  will  do,  and  which  he  can  do  without  any 
more  clear  violation  of  law  than  the  violations 
that  are  complained  of,  will  be  to  pocket  the 
fees  and  avoid  accounting  for  them.  Now,  it 
seems  to  me,  that  the  proposed  amendment  is 
the  correct  one.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  true 
principle  to  adopt  in  the  payment  for  services, 
such  as  is  rendered  by  most  of  these  officers,  is 
to  pay  them  what  they  are  worth.  The  treasu- 
rer, and  I do  not  know  but  very  likely  the 
auditor,  may  very  well  be  paid  by  salary.  I 
think  also,  to  some  extent,  the  prosecuting  at- 
torney. But  with  the  sheriff,  the  coroner,  and 
commissioners,  and  the  recorder,  it  seems  to  me 
the  true  plan  is  to  require  them  to  be  paid 
what  their  services  are  worth;  and  especially 
the  sheriff.  It  is  a fair  example,  as  it  seems  to 
me.  The  services  which  the  sheriff  renders  are 
almost  all  of  them  rendered  to  individuals.  A 
portion  of  them  are  rendered  to  the  State,  and 
I believe  the  law  now  provides  that  for  that 
service  he  shall  receive  a certain  fixed  compen- 
sation ; at  least,  I think  he  does  eventually  re- 
ceive a limited  compensation  for  a portion  of 
his  services  from  the  State.  But  in  the  case  of 
individuals,  I cannot  see  any  reason  why  a man 
who  goes  to  law  shall  be  required  to  pay  any 
more  to  the  sheriff,  or  for  the  services  of  the 
sheriff,  or  for  the  services  of  the  clerk  for 
that  matter  (but  the  sheriff  is  the  case  now 
under  consideration)  why  he  should  be  re- 
quired to  pay  more  than  the  service  is 
worth.  If  he  wants  the  sheriff  to  go  and 
summon  witnesses,  I do  not  see  why  he 
should  pay  for  something  that  is  to  go  into  the 
coffers  of  the  State.  If  you  should  say  he  must 
pay  toll  for  the  privilege  of  going  into  the  sher- 
iff’s office,  because  the  sheriff’s  office  is  a pub- 
lic building,  why,  fix  the  toll;  and,  when  he 
goes  into  the  office,  let  him  pay  the  toll.  Let 
that  which  ought  to  be  paid  to  the  State  be  paid 
to  it.  But,  of  course,  nobody  believes  anything 
of  that  sort.  If  the  service  is  done,  and  the  pay 
is  only  compensatory,  why  should  not  the  man 
who  does  the  service  receive  the  pay?  Shall 
he  require  the  sheriff  to  perform  services  in  ex- 
cess of  what  he  receives  pay  for,  so  that  some- 
thing of  that  he  receives,  although  he  has 
earned  it  all,  shall  nevertheless  be  paid  to  the 
State?  You  must  do  one  thing  or  the  other. 
The  litigant  must  either  pay  for  the  sheriff’s 
services  more  than  these  services  are  worth,  or 
the  sheriff  must  receive  less  than  they  are 
worth,  or  there  must  be  nothing  from  this 
source  paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  State.  Now, 
I believe  that  a man  who  goes  to  law,  and  in- 
curs the  expense  of  it,  pays  the  State  enough. 
People  sometimes  think  that  the  public,  who 
do  not  go  to  law,  have  no  interest  in  the  litiga- 
tion of  those  who  do  go  to  law.  It  is  a great 
mistake.  The  reason  why  many  a man  does 
not  ever  have  to  go  to  law,  is  because  the 
means  are  provided,  and  somebody  else  does. 


1459 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  18,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Griswold,  Pond,  Neal,  Voris,  Hoadly. 


Those  who  do  not  go  to  law,  may  say  of  those 
who  do,  as  the  apostle  said  of  old,  of  another 
matter,  “We  have  entered  into  their  labors.” 
And,  I believe  it  is  a false  principle  that  would 
undertake  to  tax  the  litigant  beyond  the  value 
of  the  services  rendered  for  the  benefit  of  the 
treasury.  Beyond  that,  I have  this  objection, 
that  I do  not  believe  it  will  secure  as  good  ser- 
vices. I do  not  believe  a sheriff,  who  under- 
stands his  compensation  fixed,  no  matter  how 
much  he  does,  nor  to  how  much  inconvenience 
he  is  put,  nor  whether  it  is  to  be  done  by  night 
or  by  day,  that  he  will  be  willing  at  all  times, 
and  under  all  circumstances,  to  start  out  when- 
ever the  convenience  of  a suitor  may  demand, 
to  put  on  an  extra  horse  when  an  extra  horse 
is  necessary,  as  he  might  if  he  understood  that 
each  service  would  bringits  own  compensation. 
He  will  directly  have  office  hours  and  office 
rules,  and  a man  must  come  to  him  with  his 
subpoena  within  those  hours,  and  according  to 
those  rules,  or  he  will  say,  I cannot  attend 
to  the  matter  now;  I cannot  start  out  and 
ride  by  night  to  attend  to  business  that  is 
of  no  benefit  to  me.  I think  the  same  would  be 
said  of  the  recorder.  A man  wants  a copy  of  a 
deed,  wants  it  early  in  the  morning.  There  is 
great  need  of  it,  and  the  need  has  been  discover- 
ed recently.  He  has  had  no  opportunity  before. 
Or  he  wants  it  late  at  night.  I do  not  know  how 
it  is  in  other  parts  of  the  State,  but  in  our  part 
of  the  State,  I think  the  usual  experience  is,  on 
going  and  telling  the  recorder  that  the  fees  will 
be  ready  for  him,  that  he  will  be  ready  to  write 
by  day  or  even  by  night,  and  make  out  the  copy 
that  is  wanted.  But  let  him  understand  that 
his  compensation  will  not  be  increased  for  the 
service,  l think  it  will  be  found  that  he  has 
office  hours.  There  are  times  when  he  will  at- 
tend to  his  business,  and  times  when  he  cannot 
be  found  anywhere  to  attend  to  his  business,  be- 
cause he  is  going  to  be  paid  a certain  sum ; but, 
if  he  works  any  more  than  office  hours,  and  gets 
nothing  for  it,  he  says,  I receive  no  compensa- 
tion, and  I cannot  afford  to  pass  sleepless  nights. 
I cannot  afford  to  work  out  of  business  hours 
for  you  or  for  any  man  when  I am  to  receive 
nothing  for  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  a ques- 
tion in  reference  to  his  amendment.  Already 
the  Judiciary  Article  provides  that  the  probate 
judge  and  the  clerk  shall  have  salaries.  Now, 
if  we  keep  this  Article  declaring  this  to  be 
county  officers,  and  he  puts  in  his  amendment, 
how  does  it  affect  the  matter?  Are  the  provi- 
sions then  inconsistent?  It  seems  to  me,  that 
the  better  way  is  to  adopt  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Neal,  then,  by  putting  in  this  in  addition 
to  what  has  been  done,  and  going  on  and  de- 
claring these  officers — putting  it  in  that  shape 
leaves  the  language  at  loose  ends  all  around.  I 
only  make  this  as  a suggestion  to  him. 

Mr.  POND.  As  I will  not  be  allowed  to 
speak  on  the  question  without  leave 

Mr.  NEAL.  Now,  in  reference  to  what  the 
gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  says, 
the  auditor’s  statistics  show  that  the  auditor, 
treasurer,  clerk,  and  probate  judge,  after  pay- 
ing all  clerk  hire,  the  net  compensation  was 
$11,373.12,  by  the  auditor’s  report  last  year, 
within  $163.00  of  what  the  supreme  judges  of 


the  State  received  during  that  period.  And 
when  you  add  to  that  amount  the  clerk’s  fees, 
he  says  there  has  been  no  complaint.  I do  not 
suppose  the  officers  complain  at  all  that  they 
have  been  able  to  get  this  compensation. 

Mr.  YORIS.  How  do  you  propose  to  regu- 
late the  abuses  that  are  made  against  those  who 
are  made  to  pay  these  extravagant  salaries  by 
your  provision  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  We  propose  it  shall  go 
into  the  county  treasury,  and  if  the  Legislature 
have  any  wisdom  about  them,  and  I suppose 
they  will  have,  it  will  charge  these  officers  with 
all  the  fees  and  not  pay  them  a single  cent  of 
salary  until  every  fee  is  paid  into  the  treasury. 

Mr.  YORIS.  That  does  not  meet  the  ques- 
tion. How  are  you  going  to  correct  this  with- 
out charging  for  services?  I think  that  they 
should  be  paid  into  the  county  treasury  for  the 
general  expenses.  That  is  done.  But  do  not 
those  who  remain  a long  term  make  a fortune 
out  of  the  county  office? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  have  a special  tax. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Precisely.  That  is  just  what 
we  are  trying  to  meet,  by  paying  what  is  a fair 
compensation,  as  near  as  toe  can , for  that  work. 
But  where  it  has  accumulated  in  such  a manner 
as  to  make  it  a source  of  revenue,  the  county 
shall  have  the  benefit  of  it,  so  that  it  will  go  to 
pay  other  county  expenses. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  it  practicable  to  adopt 
any  other  system  of  reform,  unless  you  establish 
a fixed  separate  system  of  fees  for  each  separate 
office  in  each  separate  county  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Not  at  all.  You  cannot 
do  it  otherwise,  unless  you  adopt  this  principle 
and  then  charge  the  fees,  so  that  the  officers 
shall  not  have  their  pay  until  these  fees  are 
paid  over  into  the  county  treasury.  It  is  prac- 
ticable to  do  that.  Then  you  will  have  a reform. 
That  is  the  system  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment with  all  their  officers  who  charge  fees. 
They  are  required  to  pay  over  the  fees  into  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States.  They  do  not 
receive  their  salaries  until  the  fees  are  paid,  or 
properly  accounted  for.  They  have  in  the 
county  of  Trumbull,  county  officers  who  are 
receiving  enormous  salaries,  more  than  you  pay 
for  first  class  accountants  in  any  business  in  the 
country.  All  their  clerk  hire  is  paid,  and 
simply  for  the  officers  themselves,  the  net  com- 
pensation reaches  an  average  of  three  thousand 
dollars  a year  to  every  county  officer  in  that 
county.  And  in  my  county  it  is  a fortune  to  a 
man  to  get  a county  office  for  a couple  of  terms, 
or  even  for  a single  term.  It  is  reform  that  the 
people  demand ; that  this  sort  of  expense  shall 
be  equalized,  and  that  those  additional  fees 
shall  go  into  the  county  treasury  to  pay  the 
other  county  expenses— of  the  judiciary,  etc. 
And  the  only  question  is,  how  shall  we  arrive 
at  it  in  the  best  manner?  My  judgment  is, 
that  this  can  best  be  done  by  the  amendment  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  by  requiring  those 
officers  to  receive  those  fees,  naming  them,  and 
we  shall  have  accomplished  a relorm  worthy  of 
this  Convention,  and  one  that  the  people  de- 
mand. Take  up  any  county  office  and  see  how 
much  the  fees  are,  and  what  is  the  work  per- 
formed for  the  money  that  the  people  pay  them, 
and  this  upon  their  own  statement.  Besides 


1460 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS [117th 

Pond,  Hoadly,  Hunt,  Humphreville,  Neal,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


this,  there  are  the  uncollected  fees,  not  reported, 
to  which  they  are  entitled. 

Mr.  POND.  I desire  to  offer  an  addition  to 
the  amendment  proposed  by  me  to  the  first  orig- 
inal section,  if  it  meets  with  no  objection,  and 
which,  I think,  will  add  to  the  efficiency  of  the 
section,  if  it  should  be  adopted.  Add  to  the 
amendment  proposed  by  me  the  following 
words : 

“And  the  salaries  of  Probate  Judges,  Clerks  of  Courts 
and  Sheriffs  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  fees  by  such  offi- 
cers collected  and  paid  into  the  treasury.” 

The  reading  of  the  entire  amendment  was 
called  for. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  to  the  section: 

“And  the  Auditor,  Treasurer,  Prosecuting  Attorney 
and  Sheriff  shall  each  be  paid  a stated  salary  out  of  the 
treasury  of  the  proper  county,  and  shall  account  and  pay 
into  the  treasury  all  fees  collected  by  him,  under  such 
regulations  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

“And  the  salaries  of  Probate  Judges,  Clerks  of  Courts 
and  Sheriffs  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  fees  by  such  officer 
collected  and  paid  into  the  treasury.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  amendment  is  received. 

Mr.  POND.  I want  to  explain  why  I in- 
cluded in  this  last  amendment  probate  judges 
and  clerks  of  the  courts.  They  are  made  sala- 
ried officers,  substantially,  by  Article  IV  of  the 
Constitution ; and  I apprehend  it  will  be  per- 
fectly legitimate  to  put  this  limitation  upon 
their  duties.  Allow  me  to  make  this  further 
remark.  The  reason  why  I have  left  out  au- 
ditors, treasurers,  and  prosecuting  attorneys 
is,  that  none  of  them  are  paid,  substantially,  by 
fees.  They  are  now,  substantially,  salaried 
officers.  It  is  true  the  auditor  receives  a small 
amount  of  fees;  the  treasurer  receives  some- 
thing in  the  way  of  per  centage  on  penalties, 
which  may  be  considered  fees. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  We  have  in  this  county  two 
county  officers  that  are  not  within  the  class 
named.  The  offices  are  created  by  law.  They 
are  very  important  offices.  One  of  them  is 
county  engineer,  the  other  is  the  office  of 
county  solicitor.  Tt  has  been  found  in  this 
county  that  the  prosecuting  attorney  has  his 
entire  time  occupied  in  prosecuting  criminals ; 
therefore,  we  have  established  the  office  of 
county  solicitor.  I should  like  to  have  the 
gentleman  modify  his  provision  in  some  way, 
so  that  it  would  cover  such  cases.  It  having 
been  found  that  these  offices  are  necessary,  with- 
in the  next  twenty  years  they  may  be  found 
necessary  in  Cuyahoga,  and  other  counties.  And 
the  county  solicitor  is  a gentleman  who,  if  you 
allow  him  to  charge  fees,  will  very  easily,  on 
the  scale  of  fees  that  lawyers  charge  here,  be 
able  to  make  a pretty  good  bill. 

Mr.  POND.  What  is  his  salary  now  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Twenty-five  hundred  dol- 
lars. 

Mr.  POND.  Is  he  paid  entirely  by  salary  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  He  is  paid  entirely  by 
salary. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I would  say  to  the  gentleman 
there  is  still  another  office,  that  ought  to  be  in- 
cluded, that  is  the  office  of  coroner. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  extends  all  over  the 
State.  It  is  not  within  the  purpose  of  the  sug- 
gestion. 

Mr.  POND.  It  has  been  mentioned  that 


there  are  other  county  officers  that  ought  to  be 
included  in  this  amendment.  It  is  very  diffi- 
cult to  arrange  it.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
county  commissioners  ought  to  be  limited  by 
the  same  rule.  There  is  a great  want  of  uni- 
formity in  the  fees  received  by  county  commis- 
sioners for  their  services.  I should  be  willing 
to  accept  any  amendment  that  may  be  suggested 
to  reach  these  cases.  I think  these  county  offi- 
cers ought  to  be  placed  under  this  limitation. 
An  objection  has  been  made  to  the  original  sec- 
tion, because  of  a disinclination  to  make  consti- 
tutional offices.  I do  not  believe  it  is  necessary, 
perhaps,  to  make  any  more  constitutional  offices 
than  are  desirable  to  be  covered  by  the  terms  of 
this  provision,  and  it  seemed  to  me,  that  in 
order  to  do  this  effectually,  so  that  there  would 
be  no  difficulty  or  doubt  about  it  hereafter,  that 
those  officers  whose  salary  you  wish  to  limit  in 
this  way,  should  be  indicated  by  the  terms  of 
the  Constitution. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Would  fixing  upon 
the  officers  named  as  salaried  officers,  preclude 
the  Legislature  from  making  other  officers 
salaried  officers? 

Mr.  POND.  No,  sir.  That  is  not  the  inten- 
tion, and  l do  not  think  it  would  be  the  effect. 
It  simply  prescribes  that  the  fees  shall  be  limited 
to  the  salary. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I shall  vote  for  this  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  not 
because  I am  in  favor  of  the  original  proposi- 
tion, for  I shall  vote  against  it,  but  because  the 
principle  embodied  in  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  is  correct.  If  the 
original  proposition  of  the  Committee  is  to  be 
adopted,  then  it  ought  to  be  amended  as  moved 
by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond], 
and  I trust  that  every  member  in  favor  of  pay- 
ing officers  by  salary  will  vote  for  this  amend- 
ment, even  if  they  intend,  as  I do,  to  vote 
against  the  original  proposition,  and  for  the 
substitute  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  I 
have  listened  with  a good  deal  of  interest  to  the 
arguments  that  have  been  offered 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  Is  not  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  by  way  of 
addition  to  the  amendment  made  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  To  the  original  proposition  of 
the  Standing  Committee.  I was  going  on  to  say 
that  I have  listened  with  a good  deal  of  interest 
to  arguments  which  have  been  advanced  against 
the  idea  of  salarying  officers;  but  I fail  to  be 
convinced,  either  by  the  earnest  eloquence  of 
the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  or 
the  profound  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle].  I think  the  gentle- 
man from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  got  a good 
deal  mixed  up  in  the  remarks  which  he  made. 
It  has  not  been  proposed  here  by  anybody  to 
compel  the  Legislature  to  fix  salaries  for  county 
recorders,  yet  almost  his  entire  argument  was 
based  upon  that  idea.  I think,  therefore,  his 
argument  based  upon  that  office  also  falls  to 
the  ground.  We  propose  to  leave  that  entirely 
within  the  discretion  of  the  Legislature,  to  com- 
pensate those  officers  as  they  may,  in  their 
wisdom,  think  best. 


Day.]  SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  18,  1874.]  Wilson,  Neal,  Pratt,  Sears,  Tuttle,  Baber. 


1461 


Mr.  WILSON.  The  county  treasurer  shall 
pay  his  fees  into  the  treasury  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Suppose  that  after  they  are 
all  paid  in  the  treasurer  absconds,  what  becomes 
of  his  salary  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Why,  the  county  treasurer’s 
securities  are  responsible  for  the  salary,  just  as 
they  are  for  any  other  money  that  the  treasurer 
may  steal  and  run  off  with. 

Mr.  WILSON.  It  would  be  safer  for  him  to 
keep  it  in  his  own  hands. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  General  Assembly  can, 
under  this  provision,  pas»  a law  authorizing 
him  to  retain  in  his  hands  so  much  of  the  fees 
as  will  amount  to  his  salary,  just  as  they  have 
done  in  the  case  of  Hamilton  county,  and  it  has 
not  been  found  to  work  disadvantageously. 
We  propose  to  compel  the  Legislature  to  apply 
the  same  law  to  every  county  in  the  State  that 
they  have  applied  to  the  county  of  Hamilton. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  what  are  the  facts  in 
regard  to  the  fees  which  have  been  paid  to 
sheriffs  within  the  year  1873  ? The  sheriff  of  the 
county  of  Montgomery  received,  in  round  num- 
bers, $9,000.  Is  there  any  gentleman  on  this 
floor  that  would  undertake  to  justify  a salary  of 
that  kind  ? There  is  not  a man  here  that  would 
say  that  the  sheriff  of  Montgomery  county 
should  have  such  excessive  compensation. 
Under  the  salary  bill  the  sheriff  of  Hamilton 
county  received  $8,000,  where  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  services  are  a great  deal  more  onerous 
and  laborious  than  in  Montgomery  county. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Would  that  amount  received 
cover  the  full  amount  of  salary  that  he  has 
received?  Does  it  include  uncollected  costs? 

Mr.  NEAL.  An  examination  of  the  Auditor 
of  State’s  Report  shows  that  it  does. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Allow  me  to  suggest  those  are 
his  net  fees. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Now,  again,  the  sheriff  of  Scioto 
county,  a county  of  29,000  inhabitants,  received 
last  year  $4,232,  net.  Every  man  knows  that 
his  services  are  not  worth  anything  like  that 
sum  of  money. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Did  he  not  pay  out  $2,000  for 
livery  hire? 

Mr.  NEAL.  No,  sir ; he  kept  his  own  horse. 
The  statistics  show  that  the  legal  business  of 
Scioto  county  is  not  nearly  as  large  as  that  of 
Mahoning  county,  while  in  point  of  fact  the 
sheriff  of  Mahoning  county  received  $2,182. 

Mr.  WILSON.  He  lets  his  fees  stand  back 
for  poor  widows.  By  your  system  he  will 
take  them  by  the  throat  with  an  execution. 

Mr.  NEAL.  No,  sir;  that  is  an  argument 
that  has  no  weight  whatever.  The  sheriff  will 
be  required  by  law  to  collect  these  fees.  He  is 
now  compelled,  in  order  to  collect  them,  to 
strangle  all  these  poor  widow  women  and  or- 
phans that  the  gentleman  from  Mahoning  takes 
such  an  interest  in. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  these  several  county  of- 
ficers throughout  the  State  of  Ohio,  received 
last  year  $1,400,000  in  round  numbers,  average- 
ing  $16,000  to  acounty ; more  than  any  class  of 


men  of  the  same  ability  and  same  business 
character  and  qualifications  have  received. 

If  we  adopt  this  principle  of  salarying 
these  officers,  two  things  will  result.  In  the 
first  place,  the  Legislature  will  grade  the  sala- 
ries so  as  to  give  sufficient  compensation  to 
every  officer,  and  at  the  same  time  save  us  not 
less  than  $400,000.  One  million  dollars  will  pay 
the  entire  salaries  of  these  county  officers.  In 
the  second  place,  Mr.  President,  the  Legislature 
will  then  have  no  inducement  to  pay  the  sheriffs 
and  clerks  exorbitant  fees  which  make  litigation 
so  terribly  expensive  as  it  now  is;  but  they 
will  carefully  and  deliberately  consider  these  fee 
bills  and  reduce  them  to  what  they,  in  reason, 
ought  to  be.  There  will  not  be  an  army  of  she- 
riffs and  clerks  of  courts  marching  to  Colum- 
bus every  winter  to  lobby  with  the  General  As- 
sembly, for  an  increase  of  fees. 

I hope,  therefore,  that  this  amendment  will  be 
adopted  to  the  section  reported  by  the  Standing 
Committee,  and,  finally,  the  substitute  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  will  be  adopted  in 
place  of  this  section,  because  I am  opposed  to 
making  any  of  these  offices  constitutional,  any 
farther  in  their  character  than  experience  has 
demonstrated  it  is  necessary  that  it  should  be 
done. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I should  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Very  well. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I understand  the  gentleman 
to  say  that  he  does  not  propose  to  apply  this  to 
the  county  recorder.  Does  not  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  express- 
ly apply  to  all  kinds  of  officers  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  amendment  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  applies  it  to  all,  but  the  amend- 
ment which  I offered,  and  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  which 
is  under  consideration,  does  not  apply  it  to  the 
county  recorder.  It  applies  to  the  prosecuting 
attorney,  the  clerk  of  the  court,  and  probate 
judge;  and,  let  me  say  here,  we  have  already 
agreed  to  apply  the  principle  to  the  sheriff  and 
probate  judge,  and  we  now  practically  compen- 
sate prosecuting  attorneys  and  auditors  by  sal- 
aries. So  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  only  change 
which  we  make  from  the  existing  law,  if  this 
Article  be  adopted,  is  to  apply  this  principle  of 
salaries  to  treasurers  and  sheriffs. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  What  I want  further  to  ask 
is,  whether  there  is  any  principle  that  makes  it 
applicable  to  the  sheriff  that  would  not  apply  to 
the  county  recorder  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  No,  sir;  it  will  not,  as  the  gen- 
tleman will  find  upon  examination  of  the  sta- 
tistics. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  hope  that  all  the  friends 
of  this  reform  in  regard  to  salaries  will  vote  for 
the  amendment  offered  by  my  friend  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond].  Perhaps  the  amendment  does 
not  go  as  far  as  some  of  us  desire  to  go ; but 
after  a great  deal  of  thought  and  some  investi- 
gation of  figures  upon  this  subject,  I have  be- 
come convinced  that  we  had  better  take  what 
we  can  get.  Now,  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  apply- 
ing it  to  the  offices  of  sheriff,  clerk,  probate 
judge,  auditor  and  treasurer,  will  have  the  ef- 
fect of  giving  the  power  somewhere  to  limit 
these  enormous  salaries  or  compensations 


1462 


COMPENSATION  OF  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [117th 

Baber,  Hale,  Pond,  Griswold.  [Wednesday, 


which,  according  to  the  Report  of  the  Auditor 
of  State,  amount  to  over  $1,200,000,  in  round 
numbers.  Last  night  I made  a little  calculation, 
in  order  that  gentlemen  may  understand  how 
much  these  five  county  officers  are  getting. 
There  are  four  hundred  and  forty  of  them  in 
the  eighty-eight  counties  of  the  State ; and  the 
average  rate  of  compensation  of  each  is  almost 
$2,750.  It  seems  to  me  this  is  an  evil  we  should 
correct.  The  idea  that  these  county  officers, 
probate  judge,  clerk,  sheriff,  auditor  and  trea- 
surer, should  be  receiving  as  much  or  more  com- 
pensation, on  an  average,  through  the  State,  as 
you  pay  to  your  judges  of  the  court  of  com- 
mon pleas,  it  strikes  me  that  this  is  a thing 
that  demands  a remedy.  This  amendment  does 
remedy  it;  and  it  meets  the  objection  of  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris],  and  other 
gentlemen,  that  the  tendency  of  this  system  was 
to  throw  the  salary  upon  the  county  treasury. 
This  amendment  provides  that  in  the  case  of 
the  probate  judge,  the  clerk  and  the  sheriff, 
which  are  feed  offices,  the  fees  shall,  in  no  case, 
exceed  the  actual  amount  collected  and  paid 
in,  thereby  meeting  the  objection  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris],  and  other 
gentlemen  upon  this  subject.  They  are  only  to 
be  paid  to  the  extent  of  the  fees  actually  col- 
lected by  them.  In  the  case  of  the  auditor  and 
treasurer,  they  receive  now  their  salary  by  per- 
centage and  other  allowances  from  the  county 
treasury,  and  the  total  amount  received  in  one 
case  by  the  Auditor  of  Hamilton  was  $20,000, 
and  in  the  treasury  was  $40,000. 

Mr.  HALE.  I would  like  right  there  to  ask 
the  gentleman  a practical  question.  He  says 
the  salaries  are  not  to  exceed  the  fees  that  are 
allowed  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Actually  collected. 

Mr.  HALE.  Actually  collected.  Well,  now, 
the  sheriff  and  the  recorder  take  their  fees. 
The  sheriff’s  fees  are  charged  up  during  his 
term — a large  amount.  Do  you  propose  to  reg- 
ulate that,  that  he  shall  receive  his  salary, 
according  to  the  fees  collected,  and  when  col- 
lected,!^ will  get  his  salary  running  through 
three  or  four  years  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  That  is  a matter  for  the  Leg- 
islature to  regulate.  There  is  no  trouble  about 
that.  We  cannot  go  into  details. 

Mr.  HALE.  I am  troubled  about  it.  I would 
like  to  know. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  think  there  is  any 
trouble  upon  that  subject.  I think  the  Legis- 
lature can  pass  a law  regulating  the  salary  so  as 
to  meet  this  objection  by  graduating  the  feet. 

Mr.  HALE.  How  would  you  do  it? 

Mr.  BABER.  I think  it  can  be  done.  I do 
not  see  any  difficulty  in  it. 

Mr.  HALE.  Can  it  not  all  be  done  by  the 
Legislature  ? 

Mr.  POND.  I think  I can  answer  that.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  fees  earned  by  the 
sheriff,  are  the  fees  referred  to  here,  and  when 
he  has  collected  up  to  the  amount  of  his  salary, 
he  may  not  have  received  it  all  up  to  the  expi- 


ration of  his  term  of  office.  I see  no  difficulty. 

Mr.  HALE.  It  may  run  through  five  or  six 
years. 

Mr.  POND.  That  is  what  it  would  do  in  the 
other  case.  He  cannot  draw  his  salary  till  the 
fees  are  collected. 

Mr.  BABER.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  meet- 
ing the  objection  of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain 
[Mr.  Hale],  That  matter  exists  now  with 
reference  to  fees.  As  to  this  question  whether 
there  is  sufficient  to  pay  these  county  officers, 
the  figures  will  show  this.  I took  the  trouble 
to  make  the  figures  in  eighty-eight  counties  of 
this  State,  with  reference  to  the  fees  now  re- 
ceived in  those  counties  by  the  auditor  and 
sheriff,  which  represent  the  two  classes  of  offi- 
cers here.  In  counties  of  a population  under 
twenty-five  thousand,  the  salaries  of  auditor 
run  as  follows : I will  not  read  the  whole  of 

them,  because  I do  not  want  to  take  the  time, 
but  I wish  it  to  go  into  my  remarks  upon  this 
subject.  I will  give  a table  of  counties  and 
population,  with  the  fees  in  each  for  the  audi- 
tor, treasurer,  clerk,  sheriff,  and  probate  judge, 
classifying  them  into  forty-five  counties  under 
a population  of  twenty -five  thousand ; thirty- 
seven  with  a population  of  twenty-five  thou- 
sand, and  under  forty-five  thousand ; four  with 
a population  of  forty-five  thousand,  and  under 
seventy  thousand ; and  two  with  a population 
of  over  one  hundred  thousand,  according  to  the 
report  of  the  auditor  of  State,  for  1873 : 

In  the  county  of  Adams,  it  is  $2,400  for  the 

auditor,  and  $ for  the  sheriff;  in  Allen, 

$2,200  for  the  auditor,  and  $2,520  for  the  sheriff ; 
in  Ashland,  $2,450  for  the  auditor,  and  $426.43 
for  the  sheriff ; in  Athens,  $2,209  for  the  auditor, 
and  $600  for  the  sheriff;  in  Auglaize,  $2,119  for 
the  auditor,  and  $915.79  for  the  sheriff 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  that  the  gentleman 
have  leave  to  print  the  table. 

Mr.  BABER.  I did  not  intend  to  read  the 
whole  through.  But  it  is  a specimen  of  the  way 
the  fees  run,  showing  that  they  are  entirely 
sufficient  to  pay  the  compensation  of  these  feed 
officers,  even  in  the  smallest  counties.  There 
cannot  be  any  trouble  on  that  account.  I will 
here  say,  that  I would  be  glad  if  some  principle 
could  be  adopted  by  which  we  could  reach 
county  commissioners,  because  I find,  upon 
examination  of  the  report  of  the  commissioners, 
that  while  the  commissioners  of  my  county, 
which  contains  seventy  thousand  inhabitants, 
their  compensation  is  $402  each,  there  are 
nearly  thirty  counties  in  this  State  wherein  the 
commissioners  receive  more  than  that — amongst 
them  the  little  county  of  Ashland — nearly  $600 
apiece — and  even  Paulding  $430.  But  as  that 
is  not  now  a question  before  the  Convention,  I 
do  not  propose  to  argue  it.  I hope,  therefore, 
that  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  will  be  adopted,  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  practical  relief,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, to  our  large  counties  from  these  enormous 
fees  to  mere  ministerial  officers. 

The  following  is  the  table : 


COMPENSATION  OF  COUNTY  OFFICERS 


1463 


Day.] 


February  18, 1874.] 


Baber. 


TABLE  OF  FEES  OF  COUNTY  OFFICERS  FOR  1873. 


In  45  Counties  under  25,000. 


Population. 


Auditor’s 

Fees. 


Adams 

Allen 

Ashland 

Athens 

Auglaize 

Carroll 

Champaign. 

Clinton 

Coshocton.... 

Defiance 

Fayette 

Fulton 

Geauga 

Guernsey.... 

Hancock 

Hardin 

Harrison 

Henry  

Hocking 

Holmes 

Jackson 

Hake 

Logan 

Madison 

Marion 

Medina 

Mercer 

Morgan 

Morrow 

Noble 

Ottawa 

Paulding 

Perry 

Pickaway... 

Pike 

Portage. 

Preble 

Putnam 

Shelby 

Union 

Yan  Wert.... 

Vinton 

Williams 

Wood 

Wyandot 

Totals , 


20,750 

23,623 

21,933 

23,768 

20,041 

14,491 

24,188 

21,914 

23,600 

15,719 

17,170 

17,789 

14,190 

23,838 

23,847 

18,714 

18,682 

14.028 
17,925 
18,177 
21,759 
15,935 

23.028 
15,633 
16184 
20,092 
17,254 

20.363 

18.583 
19,949 

13.364 
8,544 

18,453 

24,875 

15,447 

24.584 
21,809 
17,081 
20,748 
18,730 
15,823 
15,027 
20,991 
24,596 
18,553 


$2,400  00 
2,200  00 
2,450  00 
2,209  00 
2,119  00 
2,060  00 
2,690  00 
3,475  00 
2,970  70 
1,286  00 
2,360  00 
2,593  75 
1,650  00 
2,330  00 
2,602  03 
2,051  05 
2,280  00 
1,870  00 
1,954  00 
2,175  80 
2,439  50 
1,867  00 
3,319  21 
2,184  36 
2,387  00 
2,061  10 
1,725  00 
2,022  00 
1,960  70 
1,898  44 
1,900  00 
1,589  75 
1,980  50 
3,165  00 
1,675  00 
2,506  90 
2,780  00 
2.375  00 
3,460  00 
1,880  00 
1,310  29 
1,577  24 
1,915  80 
3,020  72 
1,640  00 


$103,133  35 


In  37  Counties  of  25,000  and  under 
45,000. 


Ashtabula  ... 

Belmont 

Brown 

Butler 

Clark 

Clermont 

Columbiana., 
Crawford  .... 

Darke 

Delaware.... 

Erie 

Fairfield 

Gallia 

Greene 

Highland...., 

Huron 

Jefferson 

Knox 

Lawrence.... 

Licking 

Lorain 

Mahoning.... 

Meigs 

Miami 

Monroe 

Muskingum. 

Richland 

Ross 

Sandusky.... 

Scioto 

Seneca 


32,517 
39,714 
30,802 
39,912 
32,070 
34,268 
38,299 
25,556 
32,278 
25,175 
28  088 
31,138 
25,545 
28,038 
29,133 
28,532 
29,188 
26,333 
31,380 
35,756 
30,308 
31,001 
31.465 
32,740 
25,779 
44,886 
32,516 
37,097 
25,503 
29,302 
30,827 


2,229  00 
4,575  35 
3,000  00 
7,285  34 
2,823  90 
2,570  00 
3,118  00 
2,850  00 
2,860  88 
2,356  40 
2,600  00 
2,750  00 
1,906  10 
2,977  92 
3,150  00 
2,719  60 
3,557  43 
2,600  00 
2,252  45 
3,452  16 
2,690  85 
2,870  00 
2,326  00 
4,330  00 
2,820  20 
3,922  40 
3,050  00 
6,441  26 
3,091  46 
3,545  00 
2,686  66 


Fees. 


$1,597  73 
1,925  00 
1,728  92 
1,736  17 
1,742  64 
1,375  63 

2.958  93 
2,537  97 
2.262  22 
1,367  75 
2,422  40 
1,443  80 
1,436  99 
1,752  77 
2.003  52 
2,515  14 
1,882  22 
1,430  10 
1,269  95 
1,497  80 
1,620  47 
1,602  43 

1.958  59 
2,147  08 
2,142  61 
1,649  25 
1,055  32 
1,544  44 
1,828  08 
1,355  28 
1,459  85 
1,286  75 
1,409  76 
3,068  05 
1,276  34 
2,071  76 
2,186  64 
1,635  88 
2,214  00 
2,136  84 
1,597  13 
1,182  97 
1,426  92 
1,984  80 
1,627  40 


$83,344  61 


2,487  04 
3,381  96 
2,163  12 
4,265  79 
2,988  32 
2,393  48 
2,945  76 
2,145  95 
2,682  54 
2,542  19 
2,515  73 
2,991  55 
1,523  53 
3,236  48 
2,929  92 
2,604  06 
2,982  36 
2,512  42 
2,041  91 
3,050  03 
2,418  36 
2,676  69 
2,789  00 
3,596  77 
1,347  41 
3,746  12 
3,081  84 
3,856  52 
2,432  42 
2,878  55 
2,337  43 


3 Clerk’s  Fees. 

Sheriff’s 

Fees. 

Probate 
Judge’s  Fees. 

$1,658  50 

$ 950  00 

1,890  92 

$2,520  00 

1,700  00 

2,158  00 

426  43 

2,082  18 

774  67 

600  00 

1,660  14 

1,353  64 

915  79 

1,581  00 

1,608  41 

1,500  00 

1,870  50 

2,884  64 

1,773  00 

1,791  98 

2,140  00 

1,850  00 

1,225  20 

2,145  69 

2,543  88 

1,559  00 

1,163  66 

960  46 

800  00 

2,196  93 

1.015  00 

1,553  52 

513  29 

590  22 

1,106  16 

862  75 

310  65 

1,086  75 

870  29 

376  17 

1,407  23 

1,992  65 

1,059  00 

1,078  91 

777  79 

3,818  80 

659  81 

1,200  90 

1,446  07 

1,208  50 

1,251  99 

712  87 

750  00 

511  24 

1,378  47 

1,190  00 

1,264  25 

1,413  14 

1,405  26 

963  00 

895  36 

1,859  49 

836  61 

799  51 

1,507  93 

929  00 

1,163  00 

1,568  55 

1,539  13 

2,856  57 

784  89 

1,971  90 

2,650  76 

947  24 

1,054  82 

644  50 

1,263  93 

624  00 

1,150  31 

584  48 

1,578  92 

1,365  50 

1,160  10 

1,348  50 

1,485  62 

1,316  32 

1,886  07 

1,534  85 

1,645  66 

1,370  00 

1,300  00 

375  00 

1,205  18 

1,337  51 

1,002  14 

1,446  00 

1,346  00 

721  25 

1,229  44 

2,761  93 

1,176  33 

1,449  33 

1,596  71 

1,064  53 

939  30 

1,019  47 

825  66 

1,131  13 

1,333  00 

1,800  00 

2,341  25 

2,636  95 

787  53 

1,129  48 

1,764  13 

1,248  00 

1,327  45 

974  09 

1,198  85 

1,169  52 

1,140  03 

873  20 

789  04 

1,122  50 

912  00 

1,300  00 

1,325  00 

1,582  04 

2,415  18 

1,409  06 

2,325  61 

1,601  12 

2,630  12 

1,185  00 

$63,860  41 

$64,551  43 

$55,478  74 

597  30 

1 

3,115  55 

1,742  00 

3,392  25 

3,257  55 

1,965  46 

3,200  00 

4,553  78 

1,700  00 

3,880  50 

1,064  83 

1,100  00 

2,402  43 

2,510  00 

3,361  27 

2,228  23 

2,010  95 

2,891  12 

1,752  96 

3,100  00 

2,150  00 

2,640  21 

2,926  89 

3,087  00 

3,761  23 

978  56 

966  80 

2,131  27 

1,612  76 

1,215  00 

1,574  00 

3,292  47 

1.291  00 

1,111  07 

2,090  70 

1,557  20 

1,068  80 

3,143  45 

3,910  83 

2,197  19 

716  63 

2 712  24 

1,445  86 

3,619  88 

1,321  77 

1,774  64 

2,717  22 

2,387  04 

1,906  00 

2,409  78 

1,141  74 

2,247  75 

2,724  45 

2,507  55 

1.688  54 

3,550  00 

2,920  10 

2,126  77 

1,7*0  28 

2,020  00 

1,990  51 

1.552  08 

2,882  68 

3,156  97 

2,516  73 

2,146  85 

2,424  00 

3,262  47 

2,877  07 

1,387  32 

1,135  00 

1,034  00 

1,432  74 

2,420  68 

1,802  72 

1.986  22 

2,373  56 

4,452  18 

2.225  85 

893  71 

2.526  50 

2,243  62 

1,634  28 

3,398  31 

650  00 

631  79 

4,872  70 

1,511  63 

2,123  79 

1,870  52 

2,552  78 

1464 


COMPENSATION  OF  COUNTY  OFFICERS, 


[117  th 

Baber.  [Wednesday, 


TABLE  OF  FEES  OF  COUNTY  OFFICERS  FOR  1873— Continued. 


In  37  Counties  of  25,000  and  under 
45,000. 


Summit 

Trumbull 

Tuscarawas. 

Warren 

Washington. 
Wayne 

Totals.. 


Population. 

Auditor’s 

Fees. 

Treasurer’s 

Fees. 

Clerk’s 

Fees. 

Sheriff’s 

Fees. 

Probate 
Judge’s  Fees. 

34,674 

38,659 

33,840 

26,689 

40,609 

35,116 

$2,901  17 
3,286  49 
2,844  00 
3,299  20 
3,123  85 
2,947  92 

$3,348  69 
2,852  97 
2,267  89 
2,921  73 
2,377  76 
2,782  88 

$ 797  12 
2,141  81 
1,074  90 
2,380  00 
2,848  82 
1,987  31 

$ 900  00 
3,283  45 
2,319  95 
3,276  36 
2,483  27 
1,832  01 

$3,233  92 
3,400  33 
2,846  29 
2,425  00 
2,668  96 
2,254  54 

$117,310  99 

$102,097  17 

$77,212  45 

$93,306  61 

$75,855  09 

In  4 Counties  of  45,000  and  under 
70,000. 


Franklin. 

Lucas 

Montgomery. 
Stark  

Totals.. 


63,019 

46,722 

64,006 

52,908 


5,884  24 
5,802  02 
8,899  61 
F,034  17 


7,133  50 
6,786  06 
10,097  97 
4,536  51 


7,512  13 
4,117  34 
8,160  40 
3,223  12 


$25,620  04 


$28,554  04 


$23,012  99 


6,622  17 
5,079  10 
7,474  82 
3,524  40 


5,000  00 
2,403  13 
4,630  00 
2,429  00 


$22,700  49 


$14,462  13 


In  2 Counties  over  100,000. 

132,010 

260,370 

8,201  80 
23,651  06 

13,692  76 
42,941  37 

$ 6.352  85 
24,467  88 

$ 5,527  05 
23,379  95 

$10,208  75 
16,783  34 

Cuyahoga 

Hamilton 

Totals 

$31,852  86 

$56,634  13 

$30,820  73 

$28,907  00 

$26,992  09 

Pat.] COMPENSATION  OF  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 1465 

Feeruary  18,  1874.]  Hale,  Sears,  Neal,  Powell. 


Mr.  HALE.  I desire  to  submit  a few  con- 
siderations to  the  Convention  upon  this  ques- 
tion. I do  it  with  some  hesitancy  ; but  the  fact 

is,  I cannot  subscribe  to  what  seems  to  be  the 
popular  idea.  Before  giving  the  views  that  I 
have  upon  the  question,  I desire  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal],  and  the  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr. 
Sears],  to  the  statistics  they  referred  to  of  Mont- 
gomery county.  It  was  said  that  the  sheriff  re- 
ceived $9,000  net  in  that  county.  It  is  not  true. 
By  reference  to  the  Report  they  will  see  that 
the  sheriff  reports  the  actual  money  received, 
the  actual  fees  charged,  and  the  money  received 
from  the  county  treasurer — three  items,  and 
they  make  $7,474.  And  then  the  money  re- 
ceived, that  was  charged  by  his  predecessor, 
$3,294,  all  of  which  go  to  make  up  the  $9,000. 
Now,  deduct  what  was  paid  in,  that  his  prede- 
cessor charged,  and  it  leaves  a little  over  $5,000. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Is  that  a fair  compensation  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  I was  not  saying  anything 
about  that;  but  when  men  undertake  to 
talk  about  statistics,  they  should  be  accurate. 
That  is  all.  It  is  $5,000  and  not  $9,000. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I submit,  the  gentleman  should 
be  accurate.  It  is  fifty-eight  hundred  dollars. 

Mr.  HALE.  It  is  fifty-seven  hundred.  Now, 
it  is  said  that  this  amendment  is  popular,  as  it 
came  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Look 
at  it  as  it  came  from  that  Committee.  It  pro- 
vided for  paying  county  commissioners,  county 
infirmary  directors,  county  recorder  and  sheriff 
by  a salary,  and  it  is  said  to  be  popular  in  the 
State.  My  experience  in  this  matter  is  that  it 
is  very  unpopular  in  the  section  of  the  State 
from  which  I come.  And  it  is  not,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, because  it  is  unpopular  with  the  little 
ring  about  the  court  house.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested here  that,  of  course,  it  is  popular  with 
those  who  have  a nest  to  feather  for  their  own 
particular  accommodation,  and  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  yesterday  gave  us 
some  illustrations  in  regard  to  how  this  popu- 
larity comes  about.  Well,  I do  not  know  that 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  has 
any  particular  experience  or  knowledge  about 

it,  but  the  manner  in  which  he  handled  the  sub- 
ject shows  that  his  knowledge  must  have  been 
derived  from  a little  experience  in  that  line. 
What  do  we  propose  to  remedy  ? How  is  the 
sheriff  now  paid  ? He  is  paid  by  fees  that  he 
earns  for  the  individual.  It  becomes  an  indi- 
vidual matter  between  him  and  the  man  for 
whom  he  performs  the  work.  If  the  individual 
has  to  pay  the  fees  to  the  sheriff,  will  he  not  see 
that  those  fees  are  right  and  proper  ? It  becomes 
an  individual  contract  and  it  will  be  looked 
after  more  economically  when  you  leave  it  be- 
tween the  individual  that  does  the  work  and  the 
individual  that  pays  for  it,  than  in  any  other 
way  you  can  possibly  fix  it.  That  is  my  judg- 
ment. Now,  look  further,  at  the  practical  diffi- 
culty in  this  matter.  Your  proposition  is  that 
the  sheriff  shall  collect  his  fees  and  pay  them 
into  the  county  treasury,  and  the  auditor  draw 
an  order  on  the  county  treasury  to  pay  these 
fees  back  to  him,  and  call  it  a salary.  Again, 
when  we  have  done  that,  you  propose  to  put  an 
addenda  to  it,  that  the  salary  shall  not  exceed 
the  fees  collected.  Let  us  see  how  it  would  work. 
We  cannot  apportion  that  by  the  fees  that  are 


charged,  because  they  are  not  all  collected.  If 
they  were  you  could  get  at  it  at  once.  But  you 
propose  to  fix  it  by  the  fees  collected.  The  offi- 
cer does  not  collect  during  his  term  all  the  fees, 
nor  for  three  or  four  years  after.  How  are  you 
to  regulate  it  ? By  the  fees  that  are  paid  in  be- 
longing to  the  officer  and  his  predecessor? 
Well,  it  may  be  that  a larger  amount  of  fees  are 
collected  in  one  year  than  are  charged,  and  be- 
cause that  in  one  year  there  will  be  more  fees 
charged  than  are  collected,  and  in  another  less, 
you  cannot  so  regulate  the  salary. 

There  is  a practical  difficulty  about  it,  and 
because  of  this  practical  difficulty,  it  should  be 
left,  in  my  judgment,  to  the  Legislature  to 
regulate,  as  circumstances  shall  require. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  whole  of  it  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  The  whole  of  it.  There  is  no 
reason  why  this  matter  should  not  be  left  to  the 
Legislature.  In  Hamilton  county  the  Legisla- 
ture have  provided  for  the  compensation  the 
officers  shall  receive  as  a salary.  They  may  do 
it  in  other  counties.  It  is  a matter  wholly  in 
their  discretion,  and  if  we  undertake  here,  by 
a constitutional  provision,  to  provide  for  it,  we 
run  into  great  difficulties.  We  cannot  go  into 
details.  We  may  fix  principles.  The  gentle- 
man from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  who  has 
given  this  so  much  study,  cannot  tell  us  what 
they  propose  to  do,  or  what  is  to  be  the  practical 
effect  of  it.  They  say,  adopt  this  amendment, 
then  we  will  fix  it.  But  before  we  adopt  the  prin- 
ciple, I wish  to  know  how  it  is  going  to  be  car- 
ried out  and  given  shape.  The  Auditor  does 
most  of  his  work  for  the  county — for  the  pub- 
lic. I believe  in  paying  him  by  a salary.  The 
Probate  Judge,  being  a judicial  officer,  though 
he  receives  fees,  let  us  pay  him  by  a salary,  as 
becomes  a judicial  office.  When  you  come  to 
that  of  the  Sheriff,  who  works  for  the  indi- 
vidual, let  him  collect  his  fees,  and  have  them, 
except  in  those  large  counties  where  they  need 
an  exceptional  rule. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Is  there  not  a greater  inherent 
difficulty  in  making  the  sheriff  payable  by 
salary  than  the  clerk  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  There  is  some  difficulty.  I un- 
derstand what  the  gentleman  is  driving  at.  I 
would  not  pay  the  clerk  a salary. 

Mr.  SEARS.  We  have  agreed  to  do  that. 

Mr.  HALE.  I know  we  have  agreed  to  do  it, 
but  because  we  have  agreed  to  do  one  thing  is 
no  reason  why  we  should  agree  to  do  another 
thing,  if  the  two  are  wrong.  Again,  take  the 
fees  of  the  recorder.  In  five  counties  in  which 
the  population  varies  from  twenty  thousand  to 
twenty-three  thousand,  the  fees  collected  by 
the  recorders  vary  from  $500  to  $1500.  In 
those  counties  there  is  a large  amount  of  prop- 
erty being  transferred.  Each  recorder  is  paid 
the  same  price  per  hundred  words,  for  the 
records  he  makes,  and  is  paid  by  the  individual. 
What  injustice  is  there  in  that?  How  can  you 
better  regulate  it  than  to  let  the  man  for  whom 
the  work  is  performed  pay  in  each  county  ex- 
actly the  same  sum  for  the  same  work.  You 
cannot  do  it  better.  Suppose  you  undertake  to 
regulate  the  compensation  of  that  officer  by  a 
salary,  and  according  to  the  population ; then 
you  may  pay  to  the  recorders  of  some  counties 
double  what  they  now  receive,  and  cut  down 
the  compensation  of  others,  and  adopt  a prin- 


1466 


COMPENSATION  OF  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [mth 

Hitchcock,  Sears,  West,  Voris.  [Wednesday* 


ciple  which  will  result  in  not  paying  those 
officers,  as  they  should  be  paid,  for  the  work 
performed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond],  to  the  original  section. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  strike  out  the 
word  “ sheriff.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  moves  to  amend  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond]  by  striking  out  the  word  “ sheriff.” 

Mr.  SEARS.  Is  that  in  order  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  in  order.  The  mo- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond] 
is  to  amend  the  original  section  in  the  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  SEARS.  That  will  make  three  amend- 
ments. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir.  The  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  is  to 
amend  the  original  section,  not  the  amendment 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  question 
is  now  upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  to  strike  out 
the  word  “ sheriff”  in  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I had  intended  to  offer  an 
amendment  myself,  but  supposed  it  was  out  of 
order,  because  the  amendment  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  was  one  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir.  The  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  is  to 
amend  the  original  section. 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  intend  detaining  the 
Convention  but  a moment.  It  seems  to  me 
pretty  generally  conceded  that  ifc.  is  entirely 
practicable  to  pay  the  auditor,  treasurer  and 
prosecuting  attorney  a fixed  compensation  out 
of  the  treasury.  All  other  officers  whose  com- 
pensation has  not  hitherto  been  paid  by  fees, 
and  being  so  practicable  that  it  probably  is  very 
expedient  to  establish  such  a rule  with  regard 
to  that  class  of  offices.  It  is,  however,  objected 
as  being  impracticable  to  provide  the  same  rule 
for  sheriff  and  clerk,  who  render  services  as 
such,  not  for  the  public,  but  for  individuals, 
who  receive  only  the  compensation  due  to  them 
for  their  individual  services  rendered;  and, 
therefore,  the  Report  works  injustice,  to  ap- 
ply to  them  this  rule,  or  require  them  to  be  paid 
out  of  the  county  treasury.  My  opinion  is,  Mr. 
President,  that  no  difficulty  need  result  from 
any  idea  of  impracticability  connected  with 
this  matter.  But  as  to  the  justice  of  it,  and  the 
expediency  of  it,  I think  it  is  quite  clear  and 
may  be  so  adjusted  and  arranged  by  proper 
words  as  to  work  properly  in  all  cases.  Now, 
I believe  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  the  State  to 
establish  judicial  tribunals,  and  keep  them  open 
at  all  times  for  the  administration  of  justice, 
wherein  parties  shall  have  their  grievances 
heard  and  the  proper  relief  administered. 
Well,  now,  what  constitutes  a judicial  tribunal? 
Certainly  all  the  agents  and  instrumentalities 
necessary  to  carry  it  forward.  The  judge  is 
certainly  an  indispensable  requisite,  but  he  is 
no  more  so  than  the  sheriff  or  the  clerk. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Or  the  lawyers. 

Mr.  WEST.  No;  the  lawyer  is  generally  a 
dispensable  nuisance.  That  makes  the  differ- 
ence. 


Mr.  VORIS.  I hope  the  gentleman  never  il- 
lustrated that. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  must  not  put 
questions  of  a kind  when  I am  discussing  a 
principle  that  does  not  involve  the  point  made. 
I am  speaking  of  officers  of  the  court.  The 
sheriff  and  clerk  are  officers  of  the  court  just  as 
much  as  the  judge  is  an  officer  of  the  court;  and 
the  State  of  Ohio  is  bound  to  provide  all  the 
agents  and  instrumentalities  necessary  to  the 
administration  of  justice.  That  is  the  duty  of 
the  State,  under  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

A MEMBER.  Why  not  pay  them  out  of  the 
State  treasury? 

Mr.  WEST.  I will  get  along  to  that  point  in 
time,  if  gentlemen  will  be  patient.  Now,  sir, 
it  is  totally  impracticable  to  pay  a judicial  offi- 
cer by  fees.  That  is  conceded,  I think.  It  is 
not  proper.  It  may  do  for  a j ustice  of  the  peace ; 
but  a judicial  officer  never  should  be  paid  by 
fees.  That  is  my  observation  and  my  convic- 
tion. If  it  were  expedient,  if  it  were  not  con- 
trary to  a just  policy  to  pay  all  of  the  officers  of 
a court  by  fees,  it  would  be  just  as  proper  to 
pay  a judge  as  it  would  a sheriff.  Now,  why 
should  it  be  to  pay  a sheriff  or  clerk  by  fees  ? 
Why  not  pay  them  out  of  the  State  treasury  as 
you  pay  a judge?  Because  it  is  the  conviction 
of  the  State,  and  it  is  a righteous  conviction, 
that  those  who  invoke  the  agencies  and  instru- 
mentalities of  a judicial  tribunal  shall  to  some 
extent  pay  the  expenses  thereof.  They  shall 
reimburse  the  State,  at  all  events,  by  the  ex- 
penditure necessary.  To  that  extent,  there- 
fore, it  is  provided  that  the  sheriffs  shall  be  paid 
by  local  assessments,  as  such,  and  that  the  clerk 
is  paid  by  local  assessments,  reimbursing  the 
State  in  that  way  for  a portion  of  the  expenses. 
Now,  if  it  can  be  made  practicable  to  reimburse 
the  State  for  the  additional  sums  expend'  d, 
there  is  no  impropriety  in  it.  Now,  if  the  scale 
of  fees  affixed  to  these  offices  be  such  that  they 
cannot  be  well  diminished,  or  if  they  be  gradu- 
ated in  particular  localities,  so  as  to  prevent 
enormous  accumulations,  or  augmentations  of 
compensations  in  particular  localities,  there 
is  no  impropriety  in  putting  the  compensation 
at  a fixed  amount,  and  reimbursing  the  county 
to  that  extent  by  the  excess  paid  into  the 
treasury.  Now,  that  is  proper — not  only 
proper,  but  it  is  righteous ; so  that  out  of  these 
fees  that  are  not  compensations  for  clerks’ 
services  particularly,  a more  than  needed  com- 
pensation, yet,  from  the  impracticability  of 
graduating  and  scaling  the  fees  in  all  cases, 
j they  must,  in  many  instances,  augment  what 
is  a just  compensation  to  a particular  officer. 
Yet  the  excess  may  be  very  well  applied  to 
reimburse  the  county  for  its  proportion  of  the 
expenses,  and  the  larger  addition  to  fill  the 
officer’s  pocket  to  plethora,  and  constituting,  in 
that  pocket,  a corruption  fund,  for  the  purpose 
of  re-securing  the  situation.  Now,  that  is  the 
principle  upon  which  this  thing  goes.  Now, 
the  Auditor  and  Treasurer  have  never  been 
paid  by  fees  alone.  It  is  competent  and  proper 
to  pay  them,  out  of  the  treasury,  a fixed  com- 
pensation and  salary.  Let  it  be  so  done,  and 
require  them  to  pay  into  the  treasury  the  small 
amount  of  fees  that  accrue  to  their  office.  Let 
it  be  paid  a fixed  sum.  There  is  no  impropriety 
' in  that,  and  no  injustice  in  it,  and  that  is  right. 


Day.]  SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  18,  1874.]  West,  Gurley,  Griswold,  Hoadly,  Wilson,  etc. 


1467 


Now,  there  is  another  officer  I would  pay  out 
of  the  county  treasury;  for  I hold  that  the 
greatest  source  of  corruption  in  the  probate 
court,  and  the  greatest  temptation  in  that  office, 
is  by  payment  of  fees.  I would  require,  there- 
fore, that  the  Probate  Judge  be  paid  a fixed 
salary,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  temptation 
upon  his  part  to  plunder  an  estate  or  oppress 
an  individual.  Let  it  be  a fixed  sum  that  he 
shall  receive,  and  no  more,  and  require  that  the 
fees  of  his  office  shall  go  into  the  treasury; 
and,  if  the  fees  of  his  office  are  not  a just 
compensation,  let  a just  compensation  be 
attached  to  his  office.  It  is  a public  office, 
through  which  the  property  of  all  the  county 
passes  once  in  thirty  years.  It  is  a public 
office,  therefore,  in  the  very  highest  sense,  and 
should  be  compensated  by  the  public,  free  from 
all  temptations  to  oppression  or  corruption  of 
his  office,  and  that  can  best  be  done  by  paying  a 
fixed  salary.  Now  as  to  the  Clerk  and  Sheriff: 
I would  provide  that  they  should  be  paid  a 
fixed  salary  out  of  their  fees ; that  they  should 
be  required  to  account  to  the  treasury  for  all 
the  fees  by  them  charged  and  collected,  and  to 
pay  into  the  county  treasury  all  the  collections 
in  excess  of  their  salaries.  That  is  just  what  I 
would  do.  I think  it  fixes  it  exactly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  ask  a question  : 
Suppose  the  fees  did  not  amount  to  as  much  as 
the  salary  was  fixed  at  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Then  they  would  not  get  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Then  it  reduces  it  back  to  the 
fees  of  the  office  at  last. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  does  to  that  extent ; certainly 
it  does. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  They  have  a certain  salary, 
provided  they  can  get  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  object  is  not  for  the  pur- 
pose so  much  of  preventing  illegal  fees  being 
charged  as  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  preventing 
the  establishing  of  what  is  equivalent  to 
sinecures,  throwing  into  the  hands  of  these 
officers  these  enormous  sums  they  are  no  more 
entitled  to  than  the  public,  which  furnishes 
the  expense  of  the  tribunal  in  which  they  may 
make  those  sums.  It  is  not  a matter  that  the 
public  can  contract  with  these  officers.  The 
law  fixes  the  rates.  You  cannot  contract  with 
the  Sheriff  for  this  sum  or  that  sum.  The 
litigant  is  bound  to  render  compensation 
according  to  the  terms  and  letter  of  the  statute. 
It  is  not  a matter  of  contract  at  all.  Now,  that 
being  the  case,  let  them  be  paid  out  of  their 
fees,  to  the  extent  which  is  just  and  proper, 
and  above  that  amount  collected  require  them 
to  account  for  and  pay  into  the  county 
treasury. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I have  been  very  zealous 
that  this  reform  should  be  adopted  as  to  certain 
county  officers;  but  I think  that  the  sheriff 
ought  not  to  be  included  in  the  list.  And  the 
reason  is  this : If  you  examine  the  statistics 
that  are  on  every  gentleman’s  table,  it  will  be 
found,  that  in  only  eighteen  counties  of  the  State 
of  Ohio,  all  told,  does  any  sheriff  receive,  includ- 
ing what  he  receives  of  his  predecessor,  fees 
amounting  to  over  $2,500. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
a question  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Are  they  not  all  making 


money  by  running  the  jail  as  a boarding  house 
— making  more  by  the  allowances  of  the  county 
commissioners  for  supporting  the  prisoners 
than  they  actually  pay  out  ? Is  not  that  where 
the  leak  is  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  No,  sir.  This  includes 
what  they  receive  in  that  way. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I wish  to  interrupt  the  gen- 
tleman to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  his  informa- 
tion. This  states  what  he  receives  from  the 
county  as  fees,  but  it  does  not  state  what  he  re- 
ceives for  the  support  of  the  prisoners  in  the 
county  jail,  the  gross  figures  of  which  are 
enormously  greater  than  the  figures  there,  and 
which  are  enough  in  most  of  the  cities  and 
counties,  to  make  what  appears  to  be  a very 
small  office,  really  a very  fat  one. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Now,  what  the  gentleman 
says  applies  to  the  jails  that  are  filled  with 
prisoners,  where  the  sheriff  has  a large  number 
to  board,  as  he  does  in  this  county  and  in  ours. 
In  our  county  the  commissioners  have  put  down 
this  rate  to  the  workhouse  rate. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  not  the  sheriff  put  the 
fees  down  just  as  fast  as  they  put  the  rate 
down  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  He  cannot  do  that.  But 
take  the  State  at  large.  The  number  of  prison- 
ers in  jail  is  an  inconsiderable  item.  The  county 
jails  do  not  have  many  inmates,  as  a rule,  except 
in  court  time.  It  is  only  in  the  large  cities  where 
this  occurs,  and  this  provision  applies  only  to  a 
few  counties,  which  can  be  reached  by  special 
bill,  as  has  been  done  in  this  county,  and  as,  in 
the  present  Legislature,  is  proposed  to  be  ap- 
plied to  our  county.  Now,  look  through  the 
list  of  compensations  of  sheriffs,  and  you  will 
find  that  it  is,  on  the  average,  but  a small  sum. 
It  is  true,  that  in  particular  counties,  where  the 
sheriff  makes  the  sales,  and  he  does  the  selling 
of  all  the  lands,  acting  as  special  master  com- 
missioner, his  fees  are  increased.  This  can  be 
remedied  by  the  parties  to  the  actions.  In 
many  counties  the  sheriff  does  nothing  except 
what  is  done  on  direct  execution.  The  great 
fees  are  upon  sales,  and  he  does  not  receive 
them  in  our  county.  And  you  will  find  that 
the  compensation,  therefore,  in  our  county,  is 
below  many  counties  where  the  judicial  officers 
execute  writs  of  that  sort.  The  work  done  in 
those  counties  is  far  less  than  in  other  counties, 
but  the  fees  derived  are  from  sales  of  land. 
Take  an  average  of  the  sheriffs  in  the  State,  and 
their  fees  are  not  beyond  what  is  a reasonable 
compensation.  Indeed,  in  many  of  them  it  is 
hardly  sufficient  for  the  official  labor  of  a man 
competent  for  sheriff. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Is  not  the  gentleman  aware 
that  in  litigated  cases  at  least  two-thirds  of  the 
costs  are  fees  of  witnesses  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Well,  now,  who  holds  the 
money  to  settle  with  those  witnesses  from 
month  to  month,  and  often  from  year  to  year, 
to  pay  their  fees  ? Must  he  pay  the  money  into 
the  treasury  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  He  does  if  it  is  not  called 
for.  He  is  required  to  settle  for  them  all  after 
the  first  time,  and  if  the  money  is  not  called 


1468 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [117th 

Wilson,  Griswold,  Baber,  Hoadly,  Ewing,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


for,  he  is  required  to  put  it  into  the  county- 
treasury. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Do  you  not  see  immense  con- 
fusion growing  out  of  that? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do;  and  I propose  to 
remark  upon  that  if  the  gentleman  will  give  me 
time. 

Mr.  WILSON.  One  more  question.  Is  not 
the  gentleman  aware  that  the  sheriff  and  clerk 
keep  current  accounts  and  settle  up  at  stated 
times? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I am  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Is  he  not  aware  that  leading 
attorneys  keep  accounts  with  the  sheriff  and 
clerk,  often  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do  not  know  anything 
about  that.  Now,  what  I was  going  to  say  is, 
that  this  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  is  undertaking  to  legislate 
and  do  what  should  be  left  to  the  Legislature. 
If  we  determine  the  rule  by  which  those  officers 
are  to  be  paid,  all  the  detail  should  be  left  to  the 
Legislature.  I undertake  to  say  that  if  the  sheriff 
should  be  paid  a salary  only  out  of  what  is 
collected,  it  will  be  found  impracticable.  Where 
an  important  case  runs  through  six  or  seven 
years,  and  will  pass  through  the  hands  of  seve- 
ral sheriffs,  the  last  of  whom  will  collect  the 
whole  fees;  hence  the  plan  is  impracticable. 
Therefore,  I would  strike  out  the  sheriff.  And 
for  the  other  reason  I have  suggested — because 
the  sheriff  does  not  get  anything  but  an  ordi- 
nary compensation  out  of  the  fees,  and  when  he 
does  get  greater  pay  you  can  reach  such  cases  by 
special  legislation.  There  is  no  great  amount 
of  it,  and  a different  rule  will  have  to  be  applied 
to  different  counties. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way 
to  a question  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Not  now. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  1 wish  to  ask  the  gentleman 
one  further  question. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Well. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is,  whether  these  bills 
that  many  of  the  sheriffs  receive  are  not  entirely 
irrespective  of  the  fact  that  the  sheriff,  after  he 
goes  out  of  office,  is  in  receipt  of  fees  for  the 
work  he  did  when  in  office? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir;  and  if  you  will 
look  at  this  table,  you  will  see  the  sheriff  says 
how  much  he  has  collected  of  his  predecessor. 
These  tables  show  how  much  he  has  re- 
ceived from  the  preceding  amount  all  the  way 
through,  and  hence,  the  actual  pay  of  the 
sheriff,  on  the  average,  would  be  a great  deal 
lower,  because  this  shows  what  he  receives  for 
his  predecessor.  And  the  pay  of  the  average 
sheriff  is  not  beyond  what  is  reasonable.  Now, 
the  clerk  stands  in  a different  relation.  We 
have  provided  for  that,  so  it  is  not  necessary  to 
discuss  it  now.  But  it  is  well  known  that  the 
clerk  stands  where  he  is  at  the  receipt  of  cus- 
tom and  issues  his  executions  on  his  own  will, 
and  where  cases  are  settled  he  collects  the  fees 
and  issues  the  executions  just  as  he  desires. 
Hence,  he  can  collect  his  fees  as  fast  as  possible. 
He  has  a right,  in  certain  cases,  to  demand  his 
fees,  and  he  does  it.  If  you  will  look  at  the 
statistics,  although  the  clerk’s  fees  are  not  dis- 
proportionate, the  ordinary  fees  of  the  clerk 
are  greatly  in  excess  of  those  of  the  sheriff, 
■phere  is  no  difficulty  in  applying  the  rule  to 


him.  We  do  not  want  to  go  on  here  and  pro- 
vide how  it  shall  be  done  in  any  particular 
manner.  When  we  undertake  to  legislate  in 
the  Constitution  as  to  details  we  run  into  all 
sorts  of  difficulties.  That  is  really  the  objection 
to  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond],  and  all  these  propositions.  We 
can  safely  leave  the  Legislature  to  fix  that  sal- 
ary. So  far  as  my  experience  goes,  I think  the 
history  of  the  State  will  bear  me  out.  We  never 
heard  of  a Legislature  giving  a fixed  salary  at 
an  extravagant  figure.  By  indirection,  as  has 
been  stated,  you  may  get  a bill  through  the 
Legislature,  to  increase  the  compensation  and 
get  these  great  fees ; but  when  you  attempt  to 
fix  the  same  in  a salary,  I tell  you  it  looks 
large  to  the  eyes  of  a member  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  he  never  will  fix  a high  salary 
to  any  officer.  Look  at  your  State  officers,  your 
judicial  officers — Governor,  Auditor,  and  Treas- 
urer of  State.  Who  ever  heard  of  their  having 
an  extravagant  salary?  It  may  be  said  that 
these  auditors  and  treasurers  will  so  lobby  the 
Legislature  to  raise  the  amount,  and  I have  no 
doubt  considerable  trouble  will  arise  from  that 
source ; but  still,  the  average  legislator  stands 
in  some  fear  of  the  people;  and,  although  he 
may  have  a man  at  his  back  that  he  would  like 
to  serve,  he  will  not  serve  him  by  placing  a large 
amount  of  money  in  his  pocket. 

Mr.  EWING.  I hope  the  word  “sheriff”  will 
not  be  stricken  out.  It  may  be  true  that  that 
officer  does  not  generally  receive  as  much  fees 
as  the  clerk,  in  the  different  counties  of  the 
State;  but  1 see  in  that  no  reason  why  he  should 
not  be  included  within  this  rule.  He  receives, 
obviously,  according  to  the  tables,  altogether 
too  large  compensation  in  many  counties. 
Take,  for  instance,  Montgomery.  He  receives 
there  $9,015 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  has  been  corrected — 
$5,780. 

Mr.  EWING.  No;  it  is  $9,015.  It  includes 
$3,294,  the  amount  due  to  his  predecessor ; but 
his  successor  will  doubtless  receive  that  much 
due  to  him. 

Mr.  HALE.  You  will  notice  that  in  the  first 
two  items  is  put  down  what  he  actually 
charged.  Of  course,  anythin^  received  from 
his  predecessor  should  go  to  these  two  accounts. 

Mr.  EWING.  But  he  will  receive  from  his 
successor,  doubtless,  as  large  an  amount  as  his 
predecessor  receives  during  his  term. 

Mr.  HALE.  No;  but  you  have  got,  in  the 
first  two  items,  every  item  he  charged  in  money, 
besides  what  he  received  in  money ; so  that  that 
makes  the  full  compensation.  There  is  a mis- 
take there. 

Mr.  EWING.  That  would  make  a compen- 
sation of  between  five  and  six  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  HALE.  Five  thousand  seven  hundred 
dollars. 

Mr.  EWING.  It  seems  to  me,  that  even  that 
is  altogether  too  much.  Take  the  case,  now,  of 
the  sheriff  of  my  friend’s  own  county,  Lorain. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  sheriff  of  the  county 
must  be  responsible  for,  perhaps,  one  hundred 
or  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  du- 
ring his  term  of  office.  A man  who  assumes 


1469 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  18,  1874.]  Ewing,  Hoadly,  Wilson,  Voris,  Hunt. 


such  responsibilities  should  have  some  reasona- 
ble compensation. 

Mr.  EWING.  As  is  stated  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  it  is  not  his 
whole  compensation,  nor  anything  approaching 
it.  He  receives  a large  amount  of  compensa- 
tion besides. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  ask,  whether  the  treasurer  of  the  State  is 
to  be  paid  on  any  such  basis  of  responsibility  ? 
If  so,  I think  the  figures  would  be  a great  deal 
larger  than  any  we  have  heard  of. 

Mr.  EWING.  Take  the  county  of  my  friend 
from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale].  Here  is  a report  for 
eight  months,  the  sheriff  receiving  $1,920, 
which  is  $3,000  for  the  year,  in  round  numbers. 
This  is  certainly  an  extravagant  compensation. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
another  question  on  that? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  point  is  this:  Is  the 
gentleman  not  aware,  as  a lawyer,  that  no 
sheriff  ever  held  a term  in  any  county  in  this 
State,  without  having  a great  many  lawsuits 
against  him  for  attaching  the  wrong  property — 
this  thing  and  that  thing,  a constant  annoy- 
ance? 

Mr.  EWING.  I notice  that  the  place  of  sheriff 
is  very  greedily  sought  for  in  every  county,  and 
struggled  for,  and  intrigued  for,  two  or  three 
years  in  advance;  and  is  regarded  as  an  emi- 
nently lucrative  office.  Now,  then,  gentlemen 
of  the  Convention,  the  people  expect,  in  some 
way,  a reduction  of  the  expenses  of  govern- 
ment. It  is  one  of  the  very  greatest  needs  of 
our  time.  Our  State,  county,  city,  township, 
and  town  governments  cost  greatly  too  much, 
and  the  result  is  that  taxation  has  run  up  in  the 
State  to  between  two  and  one-half  to  three  per 
cent.  Now,  how  can  we  reduce  these  expenses? 
By  looking  them  squarely  in  the  face ; by  see- 
ing what  we  pay  to  public  officers ; by  seeing 
what  each  item  of  the  government  costs ; and 
the  very  first  and  indispensable  step  toward 
any  reform  is  to  fix,  as  far  as  possible,  salaries 
for  public  officers,  rather  than  allow  them  to  ob- 
tain, covertly  and  openly,  enormous  sums  from 
the  people  in  fees.  For,  although,  these  fees, 
in  many  cases,  fall  upon  litigants,  still  they  are 
a burden  on  the  general  public;  for,  at  one 
time  or  another,  almost  every  man  bears  the 
burden. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  inquire  how 
this  section  provides  any  relief  or  remedy 
against  it  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  I decline  to  be  interrupted 
further.  I wish  to  make  a few  remarks  to  the 
Convention,  within  the  ten-minute  limit,  and 
do  not  want  a mere  colloquy  on  such  points  as 
my  friend  from  Summit,  and  others  may  choose 
to  suggest. 

Now,  let  the  Legislature  fix  a fair  salary  for 
these  officers.  If  the  fees  do  not  amount  to 
the  salaries  of  the  offices  fixed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, that  fact  will  indicate  that  the  service  is 
such  as  not  to  require  that  amount  of  salary. 
If  the  fees  exceed  the  amount,  ancPthe  salary 
fixed  is  fair,  the  people  are  gainers,  and  no  in- 
justice is  done  to  anybody.  The  Legislature 
fixes  the  salaries  of  the  Governor,  and  other 
State  officers,  and  why  should  it  not  fix  the 
salaries  of  these  county  officers,  also  ? It  will 


tend  to  economical  government.  The  Legisla- 
ture will  fix  the  salaries  greatly  lower  than  the 
aggregate  fees  and  indirect  compensation  now 
amount  to,  and  the  people  will  know  exactly 
what  the  burden  is.  It  will  be  wholesome  in 
every  way  to  have  the  salaries  reduced.  It 
will  tend  not  only  to  lighten  taxation,  but 
to  diminish  the  spoil  of  government,  and  that 
ought  to  be  diminished.  As  it  is  now,  in  al- 
most every  county,  cliques  are  formed  to  ma- 
noeuver  and  manage  one,  two,  or  three  years 
ahead,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  these  offices. 
The  compensation  direct  and  indirect,  is  so 
large  that  it  will  pay  them  to  spend  a year  or 
two  in  intriguing  in  order  to  get  the  offices  for 
two,  or  three,  or  four  years.  It  will  make  the 
government  better  as  well  as  more  economical, 
to  make  those  offices  merely  fairly  compensato- 
ry for  the  service. 

Now,  we  cannot  trust  the  Legislature  in  this 
matter  just  because  we  know  the  solicitation 
that  will  surround  them  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
taining the  fee  system.  Numbers  of  the  coun- 
ty officers  will  go  to  Columbus,  and,  by  means 
of  their  local  influence,  prevail  upon  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  not  to  act  upon  this  sub- 
ject ; and  it  is  very  easy  to  keep  men  quiet  when 
they  will  lose  friends  by  acting.  The  result  is 
that  the  present  system  will  stand,  unless  we 
change  it.  My  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  in  conversation  with  me  this  morn- 
ing, gave  an  instance  of  the  way  this  matter  of 
arranging  fees  by  law  is  conducted  by  the  Leg- 
islature. A bill  was  passed  some  time  ago,  entitled 
a bill  to  reduce  the  fees  of  the  sheriff  of  Hamilton 
county.  The  reduction  was  in  this  way : All 
writs  of  scire  facias,  habeas  corpus , and  quo  war- 
ranto— writs  that  are  very  seldom  issued — twen- 
ty-five cents.  That  was  only  half  the  former 
fees  for  such  writs.  The  sheriff  would  proba- 
bly issue  one  writ  a week  of  that  sort.  But  for 
writs  of  summons  and  subpoena — of  which  he 
issues  hundreds  every  day — seventy-five  cents ; 
an  increase  of  twenty-five  cents  for  each  writ  l 
This  was  entitled  a bill  to  reduce  the  fees  of  the 
officers  of  the  courts  of  Hamilton  county ! 

Mr.  HUNT.  I move  the  Convention  now 
take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  (at  12:  30  p. 
m.)  the  Convention  took  a recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2:30  p.  m. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I ask  for  an  indefinite 
leave  of  absence,  after  to-day,  on  account  of 
important  business.  It  is  indispensable  that  I 
should  go  home.  I have  been  postponing  it  as 
long  as  possible. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  at 
the  time  of  taking  the  recess  was  on  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitch- 
cock], on  striking  out  the  word  “sheriff”  in 
two  places  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond]. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  payment  of  public 
officers,  where  the  duty  is  of  a public  nature, 
the  compensation  comes  from  the  public  fund, 


1470 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [117th 

Hitchcock,  Cowen,  Hale.  [Wednesday, 


and  the  service  required  of  the  officer  is  so 
clearly  defined  as  that  the  rule  can  be  applied, 
and  should  be  by  salary.  The  amendment 
made  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  provides 
that  compensation  shall  be  made  to  all  county 
officers  by  salary.  The  indications  are,  that  the 
Convention  will  not  adopt  the  amendment  as 
proposed  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  I 
shall  cheerfully  vote  for  a proposition  similar 
to  that  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond],  including  the  sheriff,  which  I pro- 
pose by  this  motion  to  strike  out ; but  very  many 
of  the  gentlemen  with  whom  I have  conferred, 
while  they  are  ready  and  wish  to  make  the  pay 
to  three  other  officers,  namely  : auditor,  treas- 
urer and  prosecuting  attorney,  by  salary,  do 
not  wish  to  make  compensation  to  the  sheriff  by 
the  same  rule.  That  being  the  case,  with  the 
desire  to  save,  at  least  so  far  as  these  other  offi- 
cers are  concerned,  the  principle  of  paying  by 
salary,  I made  a motion  to  strike  out  the  word 
“sheriff.”  The  motion,  to  be  consistent  with 
itself,  should  be  to  strike  out  of  the  amendment 
moved  by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond]  all  that  which  relates  to  the  sheriff,  and 
therefore  I modify  it  in  that  respect. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  so  understood 
it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Should  not  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  be 
agreed  to ; for,  in  the  event  of  its  being  agreed 
to,  I propose  to  offer  an  amendment  to  this  sec- 
tion, so  that  it  will  read  in  this  way  : 

“In  every  county  there  shall  he  elected,  by  the  qualified 
electors  thereof,  an  Auditor,  Treasurer  and  Prosecuting 
Attorney,  who  shall  be  paid  a stated  salary  out  of  the 
county  treasury,  together  with  such  other  county  officers 
as  may  be  provided  by  law,  to  be  paid  as  the  General  As- 
sembly shall  direct.” 

This,  I believe,  involves  the  same  principle  as 
that  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond],  except  that  the  sheriff  is  not  in- 
cluded; but  it  is  briefer  and  renders  it  unneces- 
sary to  repeat  the  officers  named ; leaving  the 
question,  in  regard  to  all  these  county  officers, 
not  named  in  the  section,  whose  election  is  to 
be  provided  for  by  the  General  Assembly,  to  that 
body.  It  leaves  the  question,  as  to  those  offi- 
cers, to  the  General  Assembly  to  say  they  shall 
be  paid  by  salary,  or  otherwise,  as  the  case  may 
be. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  section  will  read,  if 
amended:  “And  the  auditor,  treasurer,  and 
prosecuting  attorney  shall  each  be  paid  a stated 
salary  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  proper  county, 
and  shall  account  for,  and  pay  into  the  treasury, 
all  fees  collected  by  them,  under  such  regula- 
tions as  may  be  prescribed  by  law;  and  the 
salaries  of  the  probate  judge  and  clerk  of  courts, 
shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  fees,  by  such  officers 
collected  and  paid  into  the  treasury.” 

M r.  COWEN.  I trust  that  the  word  “ sheriff” 
will  not  be  stricken  from  the  proposed  amend- 
ment. It  would  be  a very  serious  distortion  of 
the  amendment,  as  I think.  It  would  be  en- 
tirely inconsistent  with  the  action  of  the  Con- 
vention, when  the  Judicial  Article  was  adopted, 
and  when  the  clause  containing  a similar  pro- 
vision as  to  the  clerks  of  court,  received  so 
largely  the  approbation  of  this  Convention.  I 
have  failed  to  see,  in  the  arguments  upon  this 
subject,  a single  reason  assigned  why  the  clerks 


should  be  paid  a fixed  salary  and  sheriffs  not. 
The  reason  assigned  by  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  was,  that  there  were 
only  about  twenty  counties  in  the  State  where 
the  sheriff  got  too  much,  or  something  like  that. 
It  does  not  strike  me,  Mr.  President,  that  there 
is  a very  sound  argument  in  that  suggestion. 
The  good  effects  which  will  almost  inevitably 
result  from  the  adoption  of  this  reform,  I think, 
have  been  sufficiently  explained  to  the  Conven- 
tion. I trust  that  they  will  not  make  so  great 
an  exception  to  this  proposed  reform  as  is  con- 
templated by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock],  in  his  motion  to  strike  out  the 
word  sheriff.” 

Mr.  HALE.  Just  a word:  It  has  been  said 
this  was  an  economical  proposition.  The  more 
I reflect  upon  it  the  more  I believe  it  is  a fal- 
lacy to  call  it  a reform  and  saving.  You  will 
notice  by  the  table  from  which  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  gets  his  statistics, 
that  have  been  brought  before  the  Convention, 
that  there  are  included  in  the  total  amount  of 
fees  a large  amount  of  uncollected  costs.  The 
table  is  made  up  in  this  way : The  money  col- 
lected for  the  year,  the  fees  charged  for  the 
work,  not  collected,  the  amount  drawn  from 
the  county  treasury, — giving  a total  as  the  fees 
of  the  officer.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the 
fees  charged  are  not  worth  over  fifty  per 
centum.  Take  the  case  of  Montgomery  county, 
that  has  been  referred  to.  The  fees  collected 
by  the  sheriff  in  that  county  amount  to  the  sum 
of  $1,700.  The  fees  uncollected  for  the  year 
were  some  $3,875.  Put  those  two  together  and 
it  makes  $5,700,  in  round  numbers.  That  $3,800 
uncollected  is  not  worth  more  than  fifty  per 
centum.  You  take  that  at  its  actual  value  and 
it  will  reduce  the  compensation  of  the  officer  to 
$4,000,  or  about  that  amount,  which  is  none  too 
much  for  that  officer  to  be  paid.  Entering  into 
the  calculations  of  the  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin [Mr.  Baber]  are  these  large  sums  charged 
up,  which  are  worth  to  the  officer  not  more 
than  fifty  per  cent.,  and  if  they  are  to  be  col- 
lected, and  paid  into  the  treasury,  will  be  worth 
less  than  that ; and,  therefore,  I do  not  believe 
that  this  provision,  incorporated  into  the  Con- 
stitution, will  be  any  relief  to  the  people. 

The  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing] 
talks  of  removing  from  the  people  an  enormous 
burden  under  which  they  are  groaning  and 
suffering.  Now,  sir;  there  go  into  the  pocket 
of  the  sheriff  very  few  dollars  that  are  taken 
from  the  people,  by  way  of  taxation.  It  is 
mostly  taken  from  the  litigants,  those  parties 
who  are  compelled,  or  are  foolish  enough,  to  go 
into  court  to  seek  legal  redress  for  wrongs,  fan- 
cied or  real.  It  comes  out  of  these  individuals, 
and  the  idea  of  that  being:  a burden,  and  this 
amendment  a reform  and  relief  to  the  people, 
is,  in  my  judgment,  unfounded.  I hope  that, 
before  we  change  this,  from  the  one  theory  to 
the  other,  we  shall  carefully  consider  it. 

Again,  Mr.  President,  we  do  inaugurate  for 
the  gentlemen  who  are  so  strenuous  upon  this 
matter — this  so-called  reform — in  reference  to 
certain  officers.  If  it  shall  prove,  in  the  end,  to 
be  a reform  in  fact,  in  the  manner  of  the  pay- 
ment of  the  clerk,  auditor,  treasurer,  and  pro- 
bate judge,  it  will  be  before  the  Legislature, 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 1471 

February  18,  1874.]  Hale,  Cowen,  Voris. 


and  there  will  be  no  trouble  in  extending  it  to 
the  officers  named  in  this  Article.  It  is  per- 
fectly competent  for  the  Legislature,  if  it  shall 
prove  a needed  reform,  to  extend  it  to  all  of 
them.  We  fix  a rule  to  some;  let  us  stop  there. 
No  great  harm  can  come  from  applying  the 
principle  to  the  offices  to  which  we  have  fixed  it ; 
great  harm  may  come  from  extending  it  fur- 
ther. If  harm  should  come,  it  cannot  be 
changed;  if  it  shall  proveto  be  good,  the  Leg- 
islature may  extend  it  to  any  length. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me? 

Mr.  HALE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Can  the  gentleman  assign  any 
reason  why  the  clerk  should  be  paid  a salary 
and  the  sheriff  should  not? 

Mr.  HALE.  I do  not  know  than  I can. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I inquire  of  the  gentleman 
whether  he  did  not  sign  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Judicial  Department,  in  favor  of 
paying  the  clerk  a fixed  salary ; and  whether 
he  did  not  vote  to  pay  him  a fixed  salary  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole;  and  whether  he  did 
not  vote  for  it  in  the  Convention ; and,  if  so, 
what  has  occurred  since  then  to  change  his 
mind? 

Mr.  HALE.  That  matter  of  paying  county 
officers  by  their  fees,  neither  in  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  in  the  Judiciary  Committee,  nor 
here,  was  discussed  to  any  extent  whatever.  I 
never  have  uttered  a word  giving  my  assent  to 
it.  My  great  modesty  led  me  to  let  that  matter 
pass  unchallenged. 

Mr.  COWEN.  My  inquiry  was  as  to  how 
the  gentleman  voted,  and  not  with  reference  to 
arguments  which  his  modesty  prevented  him 
from  making. 

Mr.  HALE.  I voted  for  the  section;  but  I 
say  here,  and  I am  not  here  undertaking  to 
argue  my  own  consistency;  but  I am  under- 
taking to  say  to  this  Convention,  that  here  and 
now  I believe  that  the  payment  of  the  sheriff 
by  a salary  is  wrong,  and  whatever  may  have 
been  my  course  heretofore,  I care  not.  The 
matter  has  not  been  discussed,  nor  have  I ut- 
tered a word  here,  nor  any  where  else,  in  favor 
of  paying  this  officer  by  salary,  and  not  by  fees. 

The  sheriff  simply  gets  paid  for  what  he 
does.  He  serves  a writ  for  you,  for  A,  for 
B,  and  is  paid  for  that  work.  Let  him  be 
paid  by  the  man  for  whom  he  does  the 
work.  That  is  the  principle.  The  Conven- 
tion should  not  get  astray  upon  this  matter  of 
economy.  The  tables  brought  before  the  Con- 
vention include  a large  amount  of  fees  that 
never  goes  into  the  pocket  of  the  officer  at  all. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I favor  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitch- 
cock], and  I do  so  on  the  broad  principle  of 
justice  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal],  that  the  public  ought  not  to  pay 
for  service  rendered  wholly  to  a private  indi- 
vidual. But  the  question  has  been  frequently 
put  to  gentlemen  upon  this  floor  who  have 
advocated  the  principle  of  paying  a salary 
compensation  to  this  and  other  officers,  how 
they  propose  to  remedy  the  evil  which  now 
exists,  and  no  attempt  to  make  a satisfactory 
answer  has  been  made  to  that  question  here. 
The  truth  is,  that,  so  far  as  this  question  of 
regulating  the  compensation  of  these  officers  by 


salary  is  concerned,  it  is  not  attempted  to  reach 
the  abuse  that  is  claimed  to  exist;  that  is,  the 
mode  in  which  that  officer  is  compensated.  It 
is  not  attempted  to  reduce  the  quantum  of  com- 
pensation for  the  service  rendered.  That  is 
left  an  open  question — left  for  legislative 
discussion — in  the  adoption  of  this  section 
without  an  amendment,  as  if  no  attempt  had 
been  made  at  all  in  the  Constitution  we  are 
framing,  to  regulate  this  matter.  If  these 
officers  are  so  faithless;  if  we  can  repose  so 
little  confidence  in  them  that  we  may  not  trust 
them  to  collect  their  own  fees;  if  they  are 
guilty  of  extortion  in  this  matter,  how  are  we 
better  off  with  this  remedy?  The  public 
treasury  will  not  see  the  money  that  is  collected 
from  them  in  fees ; and  the  public  authorities, 
excepting  the  officer  himself,  will  never  know 
what  is  the  amount  thus  collected.  They  will 
never  know  what  is  collected.  Your  proposi- 
tion opens  wide  the  door  to  the  same  parties, 
not  against  the  party  paying  alone,  but  you 
open  the  door  for  plundering  the  public,  as 
well  as  taking  from  the  person  who  is  paying 
what  you  claim  ought  not  to  be  paid. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me? 

Mr.  VORIS.  With  pleasure. 

Mr.  COWEN.  If  this  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond] 
prevails 

Mr.  VORIS.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock]. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I think  that  the  gentleman 
will  discover  that  my  question  is  pertinent.  If 
this  question  prevails,  containing  the  provision 
that  in  no  case  shall  an  officer  receive  a salary 
beyond  the  amount  of  fees  collected,  I would 
like  to  know  how  it  is  they  can  get  any  money 
from  the  county  treasury  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  know  how  you 
are  going  to  tell  whether  that  be  so  or  not. 
You  have  to  rely  upon  the  integrity  and  good 
faith  of  your  Sheriff.  You  have  to  rely  upon 
the  good  faith  of  all  these  officers,  and  you 
claim,  upon  this  floor,  that  you  cannot  trust 
them.  You  do  not  relieve  us  from  the  wrongs, 
or  the  evil  that  exists  in  the  system.  Another 
question.  How  are  you  to  pay  the  employes  of 
these  officers ; that  must  be  provided  for,  your 
Auditors,  your  Treasurers,  your  Clerks,  your 
Sheriffs,  your  Recorders,  and  these  other  offi- 
cers, as  the  administrative  aids  of  these  officials? 
The  work  will  be  performed  by  the  employes, 
and  these  employes  will  have  to  be  paid  out  of 
the  public  treasury.  You  will  have  numerous 
hangers  on  in  office,  that  will  not  be  needed, 
and  this  plan  gives  encouragement  to  this  class 
of  men.  But  it  is  said  the  Court  will  regulate 
the  matter  of  appointment  to  suit  itself.  I tell 
you  the  judiciary  are  cowardly  in  this  matter; 
because  they  know  that  this  coterie  about  the 
court  houses  control  the  politics,  control  the 
nominations,  control  the  caucuses  that  name 
for  public  offices.  You  are  taking  from  the 
Legislature  the  power  that  really  stands  be- 
tween the  people  and  these  abuses ; and  you 
make  a legislative  body  of  every  board  of  com- 
missioners in  the  county,  or  confer  this  power 
upon  every  judge  that  may  preside  in  vour 
Court  of  Common  Pleas.  You  bring  this  ques- 


1472 


[117th 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

Mullen,  Voris,  Pond. 


tion  right  home,  so  that  it  is  controlled  by  your 
court  house  cliques,  and  your  officers  who  are 
anxious  to  fill  those  places,  and  make  the  most 
out  of  them,  instead  of  being  reformed,  as  con- 
templated. 

Nothing  is  or  can  be  exhibited  in  this  plan, 
that  contains  an  element  of  reform,  or  anything 
that  looks  like  it.  I am  not  prepared  to  commit 
the  government  of  this  State,  for  the  life-time  of 
this  Constitution,  to  a policy  that  promises  noth- 
ing more  than  this,  and,  therefore,  I am  in  favor 
of  adopting  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock].  It  does 
not  cover  all  I would  have  it  cover,  but  it  goes 
in  that  direction.  If  I cannot  get  a whole  loaf, 
I will  take  a half  one,  and  if  not  half  a one,  as 
much  as  lean  get;  but  it  strikes  me,  that  the 
deliberate  judgment  of  this  Convention  ought 
to  teach  it  to  be  careful  how  it  figures  in  this 
direction. 

Mr.  MULLEN.  A very  considerable  length 
of  time  has  been  consumed  in  the  discussion  of 
this  proposition ; and  I would  not  now  attempt 
to  consume  the  further  time  of  this  body  upon 
it,  were  it  not  apparent  to  my  mind  that  the 
proposition  is  extraordinary  in  its  character; 
and  I desire  to  enter  my  protest  against  it.  For 
more  than  three-fourths  of  a century,  the  people 
of  the  State  of  Ohio  have  had  in  operation  a 
system  of  fees,  as  a compensation  to  their  pub- 
lic servants,  in  all  the  various  counties  of  the 
State ; and,  so  far  as  the  people  are  concerned, 
I have  heard  of  no  complaint  in  that  direction, 
as  to  the  mode  of  the  collection  of  their  fees 
and  the  payment  of  their  officers.  The  people, 
I say,  are  satisfied ; yet  it  is  apparent  to  every- 
body, that  the  compensation  of  county  officers, 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  is  by  far  too  great;  that 
the  compensation  is  more  than  they  should  re- 
ceive for  the  services  they  perform.  But  are 
you  confident  the  remedy  proposed  by  this  sec- 
tion is  adequate  to  remove  the  evil?  I think  it 
does  not.  My  friend  from  Fairfield  [Mr. 
Ewing]  says  that  the  people  expect  to  have  in- 
augurated under  this  Constitution,  some  system 
by  which  they  may  be  relieved,  and  the  expen- 
ses of  the  government  may  be  lessened.  Now, 
I ask  you  in  what  way  the  expenses  of  the 
government  can  be  lessened  ? In  what  way  is 
the  litigant,  or  the  taxpayer  relieved  of  any 
burden  complained  of  by  the  benefits  of  this 
substitute  ? The  amendment  does  not  propose 
to  relieve  any  litigants  in  the  great  State  of 
Ohio.  In  what  way  are  they  to  be  relieved  if 
this  amendment  should  prevail  ? The  fees, 
heretofore,  which  have  been  paid  to  officers  by 
this  provision,  it  is  proposed  shall  be  paidinto  the 
treasury  and  if  they  have  been  paid  too  lavishly 
under  the  old  system,  it  will  not  relieve  the 
litigants. 

If  they  are  required  to  pay  the  same  amount 
of  fees  into  the  treasury  that  have  formerly 
been  paid  to  the  officers  themselves,  what  will 
be  the  result?  Not  only  the  litigant  who  goes 
into  the  court,  seeking  his  rights  and  remedies, 
has  to  pay  the  same  compensation  that  he  is  now 
paying,  but  this  class  of  individuals,  who  never 
go  into  a court  of  justice  to  seek  remedies,  are 
required  to  pay  nearly  the  same  that  the  litigant 
is  required  to  pay.  There  are  those  individuals 
in  the  county  who  never  go  into  a court  of  jus- 
tice for  any  wrongs  to  be  righted,  and  yet,  un- 


[Wednesday^ 

der  this  syst4m,  they  are  required  to  go  up  to 
the  county  treasury  and  pay  for  these  privi- 
leges which  they  never  use.  I say  that  this 
change  is  so  radical,  that  I am  not  willing,  as  a 
.Representative  of  Adams  county,  to  go  home 
and  tell  those  of  my  constituents  who  are  never 
litigants,  who  never  go  into  a court  of  justice, 
that  they  are  compelled  to  pay  for  the  use  of 
those  privileges  which  they  never  enjoy. 

Mr.  President,  in  my  mind  it  is  only  perpet- 
uating the  evil,  if  the  evil  exists.  If  tile  various 
county  officers  receive  compensations  that  are 
too  great,  how  easy  it  may  be  to  remedy  it  by 
having  your  special  fee  bill  for  each  county. 
It  is  the  enormous  proposition  that  we  are  to 
collect  from  the  litigant,  the  man  who  is  com- 
pelled to  go  into  a court  of  justice  and  redress 
his  wrongs,  an  amount  over  and  above  the  salary 
of  the  county  officers  into  the  treasury.  If  the 
officers  are  receiving  a recompense  too  great,  let 
us  make  a special  fee  bill  for  each  county,  re- 
quiring the  officer  who  is  interested  in  the  col- 
lection of  his  fees  to  thus  compensate  himself; 
but  not  turn  it  over  to  the  county  treasury,  in 
order  to  arrive  at  the  same  result. 

Why  not  leave  this  matter  to  the  Legislature? 
I would  be  content,  Mr.  President,  to  leave  it  to 
the  Legislature,  that  they  might  try  this  experi- 
ment, and  if,  upon  the  trial,  it  works  advan- 
tageously to  the  people,  and  they  are  satisfied 
with  it,  then  let  us  progress — go  on ; but  if  we 
make  the  mistake  at  this  time,  and  put  this 
into  the  Constitution,  it  will  remain  there  for  a 
very  considerable  length  of  time,  with  no  pos- 
sibility of  its  being  removed.  There  will  be  no 
redress  then  to  the  people,  during  the  term  of 
the  Constitution.  But  if  the  Legislature,  in 
their  wisdom,  see  fit  to  make  this  change  and  to 
make  these  offices  salaried,  and  it  does  not  work 
well,  in  two  or  four  years  they  may  change  it 
and  bring  it  back  to  the  old  system.  I desire  to 
enter  my  protest,  so  far  as  my  particular  county 
is  concerned,  against  this  new,  this  extraordi- 
nary power. 

Mr.  POND.  I suppose  there  is  no  difficulty 
about  this  limitation  upon  the  sheriff’s  fees;  for 
he  is  the  officer  now  brought  under  considera- 
tion. It  has  been  stated  here  that  it  has  been 
deemed  to  be  wise  policy  in  the  government  to 
tax  the  litigant,  substantially,  with  the  cost  of 
litigation.  Because  the  public  have  seen  fit  to 
provide  the  judicial  force  necessary  to  carry  on 
the  litigation  of  tho  State,  it  is  claimed  by  some 
that  the  public  should  pay  the  whole  expense 
of  running  the  court;  but  I think  the  litigants, 
as  far  as  practicable,  should  sustain  the  onus  of 
the  expense.  This  provision  provides  that  no 
salary  shall  be  paid  to  the  sheriff  beyond  the 
amount  of  fees  by  him  collected  and  paid  into 
the  treasury.  If  more  than  a reasonable  salary 
is  collected  and  paid  into  the  treasury,  it  is  a 
tax  upon  the  litigant  for  the  benefit  of  the  pub- 
lic, and  it  goes  into  the  treasury ; but  for  what 
purpose?  To  reimburse  the  public  for  the  ju- 
dicial force  employed.  If  he  is  paid  by  a sal- 
ary it  is  right  that  it  should  be  so;  but  it  is  no 
more  a reason  why  the  public  should  be  taxed, 
at  large,  who  never  go  into  courts,  to  pay  the 
expense  of  litigation  of  those  who  do;  and 
these  fees,  which  will  be  quite  large  in  my  own 
particular  county,  would  be  used  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  reimbursing  the  public  for 


1473 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  18,  1874.]  Pond,  Sample,  Tuttle. 


the  expenditures  they  make  in  paying  the 
judges  of  our  courts;  and,  possibly,  it  may 
effect  the  purpose  of  enabling  us  to  realize 
more  out  of  these  fees  for  the  general  public, 
by  compelling  their  collection. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  is  to 
strike  out  from  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  the  word  ‘‘sher- 
iff,” wherever  it  occurs,  so  that  the  office  of 
sheriff  shall  be  excluded  from  those  that  are 
to  be  provided  for  in  this  section,  and  paid  by  a 
salary.  To  understand  the  character  of  this 
amendment,  it  is  necessary  to  understand  the 
proposition  as  it  may  be  affected  by  it.  I un- 
derstand it  to  be  intimated  by  the  gentleman  as 
a part  of  his  proposition;  and  it  may  be  as- 
sumed that,  if  this  proposition  shall  be  adopted, 
it  will  be  followed  by  results  worthy  of  careful 
consideration . The  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  provides  that  the  sal- 
ary shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  amount  of  fees 
collected  by  the  officer  receiving  the  salary,  and 
paid  into  the  treasury.  That  proposition,  I 
think,  ought  to  be  rejected  without  much  de- 
bate in  this  Convention,  if  that  is  to  be  the 
limitation  of  the  benefit  sought  to  be  derived 
from  the  substitution  of  salaries  for  fees.  What 
objects  are  sought  to  be  accomplished  by  this 
change?  I supposed  it  was  for  the  purpose  of 
fixing  a rule  by  which  those  who  had  to  contrib- 
ute to  the  support  of  these  officers  should  know 
how  much  the  officer  was  to  receive.  In  that 
case,  the  inducement  would  be  taken  away  from 
the  officer  to  charge  exorbitant  fees,  or  to  use 
oppression,  coercion  or  extortion,  in  accumu- 
lating or  increasing  tbe  amount  of  fees.  Such 
charges  are  not  prohibited  by  any  view  of 
the  amendment,  as  advocated  by  the  friends 
of  the  measure.  It  seems  to  be  a matter  of 
mere  pecuniary  consideration  for  the  ben- 
efit of  the  State.  There  are  few  counties 
in  the  State  in  which  the  fees  received 
by  the  county  officers  are  excessive.  The 
counties  have  been  specified  in  which  Sheriffs 
are  supposed  to  have  received  enormous  and 
excessive  fees.  I undertake  to  say  that  when 
these  counties  shall  be  carefully  investigated, 
carefully  analyzed,  when  the  accounts  from 
these  counties  shall  be  carefully  considered,  it 
will  be  found  that  they  are  confined  to  a very 
few ; that  there  are  but  very  few  counties  in 
the  State  that  would  be  affected  by  the  change, 
and  that  would  put  into  the  county  treasury 
any  excess  remaining  after  the  salary  shall  be 
paid.  It  is  possible  that  is  the  object  had  in 
view,  and  that  can  be  done  much  more  practi- 
cally, and  with  greater  profit  to  the  people  of 
the  State,  by  providing  that  the  fees  in  the 
office,  beyond  a given  sum,  shall  be  paid  into 
the  treasury.  There  is  no  use  in  having  the 
salary  fixed;  you  merely  attach  a limit  to  the 
amount  which  shall  be  kept  by  the  officer  who 
makes  the  collection.  In  those  counties  where 
the  fees  do  not  amount  to  what  is  estimated  as 
a liberal  salary,  they  will  be  left  as  they  now 
are,  free  from  the  operation  of  the  change. 

This  matter  ought  to  be  done  by  the  Legisla- 
ture. But  suppose,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
salaries  are  fixed.  In  the  county  where  the 
fees  are  small,  and  where  the  business  is  small, 
and  where  the  fees  collected  do  not  amount  to 

y.  h-95 


the  sum  that  would  be  fixed  as  the  salary, 
the  officer  is  told,  when  he  goes  into  office,  that 
he  is  entitled  to  receive  a certain  sum  out  of  the 
county  treasury,  provided  he  can  pour  that 
much  into  it;  and  what  would  be  the  effect? 
The  effect  would  be  that  he  would  receive  the 
legislative  allowance,  as  a rule.  He  would  say 
that  the  Legislature,  by  allowing  him  a certain 
amount  as  a salary,  acknowledged  that  he  was 
entitled  to  that  amount,  and,  because  he  was  so 
entitled  to  it,  he  would  strain  every  nerve,  and 
would  make  every  effort — he  would  use  every 
means  that  might  be  necessary — to  put  into  the 
treasury  an  amount  equal  to  his  salary,  so  that 
he  might  be  entitled  to  draw  it  out.  I under- 
take to  say  that  the  work  of  oppression  on 
the  people  of  the  county,  and  those  who  were 
subject  to  the  payment  of  fees  or  costs  in  those 
counties  in  which  the  legitimate  fees  might 
be  insufficient  to  pay  the  salaries  allowed  by 
law  to  officers  holding  the  offices  in  those 
counties,  would  be  subject  to  oppression,  in 
order  that  the  amount  might  be  raised.  It 
must  be  apparent  to  everybody  that  the  change 
would  be  of  no  use  in  such  counties,  and  that 
the  benefit  to  the  treasury  would  be  for  large 
counties  only,  if  the  change  is  to  be  in  the 
manner  indicated.  It  would  be  beneficial  to 
the  public  in  but  a few  instances,  but  it  might, 
and,  no  doubt,  would,  work  great  injustice  to 
many  counties  in  the  State. 

Viewed,  then,  in  that  light,  I hope  that  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock]  will  prevail.  I hope  the  pro- 
vision, that  the  Sheriff  shall  receive  a fixed 
salary  for  his  services,  in  every  county  in  the 
State,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  fees  that  he  may 
collect  and  pay  into  the  treasury,  will  not  be 
incorporated  into  the  Constitution  adopted  by 
this  Convention,  and  submitted  to  the  people  of 
this  State  for  their  approval  and  ratification. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  already  addressed  the 
Convention  upon  the  subject  of  the  general 
policy  involved  in  the  question,  but  1 would 
like  to  add  one  or  two  remarks  to  what  I said 
before.  At  that  time,  however,  I urged  that, 
as  I believed,  we  would  not  secure  as  efficient 
service  by  this  mode  of  compensation.  The 
gentleman  who  followed  me  said,  that  my 
remarks  had  not  convinced  him ; but  I must  be 
allowed  to  reciprocate  and  say,  that,  if  the 
proposition  I made  admits  of  any  answer,  the 
gentleman  did  not  make  any,  to  my  comprehen- 
sion. Nor  do  I believe  it  can  be  shown  that  a 
man  will  undertake  service,  and  render  it 
equally  efficient,  whether  he  is  to  be  paid  or 
not;  nor  whether  the  compensation  he  is  to 
receive  is  a fixed  amount,  let  the  services  be 
greater  or  less ; or  whether  his  compensation  is 
to  be  proportionate  to  the  amount  of  service 
rendered,  especially  where  those  services  re- 
quire considerable  labor  by  him  who  performs 
them. 

It  was  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  that  the  expenses  of  the 
government  ought  to  be  reduced,  and  this,  of 
course,  as  applied  to  the  present  case,  means 
that  litigants  and  suitors  in  court,  parties  who 
are  compelled  to  resort  to  the  courts  to  redress 
their  grievances,  parties  who  are  unable  to  per- 
form their  legal  obligations,  and  are,  therefore, 
brought  into  court  by  suit  against  them,  being 


1474 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

Tuttle,  Hoadly,  West. 


[117th 

[Wednesday, 


compelled  to  pay  the  ordinary  expenses  of  liti- 
gation, ought  to  be  taxed  to  defray  the  other 
expenses  of  the  government,  to  relieve  other 
gentlemen  who  do  not  go  into  court;  but  who, 
by  reason  of  the  benefit  received  by  them,  from 
the  fact  that  courts  exist,  that  court  houses, 
and  sheriffs,  and  officers  exist,  do  not  have  to 
resort  to  courts,  and  that  such  persons  shall 
have  a tax  paid  for  their  benefit  by  the  unfor- 
tunate persons  who  are  compelled  to  go  into 
courts,  or  who  cannot  avoid  being  brought 
into  courts.  Well,  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman to  go  before  the  people  on  that  propo- 
sition . 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Which  is  best,  that  the  liti- 
gants should  pay  too  much  into  the  county 
treasury ; or,  that  they  should  pay  the  same  too 
much,  but  the  money  should  go  to  pay  the 
officers,  or  to  swell  a political  corruption  fund? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  that  I can 
answer  that  question.  I would  say,  neither. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How  are  you  going  to 
avoid  it  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  now  recognize  any 
such  alternative  as  that.  I refuse  to  stand  here, 
legislating  to  do  injustice  to  the  people,  upon 
the  ground  that  all  men  are  rascals;  or  that 
you  have  got  to  endure  their  rascality,  their 
treachery  and  corruption,  in  some  shape.  I do 
not  stand  here  to  make  Constitutions  upon  any 
such  idea. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  the  gentleman  to 
answer  me  another  question : Are  not  all  the 

salaries  that  our  judges  receive  paid  out  of  the 
treasury,  and  would  the  amount  of  money  thus 
paid  more  than  compensate  the  State  for  the 
loss  of  these  salaries  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hardly  understand  the 
question.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  demurable 
for  duplicity,  in  the  first  place,  and  as  the  gen- 
tleman has  laid  down  in  his  work  on  parlia- 
mentary rules  and  parliamentary  logic  some 
very  strict  rules  against  duplicity,  on  that  ac- 
count I demur. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then,  considering  the  de- 
murrer well  taken,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  I 
ask  the  gentleman  whether  the  expense  of  the 
salary  of  the  judges  is  not  a fair  charge  by  the 
State  on  litigants  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I answer,  no!  No,  sir;  and 
the  idea  is  unworthy  of  a just  people. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Very  well.  Then  I ask  him 
why  the  expenses  of  a sheriff  and  clerk  should 
be  paid  by  the  litigant  any  more? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Because  they  are  occasional. 
They  are  rendered  only  when  their  services  are 
needed.  They  are  measured  by  the  extent  and 
value  of  the  service  rendered.  They  are  paya- 
ble by  the  man  for  whose  particular  benefit  they 
are  rendered,  and  there  is  a difference  between 
the  two  as  wide  as  heaven  and  hell  are  from 
each  other.  That  is  why. 

But  I would  like  to  proceed,  if  I can  get  back 
to  the  point  at  which  I was  diverted.  A man 
has  given  a mortgage  upon  his  home,  signed  by 
his  wife,  and  it  is  good  to  pay  every  dollar  of  it; 
but  he  is  not  able  to  pay  the  debt,  and  the  cred- 
itor is  pressing.  The  creditor  goes  into  a court 
of  justice,  and  demands  that  the  mortgage  be 


foreclosed,  and  the  law  cannot  say  him  nay, 
and  the  land  is  ordered  to  be  sold,  and  there  are 
fees  for  the  sheriff  for  serving  the  summons  and 
for  putting  the  property  to  sale;  and,  says  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  that  un- 
fortunate mortgagor  who  is  to  be  sold  out  of  his 
home,  the  refuge  of  his  wife  and  children, 
ought,  in  addition  to  paying  the  sheriff  for  sell- 
ing his  property,  to  pay  another  tax  for  having 
his  property  sold  out  to  go  towards  the  payment 
of  the  attorney  general’s  salary,  if  my  friend 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  should  ever  be  that 
officer;  to  the  payment  of  the  salary  of  Gov- 
ernor, for  which  some  people  in  the  State  of 
Ohio  talk  of  making  him  a candidate,  or  for 
paying  the  salaries  of  the  supreme  judges.  I 
would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  to  go  and  state 
that  proposition  to  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  and  see  whether  they  would  concur  with 
him  in  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  it  possible  to  adjust  a scale  of 
charges  for  these  officers  by  which  an  excess 
above  the  charges  adjusted  will  not,  sometimes, 
accrue? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  suppose  it  is. 

Mr.  WEST.  You  think  it  is  not? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I suppose  it  is  not. 

Mr.  WEST.  Now,  what  is  a just  mode  of  dis- 
posing of  the  excess  ? Where  shall  it  go?  That 
is  the  only  question. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  I have  time  to  talk  about 
that,  and  one  or  two  other  things  that  I want  to 
talk  about,  I shall  try  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  Just  answer  that  one. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  say  at  once,  get  as 
near  to  it  as  you  can,  and  if  one  man  gets  a little 
too  much  another  will  get  too  little,  and,  on 
the  whole,  it  will  be  just  as  near  right  as  you 
can  make  any  plan  operate.  That  is  what  I 
say  about  it.  I say,  if  the  fees  of  the  sheriff 
are  too  high,  cut  them  down.  If  a man’s  prop- 
erty is  sold  under  mortgage,  for  service  that 
the  sheriff  renders  to  the  other  'party,  do  not  be 
guilty  of  the  inhumanity  and  the  injustice  of 
adding  to  that  something  to  relieve  other  peo- 
ple from  their  share  of  other  burdens,  which 
are  just  as  much  for  their  benefit  as  for  his. 

Mr.  WEST.  One  question  more.  That  comes 
exactly  at  what  I was  aiming.  How  will  you 
get  them  down  so  as  to  avoid  that  excess  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I said  before  that  I do  not 
suppose  you  can  make  anything  exactly  right, 
if  exactly  right  means  exactly  equal,  but  you 
can  make  it  as  near  right  as  you  can,  and  when 
you  have  done  that,  if  you  are  a little  in  the 
wrong,  let  the  wrong  be  as  nearly  remedied  by 
another  as  near  approach  to  equality  as  is  pos- 
sible; but  do  not  make  it  a plea  for  robbing 
Peter  in  order  to  pay  Paul,  and  especially  to 
pay  him  that  which  is  not  his  due. 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly  not. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I must,  I think,  proceed  with 
another  idea  that  I think  is,  after  all,  as  impor- 
tant as  what  I have  been  talking  about.  I do 
not  believe  that  anything  of  this  kind  is  going 
to  result  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  benefits 
sought  to  be  derived  from  it.  Let  us  take  the 
sheriff',  as  an  instance.  What  is  he?  He  is  an 
officer  for  exigencies.  An  execution  is  issued. 


1475 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  18, 1874.]  Tuttle,  Dorsey. 


It  is  important  that  it  should  be  levied  at  once. 
If  he  delays  for  an  hour,  it  may  he  that  the  debt 
will  be  lost,  and  by  the  policy  of  our  present 
law,  it  is  his  business  and  his  duty  to  go  at  once 
and  search  for  the  property,  and  if  he  fails  to 
do  it,  and  it  proves  that,  thereby,  the  debt  is 
lost,  he  is  responsible  for  it.  I suppose  we  do 
not  mean  to  abrogate  this  policy,  and  do  not 
want  to  adopt  any  system  that  would  impair 
this  obligation  of  the  sheriff,  nor  the  policy  it 
supports.  If  we  would  not,  we  must  provide 
him  the  means  to  accomplish  his  duty.  He 
must  always  be  able  to  command  the  necessary 
force,  so  that  he  can  go,  or  send,  at  the  word, 
and  perform  his  duty.  Who  is  to  determine 
what  force  is  necessary  ? Can  anybody  but  the 
sheriff  himself  determine  it?  Is  there  any- 
body else  in  the  world  who  can  determine  how 
many  deputies  he  needs  to  provide  for  the  exi- 
gency that  may  arise?  Any  system  that  would 
place  the  power  in  any  other  functionary  of 
government  to  be  exercised  semi-occasionally, 
would,  necessarily,  prevent  the  sheriff  from 
doing  his  duty,  on  a great  many  occasions. 
When  we  look  at  the  case  in  that  manner,  it  is, 
in  my  judgment,  as  sure  as  that  the  sun  will  rise, 
that  the  sheriff  will  make  the  service,  to  be 
performed  by  himself,  the  very  smallest  modi- 
cum possible;  and,  instead  of  a few  hundred 
dollars  paid  to  deputies,  against  $2,500  or  $2,600 
realized  by  the  sheriff,  as  you  will  find  to  be  the 
case  now,  if  you  look  at  the  tables  of  official 
expenses  in  the  county  of  Trumbull,  you  will 
have  $2,500  or  $2,600  paid  to  the  deputies 
in  such  counties,  and  whatever  salary  may 
be  paid  to  the  sheriff  besides.  I think  that 
will  be  the  result.  It  is  the  natural  conse- 
quence. I tell  you  that  a man,  unless  his 
services  are  paid  for,  is  not  going  to  ride 
at  all  times,  anti  work  at  all  hours,  and  per- 
form service  for  which  he  cannot  get  a'dollar, 
or  a dime,  if  he  can  help  it;  but  he  will  insist 
upon  extra  help  to  the  utmost  limit,  when  that 
extra  help  does  not  cost  him  anything.  The 
public  must  pay  for  it.  If  he  performs  it  him- 
self, within  the  limits,  he  gets  nothing  more  for 
it.  If  he  can  satisfy  the  public  it  is  necessary 
for  him  to  be  helped,  he  is  not  going  to  do  it 
for  nothing ; and  the  result  will  be  that,  instead 
of  that  fraud  that  is  now  complained  of,  and  a 
great  deal  more,  upon  the  subject  of  fees,  the 
fraud  will  be  committed  where  it  will  be  a great 
deal  more  difficult  to  get  at  it. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Mr.  DORSEY.  When  this  question  was  un- 
der consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  I 
said  that  I favored  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 
I was  not  at  all  favorable  to  the  amendment 
that  was  made  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
by  which  the  different  officers  of  the  county 
were  made  salaried  officers,  instead  of  being 
paid  by  fees.  It  is  introducing  a radical  change 
into  our  system  in  the  compensation  of  officers. 
I do  not  say  that  I am  opposed  to  radical  changes ; 
but  I am  not  in  favor  of  making  radical  changes 
unless  they  are  radical  improvements,  and  to 
my  mind  it  is  exceedingly  doubtful  whether 
this  change  is  any  improvement  at  all. 

I would  be  willing  to  pay,  if  you  please,  the 
probate  judge  a salary.  I would  include  him  in 
the  category  of  the  judges  of  the  State,  and  let 
him  be  paid,  if  it  be  thought  best,  by  a salary. 


I believe  we  had  better  pay  the  other  county 
officers  by  fees,  as  we  have  heretofore  done,  and 
more  especially  am  I in  favor  of  paying  the  sheriff” 
and  clerk  of  the  court  in  fees,  as  1 said  on  a for- 
mer occasion.  It  is  hardly  worth  while  for  me 
to  repeat  the  reasons  I gave  for  it  then ; but  I 
am  in  favor  of  paying  these  officers  fees.  They 
are  the  persons  with  whom  the  litigants  of  the 
county  have  more  particularly  to  do,  and  I 
believe  that  those  persons  who  engage  in  liti- 
gation should  pay  the  officers  who  perform  the 
services  for  the  litigants.  That  is  one  reason 
why  I am  in  favor  of  it.  1 am  also  in  favor  of 
it  for  another  reason,  which  I think  was  very 
correctly  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Trum- 
bull [Mr.  Tuttle],  that  especially  in  the  case  of 
the  sheriff,  you  get  the  service  better  performed, 
and  in  all  probability,  in  my  opinion,  you  get 
it  performed  with  less  cost  to  the  people  of  the 
county. 

I would  ask  gentlemen,  when  they  talk  so 
much  about  excessive  fees  that  are  paid  to  these 
officers,  to  look  at  the  report  of  the  Auditor  of 
State,  and  see  if,  upon  the  whole,  they  are  so 
excessive  as  gentlemen  are  disposed  to  think. 

I have  looked  over  the  table  of  fees,  commenc- 
ing with  those  of  the  auditor,  and  going  down 
to  those  of  recorder.  I find  that  the  average 
amount  of  fees  paid  to  the  auditor  is  nearly 
$2,250.  That  is  not  an  excessive  compensation. 
It  is  very  true,  that  in  some  counties  it  may  be 
found  to  go  beyond  what  would  be  considered 
a fair  and  proper  compensation ; but,  if  that  be 
the  case,  it  simply  remains  with  the  General 
Assembly  to  order,  that  in  those  counties  where 
the  fees  exceed  a certain  amount,  the  excess  be 
paid  into  the  county  treasury.  That  is  all  that 
can  be  done ; and  it  seems  to  me,  that  that  is  the 
simplest  and  best  way  of  remedying  the  evil. 
It  will  be  found,  if  we  look  over  all  these  differ- 
ent county  officers,  that  the  amounts  paid  them, 
on  the  average,  are  not  excessive.  Two  thou- 
sand two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  is  the  aver- 
age of  the  fees  of  the  auditors  of  the  several 
counties ; $2,350  the  average  of  the  fees  of  the 
treasurers.  The  prosecuting  attorneys’  fees  are 
small.  The  clerks’ fees  amount  to  $1,800,  on  an 
average,  in  the  different  counties  of  the  State ; 
and  there  are  only  fourteen  counties  in  the  State 
in  which  the  amount  exceeds  $2,500.  These  fees 
are  not  worthy  to  be  taken  into  consider- 
ation when  we  are  talking  about  these  officers 
receiving  excessive  compensation.  The  average 
amount  paid  to  the  Sheriffs,  in  the  different 
counties  in  Ohio,  is  nearly  $2,000 ; and  there 
are  only  nineteen  counties  in  the  State  in  which 
the  Sheriffs’  fees  exceed  $2,500.  This  shows  us 
how  easy  the  evil,  if  it  be  an  evil,  which  exists, 
under  the  present  system,  may  be  remedied  by 
a simple  act  of  the  Legislature.  But  there  are 
some  counties,  as,  for  example,  Hamilton  coun- 
ty, or  the  county  of  Montgomery,  or  the  county 
of  Lucas,  and,  perhaps,  the  county  of  Franklin, 
where  Sheriffs’  fees  are  excessive.  How  simple 
and  easy  a matter  it  is,  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly should  pass  an  act  ordering  that  the  excess, 
above  a certain  amount,  be,  in  those  different 
counties,  paid  into  the  county  treasury ; and  I 
submit  to  gentlemen  that  that  is  a better  way 
of  disposing  of  this  difficulty,  than  to  revolu- 
tionize our  whole  system  of  the  payment  of 
county  officers.  I may  be  willing  to  assent  to 


1476 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [117th 


Dorsey,  Powell,  Ewing,  Hale,  West. 


[Wednesday, 


this  change,  provided  gentlemen  convince  me 
that  there  is  an  improvement  in  it;  but  I am 
not  willing  to  do  it  for  the  sake  of  the  change, 
when  I cannot  see  where  the  improvement  lies. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Suppose  the  people  cannot 
see  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  people  cannot  see  it, 
they  probably  will  not  adopt  this  Constitution ; 
and  that  contingency  may  occur.  I shall  not 
stand  here  to  talk  about  the  people  rejecting  the 
Constitution  for  any  particular  provisions  that 
may  be  in  it.  I trust  they  will  not  reject  it  at 
all ; but  I do  say,  that  we  should  not  make  such 
radical  changes  in  the  ordinary  mode  of  trans- 
acting business,  in  this  Constitution,  unless  we 
can  say  to  the  people  that  we  give  them  an  im- 
provement. If  there  are  evils  existing  in  this 
matter  of  the  fees  of  county  officers,  and  I 
admit  that  there  are  such,  I think  I have  pointed 
out  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  Convention  a more 
simple  way  of  removing  those  evils  than  the 
introduction  of  this  radical  and  revolutionary 
change,  which  is  proposed  to  be  introduced  by 
the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
I,  therefore,  prefer  to  stand  by  the  Report  of 
the  Committee,  as  I have  generally  done  with 
Reports  of  Committees  made  to  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock],  to  strike  out  the  word  “sheriff,” 
wherever  it  occurs  in  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  50,  nays  33,  as  follows  : 
Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Byal,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Doan, 
Dorsey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Horton,  Humphreville,  Johnson, 
Kerr,  McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Okey,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Shaw,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valken- 
burgh,  YanYoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  White  of 
Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young 
of  Noble— 50. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Baber,  Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose, 
Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Hoadly, 
Hostetter,  Hunt,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Page, 
Pease,  Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell 
of  Meigs,  Scribner,  Sears,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  President— 33. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  EWING.  There  is  an  apparent  defect 
in  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  in  the  last  sentence, 
which  is  this : “and  the  salaries  of  the  probate 
judges,  clerks  of  courts  and  sheriffs,  shall,  in  no 
case,  exceed  the  fees  by  such  officers  collected, 
and  paid  into  the  treasury.” 

Now,  the  Legislature  will  have  to  pass  a law 
to  give  effect  to  this  law,  if  it  becomes  a part  of 
the  Constitution;  and  the  difficulty  with  the 
amendment,  as  it  now  stands,  is,  that,  for  the 
first  year,  there  will  be  no  way  of  fixing  the 
fees,  because,  for  the  year  preceding,  there  will 
be  nothing  paid  into  the  treasury.  I have  an 
amendment  prepared,  therefore,  which  I move 
for  the  purpose  of  correcting  that,  adding  the 


words:  “except  for  one  year  after  the  law  fixing 
such  salary  may  take  effect,”  so  that  that  will 
make  the  fees  the  salary  for  the  first  year  after 
the  salary  shall  take  effect,  and  after  that  the 
salary  shall  not  exceed  the  amount  of  fees  paid 
into  the  treasury  by  said  officers.  Of  course, 
it  will  not  only  include  fees  that  he  earns  him- 
self, but  the  fees  of  his  predecessor  which  he 
pays  in. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  the  words : 

“ except  for  one  year  after  the  first  law  fixing  such  sal- 
ary shall  take  effect.” 

Mr.  HALE.  I simply  desire  to  suggest  to  the 
Convention  this : that  the  fees  paid  in  any  one 
year  is  a very  different  thing  from  the  fees 
earned;  for  instance,  the  fees  earned  in  a year 
may  be  three  thousand  dollars.  The  fees  paid 
in  may  be  twenty-four  hundred  dollars — I mean 
all  those  earned  and  charged  by  the  predeces- 
sor. I do  not  mean  the  fees  earned. 

Mr  WEST.  Pre-existing. 

Mr.  HALE.  I understand.  What  I propose 
to  state  is  this : After  you  get  to  running  the 

fees  of  the  predecessor,  the  pre-existing  fees 
and  the  fees  that  are  paid  in  in  a year  may  vary 
very  much  from  the  fees  earned  the  same  year. 
It  would,  in  some  cases,  be  in  excess,  and  in 
some  cases  fall  below.  So  you  would  have  a 
varying  rule  to  go  by  that  would  be  very 
unjust.  For  instance,  the  fees  earned  in  one 
year  would  be  three  thousand  dollars ; the  fees 
paid  in,  including  those  paid  in  for  the  year 
previous,  the  existing  fees,  and  those  that  were 
earned  that  year,  might  fall  below  that,  say, 
twenty-five  hundred  dollars.  The  very  next 
year  the  fees  earned  would  be  three  thousand 
dollars*  and  the  fees  existing,  and  the  fees 
earned,  being  paid  into  the  treasury,  thirty-five 
hundred  dollars.  Taking  the  various  counties, 
you  will  notice  that  the  fees  that  are  collected 
in  proportion  to  those  actually  earned — I mean, 
including  pre-existing  fees  and  those  earned — 
vary  in  the  different  counties.  They  vary  in 
the  different  years,  so  that  the  rule  that  is 
suggested  by  the  amendment  is  grossly  inade- 
quate and  inequitable. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I hope  that  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond],  with  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  will  be 
adopted.  What  we  want  to  get  at  is  to  make 
these  officers  salaried  officers.  But  if  you 
undertake  here,  by  a single  line  or  sentence,  to 
provide  how  to  come  at  this,  you  will  get  into 
interminable  difficulty,  and  compel  the  men 
who  want  to  vote  for  it  to  vote  against  it;  and  I 
propose,  if  we  can  vote  all  down,  to  offer  the 
following  amendment:  Strike  out  all  after 

line  two  of  the  original  section,  and  insert  the 
following : “ The  Auditor,  Treasurer,  Probate 

Judge  and  Prosecuting  Attorney  shall  be  paid 
such  salary  out  of  the  county  treasury, 
together  with  such  other  officers  as  may  be 
provided  by  law  to  be  paid,”  <fcc.  That  makes 
it  consistent  with  the  preceding  section,  and 
provides  that  these  officers  shall  be  paid  by  a 
salary,  and  leaves  the  details  to  the  Legisla- 
ture. 

Mr.  EWING.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 


1477 


Day.]  SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  18, 1874.1  Griswold,  Ewing,  Pond. 


me,  I would  like  to  call  his  attention  to  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  provision  there  against  the 
payment  in  the  present  mode.  They  may  have 
a salary  and  all  their  present  fees,  under  that 
amendment. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  provides  that  they  shall 
be  paid  a salary. 

Mr.  EWING.  But  not  merely  a salary. 
You  allow  fees,  too. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  You  may  add  to  it  in 
another  mode;  but  if  you  undertake  to  say 
what  that  salary  shall  be,  and  how  it  shall  be 
collected  out  of  the  fees,  you  will  get  into 
interminable  difficulty  in  that  matter,  and  the 
only  way  you  can  arrive  out  of  this  is  for  us  to 
lay  down  the  rule.  You  provide,  in  the  Judicial 
Article,  that  the  Clerk  and  Probate  Judge  shall 
be  paid  a salary,  but  it  does  not  prevent  them 
from  being  paid  otherwise.  You  have  said 
nothing  about  it,  and  the  amendment  does  not. 
When  you  provide  that  an  officer  shall  be  paid 
a salary,  can  the  Legislature  go  on  and  give 
him  fees?  Not  at  all.  The  same  rule  applies  to 
this.  I do  not  understand  what  legal  effect  all 
that  can  have,  that  they  go  on  and  give  him 
other  compensation,  when  you  say  he  shall  be 
paid  a salary. 

Mr.  POND.  There  is  no  disposition  to  be 
made,  as  I understand  it,  of  the  fees,  only  for 
Probate  Judge. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I take  it  that  the  Legisla- 
ture will  provide  for  these  fees.  It  is  not 
necessary  for  us  to  say  that  the  fees  paid  shall 
go  into  the  county  treasury.  I take  it  the 
Legislature  have  ordinary  sense  to  take  care  of 
that.  We  have  not  got  to  do  everything  for  the 
Legislature ; when  we  lay  down  rules  that  they 
shall  pay  the  officers  by  a salary,  that  is 
enough. 

Mr.  POND.  Does  not  that  imply  that  they 
shall  be  paid  bv  fees  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Not  at  all.  We  provide 
that  they  shall  be  paid  by  a salary,  and  leave 
the  fees  to  the  Legislature,  to  adjust  how  the 
fees  shall  be  paid;  and  it  does  away  with  the 
objection  that  was  so  forcibly  made  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]  to  the  pro- 
posed amendment.  It  fixes  a salary,  and  fixes 
that  the  Legislature  shall  pay  these  particular 
officers  who  ought  to  be  paid  a salary,  and 
leaves  the  details  of  it,  the  working  out  of  the 
system,  to  the  Legislature.  If  you  go  on  in  this 
mode,  you  should  have  a whole  bill  sufficient  to 
cover  the  whole  matter.  That  is  what  we  do 
not  wish  to  do ; and  while  there  are  very  many 
that  are  anxious  to  vote  for  it,  if  you  undertake 
to  fix  it  in  such  a way  as  to  tie  up  the  hands  of 
the  Legislature,  we  shall  be  compelled  to  vote 
against  it.  This  fixes  it  so  that  they  must  be 
paid  a salary,  and  the  amount  of  salary,  and 
the  disposition  of  the  fees  is  left  to  the  Legis- 
lature. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  strikes  me  that  the  amend- 
ment, of  which  notice  has  been  given  by  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  is 
simply  a movement  to  emasculate  the  whole 
proposition.  That  is  the  effect  of  it.  Those  of 
us  who  are  in  favor  of  salaries  being  paid  to 
officers,  wish  to  follow  the  provisions  of  the 
Illinois  Constitution.  The  Illinois  Constitution 
provides  that  out  of  the  fees  that  are  paid  into 
the  treasury  these  salaries  are  to  be  paid,  only. 


We  do  not  want  to  throw  this  burden  upon  the 
people  themselves.  We  want  to  specify,  and 
we  have  a right  to  do  so,  out  of  what  fund  it 
shall  come. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Is  not  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  based  upon  the  fact  that  the  fees 
paid  are  excessive,  and  that  this  provision 
ought  to  be  adopted,  because  it  is  economical, 
and  that  the  fees  paid  are  largely  in  excess  of 
what  these  officers  should  receive?  If  that  is 
the  case,  do  not  you  accomplish  that  in  provi- 
ding for  a salary? 

Mr.  BABER.  No,  sir;  simply  because  you 
do  not  meet  the  objection  that,  if  these  men 
have  a salary  assured  to  them,  they  might  not 
collect  these  fees.  We  want  to  make  the 
reception  of  these  salaries  depend  upon  the 
collection  of  their  fees.  We  do  not  want  to 
throw  the  thing  open  for  a man  to  say,  “ I have 
got  my  salary,  anyhow,  and  will  pay  no  atten- 
tion to  the  collection  of  the  fees.”  We  want  to 
provide  against  that;  and,  therefore,  we  pro- 
vide that  from  the  fees  collected  he  shall  be 
paid.  And  it  is  to  meet  this  objection,  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Adams  [Mr.  Mullen],  and 
by  other  gentlemen  who  oppose  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond], 
that  this  amendment  is  offered.  The  effect  of 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Griswold]  is  to  defeat  the  whole 
thing,  and  throw  it  right  back  where  he  knows, 
as  well  as  I do,  there  will  be  nothing  done  upon 
the  subject — the  Legislature  of  the  State — 
except  in  the  interest,  perhaps,  of  those  con- 
ventions of  county  officers  that  are  held  for  the 
purpose  of  controlling  them ; who,  when  there 
was  a salary  law  passed,  went  up  to  the  capital, 
and,  by  log-rolling,  compelled  the  Legislature 
to  repeal  it,  under  the  pressure  of  political 
influence. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Has  there  ever  been  any 
complaint  as  to  the  operation  of  the  law  on  this 
account?  Has  not  the  Legislature  provided 
for  it? 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  not  yielded  the  floor. 
The  point  is  this : It  is  a well  known  fact  that 
after  the  war,  and  during  the  war,  the  people 
were  not  paying  much  attention  to  the  matter. 
By  means  of  their  conventions  of  county  offi- 
cers, the  fees  and  costs  of  suits  in  court  were 
largely  raised,  and  since  then  it  has  been  im- 
possible to  get  these  fees  to  the  ante  helium,  State. 
As  long  as  these  officers  can  pocket  those  large 
fees,  we  can  never  get  any  reduction  of  them; 
but  the  very  moment  they  find  that  they  cannot 
pocket  the  fees,  I think  we  can  have  them  re- 
duced so  as  to  relieve  the  people,  and  not  have 
these  enormous  costs  thrown  upon  them.  There- 
fore, I hope  that  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  will  be  adopted; 
for  I look  at  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  as  an  obstacle 
thrown  in  the  way  of  reform. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr. 
Ewing]. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  What  is  that  motion? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
it. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  the  words: 

“ except  for  one  year  after  the  first  law  fixing  a salary 
shall  take  effect.” 


1478 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [117th 


Voris,  Pond,  Mueller,  Horton,  Baber,  Ewing,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  as  amend- 
ed, will  read : 

“But  the  Auditor,  Treasurer  and  Prosecuting  Attorney 
shall  each  be  paid  a stated  salary  out  of  the  treasury  of 
the  proper  county,  and  shall  account  for  and  pay  into  the 
treasury  all  fees  collected  by  him,  under  such  regulations 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  law,  and  the  salary  of  the  Pro- 
bate Judge  and  the  Clerks  of  Courts  shall  in  no  case  ex- 
ceed the  fees  by  such  officers  collected  and  paid  into  the 
treasury,  except  for  one  year  after  the  first  law  fixing 
such  salary  shall  take  effect.” 

Mr.  YORIS.  I do  hope  this  amendment  will 
he  adopted;  for,  if  the  fruits  of  this  thing  are 
of  such  significance  as  is  claimed  by  gentlemen 
upon  this  floor,  for  heaven’s  sake  give  it  to  us 
just  as  soon  as  we  can  adopt  it.  Do  not  post- 
pone the  blessing  for  a whole  year. 

Mr.  POND.  If  the  Convention  will  permit  me, 
I shall  accept  the  amendment. 

“ Object,”  “ object,”  “ object!” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Then  I move  another 
amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  the  Convention  not 
agreeing  to  accept  the  amendment  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 

Mr.  Ewing’s  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I move  to  strike  out  of  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  all  after  the  word 
“county”  in  the  fifth  line,  and  insert  in  lieu 
thereof,  these  words : “ but  no  other  fees  or 
compensation  shall  be  allowed  or  paid  such 
officer.”  So  that  the  amendment  will  read : 

“The  Auditor,  Treasure!-,  and  Prosecuting  Attorney 
shall  each  be  paid  a stated  salary,  out  of  the  treasury  of 
the  proper  county,  but  no  other  fees  or  compensation 
shall  be  allowed  or  paid  said  officer.” 

By  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  as  now  shaped,  there  are 
but  three  officers  provided  for  by  it — the  audi- 
tor, treasurer,  and  prosecuting  attorney.  Those 
three  officers  are  the  only  three  county  officers 
who,  really,  exclusively,  and  substantially  work 
for  the  public ; and  I can  see  that  it  is  proper, 
that  those  three  officers,  and  no  other  county 
officers,  should  be  paid  fixed  salaries;  and  no 
fees  or  emoluments,  other  than  the  salary, 
should  be  attached  to  those  offices  whatever. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken. 
The  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond]  includes  the  probate  judge  and 
clerk. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I do  not  so  understand  it. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  does. 

Mr.  HORTON.  If  it  does,  I can  conceive  of 
no  reason  why  the  long-tailed  part  of  the  propo- 
sition should  be  kept  on  it.  If  there  are  fees  to 
be  provided  for,  to  be  paid  to  these  officers,  let 
the  Legislature  provide,  when  they  provide  for 
these,  that  they  shall  be  paid  directly  from  the 
county  treasury.  My  understanding  of  it  was 
that  there  were  only  those  three  officers. 

Mr.  YORIS.  This  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  embraces 
the  auditor  and  treasurer  of  counties,  where  the 
limitation  is  made  that  they  shall  only  receive 
such  salary  as  shall  not  exceed  the  amount  of 
fees  collected  by  them. 

Mr.  EWING.  That  is  all  stricken  out.  It 
never  was  in  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  so  much  of  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  as  follows 
the  word  “county”  and  insert,  “no  other  fees 
or  compensation  shall  be  allowed  or  paid  said 
officer.” 

Mr.  POND.  With  the  further  limitation, 
that  they  shall  pay  the  fees  into  the  treasury, 
there  is  included  the  probate  judge  and  clerk  of 
the  court. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Precisely;  that  is  what  I 
propose  to  strike  out.  The  proposition  would 
be  that  the  treasurer,  auditor,  and  prosecuting 
attorney  shall  be  paid  a fixed  salary,  and  those 
are  the  only  officers  that  shall  be  paid  a fixed 
salary  by  this  Article.  The  Judicial  Article 
provides  for  the  judge  of  the  probate  court,  and 
the  clerk  of  the  court.  What  I want  is  simply 
to  say  that  they  shall  be  paid  a fixed  salary,  and 
shall  receive  nothing  else;  and  I think  when 
we  have  said  that,  we  have  said  all  that  we 
need  to  say. 

Mr.  CO  WEN.  I would  like  to  hear  the  por- 
tion proposed  to  be  stricken  out,  reported. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  portion  proposed  to  be  stricken  out. 

The  Secretary  read : 

‘And  he  shall  account  and  pay  into  the  treasury  all 
fees  collected  by  him,  under  such  regulations  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  law;  and  the  salary  of  the  Probate  Judge 
and  Clerk  of  the  Court  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  fees  by 
such  officer  collected  and  paid  into  the  treasury  ” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  is  to  strike 
out  those  words,  and  insert,  “ no  other  fees  or 
compensation  shall  be  allowed  or  paid  such 
officer.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Can  we  have  the  section 
read  as  it  will  be  with  this  inserted? 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  2.  In  each  county  there  shall  be  elected,  by  the 
qualified  electors  thereof,  the  following  county  officers : 
Probate  Judge,  Sheriff,  Coroner,  Clerk,  Auditor,  Prose- 
cuting Attorney,  Surveyor,  and  such  other  county  officers 
as  the  General  Assembly  may  from  time  to  time  create; 
and  the  Auditor,  Treasurer  and  Prosecuting  Attorney 
shall  each  be  paid  a fixed  salary  out  of  the  treasury  of  the 
proper  county,  and  no  other  fees  or  compensation  shall  be 
allowed  or  paid  such  officer.” 

Mr.  POND.  I ask  for  a division  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  first  be 
taken  upon  striking  out  that  portion  of  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  which  has  been  indicated. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  51,  nays  32,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Coats,  Cook,  Doan,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Hitchcock.  Hoadly, 
Horton,  Humphreville,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Mc- 
Bride, McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Phellis,  Pratt,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Sample,  Scribner,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley, 
Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Valkenburgh, 
Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Weaver,  White  of 
Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young 
of  Noble,  President — 51. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Beer,  Bishop,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Co  wen,  De- 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  18, 1874.]  Horton,  Yoris,  Hitchcock,  Coats,  Hale,  Wilson,  etc. 


1479 


Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Hostetter,  Hunt, 
Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Pond, 
Powell,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sears, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Waddle,  West — 32. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HORTON.  The  suggestion  is  made  to 
me  that,  perhaps,  there  are  words  in  the  sub- 
stitute that  are  not  necessary;  the  words  “fees 
or,”  and  I ask  leave  of  the  Convention  to  strike 
those  out. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I think,  if  the  gentleman  will 
reconsider  the  suggestion  made,  he  will  be  de- 
sirous of  having  those  words  left  in,  for  fees 
are  now  provided  by  law,  at  least  for  the  au- 
ditor and  prosecuting  attorney.  The  prosecut- 
ing attorney  is  now  allowed  fees  for  collections 
that  he  makes,  and  those  collections  will,  nec- 
essarily, be  made  hereafter ; and  to  make  the 
term  comprehensive,  so  that  it  will  embrace  all 
that  it  is  intended  to,  I think  the  words  “fees 
or,”  are  well  enough  as  they  are.  They  will  do 
no  harm  certainly. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I withdraw  the  suggestion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  upon  in- 
serting the  words,  “no  other  fees  or  compensa- 
tion shall  be  allowed,  or  paid  to  such  officer.” 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  there  being,  on  a 
division,  53  yeas,  31  nays. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Was  it  not  agreed  that 
the  word  “recorder”  should  be  inserted  as  hav- 
ing been  omitted  in  printing? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  was  no  action  on 
that  subject.  The  suggestion  was  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Union  [Mr.  Coats]  ; but  he  de- 
clined to  make  any  motion. 

Mr.  COATS.  I now,  with  the  leave  of  the 
Convention 

Mr.  HALE.  It  would,  probably,  not  be  an 
amendment  to  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond].  We  have 
not  acted  upon  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  that  the  following  be 
added  to  the  amendment 

Mr.  WILSON.  I think  the  next  thing  in  or- 
der is  the  proposition  submitted  by  myself  this 
morning;  that  is,  that  this  whole  question  be 
referred  to  the  General  Assembly. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  not  in  order;  the 
question  being  still  pending  on  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I propose  an  amendment  to 
that  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“And  the  salaries  of  the  Probate  Judges  and  Clerks  of 
Courts  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  fees  of  such  offices  col- 
lected by  such  officers.” 

Mr.  WEST.  That  has  been  stricken  out. 

Mr.  VORIS.  It  was  stricken  out  in  connec- 
tion with  other  words. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  does  not  make  any 
difference.  We  don’t  want  it  in  this  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  is  not 
in  order. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I do  not  see  it  as  these  gentle- 
men do. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  so.  The  language 
stricken  out  was : “and  the  salary  of  the  pro- 
bate judge,  and  the  clerks  of  courts  shall, 


in  no  case,  exceed  the  fees  collected  by  such 
officers  and  paid  into  the  treasury.” 

Mr.  VORIS.  I do  not  use  those  words. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  language  is  iden- 
tical. 

Mr.  VORIS.  There  is  a palpable  difference; 
and,  not  only  that,  there  is  a substantial  differ- 
6nce# 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  point 
out  the  substantial  difference. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I will  do  that.  The  language 
stricken  out  involved  the  payment  of  these 
fees  into  the  treasury  of  the  county. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  language 
stricken  out. 

Mr.  VORIS.  That  is  not  involved  in  the 
amendment  that  I have  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  involves  a part. 

Mr.  VORIS.  It  involves  a part;  but  it  does 
not  involve  the  whole.  It  only  involves  an  ele- 
ment contained  in  that.  As  I understand  the 
rule,  it  is  proper  to  modify  by  inserting  lan- 
guage in  connection  with  other  language. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  a specific  rule 
on  the  subject,  that  no  language  shall  be  re- 
stored which  has  been  stricken  out;  that  when 
an  amendment  is  acted  upon  it  shall  not  be  again 
offered,  except  in  connection  with  some  other 
new  matter.  The  Chair  is  unable  to  see  any- 
thing new  in  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris].  It  seems 
to  me  precisely  that  which  was  stricken  out 
before.  “ The  salary  of  the  probate  judge  and 
clerks  of  courts  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  fees 
by  such  officer  collected.” 

Mr.  VORIS.  I have  no  desire  to  violate  the 
rules  of  this  House,  but  I would  like  to  test  the 
I sincerity  of  gentlemen  that  want  to  saddle  the 
burden  upon  the  public. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Why  did  you  vote  for  it? 
Mr.  VORIS.  That  is  another  question. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  there  any  question  pending? 
The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  is 
still  before  the  Convention,  as  amended. 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  to  insert  the  words 
“ probate  judge,”  immediately  after  the  word 
“ treasurer.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  What  for  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  We  must  either  do  that  or  strike 
it  out  of  the  section  altogether. 

Mr.  HALE.  It  is  stricken  out  of  the  section 
altogether. 

Mr.  WEST.  Probate  judge  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  does  not  appear  in  the 
section. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  does,  as  I understand  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  will  pause,  and  the  Secretary 
will  read  the  amendment  as  it  now  stands. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  2.  In  each  county  there  will  be  elected,  by  the 
ualified  electors  thereof,  the  following  officers:  Probate 
udge.  Coroner,  Clerk,  Auditor,  Treasurer,  Prosecuting 
Attorney,  Surveyor,  and  such  other  county  officers  as  the 
General  Assembly  may  from  time  to  time  create;  and  the 
Auditor,  Treasurer  and  Prosecuting  Attorney  shall  each 
be  paid  a fixed  salary  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  proper 
county,  and  no  other  fees  or  compensation  shall  be  al- 
lowed or  paid  to  such  officers.” 

Mr.  WEST.  When  the  proper  time  comes,  I 
shall  move  to  strike  out  the  enumerated  officers, 
and  simply  insert  “ such  officers  as  may  be  pre- 


1480 SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [117th 

West,  Voris,  Ewing,  Griswold,  Hunt,  Scribner,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


scribed  by  law.”  There  is  no  propriety  in 
enumerating  these  county  officers  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State;  for  if  you  want  to  abolish 
them  you  cannot  do  it.  The  Legislature  will 
have  no  power  to  abolish  an  office,  or  anything 
of  that  kind. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  as  amended. 

Mr.  VORrS.  I think  I have  brought  myself 
within  the  rule  as  announced  by  the  Chair,  and 
I offer  the  following  amendment : 

“The  salary  of  the  Probate  Judge  and  Clerks  of  Court 
shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  fees  of  such  office,  collected  by 
said  officer,  in  the  year  for  which  such  salaries  are  paya- 
ble.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion 
that  that  is  comprehended  in  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr. 
Ewing],  stricken  out  on  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  language  in  connection 
with  which  it  is  inserted,  is  this:  “that  it  shall 
not  exceed  the  fees  of  the  officer,  collected  in 
the  year  in  which  such  salaries  are  payable.” 
Now,  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  was  this,  that  a law,  or 
any  act  of  the  General  Assembly,  should  be  in- 
operative for  a year  after  the  passage  of  that 
act.  That  I think  was  in  substance,  the  amend- 
ment as  amended  by  the  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field. 

Mr.  EWING.  Not  quite. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  is  so  near  to  it,  that  it  does 
not  run  parallel  with  the  new  matter  that  I 
propose. 

Mr.  EWING.  Near  enough  for  the  purpose 
of  your  argument. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Yes ; I submit  that  I am  within 
the  rule. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman,  as 
made  is  not  substantially  different  from  that 
which  the  Convention  has  already  passed  upon. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I understand  that  I may  move 
matter  that  has  been  stricken  out,  in  connection 
with  new  and  other  matter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion 
that  there  is  nothing  new. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I think  there  is. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  the  gentleman  to 
order.  The  Chair  has  decided  the  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  explain. 
The  Convention  has  stricken  out  these  words : 
“ And  the  salary  of  the  probate  judge  and 
clerks  of  court  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  fees 
by  such  officers  collected  and  paid  into  the 
treasury”;  and  have  refused  to  agree  to  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  “except  for  one  year 
after  the  first  law  fixing  such  salary  shall 
take  effect.”  The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris],  is  substantially  the 
same  thing. 

Mr.  VORIS.  But  if  the  motion 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  the  gentleman  to 
order.  If  he  wants  to  appeal  let  him  do  so. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  know  if  I may 
not  call  the  attention  of  the  Chair  to  the  matter 
in  reference  to  which  he  makes  his  decision ; so 


that  he  shall  decide  upon  the  matter  presented 
to  this  Convention  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  willing  to 
hear  the  gentleman ; but  there  seems  to  be  an 
opinion  that  the  debate  proceed  no  farther. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Does  the  Chair  decide  that  I am 
out  of  order  in  calling  the  attention  of  the  Chair 
to  the  fact  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  has  considered 
the  matter  attentively,  and  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  matter  is  not  in  order.  Does  the  gen- 
tleman appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I do.  That  will  give  me  a 
right  to  be  heard. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  No,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  pro- 
ceed. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I hope  the  Chair 
will  state  the  motion  now,  so  that  we  will  be 
proceeding  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
appeal  taken  by  the  gentleman  from  Summit 
[Mr.  Voris]. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Upon  what  ques- 
tion ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  moves 
to  add  the  amendment:  “ and  the  salary  of  the 
probate  judge  and  clerks  of  courts  shall  in  no 
case  exceed  the  fees  collected  by  such  officer  in 
the  year  for  which  such  salaries  are  pay- 
able.” 

The  Chair  decides  that  the  amendment  has 
been  substantially  passed  upon  by  the  Con- 
vention in  striking  out  the  clause  in  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond],  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Portage  [Mr.  Horton],  and  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr. 
Ewing],  From  that  decision  the  gentleman 
from  Summit  [Mr. Voris]  takes  an  appeal;  and 
the  question  now  is,  whether  the  decision  of  the 
Chair  shall  stand  as  the  order  of  the  Conven- 
tion? 

Mr.  HUNT.  In  order  that  we  may  vote  un- 
derstandingly,  we  would  like  to  know  what 
the  matter  was  that  the  Convention  struck 
out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  language  stricken 
out  was  this,  in  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  ; “and  the  salaries  of 
the  probate  judge  and  clerks  of  courts  shall  in 
no  case  exceed  the  fees  by  such  officers  collected 
and  paid  into  the  treasury ;”  and  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing]  was,  “except  for  one  year  af- 
ter the  first  law  fixing  such  salary  shall  take 
effect.”  The  former  phrase,  the  Convention 
struck  out,  and  the  latter  was  disagreed  to. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I desire  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Chair  to  the  requirement  of  Rule 
Forty-Five,  which  is  that,  two  persons  shall 
make  an  appeal. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  appeal  seconded  ? 

Mr.  BOSWORTH.  I second  the  appeal. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I take  it,  Mr.  President,  that  I 
am  on  my  feet.  I am  glad  that  I have  footing 
sufficient  to  stand  alone,  if  not  otherwise.  I 
simply  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  this  fact.  The  matter  which  was 
stricken  out  by  the  Convention  is  as  follows  : 
“And  the  salaries  of  the  probate  judge,  clerks 
and  auditors  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  fees  of 


1481 


Day.] SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. 

February  18, 1874.]  Voris,  Cook,  Griswold,  Powell,  Coats,  etc. 


such  officers  collected  and  paid  into  the  treas- 
ury.” Now,  there  is  no  limitation  as  to  time. 
This  provision,  that  was  stricken  out,  may  just 
as  well  apply  to  the  whole  term,  for  which  any 
of  these  officers  may  be  elected,  as  for  any  one 
year,  and  the  limitation  that  I put  in  my  amend- 
ment, brings  it  down  squarely  to  fees  that  may 
be  collected  in  that  office  for  the  year  in 
which 

Mr.  COOK.  I call  the  gentleman  to  order. 
The  question  now  is,  Shall  the  decision  of  the 
Chair  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  Conven- 
tion? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I think  I understand  that. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  gentleman  cannot  argue 
the  subject  of  his  amendment. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I am  not  doing  it.  I think  I 
shall  have  to  take  my  own  course  and  not  the 
course  of  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]. 
I will  say  to  the  Convention  that  I am  not  lim- 
ited now,  and  it  will  be  best  for  the  gentleman 
to  be  complaisant  with  me ; for  I may  talk  to 
all  eternity,  as  I have  obtained  the  floor. 

[“Agreed,  agreed !”] 

Mr.  VORIS.  I think  it  will  be  the  wisest 
thing  that  the  Convention  has  done  for  some 
time,  if  I do  it.  I simply  call  the  attention  to 
the  fact,  that  the  amendment  offered  by  my- 
self is  not  the  matter  in  substance  that  was 
stricken  out  of  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  for  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  and  my  ob- 
ject in  offering  it  was  simply  this : that  I might 
test  the  sincerity  of  these  gentlemen  when  they 
said  they  did  not  intend  to  charge  the  public 
with  the  expense  of  these  officers. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  the  gentleman  to 
order. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I have  said  all  that  I desire  to 
say,  and  I shall  withdraw  my  appeal. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  cannot  be  done.  We 
want  the  question  tried. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I have  withdrawn  my  appeal. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  You  cannot  do  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is,  Shall 
the  decision  of  the  Chair  stand  as  the  judgment 
of  the  House  ? 

[“  Yeas  and  Nays,  Yeas  and  Nays.”] 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  has  been  asserted  here, 
by  a gentleman  in  whose  knowledge  of  par- 
liamentary law  I have  great  confidence,  that  an 
appeal  cannot  be  taken  unless  it  is  seconded. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  was  seconded.  The 
question  is,  Shall  the  decision  of  the  Chair 
stand  as  the  decision  of  the  House  ? 

[“  Yeas  and  Nays,  Yeas  and  Nays.”] 

Mr.  VORIS.  I withdraw  my  appeal. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Objection  being  made, 
the  gentleman  cannot  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  VORIS.  The  motion  must  be  put, 
whether  or  not  I shall  have  leave  to  with- 
draw it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is,  shall 
the  gentleman  have  leave  to  withdraw  his 
appeal  ? 

Leave  was  not  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is,  Shall 
the  decision  of  the  Chair  stand  as  the  judgment 
of  the  House  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I beg  of  the  members  of  the 


Convention  not  to  waste  time  in  this  way.  It 
is  shameful. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Let  us  take  a vote. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is  shameful ! We  do  not 
want  any  vote.  It  is  only  a waste  of  time.  It 
is  shameful!  If  our  constituents  were  only 
looking  on,  they  would  condemn  us,  and  say 
that  they  would  not  vote  for  the  Constitution 
which  we  shall  adopt.  I never  saw  such  a 
shameful  waste  of  time  as  I have  this  after- 
noon. 

Mr.  COATS.  I call  the  gentleman  to  order. 
His  language  is  discourteous. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  demand  for  the 
yeas  and  nays  insisted  upon? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I object  to  the  yeas  and 
nays.  I want  to  see  if  the  time  shall  be  wasted 
by  yeas  and  nays  being  taken  upon  a question 
which  every  one  knows  will  be  sustained  by 
nine-tenths  of  the  members. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  81,  nays  2,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal, 
Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  De 
Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Gardner, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Hill,  Hoadly, 
Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kerr, 
McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thomp- 
son, Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss, 
Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis, 
Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  White  of 
Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young 
of  Noble— 81. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Bosworth,  Johnson — 2. 

So  the  decision  of  the  Chair  was  sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond],  as  amended. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Law- 
rence [Mr.  Neal], 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  to  strike  out  the  section 
down  to  the  amendment,  and  insert  the  follow- 
ing words 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  to 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  that  the 
motion  to  strike  out  the  entire  section  is  still 
pending,  being  a part  of  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  Committee  of 
the  Whole  proposed  to  strike  out  the  entire 
section,  and  insert  the  amended  section. 

Mr.  WEST.  That  motion  goes  to  the  amend- 
ment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is  to  strike 
out  the  entire  original  section  and  the  part 
of  the  amendment 

Mr.  WEST.  No ; down  to  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  And  insert?  That  would 
not  be  in  order  until  the  motion  has  been  taken 
upon  the  report  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  yes.  We  have  it  now 


1482 


SALARIES  OR  FEES  FOR  COUNTY  OFFICERS. [117th 

West,  Humphreyille,  Griswold,  Hale,  Dorsey,  Coats,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


amended,  having  made  an  addition  to  it  The 
amendment  may  make  it  necessary,  and  often- 
times does  make  it  necessary,  to  amend  the 
original  words,  in  order  to  make  it  conform. 
The  amendment  being  attached  now,  it  is 
highly  proper  to  amend  the  original  words. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is  to  strike  out 
the  entire  original  section,  and  to  add  the  fol- 
lowing words,  which  shall  he  a substitute,  I 
suppose,  for  the  amendment  reported  from  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  WEST.  No. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
case  exactly  as  it  stands:  “The  General  Assem 

hly  shall  provide  by  law  for  the  election  of  such 
county  and  township  officers  as  may  be  neces- 
sary.” It  is,  therefore,  equivalent  to  the  amend- 
ment made  by  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal],  to  strike  out  all  of  the  amendment 
reported  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  the 
word  “necessary.”  The  gentleman  moves  to 
strike  out  so  much  of  the  amendment  reported 
by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  as  follows  the 
word  “necessary.” 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  Mr.  President — 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  The  original  sec- 
tion 2 has  now  been  amended  by  adding  words 
that  it  is  desirable  to  retain,  and  now  we  strike 
out  all  down  to  the  commencement  of  the 
amendment,  and  insert  what  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  proposes  to  insert. 
That  will  leave  the  section  perfect  as  we  sup- 
pose. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  sees  the  point. 
The  gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr.  IIumphre- 
ville]  states  that  it  includes  the  amendment 
made  to  the  original  section. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  Down  to  the  amend- 
ment; but  not  to  include  the  amendment  that 
the  Convention  made  to  the  original  section  2. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is  to  strike  out 
the  original  section  down  to  the  amendment 
which  was  adopted,  and  insert:  “The  General 
Assembly  shall  provide  by  law  for  the  election 
of  such  county  and  township  officers  as  may  be 
necessary.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Let  the  whole  be  read  to- 
gether. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  then  read  : “ and 
the  auditor,  treasurer  and  prosecuting  attorney 
shall  each  be  paid  a stated  salary  out  of  the 
treasury  of  the  proper  county ” 

Mr.  HALE.  First  give  us  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

Mr.  WEST.  Beginning  with  my  amendment 
and  insert  it  before  the  word  “auditor.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  proposes  striking  out  the 
original  section  and  inserting,  so  that  it  will 
read : 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  by  law  for  the 
election  of  such  county  and  township  officers  as  may  be 
necessary,  and  the  Auditor,  Treasurer  and  Prosecuting 
Attorney  shall  each  be  paid  a stated  salary  out  of  the 
treasury  of  the  proper  county,  and  no  other  fees  or  com- 
pensation shall  be  allowed  or  paid  said  officer.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Is  it  in  order  now  to  amend 
the  original  section  before  this  is  stricken  out? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  the  original  sec- 
tion. 


Mr.  DORSEY.  I propose  the  following 
amendment,  to  go  in  at  the  end  of  the  original 
section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

At  the  end  of  section  2 add : 

“ who  shall  be  paid  in  such  manner  as  may  be  provided 
by  law.” 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  understood,  I have  no 
doubt,  all  over  the  Convention,  without  a word, 
that  it  is  not  proper  to  make  those  officers,  per- 
manently, constitutional  officers,  because  many 
of  them  may  become  unnecessary  hereafter. 
The  General  Assembly  ought  to  have  power  to 
abolish  any  of  these  offices  it  sees  proper.  It 
has  the  full  power  given  them  to  abolish  the 
judicial  offices,  and  it  should  have  power  to 
abolish  any  of  these  offices,  or  to  consolidate 
them. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  When  has  it  ever  been  in 
Ohio  that  these  offices  have  not  existed  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  It  has  not  been  ; but  still,  it  is 
not  necessary  that  they  should,  and  we  do  not 
want  to  put  it  in  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  What  reasonable  probability 
is  there  that  there  ever  will  come  a time  when 
any  of  these  offices  will  be  dispensed  with  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I submit,  respectfully,  that 
whether  the  time  will  come  or  not,  we  do  not 
know ; but  it  is  not  necessary  to  put  these  into 
the  Constitution,  lumbering  it  up.  If  I had  the 
power,  I would  abolish  two  or  three  of  them. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Some  of  them  might  be 
consolidated. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir;  I would  consolidate 
them. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I would  like  to  have  the 
amendment  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  the  original  section  down  to  the  amendment, 
and  insert: 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  by  law  for  the 
election  of  such  county  and  township  officers  as  may  be 
necessary.” 

Mr.  COATS.  I regret,  exceedingly,  that  the 
gentleman  from  Brown  [Mr.  White],  the 
Chairman  of  the  Standing  Committee,  that 
reported  this  Article,  is  absent.  I think 
that  the  fact  that  this  section  is  here,  in 
its  present  shape,  or  as  originally  reported,  is 
mainly  due  to  the  suggestions  and  labors  of  the 
gentleman  from  Brown  in  that  behalf.  In 
other  words,  it  was  so  shaped  as  to  carry  out 
an  idea,  advanced  by  him,  that  by  enumerating 
these  officers  and  declaring  them,  by  constitu- 
tional provision,  to  be  county  officers,  we,  in 
that  way,  would  secure  permanency  and  avoid 
confusion  as  to  the  class  in  which  they  might 
otherwise  be  held  to  belong.  To  secure  these 
objects,  this  section  of  the  Article  was  drafted 
and  adopted  by  the  Standing  Committee.  I am 
not  aware  that  the  matter  possesses  any  great 
merit,  nor  do  I see  that  any  substantial  objec- 
tion can  be  urged  against  it.  The  idea  that 
after  we  have  arrived  at  the  present  age  of  our 
State,  with  these  officers  existing  from  the  be- 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1483 

February  18,  1874.]  Coats,  West,  Sample,  Neal. 


ginning,  that  we  shall  either  abolish,  or  that 
the  General  Assembly  will  consolidate  any 
of  them,  to  say  the  least,  is  extremely  visionary. 
There  is  not  a remote  probability  that  anything 
of  the  kind  will  be  done,  nor  is  it  even  remotely 
probable  that  any  such  abolishment  as  has 
been  spoken  of  will  take  place  during  the 
existence  of  our  State  government.  The  section 
now  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  as  a substitute  is  a very  brief  one, 
and  precisely,  I believe,  in  the  language  that 
we  find  in  the  original  section  of  the  present 
Constitution.  We  thought  there  was  a little 
discrepancy  in  regard  to  that  provision  of  the 
Constitution.  There  were  no  county  officers 
provided  for  by  name  in  the  entire  Article,  as 
it  originally  came  from  the  Convention,  and 
was  ratified  by  the  people;  and  yet  the  second 
section  goes  on  to  prescribe  what  the  duties  of 
certain  officers  shall  be.  Therefore,  in  order  to 
make  the  matter  consistent,  that  we  might  have 
something  of  permanency,  and  that  we  might 
class  these  officers  properly,  so  that  it  will  be 
known  whether  they  are  State  or  county  officers, 
the  Standing  Committee  thought  best  to  include 
in  this  second  section  these  officers  by  name. 
I think  the  section  should  be  retained  as  re- 
ported by  the  Committee,  and  I will  not  de- 
tain the  Convention  by  further  remarks  in 
reference  to  the  subject  under  consideration. 

Now,  I do  not  suppose  that  any  good  will 
come  of  striking  it  out,  or  that  any  evil  will 
result  from  it,  that  will  materially  affect  the 
interests  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  Still,  my  own 
impression  is,  that  it  is  well  enough,  for  cer- 
tainty and  permanency,  that  we  should  have 
these  officers  as  constitutional  officers. 

Mr.  WEST.  Only  one  word.  I never  want 
to  have  an  inferior  officer  made  a permanent 
constitutional  officer,  who  will  be  independent 
of  legislative  power.  No  matter  what  his  con- 
duct may  be,  he  is  there  fixed,  permanent  and 
forever.  I want  him  subject  and  subordinate 
to  legislative  sovereign  power,  and  not  to  be 
enthroned  by  virtue  of  constitutional  law. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do  not  believe  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
at  all.  It  is  a new  doctrine,  it  seems  to  me, 
now  introduced  into  this  Convention,  at  this 
late  day,  after  about  six  months  of  our  deliber- 
ations. We  have  established,  in  the  Judicial 
Article,  various  offices,  and  I do  not  understand 
that  there  is  any  objection  to  them.  I did  not 
understand  that  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  objected  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Judicial  Article,  in  which  certain  officers  are 
provided  for,  and  among  those  officers  are  Jus- 
tices of  the  Peace,  who  are  beyond  legislative 
control.  Hence,  they  cannot  be  abolished  by 
the  Legislature,  because  a provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution recognizes  them  as  constitutional 
officers.  I do  not  desire  at  all  to  see  it  within 
the  power  of  the  Legislature  to  get  angry  with  a 
particular  class  of  officers — subordinate  county 
officers — and  legislate  them  out  of  existence. 
I do  not  want  anything  of  that  kind.  Just  the 
very  purpose  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  aims  his  opposition  at,  is  the  purpose  I 
want  to  attain.  I want  to  see  these  officers  be- 
yond the  control  of  legislative  influence,  so  that 
the  Legislature  will  regard  them  as  fixed  offi- 
cers, beyond  their  control,  and  with  whom  they 


will  have  nothing  to  do,  other  than  to  make  the 
necessary  regulations  for  the  management  and 
performance  of  the  duties  devolving  upon  them 
by  virtue  of  their  offices.  They  have  become  a 
fixed  part  in  the  administration  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State.  Recorders,  Auditors,  and 
other  officers  have  become  a fixed  part  of  the 
administration  of  the  government  of  the  re- 
spective counties.  Now,  why  should  there  be 
any  apprehension  that  they  will  be  changed? 
Why  should  there  be  any  apprehension  that 
there  will  ever  be  an  effort  to  change  them  ? 
And  if  there  should  be  any  such  effort,  why 
should  not  the  Constitution  fix  the  existence  of 
those  officers,  who,  by  the  experience  of  seventy 
years,  have  been  found  to  be  conducive  to  the 
welfare  of  the  people  of  every  organized  county 
in  the  State  ? Yet  why  should  there  not,  if  there 
were  any  apprehension  that  the  Legislature 
would  undertake  to  change  them,  be  an  inter- 
dict put  upon  legislative  power;  and  why 
should  not  these  officers  be  established  as  con- 
stitutional officers,  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
Legislature  ? They  have  been  recognized  all 
the  time,  and  the  habits  of  the  people  have  be- 
come adjusted  to  them.  Why  should  there  be 
any  apprehension  of  any  change? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded.  Objec- 
tion was  raised,  but  the  demand  was  sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  40,  nays  38,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Baber,  Beer,  Blose, 
Caldwell,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cowen,  De  Steig- 
uer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Griswold,  Hale, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  McCormick,  Miller, 
Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease, 
Pond,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shuitz,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Thompson.  Tripp,  Tyler,  Voris,  Waddle,  West 
—40. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bannon,  Bishop,  Burns, 
Byal,  Coats,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Greene, 
Gurley,  Hill,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Hunt,  John- 
son, Kerr,  McBride,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Phellis, 
Powell,  Rowland,  Sample,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Yan 
Valkenburgh,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Weaver, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble,  President — 38. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal]. 

Mr.  NEAL.  With  the  consent  of  the  Con- 
vention, I will  withdraw  that  motion.  The 
object  which  I purposed  to  attain  is  accom- 
plished by  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 

No  objection  was  made;  so  the  motion  was 
withdrawn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
concurring  in  the  amendment  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  to  section  two. 

The  Secretary  read  said  section  as  amended, 
as  follows : 

“Sec.  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  by  law 
for  the  election  of  such  county  and  township  officers  as 


1484 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. [117th 

Sears,  Sample,  Powell,  Wilson,  Hale,  Hunt,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


may  be  necessary,  and  each  county  officer  shall  be  paid  a 
stated  salary  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  proper  county, 
and  shall  account  and  pay  into  the  treasury  all  fees  col- 
lected by  him,  under  such  regulations  as  may  be  pre- 
scribed by  law.” 

Mr.  SEARS.  I hope  this  amendment  will  he 
rejected  by  this  Convention.  I was  very  glad, 
at  the  time  it  was  adopted,  that  they  recognized 
the  principle  of  paying  salaries;  but  I am  satis- 
fied that  to  the  extent  to  which  it  is  carried  in 
that  amendment,  it  is  impracticable.  I am  very 
well  satisfied  with  the  original  proposition  of 
the  Committee,  as  now  amended.  I hope,  there- 
fore, that  all  who  are  in  favor  of  sustaining  this 
system  will  vote  for  the  rejection  of  this  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I call  for  the  reading  of  the 
original  section  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read: 

“Sec.  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  by  law 
for  the  election  of  such  county  and  township  officers  as 
may  be  necessary ; and  the  Auditor,  Treasurer  and  Pros- 
ecuting Attorney  shall  each  be  paid  a stated  salary  out 
of  the  treasury  of  the  proper  county,  and  no  other  fees  or 
compensation  shall  be  allowed  or  paid  said  officers.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  this  original  section,  and  inserting  | 
the  section  previously  read. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Do  I understand  that  the 
reading  of  the  original  section  is  that  all  offi- 
cers of  the  county  are  to  be  paid  salaries? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No.  Only  the  auditor, 
treasurer,  and  prosecuting  attorney,  as  the 
section  now  stands  amended. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I want  to  suggest,  that  to  avoid 
all  ambiguity,  the  word  “ county”  ought  to  be 
inserted  before  the  words  “ auditor”  and  “ trea- 
surer,” and  I ask  the  consent  of  the  Convention 
to  have  the  words  inserted. 

By  consent  of  the  Convention,  the  insertion 
was  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  the  original  section,  as  amended, 
and  inserting  the  section  as  proposed  by  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole. 

A division  of  the  question  was  demanded. 

The  question  then  recurred  upon  striking  out. 

The  Convention,  without  a division,  refused 
to  strike  out;  which  action  disposed  of  the  sub- 
stitute reported  from  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I offered  a substitute  for  sec- 
tion two. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  by  re-  j 
fusing  to  strike  out  section  two,  has  disposed  of 
all  substitutes. 

The  Secretary  then  read  section  three,  as  re-  j 
ported  by  the  Committee : 

“Sec.  3.  County  officers  shall  be  elected  on  the  Tuesday  j 
succeeding  the  first  Monday  of  November,  until  other- 
wise directed  by  law,  by  the  qualified  electors  of  each 
county,  in  such  manner,  and  for  such  term,  not  exceeding 
four  years,  as  may  be  provided  by  law.” 

No  amendments  were  offered. 

No  amendments  were  reported  to  section  four 
from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  section 
reads  as  follows : 

“Sec.  4.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of 
Sheriff  or  County  Treasurer  for  more  than  four  years  in 
any  period  of  six  years.” 

The  Secretary  then  read  section  five,  as  J 
originally  reported,  a3  follows: 


“Sec.  5.  Each  organized  township  shall  be  a body  cor- 
porate, with  such  powers  and  immunities  as  shall  be  pre- 
scribed by  law.” 

The  Secretary  also  read  the  section  as 
amended  and  reported  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  as  follows : 

“Sec.  5.  Each  township  shall  be  a body  corporate,  with 
such  organization,  powers,  immunities,  and  liabilities  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  law.  All  suits  and  proceedings  by 
or  against  a township  shall  be  in  the  name  thereof.” 

Mr.  HALE.  I suppose  there  should  be  a vote 
taken  upon  agreeingto  amended  section,  as  pro- 
posed by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

The  question  was  then  put,  and  without  a 
division,  the  amended  section  was  agreed  to,  in 
the  form  as  above. 

The  Secretary  then  read  section  six,  as  fol- 
lows : 

“Sec.  6.  Township  officers  shall  be  elected  by  the 
qualified  electors  of  their  respective  townships,  at  such 
times,  and  in  such  manner,  and  for  such  term,  not  exceed- 
ing three  years,  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  and  shall 
hold  their  offices  until  their  successors  are  eleeted  and 
qualified.” 

Mr.  HUNT.  I wish  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Convention  to  the  fact  that  the  term  of 
township  officers  is  limited  to  three  years  by 
section  six.  I do  not  know  that  it  is  the  wish 
of  the  Convention  that  this  system  should  ex- 
tend to  township  officers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  words  in  italics  “by  the  qualified  elect- 
ors of  their  respective  townships .”  The  Conven- 
tion is  now  acting  upon  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  HORTON.  The  section  provides  that 
township  officers  shall  be  elected  by  the  quali- 
fied electors  of  their  respective  townships. 
Now,  it  not  infrequently  happens  that  a va- 
cancy occurs  in  some  township  office,  and  the 
present  practice,  I believe,  in  some  of  these 
cases,  is  to  fill  that  vacancy  by  appointment, 
and  temporarily.  The  question  I suggest  is, 
whether  this  provision  would  cut  off  that  right 
and  power  ? How  can  an  office  be  filled  by  an 
appointment,  even  temporarily,  under  that  sec- 
tion ? 

Mr.  COWEN.  I call  the  attention  of  the 
gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  to  the 
fact  that  this  same  provision  is  in  the  present 
Constitution,  and  I never  heard  that  there  was 
any  difficulty  about  the  Legislature  having 
power  to  provide  for  temporary  appointments. 

Mr.  POND.  One  word.  The  amendment 
that  I see  here,  which  is  the  only  amendment 
made  to  this  section,  consists  in  inserting  the 
words,  “by  the  qualified  electors  of  their  re- 
spective townships.”  I apprehend,  sir,  that  it 
is  not  expected  of  this  Convention  to  submit  to 
the  people  for  their  vote  what  may  be,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  unnecessary  changes  in 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  State,  and,  unless 
some  person  can  explain  the  object  of  this 
amendment,  and  its  use,  I cannot  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  was  in  the  old  Constitu- 
tion. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I wish  to  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  section  six,  as  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee, differs  from  the  section  in  the  present 
Constitution,  which  provides  that  “township  of- 
ficers shall  be  elected  on  the  first  Monday  of 
April,  annually,  by  the  qualified  electors  of 
their  respective  townships,  and  shall  hold  their 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 


1485 


Day.] 

February  18, 1874.]  Griswold,  Cowen,  Pratt,  Hitchcock. 


offices  for  one  year  from  the  Monday  next  suc- 
ceeding their  election,  and  until  their  successors 
are  qualified.”  The  present  section,  in  line  4, 
provides  that  they  shall  hold  their  offices  “until 
their  successors  are  elected  and  qualified.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  This  amendment  merely 
puts  in  the  language  specifying  the  mere  con- 
stitutionally qualified  voters.  The  difference 
alluded  to  does  not  affect  this  amendment. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  amendment 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  section  six, 
said  amendment  was  agreed  to,  without  a divi- 
sion. 

No  amendments  were  reported  from  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  to  sections  seven  and  eight, 
which  are,  respectively,  as  follows : 

“Sec.  7.  No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  any  county  or 
township  treasury  except  by  authority  of  law. 

“Sec.  8.  County  and  township  officers  may  be  removed 
in  such  manner,  and  for  such  cause,  as  shall  be  provided 
by  law.” 

The  Secretary  then  read  section  nine  as  orig- 
inally reported,  as  follows : 

“Sec.  9.  Counties  and  townships  may  raise  money  by 
taxation,  for  constructing  or  repairing  public  buildings, 
highways,  bridges,  ditches  and  drains;  but  no  greater 
sum  shall  be  raised,  or  expended  for  such  purposes,  within 
any  period  of  ten  years,  than  will  amount  in  the  aggre- 
gate to  five  per  cent,  of  the  taxable  value  of  the  property 
of  such  county  or  township  on  the  first  and  every  tenth 
year  after  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution;  nor  shall 
any  debt  ever  be  contracted  for  such  purposes  in  excess 
of  such  sum — nor  shall  more  than  one-fifth  of  such 
amount  ever  be  assessed  or  collected  in  any  one  year.  All 
such  taxes  shall  be  assessed  by  a uniform  rule,  upon  all 
the  taxable  property  of  such  county  or  township;  but  the 
General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  exempt  from  taxation 
for  such  purposes  such  property  as  has  heretofore  been 
specially  taxed  therefor,  until  the  other  property  in  such 
county  or  township  has  borne  an  amount  of  taxation  for 
such  purpose  equal  to  the  amount  so  specially  assessed 
and  paid  upon  such  exempted  property.” 

The  Secretary  also  read  the  substitute  for 
section  nine,  proposed  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  as  follows : 

“Sec.  9.  Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  for  police  purposes,  and  for  constructing 
and  improving  ditches  and  roads,  when  necessary  to  the 
public  health,  convenience,  or  welfare,  as  may  be  pre- 
scribed by  law.” 

Mr.  COWEN.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Cowen  moves  to  amend  section  9 by  inserting  in 
the  first  line,  after  the  word  “taxation”,  the  words  “and 
assessment”, so  as  to  read: 

“Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power  of  local 
taxation  and  assessment  for  police  purposes,”  etc. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  word 
“assessment  ” should  be  inserted,  as  moved  by 
the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen],  for 
the  word  “taxation”  does  not  imply,  and  is 
not  accepted  to  mean,  the  same  as  the  word 
“assessment.”  The  great  struggle  over  this  sec- 
tion when  it  was  before  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  was  to  save  to  the  local  authorities  the 
power  of  assessment,  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
structing ditches  and  drains,  and  also  for  the 
purpose  of  constructing  roads, — that  is,  the 
assessment  of  special  burdens  upon  special 
property,  and  not  of  general  taxation  in  locali- 
ties. Now,  I apprehend  that  taxation  in  locali- 
ties would  strictly  apply  to  all  of  the  property 
within  that  locality,  both  personal  and  real. 
Where  we  seek  the  construction  of  roads  and 


ditches,  and  base  it  upon  the  ground  that  the 
assessment  should  be  made  for  the  reason  that 
benefits  accrued  to  the  property  assessed,  we 
apply  it  solely  and  alone  to  real  estate.  Hence, 
I think  that  the  term  “assessment”  should  be 
inserted,  in  order  to  save  the  value  of  this  sec- 
tion to  those  who  contend  so  strenuously  for 
that  power.  The  use  of  that  term  will  remove 
all  danger  of  misconstruction. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded  upon  the 
amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Cowen.  Objection 
was  made;  but  sixteen  gentlemen  rose  to  sup- 
port the  demand,  which  was,  therefore,  sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  53,  nays  25,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Bosworth,  Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Pease,  Phel- 
lis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Sample,  Scribner, 
Shaw,  Shultz,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Yoorhes,  Waddle, 
Weaver,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of 
Champaign — 53. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Cald- 
well, De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Hill,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
Neal,  Okey,  Pond,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sears,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
Yan  Yoorhis,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 25. 
So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  amend  the 
section  by  adding  at  the  end  the  words  “ but 
no  such  assessment  shall,  in  the  aggregate,  in 
any  ten  years,  exceed  ten  per  cent,  of  the  value 
of  the  property  to  be  affected  thereby,  except 
upon  the  assent  of  two-thirds  of  the  owners.” 
This  provision  is  very  nearly  identical  with  the 
one  adopted  by  the  Convention  in  the  Article 
on  Municipal  Corporations — identically  the 
same,  I might  say,  with  that  Article  as  it  was 
originally  reported  by  the  Committee.  It  dif- 
fers from  that,  in  that  it  requires  the  assent  of 
two-thirds  of  the  owners  of  the  property, 
whereas  now,  that  Article  requires  a three- 
fourths  vote  of  all  the  electors  in  the  corpora- 
tion to  be  affected  thereby.  The  difficulty  of 
applying  that  rule  in  this  case  would  be  that 
in  very  many  instances  the  property  to  be  af- 
fected would  not  be  embraced  within  the  limits 
of  any  corporation,  either  county,  township,  or 
city.  If  any  such  rule  is  adopted,  it  must  ne- 
cessarily be  different  from  the  one  adopted  in 
that  Article,  when  it  was  to  be  determined  by 
a certain  number  of  the  voters.  1 suppose 
all  are  aware  that  this  provision  is  intended 
to  apply  to  the  assessment  to  be  made 
for  the  construction  of  highways  and  ditches, 
and  that  these  have  been  constructed,  under 
the  Legislation  of  the  past  few  years, 
upon  certain  lands  and  certain  roads  which 
would  not  extend  throughout  any  entire  corpo- 
ration, or  upon  certain  lands  which  would  not 
be  embraced  within  any  such  body  corporate, 
and,  therefore,  this  provision  is  made  in  the 
form  in  which  it  is. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I hope  that  this  amendment 


1486 


[117th 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

Pratt,  Cook,  Phellis,  Horton,  Hitchcock,  West,  Pond.  [Wednesday, 


will  not  prevail.  The  power  of  assessment  for 
any  purposes  for  which  that  part  of  the  State 
which  I represent  have  sought  that  power, 
might  just  as  well  be  annulled  as  that  you 
should  simply  allow,  in  a period  of  ten  years, 
an  average  of  one  per  cent,  per  annum.  I can- 
not speak  on  the  subject  of  ditches  and  drains 
with  that  amount  of  experience  with  which  the 
gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  can  speak. 
His  whole  county  is  covered  with  a net- work  of 
these  ditches  and  drains,  which  have  redeemed 
it  from  being  absolutely  covered  with  water 
much  of  the  year,  and  made  them  tolerable 
farms.  From  the  amount  of  experience  which 
I have  had,  however,  I can  say  that  when  this 
process  of  ditching  is  commenced,  we  usually 
begin  to  operate  with  land  that  would  not  be 
valued  upon  the  duplicate  at  over  five  to  ten 
dollars  per  acre.  The  amount  of  assessment 
under  this  allowance  proposed,  would  be  one 
dollar  per  acre  in  ten  years,  on  the  highest 
sum,  or  ten  cents  per  annum;  and  it  does  not 
take  long  to  figure  how  much  of  a ditch  that 
would  allow  to  be  constructed.  Take  a half- 
mile  of  ditch  running  between  two  tracts  of 
eighty  acres  each,  and  allow  that  amount  of 
assessment,  and  it  would  not  pay  for  the  view- 
ing, surveying,  and  locating  of  the  work  neces- 
sary for  the  drainage.  I say  I have  not  had 
very  much  experience.  Once  in  my  life,  I had 
an  eighty  acre  tract  ditched,  that  stood  on  the 
duplicate  at  one  hundred  dollars,  and  found 
myself  at  the  foot  of  an  assessment  of  sixty-six 
dollars;  and  that  was  not  enough,  because  they 
did  not  make  a big  enough  drain  with  the  money 
they  had  expended.  Now,  sir,  for  practical 
purposes,  in  our  portion  of  the  country,  this 
would  be  a provision  equivalent  to  nullifying 
the  whole  section,  and  absolutely  restraining 
the  Legislature  from  giving  any  authority  for 
constructing  ditches  and  drains. 

Mr.  COOK.  I am  somewhat  astonished,  Mr. 
President,  at  the  gentleman  introducing  this 
amendment.  It  would  make  the  law  of  no 
avail  to  us  in  the  northwest.  Ten  per  cent,  in 
ten  years,  one  per  cent,  a year  on  lands  valued 
on  the  duplicate,  perhaps,  at  not  more  than  five 
dollars  an  acre,  would  not  amount  to  five  dol- 
lars a year  on  eighty  acres  of  land.  I ask  any 
gentleman  to  figure  for  a moment,  and  see  how 
much  ditch  could  be  constructed  with  five 
dollars.  Five  dollars  to  an  eighty  acre  tract  of 
land  amounts  to  nothing.  We  may  just  as  well 
strike  out  the  whole  section.  It  will  do  us  no 
good  whatever.  The  real  value  of  our  lands  in 
the  northwest,  in  many  instances,  is  made  by 
ditching.  The  lands  themselves,  in  a state  of 
nature,  are  of  no  practical  value.  They  cannot 
be  cultivated.  They  only  furnish  the  substra- 
tum to  work  upon,  out  of  which  good  farms  are 
produced  by  the  process  of  ditching.  Now,  as 
I can  speak  but  a moment,  I cannot  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Convention  to  the  matter  better 
than  by  giving  them  an  illustration.  In* the 
year  1864,  I purchased  eighty  acres  of  land,  for 
which  I paid  five  dollars  an  acre.  It  was  swamp 
land.  One  or  two  years  after,  a ditch  was  laid 
out,  and  run  along  the  side  of  it,  and  I was  as- 
sessed two  hundred  dollars  to'build  the  ditch, 
that  being  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  the  land. 
That  was  finished,  probably,  in  the  year  1867  or 
1868.  Just  before  I came  down  here,  I sold  a 
portion  of  that  land  for  thirty-five  dollars  an 


acre,  in  order  to  raise  money  to  pay  my  ex- 
penses. The  whole  value,  almost,  was  in  the 
ditching.  Without  the  ditching,  I could  not 
have  sold  it;  with  the  ditching,  it  was  made 
valuable.  It  is  no  tax  upon  the  owner.  It  is 
only  requiring  him  to  put  his  land  in  a condition 
in  which  it  will  be  beneficial  to  him,  and  the 
mere  pittance  of  ten  per  cent,  in  ten  years  is 
absolutely  nothing.  No  man  has  ever  been 
really  injured  by  ditching,  for  it  is  a fact  that 
the  land  agents  and  the  land  owners  always  add 
the  price  of  ditching  to  the  price  of  land,  and 
they  sell  the  ditch  lands  more  easily  than  the 
others.  I trust,  therefore,  that  the  Convention 
will  not  force  this  amendment  upon  us,  which 
destroys  the  effect  of  all  that  we  ask. 

The  question  being  taken,  the  amendment, 
without  a division,  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  I wish  to  make  an  amend- 
ment. 

The  Secretary  read  : Mr.  Phellis  moves  to 
amend  the  amendment  by  inserting  in  line  two, 
after  the  word  “ road,”  the  words  “and  clearing 
water-courses,”  so  as  to  read,  “Counties  and 
townships  shall  have  such  power  of  local  taxa- 
tion and  assessment  for  police  purposes,  and 
for  constructing  and  improving  ditches  and 
roads,  and  clearing  water-courses,  when  neces- 
sary to  the  public  health,  convenience  and  wel- 
fare, as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I desire  to  say  that  the  gentle- 
man from  Madison  [Mr.  Phellis]  informs  me 
that  when  they,  in  their  county,  seek  to  clean 
out  the  streams,  under  the  present  ditch  law, 
they  are  enjoined.  We  clean  out  streams,  in  our 
portion  of  the  State,  under  the  ditch  law ; but, 
the  gentleman  says  that,  when  they  seek  to 
clean  out  the  streams  in  their  county,  under 
that  law,  the  courts  enjoin  them.  If  that  be 
the  case,  let  us  fix  this  Constitution  so  that  they 
cannot  be  enjoined. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I would  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Madison  [Mr.  Phellis]  that  he 
might  reach  his  object  by  changing  the  clause 
so  as  to  read,  “and  for  constructing  and  im- 
proving ditches,  water-courses  and  roads,”  &c. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  If  that  were  adopted,  it 
would  allow  the  construction  of  new  water- 
courses. We  do  not  desire  that.  We  simply 
wish  to  be  able  to  clean  out  the  streams  we  now 
have — that  is,  clean  out  the  drift-wood. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Madison  [Mr. 
Phellis],  said  amendment,  without  a division, 
was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  strike  out  the 
word  “roads”  and  insert  the  word  “high- 
ways.” The  question  is  asked — why?  I an- 
swer that  the  word  “ roads  ” may  be  used  in  a 
variety  of  senses;  the  word  “highways”  is 
very  well  understood. 

Mr.  WEST.  I hope  that  amendment  will  be 
made,  so  that  there  will  be  nothing  indefinite 
about  this  proposition  at  all,  and  that  this  power 
of  assessment  and  taxation  be  limited  to  what 
we  understand  it  shall  be — to  public  highways. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  pro- 
pose to  insert  the  word  “public?’’ 

Mr.  WEST.  No.  “Highways”  will  do. 

Mr.  POND.  We  have  had  a good  deal  of  a 
struggle  over  this  in  connection  with  the  Article 
under  consideration  yesterday  relating  to  towns 
and  cities.  It  appears  to  me  that  by  having  this 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1487 

February  18,  1874.]  Pond,  Griswold,  Hitchcock,  Tuttle,  Bishop,  etc. 


Inserted  we  may  make  these  provisions  incon- 
sistent with  each  other.  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  provision  is  strong  enough  now : — “coun- 
ties and  townships  shall  have  such  power  of 
local  taxation  and  assessment  for  police  pur- 
poses, and  for  the  construction  and  improve- 
ment of  ditches  and  roads,  and  clearing  water- 
courses, when  necessary  to  the  public  health, 
convenience,  or  welfare,  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  law.”  It  appears  to  me  to  be  as  wise  and 
consistent  to  determine  the  question  by  the  pub- 
lic interest,  whatever  that  may  be,  whether  it 
be  brought  about  by  the  construction  of  a high- 
way or  of  what  may  be  declared  and  called  a 
road,  as  it  is  to  define  the  sort  of  a highway. 
Anything  that  will  conduce  squarely  to  the 
public  health,  convenience  and  welfare  ought  to 
be  within  the  limits  of  the  taxable  power  to  be 
exercised  by  the  township  or  county.  I cannot 
conceive  the  necessity  of  this  limitation. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  word  “roads”  is  used 
in  all  our  statutes.  It  is  the  common  word  of  the 
statutes  in  reference  to  these  highways.  The 
statutory  word  is  ‘ ‘roads.”  W e speak  of  “coun- 
ty roads,”  “township  roads,”  &c. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  word  “roads”  is  used 
with  reference  £0  highways,  and  that  is  the  com- 
mon word  of  the  statute.  I think  we  had  better 
stand  by  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  the  Convention  will 
not  put  in  here  anything  that  is  liable  to  be 
misunderstood,  or  that  may  be  ambiguous. 
The  Convention  of  1851  thought  it  necessary 
to  guard  the  language  they  employed.  If 
gentlemen  will  turn  to  the  nineteenth  section 
of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  they  will  find  how  the 
language  was  guarded : “ When  taken  in  time 

of  war,  or  other  public  exigency  imperatively 
requiring  its  immediate  seizure,  or  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  or  repairing  roads  which  shall 
be  open  to  the  public  without  charge,”  &c. 
In  that  case,  Mr.  President,  they  used  the  words 
I have  quoted  to  distinguish  roads  that  were 
designed  to  fall  within  the  power  of  the 
authorities  to  take  property  for  public  use  from 
canals,  railroads,  and  other  means  of  communi- 
cation, which  they  did  not  intend  to  bring 
within  the  purview  of  the  section.  Now, 
I think  the  same  caution  ought  to  be  used  here. 
I do  not  suppose  that  any  gentleman  of  this 
Convention  would  claim  that,  in  this  section, 
there  should  be  any  provision  which  can  possi- 
bly look  to  allowing  the  construction  of 
railroads,  or  of  any  other  sort  of  road  of  an 
analagous  character,  by  the  county,  or  of  any 
roads  except  those  which  are  open  to  the  public 
without  charge.  Of  course,  Mr.  President, 
there  is  implied  a great  question,  but  not  to  be 
settled  here;  and  this  is  not  designed,  I appre- 
hend, to  provide  one  way  or  the  other  upon 
that  subject,  but  refers  simply  to  highways  of 
the  character  alluded  to.  I hope,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that,  by  the  insertion  of  the  same  words 
in  the  section  now  under  consideration,  all 


possibility  of  ambiguity  will  be  cut  off.  It  is 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Griswold]  that  the  word  “roads”  is 
used  in  our  statutes.  Of  course,  it  is,  because 
there  is  no  necessity  in  the  statute  to  make  any 
distinction  on  this  subject.  The  Legislature 
would  not  have  the  power,  if  it  undertook  to 
provide  for  any  other  roads  than  those  that 
were  open  to  the  public  without  charge,  at 
least  not  in  the  manner  in  which  they  provide 
for  public  roads.  And  there,  whilst  they  call 
them  roads,  they  do,  in  effect,  provide,  and 
by  most  explicit  description  provide,  that  they 
shall  be  open  for  the  use  of  the  public  without 
charge,  and  they  prohibit,  under  penalties,  any 
obstructions  to  the  use  of  such  roads  by  the 
non-public.  All  those  statutes  provide,  just 
as  explicitly  as  it  is  possible  to  do  it,  just  as 
explicitly  as  if  they  qualified  the  word 
“roads  ” every  time  they  used  it  by  this  very 
language,  that  they  shall  be  applicable  only  to 
such  roads.  I,  therefore,  ask  the  mover  of  this 
amendment  if  he  will  not  adopt  the  language 
used  in  the  section  from  which  I have  quoted  : 
“ Roads  which  shall  be  open  to  the  public 
without  charge.”  If  not,  I would  desire  to 
move  an  amendment  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  If  the  gentleman 
will  withhold  his  motion,  I desire  to  give  notice 
to  the  Convention  that,  as  the  Article  on  the 
Legislative  Department  has  now  come  in, 
printed  as  we  agreed  to  have  it  before  the  Con- 
vention, I shall,  to-morrow  morning,  as  soon 
as  it  will  be  in  order,  move  to  have  this  Article 
engrossed,  in  order  to  be  placed  upon  its  third 
reading. 

A MEMBER.  Do  it  now. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  If  it  be  in  order, 
and  is  desired,  I move  that  the  Article  now  be 
ordered  to  be  engrossed  and  placed  upon  its 
third  reading  to-morrow. 

Mr.  BURNS.  There  was  a clerical  mistake 
in  printing  that  bill.  I inquire  if  it  has  been 
corrected  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  It  has  been  cor- 
rected bjr  inserting  the  word  “ employes,”  in 
the  twenty-fourth  section.  Another  slight  error 
has  been  corrected  in  a word  in  the  twelfth 
line  of  the  eighteenth  section.  The  word  “ to  ” 
was  printed  for  the  word  “by” — “no  bill  shall 
be  returned  to  the  Governor  ” should  be  “ no 
bill  shall  be  returned  by  the  Governor.”  Those 
slight  errors  have  been  corrected  by  the  Sec- 
retary. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Proposition  No.  190  has 
been  taken  from  the  table  by  common  consent. 
The  question  is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville]. 

Without  a division,  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BISHOP  then  renewed  his  motion  to  ad- 
journ, which  was  agreed  to. 

• Whereupon  the  Convention  (at  5:45  p.  m.) 
adjourned. 


1488 


PETITIONS— REPORT  ON  EDUCATION.  [118th 

Voris,  Bosworth,  Bowland,  Doan,  Waddle,  Blose,  Hale.  [Thursday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  EIGHTEENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

FIFTY-SIXTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  John  Scott,  of  the  Sixth 
Street  Methodist  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  89  members  re- 
sponded to  their  names. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

EXPRESSION  OF  REGRET. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  is  said  that  an  open  confes- 
sion is  good  for  the  soul.  However  this  may 
be,  I do  not  know  from  my  own  history;  but 
from  the  occurrence  which  took  place  here  yes- 
terday, I am  satisfied  that  I will  stand  better  in 
my  own  estimation,  and  that  of  the  Convention, 
if  I express  my  regret  that  I was  in  any  sort 
the  cause  of  any  disturbance  here  on  yesterday 
— for  I think  that  is  what  it  was.  I simply  rise 
to  express  my  regrets  for  what  occurred  here 
yesterday.  It  is  suggested  by  my  friend  next 
to  me  here,  that  I make  a promise  for  the  fu- 
ture. I will  say  this : I will  try  never  to  fight 

this  Convention  again,  unless  I feel  sure  that  I 
am  entirely  alone,  when  there  is  no  one  to  di- 
vide the  honors  of  victory  with  me;  and  then  I 
will  fight,  if  necessary,  to  all  eternity.  [Laugh- 
ter]. 

Mr.  BOSWORTH.  I desire  to  say  that  when 
I voted  to  sustain  the  gentleman  in  his  action, 

I supposed  that  he  was  right ; on  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  was  wrong,  I would  like  to  change 
that  vote.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I,  for  one,  forgive  the  gen- 
tleman freely;  but  as  to  his  fighting  the  Con- 
vention alone,  to  all  eternity,  I think  that  would 
be  a big  undertaking. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I will  take  back  all  that  part 
which  relates  to  eternity.  [Laughter.] 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  DOAN  presented  the  petition  of  Azel 
Walker,  and  sixty  other  citizens  of  Greene 
county,  praying  for  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution, prohibiting  the  manufacturing  and 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of 
Frances  I.  McFadden,and  three  hundred  and 
thirty-seven  other  women,  of  Harrison  county, 
for  a clause  in  the  new  Constitution  prohibiting 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  alcoholic  liquors 
or  giving  to  the  General  Assembly  entire  control 
of  the  same. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors.  Also,  the  pe- 
tition of  Milton  Harvey,  and  seventy-one  other  | 


Thursday,  February  19,  1874. 

citizens  of  Moorefield  township,  Harrison 
county,  on  the  same  subject,  which  received  a 
like  reference. 

Mr.  BLOSE  presented  the  petition  of  M.  F. 
Carothers,  Mother  Stewart,  C.  M.  Nichols,  Ellen 
Worthington,  and  two  hundred  and  seventy-six 
other  citizens  of  Clarke  county,  praying  the 
Constitutional  Convention  to  insert  the  follow- 
ing clause  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State : 

“No  license  shall  hereafter  be  granted  to  traffic  in  in- 
toxicating liquors  in  this  State;  but  the  General  Assem- 
bly may  have  power  to  legislate  against  the  manufac- 
ture and  sale  of  all  intoxicating  beverages.,, 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors.  Also,  the  peti- 
tion of  J.  Meranda  Williams,  M.  P.  Ellis,  and 
eighty-five  others  citizens  of  New  Carlisle, 
Clarke  county,  Ohio,  on  the  same  subject, which 
received  the  same  reference. 

Mr.  HALE  presented  the  petition  of  N.  B. 
Gates,  and  forty-five  other  citizens  of  Lorain 
county,  asking  that  such  provision  may  be 
made  in  the  Constitution  as  to  allow  the  Legis- 
lature the  power  to  provide  for  the  annihilation 
of  dogs. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ag- 
riculture. 

SECOND  READING. 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Education, 
submitting  additional  sections  to  Article  VI  of 
the  Constitution,  was  read  the  second  time,  as 
follows : 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION. 

Mr.  Cook,  from  the  Committee  on  Education,  submitted 
the  following  Report: 

Your  Committee,  after  a careful  consideration  of  all  the 
petitions  and  propositions  referred  to  them,  are  of  the 
opinion  that  the  following,  as  section  3,  should  be  added 
to  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution : 

Sec.  3.  Women,  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  office,  under  the  school  laws  of  this  State. 

The  undersigned  members  of  the  Committee  recommend 
that  the  following  clause  be  added  to  section  2 of  Article 
VI  of  the  Constitution,  namely : 

The  power  of  taxation,  conferred  by  this  section,  shall 
be  limited  to  a sum  sufficient  to  educate  all  the  children 
of  the  State,  in  such  common  and  necessary  branches  of 
learning  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Jno.  D.  Sears, 

Henry  F.  Page, 

Wm.  P.  Kerr, 

J.  P.  Carbery. 

The  undersigned  dissent  from  the  above  recommenda- 
tion. 

Asher  Cook, 

R.  DeSteiguer. 

The  undersigned  members  of  the  Committee  are  of  the 
opinion  that  the  following  should  be  added,  as  section  4, 
to  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution: 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  require 
that  every  child,  of  sufficient  mental  and  physical  abili- 
ty, shall  attend  the  public  free  schools,  during  the  period 
between  the  ages  of  and  years,  for  a term 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Cook,  Pease,  Hoadly. 


1489 


Day.] 


February  19,  1874.] 


equivalent  in  the  aggregate  to  years,  unless  edu- 

cated by  other  means  to  the  same  extent. 

Asher  Cook, 

Jno.  D.  Sears, 

Henry  F.  Page, 

R.  DeSteiguer. 

We  dissent  from  the  rest  of  the  Committee,  in  opinion, 
as  to  the  addition  of  section  4. 

W.  P.  Kerr, 

J.  P.  Carbery. 

Mr.  Carbery  proposes  to  amend  section  2 of  Article  VI 
of  the  Constitution,  so  that  it  shall  read: 

The  General  Assembly  shall  make  such  provisions,  by 
taxation  or  otherwise,  as,  with  the  income  arising  from 
the  school  trust  fund,  will  secure  a thorough  and  effi- 
cient system  of  common  schools  throughout  the  State. 

Joseph  P.  Carbery. 

Mr.  COOK.  I now  move  that  this  Report  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
made  the  special  order  immediately  after  the 
disposition  of  Proposition  No.  168. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  moves  that  the  Report  be 
made  the  special  order  for  the  hour  succeeding 
the  disposition  of  Proposition  No.  168,  and  to 
continue  such  from  day  to  day  until  finally  dis- 
posed of. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

FINAL  READINGS. 

Final  readings  being  called  for,  the  Secre- 
tary read  Proposition  No.  182 — an  additional 
Article  to  the  Constitution. 

MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Section  1.  The  General  Assembly  shall,  by  general 
laws,  provide  for  the  organization  and  classification  of 
Municipal  Corporations;  the  number  of  such  classes 
shall  not  exceed  six,  and  the  powers  of  each  class  shall 
be  defined  by  general  laws,  so  that  no  such  corporation 
shall  have  any  other  powers,  or  be  subject  to  any  other 
restrictions  than  other  corporations  of  the  same  class.  The 
General  Assembly  shall  restrict  the  power  of  such  cor- 
porations to  levy  taxes  and  assessments,  borrow  money 
and  contract  debts,  so  as  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  such 
power. 

Sec.  2.  No  Municipal  Corporation  shall  loan  its  credit 
to  any  person  or  corporation,  for  any  purpose  whatever, 
except  as  may  be  otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitu- 
tion. 

Sec.  3.  No  assessments  shall  be  levied  by  any  Munical 
Corporation  upon  any  property  which  shall  require  the 
payment  in  any  one  year  of  more  than  ten  per  centum  of 
its  value,  as  ascertained  by  the  tax  duplicate,  nor  shall 
the  aggregate  assessments  for  all  purposes  thereon  in  any 
period  of  ten  years,  exceed  fifty  per  centum  of  the  high- 
est taxable  valuation  thereof  during  the  same  period. 

Sec,  4.  The  indebtedness  of  any  Municipal  Corpora- 
tion shall  never  exceed,  in  the  aggregate,  five  per  centum 
of  the  value  of  the  property  within  such  corporation,  as 
ascertained  from  time  to  time  by  the  tax  duplicate  there- 
of, without  the  consent,  first  obtained,  to  such  increase 
of  indebtedness,  and  the  approval  of  the  objects  for 
which  the  same  is  created,  of  at  least  three-fourths  of  all 
the  qualified  electors  of  such  corporation,  to  be  assertain- 
ed  in  the  mode  prescribed  by  law,  and  in  no  case  shall 
such  indebtedness  exceed  ten  per  centum  of  said  taxable 
value.  In  ascertaining  such  indebtedness  at  any  time, 
there  shall  be  included  an  amount  which,  at  the  rate  of 
six  per  centum  per  annum,  will  produce  a sum  equal  to 
the  aggregate  amount  payable  by  such  corporation  for  the 
rent  of  property  leased  to  it. 

This  section  shall  not  be  construed  to  prevent  any  Mu- 
nicipal Corporation  from  incurring  any  indebtedness 
necessary  to  complete  any  work  authorized  by  law,  and 
undertaken  before  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  nor 
shall  the  restrictions  of  this  section  apply  to  necessary 
expenditures  for  military  purposes  in  time  of  war. 

Sec.  5.  Except  as  may  be  otherwise  provided  by  this 
Constitution,  no  tax  or  assessment  shall  be  levied  or  col- 
lected, or  debt  contracted,  by  any  Municipal  Corporation, 
except  in  pursuance  of  law,  for  public  purposes,  specified 
by  law;  nor  shall  money  raised  by  taxation,  loan  or  as- 
sessment for  one  purpose  ever  be  diverted  to  another. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is, 
Shall  the  Proposition  as  amended  be  agreed  to? 
Mr.  PEASE.  I do  not  know  much  about  the 

Y.  11-96 


rules  for  getting  at  the  matter,  but  in  section  2 
there  is  this  language:  “No  Municipal  Cor- 
poration shall  loan  its  credit  to  any  person  or 
corporation.”  It  seems  to  me  that  that  is  not 
what  the  Committee  desires. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  it  is. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Is  it  all  they  desire  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes;  it  is  all  they  desire. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Does  it  mean,  simply,  the 
loan  of  its  name,  going  security  on  a bond  by 
which  to  raise  means  upon  its  reputation  or 
credit,  or  does  it  include  its  means?  May  they 
not  loan  their  means,  the  means  the  corpora- 
tion has,  but  not  its  credit? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  When  this  section  was  under 
consideration  the  Committee  considered  wheth- 
er to  the  words  “loan  its  credit”  the  words 
“or  property”  should  be  added ; but  the  sug- 
gestion being  made  that  the  words  “ or  prop- 
erty ” added  would  have  the  effect  of  preventing 
the  creation  of  a sinking  fund  of  the  surplus 
means  by  loans,  where  the  debt  of  the  corpora- 
tion could  not  be  bought  up,  was  not  actually 
due,  and  therefore  could  not  be  reached;  for 
that  reason,  I suppose, — no  other  was  given — it 
was  left  as  it  is.  I suppose  that  the  words  “loan 
its  credit  ” cover  all  the  forms  of  the  credit  of 
a corporation ; that  is,  it  cannot  loan  its  funds, 
bonds,  promissory  note,  or  credit  in  any  form. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Suppose  that  it  has  on  hand 
$50,000  cash,  what  advantage  can  that  material 
be,  for  any  purpose,  if  not  used : may  they  not 
loan  their  means,  in  that  sense? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all,  for  the  reason,  if 
the  gentleman  will  permit  me,  that  if  the  words 
“or  property  ” are  added,  the  effect  will  be  to 
prevent  a loan  by  way  of  security,  by  way  of 
mortgage,  or  otherwise,  until  the  time  shall 
come  when  they  can  liquidate  the  debt;  in 
other  words,  it  will  prevent  them  from  creating 
a sinking  fund.  The  rule,  as  now  worded,  pre- 
vents a diversion  of  assets  to  any  other  object 
than  that  for  which  raised.  For  instance : Sup- 
posing the  debt  of  the  corporation  to  be  $100,- 
000,  and  not  to  be  due  for  five  years.  A man 
says:  “I  am  receiving  eight  per  cent.,”  he 
says,  “you  may  keep  it,  I can  get  all  the  money 
I want;  I will  hold  on  to  my  loan.”  Now,  every 
member  of  experience  knows  that  this  thing 
very  often  happens,  and  may  hereafter  happen. 
What  we  wish  is,  not  to  prevent  the  corpora- 
tion from  investing  that  money  until  the  debt 
shall  be  due,  so  as  to  make  it  equivalent  to  the 
interest  and  to  help  to  pay  the  principal;  in 
other  words,  to  create  a sinking  fund.  And,  in 
my  experience,  the  actual  objection  to  the  sink- 
ing funds  of  our  corporations  has  been  that  they 
have  been  diverted  from  the  purposes  for  which 
the  money  was  raised,  and  employed  in  paying 
daily  expenses.  But  I know  that  this,  which 
is  prevented  by  section  5,  has  really  been  done 
in  some  corporations;  that  is,  the  money  raised 
for  the  sinking  fund  has  been  used  in  the  pay- 
ment of  the  current  expenses.  I think  the  ob- 
jection is  not  well  sustained. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I am  inclined  to  think  that  the 
ingenuity  and  large  means  of  these  corpora- 
tions will  find  a way  to  loan  their  property  or 
money  or  apply  it  in  the  direction  that  is  de- 
signed to  be  prevented.  I am  sorry  that  it  is 
not  included.  I would  suggest,  however,  the 
word,  “ means,”  instead  of  “ property.” 


1490 


[118th 


MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 


West,  Humphreville,  Hoadly,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


Mr.  WEST.  I really  think  it  would  be  much 
more  satisfactory,  and  that  the  results  which 
we  desire  to  attain  can  be  much  more  satisfac- 
torily reached,  by  placing  this  on  the  table 
until  after  the  matter  of  Public  Debt  and  Pub- 
lic Works  is  considered, and  having  it  printed; 
so  that  we  can  harmonize  all  the  different  parts 
without  a reconsideration.  Now,  it  may  be  pos- 
sible, that  there  may  be  something  incorporated 
in  that  Article  that  will  conflict  with  this;  I, 
therefore,  move  that  this  Article  now  be  permit- 
ted to  lie  on  the  table,  and  that  it  be  ordered  to  be 
printed  and  taken  up  after  the  Article  on  Public 
Debt  and  Public  Works  is  printed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 
the  motion  to  he  that  the  proposition  be  laid  on 
the  table,  and  printed,  and  the  consideration  of 
it  be  postponed  until  after  the  consideration  of 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt 
and  Public  Works. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  There  are  several 
members  of  the  Convention  who  want  to  see 
that  Article  in  print  before  voting  on  it.  It  has 
been  amended  a good  deal  since  the  original 
Report,  and  we  do  not  know  whether  it  is  right 
or  not.  I hope  the  amendment  will  prevail. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  lay  on 
the  table  and  print. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  that  debatable  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  lie  on  the 
table  is  not ; the  motion  to  print  is  debatable. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  changes  which  have 
been  made  in  this  section  are  so  slight  that  any 
member,  with  his  pencil,  can,  in  two  minutes, 
by  attending  to  the  reading  by  the  Secretary, 
make  all  the  changes  in  his  copy.  There  is  no 
need  of  the  extra  expense  of  printing,  not  in 
the  least;  therefore,  I am  opposed  to  it.  It  is  a 
small  expense,  it  is  true,  but  “ many  a little 
makes  a mickle.” 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I want  to  see  that 
fourth  section  to  which  I expect  to  object 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  from  Me- 
dina [Mr.  Humphreville]  will  suspend  one 
minute,  he,  with  a pencil,  can  make  all  the 
changes  which  exist  in  this  section  : First,  that 
the  consent  of  the  people  shall  be  given  to  the 
increase  of  debt,  and  to  the  object  for  which 
the  increase  may  be  asked.  Second,  instead  of 
“two-thirds  of  the  tax  payers, it  is  “three- 
fourths  of  all  the  qualified  electors  of  such 
corporation.”  Third,  instead  of  saying  that 
“ this  section  shall  not  he  construed  to  prevent 
any  Municipal  Corporation  from  incurring  any 
indebtedness  authorized  bylaw,”  it  says  it  shall 
not  prevent  them  “ from  incurring  any  indebt- 
edness necessary  to  complete  any  work  authorized 
by  law,  and  undertaken  before  the  adoption  of 
this  Constitution.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the 
Proposition,  and  that  it  be  printed. 

Mr.  BEER.  I am  in  favor  of  the  motion  to 
print. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
question  is  really  one  of  postponement;  for, 
after  it  has  been  postponed,  as  proposed,  there 
will  be  no  trouble  about  its  being  printed  for 
the  convenience  of  all.  I suppose  the  question, 
if  I understand  it,  is  to  postpone  to  a certain 


[Thursday, 


time,  and  that,  in  the  meantime,  it  be  ordered 
to  be  printed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  really  the  ques- 
tion ; if  the  motion  to  lie  on  the  table  be  taken 
out  of  the  way,  it  would  be  upon  postponing 
until  after  the  consideration  of  Proposition  No. 
196,  being  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Public  Debt  and  Public  Works. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  |Mr.  Hoadly] 
whether  there  is  any  other  objection  to  this 
postponement,  except  the  cost  of  printing? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  objection  is  that  of 
a waste  of  time;  we  postpone  too  much. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  will  take  no 
longer  than  it  will  now. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I only  wish  to  know  the 
objections  to  that  question. 

Upon  which  question  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  demanded. 

Objection  being  made,  the  demand  was  sus- 
tained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  44,  nays  38,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Cha- 
pin, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Doan,  Dor- 
sey, Gardner,  Greene,  Gurley,  Hill,  Hostetter. 
Humphreville,  Kerr,  McBride,  Merrill,  Mitche- 
ner,  Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Philips,  Pond, 
Pratt,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Sears, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley. 
Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, President — 44. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Bishop,  Bos  worth,  By  al,  Carbery,  Cowen,  Ew- 
ing, Freiberg,  Griswold,  Hale.  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Horton,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kraemer,  Mil- 
ler, Miner,  Mueller,  Phellis,  Powell,  Rickly, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Scribner, 
Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Townsend,  Tripp, 
Tulloss,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Weaver,  Young  of  Noble — 38. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  next  business  be- 
fore the  Convention  will  be  the  final  reading 
of  Proposition  No.  190.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  Proposition. 

The  Secretary  read  the  Proposition,  which 
is  as  follows : 

Proposition  No.  190,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Legisla- 
tive Department : A Substitute  for  Article  II  of  the  Con  - 
stitution . 

ARTICLE  II. 

LEGISLATIVE. 

Section  1.  The  legislative  power  of  this  State  shall  be 
vested  in  a General  Assembly,  which  shall  consist  of  a 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives. 

Sec.  2.  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  he  elected 
biennially,  by  the  electors  in  the  respective  counties  or 
districts,  on  the  Tuesday  succeeding  the  first  Monday  in 
November;  their  term  ot  office  shall  commence  on  the 
first  day  of  January  next  thereafter,  and  coutinue  two 
years. 

Sec.  3.  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  have  re- 
sided in  their  respective  counties  or  districts  one  year 
next  preceding  their  election,  unless  thej^  shall  have  been 
absent  on  the  public  business  of  the  United  States  or  of 
this  State,  and  shall  continue  to  reside  in  their  respective 
districts  or  counties  during  their  terms  of  service. 

Sec.  4.  No  person  holding  office  under  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office,  under  the  au- 
thority of  this  State,  shall  be  eligible  to,  or  have  a seat  in, 
the  General  Assembly ; but  this  provision  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  township  officers,  justices  of  the  peace,  notaries 


Day.] 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


1491 


February  19,  1874.]  Humphreville. 


public,  or  officers  of  the  militia;  nor  shall  any  person  in- 
terested in  any  contract  with,  or  unadjusted  claim  against 
the  State,  hold  a seat  in  the  General  Assembly. 

Sec.  5.  No  person  convicted  of  an  embezzlement  of  the 
public  funds,  shall  hold  any  office  in  this  State;  nor  shall 
any  person  holding  public  money  for  disbursement,  or 
otherwise,  have  a seat  in  the  General  Assembly  until  he 
shall  have  accounted  for  and  paid  such  money  into  the 
treasury. 

Sec-  6.  Each  House  shall  be  judge  ol'  the  election  re- 
turns and  qualifications  of  its  own  members;  a majority 
of  all  the  members  elected  to  each  House  shall  be  a quo- 
rum to  do  business,  but  a less  number  may  adjourn  from 
day  to  day,  and  compel  the  attendance  of  absent  members 
in  such  manner  and  under  such  penalties  as  shall  be  pre- 
scribed by  law. 

Sec.  7.  The  mode  of  organizing  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, at  the  commencement  of  each  regular  session, 
shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  8.  Each  House,  except  as  otherwise  provided  in 
this  Constitution,  shall  choose  its  own  officers,  may  deter- 
mine its  own  rules  of  proceeding,  punish  its  members  for 
disorderly  conduct;  and,  with  the  concurrence  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  elected  thereto,  expel  a mem- 
ber, but  not  the  second  time  for  the  same  cause;  and  shall 
have  all  other  powers  necessary  to  provide  for  its  safety 
and  the  undisturbed  transaction  of  its  business. 

Sec.  9.  Each  House  shall  keep  a correct  Journal  of  its 
proceedings,  which  shall  be  published.  At  the  desire  of 
any  two  members,  the  yeas  and  nays  shall  be  entered 
upon  the  Journal;  and,  on  the  passage  of  every  bill  or 
joint  resolution  in  either  House  the  vote  shall  be  taken  by 
yeas  and  nays,  and  entered  upon  the  Journal;  and  no  bill 
or  joint  resolution,  except  joint  resolutions  relating  to  the 
course  of  business  in  the  General  Assembly,  shall  be 
passed  in  either  House,  without  the  concurrence  of  a ma- 
jority of  all  the  members  elected  thereto. 

Sec.  10.  Any  member  of  either  House  shall  have  the 
right  to  protest  against  any  act  or  resolution  thereof,  and 
such  protest,  and  the  reasons  therefor  shall,  on  being  pre- 
sented to  such  House,  without  alteration,  commitment  or 
delay,  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  by  the  clerk. 

Sec.  11.  All  vacancies  which  may  happen  in  either 
House  shall,  for  the  unexpired  term,  be  filled  by  election, 
as  shall  be  directed  by  law. 

Sec.  12.  Senators  and  Representatives,  during  the  ses- 
sion of  the  General  Assembly,  and  in  going  to  and  re- 
turning from  the  same,  shall  be  privileged  from  arrest,  in 
all  cases,  except  treason,  felony,  or  breach  of  the  peace; 
and  for  any  speech  or  debate,  in  either  House,  they  shall 
not  be  questioned  elsewhere. 

Sec.  13.  The  proceedings  of  both  Houses  shall  be  pub- 
lic, except  in  cases  which,  in  the  opinion  of  two-thirds  of 
those  present,  require  secrecy. 

Sec.  14.  Neither  House  shall,  without  the  consent  of 
the  other,  adjourn  for  more  than  two  days,  Sundays  ex- 
cluded, nor  to  any  other  place  than  that  in  which  the  two 
Houses  shall  be  in  session. 

Sec.  15.  No  law  shall  be  passed,  except  by  bill.  Bills 
may  originate  in  either  House,  but  may  be  altered,  amend- 
ed, or  rejected  in  the  other. 

Sec.  16.  Every  bill  shall  be  fully  and  distinctly  read  on 
three  different  days, unless  in  case  of  urgency  three- fourths 
of  the  members  elected  to  the  House  in  which  it  shall  be 
pending,  shall,  by  a vote  of  the  yeas  and  nays,  which 
shall  be  entered  on  the  Journal,  dispense  with  this  rule; 
but  the  reading  of  a bill  on  its  final  passage  shall  in  no 
case  be  dispensed  with.  No  bill  shall  contain  more  than 
one  subject,  which  shall  be  clearly  expressed  in  its  title; 
and  no  law  shall  be  revived,  or  amended,  unless  the  new 
act  contain  the  e ntire  act  revived,  or  the  section  or  s ectlons 
amended;  and  the  section,  or  sections  so  amended  shall 
be  repealed. 

Sec.  17.  The  presiding  officer  of  each  House  shall  sign, 
publicly,  in  the  presence  of  the  House  over  which  he  pre- 
sides, while  the  same  is  in  session,  and  capable  ot  trans- 
acting business,  all  bills  and  joint  resolutions  passed  by 
the  General  Assembly. 

Sec.  18.  Every  bill  passed  by  the  General  Assembly 
shall,  before  it  become  a law,  be  presented  to  the  Gov- 
ernor, at  least  three  days  before  its  adjournment  sine  die. 
If  he  approve  it  he  shall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it  shall 
become  a law;  but  if  he  do  not  approve,  he  shall  send  it 
to  the  House  in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  with  his 
objections,  in  writing,  and  the  House  may  then  proceed 
to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill.  If,  after 
such  reconsideration,  a majority  of  the  members  elected 
thereto,  sufficient  for  its  passage  in  the  first  instance, 
agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be  sent  to  the  other  House, 
with  the  objections  of  the  Governor,  and  thereupon  that 
House  may  likewise  reconsider  the  vote  on  its  passage. 
It,  after  such  reconsideration,  a like  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers elected  to  that  House  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall 
become  a law.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the 
Governor  within  three  days  (Sundays  excepted)  after  it 
shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  become 


a law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it.  The  Governor 
shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any  item  or  items  ot 
any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money,  embracing  dis- 
tinct items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the  bill  approved, 
shall  be  the  law,  and  the  item  or  items  of  appropriation 
disapproved,  shall  be  void,  unless  repassed  according  to 
the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the  passage  of 
entire  bills,  after  the  disapproval  of  the  Governor.  Every 
order,  resolution  or  vote  to  which  the  concurrence  of  both 
branches  of  th  e General  Assembly  may  be  necessary, 
(except  on  a question  of  adjournment,  or  questions  per- 
taining to  1>he  transaction  of  business  by  the  two  Houses) 
shall  be  presented  to  the  Governor;  and  before  the  same 
shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him,  or  being  dis- 
approved by  him,  may  be  repassed  by  both  Houses  of  the 
General  Assembly,  according  to  the  rules  and  limitations 
prescribed  in  the  case  of  a bill. 

Sec.  19.  The  style  of  the  laws  of  this  State  shall  be, 

“ Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
Ohio.” 

Sec.  20.  No  Senator  or  Representative  shall,  during 
the  term  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected,  or  for  one 
ear  thereafter,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  office  under  this 
tate,  which  shall  be  created,  or  the  emoluments  of  which 
'shall  have  been  increased  during  the  term  for  which  he 
shall  have  been  elected. 

Sec.  21.  The  General  Assembly,  in  cases  not  provided 
for  in  this  Constitution,  shall  fix  the  term  of  office  and 
compensation  of  all  officers;  but  shall  in  no  case  extend 
the  term  of  office,  increase  nor  diminish  the  salary,  fees 
or  compensation  of  any  person  elected  or  appointed  to  any 
office  or  position  under  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  this 
State,  after  such  person  shall  have  been  elected  or  ap- 
pointed. If  any  office,  created  by  law,  be  abolished,  the 
salary  or  compensation  attached  thereto  shall  thereafter 
cease  and  determine. 

Sec.  22.  The  General  Assembly  shall  determine,  by 
law,  before  what  authority,  and  in  what  manner,  the  trial 
of  contested  elections  shall  be  conducted. 

Sec.  23.  Money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  only 
in  pursuance  of  specific  appropriation  made  by  law,  the 
purpose  of  which  shall  be  distinctly  stated  in  the  bill,  and 
no  appropriation  shall  be  for  a longer  period  than  two 
years.  Upon  the  passage  of  bills  appropriating  money, 
or  upon  concurring  in  amendments  thereto,  a separate 
vote  »pon  any  one  or  more  items  therein,  shall,  upon  de- 
mand of  any  member,  be  had  by  yeas  and  nays,  entered 
on  the  Journal,  and  every  such  item  failing  upon  such 
separate  vote  to  receive  the  vote  of  a majority  of  the 
members  elected  to  the  House  in  which  the  bill  is  pend- 
ing, shall  be  stricken  therefrom;  and  each  item  receiving 
such  majority  shall  be  declared  passed. 

Sec.  24.  No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any 
officer,  public  agent,  employe  or  contractor  after  the  ser- 
vice shall  have  been  rendered  or  the  contract  entered  into; 
nor  shall  any  money  be  appropriated  or  paid  on  any 
claim,  the  subject  matter  of  which  shall  not  have  been 
provided  for  by  pre-existing  law,  unless  such  compensa- 
tion or  claim  be  allowed  by  two-thirds  of  the  members 
elected  to  each  branch  of  the  General  Assembly.  No  such 
allowance  shall  be  made  except  by  bill,  and  no  provision 
directing  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation,  claim 
or  allowance,  or  authorizing  the  expenditure  or  payment 
of  money  for  any  purpose  not  provided  for  by  pre-exist- 
ing law,  shall  be  included  in  any  bill  making  any  appro- 
priations for  a pui’pose  which  shall  have  been  so  provided 
for;  and  no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or  different 
classes  of  compensation  or  claim;  and  every  appropria- 
tion for  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation  or  claim 
included  in  any  act  making  several  appropriations,  shall 
be  void. 

Sec.  25.  The  House  of  Representives  shall  have  the 
sole  power  of  impeachment;  but  a majority  of  the  mem- 
bers elected  must  concur  therein.  Impeachments  shall  be 
tried  by  the  Senate,  and  the  Senators,  when  sitting  for 
that  purpose,  shall  be  upon  oath  or  affirmation  to  do  jus- 
tice according  to  law  and  evidence.  When  the  Governor 
of  the  State  is  tried,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  shall  preside.  No  person  shall  be  convicted  without 
the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Senators. 

Sec.  26.  The  Governor,  Judges  and  all  State  officers 
maybe  impeached  for  any  misdemeanor  in  office;  but 
judgment  shall  not  extend  further  than  removal  from 
office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  any  office,  under  the 
authority  of  this  State.  The  party  impeached,  whether 
convicted  or  not,  shall  be  liable  to  indictment,  trial  and 
judgment,  according  to  law. 

Sec.  27.  All  regular  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly 
shall  commence  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  an- 
nually. The  first  session,  under  this  Constitution,  shall 
commence  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and . 

Sec.  28.  All  laws  of  a general  nature  shall  have  a uni- 
form operation  throughout  the  State;  nor  shall  any  act  or 
part  of  any  act,  except  such  as  relates  to  public  schools, 
public  buildings  and  public  bridges,  be  passed  to  take 


1492 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


[118th 

Hoadly,  Humphreville.  [Thursday, 


effect  upon  a vote  of  the  people  affected  thereby,  or  the 
execution  of  which  shall  depend  upon  such  vote,  or  upon 
the  approval  of  any  other  authority  than  the  General 
Assembly,  except  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitu- 
tion. Nor  shall  any  act  be  passed  conferring  special 
powers  or  privileges  upon  any  county,  city,  village,  town- 
ship, or  other  municipality,  that  shall  not  be  conferred 
upon  all  counties,  cities,  villages,  townships,  and  munici- 
palities of  the  same  general  class.  .. 

Sec.  29.  The  election  and  appointment  of  all  officers, 
and  the  filling  of  all  vacancies,  not  otherwise  provided 
for  by  this  Constitution  or  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  shall  be  made  in  su  ;h  manner  as  may  be  directed 
bylaw:  but  no  appointing  power  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  General  Assembly,  except  as  prescribed  m this  Con- 
stitution; and  in  the  election  of  United  States  Senators, 
and  in  these  cases  the  vote  shall  be  taken  viva  voce. 

Sec  30.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  no  power  to 
pass  retroactive  laws,  or  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts;  but  may,  by  general  laws,  authorize  courts  to 
carry  into  effect,  upon  such  terms  as  shall  be  just  and 
equitable,  the  manifest  intention  of  parties  and  officers, 
by  curing  omissions,  defects  and  errors  in  instruments 
and  proceedings  arising  out  of  their  want  of  conformity 
to  the  laws  of  this  State.  . 

Sec.  31.  No  new  county  shall  contain  less  than  four 
hundred  square  miles  of  territory,  nor  shall  any  county 
be  reduced  below  that  amount;  and  all  laws  creating 
new  counties,  changing  county  lines,  or  removing  county 
seats,  shall,  before  taking  effect,  be  submitted  to  the  elec- 
tors of  the  several  counties  to  be  affected  thereby,  at  the 
next  general  election  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  be 
adopted  by  a majority  of  all  the  electors  voting  at  such 
election  in  each  of  said  counties ; but  any  county  now  or 
hereafter  containing  one  hundred  thousand  inhabitants 
may  be  divided,  whenever  a majority  of  the  voters  resid- 
ing in  each  of  the  proposed  divisions  shall  approve  of  the 
law  passed  for  that  purpose;  but  no  town  or  city  within 
the  same  shall  be  divided,  nor  shall  either  of  the  divisions 
contain  less  than  twenty  thousand  inhabitants. 

Sec.  32.  The  members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall  re- 
ceive a fixed  annual  salary,  and  mileage,  to  be  prescribed 
by  law,  and  no  other  allowance  or  perquisites,  either  in  the 
payment  of  postage  or  otherwise;  and  no  change  in  their 
compensation  shall  take  effect  during  their  term  of  office; 
but  the  General  Assembly  shall  provide  for  ratable  de- 
ductions therefrom  on  account  of  unnecessary  absence 
during  its  sessions. 

Sec.  33.  The  General  Assembly  shall  grant  no  divorce, 
nor  exercise  any  judicial  power  not  herein  expressly  con- 
ferred. 

Sec.  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe  by  law 
the  number,  duties  and  compensation  of  the  officers  and 
employes  of  each  House,  and  no  payment  shall  be  made 
from  the  State  Treasury,  or  be  in  any  way  authorized,  to 
any  person  except  to  an  officer  or  employe  elected  or  ap- 
pointed in  pursuance  of  law. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  to  refer  to  a special 
Committee  of  one,  with  instruction  to  amend 
section  28  by  striking  out  the  words,  “or  the 
execution  of  which  'shall  depend  upon  such 
vote,”  in  lines  four  and  five.  This,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, is  an  innovation  which  has  escaped  the 
attention  of  this  Convention  up  to  this  time,  I 
believe,  at  least  without  the  observation  of 
many.  In  my  opinion  it  is  a most  serious  and 
mischievous  innovation.  Under  our  present 
Constitution  no  law  can  be  passed  to  take  ef- 
fect upon  a vote  of  the  people  affected  thereby, 
or  upon  the  approval  of  any  other  authority 
than  the  General  Assembly,  except  as  other- 
wise provided  in  this  Constitution.  But,  in 
the  first  volume  of  the  Ohio  State  Reports,  in 
the  case  of  Giesy  against  the  Cincinnati,  Wil- 
mington and  Zanesville  Railroad  Company, 
and  from  that  time  till  now,  it  has  been  uni- 
formly decided  that  that  provision  of  the  pres- 


ent Constitution  did  not  interfere  with  the  pas- 
sage of  a law,  the  execution  of  which  might  be 
made  to  depend  upon  the  will  of  the  people. 
For  instance,  it  would  be  proper  to  pass  a law 
allowing  the  people  to  say  whether  the  county 
seat  should  be  changed,  whether  a new  court- 
house should  be  built,  whether  a tax  should  be 
imposed  for  any  specific  purpose,  instead  of 
confining  this  power  to  the  Legislature,  leaving 


the  people  no  say-so  about  all  these  important 
matters. 

I believe  that  this  kind  of  legislation  at- 
tempted to  be  forbidden  by  this  provision,  is 
wise  and  judicious,  and  not  vicious.  I believe, 
for  instance,  in  changing  county  seats,  build- 
ing court-houses  or  bridges,  at  the  county  ex- 
pense; or,  as  suggested,  turnpikes;  that  it  is 
better  to  let  the  people  have  a say-so,  rather 
than  to  prevent  them,  and  tie  their  hands  so 
they  shall  not  have  the  privilege  of  expressing 
their  views. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Will  the  gentle- 
man allow  a question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  That  is  provided 
for  in  another  section. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  believe  so.  There 
is  a provision  for  bridges  and  public  schools, 
that  is  true. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  So  there  is  for  the 
others. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  says,  “except  as 
otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitution.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes ; but  “except  as  other- 
wise provided  in  this  Constitution,”  means  the 
Boesel  Bill,  simply. 

Now,  I will  illustrate  by  a specimen.  The 
Legislature  of  Ohio  passed  a law  about  five 
years  ago  to  levy  a general  tax  on  the  people  of 
this  county  to  build  what  is  known  as  the  Co- 
lumbia avenue.  It  is  an  avenue  running  up  the 
Ohio  river,  about  half  way  between  the  river 
and  the  brow  of  the  hill,  over  the  most  difficult 
ground  in  this  county,  perhaps,  upon  which  to 
build  a road,  running  as  it  does  along  a sliding 
hill-side.  That  road,  about  three  or  four  miles 
long,  for  the  accommodation  of  the  people  of 
Columbia  and  the  eastern  end  of  this  county,  is 
to  be  built  by  public  money,  raised  by  taxation 
upon  the  people  of  the  northwest  corner  and 
other  parts  of  this  county,  who  have  no  more 
interest  in  this  avenue  than  the  people  of  But- 
ler county — not  a particle  more.  In  such  a 
case,  it  would  have  been  wise  to  have  submitted 
to  the  people  of  Hamilton  county  the  question, 
whether  that  work  shall  be  done  at  the  county’s 
expense  or  not.  This  legislation  was  procured 
by  the  influence  of  those  who  are  interested  in 
lands  at  Columbia. 

Take  another  instance : The  people  of  Frank- 
lin county  taxed  the  city  of  Columbus  and  the 
county  in  aid  of  the  Agricultural  College.  I 
say  that  every  reasonable  restriction  you  can 
throw  about  such  a law,  will  be  wisely  added, 
and  that  it  was  mischievous  to  allow  that  pro- 
ject to  go  into  effect  without  the  vote  of  the 
people.  By  providing  that  no  law  can  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  popular  vote,  you  invite  log- 
rollers,  speculators  and  thieves,  great  and  small, 
thieves  in  broadcloth,  and  thieves  in  rags,  to 
Columbus,  to  lay  schemes  before  the  Legislature 
of  Ohio. 

And  I know  this,  Mr.  President,  that  if  the 
General  Assembly  be  disposed  to  this  kind  of  a 
job,  yet,  if  the  execution  of  the  law  can  be 
made  to  depend  upon  the  vote  of  the  majority 
of  the  people,  it  would  be  easily  defeated  by 
giving  it  to  them  ; and  so  with  all  these  villain- 
ous schemes.  But  if  you  prevent  the  execution 
of  any  law  being  submitted  to  a popular  vote 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1493 

February  19, 1874.]  Yoris,  Hoadly,  Pond,  Humphreville. 


you  simply  invite  vagabonds  and  thieves,  who 
desire  to  carry  out  their  schemes,  to  dodge  this 
by  going  to  Columbus  and  manipulating  the 
Legislature.  A provision  such  as  proposed, 
would  give  the  people  a chance.  In  its  present 
shape,  it  is  simply  confined  to  public  schools 
and  bridges;  whereas,  I believe  it  maybe  bene- 
ficially extended  to  a thousand  and  one  other 
things.  For  these  reasons,  I desire  this  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  a 
question  before  he  takes  his  seat.  Would  not 
the  limitation  you  desire,  or  rather  the  exten- 
sion of  this  matter,  be  secured  by  limiting  this 
to  any  general  or  part  of  any  general  act,  in- 
stead of  striking  out  the  part  proposed  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  leave  it  as  it  is  in 
the  present  Coiastitution.  It  has  worked  no 
harm. 

Mr.  VORIS.  It  certainly  has. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  has  not.  I beg  the  gen- 
tleman’s pardon  for  contradicting  him  so 
plumply.  I know  what  he  has  in  his  mind. 
The  Legislature  would  have  passed  the  Fergu- 
son railroad  bill,  and  did  pass  it.  And  it  worked 
no  wrong  to  add  the  provision  submitting  it  to 
a vote  of  the  people  of  this  city. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  know  what  hin- 
ders my  friend  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphre- 
ville] and  others,  upon  such  a scheme  as  that, 
from  providing  that  the  people  shall  not  have 
the  chance  to  say  no,  if  they  want  to  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  We  propose  to  in- 
corporate this  twenty-eighth  section,  purposely 
to  cut  off  the  abuses  that  have  grown  up  under 
the  twenty-sixth  section  of  the  Legislative  Ar- 
ticle of  our  present  Constitution.  I know  that 
that  section  was  put  into  the  Constitution  for 
the  purpose  of  preventing  any  act  or  the  exe- 
cution of  any  act  being  submitted  to  take  effect 
upon  the  vote  of  the  people  affected  by  it ; and 
in  the  Debates,  if  any  gentleman  will  take  it 
upon  himself  to  read  them  he  will  see  that  the 
object  of  the  Committee  in  reporting  it  to  the 
Convention,  and  adopting  it,  was  to  cut  off  all 
such  votes  to  build  railroads  and  other  internal 
improvements;  and  if  I had  time  I could  refer 
to  the  Debates  of  this  Convention  to  show  that 
that  was  the  object  of  the  Convention  in  putting 
that  section  into  the  Constitution.  But  the 
supreme  court  have  found  means  to  evade  that 
very  healthy  provision  in  the  Constitution,  in 
the  case  cited  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly,]  of  the  Cincinnati,  Wilmington 
and  Zanesville  Railroad  Company  vs.  Commis- 
sioners of  Clinton  county,  First  Ohio  State 
Report,  pp.  77  to  88  and  89.  There  the  grounds 
are  set  forth  by  which  the  supreme  court  have 
sought  a means  to  evade  that  section  of  the  Con- 
stitution. Ranney,  J.,  says : 

“No  one  denies  the  proposition  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly cannot  surrender  any  portion  of  the  legislative 
authority  with  which  it  is  invested,  or  authorize  its  ex- 
ercise by  any  other  person  or  body ; that  this  inability 
arises  no  less  from  the  general  principle,  applicable  to 
every  delegated  power  requiring  knowledge,  discretion 
and  rectitude  in  its  exercise,  than  from  the  positive  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  itself;  that  in  determining 
whether  a legislative  act  contravenes  this  clause  or  not, 
the  true  distinction  is  between  the  delegation  of  the  power 
to  make  the  law,  which  necessarily  involves  a discretion 
as  to  what  it  shall  be,  and  conferring  an  authority  or  dis- 
cretion as  to  its  execution,  to  be  exercised  under  and  in 
pursuance  of  the  law;  that  the  first  cannot  be  done;  that 
to  the  latter  no  valid  objection  can  be  made.  In  this  case 


it  was  accordingly  held,  that  an  act  authorizing  the  com" 
missioners  of  a county  to  subscribe  to  the  capital  stock  of 
a railroad  company  does  not  delegate  legislative  power 
or  contravene  the  Constitution  of  1802  (under  which  it  was 
passed),  nor  the  present  Constitution,  in  providing  that 
the  subscription  shall  not  be  made  until  the  assent  of  a 
majority  of  the  electors  of  the  county  is  first  obtained  at 
an  election  held  for  that  purpose. 

“The  principle  in  such  case  is,  that  the  act  takes  effect 
as  soon  as  passed,  and  that,  therefore,  this  provision  of 
the  Constitution  does  not  apply,  though  the  act  provides 
for  a vote  of  the  people,  as  a condition  precedent  to  the 
subscription.  Cass  v Dillon,  2 Ohio  St.,  607 ; Thompson  v. 
Kelley,  lb.  697.  The  same  rule  is  applicable  to  township 
subscriptions  to  the  capital  stock  of  railroad  companies. 
S.  & I.  It.  It.  Co.  v.  North  tp.,  1 Ohio  St.,  105.  Or  of  plank 
road  companies.  Loomis  v.  Spencer,  lb.  153.  And  an  act 
providing  for  a vote  upon  the  question  of  the  removal  of 
a county  seat,  as  required  by  Art.  II,  Sec.  30,  in  which  act 
are  contained  certain  sections,  authorizing  the  election, 
prescribing  the  manner  of  conducting  it,  and  of  making 
the  returns,  recording  the  results,  etc.  State  v.  Com.  of 
Perry  Co.,  5 Ohio  St.,  497;  Noble  v.  Com.  of  Noble  Co.,  Ib. 
524.  And  to  a statute  which  requires  a preliminary  vote 
of  the  electors  of  a township,  before  an  assessment  for  the 
purpose  of  paying  for  lands  purchased  for  a township 
cemetery  is  made  by  the  trustees.  Paris  tp.  v.  Cherry,  8 
Ohio  St.,  564.” 

They,  therefore,  decided  that  an  act  passed 
under  our  present  Constitution,  to  take  effect 
substantially,  or  the  execution  of  which  will 
depend  upon  the  vote  of  the  people,  is  consti- 
tutional, thereby  evading  the  clear  and  plain 
provisions  of  the  26th  section  of  the  Legislative 
Article  in  our  present  Constitution.  And  these 
words  were  put  into  this  section  with  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  heading  off'  the  Supreme  Court 
in  such  palpable  violations  ot  the  Constitution. 
Now,  if  it  is  desired  by  this  Convention  to  give 
the  power  to  the  General  Assembly  to  pass 
laws,  the  execution  of  which  shall  depend  upon 
a vote  of  the  people,  laws  authorizing  subscrip- 
tions to  railroads,  or  the  building  of  railroads, 
or  any  such  objects,  why  let  it  come.  The 
fight  may  as  well  come  here  as  anywhere.  It 
has  been  said,  that  there  is  to  be  such  a fight.  I 
want  it  to  come  now,  if  it  is  to  come  at  all.  I 
want  this  provision  in  the  Constitution  to  re- 
main just  as  it  has  been  adopted  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole  Convention.  I don’t  want  to  fix  a 
Constitution  that  the  supreme  court  can  evade, 
that  they  will  find  a way  around  or  through  it. 
I want  the  question  fairly  met.  If  the  people 
of  this  State  desire  the  law  to  be,  or  the  Consti- 
tution to  be,  that  the  people  may  vote  away 
money  to  build  railroads,  or  aid  in  the  building 
of  railroads,  I am  content.  I do  not  believe  it 
is  right.  I do  not  believe  it  is  in  their  power  to 
do  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Would  it  be  wrong  or  mis- 
chievous to  submit  to  the  people  of  any  county 
in  this  State  the  question  whether  they  should 
buy  fair  grounds,  for  instance?  They  are  not 
covered  by  anything  in  this  section,  nor  are 
public  schools,  bridges,  etc.  Suppose  the  Legis- 
lature were  to  authorize  the  county  commis- 
sioners of  Hamilton  county  to  expend  a half  a 
million  of  dollars  to  buy  a fair  ground ; does  not 
the  gentleman  think  the  people  ought  to  have 
some  say-so  about  it? 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I believe  it  would 
be  better  to  give  the  power  to  the  county  com- 
missioners than  to  permit  the  people  to  vote  for 
opening  up  all  these  various  doors,  which  a 
majority  of  the  people,  as  I thoroughly  believe, 


1494 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [118th 


Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Ewing,  etc. 


[Thursday 

9 


desire  should  be  shut  and  kept  shut.  As  our 
fairs,  county  and  State,  are  now  conducted,  by 
turning  into  horse  races,  I have  some  doubts  of 
the  utility  of  such  fairs.  They  are  becoming 
corrupting  in  their  influences. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Would  it  not  be  easier  to 
corrupt  three  commissioners  than  the  whole 
body  of  the  people  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I don’t  believe  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  We  have  found  it  so. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I think,  by  spe- 
cious argument,  such  as  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  would  be  capable  of, 
though  I don’t  believe  he  would  do  it,  the}'' 
might  be  induced  to  vote  for  projects  that 
would  be  utterly  ruinous  to  them,  if  they  were 
allowed  so  to  do. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  On  the  other  hand,  has  there 
not  been  substantial  good  effected  by  the 
people  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Hardly  ever,  j 
When  the  people  get  an  idea  drummed  into  I 
them  by  stumpers,  to  the  effect  that  a certain  | 
project  is  going  to  benefit  them,  you  cannot 
beat  it  out  of  them  until  the  result  shows  ! 
that  they  have  been  eggregiously  misled.  I 
have  known  several  instances  of  that  kind, 
coming  within  my  own  personal  knowledge, 
where  the  people  have  paid  enormous  amounts 
to  build  railroads,  and  not  realized  a dollar 
from  them.  Some  of  the  railroads  have  been 
built,  and  some  have  not,  so  that  they  have 
never  received  any  benefit  directly  from  the 
railroad  itself,  or  indirectly  from  its  being  built 
through  their  region  of  country.  I want  it  to 
be  distinctly  understood  what  my  position  is 
here;  and.  if  the  Convention  see  fit  to  overrule 
my  opinion,  I shall  be  content,  as  I shall  be 
obliged  to  be  content.  I want  it  distinctly 
understood,  and  I want  it  distinctly  put  into 
this  Constitution,  that  no  law  authorizing  the 
building  of  railroads,  either  in  whole  or  in 
part,  by  Municipal  Corporations,  shall  ever  be  j 
authorized  by  the  General  Assembly,  whether  I 
upon  a vote  of  the  people  or  otherwise.  I hope  j 
the  motion  to  re-commit,  with  instructions,  will ! 
not  prevail. 

Mr.  EWING.  I am  in  favor  of  the  adoption  | 
of  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  j 
[Mr.  Hoadly],  to  refer,  with  instructions.  I 
am  a little  surprised  at  the  argument  presented  ! 
by  the  learned  Chairman  of  the  Committee  I 
[Mr.  Humphreville],  that  it  is  necessary  to 
retain  this  provision  in  order  to  prevent  the  | 
building  of  railroads  with  public  funds.  Now,  j 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  we  cannot  I 
adjourn  without  settling  that  railroad  question  j 
by  itself,  squarely  and  unmistakably,  in  some 
separate  Article  or  clause,  in  such  manner  that,  j 
by  no  misconstruction,  can  the  purpose  of  the  j 
Convention  or  the  people  be  thwarted. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Will  the  gentleman  j 
permit  a question  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  If  the  Convention  I 
does  settle  that  question  by  a separate  vote, 
then  this  section  will  not  interfere. 

Mr.  EWING.  Of  course,  and,  therefore,  I am 
astonished  that  the  gentleman  should  lug  the 
railroad  question  into  this. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Except  as  other- 
wise provided  in  this  Constitution. 


Mr.  EWING.  I am  astonished  that  this 
railroad  hobby  must  be  brought  in  here  and  rid- 
den upon  every  proposition  relating  to  public 
revenues,  or  expenditures,  or  loans,  or  even  of 
legislative  power.  We  shall  dispose  of  the 
railroad  question  absolutely  in  another  Article, 
and  if  the  Convention  determines  that  there 
shall  be  no  public  aid  given  in  the  construc- 
tion of  railroads,  I will  exercise  my  ingenuity 
to  the  utmost  in  endeavoring  to  frame  a clause 
which  the  city  of  Cincinnati  cannot  dodge,  nor 
any  other  city,  county  or  township  in  this 
State.  In  view  of  our  experience  under  the 
present  Constitution,  I say,  we  cannot  adjourn 
without  settling  that  railroad  question  beyond 
all  cavil.  But  we  can  do  it  in  one  section.  We  do 
not  need  to  settle  it  in  a dozen  different  sections 
of  different  articles.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  dis- 
pose of  this  when  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works  comes  up. 
And  then  let  us  dispose  of  it  affirmatively  and 
in  such  explicit  language  that  there  can  be  no 
misconstruction. 

But  this  provision  proposed  to  be  stricken  out 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
is  not  limited  in  its  effects  to  the  question  of  aid 
to  railroads.  We  may  put  the  construction  of 
a railroad  entirely  beyond  the  power  of  the  Leg- 
islature or  the  people,  and  still  this  provision 
will  work,  I think,  very  great  mischief  in  re- 
spect to  other  matters.  Suppose  a question 
comes  up  as  to  whether  the  public  money  of  the 
county  shall  be  spent  in  buying  a fair  ground. 
Is  it  possible  the  gentleman  will  say  that,  the 
county  commissioners  or  the  Legislature  should 
be  alone  left  to  judge  of  that  question,  and  that 
the  Legislature  should  not,  under  any  circum- 
stances, submit  the  question  to  the  people  who 
have  to  pay  for  the  grounds?  That  is,  that 
when  you  come  to  the  question  of  public  ex- 
penditures for  a recognized  public  object — one 
acknowledged  to  be  within  the  scope  of  the  law- 
making power — that  the  people  who  have  to  pay 
shall  not  say  whether  they  will  incur  the  obli- 
gation or  not.  That  will  not  do.  That  provision 
will  not  go  down  with  the  people  of  Ohio.  If 
it  is  right  as  to  fair  grounds,  it  is  right  as  to  pub- 
lic school  buildings,  and  as  to  bridges,  and  all 
other  public  buildings  which  have  been  ex- 
pressly excepted  from  the  operation  of  this 
clause.  Now,  let  us  limit  as  strictly  as  we 
please  the  range  of  objects  for  which  public 
moneys  may  be  expended ; but,  if  one  proposed 
expenditure  falling  within  that  range  may  be 
submitted  to  the  people,  any  other  must  be,  or 
we  leave  ourselves  open  to  the  charge  of  fla- 
grant and  unreasonable  inconsistency.  To 
illustrate  the  operation  of  this  provision : We 
have  a law  upon  our  statute  books  now  under 
which  political  parties  may  invoke  its  provi- 
sions to  regulate  their  primary  elections — the 
Baber  law — a law  that  is  adopted  now  in  a num- 
ber of  States  of  the  Union,  and  is  working  ex- 
cellently well  everywhere  that  it  has  been 
applied.  This  provision  probably  cuts  off  that 
law. 

| Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  EWING.  Well,  I am  not  sure  that  it 
does  not.  That  law  leaves  it  to  the  power  of  a 
party  committee  to  say  whether  it  shall  take 
effect  in  respect  of  a given  primary  election. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 


1495 


Day,] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  19, 1874.]  Hoadly,  Ewing,  Humphreville,  Baber,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


gentleman  whether  he  can  cite  a single  instance 
where  the  Baber  law  has  been  applied  in  this 
State  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  has  been  applied  in  this 
county. 

Mr.~  BURNS.  How  often  applied? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Several  times. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  gentlemen  will  have  to 
take  their  speeches  out  of  their  own  ten  min- 
utes. I cannot  surrender  mine. 

I know  that  the  bill  has  just  been  introduced 
into  the  Legislature  of  New  York  for  adoption 
there,  and,  as  I said  before,  it  is  the  law  now  in 
a number  of  States.  But  what  I rose  specially 
to  say  was,  let  the  Convention  limit  the  range 
of  objects  for  the  expenditure  of  public  money 
as  closely  as  it  pleases.  Let  it  say  in  express 
words  that  public  money  shall  not  be  spent  to 
build  railroads,  or  canals,  or  turnpikes;  but 
whatever  may  be  left  within  the  range  of  pub- 
lic expenditure  do  not  cut  off  the  power  of  the 
Legislature  to  submit  to  the  people  who  have  to 
pay  the  money,  the  question  whether  they  will 
have  the  proposed  improvement  or  not.  But  if 
you  do  mean  to  cut  it  off,  this  power  of  con- 
sulting the  wishes  of  the  people,  cut  it  off  as  to 
public  buildings  and  bridges  as  well  as  to  fair 
grounds,  and  all  other  legitimate  objects  of 
public  expenditure. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I want  to  make  a 
suggestion,  that  is,  that  these  fair  grounds  are 
of  doubtful  expediency,  as  they  are  at  present 
conducted.  They  are  degenerating  into  horse 
racing  and  gambling  establishments,  all  over 
the  State,  and  I believe  these  agricultural  fairs 
are  corrupting  in  their  influence,  and  are  doing 
more  harm  than  good. 

Mr.  EWING.  I hope  that  all  who  want  to 
put  down  county  fairs  will  vote  with  the  gen- 
tleman for  this  proposition. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  to 
recommit. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  the  motion  made 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
will  prevail,  and  for  this  reason  : I do  not  be- 

lieve that  the  limitation  that  is  put  in  improves 
the  matter,  even  with  the  view  that  he  takes  of 
it ; because  it  deprives  the  people  of  the  oppor- 
tunity of  negativing  what  may  have  been  lob- 
bied through  the  Legislature.  That  is  one  of 
the  very  safeguards  we  have  in  this  matter. 
For  instance,  in  the  purchase  of  fair  grounds, 
or  something  of  that  sort,  that  will  be  lobbied 
through  the  Legislature;  and  it  seems  to  me, 
that,  by  letting  the  people  pass  upon  the  ques- 
tion, you  take  the  chances  of  having  two  nega- 
tives upon  it.  I don’t  believe  in  this  general 
talk  against  railroads  in  this  Constitution.  I 
am  not  a Boesel  railroad  man,  but  I do  not  be- 
lieve in  trammeling  the  people  upon  this  sub- 
ject. I believe  in  giving  it  a fair  field  when  that 
subject  comes  up;  and  when  that  Article  comes 
up,  I shall  not  vote  for  any  Boesel  railroad  pro- 
ject. I dislike  to  see  members  dragging  this 
question  in.  The  effect  of  this  amendment 
would  be  to  cut  off  a class  of  laws  that  we  have 
long  had  in  Ohio,  in  which  the  people,  by  their 
action,  may  call  into  operation,  or  execution, 
some  law  passed  by  the  Legislature.  Therefore, 
1 hope  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  will  prevail. 


Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  A remark  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  before 
taking  his  seat,  may  demand  an  explanation 
upon  my  part;  or,  if  not  an  explanation,  a rea- 
son for  the  motion  made  last  evening.  The 
gentleman  complains  that  this  question  is  sought 
to  be  brought  forward  in  connection  with  almost 
every  proposition  before  the  Convention.  The 
only  purpose  sought  by  the  motion  made  by 
myself,  last  evening,  was  not  to  prevent,  or  in 
any  way  interfere  with  this  question  of  the 
construction  of  railroads,  by  vote  of  the  people. 
The  section  itself  only  says  that  counties  and 
townships  shall  have  power  of  taxation  for  a 
specific  purpose.  An  amendment  like  the  one 
proposed  by  myself,  or  the  one  suggested  by 
the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle], 
would  not  interfere  at  all  with  additional  power 
that  might  be  conferred  by  a subsequent  sec- 
tion. It  is  not  intended  to  prevent  the  exercise 
of  any  absolute  grant  of  power  that  may  here- 
after be  introduced,  but  is  the  carrying  out  of 
the  purpose,  on  the  part  of  those  who  fear  such 
construction  of  railroads,  that  there  shall  be  no 
place  left  whereby  such  power  can  be  hereafter 
exercised,  unless  the  power  be  given  by  specific 
grant.  It  is  not,  at  this  point,  attempted  to 
prevent  the  insertion  of  such  a grant  of  power; 
but  it  is  the  purpose  to  prevent  loop-holes  being 
left  open  in  this  Constitution,  whereby,  here- 
after, the  power  may  be  exercised,  if  a special 
grant  therefor  be  refused. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EWING.  I am  sure  he  does  not  mean  to 
misrepresent  my  purpose  here  in  this  matter ; 
and  I desire  to  say,  just  in  a word  or  two,  that  I 
would  not  vote  to  put  the  power  expressly  in 
the  Constitution.  I did  not  favor  the  report  of 
the  majority  of  the  Committee  to  allow  aid  to  be 
given  to  railroads  in  the  Constitution.  I don’t 
want  it  to  be  in  there,  by  indirection  nor  by  ex- 
pression. I want  the  question  submitted  fairly 
to  the  people. 

A MEMBER.  Separately,  I suppose? 

Mr.  EWING.  Separately. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  obliged  to  the  gen- 
tleman for  his  explanation.  1 never  would 
have  made  remarks  such  as  I have,  except  that 
the  gentleman  referred  to  the  motion  made  by 
myself  last  evening.  The  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Rond]  also  spoke  of  dragging  in 
this  question  in  connection  with  every  question 
coming  before  the  Convention.  The  amend- 
ment moved  by  myself  did  not,  in  anyway, 
drag  this  question  into  the  contest;  neither  did 
it  attempt  to  drag  it  in,  as  suggested  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan.  It  simply  attempted  to  so 
provide  that  it  could  not  be  hereafter  drawn  in 
through  any  loop-hole  which  might  be  over- 
looked in  the  Constitution  we  are  framing. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POND.  I did  not  mean  to  insinuate  but 
that  he  had  a perfect  right  to  do  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  No;  but  you  protested 
against  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I think  we  always  get  light, 
perhaps  as  definitely  as  any  way , by  example, 
and  I would  like  to  be  sure  that  I understand 
the  effect  of  the  clause  which  is  now  sought  to 


1496 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Tuttle,  Humphreville,  Hoadly,  West,  etc. 


be  stricken  out ; and  with  that  view  I would 
like  to  put  an  inquiry  in  reference  to  a particu- 
lar case.  I have  before  me  the  municipal  code 
of  this  State,  and  the  provision  in  it  by  which 
incorporated  villages  may  be  advanced  to  cities 
of  the  second  class.  That  is  only  one  example 
of  many  that  I might  produce  like  it,  found  in 
our  law.  It  is  provided  that  upon  petition  of  a 
hundred  resident  freeholders  to  the  council,  the 
council  may  provide  for  an  election.  And  the 
next  section,  section  41,  has  further  provisions 
in  regard  to  the  matter.  The  electors  shall  vote 
for  advancement  or  against  advancement.  And 
the  next  section  provides  that  if  a majority  of  all 
the  votes  cast  at  such  election  shall  be  in  favor 
of  such  advancement,  then  proceedings  shall  be 
had  to  accomplish  that  end — otherwise,  not. 
What  I desire  is  to  inquire  of  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee,  or  any  other  member  who  might 
be  able  to  afford  an  explanation,  as  to  how  this 
clause  as  it  stands  would  affect  such  a provision 
as  that  ? How  would  it  affect  such  a case  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  1 don’t  understand 
that  it  would  affect  it  at  all,  because  there  is  a j 
clause  in  this  same  section  that  excepts  all 
cases,  except  as  otherwise  provided  for  in  this  ; 
Constitution. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How  is  that,  if  the  gentle-  j 
man  will  permit  me,  otherwise  provided  for  in 
this  Constitution?  Who  proposes  to  provide 
otherwise  in  this  Constitution  on  the  subject  re- 
ferred to  by  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle]  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Perhaps  it  has  not 
yet  got  into  the  Constitution,  but  we  have  been  ; 
at  work  at  an  Article  that  will  effect  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  O,  yes! 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  But  “these  cities 
shall  be  incorporated  with  such  powers,  privi- 
leges and  immunities  as  shall  be  provided  by 
law.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Perhaps  the  gentleman  ex- 
pects it  from  the  postponement  of  the  Munici- 
pal Article  we  got  through  with  this  morning 
—final  postponement? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  No  final  postpone- 
ment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is,  that  the 
proposition  be  referred  to  a special  committee  of  j 
one,  with  instructions  to  amend  section  28,  by  j 
striking  out  the  words  in  lines  four  and  five,  the 
following:  “Or  the  execution  of  which  shall 

depend  upon  such  vote,”  so  that  it  will  read : 

“Sec.  28.  All  laws  of  a general  nature  shall  have  a j 
uniform  operation  throughout  the  State,  nor  shall  any  act 
or  part  of  any  act,  except  such  as  relates  to  public  schools,  I 
public  buildings  and  public  bridges,  be  passed  to  take  J 
effect  upon  a vote  of  the  people  affected  thereby,  or  upon  I 
the  approval  of  any  other  authority  than  the  General  j 
Assembly,  except  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitu- 
tion. Nor  shall  any  act  be  passed  conferring  special 
powers  or  privileges  upon  any  county,  city,  village,  town- 
ship, or  other  municipality,  that  shall  not  be  conferred 
upon  all  counties,  cities,  villages,  townships  and  munici-  j 
palities  of  the  same  general  class.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  51,  nays  32,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Bannon,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Jef- 
ferson, Coats,  Cowen,  Doan,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Griswold,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Hunt, 
Johnson,  Kraemer,  Layton,  McCormick,  Miller, 
Miner, Neal,  Page,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Reilly, 


[118th 

[Thursday, 


Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Scribner, 
Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland.  Townsend, 
Tripp,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voris, 
Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  Wilson,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble,  President — 51. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Beer,  Bos  worth,  Burns, 
Chapin , Cook,  Dorsey,  Gardner,  Greene,  Gurley, 
Hale,  Hill,  Horton,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  Mc- 
Bride, Merrill,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Pease,  Pratt, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Shaw,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Van 
Voorhis,  Voorhes,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury 
—32. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I move,  further,  to  instruct  the 
Committee  with  regard  to  section  twenty-three, 
to  insert,  in  line  seven,  the  word  “sufficient,” 
after  the  word  “a,”  so  that  it  will  read  “ a suffi- 
cient majority.” 

I will  explain  what  the  purpose  is.  There  is 
one  clause  of  the  provision  of  the  Constitution 
1 that  requires  certain  schemes  to  receive  a two- 
thirds  majority  of  each  House  before  they  can 
be  paid.  There  are  other  claims  that  require 
only  a majority  vote, and  this  twenty-third  sec- 
tion is  applied  to  both  classes  of  claims.  But  it 
uses  the  word  majority  absolutely,  so  that  it 
would  seem  that  a claim  that  in  one  clause  would 
require  a two- thirds  majority  might,  under 
the  operation  of  this,  if  this  be  not  stricken  out, 
although  the  intention  would  be,  that  if  it  did 
not  receive  a requisite  majority  it  should  be 
stricken  out,  so  that  the  word  “sufficient”  will 
make  a kind  of  elastic  scale  that  will  apply.  If 
you  have  a claim  that  will  require  a two-thirds 
majority,  the  words  “ sufficient  majority  ” will 
require  that  it  shall  have  that  two-thirds  vote. 
If  only  an  ordinary  majority,  it  must  receive 
that  majority.  The  word  “sufficient”  is  very 
necessary  to  give  it  elasticity. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Select  Committee  of 
one  will  be  Mr.  Hoadly,  of  Hamilton. 

The  further  instruction  is  to  insert,  in  line 
seven,  of  section  twenty-three,  before  the  word 
“majority,”  the  word  “sufficient.” 

Mr.  PEASE.  1 would  like  to  suggest  to  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  that  the 
word  “requisite”  would  be  better  than  the  word 
“ sufficient.” 

Mr.  WEST.  Probably  it  would.  I accept 
the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  amendment  is  accepted. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I should  like  to  inquire 
what  the  effect  of  that  amendment  would 
be,  of  inserting  here  the  word  “ sufficient  ” 
or  the  word  “ requisite  ” in  the  place  pro- 
posed? How  are  we  to  know  what  will  be 
a “ requisite  majority,”  or  what  will  be  a 
“ sufficient  majority  ” ? The  language,  as  used 
now,  in  the  present  section,  requires  a majority 
of  the  members  elected  to  each  House.  If  we 
insert  the  word  “ requisite,”  so  that  it  will  read 
“ and  shall  receive  a requisite  majority,”  or  “a 
sufficient  majority  of  the  members  elected  to 
each  House,”  what  will  that  be? 

Mr.  WEST.  I tried  to  explain,  and  I will  try 
it  again. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I understood  the  gentle- 
man’s explanation,  that  there  might  be  some 
doubt,  because  of  the  language  contained  in 


1497 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  19, 1874.1  Hoadly,  Scribner,  West,  Hunt,  Mueller,  etc. 


section  twenty-four,  requiring  a two-thirds 
vote  to  make  an  appropriation  for  claims  not 
provided  for  by  pre-existing  law. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  allow  me  to 
make  a suggestion?  If,  instead  of  its  being 
“ a ” requisite  majority,  it  should  be  “ the”  re- 
quisite majority,  then  I think  the  difficulty  dis- 
appears— does  it  not  ? 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I think  so.  Perhaps  that 
would  obviate  the  difficulty. 

Mr.  WEST.  I accept  the  amendment  to  strike 
OU.t)  ^ ^ 

The  PRESIDENT.  What  is  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  now  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  To  instruct  the  Committee  to 
amend  it  by  striking  out  “ a,”  and  inserting  the 
words  “ the  requisite.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr. West]  moves,  no  objection  being  made, 
to  modify  his  motion  that  the  Committee  be 
further  instructed,  in  line  seven,  of  section 
twenty-three,  to  strike  out  the  word  “ a ” and 
insert  the  words  “ the  requisite,”  so  that  it  will 
read,  “ upon  such  vote  the  requisite  majority,” 
etc. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I rise  to  a question  of  order.  It 
is  better  to  establish  a precedent  in  this  matter. 
I question  very  much  whether  it  is  in  order  to 
amend  instructions  after  they  are  in  the  hands 
of  the  Committee.  This  proposition  has  been 
referred  to  a Select  Committee  of  one.  It  is  not 
before  the  Committee  for  consideration  at  all. 
It  is  in  order  to  amend  the  instructions  while 
pending  in  the  Convention,  and  it  is  not  a mat- 
ter of  discretion.  There  should  be  a new  ref- 
erence, otherwise  we  shall  have  endless  amend- 
ments to  every  section  in  the  proposition.  I 
submit  the  suggestion  to  the  Chair  for  consider- 
ation. 

Mr.  WEST.  I admit  that  the  point  of  order 
is  well  taken,  if  the  reference  had  actually  been 
made.  The  vote  to  refer  had  passed,  but  the 
Chair  had  not  appointed  a Committee  yet.  No 
reference  had  been  made  as  a matter  of  fact. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  had  appointed 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  as 
the  Committee,  but  it  was  not  done  till  after  the 
gentleman’s  motion  was  made.  The  Chair  is  of 
the  opinion  that  is  for  the  Convention  to  instruct 
the  Committee  to  take  up  this  matter  which  has 
been  referred,  at  any  time  afterwards;  but 
would  be  glad  to  hear  from  some  experienced 
members  in  regard  to  that. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  practice  is  this : As 
soon  as  a matter  is  referred,  with  instructions 
to  amend,  the  very  same  matter  is  reported; 
because  referring  to  a Committee,  with  instruc- 
tions to  amend,  is  actually  an  amendment.  It 
is  only  a formal  way.  Now,  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  ought  to  have 
made  his  report  right  after  the  Convention  had 
agreed  to  recommit. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  Committee  had  not  been 
appointed.  That  was  the  difficulty. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  It  is  always  understood 
that  the  member  moving  it  is  to  be  the  Com- 
mittee. It  is  only  a formal  matter. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  no  doubt  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  is  right,  as 
to  the  practice,  but  the  question  is,  as  to  the 
principle.  Now,  it  appears  to  me  that  when 


any  motion  is  made  to  refer  to  a Committee, 
that  Committee  have  a duty  to  perform. 

Mr.  WEST.  Rather  than  consume  any  time 
with  a long  discussion  of  a point  of  order  that 
has  not  any  more  in  it  than  that  seems  to  have, 
in  my  judgment,  I will  withdraw  the  motion. 
I do  not  want  to  waste  our  time  upon  immate- 
rials. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  has  leave  to  withdraw. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  Committee  to  whom 
was  referred  section  28  of  the  substitute  for  Art- 
icle 2,  respectfully  report  back  section  28,  and 
recommend  that  the  section  be  amended  so  as 
to  strike  out  the  words,  in  lines  four  and  five, 
“or  the  execution  of  which  shall  depend  upon 
such  vote.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  Report. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  section  28,  Sub- 
stitute for  Article  II,  respectfully  report  back  section  28, 
and  recommend  the  section  be  so  amended  as  to  strikeout 
the  words,  in  lines  four  and  five,  “or  the  execution  of 
which  shall  depend  upon  such  vote.” 

George  Hoadly, 
Special  Committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  agree- 
ing to  the  Report. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I want  to  ask  what  will  be 
the  effect  upon  the  power  of  restriction  here- 
after in  regard  to  the  matter  ? What  I desire 
to  say  is,  that  I think  if  the  clause,  as  it  is, 
would  have  the  effect  that  seems  to  be  generally 
apprehended,  the  Report  ought  to  be  adopted; 
but  at  the  same  time  I have  an  apprehension 
that  a power  of  that  kind  is  liable  to  abuse,  and 
I desire  to  suggest,  that  I mean  hereafter,  if  I 
can  suggest  anything  that  I think  will  be  re- 
ceived favorably  by  the  Convention,  and  neces- 
sary in  my  own  view,  to  move  a reconsider- 
ation. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  a motion  to  reconsider  would  be  in 
order  at  any  time  before  the  vote  finally  to 
agree.  The  question  now  is  upon  agreeing  to 
the  Report  of  the  Committee. 

The  Report  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I move  to  further  amend. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
get  mine  off  my  hands  first? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I will  yield  to  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  now  that  the  matter  be 
referred  to  amend  section  23,  in  the  manner  I 
suggested  a moment  ago. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  moves  that  the  proposition  be 
referred  to  a Select  Committee,  with  instruc- 
tions to  amend  section  23,  in  line  7,  by  striking 
out  the  word  “a,”  and  inserting  the  words 
“ the  requisite.” 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I doubt  whether  there  is  any 
propriety  in  inserting  that  amendment  in  the 
section  proposed,  if  the  object  is  as  has  been 
stated  by  the  mover.  I think  it  is  already 
sufficiently  provided  for  in  section  23,  and  that 
this  would  have  no  operation  at  all.  Now,  the 
object  suggested  by  the  mover  is  to  meet  the 
contingency  where  there  may  be  included  in  the 
same  bill  claims,  some  of  which  are  of  the  class 
which,  by  the  provisions  of  section  23,  require  a 
two-thirds  majority,  in  order  that  they  may  be 


1498 


THE  VETO  POWER. [118th 

Sample,  West,  Hunt,  Cowen,  Griswold.  [Thursday, 


passed ; and  some  of  them,  being  of  a different 
class,  which  may  he  passed  by  a bare  majority. 
Now,  that  is  entirely  provided  for  by  section  24. 
It  provides  that  no  appropriations  shall  be  made 
which  are  not  provided  for  by  pre-existing 
law,  unless  passed  by  a two-thirds  majority. 
The  section  then  goes  on  to  provide  that  no 
such  allowance  shall  be  made  except  by  bill, 
and  no  provision  authorizing  the  expenditure 
or  payment  of  money  for  any  purpose  not 
provided  by  pre-existing  law  shall  be  included 
in  any  bill  making  appropriations  for  a purpose 
which  shall  have  been  so  provided. 

Mr.  WEST.  There  is  no  trouble,  as  the  gen- 
tleman will  see  in  a moment.  That  is  not  the 
point.  Suppose  you  have  two  or  three  items  in 
a bill,  each  of  which  requires  a two-thirds 
majority.  A separate  vote  on  each  item  is 
called  for.  By  section  23,  upon  that  separate 
vote,  if  the  item  voted  on  receives  a simple 
majority,  it  must  be  retained  in  the  bill.  That 
is  the  point.  You  cannot  strike  it  out  of  the 
bill. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I understood  the  gentleman 
to  put  it  on  the  other  ground.  I wished  merely 
to  call  his  attention  to  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  object  is,  where  the  items 
all  receive  the  same  vote,  to  get  rid  of  that  item 
that  did  not  receive  the  requisite  majority,  and 
throw  it  out  of  the  bill.  Now,  if  it  is' to  be 
retained  in  the  bill  by  a simple  majority  vote, 
and  can  not  be  passed  by  a two-thirds  majority, 
it  does  not  meet  the  trouble  we  are  trying  to 
meet  by  the  provision  for  a separate  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  to  re- commit,  with  instruc- 
tions. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  appoint 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

Mr.  WEST.  I report  back,  amended  as  in- 
structed. The  Secretary  will  write  out  my 
Report. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  Committee  reports  that,  pursuant  to  instructions, 
he  recommends  the  amendment  of  section  23,  in  line 
seven,  by  striking  out  the  word  “a”,  and  inserting  the 
words  “the  requisite”. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 

The  Report  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I move  now  to  refer  Proposi- 
tion 190  to  a Select  Committee,  with  instructions 
to  amend  as  follows : 

Strike  out  in  section  eighteen  line  two,  after 
the  word  “Governor,”  the  words  “at  least  three 
days  before  its  adjournment  sine  die,”  and  the 
word  “if”  in  line  three.  In  line  three  strike 
out  “a  majority  of  the  members  elected  thereto, 
sufficient  for  its  passage  in  the  first  instance,” 
and  insert  the  words  “three-fifths  of  all  the 
members  elected  threto.”  In  line  ten  strike  out 
the  words  “alike  majority  of,”  and  insert  the 
words  “three-fifths  of  all;”  in  line  twelve,  after 
the  word  “law,”  insert  the  words,  “and  in  all 
such  cases  the  vote  of  both  Houses  shall  be  de- 
termined by  yeas  and  nays,  and  the  names  of 
the  members  voting  for  and  against  the  bill, 
shall  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  of  each 
House,  respectively.”  In  line  twelve,  strike  out 
the  word  “three,”  and  insert  the  word  “ten.” 


In  line  fourteen,  insert  after  the  word  “if,”  as 
follows:  “unless  the  General  Assembly,  by 
their  adjournment,  prevent  its  return,  in  which 
case  it  shall  be  filed,  with  his  objections,  in  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  State,  within  ten  days  af- 
ter such  adjournment,  or  become  a law.”  In 
line  twenty-four,  strike  out  the  word  “may,” 
and  insert  “shall,”  and  after  the  word  “by,” 
insert  the  words  “three-fifths  of.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  moves  that  the  Proposi- 
tion 190  be  re-committed  to  a Select  Committee 
of  one,  with  instructions  to  report  the  following 
amendments  to  section  eighteen. 

The  Secretary  will  read. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Without  taking  the  time  of  the 
Convention,  I would  simply  ask  that  the  Sec- 
retary read  the  section  as  it  would  be  amend- 
ed with  these  instructions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  section  as  it  will  read  if  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  18.  Every  bill  passed  by  the  General  Assembly 
shall,  before  it  becomes  a law,  be  presented  to  the  Gov- 
ernor. If  he  approve  it,  he  shall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it 
shall  become  a law ; but  if  he  do  not  approve,  he  shall 
send  it  to  the  House  in  which  it  shall  have  originated, 
with  his  objections  in  writing,  and  the  House  may  then 
proceed  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
If,  after  such  reconsideration,  three-fifths  of  all  the  mem- 
bers elected  thereto  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be 
sent  to  the  other  House,  with  the  objections  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, and  thereupon  that  House  may  likewise  reconsider 
the  vote  on  its  passage.  If,  after  such  reconsideration, 
three-fifths  of  all  the  members  elected  to  that  House 
agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  become  a law.  But  in  all 
such  cases  the  vote  of  both  Houses  shall  be  determined  by 
Yeas  and  Nays,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  voting  for 
and  against  the  bill  shall  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  of 
each  House  respectively.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be  returned 
by  the  Governor  within  ten  days  (Sundays  excepted)  after 
it  shall  nave  been  presented  to  him,  the  same  shall  be- 
come a law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it,  unless 
the  General  Assembly,  by  their  adjournment,  prevent  its 
return;  in  which  case  it  shall  be  filed  with  his  objections 
in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  within  ten  days  af- 
ter such  adjournment,  or  become  a law.  The  Governor 
shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any  item  or  items  of 
any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money,  embracing  dis- 
tinct items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the  bill  approved 
shall  be  the  law,  and  the  item  or  items  of  appropriation 
disapproved  shall  be  void,  unless  repassed  according  to 
the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the  passage  of  en- 
tire bills  after  the  disapproval  of  the  Governor.  Every 
order,  resolution  or  vote,  to  which  the  concurrence  of  both 
branches  of  the  General  Assembly  may  be  necessary  (ex- 
cept on  a question  of  adjournment,  or  question  pertaining 
to  the  transaction  of  business  by  the  two  Houses),  shall 
be  presented  to  the  Governor,  and,  before  the  same  same 
shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him,  or,  being  dis- 
approved by  him,  shall  be  repassed  by  three-fifths  of  both 
Houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  according  to  the  rules 
and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a bill.” 

Mr.  COWEN.  I’ move  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt]  so  that  the  Special  Committee  be 
instructed  to  strike  out  section  eighteen. 

A MEMBER.  What  is  the  object  of  that? 

Mr.  COWEN.  To  get  rid  of  the  veto  which 
is  sought  by  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen]  moves  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment so  that  the  Special  Committee  be  instruct- 
ed to  strikeout  section  eighteen. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt], 
as  a reading  of  the  proposition  will  show,  is 
simply  to  present  the  question  of  a three-fifths 
veto,  as  adopted  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  which  was  done  by  a very  large  vote. 
The  object  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER. 

February  19,  1874.]  Humphreville,  Griswold,  Hunt,  Rowland,  Neal. 


1499 


from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  is  to  do  away  with 
the  whole  thing.  The  subject  has  been  very 
fully  discussed,  both  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  and  in  the  general  debate ; and  the  Con- 
vention fully  understands  the  question.  I, 
therefore,  move  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I want  to  inquire 
before  that  motion  is  put 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  yield? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I want  to  inquire 
of  the  gentleman  who  offers  this  amendment, 
whether  it  provides  for  the  passage  of  bills 
provided  for  in  the  24th  section,  or  subjects  not 
provided  for  by  pre-existing  law;  whether 
upon  such  bills  this  amendment  would  not  allow 
them  to  be  passed  by  three-fifths?  Has  he 
made  any  provision  that  those  bills  are  still  to 
be  passed  by  two-thirds  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  It  is  intended  that  such  bills 
shall  still  be  passed  by  a two-thirds  vote.  The 
Committee  on  Revision,  however,  has  full  pow- 
er, under  the  rules,  to  arrange  any  incon- 
sistency. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  I was  not  able  to 
hear  the  reading.  If  it  does,  I am  satisfied. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  ask  whether  it 
would  be  competent  now  to  amend  the  motion 
to  instruct,  so  as  to  retain  the  “ three  days  ” in 
line  12,  instead  of  “ten  days;”  I think  the 
latter  would  be  pernicious.  1 want  the  word 
“ three  ” inserted,  as  it  is  in  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  bill  is  to  be  returned 
by  the  Governor  in  ten  days. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  is  the  very  amend- 
ment I want;  “three  days”  instead  of  “ten.” 

Mr.  HUNT.  This  matter  was  under  discus- 
sion in  the  Committee.  I can  simply  say  that 
there  has  scarcely  been  a question  before  the 
Convention  that  has  occasioned  so  much  dis- 
cussion among  the  people  of  the  State  as  the 
question  of  vesting  the  veto  power  in  the  Ex- 
ecutive. I have  not  seen  a paper  in  the  State  of 
Ohio  that  has  objected  to  it.  I have  scarcely 
seen  one  of  my  constituents  that  has  opposed 
it.  All  the  daily  papers  of  Cincinnati  have  ex- 
pressed a favorable  opinion,  as  well  as  many 
other  papers  of  the  State.  When  the  final  vote 
was  taken,  the  proposition  of  the  Committee 
was  defeated  by  a small  majority,  with  a very 
limited  attendance  of  the  Convention.  We 
have  here,  now,  more  than  eighty  members  of 
the  Convention,  as  full  an  attendance  as  we 
will  have  at  any  time  during  its  session.  For 
that  reason,  I prefer  to  have  the  sentiment  of 
the  Convention  taken  upon  this  question,  and 
have  it  finally  decided.  As  has  been  said  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  if 
the  judgment  of  the  Governor  amounts  to  any 
thing  at  all,  he  should  be  allowed  a full  exer- 
cise of  it.  In  regard  to  the  insertion  of  “ ten 
days,”  instead  of  “ three,”  as  intimated  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland],  I 
can  only  say  that  in  nearly  all  the  State  Con- 
stitutions, the  time  is  extended  to  ten  days.  In 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  it  is  ten 
days.  The  clause  reads  : “ if  any  bill  shall  not 
be  returned  by  the  Governor  within  three  days 
after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the 
same  shall  become  a law  in  like  manner  as  if 
signed  by  him.”  The  Governor,  with  a press 


of  business  upon  him,  may  not  have  time  with- 
in three  days  to  carefully  consider  a measure, 
so  that  he  can  pass  upon  it.  I think,  therefore, 
it  should  be  ten  days,  in  order  that  there  may 
be  proper  care  and  deliberation.  Let  a vote  be 
taken  upon  this  proposition,  as  it  is  now  sub- 
mitted to  the  Convention  with  a full  attendance 
of  members.  If  adopted,  I shall  feel  that  the 
Convention  has  accomplished  a work  for  the 
future  of  the  State  that  will  command  the  judg- 
ment of  the  people.  If  not,  I am  certain  that 
I shall  find  in  the  motives  which  prompted  me 
to  submit  it,  and  which  have  made  me  so  ear- 
nest in  its  advocacy,  ample  grounds  for  con- 
tentment and  peace. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I do  not  want  the  proceed- 
ings carried  so  far  that  we  cannot  correct  that. 
I think  a term  of  ten  days,  allowed  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  is  very  proper,  with 
the  immense  mass  of  business  and  the  complex- 
ity of  questions  which  come  before  him ; but  the 
Governor  of  the  State  should  be  sufficiently 
acquainted  with  the  aspect  of  questions  before 
the  Legislature  to  make  up  his  mind  and  send 
a report  upon  them  in  three  days.  It  bears  no 
parallel  to  the  functions  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  in  requiring  ten  days ; three  days 
are  ample.  I want  no  such  hedge  upon  the 
legislation  of  the  State,  either,  as  ten  days 
would  give  the  Governor.  I do  not  wish  to 
press  this  question  now,  but  I speak  simply  that 
1 may  not  be  cut  out  of  pressing  it  at  the  proper 
time. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I renew  my  motion. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  ask  if  it  is  order  further 
to  move  to  amend  the  instructions  of  the  Com- 
mittee in  reference  to  section  18  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I move,  then,  the  following 
amendment : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  moves  to  amend  the  in- 
structions as  follows:  The  Secretary  will 

read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Neal  moves  to  amend  the  instructions  so  as  to  pro- 
vide that  “this  section  shall  not  be  applicable  to  any  ap- 
portionment of  the  State  for  Congressional  purposes.” 

Mr.  NEAL.  During  the  time  this  question 
was  under  discussion  in  the  Committee  ot  the 
Whole,  as  well  as  in  the  Convention,  I listened 
very  attentively  to  the  arguments  of  the  gentle- 
men who  advocated  conferring  upon  the  Gov- 
ernor the  veto  power.  I failed  to  be  convinced 
of  its  propriety  or  necessity.  The  experiences 
of  the  last  seventy  years,  show  that  the  State 
has  progressed  in  a most  wonderful  and  highly 
satisfactory  manner,  in  every  material  interest, 
although  the  Governor  has  had  no  power  or  con- 
trol whatever  over  the  legislation  of  the  State. 
I do  not  propose,  Mr.  President,  to  sanction  by 
my  vote  upon  this  floor,  any  such  changes  in 
our  Constitution  as  experience  has  not  demon- 
strated are  necessary  to  be  made,  in  order  to 
secure  a better  government,  and  in  a higher 
degree  the  prosperity  and  well-being  ol  the 
people.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  facts  as 
regards  other  States,  we  have  nothing  before  us 
showing  that  the  veto  power  has  been  used  for 
the  benefit  or  advantage  of  the  people  of  those 
States.  We  have  never  had,  so  far  as  my  knowl- 
edge extends,  any  such  thing  as  a general  cor- 


1500 


THE  VETO  POWER. [118th 

Neal,  Hunt,  Baber,  Gardner,  Voris,  etc.  [Thursday, 


ruption  of  the  General  Assembly.  On  the 
contrary,  since  I have  become  familiar  with  the 
public  affairs  of  the  State,  our  Legislature  has 
been  singularly  pure.  No  corrupt  influences 
have  ever  been  charged,  to  my  knowledge,  and 
at  this  late  day,  with  these  experiences  before 
us,  to  say  the  Governor  shall  hereafter  have  the 
right  to  interfere  in  all  matters  of  legislation, 
and  put  his  veto  on  bills  that  do  not  please  his 
sovereign  pleasure,  I am  not  prepared  for.  The 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  has  been 
pleased  to  say  that  the  daily  papers  of  this  city 
have  advocated  this  measure.  All  I have  to  say 
is,  that  if  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hunt]  thinks  that  the  daily  papers  of  Cincin- 
nati are  any  exponent  of"  the  wishes  of  the 
people  of  the  country  outside  of  the  city,  or  in  it 
even,  for  that  matter,  he  is  very  greatly  mis- 
taken. 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  Ironton  paper,  also,  is  in 
favor  of  it. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Very  well.  The  Ironton  paper, 
to  that  extent,  is  not  an  exponent  of  the  wishes 
of  the  people  of  Lawrence  county.  I have  just 
returned  from  that  county,  where  I had  an  op- 
portunity of  seeing  people  from  all  its  parts, 
and  I failed  to  find  one  single  man,  Democrat 
or  Republican,  that  favored  that  measure  to  any 
other  extent  than  we  have  already  embodied  it, 
in  the  Article  as  it  is  now  before  us  for  con- 
sideration. 

Now,  as  regards  the  amendment  that  I pro- 
pose, the  reason  for  it  is  this : The  apportion- 
ment of  the  State  for  Congressional  purposes  is 
purely  a political  question,  one  in  which  the 
Representatives  of  the  people  are  alone  in- 
terested. It  is  a matter  which  the  Governor 
should  have  no  control  over  whatever ; and  if 
we  give  him  the  veto  power  conferring  upon 
him  the  right  to  say  that  the  State  shall  not  be 
apportioned  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of 
a majority  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  then  we  place  it  in  his  power  to  deter- 
mine what  our  Congressional  Districts  shall  be ; 
for  he  will  say  : “Gentlemen,  if  you  do  not  con- 
stitute these  districts  to  suit  my  views,  I will 
veto  the  bill.”  And  it  might  be  that,  owing  to 
the  nearly  equal  division  of  parties  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  no  apportionment  could  be  made 
for  a series  of  years,  in  which  case  Congress 
would  be  compelled  to  apportion  the  State  for 
us.  I trust,  Mr.  President,  that  this  mo- 
tion to  refer  will  not  be  carried ; but,  if  it  is 
done,  I prefer  that  the  instructions  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  shall  be 
those  adopted  by  the  Convention,  rather  than 
those  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hunt]. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  think  it  is  worth 
while  for  this  Convention  to  go  over  this  whole 
matter  again.  After  very  full  deliberation,  by 
a vote  of  52  to  28,  this  provision  was  adopted. 
I am  satisfied  with  that  action,  and,  I think,  the 
shortest  way  to  get  out  of  this  whole  matter 
would  be  to  vote  down  all  these  instructions. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Does  the  gentleman  desire 
to  say  that,  after  they  have  spoken,  they  do  not 
wrant  us  to  speak  ? Is  that  it  ? 


Mr.  GRISWOLD.  There  is  no  question  be- 
fore the  House.  I move  the  previous  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  has  the  floor. 

The  question  before  the  House,  the  Chair  will 
state  to  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold],  is  on  the  amendment  to  the  instruc- 
tions proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Law- 
rence [Mr.  Neal]. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  opposed  to  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Law- 
rence, and  to  the  other  amendments;  and  I 
hope  all  the  instructions  will  be  voted  down, 
and  that  the  matter  will  not  be  referred. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  the  previous  ques- 
tion. 

Objection  was  made. 

A vote  being  taken  on  sustaining  the  call  for 
the  previous  question,  the  same  was  sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Shall  the  main  question 
now  be  put  ? 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded. 

Mr.  BURNS.  What  is  the  main  question? 

The  PRESIDENT.  First,  upon  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal],  then  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]. 

Mr.  BURNS.  There  is  a difference  of  opin- 
ion as  to  what  the  question  is. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I w’ould  inquire  if  that  is  lim- 
ited to  the  amendment  of  section  18,  or  applies 
to  the  whole  Article  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Rule  XLII  provides  that 
when  the  demand  for  the  previous  question 
shall  have  been  sustained,  the  Convention  shall 
be  brought  to  an  immediate  vote;  first,  upon 
the  pending  amendments  in  inverse  order  of 
their  time,  and  then  upon  the  main  question. 
The  main  question  is  to  refer. 

Mr.  VORIS.  That  satisfies  me.  I wanted  to 
know  what  it  was. 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  objected 
to. 

A vote  being  taken  on  sustaining  the  call  for 
the  yeas  and  nays,  the  same  was  sustained. 

The  question  being  whether  the  main  ques- 
tion should  be  put, 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  58,  nays  27,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Bos  worth,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale, 
Hill,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Johnson,  Kraemer, 
Layton,  McBride,  Merrill,  Miller,  Mueller,  Mul- 
len, Neal,  Pease,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Reilly, 
Rickly,  Russell,  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskin- 
gum, Sample,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Townsend,  Tripp, 
Tulloss,  Tuttle, Van  ValkenburglijVoorhes, Voris, 
Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  White,  of  Hocking,  Wil- 
son, Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young 
of  Noble — 58. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose,  Burns,  Gardner, 
j Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Ilumphreville, 
Hunt,  Jackson,  Kerr^McCormick,  Miner,  Mitch- 
I ener,  Page,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Scribner,  Sears, 

! Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thomp- 
; son,  Townsley,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  President 
1—27. 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER. 1501 

February  19, 1874.]  Neal,  Cook,  Griswold,  Rowland,  etc. 


So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  to  further  in- 
struct the  Committee,  as  follows : 

The  Secretary  will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  at  the  end  of  section  18  the  following  clause : 

“This  section  shall  not  be  applicable  to  any  bill  appor- 
tioning the  State  for  Congressional  purposes.” 

Mr.  NEAL.  I desire  the  yeas  and  nays  on 
that. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  suggest  that  the  proper 
order  is  to  commence  with  the  instructions  of 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  amend. 
Mr.  COOK.  It  is  not  a motion  to  amend.  It 
is  a motion  to  instruct.  If  we  do  not  instruct 
the  Committee  to  amend,  that  motion  will  be 
useless.  The  motion  is  to  further  instruct  the 
Committee. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  On  the  previous  question, 
the  first  question  occurs  on  re-commitment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question,  therefore, 
comes  on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal].  That  is  the  last  in  or- 
der. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  the  order  of  the 
rule  in  amendments,  but  this  is  on  recommit- 
ment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  read 
Rule  XLII : “ The  Convention  shall  be  brought 
to  an  immediate  vote,  first,  on  the  pending 
amendments  in  the  inverse  order  of  their  time.” 
The  question  will  he,  first,  on  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  not  an  amendment 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  an  amendment.  The 
motion  is  distinctly  to  amend  the  instructions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question,  therefore, 
is  upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  inquire  if  the  in- 
verse order  would  commence  with  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal]  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  last  amendment 
offered  was  that  of  the  gentleman  from  Law- 
rence [Mr.  Neal]. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  inverse  order  is  con- 
trary to  the  common  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  last  is  the  first 
taken.  We  commence,  therefore,  with  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal], 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  32,  nays  51,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Bannon,  Beer,  Blose,  Bos- 
worth,  Byal,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Ewing, 
Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Hunt,  Kraemer, 
McCormick,  Neal,  Pease,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Reilly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Rus- 
sell of  Muskingum,  Shultz,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tulloss,  Yoorhes,  West,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign— 32. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop, 
Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Cook, 
Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale, 
Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 


Johnson,  Kerr,  Layton,  McBride,  Merrill,  Mil- 
ler, Miner,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Page,  Rickly, 
Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Tripp,  Tut- 
tle, Tyler,  Van  Yalkenburgh,  Van  Yoorhis, 
Voris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  White  of  Hocking, 
Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble,  President 
—51. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen],  to  strike  out  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hunt]  and  insert  that  “ the  Committee  be  in- 
structed to  strike  out  section  18.” 

On  this  question  a division  was  demanded. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be  on 
striking  out  the  instructions  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I understand  that  to  be  the 
motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A division  of  the  ques- 
tion has  been  called  for.  The  question  is  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Belmont 
[Mr.  Cowen],  to  strike  out  the  instructions  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hunt]. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  is  to  strike  out  section  18. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I rise  to  ask  the 
effect  of  a vote  on  that  question.  Suppose  the 
Convention  refuse  to  strike  out  section  18, 
would  that  be  agreeing  to  the  section  as  it 
stands? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen]  moves  to  amend  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt], 
to  recommit  the  substitute,  with  instructions  to 
strike  out  the  amendment  proposed,  and  a 
division  is  demanded  upon  striking  out. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Then,  if  it  should 
turn  out  that  we  refuse  to  strike  out,  could  it 
be  amended  ? If  we  strike  out,  could  anything 
else  be  substituted  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  refusal  to  strike  out 
would  be  equivalent  to  agreeing  to  the  instruc- 
tions, as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton. If  adopted,  it  would,  as  a matter  of 
course,  prevent  any  other  being  substituted. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I understand  it  in  this  way, 
and  I think  I am  correct:  Mr.  Hunt  moves  to 
refer  to  a Committee  of  one  with  instructions 
to  insert  some  provisions  and  strike  out  some. 
Now,  pending  that  motion  the  gentleman  from 
Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  moves  to  amend  the  in- 
structions so  as  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  sec- 
tion eighteen  as  it  stands. 

The  PRESIDENT.  He  moves  to  amend  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hunt],  by  striking  out  the  instructions. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  where  the  difference 
is,  not  striking  out  the  instructions  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt], 
but  striking  out  section  eighteen. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
instructions  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt].  The  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  proposes  to  instruct  the 
Committee  in  one  way,  and  the  gentleman  from 
Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  proposes  to  strike  out 
these  instructions,  and  instruct  the  Committee 
in  another  way. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  In  analogy  to  the 


1502 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hunt,  Pease,  Rowland,  Mueller,  Cook,  etc. 


[118th 


proceedings  in  other  cases,  will  not  the  friends 
of  this  section  have  the  right  to  amend  it  before 
it  is  competent  to  strike  it  out  entirely? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Rule  XXXIX  provides 
that  a motion  to  strike  out,  on  a division  being 
negatived,  shall  be  equivalent  to  agreeing  to  a 
matter  in  that  form,  but  shall  not  preclude  fur- 
ther amendment.  And  it  would  still  depend 
upon  a vote  of  the  Convention  whether  they 
would  adopt  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  to  recommit. 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  difficulty  is  here:  It  is 

only  in  order  to  move  to  amend  with  instruc- 
tions. Now,  the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr. 
Cowen]  does  not  give  these  instructions  any 
shape  or  form.  His  motion  goes  to  the  entire 
section  itself,  and  is  a distinct,  independent 
proposition,  which  can  only  be  acted  upon 
when  it  is  reported  back  to  the  Convention.  It 
does  not  amend  my  instructions  at  all. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  it  does  amend,  by  moving  to  strike 
out,  and  insert  other  words. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I call  for  the  reading  of  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Belmont 
[Mr.  Cowen]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Mr.  Cowen  moves  to  amend  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  so  that  the  Special  Com- 
mittee shall  be  instructed  to  strike  out  section  18.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  will  see 
the  order  in  which  the  question  stands.  The 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  proposes 
to  re-commit  the  Proposition  with  certain 
instructions.  The  gentleman  from  Belmont 
[Mr.  Cowen]  moves  to  amend  that  motion,  by 
striking  out  the  instructions  and  inserting  other 
instructions.  A division  of  the  House  on  strik- 
ing out  is  demanded.  A vote  negativing  a mo- 
tion to  strike  out,  will  be  equivalent  to  agree- 
ing to  the  matter.  The  question  will  still  re- 
main whether  the  Convention  will  order  the 
Proposition  to  be  recommitted  with  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hunt]. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  ask  what  the  gen- 
tleman from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  proposes  to 
insert?  There  is  a vacuum.  I think  the  Chair 
has  made  a mistake  in  entertaining  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr. 
Cowen]  at  all. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
question  once  more.  The  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  moves  to  re-commit  the 
Proposition  with  certain  instructions  to  amend 
in  a certain  mode.  The  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen],  now  moves  to  amend  that 
motion  by  striking  out  these  instructions  and 
inserting  other  instructions. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  He  strikes  out  the  whole 
thing. 

The  PRESIDENT.  He  does  not  strike  out 
the  whole  thing;  but  merely  strikes  out  the 
instructions. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I cannot  see  it  in  that 
light. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  main  question  is  to 
re-commit.  The  gentleman  from  Belmont 
[Mr.  Cowen]  does  not  oppose  the  motion  to  re- 
commit; but  merely  amends  by  striking  out  the 
instructions  and  inserting  other  instructions,  so 
that  the  Committee,  instead  of  being  instruct- 


[Thursday, 


ed  to  amend  section  eighteen  in  a certain  mode, 
will  be  instructed  to  strike  out  that  section  alto- 
gether. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  Chair  allow  me 
a remark?  The  difficulty  is  right  there. 
The  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen] 
moves  to  amend  by  striking  out.  It  is  not 
in  order,  and  ought  not  to  have  been  intro- 
duced. The  same  question  was  up  three  or 
four  days  ago,  and  I made  the  same  point. 
What  is  the  Convention  to  gain  by  agreeing  to 
his  amendment  ? Nothing  except  what  it  would 
gain  by  not  entertaining  it.  By  refusing  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hunt],  that  answers  all  the  purposes  the  Con- 
vention needs ; so  that  there  is  no  profit  in  enter- 
taining this  motion  at  all.  Voting  for  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt]  settles  the  question  at  once, 
without  voting  for  the  one  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen].  The  mo- 
tion is  not  in  order.  It  cannot  be  entertained, 
because  it  moves  to  strike  out  and  not  to  amend — 
to  strike  out  an  amendment.  Can  that  be  done  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No;  it  moves  to  strike 
out  part  of  the  amendment,  and  insert  other  in- 
structions. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  It  moves  to  strike  out  en- 
tirely what  has  been  moved  before — the  entire 
amendment.  It  is  not  an  amendment  to  the 
amendment.  It  is  entirely  a new  proposition, 
and,  therefore,  it  cannot  be  entertained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  thinks  it  is  in 
the  power  of  the  Convention  to  order  anything 
which  it  is  in  its  power  to  legislate  upon.  The 
power  to  instruct  is  equivalent  to  the  whole 
power  of  the  Convention.  It  is  in  the  power  of 
the  Convention  to  order  the  Committee  to  strike 
out  the  whole  section. 

Mr.  POND.  I wish  my  friend  from  Belmont 
[Mr.  Cowen]  would  withdraw  his  motion,  and 
let  us  vote  on  this. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I would  cheerfully  do  so,  but 
we  are  under  the  operation  of  the  previous 
question.  I can  do  so  by  unanimous  consent. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  the  Convention  now 
take  a recess. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  not  in  order.  It  cannot  be 
done. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  take  a re- 
cess takes  precedence  of  this  question. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I would  inquire  whether, 
after  the  main  question  is  moved,  it  is  in  order 
to  adjourn  or  take  a recess. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  in  order.  It  takes 
precedence  of  the  previous  question,  the  Chair 
thinks.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
motion  to  take  a recess  is  in  order  pending  the 
previous  question. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I would  refer  the  Chair  to 
section  42. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  question  to  adjourn  only  is 
in  order.  After  we  commence  executing  it 
nothing  is  in  order. 

Mr.  COOK.  I will  call  the  attention  of  the 
Chair  to  Rule  XLII,  which  reads : “On  a mo- 

tion for  the  previous  question  and  prior  to  vot- 
ing on  the  same,  a call  of  the  Convention  shall 
be  in  order ; but  after  the  demand  for  the  pre- 
vious question  shall  have  been  sustained,  no  call 
shall  be  in  order ; and  the  Convention  shall  be 
brought  to  an  immediate  vote — first,  upon  the 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER. 1503 

February  19,  1874.]  Cook,  Adair,  Townsend,  Baber,  etc. 


pending  amendments  in  the  inverse  order  of 
their  age,  and  then  upon  the  main  question.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  relates  to  a call  of 
the  House. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  Convention  shall  be  brought 
to  an  immediate  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  adjourn 
would  undoubtedly  be  in  order,  and  the  Chair 
is  of  the  opinion,  by  analogy,  that  the  motion 
to  take  a recess  is  in  order. 

Mr.  ADAIR.  I call  the  attention  of  the  Chair 
to  Rule  41. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  says  that  it  shall  pre- 
clude further  debate  merely.  It  is  not  debata- 
ble. 

Mr.  ADAIR.  “The  previous  question  shall 
be  put,  and  until  decided  shall  preclude  further 
debate  and  all  amendments  and  motions,  except 
one  motion  to  adjourn  and  one  motion  to  lie  on 
the  table.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  is  right. 
The  motion  to  take  a recess,  therefore,  is  not  in 
order.  The  question  is  now  on  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen],  to 
instruct  the  Committee  to  strike  out  section  18. 
A division  is  called. 

Upon  that  question,  the  yeas  and  nays  are 
C£ill  cd» 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I understand  the  ques- 
tion we  are  to  vote  upon  to  be  this — and  I want 
to  know  if  I am  correct  about  it.  What  we 
determine  is,  whether  we  will  instruct  the  Com- 
mittee of  one  to  report  back  the  section,  or 
whether  we  will  vote  that  down,  and  instruct 
the  Committee  to  report  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  alternative 
presented. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  First,  whether  we  will 
strike  out  the  section. 

Mr.  BABER.  We  have  got  to  insert  after- 
wards. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  not  necessarily 
involved.  The  question  is  on  striking  out. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I would  like  to  make  an  in- 
quiry. What  I would  inquire  is  this : A divi- 

sion of  the  question  having  been  demanded,  if 
the  motion  to  strike  out  prevails,  will  it  not 
simply  leave  it  an  open  question,  as  to  whether 
the  instructions  sought  by  my  amendment  shall 
be  adopted  or  not?  Therefore,  if  amotion  to 
strike  out  the  instructions  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  prevails, 
may  not  the  Convention  still  vote  down  the  in- 
structions proposed  by  myself? 

MEMBERS.  Certainly. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  on 
striking  out. 

Mr.  C ARBERY.  I understand  that  disagree- 
ing to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen],  is  not  equivalent  to  agree- 
ing to  the  instructions  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  but,  on  the 
contrary,  the  vote  then  reverts  to  his  as  the 
older  amendment  before  the  House. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  first  on 
striking  out  the  instructions  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I rise  to  a point  of  order.  I 
understood  the  Chair  to  rule  a while  ago  that 
the  motion  to  take  a recess  was  not  in  order.  I 
respectfully  appeal  from  that  decision. 


The  PRESIDENT.  While  the  previous  ques- 
tion was  pending? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  is  too  late. 

| The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  too  late  after  another 
j member  has  spoken.  The  question  is  on  strik- 
j ing  out.  The  Secretary  will  call  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  37,  nays  48,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Baber,  Blose,  Cald- 
well, Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook, 
Cowen,  Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitch- 
cock, Horton,  Jackson,  Layton,  McCormick, 
Miner,  Mueller,  Neal,  Page,  Philips,  Pond, 
Reilly,  Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smitn  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp, 
Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Waddle,  West,  White  of 
Hocking — 37. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dorsey,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Hale,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
McBride,  Merrill,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mullen, 
Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scrib- 
ner, Sears,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Weaver, 
Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 48. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  the  Convention  now 
take  a recess. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that,  under  Rule  XLI,  a motion  to  adjourn 
or  lie  on  the  table  is  the  only  motion  now  in 
order. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  There  are  gentlemen  in  the 
city  that  ought  to  be  here. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
question.  It  is  now  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  to  re- 
commit the  proposition  to  a Select  Committee  of 
one  with  instructions. 

Mr.  POND.  It  is  to  strike  out  and  insert. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  strike  out 
was  lost. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I would  like  to  inquire  if  that 
is  divisible.  I notice  some  gentlemen  are  in 
favor  of  three  days  and  some  ten.  Cannot  we 
take  a separate  vote  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  susceptible  of 
division. 

Mr.  WEST.  Let  every  gentleman  understand 
it — for  I suppose  it  is  to  be  a test  vote.  All  who 
are  in  favor  of  a three-fifths  vote 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order  to  de- 
bate. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  not  going  to  debate,  but  1 
want  to  understand.  I have  a right  to  ask  a 
question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
question  distinctly. 

Mr.  WEST.  I wish  to  ask  a question.  Is  it 
not  that  all  who  are  in  favor  of  a three-fifths 
veto  will  vote  “ aye  ” ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  Those  who  are  opposed  to  it  will 
vote  “ no.” 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 


1504 


[118th 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hoadly,  Bannon,  Smith  of  S.,  Byal,  etc.  [Thursday, 


manded,  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  43, 
nays  42,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dor- 
sey, Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Hos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Kowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Townsend,  Tyler,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Weaver, 
Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 43. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Layton,  McCormick, 
Miller,  Miner,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Page, 
Philips,  Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Towns- 
ley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Yan  Yalkenburgh, 
Yoorhes,  Waddle,  West,  White  of  Hocking — 42. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  (at  12  : 30  p.  m.) 
the  Convention  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  P.  M. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  appoint 
Mr.  Hunt,  of  Hamilton,  a Select  Committee  of 
one,  under  the  order  of  the  Convention  made 
before  the  recess. 

CALL  OF  THE  HOUSE. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  the  fol- 
lowing members  were  present : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
Kraemer,  Layton,  McBride,  McCormick,  Mer- 
rill, Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen, 
Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scrib- 
ner, Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tul- 
loss, Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Yan 
Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  West,  White 
of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Champaign,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 84. 

Those  absent  were  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Alexander,  Barnet,  Byal,  Caldwell, 
Campbell,  Clark  of  Ross,  Clay,  Cunningham, 
De  Steiguer,  Foran,  Godfrey,  O’Connor,  Phil- 
ips, Root,  Scofield,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Watson, 
Weaver,  Wells,  White  of  Brown — 20. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
will  close  the  doors. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  that  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  be  dispatched  for  the  absentees. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  absentees  without 
leave  are  Messrs.  Byal,  Caldwell,  Philips, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  and  Weaver. 


On  Mr.  Hoadly’s  motion,  a division  was 
called  for,  and  being  taken,  resulted — affirma- 
tive 49,  negative  36. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  BANNON.  I ask  leave  of  absence  for 
Mr.  De  Steiguer,  who  was  compelled  to  leave 
to-day.  He  cannot  return  before  to-morrow. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Messrs.  Smith,  of  Shelby,  and  Byal,  hav- 
ing presented  themselves  at  the  bar  of  the 
House, 

Mr.  SMITH  said  : I had  some  business  with  a 
gentleman  by  appointment.  I had  to  meet  him 
at  this  particular  time,  and  I went  to  see  him 
for  that  reason. 

Mr.  BANNON.  I move  that  the  gentleman 
from  Shelby  [Mr.  Smith]  be  excused. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BYAL.  My  excuse  is,  that  I went  to 
the  barber’s  and  expected  to  be  here  in  time, 
but  failed. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  the  gentleman  be  ex- 
cused. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  that  further  pro- 
ceedings be  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  BABER.  Not  agreed.  Yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  YORIS.  1 object. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  call  is  sustained. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  How  many  were  up? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Fifteen. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Is  that  one-fifth  of  eighty? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  mistaken. 
The  question  is  upon  the  suspension  of  further 
proceedings. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  this  thing  is  to  be  cracked 
through  under  a gag,  I want  to  have  all  the 
members  present.  If  gentlemen  are  bound  to 
crack  the  thing  through  under  a rush,  I wish  to 
have  all  the  members  present. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  states 
that  there  are  two  gentlemen  still  absent. 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  two  gentlemen  absent  are 
paired  off,  as  I understand  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  sus- 
pension of  further  proceedings. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  objected 
to. 

Mr.  HALE.  I understand  that  the  yeas  and 
nays  were  demanded  on  that  motion  when  it 
was  made  before,  and  the  demand  was  not  sus- 
tained. The  Chair  was  then  proceeding  to  take 
the  same  vote  viva  voce. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A division  was  called  for 
and  the  yeas  and  nays  demanded  on  that.  It  is 
a different  vote. 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  sustained, 
twenty-two  gentlemen  rising  to  second  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  yeas  and  nays  upon  suspension  of  further 
proceedings  under  the  call. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll,  and  the  result 
was — yeas  46,  nays  39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Burns,  Byal,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 

! McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell, 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hunt,  Adair,  We3t,  Humphreville,  etc. 


1505 


Day.] 

February  19,1874.] 


Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Town- 
send, Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes, 
Voris,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble,  President — 46. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Car- 
bery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook, 
Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gur- 
ley, Hitchcock,  Horton,  Jackson,  Layton,  Mc- 
Cormick, Miller,  Miner,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal, 
Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly, 
Shultz,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  Van 
Valkenburgh,  Waddle,  West,  White  of  Hock- 
ing— 39. 

So  the  motion  to  suspend  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I desire  to  submit  the  following 
Report : 

Mr.  ADAIR.  I object  to  the  Report. 

Mr.  WEST.  What  is  the  Report? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  was  appointed  a Select 
Committee  of  one,  and  makes  the  following 
Report.  What  is  the  objection  ? 

Mr.  ADAIR.  The  objection  is  that  it  is  out 
of  order. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Miscellaneous  business 
is  now  in  order,  final  readings  having  been 
gone  through  with,  and  the  next  business  is 
miscellaneous  business.  Anything  would, 
therefore,  now  be  in  order. 

Mr.  WEST.  Are  we  on  final  readings  now? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Final  readings  have 
been  disposed  of. 

Mr.  WEST.  What  are  we  doing  now  but 
going  through  with  final  readings? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Article  has  been 
committed  to  a Select  Committee  of  one,  which 
disposes  of  that  matter. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  We  are  preparing 
this  Article  for  its  final  passage,  and  it  is  in 
order  to  complete  the  Article  for  final  reading.  j 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Report  will  be  in  | 
order  either  way,  either  in  connection  with  that 
or  miscellaneous  business.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  Report. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  Select  Committee  of  one  to  whom  was  referred 
Proposition  No.  190,  a Substitute  for  Article  two  of  the 
Constitution,  with  instruction  to  amend,  reports  the  same 
hack  amended  as  instructed. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  the  previous  ques- 
tion on  the  adoption  of  the  Report. 

The  demand  for  the  previous  question  was 
objected  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I ask  a call  of  the  House. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  They  are  all  in. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll,  and  eighty- 
eight  members  answered  to  their  names,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Byal,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jef- 
ferson, Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey, 
Ewing,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly, 
Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Jack- 

v.h-97 


son,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Layton,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Mueller, Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phel- 
lis, Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Row- 
land, Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler, 
Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes, 
Voris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  White  of  Hock- 
ing, Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 88. 

The  absentees  were — 

Messrs.  Alexander,  Barnet,  Campbell,  Clark 
of  Ross,  Clay,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Foran, 
Godfrey,  O’Connor,  Philips,  Root,  Scofield, 
Watson,  Wells,  White  of  Brown — 16. 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  that  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  be  dispatched  for  the  absentees,  and  on 
that  I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  inquire  whether 
any  of  those  absentees  are  in  the  city  ? 

Mr.  LAYTON.  Messrs.  Philips  and  Tripp 
were  in  the  city  this  forenoon. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I move  that  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  WEST.  Where  is  my  motion  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  suspend 
proceedings  under  the  call  will  dispose  of  that 
motion. 

Mr.  WEST.  Not  until  my  motion  is  put. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is,  that  fur- 
ther proceedings  be  dispensed  with,  which  takes 
precedence,  of  course,  and  upon  that  the  yeas 
and  nays  are  demanded. 

The  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays  was  objected  to, 
but,  being  sustained,  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  48,  nays  39,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dor- 
sey, Ewing,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Mer- 
rill, Miller,  Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskin- 
gum, Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Townsend,  Tyler,  Voorhes,  Voris, 
Weaver,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble,  President — 48. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Ewing, Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Hor- 
ton, Jackson,  Layton,  McCormick,  Miner.  Muel- 
ler, Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Philips, 
Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Thompson,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Van 
Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Waddle,  West, 
White  of  Hocking — 39. 

So  the  motion  to  suspend  further  proceedings 
was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hoadly],  demanding  the  previous 
question. 

Mr.  REILLY.  I move  the  Report  of  the 
Committee,  and  upon  that  question  I demand 
the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I object  to  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 


1506 


THE  VETO  POWER 

Townsend,  Baber,  Coats,  Pond,  Byal,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


[118th 


the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  motion  to  lay  on  the 
table. 

Mr. TOWN- SEND.  May  I make  an  inquiry? 
If  this  motion  prevails,  it  takes  the  whole  sec- 
tion— the  Article  and  all  with  it? 

Mr.  BABER.  Nothing  but  the  Report  goes. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  38,  nays  49,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Horton,  Jack- 
son,  Layton,  McCormick,  Miller,  Miner,  Muel- 
ler, Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Reilly,  Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tuttle, 
Yan  Valkenburgh,  Waddle,  West,  White  of 
Hocking — 38. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dorsey, 
Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold, Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Mer- 
rill, Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sam- 
ple, Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Yan  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Yoris,  Weaver, 
Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble,  President— 49. 

So  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  not 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  COATS.  I move  we  adjourn,  and  on  that 
motion  1 call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I wrould  like  to  have  the  yeas 
and  nays  on  that.  I would  like  to  see  who 
would  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  COATS.  I shall  vote  for  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  had  recog- 
nized the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  that  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn,  and  upon  that  I demand  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

Objection  to  the  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays  was 
made,  but  the  call  was  sustained. 

Mr.  BYAL.  Is  an  amendment  in  order  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  on  a motion  to  ad- 
journ. 

Mr.  BYAL.  I would  make  it  sine  die. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  1 shall  second  that  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentlemen  are  not 
in  order. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken  on  the  motion 
to  adjourn,  there  resulted — yeas  16,  nays  70,  as 
follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Coats,  Cook,  Gardner,  Jackson,  Layton, 
McCormick,  Pond,  Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  West — 16. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery,  Chapin,  Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing, 
Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostet- 
ter, Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer, McBride,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitche- 
ner, Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Pease,  Phel- 
lis, Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scrib- 
ner, Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thomp- 


[Thursday, 


son,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler, 
Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Weaver, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young 
of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 70. 

So  the  motion  to  adjourn  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is, 
Shall  the  main  question  be  put? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  That  has  not  been  second- 
ed. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  it  has. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I move  a call  of  the  House. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I call  attention  to  Rule 
XLI.  It  is  not  in  order,  and  they  have  gone 
through  the  whole  line  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  not  in  or- 
der. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  state 
his  point  of  order. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  The  Chair,  as  I understand, 
has  ruled  my  motion  for  a call  of  the  House  out 
of  order.  I suppose  that  is  upon  the  ground 
that  one  call  of  the  House  has  been  had  for  the 
previous  question.  I submit  that  there  has 
been  no  call  of  the  House  since  the  present  ques- 
tion has  beer  pending.  There  was  a demand 
for  the  previous  question,  but  it  was  not  sec- 
onded. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  was  seconded. 

Several  MEMBERS.  I seconded  the  demand. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  demand  was  sec- 
onded. The  question  now  is,  Shall  the  main 
question  be  put? 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Before  that  vote  is  taken 
I wish  to  ask,  should  the  present  question  be 
sustained,  and  the  main  question  ordered,  if  a 
division  can  be  called  for  on  the  several  amend- 
ments? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  first  be 
upon  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  Com- 
mittee, and  then  upon  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  question  is  whether 
a division  can  be  had  upon  the  various  items  of 
the  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opin- 
ion the  question  will  be  upon  agreeing  to  the 
Report  as  a whole.  The  Secretary  will  call  the 
yeas  and  nays  upon  the  question,  Shall  the  main 
question  be  put? 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  48,  nays  37,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dorsey, 
Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  John- 
son, Kerr,  McBride,  Merrill,  Miller,  Mitchener, 
Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Meigs, Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner, 
Sears,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van 
Voorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Weaver,  Wilson, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of 
Noble,  President— 48. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Jackson,  Layton,  McCormick,  Miner, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis, 
Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Neal,  Carbery,  Adair,  Hoadly,  West,  etc, 


1507 


Day.] 


February  19, 1874.] 


Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tuttle, 
Waddle,  West — 37. 

So  the  demand  for  the  previous  question  was 
sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Report. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  like  to  hear  the  Report 
read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  Report. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Hunt  submits  the  following  Report: 

In  section  eighteen,  line  two,  strike  out,  after  the  word 
‘‘Governor”  the  words  “at  least  three  days  before  its  ad- 
journment sine  die ” down  to  the  word  “of”,  in  line  three. 

In  line  seven,  strike  out  the  worde,  “a  majority  of  the 
members  elected  thereto,  sufficient  for  its  passage  in  the 
first  instance,”  and  insert  the  words,  “three-fifths  of  all 
the  members  elected  thereto.” 

In  line  ten,  strike  out  the  words,  “a  like  majority  of”, 
and  insert  the  words,  “three-filths  of  all.” 

In  line  twelve,  after  the  word  “law”,  insert  the  words, 
“But  in  all  such  cases  the  vote  of  both  Houses  shall  be 
determined  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  the  names  of  the  per- 
sons voting  for  and  against  the  bill  shall  be  entered  upon 
the  Journal  of  each  House,  respectively.” 

In  line  twelve,  strike  out  the  word  “three”,  and  insert 
the  word  “ten”. 

In  line  fourteen,  insert  after  the  word  “it”  as  follows: 
“unless  the  General  Assembly,  by  their  adjournment  pre- 
vent its  return,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  filed,  with  his 
objections,  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  within 
ten  days  after  such  adjournment,  or  become  a law.” 

In  line  twenty-four,  strike  out  “may”,  and  insert 
“shall”,  and  after  the  word  “by”  insert  the  words  “three- 
fifths  of.” 

So  that  the  section  will  read : 

“Sec.  18.  Every  bill  shall,  before  it  become  a law,  be 
presented  to  the  Governor;  if  he  approve,  he  shall  sign  it, 
and  thereupon  it  shall  become  a law,  but  if  he  do  noc  ap- 
prove, he  shall  send  it  to  the  House  in  which  it  shall  have 
originated,  with  his  objections  in  writing,  and  the  House 
may  then  proceed  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  passage  of 
the  bill.  If,  after  such  reconsideration,  three-fifths  of  all 
the  members  elected  thereto  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it 
shall  be  sent  to  the  other  House,  with  the  objections  of 
the  Governor,  and  thereupon  that  House  may  likewise 
reconsider  the  vote  upon  its  passage.  If  after  such  re- 
consideration, three-fifths  of  all  the  members  elected  to 
that  House  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  become  a law; 
but  in  all  such  cases  tne  vote  of  both  Houses  shall  be  de- 
termined by  yeas  and  nays,  and  the  names  of  the  persons 
voting  lor  and  against  the  bill  shall  be  entered  upon  the 
Journal  ot  each  House,  respectively.  If  any  bill  shall  not 
be  returned  by  the  Governor  within  ten  days  (Sundays 
excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the 
same  shall  become  a law,  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had 
signed  it,  unless  the  General  Assembly  by  their  adjourn- 
ment prevent  its  return;  in  which  case  it  shall  be  filed, 
with  his  objections,  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
within  ten  days  after  such  adjournment,  or  become  a law. 
The  Governor  shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any  item 
or  items  of  any  bill  making  appropriation  of  money,  em- 
bracing distinct  items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the  bill 
approved  shall  become  a law,  and  the  item  or  items  of  ap- 
propriation disapproved  shall  be  void,  unless  repassed 
according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the 
passage  of  any  other  bill  after  the  disppproval  of  the 
Governor.  Every  order,  resolution  or  vote  to  which  the 
concurrence  of  both  Houses  of  the  General  Assembly  may 
be  necessary,  except  on  the  question  of  adjournment,  or 
questions  pertaining  to  the  transaction  of  the  business  of 
the  two  houses,  shall  be  presented  to  the  Governor,  and 
before  the  same  shall  take  efiect,  shall  be  approved  by 
him,  or,  not  being  approved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed  by 
three-fifths  of  both  Houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case 
of  a bill.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on agreeing  to  the  Report. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I move  to  strike  out  “ three- 
fifths,”  where  it  occurs,  and  insert  “ two- 
thirds.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order.  The 
question  is  upon  agreeing  to  the  Report. 

Mr.  ADAIR.  1 move  to  lay  the  Report  on 
the  table. 


The  PRESIDENT.  That  question  has  al- 
ready been  passed  upon.  No  motion  is  in  order 
under  the  rule  except  the  question  of  agreeing 
to  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — yeas 
47,  nays 41,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dor- 
sey, Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron, 
Hill,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt, 
Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener, 
Pease,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell 
of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voor- 
hes,Voris,  Weaver,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young 
of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 47. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Layton, McCormick, 
Miller,  Miner,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey, 
Page,  Phellis,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Van  Val- 
kenburgh.  Waddle,  West,  White  of  Hocking 
—41. 

So  the  Report  of  the  Committee  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  to  reconsider  the 
vote  just  taken,  and  I demand  the  yeas  and  nays 
on  that  motion. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  It  is  not  in  order,  under 
the  previous  question. 

Mr.  HOADjlY.  The  previous  question  has 
been  exhausted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  reconsider 
is  in  order  always. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  the  motion  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  in  order. 

Mr.  WEST.  I regret  very  much  that  this 
matter  has  reached  the  crisis  which  it  has.  I 
really  did  hope,  in  framing  a Constitution  here, 
so  far  as  I was  personally  concerned,  I could 
give  it  my  cordial  support.  My  convictions  are 
that  this  doctrine  is  not  a safe  doctrine ; and  I 
supposed  the  matter  had  been  settled  by  the 
compromise  that  we  made  the  other  day,  by 
which  we  adopted  the  limit  of  the  proposed  veto 
to  the  extent  of  a restricting  power ; and  that 
we  ought  to  have  been  satisfied  upon  all  sides, 
without  driving  any  of  us,  whose  convictions 
against  the  proposition  were  fixed  so  uncom- 
promisingly as  the  convictions  of  a portion  of 
the  Convention  are.  It  is  introducing  into  the 
Constitution  a new  feature  that  our  people  are 
not  accustomed  to,  and,  in  my  judgment,  are 
not  prepared  for,  and  because  of  which,  togeth- 
er with  other  features  in  the  Constitution,  will 
array  against  it  such  an  opposition  as  to  secure 
its  defeat.  I shall  not  occupy  the  attention  of 
the  Convention  very  long.  I simply  desire  to 
state  to  the  Convention — but  it  is  not  in  temper, 
now,  I see,  to  listen  to  anything  or  hear  any- 
thing. We  have  nothing  to  do,  I suppose,  but  to 
record  the  edict  of  the  veteran  autocrat  of  the 
“Commercial,”  and  the  young  princes  of  the 
“Enquirer,”  issued  forth  this  morning.  The 
journalistic  lash  has  had  this  effect. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  Are  we  to  go 
into  general  discussion  now  ? The  gentleman 
is  not  very  complimentary  in  his  remarks. 


1508 THE  VETO  POWER. 

West,  Ewing,  Young  of  C.,  Baber,  etc. 


Mr.  HOADLY.  A motion  to  amend  the 
Journal  is  always  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  con- 
fine himself  to  a proper  line  of  remarks. 

Mr.  WEST.  I propose  to  confine  myself  to  a 
line  of  remarks  quite  respectful.  Incorporate 
this  into  the  Constitution,  together  with  the 
new  theory  of  what  is  known  as  proportional 
voting,  and  that  other  proposition  which  is  des- 
tined most  certainly  to  come  up,  authorizing 
counties,  townships  and  cities  to  vote  railroad 
taxes,  and  I would  not  give  a groat  for  the  pa- 
per that  your  Constitution  is  written  upon,  nor 
the  Constitution  itself. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  allow  me  to  interrupt  him? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  first  proposition  intro- 
duced in  this  Convention  at  Columbus,  was  a 
proposition  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]. 

Mr.  WEST.  I know  exactly  what  the  propo- 
sition is. 

Mr.  EWING.  Containing  a provision  for  the 
election  of  judges  by  proportional  suffrage. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir,  precisely.  I am  aware 
of  that;  and  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
at  that  time  was  quite  fascinated  with  the 
doctrine,  as  he  has  been  fascinated  with 
many  false  doctrines  heretofore.  But  the 
gentleman  from  Logan,  after  having  become 
thoroughly  convinced  of  his  error,  certainly 
has  the  right  to  correct  that  error;  and  the 
man  who  will  stand  in  a Constitutional  or 
other  Convention  with  convictions  of  right 
against  his  former  utterances,  and  yet,  through 
pride  of  opinion,  will  stand  to  his  first  utter- 
ances against  his  convictions,  is  unworthy  to 
be  trusted  with  the  duties  which  he  has  been 
called  upon  to  discharge.  These  are  my  senti- 
ments. 

What  I have  to  say  with  regard  to  this  matter 
is,  that  it  is  a new  doctrine  to  our  people,  and 
will  array  a portion  of  our  people  against 
the  Constitution.  Your  proposition  to  levy 
taxes  for  public  improvements,  of  the  char- 
acter I have  alluded  to,  will  array  another 
portion  against  the  Constitution.  This  propo- 
sition that  you  are  about  to  incorporate  will 
array  another,  and  a very  large  portion  of  the 
people  against  it.  If  we  persist  in  incorporat- 
ing these  new  features  into  the  instrument, 
some  of  which  are  entirely  unnecessary  and 
vicious,  I regret,  as  one,  that  we  must  array 
against  it  certain  opposition  that  will  overcome 
and  defeat  it.  I appeal  to  this  Convention  now, 
as  there  is  a very  small  majority  of  this 
body  in  favor  of  the  proposition — I appeal 
to  them  to  say  whether  we  prefer  to  insist 
upon  the  unnecessary  provisions  in  the 
Constitution,  by  which  this  large  number 
will  be  arrayed  against  it,  or  yield  a portion 
of  their  convictions,  and  we  yield  a portion 
of  our  convictions,  and  agree  upon  that 
fair  ground  to  what  we  have  already,  by  a 
former  vote,  agreed. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  It  amounts  to 
nothing. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  says  it  amounts 
to  nothing.  Then  strike  it  out.  It  was  with 
reluctance  that  I yielded  to  that  extent.  If, 
however,  you  insist  upon  it,  if  you  are  deter- 


[118th 

[Thursday, 


mined  to  incorporate  it  into  the  Constitution  * 
all  I desire  to  say  is  that  you  must  not  expect 
those  whose  convictions  are  unalterably  fixed 
against  it  to  give  to  that  instrument  the  cordial 
support  that  we  hope  to  give  it  if  this  proposi- 
tion were  not  incorporated  in  it.  It  is 
unnecessary,  as  I have  said,  because  the  history 
of  our  State  shows  it  to  be  unnecessary.  It  is 
against  our  teaching  and  our  convictions,  and 
the  lesson  of  our  political  schools,  and  the 
wisdom  we  have  learned  in  times  past;  and  if 
there  be  any  one  man  more  than  others  whose 
words  of  wisdom  I have  venerated,  at  whose 
feet  I have  sat  with  more  pleasure  and  profit 
than  any  other,  and  especially  upon  this 
subject,  it  was  that  giant  of  Ohio,  now  no  more 
— the  greatest  intellect  that  ever  adorned  your 
bar,  the  venerable  and  venerated  Thomas 
Ewing.  That  is  where  I obtained  my  lesson; 
that  is  where  I obtained  my  convictions,  and  I 
am  not  prepared  to  give  them  up  now.  There- 
fore, having  these  convictions,  I simply  say  to 
the  Convention,  not  by  way  of  any  threat,  but 
as  a statement  of  my  honest  convictions,  I 
can  not  be  expected  to  go  home  and  give  to  this 
instrument  that  support  that  I want  to  give  to 
it,  if  you  incorporate  into  it  what  I deem  to  be 
not  only  an  unnecessary  provision,  but  one  that 
is  destructive  of  the  principles,  doctrines  and 
teachings  that  I,  for  fifty  years,  have  been 
taught  to  believe  were  the  sound  political 
principles  of  this  country. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  intend  to  detain  the 
Convention,  except  to  call  attention  to  one  fact. 
This  measure  has  been  carried  by  a vote  of 
forty-seven  to  forty-one,  in  the  absence  of  the 
gentleman  whose  proposition  was  adopted  here. 
Of  the  sixteen  absentees  from  this  Convention, 
five  are  in  favor  of  this  proposition  and  eleven 
against  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  How  does  the  gentleman 
know  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  What  about  the  people? 

Mr.  BABER.  So  that  if  the  full  vote  could 
have  been  taken  in  this  Convention,  the  vote 
would  stand  about  fifty-three  or  fifty-two  to 
fifty-one  or  fifty-two.  A bare  majority  of  one 
or  two,  which  is  very  doubtful.  The  question 
that  I submit  to  this  Convention  is,  that,  where 
a proposition  so  evenly  divides  this  Convention 
that  the  attempt,  upon  so  small  a majority  as 
this,  to  force  it  into  the  instrument,  strikes  me 
as  unwarrantable.  If  they  have  such  great 
confidence  in  this  veto  power,  let  them  submit 
it  to  a separate  vote  of  the  people. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question. 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Did  not  you  vote  for  a mea- 
sure that  you  thought  was  of  considerable  im- 
portance,‘at  Columbus,  that  had  a majority  of 
but  one  or  two — the  measure  upon  the  Public 
Institutions — a case  similar  to  the  present? 

Mr.  BABER.  That  was  a different  question. 
The  vote  in  the  city  of  Columbus — 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Do  not  you  propose  to  submit 
your  proposition  to  the  people  singly  and 
alone? 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  sir.  I do  not  want  to 
detain  the  Convention.  I shall  sit  down  in  less 
than  two  or  three  minutes  if  the  gentlemen 
will  leave  me  alone.  I simply  say,  with  regard 


Day.] 

February  19,  1874.] 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Baber,  Rowland,  Miner. 


1509 


to  the  question  of  the  Public  Institutions,  that 
was  a proposition  to  submit  it  separately — a 
proposition  to  elect  a board  of  three  commis- 
sioners— and  if  this  were  a proposition  to  sub- 
mit separately,  I would  be  willing  to  vote  for 
it.  The  proposition  in  reference  to  the  Public 
Institutions  left  the  matter  finally  in  the  hands 
of  the  Legislature.  What  I have  to  say  to  gen- 
tlemen is  this : they  incorporate  a provision  to 
which  nearly  one-half  of  this  Convention  are 
opposed.  They  ought  to  think  how  they  are 
going  to  get  their  fifty-three  votes. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I was  one  who  voted  for 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell]  by  way  of  compromise.  I 
never  should  have  voted  for  so  large  a restric- 
tion as  a two-thirds  vote,  and  so  informed  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt],  who 
presented  this.  But  when  a proposition  is  pre- 
sented meeting  my  views,  I must  vote  for  it; 
and  I have  supported  the  three-filths  motion 
not  by  reason  of  any  lash  of  party.  Gentlemen 
have  a beautiful  theory  that  the  majority  must 
bow  down  to  the  dictates  of  the  minority.  That 
is  “minority  representation”  with  a vengeance. 
I have  voted  my  sentiments,  and  I am  willing 
to  defend  them  here  and  elsewhere.  I have 
not  been  in  anywise  improperly  or  unreasona- 
bly influenced  by  any  newspaper.  I have  been 
influenced  by  debate  here ; and  I trust  that  the 
time  may  never  come  when  I shall  be  so  blinded 
by  prejudice  that  I cannot  be  influenced  by  rea- 
son and  argument.  This  principle,  which  is 
claimed  to  be  new,  is  no  stranger  in  American 
politics.  It  has  always  existed  in  our  national 
government,  and  the  commotions  of  over  eighty 
years  have  not  disturbed  it.  It  is  incorporated 
into  the  Constitutions  of  most  of  the  States,  and 
instances  are  not  wanting  in  the  history  of  our 
own  State  in  which  it  would  have  had  a whole- 
some influence  in  the  restraint  or  prevention  of 
hasty  and  vicious  legislation. 

Mr.  MINER.  As  I did  not  address  the  Con- 
vention upon  this  subject  when  it  was  under 
consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  I de- 
sire, now,  briefly  to  express  my  views.  I am 
not  in  favor  of  conferring  the  veto  power  on 
the  Executive ; though  I am  willing  to  com- 
promise with  those  who  do  favor  it,  by  adopt- 
ing the  proposed  amendment,  which  requires 
no  greater  majority  of  the  Legislative  body  to 
enact  a bill  into  a law  over  the  Executive  dis- 
approval than  it  did  to  pass  the  bill  in  the  first 
instance.  I am  aware  that,  in  recent  times,  this 
veto  power  has  grown  in  favor  with  Conven- 
tions for  the  formation  of  State  Constitutions, 
and  with  the  people  of  most  of  the  States  of  this 
Union.  That  in  the  existing  Constitutions  of 
twenty-three  of  these  States,  this  power  is 
vested  in  their  Executives,  requiring,  in  some 
of  them,  a majority  of  two-thirds,  and  in  others 
a majority  of  three-fifths,  to  enact  laws  over 
the  Executive  veto.  But,  sir,  it  is  a modern 
doctrine  in  the  States  of  this  Union.  It  is  a 
step  backward.  Power  in  the  Executive,  the 
department  charged  with  the  execution  of  the 
laws,  to  say  to  the  Legislative  power,  the  law- 
making power,  “I  object,”  “I  forbid,”  is  arbi- 
trary power,  one-man  power,  and  is  opposed  to 
the  spirit  and  principles  of  Democratic  repre- 
sentative government.  The  fact  that  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  clothed 


the  President  with  the  veto  power  furnishes  no 
valid  reason  for  investing  the  State  Execu- 
tives with  the  like  power ; and  the  wisdom  of 
that  provision  in  the  Federal  Constitution  has 
been  questioned  by  many  eminent  statesmen, 
and  the  instances  of  its  exercise  have  generally 
been  disapproved  by  a large  body  of  the  Amer- 
ican people.  From  the  organization  of  the 
government  under  the  Constitution  to  the  ad- 
ministration of  President  Jackson  the  power 
was  deemed  an  extraordinary  one,  to  be  exer- 
cised only  in  peculiar  and  marked  cases ; and 
had  seldom  been  exercised.  The  only  cases,  I 
believe,  were  two  in  General  Washington’s  ad- 
ministration, two  in  Mr.  Madison’s,  and  one  in 
Mr.  Monroe’s.  There  was  no  case  of  its  exercise 
under  the  administrations  of  John  Adams,  Mr. 
Jefferson,  and  John  Quincj^  Adams.  I have  in- 
timated that  the  idea  of  conferring  the  veto 
power  on  State  Executives  is  one,  mainly,  of 
modern  growth.  It  did  not  find  favor  with 
the  men  of  the  Revolution,  and  their  immediate 
descendants,  not  even  with  those  who  partici- 
pated in  the  formation  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. In  the  Massachusetts  Convention  of  1820, 
of  which  John  Adams,  Mr.  Lincoln,  Mr.  Web- 
ster, and  other  distinguished  men,  were  mem- 
bers, the  question  under  consideration  being 
the  “Basis  of  the  Senate,”  Mr.  Webster  said: 
“In  my  opinion,  sir,  there  are  two  questions  be- 
fore the  Committee.  The  first  is:  Shall  the  Leg- 
islative Department  be  constructed  with  any 
other  check  than  such  as  arises  simply  from 
dividing  the  members  of  this  department  into 
two  houses?  The  second  is:  If  such  other 
and  further  check  ought  to  exist,  in  what 
manner  shall  it  be  created  ?”  It  thus  appears  that 
the  question  of  checks  upon  the  Legislative  De- 
partment was  distinctly  presented  to  that  Con- 
vention. The  subject  was  considered  by  Mr. 
Webster  in  a speech  characterized  by  his  dis- 
tinguished ability,  but  in  which  there  is  not  a 
single  allusion  to  the  executive  veto,  as  a mode 
of  checking  the  Legislative  Department;  and, 
so  far  as  I have  been  able  to  ascertain,  no  other 
delegate  in  that  Convention  proposed  any 
such  check;  and  no  provision  of  that  sort  was 
incorporated  into  the  Constitution.  In  the  same 
year,  1820,  a Convention  sat  in  the  State  of  New 
York  to  frame  a Constitution  for  that  State  in 
which  were  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
men  of  that  State  at  that  day.  I have  not  had 
access  to  the  proceedings  of  that  Convention, 
and  do  not  know  whether  the  question  of  con- 
ferring the  veto  power  on  the  executive  was  dis- 
cussed. No  such  power  was  conferred  by  the 
Constitution  framed  by  them.  In  1830,  a Con- 
vention was  convened  to  frame  a Constitution 
for  the  State  of  Virginia.  James  Madison, 
Philip  Dodridge,  John  Randolph,  and  other 
distinguished  men,  were  members  of  that  Con- 
vention. They  conferred  no  such  power  on  the 
executive;  whether  or  not  the  question  was 
considered  by  them,  I am  unable  to  state,  not 
having  had  access  to  their  proceedings. 

The  friends  of  the  veto  power  tell  us  it  is  ne- 
cessary in  order  to  prevent  inconsiderate  and 
hasty  legislation.  If  that  were  all,  the  ob- 
jects would  be  fully  accomplished,  by  simply  en- 
abling the  executive  to  arrest  the  enactment  by 
his  disapproval,  and  require  it  to  be  reconsid- 
ered and  again  passed,  notwithstanding  his 


1510 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Miner,  Carbery,  Hoadly. 


[118th 

[Thursday, 


objection,  without  any  greater  majority  than 
required  to  pass  it  in  the  first  instance.  But 
this  is  not  all.  A veto  power  which  requires 
a two-thirds  or  a three-fifths  majority  of  the 
legislative  body  to  overcome  it,  has  a far  more 
extensive  operation  than  to  prevent  hasty  or 
inconsiderate  legislation.  It  may  prevent  the 
best  considered  and  most  essential  legislation, 
and  would  certainly  do  so  where  political 
parties  are  pretty  equally  balanced,  as,  gener- 
ally, they  are  most  likely  to  be,  and  thus  made 
to  subvert  the  fundamental  principle  of  repre- 
sentative government,  viz. : that  the  majority 
shall  govern.  It  is  not  a legitimate  mode  of 
checking  the  legislative  department  of  a 
representative  republican  government.  It  is 
blending  and  confounding  to  some  extent,  at 
least,  to  the  independent  departments  of  such 
government,  which  all  wise  statesmen  consider 
should  be  kept  distinct,  and  as  independent  of 
each  other  as  possible.  What  need  have  we  of 
an  executive  veto  as  a means  of  checking  the 
legislative  department?  Are  we  not  providing 
checks  enough?  What  have  we  in  the  way  of 
legitimate  checks?  First,  we  have  a written 
Constitution,  prescribing  rules  for  the  legislat- 
ive and  other  departments  of  government. 
Second,  we  have  a Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives— two  separate  and  independent 
bodies,  comprising  the  legislative  department. 
Third,  the  legislative  article  which  we  have 
framed  is  bristling  at  every  point  with  impedi- 
ments to  hasty,  inconsiderate  or  corrupt 
legislation,  in  the  forms,  and  processes, 
and  rules,  it  prescribes  for  the  passage 
of  bills  through  both  Houses.  If  all 
these  are  deemed  insufficient,  then  let  us 
seek  further  checks  in  a different  constitution 
of  the  Senate,  by  which  it  shall  be  made  more 
distinct  in  character  from  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. One  change  in  this  respect  I would 
willingly  see  adopted.  I would  prefer  that  the 
term  of  Senators  should  be  four  years,  instead 
of  the  same  as  the  term  of  the  Representatives, 
two  years.  Another  weighty  objection,  in  my 
mind,  to  the  veto  power  is,  that  it  is  founded  in 
a distrust  of  the  people,  and  of  the  Representa- 
tives whom  they  may  choose.  We  must  trust 
the  people,  or  we  must  give  up  our  form  of 
government.  The  notion  that  under  our  form 
of  government  the  people  must  be  protected 
from  themselves  is  a foolish  notion.  The  way 
to  make  them  and  keep  them  capable  of  self- 
government  is  to  devolve  it  upon  them.  Teach 
them  that  the  responsibility  rests  upon  them 
alone,  and  if  they  suffer  things  to  go  wrong 
they  must  suffer,  and  thus,  through  suffering,  if 
in  no  other  way,  learn  prudence  and  wisdom. 
I am  opposed  to  taking  any  step  backward  from 
the  true  American  idea  of  democratic  represen- 
tative government. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I wish  that  anything  that 
I could  say,  would  operate  to  change  the  de- 
termination of  the  majority  here  to-day,  and 
that  I could  induce  them  to  reconsider  this  mat- 
ter in  good  faith.  The  other  day,  when  the 
matter  was  discussed,  and  when  the  gentleman 
who  was  the  author  of  section  eighteen,  which 
was  about  to  be  stricken  out,  was  here,  occupy- 
ing his  seat  at  very  great  disadvantage,  being 
very  sick,  but  very  earnest,  he  accepted,  with  a 
great  deal  of  liberality,  a great  many  amend- 


ments, from  one  part  of  the  House  and  the 
other,  embracing  differences  of  opinion,  and  in- 
corporated them  into  this  section.  If  there  was 
no  specified  agreement,  at  that  time,  there  was 
an  implied  agreement  that  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  was 
a proposition  that  had  the  assent  of  the  great 
mass  of  members  upon  this  floor;  and  lam 
satisfied  that  he  went  to  his  home  with  the 
assurance  that  the  matter  would  rest  undisturb- 
ed, and  that  the  section  would  be  passed  on  its 
final  reading,  and  would  go  into  the  instrument 
in  that  shape ; and,  although  originally  opposed, 
for  reasons  that  were  sufficient  to  myself,  to  any 
veto  whatever,  I was  one  of  those  who  consented 
to  give  way,  and  meet  that  gentleman  and  others 
upon  a compromise  platform;  for  I believe,  sir, 
always,  in  this  State,  where  we  have  a written 
Constitution  that  prohibits  this  and  that — in 
fact,  a Constitution,  which  has  been  interpreted 
by  the  supreme  court,  is  itself  a sufficient  bar 
against  any  bad  legislation  that  may  be  had  in 
the  General  Assembly. 

My  colleague  [Mr.  Hunt],  in  the  course  of 
his  remarks,  instanced  the  case  of  England, 
which  has  no  such  Constitution,  and  between 
whose  Parliament  and  the  people  nothing  in- 
tervenes. It  has  the  power,  should  a popular 
wave  arise  to  sweep  away  courts  and  thrones. 
I say  there  is  no  justice  in  the  comparison  be- 
tween English  institutions  and  ours;  and  there 
was  scarcely  any  more  justice  with  reference  to 
the  citation  of  our  Federal  rules.  The  veto  is 
very  important  for  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  when  the  gravity  of  the  subjects  that  are 
considered,  and  which  some  times  results  in 
State  being  arrayed  against  State,  and  section 
against  section ; but  all  those  considerations  are 
singularly  out  of  place  when  applied  to  the 
legislation  of  our  State,  where  the  interests  are 
purely  local,  terminating  with  Ohio.  Those 
opinions  were  strengthened  during  the  course 
of  the  debate.  They  were  even  strengthened 
by  my  course  of  reading,  which  is  singularly 
impartial  and  ominiverous.  I gobble  up  the 
Gazette , Enquirer  and  Commercial  at  a single 
meal.  I do  not  know  that  it  affects  my  Democ- 
racy. I am  as  good  a Democrat  as  I ever  was. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Are  you  in  good  health? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Yes,  sir.  When  I heard 
the  veto  question  indorsed  by  my  distinguished 
Democratic  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. Hoadly], 
on  the  ground  that  it  had  been  incorporated 
into  the  Democratic  platform,  I began  to  doubt 
that  he  was  a proper  person  to  expound  what 
was  true  Democratic  principle. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  will  take 
the  trouble  to  read  the  Democratic  platforms  of 
1840  and  1844,  he  will  find  the  true  democracy 
there  laid  down  for  his  government,  and  there 
has  been  no  change  since. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I study  the  current  litera- 
ture as  well  as  the  past,  and  when  I find  a gen- 
tleman so  acute  as  he  is;  so  well  versed  in  the 
history  of  the  past;  so  ready  on  all  occasions  to 
give  a pointed  illustration  of  his  views;  when 
I find  him  recommending  force  and  coercion, 
Democracy  and  the  veto,  in  one  breath,  I natur- 
ally hesitate,  as  every  Democrat  must  do,  before 
receiving  his  instruction.  You  cannot  recog- 
nize a Democratic  veto  in  such  company  as 
that. 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Hoadly,  Carbery,  Bishop. 


1511 


Day.] 

February  19, 1874.] 


Mr.  HOADLY.  Jackson  was  good  society. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I,  for  one,  all  my  lifetime, 
since  I learned  to  read, have  repudiated  General 
Jackson  as  a Democrat.  I suppose  he  can  stand 
it;  so  can  I.  I pin  my  Democracy  to  a firmer 
philosophical  sleeve.  I am  aware  that  he  was  a 
soldier  first  and  last.  His  idea  was  to  trample 
down  peace,  and  say,  I prohibit  it,  “by  the  Eter- 
nal,” and  by  the  force  of  my  sword.  I had 
thought  we  had  outlived  that  kind  of  thing. 
George  the  Third  said,  “I  forbid  it;”  he  said,  “1 
forbid  it”  at  Lexington,  at  Concord,  and  all  over 
this  continent;  but  the  people  said  “no.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  He  said  “ we  forbid  it.” 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I never  knew  the  first  per- 
son, singular,  was  the  plural;  but  as  I am  not 
very  well  posted  in  grammar,  I come  back  to  my 
mutton.  I got  up  here  to  say  that  I wish  this 
Convention  would  reconsider  the  vote  in  good 
faith.  I understand  that  the  effect  of  the  mo- 
tion of  my  friend  [Mr.  Hoadly]  is  to  clinch  this 
matter. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  is  in  good  faith. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I know  everything  the 
gentleman  does  is  always  done  in  good  faith, 
and  well  done,  and  I hope  this  motion  will 
result  in  the  reconsideration  of  this  question, 
because  I think  the  compromise  we  entered 
into  is  all-sufficient  for  the  purpose.  The  other 
evening,  myself  and  others  called  upon  gentle- 
men who  are  in  favor  of  the  veto  to  find  out 
where  any  call  has  come  from  the  body  of  the 
people,  and  we  were  pointed,  in  answer,  to  this 
paper  and  that  paper.  Well,  what  is  this 
editorial  column?  There  is  a man  behind  it, 
and  that  is  all. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  he  not  a man  striving  to 
form  public  opinion  rather  than  to  follow  it? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  The  very  man  who  has, 
perhaps,  made  up  in  his  own  mind  that  he  is 
the  great  interpreter  of  public  opinion  in 
this  city,  the  editor-in-chief  of  the  Commer- 
cial, has  been  set  back  an  hundred  times 
in  this  community,  and  the  editors  of  the 
Enquirer , who  are  trying  to  step  to  the 
front  now,  may  find  that  their  interpretation  is 
equally  at  fault ; but,  I say,  behind  the  editorial 
column  is  a man,  and  if  you  go  into  the  sanctum 
you  find  the  man  writing  there,  thinking  with 
such  a thinking  apparatus  as  God  has  furnished 
him,  and  he  puts  on  all  the  pomp  of  circum- 
stance, and  editorial  language,  and  printer’s 
ink,  and  expects  the  people  to  believe  there  is 
no  other  prophet  among  them.  That  is  the 
whole  process.  Put  that  man  here  in  the  Con- 
vention, and  weigh  him  as  we  are  weighed 
here,  and  let  us  see  what  sort  of  an  impression 
he  would  make.  He  is  speaking  where  he  can 
not  be  contradicted.  If  a correspondent  at- 
tempts to  tussle  with  him,  he  sneers  about  it, 
and  suppresses  the  communication.  There  is 
no  way  of  getting  at  this  almighty  newspaper, 
except  when  the  people  awake,  calling  back  to 
them  the  traditions  of  their  fathers,  to  show 
them  that  they  have  misinterpreted  the  signs  of 
the  times;  so  that  I say  all  this  talk  about 
newspaper  public  opinion  spread  over  the  State 
furnishing  a sufficient  reason  for  this  innova- 
tion is  vague.  I do  not  think  it  is  sufficient.  I 
think  there  has  been  no  call  for  this.  I recol- 
lect very  well  in  the  opening  days  of  our  ses- 
sion at  Columbus,  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 


[Mr.  Ewing],  I believe,  in  a very  kindly  way,  a 
very  wise  and  deliberate  manner,  in  which  he 
is  in  the  habit  of  speaking,  told  us  to  recollect 
that  there  had  been  no  very  loud  call  for  this 
Convention.  That  it  was  only  agreed  to  by  a 
bare  majority ; that  the  people  considered  the 
present  was  a very  good  Constitution.  I do  not 
know  whether  he  said  it:  but  if  he  did  not,  he 
ought  to  have  said  it;  and  after  the  light  I have 
subsequently  acquired  I will  now  say,  that  it 
would  never  have  been  called  were  it  not  for 
the  learned  profession  of  the  law.  That  is 
what  this  Convention  was  called  for.  It  was 
called  in  the  interest  of  the  lawyers  of  the 
State.  The  people  did  not  want  this  Conven- 
tion. They  did  not  call  for  it  at  all.  A law 
had  been  passed  providing  for  its  call;  but 
when  once  called,  notwithstanding  the  warn- 
ing voice  of  my  friend  and  the  concurring  nods 
of  members,  now  before  my  ken,  it  was  deter- 
mined to  go  to  work,  and  take  it  to  pieces — 
piece  by  piece — and  it  has  been  done  with  a ven- 
geance: and  new  things,  strange  things,  things 
that  are  repellant  to  the  true  interests  of  the 
people,  have  been  introduced. 

I propose  to  leave  to  the  Legislature  of  this 
State,  the  things  that  ought  to  be  left  to  them, 
in  order  that  they  may  feel  the  responsibility  to 
the  public.  I do  not  think  there  is  any  Repub- 
lican, and  I use  that  term  in  the  broad  sense  in 
which  we  use  it,  as  covering  not  a party,  but 
the  whole  people,  there  is  not  a single  man, 

| who  claims  to  be  a Republican,  in  this  part  of 
the  State  of  Ohio  who  will  logically  say  that  I 
am  wrong. 

I have  striven,  in  a very  incoherent  way,  to 
give  my  reasons  why  this  Convention  should 
leave  the  section  to  remain  as  it  was  amended 
by  the  Convention,  under  the  lead  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell].  I am 
sorry  to  see,  that  gentlemen  finding,  after  a care- 
ful count,  that  there  were  enough  here  to  get 
thirty-five  votes,  have  got  this  provision,  and 
are  about  to  take  a leap  into  the  dark,  and  trust 
to  fortune  and  the  people  to  come  on  their  legs. 
Let  me  tell  you  there  is  a good  deal  of  risk  in 
that  operation  ; and  gentlemen  may  find  that  it 
is  deeper  than  they  apprehend,  and  that  they 
may  land  upon  a part  of  their  anatomy  better 
calculated  to  resist  the  concussion. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Having  expressed  myself 
upon  this  subject  fully,  I propose  to  say  but  a 
very  few  words  at  present.  My  judgment  is, 
j that  had  the  veto  been  fixed  at  three-fifths 
; when  the  vote  was  previously  taken,  it  would 
have  carried ; but  it  was  fixed  at  two-thirds.  I 
also,  like  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 
was  brought  up  under  the  old  Whig  regime. 
The  first  vote  that  I ever  cast  was  for  that  man 
whom  I thought  was  greater  than  all  others — 
Henry  Clay — and  I voted  for  him  whenever  I 
had  an  opportunity,  and  I know,  sir,  that  Mr. 
Clay  was  very  much  opposed  to  the  exercise  of 
the  veto  power.  But  the  people  decided,  after  a 
full  discussion  of  the  subject,  in  its  favor.  Pub- 
lic sentiment  has  clearly  demonstrated  that  the 
veto  is  becoming  more  popular,  and  is  actually 
necessary,  and  I need  only  refer  to  the  argu- 
ment of  my  colleague,  Mr.  Miner,  to  establish 
this  fact.  He  has  told  us,  and  made  it  an  ar- 
gument conclusive,  to  my  mind,  and  I am  pre- 
pared to  admit  it,  that  the  veto  power  was  not 


1512 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Bishop,  Layton,  Hostetter,  Coats. 


[118th 


[Thursday, 


in  existence  until  after  1830,  the  celebrated 
veto  of  Andrew  Jackson ; but  now  it  has  be- 
come incorporated  into  almost  all  the  Constitu- 
tions in  the  United  States.  That  shows  very 
clearly  that  this  sentiment  has  grown  to  be  the 
public  sentiment;  that  the  people  are  in  favor 
of  it,  and  I hope  the  reconsideration  will  be 
voted  down. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I presume  anything  that  I 
might  say  would  not  change  a single  vote.  I 
wish  to  God  that  I had  the  eloquence  of  Henry 
Clay,  or  Daniel  Webster,  or  Patrick  Henry, 
that  I could  convince  a few  of  the  members  of 
this  Convention  that  they  are  wrong  in  voting 
for  this  arbitrary  measure.  Not  having  that 
power,  I do  not  presume,  from  the  spirit  mani- 
fested here  this  afternoon  by  the  friends  of  this 
autocratic  measure,  as  I myself  call  it,  that 
they  would  listen  to  the  eloquence  of  any  one 
of  those  gentlemen  if  they  were  now  in  this 
body,  and  upon  this  floor.  It  has  become  a 
matter  of  pride  with  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hunt],  who  introduced  this  measure 
of  the  Report,  originally  carried  by  a majority 
of  the  Committee,  and  who  has  now,  with 
energy  and  zeal,  and  the  co-operation  of  a large 
number  of  his  eloquent  friends,  persistently 
pressed  this  matter  upon  the  Convention  ; but  I 
ask,  at  least,  that  my  protest  may  be  entered 
against  this  measure.  I ask  that  as  a Demo- 
crat, and  I yield  to  no  one,  sir,  in  the  purity  of 
my  Democracy — they  dare  not  impugn  it.  I 
do  not  want  to  have  gentlemen  flaunt  in  my 
face  the  skeleton  of  Andrew  Jackson.  I care 
not  if  he  did  exercise  the  veto  power  in  this 
arbitrary  manner,  by  setting  down  his  foot,  as 
he  did  many  other  arbitrary  acts,  that  were 
unwarranted  by  law,  that  were  unwarranted 
by  the  facts,  that  were  uncalled  for  at  the 
time.  With  just  as  much  truth,  with  just  as 
much  right,  with  just  as  much  force,  might  I 
say  that  the  only  veto  power  that  had  ever  been 
exercised  in  the  territory  now  composing  the 
State  of  Ohio  was  of  the  territorial  Governor 
St.  Clair.  With  just  as  much  reason  might  I 
flaunt  St.  Clair  in  the  faces  of  the  friends  of  the 
measure  as  they  have  a right  to  flaunt  in  mine 
the  skeleton  of  Andrew  Jackson.  I ask  the 
advocates  of  that  measure  upon  this  floor  to 
point  to  a single  instance  where  the  veto  power 
has  been  exercised  to  the  advantage  of  any  of 
the  States  of  the  Union  where  it  is  in  force. 
I ask  of  any  of  you  who  are  fiercely  advocating 
this  to  point  to  a single  State  in  the  Union  where 
this  power  is  in  force,  where  it  has  been  exer- 
cised for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  the  State, 
or  for  the  better?  I ask  you,  when  the  calling 
of  this  Convention  was  being  agitated  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  if  you  heard  a single  voter  at  the 
polls  upon  that  day  speak  of  the  veto  power,  or 
of  the  necessity  of  making  the  change  in  the 
Constitution  in  that  particular,  so  as  to  embrace 
the  veto  power?  Was  it  heard  of?  Was  it 
talked  of?  Did  it  enter  into  the  mind  of  a 
single  individual  at  the  time  of  the  call  for  this 
Convention?  Not  one!  We  have  heard  of  it, 
and  only  heard  it  spoken  of  at  the  city  of 
Columbus,  when  my  eloquent  young  friend,  the 
distinguished  orator  from  Hamilton  county 
[Mr.  Hunt]  brought  it  to  the  notice  of  the  Con- 
vention, and  I say  now  that  the  people  do  not 
demand  it.  You  do  not  find  advocates  of  it 


among  the  masses  of  the  people.  They  are 
opposed  to  it.  They  think  we  have,  for  seventy- 
two  years,  prospered,  built  up,  and  become  the 
third  State  in  the  Union,  and,  in  the  progress  of 
time,  will  become  the  first,  perhaps  within  the 
next  decade,  that  we  can  succeed  and  still  have 
that  prosperity  without  this  measure. 

I am  not  willing  to  vote  that  one  man  should 
say,  “ I am  equal  to  two-thirds  or  three-fifths  of 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Ohio.”  I am  not 
willing  to  support  a proposition  that  provides 
that  during  the  last  year  of  his  term  he  shall 
say  to  the  Legislature,  coming  back  fresh  from 
the  people,  knowing  their  wants,  seeking  to 
accommodate  themselves  to  the  people’s  de- 
mands, “ I am  equal,  being  elected  two  years 
ago,  to  three-fifths  of  you,  coming  fresh  from 
the  people.”  For  one,  sir,  I protest  against  it, 
and  I ask  the  gentlemen  to  oppose  this  gag 
rule  this  afternoon,  as  it  has  been  attempted  to 
be  enforced — not  even  giving  us  time  to  oppose 
it,  and  pressing  the  previous  question  upon  their 
action.  I say  to  them,  that  while  my  county  is 
as  strongly  Democratic  as  any  county  in  the 
State,  if  this  provision  is  embodied  in  the 
Constitution,  it  will  not  receive  one-fourth  of 
the  Democratic  votes  of  that  county. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  Before  the  vote  upon 
this  question  is  taken,  I ask  that  I may  be  ex- 
cused from  voting,  the  gentleman  from  Gallia 
[Mr.  McCormick]  having  found  it  necessary  to 
leave  the  Hall  within  the  last  hour,  and  request- 
ed me  to  pair  off  with  him. 

Mr.  Hostetter  was  excused. 

Mr.  COATS.  When  this  question  was  under 
consideration  some  days  ago,  I gave  some  at- 
tention to  the  matter,  and  presented  my  views 
at  some  length  in  reference  thereto.  I then 
opposed  the  veto  power  in  any  and  all  shapes  or 
forms.  I desired  above  all  things,  then,  except 
the  defeat  of  the  proposition,  that  I might  go 
down  to  posterity  recorded  in  opposition  to  this 
grant  of  power — a power  that  I deem  odious, 
inconsistent  with  the  liberal,  progressive  spirit 
of  the  age  in  which  we  live,  and  subversive  of 
the  fundamental  principles  of  free  government. 
As  a matter  of  compromise,  I voted  for  the 
modified  form  of  the  veto  power  that  was,  here- 
tofore, adopted  by  the  Convention,  because  I 
believed  it  was  in  a form  that  rendered  it  per- 
fectly harmless  in  practical  results,  and  I am, 
to-day,  entirely  satisfied  with  my  position  and 
action  in  the  premises.  If  I shall  have  no  other 
legacy  or  inheritance  to  transmit  to  posterity 
in  general,  or  to  those  who  sustain  a nearer  and 
dearer  relationship  who  shall  survive  me, or  come 
after  me,  bearing  my  humble  name,  I desire  to 
leave  to  such  what  I conceive  to  be  the  honor- 
able record  of  my  action  here,  in  opposition  to 
this  proposition,  in  its  present  form,  to  the  ex- 
tent of  my  ability,  both  by  my  voice  and  with 
my  vote,  yielding  only  when  compelled,  by 
inexorable  circumstances,  to  submit. 

Mr.  President,  what  do  we  propose,  in  this 
matter  ? Are  we  advancing,  or  are  we  retrogra- 
ding? I claim  that,  in  this  respect,  we  are  ret- 
rograding, progressing  backward,  with  rapid 
strides,  and  I think  I may  justly  so  claim  this  to 
be  the  tendency  of  the  action  of  this  Conven- 
tion, in  the  proceedings  just  had  in  reference  to 
the  veto  power.  The  name  of  General  Jack- 
son  has  been  called  in,  and  the  aid  of  his  name 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Coats. 


1513 


Day.] 


February  19, 1874.] 


and  character  invoked  to  assist  gentlemen  in 
the  work  of  oarrying  this  measure.  I would 
respectfully  ask  these  gentlemen,  if  they  are 
still  voting  for  Jackson ; or  are  they  represent- 
ing a constituency  that  for  more  than  thirty 
years  past  have  steadily  and  persistently  voted 
for  Jackson?  If  such  a condition  of  things  ex- 
ists with  them,  then  they  are  justified  in  their 
appeals  to  his  name  and  fame,  to  aid  them  in 
the  accomplishment  of  their  present  purpose. 
Mr.  President,  I was  not  of  the  required  age, 
to  enable  me  to  cast  my  vote  for  General  Jack- 
son,  when  he  was  before  the  people,  as  a can- 
didate for  President;  if  I had  been  of  that  re- 
quired age,  I should  have  joined  in  the  enthusi- 
asm, prevalent  in  those  days,  and  should  have 
supported  him.  I did,  as  I now  well  remember, 
join  heartily  in  the  general  “ hurrah  for  Jack- 
son,”  so  common  at  that  time;  but,  because  I 
would  have  supported  him  then,  if  permitted 
to  have  done  so,  am  I called  upon  now  to  aid  in 
conferring  the  prerogative  of  veto  on  the  Exec- 
utive of  our  State,  alter  the  light  and  experi- 
ence of  subsequent  years  has  demonstrated  that 
such  a power  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but  may 
be  productive  of  mischievous  consequences? 
Time,  experience  and  calm  reflection,  I think, 
has,  also,  taught  us  that  the  veto  power  in  the 
hands  of  General  Jackson,  and,  as  exercised  by 
him,  was  of  doubtful  expediency.  At  one 
time,  its  exercise,  during  his  administration, 
was  so  odious,  that  it  was  stigmatized  as  the 
pocket  veto — he,  in  that  instance,  having  failed 
to  return  a bill,  in  the  required  time,  that  had 
been  passed  by  a majority  of  two-thirds  of  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  and  the  failure  by  him  to 
return  it,  as  prescribed  by  the  Constitution, 
being  a more  effectual  defeat  of  the  bill,  than 
would  the  veto  have  been.  Mr.  President,  I 
took  my  first  lessons  in  the  school  of  patriotism, 
under  the  teaching  of  the  fathers  of  the  Revo- 
lution, at  whose  feet  I sat  in  the  days  of  my 
childhood;  from  the  fathers  of  this  Republic, I 
learned  my  love  for  liberal  government.  I drew 
my  early  inspirations  of  patriotism  under  the 
shadow  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  from  the  early 
battle  fields  of  the  war  for  liberty  and  inde- 
pendence. In  more  mature  life,  I gathered 
maxims  that  led  to  the  formation  of  my  politi- 
cal creed  and  faith,  from  the  teaching  of  Jef- 
ferson, Madison,  Franklin,  Monroe,  and  others 
of  their  compeers.  Later  still  in  life,  I prof- 
ited, as  I trust,  by  the  example  and  precepts  of 
Clay,  Webster,  Adams,  and  their  contempora- 
ries, and  long  before  my  feet  had  pressed  the 
soil  of  this,  my  adopted  State,  I yielded  to  no 
man,  here  or  elsewhere,  in  the  depth,  strength 
and  sincerity  of  my  admiration,  or  high  regard 
for  the  purity  of  character,  eminent  abilities, 
incorruptible  integrity,  firmness  and  patriot- 
ism of  that  noble  and  illustrious  statesman, 
whose  life,  example,  fame  and  character  have 
shed  a beautiful  lustre  on  his  State  and  nation, 
the  late  Hon.  Thomas  Ewing,  of  Ohio,  to  whose 
name  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
has  just  made  reference.  My  admiration  of 
him,  in  my  early  life,  reached  very  near  the 
point  forbidden  in  the  Decalogue;  and  I may 
say  further  that,  among  the  people  of  my  native 
State,  there  was  no  man,  whose  name  was  more 
highly  honored  in  life,  or  whose  memory  is  now 
more  revered,  than  is  the  name  of  this  noble 


son  of  Ohio,  the  brightest  genius  the  State  has 
produced.  From  his  example,  I trust  I have  pro- 
fited to  some  extent.  The  teaching  of  these  mas- 
ters, patriots  and  statesmen,  have  profoundly 
impressed  me  with  the  belief,  that  has  “grown 
with  my  growth,  and  strengthened  with  my 
strength,”  that  resistance  to  tyrants  is  obedi- 
ence to  God ; and  I believe  that  resistance  to  all 
forms  of  oppression,  or  centralization  of  power, 
is  in  like  obedience  to  God,  and  is  the  duty  of  all 
who  would  vindicate  their  freedom,  or  are 
worthy  of  it,  as  an  inheritance  from  their 
fathers.  Resistance  to  the  centralization  of 
power  in  one  man,  or  in  the  few  against  the 
many,  I believe  to  be  not  only  obedience  to  Di- 
vine command,  but  it  is  in  complete  harmony 
with  my  convictions  of  duty.  I am,  in  this 
matter,  also  acting  consistent  with  the  pledge 
made  by  me  to  my  constituents  when  consent- 
ing to  be  a candidate  for  the  position  I now 
occupy  as  a member  of  this  Convention.  I have 
never  made  but  the  one  pledge  to  any  people, 
when  nominated  for  office,  and,  God  helping 
me,  I never  shall  make  any  other  pledge,  when 
asked  to  assume  official  position,  or  accept  a 
nomination  therefor.  That  pledge  is  this : that, 
under  all  circumstances,  when  called  upon  to 
act  in  such  position,  I will  bring  the  best  pow- 
ers of  my  mind  and  judgment  to  bear  in  the 
consideration  of  all  questions  requiring  decision 
and  action  on  my  part,  and  then  will  act  as  I 
conceive  it  to  be  my  duty  to  act  in  the  premises. 
I have  so  acted  here,  on  this  and  all  other  prop- 
ositions that  have  required  either  my  vote  or 
voice,  for  or  against  the  same ; and  neither  by 
voice  or  vote,  have  I been  swayed  by  partisan 
feeling  or  prejudice.  If  1 could  make  a Con- 
stitution, either  in  the  whole,  or  in  the  least  of 
its  parts,  of  a partisan  character,  I would  not 
do  it;  nor  will  I consent  to  the  incorporation  of 
partisan  principles,  or  elements  of  that  charac- 
ter, either  for  or  against  my  party  predilec- 
tions, into  the  framework  of  the  instrument  we 
are  now  forming.  I regret  that  partisan 
prejudices  have  been  invoked  or  appealed 
to  here,  or  that  partisan  feeling  has,  in 
any  manner,  aided  in  carrying  this  propo- 
sition thus  far  in  its  progress.  That  this 
feeling  has  influenced  and  contributed  some- 
thing to  the  motive  power  in  carrying  it,  few 
if  any,  will  deny.  I ask  gentlemen  to  pause 
and  reflect,  in  the  course  they  are  pursuing, 
and  if,  on  calm  reflection,  they  think  they  are 
advancing  in  this  matter,  then,  I would  say,  ad- 
vance; but  if  they  are  going  backward  to  the 
principles  of  the  old  republic  of  Rome,  which 
was  a republic  only  in  name,  and  never  such  in 
deed,  truth  or  principles  of  republican  govern- 
ment; or,  if  the  tendency  of  this  measure  is  to 
carry  us  back  to  the  principles  of  old  time  fed- 
eralism, as  illustrated  by  Alexander  Hamilton 
and  his  compeers,  then  I ask  them  to  stay  their 
hands.  I think  we  should  strive  to  secure  the 
greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number.  If  to  go 
backward  will  secure  this  end,  I will  go  back  as 
far  as  he  who  goes  farthest ; but, if  we  are  advanc- 
ing, or  seek  to  advance,  in  the  true  spirit  and  path 
of  enlightened  progress,  let  us  press  forward  in 
our  march,  striving  to  reach  a higher  and  bet- 
ter plane.  Let  us  neither  go  backward  nor  look 
back  in  our  work,  nor  weary  in  well  doing.  It 
has  been  well  said  in  our  hearing  here,  to-day, 


1514 


fll8th 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Coats,  Hoadly,  Adair,  Herron,  Carbery.  [Thursday, 


that  our  State  has  advanced  to  the  the  third 
rank  in  the  family  of  States.  We  have  reached 
this  rank  by  a progression  unparalleled  in  the 
history  of  States,  and,  during  the  entire  period 
of  our  existence  as  a State,  we  have  withheld 
this  power  now  sought  to  he  conferred  on  the 
Executive,  and  I protest  against  it  being  now 
conferred.  I ask  that  you  shall  not  stab  the  in- 
strument we  are  forming  for  the  people  as  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  State,  with  a poisoned 
poignard,  and,  in  doing  so,  give  a fatal  stab  to 
the  liberties  of  the  people.  Hang  not  a weight, 
like  a mill-stone,  about  this  instrument,  that 
will  sink  it  beyond  the  reach  of  honest  inquiry. 
Let  us  go  to  the  people  with  our  work,  trusting 
in  them,  as  in  times  past.  Say  not  to  them,  we 
have  no  confidence  in  you,  and  cannot  trust 
you  to  legislate  for  yourselves  longer;  you  must 
be  restricted.  You  may  elect  a Governor,  but 
he  must  be  armed  with  the  veto  power  to  pre- 
vent you  from  doing  wrong,  mischievous  or 
foolish  things.  This  is  the  language  employed 
in  the  incorporation  of  the  veto  power  into  this 
proposition.  It  is  the  old  Federal  argument  in 
favor  of  centralization.  It  is  an  insult  to  the 
people  to  give  out  to  them,  for  their  approval,  a 
draft  of  an  instrument,  emanating  from  this 
body,  with  this  objectionable  feature  incorpor- 
ated therein ; and  in  that  spirit  I think  it  will 
be  received  by  the  people.  I will  detain  the 
Convention  no  longer.  I have  spoken  without 
previous  preparation,  guided,  as  it  were,  by 
the  light  of  nature  and  the  inspiration  of  the 
moment,  and  thank  the  Convention  for  the 
attention  given  me  in  the  time  occupied  in  these 
remarks. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  After  the  eloquent  remarks 
that  have  been  made  from  “ the  light  of  nature, 
and  the  inspiration  of  the  moment,”  I think  it 
will  be  a waste  of  time  to  have  any  further  de- 
bate. I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  ADAIR.  I ask  for  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  87  mem- 
bers answered  to  their  names,  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose,  Bos  worth,  Burns, 
Byal,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jef- 
ferson, Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey, 
Ewing,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly, 
Horton,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Jackson,  John- 
son, Kerr,  Kraemer,  Layton,  McBride,  Merrill, 
Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen, 
Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond, 
Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell 
of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scrib- 
ner, Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valken- 
burgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Weaver,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of 
Noble,  President — 87. 

The  absentees  were — 

Messrs.  Alexander,  Barnet,  Campbell,  Clark 
of  Ross,  Clay,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Foran, 
God  lrey,  Hostetter,  McCormick,  O’Connor,  Root, 
Scofield,  Watson,  Wells,  White  of  Brown — 17. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
will  close  the  doors. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I move  that  all  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 


The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded.  Objection 
was  made,  but  23  gentlemen  supported  the 
demand. 

So  the  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted 
— yeas  53,  nays  33,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Cha- 
pin, Cook,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kraemer,  Mc- 
Bride, Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner, 
Sears,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van 
Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Weaver,  White  of 
Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 53. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Clark 
of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cowen,  Gardner,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson.  Layton,  Mueller, 
Mullen,  Neal, Okey,  Page,  Philips, Pond,  Reilly, 
Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
Van  Valkenburgh,  Waddle,  West,  Wilson — 33. 
So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on the  motion  for  the  previous  question — Shall 
the  main  question  be  now  put? 

Upon  which  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  45,  nays  41, 
as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dorsey,  Frei- 
berg, Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voor- 
hes, Voris,  Weaver,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young 
of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 45. 
Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Layton,  Miller,  Mi- 
ner, Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phel- 
lis, Philips,  Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith 
of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson, 
Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Van  Valkenburgh, 
Waddle,  West,  White  of  Hocking — 41. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I move  that  the  Convention 
do  now  adjourn. 

Upon  which  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  39,  nays 
46,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Horton,  Jackson,  John- 
son, Layton,  Miller,  Miner,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey, 
Page,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp, 
Tuttle,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Waddle,  West, 
White  of  Hocking — 39. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 


Day.] THE  VETO  POWER.  

February  19,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Hoadly,  Scribner,  Carbery,  etc. 


151& 


Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dorsey, 
Ewing,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt, 
Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell 
of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voor- 
hes,  Voris,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble,  President — 46. 

So  the  motion  to  adjourn  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  motion  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I move  to  lay  the  motion  to 
reconsider  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I submit  that  that  motion  is 
not  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion 
that  it  is  in  order. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  As  I understand  it,  the 
previous  question  has  been  ordered,  and  I reit- 
erate the  point  of  order,  that  there  should  be 
no  motion  to  lay  on  the  table.  I refer  the  Chair 
to  Rule  XLII. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  refer 
gentlemen  to  the  rule  as  laid  down  in  Cushing* 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I desire  to  ask  the  Chair, 
whether  the  question  was  put  to  the  Conven- 
tion, “ Shall  the  main  question  now  be  put  ?” 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  question  was  put 
and  carried.  The  Chair  will  read  the  rule  as 
laid  down  in  Cushing’s  Law  and  Practice  of 
Legislative  Assemblies,  page  559.  “The  first 
effect  of  a decision  of  the  previous  question  in 
the  affirmative,  namely,  that  the  main  question 
be  now  put,  is  that  the  main  question  is  to  be 
taken  as  it  then  stands,  without  any  further 
amendment,  debate,  or  delay,  motions  for  which 
are  no  longer  in  order.  This  last  proposition 
admits  of  two  exceptions  in  practice,  which  are 
contrary  to  the  spirit,  if  not  to  the  letter,  of  the 
rule  first  above  mentioned,  namely,  that  the 
main  question  may  then  be  further  postponed 
by  being  laid  on  the  table,  or  by  an  adjourn- 
ment, and  it  is  immediately  to  be  put  when  the 
subject  is  again  before  the  House ; but  in  no 
other  way  can  the  question  be  postponed.” 

The  question  was  then  put  upon  the  motion 
to  lay  on  the  table. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  42,  nays  45,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Layton,  Miller, 
Miner,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell 
of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
Van  Valkenburgh,  Waddle,  West,  White  of 
Hocking — 42. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  weie — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dorsey, 
Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 


Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sam- 
ple, Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Weaver, 
Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble,  President— 45. 

So  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  not 
agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  motion  to  reconsider. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  42,  nays  45,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Layton,  Miller,  Mi- 
ner, Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phel- 
lis, Philips,  Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
Van  Valkenburgh,  Waddle,  West,  White  of 
Hocking — 42. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dor- 
sey, Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron, 
Hill,  Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer, McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Pease,  Pow- 
ell, Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, Townsend,  Tul- 
loss, Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Wea- 
ver, Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,. 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 45. 

So  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn. 

Upon  which  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  44,  nays 
43,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Dor- 
sey, Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron, 
Hill,  Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer, McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scrib- 
ner, Sears,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Tyler,  Voorhes, 
Voris,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Youug  of  Noble,  President— 44. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Car- 
bery, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Gardner,  Gurley,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Layton,  Miller,  Mi- 
ner, Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Philips, 
Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley, 
Tripp, Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Van 
Voorhis,  Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  White  of  Hock- 
ing— 43. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at5:30p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


1516 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [119th 

Weaver,  Horton,  Mueller,  Humphreville.  [Friday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  NINETEENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FIFTY-SEVENTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  John  Scott,  of  the  Sixth 
Street  Methodist  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  86  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained, 
for  Messrs.  West,  Philips,  and  Miller,  for 
an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

petitions. 

Mr.  WEAVER  presented  the  petition  of  Jas. 
Bressler,  Rev.  Thos.  P.  Johnston,  and  seventy 
other  citizens  of  Putnam  county,  on  the  subject 
of  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  li- 
quors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  HORTON  presented  the  petition  of 
James  Mattoon,  and  sixty -five  other  citizens  of 
Portage  county,  protesting  against  the  incorpo- 
ration into  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  certain 
religious  beliefs  and  opinions. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

FINAL  READING. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Proposition  No.  190 
stands  upon  the  list  for  final  reading  to-day, 
and  the  question  will  be  upon  agreeing  to  the 
Proposition. 

Mr.  MCJELLER.  I think  it  is  in  order  to  of- 
fer amendments  to  some  of  the  sections. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  previous  question,  I 
think,  prevents  that. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  previous  question  ap- 
plies only  to  one  section ; by  adjournment,  the 
previous  question  was  superseded  and  became 
extinct. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I think  the  previous 
question  still  stands. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  After  adjournment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  the  Chair  so  under- 
stands it. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  There  have  three  or  four 
different  actions  taken  place  since. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  informed 
tliat  the  practice  in  the  General  Assembly  is, 
that  adjournment  cuts  off  the  previous  ques- 
tion. That  being  the  case,  Proposition  No.  190 
is  still  open  for  final  amendment. 


Friday,  February  20,  1874. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  move  to  refer  the 
Article  to  a Select  Committee  of  one,  with  in- 
structions to  amend  as  follows: 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  moves  to  refer  the 
Proposition  to  a Select  Committee  of  one,  with 
instructions  to  amend  as  the  Secretary  will 
read : 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  as  fol- 
lows : 

Sec  24.  After  the  words  “no  provision”  in  line  seven, 
strike  out  the  balance  of  the  section  and  insert  “author- 
izing the  expenditure  or  payment  of  money  for  any  pnr- 
pose  not  provided  for  by  pre-existing  law  shall  be  in- 
cluded in  any  hill  making  appropriations  for  a purpose 
which  shall  have  b^cn  so  provided  for.  Nor  shall  more 
than  one  class  of  compensations  or  claims  be  provided 
for  in  the  same  bill.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“Sec.  24.  No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any 
officer,  public  agent,  employe  or  contractor  after  the  ser- 
vice shall  have  been  rendered,  or  the  contract  entered 
into,  nor  shall  any  money  be  appropriated  or  paid  on  any 
claim,  the  subject  matter  of  which  shall  not  have  been 
provided  for  by  pre-existing  law,  unles  such  compensa- 
tion or  claim  be  allowed  by  t wo-thirds  of  the  members 
elected  to  each  branch  of  the  General  Assembly.  No  such 
allowance  shall  be  made  except  by  bill,  and  no  provision 
authorizing  the  expenditure  or  payment  of  money  for  any 
purpose  not  provided  for  by  pre-existing  law  shall  be  in- 
cluded in  any  bill  making  appropriations  for  a pui*pose 
which  shall  have  been  so  provided  for.  Nor  shall  more 
than  one  class  of  compensation  or  claims  be  provided  lor 
in  the  same  bill.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Perhaps,  Mr.  President, 
in  a few  words,  I can  explain  that  this  amend- 
ment is  offered  for  no  other  purpose  than  that 
of  changing  the  phraseology  and  diction  of  the 
latter  part  of  this  section.  The  amendment 
substantially  contains  and  embodies  the  same 
sentiments  that  have  heretofore  been  expressed 
by  this  Convention ; but,  in  consequence  of 
several  amendments  inserted  in  this  section, 
the  language  has  become  confused,  indefinite 
and  inexpressive.  I think  that  this  amendment 
cures  that  defect;  making  the  language  more 
congruous,  expressive  and  definite,  and  more 
as  it  ought  to  be  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
State.  There  is  no  change,  in  so  far  as  the 
spirit  of  the  section  is  concerned. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  If  I understand 
the  amendment  proposed,  from  the  reading  of 
it,  it  is  fully  provided  for  in  the  latter  part  of 
this  section : “And  every  appropriation  for  the 
payment  of  any  such  compensation ” 

Mr.  POWELL.  What  are  you  reading  from 
now? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  From  section  24, 

I in  the  latter  part  of  the  section,  beginning  in 


1517 


DatJ THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


February  20, 1874.]  Humphreville,  Mueller,  Griswold,  Powell,  Beer,  etc. 


line  12.  “And  every  appropriation  for  the  pay- 
ment of  any  such  compensation  or  claim,  in- 
cluded in  any  act  making  several  appropria- 
tions, shall  be  void.”  So  that  an  appropria- 
tion for  any  compensation  or  claim  not  pro- 
vided for  by  pre-existing  law,  cannot;  be  in- 
cluded in  an  appropriation  bill  containing  ap- 
propriations for  any  other  subject.  It  seems  to 
me  that  this  latter  clause  of  this  section  effects 
everything  desired  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuy- 
ahoga [Mr.  Mueller],  if  I understand  his 
amendment.  It  is  all  right  in  principle;  but 
I believe  it  is  already  provided  for  in  this  sec- 
tion. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  call  the  attention 
of  the  gentleman  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphre- 
ville] to  this 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  that  your  section,  the 
same  as  he  read  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  It  is  section  24  to  which  I 
offered  the  amendment.  I do  not  think  that  the 
language,  as  now  expressed  here,  is  correct,  at 
least  in  the  phraseology  of  it.  It  now  reads : 

“No  such  allowance  shall  he  made  except  by  bill,  and 
no  provision  directing  the  payment  of  any  such  compen- 
sation, claim  or  allowance,  or  authorizing  the  expendi- 
ture or  payment  of  money  for  any  purpose  not  provided 
for  by  pre-existing  law  shall  be  included  in  any  bill 
making  appropriations  for  a purpose  which  shall  have 
been  so  provided  for;  and  no  such  bill  shall  embrace  sev- 
eral or  different  classes  of  compensation  or  claim,  and 
every  appropriation  for  the  payment  of  any  such  com- 
pensation or  claim  included  in  any  act  making  several 
appropriations,  shall  be  void.” 

Now,  this  latter  clause  destroys  the  former; 
because  it  does  not  refer  to  the  classes  of  claims. 
This  latter  clause  prohibits  more  than  one 
item  to  be  embraced  in  one  bill,  while  my 
amendment  permits  certain  classes  of  claims  to 
be  in  one  bill.  That  is  all  the  difference. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  for  the  reading  of 
the  section  as  it  would  be  amended. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  moves  to  recommit 
the  proposition — will  the  gentleman  state  the 
motion  again  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  It  is  a motion  to  recommit 
to  a committee  of  one,  with  instructions  to  strike 
out  all  the  latter  part  of  section  24,  after  the 
word  “provision”  in  line  7,  and  insert  this  sub- 
stitute. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  re- 
committing to  a committee  of  one,  with  instruc- 
tions. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  strikes  me,  without  very 
critical  examination,  that  this  amendment  is  an 
improvement ; that  the  phraseology  is  improved, 
and  I do  not  understand  that  there  is  any  other 
change  except  an  improvement  in  the  phrase- 
ology. Being  of  that  opinion,  I shall  vote  for 
it. 

The  vote  being  taken,  a division  was  called 
for. 

Mr.  EWING.  I would  be  glad  to  have  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  ex- 
plain the  necessity  for  his  amendment.  I am 
sure  the  Convention  did  not  hear  or  fully  under- 
stand it. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  When  this  section  24  was 
up  in  this  Convention,  it  was  objected  to  by 
some  members  because  it  makes  it  obligatory 
upon  the  Legislature  to  have  for  each  claim  not 
authorized  by  pre-existing  law  a separate  bill. 
I then,  to  accommodate  the  other  side,  moved 


to  strike  out  the  word  “items”  and  insert 
“classes  of  claims,”  so  that  any  such  bill  might 
cover  all  of  a certain  class  of  claims,  no  matter 
how  many  items  there  were.  The  Convention 
acceded  to  that,  but  after  that  amendment  the 
two  or  three  following  lines  did  not  harmonize 
with  the  new  provision. 

Now,  if  I may  read  section  24,  that  will  show 
the  propriety  of  my  amendment:  “And  no 

such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or  different 
classes  of  compensation” — instead  of  “items,” 
as  it  was  before — and  then,  in  contradiction 
with  the  sentence  as  amended,  it  reads:  “that 
every  appropriation  for  the  payment  of  any 
such  compensation  or  claim” — meaning  any 
item  of  the  claim,  instead  of  classes  of  claims — 
should  be  void.  My  object  is  to  make  the  sec- 
tion consistent  with  itself  and  with  the  spirit  of 
the  Article. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Very  well,  I will  agree  to 
that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  portion  which  is  to  be  stricken  out. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same  as  follows  : 

“Directing  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation, 
claim  or  allowance,  or  authorizing  the  expenditure  or 
payment  of  money  for  any  purpose  not  provided  for  by 
pre-existing  law,  shall  be  include  1 in  any  bill  making 
any  appropriations  for  a purpose  which  shall  have  been 
so  provided  for;  and  no  such  bill  shall  embrace  several  or 
different  classes  of  compensation  or  claim,  and  every  ap- 
propriation for  the  payment  of  any  such  compensation  or 
claim  included  in  any  act  making  several  appropriations, 
shall  be  void.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Now,  what  is  to  be  inserted? 

The  Secretary  read  the  matter  to  be  insert- 
ed as  follows : 

“Authorizing  the  expenditure  or  payment  of  money  for 
any  purpose  not  provided  for  by  pre-existing  law  shall 
be  included  in  any  hill  making  appropriations  for  a pur- 
pose which  shall  have  been  so  provided  for;  nor  shall 
more  than  one  class  of  compensation  or  claims  be  pro- 
vided for  in  the  same  bill.” 

Mr.  BEER.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
author  of  this  amendment,  if  he  does  not  leave 
out  the  last  clause  of  the  section  as  adopted, 
which  provides  that  “every  appropriation  for 
the  payment  of  any  such  compensation  or  claim 
included  in  any  act  making  appropriations  of 
different  classes  shall  be  void.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  That  is  left  out,  because 
there  is  no  necessity  for  it.  If  the  Constitution 
prohibits  a thing  from  being  done,  it  cannot  be 
done.  It  is  only  a surplusage  of  words. 

Mr.  BEER.  There  is  the  same  kind  of  a pro- 
vision in  section  16,  that  is,  that  “no  bill  shall 
contain  more  than  one  subject,  which  shall  be 
clearly  expressed  in  its  title,  etc.”  But,  our 
supreme  court  have  held  that  this  is  merely  di- 
rectory, and  not  mandatory.  Exactly  of  the 
same  character  is  this : that  a bill  shall  em- 
brace but  one  kind  or  class  of  compensation ; 
but  it  does  not  provide  that  a bill  embracing 
different  classes  of  compensation  shall  be  void; 
and  without  that  provision  attached  to  it,  by 
the  same  sort  of  reasoning,  of  course,  the  su- 
preme court  will  hold  the  act  not  to  be  uncon- 
stitutional. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I,  myself,  will  not  object 
if  the  Convention  concludes  that  it  ought  to  be ; 
but,  I do  not  see  how,  under  this  provision,  the 
Legislature  could  appropriate  money.  If  the 
Legislature  is  disregarding  the  restriction,  of 
course,  we  cannot  prevent  that. 


1518 


[119th 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Beer,  Mueller,  Sears. 


Mr.  BEER.  If  the  gentleman  will  turn  to 
section  16,  he  will  find  the  last  clause  of  that 
section  commencing,  “No  bill  shall  contain 
•more  than  one  subject,  which  shall  be  clearly 
expressed  in  its  title,”  etc.  That  is  as  positive 
in  its  directions  as  that  just  read  by  the  Secre- 
tary. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  not  undertake  to 
decide  that  you  are  wrong;  it  may  be  you  are 
right..  I only  left  it  out  for  the  purpose  I have 
stated*;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  to  amend  the  instruc- 
tions, so  as  to  include  the  last  clause  of  the 
section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  accepts  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer],  the  object  will  be  accomplished  by  stri- 
king out  only  down  to  and  including  the  word 
^‘claim,”  in  line  twelve. 

Mr.  SEARS.  See  how  that  will  fit. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  substitute  as  it  would  read  by  striking 
out  only  from  the  word  “provision,”  in  line 
seven,  down  to  and  including  the  word  “claim,” 
in  line  twelve. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

“No  such  allowance  shall  he  made  except  by  bill,  and 
no  provision  authorizing  the  expenditure  or  payment  of 
monev  for  any  purpose  not  provided  for  by  pre-existing 
•law  shall  be  included  in  anv  bill  making  appropriations 
for  a purpose  which  shall  have  been  so  provided  for.  Nor 
shall  more  than  one  class  of  compensation  or  claims  be 
provided  for  in  the  same  bill,  and  every  appropriatiou  for 
the  payment  of  any  such  compensation  or  claim  included 
in  any  act  making'several  appropriations  shall  be  void.” 

Mr.  SEARS.  Allow  me,  Mr.  President,  to 
inquire  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Mueller],  if  it  would  not  be  necessary  to 
change  the  words  “several  appropriations,”  in 
that  last  clause,  as  it  stands  now,  to  “appropria- 
tions of  different  classes”? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  That  is  what  I thought  to 
accomplish  by  this  amendment. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Is  not  that  necessary  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I think  it  is. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Strike  out  the  words  “several 
appropriations,”  and  insert  “appropriations  of 
different  classes.” 

The  Secretary.  So  that  it  will  read  : 

“And  every  appropriation  for  the  payment  of  any  such 
compensation  or  claim  included  in  any  act  making  ap- 
propriations of  different  classes,  shall  be  void.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  Convention  ready 
for  the  question  on  recommitting  to  a commit- 
tee of  one,  with  instructions? 

The  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  was  agreed 
to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  name 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller] 
as  that  Committee. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Mr.  President,  as  that 
Committee,  I submit  my  Report,  requesting 
that  it  be  read  by  the  Srcretary. 

The  Secretary.  Mr.  Mueller,  as  the  Select 
Committee  of  One,  to  whom  was  referred  sec- 
tion 24  of  Proposition  No.  190,  with  instructions 
to  amend,  reports  the  same  back,  amended  as 
follows : 

“Sec.  24.  No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any 
officer,  public  agent  or  contractor  after  the  service  shall 
.have  been  rendered  or  the  contract  entered  into,  nor 
shall  any  money  be  appropriated  or  paid  on  any  claim, 
the  subject  matter  of  which  shall  not  have  been  provided 


[Friday, 


for  by  pre-existing  law,  unless  such  compensation  or 
claim  be  allowed  by  two-thirds  of  the  members  elected  to 
each  bi-anch  of  the  General  Assembly.  No  such  allow- 
ance shall  be  made  except  by  bill,  and  no  provision  au- 
thorizing the  expenditure  or  payment  of  money  for  any 
purpose,  not  pi’ovided  for  by  pre-existing  law,  shall  be 
included  in  any  bill  making  appropriations  for  a purpose 
which  shall  have  been  so  provided  for;  nor  shall  more 
than  one  class  of  compensation  or  claims  be  provided  for 
in  the  same  bill,  and  every  appropriation  for  the  payment 
of  any  such  compensation  or  claim  included  in  any  act 
making  appropriation  of  different  classes,  shall  be  void.” 

Upon  which  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  but,  objection  being  made,  the  call 
was  not  sustained. 

The  vote  being  taken,  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  One  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  ask  leave  of  the 
Convention  to  offer  another  amendment,  but  if 
it  shall  meet  with  much  opposition,  I would, 
rather  than  to  have  the  time  of  the  Convention 
wasted,  withdraw  it.  I move  to  refer  the  Arti- 
cle to  a committee  of  one,  with  instruction  to 
amend  as  follow;  and  I will  give  the  reason 
for  it  in  a few  words : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  moves  to  refer  the 
Article  to  a committee  of  one,  with  instruction 
to  amend  as  follows : 

“Sec.  5.  No  person  convicted  of  an  embezzlement  of 
public  funds,  of  bribery,  perjury,  or  other  infamous 
crime,  shall  be  eligible  to  a seat  in  the  General  Assem- 
ble; nor  shall  any  person  holding  money  for  disburse- 
ment or  otherwise  have  a seat  therein  until  he  shall  have 
accounted  for  and  paid  such  money  into  the  treasury.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  state,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, with  regard  to  this  section  five,  though  I 
was  a member  of  the  Committee,  that  its  defect 
escaped  my  notice.  If  gentlemen  will  read  the 
Article,  they  will  see  how  incongruous  it  is  in 
its  present  shape.  The  section  referring  to  the 
officers  of  the  State  does  not  belong  to  this  Ar- 
ticle. Looking  back  over  the  old  Constitution, 
from  which  it  is  copied,  I could  not  understand 
by  what  mode  of  reasoning  it  was  there;  but 
when  I referred  back  to  the  Constitution  of 
1802  the  mystery  was  explained.  There  it  re- 
fers only  to  members  of  the  General  Assembly. 
My  amendment  is  intended  to  make  the  section 
applicable  only  to  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly, because  this  Article  treats  of  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  and  nothing  else.  In  some 
other  Article,  which  treats  of  officers  of  the 
State,  this  section  may  be  proper,  but  nobody 
would  look  for  it  in  this  Article  on  the  Legisla- 
tive Department.  My  substitute  offered  for  the 
section  will  apply  to  members  of  the  General 
Assemby  only.  I have  added  other  causes  on  ac- 
count of  which  I think  a person  ought  not  to  be 
eligible  to  a seat  in  the  General  Assembly.  If 
embezzlement  of  public  funds  disqualifies  him, 
then  I think  he  ought  not  to  have  a seat  there  if 
convicted  of  any  crime  whatever.  So  I added, 
also,  “bribery,  perjury  and  other  infamous 
crimes.”  I think  if  persons  in  this  State  have 
been  convicted  of  such  crimes  they  ought  not  to 
be  allowed  to  occupy  a seat  in  the  General  As- 
sembly. There  might  be  cases  where  men  con- 
victed of  these  crimes,  and,  after  having  served 
out  a term  in  the  penitentiary, become  afterwards 
reformed ; but  I do  not  think  they  should  be 
honored  on  that  account,  and  permitted  to  oc- 
cupy positions  to  which  the  best  only  ought  to 
aspire.  I am  of  the  decided  opinion,  therefore, 
that  there  ought  to  be  a provision  prohibiting 


JAMES  B STEEDMAN  SWORN  IN. 

Scribner,  Hitchcock,  Humphreville,  etc. 


1519 


Day.] 

February  20,  1874.] 


the  sending  of  such  persons  to  act  as  members 
of  the  General  Assembly.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  I have  offered  the  amendment,  but  if  it 
shall  provoke  much  opposition,  I will  be  ready, 
at  any  time,  to  withdraw  it. 

credentials  of  member  elect  to  fill  vacancy 

CAUSED  BY  THE  RESIGNATION  OF 
PRESIDENT  WAITE. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  desires  to  in- 
form the  Convention  that  the  member  elect  from 
Lucas  county,  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused  by  the 
resignation  of  President  Waite,  is  now  present, 
and  ready  to  be  sworn  in. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I desire  to  present  the  cre- 
dentials of  my  colleague,  and  ask  that  the  Sec- 
retary read  them. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  be  no  objection, 
the  delegate  will  be  sworn  in.  Mr.  Steedman 
will  come  forward  and  receive  the  oath  of  of- 
fice. 

Mr.  Steedman  then  came  forward  and  took 
the  oath,  administered  in  the  form  following,  by 
Jerome  DuBois,  a Notary  Public  for  the  county 
of  Hamilton : 

“You  do  solemnly  swear  that  ^ou  will  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  you  will  faithfully 
discharge  the  duties  of  a member  of  the  Convention 
called  to  revise,  alter  or  amend  the  Constitution  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  according  to  the  best  of  your  skill  and 
ability,  and  this  you  do,  as  you  shall  answer  unto  God.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I suppose  it  would  be 
proper  that  his  certificate  should  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Credentials — would  it  not? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  might  be  well  to 
do  so. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  was  no  objection 
made  to  his  being  sworn  in,  and  the  Chair  thinks 
such  reference  now  unnecessary.  The  Secre- 
tary will  forward  the  certificate  to  the  Secretary 
of  State. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I wish  to  say  that 
section  5,  in  this  report,  is  precisely  like  sec- 
tion 5 in  our  present  Constitution.  There  were 
no  suggestions  in  the  Committee  that  this  sec- 
tion should  be  changed,  and  it  w^as  reported 
precisely  as  here  given.  One  rule  that  governed 
that  Committee  was,  that  unless  we  could  see 
some  good  reason  for  making  a change  in  the 
present  Constitution,  no  change  should  be  made. 
The  section'  of  the  present  Constitution  reads : 
“No  person  hereafter  convicted  of  an  embezzle- 
ment of  the  public  funds  shall  hold  any  office  in 
this  State,  nor  shall  any  person,  holding  public 
money  for  disbursement,  or  otherwise,  have  a 
seat  in  the  General  Assembly,  until  he  shall 
have  accounted  for,  and  paid  such  money  into 
the  treasury.” 

Now,  I do  not  know  why  that  is  not  a wise 
provision.  If  I understand  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  it  is 
to  confine  this  provision  only  to  members  of 
the  General  Assembly — shall  not  hold  a seat  in 
the  General  Assembly — and  that  this  is  not  the 
place  to  provide  that  they  shall  hold  no  other 
office  in  the  State;  but,  as  that  has  been  in 
operation  for  twenty-two  years  or  more,  and  it 
seems  to  have  worked  well  enough,  and  I know 
of  no  injustice  done  under  it,  I am  opposed  to 
changing  that  provision  in  the  Constitution.  I 
see  no  necessity  for  the  change  in  the  section. 
The  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 


will  make  it  much  broader,  if  I understand  its 
effect. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Yes,  as  it  includes  also 
“ bribery,  perjury,  and  other  infamous  crimes.” 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Section  4 of  Arti- 
cle V,  of  the  present  Constitution,  will  proba- 
bly meet  the  case  which  the  gentleman  wishes 
to  provide  for.  It  reads : “ The  General  Assem- 
bly shall  have  power  to  exclude  from  the  privi- 
lege of  voting  or  being  eligible  to  office  any 
person  convicted  of  bribery,  perjury,  or  other 
infamous  crime.”  Now,  I do  not  suppose  it  is 
necessary  to  put  into  the  Constitution  an  abso- 
lute prohibition,  since  the  Legislature  will  make 
such  provision. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  If  such  a crime  is  sufficient 
to  prevent  a man  from  being  a member  of  the 
Legislature,  I want  to  know  why  this  is  left  to 
the  General  Assembly?  There  is  a broad  prin- 
ciple that  I want  this  Convention  to  establish. 
I do  not  want  the  Legislature  to  have  power  to 
provide  whether  a person  who  has  been  con- 
victed of  bribery,  or  perjury,  or  other  crime, 
might  or  might  not  be  eligible  to  that  body,  j 
think  this  is  for  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
represented  by  this  Convention,  to  say.  It  is  a 
very  important  principle,  and  I want  that  to  be 
established  here  as  an  inflexible  rule,  and  not 
left  to  the  Legislature  for  their  decision. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I want  to  know  if 
the  gentleman  wants  to  shut  the  door  so  that  a 
man  who  has  been  unfortunate  in  the  commis- 
sion of  a crime  could  never  have  a chance  for 
reform,  or  to  hold  office  again? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  be  very  glad  if 
he  might,  if  he  was  going  to  reform;  but  I do 
not  want  to  pave  the  way  to  have  men  convicted 
of  such  crimes  sent  to  the  Legislature.  If  they 
are  going  to  reform,  let  them  do  so;  but  I do 
not  want  to  compensate  them  because  they  have 
reformed,  by  giving  them  an  office  in  the  State 
of  Ohio.  That  is  a false  principle  entirely. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  want  to 
consume  the  whole  ten  minutes  of  my  time,  and 
gentlemen  may  interrupt  me  as  often  as  they 
wish  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  is  not 
limited  to  ten  minutes  now. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Persons  who  have 
fallen  have  sometimes  reformed;  and  I desire 
that  if  the  people  of  the  county  or  district  find 
that  they  have  reformed  and  have  become  good 
citizens,  they  may  have  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  citizenship.  Frequently  men  are  con- 
victed of  crime  unjustly  from  false  testimony. 
Circumstances  may  look  very  much  against 
them  when  they  are  really  innocent,  and  such 
men  may  be  good  citizens,  notwithstanding 
they  may  have  been  convicted  of  such  crimes ; 
and  I do  not  want  to  shut  them  out  by  Constitu- 
tional provision.  J am  willing  to  leave  it  to  the 
General  Assembly  to  say  whether  they  shall  be 
excluded  or  not.  This  provision  goes  far 
enough  when  it  says : “ No  person  convicted 

of  an  embezzlement  of  the  public  funds.”  We 
ought  to  do  all  we  can  to  guard  the  Treasury  of 
the  State,  county  and  township.  There  is  too 
much  embezzlement  going  on,  and  if  the  party 
prosecuted  be  convicted — they  are  seldom  con- 


1520 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. [119th 

Humphrevii le,  Pond,  Mueller,  Baber.  [Friday, 


victed  by  false  testimony — in’such  cases  I am 
willing  to  say  that  they  never  shall  have  a seat 
in  the  General  Assembly  or  hold  any  other 
office.  They  are  not  suitable  persons  to  hold 
office  if  they  will  willfully  and  deliberately 
embezzle  public  money.  I see  no  reason  for 
this  change,  and  will,  therefore,  vote  against  it, 
and  hope  that  it  will  not  prevail.  I have  little 
interest  in  this  Article.  It  has  been  emascu- 
lated in  some  of  its  provisions  which  I think 
valuable,  but  I want  it  still,  to  succeed.  I be- 
lieve it  is  better  than  the  Article  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  in  our  present  Constitution, 
taken  as  a whole;  and  if  it  is  defeated  here,  we 
will  fall  back  with  as  good  grace  as  we  may, 
upon  the  present  Article,  and  that  is  not  a very 
bad  one.  We  can  live  under  it  yet  as  we  have 
lived  under  it. 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  again  read  the 
original  section,  and  the  proposed  substitute. 

Mr.  POND.  I hope  that  this  amendment 
will  not  be  adopted.  I would  favor,  so  far  as  I 
know  now,  modifying  the  first  sentence  in  the 
original  section.  I doubt  very  much,  sir,  whether 
a person  who  has  been  guilty  or  rather  has  been 
convicted — that  is  the  language  used  here — of  an 
embezzlement  of  the  public  f unds,  should  be  pro- 
hibited from  holding  any  office  in  this  State.  I 
doubt,  sir,  the  propriety  in  this  age  of  the  world, 
of  maintaining  that  old  rule  that  England  and 
other  countries  have  adopted  and  held  to  for  so 
many  generations,  of  attainting  the  blood  of  a 
man  for  the  commission  of  any  crime.  I can 
conceive  of  instances  where,  perhaps,  a techni- 
cal embezzlement  has  been  committed,  where 
there  was  no  moral  guilt  in  the  man.  Is  the 
finger  of  scorn  to  be  pointed  at  that  man  etern- 
ally, by  saying  “ You  are  forever  prohibited 
from  holding  office  in  the  State  of  Ohio.”  I do 
not  believe  in  that  doctrine.  But  the  limitation 
of  it  is  here : If  he  has  been  convicted  of  “ an 
embezzlement  of  the  public  funds’ f ; that  is  all 
there  is  of  it,  and  I am  opposed,  if  that  is  re- 
tained, to  going  one  inch  further,  and  saying 
that  anybody  who  has  been  convicted  of  any 
crime,  shall  be  followed  by  this  stigma.  I 
believe  that  we  ought  to  do  something  in  this 
country  by  way  of  encouragement  as  well  as  of 
punishment,  and  when  a person  turns  away 
from  crime  and  is  endeavoring  to  be  more  res- 
pectable, he  should  receive  encouragement.  I 
never  knew  anybody  made  better  by  this  sort 
of  influence  which  is  proposed  to  be  brought 
to  bear  upon  him  here.  You  benefit  nobody, 
and  do  these  persons  no  good.  Why,  you  tell 
him,  so  far  as  you  are  concerned,  “ You  are  not 
only  now  under  stigma  and  suffering  punish- 
ment,” (perhaps,  he  may  have  been  incarcerated 
in  the  penitentiary),  “but  you  shall  forever  be 
degraded.”  I never  knew  anybody  to  be  made 
better  by  such  a course.  There  is  hardly  any 
man,  perhaps,  on  this  floor,  that  has  not  been 
guilty  at  some  time  of  some  moral  wrong;  per- 
haps, not  guilty  of  a crime  that  would  send 
them  to  the  penitentiary;  but  shall  a stigma  be 
put  upon  him  to  aggravate  his  crime.  For  one, 
I confess  I have  been  guilty  of  wrongs.  If  there 
is  one  here  who  has  not  been  thus  guilty,  let 
him  cast  the  first  stone. 

A MEMBER  (in  his  seat$.  Let  him  say 
“aye.”  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  POND.  I am  opposed  to  this  whole  thing. 


There  is  another  thing.  The  words  “infamous 
crime”  is  an  expression  that  I do  not  under- 
stand, and  I have  not  heard  anybody  yet  in  this 
country  say  what  it  means,  or  how  far  it  ex- 
tends, whether  in  Ohio  misdemeanors  or  felon- 
ies, or  what,  are  infamous  crimes.  We  have 
not.  in  this  country,  a class  of  infamous  crimes, 
so  that  we  can  tell  what  those  crimes  are.  I say, 
so  far  as  that  is  concerned,  it  is  indefinite,  and 
I hope  it  will  not  be  included.  I have  a notion 
to  make  a motion,  and  I believe  I will,  that  we 
strike  out  so  much  of  the  original  section  as 
reads:  “No  person  convicted  of  an  embezzle- 
ment of  the  public  funds,  shall  hold  any  office 
in  this  State;”  and  change  the  word  “nor”  to 
“no,”  omitting  the  words  “shall  any.”,  That 
change  would  satisfy  me  very  well.  I will  not, 
however,  make  that  motion  now,  but  hope  they 
will  be  stricken  out.  Ido  not  believe  that  when 
a man  is  made  an  elector,  and  the  people  see  fit, 
after  he  is  convicted  of  embezzlement  of  the  pub- 
lic funds,  or  any  other  crime,  if  he,  by  living  a 
virtuous  life  for  years,  has  redeemed  himself  in 
the  estimation  of  the  community,  that  we 
should  forbid  them  from  electing  any  such 
elector,  if  they  see  fit.  If  we  disfranchised 
him,  and  would  say  that  he  shall  not  have  the 
qualification  of  an  elector,  then,  perhaps,  there 
might  be  a good  reason  for  disqualifying  him 
for  holding  office,  but  so  long  as  he  holds  his 
franchise,  I say  we  have  no  right  to  prevent 
him  from  holding  office. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  My  amendment  does  not 
say  that  he  should  not  be  entitled  to  hold  office; 
it  says  he  shall  not  be  a member  of  the  General 
Assembly.  I would  like  to  know  your  under- 
standing of  that  Article.  Why  should  he  be 
ineligible  to  the  General  Assembly,  after  em- 
bezzling public  funds,  while  some  man  who 
may,  perhaps,  have  committed  bribery  or  per- 
jury, may  get  the  position?  1 propose  this 
amendment  because,  as  the  matter  stands  now, 

I there  is  nothing  to  prevent  men  guilty  of  these 
crimes  from  holding  that  position. 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  see,  Mr.  President  and 
I gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  any  reason  for 
I the  distinction  the  gentleman  makes.  I would 
i Mke  to  know  how  much  higher  up  or  more  im- 
i portant  is  the  position  of  a member  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly — House  or  Senate — than  the 
Treasurer  of  State.  By  this  amendment  you 
I may  make  him  Treasurer  of  State,  to  handle  the 
funds,  or  place  him  in  any  other  office  in  the 
gift  of  the  people  of  the  State;  but  he  shall  not 
I go  into  your  General  Assembly  to  represent  his 
j constituency.  I see  no  reason  for  that  dis- 
tinction. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  reason  is  this : It  is 
| because  we  are  now  treating  the  Legislative 
I subject,  and  not  considering  any  other  sub- 
; ject. 

Mr.  POND.  Well,  I object  to  the  whole 
' thing;  I do  not  believe  in  the  principle. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I do  not  believe  in  pitting 
1 morality  against  crime. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  have  the  gentle- 
man describe  what  is  an  “ infamous  crime?”  I 
i do  not  know  the  meaning  of  that. 

Mr.  BABER.  I think  the  amendment  of  the 
j gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  is 
I entirely  too  broad ; but  I do  not  agree  with  the 
| remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


1521 


Day.] 

February  20,  1874.] 


Baber,  Beer,  Mueller,  Ewing,  Neal. 


Pond].  This  disqualification  in  this  amend- 
ment extends,  as  1 understand,  in  addition,  to 
“ bribery,  perjury  and  other  infamous  crimes.” 
Now,  while  I am  willing  to  vote  that  it  shall 
extend  to  bribery,  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
man  ineligible  who  buys  or  sells  a vote,  I 
think  extending  it  to  other  infamous  crimes  is 
carrying  it  too  far.  The  effect  of  that  language 
would  be  to  include  a man  who  is  convicted  of 
manslaughter — that  is  an  infamous  crime.  It 
is  making  it  too  broad;  and,  therefore,  I move 
to  strike  out  the  words  “perjury  or  other 
infamous  crimes,”  so  it  may  be  confined  to 
“ bribery.”  That  is  the  provision  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  the  provision  in  a good  many  other 
States.  That  it  may  stand  in  that  shape,  I move 
to  amend  the  amendment  to  recommit,  with 
instructions,  by  striking  out  of  the  instructions 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Mueller]  the  words  “perjury  or  other  in- 
famous crimes.” 

Mr.  BEER.  I suggest  that  perhaps  the  in- 
tendment of  this  is  misunderstood.  The  propo- 
sition is  to  send  these  men  to  the  Legislature  as 
an  additional  penalty.  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  BABER.  I make  the  motion  to  strike 
out  the  words,  “or  other  infamous  crimes.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I accept. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  no  objection? 
The  question  is  on  striking  out  the  words,  “ or 
other  infamous  crimes.” 

Upon  the  vote  being  taken,  a division  was 
called  for,  and  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  other 
amendments  ? If  not,  the  question  is,  shall  the 
Proposition  be  agreed  to? 

Mr.  EWING.  This  Legislative  Article  in- 
cludes several  clauses  I would  like  to  omit,  and 
omits  several  I would  like  to  include.  But  it 
embraces  some  excellent  modifications  of  the 
present  Constitution,  and  will,  in  my  judgment, 
as  a whole,  be  acceptable  to  the  people. 

I would  have  preferred  to  have  had  the  ma- 
jority, rather  than  the  three-fifths  veto.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  majority  veto,  and  the 
power  to  single  out  for  its  exercise  any  item  of 
an  appropriation  bill,  while  letting  the  rest  go 
into  effect — thus  making  it  nearly  impossible, 
with  an  honest  and  careful  Executive,  to  load 
indispensable  appropriations  with  corrupt  or 
imprudent  ones — and  the  requirement  that  a 
bill  shall  be  passed  at  least  three  days  before 
adjournment,  added  to  the  checks  of  the  pres- 
ent Constitution,  are  sufficient  vetoes  on  hasty, 
unconsidered,  or  bad  legislation.  I,  therefore, 
voted  against  the  change  made  yesterday  of  the 
majority  to  the  three-fifth  veto,  which,  in  cases 
where  the  Governor  chooses  to  exercise  it,  gives 
him  a power  equal  to  nine  per  cent,  of  the  votes 
of  each  House.  But  the  subject  has  been  ably 
and  amply  discussed  over  and  over  again ; the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  decided  for  the  three- 
fifths  veto;  the  Convention  subsequently 
adopted  the  majority  plan ; and  yesterday,  on 
final  reading,  the  Convention  restored  the 
three-fifths  by  a vote  of  forty-seven  to  forty- 
one — the  forty-seven  yeas  being  more  than  a 
majority  of  the  largest  vote  cast  in  the  Conven- 
tion on  any  question  during  its  adjourned  ses- 
sion. 

In  view  of  the  generally  acceptable  charac- 
ter of  the  rest  of  this  Article,  of  the  luminous  J 

V.II--98 


and  voluminous  discussions  of  the  veto  already 
had,  of  the  large  amount  of  work  yet  before 
us,  of  our  own  impatience,  and  the  less  flatter- 
ing impatience  of  our  constituents  at  our  al- 
ready protracted  session,  I am  unwilling,  by 
withholding  my  vote,  to  prevent  the  adoption 
of  this  Article  by  the  fifty-three  votes  necessary 
on  final  passage,  and  to  thus  lift  again  the  flood- 
gates of  debate  on  this  vexed  question. 

If  this  three-fifths  veto  seemed  to  me  to  vio- 
late any  principle  of  democratic-republican 
government,  I would  not  vote  for  the  Article 
containing  it.  If  there  be  a principle  in- 
volved, it  is  violated  by  a majority  as  clearly, 
if  not  to  so  great  an  extent,  as  by  a three-fifths 
veto.  But  in  my  judgment  that  question  is  one 
of  expediency  only,  as  I endeavored  to  point 
out  in  my  remarks  on  the  subject  recently. 
The  experiences  of  the  twenty-three  States 
which  have  a two-thirds  or  a three-fifths  veto, 
and  of  the  ten  States  which  have  the  majority 
veto,  and  the  five  which  have  no  veto  at  all, 
lead  me  to  the  further  conclusion  that  it  is  not 
a question  of  the  first  magnitude ; for,  so  far  as 
I am  aware,  the  question  of  veto  or  no  veto, 
strong  veto  or  weak  veto,  never  agitated  the 
public  mind  of  any  State  of  this  Union.  That 
the  question  of  the  exercise  of  that  power  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  divided  and 
agitated  the  Whig  and  the  Democratic  parties  in 
national  politics  is  true,  but  is  also  irrelevant; 
for,  in  the  presence  of  such  abundant  experi- 
ence as  to  the  effect  of  this  power  in  the  States, 
we,  who  are  making  a State  Constitution,  can 
get  little  additional  light  from  the  history  of 
the  exercise  of  the  power  in  the  more  complex 
Federal  system,  with  its  widely  diversified  and 
often  antagonistic  constituencies  and  interests. 

In  looking  over  the  list  of  the  seventeen  absen- 
tees, on  the  vote  adopting  this  amendment 
yesterday,  I do  not  see  that  one  side  lost  by 
their  absence,  in  votes,  more  than  the  other;  so 
that  the  relative  strength  of  the  two  parties  on 
this  question  would,  probably,  have  been  the 
same  had  every  delegate  been  present.  But  we 
have  not  had,  and  probably  shall  not  have,  a 
larger  attendance  at  any  session  in  this  city  than 
yesterday.  There  seems  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  Convention  would  go  back  to  the  ma- 
jority veto  if  the  question  were  kept  open  by 
the  rejection  of  the  Legislative  Article.  And  to 
reject  that  Article  in  the  hope  of  effecting  such 
action  would  be  carrying  the  contest  further 
than  my  views  of  the  character  and  importance 
of  the  question  require,  and  would  be,  more- 
over, incurring  a danger  of  the  failure  of  our 
Convention  and  its  work  through  want  of  de- 
cision and  harmony.  For  these  reasons,  I shall 
vote  to  adopt  the  Legislative  Article. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I move  to  refer  this  Article  to  a 
select  committee  of  one,  with  instructions  to 
strike  out  all  that  part  of  section  28,  after  the 
word  “ constitution,”  in  line  six. 

The  Secretary  read  it. 

Mr.  NEAL.  When  this  Article  was  under 
consideration  in  the  Convention,  I made  this 
same  motion.  Without  debate,  the  Convention 
decided  not  to  strike  out.  I renew  the  motion, 
with  the  hope  and  expectation  that  the  consid- 
eration will  be  given  to  it  which  its  importance, 
in  my  opinion,  demands.  The  Convention  will 
observe,  by  an  examination  of  the  9tli  section 


1522 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Neal,  Powell,  Hoadly,  Tuttle. 


[119th 


[Friday, 


of  the  Article  upon  county  and  township  or- 
ganizations, that  there  is,  apparently  at  least, 
a conflict  between  this  section  and  that.  That 
section  provides  that  county  and  township  or- 
ganizations may  have  such  local  powers  of  tax- 
ation for  police  purposes  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  law.  This  section  provides  that  there  shall 
be  no  special  powers  or  privileges  conferred 
upon  any  county  that  is  not  conferred  upon 
counties  of  the  same  class.  Now,  Mr.  President, 
if  I understand  local  taxation,  it  means  powers 
of  taxation  conferred  upon  a particular  lo- 
cality, a particular  county  or  municipal- 
ity. This  section  requires  that  the  same  power 
shall  be  conferred  upon  all  counties  of  the 
same  class.  Now,  it  is  true  this  Convention 
does  not  undertake  to  classify  counties,  nor  do 
I believe  the  General  Assembly  would  under- 
take to  classify  them,  on  account  of  the  inherent 
difficulties  attending  it,  unless  they  should 
say  that  each  county  shall  constitute  a 
class,  by  which  they  will  be  enabled  to 
evade  the  provisions  of  this  section.  We  do 
not  want  any  such  evasion ; we  do  not  want  the 
General  Assembly  to  be  compelled  to  resort  to 
any  such  shifts  and  subterfuges  in  order  to  get 
rid  of  this  provision.  It  is  far  more  manly,  it 
is  far  more  in  accordance  with  every  one’s 
sense  of  propriety,  that,  when  local  powers  of 
taxation  are  necessary  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever, the  Legislature  should  be  permitted  to  say 
that  the  county  of  Lucas  may  do  so  and  so,  the 
county  of  Champaign  so  and  so,  or  the  county 
of  Lawrence  so  and  so.  Let  me  say,  at  this 
point,  that  the  matter  proposed  to  be  stricken 
out  is  an  addition  to  the  Article  of  the  present 
Constitution.  The  Convention  of  1851  sup- 
posed, when  they  adopted  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, they  had  provided  sufficient  safeguards 
against  the  evils  of  local  legislation.  The  ne- 
cessities of  the  different  localities  of  the  State, 
however,  have  been  so  great  that  we  find  our 
General  Assembly  has  been  compelled,  from 
session  to  session,  and  from  year  to  year,  to  pass 
laws  conferring  special  powers  and  privileges 
upon  counties.  I hold  in  my  hand  the  seven- 
tieth volume  of  Ohio  Laws.  Gentlemen  will 
find,  upon  referring  to  that  volume,  that  very 
many  counties  and  townships  in  the  State  re- 
quire special  powers  to  be  conferred  upon  them 
which  was  not  demanded  or  required  upon 
other  counties  and  townships  throughout  the 
State  of  Ohio.  Upon  page  324  there  is  an  act 
which  authorizes  the  commissioners  of  Hardin 
county  to  transfer  from  the  books  of  the  treas- 
urer of  that  county  a certain  sum  of  money 
from  the  poor  fund  to  the  infirmary  fund  of 
said  county.  Now,  that  was  an  act  which  con- 
cerned, probably,  that  county  alone.  It  may 
not  be  necessary  that  the  powers  conferred  shall 
ever  again  be  exercised  by  a county  in  this 
State;  and  yet,  under  this  provision,  the  same 
powers  will  have  to  be  conferred  on  every 
county  throughout  the  State  of  Ohio,  unless 
they  are  classified  in  the  manner  I have  hereto- 
fore indicated.  So  you  will  find  upon  turning 
to  other  laws.  There  is  an  act  on  the  327th 
page,  authorizing  the  commissioners  of  Lorain 
county  to  construct  a drawbridge  across  Black 
river.  No  other  county  in  the  State,  perhaps, 
requires  such  authority.  Now,  legislation  of 
this  kind  is  not  injurious  in  its  character.  It  is 


beneficial.  And  it  seems  to  me,  it  is  far  better 
that  we  should  have  a few  local  laws  of  this 
nature,  which  are  confined  exclusively  in  their 
benefits  to  particular  localities,  than  that  we 
should  have  general  statutes  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  crowded  with  general  acts,  intended  to 
apply  to  particular  cases,  and  in  which  one  or 
two  counties  alone  may  be  interested. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  the  gentleman  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  what  provision 
proposed  to  the  Constitution  he  alludes  to  as 
objectionable  to  such  local  legislation? 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  very  provision  which  I ask 
the  Convention  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  know  exactly  what 
that  was. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  latter  clause  of  section  28  : 
“Nor  shall  any  act  be  passed  conferring  special 
powers  or  privileges  upon  any  county,  city, 
village,  township,  or  other  municipality,  that 
shall  not  be  conferred  upon  all  counties,  cities, 
villages,  townships  and  municipalities  of  the 
same  general  class.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  say,  if  the  gentle- 
man will  permit,  that  I have  no  objection  to 
such  local  legislation  as  he  designates — no  ob- 
jection at  all — and  I think  that  under  the  deci- 
sion of  the  supreme  court  of  Ohio,  saying  that 
should  be  left  to  the  Legislature,  that  there  is 
no  danger  of  their  being  trammeled  in  that 
way;  and  I think  that  this  expression  in  the 
Constitution  is  good,  in  order  to  call  the  atten- 
tion and  confine  the  Legislature  to  general  laws 
as  far  as  possible. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  supreme  court  have  decided, 
I believe,  that  this  clause  in  the  present  Consti- 
tution would  not  apply  to  acts  of  this  character. 
I leave  it  to  the  construction  the  supreme  court 
have  given  to  it.  I referred  to  an  example  the 
other  day,  which  concerned  peculiarly  my  own 
county,  and  I will  again  refer  to  it  by  way  of 
illustration.  In  1862,  owing  to  freshets  which 
washed  off  banks  of  the  Ohio  river,  upon  which 
the  principal  roads  of  the  county  ran,  we  were 
compelled  to  ask  authority  of  the  Legislature  to 
enable  us  to  levy  special  taxes  for  the  construc- 
tion of  roads.  We  obtained  the  powers  we 
sought  in  a local  law.  Now,  had  it  required  a 
general  law  to  be  passed,  that  would  apply  to 
every  county  in  the  State,  it  would  have  been 
impossible  for  us  to  secure  what  we  wanted. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  there  anything  in  this 
Article,  as  it  reads  now,  to  prevent  the  county 
of  Lawrence  being  made  one  class? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Nothing.  But  it  seems  to  me, 
that  it  is  better  for  us  that  we  should  have  this 
species  of  local  legislation,  than  undertake  to 
classify  the  counties  in  the  State,  as  suggested 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  HoadlyJ 
that  we  call  all  legislation  general. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I should  like  the  gentleman 
to  point  out  in  this  Article,  how  he  can  con- 
ceive that  every  county  that  levies  a tax  for  a 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1523 

February  20, 1874.]  Neal,  Tuttle,  Hoadly,  Powell. 


purpose  peculiar  to  itself,  will  levy  exactly  the 
same  tax  as  every  county  levies? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Not  at  all.  T don’t  understand 
it  so. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Would  it  not  be  local  taxa- 
tion ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes.  It  will  prevent  the  peo- 
ple of  Trumbull  county  from  obtaining  a law 
which  will  authorize  them  to  transfer,  as  the 
people  of  Hardin  county  did,  money  in  the 
treasury  from  one  fund  to  another,  unless  that 
law  is  made  general  in  its  character.  Now,  the 
ninth  section  of  the  Article  which 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  That  is  just  what  I want  to 
know.  If  a law  should  be  passed  enabling  the 
people  of  Trumbull  county  to  do  a certain 
thing,  because  the  people  of  Trumbull  wanted 
to  do  it,  why  should  not  the  people  of  Hardin 
county  have  the  right  to  do  the  same  if  they 
like? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Why,  certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Is  there  anything  wrong  in 
providing  that  other  counties  may  have  the 
same  law  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Certainly  not.  But  why  enact 
a general  law  for  the  accomplishment  of  a 
transitory  local  purpose,  when,  perhaps,  the 
necessity  may  never  arise  again  for  the  exer- 
cise of  the  powers  and  authority  conferred  by 
that  law?  Now,  I am  aware  that  the  Legisla- 
ture may  say  that  all  counties  bordering  on 
the  Ohio  River  through  which  the  Scioto  River 
runs  may  build  tall  bridges  across  that  river, 
but  how  much  more  manly  and  decent  it  is  to 
say  that  the  county  of  Scioto  may  do  so,  with- 
out resorting  to  such  a subterfuge  for  the 
evasion  of  a constitutional  provision?  This 
section  provides  that  counties  shall  have  power 
for  local  taxation  for  road  purposes,  such  as 
may  be  provided  by  law.  Now,  then,  that  is 
certainly  inconsistent,  because  it  does  confer 
special  powers  and  privileges  which  are  local 
in  their  character,  which,  by  the  provisions  of 
section  28,  must  be  general  in  character.  I 
know  that  the  supreme  court  will  decide  that 
this  section  overrules  section  28,  so  far  as  they 
really  conflict  in  their  provisions.  But  let  us 
frame  this  Constitution  in  such  a way  that  all 
parts  will  harmonize  with  each  other,  and  there 
shall  be  no  necessity  for  any  construing  of  the 
same  upon  the  part  of  any  of  the  courts  of  our 
State. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I rise  simply  to  make  an  in- 
quiry, which  is,  am  I wrong  in  supposing  that 
section  nine  has  not  yet  passed  the  Conven- 
tion— the  Article  on  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  has  not  passed — no. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  That  is  the  one  referred  to 
by  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal] 
as  I understood  him. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  this  Article  were  so  drawn 
as  to  be  effective  in  accomplishing  the  object 
which  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Depart- 
ment had  in  drafting  it,  it  would  appeal  to  me 
very  strongly ; for  there  is  no  more  earnest  op- 
ponent of  special  legislation  in  this  Hall  than 
I am.  But  I am  opposed  to  putting  inefficient 
and  ineffective  clauses  into  the  Constitution. 
Now,  we  have  had  warning 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  ask  a question? 


Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  strikes  me  that  this  thing 
in  the  Constitution,  which  you  call  ineffective, 
would  have  a very  valuable  purpose.  It  is  a 
declaration  to  the  Legislature ; and  though  it  is 
only  directory  to  them,  I am  willing  for  it  to 
remain  as  having  a valuable  purpose. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  disagree  with  my 
venerable  friend,  the  delegate  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell],  in  thinking  that  directory  provi- 
sions are  sometimes  very  valuable.  They  are 
guide-posts  to  legislation ; warnings  from  the 
people,  and  constitute  the  basis  of  legitimate 
appeal.  They  are  valuable  as  means  of  appeal 
in  cases  of  misconduct  of  a member.  But 
of  this  I do  not  see  the  value. 

In  regard  to  municipalities,  the  last  twenty 
years  have  notified  us  that  classification,  with- 
out some  restriction,  is  worse  than  useless ; that 
it  will  be  easily  evaded ; that  all  that  is  neces- 
sary in  order  to  constitute  a class  is  to  insert  a 
little  speech  into  the  bill  describing  the  city  as 
a city  of  the  first  class,  having  more  than  a 
hundred  thousand  inhabitants,  according  to  the 
last  census,  as  published  in  the  Ohio  Statistical 
Report  of  1872,  and  having  within  its  limits  a Gil- 
bert avenue,  a superior  court,  and  a sewer  by 
the  name  of  Eggleston  sewer ; and  the  supreme 
court  has  told  us,  in  the  eighteenth  volume  of 
the  Ohio  State  Reports,  that  any  law  that  may 
apply  to  all  cities  having  a population  of  more 
than  one  hundred  thousand  is  constitutional. 
All  the  Legislature  has  to  do  is  to  apply  laws  to 
all  counties  having  a specified  population,  as, 
for  instance,  of  from  thirty  to  fifty  thousand, 
so  as  to  evade  this  whole  provision.  It  is  an 
invitation  to  be  evaded.  It  is  an  invitation  to 
the  Legislature  to  pass  evasive  laws.  The  mis- 
chief, as  I understand  it,  is  not  so  great  in  the 
case  of  counties  as  in  the  case  of  cities.  The 
mischief  in  the  case  of  cities  has  been  very 
great,  because  it  is  in  cities  that  such  laws  are 
sought,  particularly  smaller  cities ; for  instance, 
the  power  to  build  machine  shops ; but  I do  not 
understand  that  it  has  been  so  in  our  counties 
or  school  districts.  And  it  will  be  observed 
that  we  have  already,  in  the  Municipal  Corpor- 
ation Article,  provided  for  cities  and  villages. 
I do  not  understand  that  our  townships  or 
school  districts  stand  in  urgent  need  of  this 
safeguard,  so  much,  at  least,  as  cities  and  vil- 
lages. If  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department  would  provide  for  classification,  or 
limit  the  number  of  classes,  or  in  some  way 
render  the  Article  efficient  or  effective,  I should 
be  glad  to  vote  with  them;  but,  as  it  stands, 
it  is  mere  form  ; it  is  throwing  sods  at  the  enemy 
instead  of  rocks.  I will  vote  with  my  friend 
from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  the  motion  will  not 
prevail.  If  anything  must  be  said  upon  this 
subject  in  the  Constitution — and  it  is  very  likely 
there  ought  to  be — I hope  it  will  be  in  the  di- 
rection of  making  the  clause  more  efficient,  and 
not  striking  it  out  altogether.  I have  not  yet 
discovered  any  difficulty  in  the  way  of  carry- 
ing out  the  policy  of  this  provision,  in  accord 
with  the  best  welfare,  and  with  the  opportu- 
nity for  all  sufficient  and  efficient  legislation  on 
behalf  of  counties.  The  same  objection  was 
made  the  other  day  by  some  gentleman  when 
we  were  considering  the  first  section  of  the 


1524 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Tuttle,  Neal,  Humphreville. 


[119  th 


[Friday? 


Article  relating  to  municipal  corporations,  i 
The  objection  was  substantially  then  made,  that : 
you  could  not  provide  for  the  different  wants 
of  different  counties,  nor  of  different  cities, 
towns  or  villages,  unless  you  leave  the  Legisla- 
ture with  the  power  to  make  a special  piece  of 
legislation  for  each  part  of  the  country,  etc., 
each  particular  municipal  corporation,  accord- 
ing to  its  own  wants.  Nevertheless,  the  point 
upon  that  discussion  was  explicitly  conceded 
that,  when  anything  was  to  be  done  on  account 
of  the  wants  of  a particular  county,  or,  rather, 
that  was  of  special  interest  to  a particular 
county,  it  was  to  be  done  because  the  people  of 
that  county  wanted  it.  The  objection  was 
pressed  upon  us,  why,  if  the  people  of  Trum- 
bull county  want  a bridge — for  in  such  form  it 
was  first  put — across  an  important  river,  why 
should  another  county  be  compelled  to  build  a 
bridge  that  had  no  river  ? Now,  anybody  knows 
that  no  such  absurd  consequence  results  from 
the  idea  that  there  is  to  be  no  special  leg- 
islation. The  Legislature  is  to  be  called  upon 
by  a county ; and  the  Legislature,  it  is  claimed, 
ought  to  be  at  liberty  to  act,  and  not  only  that, 
but  it  ought  to  be  its  duty  to  act.  They  ought 
to  be  required  to  act,  because  the  people  want 
it,  need  it,  and  ask  for  it.  It  is  put  upon  that 
ground.  If  the  people  of  the  county  want  to 
build  a bridge,  and  apply  to  the  Legislature, 
then  it  is  claimed  that,  because  the  people  want 
it,  the  Legislature  ought,  in  duty,  to  enable 
them  to  doit.  Now,  does  not  every  gentleman 
see  that  the  having  of  the  bridge  rests,  after 
all,  entirely  upon  the  will  of  the  people  of  the 
county?  The  objection  supposes  that  the  peo- 
ple of  the  county  ought,  within  certain  limits, 
to  be  endowed  with  the  privilege  of  having  a 
bridge  when  they  want  it.  Now,  I beg  to  know 
what  difficulty  there  is  in  the  way  of  providing 
beforehand  that  any  county  whose  wish  and 
will  has  been  legitimately  and  sufficiently  as- 
certained, shall  have  the  bridge,  and  still  not 
provide  that  another  county,  not  within  the 
same  conditions,  shall  have  it  too.  Can  it  not 
be  provided  that  when  a county  has,  by  legiti- 
mate modes,  by  authentic  modes,  by  modes  that 
cannot  admit  of  any  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the 
authenticity  of  the  result,  determine,  as  the 
will  of  the  people,  that  they  want  a bridge, 
provide  beforehand  that  when  that  is  de- 
termined the  county  authorized  may  proceed 
to  build  the  bridge  ? I beg  to  know  what  man- 
ner of  difficulty  there  is  about  it?  And  beyond 
that  it  has,  among  other  advantages,  this,*  that 
you  provide  for  an  authentic  and  a well  defined 
mode  of  ascertaining  whether  the  people  want 
the  bridge  or  not.  In  the  plan  that  is  proposed 
by  the  gentleman,  which,  he  says,  has  been  in 
force  in  this  State,  they  do  not  take  the  vote  of 
the  people  of  the  county ; they  do  not  decide  by 
legitimate  methods  not  admitting  of  probable 
frauds,  by  a vote  of  the  people,  what  a majority 
of  their  wishes  are;  but  they  send  up  a few, 
whose  minds  are  that  way,  to  the  Legislature  to 
lobby  and  testify  on  behalf  of  themselves  and 
all  the  other  people  of  the  county,  that  these 
things  are  so  and  so,  and  convince  the  Legisla- 
ture, if  they  can.  And,  says  the  gentleman 
from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  the  Legislature  then 
ought  to  grant  it,  and  the  Legislature  ordinarily 
does  grant  it.  I beg  to  protest  against 


that  mode  of  ascertaining  what  the  county 
wants.  It  is  one  of  the  great  evils 
of  this  special  system  of  legislation,  which  this 
provision  was  intended  to  pluck  out  by  the 
roots,  that  you  do  not  have  an  authentic  expres- 
sion of  the  whole  municipality.  You  only  have 
a band  of  self-constituted  lobbyists  to  tell  the 
Legislature  what  this  or  that  county  wants. 
You  have  no  other  means  of  ascertaining.  You 
may  circulate  petitions,  to  be  sure;  but  as  it 
was  expressed  the  other  day,  these  petitions 
are  above  all  things  the  most  uncertain  modes 
of  determining  anything  like  the  general  senti- 
ment upon  the  subject.  I object,  therefore,  to 
striking  out,  for  the  reason,  in  the  first  place, 
expressed  by  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal],  and  for  other  reasons  that  have 
been  talked  about  here  so  much  in  this  Conven- 
tion. It  is  no  new  thing.  It  has  become  pro- 
verbial, that  corruption  of  necessity  ever  has 
and  ever  will  attend  the  exercise  of  any  such 
power  by  the  Legislature  as  that.  It  is  the  very 
ground  upon  which  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton[Mr.  Hoadly],  as  Chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee,with  almost  entire  unanimity  on  the  part  of 
the  Committee,  reported  here  an  Article  express- 
ly providing  for  the  classification  of  cities,  towns 
and  villages,  in  order  to  pluck  up  this  kind  of 
legislation  by  the  roots.  I tell  you,  there  is  no 
more  need  of  it  in  the  case  of  cities,  than  in  the 
case  of  counties.  There  is  no  more  difficulty  in 
applying  it  to  counties  than  to  cities;  and  I 
hope  not  to  see  this  Convention  commit,  what 
seems  to  me  so  great  an  inconsistency,  as  to 
apply  a principle  of  this  kind  to  the  case  of 
cities,  towns  and  villages,  and  refuse  to  apply 
it  to  counties.  I feel  that  we  owe  a debt  of 
gratitude  to  the  care,  attention  and  considera- 
tion which  that  Committee  gave  to  that  subject, 
to  enable  them  to  provide  what  I think  will  be 
an  effectual  restriction.  I hope,  at  least,  that  it 
will  be.  I believe  it  will  be  a restriction  upon 
that  special  legislation  which  has  heretofore 
been  exercised  in  regard  to  this  particular  sub- 
ject. I hope  this  provision  will  not  be  stricken 
out;  but  if  it  needs  something  additional  to 
make  it  more  explicit,  to  make  it  more  cer- 
tainly effectual,  let  us  amend  in  the  direction 
of  securing  the  object  proposed,  and  not  of 
striking  it  out  altogether. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  a question. 
Here  is  a law  which  was  passed  last  session 
authorizing  the'  commissioners  of  Coshocton 
county  to  borrow  $100,000  to  build  a court 
house.  I want  to  know  if  he  would  make  a 
general  law  of  that  kind  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  No,  sir,  I would  not.  Nor  [ 
would  I permit  Coshocton  county  to  do  so,  until  I 
I knew  that  somebody  besides  the  commissioners  I 
wanted  it.  I would  not  let  them  do  it  in  I 
Coshocton  until  I believed  the  people  of  the  I 
county  wanted  to  do  it;  and  if  they  want  to  do  I 
so,  if  you  pass  a law  for  Coshocton  county  in  I 
that  case,  because  they  want  to  do  so,  why  I 
should  you  not  do  it  for  Mahoning  county,  or  I 
any  other  county  in  the  State,  for  the  same  rea-  I 
son. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I hope  this  motion  I 
will  prevail.  One  of  the  laws  cited  by  the  gen-  I 
tleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  as  evidence 
that  it  was  desirable  that  the  General  Assembly 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Humphreville,  Griswold,  Young  of  C. 


1525 


Day.] 

February  20, 1874.] 


should  have  the  power  to  pass  special  laws — 
that  in  the  case  of  Hardin  county — is  most 
clearly  unconstitutional.  It  provides  for  the 
transfer  from  the  building  fund  of  $2,134.77, 
and  from  the  poor  fund  $1,067.73,  to  the  infirm- 
ary fund  of  said  county.  Now,  that  transfer 
is  clearly  unconstitutional  by  our  present  Con- 
stitution. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  ask  if  it  was  not 
necessary  for  the  county  at  that  time? 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  know 
whether  it  was  or  not.  I do  not  know  anything 
about  the  facts  in  the  case.  It  is  an  unconsti- 
tutional law;  and  I want  to  read  the  5th  sec- 
tion of  Article  XII  of  the  present  Constitution : 

“No  tax  shall  be  levied,  except  in  pursuance  of  law; 
and  every  law  imposing  a tax  shall  state  distinctly  the 
objects  of  the  same,  to  which  only  it  shall  be  applied.” 

Now,  a tax  raised  for  one  purpose  can  not  be  | 
transferred  to  another  fund  without  a violation 
of  the  Constitution.  It  might  possibly  be,  after 
the  purpose  for  which  the  money  was  raised 
had  been  effected,  and  there  was  a balance  left, 
it  might  be  well  enough  to  have  a provision  : 
that  it  might  be  transferred  to  some  other  fund. 
The  other  law,  referred  to  by  the  gentleman,  | 
was  clearly  unconstitutional ; but  I will  not 
discuss  that  question.  I know  that,  in  some  of  i 
the  counties  of  this  State,  because  the  County  i 
Commissioners  wanted  to  expend,  for  county  j 
purposes,  more  than  the  law  authorized  them  I 
to  raise  by  taxation,  they  levied  a tax  for  build- 
ing purposes,  and,  when  the  tax  was  collected, 
without  needing  it  at  all  for  building  purposes,  j 
transferred  it  to  the  general  fund,  and  thus  i 
expended  more  than  the  law  provided  that  they  I 
should  have  the  power  to  expend.  When  I was 
a member  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  county  of  Summit  desired  to  j 
build  a new  infirmary.  As  the  law  stood,  they  j 
could  not  do  it  without  submitting  the  question 
to  a vote  of  the  people.  They  had  submitted 
the  question  to  a vote  of  the  people,  and  the 
people  had  voted  against  building  the  infirm- 
ary. The  Commissioners  then  went  to  the 
Legislature,  and  procured  a law  to  be  passed 
authorizing  that  county  to  build  an  infirmary 
without  submitting  the  question  to  a vote  of  the 
people,  and  then  they  went  on,  in  violation  of 
the  wishes  of  the  people,  and  built  a county 
infirmary.  Now,  I do  not  want  any  such  thing 
as  that  to  be  done.  I want,  and  the  Committee 
desire,  to  put  off  as  far  as  possible  all  this 
special  and  local  legislation.  There  will  be  no 
trouble  in  classifying  the  counties  and  town- 
ships, if  it  is  desired,  and  that  would  be  the 
province  of  the  Article  upon  county  and  town- 
ship organizations.  This  Committee  thought  j 
it  not  advisable  in  the  legislative  article  to 
undertake  to  classify.  The  classification  has  ] 
already  been  made  in  cities  and  villages,  and  it  J 
should  be  made  in  the  Article  upon  county  and  i 
township  organizations.  If  they  be  not  already 
provided  for,  that  Article  ought  to  be  so 
amended  as  to  provide  for  the  classification  of 
these  municipalities,  and  in  that  way  this 
portion  of  the  section  can  be  made  effective. 
I do  not  desire  to  consume  the  time  of  the 
Convention.  I hope  the  amendment  will  not 
be  agreed  to. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I hope  the  mo- 


tion of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal]  will  prevail.  The  gentleman  from  Me- 
dina [Mr.  Humphreville],  in  reply  to  the 
instance  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal]  referred,  says  the  tax  is  unconsti- 
tutional. He  might  have  referred  to  a great 
many  more  instances  where  the  acts  for  the 
relief  of  certain  towns  and  cities  of  the  State 
were  unconstitutional,  because  special.  And 
that  reference  would  demonstrate  this  fact,  that 
you  can  not  create  general  rules,  suited  to  the 
cities  and  villages,  counties  and  townships  of 
the  State.  You  cannot  classify  them.  The 
necessity  we  had  under  the  Constitution  of  1851 
required  a provision  of  that  sort.  That  provi- 
sion was  strong,  as  was  supposed.  Now,  you 
will  find  the  first  section  of  Article  XIII  was  in 
these  words : “ The  General  Assembly  shall  pass 
no  special  act  conferring  corporate  powers.” 
And  the  sixth  section — “The  General  Assembly 
shall  provide  for  the  organization  of  cities  and 
incorporated  villages  by  general  laws.”  And 
with  those  distinct,  definite  provisions,  they 
were  disregarded.  The  necessities  of  the  vari- 
ous cities  compelled  an  application  to  the  Leg- 
islature, which  resulted  in  the  enactment  of  a 
special  law,  in  violation  of  the  Constitution. 
And,  now,  with  that  experience  of  the  past, 
under  the  Constitution  of  1851,  you  expect  to 
continue  it — you  expect,  under  this  Constitu- 
tion, to  classify  the  various  counties,  townships, 
cities  and  villages  of  the  State,  so  that  there 
shall  be  general  laws  applicable  to  all  of  them, 
however  diversified  in  their  interests.  Well, 
now,  why  should  this  not  be  ? Why  would  this 
be  improper  ? It  has  been  shown,  that  when 
the  attempt  was  made  to  do  it,  it  was  disre- 
garded ; and  it  comes  from  this,  that  the  inter- 
ests of  the  various  portions  of  the  State  are 
different.  We  have  our  mineral  regions.  We 
have  our  great  commercial  centers.  We  have 
our  great  agricultural  regions.  Their  wants 
are  different. 

You  may  make  a rule  to  classify  now,  as  is 
proposed  in  the  Municipal  Article.  You  have 
your  cities  of  the  first-class  and  your  cities  of  the 
second-class.  Now,  the  cities  of  the  first-class 
may  embrace,  say,  Cincinnati.  Well,  now, 
Cincinnati  being  the  only  city  of  that  class,  may 
have  all  the  special  legislation  she  wants.  This 
general  provision  for  classification  would  suit 
the  purposes  of  Cincinnati  precisely,  because, 
under  the  head  of  general  laws  applicable  to 
cities  of  the  first-class,  Cincinnati  may  have 
everything  she  wants;  all  the  special  legisla- 
tion she  may  desire.  So  may  Cleveland.  She 
may  be  a city  of  the  second  class.  Cleveland, 
under  this  classification  that  the  gentleman 
claims,  may  have  all  the  special  legislation  she 
wants.  Now,  the  city  of  Urbana  may  want 
some  special  act  to  suit  some  special  want.  It 
can  only  be  accomplished  by  a general  provi- 
sion. But  other  portions  of  the  State,  repre- 
sented in  the  Legislature,  do  not  desire  a gener- 
al law  of  that  sort;  because  it  is  unsuited  to 
their  locality.  They  must,  therefore,  pass  a 
general  law  which  is  manifestly  gotten  up 
for  the  purpose  of  suiting  one  certain  locality, 
or  one  certain  city.  If  this  provision  be 
adopted,  in  regard  to  classification,  you  can 
only  accomplish  it  by  what,  in  fact,  is  special 
legislation;  and  yet,  it  is  passed  as  a general 


1526 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Young  of  C.,  Sample,  Tuttle,  Barnet. 


[11 9 th 


law,  on  the  theory  that  it  is  applicable  to  all  the 
cities  of  the  State,  while  it  may  be  intended  for 
only  one  city.  It  will  be  parsed  necessarily. 
It  ought  to  he,  and  will  be.  The  only  true  rule 
would  be  that  which  existed  under  the  Consti- 
tution of  1802  for  the  various  cities  and  towns  of 
the  State — a power  to  provide  by  special  legis- 
lation for  their  special  purposes.  The  interests 
of  the  various  cities  and  towns  of  the  State 
will  be  consulted.  I hope,  therefore,  we  may 
get  rid  of  this  classification.  I hope  we  may 
get  out  of  this  straight-jacket;  that  some  system 
may  be  adopted  that  shall  meet  the  wants  of  the 
various  cities  and  towns  of  the  State  having  pe- 
culiar interests,  that  may  be  adapted  to  meet 
these  wants. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  There  is  but  little  doubt  that 
special  legislation,  in  some  form  or  other,  and 
under  some  constitutional  regulations,  must  be 
adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State.  Dif- 
ferent portions  of  the  State  are  different  in 
their  necessities  and  their  wants,  and  the  same 
county,  at  different  times,  is  placed  under  such 
circumstances  as  to  require  different  powers  to 
be  exercised  by  municipal  authorities ; and  the 
only  question  is,  whether  this  shall  be  done 
under  the  guise  of  general  law,  and  whether  it 
shall  be  prohibited  as  special  legislation; 
or,  whether  it  shall  be  permitted?  If 
special  legislation  be  prohibited  there  can 
be  no  doubt  but  it  will  be  substantially 
exercised  under  the  guise  of  general  legisla- 
tion. If  special  legislation  is  prohibited,  I sup- 
pose that  all  the  counties  in  the  State  must  be 
vested  with  the  same  power.  I suppose  that 
every  law  enacted,  must  be  a law  operating 
upon  all  the  counties  of  the  State,  and  confer- 
ring upon  all  the  counties  of  the  State,  a range 
of  power  commensurate  with  the  largest  power 
that  may  be  required  by  any  county,  or  injus- 
tice will  be  done.  That  would  be  conferring  a 
power  upon  counties  which  would  very  likely 
be  abused,  and  which  no  county  governed  or 
regulated  by  prudent  men  would  ask  to  exer- 
cise, except  in  case  of  actual  necessity.  Sup- 
pose that  it  becomes  necessary  in  a county  to 
build  a court-house,  or  make  any  other  improve- 
ment by  which  a large  amount  of  money  must 
be  expended.  That  money  is  not  on  hand.  It 
becomes  necessary  for  the  county  to  raise  the 
money  upon  its  credit,  in  order  that  the  money 
may  be  expended  in  making  the  improvement. 
Now,  either  every  county  in  the  State  must 
have  the  authority  through  the  law  to  go  in 
debt  to  the  amount  that  may  be  necessary,  in 
those  situations  in  which  the  largest  expenses 
are  necessary,  or  the  desired  object  must  be 
frustrated.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  importance 
of  the  subject  is  one  not  to  be  over-estimated ; 
that  this  Convention  ought  not  to  adopt  the 
provision  which  is  sought  to  be  stricken  out; 
for  the  reason  that  it  will  attempt  to  destroy  the 
power  in  the  Legislature,  without  which  legis- 
lation will  be  comparatively  valueless. 

In  the  county  of  Coshocton,  for  instance,  it 
has  been  said,  a legislative  act  was  procured  to 
be  passed,  last  winter,  authorizing  the  commis- 
sioners of  that  county  to  borrow  money  to  the 
extent  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  for  the 
building  of  a necessary  improvement — a court 
house — which  the  wants  and  reputation  of  the 
county  required  should  be  built.  Now,  in  order  j 


[Friday? 


to  enable  the  county  to  do  that  which  was  re- 
quired, must  there  be  a provision  in  the  statutes 
of  Ohio,  that  every  county  in  the  State  may  go 
in  debt  to  the  amount  of  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars,  or  that  the  county  of  Coshocton  may, 
at  any  time,  contract  such  a debt?  I think  not. 

It  is  better  for  the  people,  it  is  better  for  the 
character  of  legislation,  that  there  should  be 
no  prohibition  against  enacting  such  laws.  This 
prohibition  here,  which  declares  that  all  laws 
shall  be  of  a general  nature,  and  shall  operate 
upon  all  counties,  cities,  towns  and  villages  of 
the  State  with  equal  force,  should  not  be  re- 
tained in  the  Constitution,  but  should  be  modi- 
fied or  taken  away,  and  the  Constitutional  pro- 
vision left  just  as  it  is  in  the  present  instru- 
ment. 

Now,  what  course  will  be  pursued  if  this  is 
left  in  the  Constitution  ? Suppose  that  in  our 
county  it  becomes  necessary  to  build  a bridge, 
or  make  any  other  improvement,  so  that  it  should 
be  necessary  to  have  special  aid  from  the  Leg- 
islature. Why,  we  could  get  it.  We  could  go 
and  have  a law  authorizing  all  counties  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  in  which  the  White-Woman  and 
Tuscarawas  rivers  unite  to  form  the  Muskingum 
river,  to  build  a court-house,  and  borrow  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars  to  do  it.  That  would 
be  a class,  because  there  is  not  any  county  in 
the  State  to  which  that  would  apply  but  Coshoc- 
ton county.  But  it  would  be  an  unmanly 
evasion,  and  would  place  the  Legislature  in  an 
unmanly  and  disgraceful  attitute  before  the 
people  of  Ohio,  by  requiring  them  to  resort  to 
such  subterfuges,  for  the  purpose  of  enacting 
laws  that  are  absolutely  necessary  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  affairs  of  the  State. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  inquire 
whether  the  people  of  Coshocton  did  not  want 
to  build  a court-house,  or  whether  that  was  not 
the  reason  why  the  Legislature  gave  them  the 
power  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  is  a leading  question 
which  I am  not  required  to  answer  in  this  con- 
nection. [Laughter.]  When  the  gentleman  be- 
comes interested  in  Coshocton  county,  it  may 
be  time  enough  then  for  him  to  interfere  between 
the  authorities  of  Coshocton  county  and  the 
people. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
another  question  ? Whether  there  would  be  any 
mischief  if,  instead  of  doing  it  in  the  way  they 
did,  the  Legislature  had  provided  that,  upon  a 
petition,  a vote  of  the  people  of  Coshocton 
county  might  be  taken,  and  if  it  turned  out  that 
there  was  a certain  majority,  an  actual  majority 
of  three-fifths  or  two-thirds  in  favor  of  a court- 
house, they  should  then  be  empowered  to  build 
it? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  gentleman’s  question  is 
so  long  that  I have  lost  the  run  of  it.  The  fore- 
going part  has  escaped  my  recollection.  It  is 
not  necessary.  Such  a proposition  as  that  sug- 
gested does  not  tend  to  elucidate  the  subject. 

Mr.  BARNET.  If  Coshocton  county  were 
differently  situated  from  any  other  county  in 
the  State,  and  she  had  to  be  classified  in  order  to 
legislate  for  her,  would  not  it  be  an  unecessary 
act  of  the  Legislature  to  extend  that  beyond  J 
the  county  of  Coshocton  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I think  it  would,  sir.  I I ] 
think  it  would  have  been  very  unwise  to  have  J 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Sample,  Pease,  Pond,  Voris. 


1527 


Day.] 


February  20,  1874. 


compelled  the  Legislature,  last  winter,  to  pu^ 
in  a provision  which  would  have  applied  to  any 
other  county  which  had  not  all  the  necessities 
and  wants  of  Coshocton  county,  and  that  is  just 
what  this  provision  will  do.  It  will  require 
that  a provision  shall  operate  upon  all  counties 
of  a particular  class ; but  the  absurdity  of  re- 
quiring this  of  the  Legislature,  and  the  futility 
of  this  constitutional  provision  is  what  I am 
opposed  to,  and,  therefore,  I shall  sustain  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal]. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I only  want  to  add  a word  to 
what  has  been  said,  hoping  that  this  amendment 
will  not  prevail.  The  only  arguments  that  seem 
to  have  any  force  in  them  are,  that  it  is  not 
possible  to  make  a jacket  that  shall  fit  all  locali- 
ties. That  all  can  see.  It  is  urged  that  if  we 
adopt  this  provision,  they  cannot  build  a court 
house;  they  cannot  build  bridges ; they  cannot 
improve  cities  and  towns.  Now,  I do  not  so 
regard  the  provision.  Take,  for  instance,  a 
city  of  the  first  class,  or  second  class,  or  a vil- 
lage. They  all  have,  under  the  Constitution,  as 
at  present  provided,  if  not  under  the  old  Con- 
stitution, the  right  under  the  police  powers  that 
are  granted  to  them,  and  which  will  be  granted 
to  them  by  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution, 
all  the  power  they  may  need.  Suppose  they 
want  a levee;  suppose  they  want  bridges.  It 
is  said  that  they  have  to  go  to  the  Legislature 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  them.  Not  at  all. 
Under  the  present  provisions  of  this  police 
power,  which  is  granted  to  these  Municipal 
Corporations,  they  have  the  right  to  make  as- 
sessments for  the  purpose  of  making  these 
proper  improvements.  The  question  has  been 
suggested  to  me,  why  it  is  that  the  Legislature, 
under  the  present  Constitution,  or  under  the  one 
to  be  adopted,  might  not  provide,  by  general 
law,  that  whenever  the  people  of  a county  de- 
sire to  build  a court  house,  or  other  like  im- 
provements, they  may  not,  by  general  law, 
submit  the  question  to  the  people,  and,  if  sus- 
tained, let  the  appropriation  be  made?  This, in 
my  judgment,  is  the  way  it  should  be  done.  I 
say  it  is  mischievous  to  go  to  the  Legislature 
every  time  a county  needs  an  appropriation  for 
the  purpose  of  building  a court  house.  We 
have  tried  the  experiment  under  the  old  Con- 
stitution of  so  specially  creating  these  corpora- 
tions other  than  municipal.  The  practice  used 
to  be  to  apply  to  the  Legislature  for  every  cor- 
poration. We  now  avoid  that  by  a general  law ; 
and  I believe  it  is  a good  provision,  and  will  be 
retained.  This  has  the  same  effect.  I say  that 
this  matter  of  local  legislation  is  pernicious  in 
the  State,  and  ought  not  to  be  permitted. 

Mr.  POND.  I simply  wish  to  say  one  word 
in  reply  to  my  friend  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease]. 
I do  not  understand  that  local  legislation  is 
vicious  at  all — never  was;  that  is,  if  my  idea  of 
local  legislation  is  right.  I arise,  therefore,  for 
information  on  that  subject.  I believe  special 
legislation,  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  is  wrong. 
What  I understand  by  special  legislation  is 
this : where  the  wants  of  a city,  town  or  county 
are  of  such  a character — where  their  situation, 
physical,  mental  or  moral,  is  of  such  a charac- 
ter, as  to  bring  them  naturally  within  the  same 
classification  (a  classification  that  is  proper) — 
where  this  special  legislation  will  apply  very 


properly  to  all  of  them,  then,  to  single  out  one 
of  those  localities,  and  favor  it  with  a special 
act,  would  be  what  I understand  to  be  special 
legislation.  That  you  would  not  have  any 
right  to  do  under  the  first  sentence  of  this 
section.  But  there  are  in  this  State  cities, 
towns  and  counties  whose  wants  are  different 
from  any  other  city,  town  or  county  in  the 
State ; and,  when  you  find  such  a case  as  that, 
then  I say  that  local  legislation  is  proper  for 
that  locality,  and  that  is  what  I understand  by 
local  legislation.  I see  no  reason  why,  when  it 
becomes  necessary  to  give,  for  instance,  to  a 
county  that  has  a water-course  running  through 
it  which  it  wishes  to  clean  out,  or  that  it  finds, 
in  order  to  protect  itself,  it  has  got  to  levee,  you 
shall  make  a general  act,  applicable  to  all  the 
counties  of  the  State.  All  that  you  want,  and 
all  you  need,  is  a local  act  for  that  case  alone. 
That  is  exactly  what  I understand  to  be  the 
difference  between  local  and  special  legislation. 
Special  legislation  is  wrong,  and  is  provided  for 
in  this  section  : “ All  laws  of  a general  nature 

shall  have  a uniform  operation  throughout 
the  State.”  That  is  right.  They  should  have 
where  they  are  general  laws.  Where  they 
apply  to  a class  of  cases,  they  should  have  a 
uniform  operation  throughout  the  State.  Why, 
you  say  that  this  means  nothing;  and  I doubt 
whether,  as  it  is  worded  now,  it  does  mean  any- 
thing at  all.  You  mean  to  say,  I suppose,  if 
you  want  to  give  a locality  power,  by  legis- 
lation, to  incur  indebtedness,  or  levy  a tax,  or 
clean  out  a water- course,  or  improve  a levee, 
or  build  a bridge,  it  only  applies  to  a few  locali- 
ties of  the  State.  You  must  make  a general 
law,  that  will  bring  them  within  a class  of 
provisions  for  all  the  counties  of  the  State. 
We  do  not  want  that  at  all.  I want  to  call 
attention  to  the  peculiar  language  of  this  sen- 
tence : “Nor  shall  any  act  be  passed  conferring 
special  powers  or  privileges  upon  any  county, 
city,  village  or  township,  or  other  municipality, 
that  shall  not  be  conferred”  (I  suppose  some 
time  or  other)  “upon  all  counties,  cities, 
villages,  townships  and  municipalities  of  the 
same  general  class.”  As  I understand  this 
language,  it  provides  that  you  shall  not  pass  an 
act  conferring  privileges  that  shall  not,  some 
time  or  other,  be  conferred  upon  all  counties, 
cities,  villages,  &c.,  so  that,  because  it  is  incon- 
gruous, inconsistent  and  senseless,  and  because 
local  legislation  is  right,  this  provision  ought 
to  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  VORIS.  On  principle,  I am  opposed  to 
special  or  local  legislation.  Wherever  general 
legislation  can  be  made  applicable,  it  certainly 
ought  to  be  resorted  to,  instead  of  special  leg- 
islation. We  have  frequently  had  the  histories 
of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  Jersey 
presented  to  our  consideration  on  account  of  the 
inconsiderate,  oppressive,  and  frequently,  profli- 
gate legislation  of  those  States.  Now,  what  is 
the  reason?  It  has  grown  out  of  the  fact,  that 
every  body,  corporate,  private,  or  municipal, 
went  to  the  Legislature  to  have  conferred  upon 
them  every  corporate  power  that  they  exercise. 
The  consequence  has  been  that,  among  the  agen- 
cies brought  to  bear  on  those  bodies  has  been 
the  all  potent  lobby,  an  accursed  pool,  in  which 
every  member  of  the  General  Assembly  whose 
cupidity  had  the  mastery  of  his  good  sense  or 


1528 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Voris,  Pond,  Horton,  Baber. 


integrity,  invested.  The  result  has  been  that 
the  legislation  of  those  States  is  a stench  in  the 
nostrils  of  the  civilized  world.  The  policy  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  has  been  against  special  and 
local  legislation.  Though,  perhaps,  not  actu- 
ally prohibited  by  the  Constitution,  neverthe- 
less, the  policy  of  the  State  has  been  in  a con- 
servative direction.  Now,  to  save  us  from  the 
tendencies  that  have  brought  into  disrepute 
the  legislation  of  the  States  that  I have  named, 
is  it  not  better  that  we  should  fix  constitutional 
prohibitions  against  the  possibility  of  the  legis- 
lation of  our  State  taking  the  same  direction  ? 
Why,  gentlemen,  I understand,  to-day,  that 
four-fifths  of  the  taxes  collected  upon  our  dupli- 
cates are  made  by  reason  of  special  legislation, 
or  by  the  permission  of  special  legislation, 
by  the  various  municipal  bodies  in  the  State. 
Look  at  the  last  Auditor’s  Report,  and  I find 
there  half-a-million  of  indebtedness  fastened  on 
the  county  adjoining  that  represented  by  the 
gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal].  I find, 
in  his  county,  over  a quarter  of  a million  of 
dollars  indebtedness,  and  I look  at  others  and 
find  that  no  application  may  be  made  to  the 
General  Assembly  for  private  legislation  but 
what  may  be  granted.  Bonds  paying  ten  percent, 
are  issued  by  many  of  these  municipal  bodies  in 
the  State,  when  the  general  legislation  of  the 
State  prohibits  the  payment  of  interest  in  excess 
of  eight  per  cent. — and,  so  far  as  the  general 
legislation  is  concerned,  six  per  cent,  is  made 
the  amount  that  may  be  paid  by  those  corpora- 
tions upon  their  indebtedness.  Now,  this  is 
opening  the  door  entirely  too  wide.  The  ten- 
dency, at  least,  is  to  the  class  of  legislation  of  I 
which  I have  been  speaking.  It  strikes  me  that 
we  had  better  close  the  door — better  throw  safe- 
guards around  the  legislation  of  the  State.  We 
had  better  protect  the  people  from  this  tendency 
to  run  into  debt  Gentlemen  should  understand 
that  it  is  the  easiest  thing  under  Heaven  to  get 
into  debt,  and  secure  at  the  hands  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  State  permission  to  do  it.  But  we 
wish  to  stop  this  tendency  to  pile  up  taxation 
that  will  some  time  bear  down  the  people  of  the 
State. 

Mr.  FOND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  YORIS.  Yes;  with  pleasure. 

Mr.  FOND.  Has  there  been  any  great  injury 
to  the  State  under  the  old  Constitution,  under 
the  section  as  it  was  ? 

Mr.  VORIS,  I find,  by  looking  at  the  last 
volume  of  laws  of  the  General  Assembly,  that 
there  are  more  than  fifty  special  acts  in  it;  and 
perhaps  all  but  a half-a-dozen  of  those  acts 
could  be  better  provided  for  by  general  legisla- 
tion. This  is  true.  If  the  policy  of  the  State  is 
committed  against  all  measures  that  open  the  ! 
door  to  special  application,  the  Legislature  will 
be  more  careful,  more  conservative,  than  if  the 
application  is  allowed,  especially  as  it  is  fre- 
quently understood  to  be  by  the  approval  of  the 
people  who  are  to  be  subject  to  the  burden. 
Frequently  there  is  no  care,  no  attention  direct- 
ed to  the  matter,  except  by  those  who  are  anx- 
ious to  carry  through  that  object,  when  special 
legislation  is  generally  allowed. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman whether  he  does  not  think  the  veto 
power  will  arrest  all  that? 


[119th 

[Friday, 


Mr.  VORIS.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  the  veto 
power  will  arrest  all  that.  It  will  have  a ten- 
dency to  do  it,  and  for  that  very  reason  I voted 
for  it. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Has  it  done  it  in  New  York 
or  Pennsylvania? 

Mr.  VORIS.  It  has  helped  to  do  it;  but,  nev- 
ertheless, such  influences  have  been  brought  to 
bear  upon  their  Legislatures,  under  the  provi- 
sions of  their  old  Constitutions,  like  the  one 
you  seek  to  foist  into  this,  so  as  to  weaken  not 
only  the  good  sense  and  virtue  of  their  Legisla- 
tures, but  also  the  Executive  power  of  the  State. 
Now,  I do  not  know  but  that  there  are  many 
delegates  upon  this  floor  who  are  anxious  to 
have  this  blessing  conferred  upon  the  counties — 
the  other  municipal  bodies  in  their  counties — 
but  for  my  county,  and  for  the  State  of  Ohio, 
and  for  those  who  will  have  to  bear  these 
burdens  some  day,  I protest  against  a provision 
being  put  into  the  Constitution  of  the  State 
which  will  allow  this  power  to  be  exercised 
without  restraint. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
recommitting  with  instructions. 

On  this  question,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded, and  on  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  32, 
nays  44,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Bannon,  Barnet,  Bishop,  Cald- 
well, Coats,  Cook,  Doan,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Kraemer, 
Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Pond,  Powell,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sam- 
ple, Shultz,  Townsend,  Tripp, Voorhes,  White  of 
Hocking, Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble, 
President — 32. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were— 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Beer, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Cowen,  Dorsey,  Gardner,  Greene, 
Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Merrill,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Pease,  Phellis,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly, 
Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Thompson,  Townsley, 
Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voris, 
Weaver,  Woodbury — 44. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  further 
amendments  or  motions?  If  there  are  no  fur- 
ther amendments,  the  question  now  is,  Shall  the 
Proposition  be  agreed  to  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  This  Proposition  comes  up 
now  upon  its  final  reading,  and  I wish,  on  my 
responsibility  as  a delegate  to  this  Convention, 
to  give  my  reasons  for  voting  against  this 
Legislative  Article.  I should  not  have  done  it 
had  not  my  friend  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing] 
who  acted  with  us  upon  this  question  upon  the 
veto,  assigned  his  reasons  for  now  voting  for 
the  passage  of  this  Article.  The  reason  I shall 
not  vote  for  the  passage  of  this  Article  is,  be- 
cause I do  not  consider  that  the  other  amend- 
ments made  in  the  Legislative  Article  make  a 
sufficient  change  from  the  old  Legislative  Arti- 
cle as  to  furnish  any  very  great  reason  for  the 
change.  In  the  first  place,  the  only  changes 
that  I notice  are  changes  within  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Legislature  in  regard  to 
the  mode  of  the  passage  of  bills,  and 
calling  the  yeas  and  nays;  some  little  minor 


THE  VETO  POWER. 

Baber,  Hoadly,  Bishop,  Page. 


1529 


Day,] 

February  20,  1874.] 


amendments  of  that  sort.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  veto  clause,  inserted  in  that  Article,  which 
I conscientiously  believe  will  occasion  such  a 
vote  against  the  Constitution  as  to  endanger 
the  Article,  is  one  reason  why  I will  not  now 
vote  for  it  in  its  present  shape.  I think  that 
what  occurred  in  this  Convention  yesterday 
shows  that  upon  this  question  we  stand  very 
nearly  equally  divided.  The  vote  by  which  this 
veto  section  was  passed  was  about  forty-six  to 
forty  two.  The  absentees,  if  they  had  been 
here — and  in  this  I differ  from  my  friends  on 
the  other  side — would  have  stood  about  eight 
to  ten  ; making  the  vote  tor  the  Article,  if  they 
had  been  here,  fifty-three  to  fifty-two,  barely 
one  majority,  with  the  well-known  fact  that 
the  gentleman  from  Seneca  [Mr.  O’Connor] 
will  never  take  his  seat  in  this  Convention 
again.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  upon  a 
question  of  this  sort,  where  there  had  been  a 
compromise,  apparently  entered  into  in  good 
faith,  for  which  the  gentlemen  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt  and  Mr.  Hoadly]  voted  the  same 
way.  When  gentlemen  had  gone  home  upon 
the  face  of  that  compromise,  the  gentleman 
arose  and  other  gentlemen 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  ask  him,  does  he  mean  to  say  I voted  for 
it  as  a compromise? 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  voted  for  the 
substitute. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I voted  for  it,  and  I would 
again  if  I could  not  get  anything  better.  I told 
the  Convention  at  the  time  I voted  for  it,  be- 
cause I had  voted  for  a two-thirds  and  a three- 
fifths  proposition,  and  was  defeated,  that  I took 
that  as  the  best  I could  get,  and  not  as  a com- 
promise. 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly,  I understand  that 
proposition ; but  I know  it  was  the  impression 
of  other  gentlemen,  and  Mr.  Bishop,  of  Hamil- 
ton, stated  that  he  voted  for  it  as  a compromise. 
This  thing,  therefore,  having  been  voted  for  as 
a compromise,  the  Convention  not  being  full,  a 
great  many  members  who  acted  against  this 
being  absent,  it  does  not  appear  to  me  that  it  is 
right  that  those  who  happened  to  be  here  incor- 
porated this  provision  into  the  instrument.  Be- 
sides that,  I do  not  think  we  risk  this  Article  at 
all  by  voting  against  its  passage  at  the  present 
time.  It  can  lie  upon  the  table,  and  be  taken 
np  again  at  any  time;  and,  in  the  spirit  of  com- 
promise, we  are  willing  that  this  veto  question, 
which  is  a new  question  to  the  people  of  Ohio, 
which  has  never  been  heard  of  in  the  legislation 
of  the  State,  should  stand  in  the  same  position 
as  the  railroad  question,  or  the  license  question, 
or  the  proportional  voting  question.  I am  sat- 
isfied— although  I am  in  favor  of  some  of  them 
— that  the  Constitution  should  not  be  embar- 
rassed by  them.  If  the  gentlemen  have  such 
confidence  that  there  is  such  a demand  by  the 
people  of  the  State  for  this  veto,  why  do  they 
fear  to  submit  it  as  a separate  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  not  have  it  carried  by  force  of  the 
Constitution  ? As  soon  as  I saw  the  great  oppo- 
sition in  this  Convention  to  this  new  idea  of 
proportional  representation,  although  very 
much  in  favor  of  it,  I at  once  yielded  and  was 
perfectly  willing  to  have  that  question,  as  a new 
question,  voted  on  separately  by  the  people. 
But,  let  me  say,  Mr.  President,  that  I have 


heard  intimations  thrown  out  upon  this  floor, 
that  gentlemen  for  their  votes  here  are  to  be 
punished  with  regard  to  other  matters.  Such 
threats  have  no  terror  for  me.  I vote  for  a Pro- 
position if  I believe  it  right,  and  vote  against  it 
if  I believe  it  wrong.  And,  so  far  as  it  has  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  question  of  proportional 
representation,  which  it  is  supposed  I have  a 
peculiar  interest  in,  I simply  remark  this, 
that  gentlemen,  by  such  an  act,  would  spite 
themselves,  because  nine  of  the  members  of  the 
Judicial  Committee,  who  signed  the  report  in 
favor  of  proportional  representation,  voted  for 
this  veto,  and  only  two  against  it.  Of  the  Ap- 
portionment Committee,  thirteen  voted  for  it, 
and  only  four  against  it,  making  of  the  friends 
of  proportional  representation,  twenty-two  who 
voted  for  this,  and  only  seven  against  it,  show- 
ing that  that  question  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question  of  the  veto  power.  It  strikes  me 
that,  in  attempting  to  influence  members  by 
any  such  insinuations  and  private  intimations, 
it  is  wholly  out  of  place,  because  the  distin- 
guished Chairman  of  the  Committee  [Dr.  Dor- 
sey] voted  for  this  proposition.  Nine  members 
of  the  Committee  who  signed  the  Report  voted 
for  it,  and  I hope  that  no  gentleman  here  will  be 
influenced  by  such  intimations  as  these.  Now, 
my  distinguished  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hunt],  has  brought  this  question  up  here  again. 
I do  not  propose  to  re-argue  the  question,  for  I 
have,  in  the  mean  time,  examined  Thomas  Jef- 
ferson’s “Notes  on  Virginia,”  the  horn-book 
of  the  Democracy,  and  read  the  Constitution  of 
Virginia,  prepared  by  Jefferson,  in  1783, 
which  does  not  contain  this  veto  power.  I fear 
much  that  the  gentleman  has  not  studied  this 
horn-book  of  Democracy,  because  it  does  not 
appear  to  have  produced  any  effect  upon  him. 
Several  gentlemen  claim  that  this  is  a party 
question.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  I do, 
therefore,  hope  that  this  will  not  be  passed  with 
the  fifty-three  votes  necessary,  but  will  go  to 
the  table,  and  at  the  proper  time,  if  gentlemen 
wish  to  take  it  up,  let  this  question  go  to  the 
people  as  a separate  clause,  without  burdening 
the  Constitution  with  it.  And  it  can  be  done. 
For  these  reasons,  I shall  vote  against  the  pas- 
sage of  this  Article. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I intend  to  vote  for  this  Arti- 
cle, from  the  fact  that  these  questions  have  been 
well  matured,  fully  discussed,  and  a majority  of 
this  Convention  have  decided  in  favor  of  it. 
The  last  reference  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  I was  very  much  in 
favor  of;  but  I found  a majority  of  the  Conven- 
tion against  it.  I am  not,  however,  going  to 
vote  against  the  Article  because  I cannot  get 
everything  just  as  I want  it.  I regret  exceed- 
ingly to  see  my  friend  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Ba- 
ber] so  particular  on  this  subject,  when  he  con- 
cedes the  point  that,  if  the  Convention  were  all 
together,  there  would  be  a majority  in  favor  of 
the  veto  power. 

Mr.  BABER.  I did  not  so  concede.  I said 
there  would  be  a tie. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Fifty-three  to  fifty-two  was 
the  gentleman’s  statement. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  from  Seneca 
[Mr.  O’Connor]  will  never  take  his  seat. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I will  vote  against  the  adoption 
of  the  Legislative  Article.  It  is  in  some  res- 


1530 


[119th 


THE  VETO 


Page,  Coats, 


pects  an  improvement  upon  the  same  Article  in 
the  present  Constitution,  but  its  advantages  are 
not  so  great  as  to  outweigh  the  disadvantages  of 
the  eighteenth  section. 

It  is  not  worth  while  to  repeat  the  arguments 
that  may  be  urged  against  that  section.  I shall 
only  allude  to  one,  which  I deem  the  most  forci- 
ble. In  all  cases  the  Governor  will  belong 
either  to  the  party  in  the  minority  or  to  the 
party  in  the  majority.  In  almost  ail  cases,  and 
especially  in  questions  affecting  his  party,  he 
will  side  with  that  party.  If  his  party  is  in  the 
majority,  his  concurrence  with  them  adds  noth- 
ing to  the  value  of  legislation.  He  will  seldom 
exercise  his  authority  at  their  expense. 

If  he  belongs  to  the  party  in  the  minority  he 
will  usually  side  with  them,  and  will  always  do 
so  in  regard  to  party  questions.  Thus  we  con- 
fer upon  the  minority  the  power  to  prevent 
legislation  as  to  questions  displeasing  to  the 
minority.  We  thus  take  the  power  from  the 
majority  and  confer  it  upon  the  minority.  That 
is  unrepublican  and  contrary  to  the  theory  and 
practice  of  Democratic  institutions.  We  will 
frequently  see  the  two  parties  at  a dead-lock, 
because  the  history  of  the  State  shows,  that  in 
the  long  run,  the  parties  are  nearly  equally 
divided,  and  neither  party  has  or  will  have  so 
decided  a superiority  as  to  be  able  to  carry  its 
measures  in  spite  of  the  executive  opposition. 

I think  the  friends  of  this  measure  will  be 
disappointed  as  to  its  advantages.  These  advan- 
tages are  fanciful  and  imaginary ; its  disadvan- 
tages are  real  and  great. 

Mr.  COATS.  It  is  with  extreme  reluctance 
that  I rise  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Convention 
with  further  arguments,  or  reasons,  which  have 
hitherto  operated  upon  my  mind,  with  such 
force  as  to  constrain  me  to  oppose  that  part  of 
the  Article  now  under  consideration,  which 
confers  on  the  Executive  the  veto  power.  It  is 
sufficient,  for  my  present  purpose,  to  say,  that 
the  reasons  I have  heretofore  given,  still  oper- 
ate upon  my  mind  with  the  same  force  now,  as 
then.  Therefore,  consistent  with  my  convic- 
tions of  right,  I must  oppose  the  adoption  of 
the  entire  Article,  with  the  vicious,  and  to  me, 
objectionable  principle  alluded  to,  incorporated 
therein.  A vicious,  or  what  I conceive  to  be  a 
wrong  principle,  that  I cannot  support  standing 
alone,  1 cannot  support  with  an  admixture  of 
good  mingled  with  it.  I prefer  “to  bear  the 
ills  we  have,  than  fly  to  those  we  know  not  of.” 
I still  believe,  as  I have  heretofore  stated,  that 
the  people  do  not  ask  for  or  desire  the  principle 
here  involved.  I believe  the  people  will  re- 
pudiate the  whole  thing.  We  may  gag  this 
Convention  into  its  adoption,  but  take  care  that 
this  gag  does  not  operate  as  an  active  and 
effective  emetic  on  the  stomachs  of  the  people. 
We  may  forge  chains  and  fetters  for  their 
limbs ; but  they  will  be  slow  to  put  them  on,  or 
suffer  them  to  be  put  on  by  us.  The  three- 
fifths  qualification,  as  I have  hitherto  contended, 
I still  believe  will  operate  as  effectively  as  a 
finality, as  would  two-thirds.  Both,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  must  be  a finality.  Convinced  then, 
as  I am,  of  the  pernicious  effects  that  may  re- 
sult from  investing  the  Executive  with  this  pre- 
rogative, this  arbitrary,  monarchical  power,  I 
must,  with  many  regrets,  withhold  my  support 
from  the  present  Proposition  as  a whole.  I am 


POWER. 


Hitchcock.  [Friday 


unwilling  to  stultify  myself  here,  by  supporting 
a proposition  involving  a principle  that  I can- 
not commend  to  the  support  of  the  people  I re- 
present. This  I cannot  do,  and  with  the  light 
by  which  I am  now  guided,  I shall  feel  con- 
strained to  vote  against  the  entire  Constitution, 
with  a disease,  or  virus,  like  a pestilent  plague 
spot,  festering  and  preying  upon  its  vitals.  The 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  as  he  has 
just  announced  to  the  Convention,  surrenders, 
and  yields  his  support  to  this  Article  as  a whole, 
though  opposed  to  the  veto  power.  I regret 
that  we  must  part  company.  Still  more  do  I 
regret  that  he  should  not  have  inherited  some 
of  that  Roman  firmness,  that  by  the  laws  of 
consanguinity,  he  would  seem  to  have  been 
justly  entitled  to  have  inherited.  The  reasons 
operating  upon  his  mind,  to  bring  about  his  con- 
version, and  thus  constrain  him  to  support  this 
Article  as  a whole,  fail  to  have  that  force  and 
effect  upon  my  mind  or  influence  my  judgment. 
1 desire  to  leave  this  whole  matter  in  the  hands 
of  the  people  for  decision  and  final  judgment  — 
a tribunal  that  has  been  justly  characterized  as 
a severe  but  upright  judge,  to  whose  calm  de- 
liberate judgment  and  fiat  alone  shall  I submit, 
as  I ever  do,  with  cheerfulness. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
finally  agreeing  to  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Is  it  in  order  to  move  an 
amendment  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  thatit  is  susceptible  of  amendment  even 
at  this  stage,  though  the  gentleman  being  more 
experienced  can  state  whether  that  is  the  rule 
in  our  Legislature. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I have  no  doubt  that  the 
Chair  is  right.  The  amendment  does  not  inter- 
fere with  the  text  of  the  bill  as  it  has  been  en- 
grossed. It  does  not  interfere  with  the  lan- 
guage as  agreed  upon,  but  is  an  additional 
section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  35  The  General  Assembly  shall  pass  no  law 
authorizing  the  imposition  of  taxes  in  any  locality  in 
this  State  except  as  is  otherwise  provided  in  this  Consti- 
tution, which  in  addition  to  the  levies  necessary  for  pay- 
ing the  current  expenditures  of  the  State,  including  sup- 
port of  its  public  institutions,  the  payment  of  the  inter- 
est and  principal  of  the  public  debt,  the  support  of 
schools,  the  current  expenditures  of  municipal  corpora- 
tions, counties  and  townships,  excluding  from  the  various 
items  enumerated  the  expense  of  the  erection  of  build- 
ings therefor,  will  admit  of  a levy  in  any  one  year  of 
more  than  one  per  centum,  or  in  ten  years  "of  more  than 
five  per  centum,  in  the  aggregate,  for  all  purposes  ex- 
cept those  named  upon  the  listof  taxable  property  within 
the  locality  to  be  affected  thereby;  nor  authorize  the 
contraction  of  any  debt  in  excess  of  this  amount,  unless 
such  levy  or  debt,  and  the  object  for  which  to  be  made  or 
contracted,  shall  be  approved  by  the  vote  of  three-fourths 
of  all  the  qualified  electors,  to  be  ascertained  as  shall  be 
prescribed  by  law,  within  the  locality  in  which  such  levy 
is  to  be  made,  or  debt  contracted.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  This  motion  to  amend 
involves  a very  important  question,  and  the 
Convention  may  feel  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
presented  at  this  time,  to  be  attached  to  the  Ar- 
ticle which  has  occupied  so  much  of  the  time  of 
the  Convention,  and  upon  the  passage  of  which 
the  Convention  seems  ready  to  vote.  I had 
thought  of  introducing  this  as  an  independent 
proposition  to  the  consideration  of  the  Conven- 
tion. If  so  introduced,  it  would  have  had  to  be 


CONCERNING  TAXATION. 


1531 


Day.] 


February  20, 1874.]  Hitchcock. 


attached  to,  and  become  a part  of  the  Legisla- 
tive Article  if  agreed  to.  At  the  same  time  it 
seems  very  proper  to  bring  it  to  the  consider- 
ation of  the  Convention  in  connection  with  the 
Article  of  which  it  is  to  form  a part.  A prin- 
cipal reason  why  I did  not  introduce  it  as  an 
independent  proposition,  is  the  fact,  that  I have 
not  introduced  such  a proposition  to  the  Con- 
vention at  all  since  its  first  meeting,  and  did 
not  desire  to  do  so  if  it  could  possibly  be  avoided. 

A word  in  regard  to  the  proposition  itself. 
It  seeks  to  limit  the  power  of  taxation  in  the 
State  for  local  purposes — to  make  such  limit 
absolute,  except  upon  such  action  of  the  peo- 
ple in  the  locality  which  is  to  be  affected  there- 
by, as  shall  show  a sufficient  warrant  for  the 
levy  of  taxes  beyond  the  limit  prescribed.  We 
have  been  occupied  on  this  Article  in  determin- 
ing how,  in  form,  the  Legislature  should  enact 
laws.  We  have  been  prescribing  the  forms 
through  which  propositions  should  become 
law.  This  is  to  determine,  not  what  form  the 
Legislature  shall  adopt  in  the  passage  of  laws, 
but  what  may  the  Legislature  do  in  the  impo- 
sition of  taxes  upon  the  people  of  the  State? 
It  is  an  attempt,  as  appears  to  me,  in  the  right 
direction ; certainly  an  attempt  in  a direction 
for  which  there  has  been  a demand — in  a di- 
rection in  regard  to  which  gentlemen  upon  this 
floor  have  expressed  right  convictions;  a direc- 
tion in  which  this  Convention  has  already  de- 
cided in  connection  with  the  Municipal  Article. 
If  I am  correct  thus  far,  the  only  question  to 
be  determined  is,  whether  this  be  the  proper 
mode  in  which  to  affix  a limit.  It  must  be  con- 
ceded that,  if  with  regard  to  the  imposition  of 
taxes  in  any  portion  of  the  State,  a limit  is 
important,  the  importance  of  it  must  neces- 
sarily extend  to  all  portions  of  the  State. 
The  Convention  having  determined  that 
this  is  important  in  one  instance,  in  con- 
nection with  the  Municipal  Article,  that 
furnishes  a good  reason  for  introducing  this 
proposition ; and  a sufficient  argument,  it  seems 
to  me,  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  same  rule 
of  restriction.  As  to  the  rule  of  restriction 
proposed  and  its  effect : It  proposes,  as  to  any 
specific  action  of  the  Convention  as  to  the  rule 
of  taxation,  to  avoid  entirely  the  question  to 
which  such  frequent  reference  has  been  made; 
providing  that  all  action  “otherwise  provided 
for  in  this  Constitution”  shall  be  excepted 
from  the  operation  of  this  section.  Then  it  does 
not  conflict  with  either  of  those  two.  It  does 
not  conflict  at  all  with  the  question  of  assess- 
ments. I regard  the  question  of  assessments  as 
one  of  really  greater  importance  to  be  deter- 
mined by  this  Convention  than  the  question  of 
taxation.  I believe  that  the  power  to  take  pri- 
vate property  for  public  use,  by  assessment,  to 
be  the  most  dangerous  one  that  can  be  exercised 
by  any  people  or  any  nation.  But  the  Conven- 
tion has  determined  that  question,  as  it  seems 
to  me.  They  have  recognized  the  power  to 
make  assessment,  almost  without  limit,  with 
reference  to  Municipal  Corporations,  adopting 
so  large  a limit  as  to  be  almost  no  limit,  and  as 
to  counties  and  townships,  refusing  to  fix  any 
limits.  What  the  Convention  refuses  to  do,  I,  for 
one,  do  not  intend  to  attempt  separately  to  force 
upon  its  consideration. 

Then,  as  to  the  limit : It  seeks  to  say  that  for 


all  expenses  absolutely  necessary  to  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State;  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
welfare  of  the  people  of  the  State;  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  education  of  the  children  of 
the  State ; absolutely  necessary  to  pay  the  debt 
and  preserve  the  honor  of  the  State ; absolutely 
necessary  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  Municipal 
Corporations  of  the  State ; absolutely  necessary 
for  all  the  affairs  of  the  State,  aside  from  what 
may  be  regarded  as  improvements,  the  power 
of  the  General  Assembly  shall  be  unlimited. 
Having  thus  far  recognized  that  unlimited 
power  in  the  General  Assembly,  it  then  pro- 
poses a check  upon  the  excessive  levy  of  taxes 
for  other  purposes.  It  proposes  to  exclude 
entirely  from  the  levies  for  expenditures  to 
which  the  limit  is  not  applied,  expenditures  for 
the  erection  of  public  buildings.  Do  gentlemen 
fear  that  expenses  for  the  erection  of  public 
buildings  being  all  excluded,  that  a limit  of  one 
per  cent,  in  any  one  year,  or  five  per  cent,  in 
ten  years,  is  too  small  for  making  all  necessary 
improvements;  too  small  for  the  purchase  of 
lands  and  erection  of  buildings  for  the  county ; 
for  the  purchase  of  land  and  erection  of  build- 
ings for  county  infirmaries ; or  for  the  purchase 
of  land  and  building  for  courthouse  purposes? 
Is  it  too  small?  A moment’s  reference  to  the 
duplicates  of  the  various  counties  of  the  State 
will  show  gentlemen  what  this  levy  of  one  per 
cent,  upon  the  taxable  valuation  of  the  property 
in  their  respective  counties  will  amount  to. 
Gentlemen  will  bear  in  mind,  at  the  same  time, 
that  this  Constitution  is  to  be  a Constitution  not 
only  of  to-day,  but  a Constitution  for  years  to 
come.  If  the  prosperity  of  the  State  shall  be 
as  great  for  twenty  years  to  come,  under  the 
Constitution  which  shall  be  adopted  here  and 
approved  by  the  people,  as  it  has  been  for  twenty 
years  past,  I trust  that  the  Constitution 
adopted  by  this  Convention  and  approved  by  the 
people,  shall  be  the  Constitution  of  the  State  for 
ac  least  half  of  a century  to  come.  If  gentle- 
men, having  examined  the  duplicate  of  coun- 
ties, are  satisfied  that,  for  the  present  time, 
sufficient  limit  is  allowed  for  the  purpose  for 
which  this  money  may  be  expended,  they  will 
see  that,  with  the  accumulated  wealth  of  the 
State,  it  is  sufficient  for  the  future.  If,  at  any 
time  or  in  any  instance,  it  prove  insufficient, 
then  there  is  identically  the  same  proposition 
in  this  that  was  adopted  in  the  Article  upon 
Municipal  Corporations : that  the  limit  may  be 
extended;  the  power  maybe  transcended.  A 
larger  levy  may  be  made  upon  the  approval  of  a 
majority  of  three-fowrths  of  all  the  qualified 
electors  within  the  district  to  be  affected 
thereby. 

Mr.  President,  this  question  may  or  may  no^ 
excite  discussion ; it  may  or  may  not  excite  at- 
tention. Although  feeling  it  to  be  of  very  great 
importance,  I do  not  wish  to  press  the  matter 
upon  the  attention  of  the  Convention,  and 
presume  my  time  has  expired.  If  not,  I am 
very  willing  to  yield  to  others,  unless  gentle- 
men desire  to  ask  me  some  questions  with  refer- 
ence to  this  proposition.  My  only  purpose  is 
to  bring  before  the  Convention,  fairly  and 
squarely,  point  blank,  the  question  of  determin- 
ing, here  and  now,  in  this  Convention,  whether 
there  be  any  reason  for  the  call  which  has  been 
so  frequently  and  loudly  made,  that  local  taxa- 


1532 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Rowland,  Tuttle,  Cowen,  McBride,  Neal,  etc. 


tion  in  the  State  shall  be  arrested  ? The  object 
of  my  remarks  was  to  so  explain  the  proposi- 
tion as  to  be  understood  by  the  members  of  this 
Convention,  and,  having  done  this,  I yield  the 
floor. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I want  to  make  a motion 
to  take  a recess,  but  will  yield  for  the  gentle- 
man to  ask  leave  of  absence. 

LEAVE  OP  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I feel  under  necessity  of 
being  absent  to-morrow  and  some  days  next 
week.  I ask  for  indefinite  leave  of  absence. 

Leave  was  given. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I omitted,  this  morning,  to 
ask  indefinite  leave  of  absence,  including  to- 
day, for  Mr.  Waddle,  who  has  been  called  home 
on  account  of  serious  illness  among  his  friends 
there. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  McBRIDE.  The  gentleman  from  Maho- 
ning [Mr.  Wilson]  was  obliged  to  go  home  last 
evening.  I ask  indefinite  leave  of  absence  for 
him,  including  to-day. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  gentleman  from  Gallia 
[Mr.  McCormick]  was  called  home  on  some 
private  business.  I ask  indefinite  leave  of  ab- 
sence for  him. 

Leave  was  given. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I find  myself  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  asking  leave  of  absence  for  a time  I 
cannot  particularly  define,  and,  therefore,  ask 
for  indefinite  leave  of  absence  after  to-day. 

Leave  was  given. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I now  move  the  Conven- 
tion take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12 : 30  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending 
when  the  recess  was  taken  was  upon  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  as  an  additional 
section. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  consideration  of  this 
proposition,  at  this  time,  may  delay  the  action 
which  gentlemen  would  desire  to  reach,  upon 
the  passage  of  the  Article.  This  is  really  inde- 
pendent in  its  nature  as  to  the  principle  in- 
volved in  it,  while,  appropriately,  if  agreed  to, 
it  should  be  attached  to  the  Legislative  Article ; 
but  it  might  be  attached  to  that  Article  should 
it  be  agreed  to  afterwards ; and  after  consulta- 
tion with  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  hav- 
ing this  Article  in  charge,  I think  it  very  likely 
would  accommodate  that  gentleman  to  reach  a 
vote  as  early  as  may  be  on  the  main  Article.  I, 
therefore,  ask  leave,  at  this  time,  to  withdraw 
the  amendment  that  I offered,  with  the  notice 
that,  as  an  independent  proposition,  or  attached 
to  another  proposition,  I shall  introduce  it,  beg- 
ging pardon  of  the  Convention  for  having  occu- 
pied their  time  with  it. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 


[119th 

[Friday* 


The  Secretary  called  the  roll,  and  76  mem- 
bers answered  to  their  names,  as  follows — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Barnet,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Caldwell, 
Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cow- 
en, De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing, Gardner, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer,  Layton,  McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease, 
Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sam- 
ple, Scribner,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Thompson,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van 
Yalkenburgh,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris, 
Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young 
of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 76. 

The  absentees  were — 

Messrs.  Alexander,  Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop, 
Campbell,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,  Clay,  Cun- 
ningham, Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  McCor- 
mick, Miller,  Miner,  O’Connor,  Phellis,  Philips, 
Root,  Scofield,  Sears,  Tripp,  Yan  Yalkenburgh, 
Waddle,  Watson,  Wells,  West,  White  of  Brown, 
Wilson—  29. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I move  that  further  proceed- 
ings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with,  and  on 
that  I demand  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I object  to  the  yeas  and  nays 
being  taken. 

The  demand  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  sus- 
tained. 

I The  Secretary  proceeded  to  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  LAYTON  (when  his  name  was  called) 

I said : 

j Believing  that  I have  fought  this  matter  long 
enough,  and  that  the  little  hatchet  has  got  our 
j scalps,  I vote  “ aye.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  resulted — yeas  33,  nays  46, 

I as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Barnet,  Blose,  Cald- 
well, Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook, 
Cowen,  Doan,  Gardner,  Hitchcock,  Horton, 
Jackson,  Layton,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey, 
Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  White  of 
Hocking — 33. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright, . Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey, 
Ewing,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill. 
Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  John- 
son, Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Merrill,  Mitche- 
ner, Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
i Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 

| Steedman,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van 
Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Voris,  Weaver,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble,  Presi- 
dent— 46. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUNT.  1 move  that  the  Sergeant-at 
Arms  be  dispatched  for  the  absentees. 

[“Object,  object!”] 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

[“Object,  object  !”J 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  w as  sustained, 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  20,  1874.]  Layton,  Chapin,  Hale,  Blose,  Horton,  etc. 


1533 


and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  49,  nays  31,  as 
follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Barnet, 
Beer,  Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery, 
De  Steiguer,  Ewing,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Mer- 
rill, Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears, 
Shaw,  Steedman,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Weaver, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of 
Noble,  President — 49. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Clark 
of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey, 
Gardner,  Hitchcock,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Layton, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis, 
Pond,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell”  of  Meigs,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thomp- 
son, Townsley,  White  of  Hocking — 31. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
will  bring  in  the  absentees. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  If  the  Secretary  will  call 
the  list,  perhaps  it  would  assist  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  somewhat. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  absentees  without 
leave  are  Messrs.  Chapin,  Freiberg,  Miner, 
and  Tripp. 

Mr.  CHAPIN  having  presented  himself  at 
the  bar  of  the  Convention,  said  he  was  absent 
on  account  of  sickness.  He  was  excused. 

Mr.  HALE.  I move  that  all  further  proceed- 
ings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  gentleman  from  Jackson 
[Mr.  Tripp]  is  absent,  and  I trust  that  the  Con- 
vention will  not  take  a one-sided  view  of  this 
matter.  Let  us  have  all  that  are  in  the  city  pres- 
ent. If  the  rule  is  good  for  one  side,  it  certain- 
ly is  for  the  other. 

Mr.  HALE.  If  it  is  a matter  of  any  account 
I shall  not  press  the  motion.  I supposed  that 
it  would  make  no  sort  of  difference  as  the  gen- 
tleman who  is  absent  certainly  will  vote  against 
the  Article,  as  I understand  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  certainly. 

Mr.  HALE.  I withdraw  my  motion. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  gentleman  from  Lorain 
[Mr.  Hale],  considers  that  it  makes  a difference 
in  that  view  of  the  case. 

Mr.  HALE.  I withdraw  the  motion,  not  be- 
cause it  will  make  any  difference,  but  because 
the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  asked 
it.  I trust  that  I am  capable  of  acting  without 
being  influenced  by  interested  motives,  even  if 
the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  is 
not  magnanimous  enough  to  appreciate  such  ac- 
tion. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  that  further  proceedings 
under  the  call  be  dispened  with. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

[“Object,  object!]” 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I withdraw  it. 

Mr.  Voris’  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  By  all  my  action  and  votes, 
I have  so  far  opposed  the  veto  power  of  the 
Governor.  The  fact  that  the  majority  of  this 


Convention  has  declared  in  favor  of  it,  does  not 
make  it  less  repulsive  or  less  objectionable  to 
me;  but  as  it  has  become  a section  in  this  Ar- 
ticle, and  as  I am  unwilling  to  take  the  respon- 
sibility, by  my  vote,  to  undo  the  work  of  this 
Convention  for  days  and  weeks,  I shall,  though 
reluctantly,  vote  for  the  Article.  I shall  swal- 
low the  bitter  veto  pill,  because  I think  there 
will  be  many  questions  in  the  Convention  which 
I shall  not  agree  to.  After  having  made  all  the 
opposition  I can  consistently,  I am  willing  to 
vote  for  it. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I am  just  the  opposite  from  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller].  I 
shall  fight  it  out  on  this  line  if  it  takes  all 
summer,  at  five  dollars  a day.  There  were 
thirty-two  votes  for  this  the  other  day.  There 
is  a gentleman  who  lies  upon  a couch  of  sick- 
ness, probably  dying  now,  who  will  never  be  in 
the  Convention.  There  were  other  gentlemen 
who  supposed  this  was  settled,  from  the  very 
fact  of  its  having  been  agreed  to  by  a fair 
majority.  Now,  when  they  see  friends  of  the 
measure  are  absent,  they  propose  to  go  in  and 
count  their  votes,  but,  like  General  Grant,  I 
propose  to  “fight  it  out  on  this  line,  if  it  takes 
all  summer.” 

Mr.  HORTON.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 
The  first  name  has  been  called  by  the  Secretary. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  recognized 
the  gentleman  before  the  Secretary  called  the 
first  name. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I have  opposed,  to  the  best 
of  my  ability,  on  this  floor,  the  adoption  of  this 
veto  measure.  I came  into  the  Convention 
without  any  clearly  settled  and  definite  position 
upon  this  subject,  and  I am  free  to  say  that  the 
discussion  of  the  measure,  as  I listened  to  it 
with  unusual  interest,  fully  convinced  me  that 
it  had  nothing  in  it  that  was  practical  or  useful, 
or  that  would  be  beneficial  to  adopt  into  the 
organic  law  of  the  State.  I resisted  it,  to  the 
extent  of  my  ability,  down  to  this  time;  but, 
sir,  I believe  there  must  come  a time  when  we 
must  all  recognize  the  power  of  the  majority  of 
this  Convention  to  determine  its  action.  I 
believe,  in  reference  to  this  matter,  that  this 
time  has  now  come.  Any  further  resistance 
becomes  factious  rather  than  useful,  and,  as 
much  as  I am  opposed  to  this  provision,  I am 
still  satisfied  that  the  Article  contains  much 
that  is  useful.  It  is  an  improvement  upon  the 
present  Article.  I,  therefore,  reluctantly, 
hesitatingly,  doubtingly,  but  still  conscious 
that  I am  endeavoring  to  do  right,  shall  now 
give  my  vote  in  favor  of  the  Article  as  it  has 
been  reported. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Under  the  circumstances  I 
feel  compelled  to  do  what  I did  not  design  to 
do : state  some  reasons  why  I must  vote  against 
the  Article.  I do  not  wish  to  stand  in  a position 
of  making  captious  objections,  which  will  pre- 
vent real  progress;  and  whenever  a proposition 
is  made  that  is  so  combined  with  other  propo- 
sitions that  to  separate  them  would  be  attended 
with  difficulty,  it  would  be,  with  me,  a very 
strong  motive  to  forego  my  own  conviction  upon 
what  is  right  with  regard  to  the  particular  mat- 
ter, and  to  adopt  that  which  I was  individually 
opposed  to.  In  reference  to  this  particular  mat- 
ter it  is  obvious  that  it  has  no  such  connection 


1534 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Tuttle,  Ewing,  Gardner. 


[119th 

[Friday? 


with  anything  else  in  the  Article.  No  difficulty 
whatever  in  entirely  detaching  it  from  the 
Article,  and  altogether  excluding  it.  It  is  in 
no  way  connected  with  anything  else.  There- 
fore the  question,  in  my  judgment,  should  be, 
whether  this  particular  provision  has  or  has  not 
a majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to  this 
body  in  its  favor?  If  such  a majority  were 
found  and  were  professedly  acting  upon  their 
own  convictions  of  right;  that  would  be,  by 
itself,  a very  strong  argument  in  favor  of  my 
own  accession  to  It,  and  it  is  very  likely  so 
strong  that  I should  now  feel  compelled,  not- 
withstanding this  was  in  the  Article,  to  vote  for 
the  Constitution,  if  otherwise  acceptable  to  me. 

It  is,  therefore,  with  great  regret,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, profound  regret,  that,  under  these  circum- 
stances, I have  heard  gentlemen  say  they  pro- 
posed, not  to  express  their  convictions  with 
regard  to  the  propriety  of  this  measure  by  their 
vote,  but  that  they  intend  to  vote  for  this  with 
others,  notwithstanding  they  are  convinced 
and  their  judgment  tells  them  it  is  wrong. 
Profound  regret,  I say ; for  I hoped  to  gather 
light  from  the  action  of  the  Convention  in  this 
connection  as  to  what  my  duty  will  be  in  the 
future.  If  I found  a less  number  than  fifty- 
three  votes  for  it,  I should  insist  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  this  Convention  to  omit  it  from  the 
Article ; and  if,  by  reason  of  there  being  a ma- 
jority always  present  in  its  favor,  they  should 
still  insist  upon  keeping  it  in  the  Article,  it 
would  not  receive  my  support;  and  if,  in  conse- 
quence, it  remained,  I would  only  repose  the 
responsibility  where  it  belongs. 

Mr.  EWING.  I would  like  to  inquire  if  any 
disputed  or  debated  proposition  that  we  have 
adopted  has  received  fifty-three  votes  in  this 
Convention,  and  if  not,  how  the  gentleman  can 
reconcile  it  to  his  sense  of  duty  to  vote  for  any 
Article,  or  to  vote  for  the  Constitution  itself, 
when  it  comes  to  be  voted  for  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  said  the  proposition 
may  be  so  combined  with  other  propositions, 
that  their  separation  from  the  Article  would  re- 
quire a remodeling  of  the  other  parts.  There 
may  be  propositions  about  which  we  may  con- 
ceive the  people  have  already  formed  opinions, 
and  demand  some  specific  action  on  the  part  of 
this  Convention;  but  more  especially  for  the 
first  reason,  Mr.  President,  that  when  the 
proposition  is  of  a character  that  it  is  interwoven 
with  other  provisions  or  other  sections  of  the 
Constitution,  requiring  a remodeling  of  the 
other  provisions  about  which  there  is  difficulty, 
then,  for  that  reason,  whilst  I am  in  favor  of 
other  parts  of  the  proposition,  so  that  it  cannot 
be  separated  from  that  which  I object  to,  I find 
reasons  enough  why  I can  vote  for  many  things 
in  this  proposed  Constitution  that  I do  not,  of 
my  own  judgment,  approve  of;  and  I have 
stated  the  reasons  why  I cannot  vote  for  this 
upon  that  ground,  or  upon  any  ground  to  be, 
because  it  does  not  have  any  such  connection. 
And  I desire  to  say  further,  we  have  adopted  a 
rule  here,  by  which  it  is  provided  that  fifty- 
three  members  shall  vote  for  each  separate  pro- 
vision before  it  shall  pass  this  Convention  and 
be  a part  of  the  Constitution.  I desire  to  know 
what  that  is  for,  if  it  be  not  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  the  independent  sense  of  members 
of  this  Convention,  and  for  ascertaining  further 


upon  the  merits  of  each  proposition,  either  by 
itself  or  as  it  may  be  connected  with  other  pro- 
positions, whether  fifty-three  members  are  in 
favor  of  it.  If  it  be  true,  sir,  that  because  forty- 
five  gentlemen  have  expressed  their  opinions  in 
favor  of  a proposition  and  only  forty-three  gen- 
tlemen against  it,  and  those  are  all  that  are 
present  and  vote,  I am  bound  to  receive  the  in- 
dependent proposition  and  vote  for  it,  to  make 
one  of  the  fifty- three,  without  which  it  must 
fail,  then  the  rule  ought  to  be  set  aside.  It  has 
no  effect  here.  It  is  a dead  letter  in  your  rules. 
It  is  delusive  in  its  representation  to  the  people. 
I,  therefore,  cannot  approve  of  the  policy  of 
this  measure;  and,  not  being  convinced  that  it 
is  right,  seeing  no  difficulty  whatever  resulting 
from  my  voting  against  it,  until  fifty-three  gen- 
tlemen independently  and  by  reason  of  their 
own  approval  of  it,  vote  in  its  favor,  I must 
still  continue  to  vote  against  it. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I have  hitherto  said  nothing 
upon  the  subject  of  the  veto  in  the  Convention. 
I was  a member  of  the  Committee  that  made 
this  Report,  and,  while  it  is  true  that  I signed 
this  Report,  it  was  understood  by  all  of  the 
members  of  the  Committee  that  I protested 
against  the  veto  clause  in  the  Committee,  and 
reserved  the  right  to  vote  against  this  proposi- 
tion in  Convention;  and  I would  be  perfectly 
willing  to  vote  for  this  Article  as  a whole,  taken 
altogether,  with  the  veto  in  it,  if,  in  my  judg- 
ment, it  was  an  improvement  upon  the  present 
Constitution.  While  there  are  many  features 
of  this  Article  that  I like  better  than  the  pres- 
ent Constitution,  I think  the  evil  that  may  re- 
sult from  the  eighteenth  section  overbalances 
them  all,  and,  in  my  judgment,  I prefer  the 
present  Constitution  to  the  Article  now  pro- 
posed. Believing  so,  I propose  to  vote  against 
the  adoption  of  the  Article  as  it  now  stands. 

I desire  to  state,  briefly,  my  reasons  for  my 
course.  It  is  proposed,  by  this  Convention,  to 
clothe  the  Executive  with  a power  to  control 
the  legislation  of  the  State,  and  he  does  it  en- 
tirely alone,  upon  his  own  individual  responsi- 
bility. He  does  not  sustain  to  the  General 
Assembly  the  relation  which  exists  between  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  Congress, 
for  this  reason  •.  The  exercise  of  the  veto  power 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  done 
with  the  counsel  of  his  cabinet;  men  distin- 
guished and  learned  in  the  law,  selected  from  all 
parts  of  the  country ; men  of  wisdom  and  ex- 
perience ; and  he  exercises  the  veto,  if  he  exer- 
cises it  at  all,  by  the  advice  and  with  the  ap- 
proval of  his  cabinet  officers.  With  the  Gov- 
ernor of  the  State  of  Ohio  there  is  no  such 
advisory  court.  He  exercises  the  prerogative 
upon  his  own  individual  responsibility ; and, 
whatever  may  present  itself  to  his  judgment,  he 
does.  It  is  a fact  in  the  history  of  this  country, 
that  in  most  cases  where  the  President  has  ex- 
ercised the  veto  power,  it  has  been  exercised  in 
conflict  with  Congress  because  of  political  dif- 
ference; and  it  will  be  so  in  this  State,  that, 
when  the  Executive  is  in  conflict  with  the  leg- 
islative department  of  the  State,  or  the  clamor 
of  party  calls  for  the  exercise  of  the  veto  power 
upon  questions  that  are  purely  political;  and  it 
is  this  that  engenders  grounds  of  difference  and 
bad  blood. 

When  I first  knew  anything  of  politics,  this 


1535 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  20, 1874.]  Gardner,  Hunt,  Carbery,  Layton,  Doan,  etc. 


question  was  the  subject  of  great  discussion 
through  the  country  between  the  two  parties. 
I was  taught,  when  young,  that  the  exercise  of 
the  veto  power  was  wrong.  It  has  grown  up 
with  my  manhood ; and,  as  I have  considered 
the  questions,  while  I have  changed  my  mind 
on  many  political  questions,  my  opinion  upon 
that  has  only  been  confirmed  by  observation 
and  experience;  and,  to-day,  after  the  result  of 
the  long  discussion  of  this  question  in  this  Con- 
vention, I am  more  than  ever  satisfied  that, 
clothing  a single  man  who  has  no  executive 
council,  with  no  advisers  upon  these  questions, 
with  this  arbitrary  power,  by  which  he  entirely 
destroys  the  will  of  the  people  expressed 
through  their  Representatives,  is  wrong  in 
principle.  It  is  introducing  a new  principle  in 
the  State.  There  has  been  no  demand  coming 
from  any  portion  of  the  State  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  new  principle,  this  new  theory. 
Nowhere  has  there  been  a complaint  upon  this 
question ; and  I cannot  conceive  that  this  Con- 
vention will  act  wisely  in  adopting  it;  and  for 
these  reasons  I propose  now  to  record  my  vote 
against  this  Article. 

Mr.  HUNT.  How  does  the  gentleman  recon- 
cile his  theory  with  the  fact  that,  in  nearly 
every  State  in  the  Union,  with  possibly  the  ex- 
ception of  the  smaller  States  of  Rhode  Island 
and  Delaware,  the  veto  power  is  exercised,  and 
has  been  for  years,  and  the  system  has  worked 
elliciently? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  If  the  gentleman  will  al- 
low me  to  answer  that  question  by  asking 
another,  I shall  be  content.  Is  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]  willing  to  adopt  as 
the  Constitution  of  this  State,  any  Constitution 
of  those  States  that  have  the  veto  power? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I have  read  none  of  them.  I 
have  only  glanced  at  them.  I would  be  almost 
willing  to  adopt  the  Constitution  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, or  the  Constitution  of  Illinois.  For  that 
matter,  we  have  adopted  the  Pennsylvania  Con- 
stitution quite  largely,  and,  from  the  beginning, 
since  this  Convention  assembled,  the  Illinois 
Constitution  has  been  praised. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  If  that  is  to  be  done,  if  we 
are  doing  a thing  just  because  another  State  has 
done  it,  let  us  do  the  very  thing  that  that  State 
has  done,  and  why  spend  four  or  five  months 
here  for  the  purpose  of  adopting  a Constitution  ? 
I am  speaking  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  I say,  since 
the  organization  of  this  State,  the  Governor 
has  been  without  this  power;  the  people  con- 
tent without  it.  They  are  content  to  do  with- 
out it.  There  is  no  demand  coming  up  from 
the  people  from  any  quarter  that  I know  of;  not 
a single  petition  has  been  presented  in  favor  of 
it,  on  the  floor  of  this  Convention,  if  I remem- 
ber rightly. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I am  one  of  those  who  re- 
sisted the  introduction  of  the  three-fifths  veto 
into  this  Article,  and  I am  also  one  of  those  who 
believe  in  the  straight  principle  of  no  veto  at 
all;  but  I compromised  myself  so  far  as  to  sup- 
port the  amendment  introduced  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell].  This  is  a 
step  nearer  that  than  the  two-thirds  proposi- 
tion ; but  while  I am  not  in  favor  of  it,  I cannot 
take  the  responsibility  of  breaking  up  this  Con- 
vention, now  in  the  very  summit  of  its  useful- 
ness for  work,  for  any  opinion  that  I may  have 


on  this  subject.  I do  not  feel  that  I am  at 
liberty  to  do  that,  sir.  I do  not  believe  that  his- 
tory will  busy  itself  with  the  precise  attitude 
of  the  gentlemen  as  they  fall  into  the  arms  of 
the  majority.  It  has  dwelt  largely  with  the 
position  of  Caesar  in  the  Senate  Chamber,  and 
Patrick  Henry  in  the  House  of  Burgesses ; but 
I have  no  idea  that  it  will  feel  the  least  interest 
in  the  position  of  J.  P.  Carbery,  as  he  with- 
draws his  opposition  and  surrenders. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I have,  sir,  from  the  begin- 
ning, or  introduction  of  what  I claim  to  be  a 
pernicious  measure — a measure  uncalled  for  in 
the  legislative  or  the  executive  power  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  opposed  this  veto.  I yielded,  as 
a matter  of  compromise,  to  vote  for  the  eight- 
eenth section,  introduced  by  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  as  amended  and 
finally  passed.  From  the  throwing  up  of  the 
sponge  and  the  cry  of  peccavi  which  comes  from 
the  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  which  I had 
thought  better  things  of,  it  is  probable  they  may 
have  obtained  the  fifty-three  names  to  pass  this 
Article.  Sir,  I am  answerable  to  three  sources 
for  my  vote  here  to-day ; first,  to  my  God ; next, 
to  myself ; and  lastly,  to  my  constituents ; and 
if  there  was  not  another  man  upon  this  floor 
to-day  that  would  record  his  vote  against  the 
exercise  of  that  arbitrary  power,  I hope,  sir, 
that  my  name  will  be  recorded — no ! “ The  old 
guard  never  surrenders.” 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I wish  to  ask  a question  of 
my  colleague  [Mr.  Carbery]. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Propound  it. 

Mr.  J OHNSON.  He  spoke  of  not  voting  upon 
this  question  so  as  to  break  up  the  Convention. 
I would  like  to  know  how  a vote,  either  one 
way  or  the  other,  can  break  up  this  Convention  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  If  we  refuse  to  pass  this 
Article,  and  it  is  sent  back  to  the  Standing 
Committee,  and  they  try  to  bring  up  an  Article 
that  we  can  pass  here,  it  will  produce  delay.  It 
will  alienate  the  members  of  the  Convention 
one  from  another,  and  will  practically  impair 
its  power  to  carry  anything  in  this  Convention, 
and  we  shall  have  to  adjourn  sine  die. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  That  is  quite  a different 
thing  from  breaking  up  this  Convention. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  That  is  one  of  the  phrases. 

Mr.  DOAN.  I have  not  participated  in  this 
discussion,  and  shall  say  but  a word  in  this 
connection.  I was  a member  of  the  Legislative 
Committee,  and  in  its  deliberations,  in  my 
humble  way,  I opposed  the  introduction  of  this 
power  that  is  sought  to  be  conferred  upon  the 
Governor  by  the  veto.  Not  satisfied  with  the 
Report  of  the  Committee,  I entered  my  written 
protest  against  it.  Since  then,  I have  simply 
exercised  the  right  and  privilege  of  a member 
of  this  body,  voting,  confessedly,  to  accomplish 
the  defeat  of  the  power  sought  to  be  given  to  the 
Governor. 

Mr.  President,  taking  the  situation  that  I find 
myself  in,  what  ought  I to  do?  I have  consid- 
ered it  in  every  light  in  which  it  presents  itself 
to  me,  and  I can  only  find  this  one  answer  : If  I 
say,  when  I was  voting  against  the  veto  power, 
giving  to  the  Governor  of  the  State  of  Ohio  the 
power  to  stop  the  Representatives  of  the  people, 
that  I was  right,  how  should  I vote  to  day  ? I 
hold,  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  vote 
here,  I must  satisfy  my  own  judgment,  sat- 


1536 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Doan,  Neal,  Hoadly. 


[119th 

[Friday 


isfy  my  own  conscience,  and  respond  to  the 
expectations  and  wishes  of  my  constituents 
of  both  political  parties  who  sent  me  here.  I 
shall  not  have  discharged  that  duty  even  to  my 
own  satisfaction,  nor  to  their  expectations,  as 
long  as  I fail  to  exercise  here  any  means  to  defeat 
an  object  and  purpose  which  is  objectionable  and 
odious  to  them.  Therefore,  Mr.  President,  with- 
out any  reflection  upon  the  action  of  any  mem- 
ber of  this  body,  I have  simply  to  say,  in 
conclusion,  that  I regard  the  exercise  of  that 
power  distasteful  to  the  people  of  Ohio.  My 
judgment  convinces  me  that  it  is  wrong  to  give 
one  man  such  arbitrary  power  to  control,  check 
and  defeat  the  action  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
people  of  Ohio.  No  sugar-coated  wrong,  with  a 
few  wholesome  provisions,  will  ever  induce  me 
to  swallow  the  pill.  One  of  the  great  evils  of 
legislation,  one  that  startled  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  was  the  act  of  the  last  Congress  to 
save  an  appropriation  bill  that  was  on  its  final 
passage,  when  amendments,  one  after  another, 
deemed  to  be  wrong  and  obnoxious,  were  carried 
through  for  the  purpose  of  saving  that  which 
was  absolutely  necessary  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  government.  While  my  judgment  ap- 
proves of  many  of  the  provisions  of  this  Legis- 
lative Article,  if  there  is  one  single  provision  in 
the  Article  which  my  judgment  condemns  as 
wrong,  the  good  cannot  make  the  wrong  right; 
therefore,  I vote  now  against  it,  as  I have  here- 
tofore done. 

Mr.  NEAL.  When  this  question  was  under 
discussion  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  I re- 
mained «ilent,  and  when  it  was  under  discussion 
in  the  Convention,  I kept  my  seat,  and  listened 
attentively  to  the  discussion,  both  for  and 
against  the  incorporating  of  this  new  feature 
into  our  fundamental  law.  From  early  educa- 
tion, and  from  a profound  conviction,  founded 
upon  the  observation  and  experience  of  the  past 
thirty- five  years,  I have  always  been  opposed 
to  the  veto  power  in  any  manner  it  has  ever 
been  presented  to  my  judgment.  When,  how- 
ever, the  question  was  under  consideration  in 
the  Convention,  I voted  for  the  proposition  that 
was  then  adopted,  believing  that  it  might  have 
one  good  effect,  and  that  was  in  checking  rash 
legislation.  When  I speak  of  rash  legislation,  I 
mean  to  include  that  legislation  which,  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent,  is  considered  upon  the 
last  day  and  night  of  the  session  of  the  General 
Assembly,  when  bills  are  passed  upon  under  a 
suspension  of  the  rules,  without  the  delibera- 
tion which  ought  to  be  given  to  every  measure 
that  is  proposed  to  become  a law  of  the  land. 
This  section  18,  as  adopted  by  the  Convention, 
provided  that  no  bill  should  be  passed  within 
the  last  three  days  of  the  session.  This,  in  my 
opinion,  is  all  that  is  necessary  in  order  to  put 
such  checks  upon  rash  legislation  as  were  not 
already  placed  upon  it  by  the  Constitution  of 
1851 . U nder  that  Constitution,  as  is  well  known 
to  every  member,  every  bill  has  to  be  read  upon 
three  different  days,  in  open  session.  It  must 
be  printed  and  laid  upon  the  tables  of  the  mem- 
bers. It  is  referred,  for  consideration,  to  a 
standing  committee;  so  that,  in  the  opinion  of 
such  eminent  statesmen  as  Judge  Ranney,  every 
guard  was  thrown  around  legislation  that  was 
necessary.  Therefore,  Mr.  President,  I voted, 
as  I have  said,  for  section  18.  Yesterday  morn- 


ing I took  occasion  to  express,  in  a very  few 
words,  my  reasons  why  this  reference  should 
not  be  made;  and  I shall  state  now  my  reasons, 
in  brief,  why  1 cannot  vote  for  this  Article. 

First,  Mr.  President,  I do  not  know  that  I 
should  vote  for  the  Article  if  this  section  were 
not  embodied  in  it.  It  has  been  my  desire 
from  the  beginning  to  make  a Constitution  so 
elastic  and  flexible  in  its  character  that  it  will 
adapt  itself  to  the  growing  and  changing 
wants  of  the  people  for  all  time  to  come.  I 
was  convinced  the  present  Constitution  was 
too  inflexible  in  its  character,  too  inelastic, 
and  that  it  tended  to  prevent  the  securing  of 
such  legislation  as  the  people,  from  time  to 
time,  imperatively  require,  owing  to  the  rapid 
development  of  the  State  in  population  and  in 
all  material  industries.  This  being  my  convic- 
tion, it  was  my  desire  we  should  give  some 
elasticity  to  this  Article,  so  that  it  might  adapt 
itself  to  the  wants  of  the  people  as  they  change 
from  time  to  time.  This  Article  wholly  fails  to 
meet  my  anticipations.  Instead  of  being  more 
elastic,  it  is  more  inelastic  in  its  character,  and 
it  will  interpose  such  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
proper  legislation,  that,  no  sooner  are  its 
provisions  practically  felt  and  known,  than 
there  will  be  very  general  dissatisfaction,  and 
a demand  everywhere  will  be  made  that  its 
obnoxious  and  restrictive  features  be  eliminated 
from  the  Constitution. 

Therefore,  I consider  the  old  Article  better 
than  the  new  one,  and  for  this  reason,  even 
if  this  obnoxious  provision  was  not  incorpo- 
rated in  it,  I could  not  vote  for  the  adoption  of 
this  Article. 

But,  as  I have  said,  the  amendment  that  has 
been  made  to  section  eighteen  is  fatal  to  it, 
in  my  opinion,  for  I do  not  believe  that  it  is 
at  all  desirable  to  give  the  executive  any  right 
whatever  to  interfere  in  legislation.  I do  not 
believe  that  he  ought  to  have  any  right  to  use 
any  personal  influence  whatever  in  shaping 
the  character  of  our  laws,  or  place  any  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  the  people’s  Representatives  in 
the  enactment  of  such  laws  as  they,  in  their 
wisdom,  may  determine  upon.  If  the  laws  of 
one  General  Assembly  are  found  to  be  erro- 
neous in  principle,  or  oppressive  in  practice; 
if  they  are  found  to  be  illy  adapted  to  the 
object  attempted  to  be  subserved,  the  next 
General  Assembly  may  repeal,  amend,  or  modify 
them. 

While  upon  this  subject,  I will  state  that 
about  the  only  country  paper  I have  seen  which 
has  advocated  this  amendment  is  the  one  which 
I now  hold  in  my  hand,  and  if  the  gentleman 
from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner],  who  was  a member 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  1868,  will  pardon 
me,  I will  read,  in  brief,  the  reasons  why  this 
writer  thinks  the  veto  principle  should  be 
incorporated  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
land. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  What  paper? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Never  mind  now  what  paper. 
If  the  gentleman  wishes  to  know,  I will  inform 
him  with  pleasure. 

“Governor  Noyes  remarked,  in  a speech  at 
the  court-house  last  fall,  that  the  Governor  of 
Ohio  was  a mere  figure-head;  that  the  duty  of 
that  officer  consisted  chiefly  in  pardoning  Demo- 
crats out  of  the  Penitentiary.  The  Constitu- 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Neal,  Mullen,  Griswold,  Tuttle,  etc. 


1537 


Day.] 

February  20,  1874.] 


tional  Convention,  wishing  to  make  this  a little 
more  respectable,  and  at  the  same  time  giving 
the  Governor  something  to  do,  are  clothing  him 
with  the  veto  power.  The  idea  was  no  doubt 
forced  upon  their  minds  by  the  effect  of  the 
legislative  labors  of  1868,  when  the  General 
Assembly  passed  so  many  absurd  acts  as  to 
clothe  themselves  with  infamy.” 

I trust,  if  such  was  the  character  of  the  acts  of 
that  General  Assembly,  we  shall  never  again 
have  an  Assembly  which  will  follow  in  its  foot- 
steps. 

These  are  the  reasons,  in  brief,  why  I cannot 
support  this  Article.  A moment  ago  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  was  pleased  to 
charge  me  with  not  being  capable  of  appreciat- 
ing magnanimity.  I confess  I am  not  able  to 
appreciate  a certain  kind  of  magnanimity.  Yes- 
terday, upon  this  floor,  when  it  was  proposed  by 
the  members  of  the  minority  that  certain  gen- 
tlemen should  be  sent  for,  who  were  known  to 
be  in  the  city,  this  Convention  refused  to  per- 
mit it.  To-day,  when  we  ask  that  the  same 
rule  be  applied,  it  is  not  done.  I confess  I am 
not  able  to  appreciate  that  sort  of  magnanimity, 
nor  do  I ever  desire  to  be. 

Mr.  MULLEN.  The  manner  in  which  I shall 
vote  upon  this  Article  is  a matter  of  but  little 
importance  to  any  member  of  this  Convention 
except  myself.  But,  in  order  that  I may  be 
placed  upon  the  record  upon  this  Article,  1 de- 
sire to  state  that  it  does  not  now  meet  with  the 
approval  of  my  judgment.  It  appears  a singu- 
lar state  of  things  to  me,  at  this  stage  of  the 
proceedings,  that  we  propose  to  pass  an  Article 
to  be  a part  and  parcel  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  that  has  not  met  with  the  ap- 
proval of  the  judgment  of  a majority  of  this 
Convention.  I say  it  is  strange  to  me  that  we 
can  ask  the  people  to  sustain  and  support  an 
Article  of  the  Constitution  that  does  not  meet 
the  approval  of  the  judgment  of  a majority  of 
the  Convention.  The  assertion  has  been  made 
here,  by  individuals  who  oppose  this  principle, 
that  they  will  vote  for  it  in  order  that  it  may 
receive  a majority.  Then,  I say,  that,  upon  that 
question,  we  go  before  the  people  and  falsify 
the  real  judgment  of  the  Convention. 

I have  opposed  the  introduction  of  this  Arti- 
cle in  the  Constitution  from  principle.  I have 
seen  no  reason  to  change  my  views  upon  this 
subject,  and  I say  now,  once  and  for  all,  under 
no  circumstances,  under  no  manner  in  which 
they  can  tie  this  principle  up,  can  I sustain  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  Article,  and  upon  this  the  yeas 
and  nays  are  ordered. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll. 

Mr.  BURNS,  before  the  result  was  announced, 
asked  leave  to  change  his  vote,  but  objection  be- 
ing made,  he  withdrew  his  request. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I ask  leave  to 
change  my  vote. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  result  was  then  announced — yeas  53,  nays 
30,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Cha- 
pin, Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Frei- 
berg, Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 

y.  n-99 


Hunt,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Merrill,  Mitch- 
ner,  Mueller,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sam- 
ple, Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Steedman,  Town- 
send, Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Yoorhes, 
Yoris,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble,  President — 53. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Barnet,  Blose,  Cald- 
well, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cowen,  Doan, 
Gardner,  Hitchcock,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Layton, 
Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Reilly, 
Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
White  of  Hocking — 30. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Article  is,  therefore, 
agreed  to,  and,  under  rule  sixty,  shall  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Revision,  by  them 
to  be  embodied  in  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Would  a motion  to  recon- 
sider this  motion  be  in  order  during  the  next 
three  days,  under  the  rule? 

The  PRESIDENT.  During  the  next  two 
days. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  now  that  we  re- 
consider the  vote. 

[“  Object,  object,  object!”] 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir;  let  us  dispose  of 
it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  that  will  not  be  done. 
I say  it  is  not  right.  The  reason  why  the  right 
of  reconsideration  is  given,  is  that  there  may 
be  opportunity  for  reconsideration.  If  any 
person  who  has  voted,  in  any  manner,  is  of  opin- 
ion that  he  has  voted  wrongly,  there  may  be  an 
opportunity  to  correct  his  action.  It"  is  not 
meant,  sir,  in  order  that  a deliberative  body  of 
men,  by  reconsidering,  may  speak  twice  instead 
of  once,  may  say  aye  twice  in  one  breath  instead 
of  once;  may  make  that  irrevocable  which,  by 
the  laws  of  parliamentary  practice,  ought  to 
continue  for  a time  revocable.  The  rule  of 
parliamentary  law  has  been  founded  for  wise 
reasons,  on  the  supposition  that,  after  all  action, 
after  all  deliberation,  circumstances  may  in- 
tervene such  that  the  determination  ought  not 
to  be  at  once,  immediately  and  irrevocably, 
fixed,  as  the  law  of  the  Medes  and  Persians. 
For  that  reason,  sir,  a provision  is  important, 
that  when  any  member  shall  have  changed  his 
mind,  time  is  given  for  reconsideration,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  preventing  some  great  evil,  and 
avoiding  some  consequence  that  has  not  been 
contemplated. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me  a question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Did  not  the  gentleman 
do  this  very  thing  ? Did  he  noc  vote  for  pre- 
cisely such  a motion  on  an  Article  that  got 
fifty-three  votes,  and  when  the  previous  ques- 
tion had  been  moved  upon  a reconsideration, 
which  has  not  been  done  here  ? If  he  will  look 
at  the  record,  he  will  find  that  he  did. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  that  I did ; but 
if  I have  done  wrong  once,  that  is  no  reason 
why  I should  do  it  again ; and  if  I have  done 
wrong  once,  it  is  no  reason  why  fifty-three  men 
should  do  wrong.  If  I have  done  wrong  upon 
that  subject,  I would  think  it  quite  discreditable 
to  gentlemen  to  profit  by  my  example. 

Mr.  President,  I would  rather— than  to  hear 


3 538 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Tuttle,  Hoadly,  Neal,  Coats,  etc. 


[119th 


my  example  quoted,  if  it  be  so,  and  I do  not 
know  whether  it  is  or  not,  I have  done  many 
things — to  hear  now  that  this  Convention  was 
not  acting  thoughtlessly  upon  this  matter.  If 
they  really  mean  and  expect  to  reconsider  their 
action  upon  this  matter,  that  is  one  thing.  If 
they  mean  to  foreclose  all  reconsideration,  that 
is  another.  There  is  no  reason  why  this  matter 
shall  be  crammed  down  the  throats  of  unwilling 
members.  I want  them  to  know  what  they  are 
doing.  I want  them  to  understand  that  it  may 
become  necessary  hereafter,  in  order  to  carry 
this  Constitution  through,  to  have  the  votes  of 
some  gentlemen,  to  whom  this  matter  is  very 
objectionable.  It  is  proposed  to  insert  this 
amendment,  and  without  an  opportunity  for  re- 
consideration, to  shut  up  the  doors  so  that, 
whatever  the  opinion  of  gentlemen  may  here- 
after be,  nothing  can  be  corrected.  I ask  them 
to  take  warning.  It  may  be  that  that  will  afford 
the  very  strongest  reason  why  some  gentlemen, 
who  will  wish  hereafter  to  vote  for  the  entire 
Constitution,  and  without  whose  votes  it  can 
never  receive  the  required  majority,  will  feel 
compelled  to  vote  against  it.  I do  not  know 
that  anything  that  I shall  say  here  will  have 
any  influence  in  that  direction ; but  I hope  that 
this  Convention  will  not  feel  it  necessary  at  this 
time,  not  for  the  real  purpose  of  reconsidering, 
but,  as  I said  yesterday,  for  the  simple  purpose 
of  reiterating  what  they  have  done  before,  to 
press  this  matter  at  this  time. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  one  of  those  to  whom 
this  is  no  triumph.  Iam  one  of  those  who 
have  to  express  a disappointment  in  this  result. 
I am  a friend  of  the  two-thirds  veto,  and  sacri- 
ficed my  desire  that  the  veto  should  be  a vastly 
more  efficient  instrument  for  the  protection  of 
the  public  in  the  hands  of  the  Governor,  whom 
the  whole  people  elect,  against  the  frauds  and 
corruptions  which  from  New  York  and  Penn- 
sylvania, are  rapidly  stealing  into  our  legisla- 
tive bodies.  I am  one  of  those  who  regret 
being  compelled  to  surrender  my  wish  and 
desire  that  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio 
should  be  modeled  after  the  Constitution  which 
George  Washington  signed;  but, Mr. President, 
I do  not  forget  that  there  are  members  of  this 
Convention  absent,  whose  votes  would  have 
been  recorded  here  in  the  affirmative  to-day.  I can 
name  Mr.  Wilson,  of  Mahoning,  who  voted  yes- 
terday with  us;  Mr.  White,  of  Brown;  Mr. 
Wells, of  Vinton  ; Mr.  Foran,  of  Cuyahoga ; Mr. 
Alexander, of  Van  Wert;  all  friends  of  the  three 
fifths  veto,  the  vote  of  every  one  of  whom,  if 
here,  wouid  have  been  given  for  this  Article. 
Now,  then,  situated  as  I am,  having  consented 
to  the  compromise,  knowing  that  it  is  all  but 
impossible  to  get  105  members  here,  I feel  that 
the  work  of  this  Convention,  as  done  to-day, 
ought  to  be  final;  and  that  no  majority  of  a 
mere  quorum  should  be  allowed  to  reverse 
what  I know  to  be  the  opinion  of  a majority 
elected  to  this  Convention,  on  the  judgment 
which  is  not  enthusiastic ; but  a judgment  care- 
fully and  deliberately  given,  and  without  any 
purpose  or  intention  whatever  of  hurting  the 
feelings,  or  trampling  on  the  rights,  or  of  doing 
the  least  injustice  to  the  least  or  greatest  of 
our  brethren. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  answer 
a question  ? 


[Friday, 


Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Does  the  gentleman  concede 
there  can  be  any  real  risk,  unless  it  result  in  a 
real  change  of  opinion,  for  allowing  this  to  re- 
main as  it  stands? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I most  emphatically  think 
there  can  be  a risk  in  detaining  this  Convention 
many  weeks. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Did  not  the  gentleman  feel  very 
much  outraged  at  the  majority  of  the  Conven- 
vention  last  summer  fixing  irrevocably  the  Ar- 
ticle with  regard  to  Public  Institutions  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  My  friend  has  forgotten  that 
I voted  in  the  majority.  I am  one  of  the  fifty- 
four.  1 am  frank  to  say  to  my  friend,  if  I had 
that  vote  to  cast  over  again,  I would  not  have 
cast  it  as  I did,  and  five  minutes  afterward  I 
would  not  have  cast  it  as  I did. 

Mr.  NEAL.  There  are  some  others  in  the 
same  position. 

Mr.  COATS.  This  action  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, the  exhibition  of  unseemly  haste  on  the 
part  of  the  present  majority  in  this  matter.  If 
the  Proposition  just  adopted  is  the  very  good 
thing  that  its  friends  claim  it  to  be,  they  should 
not  exhibit  the  haste  and  greed  here  manifested 
to  consummate  their  work  by  further  resort  to 
parliamentary  tactics.  It  would  seem  that  the 
Scripture  adage,  that  “ the  wicked  flee  when 
no  man  pursueth,”  if  applied  to  the  friends  of 
this  measure,  would  be  very  appropriate. 

Mr.  HOWLAND.  “ The  prudent  man  fore- 
seeth  the  evil,  and  hideth  himself.” 

Mr.  COATS.  The  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Rowland],  being  a friend  of  this  measure, 
may  have  the  full  benefit  of  his  quotation,  as 
well  as  mine.  If  the  principle  just  adopted  is 
to  operate,  as  the  friends  thereof  contend  it  will, 
as  a cure  for  all  the  ills  and  evils  of  legislation ; 
if  it  is  to  act,  in  this  behalf,  as  a universal 
panacea,  with  all  the  magical  curative  proper- 
ties, like  unto  those  possessed  by  the  brazen 
serpent  that  was  lifted  up  in  the  wilderness 
for  the  cure  of  the  ills  that  flesh  was  heir  to, 
in  that  day  and  age  of  the  world’s  history;  if 
it  really  possesses  the  rare  virtues  for  the  heal- 
ing of  the  Nation  and  the  State,  acting,  as  its 
friends  claim,  both  as  a preventive  and  cure 
of  vicious  legislation,  as  magical,  thorough  and 
effective  as  produced  by  the  brazen  serpent 
alluded  to  in  the  alleviation  of  physical  infirmi- 
ties, we  should  have  it,  but  let  it  be  obtained 
without  unseemly  haste.  This  is,  or  should  be, 
a deliberative  body,  not  engaged  in  the  enact- 
ment of  statute  laws;  but  we  are  here 
endeavoring  to  frame  a fundamental  law  for 
ourselves,  our  people  of  to-day,  and  for 
posterity.  What  we  do  here  to-day  may  be 
done  for  the  benefit,  advantage  or  disadvantage 
of  generations  to  come  after  us.  Deliberation 
I should  dignify  our  action,  and  I trust  the 
friends  of  this  measure,  now  that  they  have 
I secured  all  that  they  desire,  and  have  labored 
! to  obtain,  though  secured  by  reason  of  the  non- 
' attendance  to-day  of  many  members  of  this 
1 Convention  opposed  thereto,  will  not  seek  to 
1 fasten  this  provision  upon  this  body  and  the 
people  beyond  the  power  of  a full  attendance  of 
members,  on  some  future  day,  to  re-consider 
this  matter.  I trust  they  will  not,  by  unseemly 
; haste,  seek  to  secure  their  prize  by  a total  disre- 
I gard  of  the  feelings  and  rights  of  men  who,  by 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

February  20,  1874.]  Coats,  Dorsey,  Griswold,  Cowen,  Hoadly,  etc. 


1539 


nature,  and,  perhaps,  by  practice,  are  quite  as 
good  as  themselves.  Is  it  equitable,  is  it  just, 
that  this  system  of  parliamentary  tactics,  by 
motion  to  re-consider  now,  and  previous  ques- 
tion, should  be  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  and  perpetuating  the  advantage  that 
the  friends  of  this  measure  now  seem  to  have 
gained  ? 

Mr.  BURN'S.  I desire  to  ask  a question : 
Has  not  this  same  motion  been  made  upon 
every  Proposition  that  has  been  adopted  by  this 
Convention  yet? 

Mr.  COATS.  Not  with  this  unseemly  haste. 
It  may  have  been  the  practice  heretofore,  when 
moved  by  a Chairman  of  a Committee,  which  is 
not  the  case  in  this  instance. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Immediately  following  the 
vote  upon  the  passage. 

Mr.  COATS.  I am  happy  to  know,  and  able 
to  state,  that  I never  have  voted  for  any  such 
motion,  nor  have  I,  in  any  way,  expressed  a 
desire  to,  against  the  will  of  the  minority. 
Gentlemen  stand  up  here  and  claim  rights  for 
minorities,  even  to  the  extent  of  minority  rep- 
resentation, by  a system  of  cumulative  voting, 
and  the  same  gentlemen  ask  that  the  veto  shall 
be  granted  to,  and  be  exercised  by,  the  execu- 
tive, to  prevent  hasty  legislation,  and  now,  by 
their  example,  on  this  Proposition,  go  against 
their  precepts  by  a resort  to  what  are  termed 
gag  rules.  This  is  hasty  legislation,  in  full 
bloom  and  beauty ; in  earnest. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  This  is  for  the  benefit  of  the 
majority. 

Mr.  COATS.  My  friend  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  says  that  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  ma- 
jority ; I think  so,  and  with  very  little  regard 
for  the  rights  and  feelings  of  the  minority. 
This  matter  has  not  come  in  here  by  the  free 
and  expressed  will  of  a majority  of  this  Conven- 
tion. It  has  crept  in  here  insidiously,  not  like 
the  serpent  that  was  lifted  up  in  the  wilderness 
in  olden  time,  for  the  cure  of  physical  ailments, 
but  like  the  other  serpent  that  crawled  into  the 
garden,  in  the  early  history  of  our  race,  and 
there  perpetrated  an  act  of  wickedness,  and 
villainy,  and  perfidy,  that  has  no  parallel  on 
record  in  the  annals  of  time,  from  that  day  to 
this.  This  measure  has  got  in  here  in  its  pres- 
ent form,  as  its  friends  well  know,  by  accident, 
as  I have  before  stated,  aided  in  all  stages  of  its 
progress  by  shrewd  parliamentary  tactics.  We 
must  yield,  as  a matter  of  course,  to  the  rule  of 
this  accidental  majority, now  bearing  rule  here; 
but  I yield,  protesting  against  its  action  in 
stifling  debate,  as  has  been  done  by  that  majori- 
ty. I do  this,  notwithstanding  I may,  in  so 
doing,  be  made  the  object  of  scurrilous  criticism, 
as  I was,  with  others,  on  yesterday,  by  a re- 
porter for  a daily  paper  of  this  city,  who,  by 
the  courtesy  of  this  Convention,  occupies  a 
place  here ; a gentleman  for  whom  I entertain 
no  feeling  of  unkindness  or  disrespect,  but 
think  his  strictures  were  the  exhibition  of  bad 
taste,  and  the  indulgence  therein  by  him  does 
him  little  credit.  I have  a duty  to  perform 
here,  and  if  I cannot  perform  that  duty  in  as 
smooth,  free  and  easy  a manner  as  many  other 
members  may  be  able  to  do  it,  I shall  do  it  in 
the  best  way  I can,  and  then  have  an  approving 
conscience  in  the  reflection  that  I have  done 
what  I could  do,  prompted  by  a sense  of  duty ; 


then  I shall  be  satisfied.  If  this  Convention  is 
determined  now  to  rush  with  this  haste  to  press 
the  question  of  reconsideration  to  secure  their 
ultimate  object,  I say  to  them,  while  I intend 
to  vote  and  act  in  all  things  according  to  my 
convictions  of  right,  I may,  however,  see  the 
time  when  this  matter  will  come  back  to  haunt 
the  same  gentlemen  who  are  to-day  putting  the 
iron  heel  upon  me  and  others  of  the  minority 
here.  I think  if  this  measure  has 
any  merit,  its  friends  need  not  run 
with  this  swiftness  and  fleetness,  or  exhibit 
this  haste  to  secure  it  as  a finality;  but  if  it 
should  live,  or  ought  to  live,  and  be  made  a part 
of  the  organic  law  of  the  State,  it  certainly 
will  live,  beyond  the  time  required  for  any  one 
to  move  its  reconsideration  as  provided  under  a 
standing  rule  of  this  Convention ; but  if  they 
have  fears  that  it  is  of  an  evil  character,  and 
will  be  unable  to  stand  on  its  own  merits,  and 
they  are  determined  to  force  it  on  an  unwilling 
people,  let  them,  by  all  means  in  their  power, 
secure  the  advantage  gained  by  fortuitous  cir- 
cumstances, and  the  aid  of  odious  parliament- 
ary gag-rules,  and  with  them  will  rest  the  re- 
sponsibility of  their  action,  when  they  go  to  the 
people  with  this,  the  work  of  their  hands. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I made  the  motion  to  re- 
consider, as  I supposed,  according  to  the  usual 
parliamentary  usage  on  every  Proposition  that 
has  been  adopted  in  this  Convention,  especially 
when  the  final  vote  was  taken.  The  majority 
have,  as  a matter  of  course,  moved  a reconsid- 
eration, for  the  purpose  of  ending  further  de- 
bate upon  it,  and  in  several  instances  the  previ- 
ous question  has  been  voted. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  make  an  inquiry?  If  he  does  not  know  that 
a motion  to  reconsider  was  not  made  when  the 
Article  in  relation  to  the  militia  was  adopted, 
and  when  the  provision  was  adopted  in  relation 
to  the  appointment  of  officers  ? Two  Proposi- 
tions, at  least,  come  within  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I was  not  here. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Let  me  call  the  attention  of 
the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  to 
the  fact  that  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr. 
Scofield],  a member  of  that  Committee,  imme- 
diately arose,  after  its  adoption,  and  made  the 
motion  to  reconsider,  and  the  vote  was  taken. 

Mr.  COWEN.  That  is  not  my  recollection. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  my  recollection. 

Mr.  COWEN.  That  was  certainly  done 
without  any  objection. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  motion  is  always 
considered  a parliamentary  motion,  and  in  par- 
liamentary form.  The  gentleman  from  Trum- 
bull [Mr.  Tuttle]  voted  particularly  on  that 
motion.  It  got  simply  fifty-three  votes.  I was 
myself  very  much  opposed  to  it;  but  I made  no 
objection,  for  it  had  a majority.  We  had  spent 
a week  or  ten  days  in  this  debate,  and  when  the 
majority  passed  it,  the  opposition  yielded.  The 
gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  was 
one  of  the  most  vigorous  supporters  of  the  prop- 
osition. 

Mr.  HO  A.DLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  me 
to  remind  him  ? The  other  day,  in  the  Conven- 
tion, when  the  friends  of  the  three-fifths  and 
the  two-thirds  veto  were  in  the  minority,  and 
the  majority  veto  was  adopted,  it  was  instantly 
followed  by  a motion  to  reconsider,  by  the  gen- 


1540 


[110th 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 


Hoadly,  Griswold,  Cowen,  Humphreville,  etc.  [Friday, 


tleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  and  the 
motion  for  the  previous  question,  which  was 
carried,  and  the  motion  for  a reconsideration 
voted  down. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I was  not  here. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  a fact. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  always  the  usual  and 
ordinary  course,  and  to  hear  the  gentleman  pro- 
claim that  this  in  not  the  time  to  put  through 
anything  that  they  do  not  like,  I say  that  I 
never  heard  of  any  such  thing.  When  a meas- 
ure has  been  adopted,  and  received  a majority 
of  the  votes,  it  is  usually  customary,  on  the  vote 
on  its  final  passage,  to  move  a reconsideration 
after  the  adoption.  I did  not  move  the  previous 
question  upon  it,  but  I supposed  that  the  gen- 
tlemen had  exhausted  the  argument  upon  the 
subject,  and  I do  not  want  to  renew  it  now.  If 
gentlemen  desire  to  talk,  I desire  that  they 
should  have  the  opportunity;  until  next  sum- 
mer, if  they  wish  to. 

Mr.  COWEN.  This  matter  is  up  now,  and  the 
question  is,  whether,  in  the  face  of  the  earnest 
protest  against  an  immediate  vote  to  reconsider, 
the  majority  propose  to  insist  upon  that  imme- 
diate vote.  I recollect,  very  well,  the  scene 
that  occurred  at  Columbus  last  summer,  and  I 
recollect  very  well  that  the  venerable  and  emi- 
nent Chairman  of  the  Committee  upon  the  Leg- 
islative Department  [Mr.  Humphreville], 
whose  Article  we  are  now  considering,  arose  in 
his  place  and  protested,  in  a way  that  I shall 
never  forget,  against  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  to  put 
the  gag  rule  upon  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion. It  succeeded  at  that  time.  I appeal  to 
the  majority  here  to  consider  this  question. 
When  objections  are  made  to  voting  upon  this 
motion  to  reconsider  immediately,  the  motion 
being  palpably  made  for  the  mere  purpose  of 
clinching  this  thing  by  a parliamentary  gag; 
when  this  effort  is  protested  against,  as  it  is 
here ; why  not  let  the  matter  go  on  until  the 
time  expires  when  a member  shall  have  the 
right  to  make  a motion  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Will  the  gentleman 
permit  me  an  inquiry? 

Mr.  COWEN.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  My  recollection  is 
that  what  I said  about  the  gag  rule  was  upon 
the  adoption  of  certain  rules  by  which  the 
vote  could  be  reconsidered,  and  not  upon  the 
reconsideration  of  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I shall  look  at  the  Debates  and 
show  the  gentleman  that  I am  right. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I may  be  mistaken. 

I remember  making  such  a remark  about  the 
adoption  of  a certain  rule. 

Mr.  BABER.  I want  to  ask  the  gentleman 
if  he  does  not  recollect  that  the  delegate  from 
Medina  [Mr.  Humphreville]  arose  with  a great 
deal  of  excitement  when  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  made  the  motion,  and 
said  he  did  not  want  congressional  tactics  used  ? 
He  sat  right  before  me  at  the  time,  and  my  re- 
collection is  that  that  was  the  occurrence. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  Perhaps  the  gen- 
tleman is  correct. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen]  permit  me  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  himself  and  the  delegate  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber],  to  the  fact  that,  on  page  564  and 


565  of  the  Debates  of  last  summer  at  Columbus, 
what  the  delegate  from  Medina  [Mr.  Humphre- 
ville] called  congressional  parliamentary  tac- 
tics became,  by  the  action  of  this  Convention, 
Ohio  Constitutional  Convention  tactics,  the  mo- 
tion being  made  by  the  delegate  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell],  and  put  right  through? 

Mr.  COWEN.  I think  that  sustains  me  very 
well.  There  is  one  other  remark  I desire  to 
make.  We  have  here  an  illustrious  example  of 
the  evil  effects  of  carrying  matters  through,  in 
the  very  case  I have  referred  to,  the  Article  in 
relation  to  Public  Institutions.  The  eminent 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  who 
was  pressing  this  motion  to  reconsider,  a mo- 
ment ago  admitted,  on  the  floor  of  this  Conven- 
tion, that  if  he  had  had  five  minutes  to  recon- 
sider that  matter,  he  would  have  voted  against 
it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  is  aware  of 
the  fact  that  I voted  to  reconsider  upon  that  oc- 
casion. That  is  what  the  record  shows. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I was  not  aware  of  that.  1 
was  referring  to  the  confession  made  a moment 
ago ; but  the  gentleman’s  mind  is  much  more 
active  than  those  of  a great  many  of  us.  I 
should  like  to  have  a few  more  than  five  minutes 
to  reconsider.  I beg  the  majority,  as  this  Ar- 
ticle, as  a whole,  must  probably,  under  our 
rules,  remain  without  reconsideration,  and  as 
I do  not  expect  to  have  the  privilege  of  voting 
to  reconsider  the  Article,  unless  it  is  voted  on 
to-day;  now  that  the  question  is  raised,  and 
such  earnest  protests  are  made  to  let  it  run  its 
regular  course,  and  not  undertake  to  fasten  it 
upen  the  Constitution  of  the  State  for  twenty 
years,  by  this  parliamentary  “gag,”  or  parlia- 
mentary “tactics,”  whichever  you  please  to  call 
it. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I move  the  motion  to  re- 
consider be  laid  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  BABER.  I demand  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  REILLY.  I wish  to  say  one  word  with 
regard  to  this.  I believe  I have  not  occupied 
the  time  of  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A motion  to  lay  upon 
the  table  is  not  debatable. 

Leave  was  granted  to  Mr.  Reilly  to  proceed. 

Mr.  REILLY.  So  far  as  the  practice  of  this 
Convention,  it  has  been  uniformly  with  what 
gentlemen  in  favor  of  this  Proposition  now 
propose  here. 

It  has  been  the  practice,  always,  when  any 
Proposition  has  been  adopted  in  the  Convention 
to  move  a reconsideration.  I have  been  op- 
posed to  the  Proposition,  consistently,  by  my 
vote;  but  I acknowledge  myself  beaten.  I am 
opposed  to  anything  more  being  done  in  refer- 
ence to  the  subject.  If  we  wasted  days  and 
weeks  upon  it  before  its  passage,  I insist  that 
we  take  up  no  more  time  upon  it  after  its  pas- 
sage by  the  requisite  number  of  delegates  to 
this  body.  The  majority  of  the  Convention 
have  taken  the  responsibility  of  inserting  this 
veto  clause  in  this  Article.  Let  it  remain,  then. 
They  are  responsible.  If  we  desire  to  vote  for 
or  against  the  Constitution,  we  can  do  it.  Let 
them  take  the  whole  responsibility  of  inserting 
it,  upon  themselves.  I consider  that  any  further 
waste  of  time  upon  the  subject  would  be  mere 
factious. 

Mr.  COWEN.  To  whom  does  the  gentleman 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1541 

February  20,  1874.]  Reilly,  Barnet,  Rowland,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


refer,  when  he  says  this  objection  made  to  the 
motion  to  reconsider  is  a mere  factious  oppo- 
sition ? 

Mr.  REILLY.  I do  not  charge  the  gentle- 
man from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  or  any  other 
gentleman  with  any  factious  opposition.  For 
myself,  I do  say  that,  if  I were  to  make  any  fur- 
ther opposition  to  the  usual  custom  of  this  body 
upon  all  cases  of  this  kind  heretofore,  it  would 
he  factious.  It  might  not  be  so  in  the  gentle- 
man’s estimation,  but  it  is  in  my  judgment.  I 
am  in  favor  of  the  majority  taking  the  respon- 
sibility, and  of  wasting  no  further  time  on  it. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I suppose  the  effect  of  laying 
this  motion  upon  the  table  will  put  it  in  position 
to  be  taken  up  at  any  time  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  When  in  order. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I will  say,  if  I shall  be  per- 
mitted to  do  so,  if  the  majority  here  desire  to 
clinch  their  work  now,  I do  not  wish  to  throw 
any  opposition  in  their  way ; but  if  this  motion 
to  lay  upon  the  table,  is  for  the  purpose  of  gain- 
ing what  we  may  all  want,  I am  willing  to  vote 
for  it.  If  it  is  otherwise,  and  I should  know  it, 
I would  vote  against  it,  because  I am  willing  to 
acknowledge  that  I am  beaten  in  this  vote,  I am 
outvoted,  and  it  is  in  the  hands  of  the  majority, 
and  I wish  them  to  do  as  they  please  about  it. 
If  it  is  a question  to  reconsider  immediately,  I 
am  willing  they  should  have  a chance. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  upon  the 
motion  to  lay  the  motion  to  reconsider  upon  the 
table. 

The  Secretary  proceeded  to  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I call  the  attention  of  the 
Chair  to  the  concluding  part  of  Rule  XL,  and 
I claim  that  this  is  not  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  call  of  the  roll  hav- 
ing been  proceeded  with,  the  gentleman  is  too 
late  to  make  an  objection. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  let  it  go ; but  I claim 
that  it  is  not  in  order  under  that  rule. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted 
— yeas  27,  nays  52,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Barnet,  Blose,  Coats, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Gardner,  Hitchcock,  Jack- 
son,  Johnson,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey, 
Page,  Pond,  Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp, 
Tuttle,  White  of  Hocking — 27. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin, 
De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Freiberg,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Mer- 
rill, Mitchener,  Pease,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Steedman,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voor- 
his,  Voorhes,  Yoris,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble,  President — 52. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I wish  to  make  an  in- 
quiry of  the  Chair,  and  learn  what  is  to  be  ac- 
complished by  this  motion  to  reconsider,  if  it 
shall  be  refused.  I ask  the  Chair  whether  it 
precludes  any  subsequent  action  of  the  Conven- 
tion by  which  this  Article  may  be  changed? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  will  still  be  an- 
other vote  upon  this — the  final  vote.  The  Chair 


understands  this  precludes  any  further  consid- 
eration of  this  Proposition  at  this  present  time. 
This  Article  goes  to  the  Committee  on  Revision, 
and  it  will  be  reported  by  them,  with  the  resi- 
due of  the  Constitution;  but  this  terminates 
the  action  of  the  Convention  upon  this  separate 
Proposition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  Chair  will  bear 
with  me,  so  that  we  will  all  understand  it.  I 
presume  it  would  be  perfectly  satisfactory  if  the 
Chair  will  be  more  explicit.  At  the  time  when 
this  shall  be  reported  back  to  the  Convention, 
before  the  final  vote  be  taken  upon  adopting  the 
Constitution  as  a whole,  or  of  Articles,  will 
there  be  an  opportunity  for  amendment  at  that 
time  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 
that,  under  Rule  LXI,  this  is  the  last  vote  on 
the  separate  Proposition.  The  Committee  on 
Revision  will  report  back 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hope  the  President  will 
not  bind  himself  by  such  a rule.  I desire  to 
remind  him  that,  at  the  time  the  benevolent  in- 
stitutions were  under  consideration,  the  same 
inquiry  was  attempted  to  be  put  to  the  former 
occupant  of  the  Chair.  He  declined  to  answer 
it,  on  the  ground  that  when  the  question  arose 
there  would  be  time  enough  to  answer  it.  There 
will  be  some  debate  upon  that;  and  if  there  is 
an  opportunity  for  debate,  there  are  several  of 
us  who  desire  to  get  a whack  at  the  Benevolent 
Institution  Article. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  In  response  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  who  in- 
terrupted the  Chair  and  myself  without  per- 
mission— in  which  statement  I am  sure  I am 
correct — I have  no  purpose  like  the  one  intima- 
ted by  the  gentleman 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I wish  to  say  I had  supposed 
the  gentleman  was  through,  and  I was  not 
aware  that  I was  addressing  the  Chair  without 
the  permission  of  the  Chair,  not  knowing  that 
the  gentleman’s  permission  was  necessary.  Had 
I known  it,  I should  certainly  have  solicited  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I presume  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  has  no  feeling 
upon  this  subject,  as  I have  none,  and  have  had 
none  all  along;  but  the  intimation  conveyed  by 
the  remark  made  by  the  gentleman  was  that 
there  was  an  attempt  on  my  part  to  get  a com- 
mittal of  the  Chair  at  this  time;  that  is  all  I 
object  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  that 
there  is  no  question  before  the  House. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  to  re-consider. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  has  been 
taken,  and  is  about  to  be  announced. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Is  not  the  question  now 
before  the  Convention  upon  the  re-considera- 
tion— 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  As  soon  as  the  Chair  and 
myself  understand  each  other.  I understand 
the  question  before  the  Convention  now  is  upon 
the  motion  for  re-consideration.  The  motion  to 
lay  upon  the  table  has  been  voted  down. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  is  right. 


1542 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hunt,  Griswold,  etc. 


Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I made  the  inquiry  of 
the  Chair  as  to  what  would  be  the  effect  of  the 
motion  if  adopted,  and  I request  the  Chair  now 
not  to  give  an  opinion. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  He  suggests  that  I was  inti- 
mating that  the  gentleman  was  soliciting  an 
opinion  from  the  Chair.  I was  endeavoring  to 
intimate  a decided  hope  that  the  Chair  would 
give  no  opinion,  in  the  manner  in  which  the 
Chair  was  inclined  to  give  it.  If  the  Cnair  had 
given  an  opinion  the  other  way,  so  as  to  enable 
me,  and  those  who  think  with  me,  to  get  a twist 
at  the  Benevolent  Article,  I would  be  glad ; but 
I do  not  wish  the  Chair  to  give  an  opinion 
adverse  thereto,  until  the  matter  has  been  more 
carefully  considered  than  it  has  been  here  this 
afternoon. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  seems  deeply  inter- 
ested in  this  question.  The  remark  that  he 
made  conveyed  that  idea. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  was  intended  to  convey  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I say  that  the  remarks 
which  the  gentleman  made  had  the  appearance 
of  an  intensity  of  interest  in  this  question,  and 
the  gentleman  does  not  deny  that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  is  again  mis- 
taken. I have  an  interest  in  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman,  by  his 
remarks,  indicated  an  intensity  of  interest,  and 
I had  so  much  curiosity  in  my  mind  while  the 
gentleman  was  speaking,  that,  had  it  not  been 
for  fear  of  bearding  the  lion  in  his  den,  I would 
have  asked  him  a question.  The  gentleman 
said,  in  those  remarks  against  this  motion  to  re- 
consider, that  he  had  hope  for  the  strongest  ex- 
ecutive veto  by  which  the  frauds  and  corrup- 
tions which  had  entered  into  the  Legislatures 
of  the  States  of  Yew  York  and  Pennsylvania, 
eating  out  the  substance  of  the  people  of  those 
States,  could  be  prevented.  I only  wished  to 
ask  this  question : How  these  frauds  and  cor- 
ruptions to  which  he  refers  had  been  prevented 
under  the  strong  veto  power? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Largely  by  the  aid  of  the 
veto  power  in  the  hands  of  those  wise  Govern- 
ors, Dixand  Hartranft. 

Mr.  HUNT.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow  me, 
I shall  state  that  Governor  Dix  defeated  the 
whole  charter  movement  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  and  when  it  came  back  to  the  Legisla- 
ture for  their  action,  it  scarcely  received  the 
smallest  majority  of  the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  very  glad  to  know 
that,  in  one  instance,  a Governor  of  New  York 
has  prevented  corruption  by  the  exercise  of  the 
veto  power ; for  no  other  instance  has  been  re- 
ferred to  as  to  its  having  been  exercised  by  any 
Governors  that  have  been  elected  in  those  States, 
except  the  two  now  occupying  those  positions. 
History  is  of  but  very  little  consequence.  This 
motion  is  made  by  my  friend  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Griswold],  on  the  ground  that  it  is  cus- 
tomary parliamentary  action.  I think  it  is  not 
very  flattering  for  us  to  bring  up  the  history  of 
this  Convention  on  matters  of  this  kind;  but  I 
shall  venture  to  do  so.  There  have  been  just 
three  votes  taken  in  this  Convention  since  we 


[119th 

[Friday, 


met  in  May  last,  like  the  vote  just  taken,  and 
only  three. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  How  many  Articles  have 
we  agreed  to  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  We  have  agreed  to  al- 
low women  to  hold  public  offices,  when  filled  by 
appointment,  and  I am  very  glad  of  it.  We 
have  agreed  to  a certain  change  in  the  Article 
upon  Public  Institutions.  We  have  agreed  to 
the  Militia  Article. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  Committee  on  Miscella- 
neous Business  Proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  was  passed. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  With  regard  to  what? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Railroad  passes. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  That  is  not  an  independ- 
ent Article. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  was  an  independent 
Proposition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Upon  the  passage  of  the 
one  to  which  I referred,  the  one  allowing 
women  to  hold  office,  this  motion  was  not 
made.  The  motion  was  made  upon  Public  In- 
stitutions. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I would  like  to  inquire  what 
question  is  pending. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  recon- 
sider the  Proposition. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I would  like  to  see  some  light 
on  that  subject.  I do  not  see  any  drift  that 
way. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  very  much  obliged 
to  the  gentleman  for  calling  my  attention  to 
the  fact;  but  I want  that  gentleman  to  recollect, 
that  in  response  to  a question  asked  him  by 
myself  a few  days  since,  he  only  answered  by 
referring  to  the  obtuseness  of  intellect  that 
would  prevent  any  man,  not  a lawyer,  upon 
this  floor,  to  understand  the  language  used  by  a 
lawyer.  I am  very  much  obliged  to  him.  I 
was  referring  to  the  history  of  the  matter  only, 
and  shall  get  through  very  much  sooner  if  not 
interrupted.  It  is  very  unpleasant  to  be  placed 
in  this  position,  a position  which  I dislike  worse 
than  any  other.  At  the  time  the  motion  was 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns]  in  regard  to  the  Militia  Article,  the  pro- 
test was.  very  strongly  made  in  this  part  of  the 
Hall  against  this  effort. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  correct  him?  I did  not  make  the  motion. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I said  the  gentleman 
from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns].  The  motion  to  re- 
consider was  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield].  The  protest  was  made 
very  strongly  at  the  time,  and  I know  that 
among  those,  in  the  neighborhood  of  my  seat, 
the  expression  was  very  generally  made  that  it 
was  not  the  right  way  to  dispose  of  a Propo- 
sition of  this  kind.  It  should  be  the  desire  of 
the  Convention  that  the  Article  should  be 
adopted  in  the  form  which  would  meet  the 
views,  as  nearly  as  possible,  of  all  the  members 
of  the  Convention.  For  this  reason  there  ought 
to  be  no  attempt  to  fasten  any  proposition  in 
such  form  that  it  cannot  be  changed,  should  a 
majority  desire  to  make  any  modification.  As 
to  this  being  the  usual  practice  of  parliamentary 
bodies,  I absolutely  and  unqualifiedly  deny  the 
assertion.  Certainly  it  is  not  so  in  our  State 
Legislature. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I am  not  at  liberty  to  discuss 


Day.] THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT. 1543 

February  20,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Hoadly,  Griswold,  Baber,  etc. 


this  question;  but  I desire  to  make  a single 
statement,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  a mis- 
take. I do  not  want  to  ask  it  as  a question  of 
privilege,  yet  I believe  it  is  such.  I was 
inquired  of  if  I did  not,  last  summer,  vote  to 
proceed  in  this  manner  upon  the  subject  of 
public  institutions.  I have  referred  to  the  pub- 
lished Debates  upon  this  subject,  not  being  able 
to  remember  exactly  how  it  was,  and  I find  the 
previous  question  in  that  case  was  demanded, 
pending  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  to  re-commit  with  in- 
structions, which  was  sustained  by  myself.  The 
re-committal  was  refused  under  the  previous 
question.  The  vote  was  then  taken  upon  the 
Proposition  itself,  and  I voted  in  the  minority, 
against  the  Proposition.  A motion  was  then 
made  to  re-consider,  which  I voted  for,  but  in 
the  minority,  because  it  was  made  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  for  the 
avowed  purpose  of  having  it  voted  down,  and, 
of  course,  I had  to  vote  upon  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Did  not  the  gentleman  vote 
in  the  majority  against  laying  the  motion  to  re- 
consider on  the  table  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  how  that  is; 
but  I know  that  I opposed  the  Proposition,  and 
opposed  the  action  by  which  it  was  sought  to 
commit  the  Convention  irrevocably  to  it,  and 
voted  for  re-consideration.  I might  have  voted 
to  lay  it  upon  the  table.  I see  it  is  recorded 
that  I did.  I suppose  it  is  right.  But  no  action 
of  mine  at  that  time  can  be  cited  in  support  of 
what  is  done  here  to-day. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I am  perfectly  willing  the 
gentleman  should  have  time  for  explanation ; 
but  I would  like  to  have  a vote  upon  this  first. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  question  is  upon  recon- 
sideration, as  I understand  it.  I hope  this  Con- 
vention will  take  this  matter  up  and  dispose  of 
it.  I understand  the  precedent  that  was  stated. 
I recollect  perfectly  well  that  the  motion  was 
made  to  reconsider  for  the  purpose  of  ending 
the  matter,  in  Columbus,  and  I think  the  ma- 
jority of  this  Convention  desire  to  do  so  now. 
I propose  to  interpose  no  obstacle  now  whatso- 
ever to  their  so  doing. 

With  regard  to  the  question  of  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  to  the  Chair,  I 
recollect  that  the  former  presiding  officer  with- 
held an  opinion ; but  I am  a little  surprised  at 
the  over-zeal  of  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  upon  the  subject.  He  desires  no  ex- 
pression of  opinion  from  the  Chair,  in  order,  as 
he  says,  that  he  may  have  another  whack  at  the 
question  upon  benevolent  institutions.  I recol- 
lect very  well  that  the  gentleman,  by  his  vote, 
whacked  into  the  Constitution  upon  that  Propo- 
sition, making  up  the  fifty-three  necessary  to 
carry  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Fifty-four. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  perfectly  willing  to  give 
him  his  argument  upon  the  other  side.  He 
likes  to  give  whacks  upon  both  sides,  and  I am 
willing  to  give  him  a chance  to  run  his  engine. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  to  reconsider. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  be- 
ing taken,  resulted — yeas  30,  nays  48,  as  fol- 
lows : 

* Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Baber,  Barnet,  Blose,  Caldwell,  Clark 


of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Gard- 
ner, Hitchcock,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Mueller, 
Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Reil- 
ly, Rickly,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
White  of  Hocking — 30. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  B}^al,  Carbery,  Chapin,  De 
Steiguer,  Ewing,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Mer- 
rill, Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sam- 
ple, Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Steedman,  Town- 
send, Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Yoorhes, 
Yoris,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble,  President — 48. 

leave  of  absence. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  in  order,  I desire  to  ask 
leave  of  absence  for  to  morrow. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  is  now  almost 
seven  weeks  since  I came  from  home.  I desire 
to  go  home  and  stay  a few  days,  and  I,  therefore, 
ask  indefinite  leave  of  absence  after  to-day. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I ask  for  in- 
definite leave  of  absence  after  to-day. 

Leave  was  granted. 

MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS. 

Mr.  McBRIDE.  I move  that  the  vote  taken 
yesterday  on  Municipal  Corporations,  postpon- 
ing the  final  reading  of  the  Article,  be  reconsid- 
ered, and  that  motion  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I do  not  know  but  that  under 
the  operation  of  Rule  LX,  the  proposition 
which  has  been  adopted  will  go,  as  a matter  of 
course,  to  the  Standing  Committee  on  Revision. 
If  it  is  necessary,  I now  make  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  unnecessary.  It  will 
go  under  the  Rule  to  that  Committee. 

The  Article  as  adopted  and  revised  is  as 
follows : 

A Substitute  for  Article  II  of  the  Constitution. 

ARTICLE  II. 

LEGISLATIVE. 

Section  1.  The  legislative  power  of  this  State  shall 
be  vested  in  a General  Assembly,  which  shall  coLsistof  a 
Senate  and  House  ot  Representatives. 

Sec.  2 Senators  and  Representatives  shall  be  elected 
biennially,  by  the  electors  in  the  respective  counties  or 
districts,  on  the  Tu<  sday  succeeding  the  first  Monday  in 
November;  their  term  of  office  shall  commence  on  the 
first  day  of  January  next  thereafter,  and  continue  two 
years. 

Sec.  3.  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  have  re- 
sided in  their  respective  counties  or  districts  one  year 
next  preceding  their  election,  unless  they  shall  have  been 
absent  on  the  public  business  of  the  United  States  or  of 
this  State,  and  shall  continue  to  reside  in  their  respective 
districts  or  counties  during  their  terms  of  service. 

Sec.  4 No  person  holding  office  under  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  or  any  lucrative  office  under  the  au- 
thority of  this  State,  shall  be  eligible  to,  or  have  a seat  in, 
the  General  Assembly;  but  this  provision  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  township  officers,  justices  of  the  peace,  notaries 
public,  or  officers  of  the  militia;  nor  shall  any  person  in- 
terested in  any  contract  with,  or  unadjusted  claim 
against,  the  8t.ate  hold  a seat  in  the  General  Assembly. 

Sec.  5.  No  person  convicted  of  an  embezzlement  of  the 
public  funds,  shall  hold  any  office  in  this  State;  nor  shall 
any  peison,  holding  public  money  for  disbursement  or 
otherwise,  have  a seat  in  the  General  Assembly  until  he 


1544 


THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT, 


Humphreville. 


[119th 

[Friday, 


shall  have  accounted  for  and  paid  such  money  into  the 
treasury. 

Sec.  6 Each  House  shall  be  judge  of  the  election  re- 
turns and  qualifications  of  its  own  members;  a majority 
of  all  the  members  elected  to  each  House  shall  be  a quo- 
rum to  do  business,  but  a less  number  may  adjourn  from 
day  to  day,  and  compel  the  attendance  of  absent  members 
in  such  manner  and  under  such  penalties  as  shall  be  pre- 
scribed by  law. 

Sec.  7.  The  mode  of  organizing  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, at  the  commencement  of  each  regular  session, 
shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  8.  Each  House,  except  as  otherwise  urovided  in 
this  Constitution,  sh  til  choose  its  own  oflScers," may  deter- 
mine its  own  rule  of  proceeding,  punish  its  members  for 
disorderly  conduct;  and,  with  the  concurrence  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  elected  thereto,  expel  a mem- 
ber, but  not  the  second  time  for  the  same  cause ; and  shall 
have  all  other  powers  necessary  to  provide  for  its  safety 
and  the  undisturbed  transaction  of  its  business. 

Sec.  9.  Each  House  shall  keep  a correct  Journal  of  its 
proceedings,  which  shall  be  published.  At  the  desire  of 
any  two  members,  the  Yeas  and  Nays  shall  be  entered 
upon  the  Journal;  and,  on  the  passage  of  every  bill  or 
joint  resolution  in  either  House,  the  vote  shall  be  taken  by 
Yeas  and  Nays,  and  entered  upon  the  Journal;  and  no 
bill  or  joint  resolution,  except  joint  resolutions  relating 
to  the  course  of  business  in  the  General  Assembly,  shall 
be  passed  in  either  House,  without  the  concurrence  of  a 
majority  of  all  the  member'  elected  thereto. 

Sec.  10.  Any  member  of  either  House  shall  have  the 
right  to  protest  against  any  actor  resolution  thereof,  and 
such  protest,  and  the  reasons  therefor,  shall,  on  being 
presented  to  such  House,  without  alteration,  commitment 
or  delay,  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  by  the  clerk. 

Sec.  11.  All  vacancies  which  may  happen  in  either 
House  shall,  for  the  unexpired  term,  be  filled  by  election, 
as  shall  be  directed  by  law. 

Sec.  12.  Senators  and  Representatives,  during  the  ses- 
sion of  the  General  Assembly,  and  in  goin?  to  and  return- 
ing from  the  same,  shall  be  privileged  from  arrest  in  all 
cases,  except  treason,  lelony,  or  breach  of  the  peace;  and 
for  any  speech  or  debate,  in  either  House,  they  shall  not 
be  questioned  elsewhere. 

Sec.  13.  The  proceedings  of  both  Houses  shall  be  pub- 
lic, except  in  cases  which,  in  the  opinion  of  two-thirds  of 
those  present,  require  secrecy. 

Sec.  14.  Neither  House  shall,  without  the  consent  of 
the  other,  adjourn  for  more  than  two  days,  Suudavs  ex- 
cluded, nor  to  any  other  place  than  that  in  which  the  two 
Houses  shall  be  in  session. 

Sec.  15.  No  law  shall  be  passed,  except  by  bill.  Bills 
may  originate  in  either  House,  but  may  be  altered, 
amended,  or  rejected  in  the  other. 

Sec  16.  Every  bill  shall  be  fully  and  distinctly  read 
on  three  different  days,  unless  in  case  of  urgency  three- 
fourths  of  the  members  elected  to  the  House  in  which  it 
shall  be  pending,  shall,  by  a vote  of  the  Yeas  and  Nays, 
which  shall  be  entered  on  the  Journal,  dispense  with  this 
rale;  but  the  reading  of  a bill  on  its  final  passage  shall  in 
no  case  be  dispensed  with.  No  bill  shall  contain  more 
than  one  .subject,  which  shall  be  clearly  expressed  in  its 
title;  and  no  law  shall  be  revived,  or  amended,  unless  the 
new  act  contain  the  entire  act  revived,  or  the  section  or 
sections  amended:  and  the  section  or  sections  so  amend- 
ed shall  be  repealed. 

Sec.  17.  The  presiding  officer  of  each  House  shall 
sign,  publicly,  in  the  presence  of  the  House  over  which 
he  presi  e-s  while  the  same  is  in  session,  and  capable  of 
transacting  business,  all  bills  and  joint  resolutions  passed 
by  the  General  Assembly. 

Sec.  18.  Every  bill  passed  by  the  Gene’ al  Assembly 
shall,  before  it  becomes  a law,  be  presented  to  the  Govern- 
or. If  he  approve  it  he  shall  sign  it,  and  thereupon  it 
shall  become  a law;  but  if  he  does  not  approve,  he  shall 
send  it  to  the  House  in  which  it  shall  have  originated, 
with  his  objections  in  writing,  and  the  House  may  then 
proceed  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
If  after  such  consideration  three-fifths  of  all  the  mem- 
bers elected  thereto  agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  be 
sent  to  the  other  House,  with  the  objections  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, and  thereupon  that  House  may  likewise  reconsider 
the  vote  on  its  passsge.  If,  after  such  reconsideration, 
three-fifths  of  ad  the  members  elected  to  that  House 
agree  to  pass  the  same,  it  shall  become  a law.  But  in  all 
such  cases  the  vote  of  both  Houses  shall  be  determined 
by  Yeas  and  Nays,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  voting 
for  and  against  the  bill  shall  be  entered  upon  the  Journal 
of  ea  h House,  respectively.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be  re- 
turned by  the  Governor  within  ten  days  (Sundays  except- 
ed) after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  him,  the  same 
shall  become  a law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it, 
unless  the  General  Assembly  by  their  adjournment  pre- 
vent its  return,  in  which  case  it  shall  be  filed  with  his  ob- 
jections, in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  state,  within  ten 
days  after  such  adjournment,  or  become  a law.  The  Gov- 


ernor shall  have  power  to  disapprove  of  any  item  or 
items  of  any  bill  making  appropriations  of  money,  em- 
bracing distinct  items,  and  the  part  or  parts  of  the  bill 
approved  shall  be  the  law.  and  the  item  or  items  of  ap- 
propriation disapproved  shall  be  void  unless  repassed 
according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  for  the 
passage  of  the  entire  bill  after  the  disapproval  of  the 
Governor. 

Every  order,  resolution  or  vote,  to  which  the  concur- 
rence of  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly  may  be 
necessary  (except  on  a question  of  adjournment,  or  ques- 
tions pertaining  to  the  transaction  of  business  of  the  two  j 
Houses),  shall  be  presented  to  the  Governor,  and,  before 
the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him,  or, 
being  disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed  by  three- 
fiiths  of  both  Houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  according 
to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a 
bill. 

Sec.  19.  The  style  of  the  laws  of  this  State  shall  be, 

“Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
Ohio .” 

Sec.  20.  No  Senator  or  Representative  shall,  during  the 
the  term  for  which  he  shall  have  been  elected,  or  for  one 
year  thereafter,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  office  under  this 
State,  which  shall  be  created,  or  the  emoluments  of  which 
shall  have  been  increased  during  the  term  for  which  he 
shall  have  been  elected. 

Sec.  21.  The  General  Assembly,  in  cases  not  provided 
lor  in  this  Constitution,  shall  fix  the  term  of  office  and 
compensation  of  all  officers;  but  shall  in  no  case  extend 
the  term  of  office,  increase  nor  diminish  the  salary,  fees 
or  compensation  of  any  person  elected  or  appointed  to 
any  office  or  position  under  the  Constitution  or  laws  of 
this  State,  after  such  person  shall  have  been  elected  or  ap- 
pointed. It  any  office,  created  by  law,  be  abolished,  the 
salary  or  compensation  attached  thereto,  shall  thereupon 
cease  and  determine. 

Sec.  22.  The  General  Assembly  shall  determine,  by 
law,  before  what  authority,  and  in  what  manner,  the  trial 
of  contested  elections  shall  be  conducted. 

Sec.  23.  Money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  only 
in  pursuance  of  specific  appropriation  made  by  law,  the 
purpose  of  which  shall  be  distinctly  stated  in  the  bill, 
and  no  appropriation  shall  be  for  a longer  period  than 
two  years;  upon  the  passage  of  bills  appropriating 
money,  or  concurring  in  amendments  thereto,  a separate 
vote  upon  any  one  or  more  items  therein,  shall,  upon  de- 
mand of  any  member  be  had  by  Yeas  and  Nays,  entered 
on  the  Journal,  and  every  such  item  failing  upon  such 
separate  vote  to  receive  the  vote  of  the  requisite  majority 
of  the  members  elected  to  the  House  in  which  the  bill  is 
pe  iding,  shall  be  stricken  therefrom;  and  each  item  re- 
ceiving such  majority  shall  be  declared  passed. 

Sec.  24  No  extra  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any 
officer,  public  agent,  employe  or  contractor  after  the  ser- 
vice shall  have  been  rendered,  or  the  contract  entered 
into,  nor  shall  any  money  be  appropriated  or  paid  on  any 
claim,  the  subject  matter  of  which  shall  not  have  been 
provided  for  by  pre-existing  law,  unless  such  compensa- 
tion or  claim  be  allowed  by  two-thirds  of  the  members 
elected  to  each  branch  of  the  General  Assembly.  No  such 
allowance  shall  be  made  except  by  bill,  and  no  provision 
authorizing  the  expenditure  or  payment  of  money  lor  any 
purpose  not  piovided  for  by  pre-existing  law,  shall  be  in- 
cluded in  any  bill  making  any  appropriations  for  a pur- 
pose which  shall  have  been  so  provided  for,  nor  shall 
more  than  one  class  of  compensation  or  claims  be  provid- 
ed for  iu  the  same  bill;  and  every  appropriation  for  the 
payment  of  any  such  compensation  or  claim  included  in 
any  act  making  appropriations  of  different  classes  shall 
be  void. 

Sec.  25.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  have  the 
sole  power  of  impeachment,  but  a majority  of  the  mem- 
bers elected  must  concur  therein.  Impeachments  shall  be 
tried  by  the  Senate,  and  the  Senators,  when  sitting  for 
that  purpose,  shall  be  upon  oath  or  affirmation  to  do  jus- 
tice according  to  law  and  evidence.  When  the  Governor 
of  the  State  is  tried,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  shall  preside.  No  person  shall  be  convicted  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Senators. 

Sec.  26.  The  Governor,  Judges  and  all  state  officers 
may  be  impeached  for  any  misdemeanor  in  office;  but 
judgment  shall  not  extend  further  than  removal  from 
office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  any  office,  under  the 
authority  of  this  State.  The  party  impeached,  whether 
convicted  or  not,  shall  be  liable  to  indictment,  trial  and 
judgment,  according  to  law. 

Sec.  27.  All  regular  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly 
shall  commence  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  an- 
nually. The  first  sessiou,  under  this  Constitution,  shall 
commence  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and 

Sec.  28.  All  laws  of  a general  nature  shall  have  a uni- 
form operation  throughout  the  State;  norshall  any  act  on 
part  of  any  act,  except  such  as  relates  to  public  schools, 
public  buildings  and  public  bridges,  be  passed  to  tak-. 


Day.]  THE  LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT.  1545 

February  20,  1874.]  Neal,  Hitchcock,  Scribner,  Ewing,  etc. 


effect  upon  a vote  of  the  people  affected  thereby,  or  upon 
the  approval  of  any  other  authority  than  the  General 
Assembly,  except  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitu- 
tion. Nor  shall  any  act  be  passed  conferring  special 
powers  or  privileges  upon  any  county,  city,  village,  town- 
ship, or  other  municipality,  that  shall  not  be  conferred 
upon  all  counties,  cities,  villages,  townships,  and  muni- 
cipalities of  the  same  general  class. 

Sec.  29.  The  election  and  appointment  of  all  officers, 
and  the  filling  of  all  vacancies,  not  otherwise  provided 
for  by  this  Constitution,  or  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  shall  be  made  in  such  manner  as  may  be 
directed  by  law;  but  no  appointing  power  shall  be  exer- 
cised by  the  General  Assembly,  except  as  prescribed  in 
this  Constitution;  and  in  the  election  of  United  States 
Senators,  and  in  these  cases  the  vote  shall  be  taken  viva 
voce. 

Sec.  30.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  no  power  to 
pass  retroactive  laws,  or  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts;  but  may,  by  general  laws,  authorize  courts  to 
carry  into  effect,  upon  such  terms  as  shall  be  just  and 
equitable,  the  manifest  intention  of  parties  and  officers,  by 
curing  omissions,  defects  and  errors  in  instruments  and 
proceedings  arising  out  of  their  want  of  conformity  to  the 
laws  of  this  State. 

Sec  31.  No  new  county  shall  contain  less  than  four 
hundred  square  miles  of  territory,  nor  shall  any  county 
be  reduced  below  that  amount;  and  all  laws  creating  new 
counties,  changing  county  lines,  or  removing  county 
seats,  shall,  before  taking  effect,  be  submitted  to  the  elec- 
tors of  the  several  counties  to  be  affected  thereby,  at  the 
next  general  election  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  be 
adopted  by  a majority  of  all  the  electors  voting  at  such 
election  in  each  of  said  counties;  but  any  county  now  or 
hereafter  containing  one  hundred  thousand  inhabitants 
may  be  divided,  whenever  a majority  of  the  voters  resid- 
ing in  each  of  the  proposed  divisions  shall  approve  of  the 
law  passed  for  that  purpose;  but  no  town  or  city  within 
the  same  shall  be  divided,  nor  shall  either  of  the  divisions 
contain  less  than  twenty  thousand  inhabitants. 

Sec.  32.  The  members  of  the  General  Assembly  shall 
receive  a fixed  annual  salary,  and  mileage,  to  be  pre- 
scribed by  law,  and  no  other' allowance  or  perquisites, 
either  in  the  payment  of  postage  or  otherwise;  and  no 
change  in  their  compensation  shall  take  effect  during 
their  term  of  office;  but  the  General  Assembly  shall  pro- 
vide for  ratable  deductions  therefrom  on  account  of  un- 
necessary absence  during  its  sessions. 

Sec.  33.  The  General  Assembly  shall  grant  no  divorce, 
nor  exercise  any  judicial  power  not  herein  expressly  con- 
ferred. 

Sec  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe  by  law 
the  number,  duties  and  compensation  of  the  officers  and 
and  employes  of  each  House,  and  no  payment  shall  be 
made  from  the  State  Treasury,  or  be  in  any  way  author- 
ized, to  any  person  except  to  an  officer  or  employe  elected 
or  appointed  in  pursuance  of  law. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Miscellaneous  business 
is  now  in  order. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I move  that  we  proceed  to  the 
order  of  the  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman is  to  proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  of  the 
day  is  Proposition  No.  189, and  the  question  pend- 
ing at  the  last  adjournment  was  on  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitch- 
cock], to  strike  out  the  word  “road,”  and  in- 
sert the  word  “highway.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  With  leave  of  the  Con- 
vention, I withdraw  the  motion  as  made,  and 
modify  it  so  far  as  to  insert  the  word  “public” 
before  the  word  “road.” 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  amendment  as  modified. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  There  is  an  amendment 
which  occurs  to  me  should  be  made  there.  I 
shall  suggest  what  it  is,  and  I think  the  gentle- 
man from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  will  see  the 
propriety  of  it.  It  is  to  insert,  after  the  word 


“roads,”  the  words  “which  are  opened  to  the 
public  without  charge.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  say  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner],  that  I de- 
sired to  use  those  words,  but  some  gentlemen 
objected,  stating  that  some  of  those  roads  that 
have  been  built  by  assessment,  have  since  been 
made  roads  upon  which  the  public  are  required 
to  pay  toll  in  traveling.  I do  not  think  that  is 
right;  but  that  objection  was  urged.  The  lan- 
guage suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas 
[Mr.  Scribner]  is  that  which  I prefer,  and 
would  have  moved  in  place  of  the  other. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  Then  I move  to  amend  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock],  by  inserting,  after  the  word 
“road,”  the  words  “which  are  opened  to  the 
public  without  charge.” 

Mr.  EWING.  If  this  amendment  be  adop- 
ted— 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  gentleman  will 
allow  me,  Mr.  President,  before  he  proceeds 
with  his  remarks,  I will  ask  for  a division  of 
the  question,  so  that  it  will  be  first  on  agreeing 
to  the  word  “public,”  which  it  will  not  be  now, 
if  the  other  is  adopted.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  EWING.  If  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner] 
be  adopted,  the  section  will  be  construed  as,  by 
implication,  prohibiting  any  power  of  local  tax- 
ation for  the  construction  of  railroads,  unless  it 
be  expressly  given  in  some  other  Article.  Now, 
for  one,  I have  no  objection  to  that.  I am  en- 
tirely satisfied  that  there  shall  be  the  fullest 
prohibition,  unless  the  people,  on  a submission 
of  the  question  to  them,  shall  vote  in  favor  of 
an  Article  giving  the  power  of  taxation  for  the 
construction  of  railroads,  under  proper  guards 
and  limitations.  But  this  amendment  goes  a 
step  further.  It  puts  an  end  to  the  construction 
of  turnpikes  and  plank  roads  under  a system 
now  prevailing  in  the  State  of  Ohio;  a sytem 
which,  I believe,  has  met  with  the  approval  of 
the  people. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Do  turnpikes,  built  by 
assessment,  charge  toll  ? 

Mr.  CO  WEN.  Certainly  they  do;  a great 
many  of  them  do. 

Mr.  EWING.  Under  the  present  laws,  turn- 
pikes are  constructed  by  assessment. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  And  kept  in  repair? 

Mr.  EWING.  They  are  kept  in  repair  by 
tolls. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do  not  know  of  any  such 
turnpikes  in  Ohio  on  which  there  are  toll-gates. 

Mr.  EWING.  There  are  such  in  my  county. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  And  in  this  county,  too. 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  it  is  a matter  for  con- 
sideration whether  it  will  be  expedient  in  the 
Convention  to  put  a stop  to  the  construction  of 
such  public  roads  to  be  kept  in  repair  by  tolls. 
I do  not  mean  to  say  that  it  would  not  be  well 
to  put  a stop  to  it.  It  is  possible  that  it  might 
be,  but  my  first  impression  is  that  we  had  better 
let  it  alone. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Agreed. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  May  1 ask  a question  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I ask  what  the  gentleman 
means  by  the  word  “assessment”  ? The  reason 
I ask  is,  because,  understanding  the  word 


1546 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

Ewing,  Powell,  Cowen,  Scribner,  Pond. 


[119th 


“assessment”  as  I do,  I have  not  been  able  to 
find  any  statute  that  allows  the  establishing  of 
roads  by  assessment. 

Mr.  EWING.  There  is  a statute  authorizing 
the  construction  of  turnpike  roads,  and  the 
levying  of  the  cost  of  the  construction  upon 
lands  lying  within  two  miles  on  each  side  of  the 
road. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  me  say  to  the  gentleman 
that  I have  always  understood  the  statute  to 
refer  to  these  roads  as  free  roads,  and  I do  not 
understand  how  it  is  possible  to  put  gates  upon 
them.  I know  that  in  Union  county  and  Dela- 
ware county  there  are  such  roads,  and  there  are 
no  gates  upon  them. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  statute  authorizes  the  put- 
ting of  gates  upon  them,  as  the  gentleman  will 
observe  if  he  examines  it;  and  he  will  find, 
upon  inquiry,  that,  as  a matter  of  practice, 
there  are  gates  upon  such  roads  in  more  than 
one  county  of  the  State. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I trust  that  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner]  will  not  prevail,  and  I call  his  atten- 
tion especially,  as  the  author  of  the  proposed 
amendment,  as  well  as  the  attention  of  members 
of  the  Convention  to  my  reasons  for  opposing 
it.  I have  before  me  here  the  statute  which 
will  be  rendered  nugatory  by  the  adoption  of 
this  amendment. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  If  the  gentleman  will  per- 
mit me,  and  the  Convention  will  agree,  I will 
modify  my  amendment  so  as  to  avoid  the  objec- 
tion made.  I was  not  aware  that  on  any  such 
turnpikes  toll-gate  charges  were  collected. 

Mr.  COWEN.  There  are  three  such  in  Bel- 
mont county. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I wish  to  insert,  after  the 
word  “roads,”  the  words,  ‘‘other  than  rail- 
roads.” What  I intended  to  prevent  was  the 
building  of  railroads  under  local  assessment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner]. 

Mr.  POND.  Before  that  motion  is  put,  I 
presume  it  will  be  in  order  to  strike  out  the  en- 
tire section  and  insert  the  following  as  a sub- 
stitute : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Pond  moves  to  strike  out  the  section  and  substi- 
tute: 

“Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power  of  local 
taxation  and  assessment  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law; 
but  except  lor  the  construction  or  improvement  of  ditches 
and  highways,  the  amount  of  such  taxation  or  assessment, 
or  both,  upon  any  property  of  any  counties  or  townships 
shall  not,  in  any  one  year,  exceed  two  per  centum  of  the 
taxable  value  ot  such  property  upon  its  tax  duplicate; 
nor  shall  such  tax  or  assessment,  or  both,  in  any  period  of 
ten  years,  in  the  aggregate,  exceed  fifteen  per  centum  of 
such  valuation,  to  be  determined  by  the  highest  valuation 
within  such  period.” 

Mr.  POND.  I wish  to  say  a word  upon  that 
matter,  Mr.  President.  In  considering  the 
proposition  touching  the  regulation  of  Munici- 
pal Corporations,  as  these  cities  and  villages 
are  called,  the  Convention  has  deemed  it  wise 
to  regulate  the  liabilities  of  these  corporations, 
and  has  made  a scale  according  to  which  these 
corporations  shall  be  allowed  to  tax  themselves. 
To  the  extent  of  five  percent,  these  corporations 
may  incur  liabilities  for  any  purposes  what- 
ever; when  the  liability  is  beyond  five  per  cent, 
and  up  to  ten  per  cent.,  a vote  of  three-fourths 


[Friday, 


shall  be  required,  and  it  must  be  for  some  spe- 
cific purpose  if  they  are  allowed  to  incur  that 
increased  indebtedness.  That  is  the  principle 
upon  which  the  Convention,  in  its  wisdom,  has 
seen  fit  to  treat  Municipal  Corporations.  I ask 
if  there  is  any  reason  why  distinctions  should  be 
made  between  Municipal  Corporations — that  is, 
cities  and  villages,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and 
counties  and  townships,  and  whether  one  shall 
be  governed  by  a different  principle  from  the 
other?  Is  it  not  just  and  proper  that  a rule 
substantially  like  that  regulating  cities  and  vil- 
lages shall  regulate  townships  and  counties,  and 
that  the  rules  should  be  consistent?  The  peo- 
ple of  the  rural  districts,  I presume,  have  a right 
to  the  same  sort  of  legislation,  so  far  as  that  is 
concerned,  as  the  people  of  the  cities  and  vil- 
lages. It  may  be  true  that  not  so  large  an 
amount  of  tax  may  be  needed  for  county  pur- 
poses or  township  purposes  as  is  needed  for  city 
or  village  purposes,  and  that  not  so  large  an 
amount  of  indebtedness  for  any  and  all  purposes 
would  be  wisely  incurred ; but  this  principle  I 
hold  to  be  good — that  there  is  no  more  reason 
why  you  should  restrict  these  rural  sections  as 
to  the  mode  in  which  they  shall  apply  their 
taxes,  and  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  shall 
see  fit  to  incur  indebtedness  for  any  and  all  pur- 
poses, than  there  is  wfith  regard  to  cities  and 
villages — not  one  particle  more.  No  reason  can 
be  given  for  the  distinction.  You  have  already 
said  that  for  any  purpose  that  cities 

and  villages  see  fit  to  incur  obligation 
they  may  incur  it,  up  to  the  extent  of  five 
per  cent.  Why  not  put  a limit  upon 

townships  and  counties,  and  say  that,  up  to  that 
limit,  they  may  renew  indebtedness  and  levy 
taxes,  and  that,  if  they  confine  themselves  to 
that  limit,  it  may  be  for  any  purposes  which 
may  seem  wise  and  be  satisfactory  to  them- 
selves. I do  not  see  why  you  should  put  a 
straiter  jacket  upon  these  people  than  upon 
the  people  of  cities  and  villages.  This  amend- 
ment which  I have  proposed  is  intended  to  meet 
the  object  I have  indicated.  In  the  first  place, 
it  allows  them  such  powers  of  local  taxation 
and  assessment  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 
It  leaves  them  unconfined  in  that  respect,  only 
providing  that,  except  for  the  construction  and 
improvement  of  ditches  and  highways,  all  the 
taxes  and  assessments  shall  not  exceed  two  per 
cent,  upon  the  taxable  property,  nor  shall  they, 
in  any  period  of  ten  years,  exceed  fifteen  per 
cent,  of  the  valuation  on  the  tax  duplicate,  to 
be  estimated  upon  the  highest  valuation  during 
that  period.  The  scale  1 fix  may  be  too  large, 
or  it  may  be  too  small.  I am  not  sensitive 
about  that.  If  it  is  thought  to  be  too  large, 
reduce  it.  If  it  is  too  small,  make  it  larger. 
It  appears  to  me  that  it  is  fully  large  enough, 
and,  perhaps,  too  large.  Would  it  not  be  treat- 
ing these  people  justly  and  fairly,  and  would  it 
not  be  more  logical  in  this  Convention  to  treat 
the  subject  in  this  way  than  in  the  manner  pro- 
posed by  the  Committee?  Limit  them  as  much 
as  may  be  deemed  wise  as  to  the  amount  of 
taxes  they  may  levy,  and  as  to  the  amount  of 
indebtedness  they  may  incur.  Bring  it  down 
as  close  as  may  be  thought  wise,  but  leave  them 
some  little  discretion  as  to  the  disposition  they 
shall  make  of  their  money.  Looking  at  the 
Proposition  as  it  stands,  I say  it  ought  to  be 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1547 

February  20, 1874.]  Hitchcock,  Pond,  Griswold,  Hale,  etc. 


made  consistent  with  what  the  Convention  has 
already  done  with  regard  to  these  subjects,  and 
that  we  ought  not  to  deviate  from  the  rule  we 
have  laid  down  in  that  regard. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  allow  me  to  ask:  Were  it 
not  better  to  make  the  principle  of  assessment 
apply  alone  to  ditches  and  highways,  making 
the  word  “assessment”  refer  to  ditches  and 
highways,  rather  than  the  other  word,  “ taxa- 
tion?” 

Mr.  POND.  I have  excepted  ditches  and 
highways,  for  the  reason  that  I apprehend  it  is 
difficult  to  put  any  limit  upon  that  assessment 
in  some  sections  of  the  State. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I understand  that  the 
word  “ assessment  ” is  used  in  connection  with 
the  word  “ taxation.” 

Mr.  POND.  It  is,  hut  in  this  way:  except 
for  the  purpose  of  constructing  and  improving 
ditches  and  highways,  any  tax  or  assessment, 
or  both,  shall  not  exceed  a given  percentage. 
It  is,  except  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  What  are  you  going  to  do 
for  public  buildings?  Have  we  enough  of 
them  already? 

Mr.  POND.  They  are  all  provided  for. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Do  you  limit  the  amount ! 
in  any  given  number  of  years  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Yes ; fifteen  per  cent,  in  ten  ; 
years.  I say  I am  not  strenuous  about  the  i 
amount.  Whether  that  is  right  or  not,  I am  not 
prepared  to  say,  hut  it  is  as  near  right  as  I can 
fix  it,  according  to  my  judgment.  I named 
two  per  cent.,  for  the  reason  that  it  covers  the 
current  police  expenses  of  the  county.  Above 
that,  they  have  still  the  power  to  levy,  whenever 
they  need  it,  a larger  sum  for  public  buildings. 

I think  one  per  cent,  would  be  enough  for  an 
emergency  of  that  sort.  That  is  to  be  regu- 
lated by  law,  at  any  rate ; but  the  amendment 
fixes  a limit  beyond  which  they  cannot  go. 

Mr.  HALE.  Do  you  mean  by  this  to  limit 
the  amount  that  the  county  or  township  may 
levy  for  any  purpose  ? 

Mr.  POND.  For  any  purpose. 

Mr.  HALE.  For  any  purpose  whatever  ? i 

Mr.  POND.  For  all  purposes,  except  for  the 
construction  and  improvement  of  ditches  and  ! 
highways. 

Mr.  HALE.  Then  do  you  have  that  limit 
apply  to  the  county  and  township  as  a gross 
limitation  ? 

Mr.  POND.  No,  sir;  they  are  separate. 

“ Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  and  assessment,  for  police  pur- 
poses, as  may  be  prescribed  by  law,”  is  the 
language  used  in  the  first  clause ; but  in  any 
county  or  township  the  tax  shall  not  be  greater 
than  the  amount  named. 

Mr.  HALE.  Do  you  fix  the  limitation  for 
the  county  separate  from  the  limitation  for  the 
township? 

Mr.  POND.  I understand  that  to  be  the  effect 
of  my  amendment. 

Mr.  HALE.  I simply  desire  the  amendment 
read  again.  I do  not  so  understand  the  amend- 
ment, as  I heard  it  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  a second 
time. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  will  be  seen  that  the 
amendment  includes  any  tax  upon  the  town- 


ship, and  any  tax  levied  by  the  county,  just  as 
much  as  the  original  section  (nine),  which  was 
the  difficulty  presented  in  that  section.  The 
gentleman  himself  admits  that  he  has  made  no 
investigation  into  the  subject  of  the  needs  and 
wants  of  counties.  I submit  that  unless  this 
matter  has  been  carefully  considered,  and  with- 
out a careful  examination  of  the  circumstances 
of  counties  and  townships,  and  their  several 
wants,  this  imposition  of  blind  limitations  is 
not  quite  the  thing.  I do  not  know  but  that 
two  per  cent,  is  enough  taxation ; but  suppose 
the  township,  for  instance,  decided  to  build  a 
town-house,  and  they  had  reached  this  amount, 
they  could  not  levy  any  kind  of  tax  at  all  in 
that  township.  It  is  just  the  same  difficulty  as 
there  was  in  the  original  section  (nine),  as  re- 
ported by  the  Committee.  Under  that  section 
the  township  might  exhaust  its  powers  of  tax- 
ation, and  thus  escape  any  kind  of  taxation. 
We  do  not  want  the  matter  open  to  that  diffi- 
culty. That  difficulty  arises  from  our  under- 
taking to  rule  the  counties  and  townships  under 
one  provision.  They  have  separate  organiza- 
tions and  separate  expenses.  If  you  are  going 
to  prescribe  a limit,  you  should  set  a limit  for 
the  township  and  a limit  for  the  county ; and 
that  limit  ought  to  be  carefully  considered 
and  weighed,  and  the  experience  and  wants  of 
the  counties  should  be  ascertained  before  you 
undertake  to  fix  the  limit. 

Mr.  HALE.  This  proposed  substitute,  in  my 
judgment,  establishes  a limit  in  gross.  It  says 
that  upon  any  property  of  any  county  or  town- 
ship it  shall  not  exceed  two  per  centum.  Now, 
the  property  of  a township  is  also  the  proper- 
ty of  a county,  for  it  is  situated  in  both  the 
county  and  township.  The  limitation  is  to  tax 
on  the  assessment  upon  the  property.  It  is  a 
fatal  objection  to  this  substitute,  inasmuch  as  it 
would  result  in  a conflict,  the  township  making 
its  levy  upon  the  property  of  the  township,  and 
the  county  its  levy  upon  the  property  of  the 
county,  and  the  two  together  exceed  the  limi- 
tation— which  is  to  give  way?  It  is  objection- 
able in  that  respect.  The  first  levy  made  by  a 
township  might  exhaust  the  entire  power  of  the 
township,  and  no  county  levy  could  be  made : 
that  objection  is  a sufficient  reason  why  it  should 
not  be  adopted. 

By  leave  of  the  Convention,  Mr.  Pond  with- 
drew his  substitute. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  I understand  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner],  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  that  gentleman  to  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  myself  will  accomplish  all 
that  I desire  in  that  connection,  and  with  the 
leave  of  the  Convention,  I would  accept  his 
amendment  as  a modification  of  mine.  I under- 
stand that  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner],  proposes  to  insert  the  words,  “other 

fV| on  roilrAciflc  ^ 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  Should  not  the  word  “pub- 
lic” be  inserted,  nevertheless? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  may  be  better. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 
the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock], 
to  insist  upon  his  amendment.  The  question 
now  is  upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner],  to  insert  after  the 
word  “roads,”  the  words  “other  than  rail- 
roads.” 


1548 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. [119th 

Ewing,  Powell,  Blose,  Tuttle,  Cowen.  [Friday, 


Mr.  EWING.  I wish  to  say  just  one  word,  if  I 
may  be  allowed  at  this  time.  I shall  not  ob- 
ject to  inserting  this  amendment  which  is  an 
implied  prohibition  against  taxation  or  assess- 
ment for  the  construction  of  railroads, believing 
that  the  Convention  intends  to  submit  that 
question  to  the  people  separately.  I do  not  want 
to  be  misunderstood.  I think  it  would  be  inex- 
pedient to  put  in  an  express  prohibition  or  an 
express  permission  in  the  Constitution,  unless 
the  question  be  submitted  to  the  people  sepa- 
rately, and  it  should  be  submitted  in  separate 
alternative  clauses,  then  this  prohibitory  clause 
will  be,  at  worst,  only  superfluous. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  demanded  upon 
the  pending  motion.  Objection  ]was  made,  but 
the  demand  was  sustained. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  that  the  section  be  read 
as  it  will  stand  if  this  amendment  be  adopted. 
The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec,  9.  Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  and  assessment  for  police  purposes,  and 
constructing  and  improving  ditches,  public  roads,  other 
than  railroads,  and  clearing  water-courses,  when  neces- 
sary to  the  public  health,  convenience,  or  welfare,  as  may 
be  prescribed  by  law.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  58,  nays  8,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Barnet,  Beer,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Carbery, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cook,  Cowen,  De  Steiguer, 
Ewing,  Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley, 
Hale,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hum- 
phreville.  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  Mer- 
rill, Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell 
of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Steedman, Thompson, Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler, Voorhes, 
Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young 
of  Noble,  President — 58. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Coats,  Doan,  Neal,  Okey,  Pond,  Pow- 
ell, Tripp,  Van  Voorhis — 8. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock],  to  insert  the  word  “public”  before 
the  word  “roads.” 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to,  without  a divi- 
sion. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I move  to  amend  section  9 by 
adding,  after  the  word  “railroad,”  the  words 
“and  free  turnpikes.”  We  have  but  few  free 
turnpikes  in  my  county  [Clarke],  and  what  few 
we  have  were  gotten  after  a severe  struggle, 
and  have  given  great  dissatisfaction.  That  is  to 
say,  that  old  friends  have  become  bitter  ene- 
mies in  many  instances.  I am  not  one  of  those 
who  desire  to  have  gravel  roads  built  for  the 
advantage  of  other  poeple  at  my  expense,  nor 
am  I one  of  those  who  desire  to  have  gravel 
roads  built  for  my  convenience  at  the  expense 
of  others.  I,  therefore,  would  like  to  have  that 
amendment  inserted. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  1 would  inquire  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  if  he  has  ex- 
amined the  section  so  as  to  be  sure  whether  or 
not  it  now  provides  exactly  what  he  desires. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  If  it  does  provide  just  what  I 
mean  or  desire,  I am  willing  to  withdraw  my 


amendment ; if  it  does  not,  I shall  not  he  willing 
to  do  so. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  suggest  that  the 
amendment  which  the  gentleman  proposes 
would  seem  to  be  counter  to  the  object  he  has 
expressed  a desire  to  attain.  I do  not  know  but 
that  I should  like  it  myself  better  in  that  way; 
but  I think,  from  what  I understood  the  gentle- 
man to  say,  that  its  effect  is  counter  to  what  he 
supposes. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  My  objuct  is  to  provide  that 
there  may  not  be  any  assessments  made  to  build 
free  turnpikes. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Then  the  gentleman  is  right. 

I understood  that  he  wanted  to  confer  power  to 
build  them. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  No,  sir!  No,  sir! 

Mr.  COWEN.  I want  to  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  that  I concur 
with  him  in  his  object;  but  I think  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  provision,  as  it  now  stands, 
authorizes  the  construction  of  free  turnpikes  by 
assessment. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I understand  that  the  section, 
as  it  stands  now,  does  authorize  such  construc- 
tion. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I think  it  does. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  The  object  of  my  amendment 
is  to  provide  that  it  should  not  authorize  that. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I suggest  to  the  gentleman 
that  his  amendment  would  give  express  author- 
ity to  construct  them  in  that  way. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I have  no  such  intention  at  all. 
Neither  does  my  amendment  so  provide,  in  my 
opinion. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I see  that  the  gentleman  is 
correct.  I understood,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
amendment  was  to  insert  the  words  proposed 
after  the  word  “roads,”  and  not  after  the  word 
“railroads.”  The  object,  therefore,  is  to  pre- 
vent the  building  of  free  turnpikes  by  assess- 
ment. That  being  the  case,  I think  that  one  of 
the  great  objects  of  this  section  at  the  time  the 
word  assessment  was  added  would  be  defeated 
by  this  amendment.  In  the  county  of  Belmont 
there  are  three  Macadamized  roads  which  come 
within  the  class  that  are  called  within  the 
statutes  free  turnpikes,  and  every  one  of  them 
was  built  by  assessment.  I think  that  they  are 
of  great  advantage  to  the  county,  and  I appre- 
hend that  not  one  of  them  would  have  been 
built  but  for  the  fact  that  they  were  permitted  to 
be  built  by  assessment. 

The  PRESIDENT  [Mr.  Humphreville]. 
The  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Clarke 
[Mr.  Blose]  is  intended  to  cut  them  off. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Certainly  it  is  intended  to  cut 
them  off  from  being  built  by  assessment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  the  Convention 
may  understand  what  is  the  question  now  pend- 
ing, the  Secretary  will  please  report  the 
amendment  and  the  section  as  it  will  read  when 
amended. 

The  Secretary.  The  section  will  read,  when 
amended,  as  follows : 

“Sec.  9.  Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  and  assessment  for  police  purposes,  aud 
for  constructing  and  improving  ditches,  public  roads, 
other  than  railroads  and  free  turnpikes,  and  clearing 
water-courses,  when  necessarv  to  the  public  health,  con- 
venience and  welfare,  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

Griswold,  Powell,  Coats. 


1549 


Day.] 

February  20,  1874.] 


Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Have  we  already  inserted 
“free  turnpikes?” 

The  PRESIDENT.  No;  it  is  not  inserted 
yet. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I am  not  much  opposed  to 
what  is  proposed  by  way  of  amendment  here; 
but  I am  confident  that  the  section,  as  it  now 
reads,  and  as  it  is  now  before  the  Convention, 
is  entirely  different  from  what  the  members  of 
the  Convention  intend.  There  is  no  doubt  at 
all  but  that  the  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr. 
Scribner]  intended  to  prevent  any  assessment 
for  the  purpose  of  building  railroads ; and  there 
is  no  doubt  at  all  but  that  the  gentleman  from 
Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  intended  the  same  thing 
with  regard  to  free  turnpikes;  but  there  are 
words  that  come  in  after  that,  under  the  excep- 
tion, and  are,  therefore,  controlled  by  it.  For 
instance,  the  word  “ditches”  comes  in  under 
the  exception,  as  the  section  now  reads,  if  I am 
not  greatly  mistaken. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  the  object  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  is  to  prevent 
assessments  for  the  building  of  free  turnpikes, 
he  has  placed  his  amendment  in  the  right  place. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir.  And  now,  the 
next  words  that  come  in  are  in  relation  to 
ditches.  The  word  “except”  will  apply  to  them, 
and  that,  I think,  the  Convention  does  not  in- 
tend. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  word  “ditches”  is 
before  that. 

Mr.  POWELL.  As  the  section  was  read,  I 
think  that  either  the  word  “ditches”  or  “drains” 
comes  in  after  the  words  “free  turnpikes.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  reads : “And  for  con- 
structing and  improving  ditches  and  public 
roads,  other  than  railroads  and  free  turnpikes.” 

Mr.  PO  WELL.  What  is  next  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  “And  clearing  water- 
courses.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  come  in  the  words  I 
alluded  to.  You  will  cut  off  the  clearing  of 
water-courses.  Well,  now,  those  who  have  that 


matter  in  charge  may  attend  to  it  as  they  please ; 
but  I protest,  Mr.  President,  that  the  people 
should  not  be  limited,  should  not  have  their 
hands  tied  up,  with  regard  to  any  of  these  im- 
provements that  are  proposed  to  be  made — even 
railroads — but  especially  with  regard  to  these 
free  turnpikes.  We  have  them  in  our  county; 
but  no  county  in  the  State  has  been  so  liberal 
upon  that  subject  as  the  county  of  Union.  Not- 
withstanding they  have  so  many  free  turnpikes, 
they  have  not  a single  gate  upon  one  of  them. 
It  has  raised  the  value  of  the  lands  in  that 
county  to  double  their  former  value,  and  the 
people  of  that  county  would  hesitate  very  much, 
indeed,  to  lose  those  rights.  Though  many  of 
them  opposed  it  in  the  first  instance,  yet  they 
are  satisfied  that  they  have  made  money  by  it. 
But  here  the  Convention  now  propose  to  tie  up 
the  people’s  hands  from  making  these  improve- 
ments that  have  benefited  them  so  much,  and 
raised  the  value  of  their  property.  They  are 
getting  the  section,  Mr.  President,  worse  and 
worse.  They  not  only  propose  to  restrict  the 
people  from  making  railroads,  or  making  any 
free  turnpikes,  but  even  from  clearing  water- 
courses. The  section  is  as  bad  as  it  can  be,  and 
the  whole  spirit  hereupon  this  subject  is  worse. 

Mr.  COATS.  I have  some  feeling  on  this 
subject;  but  I should  be  glad  to  have  consul- 
tation with  the  members  of  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee. I,  therefore,  move  that  the  Conven- 
tion do  now  adjourn. 

Before  the  motion  was  put, 

LEAVE  OP  ABSENCE 

was  granted  as  follows : 

To  Mr.  Thompson,  indefinitely. 

To  Mr.  Hale,  until  Wednesday  following. 

To  Mr.  Cowen,  indefinitely. 

To  Mr.  Van  Valkenburgh,  at  the  request  of 
Mr.  Adair,  for  the  following  week. 

The  question  was  then  taken  upon  the  motion 
to  adjourn,  which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5 :30  p.  m.)  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 


1550 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. [120th 

Townsley,  Tyler,  Yoris,  Barnet,  Sears,  etc.  [Saturday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTIETH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 

FIFTY-EIGHTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to 
adjournment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  John  Scott,  of  the  Sixth 
Street  Methodist  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  sixty-nine  members 
answered  to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Messrs.  Mueller  and  Chapin  were  excused 
for  absence  yesterday.  Leave  of  absence  was 
asked  and  obtained,  for  Mr.  Okey,  for  to-day ; for 
Mr.  Shaw,  to  Monday  after  Roll-call ; for  Messrs. 
Townsend,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Dorsey  and  | 
Shultz,  to  Tuesday  next;  for  Messrs.  Johnson 
and  Blose,  until  Wednesday  next;  and  for 
Messrs.  Gardner,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Barnet 
and  Layton,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time.  | 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

petition. 

Mr.  TOWNSLEY.  The  petition  of  S.  L. ! 
Blair,  and  three  hundred  and  sixty  other  citi- 
zens of  Jamestown,  Greene  county,  praying  for  ! 
a provision  in  the  Constitution  empowering  the  ! 
Legislature  to  regulate,  limit,  or  entirely  pro-  j 
hibit,  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  1 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I offer,  for  adoption,  the  fol- 
lowing resolution : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  offers,  for  adoption,  the 
following  resolution,  which  the  Secretary  will 
read : 

The  Secretary  read  the  same,  as  follows : 

Resolution  No.  167 — By  Mr.  Tyler  : 

Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention  shall  adjourn  on 
Tuesday,  the  31st  day  of  March,  A.  D.,  1874,  it  shall  ad- 
journ sine  die,  unless  the  business  of  the  Convention  is 
sooner  completed. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I give  notice  of  an  intention  [ 
to  discuss  that  resolution. 

So  the  resolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 

order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  that  the  Convention  do 
now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the 
order  of  the  day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  being  j 
Proposition  No.  189,  the  question  pending  at 
adjournment  was  upon  the  motion  of  the  gen-  j 
tleman  from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  to  amend  sec- 


Saturday,  February  21,  1874. 

tion  9.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Clarke : 

The  Secretary: 

Mr.  Blose  moves  to  further  amend  the  proposed  substi- 
tute by  adding  at  the  end  of  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner],  inserted  on  yesterday, 
the  words,  “and  free  turnpikes.’’ 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  Convention  ready 
for  the  question  ? 

Mr.  BARNET.  I hope,  sir,  that  this  matter 
may  be  explained  so  that  we  can  understand 
fully  the  import  of  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose].  As  I understand  it, 
it  would  be  very  detrimental  to  the  system  we 
have  already  inaugurated  in  Ohio — our  free 
turnpike  system — which  is  mainly  dependent 
upon  the  wishes  of  the  people  who  desire  to 
make  them ; exercising  for  themselves  the  priv- 
ilege of  taxation  for  the  purpose  of  making 
these  free  turnpikes — and  I think  it  is  a privi- 
lege the  people  ought  to  enjoy — the  right  to  tax 
themselves  for  the  purpose  of  creating  their 
own  facilities.  I hope,  therefore,  that  this 
amendment  will  not  be  adopted  except  upon 
due  and  careful  consideration.  I fear  that  it 
would  interrupt  a system  that  I know  is  inau- 
gurated in  western  Ohio,  and  one  that  I con- 
sider of  very  great  importance.  Why  should 
not  the  people  have  this  right,  which  Ufear  this 
proposed  amendment,  if  agreed  to,  will  inter- 
fere with  ? But  I only  wish  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  members  of  this  Convention  to  the  facts, 
and  have  them  duly  considered. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I would  like  to  have  the  sec- 
tion read  as  it  would  read  if  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr. 
Blose]  be  inserted. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  9.  Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  and  assessment  for  police  purposes,  and 
for  constructing  and  improving  ditches,  ana  public  roads, 
other  than  railroads  and  free  turnpikes,  and  clearing 
water-courses,  when  necessary  to  the  public  health,  con- 
venience or  welfare,  as  may  he  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  COATS.  On  a former  occasion  I said  all 
that  I desired  to  say  upon  this  matter.  It  is  a 
matter  in  which  my  constituents  are  very 
deeply  interested.  I think  it  is  a matter  in 
which  the  people  in  counties  where  free  turn- 
pikes or  gravel  roads  are  needed  are  deeply 
interested  throughout  the  State.  To  adopt  this 
proposed  amendment  would,  in  effect,  stop  im- 
provements goingon  at  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  this  Constitution,  if  it  be  adopted.  The 
system  of  gravel  roads  has  proven  a very  bene- 
ficial system,  and  one  that  has  been,  in  its 
results,  very  satisfactory  to  all  portions  of  the 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1551 

February  21,  1874.]  Coats,  Gardner,  Doan,  etc. 


State  where  it  has  been  inaugurated  and  carried 
into  effect. 

I have  said,  upon  a former  occasion,  and  I re- 
peat it  now,  that  those  who  were  strong 
opposers  of  the  system  at  the  commencement, 
as  the  work  progressed,  became  the  fast  friends 
of  that  system — a system  by  which  a majority 
of  the  land-holders  living  along  the  line  of, 
and  adjacent  to,  a road,  or  proposed  road,  may, 
by  a petition  of  a majority  of  those  land-hold- 
ers, be  enabled  to  improve  that  road,  or  open 
and  improve  a new  one,  by  grading  and  gravel- 
ing the  same. 

This  system  has  grown  in  favor  with  the  peo- 
ple until  I know  of  no  opposition  to  it  where  it 
is  in  practical  use  and  operation.  To  stop  those 
great  improvements,  and  stop  them  now,  at  a 
time  when  the  people  can  illy  afford  to  be  ar- 
rested in  the  work  of  making  these  improve- 
ments, will,  as  I believe,  prove  detrimental  to 
many  localities  in  the  State.  A large  number 
of  gravel  roads  have  been  already  made  in  my 
county,  and  many  are  now  in  process  of  con- 
struction, and  I am  well  satisfied  that,  if  a 
petition  were  circulated  there  now  to  arrest  the 
progress  of  this  work,  either  by  statute  or 
constitutional  law,  it  would  receive  no  support 
whatever ; and  I see  no  reason  why  the  present 
system  should  not  be  continued.  It  is  equita- 
ble and  just,  and  is  yielding  to  the  will  and  the 
voice  of  the  people,  as  expressed  in  reference  to 
these  improvements. 

There  are  many  counties  in  the  State  where 
the  people  have  not  yet  progressed  so  far  as  to 
inaugurate  this  system ; but  they  desire  it,  and 
should  have  the  benefit  of  it,  and  in  the  counties 
where  it  has  been  inaugurated  the  people  have 
not  carried  it  into  effect  sufficiently  to  satisfy 
their  wants,  and  should  be  permitted  to  go  on 
with  the  work.  I had  thought  that  the  matter 
was  put  at  rest  when  we  adopted  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr. 
Cowen],  in  this  Convention.  I think  that  the 
amendmentof  the  gentleman  from  Belmont  will 
be  satisfactory  to  all  who  desire  to  continue  the 
building  and  construction  of  free  gravel  roads. 
I hope  the  Convention  will  not  now  go  back  on 
its  former  work  and  deny  the  people  this  priv- 
ilege; a privilege  that  has,  in  its  results,  en- 
hanced the  value  of  property  in  every  county 
where  it  has  been  carried  into  effect,  to  an  ex- 
tent far  beyond  the  calculations  of  the  most 
sanguine  advocates  of  the  system. 

The  system  of  internal  improvements,  under 
proper  restrictions,  is  a system  that  is  needed, 
and  should  be  encouraged ; and  the  system  un- 
der which  we  are  now  operating  is  so  satisfac- 
tory, that  I cannot  believe  it  will  be,  by  a 
constitutional  provision,  so  restricted  as  to  pre- 
vent this  needed  progress  of  internal  improve- 
ment from  developing  the  resources  of  this 
State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  GARDNER.  I trust  that  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  will 
not  prevail.  I do  not  know  what  is  the  sense 
of  this  Convention  with  regard  to  this  question ; 
but,  for  fear  that  the  Convention  might  adopt 
it,  I desire  to  suggest  the  utter  impropriety  of 
doing  anything  of  the  sort.  Our  road  laws 
throughout  the  State  are  very  wise,  and,  in  my 
county  particularly,  we  have  a system  of  roads 
unsurpassed  by  any  county  in  the  State.  Our 


roads  are  made  under  the  road  improvement 
law,  and  are  generally  called  “ free  turnpikes ;” 
but  they  are  not  free  turnpikes,  because  not 
built  under  the  free  turnpike  law;  they  are 
built  under  the  road  improvement  law,  but  gen- 
erally go  by  the  name  of  “free  turnpikes,”  and 
they  are  all  free  and  are  all  turnpikes. 

These  roads  were  built  upon  a petition  of  the 
owners  of  the  land  lying  on  either  side  and 
within  two  miles  of  the  road  improved;  and 
1 on  the  vote  alone  of  the  farming  interests 
along  the  line  of  those  roads  were  they  built. 
Our  county  is  not  finished  yet,  either  in  roads 
or  general  improvements,  and  anything  that 
will  hinder  the  improvement  of  roads  by  the 
action  of  men  owning  lands,  I protest  against. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Have  not  they  finished  the 
whisky  shops? 

Mr.  GARDNER.  Yes ; but  that  is  only  the 
commencement  of  the  grand  march  of  improve- 
ment in  the  county.  [LaughterJ. 

I hope  that  this  amendment  will  not  prevail ; 
that  gentlemen  will  consider  the  effect  of  their 
voting  to  incorporate  this  into  the  Constitution. 
It  will  effectually  hinder  the  people  from  mak- 
ing assessments  for  road  improvements.  We  do 
not  want  that  done,  and  I do  not  think  that  any 
county  in  the  State  wants  it  done,  unless  they 
are  willing  to  say  to  the  Convention  that  they 
are  finished  and  desire  to  be  hedged  in  to  keep 
everybody  else  out  and  keep  in  those  who  are 
in. 

Mr.  DOAN . I do  trust  that  the  Convention 
will  give  attention  to  the  effect  of  this  proposed 
amendment  before  voting  upon  this  question. 
And  here  let  me  suggest  that,  if  there  be  any 
parts  of  the  State  of  Ohio  that  do  not  require  the 
operation  of  the  laws  that  are  now  in  force  for 
the  improvement  of  their  roads,  because  they  do 
not  need  them,  I trust  that  the  improvement  of 
roads,  by  petition  of  a majority  of  the  land- 
holders to  be  benefited  by  roads,  we  will  not  do 
so  unwise  a thing  as  to  incorporate  in  the  Con- 
stitution any  prohibition  thereof  that  will  be  so 
prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  a large  portion  of 
the  State. 

Now,  in  Southern  Ohio,  especially  in  the  sec- 
ond tier  of  counties  from  the  Ohio  River,  we 
are  very  differently  situated  from  the  more 
northern  or  central  portions  of  the  State.  Our 
roads,  at  this  season  of  the  year,  unless  well 
thrown  up  and  covered  with  gravel,  become 
almost  impassable,  and  those  roads  cannot  be 
improved  without  a considerable  expenditure 
of  money — may  be,  three  to  six  thousand 
dollars  a mile.  If  we  adopt  this  amendment, 
we  strike  at  the  usefulness  of  the  two  laws  now 
in  operation  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  both  seeking 
the  same  object.  One  known  as  the  “ Free 
Turnpike  Law,”  allowing  ten  mills  for  the 
improvement  of  roads  to  be  levied  on  lands 
lying  on  either  side  and  within  two  miles  of 
the  roads  to  be  improved.  The  other  is  a statute 
that  provides  for  the  improvement  of  roads,  by- 
grading  and  graveling,  on  petition  of  a majority 
of  the  land-holders  on  either  side  and  within 
two  miles  of  the  road  to  be  improved,  the  peti- 
tion to  be  addressed  to  the  County  Commis- 
sioners. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  by  the  wholesome  appli- 
cation of  these  two  laws,  in  my  county,  since 
1867 — a county  that  has  been  in  great  want, 


1552 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS, 

Doan,  Pond,  Griswold,  Pratt,  Hitchcock. 


[120th 

[Saturday, 


great  need  of  an  improvement  of  their  roads — 
we  have  pursued  a careful,  systematic  and 
economical  improvement  of  the  roads  until  we 
have,  at  this  time,  added  to  good  roads  in  our 
county  over  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  at  a 
cost  of  $600,000.  The  people  in  the  southern 
part  of  the  State,  at  least  in  my  county,  desire 
to  make  further  improvements,  and  the  great 
body  of  them  acquiesce  in  any  wise  legislation, 
when  impartially  and  judiciously  administered, 
and  there  has  been  no  complaint,  in  my  county 
at  least. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I trust  that  in  the  vote 
to-day  upon  this  question,  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  will  not 
prevail;  that  if  they  do  not  want  these  im- 
provements in  Clarke  county  or  other  parts  of 
the  State,  they  will  not  throw  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  those  improvements  that  are  needed  and 
sought  for  in  other  localities  in  Ohio. 

The  vote  being  taken  on  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Clarke  [Mr.  Blose],  it  was 
not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond]  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  POND.  I desire,  before  that  vote  is 
taken,  to  substitute  for  the  substitute  oftered  on 
yesterday,  one  that  I have  prepared  with  more 
care,  defining  between  counties  and  townships, 
so  that  there  will  be  no  difficulty  about  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  strike 
out  section  nine,  and  insert,  as  a substitute, 
what  the  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute  as  follows : 

“Sec.  9.  Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  and  assessment  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
law,  but,  except  for  the  construction  and  improvement  of 
ditches  and  highways,  the  amount  of  such  tax  or  assess- 
ment, or  both,  levied  by  any  county  or  township,  shall  not 

exceed  in  any  one  year  for  the  county  levy per 

centum,  and  for  the  township  levy  per  centum  of 

the  tax  duplicate  of  such  county  or  township;  nor  shall 
the  aggregate  of  such  tax  or  assessment,  or  both,  in  any 

period  of  ten  years,  exceed  for  the  county  levy per 

centum,  and  for  the  township  levy  per  centum  of 

such  valuation,  to  be  determined  by  the  highest  valuation 
within  such  period.” 

Mr.  POND.  The  change  that  I make  there 
is  to  obviate  the  difficulty  that  my  friend  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  who  is  not  here,  suggested 
on  yesterday,  as  to  a question  that  might  arise, 
whether  the  substitute  I offered  on  yester- 
day covered  the  aggregate  taxation  of  both,  or 
intended  to  limit  it  to  each.  In  this  substitute  I 
do  not  fix  the  limit  of  the  levy  at  all,  but  distin- 
guish between  counties  and  townships,  so  that 
both  or  either  may  be  fixed  as  the  Convention 
sees  proper.  So  far  as  my  observation  goes, 
county  levies  and  township  levies,  in  the  State, 
do  not  vary  much  from  each  other  in  amount. 
Neither  of  them  vary  much  from  about  five 
mills  in  Morgan  county,  though  in  other  coun- 
ties of  the  State  they  sometimes  do;  and  if  you 
take  many  of  the  other  counties  you  will  find 
that  the  township  levies  are  much  larger  than 
county  levies. 

I would  like  to  substitute  this  second  substitute 
for  the  one  I offered  on  yesterday, if  I can  have 
leave  so  to  do. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  it  was  not  put  upon 
the  Journal  on  yesterday,  it  now  goes  before 
the  Convention  for  the  first  time.  A division  of 


the  question  is  called  for  by  the  gentleman  from 
Madison  [Mr.  Phellis]. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I ask  that  the  proposed 
substitute  be  now  read. 

The  Secretary  re-read  the  proposed  substi- 
tute. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A division  being  called 
for,  the  question  will  first  be  upon  striking  out 
section  nine. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  seems  to  me,  that  before 
we  adopt  a substitute  of  this  sort  for  the  section 
as  amended  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
which  has  received  very  careful  consideration, 
and  very  full  discussion  at  the  time  it  was 
adopted,  the  blanks  ought  to  be  filled.  I sup- 
pose, the  object  of  the  gentleman  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond],  is  to  follow  the  rule  as  applied 
to  cities  in  which  we  have  limited  their  power 
of  special  assessment,  as  also  their  power  to 
run  in  debt.  But  there  is  this  difference  be- 
tween towns,  counties  and  cities : The  city  has 
a natural  tendency  to  run  in  debt,  and  we  want 
a limit  put  upon  that.  But  that  tendency,  I 
think,  does  not  apply  to  counties  or  towns. 
They  are  very  careful  about  this  thing. 

Mr.  PRATT.  They  have  a little  more  virtue 
in  the  country. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  are  not  so  extrava- 
gant, and  have  more  economy — I do  not  know 
as  it  is  more  virtue;  more  wisdom,  I think. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  But  experience  has  shown 
us  that  it  is  the  natural  tendency  of 
cities  to  run  into  debt,  as  we  see  by 
the  morning  papers  exemplified  in  this  dis- 
tinguished city  in  which  we  are  assembled. 
Almost  every  year  different  cities  go  on  with 
expenditure,  and  do  not  levy  taxes  enough  to 
pay  their  expenses.  The  result  is,  every  year 
they  are  short,  and  debt  continues  to  accumu- 
late. I do  not  think  that  it  is  true  of  a county. 
It  may  be  true  of  some  counties  of  the  State  that 
they  have  run  into  debt;  but  it  has  grown  out 
of  very  peculiar  circumstances;  out  of  very 
peculiar  conditions,  requiring  large  expendi- 
tures in  the  way  of  highways  and  bridges;  but 
the  ordinary  county  expenses  are  not  a matter 
in  which  there  is  a necessity  of  applying  any 
such  rule  of  limitation.  The  county  levies 
usually  are  very  small,  except  as  to  railroads, 
bridges  and  the  support  of  the  poor.  Bridges, 
roads  and  the  poor  are  the  main  items ; and 
there  is  no  occasion  for  the  same  limitation  as 
there  is  to  cities.  And  to  go  on  and  adopt  the 
substitute,  leaving  the  important  matter  blank, 
it  is  a mere  form  without  any  substance. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  A division  of  the  ques- 
tion being  called  for,  I wish  to  suggest  an 
amendment  to  the  section  before  the  vote  is 
taken  on  striking  out;  for,  should  that  motion 
be  disagreed  to,  my  motion  will  not  then  be  in 
order.  I wish  to  strike  out  the  word  “assess- 
ment,” where  it  occurs  in  the  first  line,  and 
insert  the  words.  “ may  make  assessment,”  after 
the  word  “ and,”  where  it  occurs  in  the  second 
line.  The  reading  then  will  be,  “ counties  and 
townships  shall  have  such  power  of  local  taxa- 
tion for  police  purposes,  and  may  make  assess- 
ments for  constructing  and  improving  ditches 
and  public  roads  other  than  railroads,  etc.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  word  “ assessment  ” 
was  inserted  by  special  order.  It  cannot  b 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1553 

February  21,  1874.]  Hitchcock,  Powell,  Ewing. 


stricken  out.  Without  general  consent  the 
transposition  of  the  word  could  not  be  made. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  With  the  suggestion  of 
the  Chair,  I will  modify  my  motion  to  strike 
out  all  after  the  word  “taxation,”  in  the  first 
line,  down  to  and  including  the  word  “roads,” 
and  insert,  “ for  police  purposes,  and  may  make 
assessments  for  the  purpose  of  improving 
ditches  and  roads.”  Will  that  motion  be  in 
order  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will 
reduce  his  motion  to  writing. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  Chair  will  give 
me  a moment’s  time,  I will. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask,  in  the  section 
in  italics,  whereabouts  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  comes 
in — where  it  is  proposed  to  insert  the  word  “as- 
sessment 

The  PRESIDENT.  After  the  word  “taxa- 
ation  ” read  “and  assessment,”  in  line  one. 

The  Secretary  read  the  section,  as  proposed 
to  be  amended  by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock], 

Mr.  EWING.  I hope  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  will  not  prevail.  Ever  since  Ohio 
has  been  a State,  we  have  had  county  roads  and 
township  roads  laid  out  and  opened  at  the  ex- 
pense of  counties  and  townships.  The  power 
certainly  has  not  been  extraordinarily  abused ; 
and  why  we  should  sit  here  overturning  the 
immemorial  and  accepted  customs  respecting 
this  matter  of  public  highways,  I cannot  im- 
agine. If  the  amendment  prevails, the  counties 
and  townships  will  have  power  of  taxation  for 
public  purposes  only,  and  cannot  open  a road,  a 
country  road,  or  improve  a road  at  all,  except  by 
assessment  on  the  adjacent  property.  I do  not 
think  the  people  of  the  State  would  put  up  with 
that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  will  excuse  me,  I beg 
that  he  will  state  to  the  Convention  under  what 
power  that  tax  to  construct  roads  is  now  exer- 
cised— under  what  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Under  both. 

Mr.  EWING.  Under  the  general  grant  of 
legislative  power. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  How  does  this  conflict 
with  that  general  grant? 

Mr.  EWING.  Because  it  is  a prohibition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Is  it  prohibition  ? . 

Mr.  EWING.  Impliedly.  If  your  amend- 
ment is  a prohibition  on  railroads,  it  is  prohibi- 
tion on  county  and  township  roads. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman  will  re- 
collect the  remark  made  in  connection  with  my 
motion  the  other  evening,  that  this  would  not 
interfere  with  any  express  provision  which 
might  be  inserted  in  the  Constitution,  granting 
power  to  construct  railroads.  The  motion  made 
by  me  was  originally  intended  that  only  to  coun- 
ties should  no  such  power  be  granted.  My  only 
purpose  in  the  present  motion  is  to  take  away 
the  word  “assessment”  from  its  connection 
with  the  words  “police  purposes.”  In  the  pres- 
ent arrangement,  the  word  “assessment”  oc- 
curs in  connection  with  “police  purposes” — 
“shall  have  such  power  of  local  taxation  and 
assessment  for  police  purposes.”  Now,  I think 

y.  n-100 


the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing] 
would  not  wish  to  recognize  the  power  of  as- 
sessment for  police  purposes. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Are  not  those  words  “taxa- 
tion” and  “assessment”  used  in  the  section  sep- 
arately, and  may  they  not  be  used  by  the  Leg- 
islature, not  for  police  purposes  alone,  but  for 
all  purposes  expressed  in  the  section,  as  they 
may  think  proper,  for  police  purposes,  or  other 
purposes  either  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Or  for  both,  I suppose. 
Under  the  section  as  now  constructed,  there 
may  be  taxation  for  police  purposes  or  assess- 
ment, or  both,  for  the  construction  of  ditches 
and  roads,  or  both. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  appears  to  me,  Mr. 
President,  that  we  should  not  say  that  this 
power  of  taxation  for  the  construction  of 
ditches,  aside  from  the  question  of  roads,  should 
be  made  an  express  constitutional  provision. 
The  ditches  which  have  been  constructed  al- 
ready in  this  State  in  all  cases,  I think, have  been 
made  by  assessment.  I may  be  mistaken — not 
being  acquainted  with  this  subject  of  ditches 
practically — only  acquainted  with  it  by  legisla- 
tion. Ditches  have  only  been  constructed  by 
assessment  upon  the  property  affected  by  these 
ditches.  If  I am  wrong  as  to  their  being  con- 
structed by  taxation,  I would  like  to  be  cor- 
rected by  gentlemen  better  acquainted  with  the 
operation  of  the  law.  Now,  then,  granting  the 
power  to  levy  taxation  on  that  property,  which 
has  already  paid  the  expense  of  ditching  for  its 
own  improvement,  to  have  to  pay  for  the  im- 
provement of  other  property,  by  provision  in 
the  Constitution,  would  be  wrong.  As  I said 
yesterday,  there  is  no  disposition  on  my  part 
now,  to  interfere  with  the  power  of  assessment 
to  which  the  Constitution  has  given  such  hearty 
assent;  but  to  confine  this  to  assessment.  To 
allow  it  to  be  made  by  taxation,  I cannot  agree. 
As  to  those  words  “police  purposes,”  I under- 
stand that  all  the  legislation  for  the  imposition 
of  special  taxation  in  the  State  has  been  under 
these  words  in  the  present  Constitution.  I 
mean  that  the  imposition  of  special  taxation — 
local  taxation — of  the  propriety  of  which 
there  has  been  so  much  doubt,  and,  in 
many  instances,  doubt  also  as  to  the  con- 
stitutionality of  it.  I may  be  mistaken,  but 
think  not.  If  so,  gentlemen  better  acquaint- 
ed with  the  rulings  of  the  courts  in  regard 
to  such  legislation  will  correct  me.  This  au- 
thority given  by  special  acts  to  townships  for 
various  purposes,  to  levy  taxes;  as,  for  instance, 
for  the  building  of  hearse-houses ; purchase  of 
hearses;  for  bridges;  authorizing  the  payment 
of  debts  for  agricultural  societies ; for  the  pur- 
chase of  lands,  and  the  construction  of  build- 
ings for  agricultural  societies,  and  all  the  va- 
riety of  legislation  of  that  kind.  I understand 
that  all  this  has  been  done  under  this  language 
in  the  present  Constitution.  One  might  enu- 
merate by  the  hour  the  different  acts  passed. 
My  purpose  is  not  what  is  supposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing].  If  it  was 
so,  I certainly  would  not  want  my  motion 
agreed  to.  It  is  not  to  prevent  the  operation  of 


1554 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSNIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

Hitchcock,  Ewing,  Gurley,  Powell. 


a law  by  which  necessary  roads  may  be  built, 
nor  would  it  have  that  effect.  What  we  ordin- 
arily term  as  county  and  township  roads  would 
not  be  interfered  with,  because  we  have  them 
constructed  under  our  present  Constitution. 
What  was  sought  to  be  gained,  so  far  as  roads 
are  concerned,  is  this:  that  the  class  of  turn- 
pike roads  which  have  been  so  largely  con- 
structed in  many  counties  of  the  State,  having 
been  constructed  by  assessment  upon  the  prop- 
erty supposed  to  be  benefited  thereby,  and  not  by 
any  general  system  of  taxation,  that  other  roads 
of  the  same  kind  should  hereafter  be  con- 
structed by  assessment,  and  not  by  general  tax- 
ation. The  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ew- 
ing] will  understand  my  intention  ; and,  at  all 
events,  it  seems  to  me  that  all  will  agree  that 
this  power  of  assessment  should  not  be  con- 
nected with  this  language,  “for  police  pur- 
poses.” Whether  the  mere  transposition  of  the 
word  “assessment,”  to  a connection  with  roads 
and  ditches,  will  accomplish  all  that  is  neces- 
sary, I am  unable  to  say ; but  do  not  think  we 
want  to  use  the  words  in  connection  with  taxa- 
tion for  “police  purposes.” 

Mr.  EWING.  With  the  indulgence  of  the 
Convention 

[“  Leave,”  “ Leave.”] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  has  leave. 

Mr.  EWING.  I would  say,  in  response  to  the 
gentleman,  that  I think  his  amendment  is 
founded  upon  altogether  too  broad  an  interpre- 
tation of  police  power.  Under  the  general 
grant  of  police  power  to  the  Legislature,  it  does 
not  derive  the  power  to  build  turnpikes,  nor  to 
build  any  sort  of  road  at  all,  nor  even  to  build 
bridges.  It  derives  the  power  to  do  whatever 
is  necessary  for  the  public  health,  and  the  pro- 
tection of  persons  and  property,  but  nothing 
beyond  that.  Under  the  police  power,  the 
Legislature  may  authorize  an  expenditure  to 
repair  an  unsafe  bridge,  but  not  to  build  abridge 
originally.  It  could  authorize  an  expenditure 
to  drain  a piece  of  land  which,  for  want  of 
drainage,  would  injuriously  affect  the  health  of 
the  community,  but  for  the  purpose  of  making 
the  land  richer  and  more  tillable  it  could  not, 
under  the  police  power,  drain  it.  The  grant 
of  police  power,  in  short,  is  very  much  less  than 
the  general  grant  of  legislative  power,  and  it 
is  under  this  general  grant  of  legislative  power 
only  that  the  Legislature  derives  its  power  to 
build  county  and  township  roads.  Now,  the 
difficulty  with  the  gentleman’s  amendment  is, 
that  by  striking  out  the  power  of  taxation  for 
the  construction  and  improvement  of  ditches, 
public  roads  other  than  railroads,  and  water 
courses,  it  makes  it  impossible  for  the  Legisla- 
ture to  authorize  a county  or  township  to  open 
a given  road,  except  by  assessment.  That  is 
perfectly  plain. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Certainly. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  What  if  the  Legislature 
should  happen  to  construe  this  police  power  to 
be  so  broad  as  to  include  everything  outside  of 
public  health,  public  convenience  and  the  pub- 
lic welfare? 

Mr.  EWING.  The  Legislature  would  not  do 
that,  and  if  it  did,  the  courts  would  not. 


[120th 

[Saturday, 


Mr.  GURLEY.  Iso  understand  it.  I believe 
the  ditch  laws  are  based  upon  that. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  ditch  laws,  as  a rule,  are 
within  the  exercise  of  police  power,  because  the 
consideration  of  health  demands  the  construc- 
tion of  ditches ; and  they  are  not  thrown  out  of 
the  range  of  the  police  power  by  the  further 
fact  that  the  construction  of  the  ditches  makes 
waste  lands  cultivable. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  not  the  construction 
of  these  roads  also,  and  does  it  not  come  under 
the  range  of  public  convenience  and  public 
health,  upon  the  same  decisions  that  ditches 
come  under  that  power? 

Mr.  EWING.  Why,  the  opening  of  a road 
cannot  tend  to  the  public  health,  nor  the  pro- 
tection of  person  or  property. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  public  convenience 
is,  however,  connected  with  that. 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes;  but  the  consideration  of 
public  convenience  does  not  authorize  the  exer- 
cise of  the  police  power.  The  gentleman  will 
certainly  not  arrive  at  the  purpose  he  plainly 
has  in  view  by  the  amendment  he  has  offered. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
another  question? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Under  the  section  as  it 
now  stands,  may  not  there  be  taxation  for  the 
construction  of  ditches  and  roads? 

Mr.  EWING.  As  it  now  stands,  there  un- 
doubtedly may.  It  is  within  the  discretion  of 
the  Legislature. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Does  the  gentleman  leave 
it  in  that  form  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  I do.  I desire  to  give  the  Leg- 
islature some  discretion  in  regard  to  these  mat- 
ters of  public  and  private  interest. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Does  the  gentleman  de- 
sire to  leave  it  entirely  open  without  any  pro- 
vision? 

Mr.  EWING.  I desire  to  leave  it  open  as  it 
is  in  this  section. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I wish  to  explain  for 
the  benefit  of  gentlemen,  that  I have  modified 
some  of  the  language  already  agreed  to  in  the 
Convention,  in  reference  to  clearing  water- 
courses; but  the  amendment  only  strikes  out 
down  to  the  word  “roads”  and  leaves  all  that 
relates  to  water-courses  and  railroads  as  it 
stood  in  the  Article  before. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I would  suggest  that  the 
word  “such” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I have  no  objection  to  the 
word  “such.” 

The  Secretary  read  the  section  as  sought  to 
be  amended. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I feel  very  much  opposed  to 
all  these  amendments  that  have  been  proposed 
here  since  the  recommendation  of  the  Report 
by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  with  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr. 
Cowen]  ; and  I hope  that  all  the  amendments 
that  have  been  proposed  here  will  be  rejected, 
with  the  view  to  coming  back  to  the  original 
section.  That  was  right.  Now,  the  great  dif- 
ficulty here  is,  that  there  is  a disposition,  on  the 
part  of  the  Convention,  to  bring  in  various 
propositions  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the 


Day.] 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

Powell,  Pratt,  Coats,  Griswold,  Pond. 


1555 


February  21, 1874.] 


power  of  the  Legislature.  That  has  created 
more  trouble — has  produced  greater  delay  in 
our  accomplishing  our  duties  here  than  any 
other  thing.  The  operation  of  the  Legislature 
in  laying  taxes,  in  allowing  assessments,  and 
every  thing  of  the  kind,  has  been  generally  very 
acceptable  to  the  people,  and  whenever  there  is 
any  inconvenience  arising  out  of  them,  they 
have  the  power  of  remedying  it.  But  if  we 
put  these  limitations  into  the  Constitution,  we 
then  prevent  them  from  exercising  these  powers 
in  such  way  as  will  be  useful  and  applicable  to 
the  particular  situation  of  various  cases  which 
may  arise  in  the  country.  Now,  with  regard  to 
the  words,  “taxation”  and  “ assessment,”  I 
have  no  objection  to  those  two  words  going  to- 
gether, and  they  ought  to  go  together.  With 
regard  to  the  regulation  of  taxes,  for  instance, 
in  regard  to  police  and  police  improvement  by 
general  taxation,  they  may  be  paid  by  general 
taxation ; but  there  may  be  certain  towns  where 
they  do  not  wish  that  the  police  should  be  paid 
by  the  general  taxes,  but  may  wish  to  have  the 
police  paid  by  assessments  upon  certain  streets 
where  they  are  of  benefit  to  that  portion  of  the 
town.  I say, therefore,  that  the  words  “taxa- 
tion ” and  “assessment”  as  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  is  right. 
And  when  you  limit  the  amount  of  taxation  in 
any  way,  when  you  limit  it  by  the  year  or  by 
the  amount,  you  only  create  a clause  in  the 
Constitution  which  will  be  very  objectionable 
in  the  Constitution  itself.  It  should  be  left  to 
the  Legislature  to  act  as  they  please,  and  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  may  require. 

With  regard  to  taxation  and  assessment  in 
reference  to  roads,  there  is  a certain  amount  of 
taxation  which  is  levied  every  year  for  road 
purposes — to  make  them  and  keep  them  in  re- 
pair. Other  roads  again,  or  possibly  the  same 
roads,  may  be  further  improved  by  assessments. 
So  you  want  the  word  “assessment,”  with  re- 
gard to  roads,  as  it  has  ever  been  so  applied  in 
Ohio.  All  these  amendments  that  have  been 
proposed  here,  have  only  the  effect  of  trammel- 
ing the  Legislature — of  trammeling  the  whole 
people;  and  are  injurious  to  the  improvement 
of  the  country.  At  the  same  time  they  delay 
the  proceedings  of  this  Convention,  and  have 
done  more  toward  retarding  business  here  than 
any  other  one  subject.  This  is  an  attempt  to 
trammel  the  Legislature  where  their  powers 
should  be  left  open  to  try  what  may  be  done 
with  advantage ; and  when  they  do  not  operate 
right,  the  law  may  be  amended  by  the  next 
Legislature.  But  if  we  introduce  them  into 
the  Constitution,  the  hands  of  the  Legislature 
and  the  people  are  tied  up — I know  not  how 
long. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  to  strike  out  and  insert  the  words 
read. 

On  the  vote  being  taken,  a division  was  called 
for,  which  resulted  in  the  motion  not  being 
agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond],  to  strike  out  section  nine  and  insert  the 
substitute. 

The  reading  being  called  for,  the  Secretary 
read  the  substitute  proposed  to  section  nine. 


Mr.  PRATT.  I move  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond],  by  striking  out  all  after  the  word 
“law.”  It  will  then  read : 

“Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power  of  local 
taxation  and  assessment  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
striking  out  the  amendment  to  section  nine,  as 
reported  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  the  word  “ assessment” 
in  the  section,  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes.  Perhaps  before 
the  question  is  put,  the  Secretary  had  better 
read  the  substitute. 

Mr.  COATS.  If  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
prevails,  to  strike  out,  is  the  section  then  sus- 
ceptible of  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No.  It  is  susceptible  of 
amendment  by  addition,  but  not  by  change,  as 
it  now  stands.  Their  refusal  to  strike  out  will 
be  equivalent  to  adopting  it  as  it  now  stands. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I should  like  to  have  the 
section  read  as  it  now  stands. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  stands 
thus:  First,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 

struck  out  the  original  section  9,  as  reported 
by  the  Committee  on  County  and  Township 
Organizations,  and  inserted  an  amendment  to 
section  9 in  italics.  The  gentleman  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond]  now  proposes  to  strike  out  the 
whole  of  section  9,  and  insert  this  substitute. 
The  section  as  just  read,  is  the  amended  section 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  as  amended. 
Now  the  question  is  on  striking  that  out. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I understand  that  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  proposed  to  amend 
section  9 by  putting  in  the  place  of  the  original 
section  9 what  is  in  italics,  and  then  the  gentle- 
man from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  in  order  to 
perfect  the  original  section  9,  made  a motion 
to  substitute  his  substitute  in  place  of  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No.  The  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  is  to  sub- 
stitute for  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole.  The  motion  was  to  strike  out 
section  9,  as  proposed  by  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I understood  his  amend- 
ment was  put  in  place  of  the  original  section. 
That  was  the  motion  made. 

Mr.  POND.  Not  for  the  original. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  was  to  put  his 
amendment  in  place  of  the  original  section. 

Mr.  POND.  Not  for  the  original. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  the  Journal  stands, 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  pro- 
posed to  amend  the  substitute  by  substituting 
the  following  therefor : The  Committee  of  the 
Whole  proposed  a substitute  for  section  9,  to 
which  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  proposed  a 
substitute. 

A MEMBER.  That  is  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  to 
strike  out  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  and  insert  his. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I wish  to  insert  after  the  words, 
“police  purposes,”  “and  for  the  protection  of 


1556 


[120th 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

Pratt,  Ewing,  Powell,  Griswold,  etc.  [Saturday, 


property.”  Now,  I want  to  get  into  this  sec- 
tion, somewhere  or  other,  all  the  power  of  lo- 
cal taxation  that  it  is  proposed  to  give  to  the 
townships  and  counties.  The  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  with  all  the  other 
members  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  and 
Taxation,  except  myself,  have  reported  a sec- 
tion that  provides,  for  special  purposes,  a power 
of  taxation  and  assessment  that  does  not  accord 
with  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  as  made  here  this 
forenoon.  They  have  got  in  a dog  section,  or  a 
dog  in  the  section,  a thing  that  I think  this 
Convention  will  not  allow  to  go  into  the  Con- 
stitution, worded  as  it  now  is,  in  that  Report. 
But  I believe  they  will  provide  for  the  exercise 
of  a power,  namely : a power  to  protect  agri- 
culturists against  dogs,  and  I think  we  can 
very  conveniently  put  it  in  right  here.  All 
that  is  desired  in  obtaining  protection  against 
the  ravages  of  dogs  can  be  secured  without  put- 
ting that  term  into  our  Constitution.  A mode 
of  special  taxation  is  all  that  is  desired.  Now, 
my  own  apprehension  would  be  that  police  pur- 
poses, being  for  the  protection  of  property  by 
special  arrangement  or  enactment,  would  cover 
the  thing.  If  so,  then  I would  willingly  stop 
with  that;  but  if  otherwise,  I would  desire, 
then,  to  insert  “and  for  the  protection  of  prop- 
erty.” 

I want  to  put  it  in  the  Article  on  County  and 
Township  Organizations.  There  is  where  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock] 
wanted  it.  Allow  the  Legislature  to  provide 
that  counties  may,  by  special  taxation,  assess- 
ment or  otherwise,  prevent  the  keeping,  har- 
boring, running  at  large,  etc.,  of  dogs.  Now, 
it  is  desirable  to  give  the  proper  power,  and  if, 
in  this  section  we  can  give  the  power  to 
counties  to  provide  against  that  nuisance,  why 
not  do  it  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  May  I ask  a question  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EWING.  Is  not  the  protection  of  prop- 
erty within  the  police  power  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  was  my  own  impression ; 
but  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  that  police  power  was  confined  to 
those  things  relating  to  the  health  or  personal 
safety  of  the  individual,  led  me  to  think,  if  that 
were  the  meaning  of  the  words,  the  power  did 
not  cover  this  subject. 

Mr.  EWING.  If  I gave  so  inadequate  an  in- 
terpretation of  police  power  as  that,  I cer- 
tainly made  a mistake.  It  extends  as  certainly 
to  the  protection  of  property  as  to  the  protection 
of  health  and  personal  safety.  I hope  the 
amendment  will  not  be  adopted. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I was  very  desirous  of  having 
the  word  “assessment”  put  in  here,  and  remain 
as  a part  of  the  police  power  that  was  to  be 
granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  say  that 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt],  to  strike  out  a portion  of  the 
amendment,  was  not  in  order  at  the  time.  The 
real  question  now  is  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  to  strike 
out  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  and  insert.  The  gentleman  from 
Williams,  however,  now  moves  to  amend  the 


substitute  proposed  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Well,  Mr.  President,  if  I un- 
derstate that  under  police  purposes,  as  it  now 
stands  in  this  section,  that  is  included,  I would 
desire  leave  to  withdraw  the  amendment. 
[“Agreed.”  “agreed”].  All  I wish  is  that 
power  shall  be  granted  somewhere  in  this  sec- 
tion, covering  what  agriculturists  have  been 
petitioning  the  Convention  to  provide  for,  and 
to  which  they  are  entitled,  and  upon  which  the 
Committee  upon  Finance  and  Taxation  have 
reported  a section,  without  the  necessity  of  in- 
corporating that  section  in  so  important  an 
Article  of  the  Constitution  as  that  of  finance. 
It  then  sinks  that  Article  to  a “ doggoned  ” low 
level.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  POYvHELL.  I understand  that  that  sec- 
tion now  moved  to  be  stricken  out  includes  the 
words  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen] — that  is,  “assessment.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  have  that  re- 
ported as  it  stands.  What  is  proposed  to  be 
stricken  out? 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power  of  local 
taxation  and  assessment  for  >olice  purposes,  and  for  con- 
structing and  improving  ditches,  public  roads,  other  than 
railroads,  and  clearing  water  courses,  when  necessary 
to  the  public  health,  convenience  or  welfare,  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  like  to  know  why 
you  propose  to  amend  if  you  can  strike  out  an 
amendment  by  substitute  ? What  is  proposed 
by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  is  an  amend- 
ment to  the  original  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  By  substitute. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  No,  it  is  an  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  By  substitute. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  cuts  out  the  whole  original 
section. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  No;  it  uses  a part  of  the 
language  of  the  original  section,  and  I main- 
tain that,  according  to  my  poor  understanding, 
an  amendment  to  a section  cannot  be  by  substi- 
tute for  an  amendment.  That  is  not  the  way  of 
proceeding.  He  can  amend  the  amendment  any 
way  he  pleases ; but  a substitute  for  an  amend- 
ment seems  to  me  a new  way  of  proceeding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Either  way  it  is  an 
amendment. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  He  does  not  propose  to 
amend  the  amendment  at  all. 

The  PRESIDENT.  He  proposes  to  amend 
the  substitute.  They  are  both  amendments  to 
the  original  section.  The  question  is  between 
the  two.  The  question  is  now  upon  striking 
out  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  POWELL.  As  the  section  was  read 
last  it  is  entirely  different  from  the  substitute 
as  read  before.  I object  to  the  words,  “ except 
railroads,  public  roads,  and  clearing  water- 
courses, when  necessary  to  the  public  health,” 
etc.  Would  it  be  in  order  now  to  have  those 
words,  “other  than  railroads,”  stricken  out,  so 
as  to  perfect  this  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  word  has  been  in- 
serted by  the  express  order  of  the  Convention. 
It  cannot,  therefore,  be  stricken  out  except  by 
reconsideration. 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1557 

February  21,  1874.]  Layton,  Ewing,  Scribner,  Powell,  Pond. 


Mr.  LAYTON.  I move  to  reconsider.  I 
voted  in  the  affirmative. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  which  the  gen- 
tleman from  Auglaize  [Mr.  Layton]  moves  to 
reconsider  is  that  which  was  taken  yesterday 
on  inserting  the  words  “ other  than  railroads.” 
The  motion  is  in  time. 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  it  would  be  best  for 
gentlemen  who  favor,  as  well  as  those  who  op- 
pose, giving  authority  to  the  Legislature  to 
authorize  public  aid  in  the  construction  of  rail- 
roads, to  leave  the  disposition  of  that  question 
until  we  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  Arti- 
cle on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works.  Then,  if 
the  Convention  choose  to  dispose  of  that  subject 
finally  without  reference  to  the  people,  insert  a 
clause  that  will  prohibit  the  thing  entirely,  in 
such  express  and  searching  language  as  will 
cover  every  conceivable  application  of  the  power 
of  local  taxation  to  such  objects;  and  if  it  per- 
mits it,  permit  it  by  such  clear  provision  as  will 
make  it  perfectly  certain  what  is  the  extent  of 
the  power  that  the  Convention  is  willing  to 
grant;  and  if  it  submits  the  question  to  the  peo- 
ple in  alternative  clauses  let  those  clauses  be  in 
such  form  that  when  one  or  another  of  them  is 
adopted  it  will  cover  the  whole  ground.  That 
is  the  best  way  of  disposing  of  this  subject,  un- 
questionably, and  the  attempts  to  dispose  of  it 
prematurely  in  the  Article  on  Municipal  Cor- 
porations, and  in  this  Article  on  County  and 
Township  Organizations,  have  wasted  a great 
deal  of  time. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I hope  this  amendment 
will  stand  precisely  as  it  is.  This  is  the  clause 
by  which  it  is  proposed  to  confer  on  the  Legis- 
lature power  to  provide  for  the  construction  of 
roads  by  local  assessment.  Different  disposition 
may  be  made  hereafter  of  the  question  as  to 
authorizing  taxation  in  aid  of  the  construction 
of  railroads.  I do  hope  that  this  Convention 
will  not  for  a moment  entertain  the  idea  of  pro- 
viding for  the  construction  of  railways  by  local 
assessment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  a question? 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Are  not  the  words  taxation 
and  assessment  put  together,  so  that  the  Legis- 
lature may  take  either,  and  if  they  do  give 
such  aid  they  need  not  do  it  necessarily  by  as- 
S6ssin6nts  ^ 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  Very  true,  Mr.  President. 
The  words  “taxation”  and  “assessment”  are 
put  together  in  this  clause,  and  this  is  the 
reason  why  I insist  that  the  prohibition  against 
constructing  railroads  should  be  inserted  in  the 
clause.  If  the  section  were  one  simply  pro- 
viding for  ordinary  taxation,  I should  not  insist 
upon  the  amendment  here;  but  it  goes  further 
than  that.  It  provides  for  this  process  of  taxa- 
tion by  local  assessment  for  the  construction  of 
improvements — by  assessing  the  land  upon 
either  side  of  the  proposed  improvement;  and  I 
shall  resist  to  the  utmost  any  attempt  to  confer 
power  to  construct  railways  by  this  mode  of 
taxation. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me? 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EWING.  When  we  come  to  consider 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt 
and  Public  Works,  we  there  can  insert  in 


the  clause  a prohibition  that  will  prevent  any 
building  of  railroads  by  either  assessment  or 
taxation,  or  we  may  give  the  power,  if  we  see 
fit  to  do  it,  by  taxation , and  prohibit  it  by  assess- 
ment. Then  is  the  best  time,  it  seems  to  me,  to 
effectually  dispose  of  the  whole  subject  of  the 
construction  of  railroads,  whether  by  public  tax 
or  by  assessment. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  Mr.  President,  if  this  Con- 
vention shall  determine  to  permit  our  counties 
and  townships  to  aid  in  the  construction  of 
railroads,  there  will  be  ample  opportunity  to 
modify  this  section  in  the  Committee  on  Re- 
vision, so  as  to  conform  to  such  determination. 
But  as  this  section  now  stands,  with  the  amend- 
ment stricken  out,  the  Legislature  will  have 
unlimited  power  to  authorize  local  assessments 
as  well  as  ordinary  taxation.  I do  hope  that 
i this  Convention  will  provide  now  that  that 
power  shall  not  extend  to  railways. 

Mr.  LAYTON.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman, as  a lawyer,  if  the  words,  “ police  pur- 
poses,” express  an  aid  to  railways? 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  No,  sir;  but  I do  construe 
the  authority  given  to  construct  “roads,”  pre- 
cisely as  our  supreme  court  has  heretofore 
determined  with  respect  to  it.  It  has  hereto- 
fore been  adjudged  by  that  tribunal,  that  the 
power  to  build  roads  carries  with  it  the  power 
to  construct  railroads.  There  is  no  question,  to 
my  mind,  but  that,  if  this  section  be  adopted  as 
it  now  stands,  without  the  proposed  limitation 
upon  the  power,  the  Legislature  may  provide 
for  the  construction  of  railways  by  local  assess- 
ment. 

Mr.  POND.  I hope  this  motion  to  recon- 
sider will  prevail.  I confess,  sir,  I was  some- 
what surprised  yesterday  that  the  words, 
“other  than  railroads,”  were  voted  to  be  in- 
serted here  by  so  nearly  a unanimous  vote.  I 
cannot  understand  the  necessity  of  tying  up 
the  people  of  the  counties  and  townships  in  the 
State  by  any  such  rule  as  this ; nor  do  I see  the 
reason  why  such  antagonism  should  be  mani- 
fested to  an  improvement  of  this  special  kind. 
None  seems  to  be  manifested  to  highways,  free 
turnpikes,  or  any  other  species  of  highways, 
where  taxation  or  assessment  was  levied  on  the 
people.  And  the  special  design  seems  to  be 
here  to  discriminate  against  that  peculiar  mode 
of  transportation  which  this  country  knows 
and  understands  is  going  to  be  as  much  of  a 
necessity  as  the  county  road  or  free  turnpike — 
as  absolute  a necessity  as  any  other  means  of 
transportation.  And  we  know  another  thing, 
Mr.  President,  that  the  people  of  this  country 
are  beginning  to  complain  of  the  manipulation 
of  these  great  railways  by  the  railroad  corpora- 
tions in  the  State  of  Ohio  and  in  other  States. 
There  is  the  great  trouble.  And  now,  when 
the  people  are  making  so  much  complaint  in 
I regard  to  the  manner  in  which  the  corporations 
are  running  their  great  thoroughfares  through 
the  State,  gentlemen  wish  to  put  in  here  a 
clause  that  shall  tie  the  hands  of  the  people  in 
the  different  counties  and  townships,  and  pro- 
hibit them  from  levying  a tax  to  build  a rail- 
road that  they  can  control  and  manage  them- 
selves. You  say  that  they  shall  be  so  restricted 
for  twenty  years;  and  you  and  I do  not  know 
what  will  take  place  in  twenty  years.  The 
world  is  changing  in  these  particulars,  and  it 


1558 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. [120th 

Pond,  Scribner,  Miner,  Powell.  [Saturday, 


may  be  that  a different  system  will  prevail,  and 
that  these  thoroughfares  will  be  managed  and 
controlled  by  the  different  counties  and  town- 
ships of  the  State.  The  people  of  the  country 
wish  that  that  may  come;  and  do  you  suppose, 
when  they  are  wishing  that  may  come,  they 
will  put  behind  them  entirely  the  chance  of 
ever  attaining  that  object?  I do  not  believe 
they  will.  Another  thing  is,  that  it  says  the 
people  shall  not  tax  themselves  to  build  rail- 
roads. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  If  the  gentleman  will  al- 
low me? — I do  not  object  to  the  people  taxing 
themselves;  but  what  I do  object  to,  is  their 
taxing  their  neighbors. 

Mr.  POND.  Well,  I always  supposed  that 
the  “ people  ” and  “ themselves  ” were  pretty 
nearly  convertible  terms.  You  say  they  shall 
not  equalize  this  burden.  You  say  that,  if  a 
railroad  is  built,  it  shall  be  built  by  individuals, 
and  shall  be  a monopoly — just  as  they  are  now. 
If  the  people  are  unanimous  in  a county  for 
building  a railroad  through  their  county,  so 
that  they  can  control  it  and  limit  the  corpora- 
tion in  its  charges,  you  say  that  they  shall  not 
do  it.  You  say,  if  they  unanimously  agree  to 
tax  themselves  and  equalize  this  burden,  that 
they  shall  not  do  it.  This  limitation  prohibits 
the  tax  from  being  levied.  I say  they  ought  to 
have  the  privilege  and  the  power  to  do  it.  The 
people  ask  it.  If  you  put  this  clause  in  and 
submit  it  to  the  people,  you  will  find  that  they 
will  not  sustain  it.  I think  we  ought  to  be  care- 
ful how  we  tie  up  the  hands  of  the  people  in 
this  way.  It  is  an  attempt  to  indicate  this  nar- 
row line  in  which  the  people  may  tax  them- 
selves; a narrow  line  indicating  a few  subjects 
upon  which  the  money  raised  by  taxation  shall 
be  applied.  On  a few  subjects  putting  them  in 
a strait-jacket,  and  saying,  “Thus  far  shalt 
thou  go,  and  no  farther.”  As  I said,  the  world 
is  changing.  I say  to  the  Convention  now, 
that,  within  a certain  limit,  the  people  should 
be  left  free  to  tax  themselves  for  any  purpose 
that  they,  in  their  best  judgment,  shall  think  to 
be  their  interest.  Now,  I say  it  is  a narrow 
policy,  and  will  be  found  so  in  a few  years,  to 
say  that  a line  shall  be  drawn  on  these  subjects, 
and  that  the  people  shall  not  be  permitted  to 
adapt  themselves  to  the  changing  character  of 
the  country  in  other  directions.  I do  not  think 
it  is  wise  by  constitutional  provision  to  limit 
the  direction  in  which  the  people  shall  tax 
themselves.  I hope  this  amendment  will  be  re- 
considered and  that  a change  will  be  made,  at 
any  rate,  that  far  in  the  character  of  this  sec- 
tion. 

Mr.  MINER.  I think  there  is  a tendency  in 
the  Convention  to  too  great  restriction  on  rail- 
road improvement.  The  wave  may  be  setting 
in  that  direction  now,  but  it  will  not  be  so  a few 
years  hence.  Railroad  improvement  in  this 
State  is  not  finished.  Very  far  from  it.  There 
has  been,  in  recent  years,  a large  expenditure 
in  portions  of  the  State  in  the  construction  of 
free  turnpike  roads,  so-called,  the  cost  of  which 
has  been  defrayed  by  local  taxation  or  assess- 
ment upon  the  property  of  those  benefited. 
I believe  this  system  of  improvements  has  given 
satisfaction,  and  conferred  great  benefits  upon 
the  particular  localities.  But  I apprehend  the 


time  is  not  distant  in  this  country  when  a 
system  of  local  railroads  will  be  found  quite  as 
much  in  demand  in  our  populous  districts,  and 
more  advantageous  than  free  turnpikes  have 
been  or  will  be.  I refer  to  a system  of  cheap 
narrow  gauge  railroads.  Those  who  have  con- 
sidered the  wants  of  the  people  in  this  and  other 
countries,  in  respect  to  railroad  facilities  and 
development,  know  that  railroads  of  that 
description  are  acquiring  great  popularity,  and 
it  is  very  apparent,  I think,  to  any  man  who 
forecasts  the  history  of  a portion  of  this  coun- 
try, at  least,  that  this  system  is  soon  to  be 
adopted  and  applied  through  the  local  neigh- 
borhoods of  this  country.  Now,  that  has  got 
to  be  done  by  local  assessments  of  properties, 
by  local  taxation,  or  in  some  way  by  those  who 
are  interested  in  it.  And  yet  there  will  always 
be,  as  there  have  always  been,  parties  who  will 
be  greatly  benefited  by  enterprises  of  this  sort, 
who  will  stand  back  and  prevent  them,  and 
take  no  part  in  them,  unless  there  be  some 
power  to  make  general  rules  which  will  reach 
all. 

Mr.  POWELL.  If  we  keep  this  amendment 
“ other  than  railroads  ” in,  how  will  it  affect  it? 

Mr.  MINER.  1 think  I perceive,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, a tendency  on  the  part  of  many  delegates 
in  this  Convention,  and  of  a considerable  por- 
tion of  the  people  of  the  State,  unwisely  to  re- 
strict the  development  of  our  railroad  system ; 
and  I find  it  to  prevail,  chiefly,  with  those  who 
reside  in  those  portions  of  the  State  best  sup- 
plied and  accommodated  with  existing  rail- 
roads. It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there  have 
been  extravagant  and  unwise  expenditures  in 
railroad  projects;  enterprises  of  this  sort  have 
too  frequently  been  recklessly  and  foolishly  un- 
dertaken, by  which  communities  have  sustained 
great  pecuniary  loss  and  grievous  disappoint- 
ment, and  from  which  little  or  no  benefit  has 
resulted.  But  such  mistakes  and  misfortunes 
must  needs  happen  in  the  development  of  such 
a system  of  improvements  of  so  recent  origin, 
so  different  from  any  means  of  locomotion  be- 
fore known,  so  stupendous  in  character,  and  so 
wonderful  in  results.  A vast  indebtedness  has 
been  thus  incurred,  for  some  of  which  there 
is  nothing  to  show ; and  hence,  the  desire,  on  the 
part  of  sensible  and  prudent  men,  for  proper 
restraints  and  safeguards  for  the  future.  I am 
in  favor  of  some  check  upon  taxation  and 
assessment  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  rail- 
roads; but  I am  not  in  favor  of  absolute  prohi- 
bition. In  Ohio,  there  is  need  of  but  few  more 
leading  or  trunk  lines.  Some  we  have  already 
we  better  never  have  had.  The  further  con- 
struction of  such  lines  should,  as  a general 
thing,  I think,  be  left  to  existing  railroad  com- 
panies, controlling  and  operating  existing  lines. 

But  there  is  a character  of  railroad  develop- 
ment which  will  ultimately,  and  at  no  distant 
day,  be  put  in  operation  in  the  thickly  settled 
portions  of  the  State,  more  or  less  remote  from 
the  leading  lines  of  road,  of  great  importance 
and  benefit  to  such  communities,  and  in  view 
of  the  construction  of  which,  more  especially, 
the  power  of  local  taxation  or  assessment,  under 
proper  restrictions,  should  be  conferred.  I 
refer  to  cheap  narrow-gauge  railroads,  which, 
having  a terminus  or  connection  with  some 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

Miner,  Powell,  Gurley,  Ewing,  Pratt,  etc. 


1559 


Day.] 

February  21, 1874.] 


trunk  line,  shall  extend  to  and  accommodate 
thickly  settled  portions  of  the  country,  and 
towns  and  villages  too  remote  from  the  main 
line  to  be  suitably  accommodated  thereby. 
Those  who  have  at  all  familiarized  themselves 
with  the  construction  and  operation  of  railroads 
of  this  description,  in  Europe,  in  some  of  the 
South  American  States,  and  to  some  extent  in 
our  own  country,  cannot  but  have  become  con- 
vinced that  they  are  soon  to  attract  general 
attention  with  us,  and  to  supply  the  need  of 
such  localities  as  I have  referred  to. 

I have  not  the  statistics  at  hand,  but  believe 
they  will  bear  me  out  in  declaring  that,  in  many 
localities  where  needed,  they  can  be  constructed 
at  one-half  the  cost  of  the  railroads  now  in  com- 
mon use — at  a cost,  in  fact,  not  much,  if  any, 
exceeding  some  of  our  turnpike  roads;  that 
the  expense  of  operating  them  will  be  less,  in 
proportion,  to  that  of  operating  present  rail- 
roads, than  their  cost  would  be ; and  that  their 
capacity  for  carrying  passengers  and  products 
would  be  two-thirds  to  three-fourths  that  of 
present  roads,  with  equal  safety  and  comfort. 
I think  it  will  be  desirable  and  proper,  in  many 
instances,  to  construct  such  roads,  or,  rather,  to 
provide  the  means,  in  whole  or  in  part,  for 
their  construction,  in  some  such  mode  as  has 
been  adopted  in  the  construction  of  what  are 
known  with  us  as  free  turnpikes;  that  is,  by 
apportioning  the  expense,  or  some  part  of  it,  on 
the  owners  of  property  in  the  vicinity  which  is 
benefited  by  the  improvement,  and  in  part,  also, 
by  the  aid  of  townships  and  towns  through 
which  the  road  might  be  located.  To  carry  out 
such  enterprises,  I would  confer,  under  proper 
restrictions  and  limitations,  a power  of  local 
taxation  and  local  assessment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  If  we  keep  this  amendment 
— “other  than  railroads” — in,  how  will  it  affect 
it? 

Mr.  MINER.  I propose  to  strike  it  out,  be- 
cause it  will  prevent  doing  that  which  I have 
been  arguing  local  communities  may  desire  to 
do,  and  what  I think  they  will,  in  time,  be  con- 
vinced will  be  greatly  to  their  interest  to  do. 
Let  me  illustrate,  by  referring  to  some  portions 
of  country  not  remote  from  Cincinnati  in  actual 
distance,  but  quite  so,  in  comparison  with  other 
portions,  for  lack  of  railroad  facilities. 

The  people  of  the  counties  of  Clermont, 
Brown  and  Adams,  remote  from  the  Ohio  River, 
are  sorely  in  need  of  railroad  accommoda- 
tion. It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  they  can 
ever  get  a great  trunk  line  of  railroads  travers- 
ing their  region  of  Country  ; but  with  reason- 
able powers  of  local  taxation  and  assessment, 
they  could  provide  themselves  with  such  a road 
as  I have  described,  and  which  would  amply  ac- 
commodate them.  So  the  people  of  Lebanon, 
and  intermediate  between  that  place  and  a 
proper  point  of  connection  on  the  Little  Miami, 
or  C.  H.  & D.  railroad,  could,  in  like  manner, 
secure  direct  railroad  communication  with  the 
Cincinati,  Hamilton  & Dayton  railroad,  a mat- 
ter they  have  been  struggling  for  for  more 
than  twenty  years.  The  time  will  come  when 
all  our  leading  trunk  lines  of  railroad  will  have 
a narrow  gauge  track  between  the  rails  of  the 
main  track  to  receive  the  narrow  gauge  cars,  so 
there  need  be  no  change  of  cars  at  the  point  of 
junction  either  for  passengers  or  property. 


Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  tell  us 
where  there  are  any  of  these  narrow  gauge  roads 
that  are  a success  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  I have  not  the  information  at 
hand.  There  are  some  of  them  in  operation  in 
the  United  States.  I am  not  mistaken  in  the 
general  facts  I have  stated  in  regard  to  them. 
They  are  a success. 

Mr.  EWING.  There  is  a narrow  gauge  road 
from  Lebanon  toward  Decatur,  about  fifty-five 
or  sixty  miles.  It  is  designed  to  run  to  Deca- 
tur. It  is  in  successful  operation,  and  a still 
more  successful  one  from  Denver,  about  two 
hundred  or  two  hundred  and  fifty  miles,  and 
intended  to  be  extended  to  Santa  Fe  and  El 
Paso. 

Mr.  MINER.  Gentlemen  will  find,  if  they 
will  investigate  this  subject,  that  this  is  a char- 
acter of  improvement  that  is  coming  into  pop- 
ularity in  this  and  other  countries,  for  the  ac- 
commodation of  thickly  populated  local  dis- 
tricts, where  they  cannot  have  a trunk  line; 
and  it  will  not  be  long  until  our  people  in  cer- 
tain localities,  will  be  more  anxious  to  have  the 
power  of  making  these  narrow  gauge  railroads 
than  they  are  now  anywhere,  to  construct  free 
turnpikes;  and  that  they  will  be  of  infinitely 
more  advantage. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  know  why  this  amend- 
ment should  be  stricken  out,  but  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner],  who  has  just  taken 
his  seat  has  disclosed  the  object  of  striking  out. 
I think  he  has  disclosed  the  secret  of  it  unwit- 
tingly. 

Mr.  MINER.  I have  no  secret  about  it.  I 
have  no  interest  in  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  No;  I do  not  charge  that  the 
gentleman  has  any  interest  at  all ; but  the  ob- 
ject that  he  seems  to  have  in  view  in  striking 
out  is,  that  they  may  have  power  to  levy  assess- 
ments for  the  purpose  of  building  railroads.  He 
has  frankly  and  fairly  confessed  that  this  is  his 
object. 

Mr.  MINER.  It  is. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Very  well,  I hope  the  oppo- 
nents of  this  system  will  take  warning  by  this 
announcement  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner].  If  that  is  the  object  of 
striking  it  out,  then  I insist  that  those  who  op- 
pose that  system  of  wholesale  swindling  and 
downright  highway  robbery,  will  vote  to  re- 
tain the  words,  because  I assert  that  no  system 
has  ever  been  devised  by  the  wit,  wisdom,  or 
cunning  of  man,  that  is  fraught  with  so  much 
mischief  as  this  system  of  voting  assessments 
upon  the  property  of  counties,  townships,  and 
cities,  to  build  railroads.  I am  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  on  that  point. 
I propose  to  meet  the  question  fairly  and  square- 
ly on  that  Proposition  on  Taxation  and  Public 
Works.  There  is  the  place  it  ought  to  be  made. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I would  like  to  inquire,  then, 
whether  we  cannot  avoid  the  precipitation  of 
that  discussion  here  this  morning  which  will  be 
profitless?  I do  not  think  the  friends  of  the 
railroad  system  desire  to  do  that.  I do  not 
think  that  they  desire  covertly  to  put  into  this 
Constitution  a power  that  should  fasten  upon 
the  people  of  the  State  the  authority  of  the 


1560 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS, 

Pratt,  Burns,  Ewing,  Greene,  Chapin,  etc. 


[120th 

[Saturday, 


Legislature  to  provide  for  a similar  mode  of  con- 
structing railroads  to  that  provided  by  the 
Boesellaw;  but  they  are  willing  to  meet  the 
question  fairly  on  its  merits.  Now,  can  we  not, 
by  mutual  agreement,  let  this  question  pass  this 
morning,  and  not  precipitate  this  debate  which 
is  going  to  involve  so  much  feeling  and  so  much 
animation  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  not  advised  as  to  whether 
it  would  be  the  will  of  the  Convention  to  lay 
this  matter  aside  or  not.  I am  not  prepared  to 
say  that  I would  be  willing  to  do  so. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Can  we  not  do  it  in  this  way, 
by  leaving  the  amendment  as  it  now  is,  with 
the  understanding  that  if  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works 
shall  pass  the  Report  of  this  Convention,  then 
this  provision  in  this  section  will  go  out  by  the 
mere  fact  of  that  provision  passing? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  understand,  that  even 
if  this  Convention  should  determine  to  place  in 
the  Constitution  an  Article  authorizing  counties, 
townships  and  cities  to  vote  a tax  to  build  rail- 
roads, that  provision  would  come  in  contact 
with  this  provision  as  it  now  stands.  I think 
that  both  provisions  might  stand  in  the  Consti- 
tution with  perfect  safety;  that  is,  they  would 
not  conflict  with  each  other.  This  provision 
was  voted  in  yesterday,  by  a large  majority. 
Now,  why  is  there  a motion  this  morning  to 
reconsider  that  vote,  if  there  is  not  some  object 
in  view  with  reference  to  the  other  question 
when  it  arises  ? I can  see  no  necessity  for  the 
two  provisions  standing  together.  In  this 
Article  on  County  and  Township  Organizations, 
it  is  proposed  to  incorporate  a section  defining 
the  power  of  taxation  and  assessment  for  police 
purposes,  and  for  buildings  roads  other  than 
railroads,  and  for  the  construction  of  bridges, 
and  for  the  improvement  of  water  courses. 
Certainly,  the  gentleman  cannot  have  the  object 
in  view  to  incorporate  a provision  in  here  to 
build  railroads.  If  this  amendment  is  stricken 
out,  and  the  proposition  fails  to  be  put  into  the 
Article  on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works, 
they  will  still  have,  according  to  the  decision  of 
the  supreme  court,  the  right  to  vote  these  local 
assessments  if  this  be  stricken  out.  Now,  I 
insist,  that  if  these  gentlemen  are  desirous  of 
meeting  this  issue  squarely  upon  its  merits, 
when  the  time  arrives  they  will  not  be  embar- 
rassed by  this  provision  at  all;  and  if  thi£  pro- 
vision is  voted  down,  and  this  amendment  voted 
out,  they  will  still  have,  as  I apprehend  they 
will  claim,  the  power  incorporated  in  this  Con- 
stitution, by  decision  of  the  supreme  court 
heretofore,  to  vote  these  very  local  assessments 
for  railroad  purposes.  I hope  the  amendment 
will  not  be  voted  down. 

Mr.  EWING.  For  the  purpose  of  postponing 
the  discussion  of  this  subject  to  its  proper 
place,  to- wit:  when  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works  comes  in, 
I move  to  lay  the  motion  to  reconsider  on  the 
table. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded. 

Mr.  GREENE.  What  effect  will  this  have 
upon  what  we  are  voting  upon  generally? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  have  no  effect 
upon  the  consideration  of  the  subject.  It  can 


be  taken  up  at  any  time.  It  is  laid  on  the  table 
for  the  time  being. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  It  will  have  the  effect  of 
postponing  this  subject. 

Mr.  COOK.  1 will  ask  if  laying  this  on  the 
table  will  not  carry  the  Proposition  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  laying  the 
amendment  on  the  table,  but  laying  the  motion 
to  reconsider  on  the  table. 

The  question  being  to  lay  the  motion  to  re- 
consider on  the  table, 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  demanded,  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  47,  nays  19,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Ban  non,  Barnet,  Blose, 
Bosworth,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin, 
De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Griswold,  Herron, 
Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hunt,  Jackson,  Johnson. 
Kraemer,  Layton,  Miner, Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal, 
Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Row- 
land, Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Steedman,  Townsley,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble, 
President — 47. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Beer,  Bishop,  Burns,  Coats, 
Cook,  Gardner,  Greene,  Gurley,  Hostetter, 
McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Pease,  Powell, 
Tulloss,  Voorhes,  Yoris,  Weaver — 19. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  on 
striking  out  the  substitute  proposed  by  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  as  amended. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I do  not  wish  to  consume 
time  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  but  mere- 
ly to  make  a few  remarks  upon  the  question 
under  consideration.  The  only  provision  in  the 
present  Constitution  on  this  subject  is,  that 
counties  and  townships  shall  have  the  power  of 
local  taxation  for  police  purposes  that  may  be 
prescribed  by  law.  Under  this  provision  of  the 
Constitution  the  Legislature  have  enacted  laws 
to  regulate  ditches  and  roads  particularly, 
under  which  the  system  has  grown  up.  I pro- 
pose to  show  what  that  law  is,  and  the  abuses 
that  have  grown  out  of  it.  And  now  the  friends 
of  that  law  propose  to  sanction  this  by  a con- 
stitutional provision.  They  are  not  satisfied 
with  the  present  Constitution,  and  propose  to 
have  it  sanctioned  by  constitutional  provision. 
On  a former  occasion,  in  the  discussion  of  this 
question,  I think  I showed  most  conclusively 
some  of  the  abuses  that  have  grown  out  of  this, 
which  they  now  propose  to  have  sanctioned  by 
constitutional  provision.  I am  very  well  aware 
the  majority  has  been  in  favor  of  it,  and  I do 
j not  propose  to  interpose  captious  objections.  I 
suppose,  now,  that  all  I can  say  will  have  no 
effect  whatever ; but  I deem  it  my  privilege  and 
duty  to  state  my  objections  and  enter  my  pro- 
test against  this  abuse.  I do  not  propose — it  is 
not  my  purpose — to  delay  the  action  of  the  Con- 
vention, but  merely  to  show  why  I am  opposed 
to  it.  I shall  attempt,  in  the  first  place,  to  show 
what  the  law  is,  and  the  abuses  which  have 
grown  out  of  it,  which  it  is  now  proposed  to  sanc- 
tion by  constitutional  provision.  I will  mention 
that  there  is  another  constitutional  provision 
. by  which  individual  property  cannot  be  taken 
I without  first  paying  the  owner  in  money  for  the 


DatJ COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1661 

February  21,  1874.]  Chapin,  Coats,  Scribner,  Mueller. 


property  so  taken.  Under  this  provision  the 
law  now  prescribes  that  a road  is  to  be  located. 
A petition  is  to  be  presented,  and-  the  commis- 
sioners then  appoint  a board  of  examiners,  with 
a surveyor,  and  at  the  same  time  they  are  to  re- 
ceive written  applications  from  the  owners  of 
property  through  which  the  proposed  road  is 
to  pass  { and  they  must,  in  order  to  secure  what 
the  Constitution  provides,  present  precisely  at 
that  time  their  application  for  damages,  or  they 
are  ever  afterwards  barred.  This  is,  I think, 
most  clearly  a violation  of  the  Constitution. 
The  object  and  intention  of  the  constitutional 
provision  there  is  evaded ; for  the  reason  that 
the  law  fails  to  make  adequate  provision  to  se- 
cure the  object  intended.  Well,  now,  let  us 
see  how  it  operates.  In  some  portions  of  the 
State  there  is  a great  deal  of  land  owned  by 
non-residents.  The  owners  are  absent.  They 
are  away  in  some  distant  portion  of  the  coun- 
try, and  an  application  is  made  to  the  commis- 
sioners for  the  location  of  a road,  to  run 
through  land  ownedj  perhaps,  half  by  residents 
and  half  by  non-residents.  The  commissioners 
appoint  viewers,  who  are  generally  selected  by 
the  petitioners,  and  their  especial  friends. 
They  go  and  view  the  route,  and  are  prepared 
to  make  a favorable  report.  Well,  now,  let  us 
see  how  it  operates;  how  unjustly  and  unequal- 
ly, and,  I may  say,  outrageously,  it  operates. 
The  residents  all  along  the  route  through  which 
the  road  extends  are  notified  of  the  time  and 
place,  and  they  present  their  application  for 
damages.  The  non-residents  are  not  there  at 
all.  They  know  nothing  about  it.  There  is  no 
provision  by  which  the  non-residents  are  to  be 
notified  of  the  location  of  a road.  The  location 
is  made,  and  the  non-residents  know  nothing 
about  it,  and  no  adequate  provision  has  been 
made  to  notify  them.  The  residents  are  all 
there  and  make  their  application  for  damages, 
and  these  damages  are  generally  large,  having 
been  made  by  neighbors  and  friends ; and  the 
non-residents  do  not  receive  a single  cent.  This 
is  nothing  more  or  less  than  highway  robbery. 
That  is  all  there  is  of  it.  It  is  legal  highway 
robbery.  That  is  its  application.  Again,  I will 
mention  in  relation  to  ditches.  Now,  ditches 
are  often  needed,  no  doubt,  and  I have  no  ob- 
jection to  them;  but  it  is  the  manner  in  which 
it  is  done,  the  inequality  and  injustice  of  it  that 
is  objectionable. 

Here,  I will  say,  there  is  a large  section  of 
the  country,  containing  a great  deal  of  swamp 
lands.  The  best  lands  have  been  selected. 
Many  of  them  are  owned  by  non-residents. 
The  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  in- 
formed me  that  he  had  a large  tract  of  swamp 
land,  that  would  be  valuable  when  drained,  and 
for  which  he  paid  a very  low  price.  He  did  not 
tell  me  how  he  proposed  to  drain  it,  but  he  was 
going  to  have  it  drained,  he  said,  and  make  it 
very  valuable.  I inferred,  from  what  he  said, 
how  he  was  going  to  do  it.  He  was  going  to 
run  a ditch  through  his  swamp  land.  It  would 
cost  him  very  little,  and  the  land  would  be  very 
valuable.  He  would  run  a ditch  through  lands 
that  did  not  need  draining  at  all,  and  he  would 
make  them  pay  for  it,  and  then  he  would  get 
the  advantage  of  it.  This  is  the  modus  operandi 
of  this  whole  system.  Again,  I do  not  think 
it  will  make  any  difference  with  me,  because  I 
think  they  have  shaved  me  about  all  their  con- 


science will  allow.  I think  they  have  a little 
conscience,  sometimes.  Therefore,  I am  not 
particularly  interested.  I would  like  to  see  the 
country  improved.  Under  this  principle  of  the 
Ditch  Law,  because  it  is  the  gist  of  the  whole 
system,  let  me  tell  you  what  they  did.  I told  it 
on  a former  occasion  : They  located  a road  on  a 
tract  which  I owned.  I never  got  any  pay  for  it, 
but  the  neighbors  did.  In  other  words,  I had  to 
pay  for  the  road,  and  they  got  the  benefit  of  it. 
The  road  was  located  under  the  Road  Law. 
That  is  all  right;  and  so  it  ought  to  be. 
And  let  me  here  state  that  I would 
be  in  favor  of  removing  that  provision  from  the 
Constitution,  which  requires  that  the  owners  of 
land  should  be  paid  for  lands  taken  for  public 
roads,  for  this  reason : there  is  a large  portion 
of  the  State  of  Ohio  in  which  the  owners  of 
land  have  already  given  their  land  for  road 
purposes,  and  I see  no  reason  why  those  who 
own  lands  where  roads  are  to  be  located,  should 
not  give  the  land  for  that  purpose.  Therefore, 
I would  be  in  favor  of  removing  that  provision 
entirely.  That,  however,  is  not  what  they 
want.  But  let  me  speak  about  the  ditch.  They 
have  got  the  road  located  two  different  ways, 
running  east,  west,  north  and  south ; but  it  is 
of  very  little  use  unless  it  can  be  made,  and 
under  the  ditch  law  they  can  do  that.  I will 
tell  you  how  they  do  it.  Under  the  provision 
of  the  Constitution  they  have  a ditch  law  by 
which  they  can  run  a ditch  all  around  it;  but 
that  does  not  do  very  much  good,  unless  they 
can  couple  it  with  some  other  provision.  So 
they  require  the  man  that  digs  the  ditch  to  clear 
the  road  sixty  feet  wide,  and  then,  that  he  shall 
take  this  earth  out  of  the  gutter  all  around ; so 
you  see  the  earth  is  all  cleared  out,  the  road  is 
made  all  around,  and  I was  very  much  obliged 
to  them. 

Mr.  COATS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? I would  ask  what  that  land  was 
worth  before  those  improvements  were  put 
upon  it? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I might  say  that  it  was  worth 
more  than  it  is  now,  and  I might  say  less.  I do 
not  know. 

Mr.  COATS.  Would  you  take  less  than  you 
would  before? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I paid  some  $2,600  for  the 
ditch  around  it.  I do  not  know  whether  that 
would  have  been  worth  more  or  less. 

Mr.  COATS.  What  do  you  value  the  land  at 
now? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I do  not  know  what  I would 
value  it  at. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
striking  out  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  striking  out  the  original  section  as  pro- 
posed by  the  Committee  and  inserting  section 
nine,  as  reported  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
and  amended. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  Is  not  the  question,  Mr. 
President,  on  the  insertion  of  section  ten? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir;  that  is  a new 
section. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  Convention  just  having 
refused  to  strikeout,  that  is  equivalent  to  agree- 
ing to  keep  in.  So  there  is  no  vote  to  be  re- 
quired on  this  amendment.  The  Convention 


1562 


CONCERNING  LOCAL  TAXATION. 

Hitchcock,  Page,  Ewing,  Powell. 


[120th 

[Saturday, 


has  actually  agreed  by  disagreeing  to  strike 
out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  still  re- 
mains on  striking  out  the  original  section  nine, 
and  inserting  the  substitute  proposed  by  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole. 

The  motion  to  strike  out  and  insert  was 
agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  section  ten. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  As  a further  amendment 
I wish  to  add  to  section  nine. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Section  nine  has  been 
disposed  of. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Has  the  Convention  taken 
up  section  ten  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  was  about  to 


proceed  to  that. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK, 
the  end  of  the  section, 
strike  out  and  insert? 

The  PRESIDENT, 
would  be  in  order. 

Mr  HITCHCOCK, 
section  as  follows : 
The  PRESIDENT. 


Then  I move  to  add  to 
Is  it  not  in  order  to 

I think  the  addition 

I move  to  amend  the 

The  gentleman  from 


Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  proposes  to  amend 
section  nine  by  adding  the  following.  The 
Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 


Add  to  the  end  of  the  section,  as  amended,  the  follow- 
ing: 

“But  taxes  under  this  section  shall  not,  in  the  aggre- 
gate, for  all  purposes,  in  any  ten  years,  exceed  five  per 
centum,  nor  in  any  one  year  one  per  centum  of  the  taxa- 
ble value  of  the  property  in  the  county  or  township  where 
the  tax  is  to  be  levied,  nor  shall  any  debt  be  contracted  in 
excess  of  that  sum,  except  such  tax  or  debt,  and  the  pur- 
pose for  which  to  be  levied  or  contracted,  shall  be  approv- 
ed by  the  votes  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  qualified  elec- 
tors, to  he  ascertained  as  provided  by  law,  within  such 
county  or  township — excepting  only  from  this  restriction 
such  levies  as  are  made  general  to  all  the  counties  and 
townships  of  the  same  respective  classes  throughout  the 
State,  but  including  levies  by  general  law,  for  the  erec- 
tion of  public  buildings.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  upon  that  question. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I am  not  certain  but  that  sec- 
tion ought  to  have  an  extension  which  is  found 
in  the  Article  on  Municipal  Corporations.  That 
is  to  the  following  effect. 

“The  restriction  of  this  section  shall  not  apply  to  neces- 
sary expenditures  for  military  purposes  in  time  of  war.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  moves  to  amend  the  prop- 
osition of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  by  adding  the  following  words : 

“The  restriction  of  this  section  shall  not  apply  to  neces- 
sary expenditures  for  military  purposes  in  time  of  war.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I was  going  to  make  a 
remark  with  reference  to  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page].  I have  no  objection  to  the  amendment, 
if  it  be  necessary ; but  I supposed  that  as  this 
amendment,  in  its  present  form,  would  apply 
only  to  counties  and  townships,  an  exception 
is  made  with  regard  to  levies  made  by  general 
law  throughout  the  State,  except  so  far  as  these 
levies  shall  be  made  for  public  buildings,  that 
in  extending  that  to  which  the  gentleman  re- 
fers any  necessary  levies  for  that  purpose  would 
be  made  throughout  the  State.  That  is  general 
to  the  various  classes  of  counties  and  town- 


ships, as  they  are  provided  for  by  the  Legisla- 
tive Article,  .which  is  intended  to  adapt  itself  to 
that.  But  to  the  insertion  of  those  words  I 
have  no  objection. 

The  question  being  on  agreeing  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page],  a division  was  demanded ; and  forty  mem- 
bers voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  Chair  de- 
clared the  amendment  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Geau- 
ga [Mr.  Hitchcock],  as  amended. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  allow  me  to  ask  a 
question?  In  his  amendment,  as  it  was  read, 
there  was  a provision  that  no  debt  should  be 
contracted  in  excess  of  that  sum.  Immediately 
preceding  that  clause  is  a prohibition  of  taxa- 
tion in  excess  of  five  per  cent,  in  any  ten  years 
or  one  per  cent,  in  one  year.  I would  like  to 
ask  him  what  he  means  by  “in  excess  of  that 
sum  ” ? Is  it  in  excess  of  one  per  cent,  or  in 
excess  of  five  per  cent.  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I intended  it  to  be  in 
excess  of  five  per  cent.  Perhaps  that  does  not 
express  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  it  is  not  clear  in  that 
respect. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  say  to  the  gen- 
i tleman,  that  the  language  is  transposed  from 
j the  language  which  I offered  yesterday  to  the 
l original  Article,  and  in  the  transposition  of  the 
language,  perhaps  the  meaning  is  not  clear.  It 
was  by  carelessness  in  writing  that  the  lan- 
guage was  transposed. 

Mr.  EWING.  Read  the  amendment  as 
amended. 

“Add  to  the  end  of  the  section,  as  amended,  the  follow- 
ing: 

“But  taxes  under  this  section  shall  not,  in  the  aggre- 
gate, for  all  purposes,  in  any  ten  years,  exceed  five  per 
centum,  nor  in  any  one  year  one  per  centum  of  the  taxa- 
ble value  of  the  property  in  the  county  or  township  where 
the  tax  is  to  be  levied,  nor  shall  any  debt  be  contracted  in 
excess  of  that  sum,  except  such  tax  or  debt,  and  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  is  to  be  levied  or  contracted,  shall  be 
approved  by  ihe  votes  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  qualified 
electors,  to  be  ascertained  as  provided  by  law,  within 
such  county  or  township — excepting  only  from  this  re- 
striction such  levies  as  are  made  general  to  all  the  coun- 
ties and  townships  of  the  same  respective  classes  through- 
out the  State,  but  Including  levies  by  general  law,  for  the 
erection  of  public  buildings.  The  restriction  of  this  sec- 
tion shall  not  apply  to  necessary  expenses  for  military 
purposes  in  time  ol'  war.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  amend  by  in- 
serting after  the  word  “ excess  ” the  words  “ of 
said  five  per  cent.” 

Mr.  EWING.  That  will  make  it  clear. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  modification  will  be  made. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I hope  this  amendment  will 
not  be  adopted.  It  involves  and  includes  a mat- 
ter that  has  been  discussed  here  over  and  over 
again,  and  has  been  voted  down  on  account  of 
that  difficulty  a number  of  times.  That  is  this: 
This  section  includes  both  townships  and  coun- 
ties, and  it  is  a restriction  of  both  to  five  per 
cent.  Now,  if  the  county  should  go  the  full 
extent,  the  township  is  entirely  cut  off,  and  if 
the  township  goes  to  the  full  extent  of  the  lim- 
itation, then  the  county  is  cut  off.  This  difficulty 
has  been  observed,  and  the  section  has  been 
voted  down  on  account  of  that  difficulty,  and 
now  it  is  brought  up  again.  I hope,  therefore, 


CONCERNING  LOCAL  TAXATION. 

Powell,  Hitchcock,  Gkiswold,  Coats,  etc. 


1563 


Day.] 

February  21,  1874.] 


it  will  be  voted  down,  not  only  because  I have 
objection  to  the  whole  thing,  but  particularly 
on  this  account.  Even  if  it  was  amended  in 
this  respect,  it  should  be  voted  down,  because 
it  is  an  unnecessary  restriction.  Instead  of 
amending  the  Constitution,  it  deteriorates  it  by 
such  provisions  in  regard  to  taxes. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low a question  before  he  takes  his  seat? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I wish  to  know  whether 
I understood  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]  correctly  in  having  frequently  said 
that  he  believed  it  was  well  to  leave  some  power 
to  the  General  Assembly  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir;  I have  repeatedly 
said  so,  and  I say  so  still,  and  will  continue  to 
say  so  to  the  end  of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I so  understood  the  gen- 
tleman. Now,  I ask  him  whether  he  thinks 
that  leaving  something  to  the  General  Assembly 
will  authorize  such  a levy  in  any  county  that 
there  can  be  any  opportunity  of  levying  taxes 
in  any  township  of  that  county? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  there  is  danger  that 
with  this  amend m ent  the  Legislature  will  do 
just  as  this  Convention  does,  put  both  things  to- 
gether, and  that  the  township  and  county  will 
each  take  advantage  of  the  other.  I am  for 
leaving  it  to  the  Legislature  to  regulate  the 
matter  as  prudence  and  necessity  may  require. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  wish  to  discuss 
this  proposition,  and  yet,  as  intimated  on  yes- 
terday, it  is  my  desire  to  learn  what  is  the 
general  sense  of  the  members  of  the  Convention 
upon  this  question  of  carrying  out  the  system 
which  has  already  been  adopted  of  restricting 
the  power  of  taxation.  This  was  done  in  the 
Municipal  Article  by  placing  restrictions  on 
both  the  powers  of  taxation  and  of  making  as- 
sessments. Shall  we  apply  to  counties  and 
townships  throughout  the  State  the  same  rule  ? 
Without  knowing  what  may  be  the  sense  of  the 
Convention,  I wish  to  say  that  this  is  an  im- 
portant question.  I know  that  the  amendment 
proposed,  if  the  Convention  is  disposed  to  con- 
sider this  question  of  restriction  at  all,  is  some- 
what lengthy  to  be  well  understood  by  once  or 
twice  reading  at  the  Secretary’s  desk.  Some 
gentlemen  have  said  to  me  that  the  Convention 
will  probably  adjourn  over  at  noon  to-day  until 
Monday.  Whether  there  be  such  intention  or 
not  I do  not  know ; but  if  there  is  such  adjourn- 
ment, I feel  like  asking  the  Convention  that  the 
consideration  of  this  amendment  be  postponed 
until  there  was  opportunity  to  have  it  printed. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I will  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  we  are  considering  amendments  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  we  have  got 
to  go  over  it  section  by  section,  afterwards  it 
will  be  called  up  section  by  section,  and  the 
Convention  can  add  anything ; so  that  we  can 
agree  to  this  amendment,  and  the  gentleman 
can  have  it  printed  in  the  meantime. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Any  course  is  satisfac- 
tory to  me.  As  before  intimated,  I purpose,  at 
some  time,  getting  an  expression  of  the  Con- 
vention on  this  question.  A full  expression 
may  obviate  the  necessity  of  bringing  up  the 
question  in  the  form  in  which  I presented  it 
yesterday,  making  it  apply  to  the  whole  State. 
Having  been  criticised  rather  sharply  by  some 


gentlemen  yesterday  in  private — not  on  the 
floor — for  not  offering  that  other  proposition 
when  we  were  considering  the  general  provi- 
sion of  the  Legislative  Article,  I thought 
not  to  delay  too  long  this  time.  At 
the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Griswold],  which,  I think,  is  a very 
proper  one,  if  the  Chair  concurs  in  the  opinion 
of  the  gentleman,  that,  after  going  through  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
upon  considering  this  Proposition  section  by 
section,  there  will  be  an  opportunity  to  offer 
this  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  competent  for  the 
Convention  now  to  pass  this  section  informally, 
and  to  take  it  up  when  the  Article  comes  up, 
section  by  section,  hereafter. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  'I  understand  this  sec- 
tion has  been  inserted  now  by  the  action  of  the 
Convention.  This  is  simply  to  postpone  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Convention  until  it  comes  up  again. 
Therefore,  I ask  that  the  consideration  of  this 
proposition  be  omitted  until  it  is  reached  in 
order,  section  by  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  would 
carry  the  section  with  it,  of  course. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Then  I ask  leave  to  with- 
draw it. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  the  unanimous  con- 
sent of  the  Convention  to  have  it  printed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
it  will  be  ordered  that  the  amendment  to  sec- 
tion 9 be  printed. 

Mr.  COATS.  Now,  I desire  to  hear  section  9 
read,  as  it  stands,  before  we  pass  from  it ; be- 
cause I think  I want  to  add  a slight  amend- 
ment to  some  portions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  substitute  for  the  section  as  it  now  stands. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  9.  Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  and  assessment  for  polide  purposes,  and 
for  constructing  and  improving  ditches,  and  clearing 
water-courses  and  public  roads,  other  than  railroads, 
when  necessary  to  the  public  health,  convenience  or  wel- 
fare, as  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Mr.  COATS.  I simply  offer  this  amendment 
after  the  word  “clearing.”  I cannot  tell  in 
what  line  it  occurs.  It  has  not  been  printed. 

I desire  to  add  these  words,  “widening  and 
straightening.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Union  [Mr.  Coats]  proposes  to  amend  by  in- 
serting after  the  word  “clearing,”  the  words 
“widening  and  straightening,”  so  that  it  will 
read,  “widening  and  straightening  water- 
courses.” 

Mr.  COATS.  I call  for  a division  of  the 
question.  I think  these  words  are  needed. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  not  so  tenacious  about 
the  word  “widening,”  as  “straightening.”  I 
think,  if  the  provision  is  inserted  at  all,  they 
have  the  power  to  straighten.  Now,  I will 
cite  an  instance  where  it  was  considered  desir- 
able. Through  the  city  in  which  I live,  runs 
a very  crooked  and  very  sluggish  stream,  and  it 
would  be  very  desirable  to  straighten  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  not  necessary;  to 
make  it  run  clear,  you  can  straighten  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  drift  wood  is  all  cleared 
out,  but  it  is  very  crooked — exceedingly  so — 


1564 


CONCERNING  LOCAL  TAXATION.  [120th 

Coats,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Pratt,  Pease,  etc.  [Saturday, 


and  if  it  were  straightened,  it  would  conduce  ] 
very  much  to  the  public  health. 

Mr.  COATS.  I desire  to  say  a few  words  in  j 
reference  to  this  subject,  desire  to  prevent 
litigation  in  matters  pertaining  thereto.  I know 
that  trouble  and  litigation  have  grown  out  of 
the  laws  now  in  force,  passed  in  conformity  to  j 
the  Constitution  under  which  we  now  live.  I j 
know  streams  that  run  from  one  to  seven  miles 
when  a few  rods  of  a cut-off  would  straighten  | 
them. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Strikeout  the  word  “clear- 
ing” and  make  it  “improving  water-courses.”  j 
Would  not  that  include  every  thing,  clearing,  i 
deepening,  widening  and  straightening? 

Mr.  COATS.  I will  come  to  that  in  amoment.  i 
I know  along  these  streams  that  I have  men-  j 
tioned,  the  land  is  almost  worthless  by  reason  j 
of  frequent  overflow.  They  run  extremely  i 
meandering  to  go  that  distance,  as  it  will  readi-  | 
ly  be  seen,  and  if  straightened  the  public  health  j 
and  convenience  would  be  promoted  thereby. 

I do  not  suppose  that  the  instances  that 
come  under  my  observation  are  the  only  I 
instances  where  such  a state  of  things  ex-  i 
ists,  and,  therefore,  in  order  to  put  this  j 
matter  finally  at  rest,  I offered  the  amendment  | 
proposing  to  insert  these  words  widening 
and  straightening.  It  does  not  lumber  i 
up  the  matter  very  much.  It  is  the  only  amend- 
ment that  I have  ever  offered  in  this  Convention,  I 
and,  with  deference  to  the  suggestion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold], 
who  puts  the  question  to  me  if  improving  would  j 
not  be  the  same  thing,  or  answer  the  same  end,  j 
I will  say  that  improving  is  a term  that  may  ] 
be  misconstrued ; might  be  liable  to  abuse ; its  j 
meaning  perverted,  and  the  aid  of  the  courts  j 
invoked  to  decide  whether  a proposed  work  ; 
be  an  improvement  or  not.  But  these  simple  j 
words  clear  the  matter  of  all  doubt,  I think,  i 
and,  in  my  opinion,  will  be  an  improvement 
upon  the  section  as  it  now  stands ; and  I hope  j 
the  Convention  will  give  it  a fair  and  candid  ! 
consideration.  I have  occupied  the  time  of  the  | 
Convention  merely  to  explain  and  call  attention  j 
to  what  I know  to  be  an  existing  evil,  and 
point  out  a remedy  therefor.  We  are  power-  i 
less,  at  this  time,  except  by  litigation,  to  j 
remedy,  by  reason  of  the  questions  that  arise  ! 
under  the  Constitution  and  statute  laws  con- 
cerning the  power  of  local  assessment  or  { 
taxation,  to  meet,  and  that  we  may,  in  the  way 
I propose,  dispose  of  these  difficulties,  by  a clear 
and  distinct  legal  remedy,  without  being  met 
with  constitutional  objections,  in  regard  to  the 
power  of  local  taxation  or  assessment. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I am  afraid  that  that  will  be  j 
a dangerous  power — the  power  to  straighten 
and  widen  water-courses.  It  would  be  a power  I 
to  divert  water-courses  altogether.  I think 
this  provision  of  clearing  is  broad  enough.  I 
am  willing  for  it  to  remain  there.  1 think  that 
is  all  right.  This  amendment  would  confer  the 
power  10  divert  a water-course  altogether  from 
its  channel.  I think  we  had  better  let  it  be. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  the  gentleman  will  assure 
us  it  will  not  give  that  power,  I am  satisfied. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I suggest  that  is  an  important 
change.  We  do  not  propose  to  change  that. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I think  there  was  a suggestion 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr 


Gurley]  that,  perhaps,  did  not  catch  the  ear  of 
the  Convention,  owing  to  the  noise  in  the  Hall, 
which,  I perceive,  often  overcomes  the  ability 
of  those  who  have  less  lungs  than  I,  to  make 
themselves  heard.  The  suggestion  was  that  by 
inserting  the  power  to  straighten  there  would 
be  inserted  in  the  Constitution  a power  to 
divert  water-courses  wholly  from  their  natural 
channels.  Now,  I apprehend  that  this  Conven- 
tion would  not  assume  to  attempt  to  clothe  the 
Legislature  with  power  to  do  that  without  due 
care, — would  not  attempt  to  dispose  in  a sum- 
mary way  of  the  rights  of  riparian  owners  and 
the  use  of  water  in  the  channels  in  which  na- 
ture has  provided  for  its  flow.  And  I want  the 
Convention  to  consider  that  matter  before  they 
pass  upon  this  proposed  amendment.  We  are 
hastily  here  constructing  a section,  in  the  hurry 
of  the  Convention,  to  take  the  place  of  the  sec- 
tion reported  by  the  Committee,  and  we  should 
proceed  with  due  care  and  see  that  we  do  not 
step  on  forbidden  ground. 

Mr.  COATS.  I would  like  to  explain  to  the 
gentleman  for  a moment. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I think  it  would  take  a long 
treatise  on  the  law  of  water-courses  to  get  a 
proper  understanding  of  what  should  be  done, 
— longer  than  I would  like  to  listen  to,  if  the 
explanation  is  simply  for  my  benefit. 

Mr.  COATS.  I desire  it  for  the  gentleman’s 
benefit,  and  that  of  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  is  too  late  for  me  to  com- 
mence my  legal  education. 

Mr.  COATS.  I disclaim  any  such  intention 
as  gentlemen  opposing  this  proposed  amend- 
ment charge,  and  I deny  that  the  words  of  the 
amendment  I propose  are  susceptible  of  any 
such  interpretation  as  is  claimed,  by  a fair  and 
just  construction.  By  the  amendment  I offer  I 
do  not  seek  to  confer  the  power  to  widen  or 
straighten  streams,  nor  will  the  amendment  in 
effect  empower  the  diversion  of  streams.  I 
merely  desire  to  provide  for  a mode  of  as- 
sessment for  the  purposes  indicated.  If  such 
diversion  were  sought  to  be  effected,  I think  it 
is  clear  that  the  right  of  eminent  domain  would 
be  applicable,  in  all  its  force,  with  this  amend- 
ment incorporated  into  the  Constitution  in  the 
language  I propose.  The  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution, that  private  property  can  not  be  taken 
for  public  use  without  just  compensation  to  the 
owner,  is  still  in  full  force,  notwithstanding  this 
proposed  amendment.  Therefore,  I do  not  see 
that  any  evil  can  result  from  the  incorporation 
of  the  words  I propose  by  way  of  amendment 
to  this  section  of  the  Article,  now  under  con- 
sideration. All  that  I ask  is,  that  now,  when 
we  are  providing  for  and  empowering  local 
assessments  for  certain  purposes,  that  we  may 
include  the  matter  I propose — that  of  widening 
and  straightening  streams  and  water  courses. 
To  exclude  this  right  may,  in  its  operation, 
prove  very  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the 
people  in  many  localities  of  this  State,  while  to 
include  it,  as  I propose,  does  not  carry  with  it 
any  of  the  evils  suggested  by  the  gentleman 
from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley]  or  the  gentleman 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I hope  this  amendment  will 
not  pass.  Although  there  is  a provision  that 
private  property  may  be  taken  for  public  use, 


CONCERNING  LOCAL  TAXATION. 

Pease,  Burns,  Rowland,  Hunt. 


1565 


Day.] 

February  21, 1874.] 


where  full  compensation  is  given,  I would  sug- 
gest to  the  gentleman,  that  would  reach  only 
the  appropriation  of  land  to  be  occupied  by  the 
straightening  of  a stream.  It  would  not  reach 
the  numerous  cases  that  would  result  to  differ- 
ent riparian  proprietors  on  the  old  stream. 
Suppose  you  have  running  through  your  county 
or  city  a very  crooked  stream.  Immense  values 
have  already  been  established  with  reference  to 
the  stream  as  it  is  at  present  located.  Now, 
under  this  provision,  by  some  freak,  some  coun- 
cil may  think  best  to  straighten  that  stream,  to 
the  great  damage  of  every  owner  of  property 
along  the  original  course  of  that  stream.  It 
seems  to  me  this  is  a very  inconsiderate  and 
summary  way  of  disposing  of  a question  that 
may  affect  very  large  interests  in  the  State. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  to  explain  the  few 
remarks  I made  a while  ago.  I believe  that,  as 
the  laws  now  stand,  city  authorities  have  the 
right  to  straighten  a stream  for  the  purpose  of 
promoting  the  public  health.  They  are  liable 
to  damages  that  might  accrue  to  riparian  pro- 
prietors along  the  old  channel  of  the  stream.  I 
think  that  if  the  city  or  village  was  to  divert 
the  course  of  the  stream  bv  straightening  it  and 
deprive  those  who  had  privileges  in  the  old  bed 
of  the  stream  from  the  enjoyment  of  their 
rights,  they  would  probably  be  liable  for  dam- 
ages. So  I think  they  would  be  if  this  provi- 
sion was  in  the  Constitution.  While  they 
would  have  the  power  to  make  the  assessment, 
the  parties  who  straighten  the  stream  would 
not  be  relieved  from  the  damages  that  might 
result  from  that  act,  even  under  this  constitu- 
tional provision ; so  that  the  result  in  one  in- 
stance would  be  the  same  as  in  another.  If  the 
stream  so  diverted  from  its  natural  and  original 
channel  by  being  straightened  and  sent  in  an- 
other direction,  although  the  water  might  flow 
into  that  channel  a short  distance  below  and 
not  divert  it  entirely  from  its  original  course 


for  any  considerable  distance,  I think  in  both 
instances,  parties  who  were  injured  thereby 
would  have  a remedy  in  courts  of  justice  for 
damages.  I do  not  think  that  this  provision 
would  change  the  rights  of  parties  in  that  re- 
spect at  all. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I move  the  Convention 
now  adjourn.  We  cannot  finish  this  before 
dinner.  It  will  come  up  in  the  afternoon.  There 
is  no  use  of  running  till  1 o’clock  every  day. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Objection  was  made. 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  sustained. 

Mr.  HUNT.  With  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  Convention,  I wish  to  submit  the  following 
resolution.  The  proposition  has  been  sent  to 
me  by  one  of  the  most  prominent  men  in  the 
State,  and  one  for  whom  I entertain  a high  per- 
sonal regard.  It  involves  a question  of  con- 
siderable interest  to  the  people,  and  without 
committing  myself  in  any  respect  to  the  mea- 
sure, it  should  yet  receive  the  respectful  consid- 
eration of  the  Convention.  I,  therefore,  move 
its  reference  to  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Agriculture : 

‘‘Resolved,  That  the  Standing  Committee  on  Agricul- 
ture be  directed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  incor- 
porating the  following  Article  into  the  Constitution: 

“Agriculture,  mechanics  and  the  other  productive  in- 
dustries of  the  State  should  ever  receive  encouragement; 
and  to  this  end,  the  General  Assembly  may  provide  by 
law  for  fairs  and  expositions  of  such  industries;  and  the 
title  to  all  real  property  acquired  for  such  purposes,  by 
taxation,  in  whole  or  in  part,  shall  rest  in  the  municipal- 
ity raising  such  tax.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  resolution  will  be  so  referred. 

The  question  is  now  upon  adjournment. 

On  this  question  a division  was  demanded, 
upon  which  thirty-seven  members  voted  affirm- 
atively, which  the  President  declared  to  be  a 
majority;  and  the  Convention  (at  12:  30  p.  m.) 
adjourned. 


1566 


MORNING  BUSINESS. 

Reilly,  Ewing,  Cook,  Sears. 


[121st 


[Monday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

FIFTY-NINTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Thomas  A.  Lee,  of  the  Cincin- 
nati Union  Bethel : 

Almighty  God,  our  Heavenly  Father,  we  come  to  Thee 
this  morning  as  Thy  children,  realizing  our  helplessness 
and  our  dependence  upon  a Higher  Power.  We  have  no 
spiritual  strength;  we  have  nothing  in  ourselves  upon 
which  we  can  rely;  but  we  reioice  that  we  realize  our 
connection  with  the  great  Father  of  all  flesh.  We  thank 
Thee,  O God.  that  in  Thee  we  live,  and  move,  and  have 
our  being.  We  rejoice  in  the  light  of  this  morning,  in  the 
health  and  strength  which  enables  us  to  assemble  in  this 
Convention.  Let  thy  special  blessing  be  upon  Thy  ser- 
vants to-day,  and  grant  that  their  minds  may  turn  to  God 
for  wisdom  and  strength,  according  to  their  demands. 
The  Lord  preserve  Thy  servants  from  all  evil,  and  grant 
that  this  day  may  be  one  to  be  remembered  in  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  hand  of  Providence  has  borne  away  one  of  the 
members  of  this  Convention,  who  now  lies  cold  and  still 
in  death.  O God,  we  earnestly  trust  that,  through  the 
merits  of  the  great  Savior  of  men,  our  departed  brother 
has  found  his  way  from  a world  of  pain,  and  sorrow,  and 
care,  to  a world  of  rest  and  joy,  at  Thy  right  hand.  And 
grant  that  his  example,  so  far  as  that  example  was  in  ac- 
cordance with  Thy  law,  may  have  an  effect  upon  his 
associates,  and  upon  all  the  members  of  this  Convention. 
And,  O Lord,  we  pray  Thee  that  all  these,  Thy  servants, 
may  be  ready  when  the  messenger  shall  come,  whether  in 
the  evening,  or  at  midnight,  or  at  whatever  time  he  may, 
may  be  ready  for  the  messenger,  and  to  render  up  his  ac- 
cout  for  his  stewardship  to  God.  We  ask  Thy  blessing, 
Thy  guidance,  and  that  Thou  wilt  accept  of  us  for  Christ’s 
sake.  Amen. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  BABER, 

The  Roll-call  was  dispensed  with. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  Mr.  Freiberg, 
for  the  remainder  of  the  week. 

The  Journal  of  Saturday  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

PETITION. 

Mr.  REILLY  presented  the  petition  of  H.  C. 
Boyle,  and  forty-seven  other  citizens  of  Colum- 
biana county,  praying  that  the  property  of  all 
religious  societies  shall  be  subject  to  taxation, 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  property  of  other  cor- 
porations and  individuals. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Fi- 
nance and  Taxation. 

NEW  PROPOSITION— FIRST  READING. 

Mr.  EWING.  I have  a Proposition  that  I 
have  prepared  to  offer  this  morning  as  a substi- 
tute for  section  six,  Article  eight,  of  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Public 
Works,  that  I am  desirous  of  having  printed, 
but  have  accidentally  left  it  upon  my  table,  and 
I ask  leave  to  hand  it  to  the  Secretary  and  have 
it  printed. 

MEMBERS.  “Leave;  leave.” 


Monday,  February  23,  1874. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  will  have  leave  of  a first  reading, 
and  to  have  it  printed. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same  by  its  title,  as 
follows : 

Proposition  No.  217— A Substitute  for  section  6,  Article 
VIII,  of  Report  of  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Public 
Works. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  COOK.  When  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Education  was  made,  three  hundred 
extra  copies  were  ordered.  After  the  Report 
came  here,  they  were  distributed  among  the 
members,  one  to  each,  and  I had  what  I suppos- 
ed to  be  about  one  hundred  copies  for  distribu- 
tion ; but  after  that  there  were  no  more  Reports. 
There  evidently  was  a mistake  in  the  number 
sent  to  the  Convention.  I called  upon  the  Sec- 
retary or  Sergeant-at-Arms  for  an  explana- 
tion of  the  matter,  and  the  Secretary  has  writ- 
ten to  Messrs.  Nevins  & Myers,  and  they  say 
they  have  sent  the  extra  three  hundred  copies 
which  makes  the  six  hundred.  I am  very  cer- 
tain they  have  not  reached  the  Convention. 
They  say,  however,  we  may  get  an  extra  three 
hundred  printed  under  the  arrangement  they 
have  made  with  the  Gazette  office.  I would  ask, 
therefore,  that  an  extra  three  hundred  may  be 
printed  for  the  use  of  members.  I have  not 
distributed  as  many  throughout  the  State  as  I 
ought  to  have,  and  there  are  many  of  us  who 
have  had  none. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Allow  me  to  make  a suggestion. 
Mistakes  occur  in  the  form  that  should  be  cor- 
rected. 

Mr.  COOK.  I have  corrected  them  and  giv- 
en the  Secretary  a corrected  copy. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
says  there  were  but  three  hundred  copies  re- 
ceived ; the  extra  three  hundred  were  not  re- 
ceived. 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  the  Secretary  read  the 
letter  from  Messrs.  Nevins  & Myers? 

The  Secretary  read  the  letter  as  follows : 

Columbus,  O.,  Feb.  21, 1874. 

D.  W.  Rhodes,  Esq. — 

Dear  Sir:  The  extra  300  copies  of  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Education  were  printed  and  sent  with  the 
regular  number.  There  must  have  been  some  mistake  in 
giving  them  out  in  the  Convention.  If,  however,  you  de- 
sire 300  more,  we  can  print  them,  or  you  may  send  the 
copy  to  the  Cincinnati  Gazette  office,  and  have  them 
printed  there,  if  you  are  in  a hurry. 

Yours  truly, 

Nevins  & Myers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  that  the 
Secretary  be  authorized  to  order  three  hun- 
dred extra  copies  printed. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 


Day.] DEATH  OF  HON.  JOHN  D.  O'CONNOR. 

February  23, 1874.]  Horton,  Baber,  Hitchcock,  Yoris,  Chapin. 


1567 


Mr.  HORTON.  I move  that  we  proceed  to 
the  consideration  of  the  order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  will  not  be  done. 
I understood  that  there  were  to  be  resolutions 
to  determine  the  action  of  the  Convention  with 
regard  to  the  appointment  of  a Committee  on 
account  of  the  death  of  Dr.  O’Connor.  I think 
that  those  resolutions  should  be  introduced,  and 
I do  not  think  that  the  Convention  is  in  condi- 
tion now,  for  several  reasons,  to  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  that  Article,  and  I hope  it  will 
not  be  done. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I withdraw  my  motion. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I offer  for  adoption  the 
following  resolutions : 

Resolved , That  it  is  with  unfeigned  sorrow  this  Conven- 
vention  learns  of  the  decease,  at  9 o’clock  Saturday  even- 
ing, February  21,  of  one  of  its  members,  Hon.  John  D. 
O’Connor,  of  Seneca  county. 

Resolved , That  the  President  be  requested  to  appoint  a 
Committee  of  six  members  to  take  charge  of  the  remains 
of  the  deceased,  make  all  the  necessary  arrangements,  and 
accompany  them  to  his  late  residence,  at  Tiffin,  Ohio,  and 
attend  upon  their  burial. 

Resolved , That  a Committee  of  three  be  appointed  by 
the  Chair  to  report  resolutions,  to  be  placed  upon  the 
Journal  of  the  Convention,  expressive  of  the  sense  of  its 
members  in  view  of  this  bereavement. 

Resolved , That  in  respect  to  the  memory  of  the  departed, 
this  Convention  do  now  adjourn. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  One  word,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, in  offering  these  resolutions  at  this  time. 
Mr.  Okey,  member  of  the  Convention  from 
Monroe  county,  as  an  intimate  friend  and 
neighbor  of  the  deceased  for  many  years,  will 
probably  accompany  the  remains  to  their 
destination,  under  the  direction  of  the 
Convention,  and  would  be  glad  to  be  heard 
upon  any  expression  of  sentiment  by  this 
Convention  when  they  shall  be  given ; 
for  that  reason  I offer  these  resolutions 
at  this  time,  for  the  action  of  the  Conven- 
tion, leaving  all  remarks  upon  the  character 
and  services  of  the  deceased  to  be  made  after 
the  return  of  the  gentleman  to  whom  I refer. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  resolutions  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  At  the  suggestion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  I call 
.attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  thought  impor- 


tant, in  connection  with  this,  that  there  should 
be  a resolution  informing  the  Governor  of  the 
decease,  and,  if  I may  be  allowed,  I will  add 
that  as  one  resolution. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  occurs  to  me  that  ought  to  be 
an  independent  resolution — that  it  ought  not  to 
be  connected  with  the  others. 

The  Secretary,  by  direction,  read  the  addi- 
tional resolution,  as  follows : 

Resolved , That  the  President  be  requested  to  notify  the 
Governor  of  this  State  of  the  death  of  Hon.  John  D. 
O’Connor,  delegate  to  this  Convention  from  Seneca 
county. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  occurs  to  me  that  it  is  hardly 
in  good  taste  that  that  should  be  contained  in 
the  resolutions  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  and,  with  the  unan- 
imous consent  of  the  Convention,  it  can  be 
adopted  as  an  independent  resolution  of  the 
Convention,  and  I ask  that  it  be  considered  as  a 
separate  resolution. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  is  no  objection, 
the  resolution  will  be  taken  separately. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  suggest  that  it  can  be 
introduced  after  the  first  are  disposed  of. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  suggest 
that  the  resolution  to  adjourn  would  prevent 
that  being  acted  upon  afterwards. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I move  that  it  lie  over  until 
to-morrow. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on the  adoption  of  the  resolutions  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]. 

Which  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  name 
the  following  Committees : 

Committee  to  take  charge  of  the  funeral  cere- 
monies— 

Messrs.  Okey,  Albright,  Byal,  McBride, 
Phellis,  and  Weaver. 

Committee  on  Resolutions — 

Messrs.  Hitchcock,  Pond,  and  Smith  of 
Shelby. 

The  Convention  (at  9 : 55  a.  m.)  was  declared 
adjourned,  until  to-morrow  morning  at  the  usual 
hour. 


1568 


[122nd 


PETITIONS— SECOND  READING. 


Hitchcock,  Waddle,  Doan,  Clay,  Ewing. 


[Tuesday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-SECOND  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SIXTIETH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF- PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  S.  A.  Collins,  of  the  Fifth 
Street  Baptist  Church  of  Cincinnati. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  49  members  an- 
swered to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Messrs.  Shultz  and  Jackson  for  to-day,  and  for 
Messrs.  Scribner,  Layton,  and  Shaw  for  an 
indefinite  length  of  time. 

Mr.  POND.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 

Mr.  COOK.  I object. 

The  call  of  the  House  was  sustained. 

The  call  of  the  House  was  ordered,  had, 
and  resulted  as  follows : 

The  members  present  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Beer,  Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook, 
De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Godfrey, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hill,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen, 
Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sears, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Steed- 
man,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis, 
Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  White  of  Hocking, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 59. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  that  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of 
Charles  Wells,  and  fifty  other  citizens  of  Harri- 
son county,  for  a clause  in  the  new  Constitu- 
tion prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
alcoholic  liquors,  or  giving  to  the  General  As- 
sembly entire  control  of  the  same. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  DOAN  presented  the  petition  of  Mahlon 
Wall,  and  200  other  citizens  of  Clinton  county, 
praying  for  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  Ohio  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  intoxicEffing  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Traf- 
fic in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  CLAY  presented  the  petition  of  E. 
Thompson,  and  20  other  citizens  of  Montgom- 
ery county,  and  members  of  the  bar,  which  the 
Secretary,  by  request,  read  as  follows : 


Tuesday,  February  24,  1874. 

The  under-signed,  members  of  the  Dayton  Bar,  learning 
that  the  proceeding's  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  are 
about  to  result  in  the  abolishment  of  our  Superior  Court, 
and  so  arranging  our  Common  Pleas  Court  that  the  labor 
of  our  judges  will  be  divided  with  some  county  or  coun- 
ties, do  most  respectfully  enter  our  protest.  While  we  do 
not  complain  of  th  e Convention,  in  abolishing  the  Supe- 
rior Court,  and  establishing  one  uniform  judiciary  sys- 
tem throughout  the  State,  we  do  say  that  the  business  of 
this  county  requires  the  active  labor  of  two  judges,  their 
entire  time.  We  further  state,  that  it  will  require  our 
Superior  Court  two  years  to  transact  the  unfinished  busi- 
ness of  said  court.  In  other  words,  that  it  requires  two 
years  to  bring  a case  to  trial,  and  our  Common  Pleas 
Court  is  occupied  with  as  much  labor  as  should  be  requir- 
ed of  one  judge,  and  we  see  no  propriety  in  requiring  our 
judges  alternating  with  other  counties  when  the  business 
of  our  county  requires  their  entire  time. 

E.  Thompson, 

Jas.  C.  Young, 

Sumner  T.  Smith, 

John  L.  H.  Frank, 

J.  A.  Jordan, 

WlLMER  H.  BELVILLE, 

S.  B.  Smith, 

John  C.  McKemy, 

John  M Sprigg, 

Geo.  W.  Moyer, 

J.  P.  Whitmore, 

Odlin  J.  Kern, 

John  M.  Bond, 

A.  A.  Winters, 

S.  T.  Schaefer, 

.James  Linden, 

R.  G.  Corwin, 

J.  D.  Sheehan, 

Daniel  W.  Iddings, 

Amos  K.  Clay. 

February  14, 1874. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Judicial  Department. 

SECOND  READING. 

The  following  Proposition  was  read  the  sec- 
ond time. 

Proposit’on  No.  217,  by  Mr.  EWING: 

Substitute  for  section  6,  Article  VIII,  of  Report  of  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works. 

[All  that  part  of  the,  following  proposed  section,  after 
the  word  “canal”,  in  the  fifth  line,  to  be  submitted  separ- 
ate from  other  parts  of  the  Constitution,  for  adoption  or 
rejection  by  the  people.] 

Sec  6.  No  county,  township,  city,  town,  or  other  poli- 
tical or  municipal  division  of  the  State,  shall  become  a 
stockholder  in  any  joint  stock  company,  corporation,  or 
association;  or  shall  raise  money  lor,  of  in  aid  of,  or  loan 
its  credit  to,  or  in  aid  of,  any  such  company,  corporation, 
or  association;  or  shall  purchase  or  construct,  or  in  any 
way  aid  in  purchasing  or  constructing,  any  railroad  or 
canal,  except  as  in  this  section  specifically  piovided,  as 
follows: 

The  General  Assembly  may  authorize  any  township, 
city,  or  incorporated  village  to  subscribe  to  the  stock  of, 
or  lend  its  credit  to,  any  railroad  company  or  companies, 
subject  to  the  lollowing  restrictions,  and  such  others  as 
may  be  prescribed  oy  law: 

No  such  subscription  or  loan  shall  be  made,  unless  au- 
thorized at  an  election  held  in  pursuance  of  law,  by  at 
lease  two-thirds  of  all  the  electors  of  said  township,  city, 
or  incorporated  village,  as  ascertained  by  the  returns  or 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

February  24, 1874.]  Hitchcock,  Gurley,  Baber,  Horton,  Griswold,  etc. 


1569 


the  latest  general  election  for  State  officers,  and  subject  to 
the  further  conditions  of  section  4,  of  the  Article  on  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations,  where  applicable.  No  such  election 
shall  be  held  in  any  township,  city,  or  incorporated  vil- 
lage oftener  than  once  a year. 

The  order  for  election  shall  specify  all  the  conditions  of 
such  loan  or  subscription ; the  consideration  proposed  to 
be  given  therefor;  the  estimated  cost  of  the  proposed 
work;  the  means  secured  for  its  completion;  and  the  part 
of  the  work  on  which  the  proposed  subscription  or  loan  is 
to  be  expended.  The  General  Assembly  may  provide  for 
the  distribution  among  the  tax  payers  pro  rata  of  any 
stock  issued  on  such  subscription;  and  the  holder  of  such 
stock  shall  not  be  liable  on  it  for  debts  of  the  company. 

No  obligations  of  any  township,  city,  or  incorporated 
village,  incurred  for  such  purpose,  shall  bear  a greater 
interest  than  seven  per  cent,  per  annum,  and  the  aggre- 
gate thereof  outstanding  shall  at  no  time  exceed  five  per 
cent,  of  the  taxable  property  of  such  township,  city,  or 
incorporated  village,  as  ascertained  by  the  latest  tax  du- 
plicate. The  aggregate  of  taxes  levied  by  any  township, 
city,  or  incorporated  village,  to  pay  such  obligations  and 
interest,  shall,  in  no  year,  exceed  one  per  cent,  of  such 
taxable  property. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  see  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  in  his  seat;  and,  un- 
less some  gentleman  knows  what  disposition  he 
wants  made  of  the  Proposition,  I move  that  we 
postpone  this  Proposition  to  be  considered  in 
connection  with  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  what  is  proposed 
to  be  done. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I understand  that  that 
Article  is  laid  on  the  table. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Perhaps  it  is  as  well ; and 
I move  that  we  lay  this  Proposition  on  the  ta- 
ble. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  is,  that 
Proposition  No.  217  lie  on  the  table,  and  be  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  Proposition  No.  206. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Is  there  anything  before 
the  Convention  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  not. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  that  we  proceed 
to  the  consideration  of  the  special  order  of  the 
day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

order  of  the  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  of  the 
day  is  the  consideration  of  Proposition  No.  189 ; 
and  the  question  pending  at  adjournment  was 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Union 
[Mr.  Coats],  to  amend  section  9,  by  inserting 
after  the  word  “clearing,”  the  words  “widen- 
ing and  straightening.”  The  Secretary  will 
read  it  as  it  will  read  if  thus  amended. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

“Sec.  9.  Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  and  assessment  for  police  purposes,  and 
for  constructing  and  improving  ditches  and  public  roads, 
other  than  railroads,  and  clearing,  widening  and  straight- 
ening water  courses,  when  necessary  to  the  public  health, 
convenience  or  welfare,  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Is  that  as  it  will  read  if 
amended  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Union  [Mr.  Coats]? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

The  vote  being  taken,  the  amendment  was  not 
agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  other 
amendments  to  section  nine  of  the  Proposition, 
the  Secretary  will  read  section  ten. 

The  Secretary  read  section  ten,  as  follows : 

Y.  11-101 


“Each  county  and  township  officer  who  shall  collect 
public  monies  or  fees,  shall  be  required  by  law  to  make  a 
semi-annual  report,  under  oath,  to  some  officer,  to  be  des- 
ignated by  law,  of  all  his  collections,  fees,  and  emolu- 
ments.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  amend- 
ments proposed  to  section  ten?  If  not,  this 
concludes  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

Mr.  BABER.  Is  it  in  order  to  offer  an  addi- 
tional section  now  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  at  present. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Is  not  this  section  ten  a part 
of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Should  it  not  be  adopted  or 
rejected  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  informally 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  not  familiar  with  what 
was  said  upon  the  adoption  of  that  section  in 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  but  it  strikes  me 
that  an  amendment  would  be  desirable.  This 
section  provides  that  “ each  county  and  town- 
ship officer  who  shall  collect  public  moneys  and 
fees  shall  be  required  by  law  to  make  a semi- 
annual report,  under  oath,  to  some  officer,  to  be 
designated  by  law,”  etc.  This  says  they  shall 
make  a report,  but  does  not  say  to  whom  they 

q|'|o11  mql/p  if 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  left  for  the  Legis- 
lature to  fix. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Of  course,  you  leave  it  to  the 
Legislature  to  say  to  whom  they  shall  pay; 
but  this  does  not  require  them  to  pay  to  any- 
body. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  would  pay  it  over  to 
the  proper  person  that  is  entitled  to  receive  it. 

Mr.  HERRON.  It  says,  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  law. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I suppose  that  this  section  will 
come  under  consideration  again,  when  consid- 
ered section  by  section. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Section  ten  is  an  amend- 
ment by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  is 
subject  to  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir;  if  any  amend- 
ment be  desired  it  can  still  be  offered,  no  objec- 
tion being  made. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  to  strike  out  the 
words  “and  township.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  moves  to  strike  out 
from  section  ten,  line  one,  the  words  “and 
township.” 

Mr.  HORTON.  Let  it  go  until  we  come  to  it 
in  adopting  section  by  section. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  makes  no  difference.  I 
suppose  that  when  we  adopt  section  by  section 
that  will  be  susceptible  to  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion 
that,  if  agreed  to  now,  it  can  afterwards  be 
amended  only  by  addition. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  we  adopt  this  section 
as  it  stands,  it  will  require,  by  constitutional 
provision,  that  every  constable  shall  make  a re- 
port of  his  fees,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  this  is 
one  of  those  things  that  we  do  not  need  in 
townships.  There  is  no  special  occasion  for 
every  constable,  at  the  end  of  the  year,  making 
report  to  somebody  whom  the  Legislature  shall 
designate.  It  is  one  of  those  things  that  would 
be  of  no  special  benefit,  and  to  impose  this  labor 


1570 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

Griswold,  Neal,  Cook,  Hitchcock. 


[122nd 

[Tuesday, 


upon  those  gentlemen  would  neither  be  useful, 
nor  furnish  very  entertaining  reading  for  any 
township  officer  to  whom  they  should  be  re- 
quired to  report.  I do  not  know  but  it  would 
be  well  enough  for  the  township  treasurer,  and, 
perhaps,  some  of  the  other  officers,  to  do  this ; 
but  it  is  not  necessary  that  all  of  them  should, 
and  the  Legislature  can  provide  for  that  as  may 
be  deemed  best.  In  connection  with  the  other 
section,  it  is  proper  that  requirements  should 
be  made  upon  county  officers  to  report;  for  that 
is  essentially  connected  with  the  county  gov- 
ernment, and  it  is  important  to  know,  in  order 
that  we  may  understand  this  work,  and  that  the 
Legislature  may  make  any  change  that  the 
necessities  of  the  times  require ; but  to  insist 
upon  there  being  a constitutional  provision  re- 
quiring township  trustees  to  report  the  number 
of  days  they  were  serving,  and  the  constable 
the  number  of  writs  he  has  served,  to  somebody 
that  the  Legislature  may  designate,  is  entirely 
unnecessary.  There  is  no  necessity  of  providing 
that  the  Legislature  shall  do  this,  for  if  any  ne- 
cessity arises,  they  can  do  it;  but  to  require 
them  to  do  so  as  a constitutional  duty,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  going  into  an  unnecessary  detail,  and 
imposing  a work  upon  those  officers  that  in 
small  counties  is  not  essential  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice,  or  the  preservation  of  public 
peace,  to  be  done.  Therefore,  I hope  that  the 
words  “and  township”  will  be  stricken  out  of 
this  section. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I understand  the  President  to 
rule  that  when  we  come  to  consider  this  Article 
section  by  section,  the  motion  to  strike  out  the 
whole  section  will  not  be  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 
the  practice  to  have  obtained  that  when  the  Con- 
vention takes  up  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  section  by  section, each  amendment 
when  read,  and  no  objection  is  made,  is  consid- 
ered as  agreed  to.  The  formal  course  would  be 
to  take  the  question  upon  each,  whether  it  shall 
stand  as  part  of  the  proposition ; and  if  agreed 
to,  it  would  thus  be  incorporated  with  the  prop- 
osition. If  that  were  done,  of  course  it  would 
not  be  competent  to  strike  it  out,  for  the  Con- 
vention has  agreed  to  it.  Whether  the  practice 
is  a proper  one,  is  doubtful;  but  it  seems  to 
have  been  adopted  uniformly  by  the  Convention 
heretofore,  and  the  Chair  has  not  felt  at  liberty 
to  depart  from  it.  The  Chair  will  be  glad  to  be 
corrected,  however,  if  this  practice  is  not  satis- 
factory to  the  Convention. 

Mr.  NEAL.  When  this  proposition  comes  to 
be  considered,  therefore,  section  by  section,  as  I 
understand  it,  it  will  not  be  competent,  at  that 
time,  to  strike  out  an  amendment,  or  any  por- 
tion of  it? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir;  that  would  be, 
virtually,  a reconsideration  of  what  the  Con- 
vention had  agreed  to. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  like,  then,  when  it  is 
before  the  Convention  to  have  this  section  ten 
reconsidered.  I do  not  see  the  necessity 
for  it. 

Mr.  COOK.  I think  the  course  that  has  been 
pursued  in  the  Convention  is  this — and,  in  my 
judgment  it  is  the  proper  course : When  a Re- 
port comes  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
the  question  is  upon  agreeing  to  that  Report, 
and  whether  we  agree  to  that  Report  or  disa- 


gree to  it,  is  a matter  of  no  consequence.  We 
then  pass  to  another  stage  of  the  proceedings, 
namely,  the  consideration  of  the  Proposition  it- 
self, and  while  considering  the  Proposition  in 
and  of  itself,  no  amendment  may  be  necessary, 
because  we  are  really  in  another  stage  of  pro- 
ceedings ; we  have  passed  from  the  considera- 
tion of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  and  proceeded  to  consider  the  Proposi- 
tion itself  in  Convention,  and  it  being  another 
stage  of  the  proceedings,  no  amendment  would 
be  proper  or  allowable. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  will  yield,  the  Chair  will  read 
what  he  has  supposed  to  have  been  the  rule 
acted  upon  by  the  former  President,  and  which 
will  be  found  in  Jefferson’s  Manual,  page  88  and 
in  section  29 : 

“On  taking  up  a bill  reported  with  amendments,  the 
amendments  only  are  read  by  the  Clerk.  The  Speaker 
then  reads  the  first  and  puts  it  to  the  question,  ana  so  on 
till  the  whole  are  adopted  or  rejected,  beiore  any  other 
amendment  be  admitted,  except  it  be  an  amendment  to 
an  amendment.  Elysnge's  Mem.,  53.  When  through  the 
amendments  of  the  Committee,  the  Speaker  pauses  and 
gives  time  for  amendments  to  be  proposed,  in  the  House, 
to  tfie  body  of  the  bill,  as  he  does  also  if  it  has  been  re- 
ported without  amendments,  putting  no  questions  but  on 
amendments  proposed;  and  when  through  the  whole,  he 
puts  the  question  whether  the  bill  shall  be  read  the  third 
time?” 

The  Chair  supposes  that  is  the  rule  upon 
which  the  former  President  has  acted  in  es- 
tablishing the  practice  which  the  Convention 
seems  to  have  approved.  The  Chair,  however, 
will  put  the  question  whether  section  ten  shall 
stand  as  apart  of  the  Proposition,  if  desired. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Is  not  the  question  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
pending? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I will  withdraw  my  mo- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  getting  at  this,  and  if 
we  agree  to  the  section  as  it  stands,  then  we  can 
strike  out  apart  of  it,  can  we  not?  I am  in  fa- 
vor of  striking  it  all  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir,  it  must  be  per- 
fected before  we  pass  to  the  next. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Then  I will  let  my  motion 
stand. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  really 
upon  agreeing  to  the  amendment  and  not  upon 
striking  out, 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  could  be  amended 
further. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir,  it  can  be 
amended. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Then  I ask  for  a vote  upon 
my  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]  to  strike  out  of  the  first  line,  the 
words  “and  townships.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  in  favor  of  the  mo- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold],  but  there  seems  to  have  been  a lit- 
tle misunderstanding  about  the  rule  or  order  in 
which  we  are  proceeding.  If  I am  not 
mistaken,  we  are  now  considering  the  report  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  That  Committee 
recommended  certain  amendments  to  this 
Proposition,  and  the  question  on  agreeing  to 
these  amendments  has  been  divided  so  as  to 
take  it  separately  upon  each  one  of  these 
amendments.  I think,  if  not  mistaken,  Mr. 


Day.]  COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1571 

February  24, 1874.]  Hitchcock,  Powell,  Baber,  Cook,  Beer,  Horton. 


President,  our  practice  has  been  to  vote  sepa- 
rately upon  each  one  of  these  amendments, 
and,  after  having  voted  upon  and  disposed  of 
them  all,  we  have  then  taken  up  the  Article, 
section  by  section.  No  objection  being  made 
to  a section,  it  was  considered  agreed  to,  and 
no  matter  which  has  been  inserted  in  agreeing 
to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
could  be  stricken  out  in  going  over  the  Article 
section  by  section,  except  other  matter  was 
included  with  it,  nor  any  matter  which  the 
Convention  had  refused  to  insert  in  the  same 
form  could  now  be  inserted.  When  the  Propo- 
sition had  passed  to  its  final  reading,  however, 
amendments  would  be  in  order  which  included 
the  same  language  used  before.  I think  that 
has  been  the  rule,  and  ask  that  we  may  have  a 
separate  vote  upon  this  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  that 
section,  so  that  we  can  have  a full  understand- 
ing of  it  and  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary.  Section  10  now  reads : 

“Each  county  and  township  officer  who  shall  collect 
public  moneys  or  fees  shall  be  required  by  law  to  make  a 
semi-annual  report  to  some  officer,  to  be  designated  by 
law,  of  all  his  collections,  fees  and  emoluments.” 

The  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Griswold]  is  to  strike  out  the  words  “and 
township,”  in  line  one,  so  that  it  will  read: 
“ Each  county  officer  who  shall  collect,”  &c. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  know  what  effect 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Griswold]  has  upon  the  amendment 
recommended  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
but  I see  no  reason,  myself,  why  the  words, 
“and  township,”  should  be  stricken  out  there. 
The  treasurer  of  a county  or  township  may 
both,  in  the  same  section,  be  well  required  to 
make  their  reports,  and,  of  course,  make  their 
reports  separately,  and  yet  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  may  have  given  a good  reason  for  his 
amendment,  which  I have  not  heard. 

Mr.  BABER.  I agree,  Mr.  President,  with 
the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Dela- 
ware [Mr.  Powell],  that  this  is  a very  good  sec- 
tion as  it  now  stands,  requiring  county  and 
township  officers  to  make  a report  of  the  funds 
that  they  handle.  Everybody  knows  that,  in 
some  of  these  townships  that  contain  cities  or 
large  towns,  it  is  necessary  that  there  should  be 
reports  made,  in  order  that  the  people  may 
know  exactly  what  money  is  collected,  and  how 
it  is  disbursed,  and  there  is  no  good  reason  why 
townships  should  not  be  included ; some  of  the 
townships  in  the  State  have  as  large  business 
as  some  of  the  important  cities. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
what  officers  of  townships  are  required  to  re- 
port under  this  section  ? I would  ask,  particu- 
larly, whether  the  township  treasurer  is  re- 
quired to  report  the  amount  of  money  that  he 
handles?  The  language  is  not  quite  clear,  to 
my  mind. 

Mr.  BABER.  Perhaps  there  may  be  some 
verbal  criticism  that  the  gentleman  may  make ; 
but  I understand  that  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer]  is  the  author  of  this  amend- 
ment, and  did  not  notice  any  defect  of  this  sort, 
and,  if  the  language  is  not  sufficiently  explicit, 


I am  in  favor  of  making  it  so,  but  I believe  that 
these  officers  ought  to  report. 

Now,  as  to  the  objection  of  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  as  to  its  being 
unnecessary  to  require  constables  and  that  class 
of  officers  to  report,  I think  that  may  be  neces- 
sary in  order  to  ascertain  whether  illegal  fees 
have  been  collected ; and  I would  suggest  that 
the  very  fact  that  we  require  these  reports  to  be 
made  out  and  to  be  made  a public  matter,  may 
enable  us  to  get  better  officers  and  enable  the 
public  to  find  out  whether  those  men  that  are 
elected  to  office  are  competent  to  the  discharge 
of  their  duties;  and  I do  not  think  that  a man 
ought  to  be  elected  to  the  office  of  constable  who 
would  not  be  able  to  make  out  a report.  What 
an  idea  it  is  that  it  is  notorious,  in  many  places, 
that  officers  of  that  sort  are  elected  and  re- 
elected from  year  to  year,  and  particularly  in 
some  of  the  larger  townships  where  there  may 
be  a large  village,  those  constables  have  a sort 
of  class  ring,  running  some  justices-offices,  and 
there  are  a great  many  illegal  things  done 
there  which  are  simply  destructive  of  justice 
and  oppressive,  and  you  cannot  reach  them.  I 
believe  if  these  reports  were  required  to  be 
made  it  would  serve  as  a correction  upon  this, 
and  prevent  a great  deal  of  this  sort  of  petty 
extortion.  I,  therefore,  hope  that  the  words 
“and  township”  will  not  be  striken  out. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  is  suggested  that  township 
officers  make  no  collections.  Some  of  the  town- 
ship officers  do,  as  justices  of  the  peace  and 
constables,  and  we  have  in  section  nine  given 
to  counties  and  townships  “ such  power  of  local 
taxation  and  assessment  as  may  be  provided  by 
law.”  And  the  scope  of  the  section  is  very 
broad.  It  confers  authority  upon  the  Legisla- 
ture to  confer  power  upon  township  trustees, 
or  some  other  officers  of  the  township,  to  make 
assessments  for  ditch  purposes,  for  road  pur- 
poses and  for  police  purposes.  There  is  the  au- 
thority to  confer  a vast  amount  of  collection 
upon  township  officers — a vast  amount  of  it, 
and  it  appears  to  me  that  it  is  a good  provision 
to  require  officers  who  collect  public  moneys  or 
fees  to  make  a report.  It  is  true,  that  in  some 
little  country  townships  the  amount  collected  by 
justices  of  the  peace  and  constables  is  very 
small.  If  it  is,  so  much  the  easier  to  make  a 
report.  But  in  some  of  the  townships  contain- 
ing large  towns  or  county  seats,  containing  a 
population  of  four  or  five  thousand,  the  amount 
collected  by  these  officers  is  large,  and  it  will 
enable  the  people  whose  servants  they  are  to 
know  whether  they  have  been  guilty  of  fraud 
or  corruption  in  office. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I confess  I do  not  see  any 
propriety  in  this  section,  so  far  as  the  collection 
of  public  moneys  is  concerned.  Men  who  un- 
dertake to  collect  public  moneys  are  generally 
charged  with  the  amount  upon  the  duplicates, 
and  it  is  very  easy  to  ascertain  how  much  they 
got  and  what  becomes  of  it.  Now,  as  to  the 
matter  of  fees,  it  is  said  here  that  it  will  be  a 
protection  against  extravagant  or  illegal  fees. 
I cannot  conceive  how  that  is  done  unless  you 
require  an  officer  to  report  in  detail  the  amount 
of  fees  that  he  collects  in  each  particular  case. 
If  the  officer  simply  reports,  as  he  undoubtedly 
will,  under  this  law,  the  aggregate  gross  amount 
received,  I do  not  see  what  protection  it  will  be 


1572 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. [122nd 

Horton,  Cook,  Beer,  Baber,  Pratt,  Neal.  [Tuesday, 


to  anybody  or  anything.  Now,  it  seems  to  me, 
sir,  that  we  may  very  properly  leave  this  whole 
matter  to  the  General  Assembly.  It  is  going  a 
great  way  beyond  what  we  ought  to  do  about 
it  when  we  undertake  to  point  out  these  little 
petty  matters. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  objection  which  I raised  to 
this  section  is  this : It  requires  that  all  town- 
ship officers  who  shall  collect  public  moneys 
shall  account  to — ; the  treasurer  of  the  township, 
is  one  who  ought  to  be  required  to  report,  but 
in  this  he  is  not  required  to  report.  Because 
the  township  treasurer  makes  no  collection,  he 
is  not  a collector  of  public  moneys.  He  receives 
the  township’s  quota  of  public  funds  from  the 
county  treasury.  The  county  treasurer  is  really 
the  collector,  and  this  section  leaves  out  the 
only  officer  in  the  township  who  really  ought 
to  be  required  to  report.  That  is  my  objection  to 
the  Report.  If  the  township  officers  are  to 
report,  certainly  the  treasurer  ought  to  be  re- 
quired to  report.  He  ought  not  to  be  excluded 
by  the  language  of  the  section.  The  gentleman 
thinks,  that  inasmuch  as  we  have  given  the 
right  of  assessment,  we  ought  to  retain  the  right 
to  call  the  party  to  account.  Heretofore  the 
assessments  have  been  made  by  the  township 
officers,  but  the  collections  have  always  been 
made  by  the  county  treasurer . The  assessments 
are  made  and  reported  to  the  county  auditor, 
goes  upon  the  duplicate,  and  is  collected  the 
same  as  taxes,  by  the  county  treasurer,  and  the 
township  treasurer  makes  the  collection. 

Mr.  BEER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BEER.  Is  there  any  prohibition  on  con- 
ferring power  on  a township  officer? 

Mr.  COOK.  Certainly  not;  but  if  you  do 
confer  the  power,  you  could  not  require  the 
report  under  this  section.  I will  ask  the  gentle- 
man why  not  make  the  phraseology  so  as  as  to 
include  the  treasurer,  if  you  require  a re- 
port on  the  part  of  these  officers  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  I suggest  it  could  be  amended 
by  putting  in  these  parties  first  charged  with 
the  disbursement. 

Mr.  BABER.  I suppose  we  have  a right  to 
discuss  this  matter  before  the  vote  is  taken  on 
striking  out.  I would  move  that  the  word 
“ semi  ” be  stricken  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  on 
striking  out  the  words  “ and  township.” 

On  the  vote  being  taken,  a division  was  called 
for,  resulting  in  a vote  of  23  to  20. 

No  quorum  having  voted,  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  30, 
nays  26,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Bishop,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  Doan,  Dorsey, 
Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hitchcock,  Horton, 
Kraemer,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Page,  Pond, 
Pratt,  Rowland,  Smith  of  Highland,  Steedman, 
Townsley,  Tulloss,  Van  Voorhis,  Yoorhes,  Wood- 
bury, Young  of  Noble — 30. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Bannon,  Beer,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Carbery,  Chapin,  De  Steiguer,  Freiberg, 
Gurley,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Miner,  Mul- 
len, Pease,  Powell,  Rickly,  Russell  of  Musking- 


um, Sears,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Tyler,  Yoris,  Wad- 
dle, White  of  Hocking,  President — 26. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I move  to  strike  out  the  whole 
section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  necessity  to 
make  that  motion.  The  question  will  be  upon 
agreeing  to  the  section,  if  there  are  no  amend- 
ments. 

Mr.  BABER.  I move  to  strike  out  the  word 
“ semi,”  so  it  will  read  “ annual.” 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I trust  the  Convention  will  not 
agree  to  this  section.  There  is  no  necessity  for 
it.  I do  not  believe  that  we  ought  to  put  any 
clause  in  this  Constitution  mandatory  on  the 
Legislature,  which  experience  shows  us  that 
they  have  already  exercised  the  power  confer- 
red. The  laws  on  the  statute  book  now  require 
county  officers  to  report  annually  to  certain  of- 
ficers, and  the  fees  collected  in  their  various 
offices,  and  the  Legislature  having  exercised 
this  authority  in  years  gone  by,  we  may  very 
well  presume  they  will  continue  to  exercise  it. 
That  being  the  case,  we  ought  not  to  go  to  work 
to  cover  this  Constitution  with  clauses  manda- 
tory upon  the  Legislature  to  exercise  powers 
which  they  have  exercised.  This  is  just  length- 
ening out  the  Constitution,  putting  words  in  to 
confer  powers  that  are  of  no  service  whatever. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal],  being  a little  more  sprightly  man 
than  I am,  has  taken  the  opportunity  to  put  in 
my  speech.  Now,  I do  not  see  the  necessity  of 
placing  in  the  Constitution  any  mandate  upon 
the  Legislature  to  do  that  which  it  is  so  obvious, 
so  perfectly  obvious,  that,  in  the  discharge  of 
their  duties  in  organizing  particular  counties 
and  townships  that  are  already  provided  for, 
and  in  prescribing  generally  the  duties  of  their 
offices,  that  they  would  do.  Now,  it  may  be  a 
very  great  thing;  indeed,  it  might  have  been 
before  the  word  township  was  stricken  out,  as 
was  suggested,  that  every  constable  and  every 
township  supervisor  should  be  required  to  re- 
port, under  oath,  his  collections,  fees  and 
emoluments ; and  it  might  be  very  appropriate 
for  the  Legislature  to  compel  them  to ; but  if 
that  necessity  exists  at  any  time,  I think  we 
can  rely  upon  the  discretion  of  the  Legislature 
to  do  that  which  would  be  so  obviously  their 
duty,  and  so  obviously  for  the  public  welfare. 
Now,  Mr.  President,  I think  that  we  have  spent 
a great  deal  of  time,  and  are  likely  to  spend  a 
great  deal  more,  in  attempting  to  apply  man- 
dates to  the  Legislature,  to  compel  them  to  dis- 
charge duties  most  natural  and  obvious,  as 
though  they  would  neglect  them.  I will, 
therefore,  in  regard  to  this  section,  as  all  other 
sections  of  this  Article,  be  in  favor  of  leaving 
such  mandates  entirely  out. 

Which  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BABER.  I desire  to  insert  in  section  10 
— it  was  to  have  been  section  11 — a provision 
taken  from  the  Illinois  Constitution,  which  I 
have  submitted  to  several  gentlemen,  and  I do 
not  think  there  will  be  any  objection  to  it. 
I move  to  add,  “Any  county,  township  or 
school  district  incurring  any  indebtedness, 
shall,  before  or  at  the  time  of  doing  so,  provide 
for  the  collection  and  directing  an  annual  tax 
sufficient  to  pay  the  interest  of  such  debt  as  it 


1573 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 

February  24,  1874.1  Baber,  Horton,  Powell,  Pratt. 


falls  due,  and  also  to  pay  and  discharge  the 
principal  thereof  within  ten  years  of  the  crea- 
tion thereof.” 

I hope  that  the  Convention  will  agree  to  this 
section.  A similar  section  has  been  put  in  the 
new  Constitution  of  Illinois,  and  also  of  Penn- 
sylvania. I think  that  it  is  right  and  proper, 
and  will  serve  as  a check;  that  when  these 
debts  are  incurred  that  there  should  be  means 
provided  for  paying  them,  and  to  pay  also  the 
annual  interest  upon  them.  If  the  period  of 
paying  the  indebtedness  in  ten  years  does  not 
suit,  if  any  gentleman  has  a motion  to  make 
extending  it  to  fifteen  or  twenty,  I have  no  ob- 
jection. But  I think  that  this  would  keep  our 
books  posted  up,  and  advise  the  people  in  the 
townships  and  counties  where  these  debts  are 
created,  if  they  feel  the  annual  tax  placed  upon 
them,  it  will  have  to  be  rapidly  accounted  for, 
so  that  they  may  know  exactly  how  they  stand. 
I think  it  is  a wise  provision,  and  I hope  the 
Convention  will  adopt  it. 

Upon  the  vote  being  taken,  the  motion  was 
not  agreed  to,  upon  which  a division  was  called. 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  objected  to, 
and  the  objection  sustained. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I would  like  to  know  by 
what  means  school  districts  could  provide  an 
annual  tax  running  ten  years?  I should  be  in 
favor  of  it  if  I could  make  it  go. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I suggest  whether  there 
ought  not  to  be  these  words,  “as  may  be  pro- 
vided by  law;”  whether  these  words  ought  not 
to  be  there,  otherwise  the  objection  you  speak 
of  is  glaring. 

Mr.  HORTON”.  When  you  have  done  that, 
have  you  not  practically  annulled  the  whole 
section  by  it?  Are  you  not  obliged  to  do  that 
anyhow  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  see  anything  in  the 
technical  objection  of  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
moment? 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I do  not  regard  the  objection 
as  technical  at  all,  but  it  seems  to  me  to  go  really 
to  the  substance,  whether  you  can  carry  the 
section  into  any  sort  of  operation. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  see,  Mr.  President, 
still,  any  trouble  in  this  provision.  It  is  the  pro- 
vision in  the  Illinois  Constitution.  I believe  it 
passed  without  any  objection  in  Pennsylvania 
in  that  Convention.  This  simply  provides  that 
where  these  debts  are  created  there  shall  be  an 
annual  tax  collected  to  pay  the  interest  and  also 
the  principal.  Now,  I suppose  that  when  we 
put  a provision  in  the  Constitution  that  the 
Legislature  are  going  to  pass  laws  in  order  to 
enforce  it.  I do  not  go  into  the  detail  in  this 
matter.  I say  how  it  shall  be  done.  But  if  you 
put  such  a provision  as  this  in  the  Constitution, 
of  course,  if  any  legislation  is  necessary  to  carry 
it  out,  the  Legislature  will  pass  the  law.  It 
appears  to  me  the  gentleman  veers  first  from 
one  side  to  the  other.  First,  we  will  leave  the 
Legislature  nothing  to  do,  then  give  them  too 
much.  I hope,  therefore,  this  provision,  which 
is  a wise  one,  and  against  anything  looking  like 
repudiation,  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I am  a good  deal  like  the  gen- 
tleman from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber] . I do  not 
see  any  trouble  about  putting  this  in  the  Con- 


stitution, and  I go  a little  further  than  that.  I 
do  not  see  any  use  in  putting  it  in.  It  is  bor- 
rowed from  the  Constitution  of  Illinois.  Per- 
haps it  is  a very  good  provision  for  the  State  of 
Illinois,  and  might  be  for  any  other  State,  but  I 
presume  we  do  not  expect  to  borrow  all  the 
good  provisions  from  all  the  good  Constitutions 
in  the  United  States.  There  are  just  two  prop- 
ositions contained  in  this  section,  as  I under- 
stand it.  One  is  simply,  that  counties  and 
townships  proposing  to  borrow  money,  shall 
provide  for  the  payment  of  the  interest  thereof. 
That  will  be  a good  thing  for  them  to  do,  if  they 
propose  to  go  into  the  market  and  borrow 
money,  because  I never  knew  in  my  life  any 
person  or  corporation  to  lend  money  without 
expecting  to  get  interest  upon  it,  and  it  will  be 
precisely  what  they  will  have  to  do  in  order  to 
procure  money.  But,  why  the  necessity  of  put- 
ting an  injunction  into  this  Constitution  that  it 
shall  be  done?  that  which,  by  the  very  laws  of 
trade,  it  is  necessary  should  be  done  ? 

Then,  again,  the  second  proposition  is,  that 
debts  shall  not  be  contracted  for  a longer  period 
than  ten  years.  This  may  be  a wise  provision, 
or  an  unwise  one.  It  would  depend  very  much 
upon  the  amount  of  the  indebtedness  that  it 
might  be  necessary  for  a county  to  involve  it- 
self in,  whether  it  was  altogether  proper  that 
the  whole  burclen  of  wiping  out  and  paying  off 
the  debt  should  be  borne  within  the  period  of 
ten  years.  It  seems  to  me  that  would  be  a mat- 
ter for  consideration  when  the  debt  was  being 
contracted,  when  the  amount  and  the  purpose 
of  it  were  being  considered,  and  that  the  Legis- 
lature should  not  be  bound  up  by  this  injunc- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  being  no  further 
amendments,  it  will  be  taken  up  section  by  sec- 
tion, as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  1.  Each  county  shall  be  a body  corporate,  with 
such  organization,  powers,  immunities  and  liabilities,  as 
shall  be  prescribed  by  law.  All  suits  and  proceedings  by, 
or  against,  a county  shall  be  in  the  name  thereof. 

No  amendments  were  offered,  and  the  Secre- 
tary read  : 

Sec.  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  by  law  for 
the  election  of  such  county  and  township  officers  as  may 
be  necessary,  and  the  County  Auditor,  County  Treasurer 
and  Prosecuting  Attorney  shall  each  be  paid  a stated  sal- 
ary out  of  the  treasury  of  the  proper  county,  and  no  other 
fees  or  compensation  shall  be  allowed  or  paid  said  offi- 
cers. 

No  amendments  were  offered,  and  the  Secre- 
tary read : 

Sec.  3.  County  officers  shall  be  elected  on  the  Tuesday 
succeeding  the  first  Monday  of  November,  until  otherwise 
directed  by  law,  by  the  qualified  electors  of  each  county, 
in  such  manner,  and  for  such  term,  not  exceeding  four 
years,  as  may  be  provided  by  law. 

No  amendments  were  offered,  and  the  Secre- 
tary read : 

Sec.  4.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of 
Sheriff  or  County  Treasurer  for  more  than  four  years  in 
any  period  of  six  years. 

No  amendments  were  offered,  and  the  Secre- 
tary  read : 

Sec.  5.  Each  township  shall  be  a body  corporate,  with 
such  organization,  powers,  immunities  and  liabilities,  as 
shall  be  prescribed  by  law.  All  suits  by,  or  against,  a 
township  shall  be  in  the  name  thereof. 


1574 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. [122nd 


Beer,  Powell,  Sears,  Pond,  Neal,  Baber. 


[Tuesday, 


No  amendments  were  offered,  and  the  Secre- 
tary read : 

Sec.  6.  Township  officers  shall  be  elected  by  the  quali- 
fied electors  of  their  respective  townships  at  such  times, 
in  such  manner,  and  for  such  terms,  not  exceeding  three 
years,  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law,  and  shall  hold  their 
offices  until  their  successors  are  elected  and  qualified. 

No  amendments  were  offered,  and  the  Secre- 
tary read : 

Sec.  7.  No  money  shall  he  drawn  from  any  county  or 
township  treasury,  except  by  authority  of  law. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  to  amend  that  section  by 
adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  words — “ nor 
shall  money  raised  by  taxation  or  assessment 
for  one  purpose  ever  be  diverted  to  another.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  to  make  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  the  sugges- 
tion that  that  is  the  very  principle  upon  which 
all  our  legislation  has  been  enacted  in  relation 
to  that  subject.  But  I recollect  that  re- 
cently, upon  the  petition  of  some  town- 
ship— I think  it  was  a township,  but  it 
might  be  a county — which  had  raised  money 
for  a certain  purpose,  which  money  becoming 
no  longer  necessary  for  the  purpose  for  which 
it  was  raised,  lay  in  the  treasury  for  a number 
of  years,  the  Legislature  passed  a law  author- 
izing them  to  apply  it  to  another  purpose  or  to 
place  it  in  the  general  fund.  Now,  if  we  adopt 
this  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer],  it  will  prevent  the  Legislature 
from  handling  or  ever  doing  anything  with 
money  that  has  been  raised  for  one  purpose, 
and  which  is  found  to  be  more  than  is  necessary 
and  cannot  be  all  applied  to  that  purpose ; and 
it  will  prevent  the  Legislature  from  applying  it 
to  any  useful  purpose.  I think,  therefore,  that 
we  had  better  leave  the  section  as  it  is.  Let 
the  Legislature  act  upon  that  subject  whenever 
they  find  it  necessary,  and  let  us  not  tie  up  their 
hands. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I merely  rise  to  inquire  if  we 
have  not  already  incorporated  a provision  of 
that  kind  somewhere  in  this  Article — perhaps 
in  section  nine,  as  amended  ? 

Mr.  POND.  It  was  in  the  Legislative  Article. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Does  not  that  cover  the  whole 
case? 

Mr.  BEER.  We  have  in  the  Article  on  Mu- 
nicipal Corporations  made  exactly  the  same 
provision. 

Mr.  SEARS.  That  may  be. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  may  be  found  at  the  end  of 
section  five  in  the  Article  on  Municipal  Cor- 
porations. The  same  objections  were  urged 
against  the  incorporation  of  the  same  words  i 
into  that  Article  as  have  been  urged  against  the 
incorporation  of  those  words  into  this  Article. 
It  is  claimed  that  in  many  places  county  com- 
missioners and  township  trustees  are  in  the  i 
habit  of  levying  taxes  for  one  purpose  up  to  ; 
the  full  figure  allowed  by  law  when  so  large  an  j 
amount  is  not  needed  for  that  purpose.  It  is  I 
levied  for  one  purpose  so  as  to  be  applied  to  an-  I 
other — a sum  beyond  the  amount  allowed  by  | 
law.  For  instance,  the  amount  authorized  for 
bridge  purposes,  or  for  some  other  purpose,  is 
not  as  much  as  the  county  commissioners  would 
like  to  have  for  that  purpose ; that  is,  they  want 
to  spend  more  money  than  the  law  authorizes 
them  to  spend ; and  because  they  cannot  as- 
sess taxes  as  they  wish,  and  because  they  are 


hemmed  in  by  the  statute  as  to  the  amount,  they 
levy  up  to  the  amount  authorized  by  law  for 
some  other  purpose  when  it  is  not  needed,  and 
then,  as  soon  as  the  money  is  collected,  they  ap- 
propriate it  to  a purpose  to  which  they  are  not 
authorized  to  apply  it  by  law.  It  has  been 
done  by  our  State  officers  to  the  tune  of  more 
than  half  a million  dollars  at  one  time.  I am 
told  that  it  has  been  done  in  this  city.  It  was 
urged  as  a reason  for  putting  this  provision  into 
the  Article  on  Municipal  Corporations  that  it 
was  customary  in  this  city,  right  in  the  face 
and  eyes  of  the  law,  to  take  funds  that  were 
raised  ostensibly  for  one  purpose  and  apply 
them  to  another. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  a question. 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEAL.  If  this  provision  is  incorporated 
into  the  Constitution,  will  it  not  be  possible  to 
prevent  the  transfer  to  another  fund  of  an  un- 
expended balance  for  the  construction  of  a 
I building,  for  instance,  the  object  for  which 
j the  money  was  raised  having  been  accom- 
plished, thereby  requiring  the  fund  to  which 
! that  balance  belongs  to  be  a fund  forever  in 
the  treasury  ? 

Mr.  BEER.  That  same  question  was  asked 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
when  the  provision  in  regard  to  municipal  cor- 
porations was  discussed,  and  the  reply  was  in 
the  negative,  and  to  the  effect  that  when  the 
purpose  for  which  the  money  was  collected  is 
accomplished,  the  remainder  is  no  longer  a fund 
for  that  purpose,  but  remains  in  the  treasury 
as  a part  of  the  general  fund.  It  is  a general 
fund  in  the  treasury  whenever  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  collected  ceases  to  exist. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Then  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  how  he  will  prevent,  by  this  amend- 
j ment,  a board  of  county  commissioners  or  the 
| General  Assembly  from  levying  a larger  sum 
! for  any  purpose  than  they  deem  necessary  in 
! order  to  apply  the  uxexpended  balance  to  some 
j other  fund  for  which  they  cannot  levy  as  they 
desire  to,  for  after  the  purpose  is  exhausted 
! there  can  be  no  diversion,  as  I understand? 

Mr.  BEER.  There  is  no  diversion.  The 
money  cannot  be  diverted  for  a special  fund, 

! but  goes  into  the  general  fund,  and  that  can- 
! not  be  diverted. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer], 
will  be  adopted.  I see  from  a statement  pub- 
lished in  the  papers  that  this  city  has  a deficit 
of  eleven  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  it  is 
charged  that  this  deficit  has  arisen  without  the 
people  knowing  very  much  about  it  under  this 
system  of  transferring  from  one  fund  to  an- 
other. I see  complaint  made  in  the  city  papers 
on  the  subject.  I believe  this  provision  will  be 
a good  one  to  stop  abuses,  and,  therefore,  I hope 
the  amendment  will  be  adopted. 

The  question  was  then  taken  upon  the  amend- 
ment. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  32,  nays  23,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Baber,  Beer,  Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  De  Steiguer, 
Ewing,  Gurley,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter, 


Day.] COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 1575 

February  24,  1874.]  Hitchcock,  Neal,  Cook,  Coats,  Griswold. 


Kerr,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Page,  Pease, 
Pond,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Sears,  Townsley,  Tyler,  Yan  Voorhis,  Wad- 
dle, White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Noble,  Presi- 
dent— 32. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bannon,  Carbery,  Chapin, 
Clay,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Horton,  Jackson,  Kraemer,  Merrill,  Neal, 
Powell,  Rowland,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Steedman,  Tulloss,  Yoorhes,  Wood- 
bury— 23. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

No  further  amendments  were  offered  to  sec- 
tion seven,  and  the  Secretary  read  : 

Sec.  8.  County  and  township  officers  may  be  removed 
in  such  manner,  and  for  such  cause,  as  shall  be  provided 

by  law. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  insert  at  the 
commencement  of  the  section  the  words,  “Jus- 
ticesof  the  Peace  and.”  I know  not  why  these 
words  were  omitted  in  the  Report  of  this  Com- 
mittee. At  the  time  this  matter  was  under  con- 
sideration before,  I asked  a gentleman  who  was 
a member  of  the  Committee  if  provision  was 
made  in  the  Judicial  Article  to  meet  the  case, 
and  he  replied  that  it  was.  In  examining  that 
Article,  however,  I do  not  find  any  such  pro- 
vision. The  words,  if  inserted,  will  leave  the 
section  to  read  as  it  reads  in  our  present  Consti- 
tution, and  it  seems  to  me,  that  there  ought  to 
be  somewhere  a provision  of  this  kind. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I call  the  attention  of  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  to 
the  twenty-third  section  of  the  Judicial 
Article,  which  reads:  “A  competent  num- 

ber of  justices  of  the  peace  shall  be  elected 
by  the  electors  of  townships  of  the  several 
counties,  at  the  time  fixed  for  the  election 
of  other  township  officers.”  That  phrase 
was  used  designedly,  in  order  to  make  justices 
of  the  peace  township  officers.  The  Judiciary 
Committee,  in  framing  that  section,  used  that 
language  in  order  that  there  might  be  no  mis- 
take in  the  matter,  there  having  been  various 
opinions  expressed  throughout  the  State  as  to 
whether  justices  of  the  peace  were  to  be  con- 
sidered township  officers  under  the  old  Consti- 
tution. Attorney  General  Pond  decided,  last 
year,  that  they  were  not,  and  we  framed  that 
section  in  order  that  there  might  be  no  doubt 
about  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  construction  of  the 
gentleman  may  be  correct  upon  the  language 
used  in  the  twenty-third  section,  but  I have 
never  known  of  justices  of  the  peace  in  a 
township  being  elected  in  any  other  way  than 
at  the  time  of  the  election  of  the  township 
officers,  except  upon  special  elections. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I will  state  to  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  that,  under  the 
construction  of  an  act  which  was  passed  in 
1872,  1 believe,  that  act  authorized  the  electors 
to  vote  for  township  officers  in  their  respective 
election  precincts,  and  with  the  same  ballots  as 
other  officers.  The  Attorney  General  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  decided  that  justices  of  the  peace 
were  not  township  officers  under  the  clause  of 
the  Constitution  as  it  now  reads,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  election  of  justices  of  the  peace 
must  be  held  under  the  law  providing  for  their 
election,  and,  further,  that  that  election  should 


be  by  separate  ballot-box,  and  in  the  general 
precinct  of  the  township,  wherever  the  town- 
ship trustees  chose  to  provide,  so  that,  in  cities 
of  the  second  class,  the  electors,  instead  of 
voting  in  their  respective  wards  and  precincts, 
must  all  come  together  to  one  general  polling 
place  and  cast  their  ballots.  This  section 
twenty-three  was  framed  expressly  to  do  away 
with  that  objection,  and  to  show  that,  in  the 
view  of  this  Convention,  justices  of  the  peace 
were  to  be  regarded  as  township  officers. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman  from 
Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  may  be  correct,  and  my 
object  will  be  accomplished  in  offering  this 
amendment  as  well  if  the  Convention  shall 
decide  against  the  amendment  as  in  its  favor. 
Any  action  of  the  Convention  which  determines 
the  fact  that  the  removal  of  these  officers  is 
provided  for  in  the  Constitution,  is  all  that  I 
desire.  My  impression  was  that  this  was  not 
true.  If  the  Convention  regard  it  as  true,  a 
disagreement  to  the  motion  will  accomplish  the 
same  result. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  agree- 
ing to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock]  to  prefix  the  words  “justices 
of  the  peace.” 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  now 
read  amended  section  9. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power  of  local 
taxation  and  assessment  for  police  purposes,  and  for  con- 
structing and  improving  ditches,  public  roads,  other  than 
railroads,  and  clearing  water- courses,  when  necessary  to 
the  public  health,  convenience  or  welfare,  as  may  be  pre- 
scribed by  law.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  amend- 
ments to  the  section  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  I desire  to  transpose  some 
language  there,  but  I presume  it  can  be  done 
by  the  Committee  on  Revision. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  further 
amendments  to  the  Proposition,  the  question 
will  now  be  on  ordering  to  a final  reading,  and 
fixing  the  time. 

Mr.  COATS.  The  Chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee that  reported  this  Article,  and  a large  por- 
tion of  the  Committee  are  absent,  and  it  would 
seem  that  the  matter  under  consideration  ought 
to  be  left  about  as  it  now  stands  until  the  Chair- 
man [Mr.  White  of  Brown]  should  return,  at 
least,  that  he  may  suggest  what  further  action 
should  be  had  upon  it,  as  that  is  his  right, 
I think,  before  fixing  a time  for  its  final  read- 
ing. I,  therefore,  suggest  that  it  be  informally 
laid  over  now,  until  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee shall  return.  The  Chairman  and  a large 
number  of  the  Committee  being  absent,  as  I 
have  before  said,  I think  we  cannot  tell  pre- 
cisely what  time  should  be  assigned  for  further 
action  upon  the  Proposition, in  its  present  shape. 

I merely  make  these  suggestions,  stating  the 
facts  in  the  case,  that  the  Convention  may  be 
apprised  of  the  condition  in  which  the  matter 
is  placed,  by  reason  of  the  absence  before  re- 
ferred to,  and  then  take  such  action  as  may  be 
thought  best  in  the  premises. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  en- 
tirely unnecessary  as  suggested  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Scioto  [Mr.  Bannon].  The  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  requested  that  it  be  not 
postponed  on  his  account.  We  have  expended 


1576 


THE  GOVERNOR  NOTIFIED  OF  O’CONNOR’S  DEATH.  [122nd 

Griswold,  Mueller,  Pond,  Beer,  Hitchcock,  Voris.  [Tuesday, 


nearly  a week  in  debating  it.  The  various  sec- 
tions have  been  adopted  generally  by  a very 
large  majority  of  the  Convention,  and  there  is 
no  reason  for  its  postponement.  There  have 
been  no  substantial  changes  in  the  amendments 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  which  have  j 
been  upon  our  tables  for  a long  time.  There-  ! 
fore,  I move  it  be  engrossed,  and  read  a third  j 
time  to-morrow. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I hope  the  motion  will  be 
agreed  to.  There  will  be  a chance  after  the 
third  reading  for  any  member  to  have  the  Ar- 
ticle referred  and  amended.  I do  not  think 
there  is  any  reason  why  this  Convention  should 
lay  over  Propositions.  We  have  laid  over  too 
many  of  them,  and  it  is  time  we  were  beginning 
to  close  up.  If  there  is  anything  of  importance 
to  be  inserted,  members  will  have  a chance  to 
offer  amendments  after  the  third  reading.  So 
I hope  the  Convention  will  agree  that  the 
Article  be  engrossed  and  set  for  third  reading. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold],  that  the  Proposition  be  engrossed 
for  final  reading  to-morrow. 

Mr.  POND.  I wish  to  make  a remark  in 
connection  with  an  amendment  that  was  put  j 
into  this  section,  and  a motion  made  to  recon- 
sider, and  that  motion  laid  on  the  table.  That  I 
is  with  regard  to  the  words  “other  than  rail-  ; 
roads.”  That  ought  not  to  be  re-considered  in  I 
a House  as  thin  as  this.  It  strikes  me  it  ought  to  j 
be  passed  until  we  can  have  a fuller  House.  I 
move  the  section  be  passed  informally  until  to-  ! 
morrow,  for  further  consideration  of  the  Ar-  j 
tide. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  to  take  that  from  the 
table. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  moves  to  take  off  the  table 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Auglaize 
[Mr.  Layton]  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  POND.  I simply  wish  to  suggest  to  my 
friend,  that  it  is  hardly  treating  the  member 
from  Auglaize  [Mr.  Layton],  and  those  think- 
ing as  he  does,  with  fairness,  to  reconsider  the 
vote  by  which  that  was  put  in,  with  only  fifty- 
five  members  in  the  House. 

Mr.  BEER.  I suggest  to  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  that  the  gentleman  from 
Auglaize  [Mr.  Layton]  has  gone  home  on  in- 
definite leave  of  absence,  in  consequence  of 
sickness  in  his  family. 

The  question  being  on  the  motion  to  take  the 
motion  to  reconsider  from  the  table,  a division 
was  demanded,  which  resulted  in  29  for,  and 
26  against. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  reconsidering  the  vote.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  motion. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Layton  moves  to  reconsider  the  vote  bv  which  the 
Convention  yesterday  agreed  to  Mr.  Scribner’s  motion 
to  amend  the  substitute  for  section  9,  submitted  by  the 
Committee  ot  the  Whole,  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“roads”,  in  the  first  line  thereof,  the  words,  “other  than 
railroads.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Will  the  Secretary  read 
the  section  as  it  would  be  including  those 
words  ? 

The  Secretary  read : 


Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power  of  local 
taxation  and  assessment  for  police  purposes,  and  for  con- 
structing and  improving  ditches,  and  public  roads,  other 
than  railroads,  and  free  turnpikes,  and  clearing  water- 
courses, when  neeessary  to  the  public  health,  convenience 
or  welfare,  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

The  question  being  on  reconsidering  the  vote 
by  which  the  words  “other  than  railroads”  were 
inserted, 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  20,  nays  39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Bannon,  Bishop,  Caldwell, 
Carbery,  Chapin,  Clay,  Coats,  Doan,  Ewing, 
Godfrey,  Kraemer,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal, 
Pond,  Powell,  Rowland,  Smith  of  Highland, 
President — 20. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Beer,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cook,  De  Steiguer, 
Dorsey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Horton,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Merrill, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Page,  Pease,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sears,  Smith  of  Shelby, 

! Steedman,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yan  Voor- 
his,  Voorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  White  of  Hocking, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble — 39. 

* So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga, 
that  the  Proposition  be  engrossed  for  a third 
reading  to-morrow. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  a division  of  the 
question  on  the  question  of  engrossment,  as  to 
time.  I propose  Thursday  morning. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I accept  that  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  being  no  objec- 
, tion,  the  amendment  is  accepted,  and  the  ques- 
tion will  be  on  ordering  the  Proposition  to  be 
engrossed  for  third  reading  on  Thursday  morn- 
ing. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  it  was  so 
ordered. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  have 
now  disposed  of  all  the  matters  in  the  special 
order. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  the  Convention 
resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  on 
the  special  order. 

Mr.  BEER.  Will  the  gentleman  give  wav? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BEER.  I desire  to  offer  a resolution,  at 
this  time,  requesting  the  President  to  notify  the 
Governor  of  the  death  of  Dr.  O’Connor. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  objec- 
tions, the  resolution  will  be  received.  The 
Secretary  will  read  the  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Resolved , That  the  President  be  requested  to  notify  the 
Governor  of  this  State  of  the  death  of  Hon.  John  D. 
O’Connor,  delegate  to  this  Convention  from  Seneca 
county. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I desire  to  offer  an  additional 
section  to  Proposition  185. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  give  way  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I give  way. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I understand  that  Article  is  on 
the  table,  subject  to  an  order  for  its  third  read- 
ing. I would  like  to  offer  this  section  and  have 
it  ordered  to  be  printed.  It  is  one  that  will, 


Day.] 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 


1577 


February  24,  1874.]  Yoris,  Griswold,  Hitchcock,  Ewing,  Dorsey,  etc. 


perhaps,  occasion  some  discussion,  and  I offer 
it  now  with  the  consent  of  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  be  necessary  to 
offer  it  by  way  of  a resolution. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I want  to  offer  it  as  an  addi- 
tional section  to  that  Article,  when  it  comes  up 
on  its  third  reading.  It  is  one  that  is  eminently 
proper  to  be  printed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is,  in  fact,  a Proposi- 
tion. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  is,  but  I do  not  want  to  offer 
it  as  a Proposition. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
it  for  information. 

The  Secretary  read: 

“Sec.  — . No  person  shall  be  eligible  to,  or  hold  any 
judicial  office  who  may  be  guilty  of  habitual  or  occasional 
intoxication,  and  any  intoxication  of  such  officer  occur- 
ring during  the  term  upon  which  he  shall  have  entered, 
shall  operate  as  a forfeiture  of  his  office;  and  upon  the 
fact  of  such  intoxication  being  established,  in  such  man- 
ner as  shall  be  provided  by  law,  his  said  office  shall  there- 
upon be  vacant.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  General  As- 
sembly to  provide  by  law  for  carrying  the  provision  of 
this  section  into  effect.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  objection  to 
the  proposition  being  received  at  this  time  ? If 
not,  this  will  be  considered  the  first  reading. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  There  are  only  about  fifty- 
five  members  present,  and  all  know  that  a large 
' number  will  be  in  at  noon.  For  the  purpose  of 
having  a fuller  House  for  transacting  business, 
I move  we  take  a recess. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  give 
way  a moment  for  the  purpose  of  asking  leave 
of  absence? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  that  Messrs.  Al- 
bright, Okey,  Philips,  McBride,  Byal  and 
Weaver  have  leave  of  absence  from  Monday 
morning  until  Wednesday  evening.  They  are 
absent  under  the  order  of  the  Convention,  but 
their  names  are  reported. 

The  PRESIDENT.  They  are  considered  ex- 
cused under  the  resolution  passed  yesterday. 

Mr.  EWING.  I hope  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  will  not  press  his 
motion.  If  we  commence  adjourning  on  ac- 
count of  a slim  attendance,  we  might  as  well 
give  up. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  We  did  not  have  a quorum 
for  business  this  morning. 

Mr.  EWING.  We  have  a quorum  now  for 
business,  and  it  is  absurd  to  take  a recess  on  ac- 
count of  a small  attendance. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded  and  ob- 
jected to. 

The  demand  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  sus- 
tained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  31,  nays  27,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Hill,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
Merrill,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Page, 
Pratt,  Rickly,  Sears,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Townsley,  Voorhes,  Wad- 
dle, White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Noble— 31. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin, Clay,  Coats, 


Ewing,  Godfrey,  Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Horton, 
Miner,  Neal,  Pease,  Pond,  Powell,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van 
Yoorhis,  Voris,  President — 27. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Con- 
vention, (at  11 : 45  a.  m.,)  took  a recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

TAXING  DOGS. 

Mr.  POWELL  presented  a petition  from  fifty- 
two  citizens  of  Delaware  county,  praying  for 
the  introduction  of  a clause  in  the  Constitution 
authorizing  the  Legislature  to  pass  an  act  to  tax 
dogs,  and  apply  the  funds  raised  thereby  to  pay 
for  injuries  done  to  sheep. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Agriculture. 

APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  special  order. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

So  the  Convention,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  Mr.  BURNS  in  the  Chair,  proceeded  to 
consider  the  Article  reported  from  the  Commit- 
tee on  Apportionment  and  Representation. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  to  strike  out  of  Proposi- 
tion No.  194  all  after  section  one,  and  insert 
Proposition  No.  195. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Before  that  motion  is  put,  I 
desire  to  make  some  remarks  in  behalf  of  the 
Report  of  the  Committee.  I shall  not  take  up 
the  report  of  the  Committee  section  by  section, 
but  will  simply  refer  to  different  sections  as  I 
pass  along,  and  I call  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mittee to  the  remarks  I have  to  make  on  behalf 
of  the  Report. 

The  apportionment  of  the  State  for  members 
of  the  General  Assembly  must  always  be  a mat- 
ter of  great  interest  to  the  people.  In  the 
General  Assembly  the  masses  of  the  people,  in 
all  their  wants,  in  all  their  opinions,  in  all  their 
ideas  of  progress  in  the  science  of  government, 
and  of  all  that  concerns  the  well-being  of  the 
State,  find  or  should  find  a fitting  exponent. 
Hence,  the  constitution  of  this  body,  and  the 
manner  in  which  it  is  to  be  formed  in  its  repre- 
sentative capacity  from  these  masses,  must 
always  be  a matter  of  importance.  Under  the 
Constitution  of  1802,  the  apportionment  of  the 
State  was  made  by  the  General  Assembly  every 
ten  years,  and  as  a matter  of  course,  in  the 
midst  of  party  conflicts  and  strong  partisan 
feelings,  attempts  were  continually  made,  to 
use  this  power  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  ad- 
vantages for  the  dominant  party;  the  rights  of 
the  minority  were  too  frequently  entirely  over- 
looked, and  districts  were  formed  without  re- 
gard to  the  business  relations  or  natural  con- 
nections of  the  counties  composing  them,  but 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  grouping  together 
such  counties  as  might,  by  their  union,  secure  a 
majority  for  one  party,  or  swallow  up  and 
render  inoperative,  as  large  a number  as  pos- 
sible of  the  votes  of  the  opposite  party.  In 
times  of  strong  partisan  excitement  in  the  State, 
these  attempts  had  more  than  once  brought  the 
State  government  to  the  verge  of  revolution  by 


1578 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [122nd 


Dorsey. 


[Tuesday, 


breaking  up  the  General  Assembly,  and  leaying 
the  business  of  the  people  entirely  unattended 
to.  To  prevent  a recurrence  of  these  evils,  it 
was  determined  in  the  Convention  of  1850-51 
to  take  this  power  of  apportionment  from  the 
General  Assembly,  and  provide  in  the  organic 
law  of  the  State,  a system  which  should,  by  its 
own  action,  assure  a proper  apportionment  of 
Senators  and  Representatives  among  the  several 
counties,  and  which  could  not  be  made  sub- 
servient to  the  wants  and  wishes  of  any  party 
whether  in  power  or  out  of  power.  Deeply 
impressed  with  the  benefits  which  this  system 
has  conferred  on  the  State,  the  Committee  have 
been  careful  to  preserve  this  feature  of  the  pre- 
sent Constitution,  in  every  part  of  the  scheme 
of  apportionment  which  they  now  present  to 
this  Convention,  and  while  they  believe  that 
some  important  improvements  may  be  made, 
and  are  imperatively  demanded,  by  the  progres- 
sive spirit  of  the  age,  in  this  part  of  the  Consti- 
tution, they  would  not  willingly  sacrifice  any 
important  feature  in  the  present  system. 

It  will  be  observed  that  instead  of  dividing 
the  population  of  the  State  by  one  hundred  for 
the  ratio  of  representation  in  the  lower  House, 
the  present  Report  uses  the  number  one  hun- 
dred and  five — this  is  done  because  we  find  that 
this  divisor  gives  a less  unrepresented  remainder 
in  the  several  counties,  as  will  be  plainly  seen 
by  an  examination  of  the  table  marked  “ B”  in 
this  Report. 

By  the  second  section,  every  county  in  the 
State  is  allowed  at  least  one  Representative. 
This  has  been  done  in  order  that  every  county 
organization,  without  regard  to  population,  shall 
be  represented  in  the  Lower  House.  This,  it 
will  be  allowed,  is  an  important  concession  to 
the  smaller  counties  of  the  State;  yet,  inasmuch 
as  every  county  has  not  only  certain  rights, 
but  also  certain  wants,  connected  with  its  mu- 
nicipal organization,  and  as  these  rights  exist  as 
fully  in  the  smaller  as  in  the  larger  counties ; 
as,  moreover,  every  county  in  the  State  is  now 
entitled  to  one  Representative,  with  the  single 
exception  of  the  county  of  Paulding,  which  is 
so  rapidly  increasing  in  population  that  we 
cannot  doubt  it  will  very  soon  have  the  required 
constitutional  number,  it  was  deemed  just  and 
proper  to  include  this  county,  and  not  refuse  to 
it  its  representation.  But  while  this  conces- 
sion is  made  to  the  smaller  counties,  an  equally 
important  concession  is  made  to  the  larger  and 
more  populous  ones,  by  allowing  a second  Rep- 
resentative to  every  county  containing  a pop- 
ulation equal  to  once  and  a half  the  required 
ratio.  It  is  only  fair  to  say,  however,  that  sev- 
eral members  of  the  Committee  are  in  favor  of 
restoring  the  provision  of  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, which  requires  at  least  half  a ratio,  in  or- 
der to  entitle  a county  to  one  Representative,  as 
this  would  exclude  only  one  county  (Paulding), 
and  that  certainly  only  for  a few  years,  while 
the  principle  of  requiring  some  specific  popula- 
tion to  entitle  a county  to  separate  representa- 
tion is  by  them  deemed  important  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  many  counties  in  the  State  have  been, 
for  many  successive  years,  losing  in  population, 
and  may,  ultimately,  fall  below  the  half  ratio, 
or,  indeed,  below  any  number  that  would  fairly 
entitle  them  to  a separate  representation.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  said  that  this  loss  of  popu- 


! lation  is  only  temporary ; that,  as  the  public 
! improvements  of  the  State  are  more  widely  dif- 
! fused,  and  her  varied  resources,  agricultural 
and  mineral,  more  fully  developed,  these  losses 
will  disappear,  and  each  part  of  the  State  will 
partake  of  the  increase  which  marks  the  pro- 
gress of  the  whole.  This  seems  likely  to  prove 
true,  at  least  for  many  years  to  come ; and  if, 
in  course  of  time,  abuses  should  grow  up  by  the 
depopulation  of  counties  which  would  at  all 
approximate  us  to  anything  like  the  rotten  bor- 
ough system  of  England,  it  would  be  easy  for 
the  General  Assembly  to  correct  the  evil  by 
proposing  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  re- 
quiring a certain  population  in  every  separately 
represented  county. 

The  retention  of  section  3 of  the  present  Con- 
stitution, which  is  favored  by  nine*  members  of 
the  Committee,  would  continue  the  representa- 
tion of  fractions  in  the  several  counties,  distrib- 
uting them  among  the  different  sessions  of  the 
decennial  period,  and  thus  equalizing,  so  far  as 
may  be,  the  inequalities  necessarily  produced 
by  dividing  by  a fixed  divisor.  This  section, 
introduced  by  an  able  member  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1850  [Mr.  Otis,  of  Summit],  was  em- 
bodied in  the  Constitution,  and  has,  I believe, 
generally  worked  satisfactorily  to  the  people  of 
the  State.  It  was  proposed  in  the  late  Conven- 
tion of  Illinois  as  an  improvement  belonging  to 
our  Constitution,  but  the  members  of  that  Con- 
vention, as  much  afraid  of  innovations  as  some 
of  our  own  delegates,  declared  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult for  their  people  to  understand  and  trouble- 
some to  put  in  practice ; and  hence,  it  was  re- 
jected, when  they  adopted  the  system  of  pro- 
portional representation  in  the  Lower  House. 
Our  people  have  become  used  to  this  additional 
representation  for  fractions,  and  it  may  be  that 
some  dissatisfaction  would  be  felt  in  the  coun- 
ties entitled  to  it,  were  it  denied  them.  Such 
was  the  opinion  of  some  of  the  Committee  who 
would,  hence,  desire  to  have  this  section  con- 
tinued in  force. 

The  Chairman  does  not  care  here  to  make  an 
argument  to  show  the  advantages  which  he 
thinks  would  result  from  grouping  together 
counties  in  such  a manner  as  would  form  dis- 
tricts having  population  sufficient  for  three 
representatives  in  the  Lower  House  of  the 
General  Assembly,  and  electing  these  by  the 
proportional  vote,  it  is  enough  to  say  that  a ma- 
jority of  the  Committee  was  unwilling  to  apply 
this  system  to  the  Lower  House,  and  hence,  as  a 
matter  of  compromise,  it  was  abandoned.  I be- 
1 lieve  it  will  be  found  that  any  system  of  appor- 
| tionment,  originating  in  a committee  composed 
of  twenty  delegates,  must  be  necessarily  a mat- 
ter of  compromise.  No  one  man  can  expect  to 
have  a report  precisely  suited  to  his  idea  of  ex- 
cellence. He  must  concede  some  of  his  predilec- 
tions, some  of  his  favorite  ideas,  and  agree  to 
some  provisions  particularly  favored  by  other 
gentlemen,  who  have  just  as  much  right  to  their 
opinions,  and  to  have  them  put  into  operation 
j in  the  organic  law  of  the  State,  as  he  can  claim 
for  himself.  Should  our  proportional  system 
now  proposed  for  the  Senate  be  made  part  of 
this  Constitution,  and  prove  as  acceptable  to  the 
people  as  its  friends  feel  assured  it  will  do,  I 
trust  we  shall  yet  see  an  amendment  to  this 
| Constitution  applying  this  same  system  to  the 


Day.] 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 


1579 


February  24,  1874.]  Dorsey. 


Lower  House  proposed  by  the  General  Assembly 
and  adopted  by  the  people. 

I come  now  to  what  I consider  a more  im- 
portant feature  in  this  Report,  because  it  intro- 
duces to  the  notice  of  the  Convention  and  of  the 
people  of  the  State  a mode  of  organization  of 
the  Senate  entirely  different  from  that  which 
prevails  in  the  present  Constitution.  And,  Mr. 
Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
permit  me  here  to  say  that  it  is  only  after  very 
mature  deliberation  and  reflection  and  with  a 
very  deep  feeling  of  the  responsibility  which 
they  owe  to  the  voters  of  the  State,  and  with  a 
very  high  degree  of  respect  for  the  opinion  of 
those  who  differ  from  us  on  this  important  sub- 
ject, that  the  Committee  have  ventured  to  in- 
troduce the  proposed  changes  to  the  notice  of 
this  body. 

We  trust  the  Convention  will  believe  that  no 
mere  desire  to  present  something  new  has  in- 
duced the  introduction  of  this  subject  for  their 
consideration.  We  have  been  impelled  simply 
by  an  imperative  sense  of  duty,  being  convinced 
that  no  change  which  will  be  made  in  the  Con- 
stitution at  this  time  will  be  more  conducive  to 
the  best  interests  of  the  people.  We  therefore 
beg  leave  to  ask  for  the  system  which  we  pre- 
sent, the  calm,  careful  and  considerate  judg- 
ment of  the  members  of  the  Convention.  It  is 
not  enough  for  gentlemen  to  say  they  are  satis- 
fied with  the  former  provision,  and  have  made 
up  their  minds  to  listen  to  no  proposed  system 
of  change.  Nor  will  it  do  to  denounce  as  an 
absurdity  that  which  has  received  the  sanction 
of  some  of  the  most  philosophic  minds  of  the 
age  in  every  nation  of  Europe  as  well  as  in  our 
own  country.  I have  already  had  occasion  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact,  in  some  remarks  which 
I had  the  honor  previously  to  submit  to  the 
Convention,  that  in  a majority  of  the  proposi- 
tions for  a judiciary  system,  submitted  to  the 
consideration  of  this  Convention  by  able  men, 
both  in  and  out  of  this  body,  this  feature  of 
proportional  voting  has  been  incorporated,  as 
well  as  in  the  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania, 
lately  formed  and  adopted  in  that  State;  and  I 
would  further  say,  that  in  conversation  with 
gentlemen  of  great  learning  and  ability  in  vari- 
ous parts  of  the  State,  and  especially  with  mem- 
bers of  the  legal  profession,  I have  generally 
found  the  system  viewed  with  favor.  Hence 
we  feel  emboldened  to  ask  for  our  Proposition 
the  attentive  examination  it  so  eminently  de- 
serves. 

Instead  of  dividing  the  State  into  thirty-three 
senatorial  districts,  as  at  present,  we  divide  it 
only  into  ten.  Here  I think  I hear  some  gen- 
tleman say,  “ What ! only  ten  senatorial  dis- 
tricts in  the  whole  State  of  Ohio!  only  half  as 
many  senatorial  as  we  have  congressional  dis- 
tricts! elect  a Senator  of  Ohio,  or,  at  most, 
three  Senators,  from  a district  twice  as  large  and 
twice  as  populous  as  appertains  to  a member  of 
the  National  Congress ! make  a district  so  large 
that  men  cannot  know  each  other;  cannot  all 
go  to  a district  convention,  and  do  matters  up 
just  as  we  used  to  do  in  our  old  divisions !”  Yes, 
that  is  precisely  what  we  propose  to  do, — to  do 
this  with  all  these  objections  before  us;  and, 
after  fully  considering  them,  we  have  concluded 
that,  so  far  from  being  objections,  they  are 
really  and  in  truth  reasons,  and  very  good  rea- 


sons too,  for  being  in  favor  of  these  ten  large 
districts.  I do  hold,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this 
provision  is  fraught  with  great  and  important 
benefits  to  the  people  of  the  State.  Whatever 
elevates  the  character  of  the  General  Assembly, 
whatever  introduces  into  either  house  of  that 
body  men  of  large  and  extended  views,  men 
extensively  and  favorably  known  through  the 
State,  and  who  carry  into  that  body  the  confi- 
dence and  support  of  large  constituencies,  can- 
not fail  to  prove  of  great  advantage  to  the  State. 
We  have  already,  in  the  remarks  appended  to 
this  Proposition,  quoted  from  the  Report  of  the 
New  York  Commission  to  the  Legislature  of 
that  State,  and  we  deem  the  argument  made  by 
them  in  favor  of  large  districts  worthy  of  great 
attention,  and  as  fully  applicable  to  the  State  of 
Ohio  as  to  New  York.  But,  in  addition  to  this, 
and  looking  to  the  same  end,  ten  members  of 
our  Committee  are  in  favor  of  electing  at  the 
same  time  the  thirty  District  Senators  are 
chosen,  three  Senators  at  large,  to  be  elected  by 
the  votes  of  all  the  electors  of  the  State.  These 
three  will,  of  course,  be  men  known  through- 
out the  whole  State,  and  who  can  command  the 
confidence  of  the  whole  State.  They  will  be,  as  a 
general  rule,  men  of  superior  ability,  of  ex- 
tended views,  and  who,  without  having  any  lo- 
cal interests  to  support  or  carry  out,  must  and 
will  consider  themselves  as  representatives  of 
the  people  of  the  whole  State,  and  whose  influ- 
ence and  counsels  cannot  fail  to  exercise  most 
beneficial  effects  on  the  Senate.  It  is  no  valid 
objection  to  this  proposition  to  say  that  these 
men  would  be  influenced  by  the  inter- 
ests of  the  particular  localities  in  which 
they  might  happen  to  reside,  and  that  hence 
their  election  would  give  undue  power  to  these 
sections.  The  same  argument  could  be  used 
with  equal  force  against  any  of  your  officers  of 
State ; for  example,  the  Governor,  Auditor  or 
Attorney  General,  who  might  be  accused  of 
carrying  into  an  office  belonging  to  the  whole 
State  local  feelings  which  might  induce  him  to 
favor  the  interests  of  a section.  Have  such  ac- 
cusations ever  been  made  with  regard  to  any  of 
these  officers?  Certainly  not.  Such,  I am  per- 
suaded, would  not  here  be  the  case.  These 
men  would  occupy  precisely  the  position  of  any 
officer  elected  by  the  State  at  large,  and  would, 
doubtless,  exercise  their  important  functions 
solely  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  State.  But  we 
are  told  in  regard  to  these  large  districts — and 
the  same  objection  would  no  doubt  be  urged 
to  the  election  of  these  Senators  at  large — that 
it  is  requisite  for  the  people  to  know  personally 
those  who  represent  them,  that  they  cannot 
judge  properly  of  those  with  whom  they  are  not 
brought  in  contact.  It  was  said  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Huron  in  his  able  and  carefully  pre- 
pared remarks  on  this  subject  that,  “distance 
lends  enchantment  to  the  view,”  that  men  are 
frequently  not  what  they  seem  to  us  when  view- 
ed from  afar.  But  I ask,  is  every  man  expected 
to  know  personally  the  man  for  whom  he  votes 
for  Governor,  or  other  important  State  offices, 
is  he  expected  to  know  closely  the  candidates  for 
the  supreme  bench  ? Nay,  you  divide  the  State 
into  six  districts,  and  in  each  of  these  you  elect 
three  circuit  judges,  men  who  may  be  called  on 
to  decide  on  some  of  the  most  important  inter- 
ests of  men  to  whom  they  must  be  personally 


1580 


PROPORTIONAL  VOTING, 

Dorsey. 


[122nd 

[Tuesday, 


unknown,  unknown  entirely,  except  through 
that  reputation  which  they  have  acquired  by 
good  and  honest  service  performed  for  the 
State.  And  I ask,  is  not  this  sufficient  knowl- 
edge ? What  better  acquaintance  can  be  desired 
of  any  man  for  whom  we  are  required  to  cast 
our  suffrages,  than  the  character  he  sustains  be- 
fore his  fellow-citizens  ? This  is  precisely  the 
point  to  which  we  wish  to  come  in  our  choice  of 
men,  to  select  those,  who  by  patient  labor,  and 
faithful  performance  of  duties,  have  gained  the 
esteem  and  good  will  even  of  those  whose  faces 
they  have  never  seen  and  who  require  no  other 
indorsement  before  their  fellow-men  than  the 
broad  and  well  earned  repute  of  having  always 
performed  well  the  trusts  committed  to  their 
care.  Anything  else  than  this,  is  only  the  cry 
of  small  politicians,  who  expect  to  make  their 
way  to  public  favor  by  the  arts  of  the  dema- 
gogue rather  than  by  the  large  deserts  of  the 
man  of  standing  and  honor.  If  we  expect  to 
elevate  the  character  of  our  public  men,  let  us 
make  them  understand,  that  it  is  the  reputation 
which  they  have  earned,  and  which  they  may 
be  able  to  maintain  before  their  fellow-men 
which  is  to  be  used  as  the  criterion  by  which 
to  judge  of  their  fitness  to  fill  places  of  impor- 
tance, and  that  precisely  in  proportion  as  they 
have  suceeded  in  securing  the  confidence  and 
support  of  men  in  one  position  will  be  their 
opportunity  of  rising  to  higher  and  more  digni- 
fied employments.  The  bar  room  politician  and 
the  manipulator  of  cliques  and  rings  may  strug- 
gle against  a system  which  takes  away  his  occu- 
pation and  saps  the  very  foundation  of  his  influ- 
ence, but  if  we  would  purify  our  political  at- 
mosphere, recommend  our  form  of  government 
to  the  understanding  of  men,  and  preserve 
from  corruption  the  institutions  which  we  ought 
to  value,  we  must  place  before  men  every  pos- 
sible inducement  to  make  the  esteem  and  confi- 
dence of  the  public,  the  rock  on  which  they 
rely  as  a foothold  for  elevation  to  office. 

But  we  come  now  to  call  your  attention  to 
what  we  regard  as  a still  more  important  and 
valuable  feature  of  this  part  of  the  Proposition 
relating  to  the  organization  of  the  Senate.  It 
will  be  readily  understood  that  I refer  to  the 
introduction  of  the  system  of  proportional  vot- 
ing in  the  election  of  Senators.  We  shall  expect 
to  hear  objections  to  this  innovation.  New 
things  are  to  many  men  distasteful  and  apt  to 
be  regarded  with  suspicion,  but  we  are  to  re- 
member that  this  is  a progressive  age.  The  old 
ways — the  ways  trod  in  by  our  fathers,  are  cer- 
tainly entitled  to  respect,  but  unless  some  better 
reason  can  be  given  for  adhering  to  a system  than 
simply  that  it  is  the  old  way,  or  unless  some  more 
solid  objection  can  be  raised  against  any  proposed 
change  than  merely  that  it  is  new,  we  appre- 
hend such  arguments  will  have  but  little  weight. 
But,  in  very  truth,  this  principle — for  it  is 
a most  important  principle — is  not  so  new 
as  many  gentlemen  may  imagine ; and  I really 
think  it  is  only  because,  in  many  cases,  it  has 
not  received  as  much  attention  or  as  full  consid- 
eration as  it  really  deserves,  that  it  is  branded 
as  a novelty,  and  often,  indeed,  as  a foolish,  a 
ridiculous,  a useless,  a visionary  innovation. 
No ! gentlemen,  it  is  not  so.  Far  from  it — very 
far  from  it.  It  is  as  old  as  is  the  idea  that  the  peo- 
ple have  the  inherent  right  to  manage  their  own 


business,  and  to  secure  for  themselves  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  laws  which  they  prefer.  But, 
we  will  be  asked,  if  this  principle  of  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  whole  people,  both  the  majority 
and  the  minority,  is  thus  founded  on  the  very 
origin  of  democratic  government,  how  is  it  that 
it  has  been  so  entirely  lost  in  the  theory  and 
operation  of  our  representative  form?  This 
question  we  will  endeavor  to  answer  : While 
the  rights  of  the  minority  were  duly  preserved 
in  the  democracies  of  the  Grecian  States,  we  are 
to  remember  that  the  representative  principle 
was  never  truly  introduced,  either  in  these 
States  or  in  the  Roman  Republic.  They  knew 
nothing  of  anything  at  all  approaching  to  our 
system  of  general  representation.  And  when 
representative  government  began  at  first  to 
force  itself,  by  the  increasing  power  of  the  peo- 
ple, into  the  feudal  countries  of  Europe,  an 
element  was  introduced,  growing,  perhaps, 
necessarily,  out  of  the  former  state  of  society  in 
these  nations.  This  was  the  element  of  prop- 
erty, of  wealth,  which,  attaching  itself  to  the 
individual,  was  made  to  act  a very  important 
part,  both  in  regard  to  the  elector  and  the  man 
elected  to  office.  Then  the  rich  and  the  power- 
ful excluded  the  poor  man  from  the  privileges  of 
both.  The  man  could  not  be  represented  unless 
he  himself  was  the  representative  of  a certain 
amount  of  property.  But  with  increasing  light 
and  knowledge,  the  power  of  the  masses  of  the 
people  made  itself  more  and  more  felt,  just  as 
we  have  seen  in  England  during  the  last  half 
century,  the  power  of  the  people  gradually 
forcing  itself  on  the  consideration  of  the  gov- 
ermment — the  number  of  those  who  are  per- 
mitted to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  gradu- 
ally increasing,  until  at  last  the  influences  of 
the  masses,  from  being  the  weaker  element, 
began  to  be  the  prevailing,  the  preponderating 
power;  the  right  of  wealth  to  representation 
began  gradually  to  give  way  to  the  power  of 
numbers ; in  a word,  the  transfer  of  the  right  of 
representation  was  made  from  property  to  man. 
But  along  with  this  transfer  went  unfortunately 
the  same  evil  principle  of  exclusiveness  which 
heretofore  had  prevented  the  man  from  exer- 
cising the  right  of  suffrage,  and  which,  still 
fearful  of  the  power  of  the  people,  determined 
that  only  a part  of  them  should  be  represented 
in  the  public  councils.  The  majority,  of  course, 
could  not  be  excluded,  but  they,  adopting  the 
old  exclusive  principle,  arrogated  to  themselves 
the  sole  right  of  guiding  and  directing  public 
affairs,  of  making  all  laws,  filling  all  offices, 
exercising  all  power,  and  totally  excluding  the 
minority  from  all  participation.  It  is  a most 
singular  instance  of  that  peculiar  weakness  of 
human  nature  which  often  leads  men  to  exer- 
cise over  others  that  very  tyranny  from  which 
they  themselves,  by  heroic  struggles,  have  man- 
aged to  escape.  We  now  propose  to  return  to 
the  old  Democratic  principle,  and  henceforth 
to  represent  the  whole  people  in  the  offices  and 
in  the  councils  of  the  State;  and  we  hold  that 
it  is  beyond  all  controversy,  that  only  in  this 
way  can  the  tyranny  of  one  portion  of  the  peo- 
ple over  another  portion,  be  effectually  pre- 
vented. 

It  may  not  be  popular  in  our  country  to  talk 
of  the  tyranny  of  a majority,  but  truth,  how- 
ever unpopular,  is  not  to  be  concealed  when  the 


Bay.] 


PROPORTIONAL  VOTING. 

Dorsey. 


1581 


February  24, 1874.] 


public  interest  demands  its  declaration.  “ His- 
tory,” says  Buckle,  in  his  History  of  Civiliza- 
tion, “ affords  no  example  of  any  party  having 
obtained  unlimited  power  without  abusing  it.” 
There  is  such  a thing  as  the  tyranny  of  a ma- 
jority, and  it  is  further  true  that  this  unre- 
strained and  unbridled  majority  does  become 
venal,  and  corrupt,  and  oppressive,  and,  as 
such,  antagonistic  to  the  best  interests  of 
the  people.  This  corruption  and  oppression 
is  no  more  tolerable  because  perpetrated 
by  a majority,  or,  rather,  by  those  kept  in 
power  by  the  votes  of  a majority.  We  are 
always  to  remember  that  we  live  not  in  a dem- 
ocratic, but  in  a representative  government, 
and  that  a very  small  minority  of  a majority 
majr,  and  frequently  does,  so  rule,  direct  and 
manipulate  a majority  as  to  keep  themselves  in 
power  for  a long  series  of  years,  perpetrating 
all  sorts  of  outrages  against  the  well-being  of 
the  people  in  the  name  of  the  majority.  We 
see  this  in  many  counties  of  the  State  where 
one  party,  being  all-powerful,  manages  to  keep 
all  county  offices,  patronage  and  expenditures 
in  its  own  hands,  and  use  them  exclusively  for 
its  own  benefit.  It  will  be  said  that  we  cannot 
correct  these  abuses  by  introducing  proportion- 
al representation  into  the  General  Assembly. 
Very  true,  but  we  inaugurate  a principle  that, 
wherever  more  than  two  officers  of  the  same 
class  are  to  be  elected  in  the  same  county  or 
district,  we  may  so  arrange  the  manner  of 
voting  as  to  allow  a just  proportion  to  be 
elected  from  the  party  in  the  minority.  I care 
not  whether  these  officers  be  judges,  or  legis- 
lators, or  county  commissioners,  or  township 
trustees,  or  any  other  elective  officers,  where 
the  principle  can  be  made  to  apply,  it  should  be 
introduced,  because  it  is  right  and  just,  and  it 
is  a great  truth,  that  whatever  is  right  and  just 
is  always  expedient. 

And  here  let  me  answer  an  objection  which  I 
know  will  be  made  the  basis  of  an  attack 
against  the  principle  of  proportional  repre- 
sentation. I have  observed,  indeed,  that,  in 
general,  the  arguments  against  this  system  have 
dealt  only  with  objections  to  its  practical  work- 
ings, and  not  to  the  principle  on  which  it  is 
founded ; but  here  we  have  an  objection  which 
professes  to  go  deeper,  and  to  strike  at  the  very 
foundation  on  which  our  system  is  grounded. 
It  is  said  our  government  is  founded  on  the 
great  principle  of  the  right  of  the  majority 
zo  govern.  A distinguished  member  of  this 
Convention  introduced,  at  an  early  day, 
a proposition  declaring  that,  in  the  forma- 
tion of  an  organic  law  for  the  State, 
we  will  not  depart  from  the  great  prin- 
ciple of  the  right  of  the  majority  to  rule. 
I shall  most  heartily  indorse  this  proposition, 
and  while  I might  presume  to  differ  from  its 
learned  author  in  the  deductions  and  corollaries 
he  would  draw  from  it,  I should  certainly  sup- 
port the  principle  no  less  firmly  than  himself. 
In  every  truly  representative  government  the 
majority  must  rule ; the  popular  will  finds  its 
expression  in  the  direction  which  it  gives  to  the 
action  of  the  majority ; in  this  way  the  popular 
will  becomes  effective,  and  in  every  popular 
government  care  must  be  taken  that  the  will  of 
the  people  shall  be  effective.  But  the  unre- 
strained exercise  of  power,  whether  proceeding 


from  the  will  of  one  man  or  of  many,  is  likely 
to  culminate  in  tyranny.  It  is  one  of  the  living 
principles  of  human  nature,  that  power,  un- 
checked and  unbridled,  whether  exercised  by 
one  man  or  by  many,  is  always  liable  to  abuse. 
It  is  one  of  the  imperfections  of  our  fallen  hu- 
manity. How,  then,  are  we  to  guard  against 
this  abuse  and  this  evil?  Not  by  taking  power 
from  the  people;  not  by  depriving  the  majority 
of  their  rights;  but  by  throwing  around  the 
exercise  of  these  rights,  those  salutary  re- 
straints and  safeguards  which,  without  dimin- 
ishing their  efficiency,  may  yet  prevent  their 
being  pushed  to  undue  extremes.  We  are 
always  to  remember  that  the  right  to  exercise 
any  power  is  derived  from  the  whole  people, 
not  from  any  particular  portion,  and  that  while 
one  party,  and  that  the  more  powerful,  must  be 
entrusted  with  the  right  to  act,  the  other  party, 
the  less  powerful,  not  competent  to  direct,  has 
still  the  right  to  advise  and  to  counsel.  The 
voice  of  no  part  of  the  people  is  to  be  silenced 
in  a free  government.  We  boast  of  the  freedom 
of  speech,  of  the  freedom  of  the  press,  but  the 
freedom  of  the  people,  in  their  capacity  as  men, 
is  a far  more  important  matter,  so  important, 
indeed,  that  it  cannot  be  too  jealously  guarded 
in  every  republican  and  representative  govern- 
ment. But  this  freedom  of  the  whole  people 
can  only  be  secured  by  the  preservation  of  all 
the  rights  of  the  minority.  We  do  not  claim 
for  a moment  that  these  rights  should  override 
the  right  of  the  majority  to  govern,  but  we  do 
hold  that  the  very  fact  that  the  majority  always 
governs,  renders  it  still  more  imperatively  ne- 
cessary to  guard  with  jealous  care  all  the  rights 
of  the  minority.  What  are  these  rights  ? First, 
and  above  all  others,  the  right  to  a voice  in  the 
government,  not  an  absolutely  controling  voice, 
but  a voice  that  can  be  heard  in  counsel,  and 
that  may  be  effective,  so  far  as  the  power  of 
just  opinions  can  become  so.  This  is  all  that  is 
asked,  and  with  nothing  less  should  a free  people 
be  satisfied.  Thus  much  we  have  thought  it 
necessary  to  say,  in  order  that  we  may  set  at 
rest  the  idea  that,  by  the  introduction  of 
minority  representation,  we  endeavor  to  strike 
a blow  at  the  just  power  of  the  majority.  We 
desire  only  to  guard  against  the  abuse  of  its 
power. 

The  most  determined  opponents  of  propor- 
tional representation  will,  at  least,  agree  with 
the  remark  of  the  delegate  from  Huron  [Mr. 
Watson],  that  thus  far  we  have  not  succeeded 
in  securing  a fair  system  of  representation. 
Now,  this  is  emphatically  true ; every  man  who 
looks  at  our  elective  system  must  acknowledge 
that  it  fails  in  the  great  element  of  representing 
the  interests  of  the  whole  people.  It  is  again 
true,  as  said  by  the  same  delegate,  that  this  is 
what  all  fair-minded  men  desire.  The  question 
then  comes  home  to  us  with  redoubled  force, 
How  is  this  fair  and  equal  system  to  be  secured? 
Why  talk  of  the  sanctity  of  the  ballot,  the  in- 
estimable privileges  it  confers,  the  noble  manner 
in  which  it  has  been  used  by  our  people,  the 
triumphs  it  has  achieved,  the  manifest  impro- 
priety of  any  curtailment  of  its  powers  and 
advantages  in  the  hands  of  the  individual  citizen  ? 
These  are  all  acknowledged  truths,  no  man 
doubts  them,  every  man  is  ready  to  do  all 
in  his  power  for  the  preservation  of  these 


1582 


PROPORTIONAL  VOTING. 


[122nd 


Dorsey. 


[Tuesday, 


individual  rights;  but,  I ask,  of  what  use, 
of  what  avail  is  this  power,  in  all  its 
integrity  in  the  hands  of  the  elector,  while  you 
acknowledge  that  the  system  which  combines 
and  unites  all  these  individual  votes,  has  failed 
in  producing  a fair  representation,  a just  re- 
flection of  the  wants  and  opinions  of  the  people  ? 
For  what  are  representative  systems  instituted 
among  men,  if  it  be  not  to  reflect  the  demands 
of  the  people?  If  our  system  has  failed  to  do 
this,  it  is  indeed  a failure  in  a most  important 
part  of  its  work.  But,  says  the  gentleman  from 
Huron,  “the  schemes  proposed  for  proportional 
voting  can  produce  no  useful  results.”  Have 
we  then,  indeed,  arrived  at  the  unfortunate  con- 
clusion that  we  have  an  unfair  system  of  repre- 
sentation, and  yet  it  cannot  be  ameliorated  ? 
We  propose  a remedy  which,  we  claim,  will 
correct  the  evils  of  the  present  system,  and  we 
propose  to  show,  just  precisely,  how  it  will  cor- 
rect them.  It  is  commonly  said  that  an  evil 
recognized  is  already  half  remedied.  There  is 
much  truth  in  the  remark.  When  we  see  that 
under  our  system  a large  party  of  men  is  with- 
out proper  representation;  that,  for  exam- 
ple, the  members  of  the  bar  of  one  great 
political  party  in  the  State  are  persistently, 
for  a long  series  of  years,  excluded  from 
a seat  on  the  supreme  bench  of  the 
State — as  completely  excluded  as  if  they  resi- 
ded without  the  limits  of  the  State — as  com- 
pletely excluded  as  if  they  were  marked  with  a 
brand  of  disfranchisement ; when  we  see  thus 
the  opinions  of  an  immense  minority;  of  the 
State  prevented  from  any  expression  even  in 
cases — and  such  cases  do  continually  occur — 
where  such  expression  is  eminently  proper  and 
right,  can  we  avoid  acknowledging  the  exist- 
ence of  the  evil  ? and  if  we  show  that  the  adop- 
tion of  proportional  representation  will  admit 
members  of  the  bar  from  this  political  party  to 
have  their  proper  representation  on  the  bench, 
will  any  man  dare  to  tell  us  we  have  not  pre- 
sented a proper  remedy,  a remedy  capable  of 
producing  a useful  result? 

There  was  a time  when  all  the  members  of 
Congress  in  the  State  were  elected,  as  we  now 
elect  our  supreme  judges,  on  one  single  ticket; 
thus,  by  necessity,  throwing  the  whole  delega- 
tion from  the  State  into  the  hands  of  one  politi- 
cal party.  The  evil  was  recognized;  a remedy 
was  applied  by  dividing  the  State  into  Congres- 
sional districts.  It  has  not  been  thought  proper 
to  divide  the  State  into  districts  for  the  election 
of  supreme  judges;  but,  we  present  a rem- 
edy equally  effectual  in  its  operation,  in  the 
proportional  system  of  voting,  and  we  think 
ourselves  justified  in  asking  its  adoption.  But 
we  are  told  by  the  delegate  from  Huron  there 
is  no  hardship  in  this  exclusion,  because  no 
party  has  any  right  to  the  offices  of  the  State. 
So  far  as  individuals  are  concerned,  this  state- 
ment is  true.  No  individual  has  any  claim  on 
the  offices  of  the  State;  but  the  parties  of  the 
State  constitute  the  people,  and,  unless  gentle- 
men can  demonstrate  that,  by  belonging  to  a 
certain  party,  men  cease  to  belong  to  the  people,  | 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  every  party  has  a right 
to  claim  its  just  proportion  of  the  offices,  as 
well  as  of  the  benefits  of  the  State,  just  pre- 
cisely as  it  is  expected,  and  forced,  to  bear  its 
proportion  of  its  burdens.  Whoever  dreamed  | 


that,  in  the  late  terrible  war,  which  threatened 
the  very  existence  of  our  Government,  the  men 
who  belonged  to  the  party  in  the  minority  in 
our  own  State  would  be  justified  in  refusing  to 
fly  to  the  succor  of  the  State  in  its  day  of  peril  ? 
If  any  man  dared  to  announce  a doctrine  so 
grossly  and  flagrantly  false,  it  was  only  to  find 
it  received,  by  good  men  of  all  parties,  with  the 
just  reprobation  which  it  deserved.  But  the  duties, 
the  burdens,  and  the  privileges  of  the  State  are 
the  equal  heritage  of  all.  The  very  offices  of  the 
State  belong  to  all,  and  no  party  has  the  right 
to  claim  their  exclusive  possession  and  enjoy- 
ment. If  the  majority  claims  this  right,  it  can 
found  it  only  on  the  principle  of  power,  and 
can  justify  it  only  by  that  dogma  which  tyr- 
anny has  announced  in  every  age  and  in  every 
country,  and  which  has  been  so  happily  ex- 
pressed, as 

“The  good  old  rule,  the  simple  plan, 

That  they  should  take  who  have  the  power, 

And  they  should  keep  who  can.” 

But  it  will  be  said  there  is  no  necessity  of 
changing  our  system  of  voting  in  order  to 
obtain  for  the  minority  a proper  representa- 
tion— that  their  views  and  opinions  are  suffi- 
ciently represented  by  the  fact  that,  in  one  part 
of  the  State,  one  party  is  in  the  ascendant, 
while  an  opposite  party  prevails  in  another 
portion  of  the  same  State ; that  there  are  always 
local  circumstances  and  local  influences  which, 
at  times,  bring  the  representatives  of  the  mi- 
nority into  power  in  particular  counties  and 
particular  districts,  and  thus  their  voices  may 
always  be  heard  in  the  public  councils.  But 
we  answer  that  these  fortuitous  occurrences 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  establishment  of  a 
principle,  which  is  true  not  only  in  one  section 
of  the  State,  but  in  all,  and  which  should  be 
operative  not  only  as  an  accidental  event,  but 
as  a fixed  law.  We  have  seen  circumstances 
operating  as  they  did  in  the  last  election  in 
Ohio,  by  which  the  minority  in  the  State  has 
been  placed  in  power  in  both  Houses  of  the 
General  Assembly;  but  this  is  only  a strong 
argument  in  favor  of  the  introduction  of  this 
true  principle,  and  should  address  itself  earn- 
estly to  the  understanding  of  the  majority, 
informing  them  that,  if  they  desire  to 
maintain  their  just  ascendency,  they  should 
always  grant  to  their  opponents  that 
just  proportion  of  power  to  which  they  are 
really  entitled,  as  well  as  be  exceedingly  careful 
in  the  use  of  that  which  they  themselves  pos- 
sess. Every  attempt,  unjustly,  to  filch  power 
from  those  to  whom  it  legitimately  belongs,  re- 
sults in  its  being  torn  from  the  hands  of  those 
who  have  thus  abused  it,  and  the  State  suffers 
from  the  violent  concussions  of  party  spirit, 
and  from  the  evils  which  sudden  and  radical 
changes  in  the  administration  of  its  affairs  is 
ever  too  apt  to  produce.  So  true  is  it  that  a just 
and  equal  division  of  power  is  not  only  the 
right  of  the  whole  people,  but  is  the  surest  safe- 
guard of  republican  institutions. 

But  we  go  further : We  say,  that  in  a govern- 
ment like  ours,  the  opinions  of  the  minority  are 
absolutely  necessary  to  control  the  actions  of  the 
dominant  party.  The  safety  of  every  govern- 
ment, or,  rather,  the  safety  of  the  people  in 
every  government,  but  especially  in  one  like 
ours,  where  public  opinion  rules,  consists  very 


PROPORTIONAL  VOTING. 


1583 


Dorsey. 


Day.] 

February  24, 1874.] 


largely  in  having  a point  of  support  around 
which  the  opinions  of  the  weaker  party  may 
gather — a stand-point  from  which  they  may 
make  themselves  felt.  The  opinions  of  the  mi- 
nority are  always  viewed  with  disfavor  by  the 
majority.  It  is  this  which  makes  distinctions 
of  party.  There  is  always,  then,  a disposition 
to  silence  these  opinions — to  prevent  them  from 
gathering  strength  and  force,  and  just  precisely 
in  proportion  as  this  can  be  accomplished  is  the 
tyranny  of  the  majority  established.  The  com- 
plete dominance  of  one  set  of  opinions  brings 
about,  necessarily,  the  prevalence  of  one  course 
of  action,  and  the  continued  and  unrestrained 
pursuit  of  one  course  of  action,  looking  to  the 
establishment  of  one  ruling  power ; and  the 
crushing  out  of  all  that  opposes  it,  is  tyranny, 
whether  such  course  of  action  emanates  from 
one  man,  from  one  class,  or  from  a majority  of 
the  whole  people.  But  there  would  be  less 
ground  for  complaint,  if,  as  in  a pure  democracy, 
this  action  really  emanated  from  an  actual 
majority.  In  a representative  form  of  govern- 
ment it  rarely,  if  ever,  does  so.  Party  organi- 
zation gives  rise  to  party  leaders  and  manipula- 
tors, who  manage  the  masses  in  their  own 
interest  and  too  frequently  lead  them  astray, 
and  although  the  instincts  of  the  people,  ever 
prone  to  do  right,  will  generally,  in  the  end, 
bring  them  out  of  the  course  of  error,  into  the 
path  of  right,  yet  the  history  of  the  world  re- 
veals the  fact,  that  untold  evil  and  misery  have 
grown  out  of  the  mistakes  of  partisan  leaders 
before  they  could  be  corrected  by  those  whom, 
for  a time,  they  were  able  to  lead  from  the  right 
way.  Our  people  to-day  are  not  wiser  or  better 
or  less  liable  to  error  than  those  of  other  lands. 
There  was  a time  in  the  infancy  and  poverty 
of  the  nation,  at  the  time  when  we  were  just 
struggling  into  existence,  when  patriotism  so 
prevailed  among  us,  that  all  men  seemed  to  look 
only  at  the  good  of  the  country,  when  “ none 
were  for  a party,  but  all  were  for  the  State,” 
but  growing  wealth  and  prosperity,  and  large 
and  diverse  interests,  have  corrupted  us,  and  we 
need  to-day  to  throw  around  our  institutions  all 
the  safeguards  which  caution  and  prudence 
can  suggest  in  order  to  secure  their  perpetuity. 
And  what  better  influence  to  this  end,  can  be 
suggested  than  to  have  always  at  hand  an  ex- 
pression of  opinion  which  may  serve  as  a 
check  and  restraint  to  the  uncontrolled  action  of 
the  dominant  party  ? This  is  what  we  desire  to 
accomplish,  and  it  is  all  we  expect  or  desire  to 
gain  by  the  introduction  of  a salutary  minority 
representation.  The  very  fear  of  its  intro- 
duction expressed  by  the  majority,  their 
jealous  desire  to  exclude  from  this  Con- 
stitution everything  that  looks,  however  remote- 
ly to  the  accomplishment  of  this  end,  is  the  best 
and  most  conclusive  argument  for  its  necessity. 
The  flame  of  reform  in  our  system  of  apportion- 
ment and  representation  was  lighted  when  the 
new  apportionment  system,  which  I had  the 
honor  to  introduce,  was  adopted  in  the  Conven- 
tion of  1851,  and  it  will  not  be  quenched  until 
yet  more  important  reforms  are  effected.  Im- 
provements, like  revolutions,  never  go  back- 
ward; for  a time  they  may  be  checked  and 
stayed,  but  the  wants,  the  interests  and  the  will 
of  the  people  will  always,  in  the  end,  command 
a forward  movement. 


The  learned  delegate  from  Huron  [Mr.  Wat- 
son] asks,  how  this  system  can  produce  inde- 
pendence of  political  action.  He  acknowledges 
the  evils  of  the  strict  party  rule,  of  unbroken 
party  subserviency,  but  he  demands,  can  this 
proposed  system  afford  us  any  relief?  I answer, 
unhesitatingly,  it  can.  The  exclusiveness  of 
party  introduces  its  most  crying  evils  and 
abuses — the  anxiety  to  hold  unrestrained  power 
induces  its  worst  usurpations.  Take  away  the 
power  of  exclusive  possession  and  unrestrained 
action,  and  you  remove  at  once  the  greatest  im- 
purity in  the  motives  for  the  desire  of  office. 
Are  we  never  to  see  the  time  when  the  political 
arena  in  this  country  is  to  cease  to  be  only  a field 
for  the  struggle  of  those  who  hold  or  those 
who  desire  office — in  common  parlance,  a battle 
only  between  the  “ins”  and  the  “outs”?  Is 
office  never  to  be  sought  for  the  purpose  of  doing 
good,  and  serving  the  best  interests  of  the  peo- 
ple, rather  than  for  the  acquisition  of  power 
for  one  party,  and  the  forcible  wrenching  of 
power  from  those  who  form  an  opposite  party  ? 
Shall  we  never  see  a just  division  of  power  be- 
tween the  parties  of  the  State  produce  unity  of 
action  and  harmony  of  purpose  ? If  this  cannot 
be  done,  then  farewell  the  Republic — faction 
must  do  its  work  here,  as  it  has  done  it  in  other 
countries  and  in  other  times,  and  in  the  fierce 
struggles  for  power  and  the  corruption  which 
always  attends  them,  the  liberties  of  the  people 
must  be  rent  in  pieces. 

I have  great  respect  for  the  opinions  of  gen- 
tlemen who  oppose  this  proposition,  but  I am 
confident  that  a more  careful  investigation  will 
secure  for  it  the  approval  of  many  who  now 
oppose  its  introduction.  Finally,  let  me  say,  it 
is  not  proposed  as  a panacea  for  all  the  evils  of 
our  elective  system,  (no  sane  man  ever  regarded 
it  as  such,)  but  it  is  an  element  of  reform,  one 
of  the  factors  in  the  great  problem  of  progress, 
which  must  sooner  or  later  be  recognized  as  a 
necessity  in  our  free  government. 

For  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  that  reform 
which  I have  endeavored,  in  these  remarks,  to 
explain,  the  Committee  introduced  the  sixth 
section  of  this  Report : 

“In  voting  for  Senators,  or  in  voting  for  Representatives 
in  the  counties  entitled  to  more  than  two  Representatives, 
each  elector  may  cast  as  many  votes  as  there  are  Senators 
or  Representatives  to  he  elected,  or  he  may  distribute  the 
same,  or  equal  parts  thereof,  among  the  candidates  as  he 
may  see  fit,  and  the  candidates  highest  in  votes  shall  be 
declared  elected.” 

I have  already  said  that  the  Committee  do  not 
pretend  to  be  wedded,  to  any  very  great  ex- 
tent, to  the  particular  form  of  the  ten  districts 
which  I have  presented  before  you.  We  be- 
lieve they  are  as  equal  and  just  an  apportion- 
ment as  can  be  easily  made.  Changes  may 
possibly  be  made  by  the  Convention  by  which 
they  may  be  improved.  If  so,  let  it  be  done. 
The  principle  is  what  we  contend  for,  and  not 
the  details.  The  fourth  section  provides  that 
“any  county  forming  part  of  a Senatorial  dis- 
trict, having  acquired  a population  equal  to 
one-tenth  of  the  whole  population  of  the  State, 
shall  be  made  a separate  Senatorial  district,  at 
any  regular  decennial  apportionment,  as  here- 
inafter provided,  and  the  remaining  counties 
shall  be  distributed  to  the  contiguous  Senatorial 
districts  in  such  manner  as  to  render  them  as 
nearly  equal  in  population  as  possible,  provided 


1584 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 


[122nd 


Dorsey,  Griswold. 


[Tuesday, 


that  no  county  shall  be  divided  in  such  distri- 
bution.” This  is  copied,  very  nearly,  from  the 
present  Constitution  of  the  State,  and  is  in- 
tended to  act  as  a guard  against  Senatorial  dis- 
tricts becoming  too  populous.  We  have  found 
in  the  present  Constitution  that  although  the 
Senatorial  districts,  when  we  formed  them,  were 
very  nearly  equal  in  population,  they  have  be- 
come, in  some  parts  of  the  State,  double  in 
population  to  what  others  are ; and  we  propose 
here  a mode  by  which  this  increase  of  population, 
and  this  great  difference  in  size,  will  correct  it- 
self, by  the  formation  of  a county  into  a separate 
Senatorial  district  whenever  it  has  one-tenth  of 
the  population  of  the  State.  So  far  as  the  re- 
maining part  of  the  Proposition  is  concerned, 
it  conforms  simply  and  entirely  to  that  of  the 
present  Constitution.  These  are  all  the  re- 
marks, Mr.  Chairman,  which  I think  proper  to 
submit  in  defense  of  this  system. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr. 
Cook],  to  strike  out  all  after  section  1 of  Prop- 
osition No.  194,  and  insert  Proposition  No.  195. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do  not  propose  to  com- 
pare the  two  systems  which  have  been  reported 
by  the  majority  and  minority  of  the  Committee. 
I shall  confine  myself  to  some  remarks  in  de- 
fense of  the  report  of  the  majority. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  successful  adjustment 
of  any  measure  for  the  apportionment  of  the 
State  for  the  purpose  of  constituting  the  bodies 
composing  the  General  Assembly,  is  at  once  a 
most  delicate  and  important  task.  The  majori- 
ty of  your  Committee,  to  whom  this  duty  was 
allotted,  have  reported  a scheme  for  this  pur- 
pose ; and,  as  a member  of  the  Committee,  I de- 
sire to  state  some  of  the  considerations  which 
led  me  to  join  in  that  Report. 

The  growth  and  development  of  the  Repre- 
sentative Assembly,  as  the  law-making  power, 
is  one  of  the  most  important  facts  in  the  whole 
history  of  government.  Neither  the  genius 
of  the  Greeks,  or  the  practical  wisdom  of  the 
Roman  people  ever  conceived  of  the  Represent- 
ative Assembly.  In  the  ideal  state  of  the  former, 
the  whole  people  took  personal  part  in  the 
enactment  of  laws.  Among  the  latter,  as  their 
numbers  increased,  the  people  were  divided  into 
tribes,  but  in  all  tribal  action  every  member 
took  personal  part.  The  extension  of  either 
form,  so  as  to  include  a great  extent  of  territory, 
was  impossible;  and,  on  the  one  hand,  as  the 
city  extended  its  domain  and  rule,  the  pure 
democracy  came  to  ruin,  and  on  the  other  hand 
it  naturally  submitted  to  the  imperial  rule.  The 
Representative  Assembly  is  therefore  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  a free  community  inhabiting 
a large  extent  of  territory.  Its  conception,  as 
an  original  idea,  as  a frame  of  government,  be- 
longs solely  to  the  great  Teutonic  race — that 
race,  as  first  developed  in  history,  which  em- 
braced all  the  peoples  of  Western  Europe,  from 
Scandinavia  to  the  Lombard  plains.  No  pen  of 
historian  records  its  birth,  but  it  has  been  silent- 
ly developed  in  their  progress  from  barbarism 
to  civilization.  Once  conceived  of  and  grasped 
by  the  human  mind,  it  became  too  important  a 
treasure  to  be  lost.  Wherever  it  has  obtained  a 
firm  foothold,  there  enactment  of  law  becomes 
the  subject  of  debate ; and,  where  there  is  debate 
tg're  is  liberty,  whether  the  executive  be 


styled  Governor,  President,  King,  or  Emperor. 
The  growth  of  this  idea  has  been  slow,  and  he 
who  conceives  that  the  mode  of  selecting 
the  representative  body  has  been  developed 
to  perfection,  or  is  incapable  of  improvement, 
has  illy  read  the  lessons  of  history,  and  still 
more  unwisely  judged  of  the  facts  patent  to 
common  observation.  In  the  Legislative  Arti- 
cle we  have  already  determined  that  the  Repre- 
sentative Assembly  for  the  State  shall  consist 
of  two  bodies,  each  with  equal  and  concurrent 
power  of  legislation.  In  this  we  have  followed 
the  traditions  and  customs  of  the  past,  without, 
perhaps,  very  fully  considering  the  grounds 
and  reasons  upon  which  this  bi-cameral 
system  is  based.  As  justly  observed  by  Mr. 
Freeman  in  his  work  on  Comparative  Politics, 
“In  a federal  state  the  two  chambers  are  abso- 
lutely necessary.  Where  there  is  a two-fold 
sovereignty  — the  sovereignty  of  the  united 
nation  and  the  sovereignty  of  the  states  or  can- 
tons which  make  it  up,  each  sovereignty  must 
be  represented  in  the  Legislature.”  And  he 
proceeds  in  his  argument  to  show  that  the 
abolition  of  the  House  of  Lords  in  Great  Brit- 
ain, or  of  the  similar  body  in  the  German 
empire,  would  not  destroy  their  political  sys- 
tems ; but  in  a federal  system,  as  must  be  obvious 
to  all,  such  a change  would  utterly  destroy  it. 
We,  as  has  been  done  in  the  other  States,  have 
adopted  the  two  bodies  from  the  Federal  Gov* 
ernment,  although  no  like  necessity  exists  for 
so  doing.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States 
represents  each  State  in  its  character  as  an  inde- 
pendent sovereignty.  In  that  body  they  meet 
as  equals,  and  the  voice  of  the  smallest  is  as 
potent  as  that  of  the  largest,  and  it  is  the  great 
protection  of  the  minority.  True,  there  are 
dreamers  who  imagine  this  apparent  inequality 
to  be  all  wrong,  but  they  entirely  forget  what 
constitutes  a federal  system — and  the  existence 
and  continuance  of  this  body,  as  a part  of  the 
Legislature,  is  the  perpetual  safeguard  of  free 
government  to  the  nation.  It  is  totally  incom- 
patible with  imperialism,  and  the  two  cannot 
exist  together.  The  conception  of  a federal 
union  of  separate  and  independent  States,  for 
their  common  defense  and  intercourse  with  each 
other  and  the  rest  of  the  world,  leaving  un- 
touched the  domestic  affairs  of  each  State,  was 
one  of  the  most  notable  events  in  the  history  of 
governments.  And  that  wise  Greek,  Markos, 
of  Keryneia,  who  first  carried  this  idea  into 
practice,  and  persuaded  the  other  cities  of 
Achaia  to  form  such  a league,  deserves  a place  in 
the  front  rank,  among  the  statesmen,  heroes 
and  patriots  who  have  given  their  labors  and 
lives  to  the  “ good  cause.” 

Although  no  such  necessity  exists  for  two 
chambers  in  the  Legislature  whose  province  is 
limited  solely  to  domestic  affairs,  we  have  or- 
j dained  them  with  concurrent  powers.  True, 
I we  have  given  to  the  Senate  the  right  of  rejec- 
j tion  or  confirmation  of  a few  executive  appoint- 
j ments,  but  these  are  slight  powers  compared 
with  the  general  power  of  legislation.  The 
I problem,  therefore,  of  properly  constituting  the 
i Legislative  Assembly  is  rendered  more  difficult 
j by  this  duplex  system,  and  each  chamber  needs 
i to  be  considered  separately.  The  very  names 
we  apply  to  the  two  chambers  dimly  shadow 
! forth  the  different  character  of  the  two  bodies, 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 


1&85 


Day.] 

February  24, 1874.]  Griswold. 


“Senate,”  the  elders,  and  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives.  We  treat  the  latter  as  the  real  Re- 
presentative  Assembly,  and  its  frame  and 
members  fall  naturally  to  be  first  considered. 
Inasmuch  as  this  body  deals  only  with  domestic 
affairs,  the  number  of  its  members  should  be 
sufficiently  large,  that  each  Representative 
should  be  able  to  understand  the  wants  and 
needs  of  his  constituents,  and  not  so  great  as  to 
render  the  body  unwieldy  from  magnitude. 
Your  Committee  determined  upon  (in  round 
numbers)  25,000  inhabitants  as  the  number  of 
one  constituency ; which,  on  the  average,  in- 
cludes about  5,000  electors  for  each  Representa- 
tive. For  myself,  I would  have  preferred 
20,000,  which  would  only  give  150  Representa- 
tives for  3,000,000  of  inhabitants,  but  yielded  to 
those  who  would  have  made  the  ratio  even 
greater. 

The  Legislative  Article  has  also  provided  that 
the  Representative  shall  be  a resident  of  the 
community  which  he  represents,  and  the  num- 
ber of  his  constituents  as  determined  by  the 
Committee,  is  not  so  large  but  that  a man  of 
ordinary  intelligence  and  ability  may  person- 
ally know  the  greater  part  of  the  voters  of  his 
district.  Hence,  it  may  reasonably  be  believed 
that  he  cannot  fail  to  be  acquainted  with  their 
wishes  and  necessities  on  all  subjects  of  legis- 
lation. Another  leading  feature  of  the  scheme 
proposed,  is  the  single  district  plan  of  election, 
but  this  fixed  ratio  and  single  district  system 
is  modified  by  allowing  each  county  one  Re- 
presentative, and  is  further  modified  by  allow- 
ing counties  with  two  ratios,  or  with  a 
ratio  and  a half,  an  additional  Representa- 
tive. I omit,  for  the  present,  any  reference 
to  the  great  counties  of  Hamilton  and  Cuya- 
hoga. But  having  adopted  the  single  dis- 
trict plan  as  a general  rule,  it  will  be  found  that 
the  number  25,000  represents  by  far  the  greatest 
average  of  the  counties,  there  being  in  fact  but 
ten  double  districts,  with  both  the  additional 
and  fractional  ratio.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that 
to  a certain  extent  there  are  inequalities  in 
this  plan,  and  that  some  counties  have  an  ex- 
cess and  some  fall  below  the  ratio.  This  cannot 
possibly  be  prevented  by  any  plan  of  district- 
ing, and  it  is  never  possible  to  regulate  hu- 
man affairs  by  strict  mathematical  rules,  or 
upon  principles  of  inexorable  logic;  all  such 
attempts  are  futile,  whether  applied  to  the  form 
of  government  or  to  policies  of  administration; 
for  human  will  and  passion  are  movable  fac- 
tors which  set  at  defiance  all  such  calculations. 
We  have  treated  the  county  as  the  political 
unit  in  representation.  The  people  of  a county, 
as  a rule,  have  an  acquaintance  with  all  their 
fellows,  and  are  accustomed  to  act  together  in 
their  local  affairs,  and  we  deemed  it  wiser  to 
allow  in  certain  cases  a Representative  for  a 
number  below  the  ratio,  than  to  attempt  to  join 
one  county  to  another,  for  this  would  always 
involve  the  inequality  of  excess  over  the  ratio. 
In  our  judgment,  the  advantages  from  the  inti- 
mate acquaintance  and  political  association 
within  the  county  line  over-balance  the  evil  of 
inequality  of  numbers.  The  allowance  of  mere- 
ly ten  double  districts  does  not  materially  af- 
fect the  system  of  single  districts,  and  corrects 
what  otherwise  would  be  a great  inequality. 

I am  aware  that  the  ardent  advocates  of  re- 

y.h-102 


form  in  representation  bitterly  attack  the  sys- 
tem of  single  districts.  I see  no  occasion  to  an- 
swer their  arguments  in  detail,  but  there  is 
one,  however,  I desire  to  notice.  These  men 
complain  that  this  system  gives  injurious  prom- 
inence to  local  jealousies  and  prejudices,  and 
compels  the  electors  to  choose  their  Represen- 
tative from  their  own  immediate  neighbor- 
hood, instead  of  allowing  them  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  services  of  able  and  dis- 
tinguished men  who,  perchance,  reside  in  a 
different  locality.  But  these  objectors  forget 
that  the  Assembly  for  a State  is  devoted  to  do- 
mestic affairs,  and  their  very  objection  is  one  of 
the  strongest  arguments  in  favor  of  the  single 
district.  It  is  desirable  that  the  local  prejudices 
and  interests  should  be  represented  and  heard 
in  debate.  Nor  need  I enlarge  upon  the  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  single  districts,  for  the  dan- 
ger is,  we  shall  permit  our  bias  in  this  direc- 
tion to  lead  us  to  forget  those  defects  of  the  sys- 
tem which  your  Committee  have  labored  to  ob- 
viate and  correct.  So  long  as  the  State  remains 
fairly  divided  between  village  and  county  pop- 
ulation, the  single  district  plan  remains  the 
preferable  one,  and  county  lines  the  best  boun- 
daries of  the  district.  But  the  existence  of  a 
great  city  within  the  county  introduces  a new 
element  into  the  problem,  and  if  the  county 
line  is  preserved  and  retained  as  the  boundary, 
and  the  city  allowed  a representation  in  propor- 
tion to  its  numbers,  an  anomaly  is  at  once  cre- 
ated antagonistic  to  the  system  itself,  and  de- 
structive of  it.  As  previously  observed,  the  al- 
lowance of  a few  double  districts  works  no  se- 


I of  the  whole  number  of  the  representative 
! body,  it  practically  destroys  the  benefits  of  the 
system ; and,  as  the  cities  increase,  the  evil  is  in- 
tensified. The  practical  question  which  the 
Committee  were  called  upon  to  deal  with,  was, 
how  can  the  single  district  system  be  preserved 
in  this  state  of  affairs,  and  at  the  same  time  not 
fall  into  equal  difficulties  in  other  directions  ? 
The  short  cut  seemed  to  be  the  division  of  these 
large  counties  into  single  districts.  The  plain 
and  manifest  objection  to  dividing  up  counties 
and  cities  into  single  districts  is  the  evil  known 
as  “gerrymandering.” 

It  is  always  practicable  so  to  divide  such  a 
community  into  districts  as  to  secure  to  those 
who  have  it  in  charge,  by  skillful  management 
of  boundaries,  to  give  to  their  friends  an  undue 
control  of  the  representative  power.  Indeed, 
this  is  so  easily  done  it  is  doubtful  whether  any 
political  party  has  sufficient  moral  strength  not 
to  be  overcome  by  the  temptation  which  such 
an  opportunity  would  offer,  and  this  opportu- 
nity is  renewed  just  as  often  as  the  changes  in 
population  require  a re-adjustment  of  the  dis- 
trict boundaries.  All  will  admit  that  the  elec- 
tion of  a large  number  of  Representatives,  on 
a general  ticket,  is  totally  at  variance  with  the 
single  district  system.  None  can  deny  that  the 
practice  of  gerrymandering  is  the  vice  of  all 
political  parties. 

To  avoid  both  dangers,  your  Committee  have 
recommended  that,  when  a county  shall,  by  the 
ratio  proposed,  be  entitled  to  three  or  more  Rep- 
resentatives, they  shall  be  selected  by  the  elect- 
j ors  of  the  county,  by  what  is  called  the  cumu- 


1586 


[122nd 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Griswold.  [Tuesday, 


lative  system  of  voting.  Of  the  various  modes 
suggested  by  the  advocates  of  representative 
reform,  this  appears  to  me  to  be  the  least  cum- 
brous and  the  most  easy  and  simple  in  being 
carried  into  practice.  Much  discussion  has 
been  had  in  this  body  on  the  subject  of  minority 
representation,  so  called,  or  rather  miscalled, 
as  applied  to  the  judicial  elections.  It  has 
pleased  many  to  sneer  at  the  subject,  to  term  it 
the  “ Universal  Solvent,”  and  the  like,  as  if  bad 
names  were  argument.  It  is  easy  to  give  any 
proposed  reform  a bad  name,  and  array  against 
it  the  prejudices  of  custom  and  habit.  Indeed, 
prejudices  and  acquired  habits  of  thought  are 
the  vis  inertia  of  the  moral  world.  Now,  the 
most  zealous  opponents  of  this  so  called  minor- 
ity representation  are,  at  the  same  time,  the 
ardent  advocates  of  the  singe  district  system. 
In  their  zeal  they  seem  to  forget  that,  under 
that  system,  it  is  possible  for  a minority  of  the 
whole  people  always  to  have  a majority  in  the 
Representative  Assembly  wherever  there  exists 
a division  in  political  sentiment.  As,  for  exam- 
ple, the  body  is  composed  of  ninety-nine  mem- 
bers, and  each  district  contains  the  same  num- 
ber of  voters.  If  fifty  districts  elect  their  mem- 
bers each  by  one  majority,  and  the  forty-nine 
each  by  two  majority,  then  just  one-half  of  the 
whole  number  of  the  electors  would  have  one 
majority  in  the  representative  body.  If  you  in- 
crease the  majorities  in  the  forty-nine  districts, 
then  by  so  much  more  does  the  minority  have 
control.  This  favorite  system  itself,  therefore, 
is  capable  of  giving  the  minority  the  power  to 
rule.  It,  perhaps,  seldom  occurs  as  a matter  of 
experience,  but  it  sometimes  does  so  happen, 
and  the  evil  becomes  grievous  when  you  add  to 
the  system  a few  large  districts  electing  by  gen- 
eral ticket,  or  increase  the  chances  of  its  hap- 
pening by  the  vice  of  gerrymandering.  It  does 
not  follow  that  the  minority  thus  accidentally 
in  power  will  make  bad  laws,  but  such  a state 
of  things  induces  and  produces  political  immor- 
ality, which  is  by  far  a greater  evil  than  bad 
legislation. 

In  view  of  these  defects  of  the  single  district 
system,  what  becomes  of  the  so-called  “ancient 
rule  of  the  majority?”  Indeed,  the  arguments 
with  which  we  have  been  favored  ignore  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  representative  as- 
sembly, and  its  importance  and  necessity  in 
every  good  civilized  state.  Again,  it  has  been 
urged  that  the  people  do  not  understand  this 
mode  of  cumulative  voting,  and  that  it  will 
need  an  advent  of  political  missionaries  to  con- 
vert and  instruct  the  people  in  this  new  politi- 
cal gospel.  I do  not  so  underrate  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  people  of  Ohio.  The  average 
voter  well  knows  how  to  scratch  from  his  ticket 
an  obnoxious  name,  nor  does  it  require  on  his 
part  a very  extensive  course  of  training  to 
understand  how  to  give  three  or  more  votes  on 
one  ballot  for  his  favorite  candidate,  and  leave 
the  others  out  in  the  cold,  if  you  will  only  give 
him  a chance  so  to  do.  Gentlemen  may  amuse 
themselves  here  with  such  kind  of  talk,  but  I 
feel  certain  no  one  would  dare  to  tell  the  voter 
to  his  face  that  he  didn’t  know  enough  to  cast 
his  ballot  so  as  to  count  three  or  more  for  his 
personal  favorite.  Again,  it  is  urged  that,  un- 
der this  mode,  bad  and  corrupt  men  will  unite, 
and  elect  their  own  man  to  the  Legislature. 


The  present  system  has  not  prevented  the 
election  of  dishonest  and  corrupt  men.  But 
this  is  rather  an  imaginary  than  a real  danger. 
Vice  and  crime  do  not  parade  themselves,  and 
make  open  warfare.  Corruption  proceeds  in  an 
insidious  manner,  and  by  occult  practices.  It 
is  generally  by  loud  assumption  of  the  virtues 
of  honesty  and  patriotism  that  the  political 
thief  and  rascal  gets  into  place  and  power.  It 
is  true  that,  under  this  mode  of  election,  a par- 
ticular class  or  interest  can  combine  and  elect 
a representative,  and  it  is  possible  for  a re- 
ligious sect  or  a particular  business  interest  to 
choose  their  own  man.  This,  however,  is  one 
of  the  chief  arguments  in  its  favor,  fcr  this  is 
the  chief  advantage  of  the  single  district  sys- 
tem. Let  the  religious  devotees,  the  brewers  or 
the  prohibitionists  have  their  representative  in 
the  legislative  assembly.  In  the  representative 
body,  let  every  class  and  interest  be  heard. 
Fair  debate  never  injured  any  cause,  and,  by 
having  a hearing  and  a vote,  each  class  and 
interest  in  community  will  be  considered,  and 
so  the  general  law  will  bear  more  justly  and 
equally  on  all.  The  change  proposed  only  af- 
fects the  two  great  counties,  and  can  only  reach 
to  a few  more  in  a long  space  of  time.  It  retains 
all  the  benefits  of  the  existing  system,  and 
avoids  its  confessed  defects,  and  the  evils  of 
attempting  to  improve  the  present  system  by 
division  of  cities  and  counties.  If  the  State 
were  fairly  divided  into  town  and  country 
population,  the  change  might  not  be  wise,  but 
it  seems  to  be  a necessity  to  meet  the  conditions 
of  a great  and  crowded  city.  In  a district 
where  the  majority  of  the  population  is  agri- 
cultural, it  is  easy  for  the  constituency  to  know 
the  character,  habits  and  pursuits  of  their  rep- 
resentative. He  must  be  of  them,  and,  to 
command  their  suffrages,  he  must  have  at- 
tained, in  some  honorable  calling,  their  respect 
and  confidence.  The  mere  adventurer  and  pro- 
fessional spoils  seeker  would  fail  in  that  behalf. 
The  people  likewise  have  leisure  to  canvass  the 
merits  of  those  who  seek  their  support.  But 
in  the  city,  the  great  mass  of  the  voters  are  too 
busy  to  devote  the  necessary  time  to  this  pur- 
pose; neither  do  they  have  the  same  oppor- 
tunity of  judging  of  personal  fitness  of 
candidates.  It  is  in  these  populous  counties 
where  political  corruption  breeds  and  is 
fostered.  The  immense  local  political  ma- 
chinery furnishes  great  opportunity  to  these 
political  leeches  and  rascals. 

“Where’er  ye  fling  the  carrion, 

The  raven’s  croak  is  loud.” 

It  is  here  where  the  caucus  rules  and  riots — a 
system  of  political  management  which  consigns 
to  helplessness  and  indifference  a large  body  of 
the  best  electors,  and  practically  excludes  them 
from  their  proper  share  in  public  affairs.  With- 
in the  foul  precincts  of  the  caucus,  these  politi- 
cal robbers  dwell.  It  is  idle  to  talk  of  the  duty 
of  attending  the  primary  meetings,  for  the 
great  body  of  the  industrious  and  business  men 
of  the  city  are  unable  to  do  this.  The  manage- 
ment of  the  caucus  requires  a vast  amount  of 
preliminary  work,  which  only  the  trained 
henchman  of  the  leading  managers  can  per- 
form. A vigorous  writer  on  this  subiect  has 
well  said : 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Griswold. 


1587 


Day.] 


February  24,  1874/ 


“ It  is  inevitable  that  in  this  state  of  things 
there  should  arise  political  ‘ rings,’  small  co- 
teries of  political  managers,  with  every  oppor- 
tunity to  control  and  direct  the  course  of  party 
politics  to  their  mutual  advantage.  Their  in- 
jurious influence  is  felt  both  by  the  public  man 
and  by  the  private  citizen.  Public  life,  as  a 
career,  becomes  practically  closed  to  men  of 
marked  character  and  independent  views.  The 
private  citizen  feels  himself  to  be  the  tool  in 
the  hands  of  his  political  advisers,  and  finding 
the  more  obscure  and  irksome  of  his  public 
duties,  the  attending  upon  primary  meetings 
and  nominating  conventions  not  only  distaste- 
ful, but  futile,  abandons  them  in  disgust.  Nor 
does  he  find  more  satisfaction  in  the  exercise 
of  suffrage  itself.  Though  nominally  free  to 
vote  for  whom  he  pleases,  the  knowledge  that  his 
vote  is  thrown  away  unless  it  is  given  for  the 
regular  candidate,  that  is,  he  may  as  well  not 
vote  at  all  as  not  obey  his  political  advisers, 
binds  him  hand  and  foot.  He  finds  himself 
practically  obliged  to  choose  among  candidates 
for  none  of  whom  he  probably  cares  a farthing, 
so  that  indifference  to  his  more  public  duties 
follows  fast  upon  his  distaste  for  the  more  ob- 
scure. He  soon  cares  as  little  to  go  to  the  polls 
as  to  go  to  the  primary  meeting.” 

The  division  of  your  cities  into  single  dis- 
tricts will  not  remedy  this  state  of  things.  The 
caucus  management  will  continue  to  reign 
supreme  in  spite  of  such  division,  as  the  ex- 
perience of  the  cities  of  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia abundantly  demonstrates.  Nor  does  it 
matter  what  party  is  in  the  majority,  as  those 
two  cities  are  controlled  by  opposing  parties. 
Your  primary  election  laws  and  committees  of 
reform  are  but  temporary  expedients.  These 
plundering  wolves  will  temporarily  flee  and 
hide,  but  they  will  shortly  reappear  with  whet- 
ted teeth  and  hungrier  maws.  Is  it  not  the 
part  of  wisdom  to  attempt  some  method  for 
exercising  the  suffrage  which  will  deprive  these 
managers  and  wire-pullers  of  their  power,  and 
free  the  honest  elector  from  their  control  ? The 
method  of  cumulative  voting  is  a step  in  the 
right  direction.  It  strikes  at  the  caucus  sys- 
tem “straight  from  the  shoulder.”  If  any  re- 
spectable body  of  the  voters  in  a city  are  not 
satisfied  with  the  candidates  nominated,  this 
method  gives  them  opportunity  to  elect  inde- 
pendent candidates.  As  things  now  stand,  the 
dissatisfied  voter  can  only  scratch  an  obnoxious 
name,  or  vote  for  his  political  opponent  out  of 
spite ; but  this  change  gives  him  opportunity 
to  make  his  objection  effective.  It  will  be  im- 
possible for  the  secret  managers,  who  have 
agreed  upon  a division  of  the  spoils  and  dicta- 
ted the  nominees,  to  control  the  election.  The 
honest  and  independent  voters  can  use  their 
power  to  some  practical  purpose.  The  repre- 
sentatives from  the  cities  will  be  chosen  to 
represent  the  different  interests  and  classes, 
and  will  necessarily  be  divided  in  their  politi- 
cal views,  and  the  popular  branch  of  your  Gen- 
eral Assembly  will  be  truly  a representative 
body.  It  will  be  a fair  exponent  of  the  wants 
and  wishes  of  the  people,  where  the  interest  of 
each  and  every  important  class  in  community 
can  be  heard  in  debate,  and  have  its  due  weight 
in  the  enactment  of  laws  to  which  all  must 
submit. 


I have  thus  far  confined  my  remarks  to  the 
constitution  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
As  previously  observed,  the  other  branch  is  not 
a necessity  in  the  State  government.  When 
you  have  properly  constituted  a law-making 
Representative  Assembly,  no  additional  body  is 
necessary  to  carry  the  popular  will  into  legis- 
lation. But  such  has  always  been  the  custom, 
and  we  have  already  ordained  that  this  second 
chamber  should  continue.  Although  it  is  not  a 
necessary,  it  is  nevertheless  a useful  body,  and 
its  continuance  is  justified  by  experience  as  a 
sort  of  check  and  regulator  of  the  more  popular 
Assembly,  and  as  such  it  has  always  been  the 
custom  to  make  it  comparatively  a small  body. 
Its  members,  therefore,  must  necessarily  be 
chosen  by  a large  constituency.  There  has 
been  a desire  on  the  part  of  many  of  this  Con- 
vention, also,  to  extend  the  Senator’s  term  of 
office,  but  this  change  did  not  find  favor  with 
the  majority.  The  practical  objection  to  this 
was,  that  from  the  changes  which  might  occur 
in  public  opinion,  such  a Senate  might  prove 
too  great  an  obstruction  to  the  popular  will. 
Inasmuch  as  this  body  is  designed  as  a sort  of 
check  upon  the  more  popular  branch,  a sort  of 
balance  wheel  or  regulator  in  the  political  ma- 
chinery, it  is  desirable  to  so  constitute  it  as  not 
to  allow  the  minority  to  hinder  and  obstruct 
the  majority,  nor  to  so  arrange  the  constituen- 
cies which  elect  the  members  thereof  as  to  give 
undue  advantage  to  one  part  of  the  State  over 
other  parts.  As  the  county  is  the  unit  for  the 
election  of  a Representative,  several  counties 
must  be  united  to  choose  a Senator.  The  whole 
argument  in  favor  of  single  districts  for  the 
Representative  fails  when  applied  to  the  Sena- 
tor. He  cannot  be  considered  as  the  exponent 
of  the  will  of  his  neighbors  and  vicinage.  He 
cannot  be  presumed  to  know  personally  the 
great  body  of  his  electoral  constituency.  He 
cannot  even  in  a large  city  under  any  system 
of  choice  be  the  mere  representative  of  a class 
or  interest.  The  Representative  in  debate  cham- 
pions his  immediate  locality  or  constituency ; 
the  Senator  representing  several  of  such  con- 
stituencies and  localities  is  able  to  harmonize 
contending  interests  and  claims.  Such  being 
in  theory  his  office  and  duty,  your  Committee 
have  recommended  that  the  State  be  divided 
into  ten  Senatorial  districts,  each  with  three 
Senators,  and  also  that  there  be  elected  three 
Senators  by  the  electors  of  the  whole  State, 
making  the  number  of  that  body  thirty-three. 
They  have  also  recommended  that  the  cumula- 
tive voting  method  be  applied  to  their  election. 
The  first  great  gain  from  dividing  the  State 
into  large  districts  is  the  tendency  to  destroy 
gerrymandering ; for  the  fewer  the  districts,  the 
less  the  opportunity  in  that  direction,  and  in 
addition  thereto  it  is  a permanent  division  for 
many  years  to  come.  Such  is  the  peculiar 
geography  of  our  counties,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  make  thirty-three  single  districts,  bounded 
by  county  lines,  without  making  glaring  ine- 
qualities ; and  this  evil  is  intensified  if  you  in- 
crease the  number.  The  same  tendency  and 
opportunity  to  gerrymander  is  created  if  you 
also  attempt  the  division  of  counties.  And,  if, 
as  a rule,  you  adopt  single  districts  and  allow 
the  counties  of  Cuyahoga  and  Hamilton  to  be 
double  and  quadruple  districts,  you  set  up  a 


1588 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [122nd 


Griswold. 


[Tuesday, 


machinery  by  which  it  is  always  possible  to 
defeat  the  popular  will  of  the  State.  If  you 
divide  these  counties,  you  leave  a constant  source 
of  discontent  and  trouble.  It  is  urged  that  the 
elector  of  so  large  a district,  being  unable  to 
personally  judge  of  the  fitness  of  the  candi- 
dates, will  manifest  no  interest  in  their  selec- 
tion, and  that  the  nominations  will  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  court-house  rings  and  cliques. 
The  same  objection  applies  to  the  election  of  the 
Governor  and  State  officers.  It  is  proposed  to 
elect  circuit  judges  by  still  larger  circuits,  but 
the  objection  altogether  fails  when  to  their 
election  you  apply  the  method  of  cumulative 
voting.  In  every  district  there  will  be  found 
men  of  capacity  and  ability,  who  have  more 
than  a mere  neighborhood  reputation,  and  will 
be  known  throughout  the  district.  If  the  party 
nominees  are  unsatisfactory,  the  voter  is  not 
obliged  to  scratch,  vote  for  his  opposing  party 
candidate,  or  throw  his  vote  away.  The  indepen- 
dent candidate  who  is  well  known  and  the  most 
worthy,  stands  an  equal  chance  with  the  regular 
nominee.  If  we  fairly  divide  the  State  into 
these  large  districts  the  political  majority,  as  a 
rule,  will  always  command  the  majority  in  the 
Senate,  or  if  they  do  not,  it  will  be  either  their 
own  fault  or  folly.  The  division  proposed  is 
not  open  to  the  objection  that  it  gives  undue 
advantage  to  any  party  interest.  It  is  the  joint 
work  of  those  who  have  always  been  opposed  in 
political  action.  If  the  cumulative  voting  be 
also  retained,  it  is  fair  to  be  presumed  that  men 
from  both  of  the  existing  political  parties  will 
be  chosen  from  each  of  the  districts.  Under  the 
present  system,  with  existing  political  division 
of  sentiment,  it  is  practically  impossible  for 
such  men  as  Henry  B.  Payne,  or  Rufus  P.  Ran- 
ney,  to  become  members  of  the  Senate  from 
Cuyahoga  county,  if,  perchance,  they  were  wil- 
ling to  give  their  valuable  time  and  services  to 
the  State.  I simply  use  this  as  an  illustration, 
for  the  same  is  true  of  distinguished  Republi- 
cans in  other  sections.  The  change  proposed 
will  allow  the  choice  of  men  of  each  party  from 
each  district,  and  the  three  additional  Senators 
at  large  will  still  further  increase  the  oppor- 
tunity to  place  in  that  body  men  of  wisdom  and 
experience.  Your  Ex-Governors,  Judges,  Sen- 
ators, and  Representatives  in  Congress,  who 
happen  to  be  located  in  a community  differing 
in  political  sentiment,  can  be  selected  by  their 
friends  and  admirers,  and  will  have  opportunity 
to  furnish  to  the  State  their  experience  and 
service.  It  is  believed  by  its  friends  that  the 
change  proposed  will  tend,  in  this  manner,  to 
improve  the  character  of  the  Senate,  and  so 
improve  the  Legislature,  and  promote  the  gen- 
eral welfare.  The  changes  proposed  by  the 
Report  are  not  violent  or  fundamental.  We 
have  endeavored  to  cherish  and  preserve  what 
experience  has  proved  useful  and  beneficial.  In 
substance,  the  old  system  of  single  districts  for 
the  representative  body  has  been  left  untouched. 
The  amendments  engrafted  upon  it  have  been 
adopted  simply  to  correct  patent  and  glaring  de- 
fects. It  may  not  be  the  wisest  or  best  remedy, 
but  it  commends  itself  to  our  judgment.  It  has 
been  generally  conceded,  that  in  the  country  at 
large,  there  has  been  a deterioration  of  the 
Legislative  Assemblies,  and  the  minds  of  all 
thoughtful  believers  in  free  government  have 


been  directed  to  the  subject.  In  the  Legislative 
Article  we  have  made  an  attempt  at  reform  in 
this  matter.  We  have  adopted  the  plan  of  bi- 
ennial elections,  thus  requiring  of  the  elector 
less  time  for  the  mere  working  of  the  electoral 
machinery,  and  making  more  important  the 
suffrage  when  actually  exercised.  We  have 
endeavored  by  various  restrictions  to  guard  the 
treasury  against  the  lobbyist  and  plunderer; 
and  by  giving  to  the  Governor  the  veto,  we  have 
placed  over  the  treasury  a guard  against  the 
partners  of  those  thieves,  who,  by  stealth  or 
otherwise,  may  gain  admittance  to  the  legis- 
lative body,  as  well  as  also  a check  upon  hasty 
and  inconsiderate  action. 

But,  after  all,  Mr.  President,  no  scheme  or 
frame  of  government,  however  wisely  devised, 
will  be  of  value  unless  honestly  administered. 
No  amount  of  outside  moral  influence  will  save 
a man  who  is  bent  on  his  own  destruction,  and 
no  frame  of  government  will  protect  the  people 
unless  they  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunities 
offered  of  selecting  proper  and  fitting  men  to 
exercise  the  functions  of  that  government.  We 
have  endeavored  to  increase  this  opportunity  in 
regard  to  selection  of  the  Legislature. 

If  our  labor  shall  not  be  approved,  it  is  to  be 
hoped  something  wiser  and  better  will  be  pro- 
posed in  its  stead ; never  was  there  a more  au- 
spicious time  for  men  to  forget  and  lay  aside 
mere  differences,  and  honestly  and  faithfully 
address  their  best  endeavors  to  the  improve- 
ment of  the  constitution  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly. While  we  still  continue  to  be  ranged  in 
party  lines,  there  is  in  fact  no  principle  in  the 
theory  of  government,  or  on  questions  of  ad- 
ministrative policy  that  divides  the  two  parties 
in  Ohio.  Our  division  is  a mere  matter  of  tradi- 
tion and  association,  and  is  likely  to  continue 
until  some  future  dividing  question  shall  again 
excite  the  public  mind.  Neither  does  there  exist 
any  real  national  dividing  question  between  the 
existing  parties.  It  would  be  difficult  for  the 
most  acute  or  ingenious  mind  to  define  any 
principle  or  measure  and  honestly  predicate  this 
or  that  as  Republican  or  Democratic.  The 
only  two  real  living  questions  of  State  policy 
in  which  the  people  are  interested,  and  at  the 
same  time  divided,  is  that  of  municipal  aid  to 
railroads,  and  the  regulation  or  prohibition  of 
the  liquor  traffic.  And  these  divisions  are  mark- 
ed by  no  present  party  lines.  Freed,  therefore, 
from  the  bitterness  of  party  strife,  we  ought  to 
be  able  to  consider  this  subject  with  sole  refer- 
ence to  the  future  good  of  the  State,  for  it  is 
upon  and  around  the  State  government  all  our 
dearest  interests  depend. 

The  action  of  the  Nation,  in  its  federal  char- 
acter, is,  to  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  distant 
and  remote.  It  is  in  the  State  we  dwell,  and  by 
its  authority  our  persons  and  property  are  pro- 
tected. By  its  laws  the  marriage  relations  are 
regulated.  In  a word,  under  its  laws  we  live 
and  die,  and  our  estates  are  administered  and 
distributed.  No  greater  or  more  important 
duty  can  fall  to  us,  than  endeavoring  to  render 
the  law-making  body  as  perfect  as  possible.  If 
we  should  be  able  to  do  but  a little  in  that  be- 
half, even  that  little  will  add  greatly  to  the  sum 
of  human  happiness  and  well  being.  If  we  fail, 
let  us  trust  others  will  succeed,  and  that  our 
State  of  Ohio,  in  its  moral  and  political  growth, 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1589 

February  24. 1874.]  Hitchcock,  Cook,  King,  Dorsey,  Powell,  Baber,  etc. 


will  keep  even  pace  with  its  material  progress, 
and  so  continue  down  the  ages. 

The  CHAIRMAN".  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook] 
to  strike  out  all  of  Proposition  No.  194,  after 
section  one,  and  insert  Proposition  No.  195. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  for  a division  of 
the  question. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  will  first  be 
taken  upon  striking  out. 

A division  was  called  for,  and  being  taken, 
resulted,  affirmative  33,  negative  22. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  that  the  Committee  now 
rise,  and  report  to  the  Convention  its  action. 

Mr.  KING.  The  Proposition  is  stricken  out, 
but  we  have  not  inserted  anything. 

Mr.  COOK.  We  don’t  want  to  insert  any- 
thing. We  can  do  that  in  the  Convention 
better. 

Mr.  Cook’s  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the 
Committee  rose. 

IN  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole 
having  had  under  consideration  Proposition  No. 
194,  direct  me  to  report  the  same  back  as  strik- 
ing out  all  after  section  one. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I demand  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  BABER.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll,  and  sixty-one 
members  responded  to  their  names,  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Baber,  Beer,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  De  Stei- 
guer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Freiberg, Godfrey, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hill,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Hostetter,  Hunt,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sears, 
Shultz,  Steedman,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yan 
Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  White  of 
Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble,  Presi- 
dent— 61. 

The  absentees  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Bannon,  Bar- 
net,  Bishop,  Blose,  Byal,  Campbell,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Foran,  Gardner, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Johnson, 
Layton,  McBride,  McCormick,  Okey,  Phellis, 
Philips,  Rickly,  Root,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Sample,  Scofield,  Scribner,  Shaw,  Thompson, 
Townsend,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Yan  Yalkenburgh, 
Watson,  Weaver,  Wells,  West,  White  of  Brown, 
Wilson,  Young  of  Champaign — 43. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
will  close  the  door. 

Mr.  DOAN.  I move  that  further  proceeings 
under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  BABER.  Yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  36,  nays  25,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Bosworth,  Caldwell,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  De  Stei- 
guer,  Doan,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Gurley,  Herron, 
Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Krae- 


mer,  Merrill,  Miller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Pease,  Pond, 
Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Shultz,  Tulloss,  Yan 
Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Waddle,  White  of  Hocking, 
Woodbury,  President — 36. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Beer,  Burns,  Car- 
bery, Dorsey,  Ewing,  Godfrey,  Griswold,  Hill, 
Hunt,  Kerr,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Page, 
Rowland,  Sears,  Steedman,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsley,  Tyler,  Yoris,  Young 
of  Noble — 25. 

So  the  motion  to  suspend  further  proceedings 
under  the  call  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  up- 
on agreeing  to  the  report  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I suppose  there  are  a num- 
ber of  gentlemen  who  desire  to  be  heard  in  this 
matter,  and  the  House  is  certainly  too  thin  to- 
dajr  to  vote  on  so  important  a question.  I 
should  prefer  very  much  that  we  should  hear 
from  gentlemen  rather  than  hurry  it  through  to 
a vote.  I hope  that  if  gentlemen  have  any  de- 
sire to  express  their  opinions  on  the  matter, 
they  will  be  allowed  to  do  so. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  intend  to  make  a 
speech  on  this  subject,  but  I am  surprised,  on 
reading  the  apportionment  Report,  at  its  being  so 
different  from  what  I expected,  and  I apprehend 
that  there  will  be  strife  upon  that  subject.  The 
sixth  section  of  the  Article,  which  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  have  stricken  out,  is  the 
one  to  which  I refer.  The  great  strife  will  un- 
doubtedly be  upon  that  question.  I supposed 
that,  up  to  this  time,  it  was  partly  agreed 
among  the  members  of  the  Convention,  that,  if 
we  adopted  any  of  these  modes  of  voting  at  all, 
it  would  be  what  was  strictly  called  minority 
voting.  That  is,  if  three  persons  are  to  be 
elected,  each  voter  shall  vote  for  two,  giving  to 
the  minority  a chance  of  getting  a share  of  the 
men  by  their  votes ; but  the  sixth  section  pro- 
poses— and  I think  likely  the  friends  of  that 
Article  will  try  to  get  it  restored — to  divide  up 
the  number  where  there  are  more  than  two  per- 
sons to  be  elected,  so  that  each  of  the  electors 
must  have  as  many  ballots  as  there  are  candi- 
dates. If  I am  wrong  in  this  I wish  to  be  set 
right  now.  I say,  under  the  system,  you  must 
have  as  many  ballots  as  there  are  persons  to  be 
voted  for.  If  there  are  three  to  be  elected,  you 
must  have  three  ballots,  because  you  will  not  be 
permitted  to  vote  on  one  ballot,  two,  and  then 
one,  or  vote  all  three  together,  because  that 
would  not  be  dividing  it  up.  There  must  be 
only  one  name  upon  each  ballot. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken. 
In  the  constitution  of  Illinois,  where  this  sys- 
tem is  in  operation,  the  way  the  vote  is  taken  is, 
the  ballots  are  printed,  A,  one  vote;  B,  two 
votes;  or,  A,  one  and  a half  votes;  B,  one  and 
a half  votes.  That  is  the  way  that  is  done,  ex- 
actly as  under  the  present  system,  when  the 
number  of  votes  given  may  be  specified. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  strikes  me  that  cannot  be 
done,  because  it  is  intended  to  keep  the  ballot 
secret,  and  if  you  vote  in  that  way  you  must 
show  your  ballot  to  show  that  you  vote  right. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Each  man  will  be  allowed  to 
vote  for  three  representatives  on  a single  ticket. 
Section  six  is  distinct  on  that  question. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  it  intended  to  be  on  one 
ballot  ? 


1590 


PROPORTIONAL  VOTING. 

Dorsey,  Powell,  Pratt. 


Mr.  DORSEY.  Only  one  ballot.  In  voting 
for  Senators  or  Representatives,  in  a county  in 
which  more  than  two  Representatives  are  to  be 
elected,  each  elector  will  cast  as  many  votes  as 
there  are  Senators  or  Representatives,  or  he  will 
distribute  the  same  in  any  way  among  the  can- 
didates as  he  may  see  lit.  It  is  all  to  be  done  on 
one  ballot,  of  course. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is  a new  idea,  if  it  is  to  be 
done  on  one  ballot. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  you  are  going  to  elect 
three  Senators  in  a senatorial  district,  if  an 
elector  wishes,  he  can  vote  for  A,  B and  C,  and 
then  he  has  exhausted  his  three  votes.  That  is 
all  that  he  has.  But  if,  instead  of  voting  for  A, 
B and  C,  he  may  vote  for  A,  one  vote,  B,  two 
votes,  and  that  makes  his  three  votes,  and  he 
has  exhausted  his  ballot;  or,  he  may  vote  for  A, 
three  votes,  and  then  he  has  exhausted  his  bal- 
lot; or,  he  may  vote  A,  one  and  a half  votes,  B, 
one  and  a half  votes.  It  is  a plain  and  simple 
proposition. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I must  still  oppose  this,  even 
with  that  explanation,  because,  if  you  read  sec- 
tion six,  you  can  construe  it  to  mean  anything. 
You  can  construe  it  to  mean  that  you  shall 
have  three  ballots,  or  one  ballot  for  each  per- 
son, and  there  is  no  examination  to  be  made. 
If  there  are  more  names  than  one  upon  the  bal- 
lot it  is  but  thrown  aside.  It  should  be  the 
elector’s  duty  to  vote  for  one  person ; as  it  is 
now,  to  vote  for  the  largest  number  possible  to 
vote  for. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  In  voting  for  supreme  judges, 
does  not  the  elector  vote  for  five  ? Does  he  use 
five  different  ballots  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir ; but  he  does  not  vote 
for  five.  Under  the  system  that  is  proposed,  he 
votes  in  one  ballot,  and  he  votes  for  three ; or 
the  majority,  if  they  should  be  five. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Precisely.  I say  he  votes 
for  three,  that  is  all.  It  is  the  same  system. 

Mr.  POWELL.  And,  under  this  system,  the 
Legislature,  in  passing  the  act,  in  accordance 
with  it,  can  put  upon  the  act  any  construction 
they  please.  There  may  be  as  many  votes  as 
there  are  members  to  be  elected  for  that  office. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me,  I shall  explain  that  this  section  is  copied 
precisely  from  the  Constitution  of  Illinois.  It 
has  worked  there  without  the  least  difficulty. 
There  has  been  no  trouble  about  carrying  it 
out,  and  it  has  worked  well.  It  seems  to  me  it 
is  a system  that  cannot  be  misunderstood. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  words  “divided  up,” 
may  be  construed  that  you  may  divide  into  halves 
or  eighths. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  equal  parts.  That  is, 
only  halves. 

Mr.  POWELL.  A fourth  is  an  equal  part, 
and  so  is  an  eighth. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  leave  to  explain  to  the 
gentleman  again.  A fourth  cannot  bean  equal 
part,  because  it  would  be  a fourth  to  one  man, 
and  three-fourths  to  another.  The  language 
was  drawn  so  as  not  to  be  misunderstood. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Perhaps  it  is,  but  it  is  fixed 
so  as  not  to  be  divided,  and  that  I shall  object  to. 

Mr.  PRATT.  You  have  not  studied  the  sys- 
tem. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  want  to  study  it.  It 
is  a system  that  is  subject  to  misrepresentation, 


[122nd 

[Tuesday, 


by  which  politicians  may  deceive  unsophisti- 
cated voters  that  have  not  studied  it  out,  and  it 
would  be  subject  to  that  kind  of  misrepresenta- 
tion to  voters,  and  that  one  kind  of  difficulty 
with  regard  to  the  construction  of  the  sec- 
tion, is  a sufficient  objection  to  it.  I want 
some  system  of  voting  that  any  voter,  the 
most  ignorant,  can  understand  as  well  as 
the  system  we  now  have.  The  other  is  a 
system  which  is  to  vote  for  a majority  of  the 
candidates.  That  is,  if  you  have  three,  to  vote 
for  two ; or,  if  you  have  five,  to  vote  for  three, 
if  so  established.  In  this  system  of  minority 
voting,  you  require  but  one  ballot,  and  but  two 
or  three  names  will  be  put  upon  it,  and  every- 
body will  understand  it  at  once;  but  when  you 
are  to  tell  a voter  that  he  may  vote  for  this  man 
and  that  man,  just  as  he  pleases;  that  he  may 
divide  his  vote  up  just  as  he  pleases,  giving  the 
whole  vote  to  one  of  his  candidates,  or  giving  it 
to  all  in  such  proportion  as  he  pleases,  even  by 
fractions,  it  is  subject  to  such  misunderstand- 
ing, misrepresentation  and  fraud  upon  the 
voters,  that  I never  will  go  for  it  at  all.  The 
other  system,  though  I received  it  with  consid- 
erable opposition  in  the  first  place,  I am  now 
disposed  to  favor.  I refer  to  what  has  been 
represented  on  this  floor  as  the  minority  sys- 
tem. I shall  go  for  that,  where  you  vote  for  the 
majority  of  the  officers  elected,  for  that  subject 
is  no  more  subject  to  misrepresentation,  cheat- 
ing and  fraud  upon  the  voters  than  our  present 
system  is.  That  is  easy  enough  to  be  under- 
stood ; but  this  system,  represented  here  by  sec- 
tion six,  which  divides  the  vote  as  they  please, 
is  so  subject  to  be  misunderstood  and  misrepre- 
sented, that  I cannot  support  it.  What  has 
passed  between  the  gentleman  and  myself  is 
sufficient  to  show  that  it  is  subject  to  misrepre- 
sentation and  to  misunderstanding,  and,  there- 
fore, subject  to  fraud  and  misrepresentation 
upon  the  voter.  When  he  speaks  of  my  misrep- 
resentation and  misunderstanding  of  it,  if  I have 
misrepresented  it,  as  he  refers  to  the  system  as 
they  have  adopted  it  in  Illinois,  and  says  this 
section  is  exactly  like  it.  If  it  is  so,  it  was 
necessary,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Legisla- 
ture should  understand  it,  and  pass  an  act  in 
accordance  with  it,  so  that  the  voters  may 
understand  its  practical  workings.  But  our 
Legislature  may  put  an  entirely  different 
construction  upon  it.  The  words  “divide  it,” 
in  relation  to  the  vote,  are  subject  to  misrepre- 
sentation and  misunderstanding,  that  there  is 
great  danger  in  adopting  it  in  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Jf  the  gentleman  will  look  a^ 
the  section,  he  will  see  that  it  is  not  subject  to 
misunderstanding  and  misrepresentation.  If 
he  reads  it  carefully,  I am  sure  he  will  under- 
stand it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I had  no  idea,  until  this 
afternoon,  that  this  sixth  section  differed  from 
that  system  which  has  been  advocated  here 
of  minority  voting,  as  applied  in  voting  for  the 
judges. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  be  glad  to  have  the 
gentleman  read  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  1 shall  thank  you  to  read  it. 
I cannot  see  very  well. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  ask  the  Secretary  to 
read  it. 

The  Secretary  read : 


PROPORTIONAL  VOTING. 

Powell,  Dorsey,  Gurley. 


1591 


Day.] 

February  24, 1874.] 


“Sec.  6.  In  voting  for  Senators,  or  in  voting  for  Repre- 
sentatives, in  counties  entitled  to  more  than  Wo  Repre. 
sentatives,  each  elector  may  cast  as  many  votes  as  there 
are  Senators  to  be  elected,  or  he  may  distribute  the  same, 
or  equal  parts  thereof,  among  the  candidates,  as  he  may 
see  fit,  and  the  candidates  highest  in  vote  shall  be  de- 
clared. elected.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  words  “each  elector 
may  cast  as  many  votes  as  there  are  Senators  to 
be  elected,  or  he  may  distribute  the  same,  or 
equal  parts  thereof , among  the  candidates,  as  he 
may  see  fit,”  are  words  upon  which  the  Legisla- 
ture of  Ohio  may  put  an  entirely  different  con- 
struction from  what  the  Legislature  of  Illinois 
has  done. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  fallow 
me  to  ask  him  a question  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Certainly. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  In  voting  for  county  com- 
missioners, do  you  not  to-day  cast  as  many 
votes  as  there  are  commissioners  to  be  elected  ? 
And  in  voting  for  township  trustees,  do  you 
not  vote  for  as  many  trustees  as  there  are  to  be 
elected?  And  has  any  one  any  difficulty  in 
framing  his  ballot  for  that  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  But  they  put  it  all  in  one 
ballot. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  So  do  we  here. 

Mr.  POWELL.  You  do  not  say  so.  The 
Legislature  may  direct  that  the  electors  may 
have  a separate  ballot  for  each  person  elected, 
or  divide  the  vote  to  be  given  in  a very  different 
manner  from  that  intended. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I presume  the  Legislature 
would  cary  out  the  plain  word  and  letter  of  the 
Constitution. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  plain  wording  of  it  would 
indicate  that  it  was  to  be  a separate  ballot  for 
each  person  to  be  elected. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  the  gentleman  and  I 
differ. 

Mr.  POWELL.  If  the  Legislature  of  Illi- 
nois accepted  it  differently,  they  probably  un- 
derstood well  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution, 
but  that  every  Legislature  would  do  the  same 
thing,  is  a query. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Was  it  necessary  for  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio  to  de- 
clare by  statute,  that  in  voting  for  county  com- 
missioners the  electors  should  use  one  single 
ballot?  Did  they  ever  do  it? 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly  they  never  did. 

Mr.  POWELL.  But  it  is  always  understood. 
If  you  have  one  ballot  you  vote  every  man 
in  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  So  it  is  here. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  construction  of  this  may 
be  different. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  pardon,  it  is  not  dif- 
ferent 

Mr.  POWELL.  As  many  “votes”  and  “bal- 
lots” mean  the  same  thing.  They  are  convertible 
terms;  and  when  you  say  as  may  votes  you 
mean  as  many  ballots,  and  when  you  say  bal- 
lots you  mean  as  many  votes. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  we  differ. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I shall  not  debate  this  any 
further  at  this  time.  I have  indicated  my  ob- 
jection to  it,  and  my  great  objection  is,  that  it  is 
so  intricate  a matter  that  the  voters  will  be  sub- 
ject to  be  imposed  upon  and  defrauded  by  the 
ingenious  misrepresentations  of  politicians. 


I want  to  have  the  system  we  adopt  as  plain,  as 
certain  and  as  definite  as  we  can  possibly  get  it, 
and  on  that  ground  I shall  go  against  this;  but 
I would  go  for  minority  voting,  because  I do 
not  think  that  is  subject  to  misrepresentation 
and  fraud  that  might  be  committed  by  politi- 
cians under  this  accumulating  voting.  All  I 
wish  was  to  indicate  my  objections  at  this  time, 
with  the  hope  that  a plainer  and  better  system 
of  voting  might  be  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I move  the  Convention  ad- 
journ. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  19,  nay  38,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Beer,  Burns,  Carbery,  Dorsey, 
Griswold,  Herron,  Hunt,  Kerr,  Miner,  Mueller, 
Rowland,  Sears,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Steedman,  Townsley,  Voris,  President 
—19. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Bosworth,  Cald- 
well, Chapin,  Clay,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Ewing,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gurley,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Horton,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kraemer, 
Merrill,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mullen, Neal,  Pease, 
Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Shultz,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Waddle,  White 
of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble — 38. 

So  the  motion  to  adjourn  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  proposes  to  strike  this  out, 
and  consequently,  before  that  motion  is  put,  it 
will  be  in  order,  I apprehend,  to  amend  the  mat- 
ter to  be  stricken  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask,  after  the  matter  has 
been  stricken  out,  how  can  it  be  again  strick- 
en out? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  yet  stricken 
out. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I understood  by  the  vote  that 
was  taken,  that  it  was  stricken  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  and 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  pro- 
poses to  amend  the  portion  proposed  to  be 
stricken  out. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I propose,  Mr.  President,  to 
amend  the  first  section  by  striking  out  of  line 
six  the  words  “ one  hundred  and  five,”  and  in- 
serting the  words  “ one  hundred.”  I desire  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  this 
amendment,  because  in  this  matter  the  Commit- 
tee have  varied  from  the  provision  in  the  old 
Constitution.  The  old  Constitution  divides  the 
whole  population  of  the  State  by  the  number 
one  hundred  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the 
ratio.  It  was  thought  better,  by  the  Committee, 
to  divide  by  the  number  one  hundred  and  live, 
because,  as  I remarked  before,  it  left  a smaller 
remainder.  But  if  we  put  in  the  third  section 
of  the  old  Constitution,  which  provides  for 
fractional  representation,  it  will  be  very  obvious 
to  every  gentleman  of  the  Convention  that  there 
is  no  reason  for  changing  the  number. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  a question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 


1592 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [122nd 

Powell,  Dorsey,  Pratt,  Burns.  [Tuesday, 


Mr.  POWELL.  Would  not  one  hundred  be 
as  good  a divisor  when  you  come  to  have  a 
different  dividend  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  In  answer,  I will  say  to  the 
gentleman  that  I felt  disposed  to  retain  the 
number  one  huEdred. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  that  is  the  best. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Another  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee was  in  favor  of  the  number  one  hundred 
and  five,  and  with  a good  deal  of  labor,  and  a 
great  deal  of  pains,  got  up  a table  marked  B, 
which  is  appended  to  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee, in  order  to  show  that  there  was  a less  re- 
mainder— unrepresented  remainder,  as  it  was 
then  called — by  dividing  by  the  number  one 
hundred  and  five,  than  was  had  by  dividing  by 
the  number  one  hundred.  But,  this  was  upon 
the  supposition  that  we  did  not  provide  for  the 
representation  of  fractions.  If  we  provide  for  ! 
the  representation  of  fractions,  I submit  to  the 
Convention  that  there  will  ther  be  no  reason 
whatever  for  objecting  to  the  old  divisor,  the 
number  one  hundred.  In  that  way  we  shall  keep 
the  present  Constitution  in  conformity  with 
the  old  Constitution.  Now,  I do  not  feel  dis- 
posed to  vary  from  our  present  Constitution, 
which,  I think,  is  a good  one,  unless  some  good 
reason  can  be  given.  It  would,  perhaps,  be  a 
good  reason  for  varying  from  this  old  Consti- 
tution, and  selecting  the  number  one  hundred 
and  five  instead  of  the  number  one  hundred,  if 
we  did  not  represent  fractions;  but  if  we  do  rep- 
resent fractions,  if  we  agree  that  there  shall  be 
fractional  representation,  and  if  we  agree  that 
this  fractional  representation  shall  be  distribu- 
ted among  the  different  sessions  of  the  decen- 
nial period — and  it  will  be  remembered  that  we 
are  now  to  have  annual  sessions,  and  not  biennial  j 
sessions — this  fractional  matter  will  work  much  I 
more  favorably  under  the  present  than  even 
under  the  old  Constitution.  I think  it  worked 
very  well  under  the  old  Constitution.  We  have 
now  under  the  proposed  Constitution, five  Gener- 
al Assemblies.  They  are  elected  for  two  years. 
We  shall  have  precisely  the  same  number  of  ses- 
sions during  the  decennial  period  that  we  had 
under  the  old  Constitution,  and  this  system 
will  work  equally  well  under  the  new  as 
under  the  old  Constitution.  We  used  up  the 
fractions  when  we  divided  by  the  number 
one  hundred.  If  the  ratio  was  about  twenty- 
five  thousand,  and  we  found  that  there  was  a 
remainder,  we  will  say,  of  twelve  thousand, 
what  did  we  do?  We  took  that  number  tvvelve 
thousand  and  multiplied  it  by  the  number  of 
sessions  in  the  decennial  period.  Five  times 
twelve  thousand  made  sixty  thousand.  We 
divided  that  number  by  the  ratio,  and  that  gave 
two  Representatives  to  be  assigned  to  that  dis- 
trict during  the  decennial  period,  and  they 
were  assigned  to  particular  sessions  of  the  de- 
cennial period.  That  was  the  working  of  the 
old  Constitution.  With  that,  I presume  that 
every  portion  of  the  State  was  perfectly  well 
satisfied,  and  inasmuch  as  I intend,  as  a mem- 
ber of  this  Convention,  to  introduce  an  amend- 
ment to  this  proposition,  by  which  we  shall 
retain  the  old  system  of  fractional  representa- 
tion in  the  new  Constitution  as  we  had  it  in  the 
old,  I am  now  in  favor  of  dividing  by  the  num- 
ber one  hundred,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
the  ratio,  instead  of  dividing  by  the  number 


one  hundred  and  five.  For  that  reason,  I have 
moved  to  strike  out  the  number  one  hundred 
and  five,  and  insert  the  number  one  hundred. 
It  may,  however,  be  more  simply  done  by  stri- 
king out  simply  the  words  “and  five,”  and  I 
ask  leave  of  the  Convention  to  substitute  for 
my  proposition  to  strike  out  the  number  one 
hundred  and  five  and  insert  the  number  one 
hundred,  a motion  to  amend  by  simply  striking 
out  the  words  “and  five,”  so  that  the  clause  will 
read:  “shall  be  divided  by  the  number  one 
hundred,  and  the  quotient  shall  be  the  ratio 
of  representation.” 

Mr.  PRATT.  I object  to  the  change  of  the 
motion. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  me  ask  the  gentleman 
whether,  if  the  dividend  is  changed,  that  divi- 
sor will  be  better  than  the  other  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Well,  I will  say  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  that  matter  was  largely  discussed 
in  the  Committee  on  Apportionment  and  Rep- 
resentation, and  it  was  thought  by  a large 
number  of  the  Committee  that  it  would  be  bet- 
ter, always,  to  have  the  number  one  hundred 
and  five,  and  that  we  should  have  a less  re- 
mainder by  using  that  number  as  a divisor; 
but,  as  I said,  if  we  are  going  to  use  up  the 
fractions,  and  represent  them  as  we  did  under 
the  old  Constitution,  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  you  divide  by  the  number  one  hundred, 
or  the  number  one  hundred  and  five;  and  as 
one  hundred  is  the  number  which  was  used 
under  the  old  Constitution,  and  we  are  used  to 
that  number,  I am  opposed  to  substituting  any 
other  number  for  it. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  as  I understand  it, 
is  to  strike  out  the  number  one  hundred  and 
five  and  insert  the  number  one  hundred.  The 
gentleman  sought  to  modify  his  amendment, 
but  I objected,  for  the  reason  that  I wish  to  in- 
sert the  number  one  hundred  and  thirty-three. 
I wish  to  bring  prominently  before  the  Conven- 
tion at  this  time  the  idea  of  an  increased  House 
— a House  containing  more  members  than  we 
have  at  present,  and  more  members  than  would 
be  provided  for  by  using  as  a divisor  either  the 
number  one  hundred  or  the  number  one  hun- 
dred and  five. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Allow  me  to  suggest  to  the 
gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  that  he 
withdraw  his  objection  to  the  modification  of 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
DorseyJ.  His  purpose  can  probably  be  accom- 
plished by  inserting  the  number  thirty-three 
afterwards. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  would  do,  but  this  will 
do  just  as  well.  The  simple  purpose  was  to 
bring  the  matter  before  the  Convention.  Count- 
ing upon  the  idea  that  we  have  to  adhere  to  the 
method  of  representation  by  counties,  the 
reason,  in  brief,  of  my  proposition  is  this : An 

examination  of  the  representation  of  the  coun- 
ties of  the  State  upon  this  floor  will  exhibit 
the  singular  fact  that  one  million,  or  one 
million  one  hundred  thousand  at  the  very  ut- 
most, of  the  people  of  the  State  are  represented 
by  such  numbers  upon  this  floor  as  to  control 
the  action  of  this  body.  In  other  words,  some 
fifty-one  counties  in  the  State,  with  a popula- 
tion but  little  in  excess  of  one  million — I 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1593 

February  24,  1874.]  Pratt,  Gurley,  Griswold. 


have  not  the  means,  Mr.  President,  now,  of 
stating  the  numbers  accurately,  and  will  give 
them  simply  in  the  gross — possess  a represent- 
ation upon  this  floor,  as  they  will  in  the  lower 
House  of  the  Legislature,  equal  to  that  possessed 
by  one  million  five  hundred  and  sixty  thousand, 
or  one  million  six  hundred  and  sixty  thousand 
of  the  people  of  the  State.  Now,  sir,  by  the 
present  Constitution  that  number  of  small 
counties— some  fifty-one— have  acquired  one  Re- 
presentative  each  in  the  lower  House,  and  one 
Representative  each  in  this  Assembly.  I have  but 
little  faith  in  any  people  ever  giving  up  power 
that  they  have  once  acquired.  Take  the  coun- 
ties of  my  own  section  of  the  State,  and  with 
the  exception  of  Wood,  Seneca,  and  Lucas,  very 
few  of  them  to-day  have  a population  in  excess 
of  twenty  thousand  per  county;  and  yet,  if  this 
Convention  should  propose  to  these  counties  to 
surrender  any  of  the  political  power  that  they 
have  attained  in  the  process  of  separating  coun- 
ties under  the  apportionment  established  by  the 
Constitution  of  1851,  the  measure  would  not 
meet  the  approval  of  a single  voter  in  one  of 
these  counties.  They  are  in  favor  of  keeping 
what  they  have  got,  as  all  men  are,  when  it 
comes  to  a question  either  of  property  or  of 
power. 

Now,  sir,  with  that  fact  standing  before  us, 
I can  find  no  rational  method  by  which  justice 
can  be  done  to  the  larger  counties  upon  this 
system,  except  by  increasing  the  House.  I be- 
lieve it  is  a true  principle  in  political  economy, 
or  in  political  ethics,  to  secure  a representation 
as  nearly  proportional  to  the  population  as  can 
be  reached.  Were  my  own  ideas  to  be  adopted 
in  this  Convention — but  I do  not  at  all  expect 
they  will  be — I would  divide  the  State  into 
such  districts,  running  the  lines  through  the 
counties  of  Hamilton,  Cuyahoga,  Franklin, 
and  others,  so  that  there  should  be  one  Repre- 
sentative to  a given  number  of  people,  or,  as  it 
is  provided  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  to  a 
given  number  of  voters.  But  I do  not  expect 
any  such  system  to  be  adopted  by  this  Con- 
vention. The  nearest  approach,  then,  leaving 
the  county  lines  intact,  in  providing  for  a rep- 
resentation that  can  be  made,  to  an  equality  of 
representation,  must  be  in  beginning  with  about 
the  average  population  of  the  smaller  counties, 
which  will  be  found  to  be  about  twenty  thou- 
sand, and  building  up  from  that  basis.  My 
divisor,  one  hundred  and  thirty -three,  multi- 
plied by  twenty  thousand,  produces  a number 
about  equal  to  what  the  census  of  1870  showed 
to  be  the  population  of  the  State.  Now,  I can 
find  no  better  way  than  to  begin  with  that 
basis  as  the  ratio  for  a Representative — one  to 
twenty  thousand  of  population,  and  building 
up  from  it,  according  to  the  larger  counties  a 
Representative  as  often  as  they  have  that  ratio, 
or  as  often  as  they  have  a sufficient  fractional 
part  of  it.  I,  therefore,  move  to  amend  by  in- 
serting the  number  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
three.  I united  with  the  gentleman  from 
Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury]  and  the  gentleman 
from  Meigs  [Mr.  Russell],  in  a slight  note  that 
we  appended  to  the  Report  of  the  minority  of 
the  Committee  on  Apportionment  and  Repre- 
sentation in  recommending  this  divisor,  and 
still  think  it  desirable. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  he 


recollects  what  sized  House  that  number  would 
give? 

Mr.  PRATT.  About  one  hundred  and  thir- 
ty-three. I could  not  give  all  the  fluctuations 
that  would  arise. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  My  recollection  is,  that  when 
the  fractions  are  all  represented,  it  might  run 
up  as  high  as  one  hundred  and  forty-four. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Somewhere  about  as  high  as 
one  hundred  and  forty,  fractions  being  repre- 
sented. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  In  the  remarks  that  I had 
occasion  to  make  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
I stated  that,  in  my  judgment,  twenty  thousand 
inhabitants  as  the  basis  of  a constituency, would 
be  the  best  basis,  and  although  I agreed  in  the 
Report  to  twenty-five  thousand  as  an  average 
basis,  I still  believe  that  the  number  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-three  for  the  House  is  the  best 
number.  It  will  be  found  that  this  number 
will  reduce  the  inequality  of  representation  bet- 
ter than  any  other  number.  There  are  a large 
number  of  counties  below  twenty  thousand  in 
population, and  although  gentlemen  are  perfectly 
willing  to  vote  down  minority  representation 
without  having  heard  a word  said  about  it — 
I suppose  they  have  heard  enough — they  nev- 
ertheless are  willing  to  give  a small  county  just 
as  big  a vote  as  a large  county.  But  take  twenty 
thousand,  and  the  number  one  hundred  and 
thirty-three,  which  will  give  twenty  thousand 
as  the  basis  of  a constituency,  and  it  will  be 
found  that  there  are  a larger  number  of  coun- 
ties in  which  that  reaches  the  average  population 
than  by  the  use  of  any  other  number.  There 
are  a large  number  of  counties  with  a popula- 
tion less  than  that.  I should  be  opposed  to 
making  a fractional  ratio,  except  in  the  case  of 
a half  ratio.  It  only  gives  a few  double  dis- 
tricts. It  does  give  a number  of  such  districts, 
but  still  they  are  within  the  county,  and  a 
double  district  does  not  make  any  serious  inroad 
upon  the  system  of  county  representation. 
Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  vote  given  indicates 
that  the  Report  of  the  Committee  will  not 
find  very  much  favor,  I think  we  are  re- 
solved to  our  original  views  upon  this 
subject,  and  I shall  favor  the  number  one 
hundred  and  thirty-three  as  the  number  to  be 
inserted  in  that  section.  I believe  that  if  any- 
body will  take  the  labor  to  go  through  the 
figures,  he  will  find  that  this  number  gives  the 
most  equal  representation  and  the  least  inequa- 
lity in  the  different  constituencies.  A Legisla- 
ture of  one  hundred  and  thirty-three  would 
not  be  a large  body,  and  in  a representative 
body  it  is  important  that  every  interest  and 
every  class  be  represented.  There  is  where 
matters  which  interest  persons  all  over  the 
State  are  brought  up  in  debate,  and  a large 
number,  not  large  enough  to  be  unwieldy,  or 
too  large  to  do  business,  will  most  truly  repre- 
sent the  respective  and  diverse  interests  of  the 
State.  The  Legislative  Assembly  is  the  com- 
mon forum  where  the  wants  and  needs  of  the 
different  localities  can  be  canvassed.  That  is 
the  real  benefit  and  the  real  object  of  a Repre- 
sentative Assembly,  namely,  that  the  local  pre- 
judices, the  local  wants,  and  the  local  interests, 
may  be  heard,  and  effectually  heard  and  con- 
sidered, when  you  make  a law  that  shall  bear 
upon  all.  Therefore,  I am  willing  to  reduce 


1594 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [122nd 

Griswold,  Baber,  Dorsey.  [Tuesday, 


the  ratio  to  the  lowest  figure  that  can  be 
reached,  which  will  not  make  the  House  too 
large  for  ordinary  work.  Most  of  the  other 
States  have  General  Assemblies  larger  than 
that.  This  General  Assembly,  which  does  the 
work  of  the  respective  counties,  and  attends  to 
their  respective  interests,  and  brings  their 
wants  and  claims  to  a common  judgment, 
should  be  a full  expression  of  those  wants  and 
interests.  In  New  York  and  in  Pennsylvania, 
the  number  is  larger;  and  in  some  of  the  New 
England  States  still  larger,  with  a smaller  ter- 
ritory. A House  with  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
three  members,  is  not  too  large  for  ordinary 
business.  I would  then  allow  no  system  of 
floats  to  be  used  for  political  machinery.  It  is 
true  that  certain  counties  will  fail  of  having  a 
full  representation.  If  you  give  twenty  thousand 
as  the  ratio,  and  allow  them  only  one  ratio — a 
full  ratio— your  House  then  will  not  be  in- 
creased in  numbers,  it  would  not  be  subject  to 
those  fluctuations  of  from  one  hundred  and 
thirty-three  to  one  hundred  and  forty-eight 
under  the  ratio,  audit  will  bring  the  counties 
substantially  to  an  equality.  I know  that 
Geauga  has  only  fifteen  thousand,  and  Pauld- 
ing only  nine  thousand,  but  the  inequality  is 
not  very  great.  Although  some  of  the  counties 
with  a population  under  twenty  thousand  have 
not  advanced  in  the  past,  it  has  been  because 
they  were  cut  off  from  railroad  communications. 
Geauga,  until  the  last  year,  has  never  had  the 
benefit  of  a railroad.  Medina,  which  has  fallen 
back,  never  had  a railroad  until  last  year,  of 
any  kind.  Carroll,  which  has  fallen  back, 
has  none  at  all,  but  the  railroad  is  reach- 
ing to  it.  It  is  a county  rich  in  all  mineral 
productions,  and  all  it  needs  is  the  benefit  of  a 
raiiroad  to  increase  its  population.  The  major- 
ity of  the  counties  will  reach  twenty  thousand, 
or  near  enough  to  it  not  to  make  any  serious 
inequality.  In  counties  with  a population 
double  of  twenty  thousand,  or  with  an  excess 
of  one-half,  or  three- fourths  of  the  ratio,  you 
might  allow  two  Representatives,  and  in  that 
way  you  would  substantially  equalize  the  re- 
presentation. I am  decidedly  in  favor,  as  an 
original  proposition,  of  making  the  number 
one  hundred  and  thirty-three,  and  the  question 
of  floats  we  can  afterwards  consider. 

Mr.  BABER.  What  is  the  question,  Mr. 
President? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  one  hundred  and  five,  and  inserting 
either  one  hundred,  as  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  or  one  hundred 
and  thirty-three,  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  glad  the  Convention  is 
proceeding  to  consider  this  Report  in  this  man- 
ner, but  it  strikes  me  that,  in  a House  of  so 
scanty  attendance,  to  attempt  so  early  to  dispose 
of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  by  a vote  upon 
the  whole  of  it,  without  any  argument,  would 
be  a proceeding  that  would  call  forth  unfavor- 
able comment.  I hope,  therefore,  that  we  will 
take  up  this  Report  in  a business-like  manner. 
1 understand  that  the  idea  has  been  entertained 
of  referring  it  back  to  our  Committee  under 
certain  instructions.  I hope  that  will  not  be 
done,  but  that  the  Convention,  by  its  action, 
will  indicate  what  shape  they  want  this  Report 


to  assume.  It  is  now  before  the  Convention, 
and  we  can  take  up  this  original  Report  and 
amend  it  to  suit  ourselves. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  particular  question  of 
the  amendments,  moved  by  gentlemen  to  the 
first  section,  I differ  from  the  Chairman  of  this 
Committee  in  the  motion  he  has  made  to  strike 
out  the  number  one  hundred  and  five.  A differ- 
ent system  may  be  adopted  by  this  Convention, 
and  I hope  that  motion  will  not  prevail.  I do 
not  believe,  either,  that  the  sentiment  of  the 
Convention  is  in  favor  of  increasing  the  num- 
ber of  Representatives  in  the  House  by  adopt- 
ing the  basis  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-three, 
the  effect  of  which — as  any  gentleman  will  find, 
if  he  makes  the  calculation,  as  I did  upon  the 
sub-Committee — will  be  to  run  up  the  House, 
some  years,  to  one  hundred  and  forty,  or  one 
hundred  and  fifty  members.  I do  not  think 
that  the  Convention,  or  that  the  people  of  the 
State,  are  in  favor  of  thus  increasing  the  ex- 
pense of  the  House;  therefore,  I shall  not  be  in 
favor  of  making  any  change  in  the  Report  of 
this  Committee.  The  number  one  hundred  and 
five  was  adopted— my  friend  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey],  I think,  is  mistaken  in  his  recollec- 
tion, that  it  was  adopted  without  reference  to 
this  system  of  floats 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I merely  intended  to  say  that  it 
was  assented  to,  as  1 thought,  largely  by  the 
Committee,  because  we  left  out  the  system  of 
floats,  and  having  left  out  the  system  of  floats, 
we  were,  of  course,  anxious  to  get  a divisor 
that  would  leave  the  smallest  possible  remain- 
der. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  the  sys- 
tem of  floats  was  not  left  off? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  was  not  included  in  this 
Report,  but  I presume  that  all  understood  how 
it  would  operate. 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  sir.  The  number  one 
hundred  and  five,  Mr.  President,  was  the  first 
question  that  came  up  in  the  Committee.  I have 
the  figures  with  me,  but  I am  very  sorry  that 
the  original  Report  of  the  sub-Committee,  signed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr.  Wood- 
bury], the  gentleman  from  Meigs,  [Mr.  Rus- 
sell], and  myself,  has  been  mislaid.  However, 
I have  the  notes  of  that  Report,  with  the  reason 
why  the  number  one  hundred  and  five  was 
adopted;  and  I will  state  to  the  Convention 
that,  if  they  will  turn  to  the  Report  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  1872,  pages  68  and  69,  they 
will  find  the  table  of  the  present  Apportionment, 
which  was  made  upon  the  basis  of  one  hun- 
dred. They  will  find  that  the  ratio  was 
26,651,  the  half  ratio  13,326,  the  one  and  three- 
quarters  ratio  46,639,  and  the  double  ratio 
53,302.  Well,  we  found  that,  by  using  that 
particular  divisor  of  one  hundred,  we  had  left, 
in  thirty-four  counties,  commencing  with  Ash- 
tabula, Belmont,  Brown,  Clermont,  Cuyahoga, 
Hamilton,  Miami,  Trumbull,  &c.,  (I  will  not 
read  all  the  figures,  but  give  the  aggregate 
amount,)  we  had  left  an  unrepresented  fraction 
of  nearly  400,000,  which  would  be  equivalent 
in  the  term  to  sixteen  Representatives.  That 
number  would  not  be  represented  at  all.  For 
instance,  it  operates  in  this  way:  In  Brown 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Baber,  Gurley,  Miner,  Yoris. 


1595 


Day.] 


February  24,  1874. 


county,  there  is  a fraction  of  20,755  which  has 
no  representation  at  all  during  the  whole  four 
years.  The  surplus  in  Brown  county  is  4,151, 
whereas,  upon  the  report  of  this  Committee, 
which  reduces  the  ratio  to  twenty-five  thousand 
three  hundred  and  eighty-three,  the  divisor 
being  smaller,  Brown  county  will  get  an  addi- 
tional member.  So,  also,  in  the  case  of  Cuya- 
hoga, there  is  a large  fraction,  amounting  to 
some  22,000;  in  Fairfield  county  there  is  a frac- 
tion 22,000;  in  Hamilton  county,  a fraction  of 
22,000 ; in  Lorain  county,  a fraction  of  23,645 ; 
in  Meigs  county,  a fraction  of  24,000;  in  Ross 
county,  a fraction  of  25,579 ; in  Seneca,  a frac- 
tion of  20,149;  in  Washington,  a fraction  of 
16,668. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  state 
how  he  gets  such  large  fractions  ? What  is  he 
multiplying  his  fractions  by  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I will  explain,  if  the  gentleman 
will  wait.  I am  proceeding  according  to  the  rule 
of  the  Constitution.  The  Constitution  provides 
that  the  fraction  shall  be  multiplied  by  five,  and 
then  divided  by  the  ratio,  and  distributed 
amongst  the  sessions.  This  large  fraction  of 
400,000  results  from  the  multiplication  of  the 
fraction  by  the  number  five.  But  what  differ- 
ence does  that  make  ? 

If  you  divide  by  the  number  one  hundred 
and  five,  you  will  find  that  the  fraction  only 
amounts  to  some  105,000,  making  the  fraction 
less  by  some  300,000.  Dividing  that  by  five, 
that  will  make  an  unrepresented  population  in 
Ohio  amounting  only  to  21,000,  corresponding 
to  less  than  one  Representative ; whereas,  under 
the  fraction  resulting  from  one  hundred  as  a 
divisor,  it  will  amount  to  sixteen  Representa- 
tives. The  argument  of  the  gentleman  does 
not  amount  to  anything,  because,  if  you  divide 
by  five,  it  will  produce  the  same  result. 

I hope,  therefore,  now  that  this  matter  has 
been  fully  and  thoroughly  considered  by  this 
Committee,  no  matter  how  we  may  amend  this 
Report,  no  matter  which  side  of  the  minority 
representation  we  adopt,  that  we  shall  adhere  to 
the  number  one  hundred  and  five. 

With  regard  to  the  remark  of  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  in  reference  to  fractions,  1 
will  say  that  the  original  section  three  of  the 
Constitution  provides  for  the  representation  of 
fractions  in  the  shape  of  floats,  or  rather  addi- 
tional members.  That  third  section  was  struck 
out,  and  I hope  that  this  Convention  will  re- 
store it,  because  the  effect  of  striking  it  out  is 
to  do  great  injustice.  For  instance,  the  county 
of  Ross,  with  a population  of  37,000,  is  left  with 
no  more  representation  than  the  small  county  of 
Ottawa  or  the  county  of  Paulding,  with  8,000 
population  during  the  whole  decennial  period.  I 
hope  that  this  Convention  will  go  back  to  the 
old  Constitution  with  reierence  to  this  section, 
to  which  our  people  have  become  accustomed. 
It  astonishes  me  to  see  gentlemen  here  who  op- 
pose minority  representation,  so  exceedingly 
strenuous  to  prevent  representation  accord- 
ing to  population.  Now,  in  the  case  of 
these  counties  that  are  under  the  ratio  of 
25,000,  what  do  these  gentlemen  propose  to 
us?  They  propose  that  such  counties  as 
Ottawa,  Paulding,  Geauga,  and  that  class 
of  counties  shall  have  one  Representative; 
but  when  we  come  up  to  counties  with  a popu- 


lation over  that  25,000,  they  are  not  willing  to 
allow  us  representation  in  proportion.  It  does 
seem  to  me  that  they  are  taking  minority  rep- 
resentation in  its  very  worst  shape.  Now,  I 
have  no  complaint  to  make  with  regard  to  the 
old  Constitution  in  this  respect.  It  was  well 
known  in  the  Committee  that  1 opposed 
the  application  of  the  principle  of  minor- 
ity representation  to  the  counties,  unless 
those  counties  had  more  than  two  Representa- 
tives, because  I believe  in  the  principle  of  local 
representation.  I believe  that  if  the  county  has 
the  population  to  entitle  it  to  a Representative, 
it  should  not  be  be  grouped  along  with  other 
counties  for  the  purpose  of  making  a district. 
But  I think  that  when  you  come  to  a county 
like  Cuyahoga,  Hamilton  or  Franklin,  you 
should  divide  them  by  this  system  of  propor- 
tional representation,  in  order  to  do  justice  to 
the  minority  of  the  people.  When,  however, 
you  take  the  case  of  the  Senate,  I thought  that 
we  had  to  make  districts  anyhow,  and  it  was  a 
good  deal  easier  to  make  large  districts  with 
three  Senators,  than  single  districts,  and  that 
very  illustration  was  made  in  the  debate  on  the 
subject  of  judges  by  the  clever-headed  member 
from  Preble  [Mr.  Barnet], who  said  it  was  a great 
deal  easier  to  divide  an  apple  into  six  or  ten 
equal  parts  than  into  thirty.  I do  not  propose, 
however,  to  discuss  that  question,  or  any  ques- 
tion connected  with  proportional  representation, 
until  we  come  to  the  discussion  of  the  part  of 
the  Report  upon  that  subject.  But  I do  hope  that 
this  Convention  will  not  depart  from  the  num- 
ber one  hundred  and  five,  for  it  was  very  well 
considered,  and  that  when  we  arrive  at  the 
proper  place  we  will  put  back  these  floats, which 
amount  to  something  like  twenty-four,  and 
which  are  necessary  to  make  an  equality  of 
representation.  I do  not  believe  that  this  Con- 
vention will  vote  for  the  number  one  hundred 
and  thirty-three.  It  had  very  little  support  in 
our  Committee.  It  was  supported,  I think,  by 
only  three  or  four  gentlemen.  I know  gentle- 
men from  Massachusetts  and  other  New  Eng- 
land States  are  in  favor  of  a large  House,  but  I 
do  not  believe  that  this  Convention  desires  it 
any  larger.  I will  say  that  one  hundred  and 
and  five,  with  the  floats  re-established,  would 
make  a House  of  only  one  hundred  and  eleven 
members.  And  this  number  one  hundred  and 
five  has  another  peculiarity,  that  it  makes  all 
the  floats,  sixteen  in  the  fifth  session,  only  two- 
floats,  one  for  Licking  and  one  for  Ross  in  the 
third  and  fourth  session  each,  according  to  very 
careful  calculation. 

Mr.  MINER.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man how  many  Representatives  the  Hall  of  the 
House  at  Columbus  will  contain  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I suppose  they  would  have  to 
enlarge  the  Hall  to  admit  a House  of  one  hun- 
dred and  forty  or  one  hundred  and  fifty  mem- 
bers. It  seats  one  hundred  and  twelve,  I 
understand  from  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt].  Well,  by  using  this  number  one 
hundred  and  five,  there  will  only  be  one  hun- 
dred and  eleven  members,  except  in  the  fifth 
session,  when  the  floats  will  increase  the  num- 
ber to  one  hundred  and  twenty -seven.  I hope, 
therefore,  the  Convention  will  not  strike  out  the 
number  one  hundred  and  five. 

Mr.  YORIS.  It  is  apparent  to  the  Conven- 


1596 


PETITIONS— MORNING  BUSINESS. 

GtTKLEY,  STEEDMAK,  KlNG. 


[123rd 

[Wednesday, 


tion  that  gentlemen  are  talking  against  time, 
and  I think  we  might  just  as  well  adjourn.  I 
move  the  Convention  do  now  adjourn. 

Mr.  BEER.  I insist  that  the  gentleman  shall 
take  back  the  accusation  that  we  are  talking 
against  time. 

The  question  upon  the  motion  to  adjourn  was 
immediately  put  to  the  Convention. 


The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for,  but  the 
demand  was  not  sustained. 

Upon  a division,  thirty  gentlemen  voted  in 
the  affirmative,  and  eighteen  in  the  negative. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:25  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-THIRD  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SIXTY-FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Wednesday,  February  25,  1874. 


half-past  nine  o’clock  a.  m. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  73  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained  for 
Messrs.  Merrill  and  Greene,  for  an  indefinite 
length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  GURLEY  presented  the  petition  of  E.  J.  | 
Crane,  and  twenty-six  other  citizens  of  Morrow 
county,  asking  that  a clause  be  inserted  in  the  ! 
Constitution  we  are  now  framing,  authorizing  | 
the  General  Assemby  to  prohibit  the  manufac- 
ture, importation  or  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN  presented  the  petition  of  the 
city  council  of  Toledo,  which  the  Secretary,  i 
by  request,  read,  as  follows : 

City  Council  Chamber,  ) 
Toledo,  O.,  Feb.  24, 1874.  ) 

Hon.  J.  B.  STEEDMAN, 

Member  Constitutional  Convention— 

Dear  Sir:— At  a meeting  of  the  City  Council  of  the  city 
of  Toledo,  held  yesterday,  the  following  resolution  was 
adopted : 

Resolved,  By  the  City  Council  of  Toledo,  That  the  2nd, 
3d  and  4th  sections  of  Proposition  No.  182,  on  Municipal 
Corporations,  now  pending  before  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention, ought  not  to  be  adopted  for  the  following  rea- 
sons: 

Section  two  limits  the  people  in  cities  from  aiding  in- 
stitutions of  learning  or  benevolence,  and  commercial, 
manufacturing,  agricultural  or  other  industries. 

Section  three  imposes  restrictions  upon  the  people  in 
cities,  which  may  and  will  be  detrimental  to  their  inter- 
ests in  a sanitary  point  of  view,  as  well  as  prevent  them 
from  making  such  needed  improvements  as  are  indispen- 
sable to  populations  in  cities,  such  as  grades,  sidewalks, 
sewers,  pavements  and  water  supply. 

Section  four  prevents  cities  which  have  reached  the 
maximum  (ten  per  cent.)  from  paying  the  cost  of  needed  | 


improvements,  or  that  portion  of  them  that  the  law  makes 
payable  from  the  general  fund  of  the  corporation;  un- 
avoidable indebtedness,  incurred  through  faulty  legisla- 
tion or  unforeseen  circumstances,  only  to  be  determined 
by  the  courts;  prevents  the  funding  of  such  indebted- 
ness, and  compels  a resort  to  the  odious  system  of  issuing 
irredeemable  orders  on  the  treasury,  or  the  sale  of  muni- 
cipal property,  needed  for  its  very  existence  and  protec- 
tion. 

For  these,  and  other  reasons,  while  we  believe  the 
adoption  of  section  2 to  be  unwise,  we  interpose  no  serious 
objections  to  the  same;  but  we  do  most  respectfully  and 
emphatically  protest  against  the  adoption  of  sections  3 
and  4 of  said  Proposition  into  the  organic  law,  believing 
that  they  will  be  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  this  as 
well  as  many  other  cities  of  the  State. 

Resolved,  That  a copy  of  these  resolutions  be  engrossed 
and  signed  by  the  President  and  Clerk  of  this  Council, 
and  transmitted  to  the  President  of  the  Constitutional 
Convention. 


Attest: 

G.  W.  Merrill, 

City  Clerk. 


L.  Whitney, 

President. 


The  petition  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  ordered 
to  be  considered  in  connection  with  said  Propo- 
sition. 

Mr.  KING  presented  the  petition  of  R.  K. 
Campbell,  and  eighty-two  other  citizens  of 
South  Salem,  praying  for  the  prohibition  of  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

The  PRESIDENT  laid  before  the  Convention 
the  following  communication : 

Cincinnati,  Feb.  25, 1874. 

Hon.  Rufus  King, 

President  Constitutional  Convention— 

Dear  Sir:  Having  extended  invitations  to  the  Hon- 
orable Members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  to 
participate  in  the  festivities  ol  the  dedication  of  the 
Public  Library  this  afternoon,  and  wishing  to  reserve 
proper  seats  for  the  Honorable  Members,  I therefore  po- 
litely request  you  to  inform  me,  by  noon,  whether  it  is  the 
intention  of  the  Convention  to  participate  as  a body. 

Very  respectfully, 

Henry  Masks, 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Arrangements. 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1597 

February  25,  1874.]  Powell,  Hitchcock,  Baber,  Woodbury,  Dorsey. 


Mr.  POWELL  offered  the  following  Resolu- 
tion, which  was  adopted : 

Resolution  No.  171 : 

Resolved , That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  be  re- 
turned to  the  Committee  of  the  City  Library  for  their  kind 
and  polite  invitation  to  attend  the  proceedings  of  the  ded- 
ication of  that  institution  on  this  day,  but  as  it  is  inexpe- 
dient and  inconvenient  for  the  Convention  to  adjourn  for 
that  purpose,  this  kind  invitation  is  most  respectfully 
declined,  and  the  President  is  requested  to  inform  the 
said  Committee  of  this  Resolution. 

SECOND  READING. 

The  following  Proposition  was  read  the  sec- 
ond time : 

Proposition  No.  216,  by  Mr.  Mueller  : 

Proposition  to  amend  Article  XIII. 

Resolved , That  a section  be  added  to  the  Article  on  Cor- 
porations other  than  Municipal,  to  read  as  follows: 

No  property  shall  be  held  for  religious  or  eleemosynary 
purposes  by  any  person  or  persons  other  than  corpora- 
tions organized  under  the  general  laws  of  the  State. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Unless  otherwise  ordered, 
the  Proposition  will  be  referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole.  It  will  be  so  referred  under 
the  rule. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion proceed  to  the  consideration  of  Proposition 
No.  194. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  and  the  pending  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt]  to  amend  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  to  amend  section 
one  of  said  Proposition,  by  striking  out  the 
words,  “one  hundred  and  live,”  in  the  sixth 
line,  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  words, 
“ one  hundred  and  thirty-three.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  For  the  purpose  of  giv- 
ing gentlemen  an  opportunity  of  inserting  a 
number  that  will  suit  them,  I move  a division 
of  the  question  to  be  first  on  striking  out. 

Which  motion  was  ordered  to  be  put. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be 
first  upon  striking  out. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  this  will  not  be  stricken 
out,  for  two  reasons : There  appear  to  be  two 
parties  in  the  House;  one  in  favor  of  “one  hun- 
dred,” and  the  other  in  favor  of  “one  hundred 
and  thirty-three.”  I do  not  see  why  we  should 
take  “ one  hundred,”  because,  as  anybody  can 
see,  by  examining  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  Miami,  Fairfield,  Columbiana,  Butler, 
Washington,  and  many  other  counties,  have  a 
large  surplus  unrepresented  in  the  fractions; 
that  is  one  reason  for  not  going  back  to  “ one 
hundred.”  The  gentleman  from  Ashtabula 
[Mr.  Woodbury],  who  has  been  over  the  fig- 
ures, can  more  correctly  inform  the  Convention 
upon  this  subject,  so  that  we  need  not  be  going 
on  hap-hazard. 

As  to  the  number  “one  hundred  and  thirty- 
three,”  the  objection  is  that  it  makes  the  House 
too  large ; that  by  putting  in  thirty-three  addi- 
tional members  now,  it  would  eventually  run 
up  to  one  hundred  and  fifty,  increasing  the  ex- 
penses of  the  House,  making  the  pay  of  the 
thirty-three  additional  members,  nearly  $200 
per  day,  and  I do  not  believe  that  we  want 
such  an  increase,  at  this  time,  of  the  expense 


| of  the  House  of  Representatives.  I hope,  there- 
j fore,  that  the  number  “ one  hundred  and  five,” 
will  not  be  stricken  out.  It  operates,  I know, 
very  unequally  in  the  fractions,  but  you  will 
throw  the  whole  thing  into  confusion  in  the 
Convention  and  make  a delay  on  this  Report. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I was  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  who  was  in  favor  of 
a larger  number  for  the  House.  I was  driven 
to  that  conclusion  upon  an  examination  of  the 
condition  of  the  counties  in  the  State.  It  seems 
to  me,  upon  examination  of  this  question,  that 
there  ought  to  be  some  principle  which  should 
determine  the  size  of  the  House ; and  in  look- 
j ingover  the  population  of  several  of  the  coun- 
! ties  of  the  State,  I found  that  there  were  thirty- 
t four  counties  in  the  State  of  Ohio  with  a popu- 
j lation  under  twenty-two  thousand.  I find,  on 
! a further  examination,  that  you  take  forty-five 
of  the  smaller  counties  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 

! and  their  average  population  is  under  twenty 
j thousand ; in  other  words,  it  is  nineteen  thou- 
sand four  hundred  and  ninety-seven.  Now 
then,  this  is  one  more  than  half  the  counties  in 
J the  State,  as  any  member  can  verify  by  figur- 
ing upon  this  proposition.  The  Committee  have 
set  out  in  the  first  place  by  recognizing  county 
representation.  Now,  the  question  comes  up: 
how  can  this  representation  be  equalized 
throughout  the  State ; and  can  it  be  equalized 
by  reducing  this  body  so  that  one  county  shall 
have  a Representative  upon  nine  thousand 
or  10,000  population,  and  another  with  30,000 
or  35,000  population,  shall  have  but  one?  Is 
this  equalization  of  representation  ? Would  it 
be  just,  would  it  be  right,  that  such  a principle 
as  this  should  be  carried  out  in  the  State  of 
Ohio?  that  such  an  inequality  as  this  shall 
be  recognized  in  this  State?  It  seems  to  me 
that  this  would  be  unjust,  and  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  difference  between  “one  hun- 
dred” and  “one  hundred  and  thirty-three” 
that  is  so  great  in  its  expense  to  the  State  as 
that  it  should  compel  this  inequality  of  repre- 
sentation. 

Now,  let  us  see  for  a moment  what  the  effect 
of  all  this  shall  be,  for  it  seems  to  me  that, 
before  we  shall  adopt  any  such  principle  as 
this,  we  should  thoroughly  examine  and  see 
how  much  inequality  this  plan  of  100,  105  or 
133  is  going  to  work  out  in  the  State ; for  my 
idea  is  that  we  should,  in  making  the  represen- 
tation, if  we  are  to  rely  upon  representation  in 
proportion  to  population,  make  it  just  as  equal 
as  possible,  and  not  have  such  an  example  as 
there  would  be  in  the  three  north-east  counties 
of  the  State.  For  instance,  there  is  Ashtabula, 
with  a population  of  32,517,  and  the  two  adjoin- 
ing counties  of  Lake  and  Geauga,  with  a popu- 
lation less  than  Ashtabula,  are  each  entitled  to 
one  Representative,  and  Ashtabula  to  but  one. 
Now,  is  this  right  and  just,  and  as  it  should  be, 
all  over  the  State  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question.  Has  he  taken  into  consider- 
ation the  fact  that  the  fractional  representation 
is  introduced,  and  that  Ashtabula  county  gets 
a fractional  representation  ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Yes,  sir;  but  when  you 
take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  the  popula- 
tion of  Ashtabula  is  greater  than  that  of  Lake 
and  Geauga  both,  and  that,  while  she  will  have 


1598 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Woodbury,  Dorsey,  Sears. 


[123rd 

[Wednesday, 


six  Representatives,  Lake  and  Geauga  will  have 
ten,  in  the  ten  years,  it  is  not  so  equal; 
but  this  is  the  equality  that  it  is  proposed  this 
plan  shall  work  out. 

Now,  take  the  present  ratio,  and  see  what  it 
will  work  out.  The  present  ratio  is  26,651. 
Now,  then,  we  have 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Twenty-five  thousand. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  No,  sir ; 26,651  under  the 
present  Constitution. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Divided  by  100. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Divided  by  100.  Now, 
then,  we  have  a population,  under  that  ratio,  in 
the  State  of  Ohio,  that  is  not  represented  in  the 
Legislature,  of  455,122,  and  we  have  an  over- 
representation amounting  to  326,108.  Is  it 
right  that  a certain  class  of  counties  shall  have 
an  over-representation  of  326,108,  while  another 
shall  have  an  under-representation  of  455,122  ? 
But  if  you  will  figure  by  a decade  it  will 
amount  to  1,630,540  for  the  ten  years,  or  five 
Legislatures.  You  come  down,  then,  to  the 
ratio  of  105,  and  you  will  have  a population 
not  represented  amounting  to  337,833  through- 
out the  State,  and  you  will  have  an  over- 
representation in  the  smaller  counties  amount- 
ing to  347,524,  and,  if  you  will  multiply  that  by 
five — the  five  Legislatures — you  will  have  an 
over-representation  of  the  smaller  counties  of 
the  State  of  1,737,620  for  the  ten  years. 

Now,  you  come  down  to  the  proposition  to 
make  the  representative  body  one  hundred  and 
thirty-three,  and  then  how  will  it  work  out? 
For,  as  I have  stated  in  my  opening,  the  only 
way  they  can  be  equalized  is  to  reduce  your 
ratio  down  to  the  size  of  the  smaller  counties 
of  the  State;  and,  I ask,  can  it  be  made  more 
fair,  can  it  be  made  more  just  than  to  put  it  to 
the  size  of  one-half  the  smaller  counties  in  the 
State,  for  all  the  counties  are  to  have  represen- 
tation ? Here  are  forty-five  counties,  with  an 
average  population  of  19,497,  each  having  a 
Representative.  Now,  I ask,  ought  not  the  bal- 
ance of  the  counties  of  the  State  to  have  a Repre- 
sentative upon  a like  population  ? It  seems  to 
me  that  would  be  just,  and  the  only  way  that 
this  can  be  worked  out  to  make  it  equal  and 
just  throughout  the  State.  The  nearer  you  ap- 
proach the  population  of  the  smaller  counties  of 
the  State 

Mr.  SEARS.  I desire  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury]  one  question? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Well,  sir. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Whether  he  is  willing  to  make 
it  exactly  equal,  and  put  it  upon  the  footing  of 
dividing  the  larger  counties  into  smaller  districts? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Very  well,  then  I am  with 
you ; but  if  you  want  county  representation,  I 
am  not  with  you. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I am  in  favor  of  county 
representation,  and  am  in  favor  of  representa- 
tion based  upon  population.  I am  in  favor  of 
equalizing  this  representation  throughout  the 
State,  and,  as  I was  about  to  say  when  the 
question  was  put  to  me,  the  more  nearly  you 
come  to  the  average  population  of  the  smaller 
counties,  the  more  equal  you  make  representa- 
tion, and  the  less  over-representation  and  the 
less  under-representation  you  will  have. 

Now,  then,  based  upon  a population  of  20,000, 
as  I have  worked  it  out,  making  the  House  the 


size  of  133,  we  have  a fraction  not  represented 
of  256,780  in  the  State,  and  you  have  an  over- 
representation of  105,052,  which,  multiplied  by 
five,  for  the  decade,  amounts  to  525,260.  Gentle- 
men need  not  figure  this  out  to  show  it ; it  is  a 
self-evident  proposition  that  the  nearer  you  get 
down  to  the  average  county  in  the  State,  the 
nearer  you  must  make  it  equal,  and  the  less 
there  must  be  of  over  and  under-representation. 
Is  there  any  objection  to  this?  Are  there  any 
objections  to  the  size  of  the  House,  as  increased 
in  this  way,  for  the  purpose  of  making  repre- 
sentation equal  throughout  the  State?  It  seems 
to  me  not.  If  there  are  any  objections,  what 
are  they?  Would  it  be  because  legislation 
would  be  less  guarded  ? Is  it  because  a small 
body  would  be  a better  legislative  body,  and 
would  better  consider  any  proposition  that 
might  come  before  it?  It  seems  to  me  not. 
Now,  for  instance,  there  are  several  Legislatures 
in  the  United  States  that  are  much  larger  than 
the  one  we  propose  to  make.  Massachusetts 
has  a Legislature  of  over  300 ; now,  is  there 
complaint  made  on  the  score  of  the  size  of  that 
House,  on  the  score  of  its  being  tampered  with, 
or  that  it  is  a body  that  can  be  tampered  with  ? 
Nothing  of  the  kind.  Has  there  ever  been 
complaint  made  on  a score  of  that  kind  ? Con- 
necticut has  a Legislature  of  over  200 ; Penn- 
sylvania has  provided  in  her  new  Constitution, 
that  the  population  of  the  State  shall  be  divided 
by  200,  and  that  shall  be  the  ratio,  making  the 
House  200.  Take  the  House  of  Commons,  for 
instance,  which  is  now  a body  of  about  600;  is 
there  complaint  with  regard  to  the  size  of  that 
body?  Does  it  delay  business?  Has  the 
government  suffered  inconsequence  of  its  size, 
or  the  delay  of  business  in  it?  It  seems  to  me 
not.  There  has  been  no  such  complaint  as  that, 
and  if  there  could  be  complaint  upon  that  score, 
I think  the  same  argument  would  reduce  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States ; 

I but  we  see,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned,  that 
wherever  in  the  United  States  they  have  had 
these  large  bodies,  wherever  they  have  so  ar- 
ranged in  their4Constitutions,  there  has  been  no 
attempt  to  reduce  the  size  of  the  body.  Their 
experience,  whatever  it  has  been,  has  caused 
them  to  maintain  these  large  bodies.  In  my 
opinion,  a larger  body  would  be  a protection  to 
the  State  of  Ohio;  that  is,  it  is  a body  that 
would  be  less  likely  to  be  handled,  and  less 
liable  to  corruption.  Larger  bodies  are  always 
less  liable  to  corruption. 

Now,  then,  as  I said  before,  the  only  possible 
way  that  this  can  be  reduced  and  made  equal 
throughout  the  State  of  Ohio,  is  to  put  the  ra- 
tio of  representation  down  to  the  size  of  the 
smaller  counties  of  the  State.  Here  we  have 
one  county  of  less  than  10,000  inhabitants,  and 
we  have  a number  of  counties  of  only  15,000, 
16,000,  or  17,000  inhabitants,  and  yet  we  are 
here  proposing  to  give  each  one  of  these  coun- 
ties a Representative.  Now,  I ask,  why  the 
larger  counties  should  not  be  entitled  to  repre- 
sentation upon  the  same  basis  of  population  ? I 
ask,  why  the  smaller  counties  should  be  entit- 
led to  over-representation,  and  entitled  to  a 
larger  voice  in  the  representation  of  the  State  in 
proportion  to  population  than  the  larger  coun- 
ties? It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  not  be 
right.  I cannot  make  it  square  with  justice. 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

February  25,  1874.]  Woodbury,  Hitchcock,  Yoris,  Dorsey,  etc. 


1599 


It  seems  to  me,  that  the  population  that  entitles 
a Representative  in  one  county  should  give  one 
in  every  other  county  in  the  State,  and  this  we 
can  work  out  if  we  reduce  the  ratio  and  increase 
the  size  of  the  House;  but  we  need  not  increase 
it  so  as  to  make  it  an  unwieldy  body.  In  Illi- 
nois, they  have  provided  for  one  hundred  and 
fifty.  If  this  is  adopted,  the  fraction  will  not 
cary  us  beyond  141,  so  that  when  you  come  to 
form  your  General  Assembly  it  will  give  you  a 
House  ranging  from  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
three  to  one  hundred  and  forty-one. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury] 
whether,  if  his  system  is  adopted,  he  would 
also  favor  the  system  of  “floats;”  would  he  be 
n favor  of  133  as  the  number? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  There  is  this  about  the 
question  of  “floats,”  that  whatever  number  we 
adopt  there  must  be  some  over  and  under  rep- 
resentation. Of  course,  it  may  be  equalized  in 
a measure  by  giving  representation  upon  a 
fraction,  as  was  done  in  the  present  Constitu- 
tion ; but  as  far  as  I am  personally  concerned, 

I care  very  little  about  this  question  of  repre- 
sentation upon  a float  or  upon  a fraction.  If  it 
can  be  worked  out  at  all,  it  is  upon  the  basis  or 
principle  of  a decade  or  five  Legislatures,  and 
then  multiplying  the  fraction  by  five  and 
dividing  it  by  the  ratio,  whatever  that  shall  be, 
whether  the  proportion  be  one  or  two.  If  one, 
it  would  be  entitled  in  the  fifth  Legislature  to 
one  additional  Representative ; if  two,  it  would 
be  one  additional  in  the  fourth  and  fifth ; if  it 
should  be  three,  it  would  be  entitled  to  one  in 
the  second,  third  and  fourth ; and  if  it  should 
be  four,  it  would  be  one  in  the  first,  second,, 
third  and  fourth,  and  none  in  the  fifth,  a*  I 
understand  the  rule  under  the  present  Consti- 
tution. / 

So  far  as  I am  concerned,  I would  b>e  glad  to 
cut  down  to  one  float,  I think,  because  we  count 
the  float  in  the  fifth  Legislature,  *and  it  is  a 
representation  that  cannot  be  counted  on.  It 
may  come  when  it  would  do  the  county  some 
good,  and  may  come  at  a time  'When  it  would 
do  no  good  whatever;  but  thej  law  allows  us 
this  representation  in  the  fifth  Legislature 
w hen  it  might  be  needed  du  ring  the  first  four 
Legislatures. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I would  likJe  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Ashtabuki  [Mr.  Woodbury] 
whether  he  is  willing  to  a dopt  the  mode  of  ap- 
portionment that  exists  ik  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts, where  they  eldct  three  hundred  to 
their  House?  ’ 

Mr.  PRATT.  They  ohly  elect  two  hundred 
and  forty  now. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Well,  two  hundred  and  forty; 
are  you  willing  to  adopt  that  as  the  principle  to 
be  carried  out  in  Ohio  ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I do  not  think  it  is  nec- 
essary, in  this  State,  to  adopt  the  plan  of  town- 
ship representation,  as!  is  done  in  Massachusetts.  ! 
I think  we  may  equalize  representation  in  this 
State,  and  not  make  it  exceed  one  hundred  and 
fifty ; and  I adhere  to  the  county  representation 
as  we  have  done  during  its  past  history  in  the 
State  of  Ohio.  I do  i!iot  think  there  is  any  ne- 
cessity or  need  in  abandoning  county  represent- 
ation for  the  purpose*  of  equalizing  county  rep- 
resentation in  the  State. 


Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  waited,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, for  the  purpose  of  hearing  from  other 
gentlemen  on  this  matter,  because  I supposed 
there  were  many  members  here  desirous  of  ex- 
pressing their  opinion  on  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt].  I have,  therefore,  said  nothing  on  the 
subject.  I am  just  as  well  aware  as  the  gentle- 
man from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury]  can 
be,  that  dividing  by  any  divisor  whatever,  we 
shall  have  a large  fractional  remainder,  and 
shall  have,  to  some  extent,  what  will  appear 
like  an  inequality  of  representation. 

Mr.  POWELL  (in  his  seat).  That  cannot  be 
helped. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  cannot  be  avoided  in 
any  system.  The  principles  we  are  to  take  into 
consideration  are  these : that  all  of  the  counties 
have  their  rights  in  the  first  place  as  counties, 
and  setting  one  against  the  other  in  that  position 
they  all  stand,  whether  large  or  small  counties., 
on  a basis  perfectly  equal.  First,  then,  ^otfre- 
present  the  counties ; and  secondly,  jy6u  repre- 
sent the  population.  As  counties., tjhey  stand  on 
a perfect  equality.  So  far  as  tjneir  population 
is  concerned,  we  are  not  afyYe  to  make  them 
stand  on  a perfect  equalitjy.  ' The  State  of  Ohio 
is  peculiar  in  her  division  of  counties.  If  you 
divide  by  one  hundred,  you  have  fifty-one 
counties  in  the  /State  out  of  the  eighty-eight 
which  fall  belp;w  the  ratio,  and  if  you  divide  by 
one  hundred  and  five,  you  then  have  forty-six 
countries  out  of  the  eighty-eight  which  fallbelow 
the;,  ratio.  The  difference  is  not  great.  But, 
J2tow,  let  us  see  how  that  fractional  representa- 
tion can  make  up  for  this  inequality ; for  it  can 
be  done  to  a very  great  extent.  Let  me  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention,  now,  to  the  divi- 
sion by  one  hundred,  because  that  is  the  man- 
ner in  which  it  is  done  in  our  present  Constitu- 
tion. Fifty-one  counties  in  Ohio  falling  below 
the  ratio  when  you  divide  by  one  hundred,  have 
a population  of  1,015,693.*  These  fifty-one 
counties  have  fifty-one  Representatives.  Then 
you  have  thirty-seven  counties  above  the  ratio 
with  a population  of  1,649,567,  and  those  coun- 
ties have  fifty  Representatives  against  the  fifty- 
one  of  the  smaller  counties.  But  in  a decade, 
or  in  five  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly, 
they  get  forty-three  fractional  Representa- 
tives, and  that  would  be  an  average  of  fifty- 
eight  Representatives  for  those  thirty-two 
counties.  In  other  words,  it  would  give 
the  fifty-eight,  1,649,567  inhabitants,  and  the 
fifty-one,  1,015,693  inhabitants.  There  is 
nothing  wrong  in  that  phase  of  the  question, 
because  the  larger  counties  are  not  entitled  to 
anything  more.  These  forty-three  fractional  Re- 
presentatives ought  to  represent,  by  the  present 
ratio,  1,146,136,  whereas  they  only  represent  an 
excess,  in  the  thirty-seven  counties,  of  633,876— 
representing  really  about  300,000  more  than  the 
! larger  counties  have  any  right  to— so  the  larger 
counties  cannot  complain  on  this  matter  at  all. 
The  larger  counties  get,  during  the  decade,  an 
average  representation  of  fifty-eight  for  sixteen 
hundred  thousand  population,  and  the  smaller 
counties  get  fifty-one  Representatives  for  their 
million  of  population.  Now,  I submit,  gentle- 
men, that  that  is  making  about  as  close  and 
equal  a system  of  representation  as  you  can  get. 


1600 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [123rd 

Dorsey,  Woodbury,  Voris,  Pratt.  [Wednesday, 


You  cannot  make  it  any  fairer,  unless  you  in- 
troduce the  great  reform  system,  and  allow  us 
to  elect  by  proportional  representation  in  the 
lower  House,  as  well  as  in  the  upper.  Then 
you  can  come  nearer  to  a perfect  equality,  and 
that  is  the  only  way.  But  if  you  refuse  to  do 
that,  you  are  getting  just  as  near  to  it  as  you 
can  come.  Now,  I will  say,  Mr.  President,  I 
have  no  very  great  choice  between  a divisor  of 
one  hundred  and  one  hundred  and  five.  I 
would  not  give  a snap  of  my  finger  for  the  dif- 
ference between  the  two.  I made  the  motion  to 
strike  out  merely  because  I wanted  to  hear  the 
expression  of  members  of  the  Convention.  I 
do  not  feel  favorable  to  a divisor  of  one  hun- 
dred and  five,  or  a divisor  of  one  hundred  and 
fifty,  which,  I believe, the  gentleman  from  Ash- 
tabula [Mr.  Woodbury]  favors. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  No,  sir,  one  hundred  and 
thirty-three. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Well,  one  hundred  and  tliirty- 
three.  I know  some  gentlemen  favor  this  large 
divisor,  /or  the  purpose  of  effecting  an  increase 
in  the  lower  House.  I believe  it  is  large  enough 
now  for  the  transaction  of  business  properly 
and  rapidly.  I vdo  not  pretend  to  deny  that  a 

more  numerous  btwly  might  give  a more  exact 

expression  of  the  opinions  of  the  people ; but . 0f  gtate  is  divided  by  the  number  of  one 


which  it  should  be  fixed  in  the  next  decennial 
period.  So  much  for  that. 

The  question,  it  appears  to  me,  is  this  : What 
is  the  best  number  for  us  to  adopt  as  the  ratio 
for  the  representative  body?  And  let  that 
number  be  the  divisor  by  which  the  population 
of  the  State  is  to  be  divided.  It  is  also  said  that 
the  larger  bodies  are  the  better  bodies.  And  we 
are  cited  to  the  history  of  Massachusetts,  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania  for  proof  of  the  prop- 
osition. It  will  be  recollected  that  I asked  the 
gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury] 
whether  lie  would  be  satisfied  to  take  the  sys- 
tem adopted  by  Massachusetts  for  the  people  of 
Ohio  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  an 
interrogation  ? 

Mr.  YORIS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PRATT.  What  does  he  understand  the 
system  of  Massachusetts  to  be  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I understand  it  to  have  been 
repesentation  of  the  towns  or  corporations.  It 
is  about  a half-and-half  borough  system. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  is  nothing  of  the  kind,  sir. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Well,  I have  it  right  before 
me. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Well,  let  us  have  it.  The  sys- 
tem is  simply  that  the  total  number  of  electors 


everybody  is  aware  that,  a f we  had  a more  ex- 
act representation  of  the  opinions  of  the  peo- 


thousand,  and  a Representative  given  to  that 
number.  There  being  246,000  electors  in  the 


pie,  we  would  also  get  a House  which  it  would  state,  the  House  consists  of  two  hundred  and 

be  more  difficult  to  transact  busnaess.  I weigh  forty-six  members,  and  then  this  representa- 
the  one  against  the  other,  and  I thimik  under  j tion  apportioned  in  single  districts  over  the 
the  present  Constitution,  either  under  thdvdivi-  state.  That  is  their  system  to-day.  And  I 
sor  of  one  hundred  or  one  hundred  and  five,  i hope  when  the  gentleman  speaks  of  that  State, 


we  have  about  as  large  a House  as  can  transac' 
business  well,  and  large  enough  to  fairly  repre- 
sent all  the  opinions  of  the  people. 


he  will  not  speak  from  what  he  does  not  know. 

• Mr.  VORIS.  I will  try  to  illustrate  the  sub- 
ject by  applying  such  facts  as  are  known  to  this 


Mr.  VORIS.  I do  not  favor  the  motion  made  I Convention.  If  the  authority  I quote  is  not 
to  strike  out  one  hundred  and  five.  I prefer  j satisfactory,  then  the  Convention  may  take  that 
that  the  divisor  should  be  one  hundred,  but 1 of  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]. 
five  more  makes  so  little  difference  that  I am  1 1 understand  the  system  adopted  in  Massachu- 
perfectly  satisfied  to  take  that  number.  That ! setts  has  npt  been  a uniform  one.  They  have 
seems  to  be  the  agreement  made  by  a majority  ! a less  body,\though  a larger  population  to-day 
of  the  Committee,  in  determining  what  the  di-  1 than  they  haul  thirty  years  ago,  or  prior  to  that 
visor  should  be.  But  it  makes  very  little  dif-  j time.  I thinks  before  1837,  a town  containing 
ference,  so  far  as  the  equalization  of  the  appor-  ; one  hundred  a^nd  fifty  votes,  or  polls,  as  they 
tionment  is  concerned,  what  that  divisor  may  j called  them,  wa.fi  entitled  to  representation  in 
be.  If  the  population  of  the  State  were  a con-  ; the  Lower  Housue-  In  1840,  as  you  know, 
stant  quantity,  then,  there  would  be  force  in  , the  basis  of  representation  was  changed  to 
the  argument  made,  that  the  number  should  be  ' that  of  three  hundred  polls,  and  any  town 
now  selected  that  more  nearly  divides  the  State  i or  borough  that  contained  three  hundred 
up  into  representative  districts,  that  will  give  ' voters  was  entitled  to  a Representative; 
an  equal  vote  in  the  representation  of  the  Gen-  I and  every  additional  « 450  polls  entitle  them  to 
eral  Assembly.  But  what  is  true  in  accordance  j another  Representative.  At  a later  date,  the 
with  the  census  of  1870  will  not  be  true  with  basis  of  representation  was  changed  to  one 
the  census  of  1880  or  1890.  The  population  of  thousand,  as  stated  by  '.the  gentleman  from  Wil- 
Ohio  is  an  inconstant  quantity.  This  is  espe-  j liams  [Mr.  Pratt],  leading  substantially  now 
cially  so  in  the  smaller  or  less  populous  coun-  the  Representative  bod  A to  consist  of  240  mem- 
ties  of  the  State.  Those  counties  which  to-day  bers.  The  system  of  flq>ats  and  additional  Re- 
have  less  than  the  average  representative  vote,  I presentative  upon  numbers,  is  substantially  in 
will,  in  ten  years,  have,  perhaps,  a larger  num- ! principle  that  which  is  ^proposed  to  be  adopted 
ber  than  the  average  representative  vote  of  a by  the  Article  under  consideration.  ButMassa- 
county.  That  is  especially  true  in  the  north-  j chusetts  has  not,  invariably,  followed  the  same 
western  counties  of  the  State,  where  the  ratio  I system.  Massachusetts  1 lias  not  insisted  that  the 
of  population  is  increasing  much  more  rapidly  j smaller  number  of  her  .inhabitants  should  be 
than  in  other  sections  of  the  State.  Therefore,  represented  by  larger  districts  in  her  legislative 
it  is  of  little  consequence  whether  the  ratio  is  body.  Instead  of  that,  tip1®  contrary  course  has 
one  hundred,  one  hundred  and  five,  one  hun-  been  pursued.  They  havtV-  diminished  the  num- 
dred  and  thirty-three,  or  any  other  number  you  ber  of  their  Representatives,  instead  of  increased 
may  select.  Though  it  may  fix  equally  this  them,  in  reference  to  thle  ratio  of  population, 
representation  of  to-day,  it  is  no  standard  by  Such  is  true  of  New  YoCrk,  and  is  also  true  of 


Day.]  APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1601 

February  25,  1874.]  Voris,  Pond,  Dorsey,  Pratt. 


Pennsylvania,  that  the  ratio  of  increase  in 
population  has  been  greatly  in  excess  of  the 
increase  of  the  number  of  members  in  her  re- 
presentative bodies.  In  fact,  representative 
bodies  have  not  been  numerically  increased,  as 
has  been  suggested.  But,  if  it  were  true,  the 
fact  that  they  had  adopted  the  system  of  large 
representative  bodies,  and  that  they  have  con- 
tinued in  pursuing  that  plan,  simply  indicates 
that  they  were  satisfied  with  the  course  they 
had  started  out  with.  It  does  not  prove  any- 
thing. The  history  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  with 
her  one  hundred  or  about  a hundred  Represen- 
tatives in  her  lower  House,  shows,  as  is  conceded 
by  all,  that  she  has  as  pure  legislation  and  as 
wise  as  that  of  the  States  mentioned ; and,  cer- 
tainly, for  integrity  of  legislation,  Massa- 
chusetts, Pennsylvania  or  New  York,  stand 
nowhere  in  comparison  with  our  State.  As  I 
understand  it,  we  have  found  no  serious  evils. 
I do  not  understand  that  gentlemen  predicate 
their  claim  to  a change  in  the  representative 
body  here,  by  reason  of  any  incurable  evil  that 
exists  in  our  legislative  bodies.  It  is  not  claimed 
here  that  because  we  have  one  hundred,  or 
about  one  hundred,  in  the  lower  branch  of  the 
General  Assembly,  that,  therefore,  evils  have 
rown  up  in  the  State  which  can  be  remedied 
y a change  in  the  ratio  of  representation.  That 
is  not  claimed  here,  and  the  only  force  there  is 
in  the  argument  made  for  enlarging  these 
bodies,  is  that,  to-day,  the  average  representa- 
tive body  can  be  better  and  more  equally  dis- 
tributed by  the  number  133 — than  105;  but  that 
may  not  be  true  in  five  years  or  ten  years  from 
now,  and  never  will  be  true  again. 

Now,  it  does  appear  to  me,  that  we  ought  to 
adopt  that  number  for  both  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives,  that  we  think  will 
make  the  best  law-making  body  for  the  State, 
and  then  make  that  the  divisor,  and  in  the 
course  of  time  it  will  equalize  itself  to  the 
average  number  in  the  State,  however  you  may 
apportion  it  in  the  districts. 

I concede  that  the  matter  of  expense  is  not 
very  great  if  you  add  thirty-three,  thirty-five 
or  forty  members  to  the  General  Assembly.  It 
will  make  a difference  of  not  more  than  thirty 
thousand  dollars  per  annum,  and  that  is  not  a 
great  sum.  But  that  thirty  thousand  dollars, 
if  it  is  to  be  spent  every  year  for  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State,  ought  to  be  spent  for 
some  valuable  purpose.  We  ought  to  know 
when  we  are  making  an  appropriation,  or  a 
provision  for  an  extra  appropriation  of  this 
kind,  that  it  is  going  to  subserve  some  valuable 
end  in  the  State.  The  argument  utterly  fails 
to  show  that  there  is  any  such  value  in  the  in- 
creased number  as  to  make  this  increased  ex- 
pense necessary  or  expedient.  Our  history 
develops  the  fact  that  the  smaller  number  has 
brought  us  as  safe  and  conservative  legislation 
as  that  of  those  States  that  have  had  a larger 
number.  I think  we  ought  to  be  satisfied  with 
our  own.  To-day  the  State  of  New  York  has 
an  indebtedness  upon  her  State  and  municipal 
bodies  that  not  only  counts  by  the  million,  but 
by  hundreds  of  millions  of  money.  The  State 
of  Massachusetts,  with  her  municipal  bodies, 
counts  some  thirty  odd  millions  of  dollars,  and 
I think  this  is  also  more  than  true  of  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania ; whilst  the  indebtedness  of  our 

Y.  n-103 


own  State  is  a mere  bagatelle  in  comparison 
with  those  States  and  their  municipal  bodies. 
That  shows  the  legislation  of  this  State  to  have 
been  conservative,  and  being  so,  unless  gentle- 
men can  show  that  some  serious  evil  exists  in 
our  State  system,  we  should  be  cautious  how 
we  add  numbers  to  the  law-making  bodies,  or 
increase  the  expense  of  legislation,  and 
especially  so,  unless  we  get  adequate  compensa- 
tion in  return  for  this  increased  expenditure. 
I believes  this  embodies,  substantially,  the 
views  I entertain  in  regard  so  this  matter  of 
increasing  or  diminishing  the  numerical 
strength  of  the  legislative  bodies  of  the  State. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  ask  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  a question.  Is  he  not 
mistaken  in  grouping  these  smaller  counties  in 
one  body  and  the  larger  ones  in  another?  About 
eleven  hundred  thousand  thus  get  fifty-one 
members  and 

Mr.  DORSEY.  One  million . 

Mr.  POND.  1,600,000  and  over  get  fifty- 
eight  members  by  counting  floats.  The  result, 
as  I understand  it  is,  that  the  half  million  pop- 
ulation get  seven  Representatives  and  the  mil- 
lion get  fifty-one.  I want  to  see  if  some  plan 
cannot  be  devised  that  will  equalize  bettei  than 
that. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  misappre- 
hends my  remarks. 

Mr.  POND.  I want  to  see  if  I am  right. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  You  are  very  wrong,  sir. 

Mr.  POND.  1,600,000  and  over  get  fifty- 
eight,  the  million  or  1,100,000  get  fifty-one, 
then  between  the  fifty-one  and  the  fifty-eight 
there  are  but  seven,  so  that  the  1,100,000  only 
get  seven  Representatives  to  the  fifty-one  for 
the  million  or  a little  over. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly.  1,015,000  get  fif- 
ty-one Representatives  from  fifty-one  counties; 
1,600,000  get  fifty  Representatives  from  thirty- 
seven  counties,  and  they  get  an  average  of  seven 
fractional  Representatives.  They  get  forty- 
three  fractional  Representatives  in  the  whole 
decade,  making  in  every  session  an  average  of 
about  seven.  That  is  certainly  as  nearly  cor- 
rect as  it  can  be. 

Mr.  POND.  That  will  be  seven  Representa- 
tives for  the  half  million. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  not  for  the  half  million, 
for  the  difference.  It  is  about  400,000,  not  quite 
400,000,  about  383,000  is  what  it  is.  I made  the 
calculation,  and  have  given  to  the  reporter  the 
paper  which  I had.  But  it  is  about  300,000.  I 
said  there  that  if  we  apportioned  that  repre- 
sentation accurately,  the  full  ratio  for  those 
forty-three  Representatives,  as  you  can  easily 
see  by  multiplying  the  ratio  by  forty-three, 
would  amount  to  about  1,043,000  inhabitants, 
but  instead  of  a representation  of  1,043,000, 
they  represent  only  about  600,000,  so  that  the 
fractions  really  give  fuller  representation  there 
than  the  regular  Representatives.  Now,  we 
hold  that  fraction  representations  are  for  the 
purpose  of  using  up  those  which  are  over, 
and  that  it  is  in  order  to  get  as  nearly  as  possi- 
ble the  proper  proportion ; but  here  we  show 
that  it  works  out  really  a fuller  ratio  for  the 
fractions  than  for  the  regular  representation. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  state  the 
exact  population  of  fifty-one  counties? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  number  that  I refer  to 


1602 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Dorsey,  Pond,  Neal. 


[123rd 


is  1,015,000,  and  the  population  of  thirty-seven 
counties  is  1,643,000. 

Mr.  POND.  But  dees  it  not  still  result  that 
fifty-one  counties  would  get  twenty-five  Rep- 
resentatives? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken 
there.  Does  he  suppose  there  is  no  represen- 
tation at  all,  except  for  the  fractional  ones? 
The  1,600,000  get  fifty-eight  Representatives 
and  the  million  get  fifty -one.  The  1,600,000 
get  fifty-eight. 

Mr.  POND.  Then  the  343,000  only  get  the 

S6VG11  • 

Mr.  DORSEY.  They  only  get  the  seven. 
They  get  forty-three  Representatives  in  the 
whole  decennial  period — only  get  seven  each 
time;  but  remember  they  are  made  up  of  frac- 
tions. It  is  just  as  correct  as  we  can  make  it. 
You  cannot  make  a system  more  nearly  equal 
than  by  giving  fifty-one  to  1,015,000,  and  fifty- 
eight  to  1,600,000.  I do  not  believe  that  any 
gentleman  can  suggest  abetter  method. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  strik- 
ing out. 

Mr.  NEAL.  There  are  two  fundamental 
principles,  or  ideas,  if  I may  so  express  myself, 
upon  which  we  may  base  representation.  One 
is  that  of  territory.  As  the  Senate  of  the 
United  State  is  composed,  they  represent  terri- 
tory and  not  population.  The  other  is  the 
representation  of  population,  as  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  Congress  is  composed.  And 
it  is  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  principles  or 
ideas  that  we  must  adopt  in  the  apportionment 
scheme  which  we  shall  prepare  before  we  close 
our  labors.  Now,  which  shall  we  adopt?  If 
we  take  that  of  territorial  representation,  then, 
perhaps,  as  fair  a basis  as  we  can  adopt,  is  to 
provide  that  there  shall  be  one  Representative 
to  each  county,  without  reference  to  population. 
I apprehend,  however,  Mr.  President,  that 
there  is  no  one  upon  this  floor  will,  for  a mo- 
ment, entertain  an  idea  of  that  kind,  because 
the  county  of  Paulding,  with  only  eight  or 
nine  thousand  inhabitants,  would  have  the 
same  power  as  Hamilton,  with  her  260,000  in- 
habitants, just  as,  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
Nevada,  with  45,000  inhabitants,  and  Rhode 
Island,  with  her  small  population,  have  the 
same  power  and  the  same  representation  in  the 
United  States  Senate  as  the  States  of  Pennsyl- 
vania and  New  York  have  with  their  three  or 
four  millions.  I do  not  suppose,  therefore,  that 
for  a moment  this  Convention  will  entertain 
any  idea  of  apportioning  this  State  upon  the 
principle  of  territorial  representation.  There 
is  but  one  way  left,  and  that  is  representation 
by  population. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Do  we  not,  under  the  present 
Constitution  of  Ohio,  base  it  on  territory,  that 
is,  by  counties  and  also  population  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I do  not  know  that  it  is  neces- 
sary to  consider  here  or  there  it  is  a matter  of 
much  importance  what  is  embodied  in  the  pres- 
ent Constitution.  So  far  as  it  is  right  in  princi- 
ple, I am  in  favor  of  adopting  it;  but  so  far  as 
it  is  not,  I propose  to  have  it  changed — and  we 
have  changed  every  Article,  almost  every  sec- 
tion, in  some  particular.  The  next  idea,  then, 


[Wednesday, 


or  principle,  upon  which  we  may  base  our  rep- 
resentation is  that  of  population ; and  while  I 
am  willing  so  far  to  depart  from  this  principle 
as  to  give  representation  to  every  county,  no 
matter  how  small  it  is,  I am  not  willing  that 
we  shall  sacrifice  the  principle  of  representa- 
tion by  population  to  the  extent  which  it  is 
claimed  upon  this  floor  we  should  do  by  the 
distinguished  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey], 

Now,  Mr.  President,  as  has  been  demonstrated 
to  this  Convention  by  the  gentleman  from 
Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury] — and  the  figures 
very  abundantly  sustain  him  in  all  his  asser- 
tions— we  have  forty-five  counties  in  this  State 
with  an  average  population  of  less  than  twenty 
thousand ; forty-four  counties  no  one  of  which 
has  a population  of  over  twenty-two  thousand. 
Therefore,  it  would  seem,  so  far  as  these  coun- 
ties are  concerned,  that  the  ratio  of  one  to  every 
twenty-two  thousand  would  be  at  least  as  fair 
and  equitable  as  any  ratio  we  could  adopt.  Then 
we  have,  on  the  other  hand,  forty-four  counties 
in  the  State  with  a population  exceeding  twenty 
thousand,  and  I ask  any  gentleman  if  it  is  fair 
that  the  forty-four  counties  should  not  have 
the  same  ratio  of  representation  with  these 
other  forty-four  counties  ? 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  gentleman  from  Sum- 
mit [Mr.  Voris]  has  undertaken  to  demonstrate 
to  this  Convention  that  the  large  representa- 
tions in  the  House  of  Representatives,  or  large 
bodies,  are  not  desirable,  and  he  quotes  as  an 
illustration,  upon  the  one  hand,  the  economical 
and  honest  administration  of  affairs  in  the  State 
of  Ohio;  and,  upon  the  other  hand,  the  condi- 
tion of  affairs  as  represented  by  New  York, 
Pennsylvania  and  Massachusetts.  There  may 
be  some  force  and  effect  in  that  argument — I 
am  not  prepared  to  say — but  I would  inform  the 
distinguished  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
Voris]  that  the  representation  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  Pennsylvania  is  just  one 
hundred,  the  same  as  is  provided  under  our  pres- 
ent Constitution,  and  all  this  vicious  and  bad 
legislation,  and  the  great  accumulation  of  debt 
which  burdens  these  States,  has  been  created 
under  a system  precisely  the  same  as  we  have 
in  this  State,  so  that  the  arguments  drawn  from 
this  comparison,  amount  to  nothing.  But  the 
last  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  which  adjourned  a few  months 
since,  had  this  matter  under  careful  and  delib- 
erate consideration;  and  I am  told  that  they 
made  inquiries  in  almost  every  State  in  the  Un- 
ion as  to  the  practical  working  of  large  and 
small  bodies  for  the  Lower  House  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  What  was  the  result?  Why, 
sir,  instead  of  making  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives one  hundred,  as  it  is  now,  they  just  doub- 
led it,  and  provided  that  there  shall  be  two  hun- 
dred Representatives,  or  one  for  every  seven- 
teen thousand  two  hundred  and  eighty-three 
of  their  population,  according  to  the  last  Fed- 
eral census.  In  other  words,  in  the  great  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  for  a population  of  3,456,000, 
they  reduced  the  ratio  of  representation  nearly 
three  thousand  less  than  it  is  proposed  to  do  by 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Ashta- 
bula [Mr.  Woodbury],  and  they  increased  their 
House  of  Representatives  from  one  hundred  to 
two  hundred.  It  shows,  Mr.  President,  this : 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1603 

February  25, 1874.]  Neal,  Voris,  Pond,  Sears,  Greene. 


that  however  correct  the  gentleman  from  Sum- 
mit [Mr.  Voris]  may  be  in  his  deductions  as  to 
the  cause  of  accumulated  indebtedness  of  that 
State,  and  because  of  the  had  legislation  there, 
the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Pennsylva- 
nia, which  is  represented  to  have  been  emi- 
nently reformatory  in  every  respect,  disagreed 
with  him  in  toto,  and  increased  the  number  just 
double. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I think  the  gentleman  from 
Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  is  mistaken  as  to  the  ef- 
fect of  my  argument.  I was  simply  answering 
that  we  predicated  the  safety  and  the  honest 
legislation  of  these  States  upon  large  represen- 
tative bodies,  and  I claim  that  the  facts  did  not 
show  that  fact,  and  the  gentleman  is  coming  at 
the  same  conclusion  exactly  as  I do.  If  that  is 
not  the  reason,  perhaps  it  must  be  some  other. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I take  it  for  granted  that  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  Pennsylvania  had 
most  excellent  reasons  for  increasing  the  mem- 
bership of  their  lower  house  as  it  will  add 
greatly  to  the  expenses  of  their  General  Assem- 
bly, and,  therefore,  as  every  gentleman  of  this 
Convention  has  heard,  time  and  time  again, 
that  corruption  has  been,  again  and  again, 
charged,  and  proved,  too,  upon  the  Pennsylva- 
nia Legislature,  we  may  reasonably  suppose  that 
the  principal  reason  for  changing  that  repre- 
sentation was,  that  they  might  correct  this 
enormous  evil  and,  in  the  main,  prevent  that 
corruption,  which  had  disgraced  the  General 
Assembly  of  that  State  from  time  immemorial, 
and  polluted  the  very  fountain  sources  of  all 
legislation. 

But  again:  New  York  is  cited  as  another 
illustration.  We  are  told  that  millions,  hun- 
dreds of  millions  of  dollars  of  debts  have  been 
contracted  by  the  authority  of  municipalities  of 
the  State  of  New  York. 

Mr.  POND.  They  have  the  veto  there. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  they  have  the  veto  power 
there,  which  has  not  been  exercised  judiciously 
enough  to  prevent  the  corruption  which  stalks 
abroad  at  noonday  in  that  great  State.  But 
what  are  the  facts  ? Why,  they  have  a popula- 
tion of  some  four  millions,  and  their  House  of 
Representatives  has  been  only  one  hundred  and 
twenty-eight.  The  amendment  proposed  by  the 
commission  I have  not  examined,  but  I venture 
to  guess  that  if  the  report  is  examined,  it  will 
be  found  there  is  a very  material  increase  re- 
commended in  their  lower  House.  There  are 
some  States  we  can  compare  to  advantage. 
There  is  the  old  Granite  State,  New  Hamp- 
shire, which  has  a representation  in  the  lower 
House  of  three  hundred;  there  is  the  Green 
Mountain  State,  Vermont,  which  has  a repre- 
sentation of  one  for  every  town,  counting  up 
by  hundreds,  I do  not  know  how  many,  proba- 
bly as  many  as  New  Hampshire. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  an 
interruption  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I will  answer  the  inquiry  as 
to  the  report  of  the  Commission  of  the  State  of 
New  York.  They  reported  in  favor  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty-eight  members  for  the 
lower  House. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Very  well,  that  is  just  what  it 
is  now.  I am  glad  to  be  informed.  But  the 
two  States  of  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont, 


which  have  been  noted  for  economy,  frugality 
and  honesty  in  the  administration  of  affairs,  as 
already  stated,  have  very  large  lower  Houses. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  inquire  if,  rela- 
tively, the  economy  of  those  States  has  been 
greater  than  Ohio? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  far  more  so.  If  I am  cor- 
rectly informed,  they  never  contracted  a debt 
for  any  State  purpose  until  the  war  of  the  Re- 
bellion, and  I believe  now  they  have  very  little, 
if  any  debt.  And  it  is  notorious  that  taxes 
there  are  lower  than  almost  any  western  State. 
Now,  compare  the  legislation  of  these  two 
States  with  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  which 
have  been  held  up  here  as  examples  of  extrava- 
gance, and  you  find  that  in  Vermont  and  New 
Hampshire  the  representation  in  the  lower 
House  is  nearly  double  what  it  is  in  either  of 
those  States.  So  it  appears  that  the  larger  the 
representative  body  the  more  economy  you  have 
in  the  administration  of  affairs,  the  more  hon- 
esty and  the  better  government. 

But  it  is  asked,  what  is  the  object  of  this? 
Why  make  this  increase?  I say,  Mr.  President, 
that  the  object  of  it  is  to  subserve  the  just  and 
righteous  principle  of  equality.  Will  any  per- 
son claim  that  it  is  right  to  give  such  small 
counties  as  Geauga  and  Carroll,  which  have  for 
the  last  twenty  years  been  retrograding  in  pop- 
ulation, the  same  representation  as  counties 
which  are  doubling  in  population  every  ten 
years? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  inquire  if  that 
is  the  reason  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont  are 
such  good  States  to  emigrate  from,  and  their 
population  has  fallen  very  far  behind  that  of 
most  other  States  in  the  Union  for  the  last  twen- 
ty years  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I suppose,  as  the  gentleman  sug- 
gests, they  are, ’probably,  good  States  to  emi- 
grate from ; but  they  are  very  good  States  to 
grow  up  in.  They  have  a system  of  schools, 
and  they  have  such  moral  training  as  make 
them  the  best  citizens  that  inhabit  this  glorious 
country  of  ours.  It  is  suggested  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  that  they  have  not  ground 
enough  to  keep  all  their  sons  there. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Hence  their  economy. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  high  standing  of  their  peo- 
ple in  educational  matters  has  been  and  is  such 
as  seems  to  justify  the  reply  of  an  eastern  Con- 
gressman to  a Southerner,  when  a drove  of 
mules  was  going  by  the  Capitol.  The  Southern- 
er asked  if  those  were  his  constituents,  and  he 
said  yes,  they  were,  and  he  was  sending  them 
south  to  teach  school. 

Mr.  GREENE.  How  about  that  in  this  State? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I do  not  propose  to  make  any 
personal  allusions.  And  so  another  New  Eng- 
land gentleman,  in  proudest  humility,  when 
taunted  about  the  barrenness  of  his  section  of 
the  country,  said,  that  they  had  not  soil  or  cli- 
mate which  enabled  them  to  grow  great  crops 
of  grain  and  cotton  under  the  lash  of  the  slave 
driver,  nor  had  they  money  to  build  peniten- 
tiaries and  jails;  but  they  did  have  money  to 
build  school-houses,  in  which  they  raised  men 
and  women. 

Now  then,  Mr.  President,  I do  not  know  that 
the  number  one  hundred  and  thirty-three  is  ex- 
actly the  best  number  to  compose  our  House  of 
Representatives,  but  I do  believe  that  we  should 


1604 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Neal,  Voris,  Sears,  Pratt,  Woodbury. 


r 123rd 

[Wednesday, 


adopt  such  a ratio  as  will  give  us  the  fairest  rep- 
resentation for  the  population  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  considered  in  its  relation  to  counties. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Now,  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  if  there  is  any  system  of  schools  in 
any  State  in  the  Union  that  have  developed  bet- 
ter results  than  those  of  the  State  of  Ohio  for 
the  last  twenty  years  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I don’t  know  anything  about 
that.  We  will  discuss  that  when  we  come  to 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Education.  That 
is  not  germain  to  the  question  that  is  now  be- 
fore the  Convention. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Why  did  the  gentleman  refer 
to  the  matter,  then  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Well,  that  was  only  side-bar. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Well,  my  argument  was  only 
side-bar. 

A MEMBER.  We  seem  glad  to  get  those 
Yankees  to  become  teachers  of  our  schools. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  we  are  very  glad  to  get  the 
Massachusetts  Yankees  and  Vermont  girls  to 
come  out  here  and  teach  our  schools,  and  make 
wives  for  our  best  men  after  they  are  come. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  does  seem  to  me  that 
the  ratio  of  representation  should  not  be  greater 
than  the  ratio  of  the  average  population  of  one- 
half  of  the  counties.  It  is  doing  injustice  to  the 
other  counties  having  a larger  population. 

One  other  thing.  The  question  has  been 
asked  by  the  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr. 
Sears]  whether  I would  support  the  principle 
of  single  districts.  I say,  yes,  with  all  my 
heart.  I believe  it  is  the  only  fair  way  to 
get  the  representation  which  is  equal  in  every 
respect.  I believe  there  is  no  propriety  what- 
ever, no  justice  whatever,  in  allowing  an 
elector  in  Hamilton  county  voting  for 
ten  or  fifteen  Representatives,  while  the 
gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears]  is 
restricted  to  voting  for  only  one ; or  that  one 
hundred  in  Hamilton  county  (as  the  division  of 
parties  there  is  very  nearly  equal)  should  elect 
ten  Representatives  to  the  House  and  three  to 
the  Senate,  while  the  seventeen  hundred  Demo- 
cratic majority  in  Monroe  county  should  elect 
but  one.  I trust,  therefore,  Mr.  President,  that 
this  motion  to  strike  out  will  prevail,  and  that, 
viewing  this  matter  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  I have  before  stated,  will  fill  the 
blank  with  the  number  133,  as  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury]. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I am  glad  to  hear  that  at  least 
one  of  the  advocates  of  a larger  House  and  a 
smaller  ratio  of  representation  concurs  in  the 
suggestion  I made,  that  the  only  absolute  and 
just  rule  would  be  to  disregard  county  lines 
altogether,  and  create  single  districts.  The 
electors  in  each  district  would  then  have  the 
same  right  to  vote,  and  vote  for  the  same  num- 
ber of  Representatives.  In  that  way  you  would 
get  absolute  equality  and  absolute  fairness. 
But  I regard  that  as  impracticable.  I do  not 
propose  to  urge  any  such  Utopian  scheme  here, 
for  I have  no  idea  that  any  considerable  portion 
of  the  Convention  would  concur  in  it.  I regard 
the  system  of  county  representation  as  a fixed 
thing  in  our  system,  and  believe  that  our  work 
here  is  to  be  adapted  to  that.  Now,  I do  not 
think  there  is  any  reasonable  ground  of  com- 
plaint, on  the  part  of  the  larger  counties,  that 
they  have  been  oppressed  by  the  smaller  ones. 


I do  not  think  they  have  suffered.  I do  not 
think  that  Hamilton  and  Cuyahoga  have  been 
oppressed  by  Williams,  or  Paulding,  or  any  other 
of  the  smaller  counties.  I think  that  the  pres- 
ent compromise  system  is  not  only  substantially 
just  and  equal,  but  the  very  best  one  which  we 
can  adopt.  To  be  sure,  taking  the  population 
as  a basis,  it  gives  the  smaller  counties  some 
advantage.  But  then,  on  the  other  hand,  how 
great  is  the  advantage  which  those  counties 
possess  which  have  two,  three,  five  or  ten  Rep- 
resentatives elected  upon  a single  ticket? 
That  is  certainly  a full  equivalent.  There  is 
another  view  of  this  proposition. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  him  how  that  is  an  equivalent?  What 
advantage  is  there  in  that? 

Mr.  SEARS.  I think,  sir,  that  the  political 
power  of  the  citizen  who  is  allowed  to  vote  for 
ten  Representatives,  to  be  represented  by  ten 
men  in  the  Legislature,  is  certainly  somewhat 
greater  than  that  of  him  who  votes  for  but  one, 
and  is  represented  by  but  one.  The  Represen- 
tatives thus  elected  frequently  act  as  a solid 
body,  and  in  many  instances  may  control  the 
entire  Legislature. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  is  very  true ; but  in  such 
a county  as  Hamilton,  with  a voting  population 
of  over  50,000,  what  becomes  of  the  minority 
representation  ? 

Mr.  SEARS.  They  do  not  have  any.  It  is 
the  majority  of  Hamilton  county  that  is  repre- 
sented in  the  Legislature  on  a single  ticket. 

But  there  is  another  objection  to  dimin- 
ishing the  ratio  of  representation.  It  neces- 
sarily increases  the  number  and  the  aggregate 
of  unrepresented  fractions  in  the  smaller  coun- 
ties. And  this  may  well  happen,  and  will  hap- 
pen, if  this  system  is  adopted,  that  five  or  six 
small  counties,  lying  immediately  adjacent  to  a 
| county  having  an  aggregate  population  equal 
to  their  entire  population,  will  have  unrepre- 
sented fractions  upon  any  scheme  which  you 
may  adopt,  sufficient,  if  put  together,  to  give 
the  large  county  one,  two  or  more  Representa- 
tives. So  that  the  small  counties  are  necessarily 
exposed  to  suffer  by  any  enlargement  of  the 
number  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Will  the  gentleman  per- 
mit a question  before  he  takes  his  seat? 

Mr.  SEARS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Do  I understand  the 
gentleman  to  say  that  the  larger  the  body  the 
more  you  reduce  the  ratio,  the  more  you  in- 
crease the  unrepresented  fractions  throughout 
the  State? 

Mr.  SEARS.  The  more  you  increase  the  un- 
represented fractions  in  the  smaller  counties.  I 
did  not  say  throughout  the  State.  I said  this 
thing  would  work  against  the  smaller  counties. 
It  is  intended  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  another  question? 

Mr.  SEARS.  I have  got  through;  but  the 
gentleman  can  proceed  with  his  interrogatory. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  That  is  this:  Suppose, 
for  instance,  there  are  some  counties  that  are 
below  the  ratio;  how  can  you  get  in  those 
smaller  counties  an  unrepresented  fraction? 

Mr.  SEARS.  You  can  not.  But  if  you  then 
put  the  ratio  low  enough  you  will  get  unrepre- 
sented fractions  in  the  smallest  counties.  Sub- 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1605 

February  25, 1874.]  Sears,  Woodbury,  Yoris,  Pratt,  Dorsey,  Gurley. 


stantially,  you  are  proposing  to  put  it  down  so 
that  there  will  he  no  counties  that  will  fall  be- 
low the  ratio.  When  you  do  that,  you,  of 
course,  create  a greater  number  of  unrepre- 
sented fractions  in  the  smaller  counties,  while 
in  the  larger  counties  they  are  combined  and 
represented. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I think  the  gentleman 
mistakes  the  result  that  will  be  shown  by  the 
figures.  They  will  show,  when  it  comes  to  be 
figured,  that  there  are  forty-five  counties  that 
are  under  the  ratio  in  the  State ; or,  in  other 
words,  if  you  shall  put  the  ratio  at  20,000,  there 
are  forty-five  counties  in  the  State  whose  aver- 
age population  will  be  19,450. 

Mr.  YORIS.  How  long  will  that  remain? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I can  not  tell  how  long 
it  will  remain  so.  It  may  remain  so  for  a hun- 
dred years. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  it  not  remain  so  just  so 
long  as  the  State  develops  equally  in  all  parts 
of  it? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  My  idea  would  be  this, 
that  that  is  to  carry  it  out  in  form.  If  I could 
have  just  what  I wanted  here,  I would  provide — 
I do  believe  that  for  the  next  fifty  years  there 
will  be  more  or  less  counties  in  the  State  with 
a population  under  twenty  thousand.  And  for 
the  purpose  of  making  the  representation  for 
all  time  to  come  equal  in  the  State,  I would 
fix  no  divisor,  but  I would  simply  provide  that 
twenty  thousand  should  be  the  ratio  of  repre- 
sentation throughout  the  State. 

And,  again,  in  answer  to  the  gentleman’s 
proposition,  as  we  are  now  proposing  this,  the 
population  of  the  State  is  increasing.  We  pro- 
pose to  divide  the  State  by  the  number  one 
hundred  and  thirty-three,  and  the  quotient 
shall  be  the  ratio  for  a Senator  or  a Representa- 
tive. Now,  what  is  the  result  ? Concede  that 
the  State  is  constantly  increasing  in  population. 
If  so,  your  ratio  is  constantly  increasing.  So 
that  your  ratio  grows  as  your  counties  grow 
throughout  the  entire  State,  so  that  the  gentle- 
man’s proposition  is  no  answer.  It  does  not  at 
all  affect  the  question  whether  or  not  a single 
county  or  several  counties  in  the  State  shall 
grow  beyond  the  size  of  twenty  thousand,  or  if 
all,  and  if  all  the  counties  in  the  State  within  a 
few  years  shall  reach  twenty  thousand,  the 
ratio  is  increased  in  the  same  proportion,  and 
may  be  run  up  to  thirty  thousand  to  entitle  a 
county  to  representation,  for  you  are  providing 
that  the  entire  population  of  the  State  shall  be 
divided  by  one  hundred  and  thirty-three,  and 
whatever  that  quotient  is  will  be  the  size  of 
them,  so  that  your  ratio  is  extended,  increasing 
as  the  population  shall  increase. 

Now,  then,  in  answer  to  the  statement  made 
by  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  in 
regard  to  the  representation  in  the  State,  when 
you  shall  divide  the  population  by  the  number 
one  hundred,  that  will  be  figured  out,  and  this 
question  of  fractional  representation  is  left  out. 
It  will  be  found  that,  upon  the  naked  Proposi- 
tion itself,  you  have  51  counties  in  the  State 
having  51  Representatives,  upon  a population  of 
1,015,693,  or  upon  a ratio  of  19,915  for  each  one 
of  those  Representatives.  You  have  37  counties 
with  a population  of  1,649,567,  entitled  to  54 
Representatives  by  the  population,  and  yet  you 


are  requiring  those  counties  to  furnish  a popu- 
lation, or  a ratio,  in  fact,  of  30,547,  to  entitle 
them  to  a Representative,  making  a difference 
of  11,632  between  the  smaller  and  the  larger 
counties  of  the  State  to  entitle  them  to  a Rep- 
resentative. And  if  you  shall  carry  it  out  to  its 
final  results,  you  will  find  this : that,  while  a 
population  of  1,015,693  shall  elect  51  Repre- 
sentatives, it  takes  1,649,567  to  elect  54.  In 
other  words,  when  you  come  to  equalize  it,  it 
takes  in  the  larger  counties  a population  of 
600,000  to  elect  three  Representatives.  When 
you  shall  offset  the  51  counties  with  51  Repre- 
sentatives, and  the  three  Represntatives,  in 
fact,  require  a population  of  600,000. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Does  not  the  present  Consti- 
tution of  the  State  recognize  counties,  as  well  as 
population,  as  a basis  of  representation  ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Certainly  it  does. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yery  well.  Now,  I ask  the 
gentleman,  if  51  counties,  as  counties,  have  a 
representation  equal  to  51,  then,  37  counties,  as 
counties,  are  entitled  to  only  a representation 
of  37.  And  if  we  give  those  counties  58,  in- 
stead of  37,  and  if  we  give  to  that  633,000  instead 
of  seven  Representatives,  as  claimed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Ashtabula  [Mr.  Woodbury], 
and  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond], 
we  give  them  the  difference  between  37  and  58, 
that  is  21  Representatives,  which  is  all  they  are 
entitled  to.  It  is  just  as  fair  as  any  system  can 
be. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Now,  then,  let  us  go 
back  to  the  gentleman’s  proposition,  and  see 
how  it  works  out  as  to  population,  when  you 
come  to  discard  this  question  of  counties.  If 
you  shall  allow  them  this  fractional  representa- 
tion, seven  Representatives  in  the  State,  then  it 
would  amount  to  this:  that,  under  the  gentle- 
man’s proposition,  58  Representatives  in  the 
State  would  represent  a population  of  1,649,000. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  In  37  counties,  the  gentle- 
man should  say. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Yes,  in  37  counties,  while 
51  would  represent  only  1,015,000. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  In  51  counties. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Now,  the  result  would  be 
that  seven  Representatives,  belonging  to  the 
larger  counties  would,  in  fact,  represent  a pop- 
ulation of  a little  over  600,000,  when  you  come 
to  figure  It  out.  Or,  in  other  words,  it  would 
take  a population  of  600,000  to  elect  seven  Repre- 
sentatives. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Do  you  not  propose  that 
there  shall  be  one  Representative  from  every 
county  ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Well,  then,  these  fifty-one 
counties  would  be  entitled  to  fifty-one  Repre- 
sentatives, would  they  not? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Then  thirty-seven  counties 
would  be  entitled  to  thirty-seven  Representa- 
tives ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Yes.  It  is  the  difference 


I 606 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [123rd 


Woodbury,  Dorsey,  Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Cook.  [Wednesday* 


between  thirty-seven  and  fifty-four.  It  is  an 
unrepresented  fraction  properly  represented  by 
the  difference  between  thirty-seven  and  fifty- 
four. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Between  thirty-seven  and 
fifty-eight. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  There  is  no  other  conclusion 
the  gentleman  can  come  to  on  that  proposition. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  My  idea  is  simply  this, 
that,  in  order  to  make  it  equal,  representation 
ought  to  be  based  upon  population;  that  the 
same  number  of  population  in  one  portion  of 
the  State  entitled"  to  a Representative,  should 
give  it  to  the  same  number  of  population  in  any 
portion  of  the  State. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  change 
our  whole  system  of  representation?  Will  he 
ignore  counties  entirely,  and  divide  the  State 
simply  into  districts,  so  as  to  get  an  equality  of 
population?  If  the  gentleman  is  in  favor  of 
that,  let  him  say  so  openly,  and  not  be  deceiving 
the  Convention. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I have  already  said  that 
I was  not  in  favor  of  that  proposition.  I did 
not  deem  it  necessary  in  order  to  equalize  rep- 
resentation. I think  we  may  go  forward  here, 
and,  by  increasing  the  number  of  Representa- 
tives in  the  State  from  130  to  150,  we  may 
substantially  equalize  it  so  far  as  population  is 
concerned,  and  at  the  same  time  adhere  to  the 
political  organization  of  the  counties  of  the 
State.  If  we  can  do  that — if  we  can  recognize 
the  several  county  organizations  in  the  State  as 
to  political  unitj7-,  and  adhere  to  that,  and  at  the 
same  time  give  Representatives  enough,  so  that 
the  same  number  of  population  in  one  county 
entitled  to  a Representative  shall  give  it  to  the 
same  number  of  population  in  every  other 
county  in  the  State,  it  is  the  most  that  I ask  for. 
I think  that  it  would  be  policy  to  recognize 
these  county  organizations  as  political  bodies, 
and  at  the  same  time  equalize  it.  I am  free  to 
say  that,  if  the  proposition  was  simply  this, 
that  we  will  adhere  to  the  county  organization, 
and  that  alone;  if  we  should  provide  that  a 
county  of  10,000  inhabitants  in  the  State  shall 
be  entitled  to  one  Representative,  and  that 
Hamilton  county  shall  be  entitled  to  one,  then 
I would  stand  here  and  urge  that  it  should  be 
wiped  out  forever.  I never  would  consent  that 
you  should  adhere  to  such  a rule  as  that.  That 
would  give  to  the  little  county  of  Paulding  one 
Representative,  and  to  Hamilton  but  one.  Such 
a proposition  as  that  would  be  monstrous.  And 
no  man  in  this  Convention  would  stand  here 
and  advocate  county  representation  upon 
any  such  basis  as  this?  Then  why  is  it 

we  seek  to  yield  ? It  is  simply  and 
only  because  we  are  proposing  to  recog- 
nize the  idea  of  representation  by  popula- 
tion throughout  the  State.  If  we  are  going 
to  recognize  this,  I beg  to  know  why  you  shall 
not  carry  it  forward  and  make  it  equal  through- 
out the  State,  if  it  can  be  done?  Why  cut  it 
down  to  one  hundred?  And,  pray,  why  cut  it 
down  to  fifty,  and  make  it  unequal  throughout 
the  State?  These  are  the  reasons  why  I am 
opposed  to  this  question  of  county  representa- 
tion only ; and  I am  free  to  say,  that  if  there 


were  to  be  one  Representative  for  each  county, 
making  the  House  eighty-eight  instead  of  one 
hundred  and  five,  I would  be  for  cutting  up 
counties  before  I would  yield  to  that.  I would 
go  for  dividing  it  up  into  townships,  and  town- 
ships alone,  before  I would  ever  yield  to  that 
for  one  moment.  It  seems  to  me  that  these  are 
self-evident  propositions  that  cannot  be  gain- 
said, that  there  is  no  reason  that  has  been  urged 
here  why  a population  of  thirty-one  thousand 
in  one  county  should  be  entitled  to  one  Repre- 
sentative, and  a population  of  ten  thousand  in 
any  other  should  be  entitled  to  the  same. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  vote  for  the  mo- 
tion to  strike  out,  with  a view  to  test  the  ques- 
tion, with  the  understanding  that  I will  move 
to  reconsider  the  vote  if  a larger  number  than 
one  hundred  and  five  is  not  inserted. 

The  question  being  on  the  motion  to  strike 
out  “one  hundred  and  five,”  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  21, 
nays  52,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bosworth,  Carbery,  Clay, 
Coats,  Cook,  Griswold,  Hale,  Hitchcock,  Horton, 
Hostetter,  Real,  Pease,  Pond,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Woodbury, 
President — 21 . 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Bannon,  Beer,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing, 
Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gurley,  Herron, 
Hill,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
McBride,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Mullen,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell, 
Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sears, 
Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Steedman,  Townsley, 
Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris, 
Waddle,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Noble — 52. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Th  e PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I move  to  further  amend  the 
Proposition  under  consideration  as  follows  : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Mi- 
ami [Mr.  Dorsey]  proposes  the  following 
amendment.  The  Secretary  will  read : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“In  section  2,  insert  after  the  word  “county”,  in  line 
one,  “having  a population  equal  to  one-half  of  said 
ratio  ” 

So  that  the  section,  if  amended,  will  read : 

“Sfc.  2.  Every  county  having  a population  equal  to 
one-half  of  the  said  ratio  shall  be  entitled  to  one  Repre- 
sentative.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
The  matter  before  the  Convention  is  on  agree- 
ing to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole.  That  is  all  that  is  before  the  Conven- 
tion, and  the  question  is,  will  the  Convention 
agree  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  ? That  Report  being  before  the  Conven- 
tion, maybe  amended;  and,  as  there  is  nothing 
else  before  the  Convention,  there  is  nothing  else 
to  amend.  If  the  Chair  will  recollect,  on  day 
before  yesterday,  we  had  under  consideration 
the  Proposition  on  County  and  Township  Organ- 
izations. The  gentleman  from  Morrow  county 
[Mr.  Gurley]  moved  to  amend  the  original 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1607 

February  25,  1874.]  Cook,  Griswold,  Yoris,  Baber,  Dorsey. 


Proposition.  The  Chair  held  that  that  could  not 
be  done,  for  there  was  nothing  before  the  Con- 
vention excepting  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee. The  Report  of  the  Comm  ittee  could  be 
amended,  but  we  could  not  amend  the  original 
Proposition  until  we  reached  that;  that  under 
our  rule,  after  we  had  disposed  of  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  we  then  took  up 
the  Proposition,  section  by  section ; but  we  do 
not  proceed  to  consider  the  Proposition,  section 
by  section,  until  we  have  first  disposed  of  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Rule 
LXIX  provides  that  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  or  the  Convention,  may  fix  an  hour 
at  which  general  discussion  shall  cease,  and 
then  the  Proposition  shall  be  taken  up,  section 
by  section,  and  amendments  shall  be  in  order. 
But  amendments  are  not  in  order  until  we  have 
fixed  an  hour,  or  closed  the  general  discussion 
and  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  Prop- 
osition, section  by  section. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman,  it  seems  to 
me,  is  entirely  at  fault  in  that,  because  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  had  olfered  a substitute 
for  the  original  proposition,  and  it  was  upon 
amendments  to  the  substitute  as  proposed.  But 
here  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  have  recom- 
mended no  substitute  whatever,  and,  although 
the  motion  is  on  agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  the  Committee  recom- 
mended the  striking  out  of  this  matter.  What 
is  the  effect  of  the  motion  ? Now,  on  the  prin- 
ciple that,  before  you  strike  out,  the  friends  of 
the  matter  to  be  stricken  out  have  a right  to 
amend  it,  so  that  it  will  receive,  perhaps,  the 
majority  vote,  then,  I say,  under  that  principle, 
we  have  a right  to  amend  what  is  to  be  stricken 
out  before  the  vote  is  taken  upon  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposition  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  is  to  strike  out  the 
entire  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Apportion- 
ment and  Representation.  After  that,  if  the 
Convention  should  concur  in  the  amendment, 
it  will  be  on  striking  it  out  to  prevent  the  rein- 
troduction of  any  part  of  that  which  is  thus 
stricken  out.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Con- 
vention should  refuse  to  strike  out,  it  would  be 
equivalent  to  agreeing  to  it  as  a whole,  and 
thereby  prevent  any  other  alteration.  The 
Chair  is,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  it  is 
competent  to  amend  the  matter  proposed  to  be 
stricken  out  before  the  vote  is  taken  upon  stri- 
king out,  and  would,  therefore,  decide  that  the 
question  raised  by  the  gentleman  from  Wood 
[Mr.  Cook]  is  not  correctly  taken. 

Mr.  COOK.  I then  move  to  recommit  this 
entire  Proposition  to  the  Committee  on  Appor- 
tionment, with  instructions  to  district  the  State 
by  single  districts. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  seems  to  me,  before 
any  such  action  as  that  should  be  taken,  there 
are  certain  things  to  be  settled  by  the  House, 
that  the  Committee  may  be  instructed  as  to  its 
will  in  regard  to  them.  Two  propositions  are 
essential — the  number  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  the  number  of  the  Senators. 
Now,  if  you  will  send  it  to  the  Committee — we 
have  agreed  once  about  that ; but  we  do  not  know 
whether  the  House  is  satisfied  with  it,  and  it  is 
a thing  upon  which  a great  disagreement  ex- 
isted, and  I hope  that  matter  will  be  settled  by 
the  House  in  the  first  place. 


Mr.  YORIS.  We  have  agreed  on  the  number 
of  the  House. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes;  but  so  the  number 
of  the  Senators  ought  to  be  determined;  and  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  labor  ought  not  to  be  im- 
posed upon  the  Committee,  and  then  come  in 
again  and  be  re-discussed.  We  might  as  well 
while  we  are  on  this  subject  settle  some  of  these 
questions  in  the  present  condition  of  the  busi- 
ness. To  send  back  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee, with  instructions,  without  settling  some  of 
these  various  propositions,  is  imposing  unne- 
cessary labor  both  upon  the  Committee  and 
upon  the  House  when  it  shall  be  returned  to  be 
discussed.  As  we  are  upon  the  subject,  I see 
no  objection  to  getting  the  views  of  members, 
so  that  this  thing  can  be  arranged. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  the  motion  made  by  the 
gentleman  will  not  be  pressed  at  present.  This 
matter  is  before  this  Convention  for  discussion. 
Now,  let  us  go  through  and  perfect  this  Proposi- 
tion. Let  the  Convention  change  and  alter  it 
as  they  please ; because  there  are  more  questions 
than  the  single  district  question  before  the 
Committee  upon  which  that  Committee  is 
divided.  Let  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr. 
Cook]  withdraw  his  motion,  so  as  not  to 
impede  the  business.  Let  him  make  that 
motion  when  we  come  to  the  section  on  propor- 
tional voting.  There  is  no  difficulty,  no  matter 
what  may  be  the  opinion  of  the  Convention  on 
this  question  of  minority  representation,  to 
settle  the  shape  of  the  Report  in  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole.  I am  opposed  to  this  delay.  The 
trouble,  I know,  of  getting  the  Committee  of 
Apportionment  together  to  make  a report,  and 
thus  there  will  be  another  delay.  If  the  gen- 
tleman wants  to  figure  on  the  single  district 
system,  let  him  do  it  himself,  and  offer 
it  as  an  amendment.  I do  not  propose  to  have 
this  Report  treated  differently  from  any  other 
report,  as  appears  to  be  the  object  of  some  gen- 
tlemen upon  this  floor.  I want  to  go  through 
with  the  Report  regularly,  and  amend  it,  and 
if  we  disagree  on  any  particular  point,  then 
send  it  back  to  the  Committee,  and  let  the  Con- 
vention itself  shape  the  amendment.  We  are 
just  as  well  prepared  now  as  any  time  to  go  on 
with  this  discussion.  This  Report  came  here, 
not  in  a shape  that  a majority  of  this  Commit- 
tee desired,  because  on  account  of  an  accidental 
majorhy  present  in  that  Committee,  certain 
sections  of  the  old  Constitution  were  struck  out, 
which  are  very  important;  and  there  is  no 
trouble  on  the  part  of  this  Convention  to  make 
amendments,  not  the  least  in  the  world.  Let 
us  go  through  with  our  work  upon  that  matter, 
and  when  we  come  to  the  proportional  repre- 
sentation question,  let  us  discuss  that,  and  have 
the  question  settled. 

Mr.  COOK.  My  object  in  making  the  mo- 
tion is  to  cut  off  this  interminable  debate.  I 
want  to  get  at  the  real  question  at  issue,  which 
is  the  difference  between  gentlemen  upon  this 
floor,  as  to  large  or  small  districts. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  have  not  come  to  that. 

Mr.  COOK.  I care  not  whether  you  have 
come  to  it  or  noc.  You  have  come  to  a point 
where  I desire  to  take  action.  The  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  yesterday,  voted  by  a very  large 
majority,  to  strike  out  this  Report.  That  seems 
to  be  the  judgment  of  this  Convention.  Why 


1608 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Cook,  Pease,  Powell,  Herron,  Dorsey,  Sears,  Pratt. 


spend  a week  or  more  in  amending  it,  section 
by  section,  line  by  line,  and  word  by  word,  and 
then,  at  the  end  of  that  time,  strike  it  all  out, 
and  lose  your  labor  ? It  would  be  folly,  worse 
than  folly,  it  would  be  criminal,  to  spend  our 
time  and  waste  the  money  of  the  people  in  this 
way.  I desire  to  go  at  once  to  the  question, 
whether  we  are  to  have  cumulative  voting,  or 
whether  we  are  tc  have  single  districts,  and  I 
will  do  everything  I can  to  facilitate  that.  If 
gentlemen  say  they  will  unite  with  me  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  a direct  vote  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible upon  these  questions,  I am  willing  to 
withdraw  this  motion  and  allow  them  to  go  on. 
I am  willing  to  do  all  I can  to  facilitate  busi- 
ness ; but,  unless  we  do  something  to  stop  this 
interminable  debate,  and  pursue  a course 
which  will  bring  us  to  a direct  vote  in  the 
shortest  possible  time,  we  will  be  here  until 
next  July. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I would  like  to  be  advised 
what  the  gentleman  understands  by  the  phrase 
“single  districts,”  “small  districts”? 

Mr.  COOK.  Why,  I supposed  most  any  one 
would  understand  that.  It  means  a district  in 
which  one  Senator  shall  be  elected. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I ask  the  question,  because  I 
hear  some  delegates  say,  it  means  dividing 
counties. 

Mr.  COOK.  It  means  a district  in  which  one 
Representative  or  one  Senator  will  be  elected. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Without  regard  to  counties  ? 
Do  you  say  so  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  No,  sir ; I do  not  say  without 
regard  to  counties.  I certainly  would  divide  a 
county  if  it  becomes  necessary.  That  would  be 
my  judgment.  I see  no  reason  why  the  county 
should  not  be  divided.  They  do  it  in  other 
States,  and  why  not  in  Ohio?  We  also  do  it 
here  in  the  election  of  members  of  Congress. 
But  I do  not  wish  to  embarrass  the  Convention. 
I will  not  take  up  its  time.  As  gentlemen  have 
plead  with  me  to  have  this  motion  withdrawn, 
that  they  may  go  on  to  perfect  their  system,  as 
they  term  it,  for  a time  I will  withdraw  it,  and 
see  if  we  make  progress  in  their  way,  and  if  we 
do  not,  I shall  renew  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  has  leave  to  withdraw  his 
motion . 

Mr.  HERRON.  The  question  now,  I suppose, 
is  on  the  amendment  of  the  delegate  from  Mi- 
ami [Mr.  Dorsey]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I agree  with  the  mover  of 
that  amendment ; but  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is 
entirely  inapplicable  to  the  present  condition 
of  the  State.  There  is  one  county,  according  to 
the  census  of  1870,  which  falls  below  one-half 
the  ratio.  That  is  the  county  of  Paulding. 
Now,  under  this  amendment,  as  proposed  by 
the  delegate  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  each 
one  of  the  adjoining  counties  to  Paulding  would 
be  entitled  to  one  Representative.  Then  what 
should  be  done  with  Paulding?  It  is  not  enti- 
tled to  a Representative,  but  each  of  the  adjoin- 
ing counties  is  entitled  to  a Representative. 
By  attaching  it  to  an  adjoining  county,  a wrong 
is  done  to  that  county — refusing  it  the  same 
rights  as  belong  to  other  counties  of  the  same 
population,  because  it  is  so  unfortunate  as  to 
join  the  county  of  Paulding.  That  is  the  only 


[123rd 

[Wednesday, 


county  that,  according  to  the  census  of  1870, 
would  not  be  entitled  to  one  Representative 
in  the  State.  Now,  suppose  that,  in  1880,  the 
census  is  such  that  other  counties  would  not  be 
entitled  to  one  Representative.  Those  counties 
will  probably  be  scattered  around  through  the 
State  so  that  the  counties  adjoining  them  would 
be  entitled  to  a Representative,  and  the  same 
difficulty  would  then  occur  in  regard  to  these 
counties.  It  seems  to  me,  although  I agree 
j with  the  principle  of  that  amendment,  that  the 
j difficulty  of  applying  it  to  the  present  condition 
of  the  State  is  such  that  the  Report,  as  it  came 
I from  the  Committee,  had  better  be  sustained. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  is  no  difficulty  what- 
! ever  in  applying  this'proposition.  The  amend- 
ment offered  by  me  to  the  second  section  brings 
it  back  precisely  to  where  our  Constitution 
stands  to-day.  It  is  identical  with  the  present 
Constitution : “ Every  county  having  a popula- 
tion equal  to  one-half  the  said  ratio  shall  be 
entitled  to  one  Representative.”  Now,  it  is 
true,  as  the  gentleman  said,  that  there  is  a very 
important  principle  involved  in  this  amend- 
ment. I said,  a moment  ago,  that  our  system 
of  representation  recognizes  two  principles — 
the  representation  of  counties,  in  the  first 
! place,  and,  secondly,  the  representation  of  pop- 
ulation. As  the  section  reads  at  the  present 
time,  we  ignore  entirely  the  representation  of 
population.  It  provides,  simply,  that  every 
j county  shall  be  entitled  to  one  Representative. 

: We  say  nothing  at  all  about  population. 
Whether  you  have  a large  population  or  a small 
one,  it  is  all  the  same  thing.  Every  county  in 
the  State  is  to  be  entitled  to  one  Representative. 

| The  principle  is  not  right.  The  principle  is 
I only  right  when  combined  with  the  principle  of 
; population.  Then  it  is  right. 

Mr.  SEARS.  How  can  we  conbine  them, 
when,  in  particular  instances,  it  leaves  out 
| county  representation  entirely. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  show  the  gentleman 
in  a moment  precisely  how  we  will  do  it.  The 
! State  of  Ohio  is  a peculiar  State.  It  is  true 
that,  to-day,  as  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Herron]  has  said,  there  is  only  one  coun- 
: ty  that  falls  below  the  half  ratio.  That  is 
Paulding.  But  can  any  gentleman  say  that  in 
j ten  years  from  now  there  will  not  be  a dozen 
| counties  falling  below  the  required  ratio  ? No 
man  can  answer  that.  The  fact  is,  we  are  verg- 
ing towards  that  day  by  day.  Now,  I beg  the 
j Convention  to  listen  to  a plain  statement  of  this 
matter.  Statements  and  facts  are  worth  all  the 
theories  in  the  world.  We  have  eighteen  coun- 
ties in  the  State  of  Ohio  that  have  decreased  in 
1 population  from  1860  to  1870. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  read  the 
I list  so  that  we  can  have  it  before  us  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will.  I want  to  show  that 
| this  matter  is  not  ephemeral.  It  is  not  a matter 
! that  happens  in  one  decade  and  not  in  another. 
We  have  thirteen  counties  that  have  been  going 
I back  in  population  ever  since  1850.  I will  give 
you  the  thirteen  : Ashland,  Carroll,  Coshocton , 
Geauga,  Guernsey,  Harrison-,  Knox,  Licking, 
Medina,  Monroe,  Morgan,  Muskingum  and 
! Perry.  Now,  I beg  leave  to  say  in  regard  to 
the  counties  of  Monroe  and  Muskingum,  it  is 
i fair  to  state  that,  although  they  have  diminished 
in  population  between  1850  and  1870,  they  have 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1609 

February  25,  1874.]  Dorsey,  Okey,  Cowen,  Neal,  Powell. 


a population  slightly  larger  in  1870  than  in  I860. 
There  seems  to  have  been  in  these  counties  a 
little  recuperative  power.  They  have  not  got 
back  to  what  they  were  in  1850 ; they  are  still 
behind ; but  they  have  increased  a little  from 
1860  to  1870. 

Mr.  OKEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  OKEY.  The  county  of  Noble  was  made 
in  1851.  About  one-half  of  it  was  taken  from 
Monroe. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I know  that.  I will  not  do 
the  least  injustice  to  the  gentleman’s  county, 
and  I was  about  to  state  that  that  fact  applies  to 
the  county  of  Monroe ; but  it  does  not  apply  to 
the  county  of  Muskingum.  It  has  nothing  to 
do  with  that  county.  Therefore,  the  statement 
is  true  in  regard  to  that  county. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I do  not  see  the  delegate  from 
Guernsey  [Mr.  Albright]  in  his  place.  I will 
state  that  the  other  half  of  Noble  was  taken 
from  Guernsey. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  glad  to  be  reminded  of 
that. 

Mr.  OKEY.  A portion  of  Noble  was  taken 
from  Morgan,  and  a portion,  also,  from  the 
county  of  Washington. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  will  account  for  those 
three  counties ; but  it  still  leaves  ten  counties 
that  have  been  diminishing  in  population  ever 
since  1850.  And  then  I said  there  were  eigh- 
teen counties  that  had  been  diminishing  in  pop- 
ulation from  1860  to  1870.  I will  read  the  eigh- 
teen counties.  They  are  Ashland,  Carroll, 
Coshocton,  Geauga,  Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, 
Huron,  Knox,  Licking,  Medina,  Morgan,  Mor- 
row, Noble,  Perry,  Preble,  Seneca,  and  Warren. 
Now,  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Mon- 
roe [Mr.  Okey],  and  the  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen],  do  riot  apply  to  these  coun- 
ties between  1860  and  1870,  and  yet  here  are 
eighteen  counties  in  the  State  of  Ohio  that  have 
been  losing  in  population  from  1860  to  1870.  Now, 
for  the  application  of  the  principle.  I do  not  wish 
to  say  that  every  county,  without  regard  to  popu- 
lation, shall  have  a Representative  when  we  have 
certain  counties  that  are  diminishing  and  losing 
their  population,  decade  after  decade.  Why,  we 
shall  come,  at  last,  to  the  old  English  rotten 
borough  system,  that  if  a county  has  not  more 
than  a thousand  or  twelve  hundred,  or  two  or 
three  thousand  inhabitants,  it  is  still  to  be  enti- 
tled to  a Representative,  the  same  as  if  it  had 
twenty  thousand.  Now,  we  know  what  is  taking 
place  in  many  counties  of  the  State.  We  know 
that  in  many  counties  of  the  State,  the  large 
farmers  are  buying  out  the  small  farmers,  and 
turning  their  small  farms  into  large  ones — large 
sheep  farms — as  has  taken  place  in  Harrison,  in 
Licking,  and  in  various  counties  of  the  State. 

There  is  another  fact  to  be  taken  into  consid 
eration.  If  any  gentleman  will  look  at  the 
census  of  1870,  and  compare  it  with  the  census 
of  1860,  he  will  see  that  it  is  only  the  counties 
in  the  State  that  have  large  towns  that  have 
been  increasing  in  population;  those  which 
have  growing,  thriving  towns.  There  is  this 
remarkable  fact  with  regard  to  the  State  of  Ohio, 
that  the  rural,  agricultural  population  of  the 
State  has  not  increased  one  particle  in  the  last 


decade — not  a particle.  The  whole  increase 
has  been  in  the  towns — nowhere  else. 

Mr.  NEAL.  There  has  been  in  the  mining 
regions. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Perhaps  a little  in  the  mining 
regions;  but  it  is  principally  in  the  towns. 
Now,  that  being  the  fact,  this  amendment  is  a 
very  important  one — very  important  that  we 
recognize  population  as  well  as  counties,  and 
that  we  provide  against  that  time  which  any 
gentleman  can  see  is  coming,  when  there  will 
be  not  only  Paulding,  but  it  may  be  eighteen  or 
twenty  more  counties  in  the  State,  that  will 
have  a population  falling  below  the  half  ratio. 
It  is  not  true  that  the  population  of  the  State 
has  increased  greatly  over  the  whole  State. 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention 
to  another  fact  here. 

Mr.  POWELL.  How  is  Paulding  repre- 
sented at  present  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Paulding  is  represented  by 
being  connected  with  Defiance  county.  I want 
to  call  attention  to  a very  peculiar  fact.  I have 
said  that  there  are  eighteen  counties  which  are 
diminishing  in  population.  That  would  leave 
j seventy  counties  which  are  increasing  in 
I population,  because  we  have  eighty-eight 
J counties  in  the  State.  And  now  let  us 
see  how  peculiar  that  increase  is.  It  is  not  an 
' increase  distributed  over  the  whole  of  the 
seventy  counties  equally;  not  by  any  means. 
If  you  take  the  seventy  counties  of  the  State, 

! the  increase  of  "population  in  the  State  since 
1860  being  325,749 ; not  a very  large  increase, 
only  a small  one ; I say  if  you  distribute  that 
among  seventy  counties,  it  would  give  an  in- 
crease of  4,653  to  each  county.  Seventy  coun- 
1 ties  ought  to  have  increased  by  a ratio  of  4,653. 
I Now,  what  are  the  facts?  The  facts  really  are 
that  only  eighteen  have  so  increased.  Only 
eighteen  counties  have  come  up  to  the  average 
increase  that  ought  to  be  distributed  over  sev- 
enty. The  counties  which  have  increased  in 
j population  equal  to  what  should  be  the  increase, 
among  the  seventy  in  the  ten  years  between 
1860  and  1870,  are  Clarke,  Columbiana,  Cuya- 
hoga, Darke,  Frankiin,  Hamilton,  Henry,  Law- 
rence, Lucas,  Mahoning,  Meigs,  Montgomery, 
Ottawa,  Stark,  Summit,  Trumbull,  Van  Wert 
and  Wood.  Those  are  all.  They  are  the  only 
counties  in  the  State  that  have  increased  as  they 
should  have  done,  if  the  increase  had  been  pro- 
portionally distributed  over  the  whole  State. 
Now,  that  being  the  case,  Mr.  President,  it 
shows  us  that  it  is  a matter  of  importance 
to  provide  for  those  counties,  that  in  all 
probability  are  going  to  fall  below  the  ratio, 
even  below  the  half-ratio.  For  that  reason 
I introduced  this  amendment.  It  brings 
us  back  to  what  was  the  well-considered 
provision  in  the  old  Constitution,  and  if 
we  introduce  this,  as  I hope  we  shall,  I 
wish  then  to  make  a motion  to  introduce  all 
those  sections  of  the  Constitution  of  1851  which 
provide  for  the  attachment  of  counties  which 
fall  below  ratio,  to  those  counties  adjoining 
them  having  the  smallest  population.  That  is 
precisely  what  we  ought  to  do.  I will  show 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron] 
that  that  is  the  way  we  disposed  of  the  county 
of  Paulding.  We  attached  it  to  the  county  ad- 
joining, which  has  the  smallest  population. 


1610 


[123rd 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Dorsey,  Pratt,  Pease,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Baber. 


And  whenever  any  county,  at  the  end  of  any 
decade,  when  we  are  forming  a new  apportion- 
ment, falls  below  the  required  half  ratio,  we 
should  attach  it  to  the  county  adjoining  which 
has  the  smallest  population.  It  is  fair,  it  is 
just,  it  is  right.  It  is  just  what  we  have  been 
doing  for  twenty  years,  and  the  people  of  Ohio 
are  satisfied  with  it. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I will  ask  how  many  times 
within  that  twenty  years  any  county  has  fallen 
below  the  ratio,  and  therefore  been  attached  to 
another  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  has  not  happened  yet; 
but  I say  it  is  coming  on.  It  does  not  happen  in 
a decade  or  two  decades,  may  not  happen  in 
three ; but  let  the  same  causes  continue  to  be 
operative,  and  it  will  come  just  as  certainly  as 
night  follows  day. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I hope  this  will  not  be  stricken 
out.  I was  a member  of  that  Committee,  com- 
posed of  eighteen  gentlemen,  and  I believe 
there  were  about  fifteen  different  opinions  in 
that  Committee,  and  we  could  not  all  agree  upon 
any  given  proposition. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  if  this  was  not  the  only  proposition  that 
was  adopted  by  a majority  vote  of  the  whole 
Committee? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I was  about  to  say  that,  among 
the  diversity  of  opinions,  after  spending  sever- 
al days  in  the  argument  of  the  proposition  now 
proposed  to  be  stricken  out,  with  tolerable  una- 
nimity, we  agreed  to  the  Proposition  as  it  now 
stands.  We  went  through  the  whole  argument 
showing  the  propriety  of  having  every  locality 
that  had  risen  to  the  distinction  of  a county, 
represented,  whatever  its  population  was.  We 
thought  it  was  entitled  to  that  distinction. 
The  smaller  counties  need  that.  They  need 
encouragement.  It  is  not  fair,  in  my  judg- 
ment, to  refer  them  to  their  neighbors  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  suitable  persons  to  represent 

them.  Now,  I think,  although,  just  at  this 
time,  perhaps,  Paulding  county  is  the  only 
county  that  would  be  without  a Repre- 
sentative, from  the  tables  which  have  just 
been  exhibited,  it  may  not  be  long  before 
many  others  of  these  counties  will  fall  below 
even  Paulding.  Some  of  them  are  below 
that  ratio  now.  And  I do  not  think  it  is  right, 
because  they  have  been  unfortunate  in  losing 
their  population,  as  long  as  we  permit  them  to 
retain  their  political  organization  as  a county, 
their  political  relations  to  the  State,  that  we 
should  deprive  them  of  that  representation. 
Leave  them  with  that  representation,  so  as 
that,  whatever  their  interests  may  be,  they  may 
have  a Representative  to  present  those  interests 
to  the  Legislature.  It  is  suggested  that  their 
material  wealth  and  their  taxable  property,  cer- 
tainly to  the  extent  of  their  land,  still  remains, 
although  their  population  has  been  diminished. 
I believe  we  can  fall  upon  no  other  basis  that 
will  be  as  just  in  representing  the  whole  State 
as  to  give  all  those  political  organizations  one 
Representative  at  least.  Start  them  equal,  and 

then,  when  you  have  given  them  that  even 
start,  apply  the  principle  of  population  beyond 
that,  and  let  it  control.  That  is  a good  basis, 
and,  in  my  judgment,  one  that  should  be  adopt- 
ed in  this  Convention. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  true  that  the  Com- 


[Wednesday, 


mittee,  with  a unanimity  found  upon  no  other 
subject,  agreed  to  this  plan  of  having  county 
representation ; but  the  gentlemen  who  want  to 
strike  out  this  Report  and  not  adopt  it  are 
striking  at  this  very  principle.  They  insist 
upon  it,  that  there  shall  be  a county  represen- 
tation, and  yet  they  propose  to  divide  counties 
when  they  have  a population  exceeding  the 
ratio  of  one  Representative.  What  sort  of 
logic  is  there  in  this  proposition  ? The  Com- 
mittee were  led  to  agree  upon  a principle  that 
the  county  line  was  to  be  the  district  represen- 
tation, and  not  that  the  county  should  be 
divided  so  that  there  should  be  a representation 
of  the  county  as  such.  While  I still  stand  by 
the  county  representation,  the  gentlemen 
seem  to  have  overlooked  the  argument  that  we 
have  raised  the  ratio  of  the  constituency. 
Under  the  old  system,  with  the  population  of 
the  State  then,  nineteen  thousand  was  the  ex- 
tent of  the  constituency,  and  it  has  happened 
that  only  one  county  fell  below  that  ratio. 
But  we  have  raised  the  constituency  to  twenty- 
five  thousand,  and  with  one  hundred  and  five  as 
the  number,  by  the  next  decade,  if  the  same  in- 
crease continues,  your  ratio  will  reach  nearly 
thirty  thousand.  And  will  you  say  that  a 
county  that  has  not  reached  half  of  that  shall 
have  a Representative?  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  has  shown  the  condition 
of  these  several  counties.  Now,  with  an  in- 
crease of  your  constituency  that  will  neces- 
sarily happen  and  follow  from  the  fixed  ratio 
of  one  hundred  and  five,  a large  number  of 
these  counties  will  fall  below  the  half  ratio. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  What  counties  will  fall  be- 
low the  half  ratio? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  All  the  counties  that  do 
not  have  over  fifteen  thousand  population. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  What  counties  are  they? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Isay  not  at  present;  but 
the  increase  of  population  will  bring  it  about. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Suppose  the  ratio  be  thirty 
thousand,  how  many  counties  of  the  State  to- 
day would  fall  below  fifteen  thousand? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Five  or  six. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  like  to  know  which 
they  are. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  you  will  take  the  tables 
and  use  your  spectacles,  you  will  find  several  of 
them. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  will  find  it  at 
page of  the  Secretary  of  State’s  Report. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  county  of  Carroll  is 
one,  Geauga  is  one,  Paulding  is  one.  Suppose 
this  continues,  so  that  the  population  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  reaches  three  million,  where  will 
you  stand  ? These  counties  have  diminished  in 
population,  but  still  I stand  by  county  repre- 
sentation, and  it  is  upon  the  principle  that  the 
county  lines  shall  be  the  district.  You  violate 
this  whole  principle  when  you  undertake  to 
divide  counties.  I still  stand  by  it. 

Mr.  BABER.  I should  not  have  said  any- 
thing if  it  had  not  been  for  the  remarks  of  the 
gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease].  Inow,  upon 
this  question  of  allowing  county  representa- 
tion, I think  the  old  Constitution  went  as  far 
as  it  ought  to.  It  provided  that  a county  that 
had  a half  ratio  should  have  a member.  It 
provided,  in  sections  four  tand  five,  that  any 
county  forming,  with  another  county  or  coun- 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1611 

February  25,  1874.]  Baber,  Pratt,  Pease. 


ties,  a representative  district  during  one  decen- 
nial period,  if  it  have  acquired  sufficient 
population  at  the  next  decennial  period,  shall 
be  entitled  to  separate  representation,  if  there 
shall  be  left  in  the  district  from  which  it  shall 
have  been  separated  a population  sufficient  for 
a Representative.  But  no  such  change  shall  be 
made  except  at  the  decennial  period.  If,  in  fix- 
ing any  subsequent  ratio,  a county  previously 
entitled  to  a separate  representation  shall  have 
less  than  the  number  required  by  the  new 
ratio  for  a Representative,  such  county  shall  be 
attached  to  the  county  adjoining  it  having  the 
least  number  of  inhabitants,  and  the  represen- 
tation of  the  district  so  formed  shall  be 
determined  as  herein  provided.  Now,  if  you 
will  examine  the  Schedule,  you  will  find  that, 
originally,  there  were  seven  of  these  districts 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  as  follows : The  counties 

of  Jackson  and  Vinton,  one  district;  the  coun- 
ties of  Lucas  and  Fulton,  one  district;  the 
counties  of  Wyandot  and  Hardin,  one  district; 
the  counties  of  Mercer  and  Van  Wert,  one 
district;  the  counties  of  Paulding,  Defiance  and 
Williams,  one  district;  the  counties  of  Putnam 
and  Henry,  one  district;  and  the  counties  of 
Wood  and  Ottawa,  one  district.  Well,  under 
the  present  Constitution  of  the  State,  in  the  last 
twenty  years,  these  counties  have  all  acquired 
a sufficient  population  to  entitle  them  to  sepa- 
rate representation,  with  the  exception  of 
Paulding.  Now,  Paulding  is  not  entitled  to  it  yet. 
All  the  other  counties  in  the  State  have  a Rep- 
resentative, and  I see  no  reason  for  departing 
from  the  rule  when  this  county,  in  1881,  will 
have  that  half  ratio.  I am  opposed  to  the  rep- 
resentation of  mere  brick,  mortar  and  land.  I 
want  to  represent  men;  I want  to  represent 
population.  I think  this  rule  of  half  ratio, 
which  has  stood  for  the  last  twenty  years,  is 
a wise  one.  Another  reason  why  I object  to  it 
is  on  account  of  the  injustice  of  it.  It  is  a 
well-known  fact  that  the  central  senatorial  dis- 
tricts, composed  of  Morrow  and  Knox  (the 
Seventeenth),  and  Ashland  and  Richland  (the 
Twenty-ninth),  on  account  of  falling  under  the 
required  three-fourths  population,  have  been 
annexed  to  the  adjoining  districts.  Now,  I 
want  this  rule  to  operate  equitably;  and  if, 
in  the  future,  where  there  are  counties 
(and  there  are  several  in  the  State) 
that  are  decreasing  in  population,  as  a 
little  examination  of  the  census  will  show, 
fall  under  the  half  ratio,  let  the  rule  apply  to 
them.  We  are  not  legislating  for  the  present, 
but  we  are  legislating  for  the  future.  I,  there- 
fore, am  in  favor  of  returning  to  the  provision 
of  the  old  Constitution.  Now,  as  to  the  remarks 
of  the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley], 
about  the  matter.  After  this  proposition  to  al- 
low one  Representative  was  carried,  there  was 
to  be  a concession  that  counties  having  a ratio 
of  one  and  a half  ratio,  should  have  an  addi- 
tional Representative.  And  why  was  that  not 
done?  Instead  of  running  that  principle 
through,  allowing  the  half  ratio  for  those  large 
counties,  the  very  moment  the  gentlemen  found 
themselves  in  an  accidental  majority,  in  the 
Committee  on  Apportionment,  that  very  mo- 
ment they  stopped  this  half  ratio  principle  for 
the  express  purpose  of  operating  upon  cutting 
off  the  counties  of  Franklin  and  Montgomery. 


If  that  was  not  the  purpose,  it  was  the  effect. 
They  not  only  did  that,  but  they  struck  out  the 
third  section  of  the  old  Constitution,  by  which 
they  deprived  twenty-two  counties,  that  are 
now  entitled  to  Representatives  upon  the  floor 
of  the  General  Assembly,  of  their  Representa- 
tives, and  they  showed  no  spirit  of  compromise 
in  this  matter.  I,  therefore,  am  in  favor  of  re- 
turning to  the  old  Constitution  in  this  respect. 
There  was  no  compromise  about  it.  If  there 
was,  it  was  all  on  one  side.  After  they  got  what 
they  wanted,  they  turned  around,  and  endeav- 
ored to  have  mere  territory,  brick  and  mortar 
represented,  and  deprive  Hamilton  county,  and 
the  larger  counties  throughout  the  State,  of 
their  representation,  according  to  population. 
I do  not  think  it  lies  in  the  mouth  of  these  gen- 
tlemen to  talk  about  compromise.  I,  therefore, 
am  in  favor  of  going  back  to  the  old  Constitu- 
tion. I think  it  has  proved  to  be  a safe  rule. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I do  not  know  for  what  pur- 
pose the  record  of  the  Committee  on  Appor- 
tionment has  been  brought  in  here  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber].  I am  not 
one  of  those  who  have  ever  talked  about  com- 
promise in  arranging  the  apportionment  of  the 
State,  either  in  the  Committee  or  here. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  yield?  I 
did  not  refer  to  him ; but  to  the  remarks  of  the 
gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease].  The  gen- 
tleman was  always  anti-compromise  in  every- 
thing. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  is  a fact.  I was  always 
for  what  I deemed  a principle. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Wil- 
liams [Mr.  Pratt]  permit  me?  I desire  to  in- 
quire if  it  is  not  true  that  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  was  about  the  only  mem- 
ber of  the  Committee  that  voted  in  favor  of  the 
plan  of  the  old  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  the  record.  The  vote 
of  the  Committee  was  11  to  8. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I apprehend  there  was  no  com- 
promise. At  least,  I was  not  a party  to  a com- 
promise, if  the  gentleman  refers  to  me. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I never  heard  of  any  compro- 
mise in  the  Committee.  If  it  is  permissible  to 
refer  to  what  was  done  in  the  Committee,  I hope 
it  will  not  be  done.  We  certainly  had  wrang- 
ling enough  there.  I do  not  think  this  Con- 
vention would  be  very  much  edified  by  the  ex- 
posure of  our  transactions. 

But  we  are  told  now  that  if  we  allow  the 
proposition  to  stand  as  it  was  reported  by  the 
Committee,  allowing  each  county  in  the 
State  a Representative,  we  violate  some  princi- 
ple, and  we  are  also  told  that  we  should  return 
to  the  old  rule.  Now,  we  are  here,  I apprehend, 
to  make  a Constitution  for  the  State,  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people,  if  we  are  capable  of  doing 
it.  We  stand  here  to  establish  rather  than  to 
follow  rules.  We  are  to  originate  something, 
rather  than  to  adopt  the  past.  And  I,  for  one, 
so  far  as  returning  to  the  apportionment  of  1851 
is  concerned,  would  sooner  do  almost  anything 
else.  For,  in  my  judgment,  if  there  ever  was 
embodied  into  the  fundamental  law  of  a people 
an  iniquitous,  unequal  apportionment,  it  was 
that  of  1851,  that  continually  puts  the  power  of 
the  State  into  the  hands  of  a minority  of  the 
people,  whenever  there  is  nearly  an  equal  divi- 
sion of  the  voters  of  the  State. 


1612 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [123rd 

Dorsey,  Pratt,  Gurley,  Griswold.  [Wednesday, 


Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  be  good 
enough  to  point  it  out  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  exists  to-day. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Not  a bit  of  it.  I defy  the 
gentleman  to  point  it  out. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  exists  in  the  General  As- 
sembly that  is  passing  laws  at  this  hour.  I am 
not  able  to  perceive  what  principle  it  violates 
to  give  to  each  county  in  the  State  its  Represent- 
ative in  the  Legislature,  if  we  proceed  on  the 
basis  of  county  representation.  I would  take 
my  departure  wholly  from  that  basis.  I am 
not  able  to  see  what  sacredness  there  is  in  an 
established  line  around  some  territory  within 
the  State,  denominated  a county,  that  should 
entitle  mere  population  to  representation  by 
reason  of  its  county  organism.  I believe  that 
political  power  should  abide  in  the  people,  and 
not  in  tracts  of  land  or  in  corporate  existences. 
If  that  proposition  laid  at  the  bottom  of  our 
representation,  there  would  be  some  principle 
about  it.  But  we  have,  rather  than  a principle, 
a scheme.  I can  denominate  it  by  no  other 
name  than  a scheme,  by  which  we  recognize 
territory  in  county  organism  as  worthy  of  rep- 
resentation, to  a certain  extent,  in  the  Legisla- 
ture. Now,  the  depriving  any  county,  if  you 
ohoose  to  adhere  to  such  a scheme  as  that,  of  a 
Representative  in  the  Lower  House, is  a violation 
of  the  scheme;  I will  not  dignity  it  by  calling 
it  a principle.  It  is  true  that,  in  the  immediate 
present,  so  far  as  it  applies  to  any  part  of  the 
State,  it  hits  only  the  poor  little  county  of 
Paulding,  up  on  the  head  of  the  Maumee  river. 
She  is  one  of  the  sister  counties  of  the  State. 
She  has  all  the  autonomy  of  county  organiza- 
tion ; all  the  internal  system  appertaining  to  a 
county.  She  has  territory  sufficient  to  consti- 
tute her  a county.  She  has  all  the  offices  of  a 
county.  She  has  a population  increasing  most 
rapidly  to-day,  increasing  as  rapidly  as  any 
other  part  of  the  State.  And  I stand  here 
affirming,  without  fear  of  successful  contradic- 
tion, that  she  has  arisen  already  in  the 
middle  of  the  decade  in  which  we  are 
framing,  this  Constitution,  to  that  dignity 
in  population,  if  that  were  the  basis, 
that  would  entitle  her  to  a Representative  under 
the  system  of  half  a ratio.  But  we  are  to  go 
back  to  the  census  of  1870,  and  apply  this 
scheme  to  her  under  that  census,  and  thereby 
prevent  her  from  Representation  in  the  General 
Assembly  with  her  sister  counties.  I hope  the 
Convention  will  not  do  that.  If  there  is  any 
value  in  this  scheme,  let  us  have  it  stand  on  its 
own  foundation,  and  begin  with  the  proposi- 
tion that  each  and  every  county  shall  be  en- 
titled to,  and  shall  have  a Representative  in  the 
General  Assembly.  But  the  proposition  goes 
further  than  Paulding  county.  Its  purposes  are 
to  reach  further  than  Paulding  county.  Its  de- 
sign is  ultimately  to  blot  out  from  the  list  of 
those  counties  that  shall  be  represented  in  the 
General  Assembly,  sundry  counties  that  have 
been  designated  here  as  those  that  were  retro- 
grading in  population.  We  all  know,  as  a his- 
torical fact,  that  the  good  old  county  of  Geau- 
ga, that  was  represented  on  the  floor  of  the 
Convention  of  1850,  by  the  venerable  Peter 
Hitchcock,  and  is  represented  to-day  by 
another  of  the  same  name,  had  a most  ar- 
duous struggle  in  bringing  her  population 


up  to  the  basis  that  allowed  the  gentleman 
who  stands  among  us  the  peer  of  any  gentle- 
man on  this  floor,  to  appear  here. 

A MEMBER.  There  were  two  counts. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Two  counts  I I do  not  know 
how  many  dead  men  and  new-born  babes  were 
counted  to  make  up  a half  ratio.  Of  that  I will 
not  speak.  I have  no  information.  That  is  not 
the  only  county  that  is  soon  to  be  thrust  out  of 
the  list.  The  county  of  Carroll,  made  known 
all  over  the  nation  by  her  delegate’s  name  [Mr. 
Adair]  being  given  to  a justly  celebrated  stat- 
ute, is  soon  to  follow  in  the  same  track.  And 
the  county  of  Perry,  and  divers  and  sundry 
others,  are  in  the  same  category.  Even  the 
county  of  Union,  represented  by  my  eloquent 
friend  on  my  left  [Mr.  Coats]  is  to  follow  in 
the  same  direction.  Now,  why,  in  the  name 
of  all  that  is  sacred,  if  there  be  any  principle  in 
this  theory  of  county  representation,  is  the  rule 
to  be  so  constructed  and  applied  as  to  defeat  all 
the  principle  that  it  stands  upon  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Oh,  yes;  I will  allow  almost 
anything. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  So  far  as  the  gentleman  has 
any  apprehensions  as  to  Carroll  and  Perry  coun- 
ties, I think  they  are  not  well  founded.  They 
are  both  counties  rich  in  minerals,  and  being 
entered  by  railroads.  Instead  of  their  being 
likely  to  decrease  in  population,  they  will 
largely  increase  in  the  next  ten  years. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I am  not  a prophet,  nor  the 
son  of  a prophet,  and  I cannot  tell  what  will 
occur  in  the  next  ten  years.  I know  that  now 
they  stand  just  over  the  dividing  line  between 
representation  and  non-representation,  and 
they  have  been  pointed  out  as  counties  that 
were  on  the  retrograde.  I do  not  say  this  to 
alarm  the  members  from  those  counties ; but, 
I do  say  it  to  illustrate  the  perniciousness  of  the 
proposition  as  against  the  scheme  of  represen- 
tation developed  in  this  Report.  I am  one  of 
those,  as  1 have  often  said,  that  believe  in  repre- 
sentation based  merely  on  population.  I do  not 
recognize  the  sacredness  of  county  lines.  I 
could  easily  go  inside  of  any  county,  and  cut 
and  carve  until  I found  sufficient  population 
for  a delegate.  There  has  been  no  difficulty  in 
doing  that  in  the  greatest  of  all  the  States  of  the 
Union,  New  York.  There  has  been  no  difficul- 
ty in  doing  it  in  Massachusetts  and  Illinois.  It 
is  only  on  account  of  some  antiquated  idea  that 
exists  in  thi«  State  respecting  the  sacredness  of 
county  political  organizations,  that  prevents  us 
from  doing  it  here.  It  is  more  a matter,  I ap- 
prehend, of  the  convenience  of  politicians.  It 
would  run  counter  to  their  little  arrangements 
for  running  their  several  counties,  and  securing 
the  honors  and  emoluments  therein,  that  this 
system  has  been  maintained  in  the  State  of 
Ohio,  rather  than  based  upon  any  principle. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Why  do  you  insist  then 
upon  county  representation? 

Mr.  PRATT.  I do  not,  unless  it  is  forced 
upon  me;  and  when  it  is  forced  on  me,  I want 
to  swallow  the  whole  scheme,  and  go  to  the 
bottom,  and  give  every  county  a delegate.  If  I 
follow  a principle  or  a scheme,  I want  to  follow 
it  to  its  ultimate  logical  end. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Ad  absurdum. 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

February  25, 1874.]  Pratt,  Dorsey,  Mueller,  Hale,  Baber,  Voris. 


1613 


Mr.  PRATT.  Well,  if  you  please,  yes.  Is 
there  anything  absurd  about  it  though,  unless 
it  be  the  scheme  itself? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  When  a county  comes  in  with 
almost  no  population,  it  is. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Do  you  anticipate  the  time 
when  any  county  or  counties  of  this  State  are 
going  to  expire?  If  you  do,  put  in  the  Consti- 
tution the  power  to  obliterate  them  as  counties, 
and  annex  them  to  some  other  organism  in  the 
State.  I think  that  would  be  a wise  proposition, 
and  I think  it  would  be  well  to  act  upon  it;  for 
I believe  myself,  that  if  there  has  been  a 
greater  evil  in  the  administration  of  this  State 
than  the  subdivision  of  the  State  into  small 
counties,  I have  not  been  able  to  detect  it. 
Now,  Mr.  President,  I hope  this  little  county  of 
Paulding,  will  not  be  thus  ruthlessly  kicked  out 
of  her  representative  position.  I hope  that  the 
door  will  not  be  opened  for  the  carting  out  of 
any  other  of  the  small  counties  of  the  State 
hereafter.  I hope,  if  we  are  to  follow  the 
scheme  of  county  representation,  we  will  follow 
it  down  to  the  lowest  point. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
a question  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  gentleman  spoke  of 
the  small  population  of  Geauga  county.  I would 
ask  the  gentleman  if  one  of  the  reasons  is  not 
that  they  drink  too  much  water  ? [Laughter.] 

Mr.  PRATT.  I do  not  know.  If  it  is,  I hope 
the  gentleman’s  countrymen  in  the  city  of 
Cleveland,  will  send  them  a little  lager  beer. 
Perhaps  they  had  better  send  some  of  the  gen- 
tleman’s countrymen  with  it.  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  It  would  do  them  no  harm. 

Mr.  PRATT.  If  it  would  increase  their  popu- 
lation, I presume  it  would  not.  I consider 
that  the  best  condition  of  the  human  family 
when  they  are  increasing  most  rapidly.  The 
old  State  of  Connecticut,  for  the  first  hundred 
years  after  her  settlement,  increased  more 
rapidly  from  internal  growth  than  any  other 
place  ever  did  on  earth ; and  it  was  the  happiest 
time  that  people  ever  saw.  The  families 
averaged  about  ten  to  each  one  in  those  times. 
Things  are  not  done  on  that  scale  now. 

The  question  being  on  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey], 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  32,  nays  39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Bannon,  Beer,  Blose,Bosworth, 
Burns,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cowen, 
Dorsey,  Ewing,  Godfrey,  Griswold,  Hill,  Hunt, 
Kerr,  McBride,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Neal,  Reilly, 
Rickly,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Van 
Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  White  of 
Hocking — 32. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Caldwell, 
Chapin,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Greene,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hor- 
ton, Hostetter,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kraemer, 
Miller,  Miner,  Mullen,  Okey,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Shultz,  Steedman,  Townsend,  Tyler,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 39. 

So  the  motion  to  amend  was  not  agreed  to. 


Mr.  HALE.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  offers  the  following  amend- 
ment. The  Secretary  will  read : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Hale  moves  to  strike  out  the  word  “ten,”  in  line 
1 of  section  3,  and  insert  the  words  “thirty-two.’* 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  have  not  got  to  sec- 
tion three  yet. 

Mr.  BABER.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

On  this  question  a division  was  demanded, 
whereupon  46  members  voted  in  the  affirmative, 
and  the  PRESIDENT  declared  the  motion 
agreed  to;  and  the  Convention  (at  12:25  p.  m.) 
took  a recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 :30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  at 
the  time  the  recess  was  taken  was  upon  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  say  that  there  were 
other  amendments  to  section  two,  and  I sup- 
pose that  section  cannot  be  passed.  There  were 
several  amendments  offered. 

Mr.  HALE.  We  are  not  going  through  the 
Article,  as  J understand,  section  by  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  rule,  nevertheless, 
will  be  that  the  Convention  shall  not  go  back. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  want  to  be  cut  off  from 
offering  my  amendment  to  section  two. 

Mr.  HALE.  I understand  the  motion  is  to 
strike  out  the  whole  Report  of  the  majority  of 
the  Committee.  That,  I suppose,  leaves  the 
whole  Article  open  to  amendment.  I offered 
this  amendment  simply  that  we  might  get  it  be- 
fore the  Convention  for  discussion,  and  decide 
the  question  of  large  or  small  senatorial  dis- 
tricts. The  other  amendments  can  be  offered 
afterwards,  just  as  well  as  now. 

Mr.  BABER.  I object  to  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  anticipating  that  matter.  I 
want  to  provide  for  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives before  we  go  to  the  other  question ; and  it 
is  remarkable  that  this  Committee  is  attempted 
to  be  treated  by  the  gentlemen  different  from 
what  the  Judicial  or  any  other  Committee  was. 
As  far  as  the  Committee  are  concerned,  if  gen- 
tlemen think  this  is  a suitable  way  of  doing 
things,  they  can  so  do. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I am  exceedingly  anxious  that 
we  may  adopt  a course  here  that  may  facilitate 
the  dispatch  of  business.  I suppose  we  are  un- 
der general  debate  yet,  on  this  Proposition.  If 
I am  not  right,  I wish  the  Chair  to  correct  me. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  believes  the 
Convention  is  in  general  debate,  although  it  is 
not  of  the  kind  understood  to  be  general  debate 
on  the  Proposition.  The  Proposition  is  not  be- 
fore the  Convention  now,  under  Rule  sixty-nine ; 
but  the  debate  is  now  general,  the  question  now 
being  upon  agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Are  we  not,  while  we  are  on 
this  question,  limited  by  the  restriction  of  that 
section  of  the  Rules  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Undoubtedly.  “No 
member  shall  speak  more  than  thirty  minutes,  or 
twice  on  the  same  subject.” 


1614 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Voris,  Griswold,  Dorsey,  Gurley,  Pond,  Hale,  Baber. 


[123rd 

[Wednesday, 


Mr.  VORIS.  We  are  either  in  general  de- 
bate, or  we  are  not. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  a general  debate. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Then,  it  strikes  me  that  the 
question  should  not  be  the  presentation  of 
amendments,  but  the  remarks  should  be  gen 
eral  upon  the  proposition,  and  especially  with 
reference  to  such  amendments  or  changes  as 
gentlemen  may  desire  to  have  brought  before 
the  consideration  of  the  Convention,  at  the 
proper  stage,  for  action  thereon,  and  the  pre- 
sentation of  amendments  now  will  hardly  be 
in  order,  as  we  have  not  arrived  at  that  point; 
but  when  we  pass  through  the  Article,  section 
by  section,  these  amendments  may  be  made. 
That  we  may  understand  ourselves,  and  that  we 
may  have  an  opportunity  to  present  these 
amendments,  as  well  as  for  discussion,  I move 
that  general  debate  now  be  suspended. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  There  is  no  general  debate 
on  this  subject,  under  the  Rule. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  to 
the  gentleman  that  he  is,  perhaps,  laboring  un- 
der a misapprehension  in  supposing  this  is  a 
general  debate  upon  the  Proposition.  It  is  a 
general  debate,  but  not  upon  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I do  not  know  what  the  gen- 
eral debate  is  upon. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  before  the 
Convention  is  upon  concurring  in  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  debate  upon 
that  subject  may  be  had,  and  any  gentleman 
may  speak  twice,  and  not  more  than  thirty  min- 
utes. The  Convention  may  close  the  debate  on 
that,  as  well  as  upon  any  other  question. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  that  we  close  the  gene- 
ral debate. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I merely  ask  of  the  gentle- 
man to  make  a single  remark  explanatory  of 
the  manner  in  which  we  desire  to  have  this 
Proposition  considered. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  call  the 
attention  of  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
Voris]  to  the  fact  that,  the  rule  in  respect  to 
the  suspension  of  general  debate  applies  only  to 
general  debate  upon  the  pending  proposition, 
so  that  the  motion  would  not  be  in  order.  The 
Convention  may,  at  any  time,  fix  an  hour  upon 
which  the  general  debate  upon  the  pending 
proposition  may  terminate. 

Mr.  VORIS.  How  can  we  terminate  it? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Simply  by  the  previous 
question,  or  any  other  mode  that  is  parliamen- 
tary. The  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey] has  the  floor. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  have  endeavored  to  save 
the  time  of  this  Convention,  by  having  all  the 
propositions  relative  to  the  organization  of  the 
House  considered  in  the  Convention,  so  that  we 
may  not  be  obliged  to  go  over  this  matter  again. 
There  are  several  propositions  which  ought  to 
be  considered  with  regard  to  that  organization. 
One  very  important  one  is  the  subject  of  frac- 
tional representation,  which  is  in  the  present 
Constitution,  but  which  is  not  in  this  Report.  I 
intend,  as  soon  as  I have  an  opportunity  of  so 
doing,  to  introduce  an  amendment,  and  bring 
fractional  representation  into  this  proposition 
as  it  is  in  the  present  Constitution;  and  I am  a 
little  surprised  that  gentlemen,  in  their  anxi- 
ety to  strike  a blow  at  proportional  representa- 
tion, cannot  allow  us  to  go  through  with  the 


organization  of  the  lower  House  before  they  at- 
tempt to  strike  their  blow  at  the  organization 
of  the  Senate.  It  is  something  very  remarka- 
ble indeed.  Gentlemen  are  not  willing  to  allow 
us  to  go  through 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Is  not  there  time  when  this 
comes  up  properly  to  make  that  amendment? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  can  say 
that  there  will  be  any  better  time  than  the 
present,  I shall  offer  it  then.  But  it  seems  to 
me  that  what  we  determine  now  is  determined 
for  all  time  in  this  Convention,  and  we  shall 
not  have  to  debate  the  question  again.  We  de- 
termine now  whether  we  shall  introduce  frac- 
tional representation  or  not,  and  go  through 
with  the  organization  of  the  lower  House,  and 
then  come  to  the  Senate;  and  then,  if  gentle- 
men want  to  strike  their  blows,  and  throw  their 
arrows  and  javelins  into  proportional  repre- 
sentation, let  them  doit;  we  are  ready  for  it; 
but  let  us,  at  least,  get  through  with  the  orga- 
nization of  the  House.  That  is  all  that  we 
ask. 

Mr.  POND.  That  principle  occurs  with  re- 
ference to  the  House,  too. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  does  come  in  time;  but  it 
does  not  interfere  with  the  matter  of  fractional 
representation,  or  with  several  other  matters 
that  are  yet  to  be  considered  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  HALE.  I introduced  this  amendment 
with  no  desire  then  to  discuss  it.  Of  course, 
any  one  could  see  that  I could  not,  in  my  pres- 
ent condition,  do  it.  I had  this  general 
idea  about  it,  and  when  gentlemen  talk  about 
unfairness  and  throwing  javelins  and  making 
attacks  upon  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  it 
has  no  weight  with  me  whatever.  I supposed 
that  this  Report  was  before  us,  and  that  any 
man  who  saw  fit  could  offer  amendments.  The 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  offered 
several.  The  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr. 
Baber]  proposes  to  offer  others.  I have  no 
preference,  one  way  or  the  other,  as  to  the 
time  in  which  they  are  considered.  I do  not 
care  anything  about  it  so  far  as  propor- 
tional representation  is  concerned.  I do  not 
propose  to  discuss  it,  but  I can  see  no  propriety 
in  going  on  and  perfecting  a Proposition  if  it  is 
to  be  stricken  out  in  the  end — and  whether  it  is 
to  be  stricken  out  or  not  will  depend  upon  this 
question.  I do  not  care  when  it  is  decided,  nor 
how  it  is  decided ; but  if  this  motion  is  agreed 
to,  it  changes  the  whole  scope  of  the  Report. 
It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  the  first  thing  which 
ought  to  be  determined. 

Mr.  BABER.  I simply  wish  to  facilitate 
business.  I do  not  see  that  the  the  whole  Re- 
port will  fall.  What  we  want  to  do — what  the 
Committee  desire  to  do — and  I do  not  see  why 
we  should  not  have  the  privilege — is  to  go 
straight  through  until  we  come  to  that  section, 
and  if  the  Convention  strike  that  section  out 
alone,  I would  like  to  know  why  the  remainder 
of  the  Report  shall  fall  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  I would  like  to  have  this  ques- 
tion answered : This  whole  Report  being  up  for 
amendment,  i introduced  an  amendment  before 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber].  I 
would  like  to  know  whether  his  amendment 
will  not  be  just  as  competent  after  mine  shall 
have  been  acted  upon  as  before? 

Mr.  BABER.  It  is  simply  this : The  gentle- 


Day.]  APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION.  1615 

February  25,  1874.]  Baber,  Hale,  Townsend,  Neal,  Griswold,  Dorsey,  etc. 


man  knows  that  there  is  a thin  House— scarcely 
a quorum  here — and  he  wants  to  have  an 
amendment  upon  which  there  is  a difference  of 
opinion  acted  upon  now  when  the  House  is  not 
full — when  a call  would  show  there  is  hardly  a 
quorum. 

Mr.  HALE.  Did  I not  offer  that  amendment 
when  there  was  a full  House  ? If  the  gentleman 
will  appeal  to  me  to  withdraw  it  because  of  a 
thin  House,  he  will  do  a great  deal  better  than 
to  threaten  with  regard  to  taking  the  time  of 
the  Committee.  I offered  that  amendment  this 
morning  when  there  were  seventy  members 
present,  and  I did  not  anticipate  there  was  to 
be  a thin  House  this  afternoon.  I cannot  see 
any  difference  as  to  when  we  shall  act  upon 
this  amendment,  whether  one  time  or  other. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  Convention  ready 
for  the  question  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  sixty- 
two  members  answered  to  their  names,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Beer,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  De  Steiguer, 
Doan,  Dorsey,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton, 
Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride, 
Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,Okey, 
Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sears,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman, 
Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tyler, 
Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  White 
of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble,  Presi- 
dent— 62. 

The  absentees  were — 

Messrs.  Alexander,  Bannon,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Campbell,  Carbery,  Clark 
of  Ross,  Cunningham,  Ewing,  Foran,  Freiberg, 
Gardner,  Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  John- 
son, Layton,  McCormick, Merrill, Miner, Philips, 
Rickly,  Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sam- 
ple, Scofield,  Scribner,  Shaw,  Tripp,  Tuttle, 
Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Watson,  Weaver,  Wells, 
West,  White  of  Brown, Wilson, Young  of  Cham- 
paign— 42. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  that  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I object. 

The  demand  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  not 
sustained,  eight  gentlemen  only  rising  to  sus- 
tain it. 

Upon  the  motion  to  suspend  further  proceed- 
ings, thirty-five  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and 
the  Chair  decided  that  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BABER.  There  was  no  quorum  voting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  does  not  know 
whether  there  was  a quorum  voting  or  not. 
There  were  thirty-five  in  the  affirmative.  The 
Chair  did  not  count  the  negative. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  for  a count  of  the  nega- 
tive. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  It  is  too  late.  The  Pres- 
ident has  declared  the  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  too  late.  The  ques- 
tion is  upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]. 

The  Secretary  read : 


Strike  out  the  word  “ten”,  inline  one,  section 3,  and  in- 
sert “thirty-two.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“Sec.  3.  The  State  shall  be  divided  into  thirty-two 
senatorial  districts,  etc.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I propose  an  amendment 
to  that,  making  thirty-two  districts,  “each  one 
of  which  shall  elect  one  Senator.” 

Mr.  POND.  I ask  for  a division. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  first  be 
upon  striking  out  the  word  “ten.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I hope  the  motion  to  strike 
out  will  not  prevail.  It  makes  no  difference, 
let  me  say  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
whether  we  adopt  the  system  of  proportional 
representation  or  whether  we  do  not.  This 
matter  of  large  or  small  districts  ought  to  be 
considered,  and  ought  to  stand  upon  its  own 
merits,  totally  independent  of  any  connection 
whatever  with  the  matter  of  proportional  rep- 
resentation. If  you  elect  three  Senators  in 
each  district  under  the  ordinary  mode  of  vot- 
ing, it  is  still  infinitely  better  to  divide  the 
State  into  ten  districts  than  to  divide  it  into 
thirty-two. 

The  first  reason  why  it  is  better,  and  a very 
important  reason  it  is,  is,  that  you  can  make  the 
division  more  equal.  You  do  not  have  the  same 
amount  of  unrepresented  fractions  when  you 
divide  by  ten,  as  when  you  divide  by  thirty- 
two  or  thirty-three.  I ask  gentlemen  to  look 
at  the  different  Senatorial  districts,  as  they  are 
proposed  at  this  time  by  the  Committee.  The 
ratio  is  266,526,  and  every  district  of  the  ten  ap- 
proximates exceedingly  near  to  that  racio,  with 
one  single  exception;  and  for  that  exception 
the  best  of  reasons  in  the  world  can  be  given. 
The  district  is  composed  of  several  counties  in 
the  northwestern  part  of  the  State,  growing 
very  rapidly  in  population,  and  will,  in  a very 
short  time,  come  up  to  the  ratio  required  in  the 
other  districts. 

I suppose  I know  something  about  the  diffi- 
culty of  dividing  the  State  into  thirty-two  or 
thirty-three  districts.  I recollect  very  well 
what  a burden  was  imposed  upon  the  Commit- 
tee by  the  Convention  of  1851,  although  I do 
not  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt],  who  denounced  it  this  morning 
as  a most  iniquitous — I believe  that  is  the 
word 

Mr.  PRATT.  Any  strong  word  that  may 
suit  you,  you  may  put  in. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Who  denounced  it  as  a most 
iniquitous  apportionment,  and  one  which,  at 
the  present  time,  he  stated  had  given  the  State 
to  the  minority;  and  I ask  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention  to  go  back  with  me  for  a moment, 
and  remember  the  circumstances  under  which 
that  apportionment  was  made. 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way 
for  a moment? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HALE.  I feel  the  force  of  the  fact  that 
the  question  now  before  the  Convention  is  one 
that  elicits  more  interest  than,  perhaps,  almost 
any  other  one,  and  I am  unwilling  to  take  any 
responsibility  of  bringing  this  before  the  Con- 
vention with  the  thin  House  we  have  this  after- 
noon. On  this  ground,  with  the  leave  of  the 
Convention,  I withdraw  this  amendment  that  I 


1616 


[123rd 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 


Hale,  Dorsey,  Baber,  Yoris,  Horton,  Townsend.  [Wednesday, 


made,  in  order  that  we  may  go  on  with  other 
amendments  that  will  elicit  less  interest. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then  I shall  suspend  my  re- 
marks. 

Objection  was  made  to  Mr.  Hale  withdrawing 
his  amendment. 

The  motion  being  put  to  the  Convention, 
leave  was  granted,  and  the  amendment  was 
withdrawn. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  glad  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  withdrew  his  amendment, 
simply  because  I think  it  will  facilitate  the 
business,  so  that  we  may  perfect  the  proposition 
as  to  the  House  of  Representatives.  I move  to 
amend  section  two  in  line  three  by  striking 
out  the  word  “three”  and  inserting  “two  and 
a half,”  and  in  line  four  by  striking  out  the 
word  “two”  and  inserting  “three.” 

Mr.  YORIS.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  state 
his  point  of  order. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  point  of  order  is  this : The 
question  before  the  Convention  is  upon  agree- 
ing or  disagreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  upon  this  Proposition.  Now, 
upon  the  consideration  of  that  question  by  the 
Convention,  amendments  to  this  proposition, 
section  by  section,  are  not  in  order,  and  ought 
not  to  be  entertained.  Therefore,  unless  the 
Convention  agree  to  the  recommendation  of  the 
Committee,  I think  these  amendments  may  be 
offered  and  considered  when  we  consider  this 
Proposition,  section  by  section  ; but  the  propo- 
sition now  is  simply  one  of  agreeing  or  disa- 
greeing to  the  recommendation  made  by  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole ; that  we,  in  effect,  if 
this  course  is  followed,  are  considering  in  this 
Convention  upon  this,  substantially,  the  propo- 
sition, and  none  other,  to  wit. : the  recommend- 
ation of  that  Committee.  We  are  doing  but 
what  we  should  have  done  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  wit. : going  through  with  the  Propo- 
sition, considering  it,  section  by  section,  and 
offering  these  amendments. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  YORIS.  As  soon  as  I have  rounded  out 
my  sentence.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole 
did  not  see  fit  to  consider  the  Proposition ; but 
by  a majority  vote  of  that  Committee,  they  re- 
ported back  the  Proposition,  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  the  Article  be  entirely  stricken 
out  except  the  entitling  clause ; and  the  Con- 
vention, having  taken  up  the  Report  of  that 
Committee,  then  it  is  not  competent  for  us  to  go 
on  and  consider  this  Proposition  until  we  have 
disposed  of  the  pending  proposition — the  ques- 
tion before  the  Convention. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  having  roun- 
ded his  sentence  in  a very  excellent  man- 
ner— 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  question  is  what  I want. 

Mr.  HORTON.  What  is  the  question  before 
the  House? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Yoris]  raises  a point  of  order. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I object  to  debate  upon  the 
question. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I want  to  ask  if  it  takes  any 
more  time  to  discuss  this  question  here  than  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole? 

Mr.  YORIS.  I simply  desire  to  know  whether 


the  rule  of  the  Convention  shall  be  observed  or 
not?  If  we  are  in  order,  we  shall  get  through 
better  than  if  we  are  out  of  order. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  leave  to  say  with  regard 
to  the  point  of  order  raised  by  the  gentleman, 
that  the  Chair  decided  that  it  was  in  order  for 
us  to  perfect  this  Proposition.  It  will  simply 
make  a delay  of  business.  The  Chair  has  once 
decided  the  matter,  and  if  the  gentleman  is  not 
satisfied  with  the  decision  of  the  Chair,  let  him 
take  his  appeal,  as  he  did  the  other  day. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  1 rise  to  a point  of  order. 
Are  questions  of  order  debatable? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  willing  to 
hear  gentlemen  of  experience  upon  this  ques- 
tion; but  the  Chair  is  of  opinion  that  the 
amendments  proposed  are  in  order  pending  the 
motion  to  strike  out.  In  other  words,  that  the 
friends  of  the  Proposition  have  the  right  toper- 
feet  that  Proposition,  so  far  as  is  possible,  be- 
fore a motion  is  taken  to  strike  out.  Now,  as  to 
the  order  in  which  these  amendments  should 
be  brought  forward,  the  Chair  is  at  a loss  to 
know  whether  Rule  LXIX  was  intended  to 
apply  to  the  proposition  ; for  there  is  a proposi- 
tion before  the  House,  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  or  whether  it  was  intended 
to  apply  to  a Proposition  in  its  technical  sense. 
The  Chair  is  disposed,  in  deference  to  the  views 
of  experienced  gentlemen,  to  decide  that  Rule 
LXIX  applies  to  the  Proposition  pending  be- 
fore the  Convention,  which  is  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  to  allow  the 
amendments  to  go  on,  section  by  section. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  distinction  that  I want  to 
make 

Mr.  BABER.  I object. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  motion  be- 
fore the  House. 

Mr.  YORIS.  In  stating  the  question  of  or- 
der, I suppose  it  is  perfectly  competent  for  me 
to  do  that.  I know  that  every  gentleman  on 
this  floor  who  has  raised  a point  of  order  has 
done  the  same  thing. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that  the  amendments  are  in  order. 

Mr.  BABER.  When  I was  interrupted  by 
the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  YorisJ,  I was 
stating  that  my  desire  was  to  facilitate  business, 
and  the  Report  as  it  came  before  us  was  not  put 
in  a shape  satisfactory  to  the  majority  of  the 
Committee,  and  I want  to  perfect  this  Report, 
so  that  this  Convention  may  agree  to  it ; and 
when  they  come  to  the  sixth  section,  the  pro- 
vision with  regard  to  proportional  representa- 
tion, which  is  entirely  independent,  they  can 
strike  it  out.  This  proposition  which  I have 
made  is  with  regard  to  fixing  the  ratio  and  to 
establishing  a rule.  The  proposition  of  the 
Committee  is,  that  every  county  shall  be  entit- 
led to  one  Representative. 

“Sec.  2.  Every  county  shall  be  entitled  to  one  Repre- 
sentative. Every  county  containing  the  above  ascer- 
tained ratio  and  one-halt  over,  shall  be  entitled  to  two 
Representatives;  every  county  containing  three  times 
said  ratio,  shall  be  entitled  to  three  Representatives.” 

And  so  on,  requiring  after  the  first  two,  a full 
ratio  for  each  additional  Representative. 

The  reason  the  half  ratio  was  adopted  was, 
that  it  appeared  to  us  fair  to  allow  the  smaller 
counties  a Representative,  and  this  Convention 
has  so  decided,  that  for  a half  ratio  of  popula- 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1617 

February  25,  1874.]  Baber,  Pratt,  Dorsey,  Herron,  Gurley,  Powell. 


tion  an  additional  Representative  shall  he  al- 
lowed to  the  larger  counties.  That  rule  was 
adopted  so  far  as  the  first  two  Representatives 
were  concerned.  It  let  in  the  counties  of  But- 
ler, Columbiana,  Trumbull,  and  Washington, 
and  I do  not  see  with  what  justice  the  rule 
should  stop  there.  The  county  of  Montgomery 
which  came  next,  if  the  rule  had  been  applied 
further,  so  as  to  allow  three  Representatives, 
would  have  been  entitled  to  an  additional  Rep- 
resentative. The  county  of  Franklin  has  not 
sufficient  population  to  entitle  her  to  these  three 
Representatives ; but  I do  not  want  to  act  sel- 
fishly in  this  matter,  because  my  county  did 
not  happen  to  be  entitled  to  it.  I ask  that  this 
amendment  be  adopted,  and  that  the  rule  in 
reference  to  fractions  be  extended  to  two  and  a 
half,  because  the  county  of  Montgomery  has  a 
very  large  fraction  over  the  half,  and  it  appears 
to  me  nothing  but  proper  and  right  that  she 
should  be  allowed  this  additional  Representative. 
The  other  counties  have  received  the  aid  of  it. 
I do  not  see  why  the  rule  should  stop  at  Mont- 
gomery county.  If  gentlemen  will  look  at  the 
table,  they  will  find  that  Montgomery  county 
has  a population  of  64,006.  Her  fraction  will  be 
13,242.  Now,  the  little  county  of  Ottawa,  with 
a population  of  13,361,  only  about  one  hundred 
additional,  is  allowed  a Representative,  and  it 
appears  to  me  nothing  but  right  and  fair  that, 
for  the  same  reason  that  this  Convention  voted 
to  allow  the  county  of  Paulding,  with  eight 
thousand  population,  Montgomery  county  be- 
ing a growing  county,  and  increasing  very 
rapidly,  having  a fraction  of  five  thousand 
more  than  Paulding,  should  be  allowed  this  ad- 
ditional Representative.  The  thing  will  appear 
perfectly  fair  when  it  comes  around  to  the  cen- 
sus of  1880.  Some  other  county  will  be  entitled 
to  this  representation,  and  this  Convention  hav- 
ing stepped  aside  from  the  rule,  and  allowed 
the  county  of  Paulding  a Representative  for 
eight  thousand  population,  namely,  five  thou- 
sand less  than  the  constitutional  rule,  it  seems 
to  me  time  to  allow  Montgomery  county  a Rep- 
resentative, when  it  has  within  one  hundred  of 
what  the  county  of  Paulding  has. 

Mr.  PRATT.  What  is  the  ratio  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  25,383. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Why  does  the  gentleman 
stop  there?  Why  does  he  not  go  on ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  willing  to  do  so,  and 
allow  the  ratio  to  run  all  the  way  through. 

Mr.  HERRON.  This  principle,  according  to 
the  present  census,  will  apply  to  no  other 
county. 

Mr.  BABER.  If  the  gentleman  will  move  an 
amendment  of  that  sort,  I shall  interpose  no  ab- 
jection. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I simply  inquire  why  it 
should  apply  to  the  people  of  Franklin  and 
Montgomery,  and  stop  there  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  willing  that  it  should  run 
through.  I simply  brought  the  matter  up  for 
discussion. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I hope  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  will  not 
prevail.  While  I am  willing  to  admit  that  there 
are  concessions  made  to  the  small  counties, 
when  you  provide  that  a county  having  a half 
ratio  shall  have  one  Representative,  you  make 
concessions  to  the  small  counties,  and  to  com- 

y.  n-104 


pensate  for  the  concession,  you  provide  that,  in 
a county  having  one  and  a half  ratio,  there  shall 
be  an  additional  Representative.  That  is  in- 
tended to  equalize  the  thing ; but,  after  a county 
has  two  Representatives,  I cannot  see  any  rea- 
son why  she  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional 
one  until  she  has  her  full  ratio. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I desire  to  make  a single  re- 
mark with  regard  to  this  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  and  I 
ask  gentlemen  to  reflect  upon  the  matter,  for  I 
think  there  is,  perhaps,  more  in  it  than  gentle- 
men think  of  at  the  present  time.  I ask  gentle- 
men to  look  at  the  section  of  the  present  Con- 
stitution with  regard  to  this  matter.  There  it 
is  declared  that  every  county  containing  said 
ratio  and  three-fourths  over  shall  be  entitled  to 
a Representative. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  the  present  Constitu- 
tion. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  the  present  Constitu- 
tion. Our  Report  says,  every  county  contain- 
ing the  above  ascertained  ratio  and  one-half 
over  shall  be  entitled  to  two  Representatives. 
The  question  will  be  asked,  why  was  the  change 
made  from  three-fourths  to  one-half?  I answer, 
that  it  was  a concession  made  to  the  large  coun- 
ties. If  the  amendment  to  the  second  section, 
which  I proposed  this  morning,  requiring  a half 
ratio  before  we  allow  a county  a Representative 
at  all,  had  been  carried,  I should  not  have  con- 
sidered that  there  was  so  much  importance 
attached  to  this  matter  of  one-half  instead  of 
three-fourths,  as  in  the  present  Constitution. 
But  when  we  allow  every  county  in  the  State, 
independent  of  its  population,  to  have  a Repre- 
sentative, we  are  making  such  a concession  to 
the  small  counties  that  the  large  counties  have 
the  right  to  demand  similar  concessions  made  to 
them  in  return. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Are  we  not  making  it,  when 
we  say,  when  they  have  a half  ratio  they  shall 
be  entitled  to  an  additional  Representative  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  are. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Is  it  not  just  as  much  a con- 
cession to  the  large  as  to  the  small  counties  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I agree  with  the  gentleman 
entirely.  We  make  this  very  important  conces- 
sion to  the  large  counties ; but  our  proposition 
carries  it  only  to  what  I would  call  the  first  de- 
gree— that  is  all.  The  proposed  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  car- 
ries it  to  the  second  degree.  It  proposes  that 
where  a county  has  two  and  a half  times  the 
ratio,  it  shall  be  entitled  to  three  Representa- 
tives. With  all  due  respect  to  the  opinion  of 
the  gentleman  who  proposed  the  amendment,  I 
doubt  very  much  the  propriety  of  adopting  it. 
I know  that  it  acts  favorably  with  regard  to  the 
county  of  Montgomery,  represented  by  my 
friend  [Mr.  Clay],  who  sits  before  me;  and  I 
am  willing  to  do  anything  at  all  for  the  good 
people  of  that  county ; but  I do  think,  that  in 
making  a Constitution  for  the  State  of  Ohio  we 
should  not  be  bound  by  any  mere  local  or  any 
mere  temporary  expedient.  The  fact  which 
applies  to  the  county  of  Montgomery  to-day, 
may  not  apply  to  the  county  of  Montgomery 
ten  years  hence.  We  are  now  considering  the 


1618 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [123rd 

Dorsey,  Clay,  Horton,  Griswold,  Pratt.  [Wednesday, 


county  of  Montgomery  as  under  the  census  of 
1870.  Four  years  have  passed  since  that  census. 
In  1880  there  is  to  be  a new  census — only  six 
years  from  now — and  when  the  next  census  is 
is  taken,  the  thing  may  be  entirely  different. 
I know  that,  in  making  the  apportionment  of 
1851,  we  endeavored  to  rid  ourselves,  as  far  as 
possible,  of  anything  like  mere  local  demands. 

When  I was  interrupted  before,  in  my  re- 
marks, I was  just  about  to  say  to  the  gentleman 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  by  whom  that  ap- 
portionment has  been  denounced  as  iniquitous 
and  unjust,  that  it  must  be  considered  that  the 
State  has  changed  very  materially  since  that 
Convention  was  in  session.  At  the  first  elections 
that  were  held  under  that  Constitution,  the 
Democratic  party  had  from  50,000  to  60,000  ma- 
jority in  the  State,  and  it  was  considered,  when 
that  Convention  was  held  and  that  apportion- 
ment was  made,  the  Democratic  majority  in  the 
State  was  at  least  50,000.  Now,  I would  like  to 
ask  any  gentleman  in  this  Convention  how  we 
could  make  an  apportionment  in  1850  or  1851 
that  did  not  look  like  a Democratic  apportion- 
ment with  50,000  Democratic  majority  in  the 
State?  I know  very  well  when  we  introduced 
this  three-fourths  ratio,  allowing  that  three- 
fourths  of  the  ratio  should  be  sufficient  for  an 
additional  Representative,  it  was  said  it  was 
done  in  favor  of  the  Democratic  counties.  I 
endeavored  to  show  then  that  it  did  not  apply 
any  more  to  Democratic  counties  than  it  did  to 
Whig  counties;  and  I say  now  that  anything 
we  may  do  to-day  should  be  without  any  regard 
to  how  it  will  look  in  a political  point  of  view. 
No  man  can  tell  what  is  to  be  the  political  com- 
plexion of  the  State  of  Ohio  in  ten  years.  The 
old  parties  may  both  be  out  of  the  way.  Some 
new  party,  like  the  Grangers,  may  be  govern- 
ing the  State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  CLAY.  That  will  be  short-lived. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Some  long-lived  party  may 
come  up,  and  because  the  State  of  Ohio  is  in 
the  hands  of  one  party  now,  is  no  reason  why 
it  shall  not  be  in  the  hands  of  some  other  party 
ten  years  hence.  In  1853,  the  Democrats  car- 
ried the  State  of  Ohio  by  60,000  majority.  In 
1854,  they  lost  it  by  80,000  majority.  Things 
of  that  kind  are  sufficient  to  show  that  no  Con- 
vention and  no  set  of  men,  for  a single  mo- 
ment, ought  to  think  of  making  an  apportion- 
ment that  looks  to  any  particular  political  com- 
plexion of  the  State.  Not  only  so,  but  we  ought 
never  to  make  an  amendment,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  has  done,  looking 
to  the  particular  requirement  of  any  single 
county.  I want  to  act  justly  towards  the  county 
of  Montgomery;  but  in  less  than  a decade  from 
now  the  county  of  Montgomery  may  not  need 
this  concession.  She  may  get  a more  fair  rep- 
resentation as  it  stands  now,  and  as  nothing  can 
be  said  in  favor  of  this  but  that  it  may  act,  per- 
haps, favorably  for  a few  counties,  I do  not  see 
any  reason  to  adopt  it. 

Upon  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Baber, 
the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded.  Objection 
was  made,  and  the  demand  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  being  sustained,  they  were  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  16,  nays  44,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Clay,  Cowen, 
Ewing,  Godfrey,  Greene,  McBride,  Miller,  Okey, 


Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shultz,  Steedman, 
Townsley,  Yoorhes — 16. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Chapin, 
Coats,  Cook,  De-Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Freiberg, 
Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Sears, 
Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoris, 
Waddle,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young 
of  Noble,  President — 44. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment to  section  two. 

The  Secretary  read : 

At  the  end  of  section  2 add  the  following  words : 

“And  any  county  entitled  to  two  or  more  Representa- 
tives, shall  be  subdivided  into  representative  districts  of 
contiguous  territory  and  of  compact  size,  and  as  nearly 
equal  in  popul  ation  as  practicable,  equal  in  number  to  the 
number  to  which  said  county  is  entitled,  in  each  of  which 
one  member  shall  be  elected.” 

Mr.  HORTON.  I do  not  wish  to  dis- 
cuss this  matter  at  length.  I have  no  doubt 
every  gentleman  upon  the  floor  of  the  Conven- 
tion unders  tands  fully  the  effect  of  this  motion, 
and  is  fully  prepared  to  vote  upon  it.  It  seems 
to  me  that  we  must  do  one  of  two  things  in 
reference  to  these  larger  counties — that  we 
must  either  provide  for  representation  by  single 
districts,  or  we  must  provide  some  system  of 
minority  representation,  by  which  some  differ- 
ent plan  shall  be  worked  out  than  that  of  a 
small  majority  to  control  the  entire  delegation. 
For  my  part,  I prefer  single  districts,  and,  for 
the  purpose  of  testing  that  question,  I have 
offered  this  amendment. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I desire  to  say  a word 
upon  this  subject.  In  the  remarks  which  I 
had  occasion  to  make  yesterday,  I alluded  very 
briefly  to  this  question,  and,  while  the  system 
of  single  districts  is,  in  my  judgment,  alto- 
gether preferable  to  the  plan  of  having  large 
counties  elect  their  Representatives  by  general 
ticket,  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  one  plain 
objection  to  this  mode  that  ought  to  defeat  it  in 
this  body,  and  that  is  the  difficulty  attending 
the  division  of  the  counties  into  single  districts, 
and  the  opportunity  that  such  division  gives  for 
allowing  parties  to  take  an  undue  advantage  of 
the  political  elements  that  exist  in  the  land. 
As  I had  occasion  to  say,  this  gerrymandering 
business  is  the  vice  of  political  parties.  No 
party  that  ever  existed  and  desired  to  rule, 
when  the  opportunity  was  offered,  was  ever 
free  from  it — I do  not  care  what  party  it  is. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  one 
inquiry  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I will  allow  you  any 
number  of  inquiries. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Could  any  system  of  gerry- 
mandering make  a worse  result  than  that  one 
party,  by  a majority  of  half  a hundred,  should 
have  all  the  Representatives  from  a given 
county  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I think  both  of  them  are 
equally  vicious.  I am  pronounced  on  that  sub- 
ject. No  greater  evil  exists,  connected  with 
a representative  body,  than  to  allow  a large 
representation  to  be  elected  by  a general  ticket, 
because  it  takes  absolutely  a numerical  majority 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

February  25,  1874.]  Pratt,  Griswold,  Freiberg,  Gurley,  Mueller,  etc. 


1619 


of  the  slightest  number  to  control  the  whole 
representation. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  is  so  exceed- 
ingly liberal,  that  I shall  tresspass  again. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  . Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  If  we  intend  to  secure  minority 
representation,  either  in  this  Convention  or 
before  the  people  throughout  the  State,  then 
will  the  gentleman  be  willing  to  provide  for 
such  representation  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  When  I am  put  to  that 
inevitable  necessity  I shall  choose;  but  I do 
not  desire  to  choose  any  evil,  if  I can  avoid  it. 
I say  that  every  party  has  been  guilty  of  a 
motive  to  do  this  very  thing  in  the  Legislature. 
Now,  it  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  in  order  to  con- 
trol the  election  of  Congressmen,  the  Republi- 
can party  formed  districts  that  were  intended 
to  give  them  the  advantage,  and  to  which,  per- 
haps, they  were  entitled ; but  from  the  particu- 
lar distribution  of  the  majority,  it  was  necessary 
to  make  these  sort  of  districts  to  get  even  an 
equality ; and  it  is  charged,  and  I think  it  cannot 
be  denied,  that  it  was  intended  to  give  them  the 
political  advantage,  and  it  has  been  so  of  every 
party  of  every  name  from  the  early  days  of  this 
nation.  The  name  given  to  it  goes  back  to  one 
man  who  signed  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence, Elbridge  Gerry,  who  was  the  father  of 
that  scheme,  and  who  gave  the  name  to  this 
vice. 

What  do  you  propose  to  do  by  this  amend- 
ment? You  furnish  an  opportunity  for  the 
Board,  or  authority,  that  shall  divide  the  coun- 
ties to  give  that  undue  advantage,  and  although 
it  may  not,  so  far  as  the  Legislature  is  con- 
cerned, produce  any  particular  evil,  as  I had 
occasion  to  say,  it  produces  political  immorality, 
and  a disregard  of  the  highest  duty  which  it 
becomes  legislators  to  observe  and  obey.  I un- 
dertake to  say  that  in  the  county  of  Cuyahoga, 
with  twenty  thousand  votes  divided  between 
twelve  thousand  Republicans  and  eight  thou- 
sand Democrats,  it  is  possible  to  divide  so  as  to 
give  the  Democrats  a majority,  and  it  would  be 
just  so  if  it  were  the  other  way.  By  a skilful 
management  of  boundaries  you  can  do  it. 
Where  you  find  a'township  or  a ward  that  has  a 
large  majority  one  way,  if  you  find  it  in  this 
condition,  you  go  to  work  and  annex  contiguous 
wards  to  it,  and  they  don’t  have  to  be  very  con- 
tiguous so  that  they  join,  and  get  them  in  that 
condition  where  they  are  evenly  divided ; you 
can  so  distribute  the  particular  majority  as  to 
give  the  minority  the  rule.  It  has  been  practiced 
all  over  the  State.  Everybody  who  has  ex- 
amined into  the  history  of  this  thing,  under- 
stands its  results.  Look  at  the  late  division  of 
Virginia  into  districts.  You  have  a fair  ex- 
ample there — where  the  ruling  party,  with  a 
majority  of  a few  thousand,  has  four-fifths  of 
the  districts.  You  propose  by  this  scheme,  as 
long  as  this  Constitution  exists,  to  offer  the  op- 
portunity for  the  exercise  of  this  particular 
mode  of  political  engineering,  whereas  by  a 
division  simply  into  districts,  the  opportunity 
is  lost;  still  there  is  a great  advantage  in  that 
case.  The  districts  can  be  so  manipulated  as 
to  be  controlled  by  one  political  party. 

You  have  not  only  to  do  this  now,  but  it  will 
be  necessary  to  be  done  hereafter.  The  Com- 
mittee here  may  fairly  divide  ii ; but  when  the 


decade  expires,  and  the  new  apportionment  is 
made,  you  must  establish  an  authority  that 
shall  do  it;  an  authority  that  is  not  particu- 
larly acquainted  with  the  wants  of  the  district; 
but  taking  the  wards  and  towns  by  their  polit- 
ical vote,  they  can  go  to  work  and  secure 
their  friends  undue  advantages.  I say,  while 
the  single  district  system  is,  perhaps,  better  than 
electing  by  general  ticket,  there  is  such  an  ob- 
jection to  it  in  my  mind,  in  this  respect,  that 
I cannot,  in  any  way  wise,  support  it.  Dividing 
in  this  way  always  furnishes  this  opportunity, 
and  I never  knew  any  political  party  that  had 
the  virtue  to  withstand  the  temptation  which 
this  apportunity  affords. 

The  gentleman  has  well  said  this  alternative 
is  before  you  to  do  this,  or  to  allow  some  sys- 
tem by  which  the  minority  can  be  represented. 
I am  willing  to  accept  that  alternative.  It  is 
not  adopting  any  general  scheme  in  the  State. 
It  only  applies  to  two  counties,  and  possibly, 
under  a change -of  circumstances,  to  three,  and 
perhaps  to  four,  during  the  time  in  which  any 
of  us  will  live  to  see  its  operation.  I submit 
that  it  is  better  and  wiser,  so  far  as  this  is  con- 
cerned, to  try  some  other  system,  which  does 
not  allow  of  the  continued  practice  of  this  po- 
litical vice. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I move  that  we  postpone 
this  amendment,  for  the  simple  reason,  that 
there  are  only  two  of  the  Hamilton  county 
delegates  here,  besides  the  President,  and  I 
would  like  to  give  them  an  opportunity  to  be 
heard  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman when  he  thinks  they  would  arrive  ? 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  T make  that  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman will  be  equivalent  to  laying  the  whole 
subject  on  the  table. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  No,  sir;  to  lay  it  over  to 
some  future  day. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  that  we  send  for  the 
Hamilton  county  delegation. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I move  we  lay  the  whole 
subject  on  the  table. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I think  there  is,  perhaps, 
another  way : let  the  gentleman  who  has  offered 
the  amendment  withdraw  it.  if  it  is  for  the 
accommodation  of  some  gentleman,  it  might  be 
done.  I do  not  think  it  is  advisable  to  lay  the 
whole  subject  on  the  table  because  the  members 
from  Hamilton  county  are  not  here. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I suppose  the  gentleman 
understood  that  there  was  a celebration  in  the 
city — the  opening  of  the  Public  Library.  Some 
of  the  members  are  interested  in  the  matter, 
being  connected  with  the  schools,  etc.  A gen- 
eral invitation  was  extended  to  the  members  of 
the  Convention,  and  many  of  them  have  gone 
there.  That  is  the  reason  they  are  not  here. 

Mr.  Freiberg’s  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  like  to  inquire  wheth- 
er this  particular  amendment  could  not  be  laid 
upon  the  table,  without  the  whole  Proposi- 
tion? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  subject  cannot  be 
informally  passed,  because  the  present  question 
is  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  strike  out  the  entire  Proposition. 

Mr.  BABER.  Could  not  this  section,  or  any 
amendment  to  the  section,  be  laid  upon  the  ta- 


1620 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [123rd 

Townsend,  Horton,  Dorsey,  Powell.  [Wednesday, 


ble  ? It  appears  to  me  it  does  not  lay  the  Prop- 
osition on  the  table. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  would  carry  the  whole 
subject  with  it. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I suppose  by  unanimous 
consent,  this  section  could  be  informally 
passed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  proposed  that  this 
amendment  be  passed  over  informally. 

Objection  was  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Therefore,  it  cannot  be 
done. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I certainly  have  no  desire  to 
press  this  proposition  upon  the  Convention, 
when  gentlemen  desire  to  be  heard  upon  it;  and 
as  it  cannot  be  informally  passed,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Convention,  I withdraw  it,  with  the 
understanding  that  I shall  renew  it  to-morrow 
morning. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  the  amendment  was 
withdrawn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I offer  as  an  amendment  an 
additional  section  to  come  in  after  section  2 of 
the  pending  Proposition,  it  being  section  3 of 
the  present  Constitution.  It  will  be  precisely 
as  section  3 of  the  present  Constitution,  with 
simply  a verbal  change : “When  any  county 

shall  have  a fraction  above  the  ratio  so  large 
that  being  multiplied  by  five,  the  result  will  be 
equal  to  one  or  more  ratios,  additional  Repre- 
sentatives shall  be  apportioned  for  such  ratios 
among  the  several  General  Assemblies  of  the 
decennial  period  in  the  following  manner,” 
etc.  Where  the  word  “sessions”  is  found  the 
words  “General  Assembly”  are  substituted.  I 
ask  the  Secretary  to  read  it  in  that  way. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  3.  When  any  county  shall  have  a fraction  above 
the  ratio,  so  large  that,  being  multiplied  by  five,  the  re- 
sult will  be  equal  to  one  or  more  ratios,  additional  Repre- 
sentatives shall  be  apportioned  for  such  ratios  among  the 
several  General  Assemblies  of  the  decennial  period  in 
the  following  manner: 

If  there  be  only  one  ratio  a Representative  shall  be  al- 
lotted to  the  fifth  General  Assembly  of  the  decennial 
period.  If  there  are  two  ratios,  a Representative  shall  be 
allotted  to  the  fourth  and  third  General  Assemblies,  re- 
spectively. If  three,  for  the  third,  second  and  first  Gen- 
eral Assemblies,  respectively.  If  four,  to  the  fourth,  third, 
second  and  first  General  Assemblies,  respectively.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I simply  wish  to  say  a word 
in  explanation.  This  is  the  third  section  to  the 
present  Constitution.  We  change  the  word 
“sessions”  into  “General  Assemblies,”  from 
the  fact  that  biennial  sessions  were  the  rule 
under  the  present  Constitution,  although  we 
have  had  annual  sessions,  consequently  the 
word  “sessions”  was  made  use  of.  Here  we 
have  five  distinct  General  Assemblies  in  ten 
years,  and,  therefore,  the  fractional  representa- 
tion will  be  apportioned  among  the  different 
General  Assemblies  of  the  decennial  period. 
We  propose  to  apportion  them  in  precisely  the 
same  way  as  they  are  apportioned  under  the 
present  Constitution.  I feel  rather  anxious 
that  this  section  should  be  introduced  into  the 
present  Constitution.  I was  not  the  author  of 
the  section.  That  section  of  the  apportionment 
proposition  of  the  present  Constitution  was  in- 
troduced by  a gentleman  from  Summit  county 
[Mr.  Otis],  and  was  incorporated  with  the  Prop- 
osition which  I had  the  honor  to  intro- 


duce to  the  Convention;  and  I think  it  a 
valuable  portion  of  that  Proposition.  It  does 
equalize  the  representation  to  a certain  extent. 
Now,  it  is  true,  that  every  system  of  represen- 
tation of  fractions  approximates  to  a certain 
degree  of  perfection.  These  have  been  called 
“floating  Representatives.”  They  are  not 
“floats.”  They  have  none  of  the  characteris- 
tics of  floats.  They  are  fixed  by  a constitutional 
enactment  to  particular  General  Assemblies  in 
the  decennial  period. 

Mr.  POWELL.  And  to  the  proper  counties. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  And  they  are  fixed  to  the 
proper  counties,  and  the  proper  counties  know, 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  decennial  period, 
when  these  fractional  Representatives  come  in, 
because  it  is  provided  in  this  section  that  the 
Governor,  the  Auditor  and  Secretary  of  State, 
or  any  two  of  them,  shall,  at  least  six  months 
prior  to  the  fall  election,  make  and  publish  the 
apportionment — not  only  the  apportionment  of 
Representatives  among  the  different  counties, 
but  they  also  shall  make  their  calculation  with 
regard  to  fractional  Representatives  that  will  be 
allotted  to  each  county  in  the  decennial  period. 
To  illustrate  this  matter,  I shall  take  the  county 
of  Montgomery,  which  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  is  very  much  interested 
in.  I have  no  doubt  that  he  thinks  the  propo- 
sition he  offered  was  a very  honest  and  honora- 
ble proposition,  but  I differ  with  him.  In  order 
to  act  fairly  to  Montgomery  county,  he  proposes 
to  change  the  second  section.  Now,  let  us  see 
how  our  system  of  fractional  representation 
affects  Montgomery  county  at  the  present  time. 
The  county  of  Montgomery,  at  the  last  census, 
had  a population  of  64,006;  that  leaves  us  a 
fraction  over  a full  ratio  of  13,242,  by  which 
she  gets  two  fractional  Representatives.  Now, 
that  multiplied  by  five,  which  is  the  number 
of  General  Assemblies  in  the  decennial  period, 
makes  66,210 ; compare  that  with  50,764,  which 
is  the  amount  of  two  ratios,  you  find  that  two 
fractional  Representatives  are  to  be  appor- 
tioned to  the  county  of  Montgomery  for  the 
decennial  period,  and  they  are  fixed,  by  consti- 
tutional enactment,  at  the  first  and  third 
General  Assemblies  occurring  during  that 
period.  There  is  no  “float”  system  in  that. 
The  county  of  Montgomery  knows,  from  the 
very  commencement  of  the  decennial  period, 
that,  in  the  second  and  third  General  Assem- 
j blies  of  that  decennial  period,  she  is  to  elect 
1 three  Representatives  instead  of  electing  two. 
It  gives  her  fair  proportion  of  representation 
during  the  decennial  period,  and  equalizes  her 
population  with  the  smaller  counties,  as  nearly 
as  anything  can  do  it.  This  is  the  advantage  of 
the  fractional  system.  We  have  used  it  for 
twenty  odd  years  in  the  State.  The  people 
have  become  accustomed  to  it.  They  have  ap- 
proved of  it,  and  I very  much  doubt  whether 
the  people  of  Montgomery  county,  or  of  any 
other  of  the  counties  of  the  State  that  are  enti- 
tled to  fractional  representation,  would  be  very 
well  satisfied  if  we  should  deny  them  this  frac- 
tional representation . 

Mr.  POWELL.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  very 
serious  objection  to  it? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  never  heard  any 
objection  to  it,  and  for  that  reason  I am  in  favor 


1621 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 


February  25, 1874.]  Dorsey,  Burns,  Gurley. 


of  introducing  this  as  the  third  section  of 
the  present  Proposition. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I had,  myself,  proposed  pre- 
cisely the  same  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  Had  it  not 
been  offered  by  some  other  gentleman  of  this 
Convention,  I would  have  offered  it  myself,  be- 
fore allowing  this  section  to  be  passed.  I think 
it  is  an  amendment  that  ought  to  be  incorpor- 
ated into  this  Constitution.  It  is  an  amend- 
ment eminently  proper  to  be  made.  We  are 
seeking  here,  as  I understand  it,  to  frame  a Con- 
stitution, by  which  the  people  will  be  enabled 
to  elect  Representatives,  and  leave  as  little  mar- 
gin, or  as  little  surplus  as  possible,  so  as  to  en- 
title a locality  to  a Representative.  Taking  it 
for  granted  that  the  Legislature  will,  as  has 
been  agreed  upon,  consist  of  105  members,  it 
would  have  25,383  inhabitants  to  entitle  the 
people  to  a Representative.  Now,  it  is  true  that 
the  section  provides  also  that  a county  having 
one-half  of  a ratio  additional,  shall  be  entitled 
to  two  Representatives. 

I have  not  made  the  calculation  to  see  how 
many  counties  of  the  State  would  be  benefited 
by  this  clause  in  the  second  section ; but,  pas- 
sing that  for  the  present,  I find  a large  number 
of'  counties  that  this  margin  will  fit.  For  in- 
stance, in  the  county  in  which  I live,  there 
would  be  a fraction  over  and  above  what  would 
entitle  us  to  one  Representative.  We  shall  not, 
therefore,  be  entitled  to  two,  and  with  the  pre- 
sent increase  in  population,  judging  from  the 
past,  shall  not  be  entitled  to  two  during  any 
period  of  the  next  decade.  If  this  system  of 
gathering  up  the  excess  over  one,  and  so 
arranging  it  so  that  at  some  period,  or  at  some 
General  Assembly  during  the  decade,  they 
would  have  accumulated  sufficient  to  entitle  to 
an  additional  Representative — if  it  is  desirable, 
and  I concede  it  is,  to  have  a Representative  for 
all  the  people,  that  is  to  say,  to  have  no  more 
people  represented  by  a member  than  the  ratio, 
it  seems  to  me  that  this  section  is  the  only  way, 
the  only  satisfactory  method,  the  only  equitable 
method,  by  which  that  end  can  be  successfully 
reached;  otherwise,  each  year,  in  each  General 
Assembly,  there  will  be  nearly  8,000  inhabitants, 
in  the  county  that  I represent  upon  this  floor, 
that  would  not  be  represented;  or  at  least  there 
would  be  that  fraction  over  the  number  en- 
titling us  to  a Representative,  who  would  never 
be  represented ; whereas,  if  this  section  is  incor- 
porated, we  would,  at  the  end  of  the  fifth 
General  Assembly,  be  entitled  to  an  additional 
Representative  in  our  county;  and  so  the  same 
rule,  as  a matter  of  course,  would  operate  all 
over  the  State. 

It  may  be  asked,  of  what  benefit  would  this 
additional  Representative  be  to  a county  once  in 
ten  years.  One  Representative  would  represent 
the  county  as  fully  and  as  properly  as  two.  If 
there  be  anything  in  that  question  at  all,  the  same 
reason  would  apply,  and  the  same  rule  would 
operate,  against  two  Representatives  in  any 
county  during  the  entire  decennial  period. 

As  has  been  stated  by  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  this  system  has  been  in 
operation  in  Ohio  for  the  last  twenty  years.  It 
has  worked  well.  I have  heard  no  com- 
plaint about  it  at  all.  It  seems  to  me  if  this 
Constitution  is  framed  and  sent  out  to  the  peo- 


ple, without  this  provision  in  it,  it  will  meet 
with  opposition  it  would  not  otherwise  encoun- 
ter. And  I do  sincerely  hope  that  this  provi- 
sion in  the  present  Constitution  will  not  be  left 
out,  but  that  it  will  be  re-adopted  in  the  one 
which  we  are  now  engaged  in  framing. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I want  to  aid  the  gentleman 
with  the  little  .information  which  he  stated  he 
was  not  prepared  to  give,  in  regard  to  the  num- 
ber of  counties  affected.  There  are  twenty-nine 
counties  in  the  State  containing  more  than  one 
ratio,  but  not  a ration  and  a half,  and  ten  coun- 
ties containing  over  one-half  to  more  than  two, 
but  not  three  ratios ; consequently,  in  twenty- 
nine  counties  in  the  State  there  will  be  a frac- 
tion in  the  most  of  them  which  will  entitle 
them  to  an  additional  Representative.  It  will 
affect  very  nearly  thirty-nine  counties  in  the 
State. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I was  endeavoring  to  inform 
myself  upon  this  subject,  but  had  not  time  to  do 
so  when  the  question  came  up.  I presume  that 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  is  en- 
tirely correct. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I hope  this  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  will  not  prevail.  I am  aware  that 
many  difficulties  are  connected  with  this  matter 
of  apportioning  the  State;  but  I think  it  may 
be  taken  for  granted  that  the  Convention  are 
determined  to  give  each  county  one  Represent- 
ative, regardless  of  its  population;  and  it  may 
be  claimed  that  this  is  a concession  to  small 
counties.  I do  not  regard  it  as  a concession. 
The  interests  of  the  small  counties  are  quite  as 
important  to  be  looked  after  as  the  larger  ones. 
There  is  the  same  machinery  in  small  counties 
as  in  large  ones,  and  they  have  the  same  local 
interests  to  look  after  as  the  larger  counties 
have,  and  the  organization  is  the  same.  But 
admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  it  is  a 
concession,  that  a county  with  a half  ratio  is 
entitled  to  a Representative  in  the  General  As- 
sembly. Do  we  not  fully  compensate  for  that 
concession  when  we  turn  around  and  say,  that 
the  counties  having  one  and  a-half  ratios  shall 
be  entitled  to  two  Representatives?  If  they 
have  one  and  a-half  ratios  they  are  entitled  to 
two  Representatives. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Suppose  there  is  less  than  one 
and  a-half  ratio,  we  cannot  get  the  additional 
Representative. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  You  may  suppose  a thousand 
cases,  and  a thousand  difficulties  will  grow  up 
under  any  system  that  you  can  devise.  There 
can  be  but  one  system  that  will  operate  with 
exact  equality,  and  that  will  be  to  permit  each 
man  to  represent  himself.  You  cannot  ao  de- 
vise and  frame  a constitutional  provision,  that 
each  locality  will  be  represented  alike  in  every 
respect.  This  seeks  to  equalize  by  multiplying 
a little  fraction  that  may  exist  over  the  ratio  by 
five,  and  when  that  will  bring  it  up  to  twenty- 
five  thousand,  to  give  that  county  an  additional 
Representative.  I say,  Mr.  President,  that  in- 
stead of  this  being  of  advantage  to  any  county, 
it  is  a disturbing  element.  Instead  of  strength- 
ening it,  or  doing  anything  of  the  kind,  it  tends 
to  weaken  and  destroy,  and  is  a disturbing  ele- 
ment in  the  body  politic ; and  what  good  rea- 
son can  any  man  give  why  this  fraction  shall 
be  multiplied  by  five,  and  when  it  amounts  to  a 


1622 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [123rd 

Gurley,  Burns,  Sears,  Ewing.  [Wednesday, 


ratio,  that  county  once  in  five  or  once  in  ten 
years,  shall  send  an  additional  Representative  ? 
Is  it  any  safeguard  to  the  interests  or  welfare 
of  this  great  State  of  Ohio  ? Does  it  add  any- 
thing to  our  safety,  anything  to  our  dignity, 
anything  to  our  constituency,  that  is  to  he  rep- 
resented ? I do  not  so  regard  it.  I cannot  so 
look  upon  it,  and  any  attempt  to  run  this  thing 
down  into  fractions  so  that  every  county  shall 
have  an  exact  representation,  will  prove  abor- 
tive and  futile,  and  cannot  be  done ; and  when 
we  provide  that  a ratio  of  twenty-five  thousand 
shall  have  a representation  and  one-half  of  that 
ratio  shall  be 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  gentleman  says  it  will 
prove  futile  and  cannot  be  done.  I ask  if  it 
has  not  been  done,  successfully  and  fairly,  for 
the  last  twenty  years  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly,  it  has  been  done. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  No,  sir.  Perhaps  the  gen- 
tleman does  not  understand  me.  You  can  take 
up  these  tables  and  see  fractions,  that  never  will 
amount  to  25,000. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  And  I say  any  attempt  to 
have  an  exact  representation  is  an  abortion,  and 
always  will  be. 

Mr.  BURNS.  We  can  approach  it  as  nearly 
as  possible. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I was  going  on  to  say  that, 
when  we  provided  for  a ratio  of  twenty-five 
thousand,  a county  shall  be  entitled  to  one 
Representative,  and  when  it  amounts  to  one  and 
a-half  ratios,  it  shall  be  entitled  to  two  Repre- 
sentatives. I think  we  approximate  as  near  to 
it  as  may  be,  as  nearly  as  desirable.  I cannot 
see  how  the  interest  of  any  county  or  any  city 
can  be  advanced  or  strengthened  by  this  addi- 
tional Representative,  once  in  five,  or  once  in 
ten,  or  once  in  four  years,  if  you  please.  The 
only  object  is  to  increase  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, and  add  to  the  increased  expenses  of 
the  State ; that  is  all.  There  is  no  practical  good 
that  can  grow  out  of  it. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I was  rather  surprised  at  the 
remark  which  fell  from  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  [Mr.  Dorsey]  in  reply  to  the  inquiry 
of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Pow- 
ell], that  he  had  heard  no  objection  to  this 
section.  My  recollection  is  that  this  section 
was  very  fully  discussed,  and  was  rejected  by 
the  Committee  on  Apportionment  last  summer, 
and  the  Reports  from  that  Committee,  both  ma- 
jority and  minority,  bear  me  out  in  this  state- 
ment. It  was  not  only  rejected  by  the  entire 
Committee,  but  it  found  no  place  in  either  of 
the  schemes  of  apportionment  considered  and 
reported  by  the  Committee. 

I have  read  this  section,  and  heard  about  it, 
and  thought  about  it,  and  I confess,  sir,  that, 
unobjectionable  as  it  may  seem  to  many,  and 
greatly  as  the  people  of  the  State  may  be 
attached  to  it,  I have  not  been  able  to  under- 
stand the  reason  or  the  propriety  of  it.  We 
provide,  here,  in  the  first  place,  for  territorial 
representation,  or  representation  of  the  separ- 
ate counties.  Then  we  go  further,  and  provide 
for  representation  based  upon  population,  and 


go  into  fractions  so  far  as  to  give  a half  ratio 
an  additional  Representative.  Having  provided 
for  representing  both  the  territory  and  popula- 
tion, there  is  an  attempt,  by  this  system  of 
“floats,”  to  provide  for  Representatives  who 
really  represent  nothing.  These  counties  are 
all  the  time  represented  as  much  as  any  of  the 
residue  of  the  State,  by  their  regular  Represen- 
tative, chosen  under  the  general  scheme  of 
apportionment;  but,  every  third  year,  fourth 
year,  or  fifth  year,  you  take  a new  man  and 
send  him  to  the  General  Assembly  to  represent 
those  who  have  already  been  represented,  and 
who,  perhaps,  are  now  dead,  or  have  run 
away.  He  is  a Representative  without  any  ac- 
tual constituency.  I say,  sir,  it  is  a piece  of 
political  legerdemain.  It  is  the  vulgar  fraction 
of  politics,  and  I am  surprised  at  the  assertion 
of  the  delegate  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns}, 
that  the  people  of  Ohio  are  attached  to  it. 

I can  imagine  the  look  of  disappointment 
that  would  cover  the  faces  of  the  people  if  they 
should  find,  upon  looking  at  the  new  Constitu- 
tion, that  it  had  not  got  this  curiosity  in  it. 
My  impression  is,  that  they  are  as  much 
attached  to  it  as  to  tbe  binomial  theorem,  or  the 
isothermal  line,  and  that  they  would  just  as 
soon  part  with  the  one  as  give  up  the  other. 

Mr.  EWING.  I hope  the  amendment  will 
prevail.  The  true  Bepresentative  Assembly 
would  be  one  in  which  each  given  ratio  of  the 
people  should  have  one  Representative,  and  no 
body  of  people  less  than  that  ratio  should  have 
any  Representative.  Our  present  Constitution 
only  gives  a Representative  to  a body  of  the 
people  less  than  a ratio,  out  of  consideration 
for  the  special  wants  and  the  autonomy  of 
counties,  so  as  to  give  each  local  interest  exist- 
ing in  small  counties  an  independent  voice,  un- 
connected with  the  local  interests  of  any  other 
county,  on  the  floor  of  the  Legislative  Assem- 
bly. This  is  a concession  of  the  majority  to  the 
minority.  It  is  a concession  of  large  counties 
to  small  ones,  and  that  concession  having  been 
made,  it  illy  becomes  the  delegates  representing 
small  counties  in  this  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion to  demand  that  we  shall  strike  out  of  our 
Constitution  a clause  which  will,  in  some  de- 
gree, equalize  representation  in  the  Legislative 
Assembly.  This  is  the  clause  that  the  minority 
of  the  Committee  on  Apportionment  propose  to 
leave  out,  and  which  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  now  proposes  to 
retain.  It  is  a clause  of  our  present  Constitu- 
tion entirely  acceptable  to  the  people  of  our 
State.  Under  that  clause  my  county  had  two 
Representatives  on  the  floor  of  the  General  As- 
sembly two  years  ago.  We  want  representa- 
tion in  our  larger  counties  in  proportion  to 
population,  as  near  as  we  can  have  it,  after  con- 
ceding to  the  smaller  counties  more  than  they 
are  entitled  to  in  proportion  to  numbers. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  When  I concede  to  the  gen- 
tleman’s county,  when  she  has  one  and  a half 
ratio,  an  additional  member,  do  I not  concede 
to  him  as  much  as  he  concedes  to  me  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  We  do  not  want  two  when  we 
are  not  entitled  to  two  Representatives. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I concede  more  than  you  do. 

Mr.  EWING.  You  concede  more  to  large 
counties  having  between  one  and  a half  and 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 1623 

February  25,  1874.]  Gurley,  Ewing,  Dorsey,  Baber. 


two  ratios,  and  less  to  large  counties  having  be- 
tween one  and  one  and  a half  ratios. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  If  I understand  this  section, 
it  provides  that  when  your  county,  or  any 
other,  shall  have  one  and  a half  ratios,  it  will  be 
entitled  to  two  Representatives. 

Mr.  EWING.  I ask  merely  that  an  excess  of 
population  over  the  ratio  shall  be  treated  as  un- 
der the  present  Constitution.  It  gives  us,  in 
Fairfield  county,  one  extra  Representative  once 
in  two  years  out  of  the  decennial  period.  That 
is  just  about  what  our  numbers  entitle  us  to. 
But  if  you  undertake  to  say,  that  if  we  have 
one  and  a half  ratios,  we  shall  have  two  Repre- 
sentatives, and  until  we  get  one  and  a half  we 
shall  have  only  one  Representative  through  the 
five  Legislative  Assemblies  of  the  decennial 
period,  then  my  county  will  only  have  one 
Representative  in  the  General  Assembly  all  the 
way  through,  and  will  lose  the  one  Represent- 
ative that  she  is  now  entitled  to,  one-fifth  of  the 
time. 

This  provision  is  equitable.  It  has  worked 
satisfactorily.  It  does  not  embarrass  the  peo- 
ple. They  understand  it  and  take  full  advan- 
tage of  it,  and  it  is  a more  just  and  exact  rule 
than  the  one  proposed,  which  is  to  give  the 
county  that  has  one  and  a half  ratios,  two  Rep- 
resentatives permanently,  and  the  county  that 
has  one  and  a third  ratios,  only  one  Represent- 
ative. This  is  a clause  of  our  present  Consti- 
tution that  the  people  have  not  complained  of. 
Why  change  it?  The  proposed  change  will 
operate  unjustly  on  several  large  counties — 
Fairfield,  Montgomery,  Franklin  and  Clermont. 
It  would  cut  them  out  of  the  representation 
they  have  enjoyed  under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, and  can  not  be  justified  by  any  reason  that 
has  been  stated. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  the  present  rule  is  one  and  three- 
fourths. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  present  proposition  is 
one  and  a half. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  this  third  sec- 
tion will  be  restored  in  the  present  Constitu- 
tion. It  seems  to  me  that  the  proposition  to 
strike  it  out  of  the  Constitution  was  made 
without  any  thought.  It  is  a great  mistake  for 
gentlemen  representing  small  counties  upon 
this  floor,  to  whom  the  concession  has  been 
granted  by  this  Convention  of  a Representative 
to  every  county,  even  allowing  the  county  of 
Paulding,  with  a population  of  8,000,  to  have  a 
Representative,  should  now  vote  to  strike  the 
section  out  of  the  present  Constitution  which 
will  produce  this  result,  that  the  county  of 
Paulding,  with  a population  of  8,000,  will  have 
one  Representative  all  the  way  through,  and 
the  county  of  Ross,  with  a population  of  37,000, 
shall  have  but  one.  it  seems  to  me  this  is  too 
monstrous  an  inequality  for  this  Convention 
to  indorse.  Mr.  President,  the  effect  of  strik- 
ing the  third  section  out  of  the  Constitution 
affects  some  twenty  counties  in  this  State.  Un- 
der the  ratio  adopted,  it  would  deprive  the 
counties  of  Ashtabula,  Brown,  Clarke,  Cler- 
mont, Cuyahoga,  Darke,  Fairfield,  Hamilton, 
Guernsey,  Seneca,  Meigs,  Miami,  Richland, 
Summit,  Tuscawaras  and  Wayne,  each,  of  one 
Representative ; it  would  deprive  the  counties 
of  Licking,  Ross,  Franklin  and  Montgomery, 


each,  of  two  additional  Representatives;  making 
some  twenty-four  Representatives  that  would 
be  cut  oft’.  If  we  adopt  the  ratio  of  100  it  would 
strike  down  the  representation  now  upon  the 
floor  of  the  General  Assembly  in  twenty-one 
counties,  depriving  them  of  thirty-three  Repre- 
sentatives that  they  are  entitled  to  under  the 
provision  of  the  present  Constitution.  It  seems 
to  me  that  it  is  asking  of  us  too  much  in  this 
Convention  to  go  to  work  and  deprive  the  people 
of  the  privilege  of  representation,  that  they  have 
had  for  the  last  twenty  years,  in  order  to  carry 
out  any  fanciful  theory,  either  of  my  friend  from 
Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley],  or  of  these  gentlemen 
who  argue  that,  under  the  principles  of  the  Res- 
olutions of  1798,  counties,  like  States,  are  equal, 
and  every  county  ought  to  have  one  Representa- 
tive. That  appears  to  be  the  idea  of  some  of  these 
gentlemen  representing  these  small  counties,  a 
sort  of  a county  right  brought  in  as  a State  right. 
There  is  no  analogy  between  the  two  cases. 
We  simply  ask  that  there  should  be  representa- 
tion according  to  population,  and  the  feeling  of 
the  people  of  the  State,  I have  no  doubt,  is 
unanimous  for  it.  There  cannot  be  any  party 
advantage  in  the  matter,  because,  as  far  as  these 
floats,  or  additional  members,  are  concerned, 
they  are  divided  half  and  half,  and,  therefore,  no 
element  of  that  sort  can  enter  into  this  contest. 
I do  hope,  therefore,  that  the  present  Constitu- 
tion will  not  be  changed  in  that  respect,  but 
that  members  will  vote  in  that  third  section 
which  was  stricken  out  in  this  Report. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  this 
provision  is  not  more  favorable  to  large  coun- 
ties than  under  the  present  Constitution  ? if  un- 
der the  present  Constitution  it  does  not  require 
a three-fourths  ratio  to  entitle  the  county  to 
another  Representative,  and  if  they  do  not 
make  under  this  a provision  for  one-half  a 
ratio  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  My  reply  to  the  gentleman  is 
simply  this  : This  provision  only  affects  ?ome 
five  counties,  and  canndt,  by  any  possibility, 
affect  any  others,  unless  it  be  Franklin  and 
Montgomery,  which  they  took  great  care  to  stop 
at,  as  soon  as  they  found  it  was  going  to  act 
favorably  to  them.  The  counties  of  Belmont, 
Butler,  Columbiana,  Trumbull  and  Washington 
are  the  only  counties  in  any  way  affected  by 
that  provision.  It  was  stopped  as  soon  as  it 
commenced  to  be  beneficial  to  any  other  coun- 
ties. This  provision  of  one-half  would  not  do 
any  good  to  these  eighteen  or  twenty  medium 
counties,  and,  therefore,  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  does  not  apply  to  those  counties. 
These  other  counties  will  never  be  reached  by 
this  one  and  a half  ratio  allowing  two  members. 
There  is  no  probability  of  it.  If  anybody  will 
examine  the  census,  they  will  see  that  this  half 
ratio  will  never  affect  but  five  or  eight  counties. 
That  is  no  reason  why  we  should  deprive  eight- 
een other  counties  of  their  additional  repre- 
sentation they  are  now  entitled  to  under  the 
Constitution;  and  1 do  not  think  the  people 
sent  us  here  for  any  such  purpose. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  We  have  heard  here  a great 
deal  upon  this  floor  of  the  concession  that  has 
been  made  to  the  small  counties.  They  talk  as 
though  they  had  made  a great  concession  to 
these  counties.  The  large  counties,  by  this 
section,  are  not  conceding  to  the  small  counties 


1624 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION, 

Gurley,  Burns,  Ewing,  Baber,  Kerr. 


[123rd 

[Wednesday, 


more  than  the  small  counties  are  conceding  to 
the  large  ones.  Under  the  provisions  of  the 
present  Constitution,  before  a county  can  be 
entitled  to  two  Representatives  she  must  have 
one  and  three-fourths  ratio.  The  Committee 
took  this  whole  matter  under  consideration, 
determined  to  cutoff  this  fractional  voting,  and 
to  compensate  for  the  concession,  as  they  claim 
it,  on  behalf  of  the  small  counties,  to  provide  j 
that  every  county  that  should  have  one  and  a 
half  ratio,  should  be  entitled  to  two  Represent-  | 
atives.  The  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  j 
Ewing]  says  this  is  a bungling  provision,  and 
he  does  not  claim  any  advantage  from  it,  j 
and  that  the  large  counties  do  not  want  any  i 
such  provision.  They  have  a provision  pre-  I 
cisely  the  same  in  the  present  Constitution,  only  j 
requiring  three-fourths  instead  of  one-half,  to  ( 
entitle  them  to  two  Representatives;  and  I can 
not  see,  nor  have  I heard  of  any  good  reason  ' 
why  a county,  after  she  shall  have  two  Repre- 1 
sentatives  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  she 
should  not  have  her  full  ratio  to  entitle  her  to  ! 
three  Representatives.  What  is  the  object  of 
establishing  ratios  at  all  ? Why  do  we  say  that 
25,000  people  shall  be  entitled  to  one  Repre- 
sentative, and  one  only,  and  then  go  on  and 
violate  that  principle — go  on  and  frame  an  Ar- 
ticle that  is  not  in  conformity  with  that  prin- 
ciple ? 

Mr.  BURKS.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man a question  right  here.  If  we  lay  down  the 
principle  that  25,000  inhabitants  shall  be  en- 
titled to  a Representative,  are  we  not  equally  j 
violating  that  when  we  give  a county  that,  that  j 
has  only  8,000,  a Representative  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I have  heard  a good  deal 
about  Paulding  county — poor  little  Paulding.  | 

Mr.  BURKS.  I shall  instance  the  gentle- 
man’s own  county,  a county  with  but  about 
18,000. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  When  it  comes  down  to  that, 
I regard  the  little  counties  in  our  State  Legis- 
lature, as  the  salt  of  the  earth,  and  I do  not 
know  but  they  are  here,  in  this  Convention.  I 
consider  that  it  is  a necessity  that  they  should 
have  a Representative  upon  the  floor,  or  in  our 
Legislature. 

Mr.  BURKS.  Unless  the  salt  has  lost  its 
savor. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  It  has  not  lost  its  savor. 

Mr.  BURKS.  How  about  the  rural  roosters? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  If  I am  able  to  comprehend 
the  argument  of  the  member  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  and  the  gentleman  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns];  they  each  concede  that  the  so- 
called  small  counties  are  entitled  to  one  Repre- 
sentative. Then  why,  if  it  is  necessary  for  the  ! 
common  welfare  and  the  common  interest  of ! 
our  State  that  they  should  have  a Represen ta-  ; 
tive,  call  it  a concession,  if  an  absolute  neces- 1 
sity  ? If  you  call  it  a concession,  then  do  we 
not  compensate  you  for  this  concession,  if  you  j 
please  thus  to  call  it,  when  we  turn  around  I 
and  concede  to  you  an  additional  representa-  j 
tion  for  half  a ratio  ? 

Mr.  EWIKG.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  interrupt  him? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EWIKG.  You  say  the  concession  of  the 
small  to  the  large  counties  is  in  allowing  to 
each  one-half  ratio  an  additional  Representa- 


tive. But  it  so  happens  that  there  are  many 
more  counties  in  the  State  having  a population 
of  more  than  one  ratio,  and  less  than  one  and 
a-half,  than  there  are  counties  that  have  one 
and  a-half  ratios  and  less  than  two ; and  you 
cut  off  from  the  large  number  of  counties  that 
have  more  than  one  and  less  than  one  and  a-half, 
from  any  representation  on  account  of  their 
surplus,  and  give  a Representative  on  account  of 
their  surplus  to  the  few  counties  having  between 
one  and  a half  and  two;  you  thus  cut  off  from 
one  side  much  more  than  you  add  to  the  other. 
This  is  no  concession  to  the  large  counties. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  knows  that 
the  concession  does  not  affect  but  five  counties. 
He  calls  it  a concession  to  five  counties,  while 
it  deprives  eighteen  counties  of  what  the  Con- 
stitution now  gives  them. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  This  discussion  must  be  stir- 
ring gentlemen  up,  and  I am  glad  to  see  it. 
The  gentleman  will  see,  if  he  will  take  the 
trouble  to  examine,  that  most  of  the  so-called 
small  counties  have,  at  the  present  time,  nearly 
a ratio.  Some  of  them  have  20,000,  some  23,000, 
and  some  24,000.  It  is  no  concession  to  these 
counties;  for,  before  this  decade  shall  have 
passed  away,  they  will  have  a full  ratio ; so  it 
is  no  concession  to  them  whatever.  The  gentle- 
men are  only  looking  at  one  side  of  this  matter, 
and  regarding  these  counties  as  small;  but  the 
truth  is,  that  the  majority  of  them,  or  a large 
number  of  them,  have  nearly  a ratio,  and  it 
was  thought  proper  by  the  entire  Committee, 
that  these  counties  should  be  entitled  to  a Rep- 
resentative, and,  in  consideration  of  this  con- 
cession, the  Committee  recommend  that  a 
county  that  has  one  and  one-half  ratio,  shall 
have  two  Representatives.  I can  see  no  good 
reason  why  a county  that  has  two  Representa- 
tives shall  have  an  additional  one  until  she  shall 
have  a full  ratio. 

Mr.  KERR.  I hope  that  this  plan,  which  has 
operated  so  well  under  the  old  Constitution, 
will  not  be  rejected  in  the  one  we  are  about 
proposing.  It  appears  to  me  so  equitable, 
and  so  just,  and  so  reasonable,  even  if  there  is 
no  concession  made,  after  the  liberal  arrange- 
ment that  we  propose  to  make  with  forty-seven 
counties,  all  of  which  have  less  than  a ratio, 
and  twenty-six  of  them  have  less  than  twenty 
thousand  inhabitants,  and  one  down  as  low  as 
eight  thousand — after  this  liberal  ratio  to  them, 
it  cannot  be  said  that  there  is  no  concession ; 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  a county  like  the  one 
that  I represent,  with  eight  or  ten  thousand  over 
a ratio,  should  have  some  representation  during 
the  decennial  period  for  that  surplus  population. 
While  there  are  forty-seven  counties  that  are  to 
be  allotted  one  Representative  each,  though  their 
population  is  less  than  a ratio,  there  are  only 
five  counties,  as  has  been  stated,  that  will  be 
benefited  by  giving  one  Representative  for  the 
half  ratio.  So  far  as  I am  concerned,  I would, 
perhaps,  be  in  favor  of  abandoning  any  repre- 
sentation for  half  ratios,  and  adopting  the 
single  Representative  system,  cumulating  frac- 
tions and  letting  floats  be  represented  instead  of 
a one-half  ratio.  I do  hope,  Mr.  President  and 
gentlemen,  that  the  Representatives  of  the  small 
counties  will  be  considerate  in  reference  to  this 
matter.  It  was  only  two  or  three  years  ago 
that  the  county  I represent,  Licking,  had  two 


1625 


Day.] APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

February  25,  1874.]  Kerr,  Gurley,  Dorsey,  Powell,  Greene,  Horton,  etc. 


members  of  the  House  of  Representatives ; and 
it  is  certainly  a matter  of  importance  to  us;  it 
is  a matter  of  importance  to  all  of  these  coun- 
ties, that  they  should  have  this  additional  rep- 
resentation. Our  surplus  is  ten  or  eleven  thou- 
sand, and  that  certainly  ought  to  have  some 
consideration,  when  a county  of  only  8,000  and 
a fraction  is  entitled  to  a Representative ; aYid  I 
do  hope  gentlemen  will  concede  to  us  this  right, 
that  we  think  we  are  entitled  to.  Let  us  make 
an  equitable  and  honorable  arrangement  in  re- 
gard to  this  matter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  that  the  amendment  be 
read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“When  any  county  shall  have  a fraction  above  the  ratio, 
so  large  that  being  multiplied  by  five,  the  result  will  be 
equal  to  one  or  more  ratios,  additional  representation 
shall  be  apportioned  for  such  ratios  among  the  General 
Assemblies  of  the  decennial  period  in  the  following  man- 
ner: 

“If  there  be  one  ratio,  the  ratio  shall  be  allotted  to  the 
fifth  General  Assembly  of  the  decennial  period.  If  there 
are  two  ratios,  a ratio  shall  be  allotted  to  the  lourth  and 
third  General  Assemblies,  respectively.  If  three,  to  the 
third,  second  and  first  General  Assemblies,  respectively. 
If  four,  to  the  fourth,  third,  second  and  first  General  As- 
semblies, respectively.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  49,  nays  15,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were  — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Beer,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay, 
Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Gardner,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Horton,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer,  McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mullen, 
Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell, 
Reilly,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shaw,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Steedman,  Townsend, 
Townsley,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 19. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Gurley, 
Herron,  Mueller,  Neal,  Pease,  Pratt,  Sears,  Tul- 
loss,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  White  of  Hock- 
ing— 15. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment as  an  additional  section : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“If  in  fixing  any  subsequent  ratio  any  county  is  found 
to  have  less  than  one-third  of  the  population  contained 
in  said  .ratio,  then  said  county  shall  be  attached  to  the 
countv  joining  having  the  least  number  of  inhabitants, 
and  the  representation  of  the  district  so  formed  shall  be 
determined  as  herein  provided.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
I think  we  have  already  taken  a vote  retaining 
the  provision  that  each  county  shall  be  entitled 
to  one  Representative. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I understand  that  perfectly 
well,  and  I know  that  the  proposition  to  fix  the 
ratio  of  representation  at  one  half  has  been 


voted  down,  but  this  is  a different  proposition 
entirely.  It  provides  that  if  in  fixing  any  sub- 
sequent ratio  a county  falls  below  one-third  of 
the  required  ratio  it  shall  be  attached  to  another 
county.  I beg  leave  to  say  to  the  Convention, 
that  I do  think  this  is  a matter  of  importance. 
I will  not  consume  the  time  of  the  Convention 
in  arguing  it.  I wish  simply  to  call  their  at- 
tention to  one  single  fact.  Our  system  of  rail- 
roads is  from  day  to  day  fixing  large  centers  of 
trade  and  manufacture  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 
We  know  that  the  population  in  the  agricul- 
tural districts  does  not  increase  at  all,  but  it 
diminishes.  It  increases  only  in  the  centers, 
and  the  number  of  towns  that  increase  is  be- 
coming, with  every  decade,  smaller  and  smaller, 
and  in  a very  few  years  that  will  take  place  in 
Ohio  which  has  taken  place  in  the  old  States. 
Population  will  be  gathered  in  the  fixed  cen- 
ters of  trade  and  the  fixed  centers  of  manufac- 
ture. Certain  parts  of  the  State  wfill  become 
thinner  and  thinner  in  population.  The  min- 
ing districts  will  increase  also ; the  mining  and 
trading  districts  will  increase,  and  the  agri- 
cultural districts  will  decrease.  We  want  to 
give  them  their  fair  proportion  according  to 
population ; we  should  not  be  expected  to  give 
them  more  than  that,  and  we  only  provide  that, 
when  any  county  falls  below  one-third  of  a 
ratio,  it  shall  cease  to  have  a separate  represen- 
tation and  be  attached  to  the  county  contiguous 
to  it  having  the  smallest  number  of  inhabitants. 
That  is  all.  I shall  not  argue  this  subject  at 
all.  I say  as  a matter  of  principle  the  thing  is 
right. 

Mr.  POWELL.  If  you  give  the  ratio  one 
half  now,  why  do  you  not  adhere  to  it? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  struck  that  out.  If  that 
had  been  kept  in,  I would  not  have  offered  this 
additional  section  at  all;  but  it  was  because  that 
was  stricken  out  that  I think,  by  way  of  abun- 
dant caution,  as  this  can  do  no  harm  and  it  may 
in  time  do  much  good,  it  should  be  inserted.  It 
may  be  twenty  years  before  it  goes  into  opera- 
tion. It  may  be  more.  There  is  a bare  possi- 
bility ; but  I do  not  believe  that  it  is  so,  that  it 
may  never  come  into  operation. 

Mr.  GREENE.  Is  it  not  an  argument  for 
aboilishing  the  county  when  it  gets  so? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  have  no  right  to  abolish 
a county.  We  have  no  right  to  abolish  the  or- 
ganization at  all ; but  if  it  should  happen  that 
it  falls  below  a ratio,  it  is  no  longer  entitled  to 
representation.  I am  not  going  to  argue  the 
question  that  I have  submitted  to  the  Conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I trust  this  proposition  will 
not  prevail.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  if  it  is 
worth  while  to  keep  up  a county  organization 
at  all,  there  ought  to  be  representation  to  that 
county,  and  when  a county  becomes  so  insig- 
nificant and  so  small  that  it  is  not  worth  rep- 
resentation in  the  General  Assembly,  it  is  not 
worthy  to  be  continued  as  a county;  and 
when  that  time  arrives,  some  mode  should  be 
provided  by  which  the  county  organization 
should  be  wiped  out.  A county  is  a unit,  and 
for  certain  purposes  it  ought  to  be  represent- 
ed as  an  organization.  Its  people  have  a 
unity  of  interest,  a unity  of  feeling,  and  a 
unity  of  purpose,  and  I submit  that  no 


1626 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. [123rd 


Horton,  Burns,  Pease,  Gurley,  Clay,  Pratt.  [Wednesday, 


county  in  the  State  will  ever  become  so 
small  that  its  people  will  he  satisfied  to  be 
deprived  of  their  Representative  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  they 
never  ought  to  be  required  to  be  without  such 
a Representative.  As  has  been  well  said,  the 
argument  which  goes  to  deprive  them  of  rep- 
resentation would  become  a conclusive  reason 
why  they  should  not  have  their  organization  as 
a county;  but,  so  long  as  it  is  proper  for  a 
county  organization  to  be  kept  up,  I trust  that 
the  representation  thereof  in  the  General  As- 
sembly will  be  continued. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  1 simply  desire  to  say  that  1 
cannot  vote  for  the  proposition.  Having 
adopted  the  section  which  provides  that  each 
county  shall  have  a Representative,  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  Convention  has  fixed  that  matter. 
Looking  over  the  map,  I find  but  one  county  in 
the  State  that  would  fall  below  the  limit. 

A MEMBER.  Paulding  does  not  fall  below. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Paulding  comes  very  near  it. 
It  is  but  very  little  above  it.  But  it  would  not 
matter,  Mr.  President,  if  it  had  only  six  thousand 
inhabitants,  when  we'have  adopted  the  principle 
that  each  county  shall  have  a Representative. 
I insist  that  that  principle  shall  be  maintained 
throughout  the  life  of  this  Constitution.  If,  by 
any  means  whatever,  counties  which  now  have 
half  a ratio  shall  be  depopulated  so  as  to  fall 
to  one-third  or  less,  I still  insist  that  they  shall 
have  a Representative  in  the  General  Assem- 
bly. The  principle,  if  a proper  one,  should  be 
maintained,  without  reference  to  the  number  of 
inhabitants,  unless  it  becomes  entirely  depopu- 
lated, and  has  no  inhabitants  at  all. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I had  supposed  that  when  we 
had  voted  for  the  proposition  to  give  each 
county  a Representative,  there  would  be  no  at- 
tempt to  get  rid  of  that  principle,  if  it  may  be 
called  such.  In  addition  to  the  suggestions 
which  have  already  been  made,  to  the  effect 
that  a county,  as  a political  organization,  ought 
to  have,  and  is  entitled  to  have,  its  Representa- 
tive, I have  another  reason  to  suggest  why  that 
distinction  should  be  made.  It  is  true  that,  in 
the  progress  of  time,  and  in  the  development 
of  the  railroad  interests  of  the  land,  the  larger 
towns,  the  manufacturing  towns,  are  growing 
rapidly.  Their  increase  comes  largely  from 
the  country — from  the  agricultural  districts — 
and  this  has  a tendency  to  depopulate  those  ag- 
ricultural districts.  Now,  it  is  easily  seen  that, 
when  these  people  are  thus  called  from  the  ag- 
ricultural districts  to  the  manufacturing  dis- 
tricts, their  interests  become  different.  A Rep- 
resentative who  could  well  enough  represent 
the  interests  of  a manufacturing  district,  may 
not  represent  correctly  the  interests  of  an  agri- 
cultural district.  Now,  although  the  principle 
suggested  by  this  resolution  would  give  an  ad- 
ditional representation  to  the  manufacturing 
district,  it  would  take  away  entirely  the  repre- 
sentation from  the  agricultural  district.  I say 
that  is  not  right.  Although  I am  not  a Granger, 
and  am  not  authorized  to  speak  for  the  Grangers, 
I believe  that,  if  a Convention  of  Grangers 
could  be  heard  upon  that  subject,  they  would 
be  heard  to  present  their  protest  against  any 
such  provision  as  this  in  the  organic  law,  as 
would  create  a mode  of  wiping  out  that  class 
of  representation.  While  I concede  that  the 


manufacturing  interest  is  a great  interest,  and 
should  be  well  guarded,  I claim  that  the  agri- 
cultural interest  is  as  great,  and  should  not  be 
overlooked.  The  whole  interest  of  the  State, 
the  whole  interest  of  the  people,  everything  of 
that  kind  is  grounded  at  last  upon  the  agricul- 
tural interest,  in  the  interests  that  work  the 
soil.  Now,  I protest  against  anything  that  will 
tend  to  take  away  the  proper  representation 
of  that  interest. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  One  word  in  addition  to  the 
remarks  that  have  already  been  made.  I un- 
derstand that  there  lias  been  a point  of  order 
taken  by  the  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr. 
Sears].  I consider  it  well  taken.  Can  we  do 
here  indirectly  what  we  cannot  do  directly? 
This  Convention  has  already  determined  that 
each  county  shall  have  one  Representative. 
Now,  this  proposition,  if  it  means  anything, 
means  that  some  time  in  the  future  may  come 
when  this  provision  shall  become  nugatory  and 
void.  It  is  a proposition  to  take  away  what  we 
have  provided  for.  Gentlemen  have  made  use 
of  the  argument  that  they  have  made  a great 
concession  to  the  small  counties ; and  they  have 
made  this  the  lever  by  which  they  have  obtained 
representation  for  these  fractions;  and  now, 
having  accomplished  their  object,  by  aid  of  the 
vote  of  the  small  counties,  they  have  turned 
round  to  fasten  this  fractional  representation 
upon  us.  Gentlemen  turn  about  very  coolly, 
after  we  have  helped  them  to  that  proposition, 
and  now  desire  to  take  away  this  principle  of 
county  representation,  a proceeding  which,  I 
think,  is  pretty  tolerably  cool. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I have  very  great  respect  and 
confidence  in  the  ability  and  knowledge  of  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  on  the 
subject  under  consideration.  I was  compelled 
to  vote  for  the  amendment  that  has  just  passed. 
This  amendment  I am  compelled  to  vote  against. 
I have  not,  however,  lost  any  respect  for  the 
ability,  integrity  and  honesty  of  the  gentle- 
man. I have  felt  myself  sorely  persecuted,  as 
the  Representative  of  a large  county,  by  some  of 
those  gentlemen  who  represent  counties  which 
should  never  have  been  formed  into  counties, 
and  which  ought  to  belong  to  other  counties, 
and  once  did,  I believe.  Yeti  shall  vote  that 
they  shall  have  a Representative  each,  for  I be- 
lieve that  every  county  ought  to  have  a Repre- 
sentative; and  while  some  are  called  counties 
and  have  an  existence  simply  because  other 
counties  consented  to  it,  I am  willing  they 
should  have  a Representative,  notwithstanding 
the  larger  counties  so  far  exceed  them  in  busi- 
ness, wealth  and  population.  Even  if  a county 
has  but  five  thousand  population,  I shall  vote 
against  this  amendment  being  made  to  apply 
to  it. 

I have  but  little  more  to  say.  I want  those 
gentlemen  who  represent  smaller  counties  to 
understand  that  I feel  friendly  towards  them, 
and  am  willing  that  there  should  be  a Repre- 
sentative for  every  county,  no  matter  what  the 
population. 

Mr.  PRATT.  All  of  which  we  accept  with 
gratitude. 

Mr.  CLAY.  But  the  Representatives  of  the 
larger  counties,  considering  the  business,  wealth 
and  population,  do  feel  it  to  the  quick  when 
gentlemen  so  strenuously  oppose  us.  Without 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

Clay,  Baber,  Dorsey,  Sears. 


1627 


Day.] 

February  25,  1874.] 


intending  any  disrespect  to  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  I am  compelled  to  vote 
against  this  amendment. 

Mr.  BABER.  I should  not  have  said  any- 
thing, if  it  had  not  been  for  the  very  Christian 
spirit  exhibited  by  the  gentleman  from  Mont- 
gomery [Mr.  Clay]  who,  in  the  hands  of  these 
Representatives  of  the  small  counties,  appears 
to  be  like  clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter.  Af- 
ter he  has  been  slapped  full  in  the  face  by  these 
gentlemen  upon  the  equitable  proposition  that 
the  county  of  Montgomery,  with  a fractional 
surplus  of  over  13,000,  should  have  an  addi- 
tional Representative,  after  he  had  meekly 
voted  a Representative  to  the  county  of  Paul- 
ding, with  a population  of  eight  thousand,  it 
strikes  me  that  he  is  an  illustration  of  Christian 
virtue  in  this  Convention — when  you  strike 
him  on  the  one  cheek,  he  turns  to  you  the  other 
also. 

I have  no  feeling  on  this  subject,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. My  county  is  not  interested  in  this  mat- 
ter. It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  when  gen- 
tlemen upon  this  floor  denounce  the  principle 
of  the  old  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
under  which  we  have  lived  for  over  twenty 
years,  and  which  fixes  a half  ratio  as  the  amount 
of  population  necessary  to  have  a Representa- 
tive, and  which  principle  has  been  struck  out 
by  this  Convention,  I do  not  think  there  is 
any  argument  in  it.  I am  perfectly  willing 
that  these  county  organizations  should  have  a 
Representative  as  long  as  they  have  any  sem- 
blance of  population  to  entitle  them  to  one.  But 
I do  not  want  it  in  Ohio  as  it  is  in  the  State  of 
Connecticut,  where,  under  the  Constitution  of 
that  State,  there  are  towns  now  with  only  two 
hundred  voters  that  are  entitled  to  two  Repre- 
sentatives in  the  General  Assembly  of  that 
State,  while  the  great  cities  of  Hartford  and 
New  Haven  are  entitled  to  only  two.  I tell 
you,  gentlemen  may  talk  of  minority  represent- 
ation, but  they  are  endeavoring  to  fasten  upon 
us  the  meanest  kind  of  minority  representation, 
that  is,  representation  according  to  the  rotten 
borough  system — a representation  of  small 
counties  that  have  really  ceased,  in  effect,  to  be 
counties  by  the  loss  of  their  population.  I do 
hope  this  Convention  will  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
bey].  The  one-half  ratio  principle  was  voted 
down  by  a vote  of  thirty-two  to  thirty-nine,  in 
the  absence  of  a large  number  of  gentlemen ; 
and  I think  that,  in  justice,  we  should  put 
this  provision  in  the  Constitution.  We  will 
give  this  county  of  Paulding  a member ; we  will 
give  these  other  counties  members ; but  when- 
ever they  cease  to  have  one-third  of  the  ratio,  I 
think  that  they  ought  to  be  attached,  under  the 
provisions  of  the  present  Constitution,  to  an 
adjoining  county.  It  is  asking  entirely  too 
much  of  us,  to  ask  us  to  vote  for  the  establish- 
ment of  this  kind  of  representation  here.  Why, 
Mr.  President,  the  county  of  Paulding  now  has 
scarcely  over  one-third  of  the  population  which 
entitles  her  to  her  Representative.  Let  her 
take  her  Representative.  I do  not  propose  to 
disturb  the  matter.  She  got  that  representa- 
tion by  a close  vote.  I want  a provision  incor- 
porated in  the  Constitution  which  will  meet  the 
case  of  counties  falling  under  this  ratio,  which 
will  be  increasing  all  the  time.  I do  not  want 


any  rotten  boroughs  established  here  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  and  I want  a yea  and  nay  vote, 
so  that  the  people  hereafter  may  know  who  in 
this  Convention  are  in  favor  of  the  old  English 
rotten  borough  system. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  One  word  more,  and  I will 
not  detain  the  Convention.  So  far  as  the  point 
of  order  which  the  gentleman  from  Morrow 
[Mr.  Gurley]  attempted  to  establish  is  concern- 
ed, I want  to  say  to  that  gentleman  that  as  a 
matter  of  course,  this  Constitution  is  to  be  inter- 
preted as  a whole,  and  not  by  any  one  single  sec- 
tion. As  the  State  of  Ohio  exists  now,  we  have 
voted  to  give  every  county  a Representative. 
Very  well,  let  it  be  so.  I am  willing  to  submit. 
But  I am  looking  to  a state  of  things  which  may 
very  well  occur ; and  in  the  case  of  counties 
falling  below  one-third  of  the  ratio  required 
for  a Representative,  I hold  that  they  are  m> 
longer  entitled  to  representation  : I do  not  care 
whether  they  are  agricultural  or  what  they  may 
be.  The  simple  fact,  that,  as  a general  rule,, 
they  will  be  agricultural  ought  not  to  be  taken 
into  consideration.  I would  say  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Stark  [Mr  Pease]  that  the  argument 
which  he  made  is  precisely  the  argument  which 
was  made  in  favor  of  the  rotten  borough  sys- 
tem in  England.  “There  is  landed  property, ,y 
they  said,  “and  it  ought  to  be  represented.” 
The  gentleman  says  that  the  agriculturist 
should  be  heard ; the  agriculturist  should  be 
represented.  Agreed:  they  should  be  repre- 
sented ; but  I do  not  hold  that  because  a man 
happens  to  live  in  the  country  and  cultivates  a 
farm,  that,  therefore,  he  is  entitled  to  three 
times  as  much  representation  in  the  State  of 
Ohio  as  a man  who  lives  in  town  and  works  in 
a factory.  I do  not  believe  it.  It  is  not  Repub- 
licanism. It  is  not  Democracy.  It  is  not  right. 
It  is  not  just.  Therefore,  I hope  the  amend- 
ment will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I regard  this  system  of  county 
representation  as  absolutely  essential  to  any 
fair  apportionment  of  the  State,  unless  we  en- 
tirely disregard  county  lines.  It  seems  to  me 
there  is  no  other  alternative ; and  I hope  that 
this  Convention  will  again,  and  as  often  as  nec- 
essary, affirm  that  great  principle.  This  is  a 
proposition  rather  insidious  in  its  character — 
drawn  up  in  the  hope  that  we  may  some  time 
find  small  counties  that  may  be  deprived  of 
Representatives ; for  unless  that  contingency  is 
to  occur,  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  provi- 
sion at  all.  When  it  does  occur,  we  are  called 
upon  not  only  to  violate  this  principle  which  I 
have  alluded  to,  but  to  punish  some  neighbor- 
ing county  for  being  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
small  county.  We  deprive  that  county  of  rep- 
resentation, also.  It  may  well  happen  that  the 
county  thus  attached  shall  override,  control, 
and  change  the  representation  of  the  county  to 
which  it  is  attached,  and  that,  certainly,  ought 
not  to  be. 

Objection  was  made  to  the  demand  for  the 
yeas  and  nays,  but  the  demand  was  sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  12,  nays  51,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Cowen,  Dorsey,  Hale,  Mitch- 
ener,  Powell,  Shaw,  Townsley,  Yan  Yoorhis, 
Waddle,  Woodbury,  President — 12. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 


1628 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION.  [123rd  Day. 


Dorsey. 


[Wednesday,  Feb.  25, 1874. 


Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Blose,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats, 
Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Godfrey, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Horton,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer,  McBride,  Miller,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal, 
Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sears,  Shultz, 
Steedman,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shel- 
by, Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Voorhes,  Voris, 
White  of  Hocking,  Young"  of  Noble — 51. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  have  now  gotten  through 
with  the  material  connected  with  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  House,  with  the  exception  of  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Portage  [Mr.  Horton],  and  that  has  been  laid 
over,  because  several  of  the  delegates  from 
Hamilton  county,  who  are,  of  course,  very 
much  interested  in  the  matter,  are  absent. 
They  will  not  be  here  to-day,  and  as  the  gentle- 
men would  like  to  have  that  matter  completed 
before  anything  further  is  done  on  this  Proposi- 
tion, I move  the  Convention  do  now  adjourn. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded  upon  the 


motion  to  adjourn.  Objection  was  made,  but 
the  demand  was  sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  35,  nays  31,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Beer, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Dorsey,  Ewing,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Horton,  Kerr,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey, 
Page,  Philips,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Steedman, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Towns- 
ley,  Voris,  Waddle,  Young  of  Noble,  President 
—35. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Clay,  Coats, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kraemer,  Mc- 
Bride, Miller,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Pond,  Powell,  Reilly,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Ty- 
ler, Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  White  of  Hocking, 
Woodbury — 31. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:10  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


STATIONERY  USED  BY  THE  CONVENTION, 

Voris,  Neal,  Kerr,  Blose,  Coats,  Hill. 


1629 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-FOURTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SIXTY-SECOND  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  S.  A.  Collins,  of  the  Fifth 
Street  Baptist  Church  of  Cincinnati. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  76  members  answered 
to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Adair  to-day,  on  account  of  sickness. 

The  Journal  of  yesterday  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

petitions. 

Mr.  YORIS  presented  the  petition  of  Sophia 
L.  O.  Allen,  and  46  other  citizens  of  Geauga 
county,  praying  for  equal  suffrage  of  all  citi- 
zens without  regard  to  sex. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Select  Committee 
on  Woman  Suffrage. 

Mr.  NEAL  presented  the  resolution  of  the 
Board  of  Trade  of  Ironton,  Lawrence  county, 
relative  to  taxation. 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  the  same,  as 
follows : 

Resolved , By  the  Ironton  Board  of  Trade, 

That  the  present  tax  laws  are  oppressive  to  the  mer- 
cantile and  manufacturing  interests  of  the  State. 

The  above  adopted  February  23, 1874. 

E.  McMillin,  Sec’y. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Revenue  and  Taxation. 

Mr.  KERR  presented  the  petition  of  Joseph 
Black,  and  140  other  citizens  of  Ashland 
county,  praying  for  prohibition  of  the  liquor 
traffic. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  BLOSE  presented  the  petition  of  Jno. 

F.  Harrison,  Geo.  Spence,  and  20  other  citizens 
of  Clarke  county,  asking  the  Constitutional 
Convention  to  so  provide  in  the  new  Constitu- 
tion as  to  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of  town- 
ship trustees  all  territory  within  the  limits  of 
their  respective  townships  which  is  included 
within  the  corporate  limits  of  cities  of  the  first 
and  second  classes. 

Which  was  laid  upon  the  table  to  be  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  Proposition  189. 

Mr.  COATS  presented  the  petition  of  Wm. 

G.  March,  and  301  other  citizens  of  Union 
county,  asking  that  in  framing  a new  Consti- 
tution a clause  be  inserted  giving  the  Legisla- 
ture full  and  ample  power  to  limit  or  entirely 


Thursday,  February  26,  1874. 

prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxi- 
cating drinks,  and  declare  what  drinks  are  in- 
toxicating; also,  that  power  be  given  to  the 
Legislature  to  enact  laws,  granting  powers  to 
cities,  towns  and  villages  to  limit  and  prohibit 
such  sales. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  HILL  submitted  the  following  Report : 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  ACCOUNTS  AND 
EXPENSES. 

The  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses,  to  which 
was  referred  Resolution  No.  166,  instructing  said  Com- 
mittee to  report  the  cost  for  stationery  furnished  this 
Convention  to  the  1st  of  February,  1874,  and  the  amount 
for  each  delegate,  having  had  the  same  under  considera- 
tion, make  the  following  Report: 

Stationery  drawn  on  requisition  fronthe  office  of 
the  Secretary  of  State  prior  to  Aug.  2,  1873 $3,514  98 


Do.,  purchased  elsewhere 98  30 

Stationery  purchased  in  Cincinnati,  of  J.  R. 

Mills  & Co.,  and  covered  by  requisition,  from 

Dec.  2, 1873,  to  February  1,  1874 686  00 

Total $4,299  28 

Deduct  stationery  used  by  Secretaries  of 

the  Convention $ 75  00 

Deduct  stationery  used  by  Reporters 225  00  $300  00 

Balance « 3,999  28 


The  amount  alleged  to  have  been  used  by  members, 
er  capita,. including  Committees,  is  a fraction  less  than 
10. 

G.  W.  Hill, 

Wm.  J.  Young, 

J.  H.  Blose, 

J.  Mueller, 

Committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  HILL.  Since  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Accounts  and  Expenses  has  been 
twice  called  to  the  subject  of  stationery,  and 
the  manner  of  its  distribution  among  the  mem- 
bers and  officers  of  the  Convention,  it  may  be 
deemed  appropriate  that  a few  explanations 
should  be  made. 

The  duty  imposed  is  an  exceedingly  un- 
pleasant one ; but,  nevertheless,  the  Committee 
has  endeavored  to  respond  frankly  to  the  in- 
quiries of  the  Convention.  Such  investigations 
are  always  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  because 
constructions  wholly  unwarranted  by  the  facts 
are  given. 

Upon  the  request  of  the  Convention  by  reso- 
lution, the  Secretary  of  State  furnished  the 
Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses  a detailed 
statement  of  all  the  stationery  supplied  this 
body  up  to  and  including  the  2d  day  of  August , 
1873. 


1630 


WHAT  THE  STATE  PAYS  FOR  STATIONERY. 


[124th 


Hill. 


[Thursday, 


After  that  statement  had  been  received,  the 
Committee  required  him  to  produce  the  requi- 
sitions of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms,  covering  the 
amount  of  stationery  furnished.  The  requisi- 
tions were  produced,  carefully  compared,  and 
found  in  every  instance  correct.  The  stationery 
so  covered  by  requisitions  of  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  was  traced  into  the  possession  of  that 
officer. 

That  the  Convention  may  be  enabled  to  judge 
fairly,  I will  read  the  detail  ed  statement  of  the 
Secretary  of  State : 


Statement  showing  the  amount  and  value  of  Stationery 
■and  other  articles  issued  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  to 
August  2, 1873. 

17%  gross  lead  pencils $189  90 

128  gross  steel  pens 112  99 

10TV  gross  quill  pens 18150 

7%  gross  pen  holders 63  60 

25  ruling  pens 18  75 

161  rubber  rulers 129  31 

6 japanned  rulers 75 

4 gross  engrossingpens 3 60 

11  doz.  red  and  blue  pencils 11  60 

2/o  gross  scissors  and  shears 261  62% 

17  doz.  metal  erasers 93  00 

13%  doz.  artist  gum  rubbers 19  49 

15 % doz.  paper  folders  (ivory) 78  50 

10  quires  flat  cap  paper 2 80 

10XV  “ “ letter  paper 3 67 

9%  “ medium  paper 9 67 

1 “ steel  blue  paper  for  rules 8 40 

30  reams  legal  cap  paper 231  00 

6%  “ journal  paper 50  00 

23  “ fool’s  cap  paper 161  00 

31  “ letter  paper 155  00 

58  “ note  paper 179  50 

5/5  “ post  office  paper 47  00 

2%  “ reporter’s  paper 23  07 

2 “ Olentangycap 7 60 

1 quire  Manilla  paper 83 

589  sheets  blotting  paper 58  90 

49  qt.  bottles  Arnold’s  ink 42  90 

3%  doz.  bottles  carmine  ink 24  00 

228  Silman’s  ink  stands 144  63 

1 % doz.  wisp  brooms 4 75 

3 feather  dusters 11  50 

144  sponge  cups 24  00 

10  tumblers 1 67 

15%  doz.  cake  soap 52  10 

18%  doz.  bottles  mucilage 47  50 

% gal.  mucilage 2 00 

150  small  sponges 22  50 

6 large  sponges 5 10 

308  blank  books 233  75 

2 portfolios 1 60 

14  gross  rubber  bands 21  20 

19x5  doz  spools  tape 68  95 

13  caddies  matches 26  00 


.5  paste  brushes 

23  boxes  paper  fasteners. 

2 spring  punches 

3 McGill’s  presses 

2 letter  clips 

2 cork  screws 

2 boxes  eyelets 

1 bill  file 

10  paper  weights 

13%  lbs.  twine 

3 paste  cups 

3 quarts  alcohol 

2 gold  pens 

1 paper  knife 

123  committee  boxes 

19.000  plain  envelopes..., 

22.000  official  envelopes.. 

35  reams  letter  heads 

1,500  outline  maps 


85 
8 35 
4 00 
6 25 
1 36 
50 
80 
30 

3 55 

4 30 

1 14 

2 68 
6 25 
1 00 

82  00 
103  50 
174  50 
270  00 
16  00 


Total $3,523  98% 

The  bill  was  deemed  enormous,  and  excited 
the  suspicions  of  the  Committee.  Upon  inquiry 
of  the  chief  clerk  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
concerning  the  bill,  the  Committee  was  informed 
that  the  quantity  of  stationery  charged  the 
Convention  was  less  than  that  used  for  the  same 
period  in  the  legislative  branches  of  the  State 
government. 


Desiring  to  do  justice  to  all  the  parties  con- 
cerned, the  Committee  deemed  it  best  to  consult 
a wholesale  establishment  of  another  city  as  to 
the  prices  and  value  of  such  stationery  as  the 
law  authorizes  the  Secretary  to  furnish. 

In  August,  1873,  an  accurate  copy  of  all  the 
important  articles  furnished  by  the  Secretary  to 
the  Convention,  as  shown  by  his  detailed  state- 
ment, was  made  out  (leaving  off  the  prices)  and 
forwarded  to  Robert  Clarke  & Co.,  Cincinnati, 
Ohio. 

Mr.  Clarke  responded  promptly  to  the  in- 
quiries of  the  Committee.  It  is  proper  to  state 
that  he  was  requested  to  fix  the  wholesale  price 
for  stationery  in  the  quantities  and  of  the 
description  contained  in  the  list  enclosed  to 
him.  It  was  done ; and  he  says  he  is  still  ready 
to  fill  the  bill. 

After  the  receipt  of  his  response,  I itemized 
and  compared  the  bills,  and  they  stand  thus : 

comparative  statement. 


17%  gross  lead  pencils 

Charged  by 

Sec’y  of 
State. 

, $189  90 

128  gross  steel  pens 

10%  gross  quill  pens 

7%  gross  pen  holders 

63  60 

25  ruling  nens  

18  75 

161  rubber  rulers 

129  31 

11  doz.  red  and  blue  pencils 

2t73  gross  scissors  and  shears 

261  62% 

17  doz.  metal  erasers-  

93  00 

13%  doz.  artist  gum  rubbers 

15%  doz.  paper  folders  (ivory) 

30  reams  legal  nap  

231  00 

6%  **  journal  cap 

50  00 

23  “ fool’s  cap 

161  00 

31  “ letter  cap  

155  00 

58  “ note  cap 

5^5  “ postoffice  

47  20 

2%  “ reporters’ 

589  sheets  blotting  paper 

23  07 

58  90 

49  qt.  bottles  Arnold’s  ink 

42  90 

3%  doz.  bottles  carmine  ink- 

24  00 

228  Sillman’s  inkstands 

144  63 

144  sponge  cups  

24  00 

15%  aoz.  flavored  soap 

32  10 

150  small  sponges 

308  blank  books 

233  75 

15  cad.  matches 

123  committee  boxes 

29.000  plain  envelopes 103  00 

22.000  official  envelopes .. 174  50 

35  reams  letter  heads 273  00 


Proposed  by 
B.  Clarke 
A Co. 
$102  00 
64  00 
21  00 

4 50 

5 25 
80  50 
11  00 

165  00 
63  75 
16  00 

18  98 
126  00 

33  44 
90  85 
102  30 
114  84 
28  88 

6 38 

26  50 

27  93 
3 15 

42  75 
21  60 
30  60 
30  00 
123  20 

19  50 
61  50 
36  08 

110  00 
145  25 


Total $3,523  98%  $1,992  40 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  there  is  a difference 
against  the  Secretary  of  State  of  nearly  $1,600. 
I leave  every  fair-minded  gentleman  to  judge 
whether  this  difference  should  exist. 

That  the  Secretary  of  State  delivered  to  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms  the  stationery  set  forth  in  his 
detailed  statement  there  can  be  no  dispute. 

I am  equally  certain  that  if  he  furnished  the 
items  set  forth  in  his  detailed  statement  (which 
is  required  by  law)  at  wholesale  prices,  he  is 
paying  too  much  for  stationery,  and  somebody 
is  getting  rich  at  the  expense  of  the  State. 
Stationery  can  be  purchased  at  retail  in  many 
of  the  villages  of  the  State,  of  equal  quality,  at 
lower  rates. 

I have  no  acquaintance  with  the  Secretary  of 
State,  but  am  told  by  those  best  acquainted  with 
him,  that  he  is  a high-minded  gentleman,  of 
undoubted  integrity,  and  would  resent  any  at- 
tempt at  collusion  with  manufacturers  of  or 
dealers  in  stationery,  for  the  purpose  of  wrong- 
ing the  State  or  increasing  his  own  income. 
Accepting  this  statement  as  true,  how  can  we 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE. 1631 

February  26, 1874.]  Hill,  Pratt,  Ewing,  Hitchcock. 


account  for  the  disparity  in  prices?  Possibly 
in  this  way  : The  notices  for  the  purchase  of 
stationery,  so  far  as  I am  informed,  are  pub- 
lished in  the  Columbus  papers,  which  have  a 
limited  circulation,  and  the  notices  never  at- 
tract the  attention  of  dealers  and  manufac- 
turers in  the  larger  cities ; and  competition  is 
chiefly  confined  to  dealers  in  the  Capital,  who 
probably  reap  large  profits  on  the  articles  fur- 
nished the  Secretary,  by  combining  with  each 
other  in  putting  up  the  prices. 

If  wholesale  dealers  in  the  larger  cities  could 
have  an  opportunity  of  competing  with  each 
other  in  furnishing  stationery  for  the  State, 
instead  of  contracting  with  hucksters,  as  is  now 
probably  done,  the  prices  would  be  reduced 
nearly  one-half,  and  $10,000  to  $20,000  might  be 
saved  the  State  annually,  and  help  diminish  the 
enormous  sum  required  to  carry  on  the  State 
government. 

If  I am  mistaken  in  this  explanation,  it  in- 
volves the  integrity  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
because  no  other  theory  can  reconcile  the  dis- 
crepancy in  the  prices  charged.  The  Secretary, 
under  the  law,  is  required  to  deliver  to  the  Legis- 
lature and  other  branches  of  the  State  Govern- 
ment, stationery  at  precisely  the  prices  paid  for 
it.  If  he  combines  with  dealers,  or  charges 
more,  he  is  liable  to  censure.  I am  unwilling 
to  believe  he  does  either. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  items  of 
stationery  given  in  the  detailed  statement  do 
not  include  the  paper  on  which  the  Debates  and 
bills  are  printed,  but  are  made  up  wholly  of 
such  articles  as  are  used  on  the  desks  of  mem- 
bers, and  by  the  secretaries  and  reporters. 

It  is  estimated  that  the  reporters  have  used 
foolscap  and  other  paper  to  the  value  of  $225, 
and  the  secretaries  to  the  value  of  $75.  De- 
ducting these  sums  from  the  whole  cost  of 
stationery,  the  pro  rata  for  each  member,  ac- 
cording to  the  price  affixed  by  the  Secretary  of 
State,  is  a fraction  over  $39.  Taking  the  bill  of 
Mr.  Clarke  as  a basis,  the  amount  charged  to 
each  member  of  the  Convention  should  be  about 
$21,  which  is  the  full  value  of  it.  Members  can 
judge  for  themselves,  as  to  the  quantity  of 
stationery  they  have  received  personally.  Some 

entlemen  have  doubtless  used  more  than  others, 

ecause  they  write  more.  That  any  stationery 
has  been  wantonly  wasted  or  squandered,  is  not 
believed  by  the  Committee. 

The  stationery  purchased  of  J.  R.  Mills  & Co., 
of  this  city,  since  the  Convention  assembled 
here,  amounts  in  value  to  about  $686.  It  was 
purchased  at  wholesale  rates,  and  is  of  excellent 
quality. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I wish  the  reading  of  the  re- 
solution under  which  this  Report  was  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same,  as  follows  : 

Resolution  No.  166— By  Mr.  Kerr: 

Resolved , That  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expen- 
ses be  instructed  to  report  the  cost  of  stationery  furnished 
this  Convention  to  February  1,  1874,  and  the  amount  for 
each  delegate. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  appears  to  me,  Mr.  President, 
that  the  Report  is  not  responsive  to  the  resolu- 
tion. There  is  not  a report  of  the  amount  fur- 
nished to  each  delegate.  I did  not  notice 
whether  the  Committee  said  they  were  not  able 


to  ascertain.  If  there  are  any  means  of  ascer- 
taining that  fact,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  Report 
should  be  recommitted  to  the  Committee,  to  re- 
port responsive  to  the  language  of  the  resolu- 
tion. 

Mr.  HILL.  I have  this  to  say  in  regard  to 
that : There  was  a little  attempt  at  dodging  at 
the  time  this  resolution  was  offered. 

Mr.  PRATT.  How  ? 

Mr.  HILL.  In  this  : It  will  be  remembered, 
when  this  resolution  was  offered  in  the  Con- 
vention, that  it  was  proposed  to  give  a detail  of 
items.  This  was  found  impracticable,  because 
the  Sergeant-at-Arms  failed  to  keep  an  account 
of  the  distribution  of  stationery.  We  have 
shown,  therefore,  that  the  aggregate  to  each 
member  is  a fraction  over  $39.  We  have  left  it 
to  members  to  judge  whether  they  got  that 
amount  or  not.  The  Committee  is  not  respon- 
sible for  the  stationery  carried  home  by  gentle- 
men in  their  carpet-sacks,  if  any  such  thing 
has  been  done;  we  are  not  aware  that  any  has 
been  carried  away. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  there  any  means  of  ascer- 
taining the  amount  that  each  member  has  re- 
ceived ? 

Mr.  HILL.  No,  sir;  there  are  no  means. 
Some  members  think  they  have  not  received 
more  than  three  dollars’  worth ; while  others 
think  they  have  not  got  more  than  ten  dollars’ 
worth. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  Convention  has  an  ac- 
count of  it  all. 

Mr.  HILL.  No,  sir;  no  account,  until  we 
came  down  to  Cincinnati;  an  account  began 
then ; but  that  is  a very  small  fraction  of  the 
full  amount. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  would 
be  just  as  well  to  look  at  our  own  officers,  as  at 
the  officers  of  the  State ; the  resolution  was  di- 
rected to  that  end. 

Mr.  HILL.  We  have  looked  to  that,  and 
traced  it  from  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  into  the  hands  of  our  Sergeant-at-Arms; 
and  he  fails  to  account  for  it,  because  he  has  no 
account  of  the  distribution  of  stationery  prior 
to  the  time  the  Convention  assembled  in  Cin- 
cinnati. 

Mr.  EWING.  I would  say,  for  one  member 
of  the  Convention,  that  I have  no  doubt  I have 
used  more  than  my  pro  rata , considerably.  As 
to  ascertaining  what  each  man  has  used,  of 
course,  it  would  be  utterly  impossible.  The  in- 
quiry, I think,  is  idle  anyway.  I have  used 
paper  freely,  having  always  been  in  the  habit 
of  doing  that,  and  I have  not  checked  my  habit 
since  coming  here. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I think,  Mr.  President, 
that  the  Report  of  this  Committee  entirely  ex- 
onerates the  Secretary  of  State  from  any  blame 
in  connection  with  this  matter.  Certainly  there 
is  no  apparent  disposition  on  the  part  of  the 
Report  to  do  anything  more  than  that.  But 
unless  some  members  of  the  Convention  may 
have  supposed  that  in  the  purchase  of  this  sta- 
tionery by  the  Secretary  of  State,  on  account  of 
the  largely  increased  price  which  appears  to 
have  been  paid  for  it,  I wish  to  say  that  I at- 
tribute that  entirely  to  what  I believe  is  a wrong 
policy  on  the  part  of  the  State.  It  may  be  that 
no  better  policy  can  be  adopted.  But  I recol- 
lect very  well  one  time  in  the  city  of  Coluni- 


1632 


CONCERNING  THE  SECRETARY  OF  STATE. [124th 

Hitchcock,  Pratt,  Baber,  Griswold,  Pond,  Hill,  etc.  [Thursday, 


bus,  at  the  time  of  letting  the  contract  for  the 
furnishing  of  the  stationery  under  the  law,  one 
or  two  parties  making  bids  stood  by  the  door 
of  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  up  to  the 
moment  of  the  time  of  letting  the  contract  had 
expired,  and  immediately  demanded  that  the 
bids  should  be  opened,  as  the  hour  had  arrived, 
watching  the  door,  so  that  if  any  other  party 
should  claim  the  contract  they  would  have  an 
opportunity  to  putin  an  additional  bid.  And  I 
believe  that  the  reason  of  this  high  price  comes 
from  the  letting  of  this  sort  of  proposals,  be- 
cause at  the  time,  under  the  contract,  it  was  let 
twenty  per  cent,  above  the  market  price  in  the 
city  of  Columbus,  and  I suppose  that  this  sta- 
tionery is  a part  of  that  which  was  purchased 
under  that  contract.  In  the  early  part  of  that 
Report — if  the  Secretary  will  read  that  part  of 
the  Report  which  refers  to  the  amount  of  sta- 
tionery used  per  capita  by  the  members  of  the 
Convention,  1 should  be  glad.  I would  like  the 
Secretary  to  read  that  part. 

The  Secretary.  The  amount  per  capita  fur- 
nished was  within  a fraction  of  forty  dollars. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  report  refers  to  the 
amount  used  by  members  per  capita.  But  it 
seems  to  me,  Mr.  President,  that  the  reading  of 
that  carries  with  it  the  impression  that  the 
members  of  the  Convention  have  used  that 
amount.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  would  see  fit  to  change  the 
language  of  the  Report  so  that  it  would  show 
that  that  was  the  aggregate  amount  fur- 
nished— 

Mr.  PRATT.  Furnished  to  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes ; and  in  that  connec- 
tion, as  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt]  makes  that  remark,  I wish  to  say  that, 
so  far  as  the  stationery  has  been  used  in  the 
Convention,  since  coming  to  this  city,  the  Ser- 
geant-at-Arms  has  an  account  with  the  mem- 
bers, but,  previous  to  that  time,  no  account  was 
kept,  and  that  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  distribution  of  stationery. 
He  simply  issues  his  orders  upon  the  Secretary 
of  State,  leaving  it  to  one  of  his  assistants  to 
distribute  it.  I say  this  on  behalf  of  the  Ser- 
geant-at-Arms. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  seems  to  me  the  language 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  shows  the  necessity  that  at  the 
opening  session  of  this  Convention  there  should 
have  been  a regular  account  kept  as  is  done 
here  at  Cincinnati.  Now,  the  expense  of  sta- 
tionery as  furnished  to  members  here,  only 
amounts  to  about  six  hundred  dollars,  and  our 
session  upon  the  first  of  March  will  be  about 
the  same  length  of  time  as  our  session  at  the 
city  of  Columbus.  There  it  it  was  three  thou- 
sand dollars.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  with  regard  to  this  matter  of  ad- 
vertising is  right.  The  State  officers  have  the 
control  of  this  matter,  and  it  is  their  duty  to  see 
that  this  advertising  should  be  done  properly. 
I know  myself  that  where  advertisements  are 
limited  in  number  or  locality  there  is  apt  to  be 
a combination  of  these  dealers  to  not  bid  against 
one  another  for  the  purpose  of  running  up 
prices.  I do  not  see  that  any  personal  blame 
should  attach  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  The 


fault  has  been  in  the  management  of  this  ad- 
vertising. Now,  we  come  to  another  point.  As 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt],  this  Report  shows  about  forty  dol- 
lars as  the  aggregate  average  for  stationery. 
Mr.  President,  I do  not  believe  anything  like 
that  amount  on  an  average  has  been  used  by 
members  here.  Take,  for  instance,  the  session 
held  here;  the  average  would  not  amount  to 
more  than  five  or  six  dollars  apiece.  Now,  we 
will  take  the  session  at  Columbus. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I think  the  gentleman  is 
out  of  order.  The  motion  is  to  lay  this  on  the 
table  and  print. 

Mr.  BABER.  No;  that  was  voted  down. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  him  to  order.  I do 
not  think  he  is  talking  to  the  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  con- 
fine himself  to  the  question. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  see  why  the  gentle- 
man interrupted  me.  I think  my  remarks  are 
perfectly  in  order. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do  not  see  it. 

Mr.  BABER.  With  regard  to  stationery,  as 
stated  in  this  Report,  1 do  not  believe  that  the 
Committee  could  have  done  otherwise  than 
sum  up  the  facts.  I will  say  for  myself,  per- 
sonally, that  I do  not  believe  I have  had  to  the 
amount  of  ten  dollars.  Other  members  will 
say  the  same.  There  has  been  some  wrong  done 
somewhere.  I hope,  therefore,  that  this  Report 
will  be  ordered  to  be  printed,  and  if  the  Con- 
vention think  there  should  be  any  further 
steps  taken  to  ascertain  this  matter  of  account, 
I shall  be  glad  to  have  it  done.  It  appears  to 
me  that  this  Report  ought  to  go  out,  so  that  the 
Convention  may  be  relieved  of  the  stigma  of 
having  used  stationery  to  such  an  amount  as 
this. 

Mr.  POND.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Perhaps  the  thing  can  be 
reduced. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  POND.  I am  not  certain  that  this  Re- 
port should  be  printed  in  just  this  shape.  The 
stationery  used  at  Columbus  must  have  been 
purchased  under  the  contract  made  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  in  1872.  The  purchases  are 
made  annually  under  contract,  under  sealed 
proposals.  Now,  there  is  a vast  difference,  I am 
informed  by  paper  dealers,  in  the  price  of  pa- 
per in  1872  and  1874 — on  some  articles,  I under- 
stand, as  much  as  forty  per  cent.  Whether  this 
statement  ought  to  go  out  in  this  shape,  with  a 
statement  of  what  Robert  Clarke  & Co.  are 
willing  to  take  for  paper  now,  in  1874,  along- 
side of  what  paper  cost  in  1872,  or  not,  it  appears 
to  me  very  unfair.  I have  no  doubt  there  has 
been  wrong  in  this  matter.  I have  no  doubt 
there  has  been  more  paper  used  than  there  ought 
to  have  been.  But  I do  not  care  so  that  it  is 
fairly  exposed.  It  ought  to  be  exposed.  There 
is  no  question  about  that.  But  to  simply  pub- 
lish this,  in  this  sort  of  away,  the  estimate  made 
in  1874  and  1872,  appears  to  be  doing  injustice 
to  all  parties  concerned. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  statement  of  Robert  Clarke 
& Co.  was  made  prior  to  August  2d,  last.  It 
was  for  that,  and  for  other  good  reasons,  which 
the  gentleman  will  see  at  once,  or  it  would  have 
been  published  before  that  time.  There  was  a 


Day.] CONCERNING  STATIONERY. 1633 

February  26,  1874.]  Hill,  Pond,  Carbery,  Griswold,  Townsend,  Mueller,  etc. 


political  campaign  going  on,  and  it  was  not 
thought  best  to  publish  it.  It  was  feared  it 
might  be  taken  as  the  reflection  of  political  mo- 
tives. 

Mr.  POND.  I appreciate  the  motives  of  the 
Committee.  I was  not  aware  of  that,  however. 
Still,  there  is  a difference  of  a year.  But  I do 
not  know  how  to  account  for  it  at  all.  It  is  im- 
possible to  account  for  it  now,  with  the  little 
light  furnished  by  the  Committee. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  If  it  is  in  order  at  this 
time,  I would  like  to  offer  a resolution  I have 
drawn.  I ask  that  it  be  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Resolved , That  the  amount  of  stationery  per  capita  is,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Convention,  grossly  extravagant;  but 
this  result  is  not  because  of  the  amount  used,  but  is  in 
conseqnence  of  the  exorbitant  charges  for  all  articles 
used,  made  by  the  contractor,  which,  in  many  cases,  is 
over  one  hundred  per  cent,  above  the  usual  price. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I give  notice  to  discuss. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND  The  motion  is  a motion 
made  bv  myself.  I desire  to  explain  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  sus- 
pend a moment?  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  offer  his  resolution 
as  a substitute  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga?  If  so,  it  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I intend  to  offer  it,  Mr. 
President,  as  an  expression  of  the  sense  of  the 
Convention  on  this  matter.  If  it  means  any- 
thing, it  means  that  we  should  go  back  to  as- 
certain what  the  price  to  the  State  is,  and  that 
seems  not  to  be  our  business. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  to  print, 
is  the  motion  pending. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  It  is  necessary  to  make 
some  disposition  of  this  Report,  and  in  order  to 
get  it  out  of  the  way,  I move  that  it  be  received 
and  printed.  I am  not  captious  about  that;  but 
my  judgment  is  that  it  is  quite  important  that 
it  should  be  printed,  and  that  we  should  take 
some  official  action  in  regard  to  it.  It  will  be 
talked  of  and  discussed  anyhow ; and  it  is  proper 
that  it  should  appear  just  as  acted  on  by  the 
Convention.  It  should  be  entered  on  the  Jour- 
nal. 

The  PRESIDENT.  How  many  copies  is  it 
proposed  to  have  printed? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  usual  number — three 
hundred. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Before  that  question  is  put 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  gentleman  yield 
the  floor  for  a moment? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Perhaps  this  may  remove 
a great  deal  of  trouble.  The  Committee  is 
willing  that  the  Report  be  amended  in  the  mat- 
ter of  the  amount  used  by  members.  I propose 
to  insert  the  amount  that  should  have  been  re- 
ceived per  capita.  We  do  not  charge  members 
with  having  received  forty  dollars  worth  of 
stationery  With  the  leave  of  the  Committee,  I 
would  ask  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  to 
make  this  alteration  in  the  Report. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I am  satisfied,  upon  a lit- 
tle reflection,  that  it  is  not  necessary  that  this 
Convention  should  print.  It  would  be  an  un- 
necessary expense.  Therefore,  with  leave  of 

y.  n-105 


the  Convention,  I will  move  that  the  Report  be 
received,  and  entered  upon  the  Journal. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  add,  and  this  ac- 
count— 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  POWELL.  My  object  in  rising  was  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  very 
subject  the  member  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Town- 
send] has  done.  But  I wish  that  to  be  seen  to. 
To  have  this  Report  printed,  as  if  every  member 
here  received  upon  an  average  of  about  forty 
dollars  worth  of  stationery,  is  wrong,  without 
stating  the  fact  how  little  was  received  by  each. 
That  would  reflect  upon  the  Convention  un- 
justly, and  would  rather  intimate  that  each 
member  had  received  that  amount  of  stationery, 
when  that  is  not  the  fact.  The  Committee  well 
knows  that  the  members  of  the  Convention 
deny  that.  There  is  hardly  a member  upon 
this  floor  that  is  willing  to  acknowledge  that  he 
has  received  ten  dollars  worth.  I would, 
therefore,  ask  the  Committee  that  some  amend- 
ment be  made,  that  the  public  shall  not  receive 
this  false  impression. 

Mr.  HILL.  We  propose  to  make  this  modifi- 
cation, if  the  Convention  is  willing — to  modify 
the  word  “used,”  to  “should  have  used.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  not  satisfactory. 
The  Committee  have  inquired  of  the  members, 
and  they  ought  to  report  the  answer  they  have 
received  from  them.  The  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  has  told  us  that  he  has  inquired,  and 
received  an  answer,  and  he  ought  to  inform  the 
public  what  it  was. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  How  is  the  Committee  to 
make  such  a Report?  The  same  principle  is 
followed  as  in  the  General  Assembly.  The  Ser- 
geant-at-Arms,  or,  perhaps,  his  assistants,  lav- 
ishly throw  away  paper  and  pens — put  them  in 
rooms  of  members.  If  a member  asks  for  a do- 
zen envelopes  he  gets  five  dozen.  That  has  been 
the  way  for  years.  That  is  the  way  it  has  been 
in  this  Convention.  The  assistant  did  that  in 
distributing.  He  was  on  hand  and  ready  to 
distribute  at  the  asking.  How  are  you  to  find 
out  where  it  has  gone  ? There  is  no  record  of 
it.  There  is  no  way  of  finding  out  whether  you 
or  I got  fifty  pencils  or  one.  But  since  the 
Convention  has  come  to  this  place  there  has 
been  a book  kept,  and  every  member  is  going  to 
be  charged  with  every  item  received.  Before 
coming  tc  Cincinnati  there  was  no  record  kept, 
and  the  Committee  is  unable  to  charge  any 
member  with  having  received  more  or  less. 

Mr.  POWELL.  What  I object  to  is 
this,  that  this  Report,  as  it  is  reported 
here  upon  this  floor,  will  convey  to  every 
reader  the  impression  that  the  aggregate 
received  by  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion will  amount  to  about  forty  dollars 
apiece.  Well,  now,  the  Committee  adds  by 
words — not  by  the  Report — that  they  are  satis- 
fied that  that  is  not  so,  but  that  they  have  in- 
quired of  members  here,  and  they  have  found 
that,  generally,  they  do  not  admit  that  they 
have  received  as  much  as  ten  dollars  apiece. 
Now,  if  they  would  state  that,  it  would  be 
somewhat  satisfactory.  Let  me  say  about  one 


1634 


CONCERNING  STATIONERY. 

Powell,  Blose,  Hill,  Mueller,  Horton,  Kerr,  etc. 


item  I heard  read  here — two  and  one-half 
gross  of  scissors.  Now,  I found  a small  pair  of 
scissors  in  my  box.  Two  and  a-half  gross  is 
about  three  hundred  and  fifty  scissors.  If  each 
member  and  every  officer  had  received  one,  as 
I have,  there  would  only  be  about  one-third  of 
the  amount  charged.  Everything  is  in  about 
the  same  proportion;  and  if  the  Committee 
would  only  say,  what  the  Chairman  has  re- 
ported here  verbally,  it  would  take  off  from 
the  thing  the  stigma  that  now  rests  upon  the 
members  of  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  re- 
ceiving the  Report. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  On  behalf  of  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee,  I ask  leave  to  have  that  Report 
corrected  in  that  respect,  to  strike  out  the  word 
“used,”  and  insert  “that  should  have  been  de- 
livered,” or  the  average  amount  to  each  mem- 
ber. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I move  that  it  he  recom- 
mitted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chairman,  or  the 
Committee,  may  amend  if  they  so  desire. 

Mr.  HILL.  I think  we  would  prefer  to  make 
that  change,  because  we  do  not  believe  they  got, 
on  the  average,  that  much.  But  the  Committee 
took  the  amount,  and  divided  it  by  the  number 
of  members,  not  knowing  whether  they  re- 
ceived that  or  not.  Of  course,  they  could  come 
to  no  other  conclusion.  I am  convinced  they 
did  not  receive  the  half  of  that  amount.  If  it 
is  changed  to  the  amount  they  should  have  re- 
ceived— 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir;  no,  sir;  not  that 
they  should  have  received.  Say  that  you  made 
inquiry,  and  that  the  members  reported,  gen- 
erally, that  they  have  not  received  ten  dollars’ 
worth. 

Mr.  HILL.  I cannot  say  whether  the  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  has  received 
five  dollars’  worth  or  ten  dollars’ worth.  Now, 
can  he  tell? 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir;  but  you  have  heard 
me  say  that  I did  not  believe  I had  received  five 
dollars’  worth. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  has  the  floor.  Will  the 
gentleman  yield? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I will  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  POWELL.  What  I object  to  is,  that  the 
Report  should  be  made  and  ordered  to  be 
printed  with  that  statement — that  it  would 
create  a bad  impression.  Now,  if  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  would  only  report  what  he 
said  here  to  us  verbally,  it  would  be  satisfactory 
to  us  and  satisfactory  to  the  people.  But,  in- 
stead of  that,  it  goes  out  with  an  impression 
that  we  have  received  here  something  like 
forty  dollars  apiece  for  stationery,  when  upon 
an  average  I am  satisfied  we  have  not  received 
ten  dollars  apiece. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  More  than  that.  We  got 
fifteen  or  twenty  dollars  apiece,  at  least. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Before  I sit  down,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, permit  me  to  make  this  motion,  that  the 
Report  be  reconsidered. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  has  the  floor. 


[124th 

[Thursday, 


Mr.  HORTON.  I hope,  sir,  that  we  shall 
make  no  attempt  to  whitewash  this  matter.  If 
there  is  any  wrong  about  it  let  us  give  it  forth 
to  the  people.  There  should  be  no  effort  to  hush 
this  matter.  The  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
has  explained  this  Report.  He  has  presented 
to  us  a detailed  statement  of  certain  facts.  He 
has  reported  to  us  that  a certain  amount  of  sta- 
tionery has  been  used.  Now,  sir,  it  is  idle  for 
us  to  stand  here  and  individually  take  up  the 
cry  that  it  was  not  us — it  was  some  other  boy 
over  there  did  it ! It  is  not  for  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  to  say  who  did  it.  The  facts 
stated  by  the  Committee  have  not  been  ques- 
tioned, and,  I presume,  cannot  be.  Then  why 
undertake  to  squirm  and  try  to  get  out  of  it  ? 
Why  not  take  it  just  as  it  stands  ? Now,  I object 
to  any  effort  to  require  the  Committee  to  state 
something  or  give  some  explanation  as  to  how 
this  thing  has  been  done.  Let  them  give  the 
figures.  Let  them  examine  and  see  where  the 
wrong  has  been  committed. 

Mr.  KERR.  I would  like  to  ask  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  if  he  knows  how  much  of 
this  stationery  is  yet  on  hand  that  was  included 
in  this  estimate  ? 

Mr.  HILL.  There  is  but  a small  amount  on 
hand — not  a great  amount. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  There  are  scissors  and  such 
things  on  hand. 

Mr.  KERR.  If  there  was  anything  on  hand 
to  any  amount,  I would  propose  that  this  Report 
be  recommitted  to  take  an  estimate  of  it,  and 
then  we  will  have  a more  accurate  statement  of 
this  amount. 

Mr.  HILL.  I think  there  are  none  on  hand 
that  were  not  delivered. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Mucilage,  scissors  and  ink- 
stands  ? 

Mr.  KERR.  I mean  in  the  possession  of  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms,  that  has  not  been  distrib- 
uted ? 

Mr.  HILL.  There  is  none  of  any  consequence 
that  has  not  been  distributed. 

Mr.  KERR.  I hope,  then,  Mr.  President,  that 
this  matter  of  inquiry  will  be  fairly  made  and 
published,  as  it  should  be.  I felt  in  the  offer- 
ing of  this  resolution  it  was  charged  here  that  I 
received  about  forty  dollars’  worth  of  stationery, 
and  I have  not  had  my  share. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  heard  over  and  over 
again  that  gentlemen  have  not  received  their 
share.  Does  the  gentleman  want  to  receive  his 
share?  I don’t. 

Mr.  KERR.  Well,  no;  I don’t  want  to  re- 
ceive my  share.  I will  be  honest  about  it. 
There  are  a good  many  things  about  the  distri- 
bution of  this  stationery  for  which  we  are  to 
blame;  and,  perhaps,  the  blame  is  more  upon 
those  who  have  managed  this  business.  There 
ought  to  have  been,  from  the  very  commence- 
ment, a regular  systematic  account  kept.  Then, 
there  would  have  been  no  reason  for  this 
trouble,  as  there  now  is.  I am  not  willing  to 
stand  here  and  be  responsible  for  this  enor- 
mous amount  of  stationery  I have  not  received. 
Who  is  to  blame,  I do  not  know.  But  some- 
body is  to  blame.  I have  been  informed  that 
these  inkstands — a portion  of  them  distributed 
— were  gathered  up  as  old  inkstands,  and 
charged  to  us  at  a dollar,  or  a dollar  and  a quar- 
ter, apiece;  and  I hope  the  statement  of  it  has 


Day.] CONCERNING  STATIONERY. 

February  26, 1874.]  Kerr,  Freiberg,  Ewing,  Hill,  Powell,  Mueller. 


1635 


been  made.  I would  like  to  see  a statement  of 
the  average  amount  furnished  each  member  by 
the  Sergeant-at-Arms. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  the  way  the  Re- 
port stands. 

Mr.  KERR.  I want  to  see  it  printed. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I move  that  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  be  received,  and  the  Committee 
be  discharged.  The  Committee  have  done  their 
duty  nobly — have  done  a great  deal  of  head- 
work  upon  the  Report.  We  find  out  by  that 
Report  that  milk  has  been  spilt.  Who  spilt  the 
milk  we  cannot  tell,  and  I do  not  believe  it  is 
worth  while  to  try.  There  is  no  use  to  cry  over 
spilt  milk.  But  it  is  my  opinion  that  the  Con- 
vention has  been  at  fault.  There  ought  to  have 
been  a system  adopted  at  first,  and  every  mem- 
ber of  the  Convention  made  to  give  a receipt  to 
the  Sergeant-at-Arms  for  the  stationery  he  had 
received.  But  as  this  has  not  been  done,  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms  should  not  be  held  responsi- 
ble. Some  gentlemen  start  out  with  the  idea 
that  none  of  us  got  five  or  six  dollars’  worth  of 
stationery,  and,  when  speaking  of  stationery, 
have  nothing  in  their  mind’s  eye  more  than 
paper  and  envelopes.  But  we  have  received 
twelve  articles  besides  stationery,  and  these 
articles  are  as  follows : one  paper  cutter,  one 
rubber  ruler,  one  ivory-handled  knife,  which  is 
very  fine,  one  inkstand,  one  pair  of  shears,  one 
pair  of  scissors,  one  sponge  cup,  two  memoranda 
books,  one  mucilage  cup,  one  eraser,  one  paper 
of  tacks,  one  waste  basket,  steel  pens,  pen  hold- 
ers, etc. ; before  we  come  to  foot  up  paper  and 
envelopes.  These  items  that  I have  mentioned 
would  have  cost  about  twelve  dollars,  if  you  go 
and  buy  them  at  retail.  As  I said  before,  I think 
the  whole  blame  lies  upon  the  Convention,  who 
ought  to  have  gone  to  work,  when  they  met  at 
Columbus,  and  inaugurated  a system  showing 
how  much  had  been  received  by  the  members. 

A MEMBER.  It  ought  to  have  been  bought 
in  Cincinnati. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  Yes.  We  ought  to  have 
bought  our  stationery  in  Cincinnati,  and  paid 
for  them  ourselves,  and  thereby  saved  money 
to  the  State. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
receiving  the  Report. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  desire  to  offer 
his  resolution  now? 

Mr.  CABBERY.  No,  sir.  I desire  leave  to 
withdraw  it. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  the  resolution  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  EWING.  Is  a resolution  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EWING.  I offer  for  adoption  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Resolution  No.  172— By  Mr.  Ewing  : 

Resolved , That  a copy  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  Accounts  and  Expenditures,  as  to  the  price  of  station- 
ery furnished  this  Convention,  be  transmitted  by  the  Pres- 
ident to  the  respective  Houses  of  the  General  Assembly, 
for  their  information. 

If  we  estimate  the  stationery  at  the  price 
that  Clarke  & Co.  would  have  furnished  it  at, 
it  does  not  seem  unreasonable  that  members  of 
the  Convention  have  used  the  amount  of  twen- 


ty dollars  a piece.  It  may  be  too  large.  I don’t 
know.  Some  have  used  a great  deal  more  than 
that — myself  doubtless  among  the  number — 
and  some  have  used  less.  But  it  does  not  seem 
improbable  at  all  that  on  an  average  we  have 
used  twenty  dollars’  worth  a piece. 

Mr.  HILL.  May  I correct  the  gentleman  in 
one  statement?  It  is  this : Those  tabular  rates 
are  included  in  my  remarks,  not  in  the  Re- 
port. 

Mr.  EWING.  I will  modify  my  resolution 
then.  The  stationery  furnished  to  the  Con 
vention  here  was  furnished  to  the  State  proba- 
bly under  a contract  covering  the  stationery 
for  the  two  Houses  of  the  Legislature  and  the 
various  executive  offices  of  the  State,  and  is 
doubtless  but  a part  of  a large  contract.  The  state- 
ment made  by  the  Committee  that  this  station- 
ery was  furnished  us  at  two  prices  is  startling, 
and  we  should  call  it  to  the  attention  of  the 
General  Assembly.  I will  modify  my  resolu- 
tion so  as  to  include  not  only  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenditures,  but 
also  the  accompanying  tabular  statements,  if 
there  be  no  objection. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be  on 
agreeing  to  the  resolution  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  can  be  nothing  more 
appropriate  than  the  resolution  now  offered  to 
go  to  the  Legislature,  to  whom  this  thing  prop- 
erly belongs.  I am  glad,  therefore,  that  the 
resolution  has  been  proposed,  and  hope  it  will 
pass. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  What  disposition  shall 
be  made  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I move  that  the  Report  be 
laid  upon  the  table. 

A MEMBER.  To  print? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  No.  It  will  cost  two  or 
three  hundred  dollars  to  print.  If  it  is  after- 
wards necessary  to  have  it  printed,  it  can  be 
done. 

new  proposition. 

Mr.  MUELLER  introduced  Proposition  No. 
219,  being  an  additional  Article  to  the  Consti- 
tution, as  follows : 

“No  gift,  devise,  or  testamentary  bequest  shall  ever  be 
made  to  any  religious  corporation,  or  to  any  person  or 
persons,  to  be  held  for  religious  use,  unless  such  gift  shall 
be  made  and  executed  at  least  six  calendar  months  before 
the  death  of  such  donor  or  grantor;  and  unless  such  gift 
take  effect  in  possession  for  the  religious  use  intended  im- 
mediately from  the  making  thereof.  Any  gift,  devise  or 
bequest  made  contrary  to  this  provision  shall  be  void  and 
of  no  effect.” 

The  Proposition  was  read  once,  laid  on  the 
table,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

FINAL  READING — COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGAN- 
IZATIONS. 

Proposition  No.  189,  being  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  County  and  Township  Organi- 
zations, and  a substitute  for  Article  X of  the 
Constitution,  was  then  read  the  third  time,  as 
follows : 

Section  1.  Each  county  shall  be  a body  corporate,  with 
such  organization,  powers,  immunities,  and  liabilities  as 
shall  be  prescribed  by  law.  All  suits  and  proceedings  by 
or  against  a county  shall  be  in  the  name  thereof. 

Sec.  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  by  law 
for  the  election  of  such  county  and  township  officers  as 


1636 


COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS. 


[124th 


Ewing,  Burns. 


[Thursday, 


may  be  necessary ; and  the  County  Auditor,  County  Treas- 
urer and  Prosecuting  Attorney  shall  each  be  paid  a stated 
salary  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  proper  county,  and  no 
other  fees  or  compensation  shall  be  allowed  or  paid  said 
officers.  ^ 

Sec.  3.  County  officers  shall  be  elected  on  the  Tuesday 
succeeding  the  first  Monday  of  November,  until  other- 
wise directed  by  law,  by  the  qualified  electors  of  each 
county,  in  such  manner,  and  for  such  term,  not  exceeding 
four  years,  as  may  be  provided  by  law. 

Sec.  4.  No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of 
Sheriff  or  County  Treasurer  for  more  than  four  years  in 
any  period  of  six  years. 

Sec.  5.  Each  township  shall  be  a body  corporate,  with 
such  organization,  powers,  immunities  and  liabilities  as 
shall  be  prescribed  by  law.  All  suits  and  proceedings  by 
or  against  a township  shall  be  in  the  name  thereof. 

Sec.  6.  Township  officers  shall  be  elected  by  the  quali- 
fied electors  of  their  respective  townships,  at  such  times, 
in  such  manner,  and  for  such  term,  not  exceeding  three 
years,  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  and  shall  hold  their 
offices  until  their  successors  are  elected  and  qualified. 

Sec.  7.  No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  any  county  or 
township  treasury  except  by  authority  of  law.  Nor  shall 
any  money  raised  by  assessment  or  taxation  for  one  pur- 
pose ever  be  diverted  to  another. 

Sec.  8.  County  and  township  officers  may  be  removed 
in  such  manner,  and  for  such  cause,  as  shall  be  provided 
by  law. 

Sec.  9.  Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  and  assessment  for  police  purposes,  and 
for  constructing  and  improving  ditches,  public  roads 
other  than  railroads,  and  clearing  water-courses,  when 
necessary  to  the  public  health,  convenience  or  welfare,  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  law. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Proposition  is  upon 
its  final  reading.  The  question  is,  Shall  the 
Proposition  be  agreed  to  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  that  the  Proposition  be 
referred  to  a Committee  of  one,  with  instruc- 
tions to  add  at  the  end  of  section  nine,  the 
following  : 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  as  fol- 
lows : 

“Townships  may  be  authorized  by  special  law  to  de- 
stroy dogs  and  other  predatory  animals,  or  tax  them  with- 
out regard  to  their  value  in  money.” 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  section  as  pro- 
posed to  be  amended : 

“Sec.  9.  Counties  and  townships  shall  have  such  power 
of  local  taxation  and  assessment  for  police  purposes,  or 
for  constructing  and  improving  ditches,  public  roads 
other  than  railroads,  and  clearing  water-courses,  when 
necessary  to  the  public  health,  convenience,  or  welfare, 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.  Townships  may  be  author- 
ized by  special  law  to  destroy  dogs  and  other  predatory 
animals,  or  tax  them  without  regard  to  their  value  in 
money.” 

Mr.  EWING.  It  is  generally  admitted  that, 
somewhere  in  the  amended  Constitution,  we 
should  give  to  the  Legislature  the  power  which 
it  has  not,  under  our  present  Constitution,  to 
authorize  a local  tax  on  dogs,  irrespective  of 
their  value  in  money.  This  gives  it,  and,  I 
think,  in  the  appropriate  place.  It  is  necessary 
not  only  to  authorize  them  to  tax  the  dogs,  ir-  | 
respective  of  their  value — because,  the  more 
worthless  a dog  is,  probably,  the  more  sheep  he 
will  kill,  and  the  tax,  therefore,  would  not  at 
all  be  in  proportion  to  the  mischief  he  would  do 
— but  also  to  exterminate  them.  It  is  a power 
proper  to  be  entrusted  to  those  townships  that 
ask  for  it,  and  whose  industries  need  protection 
from  it.  Very  many  townships  would  not  de- 
sire the  power,  but  probably  half  of  them 
would ; and  there  can  be  no  harm,  I think,  in 
giving  it  to  them.  When  we  reflect  that  nearly 
two  hundred  thousand  dollars’  worth  of  sheep  i 
are  yearly  killed  in  Ohio  by  worthless  dogs,  we  j 
must  admit  that  the  subject  deserves  the  atten-  | 
tion  of  the  Convention. 


Mr.  BURNS.  I am  not  at  all  prepared  to  say 
that  this  is  the  proper  place  to  insert  a proposi- 
tion of  this  kind,  if  this  Convention  should  de- 
termine upon  it.  I am  aware,  Mr.  President, 
that  the  idea  of  inserting  in  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  State,  by  name,  the  word  “dog,”  has 
been  received  with  a good  deal  of  merriment; 
but  there  is  no  one  thing  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
that  has  been  so  much  complained  of  as  this 
constant  and  increasing  depredation  upon  the 
wool-growing  interest  of  the  State.  I happen 
to  be  located  in  a portion  of  the  State  where  the 
farmers,  for  years  past,  have  turned  their  atten- 
tion largely  to  wool-growing— not  so  much  now, 
perhaps,  as  in  former  years — and  I know  of  some 
farmers,  owning  flocks  of  two,  three,  or  five 
hundred  sheep,  who  have  had  their  entire  flocks, 
valued  at  two  or  three  thousand  dollars,  de- 
stroyed in  a single  night  by  the  depredations  of 
dogs.  Two  or  three  dogs,  in  the  course  of  a 
single  night,  will  destroy  fifty  or  a hundred 
sheep,  and  the  remainder  of  the  flock  are,  as  I 
am  informed  by  those  who  are  familiar  with  the 
nature  of  the  sheep,  totally  destroyed  for  future 
use;  even  those  who  are  not  injured  bodily  by 
the  depredations  of  the  dogs,  become  valueless. 
Such  an  effect  is  produced  upon  them  that  they 
are,  for  the  remainder  of  their  lives,  of  no 
value. 

Now,  the  Committee  on  Finance  and  Taxa- 
tion, of  which  I happen  to  be  a member,  labor- 
ed on  this  subject  faithfully,  with  the  view  of 
getting  something  that  would  meet  the  wants  of 
the  community  on  that  subject;  and  that  Com- 
mittee has  reported  a section  in  Proposition  No. 
204,  relating  to  that  matter ; but,  for  one  mem- 
ber of  that  Committee,  I will  say  that  I have  no 
particular  preference  in  what  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution it  is  found,  so  that  the  object  be  at- 
tained. I would  quite  as  readily  see  it  incorpo- 
rated in  the  proposition  now  before  us  as  in  the 
proposition  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  and 
Taxation.  Section  9 of  the  Report  on  Finance 
and  Taxation  reads  as  follows : “The  General 

Assembly  may  throughout  the  State,  or  in  any 
county  or  counties  thereof,  provide  by  law  to 
regulate,  restrain,  or  prohibit,  by  special  tax, 
assessment,  or  otherwise,  the  keeping,  harbor- 
ing, or  running  at  large  of  dogs.”  Now, 
whether  the  section  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  is  better  calculated 
to  remedy  this  evil  than  that  section,  I am  not 
prepared  to  say,  nor  have  I any  special  prefer- 
ence on  the  subject.  If  it  is  thought  best  by 
this  Convention  to  consider  this  section  now, 
and  settle  it,  so  be  it.  I shall  be  entirely  con- 
tent. But  I think  that  this  Convention  ought 
not  to  complete  its  labors  and  adjourn  without 
having  incorporated  in  this  Constitution  some 
j effectual  and  complete  remedy  for  this  great  and 
j crying  evil.  The  idea  of  having  two  or  three 
hundred  thousand  dollars’  worth  of  property 
destroyed  annually  in  the  State  by  the  depreda- 
! tions  of  worthless,  and  worse  than  worthless 
j dogs,  without  any  really  effectual  means  of  pre- 
' venting  it,  is  something  that  ought  not  to  be 
tolerated,  for  it  is  shown,  by  statistics,  that 
over  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  value  of 
sheep  have  actually  been  destroyed  by  dogs, 
annually,  in  Ohio/  The  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  might, 
perhaps,  leave  some  point  unprotected.  I be- 


CONCERNING  DOGS. 

Burns,  Gurley,  Ewing,  Rowland,  Powell. 


1637 


Day.] 

February  26,  1874.] 


lieve  it  refers  simply  to  the  power  of  townships 
to  do  certain  things  in  the  way  of  extermina- 
ting dogs.  Whether  that  would  reach  the  case 
of  cities  and  villages,  and  give  them  the  power 
to  accomplish  the  same  thing  or  not,  I am  not 
prepared  to  say;  but  I doubt  it  somewhat. 
Now,  to  my  certain  knowledge,  these  depreda- 
tions are  more  frequently  committed  by  dogs 
owned  and  harbored  in  towns  and  small  cities 
than  by  those  harbored  in  the  country  among 

flip  f o Y’tn P T*Q 

A MEMBER.  They  could  be  killed. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  they  were  caught,  they 
could  be  killed ; but  they  are  generally  hungry, 
and  at  night  they  are  turned  loose  by  their 
owners  for  the  very  purpose  of  making  raids 
into  the  country,  and  satisfying  their  hunger 
during  the  night  season.  They  return  in  the 
morning,  when  they  may  be  found  at  home,  in 
the  town  or  city. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  there 
is  not  a law  now  on  the  statute-book  authoriz- 
ing that  very  thing  to  be  done. 

Mr.  BURNS.  There  is  a law  on  the  statute- 
book  authorizing  any  person  to  kill  a dog,  if 
found  running  at  large  off  the  premises  of  his 
owner  without  being  accompanied  bv  the 
owner.  But,  in  nineteen  cases  out  of  twenty, 
that  law  cannot  be  made  available,  for  the  rea- 
son that  a dog  is  scarcely  ever  found  in  the  act 
of  killing  the  sheep.  He  makes  a raid  into  the 
country  in  the  night;  in  the  morning  the  sheep 
is  destroyed  and  the  dog  is  gone.  He  may  be 
traced  to  his  owner’s  house,  but  the  difficulty  of 
identifying  the  dog  is  very  frequently  a great 
one. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  the  gentleman  how  he 
seeks  to  remedy  it  by  this  provision  ? The  dog 
may  live  in  another  township,  or  a dog  from 
the  city  may  pass  over  into  the  township,  and 
how  is  the  gentleman  going  to  remedy  it  by 
this  local  law  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I have  not  said  that  it  would 
remedy  the  evil  entirely ; and  I do  not  know 
but  that  it  would.  If  the  gentleman  should 
say  it  ought  not  to  be  done  at  all;  if  he  placed 
himself  in  the  position  of  maintaining  that 
there  ought  not  to  be  any  means  taken  to  sup- 
press this  great  wrong,  then  I should  know 
where  to  meet  him;  but  he  seems  simply  to  say 
that  this  is  insufficient  to  attain  the  object  in 
view.  I am  ready  to  listen  to  any  other  propo- 
sition he  may  offer  which  will  more  effectually 
accomplish  the  end  sought  to  be  attained.  If 
the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley]  can 
suggest  anything  better,  I shall  be  very  willing 
and  very  glad  to  hear  it  and  to  act  upon  it.  I 
am  not  sure  that  by  any  device  anything  can 
be  done  which  will  reach  the  difficulty;  but  if 
this  proposition  is  not  sufficient;  if  it  is  be- 
lieved that  something  better  cfaii  be  adopted, 
let  the  gentleman  from  Morrow  exercise  his 
ingenuity  and  bring  it  before  this  Convention; 
and  if  it  prove  to  be  successful,  and  if  it  prom- 
ises success,  I will  agree  to  give  it  my  warm 
support. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I think  this  may  be  properly 
denominated  a local  option  law  to  kill  dogs. 

Mr.  EWING.  That  is  what  it  is,  exactly. 

Mr.  GLTRLEY.  I have  heard  of  a local  option 
law  to  regulate  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors, 
and  I think  this  is  a local  option  law  for  killing 


dogs.  I am  opposed  to  anything  like  this  sys- 
tem of  special  legislation.  I think  it  will  be 
entirely  ineffectual  to  accomplish  the  object  it 
has  in  view.  For  instance,  in  one  township 
they  might  adopt  it,  and  in  another  they,  per- 
haps, would  not  adopt  it;  and  what  security 
would  it  give  to  the  wool-grower?  I am  op- 
posed to  this  principle  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  delegating  legislative  power  to  township 
boards.  I look  upon  the  Legislature  as  the 
proper  body  to  frame  the  laws  for  the  govern- 
ment of  Ohio;  and  I am  opposed  to  their  dele- 
gating this  authority  to  the  township  boards. 
I am  opposed  to  it  on  principle.  While  I am 
ready  to  concede  that  there  is  a large  amount  of 
property  annually  destroyed  by  these  worthless 
dogs,  I ask,  is  it  necessary  to  engraft  into  the 
Constitution,  which  we  are  now  framing,  a pro- 
vision that  professedly  seeks  to  remedy  that 
evil,  while,  in  fact,  it  will  not  accomplish  the 
object  that  its  mover  has  in  view?  If  this  evil 
is  suppressed,  it  must  be  by  some  general  law. 
It  must  not  be  confined  to  one  township  or  to 
one  village. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Is  not  section  nine  of  Proposi- 
tion No.  204  a general  law  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I do  not  know.  I am  speak- 
ing of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing].  In  that,  I understand 
that  the  matter  is  left  entirely  with  the  trustees 
of  the  different  townships.  It  seems  to  me  that 
if  we  are  going  to  do  anything  in  this  matter, 
it  should  be  general  and  uniform  all  over  the 
State,  and  if  the  gentleman  will  bring  forward 
a proposition  of  that  kind,  I think  I will  give  it 
my  feeble  support. 

Again,  I do  not  think  that  anything  of  this 
kind  is  needed.  The  Legislature  of  the  State 
has  ample  authority  now  to  pass  any  law  upon 
this  subject  they  please,  and  they  have  been 
legislating  upon  it  for  years  past.  I do  not 
know,  either,  how  you  are  going  to  tax  a thing 
that  is  worthless,  and  has  no  value  at  all. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Assess  it. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I do  not  appear  here,  sir,  as 
the  special  champion  of  the  poor  dog;  man’s 
firm  and  steadfast  friend,  whose  fidelity  to  his 
master  has  called  forth  the  admiration  of  saint 
and  sinner,  since  first  the  flight  of  time  began, 
i have  only  this  to  say,  that  if  this  cry  for  blood 
is  persisted  in,  I desire  that  this  war  of  exter- 
mination shall  not  be  confined  to  exceptional 
localities,  but  shall  be  general. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  county  of  Delaware, 
which  I represent,  is  situated  very  much  as  the 
county  of  Richland,  which  is  represented  by 
the  gentleman  who  has  spoken  on  this  subject, 
and  alluded  to  the  necessity  of  some  such  law 
as  has  been  proposed  here  at  this  time.  Now, 
I am  also,  as  is  the  gentleman  from  Morrow 
[Mr.  Gurley],  in  favor  of  some  general  law 
upon  that  subject;  and  I think,  further,  that  it 
would  be  well  to  leave  it  to  the  Legislature  to 
apply  it  to  the  townships,  as  is  proposed  in  the 
resolution  now  before  us;  but  I do  not  think  it 
ought  to  be  confined  to  that  limit.  I think  it 
ought  to  be  general. 

The  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley], 
has  said  that  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  enact  ample  legislation  upon  this  sub- 
ject. I say  that  it  is  not  so.  The  present  Con- 
stitution has  a clause  in  it — and  I presume  there 


1638 


CONCERNING  DOGS. [124th 

Powell,  Ewing,  Cowen,  Carbery,  Coats,  Miner,  etc.  [Thursday, 


will  be  a similar  clause  in  our  Constitution,  if 
we  adopt  one — prohibiting  taxation  except  on 
value,  and  our  people  in  Delaware  county  have 
over  and  over  again  petitioned  the  Legislature 
to  pass  some  law  by  which  dogs  may  be  taxed 
or  assessed ; but  they  have  uniformly  refused 
to  do  it,  because  the  Constitution  prevents  them 
from  levying  a special  tax  upon  dogs,  or  upon 
any  thing,  except  according  to  its  value,  and  as 
dogs  are  of  no  value,  the  consequence  was  that 
we  could  not  succeed.  Now,  I think  that  some 
provision,  such  as  the  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing]  has  proposed,  should  be 
adopted  in  this  Article ; but  I think  that  some- 
where it  ought  to  be  put  into  the  Constitution, 
in  some  more  general  form  than  merely  allow- 
ing legislation  by  townships ; and  that  if  the 
Legislature  choose  to  do  it,  they  should  have 
the  power  to  legislate,  by  general  law,  upon 
that  subject.  I hope,  therefore,  that  the  gentle- 
man from  Fairfield  will  amend  his  proposition 
in  such  a way  as  to  make  it  general. 

Mr.  EWING.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me,  with  the  consent  of  the  Convention,  I will 
amend  my  proposition  by  striking  out  “ town- 
ships” and  inserting  “ counties  or  other  political 
or  municipal  divisions  of  the  State.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is,  that  the  Legislature 
may  authorize  them  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

No  objection  was  made,  and  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  was  permitted  to 
so  modify  his  proposition. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  now  acceptable  to 
me.  We  have  petition  upon  petition  from  Dela- 
ware upon  this  subject,  and  I felt  it  my  duty  to 
urge  upon  the  Convention  the  necessity  of 
adopting  just  such  a provision  as  that. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  : 

The  Secretary  read: 

Mr.  Cowen  moves  to  amend  the  motion  of  Mr.  Ewing 
by  inserting  in  the  proposed  instructions,  after  the  word 
“dogs”,  the  word  “rats.” 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I ask  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  for  a definition  of  the 
word  “ predatory.”  I would  like  to  know  whe- 
ther “ predatory  animals”  means  common 
councilmen  or  pedlars?  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  EWING.  Or  insurance  agents  ? 

Mr.  COATS.  I ask  the  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen],  if  by  “rats”  he  means 
court-house  rats?  [Laughter]. 

Mr.  COWEN.  If  this  Convention  proposes 
to  resolve  itself  into  a body  for  the  purpose  of 
waging  a constitutional  war  against  dumb 
brutes,  I desire  that  rats  may  be  included. 

A MEMBER.  Political  rats  ? 

Mr.  COWEN.  The  county  which  I have  the 
honor  to  represent,  contains  a large  agricultural 
population,  and  one  of  its  principal  products  is 
wool ; but  I do  not  believe  that  our  people  de- 
sire that  we  shall  provide  in  the  Constitution, 
for  conferring  upon  the  Legislature  authority 
to  make  it  a capital  offense  for  a dog  or  a rat — 
court-house  or  any  other  kind — to  come  inside 
of  our  county  borders.  My  object  in  intro- 
ducing this  amendment  is  to  bring  into  tangible 
shape  before  the  Convention,  what  seems  to  me 
to  be  one  of  the  results  of  this  proposed  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution. 


Mr.  MINER.  I do  not  believe,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  the  remedies  proposed  will  be  effec- 
tual, and,  therefore,  do  not  think  it  expedient 
to  put  the  provision  into  the  Constitution.  The 
sheep-killing  dog  always  commits  his  depreda- 
tions in  the  night  time,  and  is  seldom,  if  ever, 
caught  in  the  act.  That  is  his  instinct.  And 
he  commits  them  generally  at  a remote  point 
from  his  habitation.  If  caught  in  the  act,  I 
agree  he  ought  to  be  instantly  killed,  and  no 
one  would  have  the  right  to  complain.  But  an 
indiscriminate  right  to  kill,  and  that  on  suspi- 
cion merely,  would  be  fraught  with  great  mis- 
chief. It  would  lead  to  strife  and  retaliation  in 
the  destruction  of  property,  and,  perhaps,  of 
human  life.  The  human  species  generally 
have  a natural  and  very  strong  attachment  for 
these  animals.  “Kick  my  dog,  you  kick  me,” 
has  passed  into  an  aphorism.  The  attachment 
of  dogs  for  their  masters  has  no  parallel  for 
absolute  and  unselfish  devotion,  except  that  of 
the  female  for  her  young. 

“In  life  the  firmest  friend; 

First  to  welcome,  foremost  to  defend; 

Whose  honest  heart  is  all  his  master’s  own, 

Who  lives,  fights,  labors  and  breathes  for  him  alone.” 

If  you  rely  upon  a tax  to  prevent  the  mis- 
chief, will  it  be  effective,  unless  made  so  oner- 
ous as  to  tax  them  out  of  existence  ? Will  the 
people  of  Ohio  sustain  a law  imposing  such  a 
tax  ? Are  they  prepared  to  submit  to  the  ex- 
termination of  the  canine  race  ? I fear  not. 

Compensation  for  the  losses  thus  sustained 
might  be  provided  for  by  levying  a special  tax 
on  dogs,  and,  out  ot  the  fund  thus  raised,  pay 
for  all  the  sheep  thus  destroyed.  I presume  an 
annual  tax  of  one  dollar  per  head  on  all  the 
dogs  in  the  State  would  provide  an  ample  fund 
for  the  purpose,  and  such  tax,  I think,  would 
be  submitted  to.  If  it  should  have  the  effect  to 
rid  the  State  of  the  more  worthless  animals, 
the  “curs  of  low  degree,”  all  the  better. 

In  the  region  of  the  State  where  my  early 
days  were  spent,  wolves  were  the  destroyers  of 
sheep.  There  was  no  way  to  preserve  sheep 
from  these  wild  dogs  of  the  forest  for  a single 
night  except  by  confining  them  in  sheep  folds. 
Whether  this  mode  of  protection  from  dogs 
would  be  practicable  now,  when  the  number  of 
sheep  are  so  greatly  multiplied,  I am  not  pre- 
pared to  say.  Inclosures  would  have  to  be 
made  very  large,  else  sheep  would  become  dis- 
eased, and  such  inclosures  would  involve  much 
expense,  and  the  wasting  of  a considerable 
amount  of  land.  But,  finally,  it  occurs  to  me 
that,  near  forty  years  having  elapsed  since  I 
was  a keeper  of  flocks  and  a practical  agricul- 
turist, other  men  in  the  Convention  are  better 
qualified  than  myself  to  determine  what  ought 
to  be  done  to  remedy  an  evil  which  so  afflicts 
the  wool-growing  interest  of  the  State. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  glad  to  see  that  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  is  upon 
this,  as  he  is  very  likely  to  be  found  on  every 
question — on  the  side  of  the  people. 

I hope  that  some  prohibition  will  be  put  in 
the  Constitution  to  effect 

Mr.  POND.  I think  there  is  some  merit  in 
this  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing.]  The  trouble  is  this:  A large 
portion  of  the  counties  of  the  State— among 
which  I live — are  engaged  in  wool  growing 


Day.] CONCERNING  DOGS. 1639 

February  26, 1874.]  Pond,  Ewing,  Hitchcock,  Kerr,  Powell. 


There  is  no  provision  made  any  where,  no  ca- 
pacity in  the  Legislature  to  protect  against  this 
class  of  predatory  animals.  It  is  the  only  one 
I believe  which  is  dangerous  to  that  branch  of 
industry.  It  is  the  object  of  the  amendment, 
as  I understand  it,  to  enable  the  Legislature  to 
provide  for  the  prevention  of  the  excesses  in 
which  these  animals  often  indulge.  It  is  not 
true  that  it  is  the  most  worthless  dog  that  com- 
mits the  offense.  It  often  happens  that  the  most 
aristocratic,  playful  and  sportive  dog  is  as  bad 
a sheep-killing  dog  as  any.  If  anybody  desires 
to  keep  such  a dog,  it  appears  to  me  right  that 
he  should  pay  a duty  of  some  sort  upon  him  to 
go  to  reimburse  those  who  lose  by  the  destruc- 
tion of  their  sheep.  After  you  have  made 
this  arrangement  about  dogs,  I do  not 
know  whether  this  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman fron  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  reaches 
it  or  not,  it  appears  to  me  you  have  gone  about 
far  enough.  I do  not  know  of  any  other  animal 
against  which  we  need  this  special  branch  of 
legislation.  To  apply  it  to  all  predatory  ani- 
mals is  covering  a great  deal  of  territory,  as 
my  friend  f-om  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  suggests 
by  his  very  pertinent  amendment.  The  words 
“all  predaory  animals”  cover  the  rat,  the 
mouse,  and  :hat  valuable  animal  whose  fur  has 
become  so  valuable  in  the  markets  of  Paris,  the 
polecat,  thi  mink,  and,  more  than  that,  that 
animal  who.e  melodious  sounds  are  heard  be- 
neath our  windows  on  warm  summer  nights, 
the  cat.  It  appears  to  me  all  these  animals 
ought  not  to  be  covered  by  a constitutional 
provision.  II  we  could  make  a provision  that 
would  authoize  the  General  Assembly  to 
establish  an  e;cise  tax  upon  the  dog,  then  pro- 
vide that,  if  he  tax  were  not  paid,  the  dog 
should  be  killel,  I think  that  we  have  gone  just 
about  as  far  asthere  is  any  necessity  of  going. 
I suggest  that  s provision  of  that  sort  would  be 
sufficient.  I d»  not  know  whether  this  is  just 
the  kind  of  a movision  or  not.  I know  that 
township  trustes  in  the  townships  where  prop- 
erty is  destroyd  by  the  predatory  incursions 
of  these  aninals,  hesitate  a good  many 
times  to  come  right  down  and  say,  “ One 
of  my  neighborshas  a dog  he  values  very  much 
— a hunting  dog  to  take  it  upon  ourselves  to 
cause  such  an  aimal  to  be  destroyed,  is  labor 
we  do  not  like  tcundertake,”  and  very  few  of 
them  would  do  it  I presume  that  is  a fact  in  a 
great  many  instnees.  I know  that  rule  ob- 
tains in  the  counry,  “ You  kick  my  dog,  you 
kick  me.”  Peopj  have  valuable  dogs,  wThich 
they  dislike  to  los.  It  is  a nuisance,  and  a ter- 
rible one.  One  o my  friends,  within  the  last 
six  months,  has  ad  over  two  hundred  sheep 
killed  by  town  do$.  It  is  a terrible  tax  on  the 
farmer.  Somethig  ought  to  be  done.  I sug- 
gest that  a provison  that  some  sort  of  excise 
tax  or  assessmentmay  be  put  upon  the  dogs. 
Anything,  so  that ; may  be  leveled  squarely  at 
the  dog’s  head.  Ad  then  provide  that,  if  the 
tax  is  not  paid,  thdog  shall  be  killed. 

Mr.  EWING.  Tis  does  so  authorize. 

Mr.  POND.  Dot  it  authorize  it  if  the  tax  is 
not  paid  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Iiprovides  that  the  counties 
and  other  politicalor  municipal  divisions  of 
the  State  may  be  athorized,  by  special  laws, 
to  destroy  dogs  andither  predatory  animals,  or 


tax  them  without  regard  to  their  value  in 
money.  It  covers  exactly  the  ground. 

Mr.  POND.  What  I want  to  get  at  is  this : 
Instead  of  the  general  term  “tax,”  I would 
like  to  have  it  competent  for  the  General  As- 
sembly to  levy  a specific  tax  upon  the  dog,  as  a 
poll  tax  or  excise  tax. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  glad  to  see  that  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  is 
upon  this  as  he  is  very  likely  to  be 
upon  every  question,  on  the  side  of 
the  people.  I hope  that  some  prohibition  will 
be  put  into  the  Constitution  to  effect  the  pur- 
pose desired.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  whether 
he  would  be  willing  to  except  cur-dogs  from 
the  proposition  ? [Laughter.]  The  county  rep- 
resented by  my  friend  on  the  left  [Mr.  Kerr  of 
Licking]  is  one  largely  interested  in  wool- 
growing, a county  in  which,  I presume,  they 
would  be  very  glad  if  some  provision  of  this 
kind  could  be  adopted,  and  yet  I think  they 
would  wish  to  except  curs. 

Mr.  KERR.  My  name  is  so  like  that  of  the 
animal  that  I have  a great  deal  of  sympathy  for 
them.  I have  a great  respect  for  this  noble 
animal  that  is  likely  to  be  run  down  so  indis- 
criminately. Still,  I hope  that  some  provision 
of  that  kind  may  be  adopted  in  the  proper 
place  in  the  Constitution,  and  give  relief  from 
the  depredations  of  dogs.  I am  in  favor  of 
some  such  measure  in  the  right  place. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I intended  to  say  that 
this  subject  was  under  discussion  in  the  Com- 
mittee on  Revenue  and  Taxation,  and  a section 
in  that  report  made  by  that  Committee  is  in- 
tended to  reach  the  same  object  sought  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing].  While 
I should  be  glad  to  hear  from  the  distinguished 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture,  on 
this  subject,  and  while  I presume  the  Chairman 
on  Revenue  and  Taxation  will  not  feel  aggriev- 
ed should  the  Convention  take  this  subject  out 
of  his  hands  at  the  present  time  and  decide  in 
connection  with  this  Report,  I do  regard  it  as  of 
very  much  importance.  In  other  words,  I feel 
that  this  Convention  is  absolutely  required  to 
see  to  it  that  some  provision  shall  be  inserted, 
under  which  legislation  can  be  passed,  by  which 
this  very  great  burden  upon  the  agricultural 
interests  of  the  State  shall  be  removed.  Whether 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing],  in  the  form  in  which  presented, 
is  the  best,  is  a matter  upon  which  I am  not 
able  to  say,  not  having  given  it  any  considera- 
tion, except  having  heard  it  read  at  the  Secre- 
retary’s  desk.  Whether  it  be  so  or  not,  it  is  a 
subject  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  the  Con- 
vention. The  great  difficulty  has  been,  under 
the  present  Constitution,  that  by  the  provisions 
of  that  instrument,  as  construed,  no  tax  could 
be  levied  upon  a dog  which  was  in  any  way 
efficient,  in  protection  of  the  wool-growing  in- 
terests of  the  State.  I do  not  know  what 
language  can  best  be  used  in  connection  to  ac- 
complish this  object,  but  the  Convention  will 
get  my  idea. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  me  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  our  county  has  petitioned  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  over  and  over  again  to  authorize 
them  to  levy  a tax  upon  dogs,  but  the  trouble 
has  been  that  the  Constitution  provides  that  all 


1640 


CONCERNING  DOGS. 

Powell,  Hitchcock,  Blose,  Mueller,  Bishop,  Ewing. 


taxes  shall  be  levied  according  to  the  value  of 
the  property,  and  dogs  cannot  be  taxed  under 
that  provision. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Exactly  so,  sir ; that  was 
the  point  to  which  I was  coming.  The  difficulty 
has  been,  as  supposed,  at  least,  under  the  pres- 
ent Constitution,  that  they  could  only  be  taxed 
as  other  property,  and  there  has  been  a law 
providing  for  their  taxation  by  value,  the  sub- 
stance of  the  law  being  that  all  dogs  not  entered 
for  taxation  are  outlawed,  and  if  entered  for 
taxation,  the  owner  of  the  dog  would  be  entitled 
to  compensation  therefor;  but  in  no  case  can  he 
recover  in  damages  more  than  the  value  at 
which  he  has  listed  it  for  taxation.  That  is  the 
farthest  legislation  has  gone  in  this  direction. 
The  point  which  the  Legislature  has  sought  to 
reach,  and  the  one  regarded  by  them  as  the 
most  likely  to  accomplish  the  result,  was  fixing 
a specific  tax  upon  dogs,  and  creating  from 
that  tax  a fund  out  of  which  the  loss  accruing 
to  the  wool-grower  might  be  reimbursed.  It 
was  supposed  that  by  some  provision — by  some 
specific  tax  or  excise,  as  suggested  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond] — this  might 
be  accomplished.  I do  not  wish  to  argue  the  I 
question  at  all,  but  merely  wish  to  state  the  fact,  I 
as  the  trouble  that  has  existed  in  legislating 
upon  the  subject.  The  statistics  I have  not  at  j 
this  moment  in  hand,  but  from  them  could  j 
readily  show  to  the  Convention,  if  not  already 
advised,  the  great  importance  which  attaches  ! 
to  this  subject  to  the  wool-growing  interests  of  j 
the  State;  the  very  large  number  of  sheep  | 
killed  each  year,  and  their  aggregate  value.  In 
this  the  whole  community  is  interested  as  well 
as  the  growers  themselves,  as  each  year  we  have 
a large  aggregate  amount  of  capital  destroyed — 
removed  from  the  tax  duplicate  of  the  State  by 
the  depredations  of  dogs. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  This  dog  question  is  one  that 
seems  to  be  of  but  little  importance  to  some 
gentlemen  in  this  Convention.  As  I was  pass- 
ing along  the  streets  of  Springfield,  on  my  way  ! 
here,  on  Tuesday  last,  I was  handed  this  slip  of  ! 
paper  by  a very  honorable  gentleman  of  my  j 
county,  Mr.  Howell,  who  was  once  a member  of  j 
the  State  Senate.  I will  read  it  as  a part  of  my 
remarks : 

“Whereas,  there  has  been  great  destruction  of  sheep  l 
in  this  State,  by  dogs,  causing  annually  a loss  to  farmers  of 
thousands  of  dollars,  injuring  in  most  localities,  and  com- 
pletely destroying  in  others,  one  of  the  substantial  inter- 
ests of  the  State;  therefore 

Resolved , That  we  ask  the  Constitutional  Convention, 
now  in  session,  to  so  amend  the  Constitution  of  Ohio  that  | 
dogs  may  be  taxed  in  the  different  counties  of  the  State,  I 
as  their  different  interests  may  require.” 

That  is  substantially  what  I understand  to  be 
the  object  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  except  that  he  , 
makes  it  apply  to  townships.  The  term  that  he 
uses,  predatory,  I do  not  fully  understand,  not  ' 
having  examined  the  dictionary;  but,  accord-  ! 
ing  to  my  idea  of  it,  I regard  it  entirely  too  1 
sweeping;  and,  being  only,  I was  going  to  say,  1 
a Granger,— but  I am  not  even  that— what  effect 
it  would  have  on  a member  of  this  Convention,  i 
in  deciphering  these  great  terms,  I cannot  tell. 
But,  as  to  the  dog  question,  I feel  that  there 
ought  to  be  something  done  by  the  Convention  I 
which  would,  in  the  main,  accomplish  that  j 
which  the  gentleman,  by  his  resolution,  seem«  i 


[124th 

[Thursday, 


desirous  of  bringing  about.  The  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner]  says  that  the  dog 
that  kills  sheep  does  not  do  it  at  home,  but  goes 
a considerable  distance,  even  ten  miles  from 
home,  to  accomplish  his  object.  That  is  some- 
times so,  sometimes  not  so.  Had  the  gentle- 
man my  experience  he  would  know  better. 
The  gentleman  from  Lucas  [Mr.  Steedman] 
says  it  is  not  the  mean,  low  curs  that  do  the 
mischief,  generally,  but  the  aristocratic  dogs. 
I have  had  some  little  experience  in  that  line. 
I want  to  tell  you  what  my  experience  was. 
When  I was  first  married  I mo7ed  upon 
a little  farm  and  went  to  work  like  a good 
boy,  cutting  my  products  in  two  in  the  middle 
and  dividing  the  same  with  my  father.  I was 
an  honest  farmer  then.  We  are  all  called  hon- 
est, you  know.  I thought  I would  .'ike  to  have 
my  dog  be  a coon  hunter,  as  sport  tlen,  as  now, 
was  part  of  my  pleasure.  I could  s3nd  him,  my 
aristocratic  dog,  anywhere  on  the  farm  to  drive 
any  strange  animal  there  from.  He  was  one  of 
the  aristocracy,  I assure  you,  in  my  opinion. 
He  was  a very  valuable  dog.  I tookhim,  at  the 
solicitation  of  kind  neighbors,  coon  hunting 
one  night  in  company  with  their  cbgs  on  the 
farm  adjoining  the  one  on  which  I lived,  the 
same  belonging  to  my  father  also.  The  dogs 
soon  got  on  the  trail,  as  we  supposed.  We 
thought  we  were  having  fine  luck.  We  heard 
the  dogs  barking  at  a certain  place  and  by  the 
time  we  got  to  where  we  heard  then,  they  were 
some  place  else.  Finally,  we  camfupon  them, 
and  that  aristocratic  dog  of  mine  hid  a very  ex- 
traordinary coon,  in  the  shape  of  asheep,  down. 
[Laughter.]  I will  tell  you  wha  I did  with 
him.  I chained  him  up  to  a tree  ight  then  and 
there,  and  had  him  shot  dead  [Laughter]. 
Now,  as  small  as  this  matter  apiears,  I would 
have  some  provision  in  the  Constitution  by 
which  localities  could,  as  by  then  desired,  get 
rid  of  aristocratic  dogs,  like  miri  was,  as  well 
as  the  low  and  degraded  curs. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  g&tleman  allow 
a question  ? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  "Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  If  it  is  tru,  that  it  is  the 
aristrocratic  dogs  that  are  doin'  the  mischief, 
is  it  not  also  true,  in  respect  to  he  human  fam- 
ily, that  it  is  the  aristocracy  hat  are  preying 
upon  the  poor  sheep? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  That  is  my  experience  as  to 
dogs.  [Laughter.]  And  I am  a little  afraid  it 
follows  out  in  the  line  of  humaity.  Yea,  more ; 
Very  much  afraid  that  this  ru5  is  but  too  true. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I wish  simpy  to  remark  that 
the  Committee  on  Revenue  ail  Taxation  have 
reported  in  section  nine,  that  te  General  Assem- 
bly may,  throughout  the  Stap,  in  any  county 
or  counties,  provide  by  law  tcregulate,  restrain 
or  prohibit  by  special  tax,  asfssment  or  other- 
wise, the  keeping,  harboring  r run  mug  at  large 
of  dogs.  I think  I can  say  ft*  that  Committee, 
that  they  will  have  no  objeiions  to  its  being 
taken  out  of  its  proper  plac<  There  is  quite  a 
difference  of  opinion  upon  t&t  subject.  If  the 
Convention  should  see  fit  to  Let  upon  it  at  pre- 
sent, that  Committee  will  nefeel  offended. 

Mr.  EWING.  As  to  the  foper  place  for  this 
provision,  I think  the  place  ’here  I have  offered 
it  is  quite  as  proper  as  the  j-ticle  on  Revenue 
and  Taxation. 


CONCERNING  DOGS. 


1641 


Day.] 

February  26,  1874.]  Bishop,  Ewing,  Pratt,  Burns,  Hitchcock. 


Mr.  BISHOP.  Several  petitions  upon  that 
subject  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Finance  and  Taxation,  and  that  Committee  acted 
upon  them ; but  they  would  be  perfectly  willing 
to  get  rid  of  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  I understood  from  a member 
of  the  Committee,  that  the  section  as  reported 
by  it,  was  not  regarded  as  satisfactory,  and  I 
think  it  is  not.  It  is  as  follows : 

“The  General  Assembly  may,  throughout  the  State,  or 
in  any  county  or  counties  thereof,  provide  by  law  to  regu- 
late, restrain  or  prohibit,  by  special  tax,  assessment  or 
otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring,  and  running  at  large 
of  dogs.” 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  no  doubt  referred  to  me.  We  did 
consider  the  dog  question,  but  we  “ bitched”  it 
essentially. 

Mr.  EWING.  Under  this  fire  of  puns  it  is 
“ dogged”  hard  to  discuss  the  question.  The 
difficulty  about  this  section  is,  that  the  special 
tax  must  still  be  according  to  the  measure  of 
the  value  of  the  dog  in  money. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I think  the  gentleman  is  mis- 
taken. I think  it  does  essentially  meet  that 
very  point,  that  it  need  not  be  according  to  the 
measure  of  value. 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  you  are  mistaken. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  think  I am. 

Mr.  EWING.  “The  General  Assembly  may, 
throughout  the  State  or  in  any  county  or  coun- 
ties thereof,  provide  by  special  tax,  assessment 
or  otherwise.”  I do  not  think  that  calling  a 
tax  an  assessment  takes  it  out  of  the  rule  of  the 
Constitution  that  all  property  must  be  taxed 
according  to  its  true  value  in  money.  The 
words  assessment  and  tax,  as  used  in  this  para- 
graph, are  synonymous.  The  word  assessment 
is  sometimes  used  to  designate  a special  tax 
applicable  to  some  part  of  a given  species 
of  property  of  a jurisdiction,  and  not  to  all  the 
property  of  that  kind  in  the  jurisdiction. 
But  the  assessment  designated  in  section  9 is 
one  that  would  be  general  on  all  the  dogs  in  a 
county.  And  although  you  call  it  an  assess- 
ment, it  is  a tax,  and  as  it  is  a tax  it  falls  with- 
in the  provision  that  all  property  shall  be  taxed 
according  to  its  value  in  money. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I wish  the  gentleman  would 
direct  his  argument  to  two  particulars  in  this 
section.  It  provides  that  the  Legislature  may, 
by  special  law,  prohibit  the  keeping  of  dogs. 

Mr.  EWING.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question  of  taxation. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Does  the  gentleman  de- 
fine the  words  “or  otherwise?”  How  much 
would  that  cover? 

Mr.  EWING.  That  general  expression 
would  not  authorize  a tax  to  be  levied  other- 
wise than  in  conformity  with  the  general  re- 
quirement that  all  property  shall  be  taxed  ac- 
cording to  its  true  value  in  money.  Hence, 
where  you  put  a tax  on  the  dogs  of  a county, 
whether  you  call  it  an  assessment  or  not,  if  it  is 
put  on  all  the  dogs  of  the  jurisdiction,  it  is  in 
fact  and  law  a tax,  and  must  be  levied  accord- 
ing to  the  value  in  money  of  the  dogs  taxed. 

In  the  second  place,  section  9 does  not  carry 
with  it  the  power  to  destroy ; and  as  I said  be- 
fore, that  is  indispensable  to  meet  and  correct 
the  difficulty.  You  may  tax  the  dog  as  high  as 
you  please,  if  the  owner  does  not  pay  the  tax, 


what  are  you  going  to  do?  You  can  not  kill 
him.  Private  property  is  inviolate.  Fairfield 
county  may  levy  a tax  on  my  horses,  and  if  I 
fail  to  pay,  she  may  seize  and  sell  them  for  the 
delinquent  taxes ; but  she  may  not  send  her  offi- 
cers to  shoot  them  in  their  stalls. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  If  I am  not  mistaken,  accord- 
ing to  the  present  law,  if  a man  gives  in  his 
dog  at  a certain  valuation  and  I kill  him,  he 
cannot  get  pay  beyond  the  sum. 

Mr.  EWING.  But  you  commit  a trespass  in 
killing  him. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  If  he  does  not  give  the  dog  in, 
I am  not  liable. 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes;  you  would  be  commit- 
ting a trespass  by  killing  the  dog.  It  is  not  a 
proper  way  to  collect  a tax,  to  destroy  the  prop- 
erty on  which  the  tax  is  levied.  That  can  not 
be  authorized  under  our  Constitution.  Hence, 
section  nine  does  not  give  the  power  to  kill, 
and  my  amendment  was  drawn  for  that  pur- 
pose— to  give  the  Legislature  power  to  pass 
special  laws  authorizing  townships  to  destroy 
dogs  or  other  predatory  animals,  or  levy  a tax 
on  them  without  regard  to  their  value.  I think 
it  effectually  reaches  the  object.  The  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  says  that 
the  Legislature  shall  be  authorized  to  pass  only 
a general  law  upon  the  subject.  I differ  from 
my  friend  upon  that  point,  because  what  would 
be  desirable  to  a majority  of  the  State  respect- 
ing the  treatment  of  dogs,  would  be  very  un- 
desirable to  a large  minority  of  the  State.  I 
think  this  is  particularly  a local  question,  and 
ought  to  be  left  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
local  authorities  of  the  townships. 

Mr.  BURNS.  This  amendment  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  has 
been  sprung  suddenly  upon  the  Convention.  I 
was  not  aware  that  it  was  contemplated  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing].  This 
section  nine  was  considered  very  deliberately, 
at  least  as  much  so  as  it  was  possible  to  do  by 
the  Committee.  The  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  has  announced  the  fact  that  he  has 
been  informed  by  members  of  the  Committee 
that  this  section  was  not  satisfactory. 

Mr.  EWING.  By  a member  of  the  Commit- 
tee, I said. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  gentleman  said  members. 

Mr.  EWING.  I intended  to  say,  by  a mem- 
ber of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  not  advised  as  to  the  ex- 
tent of  the  dissatisfaction,  if  any  exists,  with 
this  section.  I do  not  know  that  there  was  any 
opposition  to  it  in  the  Committee.  The  Com- 
mittee was,  perhaps,  not  full  when  it  was 
adopted.  The  gentleman’s  section  proposes  to 
enable  parties  to  destroy  other  predatory  ani- 
mals. Well,  now,  for  one,  I would  dislike  to 
see  an  ambiguous  phraseology  like  that  inserted 
into  the  Constitution.  What  is  a predatory 
animal?  I have  not  had  time  to  examine  Web- 
ster or  Worcester  to  find  out  what  it  means, 
but  I think  it  would  have  a very  wide  range  of 
meaning.  It  might  include  many  different 
kinds  of  animals  besides  dogs.  Section  nine 
confers  the  power  on  the  Legislature  of  assess- 
ing a tax  on  dogs,  and  on  nothing  else.  Iam 
not  aware  of  any  other  domestic  animal,  in  this 
latitude,  which  it  would  be  desirable  to  have 
summarily  destroyed,  and  dogs  are  singled  out 


1642 


CONCERNING  DOGS. 

Burns,  Ewing,  Hale,  Pease,  Clay. 


mainly  because  they  have  acquired  the  habit  of 
destroying,  from  year  to  year,  the  large  amount 
of  property  that  it  is  proven  they  do.  Now,  if 
this  section  is  incorporated  in  the  language  in 
which  it  is  drawn,  including  other  predatory 
animals,  I very  much  fear  that  it  will  lead  to 
constant  litigation,  and  that  the  Legislature 
will  find  great  difficulty,  when  it  undertakes  to 
carry  this  provision  into  execution,  in  defin- 
ing what  are  predatory  animals ; and,  if  the  law 
that  was  passed,  based  upon  this  section,  should 
use  the  same  phraseology,  it  would  lead  to  end- 
less litigation.  Now,  as  a member  of  that  Com- 
mittee, and  speaking  for  myself  only — for  I 
do  not  speak  for  the  Chairman,  nor  for  any 
other  member  of  it — I have  no  pride  of  opinion 
nor  desire  that  the  provision  shall  be  in  one 
place  in  the  Constitution  in  preference  to  an- 
other. But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  natural 
place,  the  place  most  befitting  it,  would  be  in 
the  Article  on  Finance  and  Taxation,  and  not 
in  Township  and  County  Organizations.  It 
seems  to  me  that  is  not  the  proper  place  for  it. 
If  you  go  to  look  for  this  provision  in  the  Con- 
stitution it  is  one  of  the  last  places  you  would 
turn  to  find  it — on  the  subject  of  township 
and  county  organizations.  It  really  has  no  af- 
filiation with  that  subject  matter.  It  is  not 
germane  to  the  subject.  It  is  disconnected 
from  the  scope  of  the  object  which  is  in  view, 
disconnected  from  the  idea  of  township  and 
county  organizations  altogether. 

Mr.  EWING.  It  proposes  to  authorize  the 
Legislature  to  confer  on  townships  certain  pow- 
ers. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  is  not  connected  with  any 
other  power  that  is  given  them. 

Mr.  EWING.  There  are  many  other  powers 
conferred  by  this  Article  which  are  not  con- 
nected with  any  others.  This  proposition  is  to 
authorize  the  Legislature  to  confer  certain  pow- 
ers on  townships.  I think  it  is  entirely  proper 
in  this  place. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  say  that  it  is  entirely 
unsuitable,  but  I say  it  is  not  so  well  suited  to 
the  position  as  in  the  other  Article.  While  I 
am  prepared  to  vote,  if  it  is  the  sense  of  the 
Convention  that  it  should  be  decided  now,  and 
here,  and  forever,  so  far  as  our  action  is  con- 
cerned, I would  very  much  prefer  to  have  it 
some  other  place  in  the  Constitution,  and  come 
up  regularly,  as  all  other  propositions  have,  in 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  that  subject.  I 
think  it  legitimately  belongs  to  the  Committee 
who  have  had  it  under  consideration  for  weeks, 
and  have  reported  upon  the  subject.  I think  it 
is  their  right,  if  they  see  fit  to  assert  it,  to  have 
it  considered  in  the  connection  in  which  it  is 
found  in  the  Report,  and  not  be  sprung  upon 
us  and  inserted  here  in  this  proposition  to  re- 
commit with  instructions.  It  was  not  proposed 
when  the  Article  was  under  discussion;  but 
now  comes  up  as  a separate  proposition  to  re- 
commit with  these  instructions. 

Mr.  EWING.  I ask  the  consent  of  the  Con- 
vention to  strike  out  of  the  proposed  amend- 
ment, the  words  “and  other  predatory  ani- 
mals.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  has  leave,  and  the  words  may  be 
considered  stricken  out. 

Mr.  HALE.  I believe  that  the  consideration 


[124th 

[Thursday, 


of  this  subject  at  the  present  time  illustrates 
what  we  have  so  often  had  illustrated  before, 
the  cause  of  great  delays  in  doing  our  work, 
that  we  are  considering  the  right  subject  in  the 
wrong  place.  The  discussion  has  been  more 
upon  where  this  provision  should  go  than  upon 
its  merits.  A committee  has  carefully  consid- 
ered the  subject,  and  reported  a section,  in  my 
judgment,  far  preferable  to  the  amendment 
proposed.  I do  not  believe  in  leaving  this 
to  township  trustees  or  county  commissioners 
to  legislate  upon.  It  will  not  have  the  author- 
ity that  it  would  have  in  a general  statute.  The 
section  that  has  been  reported  by  the  Commit- 
tee provides  that  the  General  Assembly  may, 
“throughout  the  State,”  or  in  any  county  or 
counties  thereof,  (which  is  ciphering  it  down 
fine  enough,)  provide,  by  law,  to  regulate,  re- 
strain and  prohibit,  by  special  tax,  assessments 
or  otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring,  and  run- 
ning at  large  of  dogs.  Now,  if  there  is  any 
trouble  about  that  section  as  it  stands ; if,  as  it 
is  said,  you  must  tax  by  valuation,  you  may, 
when  that  section  comes  under  consideration, 
simply  insert  “ without  regard  to  value.”  By 
a simple  amendment,  that  section  may  be  made 
to  cover  the  whole  subject.  I hope  this  amend- 
ment will  be  voted  down,  and  the  section  be 
left  that  has  been  thoroughly  considered  and 
reported  by  the  Committee. 

Mr.  EWING.  I suggest  that  the  section  does 
not  give  the  power  to  destroy. 

Mr.  HALE.  Then  it  can  be  amended,  if 
it  does  not.  I believe  it  does  give  power  to 
destroy.  You  prohibit  a man  from  keeping 
a dog,  and  you  must  enforce  that  in  some  way 
or  other.  The  Legislature  has  already  provi- 
ded that  dogs  shall  be  listed  for  taxation,  and 
that  dogs  not  listed  for  taxation  are  to  be  held 
as  common  nuisances,  and  may  be  killed  by 
any  one,  whether  on  the  premises  of  the  owner 
or  anywhere  else.  They  have  already  done 
that  under  the  present  Constitution,  and  they 
have  provided  that  dogs,  whether  listed  or  not, 
that  are  away  from  home,  may  be  killed  at 
sight. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I am  in  sympathy  with  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  ; but  I believe  it  is  decidedly  out 
of  place  to  insert  it  in  this  Article.  It  does 
seem  to  me  not  to  be  germane,  and  I am  decid- 
edly opposed  to  thrusting  in  here  and  there, 
out  of  order  and  out  of  place,  these  amend- 
ments and  propositions,  when  the  whole  busi- 
ness of  the  Convention  has  been  so  well  class- 
ified and  sent  to  its  several  Committees,  and 
they  have  performed  their  labor  well,  as  this 
Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  seems  to 
have  done.  They  have  provided  the  Article 
needed,  which  covers  the  whole  ground,  in  my 
judgment,  in  better  shape,  better  language, 
more  comprehensive  and  more  acceptable  to  the 
Convention.  I would,  therefore,  if  it  is  in  order, 
move  that  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  be  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  HALE.  That  will  carry  the  whole 
proposition  with  it.  Let  us  vote  on  the  propo- 
sition. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Then  it  had  better  be  voted 
down,  and  had  better  go  where  it  belongs. 

Mr.  CLAY.  Is  it  in  order  to  offer  an  amend- 
ment now  ? 


Day.]  COUNTY  AND  TOWNSHIP  ORGANIZATIONS  FINISHED.  1643 

February  26,  1874.]  Tyler,  Baber,  Hitchcock,  Hale,  Horton,  etc. 


The  PRESIDENT.  An  amendment  to  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  will  be  in  order.  The  gentleman 
from  Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay]  offers  the  follow- 
ing amendment.  The  Secretary  will  read  : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“But  no  dog  charged  with  killing  sheep  shall  he  killed 
without  first  haying  a fair  trial  by  jury.”  Laughter.] 

Mr.  TYLER.  I move  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  BABER.  I suggest  that  the  gentleman 
from  Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay]  is  an  orator  equal 
to  a Clay. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  Chair  state  what 
will  be  the  effect  of  the  previous  question  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  effect  will  be,  of 
course,  to  bring  the  Convention  to  a vote  on  the 
proposition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  After  disposing  of  the 
amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  After  disposing  of  the 
amendment. 

The  question  being  on  putting  the  main  ques- 
tion, a division  was  demanded  and  resulted — 
affirmative  34,  negative  21. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay]  insist  on  his  mo- 
tion? 

Mr.  CLAY.  I withdraw  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be 
first  on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing]  that  the  Proposition  be  re- 
committed with  instructions  to  insert  the 
amendment  proposed  by  him. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is, 
Shall  the  Proposition  be  agreed  to  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  the  question  upon  adopt- 
ing the  Article  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Upon  adopting  the  en- 
tire Proposition. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Then  I have  a motion  to 
make  before  the  question  is  put. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  is  aware  that  the  pre- 
vious question  has  been  demanded,  and  no 
amendments  are  now  in  order.  The  question 
now  is  upon  agreeing  to  the  Proposition. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted 
— yeas  58,  nays  15,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Cook,  Cowen,  De 
Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Horton,  Hos- 
tetter.  Hunt,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kraemer, 
McBride,  Miller,  Miner,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Page, 
Pease,  Philips,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland, 
Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Townsend, Tulloss,  Tyler, 
Van  Yalkenburgh,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle, 
Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble,  President 
—58. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were— 

Messrs.  Beer,  Chapin,  Coats,  Dorsey,  Hitch- 
cock, Kerr,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Phellis, 
Pond,  Powell,  Townsley,  Van  Voorhis,  White 
of  Hocking — 15. 

So  the  Proposition  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I offer  the  following  reso- 
lution : 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  offers  the  following 
resolution.  The  Secretary  will  read  it : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Resolved , That  when  the  Convention  adjourn,  on  Friday 
the  27th  inst.,  it  be  until  Tuesday  next  at  2 o’clock  P.  M. 

Mr.  BABER.  I propose  to  discuss. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  proposes 
to  discuss.  The  resolution  will  lie  over. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  resolution  is  not  in  order. 
We  have  already  passed  a resolution  that  we 
will  not  adjourn  except  from  Friday  until 
Monday. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  the  resolution  is  in  order,  because 
it  will  be  competent  for  the  Convention  to  re- 
scind the  former  resolution. 

Mr.  BURNS.  They  may  rescind  it  by  a reso- 
lution, not  by  implication. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  would  be  the  effect 
of  the  resolution;  yet  offering  the  resolution 
will  still  be  in  order.  The  effect  would  be  to 
rescind  the  former  resolution,  if  it  be  adopted 
by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  HALE.  I move  we  proceed  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  special  order  of  the  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  other  mis- 
cellaneous business,  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man is  to  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the 
special  order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I wish  to  call  up  the  resolution 
offered  by  myself  a few  days  ago. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Hocking.  I desire  indefinite 
leave  of  absence  after  to-day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  will  have  leave. 

Mr.  HALE.  What  is  the  question? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  proposes  to  take  off  the  table 
the  resolution  offered  by  himself. 

Mr.  HALE.  Does  that  take  precedence  of 
my  motion? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  is  right.  His  motion  will 
take  precedence.  The  question  is  on  proceed- 
ing to  the  special  order  of  the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  of  the 
day,  being  Proposition  No.  194,  the  question 
pending  is  upon  agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I renew  the  amendment  that 
I offered  yesterday. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Portage 
[Mr.  Horton]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  at  the  end  of  section  2 the  following: 

“And  any  county  entitled  to  two  or  more  Representa- 
tives shall  be  subdivided  into  representative  districts  of 
contiguous  territory,  and  as  nearly  equal  in  population  as 
practicable,  equal  in  number  to  the  number  of  Represen- 
tatives to  which  such  county  is  entitled,  in  each  of  which 
one  Representative  shall  be  elected.” 

Mr.  HORTON.  When  I offered  this  amend- 
ment last  evening,  I did  not  intend  to  trouble 
the  Convention  with  remarks  upon  it,  and  I 
shall  not  now  at  any  length.  The  purpose  of 


1644 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 


[124th 

Horton.  [Thursday, 


the  amendment,  as  I said  before,  is  to  meet  the 
difficulties  which  we  have  in  the  large  counties 
of  the  State  of  a large  number  of  delegates  upon 
a general  ticket,  as  in  the  counties  of  Hamilton 
and  Cuyahoga,  where  three,  five,  and  ten  dele- 
gates are  voted  for  upon  a single  ticket,  thus 
enabling  a very  small  majority  of  the  party, 
either  one  way  or  the  other,  to  control  the  en- 
tire delegation.  That  is  the  difficulty  which  has 
suggested  itself  so  strongly  to  the  people  of  the 
State,  and  to  this  Convention,  that  I apprehend 
there  will  be  very  little  disposition  upon  the 
part  of  anybody  to  continue  this  practice. 
Some  means  must  be  devised  by  which  this  evil 
shall  be  got  rid  of,  and  I find  myself  driven  to 
one  of  two  alternatives. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  the  Convention  take  a 
T6C6SS# 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
yield  the  floor  ? 

Mr.  HORTON.  Yes,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  moves  to  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12 : 20  p.  m.]  took  a recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending,  at 
the  time  the  recess  was  taken,  was  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr. 
Horton]  to  amend  section  two.  The  gentle- 
man from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  is  entitled  to 
the  floor. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I have  no  desire  to  speak  at 
any  great  length,  and  I promise  the  Conven- 
tion, if  they  will  listen  to  me  for  a few  mo- 
ments, they  will  not  be  long  troubled.  As  I 
stated  yesterday,  and  also  this  morning,  the  ob- 
ject of  this  is  to  test  the  sense  of  the 
Convention  on  the  question  of  single  districts 
or  minority  representation.  The  Convention 
will  recollect  that  the  sixth  section  of  the 
Article  under  consideration,  provided,  that 
where  three  or  more  members  of  the  General 
Assembly  are  to  be  elected  in  any  one  or  more 
districts,  they  are  to  be  elected  by  what  is  com- 
monly known  as  cumulative  voting.  If  this 
motion,  that  I make  here,  and  the  motion  which 
was  made  yesterday  by  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  shall  prevail,  this  sixth 
section  would  necessarily,  of  its  own  weight, 
fall  out  of  the  Article.  But  if  the  motion  that  I 
make  now,  and  the  proposition  introduced  yes- 
terday by  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr. 
Hale],  should  both  fail,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
sixth  section,  or  some  substitute  for  it,  ought  to 
be  adopted.  The  idea  seems  to  prevail,  and  to 
be  entertained  by  many  gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention, judging  from  the  remarks  which  have 
been  made,  that  the  proposition  to  divide  the 
counties  of  the  State  into  single  representative 
districts  is  something  new,  that  it  is  an  anomaly 
in  legislative  experience,  and  that  it  is  not 
sanctioned  by  the  experience  or  the  wisdom  of 
the  people  of  the  country  at  large.  I have 
taken  occasion  during  the  morning,  in  what 
little  time  I have  had,  to  look  over  the  Con- 
stitutions of  the  different  States  of  the  Union, 
and  I think  I am  able  to  say,  beyond  all  doubt, 
h at  there  cannot  be  found  any  one  instance 


where  a city,  as  large  as  Cincinnati,  or  a county 
having  the  population  of  Hamilton  county,  or 
a city  as  large  even  as  Cleveland,  has  been  al- 
lowed to  elect  its  entire  representation  to  the 
General  Assembly  upon  a single  ticket.  1 say 
no  such  practice  can  be  found  anywhere  out- 
side of  Ohio ; and  whatever  there  would  be  in 
it  that  is  anomalous,  whatever  there  would  be 
that  is  different  from  the  particular  course  of 
practice,  is  peculiar  to  our  own  State  and  pre- 
vails here  alone. 

I have  looked  over,  with  as  much  care  as  I 
have  been  able,  this  morning,  the  various  con- 
stitutions, and  find  that  there  are  no  less  than 
thirteen  States  in  which  the  constitutions  pro- 
vide systems,  that  in  the  creation  of  represent- 
ative districts,  counties  are  not  to  be  divided; 
but  I find  in  every  one  of  those  States  there 
are  no  large  cities,  and  no  counties  approxi- 
mating to  the  size  of  either  Cuyahoga  or  Ham- 
ilton. These  are  the  State  Constitutions  of 
North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  South  Carolina, 
Tennessee,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  Alabama, 
Arkansas,  Delaware,  Florida,  Georgia,  Indiana 
and  Iowa.  In  the  New  England  States,  the 
representation  is  by  towns  and  not  by  counties ; 
and  even  then  they  have  been  compelled,  as  in 
Massachusetts,  to  provide  that  the  larger  towns, 
those  entitled  to  more  than  one  Representative 
— shall  be  subdivided,  so  that  they  not  only  di- 
vide the  county  into  towns,  but  they  go  further 
and  subdivide  each  town  and  city,  as  it  becomes 
entitled  to  more  than  one  Representative,  into 
subdistricts.  When  we  take  the  Constitu- 
tions of  the  several  other  States,  in  which 
are  found  all  of  the  large  cities  of  the 
Uuion,  we  find  that,  invariably,  the  prac- 
tice has  been  to  subdivide  counties  into 
election  districts.  In  the  State  of  New  York, 
the  cities  are  subdivided.  In  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  under  the  new  Constitution,  they 
are  required  to  be  subdivided,  so  that  not  more 
than  four  Representatives  can  be  elected  in  any 
single  district;  and  the  same  rule  prevails  in 
Illinois,  under  the  new  Constitution.  In  Oregon, 
they  have  a provision  for  subdivisions  which 
may  be  carried  into  effect.  In  Wisconsin,  they 
have  also  made  a provision  for  subdivisions.  In 
California,  in  Kansas,  in  Kentucky,  in  Louisia- 
na, the  same  provision  prevails.  Maryland  di- 
vides, by  its  Constitution,  the  city  of  Baltimore 
into  subdistricts.  Massachusetts  divides  its  ci- 
ties into  subdistricts.  Minnesota,  Mississippi, 
and  Missouri  make  the  same  provision  for  sub- 
divisions. So  that  we  find  all  the  large  cities 
of  the  Union — for  instance,  New  York,  Brook- 
lyn, Buffalo,  Albany,  Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh, 
Baltimore,  New  Orleans,  St.  Louis,  Milwaukee, 
and  Chicago,  are  all  subject  to  be,  and  are  divi- 
ded into  subdistricts  for  election  purposes,  so 
that  the  delegates  are  elected  by  sub -districts; 
or,  at  least,  as  in  Pennsylvania  and  Illinois,  in 
districts  embracing  not  more  than  four  Repre- 
sentatives. And,  as  I said  before,  no  where 
outside  of  the  State  of  Ohio  can  there  be  found 
an  example  where  so  large  a Representative 
district  as  the  county  of  Hamilton,  or  even,  I 
think,  the  county  of  Cuyahoga,  can  be  found 
electing  their  entire  delegation  to  the  General 
Assembly  upon  one  ticket. 

Suppose  the  proposition  were  made  that  the 
entire  people  of  Ohio  should  elect  their  Gener- 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Horton,  Griswold. 


1645 


February  26, 1874.] 


al  Assembly  upon  one  ticket.  There  is  not  a 
man  in  the  Convention  who  would  not  cry  out 
against  so  monstrous  an  injustice.  Why,  then, 
do  we  divide?  In  order  that  the  people  of  each 
locality  may  have  their  right  to  represent  their 
own  local  interests  and  their  own  local  peculi- 
arities. But  we  run  immediately  into  this  diffi- 
culty. In  so  large  a district,  or  so  large  a coun- 
ty as  Hamilton  or  Cuyahoga,  a very  small  ma- 
jority— it  may  be  but  a majority  of  one  hundred 
votes — one  party  or  the  other  is  enabled  to  con- 
trol the  entire  delegation  in  either  one  of  these 
counties,  and  thus  control  the  Legislature  of 
the  State.  I do  not  believe  it  would  be  possible,  I 
do  not  believe  there  is  a gentleman  upon  this 
floor  who  would  stand  here  and  sanction  the 
idea  that  in  so  large  a city  as  New  York  or 
Philadelphia,  the  entire  delegation  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  should  be  elected  upon  one  tick- 
et. The  city  of  Philadelphia  contains  some- 
thing like  a million  inhabitants,  one-fourth  of 
the  entire  population  of  the  great  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania, and  if  that  principle  were  to  prevail 
we  can  see  at  once  that  that  city  would  have  a 
control  that  would  be  irresistible,  and  that  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania  would  be  placed  at  its 
mercy.  The  same  rule  would  prevail  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  if  her  large  cities  were  al- 
lowed to  elect  her  Representatives  by  a single 
ticket ; and  the  time  may  come  when  the  same 
will  prevail  in  Ohio. 

One  of  the  strongest  reasons  for  sub-dividing 
the  State  is,  that  each  party  may  have  its  due 
measure  of  representation,  which  it  gets  if  it  is 
sub-divided  into  different  localities ; so  that  while 
one  party  is  strong  in  one  locality,  and  another  in 
another,  in  the  aggregate  the  representation  is 
a fair  representation  of  the  districts  of  the 
State.  But  no  such  thing  can  exist 
where  you  group  together  in  single  dis- 
tricts, as  in  this  district,  or  in  Cuyahoga,  a large 
population  and  elect  their  entire  delegation  by 
general  ticket.  I say,  then,  it  is  simply  a mat- 
ter of  justice;  it  is  simply  a matter  of  right, 
that  the  people  of  the  State  should  be  allowed 
to  elect  their  Representatives  in  this  manner  and 
in  these  divisions. 

We  all  meet  right  here  with  what  seems  to  me 
to  be  the  only  objection  that  has  been  made  to 
this  proposition,  and  that  is,  there  is  a liability 
of  gerrymandering  these  districts  for  political 
purposes.  That, Mr. President,  may  be  quite  true. 
There  are  evils  incident  to  every  political  sys- 
tem. There  are  evils  incident  to  every  measure 
which  we  may  devise,  and  that  is  one  of  the 
evils.  But,  sir,  it  is  an  evil  which  applies  to 
every  system  of  districting.  We  divide  cities 
for  other  purposes.  The  county  of  Hamilton 
has  been  divided  into  two  districts  for  the  elec- 
tion of  members  of  Congress;  and,  with  equal 
propriety,  may  it  not  be  for  the  election  of  Sen- 
ators for  the  State  Legislature  ? You  divide  the 
city  into  wards.  You  divide  it  for  all  pur- 
poses ; and  go  where  you  will,  it  is  so.  In  the 
city  of  New  York  they  divide  the  city  into  a 
large  number  of  districts  for  the  election  of 
members  of  Congress.  They  divide  it  up  for 
electing  members  of  the  Senate ; they  divide  it 
up  for  electing  members  of  the  House;  they 
divide  it  up  into  wards;  they  divide  it  up  for  a 
number  of  purposes;  and  if  this  objection  of 
gerrymandering  was  a reasonable  objection,  if 


it  be  applied  to  the  division  of  the  city  into 
election  districts,  it  will  apply  with  equal 
force  for  any  purpose.  You  cannot  divide 
the  State  of  Ohio  for  Congressional  purposes 
without  the  charge  being  made  of  gerrymander- 
ing. The  charge  is,  doubtless,  well  made.  You 
cannot  divide  the  State  for  judicial  purposes, 
but  what  men  with  axes  to  grind,  who  desire 
that  divisions  may  be  made  to  suit  their  con- 
venience, will  labor  to  accomplish  that  result. 
You  cannot  divide  the  State  for  any  purpose, 
but  what  you  will  find  the  same  question  pre- 
sented to  you,  and  thus  it  is  that  the  same  diffi- 
culty occurs  everywhere.  You  cannot  divide  a 
county  for  any  purpose,  but  you  will  have  the 
same  trouble.  It  is  inevitable  in  all  systems  of 
government.  The  State  must  be  divided  into 
these  districts.  It  must  be  divided  into  con- 
gressional districts;  it  must  be  divided  into 
judicial  districts;  it  must  be  divided  into 
senatorial  districts.  No  man  will  stand  here 
and  say  that  the  division  should  not  be  made, 
because,  forsooth,  somebody  may  come  in  with 
some  gerrymandering  plan  or  scheme.  It  is 
only  when  we  come  here,  and  say  that  these 
counties  that  occupy  a position  with  such  a 
population,  and  such  a power,  that  by  combin- 
ing their  influence  and  their  vote  as  a com- 
munity, they  are  enabled  to  control  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State;  they  are  enabled  to 
place  the  rest  of  the  State  at  their  feet,  and 
much  more — we  are  met  here  with  the  argu- 
ment that  we  must  not  do  these  things;  some- 
body will  call  it  gerrymandering. 

Mr.  President,  I stand  here  to  defend  this 
proposition,  and  say  that  it  is  right  that  this 
division  should  be  made.  It  is  right  that  the 
people  who  have  to  elect  the  members  of  the 
General  Assembly  should  be  divided  up  into 
proper  districts,  and  it  is  no  answer  to  say  that 
it  is  not  practicable  to  do  it.  When  we  stand 
here  and  say  it  is  wrong  that  these  two  large 
counties  should  be  allowed  to  exercise  their  con- 
trolling influence  on  the  Legislature  of  the 
State,  we  claim  that  it  is  a matter  of  right ; and 
it  is  no  answer  to  the  claim  to  say,  that  it  can- 
not be  done,  because  politicians  and  political 
men,  who  have  schemes  of  their  own  to  carry 
on,  will  make  use  of  and  exercise  that  power  to 
advance  their  personal  schemes,  and  make  divi- 
sions that  are  not  exactly  as  they  ought  to  be. 
I do  not  suppose,  sir,  that,  in  any  division  which 
you  can  make,  you  will  correctly  divide  these 
counties  to  a mathematical  demonstration.  I 
do  not  doubt  that  some  divisions  will  have  more 
than  their  population,  and  others  less.  I do 
not  doubt  that  some  injustice  will  be  done. 
But,  sir,  I have  too  much  confidence  in  the  good 
sense,  and  in  the  love  of  justice  and  equity  in 
the  people,  to  believe  that  they  will  submit  to 
any  such  flagrant  act  of  injustice  as  shocks  the 
conscience  or  sensibilities  of  honest  people. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  You  would  have  to  pro- 
vide that  the  wards  in  a city  should  have  fixed 
boundaries,  so  that  no  change  should  be  made 
in  a ward.  How  are  you  going  to  accomplish 
this,  unless  you  make  the  wards  a fixed  thing? 
I want  to  hear  the  gentleman  on  that. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I have  not  proposed  that 
this  division  should  be  made  by  wards.  It  is  a 
matter  to  be  left  to  the  authority  that  shall 
hereafter  determine  and  fix  this  apportionment. 


1646 


[124th 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Horton,  Hostetter,  Griswold. 


My  own  view  of  the  matter  would  be  that  the 
General  Assembly  should  create  some  local 
authority  that  should  make  this  division.  I be- 
lieve that  this  is  the  universal  and  general  prac- 
tice in  the  Eastern  States.  I know  that  in 
Boston,  and  I think  that  in  most  of  the  towns 
and  cities  where  this  practice  prevails,  the  divi- 
sion is  made  by  the  local  authorities,  and  I be- 
lieve that  would  be  the  better  method.  But  the 
gentleman  proposes  here  to  raise  that  question. 
I simply  stand  here  now  to  assert  and  vindicate 
the  great  principle  that  this  division  should  be 
made.  It  is  a principle  which  is  sanctioned  by 
experience.  It  is  a principle  which  we  stand 
here  to  claim  is  sanctioned  by  justice,  and  I be- 
lieve it  is  always  practicable  to  do  right.  I 
think,  sometimes,  we  are  almost  in  danger  of 
assuming  that  the  General  Assembly  cannot  be 
trusted  to  decide  upon  anything;  and  I have 
little  respect  for  the  continual  desire  that  seems 
to  me  to  be  manifested  by  some  gentlemen  upon 
the  floor  of  this  Convention  to  assume  to  place 
the  Legislature  under  a guardianship,  as  though 
it  cannot  be  trusted  in  any  respect.  They 
must  have  the  veto  power  placed  over  them, 
and  they  must  have  so  many  restrictions  placed 
over  them  that  it  would  seem  that  we  propose 
to  act  upon  the  assumption  that  if  it  were  pos- 
sible, it  would  be  better  for  the  people  to  get 
along  without  a Legislature ; that  it  is  a neces- 
sary evil;  necessarily  corrupt,  necessarily  in- 
clined to  run  to  wickedness  and  abuse ; some- 
thing that  we  cannot  help,  and  that  every  re- 
striction that  we  can  place  upon  this  power  is  so 
much  gained  for  the  cause  of  virtue,  of  pub- 
lic morals,  and  of  justice.  I do  not  be- 
lieve in  such  doctrine.  The  Legislature  is  the 
creature  of  the  people.  It  represents  them, 
and  I believe  that  the  average  intelligence  and 
the  integrity  of  that  body  are  equal  and  supe- 
rior to  that  of  the  constituency  whom  they  rep- 
resent, I am  proud  to  say,  sir,  that  in  my  rec- 
ollection— and  I can  recollect  back  for  twenty 
years — no  well-founded  charge  of  corruption 
has  ever  been  brought  and  sustained  against  the 
General  Assembly  of  Ohio ; and  I believe  that 
that  body  is,  and  always  has  been,  a body  of 
men  earnestly  and  sincerely  and  anxiously  de- 
sirous to  do  right;  and  I believe  that  in  this 
matter  it  can  be  trusted  to  make  such  a division 
as  shall  be  just  and  equitable. 

One  word  more : I said,  in  the  outset,  that  I 
believed  we  must  have  single  districts,  or  we 
must  have  some  form  of  minority  representa- 
tion. For  my  part,  I very  much  prefer  single 
districts.  I prefer  it  because  I believe  it  will 
give  us  a better  General  Assembly,  that  it  will 
secure  to  us  better  men. 

There  are  two  ways,  as  I understand  it,  by 
which  the  people  may  judge  of  the  character  of 
their  Representatives,  or  the  men  for  whom 
they  shall  vote.  In  the  first  place,  by  personal 
knowledge,  and  in  the  second  place,  by  their 
reputation;  and,  of  the  two  methods,  I regard 
the  first  as  decidedly  the  most  important.  And, 
hence  it  is,  that  I believe  that  in  the  smaller  dis- 
tricts you  will  be  enabled,  by  bringing  a Repre- 
sentative directly  home  to  the  people,  to  know 
better  the  character  of  the  men  for  whom  they 
shall  vote.  The  second  objection  that  I have  to 
the  scheme  of  minority  representation,  or  this 
method  of  electing  by  large  districts  is,  that 


[Thursday, 

it  places  the  election  so  far  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  people  that  they  cannot  know  the  men  whom 
they  are  voting  for,  or  understand  the  method 
by  which  they  have  been  nominated  and  placed 
before  them.  The  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
DorseyJ  inquired  of  us  the  other  day,  if  we  are 
never  to  have  an  end  of  the  struggle  for  place 
and  power ; if  the  day  never  would  come  when 
the  “ ins  ” would  not  be  struggling  for  power 
and  the  “ outs  ” would  not  be  fighting  for  their 
position  ? Mr.  President,  I rejoice  in  the  hope 
that  we  never  shall  see  that  day.  An  ambition 
to  serve  the  people  is  a worthy  and  an  honora- 
ble and  a high  ambition.  It  is  one  in  which 
every  man  may  well  indulge,  and  of  which  he 
may  justly  be  proud;  and  so  long  as  men  have 
the  ambition  that  they  have,  so  long  as  men  are 
desirous  of  promotion,  of  place,  and  of  power, 
they  will  seek  the  advantages  that  official  posi- 
tion gives  them. 

I believe,  sir,  that  the  effort  to  control  these 
large  districts  and  the  election  in  this  manner 
will  result  in  placing  the  election,  or  at  least 
the  nomination,  so  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
people  that  they  will  fail  to  understand  it.  I 
believe  that  in  exactly  the  same  proportion  as 
you  bring  these  officers  right  home  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  make  it  with  them  a personal  matter, 
you  will  have  honest  men  and  good  men.  I be- 
lieve that,  just  in  proportion  as  you  place  that 
choice  further  away  from  them,  so  far  from 
them  that  they  cannot  control  it  by  their  per- 
sonal action,  that  you  will  be  in  danger  of  hav- 
ing that  choice  fall  into  the  hands  of  men  who 
will  control  it  for  selfish  and  unworthy  motives. 

For  this  reason,  I believe  that  small  districts 
are  better  than  large  districts.  I believe  that 
there  is  less  reason  to  suppose  that  the  choice 
will  be  made  by  what  we  actually  know,  and 
not  influenced  by  the  wire-working  and  log- 
rolling, and  all  the  other  manner  of  scheming 
that  politicians  understand  so  well  how  to  make 
use  of.  I believe  that  when  you  have  made  sub- 
divisions, and  brought  the  matter  directly  home 
to  the  people,  so  that  they  will,  personally,  know 
the  men  who  seek  to  represent  them,  they  will 
be  better  represented,  and  represented  by  more 
honest  men. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  I move  to  amend  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr. 
Horton]  by  striking  out  “ two,”  and  inserting 
“three,”  so  that  it  will  read,  “any  county  where 
there  are  three  or  more.” 

Mr.  HORTON.  I am  not  particular  as  to  the 
number,  “two”  or  “three,”  and,  if  the  Conven- 
tion are  willing,  I shall  accept  the  amendment. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I object  to  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter.] 

Upon  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  20, 
nays  52,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Beer,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Co  wen,  Doan,  Hale,  Herron,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Jackson,  Page,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Van  Voorhis, 
Woodbury,  President — -20. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Car- 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS, 


1647 


Day.] 

February  26, 1874.1  Herron. 


bery,  Chapin,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Ew- 
ing, Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene.  Griswold, Gur- 
ley, Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
Kraemer,  McBride,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Okey,  Powell,  Rickly,  Row- 
land, Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Steedman,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle, 
Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Noble — 
52. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I trust  that  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr. 
Horton]  will  be  adopted.  I am  in  favor  of 
single  districts  as  applicable  not  . only  to  the 
election  of  the  judges  of  the  courts  of  common 
pleas,  but  also  to  the  election  of  members  of  the 
Legislature.  I believe  that  in  all  cases  where 
but  a single  officer  is  to  be  elected,  you  stand  a 
better  opportunity,  not  only  in  the  nomination, 
but  at  the  polls,  of  getting  better  men  than 
where  three  or  more  are  to  be  nominated  and 
voted  for,  for  the  same  office.  I suppose  we 
may  as  well  recognize  the  fact  that  the  nomin- 
ating convention  determines  the  choice  of  most 
officers  in  this  city.  However  unfortunate  that 
may  be,  the  fact  is,  that  the  convention,  as  a 
general  rule,  determines  the  result;  and  when 
the  predominant  party  has  succeeded  in  making 
this  nomination,  the  election  follows  in  the 
same  direction.  I appeal  to  the  experience  of  any 
man  in  this  Convention,  who  is  at  all  familiar 
with  party  conventions,  as  to  whether  you  are 
not  less  liable  to  get  good  nominations  when 
three  or  four  are  to  be  voted  for,  for  the  same 
office,  than  when  there  is  but  a single  man  to 
be  nominated ; whether  the  trading  and  bar- 
gaining, the  combinations  that  take  place  in 
party  conventions  when  a large  number  of 
persons  are  to  be  nominated  for  the  same  office, 
as  a matter  of  fact,  result,  as  a general  thing, 
in  poor  nominations?  Take  our  county, for  in- 
stance, where  we  elect  ten  Representatives,  and 
a convention  is  held  for  the  nomination  of  ten 
men  for  this  office.  Any  ward  politician,  with 
one  ward  at  his  back,  can  nominate,  in  conven- 
tion, any  man  that  he  chooses ; and  I care  not  of 
what  material  the  convention  is  composed,  the 
fact  that  one  man  controls  a single  delegation, 
enables  him,  by  the  use  that  he  may  make  of 
that  delegation,  to  nominate  any  man  that  he 
may  choose,  and  when  the  result  is  determined, 
when  the  nominations  are  made,  they  will,  in  all 
probabilty,  be  such  that  not  one-tenth  of  the 
delegates  in  the  first  place  would  have  accepted. 
This  is  the  testimony,  I believe,  of  every  one 
who  has  had  any  experience  in  this  matter,  that 
in  the  nomination  of  a large  number  of  men 
for  a single  office  you  do  not  get  as  good  nom- 
inations as  you  generally  do  when  you  nominate 
but  one  person. 

We  are  told  that  wc  should  enlarge  the  area 
of  choice,  and  that  if  the  people  have  a large 
district  from  which  to  make  a selection,  they 
will  get  better  men  than  where  the  district  is 
small.  I take  it  that  that  depends,  altogether, 
upon  the  character  of  the  office  to  be  filled.  In 
the  State  of  Ohio  we  nominate  probably  at  the 
same  Convention  a candidate  for  Governor  and 


a candidate  for  member  of  the  Board  of  Pub- 
lic Works.  I appeal  to  gentlemen  of  this  Con- 
vention whether,  in  any  case  for  the  nomina- 
tion of  such  an  officer  as  a member  of  the  Board 
of  Public  Works,  the  large  area  of  choice  does 
give  to  that  office  men  of  a higher  character 
than  would  be  nominated  in  any  county  con- 
vention in  the  State;  whether  the  men  that  are 
nominated  at  our  State  conventions  for  unimpor- 
tant offices  of  that  kind  are,  as  a general  rule, 
better  men  than  any  one  single  county  repre- 
sented in  that  convention  would  select?  When 
you  nominate  a Governor,  it  is  a matter  of  pub- 
lic interest.  The  eyes  of  the  entire  State  rest 
upon  that  office.  The  Governor  is  nominated 
as  a representative  man,  and,  consequently, 
when  your  field  is  large,  you  may  get  a better 
man  for  such  an  office.  But  when  you  come  to 
nominate  for  members  of  the  Legislature,  you 
must,  as  a matter  of  fact,  distribute  the  offices 
in  different  localities.  Each  locality  must  have 
its  man.  If  that  is  to  be  done,  why  not  let  each 
locality,  for  instance,  select  its  man,  choose 
him  from  among  themselves  as  they  please,  un- 
controlled by  the  dictates  of  other  districts. 
Why  shall  not  each  district  be  left  free  to  choose 
the  man  that  it  thinks  best  suited  to  represent 
them? 

I know  that  there  are  some  objections  to  this 
system;  that  there  may  be  in  cities  certain 
wards  where  persons  of  an  inferior  character 
might  be  selected  as  Representatives  in  the 
Legislature.  But  that  occurs  also  in  county 
conventions.  It  occurs  any  where.  And  while 
this  thing  might  occur  in  a few  districts,  my 
impression  is,  that  in  a large  majority  of  dis- 
tricts, the  choice  would  be  far  better  than  when 
made  by  a county  convention. 

Another  matter  was  referred  to  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton],  and  it  is,  if 
the  improper  man  is  nominated,  you  stand  a 
better  chance  of  defeating  him.  If  one  or  two 
wards  are  joined  together  in  a single  district, 
and  one  party  select  a man  who  is  not  a fit  Rep- 
resentative, his  neighbors  and  the  persons 
knowing  him  may,  through  those  two  wards, 
stand  some  chance  of  defeating  him  at  the 
polls,  or  at  the  nominating  Convention;  but 
when  you  come  to  an  entire  county,  and  a man 
is  nominated  as  a Representative  of  one  ward, 
who  is  scarcely  known  out  of  the  boundaries  of 
that  ward,  it  is  almost  impossible,  in  the  large 
district  over  which  the  voters  are  scattered,  to 
produce  any  effect  whatever  in  the  vote  re- 
ceived by  that  individual. 

I say,  then,  that  the  smaller  you  make  the 
district,  the  nearer  home  you  bring  the  candi- 
date to  the  voter,  the  better  he  is  known  to  the 
men  who  are  to  vote,  the  better  able  they  will 
be  to  judge  of  his  character,  and  the  more  like- 
ly they  will  be  to  succeed  in  making  a proper 
choice. 

Now,  we  are  told,  there  are  dangers  of  ger- 
rymandering. It  may  be  so.  This  proposition 
does  not  provide  the  manner  in  which  this  dis- 
tribution shall  be  made.  It  does  not  fix  the  au- 
thority which  shall  make  the  division.  In  the 
city  of  New  York  the  board  of  supervisors  are 
required  to  district  the  city.  Here  the  county 
commissioners  may  do  it,  or  the  Legislature 
may  do  it,  as  this  Convention  may  determine. 
But  there  is  no  more  injustice  in  dividing  coun- 


1648 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Herron,  Carbery,  Mueller. 


[124th 

[Thursday, 


ties  than  there  is  in  dividing  the  State.  We 
propose  here  to  district  the  State  for  Senators; 
the  Legislature  districts  the  State  for  members 
of  Congress;  the  cities  are  districted  for  the 
election  of  Representatives  in  the  Council. 
Then,  how  much  more  difficult  is  it  to  district  a 
city  or  county  for  representative  districts,  than 
it  is  for  these  other  matters  ? I prefer  that  the 
choice  should  be  made  by  districts  rather  than 
by  general  ticket;  that,  in  every  case,  in  the 
nominating  convention  and  in  the  election, 
there  shall  be  but  one  man  voted  for,  for  any 
particular  office,  so  far  as  it  is  possible. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I did  not  suppose  it  would 
be  necessary  to  dispute  any  opinion  coming 
from  my  own  county  upon  this  subject.  I did 
not  suppose  there  was  a delegate  upon  this  floor 
from  Hamilton  county  in  favor  of  dividing 
the  county  of  Hamilton  into  so  many  cattle- 
yards  as  a basis  of  representation;  and  I am 
very  much  astonished  at  the  proclamation  of 
such  a heresy  now.  I listened  attentively  to 
the  arguments  advanced  by  my  colleague  [Mr. 
Herron],  but  I failed  to  make  the  application 
of  them  that  he  has  done.  Our  own  local  ex- 
perience, in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  is,  that  when 
it  was  sought  to  get  rid  of  corruptionists  in  our 
wards,  the  plan  devised  was  to  consolidate  two 
or  three  wards,  so  as  to  neutralize  the  bad  men 
in  a particular  ward.  It  was  proposed  as  a 
remedy,  as  a specific,  by  almost  all  the  papers  of 
the  city,  and  generally  recommended  as  a good 
move  in  the  right  direction.  Now,  if  that 
principle  be  true  with  regard  to  neutralizing 
corruption  in  the  city,  it  is  certainly  true  when 
you  enlarge  your  field  of  vision,  and  propose 
to  apply  it  to  the  election  of  members  of  the 
Legislature.  What  do  you  do  when  you  nar- 
row this  matter  down  to  single  districts?  You 
may  possibly  select  the  least  known,  the  least 
desirable,  the  least  qualified  man  in  the  commu- 
nity, to  go  to  the  General  Assembly.  That  is 
what  you  do.  You  render  it  possible  to  elect  a 
man  in  one  of  these  subdivisions  not  known 
outside  of  it,  and  a man  who  would  not  be 
sustained  by  the  vote  of  his  county.  There  is 
no  other  result  to  come  from  it  than  that.  That 
is  inevitable,  and  it  appears  to  me,  therefore, 
that  you  are  narrowing  the  gauge  of  your  Rep- 
resentatives down  to  the  very  smallest  pattern 
conceivable  in  your  whole  county. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  whether,  in  his  experience,  there  has 
been  any  election,  under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, for  Representatives  in  Hamilton,  who 
were  not  known  outside  of  their  particular 
wards? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I do  not  know  that  the  men 
are  of  national  fame;  but  I certainly  think 
they  have  not  got  down  to  the  minimum  point 
that  the  gentleman  is  aiming  at.  At  least,  there 
is  something  more  and  better  known  of  them 
than  any  information  and  knowledge  we  could 
have  obtained  by  his  patent  process.  It  is  not 
true,  or  at  least  it  is  not  a fact  proven,  that  you 
cannot  affect  a man’s  vote  because  he  is  on  a 
general  ticket,  nominated  at  a general  conven- 
tion. If  a man  has  made  himself  offensive  in 
any  way,  against  a pronounced  sentiment  or  in- 
terest of  this  community,  there  is  evidence  that, 
time  and  time  again,  he  has  been  rebuked  by 
the  popular  vote.  Men  have  been  selected 


here  in  our  county  conventions,  and  notably 
left  behind.  It  may  be  that  these  men  were 
right,  and  it  may  be  the  public  prejudice,  for 
the  time  being,  was  wrong.  It  is  true,  that  the 
public  have  been  prejudiced,  and  it  has  made 
itself  operative  as  against  that  man,  and  that 
entirely  disposes  of  the  argument  of  my  friend. 

These  men,  selected  at  the  general  nominat- 
ing conventions,  in  the  way  it  has  been  done 
heretofore,  address  a larger  audience ; they  are 
before  a more  extensive  jury ; more  eyes  are 
upon  them,  and  for  that  reason  there  is  less 
danger  of  corruption  touching  them.  In  every 
way  I conceive  it  to  be  a method  of  bringing 
out  a higher  class  of  men  than  can  be  brought 
out  by  the  method  of  my  friend.  Every  argu- 
ment that  has  been  introduced  here  in  favor  of 
that,  is  unsustained  by  the  practical  experience 
of  anybody.  It  is  endeavoring  to  get  a thing 
before  this  Convention,  and  into  this  Constitu- 
tion, for  which  no  demand  has  been  made. 
Another  of  the  family  of  errors  which  seem  to 
have  some  chance  of  being  legitimatized  by  the 
action  of  the  Convention.  I request  the  Con- 
vention most  respectfully  not  to  attempt  to  in- 
corporate this  miserable  heresy  of  dividing  up 
this  county  into  so  many  independent  parts, 
and  getting  a parcel  of  men  in  the  Legislature 
who  possibly  may  not  be  up  to  the  standard 
necessary,  and  leave  Hamilton  county  with 
one-tenth  of  voice  here,  and  one-tenth  there,  so 
that  she  will  lose  entirely  that  unity  of  repre- 
sentation which  is  the  voice  of  Hamilton  coun- 
ty, which  is  secured  by  our  present  system. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I would  like  to  say  a word 
upon  this  amendment,  and  I am  really  astonished 
to  find  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Her- 
ron], who  was  so  ardent  an  advocate  of  the  veto 
power,  supporting  this  proposition.  It  was 
claimed  that  the  veto  power  to  the  Governor 
might  be  established  on  the  ground  that  he  was 
removed  from  local  influence,  and  was  elected 
by  the  people  at  large.  That  was  the  great  ar- 
gument in  the  veto  case.  Why  is  it  not  to-day  ? 
If  I should  have  it  my  own  way,  I would,  in- 
stead of  narrowing  the  election  precincts,  make 
ten  districts  out  of  the  State,  each  district  elect- 
ing their  Senators  and  Representatives. 

I ask  any  gentleman  here  on  this  floor,  who 
is  aware  of  what  is  going  on  in  the  larger  cities, 
if  it  is  not  an  established  fact  that  every  city 
officer  elected  by  the  people  at  large,  is  not 
usually  of  a higher  character  than  those  elected 
by  wards  ? That  is  a fact  that  will  not  and  can- 
not be  denied.  The  destruction  of  the  entity  of 
the  county,  and  the  redistricting  of  the  same 
for  the  purposes  of  representation,  would  open 
a great  field  to  that  very  class  of  low  ward  politi- 
cians, who  are  now  the  curse  of  our  represen- 
tative government.  They  would  have  it  their 
own  way  in  each  and  every  ward,  and  they 
would  be  the  means  of  selecting  the  persons  to 
be  sent  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
State. 

If  it  is  the  earnest  desire  of  this  Convention 
to  relieve  the  city  from  that  curse,  you  will 
have  to  resort  to  a policy  just  the  reverse  of  the 
one  now  proposed.  A general  county  ticket  never 
can,  in  my  experience,  be  elected,  except  there 
are,  at  least,  some  good,  worthy  men  upon  it; 
while  in  a ward  election,  in  some  wards  it  is 
possible  to  elect  anybody.  For  these  reasons, 


Day.] CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 1649 

February  26, 1874.]  Mueller,  Bishop,  Gurley,  Herron,  Sears. 


I hope  that  this  Convention  will  not  inaugurate 
this  kind  of  reform,  and  incorporate  it  into  the 
new  Constitution.  It  would  be  a reform  re- 
alizing the  reverse  of  what  is  intended.  The 
policy  of  this  Convention  should  be  to  extend, 
not  to  narrow  the  districts  for  the  election  of 
Representatives.  This  Representative,  selected 
by  ward  or  small  district,  as  soon  as  he  takes 
his  seat,  ceases  to  be  a man  representing  his 
ward  or  district,  but  at  once  becomes  a Repre- 
sentative of  the  State  of  Ohio.  I hope  this 
amendment  will  be  disagreed  to. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I would  not  occupy  the  time 
of  the  Convention  for  a moment,  if  it  were  not 
a matter  in  which  our  city  is  greatly  interested. 
I regret  to  differ  with  my  colleague  [Mr.  Her- 
ron] so  materially  as  I am  compelled  to  do 
under  existing  circumstances.  My  experience 
in  conventions  (and  it  has  been  quite  exten- 
sive) is  that  a large  body  of  men  is  much  more 
difficult  to  manipulate  than  our  ward  meet- 
ings are,  and  I find  that  corruption,  if  I may 
so  call  it,  results  much  more  from  the  action  of 
our  private  wards.  For  example,  if  I were  to 
undertake  to  manipulate  a Convention,  I should 
certainly  find  it  much  more  difficult  to  do,  and 
I should  undertake  it  with  much  less  confidence 
of  success,  than  I would  have  in  manipulating 
the  ward  in  which  1 reside.  I find  the  difficulty 
is  in  not  sending  proper  men  from  the  wards 
to  the  general  convention,  but  permitting  them 
to  be  set  up  by  designing  politicians.  We  can 
remedy  this  evil  by  making  a proper  effort. 
Those  who  have  had  experience  in  manipulat- 
ing affairs,  and  have  seen  the  result  of  ward 
elections,  and  small  district  elections,  are  pre- 
pared to  say  that  it  would  be  very  unfortunate 
for  the  city  of  Cincinnati  to  be  divided  up  into 
single  districts.  At  least,  that  is  my  experience 
in  city  affairs,  and  I would  regret  exceedingly, 
as  one  of  the  Representatives  of  Hamilton 
county,  to  see  the  single  district  system 
adopted.  I have,  however,  no  desire  to  occupy 
the  time  of  the  Convention.  I simply  want  to 
announce  my  experience  on  this  subject,  and 
my  views,  in  a very  brief  manner. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  How  is  your  city  council 
elected  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  The  city  council  is  elected  by 
wards,  and  I have  wished  very  often  that  we 
could  make  the  districts,  as  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  has  stated,  a great 
deal  larger. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Would  it  not  be  as  well  to 
divide  the  city  for  the  election  of  members  of 
the  Legislature  as  to  divide  it  for  the  election 
of  members  of  the  common  council  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I have  found,  in  electing  our 
own  men  by  wards,  that  there  are  a great  many 
wards  in  the  city  that  are  represented  by  men 
wholly  incompetent,  and  that  money  has  been 
made  use  of  to  influence  elections.  If  it  were 
done  by  the  county  of  Hamilton,  I am  happy 
to  say  it  would  not  be  the  case,  for  1 feel  proud 
to  say,  that  when  she  has  a voice  in  this  matter, 
she  is  more  careful,  and  where  the  whole  peo- 
ple of  this  city  or  county  are  concerned,  they 
are  not  so  partisan.  If  I would  not  be  read 
out  of  the  Democratic  party,  I would  state  that 
I do  not  know  that  three  times  in  the  last  ten 
years  have  I voted  a straight  Democratic  ticket 
without  some  scratching.  When  we  voted  for 
Y.  H-106 


common  pleas  judges,  at  the  last  election,  I 
voted  for  two  Republicans  and  three  Demo- 
crats, because  I thought  they  were  the  best 
qualified  to  fill  the  position.  Of  course,  I 
always  give  my  party  the  preference  when  they 
put  up  as  good  men. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Y"ou  are  getting  more  lib- 
eral. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Yot  more  liberal;  I am  get- 
ting a little  harder,  for  I used  to  be  on  the 
other  side  a good  while  ago. 

Mr.  HERROY.  Do  I understand  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  my  colleague  [Mr.  Bishop],  if 
two  or  three  wards  were  consolidated,  they 
would  elect  good  men  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Yes,  sir;  I say  they  would 
elect  better  men. 

Mr.  HERROY.  To  elect  members  to  the 
Legislature,  would  not  three  or  four  wards 
have  to  be  consolidated  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  We  have  twenty-five  wards 
in  the  city,  and,  of  course,  some  consolidation 
would  be  necessary. 

Mr.  HERROY.  There  are  twenty-five  wards, 
and  about  fifteen  townships  to  elect  Represent- 
atives to  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I have  no  doubt  that  my  col- 
league [Mr.  Herron]  will  admit  that  there  are 
wards  that  he  can  put  his  finger  on,  that  can  be 
manipulated  with  very  great  ease;  and  if  he  or 
I were  in  a county  convention,  we  would  find 
it  a very  dfficult  matter  to  manipulate  a gene- 
ral convention.  I believe  the  ward  in  which  I 
live  is  one  of  the  best  and  most  influential 
wards  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  and  it  has  been 
my  privilege,  in  some  way,  to  be  a representa- 
tive in  these  conventions  on  various  occasions, 
and  I have  never  seen  her  delegation  able  to 
exercise  an  influence  sufficient  to  control  a gen- 
eral convention.  My  experience  is,  that  it  is 
more  difficult  to  do  so  in  a general  convention, 
than  in  my  own  ward. 

Mr.  HERROY.  If  any  one  ward  might  be 
manipulated  to  send  poorer  men  to  the  Legisla- 
ture than  have  been  sent  under  the  general 
county  system,  I am  very  much  mistaken. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I believe,  under  the  county 
system,  as  a general  rule,  we  have  had  reason 
to  be  proud  of  the  delegation  we  have  sent  to 
represent  us.  Occasionally,  I confess,  we  make 
mistakes,  as  counties  that  send  a single  Repre- 
sentative do.  I can  name  many  men  who  have 
represented  this  county  since  we  have  been 
under  the  present  system,  that  we  have  a right 
to  be  proud  of.  It  is  true,  we  occasionally  elect 
men  not  suited  to  the  position,  but  this  will 
sometimes  happen  under  any  system  ; but  cer- 
tainly much  more  so  in  our  city  under  the  sin- 
gle district  system. 

Mr.  SEARS.  After  all,  the  crowning  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  pending  amendment  is 
that  it  comes  nearer,  not  only  to  uniformity, 
but  to  absolute  political  equality  and  justice, 
than  any  other  proposition  that  has  been  intro- 
duced before  this  Convention.  It  is  the  only 
proposition  that  we  are  likely  to  have  presented 
to  us  which  places  all  the  voters  of  the  State 
upon  an  absolute  political  equality,  so  far  as 
representation  in  the  General  Assembly  is  con- 
cerned. It  is  not  a question  between  large  dis- 
tricts and  small  districts,  but  is  a question  as  to 
whether  while  three-fourths  of  the  State  must 


1650 


[124th 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Sears,  Carbery,  Hunt. 


necessarily  be  composed  of  small  districts,  the 
remaining  fourth  shall  be  allowed  to  combine 
into  large  districts,  and  as  my  friend  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Carbery]  remarks,  comes  up  with  a 
united  front  and  in  a solid  phalanx  in  favor  of 
the  particular  interest  and  the  particular  local- 
ity which  they  represent. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Counties  that  have  but  one, 
single  Representative  on  the  floor  have  the  voice 
of  that  county  announced  by  that  vote. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  We  wish  to  achieve  the 
same  object. 

Mr.  SEARS.  They  represent  a district  en- 
titled to  a single  Representative,  while  Hamil- 
ton county,  under  the  present  system,  goes  up 
with  ten  Representatives,  acting,  in  all  cases 
where  their  interests  are  concerned,  as  a unit; 
while,  if  you  take  ten  Representatives  from 
the  Northwest,  for  instance,  however  much  the 
interests  of  that  locality  are  concerned,  the  pro- 
bability is  that  there  will  be  but  a very  small 
majority  of  the  ten  that  will  unite  upon  any 
question  affecting  those  interests.  If  it  were  a 
question  between  large  districts  and  small  ones, 
1 might  concede  that  there  is  some  weight  in 
the  arguments  that  have  been  adduced  here,  and 
especially  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Mueller],  that  it  would  be  well  enough  to 
enlarge  districts,  to  have  something  like  the 
plan  recommended  by  the  Committee  for  Sena- 
torial Districts ; but  nobody  proposes  to  do  that. 
Nobody  proposes  to  district  the  State  at  large 
for  Representatives,  so  that  there  may  be  ten 
members  elected  in  each  district ; and  if  you  do 
not  adopt  that  plan  generally,  I see  no  good 
reason  why  a voter  in  one  county  should  be 
allowed  to  be  represented  in  the  General  As- 
sembly by  more  Representatives,  than  a voter 
in  another  and  adjoining  county.  I see  no  good 
reason  while  a large  majority  of  the  people  of 
the  State  are  confined  to  voting  for  a single  Re- 
presentative, and  must  be  represented  in  the 
General  Assembly  by  a single  Representative, 
that  others  should  be  allowed  to  vote  for  two,  or 
three,  or  five,  or  ten,  so  that,  upon  this  ground, 
the  amendment,  I say,  is  more  equal,  and  more 
just  than  any  scheme  that  we  are  likely  to  have 
presented  to  us. 

As  to  the  particular  effect  it  may  have  upon 
Hamilton  county,  I am  unqualified'  to  speak.  I 
am  entirely  too  ignorant  of  her  politics  to  speak ; 
but,  if  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  select  in  sub- 
divisions, suitable  men  to  represent  them,  I have 
not  very  much  faith  in  their  being  able  to  do  it 
when  they  unite  in  the  selection.  It  is,  per- 
haps, not  equally  true  in  morals  as  it  is  in  mathe- 
matics, that  a community  is  no  stronger  than 
its  weakest  part;  but,  I presume  that  all  the 
corruption,  all  the  vice  of  the  city  of  Cincin- 
nati, or  Hamilton  county,  is  pretty  sure  to  have 
representation,  whether  it  be  done  upon  the 
district  system,  or  under  the  general  system ; 
and  my  impression  is,  that  it  would  be  better 
to  confine  it  within  its  proper  localities,  put  it 
in  shape  where  you  will  know  it,  where  it  will 
stand  forth  with  the  mark  of  Cain  upon  it,  than 
to  have  this  unholy  leaven  permeate  and  affect 
the  whole  lump.  Unless  we  can  adopt  the 
system  recommended  in  the  sixth  section,  and 
elect  these  Representatives  by  a system  of  cumu- 


[Thursday, 


lative  voting,  so  as  to  secure  minority  represen- 
tation, I am  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  pending 
amendment. 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  true  theory  of  representa- 
tive government  is,  to  secure  to  the  different 
parts  of  the  State,  an  equal  representation  in  the 
law-making  department.  When  that  object  is 
accomplished,  the  true  object  of  representation 
itself  is  accomplished,  and  I assume  that  our 
present  system,  which,  practically,  gives  to  each 
county  with  the  exception  of  Paulding,  a rep- 
resentation in  the  General  Assembly,  has  work- 
ed satisfactorily  for  the  last  twenty  years. 
County  representation  is  the  settled  policy  of 
the  State  of  Ohio.  If  the  remedy,  suggested  by 
the  gentleman  from  Portage,  [Mr.  Horton]  will 
accomplish  anything  for  the  better,  or,  if  there 
is  any  great  evil  to  be  remedied,  then  the  Con- 
vention should  seriously  consider  the  matter. 
There  has  been,  however,  no  demand  from  Ham- 
ilton county,  which  would  be  most  affected  by 
this  proposition,  and  no  demand  from  Cuyaho- 
ga county,  which  would  also  be  affected  by  it, 
for  this  radical  change  in  our  system.  As  it  is, 
these  counties  are  recognized  geographical  sub- 
divisions, and  their  Representatives  have  a voice 
in  all  the  legislation  of  the  State.  The  county 
lines  are  recognized  geographical  divisions,  and 
it  has  been  found,  in  the  experience  of  the  past, 
to  have  worked  satisfactorily.  Why,  therefore, 
should  there  be  a change  in  this  matter  ? 

My  colleague  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron] 
suggests,  that  it  will  prevent  corruption  from 
creeping  into  our  nominating  conventions,  and 
into  our  elections,  and  that  it  will  secure  a bet- 
ter class  of  men  as  legislators.  I appeal  to  the  his- 
tory of  Hamilton  county,  for  the  last  twenty-five 
years,  in  our  General  Assembly,  for  the  truth 
of  my  position.  Notwithstanding  we  have  sent 
as  many  as  fourteen  Representatives,  at  one 
time,  from  Hamilton  county,  to  both  branches 
of  theLegislature,the  delegations  would  compare 
verv  favorably  in  intelligence,  in  honesty  and 
ability,  with  an  equal  number  of  Representa- 
tives from  any  other  part  of  the  State.  It  is 
true,  undoubtedly,  that,  now  and  then,  an  unfit 
man  secures  an  election  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly, under  the  present  system  of  districting.  It 
is  equally  true  that  a man,  now  and  then,  is  sent 
from  a county  having  but  one  Representative, 
who  is  incapable  of  properly  representing  that 
county.  It  is  possible  that  mistakes  may,  now 
and  then,  be  made  in  the  selection  of  judges. 
It  is  possible  that  mistakes  may,  now  and  then, 
be  made  in  the  selection  of  all  of  our  officers. 
These  things  are  likely  to  occur,  and  will  occur, 
as  long  as  our  system  of  government  lasts.  This 
is  not  the  fault  of  the  machinery  of  the  govern- 
ment so  much  as  it  is  the  fault  of  the  constitu- 
encies which  select  them  in  the  nominating  con- 
ventions and  elect  them  afterwards.  This  single 
district  system  would  do  for  Hamilton  county 
what  it  has  done  for  some  of  the  other  States, 
where  the  single  district  system  prevails,  and 
where  odious  measures  have  been  fastened  upon 
the  people  against  their  will.  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  district  recently  represented  by 
Tweed  in  New  York  city,  even  after  charges  had 
been  preferred  against  him.  Although  these 
charges  were  not  proven  at  the  time,  they  still 
had  currency  all  over  the  State.  They  had  been 


Day.] CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 1651 

February  26, 1874.]  Hunt,  Pratt,  Kerr,  Gurley. 


made  in  the  public  newspapers.  Notwith- 
standing that  fact,  Tweed  was  elected  by  a ma- 
jority of  twenty  thousand  to  represent  a Sena- 
torial district  of  the  city  of  New  York,  under 
this  sub-division  scheme  suggested  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]. 

Mr.  PRATT.  If  he  had  been  a candidate  of 
the  whole  city,  how  many  thousand  majority 
would  he  have  received? 

Mr.  HUNT.  If  he  had  been  a candidate  on 
the  general  ticket,  as  the  election  returns  show, 
he  would  have  been  beaten  by  thousands.  It 
was  only  in  that  single  sub-division  or  district, 
where  he  had  distributed  so  much  charity 
among  the  poor  people  of  the  city,  that  he  re- 
ceived such  a vote,  for,  with  all  his  reputed 
faults,  he  had  the  virtue  of  charity.  It 
was  only  by  this  sub-districting  scheme 
that  he  was  elected,  and  if  the  gentle- 
man will  examine  the  same  election  returns, 
he  will  find  that  the  so  called  “ring”  was  com- 
pletely overwhelmed  and  completely  defeated. 
It  has  accomplished  that  for  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  it  will  accomplish  it  for  every  large 
city,  by  enabling  the  scheming  politicians  and 
the  skillful  manipulators  to  capture,  in  detail, 
what  they  cannot  capture  in  the  aggregate. 
Take  some  of  the  wards  in  Cincinnati ; candi- 
dates may  manipulate  and  secure  influence 
enough  to  control  the  action  of  a single  ward ; 
but  when  that  influence  comes  to  be  extended 
throughout  the  county  of  Hamilton,  or  any 
county  sending  more  than  one  Representative, 
the  influence  is  divided,  and  the  manipulator  is 
unable  to  have  the  same  control  that  he  could 
obtain  in  a single  -ward  or  township.  If  the 
object  is  only  to  secure  local  representation, 
then  the  result  is  accomplished  by  the  present 
system.  Take  the  delegation,  to-day,  from 
Hamilton  county  in  the  General  Assembly  as 
an  illustration.  We  have  the  farming  interest 
represented;  we  have  the  manufacturing  inter- 
est, in  the  person  of  one  of  the  largest  manu- 
facturers; we  have  the  industrial  interests  of 
the  county  represented,  as  far  as  practicable. 
The  general  character  of  the  Representatives 
from  Hamilton  county  will  compare  favor- 
ably with  that  of  the  Representatives  of 
other  counties.  The  country  is  not  neg- 
lected in  the  nominating  conventions. 
As  an  instance,  year  before  last  we  had 
three  Representatives  in  the  General  Assem- 
bly from  the  township  in  which  I reside. 
In  the  General  Assembly  preceding,  we  had  two 
Representatives  from  the  same  locality;  this 
year  we  have  one ; so  that  the  country  is  not 
deprived  of  representation.  It  is  always  a con- 
sideration with  the  county  convention.  Rep- 
resentation is  based,  as  nearly  as  possible,  upon 
the  voting  population,  and  the  country  always 
has  had  Representatives  in  the  General  Assem- 
bly, upon  the  general  election  tickets.  There 
has  never  been  a complaint  in  that  direction. 

For  these  reasons,  and  many  others  which 
might  be  named,  there  is  no  necessity  for  this 
radical  change  in  our  system  of  representation. 
The  true  theory  is  to  secure  to  all  branches  and 
all  interests  of  the  State  a fair  and  equal  repre- 
sentation in  the  General  Assembly;  and,  when 
we  have  accomplished  that,  we  have  done  all 
that  can  be  done  by  Constitutional  enactment. 
The  rest  remains  with  the  people  to  carry  out. 


We  can  only  indicate  a general  system.  The 
effect  of  our  present  Constitution  has  been  to 
furnish  a State  Legislature  that  will  compare 
very  favorably  with  that  of  many  of  the  other 
States.  Our  legislators  have  been  men  of  marked 
character  and  ability,  and  the  charge  of  cor- 
ruption has  not  been  preferred  against  them,  or 
at  least  has  not  been  substantiated  against 
them,  in  these  days  of  corruption  and  bribery, 
everywhere.  That  has  been  the  result,  and  it 
would  be  unwise  for  this  Convention,  to-day, 
to  fasten  upon  the  people  of  this  State  an  Article 
on  this  matter  which  is  not  demanded  from  any 
evil  whatever  which  this  system  has  wrought. 
Cincinnati  is  the  great  commercial  centre  of  the 
State.  Her  great  population  requires  that  she 
should  have  a large  number  of  Representatives. 
Her  commercial  interests  require  that  she 
should  have  a voice  to  speak  upon  affairs  in 
the  General  Assembly  which  should  be  potent 
enough  to  be  heard.  Her  great  and  growing 
interests  require  that  her  Representatives 
should,  in  a body,  defend  her  interests.  And 
that  cannot  be  done,  unless  they  speak  as  one 
man,  and  with  one  voice.  Her  influence  should 
not  be  divided.  In  union  there  is  strength. 

This  is  not  demanded  by  the  people  of  Ham- 
ilton county.  There  has  not  been  an  argument 
yet  made  upon  this  floor  which  convinces  me 
of  any  necessity  for  the  change,  and  I hope 
that  the  Convention  will  insist  upon  this  sys- 
tem which  was  adopted  by  the  early  framers  of 
the  Constitution.  Give  all  sections  a voice  in 
the  General  Assembly.  I would  willingly  vote 
that  Paulding  should  have  her  voice  in  the  Leg- 
islature. There  should  be  county  representa- 
tion, and  that  representation,  as  to  number, 
based  upon  population. 

Mr.  KERR.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man a question  before  he  takes  his  seat.  If  the 
city  of  Cincinnati  were  divided  into  single  dis- 
tricts, would  it  not  make  repeating  more  diffi- 
cult? 

Mr.  HUNT.  It  would  have  just  the  opposite 
tendency.  It  is  in  the  larger  cities  that  we 
have  heard  the  charges  of  repeating  to  its  full- 
est extent.  It  is  in  the  single  district  system 
that  we  have  seen  the  evil.  The  manipu- 
lators go  into  one  ward,  and,  after  taking 
it  in  detail,  march  to  the  next  ward,  take  it  in 
detail,  until  they  secure  the  entire  delegation. 
That  can  very  much  more  easily  be  done  in  de- 
tail than  in  convention.  You  take  a general 
convention  in  this  county,  if  the  gentleman 
will  pardon  me  for  going  a little  further — be- 
cause I speak  of  a county  with  which  I am  fa- 
miliar— and  you  will  find  delegates  there  from 
the  townships  and  wards.  It  is  a much  more 
difficult  matter  to  purchase  an  entire  nominat- 
ing convention  of  Hamilton  county  than  gen- 
tlemen are  willing  to  believe.  In  my  experi- 
ence I have  never  seen  a convention  that  was 
purchased,  or  was  purchasable,  as  an  entirety, 
but  it  is  possible  to  find  that  wards  are  purchas- 
able, or  are  purchased.  It  is  in  the  strength  of 
the  people,  as  expressed  in  the  general  conven- 
tion, and  in  the  ballot-box,  that  we  must  look 
for  the  representation  of  the  people. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I am  entirely  ignorant  of 
the  operation  of  city  elections.  Please  explain 
to  the  convention  how  repeating  would  be  fa- 
I cilitated  by  dividing  the  city  into  ten  legisla- 


1652 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Gurley,  Hunt,  Rowland,  Pratt,  Herron,  Steedman. 


[124th 

[Thursday, 


tive  districts.  I understand  it  would  not,  nec- 
essarily, increase  your  voting  places.  If  I 
understand  anything  about  it,  you  have  now 
different  voting  places  in  these  wards.  You 
would  have  no  more  voting  places  if  you  di- 
vided it  into  ten  legislative  districts  than  now. 

Mr.  HUNT.  My  reason  is,  that  repeating 
has  proven  successful  in  the  single  dis- 
trict system.  There  has  never  been  complaint 
elsewhere.  Candidates  are  divided  up  among 
single  districts,  and  the  opportunities  for  con- 
centration in  the  separate  districts  are  so  much 
greater  than  upon  the  general  ticket  that  cor- 
rupt men  will  be  likely  to  avail  themselves  of 
them.  On  the  general  ticket  there  would  not 
be  that  opportunity  for  corruption  and  repeat- 
ing as  there  would  be  in  the  single  districts. 
The  Convention  will  act  wisely  and  well  by 
retaining  the  policy  of  representation  which 
has  prevailed  in  substance  from  the  adoption  of 
the  present  Constitution.  The  legislation  of 
the  last  twenty-five  years  demonstrates  the 
wisdom  of  county  representation.  It  should 
remain  as  a part  of  our  system  of  State  govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  This  is  not  a subject  to 
which  I have  paid  a great  deal  of  attention,  and 
I do  not  deem  it  at  all  probable  that  we  shall  be 
ruined  even  by  the  adoption  of  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]. 
This  is  a proposition,  a trial  of  which  I am 
afraid  to  inaugurate,  knowing  as  much  as  I 
do  about  the  politics  of  this  county.  Whilst 
there  may  be  truth  and  justice  in  the  argument 
that  the  truest  representation  is  by  districts, 
and  that  the  people  should  be  truly  represented, 
there  is  this  difference  between  the  county  and 
the  city  districts : Take  Hamilton  county ; the 
people  are  mainly  homogeneous,  and  their  in- 
terests are  one ; but,  if  you  take  a people  dis- 
tributed through  the  country  districts,  it  is  not 
the  case.  An  equivalent  population  to  that  of 
Hamilton  county  would  cover  so  large  a terri- 
tory as  to  involve  interests  so  diverse  and  so 
distant  as  that  one  man,  elected  for  one  part, 
could  not  be  supposed  to  know  the  interests  of 
any  other,  or  in  any  sense  to  represent  them; 
but  the  case  is  different  in  Hamilton  county. 
My  friend  from  Hamilton  county  [Mr.  Herron], 
with  whom  I have  had  some  labor  in  ward  pol- 
itics, in  days  of  yore,  spoke  of  the  omnipotence 
of  some  one  man  connected  with  the  ward  dele- 
gation in  a county  convention.  Now,  sir,  I 
have  known  it  to  be  the  case  where  one  man,  or 
two  men,  were  omnipotent  at  a local  poll,  when 
they  came  to  be  put  in  the  aggregate  their 
strength  was  dissipated.  As  the  gentleman 
says,  it  occurs  in  every  convention,  and  if  you 
enlarge  the  area,  you  have  an  opportunity  of 
getting  two  Representatives.  I admit,  frankly, 
that  you  may  elect  by  these  districts  in  Hamil- 
ton county,  divided,  as  she  should  be,  into  ten 
parts,  some  very  good  men;  but  you  would  al- 
most be  certain  to  have  a few  of  that  delegation 
of  an  unworthy  character. 

Mr.  PRATT.  If  I understand  correctly,  the 
argument  is,  that  safety  is  in  the  caucus,  and 
not  in  the  ballot-box  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  No,  sir;  it  is  not. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  like  to  ask  whether 
the  gentleman’s  memory  goes  back  to  the  time  I 


when  Hamilton  county  was  divided  for  Repre- 
sentative districts? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  is  beyond  my  time. 
It  is  said  when  you  go  to  Columbus,  you  find  a 
solid  delegation  in  the  interests  of  Hamilton. 
Would  there  be  any  such  cohesion  in  a delega- 
tion elected  from  separate  districts  in  this 
county?  Would  they  not  be  solidly  united, 
necessarily,  in  our  interests,  if  they  were  honest 
and  capable  men  ? That  argument  against  such 
a conclusion,  needs  only  to  be  stated  to  prove  its 
] absurdity.  I believe  it  could  be  demonstrated 
by  the  history  of  every  election  in  Hamilton 
county  since  I have  been  a voter,  that  where 
you  get  a full  vote  upon  one  ticket,  you  have 
been  enabled  to  secure  a better  class  of  men  to 
represent  the  county  than  could  have  been  ob- 
tained by  single  districts.  She  sends  better 
delegates  to  this  Convention  even,  if  you  will 
pardon  the  allusion,  than  you  could  have  done 
by  dividing  it  up  into  ten  districts;  and  while, 
by  single  districts  you  would  get  some  good 
men,  you  would  inevitably  get  worse  men  under 
them  than  you  would  by  an  aggregate  vote. 

Now,  sir,  I do  not  believe  in  the  theory  which 
strikes  at  the  political  corporation,  called  the 
county.  I believe  that  we  should  not  trespass 
too  much  upon  county  lines,  and  I would  even 
go  so  far  in  theTecognition  of  county  rights,  as 
to  give,  even  to  the  county  of  Paulding,  a Re- 
presentative. I believe  that  every  county  should 
have  a Representative,  and  merely  because 
260,000  people  happen  to  be  congregated  together 
here,  into  a small  territory,  no  good  reason  can 
be  given  why  they  should  have  the  same  rule 
applied  to  them,  as  necessarily  applies  to  dis- 
tricts more  sparsely  settled  and  divided  up  into 
many  counties.  That  same  rule  is  not  appli- 
cable, or  justice  will  not  be  obtained  by  the  ap- 
plication of  the  same  rule,  in  allowing  com- 
munities to  vote.  Concede  that  it  .is  just  and 
fair  to  apply  to  a city  like  this  that  the  same 
rule  that  you  apply  to  other  districts,  or  apply 
to  them  the  rule  which  you  apply  to  us  in  every 
case.  We  may  whip  the  devil  around  the  stump 
as  we  will,  and  fight  special  legislation  with 
great  zeal,  but  it  must  come;  it  will  come. 
Some  portions  of  the  State  require  legislation 
which  is  not  necessary,  and  not  compatible  with 
the  interests  of  others,  and  it  is  useless  for  us  to 
shut  our  eyes  to  this  fact.  I am  always  in  favor 
of  calling  things  by  their  right  names,  and  I in- 
tend by  every  vote  in  this  Convention,  to  re- 
cognize the  principle  of  variable  and  diverse 
legislation  as  being  necessary,  proper,  and, 
therefore,  inevitable. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I have  risen  simply  for 
the  purpose  of  saying  a few  words  with  regard 
to  repeating.  The  gentleman  from  Morrow 
[Mr.  Gurley]  asked  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hunt]  why  dividing  a city  into 
single  districts  increases  the  opportunities  for 
repeating.  I shall  tell  that  gertleman  why  you 
increase  the  chances  for  repeating.  When  an 
election  is  by  general  ticket,  all  the  candidates 
and  all  their  friends  are  interested  in  the  result, 
and  every  poll  open  in  the  city,  where  a re- 
peater has  cast  a vote  at  one  poll  and  comes  to 
another,  he  is  very  apt  to  be  identified  by  some 
person  who  saw  him  vote  previously ; but  if 
you  have  single  districts,  the  chances  of  detec- 
tion are  lessened ; and  that  is  why  these  repeat- 


Day.] CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 1653 

February  26, 1874.]  Steedman,  Gurley,  Neal,  Carbery,  etc. 


ers  ply  their  avocations  in  New  York  with 
impunity.  They  vote  in  one  district  and  then 
pass  into  an  adjoining  district,  and  there  is  no 
person  in  that  district  who  has  any  interest  in 
the  manner  in  which  they  voted,  no  person  to 
identify  them,  and  thus  they  vote  with  impunity, 
first  in  one  district  and  then  in  another ; but, 
as  I said,  if  the  people  were  interested  in  every 
poll,  passing  from  one  ward  to  another,  the  re- 
peaters could  not  vote  more  than  once  without 
running  very  great  risk  in  attempting  to  vote 
the  second  or  third  time,  for  they  would  always 
find  some  one  to  recognize  them. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  if  this  repeating  has 
not  been  practiced  in  New  York  in  the  election 
of  the  Mayor  as  much  as  in  the  election  of  the 
members  of  the  House  of  Representatives? 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  No,  sir,  it  has  not. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I think  there  has  been  more 
repeating  done  on  that  occasion. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  It  is  more  generally  prac- 
ticed at  the  city  election,  in  the  election  of  Sena- 
tors and  Representatives  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  these  are  reasons  why,  in  my  judg- 
ment, it  is  practiced  with  impunity  in  those 
■elections. 

Mr.  NEAL.  This  is  not  a question  which  is 
to  be  determined  by  what  may  be  the  wishes  of 
Hamilton  county,  Cuyahoga  county,  or  any 
other  county  in  this  State.  There  is  a principle 
involved  here,  and  I think  it  is  for  this  Conven- 
tion to  determine  what  is  right,  and  to  follow 
that  out  to  its  logical  conclusion.  If  it  is  right 
that  there  should  be  single  districts  in  the  State 
of  Ohio  anywhere,  it  is  right  that  that  principle 
should  be  applied  to  every  community,  no  mat- 
ter whether  county  lines  are  trespassed  upon  or 
not.  We  violate  that  principle,  if  we  make  any 
exceptions  whatever. 

The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Bishop] 
has  given  as  a reason  why  this  motion  should 
not  prevail,  that  they  have  had  pretty  fair  Rep- 
resentatives, and  that  they  are  afraid,  if  a change 
is  made,  that  their  Representatives  will  not  be 
as  honorable,  and  respectable,  and  influential, 
as  they  have  been,  under  the  old  system.  Mr. 
President,  this  is  not  an  argument  to  be  address- 
ed to  the  members  of  this  Convention.The  Rep- 
resentative is  generally  a representative  man. 
He  represents  the  community  from  which  he  is 
sent,  unless  he  has  deceived  them  in  some  shape, 
and  if  they  have  a community  that  is  so  low  and 
so  debased  that  they  will  send  a man  who  will 
disgrace  them  and  the  State  of  Ohio,  let  them 
send  him ; the  State  can  stand  it,  they  alone  will 
suffer;  but,  I undertake  to  say  here,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, and  I say  it  with  all  due  respect  to  the 
opinions  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  coun- 
ty, that,  it  is  not  very  likely,  if  they  do  elect  by 
a single  district  representation,  that  they  will 
elect  men  who  will  disgrace  them  more  than 
they  have  been  disgraced  in  the  past.  I have 
seen  men  there,  from  Hamilton  county, that  any 
single  county  in  the  State,  even  poor  little  Paul- 
ding, would  have  disgraced  itself  to  send. 

A DELEGATE.  Name  them. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I can  name  them  in  private,  if 
any  gentleman  wishes  to  know  who  they  are. 
Representatives  do  not  represent  territory,  they 
represent  people.  It  is  not  the  county  of  Ham- 
ilton that  has  sent  them,  it  is  the  people  of  the 
county  of  Hamilton. 


Mr.  CARBERY.  Will  the  gentleman  per- 
mit me  a question? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Are  not  the  people  of 
Hamilton  county  one  community? 

Mr.  NEAL.  No,  sir;  they  are  not  a com- 
munity, any  more  than  the  people  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  are  one  community. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  A great  deal  more. 

Mr.  NEAL.  No,  sir.  They  have  rural  dis- 
tricts that  are  represented  as  a matter  of  favor 
on  the  part  of  these  street-gutter  politicians  of 
Hamilton  county  who  control  the  conventions. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Does  the  gentleman  want 
to  make  their  rule  perpetual? 

Mr.  NEAL.  No,  sir,  but  I want  it  confined 
to  the  city  itself,  and  I want  the  rural  districts, 
in  which  there  is  some  political  virtue,  to  have 
an  opportunity  of  saying  what  kind  of  Repre- 
sentatives they  will  have  in  Columbus. 

Let  us  look  at  this  matter  in  a different  light. 
There  are  ten  men  in  Columbus  from  Hamilton 
county  at  the  present  time.  They  are  repre- 
sentative men,  for  aught  I know,  and  represent 
the  men  who  sent  them;  but  it  so  happens  that 
these  ten  men  were  elected  by  slightly  over 
one- third  of  the  persons  who  voted  at  the  elec- 
tion last  fall,  so  that,  in  point  of  fact,  if  you 
would  have  representation  that  correctly  re- 
flects the  prevailing  political  sentiment  of 
community;  if  you  would  have  members  to  the 
General  Assembly  to  represent  the  entire  peo- 
ple of  Hamilton  county,  as  an  illustration,  you 
must  provide  for  single  districts.  It  is  certainly 
a violation  of  every  principle  of  correct 
representation  to  permit  a little  more  than  one- 
third  the  electors  of  the  county  to  send  the 
entire  delegation  to  Columbus.  And  it  is  this 
great  abuse  which  it  is  proposed  to  perpetuate 
by  retaining  the  provision  of  the  present  Con- 
stitution. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Minority  representation 
would  cure  that. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  it  would  cure  it  in  part. 
I ask  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Row- 
land] whether  he  is  willing  to  apply  that  prin- 
ciple to  Hamilton  county? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Yes,  sir;  and  all  over  this 
country. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I refer  to  Hamilton  county. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Yes,  sir;  I would  be  very 
glad  to  apply  it. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Well,  I do  not  believe  that  the 
evils  complained  of  will  be  as  well  remedied 
by  minority  representation  as  by  single  dis- 
tricts. The  county  commissioners  of  Hamilton 
county  have  been  uniformly  elected  upon  a 
general  ticket.  Permit  me  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland]  if  they 
have  always  been  satisfied  with  the  respective 
characters  and  qualifications  of  the  men  who 
have  constituted  that  Board?  If  there  has 
been  any  such  thing  as  corruption  in  the  man- 
agement of  their  county  affairs?  Too  much  of 
it,  I fear;  so  much,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
people  of  Hamilton  county  went  up  to  Colum- 
bus, only  a year  or  two  ago,  and  asked  the 
General  Assembly  to  pass  a law  by  which  they 
might  be  protected  against  the  rascality  of  the 
commissioners  elected  by  themselves,  after  be- 
ing nominated  by  these  county  conventions. 


1654 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. [124th 

Dorsey,  Neal,  Carbery,  Johnson,  Bishop.  [Thursday, 


Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Would  you  propose  to  divide 
all  the  counties  in  the  State  of  Ohio  into  sec- 
tions, and  elect  the  commissioners  under  these 
separate  sections? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Whenever  that  question  comes 
up,  I shall  be  ready  to  answer  it.  I give  this 
simply  as  an  illustration  to  show  that  while  it 
may  be  true  in  part  that  corrupt  or  incompe- 
tent men  would  be  elected  if  we  adopted  the 
single  district  system  in  some  cases,  yet,  never- 
theless, it  is  none  the  less  true  that  in  the  county 
of  Hamilton  bad  men  have  been  nominated  and 
elected  to  office  upon  a general  ticket. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  The  gentleman  a while 
ago  alluded  to  the  question  of  where  virtue 
reigned.  I would  like  to  ask  whether  those 
commissioners  did  not  come  mostly  from  the 
country  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I do  not  know  where  they  live. 
It  is  not  a matter  of  importance  to  me  where 
they  live.  Suffice  it  to  say  they  were  elected  by 
the  politicians  of  Hamilton  county.  It  was 
not  the  people  of  the  county  who  selected  them ; 
the  city  elected  them. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  allow  me  to  answer  the 
question  of  my  colleague  [Mr.  Carbery]? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  At  the  time  the  two  com- 
missioners were  elected,  they  were  all  from  the 
city,  and  they  were  such  a miserable  board  of 
men  that  we  had  to  go  to  Columbus  and  have  a 
Board  of  Guardians  appointed  to  take  charge 
of  the  office  and  the  men.  That  Board  of  Guar- 
dians are  in  session,  I believe,  once  a month,  in 
this  city,  and  they  were  organized  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  exercising  guardianship  over  the 
Board  of  County  Commissioners. 

Mr.  NEAL.  As  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Johnson]  has  well  said,  this  county 
asked  the  Legislature  to  give  them  a Board  of 
Control  who  should  keep  watch  over  these 
guardians  of  the  people  elected  on  the  general 
ticket,  and  where  these  commissioners  lived  is 
not  necessary  to  know,  for  the  purposes  of  my 
argument. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Is  it  not  also  the  case  that  we 
have  bad  men  in  the  common  council  who  have 
been  selected  by  the  districts  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I do  not  claim  that  this  single 
district  plan  will  secure  purely  honest  men ; 
but  I think  we  shall  obtain  as  honest  men  as  we 
do  under  the  general  system,  and  we  shall  be 
following  out,  to  its  logical  conclusion,  the 
principle  upon  which  we  base  representation. 
Members  of  the  General  Assembly  should  be 
representative  men,  and  whoever  a community 
may  want,  they  should  be  permitted  to  elect.  I 
would  like  to  see  the  colored  people  of  Hamilton 
county  represented  by  a man  of  their  own  color 
in  Columbus.  It  is  due  to  them  on  account  of 
their  numbers,  their  intelligence  ‘and  their  pa- 
triotism. This  they  never  can  secure  upon  a 
general  ticket,  but  adopt  the  single  district 
system,  and  it  will  be  possible.  An  ob- 
jection has  been  made  to  single  districts 
on  the  ground  that  it  will  give  repeaters 
better  opportunities  of  plying  their  nefarious 


business.  This  is  an  argument  not  founded 
upon  fact,  and  is  wholly  untenable.  Why,  it  is 
notorious  that  at  the  State  elections  in  the  State 
of  New  York  repeaters  have  been  imported 
from  Connecticut  and  Pennsylvania  to  aid  in 
the  election  of  Governor,  and  they  have  gone 
from  one  election  precinct  to  another,  voting 
and  repeating,  until  they  had  fully  satisfied  the 
corrupt  men  who  had  brought  them  on.  While 
they  may  have  also  voted  for  Assemblymen, 
their  votes  were  not  necessary,  as  the  districts 
were  largely  Democratic  without  them.  There 
was  no  object  in  importing  them  or  in  their 
repeating  as  to  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly; it  was  only  done  to  affect  the  State  ticket, 
the  country  outside  the  city  of  New  York  being 
largely  opposed  to  the  politics  of  the  city.  But 
if  this  is  true,  why  do  not  the  people  of  New 
York  make  a change?  Why  is  it  that  the  com- 
mission, if  I recollect  rightly,  appointed  by 
Governor  Hoffman,  which  has  had  under  con- 
sideration this  question,  as  well  as  the  entire 
Constitution,  have  reported  to  the  General  As- 
sembly without  providing  for  the  election  of 
Assemblymen  upon  the  general  ticket  ? Simply 
because  they  know  that  it  is  a violation  of  the 
principles  upon  which  representation  is  based. 
I will  briefly  state  that  they  provide  the  Board 
of  Supervisors  in  every  county  of  the  State 
where  there  is  more  than  one  Assemblyman  to 
be  elected,  shall  divide  that  county  into  separate 
districts.  It  has  been  stated  that  there  will  be 
difficulty  in  making  a proper  division  of  the 
county.  I do  not  apprehend  very  much.  We 
can  make  the  first  division,  and,  when  a re- 
apportionment is  required,  may  authorize  the 
county  commissioners,  from  time  to  time,  to 
make  it  as  may  be  necessary  or  required  by  the 
change  of  population. 

It  is  the  same  -with  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 
As  you  are  all  aware,  they  have  had  a Consti- 
tutional Convention  which  was  in  session  about 
a year.  This  matter  received  their  most  serious 
and  deliberate  consideration,  for  the  reason  that 
it  has  been  charged,  over  and  over  again,  there 
were  great  frauds  committed  at  the  elections  in 
the  city  of  Philadelphia;  and  yet,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, they  reported  a scheme  for  the  subdivision 
of  cities  and  counties  into  election  districts ; so 
that  the  entire  experience  of  every  city  in  the 
United  States  is  with  us  on  this  question ; and 
the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  so  far  as  I 
know,  is  the  only  one  that  provides  for  the 
election  of  the  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly upon  the  general  ticket.  I think  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  if  I may 
use  the  expression,  “let  the  cat  out  of  the  bag” 
when  he  said  that  if  we  provided  for  single 
representative  districts — if  we  allow  the  people 
of  Hamilton  county  to  select  their  Representa- 
tives in  accordance  with  their  own  views,  from 
each  locality,  they  will  lose  that  united  repre- 
sentative strength  and  unity  which,  we  all 
know,  make  them  all-powerful  in  Columbus. 

That,  Mr.  President,  is  one  of  the  things 
that  I wish,  above  all  others,  to  accomplish.  I 
want  to  see  that  little  Legislature  which  meets 
there  winter  after  winter,  controlling  not  only 
the  legislation  of  this  county,  but,  to  a very  great 
extent,  the  whole  State  of  Ohio,  dissolved,  never 
again  to  assemble;  and  if  there  were  no  other 
reason  but  this,  I would  sustain  this  principle 


REPORT  AND  RESOLUTIONS  ON  DR.  O’CONNOR. 


1655 


Day.] 

February  26,  1874.]  Neal,  Bishop,  Hitchcock,  Okey. 


in  every  shape  that  it  may  be  presented  to  this 
Convention. 

These  are  my  reasons:  The  first  is,  that  by 
adopting  the  single  district  system,  so  far  as 
counties  are  concerned,  we  follow  out  the  prin- 
ciple upon  which  we  base  representation ; and 
the  second  is,  because  I would  give  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Hamilton  county,  and  the  other  large 
counties,  an  opportunity  to  be  represented  by  lo- 
cality. I would  not  permit,  as  the  representation 
of  Hamilton  county  in  the  present  General  As- 
sembly shows,  a little  over  one-third  of  the 
voters  to  control  the  entire  delegation,  thereby 
excluding  almost  two-thirds  of  the  electors 
of  this  county,  practically,  from  any  par- 
ticipation in  the  legislation  of  the  State,  so  far 
as  it  is  political  in  its  character. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  If  three  parties  run  in  the 
single  districts,  the  man  who  had  the  majority 
would  be  elected.  We  ran  three  tickets  last 
fall.  It  would  be  the  same  under  the  single 
district  system. 

Mr.  NEAL.  If  you  run  three  tickets  in  every 
district;  hut  very  likely  in  a great  many  dis- 
tricts they  would  select  one  good  man  and  run 
him,  all  voting  for  him.  It  would  not  be  as  it 
is  now,  a contest  between  parties,  irrespective 
of  the  merits  of  the  individual.  How  is  it  now 
in  the  county  of  Hamilton  ? There  is  a large 
ticket  to  be  elected,  probably  twenty  officers, 
and  the  political  cauldron  boils  up  from  its 
lowest  depths.  All  the  mud  and  scum  that  has 
settled  down  during  the  year  boils  up  to  the  top 
again.  One  man  who  wishes  to  be  a candidate 
for  Senator,  makes  a bargain  with  another,  who 
would  like  to  be  the  candidate  for  sheriff,  to 
mutually  support  each  other,  for  their  respect- 
ive offices.  They,  with  their  friends,  proceed 
to  the  necessary  packing,  doing  everything  that 
will  give  them  control  of  the  convention.  Next 
week  the  convention  of  the  rival  political  party 
meets,  and,  perhaps,  the  same  ward  bummers 
and  corruptionists  assist  in  the  packing  of  this 
convention  in  the  interests  of  such  ambitious 
men,  as  are  unscrupulous  enough  to  buy  their 
services  with  money  or  promises.  We  want  to 
break  this  up,  and  where  only  two  or  three 
officers  are  to  be  nominated,  these  bummers  and 
corruptionists  will  not  have  the  same  induce- 
ments to  work,  nor  the  same  opportunities  for 
the  accomplishment  of  wicked  purposes.  Then 
the  true  men  can  go  forward  and  control,  to  a 
very  considerable  extent,  the  convention.  I 
want  to  see  that  done,  and  I apprehend  there  is 
no  locality,  with  two  or  three  exceptions,  in 
which  the  control  cannot  be  kept  out  of  the 
hands  of  bad  men.  For  these  reasons,  I shall 
vote  for  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Portage  [Mr.  Horton]. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  to  postpone  the 
further  consideration  of  this  subject  until  to- 
morrow morning.  My  reason  for  making  this 
motion  is,  that  some  of  the  Committees  appointed 
in  connection  with  the  death  of  Dr.  O’Connor, 
the  delegate  from  Seneca  county,  are  prepared 
to  report,  and  many  gentlemen  have  expressed 
a wish  that  these  reports  be  made,  and,  there- 
fore, it  will  be  necessary  to  postpone  this  sub- 
ject for  that  purpose. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  OKEY.  The  Committee  to  take  charge 


of  the  remains  of  the  late  John  D.  O’Connor, 
ask  leave  to  report. 

The  Secretary  read : 

To  Hon.  Rufus  King, 

President  Constitutional  Convention: 

The  undersigned  Committee,  by  you  appointed  to  con- 
vey the  remains  of  Doctor  John  D.  O’Connor.,  late  a 
member  of  this  Convention,  to  the  home  of  his  family,  at 
the  city  of  Tiffin,  ask  leave  to  report: 

We  left  this  city  with  the  remains  of  deceased,  accom- 
panied by  his  family  and  an  Assistant  Sergeant-at- Arms, 
on  Monday  morning,  February  23d,  and  arrived  at  Tiffin 
in  the  evening.  W e were  met  at  the  depot  by  members  of 
the  Masonic  Order,  Medical  Society,  and  citizens. 

W e were  kindly  received,  and  hospitably  entertained 
at  the  Sherman  House,  as  the  guests  of  the  Masonic  fra- 
ternity, where  ample  provision  had  been  made  for  our 
comfort. 

Finding  that  the  funeral  services  had  been  postponed 
until  Wednesday  afternoon,  your  Committee,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  our  attendance  here  was  required,  left  two 
of  their  number,  Messrs.  Byal  and  Weaver,  to  attend 
the  funeral,  and  four  of  our  body,  with  the  Assistant 
Sergeant- at- Arms,  returned  here  on  Tuesday. 

The  funeral  services  of  the  deceased  were  performed  on 
Wednesday  afternoon,  under  the  direction  of  the  Masonic 
fraternity.  The  sub-Committee  left  there  were  assigned 
a prominent  place  in  the  procession  at  the  funeral. 

We  desire  to  express  to  the  Masonic  Fraternity,  Medi- 
cal Society,  and  citizens  of  the  city  of  TiffiD,  our  thanks 
for  the  kind  and  hospitable  treatment  we  received  from 
them  during  our  stay  tbere. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

William  Okey, 

C.  J.  Albright, 

John  K.  McBride, 
Charles  Phellis, 

S.  P.  Weaver, 

A.  P.  Byal. 

Feb.  26, 1874. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK  submitted  the  following  Re- 
port: 

The  Select  Committee  of  three,  appointed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reporting  resolutions  expressive  of  the  sense  of 
this  Convention  in  view  of  the  decease  of  the  Hon.  John 
D.  O’Connor,  recommend  for  adoption  the  following: 

Resolved,  That  in  the  death  of  the  Hon.  John  D.  O’Con- 
nor, delegate  from  Seneca  county,  the  Convention  lose3 
an  able,  industrious  member,  his  constituency  a faithful 
Representative,  community  a good  and  useful  citizen,  and 
the  State  an  earnest,  intelligent  legislator. 

Resolved,  That  the  sincerity,  conviction,  earnestness  of 
purpose,  and  devotion  to  duty  which  marked  the  charac- 
ter of  our  departed  friend  furnish  an  example  worthy  of 
all  commendation. 

Resolved , That  we  deeply  sympathize  with  those  who 
mourn  the  loss  of  a kind  husband  and  father,  in  this  hour 
of  severe  trial,  and  trust  that  lie  “who  tempers  the  wind 
to  the  shorn  lamb”  will  remember  and  sustain  them  in 
their  affliction. 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  directed  to  transmit  to 
the  family  of  the  deceased  a certified  copy  of  the  forego- 
ing resolutions. 

Mr.  OKEY.  On  Monday  last,  you  were 
pleased  to  appoint  me,  in  connection  with  other 
members  of  the  Convention,  to  attend  the  re- 
mains of  Hon.  John  D.  O’Connor  to  his  late 
residence,  in  Seneca  county,  for  interment. 
We  performed  that  serviee/and  as  Chairman 
of  the  Committee,  I have  made  Report  to  the 
Convention.  That  Report  and  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  appointed  to  take  into  considera- 
tion the  loss  which  the  Convention  and  the  pub- 
lic, as  well  as  those  more  intimately  related  to 
Dr.  O’Connor,  have  sustained  in  his  death,  are 
now  before  the  Convention.  And,  as  I had  been 
on  terms  of  intimacy  with  him  all  his  life,  it 
will  not  seem  inappropriate,  I trust,  that  I 
should  speak  of  him  on  this  occasion. 

Daniel  O’Connor,  father  of  the  deceased, 
was  born  in  Ireland,  in  1790.  He  entered  the 
British  army  early  in  life,  served  several  years 
in  Spain  in  the  armies  of  Wellington  and  others, 
endured  the  hardships  and  privations  of  a 


1656 


EULOGY— HON.  JOHN  D.  O’CONNOE 


[124th 


Okey.  [Thursday, 


French  prison,  and  was  sent  to  Canada  near  the 
close  of  the  war  of  1812-1815.  Thinking,  as  he 
has  often  told  me,  that  he  had  served  “His 
Majesty”  long  enough,  and,  imbued  with  a love 
of  our  free  institutions,  he,  with  two  comrades, 
crossed  in  a small  boat  from  Queenstown  to  the 
American  shore,  and  after  remaining  in  New 
York  a short  time,  he  came  on  foot  to  Wheel- 
ing, Virginia,  and  thence  to  Woodsfield,  the 
county  seat  of  the  then  new  county  of  Monroe. 
This  was  in  1817  or  1818.  He  was  there  married 
to  Rebecca  Carrothers,  soon  afterward,  and  re- 
sided there  the  remainder  of  his  life.  Here 
John  Deming  O’Connor,  the  second  issue  of 
the  marriage,  was  born  September  24,  1822. 

There  was  at  Woodsfield,  during  the  boyhood 
of  Dr.  O’Connor,  an  academy,  which  at  one 
time  was  in  a very  flourishing  condition.  An- 
drew F.  Ross  and  James  P.  Mason,  who  after- 
ward had  large  reputation  as  professors  in 
Bethany  College,  were  connected  with  the  Acad- 
emy, and  Dr.  O’Connor  derived  no  little  ad- 
vantage from  it.  But,  as  he  has  often  informed  | 
me,  he  was  indebted  to  the  private  and  public 
instruction  of  Franklin  Gale,  Esq.,  now  of  Co- 
lumbus, more  than  to  all  others,  for  his  very 
excellent  education,  and  especially  his  knowl- 
edge of  the  languages  and  mathematics. 

Recurring  to  his  father,  Daniel  O’Connor, 

I take  great  pleasure  in  bearing  testimony  to 
his  worth.  When  he  died,  in  1872,  at  the  age 
of  82  years,  he  had  been  Recorder  of  Monroe 
county  more  than  a quarter  of  a century ; and 
it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  he  died  as  he  had 
lived,  without  a single  enemy  on  earth. 

Dr.  O’Connor  pursued  the  study  of  medicine 
and  surgery  at  Woodsfield,  under  the  direction 
of  Dr.  Josiah  M.  Dillon,  and  located  at  Claring- 
ton,  a village  on  the  Ohio  river,  in  his  native 
county.  There,  without  money  or  influential 
friends,  he  engaged  in  the  practice  of  his  pro- 
fession with  that  zeal  and  perseverance  which 
rarely  fails  to  secure  success.  With  a consti- 
tution never  robust,  but  of  the  kind  known  as 
wirey , he  performed  an  amount  of  labor  in 
riding  over  the  hills  of  Ohio  and  West  Virginia 
that  astonished  his  friends.  There,  hy  his  j 
industry  and  economy,  he  acquired  a comfort- 
able home.  There  he  built  up  and  maintained 
an  extensive  practice,  and  made  many  warm 
friends  who  remember  him  with  affection. 
There,  in  1845,  he  was  married  to  Ruth  C.  Neff. 

In  1856,  Dr.  O’Connor,  becoming  desirous  of 
adding  to  his  knowledge  of  medicine  and  sur- 
gery, and  thus  extending  his  usefulness,  attend- 
ed a course  of  lectures  in  Miami  Medical  Col- 
lege, and  was  graduated  from  that  institution 
in  1858,  during  which  time  he  received  instruc- 
tion from  the  elder  Mussey,  Murphy,  Dawson, 
Davis  and  others.  He  had  the  kind  attendance 
of  Drs.  Dawson  and  Reamy,  during  the  present 
session  of  the  Convention,  but  his  wasted  con- 
stitution was  beyond  human  skill. 

In  1861,  Dr.  O’Connor  was  elected  to  repre- 
sent Guernsey  and  Monroe  counties  in  the  State 
Senate,  and  was  re-elected  in  1863.  In  the  fall 
of  1866,  he  removed  to  Seneca  county,  and  locat- 
ed near  the  city  of  Tiffin,  where  he  engaged  in 
the  practice  of  his  profession.  But  disease  of 
the  lungs  and  hard  labor  had  so  impaired  his 
health  that  he  did  notenter  into  a general  prac- ! 
tice  at  Tiffin.  His  reputation,  however,  there,  I 


as  well  as  in  Monroe  county,  as  a skillful  phy- 
sician and  surgeon,  was  equal  to  that  of  any 
man  in  the  State;  and,  surely,  reputation  was 
never  more  deserved.  I was  pleased,  further- 
more, to  learn  at  that  pleasant  city,  that  he  was 
not  only  regarded  as  an  ornament  to  the  medical 
profession,  but  that  he  had,  by  his  faithful  at- 
tention to  his  public  duties,  and  his  intelligent 
understanding  of  public  affairs,  acquired  the 
reputation  of  a statesman  ; and  that  he  was  re- 
garded as  a genial  gentleman,  and  above  all,  a 
true  Christian. 

Dr.  O’Connor  was  elected  a delegate  to  this 
Convention  in  April,  and  was  constant  in  his 
attendance  at  its  sittings  until  about  three  weeks 
ago.  It  is  not  probable  that  there  is  another 
member  of  the  Convention — indeed,  I doubt 
whether  another  man  could  be  found,  who 
would  attend  this  body  in  a like  physical  con- 
dition. Some  one  sa'd  of  Alexander  Stephens, 
of  Georgia,  that  in  him  you  could  almost  see  a 
living  soul.  So  it  was  with  Dr.  O’Connor.  But 
no  one,  however  great  his  will-power,  can  escape 
the  destiny  that  awaits  all.  He  gradually 
wasted  away,  until  Saturday,  February  21,1874, 
at  nine  o’clock  p.  m.,  when,  like  a tired  child  in 
the  arms  of  its  nurse,  he  fell  asleep.  “ He 
dreams  not,  he  hears  not,  he’s  free  from  all 
pain.”  Two  weeks  previous  to  his  death,  he 
was,  at  his  own  request,  removed  to  the  Good 
Samaritan  Hospital,  where  he  received  the 
kindest  attention,  and  at  his  last  moment  was 
surrounded  by  his  family  and  friends. 

Mr.  President,  a word  concerning  our  friend, 
as  he  appeared  to  me,  and  I think  to  others,  and 
I will  close. 

As  a scholar,  his  attainments  were  verj^  fair, 
for  he  had  diligently  improved  his  excellent 
opportunities. 

As  a physician  and  surgeon,  he  was  thorough- 
ly versed  in  the  learning  of  his  profession,  was 
quick  to  decide  and  prompt  to  act,  and  in  his 
devotion  to  his  patients  untiring;  hence  his 
high  professional  reputation. 

As  a statesman,  he  had  four  years’  experience 
in  the  Senate,  besides  his  term  in  this  body.  If 
his  health  had  permitted,  he  would,  doubtless, 
have  taken  high  rank  in  the  public  councils. 
As  it  was,  he  was  a well  informed  and  useful 
member,  ready  in  debate,  and  diligent  in  his 
attention  to  public  duty.  His  convictions  were 
decided,  and  in  matters  affecting  principle,  he 
was  inclined  to  be  unyielding. 

As  a friend,  he  was  ardent  in  his  attachments ; 
he  highly  prized  any  favor  or  attention,  however 
small,  that  might  be  shown  to  him,  and  would 
speak  of  it  oftentimes, when  it  had,  perhaps,  been 
long  forgotten  by  all  save  himself ; he  was  ever 
ready  to  forgive  an  injury,  but  he  never  forgot 
a friend. 

As  a man,  he  had  this  quality  which  is  said  to 
constitute  the  noblest  work  of  God — he  was 
honest.  Economical  in  his  habits,  he  was,  nev- 
ertheless, generous  and  benevolent,  kind,  char- 
itable, and  hospitable  to  the  last  degree. 

As  a husband  and  father,  he  could  not  be  oth- 
erwise than  affectionate  and  indulgent. 

He  had  a strong  desire  to  assist  in  completing 
the  work  of  this  Convention.  He  often  said  to 
me  that  he  would  then  be  content  to  die.  His 
attachment  to  the  members  and  officers  visibly 
increased  as  his  strength  wasted.  He  was  in- 


Day.] 

February  26,  1874.] 


OBITUARY  ADDRESSES — O’CONNOR. 

Okey,  Albright,  Hitchcock. 


1657 


dined  to  dwell  on  the  many  marks  of  regard 
that  had  been  shown  him,  and  spoke  of  the  im- 
possibility of  repaying  those  acts  of  kindness, 
and  he  believed  that  his  coming  here,  the  excite- 
ment attending  the  discharge  of  duty,  and  his 
pleasant  associations,  had  tended  to  prolong  life 
and  alleviate  pain  and  disease. 

Let  me  speak  of  Dr.  O’Connor  in  one  more 
relation — as  a Christian.  He  was  an  attentive 
and  regular  reader  of  the  Scriptures,  as  his  well- 
worn  Bible,  his  constant  companion,  fully  at- 
tested ; and,  moreover,  he  was  a firm  believer 
in  the  divine  truths  contained  therein.  He  con- 
nected himself  with  the  Christian  Church,  un- 
der the  teaching  of  Rev.  A.  G.  Ewing,  son-in- 
law  of  Bishop  Campbell,  and  continued  a con- 
sistent member  of  that  Church  until  he  died. 
He  left  a wife  and  four  children,  but  they  do 
not  mourn  as  those  without  hope. 

This  fragment  of  verse,  among  his  papers, 
was  doubtless  an  index  of  his  feelings : 

“Thus  oft  when  fades  hope’s  day-horn  dream, 

And  fleeting  joys  decay, 

Some  welcome  star  will  sweetly  beam, 

And  o’er  the  eye  of  sadness  gleam, 

With  fond,  inspiring  ray,” 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  For  the  first  time  in  the  his- 
tory of  this  Convention,  death  has  invaded  our 
circle,  and  claimed  one  of  our  number  as  his 
own ; and  to-day  it  is  our  melancholy  duty  to 
pay  appropriate  honors  to  the  memory  of  one 
who  so  recently  occupied  a seat  in  this  Hall.  A 
vacant  chair,  draped  with  the  emblems  of 
mourning,  reminds  us  that  the  voice  of  John 
D.  O’Connor  will  no  more  be  heard  in  respond- 
ing to  the  roll-call,  or  supporting  in  debate  the 
honest  convictions  of  his  judgment.  And  while 
our  minds  are  reflecting  upon  this  bereavement, 
it  were  well  to  remember  that 

“We  a little  longer  wait, 

But  how  little  none  can  know.” 

It  is  not  my  good  fortune  to  have  been  long 
or  intimately  acquainted  with  our  departed  fel- 
low-member. Until  meeting  him  in  this  Con- 
vention, I knew  him  only  by  reputation.  As 
a member  of  the  General  Assembly  for  four 
years,  representing  the  senatorial  district  in 
which  I reside,  it  is  my  agreeable  privilege  to 
bear  testimony  to  the  ability  and  accceptability 
with  which  he  discharged  the  duties  of  his  of- 
fice. But  here,  in  this  Convention,  the  last 
field  of  his  public  labors,  we  are  all  familiar 
with  the  devoted  attention,  the  intelligence, 
and  the  ability  he  gave  to  the  work  imposed 
upon  him  by  his  constituents ; and  we  may  say 
with  propriety  that  no  one  upon  this  floor  won 
a larger  measure  of  respect  from  the  members 
and  officers  of  this  body.  His  greatest  tempo- 
ral solicitude  was  for  the  speedy  consummation 
of  the  work  of  the  Convention,  and  to  this  end 
he  directed  his  efforts  upon  all  occasions. 

In  all  the  relations  of  life,  as  a citizen,  a mem- 
ber of  the  medical  profession,  a public  servant, 
a member  of  the  Christian  Church,  a husband 
and  father,  he  deported  himself  as  a true  man, 
and  to  many,  this  day,  his  name  is  one  of  pre- 
cious memory.  In  contemplating  a life  so 
active  and  useful,  may  we  not  truly  say, 

“After  life’s  fitful  fever, 

He  sleeps  well.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Before  the  vote  is  taken 


upon  agreeing  to  the  resolutions  read  at  the 
Secretary’s  desk,  allow  me  to  bring  one  offer- 
ing, and  lay  it  upon  the  newly-made  grave  of  a 
departed  friend. 

My  acquaintance  with  the  deceased  com- 
menced twelve  years  since  on  the  first  Monday 
in  January  last.  For  four  years  from  that  time 
our  acquaintance  was  intimate,  and  for  months 
in  each  of  two  of  those  years  we  were  asso- 
ciated together  in  the  daily  sessions  of  the 
Senate  of  Ohio.  From  that  time,  we  met  but 
seldom  until  the  opening  of  the  sessions  of  this 
Convention  in  May,  1873. 

Soon  after  the  close  of  his  second  term  in  the 
Senate,  the  subject  of  this  sketch  removed  to  a 
distant  part  of  the  State,  settling  in  a wealthy 
and  populous  county,  having  within  its  limits  a 
thrifty  and  enterprising  city  of  the  second 
class. 

There,  notwithstanding  feeble  health,  in  a 
few  brief  years  he  made  acquaintances,  culti- 
vated intimacies,  formed  friendships,  and 
established  a reputation  which  resulted  in  his 
election  as  a delegate  to  this  Convention  from 
the  county  of  Seneca.  You  know,  as  well  as  I, 
of  his  life  and  labor  here,  until  that  labor 
ceased,  and  life  was  closed  by  the  cold  hand  of 
death  on  Saturday,  February  21,  1874. 

Apparently  as  much  of  an  invalid  when  first 
we  met,  twelve  years  since,  as  when  we  renew- 
ed our  acquaintance  in  May  last,  yet  during  all 
these  years  he  fought  on,  beating  back  the  in- 
sidious destroyer  at  every  point,  and  accom- 
plishing far  more  than  many  another,  carrying 
no  such  weight  of  disease  and  suffering. 

At  the  opening  of  this  Convention  he  told  me 
that  he  was  some  better  than  when  we  parted 
eight  years  before;  but  on  our  coming  together 
at  the  commencement  of  this  session,  remarked 
“ that  he  had  not  been  able  to  recover  from  the 
effects  of  his  protracted  stay  in  Columbus  dur- 
ing the  summer.”  To  all  it  soon  became  appar- 
ent that  the  final  struggle,  if  not  rapidly,  was 
surely  approaching.  Still  he  battled  on.  Daily 
was  he  found  at  his  post,  closely  watching  the 
progress  of  business,  always  ready  to  vote,  and 
occasionally  taking  part  in  discussion.  At  last 
his  failing  strength  forbade  farther  attempts  to 
drag  himself  to  this  Hall.  Then  only  he  gave 
up  the  unequal  contest,  and,  compelled  to  yield 
to  one  mightier  than  he,  calmly  laid  himself 
down  to  die,  his  only  expressed  regret  being, 
that  he  could  not  live  to  fully  discharge  the 
trust  reposed  in  him  by  his  constituency.  Of 
choice,  he  would  have  lived  to  see  the  work  of 
the  Convention  completed ; but  this  boon  was 
denied  him. 

If  there  were  characteristics  more  than  others 
marking  the  character  of  the  man,  they  were 
those  referred  to  in  the  second  resolution  read : 
Sincerity,  earnestness,  determination;  sincerity 
of  conviction,  earnestness  of  purpose  in  carry- 
ing out  his  convictions,  and  determination  to 
stand  to  his  colors,  no  matter  how  strongly  op- 
posed. All  can  bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  this 
in  his  course  here.  No  less  was  it  true  of  him 
in  his  earlier  public  life. 

It  was  but  natural  that  at  times  he  should 
manifest  great  warmth  in  debate ; occasionally 
he  was  severe,  and  under  the  influence  of  ill 
health,  censorious.  Nothing,  however,  was 


1658 


[124th 


OBITUARY  ADDRESSES— O’CONNOR. 

Hitchcock,  Cook. 


farther  from  his  intention  than  to  misrepre- 
sent or  injure  others — an  instance  illustrative 
of  this  occurred  in  our  early  acquaintance. 
Coming  together  as  we  did  in  the  first  year  of 
the  war  for  the  life  of  the  nation,  when  few 
in  this  State  were  disposed  to  question  the 
authority  of  the  Government  or  the  means 
adopted  for  its  support,  it  was  hut  natural  that 
the  cause  of  their  doing  so  would  be  some- 
what severely  criticised. 

He  of  whom  I speak  was  one  of  those  who 
doubted  the  policy  of  those  means,  and  although 
patriotic  from  the  very  characteristics  before 
referred  to,  would  frequently  comment  upon 
them  sharply.  In  the  discussion  of  some  ques- 
tion before  the  Senate,  I had  referred  to  him 
and  the  county  he  represented  in  terms  not  at 
all  complimentary. 

To  this  he  took  occasion  to  respond,  paying 
me  hack  with  interest,  which  he  was  well  able 
to  do,  mingling  with  his  remarks  much  of  bit- 
terness and  personality.  During  the  delivery 
of  this  speech  a mutual  friend,  without  my 
knowledge,  penned  a note,  demanding  satisfac- 
tion, referring  him  to  another  gentleman  for 
arrangement  of  preliminaries,  and  signing  my 
name  thereto,  handed  it  to  the  Doctor  as  he 
took  his  seat.  So  soon  as  he  read  the  note  he 
sprang  to  his  feet,  to  a question  of  privilege, 
and  in  the  most  earnest  manner  made  full 
apology  to  the  Senate  and  to  myself  personally 
for  the  words  spoken  in  the  heat  of  debate. 

When  informed  of  the  reason,  of  which  be- 
fore I knew  nothing,  it  showed  me  better  than 
I knew  before,  this  trait  in  his  character,  that 
no  matter  how  severe  he  might  be,  never  would 
he  intentionally  transgress  the  rules  of  pro- 
priety or  willingly  wound  the  feelings  of 
another. 

To-day  we  pay  the  last  sad  tribute  of  respect 
to  the  memory  of  John  D.  O’Connor — so  re- 
cently one  of  our  number;  now  gone — where? 
His  vacant  seat,  shrouded  in  black,  and  these 
saddened  countenances,  tell  us. 

His  presence  is  no  longer  with  us.  But  the 
example  of  his  sincere,  earnest,  determined  de- 
votion to  duty,  remains.  By  it  may  we  be  im- 
pelled to  like  earnestness  and  devotion  in  the 
discharge  of  the  important  work  committed  to 
us  here,  as  well  as  all  the  varied  duties  of 
coming  life. 

Mr.  COOK.  It  would  be  more  agreeable  to 
my  feelings,  Mr.  President,  to  remain  in  my 
seat,  and,  with  the  rest  of  the  members  of  the 
Convention,  suffer  this  common  affliction  in 
silence,  but  I cannot  withhold  my  tribute  to  the 
memory  of  the  deceased. 

To  contemplate  death,  and  to  prepare  to  meet 
it  with  fortitude,  is  the  duty  of  all ; and  when 
its  gentle  whispers  invite  the  aged  and  toil- 
worn  from  the  sufferings  incident  to  an  earthly 
life,  it  is  a consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished. 
But  when  it  breaks  into  a circle  like  this,  where 
life’s  energies  and  activities  are  nobly  engaged 
in  the  cause  of  man,  and  takes  one,  whose  age 
denotes  him  to  be  in  the  prime  of  life,  and  in 
the  midst  of  a career  of  usefulness,  it  appears 
less  like  angel  whispers,  inviting  the  weary 
home,  than  the  lightning  which  shivers  the 
gnarled  oak  of  the  forest,  beneath  whose  foli- 
age the  wandering  herds  have  been  wont  to  lie 
down  and  rest. 


[Thursday, 


Our  friend  has  fallen  with  his  harness  on, 
and  in  the  midst  of  his  usefulness  he  has  been 
called  from  his  earthly  labors  to  enjoy  eternal 
rest.  With  his  life  he  has  sealed  his  devotion 
to  duty.  Though  his  failing  health  would  have 
entitled  him  to  leave  of  absence,  or  made  res- 
ignation acceptable,  his  ardent  love  of  duty 
kept  him  to  his  post  with  the  fidelity  of  a sol- 
dier and  the  zeal  of  a martyr. 

Dr.  O’Connor  was  a man  of  honor,  and  one 
who  always  acted  from  principle.  If  he  was 
firm,  he  was  not  opinionated.  His  firmness  was 
a noble  adhesion  to  what  he  believed  to  be  right. 
But  in  matters  of  mere  opinion,  he  always  lis- 
tened to  reason,  and,  when  convinced,  no  one 
was  more  ready  to  change.  His  firmness  never 
degenerated  into  stubbornness.  He  took  a more 
just  and  practical  view  of  human  affairs.  As  a 
legislator,  he  maintained  and  enforced  his 
views  with  ability ; but  when  he  had  exhausted 
argument,  if  the  majority  was  found  against 
him,  he  never  made  use  of  the  forms  of  pro- 
ceeding to  delay  action,  or  to  defeat  the  fairly 
expressed  will  of  the  majority. 

If  he  was  tenacious  of  his  right,  he  conceded 
to  others  all  that  he  claimed  for  himself,  and 
though  wearied  and  exhausted  by  the  long  de- 
bates in  this  Convention,  he  never  voted  for  the 
previous  question,  nor  made  use  of  any  of  the 
forms  of  our  proceedings  to  deprive  a member 
from  speaking  as  long  as  entitled  to  under  our 
rules. 

As  a politician,  he  was  firm  in  his  faith  and 
just  to  his  opponents.  While  he  believed  that 
the  principles  of  his  party,  if  fairly  enforced, 
would  give  stability  to  the  government  and 
prosperity  to  the  people,  he  was  not  so  weak  as 
to  believe  that  there  was  no  good  in  the  political 
principles  of  his  opponents.  In  this,  as  in 
other  matters,  he  conceded  wisdom  and  hon- 
esty to  those  who  differed  from  him,  and 
claimed  no  more  for  himself,  or  his  party,  than 
that  a preponderance  of  the  good  and  the  right 
was  with  them. 

Though  strong  in  his  attachments,  his  con- 
victions were  true,  and  his  judgment  of  men 
and  things  just.  As  a debater,  he  was  forcible 
and  clear.  As  a reasoner,  his  conclusions  were 
logical,  and  he  clung  to  them  with  unfaltering 
devotion. 

The  earnest  devotion  to  duty,  which  with 
him  was  an  ever-present  .reality,  caused  him  to 
leave  the  comforts  of  home  and  the  consolation 
of  friends,  and  meet  with  this  Convention  to 
aid  in  the  completion  of  its  labors,  although  it 
was  doubtful  whether  he  would  outlive  our  de- 
liberations. For  duty  he  sacrificed  personal 
ease,  and  took  the  chances  of  death  among 
strangers.  But  he  was  not  left  to  die  alone. 
In  addition  to  his  wife  and  aged  father-in-law, 
who  came  to  him  as  soon  as  his  condition  was 
known  to  be  critical,  his  daughter,  who  has  in- 
herited his  qualities  of  heart,  left  her  husband 
and  home,  and  came  and  watched  by  his  side, 
and  with  the  gentle  hand  by  which  he  oft  had 
led  her  in  infancy,  ministered  to  him  in  his  de- 
clining hours,  and  wiped  the  cold  sweat  from 
his  dying  brow. 

“Some  thoughts  there  are  to  mortals  given, 

Which  have  less  of  earth  than  of  heaven, 

And  if  there  is  a human  tear 

From  passion  drops,  refined  and  clear, 


OBITUARY  ADDRESSES— O’CONNOR. 

Cook,  Neal,  Yoris. 


1659 


Day.] 

February  26, 1874.] 


A tear  so  limpid  and  so  meek, 

It  would  not  stain  an  angel’s  cheek, 

’Tis  that  which  pious  fathers  shed, 

On  a duteous  daughter’s  head.” 

At  home,  he  was  a kind  and  affectionate  hus- 
band and  father;  in  society,  a genial  and  hos- 
pitable neighbor.  His  ear  was  ever  open  to  the 
cry  of  the  suffering,  and  his  heart  nobly  re- 
sponded to  their  call. 

But  why  enumerate?  He  was  no  enigma. 
Those  of  you  who  have  known  him  but  a few 
months,  are  as  well  acquainted  with  him  as 
those  who  have  known  him  for  years.  His 
frank  and  open  life  allowed  all  to  read  his  char- 
acter, for  he  carried  no  mantle  to  hide  himself 
from  those  with  whom  he  was  associated. 

In  his  death,  this  Convention  has  lost  a valued 
counselor.  The  chair  to  which  all  eyes  were 
turned  when  he  rose  to  speak,  is  vacant ; and  the 
voice  which,  when  the  Convention  wandered, 
was  wont  to  call  it  back  to  duty,  is  hushed  in 
death.  But,  inspired  by  faith,  let  us  entertain 
the  hope  that  it  will  be  retuned  for  nobler 
speech. 

To  the  lifeless  form  of  the  deceased  this  is  a 
dumb  show,  and  would  be  worse  than  an  idle 
waste  of  time,  if  it  were  not  for  the  good  it  is 
expected  to  have  on  the  living.  Let  us,  my 
friends,  then 

“So  live, 

That  when  our  summons  comes  to  join 
The  innumerable  carayan  that  moves 
To  that  mysterious  realm,  where  each  shall  take 
His  chamber  in  the  silent  halls  of  death, 

We  go  not  like  the  quarry-slave,  at  night, 

Scourged  to  his  dungeon,  but  sustained  and  soothed 
By  an  unfaltering  trust,  approach  the  grave 
Like  one  who  wraps  the  drapery  of  his  couch 
About  him,  and  lies  down  to  pleasant  dreams.” 

Mr.  NEAL.  In  January,  1862, 1 first  became 
acquainted  with  the  distinguished  gentleman, 
the  late  delegate  from  Seneca,  whose  death  we 
now  deplore.  At  that  time,  both  he  and  myself 
appeared  in  Columbus  as  members-elect  to  the 
General  Assembly  then  about  to  convene.  We 
were  alike  strangers  to  each  other,  and  to  most 
of  the  other  members  elected  to  that  body. 

Politically,  we  had  no  sympathies  or  affilia- 
tions, for,  while  he  was  elected  by  the  Demo- 
cratic party  of  his  district,  I was  a pronounced 
“Republican.  It  was  not  long,  however,  before 
I discovered  that  as  loyal  and  patriotic  a heart 
beat  in  his  bosom  as  in  my  own,  and  that,  how- 
ever we  might  differ  as  to  the  measures  to  be 
adopted,  and  the  means  to  be  used,  he  was  as 
earnestly  desirous  as  I was  to  see  the  rebellion 
crushed  out  and  the  Union  maintained.  He  re- 
joiced in  the  success  of  our  armies,  gloried  in 
their  victories,  and  mourned  over  their  defeats. 

In  all  matters  of  general  legislation,  not  po- 
litical in  their  character,  he  took  no  partisan  or 
provincial  view;  but  looking  over  the  whole 
State,  he  advocated  such  measures  as  would,  in 
his  opinion,  best  subserve  the  true  interests  of 
the  entire  people,  irrespective  of  particular 
localities.  In  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  he 
brought  to  bear  sound  reasoning  faculties,  an 
honest  heart,  and  a discriminating  judgment; 
so  that  he  soon  acquired,  and  always  retained, 
the  respect,  confidence,  and  esteem  of  all  his 
associates  in  both  General  Assemblies,  of  which 
he  had  the  honor  of  being  a member. 

Of  his  course  in  this  Convention,  and  of  the 
impression  he  has  created  here,  I need  not  speak. 


We  all  respected  him  for  his  sterling  qualities 
of  head  and  heart,  although  we  may  not  have 
always  been  able  to  agree  with  him  in  regard 
to  the  best  measures  to  be  adopted.  He  was 
brave  and  uncompromising  in  the  advocacy  of 
the  right,  as  God  gave  him  wisdom  to  discern 
it;  rather  conservative  than  otherwise  in  his 
views,  not  caring  to  depart  from  the  old  land- 
marks, unless  he  saw  much  excellent  reason  for 
doing  so;  and  highly  conscientious  in  the  dis- 
charge of  every  duty. 

He  was  anxious  to  live  long  enough  to  see 
this  Convention  successfully  complete  its  labors, 
but  he  has  passed  away  without  being  permitted 
to  have  this  cherished  desire  of  his  heart  grati- 
fied ; and  we  shall  have  no  longer  the  wisdom 
of  his  counsels  to  aid  us  in  the  completion  of 
our  work. 

He  was  a friend  unselfish  and  true,  in  whose 
heart  there  was  no  guile,  neither  shadow  of 
turning. 

While  we  may  regret  his  death  and  deplore 
our  loss,  none  of  us,  I presume,  are  so  selfish  as 
to  wish  that  the  grave  should  give  up  its  dead, 
and  that  our  friend  should  again  be  restored  to 
this  world,  which  had  but  little  in  store  for  him 
but  bodily  suffering  and  anguish,  yet  we  may 
evermore  cherish  his  memory,  emulate  his  vir- 
tues, and  respect  his  counsels,  in  our  further  de- 
liberations. 

Let  us  also  remember  there  is  no  grief  without 
some  beneficent  provision  to  soften  its  intense- 
ness. When  the  good  and  lovely  die,  the  mem- 
ory of  their  deeds,  like  the  moonbeams  on  the 
stormy  sea,  light  our  darkened  hearts,  and  lend 
to  the  surrounding  gloom  a beauty  so  sad,  so 
sweet,  that  we  would  not,  if  we  could,  dispel 
the  darkness  that  environs  it. 

Mr.  YORIS.  To  die  is  the  inevitable  lot  and 
rest  of  all  men.  Ever  since  man  had  a sentient 
desire,  the  most  anxious  inquiry  of  our  lives 
has  been,  when  we  die,  shall  we  live  again? 
Reason,  history,  and  philosophy,  each  confess 
that  they  are  unable  to  answer  this  all-absorb- 
ing question,  and  coldly  remit  us  to  the  hopes 
of  faith  and  the  desires  of  the  heart. 

Hope  cheers  those  wandering  along  the  chilly 
shores  of  the  river  of  death  with  the  happy  be- 
lief that  the  All-Good  Being  who  created  us 
with  all  our  passions  and  weakness,  and  knows 
us  far  better  than  we  know  ourselves,  and 
whose  divine  pleasure  alone  called  us  into  be- 
ing, and  who  has  crowned  our  whole  lives  with 
His  attributes  and  blessings,  and  made  us  the 
creatures  of  His  will,  will  not  forsake  us,  His 
children,  in  the  hour  when  we  need  most  His 
supporting  hands. 

I would  not  impeach  Divine  Omniscience  by 
presuming  that  His  Fatherly  care  is  to  be  only 
with  us  through  the  trials  of  this  life,  if  we 
are  to  live  in  the  future.  “ His  goodness  and 
mercy  endureth  forever.” 

Be  the  question  of  our  future  existence  as  it 
may,  we  may,  nevertheless,  erect  an  ever-living 
monument  in  the  eternity  of  human  life  that  is 
to  follow  us,  by  making  the  life  we  now  live  a 
blessing  to  our  kind.  He  whose  life  is  a benefit 
to  mankind,  shall,  in  the  good  he  does,  live 
forever. 

The  good  that  men  do  shall  live  after  them, 
though  they  be  buried  in  the  narrow  house  of 
the  dead.  Whatever  philosophy,  faith  or  hope 


1660 


THE  LAST  OF  EARTH— O’CONNOR. [124th  Day. 

Voris.  [Thursday,  Feb.  26,  1874. 


may  fail  to  demonstrate,  we  may  be  assured  of 
the  eternity  of  the  good  we  may  do  in  our  lives 
to  those  about  us.  What  a hope  for  the  good 
man  ! Though  his  body  dies,  and  his  spirit  may 
fail,  the  blessings  he  vitalizes  shall  move  on- 
ward, a perpetual  creation  that  will  bless  for- 
ever. 

The  man  who  thus  labors  for  eternity  is  quite 
as  good,  is  prompted  by  motives  as  high,  and 
has  as  exalted  hopes  as  he  who  is  looking  for 
the  resurection  of  the  body  and  a local  habita- 
tion with  the  elect  in  the  eternal  kingdom  of 
the  redeemed. 

As  I understand  the  life  of  the  deceased,  I 
I believe  his  efforts  were  directed  towards  the 
amelioration  of  the  condition  of  mankind,  that 
his  sense  of  duty  led  him  out  largely  in  acts  of 
goodness  to  humanity,  and  his  reverence  for  the 
Deity  manifested  itself  more  in  trying  to  make 
his  fellow-creatures  better,  than  in  vain  repe- 
titions of  adulations  to  God  as  an  abstraction. 

He  was  eminently  a man  of  convictions,  and 
conscientiously  followed  them;  was  an  inflex- 
ible hater  of  meanness,  a sturdy  vindicator  of 
the  cause  of  the  weak  and  oppressed ; possessed 
to  a great  degree,  courage,  independence,  and 


firmness  of  purpose;  and  so  lQyal  was  he  to  his 
public  duties,  that  he  literally  died  with  his 
armor  on. 

His  will  nourished  a decaying  life,  that  would 
months  ago  have  placed  him  in  the  tomb  but  for 
that  unquenchable  purpose  that  refused  to  suc- 
cumb till  all  his  human  powers  were  exhausted. 

In  an  eternity  of  blessedness  he  will  live, 
whether  it  be  of  the  good  he  has  done,  or  in  the 
realization  of  the  faith  of  a future  existence, 
we  know  not;  but  we  are  assured  that  the  most 
glorious  will  be  that  of  the  good  deeds  he  per- 
formed, that  shall  never,  never  die. 

“Nor  men,  nor  days  unborn,  untold, 

Shall  ever  witness  “goodness”  old; 

For  it  alone,  refreshed  by  time, 

Shall  march  onward  to  its  prime.” 

Blessed  are  they  who  die  in  the  hope  that 
their  lives  have  been  a blessing  to  their  race. 

The  question  was  then  taken  upon  the  adop- 
tion of  the  report  of  the  Committee  and  of  the 
resolutions. 

Which  report  and  resolutions  were  unani- 
mously adopted. 

On  motion,  the  Convention  (at  5 : 05  p.  m.)  ad- 
journed. 


CONCERNING  FINAL  ADJOURNMENT 

Waddle,  Shaw,  Tyler,  Carbery,  Townsend,  Baber. 


1661 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-FIFTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SIXTY-THIRD  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  T.  J.  Mellish,  of  the  Mil- 
ford Baptist  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  69  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Miner  for  to-day;  for  Messrs.  Pond, 
Andrews,  Smith  of  Shelby,  and  Coats,  until 
Tuesday  next;  for  Messrs.  Van  Yoorhis  and 
Sears,  until  Wednesday  next;  forMr.YooRHEs, 
to  Thursday  next;  for  Messrs.  Albright  and 
Phellis  during  tbe  ensuing  week;  and  for 
Messrs.  Griswold,  Beer,  and  Hill,  for  an  in- 
definite length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

petition. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of  Rev. 
David  Paul,  D.  D.,  and  349  other  citizens  of 
New  Concord,  Muskingum  county,  for  a clause 
in  the  new  Constitution,  giving  the  Legislature 
full  power  to  regulate,  limit,  or  entirely  pro- 
hibit the  manufacture  and  sale  of  all  intoxica- 
ting drinks. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

miscellaneous  business. 

Mr.  SHAW.  I offer  for  adoption  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Clermont  [Mr.  Shaw]  offers  for  adoption  the 
following  resolution,  which  the  Secretary  will 
read : 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Resolution  No.  175— By  Mr.  Shaw: 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  are  here- 
by tendered  to  the  Sisters  of  Charity  of  the  Good  Samari- 
tan Hospital,  for  their  tender  and  unremitting  care  of  the 
late  John  D.  O’Connor  during  his  last  illness. 

Which  was  adopted. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I wish  now  to  call  up  Resolu 
tion  No.  167. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Henry  wishes  to  call  up  Resolution  No.  167,  in 
reference  to  adjournment. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  Resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Resolution  No.  167— By  Mr.  Tyler: 

Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention  shall  adjourn  on 
Tuesday,  the  31st  of  March,  A.  D.,  1874,  it  shall  adjourn 
sine  die , unless  the  business  qt  the  Convention  is  sooner 
completed. 


Friday,  February  27,  1874. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I move  that  the  considera- 
tion of  that  resolution  be  postponed  until  the 
31st  of  March. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
postponing  the  consideration  of  the  resolution 
until  March  31st. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I think  it  is  very  well  for 
us  to  fix  the  time  now  for  final  adjournment. 
I am  entirely  satisfied  we  will  never  work  with 
reference  to  the  completion  of  our  labors  in  this 
Convention,  until  we  have  fixed  some  time  for 
final  adjournment.  Then  each  Chairman  of  a 
Committee,  who  has  charge  of  business  not  yet 
reached,  will  work  up  to  it  and  push  forward ; 
but  if  we  are  to  drag  through  here  with  every 
proposition,  we  shall  accomplish  but  little.  I 
am  satisfied  that  in  the  next  thirty  days,  all  the 
business  of  this  Convention  can  be  done,  and 
well  done ; better,  perhaps,  than  if  we  take  two 
or  three  months.  We  will  find  that  during  the 
latter  part  of  March,  gentlemen  will  have  busi- 
ness at  home  that  will  imperatively  demand 
their  attention  and  presence  there,  and  the  re- 
sult will  be  that  we  shall  be  unable  to  get  a 
quorum,  and  we  will  have  to  carry  the  business 
of  this  Convention  over  again,  until  the  fall 
months.  I am  satisfied  that  if  we  fix  a day  for 
final  adjournment,  we  will  have  a better  attend- 
ance, transact  more  business,  and  have  less  use- 
less discussion ; we  will  either  vote  things  up 
or  vote  them  down,  and  such  portions  of  the 
Constitution  as  we  shall  not  reach  at  all,  will, 
perhaps,  be  fully  as  well  if  left  alone,  as  after 
any  improvements  that  we  can  make  upon  them. 
I hope  this  resolution  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  the  resolution  will  be 
adopted.  We  have  the  precedent  of  the  Illinois 
Convention  upon  this  subject,  as  any  one  can 
see  by  examining  the  debates.  That  Conven- 
tion debated  the  questions  before  it,  until  some 
time  in  the  latter  part  of  February  or  early  in 
March,  and  then  adjourned  over,  I think,  for 
some  two  or  three  weeks,  and  when  they  came 
back,  before  their  adjournment,  they  fixed  a 
day  for  the  definite  adjournment  of  the  Conven- 
tion, about  three  weeks  ahead;  and  if  anybody 
will  examine  their  debates,  he  will  see  the  act- 
ual amount  of  business  done  by  that  Convention 
on  the  final  votes  accomplished  the  last  three 
weeks  of  the  session,  and  I hope  that  after  the 
experience  of  this  week,  the  Convention  will 
see  the  necessity  of  not  dragging  along  in  the 
style  that  we  have  been  doing.  I believe  that, 
if  a definite  day  for  adjournment  should  be  fixed, 
thirty  days  are  ample,  and  the  gentlemen  will 
consider  it  their  duty  to  be  here  and  work  up 
their  business  and  get  through  with  it ; because, 
if  this  matter  lies  over  into  the  month  of  March 


1662 


CONCERNING  FINAL  ADJOURNMENT. 

Baber,  Bishop,  Pratt,  Tyler. 


[125th 


[Friday, 


gentlemen  will  have  to  attend  their  spring 
Courts. 

Now,  what  is  the  status  of  the  business  of  this 
Convention?  The  main  portion  of  the  discus- 
sions upon  the  Judicial  Article,  which  has  tak- 
en over  two-thirds  of  the  time,  is  over,  and 
nothing  really  is  to  be  settled  that  will  take 
much  time,  except  the  questions  of  Apportion- 
ment, Revenue  and  Taxation,  and  the  Schedule. 
Upon  the  Public  Debt  Article,  the  sections  are 
exactly,  word  for  word,  the  same  as  in  the  old 
Constitution,  only  the  6th  section,  where  the 
railroad  aid  question  comes  up,  which,  I am 
satisfied,  from  the  diversity  of  views,  will  be 
compromised,  by  submitting  the  proposition  to 
the  people  as  a separate  clause. 

Now,  it  appears  to  me,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  Illinois  Convention  acted  very  wisely  with 
regard  to  this  matter,  and  however  much  I may 
be  in  favor  of  a proposition  here,  if  I found 
that  a large  portion  of  the  members  opposed  it, 
and  if  the  probability  was  that  it  would  meet 
with  an  opposition  that  would  destroy  what 
good  work  we  have  put  into  the  Constitution, 
I,  myself,  would  not  vote  to  put  it  into  the  Con' 
stitution,  although  I had  the  fifty-three  votes 
requisite  to  do  so;  but  I would  say  that  it  may 
be  submitted  separately,  as  others  are  submitted, 
in  order  that  we  should  facilitate  the  business 
of  the  Convention.  Here,  for  instance,  is  the 
temperance  question,  the  railroad  aid  question, 
and  the  minority  representation,  or  proportion- 
al voting  question,  which  the  Convention  has 
already  indicated  a disposition  to  submit.  I do 
not  know  of  any  other  question,  but  if  any 
arises,  let  us  submit  it,  as  was  done  in  the  State 
of  Illinois,  to  the  people,  and  go  on  and  finish 
up  the  business  of  this  Convention.  I think 
there  is  no  question  that  is  going  to  lead  to  any 
extended  discussion  except  this  of  apportion- 
ment. I hope,  therefore,  that  the  resolution 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Ty- 
ler] will  pass. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I differ  with  the  gentleman 
who  has  just  taken  his  seat.  There  is  no  man 
in  this  Convention  more  anxious  to  expedite 
business  and  get  through  with  the  labors  of 
this  Convention  than  I am ; but,  sir,  I do  not 
believe  in  quitting  until  we  complete  our  work, 
as  we  have  continued  so  long.  I should  not 
like,  for  mere  buncombe,  to  set  a day  that  would 
place  us  in  a condition  to  be  compelled  to  ad- 
journ or  rescind  our  action.  If  gentlemen  who 
have  occupied  so  much  of  the  time  of  this  Con- 
vention will  make  fewer  speeches,  and  cut  them 
shorter,  I believe  we  can  get  through  by  the 
time  mentioned  in  the  resolution;  but  I do  not 
want  gentlemen  who  have  spent  nine  or  ten 
weeks  in  discussing  the  judiciary,  now,  when 
finance  and  taxation,  and  the  liquor  question, 
and  corporations  other  than  municipal,  and  I 
do  not  know  how  many  other  questions  that 
have  had  no  consideration  whatever 

A MEMBER.  And  woman’s  rights. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  And  woman’s  rights,  that  my 
friend  from from 

Mr.  VORIS.  Summit;  Summit. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  And  others  want  to  discuss. 
I do  not  want  those  gentlemen  to  come  up  here 
and  say  they  have  got  to  go  home  and  attend  to 
their  business.  I want  them  to  stay  here  and 
assist  in  discussing  these  important  matters.  I 


want  to  get  through ; but,  in  order  to  do  so,  the 
speeches  of  some  of  our  speech-makers  must 
not  be  repeated  quite  so  often  as  has  been  done. 
I tell  you  that  we  have  had  speech  upon  speech, 
and  if  you  will  read  these  Debates  you  will  find 
the  same  thing  repeated  over  and  over  again ; 
and  I believe  we  can  get  through  by  the  31st  of 
March  if  we  stand  right  up  to,  the  work  and  be 
on  hand.  I am  in  favor  of  doing  it,  and  no  man 
will  go  further  to  carry  out  what  the  gentleman 
intends  than  I will;  that  is,  to  have  this  Con- 
vention get  through  by  the  31st  of  March.  But 
I hope  this  resolution  will  not  be  passed  to  pre- 
cipitate this  matter,  and  give  those  gentlemen 
who  have  occupied  so  much  time  opportunity 
to  leave  u3  when  these  important  matters  come 
up. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Would  it  not  be  better  if  they 
would  leave  us  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  No;  I think  they  would  be 
benefited  by  remaining  with  us  and  hear  oth- 
ers talk  some. 

Mr.  TYLER.  When  I offered  that  resolu- 
tion, I did  it  in  good  faith,  and  I believe  that 
there  are  merits  enough  in  it,  of  itself,  to  war- 
rant its  adoption.  I have,  Mr.  President, 
listened  to  many  very  able  and  interesting 
speeches  in  this  Convention,  and  some  not  so 
able  and  interesting ; but  some  that  were  really 
tedious,  and  uninteresting  and  unprofitable, 
and,  in  a pecuniary  point  of  view,  very  expen- 
sive. First,  gas,  then  wit,  and  then,  perhaps,  a 
little  argument;  and  I believe  that  the  time  for 
such  long,  prosy,  uninteresting  and  unprofita- 
ble speeches  and  speechifying  has  passed,  and 
that  the  time  for  voting  should  commence,  and 
commence  in  earnest.  The  people  are  looking 
upon  us  for  some  final  action.  I have  noticed 
when  a proposition  comes  up  for  discussion  and 
a member  rises  to  speak,  a few  moments  after 
he  has  commenced  his  discussion  members  will 
be  gathered  in  little  knots  all  around  this  Hall, 
and  the  talking  sounds,  sometimes,  like  a town- 
meeting. With  all  the  force  and  firmness  of 
our  worthy  President,  it  is  sometimes  almost 
impossible  to  keep  order,  so  little  interest  is  felt 
by  members  while  others  are  speaking  and  in 
their  speeches.  I find  that  those  members  who 
listen  most  attentively  to  speeches  are  those 
members  who  are  making  speeches  themselves. 

Now,  believing  that  almost  every  proposition 
that  is  before  this  Convention  undisposed  of 
the  members  have  them  duly  considered  and 
have  their  minds  already  made  up,  and  can 
vote  at  once  as  well  as  to  wait  three  or  four 
weeks  while  the  questions  are  needlessly  dis- 
cussed. And  not  only  that,  it  was  the  expec- 
tation of  the  people  when  they  called  us  to 
Columbus  in  Convention  that  we  would  com- 
plete our  labors  in  six  weeks,  or  at  the  furthest, 
in  ninety  days.  I never  heard  a single  indi- 
vidual express  the  opinion  that  this  Convention 
would  sit  longer  than  ninety  days ; and  I be- 
lieve that  if  one-half  of  the  members  of  this 
Convention  had  then  known  that  the  time 
would  have  been  protracted  as  long  as  it  has 
been,  they  never  would  have  accepted  the  posi- 
tion. 

Why,  I believe  that  the  people  of  the  State 
would  rather  have  continued  to  live  under  the 
old  Constitution  than  to  have  sent  men  here  to 
spend  a year  in  framing  a new  Constitution, 


Day.J  CONCERNING  FINAL  ADJOURNMENT.  1663 

February  27, 1874.]  Tyler,  Page,  Yoris,  Rowland,  Pratt,  etc. 


however  good  it  may  be.  I hope  and  believe 
that  we  can  finish  the  labors  of  this  Convention 
before  the  first  of  April,  and  I hope  the  resolu- 
tion will  be  adopted,  with  due  deference,  how- 
ever, to  the  members  who  so  strongly  op- 
pose it. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I am  opposed  to  the  adoption  of 
this  resolution.  I think  that  if  our  business  is 
completed  on  that  day,  we  will  all  be  very  wil- 
ling to  adjourn ; if  not,  we  shall  not  hasten  the 
progress  of  business  by  fixing  a time  in  the  fu- 
ture for  our  adjournment.  If  that  day  should 
arrive,  and  our  business  not  be  completed,  what 
are  we  to  do?  rescind  this  resolution  which  has 
been  adopted  without  sufficient  consideration, 
or  “break  off  in  the  middle,  like  the  story  of 
thebear  and  the  fiddle?” 

Now,  sir,  I do  not  think  that  fixing  the  time 
will  have  any  effect  upon  the  progress  of  our 
business,  and  I am  opposed  to  manufacturing  a 
Constitution  in  haste,  and  in  a precipitate  man- 
ner, and  without  sufficient  discussion  and  de- 
liberation. I am  as  anxious  to  get  through 
with  our  work  here  as  anybody,  and  I say  that 
I am  losing,  every  day,  as  much  money  as  al- 
most any  gentleman  sitting  here ; but,  I think, 
we  are  proceeding  with  as  much  expedition  as 
is  usual  in  bodies  of  this  kind.  I have  fre- 
quently been  reminded,  since  I have  been  here, 
of  a remark,  which,  undoubtedly,  most  gentle- 
men here  are  familiar  with,  made  by  the  Swed- 
ish Chancelor,  Oxenstiern,  to  his  son.  He  said, 
“Behold,  my  son,  with  how  little  wisdom  the 
world  is  governed;”  and  I have  frequently 
thought  with  how  little  wisdom,  and  with  how 
much  haste  and  lack  of  consideration  Consti- 
tutions are  made.  We  shall  not  help  this  mat- 
ter by  fixing  a time  in  the  future  for  our  final 
adjournment,  and  precipitating  our  action  in 
the  last  month.  I think  the  adoption  of  this 
Resolution  will  be  perfectly  idle,  and  1 hope  it 
will  not  be  passed. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  question  for  this  Conven- 
tion to  consider  in  the  discussion  of  this 
resolution  is  this : Will  the  adoption  of  this 

resolution  facilitate  the  progress  of  business  in 
this  body?  If  it  will  do  that,  we  certainly 
ought  to  adopt  it.  To  me,  it  does  appear  as  if, 
should  we  fix  a time  at  which  the  delegation  on 
this  floor  may  understand  that  the  business  of 
this  Convention  shall  end,  closer  attention  will 
be  given  to  the  business  of  this  body1  and  a 
better  attendance  of  the  delegates  will  be 
secured,  than  if  this  is  left  to  the  indefinite 
developments  of  the  future.  There  is  such  a 
thing  as  laying  your  plans  and  working  for 
results ; and  I do  not  see  any  reason  why  the 
wisdom  of  this  body  may  not  devise  some 
means  by  which  we  can  work,  and  work  satis- 
factorily and  systematically,  to  a plan  we  have 
laid  down  for  ourselves.  A poor  system  or 
plan  is  better  than  none.  I do  think  we  should 
adopt  a time  when  we  will  complete  the  labors 
of  this  Convention,  and  work  with  reference 
to  it.  It  is  perfectly  competent  for  this  Con- 
vention, if  we  find  that  our  business  is  not  then 
concluded,  to  extend  the  time ; but  the  absentee- 
ism that  is  thwarting  the  progress  of  business 
in  this  Convention  ought  to  be  stopped ; and  I 
believe  it  would  be  practically  stopped  if  gen- 
tlemen knew  that,  at  the  end  of  the  next 


month,  they  could  go  home  and  attend  to  their 
private  business. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  That  would  be  about  the 
time  of  holding  courts. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Now,  much  of  this  delay  can 
be  obviated,  if,  when  we  come  in  after  a recess 
every  day,  a quorum  is  upon  this  floor.  Sixty- 
five,  even,  a full  working  quorum,  is  not  a 
body  sufficient  to  pass  upon  the  decisions  here 
with  any  certainty  that  they  will  be  agreed  to 
by  this  Convention  when  the  full  body  is  here, 
or  substantially  the  full  body  elected. 

Now,  if  it  be  competent  at  this  moment,  Mr. 
President,  I would  like  to  offer  an  amendment 
to  the  Resolution,  to  be  appended  to  the  end 
thereof. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Yoris  offers  the  following  amendment  to  be  added 
to  the  end  of  the  resolution : 

“A  nd  that  hereafter  no  leave  of  absence  will  be  granted 
unless  in  case  of  sickness,  or  extreme  necessity.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  would  not  be  in 
order  now,  because  the  question  to  postpone  is 
pending. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I have  no  doubt  the  gen- 
tleman [Mr.  Tyler]  offers  the  resolution  in  good 
faith,  but  my  recollection  is,  that  we  have  spent 
at  least  ten  days  of  the  time  of  this  Convention 
in  attempting  to  fix  a limit  to  debate,  and  by  ar- 
tificial processes  to  curtail  the  action  of  this 
Convention.  But,  sir,  with  all  these  efforts,  we 
have  had  the  same  prolix  and  re-iterated  speech- 
es, and  the  same  dry  and  labored  compositions, 
in  Cincinnati,  from  the  same  gentlemen  who 
took  up  the  time  in  Columbus.  Now,  sir,  any 
effort  to  curtail  discussion,  to  be  effective,  must 
be  self-imposed;  gentlemen  must  deny  them- 
selves a little.  I have  never  heard  a single  in- 
dividual speak,  except  it  be  the  Chairman  of  a 
Committee,  who  could  not  have  said  all  he  had 
to  say  in  thirty  minutes ; but,  instead  of  that, 
we  have  had  speeches  by  the  hour,  and  we  have 
made  rules  only  that  they  should  be  broken  over. 

Mr.  TYLER.  Does  the  gentleman  say  the 
resolution  was  not  offered  in  good  faith? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  No,  sir,  I said  it  was  of- 
fered in  good  faith. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I thought  the  gentleman  was 
intimating  that  I had  taken  up  a great  deal  of 
time. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Oh,  no;  I acquit  the  gen- 
tleman of  any  crime  of  that  sort.  [Laughter.] 
But  I am  unwilling  that  other  subjects  of  equal 
importance  with  the  J udicial  Article  should  be 
slurred  over. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question?  If  that  class  of  gentlemen  will 
give  their  word  of  honor  here,  that  they  w‘11 
not  re-iterate  their  speeches,  and  make  dilatory 
motions,  would  not  the  gentleman  be  willing  to 
that? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would,  sir.  I think  we 
could  get  through  in  thirty  days;  but  if  the 
same  thing  goes  on,  sixty  days  will  not  be 
enough.  As  I said,  ten  days  of  the  time  of  this 
Convention  have  been  taken  up  in  dilatory  mo- 
tions. Let  gentlemen  compress  their  thoughts ; 
this  Convention  does  not  need  half  the  detail 
that  is  given  in  these  speeches,  and  especially 
in  these  long,  dry  compositions  and  essays  that 


1664 


CONCERNING  FINAL  ADJOURNMENT. 

Rowland,  Pease,  Mullen,  Carbery. 


are  read  here,  and  that  are  not,  in  proper  sense, 
debate.  Legislative  proceedings  in  this  country, 
National  and  State,  are  being  vitiated  by  the 
reading  of  orations,  instead  of  that  pertinent 
and  unpremeditated  debate  to  which  proposi- 
tions should  be  subjected. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I hope,  Mr.  President,  that 
this  resolution  will  be  adopted.  It  is  evident 
that  we  are  taking  too  much  time,  in  view  of 
the  probable  changes  which  are  likely  to  be 
made.  I shall  be  in  favor,  also,  of  having  night 
sessions.  It  has  become  perfectly  evident  that 
if  we  have  got  to  go  through  the  slow  process  of 
incubation  with  every  proposition  that  is  pre- 
sented here,  whether  it  is  of  value  or  not,  eter- 
nity is  going  to  be  too  short  to  close  this  thing, 
and  we  will  have  to  leave  the  balance  of  the 
business  to  our  administrators.  If  we  were  to 
remodel  the  Constitution  from  the  stump  up, 
there  would  be  some  reasonable  excuse  for 
staying  here  month  after  month  ; and,  although 
we  might  waste  a good  deal  of  time,  there 
would  be  some  apology  for  it.  But  when  we 
came  here,  confessedly  with  one  of  the  best 
Constitutions  in  all  he  States,  requiring  but 
few  changes  in  it,  then  to  drag  out  this  long 
dreary  way,  is  ridiculous ; and  I am  surprised 
that  any  gentleman  in  this  Convention  should 
even  raise  his  voice  against  an  early  day  for  ad- 
journment. Why,  sir,  it  is  said  there  are  im- 
portant questions  which  should  be  passed  upon, 
and  that  we  should  not  hurry  them  over.  The 
great  question  for  which  we  have  been  brought 
together  has  been  well  canvassed,  and  well  di- 
gested. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a word  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I presume  that  is  your 
opinion  touching  the  comparative  importance 
of  these  subjects;  but  some  other  gentlemen 
may  regard  others  of  equal  importance.  Who 
is  to  be  the  judge? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I reply,  that  every  member  of 
this  Convention,  on  coming  here,  believed  that 
it  was  to  remodel  the  judiciary,  and  no  other. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  1 deny  that,  sir. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Well,  suppose  that  there  are 
other  questions,  there  is  no  other  of  great  im- 
portance, except  that  of  Revenue  and  Taxation. 
That  is  important,  but  can  be  disposed  of  in  a 
week. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Where  is  your  whisky 
question  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I say  a week’s  time  is  sufficient 
on  the  tax  question.  Why,  sir,  it  has  got  to  be 
done  by  votes,  and  we  have  been  here  long 
enough  to  know  that  this  Convention  is  made 
of  such  material,  that  you  may  talk  to  them,  and 
have  prayer-meetings  here,  and  you  cannot 
change  the  vote  of  a single  individual  on  any 
question.  It  has  got  to  be  settled  by  the  votes. 

But,  it  is  said  that  there  are  other  important 
and  prominent  questions  to  be  passed  upon.  I 
have  been  referred  to  the  whisky  question. 
That  is  no  doubt  a great  question,  and  1 concede 
that  there  are  great  interests  involved  in  that, 
mainly,  however,  in  the  matter  of  money;  but 
some  talk  about  those  matters  as  if  we  were 
going  to  change  public  sentiment  upon  that 
question . If  we  fill  the  balance  of  our  volumes 
of  Debates  with  discussions  upon  that  question,  I 


[125th 

[Friday, 


we  are  not  going  to  change  public  opinion  upon 
it.  Why,  sir,  we  can  submit  that  proposition  to 
the  people,  and  let  them  dispose  of  it  as  they 
think  best.  Let  the  Debates  be  had  before 
them;  there  you  may  have  some  influence; 
there  you  may  do  some  good,  perhaps ; but,  sir,, 
in  this  Convention  is  not  the  place  to  manufac- 
ture public  opinion  upon  the  whisky  question. 
So,  also,  with  the  woman’s  rights  question. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Why  is  it  less  proper  to 
manufacture  public  opinion  upon  the  whisky 
question,  than  upon  the  Judicial  Article? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I will  say  to  the  gentleman, 
that  by  all  the  Debates  that  are  had  here  upon 
the  judicial  question,  not  a single  sentiment  has 
been  uttered  for  home  consumption . They  have 
been  made  for  the  interchange  of  views  here, 
and  for  practical  debate,  and  not  made  for  home 
consumption  among  the  people. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I understand  the  gentle- 
man to  say,  that  not  all  the  argument  here  has. 
changed  a single  vote  upon  any  question ; then 
why  all  this  prolix  argument  we  have  listened 
to  here  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I say,  upon  no  other  question. 
Upon  the  whisky  question  no  change  will  be- 
made  here;  upon  the  Woman’s  Rights  question 
no  change  will  be  made.  Let  them  be  presented 
as  separate  Articles ; that  we  can  do  in  a few 
days  and  then  hand  them  over  to  the  people ;. 
and  then,  those  who  want  to  manufacture  pub- 
lic opinion,  and  change  the  sentiments  of  the 
people,  can  go  to  the  people  and  accomplish 
that.  This  is  not  the  place,  nor  the  time,  and 
would  be  attended  with  too  much  expense.  So- 
with  other  questions;  let  us  submit  them  as 
separate  propositions.  Take  the  Railroad  ques- 
tion ; it  is  evident  that  we  will  not  adopt  here 
and  put  into  the  Constitution  a plan  for  build- 
ing railroads  throughout  the  State,  but  we  may 
submit  it  to  the  people  and  let  them  dispose  of 
it  as  they  see  fit. 

Now,  I submit  that  all  these  questions  can  be- 
easily  disposed  of  between  this  and  the  time  pro- 
posed for  final  adjournment.  As  has  been  well 
said,  if  we  have  a definite  object  in  view,  if  wre 
fix  a point  beyond  which  we  cannot  go,  wTe 
shall  not  have  so  many  dilatory  motions,  so 
many  long-winded  speeches,  written  or  other- 
wise. It  seems  to  me  to  be  the  most  sensible 
thing  we  can  do,  after  being  here  in  session 
already  too  long,  to  fix  an  early  day  for  final 
adjournment. 

Mr.  MULLEN.  If  I thought  the  motion 
for  the  adjournment  would  facilitate  the  trans- 
action of  business  by  this  Convention,  I would 
be  willing  to  vote  for  it;  but,  in  my  opinion, 
it  can  have  only  one  effect,  and  that  is  to  make 
our  constituents  feel  good,  that  we  will  adjourn 
on  the  31st  day  of  March ; but,  if  that  be  the 
object,  I propose  to  amend  by  striking  out  the 
word  31st,  and  insert  the  15th  day  of  March. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  would  not  be  in  order. 
The  question  is  on  postponing. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I desire  to  say  a word  or 
two,  sir,  in  reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Stark 
[Mr.  PeaseJ.  It  appears  to  me  that  he  is  assum- 
ing that,  in  the  estimation  of  this  Convention, 
the  general  interest  throughout  the  State  is 
manifested  to  a greater  degree  on  the  question 
of  the  judiciary  than  on  any  other.  I hold 
that  it  is  a dangerous  thing  to  introduce  at  this. 


Day.] CONCERNING  FINAL  ADJOURNMENT. 1665 

February  27,  1874.]  Carbery,  Townsend,  Horton,  Powell. 


time  the  idea  of  adjournment,  when  we  are 
about  to  consider  the  interesting  and  important 
question  of  taxation,  which,  in  the  State  of 
Ohio,  is  a question  that  lies  at  the  very  founda- 
tion of  the  whole  State’s  prosperity.  It  is  the 
wrong  time,  and,  if  I might  be  permitted  to 
make  such  an  observation,  I would  say  it  is  in 
very  bad  taste  for  gentlemen  whose  profession, 
and  the  interest  thereto  belonging,  has  absorbed 
two-thirds  of  the  time  of  this  Convention,  to 
attempt  now  to  get  us  on  a rapid  pace,  and,  in 
consequence,  to  give  vastly  less  attention  to 
matters  of  just  as  profound  interest  as  this 
judiciary  system.  It  is  the  wrong  time,  and  it 
is  a very  bad  idea  to  inject  into  this  body  at  this 
time.  And,  besides,  I am  unconvinced  by  the 
reasoning  by  which  the  gentleman  arrives  at 
conclusions,  that  it  would  be  an  easy  task  to 
finish  up  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  in 
its  present  form,  almost  perfect.  The  reason- 
ing of  the  gentleman  does  not  satisfy  me. 

Does  it  not  often  require  a higher  knowledge 
to  re-adjust  an  intricate  system  of  machinery 
than  to  construct  one  originally  ? I think  it  is 
much  easier  to  take  the  rude  system,  for  in- 
stance, that  wTas  first  inaugurated  in  the  State, 
and  substitute  something  else  for  it,  than  to  take 
up  the  present  Constitution,  the  product  of  some 
of  the  finest  minds  we  have  had  in  this  State, 
and  having  taken  it  all  to  pieces,  proceed  to 
build  de  novo . We  know  very  well,  sir,  there 
is  a great  deal  of  difference  between  the  labor 
of  the  blacksmith  and  that  of  the  lapidary. 
Both  have  to  be  conducted  on  entirely  different 
principles;  and  I,  for  one,  do  not  desire  to  un- 
derrate the  work  we  have  been  called  upon  to 
do.  This  is  the  State  of  Ohio  in  Convention 
assembled,  laying  its  hand  upon  the  Ark  of  the 
Covenant.  It  is  not  to  be  done  irreverently  or 
hastily.  There  was  a time  when,  perhaps,  I 
would  have  been  as  likely  to  have  become 
inoculated  with  this  fever  of  haste,  haste, 
haste,  that  we  hear  upon  the  street  cor- 
ners, as  any  one;  but  when  I saw  what 
an  amount  of  thought  and  deliberation  had 
to  be  given  to  every  single  word  of  every 
proposition  introduced  here,  I utterly  aban- 
doned and  opposed  this  cry.  I am  a hearty 
subscriber  to  the  theory,  that  which  you  do, 
do  well ; weigh  every  act  well ; see  that  every 
part  relative  to  every  other  is  well  adjusted  and 
perfectly  considered ; take  time  enough  to  do 
well  this  high  business  for  the  interests  of  the 
people  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I can  readily  appreciate 
the  feelings  of  my  friends  from  Cincinnati. 
They  are  comfortably  situated  here,  and  do  not 
care  if  this  Convention  should  run  into  June  or 
July.  My  friend  said  that  sometime  ago  he 
felt  differently.  I think  that  was  when  he  was 
at  Columbus  last  summer.  [Laughter].  Now, 
if  we  fix  this  time  for  adjournment,  it  does  not 
follow  at  all  that  the  same  body  that  fixes  the 
day  cannot  extend  it,  if  it  is  found  necessary, 
and  for  the  interest  of  the  State  and  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  business.  But  it  is  a fact  well- 
known  to  every  one  who  has  ever  been  in  a 
legislative  body,  that  when  a day  of  adjourn- 
ment is  once  fixed,  that  business  is  accomplished 
with  much  greater  facility.  Every  body  will 
be  interested,  and  those  away  will  return. 
When  business  requires,  it  is  better;  it  is  some- 

v.n-107 


times  found  to  have  longer  sessions,  night  ses- 
sions. Business  will  be  marked  out,  and  will 
be  much  more  rapidly  disposed  of.  I was  im- 
pressed with  this  fact  by  a remark  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, who  has  had  long  experience  in  legis- 
lation. He  told  me  that  when  you  fix  the 
day  for  the  adjournment  of  the  Conven- 
tion you  will  accomplish  more  in  three  weeks 
than  you  do  in  two  months.  It  is  the  invaria- 
ble history  of  congressional  legislation  that 
they  accomplish  more  work  in  the  last  thirty 
days  of  Congress  than  in  the  previous  three 
months.  Prior  to  that  everybody  was  indiffer- 
ent. Those  Committees  who  were  up,  were 
waiting  for  some  other  Committee  to  get  their 
business  up,  and  they  do  not  push  it  forward. 
Now,  I am  satisfied  that  if  we  fix  the  day  for 
the  adjournment,  each  member  of  this  Conven- 
tion will  understand  he  is  to  be  here,  and  the 
portion  of  the  business  in  which  he  is  interested 
must  be  pushed  forward,  and  it  will  be  pushed 
forward.  I appreciate  fully  the  great  impor- 
tance of  the  question  of  finance  and  taxation, 
and  I trust  and  believe  that  question  will  re- 
ceive due  consideration.  But  it  is  a question 
that  need  not,  necessarily,  employ  more  than 
three,  or  four,  or  five,  or  six  days  of  this  Con- 
vention to  settle  it,  and  settle  it  well.  It  can 
be  done  just  as  well  in  that  time  as  in  three 
months.  If  members  know  you  are  not  going 
to  let  them  have  all  summer  to  think  over  it, 
they  will  be  as  ready  to  vote  upon  it,  and  every 
proposition,  in  three  days  as  in  a longer  time. 
That,  really,  is  the  only  important  question  that 
is  left  untouched.  There  are  other  questions 
that  are  important  in  their  way,  but  they  do 
not  spread  over  much  ground,  and  can  be  de- 
termined quickly.  I,  for  one,  am  extremely 
anxious  to  do  anything  to  expedite  the  business 
of  the  Convention.  I am  willing  to  agree  to 
long  afternoon  sessions,  and  night  sessions. 
But  I can  assure  the  gentlemen  that,  if  this 
Convention  extends  its  time  beyond  the  first  of 
April,  they  will  find  it  very  difficult  to  get  a 
quorum  more  than  two  days  in  the  week.  We 
find  it  difficult  sometimes  now.  Members  go 
home  Friday  and  Saturday,  and  are  not  in  at- 
tendance until  the  middle  of  the  next  week.  I 
go  home  this  week,  another  next  week,  and  so 
on.  But  if  we  once  fix  the  time  of  adjourn- 
ment, you  will  find  that  the  attendance  will  be 
very  much  greater,  and  members  will  come 
here  and  remain  until  they  accomplish  the  busi- 
ness. Let  us  fix  the  time,  and,  if  it  is  neces- 
sary, we  can  extend  it. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I call  for  the  previous  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I appeal  to  the  gentleman 
that  he  will  withdraw  that,  for  one  moment, 
that  I may  offer  an  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  not  be  in  order. 
The  question  now  is  on  postponing.  The  mo- 
tion to  amend  would  not  be  in  order.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  moves  that 
the  main  question  now  be  put. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  first 
upon  postponement.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  is  that 
the  consideration  of  the  Resolution  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  be  post- 
poned until  the  31st  of  March. 


1666 


[125th 


FINAL  ADJOURNMENT  RESOLUTION  ADOPTED. 


Powell,  Muelleb,  Pratt,  Jackson,  Russell  of  Meigs,  etc.  [Friday, 


The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  24,  nays  43,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Car- 
bery,  Chapin,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Freiberg, 
Godfrey,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Jackson,  Kraemer, 
Mullen,  Page,  Phellis,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Rowland, 
Shultz,  Van  Yoorhis,  Voorhes — 24. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Burns,  Caldwell,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Griswold,  Gur- 
ley, Hale,  Herron,  llostetter,  Hunt,  Johnson, 
Kerr,  McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Neal,  Okey,  Pease,  Philips,  Powell,  Reilly, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shaw,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend, 
Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  Wood- 
bury, Young  of  Noble,  President — 43. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
the  adoption  of  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman 
from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Does  not  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Yoris]  come 
in  first? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir.  The  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Summit  was  notin 
order  at  the  time  it  was  offered. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  previous  question 
was  sustained. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes;  but  I thought  the  last 
would  come  in  first. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  was  not  before  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  what  this  call  of 
the  yeas  and  nays  is  for? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  upon  the  resolution 
of  the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  to 
adjourn  upon  the  31st  of  March. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I know.  I thought  that  had 
been  voted  for. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  first  vote  was  upon 
postponing  the  consideration  of  that  resolution. 
The  present  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  it. 

Mr.  PRATT.  For  once  in  my  life  I want 
leave  to  change  my  vote,  and  vote,  not  as  I 
think,  but  for  buncombe.  [Laughter].  I vote 
—aye. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  I accept  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]. 
[Laughter]. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Muskingum.  I will 
change  my  vote,  under  the  circumstances.  I 
will  vote  aye. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I owe  the  Chair  an  apology 
for  calling  for  the  matter  I wanted  a few  mo- 
ments ago.  I considered  that  I knew  the  vote 
that  was  called  for  when  I called  the  attention 
of  the  Chair  to  it.  I supposed  I was  well  aware 
of  what  the  vote  was ; but  I did  not  understand 
it  and  was  mistaken. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Considering  the  noise  in 
the  House,  the  Chair  thinks  the  gentleman  was 
quite  excusable. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  54,  nays  14,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Clay,  Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey, 
Ewing,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Griswold,  Gurley, 


Herron,  Hostetter,  Hunt,  Jackson,  Johnson, 
Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Neal,  Okey,  Pease,  Philips,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shaw, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman, 
Thompson,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yan 
Voorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Weaver, 
Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 54. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Bishop,  Carbery,  Chapin,  De  Steig- 
uer, Hitchcock,  Horton,  Mullen,  Page,  Phellis, 
Rickly,  Rowland,  Shultz,  Townsley — 14. 

So  the  Resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I now  wish  to  give  notice  to 
the  Convention,  and  I give  it  at  this  time  from 
the  fact  that  all  members  will  know  that  it 
is  not  personal.  I am  perfectly  satisfied  with 
the  decision  which  has  been  made,  and  I am 
perfectly  satisfied  with  those  who  have  voted 
for  it;  but  I now  give  notice  that  in  all  cases  I 
will  endeavor  to  have  the  rules  enforced,  and 
will  make  objections  whenever  the  rules  are 
violated,  for  the  rules  are  for  the  purpose  of 
expediting  this  business.  When  a question 
comes  up,  I want  everybody  to  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  discuss  the  subject,  according  to  the 
rules  which  have  been  adopted.  But,  to  close 
our  business  in  the  time  specified  in  the  Reso- 
lution, the  rules  must  be  strictly  adhered  to,  or 
it  will  be  impossible  to  finish  the  business  as  it 
should  be  done. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I move  that  the  Convention 
take  from  the  table  the  Proposition  to  amend 
Rule  69. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way, 
and  allow  me  to  make  a motion  ? 

Mr.  COWEN.  It  depends  upon  what  it  is. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I want  to  move  for  the  re-con- 
sideration of  the  vote  on  the  Resolution. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I decline  to  yield  the  floor. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I now  move  that  we  proceed  to 
the  special  order  of  the  day. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  is 
Proposition  194,  and  the  question  pending  at 
the  adjournment  was  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton],  to 
amend  the  second  section.  The  question  is 
upon  the  amendment  proposed  to  the  second 
section  by  the  gentleman  from  Portage.  Is 
the  Convention  ready  for  the  question? 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  that  it  be  reported  to  the 
Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  reading  of  the 
amendment  is  asked  for.  The  Secretary  will 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“And  any  county  entitled  to  two  or  more  Representa- 
tives shall  be  subdivided  into  representative  districts  of 
contiguous  territory,  and  as  nearly  equal  in  population  as 
practicable,  equal  in  number  to  tlie  number  of  Represen- 
tatives to  which  such  county  is  entitled,  in  each  of  which 
one  Represestative  shall  be  elected.” 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I call  for  the  previous  ques- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I desire  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Convention,  for  a very  few  minutes,  to 
the  consideration  of  this  matter,  which, 
although  it  has  been,  as  the  Convention  is 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Dorsey,  Pratt,  Hale. 


1667 


February  27,  1874.] 


aware,  very  fully  discussed,  yet  is  of  sufficient 
importance  to  almost  every  county  in  the  State 
to  have  us  give  it  yet  further  attention.  It  re- 
quires the  most  careful  consideration.  The 
scope  of  this  amendment  is  to  prevent  election 
by  general  ticket,  in  any  counties  of  the  State 
where  two  or  more  delegates  are  to  be  elected, 
and  to  force  a division  of  the  county,  thus  doing 
away  with  county  lines,  and  abrogating  the  ex- 
istence of  the  county  as  a separate  municipality, 
so  far  as  the  election  of  Representatives  is  con- 
cerned. I am  opposed  to  any  action  of  this 
kind.  If  there  was  anything  settled  by  the 
debates  which  have  been  had  previously  on  this 
question,  and  by  the  action  of  the  Convention 
which  has  been  had  here,  it  was  that  we  re- 
spected county  lines  and  maintained  the  organ- 
ization of  the  county.  And  I confess  that  I 
love  the  county — I love  the  county  organization. 
Next  to  my  love  for  the  State  comes  my  love 
for  my  county,  and  my  desire  to  uphold  its  or- 
ganization in  all  its  integrity;  and  I do  not 
intend  that  anything,  by  my  action,  or  by  my 
voice,  shall  be  so  construed  here  as  to  give  any 
one  the  right  to  suppose  that  I am  in  favor  of 
doing  away  with  what  this  Convention  has  de- 
cided to  be  the  sanctity  of  the  county  organiza- 
tion. Now,  I ask  gentlemen  to  look  at  the 
effect;  for  I do  not  think  that  any  one  has  ex- 
actly considered  the  effect  which  this  amend- 
ment is  to  have.  You  are  not  to  consider  this 
amendment  as  applying  simply  to  the  county  of 
Hamilton,  or  to  the  county  of  Cuyahoga. 
That  is  not  it.  It  has  a much  wider 
application.  This  Convention  refused  to  accept 
and  voted  down  the  amendment  by  which  it 
was  proposed  to  strike  out  the  word  “two,”  and 
insert  the  word  “three”;  and  it  stands  now, 
that  every  county  that  has  even  two  Represen- 
tatives to  elect,  shall  be  divided.  The  county 
organization  shall  be  no  longer  maintained,  but 
shall  be  divided  into  two  districts.  It  is  to  em- 
brace not  only  the  county  of  Hamilton  and 
the  county  of  Cuyahoga,  but  it  will  embrace 
every  single  county  in  the  State  that  is  entitled 
to  two  Representatives.  That  is  not  all,  gentle- 
men of  the  Convention.  You  have  by  your 
vote,  yesterday  or  day  before,  agreed  that  frac- 
tional representation  shall  be  recognized  in  the 
Constitution,  and  that  at  sometime  during  the 
decennial  period, almost  every  county  in  theState, 
that  is  above  the  ratio,  will  have  the  right  to 
fractional  representation.  Whenever  that  time 
comes,  you  are  not  allowed  to  elect  that  frac- 
tional Representative  on  the  same  ticket  with 
the  regular  Representative.  No,  indeed.  Your 
county  is  to  be  divided  into  two  election  dis- 
tricts, and  you  are  to  elect  the  fractional  Repre- 
sentative in  the  one,  and  the  regular  Represent- 
ative in  the  other.  That  is  not  all.  My  great 
objection  to  this  amendment  is,  that  you 
introduce  here  a system  of  gerrymandering 
throughout  the  whole  State,  not  only  in  the 
county  of  Hamilton  and  the  county  of  Cuy- 
ahoga, but  you  introduce  it  into  almost 
every  county  in  the  State.  When  the  Conven- 
tion of  1850-1  adopted  the  system  of  a self-reg- 
ulating apportionment,  they  did  it  because  the 
State  or  Ohio  had  been,  time  and  again,  gerry- 
mandered by  the  action  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly. Why,  those  of  you  who  are  at  all  familiar 
with  the  legislation  of  that  day,  can  remember 


that  after  the  action  of  any  General  Assembly 
in  dividing  the  State  into  Representative  and 
Senatorial  districts,  your  papers  were  filled 
with  pictures  of  the  map  of  Ohio,  covered  over 
with  the  most  hideous-looking  animals,  made 
from  tail  to  snout  by  figuring  them  on  the  dif- 
ferent counties  that  had  been  grouped  together 
for  the  purpose  of  forming  Senatorial  or  Repre- 
sentative districts.  And  it  was  to  prevent  any 
action  of  that  kind,  that  our  self-regulating  ap- 
portionment was  produced.  What  do  you  pro- 
pose to-day  ? You  have  excluded  the  great  an- 
imal from  the  State  at  large,  but  you  propose  to 
introduce  a swarm  of  little  gerrymanders  into 
every  county  of  the  State  where  two  or  more 
Representatives  are  to  be  elected  in  a single 
year.  That  is  what  you  purpose  to  do  by  this 
amendment,  and  allow  me  to  say,  gentlemen, 
that  this  matter  of  gerrymandering  the  State 
arises  whenever,  under  the  action  of  any  polit- 
ical party  whatever,  you  divide  the  State  into 
districts  for  Senatorial  or  Representative  pur- 
poses. I will  say  another  thing,  that  the  more 
districts  you  divide  it  into,  the  greater  the  pos- 
sibility, and  the  greater  the  probability  of  hav- 
ing it  improperly  done.  Why  ? I begin  now 
with  your  representation  in  Congress,  and  I 
ask  any  gentleman  to  look  at  the  present  divi- 
sion of  the  State  into  twenty  representative  dis- 
tricts made  for  members  of  Congress.  I know 
that  the  attention  of  the  Convention  has  not 
been  called  to  that  subject,  and  I desire,  for 
that  reason,  to  call  it  to  it,  because  the  same 
thing  that  applies  to  the  State  will  apply  to 
each  county  in  the  State.  I know  nothing  about 
the  political  organization  of  the  different  wards 
and  townships  of  Hamilton  county;  but  if  I sit 
myself  down  to  study  that  political  organiza- 
tion, and  make  myself  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  the  politics  of  each  ward  and  each  town- 
ship in  the  county  of  Hamilton,  and  you  will 
then  allow  me  to  divide  the  county  into  ten 
representative  districts,  I will  divide  it  in 
such  a way  that  the  minority  shall  have  the 
majority  in  every  election.  And  I can  do  it 
easily,  or  any  other  man  who  will  take  the  pains 
can  do  it. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes.  • 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  not  that  precisely  what  ex- 
ists in  the  State  of  Ohio  to-day  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  exactly  as  it  exists  in 
the  State  of  Ohio  to-day,  as  in  your  apportion- 
ment by  the  scheme  of  the  minority  report. 

Mr.  PRATT.  In  the  legislative  apportion- 
ment? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Not  in  the  legislative  appor- 
tionment for  the  lower  House,  because  there  you 
are  to  represent  every  county. 

Mr.  HALE.  Is  not  that  the  result  of  voting 
by  counties? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  very  doubtful.  That 
remains  to  be  shown.  Iff  can  only  be  deter- 
mined by  a general  election. 

But  I am  calling  the  attention  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  the  manner  in  which  the  State  of  Ohio 
was  divided  by  gerrymandering  in  1872.  The 
ratio  for  Congressmen  then  is  133,263.  If 
you  take  the  twenty  districts  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  you  find  there  that  the  Republican 
vote  is  265,512  in  the  year  1872.  The  Demo- 


1668 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS, 

Dorsey,  Griswold,  Gurley. 


cratic  vote  in  the  same  year  is  251,155.  The 
difference  between  the  Democratic  and  Repub- 
lican vote  is  14,357.  That  is  all  the  difference 
between  the  Democratic  and  Republican  vote 
in  the  different  congressional  districts  in  the 
year  1872.  Now,  if  you  multiply  this  by  five, 
which  is  about  the  ratio  of  voters  to  the  popu- 
lation, (we  have  about  one  voter  in  about  every 
five,  or  perhaps  five  and  a half  of  our  popula- 
tion) you  multiply  this  14,357  by  five,  you  have 
71,785,  or  only  a little  more  than  one-half  the 
population  required  for  a member  in  the  lower 
House  of  Congress,  the  ratio  being  133,263;  so 
that  the  dominant  party  were  certainly  not  en- 
titled to  more  than  one  more  Representative 
than  the  minority. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  every  district  were 
fairly  divided,  would  there  not  be  a small  ma- 
jority in  each  ? That  is,  suppose  the  district 
with  regard  to  politics  were  fairly  divided, 
there  would  be  a small  majority  in  every  dis- 
trict. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  I think  not.  I know 
there  are  certain  districts  in  which  they  would 
not  have  a majority. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  But  if  the  politics  were 
equally  divided  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  if  the  politics  were 
equally  divided ; but  I do  not  think  that  will 
ever  be  done.  The  majority,  I have  said,  would 
not  be  entitled  to  more  than  one  Representa- 
tive. But  what  is  the  fact  ? Instead  of  giving 
eleven  to  the  Republicans  and  nine  to  the  Dem- 
ocrats, what  do  you  find  there?  You  find  that 
the  dominant  party  had  thirteen  members  and 
the  minority  had  seven.  Now,  I only  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  this  for  the 
simple  reason  that  I want  to  show  them  just 
precisely  how  any  party  taking  your  State  may 
gerrymander  it  for  political  purposes,  and  that 
the  very  same  thing  can  be  done  in  a county 
that  can  be  done  in  a State. 

But  I am  told  that  it  is  unjust  and  unequal  to 
allow  these  members  to  be  elected  by  the  coun- 
ty ticket,  by  the  whole  ticket.  It  is  so.  It  is 
unjust  and  unequal.  It  is  not  right,  for  exam- 
ple, that  the  dominant  party,  consisting  of 
51-100  of  the  whole  population  of  Hamilton 
county  should  have  the  entire  representation, 
while  49-100  should  be  unrepresented.  What 
is  not  right  in  Hamilton  or  in  Cuyahoga,  is  not 
right  in  any  county  in  the  State. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  May  I ask  a question? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  give 
way? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  How,  for  instance,  in  the 
case  of  Franklin  county,  which  is  entitled  to 
two  Representatives,  and  which  is  strongly 
Democratic,  would  you  gerrymander  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  Republicans? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Well,  I can  only  tell  by 
looking  over  the  different  townships  of  Frank- 
lin county.  * 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Would  it  be  possible  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I cannot  tell  whether  it 
would  be  possible  or  not.  It  may  not  be  possi- 
ble; but  you  bring  in  half  a dozen,  and  I say  it 
is  possible  always.  But  it  is  the  same  principle, 
and  it  is  the  principle  I object  to ; and  I say  that 
where  you  introduce  a principle  of  this  kind,  it 
always  works  badly. 


[125th 

[Friday, 


But,  when  I was  interrupted,  I was  saying 
gentlemen  have  generally  recognized  the  evil 
of  this  whole  system.  They  have  been  groping 
in  the  dark  for  some  way  of  getting  rid  of  the 
evil.  Now,  if  we  can  say  to  the  gentlemen  that 
there  is  a way  of  getting  rid  of  the  evil  without 
going  back  to  this  way  of  dividing  counties,  I 
say  that  is  the  very  proposition  they  ought  to 
accept.  It  is  useless  for  gentlemen  to  be  gro- 
ping in  the  dark  after  the  correction  of  an  evil, 
when,  if  they  will  open  their  eyes,  they  can 
see  the  mode  of  getting  rid  of  it.  Proportional 
representation,  in  every  county  where  three  or 
more  Representatives  are  to  be  elected,  does 
away  with  the  whole  evil,  and  does  not,  for  one 
moment,  permit  you  to  introduce  this  unworthy 
system  of  gerrymandering  which  has  been  a 
disgrace  to  the  State.  That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 
Gentlemen  are  looking  after  some  way  of  doing 
away  with  the  evil  of  electing  by  the  whole 
ticket,  and  yet  they  are  not  willing  to  open  their 
eyes  to  the  fact  here  exposed,  that  equally 
great  evils  grow  out  of  the  division  of  the 
county  into  five,  six,  or  ten  election  districts. 

But  there  is  another  fact  w^hich  I want  the 
Representatives  of  the  larger  counties  to  look 
at  in  this  connection.  It  has  been  said  upon 
this  floor,  that  Representatives  of  the  large 
counties  ought  not  to  go  as  a unit  into  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  that  one  thing  that  we  will 
gain  by  dividing  the  counties  is,  that  we  will 
send  up  separate  and  divided  representation  in 
these  counties.  Now,  that  is  just  precisely  one 
reason  why  I oppose  this  thing.  I am  proud  to 
see  the  county  of  Hamilton  send  up  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  State  of  Ohio  a united 
delegation.  It  is  her  right  to  do  it.  She  ought 
to  do  it.  She  does  it  in  behalf  of  her  county 
organization  and  her  population.-  When  you 
allow  little  Paulding  to  send  one  Representa- 
tive to  the  General  Assembly,  standing  there 
precisely  on  an  equality  with  the  delegate  that 
comes  from  my  county  of  Miami,  that  has  more 
than  three  times  her  population,  I ask  if  the 
larger  counties  have  not  a right  to  demand 
something  in  consideration  of  this  that  they 
have  granted  to  smaller  counties?  And  when 
the  county  of  Hamilton  sends  her  united  dele- 
gates up  to  the  General  Assembly,  I ask  if  she 
has  not  a right  to  do  it  in  behalf  of  her  county 
organization  ? I ask  you  if  the  county  of  Ham- 
ilton has  not,  at  least,  an  interest  ten-fold  as 
great,  in  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  as 
has  the  county  of  Paulding? 

Mr.  GURLEYL  Will  the  gentleman  allow'  me 
a question  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  give 
way  to  the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gur- 
ley] ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Oh,  certainly. 

Mr.  GURLEY".  I would  like  to  ask  as  to 
what  is  the  benefit  of  minority  or  cumulative 
voting,  if  wre  do  not  allow  the  minority  to  be 
represented  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY".  It  does  allow  minorities  to 
be  represented  there;  but  they  go  up  as  the 
Representatives  from  the  whole  county,  and 
not  from  a mere  section.  There  is  a vast  differ- 
ence between  having  men  elected  by  the  whole 
county,  and  having  them  elected  by  a mere 
section. 

Mr.  GURLEY".  Do  you  propose  for  the 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Dorsey,  Gurley,  Pratt,  Johnson,  Hunt. 


1669 


Day.] 

February  27,  1874.] 


county  to  be  united  in  electing  members  to  the 
Legislature  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Then,  if  so,  why  fear  that 
there  would  be  any  lack  of  unity  upon  every 
question  connected  with  the  interests  of  the 
county? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  you  divide  the  county 
into  sections,  that  very  moment  you  cease  to 
have  unity  in  your  county;  but  let  every  man, 
although  he  be  the  Representative  of  a mere 
minority  party  in  the  county,  feel  that  he 
stands  there  as  the  delegate  of  the  whole  organ- 
ization of  your  county,  and  you  have  a united 
delegation.  I ask  the  delegates  from  the  large 
counties  to  take  that  matter  into  consideration ; 
and  still,  I know  there  is  a disposition  with 
small  counties  to  do  justice  to  the  large  coun- 
ties— the  county,  for  instance,  of  Cuyahoga.  I 
ask  you  if  she  has  not  five  times  as  much  inter- 
est in  the  legislation  of  the  State  of  Ohio  as  has 
the  little  county  of  Paulding,  and  the  county 
of  Hamilton  ten  times  as  much  as  has  the 
county  of  Paulding? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Has  the  county  of  Cuyahoga 
five  times  as  much  interest  as  the  counties  of 
Belmont,  Butler,  Columbiana,  Trumbull  and 
Washington,  which  have,  in  the  aggregate,  a 
population  of  197,886? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I suppose  not,  but  each  of 
them  gets  a Representative  for  the  whole  pop- 
ulation, and  when  they  have  there  a fraction 
sufficiently  large  to  entitle  them  to  fractional 
representation,  they  get  that  fractional  repre- 
sentation. Now,  I am  not  here 

Mr.  PRATT.  Have  they  got  that  fractional 
representation  on  this  floor,  or  do  they  stand 
here  shorn  of  that  power  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  They  have  not;  but  I was 
not  talking  about  their  representation  here. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  this  not  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I suppose  it  is  to  some  extent. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Was  it  not  exactly  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  may  be.  But  that  makes 
no  difference.  We  are  making  this  as  perfect 
as  we  can  make  it  under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion. We  have  equalized  the  representation  of 
the  counties  as  nearly  as  we  can.  I do  not  say 
that  it  is  a perfect  system,  but  I do  say  it  is  as 
good  a system  as  one  can  introduce,  except  you 
take  minority  representation.  Take  propor- 
tional representation  in  the  lower  House,  and 
we  will  give  you  a better  system.  You  have 
refused,  and  we  give  you  the  best  system  we 
can. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  most  odious  ever  invented. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Well,  whenever  the  gentle- 
man will  introduce  a better  one  and  advocate  it 
in  such  wise  as  to  convince  me,  I will  go  with 
him  ; but  until  that  is  done,  I shall  advocate  the 
system  which  we  now  have,  and  I shall  stand 
here  to  oppose  the  division  of  large  counties. 
There  is  neither  right  nor  justice  in  it.  If  we 
have  determined  here  that  counties  are  impor- 
tant organizations  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  we  have 
no  right  to  cut  them  up  and  divide  them.  The 
county  has  its  rights  precisely  as  has  the  State, 
and  you  have  no  right  to  cut  it  up.  And  I be- 


lieve that  the  intelligence  of  this  Convention, 
which  decided  only  day  before  yesterday  that 
county  lines  were  to  be  regarded  as  something 
not  to  be  lightly  trampled  on  by  the  Convention 
or  by  the  State,  which  declared  that  munici- 
palities, so  far  as  counties  were  concerned,  were 
to  be  held  in  all  their  integrity  in  the  State,  I 
believe  to-day  this  Convention  will  not  go  back 
on  them  and  ruthlessly  cut  up  the  large  coun- 
ties, and  not  only  the  large  ones,  but  every 
county  in  the  State  which  may  happen  to  have 
a fractional  member  added  to  its  regular  repre- 
sentation. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I have  a few  thoughts 
which  I wish  to  offer  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Convention  before  the  vote  is  taken  on  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Portage 
[Mr.  Horton],  providing  single  districts  for 
Senatorial  and  Representative  purposes  in  our 
Legislature.  I am  decidedly  in  favor  of  the 
principle  embraced  in  that  proposition.  I 
know  it  to  be  right  in  theory,  and  believe,  if 
adopted  and  made  part  of  the  Constitution,  it 
will  be  profitable  in  practice.  I cannot  see 
where  it  would  work  detrimentally  to  the  inter- 
ests of  the  people  in  any  case.  In  the  small 
counties,  it  will,  of  course,  make  but  little 
or  no  difference.  In  the  large  ones,  its  plain 
and  simple  provisions  will  never  fail  to  be 
beneficially  felt.  Ours  being  the  largest  county 
in  the  State  (I  mean  in  population),  would  be 
most  benefited.  And,  while  I am  not  politician 
enough  to  be  posted  in  the  troubles  which, 
I have  no  doubt,  exist  in  smaller  counties — but 
still  too  large  for  a single  Representative — I 
have  no  doubt  they  have  enough  of  them,  and 
that,  in  a large  majority  of  cases,  they  are 
caused  there,  as  they  are  with  us,  by  the  city 
or  county  seat  cliques  monopolizing  all  the 
profitable  offices,  and  an  unjust  proportion  of 
those  desirable  mainly  for  political  purposes, 
such  as  members  of  the  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives,  county  commissioners,  &c. 

The  agricultural  and  mechanical  interests  of 
the  country  portion  of  Hamilton  county  are 
justly  entitled  to  at  least  four  out  of  the  four- 
teen members  which  our  county  is  entitled  to 
in  the  Legislature.  And,  if  they  should  ven- 
ture the  presumption,  even  oftener  than  once  in 
a lifetime,  to  ask  for  a sheriff,  or  treasurer,  or 
auditor,  or  any  other  one  of  the  half  dozen  offi- 
ces which,  in  our  county,  is  a fortune  to  the 
incumbent,  I do  not  think  it  right  to  uncere- 
moniously kick  them  out  of  our  nominating  con- 
ventions for  that  kind  of  presumption,  or  to 
inflict  any  severer  punishment  than  to  compla- 
cently tell  them  they  have  no  rights  in  those 
offices  which  the  all-wise  and  all-powerful  poli- 
ticians in  this  good  city  are  bound  to  respect. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I desire  permission  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]  a 
question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman 
yield  ? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HUNT.  The  gentleman  complains  of 
the  lack  of  Representatives  from  country  dis- 
tricts. I would  ask  if  six  of  the  delegates  from 
Hamilton  county  in  the  present  Legislature 
do  not  live  in  the  country? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I do  not  know  the  exact 
number  living  in  the  country,  but  I know  a 


mo 


[125th 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Hunt,  Johnson,  Rowland,  Herron.  [Friday, 


large  proportion  represent  exclusive  city  inter- 
ests. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I can  say  that  there  are  two 
Senators  from  the  country,  and  four  members 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  When  I was 
there,  and  in  the  preceding  Legislature,  there 
was  a large  representation  from  the  country  in 
Hamilton  county,  and  the  country  districts  of 
this  county  have  always  had  a fair  distribution 
of  offices. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I differ  from  the  opinion 
the  gentleman  has  just  expressed. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I state  facts  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  ask  wheth- 
er, of  the  ten  delegates  representing  Hamilton 
county  in  this  Convention,  two  of  them  are  not 
rural  members — the  gentleman  here  who  has 
just  replied  to  the  argument  [Mr.  Hunt],  and 
the  gentleman  himself  [Mr.  Johnson]?  and 
whether  the  country  population  bears  the  same 
ratio  to  the  population  of  the  city  as  their  ratio 
of  representation  here — one-fifth  of  the  entire 
representation  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  I desire  to  say  a word  further : 
that  in  the  last  General  Assembly,  Springfield 
township,  where  the  gentleman  lives,  they  had 
three  Representatives — one  in  the  Senate  and 
two  in  the  House. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  like  to  inquire 
whether  these  gentlemen  do  business  in  the 
city,  who  are  living  in  the  country,  or  whether 
they  are  farmers  ? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  There  are  a good  many  men 
who  claim  to  be  countrymen,  but  who  do  their 
business  in  the  city,  whose  entire  interests  are 
here,  wffiose  hopes,  and  expectations,  and  love, 
and  everything,  with  the  single  exception  of 
their  dwelling  and  beds,  are  in  the  city  of  Cin- 
cinnati, and  they  expect  them  to  remain  here. 
But  having  grown  wealthy,  and  thinking  it  a 
very  nice  way  to  spend  a portion  of  their  time 
amongst  the  lovely  scenery  and  pure,  fresh  air 
of  the  country — and  that  is  all  right — they 
take  a small  portion  of  the  large  for- 
tunes, which  some  of  them  have  made 
in  the  city,  and  go  out  to  some  nice 
hill  a few  miles  in  the  country,  buy  a few 
acres  of  land  on  some  railroad,  or  omnibus  line, 
build  and  fix  a nice  place,  and  then  get  into  the 
cars  or  omnibus,  and  ride  in  here  in  the  morn- 
ing, do  their  business,  and  ride  out  home  in  the 
evening  to  rest  and  sleep.  These  gentlemen 
have  a habit,  when  a nominating  convention 
comes  around,  of  coming  into  it,  and  button- 
holing the  country  delegates,  impressing  them 
with  the  idea  that  they  are  rural  roosters,  and 
want  the  farming  interests  well  represented. 
“Come,  now,  you  want  the  country  represented ; 
I live  here  in  Springfield  township,  or  Glen- 
dale, or  Clifton,  or  some  other  place  in  the  coun- 
try.” Consequently,  there  is  never  any  trouble 
in  having  a great  plenty  of  these  very  accom- 
modating country  candidates  in  our  nominating 
conventions.  [Laughter.] 

Now,  Mr.  President,  this  is  all  well  enough. 
I have  no  complaint  to  make  about  the  places 
people  live  in.  But  there  is  a large  portion  of 
the  people  of  Hamilton  county,  at  least  a very 
considerable  portion  of  them,  who  are  agricul- 
turists, whose  interest,  and  home  and  business 
are  solely  in  the  country,  and  who  expect  to 


stay  there,  because  they  were  raised,  and  are 
proud  of  living  there,  and  as  proud  of  their 
business  as  any  who  follow  the  legal  profession  ; 
and  they,  I assure  you,  do  not  recognize  the 
classic  and  courtly  gentlemen  of  whom  I have 
been  speaking  as  being  their  peers  in  agricul- 
tural knowledge  and  interests,  or  fair  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  great  producing  interests  of 
our  country,  which  the  farmers  are  justly  proud 
of  being  the  head  of. 

As  to  the  office  of  county  commissioner,  I 
claim  that,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  so  large  a 
portion  of  its  duties  are  in  the  country,  and  the 
profitable  offices  nearly  all  monopolized  by  the 
city,  two  of  the  three  candidates  should  always 
be  taken  from  the  country — one  from  the  east- 
ern and  the  other  from  the  western  townships, 
with  the  remaining  one  from  the  city. 

Now,  sir,  1 am  very  well  aware  of  the  fact 
that  the  professional,  and  a considerable  por- 
tion of  the  mercantile,  interests  in  this  city 
honestly  believe  that  we  who  live  by  following 
the  plow,  or  laying  brick  and  stone,  or  sweat- 
ing over  the  anvil,  are  not  suitable  materials 
for  legislators  or  Congressmen.  I grant  that 
to  be  true  with  regard  to  many  of  them,  but  is 
it  not  equally  true  of  as  large  a proportion  of 
those  living  in  the  city?  Besides,  and  right  in 
this  connection,  I wish  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Convention  to  this  fact,  which  is  plain  to 
every  careful  observer  : While  we  in  the  coun- 
try have  no  difficulty  in  getting  our  best  men 
to  accept  nominations,  the  city  scarcely  ever 
does  it,  but  frequently  makes  up  their  lion’s 
share  of  our  tickets  with  their  third  or  fourth 
rate  men,  and  sometimes  even  worse  than  that. 

Sir,  it  takes  a very  good  farmer  or  mechanic 
to  make  more  than  five  or  six  hundred  dollars 
a year,  which  is  about  the  sum  a member  of  the 
Legislature  or  delegate  in  a Constitutional 
Convention  can  make,  providing  he  is  economi- 
cally taxed  by  his  campaign  committee.  But 
if  he  has  been  drawn  through  the  cog-wheels 
of  two  of  them,  as  I have  been,  with  one  a 
Democratic  and  Liberal  in  politics,  a very  con- 
siderable portion  of  that  sum  will  have  been 
spent  before  he  reaches  either  Columbus  or 
Cincinnati. 

My  colleague  from  the  west  end  here — I mean 
my  rural  friend — [Mr.  Hunt],  in  opposing  this 
just  and  equitable  proposition,  yesterday  af- 
ternoon, referred  to  the  scandalous  election  of 
Wm.  M.  Tweed  to  the  New  York  Senate,  after 
he  was  proved  to  have  been  the  most  successful 
swindler  and  thief  who  has  yet  appeared  on  an 
American  political  chess-board.  With  that  cun- 
ning and  adroitness  which  a political  trickster 
so  frequently  brings  to  his  aid,  in  laboring  to 
put  a good  face  on  a bad  cause,  he  attributed 
that  election  solely  to  the  single  district  system 
in  New  York  city,  which  he  claimed  to  be  simi- 
lar to  the  one  which  we  are  now  discussing. 
Now,  sir,  my  colleague  could  not  have  made  a 
greater  mistake.  It  is  a fact  fully  known  to  all 
* careful  observers  of  New  York  city  politics, 
that  no  districting  plan,  or  other  earthly  power, 
could  have  defeated  Tweed  in  that  election.  In 
addition  to  the  heinous  crimes  which  were  then 
on  him,  you  might  have  added  those  of  Fisk,  or 
Dr.  Huston,  in  Baltimore,  a year  ago,  or,  to 
come  nearer  home,  McGehan,  in  our  neighbor- 
ing city  of  Hamilton,  a couple  of  years  since. 


Day,] 

February  27,  1874.] 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Johnson,  Rowland,  Dorsey,  Hunt. 


1671 


with  as  many  others  of  like  character  as  you 
please,  and  his  majority  would  have  been  equal- 
ly as  large ; and,  if  he  had  had  the  entire 
county  to  run  in,  much  larger  than  it  was.  That 
very  numerous,  and  peculiar  stripe  of  voters 
which  Tweed  was  accustomed  to  command  with 
the  same  imperious  certainty  that  Pius  the 
Ninth,  at  Rome,  does  his  hosts  in  ecclesiastical 
matters,  would  have  voted  for,  and  elected  him, 
even  though  he  might  have  been  charged  with, 
and  had  proven  against  him,  half  the  crimes 
yearly  perpetrated  in  that  great  maelstroom  of 
iniquity. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  heard,  occasionally,  in 
a rather  congratulatory  tone,  from  the  city 
delegation  here,  of  our  Hamilton  county  board 
of  control.  They  appear  to  think  the  law  un- 
der which  that  board  was  elected  a very  wise 
one,  and  that  it  is  working  profitably,  and  very 
beautifully.  Sir,  I am  probably  not  as  good  a 
judge  in  this  particular  case,  as  my  colleagues; 
but,  I doubt  whether  we  have  gained  much  by 
our  board  of  control,  and  I predict  that  in  the 
future  our  advantages  from  it  will  be  diminished 
rather  than  increased. 

Had  we  had  the  system  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton],  in  opera- 
tion the  last  half  dozen  years,  there  would  have 
been  no  demand  or  necessity  for  a board  of 
guardians  over  our  county  commissioners. 
They  have  served  gratuitously.  I believe  they 
received  no  pay  for  their  services. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Have  they  been  stealing 
something? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  No,  sir;  I do  not  charge 
the  members  of  the  Board  of  Control  with  that  ; 
as  far  as  I know,  or  believe,  they  are  honest 
men.  But  I had  some  little  connection  with 
some  classes  of  public  business  for  twenty 
years  before  I came  to  this  Convention,  and  my 
experience  is,  that,  as  a general  thing,  men  who 
are  competent  as  good  business  men,  faithful 
and  profitable  public  officers,  will  serve  you  but 
a short  time  without  pay.  As  a general  thing, 
they  want  to  be  highly  paid  for  their  services. 
These  gentlemen  rendering  theirs  gratuitously, 
I predict  that  it  will  not  be  a great  while  before 
they  get  tired  and  leave  the  business.  Then 
you  will  either  have  to  abandon  the  office,  or  fill 
it  with  men  who  will  find  some  way  of  paying 
themselves  double  the  sum  honest  men  would 
be  willing  to  serve  for. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  like  to  interrupt 
the  gentleman,  but  I wish  merely  to  ask  him  how 
wTould  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  help  him  in  electing 
county  commissioners? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  That,  perhaps,  if  carried 
into  effect  would  cause  the  division  of  Hamil- 
ton county  into  ten  representative,  and  three  or 
four  senatorial  districts.  I do  not  claim  that 
we  could  derive  any  practical  benefit  from  it  in 
the  election  of  any  other  officers  than  members 
of  the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I thought  you  were  claiming 
it  for  county  commissioners. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I meant  to  say  that  if  we 
had  had  the  principles  of  that  amendment  in 
operation  during  the  last  half  dozen  years,  we 
would  not  have  been  in  the  difficulty  we  have 
all  felt  during  a portion  of  that  time  in  regard 
to  the  office  of  county  commissioner. 


Mr.  DORSEY.  Then  you  would  propose  to 
divide  Hamilton  county  into  three  districts  to 
elect  commissioners? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  No,  sir;  I do  not  now  pro- 
pose any  division  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then  explain  how  that  would 
help  in  electing  county  commissioners. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I am  not  claiming  it  in  the 
election  of  commissioners. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I understood  that  to  be  the 
gentleman’s  argument. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I said  if  we  had  had  it.  Now, 
one  word  here  in  response  to  the  argument  of 
my  friend  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  made  a 
few  minutes  ago  against  this  matter.  He  spoke 
of  a hideous-looking  animal,  which  he  called  a 
gerrymander,  and  which  exists  now,  and  was 
created  by  the  division  of  the  State  into  con- 
gressional districts.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I 
know  very  well  there  have  been  one  or  two 
divisions  of  the  State  of  Ohio  made  that  when 
drawn  on  paper  have  looked  very  badly,  and  I 
am  satisfied  were  as  bad,  in  practice,  as  in  looks ; 
but,  I think,  if  you  will  refer  to  the  facts  and 
get  hold  of  the  whole  of  them,  you  will  find 
the  business  was  engineered  by  a lot  of  trick- 
sters, to  make  districts  which  would  send  some 
particular  man  or  men  to  Congress. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  not  the  same  thing  op- 
erate in  the  county  that  operates  in  the  State? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I think  not  in  Hamilton 
county  to  half  the  extent  it  does  in  the  State, 
and  if  the  division  is  entrusted  to  honest  and 
upright  men,  instead  of  tricksters  and  politi- 
cians, Hamilton  county  can  be  divided  to  look 
as  nicely  on  paper  as  any  of  the  Western  States, 
which  are  laid  off  in  counties  and  townships, 
with  as  much  regularity  and  beauty  as  this  city, 
or  the  Quaker  city  is  into  squares.  There  would 
be  no  necessity  for  gerrymandering  at  all,  nor 
would  it  be  done,  unless  for  the  shameful  pur- 
pose of  making  places  in  the  Legislature  for 
some  particular  friends  of  the  gerrymanderers. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  just  what  it  will 
be  done  for. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Had  the  candidates  which 
the  country  urged,  and  were  justly  entitled  to, 
been  elected,  with  the  safe,  practical  and  good 
common  sense  of  the  present  country  members 
of  that  board,  the  business  would  now  be  as 
well  conducted,  without  your  guardians  over 
it,  as  it  had  been  before,  or  will  be  hereafter. 

I have  not  a word  of  objection  to  make  to 
either  of  the  gentlemen  who  compose  our  board 
of  control.  1 presume  them  all  to  be  honorable 
and  high-minded  gentlemen,  and  I know  at 
least  a part  of  them  to  be  very  efficient  and  safe 
business  men. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I wish  to  say,  in  reply  to  my 
colleague  [Mr.  Johnson],  that  the  facts  do  not 
bear  out  his  statements  in  regard  to  the  repre- 
sentation of  Hamilton  county  in  the  Legisla- 
ture outside  of  the  city  limits.  It  is  a fact  that 
there  has  been  no  complaint  on  the  part  of  the 
people  in  reference  to  the  representation  in  the 
General  Assembly,  unless  it  was  probably  in 
that  convention  where  the  claims  of  Colerain 
township  in  the  candidacy  of  my  colleague 
[Mr.  Johnson]  were  not  recognized.  The  gen- 
tleman seems  to  complain  that  some  of  these 
gentlemen  live  in  the  country  and  do  business 
in  the  city.  It  is  true  that  some  of  them  are 


1672 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Hunt,  Johnson,  Neal. 


identified  with  the  prosperity  of  Cincinnati, 
as  in  the  case  of  two  of  the  present  Senators 
who  are  non-residents  of  the  city.  The  people 
at  once  recognized  their  fitness  and  capacity, 
and  sent  them  there  as  Representatives,  of  the 
entire  county.  There  are  others,  whose  names 
are  presented  in  our  county  conventions,  whose 
only  qualification  consists  in  the  fact  that  they 
do  live  in  the  country.  In  all  our  conventions, 
there  has  been  an  equal  share  given  to  the 
country  precincts.  There  has  not  been  a de- 
nial of  their  claims  in  any  of  the  county 
conventions,  with  the  exception,  possibly,  of 
Colerain  township,  when  the  gentleman  was  a 
candidate  for  Representative  himself. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I will  say  here  that  the 
gentleman  was  never  a candidate  for  Represent- 
ative, and  I do  not  think  ever  will  be. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Well,  then,  I am  wrongly  in- 
formed. I thought  the  gentleman  was  a candi- 
date for  Representative  'in  the  convention  pre- 
ceding the  last  one.  But,  independently  of 
that,  his  whole  argument  is  based  upon  the  idea 
that  there  has  been  a want  of  representation 
from  the  townships.  There  has  been  no  com- 
plaint. There  has  been  no  demand  on  the  part 
of  the  people  of  the  country  districts  for  a 
change. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I call  the  gentleman  to  order. 
The  gentleman  spoke  on  this  question  yester- 
day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  rule  allows  any 
gentleman  to  speak  twice  on  the  same  question. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I very  much  appreciate  the 
magnanimity  and  courtesy  of  the  gentleman 
from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  who  on  yesterday 
indulged  in  wholesale  denunciation  without 
foundation,  in  fact,  against  the  delegation  of 
Hamilton  county  in  the  General  Assembly,  and 
now  seeks  to  avail  himself  of  the  limitation  of 
debate  to  prevent  a denial  of  the  statement. 

I say,  in  reference  to  this  matter,  that  there 
has  always  been  a fairness  of  representation. 
There  is  no  evil  to  be  remedied  in  the  matter, 
and  we  desire  no  change  here  in  this  county. 

The  gentleman  alludes  next,  to  the  Board  of 
Control.  The  Board  of  Control  in  this  county 
is  elected  upon  the  very  idea  indicated  in  the 
report  of  the  Committee,  namely,  by  a general 
ticket.  I call  upon  the  delegates  from  Hamil- 
ton county  to  say  whether  or  not  there  has  ever 
been,  in  the  history  of  this  county,  a more  hon- 
orable, conscientious,  and  correct  board  of 
public  officers  than  that  which  now  constitutes 
the  Board  of  Control  of  Hamilton  county.  Such 
men  as  Mr.  Joseph  Longworth,  Mr.  Benjamin 
F.  Brannon,  the  President  of  the  Franklin 
Bank,  Mr.  John  H.  Gerard,  Mr.  John  Scott  Har- 
rison, Mr.  Charles  Reemelin;  men  elected, 
not  on  the  district  system,  but  elected  upon  a 
general  ticket,  for  the  whole  county  of  Hamil- 
ton, and  with  particular  reference  to  their  ca- 
pacity and  fitness  for  the  office.  We  see,  in  the 
Board  of  Control,  that  there  are  three  members, 
Mr.  Gerard,  and  Mr.  J.  Scott  Harrison,  and  Mr. 
Charles  Reemelin,  elected  from  the  country. 
They  include  some  of  the  most  reliable  men  in 
Hamilton  county.  They  are  an  illustration  of 
election  on  a general  ticket.  One  of  the  most 
reliable  men  that  ever  sat  upon  that  Board,  is 
now  from  the  country.  In  our  conventions  there 
has  been  a proper  distribution  between  city  and 


[125tll 

[Friday, 


country.  As  a delegate  from  the  country,  born 
in  the  township  in  which  I live,  with  interests 
there  of  family  and  property,  and  united  to  it 
by  many  of  the  dearest  associations  of  life,  rep- 
resenting, as  I always  have,  the  country  dis- 
tricts in  the  deliberative  assemblies  to  which  I 
have  been  sent  by  the  confidence  of  my  constit- 
uents, I say  for  the  country  people,  for  whom  I 
do  speak  on  the  floor  at  this  time,  and  for  whom 
I have  a right  to  speak,  that  there  is  no  demand 
for  this  change. 

Now,  a word  as  to  the  remarks  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  in  reference  to 
the  delegation  from  Hamilton  county  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  In  one  breath  he  speaks  of  the 
delegation  as  unworthy  men,  and  in  the  next 
breath  speaks  of  their  potent  influence  in  the 
General  Assembly,  thereby  contradicting  him- 
self. I claim,  and  I say  it  without  any  possi- 
bility of  dispute,  that  the  delegations  from 
Hamilton  county  in  the  General  Assembly, 
throughout  its  entire  history,  compare  favora- 
bly with  the  Representatives  from  any  other 
county  in  the  State,  elected  only  as  single  Rep- 
resentatives. Look  at  the  history  of  our  dele- 
gations. They  have  been  composed  of  distin- 
guished men,  who  have  held  high  positions  in 
the  State;  men  who  occupy  distinguished  posi- 
tions in  social  life,  who  have  had  the  respect 
and  confidence  of  the  community,  and  they  are 
selected  from  the  city  with  a special  reference 
to  their  capacity  and  fitness  to  represent  the 
great  commercial  interests  of  the  city  of  Cin- 
cinnati, and  from  the  country  with  reference  to 
the  particular  interests  of  their  respective  lo- 
calities. They  have  not  betrayed  that  trust. 
The  best  evidence  of  their  ability  and  their  in- 
fluence in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  con- 
sists in  the  fact  that  Hamilton  county  has  never 
demanded  a measure  in  the  General  Assembly 
that  had  any  basis  of  fairness  about  it,  that 
has  not  been  granted.  For  instance,  there  is  the 
Southern  Railroad  Bill,  the  University  Bill,  the 
various  bills  referring  to  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions, the  bill  for  additional  judgeship,  the  bill 
for  the  Sewerage  Commission,  and  the  bill  for 
the  Platting  Commission  ; every  bill,  indeed,  ad- 
vocated by  the  delegation  and  in  which  the  city 
of  Cincinnati  has  had  an  interest,  has  been 
passed.  This  is  the  best  refutation  of  the  un- 
warranted statement  of  the  gentleman  from 
Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal].  Hamilton  county 
does  not  want  this  change.  Hamilton  county 
makes  no  complaint  of  the  system.  We  are 
satisfied  with  our  Representatives.  Now  and 
then  an  unworthy  man  is  elected  to  office. 
This  mistake,  however,  is  not  limited  to  Hamil- 
ton county.  One  was  made  treasurer  of  Rich- 
land county  by  which  our  friend,  General 
Burns,  suffered  very  severely  from  misplaced 
confidence.  Corruption  frequently  has  so 
powerful  an  influence  that  it  will  creep  into 
public  places.  It  is  the  history  of  all  republi- 
can governments,  and  will  be  as  long  as  our 
system  of  government  lasts.  We  will  occa- 
sionally find  unworthy  men  in  official  position. 
We  will  find  them  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  Senate.  We  will  sometimes  find 
unworthy  judges.  We  will  find  unworthy 
commissioners.  We  will  find  unworthy  men 
in  all  positions  as  long  as  human  nature  lasts. 
Without  taking  further  the  time  of  the  Conven- 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Hunt,  Neal,  Baber. 


1673 


Day.] 

February  27,  1874.] 


tion,  I will  say  in  reply  to  my  friend  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]  that  there  is  nothing 
in  his  argument  to  show  that  injustice  has  been 
done  to  the  country,  and  I call  upon  him  to  in- 
dicate a single  instance  in  a single  delegation 
from  Hamilton  county  where  the  wants  of  the 
country  have  been  disregarded  in  the  selection 
of  members  of  the  General  Assembly.  I call 
upon  him  to  cite  a single  instance  in  which 
unworthy  men  have  constituted  the  delegation 
from  this  county.  I am  in  favor  of  local  self- 
government,  as  far  as  practicable,  and  that  is 
secured  in  all  its  fairness  by  county  represen- 
tation. 

The  county  division  is  the  smallest  geogra- 
phical division  of  the  State  recognized  in  our 
Representative  Assembly,  and  I would  not  ex- 
end it  beyond  the  limits  of  the  county,  nor 
confine  it  to  wards  and  townships.  It  would 
be  unwise,  impolitic,  and  unsafe,  to  change  a 
system  of  legislation  which  secures  to  us  wise 
legislation,  for  a system  which  would  be  sus- 
ceptible of  this  influence  or  that  influence,  or 
change  by  the  county  commissioners,  or  change 
by  the  General  Assembly,  according  to  the  po- 
litical complexion  of  the  respective  bodies,  and 
it  would  put  Hamilton  county,  and  Cuyahoga, 
and  Lucas,  and  other  counties  having  a suffi- 
cient population  to  send  two  Representatives  or 
more,  in  a condition  of  political  ferment  and 
agitation,  from  time  to  time,  that  will  not  se- 
cure any  beneficial  result. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Does  not  the  same  diffi- 
culty exist  in  the  proposition  here?  Why  can- 
not the  county  be  as  well  divided,  and  elect 
Representatives  to  the  State  Legislature,  as  to 
divide  it  for  Representatives  in  Congress  ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  There  would  probably  be  no 
difficulty.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  county 
could  be  divided.  That  is  not  my  objection  at 
all.  My  objection  goes  further  than  that.  I 
am  opposed  to  any  division.  The  city  can  be 
divided  into  wards,  the  county  could  be  divided 
into  townships;  but,  I am  in  avor  of  the  coun- 
ties maintaining  their  entirety  in  our  Repre- 
sentative Assembly.  I am  opposed  to  a division 
which  recognizes  the  gentleman  from  the  fifth 
ward,  or  the  gentleman  from  Springfield  or 
Colerain  township.  Let  us  rather  have  it  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton,  or  the  gentleman 
from*  Ross,  representing  the  county  which  is 
recognized  as  a geographical  division  of  the 
State.  Therefore,  the  difficulty  does  not  lie  in 
the  possibility  of  division,  but  it  goes  to  the 
root  of  the  matter.  Therefore,  I am  in  favor  of 
maintaining  county  organization  for  Represent- 
atives in  the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I will  inquire  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton,  if  Hamilton  county  has  ever 
sent  any  unworthy  persons  to  the  General  As- 
sembly ? 

Mr.  HUNT.  Hamilton  county  probably  has 
mistaken  in  the  selection  of  Representatives. 
Hamilton  county  is  not  infallible. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Then  all  I have  to  say  is,  that 
the  gentleman’s  admission  justifies  everything 
that  I said  upon  yesterday. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I think  not.  In  his  denuncia- 
tion, the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal] 
was  speaking  of  the  entire  delegation,  and 
making  a reflection  on  the  delegation  from 
Hamilton  county  in  the  General  Assembly.  1 


said,  yesterday,  in  my  argument  in  reply  to  the 
gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  that 
very  possibly  there  had  been  instances  where 
an  improvement  could  have  been  made;  there 
was  human  nature  here  as  well  as  elsewhere ; 
but  that,  as  a general  reflection  upon  the  people 
of  Hamilton  county,  because  it  did  ultimately 
reflect  upon  them  in  sending  these  men,  it  was 
unworthy  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal],  and  was  untrue,  in  fact. 

Mr.  BABER.  I shall  not  detain  the  Conven- 
tion, as  they  are  anxious  to  vote.  I would  not 
detain  them  at  all,  except  as  a member  of  the 
Committee  on  Apportionment.  I consider  it 
my  duty,  as  my  own  county  has  been  reflected 
upon  in  this  matter,  and  the  discussion  here 
has  been  so  far  monopolized  by  the  gentlemen 
from  Hamilton,  to  say  a few  words  upon  this 
subject.  In  the  first  place,  as  to  the  dispute 
between  the  gentlemen  from  Hamilton : it 
seems  to  me  it  is  very  clear,  or  should  be,  to 
gentlemen  upon  this  floor,  that  there  is  no  de- 
mand that  we  should  depart  from  the  old  rule 
of  our  Constitution,  which  fixes  a self-adjusting 
system  of  apportionment.  That  is  the  great 
principle  on  this  subject  underlying  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  of  Ohio.  We  got  rid  of 
this  power  in  the  Legislature  to  district  the 
State,  for  the  express  purpose  of  getting  rid  of 
broils  and  contentions,  resulting  in  breaking  up 
the  Legislature  on  several  occasions.  Now, 
gentlemen  propose  to  return  again  to  that  old 
effete  system,  repudiated  twenty  years  ago,  of 
dividing  counties  into  single  districts,  which 
will  make  either  the  necessity  of  the  Legisla- 
ture doing  it,  or  fixing  that  power  in  some 
board  of  county  commissioners — a board  elected 
for  the  purpose  of  petty  gerrymandering  in  the 
counties  to  suit  court  house  rings.  I see  no 
reason,  then,  why  we  should  depart  from  this 
old  principle  engrafted  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  State,  and  I hope  it  will  not  be  done.  As  to 
any  question  of  injustice  in  the  county  of  Ham- 
ilton to  the  country  population,  I will  simply 
refer  to  the  fact,  that  I hold  in  my  hand  a list  of 
the  members  of  the  General  Assembly  from 
Hamilton  county,  and  I find  the  names  of  Sater 
and  Huston,  both  as  farmers  from  that  county, 
residing  in  the  country,  and  also  the  name  of 
Mr.  Newell,  a merchant  of  Springdale — three 
out  of  ten  from  the  county  of  Hamilton — and, 
by  the  last  census,  the  population  of  the  city  of 
Cincinnati  amounted  to  216,000,  and  the  country 
districts  to  44,000.  In  other  words,  their  pro- 
portion of  members  would  only  be  one-fifth, 
whereas  they  have  nearly  one-third  of  the 
members  of  the  General  Assembly.  Therefore, 
there  is  no  injustice  done.  And  I submit  that, 
when  you  vote  in  a county  by  a general  ticket, 
if  injustice  is  done  to  the  country,  in  regard  to 
this  matter,  they  have  a remedy,  as  they  have 
done  in  Hamilton  county,  and  also  in  my  own 
county,  by  cutting  unworthy  men  on  the  ticket, 
and  plumping  votes.  I hope,  therefore,  we  will 
not  give,  in  this  Constitution,  the  power  of 
petty  gerrymandering  to  anybody.  Why,  it  is 
merely  a revival  of  the  old  effete  system  of  1848, 
which  convulsed  this  State  under  the  old  divi- 
sion of  political  parties;  and  I do  not  like  to 
see  the  old  strife  and  division  upon  this  sub- 
ject renewed,  which  has  been  settled  definitely, 
twenty  years  ago,  in  this  State,  and  which  we 


1674 


[125th 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 


Baber,  Johnson,  Hunt,  Townsend.  [Friday, 

have  rightly  settled  here  by  the  votes  of  the  ' representations  with  which  the  large  cities  are 
gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley]  and  j afflicted  in  the  municipal  councils  of  their  own 
other  gentlemen  in  favor  of  the  entity  of  cities — for  rings  and  for  schemes  gotten  up  by 
county  representation.  I myself,  as  it  is  well  petty  little  ward  politicians.  As  to  this  matter 
known,  when  we  come  to  the  question,  will  J of  repeating , referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from 
vote  for  the  purpose  of  applying  proportional  Lucas  [Mr.  Steedman],  it  is  a well-known  fact 
representation  to  the  large  counties,  so  that  that  this  could  be  done  more  extensively  by 
each  party,  each  segment  of  the  people,  may  be  j men  voting  from  one  district  to  another,  as  they 
represented,  and  they  will  he  represented  from  did  in  the  city  of  New  York.  Why, it  is  a well- 
the  country.  Representatives  will  then  be  known  fact,  that  to  such  an  extent  was  that 
elected  that  can  get  a vote  all  over  the  county — carried  at  onetime,  even  in  nominations  be- 
not  men  who  could  not  get  a respectable  tween  parties,  that  there  were  bands  of  men 
vote  out  of  their  own  ward.  Now,  I going  in  the  street  cars  and  voting  from  one 
wish  to  refer  to  the  remarks  of  the  , ward  to  another,  which  was  done  in  the  nomi- 
gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears],  who  nating  contest  between  Eggleston  and  Fitzger- 
alluded  to  the  experience  of  New  York.  The  | aid,  also  afterwards  in  the  contest  that  took 
gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears]  referred  j place  in  the  Democratic  nominations.  And 
to  the  report  of  the  Commissioners  on  Constitu-  j you  simply  increase  these  abuses.  I do  wish, 
tional  Reform  in  the  State  of  New  York.  The  j as  we  have  heard  from  all  the  other  members 
report  of  that  commission  was  introduced  into  from  Hamilton,  that  my  friend,  Judge  Hoadly, 
the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  Committee  on  | was  upon  the  floor,  because  I know  his  voice 
Apportionment,  signed  by  him.  I ask  that  gen-  would  be  heard  against  this  innovation.  He 
tleman’s  attention  to  the  report  of  the  Commis-  knows  the  difficulty  we  had  in  the  State  at  one 
sion  appointed  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  time  upon  this  question,  almost  producing  a 
of  New  York,  to  propose  amendments  to  the  j revolution  in  the  State  Legislature  in  1S49.  I 
Constitution  of  that  State,  as  a full  answer  to  hope,  therefore,  that  the  Convention  will  not 
his  argument  now,  in  favor  of  dividing  Hamil-  engraft  this  provision  into  the  Constitution 
ton  county,  into  single  districts.  They  say  “ex-  which  tends  to  stir  up  all  these  old  prejudices 
perience  has  shown  that  our  statute-book  is  ! again,  and,  perhaps,  throw  a large  vote  against 
every  year  becoming  more  and  more  burdened  | the  adoption  of  the  Constitution ; but  it  they 
with  laws  which  apply  only  to  narrow  localities,  think  the  power  of  this  county  should  be  di- 
which  laws  are,  for  the  most  part,  unnecessary,  vided,  I am  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  remedy 
are  often  erroneous  in  principle,  and  are  gener-  which  a majority  of  the  members  from  Hamil- 
ally  mischievous. ” ton  county  have  said  they  were  willing  to  sup- 

They,  therefore,  recommend  that  the  State  port : this  remedy  of  applying  the  system  of 
return  to  the  large  district  system,  which  was  j proportional  voting. 

the  system  previously  existing  in  that  State,  ; But  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  an  old,  eftete, 
and  as  to  the  Senate,  they  add,  a “second  House  fossil  idea  upon  us,  and  resurrect  it  here  from 
is  useless,  unless  it  can  act  as  a check  on  the  tomb,  the  single  district  ghost,  shrouded  in 
other.’  the  old  grave  clothes  of  Hamilton  county  whig- 

In  order  to  make  the  Senate  free  from  too  aery  rises  up  from  its  wake  held  over  twenty 
narrow  a local  influence,  and  enable  them  to  j years  ag0j  and  goes  gibbering  around  this  Hall, 
look  upon  bills  submitted  to  them  with  refer-  endeavoring  to  force  itself  on  this  Convention, 
ence  to  the  general  interests  of  the  State,  it  is  j by  the  aid  0f  such  ancient,  respectable,  and 
proper  to  give  them  a much  larger  constituen-  well  preServed  sextons  of  fossilism  as  the  gen- 
cy  than  before.  tleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron],  and  his 

I say  we  have  the  experience  in  the  city  of  zealous  assistant,  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
New  York  of  corruption,  that  has  resulted  from  [Mr.  Neal]. 

the  division  of  the  city  of  New  York  into  small  , Mr.  JOHNSON.  I would  be  very  glad  if  I 
ward — single  districts.  I will  say  in  reference  ; had  the  power  of  clothing  my  thoughts  in  that 
to  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamil-  smooth  and  musical  language  which  my  col- 
ton  [Mr.  Johnson]  that  at  the  same  time  this  league  from  Hamilton  [Nr.  Hunt]  has.  But  I 
man  Tweed  was  elected  from  a city  single  dis-  ; have  not.  I wish  to  say  a few  words,  however, 
trict  by  a ward  division,  that  the  whole  Tweed  in  answer  to  one  or  two  points  which  he  tried 
ticket  in  the  city  of  New  York  voted  for  on  a to  make  in  responding  to  what  I had  said  a 
general  ticket,  was  defeated  largely  by  the  com-  short  time  before..  He  denied  that  there  had 
bination  of  honest  Democrats  and  honest  Re-  been  any  such  complaint  from  the  country  as  I 
publicans.  If  we  go  into  this  sj'stem  of  single  have  referred  to.  Now,  I can  assure  my  col- 
districts  we  will  have  this  trouble  introduced  league  that,  in  that  particular,  he  is  mistaken, 
in  every  county  throughout  the  State.  How  and  if  he  had  spent  one-half  the  time  in  trav- 
are  you  going  to  make  a division  of  some  of  eling  over  the  country  and  talking  with  the  ag- 
tliese  counties?  There  are  twelve  counties  in  ricultural  and  mechanical  classes  that  he  has 
the  State  now  having  two  members,  and  some  here  in  Cincinnati,  he  would  have  seen  his 
entitled  to  more  than  two  members.  How  will  j mistake.  There  is  a complaint,  sir,  a great 
that  operate?  Take  my  own  county — perhaps  deal  of  loud  and  strong  complaint,  which  has 
the  city  of  Columbus  might  constitute  one,  and  J existed  for  years,  and  not  a year  passes  in  which 
the  country  townships  the  other,  a sort  of  dis-  it  does  not  Increase.  Mr.  President,  I claim  to 
tricts  made  around  in  one  circle  enclosing  an-  be  quite  as  good  a judge  as  my  friend,  in  this 
other.  I refer  the  gentleman  also  to  another  case,  and  I know  that  he  is  mistaken, 
fact.  The  effect  of  the  division  of  Hamilton  J Mr.  HUNT.  That  is  a proper  illustration  of 
county  into  single  districts  is  to  get  up  a sort  of  j county  representation. 

representation  in  the  Legislature  similar  to  the  ! Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 


Day.] CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

February  27,  1874.  Townsend,  Johnson,  Rowland,  Neal,  Carbery,  Pratt. 


1675 


low  me  to  make  a suggestion?  These  loca^ 
misunderstandings  of  the  gentlemen  from  Ham- 
ilton are  matters  on  which  this  Convention  sym- 
pathize with  both  sides,  and  I suggest  that  the 
gentlemen  be  allowed  to  occupy  one  of  the 
Committee  Rooms  and  settle  their  difficulties 
outside.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I will  relieve  my  friend  in 
a few  moments.  My  colleague  asks  me  to  name 
a single  instance  where  this  inequality  had  ex- 
isted, and  where,  as  I thought,  we  had  not  been 
fairly  treated.  I had  in  my  mind  several,  and 
I think  I can,  with  propriety,  cite  him  to  the 
present  delegation  in  this  Convention.  The 
country,  in  proportion  to  population,  was  surely 
entitled  to  two,  if  not  three,  of  the  delegates. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  You  have  got  two,  one 
and  a half,  anyhow. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  We  all  understand  the 
half.  You  cannot  get  us  to  believe  that  these 
gentlemen  who  come  here,  as  I said  before, 
from  the  environs  of  the  city,  are  fair  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  country  people,  or  country 
interests. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hunt]  was  pleased,  a few  moments  ago,  to 
characterize  certain  remarks  that  I made  here 
on  the  floor  as  untrue,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
made  admissions  which,  in  my  opinion,  sub- 
stantiate  the  entire  truth  of  what  I stated  upon 
yesterday.  It  will  be  remembered  that  it  had 
been  stated  here  upon  the  floor,  by  other  gen- 
tlemen representing  the  county  of  Hamilton,  as 
an  objection  to  the  division  of  their  county  into 
representative  districts,  that  improper  persons 
would  be  selected  from  certain  wards  or  certain 
districts  who  would  be  elected  to  the  Legisla- 
ture contrary  to  the  protests  of  good  citizens 
residing  therein  ; and  I suggested  as  an  answer 
thereto,  under  the  present  system  of  electing 
members  to  the  General  Assembly  by  the  coun- 
ty at  large,  improper  persons  had  been  elected 
to  the  office,  which  the  gentleman  admitted. 
And,  if  he  had  not  admitted  it,  it  is  so  notorious 
that  every  person  in  the  State  of  Ohio  who  has 
read  the  papers,  knows  it  to  be  the  fact.  I do 
not  say  that  Hamilton  county  is  alone  guilty  in 
this  respect,  but  1 say  that  they  are  just  as  like- 
ly, under  the  present  system,  to  elect  bad  men, 
as  they  would  be  under  single  districts.  Again, 
another  statement  that  I made  was  in  regard  to 
the  character  of  some  of  the  county  officers 
which  they  had  elected.  Does  he  deny  it? 
Does  any  one  upon  this  floor  deny  it?  Is  it  not 
notorious  that  three  or  four  years  ago  they 
elected  a certain  man  county  commissioner 
here,  upon  what  they  called  a reform  ticket, 
through  a combination  of  reformers  and  Dem- 
ocrats, and  that  man  proved  to  be  one  of  the 
worst  men  that  they  ever  put  into  that  office? 
Is  that  disputed  or  denied  ? If  it  is,  all  1 ask 
gentlemen  is  to  go  back  to  the  records  of  their 
county  commissioners  two  or  three  years  ago, 
and  he  will  find  satisfactory  proof ; or  to  the 
papers  of  this  city  published  during  the  term 
of  office  of  this  gentleman.  To  such  an  extent 
was  his  administration  of  the  affairs  of  this 
county  unsatisfactory,  that  the  people  of  this 
county  appealed  to  the  Legislature  for  protec- 
tion, and  procured  the  passage  of  a bill  author- 
izing the  creation  of  a board  of  control,  for  the 
very  purpose  of  putting  a check  upon  this  gross 


abuse  of  power  upon  the  part  of  the  commis- 
sioners. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I will  ask  whether  or  not 
the  delegation  from  our  county  was  in  favor  of 
that  board  of  control  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I suppose  they  were.  I take  it 
for  granted  they  were.  I do  not  know  what  the 
facts  were. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  that 
is  an  argument  against  their  public  virtue? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Not  at  all;  I have  not  impugned 
their  public  virtue.  I only  stated  this:  that 
there  was  just  as  great  liability  that  bad  men 
would  be  selected  under  that  system  as  there  is 
if  we  divide  this  county.  That  is  all  I claim 
upon  this  point,  and  I feel  confident  the  expe- 
rience of  the  past  abundantly  bears  me  out  in 
my  assertion.  However  that  may  be,  I hope 
that  this  amendment,  or  some  other  amendment 
embodying  the  principle,  will  be  adopted. 
There  is  a principle  involved  in  it  which  I am 
willing  to  carry  out  to  its  legitimate  and  legal 
sequence : that  is,  that  every  community  should 
have  its  own  Representative;  that  no  man  in 
one  county,  or  in  one  community,  should  be 
permitted  to  vote  for  any  more  officers  holding 
positions,  in  which  the  interests  of  the  State 
are  involved,  than  an  elector  in  any  other 
county  or  in  any  other  community.  It  is  upon 
this  particular  ground  of  right  that  I place  this 
matter.  I care  not  how  it  results  politically. 
If  our  friends  from  Hamilton,  who  are  of  Dem- 
ocratic sympathies,  are  afraid  that  they  will 
lose  their  control,  I am  willing  that  they  shall 
take  the  county  of  Hamilton  and  divide  it  up  to 
suit  their  purposes.  I will  vote  with  them.  I 
care  nothing  about  it.  It  is  th q principle  that  I 
wish  to  see  established  here,  that  we  shall  have 
single  districts  all  over  the  State  of  Ohio,  each 
community  having  its  own  Representative ; and 
that  where  the  interests  of  this  great  State  are 
involved,  which  are  of  overshadowing  impor- 
tance in  comparison  with  the  interests  of  any 
county,  that  we  shall  have  only  such  Repre- 
sentatives as  do,  in  point  of  fact,  reflect  the  sen- 
timents of  the  community  which  sent  them 
there.  That  is  what  I claim. 

Now,  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Ba- 
ber] has  been  pleased  to  call  our  attention  to 
the  fact  that  a man  by  the  name  of  Tweed  was 
recently  elected  to  the  New  York  Legislature 
in  a single  district.  It  is  true;  but  it  was  be- 
fore his  villainy  was  fully  exposed.  This  same 
man  Tweed  had  held  one,  and  another,  and  an- 
other of  the  city  offices,  and  a man  by  the  name 
of  Connolly  was  elected  comptroller  of  the  city, 
not  by  legislative  districts,  but  by  the  city  at 
large,  who  was  as  great  a thief  as  Tweed  him- 
self. Another  man,  by  the  name  of  Brennan, 
was  elected  sheriff  of  the  county,  McCunn  was 
elected  judge  upon  a city  ticket,  and  Cardozo 
and  Barnard  were  elected  judges  upon  a county 
ticket;  all  men  of  the  same  character  and  class, 
and  all  of  whom  have  been  brought  to  condign 
punishment,  with  the  exception  of  Connolly 
and  Brennan.  Tweed  was  elected  Senator  by 
the  Democratic  electors  of  his  district,  but  the 
Republican  Legislature  refused  to  allow  him  to 
take  his  seat.  No  Democratic  Senator,  so  far 
as  I know,  favored  his  admission. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  was  corruption  dissipated 
over  the  whole  county. 


1676 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. [125th 

Neal,  Hunt,  Carbery,  Pease.  [Friday, 


Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  it  was  corruption  run  riot 
all  over  that  county.  I have  made  these  re- 
marks on  account  of  some  allusions  to  myself. 

I have  no  disposition  to  make  any  charges  that 
T do  not  believe  to  be  true,  and  I believe  that  I 
can  substantiate,  from  the  record,  every  charge 
that  I have  made  in  reference  to  the  officials  of 
Hamilton  county. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I wish  to  say  that  I understood 
the  gentleman,  in  his  remarks  yesterday,  to  say 
that  when  he  was  a member  of  the  General 
Assembly,  there  were  men  there  from  Hamilton 
county  who  were  a disgrace  to  any  party.  I 
called  out  from  my  seat  and  asked  who  they 
were,  but  he  did  not  stop. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I did  not  say  when  I was  a 
member  that  there  were  men  from  this  county 
who  were  a disgrace. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I appeal  to  the  manuscript. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I said  there  were  men  sent  from 
this  county  to  the  Legislature  who  would  have 
been  a disgrace;  and  I said,  when  I was  a 
member,  there  were  men  who  were  incompe- 
tent for  their  position.  There  is  an  issue  be- 
tween us.  We  will  see  what  the  Reporters’ 
notes  say  when  the  Debates  are  published. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I hope  that  no  passion  will 
creep  into  our  discussions  here.  I,  in  common 
with  my  colleague,  was  under  the  impression 
last  night  that  my  friend  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal],  in  his  argument,  had,  perhaps,  castigat- 
ed Hamilton  county  too  severely.  He  spoke  of 
the  secret  having  got  out  of  the  meal-tub,  as 
though  it  were  an  accident  that  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  Hamilton  county  in  this  body  nad  spo- 
ken the  truth.  It  seemed  to  be  a surprise  to 
the  gentleman  from  Lawrence. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Allow  me  to  say  to  the  gentle- 
man that  I believe  he  always  speaks  the  truth, 
so  far  as  he  knows  what  the  truth  is. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I am  endeavoring  to  study 
it  up,  and  from  the  light  that  is  reflected  upon 
us  from  the  iron  regions,  I am,  I hope,  a prom- 
ising pupil,  and  hold  myself  indebted  to  my 
friend  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  for  a great 
many  valuable  acquisitions.  With  some  of 
his  views  I cannot  agree.  One  of  these  is 
exactly  the  one  he  advocates  now ; that  is,  that 
the  Hamilton  county  delegates,  as  compared 
with  the  rest  of  their  confreres  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  were  inferior.  He  has  not 
shown  this,  and,  I think,  the  onus  is  on  him 
to  show  this  state  of  facts,  if  facts  they  are. 
His  language  seemed  to  be  in  that  direction  yes- 
terday evening.  I recollect  that  he  stated,  with 
reference  to  my  former  speech,  that  I had  let 
the  cat  out  of  the  meal-bag.  Now,  that  being 
the  case,  that  cat  was  certainly  a type  of  truth. 

I wanted  to  let  her  out,  I wanted  her  to  disport 
herself  in  this  Convention.  1 stated  the  reason 
why  I was  in  favor  of  the  present  system.  I 
appealed  to  those  gentlemen  who  had  battled 
for  the  autonomy  of  counties,  to  be  consistent, 
and  not  now,  at  the  eleventh  hour,  to  come  in 
and  fight  that  principle.  I appealed  to  those 
with  whom  I am  more  particularly  associated  in 
this  Hall,  who  concurred  with  me  when  I,  in 
my  poor  way,  sought  to  aid  them  in  their  fight, 
to  stand  now  by  their  principles  that,  in  former 
discussions,  they  had  espoused.  1 have  not 
heard  an  argument  yet  at  all  calculated  to  move 
the  conviction  of  my  mind,  that  we  should  ad-  | 


here  to  the  system  we  have.  It  has  been  shown 
that  a great  many  evils  might  possibly  follow, 
from  the  adoption  of  this  new  plan.  Now,  sir, 
what  I principally  arose  to  say,  was  to  make  a 
suggestion  to  my  colleague,  [Mr.  Johnson] 
who,  by  the  way,  seems  to  develop  in  a peculiar 
and  very  interesting  degree,  just  as  he  is  poked 
in  the  ribs.  The  more  he  is  poked,  the  more 
interesting  he  becomes.  He  puts  me  a good 
deal  in  mind  of  the  showman,  who,  in  order  to 
make  the  show  interesting,  must  poke  up  the 
monkey  [Laughter.]  I do  not  say  that  at  all 
out  of  any  disrespect  to  the  gentleman ; but  it 
appeared  to  me  the  more  he  was  cornered  the 
more  he  shone.  But  in  the  course  of  his  re- 
marks— he  read  from  his  manuscript,  and  not 
any  more  brilliant  on  that  account — he  was  led 
into  a comparison  that  coupled  the  name  of  a 
man  that  has  certainly  no  connection  with  Ohio 
politics,  and  none  with  American  politics,  and 
in  a way  that  I think  the  gentleman,  upon  re- 
flection, will  be  willing  to  retract.  I think 
there  is  no  possible  exigency,  no  possible  reason 
why  a person  having  the  respect  of  millions  o 
men  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe  should  be 
dragged  into  a comparison,  in  which  the  name 
of  Boss  Tweed  was  used.  I am  in  a peculiar 
position  in  this  body,  and  I hope  it  will  not  be 
esteemed  fastidious  if  I ask  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]  to  have  expunged 
from  his  manuscript,  and  I hope  the  Reporter 
will  also  expunge  what  I have  now  to  say  in  de 
precation  of  it,  that  portion  of  his  remarks 
which  refer  in  such  a disrespectful  manner  to 
the  Head  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I feel  reluctant  to  occupy  even 
a single  minute  in  talking  further  upon  this 
question;  but  as  I have  not  occupied 
any  of  the  time  of  the  Convention  up- 
on it,  I may  be  excused  for  taking 
about  live  minutes,  and  I will  not  take  more 
than  that.  My  theory  of  this  thing  is,  that,  so 
far  as  the  lower  House  is  concerned,  the  more 
nearly  you  can  bring  the  Representative  to  the 
people,  the  more  directly  you  get  the  will  of 
that  people  in  the  legislative  body;  and,  for 
the  lower  House,  I am  in  favor  of  small  dis- 
tricts. Now,  it  strikes  me  that  if  the  rural 
counties — the  State  at  large,  I might  say — will 
consult  its  own  interest,  and  if  they  desire  to 
retain  that  power  in  the  State  which  their  posi- 
tion entitles  them  to,  they  will  sustain  this 
proposition.  Hamilton  county,  under  the  pres- 
ent system,  taking  it  as  an  example,  goes  to  the 
Legislature  with  ten  solid  votes.  As  Hamilton 
county  goes  in  the.  Legislature,  as  a general 
thing,  so  goes  the  State  upon  any  proposition 
that  is  before  it.  They  go  there  with 
this  power,  and  they  are  a power,  be- 
cause they  are  united.  Now,  if  we 

would  get  rid  of  that  power — if  we  want  to 
break  up  that  combination,  we  will  compel 
them  to  elect  in  single  districts.  That,  I appre- 
hend, is  the  reason  why  so  much  objection  is 
made  here  by  a majority  of  the  Hamilton  dele- 
gation. While  I am  not  surprised  that  they 
desire  to  retain  that  power,  retain  tfie  unity  of 
their  position,  I am  surprised  that  the  rural 
counties,  or  counties  at  large  in  the  State,  do 
not  see  the  advantage  they  may  have  if  the}' 
can  break  up  that  combination.  Now,  l frankly 
| concede  that  it  is  to  that  end  that  I will  support 


Day.] CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 1677 

February  27,  1874.]  Pease,  Chapin,  Pratt. 


these  single  districts.  It  may  work  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  my  own  county,  where  we  have 
now  two  Representatives.  It  may  be  a little 
distasteful  to  my  people  to  divide  our  county 
so  that  one  portion  of  the  county  shall  elect  a 
delegate,  and  another  portion  shall  elect  one; 
but  I believe  that  when  I come  to  say  to  them, 
that  the  great  interests  of  the  State  are  involved, 
and  that  the  interests  of  legislation  demand  it, 
and  the  breaking  up  of  rings  is  involved,  they 
will  accede  to  this  arrangement,  and  be  satisfied 
with  what  we  have  done. 

For  these  reasons,  Mr.  President,  I shall  vote 
for  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Portage  [Mr.  Horton]. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  The  Convention  will  do  me 
the  credit  to  say  that  I have  spent  very  little  of 
the  time  of  the  Convention  in  the  discussion  of 
questions.  I moved  this  morning  for  the  pre- 
vious question,  but  was  prevented  from  carry- 
ing that  into  execution.  I did  it,  not  because  I 
desired  to  cut  off  discussion,  but  with  a view  of 
meeting  the  resolution  that  had  just  passed,  to 
adjourn  on  the  31st  of  March.  I knew  that 
taking  into  consideration  the  amount  of  busi- 
ness which  we  had  done,  and  the  time  that  has 
been  consumed  to  accomplish  it,  and  the  amount 
of  business  which  we  had  on  hand,  to  accom- 
plish, it  would  be  necessary  for  us  to  economize 
every  moment  of  our  time.  I did  not  wish  to 
cut  off  debate.  I felt  it  incumbent  upon  me  to 
take  every  means  that  I could,  in  order  to  bring 
matters  to  as  speedy  and  profitable  a close  as 
possible.  I was  opposed  to  the  resolution  to 
adjourn  sine  die  on  the  thirty-first  of  March, 
until  one  or  two  very  important  propositions 
had  been  discussed  and  disposed  of,  so  that  we 
could  see  our  way  clear  to  accomplish  our  work 
in  given  time.  I am  satisfied  with  the  resolu- 
tion as  it  now  stands,  and  for  one,  will  make 
every  exertion  to  accomplish  our  work  in  that 
time,  and  with  that  view  it  will  be  necessary  to 
economize  every  moment  of  our  time,  in  order 
to  accomplish  it  in  the  time  we  have  set. 

Now,  just  a word  on  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration. I have  the  honor  of  representing 
one  of  those  counties  which  will  be  subject  to 
division.  I do  not  know  how  the  people  of 
that  county  generally  feel  upon  this  subject, 
but  I feel  that  it  is  right  that  it  should  be  di- 
vided. I have  been  associated  with  the  Repub- 
lican party,  and  my  impression  is  that  the  Re- 
publican party  will  lose  by  the  division.  They 
have  most  generally  carried  that  county  by 
from  fifty  to  three  hundred  or  four  hundred 
majority.  I think  the  Republican  party,  if  they 
were  consulted,  would  probably  be  opposed  to 
a division  ; but  I am  not  here  representing  the 
Republican  party.  I represent  both  parties.  I 
shall  consult  the  interests  of  both  parties,  so  far 
as  I know  and  so  far  as  I can.  The  county  can 
be  divided  without  any  trouble  or  difficulty. 
Now,  with  all  the  arguments  that  have  been 
advanced  here  in  opposition  to  the  division  of 
counties,  it  only  affects  a few — more  especially 
two.  If  you  take  out  two,  and  some  seven  or 
eight  that  will  be  subject  to  only  one  division, 
two,  at  most,  is  all  that  will  be  affected.  Well, 
now,  what  are  the  arguments  that  have  been 
advanced  to  show  that  they  should  not  be 
divided?  One  is  that  it  is  an  innovation.  Well, 
any  alteration,  or  any  amendment,  is  an  innova- 


tion. What  are  we  here  for  if  it  is  not  to  make 
innovations?  How  can  we  make  amendments 
to  the  Constitution  without  being  subject  to  the 
same  charge  of  innovation?  If  it  is  right  and 
will  work  better,  let  us  have  the  innovation.  I 
think  that  so  far  as  that  argument  goes,  it  is  of 
very  little  force  or  effect,  at  least,  it  is  with 
me.  Another  is,  they  are  afraid  of  gerryman- 
dering. Well,  now,  it  has  been  said,  we  are 
here  to  represent  the  people.  It  is  no  matter 
what  the  geographical  shape  of  the  territory  is 
so  that  we  represent  the  people.  We  are  rep- 
resenting, or  trying  to  represent,  the  people 
without  regard  to  the  figure  of  the  territory 
that  is  represented.  If  that  was  any  serious 
objection,  look  at  your  map  and  see,  with  a 
slight  amount  of  imagination,  the  shape  of  the 
counties.  A man  can  work  out  a giraffe,  or 
almost  any  other  animal,  of  Washington  and 
Noble ; and  other  counties  could  be  made  to  re- 
semble animals  that  would  look  very  ridiculous. 
So  far  as  the  shape  of  the  territory  is  concerned, 
I think  the  argument  has  very  little  force  or 
effect.  Then,  again,  it  is  said  that  the  larger 
the  district  the  larger  the  territory  for  selecting 
of  candidates,  and,  therefore,  that  we  have  a 
better  opportunity  to  make  a judicious  selec- 
tion. The  larger  they  are  the  better  they  are. 
Well,  now,  if  this  principle  is  good,  it  is  good 
in  other  parts  of  the  State  as  well  as  in  Hamil- 
ton county,  or  Cuyahoga.  It  is  claimed  that 
they  have  a larger  field  for  selection,  and, 
therefore,  for  selecting  a better  man.  Well, 
now,  if  you  adopt  that  as  a principle,  carry  it 
out.  Divide  the  whole  State  into  sections  that 
will  be  represented  by  ten  men.  Then  you 
have  a larger  field.  Then  you  will  carry  out 
this  plan  of  operations.  If  it  is  good  for  ten, 
carry  it  out  still  further,  and  make  a district  co- 
extensive with  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  then  you 
will  still  have  a larger  field.  This  would  be 
the  logical  sequence,  and  that  is  all  there  is  in 
it.  Do  you  think  the  people  would  submit  to 
such  a proposition?  Well,  now,  that  is  all  I 
want  to  say  in  favor  of  the  system.  I think  it 
has  been  shown  that  the  Representatives  of  the 
people  should  come  as  near  representing  the 
whole  people  in  small  districts  as  possible,  and, 
with  that  view,  I am  in  favor  of  the  division 
of  counties  into  single  districts. 

Mr.  PRATT.  There  is  one  argument  against 
destroying  the  integrity  of  the  territory  of 
large  counties,  in  arranging  for  representative 
districts,  that  has  not  been  presented  here; 
and  in  the  interest  of  large  counties,  I desire 
to  present  it,  and  hope  I shall  be  able  to  make 
myself  understood  upon  the  proposition.  To 
do  so,  I will  have  to  recur  to  a few  figures,  and 
have  to  bring  into  the  discussion  a subject  that 
we  have  already  passed  upon — that  of  floats — 
for  this  whole  thing  has  got  a coherence  to  it 
that  shows  a planning  mind,  a designing  spirit 
in  the  entire  construction.  Now,  taking  the 
population  of  Hamilton  county  and  of  Cuya- 
hoga county,  the  one  being  260,370,  and  the 
other  132,112,  and  the  ratio  for  a representation 
by  the  Committee’s  Report,  25,3S8,  it  will  be 
found  that  on  this  basis  of  population  and  ratio, 
there  are  given  ten  Representatives  for  Hamil- 
ton, and  five  for  Cuyahoga,  with  an  exceed- 
ingly close  approximation  to  exhausting  their 
entire  population.  However,  there  is,  in  the 


1678 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Pratt,  Dorsey. 


[125th 

[Friday, 


county  of  Hamilton  a surplus  of  6,540  by  the 
last  Federal  census,  which,  if  divided  among 
her  ten  members,  would  give  a surplus  of  654 
to  a member,  and  multiplied  by  five,  the  num- 
ber of  terms  of  the  Legislature  that  are  to  oc- 
cur in  any  decennial  period,  her  6,540  of  popu- 
lation, give  a product  of  32,700,  or  more  than  a 
ratio,  and  that  entitles  her,  in  one  of  the  terms 
of  the  decennial  period,  to  a floating  member, 
with  a very  slight  surplus  to  spare.  The  county 
of  Cuyahoga,  with  her  132,112  of  population, 
has  a surplus  over  five  ratios  of  7,197,  or  1,439 
to  a member,  and  her  7,197  multiplied  by  five 
gives  her  35,985,  or  more  than  a ratio,  and  so 
she  secures  a float,  with  a little  larger  surplus. 
Now,  this  is  a close  economy  of  the  population,  j 
with  regard  to  representation  in  those  two  j 
counties,  and  secures  them,  as  nearly  as  may  be, ! 
with  the  ratio  that  the  divisor  of  105  provides  [ 
for  us  a representation  strictly  according  to  j 
population.  And  those  two  counties  cannot  com-  i 
plain.  But  how  does  the  matter  work  when  the 
thing  is  brought  into  operation  with  other  coun-  ! 
ties  in  the  State,  that  necessarily  adhering  to  the  j 
county  scheme  of  representation,  are  in  a single 
district?  Let  us  see.  The  county  of  Highland,  | 
represented  by  my  friend  on  the  left  [Mr. 
Smith],  has  a population  of  29,103,  or  a surplus  j 
of  3,720  above  a ratio.  Huron  has  28,532,  or  a 
surplus  of  2,149  above  a ratio.  Lorain  has  a 
population  of  30,308,  or  a surplus  of  4,925.  Jef- 
ferson has  29,188,  or  a surplus  of  3,720.  Scioto  ■ 
has  a population  of  29,302,  or  a surplus  of  3,918.  i 
Morgan  has  a population  of  28,005,  or  a sur-  | 
plus  of  2,669.  The  total  surplus  in  these  six  j 
counties  is  21,101,  upon  which  they  have  no  [ 
Eepresentative  in  the  Legislature.  This  21,101 
multiplied  by  the  number  of  terms,  give  a rep- 
resentative population  in  the  whole  decennial  | 
period  of  105,505,  yet  it  cannot  secure  to  these  j 
counties,  in  the  aggregate,  or  to  either  of  them, 
in  the  aggregate,  a Eepresentative  on  the  floor 
of  the  General  Assembly,  but  is  entirely  wasted 
for  representative  purposes.  It  is  one  of  those 
singular  coincidences  that  happen  in  this  world,  j 
not  to  be  attributed  to  design,  but  merely  is  a 
coincidence  in  this  case,  that  these  six  counties  I 
happen  to  be  Eepublican  counties,  all  of  them,  ! 
and  reliable  ones,  too. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Were  they  Eepublican  coun-  j 
ties  when  the  Constitution  of  1851  was  made  ? 

Mr.  PEATT.  I do  not  know,  sir. 

Mr.  DOESEY.  I know  they  were  not. 

Mr.  PEATT.  I have  not  examined  that  mat- 
ter. It  makes  no  manner  of  difference  to  my  j 
argument.  I am  speaking  as  they  now  stand,  j 
and  with  reference  to  the  system  that  we  are  j 
now  seeking  to  make  precisely  like  that  of  1851, ' 
and  speak  not  of  party  politics. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  in  the  course  of  this 
discussion — and  I do  not  propose  to  enter  into 
an  examination  of  the  question  as  an  abstrac- 
tion, of  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  local 
representation,  or  single  districts;  although  I 
am  a believer  in  that  doctrine;  although  being 
a descendant  of  a community  that  was  composed  | 
on  the  principles  of  the  commune,  where  local  . 
self-government  was  recognized  as  the  founda-  ! 
tion  of  the  State,  where  each  township  had  its  j 
separate  existence,  I am,  naturally,  attached  to  j 
that  system — and  I thank  God,  that  yesterday,  I 
we  put  into  the  Constitution,  the  beginning  of 


that  system  for  Ohio,  which  I hope  in  the 
future  will  bear  fruit,  by  recognizing  in  the 
larger  sense,  the  local  commune,  or  township,  as 
a political  entity.  But  passing  by  that,  I wish 
to  examine,  for  a little  while,  another  question 
that  has  been  broached  here.  We  have  been 
told  of  the  hideousness  of  gerrymandering,  and 
the  name  of  Elbridge  Gerry  has  been  associ- 
ated for  seventy  years,  or  nearly  that  period, 
with  all  that  can  be  imagined  of  political  infamy 
and  legerdemain  in  the  arrangement  of  popu- 
lation, with  reference  to  securing  power  against 
the  majority.  I think  that  this  Convention,  if 
it  pass  this  scheme  of  apportionment,  if  it  re- 
adopt the  scheme  upon  which  this  very  body  is 
organized,  where  in  less  than  1,100,000  citizens 
of  a State  (1,096,376),  with  a population  of 
2,665,260,  control,  through  their  delegates,  all 
action  of  this  body.  I think  if  we  adopt  this 
scheme,  we  are  in  honor  bound  to  put  on  the 
records  of  the  Convention,  an  apology  to  the 
memory  of  Elbridge  Gerry.  We  ought  to  take 
the  stain  off  from  his  memory,  and  say  that  we 
have  surpassed  his  infamy.  For  how  is  it? 
and  I allude  to  the  facts  as  they  now  exist,  to 
the  working  of  this  self-adjusting  scheme  of 
apportionment,  so  bepraised  by  its  originators 
that,  in  its  action,  is  entitled  to  the  same  credit 
as  a patent  hen-persuader,  and  the  result, 
which  it  produces  on  this  floor,  on  the  equal 
and  exact  representation  of  all  men,  or,  in 
other  words,  upon  the  formulating  in  action 
the  proposition  that  all  just  governments  stand 
on  the  basis  of  equal  and  exact  justice  to  all 
men.  There  are  five  counties  in  this  State 
whose  population  is  as  follows : The  county  of 
Belmont,  39,715;  Butler,  39,412;  Columbiana, 
38,219;  Trumbull,  38,659;  Washington,  40,609, 
having  an  • aggregate  of  197,884,  represented 
by  five  delegates  on  this  floor,  and,  but  for  the 
accident  that  this  Convention  was  modeled  on 
the  last  Legislature,  and  not  on  some  previous 
term  of  the  last  decade,  or  some  other  term  of 
the  present  decade,  the  county  of  Muskingum, 
with  her  population  of  44,887,  might  also  stand 
here  represented  by  a single  delegate,  and  be 
out-voted,  three  to  one,  by  Geauga,  Carroll  and 
Ottawa,  with  42,052.  She  does,  according  to 
the  present  apportionment,  in  two  of  the  five 
terms  of  the  General  Assembly,  have  but  one 
Eepresentative.  Now,  how  is  the  reverse  of 
that  picture?  for  there  are  pictures  that,  seen 
by  the  mental  eye,  are  just  as  hideous  as  those 
seen  by  the  natural  eye,  if  they  be  fully  com- 
prehended. 

Mr.  DOESEY.  I would  ask  the  gentleman  if 
three  of  those  counties  which  he  has  named 
did  not  have  their  proper  fractional  representa- 
tion during  the  decennial  period,  although  the 
fractions  did  not  happen  to  fall  in  that  term  of 
the  General  Assembly  on  which  this  Conven- 
tion was  modeled? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Oh,  yes;  they  had  their  acci- 
dental floats. 

Mr.  DOESEY.  Not  accidental  at  all. 

Mr.  PEATT.  But  they  had  not  their  regu- 
lar representation. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  They  were  regular  floats. 

Mr.  PEATT.  The  voice  of  the  entire  people 
should  be  the  law  to  govern  every  free  state; 

I and  the  very  fundamental  principle  which 
| should  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  Democratic 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. 

Pratt,  Voris,  Griswold,  Cook,  Hitchcock. 


1679 


Day.] 

February  27,  1874 v 


government  is  that  all  laws  should  be  the 
product  of  the  common  intelligence  and  the 
common  conscience  of  the  people  at  the  time  of 
the  enactment  of  that  law,  and  should  be  an 
enactment  by  the  voice  of  a majority  of  the 
people.  Any  other  foundation  than  that  is 
sand. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Quicksand. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes,  quicksand,  and  a very 
bad  quality  of  it,  at  that — a total  perversion  of 
the  commonest  axioms  of  free  governments. 

Now,  these  five  counties,  with  their  popula- 
tion of  197,884,  stand  represented  by  five  dele- 
gates here,  chosen  under  five  different  county 
organizations.  But  the  county  of  Cuyahoga, 
with  132,112  of  population,  stands  also  repre- 
sented by  five  delegates,  although  the  balance 
of  population  in  favor  of  the  five  first-named 
counties  over  the  aggregate  population  of 
Cuyahoga  is  65,872. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  There  are  eighteen  coun- 
ties that  have  eighteen  Representatives  on  a 
population  of  270,000,  to-day. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I presume  all  of  which  is  in- 
evitable under  this  patent  persuader  scheme. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  And  which  you  have 
advocated  from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 

Mr.  PRATT.  No,  sir;  I have  advocated 
nothing  of  the  kind.  I proposed,  when  this 
report  was  first  introduced,  as  the  best  thing 
attainable  under  it,  to  decrease  the  ratio. 

I was  in  favor  of  districts  that  should  contain 
within  their  boundaries  a population  equal  to 
the  representative  ratio.  I announced  that, 
and  at  the  same  time  proposed  to  raise  the 
divisor  to  133,  in  order  that  more  equal  and 
exact  justice  might  be  done  among  those  large 
counties,  saying  that  I did  not  expect  to  suc- 
ceed in  making  my  abstract  idea  the  foundation 
for  representative  apportionment.  And  the 
gentleman  states  erroneously  when  he  says 
I advocated  it  from  first  to  last.  If  he  had 
been  a frequent  attendant  upon  the  meetings  of 
the  Committee  to  which  he  and  I belong,  he 
would  have  learned  the  reverse  of  that  months 
ago. 

The  county  of  Hamilton  has  a representation 
of  five  delegates  on  a population  of  130,185, 
being  the  one-half  of  her  delegates  to  a like 
portion  of  population,  or  the  first  named  coun- 
ties outnumber  her  representative  population 
of  130,185  that  give  her  five  delegates  by  67,669. 
Adding  to  the  above  named  counties  five  other 
counties,  the  next  in  order  of  population,  we 
have  in  the  State,  namely,  Ross,  37,097 ; Wayne, 
35,082 ; Summit,  34,674 ; Licking,  36,122 ; Cler- 
mont, 34,269,  and  we  have  an  aggregate  of 
375,128  of  the  population  of  this  State,  repre- 
sented from  those  counties  by  ten  delegates,  or, 
in  other  words,  with  a population  of  only  17,354 
in  those  rural  counties  less  than  the  aggregate 
population  of  Cuyahoga  and  Hamilton  united. 
Cuyahoga  and  Hamilton  have  fifteen  Repre- 
sentatives to  their  ten.  Well,  now,  that  is  not 
all.  There  is  a Avorse  side  to  the  picture  still ; 
and  I refer  to  the  small  counties.  I never 
stood  here  advocating  as  an  abstract  proposition 
the  right  per  se  of  a small  county  to  representa- 
tion. I announced  from  the  start  that  I knew 
of  no  sacredness  attaching  to  county  lines;  that 
I couid  divide,  unflinchingly,  a county  for  the 
purpose  of  representation,  or  unite  it  to  an  ad- 


joining county,  if  necessary.  I learned  my 
Democracy  where  the  township  was  a unit,  and 
the  individual  in  the  township  a freeman,  who 
had  power  in  all  his  local  affairs,  even  to  the 
right  of  taxation ; and  he  granted  taxes  by  his 
own  vote  for  the  carrying  on  of  his  State  gov- 
ernment as  well  as  for  all  local  purposes.  There 
are  five  other  counties  represented  upon  this 
floor,  with  five  delegates,  which  have  an  aggre- 
gate population  of  only  71,057;  namely,  Henry, 
with  14,028;  Geauga,  14,200;  Ottawa,  13,000; 
Pike,  16,441;  Vinton,  15,027.  As  compared 
with  the  great  counties  first  mentioned,  there  is 
a surplus  of  126,827  in  favor  of  these  large 
counties,  or  nearly  twice  the  surplus  the  small 
counties  have  of  population;  and  yet  they 
are  balanced  by  the  vote  of  these 
five  small  counties  on  this  floor.  There 
are  thirteen  counties  thac  have  but  a sur- 
plus of  2,747  over  the  population  of  those  five 
large  counties  that  are  represented,  and  have  a 
vote  on  this  floor  of  thirteen ; or,  in  other 
words,  the  Representatives  of  the  five  large 
counties  first  named  are  out-voted  two  to  one, 
and  three  over,  on  any  question  that  may  inter- 
est their  constituents.  These  counties,  in  addi- 
tion to  Henry,  Geauga,  Ottawa,  Pike,  and  Vin- 
ton, are,  Van  Wert,  with  a population  of  15,824; 
Fayette,  Avith  a population  of  17,170;  Madison, 
15,635;  Carroll,  14,491;  Mercer,  17,256;  Put- 
nam, 17,083;  Lake,  15,935;  Marion,  16,184. 
Now,  this  is  the  equality  that  has  resulted  out 
of  the  scheme  of  representation  adopted  by  the 
Convention  of  1850,  the  like  of  which  is  sought 
to  be  fastened  again,  by  this  apportionment 
scheme,  upon  the  people  of  Ohio.  If  there  is 
anything  like  fairness,  as  between  man  and 
man ; if  the  rights  of  man  to  representation  on 
his  individual  position,  as  a man,  are  recognized 
in  the  scheme;  if  the  rights  of  humanity  are 
not  entirely  overthrown  by  the  evils  of  organi- 
zation, then,  I am  unable  correctly  to  resolve 
the  scheme.  I said  that  it  was  iniquitous  and 
unjust.  It  is,  if  it  is  the  result  of  design.  It 
will  evidently  be  the  result  of  design,  if  this 
Convention,  with  the  full  statistics  before  them, 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  iniquities  it  works 
out,  fully  before  it,  and  with  the  ability  that 
the  people  of  Ohio  have  invested  this  Conven- 
tion, by  sending  the  men  they  have  sent  here, 
Ave  cannot  work  out  a scheme  more  just  and 
equal,  that  shall  do  more  equal  and  exact  justice 
to  all  men,  we  certainly  ought  to  devise  some 
other  word  than  “ gerrymandering,”  to  express 
the  summit  of  political  legerdemain  and  trick- 
ery, in  drowning  the  voice  of  the  majority  by 
that  of  the  minority. 

Mr.  COOK.  It  is  now  late,  and  the  House 
thin,  and  Ave  should  not  come  to  a vote  at  this 
time,  on  this  question.  I,  therefore,  move  we 
take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Convention 
(at  12 : 50  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 
Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  unanimous  consent 
to  introduce  a resolution. 

Mr.  BABER.  Read  the  resolution  for  in- 
formation. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Resolved , That  the  Pres- 


1680 


THE  FUNERAL  EXPENSES  OF  DR.  O’CONNOR. 

Hitchcock,  Powell,  Clay,  Okey,  Cook,  Reilly,  Baber. 


ident  be  directed  to  issue  a certificate  for  the 
sum  of  ninety-seven  dollars  and  sixty  cents, 
for  payment  of  the  expense  incurred  in  the  re- 
moval of  the  remains  of  John  D.  O’Connor  to 
his  late  residence  in  Tiffin,  Ohio. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  confidence  that  that 
is  all  right.  I move  that  the  resolution  be  ac- 
cepted and  adopted. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I am  willing  to  vote  for  the  res- 
olution, but  would  like  to  inquire  of  the  gentle- 
man who  offered  the  resolution  whether  that 
includes  all  of  the  expense? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  In  response  to  the  in- 
quiry, I would  say  that  it  embraces  all  the  ex- 
pense incurred  by  the  Committee  on  the  trip 
to  Tiffin  and  back;  but  does  not  include  the  ex- 
pense for  undertaker’s  services  at  this  place. 
And,  in  continued  answer  to  the  gentleman,  if  I 
may  be  allowed  to  do  so,  I would  state  that  I 
suggested  to  the  Chairman  of  that  Committee, 
that  these  other  expenses  would  very  properly 
be  included;  but  his  opinion  was,  they  had 
better  not  be,  and  I introduced  the  resolution 
here  at  his  request. 

Mr.  CLAY.  It  occurred  to  me  that  it  was  re- 
markably low,  and  I would  be  willing  that  all  of 
the  expense  should  be  included. 

Mr.  OKEY.  The’expense  for  burial  case  and 
undertaker’s  services  amount  to  $125.  That 
was  procured  by  myself,  at  the  request  of  the 
family,  using  my  own  judgment.  My  under- 
standing is,  that  they  expected  to  pay  that  ex- 
pense, and,  therefore,  I did  not  include  it  in  the 
bill.  I would  say  that,  if  the  Convention  think 
it  ought  to  be  paid  here,  I shall  make  no  ob- 
jection. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I made  that  motion  with  the 
supposition  that  the  whole  bill  was  brought  in 
at  once.  I think  it  would  be  preferable  that 
the  whole  of  it  should  be  disposed  of  at  once, 
and  I supposed  that  was  all ; but  if  there  is 
more  to  come  in,  I am  sorry  it  was  not  in  here 
in  time,  so  that  it  might  be  disposed  of  at  once. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I would  say  I have  the  bill  of 
the  undertaker.  It  is  not  paid,  for  the  reason  I 
have  not  met  him  since  I came  here. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  the  resolution  be  amen- 
ded by  adding  to  it  $131.  There  was  six  dollars 
for  crape,  I understand. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  there  be  no  objection 
on  the  part  of  the  Convention,  I should  be  very 
glad  to  accept  the  modification  of  the  original 
motion. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  the  Resolution,  as 
amended,  was  adopted. 

PETITION  ON  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 

Unanimous  consent  being  given, 

Mr.  REILLY  presented  the  petition  of  Wil- 
liam Brunt,  Jr.,  and  sixty-seven  other  citizens 
of  East  Liverpool,  Columbiana  county,  praying 
that  all  church  property,  now  exempt,  may  be 
placed  on  the  tax  duplicate,  for  taxes,  as  other 
property  is  taxed. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Rev- 
enue and  Taxation. 

PETITION  ON  RELIGION  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

Mr.  REILLY  also  presented  the  petition  of 
Ralph  Harsha,  and  lifty-one  other  citizens  of 
East  Liverpool,  respectfully  protesting  against 


[125th 

[Friday, 


incorporating  any  religious  notions  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

APPORTIONMENT  AND  REPRESENTATION. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  is  now 
pending,  and  the  question  is  upon  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  to 
amend  section  2 of  the  Article  on  Apportion- 
ment. 

Mr.  BABER.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  sixty- 
three  members  answered  to  their  names,  as 
follows : 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook, 
Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing, 
Godfrey,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron, 
Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  John- 
son, Kerr,  McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Phil- 
ips, Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Steed- 
man,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Voorhes, 
Voids,  Waddle,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Noble,  President— 63. 

The  absentees  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Alexander,  Barnet,  Beer, 
Blose,  Byal,  Campbell,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cunning- 
ham, Foran,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Greene,  Hill, 
Hoadly,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Kraemer,  Layton, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Pond,  Root,  Rus- 
sell of  Meigs,  Sample,  Scofield,  Scribner,  Sears, 
Thompson,  Tripp,  Tuttle,  Van  Valkenburgh, 
Van  Voorhis,  Watson,  Wells,  West,  White  of 
Brown,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of 
Champaign — 41. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  that  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]. 

Mr.  HORTON.  1 ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I desire  to  be"  excused  from 
voting,  having  paired  with  my  colleague  [Mr. 
Hunt.] 

Mr.  Herron  was  excused. 

Mr.  Hitchcock  was  excused  from  voting, 
having  paired  with  Mr.  Voorhes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  at  the  end  of  the  section: 

“And  any  county  entitled  to  two  or  more  Representa- 
tives shall  be  subdivided  into  representative  districts  of 
contiguous  territory,  and  as  nearly  equal  in  population  as- 
practicable,  equal  in  number  to  the  number  of  Represen- 
tatives to  which  such  county  is  entitled,  in  each  of  w’hicli. 
one  Representative  shall  be  chosen.” 

• 

Mr.  Van  Valkenburgh  was  excused  from 
voting,  he  having  paired  with  Mr.  Adair. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  demanded,  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  30,  nays  33,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Bosworth,  Caldwell,  Cha- 
pin, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,, 


Day.] PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

February  27,  1874.]  Griswold,  Herron,  Cook,  Powell,  Gurley. 


USl 


De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Gurley,  Hale,  Horton,  IIos- 
tetter,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Neal,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Pratt,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Townsley,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Woodbury,  Presi- 
dent—30. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon,  Bishop, 
Burns,  Carbery,  Clay,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Freiberg, 
Godfrey,  Griswold,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Mil- 
ler, Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Okey,  Powell, 
Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskin- 
gum, Shaw,  Steedman,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Ty- 
ler, Yan  Yoorhis,  Weaver,  Young  of  Noble — 33. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  to  add  to  section 
three  the  following,  as  an  amendment : 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  ask  if  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  is  not 
now  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  desire  that  motion  to  go  upon 
the  table  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  Yes,  sir.  I shall  call  it  up  when 
I think  there  is  a full  House,  the  vote  of  which 
will  be  a fair  representation  of  the  will  of  the 
Convention. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Griswold,  as  follows: 

“In  voting  for  Representatives  in  counties  where  more 
than  two  are  to  be  elected,  each  qualified  voter  shall  be  en- 
titled to  cast  as  many  votes  as  there  are  Representatives 
to  be  elected,  or  he  may  give  one  vote  to  each  Represen- 
tative to  be  elected,  or  he  may  give  all  such  votes  to  one 
candidate,  or  may  distribute  them  in  equal  parts  thereof, 
in  his  discretion,  to  a less  number  of  candidates  than  the 
whole  number  of  Representatives  to  be  chosen,  and  the 
candidates  highest  in  vote,  upon  the  returns,  shall  be  de- 
clared elected.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  pro- 
pose this  as  a substitute  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  No,  sir;  it  will  be  an  ad- 
ditional section.  It  comes  properly  after  sec- 
tion three,  as  that  relates  to  the  ratio  of  Repre- 
sentatives. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  has  been  an  addi- 
tional section  incorporated,  at  the  instance  of 
the  gentleman  from  Montgomery  [Mr.  Ciay]. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  will,  then,  properly 
come  in  as  section  live. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  if  that  is  not 
section  six  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  different  from  sec- 
tion six. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  covers  the  same  ground. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  an  entirely  different 
proposition. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is  different  in  some  re- 
spects. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I offer  this  amendment, 
for  the  reason  that  it  seems  to  me  to  present  a 
fair  ground  for  a compromise  of  the  views  which 
exist  in  this  Convention  upon  the  subject  of 
Representation.  A very  large  portion  of  the 
Convention  desire  the  State  to  be  divided  into 
single  districts.  We  have  voted  not  to  divide 
counties.  I have  taken  no  part  in  the  discussion 
that  has  been  had  on  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton],  having, 
in  the  opening  of  the  debate,  expressed  my 
views  upon  that  subject.  As  to  details,  and  the 
special  objections  to  this  system,  on  that  occa- 
sion I did  consider.  The  difficulty  of  dividing 
cities  is  simply  this : that  the  city  inhabitants 
Y.  H--108 


stand  so  related  to  each  other,  that  the  division 
into  wards  and  legislative  districts  does  injustice 
to  the  people  of  the  county.  Now,  it  is  a fact 
that  the  men  who  do  business  in  particular 
wards,  who  are  thoroughly  acquainted  in  them, 
whose  property  is  situated  in  them,  do  not,  as 
a rule,  reside  in  those  districts.  They  know 
intimately  the  population  of  the  district.  Their 
interests  are  there ; but  they  do  not  reside  there- 
in, and  do  not  cast  their  votes  in  those  particular 
precincts;  and  hence,  to  undertake  to  divide 
the  city  into  Representative  districts,  would  not 
be  just  to  the  people  of  the  city;  and  this,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  one  of  the  most  serious  objec- 
tions to  undertaking  to  divide  each  city  into  Re- 
presentative districts.  We  have  only  to  look  at 
the  experience  of  the  cities  of  New  York  and 
Philadelphia,  to  see  that  their  representation, 
elected  from  single  districts,  does  not,  in  any 
true  sense,  represent  the  people  of  those  cities. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  like  to  inquire  of 
the  gentleman  what  the  proposition  is  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  you  had  paid  attention 
to  the  proposition,  you  would  have  understood  it. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I did,  and  I have  been  pay- 
ing attention  to  the  speech ; but  the  two  do  not 
run  together. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Pay  attention  to  the 
speech;  I do  not  want  the  proposition  read 
now.  I say  the  men  who  do  business  in  partic- 
ular localities  of  the  city,  who  have  an  intimate 
acquaintance  in  particular  wards,  and  who  are 
regarded  by  the  people  of  that  particular 
ward  or  precinct  as  representative  men,  do  not 
usually  live  within  them.  Hence,  the  division 
of  cities  into  single  districts  destroys  the  rule 
as  to  residence,  which  is  made  by  the  Legislative 
Article  an  essential  qualification  of  a Repre- 
sentative. You  have  inserted  in  the  Legislative 
Article  that  your  Representative  must  be  a res- 
ident of  the  district.  The  amendment  proposed 
gives  this  benefit,  which  gentlemen  have 
claimed,  who  have  argued  for  division,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  it  does  allow  the  whole  repre- 
sentation to  be  elected  upon  a single  ticket. 
And  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  effectively 
breaks  up  all  caucus  rules,  and  caucus  manage- 
ment, in  the  nomination  of  Representatives, 
where  a city  elects  three,  one-third  of  the  pop- 
ulation of  the  city  united  can  send  one  Repre- 
sentative, and  it  does  not  matter  in  what  part 
of  the  city  or  county  they  reside.  The  gentle- 
man from  Colerain  township  [Mr.  Johnson] 
has  claimed  that,  although  the  townships  are  an 
important  part  of  the  county,  they  are  ignored 
in  nominating  conventions,  and  hence,  he 
would  have  a division  of  the  county.  Under 
this  amendment,  whenever  the  population  of 
any  part  of  the  county  are  of  sufficient  number 
to  entitle  them  to  a Representative,  they  can  se- 
lect a member. 

But,  after  all,  the  main  business  interests  of 
a county  like  Hamilton,  are  centered  within  the 
city  of  Cincinnati.  I know  that  in  the  county 
of  Hamilton  you  have  an  expanding  city;  and 
every  day,  and  every  year,  your  city  bounda- 
ries are  extending.  It  is  not  extended  as  an 
actual  fact,  so  as  to  include  the  suburban  vil- 
lages, yet,  so  far  as  interests  are  concerned,  con- 
nected with  the  city.  The  men  who  live  at 
Avondale,  and  Glendale,  and  all  those  places, 
do  business  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati.  They 


1682 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 


[125th 


Griswold,  Chapin,  Powell. 


[Friday, 


are  known  in  Cincinnati,  and  if  they  are  able 
to  live  outside,  it  is  because  they  own  property 
in  the  city ; and  so  it  is  in  every  large  city.  As 
the  city  grows  and  increases,  the  main  interests 
of  the  county  are  within  the  city.  But  this 
amendment  provides  that  where  there  are  one- 
third  of  the  population  resident  anywhere  in 
the  county,  if  there  are  three  Representatives, 
and  one-fourth  where  there  are  four,  and  one- 
tenth  where  there  are  ten,  it  will  be  in  their 
power  to  elect  a Representative ; so  that,  in  fact, 
applying  this  method  to  the  election,  you  have 
every  benefit  of  the  single  district  system. 
And,  in  like  manner,  any  interest  in  the  coun- 
ty of  Hamilton  which  can  poll  one-tenth  of  the 
votes,  the  county  will  have  its  Representative. 
Of  course,  I understand  that  so  far  as  your  mere 
local  interests  are  concerned,  these  Represent- 
atives will  be  men  of  the  county,  and  upon 
things  that  are  common  and  general,  they  will 
be  united  in  the  Legislature,  as  if  elected  on  a 
general  ticket.  And  they  should  be  united  in 
the  Legislature  for  that  purpose,  and  vote  as  a 
unit  on  questions  of  that  kind. 

This  method  is  easy  and  simple  to  be  carried 
into  effect.  As  I had  occasion  to  remark  the 
other  day,  it  requires  no  extensive  training  for 
the  city  voter  to  understand  how  to  elect  his 
candidate,  if  he  can  give  his  five  or  ten  ballots  to 
him.  He  understands  that  very  easily,  and  he 
can  apply  it  so  as  to  make  it  effective. 

We  have  been  favored  with  various  remarks 
upon  this  subject,  and  the  gentleman  from  Wil- 
liams [Mr.  Pratt]  undertook  this  morning  to 
say  that  the  system  of  representation  in  single 
districts  was  unjust  and  inequitable.  Yet  he 
has  no  plan.  And  he  has  voted  to  allow 
eighteen  counties  with  only  270,000  population 
to  have  eighteen  Representatives,  when  Ham- 
ilton county  has  only  ten,  and  has  within  ten 
thousand  as  much  population ; and  if  there  is 
anything  that  he  favors,  it  is  that  Paulding 
county  should  have  a Representative,  and  I be- 
lieve that  is  the  only  practicable  idea  I ever 
heard  from  him  in  Committee  or  elsewhere. 
We  were  advised  that  he  had  come  from  the 
State  of  Massachusetts.  It  was  undoubtedly 
an  accidental  observation  of  his;  but  the  argu- 
ment drawn  from  the  circumstances  of  that 
State  has  no  application  to  the  state  of  things 
in  Ohio.  In  a community  where  the  town  organ- 
ization is  the  chief  organization;  where  the 
town  has  its  own  Recorder,  its  own  Treasurer, 
and  its  collector  of  taxes ; where  the  taxes  for 
the  State  and  the  county  are  assessed  and  levied, 
the  county  organization  is  merely  nominal. 
But  the  State  of  Ohio  is  organized  upon  differ- 
ent principles.  The  amendment  proposed  re- 
tains all  the  benefits  of  the  county  organization, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  it  gives  all  the  benefits 
of  single  districts.  It  divides  the  population 
of  a county  in  accordance  with  their  views  and 
not  as  to  their  mere  locality  in  the  city ; and  the 
county  of  Hamilton,  under  no  circumstances, 
by  this  plan,  could  send  a politically  united 
body  of  Representatives,  unless  it  was  substan- 
tially a unit  in  political  sentiment.  But  it  has 
this  advantage  : that  a majority  will  send  a ma- 
jority of  the  Representatives,  and  the  minority 
send  their  proportional  part,  and,  in  addition 
thereto,  the  Representatives  will  be  men  whom 
the  people  themselves  choose,  and  not  such  as 


are  put  up  for  them  by  caucus  managers. 
Moreover,  the  men  who  are  elected  must  be 
elected  because  of  the  respect  which  the  voters 
have  for  them ; that  is,  it  gives  the  opportunity 
for  the  voter  to  exercise  such  choice.  It  avoids 
the  question  of  the  division  of  a county,  and  all 
the  trouble  that  would  arise  from  that;  and  it 
gives  all  the  benefits  of  the  single  district  sys- 
tem. Because  gentlemen  have  conceived  a 
prejudice  against  this  thing  in  previous  debates, 
is  no  reason  for  their  refusing  to  allow  this  sys- 
tem to  be  applied  to  only  two  counties  now, 
and,  probably,  during  the  decade  to  only  three 
or  four  counties.  If  the  county  of  Montgom- 
ery and  the  county  of  Franklin  continue  to  in- 
crease in  the  next  ten  years  as  they  have  in  the 
past,  it  will  apply  to  them ; but  for  the  present 
it  applies  to  only  the  two  counties,  Cuyahoga 
and  Hamilton ; and  if  it  is  a bad  thing,  it  is  not 
so  very  bad.  This  does  not  interfere  with  the 
general  system  of  the  State.  Gentlemen  who 
live  outside  of  a city,  scarcely  comprehend  this 
caucus  rule  within  the  city  limits. 

Mr.  CHAPIN".  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  What  is  the  gentlemans’ 
point  of  order? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  The  gentleman  has  spoken 
ten  minutes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  ten-minute  Rule  is 
not  now  in  force. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  Excuse  me. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  There  is  so  much  connec- 
ted with  the  county  and  city  government;  so 
much  patronage,  so  much  opportunity  for  men 
to  make  money  out  of  its  political  machinery, 
that,  in  every  large  city,  there  are  trained  bands 
of  professional  men  whose  business  is  politics. 
These  men  belong  to  no  particular  party.  They 
take  sides  as  opportunity  offers  to  ply  their 
trade,  and  thejr  thus  control  the  management  of 
city  politics.  It  is  like  the  organization  of  a 
body  of  soldiers  against  a large  body  of  men 
without  organization.  It  requires  a large 
amount  of  time  and  work  to  carry  this  on,  and 
they  make  caucus  management  their  business, 
and  they  are  ready  to  work  to-day  for  one 
party,  and  to-morrow  for  another,  as  their  in- 
| terests  dictate.  This  system  is  the  source  of 
corruption  in  your  city  and  county  politics,  and 
| grows  afterwards  as  the  cities  and  counties  in- 
; crease.  By  virtue  of  this  amendment,  the  inde- 
j pendent  voter  has  an  opportunity  to  exercise  his 
! power.  If  the  party  nominees  are  controlled  by 
these  caucus  managers,  and  not  satisfactory  to 
! any  considerable  portion  of  the  party,  they  can 
unite  and  make  known  their  dislike  by  support 
of  an  independent  candidate.  They  are  not 
| simply  compelled  to  scratch  an  obnoxious 
name,  but  they  can  combine  their  votes  upon  a 
! candidate  of  their  own  choice.  This  beneficial 
! clause,  it  seems  to  me,  is  so  good  as  to  warrant 
the  adoption  of  the  amendment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I move  the  following  as  a 
| substitute  for  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“In  voting  for  Senators,  or  in  voting  for  Representa- 
tives in  « county  entitled  to  more  than  two  Representa- 
tives,  each  elector  shall  vote  for  two  candidates  when 
there  are  three  to  be  elected,  and  for  a majority  of  the 
candidates  to  be  elected,  when  there  are  more  than  three 
to  be  elected,  and  the  candidates  having  the  highest  num- 
’ or  of  votes  shall  be  dec’ared  elected.” 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

Griswold,  Powell,  Dorsey,  Pratt. 


1683 


Day.] 

February  27, 1874/ 


Mr.  GRISWOLD.  When  there  are  ten,  what 
would  you  do? 

Mr.  POWELL.  A majority  of  ten  would  be 
six.  Can  you  make  anything  else  than  six  a 
mere  majority  of  ten? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Seven  would  be  a majority 
of  ten. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Certainly;  but  not  the  least 
majority. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Dela- 
ware [Mr.  PowellJ. 

Mr.  POWELL.  This  proposed  substitute  is 
made,  principally,  from  the  sixth  section  of  the 
Article  reported  by  the  Committee,  with  the 
exception  that  it  strikes  out  that  portion  provi- 
ding restrictive  voting,  and  adopts  the  minority 
principle  of  voting  for  two  out  of  the  three,  or 
any  part  that  may  be  a majority,  where  there 
are  more  than  three. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  adopts  the  restrictive  vot- 
ing. 

Mr.  POWELL.  You  may  call  it  restrictive 
voting,  if  you  please.  I wish  at  this  moment  to 
say  to  the  Convention,  and  to  the  friends  of  this 
proportional  voting,  that  I shall  go  not  one  step 
further  upon  that  subject.  If  they  are  disposed 
to  adopt  that  mode  of  voting,  I shall  vote  with 
them ; but  I shall  not  go  one  step  further  in 
adopting  this  plan,  this  kind  of  hocus-pocus 
voting  that  they  are  conjuring  up  here.  Every 
one  will  see  that  this  minority  voting — voting 
for  two  out  of  three,  or  a majority  where  there 
are  more  than  three,  is  so  plain  that  every  man 
can  understand  it.  There  is  no  difficulty  about 
it.  It  is  just  as  easy  as  our  present  system  of 
voting  to  be  understood,  when  we  vote  for  all 
the  persons  who  are  candidates. 

My  great  objection,  when  I first  heard  of  this 
system,  was,  that  it  required  new  machinery  to 
be  brought  into  requisition,  and  the  liability 
there  was  for  politicians  to  misrepresent,  and 
for  the  voters  not  to  understand  it.  I had  seri- 
ous objections  to  every  portion  of  it;  but  upon 
examination  I find  that,  with  minority  voting, 
there  is  no  difficulty  about  it.  Any  person  can 
understand  it,  and  there  is  no  more  liability  for 
politicians  and  ingenious,  artful  men  to  impose 
upon  the  voters  than  there  is  in  the  present 
mode  of  voting.  I have  seen,  under  the  present 
mode  of  voting,  where  ingenious  politicians 
who  manage  these  things  palm  off  a wrong 
ticket  to  deceive  voters ; and  how  much  better 
will  we  have  the  case  under  cumulative  voting? 
The  only  objection  I have  heard  to  this  mode  of 
voting  is  this : that  if  you  vote  for  two  where 
three  candidates  are  to  be  elected,  the  voters 
will  say  that  they  were  cheated  out  of 
voting  for  one  man;  that  they  do  not 
vote  for  all  the  Representatives.  Suppose 
you  reside  in  a district  where  there  are 
three  officers  to  be  elected,  and  the  district  is 
divided  into  divisions;  it  is  the  same  thing,  the 
voter  votes  for  one  out  of  the  three.  In  my 
county,  for  instance,  where  there  are  three 
judges  in  the  district,  I may  want  to  vote  for  all 
three  of  them,  but  can  vote  for  but  one,  in  our 
sub-district,  though  he  is  judge  for  the  whole 
district,  because  it  is  divided.  Every  man  can 
comprehend  that.  In  my  township  of  Dela- 
ware, where  we  are  overwhelmingly  Republi- 
can, and  the  Democrats  stand  no  chance  at  all, 


for  years  it  has  been  the  practice  of  our  people 
to  put  one  Democrat  as  candidate  upon  our 
ticket  in  the  board  of  trustees  in  the  township, 
and  elect  him.  Every  person  saw  what  that 
was.  The  Republican  says,  you  deprive  me, 
by  this  arrangement,  of  voting  for  three  of  my 
good  Republican  friends.  You  only  permit  me 
to  vote  for  two  of  my  Republican  friends,  and 
the  third  man,  who  is  a Democrat,  I care  noth- 
ing about.  But  my  people  understand  this. 
They  do  it  as  a sacrifice  to  justice.  It  is  a con- 
cession, on  the  part  of  justice  and  equality,  to 
the  minority,  and  they  understand  it  as 
such ; and  so  they  will,  where  you 
give  them  a ticket  where  three  are  to  be  elected, 
and  you  vote  for  two;  and  they  will  say, it  is  all 
right  to  vote  for  two  instead  of  three.  We  un- 
derstand it.  It  is  a sacrifice  and  concession 
which  we  make  for  the  sake  of  justice  to  the 
minority  of  the  people  of  our  common  county. 
The  same  sense  of  justice  that  prevails  upon 
them  to  vote  for  two  Republicans  and  one  Dem- 
ocrat, will  prevail  upon  them  to  vote  for  a ticket 
of  this  kind,  and  when  you  pretend  that  they 
cannot  be  satisfied  with  the  justice  of  voting  for 
two  instead  of  three,  you  set  down  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  people  at  a very  low  figure,  in- 
deed. 

But  let  me  say  to  you  another  thing : When 

you  vote  under  the  cumulative  system,  the  very 
system  proposed  here  by  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  what  is  the  result? 
You  elect  two  instead  of  three.  It  is  the  same 
thing;  but  they  think,  by  giving  them  the  op- 
portunity of  voting  for  three  when  they  are 
only  going  to  elect  two,  they  cover  it  up.  It  is 
the  shammest  way  of  covering  up  anything  I 
ever  saw  in  my  life. 

Mr.  PRATT.  You  do  not  appreciate  the 
capacity  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Perhaps  not. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Under  the  present  system, 
does  not  each  elector  in  the  county  of  Ham- 
ilton vote  for  ten  Representatives,  and  each 
elector  in  the  county  of  Cuyahoga  vote  for  five? 
Under  your  system,  you  deprive  him  of  a part 
of  those  votes  that  legitimately  belong  to  him. 

Mr.  POWELL.  And  so  does  the  system  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold], 
that  is  now  presented. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  gives  him  the  liberty. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  gives  liberty,  but  it  turns 
out  that  they  are  to  elect  but  two,  and  I say  it 
is  the  shammest  covering  up  of  anything  that 
was  ever  proposed  in  the  world.  It  is  as  frail  a 
covering  and  deception  as  when  a soldier  went 
into  a grocery  and  asked  for  a dime’s  worth  of 
crackers.  They  were  handed  to  him.  The  sol- 
dier took  the  crackers  and  looked  over  them  for 
a while,  and  then  said : “ I wish  you  would 
take  these  back  and  give  me  a glass  of  whisky 
for  them.”  The  groceryman  did  so,  and  poured 
out  a glass  of  whisky  to  correspond  in  value. 
The  soldier  drank  the  whisky,  and  started  to  go 
off.  Says  the  groceryman,  “ Pay  me  for  the 
whisky.”  “Pay  you  for  the  whisky?  I let 
you  have  the  crackers  for  the  whisky.” 
“ Then  pay  me  for  the  crackers.”  The  answer 
was : “ I let  you  have  them  back  again.”  This 

is  just  as  shallow  as  that,  which  proposes  to 
cover  up  the  loss  of  one  candidate  out  of  three 


1684 


[125th 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

Dorsey,  Powell,  Ewing.  [Friday, 


by  adopting  the  accumulating  system  of  voting. 

'Mr.  DORSEY.  That  was  pretty  smart. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I believe  I owe  to  my  friend 
before  me  [Mr.  Dorsey]  an  apology  for  what  I 
said  the  other  evening,  in  the  warmth  of  de- 
bate, when  he  said  to  me,  “You  do  not  under- 
stand it,”  and  I told  him  “I  did  not  want  to 
understand  it.”  1 said  that  in  a spirit  I would 
have  spoken  in  during  the  late  war,  if  a man 
had  come  to  me  and  wanted  to  make  me  under- 
stand the  beauty  of  the  State  Rights  system  and 
the  rebellion.  I think  I would  have  said  to 
him,  “I  have  seen  enough  of  its  beauty,  and  I 
do  not  want  to  understand  it  any  further.”  It 
was  in  that  spirit  that  I said  I did  not  want  to 
understand  the  system  of  the  gentleman.  Any- 
thing that  comes  up,  that  is  necessary  and 
proper  for  me  to  investigate,  I always  want  to 
understand;  but  I have  gone  far  enough  into 
this  thing  to  comprehend  its  beauties  and  its  de- 
formity, and  I wished  to  go  no  further  into  its 
investigation.  If  the  friends  of  proportional 
voting  are  willing  to  accept  this  minority  vot- 
ing, 1 shall  go  with  them.  It  has  been  repre- 
sented here  during  the  last  week  that  the 
minority  voting  would  be  the  form  that  would 
be  urged  here;  and  I was  utterly  surprised 
when  this  sixth  section  was  called  to  my  atten- 
tion. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  May  I ask  the  gentleman 
who  represented  that  to  him  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing]  as  much  as  anybody. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Has  not  the  sixth  section 
been  before  the  gentleman  for  three  months,  and 
has  he  not  had  a chance  of  reading  it? 

Mr.  POWELL.  But  I had  no  idea  that  it  was 
going  to  be  pushed  upon  us,  and  it  is  very  differ- 
ent from  that  which  was  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  in  accordance 
with  the  wishes  of  the  majority. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing]  was  not  a member  of  our 
Committee. 

Mr.  POWELL.  But  I took  him  to  be  a rep- 
resentative of  the  friends  of  proportional  vot- 
ing. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  He  is,  sir.  We  consider 
him  so. 

Mr.  POWELL.  And  I thought  that  would 
be  the  system  proposed  to  be  adopted ; and  I 
have  taken  pains  to  understand  that,  and  I have 
taken  pains  to  understand  the  other  system ; so 
that  I think  I would  not  say  to  the  gentleman 
now  that  I do  not  want  to  understand  it,  that  I 
understood  its  beauties  well  enough  before  to 
know  that  it  was  a shallow  device — that  it  was 
likely  to  be  misrepresented  and  be  misused  by 
politicians  in  cheating  and  deceiving  voters; 
and  I must  say  just  what  I have  said,  I shall 
not  go  for  it,  and  if  they  can  get  along,  and  get 
this  mode  of  voting,  they  must  do  it  without 
my  vote,  and  against  all  the  opposition  that  I 
can  raise  to  it,  because  I think  it  is  unjust,  if 
not  wicked;  but  this  minority  voting  I am 
willing  to  go  for  as  a compromise. 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  my  excellent  and  in- 
telligent friend  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
is  laboring  under  some  misapprehension  from 
the  wrong  use  of  terms.  Minority  representa- 
tion is  accomplished  by  several  different  meth- 
ods of  voting. 


Mr.  POWELL.  I used  the  term  minority 
; voting  because  I do  not  know  any  other  term 
that  would  represent  this  kind  of  voting. 

Mr.  EWING.  One  of  the  methods  of  attain- 
ing proportional  representation,  is  that  recom- 
mended by  one-half  of  the  Committee  on  the 
! Judicial  Department,  to-wit : that  in  the  choice 
of  judges  of  the  circuit  and  supreme  courts, 
each  elector  may  vote  for  not  more  than  a ma- 
jority of  the  judges  of  each  court.  That  is  an 
application  of  what  is  known  as  the  restricted 
method  of  suffrage.  This  method  my  friend 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  prefers  to  have 
applied  in  electing  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly. In  advocating,  as  it  applied  to  the 
judiciary,  I never  intended  at  all  to  indicate 
that  I preferred  it  for  the  legislative  depart- 
ment, much  less  that  I pledged  anybody  to  sup- 
port it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Mav  I make  an  explanation  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I did  not  understand  the 
gentleman  to  say,  that  they  were  pledged,  but  I 
understood  myself — I am  responsible  for  it — 
that  that  was  brought  in  by  the  gentleman  as  a 
matter,  or  method,  that  would  be  proposed,  not 
that  the  gentleman  said  so. 

Mr.  EWING.  I have  always  said  that  I pre- 
ferred the  cumulative  system,  in  the  election  of 
Representatives  and  Senators,  and  the  restrict- 
ive system  in  the  election  of  judges,  and,  with 
the  indulgence  of  the  Convention,  I shall  take 
a few  minutes — not  more  than  ten — to  state  the 
reasons  for  preferring  the  restrictive  method 
for  the  judiciary,  and  the  cumulative  method 
for  members  of  the  General  Assembly. 

By  the  restrictive  method  of  suffrage,  when 
but  three  officers  are  to  be  chosen,  if  each  of 
two  parties  should  use  its  votes  to  the  best 
advantage,  it  would  take  a minority  of  over 
forty  per  cent,  to  secure  one  of  the  candidates; 
while,  by  the  cumulative  method,  it  would 
take  but  a fraction  over  twenty-five  per 
cent.  The  friends  of  proportional  suffrage 
in  the  Judiciary  Committee  discussed  the 
two  methods,  as  applied  to  the  election  of 
judges,  and  it  was  thought  to  be  unsafe  to 
give  to  so  small  a fraction  as  but  a little 
over  twenty-five  per  cent,  the  choice  of  one  out 
of  three  of  the  judges  of  the  circuit  court,  the 
fear  being  that  some  special  interest  might  elect 
one  of  the  judges  as  a representative  of  that 
sole  interest,  which  would  be  pernicious.  To 
avoid  that  mischief,  we  adopted  this  method, 
which  requires  a fraction  of  over  forty  per  cent, 
to  elect  one  of  the  circuit  judges.  But  when 
we  come  to  elect  members  of  a representative 
body,  that  reason  has  no  application.  It  is 
right  that  the  advocates  of  license  should  be 
represented,  and  the  advocates  of  prohibition, 
and  of  woman  suffrage,  and  of  labor  reform, 
and  of  every  other  interest  or  opinion  to  ad- 
vance which  men  combine  in  political  associa- 
tions. The  floor  of  the  General  Assembly 
should  reflect  the  sentiment  of  every  considera- 
ble party  among  the  people.  Wherever  there 
is  a combination  of  men  upon  a political  idea, 
sufficiently  numerous  to  have  a ratio  for  a 
Representative,  1 think  it  is  expedient  to  give 
them  power  to  elect  their  Representative.  The 
cumulative  method  does  this,  exsctly  and 
fairly. 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION 

Ewing,  Powell,  Dorsey. 


1685 


Day.] 


February  27,  1874.] 


In  the  county  of  Hamilton,  which  is  one  of 
the  only  two  counties  to  which  this  system  will 
apply  in  Ohio,  any  fraction  of  one-tenth  of  the 
electors  could  choose  a Representative  to  the 
lower  branch  of  the  Legislature.  If  the  labor 
reform  men  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati  amount  to 
one-tenth  of  the  voters  of  Hamilton  county, 
why  should  they  not  elect  one  man  to  represent 
their  ideas  of  government?  If  the  party  of 
prohibitionists  comprise  one-tenth  of  the 
voters,  why  should  they  not  have  a man  to 
represent  their  ideas  ? This  cumulative  method 
effects  exactly  this  result,  and  it  effects  it  upon 
a plan  that  is  so  simple  that  any  man  who  can 
comprehend  the  force  of  a ballot  at  all  can 
almost,  at  the  first  statement,  understand 
exactly  how  the  plan  will  work.  There 
are  ten  delegates  to  be  chosen  in  Hamilton 
county  to  the  Lower  House.  Each  individual 
voter  is  given  ten  votes,  and  he  may  cast  them 
all  for  one  person,  or  two  for  each  one  of  five 
persons,  or  one  for  each  one  of  ten  persons. 
Any  voter  that  will  give  attention  to  the  sub- 
ject long  enough  to  hear  this  statement,  I think 
can  understand  this  method  of  suffrage.  Now, 
there  is  no  thimble-rigging,  nor  intricacy,  nor 
humbuggery  about  it.  It  is  a plain  method  of 
reaching  a desirable  result.  If  the  county  is 
about  equally  divided  between  the  two  great 
parties,  but  with  a small  majority  for  the 
Democracy,  shall  the  ten  delegates  that  repre- 
sent her  be  all  Democrats ; or  shall  but  six  of 
them  be  Democrats  and  four  Republicans;  or, 
if  there  be  another  political  division  that  repre- 
sents a ratio  of  voters,  shall  it  have  the  power  to 
elect  one  Representative  of  its  special  opinions 
or  interests  ? 

What  man  can  feel  it  to  be  just  that,  because 
the  Democratic  party  happens  to  have  a ma- 
jority of  a few  hundred  in  Hamilton  county, 
not  a single  one  of  the  almost  equal  number  of 
intelligent  Republicans  shall  have  an  opportu- 
nity to  represent  the  ideas  of  his  political 
friends  in  the  Legislature  ? The  present  method, 
which  gives  all  to  the  majority — which  ex- 
cludes the  minority  party  or  parties  not  only 
from  all  power,  but  also  from  all  hearing — is 
flagrantly  and  obviously  unjust.  The  method 
that  we  propose  will  give  representation  to  the 
minority  in  proportion  to  their  numbers,  and 
as  it  involves  election  from  the  county  at 
large  instead  of  by  single  districts,  it  will,  more- 
over, allow  both  the  majority  and  the  minority 
to  select  from  any  portion  of  the  county  the 
candidates  they  choose  to  vote  for.  It  leaves  the 
people,  not  bound  by  petty  sub-divisions,  to 
select  their  candidates  within  them,  but  free  to 
take  any  gentlemen  of  the  county  who  most 
properly  represent  their  sentiments,  and  elect 
them  in  proportion  to  the  respective  numbers 
of  each  political  party,  whether  the  parties  be 
two  or  more  in  number.  This  theory  is  espe- 
cially acceptable  to  me,  because  it  breaks  party 
shackles.  It  frees  men,  and  induces  them  to 
organize  upon  special  questions  which  they  re- 
gard of  importance,  but  which  each  of  the  po- 
litical parties  may  choose  to  ignore  or  dodge. 
It  enables  independent  men  to  act  effectively 
together,  and  organize  for  political  purposes, 
and  say,  we  shall  withdraw  from  our  party,  and 
let  it  lose  our  votes  and  the  proportion  of  Rep- 
resentatives that  our  votes  would  carry,  if  it 


will  not  meet  squarely  the  issue  we  want  to 
make.  It  will  be  found  to  be  an  effective  in- 
strument of  reform,  by  driving  the  larger 
parties  to  greater  explicitness  on  important 
questions,  and  by  giving  opportunity  of  repre- 
sentation of  political  views,  in  respect  of  which 
the  chief  parties  do  not  choose  to  commit  them- 
selves. It  will  make  the  General  Assembly  a 
faithful  photograph  of  the  sentiment  of  the 
people  of  the  State,  in  which  every  feature  of 
political  opinion  will  be  represented  in  due  ex- 
pression and  proportion. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I was  intentionally  brief  in 
saying  what  I did  upon  this  subject.  I do  not 
wish  to  go  over  that  question,  but  I wish  that 
whatever  I have  said  upon  that  subject  to  pass 
for  what  it  is  worth,  and  no  more;  but  I must, 
with  the  permission  of  the  Convention,  say 
something  in  relation  to  what  has  been  said  by 
the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]. 

It  is  a fact  that,  in  this  free  country,  every 
man  is  permitted  to  vote  iust  as  he  pleases,  and 
for  whom  he  pleases.  The  gentleman  does  not 
gain  anything  by  saying  that  this  system  of 
voting  gives,  in  this  country,  a perfect  right  to 
vote  for  just  whom  we  please,  and,  of  course, 
we  must  vote  for  candidates,  because  nobody 
but  candidates  are  expected  to  be  elected,  but 
we  have  a right  to  vote  just  as  we  please,  and, 
if  there  is  any  division  of  the  people  such  as  is 
named  by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr. 
Ewing],  let  them  be  temperance  men,  woman’s 
right’s  men,  or  any  other  division,  they  have  a 
right,  under  any  system,  to  combine  their  votes, 
and  make  them  as  strong  as  possible.  If  there 
are  three  to  be  elected  under  the  old  system,  of 
course  they  may  vote  only  one  vote  for  one 
man.  Under  this  system  of  limited  or  re- 
stricted voting  (the  one  that  I favor,  if  I favor 
any)  you  have  that,  and  you  have  also,  in  addi- 
tion to  what  we  may  ordinarily  have  of  voting 
for  the  men,  the  choice  of  the  majority  restricted 
to  electing  only  two,  so  as  to  leave  one  for  the 
minority,  let  the  minority  have  what  they  may. 
There  may  be,  among  the  minority  of  the  peo- 
ple, a division,  and  the  division  of  the  minority 
will  make  it  always  a matter  of  doubt. 

Let  me  show  you  the  difficulty  there  is  with 
regard  to  the  cumulative  system.  If  three  per- 
sons are  to  be  voted  for — if  three  candidates 
are  to  be  elected — you  have  a right  to  say  that 
one  man  shall  have  all  of  the  votes.  You  put  in 
the  name  of  one  man  for  candidate,  and  say 
three  votes  for  him.  They  will  not  deny  that. 
Now,  the  gentleman  thinks  there  is  a great  ad- 
vantage, in  point  of  equity,  justice  and  fair 
dealing,  that  a man  should  have  a right  to  put 
in,  for  his  one  candidate,  all  three  votes,  so  that 
he  shall  have  three  votes  instead  of  one.  We 
have  always  heard  that  a candidate  got  from 
one  man,  or  one  voter,  one  vote. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  One  voter,  but  three  votes. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Under  this  system,  he  does; 
but,  ordinarily,  he  does  not. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Under  your  system,  he  has 
three  votes;  but  gives  them  to  three  difterent 
men. 

Mr.  POWELL.  But  two  men,  instead  of 
three,  can  be  elected.  Under  all  systems,  until 
this  system  had  been  gotten  up,  whenever  a 
vote  is  given,  one  elector  can  give  but  one  vote 
for  one  candidate.  If  there  are  more  candi- 


[125th 


1686 PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

Powell,  Dorsey,  Baber,  Griswold,  Ewing. 


dates  than  one,  you  vote  for  all  of  them.  This 
cumulative  system  proposes  that  you  may  give 
three  to  one  man,  or  you  may  divide  them,  as 
you  please,  to  any  candidate  among  the  candi- 
dates. The  consequence  is,  that  you  vote  for 
three ; say,  one  vote  for  each ; or,  you  may  put 
two  on  one,  and  one  on  the  other.  But  it  goes 
still  further:  you  may  divide  up  the  votes; 
there  i?  nothing  in  the  world  to  prevent  your 
dividing  just  as  much  as  you  please.  Perhaps 
no  one  would  propose  to  divide  it  into  more 
than  eight  parts. 

Now,  a man  comes  up  to  the  polls  with  his  tick- 
et,and  of  course  the  whippers  in  will  come  up  and 
say:  “Let  me  see  which  way  you  vote”  ? and 
he  will  generally  show  the  ticket,  and,  perhaps, 
he  would  have  a ticket  with  one  name  upon  it — 
three  votes;  or,  perhaps,  he  will  have  a ticket 
with  two  names — one  and  a-half  votes  to  one, 
and  one  and  a-half  to  the  other,  or  two  to  one, 
and  one  to  the  other.  Says  the  whipper-in : 
“I  do  not  like  that;  I have  a candidate,  so-and- 
so,  and  I want  to  get  for  him  as  many  votes  as 
I can.”  Says  the  voter : “I  do  not  think  I can 
spare  anything  for  him.”  “Let  me  have  some- 
thing; let  me  have  a half  for  him.”  “No;  I 
cannot  do  that.”  “If  you  cannot  do  that,  let 
me  have  one-fourth;  if  you  cannot  do  that,  let 
me  have  one-eighth  of  a vote,  and  put  the  sev- 
en-eighths on  the  other.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  This  does  not  allow  that. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  does  allow  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Equal  parts? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes;  there  is  nothing  to  re- 
strict it.  It  is  very  hard  for  me  to  read ; I have 
almost  lost  my  sight.  Earl  Grey  says:  “The 
principle  of  giving  to  every  elector  as  many 
votes  as  there  are  persons  to  be  elected  in  the 
constituency  to  which  he  belongs,  with  the 
right  of  their  giving  these  votes  to  one  candi- 
date, or  of  dividing  them  as  he  may  prefer.” 
Now,  if  he  divides  them  as  he  prefers,  he  may 
run  up  to  one-eighth. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  This  proposition  does  not 
allow  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  is  nothing  to  re- 
strain it. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  a 
moment? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  That  is  true;  but  a provision 
of  this  amendment  provides  that  he  shall  only 
divide  into  equal  parts,  and  there  cannot  be  any 
less  division  than  one-half. 

Mr.  POWELL.  A fourth  or  an  eighth  is  an 
equal  part. 

Mr.  BABER.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  They  are;  and  any  person 
of  common  sense  and  arithmetic  knows  it.  The 
same  pamphlet  is  stated  by  another  writer,  Mr. 
Conolly,  I believe,  I do  not  know  him,  who  says 
in  addition  to  that,  after  repeating  the  words 
of  Earl  Grey,  “ he  may  divide  them  between 
his  candidates,  or  in  any  way  his  sweet  will 
may  determine.”  This  Mr.  Conolly  must  be  a 
sweet  man.  “ In  the  manner  his  sweet  will 
may  determine,” — and  Earl  Grey  says,  “in  any 
manner  that  he  may  prefer.”  There  is  nothing 
in  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuy- 
ahoga [Mr.  Griswold],  or  in  any  system  that 
has  been  printed  or  written,  that  restricts  it  to 
one-half,  or  one-fourth,  or  any  number,  but 


[Friday, 


you  may  divide  it  just  exactly  as  you  please. 
Of  course,  he  will  not  divide  it  in  any  way  that 
he  will  lose  a part,  he  will  divide  it  in  some 
equal  parts,  so  that  he  may  give  one-eighth  to 
one  and  seven-eighths  to  another,  or  in  some 
proportion  which  will  make  up  a whole.  When 
a person  comes  up  to  the  polls  there  will  be 
men  there  who  will  be  continually  begging  the 
voter  to  divide  it  up,  so  as  to  give  his  particular 
candidate  something — one  vote ; if  you  cannot 
give  him  one  vote,  give  him  a little.  It  is  by 
reason  of  this  kind  of  misrepresentation  and 
cheatery  that  it  is  not  a safe  system  of  voting  to 
be  given  to  the  people  in  general. 

Now,  sir,  I claim  that  our  people  of  Delaware 
are  as  intelligent  as  most  people,  yet  we  have 
many  men  that  cannot  read  very  well,  that  are 
illiterate ; some  old  country  people  who  are  ig- 
norant about  these  things. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  This  does  not  apply  to 
Delaware  county. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Perhaps  not.  There  are  at 
these  elections  people  watching  the  polls,  and 
constantly  interfering  with  the  voters  to  see 
how  they  vote,  and  interfere  and  try  to  get  them 
to  vote  for  this  man  or  that  man,  and  beg,  if  they 
cannot  get  a whole  vote  for  their  friend,  to  get 
a part;  and  in  this  manner  perpetrate  imposi- 
tions and  fraud.  Although  1 admit  that  where 
this  thing  goes  on  fairly  that  there  may  be  some 
good  results  arising  out  of  it,  I do  not  think  it 
is  proper,  for  the  rest  of  the  voters,  that  a party 
should  combine  together  and  say  that  all  the 
three  votes  should  be  given  to  one  man.  Most 
of  the  voters  come  up  and  vote  for  three  men — 
to  each  candidate  giving  one  vote.  The  minor- 
ity comes  up  and  says,  we  shall  only  vote  for 
one  man,  and  give  three  votes  for  him.  It  is 
not  fair  and  honest  dealing.  1 say  that  I think 
this  argument  will  strike  forcibly  any  candid 
man. 

Mr.  EWING.  They  all  have  the  same  oppor- 
tunity themselves. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is  not  right  for  you  to 
come  up  and  when  I vote  for  my  three  candi- 
I dates,  to  throw  three  of  your  votes  for  one  man, 
while  I distribute  mine  to  the  three  proper  can- 
didates. 

Mr.  EWING.  Why  do  not  you  follow  the 
example  and  throw  all  your  votes  for  one  man, 
and  get  even  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  You  cannot  do  it.  My  sys- 
tem will  not  admit  it.  No  system  but  this — I 
shall  not  call  it  thimble-rig,  I shall  not  give  it 
hard  names — no  system  but  this,  whatever  you 
call  it,  will  enable  a man  to  do  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  All  the  electors  will  be  on  an 
equality,  and  they  can  avail  themselves  of  this 
system. 

Mr.  POWELL.  A party  may  combine  to  do 
this  thing,  and  the  rest  of  the  voters  do  not  un- 
derstand it.  If  they  knew  what  they  were  go- 
ing to  do,  they  might  accumulate  their  votes 
upon  one  candidate  to  prevent  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  They  will  find  out. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  consequence  is,  that  if 
the  two  parties  are  anywise  equally  divided, 
say  there  are  two-thirds  on  one  side,  and  one- 
third  on  the  other,  the  one-third  may  succeed 
in  electing  their  candidate  by  throwing  all  their 
votes  in  that  way.  As  the  gentleman  has  al- 
ready said,  a very  small  majority  may  do  it.  I 


Day.] PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 1687 

February  27, 1874.]  Powell,  Clay,  Blose,  Dorsey. 


do  not  think  it  is  right.  I do  not  think  it  is  hon- 
est, that  a party  should,  by  a combination  un- 
known to  the  people  generally,  do  so.  I recol- 
lect when  I was  a young  man,  I did  a thing  in 
politics  that  I never  have  been  guilty  of  since, 
and  I do  not  think  I ever  shall  repeat  it.  When 
I was  a young  man,  just  admitted  to  the  bar, 
and  commencing  my  practice  in  the  county 
where  I was  residing,  there  were  two  commis- 
sioners to  be  elected,  one  for  three  years,  regu- 
larly, and  the  other  for  two  years,  to  fill  a va- 
cancy. I told  my  friend  to  go  around  and  let 
his  friends  know  that  he  was  for  three  years, 
and  tell  them  to  say  nothing  about  it.  The 
great  bulk  of  the  voters  voted  for  two  persons 
without  designating  between  the  two,  though 
they  intended  that  one  should  be  for  two  years, 
and  one  for  three  years;  but  this  man’s  friends 
were  careful  to  have  it  designated  that  he  was 
for  the  two  years,  and  the  consequence  was 
that  he  was  elected  commissioner  by  a very 
small  minority  of  the  electors,  because  he  was 
so  designated,  and  the  other  votes  were  thrown 
away.  1 know  I did  that,  and  I never  looked  upon 
it  as  an  exactly  honest  transaction  on  my  part, 
and  one  I was  never  guilty  of  again.  So  it  is 
here.  I oppose  this  system,  because  I think  it 
will  give  an  opportunity  to  those  who  manage 
the  elections  to  deceive  voters,  and  do  them  this 
injustice.  I think  it  is  wrong. 

I believe  I have  so  examined  the  restrictive 
mode  of  voting  that  I think  it  is  easier  to  be  un- 
derstood, and  I am  willing  to  go  for  it,  because 
I think  it  will  deceive  nobody.  It  will  be 
easily  understood,  and  it  is  practicable,  and  I 
shall  support  it,  although  I once  had  considera- 
ble opposition  to  it. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I did  not  intend  to  say  one 
word  on  this  question ; I shall  speak  but  a 
minute  or  two.  Since  this  Convention  has  con- 
vened I have  heard  the  private  conversation 
and  the  speeches  of  the  gentlemen  upon  a 
change  of  the  system  of  voting.  Very  fine  argu- 
ments have  been  made  for  the  various  systems, 
and  it  is  the  same  thing,  perhaps,  although 
called  by  a different  name.  Intelligent  gentle- 
men have  satisfied  me  that  they  are  masters  of 
the  subject,  but  they  have  failed  to  satisfy  me 
that  our  system  of  voting  should  be  changed. 
They  proceed  first  upon  the  supposition  that 
we  have  one  kind  of  voting  for  judges.  We 
may  have  “restrictive  suffrage;”  so  that  out  of 
five  judges  we  may  vote  for  three,  making  a 
man  three-fifths  of  a whole  man,  taking  two- 
fifths  of  his  right  away.  There  is  another  kind 
of  voting  that  they  call  “cumulative  voting,” 
and  another  kind,  “minority  voting,”  and  an- 
other kind,  “proportional  representation,”  and 
every  kind  of  thing.  It  presents  itself  to  me 
like  an  animal  with  seven  heads  and  ten  horns. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  That  is  the  point  exactly. 

Mr.  CLAY.  In  order  to  carry  out  the  idea  of 
the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  you 
must  have  one  kind  of  voting  for  the  judges  of 
the  supreme  court;  you  must  have  one  election 
for  that.  To  carry  out  the  idea  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  you  must 
have  one  election  for  that;  and  to  carry  out  the 
idea  of  the  compromise  proposed  by  the  honor- 
able gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell], 
you  must  have  another  election  day  for  that; 


and  for  the  election  of  county  officers,  you  must 
have  another  election  day. 

Mr.  POWELL.  My  system  comes  in  with 
the  old  system,  it  does  not  require  another  day 
at  all. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I understand  that  certain  of  the 
people  will  not  be  able  to  comprehend  all  these 
various  systems. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  say  one  word  ? 

Mr.  CLAY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is  not  my  system  at  all. 
I am  with  the  gentleman  in  favor  of  the  old 
system,  and  I shall  go  for  this  system,  if  they 
will  adopt  it. 

Mr.  CLAY.  Then  I am  with  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  in  favor  of  having 
the  system  which  General  Washington  had, 
the  Adamses,  General  Jackson,  Thomas  Jef- 
ferson, Madison  and  Monroe.  That  kind  of 
voting  I am  in  favor  of,  and  that  is  the  system 
I am  in  favor  of.  Something  that  all  men  can 
understand. 

I was  criticising,  in  some  degree,  the  systems 
that  were  proposed,  Mr.  President.  It  is  ne- 
cessary, in  order  to  get  the  people  to  understand 
precisely  how  to  vote  for  the  different  officers, 
and  to  divide  their  votes,  when  they  desire  to 
give  a fraction  to  one,  and  a small  fraction  to 
another,  that  we  build  colleges  in  Ohio  to  teach 
the  people  how  to  vote. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  That  is  another  good  point. 

Mr.  CLAY.  It  has  taken  me  nearly  all  the 
time  of  the  session  of  this  Convention  to  un- 
derstand the  gentlemen,  and  I now  understand 
them.  I believe  the  more  I understand  the 
system,  the  less  I want  of  it.  I am  very  well 
aware  that  gentlemen  say,  you  do  not  under- 
stand it;  you  have  not  studied  it;  but  they 
have  been  beating  it  into  us,  and  have  occupied 
nearly  three-fourths  of  the  time  of  this  Con- 
vention upon  this  question. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Not  one-fourth.  Not  one- 
fifth. 

Mr.  CLAY.  We  have  occupied  weeks  and 
months  upon  this  subject.  Not  only  in  the 
Committee  rooms,  but  in  a Committee  of  the 
Whole,  and  in  the  Convention,  time  has  been 
wasted  upon  this  subject,  and  every  vote  that 
has  been  taken  has  resulted  unfavorably  to  these 
various  propositions,  except  the  one  for  wThich, 
I believe,  I voted  myself,  that  the  question  of 
the  election  of  judges  should  be  submitted  to 
the  people;  and,  when  the  people  vote  upon  it, 
I am  very  well  satisfied  that  seventy-five  per 
cent,  of  the  people  will  reject  it,  unless  they  are 
first  sent  to  college  and  educated,  as  the  learned 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  and  the 
honorable  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey], 
and  the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin [Mr.  Baber],  who  are  the  champions,  I be- 
lieve, of  those  various  systems.  I believe  they 
also  proceed  on  the  idea  that  it  is  an 
evil  to  allow  parties  to  elect  their  majorities 
to  the  Legislature.  It  is  a terrible  crime  to 
have  a party,  or  to  belong  to  a party.  I believe 
I shall  agree  with  the  gentleman  to  abandon  all 
parties — except  the  Democratic  party.  I have 
belonged  to  that  honored  party  all  my  life.  I 
never  did  believe,  from  my  youth  up,  from  the 
time  I had  any  knowledge  of  anything  political, 
that  the  Democratic  party  was  a criminal  party, 


1688 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

Clay,  Baber. 


and  that  its  members  were  criminals,  and  to 
vote  for  the  Democratic  candidate  in  Congress, 
or  in  the  Legislature,  or  for  judges  of  the 
supreme  court,  or  court  of  common  pleas,  was 
a great  crime,  and  that  it  should  be,  in  some 
way,  prohibited.  I have  been  a practising  at- 
torney, for  twenty-two  years,  in  all  the  courts 
of  this  State.  I have  never  yet  feared  a politi- 
cal opponent  upon  the  bench.  If  the  man  was 
elected  judge  of  the  court,  I have  never  feared 
him  because  of  his  politics.  The  people  gen- 
erally select  the  best  man  in  the  Convention, 
and  when  the  people  elect  the  man,  I have 
confidence  in  him.  I do  not  believe  a man  has 
less  influence  because  he  opposes  me  in  poli- 
tics. I have  had  more  confidence  in  political 
opponents  upon  the  bench  than  I have  had  in 
gentlemen  who  belonged  to  my  own  party. 
Very  often  that  has  been  the  case,  and  I do  not 
fear  a political  judge.  It  is  so  with  a Repre- 
sentative. I say  if  Hamilton  county,  by  a 
general  vote,  can  elect  a Democratic  delegation 
to  the  Legislature,  let  them  do  it.  If  I were  a 
voter  in  Hamilton  county,  I would  want  to  have 
it  that  way.  If  in  Cuyahoga  county,  I would 
desire  to  elect  a whole  Democratic  delegation. 
I would  go  to  the  polls  with  my  friend  [Mr. 
Griswold],  and  I would  vote  for  just  that  kind 
of  a delegation.  If  he  defeated  me,  and  elected 
a Republican  delegation,  so  be  it.  It  is  right 
that  these  communities  should  have  their  way, 
and  wherever  the  majority  is,  it  is  perfectly 
right. 

We  have  now,  for  the  first  time  in  twenty 
years,  a Democratic  majority  in  the  Legislature 
of  the  State  of  Ohio.  I believe,  from  what  I 
know,  we  shall  have  a millenium  for  a short 
time.  I have  always  been  satisfied  with  the 
legislation  of  the  State,  notwithstanding  the 
majority  h^s  been  against  me.  Once  in  a 
while  some  politician  has  beaten  me  in  a little 
trickery.  I would  give  him  credit  for  his 
shrewdness,  and  lay  it  up  for  him  to  the  next 
time,  and  then  I would  beat  him  myself  if  I 
could.  That  is  the  way  to  deal  with  matters  of 
this  kind. 

I would  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from  Fair- 
field  [Mr.  Ewing]  whether  it  would  not  be  bet- 
ter to  abandon  all  parties,  and  have  no  nomina- 
tions at  all?  Then  there  would  be  no  use  of 
restrictive  suffrage  or  cumulative  voting.  Aban- 
don all  parties.  Let  the  people  go  to  the  polls; 
make  no  nominations ; let  every  man  vote  for 
his  candidate.  Would  not  that  be  better  under- 
stood— if  a change  must  be  made  ? 

We  do  not  know  that  we  are  always  going  to 
have  a Republican  party ; but  I feel  satisfied 
that  we  shall  not.  We  do  not  know  that  we  are 
going  to  have  these  parties  that  now  exist,  for 
the  next  twenty  years  or  thirty  years.  There 
was  a time  when  there  were  no  parties  in  this 
country ; but  people  went  to  the  polls  and  voted 
for  their  respective  candidates,  and  then  there 
were  a dozen  candidates  for  the  same  office,  and 
the  man  who  got  the  highest  number  of  votes 
was  the  man  elected.  If  we  abandon  all  par- 
ties, it  will  be  much  easier  than  adopting  minor- 
ity voting,  cumulative  voting,  restrictive  suf- 
frage, free  lists,  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  President,  I do  not  propose  to  occupy 
any  more  time;  but  I must  vote  against  the 


[125th 

[Friday, 


amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Griswold]  in  this  case. 

Mr.  BABER.  I understand  the  question  is 
upon  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell].  I did  not  hear 
that  proposition  distinctly  read  ; but  from  the 
explanation  of  the  gentleman,  I take  it  to  be  a 
proposition  to  have  the  election  under  what  is 
called  the  “restrictive  mode,”  instead  of  the 
cumulative  system  of  voting.  I think  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  fully  re- 
plied to  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  upon  that  subject,  and 
I shall  not  repeat  what  he  said,  but  I wish  to 
see  if  I cannot  somewhat  clear  the  muddy  ideas 
of  the  Representative  from  Montgomery  [Mr. 
Clay] — just  such  as  I might  expect  to  come 
from  the  “clay.”  The  gentleman  does  not  appear 
to  comprehend  the  distinction  between  these 
two  systems  of  voting.  He  is  wise  enough  to 
understand  that  when  the  reason  for  the  rule 
ceases,  the  rule  itself  ceases.  The  reason  that 
restrictive  voting  was  advocated  in  the  election 
of  judges  was,  because  it  was  contemplated  to 
give  an  opportunity  for  the  formation  of  a di- 
vided bench;  but,  at  the  same  time,  when 
that  division  takes  place,  it  was  desired  to  be 
made  so  as  not  to  work  any  injury.  The  re- 
strictive voting  was  adopted  as  suggested  by 
my  friend  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  because 
it  requires  about  forty  per  cent,  to  elect  a man 
to  the  bench,  and  I would  dislike  very  much  to 
see  in  an  election  a temperance  faction,  a reli- 
gious faction,  or  some  merely  local  clique, 
amounting  from  one-tenth  to  one-fourth  of  the 
people,  by  cumulating  their  votes  put  a man 
upon  the  bench  who,  in  any  sense,  as  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  said,  would 
be  a representative  judge.  We  do  not  vote  for 
a judge  to  go  there  as  a Representative.  We 
simply  select  a man  as  an  officer  to  pass 
upon  the  laws  made  by  the  legislative  power ; 
and  this  election,  under  this  mode  of  re- 
strictive voting,  would  simply  give  an  oppor- 
tunity to  call  upon  the  whole  talent  of  the 
State — the  bar  upon  each  side — so  that  the  bench 
might  be  divided,  and  not  belong  exclusively, 
in  the  higher  courts,  to  one  political  party.  But, 
Mr.  President,  this  rule  does  not  apply  to  Rep- 
resentatives in  the  General  Assembly.  A 
Representative  is  a man  who  is  selected  to  rep- 
sent  the  different  ideas  of  the  community  who 
sent  him  ; these  ideas  should  be  represented  in 
the  Assembly  in  proportion  to  their  strength. 
The  ideas  of  every  party,  or  every  faction,  have 
certainly  a right  to  a hearing  to  the  extent  to 
which  those  ideas  prevail.  I desire  the  ma- 
jority to  rule;  but  if  the  principle  advocated  in 
this  amendment,  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  is  adopted,  we 
would  not  be  able  to  give  any  representation  to 
these  different  ideas  in  the  community.  It 
would  be  confined  simply  to  forty  per  cent., 
and  prevent  the  voter  from  passing  his  opinion 
on  all  the  candidates  presented. 

I am  in  favor,  where  there  is  a particular 
class  in  a community,  amounting  to  twenty-five 
per  cent,  and  one  over,  that  they  should  have  a 
hearing  and  a Representative.  There  is  no 
practical  difficulty,  as  supposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  in  carry- 
ing out  this  plan.  I differ  from  him  as  to  the 


1689 


Day.] PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

February  27,  1874.]  Baber,  Clay. 


construction  that  he  put  upon  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Griswold],  That  amendment  provides 
expressly,  that  this  division  of  voters  shall  be 
in  equal  parts,  and  the  operation  of  it  in  the 
Constitution,  under  the  construction  which  has 
always  been  given  to  it  in  Illinois,  is,  that  the 
division  shall  not  be  made  in  fractions  less  than 
one-half.  A man  can  give  one  and  a half  votes 
to  each  party,  or  one  to  one  and  two  to  another, 
or  three  as  a plumper  to  one  candidate,  and  if 
any  person  will  examine  the  returns  of  the  polls 
in  the  State  of  Illinois,  they  will  find  there  is  no 
such  difficulty  as  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell]  suggests.  The  vote  is  counted 
the  same  as  any  other  vote.  There  is  a tally- 
sheet  made  out, — so  many  ones  for  A,  so  many 
one  and  a halfs  for  A,  so  many  twos,  so  many 
threes,  and  in  like  manner  for  B,  or  any  other 
candidate  voted  for,  and  the  votes  add  up  just 
as  easily  as  any  other,  and,  practically,  the 
tickets  are  printed  with  the  number  of  votes 
upon  them.  There  is  no  such  difficulty  as  is 
suggested  by  my  friend  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell].  I say,  therefore,  that  under  this 
amendment  proposed  there  can  be  no  division 
of  one-eighth  and  seven-eighths,  as  argued  by 
the  gentleman. 

One  great  objection  to  this  restrictive  system 
is  this : that  in  voting  for  a Representative,  you 
would  deprive  a man  from  voting  for  all  three 
candidates  for  that  position.  It  does  not  seem 
to  me  this  objection  to  the  cumulative  system 
applies  except  in  voting  for  judges,  where  I 
would  be  opposed  to  using  it.  I hope,  there- 
fore, the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  will  not  be  adopted. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  we  have  an  opportunity 
of  testing  the  sincerity  of  gentlemen  upon  this 
floor,  as  declared  long  and  loud  about  the 
tyranny  of  the  large  counties  of  Cuyahoga  and 
Hamilton,  Franklin  and  Montgomery,  and  their 
combinations  to  govern  and  rule  the  State.  We  re- 
jected the  proposition  to  destroy  the  entity  of  the 
counties  of  Hamilton  and  Cuyahoga,  by  a prop- 
osition to  cut  them  up  into  single  districts,  and 
refused  to  go  back  upon  our  whole  system  by 
establishing  some  mode  by  which  there  would 
be  a facility  given  for  gerrymandering  these 
counties  by  certain  court  house  cliques.  I want 
no  such  power  given  to  any  party  or  any  set  of 
men  in  the  State.  Now,  you  have  the  question 
before  you,  and  I think,  from  what  I know  of 
the  majority  of  the  members  representing 
these  counties — the  county  of  Cuyahoga  and 
the  county  of  Hamilton — they  do  not  come 
forward,  as  was  charged  here,  and  combine 
together  for  the  purpose  of  ruling  the  State. 
You  have  a proposition  here  which  practically 
effects  the  very  thing  you  claim  would  be  done 
by  single  districts,  a just  division  between  par- 
ties of  the  Representatives,  without  that  mis- 
chief, and  compel  putting  up,  as  candidates,  of 
ten  men  that  must  be  known  and  can  get  votes 
all  over  the  county.  If  there  are  any  bad  men 
upon  that  ticket  the  better  portion  of  the  com- 
munity may  cumulate  their  votes  so  as  to  de- 
feat them,  and  the  practical  effect  is,  they  will 
probably  be  defeated.  It  seems  to  me  there 
ought  to  be  no  opposition,  if  Cuyahoga  and 
Hamilton  counties  desire  this  mode  of  voting. 
I assert  here  upon  this  floor  that  my  own  coun- 


ty— which  will  be  affected  in  the  third  term  by 
this  amendment,  and  under  the  next  census 
will  have  a Representative  elected  by  the 
minority,  although  we' are  Democratic  by  2,400 
or  2,500  majority — I am  authorized  to  say  this 
upon  this  floor,  because  I took  that  position  at 
the  time  I was  a candidate  before  the  people — 
I would  rejoice  in  seeing  gentlemen  of  the  Re- 
publican party,  men  of  talent  and  ability,  rep- 
resenting them  upon  the  floor  of  the  General 
Assembly,  in  proportion  to  the  strength  of  their 
party.  But  if  they  have  not  soul  enough,  if 
they  have  not  heart  enough  in  their  regions  of 
the  State,  to  extend  the  same  thing  to  the  men 
of  the  opposite  political  parties,  I want  the 
record  of  this  Convention  to  show  it;  but  I take 
it  for  granted  that  it  is  true,  as  remarked  by  the 
gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton],  most 
of  the  other  gentlemen  who  are  attached  to  this 
single  district  system,  if  they  can  accomplish 
the  same  thing  practically  by  the  adoption  of 
this  proportional  system,  and  produce  a division 
in  the  county  of  Cuyahoga  and  in  the  county  of 
Hamilton,  that  they  will  support  the  measure. 

Mr.  President,  I shall  remark,  in  reference  to 
this  proportional  system  of  voting,  that  there  is 
“give  and  take  ” on  both  sides,  whereas, by  the 
system  of  gerrymandering  by  single  districts, 
the  county  of  Hamilton  might  be  so  gerryman- 
dered as  to  secure  eight  or  nine  to  one  party, 
and  one  or  two  to  the  other,  and  probably  in 
Cuyahoga  the  same  might  be  effected  ; but  this 
gives  a fair  thing,  and,  as  it  applies  only  to  these 
counties,  if  their  Representatives  be  in  favor  of 
it,  why  should  we  not  adopt  it,  and  let  it  be 
tried  ? It  is  well  known  I am  opposed  to  ex- 
tending this  system  to  counties  having  less  than 
three  members,  because  I was  in  favor  of  local 
representation  to  the  smaller  class  of  counties, 
and  I think  that  the  whole  idea  of  the  argument 
which  has  been  used  against  the  adoption  of 
this  system  has  been  that  the  people  are  not  in 
favor  of  it.  If  the  larger  counties  are  willing 
to  accept  it,  I hope  the  Convention  will  adopt 
it.  From  Montgomery  county,  there  was  a 
memorial  sent  here,  signed  by  the  leading 
members  of  the  bar  there  of  both  political  par- 
ties— by  John  A.  McMahon,  George  W.  Houk, 
Ed.  Parrott,  Samuel  Craighead,  Harvey  Con- 
over, Judge  J.  C.  McKemy,  Michael  P.  Nolan, 
and  some  twenty  others,  which  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  county  is  largely  in  favor  of 
this  minority  or  proportional  voting,  arid  I say 
this 

Mr.  CLAY.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  BABER.  I decline  to  be  interrupted  at 
present.  I say  this,  that,  so  far  from  a great 
number  or  a majority  of  the  people  opposing 
this  principle  from  their  not  understanding  it, 
that  the  gentleman  is  behind  the  mass  of  the 
people;  that  the  majority  of  both  political  par- 
ties are  prepared  to  vote  for  this  progressive 
measure,  and  I am  proud  to  say,  upon  this  floor, 
that  the  party  with  which  I am  associated— 
that  is  the  Democratic  party — and  in  which  the 
gentleman  from  Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay]  ap- 
pears to  be  a hold-back,  are,  through  their 
Representatives,  almost  unanimously  in  favor 
of  the  measure,  and  when  that  question  goes 
before  the  people,  to  be  submitted  to  them,  I 
think  the  gentleman  will  find  that  his  county 


1690 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

Clay,  Baber,  Blose,  Powell,  Dorsey. 


will  give  such  a thundering  majority  for  it  that 
it  will  wake  him  out  of  his  grave  clothes. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I would  ask  whether  the  gen- 
tleman did  not  go  personally  into  the  county  of 
Montgomery  for  the  purpose  of  getting  up  that  * 
memorial  of  which  he  speaks  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  My  answer  to  the  gentleman 
from  Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay]  is,  that  as  vice- 
president  of  the  bar  association  of  Colum- 
bus, by  the  order  of  that  association,  in  con- 
junction with  members  of  both  parties,  I did 
take  occasion  to  see  that  these  petitions  were 
circulated,  and  that  they  were  returned  here, 
duly  signed.  If  I am  for  a proposition,  I try  to 
go  for  it  and  to  support  it  to  its  fullest  extent. 
If  the  gentleman  had  gotten  up  a petition  and 
sent  it  to  my  county  on  his  side,  it  would  not 
have  received  the  signatures  of  five  representa- 
tive lawyers. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I have  never  tried,  but  probably 
I could  do  the  same  thing.  I have  seen  quite  a 
number  of  the  prominent  attorneys  that  signed 
that  memorial  that  was  sent  here,  and  they  said 
to  me  they  were  very  glad  that  the  principle 
was  not  to  be  a part  of  the  Judicial  Article; 
and  they  believed  it  was  wrong,  and  they  had 
signed  it  without  consideration. 

Mr.  BABER.  Give  their  names. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I shall  name  no  one ; but  I can 
name  them. 

Mr.  BABER.  Ah ! 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I rise  to  a question  of  privilege. 
I hope  that  I am  no  trimmer  in  this  Convention. 
I think  some  might  consider  that  I am,  from 
the  fact  that  the  circumstances  by  which  1 am 
surrounded,  did  not  allow  me  to  get  dinner  to- 
day ; so  that  I was  not  able  to  reach  the  Con- 
vention in  time  to  cast  my  vote  on  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Hor- 
ton]. I would  like  to  have  my  vote  recorded. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  Mr.  Blose  voted — no. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I merely  rise  to  speak  with 
regard  to  the  mode  in  which  the  question  is  to 
be  put.  I intended  my  motion  to  be  a substi- 
tute for  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  [Mr.  Hitch- 
cock in  the  Chair].  The  Chair  understands  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  pro- 
poses to  amend  the  proposed  amendment,  by 
striking  out  all  after  the  words,  “section  one,” 
and  inserting  the  matter  which  he  offers,  as  an 
amendment. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I shall  not  detain  the  Con- 
vention more  than  five  minutes  upon  this  sub- 
ject. I shall  not  vote  for  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  but  I 
intend  to  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold].  It  will 
be  seen  by  those  gentlemen  who  have  paid  at- 
tention to  the  Proposition  as  submitted  by  the 
Committee  on  Apportionment,  that  in  the  sixth 
section  of  this  Proposition,  it  was  stated  that, 
“in  voting  for  Senators,  or  in  voting  for  Repre- 
sentatives in  counties  entitled  to  more  than 
two  Representatives,  each  elector  may  cast  as 
many  votes  as  there  are  Senator*  or  Represent- 
atives to  be  elected,  or  he  may  distribute  the 
same,  or  equal  parts  thereof,  among  the  candi- 
dates as  he  may  see  fit,  and  the  candidates  high- 
est in  votes  shall  be  declared  elected.”  There 
the  proportional  mode  of  voting  was  applied 


[125th 

[Friday, 


both  to  Senators  and  Representatives.  It  has 
been  thought  better  by  some  gentlemen  to  con- 
sider the  organization  of  the  House  separate 
from  that  of  the  Senate.  I agree  to  that.  Iam 
perfectly  willing  to  see  that  system  pursued, 
and  that  we  complete  the  organization  of  the 
House,  and  determine  whether  this  Convention 
is  willing  that,  in  counties  where  there  are 
more  than  two  Representatives,  they  shall  be 
elected  by  proportional  voting. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  for  me  to  say  that  I 
am  in  favor  of  this  mode  of  electing  these  dele- 
gates. I have  been  so  from  the  commencement 
of  this  Convention,  and  for  a long  time  before. 
I need,  perhaps,  scarcely  say  that  I am  in  favor 
of  electing  them  by  the  cumulative  system,  and 
not  by  the  restrictive  system,  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell].  I 
made  no  objection  to  the  restrictive  system  as 
applied  to  the  election  of  judges;  and  I concur 
entirely  in  the  very  able  and  clear  and  forcible 
remarks  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing],  in  which  he  has  stated  the  rea- 
sons why  the  restrictive  system  is  preferable  in 
the  election  of  judges,  and  why  the  cumulative 
system  is  preferable  in  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  General  Assembly. 

I shall  add  nothing  with  regard  to  that;  but 
I wish  to  make  a few  remarks  to  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  with  regard  to 
the  principle  of  applying  this  cumulative  plan 
of  voting  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  the 
General  Assembly.  The  gentleman  stated  that, 
under  the  present  system,  each  and  every  polit- 
ical shade  of  opinion  has  a right  to  vote  for  its 
candidate.  That  is  true;  but  the  gentleman 
knows  just  as  well  as  I can  tell  him,  that  if  each 
and  every  shade  of  political  opinion  votes  for 
its  own  particular  candidate,  that  vote  is  thrown 
awajT.  It  does  not  amount  to  anything.  The 
large  parties  are  those  that  carry  the  day;  and 
the  party  that  can  command  only  a tenth  or  a 
fifth  part  of  the  whole  number  of  votes  given 
in  the  county  has  no  possible  chance  to  elect  its 
Representative  as  a delegate  to  the  General 
Assembly.  What  we  propose  is,  as  has  been  so 
plainly  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  to  give  every  shade  of  political 
opinion  in  a county,  like  Hamilton,  for  exam- 
ple, where  a large  number  of  delegates  are  to 
be  elected,  if  they  can  command  a tenth  of  the 
whole  number  of  votes  in  the  county,  the 
power  and  the  privilege  to  have  their  political 
opinions  and  political  views  represented  on  the 
floor  of  the  General  Assembly.  The  two  great 
parties  in  the  county  of  Hamilton  are  the  Re- 
publican and  Dembcratic  parties.  There  is  a 
third  party  coming  into  importance,  the  labor- 
reform  party,  a party  that  commands  many  of 
the  best  men  in  the  community,  which,  per- 
haps, could  not  compete  with  either  the  Repub- 
lican or  the  Democratic  party  in  strength  in 
the  county  of  Hamilton,  at  the  present  time; 
but  I presume  that  it  could  command  a tenth, 
or  perhaps  more  than  a tenth  part  of  the  whole 
number  of  votes ; perhaps  it  could  command  a 
ninth  part  of  the  whole  number  of  votes;  per- 
haps it  could  command  an  eighth  of  the  whole 
number  of  votes,  and  if  it  could  command  not 
any  more  than  a tenth  of  the  whole  number  of 
votes  given  in  Hamilton  county,  that  will  ena- 
ble the  party,  as  a party  holding  political  opin- 


1691 


Day.] PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

February  27,  1874.]  Dorsey,  Clay,  Griswold,  Baber,  Townsend. 


ions,  to  one  Representative  upon  the  floor  of 
the  General  Assembly.  That  is  why  I favor 
this  amendment,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  I 
favor  this  cumulative  system  of  voting. 

A word,  further,  in  reply  to  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  and  in  reply  to 
the  gentleman  from  Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay], 
who  states  that  we  are  going  to  get  into  great 
difficulty  when  carrying  out  this  system,  be- 
cause it  is  something  new,  and,  therefore,  it 
cannot  be  readily  understood.  Allow  me  to 
say  that  this  matter  has  been  fully  tried  in  the 
State  of  Illinois,  within  the  past  three  years, 
where  they  have  elected  their  Representatives 
to  the  lower  House  in  this  way,  and  I have 
letters  from  two  very  prominent  men  in  the 
State  of  Illinois,  with  regard  to  its  mode  of 
operation.  I read  one  of  them  at  Columbus, 
during  the  partial  discussion  of  this  matter, 
from  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of 
Illinois,  in  which  he  made  the  remark  that“  the 
people  were  well  satisfied  with  the  system  as  it 
worked  in  Illinois,  and  that  it  was  an  incentive 
to  good  party  nominations.’,  I now  take  occa- 
sion to  read  an  extract  from  the  letter  of  a 
prominent  lawyer  of  Shawneetown,  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  State,  in  which  he  makes 
the  following  remarks : 

“I  can  safely  say,  that  a majority  of  both  political  par- 
ties join  in  declaring  it  the  most  just  and  equitable  mode 
of  ascertaining  the  public  will  of  the  voters.  It  gives  a 
fair  representation  of  political  parties.  We,  at  first,  an- 
ticipated confusion  and  difficulty  by  the  people  in  com- 
prehending it,  but  the  last  November  election  demon- 
strated completely  that  it  was  easily  understood,  and 
dissipated  the  fears  of  any  difficulty  of  putting  it  into 
practical  operation.” 

A single  fact  is  worth  a host  of  theories  in 
this  matter.  This  thing  has  been  tried  in  the 
neighboring  State  of  Illinois.  It  has  given 
satisfaction  to  both  the  great  political  parties  of 
the  State.  Neither  of  them  desire  to  return  to 
the  old  system.  The  people  understand  it 
easily;  they  put  it  in  practice  with  facility.  It 
operates  perfectly  well,  and  every  one  is  agreed 
to  it. 

When  we  can  place  before  you  a system  like 
this,  which  forces  good  partisan  nominations 
among  the  different  parties  of  the  State,  which 
allows  each  and  every  party  that  can  give  any 
more  than  from  one-tenth  up  to  a fourth  where 
there  are  only  three  Representatives  to  be  elected, 
of  the  votes  to  be  given  in  a county,  which  allows 
even  the  small  minority  to  have  its  fair  and  just 
representation  upon  the  floor  of  the  General 
Assembly — I submit  to  the  gentlemen  of  this 
Convention,  as  I hope  to  ask  the  people  of  Ohio 
hereafter  to  determine  that  question,  if  it  is  not 
reasonable  and  just  that  all  these  principles 
should  have  a representation  upon  the  floor  ? 
There  cannot  be  two  sides  to  this  question.  The 
people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  desire  to  see  all  the 
people  represented  upon  the  floor  of  the  Gener- 
al Assembly,  and  it  is  not  simply  the  Democrat- 
ic or  Republican  parties,  but  the  other  great 
parties.  1 say  great  parties,  not  in  reference  to 
the  great  number  of  persons  engaged  in  their 
support,  but  in  reference  to  the  great  principles 
which  they  uphold.  The  Labor  Reform  party, 
the  Liquor  party,  if  you  please,  for  they  have 
the  same  right  to  be  represented  as  their  oppo- 
nents have.  The  liquor  men  have  the  same 


right  to  representation  that  the  temperance  men 
have,  and  if  the  temperance  men,  in  one  portion 
of  the  State,  elect  a delegate,  let  the  liquor  men 
also  have  a chance  to  elect  a candidate,  and  let 
the  matter  be  fought  out  on  the  floor  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  Let  all  the  parties  of  the  State 
be  represented.  What  we  desire,  is  a represen- 
tation of  the  whole  people  in  the  General  As- 
sembly. That  is  precisely  what  this  proposition 
is  prepared  to  give  to  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  and,  therefore,  I am  in  favor  of  it;  and  I 
am  perfectly  willing  to  have  it  submitted  to  the 
Convention  now,  as  a part  of  the  organization 
of  the  lower  House;  and  then,  when  we  come 
to  organize  the  Senate,  we  shall  present  our 
opinions  in  regard  to  that. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I would  like  to  ask  one  ques- 
tion of  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CLAY.  Under  the  system  of  voting  in 
Illinois,  I would  ask  if,  in  Chicago,  a majority 
of  the  Board  of  Education  are  not  saloon  keep- 
ers, as  well  as  the  city  treasurer  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY".  That  may  be.  I presume  it 
is  true.  Has  the  gentleman  any  assurance  that 
that  would  not  occur  under  the  old  system  ? 

Mr.  CLAY.  It  never  did. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  treasurer  was  not 
elected  under  this  system. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey]  give  way  for  a moment? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro.  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man has  not  the  floor,  except  by  the  consent  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend], 
whom  the  Chair  has  recognized. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I want  to  say  I am  not  fami- 
liar with  the  politics  of  Illinois;  and  if  any 
gentleman  can  more  properly  answer  the  ques- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Montgomery  [Mr. 
Clay],  I shall  be  glad  to  have  him  do  it. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I wish  to  make  an  in- 
quiry of  the  Chair,  whether  a motion  to  close 
debate  would  be  in  order,  and  what  would  be  its 
effect  in  case  it  was  entertained  and  adopted? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
is  of  the  impression  that  that  motion  is,  without 
doubt,  in  order;  but  while  the  Convention  is  in 
consideration  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  that  Report  having  simply  recom- 
mended to  strike  out  the  whole  Proposition,  the 
Convention  has  gone  into  the  consideration  of 
the  matter  proposed  to  be  stricken  out,  and  are 
now  acting  upon  the  amendment  for  the  same. 
The  Convention  would  be  compelled  to  act  upon 
what  is  known  as  Rule  69,  limiting  debate. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  But  debate  upon  the 
amendment  would  be  the  same  as  now;  we 
would  not  be  brought  to  a direct  vote  upon  the 
recommendation  ot  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
thinks  not. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move,  then,  that  the 
debate  now  close,  in  order  that  we  may  get  back 
under  the  rules  where  the  debate  will  be  con- 
fined to  ten  minutes,  and  one  speech  upon  the 
amendment.  I am  satisfied  this  question  has 
been  sufficiently  elaborated.  The  gentlemen  in 
favor  of  the  measure  have  had  ample  time  and 
opportunity  to  give  their  views,  and  to  inform 
the  Convention,  and  I,  therefore,  desire  to  pro- 
ceed in  order  to  accomplish  something.  I trust 
this  motion  will  prevail. 


1692 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

Griswold,  Powell,  Herron,  Johnson,  Pease,  Godfrey,  Voris. 


[125th 

[Friday, 


Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Is  that  in  order  while  an 
amendment  is  pending? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
thinks  there  is  no  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  to  ask  a question  first  ? 
If  we  vote  for  the  close  of  general  debate,  where 
do  we  begin  next? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
regards  the  motion  to  close  general  debate  as 
one  that  may  be  made  at  any  time,  and  if  the 
question  is  agreed  to,  the  question  before  the 
Convention  will  be  upon  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]. 

No  objection  being  made,  the  general  debate 
was  closed. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  now  upon  agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  to 
strike  out  all  after  the  amendment  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold], 
after  the  words  “ section  four,”  and  insert: 

“la  voting  for  Senators,  or  in  voting  for  Representa- 
tives in  a county  entitled  to  more  than  two  Representa- 
tives, each  elector  shall  vote  for  two  candidates,  when 
there  are  three  to  he  elected,  and  lor  a majority  of  the 
candidates  to  be  elected  when  there  are  more  than  three 
such  candidates  to  he  elected,  and  the  candidates  having 
the  highest  number  of  votes  shall  be  declared  elected.” 

A division  was  called  for. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
will  first  turn  upon  striking  out  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Do  I understand  a refusal  to 
strike  out  will  be  an  adoption  of  the  amend- 
ment ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  A refusal  to 
strike  out  will  be  an  agreement  to  the  matter  in 
the  form  as  it  was  presented  by  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  but  it  is  not 
agreeing  to  it  as  an  amendment. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  A few  minutes  ago  my  col- 
league [Mr.  Bishop]  was  necessitated  to  leave 
the  Convention,  and  requested  me  to  pair  off 
with  him  in  voting  upon  this  question. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Is  there  any 
objection? 

Mr.  PEASE.  There  is  no  objection  if  there 
is  a quorum.  If  there  is  not,  I object. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  is 
unable  to  decide  that  at  this  point. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  I ask  to  be  excused  from 
voting,  as  I have  paired  off  with  the  gentleman 
from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal.] 

Mr.  VORIS.  I object  if  it  will  so  affect  the 
Convention  that  a quorum  will  not  vote. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  suggest  that  the 
gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  be  paired 
oft’  with  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Bishop].  That  will  enable  both  the  gentleman 
from  Mercer  [Mr.  Godfrey]  and  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]  to  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  is 
no  objection,  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Bishop]  and  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal]  will  be  considered  as  having  paired 
oft. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  28,  nays  32,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Bosworth,  Caldwell,  Chapin, 
Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  Doan,  Gurley,  Herron,  Hitch- 


cock, Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kraemer,  Mc- 
Bride, Miller,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Tulloss,  Van  Val- 
kenburgh,  Waddle,  Woodbury,  President — 28. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Burns,  Carbery, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Dor- 
sey, Ewing,  Godfrey,  Griswold,  Hale,  Hostet- 
ter,  Kerr,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Okey,  Page, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskin- 
gum, Shaw,  Steedman,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voris, 
Weaver,  Young  of  Noble — 32. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  Mr.  Griswold's 
amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  agreeing  to  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga,  [Mr.,  Gris- 
wold]. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  21,  nays  37,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Burns,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Godfrey, 
Griswold,  Hale,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen, 
Page,  Philips,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Steedman,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsley,  Tyler, 
Young  of  Noble — 21. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Bosworth,  Caldwell,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  Doan,  Gurley,  Her- 
ron, Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Jackson, 
Johnson,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Miller,  Okey, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Shaw,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Van 
Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Weaver,  Woodbury,  President — 37. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Herron  sent  up  a motion  to  the  Secre- 
tary’s desk. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Mr.  Herron  moves  to  strike  out  of  the  Article  sec- 
tion 6.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  wishes,  at  this 
point,  to  state,  on  account  of  apparent  inconsist- 
ency arising  out  of  his  answer  to  the  question  ask- 
ed by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga,  that  he  was 
disposed  to  give  that  interpretation  to  the  rule 
which  he  supposed  would  the  most  nearly  carry 
out  the  sense  of  the  Convention,  so  long  as 
there  was  no  certainty  as  to  what  should  be  the 
proper  construction  of  Rule  69,  in  acting  upon 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
The  Convention  having,  under  another  rule, 
gone  to  perfecting  the  original  Proposition  be- 
fore acting  upon  that  Report,  and  having  enter- 
tained the  motion  to  close  general  debate,  sup- 
posing that,  under  the  rules,  this  order  might 
be  made  at  any  time.  The  Convention,  having 
disposed  of  the  question  before  it,  would,  as  a 
necessity  of  that  ruling,  now  be  called  upon  to 
commence  with  the  first  section  of  the  Propo- 
sition, considering  the  Proposition  section  by 
section,  in  the  order  of  the  sections. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  ask  whether  it  has 
not,  in  all  cases  heretofore,  been  the  rule  that 
amendments  proposed  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  should  be  considered  first,  before  we 
proceed  to  consider  the  Proposition  section  by 
section  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

Hale,  Griswold,  Herron,  Dorsey. 


1893 


Day.] 

February  27, 1874.] 


that  to  be  the  rule  perfectly  well.  But,  at  the 
time  the  Report  came  back  from  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  the  Committee  having  simply 
recommended  the  striking  out  of  the  entire 
Proposition,  and  nothing  more,  the  Chair  ruled 
that  it  was  proper  to  perfect  the  original  Propo- 
sition before  acting  upon  the  recommendation  to 
strike  out.  I think  the  Chair  is  correct  in  that 
statement,  and  the  Convention  has  been  engaged 
two  days  in  that  work. 

Mr.  HALE.  I do  not  desire  to  question  the 
ruling  of  the  Chair,  but,  as  I understand  it,  the 
main  question  now  before  the  Convention  is  to 
agree  or  disagree  to  the  recommendation  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  which  is  to  strike  out 
the  whole  Proposition,  and  substitute  that  of 
the  minority. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  not  the  motion  at 
all. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  remind 
the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  that  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  simply 
recommended  the  striking  out  of  the  entire 
Proposition,  and  did  not  recommend  the  inser- 
tion of  any  matter. 

Mr.  HALE.  Then,  I understand  the  main 
question  before  the  Convention  is  as  to  striking 
out  the  Proposition  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  strik- 
ing out. 

Mr.  HALE.  Now,  that  we  have  proceeded) 
under  the  ruling  of  the  Chair,  to  amend  the 
matter  proposed  to  be  stricken  out,  and  have 
proceeded  along  in  that  way  for  two  days,  gen- 
eral debate  having  closed,  I can  see  nothing  to 
prevent  us  from  following  the  course  we  have 
pursued,  except  that  debates  be  limited,  under 
the  rule,  to  ten  minutes — that  is,  that  we  keep 
right  along  as  we  have  been  going,  except  that 
it  be  in  restricted  debate  instead  of  general 
debate. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  very  ready 
to  adopt  that  course,  and  would  have  said  so  had 
the  Convention  given  him  time.  The  Chair  sim- 
ply spoke  of  the  fact  that  the  rule  requires,  gen- 
eral debate  having  closed,  that  the  Proposition 
should  be  taken  up  and  acted  upon  section  by 
section.  If  there  be  no  exception  taken,  the 
Chair  would  be  glad  to  entertain  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron] . 

Mr.  GRISWDLD.  There  is  nothing  to  pro- 
ceed upon  section  by  section  except  as  proposed 
by  the  amendment. 

Mr.  HALE.  I understand  the  Chair  to  say 
that  he  will  entertain  the  motion  to  amend. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  receive 
it  in  that  form  unless  there  is  exception  made. 
The  question  is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron]  to  strike  out 
section  six  from  the  original  Proposition. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I have  but  very  few  words 
to  say  in  reference  to  this  amendment.  As  I 
understand  it,  all  the  amendments  proposed  in 
reference  to  the  House  of  Representatives  have 
been  acted  upon  by  the  Convention,  and  I think 
that  this  amendment,  and  one  other,  probably, 
in  reference  to  the  number  of  Senators,  are  the 
only  ones  left,  really,  upon  which  the  Conven- 
tion will  be  called  upon  to  act  in  reference  to 
this  Report.  When  these  two  amendments  have 
been  acted  upon,  I think  that  the  Committee 
will  be  willing  that  the  Convention  shall  refer 


the  Report  back  to  them  to  arrange  it  in  accord- 
ance with  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  Con- 
vention ; and  I hope  that  this  amendment  fol- 
lowed by  the  one  offered  the  other  day  by  the 
gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  will  settle 
all  the  questions  in  controversy  between  the 
members  of  this  Convention,  so  that  the  Com- 
mittee can  take  the  action  of  the  Convention, 
and  upon  it  arrange  the  Report  in  the  manner 
best  suited  to  their  views,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  views  expressed  by  the  Convention. 
This  is  my  only  object  in  offering  this  amend- 
ment. It  seems  to  me  that  it  should  come  prior 
to  the  amendment  suggested  by  the  gentleman 
from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  in  reference  to  the 
number  of  Senators,  because  if  we  determine 
that  the  Senators  shall  be  elected  by  the  system 
of  proportional  voting,  then  it  is  settled  also,  I 
think,  that  the  number  of  senatorial  districts 
will  have  to  be  changed. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  a proposition  which  I 
desire  to  submit  now  to  the  Convention,  and 
which  I think  will  save  time,  and  answer,  I pre- 
sume, the  purpose  indicated  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron].  I believe  it  will 
be  in  order,  and,  as  I,  perhaps,  can  read  it  more 
easily  than  the  Secretary,  I will  ask  the  privi- 
lege of  reading  it. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  My  proposition  is  as  follows  : 
At  the  time  when  the  votes  of  the  electors  shall 
be  taken  for  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  this 
Constitution,  the  section  following,  to  wit : 

“Sec.  6.  In  voting  for  Senators,  or  in  voting  for  Repre- 
sentatives in  the  counties  entitled  to  more  than  two  Reu- 
resentatives,  each  elector  may  cast  as  many  votes  as  there 
are  Senators  or  Representatives  to  be  elected,  or  distrib- 
ute the  same,  or  equal  parts  thereof,  among  the  candidates 
as  he  may  see  fit,  and  the  candidates  of  highest  votes 
shall  be  declared  elected.” 

Shall  be  separately  submitted  to  the  electors 
for  adoption  or  rejection  in  the  form  following, 
to  wit : 

“A  separate  ballot  may  be  given  by  every  elector,  and 
deposited  in  a separate  box.  Upon  the  ballots  given  for 
said  section  shall  be  written  or  printed,  or  partly  written 
and  partly  printed,  the  words,  ‘Proportional  Representa- 
tion— Yes’;  and  upon  the  ballot  given  against  said  sec- 
tion, in  like  manner,  the  words,  ‘Proportional  Represen- 
tation—No.’  ” 

If,  at  the  said  election,  a majority  of  all  the 
votes  given  for  and  against  said  section,  shall 
contain  the  words  “ Proportional  Representa- 
tion— Yes,”  then  said  section  six  and  also  sec- 
tion three  of  the  same  Proposition  shall  be  a 
part  of  Article  XI  of  this  Constitution ; and 
whenever  three  or  more  officers  of  the  same 
class  are  to  be  elected  in  one  district  it  shall  be 
by  proportional  voting.  But  if,  at  said  election, 
a majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  for  and  against 
said  section  shall  contain  the  words  “ Propor- 
tional Representation  — No,”  then  the  provi- 
sions of  the  Constitution  of  1851,  in  regard  to  the 
election  of  Senators,  as  contained  in  sections 
six,  seven,  eight,  and  nine,  of  Article  XI  of 
the  present  Constitution,  as  amended  by  this 
Convention,  shall  stand  as  the  organization  of 
the  Senate,  and  the  proportional  voting  shall 
not  be  adopted  in  the  election  of  any  officers  in 
the  State,  except  as  provided  in  this  Schedule  for 
the  election  of  judges  of  the  supreme  court.” 

I desire  to  offer  that  proposition  as  a substi- 
tute for  any  further  action  with  regard  to  this 


1694 


PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION. 

Dorsey,  Ewing,  Hale,  Baber. 


[125th 


section  at  the  present  time.  It  will  be  observed , 
Mr.  President,  that  in  case  of  the  rejection  of 
this  proposition,  I propose  that  sections  six, 
seven,  eight  and  nine,  of  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, as  amended  by  this  Convention,  shall  stand 
as  the  organization  of  the  Senate.  I will  not 
detain  the  Convention  now  with  my  reasons  for 
submitting  this  proposition,  nor  will  I now  go 
into  an  elaborate  statement  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  it  will  accomplish  all  that  gentle- 
men desire  when  they  propose  to  have  the  State 
divided  into  over  thirty  districts.  When  the 
time  comes  for  discussing  this  matter,  I hold 
myself  prepared  to  show  that  we  can,  in  this 
way,  make  a fair  and  equitable  distribution  of 
the  districts  of  the  State,  provided  the  system 
of  ten  districts  and  proportional  representation 
be  rejected.  I make  the  motion  now  to  substi- 
tute this  proposition  of  submission  to  stand  in 
lieu  of  any  further  discussion  at  the  present 
time  on  the  subject  of  the  organization  of  the 
Senate. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  in  that  form 
would  not  be  in  order  at  this  time.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron]  has  made 
a direct  motion  to  strike  out  section  six  of  the 
Proposition,  and  no  other  motion  to  amend 
would  be  in  order  at  the  present  time,  except  to 
change  that  direct  motion. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I was  not  sure  the  motion 
would  be  in  order  at  this  time.  If  it  is  not,  I 
propose  to  offer  that  proposition  of  submission 
so  soon  as  I can  have  the  opportunity  of  mak- 
ing it  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Should  the  motion  of  J 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron]  j 
prevail,  it  would  be  in  order  to  insert  this  sec- 1 
tion,  as  proposed,  in  place  of  the  section  stricken  j 
out. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Exactly.  Very  well,  sir,  I ; 
will  withdraw  my  proposition  until  that  time. 

Mr.  EWING.  I ask  that  the  section  pro- 
posed to  be  stricken  out  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  6.  In  voting  for  Senators,  or  in  voting  for  Repre-  j 
sentatives,  in  the  counties  entitled  to  more  than  two 
Reoresentatives,  each  elector  may  cast  as  many  votes  as  ] 
there  are  Senators  and  Representatives  to  be  elected,  or  i 
he  may  distribute  the  same,  or  equal  parts  thereof,  among 
the  candidates  as  he  may  see  fit,  and  the  candidates  high- 
est in  votes  shall  be  dec  ared  elected.” 

Upon  the  question  of  striking  out,  the  yeas  ! 
and  nays  were  demanded, taken,  and  resulted — 
yeas  40,  nays  20,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Blose,  Bos  worth,  Caldwell, , 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  | 
Doan,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hor-  j 
ton,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Krae-  j 
mer,  McBride,  Miller,  Okey,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Shaw,  Shultz,  j 
Smith  of  Highland,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Van 
Voorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  Woodbury, 
President — 40. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Burns,  Carbery,  Cowen,  De  j 
Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Godfrey,  Griswold, 
Mitchener,  Mueller,  Page,  Riekly,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Steedman,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Townsley,  Tyler,  Young  of  Noble — 20.  1 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  1 desire  now,  Mr.  President, 
to  bring  forward  the  proposition  which  I read, 


[Friday, 


and  I ask  that  it  be  read  by  the  Secretary  in 
order  that  it  may  be  more  thoroughly  under- 
stood by  the  Convention.  I will  say  that  I do 
this  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  action 
of  the  Convention.  Any  remarks  I may  have 
to  make,  I will  reserve  until  after  the  proposi- 
tion is  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  proposition. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  In  consideration  of  the  vote 
taken  this  afternoon,  the  portion  of  the  propo- 
sition contained  in  section  six  having  been 
voted  down,  I will  ask  leave  for  the  present  to 
withdraw  that  proposition,  in  order  that  I may 
have  a chance  of  submitting  it  in  a different 
shape. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  HALE.  I offered  an  amendment  to  sec- 
tion three,  as  printed.  At  the  solicitation  of 
certain  gentlemen  I withdrew  that  amendment, 
which,  however,  I now  wish  to  renew.  The 
amendment  to  section  three  was  to  strike  from 
that  section,  in  line  one,  the  word  “ ten,”  and 
insert  the  words  “thirty-two,”  so  as  to  raise 
the  question  relative  to  the  number  of  sena- 

tnrifil  rlistripfci 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Lo- 
rain [Mr.  Hale]  renews  his  motion  to  amend 
section  three,  so  that  the  amended  clause  may 
read  : “ The  State  shall  be  divided  into  thirty- 
two  senatorial  districts.” 

Mr.  HALE.  I do  not  desire  to  discuss  the 
question,  of  course.  It  has  been  before  the 
Convention  so  many  times,  in  so  many  different 
shapes,  that  each  one  of  us  has  made  up  his 
mind  as  to  how  he  will  vote.  1 simply  desire 
to  raise  directly  the  question  in  the  Convention 
whether  we  shall  have  these  large  senatorial 
districts,  embracing  within  each  district  about 
two  congressional  districts,  or  whether  we 
shall  have  single  senatorial  districts.  It  is  for 
the  purpose  of  raising  that  question  that  I make 
this  motion. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  the  motion  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  will  not  be 
adopted.  I see  no  reason  why,  if  we  are  to  have 
single  senatorial  districts,  there  should  be  any 
change  made  in  the  present  senatorial  districts. 
If  that  is  to  be  the  system,  I,  for  one,  am  con- 
tent with  the  districts  as  they  are.  I think 
the  gentleman  has  had  practical  experience 
enough  himself  on  that  Judiciary  Committee 
to  know  that  the  great  difficulty  has  been  in 
agreeing  upon  a system  of  single  senatorial 
districts,  and,  as  we  have  adopted  a resolution 
to-day  to  adjourn  on  the  thirty-first  of  March, 
if  this  Convention  goes  into  the  job  of  creating 
a new  system  of  single  senatorial  districts,  we 
shall  be  found  here  upon  the  fourth  day  of 
July.  I hope,  therefore,  that  the  motion  will 
be  voted  down,  because,  if  we  are  to  have  these 
senatorial  districts,  1 am  in  favor  of  having 
them  exactly  as  they  are. 

Mr.  HALE.  What  do  you  propose  to  do  with 
this  Article?  I propose  to  put  this  Article  into 
shape,  so  that  we  shall  declare  ourselves  one 
way  or  the  other — in  favor  of  the  single,  or  in 
favor  of  the  three-cornered  system.  Then, 
when  that  is  done,  the  remainder  of  this  whole 
section  must  be  changed,  if  we  declare  in  favor 
of  the  single  system.  After  that,  if  the  Com- 
mittee propose  to  recommend  the  system  of 
Senatorial  districts,  as  they  are  now  eonstitu- 


Day.] 

February  27,  1874.] 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Hale,  Baber,  Herron,  Griswold. 


1695 


ted,  perhaps  that  system  can  be  adopted.  We 
have  to  act  upon  the  matter  either  the  one  way 
or  the  other ; and  I propose  to  test  the  question 
whether  we  shall  have  the  single  or  the  three- 
cornered  districts.  Then,  if  you  propose  to 
have  single  districts,  or  if  you  propose  to  sub- 
stitute and  put  in  the  Senatorial  districts  as 
now  provided,  that  is  another  question. 

Mr.  BABER.  I think  there  is  some  force  in 
what  the  gentleman  has  said.  I was  simply  de- 
claring my  ideas  about  the  matter,  because  un- 
der the  present  Senatorial  district  system,  as  I 
understand  it,  although  the  districts  are  laid 
down  by  lines,  still,  from  the  increase  of  popu- 
lation, there  is  no  injustice  done,  because  the 
number  of  Senators  increases  as  the  population 
is  increased.  I believe  the  number  of  Senato- 
rial districts  now  in  Ohio  is  thirty-three.  I 
think  it  is  fixed  by  the  Constitution.  I,  there- 
fore, move  to  substitute  “thirty-five”  for 
“thirty-two.” 

Mr.  HALE.  I am  not  particular  about  that. 
What  I want  to  get  at  is  to  know  the  principle 
we  are  to  act  upon.  I call  for  a division  of  the 
question.  The  question  will,  therefore,  be  first 
upon  striking  out,  and  then  we  can  perfect  the 
number  to  be  inserted. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I believe  the  State  is  at  pres- 
ent divided  into  that  number  of  Senatorial  dis- 
tricts, namely,  thirty-five. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Thirty-three. 

Mr.  HERRON.  And  I believe,  with  all  def- 
ference  to  the  remark  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  that  the  Judiciary 
Committee  has  agreed  upon  a proposition  divi- 
ding the  State  into  some  forty  judicial  subdivi- 
sions, a distribution,  I believe,  satisfactory  to 
almost  every  member  of  the  Convention,  with 
very  few  exceptions.  And  the  Committee  have 
had  not  only  the  question  of  population,  but  the 
question  of  business,  to  determine  them  in 
making  that  distribution,  and  they  have  suc- 
ceeded, in  two  or  three  night  sessions,  in 
making  a distribution  of  the  State  into  forty-odd 
subdivisions,  a distribution  which,  as  I said  be- 
fore, is  satisfactory,  I believe,  to  almost  every 
member  of  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  the  word  “ten.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  41,  nays  18,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Caldwell, 
Chapin, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  De 
Steiguer,  Doan,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Horton, 
Hostetter,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
McBride,  Miller,  Mueller,  Okey,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Shaw,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Van 
Voorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  Woodbury, 
President — 41. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Burns,  Carbery,  Cowen,  Dor- 
sey, Ewing,  Godfrey,  Griswold,  Mitchener, 
Powell,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskin- 
gum, Steedman,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsley, 
Tyler,  Young  of  Noble — 18. 

Mr.  Hitchcock  was  excused  from  voting, 
having  paired  with  the  gentleman  from  Holmes 
[Mr.  Voorhes]. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 


upon  inserting  in  the  blank  the  word  “thirty- 
two.” 

Mr.  HALE.  With  the  leave  of  the  Conven- 
ion,  I would  like  to  make  it  “thirty-three,”  in- 
stead of  “thirty-two,”  as  in  my  motion,  so  as  to 
correspond  with  the  provision  of  the  present 
Constitution. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  to  amend  that  by 
adding,  “each  district  to  elect  one  Senator.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  has  some 
doubts  whether  those  words  connect  with  the 
other. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Will  that  motion  be  in 
order  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  was  about  to 
inquire  whether  there  was  any  objection  to  en- 
tertaining the  amendment  in  that  form?  It 
would  not  be  strictly  in  order,  as  it  does  not 
come  in  connection  with  the  words  of  the  other 
amendment.  If  the  gentleman  makes  his  mo- 
tion in  such  a form  as  to  add  the  words  of  his 
amendment  to  the  words  proposed  to  be  inser- 
ted, then  it  would  be  in  order;  but  to  insert 
them  after  the  word  “district,”  would  not  be  in 
order. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I withdraw  my  motion 
for  the  present. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  to  insert  the  words  “ thirty- 
three.” 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to,  without  a divi- 
sion. 

Mr.  HALE.  I now  move  to  strike  out  the 
whole  section  after  the  word  “ districts,”  and 
insert  the  words : “ in  each  of  which  districts 
one  Senator  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified 
electors  thereof.” 

Mr.  BABER.  This  brings  up  the  whole 
question  that  was  settled  by  this  Convention, 
relative  to  dividing  the  counties.  We  have 
decided  that  that  shall  not  be  done  in  the  elec- 
tion of  Representatives,  and  I am  opposed  to 
any  attempt  in  this  way  of  getting  the  county 
of  Hamilton  divided  into  districts.  It  seems  to 
me,  that  gentlemen  would  like  to  make  the  divi- 
sion exactly  to  suit  themselves.  They  are  not 
willing  that  the  division  shall  be  made  in  any 
mode  or  manner,  except  as  dictated  by  certain 
gentlemen  in  the  Western  Reserve.  If  they 
suppose  that  they  can  on  this  floor  make  a 
Senatorial  division  for  partisan  purposes,  they 
will  find  out  before  they  get  through,  that  it 
requires  fifty-three  votes  to  pass  it,  and  any 
attempt  to  make  a division  so  as  to  divide  the 
county  of  Hamilton  into  Senatorial  districts, 
will  be  considered  as  a partisan  attempt;  and  I 
warn  gentlemen  that  if  they  expect  to  put  any 
such  measure  through,  either  by  a ratification 
before  the  people,  or  by  fifty-three  votes  in  this 
Convention,  they  will  have  to  ascertain  whether 
they  have  the  requisite  partisan  majority  here. 
Mr.  President,  there  never  was  anything  more 
plainly  shown  before  in  this  Convention,  when 
the  single  district  proposition  was  made,  with 
reference  to  the  county  of  Hamilton.  Gentlemen 
think  that  they  are  not  understood ; but  they  are 
very  much  mistaken  if  they  imagine  that  we 
cannot  figure  as  well  upon  this  floor  as  they 
do.  When  that  proposition  in  reference  to 
single  districts  was  insidiously  introduced  into 


1696 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Baber,  Hale,  Griswold. 


this  Convention,  gentlemen  knew  and  under- 
stood perfectly  well,  that  the  effect  of  that 
would  be,  that  here,  in  the  county  of  Hamilton, 
perhaps,  they  might  get  some  three  or  four 
members  of  the  Legislature ; but  there  would 
be  no  compensation  from  the  county  of  Cuya- 
hoga, where  the  single  district  system  would 
give  the  minority  not  even  one  Representative, 
and  they  desire — at  least,  if  they  do  not  desire, 
that  is  the  effect  of  their  action — to  produce  that 
result. 

Now,  as  a Democrat  upon  this  floor,  I am 
perfectly  willing  to  leave  politics  outside.  I 
introduced  no  partisan  politics  here,  until  I no- 
ticed the  movement,  in  solid  column,  of  certain 
gentlemen  here,  who  might  just  as  well  under- 
stand first  as  last,  that,  while  we  who  represent 
the  heavy  Democratic  districts  of  this  State — 
myself  representing  the  Franklin  district,  and 
the  gentlemen  here  representing  the  Hamilton 
district — are  perfectly  willing  that  the  minority 
should  be  represented  by  a distribution,  and 
that,  by  proportional  or  minority  voting,  there 
should  be  a division,  so  that  the  minority,  both 
in  Hamilton  and  Cuyahoga,  should  have  a rep- 
resentation, we  do  not  propose  to  make  the 
sort  of  division  at  which  they  do  not  say  “tur- 
key” to  us  once.  We  are  not  Indians,  and  they 
cannot  play  that  game  here  upon  this  floor.  I 
appeal  to  gentlemen  here  to  vote  against  this 
proposition  of  single  districts  for  the  Senate, 
constituted  in  this  manner  or  mode,  both  here 
and  at  the  polls. 

Mr.  HALE.  About  the  only  allusion  to  poli- 
tics that  I have  heard  upon  this  floor  or  about 
the  room  has  been  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber].  I do  not  know  but  that 
the  gentlemen  who  represent  the  Western  Re- 
serve are  to  be  dictated  toby  that  gentleman  as 
to  how  they  shall  vote,  and  what  amendments 
they  shall  offer,  but,  so  far  as  I am  individually 
concerned,  I propose  to  vote,  speak,  and  offer 
such  amendments  as  I see  fit,  without  applying 
to  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber], 
who  knows  better  than  I do  how  many  of  this 
Convention  he  can  whip  into  casting  their 
votes  in  accordance  with  his  ideas  by  the  kind 
of  speech  he  has  just  regaled  us  with.  He 
knows  his  men  better  than  I do.  I have  never 
meddled  or  mixed  very  much  in  that  kind  of  a 
pool.  But  I want  it  distinctly  understood  that 
I have  not,  while  here,  acted  from  any  partisan 
motives.  I voted  for  the  single  district  system ; 
the  gentleman  voted  against  it.  As  the  next 
best  thing,  I voted  fbr  the  proposition  which 
the  gentleman  himself  advocated.  I voted 
with  him;  he  did  not  vote  with  me.  When 
1 could  not  get  what  I wanted,  I took  the  next 
best  thing,  and  did  not,  because  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  was  advocating  it, 
vote  against  it.  The  only  men  I have  known 
about  this  Hall  that,  by  their  button-holing, 
have  undertaken  to  ring  men  in  on  the  score  of 
party  politics,  is  the  gentleman  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber].  It  is  not  the  first  lecture  that  has 
been  read  to  me  by  that  gentleman  about  coming 
from  the  Western  Reserve,  where  men  know 
nothing  about  politics.  I have  made  no  appeal, 
either  privately  or  upon  this  floor,  in  behalf  of 
any  partisan  measure.  Can  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  say  that  he  has  not, 
both  privately  and  upon  the  floor,  button-holed 


[125th 

[Friday, 


his  political  friends,  and  told  them  that  a cer- 
tain measure  would  affect  the  party  this  way  or 
that  way,  and  drilled  them  into  supporting 
measures,  not  because  they  were  just,  but 
because  they  were  favorable  to  his  party?  I 
charge  that  he  has  done  it. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I introduced  this  propo- 
sition with  no  design  whatever  to  come  a trick 
upon  anybody,  or  to  get  anything  through  here 
that  should  not  be  seen.  It  would  be  impossi- 
ble to  do  that,  had  I designed  to  do  it.  I intro- 
duced this  proposition  because  I believe  that 
this  large  district  system,  this  uniting,  as  I said 
before,  two  congressional  districts  into  a sena- 
torial district,  is  a thing  which  the  people  of 
the  State  do  not  want.  It  is  not  adapted  to  the 
needs  of  the  State.  It  is  not  what  my  judg- 
ment indicates  as  right,  and  I introduced  my 
proposition  to  test  the  question  as  between  the 
single  district  system  and  the  three-cornered  dis- 
trict system,  so-called.  I supposed  I had  a right 
to  do  that,  and  had  no  thought  of  how  it  would 
affect  Cuyahoga,  and  it  was  after  conversation 
with  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Gris- 
wold] that  I changed  the  number  from  thirty- 
two  to  thirty-three.  It  wTas  that  question  I 
desired  to  test,  and  it  is  that  question  I now 
desire  to  test.  If  the  gentleman  desires  to 
move  an  amendment  that  there  shall  be  thirty- 
three  senatorial  districts,  and  that  Hamilton 
county  shall  constitute  one,  with  three  Sena- 
tors, it  would  be  better  for  him  to  do  it,  and 
make  that  a question  fairly  before  the  Conven- 
tion, without  impugning  the  motives  of  any 
man  upon  the  floor.  The  course  is  as  open  to 
him  as  to  me,  and  if  he  can  whip  in  any  of  his 
political  partisans  to  support  him  by  the  kind 
of  speech  he  has  made  here,  all  right.  I voted 
for  the  small  districts  because  I believed  it  was 
just  and  right,  and  not  as  a partisan.  Take  my 
own  district,  and  it  would  not  be  affected  one 
particle,  considering  how  it  is  made  up,  by  ap- 
plying to  it  the  cumulative  system  of  voting. 
It  would  not  affect  her  proportion  in  the  Senate 
one  particle,  whether  you  should  take  the  gen- 
tleman’s mode  or  my  own.  I prefer  my  own, 
and,  when  I prefer  one  system  to  another,  I 
propose  to  say  so. 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  simply  to  say  that  in 
what  I said  upon  this  floor,  I did  not  put  any 
imputation  upon  the  motives  of  the  gentleman 
as  he  has  endeavored  to  do  upon  mine.  The 
public  can  judge  between  us  as  to  that.  I did 
not  desire  to  have  this  matter  introduced,  sim- 
ply because  I thought  it  was  bringing  up  the 
question  of  single  districts  everywhere,  except 
in  Hamilton  and  Cuyahoga  counties,  which  this 
Convention  had  voted  down,  and  I was  opposed 
to  any  such  change. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I am  in  favor  of  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  and  I 
claim  that  I am  consistent  in  my  course,  and  am 
acting  in  perfect  accordance  with  what  I have 
done  in  voting  against  dividing  the  county  of 
Cuyahoga  and  the  county  of  Hamilton  into  sin- 
gle districts.  I favor  the  application  of  the  cu- 
mulative system  to  them,  because  I thought,  in 
that  way,  the  object  in  having  a proper  repre- 
sentation for  those  counties  could  be  better  at- 
tained. But  this  reason  does  not  apply  to  the 
Senate  at  all.  The  Senate  is  not  a representative 
body,  nor  is  it  expected  to  be,  as  a law-making 


1697 


Day.] CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

February  27,  1874.]  Griswold,  Powell,  Pratt,  Dorsey. 


power.  It  does  not  represent  any  county  or 
counties,  as  such ; and  inasmuch  as  the  Conven- 
tion has  decided,  by  a great  majority,  that  there 
shall  not  be  large  districts,  then,  I say,  let  the  sys- 
tem be  uniform.  The  Senate  is  not  a representa- 
tive body  in  the  sense  that  the  House  is  a repre- 
sentative body.  It  is  not  a necessity  in  our  gov- 
ernment at  all.  The  House  of  Representatives, 
as  we  call  it,  is  the  representative  body  and  the 
law-making  power,  and  that  body  is  to  represent 
the  will  of  the  people.  The  Senate  is  not  a ne- 
cessity in  the  law-making  power.  We  adopted 
that  and  have  kept  it  up  because  it  has  been  the 
custom,  and  to  act  as  a regulation  and  check 
upon  the  other  body.  You  undertake  in  it  only 
to  represent  the  people  generally,  and  not  any 
particular  locality.  In  county  representation, 
there  is  the  idea  at  the  bottom  of  it,  that  you 
have  a political  organization,  a system  of  voters 
who  have  political  associations,  who  have  spe- 
cial and  local  interests,  and  who  have  claims  to 
be  represented ; and  I supported  the  single  dis- 
trict system  so  far  as  it  would  apply  to  counties 
which  themselves  are  single  districts.  But  the 
Senate  is  a body  in  which  all  the  people  can  be 
represented,  not  as  expressing  the  views  of  any 
particular  locality,  but  simply  as  an  expression 
of  the  will  of  the  people,  and  as  a check  and 
regulation  upon  hasty  and  inconsiderate  action 
in  the  lower  body.  If  you  have  a system  of  sin- 
gle districts  for  Senators  and  then  allow  double 
districts,  then  you  introduce  an  anomaly 
which  is  destructive  of  the  object  of  a Senate. 
You  do  not  need  the  Senators  in  Hamilton 
county  to  represent  Hamilton  county  at  all. 
You  have  your  Representation  in  the  lower 
House  to  represent  the  people  of  the  vicinage 
and  neighborhood.  However,  I do  not  suppose 
that  what  I have  said  will  make  any  difference 
to  anybody’s  vote.  I simply  state  this  to  show 
that  the  position  I occupy  is  consistent. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  a question  of  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  it  intended  by  the  motion 
now  pending  before  the  House  to  prevent,  either 
by  amendment  or  some  other  way,  senatorial 
districts  from  being  by  counties  ? If  it  is,  I cer- 
tainly must  oppose  that  motion,  as  we  have  al- 
ways gone  by  counties. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do  not  know  whether  it 
will  reach  counties  or  not.  So  far  as  that  is  con- 
cerned,! am  willing  to  divide  county  lines  for 
the  purpose  of  electing  a senatorial  body,  and 
to  follow  out  the  idea  of  the  gentleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I congratulate  the  gentleman 
upon  getting  one  practical  idea  into  his  head. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  But  it  has  nothing  to  do 
with  your  idea,  which  is  not  practical,  and  can- 
not possibly  have  anything  practical  in  it.  You 
undertook  to  carry  it  down  to  the  representative 
body,  to  which  no  man  of  sense  would  by  any 
possibility  carry  it,  which  you  have  acknowl- 
edged on  every  occasion,  and  which  is  the  only 
idea  you  have  ever  advocated.  But  there  is  a 
difference  in  the  case  of  the  Senate.  The  Sena- 
torial body  should  be  a representation  of  the 
people  in  their  individual  capacity,  without 
reference  to  local  county  wants,  and  in  that  way 
there  should  be,  as  far  as  practicable,  either 
large  districts  in  which  some  portion  of  the 

Y.  11-109 


minority  should  be  represented,  or  even  dis~ 
tricts,  so  that  the  people  could  be  represented  j 
not  subject  to  the  inequalities  which  any  single 
district  system  will  involve  and  impose  upon 
them. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Do  you  intend  by  this  to 
divide  the  lines  of  the  counties? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  it  is  necessary  to  make 
an  equality,  1 do ; but  I do  not  think  it  is  neces- 
sary. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I call  for  a division  of  the 
question. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I am  not  yet  ready  to  vote 
upon  this  question. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  Chair  state  the  ques- 
tion? Perhaps,  I do  not  fully  understand  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr. 
Hale],  to  strike  out  of  the  section  all  after  the 
word  “ districts,”  and  insert : “ in  each  of  which 
one  Senator  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified 
electors  thereof.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I insist  upon  a division  of  the 
question. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  that  the  question  be 
read,  as  proposed  to  be  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Seo.  3.  The  State  is  hereby  divided  into  thirty-three 
senatorial  districts,  in  each  of  which  one  Senator  shall  be 
elected  by  the  qualified  electors  thereof.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I move  that  this  amendment 
be  added : “which  district  shall  be  bounded  by 
county  lines.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  we  are  to  have  thirty- 
three  districts  in  the  State,  I trust  that  they  will 
be  formed  according  to  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Pow- 
ell], and  will  be  bounded  strictly  by  county 
lines.  The  minority  report  provides,  that  the 
State  shall  be  divided  into  thirty-two  senatorial 
districts,  the  county  of  Hamilton  to  constitute 
the  first  senatorial  district,  and  to  be  entitled  to 
four  Senators.  W e have  already  decided  to-day, 
that  we  will  not  divide  the  county  of  Hamilton, 
or  any  other  county  in  the  State,  for  Repre- 
sentatives in  the  lower  House.  I am  just  as 
much  opposed  to  dividing  the  county  of  Hamil- 
ton, or  any  other  county,  for  Senators ; and  I 
do  not  agree,  by  any  means,  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold],  that  the 
Senate  is  not  a representative  body.  The  Sen- 
ate of  Ohio  is  not  founded  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciple upon  which  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  is  founded.  The  Senate  of  Ohio  repre- 
sents population.  It  is  a popular  body.  It  is  a 
body  representing  the  people.  It  does  not  rep- 
resent the  people  in  so  minute  sub-divisions  as 
does  the  lower  House ; but  it  is  no  less  a repre- 
sentative of  the  people — of  the  counties,  in  the 
first  place,  and  of  the  people,  in  the  second 
place — and  as  such,  each  and  every  county  has 
a right  to  its  separate  representation. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Does  a Senator  represent 
any  county?  What  county  does  a Senator  rep- 
resent ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  When  there  is  a county  ca- 
pable of  sending  a Senator,  it  is  then  repre- 
sented by  that  Senator.  In  other  cases,  the 
Senator  only  represents  counties  and  not  a county. 
That  is  all  thg  difference.  But  the  Senate  is 
always  a representation  of  population;  and  let 
me  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 


1698 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Griswold,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Mueller,  Townsend,  Powell,  etc. 


Griswold],  that,  as  such,  it  is  a representative 
body. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  the  view  I took; 
hut  it  does  not  represent  counties. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Wherever  a Senator  is  elected 
by  a single  county,  he  is,  to  all  intents  and  | 
purposes,  the  Representative  of  that  county,  as 
much  as  the  Representative  is,  or  as  the  two  or 
three  Representatives  from  that  county  may  he. 
He  represents  its  county  interests,  and  all  the 
difference  between  the  Senator  who  comes  from 
a single  county  and  the  Senator  who  comes  | 
from  several  counties,  is,  that  the  Senator  who 
comes  from  several  counties  is  expected  to  rep-  I 
resent,  in  the  Senate,  the  interests  of  several  | 
counties,  while  the  Senator  who  comes  from  a 
single  county,  is  expected  to  represent  only  the 
interests  of  a single  county — that  is  all.  I, 
therefore,  hope  that  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  will 
be  agreed  to,  and  that,  in  making  these  sena-  ; 
torial  districts,  the  Convention  will  see  that 
they  are  bounded  by  county  lines.  It  is  in  per-  I 
feet  accordance  with  what  we  have  determined  ! 
upon  in  the  organization  of  the  lower  House.  : 
I do  not  want  to  see  a different  principle  intro-  | 
duced  in  the  organization  of  the  two  houses,  so  | 
far  as  this  matter  is  concerned,  and  I shall  op- 
pose it  at  all  times. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  ! 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  j 
[Mr.  Powell]. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

The  motion,  however,  was  withheld  for  a 
short  time,  and  leave  of  absence  was  asked  and 
obtained  as  follows : 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

By  Mr.  Jackson,  until  Wednesday  follow- 
ing. 

By  Mr.  McBride,  until  Wednesday  follow- 
ing. 

By  Mr.  De  Steiguer,  indefinitely. 

By  Mr.  Kerr,  until  Tuesday  morning. 

By  Mr.  Carbery,  for  Mr.  Mullen  and  him- 
self, the  day  following. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I move  that  we  take  from 
the  table  the  resolution  relating  to  adjournment 
until  Tuesday  afternoon.  There  are  now  so 
many  absent  and  excused  that  there  will  be  no 
quorum  in  any  case. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I should  be  glad  if  the 
gentleman  would  modify  the  resolution,  so  as 
adjourn  until  Tuesday  morning  at  ten  o’clock. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I accept  the  amendment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is  high  time  that  this  Con- 
vention should  take  some  account  of  the  posi- 
tion in  which  they  are  placed.  It  will  not  do 
for  us  to  adjourn  from  time  to  time,  perhaps 
every  week  or  two,  from  Friday  or  Saturday 
until  Tuesday,  taking  into  consideration  the 
fact  that  we  have  agreed  to  adjourn  on  the 
thirty-first  of  March.  It  is  practically  within 
the  power  of  this  Convention  to  make  such  a 
regulation  that  only  one-third  of  our  members 
may  be  absent  at  one  time,  and  the  remaining 
two-thirds  will  be  a sufficient  majority  to  go  on 
and  do  business  here.  One  after  another  can 
take  his  turn,  and  in  that  way  we  can  occupy 
the  next  four  weeks  and  go  on  with  the  busi- 
ness without  stopping  at  all.  If  we  adjourn 


[125th 

[Friday, 


from  this  time  until  Tuesday,  losing  all  that 
time,  it  will  interfere  so  much  with  the  comple- 
tion of  our  labors  within  the  time  limited,  that 
is,  the  31st  of  March;  but  if  we  diligently  use 
all  the  time  that  intervenes  we  can  finish  our 
work  in  the  time  limited.  If  it  is  necessary  for 
any  to  go  home,  such  an  arrangement  can  be 
made  that  one-third  can  go  off  at  a time,  and 
when  they  come  back  another  third  can  go  off. 
Each  third  may  use  four  or  five  days,  or  a 
week,  and  in  that  way  we  can  accomplish  a 
great  saving  of  time. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I should  be  the  last  one  to 
move  the  adoption  of  this  resolution;  but  there 
is  no  chance  of  a quorum  being  here.  Five  or 
six  gentlemen  have  already  obtained  leave  of 
absence.  I intend  to  ask  leave  of  absence,  and 
I know  two  or  three  gentlemen  who  will  do  the 
same,  so  that  I know  there  will  be  no  quorum 
to-morrow,  and  none  next  Monday.  Thus 
some  members  will  be  retained  here  without 
any  chance  of  doing  business.  I think  this 
will  be  the  last  adjournment  until  we  adjourn 
sine  die , and  I hope  this  resolution  will  be 
adopted,  because  I think  no  time  will  be 
wasted. 

Mr.  REILLY.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 

The  call  was  had,  and  fifty-eight  members 
answered  to  their  names,  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Blose,  Bos  worth, 
Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  De  Stei- 
guer, Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Godfrey,  Griswold, 
Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hos- 
tetter,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Mc- 
Bride, Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Okey,  Page, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Rickly,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Wad- 
dle, Weaver,  Woodbury,  Yroung  of  Noble, 
President — 58. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  that  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

Which  motion,  without  a division,  was  agreed 
to. 

Mr.  HORTON.  In  reference  to  the  motion 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Mueller],  I rise  to  inquire  how  many  have 
had  leave  of  absence  granted? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Fifty-six,  I believe. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Then  we  shall  be  necessarily 
without  a quorum. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Unless  reinforcements 
arrive. 

Mr.  REILLY.  I move  the  Convention  now 
adjourn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Before  the  motion  is  put, 
the  Chair  will  state  that  he  has  received  a tele- 
graphic dispatch,  which  the  Secretary  will 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Columbus,  O.,  Feb.  27, 1874. 

Hon.  Rufus  Kino, 

President  Constitutional  Convention : 

The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expen- 
ditures of  your  Convention,  relating  to  stationery  furn- 
ished by  this  office,  is  ex  parte  and  unjust  to  me.  I re- 
spectfully ask  the  Convention  to  order  a complete  inves- 
tigation, and  give  me  an  opportunity  to  be  heard. 

A.  T.  Wikoff, 
Secretary  of  State. 

The  question  was  then  taken  upon  the  motion 
! to  adjourn. 


THE  CONVENTION  WITHOUT  A QUORUM, 

Voris,  Baber,  Rowland,  Cook. 


1699 


Day.] 

February  27,  1874.] 


The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Objection  being  made,  the  demand  was  sus- 
tained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  31,  nays  25,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Cowen,  Doan,  Ewing,  Godfrey,  Gris- 
wold, Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Johnson,  McBride,  Miller,  Okey,  Pease,  Powell, 
Reilly,  Shaw,  Steedman,  Townsend,  Townsley, 


Tulloss,  Tyler,  Waddle,  Weaver,  Woodbury — 
31. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay, 
Coats,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Hitchcock, 
Jackson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Page,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pratt,  Ricklv,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Van  Voor- 
his,  Yoris,  President — 25. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  ( at  6:05  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-SIXTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 


SIXTY-FOURTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Samuel  W.  Clark,  a member 
of  the  Convention. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  48  members  answered 
to  their  names. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  that  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  be  dispatched  for  absentees. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  must  first  have  a 
call  of  the  House. 

Mr.  VORIS.  No,  sir;  we  could  not  get  a 
quorum  in  that  way. 

Mr.  VORIS.  As  I understand  the  roll-call, 
the  leaves  of  absence  would  prevent  the  possi- 
bility of  having  a quorum  in  session  this  morn- 
ing. That  being  the  case,  and  it  being  the  re- 
sult of  a deliberate  action  of  the  Convention,  I 
withdraw  my  motion  that  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  be  sent  for  absentees ; as  it  would  be  use- 
less to  do  so.  I,  therefore,  move  that  we  ad- 
journ. 

Upon  which  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  17,  nays  31,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Cook,  Hale,  Hitchcock,  John- 
son, Okey,  Phellis,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Smith  of  Highland,  Steedman, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Voris,  Waddle,  President 
—17. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Bannon,  Bishop,  Blose,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jef- 
ferson, Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Godfrey, 
Gurley,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Kraemer,  Miller,  Pease,  Powell,  Reilly,  Rickly, 


Saturday,  February  28,  1874. 

Shaw,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Weaver,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Noble — 31. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BABER.  I move  that  we  send  for  ab- 
sentees. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I wish  to  ask  a question ; 
whether,  by  sending  for  the  absentees,  we  could 
get  a quorum  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Then,  as  we  can  do  no 
business,  I move  we  adjourn. 

Mr.  COOK.  I understand  that  we  may  ad- 
journ ; but  if  we  have  granted  leave  of  absence 
until  we  have  reduced  ourselves  below  a quo- 
rum, we  could  not  do  that.  I move  a call  of  the 
House. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
think  a call  of  the  House  could  be  had  when 
there  is  no  quorum  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  I think  there  can  be.  I would 
say  that  a call  of  the  House  may  be  had  by  less 
than  a quorum ; for  the  reason  that  the  House 
with  less  than  a quorum  may  compel  the  at- 
tendance of  absentees  without  leave,  and  the 
only  way  by  which  we  can  send  for  them  is 
by  a call  of  the  House. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  Roll. 

The  call  of  the  House  was  had,  and  the  fol- 
lowing members  answered  to  their  names  : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Bannon,  Bishop,  Blose, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Cook,  Cowen,  Doan,  Dorsey,  Ewing, 
Godfrey,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Johnson,  Kraemer, 
Miller,  Okey,  Pease,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Steedman, 


1700 


THE  CONVENTION  WITHOUT  A QUORUM.  [126th  Day. 


Rowland,  Burns,  Yoris,  Baber.  [Saturday,  Feb.  28,  1874. 


Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yoris, 
Waddle,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble, 
President — 48. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I move,  Mr.  President, 
that  all  further  proceedings  under  the  call  be 
dispensed  with. 

Upon  which  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I submit,  Mr.  President, 
that,  if  the  absentees  accessible  would  not  give 
us  a quorum,  it  is  worse  than  folly  to  stay 
here. 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  not  sus- 
tained. 

The  motion  to  dispense  with  further  proceed- 
ings under  the  call  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I move  that  we  now 
adjourn. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I ask  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  Convention  to  offer  the  following  resolu- 
tion. I would  like  it  to  go  on  the  table. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  say  that,  with  our 
consent,  it  would  be  of  no  use;  how  can  we 
transact  business  without  a quorum  ? 

Mr.  YORIS.  I ask  simply  that  it  will  go 
upon  the  table. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I have  no  objection  at  all,  but 
you  might  as  well  throw  it  out  of  the  window. 

Mr.  VORIS.  If  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns]  wants  to  throw  it  out  of  the 
window  very  much,  he  can  do  so. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I have  no  objection  to  the 


resolution,  only  that  it  is  of  no  use  to  introduce 
it  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Discussion  is  not  in  or- 
der. The  gentleman  is  clearly  out  of  order. 
The  question  is  upon  adjourning. 

Mr.  BABER.  I think,  Mr.  President,  that  I 
shall  change  my  vote,  if  I can  make  an  inquiry 
of  the  Chair.  I want  to  know,  if  we  adjourn 
to-day,  not  having  a quorum,  whether  it  will 
be  considered  an  actual  day’s  session  ? Because 
this  is  the  last  day  we  have  to  put  in  a motion 
to  re-consider  Proposition  No.  189.  If  it  is  not 
considered  a day  of  actual  session,  I want  to 
change  my  vote,  if  I can. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  unable  to 
state  yet  whether  it  will  be  a day  of  actual  ses- 
sion or  not. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted — 
yeas  35,  nays  13,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Bannon,  Bishop,  Burns,  Cald- 
well, Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cook,  Doan, 
Dorsey,  Ewing,  Godfrey,  Gurley,  Herron, 
Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Johnson, 
Miner,  Okey,  Pease,  Phellis,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Row- 
land, Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shaw,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Steedman,  Townsley,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 35. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Cowen,  Krae- 
mer,  Miller,  Powell,  Rickly,  Townsend,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Weaver,  Woodbury — 13. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  (at  10 : 03  A. 
M.)  the  Convention  adjourned. 


THE  CONVENTION  WITHOUT  A QUORUM. 

Horton,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Hoadly,  Ewing,  etc. 


1701 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-SEVENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SIXTY-FIFTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  T.  Boyce,  of  the  First  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Church. 

Mr.  HORTON.  1 move  the  Convention  take 
a recess. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll  first. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I move  that  we  dispense  with 
roll-call  this  morning. 

MEMBERS.  “Not  agreed”;  “not  agreed.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  agreed  to.  The 
Secretary  will  proceed  with  the  roll-call. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  37  members  an- 
swered to  their  names. 

Mr.  VAN  VALKENBURGH.  I move  that 
the  Convention  adjourn. 

MEMBERS.  “ Not  agreed  ” ; “ not  agreed.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Although  the  motion  is  not 
debatable,  I want  to  say  that  I trust  the  Conven- 
tion will  not  adjourn.  There  may  be  quite  a 
number  of  members  in  the  city  who  will  be 
coming  in  during  the  next  hour. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Take  a recess. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HALE.  I move  we  now  take  a recess. 
There  will  be  a quorum  here  by  half-past  two 
o’clock  this  afternoon,  and  we  can  do  an  after- 
noon’s work. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  Convention  will  take  a recess  until  half-past 
two  o’clock  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  ADAIR.  I object. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Objection  is  made,  and 
the  motion  to  take  a recess  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  motion  to  take  a recess  not 
in  order  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Unless  by  unanimous 
consent,  a motion  to  take  a recess  seems  not  to 
be  in  order  where  there  is  not  a quorum ; only 
a motion  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  CALDWELL.  I move  to  take  a recess 
until  11  o’clock. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  in  order. 

Mr.  VAN  VALKENBURGH.  I desire  to  ask 
leave  of  absence  until  half-past  two  o’clock  this 
afternoon.  [Laughter]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Leave  cannot  be  granted 
the  gentleman. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I ask  for  a call  of  the 
House. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A call  of  the  House  is 
demanded ; the  Secretary  will  call  the  Roll. 


Monday,  March  2,  1874. 

The  following  members  answered  to  their 
names : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Bishop,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Godfrey,  Gurley, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Krae- 
mer,  Miller,  Miner,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reil- 
ly, Rickly,  Root,  Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Steedman,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valken- 
burgh, Waddle,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Noble,  President — 39. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  that  further  proceed- 
ings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  ADAIR.  I rise  to  a question  of  order : 
How  can  the  Convention  with  less  than  a quo- 
rum, dispense  with  further  proceedings  under 
the  call  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  deferred  to 
the  opinion  of  the  House  on  Saturday,  that  the 
House  being  under  the  control  of  the  minority, 
of  course,  they  could  dispense  with  the  further 
proceedings  under  the  call. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  that  the  Convention 
adjourn.  There  is  no  use  in  fooling  the  day 
away  here. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I understand  that  that  will 
carry  us  over  until  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Cannot  we,  by  unanimous 
consent  of  the  House,  take  a recess  until  after- 
noon ? 

Mr.  EWING.  We  will  not  have  a quorum. 

Mr.  ROOT.  A recess  is  an  adjournment,  to 
all  intents  and  purposes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  we  come  back 
in  the  afternoon. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Without  anything  being  said 
about  it. 

On  Mr.  Ewing’s  motion  to  adjourn, 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  20,  nays  18,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Baber,  Bishop,  Bosworth,  Car- 
bery, Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Dorsey,  Ew- 
ing, Godfrey,  Hoadly,  Kraemer,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Steedman,  Van  Valken- 
burgh, Waddle,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 20. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Burns,  Caldwell,  Gurley,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Horton,  Hostetter,  Miller,  Miner,  Pease, 
Powell,  Rickly,  Root,  Shaw,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Weaver,  Woodbury — 18. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  9 : 55  a.  m.)  adjourned. 


1702 


[128th 


PETITIONS — NEW  PROPOSITIONS. 


Van  Valkenburgh,  Shaw,  Townsley,  Foran,  Yoris.  [Tuesday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-EIGHTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SIXTY-SIXTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Tuesday,  March  3,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to 
adjournment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  T.  Boyce,  of  the  First 
Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  sixty-one  members 
answered  to  their  names. 

EXCUSED  FOR  ABSENCE. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  CALDWELL,  all  absentees 
of  yesterday  were  excused. 

Messrs.  Clay  and  Shultz  were  excused  for 
absence  on  Saturday  and  yesterday. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  granted  to  Mr.  Ewing, 
for  to-day  and  to-morrow ; to  Mr.  Hunt,  until 
Thursday  next;  and  to  Messrs.  Cowen,  Tyler, 
Bannon  and  Hostetter,  for  an  indefinite 
length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

REMONSTRANCES. 

Mr.  VAN  VALKENBURGH  presented  the 
remonstrance  of  C.  B.  French,  and  two  hun- 
dred other  citizens  of  Clyde,  against  the  pro- 
posed restriction  of  common  school  tax  levies. 

Also,  the  remonstrance  of  ex-Governor  R.  B. 
Hayes,  and  two  hundred  other  citizens  of  Fre- 
mont, Sandusky  county,  on  the  same  subject. 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  the  same,  as 
follows : 

To  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of  Ohio , at 

Cincinnati  assembled: 

Believing  that  the  highest  interests  of  the  State  demand 
the  liberal  support  of  our  public  school  system  in  all  its 
departments— Primary,  Grammar  and  High  School — your 
petitioners  would  respectfully  remonstrate  against  the 
adoption  by  the  Convention  of  any  constitutional  amend- 
ment or  provision  that  shall  so  limit  taxation  for  school 
purposes  as  to  prevent  the  Legislature  from  maintaining 
the  public  school  sy  stem  of  the  State  with  all  of  its  present 
departments  and  existing  advantages. 

All  of  which  is  by  your  petitioners  respectfully  sub. 
mitted. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Education. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  SHAW  presented  the  petition  of  Mrs.  E. 
M.  Pinkham,  and  forty-two  other  citizens  of 
Loveland,  Clermont  county,  praying  that  the 
right  of  females  to  vote,  under  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  be  not  abridged  or  denied,  except  for 
crime  or  insanity. 


The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  the  same,  as 
follows : 

To  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of  Ohio: 

The  undersigned  citizens  of  Ohio  would  respectfully 
represent  that— 

Whereas,  The  14th  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  declares  that  “All  persons  born  or  nat- 
uralized in  the  United  8tares,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the 
States  wherein  they  reside”; 

And  Whereas,  the  15th  Amendment  expressly  recog- 
nizes suffrage  as  one  of  the  rights  of  citizenship; 

Therefore,  we  earnestly  petition  your  honorable  body  to 
so  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  that  hereafter  this 
right  shall  not  be  abridged  or  denied  to  any  adult  citizen, 
unless  for  crime  or  insanity. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Select  Committee 
on  Woman  Suffrage. 

Mr.  TOWNSLEY  presented  the  petition  of 
James  Park,  and  ninety  other  citizens  of  Ash- 
land county,  asking  for  the  acknowledgment  of 
Almighty  God  and  the  Christian  Religion  in 
the  Constitution. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  FORAN  presented  the  petition  of  Mr. 
Thos.  Lee,  and  forty-two  other  citizens  of 
Cleveland,  protesting  against  the  incorporation 
of  certain  religious  opinions  and  beliefs  into 
the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

NEW  PROPOSITIONS. 

The  following  Propositions  were  introduced, 
and  read  the  first  time : 

Proposition  No.  220— By  Mr.  Page: 

To  amend  Article  XII  of  the  Constitution. 

[To  be  submitted  to  a separate  vote  of  the  people.l 

No  property,  real  or  personal,  shall  be  exempt  from 
taxation,  except  such  as  may  be  used  exclusively  for  pub- 
lic schools,  and  such  as  may  belong  to  the  United  States, 
to  this  State,  to  counties,  toVnships,  or  to  municipal  cor- 
porations, within  this  State. 

Proposition  No.  221— By  Mr.  Burns  : 

An  additional  section  to  Article  V of  the  Constitution. 

Sec.  — . Whenever  any  of  the  qualified  electors  of  this 
State  shall  be  in  actual  military  service,  under  a requisi- 
tion from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  by  the 
authority  of  this  State,  such  electors  may  exercise  the 
right  of  suffrage  in  all  elections  by  the  citizeus,  under 
such  regulations  as  are,  or  shall  be,  prescribed  by  law,  as 
fully  as  it  they  were  present  at  their  usual  places  of 
election. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I offer  for  adoption  the  follow- 
ing Resolution : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Summit  offers  for  adoption  the  following  Reso- 
lution, which  the  Secretary  will  read: 


A NEW  RULE. 

Reilly,  Dorsey,  West,  Root,  Tuttle. 


1703 


Day.] 


March  3, 1874.1 


The  Secretary  read,  as  follows : 

Resolution  No.  176— By  Mr.  Voris: 

Resolved,  That  hereafter  no  leave  of  absence  will  be 
granted  unless  in  case  of  sickness  or  extraordinary  neces- 
sity, and  that  from  and  after  the  6th  day  of  March  in- 
stant, all  leaves  of  absence  shall  be  revoked,  and  thence- 
lorth  be  null  and  void. 

Mr.  REILLY.  I give  notice  to  discuss  that 
Resolution. 

So  the  Resolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I desire  to  give  notice  that 
on  to-morrow,  or  some  subsequent  day  of  the 
session,  I intend  to  introduce  the  following 
Resolution,  which  I desire  to  have  read  for  the 
information  of  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  Resolution  for  the  information  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  Secretary  read,  as  follows : 

Resolution  No.  179— By  Mr.  Dorsey: 

INSTRUCTING  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  SCHEDULE. 

Resolved , That  the  Committee  on  the  Schedule  be  in- 
structed to  report  a proposition  for  submitting  to  a sepa- 
rate vote  of  the  electors  of  the  State,  at  the  same  time  and 
in  the  same  manner  in  which  other  propositions  are  sub- 
mitted for  a separate  vote,  the  following  sections  to  be 
made  a part  of  the  Article  on  Apportionment: 

Sec.  — . The  State  is  hereby  divided  into  ten  Senatorial 
Districts,  as  follows:  The  county  of  Hamilton  shall  con- 
stitute the  First  District;  the  counties  of  Butler,  Preble, 
Montgomery,  Darke,  Shelby,  Miami,  Clarke  and  Greene 
shall  constitute  the  Second;  the  counties  of  Mercer,  Au- 
glaize, Allen,  Van  Wert,  Putnam,  Paulding,  Defiance, 
Henry,  Williams,  Fulton,  Lucas  and  Wood,  the  Third; 
the  counties  of  Ottawa,  Sandusky,  Seneca,  Erie,  Huron, 
Ashland,  Knox,  Richland,  Crawford,  Wyandot  and  Han- 
cock, the  Fourth;  the  counties  of  Hardin,  Marion,  Mor- 
row, Logan,  Champaign,  Union,  Delaware,  Franklin, 
Pickaway,  Madison  and  Fayette,  the  Fifth;  the  counties 
of  Warren,  Clinton,  Clermont,  Brown,  Ross,  Highland, 
Adams,  Pike,  Scioto  and  Lawrence,  the  Sixth;  the  coun- 
ties of  Gallia,  Jackson,  Meigs,  Athens,  Hocking,  Vin- 
ton, Fairfield,  Perry,  Morgan,  Washington  and  Monroe, 
the  Seventh;  the  counties  of  Noble,  Muskingum,  Guern- 
sey, Belmont,  Jefferson,  Harrison,  Tuscarawas,  Coshoc- 
ton and  Licking,  the  Eighth;  the  counties  of  Carroll, 
Stark,  Columbiana,  Mahoning,  Portage,  Geauga,  Lake, 
Ashtabula  and  Trumbull,  the  Ninth;  the  counties  of 
Cuyahoga,  Summit,  Lojain,  Medina,  Wayne  and  Holmes, 
the  Tenth;  and  each  ofsaid  districts  shall  be  entitled  to 
elect  three  Senators,  and  three  Senators  shall  also  be 
elected  by  the  electors  of  the  State  at  large. 

Sec.  — . Any  county  forming  part  of  a Senatorial  Dis- 
trict, having  acquired  a population  equal  to  one-tenth  of 
the  whole  population  of  the  State,  shall  be  made  a sepa- 
rate district,  at  any  regular  decennial  apportionment,  as 
hereinafter  provided,  and  the  remaining  counties  shall  be 
distributed  to  the  contiguous  Senatorial  District,  in  such 
manner  as  to  render  them  as  nearly  equal  in  population 
as  possible;  provided,  that  no  county  shall  be  divided  in 
such  distribution. 

Sec.  — . In  voting  for  Senators,  or  in  voting  for  Repre- 
sentatives, the  counties  entitled  to  more  than  two  Repre- 
sentatives, each  elector  may  cast  as  many  votes  for  one 
candidate  as  there  are  Senators  or  Representatives  to  be 
elected,  or  he  may  distribute  the  same  or  equal  parts 
thereof,  among  the  candidates  as  he  may  see  fit,  and  the 
candidates  highest  in  votes  shall  be  declared  elected. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I desire  to  give  notice  of  the 
introduction  of  the  following  additional  rule — 
Rule  LXX. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  proposed  additional  rule. 

The  Secretary  read,  as  follows : 

RULE  LXX. 

When  less  than  a quorum  of  members  is  present,  the 
Convention  may  adjourn  from  day  to  day,  and  compel  the 
attendance  of  members,  and  may  also  take  ax*ecess  to  any 
given  hour,  with  like  power  to  compel  attendance. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I suppose,  Mr.  President, 
that,  under  the  rules,  that  would  be  obliged  to 
lie  over ; but  I move  that  the  rules  be  suspended 


for  the  adoption  of  the  additional  rule  that  I 
propose,  if  there  is  no  objection. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  objection 
to  suspending  the  rules? 

A MEMBER.  I object. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Objection  is  made.  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll  for  the  yeas  and 
nays,  on  suspending  the  rules. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted 
— yeas  49,  nays  13,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Byal,  Campbell,  Clark  of  Jef- 
ferson, Coats,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Godfrey,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Johnson, 
Kerr,  Miller,  Miner,  Page,  Pease,  Philips,  Pow- 
ell, Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Sample,  Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Yan  Voorhis,  Yoris,  Wad- 
dle, Weaver,  West,  White  of  Brown,  Wood- 
bury, Young  of  Noble,  President — 49. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Freiberg,  Gurley, 
Hill,  Kraemer,  Root,  Yan  Yalkenburgh — 13 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  adoption  of  the  additional  rule. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  insert  “with  like  power 
to”  compel  attendance.  It  seems  to  me  that 
you  are  going  to  compel  them  to  take  a recess. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  no  objection  to  that,  at 
all.  The  simple  object  of  the  rule  is,  that  the 
Convention  may  not  find  itself  in  the  difficulty 
in  which  it  was  on  yesterday  when  it  was  de- 
cided, and,  no  doubt,  correctly,  that  we  had  the 
power  to  adjourn,  but  not  to  take  a recess  until 
half-past  two  o’clock  in  the  afternoon,  when  we 
might  have  been  able  to  have  done  a half-day’s 
work. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I see  no  necessity  for  this  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  is  no  harm  in  it;  there 
may  be  need  for  it. 

Mr.  ROOT.  There  is  none. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  will  do  no  harm. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  that  does  not  make  it  any 
better  or  worse. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Well. 

Mr.  ROOT.  If  that  is  all  that  is  to  be  done 
here,  I think  we  may  as  well  go  home. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I had  reference  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]. 

Mr.  ROOT.  A motion  to  take  a recess  is,  to 
all  intents  and  purposes,  a motion  to  adjourn, 
and,  in  my  humble  judgment,  it  would  be  better 
for  the  Chair  to  conform  to  the  spirit  of  the 
rules  than  for  the  Convention  to  change  the 
rules  to  suit  the  impressions  of  the  Chair. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  suggest  this  amend- 
ment; After  the  words  “given  hour,”  add  the 
words,  “of  the  same  day.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  moves  to  amend  by  ad- 
ding after  the  words  “given  hour,”  the  words, 
“of  the  same  day.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I suppose,  Mr.  President, 
that  to  take  a recess  is  something  different  from 
an  adjournment,  at  least  for  us,  because  we  have 
a rule  that,  when  we  adjourn  without  a speci- 


1704 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Root,  Tuttle,  Hoadly,  Dorsey,  Smith  of  H.,  Baber,  etc. 


[128th 

[Tuesday, 


fied  hour,  it  is  to  a certain  hour  on  the  next 
day. 

Mr.  ROOT.  When  we  take  a recess  without 
specifying  a certain  hour  on  the  same  day,  it 
has  the  same  sense. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  will  refer  to  Rule  27, 
he  will  find  that  it  reads  thus:  “The  interim 
between  any  two  sessions  of  the  Convention  on 
the  same  day  shall  be  termed  a recess.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  criticism  is  unnecessary, 
unless  it  should  be  proposed  to  take  another  re- 
cess after  one  has  been  taken.  It  occurs  to  me 
that  a recess  might  be  for  a longer  period.  I 
presume  the  amendment  is  unnecessary,  and  I 
withdraw  it,  by  leave  of  the  Convention. 

Which  leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  adoption  of  the  Rule. 

The  Rule  was  adopted. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I offer  the  following : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  offers  for  adoption  the 
following  Resolution,  which  the  Secretary  will 
read : 

The  Secretary  read  the  same  as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  on  and  after  March  10th,  the  Convention 
will  hold  evening  sessions  on  each  day  of  the  week,  ex- 
cept Saturday,  commencing  at  7#  P.  M. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I desire  to  discuss  that  Resolu- 
tion. 

So  the  Resolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I omitted  to  ask,  and  I desire 
now  to  ask,  the  Convention  that  the  usual  num- 
ber of  copies  of  the  Resolution  of  which  I gave 
notice  of  the  introduction,  be  printed  and  laid 
on  the  tables  of  members  in  order  that  they  may 
have  opportunity  to  examine  it. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I desire  to  make  the  follow- 
ing motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  makes  the  following 
motion,  which  the  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Powell  moves  to  take  from  the  table  the  communi- 
cation from  the  Secretary  of  State,  laid  before  the  Con- 
vention by  the  President  on  Friday  last. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I move  that  the  Convention 
now  proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I hope  the  gentle- 
man will  withdraw  the  motion. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I have  no  objection  to  with- 
drawing for  the  purpose  of  a notice  being  given. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I wish,  if  it  be  in 
order  now,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  County  and  Township  Organ- 
izations, to  move  a reconsideration  of  the  vote 
upon  the  final  passage  of  Proposition  No.  189, 
and  that  that  motion  be  laid  upon  the  table.  I 
understand  that  one  or  two  propositions  are 
pending — one  by  the  Committee,  amendatory 
of  that  Report,  but  which  the  adjournment  de- 
ferred, and  which  ought  to  be  considered.  The 
gentlemen  were  absent,  unavoidably,  during 
the  final  action  upon  the  Proposition,  and  I 
deem  it  but  courtesy  that  the  motion  should  be 
entertained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  is,  that  the 


vote  upon  finally  agreeing  to  Proposition  No. 
189,  taken  on  February  26th,  be  reconsidered, 
and  that  the  motion  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Is  it  not  too  late  to  reconsider 
a vote  taken  on  the  26th  of  February  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that  a fair  construction  of  the  rule  that  it 
shall  be  within  “two  days  of  actual  session  of 
the  Convention,”  is  that  it  shall  be  two  days  in 
which  it  might  have  been  made,  which  we  have 
not  had  since  the  26th  of  February. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Was  there  not  on  Friday  and 
Saturday  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  was  on  Friday 
but  not  on  Saturday.  The  motion  to  reconsider 
could  not  have  been  made  on  Saturday. 

Mr.  BABER.  I give  notice  that  I will  offer 
the  following  Resolution.  I ask  that  it  be  read 
for  information.  My  purpose,  mainly, is  to  have 
it  printed. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  gives  notice 
that  he  will  on  to-morrow  introduce  a substitute  for  sec- 
tion three  of  Proposition  194,  as  follows : 

“Sec.  — . The  ratio  of  a Senator  shall  forever  hereafter 
be  ascertained  by  dividing  the  whole  population  of  the 
State  by  the  number  thirty-two.  The  State  is  hereby 
divided  into  thirty-one  Senatorial  Districts,  bounded  by 
county  lines,  as  follows: 

“The  county  of  Hamilton  shall  constitute  the  First  Sen- 
atorial District;  the  counties  of  Butler  and  Warren  the 
second ; Montgomery  and  Preble  the  third ; Cler  r ont  and 
Brown  the  fourth;  Greene,  Clinton  and  Fayette  the;  fifth; 
Highland  and  Ross  the  sixth;  Adams,  Pike,  Scioto  and 
Jackson  the  seventh;  Lawrence.  Gallia  and  Meigs  the 
eighth;  Athens,  Hocking,  Fairfield  and  Vinton  the  ninth; 
Franklin  and  Pickaway  the  tenth ; Clark,  Champaign  and 
Madison  the  eleventh;  Miami,  Darke  and  Shelby  the 
twelfth;  Logan,  Union,  Marion  and  Hardin  the  thir- 
teenth; Washington,  Noble  and  Morgan  the  fourteenth; 
Muskingum  and  Perry  the  fifteenth;  Delaware,  Licking 
and  Morrow  the  sixteenth;  Knox,  Richland  and  Craw- 
ford the  seventeenth ; Coshocton,  Tuscarawas  and  Guern- 
sey the  eighteenth;  Monroe,  Belmont  and  Harrison  the 
nineteenth;  Columbiana  and  Jefferson  the  twentieth; 
Carroll  and  Stark  the  twenty-first;  Trumbull  and  Ma- 
honing the  twenty-second;  Ashtabula,  Lake,  Geauga  and 
Portage  the  twenty-third;  Cuyahoga  the  twenty-fourth; 
Summit,  Medina  and  Lorain  the  twenty -fifth;  Ashland, 
Wayne  and  Holmes  the  twenty-sixth;  Huron,  Erie  and 
Sandusky  the  twenty-seventh;  Lucas,  Ottawa  and  Wood 
the  twenty-eighth;  Hancock,  Senega  and  Wyandot  the 
twenty-ninth;  Mercer,  Paulding,  Van  Wert,  Alien  and 
Auglaize  the  thirtieth;  Williams,  Defiance,  Henry,  Ful- 
ton and  Putnam  the  thirty-first. 

“During  the  present  decennial  period,  after  the  adop- 
tion of  this  Constitution,  each  of  said  districts  shall  be 
entitled  to  one  Senator,  except  the  first  district,  which 
shall  be  entitled  to  three  Senators,  and  the  twenty-fourth 
to  two.” 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  that  the  Resolu- 
tion be  printed  for  the  information  of  the 
members. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I now  renew  my  motion  to 
proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

order  of  the  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  subject  under  con- 
sideration was  the  special  order  on  Proposition 
194,  and  the  pending  question,  at  the  last  ad- 
journment, was  upon  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  to  the 
amendment  by  the  gentleman  from  Lorain 
[Mr.  Hale]  to  section  3.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  amendments  proposed  to  section  3 
by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lorain. 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Powell,  Baber,  etc. 


1705 


Day.] 

March  3,  1874.] 


The  Secretary.  The  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lorain  is  as  follows : 

“In  each  of  which  one  Senator  shall  be  elected  by  the 
qualified  electors  tberereof.” 

The  addition  made  by  the  member  from  Del- 
aware [Mr.  Powell]  is  as  follows : 

“Which  district  shall  be  bounded  by  county  lines.” 

So  that  the  section  will  be  as  follows : 

“Sec.  3.  The  State  is  hereby  divided  into  thirty-three 
senatorial  districts,  in  each  of  which  one  Senator  shall  be 
elected  by  the  qualified  electors  thereof,  which  districts 
shall  be  bounded  by  county  lines.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr. 
Hale]. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  seems  to  me  that  that,  in 
the  form  in  which  it  reads,  would  only  give  to 
Hamilton  county  one  Senator:  “In  each  of 

which  one  Senator  shall  be  elected,  and  the 
district  shall  be  divided  by  county  lines.” 
That,  of  course,  would  prevent  the  division  of 
the  county,  and  limit  the  county  to  one  Sena- 
tor. I suggest  the  inconsistency,  and,  if  that 
is  the  intention  of  the  mover,  I am  opposed 
to  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  say  to  the  gentle- 
man that,  at  the  time  I offered  the  resolution, 
that  idea  did  not  occur  to  me,  but  did  soon 
afterward,  and  by  that  time  the  Convention 
had  adjourned.  If  the  gentleman  has  any 
proposition  to  submit  that  will  remove  the 
inconsistency,  I would  be  glad  if  he  would  in- 
troduce it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I have  nothing  prepared. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  won’t  be  voted  on 
hastily.  As  1 understand  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  it  is  that 
the  State  shall  be  divided  into  thirty-three  Sen- 
atorial districts,  each  of  which  is  to  have  one 
Senator.  Now,  I am  in  favor  of  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell],  “bounded  by  county  lines.”  We 
can  then  shape  the  districts  afterwards  to  con- 
form to  this  idea;  and  I hope  that  that  amend- 
ment will  be  adopted,  and  that  we  will  go  to 
work,  then,  and  subsequently  modify  this  prop- 
osition. It  is  a well-known  fact  that  your 
Apportionment  Committee  is  opposed  to  this 
single  district  system;  but  it  appears  to  be  the 
sentiment  of  this  Convention  to  have  a system 
of  that  sort.  And  if  we  are  to  have  a system  of 
that  kind,  I want  it  to  be  made  equitable.  I 
don’t  want  any  of  this  sort  of  haphazard,  and  I 
know  that  can  only  be  determined  by  close  ex- 
amination. I,  therefore,  hope  that  this  amend- 
ment, “ bounded  by  county  lines,”  will  be 
adopted,  and  that  we  will  then  go  on  to  modify 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain 
[Mr.  Hale.]  I am  not  opposed  to  this  number 
thirty-three.  I do  not  want  to  speak  of  that 
particular  matter  at  this  time,  but,  with  the  per- 
mission of  the  Convention,  will  say,  that  I am 
not  opposed  to  thirty-three  Senators,  and  think 
that  will  be  right  enough.  But,  if  the  gentle- 
man will  examine,  as  I have  done,  with  a great 
deal  of  care,  the  old  Constitution,  he  will  find — 
and  we  must  stand  by  the  principles  of  the  old 
Constitution — that  it  divides  the  whole  popula- 
tion of  the  State  by  the  ratio  of  thirty-five.  The  , 


old  Constitution  divided  the  whole  population 
of  the  State  by  a ratio  of  thirty-five,  and  made 
thirty-three  senatorial  districts,  of  which  the 
county  of  Hamilton  had  three,  and  there  were 
floats,  or  rather,  additional  Senators,  arranged 
under  which  the  county  of  Cuyahoga  would 
have  one  at  certain  sessions  of  the  Legislature. 
Now,  if  we  stand  by  the  principles  of  the  old 
Constitution,  to  divide  the  State  as  any  member 
of  the  Convention  may  think  best,  the  county 
of  Hamilton  would  have  three  members,  and 
the  county  Cuyahoga  would  have  two  mem- 
bers, during  the  present  decennial  period,  by  a 
float,  that  is,  for  three  General  Assemblies,  then 
the  principle  of  the  Constitution  would  go  into 
operation  finally.  But,  in  order  to  carry  this 
out,  to  make  the  thirty-three  Senators,  which, 
I suppose,  is  the  design  of  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  with  any  sort  of  equity  or 
justice,  it  is  necessary,  as  I have  found  by  ex- 
amination, and  I do  not  believe  the  figures  can 
be  contested,  that  you  must  divide  the  State  by 
the  number  thirty-two.  For  this  reason,  it  is 
known  that  two  senatorial  districts  in  the  State, 
the  district  of  Morrow  and  Knox  (the  17th),  and 
the  district  Richland  and  Ashland  (the  24th), 
have  become  merged  into  the  adjoining  dis- 
tricts, so  that  now  we  have  only  thirty-one 
senatorial  districts,  in  fact,  and  the  districts  of 
Coshocton  and  Tuscarawas  (the  18th),  and  Bel- 
mont and  Harrison  (the  20th),  are  now  little 
above  three-fourths  the  number,  and  will  be 
merged  under  the  rule  of  apportionment  next 
time.  Therefore,  I do  hope  the  Convention  will 
not  embarrass  itself  by  any  action  in  this  mat- 
ter, and  I would  suggest  that  this  amendment, 
“shall  be  bounded  by  county  lines,”  ought 
to  be  put  in.  If  the  Convention  can  agree  with 
regard  to  the  number  of  districts,  that  matter 
might  be  passed.  I believe  that  when  this  pro- 
position, which  was  prepared  after  some  consul- 
tation with  members,  is  printed,  it  will  be  found 
acceptable,  if  we  adopt  the  single  district  sys- 
tem. It  is  a remarkable  fact,  Mr.  President, 
that,  after  twenty  years  have  elapsed,  when  we 
come  to  take  the  districts  of  the  old  Constitution 
and  equalize  them  on  a population  of  about  80,- 
000,  as  the  basis  on  the  principle  of  the  old  Con- 
stitution, you  have  not  got  to  change  really  but 
thirteen  districts.  The  others  remain — in  the 
proposition  which  I had  the  honor  to  present 
this  morning — exactly  the  same  as  under  the  old 
Constitution.  The  population  of  the  State  has 
been  shifting  into  the  northwest.  You  will 
find  the  districts  remain  the  same,  until  you 
come  to  district  No.  8,  which  is  the  Gallia  dis- 
trict, wherein  there  is  a population  of  105,000, 
which  will  equalize  by  transferring  the  county 
of  Yinton  to  the  district  of  Hocking,  and  so  on, 
until  you  get  through  equalizing.  The  result 
will  be  that  the  county  of  Seneca,  the  county  of 
Ottawa  and  Wyandot,  will  be  thrown  into  the 
northwest  districts,  and  with  the  £woold  north- 
west districts,  will  make  four  fair  districts, 
equal  in  population.  I hope,  therefore,  that 
while  we  may  have  this  proposition  of  thirty- 
three  senators,  that  we  will  not  have  the 
anomaly  of  thirty-three  districts.  I would 
suggest  that  there  might  be  a modification 
hereafter,  that  Hamilton  county  should  have 
three  senators  and  Cuyahoga  two,  or  leave 
Cuyahoga  to  the  operation  of  the  prin- 


1706 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. [128th 

Baber,  Hale,  Dorsey,  Powell,  Root.  [Tuesday, 


ciple  of  floats  in  the  Constitution.  She  will 
have  two  anyhow.  I hope,  therefore,  that  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware, 
[Mr.  Powell]  in  reference  to  the  boundary  of 
county  lines,  will  he  adopted,  and  that  we  will 
then  go  on  with  the  further  consideration  of 
this  Article  to  perfect  it. 

Mr.  HALE.  I have  do  purpose  except  to 
save  time  in  this  matter.  The  Convention 
already  have  stricken  out  the  word  “ten”  and 
adopted  “thirty-three”  as  the  number.  I have 
no  particular  pride  about  that  number.  I do 
not  know  whether  it  is  the  best  or  not.  I sim- 
ply adopt  the  number.  That  has  already  been 
voted  upon.  It  is  not  a matter  before  the  Con- 
vention except  by  reconsideration,  as  I under- 
stand it. 

Mr.  BABER.  I thought  we  had  adopted 
thirty-three  Senators,  simply. 

Mr.  HALE.  No,  districts.  The  precise 
situation  of  this  question  is  this:  On  Saturday 

the  first  amendment  to  this  section  was  to  strike 
out  the  word  “ten”  and  insert  “thirty-three.” 
That  was  carried.  Then  the  motion  was  made 
to  strike  out  the  balance  of  the  section  and  in- 
sert the  language  that  was  read  from  the  Sec- 
retary’s desk,  which  specifies  that  in  each  of 
those  thirty-three  Senatorial  districts  one  Sena- 
tor shall  be  elected.  Then  comes  the  amend- 
ment by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell],  providing  that  in  making  up  these 
thirty-three  Senatorial  districts,  counties  shall 
not  be  divided. 

So  that  the  question  first  to  be  voted  upon,  the 
thirtj'-three  Senatorial  districts  having  been  de- 
termined upon,  is,  whether  in  making  up  those 
thirty-three  Senatorial  districts,  the  county  of 
Hamilton  and  the  county  of  Cuyahoga  shall  be 
divided  ? They  are  the  only  two  counties  which 
would  be  divided,  Hamilton  having  three  Sena- 
tors and  Cuyahoga  two.  Now,  I am  in  favor  of 
the  division.  1 understand  the  county  of 
Hamilton  is  now  divided  for  Congressional  pur- 
poses; that  in  that  county  two  members  of  Con- 
gress are  elected,  and  the  county  is  divided  for 
the  purpose  of  that  election.  We  propose  to 
make  only  one  more  division.  I believe  it  may 
as  well  be  done  for  that  purpose  as  the  other. 
When  we  concede  to  Hamilton  county  the  right 
to  elect  upon  the  general  ticket  the  members  of 
the  Lower  House  of  the  General  Assembly,  I 
think  we  may  well  ask  that  for  the  purpose  of 
Senators  that  county  be  divided.  I have  no  dis- 
position to  take  up  anytime  in  the  discussion  of 
this  question.  So  far  as  I am  concerned,  I am 
ready  to  vote. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I trust  that  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
will  be  so  modified  as  to  enable  us  to  vote  for  it, 
and  still  allow  the  county  of  Hamilton  and  the 
county  of  Cuyahoga  to  have  their  proper  repre- 
sentation. I am  very  decidedly  in  favor  of 
having  these  districts  bounded  by  county  lines, 
and  very  decidedly  opposed  to  having  any 
county  divided  for  senatorial  or  representative 
purposes.  It  is  no  argument  at  all  to  say  that 
because  the  county  of  Hamilton  is  divided  for 
congressional  purposes,  that,  therefore,  it  is 
right  to  divide  for  senatorial  purposes.  That 
is  a matter  over  which  we  have  no  con- 
trol; over  this  we  have  control.  Nor  is  it 
true  that  the  county  is  only  entitled  to 


three  Senators.  If  wre  divide  the  State  of  Ohio 
into  thirty-three  districts,  making  the  ratio  as 
much  as  it  would  be  by  dividing  by  the  num- 
ber thirty-five,  which  has  been  the  old  division, 
the  county  of  Hamilton  will  be  fairly  and  hon- 
estly entitled  to  four  Representatives  in  the 
Senate.  She  ought  to  have  them,  and  I am  in 
favor  of  giving  them  to  her.  But  I do  not  de- 
sire to  divide  the  county  of  Hamilton  into  four 
senatorial  districts,  nor  to  divide  it  into  ten 
representative  districts  for  the  lower  House.  I 
am  opposed  to  the  one  as  well  as  to  the  other. 
I wait  to  see  the  modification  which  the  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  will  make  in 
his  proposition,  and  if  he  makes  it  so  that  I can, 
I will  vote  for  it.  If  not,  I propose  to  offer  an 
amendment  myself. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  you  would  do  so. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I think  the  difficulty  that  meet3 
us  now  might  be  met  by  us  at  a more  appropri- 
ate time.  I do  not  think  the  terms  employed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
are  the  best.  I suppose  we  could  very  well 
agree,  that  no  senatorial  district  should  be  com- 
posed of  parts  of  two  or  more  counties,  that  in 
making  single  senatorial  districts  no  county 
shall  be  divided.  That  is  the  substance,  and  I 
think  it  would  meet  with  very  general  accept- 
ance. But  to  agree  to  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
would  preclude  any  subsequent  action  upon  the 
question  of  dividing  a county  into  single  sena- 
torial districts,  which  I desire  to  haye  kept 
open  until  it  can  be  fairly  discussed  and  con- 
sidered. Let  it  be  left  for  future  determination 
whether  Hamilton  county  and  Cuyahoga  county 
shall  be  divided  into  single  senatorial  districts 
or  not.  I hope  the  amendment  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Is  it  in  order  to  offer  a sub- 
stitute for  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No, sir;  because  it  is  al- 
ready amended  by  the  gentleman  from  Dela- 
ware [Mr.  Powell]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  But  I do  not  see  why  I can 
not  offer  a substitute  for  the  whole. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  first 
be  upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  {Mr.  Powell]. 

The  vote  being  taken  by  a division,  the  amend- 
ment was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  up- 
on the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  now  offer  a substitute 
for  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

“The  ratio  for  Senator  shall  forever  hereafter  be  ascer- 
tained by  dividing  the  whole  population  of  the  State  by 
the  number  thirty-five,  and  the  districts,  thereby  formed, 
shall  be  entitled  to  as  many  Senators  as  there  are  ratios 
in  the  same;  and  the  districts  6liall  in  all  cases  be  bound- 
ed by  county  lines.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I desire,  Mr.  President,  to  ask 
the  very  careful  attention  and  consideration  of 
the  Convention  for  the  substitute  proposed.  It 
embraces  that  section  of  the  old  Constitution 
which  provides  for  the  division  of  the  State  into 
districts,  divided  by  the  number  thirty-five,  in 
order  to  ascertain  the  ratio  for  Senator.  It 
simply  adds  to  that,  that  each  district  so  formed 
shall  be  entitled  to  as  many  Senators  as  there 


Day.] CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 1707 

March  3, 1874.]  Dorsey,  Gurley,  Baber,  Powell. 


are  ratios  of  population  contained  in  the  same, 
and  that  such  districts  shall,  in  all  cases,  he 
bounded  by  county  lines.  If  we  are  to  come 
back  to  the  old  system  of  districting  in  existence 
before  this  Convention,  I am  prepared  to  say 
that  no  better  system  can  be  introduced  than 
that  which  we  have  in  the  old  Constitution.  I 
do  not  say,  let  gentlemen  understand  me,  that 
districts  are  to  be  taken  precisely  as  in  the  old 
Constitution.  The  changes  in  population  in  the 
State  are  such,  in  the  last  twenty  odd  years, 
that  some  of  those  districts  have  grown  too 
large,  and  others  have  grown  too  small.  As  an 
argument  in  favor  of  the  old  system  of  dis- 
tricts, as  was  stated  by  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  that,  by  making  a very 
slight  change  in  only  a small  number  of  the  old 
districts,  we  introduce  a system  of  districts 
that  commends  itself,  and  will  commend  it- 
self, to  the  consideration  of  the  people  of  the 
State  just  as  fairly  as  by  the  old  districting  of 
1851.  And  if  we  are  to  have  thirty-three  dis- 
tricts, if  we  are  to  have  this  large  number  of 
districts,  I ask  the  careful  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  the  subject  as  it  is  now  proposed. 
There  is  no  fair  way,  gentlemen  of  the  Conven- 
tion, of  arranging  these  districts,  except  by  first 
determining  the  ratio.  The  only  way  in  which 
you  can  do  it 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  the  floor. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
This  Convention  has  already  fixed  upon  the 
number  thirty-three — “the  State  shall  be 
divided  into  thirty-three  Senatorial  districts.” 
That  has  been,  as  I understand  it,  adopted  by 
the  Convention.  That  was  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  and  it  was 
adopted  on  Friday,  fixing  thirty-three  as  the 
number.  Now,  there  is  no  other  motion  pend- 
ing as  to  the  election  of  these  Senators,  that 
there  shall  be  one  elected  by  each  district.  The 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  offers  a 
substitute,  .fixing  the  number  of  Senators  at 
thirty-five.  If  adopted,  the  section  will  com- 
mence, then,  that,  “ the  State  shall  be  divided 
into  thirty-three  Senatorial  districts,”  and  the 
next,  “the  State  shall  be  divided  into  thirty- 
five.”  The  two  propositions  are  certainly  incon- 
gruous and  contradictory. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  will  observe  that  we  struck 
out  “ ten”  and  inserted  “ thirty-three,”  and  it 
cannot  be  stricken  out,  except  by  a reconsider- 
ation. The  motion  of  the  gentleman,  therefere, 
would  be  incongruous. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  leave  to  say,  in  answer 
to  the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley] 
that  the  delegate  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  did 
not  propose  thirtv-five  Senators. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 
the  gentleman  to  have  proposed  to  insert  the 
following  words : “ The  ratio  for  Senator  shall 

forever  hereafter  be  ascertained  by  dividing 
the  whole  population  of  the  State  by  the  num- 
ber thirty-five,  and  that  there  shall  be  as  many 
Senators  as  there  are  ratios  in  the  same,  and  the 
districts  shall  in  all  cases  be  bounded  by  county 
lines.”  The  Chair  understands  thirty-five. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  my  object  is  thirty-five 
Senators;  that  is  true.  If  there  is  no  other 
way,  if  the  Chair  rules  that  it  is  out  of  order  at 


the  present,  I will  wait  until  there  is  a chance 
to  introduce  a proposition  of  that  kind,  and 
then  I will  introduce  it,  as  I consider  it  a much 
fairer  way  of  determining  the  number  of  Sen- 
ators than  by  first  dividing  the  State  into  dis- 
tricts . 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  will  see,  that  unless  re- 
considered, the  number  is  fixed  at  thirty-three. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I presume  the  Chair  is  en- 
tirely correct. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  give  way  a moment? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  That  is  simply  thirty-three 
districts  and  thirty-five  Senators.  They  did 
not  fix  the  number  of  Senators  in  the  amend- 
ment. That  is  not  fixed  at  all.  The  point  of 
order  is  not  well  taken  by  the  gentleman  from 
Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  is  under 
error.  The  Convention  has  fixed  the  number 
thirty-three. 

Mr.  BABER.  Thirty-three  districts,  not 
Senators. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  right,  yet.  I beg  leave 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  Chair  to  the  fact 
that,  in  the  old  Constitution,  we  divide  by 
thirty-five,  and  yet  there  are  only  thirty-three 
districts . 

The  PRESIDENT.  “The  State  shall  be 
divided  into  thirty-three  districts;”  then  “ shall 
hereafter,”  &c.,  requiring  a ratio  of  thirty- 
five. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes;  and  I will  agree  to 
confine  myself  to  thirty-three  districts. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  incongruity  would 
still  remain  between  thirty-three  and  thirty- 
five. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  verbiage,  or  mere  ex- 
pression of  the  substitute,  may  not  be  correct, 
but  I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Chair  to 
the  fact,  that  under  the  old  Constitution,  we 
divided  by  thirty-five,  and  yet  there  are  only 
thirty-three  districts,  and  we  do  not  propose  to 
make  any  more. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  wants  to  modify  his  sub- 
stitute, so  that  it  will  read  : 

“The  ratio  for  Senators  shall  forever  thereafter  be  as- 
certained by  dividing  the  whole  population  of  the  State 
by  the  number  thirty-five,  and  the  thirty-three  districts, 
above  required,  shall  be  entitled  to  as  many  Senators  as 
there  are  ratios  in  the  same,  and  the  said  districts  shall 
be  divided  by  thirty-five.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  give  me  the  floor  one 
moment? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  to  ask  if  an  amend- 
ment cannot  now  be  offered? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  now. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Then  1 wish  to  give  notice 
that,  if  this  pending  amendment  does  not  pre- 
vail, so  as  to  prevent  it,  I will  offer  the  amend- 
ment which  I send  up  to  the  Chair. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  to  strike  out  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  and 
insert  as  read. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I give  notice  that  I will  offer 
this  in  lieu  of  that. 


1708 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. [128th 

Pratt,  Dorsey,  Powell,  Hoot,  Gurley.  [Tuesday, 


The  Secretary  read,  for  information,  the 
substitute  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Del- 
aware [Mr.  Powell],  as  follows: 

“The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-three  Senators,  who 
shall  be  assigned  to  proper  districts,  to  he  bounded  by 
county  lines,  according  to  a just  proportion  of  population; 
and  where  any  county  is  entitled  to  more  than  one  Sena- 
tor, according  to  its  population,  its  proper  number  of  Sen- 
ators shall  be  assigned  to  such  county,  and  the  residue  of 
the  State  be  divided  into  single  districts,  with  one  Senator 
each.” 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Dorsey  was  read  a 
second  time. 

Mr.  PRATT.  If  I understand  that  correctly, 
it  will  give  thirty-five  Senators. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  may  give  more. 

Mr.  PRATT.  How?  Cuyahoga  one,  and 
Hamilton  three  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I think  the  gentleman  is 
mistaken.  But  I want  to  be  correct  about  this 
matter,  and  certainly  do  not  desire  to  do  injus- 
tice to  Cuyahoga  county. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  population  of  Cuyahoga 
county  is  one  hundred  and  thirty-two  thousand. 
That  will  leave  her  a surplus  of  fifty-six  thou- 
sand. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I desire  to  withdraw  that 
substitute  for  the  present. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr. 
Hale]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I now  move  the  amendment 
which  I sent  up  to  the  Chair,  as  a substitute  for 
the  entire  section. 

The  amendment  was  read  a second  time,  as 
follows : 

“The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-three  members,  who 
shall  be  assigned  to  proper  districts,  to  be  bounded  by 
county  lines,  according  to  a just  proportion  of  population ; 
and  where  any  county  is  entitled  to  more  than  one  Sena- 
tor, according  to  its  population,  its  proper  number  of 
Senators  shall  be  assigned  to  such  county,  and  the  resi- 
due of  the  State  be  divided  into  single  districts  with  one 
Senator  each. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  that  this  is  the  most 
simple  way  in  which  the  matter  can  be  deter- 
mined, namely : by  assigning  at  once  the  num- 
ber of  Senators  that  the  Senate  shall  consist  of. 

Mr.  ROOT.  How  many  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Thirty-three. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  amendment  says  thirty- 
three  districts. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir;  thirty-three  Sena- 
tors. I will  ask  that  it  be  read  once  more. 

The  amendment  was  read  a third  time. 

Mr.  POWELL.  As  I remarked  a little  while 
ago,  this  is  the  proper  way  of  determining  the 
matter.  Instead  of  beginning  with  the  dis- 
tricts, we  should  begin  by  denominating  the 
Senate,  and  determining  how  many  Senators 
should  belong  to  that  body,  and  then  declaring 
that  the  districts  shall  be  bounded  by  proper 
county  lines;  and  where  any  county  is  entitled 
to  more  than  one,  that  county  should  have  as 
many  Senators  as  its  just  proportion  of  popu- 
lation requires,  the  residue  of  the  State  being 
divided  into  single  districts,  with  one  Senator 
each.  Now,  this  is  as  concise  as  it  can  be  put, 
and  it  at  once  gets  rid  of  all  the  difficulties  that 
have  arisen.  Of  course,  when  we  have  deter- 
mined that  the  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty- 
three  Senators,  the  ratio  of  Senators  will  al- 
ways be  obtained  by  dividing  the  population  of 


the  State  by  thirty-three.  That  determines  the 
ratio,  and  then,  when  any  county  is  entitled 
to  more  than  one  Senator,  that  county  shall 
have  the  number  of  Senators  to  which  its  pro- 
per proportion  of  population  entitles  it,  and 
the  residue  of  the  State  shall  be  divided  into 
single  districts,  with  one  Senator  in  each  dis- 
trict. This  covers  the  whole  ground  just  as  it 
should  be,  and  in  more  concise  language  than 
any  that  has  been  proposed. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  allow  me  one  ques- 
tion ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  gen- 
tleman is  laboring  under  the  same  mistake  as 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  We 
must  recollect  that  the  Convention  has  already 
determined  to  divide  the  State  into  thirty- 
three  senatorial  districts,  and  if  the  gentleman’s 
amendment  is  adopted,  it  will  certainly  not  leave 
more  than  one  Senator  from  Hamilton  county, 
and  one  from  Cuyahoga  county.  I cannot  see 
it  in  any  other  light.  The  Convention  will  have 
to  undo  what  it  has  done,  in  fixing  the  number 
of  Senatorial  districts,  before  the  gentleman’s 
motion  can  have  any  force,  and  before  it  can 
be  carried  out,  the  Convention  having  already 
determined  upon  the  number  of  senatorial  dis- 
tricts. The  gentleman’s  motion,  fixing  the 
number  of  Senators  at  thirty-three,  will,  there- 
fore, give  the  county  of  Hamilton  but  one,  and 
the  county  of  Cuyahoga  but  one. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  gentleman  from  Mor- 
row [Mr.  Gurley]  raises  a question  of  order. 
I,  therefore,  submit  that  question  to  the  Chair, 
as  I do  not  desire  to  trouble  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  does  not  un- 
derstand the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr. 
Gurley]  to  claim  that  the  motion  is  out  of 
order. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I think  it  is  exactly  in  the 
same  condition  as  that  of  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  The  Convention  has 
already  divided  the  State  into  thirty-three  sen- 
atorial districts.  Now,  if  that  motion  prevails, 
it  provides  that  there  shall  be  thirty-three  Sen- 
ators elected  in  the  State,  and  it  must  follow, 
as  a matter  of  course,  that  Hamilton  county 
can  have  but  one  Senator,  and  Cuyahoga  but 
one.  Certainly  that  is  not  what  the  gentleman 
is  seeking  for,  although  it  must  be  the  result 
of  the  motion,  if  it  prevails. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  true,  that  the  mo- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]  tends  to  do  away  with  the  action  of 
the  Convention,  but  if  is  offered  in  connection 
with  other  matter;  whereas,  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  proposed  to  amend 
by  inserting  incongruous  matter.  The  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  moves  to 
strike  out  the  entire  section,  and  offers  a sub- 
stitute. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  To  strike  out  what  we  adopt- 
ed on  Friday  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I should  be  glad  if  the  Con- 
vention would  consider  the  proposition  now 
before  them.  This  section,  as  now  proposed, 
at  once  declares  the  number  of  members  of 
which  the  Senate  shall  consist,  namely,  thirty- 
three;  and  then  it  proceeds  to  divide  the  State 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Powell,  Root,  Dorsey. 


1709 


Day.] 

March  3,  1874.] 


into  districts,  and  declares  that  each  district 
shall  be  bounded  by  county  lines;  and  that 
where  any  county  is  entitled  to  more  than  one 
Senator,  it  shall  have  the  number  which  is  justly 
its  due,  according  to  its  population ; and  that  the 
residue  of  the  State  shall  be  divided  into  single 
districts,  with  one  Senator  in  each  district. 
I have  nothing  further  to  say  upon  the  subject, 
except  that  I think,  that  this  is  the  very  mode 
which  should  be  adopted ; and  that  it  is  more 
concise  than  any  other  proposition  which  has 
been  made.  Besides,  it  adapts  itself  to  what 
is  contained  in  the  Schedule — the  declaration 
how  the  State  shall  be  divided  into  senatorial 
districts.  This  section  contemplates  that  that 
will  be  done,  and  is,  therefore,  congruous  and 
proper.  I submit  it,  without  any  further  eluci- 
dation or  argument,  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I have  not  had  the  opportunity’ 
and  it  is  doubtful,  if  I had  had  the  opportunity? 
whether  I should  have  had  the  disposition  to 
participate  in  the  debate  heretofore  had  upon 
this  subject;  but  I beg  leave  at  this  stage — as  we 
are  getting  well  toward  the  close,  I hope — to 
submit  an  amendment,  if  it  is  in  order.  I move 
to  strike  out  the  word  “ three,”  after  “ thirty,” 
and  insert  the  word  “seven.” 

Sir,  not  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  how  the 
State  should  be  divided  to  make  single  senato- 
rial districts,  but  with  the  view  of  ascertaining 
how  it  should  be  divided  into  single  districts  for 
the  election  of  judges  of  the  court  of  common 
pleas,  I have,  before  this  time,  gone  over  the 
map  of  the  State  and  the  census  together.  I 
have  not  had  the  opportunity  to  refer  to  any 
figures  I then  made,  if  I have  preserved  them, 
but,  according  to  my  recollection,  thirty-seven 
is  the  number  by  which  the  State,  so  far  as  pop- 
ulation is  concerned,  can  be  most  equally  and 
fairly  divided.  The  population  of  the  average 
district,  in  .case  the  ratio  of  thirty-seven  were 
adopted,  would  be,  if  I recollect  right,  seventy- 
two  thousand  and  a very  small  fraction.  Any 
gentleman  can  divide  2,665,200  by  37,  and  ascer- 
tain for  himself.  Well,  sir,  with  thirty-seven 
Senators  you  can  district  the  State  so  equally — 
I speak  from  recollection  merely — as  to  have 
districts  of  contiguous  territory,  and  in  suffi- 
ciently good  shape,  without  any  gerrymander- 
ing, containing  from  sixty-three  thousand  to 
eighty  thousand  population  each.  This  would 
leave  a fraction  of  not  exceeding  eight  or  nine 
thousand  at  the  utmost.  The  difference  between 
sixty-three  thousand  and  eighty  thousand  being 
but  seventeen  thousand,  the  half  of  that,  name- 
ly, eight  thousand  five  hundred,  would  be  the 
extent  of  the  fraction  either  way.  With  a frac- 
tion of  one-eighth  or  one-ninth  of  the  ratio,  the 
districting  would  be  good,  fair  work,  if  due  re- 
gard be  had  to  contiguity  of  territory. 

This  would  enable  us  to  dispense  with  what 
has  been  a blot  upon  our  system  of  apportion- 
ment— I will  not  say  always,  but  generally — I 
mean  the  system  of  floats.  More  party  and  po- 
litical trickery  has  been  perpetrated  under  this 
system  than  we  care  to  remember.  We  saw  it 
at  the  time ; because  it  was  generally  so  fixed  as 
to  throw  the  floats  all  on  one  side,  when  a 
United  States  Senator  was  to  be  elected,  and  all 
on  the  other  side,  when  there  was  not  to  be. 


Mr.  DORSEY.  I deny  that  it  can  be  done.  I 
would  like  the  gentleman  to  explain  how. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I say  that  it  has  been  done;  and 
unless  we  and  our  sons  shall  prove  less  adept  at 
political  trickery  than  our  fathers  were,  it  will 
be  done  again. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  cannot  be  done. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  that  is  your  best  way,  stick 
to  it.  I say  it  has  been  done,  and  will  be  done 
again,  unless  we  have  better  men  coming  after 
us  than  ever  went  before  us.  How  it  can  be 
done,  probably  never  entered  into  the  heart  of 
the  delegate  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  to  con- 
ceive ; but  that  does  not  prove  to  me  that  no- 
body else  can  see  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Can  the  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root]  inform  me  how  Senators  would 
be  assigned,  under  his  proposition,  to  Hamilton 
county  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  sir,  there  would  be  four, 
because  they  would  have  a trifle  over  sixty-five 
thousand  as  a divisor.  It  might  be  four  and  it 
might  be  three;  but  justice  and  fair  dealing 
would  require  that  Hamilton  county  should 
have  four.  Justice  and  fair  dealing  would  re- 
quire that  Cuyahoga  county  should  have  two. 
The  same  rule  would  require  that  Franklin 
should  have  one  and  Montgomery  county  an- 
other. 

Now,  in  making  the  apportionment,  if  we  act 
wisely  and  justly,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see,  in 
many  instances,  what  portions  of  the  State  are 
most  likely  to  increase  rapidly  in  population 
during  the  next  ten  years.  Hence,  where  it 
can  be  done,  the  largest  districts  ought  to  be 
made  up  of  the  portions  of  the  State  not  likely 
to  increase  in  population;  and  the  smaller  dis- 
tricts should  be  made  up  of  portions  of  the 
State  most  likely  to  increase  in  population.  I 
could  get,  I think,  about  ten  witnesses,  if  they 
were  all  present,  to  prove  that  there  is  no  part 
of  the  State  more  likely  to  increase  rapidly  in 
population  for  the  next  ten  years  than  the 
county  of  Hamilton.  Starting  off  with  some- 
thing less  than  a full  quota  for  her  Senators, 
within  ten  years  she  will  probably  have  a pop- 
ulation as  ample  for  her  senatorial  representa- 
tion as  any  part  of  the  State.  I should  not  be 
afraid  to  summon  my  friend  from  Montgomery 
county  [Mr.  Clay]  to  prove  that  that  county  is 
likely  to  increase  as  rapidly  in  population  in 
the  next  ten  years  as  any  other  county  in  this 
State;  and  I think  that  the  delegate  from 
Franklin  county  [Mr.  Baber]  would  be  obliged, 
in  candor,  to  testify  that  his  county  would  also 
go  on  increasing  rapidly. 

In  that  way,  as  I said,  you  would  have  a frac- 
tion of  one-ninth,  and  when  you  get  down  to  a 
fraction  of  one-ninth,  it  is  a miserable  business 
to  attempt  to  equalize  that  fraction  by  a float. 
There  is  no  necessity  for  it.  There  is  no  oc- 
casion lor  it,  and  it  is  all  nonsense  to  attempt 
it.  The  system  itself  is  vicious.  The  gentle- 
man says  this  is  a system  under  which  this 
trickery  cannot  be  done  with  malice  afore- 
thought, because  they  cannot  contrive  it.  It 
always  has  been  that  way. 

Now,  sir,  I do  not  conceal  the  fact  that  there 
are  other  parts  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  that  do  not 
commend  themselves  to  my  favorable  considera- 
tion; but  I do  say,  that,  so  far  as  the  num- 


1710 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Root,  Powell,  Townsend,  Hoadly. 


[128th 


her  of  Senators  is  concerned,  there  is  no  quota 
that  will  enable  us  to  do  such  exact  justice,  or 
approach  such  complete  justice  as  the  number  of 
thirty-seven  Senators,  giving  an  average  quota 
of  seventy-two  thousand.  About  as  small  a dis- 
trict as  you  would  have  would  be  the  county  of 
Montgomery,  or  the  county  of  Franklin,  and 
they  would  not  fall  short  of  the  ratio  more  than 
eight  or  nine  thousand,  whilst  as  large  a district 
as  you  need  have  anywhere  would  not  much 
exceed  eighty  thousand.  Hence,  I hope  that 
now  or  hereafter,  as  our  action  may  determine, 
we  shall  give  up  the  number  thirty-three  and 
adopt  the  number  thirty-seven ; but  if  this 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell]  is  to  prevail,  I very  much  desire 
that  it  should  prevail  with  the  number  increased. 

Suppose,  now,  the  other  part  of  the  proposi- 
tion should  be  adopted ; namely,  that  the  dis- 
tricts shall  be  bounded  by  county  lines;  or  in 
other  words,  that  Hamilton  county  shall  consti- 
tute one  district,  and  Cuyahoga  county  another. 
Instead  of  having  thirty-three  single  districts 
in  the  State  we  should  have  thirty-one  districts, 
one  of  them  with  four  Senators,  and  another 
with  two,  leaving  twenty-nine  single  districts, 
and  giving  thirty-five  Senators  for  the  first  six 
years.  Thus  the  six  Senators  from  the  two 
great  counties  would  represent  a total  constitu- 
ency of  392,386,  equal  to  65,230  each,  whilst  the 
other  twenty-nine  would  represent  a total  con- 
stituency of  2,272,880,  equal  to  78,375  each.  Is 
it  too  much  to  ask  that  the  rural  counties  be  al- 
lowed two  more  Senators,  with  constituencies 
averaging  73,318  each  ? Do  that,  and  you  will 
approach  justice  and  fair  dealing.  For  these 
reasons,  I have  proposed  the  amendment  It 
sets  no  obstacle  in  the  way  either  of  what  is  de- 
sired by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell],  or  of  what  is  desired  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Doksey.] 

If  it  be  objected  that  thirty-seven  Senators 
would  be  too  many,  I reply  that  the  difference 
between  that  number  and  thirty-five  is  not 
worth  an  act  of  injustice  or  unfairness.  We 
have  had,  and  under  the  present  provision  may 
have  again,  thirty-seven  Senators.  I,  myself, 
have  sat  in  the  Senate  with  thirty-seven  Sena- 
tors; eighteen  on  one  side,  and  nineteen  on  the 
other.  Such  was  the  Senate  in  1870  and 
1871.  It  may  very  well,  indeed  must,  occur 
again,  if  we  persist  in  the  rule,  and  the  prac- 
tice is  found,  by  experience,  not  to  be  objec- 
tionable. If  we  could  district  the  State  as  fair- 
ly on  a quota  of  thirty-five  or  thirty-three,  I 
would  not  object  to  it;  but  I say  we  can  come 
much  nearer  justice  with  thirty-seven  than  we 
can  with  any  less  number.  That  I have  made 
a cast  upon.  Hence,  I hope  we  will  agree  to 
have  thirty-seven  Senators.  Then,  if  you  have 
single  districts,  Hamilton  county  would  con- 
tain four,  and  Cuyahoga  county  two;  and  if 
you  have  districts  of  more  than  one  Senator, 
you  can  make  a district  of  Hamilton  with  four, 
and  a district  of  Cuyahoga  with  two.  But  no 
other  dis 

Mr.  POWELL.  One  word, if  the  Convention 
will  permit  me.  I am  very  much  struck  with 
the  observations  of  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root],  that  they  are  just,  and  I am  now 
very  much  inclined  to  accept  his  amendment  at 
once.  But  it  is  a question  that  should  be  sub- 


[Tuesday, 


mitted  to  the  Convention,  whether  they  will 
say  thirty-seven,  as  he  proposes,  or  thirty-three, 
as  the  section  now  under  consideration  pro- 
poses. It  makes  but  little  difference  whether  it 
is  thirty-three,  thirty-five,  or  thirty-seven,  each 
of  which  our  present  Senate  has  frequently 
contained  as  members.  There  is  no  serious  ob- 
jection to  either  of  them.  But,  however,  when 
we  come  to  divide  it,  in  extending  the  time, 
to  ascertain  the  ratio  for  Senator,  prob- 
ably thirty-seven  will  not  be  any  nearer 
than  thirty-three.  That  may  be,  but  it  is  al- 
ways well  to  adapt  the  number  to  the  pres- 
ent condition  of  the  State,  and,  possibly,  the 
same  ratio  will  answer  as  well  for  the  next 
census  as  for  the  present.  Therefore,  I submit 
it  to  the  Convention  to  say  which  they  prefer. 

I do  not  know,  now,  but  I will  vote  for  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root], 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  What  is  the  motion  now 
pending? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  first  question  will 
be  upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  to  original  sec- 
tion three,  to  strike  out  all  after  the  word  “dis- 
tricts,” in  line  one,  and  insert  “in  each  of  which 
one  Senator  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified 
electors  thereof.” 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  an  amendment  to 
the  amendment  by  adding  “in  each  of  which 
shall  be  elected  one  or  more  Senators.”  That 
will  entitle  each  district  to  one  Senator,  and 
the  larger  districts  to  an  additional  number  of 
Senators,  that  it  may  be  entitled  to  by  the  ratio 
fixed. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I was  thinking,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  the  amendment  which  I offered  was 
before  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  true,  sir.  The 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Townsend],  will  not  now  be  in  order.  It  would 
be  in  order  for  the  purpose  of  perfecting  this 
other  amendment.  The  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  is  to 
amend  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  Strictly  speaking,  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]  is  a motion  to  amend,  and  it  could  not 
be  perfected.  The  point  of  order  being  made, 
I suppose,  therefore,  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  is  not  in 
order,  and  the  question  must  be  first  taken  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr. 
Hale],  On  this,  the  yeas  and  nays  are  de- 
manded. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  like  to  ask,  if  I have 
the  right  idea  in  supposing  that  this  amend- 
ment raises  the  single  district  question  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  is  “ in 
each  of  which  one  Senator  shall  be  elected  by 
the  qualified  electors  thereof.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I was  not  so  fortunate  as  to 
be  in  the  Convention  last  week,  when  the  ques- 
tion was  taken  as  to  the  division  of  counties  for 
Representative  districts.  I desire  to  consume  a 
few  moments  in  expressing  the  reasons  why  I 
cannot  vote  for  this  proposition  of  the  delegate 
I from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  or  any  similar  propo- 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 


1711 


Day.] 

March  3, 1874.]  Powell,  Root,  Townsend,  Baber,  Hoadly. 


sition  that  proposes,  as  I regard  it,  to  disfran- 
chise this  county. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me?  1 will  ask  that  the  substitute  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  be  read 
again. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  is  to  strike 
out,  in  section  three,  all  after  the  word  “ dis- 
tricts,” in  the  first  line,  and  insert,  “ in  each  of 
which  one  Senator  shall  be  elected  by  the  quali- 
fied electors  thereof.”  So  that  the  section  would 
read  thus : “ The  State  shall  be  divided  into 

thirty-three  Senatorial  districts,  in  each  of 
which  one  Senator  shall  be  elected  by  the  quali- 
fied voters  thereof.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  Allow  me  to  inquire  whether 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell]  was  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  is  to  strike 
out  the  entire  section. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Was  that  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  was  in  order  to  strike 
out  the  entire  section. 

Mr.  ROOT.  And  offer  a substitute  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Then  it  is  in  order  to  per- 
fect the  original  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  what  the  gentle- 
man from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  is  seeking  to  do. 
The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend] 
will  have  an  opportunity  to  offer  his  amend- 
ment, if  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  prevails.  The  question  now 
is  on  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Is  it  not  in  order  to  add 
to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Lo- 
rain [Mr.  Hale],  so  that  it  can  be  adopted  as 
amended? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  would  seem  not,  be- 
cause the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Dela- 
ware [Mr.  Powell]  is  to  amend  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  which 
fills  the  measure.  The  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Townsend],  of  course,  can  offer  his 
amendment  if  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  is  adopted. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Has  not  the  Convention  al- 
Teady  determined  that  they  would  not  divide 
the  State  by  single  districts  ? I think  that  ques- 
tion was  decided  last  week. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  as  to  Senators.  The 
'question  last  week  was  in  respect  to  Represen- 
tatives. 

Mr.  BABER.  We  want  to  understand  the 
question  exactly.  The  point  is  this : The  gen- 
tleman from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  has 
offered  a substitute  for  the  whole  proposition. 

The  PRESIDENT.  For  the  whole  section. 

Mr.  BABER.  For  the  whole  section  ? Then 
is  it  not  in  order  to  perfect  the  original  section 
— the  amendment  to  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]?  We  do  not 
want  to  be  put  in  the  position  of  voting  for  this 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain 
[Mr.  Hale],  which  votes  the  single  district  sub- 
ject in.  If  we  could  entertain  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend] 
if  we  vote  for  it.  But  this  settles  the  single 
-district  system.  It  votes  it  in,  then  we  have 


got  to  vote  it  out,  and  I want  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  to  understand  that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I think  I do  understand  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  objection  to  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  was  a technical  one 
entirely — namely,  that  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  is  in 
itself  in  the  nature  of  an  amendment  to  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale].  The  Chair  would  be  per- 
fectly willing,  if  no  objection  is  made,  to  take 
the  question  first  on  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Town- 
send], as  an  amendment  to  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale], 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I would  state,  briefly, 
the  reasons  why  I offer  this  amendment.  It 
can  be  done  in  two  forms : I propose  fixing  the 

number  of  senatorial  districts  at  thirty-three, 
and,  in  the  form  that  I propose  the  amendment, 
it  leaves  the  question  of  the  number  of  Sena- 
tors to  be  determined  by  the  population  in  these 
districts.  Under  the  present  popoulation,  as 
we  understand  it,  Hamilton  county  would  be 
entitled  to  four,  and  Cuyahoga  to  two,  which 
would  make  thirty-seven  Senators.  We  will 
have  to  vote  to  determine  whether  that  number 
shall  be  increased  or  not.  I think  that,  during 
the  next  decennial  period,  perhaps  one  or  two 
other  districts  in  the  State — Lucas  and  Mont- 
gomery— may  be  entitled  to  an  additional  Sena- 
tor. If  so,  by  the  population,  they  ought  to  have 
it.  Another  way  to  reach  the  same  result,  at 
present,  would  be  to  state,  in  so  many  words, 
that  there  shall  be  thirty-three  senatorial  dis- 
tricts. Hamilton  county  shall  be  entitled  to 
four,  Cuyahoga  to  two,  and  the  rest  only  one 
each.  That  would  be  the  substance  of  it.  That 
will  fix  it  so  that  no  other  district,  during  ten 
years,  could  have  a Senator,  even  though  they 
might  be  entitled  to  it.  I,  therefore,  prefer  the 
first  amendment,  leaving  the  question  of  the 
Senators  to  be  determined  by  the  vote.  But,  as 
the  population  now  determines  there  shall  be 
thirty-seven,  there  will  be  thirty-one  districts 
that  will  have  one  Senator  each;  one  district, 
Hamilton,  will  be  entitled  to  four;  Cuyahoga 
will  be  entitled  to  two,  making  the  thirty- 
seven.  I think  that  is  fair,  and  it  represents 
the  population  of  the  State. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Townsend].  The  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Townsend]  moves  to  amend  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr. 
Hale]  by  inserting  the  words  “ one  or  more 
Senators.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  proposition  of  the 
delegate  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  or  the  dele- 
gate from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  were  to 
make  the  city  of  Cincinnati  or  the  city  of  Cleve- 
land as  municipalities,  senatorial  districts,  I 
could  see  some  reason  for  it;  but  when  it  is 
proposed  arbitrarily  to  divide  this  county  into 
two  or  three  parts  without  respect  to  anything 
but  numbers — for  that  will  be  the  result  of  it — 
I am  not,  and  never  have  been,  able  (it  is  a 
question  that  has  been  for  a long  time  before 
the  minds  of  the  people  of  this  county)  to  see 
any  sufficient  reason  for  so  doing.  We  are  di- 
vided in  this  county  in  a two-fold  manner.  We 


1712 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Hoadly,  Cook,  Herron,  etc. 


128th 

[Tuesday, 


are  a city  and  a county,  and  every  person 
throughout  the  geographical  limits  of  the 
county  is  interested  in  our  operations  and  man- 
agement as  a county,  and,  if  the  county  system 
is  to  prevail  elsewhere,  it  is  entitled  to  he  heard 
and  to  be  represented,  and  every  person  within 
the  limits  of  the  city  is  entitled  to  be  heard  and 
to  be  represented,  so  far  as  the  government  of 
the  city  may  be  concerned.  Now,  I should  like 
to  know  with  what  propriety  this  county  is  to 
be  divided  into  three  parts  or  four  parts,  and  the 
people  of  one-fourth  be  said  in  any  fair  way  to 
represent  either  the  city  or  county?  And, 
then,  when  you  take  the  matter  of  dividing  the 
county  for  members  of  the  lower  House,  the 
evil  becomes  still  greater,  because  you  divide 
the  county  into  ten  parts,  and  I cannot  for  the 
life  of  me  see  how  the  people  of  the  county 
who  are  equally  interested  in  the  matter  of 
county  taxation,  in  the  matter  of  county  build- 
ings, in  the  administration  of  the  county  offices, 
whose  interests,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  they 
are  consolidated  as  a county,  and  the  county  is 
the  unit  of  our  government,  I do  not  see  how 
the  people  of  the  county  can  be  said  to  be  ade- 
quately represented  when  nine-tenths  of  those 
people  had  no  voice  in  the  election  of  their 
member.  And  so  with  regard  to  each  one  of 
the  subdivisions  proposed.  Take  this  matter  of 
the  Senate.  You  divide  this  county  into  four 
equal  parts,  equal  as  to  population.  What 
would  be  the  result?  The  member  elected  in 
one-fourth  of  the  county,  will  represent  not 
the  county,  but  the  fraction  in  which  he  may 
have  been  elected,  and  yet  he  will  be  called  up- 
on to  legislate  with  regard,  not  to  fractional,  but 
to  entire  county  matters.  He  will  not  be  called 
upon  once  during  his  term  of  service  to  legis- 
late with  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  territory 
he  represents ; not  once. 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  COOK.  I ask  him,  if  his  county  is  not 
divided  for  congressional  purposes? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly,  it  is  divided  for 
congressional  purposes ; but  what  has  that  to 
do  with  it  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  Do  not  the  Congressmen  repre- 
sent your  city  and  county  the  same  as  Senators  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Precisely  they  do;  but  what 
they  represent  in  legislating  is  not  the  county. 
The  county  is  the  familiar  unit  of  government 
in  the  State.  But  how  does  the  county  of  Ham- 
ilton figure  in  the  matter  of  the  general  legis- 
lation of  the  United  States.  The  laws  of  the 
United  States  have  reference  to  individuals  and 
States,  but  do  not  to  counties.  The  gentleman 
will  search  the  seventeen  volumes  of  the  stat- 
utes at  large  in  vain,  for  the  words,  “ county  of 
Hamilton  ”.  They  are  not  there,  and  the  thing , 
“ county  of  Hamilton,”  is  not  there;  but  if  he 
will  open  the  statutes  of  this  State,  he  will  find 
them  lull  of  these  words,  “county  of  Hamil- 
ton,” “ Cuyahoga,”  etc. 

Mr.  HERRON.  The  Constitution  provides, 
for  instance,  that  the  county  of  Hamilton  shall 
be  entitled  to  ten  Representatives,  and  that  they 
shall  be  elected  by  single  districts.  When  they 
are  so  elected,  does  it  make  them  any  less  the 
Representatives  of  Hamilton  than  if  they  were 
elected  by  the  county  at  large  ? 


Mr.  HOADLY.  They  may  be  labelled  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  county  of  Hamilton  by  the  Con- 
stitution, but  the  label  will  be  a lie— that  is  all 
there  is  of  it.  Does  the  gentleman  pretend  to  tell 
me,  that  a man  elected  in  the  sixth  ward  of  Cin- 
cinnati, if  that  ward  should  become  equal  in  pop- 
ulation to  one-tenth  of  the  people  of  this  county, 
would  be  in  any  degree  a fair  Representative  of 
Hamilton  county  ? Because  you  label  or  entitle 
him  a Representative  of  the  county,  you  do  not 
make  him  such.  In  order  that  he  may  be  a Repre- 
sentative of  the  county  he  should  be  elected  by 
the  people  of  the  county.  When  you  divide  the 
county  into  ten  parts,  the  other  nine-tenths  are 
disfranchised  and  not  represented  at  all  in  his 
election,  and  he  is  no  Representative  of  the  coun- 
ty at  all. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Take  your  city  here,  for  in- 
stance, your  common  council,  has  not  a member 
from  the  first  ward  as  much  interest  in  the  pros- 
perity of  the  city  as  a member  from  the  fourth 
ward  ? Does  it  destroy  his  interest  in  the  wel- 
fare of  the  city  because  he  is  elected  from  a dif- 
ferent ward? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  sorry  to  say  it  seems  it 
does.  The  gentleman  refers  to  the  practice, 
and  I have  to  say  to  him  in  reply,  that  in  the 
only  city  in  which  this  thing  has  been  thorough- 
ly tried,  it  has  been  a total  failure.  And  if  he 
will  take  the  character  of  the  men  from  the  city 
of  New  York  in  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  he  will  find  the  best  answer  to  his 
proposition  to  divide  this  county ; for,  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  after  William  M.  Tweed  had 
been  publicly  exposed  in  the  great  frauds  for 
which  he  is  now  serving  a term  in  the  peniten- 
tiary on  Blackwell’s  Island,  he  was  elected  to 
the  Senate  of  the  State  of  New  York, by  one  of  the 
subdivisions  into  which  that  city  is  most  unwise- 
ly divided  for  purposes  of  the  election  of  Sena- 
tors, and  that  by  an  overwhelming  majority. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Does  not  the  gentleman 
believe  that  if  the  election  had  been  held  for 
Senators  over  the  entire  city  of  New  York  the 
majority  for  Tweed  would  not  only  have  been 
as  large  as  it  was,  but  a good  deal  larger  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not.  But  I know,  if  I 
know  anything  about  it,  that  at  that  election 
the  Reform  Party  carried  the  city  of  New  York 
by  a very  large  majority;  and  so  far  from 
Tweed’s  having  been  elected,  when  the  appeal 
was  made  to  the  people  of  the  whole  city,  the 
people  of  the  whole  city  put  him  under  their 
feet.  That  is  the  fact.  He  was  elected  in  a sub- 
division. He  could  not  be  elected  in  the  whole 
city.  My  colleague  ought  to  know  that  in  parts 
of  this  city  are  men  no  better  than  Tweed,  not 
a particle  better,  except  that  their  opportunities 
are  smaller,  who  would  be  certain  to  go  to  the 
Legislature  under  the  programme  which  he 
advocates.  1 am  no  admirer  of  the  present 
system,  but  it  is  better  than  that  of  single  dis- 
tricts. But  this  is  leading  me  away  from  the 
proposition  I was  discussing.  I say  you  dis- 
franchise three-fourths  of  Hamilton  county  if 
you  divide  it.  Here  are  four  Senators,  and  by 
saying  that  one-fourth  shall  elect  one  of  these 
Senators,  considering  that  the  matters  to  be 
legislated  upon  so  largely  involve  the  interests 
of  the  whole  county,  by  electing  that  man  Sena- 
tor, and  calling  him  Senator  from  Hamilton 
county,  you  will  stamp  a false  pretense  upon 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS- 

Cunningham,  Hoadly,  Herron,  Pratt,  West. 


1713 


Day.] 

March  3, 1874.] 


him.  His  title  will  be  a false  pretense,  and  as  a 
representative  of  one-fourth  the  people  of  Ham- 
ilton eounty,  he  will  have  authority  to  vote 
with  regard  to  taxes  and  a thousand  things  that 
concern  the  whole  county,  and  the  matters  upon 
which  he  will  be  called  to  vote,  involving  the 
fate  of  his  section,  will  be  the  fewest  indeed. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Would  not  a Senator 
of  the  thirty-seventh  district — my  district — 
have  the  same  sort  of  vote  that  a Senator  from 
Hamilton  would  have  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Every  man  in  the  gentleman’s 
district  would  vote  for  the  Senator  to  represent 
him,  and  he  would  represent  every  man  in  it. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  gentleman  mis- 
understood me.  He  complains  now  that  a Sen- 
ator elected  in  a fraction  of  Hamilton  county, 
would  go  to  the  Legislature  and  vote  to  affect 
the  interests  of  Hamilton  county  as  a unit.  He 
would  have  no  greater  vote  than  a Senator  from 
any  other  part. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  a particle;  but  the  mat- 
ters he  is  called  upon  to  vote,  are  matters  of 
county  government.  I said,  in  the  beginning, 
that,  if  the  gentlemen  proposed  to  give  the  city 
of  Cincinnati  Senators,  I would  see  some  rea- 
son for  it,  because  there  are  a thousand  things 
with  regard  to  which  the  city  of  Cincinnati  is  a 
unit  in  legislation.  That  is  not  proposed.  It  is 
proposed  to  split  the  county,  and  my  Proposi- 
tion is  this;  that  the  county  is  the  unit  of  our 
government  in  the  State,  and  the  matters  which 
involve  the  interests  of  the  whole  county  are 
so  many,  so  multifarious,  that,  to  elect  a Sena- 
tor from  the  fourth  of  that  county,  and  send 
him  there  to  the  Legislature  for  the  whole 
county,  will  be  doing  injustice  to  the  other 
three-fourths,  which  amounts,  virtually,  to  dis- 
franchisement. How  can  any  control  be  had  of 
such  a Representative  ? How  rebuke  him,  if  he  go 
astray  ? His  fraction,  as  did  Tweed’s,  may  still 
sustain  him.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  peo- 
ple of  this  county  once  nullified  a law  of  the 
Legislature  of  Ohio,  and  persisted  in  nullifica- 
tion until  they  were  successful.  That  is  the 
reason  why  it  was  done.  It  was  because  the 
people  honestly  thought,  in  the  division  of  this 
county  in  1848,  there  was  not  merely  a political 
change  attempted,  but  that  the  practical  result 
would  be  the  disfranchisement  of  a very  large 
portion  of  the  county,  by  sending  fractional 
Representatives  when  the  whole  county  was 
justly  entitled  to  be  represented  by  men  elected 
from  the  whole  county. 

Mr.  HERRON.  In  what  way  did  Hamilton 
county  persist  in  nullifying  the  law  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  She  elected  five  Representa- 
tives by  general  ticket,  and  they  took  their  seats, 
and  held  their  seats  until  the  end  of  the  term, 
and  repealed  the  law.  That  is  how. 

Mr.  HERRON.  That  law  was  repealed  by 
the  Legislature. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  was. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Then  the  people  of  Hamilton 
did  not  nullify. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly  they  did.  They 
first  nullified  the  law,  and  the  members  ob- 
tained their  seats;  and,  having  obtained  their 
seats,  they  wiped  out  that  law,  because  it  was 
believed  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution 
of  the  State,  as  it  then  existed,  and  with  public 
policy.  They  were  elected,  by  a general  ticket, 
Y.  H-110 


from  the  county. 

Mr.  PRATT.  In  a district  composed  of  five 
or  ten  counties,  what  county  does  the  Senator 
represent  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  He  represents  each  one,  and 
the  whole  of  each  one. 

Mr.  PRATT.  And  can  vote  for  each  one’s 
interest  separately  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all;  because  the  popu- 
lation will  not  justify  it. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Does  the  gentleman  claim  that 
the  Senators  are  elected  by  Hamilton? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  was  suggested  to  me  that 
he  becomes  a Senator  from  Hamilton  county, 
although  elected  by  but  a fraction  of  her  peo- 
ple. I say  he  represents  the  Senatorial  district 
in  which  he  may  be  elected.  That  is  what  I 
said.  And  in  shaping  that  district,  the  county 
ought  not  to  be  so  subdivided  as  to  obliterate 
county  lines  in  the  larger  counties,  and  to  pre- 
vent the  county  from  having  a Representative 
in  the  Senate.  The  effect  of  this  legislation  is 
absolutely  to  prevent  the  county  of  Hamilton 
and  the  county  of  Cuyahoga — and  there  would 
be  a dozen  instances,  in  a short  time,  if  the 
number  of  Senators  were  elastic  enough  to  allow 
it — from  having  any  representation  at  all.  Your 
districts,  such  as  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt]  alludes  to,  have  a Senator  who 
represents  the  whole  of  each  of  the  counties; 
and  if  he  go  astray,  can  be  held  to  account  and 
repudiated,  or,  by  re-election,  approved  by  the 
votes  of  the  people  of  all  the  counties.  As  it  is 
proposed  to  divide  the  county  of  Hamilton,  the 
county  will  have  no  Senator  at  all.  The  Sena- 
tors will  vote  with  regard  to  matters  involving 
the  rights  of  three-fourths  of  the  people,  with- 
out their  having  voted  for  him,  or  being  able  to 
control  or  rebuke  him. 

Mr.  WEST.  I most  strenuously  dissent  from 
the  proposition  just  uttered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  who  has  last 
spoken,  and  I think  a sense  of  justice  to  the 
other  portions  of  the  State,  requires  that  what- 
ever system  we  now  adopt,  shall  be  the  single 
district  system.  It  has  always  occurred  to  me, 
ever  since  the  present  Constitution  was  adopted 
— and  I have  no  regard  to  political  matters,  how 
they  are,  because  sometimes  they  are  one  party 
and  sometimes  the  other — but  the  principle  has 
always  occurred  to  me,  as  operating  very  un- 
justly to  the  residue  of  the  State.  I can  see  no 
reason  in  the  world  why,  in  an  over-grown 
county  or  portion  of  territory  that  happens  to 
be  embraced  within  certain  county  limits,  shall 
be  entitled  to  elect  a number  of  Represeutatives 
by  general  ticket,  and  the  balance  of  the  State 
by  subdivision,  so  as  to  elect  by  single  ticket. 
Suppose  the  principle  were  extended,  and  that 
the  southern  half  of  the  State  were  authorized 
to  elect  by  general  ticket,  and  the  northern  half 
of  the  State  by  single  ticket;  or  that  the  north- 
ern half  of  the  State  shall  prefer  to  elect  by 
general  ticket,  and  the  southern  half  by  single 
ticket,  everybody  knows  how  unjustly  it  would 
operate  to  the  portion  subdivided.  Their 
strength,  their  power,  their  influence,  whether 
it  be  political,  moral,  or  whatever  it  may  be, 
must  necessarily  be  subdivided  and  cut  up, 
whilst  the  other  power  that  is  represented  by 
general  ticket,  is  always  consolidated  and  effi- 


1714 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

West,  Hoadly. 


[128th 

[Tuesday  ? 


cient.  The  consolidated  power  invariably  con- 
trols the  legislation  of  the  State.  It  is  the 
consolidated  power,  thrust  inffo  the  State,  that 
controls  it;  exercising  the  balance  of  power 
one  way  or  the  other,  as  it  may  throw  itself.  It 
has  always  occurred  to  me,  therefore,  that  it 
was  exceedingly  unjust  that  that  thing  should 
be  done,  and  that  there  ought  to  be  a distribu- 
tion of  representation.  Now,  gentlemen  talk 
about  representing  a county.  There  is  no 
such  thing.  There  is  no  representation  of  a 
county,  as  a county  in  its  organized  char- 
acter. It  is  representation  of  the  people  that 
live  within  a certain  territorial  limit.  That 
is  what  is  represented,  and  not  any  organiza- 
tion, incorporation,  municipality,  or  otherwise. 
He  represents  the  sense  and  sentiment  of  the 
population  that  may  reside  within  a certain  cir- 
cumscribed limit,  and  nothing  more.  That  is 
what  we  represent,  and  nothing  more.  Now, 
let  us  illustrate : Here  is  the  State  of  Ohio,  that 
is  an  integral  part  of  the  United  States.  There 
are  thirty-seven  organized  States,  and  they  are 
as  much  municipalities  as  a county  is  a munici- 
pal part  of  a State.  But  does  any  man  tell  me 
that  a member  of  Congress,  although  elected 
from  one-half  of  Hamilton  county,  when  he 
takes  his  seat  in  Congresses  not  a Representative 
of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  labeled  as  a Represen- 
tative of  the  State  of  Ohio?  Certainly  he  is, 
and  being  so  labeled,  he  represents  the  State  of 
Ohio,  although  only  one  portion  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  elects  him.  He  is  regarded  as  a Represen- 
tative from  the  State  of  Ohio.  Now,  why  should 
not  the  people  of  Ohio  elect  by  general  ticket, 
and  the  people  of  New  York  by  general  ticket, 
and  the  people  of  Massachusetts  by  general 
ticket,  and  the  people  of  Kansas  by  general 
ticket,  and  all  be  represented  in  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  accordingly?  Because,  it 
operates  unjustly.  It  gives  to  an  overgrown 
State  like  New  York,  and  a bare  naked  political 
majority  of  the  State  of  New  York,  no  matter 
which  way  it  is,  a controlling  power  to  thrust 
thirty-three  members  of  Congress  into  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States,  elected,  it  may  be,  by 
a very  meagre  majority  of  the  whole  people  of 
the  State.  That  is  disfranchising,  in  a certain 
sense,  those  that  happen  to  be  in  the  minority 
of  that  State;  and  in  order  to  avoid  that  state 
of  things,  these  subdivisions  into  congressional 
districts  were  adopted,  to  relieve  the  hardship, 
and  the  wrong,  and  the  very  great  injustice  that 
necessarily  result  from  such  a course  of  repre- 
sentation. Now,  it  is  the  same  principle  that 
ought  to  be  applied  to  the  people  of  Ohio.  Ham- 
ilton county  sustains  to  the  State  the  relation 
which  the  State  of  Ohio  sustains  to  the 
United  States.  The  Representatives  of  the  people 
of  Ohio  are  elected  by  single  districts,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  wrong  and  injustice  that  would  be 
done  to  other  portions  of  the  country.  The 
Representatives  of  Hamilton  county,  and  of 
Cuyahoga  county,  should  be  elected  on  single 
tickets,  in  order  to  avoid  the  wrong  and  in- 
justice that  is  done  to  other  smaller  subdivi- 
sions of  the  State.  They  represent  the  inter- 
ests of  the  constituency  directly,  and  they  rep- 
resent the  interests  and  political  organization 
of  the  entire  State.  When  they  represent  their 
constituents  in  the  General  Assembly,  each 
man  is  a Representative  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  as 


well  as  a Representative  of  a particular  local- 
ity. If  he  be  within  the  corporate  limits  of  the 
county  of  Hamilton,  he  may  have  some  local 
interest  to  subserve  there,  some  particular  local 
interest  that  he  may  have  to  give  watch  and 
care  for,  and  bring  it  before  the  general  body 
of  the  Representatives  of  the  State  for  their 
consultation.  But  will  any  man  tell  me 
that  the  people  of  Hamilton  county  are 
disfranchised  when  they  adopt  the  single  dis- 
tricts for  their  Representatives  or  their  Sen- 
ators, any  more  than  any  other  portion  of  the 
people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  are  disfranchised 
wherein  there  is  a county  so  small  that  it 
cannot  send  any  Representative  or  Senator 
at  all  ? Is  not  that  county  much  more  without 
a Representative  than  Hamilton  county,  when 
she  sends  ten,  or  three  Senators,  it  may  be? 
Certainly  it  is  so.  It  is  unjust,  therefore,  I say, 
to  the  balance  of  the  State.  And  now,  if  we 
here  shall  permit  our  hands  to  become  tied 
again,  we  will  have,  for  the  next  twenty  or 
forty  years,  in  the  Legislature,  the  same  that 
we  have  witnessed  for  the  last  twenty  or  forty 
years,  the  power  of  those  overgrown  corpora- 
tions, or  municipalities,  or  whatever  you  may 
call  them,  send  into  the  Legislature  their  united 
representative  power,  which  controls  the 
divisions  of  the  balance  of  the  State,  and 
legislating  for  their  interest,  and  according  to 
their  wishes,  in  despite  of  the  balance  of  the 
State,  which,  being  divided,  cannot  concentrate 
and  consolidate  against  them.  I want  divi- 
sions, in  order  that  this  consolidation  shall  be 
avoided  and  prevented,  and  it  is  only  by 
divisions,  by  single  representative  districts, 
where  the  interests  shall  be  divided,  that  this 
consolidated  corruption  can  be  effectually 
avoided.  When  we  can  accomplish  that,  when 
the  representative  districts  shall  be  single  dis- 
tricts, and  there  shall  be  no  unity  of  interest, 
so  as  to  permit  a dozen  or  fifteen  Representa- 
tives to  be  united  upon  a single  project,  then, 
and  not  till  then,  will  the  purity  of  our  legisla- 
tion be  guaranteed  beyond  all  controversy.  I 
shall  fight,  here  and  hereafter,  for  single 
districts,  under  all  circumstances,  because  the 
whole  interests  of  the  whole  people  of  the  State, 
irrespective  of  party  politics,  or  any  other 
view,  require  single  districts,  in  my  judgment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  whether  the 
principle  he  enunciated  does  not  require  him  to 
begin  at  some  convenient  place  in  the  State  and 
divide  the  whole  State  by  township  lines,  by 
farms,  without  reference  to  county  lines  at 
all? 

Mr.  WEST.  Simply  as  a mere  matter  of  con- 
venience, would  be  all.  I would  be  perfectly 
willing,  so  far  as  I am  concerned,  if  it  can  be 
done,  that  township  and  ward  lines  shall  in  all 
cases  determine  the  representative  districts. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Would  not  greater  equality 
of  representation  be  secured  by  observing  town- 
ship and  ward  lines? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly  greater  equality  could 
be  secured,  and,  practically,  where  there  is  but 
one  voice  there  may  be  a slight  degree  of  ine- 
quality. But  I am  speaking  of  having  this 
overgrown  power.  Why  not  elect  one  Repre- 
sentative solely  from  Hamilton,  and  let  him  cast 
ten  votes?  Why  not  elect  one  Senator  from 


1715 


Day.] CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

March  3,  1874.]  West,  Bishop,  Cunningham,  Powell,  Pratt,  Cook. 


Hamilton,  and  let  him  cast  four  votes  ? Why 
elect  ten  Representatives  ? Give  one  ten  votes. 
That  is  the  principle  I am  striking  at.  Why 
speak  with  so  many  voices,  when  there  is  so 
much  of  the  population  that  would  speak  with 
a different  voice,  if  they  had  an  opportunity  ? 
Now,  I propose  to  give  that  other  voice  an  op- 
portunity to  speak. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Would  not  cumulative  voting 
do  it? 

Mr.  WEST.  Cumulative  voting  would  not 
do  it  in  the  right  way. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  does  to  someextent 
reach  minority  representation. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  the  plan  of  single  districts, 
in  a very  much  more  simple  manner,  reaches 
that  result.  It  gives  the  people  outside  of  the 
city  an  opportunity  to  be  represented,  as  well 
as  the  people  inside  of  the  city. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I entirely  disagree  with  the 
views  expressed  by  the  gentleman  from  Log  in 
[Mr.  West],  upon  the  subject  of  dividing  the 
State  into  Senatorial  districts.  Now,  as  a matte i 
of  consideration,  for  the  purposeof  elucidation, 
they  have  referred  to  the- division  of  the  United 
States  into  Congressional  districts.  That  is  so 
distant  a thing,  and  so  few  counties  of  the  re- 
quisite population,  where  you  can  make  a single 
district  by  a county,  that  it  comes  but  very  little 
into  consideration,  but  here  in  this  State  it  is  an 
entirely  different  thing.  Now,  I will  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  different 
feelings  that  people  have  with  regard  to  the 
divisions  of  a county,  with  regard  to  the  lines 
that  separate  one  portion  of  the  people  from 
another.  In  New  England,  the  township  or 
town  is  the  territory  which  commands  the  con- 
sideration of  the  people,  political  and  otherwise. 
Here,  in  Ohio,  it  is  the  county,  and  when  you 
divide  the  people  of  the  county,  you  divide 
their  interest,  divide  their  affections.  Now,  if 
it  were  as  it  is  in  New  England,  that  our  politi- 
cal organization  was  the  township,  there  would 
be  great  reason  why  we  should  say,  that  no 
township  line  should  be  divided  in  forming  a 
Senatorial  district.  But  that  is  not  so.  Our 
political  organization,  our  political  affections, 
our  desire  of  being  together  and  representing 
ourselves  as  units  in  any  organization,  is  by 
counties.  Well,  now,  if  you  divide  the  county, 
you  divide,  as  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hoadly]  said,  their  interest,  divide 
their  affections,  divide  their  operations  with 
each  other,  and  you  cannot  tell  how  that 
is  to  be  divided.  From  all  considerations; 
from  the  consideration  of  their  always 
acting  together;  from  the  consideration  that 
their  financial  operations  are  one;  from  the 
very  fact  that  they  come  together  for  their 
political  operations,  the  people  of  the  county 
should  be  kept  together  without  being  divided. 
And  let  me  ask,  if  it  is  not  selfishness  on  the 
part  of  the  smaller  counties  to  insist  that  the 
larger  counties  should  be  divided,  in  order  that 
that  affection,  that  usual  operation,  should  not 
go  together  for  their  own  interests — in  order 
to  destroy  the  interest  that  a county  would 
have,  and  rightly  have,  in  common  with  other 
counties,  to  be  a unit?  Other  counties  see  we 
go  together,  because  that  is  our  interest,  and  we 
are  all  united  upon  that  interest,  and  acquainted 


with  each  other.  Affection  operates  between 
us,  for  and  in  favor  of  our  county,  and  it  is  un- 
just that  it  should  be  divided. 

Mr.  WEST.  How  much  affection  is  there  be- 
tween Delaware  and  Franklin  counties? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  nothing  to  do  with 
that  question,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  I thought  you  were  putting 
counties  together  that  had  affection. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I say  with  regard  to  holding 
county  lines  to  be  observed  in  this  division. 
With  regard  to  that,  I say,  there  is  affection. 

Mr.  WEST.  In  electing  Senators,  where  you 
have  three  or  four  counties  together,  do  you 
consult  affection  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Very  good.  But  the  people, 
in  their  convention,  determine  who  is  to  be 
a,  candidate.  The  delegates  of  each  county  will 
bn  a unit  upon  that  question.  They  will  not 
allow  a combination  without  reference  to  the 
interests  of  their  county.  We  have  been  al- 
" ays  looking  to  the  interest  of  the  county.  Our 
alh'rtion  and  our  interest,  financially  and  every 
wh\  . are  a unit,  and  it  is  wicked  to  divide  it  up  ; 
ami  [ say  again,  as  I said  before,  it  is  selfish  on 
t he  p irt  of  smaller  counties  to  insist  that  a large 
county  shall  be  divided  up,  and  that  they  shall 
not  have  this  natural  affection  ; this  natural  in- 
terest and  operation  that  spring  out  of  the  or- 
ganization of  a county,  they  shall  not  exercise 
in  their  favor.  It  is  right  that  we  should  have 
it.  Every  man  feels  it,  unless  he  has  the  sel- 
fishness that  overcomes  him.  I would  feel  it,  if 
I were  a citizen  of  Hamilton  county.  I feel  it 
now,  as  a citizen  of  Delaware  county.  I look 
to  Delaware’s  interest,  and  every  member  in 
the  Convention  coming  from  his  own  county, 
or  any  other  county,  each  delegate  would  look 
to  the  interest  of  his  own  county.  And  to 
divide  a county  up,  will  produce  just  the  diffi- 
culty that  has  been  represented  here  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly].  That 
will  be  the  means  to  defeat  the  Constitution 
itself. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  If  there  was  another  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  county  in  this  Convention, 
would  he  love  Delaware  less  than  the  gentleman 
does? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I doubt  it,  sir,  but  probably 
would  as  much. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  it  make  any  difference, 
as  to  his  love,  whether  he  was  elected  by  a part 
or  the  whole  of  the  county  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  We  undoubtedly  represent 
the  whole  people  of  the  county,  because  if  there 
was  another  de^gate  from  Delaware  county, 
each  one  would  represent  the  whole  county, 
and  one  would  probably  not  love  it  less  than 
the  other. 

Mr.  COOK.  I am  most  decidedly  in  favor  of 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr. 
Hale],  to  divide  the  State  into  single  represen- 
tative and  senatorial  districts.  The  only  fair 
and  honest  way  of  apportioning  our  Represen- 
tatives is  by  population.  The  county  lines 
amount  to  nothing;  they  are  only  mere  things 
of  convenience  to  mark  off  the  different  political 
subdivisions.  The  gentleman  who  lives  on  the 


1716 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS 

Cook,  Baber,  Bishop,  West. 


[128th 


[Tuesday, 


opposite  side  of  the  line  of  the  county  which  I 
represent,  is  as  much  my  neighbor  as  the  gen- 
tleman who  lives  within  my  county.  It  is  as 
much  my  duty  to  represent  him  fairly,  as  to  re- 
present the  one  who  resides  within  my  county. 
Men  are  not  elected  to  the  General  Assembly  to 
represent  land,  nor  real  estate  subdivisions. 
They  are  sent  there  to  represent  men,  and  they 
represent  them  because  they  are  men.  It 
is  a man  that  is  entitled  to  representation, 
and  not  the  locality.  The  mere  fact  of 
electing  by  subdivisions  is  a matter  of  con- 
venience to  ourselves.  The  soil  is  not  repre- 
sented, it  is  the  men  who  live  upon  it,  men 
who  have  souls  and  eternal  interests  to  be  con- 
sidered ; and  if  they  had  not  that  they  would 
not  be  entitled  to  representation.  The  animals 
are  not  represented,  and  if  you  take  from  man 
the  immortal  principle,  and  reduce  him  to  a 
mere  animal,  he  is  not  entitled  to  repre- 
sentation. Then,  we  represent  men.  All  this 
talk  about  county  lines  is  mere  bosh,  for  politi- 
cal purposes— to  hold  political  power  and  con- 
trol the  destinies  of  the  State.  Talk  about  leav- 
ing county  lines  I County  lines  are  often 
removed.  Counties  change,  and  men  do  not 
weep  over  them ; when  their  interests  require 
the  change,  they  always  yield  to  it.  Such  things 
as  that  would  suit  very  well  for  a political  meet- 
ing where  demagogues  are  fishing  for  votes. 
When  you  come  to  a logical  system,  when  you 
come  to  look  into  the  philosophy  of  govern- 
ment, county  lines  are  entirely  unconsidered, 
and  have  no  weight  at  all.  What  author  upon 
political  science  has  ever  treated  of  the  sanctity 
of  county  lines  or  county  subdivisions?  It  is 
all  in  the  imagination  of  politicians.  I am  bold 
to  say  that  men  who  look  upon  this  matter  im- 
partially will  seek  to  obtain  a fair  representation 
of  all  persons  who  reside  in  the  State.  A man 
residing  in  one  part  of  Hamilton  county  could 
represent  the  other  part  of  it  just  as  fairlv  and 
honorably  as  if  he  were  elected  by  the  whdle 
people.  Mr.  President,  as  I can  talk  no  longer, 
I will  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  an  article  from 
a leading  paper  in  Cincinnati,  and  ask  the  Con- 
vention to  hear  what  an  honest  editor  thinks  of 
dividing  Hamilton  county. 

Mr.  BABER.  What  paper? 

Mr.  COOK.  It  is  the  Cincinnati  Gazette. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man a question. 

Mr.  COOK.  I wish  this  article  read,  then  I 
will  answer  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read : 

MINORITY  REPRESENTATION  AND  SINGLE  DIS- 
TRICTS. 

Single  representative  districts  have  wrought  in  Ohio  a 
near  approximation  to  a just  representation  of  the  two 
parties,  besides  giving  a representation  of  localities.  It 
may  be  affirmed  that  this  simple  system  has  given  a juster 
representation  of  parties  than  can  be  had  by  the  new 
fangled  and  complex  scheme  of  cumulative  voting,  which 
has  the  objection  of  making  party  management  of  the 
voters  indispensable.  The  instances  which  may  be  al- 
leged of  its  imperfect  working  will  be  found  the  result 
of  the  extreme  care  taken  to  give  representation  to  mi- 
norities, by  applying  the  cumulative  system  to  the  frac- 
tions of  representative  ratios. 

The  only  essential  imperfection  in  minority  representa- 
tion in  Ohio  is  the  result  of  excepting  the  large  counties 
from  the  single  district  system.  Thereby  Hamilton  county 
is  allowed  to  plump  her  thirteen  members  of  the  General 
Assembly  lor  one  party,  thus  depriving  a great  minority 
in  this  county  of  any  representation,  and  thereby  turn- 


ing the  party  scale  of  the  General  Assembly.  This  sacri- 
fice of  the  single  district  principle  to  arbitrary  county  lines 
is  without  reason.  It  works  a wrong  to  a large  minority 
in  this  county,  and  it  enables  a balance  of  perhaps  a very 
few  votes  to  overslough  the  General  Assembly  by  the 
thirteen  votes  from  this  county.  This  situation  makes 
this  county  the  balance  ot  political  power-  a situation 
which  is  in  itself  a great  wrong  to  the  State,  and  which 
inevitably  tends  to  corruption  and  fraud  in  the  elections 
here. 

Y et,  there  are  members  of  the  Ohio  Convention  who 
hold  that  the  single  district  system  Is  a great  principle, 
and  members  who  regard  minority  representation  as  so 
great  a principle  that  they  are  ready  to  put  a complex  and 
rash  experiment  into  the  Constitution,  who  will  abandon 
both  these  principles  when  they  come  to  Hamilton  coun- 
ty, for  no  ther  reason  than  because  they  want  to  deprive 
the  minority  of  representation  in  this  county,  and  the 
majority  in  the  rest  of  the  State,  by  plumping  thirteen 
members  for  one  party.  Consistency  is  a jewel  not  much 
in  demand  among  politicians.  The  exception  of  the  large 
counties  from  the  single  district  principle  is  a violation 
which  has  no  defense.  The  power  given  to  a majority,  no 
matter  how  small,  in  Hamilton  county,  over  i he  minority, 
in  a population  of  near  300,000,  and  over  the  whole  State, 
is  a great  wrong. 

If  the  Convention  has  a desire  to  provide  a iust  repre- 
sentation, it  will  remedy  this  wrong.  There  is  nothing 
sacred  in  county  lines  in  the  affair  of  popular  representa- 
tion. Arbitrary  lines  should  not  be  allowed  to  wrong  the 
people.  Our  county  is  divided  for  congressional  districts; 
why  not  for  State  legislative  districts?  The  General  As- 
sembly has  divided  it  much  finer  for  representatives  to 
the  Council.  If  it  orders  municipal  elections  held  by 
twenty-five  different  wards,  it  cannot  say  that  there  is 
any  practical  objection  to  dividing  it  into  ten  districts  for 
Representatives,  and  three  for  Senators.  A representa- 
tive ratio  will  be  large  enough  to  furnish  a responsible 
constituency  and  material  for  Representatives,  and  to  be 
exempt  from  the  hole-and-corner  practice  to  which  such 
little  divisions  as  our  wards  are  prone  to  run,  in  some 
quarters  of  a large  city.  The  remedy  of  this  evil  is 
straight  forward.  To  continue  Hamilton  county  as  one 
district  is  to  outrage  the  principle  of  single  districts  and 
the  principle  of  minority  representation,  in  order  to  re- 
tain an  unfair  and  corrupting  situation. 

Mr.  BABER.  Now,  I want  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  gentleman  can  proceed  with 
his  question. 

Mr.  BABER.  I simply  wish  to  ask  him,  if 
the  Cincinnati  Gazette  is  not  a paper  that  advo- 
cated the  division  of  Hamilton  county,  that 
almost  ended  in  a revolution,  in  1848  ? And  has 
it  not  always  been  the  advocate  of  extreme  con- 
solidated Federal  doctrines  for  party  purposes? 

Mr.  COOK.  If  the  gentleman  knows  his 
question  to  be  true,  why  does  he  not  make  the 
statement  to  the  Convention,  instead  of  asking 
the  question  ? I am  not  a politician,  and  I do 
not  keep  the  history  of  these  things  in  my 
mind.  If  the  gentleman  knows  it  to  be  true, 
let  him  be  man  enough  to  make  the  charge. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  As  this  Convention  has  agreed 
to  get  through  its  business  by  the  31st  of  March, 
I wish  to  occupy  but  a short  time,  because  I am 
very  anxious,  although  I voted  against  the  re- 
solution, that  it  shall  be  done.  I should  regret 
exceedingly,  sir,  to  see  the  amendment  olfered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale] 
adopted,  because  I believe  it  would  be  injurious 
to  the  county  of  Hamilton  to  divide  it  into  sep- 
arate districts.  And  I must  say,  sir,  as  I have 
previously  said  upon  this  floor,  that  I always 
regret  to  hear  any  remarks  calculated  to  preju- 
dice the  country  members  against  the  city 
members,  or  the  city  members  against  the  mem- 
bers from  the  rural  districts;  and  I also  regret 
that  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 
who  seems  to  be  so  much  alarmed  at  the  dele- 
gation from  Hamilton 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  will  pardon  me 
for  the  interruption.  I am  the  farthest  in  the 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

West,  Bishop,  Pratt,  Dorsey. 


1717 


Day.] 

March  3, 1874.] 


world  from  trying  to  create  any  feeling  as  be- 
tween the  country  and  the  cities.  It  is  an  idea 
and  sentiment  that  I utterly  scorn  and  detest. 
When  I talk  about  the  country  and  city,  I sim- 
ply talk  about  the  relations  that  are  grounded 
on  principle  and  nothing  more.  Whatever  is 
just  or  unjust  to  the  city  or  country,  I expect 
to  assert  it,  without  trying  to  create  any  sus- 
picion or  any  hostility  or  prejudice,  because  if 
there  be  one  sentiment  more  than  another 
which  I detest  and  abominate,  it  is  creating 
mere  prejudice  not  founded  on  principle. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I draw  the  inference  from 
the  remarks  that  the  gentleman  made  that 
Hamilton  county  comes  up  to  Columbus  with 
her  power  and  strength,  a small  Legislature  in 
herself. 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly,  I said  so. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  That  she  goes  up  there  with 
her  large  delegation  and  exerts  an  influence  and 
power  over  the  Legislature,  I do  not  question. 
And  I hold,  sir,  that  the  county  of  Hamilton 
has  a right  to  send  her  delegates  to  the  Legisla- 
ture to  represent  her.  She  surely  has  a right 
to  be  represented  there.  She  has  interests 
which  ought  to  be  represented  and  protected. 
She  pays  more  than  one-seventh  of  the  taxes  of 
the  great  State  of  Ohio,  and  she  has  a right  to 
representation  and  should  exert  a large  and  po- 
tent influence.  But,  sir,  to  come  back  to  the 
point,  Hamilton  county,  and  I am  proud  of  the 
fact  that  she  does  ignore  party  politics  to  a veiy 
great  extent.  I believe,  sir,  that,  in  very  many 
instances,  it  has  been  the  salvation  of  this  coun- 
ty that  she  has  ignored  party.  Party  prejudice 
in  many  instances  has  been  ignored.  This  fact 
has  been  demonstrated  in  almost  every  election 
held  in  Cincinnati  for  years  past,  in  our  elections 
of  judges  for  the  court  of  common  pleas.  We 
elected  part  of  them  Republicans  and  part  Demo- 
crats. What  is  the  state  of  the  case  with  our  pres- 
ent senatorial  delegation  ? Two  Democrats  and 
one  Republican.  Our  previous  Senate  stood  in  the 
same  ratio  politically.  Another  fact, sir.  We  have 
tendered  to  these  gentlemen  an  opportunity  to 
have  both  parties  represented  by  proportional 
voting, and  they  have  rejected  it.  I like  to  see  both 
parties  represented,  especially  in  the  judiciary.  I 
repeat,  sir,  that  we  have  offered  them  proportion- 
al voting,  but  that  might  not  enable  them  to  elect 
one-half,  or,  at  any  rate,  they  would  only  get  a 
portion  of  the  representation.  And  we  are 
willing  to  go  into  that  in  these  large  counties. 
I do  not  go  against  the  division  of  these  coun- 
ties because  I expect  to  carry  each  political  elec- 
tion according  to  my  own  views.  I vote,  and 
expect  to  vote  in  the  future,  for  the  best  men. 
If  my  party  put  up  good  men,  I shall  most  cer- 
tainly vote  for  them  in  preference.  If  they  put 
up  inferior  men,  I shall  vote  against  them,  and 
I hope  every  man  will  adopt  the  same  principle, 
not  only  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  but  all  over 
the  State : I wish  we  could  get  them  to  do  so. 

Mr.  PRATT.  About  what  time  do  you  ex- 
pect that  thing  to  occur? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I am  proud  to  say  that  it  has 
already  occurred  in  Hamilton  county.  For 
that  reason,  I think  that  the  country  ought  to 
be  kind  enough  to  let  us  alone.  We  are  doing 
very  well  under  the  present  system,  according 
to  the  old  Constitution.  We  are  satisfied.  We 
would  rather  have  proportional  voting,  so  as 


to  give  you  some,  if  you  happen  to  be  of  the 
minority  party,  and  we  are  the  successful  party. 
Now,  sir,  my  own  judgment  is,  that  it  would 
be  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  people  of 
the  county,  as  has  been  fully  shown  by  my  col- 
league [Mr.  Hoadly].  I think  it  would  be 
detrimental  to  the  interests  of  this  county  to 
make  a division.  I know  it  is  contrary  to  the 
sentiment  of  the  people,  and,  concurring  in  that 
opinion  myself,  I am  opposed  to  the  change.  I 
do  not  wish  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Conven- 
tion any  longer  upon  this  subject,  but  I do  hope 
that  this  Convention  will  let  good  enough  alone ; 
and,  as  we  are  very  well  satisfied  that  they  will 
aid  in  keeping  us  so,  we  will  help  them  to  carry 
out  any  good  measure  to  suit  their  convenience 
in  their  district. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  not  had  an  opportu- 
nity of  saying  anything  yet  on  the  subject  of 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  in  its  present  shape; 
but  I am  very  heartily  in  favor  of  the  idea 
which  it  propounds,  and  that  is  the  bounding 
of  these  senatorial  districts  by  county  lines, 
and,  of  course,  preventing  the  division  of  any 
county  for  senatorial  purposes.  Now,  sir,  I 
have  listened  very  carefully  to  the  reading  of 
the  communication  ordered  to  be  read  from  the 
Secretary’s  desk,  by  the  gentleman  from  Wood 
[Mr.  CookJ,  and  I confess  that  I see  nothing  in 
it.  I had  read  the  communication  this  morn- 
ing hastily,  and  I have  listened  to  it  very  care- 
fully, but  I could  see  nothing  in  it  to  convince 
me  that  the  county  of  Hamilton  was  getting 
any  improper  amount  of  power  by  the  present 
mode  of  election,  in  which  her  delegates  are  all 
elected  from  the  county  without  any  division 
whatever.  Now,  in  order  that  gentlemen  may 
see  this,  I want  to  call  their  attention  to  a fact 
or  two  in  our  present  system  of  election  in  the 
State  of  Ohio.  The  county  of  Hamilton  here 
has  ten  members  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives for  her  260,380  population,  and  here  are 
five  counties  in  the  State, — Belmont,  Butler, 
Clarke,  Trumbull  and  Washington, — that  also 
have  ten  Representatives  with  only  197,884 
population . 

Mr.  PRATT.  Do  they  always  have  ten? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  They  have  ten  all  the  time 
under  the  system  we  propose. 

Mr.  PRATT.  But  not  under  the  present  sys- 
tem. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion they  had,  nearly  all  the  time. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Why  are  they  only  represent- 
ed by  live  on  this  floor,  then  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I say  that,  under  the  system 
adopted,  as  far  as  we  have  gone,  in  this  Consti- 
tution, they  always  have  ten,  and  they  have  ten 
a majority  of  the  time  under  the  old  Constitu- 
tion. But  I go  further,  and  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  here  are  ten  counties  in  the  State 
of  Ohio — the  counties  of  Henry,  Geauga, 
Ottawa,  Pike,  Vinton,  Van  Wert,  Morrow,  Car- 
roll,  Lake  ami  Marion — that  have  only  a popu- 
lation of  149,124,  and  they  have  to-day  ten 
Representatives  in  the  lower  House,  and  ten 
Representatives  on  this  floor,  with  a population 
of  only  149,000,  against  the  population  of 
260,000  in  Hamilton.  And  yet  gentlemen  here 
talk  about  the  undue  power  and  the  undue 
weight  of  the  county  of  Hamilton  in  the  legis- 


1718 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Dorsey,  Pratt,  Miner,  Pease. 


lation  of  the  State,  thus  showing  an  ignorance 
with  regard  to  the  facts  of  the  case  that  was  not 
to  be  expected,  either  of  an  editor,  or  of  any 
delegate  in  this  Convention.  But  I did  not  in- 
tend to  talk  about  this  matter.  I do  not  intend 
to  consume  time  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  inquire  if  he  thinks  it  just  and  right  that 
these  ten  counties  should  be  represented  by  ten 
delegates,  as  against  Hamilton  county  ten? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do.  I do  think  it  just  and 
right,  because  those  ten  counties  have  ten 
municipalities  to  represent.  They  have  ten 
municipal  organizations  that  ought  to  be  rep- 
resented on  the  floor  of  the  General  Assembly, 
and  ought  to  be  represented  on  the  floor  of  this 
Convention. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Are  there  not  ten  measure- 
ments of  territory  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir;  measurements 
of  territory.  We  intend  to  represent  two 
things,  as  I apprehend,  in  this  Convention, 
and  in  the  General  Assembly  also.  We 
intend  to  represent  territory  and  munici- 
palities, in  the  first  place,  and  popu- 
lation in  the  second  place.  I hold  that  this 
is  our  system.  Now,  sir,  if  that  be  an  answer 
to  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt], 
I will  proceed  with  what  I have  to  say.  I say, 
that  if  we  cannot  get  our  system,  that  was  in- 
troduced in  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  I 
propose  to  go  back  as  nearly  to  the  old  Consti- 
tution as  I can  get.  I propose  to  go  back  as 
nearly  to  the  divisions  made  by  the  old  Consti- 
tution as  I can  get.  Therefore,  I desire  to  offer 
this  amendment,  which  I now  send  to  the  Sec- 
retary’s desk,  for  the  purpose  of  having  it 
read  for  the  information  of  the  Convention ; 
and,  if  the  proposition,  now  before  the  Conven- 
tion, is  voted  down,  I want  gentlemen  to  un- 
derstand that  this  is  what  I propose,  that  gen- 
tlemen may  know  what  I wish  this  Convention 
to  come  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  proposition. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  ratio  for  Senators  shall  forever  hereafter  be  ascer- 
tained by  dividing  the  whole  population  of  the  State  by 
the  number  thirty-five,  and  the  districts  thereby  formed 
shall  a' ways  be  bounded  by  county  lines,  and,  until  the 
next  decennial  apportionment,  the  county  of  Hamilton 
shall  have  three  and  the  county  of  Cuyahoga  two  Sena- 
tors, and  all  the  remaining  districts  one  senator  each.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  This  makes  the  matter  as 
nearly  correct,  I think,  as  it  can  be  brought  be- 
fore the  Convention.  I beg  leave  to  say  1 with- 
draw my  former  amendment  or  substitute,  and 
now  take  the  chances  of  introducing  this  in 
place  of  my  former  substitute.  It  will  do  no 
injustice  to  any  county,  because,  under  the 
present  Constitution,  the  county  of  Cuyahoga 
would  have,  during  all  the  sessions  of  the  de- 
cennial period,  as  any  one  can  see  by  looking 
at  the  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  for  1872, 
he  will  see  that  that  county,  with  132,112  in- 
habitants, had,  during  all  the  three  first  sessions 
of  the  decennial  period,  three  Representatives. 
And,  as  there  will  be  only  three  sessions  in  the 
present  decennial  period,  after  this  Constitution 
is  adopted,  if  it  is  adopted,  she  would  have  her 
two  Senators  during  all  that  time.  Therefore, 
my  proposition  will  do  no  injustice  to  the  county 
of  Cuyahoga. 


[128tk 

[Tuesday, 


Mr.  MINER.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12 :35  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  before  the 
Convention  was  upon  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  to 
amend  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I desire  to  ask  the  indulgence 
of  the  Convention,  for  a few  moments,  for  the 
purpose  of  saying  a word  or  two  upon  this 
proposition,  as  I deem  it  a matter  of  consider- 
able importance;  and  I want  to  make  a sugges- 
tion or  two  in  reference  thereto.  While  in  the 
Committee  having  charge  of  this  department, 
as  a member  of  that  Committee,  I was  in  favor 
of  large  districts : First,  because  I believed  it 
would  have  a tendency  to  a better  class  of  leg- 
islation, would  be  less  local  in  its  character,  less 
under  the  influence  of  rings;  and  many  sug- 
gestions of  that  kind  were  made  which  I shall 
not  stop  now  to  enumerate.  It  would  also  be 
beneficial  in  making  the  system  uniform,  and 
by  making  the  districts  uniform.  In  a large 
district  system  it  would  give  each  of  the  dif- 
ferent districts  about  the  same  equality  of  power 
with  every  other  district. 

There  is  another  reason  why  I was  in  favor 
of  the  proposition,  and  that  is,  that  it  would 
give  a larger  field  from  which  to  select  dele- 
gates. This  system  has  been  thoroughly  pre- 
sented and  the  small  district  system  adopted  by 
this  Convention,  and  I think  the  Convention 
has  finally  passed  upon  that  feature  of  it,  by 
settling  the  question  in  favor  of  small  districts, 
and  that  settlement  I now  expect  to  adhere  to. 
I do  not  propose  to  re-open  that  part  of  the  con- 
troversy and  endeavor  to  hereatter  effect  a dif- 
ferent result. 

Believing  that  the  Convention  have  settled 
upon  the  small  district  system  for  the  Senate,  I 
desire  that  this  system  shall  be  uniform 
throughout  the  State.  I do  not  propose,  so  far 
as  my  vote  may  prevent  it,  that  these  gentlemen 
who  are  in  favor  of  small  districts  shall  have 
the  benefit  of  them  in  the  State  at  large,  by 
putting  the  country  counties  into  small  districts, 
and  thus  dividing  the  power  of  the  State,  and, 
while  doing  that,  leave  Hamilton  county  a large 
district,  and  leave  Cuyahoga  county  a large  dis- 
trict, thus  centralizing  their  power,  while  you 
have  divided  the  power  of  the  residue  of  the 
State.  I cannot  well  understand  the  philosophy 
of  these  gentlemen  who  have  heretofore  insisted 
upon  the  large  district  system : First,  because 
they  want  to  make  it  uniform  throughout  the 
State,  and  for  other  divers  reasons  I have  sug- 
gested, and  now,  when  they  leave  the  large 
district  system  and  adopt  the  small  district  sys- 
tem— I say  I cannot  understand  the  philosophy 
of  these  gentlemen  when  they  now  propose  to 
except  Hamilton  county  from  the  small  district 
system.  No,  there  is  no  earthly  reason  why,  if 
the  small  district  system  is  to  be  adopted  any- 
where, there  is  no  reason  which  can  be  suggest- 
ed why  it  should  not  be  adopted  in  Hamilton 
county  and  in  Cuyahoga  county,  and  make 
small  districts  also  in  these  counties. 


Day.] CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 1719 


March  3,1874.]  Dorsey,  Pease,  Baber,  Cunningham. 


Mr.  DORSEY.  I ask  if  the  committee,  or 
anybody  else,  was  responsible  for  making  the 
small  districts  where  the  county  was  only  en- 
titled to  a single  Representative? 

Mr.  PEASE.  So  far  as  the  large  districts  are 
concerned,  for  the  purposes  of  the  Senate  it  was 
not  supposed  that  there  would  be  but  one  mem- 
ber of  the  Senate  in  that  district;  it  was  sup- 
posed there  would  be  three  at  least  from  each 
large  district,  and,  I presume,  that  it  was  pre- 
sented in  that  form  by  some  gentlemen  of  the 
Committee,  for  the  purpose  of  making  minority 
representation  apply  to  those  districts.  I had 
no  such  idea.  I favored  it  upon  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent basis,  and  I would,  to-day,  favor  it  upon 
an  entirely  different  basis.  I would  retain  the 
old  plan  of  voting,  and  I would  have  the  large 
districts,  if  I could  get  them.  I say,  believing 
in  this  way,  I insist  that  these  districts  shall  all 
be  alike.  I insist,  that,  as  we  have  adopted 
small  districts  for  the  residue  of  the  State,  we 
should  adhere  to  the  same  principle  and  divide 
up  Hamilton  county,  as  often  as  it  is  needed  to 
be  divided,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the 
single  district  representation.  In  this  way  only 
can  you  make  an  even  thing.  In  this  way  only 
can  you  ever  break  up  this  concentration  of 
power. 

As  I had  occasion  to  say,  the  other  day,  in  pre- 
senting my  views  in  regard  to  the  legislative 
department,  I am  not  at  all  surprised  that  the 
delegates  from  Hamilton  county  are,  in  a body, 
opposed  to  this  measure.  I am  not  surprised, 
that  Cuyahoga  county  is  opposed  to  this  meas- 
ure. They  see  the  advantage  they  have  had, 
under  the  old  system.  They  see  the  unity  of 
power  they  will  possess  as  long  as  they  adhere 
to  the  system,  and  they  see  the  danger  of  hav- 
ing that  unity  destroyed,  if  we  should  divide  up 
this  county  into  several  representative  districts. 

Let  me  illustrate  a moment:  It  is  objected, 
by  some  gentlemen,  that,  if  we  elect  Representa- 
tives in  Hamilton  county  by  single  districts, 
they  are  all  to  be  Representatives  of  Hamilton 
county.  That,  I concede;  and  it  is  urged,  that 
there  will  be  no  less  probability  that  they  will 
vote  together,  that  they  will  cast  the  unit  vote 
in  the  Legislature,  or  in  the  Senate,  than  they 
do  now.  I submit  to  the  Convention,  that  the 
very  opposition  these  gentlemen  make  here,  is 
an  argument,  to  me,  that  they  do  not  believe 
any  such  thing.  That  there  is  no  other  reason, 
under  heaven,  why  these  men  are  urging  their 
claims  for  consolidation  in  Hamilton  county — a 
little  State  by  itself — and  in  Cuyahoga,  a small- 
er State  than  that — they  believe  this  unity  of 
power  will  be  broken  up.  I frankly  say,  it  is 
for  that  purpose  that  I desire  to  have  the  system 
introduced.  It  can  work  no  harm  to  them.  It 
will  give  the  distinctive  representation  to  the 
several  parts  of  their  city ; and,  as  has  been  sug- 
gested here,  there  is  no  reason  why  that  should 
not  be  done  for  State  legislative  purposes,  as 
well  as  for  Congressional,  and  upon  the  same 
principle. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  it  seems  to 
me  that  those  of  us  representing  the  country 
districts  lose  an  advantage,  if  we  yield  this  op- 
portunity to  so  control  these  large  counties, 
as  that  we  can  put  them  upon  an  equal  basis 
with  the  residue  of  the  State.  Elect  in  what- 
ever district  you  will,  but  make  them  uniform. 


If  you  adopt  the  large  district  system,  make  it 
a uniform  system.  If  you  adopt  the  small  dis- 
trict system,  make  it  also  a uniform  system. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  that  it  be  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  simply  to  insert  the 
words  “or  more.” 

Mr.  BABER.  How  will  it  read  ? 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  State  is  hereby  divided  into  thirty-three  senato- 
rial districts,  in  each  of  which  one  or  more  Senators  shall 
be  elected  by  the  qualified  electors  thereof.” 

Mr.  Gurley  was  excused  from  voting,  he 
having  paired  with  Mr.  Burns. 

Mr.  De  Steiguer  having  paired  off  with  Mr. 
McBride,  was  excused. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  this  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Town- 
send] will  be  adopted,  because  it  puts  this  prop- 
osition in  a managable  shape.  If  the  words 
“ or  more,”  are  inserted,  the  Convention  can 
proceed  to  perfect  this  section,  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  districts  and  the  ratio  of  the  Senate.  It 
does  not  follow  that  the  number  of  Senators 
and  the  number  of  districts  should  be  the  same, 
and  I am  a little  astonished  that,  while  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  this  morning, 
after  the  extract  that  was  read  here  at  the  in- 
stance of  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook], 
should  take  the  position  which  he  ha*  taken — it 
is  simply  a question  of  reviving  old  issues  which 
were  settled  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio 
twenty  years  ago.  I do  not  think  we  ought  to 
go  to  work  stirring  up  this  matter,  and  light- 
ing it  over  again.  I do  not  believe  that  the  di- 
vision made  in  this  mode  is  going  to  operate 
fairly.  It  will  not  operate  upon  the  give-and- 
take  system.  There  has  been  an  assault  made 
upon  the  friends  of  proportional  representation 
here.  The  majority  of  the  delegation  of  Cuy- 
ahoga, and  also  of  the  delegation  from  Hamil- 
ton county,  when  the  charge  was  made  against 
their  voting  to  keep  their  delegation  together, 
for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  politics  of 
the  State,  met  and  negatived  the  assertion  by 
voting  in  favor  of  proportional  voting,  which, 
practically,  will  defeat  such  a purpose; 
whereas,  in  this  system  of  single  districts,  we 
go  back  upon  the  fundamental  principle  of  the 
Constitution.  We  shall  be  obliged  to  have  a 
Legislature,  or  some  other  authority,  to  make 
districts. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  What  fundamental 
principle  of  our  Constitution  do  we  go  back 
on  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  If  the  gentleman  will  listen, 
he  will  hear.  The  fundamental  principle  of  our 
Constitution  is,  that  apportionment  shall  be  self- 
adjusting.  Everybody  knows  and  understands 
that  we  had  a sort  of  revolution  in  the  State  of 
Ohio  in  1848,  on  account  of  the  Legislature 
having  something  to  do,  at  that  time,  in  the 
districting  of  the  State;  and,  therefore,  when 
the  Convention  of  1851  made  this  principle  by 
which,  by  a mere  arithmetical  calculation,  rep- 
resentation and  apportionment  was  adjusted  so 
as  to  work  itself,  it  was  found  to  work  well, 
and  I do  not  propose  now  to  introduce  a fight 
into  that  system,  to  mar  its  harmony,  and  to 
leave  it  either  to  the  county  commissioners  or  to 


1720 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. [128th 

Baber,  Powell,  Rowland,  Root,  Voris,  Hale.  [Tuesday, 


the  supervisors,  as  in  New  York,  or  to  the  Leg- 
islature, under  the  Constitution,  the  little  petty 
gerrymandering  in  Hamilton  county,  or  the 
county  of  Cuyahoga.  I do  no.t  think  we  ought 
to  do  anything  of  the  sort.  There  might  be  an 
argument  for  the  system  of  single  districts,  were 
there  no  other  remedy.  If  I understand  cor- 
rectly the  gentlemen  from  Hamilton  county, 
they  support,  with  two  exceptions,  the  princi- 
ple of  proportional  or  minority  representation, 
that  affords  the  remedy  for  breaking  the  unity 
of  political  power  of  these  larger  counties.  I 
do  not  propose  to  go  back  to  a proposition  repu- 
diated in  1851,  by  the  people  of  the  State,  and  I 
do  hope  that  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  will  be  adopted. 
Upon  Mr.  Townsend’s  amendment, 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  28,  nays  28,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop,  Byal,  Car- 
bcry, Dorsey,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey, Herron, 
Hill,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Miller,  Miner,  Rickly, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample, 
Shaw,  Steedman,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Van 
Valkenburgh,  Weaver,  White  of  Brown,  Young 
of  Noble,  President — 28. 

Those  who  voted  in  -the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Barnet,  Caldwell,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham, 
Hale,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Page,  Pease,  Philips, 
Powell,  Pratt,  Root,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tuttle, 
Van  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  West,  Woodbury 
—28. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

• The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  projmsed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Does  my  proposition  come 
in  now? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  yet.  The  question 
is  upon  perfecting  the  original  section,  which 
the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  pro- 
posed to  do. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I ask  for  a reading  of  the 
amendment. 

The  Secretary  read. 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “districts”,  in  l ne  one’ 
section  three,  and  in  lieu  thereof  insert  the  following: 

“In  each  of  which  one  senator  shall  be  elected  by  the 
qualified  electors  thereot.” 

So  that  it  shall  read  : 

“Sec.  3.  The  State  shall  be  divided  into  thirty-three 
senatorial  districts,  in  each  of  which  one  Senator  shall  be 
elected  by  the  qualified  electors  thereof.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  28,  nays  30,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Barnet,  Caldwell,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham, 
Hale,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Page, 
Pease,  Philips,  Pratt,  Root,  Shultz,  Smith 
of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Tut- 
tle, Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoris, 
Waddle,  West,  Woodbury — 28. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose,  Byal, 
Carbery,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey, 
Herron,  Hill,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Miller,  Miner, 
Powell,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Mus- 


kingum, Sample,  Shaw,  Steedman,  Townsend’ 
Townsley,  Tulloss,  Weaver,  White  of  Brown, 
White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Noble,  President 
—30. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root]  to  the  amendment  to  the  substitute 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell],  to  strike  out  the  words  u thirty- 
three,”  and  insert  “ thirty-seven.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  that  some  one  who  voted 
in  favor  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  will  move  to  reconsider 
that  vote  so  that  we  might  insert  “ thirty-seven” 
there.  I am  in  favor  of  the  motion  that  I made, 
but  I do  believe  it  would  be  more  appropriate 
to  have  a reconsideration  of  the  vote  by  which 
“thirty-three”  was  agreed  to,  and  insert 
“ thirty-seven.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  me  say  to  the  gentleman, 
that  the  votes  that  have  already  been  taken 
show,  conclusively,  that  the  members  of  the 
Convention  are  against  single  districts. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I have  not  seen  so  much  as  the 
gentleman  has;  if  that  is  the  case  we  shall  then 
take  a vote  on  the  amendment.  I hope  that 
“ thirty-seven  ” will  be  adopted.  I have,  since 
I last  addressed  the  Convention,  gone  over  the 
map  of  Ohio,  and,  although  I have  not 
completed  it,  I have  not  a particle  of  doubt 
that  they  may  be  put  into  good  shape  as  dis- 
tricts and  have  the  excess  between  61,000  and 
80,000,  as  I stated. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  “ three,”  and  inserting  “ seven.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I call  for  a division  of  the 
question. 

Mr.  HALE.  There  are  some  in  this  part  of 
the  House  who  do  not  understand  the  precise 
question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  first 
read  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-three  Senators,  who 
shall  be  assigned  to  the  proper  districts,  to  be  bounded  by 
county  lines,  according  to  a just  proportion  of  the  popu- 
lation, and  where  any  county  is  entitled  to  more  than  one 
Senator,  according  to  its  population,  its  proper  number  of 
Senators  shall  be  assigned  to  such  county,  and  the  residue 
of  the  State  be  divided  up  into  single  districts  with  one 
Senator.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root]  proposes  to  amend  by  striking 
out  “ three,”  so  that  it  will  read,  “ the  Senate 
shall  consist  of  thirty-seven  Senators,  to  be  as- 
signed to  proper  districts.” 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  this  Convention 
will  not  agree  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  or  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell], 
either.  I am  totally  opposed  to  this  thing  of 
fixing  the  number  of  Senators.  I am  perfectly 
willing  to  fix  the  number  of  districts,  so  as  to 
allow  our  present  Constitution  an  opportunity 
for  a change.  In  some  years  there  are  more 
Senators,  and  in  some  years  less.  Therefore,  I 
do  hope  that  this  Convention  will  not  go  to 
work  and  fix  the  number  of  Senators;  but  I do 
hope  that  they  will  fix  definitely  the  number  of 
districts. 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Root,  Baber,  Powell,  Yoris,  Dorsey. 


1721 


March  3,  1874.] 


Mr.  ROOT.  If  “three”  be  stricken  out,  and 
“seven”  inserted,  does  it  not  give  just  the  num- 
ber of  Senators  the  gentleman  contemplates — 
thirty-one — for  thirty-one  single  districts ; two 
for  one  of  the  large  districts,  and  four  for  the 
other  large  district? 

Mr.  BABER.  My  reply  is,  that  perhaps  it 
does  for  this  term,  but  I wish  to  allow  the  pre- 
sent principle  to  operate,  so  that  next  time  the 
Senators  may  be  apportioned  to  the  population. 
My  objection  to  the  gentleman’s  amendment  is 
this : although  it  may  be  good  enough  for  this 
decennial  period,  still  it  will  interfere  with  the 
operation  of  the  principle  that  I am  in  favor  of; 
that  is,  the  insertion  of  the  principle  in  the 
present  Constitution.  I do  not  wish  to  fix  the 
number  of  Senators,  but  only  the  number  of 
districts. 

Mr.  ROOT.  If  the  gentleman  wants  to  go 
against  this  principle,  which  fixes  the  number 
of  Senators,  he  can  vote  against  it,  on  the  pro- 
position of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell],  if  this  amendment  is  agreed  to. 
What  is  the  objection  to  recognizing  the  num- 
ber which  he  would  start  off  with? 

Mr.  BABER.  My  reply  to  the  gentleman  is 
simply  this  : I am  afraid  that  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
might  be  strengthened  by  putting  in  thirty- 
seven,  and  I do  not  wish  to  give  any  aid  or 
comfort  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  because  I believe 
the  gentleman  will  vote  against  that  ratio. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I understand  the  gentleman 
seeks  a divisor,  and  he  makes  that  divisor  the 
number  of  districts. 

Mr.  BABER.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I propose  to  make  it  the 
number  of  Senators. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  opposed  to  both  these 
propositions.  I am  in  favor  of  the  principle  in 
the  present  Constitution,  which  is  the  divisor 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey].  It  is  thirty-five  in  the  present  Con- 
stitution. That  only  makes  thirty-three  dis- 
tricts, and  the  reason  of  it  is,  because  there  are 
two  Senators  extra  for  Hamilton  county,  and 
one  for  Cuyahoga.  The  number  of  Senators 
never  was  limited ; sometimes  they  are  more. 
Sometimes  we  have  thirty-five  Senators,  and 
sometimes  thirty-seven,  according  to  popula- 
tion, and  I shall  not  vote  to  fix  the  number  of 
Senators,  although  I would  fix  the  districts. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  to  read  his  proposed 
amendment,  and  if  I really  think  it  answers 
the  better  purpose,  I shall  be  willing  to  with- 
draw my  motion. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  ratio  for  a Senator  shall,  forever  hereafter,  be  as- 
certained by  dividing  the  whole  population  of  the  State 
by  the  number  thirty-five.  The  divisions  thereby  formed 
shall  always  be  bounded  by  county  lines,  and  until  the 
next  decennial  apportionment^  the  county  of  Hamilton 
shall  have  three,  and  the  county  of  Cuyahoga  two  Sena- 
tors, and  all  the  remaining  districts  one  Senator  each.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root]. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I call  for  a division  of  the 
question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  then 
be  upon  striking  out  “three.” 


Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  opposed  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root], 
as  I am  opposed  to  the  substitute  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell].  I am  op- 
posed to  it  because  it  does  away  with  the  im- 
portant principle  which,  for  more  than  twenty 
years,  has  been  recognized  in  the  old  Constitu- 
tion, and  I ask  gentlemen  to  think  what  they 
are  voting  for  when  they  vote  for  this  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]. 
I ask  them  to  remember  that,  in  voting  for 
that,  they  are  doing  away  with  a principle 
which  has  been  approved  by  the  people  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  as  a part  and  parcel  of  the  old 
Constitution  for  twenty  years,  and  that  is  the 
principle  of  establishing  a ratio  by  dividing 
the  population  of  the  State  every  ten  years,  as 
ascertained  by  the  Federal  census,  or  by  any 
other  mode  that  the  General  Assembly  may  di- 
rect, by  a given  number;  thus  ascertaining  the 
ratio,  and  letting  that  ratio  determine  the  num- 
ber of  Senators. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  gentleman  is  seeking 
a divisor.  That  divisor  he  puts  at  thirty-five. 
Now,  is  there  any  difference  whether  you  take 
thirty-three,  as  in  my  proposition,  or  thirty- 
seven,  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root]  ? Gentlemen,  either  of  those  divisors 
that  we  propose  answers  the  same  purpose  as  the 
gentleman’s;  if  thejr  do  not,  I wish  to  be  cor- 
rected. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I answer  the  gentleman  that, 
perhaps,  at  the  present  time,  and  with  the 
present  census  of  1870,  they  do.  I believe  they 
do;  and  I also  say  to  the  gentleman,  that  there 
is  no  security  whatever  that,  with  the  census  of 
1880,  they  will  do  any  such  thing.  We  want  to 
establish  a principle  of  self-regulating  appor- 
tionment which  will  always  work  right  in  the 
State,  and,  if  .there  is  a fraction  leftover,  that 
fraction  can  be  apportioned  among  the  differ- 
ent General  Assemblies  of  the  decennial  period. 
And  here  I shall  answer  the  objection  made 
this  morning  by  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root]  to  this  fractional  representation,  be- 
cause, in  answering  that,  I give  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal reasons  why  I am  opposed  to  his  amend- 
ment. 

The  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  said  he 
was  opposed  to  this  system  of  floats,  as  he  called 
it,  because  it  would  be  used,  as  occasion  required, 
for  political  purposes.  I said  to  the  gentleman 
then,  that  it  could  not  be  done;  I say  so  now. 

I believe  the  gentleman  replied  that  he  had  seen 
it  operate  in  that  way.  All  that  I can  say  to 
the  gentleman  is,  that 

“ He  must  have  optics  sharp,  1 ween, 

Who  sees  what  is  not  to  be  seen.” 

I say  that  the  gentleman  has  never  seen  an 
operation  of  that  kind.  Now,  let  the  gentleman 
keep  cool ; for  the  reason  that,  as  I am  going  to 
show  him,  it  never  could  have  occurred;  and, 
although  I have  no  doubt  that  he  thinks  he  has 
seen  it,  I am  going  to  show  him  that  he  never 
did,  and  that  he  never  could  see  it.  Now,  I 
object  here,  and  I objected  in  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1851,  to  these  fractional  Repre- 
sentatives being  called  “ floats.”  They  are  no 
floats;  they  have  no  relation  whatever  to  the 
old  system  of  floats.  The  principle  of  fractional 
Representatives  is  determined  by  the  fractions 


[128th 


1722 CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Dorsey,  Powell. 


which  remain  over  after  dividing  the  population 
of  a district  for  a ratio.  For  example : Sup- 
pose the  population  of  a Senatorial  district  is 

90.000,  and  the  Senatorial  ratio,  as  it  is  now, 
should  be  76,150,  that  would  leave  a fraction  re- 
maining of  13,850.  Now  what  do  we  do  with 
that  13,850?  We  multiply  it  by  five,  which  is 
the  number  of  General  Assemblies  in  the  de- 
cennial period,  and  we  get  65,000.  That  is  not 
enough  for  a Representative;  but,  suppose  the 
number  that  remained  over,  instead  of  being 

13.000,  was  30,000;  then,  there  is  sufficient  for 
a fractional  Representative,  because  thirty  thou- 
sand multiplied  by  five,  gives  150,000;  we 
divide  that  by  76,000;  or,  if  the  product  amoun- 
ted to  155,000,  and  we  divide  that  by  76,000,  we 
find  that  district  has  two  fractional  Representa- 
tives in  the  decennial  period.  Now,  I suppose 
the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  and  I un- 
derstand that  to  be  the  drift  of  his  argument 
this  morning — and  if  I am  not  correct,  he  will 
correct  me — claims  that  we  have  here  two 
fractional  Representatives,  and  that  they  will  be 
assigned  to  such  General  Assemblies,  in  the 
decennial  period,  or  to  such  sessions  in  the  de- 
cennial period  as  will  answer  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  some  political  purpose,  as  the  election  of 
a United  States  Senator;  but,  I say  to  the  gentle- 
man that  it  cannot  be  so  done.  I refer  him  now  to 
the  third  section  of  the  old  Constitution,  which 
third  section  has  been  adopted  by  this  Conven- 
tion. What  does  it  tell  us?  It  says  just  ex- 
actly how  these  Senators  are  to  be  allotted 
among  the  General  Assemblies,  or  sessions  of 
the  decennial  period.  It  tells  us  if  there  be  only 
one  ratio  the  Representative  thereby  elected  shall 
be  allotted  to  the  fifth  session  of  the  decennial 
period.  If  there  are  two  ratios  a Representa- 
tive shall  be  allotted  to  the  fourth  and  third 
sessions,  respectively.  If  three,  to  the  first, 
second  and  third  sessions,  respectively.  If 
four,  to  the  fourth,  third,  second  and  first,  re- 
spectively. And,  ' hen,  when  we  come  back  to 
the  Senate,  what  do  we  find  there  ? I refer  now 
to  section  eight  of  the  old  Constitution,  Article 
eleven.  The  same  rule  shall  be  followed  in  ap- 
portioning the  fractions  of  senatorial  districts, 
and  I ask,  with  these  provisions,  how  can  these 
fractional  numbers  be  used  or  assigned  for  po- 
litical purposes  ? Now,  if  we  do  what  I propose 
to  do,  which  is  to  adhere,  as  nearly  as  possible, 
to  the  old  Constitution — and  I prefer  the  old 
Constitution  to  anything  else — if  you  will  not 
let  us  have  our  system  of  large  districts  and 
proportional  representation,  or  even  if  the  Con- 
vention refuses  to  adopt  our  system  of  large 
districts;  for  I would  prefer  to  take  the  ten 
large  districts  without  proportional  representa- 
tion, if  that  should  be  all  we  can  obtain  ; but  if 
the  gentlemen  of  the  Convention  determine  we 
shall  have  neither  the  ten  large  districts  nor 
shall  we  have  proportional  representation,  then, 
I say,  give  us  the  old  system.  You  cannot  give 
us  anything  better.  Take  the  districts  accord- 
ing to  population,  but  preserve  the  great  prin- 
ciple of  the  old  Constitution,  and  that  is,  divide 
by  a fixed  number  for  a ratio;  and,  I will  say 
to  gentlemen,  I am  not  very  particular  whether 
you  divide  by  thirty-five,  or  whether  you  divide 
by  thirty-seven. 

I know  some  of  the  friends  of  my 
proposition  are  in  favor  of  dividing  by  thir-  | 


[Tuesday, 


ty-seven.  They  say  you  have  increased  the 
divisor  in  the  Lower  House  from  one  hundred 
to  one  hundred  and  five;  then  why  not  increase 
the  divisor  in  the  Senate  from  thirty-five  to 
thirty-seven  ? I say  I have  no  objection  to  it. 
I shall  not  contend  about  that  matter;  but  I do 
say,  do  not  abandon  the  principle  by  which  we 
fix  the  ratio  for  representation  in  the  Senate,  as 
well  as  in  the  Lower  House;  that  is  the  princi- 
ple that  I am  contending  for,  and  which  I shall 
vote  for  as  long  as  I have  a chance  of  doing  it. 
Anything  that  abandons  that  principle  I shall 
oppose.  For  that  reason,  I shall  vote  against 
any  proposition  here  by  which  it  is  contem- 
plated or  proposed  to  fix  the  number  of  Sena- 
tors to  begin  with.  I begin  with  fixing  the 
ratio  by  a certain  fixed  divisor,  and  you  may 
make  that  divisor  thirty-five  or  thirty-seven. 
I say,  plainly,  that  I prefer  thirty-five,  because 
I do  not  see  any  good  reason  for  abandoning 
the  old  Constitution  in  that  respect.  I ask  any 
gentleman  to  take  the  population  of  Hamilton 
county,  as  it  stands,  260,780 ; divide  it  by  thirty- 
five,  and  you  get  a less  remainder  than  if  you 
divided  it  by  thirty-seven.  It  is  a better  ratio. 
I prefer  it  for  that  reason,  and  I believe  it 
would  be  the  same  in  various  portions  of  the 
State.  If  any  gentleman  can  show  me  any  good 
reason  for  abandoning  thirty-five  and  adopting 
thirty-seven,  I shall  accede  to  it;  but  I have 
never  heard  any  good  reason  yet ; but  there  is  a 
good  reason  and  a very  strong  reason  why  you 
should  hold  fast  to  the  present  Constitution. 
If  you  abandon  that,  you  abandon  the  principle 
of  self-regulating  apportionment,  and  if  there  is 
any  one  thing  that  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  have  indorsed  in  the  Constitution  of  1851, 
it  is  that  self-regulatingapportionment.  There- 
fore, I say  to  gentlemen,  beware  how  they  sac- 
rifice that  principle.  Let  us  stand  up  to  it. 
Let  us  adhere  to  it,  and  I propose  to  vote  against 
anything  and  everything  that  is  opposed  to  this 
principle. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I intend  to  adhere  to  that 
principle  of  having  a fixed  ratio,  and  I shall  go 
against  anything,  even  my  own  proposition,  if 
it  does  not. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  does  not. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir.  In  the  amendment 
we  fix  the  number  of  Senators.  If  we  say 
thirty-three  or  thirty-seven  shall  be  the  num- 
ber, we  immediately  carry  into  the  sixth  sec- 
tion/)! this  Appor tionmen  t Article  that  number, 
and  that  section  reads  thus:  “The  ratio  for 

Senator  shall  forever  hereafter  be  ascertained 
by  dividing  the  population  of  the  State  by  thir- 
five.” 

Now,  if  we  make  the  number  thirty-three, 
according  to  my  JDroposition,  or  thirty-seven, 
according  to  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  that  thirty-three  or 
thirty-seven  will  be  carried  into  section  six, 
and  that  will  be  the  divisor. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then  I ask  the  gentleman  to 
put  it  in. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I say  it  shall  be  put  in ; and 
the  amendment  that  determines  the  number  of 
Senators  it  shall  be  carried  into  the  section,  and 
I intend  to  work  for  that  principle. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  him  a question? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 


Day.] CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 1723 

March  3,  1874.]  Dorsey,  Powell,  Barnet,  Root. 


Mr.  DORSEY.  Would  it  not  be  a more  sim- 
ple and  an  easier  way,  to  determine  th'e  ratib 
first,  and  let  the  ratio  determine  the  number  of 
Senators  ? Is  not  that  the  more  simple  and  easy 
plan  ? It  seems  so  to  me. 

Mr.  POWEivxj.  It  is  better  to  know  how 
many  Senators  we  want.  I want  thirty-three; 
but  I do  not  know  but  for  the  reasons  given  by 
the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  that  I 
may  not  vote  for  his  amendment.  I prefer 
thirty-three  to  triirty-five  or  thirty-seven ; and 
if  we  de  net  vote  down  thirty,  the  proposition 
as  made,  I shall  go  for  that.  I likv  that  still 
better.  I think  thirty,  as  a number,  will  make 
the  Senate  large  enough ; and  there  is  no  ne- 
cessity of  putting  any  more  than  is  necessary, 
or  more  than  prudence  and  judicious  manage- 
ment will  require.  Let  us  look  at  it,  and  see 
how  it  works.  Let  us  say  it  shall  be  thirty- 
three,  thirty-five,  or  thirty-seven.  That  num- 
ber immediately  becomes  a divisor  to  obta  n the 
ratio,  forever,  until  the  Constitution  is  altered. 
I stick  to  that,  and  those  who  claim  that  the 
principle  which  determines  the  ratio  is  not 
fixed  in  this  proposition,  do  injustice  to  the 
proposition,  because,  immediately  when  we 
agree  upon  the  number  of  Senators  that  will 
determine  the  ratio  that  will  be  put  into  section 
six  when  it  comes  up.  I would  readily  give 
way  if  I saw  this  proposition  w'as  going  to  kill 
that  principle,  and  ask  leave  to  withdraw  this ; 
but  it  does  not  do  it.  It  only  determines  the 
ratio  which  will  afterwards  be  inserted  in  the 
proper  section. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I think  these  arguments  can 
all  be  summed  up  in  ten  or  fifteen  words,  and 
the  controversy  between  the  gentlemen,  in  my 
opinion,  does  not  amount  to  anything.  Thirty- 
seven  as  a number,  if  you  please,  divided  into 
the  population  of  the  State,  will  produce  just 
the  same  result  as  if  you  were  to  call  it  thiity- 
seven  Senators.  I ask  any  man  if  that  is  not 
the  fact?  The  mere  fact  of  calling  a number 
thirty-seven  Senators  does  not  alter  the  result  a 
particle.  We  abide  by  the  number  thirty- 
seven,  and  call  that  ratio  thirty-seven  Senators. 
The  result  is  precisely  the  same,  most  unques- 
tionably, or  my  arithmetic  is  not  worth  any- 
thing, and  my  mind  less. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  got  up  to  set  right  the  gentleman  from 
Erie.  Now,  it  is  well  enough.  I suggest  to 
that  gentleman,  before  he  undertimes  to  correct 
an  error,  to  try  to  comprehend  it.  I want  to 
say  to  that  gentleman,  who  is  charitable 
enough  to  say  to  me  that  I may  possibly  believe 
that  I have  seen  the  difficulty  which  I did  not 
see,  that  he  is  laboring  under  a delusion,  be- 
cause I have  seen  it,  and  there  are  other  gentle- 
men who  have  seen  it.  This  great  constitu- 
tional expedient  of  his,  that  is  always  protect- 
ing us,  always  at  work,  led  to  difficulties  which 
occupied  three  weeks’  time  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  1870  to  unravel.  The  parties 
were  very  close.  There  was  a majority  of  one 
for  one  party  in  the  Senate,  and  two  in  the 
House.  There  was  a great  anxiety  on  the  part 
of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber], 
and  certain  of  his  associates,  to  get  rid  of  a 
gentleman  by  the  name  of  Blakeslee,  who  was 
called  by  the  Secretary  of  State  as  a member  of 
the  House.  Blakeslee  was  a Republican, 


and  his  friends  resolved  to  keep  him  in. 
That  was  all  that  ailed  him.  1 believe  he  was 
entitled  to  the  seat  he  claimed.  But  it  was  a 
party  fight,  and  his  political  enemies  would 
have  thrown  him  out  if  they  could  have  done 
so.  The  self-adjusting  constitutional  expedient 
would  not  have  saved  him  if  his  political  ene- 
mies had  had  a majority  of  one  in  the  House. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  explain 
how  it  worked  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  I have  explained.  It  did  not 
work  at  all. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  worked  very  well. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  Republican  party  had  a 
majority  of  one,  no  thanks  to  your  constitu- 
tional provision,  because  if  the  Democrats  had 
had  a majority  of  one,  they  would  have  voted 
Blakeslee  out.  The  gentleman  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber],  the  gentleman  from  Carroll  [Mr. 
Adair],  and  other  members  of  this  Convention, 
if  they  are  present,  could  testify  to  this  same 
thing.  The  great  constitutional  principle  is 
like  the  great  universal  solvent;  it  will  not 
work.  You  have  not  got  anything  you  can 
keep  it  in. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  him  a question  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  O,  yes ! 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  can  answer 
if  he  pleases,  if  he  does  not,  he  can  let  it  alone. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Of  course,  I understand  my 
privileges. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I ask  him,  if  this  matter 
does  not  depend,  and  if  it  did  not  depend  in 
Blakeslee’s  case,  on  the  census  and  the  enume- 
ration of  the  population  more  than  it  did  on 
the  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  depended  on  the  relative 
strength  of  the  parties. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  depended  upon  the  enu- 
meration. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Who  knows  best?  You  were 
not  there,  and  I was.  1 leave  it  to  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  whether,  if  the 
Democrats  had  had  the  strength,  they  would 
not  have  voted  to  send  “Old  Blakeslee,’’ as 
they  called  him,  home,  with  all  his  certificates, 
and  despite  the  Secretary’s  recognition.  Your 
universal  solvent  will  not  hold.  It  will  not 
work. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  has  worked  for  twenty 
years. 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  did  not  work  for  twenty  days, 
but  it  kept  the  Legislature  in  a ferment  for 
about  that  time. 

Now,  as  for  this  specific  number  of  Senators, 
it  is  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell].  He  brings  it  here. 
I prefer  the  number  thirty-seven  to  thirty-three. 
I gave  the  reasons  why  I preferred  it,  and  that 
is,  the  only  question  my  amendment  raises  in 
this  connection.  All  the  question  it  raises  is, 
whether  we  shall  have  thirty-seven  Senators  or 
thirty-five. 

I ask  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Ba- 
ber], why  he  would  not  support  my  amendment, 
he  having  no  objection  to  thirty-seven  Sena- 
tors? The  gentleman  made  the  candid  con- 
fession, good  for  the  soul.  He  was  fearful 

Mr.  POWELL.  What  was  that  confession? 

Mr.  ROOT.  I am  going  to  tell.  He  said  he 
rather  liked  the  thing,  but  he  was  afraid  that  it 


1724 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. [128th 

Root,  Baber,  Barnet,  Dorsey.  [Tuesday, 


might  strengthen  the  one  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  and, 
therefore,  he  was  going  to  vote  it  down.  He 
would  not  vote  for  my  amendment  lest  it  might 
strengthen  another  which  he  did  not  like.  That 
was  his  answer,  and  it  was  a very  frank  one. 
It  always  seemed  to  me  sound  policy  if  we  could 
not  get  all  the  good  we  want,  to  get  all  the  good 
attainable. 

Mr.  BABER.  In  reply  to  my  friend  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root],  I shall  say  that  I do  not  think 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Dela- 
ware [Mr.  Powell]  is  capable  of  any  improve- 
ment. I consider  it  so  utterly  indefensible  that 
any  attempt  like  improving  it  is  like  putting 
new  cloth  into  an  old  garment ; it  would  sim- 
ply make  the  rent  worse.  The  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  is 
in  violation  of  the  apportioning  principle  of  the 
present  Constitution ; it  is  a destruction  of  the 
discrimination  between  ratios  and  districts.  I 
am  perfectly  willing  to  fix  the  number  of  dis- 
tricts at  thirty-three,  or  thirty-seven,  or  any 
number  that  this  Convention  see  fit,  but  I do 
not  want  to  fix  the  number  of  Senators,  and  I 
shall  explain  to  my  friend  from  Preble  [Mr. 
Barnet]  why  I do  not. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  explain  first?  My  proposition  is  predi- 
cated upon  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey,]  that  the  ratio  shall  be 
thirty-five,  and  it  was  conceded  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  thatit  might 
be  thirty-seven.  Now,  if  the  ratio  be  fixed  at 
thirty-seven,  my  argument  is,  that  if  you  fix 
the  number  of  Senators  at  thirty-seven,  and 
abide  by  thirty-seven,  the  result  will  be  exactly 
the  same. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  trouble  with  my  frirnd 
from  Pre*  le  [ Mr.  Barnet]  is,  that  he  has  been 
misled,  as  many  other  gentlemen  have  been, 
by  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Dela- 
ware [Mr.  Powell].  That  proposition  is  not 
on  the  divisor.  It  is  not  whether  the  divisor 
was  to  be  thirty-three,  thirty-five,  or  thirty- 
seven.  That  argument  of  my  friend  from  Dela- 
ware [Mr.  Powell]  would  have  fears;  but  the 
question  of  a divisor  is  not  before  the  Conven- 
tion, the  question  being  as  to  the  number  of 
districts.  And  if  the  gentleman  will  look  at 
the  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  he  will  find 
that,  while  the  divisor  is  thirty- fly*-,  that  the 
number  of  districts  is  only  thirty-three,  and  the 
reason  of  that  is,  because  the  county  of  Hamil- 
ton has  three  Senators,  and  there  is  a floating 
Senator  in  the  county  of  Cuyahoga.  The 
trouble  is,  that  you  are  mixing  the  two  things 
together.  It  may  not  produce  the  same  result 
as  I have  shown,  if  the  number  of  Senators  is 
fixed.  There  is  a large  population  that  ought 
not  to  be  deprived  of  these  additional  Senators. 
I want  to  allow  the  districts  to  grow,  and  in- 
crease their  number  of  Senators  according  to 
population,  and,  therefore,  I am  opposed  to, 
and  I shall  vote  against,  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  and 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root].  When  we  come  to  fix  the  number 
of  districts,  I shall  go  with  my  friend;  but 
when  you  come  to  speak  of  the  question  of  ratio, 
that  is  another  matter. 

Mr.  BARNET.  The  gentleman  made  but  one 


single  argument,  and  that  was  predicated  upon 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey],  arid,  I think,  when  it  comes  to 
the  question  as  between  the  district  and  the 
ratio,  he  will  understand  that  question.  But  it 
is  predicated  upon  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  and  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell],  together  with  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  to  fix  the 
number  of  Senators  at  thirty-seven. 

Now,  my  argument  is  this,  and  I shall  repeat 
it : So  far  as  the  question  of  ratio  is  concerned, 

it  does  not  matter  whether  you  say  it  shall  be  a 
ratio  of  thirty-seven,  or  thirty-seven  Senators ; 
because,  if  it  be  thirty-seven  Senators,  the  popu- 
lation of  the  State  being  divided  by  that,  it 
would  produce  the  same  result  as  if  you  were 
to  divide  it  by  thirty-seven  as  a ratio.  That  is 
the  whole  of  my  argument.  That  is  the  product 
of  it. 

Now,  I recognize  what  the  gentleman  says 
with  regard  to  the  districts.  If  you  fix  the 
ratio  at  thirty-five,  and  give  Hamilton  county 
three  Senators,  and  Cuyahoga,  two;  then  the 
districts  would  necessarily  be  reduced  to  thirty- 
two,  and  not  thirty-three — there  being  two  ad- 
ditional in  Hamilton  county,  and  one  additional 
in  Cuyahoga  county,  making  three,  and  take 
that  from  thirty-five,  would  be  thirty-two,  as 
the  number  of  districts. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  my  friend  from  Preble 
[Mr.  Barnet]  allow  me  to  explain  ? It  would 
be  precisely  right,  if  you  elect  your  Senators 
by  the  whole  State ; but  the  gentleman  forgets 
that  when  you  divide  the  State  into  districts, 
you  have  got  your  population  divided.  When 
you  apply  your  ratio  to  the  districts,  instead  of 
applying  it  to  the  State,  you  get  certain  re- 
mainders, and  those  remainders  can  only  be 
represented  by  a fractional  representation,  and, 
therefore,  your  number  of  Senators  is  not  al- 
ways the  same ; and  for  that  reason  it  does  not 
apply  when  the  State  is  divided  up  into  dis- 
tricts. The  reasoning  is  correct,  if  you  elect 
Senators  from  the  whole  State;  but  it  cannot 
be  correct,  when  you  divide  the  State  into  dis- 
tricts. 

Mr.  BARNET.  It  is  correct  so  far  as  the  ar- 
guments extends;  to  wit,  precisely  when  it 
covers  the  ground  that  was  in  controversy  be- 
tween the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey] 
and  the  g^itleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  necessary  to  base  your 
argument  on  this. 

Mr.  BARNET.  That  is  another  question. 
As  to  how  these  fractions  would  be  divided  is 
one  matter.  They  may  be  multiplied  and  added 
to  certain  periods  of  the  decennial  period.  Now, 
all  of  that  may  be  true. 

Mr.  DORSE  Y.  The  statement  the  gentleman 
makes,  that  the  number  of  Senators  always 
agrees  with  the  divisor  is  true,  if  you  elect 
Senators  over  the  whole  State.  It  is  not  true 
when  you  divide  them  up  into  districts,  because 
you  have  got  to  account  for  fractions. 

Mr.  BABER.  I was  going  on  to  show  the 
effect  on  the  election.  That  is  what  I want  my 
friend  from  Preble  [Mr.  Barnet]  to  look  at. 
Sometimes  we  have  during,  the  same  decennial 
period,  thirty-five  Senators,  sometimes  we  have 


Day.J  CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS.  1725 

March  3, 1874.]  Baber,  Root,  Townsend,  Powell,  Hale,  West,  etc. 


thirty-six,  and  sometimes  thirty-seven.  . I sup- 
pose the  reason  why  my  friend  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root]  is  so  in  favor  of  that  is,  that  there  were 
thirty-seven  when  he  was  there.  As  to  the  dif- 
ficulty that  he  speaks  of,  about  this  Mr.  Blakes- 
lee,  I wish  we  had  had  a Democratic  Clerk 
there;  but  the  trouble  about  it  was,  that  the 
Secretary  of  State  was  the  man  that  fixed  the 
names  and  usurped  a power  that,  in  my  judg- 
ment, he  had  no  right  to  take.  That  was  done, 
and  it  was  a mere  matter  of  construction  which 
we  will  never  be  bothered  with  hereafter,  be- 
cause, in  the  absence  of  the  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root]  the  provision  with  reference 
to  attaching  counties  was  stricken  out,  and  such 
a question  will  never  arise  again ; and  I am 
very  free  to  say,  exactly  what  my  judgment 
was  in  that  transaction.  I do  not  believe  that 
that  man  had  the  right  to  the  seat.  Whether 
he  could  have  obtained  it  upon  the  merits  is  an- 
other question.  He  had  no prima  facie  right  to 
the  seat;  and,  if  I had  had  my  way,  I would 
have  prevented  it,  just  as  old  Democracy  pre- 
vented the  organization  of  the  House  in  1849, 
and  I would  have  sent  the  gentleman  home. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Would  the  gentleman  have  used 
his  hat  in  the  same  way? 

Mr.  BARBER.  I do  not  think  the  hat  would 
be  necessary.  This  is  aside  from  the  question. 
It  is  not  a question  as  to  the  ratio.  I cannot 
agree  with  the  gentleman’s  substitute  and  pro- 
position to  fix  the  number  of  Senators  so  that 
it  will  not  be  elastic;  therefore, I am  opposed  to 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root],  and  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell].  Let  the 
number  of  districts  remain  fixed  as  fixed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale],  and  then 
we  might  have  the  question  proposed  as  to 
whether  the  division  shall  be  thirty-five  or 
thirty- seven. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND,  lsuggestnow  thatwevote 
upon  this  question,  having  talked  all  of  the 
morning,  and  most  of  the  afternoon,  the  Con- 
vention understands  the  question  very  well.  It 
is  a question  that  we  have  determined,  and  I 
I propose  that  the  vote  upon  the  amendments  in 
their  order  be  taken,  so  that  we  may  arrive  at 
the  result. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  “three.-” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  35,  nays  23,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Barnet,  Bosworth, 
Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Miner, 
Page,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Root,  Row- 
land, Shaw,  Shultz,  Steedman,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsend, 
Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Van  Valkenburgh, 
Van  Voorhis,  Weaver,  West,  Woodbury, 
President — 35. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose,  Byal,  Cald- 
well, Chapin,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Foran, 
Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Hill,  Miner,  Pease,  Rickly, 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Voris,  Waddle, 
White  of  Brown,  Young  of  Noble — 23. 

So  the  word  “three”  was  stricken  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  in- 
serting the  word  “seven.” 


Mr.  POWELL.  Would  it  be  in  order  to  sug- 
gest any  other  number  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  would. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Then,  I suggest  that  it  stand 
as  it  is,  “thirty,”  instead  of  “thirty-seven.” 

Mr.  HALE.  It  is  three  now. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Root  to  insert  “seven” 
was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell]  as  amended,  and  it  reads  as  fol- 
lows : 

“The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-seven  Senators,  who 
shall  be  assigned  to  the  proper  districts,  to  be  bounded  by 
county  lines,  according  to  the  just  number  of  population, 
and  where  any  county  is  entitled  to  more  than  one  Sena- 
tor, according  to  its  population,  its  proportion  shall  be 
assigned  to  such  county,  and  the  residue  of  the  State  shall 
be  divided  into  single  districts  with  one  Senator  each.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  to  strike  from  the  substi- 
tute the  words,  “to  be  bounded  by  county  lines.” 

Upon  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  and,  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  28, 
nays  29,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair, Barnet,  Caldwell, Chapin,  Clark 
of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cunningham,  Hale,  Hostet- 
ter, Johnson,  Page,  Pease,  Philips,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Root,  Sample,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tuttle, 
Van  Voorhis,  Voris,  Waddle, West,  Woodbury — 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose,  Byal, 
Carbery,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Her- 
ron, Hill,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Miller,  Miner, 
Powell,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Shaw,  Steedman, 
Townsend,  Tulloss,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Weaver, 
White  of  Brown,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 
29. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  striking  out  section  three,  and  inserting 
the  substitute  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I ask  for  a division  of  the 
question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  then 
be  upon  striking  out  section  three. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  1 would  like  to  make 
an  inquiry.  I have  been  away  a good  while. 
Suppose  this  substitute  is  adopted,  how  will  it 
affect  the  application  of  this  system  that  has 
been  in  operation  under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion ? I desire  to  ask  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee how  this  will  affect  that?  I do  not  want 
to  cast  any  vote  that  will  affect  it  in  any  man- 
ner. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  asks  me,  if 
I am  permitted  to  answer,  I shall  say  that  I con- 
sider that  it  destroys  the  principle  of  the  old 
Constitution  by  taking  away  the  ratio. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  looks  that  way  to 
me. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I say  it  does  not.  All  you 
have  to  do  is  to  carry  thirty-seven  into  section 
G,  so  that  the  divisor  shall  be  thirty-seven  in- 
stead of  thirty-five.  All  the  difference  is,  that 
you  will  change  thirty-five,  in  section  6,  to 
thirty-seven. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  As  I understand  it, 
we  have  determined,  by  the  last  vote,  tlyit  the 
number  of  Senators  shall  be  thirty-seven.  You 


1726 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Powell,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Gurley,  West,  etc. 


[128th 


will  divide  up  the  State  so  as  to  give  thirty- 
seven  Senators. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  So  that  it  will  leave 
the  whole  mode  and  manner  of  our  present  sys- 
tem meaningless. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly ; it  does  destroy  it 
entirely. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is  rather  an  important 
■question.  If  I considered  it  in  that  way,  I 
would  immediately  go  with  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  one  question? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  When  we  establish  a ratio,  is 
not  the  number  of  Senators  variable? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Not  under  our  proposition. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Under  our  present  Constitu- 
tion ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Under  the  Constitution  we 
are  now  adopting? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  does  not  un- 
derstand me.  I say,  under  our  present  system, 
would  a ratio  render  the  number  of  Senators 
variable  ? Is  not  that  the  action  of  the  present 
Constitution?  In  other  words,  is  not  the  num- 
ber of  Senators  variable  under  our  present 
Constitution?  Let  the  gentleman  answer  me 
that;  and  is  not  the  number  fixed  under  your 
proposition?  Therefore,  the  two  are  antagonis- 
tic. It  is  a plain  question.  There  is  no  doubt 
about  it  at  all.  You  may  argue  around  and 
around  it;  but  th^re  it  stands,  as  plain  as  a 
stump  in  the  road. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Are  they  variable,  in  any 
way,  unless  these  fractional  Representatives 
are  variable  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  makes  no  difference. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  They  are  variable  only  in 
the  same  decennial  period ; but  they  may  be 
variable  from  one  decennial  period  to  another. 
Otherwise,  this  is  all. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  ratio  is  obtained  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  the  number  of  Senators. 
That  is  all  that  is  done,  and  you  establish  that 
as  thirty-five.  This  fixes  it  at  thirty-seven.  I 
wish  it  was  thirty  instead  of  thirty -seven,  be- 
cause that  is  a better  number.  If  you  make 
this  permanent,  you  must  have  section  six 
changed  to  thirty-seven ; and,  if  you  fix  the 
divisor  at  thirty-seven,  whenever  a new  cen- 
sus of  the  population  is  taken,  you  divide  by 
thirty-seven  again.  If  it  does  not  do  as  well, 
the  difference  is  with  regard  to  fractions,  and 
■those  fractions  must  be  disposed  of  in  the  best 
way  they  can  be. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest,  as  we  rural 
roosters  are  not  of  much  account  in  the  consi- 
deration of  this  apportionment  of  the  State, 
that  we  take  a recess  while  the  friends  of  cen- 
tralization fix  up  the  matter.  We  do  not  wish 
to  sit  here  and  hear  their  wrangling. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I would  like  to  have  the  sec- 
tion read  which  it  is  proposed  to  strike  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
section  three  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 


[Tuesday, 


“Sec.  3.  The  State  shall  be  divided  into  thirty-three 
senatorial  districts,  as  follows: 

“The  county  of  Hamilton  shall  constitute  the  first  sen- 
atorial district;  the  counties  of  Butler,  Preble,  Montgom- 
ery, Darke,  Shelby,  Miami,  Clarke  and  Greene  shall 
constitute  the  second;  thecouoties  of  Mercer,  Auglaize, 
Allen,  Van  Wert,  Putnam,  Paulding,  Defiance,  Henry, 
Williams,  Fulton,  Lucas  and  Wood,  the  third;  the  coun- 
ties of  Ottawa,  Sandusky,  Seneca,  Erie,  Huron,  Ashland, 
Knox,  Richland,  Crawford,  Wyandot  and  Hancock,  the 
fourth;  the  counties  of  Hardin,  Marion,  Morrow,  oogan. 
Champaign,  Union,  Delaware,  Franklin,  Pick  away,  Mad- 
ison and  Fayette,  the  fifth;  the  counties  of  Warren,  Clin- 
ton, Clermont,  Brown,  Ross,  Highland,  Adams,  Pike, 
Scioto  and  Lawrence,  the  sixth;  the  counties  of  Gallia, 
Jackson,  Meigs,  Athens,  Hocking,  Vinton,  Fairfield, 
Perry,  Morgan.  Washington  and  Monroe,  the  seventh; 
the  counties  of  Noble,  Muskingum,  Guernsey,  Belmont, 
Jefferson,  Harrison,  Tuscarawas,  Coshocton  and  Licking, 
the  eighth;  the  counties  of  Carroll,  Stark,  Columbiana, 
Mahoning,  Portage,  Geauga,  Lake,  Ashtabula  and  Trum- 
bull, the  ninth;  the  counties  of  Cuyahoga,  Summit,  Lo- 
rain, Medina,  YVayne  and  Holmes,  the  tenta;  and  each  of 
said  districts  shall  be  entitled  to  elect  three  Senators.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  the  section  as  amended. 

Mr.  HALE.  Would  it  be  proper  to  divide 
the  question  and  strike  out  a portion  of  the 
section  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Which  portion? 

Mr.  HALE.  The  first  line  down  to  the  word 
“ districts,”  as  we  have  voted  already,  changes 
“ten  ” to  “ thirty -three,”  so  that  the  first  part 
of  the  section  reads,  “ the  State  shall  be  divided 
into  thirty-three  senatorial  districts.”  Now, 
the  whole  residue  of  that  section  goes  on  and 
divides  the  State  into  ten  senatorial  districts. 
Is  it  proper  to  divide  the  question  on  striking 
out,  and  let  it  be  first  taken  on  striking  out  the 
residue  of  the  section  after  the  word  “ dis- 
fcricts  * 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  question  has  al- 
ready been  passed  upon  by  this  Convention,  and 
they  have  refused  to  strike  out  that  part.  The 
first  part  has  been  passed  upon.  We  have  sim- 
ply stricken  out,  in  the  first  line,  the  word 
“ ten,”  and  inserted  the  words,  “thirty-three.” 
The  question  now  is  upon  striking  out  the  entire 
section. 

Mr.  BABER.  Can  we  call  for  a division  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Upon  what? 

Mr.  BABER.  As  to  the  arrangement  with 
regard  to  districts. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  sug- 
gest the  division  he  demands  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Take  a division  down  to  and 
including  the  words,  “ as  follows  ” : 

Mr.  HERRON.  The  residue  of  the  section 
we  have  refused  to  strike  out,  therefore,  the 
section  will  be  left  as  it  is. 

Mr.  POWELL.  If  any  such  division  is 
adopted,  it  will  be  a great  waste  of  time.  It 
will  be  a great  waste  of  time  to  strike  out  a part 
in  that  way. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  proposes  to  strike  out  the 
first  line;  “the  State  shall  be  divided  into 
thirty-three  senatorial  districts,  as  follows.” 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  up- 
on striking  out  the  entire  section. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  WEST.  I rise  to  a question  of  order.  If 
we  cannot  strike  out  either  part,  how  can  we 
strike  out  the  whole? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  what  the  Chair 
was  proposing  to  state.  The  Convention  has 


Day.]  CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS 1727 

March  3,  1874.]  Townsend,  Powell,  Baber,  Pratt,  Dorsey,  Carbery,  etc. 


refused  to  strike  out  the  entire  section,  and  it 
virtually  is  agreed  upon. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I suggest  that  these  mo- 
tions were  made  in  attempting  to  perfect  the 
section.  After  the  section  has  been  perfected, 
it  is  competent  for  this  Convention  to  take  a 
vote  upon  striking  out.  It  has  only  been  re- 
fused in  detail,  and  not  as  an  entire  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  rule  is,  that  the  re- 
fusal to  strike  out  shall  be  equivalent  to  agree- 
ing to  the  matter  in  that  form. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  Convention  has  not 
refused  to  strike  out  the  entire  section. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I suggest  this  to  the 
President  ? The  motion  to  strike  out  the  entire 
section  is  a very  different  motion  from  striking 
out  one  part  at  one  time  and  another  part  at  an- 
other. Some  members  may  have  voted  to  strike 
out  this  part  or  to  strike  out  that  part,  by  itself, 
who  would  not  be  willing  to  vote  to  strike  out 
the  whole  of  it.  The  question  of  striking  out 
the  whole  is  a very  different  question  from 
striking  out  a part. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention  has  not 
refused  to  strike  out  either  part,  except  by  it- 
self; therefore,  it  may  be  correct  to  say  that 
the  Convention  has  not  refused  to  strike  out  the 
entire  section.  It  has  refused  to  strike  out  each 
separately.  The  question  now  is  to  strike  out 
each  part  in  connection  with  something  else,  so 
that  the  question  to  strike  out  the  whole  would 
still  remain.  The  question  is  upon  striking  out 
section  three. 

Mr.  BABER.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
I understand  that  we  have  refused  to  strike  out 
this  as  it  reads,  that  the  State  shall  be  divided 
into  thirty -three  senatorial  districts ; and  it  goes 
on  making  ten  districts — it  is  true  it  is  incon- 
sistent, the  latter  part  of  the  section  is  absurd 
— but  I submit  that,  under  parliamentary  rule, 
the  Convention  having  refused  to  strike  out 
either  part  of  it  separately,  can  do  in  the  present 
stage  nothing  further  with  it,  but  must  go  on 
with  the  next  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  still  competent  for 
the  Convention  to  strike  out  either  part  in  con- 
nection with  the  other.  It  is  competent  to  strike 
out  the  whole.  The  gentleman  from  Delaware 
(Mr.  Powell]  is  right  with  regard  to  that.  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  42,  nays  15,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark 
of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Freiberg,  Hale,  Herron, 
Hill,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kraemer, 
Miller,  Miner,  Page,  Pease,  Philips,  Powell, 
Reilly,  Rowland,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Steedman,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuttle, 
Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Weaver,  West,  Woodbury,  President — 42. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Foran, 
Godfrey,  Kerr,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Root,  Sample, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Tulloss,  White  of 
Brown,  Young  of  Noble — 15. 

So  the  motion  upon  striking  out  the  section 
was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Dela- 
ware [Mr.  Powell]. 


Mr.  PRATT.  I would  like  to  hear  it  read. 
The  Secretary  read : 

“The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-seven  Senators,  who 
shall  be  assigned  to  the  proper  districts,  to  be  bounded  by 
county  lines,  according  to  a just  proportion  of  the  popu- 
lation, and  where  any  county  is  entitled  to  more  than  one 
Senator,  according  to  its  population,  its  proper  number  of 
Senators  shall  be  assigned  to  such  county,  and  the  residue 
ot  the  State  shall  be  divided  into  senatorial  districts  with 
one  Senator  each. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Muskingum,  was  excused 
from  voting,  he  having  paired  with  Mr.  Bos- 

WORTH. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Is  it  in  order  to  offer  a sub- 
stitute for  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I then  offer  rhe  following. 
The  Secretary  read ; 

“The  ratio  for  a Senator  shall  forever  he'ea'te**  be  as- 
certained by  dividing  the  whole  popi  li.tion  of  ill  * .State 
by  the  number  thirty-five.  The  dis  .r  cts  thereby  formed 
shall  always  be  bounded  by  county  lines,  arm,  unMl  the 
next  decennial  apportionment,  the  cm  ntv  il&milton 
shall  have  three,  and  the  county  of  Cuy  <h<’g  •.  i«o  ena- 
tors,  and  all  the  remaining  districts  one  heiiamr  < a<  h.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I wish  to  call  the  atiention  of 
gentlemen  to  the  provisions  of  this  substitute. 
It  brings  us  back  to  the  old  Constitution.  It  is, 
in  fact,  the  sixth  section  of  Article  twelve  of  the 
present  Constitution  of  the  State,  maintaining 
the  same  principle  which  was  introduced  into 
that  Constitution,  providing  for  three  Senators 
in  the  county  of  Hamilton,  and  two  Senators 
in  the  county  of  Cuyahoga,  and  one  Senator  in 
the  remaining  districts,  and  providing  that 
county  lines  shall  be  preserved.  Gentlemen 
can  easily  understand  that,  and  they  will  easily 
understand  the  difference  between  this  proposi- 
tion and  that  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell].  It  is  upon  that  matter  that  I 
wish  to  have  the  sense  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I move  to  amend  the  sub- 
stitute of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey], by  striking  out  thirty-five  and  inserting 
thirty-seven. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  perfectly  willing  to  ac- 
cept the  amendment,  if  gentlemen  think  it  will 
be  important.  It  does  not  sacrifice  the  princi- 
ple at  all,  and,  as  we  have  changed  the  divisor 
in  the  House  from  one  hundred  to  one  hundred 
and  five,  I have  no  objection  to  change  the 
divisor  in  the  Senate  from  thirty-five  to  thirty- 
seven.  All  that  I want  is  the  principle  pre- 
served. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  like  to  understand 
from  the  gentleman  offering  such  an  amend- 
ment as  that,  if  he  knows  how  it  will  operate?* 
How  does  the  gentleman  know  that  this  thirty- 
seven  will  operate  as  an  equal  divisor  through- 
out the  State.  I venture  to  say,  there  is  no  man 
here  who  can  tell  whether  that  number  will,  or 
will  not,  relieve  us  of  that  difficulty,  that  thirty- 
five  in  the  present  Constitution  does.  Another 
objection  1 have  to  it  is  this,  that  it  will  probably 
make  forty  Senators,  and  I do  not  wish  to  in- 
crease the  number;  therefore,  I am  opposed  to 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Carbery]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Carbery],  to  strike  out  u thirty-five”  and  insert 
“ thirty-seven.” 

Upon  this  question,  the  yeas  and  nays  were 


1728 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. [128th 

Herron,  Dorsey,  Townsend,  Baber.  [Tuesday, 


demanded,  and  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  31, 
nays  26,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Bishop,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cunningham, 
Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Hale,  Herron,  Johnson,  Krae- 
mer,  Miner,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Root,  Rowland, 
Shaw,  Shultz,  Steedman,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Thompson,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  wan  Valken- 
burgh,  West,  White  of  Brown,  Woodbury,  Presi- 
dent— 31. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were— 

Messrs.  Baber,  Barnet,  Blose,  B.yal,  Caldwell, 
Foran,  Godfrey.  Hill,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr, 
Miller,  Page,  Pease,  Philips,  Powell,  Rickly, 
Sample,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Tulloss, 
Van  Voorhis,  Voris,  A^addle,  Weaver,  Young  of 
Noble— 26. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I move  to  strike  out  “ three  ” 
as  the  number  of  Senators  to  which  Hamilton 
county  shall  be  entitled,  and  insert  “ four.”  It 
will  be  seen  that  the  population  of  Hamilton 
county  is  almost  to  a fraction  double  that  of 
Cuyahoga,  for  which  two  members  are  provided. 
In  addition  to  that,  by  the  basis  on  which  the 
calculation  is  made,  Hamilton  county  is  really 
within  about  twenty-five  thousand,  entitled  to 
four  Senators.  As  stated  by  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  there  will  probably 
be  forty  Senators  under  this  arrangement,  and 
Hamilton  county  has  one-tenth  of  the  popula- 
tion of  the  State.  By  an  arrangement  which 
was  made  the  other  day,  ten  Representatives  are 
given  to  Hamilton  county,  out  of  one  hundred 
and  eleven.  In  the  fifth  General  Assembly  of 
the  decade,  by  the  arrangement  which  was  pro- 
vided for  fractions,  another  member  is  given  to 
the  county,  making  eleven  members.  But  for 
the  same  Assembly  sixteen  additional  members 
are  given  to  the  other  counties  in  the  State,  so 
that  Hamilton  county  in  that  General  Assem- 
bly will  only  have  eleven  members  out  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty-seven,  a less  proportion  to 
the  entire  House  than  even  it  had  during  the 
first  four  General  Assemblies,  and,  therefore, 
in  the  representation  in  the  lower  House,  in  no 
case  does  Hamilton  county  receive  anything  like 
the  proportion  it  is  entitled  to  by  population.  I, 
therefore,  think  that  the  small  addition  which 
the  county  now  requires  to  make  up  a sufficient 
population  for  four  Senators  can  fairly  be  over- 
looked. As  I have  said,  we  have  exactly  double 
the  population  of  Cuyahoga,  and  yet  it  is  pro- 
posed to  give  Cuyahoga  two  Senators.  There- 
fore, I think,  you  should  grant  to  us  four. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  make 
the  calculation,  he  will  find  the  ratio,  if  we 
divide  by  thirty-seven,  is  72,034.  That  will  j 
give  Hamilton  county  three  Senators,  and  will ! 
give  her  three  fractional  Senators  in  the  period 
involved  in  the  apportionment,  as  it  now  stands ; 
for  we  shall  not  have  more  than  three  General  | 
Assemblies  under  this  apportionment,  there- 
fore, without  making  any  change,  the  gentle- 
man gets  all  he  wants. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Why  does  the  gentleman 
give  two  to  Cuyahoga? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  was  found  that  Cuyahoga, 
with  132,000  population  would  not  get  two;  but 
we  knowr  very  well  that  Cuyahoga  county  has 
increased  more  rapidly  than  any  other  county 


in  the  State,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  if 
a census  were  taken  to-day,  in  1874,  she  would 
be  entitled  to  two  Senators. 

Mr.  HERRON.  We  would  be  entitled  to 
four,  beyond  all  doubt. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  You  get  the  four,  and  Cuya- 
hoga county  would  not  get  the  two. 

Mr.  HEItRON.  Cuyahoga  county  would  get 
two  in  the  arrangement  proposed  by  the  other 
section,  because  by  the  system  which  the  gen- 
tleman proposes  to  put  into  the  Constitution, 
allowing  Senators  for  fractions,  Cuyahoga 
would  get  an  additional  Senator  for  the  same 
term  that  Hamilton  county  gets  an  additional 
Senator,  and  I suggest,  as  we  were  unfortunate 
in  reference  to  the  House  in  this  system,  we 
ought  to  fix  the  number  in  this  Constitution 
that  we  are  entitled  to. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  know  that  there 
would  be  any  serious  objection  to  the  propo- 
! sition  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Herron].  Still  the  facts  are  precisely  as  I 
stated  them.  If  you  divide  the  population  of 
Hamilton  county  by  72,074,  which  is  the  ratio 
by  thirty-seven,  you  give  Hamilton  county 
three  Senators  during  the  whole  decennial 
period,  and  you  give  her  three  fractional  Sena- 
tors which  would  come  in  in  the  three  sessions 
of  the  General  Assembly  which  would  be  in  the 
time  occupied  by  this  Constitution  in  the  present 
decennial  period.  One  reason  why  the  change 
was  made  with  regard  to  Cuyahoga  county 
is,  that  Cuyahoga  county,  having  in- 
creased in  population  more  rapidly,  her 
increase  having  been  more  than  seventy- 
five  per  cent.,  which  is  more  than  any 
county  in  the  State,  it  was  found  that  if  that 
same  increase  was  applied  to  Cuyahoga  from 
1870  to  1874,  she  would  be  entitled  now  to  her 
two  Senators,  and  for  that  reason  it  was  given 
to  her.  There  was  no  intention  of  making  any 
unfortunate  distinction  between  the  county  of 
Cuyahoga  and  the  county  of  Hamilton;  but 
S under  the  operation  of  the  rule,  the  county  of 
Hamilton  has  precisely  what  the  gentleman 
asks  for. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Is  it  a fact  that  under  the 
rule  the  gentleman  supposes  that  Cuyahoga 
would  get,  for  the  three  remaining  sessions, 
two  Senators? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I believe  she  would.  I Qnly 
give  the  reason  why  the  statement  was  made 
giving  two  to  Cuyahoga. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I would  state,  from  a 
| census  we  have  had  occasion  to  take  in  the  last 
six  months,  it  has  been  ascertained  we  have 
I about  160,000  population  in  Cuyahoga  county  at 
this  time,  and  over  125,000  in  the  city. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Calculated  by  a Directory? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  No,  sir;  it  was  very  re- 
liable. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  the  amendment  offe  ed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron] 
will  not  be  adopted.  I am  in  favor  of  giving 
Hamilton  county  all  her  rights.  If  she  would 
be  entitled,  under  the  Constitution,  to  have 
this,  all  right,  I he  county  of  Cuyahoga  is 
equally  entitled  to  it.  The  gentleman  com plai  ns 
of  fractions,  and  now  he  has  voted  in  favor  of  a 
ratio  in  this  Constitution,  the  effect  of  which 
will,  in  my  county,  compel  its  annexation  to 
the  county  of  Madison,  which  is  the  only  one 


Day.] CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 1729 

March  3,  1874. J Baber,  Herron,  Blose,  Powell,  Andrews,  Barnet,  etc. 


that  would  make  us  approach  the  ratio,  and  puts 
us  every  year  eight  thousand  over  the  ratio,  a 
great  deal  larger  in  proportion,  than  they  will 
have  in  this  county;  and  I am  not  disposed, 
after  having  voted  for  and  adopted  a ratio  that 
would  produce  an  inequality  all  over  the  State, 
to  let  Hamilton  county  have  any  advantage 
from  it.  Therefore,  I shall  vote  against  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Does  the  gentleman  propose 
to  treat  every  person  that  voted  in  that  way  in 
.he  same  manner? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  “three,”  and  inserting  “four.” 

A division  was  ordered,  and  the  amendment 
was  not  agreed  to;  there  being  eleven  in  the 
affirmative,  and  forty-three  in  the  negative. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
substitute  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]. 

Mr.  Horton  was  excused  from  voting,  he 
having  paired  with  Mr.  Hoadly. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I ask  to  have  the  proposition 
read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
both  substitutes. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Powell’s  substitute, 
as  follows : 

“The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-seven  Senators,  who 
shall  be  assigned  to  proper  districts,  to  be  bounded  by 
county  lines,  according  to  a just  proportion  of  the  popu- 
lation ; and  where  any  county  is  entitled  to  more  than  one 
Senator,  according  to  its  population,  its  proper  number  of 
Senators  shall  be  assigned  to  each  county,  and  the  residue 
of  the  State  be  divided  into  single  divisions,  with  one 
Senator  each.” 

Mr.  Dorsey’s  amendment  is  as  follows : 

“The  ratio  of  Senators  shall  forever  hereafter  be  ascer- 
tained by  dividing  the  whole  population  of  the  State  by 
the  number  thirty-seven.  The  divisions  thereby  formed 
shall  always  be  bounded  by  county  lines,  and  until  the 
next  decennial  apportionment  the  county  of  Hamilton 
shall  have  three,  and  the  county  of  Cuyahoga  two  Sena- 
tors, and  all  the  remaining  districts  one  Senator  each.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Convention  to  the  fact  that  all  the  differ- 
ence there  is  between  the  two  propositions,  in 
reality,  is  this : that,  according  to  my  proposi- 
tion, the  ratio  is  proposed  to  be  the  same  as  the 
number  of  Senators ; the  other  proposes  to  es- 
tablish the  question  of  how  many  Senators  the 
county  of  Hamilton  and  the  county  of  Cuyaho- 
go  shall  have,  without  reference  to  that  ratio. 
In  my  proposition  it  leaves  that  to  be  decided 
after  the  ratio  is  fixed,  and  not  now,  and  that  is 
all  the  difference  there  is  between  the  two  in 
reality.  Both  propose  the  ratio  thirty-seven. 
My  proposition  fixes  it  so  that  Hamilton  and 
Cuyahoga  counties  shall  have  the  number  of 
members  according  to  the  ratio.  In  the  other 
proposition  the  ratio  is  fixed  now,  without 
knowing  what  that  ratio  will  be,  and  I think, 
therefore,  there  is  a propriety  in  my  proposi- 
tion, and  there  is  an  inconsistency  in  the  other. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I understand  the  question 
to  be  upon  the  substitution  of  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey] 
for  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Del- 
aware [Mr.  Powell]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  question. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  The  Chair  stated  it  the 
other  way. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 

y.n-llL 


substitution  of  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  for  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I wish  to  vote  intelligently 
here.  If  I understand  these  two  propositions, 
the  difference  is  this,  that  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
fixes  perpetually,  during  the  existence  of  this 
Constitution,  the  number  of  Senators  at  thirty- 
seven,  unalterably;  while  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  fixes 
it  at  thirty-seven,  with  the  reservation  of  add- 
ing fractional  Senators.  If  I am  right  about 
this,  I would  like  to  have  a response  to  that  ef- 
fect. If  I am  wrong,  I want  to  be  corrected. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  understand  it  so.  I 
do  not  understand  that  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  does  any 
such  thing.  The  principle  is  fixed  perpetually 
in  both  propositions  the  same,  and  the  only  dif- 
ference, as  I understand  it,  between  the  two 
is  this  : that  in  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  it  fixes  the  number 
of  Senators  of  Hamilton  county  at  three,  and 
in  Cuyahoga  county  at  two;  whereas,  the  other 
proposition  leaves  it  open  to  be  ascertained. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Was  the  gentleman  from 
Preble  [Mr.  Barnet]  asking  a question  of  the 
gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]? 

Mr.  BARNET.  I say  I understand  the  pro- 
position of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]  to  be,  to  fix  the  number  of  Senators 
perpetually  during  the  existence  of  this  Con- 
stitution at  thirty-seven,  while  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey] 
proposes  to  fix  the  ratio  at  thirty-seven,  reserv- 
ing especially  the  right  to  add  fractional  Sena- 
tors. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  is  perfectly 
correct. 

I wish  to  make  a verbal  correction  in  the  sub- 
stitute which  I offered.  If  the  Secretary  will 
be  good  enough  to  read  it  over,  I will  indicate 
the  correction. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  ratio  for  Senators  shall  forever  hereafter  be  ascer- 
tained  by  dividing  the  whole  population  of  the  State  by 
the  number  thirty-seven.  The  districts  thereby  form- 
ed  ” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Strike  out  the  word  “ there- 
by ” and  say,  “ the  districts  formed.” 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  districts  formed  shall  always  be  bounded  by 
county  lines;  and  until  the  next  decennial  period  the 
county  of  Hamilton  shall  have  three,  and  the'  county  of 
Cuyahoga  two  Senators,  and  all  the  remaining  districts 
one  Senator  each.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Simply  that  the  districts  are 
not  thereby  formed.  That  is,  they  are  not 
formed  by  the  ratio  at  all. 

Mr.  MINER.  Had  you  not  better  strike  out 
the  word  “ forever?” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  been  asked  by  the 
gentleman  from  Preble  [Mr.  Barnet]  if  my 
proposition  does  not  fix  the  ratio  at  thirty- 
seven.  I say  yes,  and  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  does  the 
same  thing.  Now,  his  proposition  fixes  the 
number  of  Senators  from  Hamilton  county  at 


1730 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS, 


[128th 

Dorsey,  Powell,  Barnet,  Gurley,  West.  [Tuesday, 


three,  and  Cuyahoga  county  at  two  Senators, 
without  knowing  how  many  they  are  entitled 
to.  They  do  that  without  knowing  what  the 
ratio  will  be. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Only  for  the  present  decen- 
nial period;  not  afterward. 

Mr.  POWELL.  But  mine  leaves  that  to  be 
ascertained  by  the  ratio,  when  we  come  to 
know  what  it  is.  It  is  wrong  tkat  this  proposi- 
tion should  fix  the  number  of  Senator*  f01"  any 
county;  and  that,  I think,  is  the  advantage 
there  is  in  my  proposition  over  his.  Then,  with 
regard  to  the  fraction,  that  may  be  determined, 
as  the  Convention  may  hereafter  propose,  whei 
they  come  to  fix  the  districts.  It  fixes  the 
ratio,  and  the  only  difference,  in  reality,  be- 
tween the  two  propositions  is,  that  one  fixes  the 
number  of  Senators  for  these  two  counties,  and 
the  other  leaves  it  open. 

Mr.  BARNET.  May  I ask  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  with  his  propo- 
sition how  it  will  be  possible  to  annex  addi- 
tional Senators,  when  he  fixes  them,  by  his 
proposition,  at  thirty-seven? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  understand  how 
you  can  annex  them  by  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  There  is 
no  such  thing  by  his  proposition.  I think  the 
two  propositions  now  before  the  Convention 
are  misunderstood  in  this  respect. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I have  not  inquired  for  the 
legal  interpretation  of  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  I in- 
quired as  to  his  intention,  and  he  gave  me  his 
intention,  and  that  was,  that  it  was  to  carry  out 
his  fractional  system. 

Mr.  POWELL.  But  it  does  not  do  it.  I ask 
that  they  be  read  together. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Powell’s  substitute, 
as  follows : 

The  Senate  shall  consist  of  thirty-seven  Senators,  who 
shall  be  assigned  to  proper  districts,  to  be  bounded  by 
county  lines,  according  to  a just  proportion  of  the  popu- 
lation, and  where  any  county  is  entitled  to  more  than  one 
Senator,  according  to  its  population,  its  proper  number  of 
Senators  shall  be  assigned  to  each  county,  and  the  resi- 
due of  the  State  be  divided  into  single  districts  with  one 
Senator  each.” 

Mr.  Dorsey’s  amendment  is  as  follows : 

“The  ratio  of  Senators  shall  forever  hereafter  be  ascer- 
tained by  dividing  the  whole  population  of  the  State  by 
the  number  thirty-seven.  The  divisions  formed  shall  al- 
ways be  bounded  by  county  lines;  and  until  the  next  de- 
cennial apportionment  the  county  of  Hamilton  shall  have 
three,  and  the  county  of  Cuyahoga  two  Senators,  and  all 
the  remaining  districts  one  Senator  each.” 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Is  it  in  order  to  move  an 
amendment  to  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I move  to  strike  out  that 
portion  of  the  substitute  which  fixes  the  num- 
ber of  Senators  for  Hamilton  and  Cuyahoga 
counties. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  proposes 
to  strike  out  the  words:  “until  the  next  decen- 
nial period,  the  county  of  Hamilton  shall  have 
three,  and  the  county  of  Cuyahoga  two  Sena- 
tors.” The  words  following  are:  “and  all  the 
remaining  districts  one  Senator  each.”  Does 
the  gentleman  propose  to  include  that  in  his 
motion  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I see  no  reason  why  the 


number  should  be  fixed  for  Hamilton  or  Cuya- 
hoga county,  or  any  other  county,  as  long  as 
we  have  fixed  upon  a divisor  as  a basis  of  repre- 
sentation. When  that  basis  is  once  established, 
by  dividing  the  population  of  the  State  by  the 
number,  let  each  county  have  whatever  it  may 
be  entitled  to : whether  it  is  one,  or  four,  or  a 
dozen  Senators,  and  not  propose  to  make  any 
variation  for  the  county  of  Hamilton,  or  for  the 
county  of  Cuyahoga,  or  for  any  other  county. 
Let  each  county  have  what  it  is  justly  entitled 
to — what  its  population  will  give  it.  I can  see 
no  reason  why  the  number  should  be  fixed  for 
any  locality,  and  not  for  the  whole  State. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me?  I shall  say  that  this  is  only  for  the  present 
decef/iial  period.  It  only  lasts  six  years. 

Mr.  (jURLEY.  Why  do  that? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  was  thought  best. 

Mr.  GULLEY.  I see  no  reasop.  for  it. 

Mr*.  DORS?Y.  I do. 

Mr.  WEST.  You  can  get  more  votes  by  it  in 
that  way. 

The  PRESIDENT . The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleri#n  from  Morrow  [Mr. 
GurleyI.  '"v.. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demoded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  18,  nays  38,  as  follows : 

These  who  voted  in  the  affirmati^  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Caldwell,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Coats,  De  Steiguer,  Gurley,  Pease,  Philips, 
Powell,  Pratt,  Root,  Shultz,  Smith  of  HigtJan(L 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Tuttle,  Van  \r°or“ 
his,  West— 18. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Barnet,  BishoP> 
Blose,  Byal,  Carbery,  Cunningham,  Dorsej> 
Foran,  Freiberg,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hostetter, 
Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  Miller,  Miner, 
Page,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Sample,  Shaw, 
Steedman,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Yoris, 
Waddle,  Weaver,  White  of  Brown,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 38. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on the  motion  to  adopt  the  amended  substitute 
of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  for 
the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  38,  nays  19,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose,  Byal, 
Caldwell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Cunningham,  Dor- 
sey, Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hostetter,  Kerr,  Miller,  Miner,  Page,  Pease, 
Philips,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Sample,  Shaw, 
Steedman,  Smith  of  Highland,  Townsend, 
Townsley,  Tulloss,  Yoris,  Weaver,  White  of 
Brown,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble,  Pres- 
ident— 38. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Barnet,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Coats,  De  Steiguer,  Gurley,  Hale,  Jackson, 
Johnson,  Powell,  Reilly,  Root,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Thompson,  Tuttle,  Yan  Voorhis,  Wad- 
dle, West — 19. 

So  the  substitute  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on the  motion  to  insert  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  in  place 
of  section  three. 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Sample,  Powell,  Dorsey. 


1731 


Day.] 


March  3,  1874.] 


Mr.  SAMPLE.  Though  I am  not  familiar 
with  the  action  of  the  Convention  on  this  sub- 
ject, I,  nevertheless,  doubt  the  propriety  of 
adopting  this  proposition  in  its  present  shape. 
It  undertakes  to  fix  the  apportionment,  that  is, 
to  apportion  the  Senators,  before  the  State  has 
been  apportioned.  It  undertakes  to  assign  the 
Senators  to  the  different  districts  before  the  dis- 
tricts are  formed,  and  consequently,  before  it  is 
known  and  ascertained,  by  experiment,  that  the 
State  can  be  so  distributed  as  to  adapt  the  dis- 
tricts so  formed  to  the  apportionment  that  is 
now  proposed  to  be  made. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I make  a suggestion  to 
the  gentleman  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  the  very  difficulty 
the  Convention  has  fallen  into.  They  have 
adopted  all  that  absurdity. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Well,  the  Convention  have 
not  yet  adopted  it,  I think.  Now,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  there  should  be  a section  devoted  par- 
ticularly to  the  apportionment  of  the  State,  and 
it  is  evidently  better  to  limit  the  operation  of 
this  section  to  the  single  affirmation  as  to  how 
the  districts  shall  be  formed,  and  the  rates  by 
which  the  number  of  Senators  shall  be  ascer- 
tained. For  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the 
sense  of  the  Convention  upon  this  subject,  I 
make  the  motion  to  amend  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  by 
striking  out  all  after  the  words  “county  lines,” 
leaving  out  all  that  is  said  about  the  apportion- 
ment of  the  Senators  to  the  several  districts. 
My  idea  is  this — if  the  amendment  is  proper — 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]  will  not 
be  in  order. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I supposed  that  the  pending 
proposition  was  offered  as  a substitute  merely 
in  place  of  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  and  could  now 
be  amended  by  the  Convention  just  as  well  as 
that  proposition. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  has  now  been 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  And  must  go  into  the  Con- 
stitution in  the  shape  in  which  it  now  stands  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  susceptible  of  any 
amendment  by  addition,  but  the  portion  which 
the  gentleman  proposes  to  strike  out  cannot  be 
stricken  out,  because  the  Convention  has 
already  agreed  to  it. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I supposed  it  was  capable  of 
amendment  just  as  any  other  proposition  would 
be. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  after  having  been 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do  not  understand  that 
it  has  been  agreed  to  in  its  present  shape,  or  in 
any  other  respect,  than  as  a matter  of  election 
between  it  and  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  and  I sup- 
posed that  it  would  occupy  the  same  ground, 
but  if  I am  mistaken  there 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  say  to 
the  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample] 
that  a similar  question  has  been  passed  upon  in 
the  case  of  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley], 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I was  aware  of  that  motion, 


and  thought  it  did  not  cover  the  whole  ground 
that  I intended  to  cover  by  my  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  bases  his  de- 
cision upon  Rule  XXXIX,  which  seems  to  set- 
tle the  matter. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I will  say  that  I think  this 
proposition  ought  not  to  be  adopted  in  its 
present  shape,  because  it  is  undertaking  to  fit 
the  garment  without  the  subject  to  which  it  is 
intended  to  be  applied  being  present.  You 
will  afterwards  have  to  undertake  to  make  the 
districts  fit  the  number  of  Senators  assigned  to 
each  without  being  able  to  ascertain  that  it  can 
be  done  by  a proper  apportionment  of  the  State, 
and  it  would  naturally  and  properly,  I think, 
come  under  consideration  when  the  State  is 
being  sub-divided. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  it  is  in  order,  I think  I 
can  remove  the  objection  of  the  gentleman  from 
Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]  at  once.  There  is  cer- 
tainly no  difficulty  at  all  in  applying  the  rule 
and  forming  the  districts,  when  once  we  have 
the  apportionment  and  the  ratio.  The  ratio 
having  been  ascertained  by  dividing  the  num- 
ber 2,665,260  by  thirty-seven,  all  that  is  neces- 
sary is  so  to  group  together  the  counties  as  to 
make  districts  out  of  contiguous  counties,  con- 
taining, as  nearly  as  possible,  the  population  in- 
dicated by  the  ratio,  viz : 72,034.  As  a matter 
of  course,  when  that  districting  is  made,  it  is  to 
be  submitted  to  the  Convention ; but  the  best 
basis  possible  for  making  a district,  I would  say 
to  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample] 
is,  first  to  ascertain  the  population;  and  the 
population  being  ascertained,  we  have  to  choose 
those  counties  lying  contiguous  to  each  other, 
which  most  nearly  fill  up  that  ratio  of  popula- 
tion. That  being  done,  the  districting  will  be 
submitted  to  the  Convention,  for  its  approval  or 
disapproval.  There  is  no  trouble  whateve-  in 
the  matter.  The  simple  fact  that  we  have  al- 
lotted two  Senators  to  the  county  of  Cuyahoga, 
and  three  to  the  county  of  Hamilton,  and  one 
Senator  to  each  of  the  remaining  districts,  ap- 
plies only,  as  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton 
[Mr.  Sample]  will  see,  to  that  portion  of  the 
present  decennial  period  which  remains  between 
the  years  1874  and  1880.  That  is  all. 

The  question  being  upon  the  insertion  of  the 
substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey],  in  place  of  section  three,  the  yeas  and 
nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas 
35,  nays  23,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose,  Byal, 
Caldwell,  Carbery,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Foran, 
Godfrey,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hostetter,  Kerr, 
Kraemer,  Miller,  Miner,  Page,  Pease,  Philips, 
Pratt,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Shaw,  Steed  man,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss, 
Weaver,  White  of  Brown,  Young  of  Noble, 
President — 35. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Barnet,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jef- 
ferson, Coats,  De  Steiguer,  Gurley,  Horton, 
Jackson,  Johnson,  Powell,  Reilly,  Root,  Sample, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thompson,  Tuttle, 
Van  Yoorhis,  Voris,  Waddle,  West,  Woodbury 
—23. 

So  the  motion  to  insert  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I offer  the  following  as  an 
additional  section : 


1732 


[128th 


CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 

Herron,  Dorsey,  West,  Powell. 


The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  — . The  same  rule  shall  be  applied  in  apportion- 
ing the  fractions  of  senatorial  districts  as  is  applied  to 
representative  districts,  and  any  county  forming  part  of 
a senatorial  district,  having  acquired  a population  equal 
to  a full  senatorial  ration,  shall  be  made  a separate  sena- 
torial district  at  any  regular  decennial  apportionment,  if 
a full  senatorial  ratio  shall  be  left  in  the  district  from 
which  it  shall  be  taken.” 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  like  to  have  the 
section  read  which  applies  to  the  House  of  Re- 
presentatives. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Dorsey  offered  the  following  additional  section  to 
Proposition  No.  194,  to  be  numbered 

Sec.  — . When  any  county  shall  have  a fraction  above 
the  ratio,  so  large  that  being  multiplied  bv  five  the  re- 
sult will  be  equal  to  one  or  more  ratios,  additional  repre- 
sentatives shall  be  apportioned  for  sach  ratios  among  the 
General  Assemblies  of  the  decennial  period  in  the  follow- 
ing manner : 

“If  there  be  only  one  ratio,  the  Representative  shall  be 
allotted  to  the  fifth  General  Assembly  of  the  decennial 
period;  if  there  be  two,  the  Representatives  shall  be  al- 
lotted to  the  fourth  and  third  General  Assemblies,  respec- 
tively; if  three,  to  the  third,  second  and  first,  respectively: 
if  four,  to  the  fourth,  third,  second,  and  first  General  As- 
semblies, respectively.” 

Mr.  HERRON.  I want  to  ask  the  gentleman 
if,  according  to  that,  provision  is  not  made  for 
five  sessions?  As  I understand  the  gentleman, 
there  will  only  be  three  sessions  under  this 
Constitution. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  will  only  be  three  un- 
til we  have  another  apportionment. 

Mr.  HERRON.  How  can  there  be  an  appor- 
tionment in  the  first  and  second  sessions  of  the 
decennial  period,  when  the  first  and  second  ses- 
sions have  already  passed  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  They  will  be  lost,  of  course. 

Mr.  HERRON.  The  reason  I ask,  is,  because 
I understood  that  under  the  section  as  adopted, 
Hamilton  county,  during  the  remaining  three 
sessions,  would  have  four  members.  I think 
the  Convention  voted  under  that  understanding, 
but,  according  to  the  statement  made  now,  two 
of  these  are  lost. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HERRON.  If  she  has  three  additional 
Representatives,  they  are  to  be  apportioned  to 
the  third,  second,  and  first  General  Assemblies, 
respectively. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  a matter  for  consider- 
ation and  interpretation.  I understood,  how- 
ever, that  it  would  not  so  operate,  and  I will 
say  to  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Her- 
ron], if  he  will  listen  to  me  on  the  matter,  that 
the  intention  was  that  the  remaining  sessions  of 
the  General  Assembly  should  be  considered  as 
the  third,  second,  and  first. 

Mr.  HERRON.  If  that  matter  can  be  fixed 
now,  there  will  be  no  objection  to  it,  but  I think 
it  should  be  understood  now. 

Mr.  WEST.  Was  it  not  fixed  that  Hamilton 
county  should  have  three  Representatives  during 
the  remainder  of  this  period? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  already  so  fixed. 

Mr.  HERRON.  How? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  say  to  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron],  that  according  to 
the  fractional  representation  of  Hamilton 
county,  she  will  get  three  fractional  members 
in  the  coming  decennial  period.  Now,  as  I un- 
derstand it,  the  point  which  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  makes,  is  that  when  these  fractional 


[Tuesday, 


members,  being  assigned  under  this  section  of 
the  Constitution,  to  the  third,  second,  and  first 
sessions,  respectively,  the  second  and  first  ses- 
sions already  passed.  I think  that  is  not  so. 
They  have  not  passed.  They  have  not  been 
held. 

Mr.  HERRON.  What  does  the  gentleman 
mean,  then,  by  the  fifth  session? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  will  be  no  fifth  session 
in  this  decennial  period. 

Mr.  HERRON.  Then  all  those  counties  that 
should  get  a float  in  the  fifth  session  do  not  get 
any. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  is  no  such  thing  as 
getting  a float  in  the  fifth  session.  The  Con- 
stitution does  not  provide  for  it,  for  if  the  Con- 
stitution provided  for  it,  it  would  be  a full  ratio. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  a fractional  member 
going  into  the  fifth  session. 

Mr.  HERRON.  As  I understood  the  section 
when  read,  it  provides  that,  when  the  fraction 
multiplied  by  five  made  one  ratio,  there  should 
be  an  additional  member  in  the  fifth  session. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  is  no  such  thing  in 
the  Constitution. 

Mr.  HERRON.  1 think  that  is  the  way  the 
section  r63d  • 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  pardon,  I believe  the 
gentleman  is  correct.  Where  there  is  only  one, 
it  is  to  be  referred  to  the  fifth  session.  But  that 
matter  can  be  easily  regulated  in  the  Schedule. 
We  are  laboring  under  the  difficulty  that  a por- 
tion of  our  decennial  period  is  already  elapsed. 
If  this  Constitution  is  adopted  during  the  pres- 
ent year,  1874,  there  can  only  be  three  sessions 
in  the  present  decennial  period — or,  rather, 
three  General  Assemblies— consequently,  for 
the  present  decennial  period,  the  allotment  for 
the  fractional  members  will  have  to  be  made  in 
the  Schedule.  Such  things  are  done  always  in 
Constitutions,  and  were  so  done  in  the  present 
Constitution.  In  the  subsequent  decennial 
periods  the  system  will  work  all  right,  but  for 
this  there  will  have  to  be  provision  made  in  the 
Schedule. 

Mr.  HERRON.  As  neither  the  gentleman 
nor  myself  are  on  the  Committee  on  Schedule, 
it  may  be  forgotten;  but  if  it  is  the  under- 
standing of  the  Convention  that  that  matter  is 
to  be  arranged  in  that  way,  I have  no  objec- 
tion. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  on  the  Schedule  Committee, 
but  I will  not  make  any  promises. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  say  that,  as  a member  of 
the  Committee  on  Apportionment  and  Repre- 
sentation, I will  see  that  the  matter  is  well  taken 
care  of. 

Mr.  WEST.  I will  say  to  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  that  he  will  have  to  re- 
model his  whole  proposition,  or  it  will  not 
amount  to  much.  What  does  the  gentleman 
mean  by  referring  to  five  sessions  when  there 
are  to  be  ten  sessions  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  does  not  read  “sessions,” 
it  reads  “General  Assemblies and  the  Secre- 
tary so  read. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  now  provides  distinctly  that 
Hamilton  county  shall  have  three  Senators 
during  the  balance  of  this  decennial  period. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  members  of  Hamilton 
county  agreed  to  that. 


Day.] CONCERNING  SENATORIAL  DISTRICTS. 1733 

March  3,  1874.]  West,  Herron,  Dorsey,  Hale,  Baber,  Rowland. 


Mr.  WEST.  What  is  the  controversy  about, 
then  ? 

Mr.  HERRON.  They  did  not  agree  to  it  a 
bit. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  simply  comes  to  this : the 
matter  of  fractional  Representatives  and  frac- 
tional Senators  will  have  to  be  arranged  in  the 
Schedule. 

Mr.  HALE.  What  is  the  question,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Upon  the  additional  sec- 
tion proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey]. 

Mr.  BABER.  In  reply  to  the  remarks  made 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Her- 
ron], I will  say  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  the 
world  about  this.  The  gentleman  will  find  that 
in  the  last  section  of  the  Article  it  is  provided 
that  certain  provisions  of  this  Constitution  ap- 
ply until  1881.  Well,  of  course,  there  will  be 
no  fourth  and  fifth  sessions,  but  in  regard  to 
the  first,  second  and  third  sessions,  the  system 
will  operate.  But  the  principle  we  lay  down 
will  operate  hereafter  just  exactly  as  it  did  un- 
der the  old  Constitution,  and  our  action  ope- 
rates as  an  instruction  to  the  Committee  on 
Schedule;  and,  if  not,  there  will  be  no  trouble 
in  passing  instructions  through. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  ask  a ques- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey.] I am  laboring  under  the  same  difficulty 
as  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron].  I 
understood  the  gentlehnan  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]  to  answer  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton, when  the  question  as  to  the  number  allotted 
to  the  counties  of  Hamilton  and  Cuyahoga  was 
up,  that  the  fractional  rule  would  be  applied  to 
the  county  of  Hamilton,  and  before  the  end  of 
this  decennial  period,  would  give  her  additional 
Senators.  But,  let  me  ask  how  it  can  be  applied, 
when  the  basis  is  the  Federal  census,  which  is 
taken  every  ten  years  ? That  census  has  been 
taken,  and  no  census  will  be  taken  upon  which 
the  matter  can  be  re-adjusted  until  the  year 
1880  arrives.  I ask  for  information,  for  I do  not 
understand  that  kind  of  arithmetic. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I will  say  to  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland],  that  the  ratio, 
dividing  by  thirty-seven,  is  72,034.  That  will 
give  Hamilton  county  three  Representatives, and 
will  give  her  three  fractional  Representatives  in 
the  decennial  period.  Those  you  will  be  en- 
titled to. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  We  shall  bd  entitled  to 
them.  That  is,  we  shall  accumulate  in  power. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  sir.  In  that  you  stand 
just  precisely  as  other  counties  in  the  State. 
Other  counties  do  not  accumulate.  Other  coun- 
ties in  the  State  may  double  themselves,  but 
they  have  to  stand  as  they  are  made  out  at  the 
commencement  of  the  decennial  period. 

Mr.  WEST.  What  does  the  proposition 
mean,  then,  by  providing  that  Hamilton  county 
shall  have  three,  and  Cuyahoga  two  ? Why  are 
they  put  in  at  all? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  in  regard  to  Cuyahoga 
was  put  in  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  gentle- 
men from  Cuyahoga. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  violates  the  principle. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  does  not  violate  the  prin- 
ciple. It  was  done  with  regard  to  Cuyahoga, 
because  Cuyahoga  is  increasing  in  population 


more  rapidly  than  any  other  county  in  the 
State. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  You  assume  that. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  do  not  have  to  assume  it. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  You  will  have  to,  not 
having  the  Federal  census  as  a basis. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  to  say  that  we  go  on  no 
supposition  whatever.  The  increase  of  Cuya- 
hoga county  from  1860  to  1870  was  seventy  per 
cent.,  while  that  of  Hamilton  county  was  twenty 
per  cent. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Then  we  start,  if  I under- 
stand it,  upon  an  inequality,  not  basing  our  ap- 
portionment upon  the  Federal  census,  as  it 
should  be  based.  You  give  two  to  Cuyahoga 
county,  which  in  1870  would  have  been  entitled 
to  only  one-half  the  number  to  which  we  are 
entitled,  while  you  give  us  only  three.  There 
is  no  justice  in  that. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I think  the  gentleman  is  en- 
tirely mistaken. 

Mr.  WEST.  When  we  get  our  district  made, 
shall  we  have  two  in  our  district? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  know  what  “our 
district  ” is. 

Mr.  WEST.  Neither  do  I. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then  I say  the  gentleman 
should  not  ask  a question  which  has  no  mean- 
ing in  it.  We  provide  that  every  other  district 
shall  have  one  Representative. 

Mr.  WEST.  We  do  not  know  what  those 
districts  shall  be,  nor  what  their  location. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  exceedingly  strange  that 
gentlemen  persist  in  their  objections  in  a mat- 
ter of  this  kind,  when  it  is  perfectly  plain  that, 
if  you  divide  the  population  of  the  State  by  a 
certain  number,  you  get  the  ratio.  That  ratio 
is  the  basis  upon  which  you  make  your  districts. 
If  the  ratio  is  72,034,  as  it  is  by  the  present  di- 
vision, then  you  select  such  counties  in  the 
State,  lying  contiguous  to  each  other,  as  come 
as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  population  72,034, 
and  they  have  each  one  a Senator. 

Mr.  WEST.  I desire  one  piece  of  informa- 
tion. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Well. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  has  said  that 
Cuyahoga  county  is  to  get,  by  this  proposition, 
two  Senators,  because  she  wants  them.  Is  it 
done  upon  the  contract  or  agreement  that  Cuy- 
ahoga will  vote  for  the  proposition  upon  no 
other  condition  ? Has  there  been  any  bargain 
of  that  kind  made? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  question  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is  neither  proper 
nor  gentlemanly. 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  know  whether  it  is  or 
not. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Order,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  has  been  no  bargain, 
and  the  gentleman  has  no  right,  by  implica- 
tion, to  charge  anything  of  that  kind.  I will, 
therefore,  say  to  the  Convention  just  simply 
this,  making  the  explanation  which  I made  be- 
fore to  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Her- 
ron]. Five  Representatives  and  two  Senators 
were  given  to  the  county  of  Cuyahoga,  from 
the  simple  fact  that  that  county  was  found  to 
have  increased  in  population  during  the  decade 
from  1860  to  1870  more  largely  than  any  other 
county  in  the  State,  her  increase  being  seventy 
per  cent.  Taking  that  into  consideration,  we 


1734 


CONCERNING  SINGLE  DISTRICTS. [128th 

Dorsey,  Powell,  Herron,  Voris,  Hale,  Baber.  [Tuesday, 


thought  it  perfectly  right  and  proper  to  give 
Cuyahoga  two  Senators.  It  was  not  in  consid- 
sideration  of  any  bargain.  It  was  not  in  consid- 
eration that  gentlemen  would  or  would  not 
vote  for  certain  propositions,  and  gentlemen 
have  no  right  to  make  any  insinuations  or  im- 
plications of  that  kind. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Would  it  be  in  order  in  any 
shape  to  refer  this  section  or  Article  back  to 
the  Committee  that  reported  it,  in  order  that 
they  may  put  it  into  such  a shape  that  we  can 
vote  for  it  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  A motion  to  re-commit 
would  be  in  order. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I move,  then,  that  the  Propo- 
sition be  re-committed  to  the  Committee  on 
Apportionment.  I believe  that  was  the  Com- 
mittee which  reported  it. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to,  without  a 
division. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I move  that  the  Convention 
do  now  adjourn. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  with- 
draw his  motion,  I would  suggest  that,  as  the 
Committee  on  Apportionment  will  now  have 
work  to  do,  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  Presi- 
dent to  fill  the  vacancy  in  that  Committee  occa- 
sioned by  the  death  of  Hon.  J.  D.  O’Con- 
nor. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  do  so  in 
the  morning. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I would  like  to  inquire  what 
the  next  business  is  that  is  in  order  to  be  taken 
up  by  the  Convention? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  special  order 
now  made. 

Mr.  VORIS.  What  is  the  next  in  order  upon 
the  calendar  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  next  business  in 
order  upon  the  list  would  be  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights; 
next  to  that,  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Elective  Franchise;  next  to  that,  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation. 

Mr.  HALE.  The  Chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights  is  absent, 
and  probably  will  not  be  here  to-morrow. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I was  advised  by  a gentleman 
from  his  town  that  he  would  be  here  to-morrow 
morning,  but,  of  course,  I cannot  speak  with 
certainty. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  me  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  that  I rose  a 
moment  ago  to  make  the  motion  that  we  pass 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Preamble  and 
Bill  of  Rights,  and  take  up  the  Report  of  the 
Finance  Committee. 

[“No!  No!”] 

Mr.  HALE.  I do  not  know  that  any  motion 
for  instructions  is  needed  at  present.  We  have 
adopted  the  section  relating  to  senatorial  dis- 
tricts, which,  in  effect , provides  for  single  sena- 
torial districts.  Now,  I do  not  desire  that  that 
matter  shall  come  back  into  the  Convention  to 
be  discussed  over  again  entirely.  If  any  in- 
structions were  needed,  I would  move  that  the 
Committee  on  Apportionment  and  Representa- 
tion be  instructed  to  make  the  apportionment 
by  single  districts,  Hamilton  and  Cuyahoga 
counties  excepted. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  all  passed. 

Mr.  HALE.  If,  as  I said  before,  the  Commit- 


tee on  Apportionment  and  Representation 
would  take  the  action  of  the  Convention  to-day 
in  fixing  the  single  senatorial  districts,  as  far  as 
they  have  been  fixed,  and  would  make  their  ap- 
portionment accordingly,  then  I would  not 
make  this  motion.  But  I see  some  gentlemen 
upon  that  Committee  object  to  the  instructions. 
What  I do  it  for  is  simply  that  that  Committee 
may  not  come  back  into  the  Convention  with 
another  apportionment  scheme  by  the  large  dis- 
tricts. I move  that  they  be  instructed  to  make 
their  apportionment  by  single  districts. 

Here  the  President  stated  that  he  would  ap- 
point the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  to 
take  the  place  of  Dr.  J.  D.  O’Connor,  deceased, 
upon  the  Committee  on  Apportionment  and  Re- 
presentation. 

Mr.  BABER.  I understand  that  the  gentle- 
man from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  makes  a motion 
which  I believe  out  of  order.  This  proposition 
has  been  re-committed,  and  it  is  too  late  for  the 
gentleman  to  make  his  motion  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A motion  to  instruct  will 
be  in  order. 

Mr.  BABER.  Is  the  motion  for  giving  in- 
structions now  before  the  Convention  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  believe  that  the  Con- 
vention should  pass  any  such  instructions.  In 
the  first  place,  the  section  is  sent  to  us  with  in- 
structions to  endeavor  to  make  an  apportion- 
ment in  accordance  therewith — an  equal  appor- 
tionment is  to  be  reported  here  to  the  Convention. 
That  is  what  I think  about  it.  But  I do  not 
commit  myself  to  vote  for  any  single  district  by 
so  doing.  It  will  be  mere  ministerial  work, 
which  I think  those  gentlemen,  who  are  so  fond 
of  carping  against  everything  we  do,  ought  to 
do  themselves.  I do  not  propose  to  put  back 
any  large  district  system,  and  I do  not  suppose 
any  other  member  upon  that  Committee  is  so 
disposed.  There  will  probably  be  a proposition 
as  to  whether  that  question  shall  be  submitted 
or  not. 

Mr.  HALE.  I simply  made  the  motion  to  get 
an  expression  from  the  Committee.  That  was 
all  I desired.  With  the  expression  given  by 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  I withdraw  my 
motion. 

No  objection  was  made,  and  the  motion  was 
withdrawn. 

Mr.  VORIS.  As  I understand  the  President, 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Elective  Fran- 
chise will,  in  all  human  probability,  be  the  pro- 
position next  in  order  for  consideration  before 
the  Convention.  That  will  certainly  be  so,  if 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Preamble 
and  Bill  of  Rights  is  not  here.  I understand 
from  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Elec- 
tive Franchise  that  he  is  not  desirous  of  taking 
up  the  Report  of  that  Committee  as  the  next 
business  of  the  Convention.  I would  like  to 
have  some  day  fixed  upon  which  that  question 
will  come  up  for  consideration  and  general  de- 
bate. I am  not  particular  as  to  the  time,  but  I 
would  like  to  have  the  time  fixed,  and  for  that 
purpose  I ask  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton 
[Mr.  Sample]  if  he  has  thought  of  any  time 
which  he  would  like  to  designate  for  the  con- 
sideration of  that  subject,  and  whether  he  can 
I name  any  special  day. 


WHAT  SHALL  NEXT  BE  CONSIDERED  ? 

Sample,  West,  Bishop,  Root,  Baber. 


1735 


Day.] 

March  3,  1874.] 


Mr.  SAMPLE.  I have  no  means  of  fixing 
the  time.  The  only  question  is  this : There  is 
a proposition  in  that  Report,  which  was  urged 
by  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield] 
more  particularly,  and  it  is  the  proposition 
which  differs  more  widely  from  anything  in 
the  present  Constitution,  than  any  proposition 
in  the  Report.  I am  not  willing  to  undertake 
the  support  of  that  proposition,  and  I so  in- 
formed the  gentleman  some  time  ago ; and  it 
was  understood  between  the  gentleman  and  my- 
self, that  for  the  opening  of  the  consideration 
of  the  question,  he  should  take  the  place  which 
I might  claim  at  the  hands  of  the  Convention. 
He  is  not  now  present,  and  I believe  it  would  be 
doing  justice  to  that  gentleman  to  take  up  this 
Report  when  he  is  present.  I understand  that 
he  has  been  making  preparations  to  present  the 
subject,  and  it  is  a subject  which,  in  justice  to 
those  who  may  feel  an  interest  in  it,  requires 
that  it  should  be  presented  by  him  or  by  some 
other  gentleman  friendly  to  the  proposition  I 
have  alluded  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I ask  what  is  the  point  in  ques- 
tion ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  proposition,  if  adopted, 
will  confer  the  right  of  suffrage  upon  citizens 
of  foreign  birth,  who  have  declared  their  inten- 
tions, but  have  not  obtained  a certificate  of  final 
naturalization,  requiring  no  other  qualification 
than  a residence  of  one  year  in  the  State. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I was  going  to  remark  that 
we  had  about  agreed  to  take  up  the  business  as 
it  came  in  order,  and  whilst  I would  be  glad  to 
accommodate  any  gentleman  who  is  away,  we 
want  to  get  through  business  as  expeditiously  as 
possible.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  better 
to  stick  to  the  business  as  it  comes  up  in  order. 
I do  not  want  to  be  discourteous  to  any  gentle- 
man, but  we  want  to  get  through  our  business. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I understood  there  was  a motion 
to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  Report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir ; there  is  no  mo- 
tion at  all. 


Mr.  ROOT.  With  the  pardon  of  the  Chair,  I 
will  say  that  I know  the  gentleman  from  But- 
ler [Mr.  Campbell]  is  very  desirous  of  discus- 
sing the  points  suggested  by  the  gentleman 
from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample],  and  I expect 
him  here  to-morrow  or  the  next  day.  I under- 
stand that  he  is  detained  on  account  of  sickness 
in  his  family — not  that  he  is  well  himself,  but 
it  is  more  on  account  of  the  sickness  of  his 
family,  than  of  his  own  sickness. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I ask  if  the  gentleman  does 
not  think,  that  in  accordance  with  the  practice 
we  have  adopted  here,  the  gentleman  from  But- 
ler [Mr.  Campbell],  will  have  ample  time  for 
discussion  when  he  gets  here? 

Mr.  ROOT.  I do  not  know  what  has  been 
the  custom  here. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  suggest,  that  in  the 
absence  of  the  gentleman  from  Brown  [Mr. 
White],  Chairman  of  the  important  Committee 
on  County  and  Township  Organizations,  we 
should  enter  upon  that  business.  Now,  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of 
Rights  comes  up  next  in  order.  The  gentleman 
from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  is  here,  as  well  as 
the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease],  and 
both  are  ready  to  be  heard  upon  the  subject  of 
that  Report.  I understand  that  the  Committee 
has  not  been  called  together  by  its  Chairman. 
They  simply  report  no  amendments.  Now,  we 
can  take  up  that  Preamble  and  go  through  it, 
and  if  any  gentleman  has  amendments  to  sug- 
gest, let  him  present  them.  I am  opposed  to 
passing  these  orders  on  account  of  the  absence 
of  certain  gentlemen.  The  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Elective  Franchise  comes  next,  and 
then  that  of  the  Committee  on  Revenue  and 
Taxation. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  motion  be- 
fore the  House. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5 : 35  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


1736 


PREAMBLE  AND  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Waddle,  Smith  of  H.,  King,  Yoris,  Baber,  Watson. 


[129th 

[Wednesday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  TWENTY-NINTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SIXTY-SEVENTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


nine  and  a-half  o’clock  a.  m. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  Y.  Boyce,  of  the  First  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  73  members  an- 
swered to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Rickly  until  Wednesday  next,  and  for  Mr. 
Reilly  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of  Rev. 
Hugh  Forsythe,  and  79  other  citizens  of  Guern- 
sey county,  for  an  acknowledgment  of  Al- 
mighty God  and  the  Christian  Religion  in  the 
Constitution. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland,  presented  the  pe- 
tition of  J.  L.  Metcalfe,  and  623  other  citizens 
of  Greenfield  and  vicinity,  Highland  county, 
praying  that  a clause  may  be  inserted  in  the 
Constitution  giving  the  Legislature  full  and 
ample  power  to  legislate  drinks,  within  their 
respective  jurisdiction &c. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  KING  presented  the  petition  of  J.  R. 
Smith,  and  1,226  other  citizens  of  Marion  county, 
praying  for  the  prohibition  of  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  SMTTH,  of  Highland,  presented  the  pe- 
tition of  Win.  S.  Hough,  and  116  other  citizens 
of  Leesburg  and  vicinity,  Highland  county, 
asiking  that  a clause  be  inserted  in  theConsti- 
tu  ion,  giving  full  and  ample  power  to  the  Leg- 
islature, to  limit,  regulate,  or  entirely  prohibit 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks 
in  the  State,  and  also  to  confer  power  in  the 
Legislature  to  authorize  by  law,  such  town- 
ships,‘incorporated  towns  and  cities  to  regulate, 
limit  and  entirely  prohibit  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  intoxicating  drinks  within  the  State, 
and  also  to  empower  the  Legislature  to  confer 
on  each  township,  incorporated  town  or  city, au- 
thority to  regulate,  limit,  or  entirely  prohibit 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks, 
in  their  respective  limits. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 


Wednesday,  March  4,  1874. 
miscellaneous  business. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  to  take  from  the  table 
the  resolution  offered  by  me  on  yesterday 
morning,  in  relation  to  the  question  of  absen- 
teeism in  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  tak- 
ing from  the  table  Resolution  No.  177,  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Yoris]  on 
yesterday. 

Mr.  BABER.  I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  yeas  and  nays  are 
demanded. 

MEMBERS.  “Oh,  no”;  “oh,  no.” 

Mr.  BABER.  I withdraw  my  demand  for 
the  yeas  and  nays,  and  ask  for  a division  of  the 
House. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  demand  is  with- 
drawn, and  a division  called  for. 

The  vote  being  taken  by  a division,  the  mo- 
tion was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BABER.  I understand,  Mr.  President, 
that  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights  stands 
next  in  the  order  of  business,  upon  which  the 
Committee  have  recommended  no  amendments, 
and  I suppose  we  might  take  up  that  Article 
now.  I understand  that  the  gentleman  from 
Stark  [Mr.  Pease]  and  the  gentleman  from  Har- 
rison [Mr.  Waddle]  are  prepared  to  suggest 
amendments  to  it,  and  we  might  go  over  that 
Article,  and,  if  necessary,  it  might,  perhaps,  be 
recommitted  to  the  Committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  perhaps,  is  not  aware 
that  that  Article  is  already  in  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  BABER.  Then  I move  that  we  now  go 
into  Committee  of  the  Whole  upon  the  special 
order  of  the  day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Brown  [Mr.  White]  will  please  take  the  Chair. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  first  business  on  the 
calendar  is  the  Report  of  the  Standing  Commit- 
tee on  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights.  The 
Secretary  will  read  the  Report. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  PREAMBLE 
AND  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Mr.  Watson  submitted  the  following  Report: 

The  Committee  on  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights,  to 
which  was  referred  Article  I of  the  Constitution,  and 
several  Propositions  relative  to  the  amendment  thereof, 
having  haa  the  same  under  consideration,  have  not 
deemed  it  advisable  to  make  any  change  in  the  Preamble 
and  Bill  of  Rights  in  the  present  Constitution,  and  report 


PREAMBLE  AND  BILL  OF  RIGHTS 

Watson,  Townsend. 


1737 


Day.] 

March  4,  1874.] 


the  same  as  they  stand  therein,  and  ask  to  be  discharged 
from  the  further  consideration  of  the  said  Article  and 
Propositions. 

Cooper  K.  Watson, 
Lyman  J.  Jackson, 

R.  S.  Tulloss, 

Perry  Bosworth, 

E.  Smith, 

Charles  Phellis, 
Adam  Clay, 

E.  H.  Johnson. 

I concur  in  the  above,  except  as  to  the  Preamble,  which 
I desire  amended  so  as  to  read: 

“We,  the  people  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Almighty  God  for 
all  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  invoking  His  blessing 
for  the  future,  do  establish  this  Constitution.” 

W.  G.  Waddle. 

PREAMBLE. 

We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  our  freedom,  to  secure  its  blessings  and 
promote  our  common  welfare,  do  establish  this  Constitu- 
tion: 

The  Article,  as  it  stands  in  the  present  Con- 
stitution, is  as  follows : 

ARTICLE  I. 

BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Section  1.  All  men  are,  by  nature,  free  and  independ- 
ent, and  have  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which 
are  those  of  enjoying  and  defending  life  and  liberty,  ac- 
quiring, possessing,  and  protecting  property,  and  seeking 
and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety. 

Sec.  2.  All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people. 
Government  is  instituted  for  their  equal  protection  and 
benefit,  and  they  have  the  right  to  alter,  reform,  or  abol- 
ish the  same  whenever  they  may  deem  It  necessary;  and 
no  special  privileges  or  immunities  shall  ever  be  granted 
that  may  not  be  altered,  revoked,  or  repealed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

sec.  3 The  people  have  the  right  to  assemble  together, 
in  a peaceable  manner,  to  consult  for  their  common  good; 
to  instruct  their  Representatives,  and  to  petition  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  for  the  redress  of  grievances. 

Sec.  4 The  people  have  the  right  to  bear  arms  for 
their  defense  and  security ; but  standing  armies,  in  time 
of  peace,  are  dangerous  to  liberty,  and  shall  not  be  kept 
up;  and  the  military  shall  be  in  strict  subordination  to 
the  civil  power. 

Sec.  5.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate. 

Sec.  6.  There  shall  be  no  slavery  in  this  State;  nor  in- 
voluntary servitude,  unless  for  the  punishment  of  crime. 

Sec.  7.  All  men  have  a natural  and  indefeasible  right 
to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  own  conscience.  No  person  shall  be  compelled  to 
attend,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  worship,  or  main- 
tain any  form  of  worship  against  his  consent;  and  no 
preference  shall  be  given  by  law  to  any  religious  society; 
nor  shall  any  interference  with  the  rights  of  conscience 
be  permitted.  No  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a 
qualification  for  office,  nor  shall  any  person  be  incompe- 
tent to  be  a witness  on  account  of  his  religious  belief; 
but  nothing  herein  shall  be  construed  to  dispense  with 
oaths  and  affirmations.  Religion,  morality,  and  knowl- 
edge, however,  being  essential  to  good  government,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  to  pass  suita- 
ble laws,  to  protect  every  religious  denomination  in  the 
peaceable  enjoyment  of  its  own  mode  of  public  worship, 
and  to  encourage  schools  and  the  means  of  instruction. 

Sec.  8.  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall 
not  be  suspended  unless,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  inva- 
sion, the  public  safety  require  it. 

Sec.  9.  All  persons  shall  be  bailable  by  sufficient  sure- 
ties, except  for  capital  offenses  where  the  proof  is  evident 
or  the  presumption  great.  Excessive  bail  shall  not  be 
required,  nor  excessive  fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  un- 
usual punishments  inflicted. 

Sec.  10.  Except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  and  cases 
arising  in  the  army  and  navy,  or  in  the  militia  when  in 
actual  service  in  time  of  war  or  public  danger,  and  in 
cases  of  petit  larceny  and  other  inferior  offenses,  no  per- 
son shall  be  held  to  answer  a capital,  or  otherwise  infa- 
mous crime,  unless  on  presentment  or  indictment  of  a 
grand  jury.  In  any  trial,  in  any  Court,  the  party  accused 
shall  be  allowed  to  appear  and  defend  in  person  and  with 
counsel;  to  demand  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusa- 
tion against  him,  and  to  have  a copy  thereof;  to  meet  the 
witnesses  face  to  face,  and  to  have  compulsory  process  to 
procure  the  attendance  of  witnesses  in  his  behalf,  and  a 
speedy  public  trial  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  county  or 
district  in  which  the  offense  is  alleged  to  have  been  com- 
mitted; nor  shall  any  person  be  compelled,  in  any  crimi- 


nal case,  to  be  a witness  against  himself,  or  be  twice  put 
in  jeopardy  for  the  same  offense. 

Sec.  11.  Every  citizen  may  freely  speak,  write,  and 
publish  his  sentiments  on  all  subjects,  being  responsible 
for  the  abuse  of  the  right;  and  no  law  shall  be  passed  to 
restrain  or  abridge  the  liberty  of  speech  or  of  the  press. 
In  all  criminal  prosecutions  for  libel,  the  truth  may  be 
given  in  evidence  to  the  jury,  and  if  it  shall  appear  to  the 
jury  that  the  matter  charged  as  libelous  is  true,  and  was 
published  with  good  motives  and  for  justifiable  ends,  the 
party  shall  be  acquitted. 

Sec.  12.  No  person  shall  be  transported  out  of  the  State 
for  any  offense  committed  within  the  same;  and  no  con- 
viction shall  work  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture  of 
estate. 

Sec.  13.  No  soldier  shall,  in  time  of  peace,  be  quarter- 
ed in  any  house  without  the  consent  of  the  owner;  nor  in 
time  of  war,  except  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  14.  The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their 
persons,  houses,  papers  and  possessions,  against  unrea- 
sonable searches  and  seizures  shall  not  be  violated ; and 
no  warrant  shall  issue,  but  upon  probable  cause,  support- 
ed by  oath,  or  affirmation,  particularly  describing  the 
place  to  be  searched,  and  the  person  and  things  to  be 
seized. 

Sec.  15.  No  person  shall  be  imprisoned  for  debt  in  any 
civil  action,  on  mesne  or  final  process,  unless  in  cases  of 
fraud. 

Sec.  16.  All  Courts  shall  be  open,  and  every  person,  for 
an  injury  done  him  in  his  land,  goods,  person  or  reputa- 
tion, shall  have  remedy  by  due  course  of  law;  and  justice 
administered  without  denial  or  delay. 

Sec.  17.  No  hereditary  emoluments,  honors  or  privil- 
eges, shall  ever  be  granted  or  conferred  by  this  State. 

Sec.  18.  No  power  of  suspending  laws  shall  ever  be 
exercised,  except  by  the  General  Assembly. 

Sec.  19.  Private  property  shall  ever  be  held  inviolate, 
but  subservient  to  the  public  welfare.  When  taken  in 
time  of  war  or  other  public  exigency,  imperatively  re- 
quiring its  immediate  seizure,  or  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing or  repairing  roads,  which  shall  be  open  to  the  public 
without  charge,  a compensation  shall  be  made  to  the 
owner  in  money,  and  in  all  other  cases,  where  private 
property  shall  be  taken  for  public  use,  a compensation 
therefor  shall  first  be  made  in  money,  or  first  secured  by 
a deposit  of  money;  and  such  compensation  shall  be  as- 
sessed by  a jury,  without  deduction  for  benefits  to  any 
property  to  tne  owner. 

Sec.  20.  This  enumeration  of  rights  shall  not  be  con- 
strued to  impair  or  deny  others  retained  by  the  people; 
and  all  powers  not  herein  delegated  remain  with  the  peo- 
ple. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I suppose,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  the  question  is  now  open  for  general  dis- 
cussion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  is  now  open 
for  general  discussion. 

Mr.  WATSON.  Do  I understand,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  the  Bill  of  Rights  is  now  open  for 
discussion,  section  by  section  ? Our  Report  is 
simply  that  we  be  discharged  from  the  further 
consideration  of  the  Article  and  the  several 
propositions  : “ The  Committee  on  the  Preamble 
and  Bill  of  Rights,  to  which  was  referred  Article 
I of  the  Constitution,  and  several  propositions 
relative  to  the  amendment  thereof,  having  had 
the  same  under  consideration,  have  not  deemed 
it  advisable  to  make  any  change  in  the  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights  in  the  present  Consti- 
tution, and  ask  to  be  discharged  from  the  fur- 
ther consideration  of  the  said  Article  and  propo- 
sitions.” Now,  I suppose  that  we  do  not  have 
to  re-enact  here  the  Bill  of  Rights  as  it  stands 
in  the  present  Constitution.  I suppose  that, 
unless  we  report  a substitute,  that  stands  as  it 
is  there,  intact.  Unless  a proposition  shall 
be  brought  forward  to  amend  or  alter  some  part 
of  the  Article,  it  remains  in  force.  If  such  pro- 
position is  brought  forward,  it  is  to  be  acted 
upon  in  the  ordinary  and  general  course  of  pro- 
ceedings, as  I understand  it.  We  do  not  bring 
forward  any  substitute ; we  bring  before  the 
Convention  nothing;  we  ask  to  be  discharged 
from  the  subject  of  the  Article,  recommending 


1738 


PREAMBLE  AND  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Mueller,  Powell,  Page,  Pease,  Horton,  Cunningham,  etc. 


[129th 

[Wednesday, 


that  it  stand  as  it  is  now  in  force  in  the  Consti- 
tution. It  needs  no  sanction  on  our  part  to  re- 
main as  the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  I understand  it. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  To  make  a question  at 
once,  I move  that  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
be  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I second  the  motion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Mueller],  that  the  Report  of  the  Committee  be 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I do  not  know  the  effect  of  that 
motion,  but  I wish  to  inquire  whether  that  will 
preclude  my  offering  an  amendment?  I wish 
to  offer  an  additional  section  to  that  of  the  Re- 
port, and  I understand  that  others  want  to  offer 
amendments. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Report  will  be  open 
to  amendments. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I was  about  to  put  the  same 
inquiry.  I propose,  when  I have  opportunity 
of  doing  so,  to  offer  an  amendment.  I am  not 
sufficiently  well  acquainted  with,  and  would  ask 
the  Chair,  what  is  the  regular  mode  of  bringing 
the  question  before  the  Convention,  or  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  so  that  we  can  offer  these 
amendments  ? I do  not  like  to  fire  in  the  dark, 
but  I feel  that  amendments  are  necessary. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Chair  supposes  that 
the  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Report 
of  the  Standing  Committee  on  the  Preamble 
and  Bill  of  Rights,  and  any  amendments  to  that 
Report  would  be  in  order.  General  debate  is 
now  in  order. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I move,  sir,  that  the  Com- 
mittee rise  and  report  the  Report  back  to  the 
Convention  without  recommendation. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  As  there  is  a question  now 
before  the  House  to  be  decided,  this  motion  to 
rise  is  not  in  order,  except  this  question  be  dis- 
posed of  first. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I wish  to  offer  an  amendment 
to  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  effect  of  adopting  my 
motion  would  be  to  make  this  old  provision  of 
the  Bill  of  Rights  to  be  the  basis  for  the  action 
in  the  Convention.  As  soon  as  the  motion  is 
adopted,  then  the  question  will  be  on  the  old 
provision  in  the  present  Constitution,  and  then 
any  amendment  can  be  made  to  the  Article  in 
the  old  Constitution. 

Mr.  HORTON.  As  that  has  the  same  result 
as  what  I propose,  and  is  entirely  satisfactory, 
I withdraw  my  motion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  gentleman  from 
Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  withdraws  his  motion. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  appears  to  me  that, 
upon  the  motion  to  agree  to  the  Report  of  the 
Committee,  any  of  these  amendments  will  be 
in  order  at  any  time,  when  we  act  upon  it  sec- 
tion by  section.  So  now,  upon  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller J, 
any  of  these  amendments  can  be  submitted  and 
acted  upon.  If  the  Convention,  however,  dis- 
poses of  the  qestion  now,  I submit  that  it  would 
cut  off  any  further  debate,  because,  then,  we 
would  have  disposed  of  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I offer  this  amendment  to  be 
added  at  the  end  of  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  proposed  amendment. 


The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Proposition  No.  159— By  Mr.  Page: 

Proposition  to  amend  Article  I of  the  Constitution. 

Add  thereto  the  following: 

No  proceeding  against  the  property  of  any  person  shall 
he  taken  by  posting  up  or  publishing  notice  merely,  where 
his  residence  can  be  ascertained  by  reasonable  diligence. 
And  the  General  Assembly  shall  provide,  that  in  every 
proceeding  against  a non-resident,  whose  residence  can 
be  ascertained,  notice  shall  be  given  by  mail  or  messen- 
ger, as  well  as  by  publication.  This  provision  shall  not 
apply  to  the  levying  or  collecting  of  taxes  or  assessments, 
or  to  the  settleaent  of  accounts  in  the  Probate  Court. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  General  debate  is  now  in 
order  upon  the  Report.  The  Chair  presumes 
the  amendment  would  not  be  in  order  until 
after  the  general  debate  upon  the  Report  has 
closed. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Then,  if  this  subject  is  open 
for  general  debate,  I renew  my  motion  that  the 
Committee  rise  and  report  the  Report  back  to 
the  House  without  amendment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I hope  that  this  motion  will 
prevail.  It  will  save  a great  deal  of  time,  and 
when  it  is  reported  back,  it  will  enable  us  to 
introduce  any  amendment  that  we  choose  to- 
day, and  it  will  save  an  immense  deal  of  time. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  will  not 
prevail.  It  appears  to  be  a favorite  way  of 
trying  how  not  to  do  it.  It  appears  to  me  per  - 
fectly in  order,  when  this  Report  is  before  the 
Convention,  for  general  discussion,  that  gentle- 
men who  have  two  or  three  amendments — the 
gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease]  and  the  gen- 
tleman from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page] — should  be 
allowed  to  present  those  amendments,  and  to 
discuss  them,  under  the  half-hour  rule,  if  they 
wish  to  do  so,  and  then  the  Committee  can  act 
upon  them  and  send  them  back  to  the  Conven- 
tion. I think  that  is  the  more  ready  way  to  get 
through  business. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question. 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  This  motion  will  not  pre- 
vent any  propositions  from  being  made.  If  any 
person  has  any  proposition  ready  to  be  present 
ed,  no  doubt  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
V oris]  will  give  way  in  order  that  it  shall  be 
brought  in,  and  then,  when  it  is  brought  in,  it 
will  save  time  to  rise  and  report  it  back  to  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  HORTON.  My  idea  in  making  this  mo- 
tion was  not,  as  the  gentleman  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber]  suggests,  to  try  how  not  to  do  it, 
but  to  devise  means  how  to  do  it.  We  have  dis- 
cussed in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  proposi- 
tion after  proposition,  and  the  result  is  that, 
after  going  through  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  and  adopting  a series  of  amendments, 
we  then  go  into  Convention  and  fight  the  whole 
ground  over  a second  time.  It  does  seem  to  me 
that  we  may  as  well  get  this  up  right  in  the 
Convention,  and  let  those  who  have  amend- 
ments to  offer  submit  them  there,  as  to  go 
through  it  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
then  go  over  the  whole  thing  again  in  the  Con- 
vention. I think  it  will  save  very  much  time. 
With  the  last  Proposition — the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Apportionment — by  reason  of  the 
action  which  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  took, 
which  was  to  strike  out  the  entire  Proposition, 
we  were  continually  met  in  the  Convention  by 


PREAMBLE  AND  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Horton,  Yoris,  Pease,  West,  Powell,  Sample,  etc. 


1739 


Day.] 

March  4, 1874.] 


that  difficulty,  as  to  whether  we  would  agree  to 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  I 
do  not  want  any  report  on  this  matter,  by  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  embarrass  this  Con- 
vention. Why,  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  is  that  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  recommend  to  the  Conven- 
tion to  agree  to  that  Report.  Now,  when  we 
come  into  the  Convention  what  do  we  meet? 
Why,  the  very  first  question  is,  “Shall  we  agree 
to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  ?” 
If  we  agree  to  it,  that  agrees  to  the  Article  as  it 
is ; if  we  disagree  to  it,  that  disagrees  to  the  en- 
tire thing;  but  if  we  agree  to  it,  that  settles  that 
matter,  and  we  have  to  do  nothing  further.  It 
seems  to  me,  sir,  that  the  best  thing  we  can  pos- 
sibly do  is,  to  go  right  into  the  Convention,  and 
then,  if  any  gentlemen  have  anything  to  pro- 
pose, let  them  propose  it  there,  and  that  will 
make  an  end  of  the  whole  thing. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I would  like  to  make  an  inquiry 
of  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]. 
Would  it  not  suit  him  to  so  far  modify  his  mo- 
tion as  to  report  back  the  Report  of  the  Stand- 
ing Committee  without  recommendation  ? I 
think  that  gentlemen  here  will  vote  for  it  with- 
out recommendation.  I understand  that  they 
think  it  will  not  so  much  embarrass  them  in 
that  form. 

Mr.  HORTON.  The  motion  that  I made  was 
that  the  Committee  rise  and  report  the  Proposi- 
tion back  without  recommendation,  and  ask  to 
be  discharged  from  the  further  consideration  of 
it. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I did  not  understand  the  gen- 
tleman’s motion.  That  is  right,  and  I think 
ought  to  prevail. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr. 
Horton]  that  the  Committee  rise  and  report 
back  the  Report  without  recommendation. 

Mr.  PEASE.  There  seems  to  be  a difference 
of  opinion  as  to  whether  this  action  is  really  the 
right  mode  of  proceeding.  In  order  to  save 
time,  I would  ask  that  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee be  disagreed  to,  and,  perhaps,  in  doing 
that,  I ought  to  put  the  motion  in  some  form 
that  will  suggest  an  amendment;  and  by  the 
time  I get  through,  I hope  some  gentleman  of 
the  Convention  will  be  good  enough  to  tell  me 
the  best  way  of  doing  it. 

Now,  I dissent  from  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee, because  I feel  that  there  are  certain 
amendments  which  ought  to  be  made  to  that 
Article. 

Mr.  WEST.  I understand — if  the  gentleman 
will  permit  me  to  express  my  views  about  it 

Mr.  PEASE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  I understand  that,  in  adopting 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr. 
Horton],  we  will  simply  throw  the  Report  be- 
fore the  Convention,  and  it  will  then  be  open  to 
any  amendment  that  might  be  made  in  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole;  but  it  simply  places  the 
subject-matter  in  the  power  of  the  Convention 
to  control  the  debate,  which  is  not  in  the  power 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  at  all  times. 

Mr.  PEASE.  If  that  is  correct,  then  I will 
agree  to  the  motion. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Stark  permit  me  a word  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Certainly. 


Mr.  POWELL.  I want  to  suggest  that  there 
is  one  amendment  already  offered  : that  is,  the 
amendment  presented  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page].  I ask  the  gentleman 
from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease]  if  he  would  not  be  de- 
sirous of  presenting  his  amendment,  also?  and 
the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr.  Horton]  will 
likely  withdraw  his  motion  for  the  purpose  of 
presenting  that. 

Mr.  HALE.  There  is  no  necessity  for  that. 
It  can  be  offered  in  the  Convention. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Portage  [Mr. 
Horton]. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  resumed  the  Chair. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  The  Committee  of 
the  Whole  have  had  under  consideration  the 
Proposition  from  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights,  and  report  the 
same  back  to  the  Convention,  without  recom- 
mendation, and  ask  to  be  discharged  from  the 
further  consideration  thereof. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I 
understand  that  the  Proposition  before  the  Con- 
vention is  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights,  which  is  a majority 
and  minority  report.  The  Majority  Report  pre- 
sents the  Bill  of  Rights,  as  it  is,  back  to  this 
Convention,  recommending  that  it  be  not 
amended  in  any  way.  The  Minority  recom- 
mend that  it  be  amended  in  one  way.  Is  that 
the  proposition  now  before  the  Convention? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes.  The  question  is 
now  on  concurring  in  the  Proposition  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  And  the  subject  is  open 
for  general  debate  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes;  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  has  been  discharged,  and  the  subject 
is  now  before  the  Convention. 

Mr.  PACE.  I suppose  this  is  the  time  now 
for  general  debate,  and  is  not  the  time  for 
amendments. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Proposition  itself  is 
not  now  under  consideration.  The  question  is 
simply  on  agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  which  asks  that  the  Com- 
mittee be  discharged  from  further  consideration 
of  the  subject.  The  general  merits  of  the  ques- 
tion, of  course,  are  open  for  general  debate, 
but  the  question  first  will  be  on  agreeing  to  the 
Report  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  POND.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole 
has  been  discharged. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Committee  of  the 
Whole  has  been  discharged. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  proposition  of  the  Com- 
mittee seems  to  my  mind  to  go  much  further 
than  has  been  suggested.  It  is  not  a question 
of  asking  simply  to  be  discharged  from  the 
further  consideration  of  the  subject,  but  this  is 
a proposition,  substantially,  and,  in  fact,  the 
Report  presents  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights 
for  adoption  by  the  Convention  as  the  Pream- 
ble and  Bill  of  Rights  to  be  adopted  as  forming 
a part  of  the  Constitution  we  are  about  to  frame. 
It  is  not  merely  that  they  are  to  be  discharged, 
but  it  is  the  adoption  of  their  Report,  as  it 
stands.  Hence,  it  brings  the  present  Preamble 
before  the  Convention  for  their  action  as  much 


1740 


[129th 


PREAMBLE  AND  BILL  OF  RIGHTS 

Townsend,  Baber,  Waddle,  Cunningham,  West,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


•as  though  set  out  in  full  in  their  Report,  and,  I 
think,  opens  out  the  whole  subject  of  the  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights  for  discussion. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  In  order  to  bring  the 
matter  before  the  Convention  in  a shape  so  that 
amendments  may  be  offered — as  I believe  it  is 
the  desire  on  the  part  of  some  gentlemen  to 
offer  amendments,  and  speak  to  them — if  it  is 
the  desire  of  the  Convention,  I move  that  gen- 
eral debate  now  close. 

Mr.  BABER.  Before  general  debate  is  closed, 
I would  suggest  that  Mr.  Waddle,  who  has 
given  considerable  attention  to  this  subject, 
wants  to  make  some  remarks,  and  would  proba- 
bly desire  more  than  the  ten  minutes  allowed 
under  the  rule,  after  general  debate  is  closed. 

Mr.  WADDLE.  I think  probably  I will  be 
able  to  say  all  I desire  on  the  subject  in  ten 
minutes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  that  is  not  the  proposition  before 
the  Convention.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole 
has  not  recommended  any  change  in  the  propo- 
sition, and  it  would  be  quite  perfunctory  on  the 
part  of  the  Committee  to  recommend  the  adop- 
tion of  the  present  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I understand  that  the 
report  of  a majority  of  that  Committee  is,  that 
they  report  the  present  Article  on  the  Bill  of 
Rights  back,  and  ask  that  it  remain  just  as  it 
stands,  without  amendment.  That  is  their  Re- 
port now  before  the  Convention,  and  a minority 
of  the  Committee  make  a dissenting  Report  that 
I understand  is  now  before  the  Convention, 
also.  Now,  if  any  gentleman  will  offer  to 
speak  on  the  general  proposition,  I will  with- 
draw my  motion ; if  not,  I will  ask  that  the 
general  debate  close,  and  an  opportunity  be 
given  for  offering  amendments. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Under  the  ruling  of 
the  Chair — and  I think  the  Chair  is  right — there 
is  nothing  before  the  Convention.  The  Com- 
mittee has  reported  back  the  proposition  with- 
out recommendation,  and  now,  in  order  to  get 
at  business,  without  paying  too  much  attention 
to  technicalities,  I move  that  the  Convention 
take  up  the  Report  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of 
Rights. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  now  before  the 
Convention.  The  Chair  will  state  the  very 
language  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  which 
gives  clearly  the  idea  advanced  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend].  They 
do  state  that  they  are  not  in  favor  of  any  change. 
The  Report  is  this : 

“The  Committee  on  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights,  to 
which  was  referred  Article  I of  the  Constitution,  and  the 
several  Propositions  relative  to  the  amendment  thereof, 
having  had  the  same  under  consideration,  have  not 
deemed  it  advisable  to  make  any  change  in  the  Preamble 
and  Bill  of  Rights  in  the  present  Constitution,  and  report 
the  same  as  they  stand  therein,  and  ask  to  be  discharged 
from  the  further  consideration  of  said  Article  and  Pro- 
positions.” 

So  that  does  not  bring  any  proposition  before 
the  Convention. 

Mr.  WEST.  Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Al- 
len [Mr.  Cunningham]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  1 had  the  floor,  and 
I just  wanted  to  say  that  I do  not  want  to  cut 
off  any  gentleman ; but  it  seems  to  me  that  we 
are  ready  to  take  up  the  Report  now,  and  I be- 


lieve that  we  can  get  along  in  that  way  without 
any  trouble. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  begs  leave  to 
state  this : that  if  the  Convention  concur  in  the 
Report  of  the  Committee,  that  disposes  of  the 
whole  subject;  and  if  the  Convention  does  not 
agree  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  then  it 
brings  the  Proposition,  with  all  amendments 
thereto,  before  the  Convention.  But  the  simple 
question  is,  now,  on  concurring  in  the  Report 
of  the  Committee,  proper,  asking  to  be  dis- 
charged from  further  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  occurs  to  me  that  the  Pream- 
ble and  Bill  of  Rights  is  now  before  the  Con- 
vention, precisely  the  same  as  any  other  propo- 
sition. 

A MEMBER.  That  is  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  At  the  opening  of  the  Conven- 
tion at  Columbus,  a resolution  was  passed, 
whereby  different  portions  of  the  Constitution 
were  referred  to  appropriate  committees.  The 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights  were  referred  to  a 
proper  committee,  which  was  organized  to  con- 
sider it,  and  we  took  that  proposition  in  the 
form  it  is  in  the  present  Constitution  before 
that  Committee.  The  Committee  have  consid- 
ered it,  and  they  report  back  that  they  deemed 
that  proposition  as  sufficient,  without  further 
amendment.  The  matter  stands,  therefore,  be- 
fore the  Convention  now,  as  the  Report  of  the 
Committee,  recommending  that  proposition 
be  the  proposition  for  adoption  by  this  Conven- 
tion now,  and  it  certainly  is  just  as  much  be- 
fore the  Convention  as  any  other  proposition. 
Now,  this  question  about  discharging  the  Com- 
mittee, we  can  act  upon  or  not.  We  may  adopt 
that  part  of  the  Report,  at  the  proper  time,  and 
discharge  the  Committee,  if  we  deem  it  unnec- 
essary to  send  it  back.  But  we  ought  not  to  be 
rash  in  doing  it  before  we  see  whether  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee  is  satisfactory.  And  in 
deliberating  upon  its  sufficiency,  the  amend- 
ment ought  to  be  considered,  and  when  the 
amendment  shall  have  been  considered,  the 
whole  subject  can  be  sent  back,  and  the  Com- 
mittee discharged  at  the  proper  time.  At  this 
time  we  ought  to  consider  the  subject  matter, 
before  we  act  upon  the  motion  to  discharge  the 
Committee,  because  there  may  be  need  of  their 
further  services. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  it  seems  to  be  the 
general  sense  of  the  Convention  that  the  Prop- 
osition is  before  them,  the  Chair  is  willing  to 
entertain  the  motion. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I simply  desire  to  enter  my 
protest  against  any  such  idea  as  that.  What  is 
it  we  are  doing,  Mr.  President?  We  are  not 
making  a new  Constitution  out  of  new  ma- 
terial. We  are  amending  the  old  one,  if  it 
needs  amending.  Now,  here  is  an  Article 
standing  in  the  old  Constitution  in  full  force. 
Gentlemen  here  are  in  the  habit  of  saying  the 
“ old  Constitution.”  This  present  Constitution 
is  the  living  Constitution.  The  Preamble, 
and  then  Article  I,  denominated  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  containing  some  twenty  sections,  is  still 
in  full  force.  There  was  a Committee  arranged 
on  the  subject,  called  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights,  and  this  Conven- 
tion has  said  to  that  Committee,  Take  up  that 
Article,  and  see  what  you  think  of  it;  and,  if 


Day.] PREAMBLE  AND  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 1T41 

March  4,  1874.]  Barnet,  Carbery,  Powell,  Rowland,  Watson,  etc. 


you  suggest  any  amendments,  report  them  back 
to  this  Convention.  The  Committee  do  that, 
and  they  say  to  this  Convention,  “We  have 
no  amendment  to  report.  We  do  not  think  that 
Article  needs  amendment.  Let  it  stand  as  it  is. 
It  is  all  right  now.  It  is  in  full  force,  and  do 
not  change  it  at  all.” 

Mr.  BARNET.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Of  course,  that  Report  is  the 
wish,  and  will,  and  understanding  of  the  Com- 
mittee, and  a large  number  of  gentlemen  in 
this  Convention  may  desire  to  amend  that  Bill 
of  Rights  just  as  much  as  any  other  Proposi- 
tion. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly;  and  I was  coming 
to  that. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Then,  again,  the  question 
may  be  asked,  How  are  we  to  get  at  it? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Very  well,  I am  going  to  tell 
how.  Now,  the  Committee  report  this  back, 
and  say  no  amendment  was  necessary.  Now, 
in  my  judgment,  the  first  question,  and  the 
only  question,  is,  Will  the  Convention  agree 
to  the  Report  of  the  Committee?  If  this  Con- 
vention agrees  to  the  Report  of  that  Commit- 
tee, that  ends  the  matter.  If  they  do  not  agree 
to  it,  then,  as  a matter  of  course,  the  Proposi- 
tion is  open  to  amendment.  But  the  first 
question  must  be  on  agreeing  or  disagreeing  to 
the  Report  of  that  Committee. 

Mr.  BARNET.  If  we  refuse  to  agree  to  the 
Report  of  the  Committee,  I ask  if  there  is  any- 
thing before  us? 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  we  confirm  the  Report  of 
the  Committee,  then  what  have  we  before  us  ? 
Have  we  anything  before  us  then? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  How  can  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  finally  dispose  of  a report  made  by 
standing  Committee  of  the  Convention  ? Must 
not  the  report  of  the  standing  Committee  come 
back  to  the  body  that  appointed  it  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly.  That  is  back  now. 
But  what  is  the  Report  of  the  Committee? 
The  Committee  does  not  report  this  as  an 
original  section,  and  ask  that  it  be  adopted. 
They  say  it  does  not  need  any  amendment;  do 
not  interfere  with  it ; do  not  touch  it ; let  it  be 
as  it  is.  That  is  what  they  say.  They  do  not 
report  it  back  here,  and  ask  that  the  Convention 
adopt  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I will  say,  if  the  gentleman 
will  allow,  that  this  Preamble,  it  is  true,  is 
referred  to  the  Committee,  and  the  Committee 
had  it  under  consideration,  and  it  was  given 
to  them  to  propose  any  amendments  or  addi- 
tions to  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  They  referred  it  back  to  the 
Convention,  saying  that  they  think  it  inexpe- 
dient to  adopt  any  amendment  or  recommend 
any  action.  Now,  as  expressed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample],  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  and  a 
number  of  others  have  expressed  their  opinion 
that  the  Bill  of  Rights  referred  back  just  ex- 
actly as  if  they  were  new  matter,  and  the  Con- 
vention could  act  upon  that  just  the  same. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly,  if  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  will  allow,  that  is 


just  the  point  where  we  diverge.  I may  be* 
wrong.  Possibly  I am  the  only  man  in  this 
Convention  that  will  think  so;  but  that  is  cer- 
tainly my  judgment.  If  the  idea  which  seems- 
to  pervade  the  minds  of  some  gentlemen  be  the 
true  one,  then  we  have  to  re-enact  this  Article 
by  fifty-three  votes. 

Mr.  SEARS.  How  else  will  it  get  it  into  the 
Constitution  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Why,  it  is  in  now.  We  do  not 
take  it  out. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 
The  Chair  has  decided  the  status  of  this  ques- 
tion, and  yet  gentlemen  are  going  back  to  dis- 
cuss the  question  already  decided  by  the  Chair. 
I suggest  that  if  they  are  not  satisfied  they  ap- 
peal from  that  decision  and  not  consume  the 
time  of  this  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I would  prefer  to  take 
the  sense  of  the  House,  by  putting  the  motion 
in  this  form,  that  general  debate  now  close, 
and  that  the  Convention  now  proceed  to  con- 
sider the  Bill  of  Rights,  section  by  section,  if 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend] 
will  allow  the  question  put  in  that  form. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Certainly;  I am  willing, 
to  that. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I do  not  propose  myself  to 
consume  the  time  of  the  Convention  in  discuss- 
ing, but  the  proposition  seems  to  be  a very  plain 
one  to  my  mind.  We  report  no  proposition,  no 
substitute  here.  There  is  no  Artcle  in  the 
Constitution,  no  substitute  for  Article  I of 
the  present  Constitution  before  this  Convention. 
We  asked  to  be  discharged  from  the  further 
consideration,  suggesting  the  leaving  of 
Article  I of  the  Constitution  as  it  is.  Well, 
what  follows?  Very  plainly  to  my  mind,  Mr. 
President,  that  if  any  gentleman  wants  to  touch 
that  Article  which  is  now  in  force,  and  part  of 
the  fundamental  law,  he  has  got  to  do  it  by  a 
proposition,  which  must  pass  through  its  refer- 
ences, and  readings,  and  be  brought  into  this 
Convention  and  acted  upon  as  a distinct  thing. 
I see  no  other  course  at  all  to  reach  it.  When 
that  Report  was  made,  I thought  we  were  re- 
lieved from  further  consideration,  leaving  the 
Bill  of  Rights  intact  and  in  force. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  call  the  attention  of  the 
gentleman  from  Huron  [Mr.  Watson]  to  this 
phase  of  the  proposition.  By  the  authority  of 
the  Convention,  the  whole  subject  matter  of  the 
Bill  of  Rights  was  placed  in  the  possession  of 
his  Committee.  He  had  it  in  his  possession  and 
under  his  control.  By  his  Report  he  has 
brought  back  into  the  Convention  the  exact 
subject  matter  that  was  before  his  Committee. 
That  is  the  whole  subject  of  the  Bill  of  Rights. 
This  Convention  now  has  possession  of  that 
precisely  as  the  Committee  has  had  possession 
of  it.  And  this  Convention  has  a right  to  con- 
sider and  deliberate  precisely  as  the  Committee 
had.  He  has  reported  it  back  to  his  Committee 
and  given  it  into  the  possession  of  the  Conven- 
tion, which  has  a right  to  dispose  of  it  in  any 
manner  it  sees  proper. 

Mr.  PAGE.  And  I believe  every  one  of  the 
propositions,  by  way  of  amendment,  that  were 
to  be  offered  went  before  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights  and  were  voted 
against;  at  least,  they  were  ignored  and  passed 
upon  by  that  Committee.  Now,  it  is  this  very 


1742 


PREAMBLE  AND  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. [129th 

Page,  Baber,  Watson,  Hoadly,  Pease,  Waddle,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


proposition  that  we  wish  to  bring  up.  One  of 
those  is  before  the  Convention.  The  gentleman 
from  Huron  [Mr.  Watson]  thinks  we  must 
bring  them  before  the  House  in  a different  way. 
I agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  and  all  I desire,  so  far  as  I am  concerned, 
is  to  bring  before  the  Convention  the  proposi- 
tion that  was  submitted  to  that  Committee  and 
reported  against. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  is  most 
extraordinary,  that  this  proposition  and  subject 
matter  was  referred  to.  Can  we  refer  to  that 
now?  The  Committee  has  reported  back  no 
proposition  determining  this.  It  seems  to  me 
too  absurd  for  argument.  I hope,  therefore, 
that  the  bill  will  be  considered,  and  these  gen- 
tlemen will  be  allowed  to  make  their  amend- 
ment, and  that  we  will  not  spend  time  in  wrang- 
ling. 

Mr.  WATSON.  One  word  by  way  of  explan- 
ation. I understand  the  gentleman  from  Picka- 
way [Mr.  Page]  to  say  that  those  propositions 
were  before  the  Committee.  I do  not  under- 
stand that  those  propositions  were  referred  to 
the  Committee. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  Proposi- 
tion 159  was  not  in  the  hands  of  the  Committee? 

Mr.  WATSON.  The  gentleman  from  Picka- 
way [Mr.  Page]  was  before  our  Committee  and 
heard  by  the  Committee.  But  the  proposition 
was  never  referred.  We  received  it  in  a kindly 
spirit  and  heard  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page],  with  a great  deal  of  pleasure,  advo- 
cate before  us  his  proposition. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Hu- 
ron [Mr.  Watson]  allow  a question? 

Mr.  WATSON.  Yes,  certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  like  to  ask  whether 
Proposition  No.  43,  presented  by  myself,  was 
not  on  my  motion  referred  to  the  Committee  of 
which  the  gentleman  is  Chairman,  and  whether 
I did  not  appear  before  that  Committee  and  ad- 
vocate its  adoption  ? 

Mr.  WATSON.  I will  say  in  answer  to  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  that 
he  appeared  before  the  Committee  and  advo- 
cated that  proposition.  But  I was  not  aware 
that  it  was  referred  to  that  Committee  by  the 
Convention.  We  did  receive  him  with  pleasure 
to  advocate  a proposition. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I will  say  that  the  fact  is 
that  the  proposition  was  formally  referred  to 
the  Committee. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I do  not  dispute  the  gentle- 
man, but  at  this  time  my  memory  does  not  serve 
me.  I do  not  call  to  mind  a reference  by  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I would  say  that  the  proposition 
book  shows  that  my  proposition  was  referred 
by  this  Convention  to  his  Committee. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Does  the  gentleman  say  that 
Proposition  No.  48  was  not  referred  to  his 
Committee? 

Mr.  WATSON.  My  impression — I will  say 
to  the  gentlemen  one  and  all — my  impression 
was  that  none  of  them  were  referred  to  the 
Committee.  I did  receive  them,  and  we  did  act 
upon  them. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Since  the  gentleman  allows 
that  this  was  referred  to  the  Committee,  I will 
inquire,  also,  if  it  is  not  a fact  that,  since  the 


Committee  made  its  formal  Repfort  sometime 
ago,  several  propositions  and  petitions  have  not 
been  referred  to  them  ? 

Mr.  WATSON.  Yes,  a large  number  of 
them.  I have  been  absent  myself,  or  they 
would  have  been  reported  upon.  I would  have 
called  the  Committee  together,  as  it  would  have 
been  my  duty  to  do.  But  I have  been  absent  for 
nearly  three  weeks,  and  I came  in  this  morning 
at  6 o’clock. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I do  not  exactly  see  the  shape 
this  question  is  coming  up  in,  therefore  I do 
not  fully  understand  the  effect  of  the  vote  to  be 
taken  upon  it.  But  I have  this  to  say,  that  if 
any  vote  is  taken,  such  as,  in  effect,  will  shut 
out  these  amendments,  they  do  great  injustice 
to  individuals  who  have  presented  them.  Now, 
what  is  the  situation  here?  Judge  Hoadly  and 
others,  and  myself,  have  presented  propositions 
to  the  Convention 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HALE.  If  this  motion  is  voted  upon, 
and  carried,  it  leaves  it  open  for  the  gentleman, 
and  everybody  else,  to  offer  amendments.  Now, 
if  you  let  us  vote,  we  will  vote  that  motion 
through,  and  give  you  an  opportunity  to  offer 
it. 

Mr.  PEASE.  If  that  is  the  sense  of  the  Con- 
vention, I submit. 

Cries  of,  “It  is,”  “it  is.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is,  that  the 
general  debate  now  close,  and  that  the  Conven- 
tion now  proceed  to  consider  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
section  by  section. 

Which  was  unanimously  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WADDLE.  I desire  to  offer  the  following 
substitute : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  our  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  invok- 
ing his  blessing  for  the  future,  do  establish  this  Constitu- 
tion.” 

Mr.  WADDLE.  It  is  due  to  myself,  and  to 
the  Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights, 
to  say  that  I had  no  hearing  before  that  Com- 
mittee in  relation  to  the  substitute  I now  pro- 
pose. During  absence  from  the  Convention, 
last  summer,  in  consequence  of  a severe  attack 
of  ophthalmia,  the  Committee,  at  its  meeting, 
resolved  to  make  the  Report,  which  was  then 
made,  so  that  I had  no  hearing  by  the  Com- 
mittee. I am  not  prepared  to  say  whether  a 
substitute  would  have  been  entertained  by  them 
or  not.  It  will  be  seen,  however,  that  the  ques- 
tion raised,  as  between  myself  and  the  Com- 
mittee, is  not  one  simply  as  to  the  propriety  of 
the  recognition  of  Almighty  God,  for  the  Pre- 
amble, as  it  now  stands,  distinctly  recognizes 
the  personality  and  goodness  of  the  common 
Father  and  God.  It  reads,  “We,  the  people  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Almighty  God,” 
etc.  We  have  here  a distinct  recognition  of 
the  truth  that,  “ Except  the  Lord  do  build  the 
house,  they  labor  in  vain  that  build  it.”  But  I 
think,  sir,  as  a citizen  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  that 
the  good  people  of  this  State  are  under  obliga- 
tion to  recognize  not  only  the  fact  that  God  has 
treated  them  kindly  and  well,  but  are  also  un- 
der obligation  to  seek  the  continuance  of  his 
favor — to  recognize  the  fact  that  they  are  de- 
pendent upon  Him  for  prosperity  and  peace  in 


Day.] GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 1743 

March  4,  1874.]  Waddle,  Clark  of  J. 


the  future.  It  is,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen, 
a kindred  truth,  and  we  ought  to  recognize  it, 
that,  “ Except  the  Lord  keep  the  city,  the  watch- 
man waketh  but  in  vain.”  In  the  substitute 
which  I have  the  honor  to  present,  I think  this 
dependence  is  expressed,  properly  expressed : 
“ We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful 
to  Almighty  God  for  our  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  and  invoicing  his  blessing  for  the  future,  do 
ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution.”  I 
think  it  well  that  there  should  be  a definition 
of  that  for  which  we,  as  a people,  entertain 
gratitude  to  the  Lord  of  all.  The  word  “ free- 
dom,” it  occurs  to  me,  in  the  present  Con- 
stitution, is  not  sufficiently  definite.  As  a 
citizen  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  I am  not  grate- 
ful to  Almighty  God  for  a freedom  that 
might  be  interpreted  to  be  a license ; but  I am 
thankful  to  Him  for  our  civil  and  for  our  religious 
liberty.  I think  we  should  be  thankful  for  the 
liberty  of  law — a regulated  liberty.  Belonging, 
as  I do,  to  one  of  the  smaller  denominations  of 
the  Christian  Church  in  this  country,  number- 
ing in  these  United  States  not  more  than  75,000 
communicants,  I am  thankful  for  my  religious 
liberty.  I am  thankful,  Mr.  President,  for  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  church  establishment  in 
this  country — that  I may  exercise  my  judgment 
and  my  right  of  conscience,  as  I shall  answer 
to  my  God,  and  as  I feel  myself  under  obliga- 
tion to  worship  Him.  I think  it  proper,  there- 
fore, that  our  expressip/n  of  gratitude  to  God, 
should  be  of  a definite  kind.  In  this  matter  we 
are  not  asking  anything  new.  Thirty-one 
States  in  this  Union  have,  in  their  Constitutions, 
a recognition  of  Almighty  God.  The  preamble 
of  the  new  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania,  which 
was  so  largely  ratified  by  the  people  of  that 
State,  reads,  “Wei,  the  people  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Pennsylvania,  grateful  to  Almighty 
God  for  the  blessings  of  religious  and  civil  lib- 
erty, and  hun^bly  invoking  His  guidance, 
do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  its 
government.”/  The  Constitution  of  Illinois, 
also  recently  /adopted,  reads:  “We,  the  people 
of  the  State  c)f  Illinois,  grateful  to  Almighty 
God  for  the  civil,  political,  and  religious  liberty 
which  He  hus  so  long  permitted  us  to  enjoy, 
and  looking  to  Him  for  a blessing  upon  our  en- 
deavors to  secure  and  transmit  the  same,  in  or- 
der to  forryn,”  etc.  In  both  these  preambles, 
the  same  recognition  in  spirit  is  made  which  I 
offer  in  thp*  substitute  now  before  the  Conven- 
tion. Now,  gentlemen,  aside  from  the  petitions 
which  haVje  been  coming  in  here,  on  either  side 
of  this  question  of  the  recognition  of  Almighty 
God  in  the»  Constitution  of  the  State,  I submit, 
upon  its  nperits,  this  substitute.  I ask  gentle- 
men of  th/e  Convention  to  compare  the  two — to 
pass  upom  the  comparative  merits  of  the  two — 
and  then  vote  as  their  judgment  may  dictate  to 
be  proper  and  right.  I ask  members  of  this 
Convention  to  remember,  as  I sincerely  trust  I 
remember,  that  our  ways  and  our  breath  are 
in  the  hands  of  the  most  High,  and  we  are, 
therefore,  in  our  State  relationship,  as  well  as 
in  all  the  other  relations  of  life,  to  glorify  Him. 
I ask  gentlemen  of  the  Convention  to  remem- 
ber that,  whether  we  eat  or  drink,  or  whatso- 
/ ever  we  do,  we  should  do  all  to  the  glory  of 
i God.  I ask  you  to  remember,  gentlemen,  the 
( admonition  of  the  wisest  among  children  of 


man,  “ Commit  thy  works  unto  the  Lord,  and 
thy  thoughts  shall  be  established.”'  In  con- 
clusion, gentlemen,  I appeal  to  you,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Israel’s  singer  in  the  long  ago,  “ O, 
magnify  the  Lord  with  me,  and  let  us  exalt 
His  name  together.” 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Jefferson.  If  we  admit  the 
truthfulness  of  the  Bible,  we  must,  of  necessity, 
concede  that  the  State  is  a divine  institution, 
designed  by  its  author,  and  in  its  very  nature 
calculated  to  promote  not  only  the  glory  of 
God,  but  also  to  secure  the  physical,  mental  and 
moral  well-being  of  man.  History  unites  with 
prophecy  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  absolute 
and  universal  dominion  of  Jehovah  over  na- 
tions as  well  as  individuals.  Analogy  and 
reason  also  harmonize  with  the  Bible  and 
history  in  affirming  the  moral  personality  of 
the  State,  and  to  these  we  have  added  the  cor- 
roborative testimony  of  the  greatest  and  best 
men  of  all  ages,  recognizing  the  responsibility 
of  the  State  to  God  in  its  capacity  as  a moral 
personality.  It  is,  therefore,  right  and  proper 
that  the  State  should  suitably  acknowledge  the 
claims  of  God,  and  give  an  expression  to  its 
gratitude  in  its  fundamental  law,  and  any  ne- 
glect or  refusal  to  make  this  recognition  is  as 
much  a piece  of  foolish  impiety  as  that  of  the 
individual  who  persistently  refuses  to  acknowl- 
edge God  as  the  author  of  his  existence,  and 
withholds  the  homage  due  from  the  creature  to 
the  Creator;  for  God  not  only  declares  “I  will 
honor  them  that  honor  me,  and  they  that 
despise  me  shall  be  lightly  esteemed,”  but  He 
affirms,  also,  that  “ the  nation  and  kingdom  that 
will  not  serve  Him  shall  be  cut  off ; yea,  those 
nations  shall  be  utterly  wasted.”  Can  we, 
therefore,  expect  that  a people  favored  with  the 
light  of  divine  revelation,  and  yet  practically 
ignoring  the  existence  and  superintending 
providence  of  God,  will  enjoy  His  blessing, 
which  maketh  rich  ? Does  not  history  record, 
for  our  instruction,  the  decay  and  fall  of  many 
great  and  powerful  nations  under  the  withering 
curse  of  God,  because  of  their  continued  im- 
piety? We  cannot  ignore  the  fact  that  our 
own  nation  but  recently  experienced  a fearful 
chastisement  on  account  of  her  forgetfulness  of 
His  claims,  and  disregard  of  His  laws.  The 
civil  war  through  which  we  have  so  recently 
passed  has,  very  generally,  been  regarded  as  an 
expression  of  the  righteous  displeasure  of 
heaven  against  the  multiplied  and  aggravated 
offenses  of  our  nation.  We  all  remember  a 
very  dark  and  discouraging  period,  when  the 
heart  of  the  nation  was  crushed  by  continued 
and  severe  reverses,  until  many,  in  the  hope- 
lessness of  despair,  appealed  to  the  Government 
to  “give  us  peace,  and  let  the  rebels  go.”  At 
this  crisis  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on 
the  second  day  of  March,  1863,  passed  the  fol- 
lowing resolution : 

“ Resolved , That  devoutly  recognizing  the  supreme  au- 
thority, and  just  government  of  Almighty  God  in  all  the 
affairs  of  men  and  nations,  and  sincerely  believing  that 
no  people,  however  great  in  numbers  and  resources,  or 
however  strong  in  the  justice  of  their  cause,  can  prosper 
without  His  favor,  and,  at  the  same  time,  deploring  the 
national  offenses  which  have  provoked  His  righteous 
judgment,  yet  encouraged,  in  this  day  of  trouble,  by  the 
assurances  of  His  word,  to  seek  Him  for  su  ;cor  according 
to  His  appointed  way,  through  Jesus  Christ,  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  do  hereby  request  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  by  his  proclamation,  to  designate  and  set 
apart  a day  for  national  prayer  and  humiliation.” 


J744 


f 129th 


GOD  IJN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


Clakk  of  J.,  Page,  Watson,  Cunningham,  Powell.  [Wednesday, 


In  pursuance  of  this  resolution,  the  President 
issued  the  following  proclamation  : 

“Whereas,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  devoutly 
recognizing  the  supreme  authority  and  just  government 
of  Almighty  God  in  all  the  affairs  of  men  and  nations, 
has,  by  a resolution,  requested  the  President  to  designate 
and  set  apart  a day  for  national  prayer  and  humiliation; 

And  Whereas,  it  is  the  duty  of  nations,  as  well  as  of 
men,  to  own  their  dependence  upon  the  over-ruling  power 
of  God,  to  confess  their  sins  and  transgressions  in  hum- 
ble sorrow,  yet  with  assured  hope  that  genuine  repent- 
ance will  lead  to  mercy  and  pardon;  and  to  recognize 
the  sublime  truth  announced  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
proven  by  all  history,  that  those  nations  only  are  blessed 
whose  God  is  the  Lord ; 

And  inasmuch  as  we  know  that  by  His  divine  law,  na- 
tions, like  individuals,  are  subjected  to  punishments  and 
chastisements  in  this  world,  may  we  not  justly  fear  that 
the  awlul  calamity  of  civil  war,  which  now  desolates  the 
land,  may  be  but  a punishment  inflicted  upon  us  for  our 
presumptuous  sins?  Now,  therefore,  in  compliance  with 
the  request,  and  fully  concurring  in  the  views  of  the  Sen- 
ate, I do  hereby  set  apart  Thursday,  the  30th  day  of 
April,  1863,  as  a day  of  national  humiliation,  fasting  and 
prayer.” 

In  compliance  with  this  proclamation,  the 
people  very  generally  observed  the  day  as  di- 
rected. Their  prayers  were  heard  and  answer- 
ed. Our  armies  went  forth  to  victory,  and  the 
life  of  the  nation  was  saved.  And  ever  since, 
we  have  had  our  annual  State  and  National 
Thanksgivings,  to  acknowledge  the  Divine 
Goodness  and  render  thanks  for  the  mercies  of 
the  year,  and  implore  His  blessing  for  the  fu- 
ture. But  is  it  consistent,  or  even  respectful  to 
supplicate  His  favor  as  a State,  if  we  are  un- 
willing to  recognize  Him  as  the  Governor  of 
Nations,  or  His  superintending  care  over  us  as 
a people  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the  State  ? I 
am  not  particular  as  to  the  formula  in  which 
this  recognition  may  be  expressed,  but  would 
prefer  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle],  as  it  not  only 
acknowledges  our  obligation  for  blessings  in  the 
past,  but  also  recognizes  a continued  depen- 
dence, and  an  invocation  of  His  guidance  for 
the  future.  I shall,  therefore,  vote  to  strike 
out  and  insert. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I would  ask  to  have  the  substi- 
tute read  again. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I have  very  little  choice  as  to 
the  language  used  in  these  two  substitutes,  but 
I am  unwilling  to  open  up  this  question.  The 
Preamble  as  it  stands,  and  as  Ave  have  reported 
it  from  our  Committee,  I think,  myself,  is  ex- 
plicit, and  it  is  quite  sufficient.  We  have  a 
large  number  of  petitions  before  us — many  of 
which  the  Committee  have  not  yet  had  a con- 
sultation upon,  desiring  the  opening  up  of  this 
question — the  large  body  of  them  asking  us  to 
have  a distinct  recognition  of  the  Christian 
Religion  ; another  portion  of  them  asking  that 
we  shall  recognize  God  as  the  King  of  Nations, 
and  Christ  as  the  Governor  of  Nations.  Now, 
my  opposition  is  to  going  into  the  discussion  of 
this  subject  beyond  the  necessity  of  the  case. 
We  have  here  a clear  recognition,  in  as  concise 
language  as  we  could  put  it,  in  the  Preamble  as 
it  stands.  I think  it  is  one  of  those  cases  where 
we  may  well  say : “It  is  better  to  let  well 
enough  alone,”  and  let  the  matter  stand  as  it  is. 

I respect  the  opinions  of  these  gentlemen  that 
have  petitioned  us.  I respect  the  opinions  of 
those  who  desire  this  alteration  in  the  Pream- 
ble. Were  it  originally  in  that  language,  I 
should  be  in  favor  of  retaining  it.  My  object 
is  not  to  open  up  discussion  and  waste  time  upon 


a proposition  where,  I think,  no  practical  re- 
sults can  follow  from  it.  I have  been  opposed, 
therefore,  to  the  petitions  that  are  before  us.  I 
have  been  opposed  to  making  any  change,  and 
with  all  the  discussions  we  have  patiently  lis- 
tened to,  on  behalf  of  the  petitions,  I have 
found  no  reason  to  change  my  mind. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I wish  to  suggest  to 
the  gentleman  from  Huron  [Mr.  Watson],  the 
Chairman  of  this  Committee,  that  upon  the 
pending  question  there  is  no  possible  wish  to 
open  up  the  various  questions  that  he  has  re- 
ferred to.  This  substitute  does  not  involve  any 
of  the  propositions  that  he  says  are  the  subject- 
matter  of  petitions  that  have  been  before  his 
Committee.  It  is  simply  an  enlargement  of 
that  which  is  already  contained  in  the  present 
Constitution.  I shall  vote  for  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]. 
I,  perhaps,  would  not  have  felt  called  upon  to 
have  introduced  anything  of  the  sort;  but,  now 
that  it  is  before  the  Convention,  I should  not 
like  this  body  to  say  that  they  do  not  desire  to 
express  any  future  reliance  upon  the  Almighty. 
In  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  there  is 
no  recognition  of  God.  There  are  a great  many 
good  people  living  in  this  country  Avho  believe 
there  ought  to  be  an  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  so  that,  in  express 
terms,  God  should  be  recognized.  Under  our 
first  State  Constitution,  there  was  no  recogni- 
tion at  all.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  of 
1802  followed  the  path  that  had  been  marked 
out  by  the  men  who  adopted  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States ; and  there  was  no  recogni- 
tion of  the  existence  of  God..  But  the  Conven- 
tion of  1851,  differing  somewhat  from  the 
opinion  expressed  by  the  Chairman  of  this 
Committee,  did  open  up  that  subject,  and  did 
therein  give  a distinct  recognition  of  the  Al- 
mighty. This  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  is  nothing  more 
than  an  expression  of  reliance  upon  the  Al- 
mighty for  the  future.  It  is  something  that 
Jew  and  Gentile  may  well  indorse,  and,  indeed, 
anybody  in  the  world,  except  a Pagan.  I,  there- 
fore, shall  vote  heartily  for  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I shall  vote,  too,  for  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle].  But  I would  be  as 
willing  that  the  Constitution  should  have  no 
such  declaration  in  as  not,  and  would  rather; 
and  I have  no  objection  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  because  there  is  nothing  of 
that  kind  said  in  it;  and  I would  say  tlhat,  if  the 
question  had  not  been  opened  to  us  by  such 
numerous  petitions,  and  by  the  people  of  the 
State,  requiring  of  us,  by  their  numerous  peti- 
tions, to  put  in  something  of  this  kind;  I Avould 
say,  strike  it  out.  When  the  very  firsf  &raty 
between  the  French  Republic  and  Austria  took 
effect,  the  Austrians  read  a provision  in  that 
treaty  by  which  they  acknowledged  the  exis- 
tence of  God.  Bonaparte,  who  was  a member 
of  the  commission,  said,  “Strike  that  out.  We 
want  no  such  recognition.”  The  French  Re- 
public has  existed  and  does  still  exist,  just  as 
the  sun  in  the  heavens  exists.  Why,  no  per- 
son will  deny,  I think,  the  existence  of  the 
Lord  that  governs  the  world,  who  is  called  by 
everybody  God  and  the  Almighty.  And  as  the 
gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  has 


Bat.] 


1745 


GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

March  4, 1874.]  Powell,  Rowland,  Dorsey. 


proposed  an  amendment  that  is  fully  as  good,  if 
not  better — an  improvement  upon  it — and  as 
the  people  of  the  State  have  sent  in  so  many 
petitions,  I think  we  should  do  something  upon 
the  subject;  however,  my  opinion  is,  that  it  is 
better  to  leave  it  entirely  out.  Yet,  under  these 
circumstances,  I shall  vote  for  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Harrison. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I had  not  proposed  to  say 
anything  on  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle],  being  very  well 
satisfied  with  the  preamble  to  the  Bill  of  Rights 
as  it  appears  in  the  old  Constitution ; but,  as 
the  question  has  been  raised,  I incline  to  the 
support  of  this  amendment  so  far  as  it  proposes 
to  invoke  the  guidance  of  Almighty  God  in  the 
future,  having  already  recorded  our  gratitude 
for  “freedom  and  its  innumerable  blessings.” 
It  is  fitting  that,  in  framing  a fundamental  law, 
we  should  recognize  the  most  widely  admitted 
of  all  truths  that  have  obtained  the  assent  of 
mankind,  viz : the  existence  of  a God.  I think 
that  the  American  conception  of  “freedom”  in- 
cludes the  whole  of  both  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty, and  that  when  we  express  our  gratitude  to 
God  for  “freedom,”  we  include  all  the  blessings 
which  we  enjoy  by  reason  of  citizenship  in  this 
great  republic.  The  very  foundation-stone  of 
American  liberty  is  laid  upon  the  recognition 
of  Almighty  God — the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence contains  an  appeal  to  the  “Supreme 
Judge  of  the  world”  for  the  rectitude  of  the  in- 
tentions of  the  framers  of  that  immortal  docu- 
ment, and  they  appended  their  names  thereto 
“with  a firm  reliance  on  the  protection  of  Di- 
vine Providence,”  and  mutually  pledged  their 
lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor  in 
support  of  the  struggle  for  freedom.  When 
Ethan  Allen — who  has  the  reputation  of  be- 
ing, at  least,  a “free-thinker” — demanded  the 
surrender  of  Ticonderoga,  he  did  so  in  the  name 
of  “Almighty  God  and  the  Continental  Con- 
gress.” When  Mr.  Lincoln  penned  the  pro- 
clamation of  freedom  to  the  slaves  of  the  south, 
he  invoked  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God  and 
the  consideration  of  mankind.  Every  year  we 
have  the  proclamations  of  the  National  and 
State  Executives,  designating  a day  of  thanks- 
giving to  Almighty  God  for  the  great  blessings 
we  enjoy — it  is  natural  for  men  in  the  supreme 
crisis  of  affairs  to  call  on  God  for  help,  for 
guidance  and  protection — they  but  obey  those 
instincts  that  seem  to  be  common  to  the  race  in 
so  doing.  The  reason  why  I am  willing  to  go 
beyond  an  expression  of  gratitude  for  freedom, 
and  invoke  the  guidance  of  God  in  the  future, 
is,  that  the  one  is  the  natural  and  logical  se- 
quence of  the  other.  No  man  can  be  truly 
grateful  to  God  for  the  blessings  of  freedom — 
thus  recognizing  His  agency  in  conferring  the 
blessings  for  which  he  expresses  gratitude — 
without,  at  the  same  time,  recognizing  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  support  of  the  same  divine  agen- 
cy in  the  perpetuation  of  those  blessings.  I 
desire  no  union  of  Church  and  State.  I trust 
that  in  the  proper  sense,  the  divorce  is  final; 
but  we  must  recognize  the  being  and  the  bless- 
ings of  God  as  connected  with  civil  government. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Harrison 
[Mr.  Waddle]. 

The  Secretary  read  : 

y.  n-112 


“We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  our  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  in- 
voking His  blessing  for  the  future,  do  establish  this 
Constitution.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  it  is  in  order,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I ask  that  the  following  amendment  be 
made  to  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from 
Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  offers  the  following 
amendment: 

The  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “God”,  and  insert  “for  our 
freedom,  and  trusting  to  His  blessing  for  our  future  wel- 
fare, do  establish  this  Constitution.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  aware  that  there  is  ve- 
ry little  difference  in  the  phraseology,  and  very 
little  difference  in  the  meaning  of  the  propo- 
sitions introduced  by  the  gentleman  from 
Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle],  and  myself.  I should 
most  willingly  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle],  if  my 
amendment  is  not  acceptable  to  the  Convention. 
It  will  be  observed  that  while  the  Constitution 
of  1851  recognizes  the  existence  of  God,  and  de- 
clares that  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  are 
grateful  to  Him  for  the  establishment  of  their 
freedom,  it  fails  to  proceed  one  step  farther, 
which  I hold  to  be  important,  for  I hold  that 
this  fact  is  true.  And  now,  here,  allow  me  to 
say  to  the  Convention,  before  I go  a single  step 
farther,  that  in  framing  a Constitution  for  the 
State  of  Ohio,  I do  not  propose  to  put  anything 
therein  to  which  Christian,  Jew,  or  Mohamme- 
dan cannot  freely  subscribe.  But,  I hold  this 
fact  to  be  true,  that  there  is  in  the  breast  of 
every  man  a religious  sentiment,  and  that  re- 
ligious sentiment  recognizes  two  great  princi- 
ples : one  is  gratitude  for  past  blessings,  the 
other  is  trust  for  blessings  in  time  to  come ; 
and  it  makes  no  difference  whether  a man  pro- 
fesses to  be  a Jew,  Mohammedan,  or  Christian, 
as  a religionist,  and  as  a believer  in  God,  he  re- 
cognizes those  two  great  principles  of  his  reli- 
gion : gratitude  for  the  past,  and  trust  for  the 
future.  That  is  all  that  we  ask  to  be  recog- 
nized. I should  have  been  satisfied,  Mr.  Pre- 
sident, perhaps,  with  the  simple  recognition 
which  we  have  in  the  Constitution  of  1851,  if  it 
were  not  that  the  advanced  religious  sentiment 
of  the  people  of  the  State  demands  of  us  to  do 
something  more  than  this.  Just  precisely  as 
the  advancing  religious  sentiment  of  the  State 
demanded  a different  declaration  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  1851,  from  what  was  contained,  or 
what  was  failed  to  be  embodied  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1802.  This,  then,  is  all  that  we  ask.  We 
want  simply  to  say,  as  delegates  representing 
the  people  of  the  great  State  of  Ohio,  that  we 
stand  here  before  them,  and  before  the  world, 
acknowledging  our  gratitude  to  God  for  our 
freedom,  and  trust  in  Him  for  our  future  wel- 
fare. As  the  gentleman  from  Jefferson  [Mr. 
Clark]  has  forcibly  said,  in  times  of  public 
calamity,  this  great  nation  of  ours  has  expressed 
its  trust  in  God  for  its  deliverance  from  these 
calamities.  We  write  to-day  upon  our  National 
coin  the  words : “In  God  we  Trust;”  and,  I ask 
you,  if  we  do  that,  why  should  we  not  put  the 
same  declaration  in  the  Constitution?  I want 
to  be  honest  in  that  matter.  If  in  times  of  public 
calamity  I proclaim  any  trust  in  God,  if  I sub- 


1746 


GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION- 

Dorsey,  Sears,  Mueller,  Hoadly,  Carbery. 


[129th 

[Wednesday^ 


scribe  to  the  declaration  on  the  coin  of  the  Re- 
public that,  “ In  God  we  trust,”  I propose  to 
carry  it  out  honestly  as  a delegate  of  this  Con- 
vention. And  I would  write  upon  this  Consti- 
tution, as  I would  write  upon  the  walls  of  the 
Republic  of  Ohio,  that  which  the  good  city  of 
Edinburgh  has  written  on  her  walls,  and  on 
her  coat-of-arms,  “Nisi  Doininus  Frustra,” 
which  we  have  very  beautifully  rendered, 
“Except  the  Lord  do  build  the  house,  the  build- 
ers work  in  vain.”  I am  willing  to  express 
the  trust  for  the  future,  that  we,  as  a people, 
have  trust  in  God,  just  as  we  express  gratitude  to 
Him  for  favors  that  are  past,  and,  therefore, 
Mr.  President,  I prefer  the  simple  expression 
which  I propose  to  insert  by  the  amendment 
which  I have  offered.  If  I cannot  get  that,  if 
the  Convention  do  not  see  fit  to  make  the  change, 
I shall  then  most  willingly  vote  for  the  substi- 
tute of  the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr. 
Waddle.] 

Mr.  SEARS.  I have  not  the  slightest  objec- 
tion to  the  sentiment  or  phraseology  contained 
either  in  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  or  the  modification  of 
it,  proposed  by  the  delegate  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey].  I do  not  think  there  is  any  danger 
of  our  trusting  in  God  too  much,  unless  it 
should  induce  us  to  neglect  good  works.  There- 
fore, I find  that  sentiment  wholly  unexception- 
able. But  the  great  objection  to  it  is,  that  when 
they  have  modified  this  in  the  way  proposed, 
they  have  entirely  taken  away  its  effect  and  of- 
fice, and  destroyed  its  character,  as  a Preamble 
to  the  Constitution.  It  expresses  nothing 
whatever  of  the  object  and  purpose  of  the  in- 
strument. If  the  amendment  is  adopted,  it 
will  leave  out  the  most  effective  parts  of  the 
present  Preamble,  and  those  parts  which  really 
make  it  a Preamble  to  the  Constitution,  and 
those  are  the  objects  as  stated  in  this  clause, 
“to  secure  its  blessings”;  to-wit,  the  blessings 
of  freedom,  and  to  “ promote  our  common 
welfare.”  Those  things  are  necessary  to  con- 
stitute it  a preamble.  They  are  properly  intro- 
ductory to  the  great  work  of  framing  an  organ- 
ic law  for  the  people  of  the  State.  No  matter 
where  our  freedom  comes  from;  whether  it 
comes  from  God,  or  is  owing  to  our  own  exer- 
tions or  the  exertions  of  our  ancestors,  it  is  cer- 
tainly the  great  object  of  this  Constitution  to 
maintain  and  preserve  it;  and  I insist  that  that 
sentiment  and  that  idea  shall  be  preserved  in 
the  instrument  that  we  are  about  to  submit  to 
the  people,  and  that  without  it  there  can  be  no 
Preamble  worth  having. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I think  if  the  gentleman  will 
read  both  the  substitute  and  the  amendment 
offered  by  myself,  he  will  see  that  it  embraces 
all  that  he  desires. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  agree- 
ing to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  to  the  substitute  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle.] 

Mr.  MUELLER.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
question  has  not  been  met  here  at  all.  I ask 
members  of  this  Convention  for  what  business 
they  have  been  sent  here  ? To  draft  a Constitu- 
tion for  the  administration  of  the  public  affairs 
of  the  State,  and  nothing  else.  Now,  I would 
let  the  amendment  pass,  if  it  was  not  intended 
thereby  to  make  another  step  in  the  direction 


of  bringing  about  a union  of  the  Church  and 
State.  The  recognition  of  God  is  asked  for.  I 
say  that  my  God  does  not  want  your  recogni- 
tion in  the  Constitution.  Does  such  recognition 
make  His  existence  any  more  certain  than 
without?  I,  for  my  part,  have  not  been  sent 
here  from  Cuyahoga  county  to  make  a declara- 
tion as  to  God.  If  you  make  this  declaration,! 
want  you  to  go  one  step  further,  and  define  this 
God.  Proceed  to  incorporate  the  whole  Chris- 
tian Religion  into  it.  This  amendment  means 
bringing  us  nearer  and  nearer  to  the  establish- 
ment of  a State  creed,  a thing  to  be  prevented 
if  we  are  desirous  to  preserve  the  interests  of 
the  State.  It  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman 
from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  that  there  was  a 
denial  of  God,  if  the  Constitution  was  silent 
about  that.  This  construction  is  absurd.  We 
do  not  deny  the  existence  of  God  in  not  saying 
anything  about  Him.  It  is  not  our  duty,  either 
to  deny  or  recognize,  because  the  Constitution 
is  not  the  place  to  treat  or  expound  religious 
matters.  I refer  you  to  the  history  of  Europe 
and  the  past  to  show  that  the  greatest  despots 
pretended  to  derive  their  power  by  the  grace 
and  mercy  of  God. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I will  ask  the  gentleman 
whether  it  is  not  the  fact  that  Santa  Anna 
closed  every  one  of  his  proclamations  with  the 
words  “God  and  the  people?”  whether  that  is 
not  the  custom  of  every  scoundrel  of  that  kind 
in  the  world  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  I do  not 
admit  that  we  should  be  thankful  to  God  for 
the  existence  of  liberty  in  this  country.  It  was 
the  exertions  of  the  people  themselves  that 
achieved  it,  and  God  will  only  help  such  as  help 
themselves.  The  amendment  contemplates  in- 
directly to  adopt  a sort  of  State  creed  into  the 
Constitution  of  Ohio,  and  I warn  you  against 
making  any  concessions  in  that  direction.  The 
consequence  of  such  a provision  would  even- 
tually destroy  this  Republic.  We  should,  in 
this  respect,  not  be  unmindful  of  the  lessons  of 
history.  I trust  the  amendment  will  not  be 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I think  that  this  Preamble, 
as  it  remained  at  the  head  of  the  present  Con- 
stitution, was  quite  sufficient  for  all  purposes. 
It  was  declaratory.  It  was  not  aggressive.  It 
did  not  propose  to  challenge  anything;  it 
merely  announced,  on  the  day  that  the  people 
of  Ohio  adopted  that  Constitution  of  1851,  that 
they  really  did  believe  that  God  had  given  them 
their  freedom,  and  that  they  were  resolved  to  go 
to  work  forthwith  and  try  to  perpetuate  the 
blessings  of  that  freedom  through  the  instru- 
mentalities of  that  Constitution  then  and  there 
adopted.  That  is  to  say,  they  thank  Him  for 
the  talent,  and  they  promised  that  they  would 
not  let  the  talent  remain  idle.  That  is  all. 
They  simply  did  not  brag  before  they  put  their 
armor  off.  They  said,  We  propose  to  perpetu- 
ate these  blessings  by  suitable  fundamental 
law  for  securing  civil  and  religious  liberty. 
And  this  very  proclamation  in  the  first  segment 
of  this  sentence,  “ We,  the  people  of  the  State 
of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Almighty  God  for  our 
freedom,”  is  a very  great  announcement. 
And,  if  it  is  true,  it  is  certainly  a total  refuta- 
tion of  the  assumption  of  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller];  that  is,  that,  where 


Day.]  GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.  1747 

March  4,  1874.]  Carbkry,  Young  of  C.,  Kerr,  Gurley. 


such  a thing  was  recognized  by  the  State  or 
States,  forthwith  internecine  strife  ensued,  and 
liberty  was  lost.  Those  effects  never  resulted 
from  that  recognition  at  all,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  people  have  gone  on  moderately  suc- 
cessful in  the  State,  and  what  they  propose  to 
do  now  is  a repetition  of  that  merely.  They 
ask  the  blessing  of  God  on  their  future  endeav- 
ors. It  is  impliedly  asked  here.  The  only 
difference  is,  you  substitute  a specific  sentence 
that  is  implied  in  this  great  declaration  of  prin- 
ciple here,  of  belief  in  Almighty  God  and  His 
superintendence  over  human  affairs.  I cannot 
see  that  it  is  a very  great  matter  to  spend  so  much 
time  upon.  I think  what  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  pro- 
poses is  a little  more  specific ; goes  a little  fur- 
ther ; carries  out  the  true  intention  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  1851,  and,  therefore,  I cannot  see 
any  very  great  objection  to  its  adoption  by  this 
Convention. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I rather  prefer 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Harri- 
son [Mr.  Waddle].  We  are  all  saying  that 
there  is  no  objection  to  the  adoption  of  that 
amendment,  and  therefore  I thought  there  was 
no  necessity  for  much  talk  about  it.  I do  not 
know  whether  there  is  necessity  for  any  amend- 
ment, but  if  there  is  to  be  any,  I say  I rather 
prefer  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  to  that  of 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  The 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Harrison 
[Mr.  Waddle]  invokes  the  blessing  of  God.  I 
would  rather  pray  for  the  blessing  of  God  for 
the  future.  And  I am  quite  willing  to  take  the 
con  sequences  of  recognizing  God  in  the  Consti- 
tution, and  a prayer  for  His  blessing  for  the 
time  to  come.  If  from  that  shall  ensue  trouble 
to  the  commonwealth,  I will  take  the  conse- 
quences. I was  struck  with  the  remark  of  a 
friend  of  mine  the  other  day,  that  there  was, 
perhaps,  no  necessity  for  the  mention  of  God  in 
the  Constitution.  It  was  better  that  it  should 
be  written  upon  our  hearts  and  illustrated  by 
our  lives.  God  is  everywhere.  His  name  is 
written  everywhere.  We  cannot,  we  would 
not  forget  that.  That  may  be  enough,  proba- 
bly, but  there  is  no  harm  in  writing  it  in  the 
Constitution.  And  if  it  be  written  there  let  it 
be  written  in  such  way  that,  whilst  we  recog- 
nize Him,  we  shall  recognize  the  propriety  of 
an  address  for  His  blessing.  From  that  anarchy 
and  confusion  never  can  come.  It  is  only  in 
nations  that  forget  God  that  anarchy  and  con- 
fusion arise.  It  does  not  follow  because  you 
recognize  the  existence  of  God,  that  there  will 
be  any  connection  between  the  Church  and 
State.  How  should  that  be?  How  should  that 
come?  If  there  be  persons  in  this  country  that 
have  doubts  about  the  existence  of  God,  such 
persons  might  doubt  the  propriety  of  recogniz- 
ing his  name  anywhere ; but  as  a Christian  peo- 
ple, believing  that  there  is  a God,  and  recog- 
nizing the  importance  of  prayer  to  that  God 
for  the  conduct  of  our  lives,  and  for  our  future 
welfare,  it  is  very  well  that  in  a written  Con- 
stitution, in  the  principal  act  of  our  lives,  in 
the  expression  of  the  voice  of  the  whole  people, 
we  should  be  willing,  whilst  we  recognized  our 
dependence  by  the  expression  of  our  gratitude  to 
Him,  to  make  the  national  acknowledgment  of 


the  propriety  of  prayer  by  nations  as  well  as 
men. 

Mr.  KERR.  I trust  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  will  be 
cordially  adopted  by  this  Convention.  It  is  not 
proposed  to  make  any  recognition  of  sects  or 
denominations.  It  is  not  any  intimation  of  a 
desire  to  unite  Church  and  State  in  any  respect 
whatever.  I think  it  is  due  to  the  religious  peo- 
ple of  all  the  various  denominations  in  Ohio, 
that  this  recognition  of  God,  asking  for  his 
guidance  for  the  future  should  be  incorporated 
in  our  Constitution.  And  I simply  arose  to 
state  one  fact,  which  indicates  a little  the  ex- 
tent of  the  interest  in  these  matters  in  Ohio. 
We  have,  according  to  the  census  of  1870,  a 
population  of  2,665,260.  We  have  in  the  same 
census  a statement  that  there  are  church  sit- 
tings in  Ohio,  in  all  the  denominations,  amount- 
ing to  2,085,586,  being  sufficient  for  the  entire 
population  less  579,000.  This  includes  all  the 
denominations.  I think  this  is  enough  to  show 
that  we  are  a Christian  people,  and  that  we  de- 
sire to  recognize  God,  and  invoke  his  blessing 
for  the  future.  We  are  not  an  infidel  people. 
We  are  a people,  beyond  all  question,  who  recog- 
nize God,  and  desire  to  recognize  Him  in  the 
fundamental  law  of  our  State.  I trust  that 
this  Convention,  feeling  some  respect  for  the 
petitions  that  have  been  presented  here,  and  for 
the  weight  of  this  influence  in  the  State,  will 
make  this  recognition  of  Almighty  God  in  the 
Preamble  to  our  Constitution. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I hope  that  this  amendment, 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr. 
Waddle],  and  the  substitute,  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  will  not 
prevail.  We  have  very  good  authority  for  say- 
ing that  it  is  not  every  man  that  says  ‘‘Lord, 
Lord,  that  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven.”  It  is  those  “that  do  the  will  of  my 
Father  who  is  in  Heaven.”  Now,  I think  we 
can  best  subserve  the  purposes  for  which  we 
have  assembled  here,  by  ordaining,  establishing 
and  putting  forth  to  the  people  of  Ohio  a Con- 
stitution that  embodies  the  principles  of  justice 
and  of  equality.  What  signifies  it  that  we  com- 
mence by  reciting  in  the  Preamble  an  acknowl- 
edgment of  God,  and  then  go  on  and  ordain  a 
Constitution  in  which  these  principles  of  justice 
and  right  are  denied?  I do  not  conceive,  sir, 
that  we  are  sent  here  for  any  such  purpose,  but 
to  establish  such  a Constitution  as  bears  upon 
its  face  a spirit  of  justice,  which  is  the  spirit  of 
God.  If  our  work,  when  completed,  does  not 
bear  upon  its  face  this  spirit  it  will  matter  little 
whether  God  be  acknowledged  in  it  or  not. 
While  I have  an  abiding  faith  and  trust  in  an 
over-ruling  Providence,  I do  not  consider,  sir, 
that  I am  conferring  any  honor  upon  him  by 
inserting  his  name  in  this  Constitution.  I think 
we  are  treading  here  on  very  dangerous  ground. 
Every  man  in  this  country  has  a right  to  wor- 
ship God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
conscience.  While  we  may  be  professedly,  and 
I trust  we  are,  a Christian  people,  but  not  in  the 
sense  that  the  gentleman  from  Licking  [Mr. 
Kerr]  calls  us,  our  Constitution  does  not  recog- 
nize the  Christian  Religion,  or  any  other 
religion.  It  does  not  recognize  the  Christian 
religion  any  more  than  it  recognizes  the  Mo- 
hammedan Religion.  These  things  are  entirely 


1748 


GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. [129th 

Gurley,  Bishop,  Yoris,  Mueller,  Baber,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


outside  of  Constitution-making,  and  we  should 
leave  them  there.  A step  here,  at  this  time,  is 
hut  the  opening  wedge,  and  an  advancing  step 
in  a direction  which  is  certainly  in  the  wrong 
direction.  Let  us  leave  these  matters  of  faith 
and  of  religion  where  the  fathers  left  them; 
leave  the  people  to  recognize  and  worship  God 
as  their  own  consciences  will  dictate.  If  we 
commence  here  to-day,  the  next  year,  or  the 
year  after,  we  may  go  a step  further,  and  declare 
this  religion  or  that  religion  to  be  the  true  re- 
ligion. As  I before  remarked,  I am  very  well 
satisfied  with  this  Preamble  as  it  now  stands.  I 
shall  vote  to  sustain  it,  and  against  the  amend- 
ment to  interfere  with  it.  “Let  well  enough 
alone,”  is  a maxim  that  we  should  do  well  to 
heed. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  The  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee has  stated  that  he  preferred  that  no 
amendment  should  have  been  offered.  I cor- 
dially concur  with  he  honorable  gentleman  in 
that  wish,  from  the  fact  that  it  causes  the  ques- 
tion unnecessarily  to  be  agitated.  I can  see  no 
good  reason  for  objection  to  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]. 
It  is  such  that  every  member  of  this  Convention, 
it  seems  to  me,  can  support.  And  not  only  the 
members  of  this  Convention,  but  every  Ameri- 
can citizen,  can  recognize,  and,  consequently,  I 
shall  vote  for  it.  Not  that  I believe  it  is  abso- 
lutely necessary,  or  I think,  myself,  that  the 
original  resolution,  as  it  now  stands,  would 
have  been  enough  to  settle  the  question  that  we 
do,  as  a people,  and  as  a State,  recognize  God. 
But  simply  from  the  fact  that  there  is  such  a 
diversity  of  opinion  upon  this  subject,  I would 
not  have  introduced  it.  But  it  having  been 
introduced,  and  making  so  little  change,  I can- 
not see  why  the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken 
his  seat  will  oppose  it.  It  recognizes  no  Chris- 
tian Religion,  no  particular  sect  or  religion.  If 
it  did,  I would  vote  against  it. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  My  remarks  on  this  subject 
were  in  reply  to  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
from  Champaign  [Mr.  Young]. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I do  not  believe  in  putting 
anything  in  the  Constitution  that  would  recog- 
nize any  sect  of  religious  people;  but  if  t is 
does  not,  but  simply  recognizes  the  fact  which 
we  all  acknowledge,  I am  very  willing  to  sup- 
port it,  and  should  regret  exceedingly  to  record 
my  vote  against  it,  because,  as  has  been  re- 
marked by  my  colleague  [Mr.  Rowland],  it 
makes  the  matter  a little  more  explicit  than  the 
original.  I shall,  therefore,  under  the  circum- 
stances, vote  for  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle.] 

Mr.  VORIS.  I simply  want  to  rise  to  calm 
or  allay  the  fears  of  some  gentlemen  upon  this 
floor,  that  the  recognition  of  God  may  result  in 
disaster  to  the  State  hereafter.  Now,  I have 
been  somewhat  conversant  with  the  history  of 
the  State  during  the  life  of  the  present  Consti- 
tution, and  I understand  the  Preamble  of  that 
Constitution  does  have  an  explicit  recognition 
of  God  in  it.  This  is  the  first  time  in  my  life 
that  I ever  heard  of  any  danger  to  the  Constitu- 
tion from  that  source.  1 think  the  history  of 
the  State  for  the  last  twenty  years  is  tolerably 
safe  evidence  to  rely  upon  that  there  is  no  dan- 
ger in  that  direction.  At  least,  as  my  friend 
from  Champaign  [Mr.  Young]  said,  I am  wil- 


ling to  take  the  hazard.  I shall  vote  for  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Har- 
rison [Mr.  Waddle]. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I will  ask  the  gentleman, 
if  this  is  the  case,  why  he  is  so  anxious  to  have 
the  language  changed  ? I am  satisfied  to  let  it 
stand. 

Mr.  YORIS.  This  is  an  improvement.  I am 
always  ready  to  go  in  for  an  improvement. 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  no  objection  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle],  although  I 
think  with  my  friend,  Mr.  Carbery,  that  the 
Preamble  of  the  present  Constitution  implies 
it.  But  I have  the  same  objection  that  my 
friend  from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears]  has,  because 
it  leaves  out  what  is  good  in  the  Preamble,  de- 
fining the  object  for  which  the  Constitution  is 
made,  that  is,  to  secure  and  promote  our  com- 
mon welfare,  and,  therefore,  I offer  the  follow- 
ing amendment,  which  does  not  change  the  lan- 
guage used  by  the  gentleman  ; but  simply  puts 
back  again  the  language  of  the  old  Constitu- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  offers  the  following 
amendment.  The  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Mr.  Baber  moves  to  amend  the  amendment  by  insert- 
ing after  the  word  ‘future’  the  words  ‘to  secure  and 
promote  our  common  welfare.’  ” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  In  order  to  simplify  the 
matter,  and  bring  this  to  a vote  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible, that  we  may  not  consume  time  here,  as  I 
am  perfectly  contented  vith  the  substitute  of 
the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle],  I 
will  ask  leave  to  withdraw  my  amendment. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  section  with  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber], 

The  Secretary  read : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  invoking 
his  blessing  for  the  future,  to  secure  and  promote  our 
common  welfare,  do  establish  this  Constitution.” 

Mr.  PEASE.  I do  not  propose  to  occupy  any 
special  time  upon  this  subject,  but  merely  to 
explain  my  vote  upon  it.  1 feel  very  much  as 
the  Chairman  of  this  Committee  expressed  him- 
self, entirely  satisfied  with  the  Preamble  to  the 
present  Constitution.  I think  they  acted  wisely 
in  reporting  that  Article  without  any  change  in 
that  regard.  Still,  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  is,  per- 
haps, as  free  from  objections  as  any  other  pos- 
sibly could  be;  and  while  I could  give  my 
hearty  support  to  the  sentiment  expressed  in  it, 
I cannot  consent  that  that,  or  any  other  change 
of  a like  kind,  shall  be  introduced  into  this 
Preamble.  If  there  is  any  nation  on  earth 
which  should  keep  itself  entirely  free 
from  all  religious  bias,  from  all  religious 
combinations  and  alliances,  it  is  the  people 
of  the  United  States;  and  as  a segment  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  the  people  of 
Ohio.  As  I said,  I have  no  objection  to  a single 
sentiment  expressed  in  the  amendment;  but  my 
objection  is,  that  it  may  open  the  door,  per- 
haps, not  in  this  Convention,  but  future  con- 
ventions. It  may  be  the  initiative.  It  is  taking 
the  first  step.  I think  we  have  already  go  <& 


Day.]  GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.  1749 

March  4,  1874.]  Pease,  Burns,  Steedman. 


far  enough.  It  is  taking  another  step,  and 
leading  in  a direction  where,  by  possibility,  it 
may  open  this  ques^on,  and  other  conventions 
may  step  still  further  than  we  have  done ; and, 
perhaps,  it  will  involve  the  State  or  Nation,  in 
the  end,  in  these  great  religious  quarrels  and 
disturbances.  Now,  looking  back  through  the 
history  of  nations,  nearly  all  of  them  have  re- 
cognized God,  in  some  form.  This  is  right 
enough,  and  proper  enough;  but  I have  this  to 
say,  that  the  nations  which  have  inflicted  the 
greatest  wrong  upon  their  people,  from  the  be- 
ginning down  to  the  present  period,  have  done 
it,  first,  by  invoking  the  name  of  God.  I re- 
gard the  use  of  that  name,  in  any  such  connec- 
tion, as  sacrilege.  I believe  if  we  would 
appropriately  recognize  God,  we  should  do  it, 
not  in  any  paper  certificate  that  we  may  make, 
but  in  the  resolutions  and  laws  which  we  may 
enact;  in  the  legislative  body  in  which  we  are 
sitting;  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  over 
which  we  are  presiding : if  we  truly  recognize 
God,  every  single  Article  and  section  in  that 
Constitution  will  speak  out  louder,  and 
stronger,  and  better,  to  God  and  the  Nation, 
than  any  declaratory  recognition  can  do.  If  we 
fail  in  that,  all  the  recognition  we  can  give  in 
this  Preamble,  would  be  but  mockery  and  a 
failure. 

It  is  said  that  we  are  progressing  as  a reli- 
gious people;  that  we  are  further  advanced 
than  our  fathers.  That  may  be ; but  if  that  be 
true,  that  ought  to  convince  us  that  no  declara- 
tion of  any  particular  form  of  faith  should  be 
inserted  in  the  Constitution.  I shall,  therefore, 
vote  against  both  propositions. 

Mr.  BURNS.  As  this  is  the  first  old-fash- 
ioned Methodist  class-meeting  we  have  had  in 
this  body,  I propose  to  take  part  in  it  for  a few 
minutes,  in  giving  my  reasons  for  the  vote 
which  I intend  to  give.  I am  so  well  satisfied 
with  the  Constitution  as  it  is  that  I shall  vote 
to  keep  it  as  it  is  and  against  the  proposed 
amendment.  I am  asked  whether  I am  not  in 
favor  of  recognizing  God  in  the  Constitution? 
I answer,  Yes.  Again,  I am  asked  whether  I 
am  not  in  favor  of  recognizing  the  Christian 
Religion  in  the  Constitution  ? If  you  mean  the 
religion  of  “Christ”  I answer,  Yes;  but  if  you 
mean  “Sectarianism”  I answer,  No.  I insist 
that  God  and  the  Christian  Religion  are  both 
fully  recognized  in  the  present  Constitution, 
the  Preamble  to  which  reads  as  follows : “We, 

the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to 
Almighty  God  for  our  freedom,  to  secure  its 
blessings  and  promote  our  common  welfare,  do 
establish  this  Constitution.” 

In  my  view  of  the  case,  that  is  a full  and  com- 
plete recognition  of  God  and  all  His  blessings, 
including  the  Christian  religion.  It  includes 
both  civil  and  religious  liberty  in  the  word 
freedom.  Nor  do  I think  the  proposed  amend- 
ment makes  it  any  stronger,  as  will  be  seen  by 
a comparison  of  the  language.  Let  me  read  the 
proposed  amendment:  “We,  the  people  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Almighty  God  for  our 
•civil  and  religious  liberty,  invoking  His  bless- 
ing for  the  future,  and  in  order  to  promote  and 
secure  our  common  welfare,  do  establish  this 
Constitution.” 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I have  no  fault  to  find 
with  the  language  here  used.  It  is  true  I would 


prefer  the  word  suggested  by  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  viz.:  the  word 
“trusting,”  instead  of  the  word  “invoking.”  I 
think  it  a more  appropriate  word;  that  is  all. 
But  is  there  any  material  difference  between 
the  present  and  the  proposed  Preamble?  and  on 
the  principle  of  letting  “well  enough  alone”  I 
will  let  the  old  Constitution  alone  in  that  re- 
gard. I agree  fully  with  the  gentleman  from 
Stark  [Mr.  Pease],  and  the  gentleman  from 
Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley],  that  true  religion  does 
not  consist  in  words.  We  are  taught  in  the 
Good  Book,  in  which  I firmly  believe,  that 
“pure  and  undefiled  religion  before  God  and 
the  Father  is  this : that  ye  visit  the  widow  and 
the  fatherless,  in  their  affliction,  and  keep  your- 
self unspotted  from  the  world.”  We  have  to 
form  a Constitution  for  the  State,  for  the  civil 
government  of  the  people  of  the  State,  and,  in  my 
judgment,  it  is  no  part  of  our  business  to  drift 
out  into  the  untried  sea  of  experiment  in  the 
matter  of  religion.  If  I did  not  believe  that  the 
existence  of  the  Supreme  Being  was  fully 
recognized  in  the  present  Constitution,  I would 
vote  for  .the  proposed  amendment.  But  it  is 
said  that  this  amdndment  has  been  largely 
petitioned  for.  I grant  that  we  have  had  pre- 
sented here  numerous  petitions  asking  for  a 
recognition  of  “God  and  the  Christian  Religion” 
in  the  Constitution.  These  petitioners  were 
entitled  to  a respectful  hearing,  and  it  has  been 
fully  accorded  to  them.  Many,  no  doubt, 
signed  these  petitions  under  the  belief  that  no 
such  provision  was  in  the  present  Constitu- 
tion. In  the  Preamble  to  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion no  such  provision  is  found ; it  reads  as  fol- 
lows : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form 
a more  perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic 
tranquility,  provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote  the 
general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessing  of  liberty  to 
ourselves  and  to  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this 
Constitution  tor  the  United  States  of  America.” 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  word  “God”  is  not 
used  in  this  Preamble;  and,  what  may  seem 
strange  still,  the  Deity  is  nowhere  specially 
recognized  nor  mentioned  in  the  whole  body  of 
the  Federal  Constitution.  Yet  this  Constitu- 
tion was  framed  by  the  men  who,  under  God, 
won  our  independence,  and  snatched  victory 
from  our  ancient  foe,  and  surely  they  were  not 
wanting  in  reverence  for  the  Deity.  The  Con- 
vention which  framed  it  was  presided  over  by 
the  great  and  good  Washington  himself,  and 
for  more  than  eighty  years  it  has  stood  without 
any  attempt  to  alter  it.  I will  not,  by  my  vote, 
if  I know  it,  sanction  or  countenance  anything 
which  looks  like  a union  of  Church  and  State. 
In  this  country  every  human  being  has  the  right 
to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his 
own  conscience,  and  I desire  to  keep  it  so ; and 
for  these  reasons  I shall  vote  against  the  amend- 
ment, and  for  the  Preamble  in  the  present  or 
existing  Constitution. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I shall  vote  against  the 
amendment  now  pending,  not  because  I am  an 
unbeliever,  for  I have  a full  belief  in  the  mercy 
and  goodness  of  God,  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
the  Holy  Nazarene.  It  is  now  nearly  1900  years 
since  the  Gospels  were  reduced  to  writing  by  un- 
lettered fishermen,  and,  although  wits,  philos- 
ophers, poets  and  orators  have  lived  since,  and 
given  to  the  world  millions  of  volumes,  more  peo- 


1750 


GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. [129th 

Hoadly,  Baber,  Waddle.  [Wednesday, 


pie  in  the  civilized  world  believe  to-day  in  that 
little  volume,  than  in  all  the  books  that  were 
ever  written  or  printed.  The  divine  Savior 
would  receive  no  reward,  and  lived  only  for  the 
good  of  the  world,  and  died  for  its  redemption ; 
and,  although  many  great  statesmen,  and  war- 
riors, and  orators  have  lived  and  died  since  that 
time,  more  people  to-day  believe  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  than  in  all  of  them  put  together. 
While  I believe  the  Christian  Religion,  always, 
and  sincerely,  I do  not  believe  in  this  self- 
glorification  proposed  in  the  amendment.  If 
we  were  to  adopt  a resolution,  resolving  that  we 
always  have  been  Christians,  are  Christians 
now,  and  always  will  be  Christians  to  the  last 
syllable  of  recorded  time,  it  would  cover  this 
whole  business.  The  present  Constitution  fully 
acknowledges  the  existence  of  God.  In  my 
judgment,  the  people  of  the  State,  the  sensible 
people,  who  do  not  want  to  force  their  religion 
upon  others,  are  satisfied  with  the  Constitution 
as  it  now  stands.  I shall  vote  against  the  amend- 
ment for  these  reasons,  and  for  the  reasons  which 
have  been  given  by  the  gentlemen  who  ad- 
dressed this  Convention  for  desiring  the  change. 
The  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  says 
that  in  obedience  to  the  advancing  religious 
sentiment  prevailing  in  Ohio,  the  present  lan- 
guage in  the  Constitution  of  1851  was  adopted, 
and  that  we  are  still  advancing,  and  that  this 
amendment  is  in  accordance  with  the  advanced 
religious  sentiment  of  the  people  of  Ohio.  That 
is  just  what  I am  afraid  of.  If  we  are  advanc- 
ing in  that  direction,  and  recognize  that  ad- 
vanced sentiment,  the  next  Convention  which 
shall  sit  in  Ohio,  no  doubt,  will  have  to  enter- 
tain the  proposition  of  adopting  some  religious 
creed,  as  essential  to  preserve  the  Christian  Re- 
ligion in  Ohio. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  it  not  rather  the  diminu- 
tion of  religious  confidence,  is  it  not  rather  the 
belief  that  religion  can  not  take  care  of  itself, 
and  needs  some  statute  to  keep  it  alive,  that 
causes  this  amendment? 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  It  is  the  advance  of  that 
army  that  seeks  to  destroy  civil  liberty,  and 
unite  Church  and  State,  in  my  judgment.  And 
that  is  what  I am  afraid  of.  I am  not  afraid  of 
recognizing  God  in  this  Preamble  or  any  other, 
although  I do  not  regard  it  as  any  very  great 
compliment  to  the  Creator,  for  this  body  to 
recognize  him  in  this  way ; nor  do  I suppose 
our  Creator  will  accept  it  as  any  very  great 
compliment.  But  it  is  enough  that  we  have 
done  this.  We  have  recognized  Deity  in  the 
Constitution.  The  people  are  satisfied  with  it, 
and  there  is  no  portion  of  the  people  of  Ohio  to- 
day, who  desire  a change,  but  those  agitators, 
who  are  constantly  making  an  effort  to  advance 
their  peculiar  religious  opinions  and  fasten 
them  upon  the  public  as  the  law  of  the  land.  I 
shall  vote  against  it  for  these  reasons,  believing 
that  the  Constitution,  as  it  now  stands,  recog- 
nizes civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  recognizes 
God,  and  that  is  all  that  is  necessary. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  leave  to  withdraw  my 
amendment. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  WADDLE.  Mr.  President,  I want  only 
to  say,  here  and  now,  that,  if  I considered  the 
substitute  which  I had  the  honor  to  submit  was 
justly  liable  to  the  charge  of  sectarianism,  I 


would  certainly  be  among  the  first  to  trample  it 
under  foot. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  right  there  ? Is  he  not  engaged 
in  framing  a Constitution  for  persons  some  of 
whom  are  atheists  ? Is  not  that  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  WADDLE.  I presume  it  is. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  it  not  also  the  fact  that 
there  are,  among  the  people  of  Ohio,  very  many 
who  do  not  believe  that  God  answers  prayer  for 
temporal  blessings,  such  as  are  asked  by  this  in- 
vocation, but  who  believe  that  His  ordering 
of  the  world  is  by  evolution,  under  general 
laws  ? Are  there  not  such  people  in  Ohio,  who 
will  have  to  live  under  this  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  WADDLE.  There  may  be,  and  no  doubt 
are,  such  people  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  But  I 
cannot  answer  the  gentleman’s  question  in  the 
affirmative  when  he  asks  me  to  say  that  there 
are  a great  many  people  in  the  State  who  so 
believe.  That  there  may  be  no  pride  as  to  the 
use  of  words  merely,  I readily  consent  to 
a change  of  the  language.  The  only  point  on 
which  I insist  is,  that  the  people  of  Ohio  should 
acknowledge  their  dependence  upon  God  for 
prosperity  in  the  future.  To  harmonize  the 
views  of  members  of  the  Convention,  I am  very 
willing  that  this  language  should  be  substi- 
' tuced : “ We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 

: grateful  to  Almighty  God  for  our  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  and  invoking  His  blessing  for 
the  future,  in  order  to  secure  and  promote  our 
j common  welfare,  do  establish  this  Constitu- 
j tion.”  I ask  leave  to  substitute  this. 

Leave  was  given. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
I the  substitute  as  modified. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  our  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  invok- 
ing his  blessing  for  the  future,  in  order  to  secure  and  pro- 
mote our  common  welfare,  do  establish  this  Constitution.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  When  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  was  adopted,  the  men  who 
engaged  in  that  work,  from  the  illustrious 
President  of  that  Convention  down  to  its  most 
‘ insignificant  member,  were  as  fully  persuaded 
I of  the  principles  underlying  the  liberties  of 
1 this  country  as  any  men  that  ever  met  in  it,  and 
they  deliberately  and  purposely  omitted  the 
j name  of  God  from  the  instrument  which  they 
framed.  They  did  it,  although  in  that  instru- 
ment they  inserted  the  form  of  oath  to  be  taken 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States.  They 
deliberately  omitted  from  that  oath  the  ordi- 
nary words  which  close  the  oath.  And  they 
did  it  of  set  purpose.  It  was  because  the  events 
that  led  to  the  settlement  of  this  country  and 
the  establishment  of  its  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erties, had  so  fully  persuaded  them  not  only  of 
"the  right,  but  the  policy,  the  religious  policy, 
of  not  attempting  to  found  and  support  religion 
by  human  law,  that  they  considered  it  their 
duty  in  making  a Constitution  for  a country  in 
which  atheists  would  have  a right  to  live,  to 
i omit  even  the  mention  of  the  name  of  God. 

I And  more  than  this,  they  considered  it,  those  of 
them  who  were  religious  men,  as  some  of  them 
were,  considered  it  true  policy,  the  cause  of 
1 religion  considered,  not  to  attempt  to  help  that 
sacred  cause  of  religion  by  calling,  Lord,  Lord, 

! but  to  do  it  in  founding  institutions  in  justice. 


GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

Hoadly,  Tuttle,  Johnson,  Freiberg. 


1751 


Day.J 


March  4, 1874/ 


thus  doing  the  will  of  the  Lord.  They  did  not 
conceive  that  legislation  could  secure  advantage 
to  religion.  In  my  judgment,  it  is  not  the  in- 
creasing wave  of  religious  sentiment  in  Ohio 
that  suggests  this  amendment,  but  it  is  want  of 
confidence  in  the  power  of  religious  principles. 
It  is  a growing  evil  in  this  country  that  nothing 
of  a moral  or  spiritual  character  is  supposed  to 
be  safe  except  by  the  agency  of  specific  legis- 
lation. It,  in  my  judgment,  is  one  of  the  worst 
evils  of  the  present  age,  that  we  no  longer  trust 
in  moral  suasion,  we  no  longer  trust  in  the  truth 
of  the  principles  we  advocate,  but  seek  to  enforce 
them  by  municipal  law.  In  other  words,  we 
are  falling  away  from  the  standard  of  our 
fathers  into  the  precise  position  of  those  men 
from  whose  government  our  forefathers  re- 
volted, or  to  escape  whose  misgovernment  our 
forefathers  left  the  countries  of  their  nativity 
and  came  to  this.  I say,  sir,  that  the  atheist  in 
Ohio  has  as  much  right  to  his  opinion  as  any 
man  in  the  State.  I say  more,  that  you  will 
never  make  him  religious  by  attempting  to  do 
it  by  law,  and  this  I say  both  in  the  cause 
of  his  absolute  right  to  entertain  such  opinions 
as  his  best  judgment  may  dictate,  and  also  in  the 
cause  of  religion  itself.  Religion  will  appeal  to 
him  only  when  it  founds  its  appeal,  not  upon  the 
force  of  the  constraint  of  tb  e law , but  the  force  of 
its  own  beauty  and  attractiveness.  The  beauty  of 
holiness  will  alone  appeal  to  him;  or  he  may 
be  reached  by  the  logic  of  the  reasons  which 
apply  to  his  understanding.  You  never  will 
make  a man  who  is  conscientiously  and  sincerely 
an  atheist  or  materialist  think  otherwise  by 
provisions  in  the  law  to  the  contrary.  For 
these  reasons,  I should  have  preferred  that  the 
entire  mention  of  religious  subjects  had  been 
omitted  from  the  Preamble ; but  I did  not  come 
here  to  propose  it  at  all,  and  do  not  propose  it 
now.  And  I say  further,  in  view  of  the  sug- 
gestions I have  made,  and  another  suggestion  I 
shall  make,  we  ought  not  to  take  a step  further. 
It  is  because  the  right  of  conscience  is  the  most 
sacred  and  tender  right  on  earth,  and  because, 
as  a matter  of  policy,  you  cannot  reach  men’s 
consciences  except  by  moral  suasion,  by  per- 
suasion, by  the  goodness  of  the  doctrine  and 
principle  you  avow.  It  is  for  these  reasons, 
and  added  to  them  another,  and  that  is,  Mr. 
President,  that  what  you  propose  to  do  here  is 
to  invoke  Almighty  God  for  that  which  more 
people  in  Ohio  than  the  gentleman  from  Harri- 
son [Mr.  Waddle],  dreams  of,  think  he  will 
never  grant  an  answer  to  prayer.  You  propose 
to  ask  Almighty  God  for  temporal  and  physical 
blessings.  There  are  men  in  this  State  as 
religious  as  the  gentleman  from  Harrison 
[Mr.  Waddle],  as  deeply  convinced  of  the 
being  of  God,  as  earnestly  and  sincerely  desir- 
ous of  seeing  and  walking  by  His  light,  who 
believe  that  He  has  ordered  all  things  according 
to  His  will,  and  that,  whilst  spiritually  we  may 
commune  with  Him,  He  will  not  answer  our 
requests  for  temporal  gifts.  And  as  one  man 
who  is  not  ashamed  to  avow  such  to  be  his  re- 
ligious belief,  I protest  against  the  right  of  this 
Convention,  or  the  people  of  Ohio,  to  place  in 
this  Constitution  a religious  doctrine  which  I 
disavow.  It  is  a religious  doctrine  which  is 
proposed  to  be  placed  here,  that  I and  mine  do 
not  believe  to  be  true  religion,  and,  therefore,  I 


most  sincerely  deprecate  any  mention  of  it  in 
the  Constitution. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  gentleman  has  answered 
the  question  that  I was  going  to  ask ; that  was, 
whether  the  drift  of  his  remarks  was  not 
against  the  mention  of  God  in  the  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I said  that  I should  have 
preferred  it.  But  it  is  not  because  1 am  among 
those  in  whose  behalf  I spoke  in  addressing  the 
Chair  in  that  regard,  for  I belong  to  what 
claims  to  be  a religious  sect,  feeble  in  numbers, 
perhaps,  but  strong  in  confidence  that  we  are 
right,  and  whose  views  the  advancing  truths  of 
science  more  and  more  confirm ; and  I say  to 
the  gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle] 
that  there  are  very  many  people  in  Ohio  who  do 
not  believe  that  God  will  answer  to  a prayer  for 
temporal  blessings,  who  do  believe  in  prayer; 
and,  except  for  spiritual  gifts,  and  as  the  means 
of  spiritual  communication  with  the  Most  High, 
Himself  a spirit,  and  who  believe  that  this 
world  and  all  it  contains  is  now  in  the  orderly 
process  of  evolution  according  to  Almighty 
will.  I say  it  is  a religous  question,  and  I do 
not  propose  to  go  into  debate,  except  to  indi- 
cate that  the  gentleman  has  undertaken  to  in- 
terpolate into  this  Constitution  that  which  is 
itself  a religious  question,  and  he  wishes  to 
make  the  Constitution  itself  sectarian  to  more 
than  one  person  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  many  per- 
sons in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  to  more  than  one 
organized  religious  society  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 
In  the  city  in  which  we  are  now  convened  there 
is  a religious  society  which  holds  in  dislike  and 
abhorrence  the  doctrine  which  the  gentleman 
proposes  to  insert  into  this  Constitution,  and  it 
is  not  the  only  society  of  the  kind  in  the  State. 
I,  therefore,  respectfully  submit  that  to  those 
who,  like  myself,  are  religionists  of  this  kind, 
it  is  sectarian  to  place  this  doctrine  in  the  Con- 
stitution, and  we  are  entitled  to  have  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  made  so  that  our  religious 
sentiments  shall  not  be  offended  by  any  of  its 
provisions. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

On  this  question  a division  was  demanded, 
and  resulted — 24  in  the  affirmative,  30  in  the 
negative.  So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I wish  to  say  only  a few 
words  on  this  subject  before  the  Convention.  I 
wish  I had  the  power  of  speech,  at  this  present 
moment,  that  some  gentlemen  on  this  floor  pos- 
sess, in  order  to  make  myself  entirely  under- 
stood, which  I am  sorry  I have  not.  I never 
doubted,  Mr.  President,  the  liberality  and  lib- 
eral sentiments  of  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion, heretofore,  and  I must  acknowledge  that  I 
am  more  than  convinced,  now,  that  they  are 
the  most  liberal-minded  set  of  men  I ever  saw 
in  my  life.  There  are  other  questions  connected 
with  this  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  which  I cannot  in  brief 
now  state,  which  forbids  my  voting  for  it.  I am 
very  sorry,  indeed,  that  I must  vote  against  it  in 
opposition  to  some  very  worthy  friends  in  this 
Convention.  There  is,  however,  one  reason 
which  over- shadows  all  others,  and  which  I 
will  state,  that  forbids  me  to  vote  for  it.  It  is 
jealousy.  I am  jealous  of  religious  liberty,  pro- 
bably more  jealous  than  any  other  member  on 
this  floor,  and  I think,  Mr.  President,  I have  a 
just  right  to  be  more  jealous  than  any  other  one 


1752 


GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


[129th 


Freiberg,  Blose,  Rowland,  Cunningham,  Weaver.  [Wednesday, 


here,  of  this  great  boon  of  religious  liberty. 
As  some  gentleman  well  and  truly  remarked, 
there  has  never  been  a bloody  deed  done  in  his- 
tory but  what  was  done  in  the  name  of  God. 
All  the  sufferings  our  people  have  ever  endured 
have  been  in  the  name  of  God  and  religion. 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella  of  Spain  drove  our  peo- 
ple away,  slaughtered  them,  and  burned  them 
by  the  thousand,  drove  them  into  the  sea,  and 
all  in  the  name  of  God  and  religion.  All  the 
fanaticism  ever  perpetrated  on  this  earth  has 
been  in  the  name  of  God.  I agree  with  my  col- 
league [Mr.  HoadlyJ,  who  spoke  before  me, 
when  he  said  there  was  no  need  of  having  the 
name  of  God  in  the  Constitution.  If  every 
one  in  this  country  would  have  the  name  of 
God  in  his  heart  it  would  be  enough.  God  does 
not  need  it.  He  does  not  require  his  name 
blazing  on  flags  and  banners  before  Him,  in  or- 
der to  see  that  we  believe  in  Him.  He,  the  Om- 
nipotent, discerns  the  innermost  thoughts  of 
our  hearts,  he  knows  the  truly  good  and  the 
hypocrite.  There  is  no  necessity  of  making  a 
parade  before  him,  and  say,  “Lord,  we  will  put 
you  in  the  Constitution,  whether  you  want  it  or 
not.”  I maintain  with  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  that  we  should  not 
take  one  step  forward  in  this  direction,  for  if  we 
do  it  will  only  prepare  the  way  for  another,  and 
the  Lord  only  knows  where  it  would  end.  For 
these  reasons  I shall  be  compelled  to  vote 
against  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from 
Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle], 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I would  have  preferred  to  make 
no  remarks  upon  this  subject  at  all.  I would 
have  been  better  pleased  had  it  never  been 
sprung  in  this  Convention,  but,  inasmuch  as  it 
has  been,  I feel  constrained  to  make  a few  re- 
marks. Our  fathers,  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  failed  to  recognize 
a God  therein,  for  the  reason  that  the  noble 
patriots  of  the  Revolution,  who  fashioned  and 
framed  this  government  of  ours,  and  secured  us 
this  great  liberty  and  this  extraordinary  free- 
dom we  now  enjoy,  were  divided  in  religious 
sentiment.  The  fathers  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  in 
framing  the  Constitution  of  1802,  failed  also  to 
recognize  God  in  their  Constitution.  Butin  the 
Constitution  of  1851,  there  was  a step  taken  in 
that  direction,  and  God  was  recognized.  I,  for 
my  part,  have  no  objections  to  it,  but  truly  wel- 
come the  fact.  The  Preamble  to  the  Constitu- 
tion reads  thus:  “The  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  grateful  to  Almighty  God  for  our  freedom , 
and  to  secure  its  blessings  and  promote  our 
common  welfare,  do  establish  this  Constitution.” 
The  word  freedom , gentlemen,  that  glorious 
word  freedom , covers  the  whole  ground,  if  I un- 
derstand it.  It  allows  every  man  to  worship 
God  as  he  pleases;  and  to  worship  no  God  if  he 
pleases;  and  this  ought  to  satisfy  the  most  fas- 
tidious. In  this  respect  I am  a free-trader.  I 
love  to  worship  the  God  whom  I admire  as  a 
God.  I would  be  sorry  to  attempt  to  force  any- 
body else  to  worship  my  God,  because,  I believe 
none  can  know  him  unless  they  are  born  again. 
[Laughter],  And  your  Constitution,  by  which 
you  attempt  to  force  a God  down  the  throats  of 
men,  will,  in  my  opinion,  be  rejected,  if  such 
measures  by  you  be  adopted. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
if  that  was  not  a Democratic  Convention  ? 


Mr.  BLOSE.  It  was  a Democratic  Conven- 
tion, as  well  as  Republican,  that  gave  these 
liberties,  and  that  God,  of  whom  I will  speak, 
is  a Democratic  God.  [Laughter],  He  was  poor, 
so  very  poor  that  He  was  born  in  a manger,  and 
had  not  where  to  lay  His  sacred  head.  Was 
wrapped  in  swaddling  clothes,  such  as  a poor 
farmer  uses  when  he  has  no  money  with  which 
to  buy  a brush  to  clean  his  horses,  and  wise  men 
came  to  look  for  him,  possibly  through  curiosity, 
as  is  common,  and  did  not  know  Him,  and  His 
principles  and  powers  were  reviled  and  abused 
by  them  afterward.  He  had  few  to  do  Him 
reverence. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Wise  men  came  to  worship 
him. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Just  so;  they  came  looking 
around  to  see,  and  trying  possibly  to  figure  out 
who  or  what  this  great  God  was.  It  surely 
must  have  been,  or  else  it  could  not  have  been 
so  wise  as  it  was. 

Now,  something  has  been  said  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Jefferson  [Mr.  Clark],  in  reference 
to  prayer,  and  on  that  subject  I will  read  from 
this  book,  the  Bible,  in  which  I trust  I believe : 

“Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  alms  before  men,  to  be 
seen  of  them:  otherwise  ye  have  no  reward  of  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven.  Therefore  when  thou  doest 
thine  alms,  do  not  sound  a trumpet  before  thee,  as  the 
hypocrites  do  in  the  synagogues  and  in  the  streets,  that 
they  may  have  glory  of  men.  Verily  I say  unto  you  they 
have  their  reward.  But  when  thou  doest  alms,  let  not  thy 
left  hand  know  what  thy  right  hand  doeth;  that  thine 
alms  maybe  in  secret:  and  thy  Father,  which  seeth  in 
secret,  himself  shall  reward  thee  openly.  And  when  thou 
prayest,  thou  shalt  not  be  as  the  hypocrites  are;  for  they 
love  to  pray  standing  in  the  synagogues  and  in  the  corners 
of  the  streets,  that  they  may  be  seen  of  men,  Verily  I 
say  unto  you,  they  have  their  reward.  But  thou,  when  thou 
prayest,  enter  into  thy  closet,  and,  when  thou  hast  shut 
thy  door,  pray  to  thy  Father  which  is  in  secret;  and  thy 
Father,  which  seeth  in  secret,  shall  reward  thee  openly. 
But  when  ye  pray,  use  not  vain  repetitions,  as  the  heathen 
do;  for  they  think  that  they  shall  be  heard  for  their  much 
speaking.  Be  not  ye  therefore  like  unto  them;  for  your 
Father  knoweth  what  things  ye  have  need  of  before  ye 
ask  Him.” 

I therefore  conclude  that  if  you  ask  for  that 
which  would  harm  you,  that  it  would  not  be 
given. 

“After  this  manner,  therefore,  pray  ye:  Our  Father 
which  art  in  heaven,  hallowed  be  Thy  name;  Thy  king- 
dom come:  Thy  will  be  done  in  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven; 
give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread,  and  lorgive  us  our 
debts  as  we  forgive  our  debtors,  and  lead  us  not  into 
te  n ptation,  but  deliver  us  from  evil;  For  thine  is  the 
kingdom,  the  power  and  the  glory  forever.  Amen.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Is  the  prayer  for  daily 
bread  the  prayer  for  temporal  blessing,  refer- 
red to  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Temporal,  as  well  as  spiritual. 
We,  by  his  temporal  blessings,  are  enabled  to 
keep  up  our  spiritual  strength. 

Mr.  WEAVER.  I desire  to  know  whether 
the  gentleman  proposes  to  amend  the  prayer 
just  read ? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  No,  sir.  I do  not  want  to  add 
to  or  take  from  it,  as  it  is  dangerous  so  to  do,  as 
it  is  so  written.  I find  further  in  Matthew  : 

“Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  but  he  that  doeth  the 
will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  Many  will  nay  to 
me  in  that  day,  Lord,  Lord,  have  we  not  prophesied  in 
thy  name?  and  in  thy  name  have  cast  out  devils?  and  in 
thy  name  done  manv  wonderful  works?  And  then  will  I 
profess  unto  them,  I never  knew  you;  depart  from  me,  ye 
that  work  iniquity.” 


Day.] GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 1753 

March  4, 1874.]  Blose,  Freiberg,  Rowland,  Tuttle,  Chapin,  Baber. 


This  seems  strong  language,  but  it  is  not 
mine,  but  His  in  whom  I trust,  and  will  be 
found  recorded  in  the  book,  in  which  I firmly 
believe.  Therefore,  take  heed  those  of  you 
who  would  label  this  great  God,  and  the  Chris- 
tian Religion,  so  called,  by  posting  Him  and  it 
in  your  Constitution. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I want  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man to  quote  the  language  of  Solomon,  where 
he  says: 

“The  heavens  and  all  the  heavens  of  Heavens  can  not 
contain  you,  much  less  this  house  I have  built  for  you.” 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Well,  you  have  quoted  it,  and 
I accept. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman,  whether  Solomon  did  not  pray  to 
God  for  wisdom  to  guide  Israel,  and  whether 
he  did  not  get  it? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Yes,  that  was  one  of  the  things 
he  was  to  pray  for.  Paul  was  persecuting  the 
Christians,  the  children  of  God,  and  thought 
he  was  doing  God’s  service,  I suppose,  thereby. 
He  was.  on  his  way  to  Damascus  to  destroy 
them,  when  he  heard  a still  small  voice  behind 
him,  saying,  “Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou 
me?”  By  reason  of  that,  he  ceased  to  perse- 
cute, and  joined  those  he  was  about  to  destroy. 
I refer  again  to  Isaiah,  to  show  how  powerful 
this  God  is.  I believe  in  this  God,  and  I want 
to  worship  Him  in  my  own  way.  It  reads  thus : 

“I  am  the  Lord;  there  is  none  else.  There  is  no  God 
beside  me.  I have  guided  thee  though  thou  hast  not 
known  me.  From  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  goingdown 
thereof,  there  is  none  beside  me.  I am  the  Lor.t  and 
there  is  none  else.  I form  the  light  and  create  the  dark- 
ness. I make  peace  and  create  evil.  I the  Lord  do  all 
this.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I will  ask  the  gentleman  to 
read  the  passage,  “The  wicked  shall  be  turned 
into  hell  and  all  the  nations  that  forget  God.” 

Mr.  BLOSE.  That  is  the  kind  of  a God  I am 
talking  about.  [Laughter.]  And,  therefore, 
will  vote  against  any  and  all  attempts  or  prop- 
ositions to  amend  the  Preamble  as  proposed  so 
far. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12 : 40  P.  M.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  When  the 
Convention  took  a recess  the  question  was  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  to  the 
Preamble. 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  that  the  amendment  be 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  our  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  in- 
voking His  blessing  for  the  future,  and  in  order  to  promote 
and  to  secure  our  common  welfare,  do  establish  this  Con- 
stitution.” 

Mr.  BABER.  I had  not  intended  to  say  any- 
thing upon  this  subject,  and  I should  not  have 
introduced  it  into  the  Convention  because  I was 
satisfied  that  in  the  Preamble,  as  it  now  reads, 
there  was  a sufficient  acknowledgment  of  the 
Divine  Being;  but  the  question  being  before  us, 
I have  examined  the  subject  somewhat,  and  I 


have  to  give  my  vote,  and  am  responsible  as  a 
delegate  of  this  Convention,  I wish  to  give  my 
reasons  for  the  vote  I shall  cast.  Besides  I 
think  it  is  but  right  that  some  of  the  false  im- 
pressions that  have  been  produced  here  in  Ohio, 
both  with  regard  to  the  features  of  this  amend- 
ment, and  with  regard  to  the  history,  as  to  the 
characters  and  position  of  the  fathers  of  the 
Constitution,  upon  this  question,  which  were 
referred  to  by  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  should  be  corrected  in  order  to  vin- 
dicate the  truth  of  history. 

Mr.  President,  I would  be  as  far  as  any 
man  upon  this  floor  from  voting  for  anything 
that  looks  like  sectarianism,  that  looks  like  inter- 
fering with  the  religious  belief  of  any  human 
being,  and  with  some  hesitancy  I approached  the 
examination  of  this  amendment  critically  to  see 
if  it  could  in  any  manner,  or  form,  or  shape, 
interfere  with  the  religious  belief  of  any  body, 
Jew  or  Gentile;  because  if  it  did,  no  matter 
what  might  be  my  own  views  upon  the  subject, 
I would  vote  against  placing  it  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. But  I confess,  that  since  the  amendment 
has  been  modified,  I cannot,  for  the  life  of  me, 
see  anything  in  the  language  of  this  Preamble 
that  will  justify  the  complaint  made  by  the 
gentlemen  from  Hamilton  [Messrs.  Frieberg 
and  Hoadly].  The  Preamble  of  the  present 
Constitution  reads: 

“We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  our  freedom,  to  secure  its  blessings  and 
promote  our  common  welfare,  do  establish  this  Constitu- 
tion.” 

Now,  I do  not  suppose  anybody  would  claim, 
although  my  friend,  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  appeared  to  think  that 
was  a violation  and  departure  from  the  Consti- 
tution of  1802,  that  there  was  anything  in  the 
Preamble,  as  it  now  reads,  but  a mere  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  existence  of  the  Divine  Being. 
There  is  nothing  as  to  His  attributes,  as  to  how 
He  exercises  his  power,  or  with  regard  to  any  re- 
ligious belief  upon  the  subject.  I do  not  sup- 
pose that  can  infringe  upon  the  religious  belief 
of  any  person  here,  unless  it  may  be  a few  who 
are  simply  atheists ; but  I do  not  propose  to  ar- 
gue the  question  with  regard  to  them. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  does  the  language  of 
this  amendment  change  this  Preamble  so  as  to 
induce  any  person  to  vote  against  it?  The 
amendment,  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Harrison  [Mr.  Waddle]  reads : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  our  civil  and  religious  liberty.” 

Every  body  comprehends  that.  It  is  only 
expressing  it  in  fuller  language  that  exception 
is  taken  to  this 

“And  invoking  His  blessing  for  the  future.” 

Now,  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  argues  that  this  is  an  attempt  to  inter- 
fere with  the  religious  belief  of  those  who 
believe  that  God  in  answer  to  prayer  does  not 
give  temporal  blessings.  Mr.  President,  there 
is  no  such  thing  implied  in  this  amendment.  It 
says,  “invoking  His  blessing.”  That  maybe 
blessings  either  spiritual  or  temporal.  It  does 
not  settle  that  question.  If  my  friend  wishes  to 
be  grateful  merely  for  spiritual  blessings,  he 
has  liberty  to  give  that  interpretation.  I con- 
tend that  the  language  of  this  amendment  does 


1754 


GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

Baber,  Gurley,  Pratt,  Bosworth,  Carbery,  Hale. 


[129th 


not  change  the  Preamble  at  all,  go  that  no  objec- 
tion can  be  rightfully  raised  against  it  on  that 
ground. 

Then  again,  the  gentleman  says  that  this  con- 
veys the  idea  of  looking  forward  to  a special 
providence  in  answer  to  prayer.  Perhaps  one 
side  might  give  this  interpretation  to  the  mean- 
ing of  these  words.  Another  may  give  another 
interpretation.  But  there  is  no  infringement 
upon  the  rights  of  conscience  which  is  guar- 
anteed in  the  Bill  of  Eights  in  the  seventh 
section : 

“All  men  have  a natural  and  indefeasible  right  to  wor- 
ship Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own 
conscience.” 

Therefore,  I think  the  criticism  made  will  not 
hold,  nor  will  the  criticism  of  my  Israelitish 
friend,  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Freiberg],  I do  not  think  this  language  can  at 
all  interfere  with  the  religious  belief  of  the  sect 
to  which  he  is  attached,  because  there  is  no 
people  in  the  world — if  I understand  their  his- 
tory— that  do  more  than  they  to  recognize  the 
existence  of  one  great,  all-powerful  Supreme 
Being.  It  expresses  no  opinion  with  regard  to 
His  attributes : only  the  fact  of  the  existence  of 
God.  It  acknowledges  it,  and  it  invokes  His 
protection. 

One  of  the  fundamental  errors  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  seems  to  me 
to  be  this:  that  *we,  by  the  Constitution,  are 
coming  in  here  to  protect  religion  or  morals. 
No,  Mr.  President,  that  is  not  the  case.  It  is 
religion  that  protects  the  State,  not  religion  that 
is  sectarian,  but  that  men  of  religious  feeling 
and  faith  exist  in  the  community ; and  it  is  thus 
that  it  protects  the  State,  and  not  the  State  that 
protects  religion.  I would  be  far  from  voting 
for  any  law,  or  any  provision,  that  would  look 
towards  sectarianism ; but  we  might  as  well 
recognize  the  facts  as  they  exist. 

Having  disposed  of  these  objections  raised  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly], 
and  by  other  gentlemen,  that  this  is  an  inter- 
ference with  religious  belief,  one  objection  that 
I had  to  this  Preamble  is  removed  by  the  modi- 
fication which  the  Convention  has  adopted  at 
the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wyandot 
[Mr.  Sears],  wherein  provision  is  made  that  we 
establish  this  Constitution  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  the  general  welfare.  I think  it  will  be 
admitted  that  we  should  not  modify  this  provi- 
sion in  the  Constitution  as  to  the  purpose  for 
which  the  Constitution  is  established.  It  seems 
to  me,  therefore,  that  this  language  is  altogether 
unexceptional,  and  as  there  appears  to  be  a very 
strong  demand  for  it,  in  the  shape  of  numerous 
petitions  from  the  people  on  this  subject,  I see 
no  reason  why  the  amendment  should  not  be 
adopted. 

But  to  go  still  further.  I cannot  permit  my 
friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  to  leave  a 
false  impression  upon  the  popular  mind  with 
regard  to  the  history  of  this  subject  in  relation 
to  the  fathers  of  the  Constitution.  He  says  that 
they  made  no  acknowledgment  of  Almighty 
God.  It  was  not  done  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and,  therefore,  we  should  not  do 
it.  Now,  that  would  be  no  argument  that  it  was 
not  right  to  do  it  here;  and  I deny,  most  em- 
phatically, that  the  fathers  and  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution  ever  took  any  such  position 


[Wednesday, 


with  regard  to  the  general  acknowledgment  of 
a Supreme  Being.  Of  course,  they  were  op- 
posed to  any  sectarianism  there;  of  course, 
they  were  opposed  to  any  attempt  to  enforce 
religion  by  law.  But  if  gentlemen  will  look  at 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  one  of  the  first 
acts  done  at  the  birth  of  the  nation,  they  will 
find  this  concluding  paragraph  : 

“And  for  the  support  of  this  declaration,  with  a firm 
reliance  upon  the  protection  of  Divine  Providence,  we 
mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  lives,  our  fortunes  and 
our  sacred  honor.” 

And  also  this  language  in  the  same  immortal 
document : 

“We,  therefore,  the  representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  in  general  Congress  assembled,  appealing  to 
the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  world  for  the  rectitude  of  our 
intentions,  do,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority,  etc.” 

Showing  that,  at  the  very  birth  of  our  nation, 
there  was  an  acknowledgment  of  a divine,  su- 
perintending providence.  Going  down  through 
the  history  of  the  old  Continental  Congress, 
which  was  opened  with  prayer,  going  down  still 
further,  a resolution  passed  October  12,  1778, 
by  this  Continental  Congress,  shows  further 
the  ideas  of  the  fathers  upon  this  subject. 

Another  resolution,  on  the  seventh  of  March, 
1778,  appoints  a day  of  fasting  and  prayer  to 
God,  that,  among  other  blessings,  “it  may  please 
Him  to  bless  our  schools  and  seminaries  of 
learning,  and  make  them  nurseries  of  true  piety, 
virtue  and  useful  knowledge.” 

But,  Mr.  President,  not  to  go  further,  into  de- 
tail, come  down  to  the  action  of  Congress  when 
it  organized  this  great  north-west  Territory, 
under  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  from  which  have 
sprung  up  these  great  Western  States.  Article 
three  of  that  Ordinance  of  1787,  reads : 

“Whereas,  True  religion  and  good  morals  are  the  Only 
solid  foundations  of  public  liberty  and  happiness; 

Resolved , That  it  be,  and  it  is  hereby  earnestly  recom- 
mended to  the  several  States  to  take  the  most  effectual 
measures  for  the  encouragement  thereof.” 

“Religion,  morality,  and  knowledge  being  necessary  to 
good  government  and  the  happiness  of  mankind,  schools 
and  the  means  of  education,  shall  forever  be  encour- 
aged.” 

(Here  the  hammer  fell.) 

“Leave!  leave!  leave!” 

Mr.  GUKLEY.  I object. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I wish  to  appeal  to  gentlemen 
to  withdraw  their  objections.  This  Convention 
has  not  got  religion  enough  to  hurt  it  any.  Let 
us  have  an  exhibition  of  what  we  have. 

Mr.  BABER.  I commenced  speaking  at  a 
time  when  there  were  few  in  the  Hall  in  order 
to  prevent  a vote.  I have  not  been  trespassing 
upon  the  Convention  in  this  matter,  and  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  having 
referred  to  the  facts  of  history,  1 have  a right 
to  bring  those  facts  before  the  Convention  for 
the  purpose  of  refuting  them. 

Mr.  BOSWORTH.  This  Convention  has 
agreed  to  adjourn  on  the  31st  of  March. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I move  that  the  rule  be 
suspended  so  that  the  gentleman  will  have  leave 
to  proceed. 

Mr.  HALE.  I do  not  object  to  the  gentle- 
man’s proceeding,  but  I rise  to  a question  of 
order,  which  I wish  to  have  settled,  it  being  a 
point  in  reference  to  which  I am  not  positive. 
That  is,  whether,  there  being  one  question  be- 
fore the  Convention,  we  can  stop  that  and  in- 


1755 


Day.] GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

March  4,  1874.]  Hale,  Gurley,  Cunningham,  Young  of  C.,  Baber,  Cook. 


terpose  a proceeding  to  suspend  the  rules.  The 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  has  been 
speaking  to  the  question  before  the  Convention. 
It  is  proposed  to  stop  and  put  another  motion 
that  is  debatable.  Can  that  be  done? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
apprehends  that  a motion  to  suspend  the  rules  is 
in  order  at  any  time. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I have  no  more  objection  to 
the  gentleman  speaking  than  I have  to  any 
other  gentleman  upon  the  floor.  But  we  adopt- 
ed a rule  a long  time  ago  in  order  to  facilitate 
the  business  of  this  Convention,  and  we  have 
now  passed  a resolution  fixing  the  31st  day  of 
March  for  a sine  die  adjournment.  It  must  be 
apparent  to  every  member  of  this  Convention 
that  if  we  expect  the  work  to  be  done  at  that 
time,  we  must  cut  off  this  debate.  If  we  have 
a rule  let  us  impose  it.  If  not,  let  us  change 
the  rule. 

Upon  the  question  to  suspend  the  rule,  a di- 
vision was  ordered,  and  being  taken,  resulted — 
affirmative  34,  negative  17. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  There  is  no 
quorum  voting.  Perhaps  the  yeas  and  nays 
will  have  to  be  taken  in  order  to  determine  this 
question. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for. 

The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  objected 
to,  but  was  sustained,  fourteen  members  rising 
to  second  it. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I suggest  that  this 
objection  be  withdrawn.  There  has  been  more 
time  already  taken  up  than  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  would  have  occupied. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  If  the  rule  is 
to  be  enforced  strictly,  I have  no  objection.  I 
do  not  want  any  distinction  made  about  this 
thing.  Each  member  is  entitled  to  this  excess 
of  time,  if  it  is  granted  to  others.  If  the  re- 
sult of  this  vote  now  is  to  settle  it  that  there 
shall  be  no  more  excess  of  the  ten  minutes 
under  any  circumstances,  be  it  so. 

Mr.  BABER.  All  that  I wish  to  remark  is, 
that  I do  not  want  to  trespass  upon  the  time  of 
the  Convention.  I can  sit  down.  I have  a right 
to  speak  twice  on  the  same  amendment.  I can 
go  on  and  finish  my  speech  in  the  other  ten 
minutes,  and  I would  not  have  taken  half  the 
time  if  it  had  not  been  for  this  interference.  I 
hope  there  will  be  no  roll-call  upon  this.  I will 
relieve  the  Convention  by  sitting  down.  1 shall 
make  my  speech  afterward. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man has  withdrawn  his  request  for  leave. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  ask  the  President  what 
is  the  particular  question  before  the  Conven- 
tion ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
before  the  Convention  is  upon  agreeing  to  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Harrison 
[Mr.  Waddle.] 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  the  Secretary  please  read 
the  amendment? 

The  Secretary  read : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  our  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  invok- 
ing His  blessing  for  the  future,  and  in  order  to  promote 
and  to  secure  our  common  welfare,  do  establish  this  Con- 
stitution.” 

Mr.  COOK.  While  I have  no  objection  to 
putting  into  the  Constitution  all  gentlemen  de- 


sire on  this  subject,  my  views  are,  we  should 
seek  less  to  put  the  name  of  God  into  the  Consti- 
tution, than  to  frame  it  in  accordance  with  the 
Divine  will.  And  if  we  make  it  conform  to  the 
eternal  principles  of  truth  and  justice,  and  so 
balance  and  check  the  powers  of  those  to  whom 
the  government  will  be  intrusted,  as  to  restrain 
them  from  the  licentious  use  of  power,  and 
thereby  promote  man’s  moral,  religious,  and 
material  development,  God  will  approve  our 
work,  and  bless  the  people  who  will  live  under 
the  Constitution  we  here  form. 

The  present  Constitution  sets  out  with  the 
following  recognition  of  Almighty  God : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  Stkte  of  Ohio,  grateful  to  Al- 
mighty God  for  our  freedom,  to  secure  its  blessing  and 
promote  our  common  welfare,  do  establish  this  Constitu- 
tion.” 

With  this  I am  entirely  satisfied,  and  do  not 
believe  we  shall  advance  the  interests  either  of 
religion  or  morality  by  adding  more. 

It  would  be  vain  to  attempt  to  perpetuate  the 
memory  of  God,  or  increase  his  power  over  men, 
by  putting  his  name  in  the  Constitution ; for  in 
the  contemplation  of  his  eternity,  and  the  im- 
mutability of  his  laws,  States  and  Constitu- 
tions are  but  as  the  shrubs  and  flowers  with 
which  he  decorates  his  footstool — these  change 
and  pass  away  with  the  seasons — and  States, 
Empires  and  Constitutions  perish,  but  the  mem- 
ory of  God  remains  embalmed  in  the  hearts  of 
men,  and  shines  clearer,  and  man’s  love  for  him 
beams  brighter  amid  the  ruins  of  revolution 
than  in  the  luxury  of  an  unbounded  prosperity. 

To  put  His  name  into  the  Constitution  will  add 
nothing  to  His  glory,  or  the  reverence  due  Him 
from  His  creatures.  To  leave  it  out  will  detract 
nothing  from  His  power,  or  diminish  His  omni- 
science. To  Him  it  is  a matter  of  indifference 
— to  us  a stumbling  block. 

While  it  will  add  nothing  to  God,  it  may 
create  dissensions  among  us,  which  will  detract 
from  the  authority  due  to  the  Constitution,  and 
the  love  we  owe  to  Him.  If  it  would  cause  the 
Constitution  to  be  more  respected,  or  better 
obeyed,  or  if  it  would  add  one  jot  or  tittle  to 
God’s  glory,  or  increase  our  love  for  Him,  I 
would  unite  with  the  gentlemen  in  demanding 
the  insertion  of  it  in  the  Constitution.  But  as 
they  are  seeking  to  add  to  the  recognition  of  Al- 
mighty God  already  in  the  Constitution,  only  an 
idle  form,  which  will  more  likely  give  rise  to 
dissentions  than  to  increase  our  piety,  I shall 
vote  for  the  Constitution  as  it  is. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
I do  not  think  answered  the  point  that  I made, 
that  this  really  makes  no  practical  change  in 
the  Constitution. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
supposes  that  if  the  rule  is  enforced,  the  gentle- 
man from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  a right  to  speak  twice 
on  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Only  once 
when  considering  the  Article,  section  by  sec- 
tion. In  general  debate,  a gentleman  may  speak 
twice,  but  as  the  Chair  understands  that  rule, 
that  in  the  consideration  of  any  Proposition, 
section  by  section,  no  member  shall  be  per- 
mitted to  speak  more  than  once,  nor  more  than 
ten  minutes  on  any  amendment.  Has  the  gen- 
tleman leave  to  proceed  ? 


1756 


BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN’S  RELIGION. 

Cook,  Baber,  Gurley,  Root. 


[129th 

[Wednesday, 


Objection  was  made. 

Mr.  COOK.  I hope  the  Convention  will  al- 
low the  gentleman  to  proceed.  Ten  or  fifteen 
minutes  will  make  no  difference,  and  I certainly 
would  listen  to  my  bitterest  enemy  under  cir- 
cumstances like  this.  If  he  has  any  thing  to 
say,  let  us  hear  it. 

Mr.  BABER.  As  gentlemen  are  making  this 
objection,  I move  to  strike  out  from  the  amend- 
ment the  word  “State.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I second  the  motion. 

Mr.  BABER.  On  the'motion  to  strike  out  this 
word  “State”  I think  I shall  be  able  to  show 
that,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  fathers, 
the  State  ought  to  recognize,  as  this  amendment 
does,  God  in  the  Constitution,  and,  I would 
remark,  I find  in  the  ordinance  of  1787  this 
laid  down  as  a fundamental  law  for  this  terri- 
tory, that  this  provision  was  placed  in  the  arti- 
cles of  compact  under  which  the  State  of  Ohio 
was  established  as  a State : 

“For  extending  the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  which  foim  the  basis,  whereon  these 
republics,  their  laws  and  Constitutions  are  erected— to 
fix  and  establish  those  principles  as  the  basis  of  all  laws, 
constitutions  and  governments,  which  forever  shall  be 
formed  in  the  said  territory,  etc.,  it  is  hereby  ordained,” 
etc. 

There  religion  and  morality  is  spoken  of  in 
the  foundation  of  this  State  of  Ohio  as  being 
the  very  basis  of  our  government.  We  find, 
also,  in  the  third  Article  of  the  Ordinance, 
which  I shall  not  take  up  the  time  of  the  Con- 
vention by  reading,  there  is  an  express  provi- 
sion with  reference  to  schools,  religion  and  mor- 
ality; but  the  point  to  which  I wish  particular- 
ly to  direct  the  attention  of  the  Convention  is 
the  fact  that  Benjamin  Franklin,  who  has 
been  represented  here  as  a sort  of  free  thinker, 
in  his  Address  to  the  Public  in  1789,  as  presi- 
dent of  the  Pennsylvania  Society  for  Promoting 
the  Abolition  of  Slavery  and  the  Relief  of  Free 
Negroes,  proposed  a “plan  for  improving  the 
condition  of  free  blacks,”  one  article  of  which 
is  as  follows : 

“A  Committee  of  Education  who  shall  superintend  the 
education  of  the  children  and  youth  of  the  free  blacks. 
They  may  either  influence  them  to  attend  regularly  the 
schools  already  established  in  this  city,  or  form  others 
with  this  view;  they  shall  in  either  case  provide  that  the 
pupils  may  receive  such  learning  as  is  necessary  for  their 
future  situation  in  life,  and  especially  a deep  impression 
of  the  most  important  and  generally  acknowledged  moral 
and  religious  principles.” 

Now,  with  regard  to  religion — though  con- 
sidered one  of  those  who  was  classed  as  a lib- 
eral, or  free-thinker — Benjamin  Franklin,  in 
a letter  to  Dr.  Stiles,  President  of  Yale  College, 
says: 

“You  desire  to  know  something  of  my  religion.  It  is 
the  first  time  I have  been  questioned  upon  it.  But  I can- 
not take  your  curiosity  amiss,  and  shall  endeavor  in  a few 
words  to  gratify  it.  Here  is  my  creed:  I believe  in  one 
God,  the  Creator  of  the  universe.  That  He  governs  it  by 
His  providence.  That  He  ought  to  be  worshiped.  That 
the  most  acceptable  service  we  render  to  Him  is  doing 
gr>od  to  His  other  children.  That  the  soul  of  man  is 
immortal,  and  will  be  treated  with  justice  in  another  life 
respecting  its  conduct  in  this.  These  I take  to  be  the  fun- 
damental points  in  all  sound  religion,  and  I regard  them 
as  you  do  in  whatever  sect  I meet  with  them. 

“As  to  Jesus,  of  Nazareth,  my  opinion  of  whom  you 
particularly  desire,  I think  His  system  of  morals  and  His 
religion,  as  He  left  them  to  us,  the  best  the  world  ever 
saw  or  is  likely  to  see.”— Franklin’s  Works,  by  Sparks, 
Vol.  10,  p.  422. 


Mr.  GURLEY.  Have  the  gentleman’s  re- 
marks any  connection  with  that  amendment?  I 
understand  he  has  a right  to  speak  only  upon 
his  amendment. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  speaking  upon  the 
amendment.  I am  speaking  upon  the  question 
of  why  this  word  “State”  should  not  be  stricken 
out,  because  it  is  our  duty  to  acknowledge  the 
existence  and  protecting  care  of  a Supreme 
Being. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I move  that  the  gentleman  have 
leave  to  mention  his  amendment  occasionally. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  know  why  I am  sin- 
gled out  in  this  Convention  by  certain  gentle- 
men. Leave  has  frequently  been  extended 
gentlemen  to  address  the  Convention  for  an 
hour  over  their  time,  and  as  a delegate  repre- 
senting the  county  of  Franklin,  I have  tried  to 
treat  gentlemen  in  a gentlemanly  manner,  and 
I do  not  know  why  I should  not  be  granted  the 
same  privilege  as  anybody  else.  I do  not  wish 
to  waste  time  on  the  matter. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man is  in  order. 

Mr.  BABER.  I also  wish  to  read  a letter 
written  by  Benjamin  Franklin  to  Thomas 
Paine.  It  is  as  follows : 


“I  have  read  your  manuscript  with  some  attention.  By 
the  argument  it  contains  against  a particular  Providence, 
though  you  allow  a general  Providence,  you  strike  at  the 
foundations  of  all  religion.  For  without  the  belief  of  a 
Providence,  that  takes  cognizance  of,  guards  and  guides, 
and  may  favor  particular  persons,  there  is  no  motive  to 
worship  a Deity,  to  fear  his  displeasure,  or  to  pray  for  his 
protection.  I will  not  enter  into  any  discussion  of  your 
principles,  though  you  seem  to  desire  it.  At  present  I 
shall  only  give  you  my  opinion,  that,  though  your  reason- 
ings are  subtle,  and  may  prevail  with  some  readers,  you 
will  not  succeed  so  as  to  change  the  general  sentiments  of 
mankind  on  that  subject,  and  the  consequence  of  printing 
this  piece  will  be  a great  deal  of  odium  drawn  upon  your- 
self, mischief  to  you,  and  no  benefit  to  others.  He  that 
spits  against  the  wind  spits  in  his  own  face. 

“But  were  you  to  succeed,  do  you  imagine  any  good 
would  be  done  by  it?  You  yourself  may  find  it  easy  to 
live  a virtuous  life,  without  the  assistance  afforded  by  re- 
ligion; you  having  a clear  perception  ol  the  advantages 
of  virtue,  and  the  disadvantages  of  vice,  and  possessing 
a strength  of  resolution  sufficient  to  enable  you  to  resist 
common  temptation.  But  think  how  great  a portion  of 
mankind  consists  of  weak  and  ignorant  men  and  women, 
and  of  inexperienced,  inconsiderate  youth  of  both  sexes, 
who  have  need  of  the  motives  of  religion  to  restrain  them 
from  vice,  to  support  their  virtue,  and  retain  them  in  the 
practice  of  it  till  it  becomes  habitual,  which  is  the  great 
point  for  its  security.  And  perhaps  you  are  indebted  to 
her  originally,  that  is  to  your  religious  education,  for  the 
habits  of  virtue  upon  which  you  now  justly  value  your- 
self. You  might  easily  display  your  excellent  talents  of 
reasoning  upon  a less  hazardous  subject,  and  thereby  ob- 
tain a rank  with  our  most  distinguished  authors.  For 
among  us  it  is  not  necessary,  as  among  the  Hottentots, 
that  a youth  to  be  raised  into  the  company  of  men,  should 
prove  his  manhood  by  beating  his  mother. 

»T  would  advise  you,  therefore,  not  to  attempt  unchain- 
ing the  tiger,  but  to  burn  this  piece  before  it  is  seen  by 
any  other  person;  whereby  you  will  save  yourself  a great 
deal  of  mortification  Dy  the  enemies  it  may  raise  against 
you,  and  perhaps  a good  deal  of  regret  and  repentance. 

“If  men  are  so  wicked  with  religion,  what  would  they 
be  without  it?  I intend  this  letter  as  a proof  of  my  friend- 
ship, and  therefore  add  no  professions  to  it;  but  subscribe 
simply,  Yours, 

B.  Franklin.” 

— Franklin' 8 Works , by  Sparks , Vol.  10,  p.  481. 


I shall  make  the  last  reference  I have  to  this 
subject,  and  then  relieve  uneasy  gentlemen  of 
the  pressure  of  argument,  that  they  cannot  an- 
swer. 

Dr.  Franklin,  in  the  Convention  which 
framed  our  Constitution,  made  a motion  that  it 
should  be  opened  with  prayer,  and  accompanied 
the  motion  with  the  following  remarks : 


1757 


Day.]  BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN  ON  PRAYER. 

March  4, 1874.]  Baber,  Foran. 


“Mr.  President:  The  small  progress  we  have  made 
after  four  or  five  weeks  close  attendance  and  continual 
reasoning  with  each  other — our  different  sentiments  on 
almost  every  question,  several  of  the  last  producing  as 
many  noes  as  ayes — is,  methinks,  a melaneholy  proof  of 
the  imperfection  of  the  human  understanding.  We  in- 
deed seem  to  feel  our  own  want  of  political  wisdom,  since 
we  have  been  running  about  in  search  of  it.  We  have 
gone  back  to  ancient  history  for  models  of  government, 
and  examined  the  diffeient  forms  of  those  republics, 
which  having  been  formed  with  the  seeds  of  their  own 
dissolution,  now  no  longer  exist.  And  we  have  viewed 
modern  States  all  round  Europe,  but  find  none  of  their 
constitutions  suitable  to  our  circumstances. 

“In  this  situation  of  this  Assembly,  groping  as  it  were 
in  the  dark  to  find  political  truth,  and  scarce  able  to  dis- 
tinguish it  when  presented  to  us,  how  has  it  happened, 
sir,  that  we  have  not  hitherto  once  thought  of  humbly  ap- 
plying to  the  Father  of  Lights,  to  illuminate  our  under- 
standings? In  the  beginning  of  the  contest  with  Great 
Britain,  when  we  were  sensible  of  danger,  we  had  daily 
prayer  in  this  room  for  the  divine  protection.  Our  prayers, 
sir,  were  heard , and  they  were  graciously  answered.  All 
of  us  who  were  engaged  in  them  must  have  observed  fre- 
quent instances  of  a superintending  Providence  in  our 
favor.  To  that  kind  Providence  we  owe  this  happy  op- 
portunity of  consulting  in  peace  on  the  means  of  estab- 
lishing our  future  national  felicity.  And  have  we  now 
forgotten  that  powerful  friend?  Or  do  we  imagine  that 
we  no  longer  need  his  assistance?  I have  lived,  sir,  a 
long  time,  and  the  longer  I live  the  more  convincing 
proofs  I see  of  this  truth— that  God  governs  in  the  affairs 
of  men.  And  if  a sparrow  cannot  fall  to  the  ground  with- 
out his  notice,  is  it  probable  that  an  empire  can  rise 
without  his  aid?  We  have  been  assured,  sir,  in  the  sacred 
writings,  that  ‘except  the  Lord  build  the  house  they  labor 
in  vain  that  build  it.’  I firmly  believe  this;  and  1 also 
believe  that  without  His  concurring  aid,  we  shall  suc- 
ceed in  this  political  building  no  better  than  the  builders 
of  Babel.  We  shall  be  divided  by  our  little  partial  local 
interests;  our  projects  will  be  confounded;  and  we  our- 
selves shall  become  a reproach  and  by -word  down  to 
future  ages,  and  what  is  worse,  mankind  may  hereafter 
from  this  unfortunate  instance,  despair  of  establishing 
governments  by  human  wisdom,  and  leave  it  to  chance, 
war  and  conquest. 

“I  therefore  beg  leave  to  move— that  henceforth  prayers 
imploring  the  assistance  of  Heaven,  and  its  blessings  on 
our  deliberations,  be  held  in  this  Assembly  every  morn- 
ing before  we  proceed  to  business,  and  that  one  or  more 
of  the  clergy  of  this  city  be  requested  to  officiate  in  that 
service. 

Mr.  Sherman  seconded  the  motion. 

Mr.  Hamilton  and  several  others  expressed  their  ap- 
rehensions,  that  however  proper  such  a resolution  might 
ave  been  at  the  beginning  of  the  Convention,  it  might  at 
this  late  day,  in  the  first  place,  bring  on  it  some  disagree- 
able animadversions;  and  in  the  second,  lead  the  public 
to  believe  that  the  embarrassments  and  dissensions  within 
the  Convention  had  suggested  this  measure.  It  was  an- 
swered by  Doctor  Franklin,  Mr.  Sherman  and  others, 
that  the  past  ommission  of  a duty  could  not  justify  a 
further  omission;  that  the  rejection  of  such  a proposition 
would  expose  the  Convention  to  more  unpleasant  animad- 
versions than  the  adoption  of  it;  and  that  the  alarm  out 
of  doors,  that  might  be  excited  lor  the  state  of  things 
within,  would  at  least  be  as  likely  to  do  good  as  ill. 

Mr.  Williamson  observed,  that  the  true  cause  of  the 
omission  could  not  be  mistaken.  The  Convention  had  no 
funds. 

Mr.  Randolph  proposed,  in  order  to  give  a favorable 
aspect  to  the  measure,  that  a sermon  be  preached  at  the 
request  of  the  Convention,  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  the  an- 
niversary of  Independence;  and  thence  forward  prayers, 
&c.,  to  be  read  in  the  Convention  every  morning.  Doctor 
Franklin  seconded  this  motion.  After  several  unsuc- 
cessful attempts  for  silently  postponing  this  matter  by 
adjourning,  the  adjournment  was  at  length  carried,  with- 
out any  vote  on  the  motion.”— 2 Vol.  Madison  Papers , p. 
984. 

I simply  introduced  these  extracts  to  show 
that  the  assertion  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  with  regard  to  the 
opinions  of  the  fathers  upon  this  subject  was 
not  correct,  and  I think  that  the  amendment 
which  is  now  under  consideration  will  not  have 
the  effect  of  infringing  upon  the  religious  lib- 
erty of  any  person  in  the  State.  I withdraw 
my  amendment. 

Mr.  FORAN.  Mr.  President,  I was  not 
aware  until  I heard  the  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin [Mr.  Baber],  that  this  was  a question  in- 


volving the  existence  of  a God — we  all  believe 
there  is  a God — at  least,  I do,  and  I supposed 
the  question  under  discussion  was  one  involving 
the  propriety  of  inserting  his  name  in  the  Con- 
stitution; and,  Mr.  President,  I am  unquali- 
fiedly and  unalterably  opposed  to  any  mention 
of  the  Deity,  the  Eternal  Maker,  Demiurgus, 
God,  or  any  other  term  indicative  of  an  all-per- 
vading and  supreme  intelligence,  in  the  organic 
law  of  this  State.  I am  opposed  to  it  because  I 
am  in  favor  of  an  entire  and  irrevocable  sepa- 
ration of  Church  and  State,  and  the  ideas  indi- 
cated by  those  vocables.  We  have  seen,  in  the 
Old  World,  the  evils,  the  dangers  to  civil,  social 
and  even  religious  liberty,  the  rapine,  murder- 
ous and  inhuman  butcheries  which  resulted 
from  this  connection.  England  is  to-day  reap- 
ing the  direful  and  baneful  fruits  of  such  an 
unholy  and  abominable  connection ; and  Prus- 
sia, because  of  the  same  reason,  has  upon  her 
hands  a social  elephant,  if  I may  use  the  term, 
which  may  disrupt  the  boasted  Germanic  unifi- 
cation of  which  we  have  heard  so  much.  The 
framers  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  reading  tho 
future  in  the  light  of  the  past,  wisely  omitted 
the  name  of  God  in  that  admirable  instrument, 
from  which  all  States  derive  power  to  make 
and  adopt  Constitutions  for  their  guidance  and 
government  in  all  things  not  in  conflict  with 
the  National  Constitution.  I know  the  gen- 
tleman from  Franklin  just  read  several  extracts 
to  prove  the  fathers  were  men  of  God.  The 
Declaration  of  Independence  ends  with  an  in- 
vocatory prayer  to  God.  But,  sir,  need  I say  to 
the  gentleman  that  every  dark  and  bloody 
deed,  as  well  as  all  good  undertakings,  were  be- 
gun in  the  name  of  God?  Need  I say  to  the 
Convention  that  Christ,  Himself,  was  put  to 
death  in  the  name  of  God  ? Mr.  President,  I 
believe  State  Constitutional  Conventions  have, 
in  the  past,  made  no  greater  mistakes  than  the 
incorporation  of  the  name  of  God  in  the  Consti- 
stitutions  they  severally  framed.  Much  has 
been  said  here  concerning  American  prosperity 
and  the  part  God  has  taken  in  bringing  it  about. 
But,  sir,  I believe  this  great  American  pros- 
perity is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  founders  of  our 
institutions  laid  the  foundation  of  our  Govern- 
ment in  those  great  eternal  principles  of  human 
right  and  justice  which  other  Governments 
either  ignore  or  trample  upon. 

God  has,  from  the  beginning,  established  and 
ordained  immutable  laws  for  the  government 
of  the  universe,  and  any  people  or  any  nation 
will  succeed  and  prosper,  or  retrograde  and  suf- 
fer, in  the  exact  proportion  they  understand 
and  con  form  to  these  laws.  Old  Rome,  for  more 
than  a thousand  years,  prospered  and  succeeded 
as  no  other  nation  ever  has,  yet  Rome  did 
not  recognize  or  even  believe  in  Almighty  God. 
And,  sir,  it  was  only  when  the  Roman  people 
violated  and  transgressed  moral  law  that  she 
fell.  America  has  been  blessed  with  prosper- 
ity, it  is  true;  but  if  she  ever  falls  into  the  sins 
and  errors  which  led  to  the  fall  of  Rome,  she 
will  also  fall,  no  matter  how  many  of  our  State 
Constitutions  recognize  God,  the  Christian,  or 
any  other  religion.  The  gentleman  from  Jef- 
ferson [Mr.  Clark]  has  had  much  to  say  about 
war  and  the  aid  God  vouchsafes  to  armies ; but,, 
sir,  I believe  war  is  the  result  of  man’s  inhu- 
manity and  selfishness,  and  the  evils  incident, 


1758 


GOD  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


[129th 


Foran,  Baber,  Page,  Watson,  Sears,  etc. 


[Wednesday, 


thereto.  Every  nation  wars  in  the  name  of 
God,  and,  no  matter  who  wins,  God  is  glorified 
for  the  butchery.  Now,  sir,  God  cannot  be  on 
both  sides  of  the  issue,  and  all  history  and  hu- 
man experience  prove  that  He  is  generally  on 
the  stronger  side.  If  this  proves  anything,  it  is 
that  God  has  nothing  to  do  with  wars,  except 
in  so  far  as  they  are  His  agencies  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  all  violations  of  moral  law. 

We  are  asked  here  to  say  we  are  grateful  to 
God  for  our  present  condition,  social,  political 
and  otherwise.  Now,  sir,  I ask,  how  can  the 
thousands  of  starving  paupers  in  our  State  who 
are  begging  for  work,  living  on  alms,  living  in 
the  most  abject  misery  and  wretchedness,  living 
in  illy  ventilated,  contracted  quarters,  crowded 
into  hovels,  existing  in  squalor  and  rags ; how, 

I ask,  can  these  people  say  they  are  grateful  to 
God  for  these  blessings  which  they  so  bounti- 
fully enjoy?  And  yet  I say  God  has  nothing 
to  do  with  their  condition ; it  would  be  blas- 
phemy to  say  it  is  His  fault.  They  are  suffering 
for  violations  of  moral  law,  committed  either 
by  themselves  or  others — generally  the  latter.  | 
But  no  matter  the  cause,  they  certainly  have  no 
reason  to  be  grateful.  I believe,  sir,  that  reli- 
gion is  a matter  that  should  be  left  to  each  in- 
dividual conscience.  Let  the  citizen  worship 
God  as  he  pleases.  Leave  the  matter  wholly 
with  him.  Let  the  State  attend  to  matters  of 
State,  and  nothing  else.  Let  the  church  attend 
to  matters  of  God,  and  nothing  else.  Keep  both 
as  widely  apart  as  possible,  and  that  secrecy  of 
God’s  name  which  the  gentleman  from  Clarke 
[Mr.  Blose]  read  this  morning  from  the  Bible  ; 
will  he  best  secured. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  to  strike  out  the  word  I 
“ State.” 

Mr.  BABER.  I withdraw  my  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  the  Con- 
vention will  give  the  gentleman  leave,  he  can 
withdraw  it. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  PAGE.  This  desire  to  preface  all  public 
documents  with  the  name  of  God,  is  a relic  of ' 
a monkish  practice.  In  the  Middle  Ages,  when 
all  learning  was  in  the  hands  of  priests,  and  I 
they  wrote  all  legal  papers,  they  usually  began  I 
them  with  the  phrase  “ In  the  name  of  God.”  I j 
never  could  learn  that  this  formula  gave  any 
additional  validity  to  a deed  or  will,  or  was  any 
evidence  of  the  piety  of  the  testator  or  grantor,  j 
The  State  of  Ohio  is  not  a Nation,  but  only  a | 
fraction  of  one,  and  I see  no  greater  reason  for 
prefacing  the  Constitution  of  the  State  with  the 
name  of  God,  than  the  constitution  of  a club,  or  j 
the  by-laws  or  charter  of  a municipal  or  mone-  1 
tary  corporation.  Two  classes  of  persons  make  I 
frequent  and  unnecessary  use  of  the  name  of 
God — the  impious,  and  the  extremely  pious — 
the  “ unco  gude,”  whom  Burns  did  not  like,  and 
whom  nobody  likes.  What  is  a Constitution  but 
a legal  document?  It  is  only  an  agreement  or 
contract  of  an  important  and  solemn  nature. 
Is  the  name  of  God  to  be  inserted  in  order  to 
insure  our  prosperity  or  to  prove  our  piety?  I 
do  not  think  it  is  necessary  for  either  purpose. 
This  is  not  a place  to  make  an  exhibition  of  our 
religion. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I believe  this  question  is 


divisible.  It  is  offered  in  place  of  the  Preamble. 
It  is  a question  to  strike  out  and  insert.  There- 
fore, I ask  a division  on  that  question,  and  I de- 
mand the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
thinks  the  question  divisible.  The  question  is 
upon  striking  out  the  Preamble,  as  reported  by 
the  Committee. 

Mr.  SEARS.  It  is  simply  to  strike  out  all 
after  the  word  “ God”  in  the  present  Constitu- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  is  offered 
as  a substitute  for  the  entire  Preamble,  as  the 
Chair  understands  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  like  to  ask,  in  case 
the  Convention  determine  not  to  strike  out,  if 
the  effect  will  be  to  prevent  any  further  amend- 
ment being  offered  to  the  Preamble  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
thinks  it  will. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I want  the  Convention  to  un- 
derstand that  effect. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Amendments 
may  be  added  by  way  of  addition ; but  the  mat- 
ter that  the  Convention  determines  to  retain 
will  be  retained.  It  can  be  amended  by  addi- 
tion. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  being 
taken,  resulted — yeas  29,  nays  39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop,  Byal,  Cald- 
well, Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cunningham, 
Dorsey,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Kerr, 
Mitchener,  Okey,  Philips,  Powell,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Sample,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  Van  Voorhis, 
Voris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign— 29. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Barnet,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Campbell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Cook,  De  Steiguer, 
Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gurley, 
Hale,  Hill,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kraemer,  Merrill, 
Miller,  Miner,  Mueller,  Page,  Pease,  Pond, 
Pratt,  Root,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Shel- 
by, Steedman,  Thompson,  Tulloss,  Watson, 
White  of  Brown,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Noble 
—39. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  are 
no  further  amendments  to  the  Preamble,  the 
Secretary  will  read  section  1 of  the  Bill  of 
Rights. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  1.  All  men  are,  by  nature,  free  and  independent, 
and  have  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are 
those  of  enjoying  and  defending  life  and  liberty,  acquir- 
ing, possessing  and  protecting  property,  and  seeking  and 
obtaining  happiness  and  safety. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  are 
no  amendments  to  section  1,  section  2 will  be 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  2.  All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people. 
Government  is  instituted  for  their  equal  protection  and 
benefit,  and  they  have  the  right  to  alter,  reform,  or  abol- 
ish the  same,  whenever  they  may  deem  it  necessary;  and 
no  special  privileges  or  immunities  shall  ever  be  granted 
that  may  not  be  altered,  revoked,  or  repealed  by  tne  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  are 
no  amendments  to  section  2,  section  3 will  be 
read. 


17  59 


Day.] 


THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Miner,  Okey,  Gurley,  Tuttle,  etc. 


March  4, 1874.] 


The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  3.  The  people  have  the  right  to  assemble  together, 
in  a peacable  manner,  to  consult  for  their  common  good ; 
to  instruct  their  Representatives;  and  to  petition  the 
General  Assembly  for  the  redress  of  grievances. 

Mr.  MINER.  I move  to  strike  out  the  words, 
“ to  instruct  their  Representatives.”  I shall 
not  argue  the  proposition. 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  4. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  4.  The  people  have  the  right  to  bear  arms  for  their 
defense  and  security;  but  standing  armies,  in  time  of 
peace,  are  dangerous  to  liberty,  and  shall  not  be  kept  up; 
and  the  military  shall  be  in  strict  subordination  to  the 
civil  power. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  are 
no  amendments  to  section  4,  section  5 will  be 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  5.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I move  the  following  amend- 
ment to  be  added  at  the  end  of  the  section  : 

The  Secretary  read: 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  the  number  of 
jurors  in  trials  and  proceedings  before  Probate  Courts  and 
Justices  of  the  Peace.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“Sec.  5.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate. 
The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  the  number  of  jurors 
in  trials  and  proceedings  before  Probate  Courts  and  Jus- 
tices of  the  Peace.” 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman from  Monroe  [Mr.  Okey]  if  they  have 
not  that  power  ? 

Mr.  OKEY.  I desire  to  say  but  a few  words 
on  this  subject.  When  we  had  under  consider- 
ation the  Judicial  Article,  I offered  an  amend- 
ment to  this  section,  providing  for  the  regula- 
tion of  the  powers  of  Justices  of  the  Peace.  I 
offered  at  that  time  this  amendment.  I was 
then  told  that  it  properly  belonged  to  the  Bill 
of  Rights,  and  I now  present  it  here.  We  know 
very  "well  that  the  question  of  the  number  of 
jurors  before  justices  of  the  peace  has  been  a 
matter  of  controversy  for  years,  and  the  only 
ground  upon  which  that  law  was  pronounced 
constitutional  was,  that  a party  having  a case 
tried  before  a justice  of  the  peace  by  a jury  of 
six,  had  the  right  to  appeal  it  to  a court  where 
he  could  have  a constitutional  jury.  We  are 
left  now  to  that  decision ; nothing  else.  Sup- 
pose the  party  is  not  able  to  appeal,  then  he  is 
denied  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  Our  Supreme 
Court  says  that  for  the  reason  that  he  has  the 
right  to  appeal  where  he  can  have  a jury  of 
twelve  men,  therefore,  the  law  is  a constitution- 
al law ; but  the  next  Supreme  Court  may  say  it 
is  unconstitutional.  I think  we  ought,  in  this 
place,  to  give  the  General  Assembly  the  power 
to  prescribe  what  number  shall  constitute  a 
jury  before  a justice  of  the  peace  or  before  the 
Probate  Court.  I do  not  think  this  matter 
should  be  left  to  the  mere  decision  of  the  Court, 
when  we  have  the  power  to  settle  it.  I am 
very  hoarse,  my  throat  is  in  such  a bad  condi- 
tion that  1 am  unable  to  say  what  I desire  to 
say,  but  I wish  members  would  examine  this 
subject. 

Mr.  MINER.  I move  to  strike  out  the 


words,  “before  Probate  Courts  and  Justices  of 
the  Peace,”  and  insert,  between  the  present 
section  and  the  amendment,  the  words,  “ but 
the  Legislature  shall  have  power  to  prescribe 
the  number  of  jurors.” 

Mr.  WEST.  Necessary  to  constitute  a jury. 

Mr.  MINER.  “Necessary  to  constitute  a 
jury.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  In  all  Courts  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  Yes,  sir,  in  all  Courts. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Secreta- 
ry will  read  the  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  5.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate, 
but  the  Legislature  shall  have  power  to  prescribe  the 
number  of  jurors  necessary  to  constitute  a jury.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  desire  to  make  a 
speech  at  this  time,  but  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner]  what 
there  will  be  left  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury 
if  it  is  provided  that  the  Legislature  may  fix 
the  number  of  jurors  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  I shall  endeavor,  very  briefly, 
to  answer  the  gentleman.  I have  never  been 
able  to  understand  the  sacredness  of  the  num- 
ber twelve  in  constituting  a jury.  If  any  man 
can  give  me  a good,  substantial  reason  why 
twelve  men,  no  more,  no  less,  shall  constitute  a 
petit  jury,  I will  no  longer  seek  to  innovate 
upon  this  venerable  relic  of  the  common  law. 
No  man  can  give  any  reason  for  it  at  this  day, 
except  its  great  antiquity.  If  any  reasons  ex- 
isted at  its  inception,  as,  doubtless,  there  did, 
they  have  long  since  become  obsolete.  It  often 
happens  that  much  time  is  wasted,  and  much 
needless  expense  incurred,  in  getting  together 
a jury  of  twelve  men,  which  could  be  avoided 
if  the  number  were  reduced.  The  experience 
of  every  judge,  and  of  every  lawyer,  will  attest 
this.  Then  there  is  the  great  additional  cost  of 
summoning  and  paying  so  numerous  a body  of 
men.  On  the  score  of  economy,  which  should 
be  much  considered  in  the  administration  of 
justice,  it  is  as  unwise  as  it  would  be  for  an  em- 
ployer to  employ  twelve  men  to  do  the  work 
which  seven  could  do  as  quickly  and  as  well, 
perhaps  quicker  and  better.  Twelve  men  are 
not  as  likely  to  agree  as  a smaller  number,  say 
five,  six,  or  seven.  The  larger  number  do  not 
deliberate  with  greater  care,  nor  under  a 
greater  weight  of  responsibility,  than  the 
smaller  number ; and  there  is  no  assurance  that 
twelve  men  will  make  a juster  verdict  than 
seven,  six,  or  five  men. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Or  three  men. 

Mr.  MINER.  Or  even  three  men. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Or  one  man. 

Mr.  MINER.  That  would  be  extreme.  I am 
fully  persuaded  that  one-half  the  number — or 
take  an  odd  number,  seven — would  constitute  a 
jury  in  all  cases,  just  as  competent  to  decide, 
and  whose  verdict  would  be  as  satisfactory  as 
the  verdict  of  twelve  men.  By  the  common 
law,  as  well  as  by  statute  law,  in,  I believe,  all 
the  States  of  this  Union,  the  settlement  of 
disputes  between  men  by  arbitration  has 
been  provided  for,  and  is  often  resorted 
to,  but  not  as  often  as  it  ought  to  be.  Did  any 
law-making  power,  or  any  sensible  man,  ever 
think  of  constituting  a board  of  twelve  men  as 
arbitrators  ? Any  man  that  would  propose  such 
| a thing  would  be  considered  not  of  sound  mind ; 


1760 


CONCERNING  THE  JURY  SYSTEM. 

Miner,  Horton,  White  of  B.,  Boot. 


and  yet,  in  principle,  it  is  not  easy  to  distin- 
guish between  the  province  of  a jury  and  that 
of  a board  of  arbitrators.  In  more  primitive 
times,  in  England  and  in  this  country,  the  in- 
stitution of  the  common  law  jury  had  something 
to  recommend  it,  because  in  the  course  of  each 
year  it  brought  a considerable  body  of  the 
common  people,  so-called,  into  connection  with, 
and  participation  in,  the  administration  of  jus- 
tice, and  thus  increased  their  intelligence,  and 
enlarged  and  liberalized  their  views,  and  tended 
to  fit  them  for  free  government.  But,  in  modern 
times,  the  facilities  for  acquiring  knowledge 
have  been  so  improved,  and  enlarged,  and  ex- 
tended, among  the  masses,  as  to  render  the  con- 
stitution of  a jury  as  of  no  appreciable  value  as 
an  educator.  Nothing  but  deep-rooted  preju- 
dice now  sustains  this  ancient  institution  of  the 
common  law — a jury  of  twelve  men.  I wish  to 
cheapen  the  administration  of  justice.  One  way 
in  which  this  can  be  largely  done,  and  certainly 
without  any  detriment,  is  by  reducing  the  num- 
ber which  shall  constitute  a legal  jury. 

Mr.  HOBTON.  If  the  gentleman  would  un- 
dertake to  fix  any  given  number  of  jurors,  I 
could  see  some  propriety  in  his  argument;  but 
it  does  strike  me  that  it  is  absurd,  if  we  should 
start  out  by  saying  that  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury  should  be  left  inviolate,  and  then  turn 
around  and  say  that  the  Legislature  can  change 
the  organization  of  a jury  at  their  pleasure.  If 
they  may  change  from  twelve  to  ten,  they  may 
change  from  ten  to  six,  and  from  six  to  one; 
and  they  may  thus,  virtually,  annihilate  the 
jury  system  entirely.  The  moment  we  have 
adopted  this  provision,  we  have  placed  it  in  the 
power  of  the  General  Assembly  to  strangle  en- 
tirely the  system  of  jury  trials,  and  it  puts  me 
in  mind  of  a story  that  my  friend  from  Trum- 
bull [Mr.  Tuttle]  sometimes  tells  of  a Quaker 
gentleman,  who  knocked  a man  down  in  the 
street  and  robbed  him ; then  took  him  by  the 
collar  and  dragged  him  to  a stream  of  water, 
and,  plunging  him  in,  said : “I  am  a man  of 
peace ; I shall  not  take  thy  life ; but  I shall 
hold  thee  under  this  water  until  thy  breath  de- 
parts from  thy  body.”  When  we  have  done 
what  we  propose  to  do,  we  leave  it  in  the  hands 
of  the  General  Assembly  to  plunge  it  under  the 
water,  and  hold  it  there  until  its  breath  departs 
from  its  body. 

Mr.  MINEB.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  HOBTON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MINEB.  Where  do  you  find,  in  the  pro- 
vision, as  it  now  stands  in  the  Constitution,  that 
the  jury  shall  be  constituted  of  twelve  men? 
Is  that  any  more  than  ancient  usage,  which  the 
Courts  have  adopted  in  the  Constitution  of  a 
jury?  Does  that  clause  of  the  Constitution 
provide  that  the  jury  shall  consist  of  twelve 
men? 

Mr.  HOBTON.  The  word  jury  has  received 
a technical  interpretation,  which  belongs  to  it 
wherever  the  common  law  prevails.  It  consists 
of  twelve  men.  This  proposition  tends  to  de- 
prive it  of  that  characteristic,  and  says  that  it 
shall  not  consist  of  twelve  men,  but  any  such 
number  of  men  as  the  General  Assembly  may 
provide.  In  other  words,  that  they  may  provide 
a jury  of  one  man,  or  any  number  of  men  above 
one,  and,  as  I said  before,  they  may  virtually 


[129th 

[Wednesday, 


and  completely  destroy  the  system.  I only 
make  these  remarks,  because  I wish  the  Con- 
vention to  see  that  the  proposition  carries  with 
it  the  power  of  the  General  Assembly  to  en- 
tirely abolish  the  whole  system,  if  they  see  fit. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I see  in  the  propo* 
sition  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Miner],  what  is,  to  my  mind,  an  insuper- 
able difficulty.  It  seems  to  me  that  to  confer 
this  power  upon  the  Legislature,  to  determine 
what  shall  constitute  a jury,  will  place  it  in  con- 
flict with  the  present  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States.  The  sixth  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
provides,  that  in  all  criminal  prosecutions  the 
accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a speedy  public 
trial  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  State  and  dis- 
trict wherein  the  crime  shall  have  been  com- 
mitted, which  district  shall  have  been  previously 
ascertained  by  law,  and  to  be  informed  of  the 
nature  of  the  accusation,  to  be  confronted  with 
the  witnesses  against  him,  and  to  have  com- 
pulsory process  for  obtaining  witnesses  in  his 
favor,  and  to  have  counsel  in  his  defense. 

That  is  as  to  criminal  prosecutions. 

Article  VII  provides,  in  suits  at  common  law, 
where  the  value  in  controversy  shall  exceeu 
twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall 
be  preserved, and  no  fact  tried  by  a jury  shall 
otherwise  be  re-examined  by  any  Court  of  the 
United  States  other  than  according  to  the  rules 
of  common  law. 

The  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  Ohio  have 
decided  that  the  word  “jury,”  where  used  in 
the  Constitution,  refers  to  the  jury  as  under- 
stood and  defined  at  common  law;  that  the  sig- 
nification of  the  word  jury  as  used  in  the  Con- 
stitution, was  the  same  as  that  which  was  given 
it  by  the  common  law,  and  it  consists  of  twelve 
men,  having  the  requisite  qualifications;  so 
that  to  confer  this  power  upon  the  Legislature 
would  be  conferring  upon  them  the  power  that 
would,  to  my  mind,  be  in  conflict  with  the  ex- 
press provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  BOOT.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  is 
something  we  should  preserve,  and  something 
to  which  we  should  give  attention.  I do  not 
undertake  to  discuss  the  question  as  to  whether 
it  should  be  preserved  or  not;  but  as  to  whether 
this  particular  proposition  shall  remain  invio- 
late. Now,  if  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner]  is 
agreed  to,  you  begin  to  fritter  it  away ; you  con- 
fer upon  the  Legislature  the  power  to  fritter  it 
away,  so  that  there  will  be  nothing  substantial- 
ly left  of  it;  and  it  is  mere  nonsense  to  have 
such  a provision  in  general  terms  constrained  by 
a proviso  or  a qualification  in  the  terms  ex- 
pressed by  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner],  Either  give  up 
the  whole  thing  or  preserve  it — not  give  author- 
ity to  the  Legislature  to  fritter  it  away  and  de- 
stroy it.  It  seems  to  me  that  that  is  the  only 
question  that  we  need  to  consider.  With  that 
principle  I am  very  free  to  express  my  opinion 
that  I am  old-fashioned  enough  to  believe,  sir, 
that  when  we  get  so  wise  as  to  give  up  the  right 
of  trial  by  jury  we  shall  deserve  to  lose  what 
we  have  inherited  from  our  fathers. 

Mr.  MINEB.  Is  not  a jury  of  six  or  seven  a 
jury  ? 


1761 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  JURY  SYSTEM. 

March  4, 1874.]  Root,  Tuttle,  West,  Miner,  Bishop. 


Mr.  ROOT.  No,  it  is  no  jury  at  all.  If  you 
mean  by  a jury,  six  or  seven,  you  can  have  a 
jury  of  two  or  three.  I cannot  see  any  purpose 
that  can  be  accomplished,  except  in  the  case  I 
have  heard  of,  a juror  so  wise  that  he  found 
eleven  men  the  most  obstinate  men  in  the  world 
to  deal  with.  The  Legislature  might  make  a 
provision  in  such  a case  to  have  the  eleven  men 
discharged  and  let  the  sensible  man  return  a 
verdict. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  On  the  subject  of  whether  or 
not  it  is  necessary  there  should  be  a certain 
number  to  make  the  constitutional  jury,  I de- 
sire to  do  nothing  more  than  read  what  the  su- 
preme court  of  this  State  have  said  in  one,  out 
of  quite  a number  of  cases.  The  case  of  Lamb 
and  McKay  vs.  Lane,  arose  shortly  after  the 
adoption  of  the  present  Constitution,  under  the 
statute  that  provided,  that  in  assessing  damages 
or  compensation  awarded  to  owners  of  land 
taken  for  roads,  a jury  of  six  might  make  the 
assessment  in  the  probate  court,  and  the  owner 
of  the  land  contested  the  validity  of  the  ap- 
praisement upon  that  ground,  and  the  case 
went  to  the  supreme  court.  The  supreme  court 
held  that  the  statute  was  in  contravention  of 
the  constitutional  provision,  which  provided 
that  in  such  cases  the  compensation  should  be 
assessed  by  a jury.  Of  course,  the  question 
arose  as  to  what  was  a jury.  Was  it  necessary 
that  there  should  be  any  particular  number  of 
men  to  make  a jury?  That  was  the  question 
which  was  suggested  in  the  argument  just  now 
presented,  and  upon  that  question  Judge  Thur- 
man, in  pronouncing  the  opinion  of  the  court,  be- 
gins by  saying,  that  “the  term  jury,  without  addi- 
tion or  prefix,  imports  a body  of  twelve  men  in  a 
court  of  justice,  is  as  well  settled  as  any  legal 
proposition  can  be.  That  it  is  used  in  this  sense 
wherever  it  occurs  in  the  Constitution,  except 
in  the  section  under  consideration,  is  admitted 
by  counsel,  and  could  not  be  successfully  de- 
nied. Unless,  then,  we  are  prepared  to  assert 
that  the  same  word  meant  one  thing  in  one 
part  of  the  Constitution,  and  another  thing  in 
other  parts  of  it;  that,  in  some  places,  it  has  a 
definite  legal  signification,  but  that  in  another, 
it  defines  nothing  with  certainty,  we  must  give 
to  it  wherever  it  occurs  its  ordinary  common 
law  meaning.  Now,  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  used  the 
word  in  an  indefinite  and  doubtful  sense ; and 
that,  while  protecting  the  right  of  property  by 
adding  to  the  pre-existing  safeguards  the  addi- 
tional one  of  jury  trial,  they  left  it  to  the  Leg- 
islature to  constitute  the  jury  of  any  number, 
however  small?”  Of  course,  a part  of  this  has 
reference  to  what  it  means  in  our  Constitution 
of  1851,  but  I read  the  whole  paragraph,  because 
it  applies  to  some  of  the  considerations  that 
were  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Miner]. 

“For  if  it  may  consist  of  six,  as  prescribed  in  the  stat- 
ute before  us,  upon  the  same  reason  it  may  consist  of 
three,  or  two,  or  even  one,  if  the  Assembly  see  fit  to  de- 
clare so;  and  as  it  was  well  observed,  in  Wert’s  case,  it  is  no 
answer  to  say  this  will  not  be  likely  to  be  done.  Jf  it  had 
been  deemed  safe  to  leave  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  General 
Assembly  no  constitutional  provision  was  needed,  and, 
whether  needed  or  not,  it  has  been  ordained  by  a power 
which  both  the  General  Assembly  and  this  court  are 
bound  to  obey.” 

Now,  Mr.  President,  if  I were  disposed  to 

y.  n-1  J 3 


find  some  hypercritical  fault  with  the  idea  of 
twelve  men  instead  of  eleven  or  thirteen,  it 
might  be  somewhat  difficult  to  say  why  eleven 
or  thirteen  would  not  do.  The  only  answer 
that  could  be  made  to  that,  would  be  that,  un- 
less you  can  say  that  eleven  is  better  than 
twelve,  or  that  thirteen  is  better,  it  should  be 
left  as  it  is,  and  the  additional  argument  that, 
as  soon  as  we  should  begin  to  touch  a thing 
of  that  kind,  we  should  begin  to  infringe  upon 
that  sacredness  and  inviolability  which  we  seek 
to  protect  by  a Constitutional  provision. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  Mr.  President,  that  to 
say  that  a jury  may  consist  of  such  a number  as 
the  Legislature  may  provide,  is,  substantially, 
conferring  the  power  to  take  it  entirely 
away;  because  if  you  give  them  the  power 
to  change  the  number,  you  give  them  the 
power  to  substitute  any  number,  as  has 
been  very  ably  shown  by  Judge  Thurman, 
and  had  previously  been  indicated,  in  the 
opinion  in  the  Wert’s  case,  reported  in  the 
the  second  Ohio  State  Reports,  by  Judge  Ran- 
ney,  in  which  he  held  that  to  allow  the  Legisla- 
ture to  provide  for  six  men  instead  of  twelve, 
makes  it  entirely  competent  to  take  any  other 
number  that  they  may  deem  proper.  When 
you  have  done  that,  all  the  idea  of  a jury  is 
gone.  It  is  no  more  than  to  give  the  power  to 
the  court  to  abolish  the  jury.  Under  the  old 
Constitution  of  1802,  it  was  provided  that  com- 
pensation to  owners  of  property  that  shall  be 
taken  for  private  use  to  be  condemned  for  pub- 
lic works  might  be  assessed  by  seven  or  three, 
and  it  was  held  to  be  valid,  not  because  that 
number  would  make  a jury,  but  because  under 
that  Constitution,  the  right  of  trial  by  jury 
did  not  exist. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me 
a question  ? Is  there  any  objection  to  making 
the  jury  six  injustices’  and  mayors’  courts? 

Mr.  MINER.  Whilst  the  interruption  takes 
place,  I would  ask  leave  of  the  Convention  to 
withdraw  my  amendment,  for  the  purpose  of 
offering  a proposition  which  I understand  was 
prepared  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  Hoadly],  to 
which  my  attention  had  not  been  called,  to  take 
the  place  of  the  present  section  5. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  MINER.  It  is  Proposition  No.  42. 

“The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate;  but  the 
General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  provide  for  juries,  in 
civil  causes,  composed  of  any  number  of  jurors  not  less 
than  six,  and  the  agreement  of  not  less  than  two-thirds 
of  any  jury  in  any  civil  cause  shall  be  sufficient  for  a ver- 
dict.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  will  hardly 
be  in  order  now,  as  it  is  an  amendment  to  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Monroe  [Mr.  Okey].  The  question  before  the 
Convention  is  upon  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Monroe  [Mr.  Okey.] 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Is  there  an  amendment  to  the 
amendment  already  offered  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  original 
metion  is  simply  to  add  to  the  end  of  the  origi- 
nal section  the  words  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Monroe  [Mr.  Okey].  The  Secretary 
will  read  that  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  : 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe  the  number  of 
jurors  in  trials  and  proceedings  before  the  Probate  Courts 
and  Justices  of  the  Peace.” 


1762 


CONCERNING  THE  JURY  SYSTEM. [129th 


Miner,  West,  Root,  Gurley,  Tuttle. 


[Wednesday* 


The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  MINER.  I now  offer  n.y  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  he  inviolate;  but  the 
General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  provide  for  juries  in 
civil  causes,  composed  of  any  number  of  jurors  of  not  less 
than  six,  and  the  agreement  of  not  less  than  two-thirds 
of  any  jury,  in  any  civil  cause,  shall  be  sufficient  for  a 
verdict.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  going  to  offer  an  amend- 
ment to  the  original  section. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner]  is, 
to  strike  out  of  the  original  section,  “ twelve,” 
and  insert  “ six.” 

Mr.  MINER.  I think  it  can  be  got  at  by,  in- 
stead of  offering  it  as  a proposition,  to  offer  it 
as  an  amendment.  The  matter  in  the  substi- 
tute of  my  colleague  [Mr.  Hoadly]  is  the  same, 
as  far  as  the  word  “inviolate,”  as  the  provision 
in  the  old  Constitution.  I move  to  amend  by 
adding : 

“ But  the  General  Assembly  may  by  law  pro- 
vide for  trials  in  civil  causes,  composed  of  any 
number  of  jurors,  of  not  less  than  six;  and  the 
agreement  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  any 
jury  in  any  civil  cause  shall  be  sufficient. for  a 
verdict.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  I ask  for  a division  of  the  ques- 
tion on  striking  out. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  There  is  noth- 
ing moved  to  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Then  I ask  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Will  it  be  in  order  to  amend 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner]? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  will  be  in 
order. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I move  to  strike  out  all  after 
the  word  “six.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  words 
proposed  to  be  stricken  out  are ; 

“And  the  agreement  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  any 
jury  in  any  civil  cause  shall  be  sufficient  for  a verdict.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner],  as  amended.  The  Sec- 
tion will  read  as  follows : 

“The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate;  but  the 
General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  provide  for  juries  in  civil 
cases,  composed  of  any  number  of  jurors,  not  less  than 
six.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  On  that  I ask  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  an  amendment.  After 
the  word  “six”  insert  “ in  courts  inferior  to  the 
common  pleas.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman how  that  protects  anything?  I desire  to 
know  what  there  is  in  the  Constitution  t<5  pre- 
vent the  Legislature  from  giving  to  these  courts 
any  amount  of  jurisdiction  over  persons  and 
property,  and  then  subject  it  to  a new  and 
unknown  tribunal;  that  is  to  say,  a final 
tribunal  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  There  is  also  to  be  an  interme- 
diate court  above  the  common  pleas,  and  then  a 
supreme  court.  We  have  provided  for  a 
justice’s  court,  and  a mayor’s  court  may  be 
provided,  all  inferior  to  the  courc  of  common 
pleas.  Suppose  the  Constitution  is  taken  away ; 


we  shall  have  a common  pleas,  and  we  shall 
have  an  intermediate  court,  above  the  common 
pleas,  and,  until  the  people  of  the  State  go 
scark  mad,  we  shall  continue  to  have  a court  of 
common  pleas,  I presume,  with  all  its  jurisdic- 
tion as  it  now  is,  so  that  limiting  the  jury  of 
six  to  courts  inferior  to  the  common  pleas, 
limits  them  to  those  insignificant  and  petty 
trials  that  are  really  a nuisance,  and  sometimes 
a very  great  nuisance.  The  idea  of  having  a 
jury  before  a justice’s  court,  and  then  an  ap- 
peal to  the  common  pleas,  with  a jury  of  twelve, 
has  always  seemed  to  me  worse  than  nonsense. 
There  ought  to  be  something  final  before  courts 
of  justice,  and  it  would  be  final  without  such 
an  extraordinary  expenditure  of  time  and 
money  as  a jury  of  twelve  men  would  require. 
The  amount  is  generally  very  insignificant, 
and  no  reason  in  the  world  can  be  given  why  a 
jury  of  twelve,  having  just  this  very  limited 
jurisdiction,  should  render  a final  decision 
between  the  parties,  to  be  reversed  only  upon 
an  error.  It  has  been  my  experience  and  obser- 
vation— 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  We  have  spent  a great  deal  of 
time  over  the  Judiciary  Article,  and  it  will 
probably  remain  about  as  it  is.  Now,  is  there 
anything  in  that  Article  that  would  prevent  the 
Legislature  from  giving  jurisdiction  to  any 
amount  to  a justice  of  the  peace  or  a probate 
court,  and  making  it  final,  so  far  as  the  question 
of  fact  is  concerned  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Nothing  interferes,  except  the 
ordinary  common  sense  of  mankind. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Is  there  anything  in  this 
limitation  of  the  inviolable  right  of  trial  by 
jury  except  a simple  submission  to  the  good 
sense  of  mankind? 

Mr.  WEST.  So  far  as  the  condemnation  of 
the  right  of  property  for  public  use  is  con- 
cerned, the  Constitution  has  already  prescribed 
that  a jury  of  twelve  shall  be  the  number,  and 
if  that  jurisdiction  is  exercised  by  the  Probate 
Court,  a jury  of  twelve  will  always  be  required 
under  that  clause,  so  that  this  number  “ six  ” 
must  be  limited  to  ordinary  common  law  pro- 
ceedings in  civil  transactions.  I see  no  reason 
in  the  world,  why  a verdict  rendered  by  six 
men,  before  a justice  of  the  peace,  should  not  be 
conclusive  of  the  fact,  just  as  well  as  a verdict 
of  twelve  men  before  a justice  of  the  peace. 
There  is  nothing  ip  the  Constitution  to  prevent 
the  General  Assembly  from  providing  a jury  of 
twelve  men  before  a justice  of  the  peace,  and 
making  the  verdict  final.  Is  there  any  charm 
in  the  number  twelve,  when  brought  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  that  it  should  make  his  de- 
cision any  more  final  than  a verdict  of  six  intelli- 
gent gentlemen  before  a justice  of  the  peace? 
Most  certainly,  not;  and  the  General  Assembly 
has  ample  power  to  provide  for  calling  a jury 
of  six,  and  making  its  verdict  final  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  or  of  calling  any  other 
number  above  six.  We  simply  reduce  the  num- 
ber to  six,  and  make  the  verdict  final,  unless  it 
is  to  be  reversed  upon  error,  and  then  trust  to 
the  good  sense  of  mankind  who  will  live  after 
us.  I suppose  that  all  wisdom  will  not  die  when 
we  die. 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  JURY  SYSTEM. 1763 

March  4,  1874.]  Voris,  West,  Hale,  Tuttle,  etc. 


Mr.  VORIS.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken. 

Mr.  WEST.  I may  err ; but  if  I err,  I err 
with  Milton,  who  sang  gloriously  in  his  day, 
and  did  not  believe  that  he  knew  all  things,  and 
probably  some  may  come  after  us  who  may 
know  a little.  A jury  of  six,  in  these  inferior 
causes,  where  there  is  a small  amount,  would 
be  just  as  competent  to  render  a verdict,  and 
would  do  it  precisely  as  well  as  a jury  of  twelve. 
Where  larger  amounts  are  involved  and  larger 
interests  are  at  stake,  in  the  higher  courts,  and 
as  a jury  of  twelve  must  be  provided  in  these 
very  courts,  there  is  no  necessity  of  making 
any  distinction ; therefore,  no  necessity  of  pro- 
viding for  a smaller  number  of  jurors  than  the 
regular  number,  in  the  higher  courts ; but  in 
the  smaller,  inferior  courts,  where  there  is  no 
fixed  number  of  jurors,  there  is  no  reason  why 
there  should  be  a fixed  number  above  six.  By 
making  it  uniform,  I see  nothing  inconsistent 
with  justice  and  right,  or  economy,  in  fixing 
the  jury  at  not  less  than  six.  You  may  make 
it  seven,  or  eight,  or  nine,  but  our  motion  is  to 
reduce  it  to  six,  if  they  see  proper  in  their  wis- 
dom to  do  so,  and  cheapen  litigation  as  much 
as  possible.  As  it  is  now,  there  is  nothing  final 
before  a justice,  except  in  some  litigation  about 
sums  under  twenty  dollars,  and  the  result  of  it 
will  have  a tendency  to  cheapen  our  system  of 
litigation.  We  have  increased  the  expenditure 
enormously,  and,  I venture  to  say,  there  is  not 
a State  in  the  United  States  where  litigation  is 
so  expensive  as  the  so-called  cheap  system  in 
the  State  of  Ohio ; because,  what  we  make  up 
in  cheapness  we  lose  in  the  multitude  of  our 
suits,  so  that  a cause  brought  about  a trifle  is 
augmented  to  ten  times  what  it  is  in  those  States 
where  they  do  not  have  so  many  courts,  and 
what  they  do  have  are  more  expensive.  I want 
some  cheapness  and  some  end  to  litigation. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  to  say,  if  I understand 
this  amendment,  it  is  simply  to  put  into  the 
Constitution  what  is  now  the  practice.  We 
have  been  practicing  for  years,  before  the  Jus- 
tice of  the  Peace,  with  a jury  of  six  men,  and 
the  Supreme  Court  have  decided  it  to  be  con- 
stitutional. I shall  vote  for  this  amendment 
myself,  because  I believe  it  is  proper  that  that 
question  should  be  settled  in  the  Constitution, 
and  not  be  subject  to  fluctuations.  I am  entirely 
willing  that  the  rights  of  citizens,  that  the 
rights,  so  far  as  Justices  of  the  Peace  are  con- 
cerned, shall  be  determined  by  a jury  of  six 
men. 

Mr.  HALE.  I really  hope  no  change  will  be 
made  in  this  section.  The  amendment  propos- 
ed by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
will  apply  to  the  Probate  Court,  Mayor’s  Court, 
and  Justices  of  the  Peace,  as  those  are  now  or- 
ganized. In  the  Probate  Court,  about  all  the 
causes  that  a jury  are  demanded  for  are  cases 
involving  an  appropriation  of  private  property 
to  the  use  of  some  corporation  where  twelve 
men  are  required. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  will  see  that  is 
provided  for  in  another  section,  I think  section 
twenty,  which  says  that  a trial  by  jury  shall  be 
by  twelve  men. 


Mr.  HALE.  Then  you  have  a conflict  between 
the  two  provisions. 

Mr.  WEST.  Not  a particle.  One  is  in  civil 
cases  and  the  other  statutory.  They  are  per- 
fectly consistent. 

Mr.  HALE.  Of  course,  I understand,  but 
about  the  only  cases  in  the  Probate  Court  where 
you  have  a jury  are  provided  for  by  a different 
section. 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HALE.  The  trouble  about  this  matter  is 
that  we  do  not  know  where  it  will  end,  if  we 
commence  changing  the  trial  by  jury.  As  has 
been  stated,  the  practice  now  is  to  have  a jury 
of  six  men  in  this  case,  and  it  would  be  well  to 
leave  it  wrhere  it  is. 

Mr.  West’s  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner]  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate;  but  the 
General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  provide  for  juries  in  civil 
cases  in  courts  inferior  to  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas, 
composed  of  any  number  of  jurors  not  less  than  six.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  this  amendment  will 
not  be  adopted.  If  there  is  a disposition  to  do 
anything  of  this  kind,  I hope  it  will  be  done 
directly  by  striking  out  of  the  Constitution  the 
proposition  that  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall 
be  inviolate.  It  is  suggested  that  a good  reason 
for  adopting  the  proposition  as  it  now  stands  is, 
that  it  accords  with  what  the  Legislature  has 
provided  for;  that  is,  juries  of  six  men  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  perhaps  before  other 
courts.  This,  it  is  said,  only  sanctions  that 
practice  by  a constitutional  provision.  Mr. 
President,  that  is  the  most  singular  reason,  it 
seems  to  me,  for  adopting  a constitutional  pro- 
vision, and  especially  when  it  effects  a very 
material  alteration  of  the  constitutional  provi- 
sion that  has  already  existed.  That  matter  is 
now  accomplished.  Its  rightfulness,  its  legal- 
ity, its  constitutionality,  are  fairly  settled,  and 
the  existence  of  precisely  the  constitutional  law 
that  is  now  proposed  to  us  by  this  amendment  is 
now  established  by  judicial  determination.  I 
beg  to  know  what  reason  there  is  for  making 
any  such  change  as  this,  unless  it  is  intended  to 
go  a great  deal  further.  Is  there  a lawyer  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  who  conceives  there  Is  the  slight- 
est question  of  the  power  of  the  Legislature  to 
do  what  this  amendment  proposes — to  provide 
for  trials  before  a justice  of  the  peace  by 
juries  of  six?  Can  a lawyer  be  found  in 
the  State  of  Ohio  that  questions  the  con- 
stitutionality of  that  action  under  the  deter- 
minations of  our  supreme  court,  repeated 
over  and  over  again?  If  it  is  not  determined  to 
go  further,  and  under  the  guise  of  sanctioning 
this  established  practice  to  make  a most  mate- 
rial modification  of  the  present  constitutional 
provision,  what  necessity  is  there  for  anything 
of  that  kind?  You  might  as  well  provide,  by  a 
Constitutional  provision,  that  a constable  shall 
be  a competent  officer  to  officiate  before  a jus- 
tice of  the  peace.  There  is  just  exactly  as  much 
necessity  for  such  a provision;  for  there  is  not 
one  bit  more  legal  or  constitutional  right 
in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other  with 
the  Constitution  remaining  as  it  is,  and, 
therefore,  because  it  would  be  in  accord- 


1764 


CONCERNING  THE  JURY  SYSTEM. 

Tuttle,  West. 


ance  with  the  present  practice,  why  not 
make  the  change,  and  introduce  into  the 
Bill  of  Rights  a provision  that  it  shall  be  com- 
petent for  the  constable  to  officiate  in  a court  of 
a justice  of  the  peace  in  this  State  ? 

But  the  meaning  of  it  is  to  go  further.  I take 
it  the  meaning  of  it  is  to  provide,  as  it  unques- 
tionably would  provide,  that  a jury  of  six  might 
render  a final  verdict,  and  satisfy  the  provision 
for  the  inviolability  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury. 
That  is  what  it  would  do.  It  could  not  be 
understood  to  mean  anything  else.  Your  Con- 
stitution provides,  in  the  same  breath,  that  your 
right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolable,  but 
that  in  any  cases  that  may  be  brought  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  a jury  of  six  is  what  we 
mean,  and  it  simply  provides  that  the  right  of 
trial  by  a jury  of  six  men  shall  be  inviolate, 
and  when  such  a jury  is  given  that  is  the  end  of 
the  matter. 

Now,  if  we  proposed  to  limit  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  justice  of  the  peace,  and  say  that  it  shall 
be  no  more  extensive  than  it  now  is,  and  that, 
under  this  clause,  six  men  would  be  sufficient, 
that  would  be  quite  a different  thing,  and  I 
might  be  willing  to  support  it.  I do  not  know 
but  that  in  amounts  not  exceeding  $100,  and 
where  the  title  to  real  estate  is  not  in  question, 
and  remembering  the  limitations  that  are  by 
law  imposed  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of 
the  peace,  I would  be  quite  willing;  but  that  is 
not  the  scope  of  this  provision.  Any  lawyer 
can  see  it,  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  give  any  amount  of  jurisdiction  to  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  that  they  may  see  fit,  and  to 
make  the  action  of  that  court  final,  so  far  as  the 
trial  of  facts  is  concerned.  Of  that  I apprehend 
that  there  cannot  be  any  doubt,  and  the  same 
thing  is  true  with  regard  to  the  probate  court. 

Gentlemen  say  we  must  trust  something  to 
the  Legislature.  In  the  name  of  Heaven,  what 
do  we  have  the  Bill  of  Rights  for  ? If  you  have 
such  implicit  faith  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Legis- 
lature, if  you  are  to  leave  it,  after  all,  to  them, 
to  their  good  sense,  as  to  how  that  right  of  trial 
by  jury  shall  remain,  what  do  you  say  any- 
thing about  it  for  ? Why  do  you  talk  about  pre- 
serving the  inviolability  of  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury,  and,  in  the  same  breach,  give  to  the  Legis- 
lature the  power  to  strike  it  down  forever? 

[Here  the  gentleman’s  time  expired.] 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  agreeing  to  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Miner]. 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  a great  admiration  for 
the  jury  trial,  but  I do  really  desire  to  see,  in 
some  of  our  inferior  courts,  some  kind  of  pro- 
vision that  will  make  an  end  of  litigation.  Un- 
der our  present  system,  as  gentlemen  are  well 
aware,  there  is  nothing  final,  whatever,  under 
a justice  of  the  peace,  except  incases  involving 
sums  under  twenty  dollars,  so  that  our  inferior 
courts  are,  really,  the  starting  point  of  every 
little,  insignificant  cause,  by  whose  decisions 
the  people  may  abide,  if  they  see  proper,  and  if 
not  they  may  pass  on,  and  go  up.  1 believe  it 
is  for  the  best  interests  of  the  people  at  large, 
that  there  should  be  a finality  to  the  proceed- 
ings tried  before  a justice  of  the  peace,  in  such 
inferior  jurisdiction,  and  I believe  that  it  can  be 
properly  tried  before  a jury  of  six  men,  where 
the  amount  involved  is  very  small.  Generally, 


[129th 

[Wednesday, 


the  amount  in  controversy  is  scarcely  worth  the 
cost  of  contesting  it.  Now,  sir,  after  a trial  be- 
fore the  justice’s  courtis  had,  suppose  it  is  taken 
into  a higher  court.  I can  see  but  very  little 
use  of  the  justice’s  court  at  all. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  question  I desire  to  put 

is,  why  should  not  that  be  done  by  fixing  the 
limit  of  the  power  of  appeal  from  the  justice  of 
the  peace,  and  another  limit  to  any  case  that 
may  be  brought  into  the  court  of  common  pleas ; 
so  that  the  justice  may  finally  obtain  final  juris- 
diction over  the  matter,  and  in  that  way  end  it? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir.  Will  the  gentleman 
answer  me  how  it  is  possible  to  make  the  judg- 
ment of  a justice’s  court  final,  when  you  do  not 
have  a jury  provided  for  that  court,  when  you 
have  in  the  Constitution  a clause  declaring  that 
the  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I shall  answer  the  gentleman, 
if  he  will  allow  me. 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  By  exactly  the  same  means 
by  which  I would  make  a jury  of  six  men  sat- 
isfy the  requirement  of  a jury  ; for  it  is  no  more 
a satisfaction  to  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  in  its 
just  sense  than  no  jury  at  all. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  concedes  the 
proposition  that  it  is  utterly  impossible,  under 
this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  to  make  the 
adjudication  of  the  justice’s  court  final,  and 
anything  that  would  tend  to  limit  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  a justice  of  the  peace  to  a finality  would 
be  declared,  and  must  be  declared,  unconstitu- 
tional, because  the  supreme  court 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  gentleman  has  misun- 
derstood me.  I say  that,  if  that  is  the  object,  I 
would  fix  it  in  the  Constitution  itself,  or  change 

it.  If  the  Constitution  can  provide  a thing,  it 
can  limit  a thing.  The  Constitution,  while  it 
provides  that  the  inviolability  of  the  right  of 
trial  by  jury  is  binding,  it  is  a limitation  upon 
that  matter.  That  there  shall  be  certain  limits 
upon  it  is  also  binding,  and  equally  effectual. 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly ; and  if  we  place  the 
word  “jury  ” in  the  Constitution  without  qual- 
ification, the  common  law  signification  is  at- 
tached to  it,  such  being  its  legal  construction; 
but,  if  we  prescribe  the  number  of  jurors  to 
constitute  a jury,  the  common  law  signification 
is  removed,  and  the  Constitutional  signification, 
whatever  it  may  be,  attaches. 

Now,  sir,  we  provide,  by  this  clause,  that,  in 
all  other  courts  excfept  the  common  pleas  court, 
the  jury  shall  be  twelve,  and,  in  these  inferior 
courts,  the  General  Assembly  shall  have  the 
power  to  make  the  jury  of  not  less  than  six 
sufficient.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  a jury  of 
six  neighbors,  assembled  before  a justice  of  the 
peace,  for  the  purpose  of  agreeing  with  regard 
to  some  insigniiicant  matter  in  dispute,  ought 
to  pass  a judgment  which  shall  be  a finality, 
and  I would  provide  for  a jury  of  six  in  a 
common  pleas  court,  if  it  were  not  that,  some- 
times, large  sums  are  involved,  and  the  liberty 
of  the  citizen  is  sometimes  involved,  and  that 
you  must  have  a jury  large  enough  to  satisfy 
the  demands  of  public  opinion  in  the  higher 
courts,  and,  having  a jury  there  for  the  purpose, 
there  is  no  impropriety  of  submitting  to 


Day.]  

March  4,  1874.] 


CONCERNING  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT. 

West,  Voris,  Cook. 


1765 


the  other  questions  when  they  come  before  that 
Court;  but  when  the  matter  is  submitted  to  a 
Justice’s  Court,  of  no  very  great  importance, 
involving  no  very  large  sum,  nothing  involving, 
as  a general  thing,  matters  of  intricate  law,  six 
sensible  neighbors  ought  to  satisfy  the  demands 
of  any  parties,  and  thus  put  an  end  to  litigation 
without  being  required  to  call  in  twelve  men, 
as  the  law  now  is,  or  call  in  six  men  before  a 
Justice  of  the  Peace,  and  litigate  until  the  par- 
ties have  worried  themselves  into  a large  ex- 
penditure, and  then  appeal  to  a jury  of  twelve, 
there  to  wait,  probably,  for  three,  or  four,  or 
five,  or  six  terms,  until  ten  times  the  amount 
in  controversy  is  consumed  in  the  actual  costs 
of  the  Court,  to  say  nothing  of  the  enormous 
counsel  fees.  I say,  I believe  it  is  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  litigants  that  they  have  a 
tribunal  that  will  end  the  controversy  between 
the  litigants,  and  not  allow  them  to  consume 
the  substance  that  ought  to  be  devoted  to  the 
support  and  education  of  their  children.  It  is 
wrong  to  encourage  litigation  in  that  way,  by 
making  it  so  difficult  and  so  expensive  for  those 
tribunals  to  obtain  a final  jurisdiction  over  it. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I do  not  fully  understand  the 
motion  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Miner]. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  is  to  add 
to  the  section  as  it  now  stands,  all  the  words  in 
the  proposition  submitted  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  after  the  word 
“ inviolate.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  45,  nays  21,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Baber,  Barnet, 
Bishop,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Coats,  Cook,  De 
Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene, 
Gurley,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Jackson,  Johnson, 
Kerr,  Kraemer,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitche- 
ner,  Mueller,  Okey,  Pease,  Pond,  Powell,  Reil- 
ly, Sears,  Shaw,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Van  Yalkenburgh,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoris, 
Waddle,  Weaver,  West,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Noble— 45. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Bosworth,  Caldwell,  Campbell, 
Cunningham,  Foran,Hale,  Horton,  Page,  Pratt, 
Root,  Sample,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Watson,  White  of  Brown,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign— 21. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  are 
no  further  amendments  to  section  five,  the  Sec- 
retary will  report  section  six. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  6.  There  shall  he  no  slavery  in  this  State,  nor  in- 
voluntary servitude,  unless  for  the  punishment  of  crime. 

Mr.  COOK.  I offer  the  following  amendment 
to  the  Constitution. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“But  the  death  penalty  shall  never  he  inflicted  in  the 
punishment  of  crime.” 

Mr.  COOK.  The  legislation  of  this  country 
is  influenced  to  too  great  an  extent  by  the  ad 
captandum  style  of  argument,  and  the  most  of  its 
crudities  are  attributable  to  this  source.  But  we 
are  approaching  the  time  when  stump  oratory 
will  be  banished  from  our  halls  of  legislation, 


and  every  law  will  be  submitted  to  the  test  of 
reason . 

What  then  will  become  of  capital  punish- 
ment? It  will  be  abolished. 

So  long  as  legislators  are  controlled  by  their 
fears,  or  their  passions,  they  will  sacrifice  the 
lives  of  their  fellow-men  to  allay  their  fears  or 
to  gratify  their  desire  for  revenge.  But  when 
they  rise  above  self,  and  legislate  for  humanity, 
capital  punishment  will  be  abolished. 

As  law  has  its  necessity  in,  and  is  founded 
on  the  idea  of,  the  development  of  man  as  a 
reasonable  and  moral  being,  the  only  subject  of 
law  is  man,  and  its  only  object  his  rational  and 
moral  development.  To  consider  it  otherwise 
would  be  to  reverse  the  entire  order  of  the 
principles  of  law ; that  is,  to  consider  man  as 
simply  an  object  of  law;  that  is,  a means  to  be 
used  only  for  the  good  of  others. 

This  would  place  the  object  of  the  law  above 
the  true  subject,  and  justify  the  sacrifice  of  the 
few  for  the  benefit  of  the  many.  Upon  this  er- 
roneous idea  was  based  all  the  laws  of  serfdom 
and  slavery.  But  these,  to  a great  extent,  have 
fallen  before  the  march  of  progress,  and  time, 
with  a just  appreciation  of  the  rights  of  man, 
will  accomplish  the  rest. 

The  reason  of  punishment,  or  the  right  of 
the  State  to  inflict  it,  consists  in  the  false  posi- 
tion in  which  the  criminal  has  voluntarily 
placed  himself  in  relation  to  the  legal  require- 
ments of  society.  The  peace  and  safety  of  the 
State  require  that  every  one  should  subordinate 
his  actions  to  the  requirements  of  law,  which  is 
the  safeguard  of  the  rights  of  all.  But  this 
order  is  inverted  by  the  criminal,  and  he  places 
himself  in  opposition  to  the  law,  rises  above  it, 
and  tramples  on  it,  and  sets  up  a false  standard, 
which,  if  it  became  general,  would  subvert  all 
order,  and  destroy  the  State.  In  his  case  the 
equilibrium  of  the  law  has  been  disturbed,  and 
it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  State  to  take  measures 
for  its  restoration.  And  the  punishment  should 
go  no  further  than  to  secure  a re-establishment 
of  the  supremacy  of  the  law  violated  or  undone 
by  the  crime.  The  law  should  be  restored  to 
its  dominion,  re-invested  with  its  power,  and 
again  clothed  with  its  majesty  ; and,  if  the  State 
were  the  only  party  whose  interest  should  be 
regarded,  this  accomplishment  would  be  the 
end  of  punishment,  and  the  means  of  its  accom- 
plishment would  be  of  little  or  no  concern. 

On  the  part  of  the  State,  the  re-establishment 
of  order  and  the  supremacy  of  the  law,  is  the 
general  or  legal  object  of  punishment.  But 
the  criminal  is  a man,  and  as  the  State  is  form- 
ed not  for  its  own  benefit,  but  for  the  good  of 
man,  there  is,  therefore,  a duty  due  from  the 
State  to  the  criminal,  in  his  quality  as  man.  It 
is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  inquire  and  ascertain 
the  cause  of  the  criminal  conduct  on  the  part 
of  the  delinquent,  and  remove  it.  This  raises 
the  State  above  a simple  executioner,  and  makes 
it  the  guardian  of  the  moral  development  of  all 
its  citizens,  especially  of  those  in  whom  it  has 
been  demonstrated  to  be  deficient. 

The  philosophy  of  crime  is,  that  it  is  always 
committed  by  an  imperfect  individual,  for  we 
can  not  conceive  that  a perfect  person  would 
stoop  to  the  commission  of  crime.  When,  there- 
fore, w’e  find  a person  engaged  in  crime,  we 
infer  he  is  imperfect,  and  the  imperfection  is 


1766 


CONCERNING  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT. 

Cook,  Powell. 


[1 29th 

[Wednesday, 


either  inborn  or  the  result  of  a vicious  education. 

And  herein  is  thrown  upon  the  State,  as  edu- 
cator of  her  citizens,  the  responsibility  of  re- 
storing this  defective  individual  to  a perfect 
manhood,  in  which  case  the  State  will  be  more 
secure  against  a repetition  of  the  criminal  act, 
than  if  it  incarcerates  him  within  prison  walls. 

We  have  advanced  sufficiently  in  knowledge 
to  know  that  it  is  possible  to  overcome,  to  a 
very  great  extent,  by  education,  material  defect 
in  character.  But  crime  is  more  frequently 
the  offspring  of  bad  education  than  innate 
wickedness.  And  clearly-  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
State  to  correct  or  undo  that  which  she  has 
done,  or  permitted  to  be  done,  in  the  real  edu- 
cation of  her  citizens. 

If,  by  her  neglect  or  improper  conduct,  she 
has  educated  any  of  her  citizens  to  a criminal 
course  of  life,  a heavy  responsibility  rests  on 
her  of  which  she  cannot  divest  herself,  nor 
ought  she  to  shirk  the  responsibility  by  the  im- 
prisonment of  the  delinquent.  Law  exists,  not 
for  the  benefit  of  the  State  as  an  abstraction, 
but  its  sole  object  is  the  good  of  man — not  for 
the  good  of  the  majority,  but  of  all.  We  must 
not,  therefore,  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the 
criminal  is  still  a member  of  the  State,  endow- 
ed with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which 
are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

All  criminal  law  should,  therefore,  have  in 
view  the  moral  development  of  the  criminal,  in 
connection  with  the  punishment  inflicted  for 
the  violation  of  the  law.  And  it  is  an  error  to 
conceive  that  the  law  can  be  restored  in  its 
dominion  without  the  improvement  of  the  de- 
linquent, or  simply  by  eliminating  him  from 
society.  The  law  is  no  mere  abstraction;  it 
exists  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  ends  of 
humanity.  And  each  individual,  by  reason  of, 
the  divine  principle  which  he  contains,  and  by 
means  ot  which  he  is  capable  of  again  elevating 
society  from  the  debasement  into  which  it  has 
fallen,  through  his  fault,  has  a right  to  claim 
that  the  law  shall  respect  this  divinity  in  him, 
and  that  he  should  not  be  sacrificed  to  the  idol 
of  an  unmeaning  abstraction. 

In  pagan  antiquity,  the  state  and  the  law 
were  the  end  and  the  object,  and  man  only  the 
means ; but,  since  the  Christian  Era,  man,  by 
reason  of  the  divine  and  immortal  in  his  nature, 
has  become  the  recognized  end  and  object,  and 
the  state  and  the  law  are  but  means  through 
which  the  good  of  man  is  to  be  realized.  And 
for  this  reason  the  penal  code,  whatever  measures 
it  may  adopt,  should  tend  to  the  reformation  of 
the  delinquent.  And  the  means  of  punishment 
are  justifiable  only  in  so  far  as  they  tend  to  the 
moral  as  well  as  judicial  conviction  of  the 
criminal. 

The  object  of  punishment  is  not  to  inflict 
pain  on  the  criminal  as  an  equivalent  for  his 
crime.  That  would  be  revenge.  Whereas,  the 
object  is  a humane  one;  that  is,  to  restore  the 
criminal  to  harmony  with  the  law,  by  bringing 
his  moral  and  intellectual  perceptibilities  under 
the  influence  of  reason,  the  foundation  of  law; 
thereby  reinstating  him  to  society  while  vindi- 
cating the  law. 

The  reason  why  the  present  criminal  law  has 
accomplished  no  better  results  is  because  it  sim- 
ply restrains  men  from  committing  crime,  but 
leaves  them  with  all  their  inboriT  desires  for 


mischief.  It  succeeds  in  placing  tile  perverse 
will  externally  in  accord  with  the  law,  while 
the  inward  desire  to  violate  it  is  unex- 
tinguished. But  in  this  legally-reformed  indi- 
vidual the  state  has  no  security  for  the  future 
— Vhomme  purement  legal  n’offriraient  aucune 
garantie  pour  Vavenir. 

By  restraint,  the  criminal  is  indeed  kept  from 
repeating  his  crime,  and,  to  some  extent,  his 
fate  may  deter  others  from  violating  the  law. 
But  the  great  object  desired  is  not  accom- 
plished. By  our  present  mode  of  penitentiary 
life,  the  unholy  fires  which  broke  out  in  the 
commission  of  the  crime  for  which  the  delin- 
quent is  undergoing  punishment,  are  too  often 
left  unextinguished,  and  continue  to  smoulder, 
under  the  impression  that  he  is  being  used 
as  an  instrument  of  terror  to  prevent  others 
from  committing  similar  offenses,  than  that  he 
is  held  in  custody  only  that  the  State  may  in  so 
far  inform  his  conscience  and  improve  his 
morals  as  to  destroy  in  him  all  desire  to  return 
to  a criminal  course  of  life. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  put  a question  to  him  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  If  the  gentleman  desires. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  like  to  know  what 
you  would  do  with  just  such  men. 

Mr.  COOK.  I will  tell  you  in  a minute. 

This  using  one  man  as  a terror  to  others  is  a 
violation  of  one  of  the  fundamental  principles 
of  human  rights.  It  reduces  man  to  a mere 
thing,  to  be  used  for  the  benefit  of  others; 
whereas  each  individual  should  be  considered 
as  possessing  in  and  of  himself  an  inestimable 
or  absolute  value,  on  which  is  founded  his 
moral  worth  and  dignity,  which  should  be  re- 
spected by  all ; and  he  never  should  be  degrad- 
ed to  a level  with  the  brute,  to  be  used  for  the 
profit  or  advantage  of  another. 

For  the  community  to  kill  one  man  to  keep 
another  in  the  path  of  duty,  what  is  it  but  a 
sacrifice  of  one  for  the  benefit  of  another  ? A 
use  to  which  God  and  nature  never  intended 
man.  If  you  may  kill  one  man  to  save  another 
from  death  by  the  gallows,  why  not  kill  him 
to  save  the  other  from  death  by  starvation?  If 
you  may  use  him  and  take  his  life  for  the  bene- 
fit of  his  fellow  man,  why  not  sell  him  for  a 
price,  and  give  the  money  to  the  one  to  be  ben- 
efited by  the  sacrifice?  That  would  make  him 
immediately  and  not  remotely  useful. 

But  I cannot  hope  that  this  penalty  will  be  at 
present  abolished,  and,  perhaps,  in  the  present 
state  of  our  social  and  moral  culture,  it  would 
be  vain  to  desire  it,  for  the  reason  that  the  pe- 
nal, as  well  as  other  laws,  should  be  in  harmony 
with  the  customs,  manners,  sentiments  and 
opinions  of  the  people.  But  the  change,  if  it 
come  at  all,  must  be  produced  by  the  education 
of  the  people,  and  it  cannot  be  outrun  by  legis- 
lation. The  Legislature  is  not  an  educator.  It 
is  merely  the  exponent  of  the  inner  life  of  the 
people,  and  if  it  seek  to  go  beyond  that  it  will 
fail  of  its  object. 

However  desirable  this  humane  policy  may 
be,  still  it  must  be  admitted  that  our  present 
penitentiary  system  is  not  sufficiently  developed 
to  secure  its  application. 

It  is  not,  however,  my  purpose  to  speak  here 
of  the  reform  in  our  penitentiary  system  neces- 
sary to  produce  these  desired  results;  but  I 


1767 


Day.] CONCERNING  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT. 

March  4, 1874.]  Cook,  Watson,  Miner. 


may  be  permitted  to  add,  that  this  institution 
should  be  used  as  a school,  where  the  State 
holds  offenders  for  the  purpose  of  moral  in- 
struction ; and  the  system  of  education  should 
be  one  which  will  teach  the  criminal  that  his 
crime  is  one  against  himself,  and  that  the  State, 
instead  of  inflicting  punishment  on  him  for  it,  ! 
is  only  holding  him  for  the  purpose  of  enlight-  ] 
ening  his  conscience  on  this  subject.  And  it  J 
may  reasonably  be  hoped  that  when  all  men 
learn  that  their  crimes  are  committed  more 
against  themselves  than  against  the  State,  they 
will  refrain  from  the  commission  of  crime. 

But  be  the  results  here  what  they  may,  the 
principles  of  this  theory  will,  nevertheless,  re- 
main intact  until  future  Legislatures  establish 
a system  of  criminal  reformatory  education  in 
harmony  with  it. 

That  is  my  answer  to  the  question  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I understand  this  proposi-  i 
tion  now  to  be  to  amend  by  adding  to  the  sixth  * 
section.  I take  it  that  all  men  have  thought  ; 
more  or  less  upon  this  question  of  capital  pun- ' 
ishment;  and  I suppose  that  the  first  impulse  of 
a large  majority  of  mankind  is  to  abolish  it;  j 
and  yet,  men  are  restrained — some  by  one  con- 
sideration, and  some  by  another  : a large  num-  j 
her  by  considerations  that  are  religious  in  their 
character. 

Now,  whatever  we  may  think  in  regard  to 
this  subject,  Mr.  President,  I am  very  clear  in 
my  conviction  that  it  should  not  form  a provi- 
sion of  the  Constitution.  I have  very  clear  j 
convictions  of  my  own  in  regard  to  the  matter;  j 
but,  without  stopping  to  express  them,  or  to  use  j 
any  argument  upon  the  subject,  my  mind  has 
reached  the  conclusion  that  we  should  exclude 
a provision  of  that  kind  from  the  Constitution. 
The  power  to  act  upon  that  subject  should  be 
with  the  Legislature.  Whatever  may  be  done 
is  experimental,  and  it  should  be  done  where  | 
the  experiment,  if  not  successful,  may  be  ar- 
rested. I have,  therefore,  been  entirely  opposed 
to  a constitutional  provision  of  this  kind. 

But,  were  I going  to  put  it  into  the  Constitu- 
tion, I would  not  add  it  to  the  sixth  section.  It  i 
is  certainly  not  germain  as  an  amendment  to  ; 
that  section,  which  is  a very  short  affair,  and  is 
in  these  words : 

“Sec.  6.  There  shall  he  no  slavery  in  this  State;  nor 
involuntary  servitude,  except  for  the  punishment  of 
crime.” 

Now,  the  whole  subject  that  is  embraced  in 
section  6,  is  the  question  of  involuntary  servi- 
tude; and  when  we  come  to  making  a provi- 
sion and  appending  it  to  that  section,  regulating 
the  degree  of  punishment  that  shall  be  Inflicted, 
we  are  entirely  departing  from  the  section,  and 
departing  from  its  purpose.  It  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  objector  purpose  of  the  section,  and 
is  in  no  way  germain. 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
one  question  ? 

Mr.  WATSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  the  gentleman  consent  to 
putting  it  anywhere  else? 

Mr.  WATSON.  I have  said  to  the  gentleman 
what  I thought  was  entirely  explicit  on  that 
subject.  I will  not  consent  to  have  it  put  into 
the  Constitution.  I will  give  my  reason  again, 
f the  gentleman  omitted  to  notice  it.  The 


abolition  of  capital  punishment  would  be  an 
experiment,  and  it  should  be  left  where  the  ex- 
periment can  be  arrested,  when  it  is  found  to  be 
a failure.  I would,  therefore,  leave  it  with  the 
Legislature.  What  I might  do,  if  I was  legisla- 
ting, is  entirely  another  question.  There,  I 
would  listen  to  arguments  in  its  favor;  there,  I 
might  give  it  my  sanction. 

Mr.  MINER.  I want  to  say  a word  on  the 
subject  before  voting.  I think  I should  be, 
myself,  very  ready  to  abolish  capital  punish- 
ment, as  a relic  of  barbarism,  but  I am  not  in 
favor  of  incorporating  a provision  of  this  sort  in- 
to the  Constitution.  I speak  merely  to  indicate 
that,  in  voting  against  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  it  is  not  to 
be  understood,  so  far  as  I am  concerned,  that  I 
am  in  favor  of  capital  punishment.  I should  be 
willing,  at  any  time,  to  see  the  Legislature 
abolish  capital  punishment,  if  they  should  pro- 
vide, in  connection  therewith,  proper  reforma- 
tory regulations  for  criminals  convicted  of 
murder  or  anj^  other  crime,  and  should  intro- 
duce into  our  system  the  idea  which  has  been 
so  handsomely  expressed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  of  reforming  criminals. 
I have  no  apprehension  that  when  capital  pun- 
ishment is  abolished,  and  we  do  what  we  ought 
to  do  for  the  reformation  of  the  criminal  and 
the  protection  of  society,  it  will  not  be  found  a 
successful  experiment.  I would  be  willing  to 
try  the  experiment  at  once,  but  I think  it  be- 
longs to  the  Legislature. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook] — 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  16,  nays  48,  as  follows  : 
Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Caldwell,  Campbell,  Cook,  Gurley, 
Merrill,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Pease, 
Philips,  Rowland,  Shultz,  Steedman,  Thomp- 
son, Weaver,  White  of  Brown — 16. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Coats,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer, 
Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Hale,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
Miner,  Okey,  Page,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Root, 
Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Yoris,  Wad- 
dle, Watson,  West,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 48. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

No  further  amendments  were  offered  to  sec- 
tion six,  and  the  Secretary  read  : 

Sec.  7.  All  men  have  a natural  and  indefeasible  right 
to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
their  own  conscience.  No  person  shall  be  compelled  to 
attend,  erect,  or  support  any  place  of  worship,  or  main- 
tain any  form  of  worship  against  his  consent;  and  no 
preference  shall  be  given  by  law  to  any  religious  society; 
nor  shall  any  interference  with  the  rights  of  conscience 
be  permitted.  No  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a 
qualification  for  office,  nor  shall  any  person  be  incompe- 
tent to  be  a witness  on  account  of  nis  religious  belief; 
but  nothing  herein  shall  be  construed  to  dispense  with 
oaths  and  affirmations.  Religion,  morality,  and  knowledge, 
however,  being  essential  to  good  government,  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  to  pass  suitable  laws  to 
protect  every  religious  denomination  in  the  peacable  en- 
joyment of  its  own  mode  of  public  worship,  and  to 
encourage  schools  and  the  means  of  instruction. 

No  amendments  were  offered  to  section  seven, 
and  the  Secretary  read : 


1768 


THE  WRIT  OF  HABEAS  CORPUS. [129th 

White  of  B.,  Cunningham,  Powell,  Baber.  [Wednesday, 


Sec.  8.  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall 
not  be  suspended,  unless,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion, 
the  public  safety  require  it. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I offer  the  follow- 
ing amendment  to  section  8 : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  White  moves  to  amend  section  8 by  adding  the  fol- 
lowing words: 

“And  then  only  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  law.” 

So  that  the  section  as  amended  will  read : 

“Sec.  8.  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
shall  not  be  suspended,  unless,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  in- 
vasion, the  public  safety  require  it;  and  then  only  in  such 
manner  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I do  not  propose  to 
enter  upon  the  discussion  of  this  question,  but 
I will  briefly  give  the  reasons  which  have  in- 
duced me  to  offer  this  amendment  to  the  sec- 
tion. The  provision  contained  in  our  Constitu- 
tion is  precisely  the  same  as  the  provision  of 
the  United  States  Constitution,  and  the  question 
has  been  much  debated  as  to  what  department 
of  the  Federal  Government  the  power  of  sus- 
pending the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  properly  be- 
longs— whether  it  is  within  the  exclusive  cog- 
nizance of  the  legislative  department,  or  whe- 
ther it  lies  with  the  executive  department.  That 
is  a question  which  has  been  open  to  discussion, 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  a question  of  so  much 
importance,  involving  the  liberty  of  the  citizen, 
and  the  only  means  by  which  his  right  to  lib- 
erty can  be  inquired  into  and  ascertained,  the 
matter  should  not  be  left  in  doubt  and  uncer- 
tainty. Men  of  distinguished  ability,  and  men 
of  great  learning  have  maintained  that,  under 
a similar  provision  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  the  power  to  suspend  this  right 
belongs  to  the  executive  department.  Horace 
Binney  has  written  a pamphlet  of  over  fifty 
pages  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  the  power 
to  suspend  the  operation  of  this  writ  belongs  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  com- 
mander-in-chief of  the  army  and  navy,  and  as 
the  chief  executive  officer  of  the  government. 
On  the  other  hand,  most  of  our  writers  and 
publicists  have  maintained  that  the  power  be- 
longs exclusively  to  the  legislative  depart- 
ment; that,  inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  is 
silent  as  to  what  power  shall  exercise  the  right 
of  suspension,  it  is  to  be  determined  by  the  ex- 
ercise of  legislative  power;  and  that,  not  being 
delegated  expressly  to  any  department  of  the 
government,  it  ought  to  be  left  to  the  legislative 
department. 

It  seems  to  me  that  some  declaratory  provision 
ought  to  be  incorporated  into  this  Constitution 
in  reference  to  this  matter,  and  that  it  belongs 
to  the  legislative  department  of  the  government 
to  declare  when,  upon  what  condition,  and 
by  whom  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  may  be  sus- 
pended. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I believe  with  the 
gentleman  from  Brown  [Mr.  White],  that  there 
ought  to  be  no  power  to  suspend  the  operation 
of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  vested  anywhere 
except  in  the  legislative  department  of  the 
government:  but  while  I support  his  amend- 
ment, I would  go  further.  I would  take  a step 
further  than  this  amendment  goes. 

This  is  a great  writ.  It  was  regarded  across 
the  water  as  the  crowning  triumph  of  the 
barons,  and  to  say  that  any  authority  short  of 


the  General  Assembly  shall  determine  when  it 
shall  be  suspended,  is  to  take  away  half  the  use- 
fulness of  the  writ.  It  is  a great  writ  of  right 
against  those  who  may,  for  the  time  being,  be 
in  power,  and  unless  the  sense  of  the  Conven- 
tion appears  to  be  so  strongly  against  it  as  to 
render  it  useless,  I would  support  an  amend- 
ment providing  that  it  shall  only  be  suspended 
by  the  General  Assembly  itself. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  not  that  the  effect  of  the 
amendment  proposed  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No,  sir ; I do  not  so 
understand  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  amendment  says  that 
it  shall  not  be  suspended  except  by  law. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes;  and  a law  may 
be  passed  to-day  prescribing  that  it  shall  be  sus- 
pended by  somebody  else  at  some  other  time. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Just  to  that  extent  I 
think  that  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Brown  [Mr.  White],  does  not  reach  what 
ought  to  be  reached  in  a provision  of  this  kind. 

I was  proceeding  to  say,  Mr.  President,  that 
in  England,  it  would  be  worth  the  existence  of 
a ministry,  to  interfere  at  all  with  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus , without  calling  Parliament  to- 
gether. There  has  been,  in  late  years,  a very 
notable  instance  of  the  kind.  At  the  time  of 
the  very  last  extensive  disturbance  that  occurred 
in  Ireland,  the  British  ministry  called  Parlia- 
ment together,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  submit- 
ting to  it  the  propriety  of  suspending  the  writ 
in  the  disturbed  districts,  and  by  Parliament  it 
was  suspended. 

Mr.  President,  I move  to  amend  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Brown  [Mr. 
White],  as  follows : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Cunningham  moves  to  amend  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Brown  (Mr.  White)  by  striking  out  all 
after  the  word  “only”,  and  inserting  “by  the  General  As- 
sembly.” 

So  that  the  amended  clause  may  read : 

“And  then  only  by  the  General  Assembly.” 

Mr.  BABER.  I think  that  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Brown  [Mr. 
White]  is  right.  The  question  raised  is  an  old 
question.  In  the  discussion  at  the  time  of  the 
formation  of  the  Federal  government,  as  to 
whether  this  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  should  be  made  by  the  executive  depart- 
ment or  the  legislative  department,  it  was 
argued  upon  one  side  that  the  executive  ought 
to  have  the  right,  because  in  time  of  war  or  of 
insurrection,  there  might  be  an  emergency 
which  would  render  it  necessary  for  the  execu- 
tive to  exercise  that  right.  The  Legislature 
might  not  be  in  session,  and  trouble  might 
ensue. 

I think  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Brown  [Mr.  White],  strikes  the  proper 
medium.  Of  course,  the  power  to  suspend  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  should  exist  somewhere 
in  the  government,  and  as  the  government  now 
stands,  as  provided  for  in  this  Constitution,  the 
executive  has  a veto  in  this  matter,  and  has 
some  power  over  the  subject.  Both  the  Legisla- 
ture and  Executive  will  have  to  concur. 

What  I think  is,  that  this  matter  should  be 
regulated  by  law,  so  that  the  people  may  know 
beforehand  how  this  writ  of  habeas  corpus  may 


Day.] THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 1769 

March  4,  1874.]  Baber,  West,  White  of  B.,  Pease. 


be  suspended.  It  is  true  that  the  Legislature, 
in  the  exercise  of  their  Legislative  power,  may 
provide  that  in  certain  emergencies  the  Gov- 
ernor may  suspend  the  operation  of  the  writ. 
I do  not  believe  that,  as  is  provided  by  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr. 
Cunningham J,  that  it  is  necessary  to  decide  a 
former  controverted  point,  but  that  we  should 
leave  the  matter,  as  is  done  by  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Brown  [Mr.  White], 
which  is  similar  to  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer] — so 
as  to  provide  that  the  suspension  shall  take 
place  in  conformity  with  a law  to  be  passed 
upon  the  subject.  I think  that  is  all  that  is 
necessary  without  raising  any  other  question. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham], 
the  same  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Brown  [Mr.  White]. 

Mr.  WEST.  I simply  want  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man from  Brown  [Mr.  White]  whether  the 
words  “by  law”  are  intended  to  mean  “by 
statute”  or  “by  resolution”?  The  clause 
reads : “and  then  only  in  such  manner  as  may 
be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I supposed  that  the 
Legislature  would  prescribe  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions upon  which  the  operation  of  the  writ 
might  be  suspended,  and  what  power  should 
exercise,  under  legislative  restraints  and  regu- 
lations, the  power  of  suspension.  Would  it  not 
be  better  to  word  the  amendment:  “and  then 
only  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
the  General  Assembly”? 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  motion  to 
amend  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Brown 
[Mr.  White],  the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded, 
taken  and  resulted — yeas  41,  nays  21,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop,  Blose,  Bos- 
worth,  Burns,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Cunningham, 
De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey, 
Greene,  Hill,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Okey,  Page,  Pease, 
Powell,  Root,  Rowland,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Tulloss,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voris,  Wea- 
ver, West,  White  of  Brown,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble,  President — 41. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Barnet,  Campbell,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Coats,  Gurley,  Hale,  Hitchcock,  Mer- 
rill, Philips,  Pond,  Pratt,  Shultz,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Steedman,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuttle, 
Van  Voorhis,  Waddle,  Watson — 21. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

No  further  amendments  were  offered  to  sec- 
tion eight,  and  the  Secretary  read  sections  nine, 
ten,  eleven,  twelve,  thirteen,  fourteen,  fifteen, 
sixteen,  seventeen  and  eighteen,  as  follows: 

Sec.  9.  All  persons  shall  be  bailable  by  sufficient  sure- 
ties, except  for  capital  offenses,  where  the  proof  is  evident 
or  presumption  great.  Excessive  bail  shall  not  be  re- 
quired, nor  excessive  fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unu- 
sual punishments  inflicted. 

Sec.  10.  Except  in  cases  of  imneachment,  and  cases 
arising  in  the  army  and  navy,  or  in  the  militia  when  in 
actual  service,  in  time  of  war  or  public  danger,  and  in 
cases  of  petit  larceny  and  other  inferior  offenses,  no  per- 
son shall  be  held  to  answer  a capital,  or  otherwise  infa- 
mous crime,  unless  on  presentment  or  indictment  of  a 


grand  jury.  In  any  trial,  in  any  court,  the  party  accused 
shall  be  allowed  to  appear  and  defend  in  person  and  with 
counsel;  to  demand  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusa- 
tion against  him,  and  te  have  a copy  thereof;  to  meet  the 
witnesses  face  to  face,  and  to  have  compulsory  process  to 
procure  the  attendance  of  witnesses  in  his  behalf,  and  a 
speedy  public  trial  by  an  impartial  iury  of  the  county  or 
district  in  which  the  offense  is  alleged  to  have  been  com- 
mitted; nor  shall  any  person  be  compelled,  in  any  crimi- 
nal case,  to  be  a witness  against  himself,  or  be  twice  put 
in  jeopardy  for  the  same  offense. 

Sec.  11.  Every  citizen  may  freely  speak,  write,  and 
publish  his  sentiments  on  all  subjects,  being  responsible 
for  the  abuse  of  his  right;  and  no  law  shall  be  passed  to 
restrain  or  abridge  the  liberty  of  speech  or  of  the  press. 
In  all  criminal  prosecutions  for  libel  the  truth  may  be 
given  in  evidence  to  the  jury,  and  if  it  shall  appear  to  the 
jury  that  the  matter  charged  as  libelous  is  true,  and  was 
published  with  good  motives,  and  for  justifiable  ends,  the 
party  shall  be  acquitted. 

Sec.  12.  No  person  shall  be  transported  out  of  the  State 
for  any  offense  committed  within  the  same;  and  no  con- 
viction shall  work  corruption  of  blood  or  forfeiture  of 
estate. 

Sec.  13.  No  soldier  shall,  in  time  of  peace,  be  quartered 
in  any  house  without  consent  of  the  owner,  nor  in  time  of 
war,  except  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  14.  The  right  of  people  to  be  secure  in  their  per- 
sons, houses,  papers  and  possessions  against  unreasonable 
searches  and  seizures  shall  not  be  violated;  and  no  war- 
rant shall  issue  but  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by 
oath  or  affirmation,  particularly  describing  the  place  to 
be  searched,  and  the  person  and  things  to  be  seized. 

Sec.  15.  No  person  shall  be  imprisoned  for  debt  in  any 
civil  action,  on  mesne  or  final  process,  unless  in  cases  of 
fraud. 

Sec.  16.  All  courts  shall  be  open,  and  every  person,  for 
an  injury  done  him  in  his  land,  goods,  person  or  reputa- 
tion, shall  have  remedy  by  due  course  of  law;  and  justice 
administered  without  denial  or  delay. 

Sec.  17.  No  hereditary  emoluments,  honors,  or  privil- 
eges shall  ever  be  granted  or  conferred  by  this  State. 

Sec.  18.  No  power  of  suspending  laws  shall  ever  be  ex- 
ercised, except  by  the  General  Assembly. 

No  amendments  were  offered  to  any  of  the 
sections  last  read,  and  the  Secretary  read  sec- 
tion nineteen,  as  follows: 

Sec.  19.  Private  property  shall  ever  be  held  inviolate’ 
but  subservient  to  the  public  welfare.  When  taken  in 
time  of  war  or  other  public  exigency,  imperatively  re- 
quiring its  immediate  seizure,  or  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing or  repairing  roads,  which  shall  be  open  to  the  public 
without  charge,  a compensation  shall  be  made  to  the 
owner  in  money,  and  in  all  other  cases,  where  private 
property  shall  be  taken  for  public  use,  a compensation 
therefor  shall  first  be  made  in  money,  or  first  secui-ed  by 
a deposite  of  money;  and  such  compensation  shall  be  as- 
sessed by  a jury,  without  deduction  for  benefits  to  any 
property  of  the  owner. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment to  section  nineteen : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Pea.se  moves  to  amend  section  19  by  inserting,  af- 
ter the  words  “public  use”,  and  before  the  words,  “and 
compensation”,  these  words: 

“Or  for  the  right  of  way  to  and  from  mines,  mineral 
beds  and  quarries.” 

So  that  the  section  as  amended  will  read : 

“Sec.  19.  Private  property  shall  ever  be  held  inviolate, 
but  subservient  to  the  public  welfare.  When  taken  in 
time  of  war,  or  other  public  exigency,  imperatively  re- 
quiring its  immediate  seizure,  or  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing or  repairing  roads,  which  shall  be  open  to  the  public 
without  charge,  a compensation  shall  be  made  to  the 
owner  in  money;  and  in  all  other  cases  where  private 
property  shall  be  taken  for  public  use,  or  for  the  right  of 
way  to  and  from  mines,  mineral  beds,  and  quarries,  a 
compensation  therefor  shall  first  be  made  in  money,  or 
first  secured  by  a deposite  in  money;  and  such  compen- 
sation shall  be  assessed  by  a jury,  without  deduction  for 
benefits  to  any  property  of  the  owner.” 

Mr.  PEASE.  I have  so  much  to  speak  of, 
and  there  are  so  many  interests  involved  in 
this  question,  that  I am  fearful  I may  not  be 
able  to  to  say  all  I desire  to  in  ten  minutes,  but 
I hope  that  when  I am  at  the  end  of  my  ten 
minutes,  some  other  gentleman  will  take  up  the 
subject  where  I leave  it. 


1770 


BIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES,  ETC. 


[129th 


Pease. 


[Wednesday, 


Early  in  the  session  of  this  body  I had  the 
honor  of  introducing  to  this  Convention  Prop- 
osition No.  48,  which  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  this  subject.  In  that  Proposition  I 
expressed  the  change  which  I desired  to  have 
made,  and  gentlemen  may  see  it  by  turning  to 
Proposition  48. 

We  are  beginning  to  be,  and,  perhaps,  are, 
now,  the  second  iron  State  in  the  Union,  so  far 
as  the  development  of  mineral  resources  is  con- 
cerned. I notice  that,  in  some  classifications, 
we  are  already  written  down  as  the  second  iron 
State  in  the  Union,  and  this  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  our  mineral  resources  must  be  very  great. 
In  many  counties  of  the  State  the  mineral  in- 
terest is  a very  large  one;  but  gentlemen  from 
counties  having  no  such  interest  will,  perhaps, 
not  fully  appreciate  the  situation.  T will  en- 
deavor, by  means  of  one  or  two  instances  which 
I can  adduce,  to  show  the  necessity  for  the 
amendment  which  I propose. 

The  Bill  of  Eights,  in  appropriating  lands  for 
public  use,  proceeds  upon  the  ground  of  neces- 
sity. It  is  only  upon  that  ground  that  private 
property  is  ever  taken,  even  for  public  use. 
Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  a case  pre- 
sented here  where  the  public  are  substantially 
just  as  much  interested  in  what  is  sought  in  the 
change  I desire  to  have  made  as  though  it  were, 
in  fact,  expressed  to  be  for  the  public  good,  and 
as  though  the  appropriation  of  land  for  the 
right  of  way  to  and  from  mines  was,  in  fact, 
for  the  public  service.  The  enjoyment  of 
mines,  mineral  beds  and  quarries  is  for  the 
public  good,  and  possibly  the  proposition  may 
be  now  covered  by  the  first  part  of  this  section, 
as  it  now  stands,  which  provides  that  private 
property  shall  ever  be  held  inviolate,  but  sub- 
servient to  the  public  welfare.  Now,  it  hap- 
pens that,  in  my  section  of  the  State — and  I 
suppose  it  is  the  same  in  all  the  counties  in  the 
State  where  they  have  mining  interests — the 
courts  are  holding  that  appropriations  of  lands 
for  right  of  way  to  these  mines  cannot  be 
made.  This  section  has  come  up  before  our 
courts  under  the  operation  of  a statute  passed 
in  1856,  which  will  be  found  on  page  344  of 
Swan  & Critchfield’s  Statutes.  I will  not 
stop  to  read  it.  Section  three  is  the  one  that 
regulates  the  matter.  It  was  supposed  by  the 
Legislature,  at  that  early  day,  that  they  had  the 
power,  by  legislative  enactment,  to  reach  a 
railroad,  or  a canal,  or  any  other  public  outlet 
which  was  necessary  to  work  these  mines,  and, 
by  these  outlets,  to  get  the  products  to  market. 
But  it  turns  out,  by  the  ruling  of  the  courts, 
that  the  statute  is  inoperative  in  these  cases. 
First,  the  supreme  court  passed  upon  the  stat- 
ute (19tb  Ohio  Stat.,  page  560),  in  the  case  of 
the  Miami  Canal  Company  against  Wigton.  It 
will  be  observed,  however,  that,  in  that 
case,  the  supreme  court  did  not  reach  the 
real  point  that  was  raised  in  the  arguments 
in  the  case.  The  case,  as  presented  by  counsel 
on  both  sides  in  that  trial,  was  designed  to  raise 
the  question  of  the  authority  of  the  Legislature, 
under  the  nineteenth  section  of  the  Bill  of 
Eights,  to  pass  any  such  law.  I notice,  how- 
ever, in  that  case,  that  the  Supreme  Court,  find- 
ing that  there  were  other  defects  in  the  act 
itself,  did  not  settle  the  question;  but  it  has 
been  understood  by  the  courts  ever  since,  that  it 


is  substantially  settled  by  this  section  of  the 
Bill  of  Eights.  I will  say,  further,  that  the 
Legislature  have  also  so  regarded  it,  because, 
on  two  or  three  occasions — and  the  last  time, 
perhaps,  during  the  session  of  1872-3 — the  prop- 
osition was  made  in  the  Legislature  to  amend 
this  statute  so  as  to  remove  the  difficulties  found 
in  it  by  the  Supreme  Court,  and  create  a statute 
that  should  squarely  raise  the  question ; and, on 
these  occasions,  it  has  been  held  by  the  Legisla- 
ture— and,  I fear,  correctly — that  the  subject  is 
already  foreclosed  under  the  Bill  of  Eights,  and 
that  any  law  they  might  pass  upon  the  subject 
would  be  unconstitutional.  While  this  makes 
provision  “ for  all  other  cases  where  private 
property  may  be  taken  for  public  use,”  it  is 
held  that  where  a corporation  or  an  individual 
seeks  to  get  an  appropriation  of  land  to  make  a 
road  to  his  mine,  it  is  for  a private  and  not  a 
public  use,  and  is,  therefore,  foreclosed  by  this 
section.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  I have  asked 
that  this  section  may  be  extended  in  its  applica- 
tion, and  that  the  words  I have  proposed  may 
be  inserted,  so  that  the  amended  clause  may 
read:  “And  in  all  other  cases  where  private 
property  shall  be  taken  for  public  use,  or  for 
right  of  way  to  and  from  mines,  mineral  beds 
and  quarries,  the  compensation  therefor  shall 
be  made  in  money,”  &c. 

Now,  this  question  has  arisen  in  several  forms 
in  our  part  of  the  State.  I give  first  a case  that 
occurred  in  a town  near  me,  where  there  are 
two  railroads  running  parallel  to  each  other. 
On  the  west  side  of  both  of  these  roads,  there 
are  parties  who  own  a coal  mine  very  near  to 
these  roads.  To  the  road  nearest  the  mine  they 
have  direct  access,  and  they  get  their  coal  to 
market  upon  that  road,  for,  of  course,  that  road 
is  entirely  willing  to  accommodate  them,  and  is 
ready  to  do  so.  But  the  company  who  own  the 
mine  found  it  necessary,  for  the  purp'ose  of  pro- 
curing additional  facilities  for  getting  their 
coal  to  market,  and  sometimes  of  finding  a 
better  market,  to  have  the  right  of  way  across 
the  railroad  nearest  to  them,  to  another  rail- 
road only  a few  yards  distant.  The  railroad, 
understanding  its  right  under  this  section  nine- 
teen, refused  to  let  the  company  cross  their 
track  and  get  to  the  other  road,  and  the  com- 
pany was  absolutely  compelled  to  abandon  the 
effort  of  getting  coal  to  market  upon  that  other 
road.  That  is  one  instance. 

Here  is  another : Some  persons  bought  land 
above  me  on  a little  river.  It  turned  out,  after 
they  had  bought  their  land,  that  there  were 
large  coal  beds  discovered  in  them.  Pretty  soon 
a railroad  was  located  in  the  neighborhood  of 
their  land,  but  did  not  quite  reach  them.  A 
person  owns  a small  strip  of  land  lying  between 
this  coal  bed  and  the  railroad,  and  these  gentle- 
men endeavored  to  obtain  the  right  of  way 
across  this  little  neck  of  land  which  lies  between 
the  railroad  and  the  coal  bed  from  the  owner 
thereof,  but  without  success.  He  steadily  re- 
fuses to  sell  them  the  land,  refuses  to  grant  them 
right  of  way,  refuses  to  lease  to  them,  and  will 
only  give  them  the  right  to  cross  his  land,  upon 
condition  that  he  may  impose  upon  them  the 
heavy  burden  of  paying  five  cents  per  ton  for 
all  the  coal  transported  across  his  land.  Now, 
i this  is  regarded  as  a great  hardship  by  the 


BIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES,  ETC. 

Pease,  Bishop. 


1771 


Day.] 

March  4,  1874.] 


owners  of  the  coal,  and,  substantially,  puts  an 
end  to  the  mining. 

These  two  cases  will  illustrate  exactly  the 
difficulty  that  has  arisen  all  over  the  the  State. 
The  other  day  a gentleman  from  Youngstown, 
Mahoning  county,  which  also  has  large  mining 
interests,  represented  that  there  are  numerous 
cases  in  his  vicinity  precisely  of  the  character 
of  those  which  I have  instanced.  Such  cases 
are  numerous  throughout  the  State,  and  gentle- 
men will  see  that,  unless  some  provision  is  made 
by  which  this  section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  can 
he  enlarged  in  its  application,  large  interests 
will  be  cut  off,  and  the  public  will  be  prevented 
from  enjoying  the  benefits  resulting  from  the 
working  of  these  mines. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  would  be  extending 
the  principle  too  far.  I say  it  results  from  a 
matter  of  necessity.  It  is  grounded  precisely  on 
the  same  authority  as  that  by  which  you  take 
private  property  for  public  use,  such  as  for  rail- 
roads. It  is  a necessity  of  the  case.  These 
necessities  cannot  be  foreseen.  The  owners  of 
these  mineral  lands  are  not  situated  as  the  pro- 
prietors of  agricultural  and  manufacturing  en- 
terprises are.  Some  have  urged  that  the  right 
of  way  should  be  granted  to  these,  hut  I say 


that  no  such  principle  can  be  urged  hv  them. 
When  they  put  up  their  factories — or  whatever 
they  are — they  do  it  with  reference  to  the  con- 
venience of  getting  to  those  roads  or  outlets. 
Not  so  in  the  case  of  mines.  The  lands  are 
very  frequently — and  it  was  especially  so  in  the 
early  history  of  this  State — purchased  without 
any  reference  to  the  mines.  Parties  owning 
these  mines  very  frequently  do  not  know,  at 
the  time  of  the  purchase,  of  the  existence  of 
these  mines;  and  if  they  did  know,  they  could 
not  move  their  mines  or  their  lands  to  the  rail- 
roads. They  could  not  negotiate  with  parties 
locating  railroads  to  have  them  reach  all  over 
the  county,  or  reach  these  particular  lands. 
Hence  the  necessity  exists.  It  cannot  he  fore- 
seen; it  cannot  he  provided  against;  and,  in 
my  judgment,  this  is  the  only  way  in  which  it 
can  be  done.  I see  that  my  time  has  expired. 
I do  not  know  hut  that,  in  attempting  to  hurry 
through  with  what  I have  had  to  say,  1 have 
left  many  things  unsaid. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  that  the  Convention 
do  now  adjourn.  % 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:45  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


1772 


[130th 


MORNING  BUSINESS. 

Hill,  Page,  Burns,  Hitchcock.  [Thursday, 

N T 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTIETH  DAY  OF  THE  CONTENTION. 

SIXTY-EIGHTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Thursday,  March  5,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  W.  H.  French,  of  the  6th 
Street  United  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Ro^l  was  called,  and  74  members  answered 
to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Messrs.  Ewing  and  Cook  for  to-day. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

COMMITTEE  REPORT. 

The  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses,  to  which 
were  referred  the  following  accounts : 


1.  Bill  of  R.  M.  Bishop,  for  matches  and  soap $ 9 45 

H.  Bill  of  Joseph  Gutzwiller,  for  postage 57 

3.  Bill  of  P.  Campbell  & Co.,  for  kindling 5 25 

4.  Bill  of  C.  H.  Peters,  engineer’s  lantern 1 75 

5.  Bill  of  E.  Akinson,  brick  and  repairs 9 30 

6.  Bill  of  M.  F.  Kershaw,  drugs,  &c 49  25 

7.  Bill  of  J.  B.  Wilbur,  postage  and  freight 2 2:1 

8.  Bill  of  Morton  & Co.,  repairs  in  engine  room...-  10  00 

9.  Bill  of  I.  G.  B.  Lam y,  two  boxes  of  crape 6 00 

10.  Bill  of  Warder,  McClellan  & Co.,  for  repairs  to 

engine  and  tools 49  79 


Total $143  59 


Having  had  the  same  under  consideration,  recommend 
their  payment  out  of  the  appropriate  fund. 

Geo.  W.  Hill, 

Jacob  Mueller, 

O.  Merrill, 

John  H.  Blose, 

Wm.  J.  Young. 

The  Report  was  agreed  to,  and  the  several 
amounts  ordered  to  be  certified  and  paid. 

SECOND  READING. 

The  following  Propositions  were  read  the  sec- 
ond time : 

Proposition  No.  159— By  Mr.  Page  : 

Proposition  to  amend  Article  I of  the  Constitution, 

Add  thereto  the  following: 

No  proceeding  against  the  property  of  any  person  shall 
be  taken  by  posting  up  or  publishing  notice  merely, 
where  his  residence  can  be  ascertained  by  reasonable  dil- 
igence. And  the  General  Assembly  shall  provide,  that 
in  every  proceeding  against  a non-resident,  whose  resi- 
dence can  be  ascertained,  notice  shall  be  given  by  mail 
or  messenger,  as  well  as  by  publication.  This  provision 
shall  not  apply  to  the  levying  or  collection  of  taxes  or 
assessments,  or  to  the  settlement  of  accounts  in  the  Pro- 
bate Court. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I move  that  the  Proposition  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  be 
considered  in  connection  with  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Finance  and  Taxation. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Proposition  No.  221— By  Mr.  Burns: 

An  additional  section  to  Article  V of  the  Constitution. 

Sec.  — . Whenever  any  of  the  qualified  electors  of  this 
State  shall  be  in  actual  military  service,  under  a requisi- 


tion from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  by  the 
authority  of  this  State,  such  electors  may  exercise  the 
right  of  suffrage  in  all  elections  by  the  citizens  under 
such  regulations  as  are,  or  shall  be  prescribed  by  law,  as 
fully  as  if  they  were  present  at  their  usual  places  of  elec- 
tion. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  that  this  Proposition 
be  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to 
be  considered  in  connection  with  special  order 
No.  203. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I offer  for  adoption  the 
following  resolution : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  resolution : 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Resolution  No.  180: 

Whereas,  On  the  27th  day  of  February  last,  a com- 
munication Avas  laid  before  the  Convention  by  its  Presi- 
dent, which  reads  as  follows : 

“Columbus,  Feb.  27,  1874. 

“Hon.  Rufus  King, 

“ President  Constitutional  Convention: 

“The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expen- 
ditures, of  your  Convention,  relating  to  stationery  furn- 
ished by  this  office,  is  ex  parte  and  unjust  to  me.  I 
respectfully  ask  the  Convention  to  order  a complete  in- 
vestigation, and  give  me  an  opportunity  to  be  heard. 

“A.  T.  Wikoff, 
“Secretary  of  State.” 

Therefore,  Resolved , That  a Committee  of  five  be  ap- 
pointed to  make  such  investigation,  and  that  said  Com- 
mittee be  empowered  to  send  for  persons  and  papers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  say  to 
the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock] 
that  that  matter  has  been  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Accounts  and  Expenditures. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Does  that  prevent  an  op- 
portunity of  offering  this? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  does  not. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  inquire  whether 
any  instructions  accompanied  the  reference  to 
that  Committee? 

The  PRESIDENT.  I think  it  was  simply 
referred  without  instructions. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I submit  the  resolution, 
Mr.  President,  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Convention,  adding  a remark  in  which  I may 
not  have  been  heard  at  the  time  of  the  report 
referred  to  being  made.  I did  not  feel,  nor  do 
I now  feel,  that  there  was  any  intention  on  the 
part  of  the  Committee  to  do  injustice  to  an  offi- 
cer of  the  State;  but  that  officer  having  felt  that 
injustice  was  done  him  in  making  the  Report, 
it  seems  to  me  but  just  that  his  request,  for  an 
opportunity  to  be  heard,  should  be  granted. 
For  that  reason  the  resolution  is  offered,  but  if 


1773 


Day.] 


RIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES,  ETC. 

Carbery,  Godfrey,  Townsend,  Watson. 


March  5,  1874.] 

it  is  out  of  place  at  the  present  time,  the  Con- 
vention may  so  determine. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]. 

The  Resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I give  notice  that  I will 
move,  three  days  hereafter,  to  suspend  Rule 
LXIY,  of  the  rules  governing  this  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
Rule  LX1V  for  the  information  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same  as  follows  : 
“RULE  LXIV. 

No  compensation,  allowance  or  perquisites  shall  be 
voted  to  any  officer,  employe  or  appointee  of  the  Conven- 
tion, other  than  that  prescribed  by  law,  or  fixed  originally 
by  resolution,  and  this  rule  shall  not  be  altered  or  sus- 
pended, except  on  three  days’  notice,  and  by  a two-thirds 
vote  of  all  the  members  elected  to  the  Convention. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  I regard  the  spirit  of  this 
rule  as  requiring  that  the  Convention  be,  at  this 
time,  notified  for  what  purpose  the  suspension 
is  to  take  place.  We  may  as  well  know  why  the 
notification  is  given,  because  a little  informa- 
tion would  be  well,  as  to  the  purpose  for  which 
it  is  to  be  suspended. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I am  not  aware  that  I am 
called  upon  to  give  any  explanation  whatever. 
I simply  exercise  the  prerogative  of  any  mem- 
ber to  ask  the  suspension  of  a rule.  However, 
there  is  no  secret  about  the  matter.  One  of  our 
officers  has  performed  work  outside  of  that  for 
which  he  contracted  with  the  Convention,  and 
I shall  propose  a resolution  that  the  Convention 
compensate  him  for  his  services. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  say 
that  the  object  for  suspending  should  be  given 
in  the  notice  for  the  motion  to  suspend. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I was  not  aware  of  that, 
Mr.  President,  and  I ask  leave  to  alter  the  notice. 

Which  leave  was  granted. 

order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion proceed  to  the  special  order  of  the  day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  of  the 
day  is  the  consideration  of  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights, 
and  the  question  pending  at  adjournment  was 
on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Stark, 
[Mr.  Pease]  to  amend  section  19. 

Mr.  WATSON.  There  is  not,  I think,  Mr. 
President,  a great  deal  of  discussion  needful  in 
relation  to  this  proposition,  for  I think  it  carries 
its  condemnation  upon  its  face.  The  proposi- 
tion, as  it  is  submitted  to  us  for  our  action,  fol- 
lows the  Bill  of  Rights  up  to  the  word  “wel- 
fare”: “Private  property  shall  ever  be  held 
inviolate,  but  subservient  to  the  public  welfare.” 
Then  this  addition  is  made,  “and  for  the  uses 
in  this  section  expressed.”  It  then  follows  the 
Bill  of  Rights  until  it  comes  to  this  clause  of 
the  section  : “and  in  all  other  cases  where  pri- 
vate property  shall  be  taken  for  public  use.” 
That  far  it  follows  again  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and 
then  adds:  “and  for  the  right  of  way  to  and 
from  mines,  mineral  beds  and  quarries.”  There 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  a free  government,  or  a 
free  people,  unless  the  rights  of  property  are 
defined,  and  those  rights  are  preserved.  The 


citizen  holds  property  subject  to  the  right  of 
eminent  domain.  When  it  is  necessary  for  the 
common  good,  when  it  is  necessary  for  the  pub- 
lic welfare,  it  can  be  taken  from  him,  he  being 
compensated.  Now,  there  can  be  no  fair  pre- 
tense that  it  can  be  done  for  anything  short  of 
that.  Anything  that  does  not  attain  to  the  di- 
mensions of  a public  use,  cannot  authorize  the 
seizure  of  private  property,  either  with  or 
without  payment.  There  is  no  such  thing 
allowed. 

We  are  told  that  it  is  necessary  that  this  right 
should  be  extended  to  the  owners  of  mines,  and 
mineral  deposits,  and  of  quarries.  We  are  told 
that  we  are  the  second  State  in  rank,  so  far  as 
the  iron  interest  is  concerned ; that  we  are  sec- 
ond only  in  our  iron  deposits ; and  that  it  is, 
therefore,  necessary  that  that  interest  should  be 
fostered.  Why,  Mr.  President,  the  iron  inter- 
est is  like  everything  else,  if  it  is  divided  up 
and  in  private  hands,  and  the  owners  of  these 
mineral  deposits  are  like  the  owners  of  other 
kinds  of  lands.  We  are  told  that  it  is  a neces- 
sity that  they  should  have  this  power.  I utterly 
deny  it.  If  we  are  to  allow  a necessity  to  come 
in  and  be  a plea  for  invading  this  right  of  pri- 
vate property,  we  have  then  ceased  to  be  a free 
people.  This  plea  of  necessity  is  a standing  plea 
in  all  cases  of  invasion  of  private  rights.  Why, 
what  pretense  is  there  that  a man  owning  a 
stone  quarry,  or  a man  owning  a deposit  of 
coal,  or  man  owning  a deposit  of  iron,  or  any 
other  mineral  deposit — what  pretense  can  be 
urged  that  he  has  the  right  to  strike  off,  as  an 
individual,  and  cut  his  way  through  his  neigh- 
bor’s lands,  through  his  forests,  or  his  orchards, 
and  establish  there  a private  railway,  that  he 
may  more  profitably  work  his  mine?  It  is 
simply  to  strip  one  man  for  the  enriching  of 
another,  and  it  in  no  way  differs  from  any  other 
case  where  this  is  sought  to  be  accomplished. 
Why  may  not  a man  who  owns  a mill,  a man 
who  owns  a factory,  or  a man  who  owns  a ware- 
house, with  equal  right  claim  that  he  has  to  send 
off  what  he  has  there  to  the  markets,  and  demand 
that  he  be  authorized  to  cut  railways,  in  any 
direction,  through  the  lands  of  his  neighbors? 
I should  like  to  know  what  a man’s  farm  would 
be  worth,  if  it  is  subject  to  all  these  private 
rights  to  be  stripped  and  checkered  up  with 
roads  and  ways  for  individual  benefit?  It  is 
true,  that  when  the  public  needs  a highway,  and 
where  it  is  open  to  all  the  citizens  of  the  State, 
and  becomes  a public  use,  then  he  holds  his 
property  subject  to  the  acquisition  of  that  right 
according  to  law ; but  in  no  instance  should  it 
be  given  to  an  individual;  in  no  instance,  on 
principle,  can  we  authorize  one  man  to  subject 
the  lands  of  his  neighbor  to  servitude  for  his  own 
benefit,  nor  for  the  benefit  of  a class,  nor  for  the 
benefit  of  a company.  It  still  is  an  appropria- 
tion to  a private  use,  and  is  condemned  on  prin- 
ciple, and  we  cannot  grant  what  is  asked  for 
here,  without  surrendering  our  claim  to  be  a 
free  people.  We  have  to  surrender  freedom 
and  free  government  the  very  moment  that  we 
adopt  a provision  of  this  kind.  I hope,  Mr. 
President,  that  this  will  be  promptly  voted 
down. 

Now,  we  have  been  referred  here,  in  an  argu- 
ment, to  the  case  of  the  Little  Miami  Coal  Com- 
pany against  Wigdon.  In  so  far  as  that  case  is- 


1774 


[130th 


RIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES,  ETC. 

Watson,  Bishop,  Jackson,  Townsend,  Pease.  [Thursday, 


concerned,  it  does  not  touch  the  question,  one 
way  or  another.  It  was  not  before  the  court; 
it  was  only  as  to  what  was  granted  under  a par- 
ticular statute.  The  court  gave  construction  to 
that  statute,  and  there  they  very  properly 
stopped. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr. 
Pease]. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I would  like  to  have  it  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Section  19,  in  line  six,  after  the  word  “use”,  insert  the 
words  “or  for  the  right  of  way  to  and  from  mines,  min- 
eral beds  and  quarries.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“A  compensation  shall  he  made  to  the  owner  in  money; 
and  in  all  other  cases  where  private  property  shall  be 
taken  for  public  use,  or  for  the  right  of  way  to  and  from 
mines,  mineral  beds  and  quarries,  compensation  therefor 
shall  first  be  made  in  money,  or  first  secured  by  a deposit 
of  money.” 

Mr.  JACKSON.  I hope  the  Convention  will 
take  this  amendment  under  serious  considera- 
tion before  risking  its  adoption.  I believe  it  is 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  State,  and, 
perhaps,  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  consti- 
tutional government,  that  it  has  been  proposed 
to  allow  the  private  property  of  one  person  to 
he  condemned  for  the  benefit  of  another  person 
or  private  corporation.  Gentlemen  must  re- 
member that  the  valuation  of  coal  and  minerals 
may  not  he  advanced  by  the  mere  construction 
of  railways.  It  requires,  further,  that  these 
railways  should  be  used  and  capable  of  being 
used  for  purposes  of  transportation.  It  often 
occurs,  even  under  present  laws,  that  facilities 
for  transportation  have  either  been  refused  or 
so  hampered  by  terms  to  exclude  the  minerals 
from  market  by  the  owners.  In  the  county  I 
represent  there  were  for  years  vast  beds  of  coal 
through  which  a railway  ran,  which  were  of 
little  or  no  special  value  for  their  mineral  de- 
posits. Without  special  change  of  circum- 
stances, other  than  change  of  railway  managers, 
these  coal  fields  have  vastly  increased  in  value. 
With  these  facts,  it  is  apparent  how  easy  it 
may  be  to  use  this  amendment  for  purposes  of 
oppression.  The  man  who  owns  the  land  con- 
demned for  right  of  way  can  have  no  right  to 
ship  over  the  private  railway  proposed  by  this 
amendment.  In  fact,  he  is  at  once  placed  where 
it  becomes  the  interest  of  the  owners  of  the 
easement  to  contract  his  facilities  or  chances  to 
reach  a market  for  his  minerals.  Anyone  can 
readily  imagine  the  situation  of  a poor  owner 
of  mineral  lands  over  which  a wealthy  corpora- 
tion chooses  to  condemn  a railway. 

In  the  county  I represeni  there  are  numerous 
localities  that  would  invite  oppression  under 
this  amendment.  There  are  beds  of  coal  almost 
of  a depth  requisite  for  a railway  tunnel.  These, 
as  elsewhere,  are  of  little  value  except  as  facili- 
ties for  market  transportation  offer.  Condemn 
a right  of  way  there  and  its  appraised  value 
will  be  little  above  ordinary  farming  land. 
And  yet  the  coal  to  be  removed,  if 
the  means  and  opportunity  of  market  be  fur- 
nished, would  be  of  sufficient  value  to  tempt 
cupidity  in  obtaining  condemnation  for  the 
mere  purpose  of  removing  the  coal  within  the 


range  of  the  line  condemned.  The  case  of  the 
Little  Miami  Coal  Company  vs.  Wigdon,  decid- 
ed by  the  Supreme  Court,  has  been  referred  to 
as  a reason  why  this  amendment  should  be 
made.  Well,  that  case  arose  near  the  eastern 
edge  of  our  county,  and  the  details  connected 
with  it  are  calculated  to  make  a Perry  county 
man  swear,  even  with  God  in  the  Constitution. 
[Laughter.]  The  Cincinnati  and  Muskingum 
Valley  runs  through  a continuous  coal-field  for 
more  than  seven  miles  of  the  eastern  edge  of 
our  county.  It  had  a managing  agent  here  and 
a trustee  in  New  York  for  European  owners. 
A company  was  formed,  which  was  that  “Little 
Miami  Coal  Company.”  It  purchased  coal 
lands  in  the  western  edge  of  Muskingum  coun- 
ty, some  two  or  three  miles  from  the  railroad. 
An  attempt  was  made  successfully  to  condemn 
aright  of  way  to  these  lands.  The  company 
got  under  the  special  care  of  the  managers  of 
the  main  railway — a very  necessary  protection, 
because,  on  its  merits,  a chance  of  competition 
with  the  other  coal  mines  would  have  been  fatal 
to  it.  So  it  became  necessary,  or,  at  least,  effi- 
cient, to  squeeze  out  of  existence  the  business — 
and  a large  business  it  was — along  the  seven 
miles  of  main  line.  This  was  done.  The  mines 
all  along  the  main  line  were  substantially 
closed  by  high  freights  or  oppressive  terms,  and 
the  business  there  was  ruined.  The  other  did 
a good,  or,  at  least,  a large  business.  When  the 
management  of  the  road  changed  the  coal  busi- 
ness changed  back  to  the  proper  and  better  lo- 
calities along  the  line  of  railroad.  It  became 
fully  five  times  greater  than  it  had  ever  been, 
even  with  far  greater  competition.  Whether 
or  not  such  oppression  would  usually  follow 
condemnation  of  private  property  for  other 
than  public  purposes  is  more  than  I can  say. 
But  I have  given  our  experience  in  that  line, 
and  it  is  satisfactory  enough  to  forbid  my  sup- 
port of  the  proposed  amendment. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I was  desirous  of  sugges- 
ting to  the  Convention,  that  the  gentleman  from 
Stark  [Mr.  Pease],  who  offered  this  amendment, 
and  regards  it  with  a good  deal  of  favor,  was 
limited  to  ten  minutes  in  this  discussion,  and  I 
ask  the  unanimous  consent  of  this  Convention 
for  him  to  make  some  reply,  in  case  he  desires 
to  do  so. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr . PEASE.  I thank  gentlemen  for  the  leave 
granted,  especially  as  I take  considerable  in- 
terest in  this  amendment,  and  am  satisfied  that 
if  the  Convention  had.  their  attention  properly 
directed  to  it,  there  can  be  no  two  opinions 
about  it. 

Now,  in  my  hurried  way,  last  night,  I under- 
took to  show  the  present  status  of  this  propo- 
sition, that  is,  as  it  stands  under  the  present 
Bill  of  Rights,  and  showing  that  if  this  section 
[19]  is  permitted  to  remain  as  it  now  is,  access 
to  a large  portion  of  the  mineral  deposits  of  the 
State  must  be  forever  shut  off.  If  the  holdings 
of  the  courts,  the  holdings  of  the  Legislature, 
and  the  holdings,  perhaps,  of  every  gentleman 
in  this  Convention,  are  correct,  the  mines,  the 
rich  mines  of  the  State,  in  many  instances, 
must  forever  be  shut  out,  unless  this  amend- 
ment prevails.  Now,  it  seems  to  me,  that  this 
is  apparent.  Suppose  that  we  had  not  a single 
mine  open  to-day,  and  suppose  that  the  rail- 


RIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES,  ETC. 

Pease,  Sears,  etc. 


1775 


Day.] 

March  5,1874.] 


roads  were  laid  out  in  Ohio,  just  as  they  are  to- 
day, it  is  evident  that  if  that  were  so,  more  than 
half  the  mines  in  Ohio,  which  are  now  open, 
could  not  be  reached  or  touched.  Suppose  that 
were  so,  and  suppose  that  individuals  owning 
lands,  between  the  mines  and  the  railroads, 
should  object  to  the  crossing  of  their  lands,  or 
the  different  railroads  should  object  to  the  cros- 
sing of  their  roads,  there  would  be  no  way  of 
compelling  this  crossing.  Every  individual  has 
the  right  to  object,  and  when  that  is  so,  when 
you  know  that  is  a fact,  you  cannot  say,  “why, 
they  can  be  negotiated  with.”  They  may  be 
negotiated  with,  but  the  power  lies  with  them 
to  say  “ No,  you  shall  not  cross  my  territory,” 
or,  in  the  case  of  a railroad,  “ you  shall  not 
cross  my  railroad  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the 
product  of  those  mines  to  market.”  The  power 
to  prevent  the  appropriation  of  this  land  and 
crossings  is  granted  to  those  individuals  and 
corporations,  under  the  present  Bill  of  Rights, 
and  it  is  to  take  away  that  power,  that  I ask 
that  this  Bill  of  Rights  be  so  enlarged,  as  that 
they  shall  not  prevent  the  public  improvements 
of  the  State. 

Perhaps,  that  is  enough  on  that  branch.  I 
desire  to  say  a word  or  two  with  regard  to  the 
argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Huron  [Mr. 
Watson].  He  makes  two  propositions,  as  I un- 
derstand it,  after  making  out  his  allusions  to 
the  public  wrong,  and  all  that.  1 will  take  a 
little  time  to  examine  this  by-and-by. 

He  says  this  will  give  the  right  to  go  through 
a man’s  orchard.  Suppose  it  does.  If  it  is  the 
only  means  you  have  of  reaching  a public 
highway,  if  it  is  the  only  means  you  have  of 
getting  from  the  mine  to  the  railroad,  or  of 
crossing  the  man’s  land  to  the  railroad,  why 
not  go  through  his  orchard?  You  give  the 
right  now,  do  you  not,  to  go  through  a man’s 
orchard  for  a railway,  if  necessary?  Under 
the  powers  conferred  on  counties  and  town- 
ships, you  have  given  the  right  of  individuals 
to  drain  lands,  for  what?  Why,  you  say,  “ for 
the  public  good ; for  the  good  of  the  immediate 
neighborhood.  Certainly;  and  you  give  the 
right,  under  certain  regulations,  to  go  through 
property  that  does  not  need  ditching  at  all,  for 
the  purpose  of  reaching  the  points  where  the 
drainage  can  be  had ; and  is  there  any  public 
wrong  in  that?  Certainly  not;  and  why? 
Because  you  compensate  the  man  for  every  sin- 
gle inch  of  ground  that  you  take.  You  leave 
it  upon  the  ground  of  public  necessity,  but  you 
can  see  that  the  public  necessity  is  confined  to 
that  single  locality,  but  the  right  is  given,  and 
justly,  I think.  So  in  the  case  of  the  railroads ; 
they  go  wherever  they  desire,  but,  before  they 
go,  they  are  compelled  to  pay  a “ full  compen- 
sation,” in  che  language  of  the  Constitution, 
for  every  inch  of  ground  they  take,  and  the  in- 
dividual is  compensated,  first,  for  the  land 
taken,  and  also  compensated  for  all  the  conse- 
quential damages  growing  out  of  it;  so,  I say, 
you  protect  the  individual  as  fully  as  you  can. 

Well,  now,  the  gentleman  says  that  you  may 
just  as  well  provide  for  means  of  reaching  a 
man’s  mill,  or  reaching  his  farm,  or  his  hay 
stack,  or  his  wheat  stack.  Now,  it  seems  to  me 
that  is  narrow-minded,  with  all  due  deference 
to  the  gentleman.  You  select  the  place  for 
your  mill,  or  hay  stack,  or  wheat  stack;  you 


select  the  place  for  your  farm;  but  do  you 
select  the  place  for  your  mine?  I appeal  to 
the  gentleman  from  Huron  [Mr.  Watson],  do 
you  select  the  place  for  your  mine?  A power 
greater  than  this  Convention  has  long  since  de- 
posited in  the  earth  these  mines.  They  are 
left  for  our  use  and  enjoyment,  and  we  take 
them  as  the  good  God  has  given  them  to  us,  and 
we  take  them  with  the  right,  as  I claim,  to  go 
over  lands  or  railroads  to  reach  them. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  ask  the  gentleman  if 
he  does  not  select  the  land  the  mine  is  in  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  No,  sir;  I answer  squarely. 
Why,  sir,  the  major  portion  of  the  lands  of  this 
country  have  been  selected  before  these  mines 
were  known,  before  it  was  known  that  an  inch 
of  mineral  rested  in  its  bowels.  We  neither  se- 
lect mines  nor  do  we  select  the  lands  with  ref- 
erence to  these  mines.  We  buy  the  lands,  and 
in  the  process  of  civilization,  and  the  process  of 
development,  we  discover  that  we  have  a jewel 
within  these  lands,  and  these  gentlemen  would 
forever  shut  us  out  from  the  enjoyment  of  it. 
In  the  process  of  time  a railroad  is  run  along  in 
the  vicinity  of  these  mines,  and,  perhaps,  that 
has  suggested  the  idea  of  developing  these  mines. 
We  now  developed  them,  because  we  know  we 
have  the  facility  of  getting  these  products  to 
market,  and  yet  some  fellow  may  own  a little 
piece  of  land  between  us  and  the  railroad,  and 
will  levy  blackmail  upon  us,  and  you  are  here 
aiding  him  in  doing  so. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Do  you* want  the  law  to  com- 
pel your  neighbor  to  sell  his  property  to  enable 
you  to  develop  yours  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  No,  sir.  I will  answer  the 
gentleman’s  interrogation  in  this  way,  and  in 
my  judgment,  it  is  a complete  answer : We  have 
the  need  of  mines,  have  we  not?  We  have  the 
need,  throughout  the  State,  of  iron.  We  have  the 
need,  throughout  the  State,  of  stone,  and  of  all 
the  products  of  these  minerals  in  these  mineral 
beds.  The  interests  of  the  State,  the  very  pros- 
perity of  the  State,  is  dependent  upon  the  devel- 
opment of  these  interests,  is  it  not?  Then  the 
means  of  reaching  these  mines  must  be  secured 
as  of  right.  You,  gentlemen,  who  live  in  the 
hoop-pole  region,  may  receive  a large  revenue 
from  hoop-poles,  but  what  condition  would  the 
State  be  in  if  confined  to  hoop-poles  alone? 
Gentlemen  who  live  in  the  cheese-producing 
districts  may  get  large  dividends  from  that,  but 
what  would  we  do  if  we  had  to  be  dependent 
upon  cheese  only,  I will  inquire?  Why,  the 
great  God  has  given  these  mineral  beds  to  us, 
and  yet  you  are  trying  to  shut  them  out  from 
our  use.  Now,  I put  this  amendment  upon  the 
ground  of  public  necessity. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Suppose  a man  has  a quarter 
of  a section  of  land  that  has  a large  quantity  of 
valuable  hoop-poles  upon  it,  and  there  is  no  way 
of  getting  out  with  them  without  going  over 
some  other  man’s  land,  would  you  whave  the 
land  condemned  in  order  to  make  a way  for  him 
to  get  out  with  the  hoop-poles  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I would  say  that  for  county 
and  township  purposes,  you  have  now  in  the 
J Constitution  you  are  now  forming,  as  also  in 


1776 


RIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES,  ETC. [130th 


Pease,  Johnson,  Tuttle. 


[Thursday, 


the  Constitution  of  1851,  the  right  to  get  to  your 
hoop-poles.  They  are  upon  the  surface. 

A MEMBER.  It  must  be  a public  road  in 
such  a case. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Very  good;  you  must  have  a 
public  road. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  You  have  a right  to  get  to 
the  mines,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  PEASE.  No,  sir;  we  say  distinctly  that 
we  have  not;  and  that  is  the  reason  I ask  you 
by  this  amendment  to  give  us  that  right.  A 
man  has  a right  now,  under  the  common  law  of 
the  land,  to  get  a private  way  to  his  residence, 
to  church,  to  mill,  or  any  such  places.  Suppose 
you  sell  me  a piece  of  land  right  in  the  centre 
of  your  great  tract  of  land,  without  any  pro- 
vision whatever  being  made  for  me  to  get  to  or 
from  it;  the  common  law  of  the  land  gives  me 
a right  to  get  out;  but  if  you  sell  me  a piece  of 
land,  although  the  law  will  let  me  out  for  all 
surface  purposes,  even  against  your  leave,  if  I 
have  a mine  there,  I cannot  get  out,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  the  benefit  of  that  mine.  The 
common  law  does  not  allow  that,  and  we  are 
shut  out.  Hence,  I say,  the  Bill  of  Rights 
should  be  so  enlarged  as  that  it  may  not  be  in 
violation  of,  but  subservient  to  the  public  wel- 
fare. Now,  I say,  that  a provision  of  this  kind 
would  be,  in  a large  degree,  subservient  to  the 
public  welfare. 

[Here  the  time  expired]. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I was  not  entirely  through, 
but 

*^Xj0cLV0  10RV0. n 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  being  no  objec- 
tion, the  gentleman  will  have  leave  to  pro- 
ceed. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I will  only  occupy  a moment 
longer. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Well,  these  interruptions  throw 
me  off  the  track  entirely. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Well,  I will  not  do  it. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I have  stopped  now,  and  will 
not  object  to  hearing  the  question ; but  of  course 
these  questions  throw  one  off  the  track. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Well,  my  suggestion  is  this: 
two  men  have  purchased  pieces  of  land  lying 
side  by  side,  neither  of  them  knowing  anything 
of  what  was  beneath.  It  afterwards  is  dis- 
covered that  on  one  of  these  farms  there  is  a 
valuable  coal  mine,  but  in  order  to  get  his  coal 
to  market  he  must  go  through  the  land  of  the 
other  man.  Now,  1 want  to  know,  what  differ- 
ence there  would  be  between  allowing  the 
owner  of  the  coal  to  appropriate  the  other 
man’s  land  for  the  use  of  his  coal,  and  allowing 
the  other  man  to  say,  “I  have  a right  of  way 
here  which  you  have  not  got,  which  is  of  no  use 
to  me  unless  I consume  coal  to  draw  over  it. 
Therefore,  as  you  have  the  coal,  I want  to  ap- 
propriate your  coal — I want  you  to  sell  me  some 
of  your  coal  land  so  I can  use  my  right  of  way 
which  otherwise  is  of  no  value  to  me?” 

Mr.  PEASE.  Well,  I suppose  I get  the  drift 
of  the  gentleman’s  idea,  yet  I do  not  know  that 
I do.  Your  man’s  right  of  way  without  a 
mine,  is  hardly  a parallel  case.  I have  been 
endeavoring  to  illustrate  that  this  does  not  rest 
entirely  upon  private  right.  That  one  man 
has  a right  to  a coal  mine  and  another  has  not. 


does  not  settle  the  right  to  reach  that  mine. 
The  right  which  should  exist,  is  for  the  Legis- 
lature to  judge  whether  the  people  at  large  will 
have  any  benefit  of  that  mine.  That  is  a right, 
although  the  individual  may  receive  a larger 
special  benefit  from  it  than  his  neighbors,  yet 
the  community  at  large  may  receive,  and  do  re- 
ceive, a great  benefit  from  it.  The  man  that 
has  a coal  mine,  and  needs  to  reach  it,  pays  for 
every  inch  of  land  appropriated  for  this  outlet, 
yet  the  most  of  these  benefits  are  for, the  public 
good.  It  is  supposed  the  person  in  whose  land 
it  is,  makes  some  money  out  of  it.  But  is  not 
that  the  incentive,  the  inducement  which  pro- 
duces everything  that  is  for  the  benefit  of  the 
great  people  ? That  is  the  idea  when  a railroad, 
for  instance,  is  constructed.  The  company  ex- 
pects to  receive  some  benefit  from  it,  but  they 
give  to  the  people  and  to  the  State  at  large  an 
equal  benefit,  or  a larger  benefit  than  is  fre- 
quently received  by  the  individuals  directly 
connected  with  the  enterprise,  because  it  has 
often  turned  out  that  the  persons  engaged  in 
these  enterprises  are  ruined  entirely,  in  a finan- 
cial point  of  view,  while  the  people  of  the  State 
at  large  are  greatly  benefited.  So  with  these 
mines.  Individuals  cannot  manage  them,  un- 
less they  possess  very  great  wealth.  Yet,  I 
would  not  confine  this  right  of  way  to  corpora- 
tions, as  in  the  general  act  of  1854,  I would  give 
to  corporations  and  individuals  the  right  alike. 
So,  it  seems  to  me,  the  argument  urged  here, 
that  this  change  is  a mere  private  enterprise, 
cannot  obtain.  Individuals  may  receive  par- 
ticular benefit  from  it,  but  the  public  at  large 
receive  benefits  also,  and  we  say,  that  these 
benefits  to  the  public  are  sufficient  to  make  it 
necessary  to  make  a provision  for  this  right  in 
this  Bill  of  Rights.  I place  it  upon  the  ground 
of  necessity,  as  I did  last  evening.  The  neces- 
sity exists.  You  cannot  select  your  mines. 
You  take  them  as  they  are,  and  you  must  have 
the  means  of  getting  at  them,  or  the  benefit  of 
them  cannot  be  enjoyed.  The  gentleman  from 
Huron  [Mr.  Watson],  said  the  case  referred  to 
in  the  nineteenth  Ohio  State  Reports,  does  not, 
in  any  degree  settle  this  question.  I say  to 
him  in  reply  to  that,  as  I did  on  yesterday,  the 
supreme  court  dodged  the  issue,  as  presented  on 
the  part  of  the  plaintiff  and  defendant  in  error. 
Both  urged  their  claims,  substantially,  under 
the  Bill  of  Rights;  one  claiming  under  the  act 
of  the  Legislature,  the  other  opposing  it,  because 
it  was  in  violation  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and 
yet  the  supreme  court  went  off  on  the  statute, 
leaving  out  of  view  the  question  made  under 
the  Bill  of  Rights.  They  held  that  this  statute 
did  not  provide  the  manner  of  appropriating 
these  lands,  nor  any  mode  of  paying  for  them  ; 
therefore,  they  would  not  enforce  it,  and  said  it 
was  unnecessary  to  settle  the  other  questions 
raised  in  the  case.  That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 
But  I reiterate  that  all  over  the  State,  the  courts 
hold  that  it  is  a violation  of  this  Bill  of  Rights, 
as  now  provided,  to  appropriate  lands  for  this 
purpose;  and  it  must  be  properly  provided  for 
now,  so  that  these  mines  may  be  reached.  The 
Legislature  has  refused  to  change  the  act  of 
1854,  because,  they  say,  their  attention  has  been 
called  to  the  fact  that  it  is  in  violation  of  this 
Bill  of  Rights;  and,  on  this  ground,  I ask  that 
the  nineteenth  section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  be 


1777 


Day.]  RIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES,  ETC. 

March  5, 1874.]  Pease,  Tuttle. 


so  enlarged,  that  these  mines  can  be  reached; 
that  these  individuals  holding  lands  between 
the  mines  and  the  means  of  transportation,  be 
compelled  to  allow  the  use  of  land  for  high- 
ways, because  they  are  protected  in  having 
every  single  dollar’s  worth  of  their  property 
paid  for.  And,  as  is  done  in  regard  to  railroads 
and  highways,  they  may  not  only  be  paid  for 
the  land,  but  fully  compensated  for  all  conse- 
quential damages  growing  out  of  the  appro- 
priation of  this  right  of  way.  And  when  that 
is  done,  nobody  on  earth  is  harmed.  The  owner 
of  the  land  or  railroad  is  fully  compensated,  and 
he  cannot  complain,  and  the  individual  or  com- 
pany owning  the  mines  and  having  the  right  to 
go  across  these  lands  get  a small  interest  in  it, 
and  the  people  of  the  State  at  large  are  greatly 
benefited.  Your  cities,  villages  and  country 
all  alike  get  the  benefits  resulting  from  these 
mines;  and  upon  these  grounds,  gentlemen,  I 
ask  that  these  rights  be  extended. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  show  to  gen- 
tlemen of  the  Convention  that  what  I supposed 
my  interrogative  to  the  gentleman  from  Stark 
[Mr.  Pease]  was  intended  to  suggest,  is  no  ex- 
aggerated view  of  what  happens.  It  is  no 
doubt  true,  that  one  man  may,  without  any 
knowledge  of  it  at  the  time  he  buys,  get  a farm 
with  a coal  mine  under  it,  and  another  man,  with 
equal  ignorance,  may  get  a farm  without  any, 
right  beside  it,  but  so  situated  that  you  can 
never  get  the  coal  out,  or,  at  least,  without 
much  difficulty.  It  may  not,  perhaps,  be  got 
out  without  going  through  his  neighbor’s  land. 
But  you  may  go  much  further  than  that.  It 
may  happen  that  a man,  in  his  own  land,  for 
purposes  of  his  own,  and  for  getting  the  neigh- 
boring coal,  has,  at  great  expense,  made  an  en- 
try— sunk  a shaft  or  run  a horizontal  entry  into 
the  rock — the  supervening  and  superincumbent 
strata  so  as  to  reach  the  coal  in  his  own  land — 
and  those  entries  cost  a great  deal  of  money. 
Twenty  or  thirty  thousand  dollars  is,  perhaps, 
in  my  section  of  the  State,  an  average  amount 
which  must  be  expended  in  running  an  entry 
through  the  strata  there.  Well,  after  he  has 
done  that  he  may  reach  a basin  of  coal  that  is 
very  limited  .indeed ; not  at  all  compensating 
him  for  the  entry  he  sunk.  It  is  to  him  a losing 
matter.  He  has  exhausted  his  mine,  and  in 
doing  it,  has  run  right  along  by  his  neighbor’s 
boundaries,  and  has  opened  there  a breast  of 
coal  in  a basin  that  is  apparently  very  wide,  and 
four  or  five  feet  high,  of  fine  block  coal.  Well 
now,  there  is  an  entrj^  on  one  hand  without  any 
coal,  and  on  the  other  hand  there  is  the  coal  with- 
out any  entry.  And  now,  I desire  again  to  know 
if  any  man  can  tell  me  any  difference  in  truth,  be- 
tween the  latter  man,  who  has  the  entry,  which 
has  cost  him  may  be  as  much  money  as  the  other 
man’s  coal  is  worth,  or  more — and  may  be  he 
has  reached  half  a dozen  mines  of  coal  in  small 
basins — tell  me,  if  you  can,  why  the  latter  man 
has  anymore  right — because  he  has  the  entry — 
to  appropriate  the  other  man’s  coal,  than  there 
would  be  in  allowing  the  man  who  has  the 
coal  to  appropriate  the  other  man’s  entry,  or,  if 
he  has  got  no  entry,  to  appropriate  a place  to 
make  an  entry  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  the 
coal?  In  my  judgment,  there  can  be  no  differ- 
ence shown,  and  it  would  not  do  to  base  it  on  the 
fact  that  the  interest  of  one  is  large  and  the  in- 

v.  n-114 


terest  of  the  other  small,  even  if  we  would  ig- 
nore the  idea  that  the  owner  of  the  land  is  just 
as  u.uch  entitled  under  the  law,  and  that  his 
rights  of  property  are  held  just  as  sacred  as  the 
man  who  owns  a flock  of  sheep.  And  it  would 
be  just  as  proper  to  say  that  the  man  who  had 
the  biggest  flock  should  have  all.  The 
trouble  is  that  it  interferes  with  rights  hitherto 
held  sacred,  and  you  can  find  no  stopping  place 
in  this  matter  if  you  commence.  I have  seen 
some  of  the  inconveniences  which  gentlemen 
suggest,  and  have  seen  efforts  made  to  get 
around  them  in  some  way.  Sometimes  by  pre- 
tending to  organize  a railroad  company  for  the 
public  good,  without  any  public  object  in  view. 
At  other  times,  by  providing  a railroad  company 
under  some  of  those  statutes  which  have  been 
referred  to,  which,  in  the  lower  courts,  so  far 
as  I know,  when  they  have  been  brought  before 
them,  have  usually  been  held,  as  the  gentle- 
man from  Stark  [Mr.  PeaseJ  said,  unconstitu- 
tional interferences  with  the  right  of  private 
property.  This,  of  course,  does  not  apply  to 
! coal  mines  alone,  or  iron  mines  alone,  but  to  all 
minerals  beneath  the  surface  of  the  earth.  The 
gentleman  may  well  suggest  that  the  man  who 
buys  a coal  mine  and  does  not  know  it — does  it 
by  lot,  not  knowing  that  he  is  going  to  get  a 
coal  mine.  Well,  now,  if  that  is  so,  one  man 
buys  a coal  mine  at  a certain  price,  and  another 
man  buys  a farm  beside  it  where  coal  cannot  be 
taken  out  without  going  through  the  other — 
which  is  not  very  difficult  to  suppose — and  each 
may  buy  with  equal  ignorance  of  the  existence 
of  coal,  I would  like  to  know  where  is  the 
equity  in  saying  that  the  man  who  happened  to 
buy  the  coal  should  have  any  preference,  on 
that  ground,  to  the  right  of  the  land  of  the 
other  to  get  out  his  coal  ? But  this  is  a general 
statement  of  the  case.  Now,  the  men  who  buy 
coal,  buy  it  of  malice  aforethought,  with  de- 
liberation— buy  it,  because  they  know  it  is 
there,  buy  it,  knowing  what  they  buy.  And, 
now,  I ask,  what  difference  there  is  in 
applying  this  to  coal  mines  or  any  other  mat- 
ter ? Some  gentleman  has  suggested  hoop  poles 
very  correctly.  If  a man  has  a very  valuable 
lot  of  hoop  poles,  the  public  want  those  hoop 
poles,  coopers  want  them,  oil  men  want 
them,  manufacturers  of  flour  want  them, 
not  any  more  than  they  want  the  corn 
I raise  on  my  land.  And  there  is  no  more 
right  in  it  than  that  another  man  who  would 
cultivate  my  land  better  to  raise  corn  there ; not 
a bit  more.  Of  course,  we  all  have  an  interest 
in  all  this;  the  public  at  large  has  an  interest; 
but  I do  not  take  it  that,  because  one  man  can 
cultivate  my  land  better  than  I can,  we  should 
say  he  must  cultivate  it,  or  that  we  must  allow 
the  man  who  is  the  best  farmer  in  the  county 
to  have  the  superabundant  right  to  cultivate  all 
the  land  in  the  county,  because  he  can  cultivate 
it  better  than  another  man  who  is  shiftless. 
Neither  should  this  apply  to  hoop-pole  land,  or 
any  valuable  timber  land,  or  any  other.  Why, 
suppose  one  man  has  a valuable  lot  of  timber — 
his  land  covered  all  over  with  whitewood  trees, 
which,  if  he  had  a good  chance  to  get  them  out, 
would  be  worth  fifteen  or  twenty  dollars  a 
piece,  and  could  be  cut  into  fine,  nice,  white, 
straight,  clear  poplar  lumber,  which  is  wanted 
all  over  the  land  to  be  used  in  building  houseg 


1778 


RIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES,  ETC. 

Tuttle,  Page,  Sample. 


[130th 

[Thursday, 


and  for  cabinet  work.  But  he  cannot  get  it  out 
unless  a railroad  is  built  across  another  man’s 
land.  There  is  a nice  elevation  across  this 
other  man’s  farm— a place  on  which  he  has  had 
his  eye  for  a long  time,  intending,  as  soon  as  he 
could  get  enough  ground  cleared  and  corn  enough 
raised  to  enable  him  to  do  so,  to  build  there  a 
comfortable  frame  house  for  his  family,  that  he 
might  move  out  of  his  log  shanty.  But  over 
this  very  ground,  the  most  desirable  to  him  on 
his  whole  farm,  this  man  who  desires  to  sell 
his  valuable  poplar  lumber,  says,  “ I want  a 
way  to  get  out  through  here  with  my  timber.” 
And  he  will  take  your  buildings,  too,  if  there 
are  any  buildings  erected,  but  of  course  will 
pay  for  them.  You  may  then  be  compelled  to 
sell  this  property  for  what  the  jury  appointed 
to  assess  the  damages,  may  say  you  ought  to 
take  for  it.  Is  there  anything  different  in  that 
from  the  case  of  mines  referred  to  here? 

There  is  a stream  of  water  which  runs  across 
one  man’s  land.  He  wants  to  get  a place  to 
build  a mill,  but  has  no  place  to  set  it  and  build 
his  dam,  without  backing  the  water  on  another 
man’s  land.  His  mill  site  is  of  no  value  to 
him  except  he  be  allowed  to  build  a dam  that 
will  cause  the  water  to  overflow  his  neighbor’s 
land.  He  says : “ I want  to  appropriate  a place 
on  your  land  for  the  water  to  flow  back,  so  I 
can  build  a dam  to  supply  water  for  my  mill. 
The  public  has  a right  to  it.” 

[Here  the  time  expired.] 

“ Leave,”  “leave.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  believe  I want  to  say 
anything  further. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I do  not  rise  to  argue  this  mat- 
ter, but  simply  to  correct  an  error. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me,  I only  want  to  suggest  that  there  would  be 
no  choice  between  the  owner  of  the  mill  site 
and  the  man  that  owns  the  land  that  is  flooded, 
except  that,  as  a consequence,  the  man  who 
owned  the  mill  site  could  have  a good  pond  on 
my  land. 

Mr.  PAGE.  It  has  been  assumed  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  question  that  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease]  was 
anomalous  in  constitutional  law.  That  is  in- 
correct. A provision  something  like  this  is 
found  in  the  Constitutions  of  the  States  of  New 
York,  Michigan,  and  of  Georgia,  and  I will 
read  that.  It  is  much  broader  than  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease]  : 

“Private  roais  may  be  opened  in  the  manner  to  be 
prescribed  by  law;  but  in  every  case  the  necessity 
of  the  road,  and  the  amount  of  all  damages  to 
be  sustained  by  the  opening  thereof,  shall  first  be  deter- 
mined by  a jurv  of  free  holders  without  any  deduction  of 
benefits  whatever,  and  such  amount,  together  with  the 
expenses  of  the  proceedings,  shall  be  paid  by  the  person 
to  be  benefited.” 

I offered  that  as  a proposition  to  this  Conven- 
tion, at  the  session  at  Columbus,  but  it  was  re- 
jected by  the  Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill 
of  Rights.  I do  not  undertake  to  prosecute  it 
any  further,  but  that  proposition  is  copied  from 
the  Constitution  of  three  of  the  States,  with  the 
addition  of  the  words,  “ without,  any  deduction 
of  benefits  whatever,”  which  I put  in  to  se- 
cure the  rights  of  individuals  better  than  the 
provision  in  the  Constitution  of  New  York 
secures  it.  Now,  I find  that  in  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania they  have  held  that  this  right  might 


be  exercised  in  order  to  establish  private  ways 
from  coal-fields  to  connect  them  with  the  pub- 
lic improvements,  there  being  nothing  in  the 
Constitution  of  Pennsylvania  to  forbid  it.  So 
that  the  principle  is  not  so  extraordinary  and 
so  shocking  as  some  gentlemen  discover  it  to  be. 

A good  deal  has  been  said  about  the  liability 
to  abuse  if  this  provision  is  adopted.  Why, 
Mr.  President,  this  is  like  the  grant  of  all  other 
powers.  They  are  all  liable  to  abuse,  and  I 
have  never  heard  that  it  is  a valid  argument  in 
constitutional  law  that  the  liability  to  abuse 
was  any  objection  to  the  grant  of  power.  They 
have  represented  this  matter  as  if  the  citizens 
of  this  State  would  be  constantly  running 
highways  through  the  orchards  and  parlors  of 
private  citizens.  I do  not  think  that  amuse- 
ment would  be  attempted  very  often  by  any 
gentleman,  and  when  he  did  he  would  find  it 
expensive.  It  could  only  be  done  where  free- 
holders find  the  necessity  of  the  road,  and  due 
compensation  paid  for  all  the  expenses  of  pro- 
ceeding, and  all  the  damages,  without  any  de- 
duction for  any  benefit  or  benefits  whatever. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  This  Convention  can  not  too 
carefully  guard  the  rights  of  private  property 
and  cannot  too  carefully  protect  those  rights 
from  abuse  in  all  proper  ways,  so  as  to  prevent 
injustice,  in  so  far  as  it  may  be  done  to  individ- 
uals. But  the  right  to  appropriate  private 
property  to  public  use  has  always  been  recog- 
nized, and  it  has  always  been  a matter  of 
difficulty  to  ascertain  exactly  where  public  use 
ceased  and  private  use  began.  It  has  been  the 
practice,  under  the  Constitution  and  legislation 
of  Ohio,  for  more  than  forty  years,  within  my 
actual  knowledge,  to  allow  any  individual  to 
appropriate  the  land  of  his  neighbor  for  a road 
for  his  private  benefit  alone,  whenever  he  had 
occasion  to  do  it,  to  enable  him  to  reach  a high- 
way. Suppose  a man  had  resided  where  one  of 
these  coal  mines  is  located.  He  found  it  neces- 
sary to  have  an  outlet.  Suppose  his  property 
there  to  be  worth  one  hundred  or  two  hundred 
dollars,  and  that  such  road  would  be  of  no 
benefit  to  the  community,  under  the  law 
of  the  State  he  could " have  a road,  so 
as  to  give  him  a passage  out  to  the 
highway.  The  only  question  is,  whether 
he  can  pay  the  amount  of  damages,  which  is  to 
be  determined  by  the  men  appointed  under  the 
provisions  of  law,  and  if  they  say  it  is  neces- 
sary for  him  to  have  an  outlet — you  may  de- 
nominate it  a county  road,  or  a public  road— it 
is  purely  as  much  a private  way  as  if  no  man 
set  foot  on  it  but  himself.  It  is  true,  it  must 
remain  open;  but  it  is  not  necessary  that  it 
should  be  a communication  between  two  high- 
ways. It  may  run  up  to  the  enclosure  of  the 
petitioner, 'and  there  stop,  so  that  no  person  has 
the  least  interest  in  traveling  upon  it,  unless  it 
be  to  transact  business  with  him.  For  all  prac- 
tical purposes  the  right  has  been  established  by 
decisions  of  the  courts,  and  by  uninterrupted 
acts  of  the  Legislature  for  more  than  forty  years 
— how  much  longer  I do  not  pretend  to  say — to 
give  to  a man  the  right  over  another  man’s 
land  without  any  other  condition  than  that  it  is 
necessary  for  him,  and  he  is  able  to  pay  what 
the  assessment  may  be  for  the  use  of  the 
lands  that  may  be  affected  thereby.  About 
that  there  is  no  question,  now.  This  distinc- 
tion which  is  attempted  to  be  drawn  here 


Day.] 

March  5,  1874.] 


RIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES,  ETC. 

Sample,  Hoadly. 


1779 


is  a mere  matter  of  fiction.  Suppose  a man, 
under  the  circumstances  I have  indicated,  could 
have  his  road  across  the  lands  that  intervene 
between  him  and  the  public  highway  for  his 
own  individual  benefit,  and  when  there  was  no 
evidence  at  all  that  the  public  had  the  least  in- 
terest, or  would  be  benefited  in  the  least  by 
opening  it.  But  the  difference  between  the 
case  supposed  and  that  under  consideration, 
and  the  only  ground  upon  which,  as  I suppose, 
this  distinction  is  based  is  this,  that  such  roads 
must  be  kept  open.  They  need  not  be  kept  in 
condition  for  travel,  but  if  they  are  opened  at 
all,  they  must  be  kept  open  as  roads.  The 
petitioner  is  under  an  obligation  to  improve  it 
so  that  it  can  be  used  as  a highway,  but  it  must 
be  kept  open  so  that  if  anybody  wants  to  clam- 
ber over  it  he  can  do  it.  That  is  the  law  now. 
But  here  is  the  difference.  It  is  said  that  if 
there  was  a railroad  constructed  there,  made 
along  that  track,  instead  of  leaving  it  open  so 
that  anybody  can  use  it,  they  are  forbidden  by 
the  Constitution.  That  is  an  infraction  of  the 
rights  of  the  other  party.  This  difference  ex- 
ists in  the  imagination  only,  and  not  because 
there  is  any  essential  difference.  There  is  no 
difference  in  the  use  itself,  but  the  manner  of 
the  use  is  a little  different,  and  that  is  the 
ground  upon  which,  as  I understand  it,  the  ob- 
jection is  based,  because  the  individual  who 
constructs  a railroad  to  a mine  or  any  other 
place  for  a purpose  which  requires  transporta- 
tion of  that  character,  that  the  individual  con- 
structing it  have  control  over  it  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  other  parties,  and  not  remain  open  to 
the  public,  as  is  the  case  in  reference  to  town- 
ship roads.  For  this  reason,  it  is  declared  to  be 
a violation  of  the  Constitution. 

There  is  nothing  in  principle,  or  in  the  nature 
of  the  appropriation  to  make  it  different  from 
a township  road.  There  is  nothing  to  prejudice 
a party  affected  in  one  case  more  than  in  an- 
other. Both  alike  appropriate  land  to  the  use 
of  the  individual,  and  withdraw  from  the  owner 
the  use  of  the  land  thus  appropriated,  so  that 
there  is  really  no  substantial  distinction  what- 
ever. This  may  be  abused;  but  it  is  not  an 
abuse  that  is  likely  to  be  serious.  It  is  attended 
with  too  much  expense,  too  much  inconvenience 
to  the  party  trespassing  upon  his  neighbor  to 
be  likely  to  be  abused. 

How,  as  I have  said,  we  have  had  experience 
of  this  kind  for  a long  series  of  years,  for  more 
than  a generation,  and  I do  not  know  how  much 
longer — and  where  is  the  evidence  of  abuse  in 
this  particular,  or  where  is  the  evidence,  so  far 
as  the  private  roads  are  concerned — and  they 
are  just  as  much  private  roads  as  roads  would 
be  constructed  for  the  use  that  is  here  contem- 
plated— where  is  the  evidence  of  abuse,  where 
have  men,  although  they  can  do  it  at  much  less 
expense,  where  have  men  sought  to  have  roads 
made  across  other  men’s  land  to  their  prejudice, 
and  when  they  were  not  necessary  for  the  good 
of  the  person  seeking  to  have  them  made?  I 
suppose  it  is  not  in  the  knowledge  of  any  of  the 
gentlemen  of  this  Convention,  so  that  this 
abuse,  while  it  may  exist,  as  all  other  rights 
which  are  conferred  may  be  abused,  yet  the 
liability  to  abuse  is  more  a matter  of  imagination 
than  of  reality.  It  would  be  controlled  by 
legislation.  The  Legislature,  in  conferring 


this  right,  may  so  regulate  and  control  it 
as  that  the  land  owners  may  have  all  the 
benefits  which  can  be  secured  by  the  con- 
ferment of  this  privilege  without  prejudice 
to  others,  as  has  been  suggested  here.  In 
the  case  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Perry  [Mr.  Jackson]  a road  is  made  over  a 
man’s  land;  he  shall  have  the  privilege  of  using 
it  under  fair,  reasonable  and  equitable  terms, 
so  that  it  may  be,  in  fact,  a benefit  to  his  proper- 
ty in  the  very  class  of  cases  referred  to  by  that 
gentleman.  There  is  no  reason  why  it  should 
not  be.  I do  not  think  there  is  this  danger  to 
be  apprehended  from  the  incorporation  of  a 
provision  which  will  authorize  the  construction 
of  those  roads  to  mines  and  to  other  public  im- 
provements. Suppose  a mill-site,  as  referred 
to  by  the  gentleman  from  Huron  [Mr.  Wat- 
son], where  the  community  need  it,  surrounded 
by  land  owned  by  men  who  are  not  willing  that 
a right  of  way  should  be  made  to  that  site  across 
their  lands,  I suppose  the  interest  of  having  a 
road  there  to  the  public  is  greater,  I ask  if  it  is 
not  of  ten  times  more  interest  to  the  public  that 
there  should  be  a right  of  way  to  that  mill  than 
that  there  should  be  across  a man’s  farm  for  the 
use  of  a man  that  has  no  business  of  any  conse- 
quence with  the  outside  world,  and  no  particu- 
lar benefit  to  be  derived  by  the  construction  of 
the  road?  These  are  matters  of  public  im- 
provement, public  interest  in  the  development 
of  the  resources  of  the  State ; these  are  matters 
of  importance,  and  in  the  progress  of  the  State, 
the  interest  of  the  whole  public  require  that 
these  sources  of  wealth  should  be  developed, 
without,  in  fact,  prejudicing  the  rights  of  an 
individual  further  than  what  the  necessity  and 
the  common  good  and  interest  of  the  people  of 
the  whole  State  may  require.  I see  no  reason 
to  apprehend  those  disasters  predicted  by  gen- 
tlemen who  have  spoken  on  this  subject,  if 
this  provision  is  adopted. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  25,  nays  37,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Barnet,  Bishop,  Carbery,  Cha- 
pin, Clark  of  Jefferson,  De  Steiguer,  Foran, 
Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Kerr,  Miller, 
Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Page, 
Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Sample,  Yoorhes,  Yoris, 
White  of  Brown,  Woodbury — 25. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Byal,  Campbell,  Coats,  Cunningham,  Godfrey, 
Greene,  Hale,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kraemer, 
Merrill,  Heal,  Okey,  Pond,  Root,  Rowland, 
Sears,  Shaw’,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Steed- 
man,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss, 
Tuttle,  Van  Yalkenburgh,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Wad- 
dle, Watson,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of 
Hoble,  President — 35. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  to  amend  section 
nineteen  by  inserting  the  words  “State,  county 
and  township”  in  line  four,  before  the  word 
“roads.”  This  amendment,  in  my  opinion,  is 
made  necessary  to  the  Constitution,  either  in 
this  place  or  in  another,  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  the  Convention,  in  organizing  its  commit- 
tees, has  separated  the  subject  of  municipal 
corporations  from  corporations  other  than  mu- 
nicipal, and  thus  has  prevented,  or  is  likely  to 


1780 


THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 


[130th 


Hoadly,  Pond. 


[Thursday, 


prevent,  the  fifth  section  of  the  thirteenth  Ar- 
ticle from  having  the  same  effect  upon  the 
action  of  municipal  corporations,  if  it  be  re- 
ported by  the  Committee  on  Corporations  other 
than  Municipal.  I understand  that  it  will  be 
in  the  language  of  the  present  Constitution, 
that  it  will  bear  upon  the  action  of  private  cor- 
porations. If  I can  have  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  I will  explain  the  difficulty,  and  I 
think  the  remedy  will  be  obvious. 

There  are  two  sections  of  the  Constitution,  as 
it  now  exists,  in  which  the  subject  of  compen- 
sation for  rights  of  way  and  private  property 
taken  is  discussed.  In  the  section  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  now  under  consideration,  it  is  provided 
that,  when  private  property  shall  be  taken  in 
time  of  war,  or  other  public  exigency  impera- 
tively requiring  its  immediate  seizure,  or  for 
the  purpose  of  repairing  roads,  which  shall  be 
open  to  the  public  without  charge,  a compensa- 
tion shall  be  made  to  the  owner  in  money,  and 
in  all  other  cases  shall  be  first  made  in  money, 
or  first  secured  by  a deposit  of  money.  The  ef- 
fect of  this  section,  if  it  stood  alone,  would  be  to 
provide  that  when  land  may  betaken,  or  ma- 
terials may  be  taken  for  making  or  repairing 
roads,  which  shall  be  open  to  the  public  with- 
out charge,  the  compensation  need  not  be  made 
before  the  property  be  taken,  or  the  materials 
secured.  So  far  as  State,  county  and  township 
roads  are  concerned,  I have  no  interest  to  object, 
and  do  not  propose  to  object  to  continuing  the 
rule  provided  in  section  19,  that  such  compensa- 
tion may  be  made  after  the  materials  may  be 
taken,  and  after  the  work  may  be  done;  but  I 
do  object,  Mr.  President,  to  opening  streets  in 
municipal  corporations  by  assessment  or  oth- 
erwise, unless  the  money  for  the  property,  and 
the  money  for  the  materials,  be  paid  in  advance. 
Also,  I object  that  a regrade  of  a street  in  a mu- 
nicipal corporation,  which  the  supreme  court 
have  repeatedly  decided  is  within  the  purview  of 
these  provisions  of  the  Constitution — the  one  I 
have  referred  to,  and  one  I shall  refer  to — I ob- 
ject that  such  regrade,  which,  in  many  cases, 
is  exceedingly  detrimental,  ought  not  to  be 
permitted  until  the  compensation  for  the  dam- 
age done  by  the  regrade  is  made  in  advance.  If 
gentlemen  from  the  country  here  are  satisfied  to 
have  the  system  of  opening  State,  county  and 
township  roads  without  a constitutional  re- 
quirement of  advance  payment,  so  be  it,  but  I 
object  to  any  change  in  the  Constitution  which 
shall  allow  municipal  corporations  to  open 
streets,  or  regrade  streets,  without  making  that 
compensation  in  advance  which  it  is  intended 
the  owner  shall  ultimately  have. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POND.  Does  not  the  amendment  pro- 
posed exclude  from  the  provision  in  this  sec- 
tion roads  called  improved  roads,  which  are  not 
technically  called  either  county  or  township? 
Would  it  not  be  better  to  put  in  some  specific 
clause  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  know.  The  very 
object  of  my  statement  is  to  elicit  information 
in  regard  to  that  matter.  What  I am  after  is 
to  keep  the  new  Constitution  precisely  where 
the  present  Constitution  is.  I will  show  to  the 
Convention  in  a moment,  how  the  present  Con- 


stitution is,  and  the  opportunity  and  danger  of 
a change.  The  13th  Article  of  the  present  Con- 
stitution is  an  Article  which  has  been  decided 
by  the  Supreme  Court  to  refer  not  merely  to 
private  corporations,  but  also  to  municipal  cor- 
porations. It  is  an  Article  involving  the  rights 
and  restrictions  of  powers  of  both  classes  ot 
corporations,  and  the  fifth  section  is  in  these 
words:  “ No  right  of  way  shall  be  appropriated 
to  the  use  of  any  corporation  until  full  compen- 
sation be  first  made  therefor  in  money” — 
“First  made  therefor  in  money.”  If  we  sepa- 
rate the  Article  on  municipal  corporations  from 
the  Article  on  private  corporations,  the  effect 
will  be  that  this  section  5 must  be  adopted 
twice,  or  when  it  comes  from  the  Committee 
on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal,  it  must 
provide  that  no  right  of  way  shall  be  appropri- 
ated to  the  use  of  any  private  or  municipal  cor- 
poration except  upon  the  condition  of  advance 
payment.  The  amendment  which  I am  now 
suggesting,  which  I think  is  the  simplest,  easi- 
est and  best  method  of  disposing  of  the  sub- 
ject, ought  to  be  adopted.  The  Committee 
on  Municipal  Corporations  did  not  consider 
themselves  charged  with  the  duty  of  plac- 
ing in  their  Report  a section  equivalent 
to  this  section  5.  They  supposed  that 
this  work  belonged  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights,  or  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal, 
and  yet  not  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  we  have 
made  an  Article  which  is  now  ready  for  final 
reading,  which  has  been  engrossed,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  municipal  corporations,  the  Conven- 
tion is  in  danger  of  introducing,  as  Mr.  Lincoln 
used  to  say,  “ unbeknownst  to  ourselves,”  a 
provision  which  shall  radically  change  the 
present  section  as  to  municipal  corporations. 
Now,  as  I have  had  occasion,  heretofore,  to  say, 
lam  in  favor  of  assessing  upon  the  owner  the 
cost  of  the  land  and  the  materials,  but  I am  not 
in  favor  of  postponing  the  payment  until  the 
assessment  is  made,  and  sending  the  bill  in  one 
hand  and  the  assessment  in  the  other.  I think 
the  owner  should  be  paid  first,  and  then  let  him 
fight  it  out  whether  he  should  be  obliged  to 
contribute  or  not,  according  as  to  whether  the 
proceedings  may  be  properly  taken  or  not,  and, 
for  one,  I am  not  willing  to  yield  a jot  or  tittle 
not  conceded  by  the  present  Constitution. 
Therefore,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  Con- 
stitution right  and  avoiding  the  danger  suggest- 
ed, it  seems  to  me  that  we  should  change  this 
provision  in  section  19,  so  as  to  exclude  it  from  af- 
fecting municipal  corporations.  I was  not  aware 
that  the  words,  “ State,  county  and  township 
roads,”  did  not  cover  all  the  classes  of  roads 
with  regard  to  which  any  member  might  desire 
that  should  be  opened  without  making  pay- 
ment in  advance.  If  the  gentleman  from  Mor- 
gan [Mr.  Pond]  thinks  there  is  another  class  of 
roads  which  ought  to  be  opened,  and  payment 
postponed  to  the  individual  owner  until  after 
they  have  been  opened,  he  may  correct  me,  but 
we  have  adopted  the  theory,  heretofore,  so  far 
as  this  Constitution  is  concerned,  that  we  might 
open  State,  county  and  township  roads,  and  J do 
not  understand — of  course  by  saying  this  I am 
open  to  conviction — that  there  has  ever  been  in 
Ohio  any  class  of  roads  liable  to  appropriation 
without  payment  in  advance,  except  State, 


Day.] 

March  5,  1874.] 


THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Hoadly,  Watson,  Pond,  Mueller,  Root,  etc. 


1781 


county  and  township  roads.  Therefore,  the 
amendment  I propose,  while  it  is  necessary  to 
prevent  municipal  corporations  from  having 
the  right  to  defer  payment,  does  not  alter  the 
sense  and  significance  of  the  provisions  of  the 
present  Constitution. 

Mr.  WATSON.  When  this  matter  was  pre- 
sented to  us,  we  did  not  insert  State,  county 
and  township,  for  the  reason  that  we  did  not 
deem  it  necessary.  We  thought  the  owners  of 
property  had  a sufficient  remedy  under  the  ex- 
isting law.  However,  all  the  Committee 
favored  the  purpose  that  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  was  aiming  at.  And 
if  there  is  any  doubt  upon  this  subject,  it  is  a 
mere  matter  of  classification.  It  is  simply  a 
question  as  to  whether  the  owners  of  this 
property  shall  be  compensated,  or  first  compen- 
sated. If  there  is  any  doubt  about  their  not 
having  now  sufficient  remedy  to  guard  them 
against  the  improvement  of  streets,  the  altera- 
tion of  grades,  and  matters  of  that  sort,  I am 
perfectly  willing  that  it  shall  be  made  explicit 
here;  for  we  are  all  laboring  for  the  same 
purpose  with  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]. 

Mr.  POND.  I merely  want  to  suggest  that, 
perhaps,  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  can  reach  the  object  he  desires  better, 
and  avoid  danger  of  the  misconstruction  of  the 
terms  of  the  amendment,  “ township  and  State 
roads,”  by  inserting,  after  the  word  “roads,” 
in  the  fourth  line,  the  words  “other  than 
streets  or  highways  in  cities  and  incorporated 
villages.”  That,  if  accepted,  will  include  all 
that  it  is  desirous  to  include  in  this,  and  leave 
the  common  roads  subject  to  the  same  common 
alteration. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  content  to  accept  the 
amendment,  if  I can  have  the  leave  of  the 
Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  has  leave  to  make  the  modifica- 
tion. The  Secretary  will  read  the  amendment 
as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

When  taken  in  time  of  war,  or  other  public  exigency 
imperatively  requiring  its  immediate  seizure,  or  for  the 
purpose  of  making  or  repairing  roads,  other  than  streets 
and  highways  in  cities  and  incorporated  villages,  which 
shall  be  open  to  the  public  without  charge,  a compensa- 
tion shall  be  made  to  the  owner  in  money;  and  in  all 
other  cases  where  private  property  shall  be  taken  for 
public  use,  a compensation  shall  first  be  made  in  money, 
or  first  secured  by  a deposit  of  money;  and  such  com- 
pensation shall  be  assessed  by  a jury,  without  deduction 
for  benefits  to  any  property  to  the  owner. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  This  amendment,  if  agreed 
to,  will  actually  frustrate  the  intention  of  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly].  “ In 
time  of  war,  or  for  the  purpose  of  making  or 
repairing  roads,  other  than  the  streets  of  cities 
and  incorporated  villages.”  Now,  under  this 
provision,  there  could  be  no  compensation  for 
streets  of  cities. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me?  He  will  see  that  it  goes  on  and  says: 
“ In  all  other  cases  the  compensation  shall  be 
as  made.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  There  is  no  provision  for 
cities. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly,  theye  is  a pro- 
vision. We  except  roads  in  cities.  Roads 
which  are  free,  without  charge,  the  compensa- 


tion shall  be  made  in  money ; then,  in  all  other 
cases,  as  made  in  money. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  If  the  other  clause  refers 
to  roads,  I would  prefer  the  amendment. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I think  that,  if  such  provi- 
sion is  to  be  inserted  in  the  Constitution,  it 
ought  to  go  further  than  it  does.  I,  therefore, 
move  that  the  words  “township  roads”  be 
inserted,  so  that,  if  the  amendment  be  adopted, 
it  will  read : “ Repairing  roads,  except  town- 
ship roads.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]  moves  to  amend  the 
amendment  by  prefixing  the  words,  “ and 
township  roads.” 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  After  the  word  “except,” 
township  roads. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  find 
that  the  language  does  not  suit  the  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  POND.  As  I understand  it,  the  gentle- 
man desires  to  insert  the  words,  “ other  than 
township  roads.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Other  than  township 
roads,  and  streets,  and  highways. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  is  to  include  the  two 
classes.  It  includes  township  roads,  and  puts 
them  on  a level  with  streets  and  highways  in 
cities  and  incorporated  villages.  Whatever  the 
phraseology  may  be,  that  will  have  that  effect. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  is : 

“Other  than  township  roads,  and  streets  and  highways 
in  cities  and  incorporated  villages.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  I am  afraid  we  are  going  over 
this  rather  carelessly.  We  certainly  want 
nothing  in  the  Constitution  that  will  be  ob- 
scure. This  subject  is  susceptible  of  being 
made  very  clear  and  distinct.  I think  the  gen- 
tlemen who  have  spoken  upon  it  all  have  one 
purpose,  and  either  of  them,  if  time  be  taken, 
can  put  it  in  such  language  as  to  leave  it  unob- 
jectionable. I fear,  as  it  is  now,  it  is  really  lia- 
ble to  misconstruction.  We  do  not  want  to 
make  a Constitution  on  the  principle  that  the 
old  conveyancer  made  his  will.  He  wrote  a 
note  on  the  margin  : “They  will  have  trouble 
with  this  at  Doctors’  Commons.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  hear  from  the 
gentleman  on  the  propriety  of  the  amendment. 
I certainly  do  not  see  why  township  roads 
should  be  excluded  any  more  than  county 
roads.  A township  road  sometimes  becomes  a 
very  valuable  road  to  the  community.  There 
are  two  classes  of  township  roads.  A township 
road  may  commence  in  a county  road,  a public 
road,  and  terminate  in  a public  road,  and 
still  be  a township  road.  Then  there  is 
another  class  of  township  roads  which  do  not 
terminate  in  any  other  road,  but  commence  in  a 
public  highway  and  terminate  at  a man’s  resi- 
dence or  on  his  premises.  It  is  rather  in  the 
nature  of  a private  way,  and  yet  it  goes  under 
the  class  of  township  roads.  It  is  not  subject, 
however,  to  be  worked  by  the  supervisor,  but 
it  is  required  to  be  kept  open.  Now,  I can  see 
no  reason  why  a township  road,  in  the  general 
acceptation  and  meaning  of  that  term,  should 
stand  on  a different  footing  from  that  of  a coun- 
ty road.  With  my  present  view,  unless  the 
gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]  can 
throw  some  light  upon  it,  I shall  feel  constrained 
to  vote  against  his  motion. 


1782 


THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. [130th 

Pond,  Hoadly,  Sample,  Watson,  Cunningham.  [Thursday, 


Mr.  POND.  I simply  want  to  make  a change 
in  the  location  of  this  amendment.  It  will  be 
observed  that  the  words  “which  shall  be  open 
to  the  public  without  charge”  really  define  the 
term  “roads,”  and  I think  the  amendment  should 
come  in  after  the  word  “charge,”  instead  of 
after  the  word  “road,”  so  as  to  make  it  perfect- 
ly explicit.  I will  read  it  with  that  change : > 
“For  the  purpose  of  making  or  repairing  roads,  I 
which  shall  be  open  to  the  public  without 
charge,  other  such  roads.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  accept  the  amend-  j 
ment? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposition  is  to  in- 
sert the  amendment  after  the  word  “charge,” 
in  line  four.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  sec- 
tion as  it  will  be  if  amended,  as  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
and  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sam- 
ple.] 

The  Secretary  read : 

“When  taken  in  time  of  war,  or  other  public  exigency 
imperatively  requiring  its  immediate  seizure,  or  for  the 
purpose  of  making  or  repairing  roads  which  shall  be  open 
to  the  public  without  charge,  other  than  township  roads, 
and  streets  and  highways,  in  cities  and  incorporated  vil- 
lages.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be  first 
on  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Co- 
shocton [Mr.  Sample]. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I have  my  own  views  on  the 
subject  of  introducing  this  amendment  in  the 
Constitution,  which  induce  me  to  believe  it 
ought  to  he  adopted.  Now,  these  roads  are,  so 
far  as  their  organization  is  concerned,  private 
roads.  The  public  are  not  liable  in  the  way  of 
paying  damages  or  costs  except  in  certain 
cases.  The  whole  business  has  to  be  conducted 
at  the  expense  of  the  person  making  the  appli- 
cation. It  is  a private  enterprise  to  get  a town- 
ship road.  Whatever  may  be  the  character  of 
the  road,  whether  it  connects  two  public  high- 
ways or  not,  it  does  not  make  any  difference. 
The  same  principles  apply,  the  same  rules  gov- 
ern in  the  appropriation  of  land.  The  town- 
ship is  not  liable  for  it,  for  the  damages,  the 
public  is  not  liable  in  any  capacity  whatever. 
If  the  land  is  appropriated  and  the  road  estab- 
lished without  the  money  being  paid  to  the 
owner  of  the  land,  he  has  no  security  that  he 
will  ever  receive  a cent,  and  must  depend  en- 
tirely upon  the  solvency  and  ability  of  the 
party  who  has  petitioned  for  the  road,  to  pay. 
If  a worthless  man  makes  an  application  and 
gets  a road  located  across  the  farm  of  another, 
and  damages  assessed  against  him,  and  the  road 
is  opened  without  the  payment  of  damages, 
what  security  has  the  owner  of  the  land  that  he 
will  ever  receive  a dollar?  He  has  not  any  in 
the  world.  A man  may  have  a road  located  and 
established  across  his  neighbor’s  land,  and  yet 
he  may  not  have  a dollar’s  worth  of  property 
out  of  which  anything  can  be  made  by  execu- 
tion to  pay  the  expenses  and  pay  the  damages 
which  it  causes  to  the  party  whose  land  is  ap- 
propriated. He  has  no  right  to  make  any  ap- 
propriation of  material,  he  has  no  right  to  do 
anything  but  what  a private  individual  has  a 
right  to  do  under  a special  grant.  And  it  is  a 
mere  special  grant  to  an  individual  to  engross 
a portion  of  his  neighbor’s  land,  and  encumber 


it  with  a right  of  way.  I submit  that  since  this 
subject  has  come  under  consideration  in  this 
Convention,  it  ought  to  be  provided  that  dam- 
ages for  land  appropriated  for  these  roads  must 
be  first  paid.  It  has  always  been  the  law  regu- 
lating this  subject,  that  no  man  can  have  a road 
opened  until  the  damages  that  are  assessed  are 
paid.  That  has  always  been  a matter  of  statu- 
tory regulation . And  it  is  so  apparent  in  allow- 
ing such  appropriations  to  be  made,  that  it 
occurred  to  my  mind,  as  this  Convention  is  ex- 
pressing an  opinion  as  to  certain  classes  of 
roads  that  may  be  constructed  without  compen- 
sation being  first  paid  to  the  owner,  that  this 
ought  not  to  be  entitled  to  that  privilege  and 
that  the  compensation  ought  to  be  first  paid. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I feel  an  entire  willingness 
to  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  as  it  was  pre- 
sented. I do  not  care  about  the  form  in  which 
it  is  presented,  so  long  as  it  is  confined  to  the 
| streets  and  alleys  of  cities  and  towns ; but,  if  it 
is  loaded  with  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Coshocton,  I shall  feel  myself  compelled 
to  vote  against  it.  In  that  shape  it  requires  the 
classing  of  these  roads  with  the  streets  in  the 
cities,  and  it  is  to  that  I object.  The  only  purpose 
of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly]  to  avoid  the  hardship  that 
j is  worked  in  many  instances  in  cities  when 
compensation  is  withheld,  and  that  is  the  strong 
and  abiding  argument  in  favor  of  it,  that  prop- 
erty in  cities  should  have  such  protection  that 
1 the  party  should  not  be  damaged  and  compen- 
sation withheld  from  him,  for,  in  many  instan- 
ces it  may  destroy  even  his  business.  But  when 
you  come  to  township  roads  there  is  no  neces- 
sity of  that  kind  existing,  and  you  cannot 
degrade  these  township  roads  to  the  rank  of 
private  ways.  It  is  all  wrong.  Every  attempt 
to  degrade  township  roads  to  the  rank  and 
grade  of  private  ways  is  wrong.  They  are  as 
essentially  public  highways  as  State  roads,  and 
upon  no  other  principle  can  they,  or  have  they 
ever  been  sustained  in  the  courts.  They  have 
been  adjudicated,  and  these  adjudications  are 
reported,  and  they  are  upon  the  express  gronnd 
that  they  are  public  highways.  It  is  true  they 
may  be  used  by  a single  individual,  and  the 
; courts  say  they  may  be  necessary  for  him  to 
i discharge  his  duties  as  a citizen ; but  they  are 
not  his  private  ways.  They  are  public  high- 
ways, and  in  many  instances  they  are  impor- 
tant highways  for  the  local  travel  of  a neigh- 
borhood, and  if  they  are  to  be  put  into  the  class 
of  mere  private  ways,  if  they  are  to  be  regu- 
lated as  we  regulate  streets  and  alleys,  which 
I we  make  a special  exception  of,  I am  compelled 
j to  vote  against  the  proposition,  for  I cannot  vote 
for  it  without  violating  what  I believe  to  be 
public  interest. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr. 
Sample.] 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
[ upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hoadly], 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  appears  to  me  that 
this  amendment,  as  now  proposed,  makes  a 
very  awkward  and  heavy  sentence.  It  is  cer- 
tainly not  elegant,  and  everything  that  is  ac- 
complished by  the  amendment  would  be  accom- 


Day.] THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. m3 

March  5,  1874.]  Cunningham,  Pond,  Johnson,  Tuttle,  West,  etc. 


plished  by  simply  inserting  before  the  word 
“roads”  the  words  “ State  and  county,”  and  it 
would  make  a smooth  sentence  and  accomplish 
everything  desired  by  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly]. 

Mr.  POND.  The  reason  for  making  the  sug- 
gestion was  this,  that,  under  the  operation  of 
some  particular  statutes,  State  roads  are  being 
constructed.  I did  not  want  a strict  provision 
in  the  Constitution  that  would  interfere  with 
the  operation  of  such  improvements. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Well,  it  is  very  indefi- 
nite. The  case  would  be  exceptional,  and  I 
would  rather  run  the  risk  of  this  exceptional 
case  than  have  an  awkward  sentence. 

The  question  being  on  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  the 
same  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  further 
amendments  to  section  nineteen? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  to  offer  the  following 
amendment : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  offers  the  following 
amendment.  The  Secretary  will  read: 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Burns  moves  to  amend  the  section  by  adding: 

“And  no  assessment  shall  ever  be  made  upon  adjoining 
land  of  the  owner  to  pay  the  costs  and  expenses  of  any 
real  estate  for  public  use.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  simply  to  state,  Mr. 
President,  what  I intend  to  reach  by  that 
amendment.  It  may  not  be  properly  worded 
to  accomplish  the  object.  The  latter  clause 
provides:  “and  such  compensation  shall  be  as- 
sessed by  the  jury  without  deductions  of  bene- 
fits to  any  property  to  the  owner.”  The  object 
of  the  amendment  is  to  prevent  the  practice 
which,  I believe,  has  the  sanction  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  though  the  decision  is  very  much 
questioned,  that  you  may  assess  back  upon  the 
land  of  the  owner  the  money  to  pay  for  the 
land  which  you  take.  For  instance,  you  take 
a man’s  land  for  a public  highway  or  for  a 
street,  to  the  value  of  five  hundred  dollars. 
You  send  out  the  jury  to  assess  the  value  of  the 
land  you  take,  and  then  you  turn  around,  by 
another  process,  and  assess  back  upon  the  own- 
er money  enough  to  pay  for  the  land  so  taken. 
I am  reminded,  by  the  gentleman  on  my  left, 
that  the  question  was  somewhat  discussed  the 
other  day,  in  another  provision  of  this  Consti- 
tution. I think  it  is  fully  understood.  I do  not 
propose  to  occupy  the  time  of  this  Convention 
in  rediscussing  it.  I think  it  is  a provision  that 
ought  to  be  in  this  Constitution  and 
ought  to  be  in  this  section,  because,  if  the  con- 
struction which  seems  to  have  been  put  upon 
this  section  by  the  Supreme  Court  is  the  true 
construction,  and  one  that  is  to  remain  for  all 
time  to  come,  then,  I think  this  Convention 
ought  to  interpose  a provision  which  would  ef- 
fectually cut  off  all  doubt  upon  the  subject,  and 
leave  no  room  for  a different  construction  from 
that  which  is  intended,  as  I think  it  was  intend- 
ed by  the  framers  of  the  present  Constitution. 
I cannot  think  that  it  ever  was  intended  that 
you  should  take  a man’s  land,  and  send  out  a 
jury  and  assess  damages,  and  say  that  he  was 
entitled  to  so  much  damages  without  consider- 
ing any  benefit,  and  then,  by  another  process, 
compel  him  to  pay  the  very  assessment  that  he 


is  allowed  for  his  land,  or  take  out  of  one 
pocket  and  put  it  into  the  other,  or  go  through 
with  the  farce  of  saying  that  a man  shall  be 
paid  for  his  land,  and  then  make  him  pay  for 
it  himself. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Is  not  the  assessment  which 
is  made  to  the  owner  of  the  land  always  paid 
out  of  the  county  treasury  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Not  at  all.  That  is  the  very 
thing  that  is  not  done.  I am  speaking  of  the 
practice  of  making  streets  in  cities  and  villages. 
I am  not  objecting  to  the  assessment  of  a tax 
upon  all  the  property  of  a city  or  village  to  pay 
for  land,  and  in  the  assessment  of  that  tax,  the 
other  property  of  the  land-holder  to  pay  his 
equal  proportion.  But  there  is  a difference  be- 
tween a tax  and  assessment;  and  to  the  practice 
of  assessing  upon  the  owner  money  sufficient 
to  pay  for  his  lands,  I do  object. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I want  to  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  this  subject  was  discussed  the  other 
day,  and  it  was  conceded,  perhaps,  that  assess- 
ments would  include  taxation  of  all  kinds,  so 
that  the  land  owner,  under  that  provision, 
should  not  be  assessed  in  any  manner,  or  to  any 
extent,  for  the  payment.  I had  not  so  under- 
stood it.  That  is  what  I understand  to  be  the 
view  here. 

Mr.  BURNS.  No;  I do  not  so  understand  it 
at  all.  This  is  simply  to  reach  what  I think  is 
indefinitely  stated.  And  I think,  without  this 
provision,  if  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court, 
in  the  18th  Ohio  State  Reports,  which  I have 
taken  pains  to  read  carefully,  is  to  stand  as  the 
true  interpretation  of  the  19th  section  of  the 
Bill  of  Rights,  then,  I think,  this  amendment 
ought  to  be  made. 

The  question  being  on  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  the 
same  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  going  to  suggest  an 
amendment  to  that  amendment,  to  pay  the  cost 
of  any  such  assessment.  When  we  were  strug- 
gling for  this  proposttion  the  other  day,  we 
were  voted  down,  as  I understood,  because  we 
were  then  putting  it  in  the  wrong  place  in  the 
Constitution,  and  when  it  came  to  the  Bill  of 
Rights  it  would  be  proper  to  insert. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Because  you  were  putting 
the  wrong  thing  in  the  wrong  place.  The 
thing  was  wrong  and  the  place  was  wrong, 
both. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  has  been 
decided.  Unless  a reconsideration  is  moved, 
the  motion  is  lost.  Are  there  any  further 
amendments  to  section  nineteen  ? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I wish  to  make  an  amend- 
ment to  section  nineteen  for  the  purpose  of 
making  this  section  consistent  with  the  practice 
now  prevailing  in  this  State.  I think  it  is  en- 
tirely inconsistent  to  leave  the  old  section  stand 
as  it  now  is.  I move  to  amend  the  section  by 
striking  out  the  last  clause,  “without  deduc- 
tion for  benefits  to  any  property  to  the  owner.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  moves  to  amend  sec- 
tion nineteen  by  striking  out  the  concluding 
clause,  “without  deductions  for  benefits  to  any 
property  to  the  owner.” 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  further 


1784 


THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 


[130th 


Page. 


[Thursday, 


amendments  to  section  nineteen,  the  Secretary 
will  read  section  twenty. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  20.  The  enumeration  of  rights  shall  not  be  con- 
strued to  impair  or  deny  others  retained  by  the  people; 
and  all  powers  not  herein  delegated  remain  with  the 
people. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  on 
concurring  in  the  Report. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I now  offer  the  proposition  I 
spoke  of  yesterday,  as  an  additional  section.  I 
ask  the  Secretary  to  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“No  proceeding  against  the  property  of  any  person 
shall  be  taken  by  posting  up  or  publishing  notice  merely, 
where  his  residence  can  be  ascertained  by  reasonable  dil- 
igence. And  the  General  Assembly  shall  provide  that  in 
every  proceeding  against  a non-resident,  whose  residence 
can  be  ascertained,  notice  shall  be  given  by  mail  or  mes- 
senger, as  well  as  by  publication.  This  provision  shall 
not  apply  to  the  levying  or  collection  of  taxes  or  assess- 
ments, or  the  settlement  of  accounts  in  the  Probate 
Court.” 

Mr.  PAGE.  It  is  a principle  pervading  all 
free  governments,  that  no  one  is  to  be  con- 
demned unheard.  Wherever  justice  is  admin- 
istered by  an  enlightened  tribunal,  it  must  be  a 
fundamental  rule  that  the  party  impleaded  shall 
have  reasonable  notice  of  when,  and  where, 
and  against  what,  he  is  to  defend  himself. 
There  is  no  doubt  of  the  great  fundamental 
principle  that  a party  shall  have  an  opportunity 
of  being  heard  before  judgment  shall  be  given 
against  him. 

This  is  the  law  of  all  enlightened  nations. 
The  witty  song  of  the  lawyers  in  Moliere’s 
play,  “Monsieur  de  Pourceaugnac,”  is  appli- 
cable to  this  principle : 

If  you  consult  our  legislators, 

Our  authors  and  our  commentators, 

TriboniaD,  Papinian, 

Ulpian,  and  Justinian, 

Fernand,  Rebuff e,  Jean  Imole, 

Paul  Castre,  Julian,  Berthole, 

Jason,  Alciat,  and  Cujas, 

And  all  nations  who  are  polite, 

Intelligent  and  erudite, 

Whether  French,  English,  or  Spanish, 

Swedish,  Polish,  or  Danish, 

Whether  Portuguese,  Italians,  or  Prussians, 
Hollanders,  Germans,  or  even  Russians, 

They  all  agree  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and 
entertain  similar  opinions  There  is  one  place, 
however,  where  this  principle  is  not  recog- 
nized, and  that  is  the  dominion  presided  over 
by  Judge  Rhadamanthus.  We  are  told  that  he 
first  binds  his  subjects  in  chains,  next  casti- 
gates them,  and  then  hears  them.  But  even 
this  is  better  than  our  mode  of  proceeding. 
We  deprive  a man  of  his  property  without 
granting  him  a right  to  complain,  even  after 
the  robbery  has  been  committed.  What  consti- 
tutes a sufficient  notice  under  our  system  de- 
pends upon  the  rules  of  different  Legislatures. 
It  must  be  admitted  that  these  rules  are,  in 
some  degree,  arbitrary,  and,  when  the  Legisla- 
ture has  determined  a time  and  manner  of  giv- 
ing notice  to  the  parties,  the  courts  are  bound 
by  the  statute,  and  they  have  no  power  to  set  it 
aside.  As  a matter  of  fact,  many  important 
proceedings  are  taken  against  the  property  of 
citizens  and  strangers  without  any  notice  at 
all.  In  these  days  of  numberless  newspapers, 
there  being  several  hundred  in  the  State,  and 
half  a dozen  dailies  in  a city,  it  is  impossible  for 


any  man  to  read  all  the  advertisements  that 
appear  in  them.  And  this  is  a diffi- 
culty that  is  constantly  becoming  greater. 
Father  Hue  tells  us  that  in  Thibet  there  is  a 
custom  of  sending  horses  to  travelers,  by  let- 
ting fly  pieces  of  paper  from  the  tops  of  moun- 
tains. If  we  should  adopt  this  mode  of  pub- 
lishing notices  to  non-residents,  it  would  not  be 
much  more  absurd  than  the  present  one.  Every 
lawyer  knows  that  judgments  are  often  ren- 
dered, and  property  seized  and  sold,  without 
any  notice  to  the  owner,  although  his  residence 
is  known  to  the  plaintiff.  Great  injustice  is 
done  and  fraud  practiced,  in  many  instances. 
The  present  doctrine  of  notice  is  a fiction,  not 
a harmless  one,  but  a very  unnecessary  and  in- 
jurious fiction.  But  many  lawyers  who  are 
attached,  unreasonably,  to  existing  institutions, 
are  like  a certain  member  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
who  argued  that  the  American  colonies  were 
represented  in  Parliament,  because  when  New 
England  was  discovered,  it  was  taken  possession 
of  by  some  manor  in  the  county  of  Middlesex, 
and  that  county  being  represented,  the  colonies 
were  also  represented  in  the  British  Parliament. 
So  these  lawyers  argue  in  regard  to  the  doctrine 
of  constructive  notice,  and  are  willing  to  sacri- 
fice the  principles  of  justice  to  a contemptible 
fiction.  Now,  the  remedy  for  this  defect  is 
simple.  It  is  to  require  that  in  all  cases  where 
a defendant’s  residence  is  known,  or  can  be 
ascertained  by  reasonable  diligence,  actual 
notice  shall  be  sent  to  him.  The  number  of 
defendants  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  is  less 
than  half  a dozen.  There  are  only  a few  cases 
where  they  exceed  twenty.  Now  and  then  there 
may  be  a much  larger  number.  The  notice 
might  be  a printed  form,  containing  but  a few 
words,  and  it  could  be  sent  at  a very  trifling  cost. 
In  a few  extraordinary  cases  in  which  the 
defendants  were  very  numerous,  there  might 
arise  some  practical  inconvenience.  But  the 
greater  the  number  of  parties  interested,  the 
greater  is  the  injustice  of  proceeding  against 
them  without  an  opportunity  of  being  heard. 
In  one  class  of  cases,  viz,  divorce  suits,  such 
notice  as  I am  speaking  of  is  required,  and  it  is 
not  found  to  result  in  any  inconvenience,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  it  has  tended  to  prevent  many 
fraudulent  decrees.  No  doubt  the  usual  ob- 
jection will  be  made  that  this  evil  may  be  rem- 
edied by  the  Legislature.  I reply,  in  the  first 
place,  that  this  error  has  taken  such  deep  root 
in  our  judicial  system,  that  it  can  only  be 
eradicated  by  a constitutional  provision.  In 
the  second  plaee,  attempts  have  been  made 
to  induce  the  Legislature  to  provide  a 
remedy,  but  without  success.  And,  in  the 
third  place,  the  subject  of  notice  is  funda- 
mental, and  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all 
judicial  procedure.  To  designate  it  mere  prac- 
tice, is  to  take  an  extremely  narrow  and  con- 
tracted view  of  a great  subject.  I inquire,  why 
not  leave  the  whole  Bill  of  Rights  to  legislative 
provision  ? This  subject  is  as  important  as  any- 
thing in  the  Bill  of  Rights.  The  objection  that 
it  will  be  found  inconvenient  and  expensive  to 
give  such  notice  as  the  proposition  requires,  is 
merely  fanciful.  The  difficulties  are  nearly  all 
imaginary.  If  the  parties  are  numerous,  there 
will  be  a greater  number  of  them  to  share  the 
cost;  and  I repeat,  if  the  parties  are  numerous, 


Day.] 

March  5, 1874.] 


THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Page,  Watson,  Cunningham. 


1785 


the  greater  is  the  injury  and  outrage  of  con- 
demning them  unheard.  This  provision  does 
not  require  notice  to  be  given  where  it  is  im- 
possible. It  merely  requires  diligence  in  ascer- 
taining the  residence  of  a party,  if  it  is  un- 
known, and  in  serving  him  with  notice,  if  his 
residence  is  known.  The  main  objection  to 
this  provision,  is  the  trouble,  inconvenience, 
and  expense  of  carrying  it  into  practice.  In 
answer  to  this  objection,  I ask,  is  the  incon- 
venience or  cost  of  giving  the  notice  required, 
a sufficient  reason  for  confiscating  a man’s  prop- 
erty, without  any  notice  at  ail?  Every  lawyer 
must  confess  that  the  doctrine  of  constructive 
notice  by  publication,  has  been  pressed  to 
absurd  and  destructive  consequences.  It  is  high 
time  that  we  should  pause  and  attempt  to  apply 
some  remedy.  I shall,  at  least,  put  on  record 
my  protest  against  this  evil. 

I will  now  refer  to  a reported  case,  showing 
what  abuses  may  be  perpetrated  under  the 
present  system — I mean  the  case  of  Carper  vs. 
Richards,  13  O.  S.  Reports.  One  Richards 
had  an  unfounded  claim  against  one  Carper, 
who  resided  in  Pickaway  county,  and  owned 
sufficient  property  there,  at  that  date,  to  pay 
his  debts.  Carper  had  refused  to  pay  this 
claim,  and  Richards  went  into  Fairfield  county, 
where  he  found  a lawyer  who  owed  Carper  two 
or  three  dollars.  By  his  advice,  Richards  be- 
gan a suit  in  Fairfield  county,  by  attachment, 
and  garnisheed  the  attorney.  Judgment  was 
rendered,  by  default,  against  Carper,  for  the 
sum  of  $185.  The  two  or  three  dollars  in  the 
hands  of  the  attorney  being  exhausted,  Rich- 
ards filed  a transcript  in  the  court  of  common 
pleas,  and  issued  an  execution  to  the  sheriff  of 
Pickaway  county.  Then  Carper  employed  Mr. 
Hunter  to  endeavor  to  reverse  the  judgment,  but 
it  was  affirmed.  During  all  the  time  alluded 
to,  both  Richards  and  his  attorney  knew  that 
Carper  resided  only  twenty  miles  off,  and  care- 
fully  abstained  from  giving  him  notice. 

Every  lawyer  has  known  aggravated  cases  of 
a similar  kind.  I have  known  cases  where  a 
tenant  in  common  instituted  a suit  for  a parti- 
tion of  lands ; published  notice  to  his  co-tenants, 
which  they  never  saw,  packed  a set  of  commis- 
sioners to  make  a low  appraisement,  and  then 
purchased  the  property  at  half  price.  What 
are  we  to  think  of  a judicial  system  under 
which  such  frauds  may  be  constantly  perpe- 
trated ? 

Mr.  WATSON.  We  cannot,  in  a Constitu- 
tion, lay  down  a code  of  procedure.  The  prop- 
osition of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page],  would  properly  find  its  place  in  a code 
of  procedure,  and  it  should  not  go  into  the 
Constitution;  for,  it  is  simply  a matter  of  prac- 
tice. It  is  necessary  that  we  all  understand 
that  a court  shall  have  jurisdiction  both  of  the 
subject  matter  and  the  person,  otherwise  the 
judicial  function  cannot  be  exercised — no  judg- 
ment as  such  can  be  pronounced.  But  there 
are  certain  proceedings  that  we  call  proceedings 
in  rem , and  proceedings  in  that  nature,  where 
these  notices  are  relied  upon,  and  the  courts  act 
upon  a constructive  service  on  the  parties. 
Now,  that  there  may  be  abuses  arising  under 
that  kind  of  practice,  we  all  know  and  we  freely 
admit,  but  it  is  equally  true  that  we  cannot  take 
cases  of  individual  hardship  to  guide  us  when 


we  are  making  fundamental  law,  when  we  are 
framing  the  organic  law  of  the  State.  It  is  not 
the  place  to  be  guided  by  them.  They  are  mat- 
ters of  detail.  They  belong  to  the  practice,  and 
they  should  be  in  the  code,  and  not  in  the  Con- 
stitution. Now,  the  case  that  has  been  cited  is 
one  of  hardship,  and  it  is  not  certain  that  the 
court,  in  giving  that  judgment,  did  not  err.  We 
bow  to  the  decision,  we  submit  to  it,  but  it  is 
by  no  means  a clear  proposition  that  their  judg- 
ment is  really  the  law  of  the  land,  and  that  it 
should  not  be  overruled.  But,  admitting  it  to 
be  all  right,  admitting  it  to  be  such  a judgment 
as  they  were  compelled  to  render,  still,  it  can- 
not guide  us  in  this  body.  We  cannot  deal  in 
such  details,  and  wherever  we  have  attempted 
in  this  body,  to  attach  anything  that  belonged 
to  the  field  of  practice,  we  have  found  that  it 
was  striking  somewhere  that  we  did  not  at  the 
time  think  of.  This  matter  of  practice  is  to 
be  wrought  out  by  practice,  and  by  the  neces- 
sities of  practice,  and  it  cannot  have  such  con- 
sideration as  to  be  wisely  regulated  in  a body 
of  this  kind.  It  is  the  work  of  years,  and  tens, 
twenties,  and  hundreds  of  years,  may  be  re- 
quired before  all  defects  in  a system  can  be 
reached  and  corrected.  There  is  no  other  way 
of  attaining  anything  like  perfection  in  the  de- 
tails of  the  practice  of  the  law.  We  have  had 
coming  down  to  us  through  many,  very  many 
generations,  the  leading  rules  of  practice.  We 
do  not  want  to  take  the  system  up  in  a body  of 
this  kind — a special  body  that  meets  for  a special 
purpose — and  merely  to  frame  the  posts,  col- 
umns, beams,  ties,  that  hold  the  government 
edifice  together.  We  leave  the  plans  to  be 
worked  out  by  the  Legislature  and  by  the  courts, 
in  applying  rules  that  are  settled  to  the  present 
condition  of  things,  and  whenever  we  depart 
from  our  proper  duties  in  this  body,  we  are  in 
danger  of  doing  more  damage  than  we  are 
doing  good. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I feel  as  though  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page]  ought  to  be  adopted.  The  reason 
furnished  by  the  decision  he  has  quoted  is  suffi- 
cient to  dictate  that  my  vote  shall  be  for  the 
proposition.  And  my  opinion  is  not  affected  at 
all  by  the  objection  of  the  gentleman  from  Hu- 
ron [Mr.  Watson],  whom  I acknowledge  to  be  a 
great  lawyer,  because,  even  in  this  Article,  we 
have  as  much  undertaken  to  interfere  with  the 
practice  in  the  courts,  as  this  would  be,  or  could 
be.  Service  of  process  is  really  not  a matter  of 
the  detail  of  practice;  but  it  is  securing  to  the 
individual,  in  the  disposition  of  his  property, 
the  same  rights  that  are  secured  to  him  in  the 
other  parts  of  the  Article,  when  his  own  per- 
sonal liberty  is  concerned.  In  section  9,  it  is 
provided  that  all  persons  shall  be  bailable,  by 
sufficient  sureties,  except  for  capital  offenses, 
where  the  proof  is  evident,  or  the  presumption 
great.  Excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required, 
nor  excessive  fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  un- 
usual punishments  inflicted.  Now,  if  the  prop- 
osition of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page]  is  an  interference  with  the  mode  and 
manner  of  practice,  then  we  have  already  passed 
that  line,  and  it  is  too  late  to  make  the  excep- 
tion. So  section  10  provides  the  mode  and 
manner  of  proceeding  in  criminal  actions.  As 
much  as  it  is  possible,  wherever  the  subject- 


1786 


[130th 


THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 


Cunningham,  Pratt,  Tuttle,  Watson,  etc.  [Thursday, 


matter  can  be  properly  reached,  we  ought  to 
require  the  fullest  possible  notice  to  parties 
who  are  to  be  affected,  in  any  manner,  by  the 
judgment  of  the  courts.  The  affirmance  of 
the  judgment,  in  the  case  the  gentleman  has 
quoted,  has  surprised,  I believe,  almost  every 
member  of  the  Convention ; and  yet  we  have  no 
right  to  say  that  under  the  law  as  it  is,  the 
supreme  court  did  not  do  right.  We  are,  there- 
fore, brought  to  concede  the  fact  to  be  that  the 
laws,  as  they  now  exist,  and  have  existed,  are 
such  that  gross  outrage  can  be  perpetrated  upon 
an  individual  under  the  forms  of  the  law.  I 
shall  vote  for  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  for  I believe  it  is 
right. 

Mr.  PRATT.  There  is  just  one  other  sub- 
ject, than  that  alluded  to  by  the  gentleman 
from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  that  I think  this 
matter  covers,  and  a matter  that  should  arrest 
the  attention  of  this  Convention.  That  is  the 
marital  relation.  For  we  have  an  authority  in 
the  ninth  Ohio  State  Reports,  Parish  vs.  Parish 
— the  most  infamous  fraud  ever  committed 
against  that  relation;  for  it  lies  at  the  very 
foundation  of  society.  Through  just  such  a 
proceeding  as  that  pointed  out  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  a resident  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  living  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  his  wife,  in  daily  knowledge 
of  her  residence,  leaving  the  county  of  their 
mutual  residence  and  going  into  a distant 
county  of  the  State,  and  then,  through  con- 
structive notice,  dissolving  that  relation.  I 
think  that  this  Convention  will  not  wash  their 
hands  of  the  infamy  of  that  decision,  until  they 
have  provided  against  its  being  repeated  in 
the  future.  For  that  reason,  I,  for  one,  shall 
support  the  amendment.  These  matters  go  to 
jurisdictional  facts.  They  go  to  the  general 
administration  of  justice,  both  as  regards  prop- 
erty and  the  most  sacred  relations  of  society. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I mean  to  support  the  prop- 
osition of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page].  I desire  to  say  that  it  is  not  as  general 
in  character  as  I would  be  glad  to  see  it,  and  if 
it  should  be  adopted  I should  hope  that  some 
improvement  might  be  made  if  there  is  not  any 
suggested  before.  I am  aware  that  that  might 
have  been  reflected  upon  by  the  gentleman  that 
introduced  it.  I think  it  is  clear  that  in  all  legal 
proceedings  everything  ought  to  be  done  that 
can  be  done  consistently  to  bring  about  notice 
to  parties  who  are  to  be  affected  by  such  legal 
proceedings  before  they  shall  be  bound.  Now, 
it  is  suggested  that  this  matter  should  be  left  to 
the  Legislature.  But  one  trouble  about  it  is, 
the  matter  has  been  left  to  the  Legislature  for 
seventy-two  or  seven-three  years,  and  they  have 
not  taken  any  steps  as  yet  adequate  to  the  cor- 
rection of  the  difficulty.  It  seems  to  be  con- 
ceded, what  I apprehend  is  undeniable,  that  as 
yet  no  sufficient  step  has  been  taken  in  that  di- 
rection. Now,  why  introduce  into  the  Consti- 
tution any  provision  upon  subjects  of  this,  or 
other  character,  which  it  appears  in  some  de- 
gree within  the  power  of  the  Legislature  to 
make;  and  if  they  made  it,  and  kept  it  in  force, 
would  be  sufficient.  It  is  simply  for  the  rea- 
sons that  the  Legislature  may  not  make  these 
provisions  and  they  may  make  counter-provi- 
pions.  Why,  for  seventy  years  have  we  had  a pro- 


vision declaring  that  the  right  of  trial  by  jury 
shall  be  inviolate,  except  for  the  reason  that  the 
Legislature  might  by  law  provide  for  the  viola- 
tion of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  ? Why  do  we  have 
provisions  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  securing  com- 
pensation for  the  appropriation  of  private  prop- 
erty for  public  use,  except  that  experience  has 
taught  that,  if  you  do  not  have  such  provisions, 
the  Legislature,  in  the  exercise  of  this  right  of 
eminent  domain  may,  to  some  extent,  take  pri- 
vate property  without  compensation,  and, 
therefore,  it  is  necessary.  Go  through  the  en- 
tire list  of  the  19th,  20th  and  21st  sections, 
every  one  of  them  is  based  upon  the  idea  that 
the  Legislature  are  not  infallible,  and  that  we 
should  have  something  that  will  control  the 
Legislature,  either  by  taking  away  the  power 
to  act,  or  by  restrictions  upon  the  power  to  act. 
Now,  I think  that  this  affords  an  example.  I 
think  that  the  old  ideas  of  common  law  have 
not  been  so  far  modified  as  they  ought  to  be; 
for  by  the  strict  principles  of  the  common  law 
in  actions  that  are  in  their  nature  against  the 
thing,  no  other  notice  is  required  to  parties 
than  the  seizure  of  the  thing ; the  seizure  of  the 
property.  At  the  same  time  the  common  law 
rule  restricts  the  effect  of  the  thing  to  the  pro- 
ceeding itself,  and  does  not  allow  it  to  operate 
in  personam  ; but,  nevertheless,  in  this  State  and 
in  most  States,  it  is  extended.  When  you  take 
a proceeding  that  is  in  its  nature  in  rem , against 
the  thing ; after  you  have  exhausted  the  reme- 
dy upon  the  property,  it  is  in  this  State  found 
to  be  equally  good  as  against  the  person.  It 
binds  the  general  property  of  the  owner.  Now, 
whether  it  should  be  against  the  thing  alone, 
whether  it  should  be  against  the  person  as  well 
as  the  thing,  in  the  absence  of  actual  notice 
provided  for  to  the  person  interested,  there 
ought  not  to  be  any  less  than  the  utmost  that 
can  be  done  in  the  direction  of  bringing  home 
notice.  Every  thing  to  secure  actual  notice 
ought  to  be  carried  as  far  as  possible.  The 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page]  seems  to  be  in  that  direction  and 
proper  to  be  adopted. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I move  we  now  take  a recess. 

Upon  .this  motion  a division  was  demanded, 
and  resulted — affirmative  19,  negative  25. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page]. 

The  same  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I offer  the  following  addi- 
tional section : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  offers  the  following  ad- 
ditional section  to  the  Article. 

The  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  dispense  with  grand  juries 
and  provide  for  the  trial  of  all  offenses  by  information,  in 
such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12  :30  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 :30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore . [Mr.  Hitch- 
cock in  the  Chair].  The  question  is  upon 


THE  GRAND  JURY  SYSTEM. 

Root,  Voris,  Townsend,  Powell,  etc. 


1787 


Day.] 


March  5, 1874.1 


agreeing  to  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  to  add  an 
additional  section.  The  Secretary  will  read  the 
proposed  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  — . The  General  Assembly  may  dispense  with 
grand  juries,  and  provide  for  the  trial  of  all  offenses  by 
information,  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
law. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on 
that  question. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I see  that  the  author  of  that 
amendment  is  not  in  his  seat.  I move  a call  of 
the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll,  and  fifty-seven 
members  answered  to  their  names,  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Barnet,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Byal,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Coats,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Godfrey, 
Greene,  Gurley,  Hale,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton, 
Jackson,  Johnson,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Pond,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Root,  Sample,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith 
of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Yan 
Voorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson, 
Weaver,  West,  White  of  Brown,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble — 57. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  that  all  further 
proceedings  under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I move  an  amendment  by 
adding  these  words  in  the  first  line  after  the 
word,  “ may”:  “in  the  inferior  class  of  of- 
fenses,” so  that  the  section  will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  may,  in  the  inferior  class  of 
offenses,  dispense  with  grand  juries,  and  provide  for  the 
trial  of  all  offenses  by  information,  in  such  manner  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I apprehend  that  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell]  is  superfluous.  The  gentleman 
will  notice,  by  reading  the  tenth  section,  that 
that  is  provided  for.  The  section,  as  it  now 
reads  upon  that  point,  is  as  follows : 

“In  cases  of  impeachment  and  cases  arising  in  the  army 
and  navy,  or  in  the  militia,  when  in  actual  service  in 
time  of  war,  and  public  danger,  and  in  cases  of  petty 
larceny,  and  other  inferior  offenses,  no  person  shall  be 
held  to  answer,”  &c. 

The  Legislature  may  suspend  grand  juries  in 
inferior  offenses  and  petty  larceny.  I do  not 
ask  the  gentleman  to  withdraw  his  amendment, 
but  I apprehend  it  adds  no  additional  force  to 
the  proposition,  either  way,  nor  do  I propose 
to  take  up  the  time  of  the  Convention  by  any 
extended  remarks  upon  this  question  at  all. 
Candor  compels  me  to  say  that  I do  not  expect 
this  proposition  to  be  adopted  by  this  Conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Why? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Not  because  I do  not  believe  it 
to  be  right,  but  I believe  it  is  an  innovation, 
and  a step  in  advance  which,  I fear,  at  least,  the 
Convention  is  not  prepared  to  take;  but  it  has 
been  a long  cherished  idea  of  mine.  It  is  a 
principle  that  has  grown  with  my  growth  and 
strengthened  with  my  strength.  The  secret 
inquest  called  a grand  jury,  is  a species  of  se- 
cret investigation  by  a sworn  body  of  men,  be- 
cause the  oath  administered  to  grand  juries  is, 
that  they  shall  keep  secret  the  counsels  of  the 


State,  their  own  and  their  fellows,  unless  called 
upon,  in  a court  of  justice,  to  make  disclosures. 
Our  laws  are  not  framed  alone  for  the  punish- 
ment of  the  guilty.  Our  Constitution  was  not 
framed  to  punish  the  guilty,  but  to  protect  the 
innocent  as  well.  It  is  the  only  part  of  our 
jurisprudence  that  is  kept  secret  from  the  pub- 
lic. I hold  that  the  character  of  no  man  should 
undergo  an  investigation  ex  parte,  where  he  can- 
not make  his  defense  by  counsel,  from  the  very 
inception,  from  the  very  commencement,  after 
the  affidavit  is  filed,  until  the  final  judgment  is 
pronounced.  I hold  that  a citizen’s  person  and 
his  character  ought  not  to  be  trifled  with,  nor 
ought  it  to  be  placed  in  the  power  of  any  man 
secretly  to  bring  him  before  a body  of  men, 
charged  with  a crime,  unless  he  has  power,  then 
and  there,  at  that  time  and  place,  and  before  the 
tribunal  that  is  then  investigating  it,  to  make  a 
defense.  The  fact  that  he  has  afterwards  the 
right  of  trial  before  a petit  jury,  where  he  does 
appear  and  make  his  defense,  is,  to  me,  no  ex- 
cuse whatever,  and,  in  my  opinion,  according 
to  the  best  reflections  of  my  judgment,  the  best 
opinion  that  I can  offer,  from  a long  series  of 
reflections  upon  this  inquisition,  this  secret  con- 
clave of  men  ought  to  be  abolished  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice  in  this  country.  I can 
conceive  of  no  possible  good  that  can  result 
from  it,  and  can  conceive  of  a vast  amount  of 
injustice  that  may  be  inflicted  upon  innocent 
men  and  innocent  parties.  I do  not  believe  it 
adds  to  the  welfare  of  society,  or  the  welfare  of 
the  community.  I believe  it  has  been  tried  in 
several  States  of  this  Union,  and  has  been  found 
to  work  justly,  and  instead  of  working  against 
justice,  it  has  worked  in  favor  of  the  rights  of 
the  citizen  and  the  promotion  of  equal  justice 
among  the  people. 

When  it  shall  be  the  pleasure  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  take  a vote  upon  the  amendment,  I 
respectfully  request  that  the  yeas  and  nays  be 
taken ; not  that  1 want  to  be  captious,  but  be- 
cause I want  to  record  my  vote. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  leave  to  withdraw  my 
amendment. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I withdraw  that  amendment 
for  the  purpose  of  saving  time,  as  the  gentle- 
man from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  has  already 
announced  to  us  that  he  had  no  expectation  that 
his  proposed  amendment  would  pass,  and  it  was 
only  for  the  purpose  of  opposing  that  amend- 
ment that  I introduced  the  amendment  that  I 
offered,  and  I sincerely  hope  that  the  amend- 
mend  of  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns]  will  not  be  adopted. 

The  institution  of  the  grand  jury,  in  my 
mind,  although  I have  probably  not  thought  as 
much  as  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns],  yet  I have  thought  much  upon  the  sub- 
ject; still,  I conceive  it  to  be  an  important  one, 
and  I would  not  abolish  it,  unless  I was  now 
prepared  to  go  back  to  some  different  form  of 
government  from  what  we  have  at  present.  If 
we  had  the  late  form  of  government  which  was 
established  in  France,  before  the  late  revolution, 
it  would  do  very  well  to  have  no  grand  jury  ; 
for  there  the  officers  of  the  government  attend 
to  everything  that  we  do  here  by  grand  and 
petit  jury. 

The  gentleman  complains  of  the  grand  jury 


1788 


THE  GRAND  JURY  SYSTEM. 

Powell,  Root. 


being  by  themselves,  in  secret,  making  investi- 
gations. I say  that  is  a mode  of  procedure 
which  is  entirely  unobjectionable,  as  far  as  the 
grand  jury  is  concerned.  They  try  nobody. 
They  investigate  to  ascertain  whether  there  is 
such  just  complaint  as  may  render  the  charge 
against  any  body  worthy  of  being  investigated, 
openly,  in  a court  of  justice.  A homicide  is 
committed.  A man  is  found  dead,  and  with 
every  evidence  that  the  man  has  been  mur- 
dered, or  that  there  has  been  criminal  homicide. 
The  question  is,  who  has  committed  it.  They 
cannot  now  commence  against  this  person, 
or  that  person,  because  they  do  not  know 
who  committed  it.  This  is  a proper  matter 
for  the  grand  jury  to  investigate,  and  say 
who  shall  be  charged,  and  who  shall  be 
put  upon  trial,  and,  up  to  that  time,  there 
is  a great  propriety  that  the  investigation 
should  be  made  by  the  grand  jury  them- 
selves. It  is  palpable  to  every  body,  but 
independent  of  this — I shall  not  detain  the 
Convention  longer  upon  this  subject.  I look 
upon  the  grand  jury  as  one  of  the  best  institu- 
tions for  saving  and  preserving  our  Republican 
institutions.  Grand  juries  are  drawn  from  the 
people  of  the  various  townships,  coming  up 
and  investigating  how  the  criminal  laws  are 
administered  with  regard  to  the  interest  of  the 
county,  with  regard  to  the  financial  operations 
of  the  county,  in  some  measure.  They  may 
report  upon  these  things,  and  they  return  to  the 
people  of  the  various  portions  of  the  county, 
and  convey  to  them  the  information  that  they 
would  get  in  no  other  way.  It  is  a Republican 
institution,  although  it  commenced  in  England; 
it  has  more  the  characteristics  of  a Republican 
institution,  probably,  than  anything  else  they 
had  there,  and  in  this  country,  it  is  an  institu- 
tion that  lies  at  the  foundation  of  our  govern- 
ment; and  if  you  dispense  with  that  institution 
and  say  that  any  man  may  be  charged  by  mere 
information  of  an  officer,  and  not  by  the  people 
themselves,  either  to  present  it  or  to  withhold 
it,  and  have  no  grand  jury,  I should  look  upon 
it  as  being  one  of  the  wildest  steps  backwards 
in  our  Republican  institutions  that  was  ever 
proposed. 

It  is  probably  true,  as  the  gentleman  said, 
that  in  some  States  they  have  done  away 
or  partially  done  away  with  it.  In  Michi- 
gan they  have  dispensed  with  it,  except 
where  the  court  directs  a venire  for  a grand 
jury  to  issue.  That  is  better  than  the  prop- 
osition here  to  abolish  it  altogether,  and  I 
say  the  moment  you  abolish  the  institu- 
tion of  the  grand  jury — and  the  question  with 
regard  to  the  petit  jury  is  not  now  up — and  dis- 
pense with  the  office  of  the  grand  jury,  and 
permit  officers  of  the  court,  officers  of  the  gov- 
ernment's officers,  to  charge  us  with  any  crime 
they  please,  and  put  us  to  our  trial  for  any 
charge  they  may  please  to  make  against  us  for 
investigation,  I charge  is  a step  backward  in 
our  Republican  institutions  that  would  be  in- 
tolerable, if  adopted.  I have  nothing  further 
to  say. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I am  sorry  to  see  manifested  so 
often  a disposition  to  meddle  and  overturn  our 
most  time-honored  and  useful  institutions, 
which  come  down  to  us  approved  by  the  experi- 
ence of  ages.  On  this  subject  of  grand  juries, 


[130th 

[Thursday, 


I venture  to  speak  from  my  own  experience, 
and  I doubt  whether  there  is  a member  of  this 
Convention  who  has  had  a larger  practice  in 
the  prosecution  and  defense  of  criminal  cases 
than  I have  had.  I came  to  the  bar  very  early 
in  life  (within  a few  months  after  I had  arrived 
at  majority),  and,  from  the  necessity  of  the 
case,  my  condition,  and  the  condition  of  the 
country  where  I settled,  I could  not  choose  the 
business  I would  have  preferred,  and  was 
obliged  to  take  the  business  that  I could  get. 
Among  the  first  business  that  I got  was  from 
the  office  of  prosecuting  attorney  of  the  county, 
which  now  constitutes  two  counties  and  parts 
of  two  more.  I did  not  serve  long  in  the  office, 
but  I served  in  it  with  all  my  might,  and  after- 
wards, from  like  causes,  I had  more  than  was 
profitable  of  that  kind  of  business;  at  least, 
more  than  I would  have  desired,  if  I could  have 
got  other  business,  more  to  my  liking.  Subse- 
quently, I was  placed  in  a public  position 
where  nine-tenths  of  my  business  was  prose- 
cuting men  for  violation  of  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  I undertake  to  say  that,  in 
all  my  experience,  I have  found,  almost  invari- 
ably, grand  juries  to  be  made  up,  if  not  en- 
tirely, largely,  of  the  very  best  class  of  people 
of  our  State. 

It  is  said  they  conduct  their  proceedings  in 
secret.  There  is  good  reason  for  it.  There  is 
no  institution  known  to  our  law  that  does  so 
much  to  keep  peace  and  harmony,  to  keep 
down  scandal,  to  prevent  frivolous  and  spiteful 
prosecutions,  as  this  same  grand  jury;  but, 
again,  sir,  we  have  sometimes  crying  evils  in 
our  midst,  and  it  is  difficult  to  find  a public 
prosecutor  who  is  willing  to  bring  up  and 
investigate  those  evils. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Or  take  the  responsibility. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Or  ascertaining  from  whence 
they  came,  and  bringing  before  the  world  the 
perpetrators  or  instigators;  but,  sir,  let  your 
j prosecutor  be  as  dilatory — nay,  let  him  be  as 
corrupt  as  you  please,  or  as  you  can  imagine, 
your  grand  juries  will  not  keep  quiet  when 
such  things  disturb  their  neighborhood  and  their 
county.  They  will  send  for  witnesses  in  spite 
of  your  prosecuting  attorney;  they  will  make 
an  investigation,  and,  sir,  they  can  ask,  and  will 
ask,  and  not  unfrequently  do  ask,  that  the  court 
interpose  and  appoint  some  one  to  take  charge 
of  the  business  which  the  prosecuting  attorney 
has  neglected.  It  is  the  best  protection  against 
all  schemes  for  blackmailing  and  malicious 
prosecution  that  could  be  contrived. 

They  are,  perhaps,  a little  more  liberal  than 
prosecuting  attorneys  would  be.  Sometimes  a 
dirty  little  affair  gets  disposed  of  with  a general 
verdict,  in  the  grand  jury  room,  of  “served 
him  right.”  You  can  hardly  make  that  thing 
work,  perhaps,  on  an  open  trial  before  a petit 
jury,  but  a grand  jury  knows  exactly  whatef- 
fect  to  give  it.  They  may  even  go  as  far  as  to 
say,  “not  much  of  a fight, after  all;  the  one  that 
provoked  it  got  the  worst  of  it,  and  if  they 
have  got  any  spite  against  each  other,  let  them 
law  it  out  at  their  own  expense,  and  not  at  the 
I expense  of  the  county.” 

1 do  not  deny,  sir,  indeed  I know  that  there  is 
a great  deal  of  feeling  among  grand  juries,  but, 
: sir,  whatever  you  may  be  obliged  to  call  it,  un- 
i der  the  most  technical  definition  it  operates  in 


THE  GRAND  JURY  SYSTEM. 

Root,  White  of  B. 


1789 


Day.] 


March  5, 1874.] 


the  main  for  good,  and  it  has  often  prevented 
malicious  prosecutions.  It  relieves  your  courts 
of  much  of  the  disgraceful,  spiteful,  and  worse 
than  useless  litigation,  that  bad  men  are  prone 
to  engage  in.  To  characterize  the  proceedings 
before  a grand  jury  as  anything  resembling  in- 
quisitorial, or  the  perpetration  of  mischief  se- 
cretly, is  to  speak  of  them  in  terms  that  they 
do  not  deserve.  I tell  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns,]  that  he  does  not  know 
what  he  is  talking  about,  and  if  he  had  had  half 
the  experience  that  I have  had  in  these  matters 
he  would  be  the  last  man  to  disturb  this  good 
old  institution,  the  grand  jury.  Secret!  Ah! 
for  secrecy  commend  me  to  your  informer  and 
your  public  prosecutor.  There  is  a secret  so- 
ciety that  keeps  everything  from  the  world.  I 
might  go  further  and  say  that  I know  what  is 
the  case  in  the  United  States  courts,  and  the 
circumstances  are  not  very  unlike  in  the  State 
courts.  Grand  juries  have  prevented  vora- 
cious, unconscionable  rascally  informers  from 
prosecuting  men  who  have  committed  offenses 
against  the  revenue  laws,  carelessly,  inadvert- 
ently, and  not,  in  any  just  sense,  culpably. 

Let  this  old  institution  alone!  It  is  a good 
one,  and  a sound  one.  The  men  who  know  it 
best  esteem  it  most  highly.  I have  heard  noth- 
ing seriously  urged  against  it  except  that  it  con- 
ducts proceedings  in  secret.  But,  sir,  similar 
proceedings  would  be  conducted  in  a more  se- 
cret and  much  more  objectionable  manner  if 
they  were  committed  to  informers  and  prose- 
cuting attorneys,  as  would  have  to  be  done  in 
case  the  grand  jury  were  abolished.  Whenever 
you  have  either  an  honest  prosecutor  or  an  in- 
telligent grand  jury,  the  question  would  be 
asked  the  witness : “You  were  there  and  you 
saw  all  this;  was  there  anybody  else  present?” 
“Yes,  there  was  another  man,  Sam  Jones  was 
present.  “Sam  Jones?  Where  does  he  live?” 
“He  lives  up  in  the  same  township  where  I 
live.”  The  witness  passes  out.  The  foreman 
says : “I  move  we  send  a subpoena  for  Mr. 
Jones;  he  seems  to  be  a witness  to  the  same 
transaction;  he  is  not  here;  he  is  equally  well 
qualified  to  speak,  peradventure  we  shall  hear 
some  more  truth  when  Jones  comes.”  The 
whole  thing  appears  in  its  true  light,  and  it  is 
a little  petty,  spiteful  transaction,  one  man 
against  another.  This  should  be  kept  secret. 
This  should  not  go  out;  and  furthermore,  while 
I expect  some  grand  jurors  are  indiscreet  and 
do  not  understand  the  lasting  obligation  to 
keep  secret  what  occurs  between  them  and 
their  associates,  their  counsel  and  that  of  the 
State,  they  sometimes  do  make  disclosures.  I 
do  not  say  these  things  do  not  happen.  I be- 
lieve they  do  sometimes,  but  upon  all  impor- 
tant matters  affecting  the  reputation  of  individ- 
uals, and  more  than  all  that,  of  families,  grand 
jurors  have  almost  invariably  observed  their 
oath. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Leave  was  granted  Mr.  Root  to  proceed. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I thank  the  gentlemen  for  their 
good  will,  but  I shall  not  go  beyond  my  time. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  to  add  : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  dispense  with  grand 


juries,  and  provide  for  the  trial  of  all  offenses  by  infor- 
mation, in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I am  not  one  of 
those  who  believe  that  every  change  and  inno- 
vation upon  our  present  system  is  an  improve- 
ment. The  provisions  of  our  present  Constitu- 
tion, as  they  now  exist,  confer  upon  the  Legisla- 
ture power  to  dispense  with  the  grand  jury  in 
all  cases  not  punishable  by  imprisonment  in 
the  penitentiary.  That  has  been  a provision 
of  our  Constitution  for  more  than  twenty  years. 
The  Legislature  have  full,  complete  and  plenary 
power  to  dispense  with  the  introduction  of  the 
grand  jury  in  all  cases  where  the  offense  is  not 
punishable  by  imprisonment  in  the  peniten- 
tiary, and  that  provision  in  the  bill  of  rights, 
section  ten,  has  already  been  passed  by  this 
Convention,  and  retained  as  a provision  of  the 
Constitution,  which  we  propose  to  submit  to  the 
people  for  ratification.  That  is  as  far  as  I feel 
disposed  to  go, — as  much  power  in  that  direc- 
tion as  I feel  disposed  to  confer  upon  the  Leg- 
islature. 

The  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Erie 
[Mr.  Root]  upon  the  practice  and  usage  and 
purpose  of  the  grand  jury,  is  to  my  mind  con- 
clusively in  favor  of  retaining  it.  In  addition 
to  what  he  said,  I add,  that  many  times  accusa- 
tions, apparently  well  founded,  are  brought 
against  respectable  citizens,  when,  upon  inquiry 
and  investigation,  it  is  ascertained  that  there  is 
really  no  ground  upon  which  to  base  the  accu- 
sation, or  to  make  it  the  subject  of  public  in- 
quiry and  investigation,  and,  if  you  do  away 
with  the  grand  jury,  the  only  investigation 
that  can  be  had  will  be  upon  complaint  made 
under  oath  before  some  justice  of  the  peace, 
upon  which  a warrant  will  issue,  and  the  party 
will  be  arrested,  and  an  investigation  had,  and 
the  testimony  of  the  witnesses,  in  all  proba- 
bility, reduced  to  writing,  and  the  innocent 
man — the  man  accused — against  whom  there  is 
really  no  cause  of  complaint,  may  be  arrested 
and  subjected  to  an  open  and  public  investiga- 
tion, for  an  offense  of  which  he  is  innocent, 
and  which  is  altogether  groundless.  The 
result  of  such  a course  of  procedure  would  fill 
our  Courts  with  prosecutions  for  false  impris- 
onment and  malicious  prosecutions;  whereas, 
the  intervention  of  the  grand  jury  would  pre- 
vent all  these  consequences,  and  save  the  char- 
acter of  the  citizen  from  the  odium  of  a public 
examination  and  arrest,  upon  an  unfounded 
accusation,  which  would,  in  many  cases,  be  as 
injurious  to  his  character  and  feelings  as 
though  they  were  well  founded.  The  secrecy 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  grand  jury  is  a pro- 
tection to  the  reputation  of  the  citizen.  It  is 
a safeguard  thrown  around  the  citizen,  and 
protects  him  in  his  reputation  and  his  character, 
from  injustice  and  unfounded  imputation.  The 
grand  jury  ere  selected  in  a mode  well  calcu- 
lated to  secure  the  impartial  investigation  of 
the  questions  they  are  required  to  inquire  into. 
They  are  selected  by  the  trustees  of  the  respec- 
tive townships  of  the  county,  and  drawn  from 
the  jury  box  and  summoned  in  that  way,  and 
they  are  put  under  oath  that  all  proceedings  in 
the  grand  jury  room  shall  be  kept  secret,  and 
that  oath  is  of  perpetual  obligation  upon  them, 
unless  they  are  required  to  make  a disclosure  in 
a Court  of  Justice.  It  does  seem  to  me  that 


1790 


THE  GRAND  JURY  SYSTEM. 

White  of  B.,  Page. 


[130th 

[Thursday, 


there  is  great  necessity  for  retaining  this  pro- 
vision in  our  Constitution.  For  more  than 
twenty  years  the  Legislature  has  had  power  to 
provide  for  the  prosecution  of  these  minor 
offenses  by  presentment  instead  of  indictment 
by  an  open  investigation  and  presentment  by 
the  Prosecuting  Attorney,  based  upon  the  testi- 
mony taken  upon  such  public  examination. 
Why  have  we  not,  in  our  code  of  criminal  pro- 
cedure, adopted  some  such  provision?  Why 
have  we  not  provided  that  a party  accused  of 
these  minor  offenses  should  be  arrested  upon 
the  oath  or  complaint  of  some  party  and 
brought  before  some  examining  Court,  and  an 
an  investigation  had,  the  testimony  reduced  to 
writing  and  returned  to  the  Clerk  of  the 
Court,  that  the  prosecutor,  upon  the  informa- 
tion thus  obtained  from  the  testimony  of  sworn 
witnesses  upon  an  open  examination,  might 
found  his  presentment  or  accusation  against 
him.  Why  have  they  not  made  the  change? 
It  is  because  our  experience  is  against  it.  It  is 
because  the  reputation  of  the  citizen  is  of  so 
great  importance  that  they  will  not  risk  it.  It 
is  because  they  did  not  desire  to  fill  our  Courts 
with  prosecutions  for  false  imprisonment,  with 
actions  brought  to  recover  for  malicious  prose- 
cution that  they  have  not  done  this  thing. 

Who  would  be  arrested  ? Who  would  take 
the  hazard  of  arresting  a person  strongly  sus- 
pected of  offense,  if  by  doing  so  he  would  sub- 
ject himself  to  an  action  for  false  imprisonment 
or  for  malicious  prosecution,  if  it  should  turn 
out  that  there  was  not  probable  proof  of  the 
guilt  of  the  party  ? No  person  would  take  upon 
himself  these  hazards  and  these  risks.  The 
necessity  and  propriety  of  retaining  this  pro- 
visipn  is  founded  in  the  experience  of  ourselves 
and  our  ancestors  for  a period  beyond  which 
the  memory  of  man  does  not  reach.  I am  op- 
posed, therefore,  to  this  innovation  and  hope 
that  the  section  submitted  as  an  amendment,  or 
as  a part  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  will  be  voted 
down. 

Mr.  PAGE.  By  the  constitutional  law  of 
England,  prosecution  by  information  was  con- 
fined to  misdemeanors.  In  all  capital  cases,  of 
which  there  was  a very  great  number,  an  ac- 
cusation must  be  warranted  by  the  oaths  of,  at 
least,  twelve  men.  Both  these  modes  of  prose- 
cution are  as  old  as  the  common  law  itself.  I 
would  not  be  willing  to  abolish  prosecution  by 
the  grand  jury,  but  I would  confine  their  au- 
thority to  capital  cases  and  to  cases  punishable 
by  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary.  If  you 
abolish  the  grand  jury  system,  in  whom  will 
you  invest  the  power  of  commencing  criminal 
prosecutions?  There  are  many  reasons  why 
this  authority  ought  not  to  be  conferred  upon 
any  one  individual.  This  institution  has  long 
been  tried  and  I think  it  has  not  been  found  to 
be  liable  to  any  serious  objection. 

No  man  ought  to  be  put  upon  his  trial  for 
any  capital  crime,  or  crime  punishable  by  im- 
prisonment in  the  penitentiary,  by  mere  infor- 
mation. It  is  too  serious  a matter  to  place  the 
authority  of  prosecuting  the  citizens  by  this 
State  for  such  crimes  in  the  hands  of  a single 
officer.  He  is  too  liable  to  be  influenced  by 
prejudice,  malice,  or  corrupt  motives,  or  to  be 
imposed  on  by  designing  persons.  The  office 
of  prosecuting  attorney  is  usually  held  by 


young  and  inexperienced  lawyers  and  their 
character  furnishes  no  guaranty  against  abuse. 
But  this  is  not  the  only  reason  why  the  grand 
jury  system  ought  to  be  retained.  It  sometimes 
happens  that  crimes  are  committed  by  men  that 
are  popular  and  powerful,  or  by  large  bodies 
of  men  who  inspire  terror  or  threaten  ven- 
geance against  a single  prosecutor.  Now,  a 
grand  jury  is  not  so  likely  to  be  intimidated  or 
to  shrink  from  responsibility. 

Public  policy  requires  that  a body  of  respect- 
able citizens  should  be  convened  to  inquire 
what  crimes  have  been  committed,  and  what 
offenders  ought  to  be  brought  to  justice.  The 
fact  that  such  a body  exists,  and  makes  inquiry 
in  regard  to  violations  of  law,  exerts  a benefi- 
cial influence.  There  is  no  inconsiderable  num- 
ber of  persons  who  have  no  fear  of  a prosecu- 
tion being  instituted  by  any  individual,  or  who 
rely  upon  their  ability  to  compromise  or  sup- 
press it,  but  who  entertain  a wholesome  dread 
of  the  action  of  the  grand  jury.  The  moral 
influence  which  this  body  exerts  is  well  worth 
the  cost.  In  every  community,  bad  men  must 
be  restrained,  and  there  are  other  modes  of 
controlling  them  besides  prisons  and  halters. 
I fear  that  the  abolishment  of  the  grand  jury 
would  prove  to  be  an  expensive  economy,  and 
a serious  detriment  to  the  administration  of 
criminal  justice. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  when  a person  has 
been  indicted,  he  goes  to  trial  half  convicted. 
Is  there  any  truth  in  this  charge?  If  a man  is 
arrested  on  an  affidavit,  bound  over  to  court, 
and  then  goes  to  trial  upon  an  information,  is 
he  half  convicted  ? Is  he  not  as  much  convic- 
ted when  he  is  prosecuted  by  an  information  as 
by  indictment?  An  indictment  is  only  a writ- 
ten accusation,  and  the  accused  is  no  more 
prejudiced  by  it  than  by  an  affidavit,  or  an  in- 
formation charging  him  with  an  offense. 
There  must,  in  all  cases,  be  a written  accusa- 
tion ; and  whether  that  accusation  is  made  by 
one  or  more  persons,  and  whether  it  is  under 
oath  or  not,  is,  so  far  as  concerns  the  petit  jury, 
a matter  of  indifference.  The  mode  of  accusa- 
tion is  not  permitted  to  affect  their  minds.  It 
has  been  objected  that  the  grand  jury  is  a secret 
inquisition.  I reply  that  this  is  not  a reasona- 
ble mode  of  representing  this  system.  Every 
prosecution,  whether  commenced  by  one  indi- 
vidual or  by  a large  number,  is  necessarily 
commenced  in  secret,  and  on  ex  parte  evidence. 
When  a prosecution  is  begun  by  affidavit,  be- 
fore a justice  of  the  peace,  the  prosecutor 
usually  proceeds  in  secret,  and  upon  ex  parte 
evidence.  And  if  this  duty  is  devolved  upon  a 
prosecuting  attorney,  would  he  not  usually 
hear  the  accusing  witnesses  ex  parte , and  in  se- 
cret, until  he  filed  his  information?  What 
more  does  a grand  jury?  If  it  was  necessary, 
before  a prosecution,  to  give  notice  to  the  ac- 
cused, and  to  examine  his  witnesses,  he  would 
usually  avail  himself  of  this  notice  to  escape. 

By  this  institution,  the  people  are  taught  that 
there  is  an  enlightened  and  fearless  body  of 
persons,  who  are  determined  to  enforce  the 
laws,  to  punish  bold,  bad  men,  and  to  protect 
the  weak  and  powerless.  There  is  another  ad- 
vantage which  deserves  the  serious  considera- 
tion of  this  Convention,  and  that  is,  that  the 
jury  system  is  a means  of  educating  the  people, 


THE  GRAND  JURY  SYSTEM. 

Page,  Watson,  Godfrey. 


1791 


Day.] 

March  5,  1874.] 


and  diffusing  among  them  a knowledge  of  the 
principles  of  law.  Three  times  every  year 
fifteen  leading  citizens,  making  in  the  aggre- 
gate forty-five,  are  assembled  at  the  seat  of 
county  government,  to  take  partin  the  admin- 
istration of  justice.  Has  not  this  institution  a 
tendency  to  diffuse  among  our  citizens  a knowl- 
edge of  the  laws,  and  to  quicken  their  sense  of 
justice?  The  Anglo-Saxon  race  are  noted  for 
their  obedience  to  law.  A single  judge  pro- 
nounces his  decree,  and  sends  his  mandate  by 
an  unarmed  officer,  and  obedience  is  yielded  to 
him  as  readily  as  if  he  were  supported  by  a 
column  of  muskets  or  a battery  of  cannon.  Is 
not  a large  part  of  this  obedient  disposition  at- 
tributable to  the  legal  instruction  so  frequently 
delivered  to  the  grand  jury  ? 

Mr.  WATSON.  I had  intended  to  make 
some  remarks  upon  this  question,  but  it  has 
been  fully  discussed,  and  I am  relieved  from 
the  necessity.  I can  fully  bear  witness  to  the 
ability  furnished  by  the  experience  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  to  speak  of  the 
practical  workings  of  our  grand  jury,  and  I 
fully  indorse  all  that  has  been  said,  as  to  the 
system  and  its  practical  workings  among  our 
people. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  Perhaps  no  gentleman  upon 
this  floor  would  be  slower  to  make  innovations 
on  long  established  usages  than  I.  I well  re- 
member, sir,  that,  by  reason  of  my  not  wishing 
to  interfere  with  former  established  customs,  a 
few  years  ago  I voted  against  the  statute 
which  we  now  have  in  this  State,  which  gives 
to  defendants  the  right  to  testify  in  crimina  1 
cases.  I voted  against  that  statute  for  the  reason 
that  I looked  upon  it  as  an  innovation,  and  I 
was  afraid  of  it.  That  plan  has  worked  so 
well  ever  since  that  I have  always  regretted  my 
vote.  It  was  one  of  my  mistakes,  and  it  was 
made  from  the  cause  that  I have  named. 

To  the  subject  of  abolishing  grand  juries,  my 
attention  was  called  several  times,  before  the 
sitting  of  this  Convention,  at  Columbus  last 
spring,  and  several  times  before  I was  elected. 
This  was  not  done  by  disinterested  parties,  or 
by  men  without  experience.  It  was  done,  in 
every  case,  by  some  staunch  men,  men  from  the 
body  of  the  county,  men,  who  from  time  to 
time,  throughout  their  lives,  had  served  upon 
grand  juries,  and  they  universally  requested 
that  this  Convention  should  abolish  the  sys- 
tem. 

This  system  was  established  in  Great  Britain, 
perhaps  over  a thousand  years  ago,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  a prop  and  support  to  the  crown,  and 
for  nothing  else.  It  was  done  for  the  purpose 
of  having  a secret  inquisition  to  examine  into 
and  report  upon  accusations  brought  against 
persons  suspected  or  accused  of  infidelity  to  the 
crown.  We  did  not  follow  the  example  of 
Great  Britain,  in  establishing  a crown  in  this 
country;  but  we  did  follow  her  example,  so  far 
as  to  establish  what  was  only  designed  as  a 
prop  and  support  to  the  crown.  The  cause 
which  first  brought  grand  juries  into  existence, 
never  did  exist  in  this  country,  and  I am  of  the 
opinion,  and  long  have  been,  that  the  necessity 
never  did  exist  here  for  establishing  and  main- 
taining such  a prop  and  support.  That  was  de- 
signed for  no  other  purpose  than  to  sustain  the 
crown,  and  it  did  a great  service  in  spying  and 


ferreting  out  persons  charged  with  infidelity  to 
the  crown.  The  system  of  grand  juries  never 
did  exist  in  any  country,  except  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States. 

In  a number  of  States  in  this  country  it  never 
did  exist.  In  quite  a number  of  the  States  it 
was  long  since  abolished.  It  was  abolished  in 
the  State  of  Indiana,  and  in  the  city  of  London 
I believe  it  does  not  now  exist,  and  has  not  for 
a long  time  existed. 

It  is  an  expensive  method  of  making  these  in- 
vestigations, so  expensive  that  if  gentlemen 
would  refer  to  the  records  of  every  county,  and 
look  at  the  order  book  in  the  auditor’s  office, 
they  would  find  that  the  people  are  paying 
enormously  for  this  system,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  ends  and  purposes  for  which  it  was  es- 
tablished, might  be  reached  in  a much  shorter 
and  more  satisfactory  way,  in  a way  that  will 
work  out  equal  justice  in  the  punishment  of 
criminals,  and  that  will  far  supersede  it  in  pro- 
tecting innocent  persons ; and  this  is  one  rea- 
son why  I would  abolish  the  grand  jury  system, 
because  I believe  it  would  be  for  the  protection 
of  the  innocent. 

It  will  not  do  for  gentlemen  to  say  that  an 
indictment  found  by  a necessary  number  of 
grand  jurors  and  returned  into  Court  and  dock- 
eted, and  the  defendant  arrested,  is  nothing 
more  than  the  affidavit  of  an  individual  filed 
against  him.  He  is  half  convicted,  he  is  two 
halves  disgraced,  be  he  ever  so  innocent,  and  it 
will  not  do  for  gentlemen  here  or  elsewhere  to 
say  that  his  acquittal,  subsequently,  before  a 
petit  jury  wipes  out  this  disgrace.  He  may 
have  a trial — he  may  prove  himself  ever  so  in- 
nocent; he  has  not  convinced  everybody  of  his 
innocence,  and  when  it  is  spoken  of  in  his  be- 
half that  he  was  properly  acquitted  by  a petit 
jury,  it  is  very  easy  for  one  to  say  that  some  of 
the  witnesses  were  absent.  “If  the  witnesses 
had  all  been  there  you  would  have  heard  a very 
different  case  and  he  would  have  been  found 
guilty.”  If  they  do  not  make  this  charge 
against  him  they  will  make  other  charges  against 
him.  They  will  say,  “We  expected  this;  the 
defendant  was  defended  by  one,  two  or  three 
of  the  best  lawyers  at  the  bar,  and  it  was 
through  their  legal  ability  or  cunning  that  he 
was  acquitted;”  or  it  may  be  said  that  it  was 
done  by  the  blunder  or  inexperience  of  the 
prosecuting  attorney.  All  these  things  will  be 
continually  hatched  up  against  him,  and  it  is 
impossible  for  you  to  wipe  out  the  disgrace  un- 
der which  that  man  has  been  placed,  merely  by 
the  indictment  of  the  grand  jury ; for,  in  a large 
majority  of  cases,  grand  jurors  are  merely  the 
instruments  for  furnishing  information  with 
reference  to  the  accused.  The  proceedings  in 
a grand  jury  room  are  by  no  means  kept  secret. 
I gather  from  the  arguments  of  the  learned 
gentlemen  that  nobody  outside  of  the  grand 
jury  room  ever  knows  what  occurs  there,  and  it 
is  well  known  that  tattling  from  the  grand 
jury  room  is  very  common.  The  grand  jurors 
sometimes  forget  the  obligations  which  are 
placed  upon  them,  and  speak  outside  what  oc- 
curs inside;  and  while  the  grand  jury  are 
sworn  to  secrecy,  the  witnesses  are  not,  and 
there  are  few  witnesses  that  go  into  a grand 
jury  room  that  do  not  come  out  and  tell  what 
they  have  heard  and  what  is  going  on  in  the 


1792 


THE  GRAND  JURY  SYSTEM. 


[130th 


Godfrey,  Tuttle. 


[Thursday, 


jury  room — tell  what  their  testimony  was,  and 
tell  what  questions  were  asked  them  in  the 
course  of  the  proceedings.  Each  one  tells  his 
story,  and  it  is  no  difficult  matter  for  outside 
persons  to  gather  every  particle  of  testimony 
presented  there.  The  prosecuting  attorney  in 
examining  one  witness  will  sometimes  tell 
what  another  said.  I know  of  a case  that  I 
heard  of,  within  the  last  three  weeks,  where  a 
jury  were  investigating  charges  against  a man 
for  keeping  a gambling  house.  One  witness 
was  brought  before  the  jury  and  was  asked  if 
he  had  not,  at  a certain  time  and  place,  gambled 
for  money.  The  witness  said  he  did  not  know 
whether  he  had  or  not,  for  on  that  occasion  he 
was  pretty  drunk  and  did  not  recollect;  he 
might  have  gambled.  The  prosecuting  attorney 
said  to  the  witness  immediately,  “ Why,  John 
Smith  says  you  won  ten  dollars  from  him  that 
night.”  The  testimony  that  was  adduced  in 
the  case  has  now  become  a matter  of  common 
conversation  in  the  town,  the  prosecuting  at- 
torney himself  telling  one  witness  what  had 
been  the  testimony  of  the  witness  formerly 
upon  the  stand  in  the  grand  jury  room. 

These  things  get  out  in  a very  short  time,  at 
least  too  much  of  them  get  out,  and  a man  is 
not  saved  from  disgrace  while  the  jury  are 
sworn  to  secrecy ; for  the  jury  frequently  for- 
get, and  the  witnesses  are  by  no  means  sworn 
to  any  such  secrecy,  and  they  tell  their  stories 
frequently  as  soon  as  they  leave  the  grand  jury 
room,  and  the  secrets  of  that  room  soon  become 
public  property  of  the  town  and  county,  and 
the  proceedings  are  almost  as  public,  as  far  as 
the  disgrace  and  injustice  to  the  defendants  are 
concerned,  and  perhaps  worse  than  it  would  be 
if  they  had  an  open  trial,  where  the  witnesses 
are  examined  on  both  sides,  and  allowed  to  tes- 
tify and  present  their  whole  case,  instead  of 
merely  the  testimony  of  enemies  being  present- 
ed,— those  who  are  prejudiced  against  the  per- 
sons accused. 

I agree  that  grand  juries  are  made  up  of  ex- 
cellent men,  as  a general  rule.  The  fault  is  not 
with  the  grand  jurors,  but  the  fault  is  with  the 
whole  grand  jury  system.  Then,  I say,  in  the 
Constitution  that  we  are  to  submit  to  the  peo- 
ple, let  us  give  the  General  Assembly  authority 
to  modify  or  abolish  the  grand  jury  system. 
It  has  worked  well  in  our  sister  State  of  Indi- 
ana, where  they  have  had  such  a clause  in  their 
Constitution  for  more  than  twenty  years. 
They  are  not  yet  disposed  to  return  to  the  grand 
jury  system,  and  I believe  there  is  no  State  that 
has  not  that  system  that  contemplates  return- 
ing to  it,  and  there  is  no  State  that  will  establish 
a grand  jury  system  where  they  are  without 
one.  There  is  no  hope  or  fear  that  any  State, 
or  any  locality,  now  without  a grand  jury  sys- 
tem, would  ever  adopt  a system  of  that  kind. 
Then,  in  the  march  of  progress,  where  the 
people  are  abandoning  it  successfully,  where 
no  one  has  a disposition  to  return  to  it,  where 
experience  dictates  that  we  may  safely  abolish 
it,  I believe  it  would  be  better  for  our  State.  I 
shall  vote  for  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tem.  The  question  is 
upon  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]. 


The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  13,  nays  53,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Chapin, 
Godfrey,  Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Merrill,  Miteh- 
ener,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Waddle,  Young  of  No- 
ble—13. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bannon,  Barnet,  Bosworth, 
Carbery,  Coats,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cunningham, 
De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Greene, 
Hale,  Hill,  Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kraemer, 
Miller,  Miner,  Mullen,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phil- 
ips, Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Root,  Rowland,  Sam- 
ple, Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Thompson,  Town- 
send, To  wnsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Yan  Yoor his, 
Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Watson,  Weaver,  West,  White 
of  Brown,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury, Young 
of  Champaign,  President — 53. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tem.  If  there  are  no 
further  amendments,  the  question  is  now  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  ask,  if  it  is  in 
order  now  to  offer  an  amendment  to  a section 
that  has  been  passed  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tem.  By  common  con- 
sent. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  present  a proposi- 
tion with  regard  to  section  five.  I hope  that, 
in  some  way,  it  will  have  the  consideration  of 
the  Convention  that  is  necessary  for  that  pur- 
pose. I am  in  hopes  that  it  will  meet  with  so 
much  consideration  as  to  have  a motion  to  re- 
consider. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  then  offer  this  as  a 
substitute  for  the  section  as  amended. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate;  provided 
that  in  all  civil  cases  pending  in  courts  inferior  to  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  where  the  amount  in  contro- 
versey  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  of  one  hundred  dollars, 
or  where  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Common  Pleas  shall 
be  secured  by  law,  the  Legislature  may  provide  for  trial 
by  any  number  of  persons  not  less  than  six.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  it  is  in  order,  I shall  state 
the  reasons  for  offering  this  amendment  and 
wherein  I understand  it  to  differ  from  the 
proposition  as  adopted.  I fully  concur  with 
gentlemen  that  it  is  proper  to  have  some  re- 
striction upon  litigation  in  simple  and  unim- 
portant matters,  and  that  a portion  of  the  cases 
that  are  now  appealed  to  the  court  of  common 
pleas  should  stop  with  the  judgment  of  the  jus- 
tice of  the  peace,  unless  for  some  cause  shown, 
or  error  in  the  proceedings,  I have  no  doubt  it 
would  be  well  in  a great  proportion  of  busi- 
ness that  is  transacted  before  a justice  of  the 
peace.  It  is  very  probable  that  in  that  juris- 
diction a less  number  of  persons  than  twelve 
will  be  proper,  and  that  twelve  would  be  em- 
barrassing and  burdensome ; but,  notwithstand- 
ing that  we  are  to  remember,  as  I suppose,  that 
twelve  jurors  were  never  empaneled  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  under  the  present  law, 
or  as  the  Constitution  now  stands.  Is  there  any 
necessity  for  twelve  men  in  those  cases  where 
you  allow  an  appeal  to  the  court  of  common 
pleas  ? So  far  as  an  appeal  to  the  court  of  com- 
mon pleas  is  allowed,  there  is  no  necessity 
whatever  in  changing  the  constitutional  pro- 


CONCERNING  THE  JURY  SYSTEM. 


1793 


Day.] 

March  5,  1874.]  Tuttle. 


vision  in  order  to  dispense  with  juries  under 
justices  of  the  peace,  and  provide,  as  was  done 
in  the  year  1840,  in  this  State,  or  in  order  to 
have  only  a jury  of  six  men  before  a justice  of 
the  peace,  as  has  been  practiced  from  1840  until 
now.  The  amendment  that  is  proposed  goes  a 
great  deal  further  than  that.  It  provides  that 
in  all  cases  of  trial  before  a justice  of  the  peace 
and  in  the  probate  court  a jury  of  six  men  will 
suffice. 

One  of  the  effects  of  this  provision  must  be 
that,  in  regard  to  all  matters  in  which  courts 
inferior  to  the  courts  of  common  pleas  may 
now  have,  or  hereafter  shall  receive,  jurisdic- 
tion, you  may  dispense  with  the  well-known 
tribunal,  a common  law  jury,  altogether,  be- 
cause the  meaning  that  must  be  attached  to  it 
(and  it  can  mean  nothing  else,  I apprehend, 
and  I have  not  heard  it  said  it  could  mean  any- 
thing else)  is,  that  the  Legislature  may  make 
those  proceedings  final.  In  the  great  propor- 
tion of  those  proceedings  they  are  now  final. 
They  are  in  all  proceedings  with  regard  to  the 
condemnation  of  property  and  the  assessment 
of  damages  for  roads,  highways  of  many  and 
all  kinds,  railroads,  and  in  these  matters,  and 
in  many  others,  perhaps,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
proceedings,  as  you  now  have  them,  to  prevent 
a continuance  of  this  policy.  And,  as  we  have 
provided  that  a jury  of  six  shall  be  sufficient, 
and  provided  it  as  a qualification  and  as  an 
exception  to  the  provision  that  the  right  of  trial 
by  jury  shall  be  inviolate,  there  cannot  be  any- 
thing in  the  way  of  restriction  upon  the  power 
of  the  Legislature  to  create  a jury  of  any  num- 
ber in  any  court,  or  in  any  character  of  courts, 
so  that  they  be  inferior  to  the  court  of  common 
pleas  in  point  of  rank;  so  that  proceedings  in 
error  shall  be  from  that  court  to  the  court  of 
common  pleas,  and  provide  for  them  any  kind  or 
mode  of  trial,  so  that  you  give  six  persons  for  a 
jury,  and  make  the  proceedings  in  that  court 
final,  so  far  as  the  matter  is  concerned. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I am  opposed 
to  that.  I am  opposed  to  abolishing  a common  law 
jury.  I believe  that,  in  important  cases,  where 
it  is  really  important  to  have  a jury,  a jury  of  six 
men,  constituted  as  juries  usually  are,  would 
be  simply  a nuisance.  If  we  are  to  have  a jury, 
let  us  have  a jury  that  we  have  tried.  Let  us 
have  that  jury  whose  merits  have  received  the 
encomiums  of  all  ages  in  our  judicial  history, 
and  not  something  new  in  that  respect.  I be- 
lieve that  a jury  of  six  men,  a few  men  that  can 
act  hastily,  and  are  much  more  likely  to  do  so 
than  a greater  number  of  men,  as  I said  before, 
is  mischievous.  I would  rather  take  the  respon- 
sibility, in  an  important  case,  of  having  two  or 
three  men,  I would  rather  it  would  be  submit- 
ted to  a court  at  any  time — to  a court  consisting 
of  two  or  three  enlightened  men,  who  would 
feel  the  responsibility  of  what  they  will  do, 
who  are  able  to  compare  views  together,  who 
are  not  likely,  simply  because  they  find  them- 
selves agreeing  at  the  start,  to  pass  the  matter 
off  without  discussion,  and  who,  if  they  disa- 
gree, will  not  determine  it  at  once  by  the  mere 
weight  of  the  majority.  I believe  it  would  be 
often  found  with  it  just  what  the  administra- 
tion of  justice  has  often  pointed  out,  that  a jury 
of  six  men,  for  matters  of  importance,  would 
be  found  a failure. 

y.n-115 


What  I propose  to  provide  is  that  there  shall 
be  a restriction  upon  the  right  of  re-trial,  or,  at 
all  events,  upon  the  necessity  of  a jury  in  cases 
arising  before  a justice  of  the  peace.  Let  the 
Legislature,  if  they  see  fit,  make  a jury  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace  consist  of  a smaller  number 
of  jurors.  Make  the  trial,  within  certain  limi- 
tations, as  to  amount,  final,  if  they  see  fit,  and  I 
have  suggested  the  sum  of  one  hundred  dollars 
as  affording  the  proper  limit  of  matters  that 
may  thus  be  disposed  of,  and  beyond  that,  in  all 
cases  where  the  right  of  appeal  is  given  to  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas,  let  the  Legislature 
have  the  power  in  the  inferior  courts  to  fix  a 
less  number.  Therefore,  as  I have  proposed,  I 
would  give  the  Legislature  the  power  to  make 
the  trial  in  a court  before  a less  number  of  per- 
sons than  twelve  and  not  less  than  six,  and  to 
make  it  a finality  as  to  sums  of  less  than  one 
hundred  dollars.  Give  them  the  power  to  try 
cases  with  such  a jury  as  in  their  wisdom  may 
be  thought  best  for  those  courts,  but  preserve 
the  right  of  appeal  when  you  get  beyond  the 
sum  of  one  hundred  dollars. 

I believe  if  there  is  anything  that  I would  be 
anxious  about,  it  is  the  great  tribunal  of  a jury. 
I think  it  is  not  less  important  to  the  people  of 
this  State  and  this  country  than,  it  is  to  any 
other.  I feel  it  to  be  in  the  highest  degree  im- 
portant that  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  be  pre- 
served. I mean  such  a jury  as  is  known  to  the 
law,  selected  from  among  the  body  of  the  peo- 
ple, acquainted  with  their  habits  of  business, 
with  their  modes  of  thinking,  familiar  with  life 
among  the  people,  actuated  by  the  strong  sense 
of  justice  which  we  generally  find  among  them, 
and  when  need  is,  to  perform  that  well-recog- 
nized office  of  a jury  to  soften  and  mitigate  the 
rigor  which,  by  reason  of  its  generality,  may 
sometimes  be  found  to  be  deficient,  and  some- 
times to  be  hard  in  its  operation. 

[Here  the  time  expired.] 

Leave  was  granted  to  Mr.  Tuttle  to  proceed. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  add  but  a word  or 
two  more ; but  I do  hope  that  other  gentlemen 
in  this  Convention  will  not  now  have  any  pur- 
pose of  trying  the  experiment  of  forcing  upon 
the  people  a legislative  provision  that  is  no  less 
than  the  abrogation  of  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury.  I,  perhaps,  ought  to  have  remarked  that 
it  was  suggested  that  the  Legislature  would  not 
do  this.  1 say  the  Legislature  will  do  it.  I say 
you  will  get  together  bodies  of  men  who  will, 
at  times,  be  actuated  by  a love  of  novelty,  by  a 
desire  of  experiment,  that  will  carry  them  to 
one  length  or  another,  often  to  extremes.  It 
has  been  the  habit  of  Legislatures,  whenever 
they  have  had  the  opportunity,  to  tinker  with 
this  matter  of  trial  by  jury.  The  last  Constitu- 
tion had  not  more  than  gone  into  effect — in- 
deed, it  had  not  been  submitted  to  the  people — 
when  the  first  thing  they  did  was  to  provide, 
against  the  express  provisions  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, for  a jury  of  six  men,  to  assess,  in  the  pro- 
bate court,  damages  that  should  be  had  in  the 
condemnation  of  land  for  highways.  It  has 
been  so  in  all  times,  as  often  as  they  have  had 
the  opportunity  to  provide,  in  these  miserable 
ways,  for  the  trial  of  condemnation  cases. 
Under  the  Constitution  of  1802,  they  sent  out 
three  men  to  try,  and  determine,  and  hear 
them,  because  they  had  the  power  to  do  it 


1794 


CONCERNING  THE  JURY  SYSTEM. 

Tuttle,  West,  Hale. 


[130th 


[Thursday, 


as  they  pleased.  And  whenever,  and  as  often, 
as  these  opportunities  are  afforded,  they  are 
just  as  sure  to  be  made  use  of  as  they  are 
to  exist — not  by  every  Legislature,  but  by  some 
Legislature — just  as  sure  as  the  sun  rolls 
around. 

I desire  to  caution  gentlemen,  and  I say  that 
we  may  assume  too  much,  even  by  the  too  fre- 
quent repetition  of  that  modest  self  deprecia- 
tion, that  wisdom  will  not  die  with  this  Conven- 
tion; that  this  entire  Bill  of  Rights,  from  its 
first  letter  to  its  last  is  nothing  but  a continued 
implication  that  legislative  wisdom  is  sure  to 
be  mixed  with  legislative  folly,  and  that  there 
is  no  maxim  of  fundamental  right,  however 
sacred  to  the  general  conscience  which  will  not 
sometimes  be  infringed  by  the  Legislature  if  it 
be  not  withheld  by  the  restraining  power  of  the 
Constitution.  Therefore,  we  provide  in  the 
Constitution,  that  men  charged  with  crimes  shall 
have  the  right  to  be  tried  by  a jury.  There- 
fore, we  provide  that  they  shall  have  the  right 
to  meet  the  witnesses  face  to  face.  This  we  do 
from  the  just  apprehension  that  otherwise, 
under  some  circumstances  and  upon  some  pre- 
tense, a Legislature  might  deny  the  jury  to  a 
party  charged  with  crime,  and  might  deny  him 
the  right  to  meet  the  witnesses  face  to  face, 
and  subject  him  to  trial  upon  testimony  of  wit- 
nesses not  taken  in  his  presence  in  open  court, 
and  without  opportunity  to  cross-examine 
them  or  to  challenge  the  attention  of  the  jury 
to  their  deportment  and  bearing.  Every  one 
of  these  provisions  is  founded  upon  the  idea 
that  while  these  rights  secured  by  them  are  so 
valuable  that  they  ought  always  to  be  sacred. 
And  yet  they  are  not  safe,  except  by  the  re- 
straint of  a constitutional  provision  to  protect 
them. 

Mr.  WEST.  There  is  one  clause  in  the  propo- 
sition that  I do  not  understand.  The  second 
clause,  where  the  amount  does  not  exceed  one 
hundred  dollars.  The  clause  just  following 
that. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I say  where  the  amount  is 
not  over  one  hundred  dollars,  it  may  provide 
for  a trial  by  a less  number  of  persons  than  six. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  next  clause. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  next  clause,  where  it 
exceeds  that,  as  in  the  present  case.  It  is  true 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace,  three 
hundred  dollars.  Where  it  is  tried  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  you  may  as  well  try  it  by 
a less  number  of  persons,  but  in  that  case,  that 
is  to  say,  you  must  secure  to  a party  the  right 
of  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  and 
so  in  the  Probate  Court,  with  cases  that  arise 
there. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  going  to  propose  this,  to 
add  to  the  section  as  it  now  stands.  It  author- 
izes a jury  of  six  men,  provided  that  the  right 
of  appeal  to  the  Common  Pleas  Court  shall  not 
be  denied  in  cases  where  the  amount  in  contro- 
versy exceeds  one  hundred  dollars, — that  is 
pretty  nearly  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  this  objection,  if  I 
maybe  allowed.  In  the  first  place,  I do  not 
wish  to  admit  that  any  less  number  than  twelve 
persons  should  have  any  title  to  be  a jury. 
Very  valuable  consequences  have  arisen  in  past 
times  in  the  construction  of  constitutional  law 


by  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  jury, 
and  I am  not  very  tenacious,  but  I suggest  that, 
and  in  addition,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  matter 
of  appeal  is  exclusive.  How  would  it  be  if  the 
Legislature  should  not  provide  for  it  ? The  dif- 
ference between  the  gentleman’s  proposition 
and  my  own  would  be 

Mr.  WEST.  If  the  Legislature  shall  not  pro- 
vide that  the  result  would  be,  what  the  supreme 
court  had  found  in  many  cases,  that  the  whole 
proceedings  will  go  as  a nullity,  unless  there  is 
a provision  for  such  a proceeding. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Perhaps  that  would  be  so, 
but  I think  my  amendment  makes  it  clear  that 
this  is  the  meaning.  I am  not  tenacious  about 
it.  I like  mine  better,  but  if  the  Convention 
like  the  other  better,  all  right. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think,  if  we  intend  to  make  a 
justice  jury  final  at  any  particular  place,  we 
ought  to  want  it  as  strong  as  we  can,  and  leave 
it  to  the  courts  to  say  if  they  have  any  right  to 
do  so.  I think  we  have. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  moves  to  add  the  following  to 
the  original  section : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Provided  that  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Common 
Pleas  shall  not  be  denied  in  cases  where  the  amount  in 
controversy  exceeds  one  hundred  dollars  ” 

So  that  the  section  will  read : 

“The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  inviolate;  but  the 
General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  provide  for  juries  in  civil 
causes,  in  courts  inferior  to  the  Courts  of  Common  Pleas, 
composed  of  any  number  of  jurors  not  less  than  six, 
provided  that  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Common  Pleas 
shall  not  be  denied  at  any  time,  where  the  amount  in  con- 
troversy before  such  jury  exceeds  one  hundred  dollars,” 

Mr.  HALE.  The  effect  of  the  Article  as 
adopted  yesterday,  with  the  amendment  now 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  and  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  are  sub- 
stantially alike,  but  I very  much  prefer  the  one 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle].  It  will  be  seen  that  the  amendment 
provides  for  two  things.  First,  in  actions  be- 
fore justices  of  the  peace,  where  the  amount  in- 
volved does  not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars,  the 
Legislature  may  provide  for  a jury  of  less  than 
twelve,  and  not  less  than  six,  and  all  cases  in- 
volving less  than  one  hundred  dollars  may  be 
tried  before  a justice  of  the  peace  by  a jury,  not 
less  than  six,  and  that  trial  be  final.  That  is 
the  effect  of  that.  Secondly,  if  an  appeal  is 
provided  for  in  cases  above  one  hundred  dol- 
lars, from  that  to  three  hundred  dollars,  such 
cases  may  be  tried  before  a justice  of  the  peace 
by  a jury  of  six  men.  So  that  all  there  is  of 
that  amendment,  it  preserves  the  right  of  trial 
by  jury,  and  permits  a trial  in  cases  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace  by  a jury  of  six,  where  the 
amount  involved  does  not  exceed  one  hundred 
dollars,  and  also  in  cases  above  one  hundred 
dollars  where  the  right  of  appeal  is  granted.  I 
think  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  is  the  better  of 
the  two. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  perfectly  indifferent  as  to 
how  it  is.  From  hearing  it  read,  I did  not  com- 
prehend it,  and  it  is  a little  dangerous  some- 
times to  make  these  amendments  in  Convention, 


THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

West,  Tuttle,  Page,  Watson,  Hale,  etc. 


1795 


Day.] 


March  5,  1874.] 


and  I would  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  what  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  suggested  to  me  a while  ago, 
that,  without  acting  upon  this  amendment,  we 
have  the  whole  Article  recommitted,  and  when 
it  is  recommitted,  this  amendment  can  go  with 
it,  so  that  it  can  he  put  in  proper  shape.  I 
would  move  now 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Perhaps  the  Committee  would 
desire  to  know  the  sense  of  the  Convention  upon 
the  question.  They  would  hardly,  I suppose, 
feel  it  proper  to  make  a change  in  that  respect 
without  an  expression  from  the  Convention. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  very  sure  that  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  and  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  agree  exactly  upon  that 
point. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  doubt  that  if  he 
feels  at  liberty  to  vote  his  own  opinion  in  the 
matter,  it  will  be  all  right. 

Mr.  West’s  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
striking  out  the  section,  and  substituting  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull 
[Mr.  Tuttle]. 

Upon  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas  40,  nays 
29,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Barnet,  Bosworth, 
Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cun- 
ningham, Dorsey,  Godfrey,  Hale,  Horton, 
Johnson,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Okey,  Page,  Philips,  Pratt,  Root,  Sample,  Sears, 
Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Steedman, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  Yoorhes,  Voris, 
Waddle,  Watson,  Weaver,  West,  White  of 
Brown,  Woodbury — 10. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Cha- 
pin, De  Steiguer,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Greene, 
Gurley,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer,  Mullen,  Neal,  Pease,  Pond,  Powell,  Smith 
of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Tulloss,  Van  Yalken- 
burgh,  Van  Yoorhis,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble,  President — 29. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  that  we  re-consider  the 
vote  by  which  the  section  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  was  adopted. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  agreeing  to  the  section. 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  drafted  an  amendment 
which  I think  puts  it  in  a satisfactory  shape. 
It  is  in  the  hands  of  the  gentleman  from  Picka- 
way [Mr.  Page.] 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  has  offered  a substitute  for  the  section 
which  I have  looked  over,  and  made  some  slight 
alterations  in  it,  which  I think  will  answer  the 
purpose  quite  as  well  as  the  proposition  adopted 
this  morning,  and  is  not  liable  to  the  same  ob- 
jection that  wa3  raised  to  that  proposition.  I, 
therefore,  ask  leave  to  offer  this  as  a substitute. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Jurisdiction  to  charge  property  or  affect  rights  in  ju- 
dicial proceedings  shall  not  be  acquired  by  publication 
only,  unless  it  shall  be  found  by  the  Court  that  the  resi- 
dence and  postoflice  address  of  the  party  to  be  affected 
are  unknown  and  cannot  be  ascertained  by  reasonable 
diligence.” 


The  substitute  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  agreeing  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 
The  Committee  recommend  that  they  do  not 
think  it  necessary  to  amend  the  Preamble,  and 
ask  to  be  discharged. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I move  to  recommit  the  Ar- 
ticle to  the  Committee  on  Preamble  and  Bill  of 
Rights. 

Mr.  HALE.  What  will  be  the  effect  of  re- 
commitment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  puts  the  whole  sub- 
ject back  into  the  hands  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  WATSON.  The  additional  section 
should  not  be  the  last  section.  The  last  section 
is  the  twentieth  section  as  it  now  stands  num- 
bered. There  are  some  things  in  that  to  revise. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Report  was 
recommitted  to  the  Committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  appoint 
as  a special  Committee  on  the  memorial  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  Messrs.  Hitchcock,  Pond, 
Page,  Hill,  and  Young  of  Noble. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  the  Convention 
now  resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  Proposition  No.  203. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  the  gentleman  delay 
a moment  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir. 

religion  in  the  constitution. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I ask  leave  to  present  a 
remonstrance,  that  I should  have  presented  this 
morning. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  THOMPSON  presented  the  remonstrance 
of  Orson  S.  Murray,  of  Warren  county,  against 
making  any  constitutional  provision  respecting 
an  establishment  of  religion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  There  are  only  forty-five 
pages  of  this  remonstrance,  and  perhaps  the 
Convention  desire  to  hear  it  read.  I make  a 
motion  to  that  effect. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  remonstrance  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I now  renew  my  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Townsend],  that  the  Convention  resolve 
itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  spe- 
cial order  of  the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

in  committee  of  the  whole. 

So  the  Convention,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  Mr.  CUNNINGHAM  in  the  Chair,  pro- 
ceeded to  the  consideration  of  Proposition  No. 
203,  being  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Elective  Franchise. 

ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  Report. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  1.  Every  male  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and 
every  male  person  of  foreign  birth  who  may  have  de- 
clared his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  according  to  law,  not  less  than  one  or  more  than 
five  years  before  he  offers  to  vote,  of  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the  State  one 
year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of  the  county 
township  or  ward  in  which  he  resides,  such  time  as  may 


1796 


THE  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE. 


[130th 

[Thursday, 


Hitchcock,  Hale,  Sample,  Cunningham,  Campbell,  etc. 


be  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the  qualifications  of  an 
elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all  elections. 

Sec.  2.  All  elections  shall  be  by  ballot. 

Sec.  3.  Electors,  during  their  attendance  at  elections, 
and  in  goingto  and  returning  therefrom,  shall  be  privi- 
leged from  arrest  in  all  cases,  except  treason,  felony,  and 
breach  of  the  peace. 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power  to  ex- 
clude from  voting,  or  of  being  eligible  to  office,  any  per- 
son convicted  of  bribery,  perjury,  or  other  infamous 
crimes.  . ,,  . 

Sec.  5.  For  the  purpose  of  voting,  no  person  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost  a residence,  by  reason  of 
his  presence  or  absence  while  employed  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States,  nor  while  engaged  in  navigation  of  the 
waters  of  this  State,  or  of  the  high  seas,  nor  while  a stu- 
dent of  any  semiuary  or  institution  of  learning. 

Sec.  6.  No  idiot  or  insane  person  shall  be  entitled  to 
the  privilege  of  an  elector. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  For  the  purpose  of 
bringing  this  Report  properly  before  the  Com- 
mittee, I move  to  strike  out  all  after  the  title. 

Mr.  HALE.  I suppose  that,  under  the  Rule, 
this  Proposition  is  open  for  general  discussion. 

The  CHAIRMANS  The  Chair  so  under- 
stands it. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I propose  to  make  a motion, 
which  I submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  Com- 
mittee, which,  if  adopted,  will  render  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  matter  unnecessary  in  this  Com-  i 
mittee.  The  motion  is  made  with  a view  to 
economize  time.  I move  that  the  Committee 
now  rise  and  report  this  Proposition  back  to  the 
Convention,  without  any  recommendation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I suppose  that  it  will  not ; 
be  in  order  to  entertain  that  motion,  unless  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  with- 
draw his  motion. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  be  glad  to  with- 
draw the  motion,  if  it  is  desired  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I submit  it  without  any  ex- 
pression of  opinion  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Sample’s  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the 
Committee  rose. 

The  President  resumed  the  Chair. 

IN  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Mr.  President,  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  have  had  under  con- 
sideration Proposition  No.  203,  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Elective  Franchise,  and 
they  instructed  me  to  report  the  Proposition 
back,  without  any  recommendation. 

The  Report  was  received,  and  the  Committee 
discharged. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I now  renew  the  motion  i 
I made  a few  moments  since,  in  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  to  strike  out  all  after  “section  1.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Proposition  is  now  i 
open  for  general  discussion,  and  the  question  is  i 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  j 
[Mr.  Hitchcock]. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I hope  the  gentleman ! 
will  withdraw  that,  so  that  gentlemen  who  pro- 
pose to  discuss  the  question,  will  have  an  op-  ! 
portunity  to  indicate  amendments  which  they  ! 
propose  to  offer,  when  amendments  shall  be  in  j 
order.  I presume,  though  I am  not  certain  of  j 
the  fact,  that  there  may  be  a motion  to  strike 
out  the  word  “male,”  and  propose  some  amend- ; 
ment  with  a view  to  woman  suffrage.  I only  j 
make  the  suggestion.  I have  an  amendment  j 
myself,  of  which  I wish  to  give  notice,  if  the  j 
gentleman  will  withdraw  his  proposition. 


Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  With  the  leave  of  the 
Convention,  I withdraw  the  motion. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I give  notice  of  an  amend- 
ment which  I wrish  to  propose  to  the  first  sec- 
tion, and  I wish  to  indicate  it  now,  though  I do 
not  feel  well  enough  to  address  the  Convention 
on  the  subject  this  afternoon.  I shall  endeavor 
to  do  it  to-morrow  morning,  if  I can  have  that 
privilege  and  courtesy  extended  to  me. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  gives  notice  of  the  fol- 
lowing amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  of  section  one  the  following  words: 

“And  every  male  citizen  of  foreign  birth,  who  may 
have  declared  his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the 
United  States,  according  to  law,  not  le^s  than  one  nor 
more  than  live  years  before  he  offers  to  vote.” 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I propose  to  strike  out 
alien  suffrage  altogether.  I propose  to  discuss 
it,  if  I am  allowed,  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I presume  that  this 
whole  question  is  before  the  Convention  for 
general  discussion,  and  the  discussion  of  any 
point  of  any  section  will  be  entirely  in  order 
under  the  rule,  and  when  the  Article  will  be 
taken  up  section  by  section,  amendments  will 
be  in  order  at  any  time.  The  Chairman  of  the 
Commitee  presenting  the  Report  has  the  right 
to  open  the  discussion,  under  the  rule,  as  I un- 
derstand it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  rule. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  will  be  remembered  by  the 
Convention  that  this  morning,  on  the  second 
reading  of  Proposition  No.  221,  which  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  be  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  Proposition  No.  203, 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  have  been  dis- 
charged from  the  consideration  of  Proposition 
No.  203.  I suppose  that  Proposition  No.  221  is 
yet  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  therefore,  I 
move  that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  be  dis- 
charged from  the  further  consideration  of  Prop- 
osition No.  221. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  oc- 
cupy any  considerable  portion  of  the  time 
which,  by  the  rule,  I might  assume  to  occupy. 
The  action  of  the  Committee  on  this  subject 
was,  by  no  means,  harmonious,  and  the  Report 
does  not  come  before  this  Convention  in  such  a 
shape  as  to  entitle  it  to  particular  respect,  inde- 
pendent of  the  provisions  which  it  contains ; the 
Committee  being  divided  upon  all  propositions 
which  were  sought  to  be  incorporated  into  the 
Report,  except  those  that  are  found  in  the  pres- 
ent Constitution.  As  to  the  provisions  of  the 
present  Constitution,  there  was  no  diversity  of 
opinion  in  the  Committee,  and  they  are,  there- 
fore, indorsed  as  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
by  all  the  members.  But  there  is  no  proposi- 
tion apart  from  those  that  are  contained  in  the 
present  Constitution  that  have  this  indorse- 
ment. 

In  the  Report  of  the  Committee  two  changes 
are  recommended.  It  differs,  in  this  respect, 
from  the  present  Constitution.  The  provision 
in  the  firstsection  to  which  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  has  referred,  and  which 
is  embraced  in  his  motion,  is  a new  proposition. 
It  is  not  found  in  the  present  Constitution,  and 


THE  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE. 


1797 


Day.] 

March  5,  1874.]  Sample. 


that  change,  with  the  omission  of  the  word 
“ white,”  of  course  left  out  by  the  Committee, 
without  debate,  are  the  only  changes  which  are 
made  in  that  section.  Now,  I do  not  wish  to 
say  anything  with  reference  to  this  change  pro- 
posed by  the  Committee,  or  in  reference  to  the 
clause  which  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]  moves  to  strike  out.  As  I announced 
to  the  Convention  some  days  ago,  it  was  under- 
stood between  another  member  of  the  Commit- 
tee who  advocated  this  change,  that  he  would 
assume  its  advocacy  when  the  subject  was  in- 
troduced, and  would  take  the  responsibility  of 
presenting  it  for  the  consideration  of  the  Con- 
vention ; but  he  is  not  now  in  his  seat.  That 
proposition  is  not  in  harmony  with  my  convic- 
tion of  what  the  duty  of  this  Convention  is,  and 
I shall  not  undertake  to  discuss  it.  I shall  not 
say  anything  upon  that  subject ; but  shall  leave 
the  first  section,  hoping  that  it  will  be  embodied 
in  the  present  Constitution,  and  that  leaving 
out  the  word  “ white,”  will  meet  the  approba- 
tion of  this  Convention. 

The  other  sections,  down  to  the  fifth,  are 
in  the  words  of  the  present  Constitution.  In 
reference  to  those  sections,  there  is  no  diversity 
of  opinion  in  the  Committee.  They  seem  to  be 
recognized  as  acceptable  to  the  people  of  the 
State,  and  there  is  no  desire  on  the  part  of  any 
person,  or  any  considerable  body  of  persons, 
within  the  State,  that  sections  two,  three  and 
four  should  be  in  any  respect  changed. 

In  section  five,  there  is  a change  made.  That 
section,  in  the  present  Constitution,  provides 
that  “no  person  in  the  military,  naval  or 
marine  service  of  the  United  States  shall,  by 
being  stationed  in  any  garrison,  or  military  or 
naval  station  within  the  State,  be  considered  a 
resident  of  the  State.”  The  provision  reported 
by  the  Committee  is  this : 

“For  the  purpose  of  voting,  no  person  shall  he  deemed 
to  have  gained  or  lost  a residence  by  reason  of  his  pres- 
ence or  absence  while  employed  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  nor  while  engaged  in  the  navigation  of  the 
waters  of  this  State  or  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the 
high-seas,  nor  while  a student  of  any  seminary  or  insti- 
tution of  learning.” 

The  modification  of  section  five  is  copied 
from  the  Constitution  of  New  York  and  the 
Constitutions  of  a number  of  other  States. 
The  exact  language  which  has  been  copied  in 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  is  found  in  the 
Constitutions  of  Kansas,  Michigan,  Missouri, 
Nevada,  New  York  and  Oregon.  It  devolves 
upon  the  majority  of  the  Committee,  as  this 
was  reported  by  a majority  of  the  Committee, 
to  assign  some  reason  for  making  this  change  in 
the  phraseology  of  the  fifth  section.  I do  not 
suppose  that  this  section,  as  reported  by  the 
Committee,  makes  any  change  in  the  established 
law  of  the  State.  I suppose  that  it  is  just 
what  the  present  law,  under  the  pres- 
ent Constitution,  requires — that  any  person 
changing  his  residence,  or  his  apparent 
residence,  for  any  purpose  indicated  in 
this  fifth  section  would  still  retain  his  former 
residence.  He  would  not  acquire  a new  resi- 
dence. I shall  state  what  were  some  of  the 
principal  grounds  for  making  this  change. 
There  have  been  instances  in  this  State  in  which 
certain  persons  have  been  permitted  to  elect  in 
which  of  two  different  election  precincts  they 
will  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage.  Certain 


classes  of  persons,  I believe,  have  exercised 
this  privilege.  They  can  use  their  votes  where 
they  think  they  will  do  the  most  good— for  in- 
stance, students  attending  seminaries  and  in- 
stitutions of  learning.  It  has  been  the  practice, 
as  I am  informed,  under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, to  allow  students  attending  college  to 
make  such  election.  If  it  were  a matter  of 
convenience  for  them  to  vote  at  the  place  where 
they  were  attending  college,  and  if  the  politi- 
cal situation  required  it,  they  would  vote  there. 
If  it  was  a matter  of  interest  or  convenience  to 
vote  in  any  other  locality,  they  would  return 
to  their  place  of  residence  and  vote  there.  This 
is  one  of  the  purposes  which  the  Committee  had 
in  view  in  introducing  this  provision  in  the 
fifth  section.  I may  state  that  I suppose  there 
is  no  diversity  of  opinion  among  lawyers  but 
that  such  election  by  any  person  is  a violation 
of  the  present  law,  and,  I suppose,  is  subject  to 
the  penalties  of  law  for  voting  without  right 
in  the  locality  where  he  has  not,  in  fact,  estab- 
lished a residence.  But  it  has  been  practiced, 
and  it  has  been  practiced  in  disregard  of  pro- 
visions of  law.  That  is  the  principal  objection. 
Other  persons  who  are  similarly  situated,  what- 
ever may  be  their  calling,  come  within  the  pro- 
visions of  this  section.  The  object  of  the  Com- 
mittee was  to  give  every  elector  in  the  State  a 
right  to  vote  in  his  proper  locality,  but  to  pre- 
vent him  from  voting  in  any  other  locality. 
That  was  the  object  the  Committee  had  in 
view ; and  this  provision  being  one  which  was 
found  acceptable  in  a large  number  of  the  Con- 
stitutions of  other  States,  the  Committee  adopted 
it  in  the  language  in  which  it  was  found  in  the 
Constitution  of  New  York. 

This  is  the  change  which  is  assumed  to  be 
made,  and  for  this  particular  reason  the  change 
is  submitted  in  the  fifth  section.  If  it  meet  the 
approbation  of  the  Convention  it  will,  of 
course,  indorse  the  action  of  the  Committee.  If 
not,  it  will  not  do  so;  but  I have  explained  to 
the  Convention  what  induced  the  Committee  to 
make  this  change  in  the  fifth  section.  I hope 
that  all  of  the  provisions  of  the  Article  in  the 
present  Constitution  will  be  acceptable  to  every 
member  of  this  Convention,  so  far  as  they  go, 
that  being  the  only  change  that  I feel  that  it  is 
to  the  interest  of  this  Convention  to  adopt.  I 
do  not  wish  to  discuss  any  of  the  other  provi- 
sions of  this  Report,  at  this  time,  supposing 
that  there  are  no  objections  to  such  provisions. 
I think,  then,  as  the  field  of  controversy  is  so 
narrow,  so  far  as  the  Committee  are  concerned ; 
so  far  as  any  new  proposition  presented  in  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  is  concerned,  it  will 
not  occupy  much  of  the  time  of  this  Conven- 
tion. One  proposition  was  made  by  two  gen- 
tlemen of  the  Committee  as  it  appears  here. 
They  submit  this  request  expressing  themselves 
in  favor  of  adopting  an  additional  section  that 
reads  as  follows  : 

‘•Electors,  not  otherwise  disqualified,  who  may  have 
voluntered,  or  have  been  drafted  into  the  military  or  na- 
val service  of  the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of  sup- 
pressing a rebellion  or  insurrection,  or  repelling  an  in- 
vasion, shall  be  allowed  to  exercise  the  elective  franchise 
at  all  general  elections  held  in  this  State,  at  such  times 
and  places,  and  under  such  restrictions  and  safeguards, 
as  the  General  Assembly  may  prescribe.” 

This  was  recommended  by  two  members  of 
the  Committee.  But  as  upon  these  gentlemen 


1798 


[130th 


THE  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE. 

Sample,  Burns,  Neal. 


advocating  that  proposition  will  devolve  the 
burden  of  presenting  it,  if  they  desire  to  pre- 
sent it  for  the  consideration  of  the  Convention, 
and  of  urging  upon  the  Convention  such  con- 
siderations as,  in  their  judgment,  may  be  prop- 
er, and  as  it  may  not  be  brought  before  the 
Convention,  it  would  be  speculation  on  behalf 
of  the  Committee  if  I should  undertake  to  give 
reasons  for  being  opposed  to  the  introduction 
of  that  proposition,  and,  therefore,  shall  not  do 
it.  As  there  is  nothing  else  to  which  I desire 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  in  the 
Report  of  the  Committee,  I shall  not  occupy 
further  time. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I believe  the  subject  is  open 
for  general  discussion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  And  for  the  purpose  of  offer- 
ing amendments. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  yet.  Gentlemen 
may  give  notice  of  any  amendment  that  they 
intend  to  offer,  and  discuss  them  if  they  desire. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  propose  to  do  that 
now. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I give  notice  of  an  intention  to 
introduce,  as  section  seven  of  this  Article,  what 
will  be  found  embodied  in  the  proposition 
which  I had  the  honor  to  introduce — Proposi- 
tion No.  2 — at  the  early  part  of  the  session.  I 
would  state  that  I would  like  to  have  the  Con- 
vention consider  it  in  connection  with  the 
amendment  which  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns]  proposes  to  introduce.  I am 
not  particular  which  one  is  adopted,  so  that  one 
of  them  is  embodied  in  the  Constitution. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  7.  Electors,  not  otherwise  disqualified,  who  may- 
have  volunteered,  or  been  drafted  into  the  military  or  na- 
val service  of  the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of  sup- 
pressing a rebellion  or  insurrection,  or  of  repelling  an 
invasion,  shall  be  allowed  to  exercise  the  elective  fran- 
chise at  all  general  elections  held  in  this  State,  at  such 
times  and  places,  and  under  such  restrictions  and  safe- 
guards, as  the  General  Assembly  may  prescribe.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I offered,  in  Convention,  an 
amendment,  in  the  way  of  an  additional  section. 
I propose  to  offer  it  now,  or  at  least  give  notice 
that  I shall  offer  it  when  the  proper  time  comes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  an  additional  section  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  --.  When  any  of  the  qualified  electors  of  the 
State  shall  be  in  actual  military  service,  under  requisi- 
tion from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  by  the 
authority  of  this  State,  such  elector  may  exercise  the 
right  of  suffrage  in  all  elections  by  a citizen,  under  such 
regulations  as  are,  or  may  be  prescribed  by  law,  as  fully 
as  if  they  were  present  at  their  usual  place  ol  election. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I propose  to  say  now  what  I 
have  to  say  upon  that  subject.  There  is  no  pro- 
vision in  the  proposition  as  reported  by  the 
Committee,  which  reaches  the  question  or  ob- 
ject proposed  by  the  amendment.  It  is  copied 
from  the  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania,  and  it  is 
a provision,  the  necessity  of  which  has  been 
made  apparent  within  the  last  twelve  years.  In 
the  present  Constitution  no  such  provision  is 
found.  During  the  existence  of  the  war  of  the 
rebellion,  a large  number  of  our  voters  were 
drafted  into  the  military  service  of  the  United 
States  and  taken  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State. 
The  Legislature  undertook  to  provide  by  law 
for  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  by 


[Thursday, 


those  persons  thus  engaged  in  the  service  f the 
country. 

A law  was  passed,  and  I for  one,  believed, 
and  still  believe,  that  the  right  to  pass  such  a 
law  was  not  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution.  I 
did  not  then  believe,  nor  do  I now  believe,  that 
that  law  was  sanctioned  by  the  existing  Consti- 
tution of  the  State.  It  was  passed,  however. 
Its  constitutionality  was  tested  in  some  of  the 
lower  courts,  to  my  certain  knowledge,  but  I 
do  not  think  that  it  ever  reached  the  supreme 
court.  I am  corrected  in  that  statement  by  a 
gentleman  near  me,  but  I know  that  its  consti- 
tutionality was  maintained  in  the  decisions  with 
which  I am  personally  acquainted.  I am  in- 
formed by  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr. 
Sample],  that  the  matter  was  tested  by  the 
supreme  court,  and  in  that  I presume  he  is 
correct,  although  it  had  escaped  my  recollection. 
But,  notwithstanding  all  that,  that  decision  was 
made  by  the  supreme  court  at  a time  when  the 
war  fever  ran  high,  and  when  courts — the  lower 
courts  especially,  and  even  the  higher  courts — 
would  have  hesitated  long  before  they  would 
have  ventured  to  declare  that  law  unconstitu- 
tional. Without  desiring,  by  anything  I may 
say,  to  cast  any  reflections,  because  it  would  ill 
become  me  to  do  so,  upon  the  motives  or  influ- 
ences that  governed  any  of  the  courts  in  mak- 
ing the  decision  that  was  made,  but  I doubt  very 
much  whether  the  same  decision  would  have 
been  made  in  a time  of  profound  peace.  Now, 
whether  the  occasion  for  such  a decision  will 
ever  arise  again  in  this  country,  I do  not  know. 
I hope  it  will  not.  But  if  it  does,  that  a simi- 
lar law  will  be  passed,  and  that  like  decisions 
will  be  made,  I have  no  reason  to  doubt;  and, 
therefore,  for  the  purpose  of  placing  it  be- 
yond any  question,  and  of  placing  in  the  fun- 
damental law  of  the  State  what  I believe  ought 
to  be  there,  and  what  I think  would  be  per- 
fectly right  and  just  for  those  men  for  whose 
benefit  it  is  placed  there,  I think  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State  ought  to  contain  some  such 
provision  as  I have  proposed.  The  section 
which  is  found  in  the  Pennsylvania  Constitu- 
tion is  identical  with  the  one  which  I have 
proposed  here;  or,  rather,  the  one  which  I 
have  proposed  is  identical  with  that.  It  is 
found  in  section  six,  of  Article  VIII  of 
the  Constitution  recently  adopted  by  the  peo- 
ple of  Pennsylvania.  I think,  Mr.  President, 
that  this  section  will  meet — or,  at  least,  I hope 
it  will — with  the  approbation  of  this  entire  Con- 
vention ; and  not  only  that,  but  1 believe  it  will 
be  entirely  satisfactory  to  the  people  of  the 
State,  and  certainly  satisfactory  to  those  for 
whose  benefit  it  is  introduced.  It  does  not  in- 
clude, nor  is  it  intended  to  include,  those  who 
are  in  the  regular  service — in  the  regular  army 
of  the  United  States — because  I think  it  ought 
not  to  include  those  men.  They  have  made 
soldiering  a matter  of  business,  as  a matter  of 
livelihood,  as  a matter  of  choice,  and  for  a 
number  of  years  placed  themselves  in  the  mili- 
tary service  of  the  United  States,  subject  to  the 
order  of  the  commander-in-chief,  to  be  trans- 
ported wherever  their  services  may  seem  to  be 
required,  and  whenever,  in  his  judgment,  such 
change  of  residence  may  suit  the  convenience 
or  the  necessities  of  the.  government;  and, 
therefore,  I do  not  think  that  it  ought  to  include 


Day.] THE  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE. 1799 

March  5,  1874.]  Burns,  Gurley,  Baber,  Campbell,  Tuttle,  Miner. 


that  class  of  our  citizens  who  are  found  in  the 
military  service  of  the  United  States.  It  is  only 
intended  to  apply,  and,  I think,  only  does 
apply,  to  those  who  are  called  into  the  service 
at  the  behest  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  or  by  the  authority  of  Congress,  or  by 
the  authority  of  the  State,  into  the  volunteer 
service  of  the  country.  That  the  language  em- 
ployed is  perfect,  or  that  it  will  accomplish  the 
object  in  view,  I am  not  prepared  to  insist;  but 
I believe  it  comes  as  near  as  I can  make  it,  and 
I do  not  claim  the  paternity  of  the  language, 
by  any  means,  for,  in  that  respect,  I am  a mere 
copyist,  and  have  selected  the  language  of 
others. 

I hope,  therefore,  Mr.  President,  that,  before 
this  Article  shall  be  completed,  this  section 
shall  be  added  to  it,  and  become  a part  and  par- 
cel of  the  fundamental  law  of  the  State.  For 
the  present,  at  least,  that  is  all  I desire  to  say. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  If  there  is  no  other  member 
of  the  Committee  desirous  to  be  heard  on  this 
subject,  I move  that  general  debate  on  this 
Proposition  now  close.  If  there  are  any  oth- 
ers, however,  who  wish  to  speak,  I will  not 
insist  upon  the  motion. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell],  has  given  notice  that  he  wishes 
to  address  the  Convention  in  general  debate — 
for  he  could  not  do  it  I suppose  in  the  allotted 
ten  minutes — upon  the  subject  of  this  new  fea- 
ture proposed  to  be  introduced  into  the  Consti- 
tution. That  proposed  new  feature  is  taken 
from  a proposition  of  my  colleague  [Mr.  Rich- 
ly], who  is  absent,  and  it  is  warmly  advocated, 
as  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr. 
Sample],  by  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr. 
Scofield].  At  the  proper  time,  too,  I suppose 
there  are  gentlemen  who  desire  to  speak  upon 
that  question,  and  also  upon  the  subject  of  this 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  as  also  upon  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  s?me  rule  as  to  the  right  of 
soldiers  to  vote  should  not  be  applied  to  the  in- 
mates of  asylums;  so  that  their  votes  maybe 
returned  in  the  counties  where  they  belong  in- 
stead of  being  aggregated  to  control  the  local 
elections  of  any  one  county.  Those  are  ques- 
tions that  are  matters  of  general  debate.  I do 
not  desire  to  see  this  Convention  close  general 
debate,  so  that  whenever  the  question  of  amend- 
ment comes  up  some  gentleman  who  may  have 
a personal  fancy  on  the  subject  may  endeavor 
to  apply  a rule  to  one  member  which  is  not  ap- 
plied to  others.  The  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell],  I suppose,  would  desire  more 
than  ten  minutes  for  what  he  has  to  say. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  it  is  the  desire  of  the 
Convention  to  close  the  debate  this  evening,  as 
indicated  by  the  motion,  I certainly  shall  not 
put  in  any  claim  to  retard  the  progress  of  the 
business  of  the  Convention.  Being  feeble  to- 
day, I should  much  prefer  to  speak  on  this 
question,  as  it  is  very  important,  to-morrow. 
If  it  is  desired,  however,  to  close  the  general 
debate  this  evening,  I will  discuss  it  now. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  no  doubt  there  are 
several  gentlemen  here  who  desire  to  be  heard 
upon  the  subject. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I was  going  to  suggest  that  I 


would  rather  see  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
have  an  opportunity  to  speak  to-morrow. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  I do  not  finish  to-night 
I can  resume  in  the  morning. 

Mr.  MINER.  I do  not  think  the  gentleman 
ought  to  be  constrained  to  go  on  if  he  is  not  in 
robust  health. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I know  that  it  is  impor- 
tant that  the  business  of  the  Convention  should 
be  brought  to  a close,  and  I will  endeavor  to 
proceed. 

The  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley] 
obtained  leave  to  withdraw  his  motion. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Suffrage,  Mr.  President, 
is  the  great  foundation-stone  upon  which  rest 
the  superstructures  of  our  Federal,  State,  and 
local  governments.  All  the  powers  of  those 
in  authority  are  derived  through  the  medium  of 
the  ballot  from  the  people. 

The  stability  of  the  Republic  does  not  depend 
upon  the  number  of  voters  so  much  as  upon 
their  character  for  intelligence  and  virtue. 
Quality,  rather  than  quantity,  is  the  great  con- 
sideration. Washington,  the  wisest  and  per- 
haps the  best  of  American  statesmen,  to  whose 
counsels  in  these  latter  days  I fear  we  too  sel- 
dom recur,  said  in  his  farewell  address,  when 
he  was  about  to  retire  from  the  high  position  he 
had  occupied — and  I quote  from  memory,  giv- 
ing the  language  as  near  as  I can — “ In  propor- 
tion as  the  structure  of  a government  gives 
force  to  public  opinion,  it  is  important  that 
public  opinion  be  enlightened  and  virtuous.” 
The  amendment  which  I offer  proposes  to  strike 
out  that  sweeping  and  general  provision  which 
the  Standing  Committee  on  the  important  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  propose  to  interpolate  into  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  by  which 
aliens  owing  allegiance  to  foreign  powers,  and 
not  to  the  United  States,  are  to  be  permitted  to 
vote  and  to  hold  office. 

The  right  of  conferring  suffrage  has  been  re- 
ferred by  the  Federal  Constitution  to  the  States 
respectively,  and  it  has  never  been  exercised  by 
the  general  government  in  a single  instance. 
There  has  never  been  any  act  of  Congress  by 
which  it  has  undertaken  to  decide  who  may  and 
who  may  not  vote  in  the  States,  even  for  Feder- 
al officers — for  President  and  Vice  President, 
members  of  Congress,  &c.  The  matter  has 
been  left  exclusively  to  the  States,  and  the  right 
has  always  been  exercised  by  them. 

A citizen  of  the  United  States  is  not  always  a 
voter.  A man  may  be  a citizen  of  the  United 
States  throughout  his  whole  life,  and  yet,  by 
reason  of  the  provisions  of  State  Constitutions 
and  State  statutes,  be  deprived  of  the  right  to 
vote.  He  may  be  a tax-payer  all  the  time,  and 
yet  not  be  entitled  to  vote.  Let  me  give  an  illus- 
tration : By  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of 

Ohio,  as  it  has  prevailed  since  the  year  1802,  it  is 
required  that  a man,  in  order  to  become  a voter, 
shall  have  resided  twelve  months  within  the 
State.  The  same  provision  is  found  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  I may 
be  a tax-payer,  entitled  to  vote  in  the  State  of 
Ohio,  but  if,  on  the  day  before  the  annual  elec- 
tion I move  into  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  I 
cannot  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  there  until 
after  a residence  of  one  year.  I get  there  the 
day  before  election,  and  having  resided  in  the 
State  only  one  day,  I am  not  a voter;  but  if  I 


1800 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE.  [130th 

Campbell.  [Thursday, 


remain  I am  assessed  and  required  to  pay  taxes. 
At  the  end  of  eleven  and  a half  months,  for 
some  reason,  I return  to  Ohio,  again  changing 
my  residence,  where  I pay  taxes  again,  and  go 
back  to  Pennsylvania  before  the  expiration  of 
one  year.  Thus  I may  pass  backward  and  for- 
ward across  the  line  from  one  State  into  the 
other,  paying  taxes  in  both,  during  my  whole 
life,  without  becoming  a voter  in  either  under 
their  Constitutions  and  laws. 

It  may  be  well,  perhaps,  just  here,  to  refer 
to  the  character  of  our  naturalization  laws, 
which,  under  the  Federal  Constitution  can  only 
be  modified  by  Congress.  Ever  since  they  were 
enacted  until  very  recently,  the  right  to  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States  has  been  confined 
to  white  persons.  The  word  “white,”  so  far  as 
the  naturalization  laws  are  concerned,  is  still 
in  full  force,  with  one  exception,  to  which  I will 
allude.  Although  Mr.  Sumner  and  other  states- 
men have  been  very  diligent  in  striking  out 
that  word  “ white,”  whenever  it  has  been  found 
in  the  laws  of  Congress,  especially  those  apply- 
ing to  the  District  of  Columbia,  yet  neither  of 
the  political  parties,  nor  any  of  their  distin- 
guished statesmen  have  ever  yet  proposed  to 
modify  them  by  abrogating  that  restrictive  word 
“white.”  And  why?  Because  the  very  mo- 
ment that  should  be  done,  there  would  be  a 
popular  indignation  aroused  in  the  States  upon 
the  Pacific  slope.  Vast  numbers  of  the  “Hea- 
then Chinee,”  who  are  said  to  be  guilty  of 
“ ways  that  are  dark  and  tricks  that  are  vain,” 
are  there,  who  would  become  entitled  to  all  the 
rights  of  American  citizenship  on  the  same 
terms  as  the  German,  the  Irishman,  the  French- 
man or  other  European  emigrants.  That  is  the 
reason  the  word  “white”  is  retained.  But 
since  the  enfranchisement  of  those  of  African 
descent  in  the  United  States  by  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  amendments  to  the  Constitution, 
there  has  been  an  exception  made  in  favor  of 
the  foreign  African — not  by  a direct  repeal  of 
the  word  “ white,”  in  the  naturalization  laws, 
but  by  a provision  attached,  I am  informed,  to 
an  appropriation  bill,  whereby  it  has  been  pro- 
vided that  the  foreign-born  African  may  be- 
come a naturalized  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
Therefore,  if  the  wildest  specimen  that  Dr. 
Livingstone,  if  he  be  still  alive,  might  bring  here 
from  the  jungles  of  Africa,  could,  by  reason  of 
that  little  proviso  attached  to  an  appropria- 
tion bill,  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States, 
and,  thereby,  impose  on  our  government  the 
solemn  obligation  to  defend  him  in  his  rights 
as  such  with  their  army  and  navy — with  their 
last  man  and  their  last  dollar.  But  that  pro- 
vision does  not  apply  to  the  Chinaman  or  to  the 
Japanese  for  the  reason  that  they  are  not  white, 
neither  are  they  Africans.  Suppose,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, we  should  adopt  the  clause  which  has 
been  reported  by  the  honorable  Committee  that 
I have  moved  to  strike  out,  and  should  allow  all 
aliens  who  may  have  simply  declared  an  inten- 
tion to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States  to 
vote  and  hold  office,  to  whom  will  it  apply? 
Sir,  in  one  year  it  will  be  granted  not  only  to 
the  unnaturalized  foreigner  who  comes  here 
from  European  countries,  but  also  to  the  unnatu- 
ralized African  who  might  be  brought  over,  as 
I said  before,  by  Dr.  Livingstone;  and  should 
he  capture  in  the  jungles  of  that  benighted  land, 


or  elsewhere,  a specimen  of  the  connecting  link 
between  man  and  the  animal,  as  described  by 
the  theory  of  Darwin,  and  bring  him  to  Ohio, 
that  link  could  not  only  claim  to  become  a citi- 
zen of  the  United  States,  but  without  natural- 
ization, under  this  clause,  he  might  claim  to  be 
a sovereign,  a voter  and  an  office-holder.  By 
this  sweeping  and  general  section,  the  Chinese, 
the  Japanese,  and  even  the  Ashantees,  who  are 
now  at  war  with  England,  if  they  should  emi- 
grate here,  could  become  voters  and  office- 
holders on  a residence  of  one  year,  without 
becoming  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  taking 
upon  themselves  any  of  the  burdens  and  re- 
sponsibilities in  time  of  war. 

Does  not  the  Committee’s  Report  wander  a 
dangerous  distance  from  the  principle  laid 
down  by  Washington  as  the  safe  rule  for  a 
Republican  Government?  Intelligence  and 
virtue  would  be  the  best  test  upon  which  to 
confer  suffrage  if  we  were  now  considering  the 
question  de  novo,  because  where  these  qualifica- 
tions prevail,  there  is  no  more  reason  or  true 
philosophy  in  conferring  it  on  a white  man 
and  withholding  it  from  the  black  or  yellow 
fellow  mortal,  than  there  would  be  in  confer- 
ring it  on  a man  with  white  hair  on  his  head 
and  withholding  it  from  one  whose  hair  hap- 
pened to  be  black. 

By  the  recent  enfranchisement  of  those  who 
were  lately  slaves  and  others  of  African  descent, 
born  in  the  United  States,  without  reference  to 
the  test  of  intelligence  and  virtue,  we  have 
taken  serious  risks  to  the  stability  of  the  Re- 
public, and  I look  with  great  alarm  upon  the 
proposition  now  pending  to  confer  suffrage  in- 
discriminately, without  naturalization, upon  all 
persons,  black,  white,  or  copper  colored,  who 
may  flock  to  our  shores  from  all  parts  of  the 
earth. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  dangerous  to  confer  in- 
discriminately upon  aliens  of  every  class  from 
every  land  this  great  right  of  suffrage — “a  right 
inestimable  to  freemen  and  formidable  to  tyr- 
ants only.”  We  have  twice  been  at  war  with 
England,  the  most  formidable  European  power, 
and  it  is  possible  that  in  the  future,  and  during 
the  operation  of  this  Constitution  we  are  now 
making,  we  may  again  be  at  war  with  her  or 
some  other  great  power ; or  we  may  have  an- 
other rebellion  of  equal  danger  with  that  lately 
experienced.  Yet  it  is  seriously  proposed  to 
confer  the  power  to  vote  a disastrous  war  or 
make  a humiliating  and  disgraceful  peace  upon 
those  who  owe  allegiance,  not  to  our  own  stars 
and  stripes — the  “flag  of  beauty  and  glory” — 
but  to  the  flags  of  other  nations  who  might  de- 
sire to  compass  the  downfall  of  the  Great 
American  Republic.  For  my  part — and  I 
speak  for  myself  alone — until  I lose  what  little 
judgment  Almighty  God,  in  his  Providence, 
has  seen  fit  to  bestow  upon  me,  if  there  is  no 
other  man  in  this  Convention  or  within  the 
whole  length  and  breadth  of  America,  to  resist 
this  proposition,  I mean  to  do  so.  I will  now 
and  always  resist  the  adoption  of  any  provision 
to  confer  the  right  to  vote  and  hold  office,  on 
any  man,  black,  white  or  mixed,  whom  we 
cannot  compel  by  our  laws  to  light  on  our 
side  when  our  Republic  is  in  war  and  wlio 
might  be  compelled  to  fight  against  us  with  the 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Campbell,  Kraemer,  Carbery. 


1801 


Day.] 

March  5,  1874.] 


power  seeking  its  overthrow  through  the  blood 
and  carnage  of  the  battle-field. 

I have  had  some  experience  and  observation 
in  regard  to  the  self-sacrificing  patriotism 
and  disposition  of  aliens  owing  allegiance  to 
foreign  powers,  when  the  existence  of  our  Re- 
public was  imperiled.  When  the  war  of  the  re- 
bellion was  waged, many  native  born  Americans, 
and  v/ast  numbers  of  patriotic  naturalized  for- 
eigners from  other  lands,  volunteered  to  uphold 
the  flag  of  our  country.  They  went  forth  to  battle 
together — shoulder  to  shoulder — and  laid  down 
their  lives  a sacrifice  to  the  American  Union. 
I remember,  as  other  gentlemen  in  this  Conven- 
tion may  also  remember,  that  when,  in  the  dark 
days  of  the  war,  it  became  necessary  to  resort 
to  the  draft,  many  of  this  very  class  of  aliens 
now  proposed  to  be  clothed  with  the  power  to 
vote  and  to  hold  office,  when  drafted,  set  up 
their  allegiance  to  foreign  governments  as  a pro- 
tection against  the  privations  of  the  forced  war- 
march,  and  the  dangers  of  the  battle-field.  If 
anybody  here  knows  those  aliens  who,  when 
drafted,  did  not  make  that  defense,  I wish  he 
would  speak  now — not  all  at  once,  but  one  at  a 
time.  I never  heard  of  such. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I never  yet  knew  a man 
that  came  from  a foreign  country  who  ever 
sought  to  shield  himself  under  any  such  sub- 
terfuge. I know  thousands  of  them  who  vol- 
unteered. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Oh,  yes;  naturalized  for- 
eigners volunteered.  I know  full  well,  Mr. 
President,  that  they  did  volunteer,  and  I can 
give  an  instance  highly  creditable  to  the  patri- 
otism of  naturalized  citizens,  which  occurred 
in  my  own  little  city.  When  the  rebellion 
commenced,  the  day  after  the  proclamation  of 
President  Lincoln,  calling  for  seventy-five  thou- 
sand volunteers,  had  been  issued,  there  was 
great  excitement  throughout  our  land.  Fort 
Sumter  had  been  attacked.  I resided  in  the 
center  of  the  little  city,  where  my  home  still  is, 
and  had  been  up  pretty  late  the  night  before, 
and  so  slept  rather  long  the  next  morning.  I 
was  awakened  by  a great  noise.  A drum  and 
fife  band  in  the  street  disturbed  my  repose.  I 
thought  I was  tolerably  patriotic,  but  I felt 
somewhat  annoyed.  1 got  up,  went  to  the  front 
window,  looked  out,  and  there  was  presented 
to  my  sight,  passing  my  own  door,  the  spectacle 
of  a company  of  German  naturalized  citizens, 
on  their  way  to  report  in  the  city  of  Dayton, 
and  become  a part  of  the  First  Ohio  Volunteer 
Regiment.  They  went  to  the  battle-field,  and 
many  of  them  left  their  bones  there  to  bleach 
and  moulder  in  Southern  soil.  I am  not  at  all 
questioning  the  patriotism  of  the  naturalized 
foreigners.  They  were  generally  as  patriotic, 
I believe,  as  those  who  were  native  born ; but  I 
am  speaking  of  the  aliens  and  the  draft,  and  if 
the  gentleman  knows  of  a single  instance  where 
a foreigner  who  was  not  naturalized,  who  was 
still  an  alien  when  drafted,  and  agreed  to  stand 
the  draft,  I would  like  to  have  his  name  men- 
tioned. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I can  give  dozens  of  them. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I have  never  heard  of 
them  before.  The  Provost  Marshal’s  office  was 
within  twenty  steps  of  my  own  house,  in  a 
building  which  I own  myself.  I frequented  it 
night  and  day,  and  in  every  single  instance 


where  there  was  a draft  of  an  alien,  he  pleaded 
the  fact  that  he  owed  his  allegiance  to  a foreign 
government. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Does  the  gentleman  know 
of  any  instance  where  unnaturalized  foreign- 
ers presented  themselves  as  subjects  of  King 
Dives,  or  King  Rheumatism,  or  some  other 
king? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I have  no  doubt  that 
many  aliens  were  hired — employed  and  paid  to 
go  as  substitutes,  and  also  took  the  bounty. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  They  fought  and  died,  too. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Oh,  yes,  some  died,  and 
some  did  not  go  or  come  back,  either.  I am 
simply  stating  the  fact  that  I never  knew  an 
instance  where  an  alien  was  drafted  who  abided 
by  the  draft — not  one. 

A MEMBER.  They  would  not  get  him  on 
the  draft  list. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  Let  me  remind  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  that  possibly 
he  knows  of  persons  who  were  drafted,  and 
who  pleaded  that  they  were  not  naturalized, 
having  exercised  the  right  to  vote  under  a mis- 
apprehension ; but  does  the  gentleman  know  of 
an  instance  where,  upon  proof  being  given, 
that  in  exercising  the  right  of  suffrage  the  party 
was  under  a misapprehension,  he  was  released 
from  the  draft? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I do  not  know  how  that 
may  have  been.  I suppose  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  suffrage  might  have  been  regarded  as 
such  a claim  to  citizenship,  that  the  party 
might  have  been  held  under  it.  The  gentleman 
must  not  misunderstand  me.  I am  making  no 
attack  upon  the  patriotism  of  the  naturalized 
citizen.  On  the  contrary,  I have  just  given  an 
instance  where  they  showed  a more  prompt 
patriotism  than  the  rest  of  us,  for  I was  not 
ready  to  start  to  the  field  that  morning,  and  did 
not  go  until  several  months  afterwards.  I 
could  add  many  more  evidences  of  the  patriot- 
ism and  valor  of  our  naturalized  fellow-citizens 
— German  and  Irish.  My  remarks  are  confined 
to  the  action  of  those  who  were  drafted  aliens. 

It  is  unjust,  Mr.  President,  as  well  as  danger- 
ous to  confer  suffrage  upon  those  who  owe  their 
allegiance  to  foreign  powers.  Should  we  do 
it,  what  may  be  the  practical  effect?  Those 
who  are  already  naturalized,  and  those  who, 
during  the  late  war  assumed  their  full  share  of 
the  burdens  and  responsibilities  of  the  govern- 
ment and  the  dangers  of  the  battle-field,  as  well 
as  all  who  are  native-born,  could  be  called  off, 
ir.  the  event  of  another  war,  if  not  as  volun- 
teers, by  the  draft,  whilst  the  enfranchised 
alien  could  remain  at  home  enjoying  its  com- 
forts and  safety,  doing  the  voting  and  holding 
the  offices  too,  because  the  right  of  suffrage  car- 
ries with  it  the  right  to  hold  office. 

The  proposition  has  another  serious  point  of 
danger.  We  hear  a great  deal  about  the  com- 
binations of  the  money  power,  and  that  the 
railroad  companies  are  uniting  and  forming 
gigantic  monopolies  that  might  control  the  poli- 
tical destinies  of  the  country.  By  consolidation , 
it  is  said  such  monopolies  already  control  the 
great  thoroughfares  from  the  Atlantic  to  the 
Pacific  ocean,  and  their  stocks  and  bonds  are 


1802 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Campbell. 


[130th 

[Thursday, 


largely  held  by  foreign  capitalists.  Millions  of 
acres  of  the  public  lands  have  been  granted  by 
Congress  to  these  great  through  lines.  With 
the  money  of  these  railroad  interests,  with 
their  vast  land  grants,  and  the  wealth  of  bond- 
holders in  Europe — with  one  quarter  of  the 
money  of  the  Rothschilds  alone — through  the 
aid  of  emigration  societies  and  otherwise, 
enough  of  aliens  might  readily  be  brought  to 
this  country,  and  scattered  around  in  doubtful 
States  and  Congressional  districts,  at  any  time, 
to  control  our  foreign  and  domestic  policy,  and 
the  political  destiny  of  the  American  Republic. 
How  often  is  it  that  we  find  our  elections  are 
carried  by  very  small  majorities  ? An  instance 
just  now  occurs  to  my  mind.  Hot  a great  while 
since  I was,  myself,  a candidate  again  for  a seat 
in  Congress.  Thirty  thousand  votes  were  polled 
in  the  district,  and  my  majority  over  a very 
distinguished  competitor,  was  only  fifty-three. 
If  this  alien  suffrage  had  been  in  force  then,  it 
would  have  required  but  an  insignificant  part 
of  the  means  of  the  Rothschilds,  or  of  any 
other  foreign  money  power,  if  they  had  been  so 
disposed,  to  have  colonized  enough  aliens  into 
that  district  to  control  the  election.  Less  than 
one  quarter  of  a shipload  would  have  done  the 
work.  I could  cite  very  many  like  instances, 
in  congressional  districts  and  States,  to  show 
how  easily  the  great  money  power,  either  in 
America  or  Europe,  might  secure,  through  alien 
suffrage,  power  in  Congress,  or  carry  a Presi- 
dential election. 

Let  me  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention 
to  another  dangerous  feature  of  the  proposition 
to  confer  suffrage  on  aliens.  It  embraces  all 
classes  of  aliens,  and  is  in  no  manner  confined  to 
those  who  may  come  to  our  country  to  better 
their  condition,  to  escape  oppression  and  enjoy 
the  blessings  of  liberty.  It  will  confer  the  right 
to  vote  and  to  hold  office  upon  alien  felons  and 
paupers  who  may  be  shipped  from  all  other 
lands  to  our  country.  By  our  State  statute,  it 
is  provided  that  if  one  of  our  bullet-riddled 
Union  soldiers— naturalized  or  native-born— one 
who,  perchance,  had  fought  at  Chicamauga,  at 
Chancellorsville,  at  Gettysburg,  and  with 
Hooker  in  “the  battle  above  the  clouds,”  should, 
when  driven  by  poverty  in  mid-winter,  to  the 
verge  of  starvation,  steal  an  old  blind  horse, 
stringhalt,  spavined,  and  afflicted  with  all  the 
other  ills  to  which  horse-flesh  is  heir,  he  will 
be  indicted  for  felony.  He  will  be  tried,  and, 
if  convicted — although  the  old  horse  may  not 
be  worth  five  dollars — your  veteran  soldier 
must  go  to  the  penitentiary,  and  be  forever  de- 
prived of  the  right  to  vote  or  hold  office,  unless 
pardoned  by  the  Governor.  This  is  what  we 
do  with  our  country’s  defenders;  and  yet,  we 
are  about  to  provide  in  our  Constitution  that 
the  felon  from  other  lands — the  murderer — who 
may  escape  and  flee  to  America,  with  his  hands 
still  red  with  the  blood  of  his  own  wife,  mother 
or  child,  shall  be  made  a sovereign,  clothed 
with  power  to  vote,  hold  offices  and  enact  out- 
laws. The  same  may  be  said  also  as  to  alien 
paupers.  Do  not  gentlemen  know  that  large 
numbers  of  paupers  have  been  sent  here  from 
other  countries,  some  of  them  bringing  into 
our  midst  poverty,  disease  and  death  ? Go  into 
the  city  of  Hew  York,  now,  and  you  will  find 
that  the  authorities  there  have  recently  taken 


this  matter  in  hand,  and  especially  the  extensive 
traffic  in  pauper  Italian  children.  Foreign  au- 
thorities have  sent  hither  large  numbers  of 
their  paupers,  and  turned  them  loose  upon  us 
in  a penniless  and  starving  condition.  Hot 
many  years  since  the  government  of  Belgium 
had  under  serious  discussion  the  question 
whether  it  would  not  be  better,  as  a matter  of 
economy,  to  send  their  paupers  and  felons  to 
America,  and  thus  avoid  the  expense  of  con- 
structing penitentiaries  and  poor-houses. 
Whilst  such  is  their  policy,  we  are  seriously 
proposing  to  clothe  those  classes  with  all  the 
sacred  rights  of  American  citizenship,  without 
subjecting  them  to  the  duty  of  taking  up  the 
bayonet  in  our  behalf  in  time  of  war.  When 
our  native  and  naturalized  citizens  shall  have 
gone  to  the  war,  they  are  to  stay  at  home  and 
rule  the  country. 

There  is  still  another  view  of  this  matter 
which  I desire  to  present.  I refer  to  the  move- 
ment in  favor  of  woman  suffrage.  It  is  not  my 
purpose  to  discuss  the  merits  of  that  proposition. 
I know  it  will  be  ably  and  eloquently  handled 
by  the  gentlemen  of  the  Committee  who  have 
charge  of  it.  Hor  will  I now  indicate  how  I 
will  vote  on  that  question,  as  I have  enough  on 
my  hands  in  the  discussion  of  alien  suffrage  to 
exhaust  my  little  strength. 

How,  I can  see  a number  of  reasons  for  giv- 
ing our  citizen  women  the  right  to  vote,  were  I 
satisfied  that  a majority  of  them  seriously  de- 
sire it.  True,  the  women  did  not  go  to  the  bat- 
tle-field, with  muskets  and  bayonets  in  their 
hands,  and  fight  to  put  down  the  rebellion ; but 
they  did  render  services  at  home  during  the 
war  equally  as  valuable  as  fighting,  and  highly 
auxiliary  to  the  success  of  the  Union  Army. 
With  a self-sacrificing  patriotism  they  encour- 
aged their  sons,  their  brothers  and  their  hus- 
bands to  go  forth  to  battle  in  defense  of  our 
flag.  They  organized  everywhere  in  cities, 
villages  and  townships,  their  aid  societies,  fur- 
nished supplies  and  ministered  to  the  necessi- 
ties of  our  sick,  wounded  and  dying  Union  sol- 
diers, who  fought  the  good  fight.  They  did 
their  full  share  in  saving  the  Republic.  If  the 
alternative  were  presented  to  me  as  a member 
of  this  Convention,  of  enfranchising  our  citi- 
zen women  or  the  male  alien,  and  I should  have 
ten  thousand  votes,  I would  give  nine  thousand 
nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  to  woman 
before  I would  give  one  to  aliens,  including 
felons  and  paupers.  To  any  just  person,  it 
would  seem  a hardship  indeed,  to  confer  this 
great  privilege  upon  the  ignorant  alien — the 
Chinaman,  the  Japanese,  the  Ashantees,  and 
to  everything  that  wears  human  hair  from  any 
part  of  God’s  earth,  because  they  are  “ males,” 
and  yet  withhold  it  from  the  American  woman 
who  may  desire  it,  for  the  only  reason  that  she 
is  a female.  Without  wandering  very  far  for 
an  illustration  of  the  hardship,  I cau  give  one 
within  the  circle  of  my  own  family  relations, 
if  the  Convention  will  pardon  me  for  so  doing. 
I have  a mother — God  bless  her! — still  living. 
She  is  to-day  about  eighty-nine  years  old,  in 
good  health,  and  is  residing  on  the  same  tract 
of  land  in  this  State  to  which,  while  a little  girl, 
she  went  with  her  father  in  1796.  She  might 
be  considered  loyal  to  the  government,  at  least, 
because  her  father  served  at  the  age  of  seven- 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Campbell,  Sample,  Miner. 


1803 


Day.] 

March  5,  1874.] 


teen  in  the  war  of  the  American  Revolution 
under  Montgomery,  and  was  with  him  through 
his  terrible  campaign  to  the  northern  frontier. 
Her  husband  served  in  the  war  with  England 
of  1812,  under  General  Harrison.  Her  son  and 
two  grandsons  served  in  the  war  of  the  re- 
bellion. She  is  as  intelligent  as  most  women, 
well  posted  in  public  affairs,  and  pays  her  taxes 
promptly.  Would  it  not  seem  a great  injustice 
to  such*a  woman — and  there  are  very  many 
others  having  claims  equal  to  hers— to  enfran- 
chise foreign  paupers  and  felons  and  not  confer 
it  on  her  if  she  desired  it? 

Without  intending,  Mr.  President,  to  throw 
any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris],  who  has  the  question  of 
woman  suffrage  in  his  keeping,  I wish  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  condition 
in  which  we  will  place  Ohio  should  we  em- 
body in  the  Constitution  both  alien  and  woman 
suffrage,  as  is  proposed  by  the  two  Committees 
respectively.  What  would  be  the  practical  ef- 
fect? We  would  then  have  as  citizens  and  en- 
titled to  vote,  to  hold  office  and  make  laws,  not 
only  the  white  and  black  native  born  males, 
the  white  and  African  naturalized  citizens;  but 
also  the  alien  males  from  all  parts  of  the  earth, 
and  the  females,  too,  embracing  the  Chinese, 
Japanese  and  Ashantee  women.  Gentlemen 
who  favor  woman  suffrage  here  must  look  to 
this  legal  consequence  of  this  first  section  whilst 
we  are  considering  the  amendment  to  it  which 
I have  proposed.  I doubt  very  much  whether 
the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Sir.  Voris],  with 
all  his  gallantry  and  his  devotion  to  woman’s 
cause,  and  those  who  co-operate  with  him,  will 
be  found  willing  to  adopt  a clause  which  will 
confer  this  great  boon  of  suffrage  upon  all  the 
ignorant  and  degraded  women  who  may  come 
or  be  sent  here  from  all  parts  of  the  globe.  I 
call  upon  all  who  are  here  to  make  a Constitution 
for  three  millions  of  people  and  their  posterity, 
to  consider  calmly  and  dispassionately  the 
points  I have  presented. 

Mr.  President,  why  has  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee brought  forward  this  extraordinary 
proposition  for  alien  suffrage  ? Will  the  honor- 
able Chairman,  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton 
[Mr.  Sample],  inform  us  whether  there  has  been 
a single  petition  presented  to  the  Convention 
asking  such  an  amendment? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I will  say,  Mr.  President, 
that  I am  not  able  to  answer.  There  were  a 
good  many  petitions,  and  there  were  proposi- 
tions from  gentlemen  who  urged  the  matter 
earnestly  and  zealously. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I know  that  more  than 
twro  hundred  propositions  to  amend  the  Consti- 
tution have  been  introduced  by  members — and 
some  of  them  most  unwise — that  have  been 
urged  by  them  earnestly  and  zealously.  But 
the  people  have  not  petitioned  for  them,  and  if 
adopted  by  us  they  will  reject  our  work.  They 


certainly  will  if  we  adopt  this  first  section  as 
the  Committee  have  reported  it. 

Mr.  President,  Ohio  has  been  a successful 
State  of  the  American  Union  nearly  three-quar- 
ters of  a century,  and  no  man,  woman  or  child, 
no  citizen  or  inhabitant  has  petitioned  for  alien 
suffrage  now.  On  no  part  of  the  globe,  per- 
haps, can  be  found  an  equal  area  of  territory  in 
which  more  rapid  progress  has  been  made  in 
moral,  intellectual  and  physical  development. 
A short  time  since,  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  eloquently  portrayed  her  position. 
Her  population  has  risen  to  nearly  three  mil- 
lions. She  has  about  five  thousand  miles  of 
railroads,  four  hundred  newspapers,  about 
eighteen  thousand  libraries,  one  hundred  and 
sixty-four  colleges  and  universities,  twelve 
thousand  public  schools,  with  twenty-five 
thousand  teachers  and  eight  hundred  thous- 
and children  attending  them,  receiving  those 
impressions  that  are  to  fit  them  for  the  duties  of 
this  life  and  the  great  responsibilities  of  the  life 
eternal;  and  she  has  more  than  six  thousand 
church  edifices.  One  of  Ohio’s  sons,  who  led 
the  Union  armies  to  victory  when  the  Great 
Republic  was  in  peril,  occupies  the  Presiden- 
tial chair.  Another  is  the  General  and  another 
the  Lieutenant  General  of  the  American  army. 
Another,  recently  taken  from  the  Presidency  of 
this  Convention,  took  his  seat  yesterday  as  Chief 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  of  which  still  another  is  an  associate 
justice.  Others  are  in  the  Cabinet  and  are  min- 
isters plenipotentiary  to  the  most  important 
foreign  courts  in  both  hemispheres.  Ohio 
has,  therefore,  now  the  highest  rank  in  our 
great  family  of  States.  To  her  I am  indebted 
for  all  that  I am  and  all  that  I ever  have  been. 
She  has  been  to  me  a kind  mother  indeed  : — her 
constitution  and  laws  have  protected  me  from 
the  cradle  to  the  present — more  than  three 
score  years,  and  her  generous  citizens  have 
often  conferred  honors  on  me  far  beyond  my 
deserts.  Warned  by  the  inexorable  law  of 
nature,  if  not  by  the  feeble  condition  of  my 
health,  that  in  a few  fleeting  years  at  farthest, 
the  clods  of  one  of  her  most  beautiful  valleys 
where  I was  born,  will  cover  my  mortality,  it 
is  in  the  spirit  of  gratitude  for  the  past  and  of 
hope  that  we  may  secure  her  future  glory  and 
the  welfare  of  posterity,  that  I earnestly  appeal 
to  this  Convention  to-day  to  strike  out  the 
clause  which  proposes  to  confer  suffrage  on 
aliens  whilst  they  owe  allegiance  to  foreign 
powers  that  are  inimical  to  Republican  insti- 
tutions. Strike  it  out  and  avoid  all  other  such 
dangerous  experiments,  and  our  State  will 
quicken  and  lengthen  her  strides,  and  soon 
occupy  the  van  in  the  God-directed  march  of 
Nations,  States  and  Peoples,  in  Human  Progress 
and  Christian  Civilization. 

Mr.  MINER.  I move  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn.  The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:45  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


1804 


[131st 


THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION 

Miller,  Blose,  Hill,  Pond.  [Friday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY-FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SIXTY-NINTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to 
adjournment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  Y.  Boyce,  of  the  First 
Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  78  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Messrs.  Pratt  and  Woodbury. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PETITIONS  AND  MEMORIALS. 

Mr.  MILLER  presented  the  petition  of  Mrs.  J. 
Knox,  and  378  other  citizens  of  Darke  county, 
praying  that  a clause  be  inserted  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  State,  giving  to  the  Legislature 
power  to  regulate,  limit  or  prohibit  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks,  and 
prescribe  what  drinks  are  intoxicating,  and  to 
give  townships,  cities  and  villages  power  to 
regulate  the  same. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  BLOSE  presented  the  memorial  of  John 
Ollinger,  E.  T.  Weakly,  and  86  other  citizens 
of  New  Carlisle,  Clarke  county,  protesting 
against  the  incorporation  of  anything  into  the 
Constitution  that  shall  tend  to  open  the  road 
for  uniting  Church  and  State,  or  that  shall  tend 
to  place  any  citizen  in  a prejudicial  or  inferior 
position  under  the  Constitution  on  account  of 
his  religion. 

Also,  the  memorial  of  John  N.  Allen,  Thos. 
F.  McGrew,  and  130  other  citizens  of  Clarke 
county,  on  the  same  subject. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Elective  Franchise. 

Mr.  BLOSE  presented  the  petition  of  John 
P.  Allen,  J.  A.  Frank,  and  90  other  citizens  of 
Clarke  county,  asking  that  this  Convention  pro- 
vide for  equal  taxation  of  all  property — church 
property  included. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Revenue  and  Taxation. 

THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION. 

Mr.  HILL.  I rise  to  a question  of  privilege. 
When  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Ex- 
penses reported  some  days  since,  in  obedience 
to  a resolution  of  the  Convention,  they  were 
convinced  that  the  bill  for  stationery  was  extra- 
ordinary. That  statement  was  made  in  a spirit 
of  candor,  and  without  an  intention  to  do  injus- 
tice to  any  one.  As  soon  as  that  Report  and 


Friday,  March  6,  1874. 

statement  had  been  received  and  read,  a mem- 
ber of  this  Convention  hastened  to  the  presence 
of  the  Secretary  of  State,  assuring  him  that  our 
report  was  ex  parte , and  calculated  to  do  him 
injustice.  Thereupon,  a dispatch  was  sent  to 
this  Convention  asking  that  the  Secretary  might 
be  heard  in  explanation  of  the  prices  and  mode 
of  purchasing  stationery.  In  good  faith,  no 
doubt,  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]  moved  to  refer  the  dispatch  to  the 
Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses,  which 
motion  was  agreed  to.  That  Committee  is  pre- 
pared to  give  Mr.  Wikoff  a candid  and  cour- 
teous hearing,  although  his  chief  clerk  has  been 
repeatedly  before  the  Committee  on  the  same 
subject.  Almost  as  soon  as  the  dispatch  was 
received  by  the  Convention,  scurrilous  imputa- 
tions were  heaped  upon  the  Committee  in  the 
public  prints.  Whether  these  attacks  were  in- 
stigated by  the  Secretary,  his  employes,  or  next 
friend,  I do  not  pretend  to  say ; but  I am  con- 
vinced they  appeared  to  parry  the  effects  of  a 
supposed  attack  made  by  the  Committee,  which 
was  all  imaginary.  It  makes  no  difference 
from  what  quarter  they  came,  the  wretch  who 
would  attempt  to  bolster  any  cause  by  resorting 
to  such  means  is  beneath  contempt.  On  yes- 
terday, while  temporarily  absent,  a resolution 
was  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock],  and  adopted,  appointing  another 
Committee  to  investigate  the  stationery  grab. 
I regard  this  as  very  uncourteous  to  the  Com- 
mittee to  whom  the  dispatch  of  the  Secretary 
was  referred.  If  there  is  any  intention  of 
whitewashing  any  of  the  parties  concerned  in 
the  stationery  grab,  I hope  the  Committee  will 
be  composed  of  the  special  friends  of  Mr.  Wi- 
koff, that  the  matter  may  be  reported  upon  at 
the  earliest  practicable  moment,  that  the  Con- 
vention may  proceed  with  its  legitimate  work. 
I,  therefore,  ask  to  be  excused  from  serving  on 
the  new  committee  of  investigation. 

Mr.  POND.  I suppose  that  I am  the  gentle- 
man who  hurried  in  hot  haste,  according  to  the 
remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr. 
Hill],  to  Columbus,  to  interview  the  Secretary 
of  State.  On  my  way  home,  I did  stop  in 
Columbus.  L did  interview  the  Secretary  of 
State.  I did  it,  casually,  on  my  passage  to  my 
home,  and  not  going  there  for  that  purpose  at 
all,  as  any  citizen  of  this  State  of  Ohio  had  a 
right  to  do;  neither  do  I understand  now,  that 
it  ought  to  be  subject  to  reflection  from  the 
gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill],  or  any- 
body else. 

I saw  the  Secretary  of  State.  I have  known 
him  for  years,  and  I say  to  this  Convention  to- 


THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION 

Pond,  Hitchcock,  Hill. 


1805 


Day.] 

March  6,  1874.] 


day,  as  I will  say  elsewhere,  that  he  is  incapa- 
ble of  doing  injustice  to  the  State  or  anybody 
else,  and  the  reflection  now  insisted  upon,  as 
against  him,  is  unjust  and  uncalled  for.  I did  be- 
lieve, until  this  morning,  until  I heard  the 
remarks  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Ashland, 
that  the  Committee,  in  making  their  Report, 
intended  no  reflection  upon  him,  and  so  did  the 
Secretary  of  State  believe.  I happened  there 
as  the  publication  appeared,  and  the  Secretary 
of  State  assured  me  that  he  was  sorry  that  such 
a communication  should  come  through  the 
papers  at  all ; that  he  did  not  instigate  it,  and 
he  did  not  believe,  neither  did  I believe  at  that 
time,  that,  as  the  gentleman  intimates  in  his 
remarks,  any  one  of  his  subordinates  instigated 
it.  Mr.  Wikoff,  I understand,  as  I told  the 
gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill],  himself, 
on  yesterday,  disclaims  knowing  anything 
about  that  article,  and  was  indignant  that  it  had 
been  published.  If  the  efforts  of  members 
upon  this  floor  were  to  obtain  the  facts  in  a 
matter  of  that  sort,  that  would  be  well ; but 
it  impresses  itself  upon  my  mind,  that  the 
intention  of  that  Committee,  when  they  made 
that  Report,  was  to  cast  a stigma  upon  the 
fair  name  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  Neither 
is  there  any  attempt  to  whitewash  the  Secre- 
tary of  State.  The  object  of  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  on  yester- 
day, was  not  to  that  end.  But,  sir,  the  Com- 
mittee did  present  a statement,  prepared  at  their 
instance,  to  Robert  Clarke  & Co.,  to  get  the 
prices  for  which  they  would  furnish  material 
to  this  Convention,  without  indicating  the  qual- 
ity of  the  material,  in  any  particular,  and 
then  attempt  to  offset  that  against  the  Sec- 
retary of  State’s  material,  regardless  of  the 
quality  of  the  material  furnished  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  State.  I ask  this  Convention,  if  that 
should  be  discussed  in  that  shape,  by  the  people 
of  the  State,  for  it  has  been  scattered  broadcast, 
and  the  natural  conclusion  from  that  ex  parte 
Report  is,  that  the  conduct  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  has  been  wrong?  As  I said  before,  I did 
not  believe,  when  the  Committee  made  that 
Report,  that  that  was  intended.  But  I cannot 
help  believing  it  now;  for  the  language  used 
this  morning,  carries  with  it  the  purpose.  At 
any  rate,  the  Chairman  of  that  Committee,  in 
making  the  Report  which  he  did  make,  speaks 
of  an  attempt  to  whitewash  the  Secretary  of 
State  by  his  friends,  and  asks  himself  excused  : 
thus  intimating  that  he  is  not  one  of  his  friends, 
ajid  wishes  it  to  be  in  the  hands  of  his  friends. 

He  says,  himself,  that  the  Secretary  of  State 
was  not  interviewed  by  him  upon  this  subject. 
It  surprised  me,  sir,  that  the  chief  officer  who  is 
to  be  attacked  by  that  Committee,  was  never 
spoken  to  by  that  Committee.  It  leaves  the  im- 
pression upon  my  mind,  clearly,  that  there  was 
an  intention  to  do  injustice;  and  I insist,  that, 
if  the  gentleman  has  acted  in  good  faith,  that  he 
now  remain  on  the  Committee,  and  see  that  no 
whitewashing  be  done. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I regret  exceedingly, 
Mr.  President,  that  my  connection  with  the 
resolution,  introduced  on  yesterday,  which  is 
referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Ashland 
[Mr.  Hill]  as  a studied  attempt  to  cast  an 
insult  upon  one  of  the  standing  Committees  of 
this  Convention,  makes  it  necessary  for  me,  in 


a word  or  two,  to  give  my  connection  with  this 
subject. 

Some  days  since,  a dispatch  was  received 
from  one  of  the  officers  of  the  State,  by  the 
presiding  officer  of  this  Convention,  and  by 
him  laid  before  this  body,  saying  that  injustice 
had  been  done  that  officer,  and  asking  for  an 
investigation.  I introduced  that  resolution, 
after  a number  of  days  had  elapsed,  providing 
for  such  an  investigation.  Upon  the  introduc- 
tion of  that  resolution,  I was  informed  by  the 
Chair  that  the  dispatch  from  the  Secretary 
of  State  had  been  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Accounts  and  Expenditures.  The  question 
was  asked  if  any  instructions  were  given.  The 
Chair  replied,  none.  All  this  in  the  presence 
of  the  Convention,  and  the  resolution  was 
unanimously  adopted,  no  gentleman  rising  to 
his  feet  and  protesting  against  the  propriety  of 
the  introduction  of  the  resolution,  or  saying 
one  word  against  its  adoption,  or  the  investiga- 
tion provided  for  by  it. 

The  charge  contained  in  the  remarks  of  the 
gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill]  is  a charge 
upon  the  animus  of  this  Convention,  of  an 
insult  intended  to  one  of  its  Committees.  I 
do  not  believe  the  Convention  intended  any- 
thing of  the  kind  by  its  action.  I think  the 
gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill]  hasty  in 
the  remarks  which  he  made.  I have  not  to  say 
whether  the  gentleman  remain  upon  the  Com- 
mittee, or  be  excused,  in  accordance  with  his 
request,  or  not.  I have  only  this  to  say  in  ad- 
dition : The  Chair,  as  is  frequently  the  case, 
asked  me  to  name  gentlemen  to  serve  upon  that 
Committee,  and  I did  name  one  gentleman — 
the  gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill] — and 
requested  that  he  might  be  placed  upon  the 
Committee.  I may  have  named  another  who  is 
placed  upon  that  Committee — the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond].  I am  not  quite  cer- 
tain ; perhaps  the  Chair  recollects.  If  I did, 
then  there  are  two  on  that  Committee  whom  I 
recommended,  but  not  another  gentleman 
whose  name  appears  on  that  Committee  did  I 
name  to  the  President.  I think  I am  correct  in 
the  statement,  as  the  President  will  bear  me 
out. 

Mr.  President,  I believe  that  any  one  who  is 
serving  the  State  in  a public  capacity,  and  de- 
mands an  investigation,  is  entitled  to  receive  it 
at  the  hands  of  those  before  whom  it  is  sup- 
posed that  this  charge  of  want  of  fidelity  is 
made.  Now,  I made  the  remark  on  introducing 
the  resolution  on  yesterday,  that  I did  not  be- 
lieve that,  at  the  introduction  of  this  Report, 
there  was  any  intention  to  do  the  Secretary  of 
State  any  injustice,  and  I have  no  different 
statement  to  make  at  this  time;  but  I had  not 
the  information  as  fully  before  as  after  the  in- 
troduction of  the  resolution,  and,  perhaps,  I 
ought  to  have  waited ; but  a number  of  daj’-s 
had  elapsed,  and  I thought  it  important  that  the 
request  of  the  officer  should  be  complied  with. 

Mr.  HILL.  That  dispatch  came  down  when 
I was  absent,  and  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  was  made  in  my 
absence.  The  dispatch  was  never  laid  before 
our  Committee  by  the  Secretary.  We  have 
been  waiting;  we  expected  to  treat  that  dis- 
patch with  all  the  respect  that  was  due  it.  I 
think  that  the  members  of  my  Committee, 


] 806 


THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION. 

Hill,  Pond,  Powell. 


riBist 

[Friday, 


among  whom  are  two  very  prominent  Repub- 
licans— one  has  been  Lieutenant  Governor  of 
the  State — will  bear  me  witness  in  this,  that, 
after  hearing  two  or  three  times  the  statement 
of  the  chief  clerk  of  the  Secretary  of  State  in 
Columbus,  concerning  these  very  items,  it  was 
proposed  to  make  the  Report  in  August  last, 
and  that  I objected  because  a political  campaign 
was  then  about  to  be  inaugurated,  and  it  would 
have  the  appearance  of  a political  document; 
and  it  was  through  my  advice  and  urgency  that 
the  Report  was  withheld.  We  simply  reported 
the  amount  of  stationery  at  that  time.  Another 
resolution  has  been  offered  here  which  asks  not 
only  the  amount  of  stationery  and  the  expense, 
but  precisely  how  much  each  member  has  used. 
I am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  this  Conven- 
tion has  never  used  forty  dollars’  worth  of  sta- 
tionery per  head;  has  never  used  thirty  dollars, 
nor  twenty-five  dollars,  nor  twenty  dollars 
worth  per  head.  We  called  upon  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms  to  tell  us  what  had  been  done  with  the 
stationery.  He  was  unable  to  tell,  except  sim- 
ply this:  “We  have  scattered  it  upon  the 

desks  of  members;  but  the  amount  that  each 
member  has  had,  I do  not  know;  because  I 
never  kept  any  account.”  He,  therefore,  could 
not  tell  how  much  each  member  has  received. 
I say  this,  that  when  he  or  any  other  man  will 
come  forward  and  specify  that  he  gave  me  fif- 
teen dollars  worth,  under  oath,  I will  disprove 
that ; and  I believe  that  there  are  seventy -five 
other  members  in  the  same  condition. 

A MEMBER.  One  hundred  and  five. 

Mr.  HILL.  Yes,  one  hundred  and  five,  per- 
haps. What  has  become  of  the  stationery? 

Now,  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond] 
undertakes  to  say  that  this  investigation  has 
been  carried  on  in  a spirit  of  spite  towards  the 
Secretary  of  State ! I ask  my  Committee  to  say 
whether,  in  any  instance,  I have  evinced  that 
temper.  I ask  any  gentleman  of  this  Conven- 
tion to  say  whether  our  Report  was  not  humili- 
ating in  its  effort  to  favor  the  Secretary  of  State  ? 
I have  been  reproved  more  than  once  for  it.  I 
was  told  that  if  I “threw  a crumb  to  a savage  I 
would  be  bitten ;”  and  now  I believe  it.  I have 
done  all  that  I could  in  the  proper  discharge  of 
my  official  duties,  to  guard  the  reputation  of 
the  Secretary  of  State.  We  have  been  ready  to 
hear  his  statement;  and  now  stand  ready  to 
hear  any  statement  in  explanation  of  the  prices 
of  stationery.  If,  as  it  is  claimed,  that  station- 
ery was  handed  him  by  his  predecessor  at  extra- 
ordinary prices,  all  that  is  necessary  for  him  to 
do  is,  to  show  that  it  is  so.  We  have  no  dispo- 
sition to  indict  him  without  a hearing.  We 
never  saw  the  man.  We  sent  for  him  to  come 
before  the  Committee,  and  he  sent  his  chief 
clerk. 

Now,  then,  I will  ask  the.  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  if  he  did  not  write  that  dis- 
patch himself? 

Mr.  POND.  I did  not. 

Mr.  HILL.  Did  you  dictate  it? 

Mr.  POND.  I was  there  when  it  was  writ- 
ten ; I did  not  dictate  it. 

Mr.  HILL.  Well,  then,  I have  been  misin- 
formed, and  the  gentleman  is  entitled  to  the 
disavowal.  I exculpate  him.  That  he  was  in 
the  presence  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  dic- 


tated the  phraseology  and  spirit  of  the  dispatch, 
was  what  I was  informed. 

Now,  then,  there  is  no  intention  on  the  part 
of  the  committee,  certainly  not  on  my  part,  to 
do  the  Secretary  injustice;  and  now  it  is  pro- 
posed to  have  another  committee,  and  send  for 
persons  and  papers  at  a great  expense  to  the 
State,  when  one  hour  of  the  Secretary  before 
our  Committee,  will  explain  the  whole  thing 
without  expense.  We  will  do  him  justice,  even 
if  we  have  to  take  back  what  seems  to  be  injus- 
tice on  our  part.  I do  not  wish  to  have  gen- 
tlemen say  that  I cast  reproach  upon  the  Sec- 
retary, or  upon  the  Convention,  or  the  motives 
of  any  gentleman.  I think  that  when  my  com- 
mittee was  already  in  possession  of  the  com- 
munication by  the  action  of  this  Convention,  if 
it  should  be  now  taken  out  of  our  hands  it 
would,  at  least,  be  liable  to  suspicion ; but  if 
gentlemen  think  it  is  all  right,  let  it  be  so;  but 
I do  not  wish  to  serve  on  the  new  committee. 

Mr.  POND.  Does  the  gentleman  insist  that 
it  is  to  be  in  the  hands  of  a white-washing 
committee? 

Mr.  BILL.  I say  if  it  is,  let  it  be  in  the 
hands  of  his  friends  to  do  that,  not  mine.  I be- 
lieve that  the  committee  appointed  will  give  us 
the  whole  facts.  I have  no  other  idea,  but  if  it 
is  simply  to  take  it  out  of  my  committee  to  do 
anything  else,  then  I wish  to  be  excused  from 
serving. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  say  why  he 
never  interviewed  the  Secretary  of  State  at  all? 

Mr.  HILL.  I never  could  see  him.  I was 
there  four  or  five  times. 

Mr.  POND.  He  is  always  there. 

Mr.  HILL.  I have  been  there  four  or  five 
times,  and  never  have  had  an  opportunity  of 
seeing  him.  His  chief  clerk  came  to  the  com- 
mittee room  two  or  three  times.  I always 
found  his  chief  clerk  in  the  office,  but  never 
saw  the  Secretary  of  State.  I possibly  may 
have  seen  him  on  the  street,  but  would  not 
recognize  him  now.  I do  not  know  him. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I much  regret  this  matter* 
very  much  indeed.  I have  no  doubt  that  the 
gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill],  and  his 
Committee  have  acted  in  perfect  good  faith,  and 
I can  readily  excuse  anything  that  may  appear 
as  harsh  words  this  morning,  in  consequence 
of  what  has  been  called  here,  scurrilous  reports, 
published  in  the  papers  in  relation  to  that  Cpm- 
mittee.  I do  not  wonder  that  the  gentleman  is 
excited  upon  the  subject,  and  that  he  has  used 
the  words  he  has.  I have  no  doubt  at  all  that 
every  person  connected  in  making  the  examin- 
ation and  the  report  that  has  been  made,  and 
the  Report  of  Mr.  Clarke,  that  it  has  been  ob- 
jected to,  were  all  made  in  good  faith.  One 
difficulty  is  this  : that  the  law  in  relation  to  the 
action  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  to  advertise  for 
contracts  for  furnishing  stationery,  is  such  as 
that  contractors  take  advantage  of,  and  palm 
upon  him  stationery  at  higher  prices  than 
ought  to  be  submitted  to.  And  this  is  one  of 
the  evils  of  the  system  for  which  he  is  respon- 
sible. As  I have  said,  it  is  the  law  which  is  at 
fault,  and  it  is  a matter  that  ought  to  be  left  to 
the  Legislature.  It  is  the  Legislature  that 
ought  to  look  into  this  matter  and  investigate 
it.  But  I think  we  have  the  power,  and  I, 
therefore,  hope  that  the  gentleman  from  Ash- 


1807 


Day.]  THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION. 

March  6, 1874.]  Powell,  Root,  Gurley,  Campbell,  Hill,  West. 


land  [Mr.  Hill],  will  now  permit  me  to  make  a 
motion,  which  I arose  to  do;  that  he  will  con- 
sent to  remain  upon  the  Committee  upon  which 
he  has  been  appointed,  and  with  that  view,  and 
to  save  the  time  of  this  Convention,  I now 
move  that  all  this  matter  be  laid  on  the  table. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  now 
be  upon  excusing  the  gentleman  from  Ashland 
[Mr.  Hill],  from  serving  upon  the  Committee. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I want  to  take  no  part  in  this 
matter,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  this  is  one  of 
those  cases  in  which  the  applicant  should  have 
the  privilege  of  judging  for  himself.  It  is  a 
matter  of  feeling,  and  believing  that  the  gentle- 
man from  Ashland  is  sincere,  withont  under- 
taking to  say  how  much  it  might  be  his  duty  to 
remain  on  the  Committee,  yet  as  I doubt  not  that 
he  is  sincere  in  making  the  request  to  be  ex- 
cused, and  is  very  desirous  of  this  sort  of  relief, 
as  a matter  of  courtesy,  I think  we  ought  to  af- 
ford it. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  It  seems  to  me  rather  pre- 
mature to  dispose  of  this  matter  in  this  way. 
It  is  an  important  matter.  An  important  mat- 
ter to  this  Committee.  When  the  resolution 
was  adopted  yesterday,  it  was  done  on  the  spur 
of  the  moment,  without  anything  being  said 
one  way  or  the  other.  I would  say,  by  way  of 
a suggestion,  that  the  member  of  the  Commit- 
tee Irom  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill],  withdraw  his 
motion,  with  a view  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  the  motion  was  carried  on  yesterday, 
to  appoint  this  Committee. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I think  the  suggestion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley],  is 
eminently  proper.  If  we  have  a Standing 
Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses  that  we 
cannot  trust  to  make  the  investigation,  or  that 
we  cannot  clothe  with  power  to  send  for  per- 
sons and  papers,  if  necessary,  we  had  better 
know  it  at  once.  I think,  perhaps,  that  the 
motion,  on  yesterday,  to  raise  this  Select  Com- 
mittee, was  carried  without  much  consider- 
ation, and  it  strikes  me  that  it  is  indirectly  an 
imputation  upon  the  character  of  that  Standing 
Committee,  that  we  should  have  raised  another 
Committee  for  this  purpose.  If  the  matter  of 
stationery  is  one  of  sufficient  importance,  the 
doubt  or  uncertainty  is,  as  to  whether  the  ac- 
counts have  been  correctly  kept  or  not;  whe- 
ther there  is  anything  affecting  the  integrity  of 
another  officer  of  the  government  not  connected 
with  this  Convention  ? It  is  the  province  espe- 
cially of  that  Standing  Committee  on  Accounts 
and  Expenses  to  report  the  facts  merely.  Un- 
til there  has  been  disclosed  here  some  evidence 
that  that  Committee  is  impure,  or  corrupt,  or 
controlled  by  personal  considerations,  I shall 
not  be  in  favor  of  raising  or  keeping  up  a Se- 
lect Committee,  and  I hope  the  suggestion 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr. 
Gurley]  will  prevail,  and  that  we  dispose 
of  this  whole  subject  by  a reconsideration  of 
the  motion  carried  on  yesterday,  by  which  a 
Select  Committee  was  raised.  I hope  that 
motion  will  be  reconsidered,  and  either  de- 
feated or  laid  upon  the  table,  and  then,  that  the 
Standing  Committee  be  directed  to  go  on  with 
the  investigation. 


Mr.  HILL.  With  that  understanding,  I will 
ask  leave  to  withdraw  my  motion. 

“ Leave,”  “ Leave.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  objection  ? 
There  being  no  objection,  the  gentleman  from 
Ashland  [Mr.  Hill],  will  have  leave  to  with- 
draw his  motion. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I now  renew  my  motion  to 
reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  Committee 
was  appointed  yesterday. 

Mr.  WEST.  I doubt,  very  much,  the  propri- 
ety— although  I doubt  not  the  sincerity  of  the 
gentleman  who  makes  the  motion  now — of 
trusting  to  the  parties  who  have  reported,  or  on 
whose  action  the  complaint  is  made,  the  duty  of 
making  an  investigation  with  regard  to  facts 
upon  which  the  Report  is  founded.  Now,  the 
thing  that  the  Secretary  of  State  complains  of, 
is  the  accusation,  if  not  directly,  impliedly,  by 
the  Report  of  this  Committee.  This  Committee 
stands,  therefore,  in  the  attitude  of  the  accusing 
party,  and  the  Secretary  of  State  as  the  defend- 
ing party.  Now,  is  it  proper  to  give  into  the 
hands  of  an  accuser  the  power  to  investigate 
and  adjudicate  upon  an  accusation  which  is  al- 
ready prejudged,  or  passed  upon,  in  a certain 
sense  ? I have  no  feeling  with  regard  to  the 
matter,  one  way  or  the  other.  I only  speak  of 
the  propriety  of  the  thing.  The  Committee  has 
already  made  a Report,  and  the  Committee,  sir,  is 
supposed  to  have  been  in  possession  of  the  facts 
upon  which  to  base  that  Report.  That  Report  is 
the  very  thing  complained  of.  That  Committee 
stands,  therefore,  in  the  relation  of  the  accusing 
party.  Shall  the  accuser  be  made  the  judge  as 
between  parties  complainant  and  the  parties 
defendant?  I only  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  the  propriety  of  the  situation. 
It  is  not  a reflection  upon  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee. But  there  should  be  an  investigation 
made  by  an  impartial  committee — if  we  can  get 
one  in  this  Convention,  or  elsewhere, — to  ascer- 
tain whether  the  facts  which  have  already  been 
reported  by  this  Report  of  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee, or  the  statements  made,  are  really  sus- 
tainable— whether  they  can  be  sustained  by  the 
facts.  Let  it  be  an  impartial  tribunal.  I sup- 
pose the  President  of  the  Convention,  in  look- 
ing for  men  for  this  Committee,  placed  upon  it 
those  whom,  he  supposed,  would  be  interested 
in  ascertaining  the  facts  upon  all  sides  of  the 
subject. 

So  far  as  I am  concerned,  I have  no  doubt, 
when  the  matter  is  investigated,  the  whole 
truth  will  come  out,  and  will  exculpate  the 
Secretary  of  State.  But  if  ihe  facts  shall  im- 
plicate him,  and  shall  establsh  that  he  has  been 
engaged  in,  or  has  permited,  any  species  of 
public  plunder,  grand  or  petty,  let  the  verdict 
and  the  sentence  fall  upon  the  Secretary  of 
State.  If,  upon  the  contrary,  he  has  deported 
himself  as  a faithful  and  worthy  officer,  it  is 
unworthy  of  this  Convention  that  an  innocent 
man  shall  be  condemned  without  a hearing,  or 
be  condemned  by  those  who  have  prejudged  the 
accusation  against  him. 

I have  no  doubt,  sir,  but  that  the  law  of  the 
State  has  been  followed  by  the  Secretary,  and 
the  material  furnished  to  this  Convention  has 
been  procured  by  contract,  as  the  law  of  the 
State  requires  it  should  be  procured.  And 
whether  that  contract  be  high  or  low,  whether 


1808 


THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION. [131st 

West,  Cunningham,  Gurley,  Barnet.  [Friday, 


the  terms  of  purchase  he  those  of  Robert 
Clarke  & Co.,  or  of  the  Mills  at  Delaware,  the 
Secretary  of  State  is  bound  by  the  contracts  of 
the  State,  and  he  is  not  the  party  who  deter- 
mines the  prices.  If  he,  however,  has  let  out 
stationery  at  prices  higher  than  those  he  has 
paid ; if  he,  like  some  others  that  we  have  had 
in  this  State  within  the  last  few  years,  has 
purchased  for  the  State  material  that  never 
went  to  the  State,  and  drawn  orders  upon  the 
treasury  for  requisitions  that  the  State  never  re- 
ceived the  benefit  of,  and  then  has  paid  back  the 
money  received  from  the  treasury — I say,  if 
the  Secretary  of  State  is  guilty  of  that  thing, 
let  the  Secretary  of  State  fall  by  the  weight  of 
popular  indignation,  and  not  be  sustained,  as 
some  others  are,  and  as  some,  I fear,  who,  to- 
day, may  have  the  very  stationery  concerning 
which  the  Secretary  of  State  and  your  Sergeant- 
at-Arms  are  accused,  in  their  possession,  writing 
books  thereon — not  members  of  this  Convention, 
but  those  who  have  had  access  to  the  general 
pile  of  public  stationery. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I wish  to  say  a single 
word  upon  this  motion  now,  and  1 suggest, 
with  all  due  respect  to  my  friend  from  Ashland 
[Mr.  Hill],  that,  perhaps,  he  is  a little  over- 
sensitive upon  this  question. 

I will  read  the  dispatch  from  the  Secretary  of 
State : 

‘‘Columbus,  Feb.  27, 1874. 

“Hon.  Rufus  King, 

“ President  of  the  Constitutional  Convention: 

“The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expen- 
ditures of  your  Convention,  relating  to  stationery  furn- 
ished by  this  office,  is  ex  parte  and  unjust  to  me.  I 
respectlully  ask  the  Convention  to  order  a complete  in- 
vestigation and  give  me  an  opportunity  to  be  heard. 

“A.  T.  WlKOFF, 
“Secretary  of  State.” 

Now,  no  one  supposes  that  the  Committee 
made  their  Report  without  believing  that  they 
■were  justified  by  the  evidence  that  was  before 
them.  I have  not  read  the  Report.  I have  only 
seen  the  statement  of  it  published  in  the  pro- 
ceedings. But  my  recollection  of  it  is,  substan- 
tially, that  the  Secretary  of  State  charged  the 
Convention  prices  far  greater  than  stationery 
of  like  character  could  have  been  bought  of 
Robert  Clarke  & Co.  That  officer  has  a right 
to  vindicate  himself  and  his  official  conduct. 
He  had  a right  as  a gentleman,  and  as  a citizen, 
and,  much  more,  as  a public  officer,  to  ask 
of  this  Convention  that  he  might  have  a hear- 
ing upon  the  matter  involving  so  grave  a 
charge  against  him.  Now,  what  attitude  do  we 
place  ourselves  in  by  reconsidering  the  action 
taken  on  yesterday?  Certainly,  everything 
connected  with  this  matter  might  be  investi- 
gated by  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Ex- 
penditures (which  made  the  Report),  but  shall 
this  officer  have  this  investigation  before  a 
Committee  which  has  already  judged  his  case? 
The  ordinary  rule  is,  that  which  says  every  in- 
dividual shall  be  held  innocent  until  he  is 
adjudged  guilty.  We  as  much  as  say,  if  the 
Secretary  proves  himself  innocent,  we  will 
agree  that  the  fact  shall  become  a part  of  our 
official  proceedings,  and  shall  go  to  the  public. 
Now,  I am  sure 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question. 


The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
yield? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Did  $rou  ever  know  of  a trial 
of  a case  before  a court,  or  an  ex  parte  trial  be- 
fore a court,  where  judgment  is  had  by  default 
against  the  defendant,  or  the  plaintiff  gets  the 
judgment  set  aside  because  it  was  entirely  ex 
parte , or  because  the  party  offending  did  in- 
fluence or  prejudice  the  case,  and  made  it  ne- 
cessary to  have  a trial  before  another  jury, 
before  he  makes  his  defense?  I do  not  under- 
stand that  the  Secretary  asks  any  such  thing. 
He  merely  claims  that  it  is  exparte , and  asks  for 
an  examination  before  the  Committee. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I always  supposed 
that  the  court  assumed  a man  to  be  innocent  un- 
til, upon  the  proofs,  he  is  found  guilty.  And 
when  the  court  is  informed  that  there  has  been 
default  in  the  service,  the  judgment  is  set 
aside  for  that  reason.  And  if  such  has  been  the 
fact  the  case  is  not  commonly  sent  back  to  the 
same  jury. 

Now,  I say,  I place  full  confidence  in  the 
Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses;  but 
that  Committee  ought  to  be  the  last  to  ask  the 
privilege  of  determining  this  controversy  be- 
tween them  and  the  Secretary  of  State ; for  the 
Secretary  of  State  and  his  friends  may  well  say 
that  the  Convention  refused  to  give  him  a hear- 
ing before  an  unprejudiced  Committee,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  referred  it  back  to  the  same 
Committee  which  had  already  reported  in  the 
manner  and  form  of  which  he  complains. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Are  not  the  members  of  this 
Convention  the  friends  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  lam  sure  I am. 

Mr.  BARNET.  And  are  they  not  also  the 
friends  of  the  Committee  they  have  formed? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNET.  And  if  o,  will  not  both  par- 
ties be  vindicated  by  a fairexamination  of  this 
matter?  Not  one  that  is  ex  parte  in  its  nature. 
If  we  raise  a third  Committee  we  shall  have 
three  parties  in  the  field.  It  is  a reflection  upon 
the  Committee  that  we  have  already  raised,  in 
my  opinion,  to  raise  another  for  the  same  pur- 
pose. Let  the  Secretary  come  before  that  Com- 
mittee and  vindicate  himself,  as  perhaps  he  can 
do,  and  as  I hope  he  will  do,  and  if  he  does  that 
and  the  Committee  representing  us  get  the 
facts,  they  may  also  vindicate  themselves. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I say  “Let  justice  be 
done  though  the  heavens  fall,”  and  if  there  have 
to  be  forty  Committees,  and  though  you  have  to 
bring  the  matter  before  this  Convention  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  I say  that  no  two  men, 
nor  three  men,  nor  six  men,  nor  any  number  of 
men,  have  the  right  to  injure  the  character  of  a 
citizen  of  Ohio,  whether  in  public  office  or  pri- 
vate station.  We  owe  it  to  ourselves,  and  the 
estimate  the  public  will  make  of  our  fairness,  to 
say  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  to  say  to  the 
public  and  Committee  that  we  trust,  and  who 
have,  substantially,  said  that  there  has  been  in- 
directness in  the  matter  of  furnishing  station- 
ery to  this  Convention,  and  the  Secretary 
denies  it,  and  complains  that  we  refer  it  to  a 


THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION. 

Cunningham,  Horton,  Bishop,  Sample. 


1809 


Day.] 

March  6, 1874.] 


Committee  that  cannot  be  charged  to  have  pre- 
judged the  matter  or  expressed  an  opinion  in 
regard  to  it  at  all. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
if  he  ever  heard  of  a case  where  a man  had  been 
indicted  of  a crime  by  a jury,  and  made  to  go 
before  the  same  jury  for  trial  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No;  nor  nobody  else 
ever  did. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I presume  there  is  no  gentle- 
man in  this  Convention  who  has  a desire  to  do 
the  Secretary  of  State  injustice,  and  I do  not 
know  that  there  is  a member  of  this  Convention 
that  believes  that  he  cannot  vindicate  himself. 
Neither  do  I believe  that  there  is  a member  of 
this  Convention  that  would  not  like  to  see  him 
be  prepared  to  vindicate  himself.  But  I do  not 
believe,  sir,  that  in  justice  to  this  Committee, 
which  has  made  the  report  on  this  subject,  that 
we  should  appoint  another  Committee  until 
there  is  some  reason  shown  that  it  has  not  done 
the  Secretary  of  State  justice.  We  have  to  pro- 
tect the  rights  of  members  of  this  Convention, 
as  well  as  the  rights  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 
And  when  the  Secretary  of  State  will  show  that 
this  Committee  has  done  anything  wrong,  or 
are  not  prepared  to  hear  anything  he  will  bring 
forward  to  vindicate  himself,  and  make  a fair 
Report  upon  it  to  this  Convention,  then,  it  is 
sufficient  time  for  us  to  investigate  the  conduct 
of  our  own  Committee.  Every  one  who  knows 
anything  about  the  price  of  those  goods — every 
practical  business  man  in  this  Convention, 
knows  that  they  are  charged  at  exorbitant  pri- 
ces. I do  not  believe  the  Secretary  of  State  is 
to  blame  for  it.  I believe  it  to  be  the  fault  of 
making  the  contract  originally,  and  I think  he 
will  vindicate  himself.  But  I know  the  prices 
are  exorbitant.  I speak  from  the  book.  But  I 
do  not  think  the  fault  is  with  the  Secretary  of 
State.  For  that  reason,  until  he  shows  some 
reason  why  he  thinks  this  Committee  were  dis- 
posed to  do  him  injustice,  I do  not  see  why  the 
matter  should  be  referred  to  another  Committee. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  There  are  general  principles 
which  are  recognized  and  understood  in  the 
transactions  of  men.  And  when  it  becomes 
necessary  to  have  an  investigation  upon  any 
subject  upon  which  an  issue  is  made  between 
different  parties  there  are  principles  estab- 
lished to  determine  that  issue — that  is  an  im- 
partial Committee — one  composed  of  men  who 
have  never  expressed  an  opinion  on  either  side, 
as  the  tribunal  to  which  the  matter  shall  be  re- 
ferred. Now,  here  are  two  parties,  brought  by 
the  action  of  this  Convention  before  the  people 
of  Ohio.  The  Secretary  of  State — a high  officer 
charged  with  great  and  important  duties — 
whose  duties  are  of  the  highest  importance  to 
the  whole  people  and  affect  the  interest  of  the 
whole  people  of  the  State — is  one  of  the  parties 
before  this  Convention — and  a Committee  of 
this  body,  representing  also  the  people  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  entitled  to  equal  consideration 
with  the  Secretary  of  State,  make  a Report,  not 
imputing,  it  is  true,  any  charge  against  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  of  malfeasance  in  office,  but 
stating  facts  which  tend  to  cast  a reflection  up- 
on the  management  and  fidelity  of  that  officer 
in  the  discharge  of  his  official  duties.  Now, 
that  officer  comes  here,  and  here  are  two  par- 
ties before  the  Convention.  The  Secretary  of 

y.  n-116 


State  on  the  one  side,  comes  and  says  this  Com- 
mittee makes  a Report  that  does  him  injustice, 
that  the  facts  are  not  fairly  stated.  They  are 
based,  however,  on  facts  in  possession  of  the 
Committee.  He  asks  to  have  an  opportunity  to 
vindicate  himself.  Now,  the  Committee  have 
taken  their  ground.  They  have  made  a Report; 
they  have  presented  it  to  this  Convention,  and 
it  is  given  to  the  whole  State  and  has  been  pub- 
lished throughout  every  county  in  the  State. 
That  Report  has  the  indorsement  of  this  Com- 
mittee. The  Secretary  of  State  asks  to  have  an 
investigation  ; asks  that  the  subject 

Mr.  BISHOP.  May  I ask  the  gentleman  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Does  the  Secretary  of  State 
deny  that  the  prices  that  have  been  given  are 
correct?  If  he  does  not,  I would  like  to  know 
where  any  injustice  is  done  him? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  He  does  not  say  anything 
on  that  subject.  He  says  the  Report  does  him 
injustice.  He  does  not  say  in  what  respect. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I understand  that  the  injus- 
tice done  is,  that  these  prices  are  contract 
prices,  whoever  it  may  have  been  that  bought 
this  stationery,  by  contract,  and  if  he  wants  an 
opportunity  to  show  that,  he  may  show  that  to 
this  Committee  as  well  as  to  any  other. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  So  he  may. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  And  may  vindicate  himself, 
no  doubt. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  But  who  is  to  know — does 
this  Convention  know  now,  in  appointing  this 
Committee,  what  matters  are  at  issue  between 
them?  This  Standing  Committee  has  made  a 
Report,  and  they  have  given  the  evidence  on  the 
face  of  that  Report  on  which  it  was  based.  It 
seems  to  me  it  would  be  a departure  from  what 
is  recognized  as  an  essential  principle  in  the 
administration  of  justice,  to  refer  this  matter 
back  to  either  of  the  parties.  Why,  it  would  be 
just  as  much  in  accordance  with  what  is  recog- 
nized as  the  proper  mode  of  procedure  to  refer 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  and  let  him  arbitrate  this  matter — let  him 
make  a Report  upon  the  action  of  the  Commitee, 
just  as  much,  in  my  opinion*  So  I think  the 
action  of  the  Convention,  on  yesterday,  was 
eminently  proper,  an  action  that  I wonder  was 
not  taken  by  the  Convention  before. 

But,  then,  Mr.  President,  there  is  another 
thing.  What  is  the  object  of  this  reference? 
It  is  that  this  officer  and  this  Committee  may 
stand  right  before  the  people — that  this  officer 
may  have  an  opportunity  to  vindicate  himself 
in  reference  to  facts  brought  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  people  of  the  State.  It  is  that  these  par- 
ties shall  be  vindicated,  if  the  facts  do  vindicate 
them. 

Well,  now,  suppose  that  this  matter  is  re- 
ferred to  this  Standing  Committee ; that  they 
go  into  an  investigation;  that  they  send  for 
persons  and  papers,  and  make  a report  affirm- 
ing the  Report  they  have  heretofore  made, 
which,  to  some  extent,  does  cast  a reflection 
upon  the  Secretary  of  State.  Now,  what  effect 
will  it  have  upon  the  minds  of  the  people  of 
the  State  if  they  do  report  against  him  ? Would 
it  not  be  said  by  the  friends  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  that  this  was  a packed  Committee,  if  this 
reference  was  made  to  a Committee  that  had 


1810 


THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION. 

Sample,  Gurley,  Cunningham,  Hill,  Pond,  etc. 


[131st 

[Friday, 


already  pronounced  against  the  Secretary  of 
State?  Hence,  I say,  that,  in  order  that  no  in- 
justice he  done,  its  reference  to  the  same  Com- 
mittee ought  not  to  he  made. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  By  what  sort  of  justice  can 
it  he  said  that  this  is  a packed  Committee? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman 
from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley]  cease  one  moment? 
Will  the  gentleman  yield  the  floor? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do  not  know  that  I am 
through. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley]  wants  to  ask  a question. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Very  well. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I understand  the  gentleman 
from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]  to  make  the 
charge  that  this  was  a packed  Committee.  I 
ask  with  what  justice,  when  it  is  one  of  the 
standing  Committees  of  the  Convention,  made 
at  an  early  part  of  the  session,  and  without  any 
view,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the  subject-mat- 
ter now  before  them  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  would  be  upon  the  ground 
that  it  was  to  investigate  a charge  made  by  this 
Committee.  Would  not  a grand  jury  be  a 
packed  jury  to  try  a man  upon  an  indictment 
that  they  had  found  against  him  ? If  a jury  of 
fifteen  men  were  to  report  that,  on  the  evidence 
adduced  before  them,  ex  parte , they  had  found 
that  this  man  -was  guilty  of  a particular  crime, 
would  not  that  be  a packed  jury  to  try  the  party 
they  had  indicted?  And  for  that  reason,  I say 
that  the  interests  of  the  State,  the  interests  of 
the  people  of  the  State,  in  order  that  they  may 
be  satisfied,  and  have  confidence  in  the  report 
which  will  be  made,  in  my  judgment,  requires 
that  an  independent  Committee  shall  be  ap- 
pointed. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  answer  the 
inquiry  of  the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr. 
Gurley],  and  to  do  it  very  frankly. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I object.  He  has  had  his 
day  in  court.  I put  the  question,  too,  when  he 
was  on  the  other  side  of  the  House. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  answer. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  If  the  gentleman  insists,  I 
demand  the  right  to  reply. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I think  the  gentleman 
will  have  the  right  to  reply. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  say  that 
the  gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill]  has 
chosen,  voluntarily,  in  the  presence  of  the  Com 
vention,  to  avow  that  he  has  a fixed  opinion 
upon  this  matter,  for  he  has  charged,  in  words, 
that  this  new  Committee  wras  gotten  up  for  the 
purpose  of  whitewashing  the  Secretary  of 
State.  If  the  Secretary  of  State  is  to  be  white- 
washed, then  he  has  been  guilty  of  doing  some- 
thing wrong. 

Mr.  HILL.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HILL.  I think  the  gentleman  misrepre- 
sents. What  I said  was,  that  if  a Committee 
of  the  special  friends  of  the  gentleman  was  to 
be  appointed  to  whitewash  him.  I do  not  ac- 
cuse anybody  of  whitewashing  him.  On  the 
contrary,  the  other  side 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I do  not  charge  the 
gentleman  with  having  accused  anybody,  but 
say  he  has  expressed  his  opinion. 

Mr.  HILL.  The  gentleman  from  Morgan 


[Mr.  Pond]  has  expressed  a more  decided  opin- 
ion than  I have  upon  this  question. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I will  remind  my 
friend  that  he  used  a very  forcible,  if  not  ele- 
gant, expression,  that  he  “threw  a crumb  to  a 
savage,  and  got  bit.”  Who  is  the  savage? 
Now,  in  fairness,  let  us  give  this  Secretary  of 
State  the  ordinary  privileges  that  are  given  to  a 
man  who  is  charged  with  an  offense  against  the 
laws.  Let  us  try  him  by  an  unprejudiced  jury. 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  know,  sir,  but  that  I 
ought  to  make  one  or  two  remarks  in  explana- 
tion, to  some  extent,  of  what  I did  say  then.  I 
was,  I admit,  considerably  exercised  upon  the 
speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr. 
Hill]  this  morning,  indicating,  as  it  did  to  my 
mind,  pre-judgment  of  this  whole  cause.  I 
have  been  a friend  of  Secretary  of  State 
Wikoff,  for  a number  of  years.  I have  had 
the  means  of  knowing  the  purity  of  his  life  in 
public  and  in  private,  and  I never  knew,  I be- 
lieve I may  say  I never  knew,  a more  pains-tak- 
ing officer  than  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  as  to 
the  history  of  his  previous  private  life,  I appeal 
to  members  who  have  known  him  for  a number 
of  years,  the  gentleman  from  Brown  [Mr. 
White],  the  gentleman  from  Adams  [Mr.  Mul- 
len], all  those  who  know  him  would  be  happy 
to  bear  testimony. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Mr.  President— 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman 
yield  the  floor  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I believe  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  is  one  of  this  special 
committee.  If  he  is  going  to  deliver  an  eulogy 
on  the  Secretary  of  State  in  advance,  I doubt 
whether  he  is  an  unprejudiced  member  to  put 
upon  that  committee. 

Mr.  POND.  That  is  just  what  I was  coming 
to,  if  my  Christian  friend  would  wait  a minute. 
I expected  my  friend  to  make  a fuss  about  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  No,  you  are  making  the  fuss. 

Mr.  POND.  I was  saying  what  I know  to  be 
the  character  of  the  Secretary.  I find,  too,  an 
old  doctrine  laid  down  in  the  history  of  this 
country,  and  it  ought  to  be  acted  upon  every- 
where, that  this  great  Republic  cannot  afford  to 
oppress  the  humblest  of  its  citizens  or  do  him 
wrong.  That  is  the  reason  I made  the  re- 
marks I did.  But,  perhaps,  my  remarks  may 
as  well  be  directed  to  the  gentleman  who  took 
part  in  the  opening  of  the  case.  He  had,  as  it 
appears,  come  to  a final  conclusion  upon  this 
subject — who  says  that  he  has  been  abused, 
called  to  account  for  his  attempt  to  screen  the 
Secretary  of  State,  and  that  he  had  tried  to  do 
that  by  every  means  in  his  power.  I say  that 
in  ray  judgment  he  ought  not  to  be  on  such 
Committee,  nor  ought  this  matter  to  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  of  which  he  is  the  main  man— 
the  chairman.  I think  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
as  suggested  by  my  friend  from  Richland  [Mr. 
Burns]  that  I should  not  remain  on  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  glad  I called  your  atten- 
tion to  it. 

Mr.  POND.  You  did  not.  I rose  for  the 
very  purpose  of  calling  the  attention  of  the 
Chair  to  that  fact.  I have  judged  of  the  char- 
acter of  Captain  Wikoff,  and  of  his  inca- 
pacity to  defraud  the  State,  and  I gladly  come 


Day.]  THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION.  1811 

March  6, 1874.]  Pond,  Pease,  Bishop,  Powell,  etc. 


to  his  rescue.  When  I see  a friend  assailed  in 
this  way,  one  in  whom  I have  as  much  confi- 
dence as  I have  in  any  article  of  my  faith,  I am 
bold  to  say  it  in  the  face  of  anybody,  and  I do 
not  think  I can  be  charged  with  any  default  or 
want  of  duty  in  this  regard.  I would  say  that, 
under  the  circumstances,  I do  not  think  I am  a 
fair  judge. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  Then  you  are  fully  satisfied 
you  ought  not  to  he  on  the  Committee  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Well,  am  I not  coming  there  as 
fast  as  I can  ? Do  not  hurry  me.  I think,  un- 
der the  circumstances,  that,  perhaps,  the  gen- 
tleman from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill]  ought  to  be 
excused  from  the  Committee.  I want  to  see 
the  Committee  fairly  constituted,  that  it  shall 
not  have  prejudged  the  case  on  either  side.  It 
is  thrown  before  the  world  that,  not  only  has 
the  Committee  made  that  Report  to  this  Con- 
vention, but,  by  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  that  Report,  without 
alteration,  explanation,  or  modification,  has 
been  sent  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Ohio 
for  its  action ; and  I say,  under  these  circum- 
stances, a corrective  ought  to  be  put  upon  the 
condition  of  things  in  that  regard,  and  this 
Committee,  whether  it  remain  as  constituted  or 
not — which  I hope  it  will  not,  so  far  as  I am 
concerned — that  this  Committee  shall  make  this 
investigation  thorough,  and  do  justice,  and  give 
justice  where  it  belongs. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I desire  to  say  but  a single  J 
word  in  regard  to  this  proposition,  but  I hope  it 
will  not  be  acted  upon  without  proper  consid- 
eration. It  has  been  well  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample],  that  j 
there  are  two  parties  now  in  interest  in  this  res-  j 
olution.  The  one  is,  unfortunately,  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  who  is  made  a party  without  his 
motion  or  knowledge.  He  is  made  a party  with- 
out any  action  of  his.  It  is  entirely  involun- 
tary with  him  that  he  is  brought  before  this  j 
Convention.  On  the  other  side,  there  is  this  | 
Committee  who  have  thus  made  him  a party 
without  his  knowledge,  have  passed  upon  cer- 
tain questions  greatly  involving,  by  implication, 
the  reputation  and  the  character  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  without  giving  him  any  opportu- 
nity whatever  to  be  heard.  It  is  said  that  his 
chief  clerk  has  been  referred  to.  I submit  to  , 
the  Convention  that  the  chief  clerk  is  not  the 
gentleman  to  be  referred  to.  The  chief  clerk  is 
not  responsible.  It  is  the  Secretary  of  State 
alone  that  is  held  responsible,  and  not  his  Secre-  j 
tary.  And  no  excuse  is  shown  here  why  this 
notice  was  given  to  the  chief  clerk  and  not  to 
the  principal,  the  Secretary.  Now,  were  this 
an  original  proposition,  and  had  it  been  submit- 
ted to  my  judgment  as  to  whether  this  proposi- 
tion could  be  re-referred  to  this  standing  Com- 
mittee, I would  have  undoubtedly  said,  refer  it  I 
to  that  Committee.  But  I can  now  see  the  im- 
propriety of  that.  As  has  been  said,  this  stand- 
ing Committee  have  had  this  matter  under 
advisement  for  weeks,  or  days,  at  least,  they  have  ! 
taken  testimony,  they  have  taken  information 
of  outside  persons,  and  they  have  formed  con- 
clusions, and  they  have  very  strongly  expressed 
those  conclusions  by  the  resolutions  which  they 
brought  in  and  which  have  been  sent  to  the  Leg- 
islature. Now,  I undertake  to  say  that  Com- 
mittee cannot  sit  down  and  impartially  re- 


investigate that  proposition  again.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Secretary  of  State  is  the  accused 
party,  and  goes  before  the  Committee  which  has 
pre-judged  his  case,  and  who  accuse  him.  I 
think  in  justice  to  him,  the  Secretary  of  State 
should  have  an  independent  Committee  to  make 
this  investigation. 

Mr.  BURNS.  1 would  like  to  make  one  in- 
quiry. Is  there  any  charge  in  the  Report  of 
that  Committee  that  the  Secretary  of  State  has 
furnished  stationery  to  this  Convention  at 
higher  prices  than  the  State  bought  the  station- 
ery ? Do  they  not  simply  give  the  figures  at 
which  the  Secretary  has  turned  them  over  to 
this  Convention,  without  any  reference  as  to 
whether  it  is  larger  or  smaller  than  he  paid  for 
it,  simply  giving  the  facts  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Why,  it  seems  to  me  that  no 
inquiry  of  that  kind  need  be  made  here.  What 
is  the  purpose  of  that  Report  ? What  is  the  ob- 
ject? Why  send  it  to  the  Legislature  if  it  bears 
in  it  no  imputation  of  that  kind  ? I need  not 
further  reply  to  that  inquiry.  I have  one  other 
reason  why  I shall  object  now  to  this  proposi- 
tion being  referred  to  this  Standing  Committee. 
Whatever  my  impressions  might  have  been  be- 
fore, from  what  has  now  transpired  before  this 
Convention,  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  I am 
satisfied  that  Committee  cannot  sit  down  to  an 
impartial  trial  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  When 
the  gentleman  will  so  far  forget  himself  as  to 
speak  of  a public  officer,  high  in  authority,  in 
the  manner  he  has,  is  he  the  proper  man  to  sit 
down  and  impartially  and  dispassionately  dis- 
pose of  the  sacred  interests  that  hang  over  the 
Secretary  of  State  ? I submit  that  consideration 
to  the  Convention.  I regret  exceedingly  that 
any  thing  of  party  bias  should  spring  up  in 
this  Convention,  and  so  far  as  in  my  power  I 
will  resist  it  to  the  end.  But  when  questions 
affecting  the  integrity  of  a high  officer  of  State 
arise,  I submit  that,  at  least,  that  officer  shall 
have  the  advantage  of  a fair,  and  impartial,  and 
unprejudiced  hearing  before  this  Convention. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I was  going  to  ask  what  the 
gentleman  meant  by  party  power  in  this  Con- 
vention ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Bias. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I understood  the  gentleman 
to  say  party  power. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I said  that  I regretted  any- 
thing like  “party  bias  should  spring  up.”  If 
there  has  been,  it  is  unjust  and  unfair. 

Mr.  POWELL.  1 greatly  regret  that  the 
time  of  the  Convention  is  wasted  on  this  mat- 
ter. There  has  been  something  said  that  has 
some  little  bearing  upon  my  own  position  here, 
and  I wish  to  say  one  word  upon  the  subject. 
The  resolution  which  I introduced  referring 
the  communication  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to 
the  Committee  on  Accounts,  etc.,  was  done  with- 
out any  consultation  with  that  Committee,  and 
I believe  that  not  one  of  them  knew  anything 
about  it.  When  I drew  up  that  resolution,  the 
question  occurred  to  me  whether  it  was  right 
I to  refer  it  back  to  that  Committee,  or  ask  an- 
other Committee  to  be  raised.  I concluded, 
j myself,  as  I had  entire  confidence  in  that  Com- 
mittee, that  it  should  be  referred  to  that  Com- 
mittee; but  as  I see  the  opinions  of  members  of 
the  Convention  expressed,  I think  it  well  that 
I there  should  be  a new  Committee  upon  this 


1812 


THE  STATIONERY  INVESTIGATION. 


[131st 


Powell,  West,  Hill,  Pond,  Tutlle,  Cook,  Kerr,  etc.  [Friday, 


subject;  and  I hoped  that  the  Committee  on 
Accounts  would  permit  it  to  be  done  without 
any  objection. 

Now,  I am  sorry,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
county  of  Delaware  was  spoken  of  in  connec- 
tion with  this  purchase  of  stationery.  A num- 
ber of  years  ago  the  paper  mills  of  Delaware 
furnished  some  paper  to  the  State,  but  I believe 
they  have  not  for  a number  of  years  past;  but 
if  they  are  now,  I do  not  know  anything  about* 
it.  But  the  paper  is  not  one-tenth  of  the  mat- 
ter charged  here. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  That  remark  was  dropped  in 
simply  by  way  of  illustration.  I withdraw 
Delaware.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  POWELL.  Well,  I am  glad  to  have  it 
done.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I hope  this  matter 
will  at  once  be  disposed  of,  and  that  we  spend 
no  more  time  over  it.  I,  therefore,  move  the 
previous  question. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is 
upon  reconsidering  the  motion  of  yesterday. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  35,  nays  36,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Bannon,  Barnet,  Bishop,  Bos- 
worth,  Byal,  Caldwell,  Campbell,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Foran,  Freiberg, 
Godfrey,  Greene,  Gurley,  Hill,  Hunt,  Kerr, 
Kraemer,  McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mullen, 
Okey,  Powell,  Root,  Shaw,  Steedman,  Thomp- 
son, Tulloss,  Yoorhes,  Weaver,  Young  of 
Champaign,  Young  of  Noble — 35. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Blose,  Coats,  Cook, 
Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Hale,  Hitch- 
cock, Hoadly,  Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Mer- 
rill, Mueller,  Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Philips,  Pond, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Sears, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tuttle,  Van  Yoorhis,  Waddle,  White  of 
Brown,  Woodbury,  President — 36. 

So  the  motion_  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HILL.  1 now  renew  my  motion  to  be 
excused  from  serving  on  that  Committee. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Before  I can  vote  for  that,  I 
must  ask — perhaps  I will  not  be  strictly  within 
the  rule — that  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond]  also  be  excused. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  know  what  the 
gentleman  has  to  do  with  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  we  are  going  to  have  an 
impartial  Committee,  I want  one. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  the  gentleman  will 
not  be  excused.  I think  after  he  has  thought 
this  matter  over,  he  will  think  better  of  it,  and 
will  get  relieved  of  that  feeling  that  has  been 
occasioned  by  what  he  has  read  in  the  newspa- 
pers. I think  that  has  had  a good  deal  to  do 
with  it.  I think  he  is  in  the  right  place. 
Whilst  I would  rather  have  an  independent 
committee,  yet  I hope  there  is  no  reason  why 
the  gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill]  shall 
not  act  upon  this  Committee.  I believe  when 
he  thinks  more  upon  it,  he  will  think  so  himself. 

Mr.  COOK.  I seconded  the  motion  that  the 
gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill]  be  ex- 
cused, not  because  I desire  to  have  him  leave 


the  Committee;  but  I would  not  compel  any 
gentleman  to  serve  in  a place  where  he  does  not 
think  he  ought  to  be.  I would  greatly  prefer 
to  have  the  gentleman  from  Ashland  remain, 
for  the  reason  that  he  is  fully  conversant  with 
all  this  affair.  He  knows  just  how  to  do  it  to 
save  time  and  expense  to  the  State,  and  if  he 
would  so  far  control  his  feelings  as  to  withdraw 
that  motion,  it  would  be  entirely  agreeable  to 
me.  If  not,  I second  it  only-  on  personal 
grounds,  and  hope  the  Convention  will  concur 
in  excusing,  unless  the  gentleman  thinks  that 
his  duty  requires  him  to  remain.  And  I would 
say  to  the  gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr.  Hill], 
that  if  he  thinks  there  is  wrong — if  he  thinks 
the  Secretary  of  State  has  been  guilty  of  fraud, 
it  is  his  duty  manfully  to  stand  up  in  his  place, 
without  fear,  and  if  the  Committee  is  packed, 
as  has  been  suggested  it  might  be,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  whitewashing,  that  he  expose  that,  not 
only  before  the  Convention,  but  the  country; 
not  to  gratify  any  personal  feeling.  And  that 
is  his  duty  as  a man,  and  he  ought  not  to  shrink 
from  that  duty.  If,  however,  he  persists  in 
taking  counsel  from  his  feelings,  and  shirks  his 
duty,  I would  second  the  motion  to  excuse 
him. 

Mr.  HILL.  It  has  been  repeated  several 
times  that  we  have  made  charges  against  the 
Secretary  of  State.  It  is  not  true.  He  fur- 
nished us  data  upon  which  our  estimates  are 
made,  and  the  price,  and  comparative  list  are 
exhibited.  We  make  no  charges;  but  the  very 
broad  accusation  has  been  made  here,  that  my 
Committee,  and  especially  myself,  have  been 
actuated  by  political  spite,  or  some  other  mo 
tive.  Now  then,  I leave  it  to  this  Convention  to 
say  whether,  under  such  accusation,  against 
my  honor,  my  oath  and  my  fidelity,  ought  I to 
serve  on  a Committee  of  this  kind,  [Cries  of  “no, 
no”]  when  these  imputations  are  thrown  out? 
Neither  do  I think  gentlemen  who  have  thrown 
out  such  imputations  ought  to  be  on  such  Com- 
mittee. I ask  to  be  excused,  because  I think 
my  manhood  requires  it. 

Mr.  KERR.  I hope  the  gentleman  from 
Ashland  [Mr.  Hill]  will  be  excused  from  serv- 
ing upon  this  Committee,  and  that  it  will  be 
done  by  a unanamous  vote  of  this  Convention. 
This  request  of  the  Secretary  of  State  was  put 
in  the  hands  of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and 
Expenses,  and  then,  without  reconsideration,  it 
was  taken  immediately  from  their  hands,  be- 
cause, perhaps,  some,  of  the  friends  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  wish  the  matters  well  white- 
washed. Or,  perhaps,  on  account  of  statements 
that  have  been  made  in  some  of  the  newspapers, 
abusing  him  in  the  most  infamous  manner,  and 
calling  him  infamous  names. 

A MEMBER.  Rural  rooster. 

Mr.  KERR.  Yes,  rural  rooster.  It  would 
be  dishonorable  for  the  gentleman  to  serve  on 
that  Committee ; and  I am  very  sorry  that  gen- 
tlemen here  seemed  to  be  a great  deal  more  in- 
terested in  protecting  and  maintaining  the 
honor  of  members  of  the  State  government  than 
they  are  that  of  members  of  this  Convention — 
members  of  committees  of  this  Convention : I 
trust  that  we  will  take  care  of  ourselves. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
excusing  the  gentleman  from  Ashland  [Mr. 
Hill]. 


Day.] THE  MIAMI  COAL  COMPANY. 1813 

March  6,  1874.]  Pond,  Yoris,  Hoadly,  Powell,  Gurley,  Jackson. 


Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POND.  Upon  my  own  motion,  and  not 
the  stimulus  of  my  guardian  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns],  I ask  to  be  excused  from  service 
upon  this  Committee. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I now  move  that  the  Conven- 
tion proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  wait  a 
moment? 

Mr.  YORIS.  I do  so  with  the  understanding 
that  time  is  not  to  be  consumed. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  that  the  vote  by  which 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Stark  [Mr.  Pease],  to  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of 
Rights  on  yesterday,  be  reconsidered,  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  my  friend,  Judge  Hoadly, 
to  make  a few  remarks  in  correcting  some 
statements  made  in  that  debate. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I rise,  Mr.  President,  to  a 
question  of  privilege.  I ask  that  the  resolution 
which  was  under  consideration  a moment  ago 
be  read.  We  have  not  got  through  with  that 
business. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Which  resolution  does 
the  gentleman  refer  to  ? 

Mr,  POWELL.  The  resolution  appointing 
the  Committee  on  yesterday.  It  is  a question  of 
privilege  to  have  the  matter  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that  it  is  not  a question  of  privilege.  There 
is  now  another  question  pending — the  recon- 
sideration of  the  vote  taken  yesterday  morning. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I requested  my  friend  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  to  make  this  motion  in  or- 
der that  I might  have  the  privilege  of  placing 
in  the  printed  volume  of  Debates  of  this  Con- 
vention a correction  of  certain  statements  that 
were  made  yesterday  by  the  delegate  from 
Perry  [Mr.  Jackson],  I was  in  the  Convention 
at  the  time  those  statements  were  made,  but  I 
was  sitting  in  the  extreme  corner  at  the  left, 
and  my  attention  being  engaged  otherwise,  I did 
not  hear  them  in  time  to  make  the  correction 
then.  I desire  to  say  that  it  is  extremely  unjust 
not  to  advise  the  members  of  this  Convention 
that  the  delegate  from  Perry  [Mr.  Jackson] 
was  misinformed  on  the  statement  he  made 
yesterday,  with  regard  to  the  affairs  of  the  Mi- 
ami Coal  Company.  I desire  to  say  first,  that 
the  Miami  Coal  Company  was  an  exceedingly 
disastrous  enterprise.  That  is  within  my  own 
personal  knowledge.  I desire  to  say  further, 
that  the  charges  which  the  delegate  from  Perry 
[Mr.  Jackson]  repeated  on  this  floor  yesterday 
were  examined  in  a suit  brought  by  Mr.  Hock- 
ing H.  Hunter,  in  the  circuit  court  of  the 
United  States,  and  after  a careful  personal  ex- 
amination, conducted  by  Judge  Hunter  him- 
self, were  abandoned  as  being  entirely  unsus- 
tained and  unsustainable.  The  president  of  the 
Miami  Coal  Company  was  a member  of  the 
Convention  of  1851,  Mr.  Charles  Reemelin,  one 
of  the  most  honored  and  respected  citizens  of 
this  county ; and  among  other  respected  citi- 
zens, some  of  whom  were  also  connected  with 
the  management  of  the  Cincinnati  & Zanesville 
Railroad  Company,  were  Mr.  Erasmus  Gest,  the 
then  receiver,  Mr.  H.  J.  Jewett,  and  other  gen- 
tlemen who  are  well  know'n  as  men  of  integ- 
rity and  moral  worth.  I am  aware  that  the 
delegate  from  Perry  [Mr.  Jackson]  was  justi- 


fied in  the  statements  he  made  by  the  general 
opinion  and  current  rumor  prevailing  on  the 
line  of  that  road.  But  certainly,  when  that 
road  was  sold,  so  far  from  its  being  true  that 
the  Miami  Coal  Company  had  either  done  any 
wrong,  or  shrunk  from  any  investigation,  that 
Charles  Moran,  the  trustee  for  the  bond- 
holders, himself  one  of  the  principal  stock- 
holders of  the  Miami  Company,  tendered  the 
use  of  his  name  as  such  trustee  for  the  pros- 
ecution of  the  suit  against  himself  and  his  asso- 
ciates by  Judge  Hunter,  in  order  that  there 
might  be  a thorough  investigation  and  over- 
hauling of  all  the  affairs  of  that  company  with 
the  railroad  company,  and  that  suit  was  brought, 
as  I have  said,  by  Mr.  Hunter,  and  after  months 
of  delay  and  examination  was  abandoned  by 
him.  I make  this  statement  because,  having 
been  counsel  for  the  Miami  Coal  Company,  and 
being  a personal  friend  of  Mr.  Reemelin  and  Mr. 
Gest,  and  having  personally  conferred  with 
Judge  Hunter,  and  knowing  personally  the  ex- 
tent of  his  examination,  and  also  being  ac- 
quainted with  the  pecuniary  disaster  which 
overtook  the  company,  I know  that  the  state- 
ments my  friend  from  Perry  has  made,  and 
which  I have  no  doubt  are  believed  by  him  and 
by  the  people  of  the  section  of  country  in  which 
he  lives,  are  unjust  and  ought  to  be  corrected, 
and  for  this  reason  I desired  to  make  this  cor- 
rection, and  asked  my  friend  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond]  to  make  the  motion  which  he  did, 
inasmuch  as  I voted  in  the  negative  and  could 
not  do  it. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  that  the  question  be 
laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  I think  I had  the  floor  for 
the  purpose 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Stark  [Mr.  Pease]  called  the  attention  of  the 
Okalr  first 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I believe  I had  not  taken 
my  seat. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I thought  the  gentleman 
yielded  the  floor. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I now  yield  to  my  friend 
from  Perry  [Mr.  Jackson]. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  I am  gratified  that  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Judge  Hoadly]  has 
stated  that  in  my  remarks  relative  to  the  Little 
Miami  Coal  Company  and  the  former  officers  of 
the  Cincinnati,  Wilmington  and  Zanesville 
Railroad,  I was  expressing  the  general  senti- 
ment and  belief  of  the  community  in  which  I 
reside.  That  belief  is  more  than  general  there 
— it  is  universal.  I tried  in  my  remarks  to 
avoid  the  direct  charge  that  the  officers  and 
owners  of  the  road  were  the  parties  composing 
the  Little  Miami  Coal  Company,  and  I think  I 
succeeded.  I intended  to  say,  and  I now  believe 
that  there  was  such  complicity  between  the 
coal  company  and  the  railroad  officers  that  it 
resulted  disastrously  to  the  general  mining  in- 
terests in  competition  with  the  Miami  Coal 
Company.  I do  not  know,  nor  is  it  probable 
that  any  one  can  know,  that  the  officers  and 
parties  controlling  the  railroad  conducted  the 
coal  company  in  common  interest,  with  the  in- 
tent and  purpose  of  destroying  the  others  com- 
peting. I do  know,  however,  that  heavy 
freights  were  charged  and  oppressive  terms  re- 
quired from  the  other  coal  operators.  I do 


1814 


THE  ELECTIVE  FRANCHISE. 

Jackson,  Voris,  Freiberg,  Hoadly,  Hale,  Carbery. 


131st 

[Friday? 


know  that  coal  switches  were  taken  up,  and  the 
general  mining  interest  was  temporarily  ruin- 
ed. I do  know  that  this  was  done  contempora- 
neously with  the  creation  and  conducting  of  the 
Miami  Coal  Company.  I do  know  that  when 
the  railroad  went  into  other  hands  the  general 
business  was  resumed  and  became  far  greater 
than  ever  before. 

The  gentleman  has  stated  that  Mr.  Hunter, 
the  attorney  for  the  railroad  in  the  United 
States  Court,  in  a pertinent  litigation  of  inqui- 
ry, exonerated  the  officers  of  the  railroad  from 
all  of  the  charges  popularly  made  against  them 
in  reference  to  this  matter. 

I did  not  know  this,  but  it  reminds  me  of  an 
action  brought  by  me,  as  attorney  of  a suffering 
party,  to  enjoin  those  officers  from  taking  up  a 
coal  switch,  in  alleged  furtherance  of  the  sup- 
posed intent  to  destroy  a coal  business,  in 
which,  unless  I am  greatly  mistaken,  Messrs. 
Hunter  and  Daugherty  were  attorneys  for  the 
defendants. 

I am  further  aware  of  the  fact  that  this  same 
matter  has  been  the  subject  of  legislative  inqui- 
ry, in  which  I drew  up  a number  of  affidavits  of 
injured  parties,  or  witnesses,  but  was  not  pres- 
ent at  the  examination  itself. 

These  were  the  reasons  for  my  statements  of 
yesterday. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I did  not  yield  the  floor  with 
the  understanding  that  a discussion  should  be 
had. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I wish  to  say  one  word  in 
explanation,  if  the  gentleman  will  allow  me. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I do  it  with  the  understanding 
that  the  gentleman  will  renew  the  motion  that 
I made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  What  is  the  motion  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I made  the  motion  that  we 
proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  order  of  the 
day. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I only  wish  to  say,  in  ex- 
planation, that  1 saw  a report,  yesterday  morn- 
ing, in  the  Commercial , which  has  done  me 
great  injustice.  In  some  remarks  that  I made, 
day  before  yesterday,  on  the  Preamble,  I am 
represented  as  saying  that  I had  heretofore 
regarded  the  members  of  this  Convention  as  a 
liberal-minded  set  of  men,  and  I had  found  out 
that  I was  mistaken,  when,  in  fact,  my  state- 
ment was  the  reverse,  as  every  gentleman  on 
this  floor  can  testify.  I said  that  I never  in 
my  life  had  met  with  a more  liberal-minded  set 
of  men. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  c.oves  to  proceed  to  the 
special  order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 
The  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Summit 
[Mr.  Voris]  is  out  of  order.  The  motion  to 
re-consider  takes  precedence.  I wish  to  occupy 
the  attention  of  the  Convention  a moment,  to 
say,  first,  that,  whilst  it  is  true  that  Judge 
Hunter  was,  at  one  time,  attorney  for  the 
Miami  Coal  Company,  at  the  time  I allude  to  he 
not  only  was  not  the  attorney  for  that  com- 
pany, but  was  employed  most  lucratively  in 
opposition  to  that  company;  and,  secondly, 
that,  in  the  litigation  I refer  to,  the  Miami  Coal 
Company  courted  investigation,  and,  I believe, 
will,  upon  any  fair  trial,  be  entirely  acquitted 
of  any  wrong  whatever. 


Mr.  HALE.  I move  that  this  motion  to  re- 
consider be  laid  on  the  table. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HALE.  I now  move  we  proceed  to  the 
special  order  of  the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  special  order  of  the 
day  is  Proposition  203. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  If  I understand  correctly 
the  language  of  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Elective  Franchise,  it  proposes  in  effect  to  short- 
en the  period  of  probation  now  fixed  for  aliens 
at  five  years  to  one  year.  The  delegate  from 
Butler  in  his  speech  last  night,  manifested  a 
very  decided  opposition  to  the  proposed  change. 
His  mind  seemed  to  be  impressed  with  the  idea 
that  our  State,  in  the  event  of  this  provision  be- 
coming a part  of  the  Constitution,  would  be 
immediately  overrun  by  a swarm  of  felons  and 
paupers  from  every  part  of  “God’s  footstool.” 
They  would  come  from  beyond  the  Chinese  wall, 
from  the  jungles  of  Africa,  from  the  river  banks 
of  Germany,  France  and  Italy,  from  the  pleas- 
ant vales  of  happy  England,  “the  inviolate 
islands  of  the  sage  and  free,”  from  the  heathery 
braes  of  Scotland,  and  the  “green  banks  of 
Shannon ;”  from  all  and  every  land  they  would 
come  and  obtrude  their  ignorance  and  poverty 
and  vice  into  our  elysium,  where  the  highest 
intelligence  is  united  to  the  greatest  social  sta- 
bility, and  in  which  is  thus  formed  a society  of 
the  very  greatest  public  and  private  virtue.  I 
could  better  understand  the  gentleman’s  argu- 
ment if  his  opposition  to  the  admission  of  these 
elements  was  absolute  and  fixed.  Of  what  avail 
indeed  will  be  the  short  period  provided  by  law 
to  properly  prepare  this  crowd  of  felons  and 
paupers  for  the  robe  of  citizenship.  Or,  per- 
haps, it  is  I who  am  mistaken  in  making  too  low 
an  estimate  of  the  curative  atmosphere  into 
which  they  are  to  be  introduced.  From  the 
gentleman’s  standpoint  either  our  institutions 
are  omnipotent  teachers,  or  these  emigrants  are 
not  as  a class  so  vile  and  low  as  the  gentleman 
assumes  them  to  be. 

I prefer  the  latter  theory  for  the  sake  of  our 
common  humanity,  even  if  it  were  un sustained 
by  observation  and  experience.  I do  not  lose 
sight  of  the  fact  that  the  darker  shades  of  the 
gentleman’s  picture  had  an  African  or  an  Asiatic 
origin,  but  this  may  be  viewed  as  a mere  poetic 
license.  The  additions  to  the  population  of  our 
State  are  not  to  be  traced  to  these  sources.  The 
Chinese  come  but  sparingly  and  seldom  remain. 
The  African  who  comes  is  generally  to  the  man- 
ner born,  and  if  his  visible  admixture  has  im- 
paired the  original  purity  of  the  body  politic, 
the  misfortune  is  plainly  the  property  of  that 
political  party  with  which  the  delegate  from 
Butler  was  so  recently  identified.  But,  Mr. 
President,  there  is  no  fear  of  fresh  importations 
from  “Afric’s  sunny  plains,”  and  history  does 
not  report  the  race  as  being  inclined  to  volun- 
tary emigration.  The  paupers  and  felons  then 
must  come  from  the  European  families  and  their 
admission  to  the  suffrage  after  a year’s  proba- 
tion is  the  dire  calamity  against  which  the  elo- 
quent and  indignant  voice  of  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  is  raised.  Do  the  facts  in  regard 
to  these  people  justify  the  apprehensions  of  the 


THE  ALIEN  OF  A YEAR. 

Carbery,  Campbell. 


1815 


Day.J 

March  6, 1874.] 


gentleman?  Are  they  paupers  or  felons ? The 
facts  contradict  and  disprove  any  such  assump- 
tion. They  bring  along  brawny  arms  to  work 
for  daily  bread,  and  faithful  hearts  to  protect 
and  nourish  the  beloved  of  their  humble 
hearths. 

They  are  generally  found  sustaining  works 
and  institutions  of  charity.  The  church  and 
the  school  spring  up  wheresoever  their  footsteps 
turn.  The  purity  and  beauty  of  a Christian 
home  shine  calmly  and  steadily  wherever  they 
set  up  their  household  altars.  Sir,  I think  they 
add  strength  and  beauty  to  the  social  and  civic 
edifice. 

Why,  sir,  the  fact  of  their  presence  amongst 
us  very  often  involves  a history  of  heroism  and 
self-denial  that  sanctifies  all  concerned.  For  it 
is  a fact  of  daiJy  experience  that  the  loving  let- 
ter which  dwells  so  affectionately  on  the  bless- 
ings of  the  new  home,  contains,  too,  from  the 
scanty  earnings  of  the  son  or  daughter,  an 
offering  of  love  to  make  the  beloved  ones  of  the 
Fatherland  a happy  holiday,  or,  in  many  cases, 
a sum  sufficient  to  transport  them  to  this  land  of 
their  adoption.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  they  so 
soon  learn  to  appreciate  and  earnestly  embrace 
the  interests  of  that  country  in  which  tlieir 
kindred  had  found  so  noble  a hospitality,  and 
whose  munificent  opportunities  enabled  them  to 
shake  off,  forever,  the  shackles  of  a native  des- 
potism? Not  from  this  quarter,  Mr.  President, 
will  the  true  political  seer  ever  apprehend  dis- 
aster to  the  Republic. 

As  I listened  to  the  eloquent  words  of  the 
delegate  from  Butler  last  night,  as  he  thrust 
from  him  the  felon  and  pauper  of  his  imagina- 
tion, the  alien  of  a year,  who  would  desecrate 
the  holy  places  of  the  Republic,  my  mind  flew 
back  to  a period  in  our  history  when  aliens 
were  differently  spoken  of.  I remembered  that 
every  historic  field  has  been  enriched  by  alien 
blood ; that  the  ripple  of  every  river  is  a re- 
quiem of  some  gallant  foreign  soldier,  who 
went  to  sleep  forever  in  her  waters,  and  that 
mountain  and  plain,  town,  and  hamlet  and  city 
in  a loving  nomenclature,  perpetuate  the  names 
of  the  aliens  of  the  past. 

Sir,  the  Republic  is  grand,  beautiful,  but  it 
must  never  be  forgotten  that  foreign  valor  and 
foreign  thought  contributed  to  its  structure. 
Not  only  helped  to  lay  its  foundations  and  fur- 
nish its  philosophy,  but,  in  latter  days,  to  ce- 
ment the  edifice  by  blood  freely  shed. 

Sir,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  proposition  of 
the  Committee  is  one  susceptible  of  temperate 
discussion,  and  although  it  may  not  be  judicious 
to  incorporate  it  in  the  fundamental  law,  its 
bare  contemplation  ought  not,  I think,  produce 
such  abhorrent  consternation  as  in  the  case  of 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]. 
What  might  have  been  the  fate  of  the  Union  had 
the  alien  and  his  descendants  been  omitted 
from  the  muster-roll  of  our  armies  ? Let  us  not 
forget,  while  reposing  safely  beneath  the  na- 
tion’s banner,  that  in  the  hottest  fight,  in  the 
direst  danger,  it  was  borne  alike  boldly  by  na- 
tive and  by  foreign  arms,  and  that  its  glorious 
Stars  and  Stripes,  with  a loving  impartiality, 
enwrapped  alike  the  native  and  the  alien  when 
sinking  to  death  in  its  defense. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I desire  to  say  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery],  that  he 


fails  to  remember  that  I drew  a distinction  be- 
tween the  naturalized  citizen  and  the  alien.' 
He  seems  to  have  forgot,  that  I paid,  or  attempt- 
ed to  pay,  a high  tribute  to  the  patriotism  and 
the  valor  of  the  naturalized  citizen.  I referred 
to  the  fact  that  on  the  morning  after  the  proc- 
lamation had  been  issued  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  a 
company  of  patriotic  Germans  marched  past 
my  own  residence  before  sunrise,  and  had  it  not 
been  late  last  evening  when  I spoke  I should 
have  paid  a similar  tribute'to  that  class  of  natu- 
ralized citizens  who  hailed  originally  from  the 
Emerald  Isle,  from  which  the  gentleman  him- 
self comes.  I remember  to  have  assisted  in  the 
raising  of  a regiment  in  my  own  city,  that  gal- 
lant noble  patriotic  Irish-American  General 
Stephen  J.  McGroarty,  who  went  to  the  bat- 
tle-field taking  his  Irish  regiment,  and  leaving 
there  the  remains  of  many  of  them  to  return  to 
the  dust  from  which  they  originally  sprang, 
he  returned  bullet-riddled,  having  been  wound- 
ed in  no  less  than  thirty  different  points  in  his 
person.  Recognizing  that  great  service,  he 
having  lost  his  practice  as  a lawyer  in  this  city, 
I went  in  person  to  the  city  of  Washington  and 
made  an  appeal  in  his  behalf  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  and  procured  for  h im  an 
appointment  to  a high  post  of  honor  and  a 
lucrative  position,  through  my  individual  influ- 
ence. And  among  the  private  letters  of  that 
gallant  man,  whose  spirit  I trust  is  now  in 
Heaven,  will  be  found  the  paper  upon  which 
he  was  appointed  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  emanating  from  me.  I object  to 
the  gentleman’s  attempting  here  this  morning 
to  throw  any  imputations  upon  me  in  regard  of 
a disposition  to  overlook  the  gallant  servic  es  of 
naturalized  citizens  during  the  war.  1 1 was 
against  alien  suffrage  that  I spoke.  Iam  un- 
willing that  any  man  shall  have  the  right  to 
vote  until  by  the  laws  of  the  land  when  the 
flag  is  in  danger,  when  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Union  is  in  peril,  he  shall  be  compelled  by 
draft  to  take  the  same  responsibilities  and  du- 
ties that  devolve  upon  the  naturalized  and 
native  born  citizen.  I simply  desired  to  show 
that  the  gentleman  has  not  given  me  credit  for 
the  spirit  of  the  remarks  I made  yesterday  and 
has  attempted  to  impress  the  Convention  with 
the  idea  that  I am  making  war  against  the  for- 
eign born  element  in  this  country.  I am,  my- 
self, descended  from  a Scotchman,  and  my  an- 
cestors were  born  in  foreign  lands  and  served  in 
the  battles  of  the  Revolution  as  I intimated  yes- 
terday. I would  do  no  injustice  to  the  foreign 
element.  I want  the  foreigner,  before  he  can 
vote  and  hold  office,  to  be  compelled,  if  neces- 
sary to  preserve  the  Union,  to  take  up  the  bayo- 
net. Upon  that  principle  the  African-Ameri- 
can was  enfranchised — the  fact  of  his  taking 
the  bayonet.  The  gentleman  has  failed  to  give 
us  the  names  of  those  distinguished  aliens,  who 
without  naturalization  volunteered  to  serve 
during  the  whole  rebellion.  If  he  has  a record 
of  them,  I hope  he  will  present  it. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I have  several  duties  to 
perform.  The  first  one,  perhaps,  would  be  to 
object  to  the  great  length  of  the  question  put 
I to  me;  or,  rather,  to  the  length  of  the  lecture 
to  which  I have  been  subjected.  I had  no  in- 
tention, and  I do  not  believe  I did  attribute  to 
the  gentleman  any  attack  upon  foreign-born 


1816 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Carbery,  Townsend,  Voris. 


[131st 


citizens.  I said  that  the  gentleman’s  wrath 
seemed  to  be  entirely  disproportionate  to  the 
enemy  with  which  he  was  contending,  and  was 
directed  against  the  alien  and  pauper  foreign 
element,  and  if  this  pauper  and  foreign  element 
was  to  be  traduced  here,  the  fact  of  the  case  be- 
ing, that  all  our  population  of  foreign  birth 
came  from  European  countries,  I think  it  is 
perfectly  legitimate  to  say  that,  though  the 
gentleman’s  wrath  was  directed  against  the 
general  foreign  and  pauper  element,  yet  its 
real  edge  was  directed  against  the  European,  in 
fact.  Now,  sir,  I labored  under  the  impression 
to-day  that  there  was  in  my  ear  the  recollection 
of  a sound  to  which  I was  once  accustomed.  It 
appeared  to  me  that  the  distant  reverberation 
of  1854  and  1855  was  tremulous  in  the  air.  At 
least,  the  indignant  and  contemptuous  manner 
in  which  these  persons  were  spoken  of  as  of 
inferior  blood,  appeared  to  me  to  be  kindred  to 
that  denunciation  of  foreign  citizens  which 
once  filled  this  land  with  a howl  that  was  dis- 
graceful to  hear,  seeing  that  her  very  existence, 
in  the  beginning,  depended  on  foreign  bayo- 
nets. I am  a man  of  tenacious  memory.  I re- 
sent everything  of  that  kind  with  all  the  im- 
pulsiveness and  warmth  of  the  race  to  which  I 
belong,  and  may  somtimes  forget  the  cool  pre- 
cision of  the  parliamentarian,  and  substitute 
therefor  the  warmth  of  a true  man. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Will  the  gentleman  per- 
mit me  a minute  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  It  is  well  known,  per- 
haps, to  this  Convention,  that  our  gallant  mem- 
ber from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  is  not  only  the 
champion  of  the  right  of  female  suffrage  in 
this  Convention,  but  leads  that  public  question 
in  the  State.  I have  reason  to  believe  that  he 
has  a careful  and  exhaustive  argument  upon 
this  question  that  will  require  more  time  than 
the  rules  of  this  body  permit.  I,  therefore,  ask 
unanimous  consent  that  he  be  permitted  to  fin- 
ish his  argument  when  he  has  once  commenced 
it. 

Leave  was  given. 

Mr.  VORIS.  The  proposition  that  I desire  to 
urge  upon  the  consideration  of  the  Convention 
is  exhibited  in  the  Report  made  by  the  Select 
Committee  on  Woman  Suffrage,  which  adopts 
section  one  of  Article  five  of  the  present  Consti- 
tution, with  the  exception  of  striking  out  the 
words  “white  male”  from  that  section,  and  in- 
serting the  words  “or  she”  after  the  word  “he” 
wherever  it  occurs.  The  Select  Committee  pro- 
pose that  the  first  section  of  the  proposed  Arti- 
cle shall  be  submitted  as  a separate  proposition 
to  the  electors  of  the  State.  The  Constitution 
now  in  force  defines  what  an  elector  is,  and  no 
provision  made  by  this  Convention  can  affect 
that  question.  It  necessarily  results,  therefore, 
that  the  proposed  submission  must  be  to  the 
present  voters  of  the  State  who  are  males  and 
only  males.  I will  not  take  up  the  time  of  the 
Convention  in  reading  the  proposition,  as  I will 
submit  it  at  the  proper  time.  The  motion  I 
would  make  now  is  simply  an  amendment  to 
that  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]  to  strike  out  the  word  “male”  and 
insert  the  words  “or  she”  wherever  the  word 
he  occurs,  and  immediately  thereafter.  This 


[Friday, 


opens  the  whole  question  as  to  the  right  and  the 
expediency  of  making  the  women  of  the  State 
voters.  To  that  general  proposition  I propose 
now  to  address  myself. 

Mr.  President,  I appear  before  you,  sir,  the 
advocate  of  as  grave  a subject  as  will  be  acted 
on  by  the  Convention. 

It  is  above  all  consideration  of  party,  section, 
or  station  in  life.  Its  claims  alike  appeal  to 
the  sentiments,  magnanimity,  intelligent  judg- 
ment and  sense  of  justice  of  every  member  of 
this  august  body. 

In  like  manner  it  addresses  every  one  of  your 
constituents.  It  is  no  less  a matter  than  the 
political  enfranchisement  of  one  half  the  citi- 
zens of  the  State,  for  all  the  years  to  come.  It 
is  whether  the  women  of  the  commonwealth 
shall  be  elevated  to  a higher  plane  of  duty  and 
usefulness,  whether  the  State  shall  have  the 
benefit  of  her  better  sense  of  propriety  directly 
applied  in  our  political  arrangements,  or  only 
have  her  moral  influences  indirectly  applied — 
for  applied  they  must  be  from  the  very  order  of 
nature,  and  whether  she  shall  possess  the  po- 
litical rights  of  a citizen,  for  her  protection 
and  higher  development,  or  whether  they  shall 
be  denied  her,  a denial  that  unjustly  excludes 
her  from  using  in  her  behalf  the  great  and 
essential  means  employed  by  men  for  their  pro- 
tection. 

It  is  of  higher  import  than  the  imposition  of 
taxation  without  representation,  for  which  our 
fathers  most  righteously  undertook  the  hazards 
of  the  Revolution. 

Your  solution  of  this  great  problem  will  sub- 
stantially affect  the  social  relations,  both  pub- 
licly and  privately,  of  all  those  we  hold  most 
dear.  If  you  do  it  against  them  your  act  in 
that  behalf  will  disparagingly  react  on  you  and 
the  State. 

So  grave  a question  should  be  canvassed  with 
the  utmost  circumspection,  and  most  carefully 
viewed  in  all  its  aspects,  with  a conscientious 
desire  to  get  at  the  truth,  and  do  all  that  justice 
demands.  It  is  a matter  of  pure  statesmanship, 
that  scorns  the  subterfuges  of  the  dodger,  cant 
of  the  scoffer,  and  ridicule  of  the  trifling  bigot. 
It  deals  with  the  highest  rights  known  to  poli- 
tics, and  has  not  a phase  but  appeals  with  the 
utmost  sincerity  to  your  candor,  and  a digni- 
fied sense  of  justice. 

The  wonderful  excellence  we  have  achieved 
in  our  political  and  material  relations  has  been 
mainly  secured  by  the  practical  recognition  of 
the  freedom  of  the  people  and  the  actual  assur- 
ance that  political  equality  is  the  right  of  all 
men.  Thus  animated,  we  have  secured  the 
highest  benefits  of  government  ever  yet  enjoyed 
by  mankind.  To  secure  these  we  magnify  in 
i all  possible  ways  the  power  and  character  of  all 
the  people,  and  make  their  rights,  whether  po- 
litical or  natural,  paramount  to  all  other  rights; 
and  herein  is  the  only  bond  of  union  between 
I the  governed  and  the  government  that  can  long 
satisfy  the  convictions  of  any  people  of  spirit. 

From  these  rights  of  the  people,  which  will 
not  be  questioned  here,  certain  fundamental 
j principles  manifestly  arise,  that  no  government 
may  justly  ignore  in  its  political  arrangements, 
i among  which  are  the  following : 

No  liberty,  privilege  or  right  may  be  denied 
I to  any  which  is  not  demanded  by  the  public 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

VORIS. 


1817 


Day.] 

March  6,  1874.] 


good,  and  which  do  not  fall  impartially  upon 
all. 

The  largest  liberty  compatible  with  the  pub- 
lic good  is  the  absolute  right  of  all. 

No  privileges  or  powers  may  be  accorded  to 
any  for  the  protection  or  enjoyment  of  their 
rights  that  may  not  be  equally  enjoyed  by  all. 

All  have  an  equal  right  to  every  available 
means  of  making  that  protection  as  secure  as 
possible. 

All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people. 
Governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed. 

These  are  pronounced  doctrines  of  American 
liberty — essential  principles  of  self-govern- 
ment; not  high-sounding  phrases  gotten  up  to 
tickle  the  ears  of  the  mob ; not  mere  glittering 
generalities,  but  ever-living  truths;  and  the  de- 
clared law  in  the  Constitutions  of  the  States 
that  no  department  of  this  government  may 
disobey. 

In  the  light  of  these  principles,  who  of  the 
people  may  properly  be  deprived  of  the  right  to 
vote  at  the  elections  ? Looking  at  this  as  a new 
question,  untrammeled  by  the  dogmas  of  the  old 
despotisms,  we  would,  after  a careful  review  of 
the  whole  field,  say  that  no  one  ought  to  be  ex- 
cluded unless  for  lack  of  mental  or  moral  qual- 
ifications—for  the  State  is  placed  in  danger  if 
political  power  is  put  in  the  hands  of  persons 
who  are  wanting  in  intelligence  or  moral  power 
enough  to  appreciate  the  benefits  of  good  gov- 
ernment, or  care  for  the  evils  of  bad  adminis- 
tration . 

As  all  proper  political  arrangements  are  made 
for  the  people,  the  natural  presumption  is,  that 
all  the  people  should  be  represented  in  the  gov- 
ernment, unless  for  cogent  reasons,  based  upon 
some  patent  and  grave  disqualification,  to  the 
contrary.  Non-age,  idiocy,  insanity,  moral  de- 
pravity exhibited  in  the  commission  of  crime, 
would  be  obvious  reasons.  But  who  would 
think  of  making  stature,  mere  physical  differ- 
ences, hereditary  significance,  traditionary 
power,  or  property,  the  test  of  the  right  to  the 
exercise  of  the  ballot?  Who  would  think  of 
excluding  woman,  man’s  equal  in  all  the  enno- 
bling endowments  that  characterize  him  above 
the  brute?  So  important  a right,  certainly, 
cannot  be  denied  to  any  in  our  government, 
where  the  rights  of  the  weakest  and  most  insig- 
nificant are  just  as  sacred  as  of  the  most  pow- 
erful, on  account  of  doubtful  or  arbitrary  rea- 
sons. Every  member  of  the  State,  if  excluded, 
is  entitled  to  know  wherefore  he  or  she  is 
excluded  by  his  or  her  fellows,  and  those  re- 
sponsible for  the  exclusion  ought  to  be  able  to 
give  a satisfactory  reason  for  making  the  excep- 
tion. 

Logically,  the  burden  is  upon  those  insisting 
on  the  exception,  to  give  the  reasons  for  mak- 
ing the  exception  to  the  usual  rule.  If  woman 
is  to  be  made  an  exception  in  the  social  com- 
pact, she  being  as  essentially  a constituent 
thereof  as  any  human  being,  those  insisting  on 
making  her  such  must  give  the  reason  why  she 
should  be  so  made. 

In  this  great  body,  before  her  opponents  can 
insist  on  the  adoption  in  the  organic  law  of  the 
State,  of  her  exclusion  from  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  Suffrage,  they  must  give  satisfactory 
reasons  therefor,  as  they  would  in  any  other 


exceptional  case.  The  burden  is  clearly  on 
them. 

Now,  gentlemen,  don’t  perpetrate  on  us  the 
little  fable  of  the  wolf  and  the  lamb  : “ You 
wicked  lamb,  how  dare  you  muddy  the  water 
that  flows  down  here  from  you  to  me,  for  me  to 
drink?”  “ O,  dear  Mr.  Wolf,  you  are  mistaken. 
The  water  flows  from  you  to  me — don’t  you  see 
that  you  are  much  higher  than  I am?  All 
wolves  ought  to  know  that  water  never  flows 
up  hill.”  “You  impudent  lamb,  don’t  you 
know  better  than  to  dispute  the  word  of  a re- 
spectable wolf?  You  thus  jeopardize  the 
standing  and  rights  of  all  wolves.  I will  pun- 
ish you  for  your  insolence.”  Therefore,  the 
casuist  of  the  forest  had  spring  lamb  for  dinner. 
That  womanly  lamb  most  meekly  submitted  to 
its  happy  fate.  It  was  a good  lamb. 

No  gratuitous  assumptions  will  do.  You 
must  make  your  case  against  her  founded  upon 
recognized  facts  and  principles,  just  as  you 
would  if  it  was  a matter  whether  men  should 
be  excluded  or  not. 

The  opponents  of  Woman’s  Suffrage  cannot 
complain  of  these  tests.  By  them  we  are  wil- 
ling she  should  be  judged.  By  them  she  can- 
not fail. 

Take  the  beginnings  of  the  whole  race  as 
children — for  a considerable  time  their  rela- 
tions take  on  no  differences  on  account  of  sex. 
Natural  affection  and  parental  selfishness  take 
the  place  of  political  arrangements,  and  throw 
a bulwark  round  infantile  weakness  that  defies 
attack,  but  as  development,  power,  maturity 
and  selfhood  take  place,  the  parental  ceases  to 
be  the  protecting  or  controlling  power,  and  then 
and  thence  arise  the  necessity  for  political  safe- 
guards and  powers.  This  exists  in  the  very 
nature  of  things.  The  experience  of  mankind 
justly  exonerates  the*  infant  from  all  political 
accountability;  but  as  powers  develop,  ac- 
countability arises  till  not  a requirement  or 
burden  of  political  body  but  may  bear  upon  it. 
In  this,  there  is  no  distinction  between  the  boy 
and  girl,  the  young  man  and  young  woman — 
and  where  the  marriage  relation  exists,  it  is 
that  relation,  not  the  sex,  that  creates  its  con- 
ditions. The  single  man  and  single  woman  at 
the  age  of  accountability,  as  members  of  soci- 
ety, not  as  men  or  women,  sexually  considered, 
are  alike  subordinate  to  the  laws  of  that  society, 
and  alike  subject  in  their  persons  and  property 
to  all  its  requirements,  and  equally  meeting  its 
protections,  both  equally  human  in  all  their  at- 
tributes, both  equally  interested  in  the  welfare 
of  self  and  society,  both  equally  capable  and 
intelligent  if  society  has  done  its  duty  to  them, 
both  equally  endowed  with  powers  of  choice 
and  capacity  for  independent  action,  and 
neither  inferior  to  the  other.  Now,  tell  us  why, 
at  the  very  point  of  time  when  the  responsi- 
bilities of  adults  are  inexorably  forced  on  them, 
the  woman  must  be  placed  wholly  at  the  mercy 
of  man’s  selfishness  or  generosity  for  all  her 
relations  to  mankind  ? 

An  adequate  reason  must  exist  for  this,  and 
certainly  must  be  very  obvious,  if  it  exist  of 
right,  because  such  weighty  results  depend  on 
its  force.  What  is  that  reason  ? 

I have  so  far  treated  this  as  a question  of  the 
rights  of  the  man  and  the  woman  simply  as 
members  of  society  in  their  individual  capaci- 


1818 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

VORIS. 


ty,  not  at  all  modified  by  the  family  relation. 
But  what  may  we  not  say  for  woman  when  she 
assumes  the  new  relation  of  wife  and  mother ; 
when  to  her  is  committed  the  nurture,  educa- 
tion and  moral  development  of  every  member 
of  society,  and  when  the  character  of  all  the 
men  of  the  land  is  born  of  her  excellence,  or 
blasted  by  her  insignificance? 

If  political  distinctions  indeed  should  exist  in 
virtue  of  the  sexual  differences,  why  not  give 
to  woman  political  power,  and  make  man’s  su- 
perior physical  strength  the  executing  force, 
her  superior  moral  powers  the  directing  force? 
Her  moral  equilibrium  is  certainly  as  sound  as 
his ; her  patriotism  has  never  been  doubted ; 
she  rarely  sets  on  foot  seditions  or  inaugurates 
political  disturbances;  and  her  fortitude  fre- 
quently stands  defiant  where  man  surrenders. 

In  what  do  you  found  your  right  to  vote? 
Where  do  I get  my  patent  to  vote?  Where 
does  any  man  get  it?  Is  it  a gracious  conces- 
sion of  the  State?  The  government  has  no  just 
powers  but  those  derived  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed.  Does  not  the  right  inhere  in  us 
because  we  are  members  of  the  body  politic,  sub- 
ject to  its  just  demands,  and  entitled  to  its  full 
measure  of  protection  ? On  principle,  I answer, 
yes. 

I do  not  propose  to  enter  into  any  fine 
wrought  distinctions,  refinements,  or  classifica- 
tions of,  or  concerning  this  right.  Suffice  it  to 
say  that  the  right  does  exist,  or  it  does  not  ex- 
ist, and  no  distinctions  or  classifications  can  al- 
ter its  essential  qualities.  That  it  exists  in  full 
force  in  behalf  of  all  men,  is  not  a disputed  his- 
torical or  political  fact  in  our  country. 

Why  does  it  so  exist? 

My  existence  as  a human  being  compels  me 
to  be  a member  of  the  social  compact.  I would 
cease  to  be  human  in  my  attributes  and  develop- 
ment if  I abstracted  myself  from  society,  and 
would  thereby  violate  the  very  law  of  my  being. 
I am,  therefore,  by  that  law  compelled  to  be  a 
member  of  society  so  long  as  I may  live.  But, 
in  this,  I am  no  more  so  than  every  other  human 
being;  men  no  more  so  than  women,  nor 
women  any  more  so  than  men.  The  same  law 
of  being  attaches  to  each  and  both  alike.  Each 
have  the  same  natural  rights,  requiring  the 
same  conservative  agencies,  in  our  social  ar- 
rangements for  their  protection.  Both  are 
thrown  in  the  same  manner,  by  the  same  great 
Creator,  into  the  same  society,  not  the  slightest 
difference  in  the  mode  by  which  they  become, 
or  cease  to  be  members  of  the  social  compact, 
community  or  State,  and  after  they  become  such 
members,  there  are  no  departures  but  are  com- 
mon to  both  the  sexes.  Their  hopes,  aims,  de- 
velopment, whole  being  as  members  of  society, 
and  eternal  destiny  are  identical. 

This  equality  of  rights,  unity  of  destiny,  and 
identity  of  humanity,  furnish  the  standard  by 
which  we  may  determine  what  the  political 
rights  of  any  are  or  should  be. 

Bring  in  review  all  the  reasons  you  can  think 
of  why  the  right  to  vote  is  secured  to  the  men, 
and  when  you  are  done,  there  is  not  a reason 
among  them  all  that  does  not  obtain  just  as 
strongly  for  woman. 

It  is  said  the  right  to  vote  is  a political  privi- 
lege that  may  be  given  or  withheld,  as  notions 
of  State  policy  may  change;  that  no  man  can 


[131st 

[Friday, 


demand  ic  of  right,  that  the  right  rises  no  higher 
than  mere  matter  of  State  policy.  The  feudal 
age  had  no  higher  idea  of  the  rights  of  the 
citizen  than  this — mere  privilege.  But  this  is  a 
very  narrow  conception  of  the  supreme  right 
of  the  citizen,  upon  which  in  fact  all  his  other 
rights  depend,  and  has  no  standing  as  a politi- 
cal principle  in  our  State  arrangements.  But, 
whether  natural  or  human,  it  is  an  equal  right. 

Give  it  any  other  significance  among  the 
voters  of  the  country,  and  whoever  did  it,  I 
care  not  how  strongly  he  might  be  supported, 
would,  at  once,  be  forced  to  the  wall  with  all 
his  backers.  It  is  the  essence  of  that  political 
power  that  in  your  organic  law  is  said  to  inhere 
in  the  people.  It  is  the  right  arm  by  which  the 
political  rights  of  any  are  assured,  which  rights 
only  exist  at  all  for  the  equal  and  impartial 
protection  of  all  the  natural  and  social  rights  of 
every  member  of  the  political  body.  Now,  is 
not  this  right  that  secures  to  me  the  just  protec- 
tion of  government,  as  much  an  absolute  and 
inalienable  right,  as  my  right  to  life,  liberty, 
the  acquisition  of  property,  and  their  enjoyment, 
and  deprived  of  which  right  I have  no  assur- 
ance of  their  enjoyment? 

But  we  take  the  gage  thrown  down  by  gen- 
tlemen who  stickle  over  fine  distinctions  as  to 
the  nature  of  this  right,  and  say  to  them  who 
insist  that  it  is  purely  a political  right,  one  that 
the  State  may  change  or  abrogate  as  its  judg- 
ment dictates,  that  on  the  score  of  wise  State 
policy,  woman  ought  to  vote  upon  the  same 
standard  it  fixes  for  the  qualifications  of  the 
male  voters. 

But  she  has  in  addition  to  this  the  superior 
right  referred  to,  the  right  of  every  citizen 
without  regard  to  sex,  color  or  previous  condi- 
tion, to  enjoy  the  fullest  liberty  any  other  per- 
son may  enjoy,  and  to  possess  as  an  indefeasible 
estate,  all  the  means  the  social  compact  can 
give  for  the  fullest  protection  and  enjoyment  of 
all  her  rights,  that  may  be  given  to  any  other 
person  whomsoever. 

She  as  a member  of  this  compact,  is  entitled 
to  the  ballot  for  the  power  it  brings  her,  for  her 
protection  and  elevation  and  for  strengthening 
morality  and  the  public  safeguards,  just  as  you 
and  I are  entitled  to  it. 

The  State  ought  to  have  her  enfranchisement, 
because  she  possesses  in  an  eminent  degree  all 
the  qualities  that  enter  into  the  valuable  citizen. 
She  is  entitled  to  it  because  of  the  two-fold 
offices  it  performs — the  benefit  it  confers  upon  j 
her,  and  for  the  good  it  must  confer  on  the 
State  at  large  if  wisely  exercised. 

I admit  that  woman  differs  from  man— but 
men  are  not  all  alike.  These  differences  j 
are  certainly  no  disparagement  to  her.  The  1 
highest  felicitations  of  mankind  spring  from 
them.  They  exalt  instead  of  lessen  the  humani-  I 
ties  of  our  race,  and  woman  is  the  elevating 
agent. 

Is  there  anything  in  her  differences  that  dis- 
qualifies her  for  the  proper  exercise  of  the 
right  of  Suffrage?  If  so,  what  is  it? 

Do  these  differences  lessen  her  need  of  the 
potentialities  of  the  ballot?  If  so,  in  what  re- 
spect? Are  these  differences  such  that  it  is 
either  necessary  or  expedient  for  the  public  to 
deprive  her  of  it?  If  so,  why  ? 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE, 

VORIS. 


1819 


Day.] 


March  6,  1874.1 


The  proper  answer  to  these  questions  solves 
the  whole  matter. 

The  first  and  last  of  these  questions  may  be 
properly  answered  together. 

Of  her  moral  qualifications  I will  speak  more 
fully  in  another  part  of  my  argument. 

She  has  aptness  to  learn  and  capacity  for 
judging  of  State  matters,  equally  as  well,  at  least, 
as  the  great  majority  of  voters. 

Politics  is  not  one  of  the  spontaneous  intui- 
tions, nor  does  it  separate  at  the  sexes,  and  only 
belong  to  the  men.  Its  intricacies  are  only 
mastered  by  the  most  careful  training,  patient 
inquiry  and  long  experience,  which  may  be  ac- 
quired by  women  as  well  as  men — in  degree 
certainly,  beyond  that  existing  in  most  men 
who  vote.  All  assertions  to  the  contrary  are 
mere  assumptions  without  any  authority  or  fact 
to  prove  them. 

It  is  neither  generous  or  just  to  deny  her 
training  and  opportunity,  and  then  say  to  her, 
“you  have  no  capacity;  you  must  therefore 
stand  back.” 

Wherever  she  has  had  an  equal  show  with 
man  in  the  intellectual  or  moral  world,  she  has 
held  her  own  with  the  other  sex,  from  her 
childhood  up.  Before  we  get  through  we  will 
see  if  that  is  not  what  is  the  matter. 

Men  are  not  born  politicians,  and  had  they 
been  confined  to  the  narrow  limits  of  woman’s 
education  and  training — to  darn  stockings, 
make  dainties  for  the  pleasure  of  the  other  sex, 
and  take  care  of  the  babies,  as  the  chief  end  of 
man ; that  every  thing  outside  of  these  occupa- 
tions was  ungentleman.ly  and  degrading  to  their 
sex,  what  might  not  be  said  of  the  unfitness  of 
man  for  public  affairs  ? But  here  the  usurpa- 
tions of  man  have  confined  woman,  and  his 
magnanimity  declares  her  forever  unfit  for  any- 
thing better.  , Shame  on  the  injustice  and  intol- 
erance of  such  masters  of  the  State. 

Having  moral  and  intellectual  possibilities 
like  man,  wherefore  is  she  excluded?  O!  her 
physiological  differences  disqualify  her. 

But  mere  bodily  qualities  or  powers  do  not 
constitute  qualifications  for  the  male  voters. 
On  the  contrary,  our  policy  entirely  ignores 
them. 

The  physiological  being  the  test,  why  not  ex- 
clude the  male  on  account  of  his  differences 
from  the  female.  The  exercise  of  the  ballot  is 
one  of  the  lightest  and  most  easily  performed 
functions  in  the  world.  The  dainty  fingers  of 
woman  can  put  the  vote  where  it  will  do  the 
most  good,  as  well  as  the  arm  of  a Hercules. 

Her  judgment  of  what  will  best  preserve  so- 
ciety, her  husband,  herself,  her  offspring,  is 
quite  as  reliable  as  that  of  the  swearing,  tobac- 
co-chewing, whisky-drinking  husband,  who 
can  not  bear  to  have  the  refinement  of  his  wife 
shocked  by  the  stain  such  high  duties  impose. 
She  can  acquire  as  well  as  he,  those  silent  moral 
in  fluences  that  best  enable  her  to  perform  that 
duty  well.  After  adding  to  these  her  peculiar 
w omanly  qualities,  why  afraid  to  say  frankly 
for  the  women  of  the  State  that  her  differences 
are  in  her  favor,  and  instead  of  being  a cause 
for  excluding  her  from  an  equal  participation 
ha  determining  what  institutions  shall  protect 
tier  highest  earthly  interests,  they  are  the  best 
evidence  of  her  qualification  for  their  exercise? 

The  tendency  of  our  political  affairs  is  so  loose, 


that  we  cannot  afford  to  throw  away  the  influ- 
ence or  power  of  any  of  our  virtuous,  high- 
minded,  and  patriotic  citizens.  The  danger  is 
not  from  them  if  they  act,  but  from  the  baser 
sort,  who  will  act,  if  not  from  simple  volition, 
as  the  tools  of  other  designing  persons. 

The  demoralization  in  the  public  service  has 
grown  out  of  the  indifference  and  want  of  effi- 
cient self-respect  of  the  citizen,  who  has  sim- 
ply neglected  to  make  himself  felt  in  a high- 
minded  discharge  of  his  public  duties. 

Yet  in  the  light  of  this  experience  the  Stand- 
ing Committee  on  the  Elective  Franchise  have 
unanimously  recommended  to  the  Convention, 
that  they  make  political  ciphers  of  one-half  our 
whole  population,  every  way  as  well  qualified 
to  vote  safely  and  right,  as  the  other  half,  and 
what  is  most  remarkable,  not  a reason  is  given 
therefor. 

Every  member  of  society  has  the  right  to  de- 
mand that  the  conscientious,  high-minded  and 
intelligent  of  the  people  shall  discharge  the  du- 
ties of  a citizen ; that  his  or  her  influence  shall 
be  directly  applied  in  the  management  of  pub- 
lic affairs.  The  general  good  of  society  de- 
mands it.  The  State  has  no  right  to  put  any 
such  where  they  cannot  exert  all  their  influence 
directly  in  behalf  of  good  government. 

Yo  citizen  may  neglect  to  perform  his  or  her 
public  duties.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  State  by  all 
means  in  its  power  to  develop  the  character  and 
power  of  all  its  members — women  as  well  as 
men.  The  ballot  is  one  of  the  great  means. 

Woman  to-day  exhibits  the  fairest  example  of 
the  conscience  of  mankind.  Her  purity  of  life, 
refinement  of  manners,  and  loyalty  to  the  good 
order  of  society,  contrasted  with  men,  show  a 
wonderful  preponderance  in  her  favor.  She 
does  not  yield  to  the  pervasion  of  the  vices  and 
crimes  of  society  as  readily  as  he ; — when  called 
on  to  make  sacrifices  for  the  public  good,  she 
gives  her  offerings  with  a cheerful  devotion  that 
all  admire.  Her  peculiar  qualifications  emi- 
nently adapt  her  to  the  performance  of  those 
duties  that  exalt  a people.  This  is  not  the  age 
of  mere  force,  but  of  truth,  morality,  reason, 
wherein  woman,  to  say  the  least,  is  man’s  equal. 

Is  it  expedient,  is  it  right,  for  the  State  to  do 
without  her  active  recognized  co-operation,  in 
giving  character  and  tone  to  public  matters,  in 
which  she  has  everything  at  stake  ? 

Do  these  differences  lessen  her  need  of  the 
potentialities  of  the  ballot  ? 

She  certainly  has  less  power  than  man  with 
which  to  defend  herself.  She  possesses  the 
same  natural  rights  as  he,  and  just  as  likely  to 
be  invaded,  requiring  the  protections  of  law. 
Further,  does  she  not  have  some  rights  growing 
out  of  her  peculiar  organization  and  nature 
that  require  woman’s  political  power  to  fairly 
protect  and  benefit?  The  answer  of  any  man 
to  this  question  may  be  unjust  to  woman ; for 
man,  with  all  his  wisdom,  does  not  know  every- 
thing, however  well  he  may  mean.  Woman 
knows  best  what  is  needful  for  herself.  Her 
woman’s  nature  can  be  best  appreciated  and 
provided  for  by  woman’s  knowledge  and  effort. 

Her  political  relations  and  standing  are  not 
outside  of  her  woman’s  nature,  and,  to  be  just 
and  equal,  must  be  adapted  to  her  peculiar  be- 
ing ; and  can  no  more  be  fairly  regulated  by 
man  alone,  than  can  the  relations  of  man,  so  far 


1820 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


VORIS. 


[131st 

[Friday, 


as  they  peculiarly  belong  to  him  as  such,  be 
adequately  arranged  by  woman. 

Please  reverse  the  order  of  things:  make 
woman  the  author  of  all  political  power,  and 
all  men  would  protest  with  a voice  as  loud  and 
moving  as  the  last  trump.  Your  chivalry  would 
manifest  itself  in  branding  the  arrangement  as 
an  usurpation,  and  its  overthrow  would  be  de- 
manded at  the  cannon’s  mouth,  though  woman’s 
extermination  had  to  pay  the  forfeit. 

But  what  can  she  do,  political  power  being 
all  in  the  hands  of  the  men,  if  it  is  improperly 
used  against  her  ? Where  is  her  remedy  ? If 
she  is  injured  by  his  improper  use  of  it,  you 
remit  her  to  the  very  despotism  that  despoils 
her,  and  its  absolute  pleasure  fixes  her  fate  as 
if  she  was  a mere  thing : the  sheep-fold  com- 
mitted to  the  custody  of  wolves ; the  canary 
placed  in  the  guardianship  of  the  house  cat; 
the  vaults  of  the  treasury  put  in  the  benign 
keeping  of  “Boss  Tweed.” 

All  history  tells  us  that  the  tendency  of  un- 
restrained power,  in  the  hands  of  any  class,  is  to 
despotism  and  abuses.  No  class  are  so  wise  or 
just  as  to  be  able  to  rule  for  another  and  unrep- 
resented class,  without  abusing  that  power.  No 
class  are  safe,  in  any  form  of  government,  un- 
less they  have  political  power  in  it.  Power  is 
respected  the  world  over ; weakness,  despised 
and  oppressed.  Might  has  a wonderful  ten- 
dency to  make  right.  “What  can  you  do  about 
it?”  is  the  final  judgment,  throughout  society, 
when  conscience  is  weak  and  selfishness 
strong. 

Woman’s  humanities  demand  the  same  social 
supports  that  man  does.  She  is  prostrated  by 
the  same  discouragements.  Make  her  a politi- 
cal nonentity  in  society,  and  she  must  feel  the 
degradation.  If  she  does  not  complain,  her 
pride  and  self-respect  lead  her  to  submit  gra- 
ciously to  the  inevitable. 

She  knows,  as  well  as  we,  that  the  temper  of 
man  has  not  been  in  favor  of  her  deliverance. 
She  has  seen  the  contumely  and  ridicule  cast 
on  those  who  had  the  moral  courage  to  ask  their 
rights. 

Why  may  not  a woman  have  an  ambition  to 
be  great,  wise,  noted,  influential,  yea,  powerful, 
in  the  world — not  only  at  home,  but  wherever 
man  may  justly  aspire  to  be  felt? 

Is  there  anything  but  man’s  arbitrary  jeal- 
ousy and  selfistiness  that  would  deny  her?  If 
so,  what? 

“Moderate  honors  are  suitable  to  woman,” 
said  the  execrable  Tiberius,  when  the  Roman 
Senate  attempted  to  confer  honors  on  the  mother 
of  that  heathen  despot.  “Moderate  honors  are 
suitable  to  women,”  says  the  selfish  despotism 
of  to-day,  and  woman  is  unsexed  if  she  does 
not  meekly  submit  to  it. 

Would  not  the  fruitions  of  full  citizenship 
highten  her  capacities  and  elevate  her  whole 
nature?  The  perfections  of  which  make  her 
more  what  God  intended  her  to  be,  and  what 
true  men  want  her  to  be — the  equal  of  man. 
The  argument  against  her  is,  the  more  she  is 
and  may  be,  the  less  woman  she  must  be;  nec- 
essarily implying  that  to  be  the  true  woman  she  ; 
must  bean  inferior  being — the  very  dregs  of  the 
arguments  reductio  ad  absurdum. 

But  we  are  told  that  she  does  not  need  the 
ballot,  that  she  is  fully  protected  in  all  her 


rights  by  the  men ; that  her  father,  husband  or 
brothers,  who  so  fondly  love  her  will  give  her 
all  the  protection  she  needs.  But  what  will  you 
do  for  those  who  have  no  fathers,  husbands  or 
brothers  ? Have  they  not  something  to  say  about 
it  ? When  and  how  did  they  consent  to  the  ar- 
rangement? Have  they  ever  had  the  least  op- 
portunity of  manifesting  any  will  in  the  prem- 
ises ? Have  not  all  her  political  arrangements 
been  made  for  her  by  man  just  as  he  pleased, 
she  willing  or  unwilling? 

Though  the  assertion  be  wholly  true  that  man 
will  deal  fairly  by  her,  yet  her  deprivation  of 
political  power  and  selfhood  is  a bald  usurpa- 
tion of  her  rights  and  significance  as  a member 
of  society  and  a human  being. 

But  are  not  men  equally  loved  by  their 
mothers,  wives  and  sisters  ? Apply  the  love  test 
and  women  would  fill  the  ballot-boxes. 

“O!  the  superior  wisdom,  sense  of  honor  and 
manly  character  of  men  will  do  better  for  wto- 
men,  and  the  State,  than  she  can  do  for  her- 
self!” But  really,  would  not  the  conjoint  efforts 
of  both  tend  to  help  in  the  matter  if  man  actu- 
ally intended  to  do  the  best  for  her  ? Let  us  test 
the  truthfulness  of  this  assertion  by  the  verdict 
of  history.  This  argument  has  been  relied  on 
in  all  ages  against  the  unrepresented  classes, 
but  its  practical  results  never  satisfied,  and  ever 
failed  to  give  them  protection. 

Why  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  English- 
men— especially  the  farm  laborers  (I  instance 
them  because  England  is  one  of  the  finest  na- 
tions of  Europe) — the  poorest  fed  and  paid  la- 
borers in  Christendom  ? Why  are  his  children 
clothed  in  rags,  housed  in  dirty  dens,  and  nur- 
tured in  ignorance,  for  a life  of  serfdom,  moral 
degradation  and  crime?  Why  do  the  aristo- 
cratic and  titled  classes  trample  on  the  boasted 
rights  of  Englishmen,  as  if  poor  humanity  had 
no  rights  the  strong  were  bound  to  respect,  de- 
liberately trampling  man’s  glorious  possibilities 
into  ignorance,  sensualty,  deep  and  unmitiga- 
ted degradation,  often  crime,  always  helpless- 
ness and  hopelessness  ? What  a picture  for  that 
proud  people ! What  is  the  power  that  keeps 
them  in  such  abject  degradation?  Remember 
they  are  of  the  same  stock  that  has  so  remarka- 
bly developed  all  the  perfections  of  our  race  in 
modern  times.  Why  is  it  so? 

It  is  because  the  men  who  hold  and  have  held 
the  political  power  of  England,  are  selfish,  and 
encroach  on  the  weakness  of  the  poorer  classes. 

It  is  because  the  poor  English  laborer  has  no 
political  power;  because  his  rights  are  estima- 
ted, cared  for,  and  protected  by  others, — the  in- 
telligent, rich,  magnanimous  philanthropic  and 
honorable  men,  of  proud  standing  and  origin, 
more  capable  of  exercising  political  power  and 
providing  for  their  needs,  than  they  are  them- 
selves— just  such  men  as  assume  to  care  for  and 
preserve  the  rights  of  woman  better  than  she 
can  do  it  for  herself. 

These  lordlings  affect  to  be  afraid  for  the  lib- 
erties of  Englishmen  if  they  admitted  these 
poor  men  to  the  rights  of  the  ballot.  If  these 
laborers  had  the  ballot,  their  children  would  not 
be  denied  the  means  of  education  nor  be  shut 
out  from  hope  and  the  future;  their  rights 
would  be  respected  in  the  social  arrangements 
of  the  kingdom. 

How  different  is  it  from  what  it  is  in  our 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE 

Voris,  Hitchcock. 


1821 


Day.] 


March  6,  1874.] 


country,  where  the  laborer  has  enjoyed  all  the 
rights  of  manhood,  which  are  secured  to  him  by 
institutions  that  he  has,  and  had  an  equal  voice 
in  making,  maintaining  or  changing?  Here  his 
possibilities  are  the  most  lofty  to  which  mortals 
can  aspire.  Knowledge,  wealth,  influence  and 
power  invite  him  to  the  highest  attainments 
ever  achieved  by  human  ambition. 

May  not  the  contrast  be  suggestive  of  the 
means  for  the  melioration  of  the  poor  female 
laborers  of  our  own  people  ? 

We  once  had  an  unrepresented  class  of  labor- 
ers in  our  midst,  and  most  significantly  does 
their  history  tell  its  story. 

Here  these  laborers  were  absolutely  owned 
by  the  privileged  class,  whose  self-interest,  as 
well  as  philanthropy,  looked  to  the  highest  de- 
velopment of  the  laborer.  His  social,  political 
and  physical  well-being  was  cared  for  by  all 
the  force  that  self-interest,  as  well  as  justice 
and  affection  (yes,  affection)  could  give,  and 
what  was  thus  developed  ? Let  us  look  into 
the  system  for  a few  moments. 

Did  not  its  advocates  boast  of  the  content  and 
happiness  of  the  slave  ? the  loyalty  and  affection 
of  their  servants?  Were  not  the  beatitudes  of 
the  institution,  as  developed  by  the  intelligence 
and  generosity  of  the  represented  class,  held 
up  to  the  world  as  a humanitarian  arrange- 
ment, by  which  the  savage  African  became  civ- 
ilized and  christianized;  by  which  he  was 
relieved  from  the  horrors  of  his  transatlantic 
despotism,  and  his  children  taught  the  arts  of 
peace,  usefulness,  civilization,  and  the  glorious 
way  to  heaven  ? How  defiantly  did  the  sup- 
porters of  that  patriarchal  system,  in  which  the  | 
owner  of  the  surrounding  miles  held  benign 
sway  over  his  mixed  family  of  wife,  concubines, 
children,  and  other  offspring  of  every  kinship 
and  color — all  worth  their  weight  in  gold — and 
his  happy  colony  of  other  servants,  as  much 
children  as  slaves  in  more  than  a poetic  sense, 
claim  for  it  the  consummation  of  modern  civil- 
ization and  Christianity — the  ultima  thule  of 
political  development  and  perfection  ? And  yet 
its  unmitigated  horrors  were  so  universal,  its 
damning  evils  so  inevitable  and  all-pervading, 
its  moral-crushing  powers  so  great  and  over- 
whelming, that  no  tongue  can  tell,  or  pen  por- 
tray, the  ineffable  wrongs,  miseries  and 
degradations  it  invariably  carried  in  its  very 
existence.  It  crowded  our  civilization  back- 
ward into  the  ages  of  darkness,  brute  force  and 
barbarism,  and  its  untold  abominations  and 
cruelties,  necessarily  a constituent  of  this  ap- 
palling visitation,  crushed  out  alike  the  man- 
hood of  the  owner  and  the  owned,  and  made 
its  very  existence  a blotch  in  the  history  of  our 
times.  Notwithstanding,  all  of  human  skill  in 
panegyric,  all  of  human  power  in  statesman- 
ship, and  all  of  human  and  divine  approval, 
were  exhausted  in  praise  of  and  support  of  its 
accursed  influences. 

Nothing  is,  or  can  be,  said  of  the  divine  estate 
of  woman,  as  unfolded  by  man’s  organization 
and  management  of  her  civil  or  social  rela- 
tions, but  has  been  as  often  and  strongly  said  in 
behalf  of  the  American  institution.  Think 
you  that  slavery  would  have  existed  a day,  in 
any  form  whatever,  if  the  toil-worn  and  unre- 
quited slave  had  been  a voter  ? Would  his  wife 
have  been  the  concubine  of  his  chivalrous 


owner,  his  daughters  the  harlots  of  his  sons, 
and  his  children’s  life  the  measure  of  his  ready 
money  (for  the  auction  block  did  make  of  them 
cash  as  quickly  as  of  mules  or  government 
bonds) ; would  he  have  lived,  notwithstanding 
all  his  earnings,  like  the  beast  of  the  field,  and 
die  like  a brute  ? 

God  forgive  our  Nation  for  its  hypocrisies  to 
the  world,  its  cruelties  to  the  African,  its 
demoralizations  to  itself,  and  its  damage  to  the 
cause  of  political  liberty  at  home  and  abroad. 
It  is,  indeed,  a happy  reflection  to  us  now,  to 
know  that  the  day  of  these  wrongs  is  passed, 
and  the  regeneration  of  this  injured  people 
secured,  and  their  deliverance  forever  assured, 
by  the  omnipotence  of  the  ballot. 

We  did  it  all  in  a day,  and  nobody  under 
heaven  was  hurt. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12  :35  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2:30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  VORIS.  But  does  man  bear  such  affec- 
tion and  regard,  even  towards  the  women  who- 
sustain  to  him  the  near  relation  of  wife,  sister, 
daughter,  as  to  make  it  best  to  trust  him  abso- 
lutely with  all  political  power  for  women  as 
well  as  himself? 

Wife-bruisers,  drunken  fathers,  heedless 
brothers,  and  indolent  providers  for  their  fami- 
lies (and  who  knows  their  number  ?)  exist  all 
over  the  land,  whose  baleful  influence  paralyzes 
the  life,  hopes,  happiness  and  virtue  of  thou- 
sands and  tens  of  thousands  of  families,  and 
whose  political  power  is  recognized  by  the 
State,  and  is  used  to  give  countenance  to  the 
accursed  practices  that  mainly  produce  these 
miseries. 

Are  the  hundred  thousand  wives,  children 
and  sisters  of  the  drunken  men  of  Ohio,  whose 
appeals  for  redress  are  overborne  by  the  politi- 
cal power  of  the  dram-seller  and  his  minions, 
properly  protected  ? 

The  villain  who  steals  a gentleman’s  shot-gun, 
worth  thirty-five  dollars,  is  sent  to  the  peniten- 
tiary ; the  wife  beater  is  fined  five  dollars  and 
costs.  This  is  man’s  idea  of  protection. 

Adequately  protected,  when  the  perpetrator 
of  wife-murder  by  the  slow  horrors  of  a drunken 
husband’s  humiliations,  insults,  and  cruelties,  is 
kept  in  the  lock-up  over  night,  and  wife’s  devo- 
tion frequently  pays  his  condemnation  money 
and  costs,  the  price  of  her  weary  toil,  in  abject 
poverty,  and  honorable  judicial  officers,  and 
their  ministerial  aids,  put  the  price  of  her  an- 
guish and  privation  into  their  manly  pockets, 
for  the  protection  of  woman. 

If  the  wife  and  mother  are  so  abundantly  pro- 
tected, how  fare  the  little  ones  of  such 
mothers  ? Perhaps  they  have  some  rights  re- 
quiring mothers’  political  recognition.  As  chil- 
dren cannot  exercise  political  power,  from  the 
very  order  of  nature,  because  of  their  immaturi- 
ty of  that  essential  characteristic  of  man,  intel- 
lect, that  makes  him  a political  being,  and  with- 
out which  no  political  body  could  be  formed, 
they  need  some  one  to  give  them  political  pro- 


1822 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

VORIS. 


[131st 


[Friday, 


tection,  when  paternal  instincts  are  destroyed 
in  rum  or  deadened  in  crime.  Obviously,  that 
one  should  be  the  one  most  in  sympathy  with 
them.  Who  is  that  one  ? Supreme  among  mor- 
tals stands  out  the  mother  in  her  love  for  her 
offspring.  Since  the  day  on  Calvary,  no  where 
on  earth  has  been  exhibited  such  self-sacrificing 
devotion  as  unfolded  in  the  life  of  every  mother 
who  fills  her  divine  mission,  and  this  frequently 
in  the  utter  desertion  of  her  natural  friends,  not 
even  a denying  Peter  in  sight  to  offer  con- 
solation. For  one  unnatural  mother  you  will 
find  scores  of  unnatural  fathers. 

Her  divine  sense  of  devotion  to  her  children 
is  a mighty  reason  for  her  enfranchisement,  not 
only  for  her  personality,  but  for  the  protection 
of  the  dearest  objects  of  her  affection.  If  we 
turn  a deaf  ear  to  the  prayer  of  these  poor 
heart-broken  mothers,  may  we  not  hear  the  wail 
of  the  infant,  whose  tender  soul  has  not  felt  the 
shame  of  fathers’  crimes,  nor  realize  the  un- 
quenchable woe  of  a mother’s  heart  whose 
earthly  protector  has  sold  his  manhood  for 
strong  drink?  The  rags,  hunger,  ignorance, 
humiliations  and  dangers  that  consume  the  life 
of  the  children  of  such  fathers,  as  they  begin 
to  see  and  feel  their  degradation,  appeal  to 
Heaven  for  mothers’  power  in  the  councils  of 
the  nation. 

Still,  high-toned,  moral,  yea  Christian  men, 
are  afraid  for  the  nurture  and  morality  of  the 
coming  generation,  if  women  should  be  per- 
mitted to  vote ! 

It  does  appear  as  if  the  devil  was  let  loose 
among  the  faithful,  and,  like  the  cuttle-fish, 
when  he  sees  his  kingdom  in  danger,  throws 
out  such  a cloud  of  fog,  that  good  men  see  the 
truth  perverted, and  thus  beclouded,  do  the  very 
things  that  prevent  the  accomplishment  of  what 
they  most  desire! 

The  law  relation  of  woman  is  that  of  subject 
to  a paramount  ruler.  The  detestable  rule  of 
absolutism.  Your  statutory  meliorations  all 
recognize  the  hated  despotism  of  the  head  of  the 
family.  The  sacred  rights  of  maternity  are  all 
crushed  under  the  weight  of  his  autocratic 
crown.  The  very  being  of  the  wife  is  sunk 
into  that  of  her  husband.  His  absolute  su- 
premacy is  as  legally  recognized  as  the  marriage 
relation  itself.  Even  the  death  of  the  hus- 
band does  not  relieve  her,  for  this  despotism 
clings  to  the  widow  so  long  as  there  is  a minor 
child  in  existence. 

Don’t  accuse  me  of  poetic  or  impassioned 
fancies  in  this  matter.  To  the  lawyers  of  this 
body,  I am  reciting  common  place  facts;  to  the 
laymen,  pardonable  inconsistencies ; but  to  the 
women  of  the  State,  atrocious  realities. 

The  reason  for  all  this  is  obvious  enough; 
men  make  the  laws.  Their  standpoint  is  the 
standard  of  justice  for  women. 

Wives  are  compelled  to  trust  their  husbands 
for  protection  while  they  live — if  he  does  not 
protect  her,  who  is  her  champion? 

She  is  powerless.  Let  her  seek  other  conso- 
lation outside  the  court  from  whatever  wrong 
done  her,  and  suspicions  as  cheerless  as  the 
grave  are  cast  upon  her. 

What  widow  ever  had  a voice  in  the  legisla- 
tion of  the  country  ? Who  among  all  men  feels 
for  her  the  interest  he  feels  for  himself? 

It  takes  just  that  kind  of  interest  to  break 


down  the  long  established,  but  unjust  usages 
and  prejudices  that  wrong  her. 

How  fares  the  woman,  who  does  not  have  the 
benefit  of  these  tender  relations,  and  is  thrown 
upon  the  general  magnanimity  and  power  of 
man.  She  is  consoled  with  the  argument  that 
satisfies  most  men,  that  this  distribution  of 
power  is  just,  because  man  is  stronger  than  she, 
possesses  the  capacity  in  an  eminent  degree  of 
being  her  protector,  can  fight  the  battles  of  the 
country,  cut  loose  from  home,  if  necessary,  is 
hardier,  rougher,  and  better  adapted  to  the 
shock  of  contending  elements,  and  above  all, 
because  he  has  always  been  the  political  ex- 
ponent of  the  State.  A charming  argument  for 
the  strong,  hardy,  rough  man,  but  how  is  it 
for  the  woman,  whose  delicacy  must  be  pre- 
served at  all  hazards  ? 

It  is  the  iniquitous  dogma  of  tyrants  of  all 
ages,  that  might  makes  right.  It  is  the  correla- 
tive of  the  divine  right  of  Kings,  the  keystone 
of  despotic  power  wherever  manifested;  but 
the  antagonism  of  that  fundamental  principle 
of  popular  governments,  that  all  political  pow- 
er is  inherent  in  the  people.  It  is  the  practical 
application  of  the  morality  of  extortioners, 
free  booters,  and  highwaymen. 

The  fact  that  man  has  capacity  to  be  protec- 
tor, is  certainly  in  his  favor ; but  shall  his  dis- 
cretion, and  that  alone,  be  relied  on? 

The  history  of  the  world  is  full  of  his  delin- 
quencies and  wrongs  inflicted  on  those  he 
claims  to  protect.  How  has  his  dominion  cir- 
cumscribed woman’s  sphere  ? 

The  boundaries  of  her  proprieties  have  been 
so  contracted  that  many  of  the  most  respectable 
avenues  to  competency  and  self-support  are  de- 
nied her.  Why  is  she  denied  access  to  our  col- 
leges and  universities?  why  are  their  chairs 
refused  her  ? why  has  she  no  standing  among 
the  learned  professions  ? why  may  she  not  ex- 
ercise the  functions  and  enjoy  the  emoluments 
of  public  office?  Reason  asks  you  why?  and 
man’s  selfishness  only  answers. 

I grant  these  boundaries  are  expanding,  but 
to-day  the  honorary  domestic  offices  about  the 
household,  for  the  comfort  of  man  largely,  the 
needle,  infant  school,  or  governess  in  the  better 
families — I almost  forgot  teaching  young  misses 
music — afford  to  women  the  mighty  world  of 
enterprise  outside  of  a life  of  drudgery,  for 
the  full  exercise  of  her  diversified  talents,  ex- 
cept being  held  in  solution  in  the  marriage 
state.  And  when  her  enterprise  is  permitted  to 
exercise  itself,  why  does  she  get  only  half  pay  ? 
Was  this  devised  by  man  to  drive  her  into  mat- 
rimony ? 

As  long  as  woman  is  confined  to  so  few  voca- 
tions, will  her  wages  be  meagre. 

Men  know  this,  but  still  they  let  their  selfish- 
ness unjustly  encroach  on  the  weaker  sex. 

The  ballot  will  not  give  full  wages,  it  is  said. 
But  it  may  help.  The  ballot  has  regulated  our 
social  relations  immeasurably  to  the  benefit  of 
the  voting  classes. 

Now,  why  should  not  her  practical  co-opera- 
tion be  permitted  to  aid  in  solving  this  question  ? 
There  is  no  denying  the  fact  that  politcal  ar- 
rangements do  greatly  affect  the  value  of  wages. 
No  refinement  on  the  law  of  demand  and  sup- 
ply can  impeach  the  practical  results  secured 
by  making  the  laborer  a voter.  It  is  inconsis 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

VORIS. 


1823 


Day.] 

March  6, 1874.] 


tent  to  say  that  it  will  not  do  for  women  what 
it  does  for  men. 

Not  only  are  the  written  laws  partially  ar- 
ranged, but  the  lex  non  scripta,  the  despotism  of 
social  proprieties,  conceived, brought  forth  and 
matured  by  the  intolerance  of  mankind  is  equal- 
ly potent.  The  woman  who  does  not  on  her 
knees,  approvingly,  her  life  long,  say  amen  to  its 
decrees,  is  read  out  of  society  as  an  unsexed 
woman,  and  stigmatized  as  a scolding,  strong- 
minded  Amazon,  unfit  for  social  recognition— a 
punishment  as  severe  as  can  he  inflicted  on  her. 

As  for  me  and  my  daughters,  I shall  denounce 
this  devilish  despotism  so  long  as  I have  the 
power,  and  society  shuts  the  golden  gate  of  op- 
portunity to  the  hopes  of  the  girls  of  the  coun- 
try. The  falsehood  that  woman  unsexes  her- 
self because  she  seeks  to  utilize  and  exalt  her 
God-given  faculties  in  the  greater  fields  of  use- 
fulness, is  an  impious  libel  on  the  author  of  her 
being,  beauties,  and  almost  divine  possibili- 
ties. 

How  a father  who  loves  his  daughters  as  he 
does  his  own  life,  who  hopefully  and  heroically 
struggles  through  all  the  vicissitudes  and  hard- 
ships of  the  world,  and  with  fortitude  bears  all 
the  crushing  pangs  of  misfortune,  that  he  may 
bless  their  woman’s  life,  should  think  and  act 
in  such  narrow  channels,  is  beyond  my  com- 
prehension, and  is  only  accounted  for  on  the 
hypothesis  that  the  perfectability  of  humanity 
lies  in  a long  and  tedious  way,  and  that  light 
and  reason  but  imperfectly  influence  mankind. 

1 am  proud  of  the  fact  that  my  constituency 
are  breaking  the  fetters  that  bind  women  to  the 
narrow  limits  and  poor  pay  of  her  heretofore 
recognized  sphere.  The  city  in  which  I live, 
the  summit  city  of  Ohio,  a brilliant  of  the  first 
water  in  the  educational  system  of  the  great 
West,  the  pioneer  in  the  State  of  the  graded 
school  system,  has  had  her  grammar  and  high 
schools  presided  over  by  women  for  years.  Our 
whole  community  thank  God  for  such  noble 
women  as  Nancy  A.  Stone  and  Lizzie  A.  Heard- 
man,  who  are  more  than  filling  the  places  of 
men,  in  developing  the  character  and  nobility 
of  our  young  people. 

For  five  years  not  a male  teacher  has  entered 
our  schools  where  over  four  thousand  children 
are  taught.  My  son,  and  only  son,  graduated 
at  these  schools  with  my  grateful  appreciation 
of  their  elevating  tendencies,  and  with  the  en- 
nobling potentialities  of  the  ballot,  I hope  for 
his  being  a better  citizen  for  having  had  the 
benign  influences  of  a woman’s  heart  to  guide 
his  inquiring  way  up  the  rugged  steeps  of 
learning.  Fifty  years  ago,  yea  thirty,  these 
invaluable  women  could  only  have  been 
“school  mams,”  tickling  up  the  little  fellows  in 
their  a,  b,  c’s.  These  ladies  are  paid  fair  men’s 
wages,  and  I do  not  know  that  the  foundations 
of  society  are  thereby  broken  up. 

Have  we  not  already  seen  enough  to  demon- 
strate that  there  are  great  defects,  at  least,  in  this 
virtual  representation  of  women  through  the 
men?  As  a reality,  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
virtual  representation.  You  either  represent 
yourself  or  you  are  not  represented.  He  who 
unqualifiedly  holds  the  ballot  for  me,  holds  it  for 
himself,  and  against  me.  A citizen  without  a 
vote  is  no  man  at  all.  He  is  a political  nullius 
fillins , and  irredeemably  sterile  at  that,  en- 


dowed with  all  the  passions  of  man,  possessing 
but  few  of  the  recognized  relations,  and  deprived 
of  all  the  great  hopes  of  manhood.  Virtual  re- 
presentation is  a wicked  delusion.  Our  fathers 
encountered  the  trials  of  the  revolution  to  re- 
move it.  The  struggle  in  Great  Britain,  to-day, 
for  actual  representation,  is  shaking  the  very 
foundations  of  that  most  conservative  Empire. 
The  voice  of  the  people  throughout  the  civilized 
world  demanding  to  be  actually  represented,  is 
the  most  potent  power  now  moving  mankind. 

Virtual  representation!  The  poor  English 
laborer  has  it,  and  always  had  it.  Our  colonial 
fathers  had  it,  our  late  slaves  had  it,  but  it  was 
not  in  the  power  of  ethics,  or  the  heaviest  batta- 
lions, to  convince  them  that  it  was  what  human- 
ity or  their  condition  needed. 

Suppose  I should  apply  it  to  my  county. 
There  is  Cuyahoga  county  that  has  a population 
largely  engaged  in  like  pursuits  with  my  peo- 
ple; has  an  able,  enterprising,  wealthy  and  in- 
telligent people.  The  burdens  of  political  du- 
ties are  onerous,  some  say  depraving,  at  least 
are  not  refined.  Many  think  their  exercise  un- 
gentlemanly.  Who  don’t  say  they  are  un- 
womanly? 

Now,  to  save  my  constituents  from  the  bur- 
dens and  disabilities  of  political  duties,  suppose 
I request  the  Convention  to  disfranchise  all  the 
possible  voters  of  Summit  county,  for  the  life  of 
the  proposed  Constitution,  and  bestow  the  power 
of  representing  them  on  Cuyahoga  county. 

What  think  you  my  people,  men,  women  and 
children  would  do  to  me  on  my  return  to  them, 
if  they  ever  let  me  return  ? In  vain  would  I 
urge  the  argument  that  they  would  be  better 
represented  than  they  could  represent  them- 
selves, that  politics  at  best  was  poor  scaly  busi- 
ness, and  destroyed  the  refinement  of  the  voter. 
The  whole  array  of  the  arguments  against 
woman’s  voting  would  not  touch  a single  heart, 
unless  it  be  that  of  my  wife  and  children,  who 
might  yield  for  the  dear  benefit  of  having  father 
at  home. 

But  what  can  I say  for  myself,  if  I let  the 
women  of  the  State  remain  with  this  virtual 
representation  through  the  men,  one-half  of  my 
constituents,  in  every  moral  aspect  the  equals 
of  the  represented  half,  thus  made  political 
ciphers.  Can  I,  their  representative  in  this 
Convention,  sit  quietly  by  and  see  such  an  in- 
iquity committed  against  their  rights,  and  be  a 
man? 

Let  the  Chairman  of  the  Standing  Committee 
on  the  Elective  Franchise  [Mr.  Sample],  do  for 
his  whole  constituency  what  he  proposes  for  the 
best  half  of  them,  and  he  would  go  hence  the 
worst  Sample  of  a used-up  public  officer  that 
I ever  went  unwept  to  a premature  political 
grave.  And  why? 

Because  the  people  do  put  an  inestimable  value 
on  the  ballot,  and  properly  so. 

The  power  of  the  ballot — no  man  can  measure. 
It  is  stronger  than  tyrants’  legions.  It  opens 
the  way  for  the  elevation  of  the  elector  to  the 
highest  dignity  accessible  to  man,  and  crushes 
under  its  silent  weight  the  most  formidable 
usurpations  ever  set  on  foot  against  the  liberties 
of  a people. 

It  enables  the  people  to  measure  strength  with 
all  that  dares  doubt  or  assail  them.  It  is  the 
vital  essence  that  gives  weight  to  the  resolve, 


1824 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


[131st 


VORIS. 


[Frida  y? 


character  to  the  person,  and  protection  to  the 
rights  of  the  voter.  It  goes  directly  toward  the 
equilibrium  of  society,  elevating  the  weak, 
curbing  the  strong,  checking  the  avarice  of  the 
rich,  and  magnifies  justice  instead  of  power. 
While  it  may  not  relieve  from  all  the  ills  of  life, 
or  remedy  all  the  wrongs  of  society,  it  never 
fails  to  give  emphasis  to  the  just  demand,  and 
ever  secures  heed  to  the  proper  complaint  of 
the  voter.  It  is  the  people’s  great  magic  for- 
tress in  which  they  may  cumulate  their  forces 
against  the  selfishness  of  political  power,  whose 
walls  are  as  high,  bastions  as  strong,  guns  as 
heavy,  and  supplies  as  constant,  as  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  voter  may  will  them  to  be,  or  the 
most  pressing  exigency  may  demand. 

But  it  is  sincerely  urged  as  an  insuperable  ob- 
jection to  woman’s  voting,  that  she  is  naturally 
weaker  in  body  than  man,  that  she  cannot  take 
his  place  in  the  field  in  defense  of  the  country, 
and  that  the  exercise  of  political  duties  will 
destroy  her  refinement  and  her  peculiar  wo- 
manly virtues.  To  make  it  fair  to  urge  these 
objections  against  her,  it  must  appear  that  they 
are  well  founded,  and  a disqualification  when 
they  exist  among  men  ; otherwise  your  disqual- 
ifications are  neither  justly  nor  impartially  ap- 
plied. The  magnanimity  of  man  will  certainly 
not  permit  him  to  be  guilty  of  partiality  to  her 
prejudice.  No!  not  he. 

But  physical  power  is  not  essentially  requis- 
ite to  the  exercise  of  this  right  by  men. 

All  citizens  of  the  United  States,  over  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years,  having  a domicil  within 
the  State  for  a year,  and  in  his  county  twenty 
days,  and  not  an  idiot,  or  insane,  or  a woman, 
however  weak  he  may  be,  no  matter  how  low 
in  morals,  how  poor  or  how  ignorant,  if  he  be  a 
male,  may  vote  and  be  eligible  to  any  office. 
The  scurviest  boil  on  the  body  politic,  reeking 
with  the  pollutions  of  the  brothel,  the  demoral- 
izations of  the  gambling  hell,  and  the  fumes  of 
the  doggery,  where  the  vilest  poison  is  doled 
out  by  the  drink,  that  not  only  kills  the  body, 
but  destroys  the  soul  and  crushes  whole  families 
and  neighborhoods  under  its  appalling  humili- 
ations, calamities  and  crimes,  may  not  only  vote 
but  may  demand  that  the  very  dens  from 
whence  he  emerges,  shall  not  only  be  tolerated, 
but  licensed  under  the  sanction  and  protection 
of  law;  and  if  a husband  or  father  may  vote  to 
make  the  petitions  of  his  wife  or  daughter  a 
dead  letter  in  the  political  arrangements  of  the 
State.  Yes,  the  broken  down,  dissipated  pau- 
per, whose  life  has  been  a curse  to  himself, 
his  family  and  community,  and  that  life 
kept  in  his  polluted  body  by  the  charity 
of  the  State,  may  come  to  the  polls  an  equal  cit- 
izen. The  most  aimless  male  creature  living, 
with  only  bodily  power  enough  to  keep  his  body 
together,  and  be  carried  in  softly  cushioned 
carriages  by  the  anxious  candidates  to  the  polls, 
may  vote,  though  he  is  as  incapable  of  perform- 
ing any  other  State  duty  as  Julius  Caesar. 

A delegate  of  this  Convention,  a gentleman 
of  real  culture,  high  character,  large  intelli- 
gence, and  always  true  to  his  conscientious  con- 
victions, objected  to  his  wife  and  daughters 
voting,  because  the  vile  women  of  his  city 
would  crowd  about  the  polls,  and  make  them, 
by  their  presence  and  remarks,  an  undesirable 
and  improper  place  for  the  female  members  of 


his  family  to  go.  Yet  he  can  go,  and  the  male 
rowdies  do  go.  If  you  would  save  the  State, 
would  it  not  be  better  to  have  the  high-minded 
conservatism  of  the  virtuous  men  and  women 
there  and  controlling,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
inmates  of  the  brothels  and  other  dens  of  in- 
famy ? 

I am  sure  if  man’s  own  self-respect  does  not 
lead  him  to  purify  the  elections,  and  keep  such 
immoral  scum  in  subjection,  the  presence  of  his 
wife  and  daughters  there  would  spur  him  to  in- 
augurate a salutary  change,  leading  to  the  puri- 
fication of  the  manners  of  the  voting  places. 

To  admit  that  such  a wretched  state  of  disor- 
der could  exist  at  the  polls — it  can  only  be  in 
the  large  cities — implies  a lawlessness  and  want 
of  a sense  of  decency,  utterly  inconsistent  with 
the  long  continued  existence  of  a city  as  a body 
politic,  or  abode  for  tolerably  human  beings. 
Such  a state  of  disorder  is  essentially  antago- 
nistic to  social  well-being,  and  if  long  tolerated, 
would  destroy  the  decent  sense  of  any  people. 
When  the  chivalry  of  the  men  becomes  so  spir- 
itless as  to  permit  such  improprieties  on  the  cit- 
izens’ day,  the  wives,  daughters,  sisters  and 
mothers  will  need  somebody  else  to  give  them 
protection  in  their  political  relations.  Such 
surely  need  the  ballot  for  their  preservation, 
and  the  salvation  of  their  sons  and  daughters 
from  ruin. 

Let  me  say  to  those  who  are  afraid  the  vile 
women  and  their  pimps,  the  gamblers  and  their 
allies,  the  dramsellers  and  their  abettors,  and 
the  degraded  train  of  vagabonds  who  are  al- 
ways ready  to  aid  them,  will  rule  at  the  polls, 
that  you  see,  as  through  a glass,  darkly.  Your 
fears  are  not  well  founded.  The  women  of  the 
State — the  good,  pure,  and  noble,  five  hundred 
thousand  strong,  are  coming,  not  only  with 
their  prayers,  hymn-books  and  Bibles,  but 
clothed  with  the  majesty  of  the  ballot;  when 
this  filthy  crew  must  get  out  of  their  way,  for 
they  mean  business.  The  wrath  of  delayed 
justice  is  aroused.  The  outraged  moral  sensi- 
bilities of  our  wives,  mothers  and  sisters,  have 
lost  all  patience  with  the  failure  of  the  voters  to 
protect  society.  They  are  already  moving  as 
the  chosen  messengers  of  the  Almighty  to  exe- 
cute his  decrees,  and  they  will  not  be  appeased 
till  society  is  actually  reformed.  The  moral 
courage  of  women  will  save  us,  though  the  valor 
of  men  fail  us. 

But  her  physical  weakness  disqualifies  her 
for  the  performance  of  military  duty ! Grant 
it;  but  what  of  it.?  Have  we  not  already  seen 
that  the  ability  to  perform  military  duty  was 
not  a requisite  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  ballot? 
All  men  are  not  capable  of  performing  military 
duty  who  vote;  in  fact,  only  those  of  a certain 
age  and  given  physical  condition  are  permitted 
to  go  into  the  ranks.  Minors  of  eighteen  years 
and  upwards  are  liable  to  its  performance,  but 
may  not  vote.  Probably  a majority  of  the  vo- 
ters of  the  country  are  exempt.  Who  ever 
thought  of  disfranchising  them? 

We  select  men  to  do  our  fighting  just  as  we  do 
for  any  other  business — because  of  their  adapt- 
ation to  the  offices  required;  just  as  we  employ 
j men  to  construct  and  manage  railroads;  not 
because  they  are  voters,  but  because  they  are 
| fitted  for  the  work.  If  they  happen  to  be  vo- 
! ters,  so  much  the  better ; but  their  various  capa- 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


1825 


Day.] 

March  6, 1874.]  Voris. 


bilities  are  not  made  the  test  of  their  right  to 
vote. 

I recollect  when  we  had  over  a hundred  thou- 
sand volunteers  in  the  field,  as  good  and  true 
men  as  ever  responded  to  the  call  of  duty,  who 
cheerfully  made  the  gravest  sacrifices,  that  their 
country  might  be  saved,  but  were  vehemently 
denounced  in  the  Capitol,  and  before  the  peo- 
ple, for  demanding  the  right  to  cast  their  vote 
for  the  men  and  measures  that  should  direct  the 
destinies  of  the  State  and  country,  while  they 
were  undergoing  the  trials,  hardships  and  awful 
dangers  of  their  sacred  public  mission.  And 
these  denunciations  had  the  conscientious  sanc- 
tion of  one  of  the  then  great  political  parties. 
A significant  argument  against  making  the  ca- 
pacity to  perform  military  duty  a qualification. 

This  argument  urged  against  woman,  is  based 
upon  an  erroneous  idea  of  what  the  standard 
should  be.  The  capacity  and  disposition  to  do 
and  suffer  for  the  public  are  the  great  requisites. 

These  may  be  as  fully  exercised  in  the  cabi- 
net, as  in  the  field ; in  the  departments,  as  in  the 
ranks ; in  the  various  industrial  pursuits,  as  in 
the  trenches ; in  the  hospital,  as  in  the  barracks, 
and  filling  the  places  at  home,  of  the  departed, 
as  under  the  fire  of  the  enemy.  An  army 
would  soon  go  into  irretrievable  disaster  and 
ruin,  if  the  material  affairs  of  community  were 
permitted  to  languish. 

At  no  time  in  the  history  of  a people  is  there 
such  an  unyielding  demand  for  all  the  energies 
of  the  people  to  be  employed  as  in  times  of 
war. 

In  such  days  of  peril,  woman’s  work  and 
woman’s  cheer  and  woman’s  devotion  do  as 
much  to  promote  the  public  cause,  as  the  sturdy 
patriot,  who  stands  a living  wall  between  her 
and  the  enemy.  In  the  late  war,  her  God  speed, 
as  we  left  our  homes  for  the  field ; her  holy  en- 
couragement to  acquit  ourselves  like  men,  dur- 
ing the  darkest  hours  of  the  rebellion ; her  con- 
tributions of  love  and  steadfastness,  when  all 
looked  forbidding  and  almost  hopeless;  her 
hope  and  assurance  of  our  ultimate  success;  her 
self-denial  and  efforts — did  more  to  give  forti- 
tude and  encouragement  to  our  armies,  than  the 
success  of  battles. 

They  never  got  together  in  National  Conven- 
tion and  resolved  the  war  a failure. 

Her  ready  hands  and  fertile  brain,  made  every 
hospital  comfortable,  her  incessant  thoughtful- 
ness and  aptness  to  accomplish,  cheered  every 
field  with  comforts  never  enjoyed  before  by  any 
army. 

No  effort  was  too  hazardous,  no  sacrifice  too 
great  for  her  to  make  for  those  in  arms,  and 
when  the  severest  blow,  that  can  befall  a mor- 
tal, fell  heavily  on  the  heart  of  the  stricken 
wife,  she  loyally  bowed  to  the  will  of  God, 
that  took  from  her  the  husband  of  her  youth, 
the  father  of  her  children,  and  her  only  earthly 
protector.  Mothers  with  fortitude  and  resigna- 
tion placed  their  beloved  boys  on  the  altar, 
whose  lives  were  intertwined  with  their  very 
heart-strings,  and  sisters  devotedly  bade  their 
cherished  brothers  go  and  be  men,  when  the 
separation  was  for  eternity,  and  loyally  denied 
themselves  the  companionship  of  their  lovers, 
that  the  honor  of  the  country  might  be  up- 
held. 

These  all  through  the  dreary,  dreadful  years 

y.  n-1 1 7 


of  the  war,  with  a heroism  and  fortitude  that 
no  man  can  measure,  endured  the  gnawings 
of  solicitude  for  the  safety  and  return  of  their 
loved  ones,  frequently  in  hapless  solitude,  with- 
out a murmer  ever  reaching  those  on  the  tented 
field. 

Shall  she  who  made  such  priceless  sacrifices 
for  the  public  good  be  denied  the  protections 
and  benefits  of  the  ballot? 

On  what  principle  can  the  great  State  of  Ohio 
deny  her  petition  ? Will  you  go  to  the  heathen 
dogmas  and  impositions  of  the  past  for  an  an- 
swer ? 

To  dash  into  the  bloody  but  inspiring  reali- 
ties of  the  battle,  requires  great  resolution;  to 
bear  with  patient  fortitude  the  awful  fatigues  of 
long  protracted  marches,  greater  qualities,  but 
the  supreme  burden  of  the  soul,  is  to  keep  that 
anxiety  in  subjection  that  appreciates  the  haz- 
ards of  the  field  and  recognizes  the  ties  that 
bind  the  soldier  to  wife,  children  and  friends. 
This,  the  mother,  wife,  sister,  daughter,  and  be- 
trothed feel  with  few  mitigations,  while  those 
in  the  army  have  their  days,  sometimes  months, 
as  free  from  danger  as  if  in  a state  of  profound 
peace,  when  the  heart  is  light  and  the  hopes 
buoyant.  Did  not  my  wife  suffer  more  than  I, 
when  for  a whole  week  she  was  tortured  with 
the  uncontradicted  report  that  I was  among  the 
dead  of  Wagner? 

One  of  the  most  trying  events  of  my  life,  in- 
finitely more  than  my  maiden  battle,  was  the 
final  separation  from  my  family  on  first  going 
into  the  field.  I had  a little  prattling  daughter, 
just  past  two  years  old,  the  fondest  hope  of  my 
life,  who  had  been  accustomed  to  bid  me  good- 
bye, and  throw  kisses  at  me  as  I went  to  my 
office.  Her  “ tommin  up  at  noon,  papa?”  had 
for  months  followed  me  out  of  my  yard,  with 
the  happy  hope  that  I would  be  up  at  noon. 
The  fatal  day,  however,  came.  My  little  one 
saw  in  her  mother’s  face  that  something  extra- 
ordinary was  transpiring.  As  I took  my  child 
in  my  arms  to  kiss  her  a final  good-bye,  and  as 
I pressed  her  chubby  cheeks  to  mine,  she  thrust 
that  then  painful  question  to  me  “papa,  tommin 
up  at  noon?”  With  tears  gushing  from  my  here- 
tofore controlable  eyes,  I said,  “ no,  papa  is  go- 
ing off.” 

That  little  one,  as  if  taking  in  the  situation, 
seized  me  round  my  neck,  and  in  the  pathos  of 
infantile  anguish,  cried  in  my  ears,  “ papa,  stay, 
papa,  stay,”  and  she  clung  with  such  force  that 
her  mother  by  main  strength  had  to  take  her 
away.  That  “ papa,  stay,”  rang  in  my  ears  for 
months,  yea,  years  after  the  wail  of  my  baby 
had  died  on  her  lips,  and  frequently  well  nigh 
broke  my  resolution  to  remain  a soldier.  How 
think  you  that  mother  felt  at  my  departure  and 
absence.  Who  contributed  most,  that  wife  or 
the  soldier  ? Whose  anguish  was  keenest,  the 
desolate  one  at  home,  who,  in  solitude  nursed 
her  heart’s  care,  or  he  who  had  the  novelties 
and  excitements  of  ever-changing  enterprises 
to  occupy  his  mind  ? 

In  that  supreme  moment  when  all  the  hopes 
of  life,  and  all  the  fears  of  death  are  concen- 
trated in  the  gage  of  battle,  the  ties  of  natural 
affection,  that  bind  heart  to  heart  in  the  family 
relation,  arise  above  the  tumult  of  conflicting 
emotions,  and  the  care  of  those  we  love  becomes 
the  all-absorbing  anguish  of  the  soul.  If,  under 


1826 


[131st 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Voris.  [Friday* 


such  circumstances,  these  emotions  so  take  hold 
of  the  man,  what  may  we  not  predicate  of  the 
wife  and  mother  at  home,  who  are  constantly 
tortured  with  the  fear  that  that  supreme  mo- 
ment may  be  impending? 

These  moral  efforts,  of  which  women  bear  at 
least  an  equal  share,  and  without  which  no  war 
could  be  successfully  waged,  speak  of  elements 
that  would  never  forget  to  preserve  institutions 
that  cost  so  much,  if  woman  had  direct  politi- 
cal power.  Here  you  have  exhibited  all  the 
heroic  and  moral  qualities  that  give  steadfast- 
ness of  purpose,  constancy  or  loyalty  to  the 
voter.  And  men,  magnanimous,  heroic,  chi- 
valrous men,  afraid  for  the  State  if  women 
should  vote ! 

Let  us  now  see  whether  the  exercise  of 
political  duties  does  really  tend  to  disparage  the 
womanly  refinements  of  her  sex.  Woman  has 
never  been  fairly  tried.  The  accusation  is 
made  against  her,  without  giving  her  an  op- 
portunity to  he  tested,  or  to  prove  the  charges 
false. 

The  fears  of  timid  men  are  taken  for  reasons, 
without  a recognized  fact  to  sustain  them. 

The  same  was  said  against  the  education  of 
woman,  a long  way  down  in  this  century,  be- 
yond that  needed  to  make  a pudding  and 
appear  pretty. 

So  it  is,  in  this  day  of  light  and  knowledge, 
for  the  equal  education  of  the  sexes.  The 
medical  faculties  of  the  foremost  colleges  in  the 
country  see  the  skeletons  of  their  grand  profes- 
sion rising  from  the  ruins  of  their  pain-assuag- 
ing practice,  because  woman  insists  on 
knowing  herself  well  enough  to  administer 
unto  her  humanities.  And  low  blackguards, 
in  the  form  of  medical  students,  by  their  most 
indecent  vulgarities,  force  her  from  their  lec- 
ture rooms.  Yet  women  are  being  highly 
educated,  and  the  more  complete  their  educa- 
tion, the  more  perfect  the  woman  in  every 
instance,  refuting  this  falsehood  uttered  against 
her  womanhood. 

If  the  exercise  of  the  ennobling  virtues  in 
the  discharge  of  great  duties  generally  debases, 
then  may  the  ballot  do  it  for  her.  Is  there  any 
insidious  evil  tendency  in  the  ballot  that  would 
disparagingly  operate  on  woman,  or  corrupt 
her  virtues  and  womanly  sensibilities  ? 

Give  us  the  facts,  gentlemen,  before  you 
deny  her  the  right  on  that  ground.  To  af- 
firm this  would  be  to  declare  that  the 
exercise  of  the  duties  and  privileges  of 
citizenship  are  debasing  in  their  tenden- 
cies, a theory  that  is  wholly  false,  and 
fundamentally  antagonistic  to  the  steadfastness 
of  free  government,  and  utterly  subversive  of 
the  recognized  political  rights  of  the  citizen. 
The  ballot  never  debases ; even  when  corruptly 
used  it  is  not  the  exercise  of  the  right,  but  the 
corrupt  motive  that  debases. 

To  assume  that  its  exercise  would  corrupt 
her  more  than  man,  is  to  take  it  for  granted  that 
she  is  more  likely  to  be  overcome  by  corrupt  in- 
fluences than  he,  and  therefore  for  her  good,  as 
well  as  of  the  State,  she  must  be  kept  down. 
A presumption  utterly  at  variance  with  the 
character  of  woman  or  the  nature  of  the  act  to 
be  performed. 

Woman  has  pretty  fairly  taken  care  of  her 
morality,  refinement,  and  peculiar  womanly  na- 


ture. Her  virtues  certainly  compare  favorably 
with  those  of  men.  You  trust  her  for  herself, 
and  your  children  as  your  subordinate,  notwith- 
standing her  temptations,  and  the  encroach- 
ments of  society  upon  her  rights,  but  tremble 
in  your  very  boots  for  fear  she  will  go  to  the 
Devil  if  you  enlarge  her  plane  of  activities,  pos- 
sibilities and  duties.  Go  and  tell  the  Heathen 
Chinee,  whose  female  big-feet  are  an  abomina- 
tion to  the  lordly  men,  to  whom  you  send  your 
Christian  missionaries,  that  your  civilization  is 
a sham,  and  your  Christianity  a delusion,  the 
logical  results  of  which,  in  Christian  America, 
you  dare  not  trust  to  women.  But  if  woman 
may  not  be  trusted  to  preserve  her  delicacy  and 
womanly  instincts,  who,  under  Heaven,  can  do 
it  for  her  ? 

It  certainly  will  be  left  in  poor  hands  if  com- 
mitted to  the  care  and  management  of  the  men. 

They  certainly  make  bad  enough  work  of  it 
for  themselves. 

What  is  this  charm,  this  delicacy  in  woman 
that  is  so  sacred  in  the  estimation  of  these  very 
refined  and  prudent  gentlemen  ? Is  it  not  after 
all,  most  approvingly  manifested  in  blind  sub- 
serviency to  the  whim  and  selfishness  of  one 
man,  and  he  not  unfrequently  a brute?  It  cer- 
tainly does  not  consist  in  those  ennobling  qual- 
ities that  lift  her  above  the  common  level  of  her 
race,  that  make  her  philosopher,  statesman,  phi- 
lanthropist. But  rather  in  those  little  cozy  en- 
dearments, that  mainly  contribute  to  the  selfish 
propensities  of  the  man,  and  flatter  his  personal 
pride.  These  constitute  the  charm. 

Intelligent  men  in  this  age — I hope  there  are 
few  of  them  in  this  Convention — are  afraid  she 
will  lose  her  charms,  if  she  is  made  his  social 
equal. 

Her  truly  endearing  qualities  are  inherent  in 
her  very  nature,  and  would  continue  to  be  hers 
just  as  man’s  continue  to  be  his,  though  she 
should  have  a larger  field  of  duty  and  privilege 
opened  to  her,  which  will  be  exalted  as  she  is 
exalted,  or  lessened  as  she  is  sunk  in  the  scale 
of  being. 

The  exercise  of  the  high  duties  of  the  suf- 
frage by  woman,  will  not  half  as  much  debase 
her  as  will  the  sense  of  degradation  you  cast 
upon  her  by  making  her  feel  that  she  is  an  in- 
ferior being  and  entitled  but  partially  to  the 
fruitions  of  society. 

Our  policy  does  disparage  woman.  The  mar- 
ried woman  has  no  higher  destiny  than  the  state 
of  childhood;  and  all  women  are  classified  with 
idiots,  the  insane,  and  below  the  larger  class  of 
Gonvicts,  for  their  political  rights. 

Married  women  are  not  only  so  classified,  but 
in  the  family  relation,  her  support,  her  person, 
yea,  her  whole  life,  her  all,  are  as  absolutely 
placed  under  the  husband’s  authority  as  if  she 
was  an  infant.  And  she  may  never  rise  from 
this  thraldom  if  her  political  as  well  as  legal 
being  is  continued  to  be  merged  in  her  husband. 

Oh,  shame!  In  your  Constitution  woman’s 
political  relaticns  are  degradingly  cast  with 
idiots,  the  insane,  children,  and  criminals,  and 
this  without  any  chance  for  redemption. 

The  idiot  under  the  benign  influence  of  mod- 
ern science  and  humanity,  may  be  regenerated 
and  become  a fully  recognized  fellow-citizen, 
enjoying  the  full  majesty  of  political  power; 
the  insane  under  the  treatment  of  advancing 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


1827 


Day,] 

March  6,  1874.]  Voris. 


medical  skill  and  the  philanthropy  of  the  State 
may  be  restored  to  health,  reason,  and  manhood ; 
the  vilest  criminal  under  the  elevating  influ- 
ence of  your  charity  and  humane  administra- 
tion of  the  criminal  law,  may  be  restored  to  so- 
ciety, a reformed  man,  your  political  equal; 
and  children,  how  soon  do  they  become  men  ? 
But  woman,  just  when  she  begins  to  live,  is 
forcibly  cast  into  the  cheerless  and  irredeema- 
ble fate  of  political  nonentity,  and  whoever 
breaks  the  ranks,  or  protests,  isout-lawed  with- 
out the  benefit  of  clergy,  or  shot  down  as  a de- 
serter. Don’t  tell  me  her  nature  does  not 
revolt  at  her  humiliation,  or  that  society  does 
not  suffer  therefrom.  The  whole  body  politic 
suffers  from  these  humiliations,  so  unwisely  and 
unjustly  visited  on  the  full  half  of  our  popula- 
tion. i said  unwisely  and  unjustly,  for  her 
exclusion  has  no  higher  warrant  for  it  than 
the  wicked  prejudices  of  the  past. 

But  these  prejudices  are  being  crowded  out 
of  the  way.  General  society,  Church  and  State 
are  alike  moving  forward.  The  world  is  ad- 
vancing, and  the  poor  dogmas  of  a barbarous 
age  are  no  more  able  to  impede  its  upward  pro- 
gress, than  the  blind  theories  of  the  dark  ages 
can  shut  off  the  developments  and  demonstra- 
tions of  science.  “ The  world  does  move, 
though,”  said  the  immortal  martyr  to  the  truths 
of  science  against  the  inspired  dogmas  of  the 
“ Infallible  Church .” 

Since  the  meeting  of  this  Convention,  Lewis 
Tappan,  Esq.,  a ripe  philanthropist,  died  in 
New  York,  honored  by  the  whole  nation.  Not 
forty  years  ago  he  was  mobbed,  and  the  home 
of  his  wife  and  children  was  gutted  by  the  same 
mob,  because  of  his  devotion  to  the  cause  of 
human  liberty. 

Within  the  life  of  every  one  of  you,  honor- 
able gentlemen,  to  be  branded  an  abolitionist, 
was  to  wear  the  mark  of  Cain ; or  marked  an 
advocate  of  temperance  reform,  was  to  be 
placed  beyond  the  protection  of  society.  How 
recently  since  the  Israelite  had  recognition  as  a 
man,  anywhere  in  Christendom. 

Half  a century  ago,  a beautiful  ocean  steamer 
was  driven  from  the  Atlantic,  because  it  was 
a novelty,  and  the  business  sense  of  the  best 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  afraid  of 
steam. 

But  to-day,  half  of  the  merchant  and  most  of 
the  passenger  carrying  of  the  world  is  done  by 
steam. 

The  world  is  indeed  moving  onward  and  up- 
ward, and  the  blind  devotees  of  the  ideas  of  the 
fossiliferous  ages  must  get  out  of  the  way,  for 
this  age  means  progress.  The  mighty  energies 
of  to-day  cannot  stop  for  those  who  still  insist 
on  going  on  foot.  Knowledge  goes  by  light- 
ning, civilization  by  steam,  and  human  progress 
cheerily  keeps  them  company.  Don’t  argue  in 
this  day  what  has  been,  but  by  the  light  of  rea- 
son, tell  us  what  ought  to  be. 

The  usages  of  the  past  create  no  unanswer- 
able presumption  in  favor  of  woman’s  subjuga- 
tion; because  the  rights  of  men  and  free 
governments  were  long  denied  and  fiercely  re- 
sisted upon  the  sanction  of  antiquity  and  long 
continued  and  almost  universal  usage. 

Absolute  governments,  class  legislation,  and 
every  species  of  shameless  usurpation  and  des- 


potism base  their  existence  upon  no  higher 
right  or  better  foundation. 

Woman’s  subordination  to  man  had  its  origin 
in  force  and  selfishness,  and  is  an  unjust  and 
humiliating  remnant  of  despotism  from  old  and 
barbaric  times  and  usages,  from  which  she  has 
never  had  power  to  extricate  herself,  nor  man 
magnanimity  to  deliver  her. 

For  your  nearest  and  dearest  companion,  the 
mother  of  your  children,  whose  character  is 
the  polar  star  by  which  their  tender  years  are 
guided,  and  whose  example  is  the  compass  by 
which  they  launch  their  frail  barks  upon  the 
sea  of  life,  would  you  have  a social  and  politi- 
cal inferior,  feeling  as  she  must  the  dispiriting 
effect  of  her  inferiority,  or  would  you  have  her 
your  equal  companion,  essentially  an  integral 
part  of  the  great  social  fabric,  actually  feeling 
and  inspired  by  all  the  ennobling  influences 
that  political  equality  can  give? 

What  man,  who  has  a soul  worth  saving, 
would  not  rather  have  his  companion,  his  life- 
long and  bosom  companion,  his  most  intimate 
and  confidential  companion,  his  wife,  his  other 
self,  his  equal?  Who  could  find  fault  if  she 
was  even  more  ? 

The  true  woman  ennobles  her  husband’s  life ; 
the  undeveloped  one  drags  him  down.  The 
superior  woman  is  the  very  inspiration  of  his 
higher  hopes  and  aims;  the  inferior  one  a mill- 
stone about  his  neck.  Her  ambition,  hope  and 
full  womanhood  are  the  greatest  blessing  that 
this  imperfect  world  affords  to  man ; her  full 
development  is  to  him  a world  of  glory ; but  as 
she  fails  therein  does  she  sink  in  the  scale  of 
being,  and  in  the  realization  of  the  benefits  she 
might  otherwise  bestow.  Elevate  her  by  mak- 
ing her  feel  that  she  is  of  consequence  in  the 
world,  give  her  the  highest  ambition  to  be 
good  and  great,  and  you  thereby  benefit  man- 
kind. 

It  will  do  her  good  and  the  men  good  for  her 
to  feel  that  she  has  a destiny  beyond  the  mere 
routine  of  the  kitchen,  parlor  and  nursery. 

She  will  be  more  the  woman  for  it,  just  as 
you  are  more  the  man  because  of  your  possibili- 
ties. Will  she  love  less,  will  she  be  loved  less, 
will  she  be  less  the  creature  of  her  womanly 
instincts,  because  she  is  exalted  to  the  state  of 
equality  with  man,  and  her  sphere  of  duty  and 
usefulness  enlarged?  Don’t  let  the  fearful 
dyspeptic,  who  is  afraid  of  the  mere  shadow  of 
reform  answer  this  for  you. 

Where  would  be  the  educational  efforts  of  the 
day,  if  woman  was  treated  as  she  was  a century 
ago  in  all  Christendom ; where  would  be  the 
power  and  efficiency  of  your  churches,  Sunday 
schools,  and  charitable  institutions  ? When  the 
prayers  and  active  offices  of  women  were  not 
heard  in  the  churches,  the  wail  of  the  martyr 
ascended  to  Heaven  in  the  curling  smoke  of  his 
consuming  body. 

Blot  woman — I mean  the  moral  powers  of 
woman — from  the  world,  and  you  weaken  them 
by  making  her  feel  that  she  is  an  inferior  being, 
and  man  becomes  a selfish,  depraved,  uncouth 
creature,  more  animal  than  man,  controlled  by 
passion  rather  than  moral  force,  blood-thirsty, 
rapacious  and  cruel,  ready  for  turbulence  and 
crimes. 

The  measure  of  the  world’s  civilization  is  the 
recognition  woman  receives  at  the  hand  of 


[131st 


1828 FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Voris,  Powell. 


man.  If  she  is  honored,  manhood  is  respected, 
if  she  is  despised,  the  whole  race  are  debased. 
Place  her  in  the  ascending  scale,  and  all  society 
advances. 

The  nearer  she  is  recognized  as  the  equal  of 
man,  there  society  takes  on  its  most  perfect 
forms.  Whatever  tends  to  elevate  woman  tends 
to  better  society.  The  practical  recognition  of 
her  rights  and  powers  as  a human  being,  as  a 
citizen,  tends  to  elevate  her.  The  conclusion  is 
obvious.  No  wise  man  will  think  of  depriving 
society  of  her  potentialities  for  its  meliorations. 

The  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  has  ele- 
vated every  class  of  persons  properly  exercising 
it.  Like  wealth,  power,  intelligence,  and  all 
the  civilizing  agencies,  it  has  made  society  bet- 
ter, and  the  individual  exercising  it  a more 
exalted  being,  capable  of  higher  accomplish- 
ments. It  is  the  doorway  to  human  greatness, 
which,  shut  against  you,  deprives  you  of  one  of 
the  most  potent  inspirations  of  life. 

That  woman  is  an  important  coadjutor  of  man 
in  all  the  great  moral  reformatory  enterprises 
of  the  day,  no  fair  man  will  deny.  Why  may 
she  not  be  an  efficient  auxiliary  in  reforming 
the  politics  of  the  day?  We  need  woman’s  re- 
fining influences — her  constancy  and  moral 
sense  directly  applied  in  our  politics. 

Man’s  experiment  has  not  been  so  flattering, 
if  I am  to  believe  what  I have  heard  of  it  on 
this  floor,  that  it  may  not  be  improved. 

The  necessity  of  reform  is  the  conviction  of 
the  hour.  The  abuses  of  the  privileges  of  the 
elector  are  fearfully  undermining  our  social 
system. 

May  not  the  self-respect  of  woman  be  an  im- 
portant element  in  this  reform ! 

Hers  would  not  be  the  reign  of  the  roughs, 
plug-uglies,  rowdies,  pimps  of  doggeries  and 
brothels,  gamblers  and  thieves.  Not  if  woman 
continued  to  be  herself,  and  man  revered  his 
mother,  loved  his  wife,  and  respected  his  sister. 
With  woman  sharing  with  him  in  his  political 
rights  and  privileges,  his  chivalry  would  step 
in  and  assert  its  supremacy. 

We  invite  the  ladies  to  our  political  meeting— 
we  are  always  glad  to  have  them  come,  because 
they  add  character  to  the  assembly,  and  exact 
decency  of  all  who  participate.  Not  one  of  all 
you  honorable  delegates  at  your  political  meet- 
ings, but  have  had  new  enthusiasm  and  refined 
encouragement  given  you  by  their  presence. 
They  did  you  good,  the  meeting  good,  and  put 
you  all  on  your  good  behavior.  They  do  so 
wherever  they  are  recognized.  The  experience 
of  mankind  tells  you  they  may  be  trusted.  God 
speed  the  day  when  they  shall  be  trusted. 

Woman  will  vote.  The  decree  has  gone  forth, 
backed  by  the  growing  reason,  sense  of  justice, 
and  generous  intelligence  of  the  age.  Many  of 
you  will  live  to  see  and  bless  the  day  that  en- 
franchised the  most  lovable  and  virtuous  half  of 
our  people. 

Be  assured  that  when  our  mothers,  wives  and 
sisters  vote  with  us,  we  will  have  purer  legisla- 
tion, and  better  execution  of  the  laws,  fewer 
tippling  shops,  gambling  hells  and  brothels 
throughout  the  land  than  now. 

I beg  of  you  to  seriously  reflect  on  the  incon- 
sistency and  injustice  of  her  exclusion,  to  the 
public,  as  well  as  herself,  and  see  if  we  may 
not  better  our  future  by  having  her  vote  with 


[Friday, 


ours,  for  strengthening  public  virtue  and  erad- 
icating vice. 

The  moral  courage  of  the  best,  most  lovable 
and  loyal  of  our  women,  exalted  by  the  love  they 
bear  to  their  children,  husbands,  brothers,  and 
lovers,  that  recognizes  the  necessities  of  the 
hour,  nor  fears  to  go  where  duty  leads,  that 
forces  them,  notwithstanding  the  indecencies 
and  insults  opposed  to  them,  to  wrestle  with 
the  most  dreadful  social  evils  of  the  day,  even  in 
the  darkest  dens  of  infamy  and  crime,  as  the 
only  means  within  their  helplessness ; and  there 
on  bended  knees,  beg  the  vilest  disturbers  of 
the  public  peace  to  quit  their  wicked  practices, 
eloquent  in  the  fervor  of  mother’s  faith  and  de- 
votion, pleading  with  offending  men  on  one 
hand,  and  the  Almighty  on  the  other,  to  save 
the  dearest  objects  of  their  love  from  the  ruin 
that  threatens  society,  because  the  voters  dare 
not  act  for  very  fear  of  the  political  power  of 
the  dramseller,  sublimely  demands  the  ballot 
for  woman. 

Will  this  Convention  join  hands  with  the 
unholy  throng  who  are  undermining  the  foun- 
dations of  society,  and,  in  the  Constitution, 
strike  down  the  right  of  these  noble  women  to 
possess  the  great  means  that  gives  man  moral 
power  in  the  State,  because  they  are  women  ? 
Selfishness  says,  no  I Your  gallantry  says,  no ! 
The  peace  and  good  order  of  society  say,  no ! 
The  love  we  cherish  for  the  dearest  objects  of 
our  earthly  affection  says,  no!  A thousand 
times,  no! 

I know  of  no  more  fitting  thing  to  be  done  by 
this  Convention — by  you,  the  Representatives  of 
the  advancing  sentiment  of  the  people  of  the 
great  State  of  Ohio,  in  the  discharge  of  your 
exalted  functions,  than  to  so  form  the  organic 
law  ol  the  State  that  those  we  hold  most  dear 
may  share  with  us  the  fruitions  of  political 
equality. 

Shall  the  force  of  reason,  the  claims  of  jus- 
tice, and  the  unimpeachable  demands  of  our 
most  esteemed  companions  and  coadjutors,  be 
denied  in  this,  the  highest  court  of  the  people  ? 

It  is  for  you,  honorable  delegates,  to  answer 
it  as  a great  State  question. 

As  you  answer  it  will  you  bless  or  blight  the 
potentialities  of  woman. 

May  Divine  wisdom  guide  our  judgments. 

I cannot  retire  without  expressing  to  the 
Convention  my  profound  gratitude  for  the 
marked  attention  accorded  me  during  my  argu- 
ment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  the  reading  of 
the  Article  that  the  gentleman  has  been  advo- 
cating so  eloquently. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  1.  Every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  every 
person  of  foleign  birth,  who  may  have  declared  his  in- 
tention to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States,  accord- 
ing to  law,  not  less  than  one,  nor  more  than  five  years 
betore  he  offers  to  vote,  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years, 
who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the  State  one  year  next 
preceding  the  election,  and  of  the  county,  township  or 
ward  in  which  he  resides,  such  time  as  may  be  provided 
by  law,  shall  have  the  qualifications  of  an  elector,  and  be 
entitled  to  vote  at  all  elections.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  know  whether  that 
proposition  is  to  go  into  the  Constitution  as  we 
may  adopt  it,  or  whether  it  is  to  be  voted  for 
separately.  I can  promise  the  gentleman  that 
when  that  question  comes  up  I shall  be  with 
him.  I shall  vote  for  it;  but  with  regard  to 


LEGAL  RIGHTS  OF  WOMEN. 


1829 


Day.] 

March  6,  1874.]  Powell. 


women  voting,  that  is  a different  question, 
and  upon  that,  at  the  present,  I shall  reserve 
my  sentiments.  I have  listened  to  the  able  and 
eloquent  argument  of  the  gentleman,  and  it 
was  ably  and  effectively  delivered.  But  in 
listening  to  him  I wondered  what  kind  of  a 
country  we  live  in;  what  kind  of  people  we 
were;  whether  it  is  true  that  our  married 
women  are  so  degraded  and  oppressed  as  he 
represents  them  to  he,  or  whether  they  were 
that  portion  of  our  community  that  were  ele- 
vated and  put  into  our  highest  affection.  Now, 
some  person  coming  into  the  Convention  for 
the  first  time,  and  hearing  the  eloquent  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman,  would  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  female  portion  of  our  commu- 
nity were  no  better  than  slaves;  that  their 
rights  were  not  protected ; that  they  were  de- 
graded in  every  way ; except  one  family,  and 
that  was  his  own.  His  wife  and  daughters  are 
lifted  above  the  rest  of  community. 

Now,  I must  say  that,  so  far  as  my  own  expe- 
rience goes,  this  is  untrue.  He  said  that  women 
are  under  man’s  tyrannical  rule,  and  that  they 
are  kept  down.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I must 
say,  that  in  my  house,  my  wife  and  daughters 
are  my  superiors  in  everything  that  constitutes 
social  position  and  refinement.  If  he  should 
be  elected  to  the  Legislature,  or  I elected  to  the 
Legislature,  do  you  think  that  either  of  us  would 
go  for  such  laws  as  he  has  represented  the  laws 
of  Ohio  to  be  at  this  day ; that  we  would  not 
protect  those  persons  that  are  so  dear  to  our 
hearts,  and  deservedly  so — our  mothers,  our 
wives,  our  daughters  ? Are  they  not  protected 
with  greater  vigilance  than  we  protect  our- 
selves ? I am  surprised  that  the  gentleman  to 
whom  we  have  been  listening  on  the  subject 
of  the  laws  of  Ohio,  who  is  undoubtedly  a good 
lawyer,  occupying  an  enviable  position  at  the 
bar,  should  have  so  misrepresented  the  laws  of 
Ohio.  The  protection  which  is  given  to  mar- 
ried women  in  Ohio,  he  also  misrepresents.  He 
represents,  just  as  is  generally  done  by  those 
who  have  not  looked  into  the  matter,  that  here 
in  Ohio  when  a woman  acquires  any  property, 
if  she  is  a wife,  it  goes  to  her  husband  and  she 
has  no  control  over  it.  This  is  utterly  false, 
and  I ask  that  gentlemen,  and  I ask  that  every 
person  who  may  hear  my  voice,  will  examine 
that  question  in  the  statute  and  laws  of  this 
State;  and  they  will  see  that  her  rights  are 
completely  protected,  and  the  husband  cannot 
touch  her  property  without  her  consent.  If  a 
man  dies  and  leaves,  as  the  maker  of  a will,  his 
property  to  his  daughter,  the  husband  cannot 
touch  that  property  by  the  laws  of  Ohio,  with- 
out she  joins  in  the  act,  and  enables  him  to  do 
so.  He  must  get  his  wife  to  give  a power  of 
attorney  before  he  can  control  it.  If  it  has 
come  to  her  in  that  way,  and  she  has  it  at  the 
time  she  marries,  she  may  put  it  under  the  con- 
trol of  trustees,  and  make  it  her  separate  prop- 
erty, and  she  can  control  it,  and  the  laws  will 
protect  her  in  it;  and  yet,  how  entirely  different 
has  the  gentleman  misrepresented  this  law. 

The  law  of  Ohio,  passed  in  1846,  absolutely 
protects  the  wife’s  property  from  the  control 
of  the  husband,  and  prevents  the  executions 
against  the  husband  from  taking  the  property 
of  the  wife,  by  which  it  is  absolutely  protected 
to  her  and  her  children.  At  common  law,  an 


execution  against  two  persons  jointly  interested, 
would  take  the  property  of  either.  This  law 
and  principle  was  applied  as  to  husband  and 
wife.  But  this  law  of  1846  protects  the  prop- 
erty of  a married  woman  better  than  it  would 
any  other  two  persons  jointly  interested.  And 
this  is  so  done  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the 
property  of  a married  woman  better  than  it 
would  that  of  any  other  person.  The  laws  of 
Ohio  have  made  the  property  of  a marriedwoman 
the  special  object  of  protection,  in  a manner  that 
it  does  not  that  of  any  man ; because  woman 
is  the  special  object  of  its  care  and  protection. 

Mr.  President,  I have  not  said  how  I am  go- 
ing to  vote  on  this  question  of  Woman  Suf- 
frage. I only  arise  to  say  this : that  the  ladies 
of  Ohio,  women,  if  you  wish  to  call  them  so, 
are  not  in  that  degraded  state  that  the  gentle- 
man’s argument  has  represented.  They  are  the 
most  respectable  portion  of  the  community, 
everywhere  taking  the  lead  in  everything  that 
is  social  and  elevated  in  civilization.  I have 
not  said  how  I am  going  to  vote  upon  Woman 
Suffrage,  for  that  is  an  entirely  different  ques- 
tion. If  there  were  anything  wrong  in  regard 
to  the  laws  that  limit  the  rights  of  women,  I 
would  be  the  first  to  remedy  them ; but  I do  not 
think  there  is  anything  to  be  objected  to  on  that 
score;  for  when  you  come  to  the  question  of 
their  using  the  ballot,  that  is  an  entirely  differ- 
ent question;  whether  they  would  have  suf- 
frage like  men  for  the  protection  that  is  due  to 
the  ladies,  and  when  the  question  comes  up  I 
shall  vote  upon  it. 

As  I said,  in  my  house  my  wife  and  daugh- 
ters have  the  lead,  and  you  may  say  that  I must 
be  under  petticoat  government.  It  is  not  so. 
It  is  the  homage  of  my  heart  to  them;  and 
though  I confess  that  I am  a great  deal  of  a pet- 
ticoat man,  yet  that  confession,  Mr.  President, 
is  made  confidentially  between  you  and  me,  and 
I do  not  want  it  to  go  any  further.  But,  Mr. 
President,  I am  a good  deal  concerned  upon 
this  question.  I am  almost  afraid,  if  I were  in 
a situation  where  I was  bound  to  tell  how  I 
would  vote  upon  this  subject,  it  would  be  a very 
ticklish  matter.  A few  days  ago,  I received  a 
pamphlet  from  Toledo,  whether  from  a lady  or 
a gentleman,  I do  not  know.  This  pamphlet, 
containing  only  four  pages,  gives  me  to  under- 
stand it  is  a very  ticklish  question  with  me  how 
1 shall  vote ; and  I,  therefore,  want  to  keep  that 
back  as  long  as  I can,  for  fear  of  the  conse- 
quences to  those  who  might  vote  wrong  on  the 
subject.  Now,  this  pamphlet  denounces  (in  the 
most  horrible  manner,  I was  going  to  say,  but 
that  won’t  do),  in  the  most  bitter  manner,  any 
man  who  will  not  go  for  woman  suffrage.  I do 
not  say  how  I am  going  to  vole.  I certainly 
shall  support  the  gentleman’s  proposition  that 
has  been  read  here,  but  I do  not  wish  to  disclose 
how  I shall  vote  upon  the  other  question  ; for,  in 
this  pamphlet,  we  are  denounced  so  terribly  in 
case  we  do  not  vote  right.  I would,  therefore, 
say  to  the  writer  of  that  pamphlet  that  he  or  she 
is  very  injudicious  in  denouncing  people  in  this 
manner.  I recollect  well,  that  a number  of 
years  ago,  I met  Judge  Wood,  of  the  supreme 
court,  and  he  was  telling  me  an  anecdote,  that, 
while  he  sat  with  Judge  J.  C.  Wright  on  the 
bench  at  Bellefontaine,  they  had  some  qnestion 
between  them  that  they  had  disputed  about; 


1830 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. [131st 

Powell.  [Friday, 


“and,”  said  Judge  Wood,  “Judge  Wright 
commenced  to  abuse  me  on  the  subject  of  my 
opinion,  and  when  he  commenced  to  abuse  me, 
I knew  I was  right.”  Now,  I would  advise 
those  persons  who  go  for  woman  suffrage  that 
they  ought  not  to  be  so  hard  upon  us,  for  I may 
take  the  notion  that  Judge  Wood  did— that,  be- 
cause I was  fearful  of  being  abused,  I would  go 
against  it  anyhow.  But  I shall  not  promise 
that,  now. 

Mr.  President,  you  know  I see  very  poorly, 
and  I have  to  take  off  my  spectacles  or  I cannot 
see  to  read  at  all,  for  my  eye-sight  is  so  poor 
that  it  is  with  difficulty  I can  read  in  any  way. 
“It  must  be  conceded,”  says  this  pamphlet, 
“that  we  tire  and  sicken  of  this  pusillanimity, 
obtusity  and  selfishness  at  such  legislation.” 
Now,  that  is  a thrust  at  us,  you  see,  and  those 
hard  words  are  for  us.  “We  hope,”  says  this 
pamphlet,  “it  will  throw  into  the  shade  this 
puerile  action  of  the  Pennsylvania  Conven- 
tion.” I am  afraid  our  Convention  may  be 
thrown  into  the  same  “puerile  position”  and 
“shade”  if  we  do  not  vote  in  accordance 
with  their  views  on  this  subject.  It 
says,  further,  “that  their  eyes  (the  Penn- 
sylvania Convention)  were  not  opened 
that  they  could  see;”  that  is,  they  were 
like  little  puppies  and  kittens,  they  had 
not  their  eyes  opened  yet;  and  so  it  goes  on 
further  and  fiercer.  It  may  be  a very  question- 
able policy  to  threaten  us  so  severely  before- 
hand, for  it  might  have  upon  us  the  same  eflect 
it  had  upon  Judge  Wood. 

If  I could  only  see  well  to  read,  I could  read 
a great  deal  more  of  such  denunciatory  matter, 
and  it  seems  to  me  terrible  to  consider  the  po- 
sition I am  in  when  I come  to  disclose  how  I am 
going  to  vote.  I fear  I shall  be  classed  as  one 
of  those  who  have  not  yet  had  their  eyes  opened 
or  entirely  blind ; though  I have  not  yet  told 
how  I shall  vote. 

Mr.  SEARS.  Send  it  to  the  Secretary. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  read  enough  of  it. 

Mr.  President,  I have  prepared  for  this  occa- 
sion some  few  pages  that  I would  be  glad  to 
read  if  I were  able,  but  I cannot  do  so  on  ac- 
count of  my  recent  loss  of  sight.  I wish  I 
could  read  it  just  as  the  gentleman  from  Sum- 
mit [Mr.  Yoris]  read  his;  but  I cannot,  and 
therefore  ask  this  Convention  that  I may  send 
my  remarks  on  the  subject  to  the  Secretary 
that  he  may  read  them  for  me. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  Secretary  read : 

mr.  powell’s  speech. 

Mr.  President — In  coming  to  the  question  of 
“Woman’s  Suffrage,”  I wish  to  say,  in  the  first 
place,  that  I am  in  favor  of  every  measure  that 
will  be  productive  of  the  greatest  happiness  to 
the  human  family,  male  and  female.  I have 
ever  acted  upon  this  principle;  and  whenever 
anything  was  asked  to  promote  the  interest  and 
welfare  of  the  fair  sex,  consistent  with  the  best- 
interests  of  the  whole  of  their  race,  and  the 
welfare  of  the  State,  I have  ever  been  for  it. 
And  now,  if  upon  these  principles,  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  of  woman  can  be  best  pro- 
moted by  giving  to  her  suffrage  and  the  ballot, 
then  I am  for  bestowing  them  upon  her.  But 
if  her  natural  and  physical  conformation  for- 


bids it ; if  the  proper  division  of  labor  and  re- 
sponsibilities between  the  sexes,  are  inconsist- 
ent with  it;  and  if  the  great  body  of  the  fair 
sex,  whom  we  honor  and  love  as  our  wives  and 
daughters,  and  our  friends,  whom  we  are  bound 
to  cherish  and  protect,  are  decidedly  against 
assuming  the  duties  and  responsibilities  inci- 
dent to  them,  then  I am  decidedly  against  the 
proposed  measure. 

Now,  how  is  this  ? Is  there  not  such  a differ- 
ence between  the  male  and  the  female  of  the 
human  race,  in  physical  structure,  in  the  size 
and  strength  of  body ; in  the  amiableness  and 
kindness  of  heart;  their  attachment  and  devo- 
tion to  their  family  relations  and  duties,  which 
render  so  dear  to  us  those  tender  ties  of  wife, 
children  and  sacred  home, in  which  the  woman, 
in  taste,  in  affection,  and  in  kindness,  as  well  as 
in  genius  and  capacity,  by  nature  and  instinct, 
is  rendered  so  much  more  capable  than  man, 
to  make  all  those  objects  heavenly,  and  superior 
to  everything  else  on  earth  ? She,  in  compari- 
son to  him,  is  but  little  lower  than  the  angels — 
which  we  always  conceive  is  the  idea  of  a 
woman,  and  not  of  a man.  Man,  on  the  con- 
trary,^ rough  and  hardy,  so  formed  by  nature 
to  meet  the  dangers  and  vicissitudes  of  the 
world;  to  protect  and  support  his  wife  and 
children;  to  defend  them  in  war  and  peace i 
and  when  the  war  is  over,  to  establish  and  main- 
tain a good  and  just  government,  rendering  a 
fair  and  equal  civil  rights  and  protection  to  all. 

This  natural  and  physical  difference  between 
the  man  and  the  woman,  has  naturally  suggest- 
ed a division  of  labors  between  them,  which  has 
been  maintained  as  natural  and  providential 
from  the  earliest  period,  in  the  history  of  man, 
to  the  present  time.  To  man  is  assigned  the 
labor  and  dangers  of  the  field  and  the  ocean; 
to  woman,  the  more  genial  duties  and  care  of 
home,  the  discipline  and  education  of  the  rising 
generation — so  important  to  man  and  the  State. 
To  her  is  confided  the  care,  the  discipline,  and 
the  rule  of  that  sacred  home,  which  is  so  dear 
to  man,  and  so  important  to  the  world;  to  him, 
the  duties  of  their  support  and  protection,  the 
rude  labor  of  cultivating  the  field,  and  care  of 
the  flock,  and  the  rough  duties  appertaining  to 
war  and  to  politics.  When  the  war  is  over,  he 
is  bound  to  establish  and  maintain  a just  and 
equitable  government,  by  which  every  man, 
woman,  and  child,  is  justly  and  equitably  pro- 
tected in  all  civil  rights.  In  this  equitable  and 
natural  division  of  these  duties  and  cares,  the 
woman  is  exempt  from  engaging  in  the  rough 
and  dangerous  duties  of  war  and  politics,  but 
permitted  to  exercise  a queenly  rule  over  her 
home  and  domestic  relations.  To  maintain 
these,  she  has  that  divine  influence  over  her 
husband  and  sons  that  no  just  demand  for  rights 
or  privileges  is  made  but  which  is  immediately 
granted.  It  is  not  in  our  nature  to  withhold 
them. 

Then  it  may  be  asked,  why  not  give  them 
their  suffrage?  why  not  give  them  the  ballot? 
For  the  very  reason  we  have  already  given,  that 
the  duties  appertaining  to  it  are  rough,  rude 
and  inconsistent  with  her  character  and  nature. 
For  the  same  reason  she  is  not  required  in  the 
ranks  of  the  army.  It  only  belongs  to  the  bois- 
terous and  rude  man,  in  his  character  of  a war- 
rior, whose  duty  it  is  to  establish  the  State,  and 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


1831 


Day.] 

March  6,  1874.]  Powell. 


then  to  protect  and  maintain  it.  The  barons 
of  England,  when  questioned  as  to  their  polit- 
ical rights  and  property,  it  is  said,  they  drew 
their  swords  and  said,  “By  these  we  acquired 
them,  and  with  these  we  will  defend  them.” 
This  is  the  course  of  events  throughout  the 
world;  and  when  they  are  thus  acquired,  they 
inure  in  common,  and  equally,  to  the  benefit  of 
themselves,  their  wives  and  children. 

But  not  only  for  these  reasons  is  the  ballot 
not  conferred  upon  women,  but  more  especially 
for  the  reason  that  the  great  majority  and  the 
best  proportion  of  our  women  are  themselves 
utterly  opposed  to  the  exercise  of  it,  or  assum- 
ing the  duties  or  the  responsibilities  of  it.  I 
am  so  informed  by  the  best  of  my  constituents. 
I think  I am  as  much  bound  by  the  sentiments 
and  wishes  of  my  wife  and  daughters,  as  any 
other  of  my  constituents.  My  wife  has  repeat- 
edly said  to  myself  and  others  (and  she  is  a 
woman  of  a most  decided  independence  in  the 
expression  of  her  opinion,)  that  she  had,  and 
enjoyed,  all  the  rights  she  wanted  ; there  was 
no  right  denied  her  that  she  wished  to  exercise; 
and  she  did  not  wish  to  go  to  the  polls.  Mr. 
Greeley,  who,  in  his  younger  days,  advocated 
almost  everything  that  was  new,  when  in  the 
New  York  Constitutional  Convention,  voted 
against  woman’s  suffrage,  upon  the  ground  that 
he  was  satisfied  that  the  majority  of  the  women 
of  the  State  were  against  it.  The  great  body 
of  the  good  and  best  example  of  the  women  of 
the  country  are  either  decidedly  against  it,  or 
wish  not  to  be  troubled  with  it. 

But  these  women  who  advocate  woman’s  suf- 
frage, differ  materially  from  their  good  sisters, 
and  call  themselves  strong-minded  women,  as 
though  they  possessed  and  monopolized  all  the 
strength  of  female  intellect.  But  with  equal 
force  do  the  good  domestic  women — our  good 
mothers  and  wives — return  the  compliment  by 
saying,  they  were  only  a kind  of  masculine 
women,  who  possessed  very  little  of  the  genu- 
ine female  character.  To  use  the  language  of 
one  of  my  constituents,  “they  are  women  who 
use  their  advocacy  only  for  the  purpose  of  ac- 
quiring distinction  and  notoriety.”  They  are 
unwilling  that  there  should  be  any  distinction 
of  labor  between  the  male  and  female,  espe- 
cially in  regard  to  anything  in  politics.  They 
seem  particularly  desirous  of  occupying  the 
position  of  the  legislator  in  Congress  and  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  as  there  they  would  be  particu- 
larly conspicuous;  positions  in  political  con- 
ventions afford  very  desirable  places;  and  seats 
on  the  bench,  or  in  the  jury  box,  ar$  equally 
sought  and  envied. 

This  is  not  so  strange,  after  all;  strange 
things  everywhere  exist — even  those  who  are 
called  hermaphrodite,  and  crowing  hens.  Of 
late  it  is  said  that  the  crowing  hens  are  making 
quite  a progress;  and,  in  convention,  have 
passed  resolutions  that  the  rooster  was  a tyrant, 
and  they  would  no  longer  submit  to  his  control, 
or  lay  any  more  eggs  than  they  just  pleased.  So 
with  some  of  our  female  friends.  They  seem 
to  fret  against  God  and  nature ; and  especially 
against  us  as  unconscionable  tyrants,  and  as  hav- 
ing oppressed  them  with  all  sorts  of  injustice 
and  wrongs  from  the  foundation  of  the  world 
to  the  present  time.  They  declare  that  they 
have  a perfect  right  to  do  any  and  everything 


that  the  men  did;  and  some,  I am  told,  contend 
that  the  men  should  be  compelled  to  bear  chil- 
dren half  the  time.  I think  that  would  be  a 
very  fair  division  of  labor. 

I admit  that  in  some  instances  and  in  some 
countries  the  condition  of  the  woman  is  unjust 
and  flagrantly  wrong.  But  it  is  not  so  Ohio, 
where  we  yield  everything  to  the  request  of 
woman.  We  always  render  her  aid  which  we 
would  refuse  to  a man.  We  give  her  a seat  to 
the  exclusion  of  ourselves.  The  law  is  admin- 
istered to  her  more  kindly  and  sympathetically 
than  it  is  to  a man.  The  ballot  is  the  only 
thing  that  I know  in  the  law  that  is  refused  to 
her;  and  that  refusal  is  based  upon  the  grounds 
we  are  now  considering.  She  is  frequently 
postmistress,  librarian,  recorder  and  the  like 
official  duties  which  are  suitable  to  her  charac- 
ter, strength  and  habits.  All  the  employments 
in  civil,  private  and  domestic  life  are  as  open  to 
her  as  to  any  of  her  male  relatives.  Depend 
upon  it  that  the  shrewd  merchant  and  busi- 
ness man  will  employ  a female  whenever  they 
find  it  consistent  with  their  pecuniary  interest 
to  do  so.  It  is  generally  found  that  ladies  do 
not  like  to  deal  with  female  clerks.  There  is 
something  mutually  repulsive  in  it;  but  they 
would  rather  deal  with  the  genteel  and  affable 
male  clerks  who  wait  upon  them  so  politely 
and  obligingly,  between  whom  there  is  a natural 
sympathy.  Sometimes  the  gentlemen  prefer  to 
purchase  their  cigars  of  a lady  for  the  same 
reason.  These  natural  preferences  and  sympa- 
ties  must  be  restrained  and  controlled  by  cor- 
rect moral  rules  and  manners,  or  they  become 
subject  to  gossip  and  slander,  which  degener- 
ates into  scandal.  For  these  reasons,  Mr. 
Greeley  once  said,  that  if  he  had  a daughter  to 
send  to  college,  he  would  prefer  to  send  her  to 
Vassal*  Female  College  at  Poughkeepsie,  but 
his  son  he  would  prefer  to  send  to  Yale.  It  is 
dangerous  thus  to  throw  together  adult  male 
and  female  students  in  the  same  institution, 
and  all  such  institutions  are  subject  more  or 
less  to  scandal  and  slander. 

And  yet,  one  of  the  most  forward  and  promi- 
nent advocates  of  Woman’s  Suffrage,  and 
throwing  down  all  possible  distinction  between 
the  male  and  female  of  our  race,  and  throwing 
them  promiscuously  together  in  all  schools  and 
employments,  in  her  recent  novel,  “Aurora,” 
(of  which  I have  only  seen  a newspaper  ex- 
tract), she  puts  these  words  into  the  mouth  of 
one  of  her  heroines— a fallen  woman : “A 

strong  man  is  like  a magnet;  he  draws  us  at  his 
will,  and  we  connot  help  it.”  She  put  these 
frightful  words  in  the  mouth  of  her  fallen 
heroine,  because  she  believed  and  knew 
they  were  true.  Still,  she  is  the  lead- 
ing advocate  of  this  revolution  in  the 
habits  and  manners  of  women;  which  would 
induce  the  young  females  of  our  land,  from 
sixteen  to  twenty-five,  in  the  flush  of  youthful 
innocence  and  inexperience — full  of  confidence, 
confiding  love  and  sympathy,  to  trust  herself 
in  a promiscuous  school,  or  office,  or  shop,  to 
be  attracted  and  magnetized  by  some  winning 
and  dashing  young  gallant,  and  perhaps  too 
late  taught  to  express  the  very  words  of 
Aurora’s  fallen  heroine.  The  father  or  guar- 
dian who  would  thus  peril  his  daughter  or 


1832 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE, 


[131st 

Powell.  [Friday, 


ward  is  guilty  of  a crime  and  high  misde- 
meanor. 

But  the  fact  is  that  all  the  vocations  of  life  are 
here  open  to  the  female  as  well  as  to  the  male 
of  our  race,  except  that  of  the  rude  soldier  or 
the  corrupt  politician.  She  may  be  a mer- 
chant, an  artist,  a financier,  or  enter  into  com- 
petition with  her  male  friends  in  any  of  the  vast 
divisions  of  these  several  vocations,  in  case  she 
prefers  it  to  the  honorable  position  of  a mother 
or  matron  of  a family  and  that  sacred 
home  we  all  cherish  and  love  so  dear- 
ly. But  for  these  the  woman  with  a 
ballot  in  her  hands  has  no  inclination  or  taste. 
She  prefers  the  vocation  of  offices  and  politics, 
and  plays  her  part  alongside  of  the  wily  and 
corrupt  politician.  Perhaps  she  may  think 
that  that  is  the  best  place  to  catch  a suitor,  or 
to  be  operated  upon  by  that  magnetism  of  which 
Aurora  speaks.  Perhaps  to  be  detailed  with  a 
parcel  of  gentlemen  on  a committee,  or  locked 
up  with  jurors  in  considering  on  their  verdict. 
This  may  be  to  some  a pleasanter  task  than  to 
care  for  and  ornament  her  home — the  heaven 
of  her  family.  The  character  of  some  women 
has  materially  changed  in  these  respects  in  re- 
cent times.  They  hold  that  the  amiable  and 
lovely  character  of  woman  that  we  have  for  all 
time  loved  and  cherished,  is  unworthy  of  a 
strong-minded  woman,  whose  destiny,  she 
thinks,  is  to  imitate  and  do  whatever  man  does, 
or  dares  to  do.  To  be  a mother  is  a position  to 
them  of  contempt.  Doctor  Holland,  in  one  of 
his  lectures,  said  that  the  destiny  of  woman  was 
to  be  a mother,  and  to  rear  the  generation 
which  should  follow  us.  This  offensive  ex- 
pression, it  is  said,  came  to  the  ears  of  Miss 
Anna  Dickinson,  who  soon  afterwards  met  him 
in  a railroad  car,  and  said  to  him:  “I  under- 
stand, sir,  that  you  are  Doctor  Holland,  and 
that  you  have  said  that  the  destiny  of  women 
was  to  become  mothers.”  “Yes,”  said  the  Doc- 
tor, “I  believe  I said  something  of  the  kind.” 
Upon  this  Miss  Anna  turns  to  leave,  with  much 
contempt  and  offended  dignity,  and  said  to  Doc- 
tor Holland  : “Good-bye,  sir.” 

Soon  after  this,  Doctor  Holland  delivered  a 
lecture  at  Delaware  (my  residence)  which  was 
attended  by  many  of  the  professors  of  our  Uni- 
versity and  Female  College,  students,  and  citi- 
zens— for  lectures  are  well  attended  at  Dela- 
ware. One  of  the  young  ladies  from  the 
Female  College,  just  gushing  into  womanhood, 
went  with  others  at  the  end  of  the  lecture,  to 
compliment  Doctor  Holland,  and  took  the 
opportunity  to  interrogate  the  Doctor  by 
asking  him  what  would  he  advise  a young  lady 
to  do  for  a future  living  who  was  an  orphan, 
and  principally  dependent  upon  herself?  There 
is  at  Delaware  very  little  of  the  offensive  doc- 
trine of  the  suffrage  and  the  slavery  of  women ; 
but  in  some  way  the  young  lady  was  imbued 
with  a little  of  it,  and  expected,  of  course,  that 
the  Doctor  would  advise  her  to  take  either 
Blackstone  or  a dissecting  knife  and  pill-bag. 
The  Doctor  first  asked  her  whether  she  wanted 
the  advice  for  herself  or  for  another  ? “For  my- 
self, of  course,”  was  the  pert  reply.  “Then,” 
said  the  Doctor,  “my  advice  is,  that  at  the  first 
good  opportunity  you  have,  you  get  married.” 

Until  recent  times,  woman  and  her  position 
has  been  honored,  cherished  and  protected. 


From  the  earliest  time  in  history  her  position 
has  ever  been  that  of  choice,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  indication  of  nature.  The  relation  be- 
tween the  patriarchs  and  their  wives  was  that 
of  choice,  and  in  harmony  with  nature — a pro- 
per division  of  labor  and  duties — the  man  as- 
signed to  the  dangerous  and  rough  work  already 
pointed  out,  the  woman  to  that  of  the  more 
gentle  and  refined  domestic  duties,  and  the  care 
and  discipline  of  the  household ; exempt  from 
the  duties  of  war  and  politics,  and  excused  from 
the  dangerous  and  laborious  task  of  the  mari- 
ner, the  fisherman^  the  forester  and  the  miner. 
All  these  laborious  and  dangerous  employ- 
ments are  assigned  to  the  man,  while  to  the  wo- 
man is  assigned  the  more  gentle  and  refined 
duties,  as  described  in  the  good  book: — “The 
virtuous  woman  (Proverbs  31,  v.  10-30.)  look- 
eth  well  to  the  ways  of  her  household,  and  eat- 
eth  not  the  bread  of  idleness.  Her  children 
arise  up  and  call  her  blessed ; her  husband  also, 
and  he  praiseth  her.  She  considereth  a field, 
and  buyeth  it;  with  the  fruit  of  her  hands  she 
planteth  a vineyard.  Her  husband  is  known  in 
the  gates,  where  he  sitteth  among  the  elders  of 
the  land.”  This  description  of  the  virtuous 
woman  in  those  ancient  days  holds  good  to  this 
day.  And  so  we  may  trace  down  from  that  day, 
through  Grecian  and  Roman  history,  to  the 
present  time,  the  condition  of  woman,  especially 
as  ameliorated  and  influenced  by  Christian 
civilization.  This  condition  of  woman  has  ever 
been  honored,  cherished  and  respected  by  all 
good  men  and  women,  until  now  we  are  taught 
to  traduce  it.  The  position  of  the  mother  has 
always  received  the  most  cherished  honor  and 
regard  until  now,  it  seems,  it  is  to  be  held  in 
contempt  and  despised.  When  the  Roman 
matron,  Cornelia,  was  asked  to  exhibit  her  most 
valuable  jewels,  with  the  just  and  honest  pride 
of  a virtuous  mother,  presented  her  children. 
Madam  DeStael,  who  was  childless,  though  mar- 
ried, and  much  disposed  to  be  masculine  instead 
of  feminine,  once  asked  Bonaparte  “who  was 
the  greatest  woman?”  and  was  answered : “She 
who  is  the  mother  of  the  greatest  man.”  I have 
no  doubt  but  that  Cornelia,  the  mother  of  the 
Gracchi,  Latticia,  the  mother  of  Bonaparte,  and 
Mary,  the  mother  of  Washington,  thought  so 
also.  But  modern  degeneracy  thinks  otherwise, 
especially  the  woman  with  a ballot  in  her  hand. 
They  not  only  reject  motherhood  from  their 
honor  and  affection,  but  even  contemn  and  de- 
nounce marriage,  unless  it  is  founded  upon  mu- 
tual sympathy  and  congeniality.  For  man  and 
wife  to  remain  together  when  such  sympathet- 
ic union  does  not  unite  them  is  denounced  as  a 
crime.  Free  love  is  the  watchword,  and  woman 
left  to  do  whatever  she  pleases,  especially  to  do 
whatever  man  does.  To  excel  in  the  true  voca- 
tion of  woman  will  not  do;  she  must  compete 
with  man  in  his  vocation  or  her  destiny  is  a 
failure. 

The  doctrine  thus  advocated  is  slowly  work- 
ing an  entire  revolution  in  the  character,  man- 
ners, and  morals,  of  both  men  and  women.  Its 
tendency  is  to  make  the  woman  as  rough,  as 
masculine,  and  as  unwomanly  as  the  man — to 
reverse  the  natural  and  congenial  division  of 
responsibilities  and  labor  between  the  man  and 
woman,  which,  until  now,  has  ever  existed  be- 
tween them  as  their  normal  condition.  She  is 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


1833 


Day.] 

March  6,  1874.]  Powell. 


no  longer  to  remain  the  fair  sex,  but  to  mix 
and  compete  with  man  in  all  his  rough  and 
dangerous  vocation.  No  longer  is  she  to  be 
queen  of  the  household,  the  guardian  of  our  do- 
mestic altar,  and  the  censor  and  tribune  of  our 
private  and  public  morals— the  great  and  par- 
amount object  of  man’s  care,  love  and  devotion. 
Instead  of  these,  she  is  to  become  the  competitor 
and  opponent  of  man  in  all  the  rough  vocations 
of  life,  that  nature  and  the  normal  state  of 
things,  have  assigned  to  him  as  his  appropriate 
calling  and  duties.  It  seems  that  she  is  no 
longer  to  be  charged  with  the  care  and  manage- 
ment of  our  sacred  home;  no  longer  to  be  the 
loved  and  honored  object  of  wife  or  mother, — 
but  to  sally  forth  as  the  rude  competitor  of  man, 
in  the  army,  navy  or  police ; or  to  compete  in 
professional  calling,  with  Blackstone,  or  a dis- 
secting-knife,  or  pill-bag  on  her  arm,  instead  of 
being  that  womanly  object  of  love,  protection 
and  regard  which  she  has  always  held  in  the 
affection  of  man. 

It  is  not  my  object  to  object  to  woman’s  right 
to  engage  in  any  of  the  ordinary  vocations  of 
life,  adapted  and  congenial  to  her  nature, 
adapted  to  her  physical  powers,  and  consistent 
with  the  greater  physical  force  of  man,  and  his 
duty  to  cherish,  protect  and  love  her.  This 
natural  physical  difference  between  the  sexes 
requires  that  there  should  be  a corresponding 
and  appropriate  division  of  labor  between 
them,  so  that  to  each  there  be  given  the  care 
and  management  of  those  things  and  duties 
that  each  is  best  adapted  to  discharge  and  per- 
form. But  such  division  of  labor  and  respons- 
ibility is  not  satisfactory  to  the  women,  who 
would  wish  to  bear  the  responsibilities  of  the 
ballot.  A selection  from  them  must  be  made 
for  every  responsible  station  which,  until  now, 
has  always  been  assigned  as  the  natural  and 
appropriate  position  of  man.  Mrs.  Cady  Stan- 
ton must  be  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States; 
Mrs.  Woodhull,  President;  MissTennie  Clafflin 
must  be  made  a colonel,  and  command  a regi- 
ment, and  Miss  Walker  a surgeon  in  the  army. 
So  we  may  go  through  the  whole  roll.  Of 
course,  when  this  change  comes  about,  these 
places  must  be  occupied  by  women ; for  no  man 
would  dare  to  resist  the  fascinating  solicitation 
of  a woman  for  an  appointment ; for  we  are  so 
accustomed  to  yield  to  all  their  solicitations, 
where  they  have  a right  to  demand.  Many  a 
man  would  yield  to  their  solicitations  from  mo- 
tives of  gallantry.  I would  be  afraid  to  trust 
myself  to  a compliance,  without  ever  inquiring 
into  the  propriety  of  the  appointment.  Others 
might  vote  that  way,  to  show  how  little  he  re- 
garded the  appointment,  which  he  could  not  se- 
cure for  himself.  What  glorious  times  we 
would  then  have,  when  the  fair  sex  will  occupy 
all  these  positions.  And  if  it  be  possible  to  form 
a woman  and  anti-woman's  parties,  with  the 
minority  system  of  voting,  they  might  secure 
the  majority  of  officers,  and  if  not  that,  they 
would  be  sure  of  the  minority — perhaps  one  out 
of  three,  or  two  out  of  five. 

The  very  idea  and  advocacy  of  these  things 
has  already  produced  a revolution  in  the  man- 
ners, taste,  and  aspirations  of  a portion  of  the 
fair  sex.  They  assume  to  be  able  to  do  what- 
ever man  can  do.  They  imitate  his  manners, 
dress  and  mien.  They  must  wear  his  panta- 


loons and  long  boots,  must  carry  pistols,  and 
whenever  a lover  crosses  their  path,  must  use 
it 

This  advocacy  is  producing  its  bad  effects 
wherever  its  propagation  has  been  successful. 
As  far  as  it  goes,  it  demoralizes  the  female  char- 
acter, and  produces  a class  that  is  neither  male 
nor  female,  but  who  acquire  the  worst  quali- 
ties of  both.  It  abandons  all  that  is  attractive 
and  lovely  in  the  normal  female  character,  and 
assumes  to  be  whatever  man  is,  or  can  be ; and 
producing  a character  that  is  properly  neither 
man  nor  woman,  what  physiologists  would  de- 
nominate as  tertiam-quid , which,  by  uniting  the 
good  qualities  of  two  objects,  produces  a third 
class,  in  which  the  good  qualities  are  lost,  and 
produces  a something  in  which  its  bad 
qualities,  or  worthlessness,  are  manifest.  We 
witness  this  in  so  many  instances  of  these 
women  assuming  the  bravado  character  of  a bad 
man — carrying  arms  and  killing  him.  Mrs. 
Fair  shoots  and  kills  her  paramour  because  he 
dares  to  receive  his  own  wife ; and  this  act  is 
sympathized  with,  if  not  lauded  as  that  of  a 
heroine.  The  carrying  of  arms  is  thus  encour- 
aged, and  we  have  the  evidence  of  the  frequent 
use  of  them  in  enforcing  the  rights  or  redress- 
ing the  wrongs  of  those  females  who  carry 
them.  Scenes  of  this  kind  have  now  frequent- 
ly occurred  in  various  parts  of  the  country, 
where  a woman  has  taken  the  life  of  her  lover 
upon  the  charge  of  a breach  of  promise. 

I was  once  consulted  by  a young  man  in  a 
case  that  greatly  perplexed  him.  He  said  that 
two  or  three  young  ladies  called  upon  as  many 
young  men,  claiming  that  they  had  the  right 
that  year  to  play  the  gallant  as  it  was  leap- 
year,  and  with  great  gallantry  invited  them  to 
take  a ride.  He  was  one  of  them,  and  the 
young  lady  who  invited  him,  manifested  the 
greatest  gallantry  in  taking  care  of  him,  and 
securing  him  from  the  cold.  She  wrapped  him 
up  very  closely  in  buffalo  skins  and  shawl.  The 
ride  was  very  pleasant,  and  he  had  been  most 
gallantly  waited  upon.  But  soon  afterwards 
the  brother  of  the  young  lady  called  upon  him, 
and  remonstrated  with  him  upon  his  conduct, 
in  disregarding  what  his  sister  considered  a 
positive  engagement.  He  said  that  his  sister 
declared  that  she  would  not  have  her  affections 
thus  trifled  with ; and  threatened  divers  dire 
consequences.  The  young  man  declared  he  was 
entirely  innocent,  except  submitting  to  take  the 
ride.  He  was  anxious  to  know  what  he  could 
do,  and  protesting  he  could  not  submit,  to  be 
caught  thus  in  marriage.  I had  to  inform  him, 
that  he  had  a bad  case ; that  as  the  law  then 
was,  where  a young  lady  claimed  a breach  of 
an  engagement,  she  was  admitted  as  a witness 
to  prove  it,  and  the  jury  was  certain  to  believe 
her.  I,  therefore,  advised  him  to  get  out  of  the 
case  in  the  easiest  way  possible.  Besides,  I said 
to  him,  that  these  were  dangerous  times  to  have 
any  controversy  with  the  ladies,  especially 
where  they  claimed  a breach  of  an  engagement; 
for  some  times,  now-a-days,  the  ladies  redress 
their  own  grievances  by  shooting  the  man, 
whom  they  claimed  had  violated  his  engage- 
ment with  them.  “ Why,”  said  he,  with  great 
concern,  “ do  you  think  she  will  shoot  me?”  I 
shook  my  head,  and  said  I could  not  tell : — these 
were  dangerous  times. 


1834 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Powell. 


This  advocacy  of  woman’s  rights  and  suf- 
frage has  had  a most  demoralizing  elfect  upon 
a large  class  of  them,  and  against  which  the 
most  virtuous  and  commendable  of  our  women 
protest.  It  runs  into  all  kind  of  extravagance 
in  morals  and  manners.  They  denounce  as  pre- 
posterous, any  natural  division  of  labor  between 
the  man  and  the  woman.  That  she  should  be 
permitted  to  engage  in  anything  and  everything 
that  man  did.  This  induces  them  to  hold  in 
contempt  all  those  sacred  relations  which  we 
have  usually  associated  with  wife,  children,  and 
home.  They  even  denounce  the  marriage  re- 
lation as  the  wily  contrivance  of  man,  for  the 
purpose  of  tyranny  and  oppression  over  the 
woman.  They  hold  that  she  should  be  left  free 
to  act  and  do  as  she  pleases ; to  choose  her  own 
position  and  associates,  when  and  where  she 
pleases ; that  her  love  and  affection  were  her 
own,  and  she  had  a right  to  bestow  them  on 
whom  and  where  it  best  suited  her  convenience 
and  taste,  without  the  restraint  of  any  law  or 
conventional  rules  of  men.  Home  and  family 
relations  are  to  be  discarded.  The  home  is  to 
be  superseded  by  a public  boarding  house,  and 
the  duties  and  affection  of  the  mother  are  to  be 
abandoned  to  the  care  and  attention  of  the  State. 
These  doctrines  are  advanced  to  a fearful  ex- 
tent; and  in  some  places  in  the  United  States, 
they  are  carried  out  in  actual  practice,  as  in 
Oneida  county,  New  York,  and  Huron  county, 
Ohio.  You  will  always  find  the  advocates  of 
these  principles  foremost  among  those  who  ad- 
vocate woman’s  rights,  and  woman’s  suffrage, 
as  principles  and  laws  which  are  necessarily 
connected  with  and  following  each  other.  If 
those  principles  are  just  and  true,  then  it  is 
right  that  our  laws  and  customs  should  yield  to 
them ; but  if  they  are  forced  upon  us  by  com- 
binations contrary  to  the  laws  of  nature,  and 
the  long  cherished  institutions  of  our  race, 
founded  upon  our  most  sacred  virtues  and  in- 
stincts, and  upon  the  natural  difference  in  the 
nature,  duties,  and  capacities  of  men  and  wo- 
men, then  they  should  be  resisted  as  unjust,  and 
as  a caviling  against  God  and  nature;  and  the 
rebellion  of  the  few  against  the  many,  to  the 
evident  injury  of  the  best  interest  of  both. 

Now,  let  us  consider  what  is  complained  of, 
and  see  if  there  are  any  restraints  not  founded 
upon  our  normal  condition,  and  the  natural  and 
necessary  difference  between  the  man  and  the 
woman.  The  first  complaint  is,  that  our  laws 
and  customs  either  expressly  or  by  implication 
prohibit  women  to  engage  in  many  of  the  pur- 
suits which  are  open  and  admitted  to  the  men. 
This  is  admitted,  but  we  claim  it  is  only  true 
in  relation  to  those  pursuits  which,  in  the  whole 
history  of  man,  by  common  consent  of  all  good 
men  and  women,  were  proper,  expedient,  and 
suitable  for  the  men  to  exercise  and  perform, 
and  equally  improper,  inexpedient  and  unsuit- 
able for  women  to  engage  in.  These  may  be 
enumerated  as  positions  which  belong  to  war, 
to  politics  or  to  police ; and  in  these  because 
those  positions,  by  common  consent,  were  as- 
signed, on  account  of  their  exposure  and  dan- 
ger, their  rudeness  and  vulgarity,  to  the  men; 
and  the  women,  on  the  account  of  their  more 
refined  qualities  of  heart  and  mind,  their  more 
delicate  frames  and  amiable  weaknesses,  were 
exempted  from  engaging  in  them,  in  the  just 


[131st 

[Friday? 


and  righteous  division  of  labor  between  the 
man  and  the  woman,  as  has  ever  existed  in  all 
Christian  countries. 

This  division  of  labor  and  duties  is  protested 
against  as  unjust  and  unreasonable;  and  it  is 
claimed  that  all  offices,  either  of  those  of  war, 
or  of  political  organization,  or  of  the  police, 
should  be  opened  to  the  women  as  well  as  the 
men,  without  regard  to  the  difference  of  natu- 
ral formation  of  body,  mind  and  taste  in  the 
difference  of  sex.  They  claim  the  example  of 
Joan  of  Arc  as  an  instance  of  what  a woman 
can  do.  Joan’s  case  was  an  abnormal  state  of 
things ; it  was  a miracle,  with  nothing  like  it  in 
history,  and  will  never  again  be  repeated.  Not 
so,  however,  thought  Miss  Tennie  Clafflin.  She 
claimed  that  she  ought  to  be  permitted  to  hold 
any  office  in  war  or  peace.  When  a gallant 
regiment  of  New  York  City  was  left  by  the  death 
of  James  Fisk,  without  its  colonel,  Tennie 
gallantly  offered  to  it  her  services,  which  were 
ungallantly  refused.  But  Tennie  was  not  to  be 
rebuffed  by  one  defeat.  She  then  offered  her 
services  to  a colored  regiment  in  New  York 
City,  whose  misfortune  it  was  to  be  without  a 
colonel.  This  offer  was  more  gallantly  ac- 
cepted, and  Tennie  was  considered  to  be  the 
colonel  of  the  regiment.  But  great  interest 
was  manifested  by  the  New  York  World,  and 
elsewhere,  to  know  how  Tennie  would  ap- 
pear at  the  head  of  her  regiment.  Would  she 
appear  on  a lady’s  saddle  or  a man’s  saddle  ? 
That  was  a serious  question ; which  I do  not 
know  to  have  been,  at  that  time,  practically 
settled.  But  I have  since  been  informed,  that 
the  propriety  and  convenience  of  the  matter 
has  been  settled  by  Miss  Anna  Dickinson  in  a 
lecture  delivered  in  New  York  City,  in  which 
she  said  that  she  had  recently  been  traveling  in 
the  Rocky  Mountains  on  horse-back,  in  which 
she  found  the  side-saddle  to  be  a great  incon- 
venience and  injury  to  both  the  horse  and  the 
rider — that  the  true  way  to  ride  was  upon  a 
man’s  saddle — and  astride.  It  is  to  be  hoped 
that  Tennie  will  now  have  no  hesitation  to  ap- 
pear at  the  head  of  her  regiment  in  any  man- 
ner she  pleases. 

But  we  are  told  that  the  position  of  a judge 
or  juror  is  very  appropriate  and  acceptable  to 
these  ladies.  And  we  are  also  told  that  the  mat- 
ter has  been  tried  in  the  Territory  of  Wyoming, 
and  highly  commended  by  Chief  Justice, 
Campbell,  of  the  Territory  as  working  most 
charmingly  in  his  jurisdiction.  I suppose  that 
the  commendation  may  be  as  reliable,  from  the 
number  of  the  population,  as  that  of  some  of 
the  mayors  of  towns  in  Ohio.  However  that 
may  be,  some  reliance  can  be  placed  up- 
on a letter  published  some  few  years  since, 
written  by  the  first  lady  elected  a justice 
of  the  peace  in  that  territory,  to  her  friends, 
to  inform  them  how  easy  a matter  she 
found  it  to  be.  If  I recollect  it  right,  she  rep- 
resented that  the  old  man  and  boys  were  ever 
ready  to  help  her  in  her  official  duties.  When 
she  was  called  upon  to  try  a case  or  render 
judgment,  the  old  man  was  very  kind,  would 
remain  at  home,  take  care  of  the  house,  rock 
the  cradle,  and  suckle  the  child.  And  the  boys 
were  always  ready  to  aid  her  in  issuing  process, 
entering  up  judgments,  and  carrying  up  the 
docket.  So  the  matter  was  very  easy,  and  any 


Day.] FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 1836 

March  6, 1874.]  Powell. 


lady  could  perform  it,  with  the  aid  of  the  old 
man  and  boys. 

Just  as  we  claimed,  that  the  duties  of  the  sol- 
dier and  the  police  required  that  robust 
strength,  endurance,  and  exposure  to  danger, 
that  rendered  those  duties  incompatible  with 
the  female  character,  and  they  were  everywhere 
excused  from  them,  except  in  the  barbarous 
negro  kingdom  of  Dahomey,  where  they  raised 
regiments  of  negro  women.  So  we  also  insist 
that  the  appointment  of  a judge  or  a juror  is  a 
part  of  the  political  organization,  connected 
with  war  and  the  preservation  of  peace,  which 
renders  them  inapplicable,  if  not  incompatible, 
with  the  female  character.  A lady  on  the 
bench  to  hear  and  examine  all  cases  that  come 
up,  to  listen  to  all  their  vulgarity,  indecency 
and  smut,  as  well  as  to  settle  and  adjust  the  dif- 
ficult and  intricate  questions  of  law,  is  as  much 
out  of  place  as  any  position  that  can  be  con- 
ceived of,  because  it  properly  belongs  to  the 
hardy  and  robust  nature  of  man,  rather  than  to 
the  virtuous,  chaste  and  delicate  nature  and 
taste  of  a lady.  But,  at  least,  spare  a delicate 
woman  from  serving  on  the  jury,  and  the  ne- 
cessity of  being  locked  up  with  her  rude  and 
robust  male  jurors  in  the  jury  room  while  con- 
sulting upon  the  verdict. 

This  strife  on  the  part  of  some  females  to  oc- 
cupy the  position  which,  from  the  earliest 
times,  has  been  assigned  to  man,  is  not  only  a 
departure  from  the  proud  and  sacred  positions 
that  the  most  exemplary  and  virtuous  women 
have  ever  occupied  as  wives  and  mothers ; but 
it  is  a rebellion  against  the  indication  of  na- 
ture. The  laws  of  nature  everywhere  assign 
to  man  those  vocations  of  life  which  are  at- 
tended with  great  danger  and  peril  of  life 
already  referred  to,  as  war, 3 political  affairs 
and  police;  and  to  which  belong,  as  a part,  the 
mariner,  the  builder  and  the  miner.  In  these 
employments  of  man  there  is  required 
great  muscular  power,  great  peril  and 
sacrifice  of  life.  Nature,  in  requiring  this 
of  man  and  not  of  woman,  has  provided 
for  it  by  giving  from  twenty-  to  twenty-two 
male  births  to  every  nineteen  to  twenty  female 
births ; that  is  about  one  male  more  in  every 
twenty  of  both  sexes.  This  difference  in  births 
of  the  male  is  a wise  arrangement  of  nature  to 
compensate  for  their  great  peril  and  sacrifice  of 
life,  and  keep  even  as  possible  the  relative  num- 
ber of  the  sex.  That  is,  one  in  every  twenty  of 
the  males  is  required  as  a sacrifice  and  homage 
to  the  female  portion  of  the  human  family. 
This  addition  to  the  number  of  the  males  is 
provided  by  nature  to  compensate  for  their 
rough  and  perilous  vocation,  and  to  afford  to 
their  fair  sister  an  exemption  from  them,  and 
afford  her  time  to  cultivate  her  fair  nature,  her 
more  delicate  taste  and  refined  domestic  rela- 
tion which  has  sanctified  to  us  wife,  children 
and  sacred  home.  But  these  ideas  to  a woman 
who,  as  a preference,  seeks  to  occupy  the  rough 
Vocation  of  man,  are  either  unknown  or  unap- 
preciated. 

But,  say  the  advocates  of  woman’s  rights, 
there  are  so  many  men  killed  off  in  these  rough 
employments  that  when  we  arrive  at  the  me- 
dium age  of  human  life  the  relative  number  of 
the  sex  is  changed,  so  that  there  are  then  more 
females  than  males  in  the  proportion  of  one  in 


every  thirty  or  fifty  of  both  the  sexes.  So,  in 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  with  a population  of 
about  thirty-one  millions,  there  are  upwards  of 
eight  hundred  thousand  more  females  than 
males;  and  in  Massachusetts,  with  a million 
and  a half  of  population,  there  are  from  forty 
to  fifty  thousand  more  females  than  males. 
From  this  inequality  of  the  sex  Miss  Faithful 
drew  an  argument  that  it  is  right  that  the 
females  should  occupy  any  or  all  the  vocations 
of  men.  I acknowledge  it  is  a pity  that  there 
is  not  a male  for  every  female,  but  I know  no 
remedy  for  it  unless  Brigham  Young  can  point 
one  out.  But  I beg  that  our  fair  wives  and 
daughters  may  be  relieved  from  the  difficulty 
without  becoming  polygamists  or  rough  and 
hateful  men,  or  what  the  ladies  call  masculine 
women. 

Another  argument  is  used  by  these  advocates : 
that  the  laws  in  relation  to  women,  in  relation 
to  the  marriage  contract,  and  in  relation  to  the 
division  of  property  and  the  division  of  labor, 
are  all  cruel  and  tyrannical,  and  she  must  have 
the  ballot  in  order  to  secure  her  rights  and  rem- 
edy these  evils. 

It  may  be  that  the  marriage  contract  is  rather 
cruel  in  binding  the  woman  to  one  man — in  not 
leaving  her  as  free  as  the  air  she  breathes,  so 
that,  when  she  finds  another,  more  sympa- 
thetic, more  susceptible  in  love  affairs,  or  more 
congenial  in  taste,  she  may  select  and  change; 
so  that  her  condition,  as  Mrs.  Woodhull  says, 
may  be  as  she  herself  chooses,  and  change  when 
and  where  she  pleases.  But  then  Miss  Tennie 
Claflin,  who  is  not  quite  as  old  a woman’s  right- 
ist as  her  sister,  exclaims,  in  a little  of  woman’s 
native  virtue,  not  yet  contaminated  by  these 
new  doctrines,  and  says:  “Can  you  tolerate 

the  idea  of  not  knowing  who  your  father  is?” 
This  is  a serious  question,  in  which  is  involved 
the  good  of  mankind,  the  welfare  of  the  State, 
and  the  interest  and  affection  of  all  virtuous 
women.  There  are  bad  men,  as  well  as  bad 
women,  who  would,  as  readily  as  they,  if  not 
more  so,  loosen  the  bonds  of  the  marriage  con- 
tract; but  it  would  not  be  to  the  interest  of 
good  and  virtuous  women,  or  the  interest  of 
the  State.  But  we  are  fast  approaching  this 
state  of  things,  and  when  all  is  acquired  that  is 
claimed  as  woman’s  right,  and  our  ladies  be- 
come masculine  women,  the  object  will  be 
accomplished. 

But  then,  they  say  that,  by  the  law  of  the 
marriage  contract,  all  the  property  of  the  wife 
becomes  absolutely  the  property  of  the  hus- 
band, which  he  may  dispose  of  as  he  pleases. 
This  is  utterly  untrue.  It  is  neither  the  law  in 
England,  nor  in  this  country.  I think  it  would 
require  a woman  lawyer  to  state  it,  or  believe 
it.  I found  this  proposition  so  stated,  in  its 
broad  terms,  in  a chapter  in  John  S.  Mill’s 
book  on  woman’s  rights.  I was  astonished  at 
it,  because,  both  from  the  law  and  history,  he 
ought  to  have  known  that,  substantially,  his 
statement  was  untrue.  This  he  ought  to  have 
known  from  reading  English  history,  without 
a critical  examination  of  the  law.  In  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  there  was  a woman  of  much  ce- 
lebrity in  the  acquisition  of  property,  known  as 
Bets  of  Hardwick.  She  had  been  three  times 
married,  and  her  second  husband  was  a Caven- 
dish, and  for  her  children  by  him  she  was  de 


1836 


LEGAL  RIGHTS  OF  WOMEN. 

Powell. 


iermined  to  build  up  a house  of  celebrity  and 
unbounded  wealth.  But  her  third  husband, 
who  was  also  a Lord,  high  in  the  favor  of  the 
Crown  and  his  Queen,  was  equally  determined 
that  she  should  not,  but  desired  that  it  should 
go  to  his  children  by  a former  marriage.  But 
she  held  on  to  her  property  with  a woman’s 
grip ; and,  by  due  course  of  law,  her  property 
went  to  her  heirs,  the  Cavendish  family,  whose 
descendant  is  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  whose 
great  estate  of  Chatsworth,  embellished  with 
the  most  magnificent  mansion  and  splendid  pri- 
vate residence  in  England,  if  not  in  the  world, 
is  the  fruit  of  the  grasping  acquisition  of  Bets 
of  Hardwick,  secured  against  the  equal  deter- 
mination of  her  third  husband,  that  the  prop- 
erty should  be  made  over  to  himself,  and  should 
eventually  go  to  his  own  children.  But  by  the 
law  of  England,  the  estate  of  Bets  of  Hardwick, 
in  spite  of  her  third  Lord,  like  the  estate  of 
every  other  English  woman,  went  to  her  heirs, 
the  Cavendish,  and  eventually  to  her  descend- 
ant, the  Duke  of  Devonshire.  Mr.  Mill  ought 
to  have  known  this  case  historically,  as  well  as 
a thousand  other  cases,  in  a less  degree,  like  it; 
even  if  he  had  not  studied  the  laws  of  his  coun- 
try better. 

By  the  law  of  England,  all  of  woman’s  real 
estate,  and  her  separate  personal  estate,  go  to 
her  heirs,  and  not  to  his  heirs.  He  has  only  a 
tenancy  for  life  in  her  real  estate ; but  after  the 
short  remainder  of  his  life,  it  goes  to  her  heirs. 
It  is  in  her  power  to  make  all  her  personal  her 
own  separate  estate,  and  the  English  Court  of 
Chancery  is  very  astute  in  protecting  and  secu- 
ring women’s  separate  estate  to  them;  and 
when  any  other  property  passes  through 
chancery  to  her,  a generous  portion  is  settled 
upon  her  as  a separate  estate.  But  if  the  wife 
did  not  choose  to  secure  her  personal  property 
as  a separate  estate  for  her  own  use,  but  permits 
it  to  come  under  the  control  of  the  husband,  and 
to  be  mixed  up  with  his,  enabling  him  to  pro- 
cure credit  upon  it;  of  course,  after  that,  the 
personal  property  will  be  treated  as  his,  like 
any  other  property  acquired  by  him. 

This  makes  a very  different  case  from  Mr. 
Mill’s,  which  law  he  misstates,  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a stronger  argument,  and  excite  the 
sympathy  of  his  readers. 

But  the  question  here  is  not  what  the  law  in 
this  respect  is  in  England,  but  what  is  it  in 
Ohio  ? 

In  1846,  1 was  a member  of  the  Senate  in  the 
General  Assembly  of  this  State.  I then  had  had 
a conversation  on  this  subject  with  Mr.  Swayne, 
then  of  Columbus,  but  long  since  one  of  the 
learned  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States;  and  in  consequence  of  that  con- 
versation, he  brought  to  me  a draft  of  a law  he 
had  drawn  up,  to  secure  to  married  women  the 
control  of  their  property,  even  where  they  neg- 
lected to  secure  it  to  themselves  as  a separate 
estate.  That  act  secured  to  women  the  control 
of  their  property  to  themselves  and  children 
against  the  acts  of  the  husband  and  his  credi- 
tors. as  far  as  it  was  possible  to  do  it;  even 
where  credit  was  obtained  upon  his  apparent 
control  of  such  property ; and  where,  if  it  had 
been  the  joint  property  of  two  men,  it  would 
have  to  be  taken  to  pay  their  debts.  This  act 
was  entitled,  An  Act  in  relation  to  the  interest 


[131st 

[Friday, 


of  the  husbands  in  the  estates  of  their  wives ; 
which  was  presented  by  me  to  the  Senate  and 
passed  the  General  Assembly,  February  28, 
1846,  (see  Swan  & Chase’s  Statutes,  vol.  1.  p.  693 
a.)  To  this  law  there  have  since  been  made  ad- 
ditions, which  in  every  way  secures  the  proper- 
ty of  the  wife  and  her  rights  from  any  wrong- 
ful acts  of  the  husband  or  others.  These  laws 
are  analyzed  in  Powell’s  Analysis  of  American 
Laws,  page  340,  (see  B.  II.  Ch.  XIV.  on  Domes- 
tic Relation)  to  which  I respectfully  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  members,  and  I believe  that,  on 
examination  of  these  laws,  it  will  be  demon- 
strated that  all  this  complaint  against  the  laws 
in  relation  to  husband  and  wife  are  unfounded 
and  entirely  unjust.  In  relation  to  property,  it 
leaves  no  ground  of  complaint.  That  chapter 
is  too  long  to  be  read  here  to  demonstrate  it. 

Thus  have  the  laws  of  Ohio  labored  to  put  the 
rights  of  women  upon  the  most  liberal  princi- 
ples ; and  which  are  secured  and  protected  to 
her  by  all  the  means  and  appliances  which  se- 
cure those  of  any  man.  And  it  is  universally 
admitted  that  in  the  pursuit  of  these  rights, 
the  action  of  the  woman  is  received  with  more 
favor,  and  more  likely  to  succeed  than  that  of 
a man.  This  is  so,  for  the  reason  that  every 
where,  and  upon  all  occasions,  the  reasonable 
demands  of  woman  are  readily  yielded,  always 
giving  to  her  a preference  of  place,  conven- 
ience and  attention.  Any  breach  of  this  polite- 
ness to  the  fair  sex  is  universally  reprobated  by 
the  men  as  grossly  selfish,  ungallant  and  boor- 
ish. This  Convention  have  agreed  to  take  out 
of  our  Constitution,  at  their  request,  every  word 
that  put  upon  woman  any  restraint  in  receiv- 
ing any  appointment  or  place  which  would  not 
require  them  to  enter  into  the  political  strife 
and  contest  of  an  election.  This  exception  is 
put  upon  the  ground  that  such  political  strife 
and  contest  are  demoralizing  and  corrupting  in 
their  influences ; inconsistent  with  that  delica- 
cy and  feminine  disposition  which  characterizes 
the  great  mass  of  all  good  and  virtuous  women, 
who  themselves  repudiate  and  shrink  from  such 
a contest,  as  inconsistent  with  their  own  na- 
tures, and  that  influence  and  deference  to  their 
requests  that  have  always  been  accorded  to 
them  by  their  more  robust  and  stern  frieftds  of 
the  other  sex. 

But  what  of  all  these  rights,  deferences'-  and 
politeness,  as  long  as  she  has  not  the  right  to 
go  to  the  polls  and  use  the  ballot?  In  the  esti- 
mation of  some,  all  the  former  sinks  into  insig- 
nificancy when  the  latter  is  denied  them.  The 
reason  of  this  denial  has  all  along  been  sugges- 
ted ; but  the  great  reason  of  it  is  that  last  refer- 
red  to,  that  the  great  body  of  our  most  virtuous 
and  good  women  shrink  from  it  as  inconsisten  t 
wiih  their  nature,  and  decline  to  take  upoji 
themselves  the  responsibility  of  it,  and  rely' 
with  entire  confidence  that  all  their  just  right# 
will  be  full/  awarded  and  protected  by  their 
male  friends — their  fathers,  husbands  ancfi 
brothers.  This  opposition  of  the  best  part  of  fch£ 
women  of  our  country  is  a fatal  objection  tcj> 
I the  project,  for  it  would  be  tyranny  and  op-* 
' pression  to  force  upon  them  the  duties  and  re- 
sponsibilities of  the  ballot  without  their  con- 
sent. 

The  reason  why  the  women  of  the  country 
‘ have  not  taken  upon  themselves,  heretofore,  the 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Powell. 


1837 


Day.] 

March  6,1874.] 


responsible  and  perilous  duties  of  the  ballot  is 
perfectly  apparent  from  what  has  already  been 
said— that  it  naturally  belonged  to  the  more  ro- 
bust and  hardier  sex,  who  had  gained  and  es- 
tablished their  positions  and  rights  in  war,  and 
are  ready  to  maintain  and  defend  them  with  the 
sword ; and  also  that  our  good  women  choose  to 
be  relieved  and  exempted  from  these  duties  as 
inconsistent  with  their  nature,  and  the  proper 
division  of  the  cares  and  responsibilities  of 
our  domestic  relation. 

But  it  is  claimed  by  the  advocates  for  the  right 
of  women  to  the  ballot  that  they  are  already 
entitled  to  it  by  the  force  of  certain  expressions 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
that  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  especially  under  the 
words  contained  in  the  14th  and  15th  amend- 
ments to  the  former  Constitution,  where  occur 
such  expressions  as  man , he,  his,  and  other 
words  expressive  of  person,  which  include  both 
women  as  well  as  men.  We  readily  admit 
that  where  civil  rights  are  guaranteed  to  “all 
men,”  or  “to  him,”  it  will  include  women  as 
well  as  men,  as  the  expression,  all  men  are  en- 
tled  to  a trial  by  an  impartial  jury,  will  include 
women  as  well  as  men.  But  where  the  expres- 
sion was  that  all  persons  over  the  age  of 
eighteen  shall  meet  to  perform  military  duties, 
it  would  not  include  women ; for,  according  to 
the  common  understanding,  women  do  not  per- 
form military  duty.  So  similar  expressions  as 
to  the  ballot  and  elections  do  not  include  women 
for  the  same  reason  that  by  the  common  under- 
standing that  women  are  not  called  upon  to  re- 
spond to  the  ballot  or  elections.  And  though 
this  has  been  so  decided  by  the  highest  tribu- 
nals over  and  over  again,  yet  these  advocates 
will  insist  on  the  contrary,  and  are  never  dis- 
posed to  consider  the  matter  settled  by  any  de- 
cision. 

They  further  claim  that  they  have  a right  to 
the  ballot  as  the  common  right  of  all  citizens. 
Political  rights  are  not  the  common 
rights  of  citizens,  as  civil  rights  un- 
doubtedly are.  Political  rights  and  suffrage 
are  not  natural  rights  inherent  in  every  person. 
Such  rights  must  depend  upon  the  will  and  dis- 
cretion of  those  who  have  obtained  possession 
and  management  of  the  government.  Political 
rights  and  suffrage  is  due  to  those  who  with 
their  persons  support  and  defend  the  govern- 
ment; and  should  be  conferred  by  the  govern- 
ment, and  those  who  govern,  upon  all  who  will 
by  its  reception  add  the  greatest  security  to  the 
government,  and  then  the  greatest  happiness 
and  prosperity  to  the  people.  This  must  be 
done  by  consulting  with  the  greatest  prudence 
and  discretion  the  safety  of  the  government, 
and  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  people. 
It  is  generally  conferred  upon  those  who  can  by 
their  own  persons  add  to  the  security  of  the 
government  in  time  of  peril  and  danger.  It  is, 
therefore,  due  to  manhood. 

In  some  governments,  they  add  to  these  quali- 
fications that  of  property.  But  that  is  aristo- 
cratic, and  in  the  United  States  has  been 
repudiated  as  unworthy  of  being  a qualifica- 
tion. Generally  speaking,  the  only  qualification 
required  is  that  the  elector  should  be  a citizen 
and  of  a certain  age,  as  twenty-one,  or  twenty- 
five,  or  superior  ages,  in  addition  to  their  man- 
hood. From  those  who  apparently  had  these 


qualities,  persons  who  were  insane,  or  convicted 
of  certain  crimes,  or  some  other  defects  of 
character,  were  excluded,  as  the  government 
deemed  it  most  prudent  to  adopt  or  require ; so 
that  suffrage  is  not  generally  dependent  upon 
property,  or  the  ability  to  pay  taxes.  This  is, 
to  some  extent,  required  as  a qualification  of 
suffrage  in  England,  as  an  aristocratic  govern- 
ment, but  not  in  this  country.  The  fact,  there- 
fore, that  a person  has  a large  amount  of  pro- 
perty and  pays  a large  amount  of  taxes,  has 
here  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  suffrage. 
The  property  pays  its  taxes,  as  its  just  due  to 
the  government  for  the  protection  it  gives  it. 
The  citizen  demands  his  suffrage  on  the  account 
of  his  manhood,  and  not  on  the  account  of  his 
property.  The  property  may  belong  to  a for- 
eigner of  forty  years  of  age,  or  more,  or  to  a 
person  under  the  required  age,  or  in  the  hands 
of  a trustee,  or  to  a female,  and  upon  which  all 
these  pay  the  just  required  taxes,  without  any 
just  claim  to  a vote.  The  taxes  are  paid  on  the 
score  of  the  protection  to  the  property,  and  not 
on  the  account  of  voting  or  not  voting.  The 
claim,  therefore,  that  women  have  a right  to 
vote  on  the  account  that  they  are  owners  of 
property  and  pay  taxes,  is  unfounded,  and 
without  a just  support;  for  the  same  property 
would  have  to  pay  its  due  proportion  of  taxes,  in 
whosever  hands  it  may  fall,  without  regard 
whether  he  or  she  was  a voter  or  not. 

Another  argument  has  been  used  equally 
fallacious  and  unfounded:  that  no  property 
should  or  could  be  taxable  unless  the  owner 
was  represented  in  the  government  and  he  or 
she  had  a right  to  a vote  for  that  purpose. 
And  this  they  claim  as  a principle  founded 
upon  the  claim  of  our  revolutionary  fathers, 
that  they  were  not  to  be  taxed  by  the  British 
Parliament  without  a representation  in  it, 
This  idea  was  borrowed  from  the  British  peo- 
ple ; but  they  never  claimed  that  every  owner 
of  property  which  was  taxed  was,  as  a princi- 
ple, entitled  to  be  represented  or  to  have  a vote, 
or  the  property  was  exempted  from  taxation . 
For  thousands  of  persons  and  thousands  of 
property  were  taxed,  without  a vote  or  any 
representation  in  Parliament.  No  such  pre- 
posterous position  was  ever  set  up  there,  nor  in 
this  country  until  now.  What  their  claim  was, 
that  the  government  should  levy  no  tax  with- 
out the  consent  of  Parliament,  as  the  represen- 
tative of  the  whole  body  of  the  people,  whether 
they  all  voted  or  not.  When  the  consent  of 
Parliament  was  obtained  for  the  tax,  as  the 
representative  of  the  people,  then  nobody 
claimed  that  his  property  was  not  taxable  in 
common  with  all  others,  because  he  was  not  a 
voter ; or  that  the  property  was  that  of  a per- 
son who  was  not  a voter,  and,  therefore,  not 
personally  represented  in  Parliament,  was  not 
to  be  taxed.  Such  was  not  the  principle  then 
claimed  in  Britain  or  this  country ; for  in  both 
countries  the  right  of  suffrage  was  quite  limit- 
ed, and  confined  to  few ; but  then  the  nation 
was  represented  in  Parliament.  But  our  fath- 
ers claimed  that  they  were  not  taxable  by  the 
British  Government,  because  they  were  not 
represented  in  Parliament  at  all.  But  if  they 
had  been  represented  there  by  a few  delegates, 
and  those  elected  by  a few  or  very  limited  vo- 
ters, no  such  claim  would  have  been  made,  for 


1838 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Powell. 


the  body  of  the  people  were  represented  by 
such  delegates ; though  it  might  be  claimed  that 
the  representation  was  not  a very  fair  one. 

But  if  the  ballot  is  to  be  conceded  to  these 
women,  against  the  protestation  of  the  better 
class  of  them,  who  is  to  exercise  this  suffrage? 
Is  it  to  be  conferred  upon  the  unmarried  ladies 
who  have  large  property  who  are  now  so  vo- 
ciferous upon  the  subject?  Are  we  to  have  a 
new  class  of  aristocratic  nuns  ? Or  is  the  suf- 
frage to  be  conferred  upon  all  alike  ? Is  it  to 
be  conferred  upon  all  women  alike,  whether  they 
pray  for  it,  or  protest  against  it?  Whether 
married,  or  unmarried ; whether  with  or  with- 
out property ; whether  a virtuous  woman  or  a 
fallen  one ; or  from  the  workhouse  or  the  pur- 
lieus of  degradation  ? 

These  are  serious  questions  to  be  answered  in 
connection  with  this  matter.  But  suppose  the 
suffrage  were  to  be  conferred  upon  all  women 
(as  it  ought  to  be,  if  at  all),  then  what  will  be 
the  operation  of  it  ? Then  the  roughs  and  po- 
litical hacks  of  the  city  will  have  a jubilee  at 
the  election.  Not  a house  or  a trap  will  be  left 
untried.  There  will  be  then  great  strife  in  the 
political  parties,  to  see  which  can  pick  up  the 
most  of  such  elements,  in  order  to  turn  the 
election.  Then,  at  every  election,  every  house- 
hold will  be  turned  upside  down,  and  every  do- 
mestic order  must  be  disorganized.  The  politi- 
cal hack  must  pay  Betsy  or  Bridget  two  or  three 
visits  at  the  kitchen,  in  the  week  before,  in  or- 
der to  instruct  her,  and  see  how  she  will  vote, 
and  to  be  sure  that  her  mistress  shall  not  have 
too  much  influence  over  her.  All  this  will  be 
necessary,  in  order  to  keep  the  balance  of 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  party  to  which  these 
hacks  belong. 

It  is  now  customary,  on  election  day,  for  each 
party  to  turn  out  with  carriages,  and  all  sorts 
of  vehicles,  to  gather  in  the  voters  who  are  oth- 
erwise unable  to  attend.  The  sick,  the  blind 
and  the  halt  are  taken  to  the  polls  with  all  the 
partisan  zeal  that  political  strife  can  muster. 
Old  men,  unable  to  walk,  are  carried  to  the 
polls,  and  every  arrangement  of  this  kind  is 
made  by  each  party  to  secure  the  majority,  and 
the  handling  of  the  public  purse  and  treasury. 

Now,  apply  all  this  to  the  women  of  the 
country,  and  see  what  horrible  strife  and  de- 
rangement of  domestic  relations  is  brought 
on.  Upon  the  eve  of  the  election,  a man  going 
to  his  daily  business  meets  a politician,  who 
informs  him  that  he  is  on  his  way  to  see  his 
wife,  and  get  her  right  upon  the  political 
questions  to  be  determined  at  the  coming  elec- 
tion. The  man  will  be  likely  to  tell  him  that  he 
will  talk  over  those  matters  with  his  wife  him- 
self. The  politician  would  probably  say  that 
he  finds  her  a little  inclined  to  vote  for  a differ- 
ent ticket  from  him,  and  he  was  desirous  to  get 
her  right  upon  the  goose  question.  The  poor 
husband,  if  he  was  not  a very  jealous  husband, 
might  say,  “All  right,  sir,”  but  he  might  think 
that  the  matter  might  be  left  to  him  and  his 
-wife,  to  be  settled  themselves  as  well  as  they 
could.  But,  then,  he  might  conclude  that  all 
had  now  gone  into  the  hands  of  the  politicians, 
and  his  wife  now  was  her  own  man,  and  he 
must  submit : the  Lord  alone  could  only  help 
him. 

Then  at  the  election,  all  the  sick,  and  invalid, 


[131st 

[Friday, 


and  old  women  must  be  carried  to  the  polls  as 
they  do  now  the  men.  If  this  is  objected  to, 
they  will  say  that  they  will  take  good  care  of 
her  and  bring  her  back  safe.  That  the  election 
was  close  and  doubtful,  and  her  vote  was  all 
important  to  neutralize  the  vote  of  some  other 
woman  who  votes  with  the  other  party.  If 
they  are  told  the  woman  is  sick  and  about  to  be 
confined,  they  will  reply  they  will  take  good 
care  of  her,  and  bring  her  back  in  time  for  that. 
At  other  times  these  political  hacks  will  come 
to  a lady  as  they  now  do  to  some  gentlemen  who 
are  not  inclined  to  go  to  the  polls,  and  in  great 
haste  say  that  it  was  of  vital  importance  that 
she  should  be  at  the  polls,  for  Sue  Monday,  or 
Sal  Day  had  just  voted  for  the  opposite  party, 
and  they  wanted  her  vote  to"  kill  'Sue’s 
vote,  and  keep  the  tally  straight,  and  not 
let  the  opposite  party  go  ahead.  I can  im- 
agine with  what  contempt  this  announcement 
would  be  received  by  some  good  and  virtuous 
women  I know.  What  she  would  say:  “You 
wantjme  to  go  to  kill  Sue  Monday’s  vote ; no ! I’ll 
do  no  such  thing.  I am  not  to  be  used  for  any 
such  purpose ; nor  will  I be  seen  there  in  the 
midst  of  such  a crowd  of  politicians  and  row- 
dies. If  you  want  Sue  Monday’s  vote  killed, 
kill  it  yourselves,  I shan’t  do  it,  nor  be  used  for 
any  such  purpose.” 

These  suggestions  touch  only  a few  of  the 
great  many  difficulties  and  objections  attending 
the  project.  But  the  great  objection  to  it  is  the 
insurmountable  objection  that  the  largest  and 
best  portion  of  our  women  make  to  it  them- 
selves. They  object  to  taking  upon  themselves 
the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  attending  the 
polls.  They  believe  it  will  be  attended  with  a 
sad  demoralization,  and  would  be  the  means  of 
taking  away  from  them  that  influence  and  re- 
spect which  they  now  command  over  the  more 
robust  and  ruder  sex,  which  now  always  ob- 
tains the  best  seat  and  place  and  a compliance 
with  every  request  that  is  reasonable.  They 
fear  this  will  be  otherwise  when  men  and  wo- 
men become  opponents  and  competitors  with 
each  other  in  politics  and  scramble  for  office. 
Just  as  I once  saw  a lady  enter  the  car  and  look 
anxiously  for  a seat.  A gentleman  who  was 
enjoying  a good  one,  and  querying  with  himself 
if  he  should  not  offer  it  to  the  lady,  thought,  for 
some  reason  he  suspected,  he  would  first  put  a 
question.  “Madam,”  said  he,  “do  you  think 
that  ladies  should  vote  and  go  to  the  polls  like  a 
man  ?”  “ Yes,  sir,  I do,”  she  replied,  very  stern- 
ly. “Then,”  said  the  gentleman,  “stand  and 
take  your  chance  like  another  voter.” 

I have  heard  the  best  of  ladies  declare  that 
they  had  all  the  rights  they  wanted;  and  that 
they  looked  upon  the  assertion  now  sometimes 
made,  that  the  females  of  this  country  were  op- 
pressed by  unjust  laws  and  stood  in  need  of  the 
ballot  to  rectify  them,  as  a vile  slander  upon 
their  fathers,  brothers  and  husbands,  and  an 
unjust  return  for  the  constant  kindness,  atten- 
tion and  regard  they  have  always  received  at 
their  hands.  They  believe  that  any  law  which 
was  in  any  wise  oppressive  or  unjust,  upon 
being  suggested  would  immediately  be  amended, 
as  the  progress  made  in  the  laws  of  Ohio  amply 
prove.  But  they  pray  that  the  Convention 
bring  about  no  such  revolution  in  their  affairs 
1 and  condition  as  to  make  of  them  either  men  or 


Day.]  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE.  1839 

March  6,  1874.]  Powell,  Kraemer. 


masculine  women.  Leave  them  to  care  for  that 
portion  of  the  labors  of  mankind  which  has 
been  naturally  and  justly  assigned  to  them.  To 
care  for  the  household ; to  raise,  teach  and  dis- 
cipline their  children,  and  make  real  men  and 
women  of  them— the  glory  of  their  parents,  and 
the  staff  and  ornaments  of  the  State.  To  render 
that  sacred  home  endeared  to  their  beloved 
husbands,  children  and  friends,  by  its  being,  in 
all  its  assignments,  the  handy  work  of  a true 
woman  and  a female,  instead  of  a home  that  is 
rendered  neglected  and  desolate  by  attention  to 
politics  and  attendance  on  the  polls. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I have  not  often  trespassed 
upon  the  time  of  this  Convention,  and  am  not  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  Elective  Fran- 
chise, but  in  the  absence  of  my  friend  from 
Franklin  county  [Mr.  Rickly],  who  is  a mem- 
ber of  this  Committee,  and  who  expected  to 
defend  the  section  proposed  to  be  amended  by 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  I 
ask  the  attention  of  the  Convention  for  a few 
moments  to  such  facts  as  I may  offer  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Butler. 

I am  well  aware  of  the  magnitude  of  the  task 
I am  undertaking,  in  assuming  to  oppose  so 
ready  a debater  as  the  gentleman  from  Butler; 
but  trusting  to  the  indulgence  of  the  Conven- 
tion, I will  only  submit  a few  brief  facts  to 
your  consideration. 

I would  say  that  all  here  assembled  are  either 
emigrants  or  the  descendants  of  emigrants,  and 
that  the  only  genuine  native  American  is  the 
red  man  of  the  forest,  who  has  no  representa- 
tive or  vote  in  this  body.  The  gentleman  from 
Butler  was  in  error  when  he  said  that  Ohio 
had  never  permitted  aliens  to  vote ; and  in  sup- 
port of  my  assertion,  I will  read  from  the 
Constitution  of  1802,  Article  IY,  sections  1 
and  5: 

“Sec.  1.  In  all  elections,  all  white  male  inhabitants 
above  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  having  resided  in  the 
St  ite  one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  who  have 
paid,  or  are  charged  with,  a State  or  county  tax,  shall  enjoy 
the  right  of  an  elector;  but  no  person  shall  be  entitled  to 
vote  except  in  the  county  or  district  in  which  he  shall  ac- 
tually reside,  at  the  time  of  the  election. 

“Sec.  5.  Nothing  contained  in  this  Article  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  prevent  white  male  persons  above  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years,  who  are  compelled  to  labor  on  the 
roads  of  their  respective  townships  or  counties,  and  who 
have  resided  one  year  in  the  State,  from  having  the  right 
of  an  elector  ” 

This  then  gave  the  right  of  an  elector  not 
only  to  persons  who  had  declared  their  inten- 
tion to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States,  but 
clearly  gave  it  to  every  white  male  resident 
who  paid  taxes,  and  it  recognized  the  true 
American  principle  that  taxation  and  represen- 
tation should  go  together. 

Under  this  Constitution,  we  lived  nearly  fifty- 
one  years.  From  a small  beginning  the  State 
grew  to  be  prosperous  and  powerful,  and  only 
in  the  year  1851,  when  it  was  proposed  to  strike 
the  word  white”  from  the  Constitution  of 
Ohio,  the  “Know-Nothing”  and  pro-slavery 
elements  combined  to  exclude  aliens  and  ne- 
groes. The  great  progress  of  political  events 
has  since  given  the  vote  to  the  negro,  and  this 
proposition,  as  submitted  by  the  Committee, 
only  restores  to  the  white  man  what  he  lost  by 
the  Constitution  of  1851.  That  Constitution 
put  the  negro  and  the  white  alien  upon  one  and 


the  same  footing,  and  all  this  proposition  in- 
tends is  to  equalize  their  rights  in  the  spirit  of 
enlightened  progression. 

But,  says  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell],  the  distinction  between  the  native 
negro  and  the  alien  is  that  the  latter  owes 
allegiance  to  a foreign  potentate.  Let  us  ex- 
amine this  assertion  a little  closer  and  see  if  it 
is  true. 

When  the  alien  makes  his  declaration  of  in- 
tention to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States, 
he  abjures  all  and  any  allegiance  or  fidelity  to 
any  foreign  prince  or  potentate,  and  swears 
allegiance  to  the  United  States,  her  Constitution 
and  her  laws,  and  from  that  moment  he  owes 
no  allegiance  to  any  power  under  heaven,  ex- 
cept to  God  and  his  adopted  country,  and  the 
broad  folds  of  the  American  flag  henceforward 
protect  him  to  the  remotest  corner  of  this  ter- 
restrial globe.  To  show  that  this  assertion  is 
not  a mere  figure  of  speech,  let  me  remind  you, 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  of  a few  histori- 
cal facts  which  are  undoubtedly  yet  strong  in 
your  recollection. 

At  the  time  the  Hungarian  patriot  Kossuth 
visited  our  shores,  he  brought  with  him  a brother 
in  arms — I think  his  name  was  Costa — and 
while  Kossuth  returned  to  Europe,  Costa  re- 
mained and  took  the  oath  of  allegiance,  declar- 
ing his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the 
United  States.  Before  a year  expired,  after 
taking  that  oath,  he  left  the  United  States  and 
went  to  Smyrna,  a Turkish  port  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea.  There,  in  a neutral  port,  he  was 
arrested  by  the  commander  of  an  Austrian 
man-of-war,  and  only  the  timely  and  intrepid 
protection  rendered  him  by  the  commander  of 
an  American  frigate  saved  him  from  an  unjust 
and  ignominous  punishment.  This  led  to  a long 
and  protracted  diplomatic  correspondence  be- 
tween the  two  governments,  and  ended  in  com- 
plete acknowledgement  of  the  right  of  this 
government  to  protect  its  citizens  and  aliens 
alike.  And  it  is  a further  historical  fact  that 
by  express  treaty  stipulations  made  by  this  gov- 
ernment with  the  principal  European  powers 
this  right  of  protection  has  been  recognized, 
and  the  right  of  expatriation  is  no  longer  an 
American  doctrine  alone,  but  has  passed  into 
the  code  of  nations. 

The  next  proposition  to  examine  is,  whether 
the  alien  has  the  same  loyal  feelings  as  an 
American-born  citizen.  In  this  connection  I 
may  be  permitted  to  state  that  I,  myself,  was 
born  in  the  city  of  Goettingen,  in  the  ancient 
Kingdom  of  Hanover,  in  Germany,  in  the  year 
1810,  and  which  was  then  under  the  govern- 
ment of  the  King  of  England ; and  in  1831, 1 
emigrated  to  this  State.  1 feel  as  proud  of  my 
ancestors  and  my  classic  home  as  any 
American  gentleman  can  feel  of  his  coun- 
try. I feel  equally  proud  of  the  coun- 
try of  my  adoption  and  the  State  I live 
in.  Though  my  father  did  not  speak  the 
language  of  Shakspeare  and  Scott,  they 
spoke  the  language  of  Schiller  and  Goethe. 
Though  they  never  left  their  ancestral  home  in 
Germany,  their  hearts  throbbed  with  warm 
emotion  for  the  great  Republic  across  the  At- 
lantic, where  two  of  their  sons  had  found  a 
home.  I can  feel  no  shame  for  my  native  land, 
or  for  my  fellow-emigrants,  and  I cannot  now 


1840 


ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


[lSlst 


Kraemer. 


[Friday, 


refrain  from  saying  something  in  vindication 
of  their  character.  As  no  man  had  any  choice 
in  the  place  of  his  nativity,  so  no  man  can  claim 
any  special  merit  on  account  thereof,  and  any 
claim  to  pre-eminence  of  birthright  is  in  direct 
contravention  of  the  principle  enunciated  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence — that  all  men 
are  born  free  and  equal.  I have  heard  no  ar- 
gument yet  to  demonstrate  that  patriotism  only 
grows  upon  republican  soil,  and  that  republi- 
can virtues  are  only  indigenous  to  the  American 
climate;  but  I believe  it  is  a historical  fact  that 
traitors  to  the  American  flag  are  entirely  of 
native  production.  The  names  of  Arnold,  Burr, 
and  Davis  are  the  historical  exemplifications  of 
native  attempts  at  treason,  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  Lafayette,  Steuben,  and  DeKalb  forsook 
the  pomp  and  circumstance  of  their  princely 
masters,  and  dedicated  their  services  to  Ameri- 
can liberty.  Of  the  thousands  of  other  less  il- 
lustrious foreigners  who  fought  the  battles  of 
the  great  Republic,  not  one  proved  a traitor. 
From  my  own  knowledge,  I may  mention  the 
name  of  Colonel  Blessington,  of  Toledo;  of 
Col.  Dezenfeld,  of  Sandusky  City;  of  Col. 
Shimelpfenig,  who  was  a Hanoverian,  entered 
the  army,  took  command  of  a German  corps,  and 
was  in  the  army  of  the  Tennessee,  I believe.  I 
would  further  say  that  at  least  one-quarter  of 
the  foreigners  who  entered  the  army  of  the 
United  States  did  not  have  their  naturalization 
papers  in  their  pocket.  I deny  that  patriotism 
must  be  certified  under  the  seal  of  court.  It  is 
a virtue  that  grows  in  men’s  breasts,  and  can- 
not be  granted  by  any  court. 

I do  not  desire  to  say  that  aliens  are  any  bet- 
ter than  our  native  citizens.  All  I claim  is  a 
perfect  equality,  as  proclaimed  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence.  I do  not  deny  that 
among  the  great  mass  of  emigration,  some 
paupers  and  some  villains  may  come  over ; but 
are  they  any  worse  than  native  paupers  and 
felons  ? Must  they  wait  five  years,  and  gradu- 
ate in  American  villainy,  before  they  can  be 
permitted  to  vote  ? If  paupers  and  villains  are 
to  be  disfranchised,  why  not  establish  a Board 
of  Moral  Reform  Registration,  and  strike  every 
pauper  and  felon  from  the  list  of  voters  ? 

But  it  is  also  contended  that  this  provision 
will  permit  the  Japanese,  Chinese,  Mongolians, 
Tartars,  Bedouins,  and  every  other  outlandish 
heathen,  to  become  a citizen  of  Ohio;  that  we 
must  have  theological  and  ethnological  commis- 
sions to  ascertain  their  pedigrees  and  religions 
before  they  may  be  permitted  to  become  voters ; 
for  if  it  is  intended  to  prevent  this,  then  we 
must  expect  to  have  cases  of  doubtful  nation- 
ality and  faith  come  up,  which  must  be  deter- 
mined as,  in  days  of  old,  the  precise  visible 
admixture  of  African  blood  was  determined. 
But  if,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  admit  that 
what  has  been  said  about  our  Asiatic  men  and 
brothers  is  true,  does  it  follow  that  they  will  be 
either  mentally,  physically  or  numerically, 
superior  to  the  American  race  in  this  country  ? 
And  if  a contest  of  races  should  come,  can  there 
be  any  doubt  as  to  its  results  ? Have  we  not 
seen  the  living  exemplification  of  such  a con- 
test in  Asia  itself,  where  a few  thousand  Britons 
govern  millions  of  the  followers  of  Buddha  and 
Confucius?  Has  not  our  own  government  dic- 
tated the  terms  of  treaties  to  China  and  Japan, 


and  is  not  the  universal  Yankee  nation  almost 
monopolizing  the  transcontinental  trade  to 
Asia?  Did  we  not  have  the  Siamese  twins  im- 
ported from  Asia,  who  became  good  Christians, 
married  American  ladies,  raised  respectable 
families,  and,  after  having  made  lots  of  money 
for  themselves  and  American  friends,  died  a 
happy  Christian  death  ? If  the  primeval  man  of 
whom  Livingstone  wrote  and  Darwin  specu- 
lates, should  ever  come  to  this  country,  some 
enterprising  Yankee  would  immediately  start 
with  him  for  a show,  and  he  would  stay  at  no 
place  long  enough  to  gain  a residence  or  become 
a voter. 

But,  gentlemen,  we  are  no  nation  of  a par- 
ticular race.  Ours  is  a great  cosmopolitan  na- 
tion, continually  assimilating  the  moving,  liv- 
ing elements  of  other  nations  by  our  social 
laws.  We  are  a progressive  people,  for  none 
but  progressive  people  emigrate,  and  whether 
or  not  the  Darwinian  theory  is  true,  we  are  all 
but  the  living  links  of  that  endless  chain  of 
physical  and  spiritual  evolutions  which  leads  to 
ultimate  and  infinite  perfection. 

Gentlemen,  excuse  me  for  this  little  digres- 
sion. A few  more  words  on  the  subject  under 
discussion,  and  I will  close.  It  has  been  said 
that  some  aliens  during  the  last  war  took  undue 
advantage  of  military  exemptions.  This  may 
be  true — we  have  no  doubt  there  are  some  cow- 
ards among  this  class  of  people — but  we  will 
offset  them  against  that  class  of  native  gentle- 
men who,  during  the  draft,  sojourned  in  Cana- 
da, went  on  European  trips,  came  home  on  sick 
leave,  or  deserted  and  went  into  that  estimable 
speculative  business  of  bounty  jumping.  But 
as  a class  I claim  that  aliens  were  in  advance  of 
any  other  class  for  volunteering,  for  they  had 
felt  the  hard  hand  of  the  tyrant  at  home,  and 
bitter  experience  had  taught  them  the  value  of 
liberty ; hence  they  were  so  ready  to  fight  for  it. 
It  is  asserted  that  it  was  the  bounty  they  re- 
ceived, and  not  their  patriotism,  that  prompted 
them  to  enlist.  Now,  gentlemen,  is  it  fair  to 
cast  such  an  imputation  upon  them  ? Most  of 
them  were  poor,  homeless  wanderers  upon  your 
shores,  and  when  they  accepted  your  bounty  to 
sustain,  perhaps,  some  aged  parent,  or  a dear 
wife  and  family,  while  they  fought  your  bat- 
tles, will  you  impute  to  a humble  private 
soldier  a less  honorable  motive  than  to  your 
commanding  general,  who  received,  perhaps, 
tenfold  the  pay  of  a private  soldier? 

But  it  is  also  said  that  the  alien  should  not 
enjoy  this  right  to  the  exclusion  of  the  ladies. 
We  do  not  ask  it  as  an  exclusive  right,  but  as  a 
| common  right,  guaranteed  by  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  granted  by  the  Constitu- 
| tion  of  1802.  In  1851,  you  placed  the  alien  upon 
| a level  with  the  black  man.  The  fifteenth 
| amendment  gave  the  vote  to  the  colored  man, 
and  all  we  ask  is,  that  you  restore  the  rights  of 
| the  alien,  and  put  him  upon  a level  with  his 
colored  brother.  In  this  connection,  I would 
say  that  the  objection  which  is  made  that  the 
alien  is  not  liable  to  military  duty,  is  easily 
remedied  by  the  laws  of  the  State  so  as  to  make 
every  voter  liable  to  be  sent  to  the  field.  But  I 
venture  to  say  that  few  men  who  have  made 
this  country  their  home  from  choice  will  ever 
hesitate  to  take  the  field  in  its  defense. 

As  to  female  suffrage,  that  rests  upon  its  own. 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Kraemer,  Young  of  C. 


1841 


Day.] 

March  6,  1874.] 


social  merits.  When  we  had  under  discussion 
the  subject  of  taxes  and  assessments,  it  was 
proposed  to  give  every  property-owner  a voice 
for  or  against  special  taxation  or  assessment. 
This  principle  I advocated,  for  while  every 
married  woman  is  represented  by  her  husband, 
that  proposition  would  have  given  every  sin- 
gle woman  a voice  in  matters  of  taxation  and 
assessment.  The  Convention  failed  to  adopt  this 
provision,  but  provided  to  submit  that  matter  to 
the  electors  alone.  I think  yet  that  the  Con- 
vention erred  in  excluding  female  property- 
holders. 

As  to  woman  suffrage,  I am  willing  to  submit 
it  to  the  people  of  Ohio  for  their  final  decision, 
trusting  in  the  old  Roman  maxim  : Vox  populi 
vox  Dei. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I am  not  so 
anxious,  Mr.  President,  to  offer  the  few  remarks 
that  I have  to  make  upon  the  question  of  Wo- 
man Suffrage  that  I prefer  to  make  them  this 
evening;  but  it  suits  my  convenience  better  to 
offer  them  now  than  to-morrow  morning.  I 
ought  to  say  at  the  outset,  that  any  purpose  to 
say  anything  at  all  upon  this  question  came  to 
me  very  recently.  I had  never  read  any 
address  from  the  ladies  of  Woman  Suf- 
frage Associations  or  any  book  upon  the 
subject.  I confess  that  my  feeling  upon 
this  subject  has  heretofore  been  one  of  indiffer- 
ence, and  so  I have  not  posted  myself  upon  the 
subiect.  As  the  question  has  been  presented  to 
the  Convention,  however,  it  is  but  fair  that  it  be 
discussed,  and  met  fully  and  candidly.  I have 
some  interest  in  this  question.  With  a wife 
and  daughter  and  grand-daughters, I could  not 
be  indifferent  to  it  if  I would,  and  I would 
not  if  I could.  And  now,  Mr.  President,  if 
there  shall  be  in  the  few  remarks  which  I have 
hurriedly  written  out  as  I sat  in  my  seat,  a 
want  of  method,  or  if  it  shall  appear  that  there 
is  a want  of  information  upon  this  subject,  it 
will  be  pardoned,  and  my  difficulty  will  be  ap- 
preciated in  consideration  of  the  fact  that  I 
have  not  given  this  subject  that  attention  which 
I ought  to  have  given,  simply  because  I was 
indifferent  to  it. 

I want  to  say  at  the  outset,  that  I differ  from 
my  friend  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  in  my 
estimate  of  women,  and  I differ  from  him  in  my 
estimate  of  men.  I am  not  willing  to  concede 
that  if  a woman  should  go  into  a court-room  or 
into  a jury-room,  it  would  be  an  unfit  place  for 
her.  I am  not  willing  to  concede  that  man  is 
so  degraded  that  a woman  might  not  be  invited 
to  sit  with  him  in  the  court-room  or  the  jury- 
room.  Not  a bit  of  it.  I do  not  like  to  admit 
it,  but  yet  I must — woman  is  the  superior. 
Possibly  the  presence  of  women  in  the  court- 
room and  jury-room  might  do  something  to 
change  his  character  for  the  better.  But  to 
resume. 

I confess  that  I am  not  sure  that  it  is  my  duty 
to  speak  upon  this  question  at  all,  for  I do  not 
know  what  my  constituents  think  about  it,  ex- 
cept it  may  be  one — one  dear  to  me  above  all 
others,  and  whose  opinions  for  more  than  thirty- 
five  years  have  exercised  great  influence  over 
me,  and  who  thinks  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion might  be  better  engaged  than  in  spending 
time  in  discussing  the  question  of  female  suf- 
frage. Her  good  sense  uttered  upon  a question 

Y.  n-118 


which  should  be  supposed  to  interest  het  more 
than  it  does  me,  ought,  perhaps,  to  cohtrol  my 
action  here;  but  I may  be  excused,  if  what  I 
shall  say  shall  not  be  against  women,  and  if  I 
err,  it  may  be  in  her  favor. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  why  shall  women 
not  vote,  if  they  desire  to?  Who  shall  honest- 
ly say  that  so  far  as  the  right  is  concerned,  the}*' 
are  not  as  well  entitled  to  vote  as  men? 

So  far  as  any  question  of  right  is  concerned, 
no  one  ought  to  say,  no  one  can  truly  say  that, 
independent  of  any  constitutional  or  legislative 
provision,  men  have  any  superior  right  to  vote. 
They  have  not.  Then  how  has  it  happened 
that  the  right  has  been  denied  to  or  withheld 
from  women  ? Could  it  have  been  in  any  other 
way  than  by  the  rule  of  might?  By  the  rule  of 
might  it  was,  and  must  have  been,  if  women 
ever  desired  it,  however  barbarous  that  might 
seem.  It  is  said  to  have  been  upon  the  theory 
that  woman  is  the  weaker  of  the  two,  and, 
therefore,  dependent  upon  man;  that  she  has 
not  the  physical  ability  to  go  to  war,  to  bear 
the  toils,  fatigues  and  strife  of  the  battle  field. 
Now,  about  half  the  voters  of  Ohio  would  be  ex- 
cluded on  this  rule,  because  unable,  for  want  of 
physical  ability,  to  bear  the  toils,  fatigue  and 
strife  of  the  battle  field.  By  express  provision 
of  law,  as  it  has  always  been  and  will  continue 
to  be,  that  persons  over  forty-five  years  are  ex- 
empt from  military  duty,  and  yet  they  exercise 
the  elective  franchisees  fully,  as  largely,  as  the 
strongest  man  that  goes  to  battle.  The  poor 
^ripple  who  has  never  walked  a day  may  vote 
whilst  his  strong  and  vigorous  sister,  who  migh  t 
make  as  valuable  a soldier  as  most  men,  who 
indeed  might  possess  more  real  courage  than 
most  men,  is  forbidden  to  vote,  simply  because 
she  is  not  a man.  Is  not  this  ban  placed  upon 
woman  a relic  of  barbarism  ? The  squaw  of  the 
Indian  does  the  drudgery  and  hard  work,  and 
yet  is  nobody. 

Let  me  here  relate  an  anecdote.  Upon  a cer- 
tain occasion,  when  I was  somewhat  given  to 
politics,  it  became  necessary  for  us  to  get  all  the 
voters  we  could.  I went  out  among  my  friends, 
and  spoke  here  and  there.  One  house  in  par- 
ticular I visited,  and,  as  I approached,  I heard  a 
little  noise,  a sort  of  animated  conversation, 
between  the  husband  and  wife,  going  on  inside. 
As  I entered,  I spoke  to  them.  The  wife  was 
busy  about  household  affairs  in  the  room,  the 
husband  occupied  a chair  at  the  fire-side,  and 
was  one  of  the  most  subdued-looking  individuals 
I ever  saw ; and  it  occurred  to  me  that  he  did 
not  come  up  to  my  notion  of  an  “ unterrified 
Democrat.”  I said  to  him,  “ James,  we  want 
all  the  votes  we  can  get  for  the  election  to- 
morrow.” “Yes.”  She  turned  to  him,  and 
vented  a contemptuous  “ Yew  !”  Said  I,  “You 
will  come  to  the  election  I suppose,  James, 
to-morrow.  We  want  every  vote  we  can  get.” 
“ I guess  I will.”  “ Yew ! !”— [from  the  wife.] 
“Have  you  any  way  of  going,  James?”  “Well,” 
he  said,  “ I have  a horse,  and  can  ride  to  the 
election.”  “Yew!!!” — [a  third  time  from  the 
wife,  with  concentrated  scorn.]  Now,  that 
man,  poor  creature,  of  no  special  account,  must 
vote,  not  being  a woman,  though  utterly  inferior 
to  that  wife.  Was  he  of  any  use  to  go  to  battle, 
or  to  accomplish  anything  in  the  world?  Not 
a bit,  except  to  vote. 


1842 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. [131st 

Young  of  C.  [Friday, 


A MEMBER.  Did  he  vote  right? 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  Oh,  yes;  yes. 
In  heathen  countries  women  are  denied  educa- 
tion, are  denied  the  right  to  dispose  of  them- 
selves— haven’t  any  souls!  As  you  approach 
the  higher  civilization  and  higher  intelligence 
the  position  of  woman  is  elevated — when  the 
full  light  of  heaven  breaks  upon  us,  it  will  be 
discovered  that  man  is  not  a higher  saint  in 
glory,  because  he  is  a man. 

It  is  a little  remarkable  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  nowhere  designates  men  as 
the  exclusive  electors,  leaving  that  to  the  States, 
but  failing  to  indicate  in  the  provision  in  re- 
gard to  the  election  of  Representatives  and 
Electors  of  President  and  Vice  President,  any 
distinction  between  men  and  women  as  voters. 
Did  they  intend  to  exclude  women?  Did  they 
intend  to  suggest  to  any  State  that  the  voters 
should  be  male  citizens?  The  failure  to  do  so 
would  seem  to  show  that  they  did  not  intend  it. 
The  only  indication  of  the  purpose  of  the  Con- 
stitution is  that  the  voters  shall  be  citizens. 
Now,  who  are  citizens?  The  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  fixed  that : all 
persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United 
States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof, 
are  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the 
State  wherein  they  reside.  Women  are  persons. 
Women  born  in  the  United  States  are  citizens 
thereof,  and,  therefore,  voters  ex  vi  termini.  The 
Fifteenth  Amendment  provides  that  the  right 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not 
be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States,  or 
by  any  State,  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  pre- 
vious condition  of  servitude.  Was  it  meant 
that  the  right  of  citizens  to  vote  might  be  de- 
nied or  abridged  on  account  of  sex  ? Not  at  all. 
The  language  is  clear  and  distinct.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  was  intended  to  enlarge  the  franchise. 
Colored  people  had  never  been  citizens,  and, 
therefore,  could  not  be  voters ; women  had  been 
citizens,  and  it  was  not  necessary  to  remove  any 
disabilities  as  to  them. 

Therefore,  neither  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
U nited  States,  nor  by  any  amendment  thereto,  is 
there  any  exclusion  or  positive  intention  to  ex- 
clude women  from  the  franchise.  There  is  no 
warrant  for  the  exclusion  in  that  great  instru- 
ment. Or  is  it  to  be  assumed  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  confer  the  franchise  upon  the  China- 
man and  upon  great  multitudes  of  human  be- 
ings, who  had  no  more  conception  of  the  value 
or  character  of  the  franchise  than  so  many 
stumps?  Did  the  franchise  suddenly  become 
cheap  and  yet  were  the  educated  and  refined  la- 
dies of  the  country  still  to  be  denied  the  exceed- 
ingly cheap  boon?  The  Ohio  Constitution  of 
1802  conferred  the  suffrage  upon  white  male  in- 
habitants. It  was  a time  when  the  State  was  a 
wilderness,  and  when  the  rule  of  might  did  em- 
phatically prevail,  and  there  was  an  apparent 
necessity  for  arbitrary  rules.  Turn  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  1851 — we  were  somewhat  out  of  the 
wilderness  then — Article  1,  section  1,  of  the 
Bill  of  Rights,  says : “All  men  are  by  nature 
free  and  independent,  and  have  certain  inalien- 
able rights,  among  which  are  those  of  enjoying 
and  defending  life  and  liberty,  acquiring,  pos- 
sessing and  protecting  property,  and  seeking 
and  obtaining  happiness  and  safety.”  This 
was  an  abridgement  of  the  first  section  of  the 


Bill  of  Rights  Article  of  the  Constitution  of  1802. 

Now  the  word  men  here  includes  women  as 
well.  It  was  not  intended  to  exclude  women 
from  the  benefit  of  this  declaration  of  rights. 
If  there  were  any  other  provisions  in  this  Con- 
stitution in  conflict  with  this  section,  it  would 
seem  strange,  and  yet  in  the  first  section  of  Ar- 
ticle 5,  in  Elective  Franchise,  it  is  provided  that 
the  right  to  vote  shall  be  conferred  upon  white 
male  citizens.  The  logical  inference  would  be 
that  when  the  first  section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights 
spoke  of  men,  it  meant  man  and  not  woman ; 
else  why  exclude  them  from  the  means  by  their 
voice  and  vote  to  enforce  for  themselves  the  ob- 
servance of  these  rights?  But  if  the  ballot  was 
not  withheld  from  women,  by  the  stronger  sex, 
because  they  had  the  power,  it  must  have  been 
because  they  deemed  it  wisest  for  themselves 
and  for  women  that  it  should  be  withheld. 
Why?  Was  it  because  women  might  not  exer- 
cise the  ballot  properly  ? Was  it  because  they 
were  less  patriotic  or  less  concerned  about  the 
public  peace,  public  morals,  or  public  welfare  ? 
The  truest  patriotism,  the  most  heroic  devotion 
to  home  and  country,  is  to  be  found  amongst 
women,  as  every  struggle  which  this  country 
has  had  with  its  foes  attests,  and  whatever  is 
pure  and  lofty  in  society  or  in  government,  is 
to  be  traced  not  less  to  the  influence  of  women 
than  men.  Nay,  more,  as  I believe.  And 
whilst  it  is  deemed  wisest  to  withhold  the  ballot 
from  them,  it  is  deemed  best  and  wisestfor  them 
and  for  man  that  they  should  be  taxed  precisely 
as  if  they  had  a voice  in  the  government  and 
a voice  in  determining  the  tax  and  the 
purpose  for  which  it  is  assessed.  Would 
it  be  unsafe  to  allow  them  a voice?  Man  may 
howl  that  “taxation  without  representation  is 
tyranny,”  but  as  to  woman  she  is  nothing  but  a 
woman,  and  should  not  meddle  in  man’s  busi- 
ness. 

There  are  pursuits  of  man  for  which  woman 
is  not  fitted,  but  it  does  not  follow  because  she  is 
not  fitted  for  all  the  employments  of  man  she 
ought  not  to  vote,  for  there  are  good  and  useful 
pursuits  of  women  for  which  men  are  not  fitted. 
She  could  vote  as  intelligently  as  man,  and  I be- 
lieve would  vote  as  conscientiously,  carefully 
and  patriotically.  But  it  is  said  that  the  influ- 
ence of  woman  is  owing  to  her  present  position 
as  the  Guardian  Angel  of  Home;  that  to  give 
her  the  ballot  would  be  to  soil  her  purity  by 
contamination  with  the  iniquity  of  politics; 
would  impare  the  consideration  and  deference 
now  paid  to  her,  and  weaken  her  influence  in 
society.  I am  not  sure  but  this  is  true,  and  I 
am  not  sure  but  that,  for  this  reason,  it  is  best 
that  no  change  should  be  made  in  the  elective 
franchise  in  favor  of  woman.  The  tendency  of 
legislation  is  constantly  to  favor  woman;  to 
compensate  for  their  physical  inability  to  per- 
form and  compete  with  men  in  many  of  the  avo- 
cations of  life ; they  ought  to  be  and  they  are 
favored  socially  and  legally. 

Why  do  women  want  to  vote?  Why  the 
great  effort  that  is  bein<*  made  to  accomplish  it? 
There  are  higher  and  nobler  purposes  that 
ought  to  enlist  their  hearts  and  their  sympa- 
thies than  politics.  Your  regular  politician 
takes  to  stealing  almost  as  naturally  as  a duck 
takes  to  water.  Why  should  not  the  delicacy 
and  purity  of  woman  rather  turn  away  from 


Day.] FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 1843 

March  6,  1874.]  Young  of  C.,  Barnet,  Powell,  Bishop. 


the  scramble  and  the  conflict  whence  corrup- 
tion and  rascality  derive  the  power  to  do  harm 
and  salary  grabbers  their  vocation?  But  now, 
if  after  all  women  assert  their  right  to  the  bal- 
lot, and  base  their  demand  upon  the  right,  I 
cannot  deny  it,  whatever  I might  think  of  the 
propriety  of  the  demand ; and  by  all  the  blessed 
memories  of  the  past,  by  all  my  experience  of 
life,  influenced  by  the  estimate  of  women  that 
blessed  experience  has  imparted,  I would  not 
deny  the  demand,  nay,  I would  concede  to  them 
everything  they  desired  consistently  with  their 
honor  and  dignity  and  happiness.  But  I should 
desire  to  be  quite  certain  that  a great  majority 
of  the  good  women  of  this  commonwealth  de- 
sired the  franchise ; that  they  deemed  it  best 
for  them ; as  a mere  question  of  policy  they 
deemed  it  wise. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Allow  me  to  suggest,  be- 
cause I may  not  have  another  opportunity,  that 
that  question  be  submitted  to  the  women  alone. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  No  objection 
in  the  world.  That  is  right.  I beg  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Convention  a few  moments  longer. 

I believe,  if  the  ballot  were  given  to  women, 
if  the  good  women  of  the  land  should  generally 
exercise  it  (I  fear  the  worthier  class  would 
not),  it  would  elevate  the  character  of  our  elec- 
tions. The  presence  of  women  would  put  men 
on  their  good  behavior — would  check  the  row- 
dyism that  often  controls  the  polls.  The  Amer- 
ican people  are  a gallant  people,  gallant  beyond 
all  others,  and  this  disposition,  this  character- 
istic, would  insure  her  against  insult,  would  in- 
sure her  deference  and  respect  at  the  polls.  It 
would  tend  to  impart  integrity  and  honesty  to 
politics,  and  to  control  the  tricks  of  those  who 
make  politics  their  trade.  But  suppose  the  bet- 
ter class  of  our  women  should  not  go  to  the 
polls,  should  not  avail  themselves  of  the  fran- 
chise, and  that  only  those  who  really  ought  not 
to  vote,  who  do  not  give  character,  should  be 
willing  to  go  to  the  polls.  It  would  result  in 
great  harm,  instead  of  good,  to  women.  I 
am  more  hopeful  of  the  result  of  the  ex- 
periment, however,  and  have  faith  that  good 
results  would  come  of  it.  I recollect  very  well 
the  great  election  of  1840 ; I recollect  very  well 
how  largely  the  great  energy  and  influence  of 
women  controlled  that  event;  how,  when  they 
formed  so  large  a part  of  the  great  gatherings 
of  the  people,  there  was  an  inspiration  about  it 


that  carried  everything  before  it.  I recollect 
that  very  well,  and  so  does  my  brother  delegate 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]. 

When  the  woman  espouses  a cause,  you  need 
have  no  fear  that  she  will  seek  it  because  it  is 
corrupt.  I am  a little  old,  and,  if  anybody  tells 
me  that  she  does,  I say  it  is  not  so.  It  is  against 
all  my  experience.  Where  woman  goes,  she 
does  not  go  because  of  corruption,  but  where 
she  goes  corruption  is  apt  to  disappear.  That 
is  my  observation  in  life. 

I concede  that  women,  in  all  that  elevates  our 
nature,  are  better  than  men,  and  we  need  not 
fear  their  control  in  the  government,  therefore. 
It  does  not  follow  that  they  shall  or  will  go  to 
our  Legislature  and  to  Congress,  and  that  they 
shall  seek  offices  and  positions  unsuited  to 
them,  unsuited  to  their  sex.  The  suggestion  is 
unmanly  and  ungenerous.  It  betrays  a fear 
that,  if  you  allow  them,  they  will  seek  to  do 
absurd  things,  and,  therefore,  you  must  hold 
them  in  check. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Why  was  Mrs.  Woodhull  a 
candidate  for  President  of  the  United  States? 
Mrs.  Cady  Stanton  for  Chief  Justice  of  the 
United  States?  and  Miss  Tennie  C.  Claflin  for 
colonel  of  a regiment? 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  Did  you  feel 
much  concerned  about  that?  That  was  the 
most  absurd  thing  in  the  world. 

Mr.  POWELL.  They  all  wanted  office. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I recollect  an 
old  gentleman  who  wanted  to  be  a Representa- 
tive, and  he  got  but  one  vote. 

Mr.  POWELL.  They  wanted  office,  and 
would  have  taken  it  could  they  have  got  it. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  Well,  I will 
conclude. 

And  now,  I repeat,  if  the  good  women  of  this 
Commonwealth  desire  to  vote,  I will  not  say 
nay,  but  rather,  “ God  bless  them,  yes ! yes  I” 

leave  of  absence. 

Mr.  Barnet  obtained  leave  of  absence  in- 
definitely. 

Mr.  Pease  also  obtained  leave  of  absence  un- 
til Wednesday  following. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:35  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


1844 


[132nd 


MORNING  BUSINESS. 


Russell  of  Meigs,  Shaw,  Hunt,  Campbell,  Kerr,  McBride.  [Saturday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY-SECOND  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SEVENTIETH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


nine  and  one-half  o’clock  a.  m. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  T.  Boyce,  of  the  First  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  71  members  an- 
swered to  their  names. 

leave  of  absence. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Messrs.  Shaw  and  Townsley  until  Tuesday 
next;  for  Mr.  Philips  for  the  ensuing  week ; 
and  for  Messrs.  Caldwell  and  Weaver  for  an 
indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs,  presented  the  pe- 
tition of  John  Fisher,  and  350  other  citizens  of 
Meigs  county,  against  granting  license  to  sell 
intoxicating  liquor. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  SHAW  presented  the  petition  of  Mrs.  H. 
Hancock,  and  over  200  other  citizens  of  Amelia, 
Clermont  county,  praying  that  a clause  be  in- 
serted in  the  Constitution  declaring  that  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  is 
a nuisance,  and  that  it  be  forever  prohibited 
within  this  State,  under  such  penalty  as  the 
Legislature  may  prescribe. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  HUNT  presented  the  petition  of  Rev.  I. 
Robt.  D.  Morris,  and  47  other  citizens  of  Ox- 
ford, Butler  county,  praying  for  an  acknowl- 
edgment of  Almighty  God  and  the  Christian 
religion  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre-  I 
amble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I propose  to  be  read  for 
the  information  of  the  Convention  a resolution 
which  I regard  as  one  of  some  consequence, 
pertaining  to  the  business  of  the  Convention. 
It  will  necessarily,  I presume,  lead  to  some  dis- 
cussion. In  fact,  if  no  other  person  proposes 
to  discuss  it,  I will,  myself,  at  the  proper  time. 
I ask,  simply,  that  it  be  read,  and  be  laid  on  the 
table  and  be  printed,  with  the  understanding 
that  the  subject  may  be  called  up  at  any  time, 
whether  I am  present  or  not,  by  any  gentle- 
man, who  may  regard  it  as  containing  matter  of 
sufficient  importance  to  require  the  attention  of 
the  Convention.  1 do  not  ask  that  it  shall  lie 


Saturday,  March  7,  1874. 

there  until  I shall  see  fit  to  call  it  up  myself. 
It  has  reference  to  the  veto  clause  adopted 
sometime  since  in  my  absence. 

THE  VETO  POWER. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Resolution  No.  181— By  Mr.  Campbell  : 

Resolved , That  so  much  of  the  Journal  of  the  Proceed- 
ings of  the  Convention  on  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth 
days  of  February  last,  as  records  its  action  on  the  eigh- 
teenth section  of  Proposition  No.  190  and  the  vote  agree- 
ing to  said  Proposition  be  rescinded,  and  that  the  Con- 
vention shall  on  the  passage  of  this  resolution  again 
consider  said  section  18,  as  though  said  proceedings  had 
not  taken  place;  because  the  proposition  as  amended  in 
that  section,  and  subsequently  agreed  to,  is  incongruous, 
illogical,  and  absurd,  in  this,  that  it  provides  that  certain 
classes  of  bills  may  be  enacted  into  laws  after  they  are 
disapproved  by  the  Governor,  by  a less  number  of  votes 
in  each  branch  of  the  General  Assembly  than  is  required 
for  their  passage  in  the  first  instance. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I move  that  it  be  laid  on 
the  table  and  printed. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

EDUCATIONAL. 

Mr.  KERR.  I offer  for  adoption  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Resolution  No.  182— By  Mr.  Kerr: 

Resolved , That  the  State  School  Commissioner  be  re- 
quested to  report  to  this  Convention  a list  of  all  the 
schools  in  the  State  where  High  Schools  are  established, 
giving— 

First— The  average  daily  attendance  in  the  Primarv 
Department,  including  all  the  pupils  below  the  High 
Schools. 

Second— The  average  daily  attendance  in  each  High 
School. 

Third— The  cost  of  maintaining  the  Primary  Schools 
each  separately. 

Fourth — The  cost  of  maintaining  the  High  Schools, 
each  separately.  - . * ^ .« 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be 
upon  the  adoption  of  the  resolution. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  designate 
Mr.  De  Steiguer,  of  Athens,  and  Mr.  Kerr,  of 
Licking,  to  serve  upon  the  Special  Committee 
appointed,  in  the  places  of  Messrs.  Pond  and 
Hill,  excused. 

Mr.  KERR.  I would  respectfully  ask  that  I 
may  be  excused  from  serving  on  that  Commit- 
tee. If  necessary  for  a motion  to  be  made  for 
this  purpose,  I will  make  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  will  be  excused.  The  Chair 
would  then  appoint  Mr.  McBride,  of  Wayne. 

Mr.  McBRIDE.  I desire  to  be  excused.  I 
should  feel  very  much  obliged  to  the  President 
to  be  excused  Horn  serving. 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

De  Steiguer,  Mueller,  McBride,  Baber. 


1845 


Day.] 

March  7,  1874.] 


The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  will  be  excused. 

Mr.  De  STEIGUER.  I ask  to  be  excused 
from  serving  upon  that  Committee.  I believe  I 
am  already  on  three  Committees. 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  is  a Special  Com- 
mittee, and  you  would  only  have  to  serve  upon 
it  a few  days.  However,  the  gentleman  would 
be  entitled  to  be  excused,  and  if  there  is  no  ob- 
jection, he  will  be  excused.  The  Chair  will 
probably  have  to  ask  the  Convention  to  fill  the 
vacancies,  in  order  to  get  the  Committee  filled 
up. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I move  the  Convention  now 
proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  order  of  the 
day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  order  of  the  day 
is  Proposition  No.  203,  on  the  Elective  Fran- 
chise, upon  which  Proposition  general  debate  is 
still  in  order. 

Mr.  McBRIDE.  I move  that  general  debate 
on  Proposition  No.  203  now  cease. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  the  gentleman  will  not 
press  that  motion.  I tried  to  get  the  floor  yes- 
terday, to  speak  on  this  Proposition,  and  failed 
to  get  it,  and  wish  to  address  the  Convention 
upon  the  subject  this  morning. 

Mr.  McBRIDE.  I do  not  like  to  deprive  any 
gentleman  who  desires  to  do  so  from  making  a 
speech,  and  if  the  gentleman  will  promise  to 
renew  my  motion,  I will  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  was  the  understanding,  I 
believe,  that  I was  to  have  the  floor.  We  are 
hereon  Saturday  and  there  will  be  no  vote  tak- 
en, so  that  I think  we  might  as  well  continue  the 
general  discussion  to-day.  I do  not  think  we 
will  be  prepared  with  a small  attendance  to-day 
to  vote  on  any  amendment  to  this  Article.  Gen- 
eral Steedman  and  others,  I believe,  want  to 
address  the  Convention  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  McBRIDE.  With  the  consent  of  the 
Convention,  I will  withdraw  my  motion. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  the  motion  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  intend  at  the  present 
to  discuss  the  proposition  which  has  been  so 
fully  gone  over  or  rather  this  amendment  by 
the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris,]  so 
elaborately  replied  to  by  my  venerable  friend 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell.]  I think  that  in 
the  thirty-three  pages  he  had  read  to  us  you  will 
find  that  subject  exhausted  on  both  sides.  I 
have  this  to  remark,  that  I have  always  been 
in  favor  of  fully  protecting  the  women,  so  far 
as  property  rights  are  concerned,  and  of  the 
women  of  Ohio  having  the  right  to  hold  offices 
by  appointment.  That  is  a clause  in  the  Con- 
stitution for  which  I voted ; and  will  vote  to 
still  further  extend  that  and  give  them  a right 
to  hold  office  in  the  School  Boards. 

The  law  of  1846,  alluded  to  by  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  which  he  helped 
pass  in  the  Senate  of  Ohio,  protecting  fairly 
and  fully  the  rights  of  women  in  Ohio  was 
drawn  by  my  former  law  partner,  Mr.  Justice 
Swayne,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 


States,  when  I was  in  his  office.  And  I well 
recollect  the  satisfaction  with  which  that  law 
was  received,  and  I think  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  deserves  thanks  for  having  fully  met 
the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Summit 
[Mr.  Voris],  trying,  perhaps,  to  convince  the 
ladies  present  here  that  they  were  suffering 
very  great  oppression.  It  seems  to  me,  how- 
ever, that  some  of  the  figures  of  imagination 
the  gentleman  brought  in  were  rather  strong.  I 
heard  a very  respectable  lady  present  make  the 
remark  that  she  did  not  think  her  husband  was 
a watch-dog  or  tyrant,  notwithstanding  the  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman  from  Summit.  But  I 
think  this  matter  should  be  submitted  accord- 
ing to  the  wise  suggestion  made  by  my  venera- 
ble friend  from  Preble  [Mr.  Barnet],  and  I 
propose  that  this  subject  be  submitted  to  the 
arbitrament  of  the  ladies  themselves,  and  I now 
give  notice  that  at  the  proper  time  I shall  in- 
troduce a substitute  for  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  provid- 
ing that  the  Legislature,  at  its  first  session 
after  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall 
order  a registration  or  census  of  all  the  women 
of  the  State  who  would  be  voters, 'if  males, 
under  the  present  laws  of  the  State,  and 
that  these  shall  be  returned  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  and  at  the  next  general  State  election 
there  shall  be  separate  polls  kept  open  under 
the  same  pains  and  penalties  for  illegal  voting 
now  existing  by  the  present  laws  regulating 
elections,  and  that  a separate  clause  be  submit- 
ted as  to  Female  Suffrage  to  the  women  of  Ohio; 
if  a majority  of  all  the  women  in  the  State 
shall  vote  for  it,  that  the  General  Assembly  at 
the  next  session  of  the  Legislature  shall  submit 
at  the  next  election  this  question  for  ratifica- 
tion or  rejection  to  the  electors  of  the  State  as 
any  other  amendment  to  the  Constitution.  I 
will  do  this  because  we  give  the  ladies  the  exact 
equality  before  the  law  we  have  ourselves.  We 
cannot  call  a Convention  to  make  amendments 
to  the  Constitution  of  Ohio  without  its  receiv- 
ing a majority  of  all  the  votes  of  those  voting 
at  that  election.  We  do  this  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  what  are  their  sentiments.  I submit 
this  proposition  because  I believe  nine-tenths  of 
them  are  opposed  to  Woman  Suffrage,  and  I do 
not  propose  to  force  upon  the  sex  what  they  do 
not  ask  themselves,  to  gratify  a few  who  may 
seek  notoriety.  That  is  all  I have  to  say  upon 
this  point  at  present. 

Now,  as  this  proposition  on  the  Elective 
Franchise  is  open  for  general  debate,  I intend 
to  address  myself  to  this  new  provision  which 
is  signed  by  a majority  of  the  Committe  [Messrs. 
Sample,  Miller,  Scofield  and  Frieberg],  and 
which  proposes  for  the  new  Constitution  a pro- 
vision which  provides  that  every  male  citizen 
in  the  United  States  and  every  male  person  of 
foreign  birth,  who  declares  his  intention  to  be- 
came a citizen  of  the  United  States  and  shall 
become  a resident  of  the  State  a year  before  the 
election,  a right  to  vote  therein.  I do  this,  Mr. 
President,  because  I think  it  is  nothing  more 
than  right  and  proper  as  this  new  proposition 
has  been  animadverted  upon  pretty  severely  in 
the  arguments  made  upon  it  in  the  absence  of 
my  colleague,  Mr.  Rickly,  who,  upon  the  22d 
of  May  last,  introduced  the  original  Proposi- 
tion. 


1846 


[132nd 


ALIEN  SUFFRAGE, 

Baber,  Campbell. 


Proposition  No.  15— By  Mr.  Ricklyi 
To  amend  section  1,  Article  V,  of  the  Constitution  of 
Ohio.  . 

That  section  1 of  Article  5 of  the  Constitution  of  Ohio 
be  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows : 

Section  1.  Every  male  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of 
the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resi- 
dent of  the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election, 
and  of  the  county,  township  or  ward,  in  which  he  resides, 
such  time  as  may  be  provided  by  law;  and  every  male 
person  of  foreign  birth,  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years 
and  upward,  who  shall  have  resided  in  the  United  States 
one  year,  and  shall  have  resided  in  this  State  one  year 
next  preceding  any  election,  and  shall  have  declared  his 
intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States  previ- 
ous to  such  election,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  on  the  subject  of  naturalization,  shall  have 
the  qualifications  of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at 
all  elections  in  this  State. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  this  Proposition  was  in- 
troduced to  this  Convention  among  the  first 
propositions  presented,  and  I wish  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Rickly  represents  a large  foreign  population 
here ; that  he  came  to  this  country  before  the 
age  of  twenty -one ; that  he  is  a Swiss  Republi- 
can, an  educated  German,  and  I think  under- 
stands the  wants  and  wishes  of  that  foreign 
population  as  well  as  any  other  man  in  Ohio, 
for  he  has  had  a large  experience  in  the  affairs 
of  this  country,  having  been  a member  of  the 
Legislature  from  Auglaize  county — the  first 
Legislature  under  the  Constitution  of  Ohio  of 
1851,  and  I believe  that  this  proposition  was 
introduced  by  him  in  perfectly  good  faith. 

I wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention 
to  the  fact  that  upon  the  21st  of  May,  the  day 
before  this  Proposition  was  introduced — to  show 
that  Mr.  Rickly,  in  the  sincerity  of  his  heart 
supposed  that  gentlemen  meant  what  they  said 
— that  a very  large  and  respectable  body  of  gen- 
tlemen assembled  together  in  the  city  of  Colum- 
bus, composed  of  the  leading  men,  represent- 
ing one  of  the  great  political  organizations  of 
this  State,  and  that  upon  that  day  with  great 
unanimity  the  following  resolution  was  passed 
in  that  body : 

“ Resolved,  That  we  cordially  welcome  to  our  shores  the 
oppressed  of  all  countries,  remembering  with  pleasure 
that  our  adopted  citizens  have  always  been  loyal  to  the 
flag  of  the  Republic. 

We  therefore  favor  such  modification  of  the  naturali- 
zation laws  as  to  materially  shorten  the  term  of  proba- 
tion before  voting.” 

That  plank  was  received  with  great  favor,  yet 
no  such  modification  or  alteration  has  yet  been 
suggested  by  the  getters  up  of  this  resolution  as 
would  materially  shorten  the  term  of  residence 
of  the  foreigner  before  voting,  either  in  Con- 
gress, by  a change  in  the  naturalization  laws, 
or  by  allowing  foreigners  to  vote  on  declara- 
tion of  intention,  as  in  Indiana,  the  only  way 
in  which  the  State  can  shorten  the  term  of  pro- 
bation of  foreigners  before  voting. 

That  resolution  reported  at  that  Convention 
by  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  at  the  head 
of  which,  I believe,  was  Mr.  M.  A.  J acobi,  a pro- 
minent German  of  this  city,  was  received  with 
great  applause  by  the  Convention  and  adopted 
unanimously,  as  appears  by  the  report  of  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  Cincinnati  Commercial  of  May 
22d.  Afterwards  Lieutenant  Governor  Noyes, 
who  was  the  candidate  of  the  body  which  put 
forth  this  expression,  in  his  speech  at  Athens,  on 
Aug.  25th,  1873,  advocated  this  idea  of  shorten- 
ing the  term  of  naturalization,  and  Lieutenant 
Governor  Hart,  in  a very  elaborate  speech, 


[Saturday, 


during  the  canvass,  also  advocated  the  same  idea. 
It  seems  to  me,  if  my  colleague  Mr.  Rickly  has 
made  an  error  in  regard  to  the  public  sentiment 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  he  has  been  misled  by 
some  gentlemen  who  supposed  the  passage  of 
such  a resolution  might  do  very  well  for  bun- 
combe, and  when  the  Proposition  was  intro- 
duced he  was  surprised,  because  it  has  raised 
such  a storm  of  opprobrium  and  bitter-hearted 
opposition.  But  I understand  it,  and  that  reso- 
lution having  been  set  forth  and  met  with  such 
favor  by  that  Convention — to  sustain  the  rights 
of  foreigners — it  was  natural  for  him  to  test 
gentlemen,  and  see  how  many  men  in  this  Con- 
vention, when  that  proposition  had  been  put 
forward  by  their  own  organization,  would  vote 
for  it. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  gentleman  per- 
mit me  to  call  his  attention  to  one  point  right 
there? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  With  the  permission  of 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  I 
wish  to  call  his  attention  to  a distinction  that 
he  does  not  seem  to  make.  I do  not  care  to  the 
amount  of  one  chew  of  tobacco  what  a political 
party,  either  Republican,  Democratic,  or  any 
other,  has  done  in  constructing  platforms  here- 
tofore, we  are  called  for  the  purpose  of  making 
a Constitution  by  which  three  millions  or  more 
of  people  shall  be  governed  in  the  coming 
future.  It  is  this  point  to  which  I call  his  at- 
tention ; I have  listened  to  the  reading  of  that 
plank  in  the  platforrh  of  the  Republican  party 
— was  it  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I think  that  probably  the 
Democratic  party  might  do  something  of  the 
same  sort,  in  the  grand  race  to  catch  votes.  It 
is  this : that  there  they  only  propose  to  lessen 
the  term  of  probation,  the  number  of  years  that 
the  foreigner  shall  reside  before  he  may  become 
a citizen  and  take  the  final  oath  of  allegiance. 
This  Report  of  the  Committee,  and  the  Proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman’s  colleague  [Mr.  Rickly], 
which  he  is  now  defending,  he  says,  because  of 
the  absence  of  his  colleague,  provides,  not  that 
the  term  of  probation  shall  be  lessened  from 
five  years,  but  that  the  person  who  is  an  alien 
shall  be  entitled  to  vote  and  hold  oflice  before 
he  is  compelled  to  bear  arms  in  defense  of  the 
country.  That  is  the  distinction. 

Mr.  BABER.  That  very  distinction  I pro- 
pose to  meet  and  refute  by  the  record  and  ar- 
gument, if  the  gentleman  will  wait  until  I get 
to  it. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Oh,  I will  do  that  with 
very  great  pleasure. 

Mr.  BABER.  I understand  the  point.  I 
have  some  books  here,  and  I will  come  to  that 
point  after  a while.  I am  speaking  with  regard 
to  the  public  sentiment  of  this  country. 

When  my  colleague  [Mr.  Rickly]  introduced 
this  Proposition,  he  very  naturally  supposed 
that  when  such  a resolution  was  passed  by  such 
a State  Convention  of  the  dominant  party,  it 
indicated  something  of  a tendency  to  liberality, 
but  he  had  common  sense  enough  to  know  as 
well  as  anybody  else,  that  the  State  of  Ohio 
could  not  shorten  the  term  in  the  naturalization 
laws,  but  it  occurred  to  him  that  if  we  wanted 


ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Baber,  Tuttle. 


1847 


Day.] 

March  7,  1874.] 


to  shorten  the  term  of  probation  before  voting, 
we  would  not  stand  on  technicalities,  but  that 
there  was  no  reason  why  the  State  of  Ohio 
should  not  do  what  it  had  the  power  to  do,  be- 
cause she  could  not  do  what  she  had  not  the 
power  to  do;  because  we  could  arrive  at  the 
same  result  practically  forthwith,  by  adopting  his 
Proposition  as  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  State  of  Ohio,  which  exists  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  State  of  Indiana,  and  which  has 
existed  throughout  the  whole  of  the  Northwest 
territory,  and  as  I will  show,  now  exists  in 
fourteen  of  the  States  of  the  Union.  It  is  only 
a technicality  upon  this  point,  but  I will  meet 
the  other  question  with  regard  to  the  argument 
of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell], 
as  to  alien  residents  not  being  compelled  to  bear 
arms  and  do  military  duty,  when  I come  to  it. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I have  nothing  to  say 
here  with  regard  to  the  remarks  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  which  have 
been  so  very  fully  replied  to  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery],  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Ottawa  [Mr.  Kraemer],  wherein  they 
met  the  same  points  that  he  makes  with  regard 
to  the  feeling  as  to  aliens  in  his  remarks  made 
hurriedly  upon  that  evening,  and  I think,  per- 
haps, although  it  is  not  my  province  to  criticise 
the  gentleman,  that  some  expressions  may  have 
escaped  from  him  that  led  to  the  marked  feeling 
that  these  gentlemen,  who  are  of  foreign  birth, 
exhibited  in  addressing  this  Convention. 

But  I want  to  come  to  the  great  point  of  the 
argument  presented  by  him.  Why  is  this  Prop- 
osition so  monstrous;  why  so  unheard  of?  I 
have  before  me  “ Hough’s  American  Constitu- 
tions,” vol.  2,  page  763.  This  Proposition  which 
is  pronounced  so  monstrous,  this  proposition  of 
alien  suffrage,  which  allows  a foreigner,  upon  a 
declaration  of  intention  and  a residence  in  the 
State  for  a sufficient  time,  to  become  a voter,  is, 
Mr.  President, placed  in  the  Constitutions  of  some 
fourteen  States.  I will  read  them : Alabama, 
Arkansas,  Florida,  Georgia,  Indiana,  Kansas, 
Michigan,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  Ne- 
vada, Oregon,  Texas  and  Wisconsin.  That  is 
the  present  provision  of  these  Constitutions,  but 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Missouri, 
from  which  this  is  copied,  this  same  provision 
is  put  in  with  the  modification  that  this  right  to 
vote  shall  not  extend  beyond  five  years,  because 
they  did  not  want  to  interfere  to  prevent  for- 
eigners from  taking  out  their  final  papers  of 
naturalization.  This  is  no  new  principle.  It 
is  a principle  which  the  gentleman  from  Ottawa 
[Mr.  KraemerJ  shows  has  existed  ever  since 
the  ordinance  of  1787,  and  I want  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  gentlemen  to  the  fact  that,  in  every 
one  of  the  States  formed  out  of  the  territory  or- 
ganized by  this  Ordinance,  except  the  State  of 
Ohio,  this  provision  exists  in  their  first  Consti- 
tutions. It  does  not  now  exist  in  the  Constitu- 
tion lately  made  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  but  if 
the  gentleman  will  examine  the  old  Constitution 
of  Illinois,  adopted  in  1818,  page  309  of  “ Ameri- 
can Guide,”  containing  the  Constitutions,  he 
will  find  this  provision  in  that  Constitution : 
“ In  all  elections,  all  white  male  inhabitants , 
above  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  having  re- 
sided in  the  State  six  months  next  preceding 
the  election,  shall  enjoy  the  right  of  an  elector  : 
but  no  person  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  except  in 


the  county  or  district  in  which  he  shall  actually 
reside  at  the  time  of  the  election.”  Showing 
that,  until  the  Constitution  of  1870,  that  provi- 
sion of  alien  suffrage,  of  which  the  gentleman 
speaks  with  so  much  horror,  as  being  so  de- 
structive to  the  country,  existed  in  every  one  of 
the  States  in  that  Northwest  territory,  and  it 
existed  here  in  Ohio  under  the  operation  of  the 
ordinance  of  1787,  before  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  of  1802,  and  the  language  of  that 
instrument,  “white  male  inhabitants,”  did  not 
disfranchise  them. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I am  not  sure  that  I under- 
stood one  remark  the  gentleman  made  a little 
while  ago.  As  I heard  it,  it  was  that  the  pro- 
vision was  in  the  Constitution  of  all  the  States. 

Mr.  BABER.  No,  sir.  My  remark  was  that 
it  was  in  the  Constitutions  of  some  fourteen 
States.  But  I have  passed  that  point  in  my  ar- 
gument, and  gone  on  to  another. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  was  a remark  made  after 
that. 

Mr.  BABER.  Well,  the  gentleman  misheard 
me,  then.  Now,  all  we  wish  to  do  is  to  put  this 
provision  back  where  it  stood  under  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787.  But,  Mr.  President,  that  ordi- 
nance of  1787  was  not  singular.  I wish  to  re- 
fer gentlemen  to  the  provision  in  the  Consti- 
tutions of  some  of  the  old  States  with  reference 
to  this  matter.  I hold  in  my  hand  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  first  State  admitted  after  the  adoption 
of  the  Federal  Constitution — the  State  of  Ver- 
mont; the  State  which  is  the  very  image  of  a 
perfect  popular  Democracy;  a State  where 
there  has  been,  with  regard  to  this  right  of 
universal  suffrage,  as  pure  a Democracy  as  in 
any  State  in  the  Union.  What  is  the  provision 
in  the  Constitution  of  Vermont?  “That  all 
elections  ought  to  be  free  and  without  corrup- 
tion, and  that  all  freemen,  having  a sufficient 
evidence,  common  interest  with,  and  attachment 
to  the  community,  have  a right  to  elect  officers 
and  be  elected  to  office,  agreeably  to  the  regu- 
lations made  in  this  Constitution.”  Article  8, 
American  Constitution  Guide  of  1835,  page  82. 
And  I will  here  remark  that  under  this  provis- 
ion aliens  who  have  made  their  declaration  of 
intention  and  thereby  showed  that  they  had  an 
attachment  to  the  community,  had  the  right  to 
vote  and  were  allowed  to  vote  in  the  State  of 
Vermont  until  June  26,  1828,  wherein  it  was 
provided  that  a foreigner  hereafter  shall  be  re- 
quired to  be  naturalized.  The  same  provision 
was  in  the  Constitutions  of  the  States  of  Con- 
necticut and  Pennsylvania. 

Now,  I wish  to  call  attention  to  the  State  of 
Virginia;  and  here  I wish  the  attention  of  my 
friend,  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell], to  the  provision  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  of  Virginia,  because  that  was  a State 
which,  by-the-way,  had  kept  up,  or  did  for 
some  time,  a property  qualification.  I first  re- 
fer to  the  old  Constitution,  which  provides  in 
the  Bill  of  Rights,  June  12,  1776,  Paragraph 
6: 

“That  elections  of  members  to  serve  as  representatives 
of  the  people,  in  assembly,  ought  to  be  free;  and  that  all 
men  having  sufficient  evidence  of  permanent  common  in- 
terest with,  and  attachment  to,  the  community,  have  the 
right  of  suffrage , and  cannot  be  taxed  or  deprived  of  their 


1848 


ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Baber,  Rowland,  Cunningham. 


[122nd 

[Saturday, 


property  for  public  uses,  without  their  own  consent,  or 
that  of  their  representatives  so  elected,  nor  bound  by  any 
law  to  which  they  have  not,  in  like  manner,  assented,  for 
the  public  good.” 

Under  that  provision  these  aliens  exercised 
the  right  of  suffrage  in  the  State  of  Virginia, 
but  when,  under  the  Constitution  of  1830, 
framed  by  Madison,  Monroe  and  Marshall,  the 
question  came  up  as  a matter  of  legal  construc- 
tion, although  that  Constitution  provided  for  a 
property  qualification,  this  language  in  the 
Constitution  of  Virginia  was  considered  as  giv- 
ing aliens  the  right  to  vote.  The  Constitution 
says : “Every  white  male  citizen  of  the 
commonwealth  resident  therein,  aged  twen- 
ty-one years  and  upward,  being  quali- 
fied to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage 
according  to  the  former  Constitution  and 
laws.”  Well,  the  question  arose,  “who 
was  a white  male  citizen  of  the  commonwealth ,” 
a citizen  of  the  State  or  a citizen  of  the  United 
States?  Before  this,  every  man,  (but  I think, 
perhaps,  it  does  not  affect  the  question),  who 
was  a citizen  of  the  State  was  a voter,  no  mat- 
ter whether  he  was  a citizen  of  the  United 
States  or  not.  Thus  these  aliens  in  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Michigan,  and  all  this  great  North- 
western territory  voted,  and  although  not  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  are  citizens  of  the 
State,  and  in  the  State  of  Virginia  an  alien  was 
considered,  one  at  least  who  had  made  a declar- 
ation of  intention,  as  provided  under  this  Con- 
stitution of  1830,  as  having  a right  to  vote.  And 
I refer  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell], to  the  celebrated  contested  Congressional 
election  case  of  Botts  vs.  Jones,  wherein  this  very 
question  was  raised,  and  Mr.  Robert  C.  Schenck 
made  a report  holding  forth  the  doctrine  that 
these  votes  should  be  excluded  because  they 
were  not  citizens  of  the  United  States,  yet  a ma- 
jority held  that  the  State  itself  had  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  control  the  right  of  suffrage,  and 
the  vote  was  admitted  and  Mr.  Jones  retained 
his  seat.  I bring  forward  these  facts  to  show 
that  there  is  nothing  so  monstrous,  so  horrible 
in  this  idea  of  alien  suffrage  which  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  has  dwelt 
upon  so  vehemently  and  with  so  much  of  his 
ancient  fire  and  litheness. 

Now  1 come  in  my  argument  to  the  point  the 
gentleman  has  made  with  regard  to  the  declara- 
tion of  intention  if  the  man  has  not  taken  the 
final  oath.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I think  that 
the  legal  authorities  met  that  point  raised  by  the 
gentleman  and  it  has  been  decided,  as  was  stated 
by  Speaker  Blaine  in  the  speech  which  he  de- 
livered at  a meeting  on  October  5th,  1872,  just 
before  the  Presidential  election,  and  which  was 
presided  over  by  Hon.  Bellamy  Storer,  one  of 
the  largest  meetings  in  Cincinnati  that  year, 
in  which  he  referred  to  the  matter  of  which 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell] 
speaks. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  what  authority  Speaker  Blaine’s 
speech  carries  with  it? 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  know  that  it  carried 
any  authority,  but  carried  with  it  such  a weight 
that  the  gentleman  will  not  be  able  to  over- 
throw it.  In  that  speech  he  referred  to  the  let- 
ter of  Mr.  Marcy,  Secretary  of  State,  in  the 
celebrated  “Koszta  case,”  in  1853,  (which  was 
alluded  to  also  by  the  gentleman  from  Ottawa 


[Mr.  Kraemer],  as  authority)  as  an  act  of  a 
Democratic  administration,  and  also  subsequent- 
ly to  the  point  to  which  I shall  come  with  re- 
gard to  the  ratification  of  the  same  doctrine  by 
a Republican  administration,  that  citizens  who 
had  declared  their  intentions  stood  entitled  to 
the  protection  of  the  government;  the  govern- 
ment was  bound  to  make  war  for  them,  and  to 
protect  their  rights  just  the  same  as  for  any  oth- 
er citizen. 

Now,  the  facts  in  the  Koszta  case  were,  briefly, 
these:  Martin  Koszta,  a Hungarian  refugee, 
came  to  this  country  in  1852,  and  took  out  his  first 
papers  in  the  State  of  New  York  on  July  31st, 
1852,  and  remained  there  eleven  months.  He 
never  voted,  never  paid  any  taxes,  never  took 
out  his  final  papers,  and  returned  to  Smyrna, 
and  there  was  seized,  on  June  21st,  1853,  by  or- 
der of  the  Austrian  Consul  on  the  Marinia,  in 
Turkish  neutral  territory,  by  a hired  band  of 
armed  ruffians,  and  thrown  into  the  sea,  where 
a boat  was  in  waiting  that  took  him  on  board  of 
the  Austrian  brig-of-war  Huszar,  lying  in  the 
harbor.  (Ex.  Doc.  1st  sess.  33d  Cong.  Vol.  II, 
1853-51,  H.  Doc.  91,  p.  9.)  On  the  morning  of 
the  22d  the  U.  S.  corvette  St.  Louis  came  in 
sight,  Capt.  J.  D.  Ingraham  commanding,  who, 
on  being  informed  that  the  Austrian  com- 
mander proposed  secretly  to  transport  Koszta 
to  Trieste,  in  the  Austrian  dominions,  demand- 
ed his  release  as  entitled  to  American  protec- 
tion, threatening  to  open  his  broadsides  on  the 
Austrian  vessel  by  a certain  hour  unless  the  at- 
tempt to  kidnap  Koszta  was  abandoned.  The 
threat  of  the  gallant  officer,  enforced  by  the 
fact  that,  at  the  hour  designated,  he  brought  his 
guns  to  bear  upon  the  imperial  brig,  had  the  de- 
sired effect,  and  Koszta  was  released,  subject 
to  the  action  of  the  United  States  and  Austria 
on  the  matter,  and  his  conduct  was  subsequent- 
ly fully  indorsed  by  the  government  and  re- 
ceived with  universal  applaudits  of  the  nation. 

An  extensive  correspondence  took  place  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  Austrian  gov- 
ernment on  the  occurrence.  I do  not  remember 
whether  any  limitation  was  adopted  as  to  the 
time  for  which  the  United  States  might  pro- 
long the  term  of  probation  before  the  final  na- 
turalization, but  I do  recollect  that  it  was  de- 
cided that  a man  who  had  made  a declaration 
of  intention  was  entitled  by  right  to  the  full 
protection  of  the  government  the  same  as  a 
natural  born  citizen.  So  much  for  that  case; 
and  that  position  has  been  ratified  by  all  Amer- 
ican statesmen,  and  has  gone  into  precedent  as 
the  settled  policy  of  this  government,  that  this 
class  of  men  are  just  as  much  entitled  to  pro- 
tection as  any  other  class  of  citizens. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
permit  me  a question? 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Who  doubts  that 
point? 

Mr.  BABER.  Wait  until  I get  through  my 
argument  and  I will  show  you.  Do  not  go  oft* 
at  half-cock,  as  in  the  Allen  county  movement. 
And  for  his  further  information  on  the  subject, 
I refer  him  to  the  celebrated  letter  of  Mr.  Mar- 
cy to  Baron  IIulsemann,  dated  “Washington, 
Sept.  26,  1853,”  which,  after  reciting  the  facts 
in  the  case,  says,  on  the  point  of  citizenship : 


MARCY  TO  HULSEMANN. 1849 

Baber. 


Day.] 

March  7, 1874.] 


******** 

“It  is  not  contended  that  this  initiatory  step  in  the  pro- 
cess of  naturalization  invested  him  with  all  the  civil 
rights  of  an  American  citizen;  but  it  is  sufficient  for  all 
the  purposes  of  this  case  to  show  that  he  was  clothed 
with  an  American  nationality;  and,  in  virtue  thereof,  the 
government  of  the  United  States  was  authorized  to  ex- 
tend to  him  its  protection,  at  home  and  abroad.  Mr. 
Hulsemann,  as  the  undersigned  believes,  falls  into  great 
■error— an  error  fatal  to  serve  his  most  important  conclu- 
sions—by  assuming  that  a nation  can  properly  extend  its 
protection  only  to  native  born  or  naturalized  citizens.  This 
is  not  the  doctrine  of  international  law,  nor  is  the  practice 
of  nations  circumscribed  within  such  narrow  limits. 
This  law  does  not,  as  has  been  before  remarked,  compli- 
cate questions  of  this  nature  by  respect  for  municipal 
codes.  In  relation  to  this  subject,  it  has  clear  and  dis- 
tinct rules  of  its  own.  It  gives  the  national  character  of 
the  couutry  not  only  to  native-born  and  naturalized  citi- 
zens but  to  all  residents  in  it,  who  are  there  with,  or  even 
without,  an  intention  to  become  citizens,  provided  they 
have  a domicile  therein.  Foreigners  may,  and  often  do, 
acqui  re  a domicile  in  a country,  even  though  they  have  en- 
tered it  with  the  avowed  intention  not  to  become  natur- 
alized citizens,  but  to  return  to  their  native  land  at  some 
remote  a ad  uncertain  period,  and  whenever  they  acquire 
a domicile  international  law  at  once  impresses  upon  them 
the  national  character  of  the  country  of  that  domicile.  It 
is  a maxim  ofinternational  law  that  a domicile  confers  a 
national  character ; it  does  not  allow  any  one  who  has  a 
domicile  to  decline  the  national  character  thus  conferred ; 
it  forces  it  very  often  upon  him  against  his  will,  and  to  his 
great  detriment.  International  law  only  looks  to  the  na- 
tional character  in  determining  what  countryhas  the  right 
to  protect.  If  a person  goes  from  this  country  abroad,  with 
the  nationality  of  the  United  States,  this  law  enjoins 
upon  other  nations  to  respect  him,  in  regard  to  protec- 
tion as  an  American  citizen,  rt  concedes  to  every  country 
the  right  to  protect  any  and  all  who  may  be  clothed  with 
its  nationality.  These  are  important  principles  in  their 
bearings  upon  the  question  presented  in  Mr.  Hulse- 
m Ann’s  note,  and  are  too  obvious  to  be  contested,  but  as 
they  are  opposed  to  some  of  the  positions  taken  by  Aus- 
tria, the  undersigned  deems  it  respectful,  in  such  a case, 
to  sustain  them  by  reference  to  authorities. 

“ ‘The  position  is  a clear  one,  that  if  a person  goes  into 
a foreign  country  and  engages  in  trade  there,  he  is  by  the 
laws  of  nations  to  be  considered  a merchant  of  that 
country,  and  is  subject  for  all  civil  purposes,  whether  that 
country  be  hostile  or  neutral.’— (1  Kent’s  Com.,  75.) 

“Again,  the  same  authority  says,  that  ‘in  the  law  of 
nations,  as  to  Europe,  the  rule  is,  that  men  take  their  na- 
tional chai-acter  from  the  general  character  of  the 
country  ia  which  they  reside.’ — (Ibid.,  78  ) 

“If  Koszta  ever  had  a domicile  in  the  United  States, 
he  was  in  virtue  thereof  invested  with  the  nationality  of 
this  country,  and  in  this  character  continued  as  long  as 
that  domicile  was  retained.  There  are  cases  in  which  it 
is  difficult  to  settle  the  question  of  domicile,  but  that  of 
Koszta  is  not  one  of  them. 

“The  most  approved  definitions  of  a domicile  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

“‘A  residence  at  a particular  place,  accompanied  with 
positive  or  presumptive  proof  of  continuing  there  f ir  an 
unlimited  time.’— (1  Birney’s  Reports,  319.) 

“If  it  sufficiently  appear  that  the  intention  of  removing 
was  to  make  a permanent  settlement,  for  an  indefinite 
time,  the  right  of  domicile  is  acquired  by  a residence  of  a 
few  days.’ — (The  Venus,  8 Cranch,  279.)  Vattel  has  de- 
fined domicil  to  be  a fixed  residence  in  any  place  with  an 
intention  of  always  staying  there.  Bnt  this  is  not  an  ac- 
curate statement.  It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that 
that  place  is  properly  the  domicile  of  a person  in  which 
his  habitation  is  fixed,  without  any  present  intention  of 
removing  therefrom.’ — Story’s  Con.  of  Laws,  § 43.  ‘A 
person  who  removes  to  a foreign  country,  settles  himself 
there,  and  engages  in  the  trade  of  the  country,  furnishes 
by  these  acts  such  evidences  of  an  intention  permanently 
to  reside  there  as  to  stamp  him  with  the  national  charac- 
ter of  the  State  where  he  resides.’— (The  Venus,  8 Cranch 
279.)  Apply  these  principles  to  the  case  under  considera- 
tion, and  the  inevitable  result  is  that  Koszta  ha  1 a domi- 
cile in  the  United  States.  He  came  to,  and  resided  in  this 
country  one  year  and  eleven  months.  He  came  here  with 
the  intention  of  making  it  his  future  abode.  ‘This  inten- 
tion was  manifested  in  several  ways,  but  mo-t  signifi- 
cantly by  his  solemn  declaration  upon  oath.  There  can 
be  no  better  evidence  of  his  design  of  making  the  United 
States  his  future  home  than  such  a declaration,  and  to 
this  kind  of  evidence  of  the  intention,  the  indispensable 
element  of  true  domicile,  civili  ms  have  always  attached 
importance.’— (Phillemore,  § 188  ) In  the  case  of  Koszta 
we  have  all  that  is  required  to  prove  that  he  had  a domi- 
cile in  the  United  States— the  occurrence  of  an  actual  resi- 
dence with  the  intention  to  make  this  country  his  future 
home. 


“The  establishment  of  his  domicile  here  invested  him 
with  the  national  character  of  this  country,  and  with  that 
character  he  acquired  the  right  to  claim  protection  from 
the  United  States,  and  they  had  a right  to  extend  it  to 
him  as  long  as  that  character  continued. 

“The  next  question  is,  was  Koszta  clothed  with  that 
character  when  he  was  kidnapped  in  the  streets  of  Smyr- 
na, and  imprisoned  on  board  of  the  Austrian  brig-of- war 
Huszar.  Tne  national  character  acquired  by  residence 
remains  as  long  as  the  domicile  continues,  and  that  con- 
tinues not  only  as  long  as  the  domiciled  person  continues 
in  the  country  of  his  residence,  but  until  he  acquires  a 
new  domicile. 

“The  law,  as  to  the  continuance  and  change  of  a domi- 
cile, is  clearly  stated  in  the  following  quotation  from  an 
eminent  jurist: 

“‘However,  in  many  cases  actual  residence  is  not  in- 
dispensable to  retain  a domicile,  after  it  is  once  acquired ; 
but  it  is  retained  animo  solo , by  the  mere  intention  not  to 
change  it  or  to  adopt  another.  If,  therefore,  a person 
leave  his  home  for  temporary  purposes,  but  with  an  in- 
tention to  return  to  it,  this  change  of  place  is  not,  in  law, 
a chauge  of  domicile. 

“ Thus,  if  a person  go  on  a voyage  to  sea,  or  to  an- 
other country,  for  health  or  for  pleasure,  or  for  business  of 
a temporary  nature,  with  an  intention  to  return,  such  a 
transitory  residence  would  not  constitute  a new  domicile, 
or  amount  to  an  abandonment  of  the  old  one;  for  it  is  not 
the  mere  act  of  inhabitancy  in  a place  which  makes  it  the 
domicile,  but  it  is  the  fact  coupled  with  the  intention  of 
remaining  there  animo  manendi .’ — (Story’s  Con.  of  Laws, 
$ 44  ) 

“At  the  very  list  session  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  a case  came  up  for  adjudication,  presenting 
a question  as  to  the  domicile  of  General  Kosciusco  at  the 
time  of  his  death.  The  decision,  which  was  concurred  in 
by  all  the  judges  on  the  bench,  fully  sustains  the  correct- 
ness of  the  foregoing  proposition  in  regard  to  domicile, 
particularly  the  two  most  important,  in  Koszta’s  case; 
first,  that  he  acquir  d a domicile  in  the  United  States; 
and  second,  that  he  did  not  lose  it  by  his  absence  in 
Turkey.  (14  Howard’s  Report,  S.  C.  U.  S.,  400.) 

“As  the  national  character,  according  to  the  law  of 
nations,  depends  upon  the  domicile,  it  remains  as  long  as 
the  domicile  is  retained,  and  is  changed  with  it.  Koszta 
was,  therefore,  vested  with  the  nationality  of  an  Ameri- 
can citizen  at  Smyrna,  if  he,  in  contemplation  of  law,  and 
a domicile  in  the  United  States.  The  authorities  already 
referred  to  show  that  to  lose  a domicile,  when  once  ob- 
tained, the  domiciled  person  must  leave  the  country  of 
his  residence  with  the  intention  to  abandon  that  residence 
and  must  acquire  a domicile  in  another.  Both  of  these 
facts  are  necessary  to  effect  a change  of  domicile,  but 
neither  of  these  exists  in  Koszta’s  case-  The  facts  show 
that  he  was  only  temporarily  absent  from  this  country  on 
private  business,  with  no  intention  of  remaining  p rma- 
nently  in  Turkey,  but,  on  the  contrary,  was  at  the  time  of 
his  seizure  awaiting  an  opportunity  to  return  to  the 
United  States.  Whenever,  by  the  law  of  nations,  an  in- 
dividual becomes  clothed  with  our  national  character,  be 
he  a native-born  or  a naturalized  citizen,  an  exile  driven 
trom  his  early  home  by  political  oppression,  or  an  emi- 
grant enticed  from  it  by  the  hopes  of  a better  fortune  for 
himself  and  his  posterity,  he  can  claim  the  protection  of 
this  government,  and  it  mav  respond  to  that  claim  with- 
out being  obliged  to  explain  its  conduct  to  any  foreign 
power;  for  it  is  its  duty  to  make  its  nationality  respected 
by  other  nations,  and  respectable  in  every  quarter  of  the 
globe. 

“This  right  to  protect  persons  having  a domicile,  though 
not  native-born  or  naturalized  citizens,  rests  on  the  firm 
foundation  of  justice,  and  the  claim  to  be  protected  is 
earned  by  consideration,  which  the  protecting  power  is 
not  at  liberty  to  disregard.  Such  domiciled  citizen  pays 
the  same  price  for  his  protection  as  native-born  or  natur- 
alized citizens  pay  for  theirs.  He  is  under  the  bond  of  al- 
legiance to  the  country  ot  his  residence,  and  if  he  breaks 
them  incurs  the  same  penalties,  he  owes  the  same  obedi- 
ence to  the  civil  laws,  and  must  discharge  the  duties  they 
impose  on  him,  his  property  is  in  the  same  way  and  to 
the  same  extent  as  theirs  liable  to  contribute  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  government. 

“In  war  he  shares  equally  with  them  in  the  calamities 
which  may  befall  the  country,  his  services  may  be  requir- 
ed for  its  defense,  his  life  may  be  periled  and  sacrificed 
in  maintaining  its  rights  and  vindicating  its  honor. 

“In  nearly  all  respects  his  and  their  condition,  as  to  the 
duties  and  burdens  of  government,  are  undistinguishable, 
and  what  reasons  can  be  given  why,  so  far,  at  least,  as 
regards  protection  to  person  and  property  abroad,  as  well 
as  at  home,  his  right  should  not  be  co-extensive  with  the 
rights  of  native-born  or  naturalized  citizens?  By  the 
law  of  nations  they  have  the  same  nationality,  and  what 
right  has  any  foreign  power,  for  the  purpose  of  making 
distinction  between  them,  to  look  behind  the  character 
given  them  by  that  code  which  regulates  national  inter- 


1850 


[132nd 


MARCY  TO  HULSEMANN. 


Baber. 


[Saturday, 


course?  When  the  law  of  nations  determines  the  nation- 
ality of  any  man,  foreign  governments  are  bound  to 
respect  its  decision. 

“They  would  have  no  cause  to  complain  if  the  protect- 
ing should  stand  upon  its  extreme  rights  in  all  cases,  but 
that  power  in  discharging  its  duties  of  protecting,  may, 
for  sufficient  reasons  have  some  regard  for  the  civil  dis- 
tinction which  its  own  laws  mike  between  the  different 
classes  of  persons  to  whom  it  has  the  right,  under  inter- 
national law,  to  extend  its  protection.  It  will  naturally 
watch  with  more  care,  and  may  act  with  more  vigor  in 
behalf  of  native-born  and  naturalized  citizens  than  in  be- 
half of  those  who,  though  clothed  with  its  nationality, 
have  not  been  so  permanently  incorporated  with  its  poli- 
tical community. 

“Giving  effect  to  the  well-established  principles,  and 
applying  them  to  the  facts  in  the  case  the  result  is  that 
Koszta  acquired,  while  in  the  United  States,  their  na- 
tional character;  that  he  retained  that  character  when  he 
was  seized  at  Smyrna,  and  that  he  had  a right  to  be 
respected  as  such  while  there,  by  Austria  and  every  other 
foreign  power.  The  right  of  a nation  to  protect,  and  re- 
quire others  to  respect,  at  home  and  abroad,  all  who  are 
clothed  "with  its  nationality,  is  no  new  doctrine,  now  for 
the  first  time  brought  into  operation  by  the  United  States. 
It  is  common  to  all  nations,  and  has  had  the  sanction  of 
their  practice  for  ages;  but  it  is  new  that  at  this  late 
period,  when  the  United  States  asserts  a claim  to  it.  as  a 
common  inheritance,  it  should  at  once  be  discovered  that 
it  is  a doctrine  fraught  with  danger,  and  likely  to  com- 
promit  the  peace  of  the  world.  "The  United  States  see 
no  cause  for  alarm,  no  reason  for  renouncing,  for  them- 
selves what  others  have  so  long  and  so  harmlessly  en- 


“The  conclusion  at  which  the  President  has  arrived, 
after  a full  examination  of  the  transaction  at  Smyrna, 
and  a respectful  consideration  of  the  views  of  the  Aus- 
trian government  thereon,  as  presented  in  Mr.  Hulse- 
mann’s  note,  are,  that  Koszta,  when  seized  and  impris- 
oned, was  invested  with  the  nationality  of  the  United 
States,  and  they  had,  therefore,  the  right,  if  they  chose  to 
exercise  it,  to  extend  their  protection  to  him;  that  from 
international  law,  the  only  law  which  can  be  rightfully 
appealed  to  for  rules  of  action  in  this  case,  Austria 
could  derive  no  authority  to  obstruct  or  interfere  with  the 
United  States  in  the  exercise  of  this  right,  in  effecting 
the  liberation  of  Koszta;  and  that  Captain  Ingraham’s 
interposition  for  his  release  was,  under  the  peculiar  and 
extraordinary  circumstances  of  the  case,  right  and 
proper. 

“These  conclusions  indicate  to  Mr. Hulsemann  the  an- 
swer which  the  undersigned  is  instructed  by  the  Presi- 
dent to  make  to  the  Emperor  of  Austria  to  the  demand 
presented  in  Mr.  Hulsemann’s  note. 

“The  President  does  not  see  sufficient  cause  for  dis- 
avowing the  acts  of  the  American  agents,  which  are 
complained  of  by  Austria.  Her  claim  for  satisfaction  on 
that  account  has  been  carefully  considered,  and  is  re- 
spectfully declined. 

“Being  convinced  that  the  seizure  and  imprisonment  of 
Koszta  were  illegal  and  unjustifiable,  the  President  also 
declines  to  give  his  consent  to  his  delivery  to  the  Consul- 
General  of  Austria  at  Smyrna;  but,  after*  a full  examin- 
ation of  the  case,  as  herein  presented,  he  has  instructed 
the  undersigned  to  communicate  to  Mr.  Hulsemann  his 
confident  expectation  that  the  Emperor  of  Austria  will 
take  the  proper  measures  to  cause  Martin  Koszta  to  be 
restored  to  the  same  condition  he  was  in  before  he  was 
seized  in  the  streets  of  Smyrna,  on  the  21st  ot  June  last. 

“The  undersigned  avails'himeelf  of  this  occasion  to  re- 
new to  Mr.  Hulsemann  the  assurance  of  his  high  consid- 
eration. 

W.  L.  Marct.” 

(S.  Doc.,  1st  sess.,  33d  Cong.,  Yol.  1, 1853-54,  pp.  40, 41,  42 
and  43,  also  49.) 

Now,  I call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  to  a case  with 
which,  perhaps,  he  is  familiar,  involving  this 
very  same  question  as  to  what  is  the  position  of 
a citizen  who  has  not  performed  any  duties  or 
exercised  any  acts  of  citizenship,  as  to  whether 
the  government  has  the  right  to  protect  him — 
the  celebrated  case  of  Dr.  J.  Emilio  Houard, 
when  my  friend,  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell],  was  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States.  The  whole  question  had  been 
very  elaborately  discussed.  The  facts  in  the 
case  were  these:  Dr.  Ilouard’s  father  having 
been  naturalized  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
he,  as  the  child  of  a naturalized  citizen,  became, 


under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  a citizen 
of  the  United  States;  but  afterwards  he  re- 
turned to  Cuba,  and  lived  there  thirty-two 
years,  never  having  performed  any  act  of  citi- 
zenship here;  finally  married  a Spanish  lady; 
was  afterwards  arrested  by  the  Spanish  govern- 
ment, accused  of  furnishing  aid  to  the  Cuban 
rebels.  Application  was  made  for  protection 
and  interference  to  our  conservative  Secretary 
of  State,  Mr.  Fish,  and  Mr.  Fish  doubted 
whether  he  was  entitled  to  American  protec- 
tion. Dr.  Houard  had  been  transported,  in 
chains,  to  Spain,  on  his  way  to  a penal  colony; 
and  after  spending  considerable  time  in  diplo- 
matic correspondence,  and  a full  discussion,  the 
following  resolution  was  passed  in  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  April  26, 1872;  and  I think 
it  is  a pretty  good  law : 

Whereas,  Dr.  John  Emilio  Houard  has,  after  one 
year’s  imprisonment,  and  trial  by  a military  court  mar- 
tial, been  convicted  of  complicity  in  an  insurrection 
against  the  Spanish  Government,  in  the  island  of  Cuba, 
and,  upon  said  conviction,  has  been  transported  to  a penal 
colony  of  Spain  for  the  term  of  eight  years,  from  which 
conviction,  sentence,  and  punishment  he  appeals  for  pro- 
tection to  the  Government  of  the  United  States;  and, 

Whereas,  It  appears,  first,  that  said  Houard  was  a 
native-born  citizen  of  the  United  States;  second,  that  he 
never  renounced  his  allegiance  as  such  citizen,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  has  claimed  to  be,  and  has  been  enrolled  by 
the  officers  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  as  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States;  third,  that  it  is  not  shown 
by  any  form  of  proof  that  he  ever  became,  by  any  act,  a 
subject  or  citizen  of  the  government  of  Spain;  and, 

Whereas,  It  further  appears  that  his  trial,  sentence, 
and  punishment  have  been  in  disregard  and  violation  of 
his  undoubted  rights  as  a citizen  of  the  United  States, 
under  the  Constitution  and  laws  thereof,  and  the  treaty 
of  October  27, 1795,  between  the  United  States  and  Spain; 
therefore,  be  it 

Resolved . That,  in  the  judgment  of  this  House,  the  said 
John  Emilio  Houard  was,  and  is,  a citizen  of  the  United 
States  by  birth  and  continued  and  uninterrupted  choice, 
and,  as  such,  is  entitled  to  all  and  every  protection  from 
this  government,  and,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the 
President  should  promptly  demand  his  unconditional  fe- 
lease,  and  the  restoration  of  his  property,  which  has  been 
confiscated  to  the  use  of  the  Spanish  Government,  unless 
it  shall  be  made  to  appear,  upon  investigation,  to  the  sat- 
isfaction of  the  Executive  Department,  that  said  Houard 
had  been  held  for  and  duly  convicted  of  an  offense  com- 
mitted by  him  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Spain,  and  has 
been  prosecuted  therefor  under  the  authority  of  law,  and 
according  to  the  regular  course  of  proceedings  usual  in 
like  cases,  and  that  the  privileges  secured  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  by  the  seventh  Article  of  the  treaty  of 
the  United  States  with  Spain,  dated  27th  October,  1795, 
were  neither  denied  nor  disregarded  on  his  trial. 

(Yeas  143,  navs  43.  Cong.  Globe,  Part  4,  Sec.  Sess.  42d 
Congress,  1871-72,  p.2818.) 

Now,  on  the  adoption  of  that  resolution,  I am 
very  glad  to  find  among  the  “yeas”  the  name  of 
my  honorable  friend  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell]. 

Now,  I will  make,  the  application  of  this 
doctrine  of  the  question  of  protection  of  the 
interests  of  such  citizens  as  have  made  a declar- 
ation of  intention,  as  in  the  Koszta  case.  If  we 
are  bound  to  go  to  war  for  them,  if  they  are  en- 
titled to  all  the  protection  of  citizens,  I say  they 
have  a common  interest  with  us,  and  there  is  rea- 
son in  the  rule  established  in  all  this  great  north- 
west territory,  and  in  thirteen  or  fourteen  States 
in  this  Union,  and  that  these  men  are  entitled 
to  vote.  This  principle  was  established  after 
full  debate,  I believe,  in  the  admission  of  the 
State  of  Michigan,  in  1836,  as  gentlemen  will 
find  if  tliev  will  examine  the  debates  of  that 
time.  I take  it  that  the  rule  ceases  when  the 
reason  of  the  rule  ceases.  The  gentleman  says 
that  these  men  should  not  vote  because  you  can- 
not hold  them  to  military  service.  Now,  Mr. 


ALIEN  RIGHTS. 

Baber. 


1851 


Day.] 


March  7, 1874.1 


President,  we  have  by  our  own  action — and  I 
need  not  discuss  it  here — done  away  as  to  this 
right  of  suffrage  with  all  ideas  of  probation. 
That  was  swept  away  by  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment, when  at  once  some  eight  or  nine  hundred 
thousand  negroes  were  enfranchised.  I will  not 
discuss  that  point,  but  I want  these  gentlemen 
on  the  yeas  and  nays  in  this  Convention  to  say 
whether  they  do  not  consider  an  intelligent 
foreigner,  who  has  been  a voter  in  the  State  of 
Indiana,  and  in  twelve  or  thirteen  other  States, 
I want  them  to  say  that  he  is  not  as  competent  to 
vote  as  this  large  class  of  voters  that  are  thrown 
in  to  control  and  hold  the  balance  of  political 
power  in  this  great  government,  by,  as  they 
claim,  a necessity  to  save  the  Union.  I shall 
not  say  here,  because  it  would  not  be  proper, 
how  they  have  governed  it,  or  what  is  the  effect 
of  that  vote;  but  it  is  now  too  late  for  gentle- 
men to  go  hack  upon  the  logic  of  events. 

But  the  gentlemen  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell J and  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  have  called 
my  attention  to  the  fact  that  these  citizens  are 
not  bound  to  perform  military  service,  and 
therefore  they  should  not  vote.  Well,  now,  a 
good  many  of  our  citizens  cannot  perform 
military  service,  and  yet  they  vote;  but  I deny 
the  position  of  the  gentleman,  and  ask  him  to 
produce  his  authority.  On  the  very  same  page 
where  the  gentleman’s  vote  is  recorded  in  the 
Houard  case  above  referred  to,  the  Committee 
report  the  following  argument  from  Judge 
Hoar,  who  was  in  the  Cabinet,  and  an  eminent 
lawyer  of  Massachusetts,  where  he  maintains 
the  doctrine  that  a citizen  of  foreign  birth,  re- 
siding in  this  country,  particularly  if  he  has 
made  a declaration  of  intention,  can,  under  the 
laws  of  this  country,  be  compelled,  in  time  of 
war,  or  at  any  other  time,  to  perform  military 
duty,  against  any  other  power  except  the  one 
of  his  birth.  That  is  the  only  exception.  The 
rule,  gentlemen,  is  not  universal.  You  can 
draft  these  men,  you  can  compel  these  men  to 
serve,  with  the  one  exception,  even  under  a dec- 
laration of  intention,  and  I suppose  we  can 
alter  our  own  laws  to  cover  that  point,  if  we 
allow  them  the  privilege  of  voting.  Now,  this 
is  what  Judge  Hoar  says,  in  the  case  of  Anthony 
Barclay  vs.  the  United  States,  before  the  Mixed 
Commission  on  American  and  British  Claims : 

NATIONAL  CHARACTER  OF  ANTHONY  BARCLAY. 

“For  about  twenty -five  years  the  claimant  had  a per- 
manent domicile  outside  of  his  native  country,  Great 
Britain.  In  1858  he  acquired  a permanent  domicile  in 
Georgia,  and  continued  that  domicile  during  the  time 
covered  by  the  treaty,  namely,  from  April  13,  1861,  to 
April,  1865.  He  became  the  owner  of  real  estate  in 
Georgia,  in  his  own  name,  by  absolute  title.  On  the  prin- 
pal  plantation  he  had  his  permanent  residence,  with  his 
family.  He  was  employed  as  a planter  and  cultivator  of 
the  soil,  investing  capital  in  it,  and  drawing  his  subsist- 
ence from  it.  He  had  no  domicile  anywhere  else,  and 
there  is  no  pretense  of  a purpose  of  abandoning  his  dom- 
icile. It  was  not  a commercial,  but  a personal  domicile. 
All  the  labor,  industry,  skill  and  capital  he  had  were  in- 
vested by  him  in  the  soil  of  this  territory.  The  facts 
stated  in  this  claim  make  the  strongest  case  imaginable 
of  permanent,  absolute  domicile.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, an  inhabitant  is  a subject  of  the  sovereignty 
within  which  he  lives.  He  and  his  property  are  alike 
subject  to  all  taxes  and  imposts  which  that  sovereign 
may  or  might  choose  to  impose  for  purposes  of  peace  or 
of  war.”  (2  Kent’s  Com.,  sec.  25,  p.  63:  3 Greenl.  Ev.,  sec. 
239;  Halleck’s  Int.  Law,  717,  sec.  2 g:  702,  sec.  7:  705.  secs. 
12,13,  14;  Twiss’s  Int.  Law,  II,  233.  298-99:  I.  82,83;  Wool- 
sev’s  Int.  Law,  sec.  67, 168:  Act  1863,  ch.  75,  sec.  1;  Act 
1864,  ch.  13,  sec.  6;  Proclamation  by  President,  6th  August, 


1861,  and  2d  April,  1863;  Wheaton’s  Int.  Law  (Dana’s ed.), 
secs.  321-24;  Story’s  Con fl.  of  Laws,  sec.  68;  Kent’s  Com. 
(abridged),  I 217.  222:  The  Francis,  1 Gall.,  314;  The  Ann 
Green,  1 Gall.,  267 ; The  Joseph,  1 Gall.,  568;  Indian  Chief, 
3 Rob.,  12;  Citto,  3 Rob.,  38;  Charming  Betsey,  2 Cr.,  64; 
Venus,  8 Cr.,  253;  Mrs  Alexander’s  Cotton,  2 Wall.,  417; 
Peterhoff,  5Wall.,60;  Venice,  2 Wall.,  274;  Ann  Catherine, 
5 Rob.,  167.) 

An  inhabitant,  so  domiciliated,  owes  civil  and  political 
allegiance  to  the  local  sovereignty,  unless  as  against  the 
sovereignty  of  bis  birth.  This  allegiance  and  obligation 
have  no  limits  or  qualifications;  and  the  mere  fact  that 
he  may  not  have  gone  through  the  forms  of  naturaliza- 
tion would  be,  under  the  circumstances  of  his  case,  im- 
material. It  would  furnish  no  answer  to  that  sovereignty 
if  it  should  see  fit  to  make  the  same  demand  upon  him  as 
upon  its  native  or  naturalized  citizens,  for  civil  or  mili- 
tary service,  in  person,  or  contributions  from  his,  move- 
able  or  immoveable,  for  the  exigencies  of  peace  or  war* 
(Citations  1 Supra.)  No  power  could  call  in  question 
these  absolute  rights  of  the  local  sovereign,  unless  it  be 
the  sovereignty  of  this  inhabitant’s  birth.  Such  a ques- 
tion could  not  be  settled  by  the  municipal  law  of  the  sov- 
ereignty of  his  birth,  but  by  the  law  of  nations.  In  the 
present  state  of  the  law  of  nations  it  is  extremely  doubt- 
ful if  there  are  any  circumstances  which  would  justify 
the  sovereignty  of  his  birth  in  interfering  for  his  protec- 
tion. If  there  be  any  it  would  be  such  as  furnished  proof 
that  the  local  sovereigns  in  some  way  attacked,  through 
this  person,  the  sovereignty  of  his  birth.  Such  would  be, 
for  instance,  laws  or  acts  discriminating  against  the 
claimant  on  account  of  his  nativity,  or  connection  with 
the  country  of  his  birth,  or  in  derogation  of  rights  of  that 
country  as  recognized  by  international  law.  Wheaton’s 
Int.  Law  (Dana’s  ed.),  n.  49,  p.  145,  cases  arising  out  of 
bombardment  of  Greytown;  Wheaton’s  Int.  Law  (Dana’s 
ed.),  n.  49,  p.  145,  cases  arising  out  of  bombardment  ol 
Antwerp;  Twiss’s  Int.  Law:  I,  p. 38;  Halleck’s  Int.  Law, 
p.  691;  Whiting  on  War  Powers  (ed.  of  1871),  pp.  335,  337, 
doc.  cited;  Lord  Palmerston’s  speech  on  the  Greytown 
case,  19th  June,  1857,  (Hansard,  3d  series,  Vol.  146,  p.  41:) 
Sir  Richard  Bethelt’s  speech,  same  subject,  (ib.,  p.  49;) 
Lord  John  Russell’s  speech,  same  subject,  (ib.,  p.  56;) 
Lord  Palmerston’s  speech  on  compensation  for  property 
of  British  merchants  at  Uleaborg,  (ib.,  pp.  1045-1046;) 
Vattel,  (Guillarmin’s  ed.,  1863)  II,  p.  49,  the  Leghorn  case, 
Lord  Palmerston’s  speech  on  the  case  at  Leghorn,  (Han- 
sard, 3d  series,  Vol.  113,  p.  635;)  the  dispatch  from  Prince 
Schwartzenberg  to  Baron  Hatter,  April  14,  1850,  respect- 
ing the  affair  at  Leghorn,  and  the  dispatch  from  Count 
Nesselrode  to  Baron  Brunow,  May  2,  1850,  on  the  same 
subject.  (These  dispatches  are  found  in  a Spanish- Amer- 
ican publication.  Torres  Cascedo  Union  Latino-Ameri- 
cano,  pp.  343,  348;)  Opinion  of  Attorney  General  Stan- 
bery  on  the  bombardment  of  Valparaiso,  (Opinions  of 
Att.  Gen,  Vol.  12,  p.  21;)  Correspondence  between  Mr. 
Marcy  and  Count  Sartiges,  (Ex.  Doc.  No.  9.  Senate,  Thir- 
ty-Fifth Congress,  first  session.) 

EARL  GRANVILLE  TO  LORD  LYONS. 

“Foreign  Office,  January  11.1871 . 

“My  Lord:  I have  received  your  Excellency’s  dis- 
patch of  the  6th  instant,  inclosing  a letter  from  Mr.  Kir- 
by, an  English  gentleman  established  with  his  family  at 
La  Ferte  Imbault,  complaining  of  the  conduct  of  the 
German  troops  in  making  requisitions  on  his  property; 
and  I have  to  instruct  you  to  acquaint  that  gentleman 
that,  much  as  her  Majesty’s  Government  regrets  the  in- 
convenience and  loss  to  which  he  and  his  family  were  ex- 
posed, it  is  out  of  their  power  to  interfere  to  obtain  any 
redress  for  him,  inasmuch  as  foreigners  residing  in  a 
country  which  is  the  seat  of  war  are  equally  liable  with 
the  natives  of  that  country  to  have  requisitions  levied  on 
their  property  by  the  belligerents. 

I am,  &c., 

Granville  ” 

Earl  Granville  to  Mr.  West,  March  1,  1871,  respecting 
claims,  generally  of  British  subjects  domiciled  in  France 
during  the  Franco-German  war;  letter  of  Mr.  Hammond, 
March  28,  1871.  directed  by  Lord  Granville  on  the  same 
subject.  (This  con*espondence  will  be  found  in  Blue 
Book  for  1871,  on  Franco-German  war.) 

It  is  not  necessary  to  citizenship  that  the  domiciled  in- 
habitant should  have  the  right  to  vote  or  hold  political 
office.  Whether  he  or  any  other  inhabitant,  native  or  of 
foreign  birth,  has  those  rights  or  notunder  thesovereign- 
ty  under  which  they  lived,  and  to  what  extent,  and  for 
what  purposes,  political  or  economical,  is  a matter  de- 
pending upon  the  discretion  of  that  sovereignty,  and 
changeable  at  any  time.  (Citations  supra.) 

Whether  this  claimant  had,  or  exercised,  the  right  of 
voting  or  holding  office,  for  any  and  what  purposes,  under 
the  confederate  authorities  does  not  appear. 

A local  sovereign  has  a right  to  the  personal  services  of 


1852 


ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


[132nd 


Baber,  McCormick. 


[Saturday, 


such  domiciled  inhabitant  for  police  purposes  and  for 
defense  in  war,  unless  in  case  of  war  agaiust  the  nation 
of  his  birth.  No  power  can  object  unless  it  be  the  sover- 
eignty of  his  birth,  and  that  s wereignty  could  not  object 
except  upon  grounds  previously  stated,  of  discrimination 
against  the  inhabitants  on  account  of  and  in  derogation 
ot  that  sovereignty.  (Documents  and  citations  supra.) 

There  are  a number  of  authorities  referred  to, 
Judge  Kent,  and  others,  as  gentlemen  will  see 
by  reading  the  document.  I say,  therefore,  this 
law  is  not  law,  that  the  authorities  establish 
universally  that  a man  in  this  position,  except 
against  the  country  of  his  birth,  you  can  compel 
to  this  draft,  you  can  compel  him  to  this  mili- 
tary service,  and  if  a citizen  holds  a position 
that  we  are  bound  to  go  to  war  to  protect  him, 
why,  under  this  law,  established  by  the  weight 
of  authority, should  we  not  allow  him  to  vote? 
Mr.  President,  it  is  simply  ancient  unreasona- 
ble prejudice  directed  by  those  who  have  en- 
franchised the  negroes  against  men  of  our  own 
race  and  color.  In  all  this  great  North-west, 
except  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  this  rule  exists.  It 
exists  throughout  the  whole  of  this  vast  West- 
ern territory,  and  passing  the  Missouri,  to  the 
new  States  of  Nevada  and  Nebraska  stretches 
to  Oregon  on  the  distant  Pacific  coast.  It  is  the 
law  of  progressive  liberal  Americanism.  Only 
the  old  fossil  ideas,  originating  in  exclusive 
prejudices  which  are  contrary  to  the  principles 
of  the  fathers  of  the  Republic,  as  shown  by  the 
Constitution  framed  and  the  declaration  of 
rights  in  the  State  of  Virginia.  It  is  mere  prej  u- 
dice  standing  in  the  way — or  political  parti- 
zanship  for  gentlemen  to  get  up  here  and  de- 
nounce this  amendment,  this  proposition  to  put 
the  citizen  of  foreign  birth,  after  he  has  made 
a declaration  of  intention,  upon  the  same  footing 
as  the  African,  or,  as  the  gentleman  says,  the 
negro  and  cotton  field  hands  brought  from  the 
jungles. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  all  I have  to  say,  is  this : 
Let  gentlemen  be  consistent  with  the  ancient 
creed  of  universal  freedom,  and  I doubt  not  my 
friend  Mr.  Rickly,  who  represents  the  very  in- 
telligent German  element  on  this  floor,  coming 
from  the  gallant  little  Republic  of  Switzerland, 
when  this  proposition  was  offered  after  the  ac- 
tion in  State  Convention  of  gentlemen  who  are 
supposed  to  be  most  laggard  upon  this  question, 
would  wake  up  surprised  at  the  roto  he  has 
raised,  by  taking  politicians  at  their  word , on  find- 
ing opposition  coming  from  any  other  quarter. 
I say  nothing  about  party  politics  upon  this 
floor,  but  it  does  appear  to  me  that  if  we  should 
go  to  work  to  indorse  the  ideas  propagated  by 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell], 
upon  this  subject,  that  we  are  reversing  the 
great  principles  existing  from  the  early  days  of 
the  Republic,  and  particularly  that  great  doc- 
trine of  equal  rights  to  all , which  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  government,  and  which 
should  be  unchangeable.  It  will  be  to  go  back 
upon  our  country’s  records,  and  reverse  our 
principles.  I do  not  like  to  see  such  a result. 
1 know  there  are  liberal  men  here,  who  agree 
with  Governor  Noyes,  who  agree  with  Pro- 
fessor Monroe,  who  presided  over  that  Conven- 
tion, Lieut.-Governor  Hart,  and  others.  These 
men,  whatever  ideas  they  may  hold,  should  all 
unite  and  throw  back  those  prejudices  and  anti- 
quated strictures  which  have  been  proclaimed 
here,  and  which  are  not  now  applicable  nor  con- 


sistent with  the  present  condition  of  public 
affairs,  as  argued  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell].  I hope,  therefore,  to  see  this 
Convention  on  one  side  of  the  House,  if  it  is  prop- 
er to  say  so,  guided  by  the  action  of  the  leading 
men  of  the  State,  in  its  own  State  Convention, 
and  the  other  bv  its  ancient  traditions,  come  up 
unanimously  to  the  support  of  the  amendment 
made  by  your  Committee  on  the  Elective  Fran- 
chise, which  is  signed  by  a majority  of  that 
Committee,  upon  which  are  the  names  of  Mr. 
Freiberg,  a Representative  citizen  of  foreign 
birth,  from  Cincinnati,  our  commercial  em- 
porium, and  not  go  hack  to  that  old  ancient  pre- 
judice of  exclusiveness , that  whether  a man  is 
a man,  and  has  a common  interest  in  community, 
depends  upon  where  he  is  born.  I have  nothing 
further  to  say  upon  this  subject  at  this  time. 

Mr.  McCORMICK.  Mr.  President,  having 
dissented  from  a portion  of  the  Report  of  the 
Majority  of  the  Committee  on  the  Elective 
Franchise,  I would  offer  a few  thoughts  on  the 
subject,  which  embody  the  grounds  of  such 
objection.  I do  so,  at  the  same  time  entertain- 
ing the  highest  respect  for  the  worthy  gentle- 
men who  constitute  that  majority,  believing  as 
I do  that  they  have  followed  their  honest  con- 
victions in  the  matter,  in  submitting  that 
Report. 

The  elective  franchise  constitutes,  at  once,  the 
high  privilege  of  the  adult  citizen,  and  the  basis 
of  all  true  government  by  the  people.  It 
forms  the  connecting  link,  so  to  speak,  between 
the  intelligence,  purity  and  patriotism  of  the 
individual  citizen,  or  freeman,  and  the  highest 
interest  of  the  State.  If  this  be  admitted,  it 
must  follow,  as  a self-evident  proposition,  that 
the  purity  and  integrity  of  the  government,  as 
well  as  the  elevation  and  the  power  of  the  State, 
with  all  the  privileges  it  secures,  will  depend 
on  the  intelligence  of  the  voter  and  the  purity 
of  the  ballot-box.  The  law-makers  of  our  Na- 
tional Government  recognized  this  important 
truth,  and  framed  the  national  law  of  citizen- 
ship in  accordance  therewith ; and  under  such 
a provision  our  growth  and  prosperity  has  been 
without  a parallel  in  the  history  of  nations. 

In  the  exercise  of  a broad  charity,  our  Gov- 
ernment reaches  out  her  hands  to  the  foreigner, 
invites  him  to  a home  within  our  wide  domain, 
and  grants  him  the  privilege  of  choosing  the 
home  and  occupation  best  adapted  to  his  cir- 
cumstances; with  the  further  assurance,  that 
when  a short  time  shall  have  elapsed,  in  which 
to  become  acquainted  with  the  workings  of  our 
system  of  government,  all  the  immunities  of 
citizenship  shall  be  granted  him. 

This  probational  provision  of  our  National 
law  is  evidently  a safe  one,  and  the  history  of 
its  workings  sufficiently  prove  its  consistency 
and  wisdom.  It  is  a provision  which,  if  appli- 
cable to  the  National  law — and  reason  and  expe- 
rience certainly  demonstrate  that  fact,  and  no 
further  argument  is  needed  to  prove  its  effi- 
ciency— we  believe  is  equally  applicable  to  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  State,  and  harmony 
between  State  and  National  law  is  a further 
argument  that  it  should  exist  in  the  law  of  the 
State.  It  imposes  no  galling  restrictions  on 
the  person  intending  to  become  a citizen,  but 
simply  invites  his  attention  to,  and  asks  that  he 


Day.]  CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE.  1853 

March  7,  1874.]  McCormick. 


become  familiar  with  our  governmental  polity, 
before  exercising  the  privilege  of  voting,  or  of 
being  chosen  to  office. 

It  has  been  argued  by  some  gentlemen  here 
that  the  intended  citizen  pays  his  taxes  and 
helps  support  the  State  by  his  means,  while  he 
has  no  voice  in  choosing  those  who  are  to  be  in 
authority  over  him.  While  this  will  be  admit- 
ted, and,  at  the  same  time,  acknowledged  to  be 
about  the  only  argument  the  friends  of  the 
measure  can  produce  in  favor  of  those  who  are 
not  citizens  having  the  right  of  suffrage,  it  does 
not  follow  that  the  argument  is  a forcible  one. 

The  State  has  no  power  to  compel  them  to 
enter  the  military  service  for  her  defense : and 
the  proposition  itself  stands  opposed  to  the  prin- 
ciple, that  the  first  object  of  the  State,  as  an  or- 
ganization, is  to  care  for  the  citizen,  which  she 
does  most  successfully,  in  securing  the  better 
and  higher  training  of  men.  It  has  been  well 
said  by  John  Jay,  that,  “Among  the  many  ob- 
jects to  which  a wise  and  free  people  find  it  ne- 
cessary to  direct  their  attention,  that  of  pro- 
viding for  their  safety  seems  to  be  the  first.” 

Again,  it  has  been  well  stated  by  a good  au- 
thority on  the  elective  franchise,  that  the 
“pecuniary  standard”  is  an  “unsatisfactory 
method  of  ascertaining  where  the  strength  of  a 
people  is,  and  whence  it  should  be  recruited.” 

If  the  property  argument  amounts  to  any- 
thing, why  not  give  the  franchise  to  women, 
who,  in  many  cases,  are  large  taxpayers,  and 
who  are,  at  the  same  time,  citizens  of  the  State. 

In  my  humble  opinion,  Mr.  President,  the 
privileges  afforded  by  the  State  are  amply  suffi- 
cient remuneration  for  all  the  aid  furnished  the 
government  by  the  intended  citizen,  for  the 
short  period  of  time  intervening  between  be- 
coming a resident,  and  a true  citizen  and  voter. 

Mr.  Maurice,  in  his  work  on  the  elective 
franchise,  has  said  : “What  you  want  is,  to  get 
first  the  greatest  quantity  of  manliness  and 
wisdom  — of  really  free  judgment  — in  the 
voters ; and  next,  so  far  as  you  can,  to  give  each 
one  of  them  an  opportunity  of  expressing  his 
judgment,  his  conviction.” 

With  just  such  an  object  in  view,  the  proba- 
tion required  by  our  national  law  is  evidently 
a wise,  safe,  and  consistent  measure ; and,  if  it 
be  so,  it  certainly  is  equally  prudent  and  safe 
for  the  fundamental  law  of  the  State. 

To  the  violation  of  this  principle  much  cor- 
rupt legislation  is  to  be  attributed,  and  the  most 
corrupt  men  have  been  raised  to  power.  Du- 
ring the  discussion  of  the  section  of  the  Legis- 
lative Article  relating  to  the  veto  power,  fre- 
quent reference  was  made  to  the  tyranny  and 
corruption  of  majorities  which  it  was  supposed 
would  be  prevented  by  extending  that  power 
to  the  Executive  of  the  State.  To  my  mind,  a 
better  remedy,  and  one  more  worthy  of  consid- 
eration, would  be  to  strike  at  the  root  of  the 
evil,  and  purify  the  ballot-box  by  that  higher 
training  of  men  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Maurice  in  his 
excellent  work.  “Can  a corrupt  fountain  send 
forth  pure  water,  or  a corrupt  tree  bring  forth 
good  fruit?” 

Level  up,  but  not  down,  was  Judge  Story’s 
maxim  of  Democratic  leveling;  and  certainly 
the  intellectual  and  moral  training  of  men  has 
much  to  do  with  wise  and  safe  legislation  and 


the  stability  of  government,  and  is  much  more 
consistent  with  the  principles  of  true  liberty. 
The  5th  section  of  this  Article  as  reported  by 
the  majority  of  the  Committee  is  also  an  objec- 
tionable one  to  my  mind.  Viewed  in  connec- 
tion with  the  first  section  of  the  report  it  pre- 
sents the  singular  inconsistency  of  granting  the 
right  of  suffrage  to  those  who  are  not  citizens, 
while  it  virtuallydisfranchises  those  who  are  citi- 
zens in  the  fullest  sense.  Such  an  inconsistency 
certainly  constitutes  a very  objectionable  fea- 
ture of  the  report,  and  the  principle  of  strict 
justice  would  set  it  aside.  The  Constitution  of 
1802  contained  a clause  of  limitation  to  the 
effect  that  no  person  shall  be  entitled  to  vote 
except  in  the  county  or  district  in  which  he  ac- 
tually resides  at  the  time  of  the  election.  The 
framers  of  the  Constitution  of  1851,  for  some 
reason,  which  doubtless  seemed  to  them  a suffi- 
ciently wise  one,  omitted  to  insert  such  a limita- 
tion in  the  fundamental  law.  The  matter  was 
consequently  left  to  the  General  Assembly  to 
define  a residence  for  the  citizen  of  the  State,  in 
order  to  secure  to  him  the  right  of  suffrage, 
and  to  determine  under  what  circumstances  he 
should  be  allowed  to  cast  his  vote.  As  no  evil 
has  grown  out  of  the  regulations  made  by  the 
General  Assembly,  we  would  do  well  to  consid- 
er the  propriety  of  departure  from  the  line  of 
action  marked  out  by  our  predecessors  before 
making  any  change.  If  we  cannot  go  so  far  as 
to  introduce  the  7th  section  of  the  Proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Heal],  as- 
a section  of  the  Article  we  are  now  amending, 
we  had  better  follow  the  lead  of  our  predeces- 
sors and  let  well  enough  alone. 

To  my  mind,  there  is  no  apparent  good  reason 
why  the  citizen  sailor  and  the  citizen  soldier, 
under  well  regulated  law,  may  not  have  the 
privilege  of  casting  each  his  vote,  rather  than 
disfranchise  him,  from  the  fact  that  pressing 
emergencies  render  it  impossible  for  him  to  da 
so  at  his  actual  residence. 

There  is  one  other  objectionable  feature  in 
this  fifth  section  of  the  majority  report  to  which 
we  devote  a few  words.  The  student  at  any 
college  or  seminary  of  learning  is  placed  by  that 
report  on  an  entirely  different  footing  in  re- 
gard to  voting  from  any  other  young  man  who 
may  leave  his  home  under  like  circumstances. 
The  purposes  of  each  may  be  the  same  in  regard 
to  a residence  elsewhere  than  at  their  native 
home,  yet  the  one  is  virtually  disfranchised 
while  the  other  is  not — the  one  exercising  the 
privilege  of  the  citizen  regulated  by  his  oath  a& 
to  residence  while  the  other  is  strictly  prohib- 
ited from  so  doing.  There  would  certainly  be 
great  injustice  done  here  to  a worthy  class  of 
young  citizens,  should  such  a provision  as  thi& 
proposed  prohibition  enter  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  State.  We  again  quote  from  Mr. 
Maurice  while  speaking  of  this  worthy  class  of 
young  men.  Says  the  writer,  “Why  was  the 
boy  sent  to  school  ? To  be  under  masters  who 
could  fit  him  for  the  exercise  of  his  functions 
as  a freeman,  as  a citizen.  He  must  be  sub- 
jected to  law ; he  must  be  punished  if  he  diso- 
beys the  laws. 

He  is  in  society;  in  the  order  of  that  society 
he  will  learn  some  of  the  conditions  to  which 
he  must  submit  when  he  comes  into  the  larger 


1854 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Steedman. 


[132nd 


society  of  the  nation.”  Let  us,  then,  not  make 
any  unjust  discriminations  in  our  action  to- 
ward this  worthy  class  of  young  citizens  who 
have  arrived  at  the  proper  age  to  claim  all  the 
rights  of  the  freeman,  as  we  frame  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  State.  Should  we  do  so,  to 
them  that  law  would  become  itself  an  oppres- 
sion, because  there  could  be  no  sympathy  be- 
tween the  citizen  who  is  compelled  to  obey  it, 
and  the  authorities  who  administer  it. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  when  requested  by  the 
gentleman  on  my  right  to  renew  his  motion  to 
suspend  general  debate,  very  kindly  posted  me 
for  a speech.  I have  no  recollection  of  having 
informed  that  gentleman  that  I intended  to 
speak.  I certainly  have  no  speech  prepared,  | 
nor  do  I ever  prepare  a speech  on  any  subject.  ! 
I never  wrote  one  in  my  life.  This  opposition  j 
to  foreigners,  however,  is  an  old  acquaintance  j 
of  mine.  I have  been  acquainted  with  it  for  j 
about  forty  years.  It  crept  out  first  in  the  Con- 
vention that  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  j 
United  States.  It  next  made  its  appearance  I 
under  the  administration  of  the  elder  Adams,  J 
when  the  probation  of  a foreigner  before  he  ! 
could  become  a citizen  was  extended  to  four- 
teen years.  It  was  reduced  to  five  years  under 
the  administration  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  it 
has  stood  at  that  period  ever  since.  But  there  j 
was  hostility  to  the  naturalization  of  the  for- 
eigner by  a very  large  yet  intelligent  and  very 
respectable  portion  of  the  American  people  for 
a great  many  years,  besides  difficulties  were 
thrown  in  the  way  of  their  naturalization  and 
objections  made,  even  to  their  voting,  very 
strongly  at  the  polls,  when  they  could  not  pro- 
duce their  papers.  But  the  sentiment  of  the 
American  people  has  progressed,  and  it  is  only 
occasionally  that  you  find  a man  wedded  to  the 
old  idea  that  foreigners  are  not  to  be  trusted.  | 
Now,  I apprehend  that  the  gentleman  from  1 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  drew  very  largely  upon 
his  imagination  when  he  talked  about  the  na- 
tions of  Europe  flooding  us  with  paupers.  That 
is  an  old  argument  against  permitting  foreign- 
ers to  be  naturalized  or  hold  place  in  this  coun- 
try. I do  not  consider  it  of  sufficient  impor- 
tance even  to  argue  it.  We  have  never  been 
annoyed  particularly  by  any  such  element  in 
the  past  by  foreign  governments,  and  the  histo- 1 
ry  of  the  past  does  not  warrant  any  man  in  j 
urging  that  the  American  people  cannot  trust  j 
the  foreigner.  We  have  no  reason  whatever  | 
to  distrust  the  foreign  portion  of  our  population,  i 
for  in  every  instance  in  which  they  have  been 
made  citizens  by  the  Constitution  of  newly 
admitted  States  they  have  proved  faithful  to  | 
all  the  duties  of  citizenship,  and  when  the  blast  | 
of  war  came,  among  the  very  first  to  respond  to 
the  call  of  the  nation  were  the  naturalized  and 
alien  foreigners,  and  right  in  this  city  of  Cin- 
cinnati two  solid  battalions  were  formed,  one, 
the  Ninth,  a solid  German  regiment,  and  the  [ 
Tenth,  composed  of  Germans  and  Irish,  and  I j 
am  sorry  to  see  any  man  upon  this  floor  take  so  j 
prominent  a stand  on  that  subject  as  did  my  j 
friend  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  and  oppose  j 
a single  objection  to  giving  to  the  foreigner  this 
privilege  of  voting  under  the  restrictions  con- 
tained in  the  first  section  of  this  Article.  He, 
like  myself,  knew  this  regiment;  he  knew  that ; 


[Saturday, 


they,  with  the  sharp  crack  of  their  rifles,  bore 
our  starry  banner  to  victory  on  many  a field  in 
the  army.  The  Ninth  and  Tenth  were  particu- 
larly distinguished  in  the  army  of  the  Cumber- 
land, to  wmch  that  gentleman  belonged.  He 
knows  how  famous  the  Ninth  Regiment  was  in 
that  army.  He  remembers  well  how  gallantly 
with  the  bayonet  they  drove  back  the  forces 
under  Zollicoffer,  at  Mill  Springs;  and  he  re- 
members well,  too,  when,  during  the  great  bat- 
tle of  Chickamauga,  the  regular  brigade,  com- 
posed of  four  regiments  of  regular  soldiers,  lost 
its  battery;  how  this  gallant  Ninth  Regiment 
and  the  Eighty-seventh  Indiana  fixed  their 
bayonets  and  recaptured  that  battery,  and 
brought  it  into  our  lines,  the  rebels  having  cut 
the  horses  from  the  battery.  The  foreign  born 
troops  made  many  gallant  charges  in  the  Army 
of  the  Potomac.  The  Thirty-fifth  Indiana  Irish 
regiment,  from  our  neighboring  State,  distin- 
guished itself  when  the  battles  of  the  Army  of 
the  Cumberland  were  fought.  We  have  no  for- 
eign traitors  in  this  country.  They  have  always 
been  faithful  to  the  Government  in  peace  and  in 
war. 

The  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber] 
says  that  there  is  very  great  propriety  in  giving 
the  ballot  to  these  men,  because  they  are  en- 
titled, after  having  extended  it  to  about  six  or 
seven  hundred  thousand  black  men  by  the  Fif- 
teenth Amendment,  a portion  of  whom  were 
brought  to  this  country  on  the  slave  ship  Wan- 
derer, and  had  never  even  been  naturalized. 
Well,  I am  glad  of  it.  I thank  God  for  it,  ancl 
I thank  Him,  too,  for  having  permitted  me  to 
perform  an  humble  part  in  bestowing  upon 
them  this  great  boon.  I was,  myself,  among 
the  first  officers  of  the  army  who  declared  in 
favor  of  giving  them  the  ballot  in  the  State  of 
Ohio.  By  the  way,  that  little  political  speech 
of  mine  up  at  Toledo,  made  a political  orphan 
of  me — what  is  known  as  “ Steedman’s  Board 
of  Trade  speech,”  excluded  me  pretty  much 
from  the  Democratic  party,  and  I would  not  be 
a Republican,  and,  therefore,  I was  made  a 
political  orphan.  In  1865,  I happened  to  be 
passing  through  Toledo,  and  was  invited  to  a 
little  entertainment  given  by  the  Board  of 
Trade.  I went  down  there,  expecting  I was 
simply  going  to  get  something  good  to  eat  and 
drink.  When  I arrived,  the  streets  were  jam- 
med with  people,  and  they  wanted  a speech 
from  me.  Some  one  in  the  crowd,  when  I was 
simply  returning  my  thanks  for  the  compli- 
ment paid  me,  howled  out,  “ General  Steedman, 
what  are  you  going-  to  do* with  the  negroes?” 
Well,  I knew  he  did  not  ask  the  question  because 
he  wanted  information.  He  simply  asked  it 
with  mischievous  intent,  because  he  thought  it 
would  embarrass  me  to  answer.  And  I did 
answer,  and  my  answer  was  just  this,  that  no 
government  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  especially 
no  free  government,  could  afford  to  take  even  a 
black  man  from  bondage,  make  him  a soldier  to 
preserve  the  integrity  of  its  government,  and 
after  he  had  proved  his  manhood  on  the  battle- 
field, turn  him  away  and  deny  him  the  rights  of  a 
man.”  1 want  every  person  in  this  country,  black 
or  white,  to  have  an  interest  in  the  government, 
to  feel  that  it  is  a free  country.  I want  no  alien 
enemies  in  the  country,  and  we  can  trust  all 
that  we  entrust  these  privileges  to.  The  country 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Steedman,  Mueller. 


1855 


Day.] 

March  7, 1874.] 


can  rely  upon  them  at  any  time,  and  the  past 
history  of  the  country  justifies  me  in  making 
this  declaration. 

Now,  there  is  an  apprehension  on  the  part 
of  some  gentlemen  that  we  cannot  rely 
upon  him  in  time  of  war.  We  can  very 
easily  remedy  that  by  simply  providing  that 
any  person  of  foreign  birth  who  may  exercise 
the  privilege  granted  by  this  section  shall  be 
required  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  a citizen  in 
peace  and  in  war.  But  I maintain  that  the  gov- 
ernment of  this  country  is  fully  committed  on 
that  point.  In  the  case  of  Martin  Coszta,  a bar- 
ber in  Chicago.  He  went  back  to  Austria  to 
look  after  his  father’s  estate,  after  having  de- 
clared his  intention  in  the  United  States  Court 
of  becoming  a citizen  of  the  United  States.  He 
was  there  seized  on  the  ground  that  he  owed 
military  duty  to  the  government  of  Austria,  and 
imprisoned  at  the  town  of  Smyrna.  One  of  our 
ships,  under  the  command  of  Commodore  In- 
graham, happened  to  be  lying  there,  and  he  was 
made  acquainted  with  the  fact,  and  he  demand- 
ed the  release  of  Martin  Coszta,  and  he  gave 
them  a limited  time  to  place  him  on  board  of 
his  ship,  and  gave  notice  that  he  would  bom- 
bard the  place  if  they  did  not.  They  surrend- 
ered and  he  was  brought  here,  and  this  action 
of  Commodore  Ingraham  was  fully  sustained. 
When  the  information  reached  this  country  it 
thrilled  the  loyal  and  patriotic  hearts  of  the 
American  people,  who  responded  to  the  con- 
duct of  Commodore  Ingraham.  Every  man 
almost  in  the  country  was  proud  that  he  had 
the  manhood  to  stand  up  and  sustain  the  starry 
banner.  Every  man  who  simply  declares  his 
intention  to  become  a citizen  may  be  as  secure 
when  standing  under  that  flag  upon  the  deck 
of  his  ship  as  if  he  were  standing  on  the  proud 
soil  of  America.  I have  no  apprehension  at  all 
upon  this,  and  I trust  that  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  will 
not  prevail.  I do  not  believe  there  is  a single 
member  of  this  Convention  who  candidly  asks 
himself  the  question,  have  I ever  known  in  any 
locality  in  which  I have  ever  lived  any  foreign- 
ers who  were  hostile  to  the  United  States,  who 
could  not  be  trusted  as  well  as  native  born  citi- 
zens with  the  protection  of  the  flag,  the  honor 
of  the  nation,  or  any  duty  which  the  govern- 
ment might  require  of  a citizen? 

I have  no  purpose  to  discuss  this  matter  at 
length.  I believe  I have  said  about  all  I had 
intended  to  say,  and  sufficient  to  define  my  po- 
sition. I hope  the  gentleman  from  Summit 
[Mr.  Voris]  will  not  construe  the  remarks 
which  I made,  that  I want  every  person  in  this 
country  to  be  interested  in  it,  as  committing  me 
to  vote  for  his  proposition  to  extend  suffrage  to 
the  females  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  If  it  was  competent  for 
this  Convention  to  change  the  naturalization 
laws,  I should  cheerfully  support  a proposition 
shortening  the  time  of  probation  which  is  now 
required  to  become  naturalized,  to  three  years. 
I am  confident  that  no  evil  would  grow  out  of 
such  a change.  People  are  immigrating  to  this 
country  to  enjoy  the  blessings  of  liberty,  and 
to  make  it  their  second  and  better  home.  Upon 
the  progress  and  prosperity  of  the  country  their 
own  prosperity  depends,  and  it  is  but  natural 
.that  they  at  once  identify  their  interest  with 


that  of  their  neighbors  and  the  people  of  their 
new  home.  The  bridge  behind  them  is  broken 
off,  and  their  exertions  are  bestowed  to  realize 
prosperity  and  happiness.  A deep  attachment 
to  and  a just  appreciation  of  the  new  country 
is  a natural  consequence  thereof. 

Being  thus  identified  with  everything  that 
behooves  to  the  best  interest  of  the  community 
in  which  they  live,  there  is  certainly  no  cause 
to  apprehend  a treacherous  use  of  the  ballot; 
and  a three  years’  experience  in  American  life 
will,  in  my  opinion,  qualify  a great  majority  of 
them  to  cast  their  votes  intelligently. 

But  the  question  now  under  consideration  is 
not  whether  the  naturalization  laws  should  be 
changed,  but  whether  persons  not  naturalized 
shall  be  enfranchised,  and  shall  be  entitled  to 
vote,  in  this  State,  one  year  after  they  have  de- 
clared their  intention  to  become  citizens. 

I regret  to  be  unable  to  support  the  proposi- 
tion. The  fact  of  being  a naturalized  citizen 
myself  does  not  hinder  me  from  treating  the 
question  impartially  and  without  prejudice. 

It  is  my  opinion  that  the  right  of  suffrage, 
the  highest  attribute  of  an  American  citizen, 
must  necessarily  flow  from  the  right  of  citizen- 
ship, and  that  the  former  is  conditioned  upon 
the  latter.  The  conferring  of  the  right  to  vote 
upon  non-citizens  is  not  only  at  variance  with 
this  maxim,  but  would,  moreover,  so  far  as  du- 
ties are  concerned,  place  non-citizens  in  a more 
favorable  position  than  citizens  themselves. 

All  rights  involve  corresponding  duties,  but 
, non-citizens  could  not,  in  time  of  war,  be  co- 
erced to  the  performance  of  military  services, 
nor  could  they  be  subjected  to  the  discharge  of 
manifold  other  civil  duties  which  may  be  im- 
posed upon  citizens. 

In  addition  to  these  objections  there  is  anoth- 
er to  which  I allude. 

The  rules  or  principles  upon  which  the  right 
of  suffrage  is  to  be  predicated  must  be  uniform, 
but  the  conferring  of  the  right  independent  of 
citizenship  is  destroying  this  uniformity,  inas- 
much as  it  recognizes  the  application  of  differ- 
ent principles  on  the  same  subject. 

The  provision  virtually  creates  a class  of 
semi-citizens  and  a sort  of  State’s  citizenship 
which  is  inconsistent  with  the  National  charac- 
ter of  the  American  Union. 

It  may  be  asked  what  the  practical  results 
were  calculated  to  be,  if  the  proposed  provision 
was  to  become  a Constitutional  enactment. 

I do  not  hesitate  to  express  my  convictions  in 
saying  that  I shall  not  anticipate  these  results 
to  be  encouraging  or  beneficial.  Not  that  I am 
frightened  so  much  by  “aliens”  or  “paupers” 
as  the  delegate  from  Butler. 

The  “alien”  and  “pauper,”  who  seem  to  dis- 
comfit the  minds  of  many  native  American  pa- 
triots, have  no  terror  for  me. 

I am  willing  to  trust  to  the  honest  intentions 
of  these  aliens,  if  let  alone  and  not  tampered 
with;  but  to  what  I do  not  trust  is,  that  their 
inexperience  in  political  affairs  and  their  ina- 
bility properly  to  appreciate  the  same,  will  al- 
ways be  taken  advantage  of  by  demagogues, 
political  tricksters  and  corruptionists,  by  their 
making  these  people  instrumental  to  carry  out 
personal  and  selfish  or  party  schemes. 

The  right  of  the  ballot  is  a two  edged  sword, 
and  a formidable  weapon  for  good  and  for  bad. 


1856 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Mueller,  West. 


Upon  the  judicious  use  of  it  the  present  and  fu- 
ture of  this  country  depend.  I hold  that  it 
should  he  attached  to  citizenship,  and  should 
only  be  exercised  by  such  as  are  liable  to  ren- 
der, as  an  equivalent,  military  and  naval  ser- 
vices to  the  State  whenever  exigencies  demand. 

These,  Mr.  President,  are  my  views  upon  this 
question,  and  when  the  time  comes  where 
amendments  can  he  offered  I have  pre- 
pared one  which  I will  offer,  and  which 
I will  read  for  the  information  of  the 
Convention.  I want  to  be  just  without  bringing 
this  Convention  into  any  position  which  might 
he  misconstrued  and  misinterpreted.  There  is 
no  German  nor  Irish  in  this  Convention,  but 
American  citizens,  no  matter  where  horn.  I 
consider  myself,  though  born  in  Europe,  as 
good  an  American  as  any  man  horn  in  this 
country,  and  my  views  in  regard  to  this  matter 
are  exclusively  based  upon  what  will  be  bene- 
ficial to  the  State,  and  not  what  will  he  bene- 
ficial to  one  or  the  other  class  of  people,  or  this 
or  that  nationality. 

I would  amend,  by  adding,  after  this  amend- 
ment to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  is  stricken 
out,  the  following : “ Each  male  person  of 

foreign  birth  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years, 
who  may  have  declared  his  intention  to  become 
a citizen  of  the  United  States,  according  to  the 
laws  thereof,  and  who  shall  have  been  a resi- 
dent of  the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the 
election,  and  six  months  in  the  township  or 
ward  where  he  offers  to  vote,  shall  be  entitled 
to  vote  at  least  for  trustees  or  officers  of  his 
township.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I might  content  myself  with 
being  placed  upon  the  record  upon  this  subject, 
in  response  to  the  rather  amusing  declaration  of 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  that 
he  proposed  to  put  the  gentleman  upon  the 
record.  My  vote  wrnuld  probably  he  sufficient 
indication  of  my  views  upon  the  subject,  but  I 
am  perfectly  willing  to  go  beyond  that,  and 
give  my  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  wffthin  me, 
and  the  reason  for  casting  the  vote  that  I shall 
give.  I regret  very  much,  and  I think  it  is  to 
be  sincerely  regretted,  that  this  question  that 
ought  to  be  settled,  and  that  is  now  in  this  Con- 
vention at  this  time,  should  be  reopened,  and 
the  State,  probably,  agitated  by  it.  Certainly 
such  must  be  the  result  if  this  clause,  proposed 
to  be  incorporated  in  the  Constitution,  shall  be 
submitted.  I have  no  prejudice  on  account  of 
birth.  Not  fifty  years  ago  the  soil  of  Ohio  re- 
ceived within  its  bosom  my  maternal  ancestors, 
who  were  native  born  of  Ireland,  and  to  that 
extent  I am  an  Irishman.  But,  whilst  that  is 
true,  I do  not  believe  the  proposed  innovation 
is  one  that  will  conserve  to  the  public  welfare. 
To  admit  to  the  right  of  government,  to  the  po- 
sition of  sovereignty  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  one 
who  is  not  bound  by  the  ties  of  allegiance  to  the 
State  of  Ohio  is,  in  my  judgment,  contrary  to 
sound  policy  and  correct  principle.  Not  that 
he  is  an  Irishman,  not  that  he  is  a German,  not 
that  he  is  a Scotchman  or  a Welchman,  but  that 
he  doth  not  owe  allegiance  to  the  government 
that  he  seeks  to  control.  I care  not  how 
much  he  loves  it,  he  cannot  love  it  any 
more  than  he  must  love  the  place  of  I 
his  nativity,  unless  he  has  been  driven  forth 
because  of  some  wrong  he  has  done,  or  has  been  I 


[132nA 

[Saturday, 


done  to  him  by  his  place  of  nativity.  I can  re- 
spect the  feelings  and  the  sentiments  of  my 
friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery],  because 
he  loves  the  shamrock  and  the  emerald  of  his 
native  isle,  and  I should  despise  the  man  if  he 
did  not.  I respect  the  sentiment  and  the  feel- 
ings of  our  friend  from  Ottawa  [Mr.  Kraemer], 
because  his  fatherland  of  Hanover  hath  cluster- 
ing about  it  the  earliest  recollections  and  most 
cherished  memories  of  his  childhood,  and  I 
should  prefer  to  see  his  arm  fall  from  its  socket,, 
and  his  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  his  mouth, 
before  he  should  forget  his  fatherland.  I have 
no  prejudice  or  hostility  to  one  of  foreign  birth. 
I have  no  prejudice  to  color  or  race,  I trust. 
Let  every  man,  of  whatever  clime,  or  race,  or 
kindred,  or  tongue,  no  matter  whether  he  first, 
saw  the  light  on  the  jungles  of  Africa,  or  first 
discovered  the  luminary  of  day  upon  the 
heights  of  Scotland,  or  among  the  bogs  of 
Ireland,  or  the  green  hills  of  Switzerland,  let 
him  come  to  America  and  enjoy  its  suffrages 
and  its  civil  liberty.  If  his  religious  faith  be 
different  from  my  own,  he  shall,  so  far  as  I can 
do  it,  be  guaranteed  in  all  its  full  and  free  en- 
joyment. If  his  political  notions  differ  from 
my  own,  he  shall  be  guarded  in  the  free  exer- 
cise of  his  opinion.  If  he  come  hungry,  I will 
feed  him.  If  he  come  naked,  I will  clothe 
him.  If  he  come  ignorant,  I will  educate  him. 
But,  until  he  becomes  an  American,  I do  not 
want  him  to  exercise  the  sovereignty  of  an 
American.  It  is  not  because  of  any  feeling  I 
have  upon  the  subject,  that  his  birthplace  is 
here,  or  there,  or  elsewhere ; but  it  is  because,, 
as  expressed  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga, 
it  is  because  it  is  a wrong  principle,  that  one 
not  owing  allegiance  to  his  country  shall  be 
permitted  to  govern  his  country.  Why,  sir, 
how  should  we  feel,  if  from  Canada,  men  should 
come  over  and  declare  their  intention  thus,  and 
be  admitted  to  the  right  of  suffrage  under  this 
section  ? And  you  all  know  that  the  right  of 
suffrage,  making  a man  an  elector, carries  with  it 
every  other  right  of  citizenship,  to  be  elevated  to- 
every  position  of  State.  No  matter  how  high  or 
how  difficult  of  discharge,  all  the  positions  of  our 
government  are  attainable  by  the  elector.  Shall 
I receive  into  the  society  of  our  government  the- 
native  of  Canada  and  entrust  to  him  the  high 
functions  of  a sovereign  citizen,  whilst  he  owes 
allegiance  to  the  oppressor  of  Ireland  ? I never 
will  do  it.  Shall  I receive  into  the  society — 
the  political  society — of  my  State,  a subject  of 
William,  of  Prussia,  one  who  owes  to  him  alle- 
giance, whilst  William,  of  Prussia,  is,  proba- 
bly,tyrannizing  over  Hanover,  and  driving  from 
her  throne  her  ancient  king?  I will  not  do  it. 
I want  America  to  be  ruled  by  Americans,  not 
native  born  only,  but  naturalized  Americans, 
and  I know  that  my  friend  Mr.  Carbery,  I 
know  that  my  friend  Mr.  Kraemer,  I know  that 
my  friend  Mr.  Mueller  are  Americans.  God 
knows  they  are  Americans,  as  good  as  I am. 
They  are  naturalized  and  owe  allegiance  to- 
America,  and  should  have  every  right  of  Amer- 
ican citizens,  and  be  protected  in  every  right. 

But  until  they  have  gone  through  that  period 
of  probation  prescribed  by  Jefferson,  by  the 
fathers  of  the  Republic,  so  long  as  that  period 
was  remaining  upon  the  statute  books,  until 
that  high  character  of  American  citizenship  is 


1857 


Day.J  concerning  alien  suffrage. 

March  7, 1874.]  West,  Hitchcock,  Cunningham,  Campbell,  Sample. 


obtained  by  allegiance  to  America,  and  abjura- 
tion of  allegiance  to  a foreign  prince  and  poten- 
tate, they  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  exercise 
the  rights  of  an  American  citizen.  They  do  not 
ask  it,  I am  sure  they  do  not  ask  it.  I shall  go 
as  far  as  he  who  goes  the  farthest  to  shorten 
this  period  of  naturalization.  I shall  join  hands 
with  my  fellow  citizens,  I care  not  what  their 
nativity,  in  imploring  Congress,  if  it  be  desired, 
to  shorten  the  time  for  becoming  an  American 
citizen ; but  whilst  that  time  is  fixed  upon  our 
statute  books,  whilst  it  is  consecrated  by  the  ex- 
perience and  wisdom  of  our  fathers  as  being  the 
proper  time,  until  that  period  of  probation  is 
passed  over,  until  allegiance  to  a foreign  poten- 
tate is  finally  abjured  and  allegiance  to  our 
common  country  sworn,  it  is  not  right  that 
such  an  one,  not  a citizen,  should  become  the 
governor  and  ruler  of  my  friend  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Carbery],  my  friend  from  Ottawa  [Mr. 
Kraemer],  and  my  friend  from  Cuyahoga,  [Mr. 
Mueller],  without  abjuring  their  foreign  alle- 
giance and  swearing  fealty  to  the  stars  and 
stripes.  I do  not  care  anything  how  they  may 
or  may  not  have  served  in  the  wars  of  my 
country.  Those  who  gallantly  served  in  the 
war  of  the  rebellion  were  rewarded,  many  of 
them,  by  having  the  period  of  probation  short- 
ened by  virtue  of  law.  It  was  right,  and  I should 
have  fixed  no  period  beyond  the  mere  fact  of 
service.  But  whilst  we  have  the  rule,  let  us  ob- 
serve it,  and  let  us  not  be  driven  from  our  pro- 
priety by  the  menacing  threat:  “ We  will  put 

you  on  the  record,  we  will  show  your  consist- 
ency or  inconsistency.”  Let  us  have  law  and 
rule  to  fit  principles,  and  then,  any  man  from 
any  nation,  any  country,  any  clime,  or  of  any 
color,  who  voluntarily  comes  and  subscribes  to 
the  rule,  and  takes  his  oath  of  allegiance,  be- 
comes a citizen,  and  shall  receive  my  right 
hand,  and  be  accorded  all  the  rights,  privileges 
and  honors  of  American  citizenship.  When  he 
shall  have  declared  his  intention  only,  he  shall 
receive,  so  far  as  my  humble  ability  can  go,  the 
protection  of  my  country’s  flag  and  its  strong 
right  arm  against  the  oppressors  of  all  lands; 
but  he  ought  not  to  ask  to  be  a sovereign  to 
rule  over  the  nation,  and  the  naturalized  citi- 
zen, who  has  sworn  fealty,  whilst  he  as  yet 
oweth  allegiance  to  a foreign  dominion.  It  is 
not  right,  and  I cannot  consent  to  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  no  one  desires  to  oc- 
cupy the  floor  in  general  discussion,  I move 
that  the  discussion  now  close. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  There  was  an  under- 
standing, I think  it  is  fair  to  say,  among  some 
of  us,  founded  upon  the  indications  that  the 
Chairman  of  this  Committee  gave  last  night, 
that  general  debate  would  not  be  closed  until 
Monday.  Some  gentlemen  left  the  Convention, 
I think,  with  that  understanding.  We  will 
not  gain  much  by  closing  it  now. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Day  before  yesterday, 
about  the  hour  of  five  in  the  afternoon,  when  I 
gave  notice  of  the  amendment  which  has  been 
discussed,  I said  to  the  Convention  that  I was  in 
very  feeble  health,  and  desired  to  postpone, 
until  the  next  morning,  the  consideration  of 
this  Proposition,  in  order  that  I might  make 
some  little  preparation  to  present  succinctly  my 
arguments.  But  after  having  made  that  appeal 
to  the  courtesy,  founded  upon  a reason  of  this 

y.  h-119 


kind,  it  was  proposed  that  the  final  debate 
should  be  at  once  terminated,  and  I was  com- 
pelled, rather  than  have  the  proceedings  of  the 
Convention  retarded  by  reason  of  my  indispo- 
sition, to  go  into  the  discussion  thus  unprepared, 
and  in  that  physical  condition ; and  I have  re- 
mained, Mr.  President,  listening  to  the  dis- 
cussions, contrary  to  that  which  would  be  re- 
garded, no  doubt,  by  my  physician  as  proper 
prudence.  Now,  if  there  is  any  gentleman  dis- 
posed to  go  on  and  discuss  this  Proposition,  let 
him  do  so.  The  people  of  the  State  are  clamor- 
ing for  as  speedy  a conclusion  of  this  Conven- 
tion as  may  be  compatible  with  the  public 
interest,  and,  unwell  as  I am,  I am  willing  to 
remain.  But  I do  object  to  Mr.  A.  B.  or  C.  D. 
having  an  understanding  in  a quiet  way,  not 
announced  to  the  Convention,  that  the  matter  is 
to  be  postponed.  I insist  upon  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock] 
being  put  to  the  House,  unless  some  gentleman 
is  now  prepared  to  go  on. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  In  rising  to  make  the 
motion,  I said  to  the  Chair  that  unless  some  gen- 
tleman desired  to  address  the  Convention  in 
general  discussion,  I move  that  general  dis- 
cussion now  close ; waiting  some  moments  for 
a gentleman  to  indicate  his  desire.  I have  no 
disposition  to  cut  off  discussion  now,  or  at  any 
other  time,  if  any  one  desires  to  address  the 
Convention.  As  I see  the  gentleman  from  Co- 
shocton [Mr.  Sample],  wishes  to  address  the 
Convention,  I will  withdraw  the  motion. 

The  PKESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  motion  is  withdrawn. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I wish  to  address  the  Conven- 
tion before  the  debate  closes,  but  I will  not,  if 
the  debate  closes  to-day.  I will  not  speak  on 
what  I regard  as  the  most  important  topic.  I 
am  not  in  a condition  to  avail  myself  of  it. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  We  all  know  that  the 
gentleman  has  that  right,  even  after  the  pre- 
vious question  shall  have  been  moved.  If  it 
was  moved,  he  would  have  the  right,  being  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee,  to  make  a speech. 
But  I submit  whether  we  should  postpone  this 
matter  merely  because  gentlemen  are  not  pre- 
pared to  speak.  I was  not  prepared  night  be- 
fore last,  but  I was  compelled  to  do  it.  The 
gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample],  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee,  has,  no  doubt, 
given  this  subject  a great  deal  of  attention  and 
study.  I would  not  wish  to  hurry  him.  If  he 
is  in  bad  health,  that  would  excuse  him,  and  of 
course  overcome  any  objection  I can  make. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  There  are  some  two  or  three 
topics  connected  with  this  report  which  have 
been  the  subject  of  general  discussion  to  which 
I would  be  pleased  to  give  attention.  One  of 
them  is  the  subject  which  was  not  a part  of  the 
original  Proposition,  which  was  introduced  by 
the  Committee  and  occupied  almost  the  entire 
day  on  yesterday  in  its  discussion.  It  is  not  a 
proposition  to  which  any  individual  connected 
with  the  Committee  on  Elective  Franchise  was 
expected  to  give  attention,  more  than  other 
members  of  the  Convention,  which,  whatever 
may  be  said  upon  that  subject,  will  be  in  the 
way  of  reply  to  the  arguments  urged  in  its 
favor,  and  not  in  affirmance  of  anything  that 
is  in  the  report. 

It  is,  perhaps, not  very  important,  so  far  as  that 


1858 


[132nd 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


Sample. 


[Saturday, 


is  concerned,  that  time  should  be  occupied  in  its 
discussion  ; but  there  are  two  or  three  proposi- 
tions in  this  Report,  to  which  I shall  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention,  on  which  justice 
to  myself  requires  that  I shall  express  my  views 
before  this  Convention.  There  has  been  a con- 
siderable amount  of  discussion  on  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell] 
to  strike  from  this  Report  the  provision  which, 
if  adopted,  will  confer  the  right  of  suffrage  on 
those  who  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
That  subject  has  been  discussed  with  much  zeal 
by  gentlemen  on  both  sides.  It  appearing  that 
gentlemen  who  desire  to  speak  upon  that  sub- 
ject have  presented  their  views,  and  that  debate 
upon  that  proposition  is  exhausted,  I shall  pre- 
sent my  views  upon  that  subject.  This  propo- 
sition was  introduced  into  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  at  the  request  of  four  members,  be- 
ing one-half  of  the  Committee.  It  is,  however, 
reported  as  a part  of  the  Proposition  in  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee.  It  was  not  understood, 
and  is  not  now  understood  that  a member  of  that 
Committee  is  bound  by  the  Report,  or  required, 
in  consequence  of  that  Report  having  been 
made,  to  give  to  it  his  support  in  this  Conven- 
tion. I consented  to  introduce  that  change  into 
the  Proposition  reported  because  it  was  urged 
with  considerable  earnestness  by  one-half  of 
the  Committee,  in  order  that  it  might  be 
brought  before  the  Convention  in  such 
a way  as  to  receive  proper  considera- 
tion. I consented  to  cast  my  influence  with 
that  half  of  the  Committee,  and  thereby 
introduced  it  into  the  Report  of  the  Committee, 
to  bring  it  before  the  Convention.  But  it  comes 
up  now  as  a question  of  importance,  and  I con- 
cede that  it  is  a question  of  very  grave  import- 
ance. It  is  a question  well  worthy  the  con- 
sideration of  this  Convention,  and  one  which 
may  be  presented,  and  properly  considered  in 
its  deliberations.  The  proposition  is  nothing 
less  than  this,  and  it  is  just  this : to  confer  upon 
persons  who  have  declared  their  intention  to 
become  citizens  of  the  United  States,  but  have 
not  carried  out  that  declared  intention,  the 
right  to  exercise  the  privilege  of  voting,  and 
exercising  control  in  the  government  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  without  any  assurance,  in  fact, 
that  they  will  ever  carry  out  their  intention  and 
become  citizens  of  the  United  States.  This  has 
been  well  objected  to.  It  has  been  objected  to 
on  grounds  which  I am  not  willing  to  sustain. 
But  there  are  ample  reasons — reasons  which  are 
entirely  conclusive  to  my  mind,  why  the  mo- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell] ought  to  be  sustained.  We  are  a people 
that  ought  to  be  one  people.  Our  government 
is  a government  for  Americans,  and  it  does  not 
matter  whence  an  individual  may  have  derived 
his  being,  or  where  he  may  have  been  born, 
whether  upon  the  soil  of  Ohio,  or  upon  the  soil 
of  any  other  State,  or  upon  foreign  soil,  still, 
before  he  becomes  a member  of  the  body  politic, 
he  ought  to  be  identified  in  feeling  and  in  in- 
terest; he  ought  to  be  assimilated  to  the  great 
body,  so  that  there  may  be  no  conflict  in  the 
household.  We  cannot  afford  to  introduce  in- 
testine strife.  We  cannot  afford  to  introduce 
into  our  political  system  men  who  have  not 
been  imbued  with  its  principles,  who  have  not 
become  familiar  with  its  modes  of  operations, 


who  have  not  acquired  that  knowledge  of  its 
principles  and  workings  which  is  necessary  to 
unity  and  peace,  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties 
of  the  government.  This  provision,  if  adopted, 
will  permit  an  individual  who  has  resided  but 
one  year — who  may  have  been  but  a small 
fraction  over  one  year  in  the  United  States — 
to  exercise  that  right.  Now,  it  is  not  a 
question  whether  such  citizens  are  qualified 
or  not — whether  they  have  sufficient  intel- 
ligence or  not.  That  is  not  the  sole  considera- 
tion. There  are  others  of  much  more  impor- 
tance. Men  who  are  reared  in  a foreign  coun- 
try, under  whatever  form  of  government  it 
may  be,  have  habits  of  thought;  their  ideas  of 
the  administration  of  the  Government,  and 
their  principles  as  to  the  rights  of  individuals, 
are  likely  to  be  affected  and  formed  in  harmony 
with  the  government  under  which  they  are 
reared.  If  a citizen  of  the  United  States  goes 
into  a foreign  country — if  he  be  a true  citizen, 
if  he  has  at  heart  that  attachment  for  the 
country  of  his  nativity  which  we  hold  all 
Americans  have — he  would  carry  with  him 
his  previous  feelings  in  favor  of  our  system  of 
government.  Ilis  affections  would  adhere  to 
his  former  home,  and  he  would  not  have  his 
mind  freed  from  the  influence  of  his  precon- 
ceived opinions,  until  these  opinions,  or  im- 
pressions, were  eradicated.  Well,  such  is  the 
case,  and  may  well  be  understood  to  be  the 
case,  with  persons  coming  from  other  countries. 
Our  system  of  government  and  administration 
are  entirely  new  to  them — entirely  different 
from  that  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed. 
It  requires  such  duration  of  time  as  will  re- 
move lrom  their  minds  the  pre-existing  impres- 
sion in  favor  of  their  former  Government,  and 
give  them  an  opportunity  to  become  acquainted 
with  ours ; so  that  they  may  become  assimilated 
to  us  as  a people,  and  a part  of  the  great  body 
politic,  and  be  enabled  to  harmonize  their  ac- 
tions with  the  actions  of  the  people  of  the  State, 
and  so  to  act  as  not  to  cause  any  conflict  or  em- 
barrassment whatever. 

Well,  this,  it  seems  to  my  mind,  cannot  be 
accomplished  in  so  brief  a period.  It  requires 
a longer  time  than  a single  year.  An  individ- 
ual does  not  become  sufficiently  acquainted 
with  his  own  neighborhood.  Strangers  from  a 
foreign  land,  with  those  diversities  of  experi- 
ence, do  not  become  acquainted  sufficiently  with 
even  a small  portion  of  the  State,  or  with  the 
government  of  the  State,  to  be  enabled  intelli- 
gently, and  with  that,  judgment  which  is  re- 
quired in  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise, 
to  discharge  that  duty.  For  these  reasons,  I am 
in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]. 
But  there  are  certain  consequences  attributed  to 
this  Report,  by  the  gentleman  who  made  this 
motion,  which  I think  are  not  properly  attribu- 
table to  it.  It  is  said  that  if  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  be  adopted,  it  will  have  a pernicious 
tendency;  that  it  will  introduce  into  the  gov- 
ernment of  this  State  classes  of  individuals  who 
are  not  recognized  as  within  any  of  the  laws 
authorizing  the  naturalization  of  aliens  under 
the  government  of  the  United  States.  It  is  said, 
too,  that  criminals — men  who  have  been  guilty 
of  crime  in  their  own  countries,  and  have  fled 
to  this  country — will  be  admitted.  Well,  that 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Sample,  Hoadly. 


1859 


Day.] 

March  7, 1874.] 


is  true,  no  doubt.  It  is  true  under  any  system. 
That  argument,  if  it  has  any  bearing  upon  the 
subject  at  all,  goes  to  the  admission  of  foreign- 
ers under  any  circumstances — under  any  dura- 
tion of  probation.  So  that  I do  not  think  it  is  a 
legitimate  argument  upon  this  subject.  Sup- 
pose that  criminals  do  come  here;  suppose  that 
thieves,  that  murderers,  do  come  here  from  a 
foreign  country.  They  must  declare  their  in- 
tention in  one  case  as  in  the  other,  whether  this 
provision  is  retained,  or  whether  it  is  stricken 
out.  They  come  to  this  country,  and,  after 
having  come,  they  must  declare  their  intention. 
Then,  all  that  is  required  in  one  case,  to  entitle 
them  to  vote,  is  required  in  the  other.  In  the 
other  case,  there  is  nothing  more  required  than 
that  they  should  remain  four  years,  and  then 
the  same  individual  would  be  entitled  to  a final 
certificate,  and  to  vote.  So  that,  in  my  judg- 
ment, that  objection  is  not  founded  in  reason, 
and  the  Committee  are  not  liable  to  the  impu- 
tation of  having  presented  before  this  Conven- 
tion a proposition  open  to  an  objection  which 
would  so  clearly  show  it  to  be  absurd. 

Then  there  is  another  objection  of  the  gentle- 
man. Whilst  he  admits  that  the  naturalization 
laws  have  not  been  so  extended,  that  they  have 
not  been  so  modified  as  to  admit  the  citizens  of 
China  to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States  by 
any  term  of  probation,  it  is  said,  nevertheless, 
that  this  proposition,  if  adopted,  will  allow 
them  to  come  in,  and  to  exercise  the  right  of 
suffrage  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  I disclaim  any 
such  absurd  result  as  a consequence  of  the 
adoption  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee.  No- 
thing of  the  kind.  It  requires  the  same  relation 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  en- 
title a party  to  obtain  a certificate  of  his  inten- 
tiori  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States 
that  it  does  to  entitle  him  to  his  final  certificate. 
Arid  he  cannot  qualify  himself — not  one  of  the 
w&ole  race  of  man  can  qualify  himself — to  vote, 
under  the  proposition  which  is  proposed  to  be 
stricken  out,  who  cannot  perfect  his  final  natur- 
alization so  as  to  acquire  that  right.  So  that  it 
;goes  back,  then,  to  the  single  question,  whether 
the  same  class  of  persons  who  may  finally  ac- 
quire their  certificate  of  naturalization  ought  to 
be  admitted  until  that  certificate  has  been  ob- 
tained. In  my  judgment,  they  ought  not. 
^Gentlemen  have  spoken  about  shortening  the 
period  of  naturalization.  That  is  a matter  that 
does  not  come  before  this  Convention,  but,  in 
my  judgment,  it  is  now  sufficiently  short.  The 
period  of  probation  required  in  the  United 
States,  before  a man  ought  to  be  admitted  to  the 
rights  of  citizenship,  before  he  can  be  entrusted 
with  a part  in  the  administration  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  this  country,  in  my  judgment, 
ought  not  to  be  reduced.  They  do  not  come 
here  usually  for  the  benefit  of  this  country. 
That  is  not  the  purpose  for  which  they  ordi- 
narily emigrate.  They  receive  a welcome,  no 
difference  from  what  clime  they  come,  no  dif- 
ference under  what  circumstances  they  may 
have  left  their  country ; if  they  come  here  with 
the  laudable  purpose  of  becoming  citizens  of  the 
Uuited  States,  they  are  received  with  kindness, 
they  are  treated  with  all  the  respect  and  con- 
sideration to  which  a citizen  of  the  United 
States  is  entitled.  But  that  is  a very  different 
thing  from  allowing  them,  after  they  have 


come  here,  immediately  to  enter  upon  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  country,  and  undertake  to  exer- 
cise governmental  control  over  the  people  who 
were  here  before  them.  We  are  not  a new 
people.  Instances  have  been  presented  for  the 
consideration  of  this  Convention  of  new  States, 
the  State  of  Nevada,  the  State  of  Kansas,  even 
some  States  in  the  early  history  of  the  Govern- 
ment, when  they  first  organized  their  State 
government,  exercised  liberality  in  the  admis- 
sion of  foreigners  to  the  elective  franchise, 
which  might  be  proper  then,  in  a State  like 
Kansas,  in  a State  like  any  of  those  States 
which  have  been  recently  organized.  When 
they  came  to  the  work  of  organization  none  of 
them  had  been  residents  any  considerable 
length  of  time.  How  long  had  the  State  of 
Nevada  had  any  population  before  it  was  organ- 
ized into  a State  ? It  had  not  had  much  within 
a very  short  time.  That  is  a very  different 
thing.  They  want  all  the  immigration  they  can 
secure,  under  such  circumstances.  It  does  not 
matter  what  have  been  a man’s  antecedents. 
With  communities  already  organized  it  is  en- 
tirely different;  the  habits  of  the  people  have 
been  fixed,  and  the  principles  of  the  Govern- 
ment firmly  established  and  well  recognized  by 
the  community.  In  forming  new  States,  men 
come  together  for  that  purpose,  and  when  such 
government  is  founded  it  is  as  much  the  gov. 
ernment  of  one  as  the  others. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  speaks  of  new 
States  having  exercised  this  liberality.  Is  he  not 
aware  that  it  has  been  the  settled  policy  of  the 
State  of  Indiana  from  the  beginning  and  is  to- 
day to  admit  to  the  elective  franchise  all  for- 
eigners twenty-one  years  of  age,  who  shall 
have  resided  in  the  United  States  one  year,  and 
in  the  State  of  Indiana  six  months  before  the 
declaration  of  his  intention  to  vote? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Did  it  result  in  any  mis- 
chief? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I am  not  sufficiently  ac- 
quainted with  the  history  of  Indiana  to  show 
anything  about  it.  But  it  has  never  been  the 
practice  in  Ohio,  and,  in  my  judgment,  it  ought 
not  to  be  introduced  as  the  practice  in  Ohio.  I 
do  not  expect  that  any  extraordinary  injury 
would  result  from  it  here,  because  the  immi- 
gration to  this  country,  although  it  is  large 
when  it  comes  into  the  State,  is  diffused 
through  the  whole  mass,  and  has  not  power 
and  influence  enough  to  make  itself  felt.  It  is 
not  to  be  inferred  that  a new  system  should  be 
introduced  simply  because  it  has  not  been 
demonstrated  that  it  is  dangerous  and  may 
work  the  subversion  of  the  Government.  And 
it  is  not  necessary  that  an  objection  to  a provi- 
sion should  be  based  on  evidence  of  that  kind. 
But  it  is  a question  of  what  is  right  and  proper, 
what  is  best  in  practice.  Is  it  best  for  us  now, 
in  Ohio,  who  have  never  had  such  a provision 
in  our  Constitution — who  have  never  had  a 
provision  which  admits  an  individual  to  vote 
without  such  previous  qualifications,  to  adopt  it  ? 
Are  there  reasons  for  changing  that  practice? 
I do  not  think  there  are.  I say  that  Ohio  has 
institutions  that  are  fixed  and  well  established, 
and  I do  not  think,  that  at  this  time,  nor  at 
any  time  do  I think  that  in  this  State  a change 
like  that  should  be  made.  So  that,  for  one,  my 


1860 


SUFFRAGE  OF  COLLEGE  STUDENTS. [132nd 

Sample,  Chapin,  Thompson,  Hale.  [Saturday, 


judgment  compels  me  to  say  that,  whilst  I am 
satisfied  with  the  laws  that  now  exist,  whilst  I 
am  willing  that  every  individual  who  comes  to 
this  country,  to  make  it  the  land  of  his  adop- 
tion, shall  have  all  that  protection,  that  en- 
couragement which  his  best  interests  demand, 
that  his  best  interests  do  not  demand  it,  and 
that  the  interests  of  the  people  may  be  preju- 
diced if  he  should  be  permitted  to  participate  in 
the  government  of  the  country  before  he  has 
become  a citizen  of  the  country. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I wish  to  make  a motion  to 
take  a recess.  Before  doing  so,  I shall  ask  leave 
of  absence  for  this  morning. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  has  leave. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I desire  leave  of  absence 
until  after  roll-call  Tuesday  morning. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  has  leave. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

[Mr.  Sample  resumed.] 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  These,  Mr.  President,  are 
about  all  the  considerations  that  I desire  to 
suggest  in  reference  to  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  I shall 
vote  to  strike  that  clause  from  the  Report.  I do 
not  pay  any  regard  to  certain  suggestions  that 
have  been  made  by  gentlemen  upon  this  sub- 
ject. It  is  said  that  individuals,  even  in  an  or- 
ganized capacity,  have  expressed  opinions 
upon  this  subject,  and  have  given  pledges  as  to 
the  admission  of  foreigners  to  the  right  of 
suffrage.  To  that  I pay  no  regard.  I look  to 
what  I believe  to  be  the  interests  of  the  coun- 
try, and  it  will  be  my  duty,  in  connection  with 
the  interests  of  this  State,  and  with  that  con- 
viction, I am  not  willing  to  sustain  the  Report 
in  its  present  form. 

There  is  one  other  topic  to  which  I wish , now, 
as  it  is  connected  immediately  with  the  Report 
of  the  Committee,  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention,  briefly : that  is,  to  the  fifth  section. 
I think  it  is  misunderstood.  But  little  has  been 
said  upon  the  subject,  and  in  listening  to 
the  gentleman  from  Gallia  [Mr.  McCormick],  I 
think  it  is  misunderstood  as  to  the  purport  of 
that  section.  It  was  suggested  by  the  gentle- 
man, that  the  effect  of  that  would  be  to  dis- 
franchise a particular  class  of  citizens.  It  does 
not  have  that  effect  at  all.  Every  citizen  who 
has  a right  to  vote,  has  a right  to  vote  in  the 
place  of  his  residence.  It  matters  not  if  this 
section  be  adopted,  he  will  be  authorized  to  ex- 
ercise the  right  of  suffrage  in  the  place  of  his 
residence.  But  he  cannot  elect.  That  is  the 
only  object  of  it, — to  prevent  him  electing  the 
place  in  which  he  will  exercise  that  right. 
That  is  the  object — to  prevent  him  from  taking 
such  place  as  he  may  select.  The  most  liberal 
proposition  which  has  been  suggested  is  merely 
to  allow  the  party  to  exercise  tiie  right  of  suf- 
frage at  the  place  of  his  residence.  There  is 
not  any  proposition,  by  any  gentleman,  in  con- 
flict with  the  spirit  of  this.  I do  not  suppose 
there  is  a gentleman  in  this  place  who  does  not 
agree  with  me  that  no  man, under  the  present  law 
of  Ohio,  has  a right  to  make  a choice  of  one  of  two 
places  at  which  he  will  offer  his  vote.  That  is, 


that  an  individual  who  is  employed  in  a partic- 
ular locality,  may  look  around  and  see  whether 
it  would  be  to  the  advantage  of  a political  party, 
or  political  object,  for  him  to  vote  in  that  lo- 
cality, and  if  he  finds  that  it  would  not  be  nec- 
essary for  him  to  vote  there,  transfers  himself 
to  some  other  place,  and  casts  his  vote  in  a lo- 
cality where  it  will  do  more  good,  at  the  same 
election.  I do  not  suppose  that  this  Conven- 
tion intend  anything  of  that  kind.  I suppose 
that  the  Convention  that  framed  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1851  intended  that  a man  should  have  a 
fixed  place  of  residence,  and  that  his  vote  should 
be  cast  at  that  fixed  place  of  residence,  and  in 
no  other  place  whatever.  That  is  all  that  is  in- 
tended, and  all  the  effect  that  this  provision,  if 
adopted,  will  accomplish.  It  will  provide  that 
a man  cannot  have  one  of  those  transitory  resi- 
dences, one  of  those  residences  which  may  be 
perverted  for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  a 
double  advantage  over  every  other  man.  That 
is  the  only  object  of  it.  It  disfranchises  no- 
body. Every  man  that  has  a residence  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  will  be  entitled  to  vote,  provided 
he  has  that  residence  which  the  statute  may  re- 
quire. But  he  cannot  have  two  residences. 
That  is  the  object  of  it,  and  that  is  the  only  ob- 
ject it  can  accomplish.  It  leaves  students,  when 
they  are  in  attendance  at  college,  in  the  same 
situation  that  other  parties  are  in,  precisely. 
It  does  not  allow  them  to  exercise  their  election 
whether  they  will  take  the  control  of  the  local 
government  at  the  place  where  they  are  at  col- 
lege or  whether  they  will  return  home  and  vote, 
according  to  the  exercise  of  their  own  will. 
They  must  have  a single  residence  at  one  of 
those  places,  and  the  place  where  they  have 
their  residence,  there,  alone,  will  they  be  enti- 
tled to  vote. 

Mr.  HALE.  Right  there,  I would  like  to 
ask  a question.  Suppose  a student  is  a young 
man  who  has  no  father  or  mother,  who  has  re- 
sided at  some  place  in  the  State.  He  has  no 
particular  home,  only  that  he  has  been  em- 
ployed in  that  particular  place.  He  leaves  that 
place  of  residence  and  goes  to  some  particular 
institution  to  attend  school,  becomes  a student 
there,  abandons  his  former  place  of  residence, 
would  this  provision  in  the  Constitution  prohi- 
bit that  young  man  gaining  a residence  in  the 
place  where  he  goes  to  attend  school  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Most  certainly  not.  The 
difference  is  just  this:  When  my  son  was  at 
Granville,  he  informed  me  that  they  importuned 
him  to  vote  there,  although  his  home  was  at  my 
house  at  Newark,  six  miles  distant.  That  is  the 
class  of  cases  against  which  this  is  intended  to 
guard.  The  student  should  be  like  every  other 
citizen.  If,  by  virtue  of  his  residence  being 
there,  he  would  be  entitled  to  vote,  he  would 
have  a residence  under  this  provision.  If  he 
had  a fixed  residence  elsewhere,  he  would  have 
no  right  to  vote  there.  In  the  case  supposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  , the 
student  had  no  fixed  place  of  residence.  He 
left  with  the  intent  to  remove.  Where  the  in- 
tent is  to  retain  a former  residence,  no  man 
can  acquire  another,  no  matter  what  may  be 
the  length  of  his  absence. 

Mr.  HALE.  That  is  the  question  I was  ask- 
ing. Would  this  section  change  the  rule  now 
established  ? 


Day.] SUFFRAGE  OF  COLLEGE  STUDENTS 1861 

March  7,  1874.]  Sample,  Hale,  Dorsey. 


Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do  not  think  it  would,  but 
it  would  change  the  rule  as  practiced.  I am 
satisfied  that  it  is  in  strict  harmony  with  the 
present  law.  I am  satisfied  that  it  introduces 
no  new  principle;  but  I am  satisfied  that  the 
law  has  been  violated,  has  been  disregarded  in 
many  institutions  of  the  State,  in  many  colleges, 
at  least  some  of  them;  I am  satisfied  of  it, 
and  the  object  the  Committee  had  in  introdu- 
cing it  into  their  Report  was  that  it  might  be 
an  admonition  to  all  as  to  what  the  law  is. 

Mr.  HALE.  Have  we  not  a statute  embody- 
ing precisely  definitely  this  same  principle? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  No,  sir,  not  definitely.  It  is 
a matter  of  conclusion  on  the  law  as  it  now 
stands,  and  it  is  disregarded  as  to  that.  This 
places  students  on  the  same  level  with  other 
young  men.  If  a young  man  leaves  home,  goes 
away,  abandons  his  home,  he  will  acquire  a 
right  to  vote  wherever  he  has  the  required  resi- 
dence; but  as  long  as  his  residence  is  at  a 
former  home  he  is  not  entitled  to  a vote  at  any 
other  place.  Until  he  has  abandoned  that 
home  and  acquired  another  residence,  at  that 
place  alone  will  he  be  entitled  to  vote. 

Mr.  HALE.  What  good  reason  is  there  for 
making  a distinction  between  the  student  and 
the  clerk,  or  any  other  employe  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  There  is  not  any,  sir. 

Mr.  HALE.  Why  make  the  distinction  in 
the  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  is  for  this  reason,  that  I 
have  never  heard  of  any  other  class  of  persons 
who  were  in  the  habit  of  abusing  it  as  students 
have.  I never  knew  any  class  of  them  that  had 
the  patronage  of  men  to  induce  them  to  do  it, 
as  I have  understood,  and  have  good  evidence 
that  these  young  men  have ; local  influences 
have  been  brought  to  bear  upon  them,  to  extend 
to  them,  as  students,  the  privilege  which  would 
have  been  denied  to  them  under  almost  any 
other  circumstances. 

Mr.  HALE.  Then  I understand  you  propose 
to  cure  the  violation  of  law  by  Constitutional 
provision  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir;  I propose  to  es- 
tablish what  is  the  law  now  by  Constitutional 
provision,  which  I know  in  particular  instances 
has  been  disregarded ; and,  from  information, 
I believe  to  have  been  disregarded  very  fre- 
quently. That  is  the  principle  of  it.  It  is  not 
that  I am  referring  to,  but  I am  meeting  mere- 
ly the  objection  of  the  gentleman  from  Gallia 
[Mr.  McCormick],  and  endeavoring  to  show 
that  it  is  unfounded,  in  fact  that  the  only  object 
of  it  is  to  apply  the  same  principle  to  students 
which  is  now  the  general  law  of  the  State,  but 
which  in  those  particular  cases  is  disregarded. 
On  these  two  propositions  then,  Mr.  President, 
which  are  connected  with  the  Report  of  the 
Committee,  I have  expressed  my  views.  At  the 
present  I do  not  wish  to  enter  upon  the  other 
propositions  connected  with  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  We  have  yet  half  an  hour, 
sir,  before  recess,  and  if  the  Convention  is  not 
anxious  to  take  a recess,  I propose  to  occupy  the 
time  in  making  a very  few  remarks  on  two  points 
connected  with  this  Report,  the  one,  as  the 
Chairman  has  said,  connected  directly  with  the 
Report,  and  the  other  introduced  incidentally 
in  the  discussion,  yesterday.  And  as  I shall  be 
exceedingly  brief,  I can  make  all  the  remarks  I 


desire  to  make  on  both  those  points  before  it  is 
necessary  for  the  Convention  to  take  a recess. 
I was  pleased,  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  introduc- 
tion by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell], of  his  motion  to  strikeout  certain  words 
and  provisions  in  the  first  section  of  the  Re- 
port of  the  Committee.  Had  he  not  made  that 
motion,  I should  have  made  it  myself,  to  strike 
out  that  portion  of  the  provision  which  allowed 
persons  unnaturalized  to  exercise  the  right  of 
suffrage  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  I should  have 
done  it  with  no  feeling  of  hostility,  whatever, 
toward  the  foreigner.  I remember  the  great 
whirlwind  that  passed  over  this  country  in 
1854,  when  Know-Nothingism  swept  the  State. 
I had  no  sympathy  with  that  movement  at  that 
time,  I have  no  sympathy  with  it  to-day ; never 
have  had,  and  never  shall  have.  But,  at  the 
same  time,  I do  hold  that  it  is  right;  I do  hold 
that  it  is  proper,  that  our  naturalization  laws 
should  be  so  far  observed  as  that  every  foreign- 
er who  comes  to  the  State  should  remain  here 
a certain  length  of  time  before  he  is  permitted 
to  enjoy  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizen- 
ship. It  has  been  said,  that  the  Constitution  of 
1802  did  not  require  this  naturalization.  It  pro- 
vided that  every  white  male  inhabitant  of  the 
State  should  be  permitted  to  exercise  the  privi- 
lege of  an  elector.  True,  but  the  change  was 
made  in  the  Convention  of  1850-1,  because  im- 
portant changes  had  taken  place  in  the  State 
between  1802  and  1850.  Then  our  foreign 
population  was  small.  In  1850,  it  had  become 
great,  and  it  was  necessary  that  we  should  take 
a stand  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and  declare 
that  it  was  necessary  that  the  foreigner  should 
become  a citizen  before  he  was  permitted  to 
enjoy  the  right  of  an  elector,  and  as  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  has  said, 
not  only  the  right  of  an  elector,  but  also  the 
privilege  of  being  elected  to  any  and  every 
office  within  the  gift  of  the  people  of  the  State. 
Now,  we  do  not  propose,  even  if  we  had  the 
power  here,  which  we  have  not,  to  lengthen 
the  time  of  naturalization.  We  do  not  propose 
to  impose  any  undue  or  improper  restrictions 
upon  the  foreigner.  We  simply  ask  him  to  sub- 
mit to  that  process  of  naturalization,  which, 
for  more  than  twenty  years  in  the  State  of 
Ohio,  has  been  considered  as  a necessary  pre- 
liminary to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  an  elec- 
tor. It  is  one  of  those  matters  with  which  the 
people  of  the  State  have  become  conver- 
sant, to  which  they  have  become  used,  and 
which  they  have  shown  no  disposition  to  re- 
cede from  either  by  word  or  by  deed.  For 
that  reason,  I shall  most  assuredly  support  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell].  It  is  right  and  proper,  it  is  jus- 
tice to  the  foreigner,  and  it  is  justice  to  the 
native-born  citizen.  In  one  sense,  it  is  true 
that  “Americans  should  rule  America,”  that 
Americans  should  rule  in  the  State  of  Ohio, 
not  alone  Americans  by  birth,  but  those  also 
who  have  become  by  naturalization  identified 
with  the  people  of  the  State.  It  is  right  and 
proper  that  they  should  have  the  right  to  rule, 
and  not  those  who  incidentally  are  east  upon 
our  shores,  who  come  here  for  the  purpose  of 
enjoying  the  privileges  of  our  government,  who 
come  here  for  their  own  benefit  and  not  for 
ours,  who  come  here  for  the  purpose  of  enjoy- 


1862 


WOMAN’S  POSITION  AND  RIGHTS. 

Dorsey. 


ingthe  rights  and  privileges  which  this  country- 
can  extend  to  them,  that  they  be  required 
to  pass  through  a certain  degree  of  preparation 
before  they  be  permitted  to  enjoy  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  citizenship.  But,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, this  matter  has  been  so  fully  and  so  thor- 
oughly discussed,  that  I do  not  propose  to  waste 
further  time  upon  it.  But  I propose  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  for  a very  few 
minutes  to  some  remarks  that  I should  have 
made  yesterday  afternoon,  on  a subject  that  was 
then  under  discussion,  if  I had  had  an  oppor- 
tunity; but  the  time  was  filled,  and  well  filled 
by  those  who  occupied  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention at  that  time.  I shall  now  make  a few 
remarks  on  the  subject  of  Female  Suffrage  in 
the  State  of  Ohio. 

The  position  of  woman  in  society  and  the  re- 
cognition of  her  rights,  as  entitled  to  equal 
privileges  with  man,  marks  the  progress  of  na- 
tions in  their  march  to  civilization.  No  nation, 
ancient  or  modern,  has  ever  arrived  at  any 
great  degree  of  refinement  or  culture  without 
placing  woman  in  that  advanced  rank  to  which 
her  mental  endowments  and  her  intellectual 
powers  justly  entitle  her.  That  man  should 
subject  his  weaker  partner  to  the  abasement  of 
an  inferior  position,  when  he  has  strength  and 
power  unrestrained  by  education  and  refined 
feeling,  is  just  as  natural  as  that  he  should  feel 
desirous  of  freeing  her  from  such  degradation 
when  his  own  better  nature  is  developed  and 
brought  into  action. 

In  every  society,  however  slightly  elevated, 
we  find  three  classes  of  rights  recognized,  in 
everyone  of  which  a marked  difference  is  found 
between  the  status  accorded  to  the  woman  and 
that  which  is  claimed  to  belong  to  the  man. 
These  rights  are  social,  civil  and  religious. 

The  degraded  social  position  of  woman  in 
uncultivated  nations  is  the  first  fact  that  im- 
presses itself  on  our  minds  as  we  become  ac- 
quainted with  their  history.  Her  entire  and 
utter  subjection  to  the  man,  her  exclusion  from 
his  recreations  and  pleasures,  her  entire  sub- 
serviency to  his  will  and  her  compulsory  obe- 
dience to  his  commands,  mark  her  entire  sepa- 
ration from  any  point  of  equality,  and  her  de- 
gradation to  a position  often  little  inferior  to 
that  which  he  accords  to  his  domestic  animals. 
In  Oriental  nations  even  when  among  the 
higher  classes,  some  progress  is  made  in  civili- 
zation, the  same  fact  still  remains  among  the 
lower  ranks  of  society  and  no  degradation  is 
deemed  too  great  to  mark  the  great  distance  in- 
tervening between  the  woman  and  her  lord. 
In  many  Eastern  lands  to-day,  the  woman  never 
eats  or  sits  down  in  the  presence  of  her  hus- 
band, and  only  ventures  to  come  before  him  to 
minister  to  his  wants.  Among  the  Egyptians, 
the  most  civilized  of  the  nations  of  antiquity, 
the  position  of  woman  was  not  superior  to  what 
we  find  in  Hindostan  at  the  present  time,  and 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  had  advanced  a long 
distance  in  the  pathway  of  progress  or  improve- 
ment before  woman  ceased  with  them  to  be 
anything  better  than  a slave. 

The  civil  rights  of  woman  found,  as  a matter 
of  course,  no  recognition  where  her  social 
were  ignored.  The  acknowledgment  of  the  one 
was  built  as  a matter  of  necessity  on  the  attain- 
ment of  the  other.  Among  the  nations  of  high 


[132nd 

[Saturday, 


antiquity,  as  the  Egyptians  and  the  Babylonians, 
women  could  not  become  legally  possessed  of 
property,  and  especially  of  real  estate.  The  same 
was  true  at  an  early  period  of  the  history  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  and  it  was  only  when 
these  nations  had  reached  a high  degree  of 
civilization  that  these  disabilities  were  slowly 
and  with  difficulty  removed.  The  power  to  in- 
herit land,  even  among  the  Jews,  was  conceded 
to  women  only  as  founded  on  a special  revela- 
tion and  a divine  command.  When  the  daugh- 
ters of  Zelophehad  came  to  Moses  in  the 
wilderness,  and  claimed  that,  because  their 
father  had  no  sons,  they  should  have  the  right 
to  inherit  among  the  families  of  their  own 
tribe  when  they  should  come  into  the  promised 
possession,  the  demand  was  so  strange  to  Moses, 
learned  in  all  the  learning  of  Egypt,  that  he 
found  it  necessary  to  ask  of  God^  for  instruc- 
tion. The  divine  command  allowed  the  claim, 
and,  from  that  time  forth,  it  was  a law  of  the 
nation  that,  when  a man  died,  having  no  sons, 
his  daughters  should  inherit  his  estate.  It  was 
a progressive  improvement,  worthy  of  being 
marked  by  a divine  revelation.  The  chivalric 
Moors  brought  the  usage  into  Spain  and  south- 
western Europe,  and  hence  it  gradually  passed 
among  the  more  northern  nations,  although 
the  Salique  law  still  forbids,  in  several  conti- 
nental nations,  the  inheritance  of  the  throne 
by  a woman. 

But,  if  civil  and  social  rights  were  denied  to 
woman,  she  was  no  less  excluded  from  religious 
privileges.  The  testimony  of  all  travelers 
unites  in  assuring  us  that,  among  savage  and 
barbarous  races,  women  do  not  participate  in 
religious  ceremonies.  In  the  Koran,  it  is  not 
held  that  the  religion  of  Mahomet  is  binding  on 
a woman.  The  Jewish  priesthood  and  the 
Jewish  rites  were  confined  to  men.  A separate 
court  was  provided  in  the  temple  for  women, 
although,  in  many  respects,  the  Mosaic  law 
lifted  them  above  their  position  in  less  favored 
nations.  But  it  was  reserved  for  Christianity 
to  elevate  women  to  her  true  level  in  society, 
and  especially  in  religious  society,  and  to  de- 
clare at  once  that,  where  there  is  “ neither  Jew 
nor  Gentile,”  there,  also,  there  is  “ neither  male 
nor  female.”  But  Christianity  went  farther 
than  this:  it  sanctified  the  family  relation,  and 
built  upon  this  relation  its  firmest  and  its- 
strongest  foundation.  Nowhere  is  the  family 
institution  so  distinctive  as  among  Christian 
nations,  and  among  no  Christian  nations  is  it 
so  strongly  marked  as  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  race. 
The  institution  of  the  family,  the  sanctity  of 
the  home  and  of  domestic  life,  has,  with  us, 
a force  and  prominence  which  it  finds  nowhere 
else;  and  this  institution,  with  all  its  rights, 
civil,  social  and  religious,  connects  itself  inti- 
mately and  indissolubly  with  the  position  and 
the  advancement  of  woman. 

It  has  been  truly  said  that  no  European 
language  has  a word  which  fully  answers  to 
our  term  “Home;”  and  the  reason  is  obvious, 
because  no  other  people  attach  so  much  im- 
portance to  everything  connected  with  the  fam- 
ily relation.  But  what  is  Home  without  woman 
— here  is  her  kingdom,  here  is  her  throne,  here 
she  reigns  supreme ; woman  makes  our  home, 
and  what  that  home  is  she  makes  it.  How  beau- 
tifully has  one  of  our  English  writers  said : 


WOMAN’S  SPHERE  AND  INFLUENCE. 

Dorsey,  Cunningham. 


1863 


Day.] 

March  7,  1874.] 


“Home  can  never  be  renewed,  never  repeated  in 
the  experience  of  an  individual.  The  scenes 
that  have  been  marked  with  the  helplessness  of 
infancy,  the  innocence  of  childhood,  the  plea- 
sures of  youth ; the  place  that  has  seen  the  hopes 
and  fears,  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  our  early 
days,  spring  into  being,  grow  and  decay;  the 
spot  consecrated  by  a father’s  care  and  a mother’s 
love — this  is  the  only  Home.”  And  all  that  this 
home  is  or  can  be,  all  that  gives  it  affection  in 
our  hearts  when  present,  and  hallows  it  in  our 
memories  when  past,  is  connected  with  woman. 
The  superiority  of  woman  has  grown  out  of  the 
sanctity  of  home.  Here  have  grown  up  her 
most  sacred  relations,  here  we  have  learned  to 
trust  her  and  to  love  her,  to  recognize  her  worth, 
her  influence,  and  her  true  character.  How  in 
all  the  trials  of  life  when  hopes  are  crushed 
and  friends  are  scattered,  the  noble  fidelity  of 
woman  stands  out,  like  the  beacon  light,  giving 
safety  to  the  storm-tossed  mariner  on  the  rock- 
bound  coast,  and  how  we  cling  to  her  faithful- 
ness and  her  care,  as  the  wrecked  sailor  clings 
to  the  floating  plank  when  [every  other  aid  is 
gone,  and  when  night  and  the  tempest  close 
around  him. 

How  many  of  us  can  repeat  with  appreciation 
the  beautiful  lines  of  Professor  Holland,  and 
seal  them  a testimony  to  woman’s  worth  and 
to  woman’s  truth : 

“Not  many  friends  my  life  has  known, 

Few  have  I loved,  and  few  are  they, 

On  whom  my  heart  its  trus>t  has  laid, 

And  they  were  women— I am  gray, 

But  I have  never  been  betrayed.” 

Now  I come  to  the  point  which  I wish  to 
make  in  this  argument.  I shall  make  it  briefly, 
for  it  requires  but  few  words.  Christianity  and 
the  family  relation,  and  this  advanced  position 
and  high  estimate  of  woman,  are  indissolubly 
united ; the  one  cannot  exist  without  the  other. 
Christianity  built  upon  this  family  relation  has 
brought  woman  to  this  elevated,  this  glorious 
position, in  which  she  is  at  once  a blessing  to 
herself  and  to  all  around  her.  Remove  her 
from  this,  and  I care  not  what  you  add  to  her, 
her  moral  influence  is  gone,  and  gone  forever. 
The  ballot  cannot  compensate  for  the  loss  of  the 
influence  of  home;  official  position  can  never 
repay  her  for  the  loss  of  that  greater  kingdom, 
which  must  be  thrown  away  when  the  sanctity 
of  the  family  relation  is  invaded  by  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  of  political  station. 

To  remove  woman  Irom  this  lofty  and  holy 
family  estate  is  to  bring  her  down  from  her 
home  to  the  political  arena ; is  to  drag  her  from 
that  station  to  which  to  elevate  her  has  taken 
ages  of  progress  and  a religion  founded  on  the 
sacrifice  of  a divine  Mediator.  It  may  be  easy 
to  drag  her  down.  Remember  the  warning  of 
the  poet,  “ Facilis  descensus  Averni ,”  \ ut  to  re- 
store her  to  her  lost  estate  may  be  beyond  our 
power. 

Let  us  beware  how  we  bring  down  woman 
into  that  muddy  pool,  from  which  men  even 
rarely  escape  without  defilement.  No  one  at 
this  day  doubts  the  capacity  of  woman,  but  had 
she  the  intellect  of  a seraph  she  could  find  full 
exercise  for  all  its  powers  in  the  duties  she  is 
called  on  to  perform. 

I do  not  say  society  is  perfect.  I do  not  say 
there  are  not  evils  to  be  blotted  out,  injustice 
to  be  corrected,  rights  to  be  confirmed,  victo- 


ries to  be  achieved.  The  world  is  gaining  daily, 
and  woman  is  doing  a glorious  work  in  carry- 
ing forward  its  progress.  The  ballot  is  not  a 
panacea  for  all  the  ills  with  which  society  is 
afflicted,  nor  can  it  open  all  the  doors  we  would 
desire  to  open  for  the  more  complete  enfran- 
chisement of  woman. 

It  is  written  in  the  law,  “ Thou  shall  not  re- 
move the  old  landmark.”  God  and  the  Church 
and  a purer  religion  have  fixed  the  limits  for 
the  unio*n  of  man  and  woman  in  the  walks  and 
avocations  of  life.  We  may  not  understand  all 
these  limits,  may  not  recognize  with  our  imper- 
fect light  all  the  landmarks,  or  the  boundaries 
they  were  intended  to  fix,  but  this  we  cannot 
fail  to  know : that  as  distinctions  are  fixed  in 
the  sexes  which  cannot  be  abolished,  so  the 
paths  in  which  they  move  must  be  distinct,  and 
can  never  be  made  entirely  to  blend  and 
coalesce. 

I rejoice  that  daily  the  sphere  of  woman’s 
influence  and  activity  is  widening,  but  wide  as 
it  may  become,  it  can  never  be  identical  with 
that  of  man.  The  woman  cannot  be  a man. 
God  forbid  she  should  ever  attempt  it!  If  any 
evidence  were  wanting  that  the  mission  of 
woman  is  peculiar,  and  that  it  is  to  be  performed 
in  her  own  peculiar  manner,  we  have  that  evi- 
dence to-day  in  what  is  going  on  all  around  us. 

A vast  and  overshadowing  evil  is  among  us, 
sapping  the  foundations  of  our  prosperity  and 
eating  out  the  life-blood  of  the  nation.  The 
votes  and  the  legislation  of  men  were  found 
powerless  to  arrest  its  progress,  but  it  is  falling 
before  the  prayers,  and  the  faith  and  the  devo- 
tion of  woman.  Though  intrenched  behind  the 
walls  of  appetite,  and  avarice,  and  vice,  and  in- 
dulgence, the  songs  and  prayers  of  pious  bands 
of  mothers  and  sisters  are  making  these  walls 
to  crumble  and  fall  as  the  horns  and  the  shout- 
ings of  Israel  brought  down  the  walls  of  faith- 
less Jericho. 

Such  is  woman’s  work,  and  woman’s  prayers 
are  mightier  than  the  ballot,  and  woman’s  songs 
are  more  formidable  than  the  edicts  of  legisla- 
tive halls. 

We  live  in  a doubting  and  an  infidel  age,  and 
this  attempt  to  obliterate  the  line  of  demarca- 
tion which  has  been  placed  between  the  sexes, 
is  only  one  phase  of  the  infidelity  of  the  time. 

I speak  plainly,  because  plain  and  earnest 
talk  becomes  us,  when  we  have  to  do  with  great 
errors.  The  so-called  reforms  of  the  age  are 
prone  to  carry  us  far  astray  from  the  right 
path ; it  is  better  to  meet  them  at  the  threshhold, 
and  bar  out  their  entrance  from  among  us,  than 
to  suffer  them  to  come  in  and  destroy  the  very 
foundations  of  our  social  and  domestic  life. 

Let  us  nip  the  evil  in  the  bud.  I would  be 
perfectly  willing  to  submit  the  question  of 
female  suffrage  to  the  women  of  the  State,  be- 
cause I feel  well  assured  that  not  one-fourth, 
perhaps,  not  one-eighth  part  of  them  desire  the 
ballot.  Submitted  to  the  ballots  of  the  male 
electors  of  the  State,  it  can  have  but  one  result, 
to  be  buried  “in  the  tomb  of  all  the  Capulets.” 
“ Bequiescat  in  pace.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I would  like  if  the 
Convention  would  have  the  patience  to  listen  to 
me  about  ten  minutes.  I desire  the  particular 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  authority 
which  I propose  to  refer  to.  A good  many 


1864 


ALIEN  AND  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. [132nd 

Cunningham,  Pond,  Burns.  [Saturday, 


years  ago  it  was  said  that  the  merry  monarch 
of  England  submitted  an  interrogatory  to  the 
wise  men  who  were  about  him,  as  to  why  it  was 
that  a vessel  filled  with  water  would  not  run 
over  when  a fish  was  put  in  it.  They  proceeded 
to  investigate  the  subject,  and  came  to  a very 
learned  decision,  and  after  they  had  gotten 
through,  he  asked  them  if  they  had  first  inquir- 
ed whether  it  was  true  or  not.  The  Conven- 
tion, for  a couple  of  days,  has  been  discussing, 
with  a great  deal  of  earnestness,  the  question  of 
clothing  the  alien  residents  of  the  State  with 
the  ballot,  and  while  I shall  support  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell], 
it  will  be  for  reasons  very  different  from  the 
reasons  given  by  him,  and  by  very  many  of  the 
gentlemen  who  have  accorded  with  him  in 
opinion.  If  the  principle  upon  which  he  has 
proceeded  in  the  sustainment  of  his  amendment 
is  a correct  one,  he  ought  to  be  the  last  to  refuse 
to  support  the  proposition  as  it  is  reported  by 
the  Committee.  I had  no  experience  in  the 
war,  to  speak  of,  although  I was  one  of  the 
brave  defenders  of  Cincinnati.  I was  a fellow- 
soldier  with  Judge  West.  [Laughter.]  I had, 
however,  some  little  experience  on  the  peace  es- 
tablishment during  the  war. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man if  he  crossed  the  river  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  I were  making  any 
fuss,  or  bragging  about  my  military  record,  it 
would  do  for  the  gentleman  to  put  that  question 
to  me.  But  I would  rather  he  would  not  press 
me  upon  that  subject. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I withdraw  the  question. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I had  some  little  ex- 
perience on  the  peace  establishment.  I appre- 
ciated the  great  force  of  the  argument  of  my 
friend,  the  distinguished  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  when  he  said  that  no 
man  ought  to  have  the  ballot  who  would  not 
be  compelled  to  take  the  bayonet,  and  I fell  to 
thinking  of  the  old  forms  that  we  used  in  the 
Boards  of  Enrollment  when  men  came  up  ask- 
ing to  be  discharged  from  liability  to  draft.  I 
concluded  that  it  would  be  well  enough  to  refer 
to  the  law,  and  there  I find  that  all  the  magnifi- 
cent argument  of  my  friend  has  gone  where 
the  woodbine  twineth.  I find  that  in  1863,  when 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  provided  for 
calling  all  the  military  forces  into  the  field  that 
were  necessary,  and  to  that  end  provided  for 
the  draft,  it  was  provided  “who  constitute  the 
national  forces  and  are  liable  to  military  duty 

Sec.  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  Congress 
assembled,  That  all  able-bo  lied  male  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  persons  of  foreign  birth  wJio  shall  have 
declared  on  oath  their  intention  to  become  citizens  under 
and  in  pursuance  of  the  laws  thereof,  between  the  ages  of 
twenty  and  forty-five  years,  except  as  hereinafter  ex- 
cepted, are  hereby  declared  and  constituted  the  national 
forces,  and  shall  be  liable  to  perform  military  duty  in  the 
service  ot  the  United  States,  when  called  out  by  the  Pres- 
ident for  that  purpose. 

Now,  if  it  is  true  that  the  ballot  and  bayonet 
should  go  together,  then  I undertake  to  say  that 
the  record  is  against  my  friends.  I shall  vote 
for  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell],  however,  for  another  reason. 

I believe  that  citizenship  and  the  ballot  should 
go  together. 

Mr.  President,  I became  exceedingly  solemn 
under  the  effects  of  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  : 


from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  I was  in  a strait 
when  the  eloquent  gentleman  on  my  left  was 
speaking  yesterday,  and  I was  sure  that  I was 
in  favor  of  woman’s  suffrage.  I even  with- 
stood the  arguments  of  the  venerable  gentle- 
man from  Deleware  [Mr.  Powell],  and  I did 
not  have  much  doubt  until  my  friend  from  Mi- 
ami [Mr.  Dorsey]  expressed  such  fears  that 
there  was  a fall  to  take  place  of  somebody  from 
her  present  high  estate.  Right  here  permit  me 
to  say  that  it  is  not  becoming  a young  man  to 
harshly  criticise  the  words  of  so  old  and  re- 
spectable a gentleman  as  the  delegate  from  Del- 
aware [Mr.  Powell],  but  if  I were  old  as  he  is, 
and  he  a young  man  like  myself,  had  he  uttered 
some  sentiments  that  were  expressed  in  his 
speech  yesterday,  I would  have  said  that  they 
were  not  fitting  for  such  a place.  Of  course, 
these  expressions  were  from  the  excess  of  the 
gentleman’s  zeal;  he  certainly  intended  no  dis- 
respect to  the  women  or  to  the  Convention. 
Above  all,  I protest  against  being  held  respon- 
sible, as  a lawyer,  for  the  advice  that  he  gave 
that  poor  unfortunate  client  that  he  had  in  the 
breach  of  promise  case.  I believe,  sir,  that  if 
there  had  been  a woman  practicing  law,  and  his 
client  had  gone  to  that  woman,  she  never  would 
have  given  him  that  miserable  advice  that  my 
friend,  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]  gave  his  client.  She  would  have 
asked : “Did  you  agree  to  marry  that  woman  ?” 
“No.”  “Well,  fight  her  then,  if  it  takes  ail 
winter.”  She  would  have  been  the  last  person 
to  suggestthe  advice  given  by  the  delegate.  I 
am  afraid  the  sentiments  which  troubled  the 
mind  of  my  venerable  friend  just  about  that 
time,  cropped  out  and  found  expression  here 
when  he  came  to  discuss  this  matter  of  the 
ballot. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I propose  to  define  my 
position.  I shall  not  be  alarmed  at  all  if  wo- 
men are  permitted  to  vote.  A am  rather 
alongside  of  my  friend  from  Champaign  [Mr. 
Young]  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  POND.  Has  the  gentleman  the  same 
sort  of  thirty-five  years  old  friend  at  home  to 
reconcile  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I have  not  a friend  at 
home  with  whom  I have  lived  thirty-five 
years ; but  I have  one  who  has  lived  with  me 
more  than  twenty,  and  she  believes  in  me  so 
much  that  she  would  not  raise  a row  with  me  if 
I voted  for  Woman  Suffrage  in  this  Convention. 

Mr.  POND.  Suppose  it  was  the  other  way, 
would  it  raise  a fuss  in  the  family? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  She  has  so  much  faith 
in  me,  that  whilst  she  might  possibly  think  I 
was  mistaken,  she  would  concede  that  I was 
honest.  [Laughter.]  I do  not  believe  that  the 
ballot  ever  degraded  a man,  much  less  do  I be- 
lieve it  will  ever  degrade  a woman.  As  far  as 
I am  concerned,  it  is  a matter  more  of  conve- 
nience and  propriety.  There  is  no  question  of 
principle  about  it.  When  we  come  to  guide 
our  action  by  principle  there  is  no  argument 
against  it.  It  is,  to  my  mind,  simply  a matter 
of  convenience.  I would  be  willing  to  leave  it 
to  the  women  themselves.  Now,  we  are,  or 
ought  to  be,  always  polite  to  the  ladies.  We 
will  concede  almost  everything  to  them  until  it 
comes  to  yielding  an  equality  with  us.  There 
is  really  no  equality  at  all  now.  The  gentle- 


Day.] CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

March  7,1874.]  Cunningham,  Carbkry,  Tuttle,  Townsend,  Foran,  etc. 


1865 


man  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  has  talked 
about  the  statute  a justice  of  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States  originated.  I tell  him  that 
to-day,  if  a woman  owned  a million  dollars’ 
worth  of  land,  she  could  not  convey  a foot  of  it 
unless  his  lordship,  her  husband,  would  sign 
the  deed.  Go  into  the  courts,  and  they  would 
tell  you,  as  they  have  decided,  that  the  deed  of 
the  wife,  without  the  husband,  is  null  and 
void.  And  though  the  husband  has  not  a dol- 
lar invested  in  it,  and  never  had,  although  she 
has  sold  it  for  every  penny  it  was  worth,  the 
deed  she  makes  is  no  better  than  so  much  white 
paper.  Call  you  that  equality  of  the  sexes  be- 
fore the  law?  The  question  with  me  is  the 
same  which  is  raised  by  the  gentleman  from 
Champaign  [Mr.  Young],  whether  women  want 
the  ballot.  I do  not  believe  they  do.  If  they 
do,  I,  as  an  individual  voter,  will  take  their 
opinion,  if  they  can  express  it  in  some  manner, 
as  the  rule  by  which  I shall  cast  my  vote  to- 
ward the  adoption  of  this  Article.  I shall  vote 
for  the  submission  of  the  question;  and  then,  if 
in  some  way,  the  women  of  the  State  can  ex- 
press their  opinion,  I will  cheerfully  vote  for 
it,  and  work  and  labor  for  it. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Is  there  any  proposition  to 
compel  the  women  to  vote  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No, sir;  but  what  has 
that  to  do  with  the  question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I wish  to  ask  the  gentleman 
a question,  if  he  will  allow  me;  that  is,  wheth- 
er, if  all  women  are  allowed  to  vote,  and  some 
of  them  vote,  will  it  not  practically  compel  the 
whole  body  to  vote  ? I do  not  mean  physical 
compulsion,  of  course,  but  I mean  in  every 
practical  view  of  the  matter. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I suppose  it  would 
not  be  very  many  years  until  they  would  all  be 
voting,  if  the  ballot  were  placed  in  their  hands. 
At  least,  I should  blame  them  very  much  if 
they  did  not.  If  it  were  made  possible  for  wo- 
men to  vote  in  Ohio,  I would  blame  them  very 
much  if  they  did  not  all  exercise  it.  The  ques- 
tion is  whether  women  desire  that  privilege. 
Now,  there  is  a road  out  of  this  difficulty  in 
which  I am  placed,  in  having  been  compelled  to 
compromise  between  the  gentleman  from  Sum- 
mit [Mr.  Voris]  and  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey].  There  is  no  authority  any 
place,  except  under  the  Baber  law,  and  that  is 
not  much  recognized,  for  ascertaining  the  opin- 
ions of  the  political  parties.  Conventions  are 
all  outside  of  the  law,  and  there  are  various 
modes  of  holding  them.  We  have  the  popular 
system  in  our  part  of  the  State.  Now,  I sug- 
gest to  my  friend  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris], 
who  has  charge  of  this  matter,  that  he  provide 
that  this  proposition  be  submitted  to  the  people 
in  a separate  section,  and  that  five  or  six  weeks 
before  the  time  the  people  are  to  vote  upon  the 
question  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
that  the  women  of  Ohio  hold  a Convention  by 
popular  vote  to  determine  whether  they  want 
the  ballot  or  not.  If  they  do,  my  word  for  it, 
it  will  be  given  them. 

i Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12:40  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  General  debate  on  Prop- 
osition No.  203  is  still  in  order. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Unless  some  gentleman 
desires  to  speak,  I renew  the  motion  that  I made 
this  morning,  that  general  debate  now  close. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

Mr.  HALE.  I object  to  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I demand  a call  of  the 
House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  fifty-two 
members  anwered  to  their  names,  as  follows: 

Messrs.  Burns,  Byal,  Campbell,  Chapin,  Clark 
of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Fo- 
ran, Godfrey,  Greene,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron, 
Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer,  McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pond,  Pow- 
ell, Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Thompson, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Van  Valken- 
burgh,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Watson,  West,  White  of  Brown,  Young  of  No- 
ble, President — 52. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms  be  dispatched  for  absentees. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  list  of  absentees  first. 

Those  who  were  absent  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  An- 
drews, Baber,  Bannon,  Barnet,  Beer,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Caldwell,  Carbery,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Clay,  Cook,  Cowen,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Ewing,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Griswold,  Hoadly, 
Hostetter,  Huinphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Lay- 
ton,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips, 
Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Scofield,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Tripp,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Weaver,  Wells,  White 
of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Champaign — 52. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
will  close  the  door. 

Mr.  FORAN.  I was  going  to  say  I had  some 
remarks  to  make  on  this  question,  and,  per- 
haps, by  the  time  I get  through  there  may  be  a 
quorum. 

Mr.  Hitchcock’s  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Baber  having  come  into  the  Hall,  a quo- 
rum was  present. 

Mr.  HALE.  I move  that  further  proceedings 
under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  withdraw  his 
motion  for  closing  the  general  debate? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  FORAN.  Mr.  President,  as  I regard  the 
Woman  Suffrage  question  one  of  the  most  vital 
that  has  come  before  this  body,  I desire  to 
place  upon  record  the  reasons  which  influence 
the  vote  I shall  give  upon  this  subject.  I am 
well  aware  that  common  and  statutory  law  re- 
cognize, or  rather  attempt  to  create,  a political 
difference  between  the  sexes;  but,  sir,  let  me 
ask  the  legal  gentlemen  upon  this  floor,  if  the 
great  eternal  law  of  equity  recognizes  any  such 
difference?  It  certainly  does  not.  When  we 
speak  generically  of  man,  we  include  and  mean 


1866 


WHAT  WOMAN  IS  AND  DOES. 

Foran. 


[132nd 


the  female  as  well  as  the  male.  Woman  is  a 
part  of  mankind;  and  every  right  given  by 
God  to  mankind,  was  given  to  woman  as  well 
as  to  man.  According  to  the  principles  dedu- 
cible  from  the  law  of  natural  freedom,  every 
right  claimed  by  man,  can  be  also  claimed  by 
woman.  There  is  not  a doubt  upon  my  mind 
but  woman  can  justly  claim,  by  the  logic  of 
first  principles,  every  political  right  claimed  by 
man,  and  a denial  of  that  right  is  a usurpation 
of  natural  liberty  that  cannot  be  justified — has 
not  been,  and  never  will  be,  justified.  I am, 
therefore,  not  only  prepared  to  vote  for  sepa- 
rate submission,  but  prepared  to  vote  for  the 
incorporation  into  the  organic  law  of  an  un- 
qualified provision  giving  woman  the  ballot. 
Not  that  such  a provision  would  establish  her 
right  to  vote,  but  rather  that  it  would  prevent  a 
usurpation  of  that  right  by  the  so-called  lords 
of  creation. 

But,  sir,  apart  from  the  abstract  question  of 
right,  I desire  to  speak  to  this  question  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  working  woman — the 
standpoint  of  the  workshop  and  factory  girl ; 
and  I cannot  do  so  any  better  than  by  present- 
ing some  ideas  I wrote  a few  weeks  since, 
which,  when  I penned  them,  I had  no  notion 
of  giving  them  here : 

“ What  is  her  proper  sphere?”  was  the  rather 
sharp  interrogatory  of  a lady,  who  had  heard  a 
gentleman  remark  that  “ woman  should  keep 
her  proper  sphere/’  “Madam,”  he  answered, 
“ it  is  a celestial  sphere.”  This  graceful,  com- 
plimentary turn  of  speech  is  in  harmony  with 
the  poet’s  dream  of  woman — a divinely  beauti- 
ful being,  an  incarnate  angel,  a lovely  goddess, 
who,  like  the  lily,  should  neither  toil  nor  spin, 
who  should  be  screened  from  the  vulgar  gaze, 
guarded  from  the  rude  contact  of  earthly  ex- 
istence, worshiped  as  a creature — though  not 
of  heaven,  yet  not  of  earth — a wingless  angel, 
to  whose  exquisite  delicacy  of  nature  and  almost 
spiritualized  fragility  of  body,  the  whole 
homage  of  man’s  rough,  Herculean  nature 
should  be  unselfishly  rendered. 

This  truly  poetical  idea  of  woman  may  be 
correct  in  the  abstract,  for  a true  woman  is  in- 
deed a fit  occupant  for  a celestial  sphere,  and  is, 
if  she  properly  adorns  it,  little  less  than  an 
angel;  however,  except  as  a tribute  to  woman, 
psychologically  considered,  this  beautiful  idea 
is  rudely  overturned  by  the  simple  fact  that 
woman  is  a creature  of  necessities,  and  is  sub- 
ject to  the  vicissitudes  of  that  struggle  for  ex- 
istence, which  is  the  common  lot  of  all  animal 
life.  She  may,  by  the  magic  power  of  gold, 
maintain  a position  akin,  at  least,  to  the  celes- 
tial sphere  in  which  the  poet  would  have  her 
live  and  move.  But  without  wealth,  she  is  a 
dependent  being,  as  much  subject  to  the  un- 
ceasing bread-getting  struggle  of  life  as  the 
toughest  and  strongest  of  the  sons  of  men. 
She  must  work,  work  with  her  hands  or  her 
brain,  or  both.  Tender  and  frail  of  form,  weak 
in  muscle  and  limb,  she  may  be,  yet  must  she 
toil,  very  often  as  a common  drudge,  if  she 
would  live.  Her  necessities  are  as  great,  if  not 
greater,  than  those  of  man,  and  side  by  side  with 
man  must  she,  by  the  labor  of  her  hands,  pro- 
cure the  means  to  satisfy  these  necessitous  de- 
mands. This  is  the  condition  of  nine-tenths  of 
the  women  of  the  world  to-day,  notwithstand- 


[  Saturday, 


ing  the  oft-repeated  boast  that  this  is  an  age  of 
true  chivalry  towards  women ; and  that  America 
is  especially  the  paradise  of  the  gentler  sex. 

And,  sir,  this  being  the  case,  is  it  not  right 
and  just  that  she  should  have  every  means  of 
protection  from  the  cupidity  and  selfishness  of 
the  world  which  her  co-laborer,  man,  enjoys? 
And  what  greater  instrument  of  protection 
can  be  placed  in  her  hands  than  the  bal- 
lot? We  recall  with  horror  and  loathing 
th  abject,  degrading  servility  of  woman’s 
condition  among  the  ancients;  we  abhor 
the  memory  of  Lamech,  the  first  polyga- 
mous adulterer ; we  pity  the  women  that  lived 
in  those  days,  when  even  the  patriarchs  bought 
their  wives,  when  women  were  sold  as  slaves ; 
when  even  among  the  enlightened  Greeks,  in 
that  land  of  sages,  heroes  and  philosophers,  that 
land  blooming  with  elegance,  culture  and  ge- 
nius, she  was  merely  the  prostitute  of  the  Re- 
public ; we  shudder  at  the  contemplation  of  her 
condition  when  the  Roman  lord,  by  the  civil 
formalities  of  mancipation  held  his  wife  and 
children  as  a portion  of  his  property  or  manci- 
pium.  And  yet,  when  we  critically  scan  her 
condition  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  and 
under  the  generous,  liberal,  exalted  influences 
of  modern  civilization,  we  fail  to  discover,  ex- 
cept in  isolated  cases,  any  very  marked  im- 
provement. The  majority  of  England’s 
daughters  differ  from  her  sons  in  little  save 
their  physical  formation — they  are  makers  of 
brick,  and  slaves  to  all  manner  of  exacting, 
drudging  toil.  In  Austria,  the  condition  of 
women  is  even  worse.  She  is,  there,  the 
digger  of  cellars,  and  carrier  of  mortar 
and  bricks,  as  well  as  the  slave  of  lighter 
burdens.  Pagan  Greece  and  Rome  thought 
woman’s  highest  office,  as  a wife,  was  to 
be  the  mother  of  soldiers.  The  nations 
of  modern  Europe  improve  upon  this  idea  by 
forcing  women  to  be  the  mother  of  soldiers 
without  the  formality  of  marriage.  In  Ameri- 
ca the  condition  of  woman  is  not  so  bad, 
though  it  is  hard  to  conceive  how  it  could  be 
worse.  The  majority  of  American  women  are 
manual  laborers,  workers  in  factories  and  shops 
of  every  description.  The  majority  of  our 
women  must  either  work,  or  sin,  or  starve. 
They  toil  at  hard,  onerous,  burdensome  labor; 
they  toil  early  and  late;  they  work  themselves 
into  premature  graves  in  endeavoring  to  keep 
the  vital  spark  within  their  frail  bodies.  Or, 
after  being  nearly  ruined  by  years  of  life  and 
tissue-wasting  toil,  they  become  the  mothers  of 
a race  of  stunted — physically  and  intellectually 
— creatures,  a burden  to  themselves,  a curse  to 
humanity. 

We  may  well  doubt  the  boasted  assumption 
that  the  condition  of  woman  has  been  so  vastly 
improved  by  modern  civilization.  I do  not 
speak  of  the  select  few,  whose  only  mission 
seems  to  be  to  excel  in  the  art  of  committing 
fashionable  suicide  by  slow  and  torturing  de- 
grees. These  favorites  of  fortune  are  much 
better  off,  apparently  so  at  least,  than  the  wo- 
men of  old ; but  it  is  of  the  vast  multitude  that 
I speak,  the  wives  and  daughters  of  the  poor ; 
those  careworn,  emaciated  beings,  pale,  hag- 
gard and  shrunken,  whom  we  see  upon  the 
streets  in  crowds,  crawling  to  and  from  their 
work,  with  but  very  little  of  the  poetical  idea 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Foran,  West. 


1867 


Day.] 

March  7,1874.] 


of  woman  about  them.  Are  these  in  their 
proper  sphere  ? Is  it  possible  that  after  all  that 
has  been  said  of  the  chivalrous  devotion  paid  to 
woman  in  Christian  lands,  we  should  find  her 
in  reality  to  be  little  better  than  the  slave  she 
has  been  and  is  in  Pagan  countries?  I am  not 
one  of  those  who  would  see  woman  freed  from 
all  toil.  She  has  her  duties  to  perform,  her 
mission  to  fill — not  in  the  fields,  in  shops  ol- 
factories, as  much  as  in  the  home. 

I believe,  sir,  the  ballot  will  aid  woman  in 
the  bread  and  butter  getting  struggle  of  life, 
and  that  is  one  reason  I wish  to  see  her 
exercise  it.  I believe  it  will  enable 
her  to  prevent  the  mammonite  from  practically 
using  her  as  a species  of  animated  quartz,  from 
which  gold  is  to  be  extracted  by  the  usual  pro- 
cess of  crushing  and  smelting,  and  for  that  rea- 
son I desire  that  right  to  its  exercise  shall  be 
no  longer  usurped. 

A perfect  State,  dispensing  perfect  govern- 
mental influences,  from  which  would  spring  a 
perfect  condition  of  society  and  humanity,  is  a 
problem  that  has  occupied  the  attention  of  the 
learned  humanitarian  in  every  age  of  the  world. 
To  reach  this  millennial  epoch  of  social  perfec- 
tion, grandeur  and  glory,  many  beautiful  ideas 
have  been  evolved,  many  abstruse  theories  pro- 
pounded, but  being  mere  abstractions — ideas  of 
a great  project  considered  separately  or  apart 
from  its  tangibility — they  have  failed,  as  all  ab- 
stractions do,  to  produce  any  real  or  visible  ben- 
eficial effect  upon  mankind. 

And  yet,  to  reach  this  epoch  we  have  only  to 
perfect  the  family.  The  family  “is  the  founda- 
tion of  all  governments,  the  vestibule  of  all  re- 
ligions, the  instructor  of  all  nations,  and  the 
perpetuator  and  very  heart’s  core  of  humanity 
itself.”  That  nation  in  which  the  family  has 
attained  its  greatest  perfection,  stands  first 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth — its  people  the 
purest,  bravest,  wisest  and  strongest  in  all 
things.  If  we  improve  and  perfect  the  family, 
we  improve  and  perfect  nationality  and  man- 
hood. If  the  family  is  allowed  to  deteriorate, 
manhood,  vigor, nationality,  liberty — all  become 
dead.  To  reach  a millennium  of  social  great- 
ness, all  that  is  required  is  to  develop  a perfect 
family.  How  is  this  to  be  done  ? Improve  and 
perfect  its  backbone — its  soul — the  mother.  A 
perfected  condition  of  womanhood  will  pro- 
duce and  create  a perfect  family,  and  nothing 
else  can  or  will  do  it.  But  is  woman  to  be 
perfected  and  improved  by  making  her  the  vic- 
tim of  man’s  greed  for  gain  and  power? 
by  making  her  a common  drudge,  a breath- 
ing, talking  machine?  by  depriving  her 
mind  of  culture?  by  rendering  her  mind  a 
blank,  her  soul  incapable  of  the  finer  feelings 
and  susceptibilities  peculiar  to  her  sex?  Oh, 
no!  we  are  off  the  track.  Our  women  are 
overworked ; and  of  all  the  sad  sights,  the  sad- 
dest is  an  overworked  woman.  Our  girls  are 
not  educated ; they  are  driven  out  to  service,  or 
into  shops  and  factories,  at  a tender  age,  and 
worked  out  of  womanhood,  cheated  out  of  the 
true  instincts  of  femininity,  their  souls 
cramped,  minds  undeveloped,  sexuality  dead. 
And  it  is  from  such  mothers  as  these  the  civil- 
ization of  the  age  would  produce  a race  of  mus- 
cular and  intellectual  giants  to  people  the  earth 
in  future  ages  with  another  race  of  mortals 


who,  in  power  and  greatness,  would  be  almost 
equal  to  the  gods  of  mythology  ! 

If  the  exercise  of  the  ballot  by  woman  can 
change,  or  aid  in  changing,  this  horrible  condi- 
tion of  things — and  I am  positively  certain  it 
can,  and  will, — I want  her  to  have  full  power  to- 
vote  upon  all  questions  voted  upon  by  man. 
By  so  doing,  we  will  not  be  extending  to  her  as 
favor,  but  restoring  to  her  a usurped  right. 

Mr.  Young,  of  Champaign,  asked  and  ob- 
tained indefinite  leave  of  absence  after  to-day. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  under  the  impression  this 
morning  that  general  debate  had  closed,  and 
that  we  were  discussing  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  to  strike 
out  a portion  of  section  one,  or  I would  have 
made  a few  remarks  on  that  occasion  on  the 
question  that  has  been  referred  to  by  the  gentle- 
man who  has  just  taken  his  seat.  Very  briefly, 
however ; for,  as  the  discussion  has  run,  the  sub- 
ject has  been  treated  in  all  its  bearings,  and,  so 
far  as  my  impression  goes,  there  is  a plentiful 
lack  of  any  novel  ideas  to  offer  upon  the  sub- 
ject. All  have  been  presented  that  could  have 
been  with  profit,  and  some  that  might  as  well 
not  have  been  presented. 

I simply  desire  to  state  my  views  upon  this 
subject.  I shall  vote  for  the  submission  of  this 
proposition  to  the  electors.  If  that  fails,  I shall 
then  vote  to  incorporate  into  the  Constitution  a 
provision  authorizing  the  Legislature  to  submit 
the  matter  to  the  good  women  of  Ohio  to  deter- 
mine for  themselves.  I would  very  much  pre- 
fer that  the  gallantry  of  the  State  should  bestow 
it  as  a gift  upon  our  fair,  good  women,  than  that 
they  should  be  required  to  implore  and  beg  the 
simple  boon.  Having  stated  that,  probably,  it 
is  about  all  that  I need  to  state;  and,  yet, I shall 
add  a few  remarks  upon  two  or  three  branches 
of  the  subject. 

In  considering  a constitutional  provision,  it 
has  occurred  to  me  that  the  proper  inquiry  to 
be  made  is,  cui  bono?  for  what  good?  and  if  we 
can  answer,  pro  bono  publico,  for  the  public  good, 
we  should  incorporate  and  adopt  the  provision. 
Now,  what  good  can  be  subserved  by  bestowing 
the  right  of  suffrage  upon  our  countrywomen'? 
Can  public  welfare  be  subserved?  Can  any 
interest,  can  any  blessing,  that  should  be  se- 
cured to  all,  be  better  secured  in  this  mode  than 
they  can  be  under  the  existing  system  of  suf- 
frage? As  a matter  of  course,  it  must  be  left 
largely  to  conjecture.  We  have  not  had  experi- 
ence to  guide  our  feet.  We  can  only  reach  our 
conclusions  by  conjectures,  and  act  accordingly. 
Then,  will  the  condition  of  woman  be  improved 
by  entrusting  to  her  the  ballot,  or  will  the  con- 
dition of  man  be  improved  by  entrusting  to  her 
the  ballot,  or  will  the  common  welfare  of  both 
sexes  be  advanced  and  confirmed,  or  is  the  con- 
trary of  this  proposition  true?  If,  for  one 
single  moment,  I believed  the  contrary  were 
true,  I certainly  not  only  would  hesitate,  but 
absolutely  refuse  to  grant  so  destructive,  so- 
dangerous  a boon.  I believe,  however,  that  the 
common  welfare  will  be  advanced,  and  for  that 
reason  am  perfectly  willing  to  submit  the  pro- 
position to  the  electors  of  the  State.  For  one, 
I would  vote  now  to  incorporate  it  as  an  abso- 
lute provision  in  the  body  of  the  Constitution; 
but  I know  there  is  so  much  of  a feeling  of 
prejudice,  or  rather  of  uneducated  experience 


1868 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


[132nd 


West.  [Saturday, 


in  regard  to  this  subject  as  yet,  that  it  would 
very  greatly  endanger  the  Constitution,  if  it 
was  incorporated  therein  as  an  integral  portion 
thereof;  and,  for  that  reason,  I prefer  to  sub- 
mit it  as  a separate  and  distinct  proposition. 

The  only  argument  that  I have  heard  urged 
against  this  proposition  that  seemed  to  have  any 
weight,  was,  that  it  will  degrade  woman.  That 
it  will  have  the  effect,  in  other  words,  of  un- 
sexing  and  reducing  her  in  the  scale  of  social 
being,  and  greatly  impair  her  welfare  and  her 
happiness.  If  that  proposition  were  true,  I 
certainly  would  not  favor  the  extending  of  the 
privilege;  yet,  I cannot  see,  either  in  logic  or 
good  reason,  how  this  can  be  possible. 

Going  down  Broadway  this  morning,  I ob- 
served that  there  were  a multitude  of  people 
there.  I heard  the  rich  Irish  brogue,  and  the 
sweet  German  accent.  I heard  the  soprano  of 
the  Italian,  and  the  slogan  of  the  Gaelic,  all 
languages  and  all  tongues,  and  both  sexes 
seemed  to  be  commingled  in  a mighty  multi- 
tude upon  Broadway.  It  occurred  to  me  that 
if  the  logic  of  my  venerable  and  distinguished 
friend  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  is  true, 
these  people  are  certainly  in  a very  dangerous 
position.  There  are  women,  goodly  women  of 
every  class  and  condition,  women  of  the  elite  of 
Fourth  street,  and  women  of  different  ranks  and 
classes  of  society  commingled  with  rough  and 
brawny  men — degraded  men  — men  of  all 
classes.  Were  not  the  sex  in  great  danger  of 
being  unsexed  by  commingling  in  the  market- 
place, with  their  baskets  upon  their  arms,  gath- 
ering the  provisions  of  the  day,  in  order  that 
they  might  feed  their  families  and  their  chil- 
dren. Certainly,  it  was  a dangerous  place. 
I saw  no  policeman  there  to  restrain.  I saw 
nothing  there  in  all  that  multitude  to  prevent 
the  degradation  of  woman ; and  yet,  she  was 
there  exercising  her  rights  and  privileges.  Ah, 
she  was  engaged  in  the  division  of  labor.  It 
might  be  she  was  laboring  to  provide  for  her 
little  household,  while,  perhaps,  her  husband 
was  at  home,  looking  after  the  little  ones ; and 
yet  we  need  not  say  that  that  degraded  the 
goodly  woman  who  was  providing  for  the 
table  of  to-day  or  of  to-morrow.  And  yet,  in 
this  contact  in  your  market-place  to-day,  you 
have  women  exposed  to  every  degradation  that 
it  is  possible  to  expose  her  at  the  ballot-box. 

At  my  own  home,  yearly,  there  are  con- 
vened ten  thousand  strong,  upon  our  common 
fairground,  men  and  women  of  every  class  and 
condition  and  color ; the  highest  and  the  low- 
est, the  rich  and  the  poor,  the  ignorant  and  the 
learned  mingle  together  in  one  mass  upon  our 
common  ground.  No  soldiery  is  there  to  protect 
them ; no  one  there  even  to  protect  the  women 
from  rude  insults.  Why?  Because  the  com- 
mon interest,  and  the  gallantry  of  men,  are  a 
protection  wherever  women  are.  That  is  a 
common  feeling.  I know  it  has  been  urged 
upon  this  floor — and  it  was  stated  yesterday — 
that  women  would  be  exposed  to  the  rude  in- 
sults of  the  rabble  and  the  corrupt  that  congre- 
gate about  the  election  polls.  And  my  vene- 
rable friend  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] — and 
I regret  to  say  it — acted  very  much  after  the 
pattern  of  the  gentleman  who  lectured  on 
temperance,  and  enforced  his  precepts  by  ex- 
ample. He  conjectured  that  lewd  insults  and 


offending  words  would  be  offered  to,  and  offend- 
ing words  heard  by  the  delicacy  of  women; 
and,  in  order  to  enforce  his  teaching,  gave  us 
some  specimens  of  it.  It  was  very  unfortunate, 
and  I exceedingly  regret  it;  but  I do  not  be- 
lieve it  will  often  occur.  I have  seen  recently 
upon  the  streets  of  our  country  villages,  and  it 
may  come  to  pass  within  the  city,  fair  women, 
refined  women,  educated  women,  accomplished 
women,  goodly  women,  weeping  women,  in  the 
lowest  hovels  of  degradation,  and  the  scoundrel 
that  would  have  dared  to  lift  his  fingers  against 
them,  or  uttered  an  offending  word  in  their 
ears,  would  have  been  hung  to  the  nearest 
lamp-post. 

Bring  that  influence  about  your  polls,  your 
election  precincts,  and  my  word  for  it,  instead 
of  the  drunken  brawls  that  you  have  witnessed, 
heretofore,  instead  of  the  rude  outrages  and  in- 
sults, the  very  angelic  presence  of  women  will 
have  the  effect  and  influence  of  quelling  the  bois- 
terousness of  the  rough,  unthinking  mob,  and 
decency  and  propriety  will  be  observed.  Why 
not  then  give  to  women  the  ballot,  when  that 
effect  may  reasonably  be  anticipated?  Ah! 
says  one,  it  would  be  exercised  by  the  lewd, 
abandoned  women  of  your  cities,  whilst  the 
refined  ladies  will  not  assume  to  exercise  the 
privilege.  They  will  take  posession  of  your 
voting  places,  and  control  all  the  departments 
of  your  government,  whilst  those  in  whose 
hands  the  ballot  might  safely  be  trusted 
will  shrink  from  their  contact.  Go  to 
some  streets  and  by-places  in  the  city  of  Cin- 
cinnati, and  you  will  find  as  bad  a population 
as  any  that  you  can  possibly  find  by  giving  to 
women  the  ballot.  Is  it  the  ballot  that  has  de- 
graded them?  No,  sir;  their  condition  would 
be  infinitely  worse  if  it  were  taken  away  from 
them.  With  nothing  to  live  for,  nothing  to 
hope  for,  no  aspiration,  no  ambition,  those  poor 
drunken  wretches  that  are  now  upon  your 
streets  and  in  the  dens  of  your  city  would  still 
be  reduced  to  a lower  level,  if  a lower  depth  is 
possible,  because,  robbed  of  their  manhood, 
robbed  of  that  which  dignifies  man,  robbed  of 
that  little  incentive  to  become  a power  and  ob- 
tain distinction,  they  would  sink  down  to  a still 
lower  depth  from  which  there  is  no  resurrec- 
tion. It  is  this  manhood  now,  which  is  the  one 
privilege  of  being  an  American  citizen,  with 
the  rights  of  an  American  citizen,  that  has 
kept  them  elevated  to  the  position  they  have 
occupied.  Rob  them  of  that,  and  they  sink 
down,  if  possible,  to  still  lower  depths. 

Place  this  ballot  in  the  hands  of  this  cyprian 
class  to  whom  allusion  is  sometimes  made,  and  it 
has  been  said  it  will  be  dangerous.  I deny  it.  I 
believe  if  that  very  class  of  women  had  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  citizenship  conferred  upon 
them,  if  they  were  clothed  with  the  dignity  and 
power  of  what  we  are  now  pleased  to  style 
manhood,  with  the  privileges  and  duties  of 
citizenship,  that  very  class  would  be  dignified 
and  elevated,  their  condition  would  be  im- 
proved, they  would  begin  to  feel  a sense  of  re- 
sponsibility, because  they  would  feel  the  sense 
of  consideration  and  dignity.  Having  been 
robbed  of  these  privileges,  being  outcasts  of 
society,  with  no  political  power,  and,  there- 
fore, no  political  consideration,  with  none  to 
look  after  them  but  the  charitable  and  the  good, 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


1869 


Day.] 

March  7,  1874.]  West. 


with  no  motive  actuating  the  breast  of  man  to 
look  after  their  welfare,  nothing  to  excite  or 
influence  any  to  care  for  them  or  theirs,  they 
are  permitted  to  occupy  their  dens  of  degrada- 
tion, without  remorse,  or  sympathy,  or  feeling 
upon  our  part.  Dignify  and  clothe  them  with 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  American  citizen- 
ship, place  in  their  hands  the  ballot  and  politi- 
cal power,  and  great  men,  strong  men,  learned 
men  and  women  will  begin  to  look  after  their 
welfare,  not  to  degrade,  but  to  elevate. 

Certain  abuses  may  be  committed.  Certain 
advantages  may  be  taken  of  some  or  many,  but 
the  minds  and  character  of  even  that  class  of 
women  will  be  elevated  and  dignified,  as  the 
character  of  that  down-trodden  race  over  whom 
two  hundred  years  of  oppression  has  rolled,  has 
now  been  elevated  and  dignified.  No  man,  who 
is  a conscientious  and  reasonable  man,  but  must 
have  seen  and  recognized  already  in  that  class 
of  our  fellow-citizens,  so  recently  enfranchised, 
a progress  and  advancement  to  elevation  and 
dignity  that  is  beginning  to  be  developed,  which 
is  most  astonishing  as  it  is  most  gratifying. 
Give  to  woman  the  same  privileges,  clothe  her 
with  the  same  rights,  give  her  the  same  rights, 
make  her  feel  the  same  sense  of  dignity  and 
importance,  and  men  will  look  after  and  care 
for  them  in  other  respects  than  for  their  mere 
gratification,  and  they,  too,  will  be  elevated  in 
the  scale  of  social  being,  elevated  in  their  own 
self-respect,  and  it  will  add  dignity,  and  charac- 
ter and  excellence  to  woman. 

The  ballot  is  to  degrade  them.  How,  I pray 
you?  Does  not  a woman  go  annually,  or  with 
more  frequency,  and  attend  the  meeting  of  her 
congregation,  and  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage 
in  and  about  her  religious  affairs  ? Has  she  not, 
in  some  of  the  large  and  influential  denomina- 
tions, the  right  to  determine  who  shall  minister 
the  word  of  God  in  her  sanctuary?  Does  any 
one  feel  that  because  women  in  the  sanctuary 
of  God  exercise  that  religious  suffrage,  she  is 
degraded  in  her  own  estimation,  or  the  estima- 
tion of  her  fellow  beings?  We  have  great  cor- 
porations, pecuniary  and  private  in  their  cha- 
racter. Women  have  a perfect  right  to  exercise 
all  the  franchises  and  privileges  of  those  great 
private  corporations.  Is  her  condition  degraded 
because  by  her  possession  of  stock  in  those 
great  corporations  she  at  the  same  time  exer- 
cises the  frachises  which  the  possession  of  that 
stock  confers  upon  her?  No  man  but  an  idiot 
or  a lunatic  will  assert  such  a proposition.  It 
is  not  the  exercise  of  suffrage  that  does  or  will 
degrade  her. 

Again,  observe  our  schools  of  learning.  I 
find  in  this  State,  and  I find  in  all  our  growing 
cities,  and  I find  in  all  our  country  villages, 
that  we  have  schools  of  the  higher  order  that 
are  under  the  exclusive  charge  of  the  women  of 
our  country.  They  are  the  teachers  of  our 
youth,  the  teachers  of  our  sons  and  daughters. 
Is  not  that  occupation  and  pursuit  entirely  in- 
consistent with  the  domestic  duties  and  relations 
of  women  ? Is  not  her  psychological  and  physi- 
ological formation  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 
absence  from  home  to  discharge  the  duties  of 
the  school  room?  Just  as  much  so,  sir,  as  ab- 
sence from  home  for  the  purpose  of  depositing 
her  ballot.  Just  as  inconsistent  as  it  would  be 
to  discharge  the  duties  of  a clerkship.  Just 


as  inconsistent  as  to  go  into  a court  of  justice 
and  give  her  testimony  as  a witness.  Just  as 
inconsistent  as  to  take  her  position  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  there  exercise  the  rights  of 
membership.  What  difference  is  there  whether 
she  be  in  the  school  room  or  in  the  halls  of  legis- 
lation ? What  difference  whether  she  be  in  the 
cathedral  or  here  upon  this  floor,  listening  to 
our  feeble  debate.  Is  that  woman  more  unwo- 
manly because  she  sits  here  in  the  presence  of 
men  and  listens  to  this  debate,  and  begs  for 
rights,  than  if  she  were  at  her  own  home  attend- 
ing to  her  domestic  duties  ? Is  that  woman  more 
unwomanly  if  she  takes  a position  as  a member  of 
this  Convention  upon  this  floor  to  have  answer- 
ed the  scurrilous  remarks  that  have  been  made 
about  her  in  her  hearing?  Certainly  she  would 
not.  And  is  any  member  so  ungallant  as  to 
presume,  so  ungallant  as  to  conceive,  that  these 
goodly  women  are  here  out  of  place  and  out  of 
position?  Certainly  not.  Then,  how,  in  the 
name  of  conscience,  in  the  name  of  common 
sense,  in  the  name  of  reason,  could  the  simple 
duty  of  exercising  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
American  citizens  in  a quiet  way  be  inconsistent 
with  the  dignity  and  high  character  and  high 
duties  of  American  women?  I cannot  see 
that  it  can.  I cannot  understand  how  that 
is  possible.  She  is  not  more  unwomanly 
than  she  is  in  a church.  She  is  not  more  un- 
womanly when  she  is  in  the  lobby  of  the  hall 
of  legislation  than  when  at  the  cathedral.  She 
is  not,  and  cannot  be,  more  unwomanly  as  a 
member  of  the  General  Assembly  than  she  is  or 
would  be  as  a mere  spectator  in  the  lobby  of  our 
General  Assembly. 

But,  sir,  I am  not  speaking  now  in  behalf  of 
the  highest  political  privilege.  The  question 
is  simply  the  right  of  suffrage.  I do  not  know 
that  there  is  a single  American  woman  that 
would  ask  for  any  political  position  that  is  in 
the  gift  of  suffrage.  That  is  not  the  question 
now  for  us  to  consider.  If  they  are  entitled  to 
occupy  those  places,  we  shall  probably  offer  to 
elevate  them,  or  if  they,  having  the  numerical 
force,  and  having  better  judgment,  shall  see 
proper  to  elect  one  of  their  number  to  a posi- 
tion in  the  hall  of  legislation,  I cannot  see  any 
impropriety.  True,  gentlemen  have  urged  that 
some  condition  of  life  would  be  incompatible 
with  this  for  the  time  being.  That  is  true. 
But  do  not  gentlemen  know  that  these  con- 
ditions of  life  are  incompatible  with  these 
other  situations  that  it  is  possible  to  be- 
stow upon  women  outside  of  her  immediate 
domestic  circle?  Yet,  it  is  not  urged  as 
an  ojection  to  the  employment  of  women  as 
teachers  in  your  schools  and  other  institutions 
of  learning.  It  is  not  urged  as  an  objection  to 
the  employment  of  women  in  the  ten  thousand 
cases  and  distinct  employments  of  life,  moral, 
social  and  political,  that  are  outside  of  her  im- 
mediate domestic  relations.  But  let  that  pass. 

I am  speaking  now  of  the  question  of  those 
higher  political  positions,  those  mere  re- 
sults of  franchise.  I am  speaking  simply  of 
the  propriety  of  conferring  upon  women  the 
right  to  exercise  the  first  and  fundamental  po- 
litical privilege  of  American  society,  the  right 
of  the  ballot.  I started  out  with  this  proposi- 
tion that  good  can  be  anticipated  from  it.  I 
have  alluded  to  some  things  from  which  I be- 


1870 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE 

West,  Campbell,  Rowland. 


[132nd 

[Saturday, 


lieve  great  good  would  result,  and  must  result, 
in  the  elevation  of  woman,  in  her  own  estima- 
tion, and  in  the  estimation  and  consideration  of 
her  fellow-men  and  fellow-women,  if  the  ex- 
pression is  proper. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Why  not  proper? 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  it  is.  I do  not  know, 
•sir,  that  the  laws,  by  giving  to  women  the 
ballot,,  would  more  clearly  define  or  more 
sacredly  protect  the  rights  of  person  and  the 
rights  of  property  than  they  do  now.  I do  not 
know  that  they  would.  I speak  now  merely  of 
rights  of  persons  against  encroachment,  of  her 
-own  rights  of  property  as  simply  vested  rights. 
I do  not  think  they  would  be  improved  any.  I 
do  not  believe  that  they  will.  I do  not  believe 
that  they  can.  I believe  that  there  is  such  in- 
telligence and  such  integrity  abroad  to  influence 
the  making  of  our  laws  that  they  will  not  be 
largely  or  greatly  improved  in  this  respect. 
But  there  is  something  more  than  the  mere 
•question  of  property  and  public  rights  in  politi- 
cal associations.  There  is  something  more  than 
the  mere  protection  of  persons  against  assaults, 
violence  and  rudeness,  or  the  effects  of  slander. 
There  is  something  still  beyond  that.  There  is 
at  the  foundation  and  the  key  stone  of  every 
political  society,  and  the  state  of  moral  power 
and  moral  well  being,  that  I believe  will  be  ad- 
vanced and  promoted  to  a degree  that  is  utterly 
inconceivable  and  utterly  impossible  in  the 
present  constitution  of  our  political  organiza- 
tion. I believe  that  our  women  will  bring  to 
bear  upon  the  ballot,  and  upon  our  institutions, 
and  upon  our  laws,  and  will  give  to  them  an 
imprint  of  moral  character,  that  it  is  utterly 
impossible  to  derive  from  our  institutions  as 
they  are  now  organized  and  exist.  I believe 
that  when  women  are  clothed  with  the  ballot, 
we  shall  have  less  hunger  and  less  nakedness  in 
the  land,  because  1 believe  that  the  cereals 
which  God,  in  His  providence,  annually  scatters 
■over  the  earth,  instead  of  being  devoted  to  the 
brutalization  of  mankind,  instead  of  being  de- 
voted to  taking  away  the  brain  as  well  as  the 
means  of  mankind,  will  be  devoted  to  feed  the 
unfortunate,  to  clothe  the  naked,  to  spreading 
comfort  among  the  now  wretched,  and  that 
your  bazars  of  misery,  and  that  your  hovels  of 
rags  and  wretchedness,  may  be  made  ultimately 
to  become  abodes  of  comfort  and  consolation, 
and,  instead  of  that  drunken  delirium  that  now 
destroys  man,  that  now  drags  down  the  wives 
and  little  ones  from  being  little  less  than  angels, 
to  be  but  little  less  than  fiends — that  drunken 
delirium  will  ultimately  give  place  to  songs  of 
Jesus  and  the  Lamb,  and  the  homes  that  are 
now  so  desolate  shall  be  made  cheerful,  and 
those  that  are  now  so  hungry  will  be  fed,  and 
the  limbs  that  are  now  so  cold  will  be  clad,  and 
all  will  be  elevated,  and  the  blessings  which 
God  has  spread  so  bountifully  upon  the  face  of 
the  land,  and  with  which  he  has  filled  the  lap 
of  nature,  instead  of  being  wasted  in  unnatural 
uses,  will  be  converted  to  the  common  welfare 
and  the  common  happiness  of  us  all. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I desire,  sir,  to  speak  very 
briefly  upon  this  question;  and  as  it  has  been 
treated  so  ably  by  others,  simply  to  give  my 
conclusions,  rather  than  the  reasons  upon 
which  they  are  based.  It  was  early  found  out, 
in  the  history  of  our  race,  that  it  was  not  good 


for  man  to  be  alone;  and  I believe  that 
when  you  leave  him  alone  in  any  of  his  inter- 
ests, and  deprive  him  of  the  influence  of  woman, 
you  detract  from  that  completeness  and  that 
harmony  of  character  which  God  designed  he 
should  have.  I believe  that  it  was  De  Tocque- 
ville,  who  remarked,  that  the  crowning  glory 
of  American  institutions  was  the  broad  and 
liberal  toleration  that  pervaded  here.  I believe 
that  the  crowning  glory  of  our  civilization  is 
the  education  and  elevation  of  woman,  and 
that  we  shall  never  see  its  “bright  consummate 
flower”  until  we  put  the  ballot  into  the  hands 
of  woman,  and  I hope  to  live  to  inhale  its  fra- 
grance, for  I believe  it  will  purify  the  polluted 
air  of  our  politics,  and  I expect  to  live  to  see  it. 
I hope  in  God  I shall. 

Tell  me  that  the  ballot,  in  the  hands  of  the 
mother  who  bore  me,  and  of  that  woman  who 
has  chosen  my  lot  in  this  life  for  fortune  or 
misfortune,  would  be  a dangerous  implement 
by  which  the  best  institutions  of  society  would 
be  endangered ! Whether  you  will  or  not,  you 
entrust  woman  with  the  most  important  func- 
tions in  society.  You  commit  to  her  the  train- 
ing of  the  boys  who  have  been  casting  our  bal- 
lots and  who  have  laid  the  foundations  cf  gov- 
ernment. Beyond  priest,  minister,  editor,  edu- 
cator or  any  other  man  or  set  of  men,  she 
stamps  the  character  and  gives  direction  to  the 
ideas  of  men  about  us;  and  is  that  woman 
whom  you  thus  recognize  and  intrust  with  so 
high  a duty  to  have  no  control  in  the  specific 
direction  of  public  affairs  ? 

I am  glad,  sir,  that  there  are  coming  to  the 
support  of  this  subject,  men  in  this  Convention 
able  to  present  it,  and  I listened  with  delight 
to  several  of  the  gentlemen  who  preceded  me ; 
but  I must  say  that,  with  my  admiration  of  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  I was 
surprised  when  he  gave  evidence  of  so  much 
research,  and  when  he  had  adorned  his  address 
with  all  the  graces  of  diction,  that  so  lame  and 
impotent  a conclusion  should  have  been  reach- 
ed. I thought  that  his  argument  w^as  drifting 
irrevocably  to  Woman  Suffrage.  I could  con- 
ceive no  other  result;  but,  sir,  he  plunged  over 
Niagara,  and  has  not  yet  emerged  from  the 
fury  of  its  descending  waters ! 

This  question  addresses  my  reason  no  less 
than  my  sentiment,  my  feelings,  my  heart. 
When  I look  abroad,  I see  without  woman  we 
are  complete  in  nothing.  She  takes  her  part 
in  your  churches,  and  in  the  concert  room,  and 
in  all  our  entertainments,  she  is  the  light  and 
glory  of  our  social  life.  Without  her,  sir,  life 
would  be  dark,  indeed ; and  why  should  we  not 
go  to  the  polls  with  her?  The  very  power  that 
you  would  arm  her  with — the  ballot,  which  ex- 
ecutes the  freeman’s  will  as  lightning  does  the 
will  of  God,  will  force  upon  her  the  careful 
consideration  of  those  subjects  upon  which  she 
is  to  vote,  and  she  will  inform  herself.  If  she 
is  to  raise  and  educate  your  children,  and  give 
them  the  impress  of  her  mind  and  character, 
and  measurably  to  fix  their  destiny  forever,  is 
it  not  lame  to  say,  that  she  is  not  capable  of 
considering  those  questions  which  affect  us  in 
the  aggregate,  in  our  civil  capacity?  Her  very 
instincts  lead  her  in  the  right  direction,  and  I 
would  rather  trust  the  worst  and  mostabandon- 
I ed  women  in  Cincinnati,  upon  questions  of 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Rowland,  Blose,  Philips. 


1871 


Day.] 

March  7,  1874.] 


morals,  than  half  of  the  men  who  go  to  the  polls. 
Upon  this  question  of  intemperance,  if  you 
will.  Sir,  what  is  the  danger  in  going  to  the 
polls?  It  is  because  men  go  there  full  of  whis- 
ky, with  their  passions  inflamed,  with  their 
reason  overturned.  That,  and  that  only,  makes 
it  dangerous  for  men  or  women  either  to  go  to 
the  polls. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Are  the  saloons  kept  open  on 
election  day  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  No,  sir;  but  unfortunate- 
ly the  infernal  stuff  is  laid  in  beforehand,  or  the 
law  is  so  lamely  executed  that  it  amounts  to  but 
little.  The  front  doors  are  closed,  but  the  side 
or  rear  ones  are  left  open.  The  damning  stuff 
is  not  kept  from  their  possession.  I wish  it 
could  be.  My  word  for  it,  there  would  be  fewer 
discreditable  and  disgraceful  scenes  at  your 
polling  places,  if  women  had  the  privilege  of 
voting.  Should  the  women  of  Ohio,  who  have 
undertaken  the  herculean  task  of  attempting  to 
strangle  the  monster  of  intemperance,  from 
whose  ravages  they  have  so  long  and  so  terribly 
suffered,  succeed  in  their  task  to  even  a moder- 
ate extent,  they  will  have  obtained  the  highest 
title  to  the  ballot. 

Upon  every  question  of  social  and  moral  re- 
form her  influence,  instead  of  being  deleterious 
and  dangerous,  would  be  wholesome  and  effi- 
cient. It  would  dignify  and  ennoble  every  ele- 
ment of  the  elective  franchise.  I can  recollect, 
and  so  can  every  man  upon  this  floor,  that  from 
the  condition  of  the  colored  race  twenty  years 
ago,  public  opinion  had  to  travel  a long  way  to 
reach  a point  where  it  was  willing  to  entrust 
that  race  with  the  ballot.  Suffrage  was  a ne- 
cessary complement  of  their  freedom,  and  obser- 
vation confirms  the  opinion  that  the  former  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  preservation  of  the 
latter.  It  is  natural  that  it  should,  for  the  bal- 
lot elevates,  strengthens  and  educates  man,  and 
it  will  have  the  same  effect  upon  woman.  It 
will  be  safe  to  trust  her  upon  the  subject  of 
education.  It  will  be  safe  to  trust  her  in  rela- 
tion to  questions  of  morals,  and  I know  of  no 
question  upon  which  she  cannot  be  safely 
trusted.  I know  of  no  abstract  reason  why 
woman  should  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  suf- 
frage. I have  heard  no  convincing  argument 
in  favor  of  such  a policy.  Arguments  have 
been  presented,  but  they  are  based  simply  upon 
long  established  custom,  or  upon  the  theory 
that  “might  makes  right.”  I would  be  willing, 
with  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 
upon  the  merits  of  this  question,  to  at  once  in- 
corporate it  as  a provision  into  the  Constitution, 
and  give  woman  the  ballot.  And  I should  not 
fear  its  effect  upon  our  civilization,  upon  our 
jurisprudence,  upon  any  interest  in  society,  so- 
cially or  otherwise.  I know  it  would  be  good ; 
I know  it  would  be  healthy.  Mr.  President,  I 
would  willingly,  as  I have  said,  vote  it  in  now, 
but  I do  not  believe  that  the  public  mind  has 
traveled  that  far ; and  yet,  I believe  that  there 
are  many  men  upon  this  floor  who  will  live  to 
see  the  day  that  the  people  will  reach  that  con- 
clusion. I do  not  believe  that  they  are  ready 
for  it.  It  is  growing  very  rapidly,  and  it  will 
not  down  at  your  bidding.  It  is  one  of  those 
propositions  which  addresses  itself  to  the  rea- 
son and  the  conscience  of  the  people.  It  is 
making  its  way  to  success,  and  it  will  be  estab- 


lished in  the  form  of  law  before  the  end  of  this 
century.  I trust  long  before.  I would  be  will- 
ing, upon  its  own  merits,  to  vote  for  it,  but  I do 
not  wish  to  imperil  the  instrument  that  we  shall 
submit  to  the  people;  but  I shall  vote  to  submit 
it  in  a separate  form,  or  in  the  manner  indica- 
ted by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 

Mr.  PHILIPS.  I have  some  convictions  up- 
on this  subject  that  I would  like  to  present  this 
afternoon.  It  had  not  occurred  to  me  to  say 
anything  in  the  course  of  general  debate,  but 
rather,  when  we  proceeded  to  consider  the  Ar- 
ticle, section  by  section ; but  as  this  afternoon 
seems  to  be  given  up  to  the  discussion  of  this 
subject,  I shall  now  proceed,  promising  that  I 
shall  detain  the  Convention  but  a short  time. 

Mr.  President,  I approach  the  discussion  of 
this  question  with  deep  and  earnest  convictions 
of  duty.  I fear  there  are  delegates  upon  this 
floor  who  entertain  the  idea  that  gentlemen 
who  espouse  the  advocacy  of  this  measure  are 
possibly  actuated  by  a sense  of  gallantry  in  be- 
half of  the  so-called  weaker  sex — or  by  the 
distinction  they  may  imagine  will  inure  by  be- 
ing considered  the  champion  of  woman’s  rights. 
So  far  as  I am  concerned,  I disclaim  all  such 
frivolous  and  unworthy  motives.  On  the  con- 
trary, I am  prompted  to  say  what  I think  and 
believe,  from  a sincere  conviction  that  the 
amendment  ought  to  be  made — and  the  princi- 
ple of  impartial  suffrage  adopted — if  we  would 
make  the  section  harmonious  with  the  spirit 
and  principle  of  our  government.  I believe 
the  principle  is  not  only  just,  but  expedient 
and  politic.  Mr.  President,  the  first  step  taken 
in  the  discharge  of  my  duty  as  a member  of 
this  Convention,  was  to  take  a solenm  oath  to 
support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
I,  therefore,  without  regard  to  the  popularity  of 
any  measure — in  the  discharge  of  the  high  func- 
tions of  my  office,  propose  to  vote  and  act  in 
accordance  with  my  convictions  of  right  and 
duty. 

I wish  to  inquire,  sir,  upon  what  grounds  the 
Committee  propose  to  continue  the  exclusion 
of  women  from  the  exercise  of  the  Elective 
Franchise.  Have  they  any  reasons  to  show  that 
it  is  necessary  for  the  welfare  of  the  State? 
Upon  what  reasonable  grounds  can  this  be  jus- 
tified? In  the  name  of  political  justice  and 
consistency,  I wish  to  know  why  it  is  that  one- 
half  the  adult  population  of  this  great  State  is 
to  be  deprived  of  their  political  rights  and 
powers,  to  be  classed  with  idiots,  lunatics,  and 
persons  convicted  of  infamous  crimes?  Are 
they  not  as  vitally  interested  in  good  govern- 
ment as  we  are  ? They  own  vast  estates,  pay  a 
large  share  of  taxes ; they  control  a fair  pro- 
portion of  the  productive  industries  of  the 
State;  they  are  equally  interested  in  the  peace 
and  prosperity  of  our  country ; they  have  the 
same  claims  for  protection  in  their  persons  and 
property ; they  have  their  children  to  educate ; 
their  social  and  moral  interests  are  as  dear  to 
them  as  to  us.  They  are  capable  and  intelli- 
gent; their  every  interest  is  identified  with 
ours ; whatever  in  legislation  can  conduce  to 
their  prosperity  will,  in  an  equal  manner,  con- 
duce to  ours.  If,  then,  these  allegations  be 
true,  why  longer  perpetuate  and  continue  the 
arbitrary  exclusion,  this  usurpation  which  has 
come  down  to  us  from  barbarous  ages  ? Gen- 


1872 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


Philips. 


[132nd 

[Saturday, 


tlemen  say  that  to  confer  the  elective  franchise 
upon  women,  would  be  an  innovation  upon  our 
time-honored  usages.  It  would  be  removing 
the  ancient  land-marks.  Let  me  remind  gentle- 
men that  these  same  objections  have  been  op- 
posed at  every  step  of  our  political  advance- 
ment for  the  last  hundred  years.  Many  of  the 
ancient  land-marks  have  already  been  removed, 
much  to  our  benefit;  for  how  many  years  were 
the  same  objections  interposed  against  the  once 
sacred  institution  of  slavery,  and  after  its  re- 
moval, against  the  enfranchisement  of  persons 
heretofore  excluded  on  account  of  color? 

I am  grateful  that  so  far  as  this  discussion  has 
proceeded,  no  one  has  yet  raised  a question  as 
to  the  natural  right  of  women  to  become  vot- 
ers. 

In  the  enumeration  by  our  fundamental  law- 
makers, of  our  inalienable  or  natural  rights,  as 
distinguished  from  political  rights,  it  was 
never,  I believe,  claimed  that  they  were  appli- 
cable to  the  male  sex  only. 

The  bill  of  rights  now  in  force  in  this  State, 
as  well  as  the  one  we  have  just  suggested  for 
adoption,  uses  the  terms  men,  persons  and  citi- 
zens without  any  regard  to  sex.  When  we  de- 
clare in  it  that  “all  men  have  a natural  and  in- 
defeasible right  to  worship  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  conscience,”  do  we  mean  to  ex- 
clude women?  Or  when  we  declare  that  “no 
person  shall  be  compelled  to  attend,  erect,  or 
support  any  place  of  worship,  or  maintain  any 
form  of  worship  against  his  consent,”  do  we 
mean  to  protect  only  men  and  not  women  in 
the  exercise  of  this  sacred  right?  Or  when  we 
declare  that  “every  citizen  may  freely  speak 
or  publish  his  sentiments  on  all  subjects, 
&c.,”  is  it  pretended  that  citizen  here  means 
only  the  “white  male  citizen”  of  our  present 
Constitution?  Now  let  us  see  for  a moment 
what  are  the  teachings  of  the  “old  land-marks,”  ! 
as  the  gentleman  from  Miami  is  pleased  to  j 
term  our  fundamental  laws. 

In  the  Declaration  of  Independence  we  read 
all  “men,”  not  white  male  citizens,  but  men, 
evidently  meaning  men  and  women,  are  born 
free  and  equal,  possessing  certain  in- 
alienable rights,  among  which  are  life, 
liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 
The  fourteenth  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  provides  “that  no 
State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall 
abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States.”  Now, who  are  citizens? 
The  same  article  says  “all  persons  born  or 
naturalized  in  the  United  States  and  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  States  wherein  they 
reside.”  Am  I to  be  told  that  women  are  not 
citizens  in  a constitutional  sense?  They  are 
“ persons  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  State  in  which  they  reside,” 
and,  therefore,  citizens  in  a legal  sense;  and 
are  thereby  clothed  with  certain  privileges  and 
immunities  which  cannot  be  abridged  by  any 
law  which  may  be  made — the  making  and  en- 
forcing of  which  is  forbidden  in  any  State — 
except  for  cause.  One  of  these  privileges  is  the 
use  of  the  elective  franchise.  The  Fifteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  declares  that  “ the  right  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  to  vote,  shall  not  be  denied  or 


abridged  by  the  United  States  or  by  any  State.” 

I am  not  unmindful  of  the  fact,  sir,  that  any 
State  has  the  right  to  prescribe  the  conditions 
upon  which  its  own  citizen  or  citizens  of  the 
United  States  may  become  voters — but  this 
power  is  subject  to  certain  restrictions.  It  is 
based  rightly  upon  considerations  of  defect  or 
fault,  as  age,  the  state  of  mental  development 
or  soundness.  They  must  have  attained  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years,  and  have  resided  one  year 
within  the  State ; they  must  have  been  natu- 
ralized, if  foreigners,  and  they  must  also  be 
neither  idiots  nor  lunatics,  nor  have  been  guilty 
of  felony,  bribery  or  other  infamous  crimes; 
and  while  any  of  these  things  may  be  over- 
looked, the  idiots  and  cracked  brains  often  vote 
unchallenged.  The  felons  and  perjured  scoun- 
drels do  vote  as  a rule.  But  let  one  come  pre- 
senting her  vote,  representing  a million  in 
property,  with  the  highest  degree  of  wisdom 
and  intelligence,  and  pure  as  our  sainted 
mother,  and,  forsooth,  she  is  a woman,  her  vote 
is  cast  away  with  scorn  and  indignation,  and 
she  chided  with  presumption. 

This  right  of  suffrage,  the  highest  attribute  of 
an  American  citizen,  is  manifestly  based  upon 
citizenship,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  If  any  State 
may  disfranchise  its  citizens  at  will,  what 
guarantee  of  political  liberty  have  we  left? 

If  they  are  not  to  be  deprived  of  their  privi- 
lege of  voting  on  account  of  “ race,  color,  or 
previous  condition  of  servitude,”  as  is  expressed 
by  positive  enactment,  I should  like  to  know 
where  you  will  find  authority  for  disfranchising 
on  account  of  sex  ? As  well  might  you  say,  and 
with  much  greater  propriety,  that  no  citizen 
should  become  a voter  until  he  could  read  and 
write,  or  until  he  had  acquired  a certain  amount 
of  property.  If  you  commence  to  establish  a 
partial  suffrage,  where  will  it  end  ? If  at  one 
fell  swoop  you  disfranchise  one  half  the  citizens 
of  the  State,  on  account  of  sex,  why  not  next 
year  exclude  all  that  class  that  do  not  rise  to  a 
fixed  standard  of  morals,  and  the  next  year 
classify  them  according  to  their  political  opin- 
ions? It  is  quite  as  justifiable  in  the  one  case 
as  the  other. 

Let  me  quote  a few  of  the  old  landmarks  so 
affectionately  alluded  to : 

“'All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people .” 
Government  is  instituted  for  their  equal 
protection  and  benefit.” 

“ The  people  have  the  right  to  assemble  to- 
gether in  a peaceable  manner;  to  consult  for 
the  common  good ; to  instruct  their  Representa- 
tives; to  petition  to  the  General  Assembly  for  a 
redress  of  their  grievances.”  Government  is 
established  by  the  people  to  promote  our  common 
welfare,  and  to  secure  the  blessings  of  freedom 
(or  civil  and  religious  liberty).  “ The  members 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  chosen 
by  th e people,”  etc.,  etc. 

Now,  is  it  of  less  consequence  to  woman  that 
the  protection  and  benefits  of  good  government 
are  secured  to  her  than  to  man  ? Is  there  less 
of  political  power  inherent  in  her  than  in  man  ? 
Is  it  of  less  consequence  to  her  and  to  both  men 
and  women  that  she  enjoy  the  right  of  the 
blessings  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  than  that 
men  only  enjoy  it?  These  will  all  be  admitted 
And  now  for  the  remaining  guarantee : 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Philips. 


1873 


March  7,  1874/ 


“ The  people  have  a right  to  assemble  together, 
to  consult  for  the  common  good,  to  instruct  their 
Representatives,  and  to  petition  the  General 
Assembly  for  a redress  of  their  grievances.” 

Now,  the  right  to  assemble  and  to  petition, 
nobody  will,  in  this  day  of  the  world,  pretend 
to  deny;  but,  you  will  observe,  in  the  same  de- 
claration of  rights,  and  sandwiched  between  the 
right  to  assemble  and  to  petition,  is  the  right  to 
instruct  their  Representatives.  Who  but  voters 
can  instruct?  If  the  thousands  and  tens  of 
thousands  of  petitioners,  who  have  been  send- 
ing up  their  petitions  upon  the  question  under 
consideration,  had  been  voters  under  our  State 
laws,  authorized  to  instruct,  1 should  predict  for 
it  a different  fate  than  that  which  I now  expect. 

After  thus  reviewing  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines laid  down  in  the  Federal  Constitution, 
defining  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  people  of 
this  government,  I am  more  than  ever  convinced 
that  to  make  our  State  government  harmonious 
and  compatible  with  it,  the  word  male  should  be 
stricken  out.  The  doctrine  taught  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  plainly  and  un- 
mistakably, to  my  mind,  is  that  the  object  of 
our  government  is  to  secure  justice,  protection, 
and  political  liberty  to  all  its  citizens.  I am, 
therefore,  in  favor  of  making  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  of  Ohio  consistent  in  letter,  as  well  as  in 
spirit,  with  that  which  we  have  all  sworn  to 
support — the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
In  accordance  witn  these  convictions,  I propose 
to  record  my  vote  in  favor  of  striking  out  the 
word  “male,”  where  it  occurs ; and  failing  in 
this,  I will  vote  for  the  submission  of  this  great 
question  to  the  legal  voters  of  this  State,  as  a 
separate  proposition,  at  the  time  the  vote  is 
taken  upon  the  adoption  of  this  proposed  Con- 
stitution, in  full  faith  that  the  advancing  spirit 
of  this  age,  the  recent  renewed  appreciation  of 
the  rights,  duties,  and  powers  of  women,  by 
women  themselves,  will  secure  its  adoption. 

It  is  expedient,  first,  because  it  is  right.  We 
do  not,  without  cogent  reasons,  deny  a political 
right  to  any  one  on  the  grounds  of  inexpediency. 
We  do  deny  it  to  felons  and  those  convicted  of 
other  infamous  crimes,  not  as  a part  of  their 
punishment,  but  on  the  grounds  of  expediency, 
and  rightly  too.  I am  willing  to  extend  the 
same  rules  to  women,  of  course.  Let  us  not 
deprive  them  of  just  rights,  however,  on  sup- 
posed grounds  of  inexpediency,  when  it  has 
been  tried,  and  we  have  demonstrated  its  inex- 
pediency, I will  then  favor  a change  in  our 
Constitution  and  re-enact  the  word  male  as  a 
saving  clause,  or  sober  male  citizen,  or  honest, 
moral  and  intelligent  citizens — male  or  female 
— but  1 would  insist  that  when  we  put  in  the 
word  male  into  our  State  Constitution,  that  we 
amend  the  Federal  Constitution  at  the  same 
time,  and  for  the  very  same  reasons,  so  as  to 
read,  “The  male  people  have  a right  to  assemble 
together  to  consult  for  the  common  good,  and 
the  male  citizens  shall  have  a right  to  instruct 
their  Representatives  in  Congress,”  &c.,  so  as 
to  preserve  the  harmony  of  our  State  and  Feder- 
al laws. 

It  can  hardly  be  called  an  experiment.  It  is 
a well-known  fact  that  women  all  over  our 
broad  land,  in  every  State  in  this  Union,  do 
vote  legally  in  corporations. 

They  own  stocks  in  Banks,  in  Railroads,  and 

v.  n-120 


in  every  kind  of  joint  stock  corporations  they 
meet,  and  cast  their  votes  as  they  choose,  in 
proportion  to  their  capital,  without  question. 

And  do  not  our  wives,  mothers  and  daughters, 
not  only  in  Ohio,  but  in  every  other  State  in  the 
Union,  meet  together  and  consult  for  our  com- 
mon good — vote  and  instruct  their  representa- 
tives in  our  church  organizations  as  to  what 
measures  shall  be  adopted  for  our  common  wel- 
fare, as  to  who  shall  administer  to  us  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  Gospel — and  break  to  us  and  our 
children  the  bread  of  eternal  life — and  who 
questions,  at  this  day  and  age  of  the  world,  the 
policy  or  expediency  of  it?  In  the  Territory  of 
Wyoming,  impartial  suffrage  has  been  adopted. 
The  women  have  been  voting  and  holding  office 
there  for  the  last  four  years,  with  the  recogni- 
tion and  approval  of  Congress  under  our  Feder- 
al Constitution.  The  Governor  of  that  Territo- 
ry, (Governor  J.  A.  Campbell,)  in  his  annual 
message  in  December  last,  after  an  observation 
of  four  years,  he  characterizes  the  measure  as 
one  of  “wisdom  and  justice;”  “that its  adoption 
has  been  attended  with  only  good  results,”  and 
finally  pronounces  the  system  of  impartial  suf- 
frage, in  that  Territory,  as  an  “ unqualified  suc- 
cess.” 

It  is  politic  because  it  is  in  accordance  with 
that  doctrine  of  government,  that  is  dear  to 
every  American  citizen, that  “all  just  govern- 
ment is  founded  on  the  consent  of  the  governed 
here  is  a large  class,  one-half  of  those  who  are 
governed,  who  have  no  voice  or  vote  to  say  by 
what  laws  they  shall  be  governed  or  by  whom 
executed. 

The  principle  of  taxation,  without  represen- 
tation, is  the  most  odious  and  dangerous  princi- 
ple that  any  government  ever  attempted.  A 
departure  from  it  begets  fraud,  corruption  and 
every  censurable  injustice.  Taxation  implies 
representation.  For  this  principle,  our  fore- 
fathers declared  war;  for  its  accomplishment 
they  fought,  bled  and  died ; and  for  the  achieve- 
ment of  this  great  principle,  by  their  lives, 
their  bravery,  perseverance  and  final  success, 
we  make  the  welkin  ring  annually  in  celebra- 
ting its  glory;  and  yet  gentlemen  seem  to  for- 
get that  we  are  daily  violating  this  same  prin- 
ciple. It  is  within  the  personal  knowledge  of 
every  gentleman  that  a large  proportion  of  the 
taxes  paid  for  the  support  of  our  government 
is  paid  by  women ; that  they  have  an  equal  in- 
terest with  us  in  securing  the  enactment  of  just 
laws — an  economical  administration  of  the  Gov- 
ernment; that  the  women  are,  in  every  possible 
aspect  of  the  case,  equally  interested  in  the 
common  welfare  of  the  State;  that  they  are 
subject  to  the  penalties  of  and  entitled  to  the 
protection  of  our  laws.  I appeal  to  the  candor 
and  fairness  of  gentlemen  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion : If  the  same  policy  was  applied  to  them- 
selves, in  this  or  any  other  State,  if  they  would 
not  regard  it  as  reducing  them  to  a state  of 
political  slavery,  is  it  not  the  exercise  of  a spe- 
cies of  a tyranny  unworthy  of  the  spirit  of  the 
age— of  our  people — of  the  times  in  which  we 
live,  and  above  all,  unworthy  the  wisdom,  the 
sense  of  justice,  and  high  morals  of  the  gentle- 
men of  this  Convention  ? 

It  is  answered  that  the  prosperity  and  the  in- 
terests of  women  are  amply  provided  for;  that 
our  common  interests  with  them,  and  affection 


1874 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Philips,  Carbery. 


132nd 

[Saturday, 


for  them,  always  secures  ample  legislation  for 
their  rights  and  their  interests. 

This  may  be  admitted  in  a limited  sense;  if  it 
were  possible  to  eliminate  the  interests  of  the 
women  from  our  own,  and  men’s  selfishness 
only  to  be  consulted,  the  result  might  be  quite 
different.  But  this  does  not  answer  the  in- 
quiry. Does  the  alien,  the  foreign  born  citi- 
zen, when  he  comes  to  our  shores,  with  all  his 
admiration  for  our  glorious  institutions,  his 
new  love  for  this  land  of  the  free  and  the  home 
of  the  brave — does  he,  I say,  content  himself 
with  a sworn  declaration  of  his  intention  to  be- 
come a citizen,  and  sit  down  satisfied  and  con- 
tent with  all  his  glorious  liberties  ? or  does  he 
not,  rather,  as  soon  as  his  time  of  probation  has 
•expired,  become  fully  naturalized  and  initiated 
into  all  the  rights,  privileges  and  powers  of  a 
citizen  voter  ? 

If  it  was  proposed,  Mr  President,  to  enfranchise 
a people  whose  education  and  interests  were 
different  from  our  own,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
late  freedmen  of  the  South,  I could  understand 
why  men  should  hesitate.  If  it  was  to  put  po- 
litical power  into  the  hands  of  those  in  whom 
its  exercise  might  be  dangerous,  or  those  who 
had  no  just  claim  to  it,  or  those  who  might  use 
it  for  their  own  benefit  or  selfish  purposes,  we 
might  properly  hesitate.  But  when  we  con- 
sider that  the  very  opposite  of  this  is  the  case, 
when  each  man  knows  for  himself  that  so  far  as 
his  household  is  concerned,  that  their  interests, 
education  and  tastes  are  so  linked  that  what  is 
for  their  best  interest  is  for  his — and  that  what 
is  for  his  best  interest  is  for  theirs — that  it  is 
our  own  beloved  mothers,  wives,  sisters  and 
daughters  to  whom  we  would  give  this  elevating 
and  ennobling  boon;  this  act  of  simple  justice 
which  must  in  its  very  nature  serve  to  purify 
our  laws  and  improve  our  social  and  moral  na- 
tures— I am  lost  when  I ask  myself  the  ques- 
tion, how  are  you  to  excuse  yourselves  for 
withholding  your  support  from  this  measure? 

WOULD  IT  TEND  TO  DEGRADE  WOMEN  ? 

I have  no  doubt  that  there  are  some  men  who 
may  honestly  think  that  it  would  tend  to  drag 
down  and  degrade  women.  The  arena  of  poli- 
tics is  described  as  a “muddy  pool,  from  which 
men  rarely  escape  without  defilement.”  The 
solemn  warning  of  the  poet  “Facilis  descensus 
Averni,”  is  quoted  by  my  learned  friend  from 
Miami.  I fear  the  high  appreciation  of  my 
friend  of  the  “lofty  and  holy  family  estate”  has 
made  him  over  sensitive. 

Let  this  be  my  answer : But  a few  short 
weeks  ago,  at  Washington  Court  House  in  this 
State,  a little  band  of  faithful  Christian  women 
attempted  to  bring  a reform — with  which  we 
self-satisfied  men,  grave  legislators  and  execu- 
tors of  the  law  have  been  vainly  grappling  for 
the  last  fifty  years.  With  the  faith  of  God  in 
their  hearts,  and  with  their  own  practical  ideas 
as  guide,  and  without  the  help  or  direction  of 
men,  they  plunged  headlong  into  one  of  the 
deepest,  the  largest,  and  the  vilest  pools  among 
all  the  sinks  of  our  immoral  lagoons,  and  what 
was  the  result?  Were  they  overwhelmed  and 
forever  lost,  or  were  they  rescued  by  the  strong 
arm  of  men?  Were  they  defiled?  What  was 
the  result?  Almighty  God,  and  He  only,  knows. 
This  much  we  know : that  the  encircling  and 


ever  widening  waves  from  that  plunge  has 
spread  all  over  our  land  until  it  has  reached 
from  shore  to  shore  of  this  continent;  this  much 
more  we  know  : that  by  that  act  these  women 
were  not  defiled  but  purified  themselves  as  well 
as  purifying  all  with  whom  they  came  in  con- 
tact. 

They  were  not  lost  but  saved,  saved  eternally » 
I hope  and  believe,  not  by  the  power  of  men, 
but  of  God.  This  mighty  power  in  women  to 
purify  and  save,  has  just  begun  to  be  appre- 
ciated. I want  it  in  our  politics.  It  has 
spread  from  town  to  town,  from  city  to  city, 
and  from  State  to  State,  and  I believe  will  go 
from  country  to  country.  I see  men  daily  in 
this  Hall  open  their  letters,  or  pick  up  their 
paper  from  their  own  counties,  and  read  of  the 
mighty  doings  at  home,  of  the  touching  inci- 
dents among  their  personal  friends,  and  start- 
ing tears  unbidden  oft  speak  what  language 
fails  to  utter. 

Who  will  dare  now  to  say  that  the  women  of 
our  country,  who  have  taken  courage  to  battle 
with  one  of  the  most  degraded  elements  of  our 
society,  against  one  of  its  most  terrible  vices, 
in  the  very  citadels  of  their  strength,  with  all 
their  vulgar,  degraded  and  wficked  allies 
around  them ; vanquishing  by  their  very 
purity  and  holiness,  all  opposition,  none  daring 
to  molest  or  make  them  afraid,  bring  the  wick- 
edest of  our  race  to  the  foot  of  the  cross  to  plead 
for  pardon  and  mercy,  who  will  now  claim 
they  cannot  go  to  the  ballot-box  and  discharge 
all  the  function  of  a citizen  voter,  without  im- 
pairing their  claims  to  respect  among  men  ? If 
ever  there  was  a cloud  of  doubt  in  the  mind  of 
any  man,  the  events  that  are  daily  transpiring 
among  us,  should  forever  dispel  it.  I firmly 
believe  that  the  day  is  speedily  dawning  upon 
us,  when  woman  will  enjoy  all  the  high  pre- 
rogatives of  citizenship,  when  she  will  not  only 
go  herself,  but  by  her  powerful  influence  will 
bring  many  others  to  the  ballot-box,  to  exercise 
their  influence  in  favor  of  truth,  order,  moral- 
ity, and  the  best  interests  of  society. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Mr.  President  and  gentle- 
men, last  evening  I ventured  to  discuss  one 
portion  of  this  Report  of  the  Committee,  and 
one  only,  intending,  however,  to  glance  at  the 
other  and  not  less  important  one  in  reference  to 
woman  suffrage.  As  the  debate  progressed, 
however,  and  one  eloquent  gentleman  after 
another  had  stated  all  that  occurred  to  him,  I 
discovered  that  all  the  ground  I had  hoped  to 
occupy  was  already  taken  up,  and  every  true 
thing,  almost,  certainly  every  felicitous  thing 
that  anybody  could  say  on  the  subject,  had  been 
anticipated.  However,  the  impression  that  I 
have,  the  trust  that  I have  in  my  heart  about 
this  matter  was  to  me  very  sacred,  and  I wish, 
even  in  this  presence,  to  give  them  utterance. 

The  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
in  his  speech  last  evening,  which  was,  by  the 
way,  a compound  of  some  of  the  most  daring 
and  flighty  sayings,  perhaps,  of  some  of  the 
advanced  opinions  of  the  day,  was,  I think,  a 
very  unfair  presentation.  The  gentleman  will 
excuse  me  for  saying  so  of  the  few  remarks  of 
the  gentleman  with  regard  to  this  question.  I 
think  the  gentlemen  of  this  Convention,  and 
; the  men  of  this  State,  would  be  very  much  op- 


Day.]  CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE.  1875 

March  7,  1874.]  Carbery,  Townsend,  Campbell. 


posed  to  be  judged  by  the  standard  of  what  may 
be  called  the  “blatherskites”  of  society. 

We  never  like  to  be  judged  by  the  standard 
of  George  Francis  Train,  or  the  immortal  J. 
17. , or  of  any  of  the  other  of  those  singulari- 
ties, and  so  I say  of  good,  and  pure,  and  brave 
women  whom  I know  do  not  submit  to  be 
judged  by  the  standard  selected  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  PowEll].  They  are 
not  representative  women.  The  conduct  of  the 
women  of  the  whole  country  towards  them 
proves  indisputably  that  they  are  not  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  true  women  of  this  or  any 
other  State.  But  the  women  whom  I do  know 
treasure  up  in  their  hearts  the  hope  that  one 
day  or  another  they  will  be  enabled  to  defend 
themselves  in  this  quiet,  and  yet  most  effective, 
way.  They  have  strong  convictions  upon  that 
subject;  they  speak  of  it  in  their  private  cir- 
cles, and  there  is  scarcely  any  difference  of 
opinion  among  the  women  of  my  acquaintance 
about  this  matter.  They  are  anxious  to  inter- 
pose in  these  affairs;  and  why?  For  the  same 
reason  that  they  have  very  often  interposed  in 
other  channels — in  order  to  do  good;  in  order 
to  make  men  better;  in  order  to  condemn 
scoundrelism  and  ruffianism  at  the  polls;  in 
order  to  defeat  the  demagogue,  who  goes  about 
with  the  money  of  some  great  corporation,  and 
purchases  the  hirelings  who  sell  themselves  at 
the  polls;  in  order  to  pronounce  the  woman’s 
veto  against  public  rascality.  That  is  a ques- 
tion well  worthy  of  consideration,  and  I tell 
you  that  these  corrupt  men,  who  go  about  buy- 
ing up  votes,  would  find  an  incorruptible 
phalanx,  which  they  could  not  purchase,  and 
the  result  would  be  that  Othello’s  occupation 
would  be  forever  gone,  and  political  corrup- 
tionists would  be  repudiated. 

Another  observation  has  been  made  here  with 
regard  to  all  the  occupations  that  are  open  to 
women,  and  if  they  seek  industriously  to  get 
into  those  and  make  themselves  useful,  there 
will  be  no  necessity  for  them  to  be  sporting 
themselves  in  the  field  of  politics;  but  I ask  the 
gentleman  if  they  have  secured  this  employ- 
ment on  equal  terms  with  men  ? This,  I pre- 
sume, is  a very  pertinent  question.  If  some 
were  obliged  to  go  into  the  ordinary  occupa- 
tions at  fifty  and  seventy-five  per  cent,  less 
than  other  men,  do  you  not  think  you  would 
hear  some  noise  about  it  ? Do  not  you  hear 
some  noise  where  there  is  a proposition  to 
make  any  discrimination  ot  that  kind  in  any 
large  industry  ? and  yet  this  inequality  is  an  es- 
tablished fact  with  regard  to  female  employ- 
ment; men  do  not  question  it.  Take  an  illus- 
tration : A gentleman  is  teaching  a graded  or 
intermediate  school  in  our  State  for  thirteen 
hundred  dollars  a year,  and  just  across  the  hall 
a lady  is  performing  the  same  function  at  eight 
hundred  dollars  a year.  No  one  complains  that 
the  labor  is  not  as  effective  in  one  room  as  in 
the  other.  When  the  day  for  transfer  arrives 
the  per  centage  is  as  high,  the  intelligence  as 
bright,  the  culture  as  full  in  the  one  case  as  in 
the  other.  Why  is  it?  Can  any  man  tell  me 
why  the  compensation  of  the  lady  is  a little 
over  fifty  per  cent,  of  that  of  the  gentleman? 
Because  it  is  possible  to  get  her  at  that  price. 
That  is  the  hard,  prosaic,  and  cruel  answer  that 
has  been  given  to  this  question  of  mine  from 


the  press  and  elsewhere,  until  the  soul  sickens 
that  the  answer  can  be  again  and  again  re- 
peated. And  yet  the  public  conscience  never 
recoils  from  it,  because  it  is  all  she  can  get  in 
the  market;  but  if  she  was  armed  for  her  de- 
fense, as  it  is  proposed  to  arm  her,  with  the 
ballot,  the  scene  would  suddenly  change.  She 
then  would  command  more,  if  for  nothing  else, 
for  that  spirit  of  conciliation  which  the  politi- 
cian so  soon  learns.  She  would  be  able  to  de- 
fend herself,  Mr.  President,  and  then  she  would 
be  able  to  get  all  that  the  male,  of  like  capacity, 
gets  in  the  educational  market.  So  with  every 
other  avenue.  If  a lady  is  a clerk  in  a store, 
does  she  get  as  much  pay  as  a man?  No;  and 
for  the^same  reason.  The  same  inequality  per- 
vades every  class  of  employment,  and  all  this, 
although  I cannot  say  that  it  would  be  removed 
by  the  ballot  immediately,  it  would  be  greatly 
mitigated  at  once,  and  everything  would  be 
toned  down  to  the  proper  level,  to  fair  play  and 
compensation,  as  that  compensation  was  shown 
to  have  been  earned  by  capacity  and  applica- 
tion, the  only  just  way. 

This  America  of  ours  is  a place  where,  when 
Europeans  first  come,  they  learn  to  lift  their 
eyes  a little  higher.  The  horizon  widens  a 
good  deal,  even  to  the  European  male,  and,  ex- 
cept he  is  a very  thoughtful  and  cultivated  Eu- 
ropean scholar,  who,  in  his  university,  has 
gathered  together  all  the  learning  of  the  ages; 
has  dreamed  with  the  Greek  and  Roman,  and 
philosophized  with  the  French  and  English- 
man, and  there  is  nothing  in  the  wide  field  of 
letters  and  thought  that  he  is  not  conversant 
with,  and  he  has  nothing  to  surprise  him,  even 
in  our  development,  our  Constitution,  and  our 
society.  But  there  is  another  class  in  Europe, 
the  great  mass,  and  when  they  come  here,  as  I 
said  before,  they  lift  their  eyes  a little  higher, 
feel  more  like  men.  The  horizon  widens  and 
they  see  and  feel  a daringness  of  thought  and 
freedom  unknown  to  their  former  experience. 
They  begin  to  realize,  to  think  there  is  a self 
assertion  here,  unattainable  in  the  state  of  so- 
ciety from  which  they  had  escaped,  and  so,  after 
a sojourn  of  fifteen,  or  twenty,  or  twenty-five 
years,  as  in  my  own  case,  they  begin  quite  pos- 
sibly to  entertain  a proposition,  such  as  we  are 
now  discussing,  without  being  subject  to  the 
accusation  of  lunacy.  It  is  quite  proper  in 
America.  Why  not?  The  country  that  held 
longest  and  most  tenaciously  to  slavery,  why 
not  take  the  position  manfully  by  being  the 
very  first  to  obliterate  forever  the  last  vestige 
of  inferiority  amongst  the  people  of  the  coun- 
try by  one  daring  flight,  and  take  the  foremost 
place,  and  teach  the  world  that,  having  the  mag- 
nanimity and  heroism  to  strike  off  the  shackles 
of  four  millions  of  bondsmen  and  make  them 
free  men,  it  had  the  additional  magnanimity 
and  sense  of  justice  to  raise  the  beautiful  sis- 
terhood of  their  country  and  place  them  upon 
a plane  with  themselves. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  In  order  now  to  test  the 
sense  of  the  Convention,  that  we  may  consider 
this  Article,  section  by  section,  in  its  proper  or 
der,  I move  that  general  debate  now  close. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  will  allow  me? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I shall  withdraw  the 
motion  with  a great  degree  of  pleasure. 


1876 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Campbell,  Townsend,  Hoadly. 


[132nd 

[Saturday, 


Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Without  desiring  to  close 
debate  against  those  who  may  desire  to  speak, 
I,  for  personal  reasons  simply,  and  I feel  a deli- 
cacy about  it  upon  the  ground  of  what  occurred 
yesterday,  would  ask  that  general  debate  ter- 
minate at  three  o’clock  on  Monday  next.  I 
move  that  amendment.  I desire  to  return 
home 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Why  not  now? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I am  ready  now.  I move 
to  terminate  the  debate  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  same  motion 
as  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Townsend]. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  When  the  first  section  is 
reed,  according  to  the  notice  which  I gave  day 
before  yesterday,  I shall  propose  an  amend- 
ment. According  to  the  rule,  the  first  section 
must  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  1.  Every  male  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and 
every  male  citizen  of  foreign  birth,  -who  may  have  de- 
clared his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  according  to  law,  not  less  than  one  nor  more  than 
two  years  before  he  offers  to  vote,  of  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the  State 
one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of  the  county, 
township,  or  ward  in  which  he  resides,  such  time  as  may 
be  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the  qualifications  of  an 
elector,  and  be  entitled  to  a vote  at  all  elections. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I now  move  the  amend- 
ment, of  which  I gave  notice,  to  the  first  sec- 
tion. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  after  the  word  “State”,  in  line  one,  the  fol- 
lowing words: 

“And  every  male  person  of  foreign  birth  who  may  have 
declared  his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  according  to  law,  not  less  than  one  nor  more  than 
two  years  before  he  offers  to  vote.” 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  As  that  question  has  been 
fully  discussed,  I was  about  to  make  that  very 
unpopular  motion,  for  the  previous  question, 
but  my  friend  upon  the  right,  [Mr.  Hoadly], 
proposes  to  discuss  the  thing  still  further,  and  I 
shall  not  make  any  motion  for  the  previous 
question,  but  shall  be  very  happy  to  hear  him 
under  the  ten  minute  rule  against  the  amend- 
ment that  is  pending. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I shall  probably  not  con- 
sume the  ten  minutes  that  my  friend  refers  to, 
feeling  very  little  interest,  indeed,  in  most  of 
the  topics  that  have  been  discussed  in  general 
debate.  I prefer,  therefore,  to  say  what  I have 
to  say  directly  upon  the  question,  and  submit 
myself  to  the  ten-minute  Rule. 

I listened  with  great  attention  and  interest, 
and  I may  say  with  surprise,  to  the  remarks  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  delegate  has  confounded 
two  subjects  not  in  the  same  plane  of  thought  at 
all — the  subject  of  citizenship  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  privilege  of  suffrage  in  the  State 
of  Ohio.  If  any  one  will  read  attentively  the 
history  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  as  recorded  in  the  Madison 
papers,  in  Elliott’s  Debates,  and  in  the  “Feder- 
alist,” he  will  soon  see  that  had  it  been  pro- 
posed in  that  Convention  to  make  the  power  of 
naturalization  in  the  express  terms  given  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  a limitation  upon 
the  citizenship  of  the  States,  the  States  would 
have  resented  the  attempt  as  an  invasion  of  their 


rights.  They  have  guarded  against  any  such 
misconception,  or  attempt  to  create  such  mis- 
conception, as  that  which  seems  to  be  the  basis 
of  all  which  the  delegate  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Mueller]  has  said  by  two  explicit  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  viz. : that 
the  power  of  naturalization — that  is,  the  con- 
ferring of  citizenship  of  the  United  States  upon 
aliens— should  be  exclusively  submitted  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  laws  passed  by  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States.  Secondly,  they  provided 
that  the  members  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives should  be  elected,  not  by  citizens  native 
born  and  naturalized,  but  by  those  who  might  be 
entitled  to  vote  for  the  most  numerous  branch  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  their  State.  I should 
like  to  go  further  into  this;  but  in  the  time  to 
which  I have  allotted  myself,  it  is  sufficient  to 
point  out  these  two  clauses  of  the  Constitution 
as  indicating  that  our  fathers  had  in  their  minds 
clearly  the  distinction  between  citizenship  of 
the  United  States  and  citizenship  in  a State. 

The  offense  of  treason  to  the  United  States, 
and  to  the  State  of  Ohio,  are  not  the  same  crime. 
They  are  two  crimes.  They  co-exist.  John 
Brown  was  hung,  not  for  treason  to  the  United 
States,  but  for  treason  tohe  State  of  Virginia; 
and  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government, 
until  now,  these  offenses  of  treason  to  the  State, 
and  treason  to  the  United  States,  have  been  two 
separate  offenses.  I deny,  therefore,  that  any 
argument  founded  on  the  definition  Congress 
has  made  of  the  necessary  qualifications  for 
naturalization  as  a citizen  of  the  United  States, 
has  any  rightful  application  to  the  definition 
which  this  Convention  shall  give  to  citizenship 
in  the  State  of  Ohio. 

We,  sir,  in  determining  who  shall  be  citizens 
of  Ohio,  will  exercise  our  constitutional  privi- 
lege, subject,  as  a matter  of  course,  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  wherever  it  may 
conflict,  but  not  subject  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  wherever  it  is  silent.  When 
I come  to  consider  who  shall  be  a citizen  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  or  rather  who  shall  vote  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  it  seems  to  me  it  is  a question 
which  must  be  determined  by  principles  of  util- 
itarianism. It  is  a question  of  expediency,  to 
be  determined  by  observation,  by  experience, 
and  it  is  an  experiment  in  Ohio  in  which  our 
course  must  be  taken  by  the  light  of  the  expe- 
rience of  our  ancestors,  and  our  own  as  well; 
and  it  may  be  as  considerations  of  an  a priori 
character.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  State,  or  rather 
it  is  for  the  interest  of  the  State.  It  is  the  pol- 
icy of  the  State,  as  soon  as  possible,  to  reduce 
its  population  to  a homogeneous  mass.  It  is  the 
policy  of  the  State,  and  for  the  safety  of  the 
State,  to  abolish  class  distinctions,  except  as  far 
as  absolutely  necessary. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  the  State  of  Indiana, 
or  Illinois,  or  some  State  in  the  far  West,  make 
a mistake,  does  it  follow,  logically,  that  we  must 
follow  their  example? 

Mr.  IIOADLY.  It  follows,  logically,  that  we 
must  avoid  that  mistake,  if  it  be  such. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Has  not  Illinois,  after 
having  shown  great  liberality  in  her  Constitu- 
tion on  this  subject,  recently  abandoned  that 
principle  and  cut  it  off? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  1 am  informed  that  the  fact 
is  so.  I have  not  investigated  it.  I may  also 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 1877 

March  7,  1874.]  Hoadly,  Campbell,  Tuttle,  Carbery. 


say  to  the  gentleman,  in  addition  to  that,  that 
Rhode  Island  has  refused  to  extend  to  natural- 
ized citizens  the  privileges  that  native  born 
citizens  have  in  that  respect,  to  vote  without  a 
property  qualification;  so  that,  if  he  puts  the 
illustration  of  Illinois  on  one  side  I can  have 
the  benefit  of  the  illustration  of  Rhode  Island 
on  the  other,  for  I find  on  page  251,  volume  II, 
of  “Hough’s  Constitutions”  that,  on  the  9th 
day  of  April,  1871,  there  was  submitted  to  the 
people  of  Rhode  Island,  for  adoption,  an  amend- 
ment to  their  Constitution  repealing  the  real 
estate  qualification  for  the  suffrage  of  foreign 
citizens,  on  which  the  vote  was  3,114  yeas  to 
6,366  nays. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  gentleman  could  go 
further  back,  to  the  days  of  Van  Buren. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I could,  undoubtedly;  but 
because  I was  a disciple  of  the  political  school  of 
Martin  Van  Buren  it  does  not  follow  that  I 
must  copy  all  the  mistakes  he  made. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  gentleman  swallowed 
Van  Buren  with  all  his  doctrines  of  property 
qualification. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  think  the  gentle- 
man swallowed  Van  Buren.  I think  Van  Bu- 
ren swallowed  him. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Then  Jonah  swallowed 
the  whale,  and  the  whale  didn’t  swallow  Jonah  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I did  not  say  so.  I was  not 
there  to  see.  My  friend  and  I were  both  on  the 
Committee  on  Municipal  Corporations,  and  we 
agreed  with  reference  to  the  subject  of  property 
qualifications.  We  do  not  wish  caste  or  classes 
in  Ohio,  and  the  sooner  we  may  safely  confer 
the  right  of  suffrage  upon  the  foreigner  the 
better  for  the  State,  and  my  judgment,  as  a citi- 
zen, is,  that  it  is  safe  to  do  it  at  the  time  sug- 
gested by  the  Committee  as  the  proper  time. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentleman  means  that, 
why  does  he  make  any  restriction?  Why  not 
say  they  shall  vote  as  soon  as  they  get  here  and 
establish  a residence  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  fails  to  ob- 
serve that  the  restriction  is  to  be  remedied  as 
soon  as  it  can  be  done  with  prudence,  and  that 
is  a question  of  expediency,  and  when  I see 
that  the  State  of  Indiana  have  had  for  twenty- 
three  years  a more  liberal  provision  than  is 
proposed  here,  and  when  I am  told,  as  I have 
been  time  and  again,  by  citizens  of  Indiana, 
that  the  system  has  worked  well,  believing 
them,  I think  the  experiment  may  be  tried  in 
Ohio. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  What  I want  to  get  at  is  the 
consistency  between  the  foundation  of  your 
argument  upon  the  impropriety  of  classes,  and 
yet  in  the  very  same  breath  maintaining  classes 
at  all  events  to  the  exclusion  of  those  who  have 
not  declared  intentions  for  the  period  of  a year. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  fails  to  un- 
derstand my  argument.  I am  sure  I cannot 
enlarge  his  capacity  to  enable  him  to  do  it,  nor 
mine  to  enable  me  to  state  it  so  that  he  can  un- 
derstand it,  so  I pass  the  proposition.  My  point 
is,  that  it  is  the  policy  of  the  State,  that  all  her 
people  should  be  one  people,  and  that  as  soon  as 
the  alien  class,  the  hostile  class,  the  inimical 
•class,  can  prudently  be  made  a friendly  class, 
-a  domestic  class  of  our  own  people,  then  the 
time  has  arrived,  and  it  is  a question  of  ex- 
perience and  observation  whether  the  time  sug- 


gested by  the  Committee  be  the  proper  time’ 
and  in  my  judgment  it  is,  and  therefore  I pur- 
pose to  vote  against  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell], 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I do  not  desire  to  inter- 
fere with  the  thread  of  the  gentleman’s  argu- 
ment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  No  interference.  The  only 
difficulty  is : I shall  be  compelled  to  occupy  ten 
minutes,  by  reason  of  interruptions. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I may  get  the  floor  for 
ten  minutes,  and  I shall  give  the  gentleman  all 
my  time. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  You  will  give  some  of  it,  I 
have  no  doubt. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I desire  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  if  he  is  willing,  notwithstanding 
what  Illinois,  Indiana,  or  any  other  State  may 
have  done,  to  impose  upon  his  son,  if  he  has 
one.  I hope  he  has — 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I have  two. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I hope  he  may  have  a 
dozen  more. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Goon. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  To  impose  upon  him  the 
duty  of  fightingfor  the  preservation  of  this  gov- 
ernment, and  at  the  same  time  give  the  right  to 
the  native  of  China  and  Japan  and  elsewhere 
to  stay  at  home  and  hold  office,  and  do  the  vot- 
ing, and  say  whether  he  shall  be  supplied  while 
he  is  fighting  in  the  field;  but  this  proposition 
is  not  the  enactment  of  a statute  alone,  it  is  for 
the  making  of  a Constitution,  which  is  for  our 
children,  and  our  children’s  children,  if  the 
people  shall  say  they  ratify  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  has  forgot- 
ten that  he  was  answered  by  the  delegate  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham],  upon  this  subject. 
I propose  to  impose  military  duty  where  I ex- 
tend suffrage. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  But  the  courts  have  de- 
cided, under  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus , when  the 
draft  took  place,  that  an  alien,  who  had  simply 
declared  his  intention  to  become  a citizen  did 
not,  thereby,  acquire  all  the  responsibilities  of 
citizenship,  among  whichwere  those  of  marching 
up,  when  the  captain  or  lieutenant  ordered  them 
to  take  a battery  belching  forth  fire  and  death, 
and  they  were  relieved,  and  the  court  decided, 
notwithstanding  the  statute  that  the  gentleman 
from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  referred  to. 
The  court  so  decided,  and  they  were  relieved. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Where?  By  what 
court? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  By  every  court  so  far  as  I 
know  who  have  passed  upon  it.  They  were 
under  the  decision  relieved. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 
The  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell] 
has  the  floor  by  the  courtesy  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I am  entitled  to  the  floor 
by  the  courtesy  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Hoadly],  to  put  this  legal  proposition 
to  him  that  the  statute  does  not  always  make 
the  law.  The  supreme  court  of  the  United 
States  decided  once  that  the  greenback  was  a 
legal  tender  to  the  soldiers  who  were  compen- 
sated at  the  rate  of  thirteen  dollars  a month, 
to  fight  the  battles  of  the  country,  and  after- 
wards they  reversed  that  decision,  and  said 
it  was  not.  So  that  the  statute  which  the 


1878 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Campbell,  Hoadly. 


gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham] 
referred  to  this  morning,  as  an  argument 
against  me,  is  not  the  final  one,  because 
the  court  has  decided,  and  the  judiciary- 
tribunals  are  those  of  dernier  resort  after  we 
make  Constitutions,  and  after  Congress  and 
after  Legislatures  make  laws.  We  have  the 
power  of  going  to  the  supreme  court  of  the 
United  States;  and  from  the  chair  which  you, 
Mr.  President,  now  occupy,  was  taken  a Chief 
Justice  of  the  United  States,  who  is  the  presid- 
ing officer;  who  is  the  life  officer;  above  the 
President;  above  your  supreme  courts;  above 
your  Senators;  above  your  Representatives; 
above  your  legislators,  above  your  Constitu- 
tional Conventions  to  make  Constitutions,  and 
they  are  to  decide  what  is  the  law;  and  the 
judicial  tribunals  decided  that  the  subjects  of 
her  Majesty,  Queen  Victoria,  were  not  subject 
to  the  draft  during  the  late  war,  and  they  were 
discharged  in  my  own  city,  in  your  city,  and 
elsewhere,  and  it  comes  back  and  answers  fully 
the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham], 
who  quoted  that  statute,  and  nobody  knows  any 
better  than  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  through  whose  courtesy  I am  entitled 
to  the  floor,  that  the  statutes  of  the  State  and 
National  Legislatures  are  decided  to  be  uncon- 
stitutional. The  question  was  made,  if  the  gen- 
tleman will  allow  me  a moment  longer,  in  a 
very  important  case,  where  Mason  and  Slidell 
were  captured  upon  the  high  seas,  on  the 
Trent;  the  men  who  encouraged  the  late  rebel- 
lion were  captured,  and  our  Stars  and  Stripes 
were  humbled  to  the  British  lion,  for  the  reason 
that,  although  being  upon  the  high  seas,  the 
British  lion,  with  the  flag  floating  from  the 
masthead,  represented  her  Majesty’s  govern- 
ment, and  they  came  down,  and  for  good  rea- 
son ; because  international  law  required  it,  and 
the  equities  to  which  my  friend  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  has  referred,  and  upon  which 
the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham] 
adverted  here,  if  I may  speak  of  the  parties 
here,  which  is  not  proper,  that  statute  has  been 
decided  by  the  courts  to  be  illegal,  and  the  per- 
sons were  discharged,  notwithstanding  the 
statute  provided  that  they  should  serve.  I am 
much  obliged  to  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Has  my  time  expired,  Mr. 
President? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tern.  It  has. 

Leave  was  granted  for  Mr.  Hoadly  to  pro- 
ceed. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I dislike  to  avail  myself  of 
the  courtesy  of  the  Convention,  and  yet  the  cir- 
cumstances are  somewhat  peculiar.  I am  not 
aware  of  any  such  decision  as  my  friend  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  alludes  to;  but  he  is, 
doubtless,  better  informed  than  I am.  I am  not 
aware  of  any  principle  of  public  law  upon  which 
it  can  be  claimed  that  the  statutes  of  the  United 
States  requiring  military  duty  of  persons  who 
have  declared  their  intentions,  can  be  unconsti- 
tutional. I do  not  see  how,  by  any  logical  or 
legal  process  of  mind  there  could  be  worked 
out  from  any  principle  or  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  a deduction  that 
that  statute  is  unconstitutional.  I do  not  see 
how  a provision  of  the  Constitution  of  Ohio, 
two  provisions — one  that  electors  should  do  mil- 


[132ncl 

[Saturday, 


itary  duty,  and  the  other  that  persons  who  have 
declared  their  intentions,  should  be  electors, 
can  be  claimed  to  be  unconstitutional  in  view 
of  the  Federal  Constitution. 

But  1 am  not  discussing  the  proposition 
whether  or  not  such  decisions  by  probate 
judges  or  otherwise  have  been  made,  as  my 
friend  says,  because  I am  not  informed  of  them, 
and  if  they  were  so  decided  I should  respect- 
fully appeal  from  such  decision  to  the  better 
judgment  and  good  sense  of  this  Convention 
that  such  is  not  and  cannot  be  the  law. 

The  gentleman  has  reminded  me,  by  his  sug- 
gestion, of  what  I once  saw.  I saw  one  of  the 
dearest  friends  I ever  had  go  into  the  German 
quarter  of  this  city  and  call  for  volunteers  to 
follow  the  flag,  on  the  day  of  the  publication 
of  the  proclamation  of  April  15th,  1861,  and 
four  days  later  I saw  one  thousand  as  true 
soldiers  as  ever  went  to  the  war  enlisted  in  the 
Ninth  Regiment  of  Ohio  volunteers,  under  the 
command  of  that  noble,  that  lamented  friend. 
That  regiment  was  the  first  regiment  to  enlist 
as  a three  years  regiment  in  Ohio.  It  was  the 
first  regiment  to  charge  bayonets  upon  the 
enemy,  viz.,  at  Mill  Springs.  Its  leader  was 
treacherously  slaughtered  while  sick  in  an  am- 
bulance, but  his  men  stood  in  the  front  of  the 
fight  performing  deeds  of  heroic  courage  which 
will  never  be  forgotten  as  long  as  Ohio  is  a State. 
I should  like  to  know  how  many  of  those  citi- 
zens were  called  on  to  show  their  naturaliza- 
tion papers  when  Robert  L.  McCook  called 
them  to  the  front.  There  was  another  regi- 
ment raised  in  this  city  a few  days  later,  com- 
posed of  eight  Irish  and  two  German  com- 
panies, whose  gallant  leader,  like  McCook,  but 
more  fortunate  than  McCook,  fell  by  the  bul- 
lets of  the  enemy,  fell  in  the  forefront  of  battle 
at  Chicamauga,.  I should  like  to  know  how 
many  of  those  eight  companies  of  Irishmen  and 
of  the  two  companies  of  Germans  that  Wil- 
liam H.  Lytle  led  to  battle  were  called  on  or 
could  have  complied  with  the  demand  had  it 
been  made,  for  their  naturalization  papers. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  And  at  the  same  time, 
when  the  patriotic  Germans,  and  Irishmen,  and 
Frenchmen  were  volunteering  under  McCook, 
there  were  those,  and  native-born  Americans, 
like  the  gentleman  and  myself,  who  were  not 
patriotic  enough  to  take  the  bayonet  and  go  for- 
ward. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  true,  and  there  were 
thousands  and  tensof  thousands  more  patriotic — 
I make  no  comparisbnwith  the  gentleman — more 
patriotic  than  I,  who  died  side  by  side  with 
Bob  McCook’s  “bully  Dutchmen,”  and  William 
H.  Lytle’s  patriotic  Irishmen.  Side  by  side 
they  fought  the  battles  with  the  soldiers  of  the 
Rebellion ; side  by  side  they  died  in  the  field ; 
side  by  side  they  languished  in  the  hospitals ; 
side  by  side  they  returned  home,  some  crippled ; 
side  by  side,  let  them  go  to  the  polls. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I saw  them,  and  I do  not 
present  my  military  record.  It  is  not  worth  a 
cent.  I do  not  care  anything  about  it.  I saw 
them  wounded,  languishing,  and  dying.  I pro- 
vided for  the  wants  of  the  Irish  and  German 
citizen,  as  far  as  I could ; but  that  is  not  to  the 
point.  Allow  me  to  suggest  to  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  who  is  a lawyer 
of  ability,  which  I recognize,  that  it  is  not  the 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 1879 

March  7, 1874.]  Hoadly,  Campbell,  Mueller,  West. 


legal  proposition  which  I presented  in  the  out- 
set, night  before  last 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  may  be 
right.  I did  not  have  the  pleasure  of  hearing 
his  argument. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  It  was  the  gentleman’s 
misfortune  not  to  have  heard  it.  I would  call 
your  attention  to  it  if  you  should  ever  see  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly  I shall  read  it. 
I was  not  so  fortunate  as  to  hear  the  gentle- 
man’s argument;  I am  not  now  trying  to  re- 
ply to  it.  I am  not  provoking  an  encounter 
with  the  gentleman.  I am  simply  endeavoring 
to  express  the  feelings  which  animate  me  in 
supporting  this  report.  I believe,  upon  prin- 
ciple, this  Report  is  right.  I believe  Rhode 
Island  imposes  upon  her  foreign-born  citizen  a 
property  qualification  which  she  does  not  im- 
pose upon  the  native  citizen,  and  she  has  the 
right  to  impose  such  restraint.  So  Ohio  has 
the  right  to  admit  the  foreign-born  to  vote  with- 
out naturalization,  as  does  Indiana. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Unquestionably. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  And  therefore  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  delegate  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Muel- 
ler], that  naturalization  and  the  right  to  vote 
are  privileges  which  spring  from  the  same  poli- 
icy,  is  not  well  founded. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I did  not  make  any  such 
claim.  I said  I thought  it  was  imprudent  or 
unwise  to  attach  the  right  of  voting  to  the  right 
of  citizenship. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  argued 
that  citizenship  of  the  United  States  and  the 
right  to  vote  in  the  State  of  Ohio  ought  not  to 
be  separated,  and  I am  arguing  that  they  are 
in  two  spheres,  in  two  different  planes  of 
thought : — that  the  right  to  vote  in  Ohio  is  a 
thing  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  citizenship  of 
the  United  States,  or  citizenship  at  all ; that 
citizenship  and  the  right  to  vote  are  two  totally 
different  matters,  as  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  proves.  I am  claiming  that  ex- 
perience and  observation  are  the  best  proof  that 
the  men  who  come  to  this  country  of  their  own 
free  will,  the  men  who  choose  this  country  as 
their  heritage,  as  homes,  the  men  who  come 
among  us  as  our  friends,  who  come  among  us 
to  live  and  die,  to  beget  children,  and  to  labor 
and  assist  in  advancing  the  prosperity  of  our 
State,  should  not  be  welcomed  with  “hospitable 
hands  to  bloody  graves;”  but  with  hospitality 
to  immediate  welcome;  or,  at  least,  early  wel- 
come, and  that  the  sooner  we  are  rid  of  those 
disqualifications  and  allow  their  political  edu- 
cation to  begin,  and  it  hardly  begins  until  the 
foreigner  votes,  the  better  it  will  be  for  them 
and  for  us.  That  is  my  proposition. 

Mr.  WEST.  Why  not  enfranchise  him  im- 
mediately on  his  reaching  our  shores? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Why  require  him  to  wait 
a year  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Simply  because  there  must 
be  a sufficient  length  of  time  in  order  to  iden- 
tify him  with  the  people  with  whom  he  intends 
to  make  his  home.  Here  is  the  difference  be- 
tween a “carpetbagger,”  as  he  is  called,  and 
one  who  comes  to  make  a home.  It  is  the  dif- 
ference between  a man  who  comes  to  stay  and 
a man  who  comes  to  go.  What  is  the  difference 
between  the  Chinese  and  the  delegate  from 
Hamilton,  my  honored  colleague  [Mr.  Car- 


bery]  ? He  came  from  the  banks  of  the  Shan- 
non, to  make  a home  for  himself  and  children, 
for  generations  ; whereas,  John  Chinaman 
comes  to  San  Francisco  to  gather  a little  gold, 
and  take  it  with  him  back  to  the  Flowery  King- 
dom. That  is  the  difference.  It  is  the  differ- 
ence between  the  one  who  comes  here  with  the 
full  purpose  to  make  this  his  abiding  place,  to 
be  one  of  us,  a member  of  our  political  family, 
an  unit  of  our  system,  a member  of  our  com- 
munity, never  to  be  dissevered  ; and  one  who 
comes  in  for  the  purpose  simply  of  using  us, 
and  then  leaving  us. 

Mr.  WEST.  Does  the  gentleman  think  that 
the  Italian,  who  scarcely  ever  heard  of  America, 
upon  arriving  on  our  shores  should  be  admitted 
to  the  right  of  suffrage  at  the  same  length  of 
time  as  the  Pennsylvanian  Irishman,  who  has 
been  naturalized,  and  who  has  become  learned 
with  all  our  institutions,  and  ways  and  habits? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  think  that  the  bar- 
barian, who  scarcely  knows  the  language  of  our 
people,  is  equally  qualified  to  deposit  his  ballot 
with  the  learned,  the  wise,  the  eloquent  delegate 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West].  God  forbid  that  I 
should  shut  my  eyes  to  the  fact  that  there  are 
differences  among  men,  differences  of  native 
capacity,  differences  of  opportunity,  differences 
in  the  use  of  opportunity.  God  forbid  that  I 
should  compare  one  who  never  had  a chance, 
or  who  having  had  it  misused  it,  to  one  who 
having  a rich  opportunity  has  used  it  extern 
sively  to  the  advantage  of  the  highest  native 
gifts  which  have  been  given  him ; but  notwith- 
standing all  this,  it  is  just  as  true  that  all  men 
are  born  equal.  The  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence never  lied.  Although  differences  existed, 
to  which  I have  alluded,  of  which  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is  a conspicuous 
example,  I cannot  draw  the  distinction  the  gen- 
tleman proposes.  There  is  no  such  line.  There 
is  no  competitive  examination  by  which  a man, 
like  my  colleague  [Mr.  Carbery],  and  the  bar- 
barians that  were  landed  from  the  “ Wanderer,” 
on  the  coast  of  Georgia,  may  be  separated,  the 
one  from  the  other,  as  the  sheep  and  the  goats 
will  be  on  the  last  day;  these  entitled  to  the 
privileges  of  the  ballot,  and  those  dismissed 
into  servitude. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  does  not  com- 
prehend my  question. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  1 am  answering  what  I did 
comprehend. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  rule  is  that  the  man  com- 
ing from  Pennsylvania  to  reside  in  Ohio  and 
the  foreigner  can  vote  in  the  same  length  of 
time. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  so  understand  it. 
With  due  respect  to  my  friend  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  I understand  that  the  native  Penn- 
sylvanian can  come  to  Ohio,  if  he  comes  animo 
manendi , and  vote  at  the  end  of  one  year,  and  I 
do  not  understand  that  the  foreigner  can  come 
here  and  vote  at  the  end  of  one  year,  even  if  he 
shall  come  animo  manendi , unless  he  adds  a dec- 
laration of  his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of 
the  United  States. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  How  long  will  it  take  to  do 
that? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  he  wishes  to,  he  can  do  it 
in  a day. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  not  that  too  long  a time  ? 


1880 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE.  [132nd  Day. 

Hoadly,  West,  Tuttle,  Andrews.  [Saturday,  March  7, 1874. 


Mr.  HOADLY.  My  friend  asked  the  ques- 
tion, what  is  the  need  of  any  delay,  and  I told 
him  the  need  of  the  delay  is,  that  in  order  we 
might  be  certain  that  the  man  intends  to  iden- 
tify himself  with  our  institutions,  and  when  he 
has  declared  his  intention  to  become  one  of  our 
people,  and  has,  also,  remained  here  as  long  as 
we  require  one  of  our  people  to  remain,  in  my 
humble  judgment,  that  man  has  fulfilled  all 
that  could  be  reasonably  required  of  him. 

Mr.  BURNS.  This  section  requires  a year. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly;  and,  in  addition, 
the  declaration  of  intention,  in  order  that  we 
may  be  sure  that  he  has  come  here  to  stay,  and, 
by  his  declaration  of  intention,  under  oath,  he 
has  subjected  himself  to  military  service  by  the 
act  of  declaring  his  intention.  He  has  re- 
mained as  long  as  we  require  one  of  our  own 
people  to  remain,  and  yet  we  put  a brand  upon 
him.  We  say,  you  are  an  alien,  and  you  shall 
be  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  voting.  You 
shall  not  become  one  of  us  until  you  have 
gained  the  consent  of  the  United  States,  which, 
for  her  own  purposes,  has  provided  that  five 
years  shall  be  the  period  required  to  admit  you 
to  the  privileges  of  citizenship  of  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  is  a lawyer.  I 
submit  to  him  one  question. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  declaration  of  intention 
and  the  privilege  to  vote  constitute  me  a citizen 
of  Ohio? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  will  depend  altogether 
upon  the  action  of  this  Convention  and  the 
vote  of  the  people.  They  do  not,  as  yet. 

Mr.  WEST.  Have  this  Convention  and  the 
people  of  Ohio  power  to  make  a man  a citizen 
of  Ohio  wTho  is  not  a citizen  of  the  United 
States  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  This  Convention  and  the 
people  of  Ohio  have  the  power  to  make  a voter 
of  Ohio  without  conferring  that  citizenship. 

Mr.  WEST.  Then  one  question  more,  and  I 
shall  subside. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  need  not 
subside  for  that;  he  can  ask  another. 

Mr.  WEST.  When  the  gentleman  is  throw- 
ing out  his  insinuations  about  aliens,  as  though 
we  were  sneering  at  them 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  he  is  not  a citizen  of  Ohio, 
what  can  make  him  a citizen  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  He  is  a voter  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  WEST.  You  cannot  dodge  it  in  that 
way.  Come  square  up.  If  he  is  not  a citizen, 
what  is  he? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  He  is  a voter  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  WEST.  He  is  an  alien. 


Mr.  HOADLY.  He  is  not  an  alien ; not 
much.  My  friend  does  me  no  harm,  but  he 
does  himself  extreme  injustice,  when  he  sug- 
gests that  I have  insinuated  anything.  If  I 
knew  what  I had  insinuated,  I would  be  glad 
to  withdraw  the  insinuation,  and  charge  it  right 
back.  That  is  my  character,  if  I know  myself 
— not  to  be  guilty  of  insinuation  where  I can 
strike  the  blow  straight  from  the  shoulder. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.. TUTTLE.  What  I want  to  understand 
is  the  idea  of  the  gentleman.  If  alienage  is  not 
opposed  to  citizenship,  what  are  those  who  are 
neither  aliens  nor  citizens? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Did  my  friend  ever  hear  of 
the  word  denizen?  It  has  nothing  to  do  with 
this  discussion,  but  I submit  it  would  be  well 
for  him  to  read  Blackstone.  I do  not  think  it 
would  hurt  him ; it  would  not  hurt  me,  I am 
sure.  He  will  find  there  are  more  classes  of 
people  than  aliens  or  citizens.  I do  not  propose  to 
be  drawn  from  this  discussion  into  definitions, 
into  splitting  hairs.  All  I contend  for  is  this : 
that  when  the  Federal  Constitution  was  made 
the  right  to  determine  who  should  vote  in  the 
elections  within  a State  was  considered  and  re- 
served to  the  people  of  the  State.  And  that 
naturalization  which  confers  citizenship  of  the 
United  States  is  not,  by  the  very  terms  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  an  essential 
preliminary,  which  vests  the  right  to  vote  in 
the  State,  otherwise  that  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  Rhode  Island,  still  in  force,  which 
requires  of  thq  foreigner  that  he  own  real  es- 
tate, although  it  does  not  require  it  of  a native 
born  citizen  of  the  United  States,  would  never 
have  been  the  constitutional  law  of  that  State. 
That  is  my  proposition. 

My  other  proposition  is  that  safety,  prudence 
and  the  utmost  caution,  instead  of  being  exer- 
cised against  the  admission  of  these  men  to  the 
right  of  suffrage,  dictates  that  they  should  be 
admitted  at  the  period  suggested  by  the  Com- 
mittee. 

I am  very  much  obliged  to  the  Convention — I 
think  I ought  to  say  so,  for  I did  not  rise  with 
the  purpose  to  speak,  as  I have,  half  an  hour — I 
am  very  much  obliged  to  my  friends  for  the 
courtesy  that  has  extended  my  time,  a courtesy 
of  which  I should  not  have  availed  myself  had 
not  the  interruptions  been  so  numerous  and  so 
protracted. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I move  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:45  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Waddle,  Smith  of  S.,  Hale,  Ewing,  Cook. 


1881 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY-THIRD  DAY  OF  THE  CONVEN- 
TION. 

SEVENTY-FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Monday,  March  9,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to 
adjournment. 

Fraver  by  Rev.  Thos.  Lee,  of  the  Cincinnati 
Union  Bethel. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  71  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

leave  of  absence. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  granted  to 
Messrs.  Mullen,  and  Clark  of  Jefferson,  for  an 
indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of  J.  M. 
Kelly,  and  124  other  citizens  of  Kalida,  Putnam 
county,  for  an  acknowledgment  of  Almighty 
God  and  the  Christian  Religion  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Shelby,  presented  the  petition 
of  D.  Bulle,  and  147  other  citizens  of  Shelby 
county,  that  the  following  clause  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights  in  our  present  Constitution,  viz : “Re- 
ligion, morality  and  knowledge  being  essential 
to  good  government,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  General  Assembly  to  encourage  schools  and 
the  means  of  instruction,”  may  be  allowed  to 
remain  unchanged. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  HALE  moved  that  the  consideration  of 
thereon  Proposition  No.  203,  the  order  of  business 
being  the  consideration  of  the  Proposition,  sec- 
tion by  section,  be  resumed. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  HALE.  If  there  is  no  miscellaneous 
business,  I move  that  we  proceed  to  the  order  of 
th«  day — Proposition  No.  203. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  proposed  to  section  1,  of  Proposi- 
tion No.  203,  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell],  to  strike  out  the  following  clause : 

‘'And  every  male  person  of  foreign  birth,  who  may 
have  declared  his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the 
United  States,  according  to  law,  not  less  than  one  year 
nor  more  than  two  years  before  he  offers  to  vote.” 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  that  the  section  and 
proposed  amendment  be  informally  passed.  The 
delegate  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  left  here 


on  Saturday,  and  requested  me,  in  case  he  was 
not  present  when  the  subject  was  reached,  to 
make  this  motion ; and  there  will  be  no  delay 
occasioned  by  it,  because  the  other  sections  may 
be  disposed  of  and  the  amendments  to  them, 
and  we  can  take  up  the  first  section  last. 

Mr.  COOK.  Before  that  section  is  passed,  I 
desire  to  openly  record  my  views  upon  that 
question,  and,  perhaps,  I might  do  it  as  well 
now,  as  to  wait  for  the  gentleman  from  Butler, 
who  may  be  in  this  morning  yet. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]  is  open,  but  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  requests  that  the  vote  be  not  taken 
upon  it.  There  being  no  objection,  discussion 
will  proceed  on  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell], 

Mr.  COOK.  All  the  blessings  of  life,  Mr. 
President,  are  mingled  with  responsibilities, 
and  human  affairs  are  so  complex,  and  joys  and 
sorrows  so  intimately  interwoven,  that  he  who 
participates  in  the  one,  must  manfully  bear 
the  other. 

Life’s  joys  go  hand  in  hand  with  its  sorrows, 
and  he  who  seeks  to  appropriate  all  the  good  to 
himself,  at  the  expense  of  others,  and  shrinks 
from  an  equal  share  of  life’s  responsibilities, 
cannot  be  called  an  honorable  man. 

And  as  in  life,  so  in  the  affairs  of  State,  the 
great  benefits  of  citizenship  are  conferred  only 
on  those  who  are  willing  to  voluntarily  assume 
its  responsibilities. 

Every  native  born  and  naturalized  citizen, 
assumes  the  burden  of  protecting  and  defend- 
ing the  State,  in  the  hour  of  its  peril ; and  every 
citizen,  native  born  and  naturalized,  glories  in 
the  right  to  defend  his  country  in  war,  in  re- 
turn for  the  blessings  it  confers  on  him  in  peace. 

All  this  we  have  seen  nobly  exemplified  in 
the  history  of  the  late  slaveholders’  rebellion, 
where  the  citizen,  both  naturalized  and  native 
born,  forgetting  the  distinction  of  birth,  went 
forth  to  suffer  and  die  in  a common  cause. 

Nobly  they  sustained  the  flag  of  this  country, 
bravely  they  fought,  and  heroically  they  fell 
together — not  deeming  the  sacrifice  great  for 
the  blessing  of  citizenship.  But  it  is  now  pro- 
posed to  create  a privileged  class,  who  shall 
enjoy  all  the  privileges  and  benefits  of  citizen- 
ship, but  be  freed  from  all  its  burdens — while 
the  citizen,  native  born  and  naturalized,  will 
have  to  make  all  the  personal  sacrifices  demand- 
ed by  the  State  in  the  hour  of  its  peril,  and  no- 
bly bare  their  bosoms  to  whatever  of  suffering 
and  death  there  may  be  in  war,  this  privileged 


1882 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. [133rd 


Cook,  Page. 


[Monday, 


gentleman  will  remain  at  home  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  right  to  vote  and  hold  the  offices, 
and  you  will  be  powerless  as  the  infant  in  the 
cradle  at  his  feet,  unable  to  compel  him  to  lift 
a hand  or  hazard  a hair  in  the  protection  or  de- 
fense of  the  State,  whose  protection  he  demands 
for  his  person  and  property,  and  which  demand 
you  must  comply  with. 

I cannot  concur  in  this  proposition  of  the 
Committee.  It  would  be  gross  injustice  to  our 
naturalized  fellow-citizens,  as  it  would  be  dis- 
criminating unjustly  against  them,  and  offering 
a reward  for  disloyalty.  Our  naturalized  citi- 
zens have  acquired  the  rights  of  citizenship 
only  by  manfully  assuming  its  responsibilities 
— and  now  it  is  proposed  to  confer  the  privileges 
without  the  responsibilities. 

By  the  adoption  of  the  proposition  of  the 
Committee  you  would  create  the  anomaly  of 
having  a class  of  persons  in  your  midst,  who,  in 
case  of  rebellion,  insurrection,  invasion  or  for- 
eign war,  could  make  use  of  their  official  posi- 
tion or  of  their  votes  to  depress  you  or  aid  the 
enemy  as  their  whims  or  interests  might  dic- 
tate. 

But  gentlemen  say  these  men  would  in  time 
become  naturalized, and  assume  the  responsibili- 
ties of  citizens.  I will  admit  that:  the  good, 
the  noble  and  the  patriotic,  who  come  among 
us  to  enjoy  the  blessing  of  freedom  and  give  it 
as  an  inheritance  to  their  children,  would  be- 
come naturalized,  and  manfully  assume  all  the 
burdens  of  citizenship  for  the  honor  of  the 
name,  provided  we  so  preserve  it  as  to  have  it 
esteemed  an  honor  to  be  called  an  American 
citizen.  But  this  other  class,  who  come  among 
us  to  prey  upon  us,  and  eat  out  our  substance, 
would  refuse  to  become  naturalized  or  in  any 
way  assume  any  of  the  burdens  of  citizens, 
thus  making  the  discriminations  still  more 
odious  and  unjust;  for  it  would  be  discrimina- 
ting against  the  good,  the  noble  and  true,  in 
favor  of  the  unworthy,  by  exempting  them 
from  the  burdens  and  perils  which  you  exact 
of  those  who  cheerfully  become  citizens  and 
thereby  identify  their  interests  with  yours.  It 
would  be  offering  a premium  to  them  not  to  be- 
come citizens;  whereas  it  should  be  the  duty, 
as  it  is  the  interest  of  the  State,  to  break  down 
all  distinction  and  have  all  become  citizens  at 
the  earliest  possible  period,  so  there  shall  be  no 
distinction  in  name  as  there  should  be  none  on 
account  of  nativity  or  previous  condition  in 
life. 

To  adopt  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  would 
perpetuate  indefinitely  this  distinction  among 
our  people  and  keep  up  this  unjust  dissention 
between  them. 

Heretofore  we  have  had  no  privileged  classes, 
and  their  existence  is  dangerous  to  a Republi- 
can form  of  government,  and  I shall  never 
sanction  anything  in  the  Constitution  or  else- 
where, which  will  tend  to  discriminate  between, 
or  make  distinction  among,  the  people.  We 
should  be  one  in  citizenship  as  we  are  one  in 
interest.  And  though  there  be  diversity  of 
thought  and  action,  there  should  be  unity  of 
design,  and  this  design  should  be  to  preserve 
the  honor  and  glory  of  the  State,  and  promote 
the  welfare  of  her  citizens. 

Suppose  it  were  proposed  in  this  Constitution 
to  clothe  the  eldest  son  of  each  family  with  the 


elective  franchise,  and  confer  on  him  all  the 
other  rights  of  a citizen,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  relieve  him  from  military  duty  in  war  as 
well  as  in  peace,  and  from  all  the  other  duties 
of  a good  citizen,  how  many  votes  would  the 
proposition  secure ? Notone.  And  the  Propo- 
sition of  the  Committee  attempts  to  create  a 
distinction  among  our  foreign  born  population 
as  odious  as  this,  and  the  same  in  prin- 
ciple. Thus  it  seeks  to  create  a privileged 
class,  which  has  been  the  curse  of  all  countries 
that  have  tolerated  them. 

From  their  secure  position  they  have  sent 
armies  to  the  field  and  sacrificed  hecatombs,  to 
satisfy  their  ambitions  or  gratify  their  passions. 

And  if  this  Proposition  be  adopted,  some  who 
vote  for  it  to-day  may  live  to  hear  the  following 
speech  by  one  of  those  gentlemen : 

“I  am  no  citizen  of  this  country.  They  can- 
not compel  me  to  bear  arms  in  its  defense.  I 
will,  therefore,  vote  for  war,  and  send  the  nat- 
uralized and  native-born  citizen  to  the  field.  I 
will  vote  the  country  a full  supply  of  them.  And 
if  they  go  not  willingly,  I will  enforce  the 
draft  and  compel  them  to  obey,  for  it  is  my  sov- 
ereign will  they  should  give  their  lives  for  a 
duty  for  which  I hazard  nothing.  They  are 
citizens  and  must  bear  the  burdens  this  honor 
carries  with  it.  It  is  true  they  have  given  me 
the  privilege  to  vote,  and  hold  office,  but  they 
must  not  expect  I am  going  to  hazard  any- 
thing on  that  account.  This  is  only  another 
evidence  of  their  weakness  and  failing.  Let 
them  go,  and  whether  they  fall  or  return  with 
broken  limbs  or  armless  sleeves  is  all  one  to  me. 
I shall  fatten  on  the  spoils  of  the  war.” 

Mr.  PAGE.  I do  not  intend  to  discuss  the 
subject  generally.  I rise  to  present  only  one 
view  of  it.  It  has  been  maintained  that  because 
a citizen  of  another  State  may  vote  in  Ohio 
after  a year’s  residence,  therefore,  a foreigner 
ought  to  vote.  I say  the  cases  are  not  parallel 
and  the  inference  is  not  a just  one.  What  is 
the  education  that  the  American-born  citizen  re- 
ceives ? I do  not  speak  of  what  he  is  taught  by 
the  school  master  or  learned  from  books.  1 speak 
of  that  education  that  every  man  receives  from 
the  men  and  things  which  surround  him.  From 
boyhood  he  begins  to  learn  the  nature  of  his 
government  and  the  principles  of  law,  order 
and  liberty.  He  hears  discussion  in  regard  to 
these  subjects  in  courts,  in  political  meetings 
and  in  legislative  assemblies.  His  neighbors 
debate  every  political  question  of  importance 
in  work-shops,  in  bar-rooms,  and  in  the  street. 
He  cannot  open  a newspaper  without  finding 
therein  some  topic  of  public  nature  considered. 
He  may  read  the  proceedings  of  Congress,  of 
Legislatures,  of  constitutional  and  political  con- 
ventions, of  courts  and  town  councils.  As  soon 
as  he  arrives  at  manhood  he  may  act  a part  in 
political  or  legal  proceedings  as  juror,  as  town- 
ship officer,  as  an  elector,  as  a legislator,  or  as 
a delegate  to  a political  caucus.  He  thus  ob- 
tains a correct  idea  of  every  great  principle  of 
American  liberty.  He  knows  that  he  lives  un- 
der Constitutions  that  guarantee  his  rights. 
He  knows  that  the  president,  and  governor,  and 
judge,  and  military  commander  are  restrained 
by  law.  He  is  conscious  that  if  he  is  wronged 
he  may  appeal  to  a jury  of  his  neighbors  for 
redress;  that  if  he  is  imprisoned  unlawfully, 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 1883 

March  9,  1874.]  Page,  Miner. 


he  may  demand  his  discharge  by  legal  process 
and  punish  the  wrong-doer. 

All  these  great  ideas  of  law  and  liberty  per- 
vade the  air  which  he  breathes,  and  he  inhales 
them  all  his  life.  They  descend  upon  the  land 
in  which  he  lives  as  softly,  as  silently  and  pow- 
erfully as  sunshine.  Thus  the  American  boy 
has  notions  of  political  liberty  that  never  en- 
tered the  brain  of  Greek  or  Roman,  or  of  any 
native  inhabitant  of  the  continents  of  Africa 
or  Asia.  In  all  these  principles  he  may  be  bet- 
ter instructed  than  Hampden  or  Sydney. 

In  what  part  of  the  world  is  this  the  case  ex- 
cept those  parts  that  are  under  the  dominion  of 
Anglo  Saxon  ideas?  Where  in  continental 
Europe,  from  Nova  Zembla  to  the  Pillars  of 
Hercules,  is  there  any  people  so  educated  ? Has 
not  this  kind  of  political  education  exerted  a 
peculiar  influence  upon  American  citizens? 
Even  one  hundred  years  ago  Burke  said  the 
American  people  were  imbued  with  the  spirit 
of  liberty,  and  they  scented  the  approach  of 
tyranny  afar  off  and  prepared  to  resist  it. 
What  other  race  of  men  on  the  globe  would 
have  waged  a doubtful  contest  with  “that  old 
and  haughty  nation  proud  in  arms”  for  a tax 
of  a penny  on  a pound  of  tea?  They  went  to 
war  for  an  abstract  principle,  the  violation  of 
which  might  never  have  inflicted  on  them  any 
serious  injury.  What  Russian,  Norwegian, 
Swede  or  Dane,  what  Austrian,  Italian,  Span- 
iard, Frenchman  or  German,  has  ever  enjoyed 
the  same  political  education  ? What  foreigner, 
except  a very  few  of  them,  ever  feels  any  pride 
in  our  history  or  comes  to  our  shores  with  any 
knowledge  of  our  political  institutions,  or  is 
capable  of  acquiring  such  knowledge  without  a 
long  residence?  This  great  distinction  between 
the  foreigner  and  the  native-born  citizen  of  the 
United  States  has  not  been  sufficiently  attended 
to,  and  ought  not  to  be  overlooked.  Now, 
ought  a foreigner  to  enjoy  the  elective  franchise 
until  he  has  resided  in  this  country  long  enough 
to  obtain  some  part  of  that  political  education 
which  an  American  passes  all  his  life  in  ac- 
quiring? 

But  it  is  said  that  the  foreigner  is  liable  to 
military  service,  and  consequently  he  ought  to 
have  this  privilege.  For  this  liability  to  such 
service  during  his  probationary  period,  he  is 
entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  laws,  and  that 
is  a sufficient  equivalent.  We  have  among  our 
citizens  many  who  are  compelled  to  fight  with- 
out voting,  and  also  many  who  vote  without 
fighting.  There  is  no  necessary  connection 
between  the  elective  franchise  and  liability  to 
military  duty.  The  courage  of  the  soldier  is  a 
useful  quality,  but  it  is  not  the  highest  virtue, 
for  courage  is  as  common  in  men  as  it  is  in 
dogs,  and  men  will  fight  as  savagely  as  dogs 
upon  as  little  provocation.  It  is  true  the 
soldier’s  trade  is  a hazardous  one,  but  there  are 
other  trades  and  occupations  of  equal  hazard 
and  usefulness.  I suppose  that  railway  men, 
engineers,  and  firemen  on  steamboats  and  in 
mills  and  manufactories,  sailors  and  miners,  are 
as  useful  as  soldiers,  and  are  exposed  to  as  much 
danger.  It  requires  as  much  heroism  in  a pilot 
who  sticks  to  the  wheel  of  a burning  vessel  and 
perishes  there,  as  it  does  in  the  soldier  who 
leads  a “ forlorn  hope.”  I think  that  an  un- 
necessary amount  of  patriotism  and  oratory 


has  been  expended  here  on  this  topic.  Sir,  I 
do  not  think  the  elective  franchise  is  dependent 
upon  courage  or  occupation.  It  is  dependent, 
in  theory,  at  least,  upon  virtue  and  political 
knowledge.  In  the  former,  the  foreigner  may 
be  our  equal,  but  in  the  latter,  he  cannot  be 
without  a longer  residence  in  the  country  than 
this  proposition  requires. 

Why  should  we  cheapen  the  elective  privilege 
by  bestowing  it  upon  men  who  have  not  yet 
learned  to  appreciate  it?  Why  receive  any 
stranger  with  open  arms  and  clothe  him  with 
all  our  rights?  If  a man  is  capable  of  per- 
forming all  the  duties  of  an  American  citizen 
at  the  end  of  one  year’s  residence,  is  he  not 
more  capable  of  so  doing  after  a residence  of 
two  years  ? Why  arbitrarily  fix  upon  the  short 
period  of  twelve  months?  I admit  that  we 
should  arbitrarily  fix  a time,  but  let  that  pro- 
bation be  one  of  reasonable  duration.  Let  us 
not  diminish  the  present  requirement  of  five 
years,  which  experience  has  shown  to  be  short 
enough. 

Mr.  MINER.  The  fundamental  principle  of 
our  American  system  of  government  is  that  the 
people  are  the  source  of  all  political  power  and 
sovereignty.  Government  is  instituted  by  them 
for  their  good,  and  its  members  are  their  agents 
and  servants.  They  invest  it  with  so  much  of 
their  sovereign  power  as  they  think  necessary, 
and  this  power  being  thus  delegated,  the  gov- 
ernment becomes  what  is  known  as  the  State. 

The  second  great  principle  in  our  system  is, 
that  as  the  exercise  of  the  various  powers  of 
government  immediately  by  the  people  them- 
selves is  impracticable,  they  must  be  exercised 
by  representatives  of  the  people,  and  the  sur- 
passing wisdom  of  our  representative  system 
distinguishes,  more  than  anything  else,  Ameri- 
can governments  from  any  governments  of 
ancient  or  modern  times.  The  basis  of  repre- 
sentation is  suffrage.  The  right  to  choose 
Representatives  is  every  man’s  part  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  sovereign  power,  if  he  has  the  qualifi- 
cations of  an  elector.  This  is  the  mode,  with 
us,  in  which  power  emanates  from  its  source, 
and  gets  into  the  hands  of  Conventions,  Legis- 
latures, courts  and  executives.  It  begins  in 
suffrage,  delegating  powers  to  agents.  Hence 
proceeds  another  great  principle  of  our  system, 
namely,  that  the  right  of  suffrage  shall  be 
guarded  and  protected  against  force  and  fraud, 
and  that  its  qualifications  and  exercise  shall  be 
prescribed  and  regulated  by  previous  law.  In 
our  American  system,  the  people  not  only  limit 
their  governments,  National  and  State,  but, 
what  is  equally  important,  they  also  limit 
themselves  in  various  ways.  In  their  Consti- 
tutions, among  other  things,  they  limit  them- 
selves in  regard  to  the  qualifications  of  electors, 
and  in  regard  to  the  qualifications  of  the 
elected . 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  particular  question 
now  under  discussion  before  the  Convention, 
namely : What  limitation  upon  the  right  of 
exercising  the  elective  franchise  shall  we  pre- 
scribe in  this  Constitution  as  to  those  who  come 
herefrom  foreign  countries  to  make  this  coun- 
try their  permanent  place  of  abode?  This  is 
mainly  a question  of  expediency,  of  policy.  It 
is,  however,  nevertheless,  a question  of  im- 
portance. The  Report  of  the  Committee  pro- 


1884 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Miner. 


[133rd 

[Monday, 


poses,  besides  the  age  of  legal  majority,  a pre- 
vious residence  of  one  year  in  the  country  and 
in  the  State,  and  a declaration  under  oath  of  an 
intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United 
States.  This  is  an  innovation  upon  the  law  of 
Ohio  hitherto  in  favor  of  this  class  of  per- 
sons. The  effect  of  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell] 
is  to  abide  by  the  law  as  hitherto  existing  in 
the  State ; that  is,  full  naturalization  under  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  involving,  among 
other  things,  a residence  of  not  less  than  five 
years  in  the  country. 

When  the  discussion  of  the  question  began  in 
the  Convention,  I was  very  decidedly  inclined  to 
sustain  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler;  but  I find  I did  not  then  an- 
ticipate all  that  might  be  said,  and  that  has 
been  said,  in  favor  of  the  shorter  term  of  pro- 
bation proposed  by  the  Committee.  It  is  no 
vain  boast  to  assert  that  the  American  system  of 
representative  government,  founded  by  our 
fathers,  was  the  most  advanced  and  perfect 
system  hitherto  instituted  by  man.  It  was  the 
outgrowth  and  embodiment  of  the  most  en- 
lightened and  patriotic  body  of  men  that  ever 
undertook  to  ordain  and  establish  free  institu- 
tions and  free  governments  for  freemen.  Those 
wise  men  acted  under  the  most  auspicious  cir- 
cumstances. They  had  the  utmost  freedom  to 
choose,  untrammeled  by  existing  forms  and 
usages.  The  work  came  perfect  from  their 
brains.  It  was  creative. 

As  it  required  a high  degree  of  intelligence, 
public  virtue  and  patriotism  to  ordain  and  es- 
tablish such  a system  of  governments,  the  same 
qualities  are  essential  to  their  maintenance  and 
perpetuity.  Nothing  is  truer,  in  the  long  run, 
than,  as  are  the  people  of  a State  or  Nation,  so 
will  their  government  be.  This  is  the  fixed 
and  immutable  law.  The  American  people  can- 
not maintain,  in  their  original  beneficence  and 
vigor,  the  institutions  and  systems  of  govern- 
ment their  fathers  transmitted  to  them,  unless 
they  possess,  in  large  measure,  the  intelligence 
and  virtue  of  those  who  bequeathed,  establish- 
ed and  gave  to  them  this  rich  heritage.  It  is 
not  to  be  denied,  and  the  truth  ought  not  to  be 
suppressed,  that,  for  the  last  quarter  of  a cen- 
tury, or  more,  there  has  been  going  on,  among 
the  American  people,  a deterioration  in  the  es- 
sential qualities  necessary  to  the  maintenance 
in  spirit  and  substance  of  our  institutions  and 
government.  No  thoughtful  man  among  us 
has  that  confident,  that  abiding  hope  which  an- 
imated men  within  the  recollection  of  some 
here  present  as  to  the  stability  and  perpetuity 
of  our  free  institutions.  Neither  do  they  inspire 
with  the  same  hopes  the  friends  of  liberty  and 
free  government  in  other  lands  they  once  did. 
Kings  and  Potentates,  and  the  enemies  of  free 
government,  already  inscribe  upon  them  “Fail- 
ure.” 

Among  the  causes  of  deterioration  to  which  I 
have  alluded,  may  be  specified,  though  one  of 
the  least,  the  recent  extension  of  suffrage  to  the 
lately  enfranchised  colored  people.  That  act 
became  necessary  under  the  circumstances,  and 
had  and  has  my  approval.  But  had  the  circum- 
stances been  different,  under  a normal  condition 
of  affairs,  true  wisdom,  in  my  judgment,  would 
have  dictated  that  that  long  oppressed  people 


should,  after  their  enfranchisement,  have  been 
kept  for  a time  in  leading  strings,  and  fur- 
nished with  the  means  of  education,  of  which 
they  so  eagerly  avail  themselves,  before  placing 
the  ballot  in  their  hands.  That  the  inter- 
mingling of  such  an  amount  of  illiteratism 
with  the  suffrage  element  of  the  country  has 
lowered  the  general  level  of  intelligence  and 
virtue,  and  brought  some  strain  upon  our 
political  system,  there  can,  I think,  be  no  doubt. 
Of  like  effect,  to  some  extent,  will  be  the  pro- 
posed conferring  of  the  ballot  upon  immigrants 
from  foreign  countries,  as  proposed  in  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee.  The  majority  of  such 
immigrants,  aside  from  their  lack  of  knowledge 
of  our  institutions  and  complex  system  of  gov- 
ernment, do  not  speak  the  English  language, 
and,  certainly,  within  the  short  period  proposed, 
can  be  but  very  poorly  fitted  to  exercise  the 
right  of  suffrage,  and  would,  I fear,  esteem  very 
lightly,  a privilege  so  cheaply  obtained. 

We  propose  to  establish  some  general  rule, 
applicable  alike  to  all  this  class  of  persons. 
None  other  is,  perhaps,  practicable.  There 
does  seem  to  me  some  unfairness,  as  was  ob- 
served by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  in  subjecting  such  persons  to  no  greater 
probation,  in  order  to  acquire  the  right  to  vote 
in  Ohio,  than  we  do  the  native  born  citizen  upon 
removing  from  any  other  State  in  the  Union 
into  this  State.  So,  also,  we  provide  that  our 
own  native  born  youth,  trained  up  in  our  com- 
mon and  higher  schools,  and  interesting  him- 
self in  political  affairs  from  the  time  he  is 
twelve  or  fifteen  years  of  age,  shall  not  exercise 
the  right  of  a voter  until  he  is  twenty-one  years 
of  age.  If  these  restraints  are  wise  and  pru- 
dent, in  reference  to  native  born,  if  they  are 
considered  necessary  to  the  conservation  of  our 
free  institutions,  then,  it  seems  to  me,  so  short 
a probation  as  that  proposed  in  reference  to 
foreign-born,  is  unwise. 

I am  not  unmindful  of  the  bad  effects,  upon 
them  and  upon  us,  of  having  a class  of  persons, 
in  this  country,  shut  out  indefinitely  from  the 
right  of  suffrage.  I would  tolerate  no  such 
thing.  I know  how  the  exercise  of  such  a right 
tends  to  quicken  and  qualify  the  possessor  of  it 
for  its  proper  exercise;  what  an  educator  it  is 
in  political  affairs.  But  from  the  foundation  of 
our  system  of  government,  some  limitation, 
some  probation,  has  been  considered  proper, 
and  I am  not  prepared  for  a radical  departure 
from  any  of  them;  unless  it  be  upon  the  matter 
of  female  suffrage,  which  I am  not  now  consider- 
ing. There  are  considerations,  however,  which 
I will  briefly  allude  to,  which  incline  me  to 
favor  a shorter  period  of  probation  than  five 
years,  to  acquire  the  right  to  vote  on  the  part  of 
those  who  come  here  from  foreign  lands,  intend- 
ing to  remain,  and  make  known  such  intention 
by  taking  the  initiative  step  to  become  citizens 
of  the  United  States.  I would  fix  the  period  at 
three  years;  and  I would  favor  an  amendment 
of  our  naturalization  laws  to  the  same  effect, 
though  I agree  with  my  colleague,  Judge 
Hoadly,  that  there  is  no  absolute  connection 
between  the  two  subjects — that  of  naturaliza- 
tion under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and 
our  prescribing  in  this  Constitution  the  terms 
upon  which  persons  to  whom  those  laws  apply 
shall  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  in  Ohio.  My 


Day.]  CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 1885 

March  9,  1874.]  Miner,  Ewing,  Pond,  Horton,  Powell,  Gurley. 


reasons  are,  in  addition  to  those  already  indi- 
cated, that  universal  suffrage  is  now  the  Ameri- 
can doctrine,  and  with  universal  education 
going  hand  in  hand  with  it,  I am  fully  and 
heartily  committed  to  it.  Again,  in  those  coun- 
tries of  Europe  from  whence  comes  most  of  our 
immigration, education  is  advancing  and  in  some 
of  them  already  as  widely  diffused  among  the 
people  as  in  any  part  of  our  own  country.  So, 
also,  in  the  matter  of  suffrage,  great  progress  is 
being  made  there.  The  more  enlightened  coun- 
tries in  Europe,  as  I understand  the  state  of 
things  there,  are  training  their  people  much 
more  than  formerly  in  the  ways  that  fit  them 
for  the  proper  exercise  of  all  the  priv  leges  of 
free  men,  when  they  choose  to  cast  their  lot 
with  us. 

I need  not  protest  that  I have  no  prejudices 
against  our  people  of  foreign  birth.  M&ny  of  them 
are,  and  have  been  through  life,  thus  far,  among 
my  most  cherished  friends.  As  much  as  of  any 
other  class  in  the  country,  it  may  be  said  of 
them  that  they  are  worthy  citizens  of  the  Re- 
public. In  peace  anti  in  war,  they  have  abun- 
dantly proved  their  manhood  and  true  devotion 
to  the  country  of  their  adoption.  What  I do  in 
reference  to  the  matter  under  consideration,  I 
desire  to  do  for  the  best  good  of  the  persons  to 
whom  it  relates  and  to  ourselves,  for  their  and 
for  our  posterity  forever. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Rutler  [Mr.  Campbell]. 

Mr. /EWING.  I shall  vote  against  this 
amendment.  The  question  presents  itself  as 
one  /of  individual  right  and  interest  as  respects 
the/ persons  we  propose  to  admit  to  suffrage,  and 
as  one  of  public  policy,  in  view  of  the  question 
whether  the  extension  of  the  franchise  will,  or 
will  not,  injure  the  general  State.  Now,  as  to 
the  matter  of  personal  claims  of  these  foreign- 
ers who  seek  our  country  for  permanent  resi- 
dence, declare  their  intention  to  become  citizens, 
and  evidence  their  intention  further  by  a res- 
idence of  one  year.  In  the  first  place,  they 
are  no  longer  foreign  subjects.  There  is  an 
error  pervading  the  arguments  of  the  gentlemen 
on  the  other  side,  and  notably,  that  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  and  that  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  that  is, 
that  after  a foreigner  has  come  here,  settled 
and  declared  his  intention  to  become  a citizen 
of  the  United  States,  he  is  still  a foreign  sub- 
ject, and  is  not  subject  to  military  service  in  the 
United  States  the  same  as  an  American  citizen. 
That  is  a mistake. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes. 

Mr.  POND.  Under  our  Constitution  of  the 
State  regulating  the  militia? 

Mr.  EWING.  I am  speaking  of  compulsion 
to  render  military  service  to  the  United  States. 
The  foreigner  who  has  come  here  and  estab- 
lished a residence  animo  manendi , is  liable  to 
all  military  service  that  the  country  chooses  to 
exact  of  him. 

Mr.  HORTON.  Suppose  a foreigner  comes 
here  and  declares  his  intention  to  become  a 
citizen,  then  returns  to  the  foreign  country,  in 
what  condition  does  he  stand  towards  that 
country  ? 


Mr.  EWING.  We  have  declared,  throughout 
the  history  of  this  Government,  the  right  of 
expatriation.  It  is  the  right  of  every  man 
leaving  the  country  of  which  he  is  a subject  or 
citizen,  and  settling  for  permanent  residence  in 
another  country,  to  become  a citizen  of  it, 
under  its  laws,  and  to  be  held  absolved  of  all 
future  obligation  to  the  government -which  he 
left.  It  was  declared  as  early  as  the  beginning 
of  this  century,  in  the  case  of  Livingstone  & 
Gilchrist  vs.  The  Maryland  Insurance  Company ; 
7th  Cranch,  page  542 : 

“If  a person  be  settled  bov0a  fide  in  a country,  with  the 
intention  of  indefinite  residence,  he  is,  as  to  all  foreign 
'nations,  to  be  deemed  a subject  of  that  country.” 

That  is  the  American  doctrine  of  international 
law.  We,  therefore,  claim  the  right  to  hold  the 
man  who  comes  here  and  establishes  a perma- 
nent residence,  to  all  the  military  service  that 
we  can  hold  an  American  citizen  to.  His  decla- 
ration of  intention  to  become  a citizen  is  only 
evidence  of  his  intention  of  permanent  resi- 
dence; and  it  is  that  intention  which  fixes  the 
nationality  of  every  individual  by  the  Ameri- 
can doctrine  of  international  law. 

Now,  then,  the  discussion,  so  far  as  it  pro- 
ceeds upon  the  theory  that  the  foreigner  who 
comes  here  for  permanent  residence  is  subject 
to  all  the  duties  that  are  exacted  of  citizens,  is 
well  grounded.  It  is  true,  that  during  the 
war,  when,  under  our  draft  laws,  men  who 
were  only  temporary  residents  of  the  United 
States  were  seized  and  put  into  the  military 
service,  they  were  released  on  habeas  corpus. 
It  is  true,  as  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]  says,  that  our  courts  repeatedly  held 
that  subjects  of  Her  Britanic  Majesty,  Queen 
Victoria,  could  not  be  forced  into  the  army 
of  the  United  States.  But  the  question  is,  who 
was  a subject  of  her  Britanic  Majesty  ? I say 
no  man  who  came  and  settled  here  with  the 
intention  of  permanent  residence.  Permanent 
domicile  establishes  nationality. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Do  you  contend  that  it  is 
the  case  without  making  declaration? 

Mr.  EWING.  The  declaration  is  merely  evi- 
dence of  the  intention  of  permanent  residence. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield,  with  his  permission,  whether  he 
is  not  aware  of  the  fact  that  it  was  held  in  the 
courts,  during  the  time  of  the  draft,  that  until 
the  foreigner  took  out  his  final  naturalization 
papers,  and  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
United  States,  and  abjured  all  allegiance  to  the 
foreign  power — whether,  until  that  was  done, 
this  country  could  not  hold  him  to  military 
service,  and  whether  such  persons  were  not 
discharged  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  No,  sir;  and  I venture  to  say 
that  the  gentleman  cannot  produce  a case  of 
that  sort  in  any  of  our  reports — not  one.  All 
cases  that  I have  seen  have  been  cases  of  per- 
sons who  claimed  only  a temporary  domicile 
here,  and  had  not,  by  word  or  deed,  renounced 
allegiance  to  the  foreign  government. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me  a question  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Do  I understand  at  the 
time  the  declaration  is  made,  that  there  is  such 
a renunciation  of  allegiance,  or  is  it  not  simply 
an  intention  to  renounce  allegiance  in  time? 


1886 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE.  [133rd 

Ewing,  Campbell,  Voris,  Mueller,  Kraemer,  etc.  [Monday, 


Mr.  EWING.  I repeat  that  it  is  the  removal 
to  this  country  with  the  intention  of  perma- 
nently remaining,  that  casts  off  subjection  to  a 
foreign  government.  The  moment  an  emigrant 
lands  upon  our  shores  and  settles  himself  with 
the  intention  to  remain,  that  moment  he  ceases 
^to  be  a foreign  subject. 

^J?AMPBELL . I would  ask  the  gentle- 
man furt$er’  whether  he  does  not  remem- 
ber that  atH^e  outbreak  of  the  rebellion,  her 
Majesty  q,ieeriivVjct0C!*  islue<?,  ? Proclamation 
that  it  would  be Ydl*  of  all  her  subjects  in 

the  United  States,  remained  subjects, 

to  observe  a strict  neutf^fiVy.  4 

Mr.  EWING.  She  did,  undoubtedly.  ^ x 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Did  they  not  continue  to 
be  her  subjects? 

Mr.  EWING.  Undoubtedly.  There  were 
many  who  continued  to  be  her  subjects.  Any 
man  who  has  come  here  with  the  intention  not 
of  permanent  inhabitancy,  still  remains  a sub- 
ject of  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  But  suppose  he  had  settled 
here,  not  for  a mere  temporary  purpose,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  continuing  trade,  aud  had 
never  made  declaration  of  his  intention  to  be- 
come a citizen,  then  I ask  the  gentleman 
whether  he  does  not  still  remain  a subject  of 
Her  Majesty? 

Mr.  EWING.  Not  if  he  settles  with  the  in- 
tention of  permanent  residence.  It  is  precisely 
such  a question  as  arises  every  day  in  our  own 
courts,  as  to  the  residence  of  citizens.  A man 
moves  over  to  Kentucky,  with  the  intention  of 
remaining  there  a while,  with  no  intention  of 
permanent  residence.  Let  him  stay  on  year 
after  year,  for  his  lifetime,  but  without  that  in- 
tention of  permanent  residence,  he  never 
becomes  a citizen  of  Kentucky. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  ask  a question. 
If  in  the  instance  of  a party  coming  here  with 
the  intention  of  making  this  his  place  of  per- 
manent residence,  but  he  returns  to  his  native 
country  on  business,  or  for  a temporary  pur- 
pose, what  would  be  his  relations  if  his  native 
country  saw  fit  to  make  exactions  of  him  while 
there? 

Mr.  EWING.  His  relations  to  this  govern- 
ment would  be  the  same  as  those  of  Martin 
Koszta. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Martin  Koszta  had  a strong 
government  here  to  back  him.  His  own  was  a 
weak  one. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  gentleman  does  injustice 
to  his  government. 

Mr.  VORIS.  It  has  never  been  done  by  this 
government.  That  is  its  history. 

Mr.  EWING.  It  was  done  in  respect  to  the 
residence  of  a citizen  of  Spain  thirty  years  ago, 
and  Mr.  Marcy,  in  his  letter  in  the  Koszta  case, 
said  he  declared  in  that  case  only  what  was  the 
settled  law  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me? 

Mr.  EWING.  Certainly. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  government  has  not 
only  not  taken  such  a position.  The  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  has  allowed  men,  not 
only  those  who  have  taken  out  first  papers,  but 
their  naturalization  papers,  to  be  pressed  into 
the  Prussian  army,  and  not  gone  a step  to  get 


them  out  of  it.  Fifty  or  a hundred  cases  I know 
of  myself. 

Mr.  EWING.  When? 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Before  this  last  treaty  be- 
tween Prussia  and  the  United  States  was  en- 
tered into.  When  I was  in  Prussia,  citizens  of 
this  country  had  been  driven  there  confined  and 
into  the  army  without  the  interference  of  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  Has  not  this  very  subject 
been  settled  by  treaty  between  Prussia  and  the 
United  States,  that  Prussia  will  not  longer  lay 
claim  to  a man  who  has  sworn  fealty  to  the 
United  States? 

Mr.  WEST.  The  treaty  covers  those. 

^ Mr.  MUELLER.  It  is  now  all  right.  The 
treaty  settled  it. 

Mr.  iJSWING.  The  principle  declared  in  the 
Koszta  ci?-se  was  just  this  principle  declared  in 
the  case  I h'^ye  read  from  the  7th  Cranch,  that 
“if  a man  be  etled  bona  fide  in  any  country 
with  the  intention.  of  permanent  residence,  he 
is  as  to  all  foreign^ ^nations  a subject  of  that 
country.”  That  is  a \uroposition  which  Mr. 
Marcy  said  in  the  Kosztl^  case  is  the  settled 
American  interpretation  oi  the  law  of  nations. 
I challenge  gentlemen  to  instep©  a single  case 
where  we  have  directly  or  by  ^implication  de- 
parted from  it,  unless  it  may  be  0hy  such  neg- 
lect as  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Mueller]  speaks  of  on  the  part  of  "the  govern- 
ment to  assert  the  rights  in  respect  to  some 
particular  citizen,  or  unless  it  be  by  treaty  pro- 
visions in  consideration  of  reciprocal  conces- 
sions. 

[Here  the  gavel  fell,  and  leave  was  granted 
the  gentleman  to  proceed.]  x 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  a quests011’ 
in  order  that  I may  be  informed  as  to  the  cotrirse 
of  debate,  what  that  weak  power  was  that^he 
was  interrogated  about? 

Mr.  EWING.  Austria. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Has  he  admitted  that  Au  s- 
tria  was  a weak  power? 

Mr.  EWING.  Not  at  all.  Austria  was  a 
strong  power,  although  not  the  mightiest. 

The  Koszta  case  was  referred  to  in  this  discus  - 
sion. Do  gentlemen  recollect  it?  It  was  th<© 
case  of  an  Austrian  who  came  over  with  Kos-* 
suth,  and  who  had  participated  with  him  in  th<* 
Hungarian  rebellion.  He  became  a resident  ol 
the  United  States,  with  the  intention  of  perma- 
nently remaining,  and  made  legal  declaration  01* 
that  intention.  He  returned  and  was  seized  by 
an  Austrian  naval  commander;  when  Ingra- 
ham, the  commander  of  our  fleet  in  the  Medit- 
erranean, on  Koszta’s  asking  the  protection  of 
the  American  flag,  demanded  his  instant  deliv- 
erance and  enforced  it. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Is  not  the  gentleman  mistaken 
as  to  the  fact  that  he  had  visited  his  native  land  ? 
Was  he  within  its  jurisdiction? 

Mr.  EWING.  So  far  as  it  affects  the  argu- 
ment, it  makes  no  difference  whether  he  was  or 
not. 

Mr.  VORIS.  He  was  not  within  the  juris- 
diction of  that  government  at  the  time  he  was 
taken. 

Mr.  MINER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 


1887 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Miner,  Ewing,  Hoadly,  Greene. 


March  9,  1874.] 


Mr.  MINER.  I think  I have  the  document. 
This,  I believe,  is  from  General  Cass: 

“Having  been  once  subject  to  the  municipal  laws  of 
Austria,  and  while  under  their  jurisdiction  violated  these 
laws,  his  withdrawal  from  that  jurisdiction  would  not 
exempt  him  from  their  operation  whenever  he  again 
chose  to  place  himself  under  them.  Every  nation,  when- 
ever its  laws  are  violated  by  any  one  owing  allegiance  to 
them,  whether  he  be  citizen  or  stranger,  has  the  right  to 
inflict  penalties,  in  court,  upon  the  transgressor  if  found 
within  its  jurisdiction.  The  case  is  not  altered  by  the 
character  of  the  laws,  unless  they  are  in  violation  of  the 
well  established  international  code.  No  nation  has  the 
right  to  supervise  the  international  code.  No  nation 
shall  declare  its  citizens  exempt  from  the  operation  of 
such  a code,  if  they  have  voluntarily  placed  themselves 
under  it.  The  character  of  the  municipal  laws  of  one 
country  does  not  furnish  just  ground  for  other  States  to 
interfere  with  the  execution  of  those  laws,  even  of  their 
own  citizens  when  they  have  gone  into  that  country  and 
subjected  themselves  to  its  jurisdiction.” 

And  it  was  in  that  view  that  naturalized  for- 
eigners, when  they  went  hack  to  Prussia,  or 
any  other  country  to  which  thej’-  owed  certain 
duties,  or  against  which  they  had  committed 
offenses,  were  held  for  service  or  punishment. 

Mr.  EWING.  When  they  had  committed 
certain  offenses,  hut  not  when  they  owed  only 
the  ordinary  duties  of  a subject. 

Mr.  MINER.  That  was  the  position  taken  by 
Austria. 

Mr.  EWING.  But  that  was  not  the  position 
taken  by  us.  Now,  gentlemen  of  the  Conven- 
tion, it  is  objected  that,  if  we  give  foreigners, 
after  one  year’s  residence  in  Ohio,  the  privilege 
of  suffrage,  that  we  in  some  way  contravene  the 
Constitution,  or  laws,  or  policy,  of  the  United 
States,  in  respect  of  American  citizenship.  Not 
at  all.  As  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  said,  the  question  of  American  citizen- 
ship, and  the  question  of  suffrage  in  the  States, 
are  questions  that  lie  in  wholly  different  planes. 
By  the  recent  fourteenth  amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  American  citizenship  is,  to  a large 
extent,  defined.  Before  that  amendment  was 
adopted,  it  was  undefined.  But  that  amend- 
ment confers  suffrage  nowhere. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  not  the  fourteenth 
amendment  expressly  recognize  the  right  of 
suffrage  as  a separate  right  from  the  right  of 
citizenship  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  It  does. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  And  was  not  that  decided  by 
Judge  Hunt  in  the  case  of  Susan  B.  Anthony? 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  so.  The  State  is  su- 
preme upon  thi3  question,  so  far,  at  least,  as 
conferring  suffrage  is  concerned.  The  only 
limitations  in  the  Federal  Constitution  of  the 
power  of  the  States  over  the  question  are  limita- 
tions of  their  power  to  withhold  suffrage. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  not  the  right  to  withhold 
expressly  recognized  by  that  clause,  that  the 
basis  of  representation  shall  be  correspondingly 
altered?  Was  not  the  basis  of  the  decision  of 
Judge  Hunt  that,  although  women  are  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  they  are  not  made  voters 
by  the  fourteenth  amendment? 

Mr.  EWING.  But  the  fifteenth  amendment 
modified  that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  not  race,  color,  or  pre- 


vious condition  of  servitude?  Are  not  they 
the  only  grounds  upon  which  they  may  not 
prevent  the  right  of  suffrage  under  the  fifteenth 
amendment?  If  the  gentleman  will  permit  me 
a further  interruption,  to  read  the  fifteenth 
amendment  ? It  is  in  these  words : 

“The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  voteshal 
not  be  denied  by  the  United  State,  or  by  any  State,  on  ac- 
count of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.” 

Thereby  allowing  it  to  be  denied  on  account 
of  sex  or  property  or  fitness.  It  is  done  for 
property  in  Rhode  Island,  and  for  sex  every- 
where. 

Mr.  EWING.  Undoubtedly.  The  effect  of 
the  two  amendments  is,  first  to  recognize  the 
pre-existing  plenary  power  of  the  States  over 
the  question  of  conferring  the  elective  fran- 
chise within  their  borders;  and,  second,  to  pro- 
hibit them  thereafter  from  refusing  suffrage  on 
account  of  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude. 

American  citizenship  has  never  been  recog- 
nized as  necessary  to  State  suffrage,  or  as  en- 
titling its  possessor  to  it.  On  the  contrary 
State  electorship  was  formerly  withheld,  and  is 
yet  in  some  of  the  States,  from  men  who  are 
American  citizens.  In  a number  of  the  New 
England  States  foreigners  who  are  naturalized 
are  not  allowed  to  vote  unless  they  have  also  a 
property  qualification. 

Mr.  GREENE.  With  two  years’  residence  in 
addition. 

Mr. EWING.  Other  States  have  given  suf- 
frage to  foreigners  in  advance  of  their  becom- 
ing citizens  of  the  United  States.  A number  of 
the  States  of  the  Union — I think  as  many  as  ten 
or  eleven — gave  suffrage  to  Africans  at  a time 
when,  under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott  vs.  Sanford,  they  were 
not  citizens  of  the  United  States;  so  that  the 
States  have  regulated  this  question  of  suffrage, 
and  now  have  the  power  to  regulate  it,  abso- 
lutely for  themselves,  (except  as  prohibited  by 
the  fifteenth  amendment),  without  in  any  way 
contravening  the  Constitution  or  laws  or  policy 
of  the  United  States.  They  may  withhold  it 
from  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  give  it  to 
men  who  are  not  such  citizens. 

The  discussion  upon  this  point,  on  the  other 
side,  is  involved  in  an  error  to  which  I call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention.  It  does  not  follow 
that  because  we  give  suffrage  to  an  unnatural- 
ized foreigner  in  Ohio  we  thereby  make  him  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States.  We  have  no  power 
to  make  him  a citizen  of  the  United  States. 
We  cannot  even  make  him  a citizen  of  Ohio 
within  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  used  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  but  we  can 
make  him  a citizen  of  Ohio  to  the  extent  of  con- 
ferring upon  him  this  franchise;  and  in  doing 
so  we  in  no  way  jar  our  true  relations  with  the 
government  of  the  United  States. 

Now,  should  we  thus  confer  this  right  of  suf- 
frage? I claim  that,  under  no  system  of  gov- 
ernment, and  especially  under  our  modern  pol- 
icy, the  suffrage  should  be  as  broad  as  is  at  all 
consistent  with  the  welfare  of  the  State.  The 
burden  of  proof  lies  upon  those  who  would  seek 
to  exclude  any  adults,  male  or  female,  from  the 
privilege.  They  must  show  some  considera- 
tions of  incompetency,  or  of  injury  to  the  fami- 
ly, or  to  the  State,  or  some  other  urgent  reason 


1888 


[133rd 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Ewing,  Dorsey,  Bishop. 


for  excluding  the  adult,  male  or  female,  because, 
under  our  government,  we  have,  in  theory,  no 
subjects.  Or,  rather,  the  subject  is  also  the 
sovereign.  The  man  who  must  obey  the  law  is 
also  the  maker  of  the  law ; and  it  is  desirable 
that  we  should  all  be  upon  the  same  plane,  un- 
less, as  I said  before,  special  considerations 
should  lead  us  to  exclude  some  from  the  privi- 
lege of  voting. 

Why  exclude  these  men?  The  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  speaks  of  them  as 
being  washed  there  by  accident.  Our  nation- 
ality, 1 would  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
— his  nationality  and  mine — are  the  accidents; 
and  that  nationality  which  comes  of  design  and 
purpose,  and  desire,  is  the  acquired  nationality 
of  our  fathers  and  other  aliens,  before  and 
since,  who  have  sought  these  shores.  The  men 
who  immigrate  here,  come  because  they  love 
our  form  of  government  and  desire  to  enjoy  its 
blessings;  and  I venture  to  say  that  we  shall 
find,  among  the  foreign  residents  of  this  coun- 
try, as  little  want  of  fidelity  to  the  principles  of 
our  government  as  we  would  find,  on  an  aver- 
age, even  among  native  Americans.  I never, 
in  my  life,  met  a naturalized  citizen  who  ex- 
pressed himself  as  otherwise  than  gratified  with 
the  character  of  our  institutions,  while  I have 
met  very  many  Americans  who  have  picked  up 
in  their  travels  in  Europe  the  cant  of  lauding 
the  government  of  Britain  or  of  the  continent 
as  superior  to  our  own.  In  point  of  fidelity, 
therefore,  to  our  government  and  its  institu* 
tions,  no  people  inhabiting  the  State  of  Ohio  are 
to  be  put  before  the  foreign-born  citizen.  It  is 
true,  they  have  not  generally  the  information 
we  have  respecting  our  government;  it  is  true, 
there  is  great  force  in  the  remark  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  that  the  men 
who  are  brought  up  here  become  familiar  with 
the  genius  of  our  institutions  lrom  their  child- 
hood, and  in  that  respect  they  are  better  quali- 
fied than  the  mass  of  foreigners  to  exercise  the 
suffrage.  But  recollect,  gentlemen,  it  is  not 
only  in  the  complete  understanding  of  our  po- 
litical history  and  the  theory  of  our  govern- 
ment, but  it  is  far  more  in  loving  the  spirit  of 
our  institutions,  that  the  qualification  for  the 
good  exercise  of  citizenship  consist. 

Recollect,  too,  that  now,  more  than  ever  be- 
fore, Republican  ideas  stir  the  world ; and  that 
immigrants  of  fair  intelligence,  long  before 
they  reach  this  country,  have  a knowledge  of 
the  general  character  and  purpose  of  our  insti- 
tutions. 

I would  give  the  suffrage  to  them,  too,  largely, 
because  it  elevates  and  prepares  them  for  citi- 
zenship. Five  years  of  exclusion  from  all  par- 
ticipation in  the  affairs  of  government  is  a dis- 
advantage in  the  preparation  for  the  exercise  of 
the  duties  of  citizenship.  Let  them  early  take 
part  in  the  affairs  of  our  government,  directed 
by  such  information  as  they  can  get.  They  may 
go  wrong  somewhat,  but  not  from  purpose,  and 
not  greatly  wrong,  for  no  State  can  say  that  it 
has  suffered  from  giving  to  the  foreigner  citi- 
zenship after  one  year’s  residence.  They  may 
go  wrong  somewhat,  but  the  possession  of  the 
suffrage  adds  to  their  dignity,  to  their  self-re- 
spect, to  their  desire  to  learn  the  character  of 
our  government,  to  their  purpose  to  be  perfect- 
ly true  and  faithful  to  the  spirit  of  our  institu-  | 


[Monday, 

tions,  and  fits  them  to  become  better  citizens 
than  they  would  become,  if  excluded  by  that 
long  probation  of  five  years,  which  carries  a 
very  large  part  of  the  emigrants  away  beyond 
the  middle  span  of  life.  1 think  we  have  no 
reason  to  apprehend  injury  from  this.  I think 
the  extension  of  the  Suffrage  in  this  country 
has  not  generally  been  accompanied  with  evil ; 
and  even  the  extraordinary  extension  of  the 
suffrage  to  one  million  of  negro  voters — an  ex- 
periment dreadful  in  its  proportions  and  in  its 
dangers  in  the  opinion  of  a very  large  part  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States— has  not  been 
accompanied  by  one-hundredth  part  of  the  evil 
that  was  predicted  of  it.  We  are  not  greatly  in 
danger  from  this  expansion  of  the  suffrage. 
We  are  in  danger  rather  from  corruption,  from 
bad  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  voters,  rather 
than  from  ignorance ; and  corruption  and  want 
of  fidelity  are  as  common  among  the  native  as 
the  foreign  born. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I rise  for  the  purpose  of 
correcting  a little  error,  as  I think,  on  the  part 
of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing], 
In  quoting  my  remarks,  if  I understood  him 
right,  he  said  that  I alluded  to  foreigners  who 
were  washed  by  accident  into  this  country.  I 
am  not  aware  of  having  made  use  of  that  ex- 
pression. Perhaps  I did  so.  If  I did  it  was 
simply  with  regard  to  those  who  were  spoken 
of  as  coming  here  and  exercising  the  right  of 
suffrage  without  being  subjected  to  the  course 
of  our  laws  of  naturalization.  I have  never  in 
the  whole  course  of  my  political  life,  and  I 
never  shall,  speak  a word  disrespectfully  of  the 
foreigner  who  comes  to  our  shores  for  the  pur- 
pose of  participating  in  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  our  government.  I have  always  been  his 
firm  advocate  and  supporter  in  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  which  he  ought  to  enjoy  in  this 
country  of  ours.  It  is  too  late  in  the  day  for  me 
to  commence  changing  my  course  of  life  in  that 
respect.  To  the  naturalized  citizen  I accord  all 
the  rights  and  all  the  privileges  of  the  native- 
born  citizen.  I go  further.  I honor  him  as 
the  man  who  has  chosen  and  selected  this  coun- 
try of  ours  as  the  country  of  his  adoption,  and 
if  his  claim  is  in  anything  different  from  the 
claim  of  the  native  citizen,  I would  say  that, 
after  he  has  selected  this  country  and  submit- 
ted to  the  forms  of  naturalization,  he  has  even  a 
higher  claim  to  consideration  than  the  man 
who  simply  by  accident  has  been  born  in  this 
country.  I accord  no  such  right  as  that  to  the 
man  who  claims  the  privilege  of  voting  before 
he  has  been  subjected  to  the  process  of  natural- 
ization. 

I merely  wish  to  make  these  remarks  in  order 
to  set  myself  right  before  the  Convention  and 
before  the  people,  as  I do  not  want  to  be  sub- 
jected to  the  imputation  of  speaking  of  the  for- 
eigners who  come  to  this  country  to  be  natural- 
ized, and  by  naturalization  to  enjoy  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  citizenship,  as  men  washed 
here  by  accident.  I have  no  such  feeling  and  I 
desire  to  make  no  such  allusion. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I have  listened  to  the  argu- 
ments and  encomiums  passed  upon  naturalized 
citizens  by  my  colleague  [Mr.  Hoadly]  and 
others,  and  I have  also  listened  to  the  remarks 
of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing], 

I according  to  them  even  more  fidelity  to  the 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Bishop,  Townsend. 


1889 


Day.] 

March  9,  1874.] 


country  and  its  laws,  if  possible,  than  he  ac- 
cords to  the  American  born  citizen.  With  the 
first  I cordially  agree.  I believe,  sir,  that  the 
foreigners  who  have  come  to  this  country  and 
been  naturalized  have  been,  through  the  events 
of  our  history,  as  true  American  citizens  as  any 
people  in  the  country,  and  on  that  score  I 
would  accord  them  what  they  deserve,  though 
not  more  than  I would  accord  to  our  native 
born  citizens;  but  I am  gratified  to  bear  testi- 
mony to  what  gentlemen  have  said  of  the  Ger- 
man regiments  and  the  Irish  regiments,  al- 
though I did  not  witness  what  they  did  in  the 
field.  But  I knew  of  it,  for  I have  seen  these 
men  return  to  their  homes  having  been  pierced 
with  bullets,  and  many  of  them  cripples  for 
life.  Much  as  I respect  the  foreigner,  however, 
I cannot  agree  that  any  foreigner,  or  set  of  for- 
eigners, are  more  loyal  to  this  country,  or  like- 
ly to  become  so  than  American  born  citizens. 
I want  them  to  have  all  the  honors  and  privi- 
leges that  are  due  them.  But,  sir,  we  require 
our  own  young  men  to  bear  arms  at  the  age  of 
eighteen,  but  they  cannot  vote  under  twenty- 
one  ; and,  therefore,  I protest  against  foreigners 
voting  in  one  year  after  coming  to  this  country 
and  declaring  their  intention  to  become  cit- 
izens. Why  are  our  young  men  not  allowed  to 
vote  before  they  are  twenty-one?  We  require 
even  our  own  children,  who  have  been  born  and 
reared  in  this  country,  to  remain  three  years 
after  the  age  for  bearing  arms  before  they  be- 
come voters.  At  eighteen  our  boys  are  required 
to  serve  their  country  in  arms — though  I count 
that  a great  and  glorious  privilege — but,  never- 
theless, they  cannot  vote  for  three  years  there- 
after. 

Now,  in  my  judgment,  every  foreign  born 
citizen  should  be  allowed,  after  he  becomes  a 
naturalized  citizen  of  this  country,  the  same 
privileges  as  are  granted  to  an  American  born 
citizen,  and  I would  not  take  from  him  the 
privileges  which  I am  permitted  to  enjoy  my- 
self ; but  I do  not  believe  that  the  Report  of  the 
Committee,  as  offered,  should  be  adopted,  and 
whilst  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  may  not  be  exactly  as  I would  have  it,  I 
shall  vote  for  it  in  preference  to  the  Report  of 
the  Committee. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  This  question  of  chang- 
ing the  naturalization  laws  has  assumed  such  a 
shape  that  it  may  leave  the  action  of  some  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  liable  to  misconstruc- 
tion. It  has  been  thrust  in  here  without  any 
particular  reason — no  one  has  petitioned  or 
wished  a change — but  I desire  to  give  some  rea- 
sons that  will  govern  my  vote  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  pending  amendment.  I regard  it  as 
a matter  of  State  policy  merely,  and  all  these 
allusions  to  military  records  having  nothing  to 
do  with  it,  though  I will  yield  to  no  man,  in 
this  Convention  or  out  of  it,  in  my  hearty  ap- 
preciation of  the  loyalty  and  devotion  to  our 
government,  both  in  peace  and  in  war,  of  the 
foreign-born  citizens  of  Ohio  and  of  the  United 
States.  It  has  been  my  good  fortune  to  be  inti- 
mately associated  with  some  of  this  class  of 
citizens  in  society,  in  business,  and  to  some  ex- 
tent in  public  life,  and  I have  found  them  as 
true,  as  reliable,  as  intelligent,  as  loyal,  and  as 
patriotic  as  any  American-born  citizen  ever  was 
or  ever  can  be. 

y.  n-121 


We  hear  much  about  America  being  an  asylum 
for  the  oppressed  and  down-trodden  of  all  na- 
tions, and  that  they  come  here  to  escape  the  op- 
pression of  their  own  government.  Now  this 
all  sounds  very  well,  and  in  some  few  cases  it  may 
be  appreciably  true ; but  it  leaves  the  impres- 
sion that  a large  portion  of  our  foreign-born 
citizens  are  of  this  class,  which  is  untrue.  By 
far  the  larger  proportion  of  those  who  emigrate 
to  this  country  are  from  the  middle  and  well-to- 
do  classes.  They  are  generally  good  mechanics, 
miners,  laboring  and  producing  men,  who  have 
a little  money  when  they  arrive  here,  but  who 
immediately  go  to  work,  scatter  and  diffuse  all 
over  the  country,  and  are  the  best  producing 
class  of  citizens  that  we  have.  Another  large 
class  of  foreign-born  citizens  are  from  among  the 
educated,  professional,  and  commercial  classes 
in  Europe — men  of  business  experience,  or 
men  of  culture,  who  are  well  read  in  the  politi- 
cal history  of  their  own  country — and  when 
they  arrive  here  they  bring  with  them  not  only 
this  valuable  element  of  good  citizenship,  but 
also  large  capital,  and  extensive  knowledge  in 
commercial,  manufacturing,  banking  and  pro- 
fessional pursuits.  They  come  here  from 
choice,  and  not  from  necessity.  This  country 
is  fortunate  in  receiving  such  contributions  to 
its  population,  and  they  in  turn  are  fortunate  in 
finding  homes  in  such  a country  as  ours.  God 
in  his  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  created 
this  country  not  only  for  those  born  upon  its 
soil,  but  also  to  furnish  a home  for  any  man 
born  on  any  soil  on  the  face  of  His  footstool. 
This  intermingling  of  nationalities  and  blood  is 
destined  to  produce  the  best  race  of  men,  phy- 
sically, intellectually  and  morally,  that  exists 
upon  the  face  of  the  earth.  I believe  it  has 
been  wisely  ordered  by  Providence.  But  not- 
withstanding all  this,  there  is  a duty  imposed 
on  us,  and  which  grows  out  of  the  very  fact  that 
we  are  American  citizens,  of  furnishing  aid  in 
support  of  our  government,  and  of  framing 
suitable  laws,  one  of  the  most  important  of 
which  is  to  set  forth  judicious  regulations  de- 
fining the  qualifications  of  citizenship.  It  is  a 
matter  of  the  highest  duty  as  well  as  of  the 
greatest  interest,  both  to  the  American-born 
and  the  foreign-born  citizen,  that  this  question 
should  be  settled  wisely,  safely,  judiciously, 
and  uninfluenced  by  national  or  local  preju- 
dice. 

This  brings  me,  Mr.  President,  squarely  to 
the  subject  of  the  pending  amendment,  and 
suggests  the  following  inquiries  : Are  our  nat- 

uralization laws  wrong  ? Have  they  been  found 
to  do  wrong  and  injustice  to  any  one?  Has 
any  complaint  been  made?  Is  there  any  de- 
mand or  clamor  for  a change  ? If  so,  would  the 
change  that  is  proposed  be  an  improvement? 
I have  heard  no  demand,  or  clamor  for  a 
change.  No  petitions  have  been  presented. 
I have  heard  no  complaints  by  either  native  or 
foreign-born  citizens,  or  by  any  foreigner  who 
expected  to  become  a citizen.  All  agree  that 
the  term  of  probation  provided  for  by  the  present 
laws  is  not  unreasonable  or  too  long.  I do  not 
believe  there  is  a man  on  our  soil  who  volunta- 
rily left  his  native  land,  but  that  on  his  arrival 
felt  strong  and  tender  attachment  to  the  land 
of  his  birth  and  the  home  of  his  youth.  He 
would  be  but  a poor  citizen  of  this  or  any  coun- 


1890 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Baber,  Townsend,  Hoadly. 


try  if  he  did  not  so  feel ; and  this  attachment 
for  his  home  and  his  native  land  does  not  ne- 
cessarily interfere  with  the  duties  of  citizenship 
here,  or  prevent  him  from  being  a good  loyal 
citizen.  His  love  of  home  is  a matter  of  senti- 
ment and  of  the  heart;  his  citizenship  here  is  a 
matter  of  judgment  and  devotion  to  the  land  of 
his  adoption.  The  two  are  not  inconsistent. 
His  coming  here  is  the  result  of  a desire  to  bet- 
ter his  condition  and  is,  to  some  extent,  a matter 
of  experiment.  His  intention  is  to  remain  if 
he  finds  things  here  as  he  hopes  and  believes 
he  will,  but  to  return  if  he  likes  his  own  coun- 
try better.  The  right-minded  and  intelligent 
do  not  expect  or  desire  to  vote  until  they  have 
settled  this  question  in  their  minds,  and  they 
cannot  do  it  satisfactorily  in  one  year  or  even  in 
two  years,  perhaps.  They  are  not  so  much  in  a 
hurry  to  become  citizens  and  to  renounce  alle- 
giance to  their  own  country  as  certain  politi- 
cians are  to  have  them  become  voters.  The 
very  foundations  of  our  government  rest  upon 
the  intelligent  and  honest  exercise  of  the  bal- 
lot, and  we  ought  not  to  make  the  right  of  suf- 
frage too  cheap  to  the  prospective  citizen,  or  to 
depreciate  its  importance  and  value  in  his  eyes. 

A single  word  as  to  the  practical  effect  of  this 
change,  should  the  proposed  amendment  of  the 
Committee  be  adopted.  Our  present  naturali- 
zation laws  are  uniform  and  govern  all  the  elec- 
tions for  all  the  officers.  The  proposed  change 
could  only  apply  to  election  to  fill  State  offices, 
leaving  the  elections  for  President  and  proba- 
bly members  of  Congress  to  be  governed  by  the 
present  law.  This  is  the  opinion  of  some  of  the 
best  lawyers  in  this  Convention. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way 
a moment  for  a question  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken  in 
that,  as  a matter  of  law,  because  a man  that  is 
an  elector  at  a State  election  is,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
an  elector  at  a Presidential,  Congressional  or 
any  other  election. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Well,  I was  not  aware 
before  that  a man  simply  by  filing  his  declara- 
tion of  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the 
United  States  at  some  future  time,  became  a full 
voter  at  elections  to  fill  Presidential  or  national 
offices. 

Mr.  BABER.  He  does  in  Indiana. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  My  friend  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber]  is  usually  pretty  good  authority 
upon  everything  that  pertains  to  political 
offices,  but  my  friend  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Andrews]  has  informed  me  differently  in  re- 
spect to  this  legal  matter,  and  I shall  prefer  to 
accept  his  decision. 

Probably  the  elections  for  members  of  Con- 
gress would  be  governed  by  the  present  law. 
Our  State  elections  would  occur  on  the  same 
day,  and  we  should  have  to  contend  with  the 
strange  and  embarrassing  difficulty  of  an  elector 
voting  for  certain  parts  of  a ticket,  but  entirely 
disqualified  from  voting  for  the  other  parts. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Townsend]  permit  a question? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir,  with  pleasure. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  There  is  some  misunder- 
standing here,  I think.  Has  my  friend  [Mr. 
Townsend]  been  advised  by  any  of  his  legal 


[133rd 

[Monday, 


brethren  that,  if  the  State  of  Ohio  fixes  the 
qualification  for  electors  of  the  most  numerous 
branch  of  the  General  Assembly,  such  an  elec- 
tor cannot  vote  for  members  of  Congress?  I 
think  there  is  some  misunderstanding.  I do 
not  think  my  friend  has  had  that  advice. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Perhaps  he  could  for 
members  of  Congress,  but  not  for  President  of 
the  United  States. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Well,  for  President  either. 
Such  a voter  could  not  be  for  President.  That 
is  clear.  He  has  to  be  a native  or  to  become  a 
naturalized  citizen. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  My  colleague  [Mr.  An- 
drews] informs  me  that,  in  his  opinion, — and  it 
is  the  opinion  of  other  sound  legal  gentlemen — 
a man,  simply  by  filing  his  declaration  of  inten- 
tion to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States — 
taking  out  what  are  called  his  first  papers,  and 
thus  merely  giving  notice  that  he  will  at  some 
future  time  take  out  his  final  papers — is  not 
thereby  entitled  to  vote  for  President  of  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  He  is  not  now. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  He  would  be  if  he  lived 
long  enough  to  take  out  his  final  papers,  no 
doubt. 

Assuming  my  premises  to  be  correct,  the 
elector  would  be  qualified  for  voting  for  certain 
portions  of  the  ticket  and  disqualified  for  voting 
for  other  portions  of  the  same  ticket.  In  some 
wards  and  voting  precincts  two  thousand  votes 
are  cast  in  one  day,  usually  in  about  ten  hours, 
and  that  is  an  average  of  two  votes  per  minute. 
This  would  leave  but  little  time  to  make  suita- 
ble entry  on  the  books,  or  to  determine  the 
right  of  voters,  so  that  hundreds  of  illegal  votes 
would  go  into  the  ballot  box,  and  hundreds  of 
legal  votes  would  be  kept  out. 

Again,  a naturalized  citizen  who  had  sworn 
allegiance  to  our  government,  who  had  become 
a citizen  in  truth  and  in  fact,  and  who  had 
been  voting  for  years  in  Indiana,  or  Kentucky, 
or  Pennsylvania,  but  has  been  living  in  Cincin- 
nati three  days  less  than  a year,  could  not  vote 
here  or  anywhere  else — and  very  properly  he 
could  not.  But  on  the  other  hand  take  the  case 
of  a Canadian  coming  from  a place  ten  hours 
sail  from  Cleveland,  who  has  lived  in  Cleveland 
three  days  over  one  year.  On  the  morning  of 
the  election  he  files  his  declaration  that  he  in- 
tends some  time  in  the  future  to  become  a citi- 
zen of  the  United  States  (with  a mental  reser- 
vation, if  he  don’t  change  his  mind),  votes, 
receives  his  three  or  four  dollars  from  the  party 
who  got  him  to  file  his  declaration  Ox  intention, 
takes  a passage  upon  the  evening  boat,  get  his 
breakfast  in  Canada  next  morning — did  notlike 
the“blarsted  Yankees,”  and  never  sees  Ameri- 
ca again. 

This  is,  too,  a dangerous  innovation.  It 
might  do  but  little  harm  in  sparsely  settled 
districts ; certainly  no  good.  But  in  large  cities 
it  would  be  a frequent  source  of  more  corruption 
than  all  others  put  together.  If  the  present 
term  of  residence  is  too  long  let  us  unite  and 
have  it  shortened,  but  until  that  shall  be  de- 
termined let  the  laws  remain  as  they  are,  or  in 
any  event,  let  them  be  uniform.  Let  a man 
who  votes  for  a portion  of  a ticket  be  able  to 
vote  for  all,  whether  in  one,  three  or  five  years. 
This  piecing  out  the  right  of  suffrage  and  a 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 1891 

March  9, 1874.]  Powell,  Hoadly,  Ewing,  Rowland. 


partial  claim  to  citizenship  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  spirit  of  our  Government.  Let  a for- 
eigner wait  on  probation  a reasonable  time  un- 
til he  has  learned,  to  some  small  degree,  at 
least,  our  language,  and  has,  to  some  extent, 
studied  our  institutions  and  decided  for  himself 
whether  he  wishes  to  renounce  allegiance  to 
his  own  country  and  swear  allegiance  to  our 
country.  If  he  does,  I am  entirely  satisfied  that 
he  will  become,  not  only  a good  citizen  but  a 
citizen  capable  of  discharging  any  duties  that 
may  be  imposed  upon  citizenship  in  the  State 
or  in  the  nation.  The  very  knowledge  the  more 
intelligent  portion  acquire  in  their  own  coun- 
tries they  can  use  to  advantage  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  affairs  of  this  country.  I shall 
feel  compelled  myself  to  vote  against  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  a portion  of  the  Committee. 
In  order  to  do  so  I shall  vote  first  for  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ought  to  have  something 
to  say  in  relation  to  this  matter,  because  it  is  a 
matter  that,  in  a great  measure,  concerns  my- 
self. I come  in  in  some  way  in  the  matter  dis- 
cussed here  in  this  Convention.  The  doctrine 
with  regard  to  aliens,  as  laid  down  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  and  I have 
watched  it  carefully,  I entirely  agree  with.  The 
doctrine,  as  he  laid  it  down,  is  the  true  doctrine 
with  regard  to  citizenship  and  alienship  in  the 
United  States.  Upon  this  question  of  enfran- 
chising foreigners,  I wish  now  to  ask  that  I may 
be  excused  from  voting.  I am  a foreigner,  my- 
self, by  birth.  There  are  many  foreigners  in 
the  county  that  I represent,  although,  a larger 
portion  of  the  population  of  the  county  are 
native  born  citizens.  Now,  there  would  be  a 
great  difference  of  opinion  among  them  upon 
this  subject  of  what  the  law  should  be,  and  I 
think  that  the  people  of  every  country  have  a 
right  to  say  upon  what  principle  and  in  what 
manner  they  will  receive  foreigners  amongst 
them.  It  is  exactly  as  it  would  be  with  regard 
to  persons  that  I receive  at  my  house.  I have 
a right  to  say  whom  I will  receive  as  my  guests, 
to  exclude  those  that  I do  not  like,  and  admit 
those  that  I am  pleased  with.  So  I hold  that 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  a right  to 
say  what  the  laws  with  regard  to  naturalization 
should  be.  And  I think  it  proper  that  the 
native  citizens  of  this  country  should  decide 
that  question  rather  than  anybody  else,  and  so 
far  as  I am  concerned,  I am  willing  to  let  it  rest 
there,  and  let  them  determine.  Therefore,  I do 
not  wish  to  vote  upon  the  subject.  Now,  I must 
further  say  that  I have  been  a voter  for  over 
fifty  years,  but  there  has  not  been  a poll  at 
which  I deposited  my  vote,  but  there  were  a 
number  of  persons  who  knew  that  I was  a 
foreigner  by  birth ; and  yet,  I must  say  that  my 
vote  never  has  been  challenged.  I never  ap- 
peared before  a court  and  took  the  oath  of 
allegiance  under  the  law  of  naturalization.  I 
claimed  to  be  a citizen  of  the  United  States, 
however,  on  the  ground  that  my  father  was 
naturalized  while  I was  under  age,  being  a child 
of  about  five  or  six  years  of  age.  But  if  any 
citizen  at  any  election  had  called  upon  me  to 
show  that  my  father  had  been  naturalized,  and 
in  consequence  of  that  naturalization  I was  en- 
titled to  vote,  it  would  have  given  me  trouble, 


and  would  probably  have  excluded  my  vote 
until  a few  years  past,  when  the  law  was 
altered,  by  admitting  my  testimony  without  the 
certified  papers.  It  would  have  excluded  me 
because  I had  no  such  evidence  with  me  as  the 
law  required,  as  it  then  stood.  And  yet,  the 
native  born  citizens  treated  me  that  kindly, 
knowing  well  the  fact  that  I was  a foreigner  by 
birth,  still  they  never  challenged  my  vote,  but 
permitted  me  to  vote  just  exactly  as  if  I was  a 
native  born  citizen.  This  very  kind  treatment 
I feel  very  grateful  for,  which,  with  a thousand 
other  considerations,  bind  me  with  a patriot’s 
heart  to  this  country  more  firmly  than  a native 
can  be.  I,  therefore,  rely  with  perfect  con- 
fidence upon  the  native  citizens  to  do  what  is 
right  upon  this  subject.  I do  not  wish  to  put 
in  my  vote  against  those  who  might  have  an 
interest  upon  this  subject,  in  one  way  or  another, 
for  I am  confident  that  right  will  be  done  with- 
out my  vote ; besides,  the  law  as  it  is,  is  unob- 
jectionable. 

I intended,  Mr.  President,  to  say  something 
in  relation  to  my  position  on  the  question  of 
female  suffrage,  if  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  is  in  his  seat. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell]. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  would  be  out  of  order. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Every  person  that  has  spoken 
upon  this  subject  before  the  house,  has  alluded 
to  the  subject  of  female  suffrage. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken. 
We  had  a general  debate.  On  Saturday  that 
general  debate  was  closed. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No;  it  has  been  spoken  on 
this  morning.  The  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Miner],  if  I mistake  not,  said  something 
about  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  I alluded  to  it  incidentally. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Every  one  of  the  gentlemen 
have  spoken  upon  it  this  morning. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken.  I 
did  not  allude  to  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  may  be.  I only  ask  to 
set  myself  right.  That  is  all. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  say  that 
the  question  of  female  suffrage  has  not  yet 
come  up.  At  the  proper  time  the  gentleman’s 
remarks  will  be  in  order.  The  question  is  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Then  I ask  that  I may  be 
excused  from  voting  on  the  subject  now  before 
the  house. 

On  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded. 

Objection  being  made,  the  demand  for  the 
yeas  and  nays  was  sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  yeas  and  nays  upon  excusing  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  from  voting  on 
the  pending  question. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I rise  to  a point  of  order, 
as  to  whether  debate  not  having  ceased  upon 
this  proposition  this  is  a question  of  privilege 
that  can  oome  up  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir.  The  gentle- 
man desires  to  be  excused  from  voting  on  the 
pending  question. 


1892 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. [133rd 

Rowland,  Campbell,  Hale,  Powell,  Bishop,  White  of  B.  [Monday, 


Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  discussion  on  the 
pending  question  has  not  ceased. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Still  he  has  a right  to  be 
excused  at  any  time. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  In  order  that  I may  have 
some  information  upon  the  subject,  I would  like 
to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Pow- 
ell] whether  he  desires  to  be  excused  because 
he  has  not  yet  formed  an  opinion.  Now,  if  he 
has  not  yet  formed  an  opinion,  I would  not  like 
to  crowd  him,  but  if  he  has,  it  seems  to  me  that 
he  ought  to  be  required  to  take  the  same  re- 
sponsibilities that  the  rest  of  us  have.  His  con- 
stituents are  here  to  be  voted  for,  one  way  or 
the  other,  just  as  is  the  case  with  the  rest  of  us. 
If  he  has  not  been  able  to  make  up  an  opinion 
I would  vote  to  excuse  him. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  definite  opinions 
upon  all  the  questions  in  relation  to  the  matters 
now  before  the  house.  But  I have  said  that 
there  is  a propriety  in  that  question  being  set- 
tled by  the  native  citizens  of  this  State.  And  I 
admit  that  the  citizens  of  this  State  have  the 
right  to  make  the  qualifications  just  what  they 
please,  so  they  do  not  abridge  our  present 
rights,  or  take  away  our  vested  rights.  They 
may  say  that  a foreigner  may  become  a citizen, 
or  say  that  he  may  not  become  a citizen,  and 
put  just  what  qualification  they  please  upon 
him,  so  that  it  does  not  interfere  with  any  vest- 
ed rights,  which  this  proposition  does  not. 
Now,  I ask  to  be  excused.  I ask  to  be  excused 
because  this  question  has  come  up  here  rather 
unexpectedly  to  me,  and  unexpectedly  to  the 
people  that  I represent;  and  I know  that  they 
will  have  different  opinions.  Some  will  be  in 
favor  of  the  proposition  as  first  brought  in 
here,  and  others  in  favor  of  the  proposition  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr  Camp- 
bell], to  restrict  citizenship  to  persons  who  are 
citizens  either  by  birth  or  by  being  naturalized. 
Now,  I have  no  instructions  from  my  people 
upon  that  subject,  and,  let  me  vote  one  way  or 
the  other,  I will  be  sure  to  run  athwart  some  of 
them,  one  side  or  the  other. 

Mr.  HALE.  Is  not  that  the  case  in  almost 
all  questions?  You  run  foul  of  somebody. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I take  upon  myself  the  re- 
sponsibility of  deciding  any  question  where  I 
was  not  instructed,  let  it  run  athwart  any  of 
my  constituents.  And  I would  do  so  on  this 
if  it  was  a question  proper  to  be  decided  by  any 
except  native  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  This  debate  is  out  of  order. 
The  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  had  been  com- 
menced, and  there  had  been  one  answer. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  was  not  aware 
that  the  call  had  commenced.  That  being  the 
case,  the  gentleman  is  out  of  order.  The  Sec- 
retary will  proceed  with  the  call  of  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  23,  nays  35,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Bishop,  Blose,  Cook,  Cunning- 
ham, Dorsey,  Ewing,  Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Hor- 
ton, Hunt,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mullen, 
Okey,  Page,  Root,  Smith,  Townsend,  Voris, 
Waddle,  President — 23. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Byal,  Campbell,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Coats, 


De  Steiguer,  Foran,  Godfrey,  Guthrie,  Hale, 
Hill,  Hoadly,  Johnson,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Mc- 
Cormick, Miller,  Mueller,  Phellis,  Pond,  Row- 
land, Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Shultz,  Towns- 
ley,  Tulloss,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  White  of 
Brown,  Young  of  Noble — 35. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I believe,  Mr. 
President,  that  the  true  policy  of  the  State,  so 
soon  as  it  may  be  compatible  with  the  public 
interests,  is  to  incorporate  all  its  male  inhab- 
itants over  twenty-one  years  of  age  within  the 
body  of  its  electors,  and,  believing  that,  the 
only  question  is  when  it  would  be  politic  to 
incorporate  the  persons  embraced  in  this  pro- 
vision among  the  voting  population  of  the  State. 
The  provision  under  consideration  now  pro- 
vides that  any  male  inhabitant  of  the  State  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  who  shall  have 
resided  in,  and  made  a declaration  of  his  inten- 
tion to  become  a citizen  of,  the  State  one  year 
next  before  offering  his  vote,  shall  be  entitled 
to  vote.  The  question  is  whether  a person  bona 
fide  settling  in  the  State  with  the  intention  of 
making  it  his  permanent  residence,  and  having 
made  a declaration,  on  oath,  of  his  intention  so 
to  do,  shall  be  allowed  the  privilege  of  an  elector 
of  the  State.  Would  it  be  policy  to  admit  such 
a person  to  the  elective  franchise?  I look  upon 
it  purely  as  a question  of  policy.  The  question 
of  constitutional  or  international  law  has  really 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  is  a question  of  State 
policy  for  us  to  determine  here  and  now,  inde- 
pendently of  these  considerations.  It  is  only 
as  a question  of  international  and  constitutional 
law  reflects  upon  the  question  as  one  of  policy 
alone  that  they  are  proper  subjects  of  consider- 
ation. It  is  admitted  by  all  that  it  is  clearly 
within  the  cognizance  of  this  Convention, 
without  any  interference  with  the  principles  of 
either  constitutional  or  international  law,  to 
adopt  such  a provision  in  our  Constitution. 
Ten  of  our  sister  States  have  already  adopted 
similar  provisions.  Now,  is  there  anything 
in  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  the 
case  which  requires  the  exclusion  of  this 
portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  State  from  the 
elective  franchise?  Who  are  the  people  that 
mostly  immigrate  and  settle  in  our  State? 
From  whence  do  they  come?  Certainly  not 
Irom  Asia;  certainly  not  from  Africa.  A large 
majority — almost  the  entire  immigration  into 
our  State — is  froih  the  different  political  divi- 
sions of  Europe;  men  who  have  studied  and 
who  understand  the  principles  of  our  Govern- 
ment. The  bold,  the  hardy,  the  enterprising, 
the  thoughtful  and  the  reflecting  portions  of 
their  population  form  the  great  bulk  of  the  im- 
migration into  our  State.  Those  men  who  have 
capacity  to  conceive  and  to  execute  ideas,  these 
are  they  who  immigrate  to  our  shores  for  the 
purpose  of  making  it  their  permanent  home — 
with  the  view  of  bettering  their  condition,  and 
the  condition  of  those  who  have  claims  upon 
them.  Now,  the  question  is,  whether  this  class 
of  people — and  ninety-nine  out  of  each  hun- 
dred who  settle  in  our  State  are  of  this  class  of 
men — the  hardy,  industrious,  intelligent  Ger- 
man and  Irish  form  the  great  bulk  of  those  who 
immigrate  and  settle  in  our  midst — the  question 
is,  when  they  have  become  domiciled  among 
us;  when  they  have,  according  to  the  forms 


Day.] 

March  9,  1874.] 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

White  of  B.,  Gurley. 


1893 


prescribed  by  law,  made  a solemn  declaration, 
under  oath,  of  their  intention  to  become  bona 
fide  citizens;  when  they  have  already  made 
their  homes  among  us,  and  cast  their  lots  with 
us,  whether  we  wish  to  exclude  them  from  all 
participation  in  the  management  and  in  the 
direction  and  control  of  public  affairs?  If  we 
do  it  in  five  years,  why  not  in  one?  These 
people  who  come  here,  and  thus  cast  their  lot 
among  us,  almost  instinctively  and  intuitively 
possess  themselves  of  a knowledge  of  our  in- 
stitutions. Life  is  short,  and  time  is  precious, 
and  we  must  give  them  all  of  life  and  all  of 
time  in  our  power  to  improve  their  opportuni- 
ties and  better  their  condition.  The  State  owes 
a great  deal  to  this  class  of  our  population.  It 
owes  much  of  its  development  to  this  class  of 
our  people.  Who  is  it  that  fill  our  shops  with 
industrious  mechanics?  Who  is  it  that  have 
planted  our  hillsides  and  our  slopes  with  beau- 
tiful vineyards?  Who  is  it  that  have  contribu- 
ted most  to  the  development  of  the  resources  of 
our  country,  and  to  the  happiness  of  our  peo- 
ple? Who  is  it  that  digs  up  out  of  the  bowels 
of  the  earth  the  greatest  amount  of  wealth  of 
the  different  classes  of  our  population  ? I be- 
lieve it  will  be  conceded  by  our  native-born 
eitizens  that,  in  this  respect,  we  owe  more  to  the 
Irishmen,  more  to  the  Germans,  than  we  do  to 
our  native-born  citizens.  Who  is  it  that  are 
constructing  our  railroads,  building  up  our 
cities  and  villages,  adding  to  the  wealth,  the 
progress  and  development  of  our  country?  It 
is  this  class  of  people.  And  I would  encourage 
them  to  come  and  to  cast  their  lot  among  us. 
I would  extend  to  them  the  same  encourage- 
ment by  securing  to  them  the  same  rights  that 
our  sister  State  of  Indiana  and  many  of  the 
new  Western  States  have  extended.  What  is  it 
that  has  produced  the  speedy  growth  and  de- 
velopment of  those  States  lying  west  and  north 
of  us,  but  the  liberal  policy  they  have  extended 
to  foreigners  by  inviting  them  to  settle  among 
them,  and  to  make  their  home  among  them? 
States  and  cities  have  grown  up  as  by  magic, 
and  grown  up  into  mature  manhood,  in  an  al- 
most inconceivably  short  space  of  time.  From 
whence  does  all  this  come — all  this  develop- 
ment, all  this  prosperity,  all  these  sources  of 
happiness  and  of  human  progress?  It  is  from 
that  invigorating,  that  bold,  industrious,  manly 
immigration  that  has  set  in  upon  our  country. 
Is  there  anything  in  the  history  of  the  country 
that  shows  that  they  are  inimical  to  the  very 
best  interests  of  our  country,  in  the  develop- 
ment of  its  resources — of  its  moral,  of  its 
material  resources?  It  is  conceded  by  all 
that  they  have  been  patriotic  citizens,  ready 
and  willing,  in  every  emergency,  to  manifest 
their  devotion  by  the  highest  and  greatest  sac- 
rifices which  man  is  capable  of  making. 

(The  gentleman’s  time  having  expired,  leave 
was  given  him  to  proceed.) 

Mr.  WHITE  of  Brown.  I will  occupy  just 
one  moment  in  the  presentation  of  a few  points 
upon  another  branch  of  the  question.  As  I 
said  in  the  outset,  it  is  perfectly  within  the 
competency  of  this  Convention  to  pass  such  a 
provision,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  objection 
that  it  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  ar- 


gued that  if  we  confer  this  right  upon  de  facto 
citizens,  who  had  simply  declared  their  inten- 
tion to  become  citizens,  and,  inasmuch  as  we 
had  fixed  the  time  for  holding  our  State  elec- 
tions at  the  same  time  when  the  election  for 
members  of  Congress  and  for  President  and  Vice 
President  of  the  United  States  is  fixed  by  law 
of  Congress,  that  citizens  would  be  required  to 
go  to  the  polls  and  vote  a half  ticket — that  this 
class  of  citizens  would  be  permitted  to  vote  for 
all  State  officers,  and  would  not  be  permitted  to 
vote  for  all  Federal  officers.  Mr.  President,  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  itself  pro- 
vides that  the  qualification  of  an  elector  for 
members  of  Congress  shall  be  the  same  as  those 
for  members  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of 
the  Legislature.  If  this  provision  is  adopted 
these  people  would  be  permitted  to  vote  for 
members  of  the  Legislature;  then  they  would 
be  permitted  to  vote  for  members  of  Congress. 
And  the  provision  as  to  the  election  of  Presi- 
dent and  Vice  President  is  that  each  State  shall, 
in  its  own  mode  and  in  its  own  manner,  provide 
for  the  election  of  electors  of  President  and  Vice 
President.  And  it  is  within  the  competency  of 
the  States  to  determine  who  shall  vote  for  the 
electors  of  President  and  Vice  President,  and 
how  they  shall  vote,  just  as  it  is  to  determine 
how  they  shall  vote  for  members  of  Congress; 
so  that  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  harmony  of  the  system  will  not,  by  the 
adoption  of  this  provision,  be  in  the  least  im- 
paired. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman the  same  question  I asked  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing].  It  is  this:  If  this 
provision  is  carried  out  and  engrafted  into  the 
organic  law,  will  it  npt  allow  citizens  of  other 
governments  to  come  in  here  and  exercise  the 
right  of  suffrage  without  renouncing  their  alle- 
giance to  their  country?  Or  in  other  words, 
what  would  prevent  men  from  coming  over 
from  Europe  or  Asia  into  New  York  or  Ohio 
and  merely  declaring  their  intention  and  then 
returning  back?  Do  they  renounce  their  alle- 
giance, abjure  their  allegiance  to  a country  by 
merely  coming  here  and  filing  their  intentions? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  I will  answer  the 
gentleman’s  question.  By  coming  here  and 
settling  among  us  and  making  a declaration  of 
their  intention  of  becoming  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  they  become  de  facto  citizens. 
When  they  are  domiciled  among  us  and  when 
they  have  declared  their  intention  they  are  en- 
titled to  the  protection  of  the  law  and  have  just 
exactly  the  rights  that  a de  facto  officer  would 
have.  A man,  although  he  may  not  be  a legal 
sheriff  of  a county,  although  he  may  not  be 
according  to  law  entitled  to  the  office  or  its 
emoluments  upon  a direct  inquiry  into  the 
question,  yet,  if  he  is  de  facto  sheriff,  he  is  during 
the  time  he  fills  the  office,  entitled  to  all  the 
rights,  privileges  and  immunities  of  a de  jure 
sheriff;  if  he  is  a de  facto  sheriff  and  execute  a 
citizen  according  to  the  behests  of  the  law,  he  is 
not  a trespasser,  much  less  a murderer ; he  is 
not  guilty  of  a violation  of  law.  And  so,  if  a 
person  is  a de  facto  citizen  he  is  as  much  entitled 
to  the  protection  of  law  as  if  he  were  a citizen 
de  jure.  Being  in  fact  an  inhabitant  of  the 
State  domiciled  among  us,  he  is  entitled  to  the 
protection  of  law. 


1894 


[133rd 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Herron,  White  of  B.,  Rowland,  Campbell,  Carbery. 


Mr.  HERRON.  I will  ask  the  gentleman 
whether  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty  between  this 
country  and  Great  Britain,  they  do  not  become 
citizens  only  upon  being  fully  naturalized?  Is 
not  that  the  exact  terms  of  the  treaty  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I have  not  examined  that,  but 
citizenship  has  nothing  to  do  with  that  question. 

Mr.  HERRON.  As  I understand  it,  there  is 
a treaty  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain 
which  provides  that  whenever  they  have  become 
naturalized,  then  they  shall  be  deemed  citizens 
of  this  country. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Exactly,  they  will 
be. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  ask  whether,  in  the 
absence  of  a treaty,  the  declaration  of  intention 
alone  to  become  a citizen  will  shield  him  as  a 
citizen  in  a case  where  his  rights  are  invaded? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Certainly.  He  can 
invoke  the  whole  power  of  the  nation,  I care 
not  upon  what  sea  or  mountain,  or  in  what 
valley  he  may  be,  he  can  invoke  the  power  of 
the  nation  wherever  he  may  be,  for  his  protec- 
tion. He  is,  de  facto , a citizen,  and  entitled  to 
the  protection  of  the  government,  as  if  he  were 
in  law  a citizen. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Is  it  not  a question  of 
power,  and  not  a question  of  accord  between 
this  nation  and  foreign  nations  ? Is  it  not  a 
mere  matter  of  might  ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  That  may  be.  It  is 
just  what  I have  declared  it  to  be,  and  the 
American  people  have  more  than  once  declared 
their  determination  to  stand  by  this  doctrine  at 
the  hazard  of  incurring  the  displeasure  of  the 
powers  of  Europe. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Only  the  weak  powers,  I 
contend. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Austria  was  not  a 
weak  power. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Yes  she  was,  compared 
with  us.  We  have  never  bearded  the  British 
Lion  on  that. 

.>  r.  WHITE  of  Brown.  We  would  beard 
the  British  Lion  any  where  or  any  time  on  this 
question.  We  bearded  the  British  Lion  in  1812, 
when  this  doctrine  came  up. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  What  did  you  make  by  it  ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  The  doctrine  was 
whether  Great  Britain  could  lawfully  board  our 
vessels  and  take  therefrom  persons  who  were 
de  facto  citizens  of  our  government,  but  were 
claimed  to  be  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  and  we 
did  beard  the  British  Lion  on  that  question,  and, 

I trust,  would  do  it  again. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Have  they  ever  made  a 
single  concession  upon  that? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  Neither  have  we, 
and  we  never  will  make  a concession. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  It  is  a question  of  might 
and  not  of  right. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  It  is  a disputed 
question  of  international  law  between  nations. 
But  the  American  policy  is  a well  settled  and  a 
well  defined  policy. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I would  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  whether  he  has  heard  anything  of 
the  Fenians,  who  have  been  prisoners  for  years, 
who  have  made  declarations?  What  has  be- 
come of  your  stars  and  stripes  and  your  Ameri- 
can Eagle  when  the  British  Lion  has  growled  1 


[Monday, 


and  the  Fenians  are  imprisoned  ? What  is  their 
history  ? Have  not  you  sent  your  guns  ? 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  They  may  have 
been  guilty  of  a violation  of  the  local  laws  of 
Great  Britain,  in  having  placed  themselves  un- 
der the  jurisdiction  and  power  of  that  Govern- 
ment, and  violated  it  by  carrying  on  war 
against  that  government.  If  they  commit  mur- 
der upon  English  soil  they  are  amenable  to 
English  law , just  as  much  as  an  Englishman  if 
he  would  come  upon  our  soil  and  commit  mur- 
der would  be  amenable  to  our  laws.  They  went 
on  British  soil  in  violation  of  the  proclamation 
of  the  President,  and  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  was  not  responsible.  But  having 
placed  themselves  under  British  law,  and  hav- 
ing violated  it,  they  were  amenable  to  them  for 
that  violation ; not  upon  the  principle  of  inter- 
national law,  but  upon  the  principle  of  the 
common  law. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I can  not  support  the  sec- 
tion Reported  by  this  Committee,  and  in  refus- 
ing to  do  so,  I shall  not  travel  out  of  my  way 
to  pass  any  eulogy  upon  foreign-born  or  native 
citizens,  nor  shall  I disparage  either.  That  it 
seems  to  me  is  entirely  unnecessary  in  this  dis- 
cussion . It  is  the  right  of  the  State  to  deter- 
mine what  probation  she  will  exact  of  the  alien 
before  conferring  upon  him  the  rights  of  citi- 
zenship. It  is  simply  a right,  not  a question  of 
expediency.  My  friend  from  Brown  [Mr. 
White],  alludes  to  that  great  tide  of  immigra- 
tion which  has  filled  up  the  States  of  the  North- 
west. There  are  other  reasons  far  more  potent 
than  those  appertaining  to  the  naturalization 
laws,  and  questions  of  citizenship,  which  have 
determined  that  question.  That  tide  of  popula- 
tion veered  to  the  north  because  of  the  line  of 
slavery.  It  was  inimical  to  the  interests  of  im- 
migrants in  their  opinion,  and  they  went  where 
they  found  free  labor  and  cheap  land,  for  that 
reason  and  no  other.  The  State  of  Illinois, 
which  was  supposed  to  have  invited  such  im- 
migration, has  now,  I understand,  made  a 
counter-march  upon  that  question  and  to  repeal 
those  laws.  Now,  sir,  this  question  simply  re- 
volves itself  into  this  : a man  may  come  from 
England,  Ireland,  Scotland  or  Wales,  and  ac- 
quire very  soon  a knowledge  of  our  institutions, 
mainly  from  a knowledge  of  our  language.  I 
will  suppose  that  the  emigrant  does  not  know 
our  language;  can  he  acquire  the  language  in 
one  year,  and  in  that  time  also  inform  himself 
of  our  institutions,  and  our  laws  and  our  his- 
tory ? Can  he  enter  into  our  habits  and  our  cus- 
toms and  understand  our  people  in  one  year  ? 
Who  would  make  such  a proposition  in  relation 
to  an  American  going  to  Germany  or  France, 
that  in  one  year  he  would  be  able  to  know  the 
language  and  history  of  that  country  and  enter 
into  its  policy  and  into  sympathy  with  its  peo- 
ple, and  obtain  knowledge  enough  to  enable 
him  to  vote  intelligently?  The  proposition 
would  be  considered  preposterous. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Suppose  that,  upon  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  Irish  Republic,  that  a na- 
tive American  should  go  to  Cork  and  wish  to 
become  a citizen  of  the  Irish  Republic.  Would 
there  be  any  difficulty  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Not  so  much,  because  we 
are  accustomed  to  republics,  and,  unfortunate- 
ly, the  Irishman  has  not  been.  My  friend’s  par- 


1895 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

March  9,  1874.]  Hoadly,  Rowland,  Baber,  West,  Root. 


allel  does  not  hold  good.  Besides,  I made  an 
exception  in  favor  of  those  who  came  from  Eng- 
lish-speaking countries.  But  those  who  come 
from  other  countries  can  set  up  no  such  claim. 
It  is  utterly  preposterous.  When  you  let  down 
the  bars  too  low,  you  make  American  citizen- 
ship too  cheap,  and  degrade  it.  You  lose  that 
distinct  element  of  Americanism  which  should 
characterize  you.  When  St.  Paul  was  taken 
from  the  steps  of  the  castle  in  Jerusalem  and 
was  beaten  with  stripes,  he  informed  those  who 
were  castigating  him,  that  he  was  a Roman  cit- 
izen. What  was  the  answer  ? The  Chief  Cap- 
tain said  to  him,  “ With  a great  price  obtained 
I this  freedom.”  But  Paul  answered,  “I  was 
free-horn,”  and  evidently  attached  some  im- 
portance to  that  fact.  If  there  be  anything  in 
the  sentiment  of  patriotism,  if  it  is  an  instinct 
in  men,  it  is  impossible  for  foreigners  to  burst 
the  ligament  that  binds  them  to  their  na- 
tive country,  in  so  short  a time  as  one 
year,  and  fully  identify  themselves  with 
that  country  to  which  they  immigrate,  and 
understand  its  institutions  so  thoroughly  as  to 
use  the  ballot  intelligently.  It  is  a question 
every  State  determines  for  itself,  and  I admit  it 
is  one  which  should  be  determined  upon  its 
own  merits  without  prejudice  against  foreigners 
or  natives.  We  have  heard  a great  deal  of 
eulogy  upon  the  patriotism  and  valor  of  the 
foreign  population,  but  scarcely  a word  upon 
that  of  the  native.  I do  not  wish  to  enter  into 
that  subject  at  all.  It  is  not  pertinent  to  the 
question  before  us.  But,  sir,  I claim  that  five 
years  is  little  enough  time.  There  may  be  a 
great  many  immigrants  from  Great  Britain  who 
are  competent  in  one  year,  or  six  months,  but 
when  you  take  men  who  have  to  learn  the 
language,  I deny  the  proposition  in  toto.  And 
it  is  not  from  European  countries  alone  that  we 
are  to  look  in  future  for  emigrant  population  to 
come.  It  seems  to  me  that  may  soon  greatly 
diminish,  if  it  does  not  cease  altogether,  and 
our  population,  if  we  invite  immigration  by 
such  a provision  as  this,  will  be  enhanced  from 
the  shores  of  Asia. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
a question  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  he  not  aware  that  the 
German  population  which  comes  here  is  all  an 
educated  population,  every  one  of  them  of  that 
entire  land  who  come  into  this  country  ? And, 
farther,  is  he  not  aware  that  in  this  country  we 
have  daily,  weekly,  bi-monthly  journals  of  all 
sorts  in  the  German  language,  and  that  the  Ger- 
man resident,  therefore,  has  the  same  oppor- 
tunity for  immediate  qualification,  and  a great 
deal  more  than  one  who  comes  without  know- 
ing how  to  read  and  write  from  the  English- 
speaking  countries. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Admitting  all  that  the 
gentleman  claims,  it  does  not  touch  the  argu- 
ment at  all.  I claim  that  no  man  can  lift  him- 
self from  one  country  to  another,  assimilate 
himself  to  all  its  elements,  in  one  year,  or  even 
five  years.  It  is  impossible.  It  is  not  in  hu- 
man nature  to  do  it.  If  he  can,  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  instinct  of  patriotism;  it  is  a 
phantom  and  a myth.  But,  sir,  I say  that  you 
have  greater  danger  to  apprehend  from  Asiatic 
immigration  during  the  period  for  which  this 


Constitution  shall  last  than  from  European 
immigration.  You  will  have  Chinese  immi- 
grants here,  perhaps,  by  the  thousands.  Are 
you  willing  that  they  shall  come  in  here,  and, 
in  one  year,  stand  upon  a par  with  the  gentle- 
man who  was  raised  upon  the  soil,  and  who  has 
studied  our  institutions?  It  is  making  Ameri- 
can citizenship  too  cheap. 

Mr.  BABER.  Does  not  the  gentleman  know 
that,  under  the  present  laws,  no  Chinese  can 
be  naturalized,  or  make  a declaration? 

Mr.  WEST.  Does  not  the  gentleman  know 
that  Congress  can  admit  them  to-morrow  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I think  they  could,  if  it  was 
necessary  to  give  a Radical  majority. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Now  the  gentleman 
touches  the  point  of  this  subject — that  the  State 
has  supreme  control  of  this  matter.  There  is 
a theory  of  that  sort.  It  is  technically  true. 
They  admit  that  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  walked  over  the  State  Constitution,  and 
permitted  the  negroes  of  Ohio  to  vote,  in  viola- 
tion of  the  ascertained  will  of  her  people. 

It  shows  the  State  control  is  very  limited.  It 
amounts  to  nothing  whatever.  Congress  may 
to-morrow  pass  a law  to  throw  down  the  bar- 
rier, and  every  Asiatic  may  come  in  and  claim 
citizenship.  And  it  will  be  done.  It  is  these 
things  you  are  to  guard  against.  This  Consti- 
tution may  last  fifty  years,  and  you  are  to  look 
ahead.  The  immigration  of  the  Irish  and  Eng- 
lish is  a little  matter.  I admit  that  our  country 
has  been  enriched  by  this  commingling  of  for- 
eign blood,  but  that  does  not  reach  the  question 
— that  every  State  must  determine  for  itself 
what  probation  should  be  required  of  persons 
coming  here  not  supposed  to  know  our  language 
or  laws.  I have  stated  what  I desired  to  state 
upon  the  proposition  upon  its  own  merits. 

I come  to  another  question,  equally  import- 
ant. We  are  here  not  only  to  do  what  is  right, 
but  to  try  to  suit  the  people  of  this  State.  I 
claim  that  we  have  had  presented  to  us  nothing 
fraught  with  so  much  danger  as  this  Proposi- 
tion. It  will  defeat  your  Constitution  by  a 
hundred  thousand  majority,  if  you  submit  it. 
I may  not  know  much.  I do  know  something 
of  the  public  pulse,  and  I tell  you  that  no  prop- 
osition, so  dangerous  as  this,  has  been  submitted 
as  a practical  question.  Whatever  construction 
gentleman  may  give  to  that,  well  and  good. 
We  are  doing  well  enough  now.  Let  well 
enough  alone.  I say  the  Proposition  is  danger- 
ous, in  the  sense  of  defeating  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  into  which  you  may  insert  it. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  to  submit  a very  few  re- 
marks upon  this  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell].  I am 
in  favor  of  it.  I hope  it  will  be  agreed  to.  I 
think  that  part  of  the  Proposition  which  he  has 
moved  to  strike  out  is  ill  advised  and  most  un- 
fortunate. Sir,  I may  be  governed  by  prejudice, 
I may  give  too  much  force  to  probation,  but  I 
confess  that  I am  one  who  believes  that  Ameri- 
can citizenship  is  something  of  substance;  that 
it  is  a great  and  glorious  distinction.  Sir,  it  is 
a watchword  to  the  earth.  When  man  would 
do  a deed  of  worth,  he  thinks  of  it  and  dares  to 
tread  their  sanction  on  the  tyrant’s  head.  I will 
do  nothing,  and  I am  sorry  to  see  an  attempt 
made  to  do  anything,  that  tends  to  cheapen  or 
belittle  this  great  privilege,  this  great  franchise. 


1896 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Johnson,  Rowland,  West. 


The  naturalized  citizen  of  foreign  birth  is  wel- 
come from  me  to  all  its  advantages.  I do  not 
count  it  a concession.  I count  it  as  merely  his 
right  to  have  all  advantages  that  the  native-born 
have.  But  I am  not  willing,  sir,  to  have  this 
distinction  taken  away,  that  its  advantages  may 
fall  upon  those  who  are  not  citizens.  I do  not 
care  from  what  quarter  of  the  earth  they  come, 
let  them  bide  the  time  fixed  by  the  law  of  Con- 
gress. We  have  nothing  to  do  with  changing 
that.  We  hardly  know  whether  there  will  be 
any  change  or  not,  or,  if  any  change,  what 
change.  I say,  let  us  adhere  to  our  citizenship. 
Let  us  make  it  the  glory  of  every  citizen.  If 
there  are  those  who  cannot  appreciate  it,  I am 
not  one  of  them.  This  proposed  change  in 
our  Constitution  is  fraught  with  danger.  I tell 
gentlemen  who  push  this  thing  and  give  hints 
of  party  feeling  governing  others,  (and  of 
course  governing  themselves),  that  they  are 
dancing  on  a volcano.  There  is  a majority  of 
the  people  of  this  country,  I mean  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  native  and  naturalized,  who 
hold  this  privilege  so  dear  that  they  are  not 
willing  to  have  any  of  its  distinctions  abated. 
They  will  not  patiently  see  those  distinctions 
practically  abolished.  The  public  mind  of  the 
United  States,  and  especially  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  is  now  exceedingly  irritable.  We  are 
looking  out  every  day  and  every  hour  for  some 
new  subject  of  discussion.  Was  there  ever  a 
time  so  fruitful  of  new  issues  since  we  had  a 
National  or  State  existence,  as  the  present? 
None  have  heretofore  been  broached,  that  may 
not  be  discussed  calmly,  earnestly,  and  safely ; 
but  retain  this  new  provision,  and  you  may  raise 
a question  that  will  sink  all  other  questions  out 
of  sight.  It  is  calculated  to  wound  and  make 
jealous  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  God 
guide  us  to  avoid  any  such  evil,  for  a great  evil 
it  certainly  would  be.  I hold  sir,  that  the  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  native  and  natural, 
be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  all  their 
privileges  and  liberties.  I do  not  care  of  what 
color  or  of  what  nativity  they  are,  they  must 
have  all  their  rights.  I go  further,  sir, 
and  I say  if  black  coats  can  not  protect  them  in 
their  rights,  blue  coats  must.  If  your  pen  and 
your  mace  can  not  protect  all  our  citizens, 
whether  native  or  naturalized,  white  and  black, 
muskets  and  bayonets  must  do  it.  All  this  will, 
I suppose,  be  readily  acknowledged.  Leave  the 
people  at  peace.  You  may  raise  an  issue  here 
that  will  cause  all  these  things  to  be  forgotten. 
Woe  to  the  land  where  that  question  is  raised, 
and  woe  to  the  man  who  helps  to  precipitate  it 
upon  us.  Be  warned  in  time  to  leave  it  alone. 
I should  dread  it.  God  grant  that  in  my  time  it 
may  never  come.  God  grant  that  our  counsels 
may  be  so  regulated  by  prudence  and  wisdom 
that  it  may  never  come  again.  But,  sir,  if  hu- 
• .an  ingenuity,  if  the  spirit  of  mischief,  of 
recklessness,  were  to  set  to  work  to  devise  a way 
to  thrust  a terrible  calamity  upon  our  people, 
they  could  have  contrived  nothing  more  expe- 
dient for  their  purpose.  Why,  sir,  the  public 
mind,  if  1 may  be  allowed  the  expression,  is 
exceedingly  combustible  just  now.  A single 
spark  may  produce  first  a fiame  and  then  a con- 
flagration, and  if  it  break  out  in  Ohio  it  will 
burn  like  the  wrath  of  God  over  the  whole  face  | 
of  our  country.  Be  warned,  sir,  be  warned.  | 


[133rd 

[Monday, 


Do  not  go  upon  this  dangerous  experiment. 
There  is  nothing  in  it  to  compensate  for  the 
evils  shat  will  be  sure  to  grow  out  of  it,  if  you 
adopt  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee,  or  any  lawyer 
here  for  information  upon  this  question,  for  I 
do  not  know  whether  it  is  an  understood  prin- 
ciple of  international  law  that  a person  coming 
here  and  making  a declaration  of  intention  to 
become  a citizen,  will  relieve  him  from  his  re- 
sponsibilities, or  if  that  be  not  the  case,  to  what 
extent  treaties  have  secured  that  proposition. 
I want  that  answered. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  beg  the  privilege  of 
making  a very  few  remarks.  I will  try  to  give 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland] 
the  little  information  I have  on  the  subject. 
Whether  it  be  accurate  or  not  he  will  judge 
when  he  receives  it.  Mr.  President,  I do  not 
think  I shall  abate  a jot  or  tittle  of  a hair  from 
my  just  estimate  of  the  patriotism  of  our  adopted 
citizens.  I believe,  sir,  that  when  the  voice  of 
patriotism  calls,  and  when  the  tramp  of  battle 
sounded  the  alarm,  no  portion  of  our  popula- 
tion sprang  to  the  defense  of  their  country  with 
more  alacrity,  or  did  better  service,  than  our 
adopted  citizens ; not  only  our  adopted  citizens, 
but  their  kindred  of,  the  Fatherland  sitting 
upon  the  banks  of  their  native  Rhine  sent  to 
us  their  sympathies  and  God-speed.  And  I 
shall  never  forget  it,  and  I trust  that  the  time 
never  will  come  when  the  American  will  cease 
to  be  grateful  to  citizens  by  adoption,  and  their 
kindred  sympathizing  with  them.  But,  sir,  in 
my  judgment,  that  is  not  now  the  proposition 
for  consideration.  What  is  right,  what  is 
proper,  what  is  sound  policy  in  the  present 
instance?  Gentlemen  have  alluded  to  the  fact 
that  a vast  population  have  been  suddenly  ad- 
mitted to  the  right  of  suffrage  that  were  as  un- 
qualified as  our  people  of  foreign  birth.  I 
know  it.  And,  sir,  if  a period  of  probation 
could  have  been  secured  consistent  with  the 
exigencies  and  emergencies  of  the  country,  I 
should  never  have  consented  that  that  popula- 
tion should  be  brought  into  citizenship  and 
secured  the  right  of  suffrage,  until  a reasonable 
period  of  education  had  passed.  But  the  con- 
ditions of  the  country  were  such,  and  the  con- 
ditions of  the  neighboring  States  were  such, 
these  populations  were  in  such  a condition  that 
nothing  could  be  done  but  to  cut  the  Gordian 
knot,  relieve  the  country  from  that  emergency 
that  was  distracting  it,  and  the  only  alternative 
seemed  to  be  that  which  was  ultimately  adopt- 
ed. It  furnishes  no  parallel;  it  furnishes  no 
analogy  to  the  question  we  are  now  about  con- 
sidering. Gentlemen  are  seeking  now  to  secure 
to  citizens  of  foreign  birth  the  right  to  exercise 
sovereign  power  over  the  State  of  Ohio  before 
they  have  become  citizens  of  the  United  States 
or  of  this  State.  First,  I desire  to  say  that  it 
must  necessarily  discourage  naturalization. 
What  inducement,  what  motive,  can  there  be 
offered  that  a person  of  foreign  birth  should 
ever  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States  if  he 
may  be  permitted  to  exercise  all  its  sovereignty, 
enjoy  all  its  rights  and  protection,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  such  declaration  of  allegiance?  It  is 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Hoadly,  West,  Ewing,  White  of  B. 


1897 


March  9,  1874.] 


a project,  sir,  to  discourage  citizenship  rather 
than  encourage  it.  Now,  sir,  I wish  to  know 
whence  this  new-born  zeal?  How  comes  it 
that  to-day  there  is  a clamor  for  the  extension 
of  this  privilege  to  our  foreign  population, 
when  not  three  weeks  have  elapsed  since  this 
Convention,  by  deliberate  vote,  declared  that 
none  but  a citizen  of  the  United  States  should 
be  required  to  perform  military  service  within 
the  State  of  Ohio?  You  have  already  adopted, 
and  the  gentlemen  who  are  advocating  this 
Proposition  have  already  sanctioned,  by  their 
vote,  the  exemption  of  every  unnaturalized 
citizen  of  Ohio  from  the  performance  of  mili- 
tary duty  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  State. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  is  an  advo- 
cate of  female  suffrage.  Does  he  propose  to 
require  military  duty  from  females? 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  possess  his 
soul  in  patience  till  I am  through  with  my  ar- 
gument, and  then  I will  answer  his  inquiries.  I 
do  not  require  things  that  are  impracticable  or 
impossible.  1 shall,  if  the  gentleman  contends 
that  the  foreign-born  population  emigrating 
here,  if  the  brawny  limbs,  strong  arms,  stal- 
wart bodies,  of  those  to  whom  the  gentleman 
addressed  such  grave  words  Saturday,  are 
women,  then  he  may  classify  them  with 
women. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  another  question.  If  it  is  an  argument 
against  the  voting  of  a non-naturalized  citizen 
that  he  is  not  required  to  do  military  duty,  how 
can  the  gentleman  escape  the  conclusion,  and 
how  is  it  an  unseasonable  interruption  to  re- 
mind him  that  he  will  be  compelled  by  the 
logic  of  his  own  argument  to  require  military 
duty  of  females  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I did  not  suppose  that  military 
duty  could  be  required  of  the  maimed,  the  in- 
firm, the  aged  and  the  afflicted.  Shall  the  great 
sovereign  right,  of  American  citizenship  be 
taken  away  from  the  unfortunates  of  the 
country  ? No,  sir.  There  are  thousands  and  tens 
of  thousands  situated  under  such  circumstances 
and  under  such  conditions  of  life  that  to  re- 
quire of  them  the  performance  of  military 
duty  would  be  utterly  impracticable.  But,  sir, 
when  we  have  classes  similarly  situated,  when 
we  have  limbs  equally  strong,  when  we  have 
hearts  equally  courageous,  when  we  have  bodies 
of  iron  and  bodies  of  steel,  born  abroad,  as 
born  at  home,  why,  sir,  shall  we  make  a dis- 
tinction, exempting  the  foreign  born  from  the 
performance  of  military  duty,  and  clothe  them 
with  the  right  of  suffrage,  the  sovereign  power 
of  making  laws,  and  of  compelling  this  country 
into  war,  and  yet,  not  having  the  power  to  com- 
pel them  to  fight  the  battles  which  they  them- 
selves have  provoked  and  declared. 

Mr.  EWING.  May  the  State  of  Ohio  declare 
war  against  a foreign  nation? 

Mr.  WEST.  May  not  the  voters  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  send  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  men  who  may  declare  war? 

Mr.  EWING.  If  war  be  declared  by  the 
United  States,  may  not  the  United  States  also 
require  military  service  of  them? 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  sir,  it  may  not. 

Mr.  EWING.  It  is  clear,  I think,  that  it 
may. 


Mr.  WEST.  It  may  not  do  any  such  thing. 

Mr.  WHITE,  of  Brown.  The  law  now  in 
force  provides  that  he  shall. 

Mr.  WEST.  I will  come  to  that  proposition 
at  the  proper  time.  What  I desire  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  gentlemen  to,  is  what  they  have 
done  in  this  Convention  in  the  military  article 
that  they  have  adopted.  They  have  exempted 
every  man,  except  a citizen  of  the  United  States, 
from  the  performance  of  military  duty  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  under  our  Constitution  and  laws, 
and  yet  to-day  they  are  attempting  to  clothe 
the  class  of  people  whom  they  have  exempted 
with  the  power  to  control  the  government.  It 
is  inconsistent. 

[The  time  having  expired,  the  gentleman  had 
leave  to  proceed.] 

Mr.  WEST.  Now,  I would  answer  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland].  I say 
that  since  the  act  of  1861  or  1862  was  passed  by 
Congress,  enrolling  those  who  had  declared 
their  intention  of  becoming  citizens  amongst 
the  soldiery  of  the  country,  treaties  have  been 
formed  and  entered  into  between  the  United 
States  and  the  various  countries  of  Europe,  and 
in  the  treaties  with  some  of  the  German  States 
is  this  provision,  that  until  final  naturalization, 
the  right  of  the  native  country  shall  be  main- 
tained, and  that  the  declaration  of  intention  to 
become  citizens  of  the  United  States  shall  avail 
nothing. 

Mr.  EWING.  With  how  many  nations  have 
we  such  treaties  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  it  right  here  in  the  trea- 
ties of  the  United  States.  The  treaty  made  with 
the  Grand  Duchy  of  Baden,  also  one  with  the 
Kingdom  of  Wittemburg,  also  one  with  the 
Grand  Duchy  of  Hesse.  First  article.  The 
citizens  of  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Baden  residing 
uninterruptedly  within  the  United  States  of 
America  five  years,  and  during  or  in  that  time 
have  become,  or  shall  be  naturalized  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  shall  be  held  by  Baden  to  be 
American  citizens,  and  shall  be  treated  as  such; 
and,  reciprocally,  citizens  of  the  United  States 
of  America  who  have  resided  uninterruptedly 
within  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Baden  five  years, 
and  during  that  time  have  become,  or  shall  be- 
come naturalized  citizens  of  the  Duchy  of  Baden 
shall  be  held  by  the  United  States  to  be  citizens 
of  Baden,  and  shall  be  treated  as  such. 

The  declaration  of  intention  to  become  a citi- 
zen of  one  or  the  other  country  will  not  have 
the  effect  of  naturalization. 

Mr.  EWING.  That  does  not  sustain  your  po- 
sition. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  sustains  exactly  the  point.  It 
sustains  precisely  the  point.  Now,  sir,  I wish 
to  say  to  gentlemen  that  all  the  claims  that 
have  been  set  up  in  the  case  of  Martin  Koszta 
have  been  abandoned  by  the  United  States  by 
treaty  stipulation.  The  case  of  Martin  Koszta 
can  never  again  be  repeated.  If  Martin  Koszta 
went  within  the  jurisdiction  of  his  native  coun- 
try under  the  circumstances  under  which  I am 
told  by  the  gentleman  he  did,  he  was  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  his  native  country.  I do  not 
know  that  he  was  within  that  jurisdiction.  I 
have  not  had  an  opportunity  to  examine.  I 
have  not  had  the  ability  to  examine  it.  But  my 
understanding  is,  and  always  has  been,  that 
Martin  Koszta  was  seized  in  the  streets  of 


1898 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Ewing,  West,  Townsend,  Page. 


Smyrna,  outside  of  the  jurisdiction  of  Austria? 
and  that  Commodore  Ingraham,  acting  upon 
the  fact  that  the  seizure  was  made  outside 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  Austria,  compelled  his 
surrender  by  the  authorities  of  Smyrna  that 
had  him  under  their  control.  And  Commodore 
Ingraham,  who  was  lying  in  that  harbor,  turn- 
ed his  guns  upon  the  little  town  of  Smyrna  and 
compelled  the  surrender  from  the  authorities  of 
Austria. 

Mr.  EWING.  Was  Martin  Kostza  a citizen 
of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  WEST.  Martin  Kostza  was  a citizen  of 
the  United  States. 

Mr.  EWING.  He  had  merely  declared  his 
intention  to  become  a citizen.  That  is,  he  be- 
came a permanent  resident  of  the  United 
States,  and  therefore  entitled  to  their  protection 
everywhere  on  the  earth. 

Mr.  WEST.  Commodore  Ingraham  com- 
pelled his  surrender  and  a diplomatic  corre- 
spondence ensued,  and  the  matter  remained  an 
open  question  from  that  day  until  these  treaties 
were  ratified,  settling  and  adjusting  this  con- 
troverted question  as  between  foreign  countries 
and  the  United  States. 

Mr.  EWING.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  him  a question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  EWING.  Was  not  the  position  taken  by 
Secretary  Marcy  in  the  Kostsza  case  confirmed 
as  the  true  doctrine  of  international  law  by 
joint  resolution  of  Congress,  and  has  that  joint 
resolution  ever  been  repealed  or  in  any  manner 
abrogated  ? It  has  not. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  treaties  of  the  United 
States  entered  into  with  foreign  countries, 
and  ratified  by  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  became"  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land.  I do  not  care  what  resolutions  were 
adopted  by  Congress  under  the  spur  of  excite- 
ment. I care  not  whether  those  resolutions 
have  been  repealed  by  express  act  of  repeal  or 
not.  What  I do  say,  sir,  is,  that  Austria  and  no 
other  nation  ever  ratified  or  confirmed  the 
American  doctrine  contained  in  that  resolution. 
And  I say  that  that  resolution  has  been  repealed 
by  implication,  under  and  by  force  of  the  treaty 
stipulations  entered  into  between  the  United 
States  and  foreign  countries,  and  confirmed  by 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Will  the  gen- 
tleman deny  that? 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes!  For  the  joint  resolu- 
tion declared  the  general  principle  maintained 
by  the  United  States,  which  these  treaties  only 
modify  as  applicable  to  a few  of  the  States  of 
Europe. 

Mr.  WEST.  By  what  right  then  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  It  is  getting  quite  late 
for  dinner,  and  I understand  there  are  other 
speeches  to  be  made  on  this  question.  I there- 
fore move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12 :40  p.  m.,)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2:30  p.  m. 
The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  is  i 
upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  to  section  one  J 


[133rd 

[Monday, 


of  Proposition  No.  203.  The  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  WEST.  Mr.  President,  I hope  to  be 
able  to  get  through  in  a very  few  minutes. 
The  geography  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  so  confused  me  this  morning  that 
I hardly  knew  what  the  history  of  this  Martin 
Koszta  affair  was.  1 was  finally  able  to  ascer- 
tain it.  Before  the  recess,  I had  been  speaking 
in  relation  to  that  matter  and  the  various  treaty 
stipulations  that  had  been  entered  into  between 
the  United  States  and  different  foreign  govern- 
ments. I find  the  treaty  with  Prussia  the  same 
as  that  this  morning  read  with  Baden  and 
other  Germanic  States,  and  the  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  is  substantially  the  same.  Whilst 
the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  is  silent  with  re- 
gard to  the  effect  of  declarations  of  intention,  it 
very  specifically  and  clearly  specifies  the  rights 
and  obligations  of  the  two  governments  in  re- 
spect to  the  manner  of  naturalization,  leaving 
the  other  branch,  the  mere  matter  of  declara- 
tion in  accord  with  the  express  stipulations  of 
the  various  treaties  of  the  Germanic  States,  and 
with  that  understanding,  it  can  certainly  no 
longer  be  doubted  that  the  question  by  treaties 
has  been  settled,  that  allegiance  is  not  re- 
nounced until  naturalization  has  resulted,  and 
that  the  two  governments  respectively,  the 
government  of  the  United  States  and  any  other 
foreign  State  with  whom  these  treaties  have 
been  made  heretofore,  claim  the  right  over  the 
citizen  and  agent  Upon  foreign  territory,  under 
proper  conditions  and  circumstances,  is  not  as 
a matter  of  course,  until  full  naturalization 
shall  be  consummated.  That  is  clearly  and 
unquestionably  the  true  doctrine  as  now  main- 
tained by  treaty  stipulations,  no  matter  what 
Congressional  resolutions  may  have  hitherto 
declared. 

Now,  whilst  that  is  true,  it  must  be  under- 
stood, and  it  will  not  be  contended  to  the  con- 
trary, that  every  nation  is  forbidden  to  violate 
the  soil  of  a sister  nation  in  order  even  to  re- 
claim their  own  subjects.  That  cannot  be  done. 
It  is  simply  the  right,  under  international  law, 
that  the  respective  governments  may  assert  in 
respect  to  their  various  subjects  under  different 
conditions.  If  they  return  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  their  own  sovereignty,  then  full  juris- 
diction, in  all  respects,  is  restored,  prior  to  full 
naturalization  abroad.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
they  remain  abroad,  their  native  country  can 
exercise  such  rights  over,  or  in  respect  to,  or 
the  protection  towards  them,  in  a foreign  coun- 
try as  international  law  will  permit,  without 
violation  of  a foreign  territory.  That,  I under- 
stand, must  be  the  qualification.  That  is  the 
rule  between  the  United  States  and  foreign 
countries  with  which  it  has  made  treaty  stipu- 
lations. 

Again,  speaking  with  regard  to  the  Koszta 
affair,  whatever  they  may  have  been  in  its  time, 
it  certainly  cannot  change  a system  of  doctrine 
that  has  been  adopted  subsequently  thereto  by 
treaty  stipulations.  But  gentlemen  have  greatly 
mistaken  the  facts  in  that  case.  Martin  Koszta 
was  a subject  of  Austria. 

Mr.  PAGE.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit 
me,  I have  the  facts  here,  in  Wheaton  on  Inter- 
national Law,  and  I shall  ask  the  Secretary  to 
read  them. 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE.  1899 


March  9,  1874.]  West,  Page,  Yoris,  Ewing,  Kraemer,  Neal. 


Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  know  but  I can  state 
them  more  briefly. 

Mr.  PAGE.  They  have  been  frequently 
stated  incorrectly  in  debate. 

Mr.  WEST.  I shall  state  them  briefly  : Mar- 
tin Koszta  was  a subject  of  Austria,  and  had 
been  banished  because  of  some  offense — politi- 
cal, I believe,— he  being  a Hungarian.  Sen- 
tence of  banishment,  I think,  had  been  pro- 
nounced against  him,  and,  instead  of  going  to 
a penal  colony,  he  got  off  to  the  United  States. 
That  is  the  truth  of  the  matter.  He  was  under 
condemnation  and  sentence.  Coming  to  the 
United  States,  he  took  up  his  residence  here,  and 
declared  his  intention  of  becoming  a citizen  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  State  of  New  York. 
Subsequently  he  returned,  on  board  of  an 
American  vessel,  to  the  neutral  port  of  Smyrna, 
in  the  Turkish  empire.  From  the  American 
vessel  he  passed  upon  Turkish  soil,  under  the 
protection  of  the  American  Consul,  and  thus 
placed  himself  under  the  protection  of  the 
American  flag,  that  floated  over  the  Consulate 
in  the  Turkish  empire.  Whilst  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Consulate,  with  the  assent  of  the 
immemorial  usages  of  the  Turkish  empire, 
whilst  upon  the  neutral  soil — upon  the  soil  of 
Turkey — and  under  the  protection  of  the  Amer- 
ican Consulate  and  the  American  flag,  he  was 
arrested  by  an  Austrian  squad,  who  took  him 
from  beneath  the  Consulate,  took  him  from 
Turkish  soil,  and  placed  him  on  board  an  Aus- 
trian vessel,  with  a view  of  carrying  him  back 
to  Austria.  In  that  condition  of  affairs,  Turkey 
was  too  feeble  an  empire  to  interpose  and  pro- 
tect her  sovereignty  and  the  violation  of  her 
soil.  With  the  assent  of  Turkey  and  the  Turk- 
ish power,  Commodore  Ingraham  interposed 
and  rescued  Martin  Koszta  from  the  authority 
of  the  Austrian  empire,  and  placed  him,  for  the 
time  being,  under  the  protection  of  the  French 
Consulate,  by  agreement.  Whilst  in  that  posi- 
tion, the  controversy  and  diplomatic  corre- 
spondence was  held  which  resulted  in  this: 
When  the  facts  were  reported  to  Mr.  Marcy,  the 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  he  re- 
sponded justifying  the  act  of  Commodore  Ingra- 
ham, at  the  request  of  the  American  Consul, 
stating  that,  from  time  immemorial,  it  had  been 
the  custom  in  Turkey,  and  as  such  it  had  be- 
come the  common  international  law,  so  to 
speak,  between  Turkey  and  the  United  States, 
that  the  soil  of  the  American  Consulate  was  re- 
garded and  treated  in  all  respects,  so  far  as  pro- 
tection of  one  who  had  placed  himself  under 
the  Consulate  was  concerned,  as  American  soil ; 
that  when  Martin  Koszta  was  arrested,  he  was, 
in  contemplation  of  law,  upon  American  soil, 
and  though  a stranger  to  America,  though  not 
a subject  of  America,  he  could  not  be  taken 
from  American  soil  and  American  protection 
except  in  violation  of  law,  and,  therefore,  the 
United  States  sustained  the  act  of  their  Consul 
and  of  Commodore  Ingraham. 

Precisely  analagous  to  this  was  the  case  of 
Slidell  and  Mason,  who  were  taken  by  an 
American  man-of-war,  from  a British  vessel 
during  our  late  rebellion.  They  were  not  sub- 
jects of  Great  Britain ; they  were  strangers  to 
Great  Britain ; but  they  were  upon  a British 
vessel,  a British  bottom,  that  was  regarded,  in 
contemplation  of  law,  as  British  soil,  under  the 


protection  of  the  British  flag,  and  they  would 
not  permit  this  violation  with  impunity,  and 
the  United  States  surrendered  Slidell  and  Ma- 
son to  the  authority  of  the  British  govern- 
ment, precisely  upon  the  same  principle  that 
Martin  Koszta  was  surrendered  by  the  Aus- 
trian authorities  to  the  demand  of  Commodore 
Ingraham.  That  is  all  there  was  of  it,  and  the 
question  of  citizenship,  or  the  declaration  of  in- 
tention, had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  He  was  a 
man  that,  for  the  time  being,  was  under  the 
protection  of  the  American  flag,  and,  as  such, 
citizen  or  stranger,  whoever  he  might  be,  he 
was  entitled  to  that  protection ; and  such  is  the 
international  law  of  the  world  that  any  man, 
be  he  stranger  or  subject,  is  entitled  to  the  pro- 
tection of  the  flag  of  any  country  upon  whose 
soil,  for  the  time  being,  he  may  be,  whether 
actually  or  constructively. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Leave  was  granted  to  Mr.  West  to  proceed. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  question  of  citizenship  was 
not  raised  in  that  case. 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  stated  that. 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir,  it  was  raised,  and  I 
can  show  it. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I wish  that  the  gentleman 
would  allow  that  authority  to  be  read. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  question  of  domicile  was 
distinctly  raised. 

Mr.  WEST.  But  Mr.  Marcy  says  it  was  not 
a question  in  that  case. 

The  Secretary  read  from  Wheaton’s  Inter- 
national Law,  as  follows : 

“Martin  Koszta,  a Hungarian,  had  taken  part  with  his 
eountry  in  the  civil  war,  and  fled  to  Turkey,  where  he 
was  arrested,  but  released  upon  a promise  to  leave  Tur- 
key. He  came  to  the  United  States,  and  had  acquired  a 
residence  there,  and  made  the  declaration  preliminary  to 
naturalization,  but  had  not  become  a citizen.  In  this 
state  of  things  he  went  to  Smyrna  for  temporary  com- 
mercial purposes,  and  placed  himself  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  consul  of  the  United  States  at  Smyrna  and 
their  Charge  d’  Affairs  at  Constantinople,  and  was  furn- 
ished with  a tezkerch  (a  passport)  by  them.  He  was  seized 
by  Austrian  officials,  and  placed  in  confinement  on  board 
an  Austrian  vessel  of  war  in  the  harbor.  The  Turkish  au- 
thorities disavowed  and  protested  against  this  act  as  a vio- 
lation of  Turkish  sovereignty.  The  commander  of  a vessel 
of  war  of  the  United  States  demanded  of  the  Austrian 
vessel  the  release  of  Koszta,  and  prepared  to  open  fire  upon 
her  when  Koszta  was,  by  agreement,  placed  under  protec- 
tion andcustody  of  the  French  Consul,  to  a vait  the  action 
of  the  powers  concerned.  In  the  subsequent  correspond  - 
upon  this  subject,  between  the  governments  of  the  three 
countries  involved,  the  United  States  claimed  the  right 
to  relieve  a domiciled  subject  of  the  United  States,  al- 
though not  naturalized,  from  arrest  of  his  person,  made 
within  a friendly  State,  where  he  was  temporarily  so- 
journing for  business  purposes,  by  the  agents  of  any  other 
State,  although  that  of  his  birth;  and  if  the  arrest  was  in 
violation  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  within  which  it 
was  made,  and  that  tttr’te  would  not,  or  could  not,  release 
the  prisoner,  the  United  States  would  do  60  by  force  with- 
in that  territory.  And,  at  all  events,  the  obiection  of 
violation  of  territorial  sovereignty  by  a forcible  release 
was  not  one  which  the  arresting  government  could  make 
against  the  United  States.” 

Mr.  Marcy  to  M.  Hulsemann,  Sept.  26,  1853,  Senate  Ex. 

Doc.  No.  1,  33d  Congress. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  like  the  Secretary  to 
read  this  letter  of  Mr.  Marcy  to  Mr.  Offley, 
United  States  Consul  at  Smyrna. 

The  Secretary  read  from  Senate  Executive 
Documents,  first  session,  Thirty-third  Congress, 
as  follows : 

Department  op  State,  ) 
Washington,  August,  31,  1853.) 

Sir:  Referring  to  the  dispatch  addressed  to  you  by 

this  department,  of  the  13th  instant,  in  which  the  receipt 


1900 


[133rd 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


West,  Townsend,  Kraemer. 


[Monday, 


of  your  dispatch  of  the  5th  ultimo  was  acknowledged, 
and  you  were  informed  that  the  important  questions 
.growing  out  of  the  kidnapping  of  Martin  Iioszta  were 
under  consideration,  I have  now  to  instruct  you  that, 
while  the  President  regrets  the  occurrences  presented  in 
those  communications,  he  does  not  find,  after  the  fullest 
investigation  given  to  the  subject,  any  just  cause  for  dis- 
approving of  your  conduct,  or  that  of  Captain  Ingraham, 
the  commander  of  the  l nited  States  corvette,  the  St. 
Louis,  or  that  of  any  of  our  diplomatic  agents,  who  took 
part  in  the  matter.  Though  Martin  Koszta  was  not  in- 
vested with  all  the  rights  and  privilege  of  a citizen  of  the 
United  States,  he  was,  at  the  time  the  outrage  was  com- 
mitted upon  him  entitled  to  the  protection  extended  to 
him  by  the  American  functionaries  at  Smyrna.  Having 
placed  himself  under  the  consular  flag  at  Smyrna,  and 
that  of  the  United  States  legation  at  Constantinople,  he 
had  a right  to  be  protected  and  respected  as  an  American 
oitizen,  according  to  the  immemorial  usage  of  that 
country;  a usage  which  has  the  obligatory  character  of  a 
law  in  Turkey,  and  has  been  sanctioned  and  upheld  by 
the  highest  courts,  instituted  by  the  most  enlightened 
nations,  for  the  administration  of  international  law.  You 
therefore  did  nothing  more  than  your  duty  in  claiming 
for  him  the  protection  due  to  one  of  our  citizens,  and  you 
and  Captain  Ingr  aham  are  justified  by  your  government 
in  using  the  means  you  did  for  procuring  his  release  from 
illegal  imprisonment. 

I am,  sir,  &c., 

W.  L.  Marcy. 

E.  S.  Offley,  Esq., 

United  States  Consul,  Smyrna. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  will  be  seen  from  that  state- 
ment that  precisely  the  same  protection  would 
be  given  to  any  stranger  within  our  borders 
that  is  given  to  a citizen.  Suppose,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, a subject  of  Austria,  a subject  of  Turkey, 
or  of  any  country,  within  the  territory  of  the 
United  States,  is  entitled,  actually,  to  receive 
the  protection  of  the  United  States  as  against 
unwarrantable  arrest,  unless  extradited  under 
some  treaty  stipulations,  his  personal  safety  is 
secured  against  the  power  of  any  government 
on  earth.  The  same  principle  was  applied  to 
the  American  Consulate  upon  the  soil  of  Tur- 
key, and  nothing  more  and  nothing  less — pre- 
cisely the  principle  that  governed  in  conducting 
and  adjudicating  the  case  of  Slidell  and  Mason, 
taken  from  a British  vessel  during  our  late  re- 
bellion. That  disposes  of  that  matter. 

The  questions  as  to  the  relations  of  such  citi- 
zens to  the  several  governments  is  one  which 
these  treaty  stipulations  that  I have  mentioned 
have  settled,  and  it  is  utterly  idle  in  this  day 
and  at  this  time  to  claim  that  one  who  has  not 
secured  his  full  naturalization  is  a citizen  of 
the  United  States.  He  is  not  a citizen  of  the 
United  States,  but  a subject  of  his  native  coun- 
try, until  that  final  naturalization  has  been 
consummated.  Now,  whatever  the  rights  of  his 
native  country  may  be  in  the  premises,  it  is  not 
worth  one’s  while  here  to  discuss.  Suffice  it  to 
say,  suffice  it  for  us  to  know,  that  such  rights 
and  claims  do  exist,  and  are  recognized  and 
will  be  recognized  by  the  authority  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States. 

I pass  from  this  branch  of  the  case  to  an- 
other. I speak  of  this  matter  as  being  an  inno- 
vation in  the  Constitution  of  Ohio.  The  time 
never  was  when  this  law  was  different,  and  I 
trust  the  time  never  will  be  when  the  law  as  it 
now  stands  will  be  changed.  It  has  been  as- 
serted upon  this  floor,  that  under  the 
Constitution  of  1802,  an  individual  who 
had  resided  here  one  year,  no  matter  of 
what  country,  was  entitled  to  exercise  the 
right  of  suffrage.  That  I most  respectfully 
controvert.  In  1809,  was  enacted  the  law  re- 
gulating our  elections.  These  provisions  were 


re-enacted  in  1831,  and  again  in  1841,  under  the 
old  Constitution.  Each  of  these  statutes  con- 
tain a provision  requiring  that  the  judges  of 
election,  upon  a challenge  for  non-citizenship 
being  made,  should  require  the  production  of 
the  final  certificate  of  naturalization,  or  suffi- 
cient proof  of  its  destruction.  That  has  been 
the  law,  and  was  the  law  under  your  Constitu- 
tion, and  I am  old  enough  to  have  remembered 
to  have  seen  that  law  enforced  on  many  occa- 
sions. I remember,  distinctly,  an  instance 
where  a challenge  of  non-citizenship  being 
made,  the  party  produced  the  papers,  and  they 
were  discovered  to  be  simply  a declaration  of 
intention,  and  he  was  held  not  to  be  entitled  to 
vote  upon  those  papers.  That  I remember  my- 
self. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  That  occurs  very  often 
now. 

Mr.  WEST.  That  was  before  the  present 
Constitution.  What  I have  to  say  with  regard 
to  the  present  Constitution  is,  that  it  simply 
expresses,  in  words  more  specifically  and  more 
unmistakably,  what  the  old  Constitution  was 
construed,  in  part,  to  mean.  The  word  inhabi- 
tant, in  the  old  Constitution,  receives  its  inter- 
pretation from  the  same  word  used  in  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  which,  in  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  was  held  to  mean  a citizen — 
not  a mere  sojourner,  or  one  domiciled — but  one 
who  had  assumed  rights  and  become  vested 
with  the  rights  of  citizenship  in  a particular 
sense.  That  was  the  meaning  of  the  old  Con- 
stitution. The  words  are  simply  changed,  and 
under  the  form  of  expression  made  more  un- 
mistakable in  the  Constitution,  when  the  change 
was  made.  The  law  was  not  changed,  but 
simply  the  wording  of  the  law. 

The  statutes  of  1841  continued  in  force,  and 
are  in  force  to-day  under  the  old  Constitution, 
the  same  in  hcec  verba.  In  the  Convention  of 
1850-51,  it  was  proposed  to  extend  the  right  of 
suffrage  to  persons  other  than  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  That  proposition  was  deliber- 
ately made  in  that  Convention,  and  I wrould  in- 
form the  distinguished  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin [Mr.  Baber],  that  it  was  not  a radical  Con- 
vention at  all.  It  was  a Convention  of  the 
soundest  political  faith;  yet  that  proposition  in 
that  Convention  received  but  eleven  votes,  and 
of  those  eleven  individuals,  nine  of  them  were 
what  the  gentlemdn  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber] 
would  call  Radicals.  I suspect,  however,  they 
were  old  Whigs  in  that  day. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  Abolitionists. 

Mr.  WEST.  They  might  have  been  abolition- 
ists. Now,  it  is  proposed  to  incorporate  the 
proposition  that  was  then  urged,  and  the  gen- 
tlemen that  dare  to  stand  forth  against  its  in- 
corporation are  to  be  “ whistled  down  the 
wind,”  because  it  is  not  unconditionally  sub- 
scribed to  at  once,  and  when  it  is  suggested 
that  possibly  some  difficulties  might  result  from 
this  incorporation,  that  Congress  might  change 
the  rule  with  regard  to  the  declaration  of  in- 
tention, it  is  curtly  replied  that  truly  they 
would  if  they  thought  they  could  secure  a 
radical  majority.  Will  that  gentleman  inform 
me  how  long  it  has  been  since  a person  in 
Franklin  county  importuned  the  members  of 
Congress  to  extend  the  period  of  naturalization 
to  twenty-one  years?  Will  that  gentleman  in- 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Tuttle,  Townsend,  West,  Burns. 


1901 


Day.] 

March  9,  1874.] 


form  me  how  long  it  has  been  since  members  of 
Congress  were  importuned  by  a citizen  of 
Franklin  county  to  deny  jurisdiction  to  natural- 
ized foreigners  in  any  court  but  a Federal  court 
of  the  United  States?  and  will  that  gentleman 
inform  me  who  it  was  that  importuned  Con- 
gress to  do  that? 

Mr.  BABER.  If  the  gentleman  refers  to  me, 
I have  simply  to  say  this : that  all  the  position 
I ever  took  with  reference  to  naturalization, 
was,  that  foreigners  should  be  required  to  be 
naturalized  two  years  before  voting,  but  that 
the  term  should  not  be  extended,  and  if  he, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  says  that  I ever 
had  any  connection  with  the  Know-nothing 
party,  or  belong  to  the  Know-nothing  party,  or 
had  any  common  sympathy  with  it,  he  states 
what  I say  is  not  warranted  by  the  facts.  I 
took  exactly  the  position,  with  many  others, 
that  they  ought  to  be  naturalized  two  years 
before  they  voted,  but  I was  not  in  favor  of 
lengthening  the  term.  I was  in  favor  of  keep- 
ing it  five  years. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  What  does  the  gentleman 
think  now  about  having  them  naturalized  two 
years  before  they  vote  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  He  wants  them  to  vote 
two  years  before  they  are  naturalized. 

Mr.  WEST.  I suppose  the  gentleman  now 
will  be  willing  to  extend  the  privilege  of 
making  declaration  of  intention  a year  before 
they  emigrate,  and  that  they  send  over  a proxy 
to  vote.  That  would  be  a very  great  con- 
venience. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  if  some  of  us  are  wed- 
ded to  our  old  fashioned  opinions  of  propriety 
upon  this  subject,  the  law  is  now  as  it  has  been, 
and  as  I trust  always  will  be,  and  is  proper  in 
principle  and  in  policy.  I do  not  believe  that 
these  new  converts  to  a speedy  exercise  of  po- 
litical rights  ought  to  be  permitted,  with  im- 
punity, at  least,  to  upbraid  and  denounce,  and 
characterize  in  hard  terms,  these  old  fashioned 
fellows  that  do  not  get  along  quite  as  fast  as  they 
do.  I do  not  desire  the  period  of  voting  to  be 
extended  for  two  years  beyond  the  period  of 
naturalization.  I never  asked  it.  I never 
asked  the  period  of  naturalization  to  be  ex- 
tended. I never  asked  that  the  Federal  courts 
should  be  vested  with  the  sole  jurisdiction  to 
naturalize  foreigners ; but  I do  ask  that  the  rules 
prescribed  by  the  United  States,  whatever  they 
may  be,  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United 
States,  and  that  citizenship  shall  be  the  forerun- 
ner of  the  exercise  of  sovereignty.  That  while 
they  do  not  necessarily  depend  one  upon  the 
other,  I believe  the  right  of  citizenship  should 
precede  that  of  the  elective  franchise,  and  what- 
ever ihat  rule  be,  let  it  be  established,  fixed  and 
unalterable,  that  there  shall  be  no  controversy, 
no  discrimination,  but  that  the  rights  of  all,  the 
privilege  of  all,  and  the  duties  of  all  citizens  of 
the  United  States  exercising  the  functions  of 
sovereignty  should  be  one  and  the  same 
throughout  the  United  States.  That  being  es- 
tablished, I think  no  one  has  any  right  to  com- 
plain. 

I am  sure  no  one  has  asked  this.  I know 
that  it  has  been  stated  that  the  motive  that 
brought  it  here,  which  introduced  it  into  this 
Convention,  as  declared  by  the  foster  father, 
was  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  under  a political 


platform.  I do  not  care  for  political  platforms, 
and  I never  did,  and  I never  shall.  If  they 
agree  with  my  notions  and  views,  I shall  sub- 
scribe to  them.  If  they  do  not  I will  trample 
upon  them  and  spit  upon  them.  If  the  men 
who  are  nominated  suit  me,  I shall  vote  for 
them,  not  with  the  idea  that  any  new  fangled 
notions  in  order  to  catch  votes  has  been  incor- 
porated into  the  platform,  but  because  I prefer 
the  men  and  their  general  policy ; but  I never 
shall  be  bantered  or  driven  to  incorporate  into 
the  fundamental  law  of  my  State  a provision 
that  is  not  acceptable,  I do  not  care  by  what 
political  party  it  is  advocated.  If  it  ought  not, 
in  my  judgment,  to  be  incorporated,  I shall  not 
vote  to  incorporate  it. 

Now  I have  simply  to  second  the  remarks  of 
the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  a gentle- 
man whose  large  experience,  and  whose  gigan- 
tic brain  tells  him  and  me  that  you  are  treading 
upon  dangerous  ground.  If  there  was  such  a 
storm  of  excitement  in  this  country  twenty 
years  ago,  let  me  say  that  you  are  treading  up- 
on dangerous  ground.  “Be  warned !”  were 
the  words  of  that  venerable  man.  I can  but 
reiterate  them.  Let  the  impression  go  abroad 
in  this  land  that  the  spirit  of  aggression  for  po- 
litical purposes,  for  religious  purposes,  or  pow- 
er of  any  kind,  is  the  standard  and  the  watch- 
word, and  I say  to  you  that  you  might  just  as 
well  place J;he  mark  of  the  death -head  and  cross- 
bones  upon  your  Constitution.  It  will  go  forth 
with  a sardonic  grin  of  death  upon  its  face  and 
three  hundred  thousand  people  of  Ohio  will 
trample  it  in  the  dust. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I hope  to  be  able  to  say  what 
I have  to  say,  within  the  limit  of  ten  minutes. 
I did  not  intend  to  say  anything  upon  this 
Proposition,  and  I shall  only  now  say  what  I 
deem  proper  to  put  myself  in  a position  to  jus- 
tify the  vote  which  I intend  to  give.  I do  not 
share,  to  any  considerable  extent,  in  the  alarm 
which  seems  to  have  seized  the  mind  of  the 
gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  or  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  for  both  of 
whom  I have  the  highest  regard,  personally.  I 
see  no  danger  to  the  instrument  that  we  are 
about  to  frame,  whether  this  provision  be  put 
in  or  left  out.  I do  not  believe  that  the  result 
of  the  election  on  its  adoption  will  be  governed 
very  largely  by  that  provision,  whether  it  is 
placed  there  or  otherwise.  But  as  the  son  and 
descendant  of  a naturalized  citizen,  for  whose 
memory  I cherish  the  fondest  recollection  and 
the  highest  respect,  I feel  compelled  to  say  a 
word  in  favor  of  this  Proposition,  as  it  comes 
from  the  Committee,  and  against  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
iMr.  Campbell.] 

I agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton, 
[Mr.  Hoadly],  that  the  question  of  citizenship 
and  the  question  of  elective  franchise,  do  not 
necessarily  mingle  together,  nor  necessarily  go 
hand  in  hand.  I regard  the  position  taken  by 
the  gentleman  from  Brown  [Mr.  White],  as  the 
true  position  upon  this  question— it  is  a question 
of  policy  and  expediency,  exclusively  a 
matter  of  State  policy.  There  certainly  can  be 
no  need  of  alarm  in  this  State  by  reason  of  the 
incorporation  of  a provision  of  this  kind  in  the 
fundamental  law  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  to-day  in  the  United 


1902 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE.  [133rd 


Tuttle,  Burns. 


[Monday, 


States,  thirteen  members  of  the  confederacy, 
with  provisions  almost  identical  with  this  pro- 
vision, in  some  respects  more  liberal  even  than 
this.  I will  name  them.  Alabama  requires 
only  a residence  of  six  months;  Arkansas,  six 
months;  Florida,  twelve  months;  Georgia,  six 
months;  Indiana,  six  months;  Kansas,  six 
months;  Minnesota,  one  year  in  the  United 
States  and  four  months  in  the  State;  Missouri, 
Texas,  and  Wisconsin,  each  twelve  months.  I 
apprehend  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  has  mis-read  this  section  as  it  is  now  un- 
der discussion.  I inferred  from  the  suggestion 
which  he  made,  if  I heard  his  statement  cor- 
rectly, that  this  section,  if  adopted,  would  tend 
to  discourage  the  naturalization  of  foreigners 
after  the  period  of  five  years  from  the  time  of 
their  arrival  in  the  United  States,  if  it  bestows 
the  right  of  suffrage  by  a residence  of  one  year 
and  a declaration  of  intention  to  become  a citi- 
zen, after  they  have  acquired  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  natural  born  citizens  without  hav- 
ing taken  the  final  oath.  Now,  a careful  read- 
ing of  this  section  as  reported,  it  seems  to  me, 
will  not  bear  the  construction  which  the  gentle- 
man has  given  it,  but,  in  fact,  the  very  reverse 
of  that. 

The  words  sought  to  be  stricken  out  read, 
“ Every  male  person  of  foreign  birth,  who  may 
have  declared  his  intention  to  become  a citizen 
of  the  United  States  according  to  law,  not  less 
than  one  nor  more  than  five  years  before  he  of- 
fers to  vote,  being  of  the  age  of  twenty-one, 
etc.” 

This  provision  amounts  to  this,  that  when  any 
one  has  declared  his  intention  one  year  before 
offering  to  vote,  he  shall  be  entitled  to  the  right 
to  vote  for  the  next  four  years,  and  whenever 
his  declaration  of  intention  shall  become  five 
years  of  age,  so  to  speak,  or  when  five  years 
shall  have  elapsed,  if  he  does  not  procure  his 
final  certificate  of  naturalization,  his  right  to 
the  elective  franchise  is  arrested,  and  ceases; 
so  that  it  is  a stimulus,  it  is  an  incentive,  Mr. 
President,  to  induce  him  to  procure  his  final 
certificate  of  naturalization,  rather  than  to  dis- 
courage him,  because,  having  enjoyed  the  right 
of  the  elective  franchise,  he  knows  that  the 
time  will  come  when  that  right  will  be  taken 
away,  unless  he  complies  with  the  provisions  of 
the  naturalization  law,  and  procures  the  final 
certificate  of  naturalization. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  an 
interrogatory  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir,  if  it  is  not  too 
lengthy. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  About  this  long:  What  is 
there  to  hinder  a man  from  declaring  his  inten- 
tion every  year  ? That  is  short  enough. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I presume  that  no  sensible 
man  will  be  so  foolish,  and,  if  he  declares  his 
intention  once,  that  is  enough. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  there  are 
a great  many  instances  under  which  a man  can- 
not become  naturalized,  even  after  he  has  been 
here  five  years,  and  has  declared  his  intention  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I believe  the  naturalization 
law  requires  him  to  submit  proof  that  he  is  a 
man  of  good  moral  character;  but  I ask  the 
gentleman  whether  he  can  cite  a single  instance 
in  the  history  of  the  naturalization  of  foreign- 
ers in  this  country  where  any  man  has  been 


denied  citizenship  because  of  a want  of  moral 
character? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I will  inform  the  gentleman 
that  I can.  I can  refer  him  to  an  adjudicated 
case,  where  it  was  held  that  a man  was  not  en- 
titled to  be  naturalized. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  maybe  an  exception,  but 
is  not  the  rule. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit 
me 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  it  is  not  taken  out  of  my 
ten  minutes,  I will. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  What  I was  going  to  state  is, 
is  it  not  necessary  that  he  shall  have  contin- 
uously resided  here  during  five  years?  and,  if 
he  has  not,  can  he  be  naturalized  under  the 
law?  Suppose  he  leaves,  and  is  absent  six 
months  out  of  the  United  States,  can  he  be  nat- 
uralized until  he  has  been  here  five  years  con- 
tinuouslv  as  a resident? 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  that  is  the  end  of  the  ques- 
tion, I will  undertake  to  answer  it.  I say  he 
can  be  naturalized  at  the  end  of  five  years, 
although  he  may  have  been  temporarily  absent 
six  months  of  the  time,  or  twelve  months,  if 
he  has  maintained  his  residence,  and  been  dom- 
iciled in  the  United  States,  and  his  absence  was 
for  temporary  purposes  merely,  and  not  with  a 
view  of  permanent  residence  abroad. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Has  the  gentleman  any  de- 
cided cases  to  that  effect? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I could  not  now  refer  to  a 
decided  case,  but  I refer  to  the  general  and  uni- 
versal decision  of  the  courts  upon  kindred 
subjects,  and  to  common  sense,  and,  if  the  gen- 
tleman will  give  me  as  much  time  to  hunt  up 
the  record  as  he  takes  in  putting  questions,  I 
promise  to  find  one.  I say,  instead  of  being  a 
discouragement  to  final  naturalization  of  for- 
eigners, it  is  absolutely  an  encouragement. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Leave  was  granted  to  Mr.  Burns  to  proceed. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Mr.  President,  I thank  the 
Convention  for  this  courtesy.  When  the  natu- 
ralization laws  were  passed,  or,  at  least,  when 
the  main  part  of  them  were  passed,  it  was  at  a 
time  early  in  the  history  of  this  government,  as 
a republic,  at  a time  when  we  had  come  out  of  a 
long  series  of  hard-fought  battles  with  a for- 
eign foe,  when  we  had  conquered  our  liberty, 
and  established  our  independence,  and  the  peo- 
ple were  jealous  of  the  introduction  of  foreign- 
ers upon  our  soil;  when,  instead  of  encouraging 
emigration  to  this  country,  it  was,  to  some 
extent,  discouraged. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  interrupt  him  on  that  point?  Has  the  gen- 
tleman had  his  attention  called  to  this  section  of 
the  naturalization — 

Mr.  BURNS.  Ido  not  wish  to  treat  the  gen- 
tleman cavalierly  or  rudely.  I would  prefer  if 
if  he  has  a speech  to  make,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  said  some  time  ago,  he 
would  make  it  on  his  own  hook.  I do  not  know 
what  section  the  gentleman  refers  to,  but  I pro- 
pose to  refer  to  one  at  least  before  I close,  and 
it  may  be  the  same  one  to  which  the  gentleman 
refers. 

The  same  reasons,  Mr.  President,  that  existed 
seventy-five  or  eighty  years  ago  for  denying  to 
foreigners  the  right  to  vote  before  they  were 
here  five  years  do  not  now  exist.  Intercom- 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


1903 


Day.] 


March  9, 1874.] 


Burns. 


munication  between  European  governments 
and  European  countries  and  this  country  was 
difficult  and  not  frequent.  The  circulation  of 
newspapers  and  periodicals,  the  use  of  steam 
and  the  telegraph  then  unknown,  and  the 
residents  of  European  countries  were  almost 
wholly  uninformed  as  to  any  of  the  rights,  and 
powers,  and  privileges  of  the  people  of  this 
country.  Such  is  not  the  fact  to-day.  I can  find 
you  men  of  almost  all  the  nationalities  that 
seek  a home  in  this  country,  who  have  read 
more  about  the  institutions  and  laws  of  this 
country  than  many  citizens  of  native  birth,  be- 
cause they  have  desired  to  inform  themselves 
about  the  institutions  of  the  country  of  their 
adoption.  It  is  claimed  that  if  persons  of  for- 
eign birth  are  admitted  to  citizenship  in  this 
country  it  will  be  introducing  a dangerous  ele- 
ment into  our  civil  government.  Mr.  President, 
let  me  call  your  attention  to  some  of  the  history 
of  this  country. 

In  1802,  if  I am  not  mistaken  in  the  year,  we 
acquired  by  treaty,  Louisiana,  with  a large  for- 
eign population,  a population  neither  reading 
nor  speaking  our  language;  but  by  treaty  with 
the  government  of  France  we  acquired  that 
country,  and  admitted  the  inhabitants  thereof 
to  immediate  citizenship,  and  to  the  right  of  the 
elective  franchise.  Later  in  the  history  of  this 
country,  we  acquired,  by  treaty  with  Spain,  the 
territory,  or  the  peninsula  of  Florida,  almost 
wholly  made  up  of  persons  who  had  come  from 
a foreign  country.  By  a single  stroke  of  the 
pen,  we  admitted  all  the  inhabitants  of  that 
country  to  the  rights  of  citizenship,  and  the 
right  of  the  elective  franchise.  In  1846,  by  a 
treaty  with  Mexico,  we  acquired  Texas,  New 
Mexico  and  California,  with  their  heterogeneous 
mass  of  citizens  of  all  races  and  almost  all 
colors,  and  they  were  at  once  made  citizens  of 
this  country,  and  clothed  with  the  right  to  vote 
at  all  elections  for  all  the  officers  of  the  State 
and  National  governments,  and  yet  no  shock 
was  felt  in  the  body  politic,  and  no  unfavorable 
result  followed  its  introduction. 

1 am  not  here  to  pass  eulogies  upon  the  for- 
eigner or  naturalized  citizen.  I nonotpossess 
the  ability,  nor  do  I feel  the  inclination,  nor 
does  he  need  any.  The  man  who  renders  uni- 
versal and  undivided  fealty  to  the  laws  and  in- 
stitutions of  this  country,  in  peace  and  war, 
from  the  time  he  sets  foot  upon  her  soil,  utters 
a more  eloquent  eulogy  than  can  be  pronounced 
on  this  .floor  by  any  man,  however  eloquent  he 
may  be.  And  this  is  the  position  which  the 
great  body  of  our  foreign-born  citizens  occupy, 
and  as  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 
Campbell],  referred  to  his  ancestry, 

I may  be  excused  for  referring  very 
modestly,  to  mine.  The  first  and  ear- 

liest lessons  I ever  received,  and  they  made 
a lasting  impression  upon  my  heart  and  mind, 
I received  from  that  father,  whose  name  I ven- 
erate, and  he  was  a naturalized  citizen  of  this 
country.  He  came  to  this  country  from  the 
Emerald  Isle,  moved  by  a spirit  of  freedom  and 
the  love  of  liberty,  and  to  the  very  latest  day  of 
his  life  considered  it  the  highest  duty  he  was 
called  upon  to  discharge — that  of  an  American 
citizen  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term.  He 
was  strongly  imbued  with  the  principle  that 


“ ’Tis  worth  which  makes  the  man,  the  want  of 
it  the  fellow.” 

The  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham] 
did  himself  credit  and  the  Convention  great 
service — at  least  he  rendered  to  me  a great  ser- 
vice— by  referring  to  the  laws  of  Congress 
passsd  shortly  after  the  commencement  of  the 
recent  war  of  the  rebellion,  by  which  it  was 
declared  that  all  persons  between  the  age  of 
twenty-one  and  forty-five,  native  born,  and  for- 
eigners who  had  declared  their  intention  to  become 
citizens , should  be  subject  to  military  duty,  and 
liable  to  be  drafted  into  the  service  of  the  coun- 
try and  bear  arms  for  its  maintenance.  I would 
be  derelict  to  duty  if  I did  not  say  here,  and 
now,  that  if  the  government  of  the  country  has 
a right  to  call  all  classes  of  citizens  into  its 
service  in  the  hour  of  danger,  it  has  failed  to  do 
its  duty  if  it  has  not  modified  and  amended  the 
naturalization  laws  so  as  to  make  each  one  a 
citizen  at  the  period  he  goes  into  the  service  of 
the  country. 

But  Congress  went  a step  further  than  the 
passage  of  the  law  to  which  the  gentleman 
from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  just  referred. 
They  enacted  a law  which  provides  that  any 
foreign  born  inhabitant,  although  he  had  not 
declared  his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the 
United  States,  if  he  produced  a certificate  from 
an  officer  of  the  army  that  he  had  served  one 
year  in  the  government  forces,  and  had  been 
honorably  discharged,  the  certificate,  and  that 
alone,  made  him  a citizen  and  entitled  him  to 
vote  at  all  elections.  It  only  required  one 
year’s  residence  in  the  United  States,  coupled 
with  one  year’s  service  in  the  Union  army,  and 
they,  thereupon,  became  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  and  entitled  to  exercise  the  elective 
franchise.  But,  Mr.  President,  I find  a section 
of  the  naturalization  law,  and,  perhaps,  it  is 
the  one  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull 
[Mr.  Tuttle]  refers,  possibly  not,  passed  by 
Congress  on  the  thirtieth  of  July,  1813,  and  at 
a time  when  we  were  engaged  in  a war  with 
Great  Britain,  at  a time  when  we  were  needing 
men  in  the  field.  The  ninth  section  of  this  law 
reads,  “ persons  residing  within  the  United 
States,  or  the  territories  thereof,  on  the  eight- 
eenth of  June,  in  the  year  1812,  who  had  before 
that  day  made  a declaration  according  to  law  of 
their  intention  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  may  be  admitted  to  become  citizens 
thereof.”  Although  it  may  have  been  the  day 
after  they  landed  upon  the  shores  of  this 
country  on  which  this  declaration  was  made, 
yet,  if  they  were  in  this  country  on  the  eight- 
eenth day  of  June,  1812 — and  had  before  that 
time  made  a declaration,  according  to  law,  of 
their  intention  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  they  should,  thereupon,  on  the  thirtieth 
day  of  July,  1813,  one  year  and  twenty  days 
following  the  declaration  to  become  a citizen, 
be  entitled  to  become  a voter  of  the  United 
States. 

Congress,  thus  during  the  war  of  1812-13,  so 
far  as  a particular  class  of  foreigners  were  con- 
cerned, said  that  they  should  become  citizens  in 
one  year  and  twenty  days  after  they  had  de- 
clared their  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the 
United  States. 

Gentlemen  may  have  their  fears  upon  this 
subject,  but  in  my  judgment,  whenever  the 


1904 


[133rd 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


Root,  Burns,  Rowland,  Tuttle. 


[Monday, 


United  States  finds  itself  at  war  with  a foreign 
country,  and  realizes  the  need  of  soldiers,  the 
need  of  strong  bodies,  brawny  arms  and  brave 
hearts,  they  will  be  liberal  enough  in  extending 
the  right  of  suffrage  and  the  facilities  to  become 
citizens  to  our  foreign  born  fellow  men.  But 
in  times  of  profound  peace,  when  war’s  dread 
alarms  are  not  sounding  through  the  land,  they 
relapse  back  into  the  old  channel,  and  require 
them  to  serve  an  apprenticeship  before  they 
shall  become  voters  or  citizens  of  the  United 
States. 

I think  this  section  is  guarded  with  consider- 
able caution.  Whether  the  foster  father  of 
this  proposition,  as  was  claimed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  did  it  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cutting  under  the  political  platform  of 
some  party  in  this  State,  1 know  not,  nor  do  I 
care.  For  although  I am  personally  a party  man, 
I care  as  little  for  party  as  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  can  possibly  care  when 
my  country  is  in  danger.  I have  received  as 
many  kicks  and  as  few  coppers  as  any  citizen  in 
this  State  because  I did  not  subscribe  to  all  the 
dogmas  that  were  put  forth  in  certain  political 
platforms.  Platforms  I admire  only  as  a de- 
claration of  political  doctrine  when  they  are 
sound,  but  have  no  particular  charm  for  me,  for 
after  all,  platforms  may  be  very  good  in  their 
way,  but  unless  carried  out  into  the  practice  of 
the  party, they  are  of  no  more  value  than  the 
broken  promises  of  any  private  individuals  in 
social  life. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
one  question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly,  for  I know  his 
question  will  be  short  and  to  the  point. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Does  not  the  gentleman  know, 
and  has  he  not  read  the  card,  “ no  standing  on 
the  platform  after  the  train  starts.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I believe  I have  read  it,  but  I 
am  at  a loss  at  this  moment  to  know  how  to  ap- 
ply it,  unless  the  gentleman  thinks  I am  taking 
up  too  much  time  in  this  argument.  I shall  wait 
upon  him  at  his  private  room  and  get  his  inter- 
pretation of  it.  Perhaps  I understand  it,  and 
perhaps  I do  not,  but  I shall  not  venture  now  to 
give  my  understanding  of  it. 

I do  not  share  in  the  alarm  of  my  worthy 
friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland],  who 
predicted  here  with  a great  deal  of  earnestness, 
that  if  this  section  is  retained  the  Constitution 
will  be  defeated  by  one  hundred  thousand  ma- 
jority. Whether  he  is  gifted  with  a spirit  of 
prophecy,  I know  not,  but  I suspect  very 
strongly  that  his  prediction  is  taken  from  a 
leaf  from  the  prophecies  of  John  Bishop  Hall. 
I must  be  permitted  to  occupy  the  position  of  a 
doubting  Thomas  upon  this  subject,  it  may  be 
voted  down,  possibly,  by  a majority  of  two  hun- 
dred thousand,  but  if  it  is,  it  will  not  be  voted 
down  because  of  this  Proposition. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  state  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  he  will,  perhaps,  receive  evidences 
equally  as  convincing  as  those  which  Thomas 
received. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  may  all  be,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, but  when  the  prophecy  comes  true  I will 
then  accord  to  the  gentleman  the  position  of  a 
true  prophet,  and  not  until  then.  I shall  trust 
to  better  fortune,  and  better  faith  for  the  work 
of  this  Convention  hereafter,  and  the  intelli- 


gence of  the  people.  Thanking  the  Convention 
for  the  extension  of  time  accorded  me  I am 
ready  to  vote. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I said  a while  ago  that  I did 
not  desire  to  make  a speech,  but,  as  I have  al- 
tered my  mind  about  it,  I shall  try  to  finish,  so 
that  I shall  not  desire  to  say  anything  after  my 
ten  minutes  are  up.  I am  opposed  to  the  plan 
sought  to  be  introduced  by  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  for  determining  the  classification  of 
voters.  In  the  first  place,  because  it  seems  to  me 
to  introduce  a mere  inconsistency  in  our  plan 
of  government.  On  Saturday,  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  as  other  gentle- 
men had  before  and  have  since,  entered  some- 
what into  the  discussion  as  to  the  question  of 
persons  having  a right  to  vote  who  are  not  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States — not  being  natural- 
ized. It  has  been  said  before,  and  I understand 
that  the  subject  has  been  discussed  since, 
though  I was  not  present,  that  persons  of  for- 
eign birth  are  not  to  be  classified  merely  as 
aliens  and  naturalized  citizens.  I inquired 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  on  Saturday,  what  other  classes 
there  were  that  were  neither  aliens  or  citi- 
zens? and  the  gentleman,  with  great  prompt- 
ness and  almost,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  amount- 
ing to  flippancy — if  it  had  been  anybody 
else,  if  I did  not  know  that  it  was  the  outspring 
of  his  ready  versatility  and  talent,  I should 
have  thought  so — replied  that  there  were,  also, 
denizens,  and  that  Blackstone,  if  we  would  re- 
fer to  him,  would  inform  us  so.  I am  not  very 
fresh  in  my  reading  of  Blackstone.  My  recol- 
lection may  not  be  very  correct,  but  I think  that 
gentleman  is  entirely  mistaken,  and  that  Black- 
stone does  not  bear  him  out  in  any  such  dis- 
tinction. I do  remember  that  Blackstone  says 
people  are  divided  into  aliens,  denizens  and  na- 
tives; no  where  into  aliens,  denizens  and  citi- 
zens, so  far  as  I know.  I think  denizens  and 
natives  are  simple  subjects,  having  different  de- 
grees of  privilege  accorded  to  them,  but  sub- 
jects, and  liable  to  the  authority  of  the  govern- 
ment. Denizens  and  natives  are  all  equally 
citizens,  according  to  Blackstone.  In  the  United 
States  I take  it  to  be  an  established  rule,  found- 
ed on  the  Constitution  and  settled  by  judicial 
authority,  that  all  white  people  are  either  aliens 
or  citizens;  and  the  citizen  is  no  less  than  a 
person  that  is  naturalized  under  our  naturaliza- 
tion laws,  and  the  government  has  actual  pos- 
session of  his  person;  and  if  the  gentlemen 
desire  authority  upon  this  subject,  a very  little 
reading  will  furnish  it  to  them. 

Now,  I am  opposed,  in  the  first  place,  Mr* 
President,  to  giving  to  aliens,  who  are  subject 
to  none  of  the  obligations  that  citizens  are  sub- 
ject to,  and  who  are  entitled  to  all  the  privileges 
that  aliens,  and  none  but  aliens,  are  entitled  to 
and  exempted  from  the  obligations  that  aliens 
are  exempted  from — I am  opposed,  in  the  first 
place,  to  giving  them  the  right  of  suffrage.  I 
maintain  that  to  the  great  body  of  the  citizens 
of  the  State  of  Ohio  there  is  no  more  important 
privilege  pertaining  than  the  right  to  vote. 
There  are  very  few  people  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
that  will  ever  hold  office  under  its  laws  or  Con- 
stitutions; many  will  vote,  and  in  that  they  ex- 
ercise, to  all  intents  and  purposes,  the  preroga- 
tive of  sovereignty  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  That 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


1905 


Tuttle. 


Day.] 

March  9,  1874.] 


franchise  is  a higher  and  a superior  function  to 
that  of  holding  office,  and  I am  opposed  to  ac- 
cording that  right  to  those  who  stand  to  us  in 
the  relation  of  aliens. 

Upon  that  subject  a good  deal  has  been  said 
in  this  Convention.  The  honorable  mover  of 
the  Proposition  we  are  now  considering,  has 
been  taken  very  severely  to  task  for  venturing 
the  proposition  that  aliens  who  did  not  enlist 
in  the  armies  of  the  United  States,  of  their  own 
free  will  and  accord,  did  not  permit  themselves 
to  be  compelled  by  a draft  to  go  into  the  service. 
Now,  Mr.  President,  I do  not  personally  know 
how  that  may  be.  It  has  been  claimed  that  the 
honorable  mover  made  imputations  upon  the 
foreign  character  by  his  argument.  I do  not 
so  understand  it.  I did  not  have  that  idea 
about  it  myself;  but  I do  have  the  idea  that 
when  you  concede  to  the  foreign  born  element 
all  the  patriotism,  all  the  virtue,  all  the  regard 
for  good  order  and  the  maintenance  of  good 
government  that  we  claim  for  the  native  born 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  we  have  done  to- 
wards that  class  our  entire  duty  in  that  respect. 
Is  it  not  a well  known  fact  that  we  had  and  al- 
ways shall  have  among  us,  people  who  will  not 
perform  the  obligations  which  are  commonly 
held  to  rest  upon  the  citizen  without  the  com- 
pulsion of  the  law?  Shall  we  not  find  it  to  be 
true  in  the  future,  as  we  have  always  found  it 
to  be  in  the  past,  that  there  are  natural  born 
citizens  who  shrink  from  the  responsibility  of 
taking  their  lives  in  their  hands  and  marching 
to  the  front  and  meeting  the  enemy?  Is  it  not 
proper  to  say  that  the  case  may,  and  doubtless 
will  be,  the  same  with  the  foreign  born  citizen  ? 
If  it  be  true,  according  to  law,  that  an  alien  is 
not  obliged  by  the  laws,  or  cannot  be  obliged 
under  all  circumstances,  by  laws,  to  place  him- 
self in  that  position,  then  I maintain  the  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell], in  the  way  that  I understand  it,  is  a le- 
gitimate argument;  namely,  that  when  any 
person  acquires  that  sacred  privilege  of  citizen- 
ship, that  right  of  sovereignty,  the  power  to 
participate  in  governing  everjr  other  citizen  of 
the  State,  by  his  joint  action  with  that  of  others, 
he  ought  to  be  subject  to  responsibilities  and  ob- 
ligations— 

[Here  the  speaker’s  time  expired,  but,  by 
common  consent, he  was  allowed  to  proceed.] 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  mean  to  make  any 
imputation  against  anybody,  but  every  one 
recognizes  that  every  citizen  must  be  under 
an  obligation  to  perform  his  share  of  State  obli- 
gations, or  else  he  must  shirk  them ; and  it  is 
just  as  much  to  the  advantage  of  those  who  are 
aliens  as  to  those  who  are  citizens.  I do  not 
know  who  they  all  were  that  resisted  the  draft, 
but  I certainly  heard  of  combinations  for  that 
purpose.  I know  that  many  natural  born  citi- 
zens were  among  them,  and  I do  not  know  but 
there  may  have  been  some  foreigners  among 
them.  I do  not  say  there  were,  but  if  there 
were  they  were  no  worse  than  the  natural  born 
citizens,  and  I am  not  bound  to  presume  that 
they  were  a great  deal  better.  An  alien  has 
some  privileges,  say  the  authorities,  and  if  gen- 
tlemen want  to  find  the  authority  they  may  turn 
to  a pretty  good  one,  Story  upon  the  Constitu- 
tion. Any  person  who  is  not  a naturalized  citi- 
zen, is  an  alien  within  the  meaning  of  that  pro- 

y.  n-122 


vision  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  that 
any  citizen  may  sue  in  the  courts  of  the  State 
or  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States.  Every 
one  of  these  persons  that  are  here  provided  for 
may,  instead  of  doing  as  other  people  do,  if  they 
want  to  sue  one  of  their  fellow  citizens,  they 
may  bring  him  before  the  circuit  court  of  the 
United  States,  if  the  subject  matter  be  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  that  court. 

There  are  many  matters  connected  with  this 
that  I do  not  propose  to  discuss.  The  matter  of 
Koszta  was  discussed,  and  other  cases  show  con- 
clusively that  there  are  certain  privileges  that 
pertain  to  aliens  in  a foreign  country  which  do 
not  pertain  to  citizens.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  exemptions  that  pertain  to  them.  The 
matter  has  been  considered  here,  whether  or 
notan  alien  is  exempt  from  performing  military 
duties,  or  can  be  so  exempted.  I do  not  sup- 
pose, Mr.  President,  that  the  matter  can  be  car- 
ried to  the  extent  of  great  obligations  upon 
foreigners  who  are  residents  here,  and  who 
have  not  assumed  obligations  of  general  allegi- 
ance. There  is,  undoubtedly,  an  allegiance  that 
is  due  from  everybody,  not  merely  him  who 
has  declared  his  intentions  to  become  a citizen, 
and  who  has  a residence  here — I speak  of  gene- 
ral allegiance — and,  doubtless,  military  services 
may,  to  some  extent,  be  required  in  time  of  war 
from  aliens,  and  especially  as  against  any  other 
country  than  that  to  which  they  may  hold  al- 
legiance. But  there  are  a great  many  restric- 
tions upon  the  exercise  of  such  a power,  and 
nobody  can  look  at  the  different  authorities 
upon  this  subject  without  seeing  at  once,  that  it 
becomes  a question  to  be  settled  by  rules  of  in- 
ternational law — law  in  regard  to  which  any 
other  nation  that  may  be  concerned  has  just  as 
much  right  of  judgment  as  we  have  in  reference 
to  the  particular  case. 

But  I do  not  propose  to  go  into  these  questions. 
There  area  great  many  things,  many  privileges, 
many  exemptions,  many  peculiarities  that  re- 
late to  a person  of  foreign  birth  who  has  never 
been  naturalized,  that  do  not  pertain  in  favor 
of  those  who  belong  to  our  own  country. 

There  are  some  particular  things  resting 
upon  the  law  itself  to  which  I wish,  for  a mo- 
ment, to  call  attention.  Permit  me,  however, 
to  say,  with  regard  to  the  examples  that  have 
been  cited,  a few  words.  It  has  been  said  that 
other  States  have  a similar  provision  in  their 
Constitution.  Some  have  been  named.  Gentle- 
men might  have  gone  back  of  those.  They 
might  have  gone  to  the  day  when  every  citizen 
of  the  United  States  was,  by  that  interpretation, 
a citizen  of  Great  Britain.  They  might  have 
gone  back  further  than  that,  to  the  days  when 
the  Pilgrims  landed  at  Plymouth  Rock,  when 
every  man  was  a foreigner.  Before  they  set 
foot  upon  Plymouth  Rock,  while  they  were  yet 
on  board  the  ship  which  brought  them,  they 
formed  a new  commonwealth,  without  any  re- 
strictions,  because  there  were  no  foreigners 
there.  They  might  have  come  down  from  that 
time  to  this,  and  they  will  no  doubt  find  that  in 
a new  country  and  in  a new  colony  it  is  a matter 
of  policy,  indeed  of  necessity,  that  consider- 
ations of  that  kind  should  be  observed.  Colon- 
ies do  not  mean  anything  as  to  what  shall  be 
done  when  they  get  older  and  become  able  to 


1906 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

West,  Tuttle,  Burns,  Campbell. 


[133rd 


[Monday, 


take  care  of  themselves.  It  has  nothing  to  do 
with  that  question. 

The  State  of  Indiana  has  been  cited  as  an  ex- 
ample, and  because  the  State  of  Indiana  has 
not  been  swallowed  by  an  earthquake,  because 
it  has  never  been  burned,  as  was  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah,  it  is  held  up  here  as  an  example. 
They  have  existed  in  spite  of  the  policy,  and 
very  likely  may  for  an  hundred  years  to  come. 
It  is  no  proof  that  it  is  a good  policy.  I would 
like  to  see  the  evidence  that  the  legislation  of 
the  State  of  Indiana  has  been  better  than  ours. 
What  legislation  do  the  gentlemen  refer  to? 
Do  they  refer  to  their  divorce  laws,  or  do  they 
refer  to  their  banking  laws  of  1852?  Do  they 
refer  to  a great  many  other  things  in  relation 
to  the  administration  of  justice  in  the  State  of 
Indiana?  Some  of  their  proceedings  during 
the  last  war,  if  I understand  rightly,  did  not 
stand  much  better  or  higher.  I do  not  suppose 
but  that  Indiana  is  a pretty  good  State  to  live 
in,  but  should  we  introduce  a novel  principle  in 
the  Constitution — a doubtful  proposition — 
merely  because  another  State  has  had  some  ex- 
perience upon  the  subject? 

Mr.  WEST.  Twenty-seven  States  have  got 
the  same  system.  Shall  we  follow  the  twenty- 
seven  or  the  ten  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I was  going  to  say  that  some 
twenty-four  or  twenty-six  have  not  got  it,  and 
some  twelve  have. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  They  are  coming  around. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I have  not  seen  any  of  them 
coming  around.  I do  not  think  the  State  of 
Ohio  is  coming  around,  or  any  other  State.  In 
1851,  I know  that  when  this  Article,  that  is  now 
sought  to  be  established,  was  adopted,  a gentle- 
man of  the  Convention  moved  to  give  the 
power  to  the  Legislature,  simply  to  extend  the 
right  of  suffrage  to  those  who  are  not  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  and  out  of  seventy-nine  mem- 
bers, sixty-eight  voted — “ no.” 

It  was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell],  that  this  principle  would  give 
to  every  foreigner  a right  to  vote.  I have  not 
heard  that  objection  answered  yet.  I heard  it 
suggested  that  nobody  would  be  admitted  to 
the  privileges  of  citizenship  who  was  of  that 
character  of  person — the  Chinese,  etc.  That  is 
true,  and  it  was  suggested  that  the  fact  that  the 
declaration  of  intention  must  be  in  conformity 
to  the  law,  and  that  prevents  the  Chinaman 
from  becoming  a voter.  I say  not.  I say  there 
is  not  any  provision  of  the  law,  the  gentleman 
I think,  cannot  find  one,  which  prevents  any 
man  in  the  world  from  declaring,  upon  his 
oath,  his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the 
United  States,  and  I undertake  to  say  there  is 
not  a law  anywhere  that  authorizes  any  court 
to  determine  the  question  of  fact  at  the  time  of 
declaring  intention  whether  or  not  the  de- 
clarant is  competent  to  become  a citizen.  The 
provisions  of  the  naturalization  law  require 
that  the  applicant  for  citizenship  shall,  when 
admitted,  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court 
that  he  is  a man  of  good  moral  character ; that 
he  understands  the  principles  of  our  govern- 
ment, and  that  he  is  favorably  disposed  toward 
the  same.  Everybody  understands  it.  Here  it 
is  proposed  that  he  may  become  a voter  with- 
out any  of  those  qualifications.  It  shall  not  be  a 
subject  of  inquiry  whether  he  is  a man  of  good 


moral  character,  whether  he  understands  the 
principles  of  our  government,  whether  he  is  fa- 
vorably disposed  toward  the  same ; but  if  he  has 
made  his  declaration  of  intention  he  is  entitled 
to  vote  without  aye,  yes  or  no.  It  has  been 
said  that  it  does  not  amount  to  much.  Perhaps 
in  some  cases  it  does  not  amount  to  much ; but 
it  does  amount  to  something  and  may  amount 
to  a good  deal.  I think  if  a man  is  of  bad 
moral  character  and  he  comes  to  the  court  with 
witnesses,  who  knowingly  and  corruptly  falsify 
the  fact,  they  may  be  convicted  of  perjury.  I 
think  it  calculated  to  exert  an  influence  upon 
the  new  made  citizen  to  know  that  his  friends 
have  vouched  for  him,  upon  oath,  for  the  falsi- 
fication of  which  they  may  be  punished. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I simply  desire  to  restate 
the  legal  proposition  as  I made  it  at  the  time. 
I do  not  propose  to  enter  into  any  further  dis- 
cussion of  this  subject  now,  or  at  any  time;  but 
for  fear  I may  have  been  misunderstood,  I shall 
restate  it  in  order  that  any  of  the  legal  profes- 
sion upon  the  other  side  may  correct  me  if  I am 
in  error.  It  is  that,  by  the  force  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  of  the  Federal  Constitution  there 
shall  be  no  distinction  made  in  conferring  the 
right  of  suffrage  by  a State  on  account  of  “race, 
color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude” — I 
think  1 quote  the  language  correctly — and  that 
although,  under  the  naturalization  laws,  the 
Chinese,  Japanese,  and  others  can  never  become 
citizens  until  those  laws  shall  change,  for  the 
reason  that  “ white  ” is  still  adhered  to,  but  in 
the  State  of  Ohio  that  the  question  of  suffrage 
can  be  regulated  by  the  State  and  not  by  the 
General  Government.  If  you  embody  in  this 
Constitution  the  report  of  this  Committee,  then 
the  Chinaman,  then  the  Japanese,  then  the 
Ashantee,  and  then  everybody  else  who  is  a 
man  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  who  can  get  here 
to  declare  his  intention,  does  become  a sov- 
ereign with  a right  to  vote,  carrying  with  it  the 
right  to  hold  office,  in  one  year.  And  I fur- 
ther state  in  connection  with  the  other  ques- 
tion, that  we  are  now  rapidly  approaching,  that 
of  woman  suffrage,  if  the  woman  suffrage 
clause  be  also  appended  to  this  first  section, 
then  we  are  not  only  to  enfranchise  the 
women,  but  those  women  who  are  now  here, 
including  those  of  African  descent,  in  the 
North  as  well  as  in  the  South,  but  we  may 
as  well  enfranchise  Chinese  women,  Japanese 
women,  Ashantee  women,  African  women  and 
all  othef  women  who  may  come  here  from  all 
parts  of  God’s  footstool.  If  I am  wrong  in  this 
proposition,  as  it  has  not  been  answered,  I call 
upon  the  gentlemen  of  the  Convention  to 
expose  it,  so  that  it  may  be  refuted  if  it  is  er- 
roneous. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  desire  to  enlarge 
upon  this  subject;  for  it  would  be  proved  clear- 
ly that  whilst  I am  well  aware  that  no  very 
great  degree  of  restriction  can  be  imposed  upon 
the  admission  to  citizenship,  upon  the  reason 
that  it  shall  be  proved  that  the  man  has  a good 
moral  character,  yet  it  must  necessarily  have 
some  influence.  It  is  a part  of  the  wisdom  of 
the  Federal  Legislation  upon  the  subject,  and  I 
do  not  think  that  we  can  afford,  or  ought  to  be 
willing  to  dispense  with  it;  but  it  was  sugges- 
ted by  different  gentlemen,  at  least  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  that  under  this 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Burns,  Tuttle. 


1907 


March  9,  1874.] 


provision,  a man  may  continue  to  vote,  al- 
though he  should  never  be  naturalized,  for  any 
number  of  years.  It  was  replied  to  that,  the 
provision,  as  it  is  a restriction,  limiting  the 
right  to  vote  to  five  years  from  the  time  when 
he  shall  have  made  his  declaration  of  intention. 
I put  the  inquiry  to  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land  [Mr.  Burns],  when  he  was  speaking,  as  to 
what  prevented  renewing  the  declaration  of 
intention  once  every  five  years  ? The  question 
was  so  long,  and  the  answer  so  much  longer 
that  the  gentleman  had  no  other  reply  to  make 
than  it  was  not  likely  to  be  so.  When  I wanted 
to  know  of  the  gentleman  why  it  was  not  very 
likely  to  he  done,  the  difficulty  became  very 
much  extended  in  point  of  time.  Now,  of 
course,  I did  not  desire  to  interrupt  the  gentle- 
man, for  I know  it  is  often  possible  that  a reply 
demanded  of  one  cannot  be  made  upon  the  in- 
stant, but  I now  desire  to  suggest  the  other 
point,  that  it  is  very  likely  that,  under  a great 
many  circumstances,  a man  may  continue  to 
exercise  the  right  of  suffrage,  year  after  year, 
and  yet  never  be  entitled  to  be  naturalized  un- 
der this  law ; and  I refer  the  gentleman  now 
to  the  last  section  of  the  compilation  to  be  found 
in  Swan  and  Critchfield,  page  18,  prefatory 
part : 

“No  person  who  shall  arrive  in  the  United  States  after 
February  17, 1815,  shall  be  admitted  to  he  a citizen  of  the 
United  States  who  shall  not  have,  for  the  continued  term 
of  five  years  next  preceding  his  admission,  resided  within 
the  United  States,  without  being  at  any  time  during  the 
said  five  years  out  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  tell  me, 
under  this  section,  if  a foreigner  takes  up  his 
residence  in  the  State,  and  during  the  next  suc- 
ceeding five  years  makes  a temporary  visit  to 
Great  Britain,  thus  leaving  the  shores  of  the 
United  States,  he  would  have  to  remain  five 
years  longer,  after  he  returned,  before  he  could 
get  his  naturalization?  Does  the  gentleman 
mean  that? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I mean  that  the  law  that  is 
here  before  me  is  so  plain  in  its  terms  as  not  to 
admit  of  the  slightest  possible  doubt,  if  it  be 
within  the  power  of  human  language  to  cir- 
cumvent an  idea;  and  so  the  question  put  by 
the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns], 
whether  or  not  he  had  to  stay  five  years,  I an- 
swer in  this  way : that  if,  during  the  five  years, 
he  has  been  out  of  the  territory,  really  and  con- 
structively, of  the  United  States,  he  is  not  enti- 
tled to  be  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  citizenship. 
I put  it  as  a matter  that  will  not  admit  of  doubt. 
I agree  that,  under  this  section,  if  it  had 
stopped  without  that  last  clause — if  it  had  said 
unless  he  shall  have  continued  to  have  resided 
within  the  United  States  five  years,  and  stopped 
there,  that  no  departure  from  the  United  States 
animo  redeundi  would  have  affected  his  rights, 
because  his  temporary  absence,  with  the  inten- 
tion to  return,  would  be  considered  as  a contin- 
uation of  his  residence  within  the  United 
States.  But  the  law  has  not  stopped  there. 
The  law  says  not  only  that,  but  the  law  says 
that  he  shall  reside  within  the  United  States 
five  years  next  preceding  his  admission,  without 
being,  at  any  time  during  the  said  five  years,  out 
of  the  territory  of  the  United  States. 

Now,  if  the  gentleman  will  answer  me  this 
question,  one  way  or  the  other,  I think  I can 


very  quickly  answer  his  question,  if  I have  time. 
If  a man  goes  to  London  upon  business,  and 
stays  there  six  months  and  makes  application 
within  a year  to  be  admitted,  will  it  or  will  it 
not  be  true  that  he  has,  at  any  time,  been  out  of 
the  territory  of  the  United  States  within  five 
years?  If  the  gentleman  says  “no,”  I can 
only  commend  the  proposition  to  the  common 
sense  of  man.  I might  concede  that  the  ab- 
sence of  the  gentleman  ought  not  to  prevent 
him  from  being  admitted  to  citizenship;  but  if 
going  to  London  and  staying  six  months  and 
transacting  his  own  business  there  is  being  out 
of  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  then  the 
statute  of  the  United  States  answers  the  ques- 
tion that  I put,  and  it  answers  it  in  a manner 
that  no  man  can  mistake,  and  so  far,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, as  I have  known  the  question  to  be  raised 
before  an  intelligent  court,  it  has  been  deter- 
mined precisely  in  that  way;  and  I submit  that 
it  is  not  in  the  power  of  human  ingenuity  to 
found  a different  construction  upon  the  terms 
and  language  of  the  statute.  I admit  that  a man 
might  be  constructively  within  the  territory  of 
the  United  States  and  yet  not  within  its  bounda- 
ries. I suppose  he  would  be  within  the  terri- 
tory of  the  United  States  upon  its  ships  at  sea. 
Possibly  if  a sailor  should,  as  a matter  of  neces- 
sity, leave  his  ship  and  go  upon  land,  he  might 
still  be  held  to  be  in  the  territory  of  the  United 
States,  as  no  doubt  he  is  as  long  as  he  is  upon 
the  deck  of  the  ship ; but,  on  the  other  hand,  I 
apprehend,  it  does  not  admit  of  any  kind  of 
doubt  that  you  have  either  to  overturn  the 
statute,  or  when  a man  goes  abroad  from  this  to 
another  country  he  has  forfeited  all  the  right 
which  he  has  acquired  by  his  previous  resi- 
dence, unless  he  had  before  resided  five  years 
in  the  United  States.  I think  the  gentleman 
will  search  in  vain  for  any  authority  to  the 
contrary.  I am  not  aware  of  any.  I know 
that  it  has  been  determined,  as  I have  stated, 
but  of  course  a case  may  be  still  more  peculiar 
than  that.  A man  may  declare  his  intention 
and  he  may  actually  return.  He  may  stay  in 
Ohio  six  months,  designing  to  live  here.  He 
may  go  from  here  and  stay,  not  designing  to 
come  back  again,  but  may  come  back  and  stay 
a year  and  reside  here,  and  by  the  provision  of 
the  Constitution,  as  you  propose  it,  would  he 
not  be  entitled  to  vote  ? I say,  as  often  as  he 
would  repeat  it,  as  often  as  he  would  declare 
his  intention  and  go  abroad  designing  to  re- 
main and  come  back  again,  he  would  be  entitled 
to  a vote. 

Mr.  President,  I do  not  know,  but  I suspect 
that  if  it  had  even  been  expected  or  wished  by 
many  who  favor  this  proposition,  that  it  should 
have  been  put  in  more  logical  shape  than  we 
see  it.  Pardon  me,  gentlemen,  I take  it  that,  of 
course,  every  member  who  has  been  concerned 
in  this  matter  is  actuated  by  pure  motives, 
striving  for  something  that  he  believes  to  be  for 
the  public  good ; but,  sir,  when  I hear  the  clarion 
call  of  party  strife  in  this  hall,  and  the  threat 
that  we  shall  be  put  on  the  record  in  regard  to 
our  action,  as  if  there  was  something  peculiarly 
terrifying  to  men  to  be  put  on  the  record,  you 
need  not  tell  me  there  is  not  something  beyond 
the  mere  question  of  what  shall  be  adopted,  or 
is  expected  to  be  adopted  into  the  Constitution. 
I am  perfectly  content  to  be  put  upon  the 


1908 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Bishop,  Ewing. 


[133rd 

[Monday, 


record.  Upon  this  subject,  as  upon  all  subjects, 
I am  willing  to  be  there  with  the  sixty-eight 
who,  in  the  Convention  of  1850,  against  eleven 
the  other  way,  voted  that  the  Legislature  should 
not  even  have  the  power  to  extend  suffrage  in 
the  manner  proposed  here.  My  venerable 
friend,  whom  I do  not  see  in  his  place,  the  gen- 
tleman from  Preble  [Mr.  Barnet],  who  honored 
that  Convention,  as  he  does  this,  not  only  so 
voted,  but  he  got  up  in  his  place  and  moved  the 
previous  question,  in  order  that  the  members 
of  that  Convention  might  have  the  opportunity 
to  place  themselves  upon  the  subject,  and  sixty- 
eight  of  them  put  themselves  upon  the  record, 
Mr.  President,  as  neither  willing  to  have  it  in 
the  Constitution  nor  even  to  give  the  power  to 
the  Legislature  to  put  it  into  the  law. 

A few  years  rolling  around  makes  a great 
difference  in  the  opinions  of  men.  It  seems 
#that  this  monster  has  grown  up  within  these 
few  years  to  be  so  strong  and  so  bold  that 
gentlemen  can  be  frightened  out  of  their  pro- 
priety by  being  told  that  their  opposition  to  the 
monster  shall  be  placed  upon  the  record. 
Well,  sir,  I say  to  those  who  make  the  threat,  I 
propose  to  have  you  put  upon  the  record.  I 
suppose  I have  as  much  right  to  do  it  as  any 
one,  and  I want  the  evidence  preserved,  so  that 
when,  hereafter,  any  may  be  disposed  to  deny 
his  action  here,  the  evidence  upon  the  subject 
may  not  be  wanting.  It  is  proposed  that  a man 
who  is  nothing,  and  will  become  nothing,  but 
an  alien  in  the  State,  shall  yet  have  the  prerog- 
ative of  a sovereign  over  the  State.  If  there 
be  many  now  of  that  opinion,  yet  seeing  how 
large  a proportion  thought  differently  but  little 
more  than  twenty  years  since,  and,  seeing  that 
many  who,  to-day,  threaten  with  recorded  dis- 
grace those  who  continue  to  think  as  most 
thought  then,  are  yet  fain  to  identify  them- 
selves, in  creed  and  purpose,  with  those  of  that 
day,  whose  opinions  they  now  contravene, 
there  is  no  telling  how  soon  they  will  wish  the 
record  they  now  claim  had  never  been  made, 
nor  how  soon  that  record  will  be  the  only  evi- 
dence that  they  have  ever  thought  as  they  now 
profess  to  think.  So  there  is  no  occasion  for 
threats.  Let  us  have  the  record,  and  let  us 
delay,  for  a few  short  years  (and  short  enough, 
in  the  light  of  the  past,  they  may  prove  to  be) 
to  see  who  will  become  ashamed  of  it,  and  wish 
that  the  rocks  and  the  mountains  might  fall 
upon  it  and  hide  it. 

I think  there  are  but  very  few  gentlemen  in 
this  Convention  who  glory  in  the  war-cry 
party.  I see  men  here  of  various  political  sen- 
timents, but  I see  them  generally  forgetting 
these  divisions,  earnestly  inquiring,  or  seeming 
to  inquire,  what  is  for  the  public  benefit,  and, 
according  to  their  best  conscience,  seeking  the 
submission  to  the  people  of  the  State  of  that 
which  shall  best  serve  the  public  good.  There 
are  very  few  gentlemen  here  that  I ever  heard 
threatening  anybody  with  the  consequences  of 
party  condemnation  or  with  party  vengeance. 
Let  us  all  who  disapprove  of  such  motives  for 
themselves,  or  the  use  of  them  for  others,  con- 
tinue to  act  as  before,  and  vote  upon  this 
occasion,  as  upon  others,  according  to  what, 
upon  the  whole,  we  believe  is  consistent  and 
right,  and  then  we  shall  be  least  likely,  hereaf- 
ter, to  find  ourselves  mistaken;  and,  whether 


mistaken  or  not,  will  certainly  have  no  occasion 
to  blush. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  It  is  known  to  this  Convention 
that  some  days  since,  when  we  passed  the  reso- 
lution that  we  were  to  get  through  on  the  31st 
of  March,  that  I gave  notice  that  hereafter,  un- 
der the  rules  of  the  Convention,  I would  make 
objection  and  see  that  the  rules  were  enforced. 
I have  no  desire  to  stop  men  from  talking  rea- 
sonably, but  I want  it  distinctly  understood, 
from  now  henceforth,  that  when  indulgence  is 
given  for  a short  time  it  don’t  mean  a half-hour 
longer.  I want  the  gentlemen  to  finish  their 
speeches,  but  the  time  shall  not  be  expected  to 
be  extended  to  any  considerable  length  of 
time  or  to  exceed  five  or  ten  minutes.  We  must, 
if  we  expect  to  get  through  the  business  of  this 
Convention,  adhere  to  the  rules,  and,  as  I gave 
notice,  I shall  most  assuredly  be  necessitated  to 
object  to  any  great  extension  of  time,  although 
it  will  be  a very  unpleasant  duty  for  me  to  per- 
form. 

Mr.  EWING.  I feel  much  hesitation  in  ask- 
ing the  privilege  of  addressing  the  Convention 
again  upon  this  subject,  but  a part  of  the  speech 
that  I made  this  morning  was  responded  to  so 
elaborately  by  the  gentleman  from^Logan  [Mr. 
West],  that  I feel  it  is  due  to  myself  to  occupy 
a few  minutes  in  reply.  The  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  went  into  a discussion  of  the 
Koszta  case,  wffiich  is  a subject  outside  the  pro- 
per range  of  this  discussion,  although  brought 
into  it  incidentally  by  several  delegates;  but  he 
was  decidedly  in  error  in  his  statement  of  facts 
and  I wish  now  to  set  him  right. 

He  said  that  Koszta  was  arrested  under  the 
American  flag,  and  it  was  on  the  ground  of  his 
arrest  in  neutral  territory  under  the  American 
flag,  and  on  that  ground  only , he  was  demanded 
and  surrendered.  On  the  contrary,  the  fact 
was  that  he  held  a passport  that  was  given  to 
him  because  of  his  incipient  citizenship,  result- 
ing from  his  settlement  in  the  United  States 
animo  manendi , as  evidenced  by  his  declaration 
of  intention  to  become  an  American  citizen. 
In  the  correspondence  in  this  volume  of  Senate 
Documents  it  is  declared  by  every  American 
official  who  wrote  on  the  subject,  from  first  to 
last,  that  the  passport  was  given  Koszta  by  our 
Consul  at  Smyrna  because  of  his  declaration  of 
intention  to  become  an  American  citizen,  which 
was  in  his  possession.  It  was  not  at  all  the 
case  of  a mere  foreigner  coming  to  the  Consul 
and  asking  the  protection  of  our  flag. 

In  the  diplomatic  correspondence  that  fol- 
lowed the  arrest  of  Koszta,  objection  was  made 
to  it  on  another  ground,  to-wit:  That  under 
the  Turkish  law,  anybody  not  a subject  of  the 
Sultan,  no  matter  where  might  be  his  domicile, 
might  seek  the  protection  of  any  foreign  flag. 
And  that,  consequently,  if  Koszta  had  not  been 
entitled  to  that  protection  by  virtue  of  his  in- 
cipient American  citizenship,  under  the  Turk- 
ish law  he  might  have  sought  the  protection  of 
our  flag.  But  the  fact  that  his  additional  ob- 
jection to  the  arrest  and  detention  was  tinkered, 
does  not  impair  the  proposition  that  the  United 
States  demanded  the  extradition  of  the  man  be- 
cause of  his  being  an  inhabitant  of  America, 
animo  manendi. 

Mr.  Brown,  our  minister  to  Turkey  says,  in 


Day.] 

March  9,  1874.] 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

West,  Ewing. 


1909 


his  first  letter  upon  the  subject,  addressed  to  the 
Consul  at  Smyrna : 

‘I  received  your  letter  of  the  8th  inst.,  respecting  the 
outrageous  and  inhuman  conduct  of  the  Austrian  Consul 
towards  the  Hungarian  rebel  Martin  Koszta,  who, 
though  not  possessing  the  full  rights  of  a citizen  of  the 
United  States,  yet  by  the  oath  of  allegiance  which  he  has 
taken  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States , has  claims 
upon  your  friendly  aid  and  intercession .” 

Again,  in  a letter  addressed  by  Mr.  Marsh  to 
Secretary  Marcy,  after  stating  two  or  three 
grounds  upon  which  the  extradition  of  Koszta 
was  claimed,  he  adds : 

“But  Koszta  has  further  rights.  He  had  solemnly  de- 
clared his  intention  of  becoming  an  American  citizen, 
and  upon  that  declaration  acquired  inchoate  rights,  the 
extent  of  which  belongs  entirely  to  us,  and  to  no  other 
jurisdiction  whatever,  to  determine.” 

I am  compelled  to  look  elsewhere  than  in  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Marcy  itself  for  a statement  of  the 
position  taken  by  our  government  on  the  sub- 
ject, because,  in  neither  of  the  libraries  of  Cin- 
cinnati have  I been  able  to  get  that  famous 
letter.  In  Woolsey’s  introduction  to  Interna- 
tional Law,  page  132,  the  position  taken  by  our 
government  is  stated  thus : 

“What  were  his  relations  to  the  United  States?  Not 
those  of  a citizen  hut  of  a domiciled  stranger.  His  oath, 
declaring  his  purpose  to  become  a citizen,  and  his  long 
stay  here  put  this  out  of  the  question,  and  his  temporary 
absence  could  not  shake  this  character  off.  Moreover  he 
had  a passport  testifying  to  his  nationality.” 

Again,  in  Wheaton’s  International  Law,  the 
subject  is  thus  referred  to : 

“In  a subsequent  cox*respondence  upon  this  subject  be- 
tween the  governments  of  the  three  countries  involved, 
the  United  States  claimed  the  right  to  relieve  the  domi- 
ciled subject  of  the  United  States,  although  not  natural- 
ized, from  arrest  of  his  person,  made  within  the  territory 
of  another  State,  where  he  was  temporarily  sojourning 
for  business  purposes,  by  the  agents  of  any  other  State, 
although  that  of  his  birth.” 

These  authorities  show  that  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  was  mistaken  when  be 
questioned  the  correctness  of  my  position  that 
the  demand  for  the  surrender  of  Kostza  was 
made  because  he  had  acquired  a domicile  in  the 
United  States. 

England’s  claim  was  “once a subject  always 
a subject,”  so  that  no  one  who  had  ever  been 
under  the  dominion  of  the  British  flag  could 
shake  off  his  allegiance,  no  matter  how  long  he 
may  have  been  abroad,  or  how  he  may  have 
sought  and  obtained  citizenship  in  his  new 
domicile.  We,  on  the  contrary,  claimed,  and 
it  runs  through  the  whole  of  our  diplomatic 
and  political  history,  that  every  man,  no  matter 
of  what  country  he  might  be  a citizen  or  a sub- 
ject, has  the  inalienable  right  of  expatriation, 
the  right  to  cease  to  be  the  subject  or  citizen  of 
one  country  and  become  a citizen  or  subject  of 
another. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  state 
whether  that  question  in  the  war  of  1812, 
arose  under  any  circumstances  except  in  rela- 
tion to  naturalized  citizens  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  No  matter — for  the  right  of 
expatriation  after  all  is  the  question. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman  and  I do  not 
controvert,  and  never  will,  but  when  citizen- 
ship is  acquired  here  we  assert  it,  but  until  the 
citizenship  is  acquired,  until  we  demand  citi- 
zenship, we  cannot  assert  it  against  the  world. 


Mr.  EWING.  That  is  not  the  whole  Ameri- 
can doctrine. 

Mr.  WEST.  Here  is  the  point:  no  man  can 
cease  to  be  a subject  of  one  country  until  he  be- 
comes the  subject  of  another. 

Mr.  EWING.  But  the  foreigner  who  settles 
in  this  country  with  the  intention  of  permanent 
residence  becomes  co  instantly  as  much  a subject 
of  our  laws  as  is  any  American  citizen — subject 
to  every  service  we  can  demand  of  a citizen — 
though  he  is  not  given  at  once  all  the  immuni- 
ties and  privileges  of  citizenship.  In  the  brief 
of  Ex-Attorney  General  Hoar,  filed  before  the 
American  and  British  Claims  Commission,  in 
the  case  of  Anthony  Barclay  against  the 
United  States,  heretofore  referred  to  in  this  de- 
bate by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr. 
Barber],  the  law  on  this  point,  as  declared  by 
the  American  writers  on  international  law  is 
laid  down  as  follows : “A  local  sovereignty 

has  the  right  to  the  personal  service  of  such 
domiciled  inhabitants  for  police  purposes 
and  for  a defense  in  war,  unless  in  case  of  war 
against  the  nation  of  his  birth.  No  power  can 
object  unless  it  be  the  sovereignty  of  his  birth ; 
and  that  sovereignty  could  not  object , except  upon 
grounds  previously  stated,  of  discrimination  against 
the  inhabitant  on  account  of  and  in  derogation  of 
that  sovereignty .” 

Judge  Hoar  refers  in  support  of  this  Propo- 
sition to  Kent’s  Commentaries,  Greenleaf’s  Evi- 
dence, Halleck’s  International  Law,  and  a 
great  many  other  recognized  authorities,  which 
I have  not  had  time  to  consult,  but  which  are, 
doubtless,  correctly  analyzed  by  him.  This,  I 
claim  to  be  the  established  American  doctrine 
upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me? 

Mr.  EWING.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  certainly  exceedingly  un- 
fortunate if  I did  not  state  the  same  doctrine; 
but  the  exception  there  destroys  the  result  that 
the  gentleman  wishes  to  obtain  from  the 
doctrine,  “ except  as  against  the  sovereignty  of 
his  birth,”  but  as  between  America  and  his 
native  land,  he  is  a foreigner. 

Mr.  EWING.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir.  Just  as  a mortgagee 
after  forfeiting,  as  between  all  the  world  and 
the  mortgagor,  the  title  is  in  the  mortgagor, 
but  as  between  the  mortgagor  and  the  mort- 
gagee, it  is  in  the  mortgagee  only.  Here  is  the 
exception.  Suppose  America  declares  war 
against  England;  can  America  compel  the 
domiciled  subjects  of  the  British  crown  to  aid 
in  a war  against  England  ? No,  sir. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  authorities  from  which  I 
have  read  are,  perhaps,  not  understood  by  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West].  The  fol- 
lowing is  the  proposition  of  international  law 
to  which  he  gives  his  assent : 

“A  local  sovereigntv  has  the  right  to  the  personal  ser- 
vices of  such  domiciled  inhabitants  for  police  purposes, 
and  for  defence  in  war,  unless  in  case  of  war  against  the 
nation  of  his  birth  No  power  can  object,  unless  it  be  the 
sovereignty  of  his  birth,  and  that  sovereignty  could  not 
object  except  upon  grounds , previously  stated , of  discrim- 
ination against  the  inhabitant  on  account  of,  and  in  deroga- 
tion of,  that  sovereignty .” 

So  that,  under  this  proposition  of  internation- 
al law,  unless  modified  by  treaty  stipulation,  we 
would  have  the  right  to  exact,  even  in  a war 
with  Great  Britain,  the  service  of  a man  who 


1910 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

West,  Ewing. 


[133rd 


had  been  a British  subject,  but  who  had  come 
here  and  become  permanently  domiciled;  and 
the  only  right  that  Great  Britain  would  have  to 
interfere  between  this  government  and  that  res- 
ident of  the  United  States  would  be  in  case  we 
discriminated  against  him  because  he  was  a 
British  subject — thus  offending  the  dignity  and 
character  of  the  British  nation. 

The  gentleman  from  Logan  asks  me  whether 
a domiciled  subject  of  Great  Britain  could  prop- 
erly be  required  to  serve  this  country  in  a war 
against  Great  Britain.  I answer  no — nor  in  a 
war  against  any  other  power.  But  a foreign 
subject  who  settles  here  animo  manendi , there- 
upon ceases  to  be  a foreign  subject,  and  may 
then  be  compelled  to  serve  in  a war  against  the 
State  of  which  he  was  formerly  a subject.  That 
is  the  immemorial  American  doctrine.  It  was 
stated  at  the  beginning  of  this  century  by 
Judge  Story,  in  delivering  an  opinion  in  the 
case  of  Livingstone  & Gilchrist  vs.  Maryland 
Insurance  Co.,  which  I cited  this  morning: 

“If  a man  be  settled  bona  fide  in  a country,  with  the  in- 
tention of  indefinite  residence,  he  is,  as  to  all  foreign 
countries  and  nations,  a subject  of  that  country.” 

The  change  of  nationality  results  from  mere 
settlement,  bona  fide , with  intention  of  remain- 
ing. The  person  thereupon  ceases  to  be  a sub- 
ject of  the  country  whence  he  came,  and  be- 
comes the  subject,  whether  citizen  or  not,  of  the 
United  States. 

Mr.  WEST.  Pardon  me  for  interrupting.  I 
forgot  to  allude  to  that  decision  this  morning. 
Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  a single  word? 

Mr.  EWING.  The  gentleman  has  made  a 
very  full  speech. 

Mr.  WEST.  With  the  gentleman’s  courtesy, 
I shall  make  a single  remark? 

Mr.  EWING.  Very  well. 

Mr.  WEST.  That  is  a question  of  confisca- 
tion. The  opinion  read  this  morning  was  the 
dissenting  opinion  of  Judge  Story. 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  not. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EWING.  On  examination,  I find  the 
opinion  of  Judge  Story,  from  which  I have 
read,  is  a concurring  opinion;  and  it  is  concur- 
ring, too,  on  this  very  point  of  national  char- 
acter. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit 
me,  I will  state  the  facts  of  the  case : A Span- 
iard, with  the  consent  of  his  crown,  settled  in 
the  United  States,  and  engaged  in  merchandise, 
with  the  consent  of  the  United  States.  When 
war  broke  out  between  Spain  and  the  United 
States,  the  question  was,  whether  his  property 
was  subject  to  confiscation ; and  it  was  held  by 
the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  that 
the  permission  of  his  own  crown,  and  the  con- 
sent of  the  United  States  having  been  given,  his 
property  within  the  United  States,  when  the 
war  broke  out,  must  be  treated  as  the  property 
of  an  American  merchant. 

Mr.  EWING.  Very  well.  Now,  if  the  gen- 
tleman will  permit  me,  I will  finish  what  I have 
to  say. 

The  gentleman  refers  to  the  treaty  with  Wur- 
temberg,  and  the  treaty  with  Baden,  as  surren- 
dering this  doctrine  of  therightof  expatriation. 
But  the  treaties  do  not  go  to  that  extent;  and 
if  they  did,  they  do  not  affect  the  doctrine  gen- 
erally, but  only  so  far  as  concerns  the  subjects 


[Monday, 


of  those  countries.  I have  been  discussing  the 
American  interpretation  of  international  law 
on  this  subject;  not  modifications  of  it  by  spe- 
cial treaty  stipulations.  Those  treaties"  were 
made  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  what  was 
evidently  becoming  to  be  a very  threatening 
cause  of  disturbance  between  the  United  States 
and  these  several  governments,  arising  out  of 
the  fact  of  the  enormous  levies  for  foreign 
armies,  and  the  escape  of  foreign  subjects,  after 
being  drafted  or  enrolled,  to  this  country,  for 
the  purpose  of  avoiding  such  service;  and 
these  treaties  were  made  to  reconcile  the  differ- 
ences of  opinion  of  the  two  governments  upon 
the  subject.  In  them,  we  yielded  the  point  that 
when  a man  was  called  upon,  in  any  manner, 
for  military  service,  and  then  left  his  own 
country,  and  became  a citizen  of  this  country,  if 
he  ever  went  back  to  his  fatherland,  that  service 
might  be  exacted  of  him. 

Here  the  hammer  fell,  but  by  leave  of  the 
Convention  the  gentleman  was  allowed  to  pro- 
ceed. 

Mr.  EWING.  I will  impose  upon  the  indul- 
gence of  the  Convention  but  a few  minutes 
longer. 

We  made  that  concession  because  of  the  coun- 
ter concession  made  in  these  treaties,  to-wit; 
that  those  governments  surrendered  the  claim 
of  perpetual  allegiance,  and  assented  to  our  de- 
mand, to  this  extent,  that  after  the  complete 
naturalization  of  one  of  their  subjects  in  the 
United  States,  he  should  not  be  held  thenceforth 
to  allegiance  as  a foreign  subject.  It  was  a con- 
cession upon  both  sides,  with  no  surrender  of 
principles,  further  than  was  expressly  declared ; 
and  that  surrender  does  not  involve  the  prin- 
ciple that  we  have  been  contending  for  here. 

But  this  is  a discussion  beyond  the  real  merits 
of  the  question  before  us.  The  point  was  just 
this : gentlemen  said,  “ Why  do  you  propose  to 
give  the  suffrage  to  foreigners  until  they  may 
be  compelled  to  do  military  duty  the  same  as 
American  citizens?”  That  was  the  question, 
and  it  was  met  by  the  answer  that,  whenever  a 
foreigner  comes  to  this  country  with  the  inten- 
tion of  making  his  permanent  residence  here,  and 
manifests  that  intention  by  the  solemn  act  of  a 
declaration  of  intention  to  become  a citizen, 
thenceforth  he  is  sutyect  to  the  military  laws  of 
the  United  States,  and  may  be  drafted  for  mili- 
tary service.  This  is  incontrovertible,  and  is  evi- 
denced by  the  fact  that  the  law  upon  our  statute 
books  regulating  the  manner  of  drafting  in- 
cludes among  the  persons  who  are  subject  to 
draft  all  foreigners  who  have  declared  their  in- 
tention to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
That  is  the  point,  and  this  Koszta  case  was  a 
mere  illustration,  about  which  we  have  been 
having  a long  discussion,  exhausting,  I have 
no  doubt,  the  patience  of  members  of  the  Con- 
vention. I take  my  share  of  the  blame  for  the 
discussion.  Whatever  the  merits  of  that  case, 
the  point  remains  true,  that  the  United  States 
may  and  does  require  military  service  of  every 
one  of  those  unnaturalized  citizens  who  have 
made  declarations  of  intention,  and  to  whom 
the  section  reported  by  the  Committee  proposes 
to  extend  suffrage  in  Ohio. 

The  gentleman  cites  our  own  article  on  the 
militia  of  the  State,  and  says  that  that  does  not 
include  the  requirement  of  militia  service.  I 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Baber,  Gurley. 


1911 


Day.] 

March  9, 1874.1 


remind  gentlemen  of  the  fact  that  when  the 
Article  on  the  Militia  was  up  the  gentleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  moved  an  amendment  to 
include  among  those  subject  to  militia  service 
foreigners  who  had  declared  their  intention  to 
become  citizens,  and  it  was  then  suggested  that 
if  we  should,  in  accordance  with  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  then  made,  extend  to  such  for- 
eigners the  suffrage,  that  amendment  might 
then  be  made  without  objection,  but  that  unless 
we  did  so,  it  was  perhaps  best  not  to  make  it. 

The  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle] 
seems  t|0  think  that  there  must  be  some  secret, 
dangerous  power  lying  behind  this  movement 
to  give  the  suffrage  to  foreigners  who  have  only 
resided  here  a year  and  declared  their  intention 
to  become  citizens.  I think  not.  I do  not 
know  of  any  dangerous  power  that  has  set  the 
ball  in  motion.  It  is  true  the  Republican  party 
of  the  State  of  Ohio  passed  a resolution  at  its 
last  State  Convention  demanding  that  the  natu- 
ralization laws  of  the  United  States  should  be 
so  amended  as  to  give  suffrage  and  every  immu- 
nity of  American  citizenship  to  foreigners  in 
one  year  after  the  filing  of  their  declaration  of 
intention  to  become  citizens.  But  I do  not 
think  that  party  is  at  present  a very  dangerous 
power.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  even  power 
enough  to  induce  as  many  as  half  a dozen  of  its 
fifty-five  members  in  this  Convention  to  adhere 
to  its  policy  on  this  subject  declared  so  unani- 
mously and  enthusiastically  by  its  last  State 
Convention  preparatory  to  the  fall  campaign. 

The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  and 
the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  see  in  this 
movement  something  that  will  inflame  to  mad- 
ness the  passions  of  the  people  of  Ohio.  Why, 
Mr.  President,  if  we  insert  this  Article  in  the 
Constitution,  and  the  people  of  Ohio  adopt  the 
Constitution,  who  is  going  to  rebel  ? Who  will 
make  war  against  the  decision  of  the  sovereign 
people  of  the  State?  There  is  no  apparent 
prospect  of  bloodshed  growing  out  of  this 
clause;  and  the  implied  threat  that  if  it  be  in- 
serted there  will  be  some  terrible  deeds  done  in 
revenge  for  it  is  rather  a feeble  argument 
against  the  Proposition.  The  intimation  is  that 
it  will  revive  the  old  party  which,  under  John 
Adams,  made  war  on  the  aliens,  and  was  itself 
promptly  trampled  under  foot  by  the  American 
people;  which  again,  in  1842,  made  war  upon 
them,  and  was  put  down  again ; and  which,  ip 
1854,  once  more  made  war  upon  them,  and  was 
again  put  down — put  down  by  the  good  sense  of 
the  great  mass  of  American  people,  irrespective 
of  politics  or  religion.  The  deeds  of  the  party 
which,  during  those  three  historic  eras,  at- 
tempted to  stamp  its  peculiar  views  respecting 
the  privileges  which  may  be  given  to  foreigners, 
upon  the  policy  of  the  United  States,  are  not 
such  as  are  recollected  with  especial  pride,  and 
its  successes  were  not  so  signal  or  enduring  as 
to  induce  great  masses  of  men  to  emulate  its 
example. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  propose  to  detain  the 
Convention  but  a very  short  time,  because  the 
ground  has  already  been  gone  over  very  fully. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Has  not  the  gentleman  spo- 
ken already  upon  this  subject? 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  not  spoken  to  the 
amendment.  The  gentleman  from  Morrow 


[Mr.  Gurley]  is  very  fond  of  picking  me  out 
for  interruption  in  a personal  way. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I think  the  gentleman  has 
spoken  before  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  speaking  upon  the  amend- 
ment now,  Mr.  President.  I do  not  know  what 
is  the  reason  why  certain  gentlemen  take  pleas- 
ure in  making  exhibitions  of  their  want  of  po- 
liteness on  this  floor.  But  as  I was  about  to 
remark,  the  points  I wish  to  reply  to  are  certain 
suggestions  that  have  been  made,  because  I see 
that  my  colleague  [Mr.  Rickly],  who  originally 
introduced  this  Proposition  is  now  present,  and 
I presume  if  he  had  had  any  idea  on  the  22d  of 
May  last,  when  he  introduced  this  Proposition 
in  conformity  with  what  appeared  to  be  the 
current  of  a public  sentiment  of  liberality  upon 
this  question  of  conferring  the  suffrage  upon 
foreigners,  that  the  sentiment  of  some  in  the 
Convention  was  so  bitter,  he  might  hesitated. 
I do  not  believe  this  Convention  would  have 
been  so  much  disturbed  upon  the  matter  by  him. 
It  turns  out  that  this  show  of  liberality  was  in- 
tended, perhaps,  for  effect,  published  by  the 
State  Convention  of  May  21st.  It  seems  to  me 
that,  in  addition  to  a great  deal  of  bad  feeling 
having  been  displayed  in  the  course  of  this  dis- 
cussion, we  have  had  a very  large  amount  of 
know-nothing  law,  and  that  gentlemen  have 
argued  questions  here  which  are  settled  by  the 
express  terms  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  questions  which  can  be  answered  by 
simply  referring  to  the  instrument  itself.  My 
friend  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  a non- 
professional man,  went  on  to  argue  this  morn- 
ing that  if  this  provision  conferring  the  right 
of  suffrage  upon  foreigners,  upon  declaration  of 
intention  to  become  a citizen,  was  inserted  in 
the  Constitution,  such  foreigners  could  vote  for 
State  and  county  offices,  but  not  the  office  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  or  perhaps  mem- 
bers of  Congress.  That  is  a distinction  which  I 
do  not  think  any  lawyer  would  have  made,  and 
when  I endeavored  to  correct  him  lie  referred 
to  the  opinion  of  the  distinguished  chairman  of 
the  Judiciary  Committee  [Mr.  Andrews].  I do 
not  believe  that  the  chairman  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee  had  very  thoroughly  considered  the 
facts,  because  if  he  had  read  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  he  would  have  found  the  qual- 
ification for  electors  for  members  of  Congress  and 
for  President  of  the  United  States  shall  be  the 
same  as  that  for  electors  voting  for  the  most  nu- 
merous branch  of  the  State  Legislature,  and  that 
matter  is  regulated  by  the  Constitution  and  laws 
of  each  State.  Especially  was  the  illustration 
very  unfortunate  in  applying  this  distinction 
to  the  election  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  because  that  matter,  more  exclusively 
than  anything  else,  is  under  the  direction  of  the 
States  themselves.  The  States  may  refuse  to 
allow  popular  elections  for  President.  They 
may  say  that  the  Presidential  electors  shall  be 
chosen  by  the  Legislature.  The  distinction, 
therefore,  which  the  gentleman  took  with  regard 
to  the  election  for  President  was  peculiarly  un- 
fortunate, because  there  is  no  question  whatso- 
ever of  the  supreme  power  of  the  State  to  qual- 
ify such  voters  as  they  please  in  their  elections. 

I do  not  propose  to  go  over  the  argument, 
which  has  been  so  thoroughly  elaborated  here, 
that  citizenship  of  a State  and  citizenship  of 


1912 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Campbell,  Baber. 


[133rd 

[Monday, 


the  United  States  are  two  different  things,  and 
that  in  the  old  States  of  Virginia  and  Vermont 
aliens  were  allowed  to  vote  as  citizens  of  the 
State ; but  I want  to  say,  in  reply  to  the  sug- 
gestion of  my  friend  from  Butler  [Mr.  Camp- 
bell] whether,  if  persons  upon  a mere  declara- 
tion of  intention  are  allowed  to  vote,  it  will  not 
let  in  the  Chinese,  the  Japanese,  and  every  body 
else,  that  I will  simply  refer  him  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  fifteenth  amendment.  The  gen- 
tleman claims  that,  by  virtue  of  the  provisions 
of  the  fifteenth  amendment,  these  could  come 
in  and  vote,  and  that  the  State  could  not  make 
any  distinction.  I wish  to  read  the  fifteenth 
amendment.  I glory  in  the  fact  that  I voted 
against  that  amendment  in  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  but  it  is  not  so  bad  as  the 
gentleman  represents  it  to  be.  The  fifteenth 
amendment  reads:  “The  right  of  citizens  of 
the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or 
abridged  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any  State, 
on  account  of  race,  color  or  previous  condition 
of  servitude.”  Now,  I would  like  to  know  how 
these  Japanese,  Chinese  and  others  can  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  until  they  are 
finally  naturalized?  It  is  admitted  now  that 
that  cannot  be  done  under  the  law,  and  I would 
like  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell] 
to  answer  how  they  are  to  become  citizens  of 
the  United  States.  The  argument,  I think,  is 
not  applicable. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  the  gentleman  refers 
to  me,  I do  not  have  the  distinguished  honor  of 
representing  the  great  county  of  Hamilton.  I 
am  one  of  the  “ rural  roosters.” 

Mr.  BABER.  I supposed  the  city  of  Hamil- 
ton in  the  county  of  Butler,  producing  such 
great  men,  was  fully  as  great  as  the  great 
county  of  Hamilton. 

It  appears  to  me,  then,  that  provision  of  the 
Constitution  expressly  and  fully  answers  the 
argument  offered  by  these  gentlemen,  is  based 
upon  this  question  of  law.  The  question, 
therefore,  is  simply  a question  of  expediency, 
and  I do  not  propose  to  go  over,  at  length,  the 
argument  that  we  are  not  doing  any  monstrous 
or  terrible  thing.  We  are  simply  providing 
that  in  the  State  of  Ohio  the  same  class  of  per- 
sons shall  vote  as  are  allowed  to  vote  in  the 
State  of  Indiana,  the  State  of  Michigan,  the 
State  of  Kansas,  and  with  the  exception  of  the 
States  of  Illinois  and  Iowa,  through  all  the 
territory  stretching  to  the  west  of  us,  to  the 
shores  of  the  great  Pacific.  What  is  this  pro- 
vision of  the  Constitution  which  these  gentle- 
men so  much  denounce?  It  is  the  provision 
found  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Mis- 
souri. It  reads: 

Every  male  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  every  male 
person  of  foreign  birth,  who  mav  have  declared  his  in- 
tention to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States,  accord- 
ing to  law,  not  less  than  one  nor  more  than  five  years 
before  he  offers  to  vote,  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years, 
who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the  State  one  year  next 
preceding  the  election,  and  of  the  county,  township,  or 
ward  in  which  he  resides,  such  timea^  may  be  provided 
by  law,  shall  have  the  qualifications  of  an  elector  and  be 
entitled  to  vote  at  all  elections. 

In  other  words,  this  provision  requires  more 
than  is  required  by  the  provisions  which  exist 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Indiana. 
Indiana  allows  foreign  residents  of  six  months 
to  vote  on  a mere  declaration  of  intention  to 
become  citizens  and  voters  in  the  State.  The 


Missouri  Constitution  contains  a provision  that 
if  they  do  not  take  out  their  final  papers  at  the 
end  of  five  years  they  lose  their  privilege.  This 
encourages  naturalization,  and  is  no  interfer- 
ence with  the  naturalization  laws  of  the  United 
States. 

I see  no  reason  for  all  this  excitement  on  the 
part  of  my  friends  upon  this  question,  unless  it 
be  that  there  is  left  a little  of  the  “Old  Adam” 
of  Know-Nothingism  that  worked  in  1854.  The 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West"],  undertook 
to  insinuate  that  I had  a little  of  that  “Old 
Adam”  in  myself.  Not  a bit  of  it.  When,  by 
the  combined  opposition  to  the  Democratic 
party,  the  proposition  was  made  to  extend  the 
term  of  probation  for  naturalization,  the  gen- 
tleman is  well  aware  that  the  friends  of  Sew- 
ard, Chase  and  Lincoln,  and  all  that  class  of 
men  in  opposition  to  the  Democracy,  opposed 
this  coalition  with  Know-Nothingism.  To 
overcome  this  outcry  about  foreigners,  they 
proposed  an  amendment  which  was  to  prevent 
fraud.  They  proposed  that  the  term  should  still 
remain  five  years,  and  should  not  be  extended, 
but  that  there  should  be  only  one  paper  taken 
out,  and  that  paper  should  be  taken  out  at  the 
end  of  three  years,  the  holder  being  qualified 
to  vote  two  years  after  that  by  amendments  to 
the  State  Constitution.  This  was  done  to  pre- 
vent fraud,  just  exactly  as  this  provision  con- 
ferring the  right  of  suffrage  upon  a declaration 
of  intention  would  prevent  fraud  in  the  State  of 
Ohio,  and  to  do  away  with  this  complaint  of 
fraudulent  naturalization,  and  false  swearing  as 
to  length  of  residence ; because  when  the  party 
presented  his  paper,  it  would  show  upon  its  face 
the  date  of  the  declaration  of  intention, and  would 
establish  the  fact,  independently  of  anything 
else,  that  the  holder  had  been  in  the  State  over 
one  year.  I say,  therefore,  that  it  was  against 
fraud  in  the  .elections  that  I contended,  and  that 
I never  assented  to  the  persecution  of  men  on 
account  of  their  religion  or  birth.  But  it  does 
appear  to  me  that  there  are  some  gentlemen  in 
this  hall  who  were  exceedingly  anxious  to 
throw  down  all  barriers,  and  who  confess  in 
this  very  hall  that,  they  admitted,  very  lately, 
more  than  a million  of  black  barbarians,  unfit 
to  vote,  as  they  said  themselves,  to  the 
right  of  suffrage  for  the  purpose  of  sav- 
ing the  Union.  But  now,  when  it  is  pro- 
posed to  put  upon  an  equal  footing  the  intelli- 
gent foreigner,  the  man  who  has  not  been  for 
ages  in  slavery,  you  will  find  these  gentlemen 
in  the  opposition,  because  the  color  of  the  man 
happens  to  be  white.  Why  ? Because  the 
great  moneyed  power  of  the  country,  the  power 
which  is  to  govern  the  country  by  corruption, 
think  that  this  servile  race  can  be  used — these 
Asiatics  or  Africans  can  be  used — to  vote,  as 
they  have  always  been,  under  the  direction  of 
their  chiefs.  They  know  that  the  honest  Ger- 
man citizen,  and  other  foreigners,  who  poured 
into  this  country  of  their  own  free  will,  and  not 
as  transported  slaves,  cannot  be  controlled  in 
this  way.  That  is  the  reason  that  these  gentle- 
men are  so  exceedingly  anxious  to  cut  off  every 
white  man  from  voting  who  does  not  vote  their 
ticket;  but  they  are  willing  to  admit  everybody 
else  whom  they  think  that,  by  any  inducement, 
they  can  prevail  upon  to  do  so,  either  by  force 
or  fraudulent  pretenses. 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Campbell,  Sample,  Kraemer,  Tuttle. 


1913 


March  9, 1874.] 


Pardon  me,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  for 
having  made  allusion  to  the  political  aspect  of 
the  case.  I have  done  so  on  account  of  the  as- 
sault made  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West].  I thank  the  Convention  for  the  atten- 
tion they  have  given  me. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I certainly  do  not  desire 
to  speak  at  any  great  length,  for  various  rea- 
sons, but  principally  because  I think  the  sub- 
ject has  been  amply  and  fully  discussed.  I de- 
sire to  make  one  remark  in  regaird  to  part  of 
the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber],  which  is  the  first  response  that  I 
have  heard  to  the  proposition  I laid  down  in 
opening  the  discussion.  That  proposition  was 
that  if  the  first  section  of  the  Report,  as  propos- 
ed by  the  Committee  on  Elective  Franchise, 
should  be  adopted,  it  would  enfranchise  the 
African,  the  Ashantee,  the  Chinaman,  the  Japa- 
nese, the  Australian,  etc.,  who  should  come 
here  and  declare  his  intention  of  becoming  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States.  I repeat  that  prop- 
osition, without  any  reference  to  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  further  than  that  I have  already 
made.  I call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to 
the  particular  phraseology  of  the  Report  as  it 
stands : 

“Every  male  citizen  of  the  United  States  ” — 
now  come  the  words  which  I propose  to  strike 
out — “and  every  male  person  of  foreign  birth, 
who  may  have  declared  his  intention,”  &c., 
shall  become  a voter.  Now,  if  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  or  any  other  gen- 
tleman of  the  legal  profession,  will  prove  to  me 
that  the  Ashantee,  and  the  African,  and  the 
Chinaman,  and  the  Japanese,  and  the  Australi- 
an, are  not  “male  persons  of  foreign  birth,” 
then  they  have  the  point  against  me ; but  if  they 
are  males  of  foreign  birth,  and  this  provision  be 
adopted,  and  come  into  Ohio  and  declare  their 
intention  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  why  do  they  not  become  enfranchised? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Yes,  certainly;  but  be 
brief,  as  I am  about  to  stop  right  off. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Are  these  parties  entitled  to 
the  privileges  and  benefits  of  the  naturalization 
laws ; and,  under  that  law,  are  they  required 
only  to  file  a simple  certificate  of  intention  in 
order  to  become  citizens,  and  be  entitled  to 
vote  ? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  African,  certainly, 
would  be  so  entitled,  beyond  a doubt — even  the 
wildest  specimen  you  might  bring  fresh  from 
the  jungles  of  Africa — because  the  law  of  Con- 
gress contains  a special  provision  for  him,  as  I 
explained  the  other  evening — not  interpolated 
in  the  law  itself,  but  passed  in  connection  with 
an  appropriation  bill — by  which  it  is  declared 
that  the  African  may  be  entitled  to  the  benefits 
of  the  naturalization  law.  All  the  others,  if 
Congress  should,  as  they  may  do  at  any  time, 
abrogate  the  word  “white”  in  the  naturalization 
laws,  would,  beyond  doubt,  be  entitled  to 
naturalization.  Nobody  can  controvert  the 
proposition.  I say,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
wildest  specimen  of  benighted  Africa,  if  brought 
here,  could,  upon  a declaration  of  his  intention 
to  become  a citizen,  be  entitled  to  vote  and  hold 
office  within  one  year,  if  this  first  section  should 
be  adopted.  And  now,  Mr.  President,  I hope 


that  we  may  take  a vote,  and  dispose  of  this  first 
section,  and  proceed  to  the  other  important 
sections  of  this  Article. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I cannot  forbear  to  utter  a 
few  more  remarks  upon  this  subject.  In  the 
first  place,  I must  thank  gentlemen  on  the  one 
side  very  cordially  for  the  assistance  they  have 
given  me  in  the  argument  of  this  question,  and 
I am  also  under  obligations  to  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  for  the  compliments  they  have  passed 
upon  foreigners.  Like  the  ladies,  however,  we 
have  received  plenty  of  compliments,  but  very 
little  encouragement  from  that  side.  For  all 
the  ills  which  gentlemen  of  the  opposite  side 
suppose  this  proposition,  if  adopted,  will  en- 
tail upon  the  State,  they  propose  to  administer 
a conservative  pill,  and  have  sugar-coated  it 
well. 

Now,  let  me  look  for  one  moment  at  the  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle].  That  gentleman  asserts  that  he  will 
be  like  the  men  of  Thermopylae,  who  stood  in 
the  gap  to  defend  the  rights  of  their  country. 
But  let  us  refer  to  what  was  done  by  the  Con- 
vention of  1851.  From  the  report  of  the  debates 
of  that  Convention,  we  find  that  there  were 
three  propositions  before  that  body,  and  before 
the  Committee  on  Elective  Franchise.  There 
were  petitions  presented  to  admit  the  African 
to  the  right  of  suffrage ; there  were  resolutions 
passed  to  inquire  whether  it  was  expedient  to 
incorporate  into  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Ohio 
the  very  provision  which  we  have  here  under 
discussion  now ; and  there  were  also  petitions 
for  female  suffrage.  The  gentleman  from  Trum- 
bull [Mr.  Tuttle]  has  succeeded  in  getting  the 
vote  for  the  negroes,  but  he  is  opposed  to  con- 
ferring the  same  right  on  his  white  sisters  and 
his  white  brothers,  though  he  is  willing  to  give 
it  to  a brother  who  comes,  perhaps  from  Ashan- 
tee, he  denies  it  to  his  white  brother  who  comes 
across  the  ocean,  whence  his  own  grandfather 
came.  It  is  only  a distinction  of  time,  not 
a distinction  of  race. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a remark. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  With  great  pleasure. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  gentleman  suggests  that 
what  I referred  to  was  the  action  of  that  Con- 
vention on  the  subject  of  the  distinction  of 
white  and  negro  suffrage.  The  gentleman  is 
in  error  in  regard  to  that. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I will  read  the  whole  of  it 
to  you  if  there  is  the  least  doubt  about  it, 
though  I have  but  ten  minutes  to  speak  in. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  On  page  555  of  the  Conven- 
tion Debates,  Yol.  II,  I find  : 

“Mr.  Taylor  moved  to  further  amend  the  Report  by 
adding:  as  an  additional  section  the  following: 

“Sec.  7.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power  to 
extend  the  right  of  suffrage  to  inhabitants  of  this  State, 
not  hereby  qualified  as  eleetors.” 

That  was  the  proposition  under  which  that 
vote  was  taken. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I will  read  now,  for  the  in- 
formation of  the  gentleman,  the  subject  as  I 
understand  it.  On  motion  of  Mr.  Loudon,  it 
was 

“ Resolved , That  the  Committee  on  the  Elective  Fran- 
chise be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  en- 
grafting a clause  into  the  Constitution  more  effectually  to 
prevent  the  emigration  of  negroes  and  mulattoes  within 
the  territory  of  this  State.”  (Debates,  p.  69,  Vol.  I.) 


1914 


[133rd 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Tuttle,  Kraemer.  [Monday, 


That  was  the  first  resolution. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  That  was  not  what  I read. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  The  gentleman  does  not 
want  that,  of  course.  The  second  resolution 
by  Mr.  Orton,  reads : 

“ Resolved , That  the  Committee  on  Elective  Franchise 
be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  conferring 
the  right  of  suffrage  upon  foreigners  who  shall  have  re- 
sided in  the  State  of  Ohio  one  year,  and  have  taken  the 
oath  of  allegiance.” 

These  were  the  three  subjects  that  were  sub- 
mitted to  the  Committee.  Well,  in  February, 
when  the  Convention  was  in  session  at  Cincinnati, 
Mr.  Reemelin  made  some  remarks.  He  had  some 
sympathy  with  the  foreigners  at  that  time,  and 
desired  to  advocate  their  cause;  but  his  constit- 
uency at  Cincinnati  had  instructed  him  to  go 
against  the  negro,  and  for  the  sole  purpose  to 
keep  out  the  negro,  the  old  anti-negro  Democ- 
racy and  the  Know-Nothings  shook  hands  and 
shut  out  the  white  man  and  woman  also.  I re- 
gret that  I cannot  read  all  that  was  said  upon 
this  subject.  I will  read  one  sentence,  howev- 
er, from  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Humphreville : 
“The  framers  of  the  old  Constitution  in  Ohio 
were  more  liberal  upon  this  matter  than  the 
members  of  this  Convention.  The  former  Con- 
vention voted  to  authorize  negroes  then  in  the 
State  to  enjoy  the  right  of  suffrage.  To  be 
sure,  the  vote  was  reconsidered ; but  upon  the 
final  vote  which  defeated  the  clause,  there  was 
only  a majority  of  five  against  it.  We  are  pro- 
gressing then,  it  seems,  in  the  cause  of  human 
liberty,  but  we  are  progressing  in  the  wrong 
way.”  And  your  present  proposition  is  a pro- 
gress in  the  same  direction. 

However,  the  vote  was  afterwards  given  to 
the  negro  by  Congre?s,but  you  are  going  to  cut 
it  off  from  the  white  man  now.  What  is  the 
reason  assigned  ? Because  these  men  come  in- 
to this  country  two  or  three  centuries  later 
than  the  emigrants  who  landed  upon  Plymouth 
Rock,  who  taught  you  the  first  lessons  in  Re- 
publican virtues  and  Republican  government. 
They  were  emigrants  also. 


act  without  disavowing  the  act  of  Englisson,  or 
disavowing  every  other  act  and  principle  which 
they  had  maintained  from  the  war  of  Indepen- 
dence to  the  war  of  1812. 

Now,  this  doctrine,  “Once  a subject,  always 
a subject,”  which  has  been  so  strongly  main- 
tained by  European  governments  and  tyrants, 
is  the  same  doctrine  that  was  maintained  by  the 
Southern  slaveholder.  It  was  held  that  a man 
would  not  expatriate  himself  by  his  own  act. 
The  American  government  has  always  denied 
that  principle.  They  have  said  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  that  all  men  are  born  free 
and  equal;  and  in  their  naturalization  laws 
they  say  that  a man  who  comes  to  this  country 
and  takes  the  oath  of  allegiance,  thus  abjuring 
all  allegiance  to  any  foreign  prince  or  potentate, 
shall  be  protected  by  the  American  banner; 
and  he  has  been  protected.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  half  way  allegiance,  and  if  any  such 
power  has  ever  been  exercised  it  has  been  ex- 
ercised upon  the  principle  that  might  makes 
right.  Would  the  American  government  for 
one  moment  entertain  from  any  European  pow- 
er a demand,  and  deliver  up  any  of  its  citizens 
domiciled  here  so  as  to  render  military  service 
to  their  former  country,  whether  they  had 
taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  or  not?  If  the  for- 
eigners who  served  in  our  armies  during  the 
late  war  had  been  claimed  by  the  European 
government  on  account  of  allegiance  due  that 
country,  would  this  government  have  acknowl- 
edged such  claims  ? Certainly  not.  Then  upon 
what  is  the  assertion  based  that  a man  that  has 
taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  this  country  still 
owes  allegiance  to  another  sovereign?  Must 
he,  forsooth,  perjure  himself  under  the  Ameri- 
ican  laws,  and  render  allegiance  to  the  sover- 
eign whom  he  has  sworn  forever  to  renounce? 

One  word  in  reply  to  the  remarks  made  by 
the  gentlemen  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Jackson], 
and  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]. 

Here  the  hammer  fell,  but  by  leave  of  the 
Convention  the  gentleman  was  allowed  to  pro- 
ceed. 


To  return  to  the  Koszta  affair.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  appeals  made  by  the  reading  of  docu- 
ments before  this  Convention,  the  whole  of  the 
protection  that  Koszta  ever  enjoyed  were  his 
certificate  of  declaration  to  become  a citizen, 
and  his  consular  passport  paper  in  his  pocket. 
He  was  not  actually  at  the  consulate,  under  the 
national  flag.  It  is  a fact,  though  it  does  not 
appear  from  the  documents  read,  but  I recollect 
it  distinctly,  that  he  was  asleep  in  bed  at  a hotel 
when  the  minions  of  Austria  seized  him,  dragged 
him  forth  and  put  him  upon  an  Austrian  man- 
of-war,  and  upon  the  authority  of  those  papers 
alone  he  was  rescued  and  protected  by  the 
American  government.  But  it  was  different 
with  Slidell  and  Mason.  They  were  upon  the 
deck  of  a British  vessel.  They  had  no  paper 
protection  from  the  government,  or  from  any 
recognized  government,  but  they  were  under 
the  British  flag  and  on  the  deck  of  a British 
vessel,  constructively,  upon  British  soil;  and 
the  American  commander  in  thus  violating  the 
rights  of  British  territory,  did  the  same  thing 
that  the  Austrian  commander  did  when  he  took 
Koszta.  In  taking  them  he  violated  the  Amer- 
can  principle  of  the  non-right  of  search,  and 
the  American  government  could  not  justify  that 


Mr.  KRAEMER.  These  gentlemen  have  ad- 
verted to  the  accident  of  a foreigner’s  arrival  in 
this  country.  There  never  was  an  accidental 
emigration.  It  is  the  accident  of  birth  that 
brought  the  gentlemen  here.  For  all  that  they 
had  to  do  with  their  coming  into  this  country 
their  lot  might  have  been  cast  in  Kamschatka  or 
Polynesia,  and  we  should  not  have  the  benefit 
of  their  presence  here  to-day.  It  is  the  merit 
of  their  forefathers  that  brought  them  here — 
the  hardy  emigrants  who  braved  the  stormy 
ocean,  settled  here,  founded  a home  for  them, 
and  gave  them  the  liberal  education  which  they 
now  enjoy.  Far  be  it  from  me  that  I should 
impute  any  wrong  motives  to  gentlemen  of 
American  birth.  All  that  we  claim  is,  that 
liberty  is  guaranteed  in  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence, which  says,  that  all  men  are  born 
free. 

It  has  also  been  said  that  there  will  be  an 
error  in  our  Constitution,  if  this  Proposition  is 
adopted.  At  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman 
j from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  it  has  been  pro- 
posed to  be  amended.  But  I say  that  if  this 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr. 

| Campbell]  is  adopted,  then  we  must  have 
another  amendment  in  our  Bill  of  Rights.  I 


DatJ CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE.  1915 

March  9, 1874.]  West,  Kraemer,  Rollins,  Foran. 


will  read : “ All  political  power  is  inherent  in 
the  people.  Government  is  instituted  for  their 
equal  protection  and  benefit,  and  they  have  the 
right  to  alter,  reform,  or  abolish  the  same, 
whenever  they  deem  it  necessary.”  Now, 
gentlemen,  if  that  amendment  is  adopted,  we 
must  strike  out  the  word  “people”  from  the 
second  section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  insert 
the  words,  “ citizens  of  the  United  States  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age,”  for  it  is  only  these 
for  whose  benefit  that  government  will  be  in- 
stituted, and  who  will  have  the  right  to  alter, 
reform,  or  abolish  their  form  of  government. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  for  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  With  pleasure. 

Mr.  WEST.  Why,  then,  should  you  not  ex- 
tend the  right  of  suffrage  to  every  man  the 
moment  he  lands  upon  our  shores.  If  you  say 
“ people,”  why  not  include  all  ? 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  Because  the  men  who  land 
upon  these  shores  do  not  ask  any  preference 
over  the  native  of  the  State.  They  must  be 
subject  to  the  same  law  as  every  citizen  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  who  must  be  domiciled  in  the 
State  a year.  We  do  not  ask  for  any  preference. 

Mr.  WEST.  When  you  require  a year’s  resi- 
dence, you  exclude  so  many  people,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  We  ask  what  every  citizen 
of  Ohio  enjoys  and  no  more,  the  ballot ! inesti- 
mable to  freeman,  formidable  to  tyrants  only ! 

Now,  I have  been  unable  to  learn  what  the 
attributes  of  the  citizen  of  the  United  States 
consist  in.  I have  in  vain  sought  through  the 
laws  to  find  out  its  definition,  but  only  learned 
that  the  citizenship  does  not  confer  the  elective 
franchise  upon  them.  It  does  not  make  them 
voters  in  any  one  State,  unless  they  comply 
with  the  laws  of  the  State.  It  affirms  that  they 
have  the  right  to  he  masters  of  vessels,  and  per- 
mits them  to  he  pilots  and  hold  positions  in  the 
navy,  and  office  under  the  United  States  gov- 
ernment. But  a foreigner,  who  has  never  de- 
clared his  intention  of  becoming  a citizen,  is 
not  prevented  from  holding  a commission  in  the 
army  of  the  United  States.  Among  the  very 
first  acts  done  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  during  the  War  of  Independence,  was  to 
confer  commissions  in  the  army  upon  foreign- 
ers without  citizenship,  and  afterwards,  for  em- 
inent services  rendered,  citizenship  was  con- 
ferred. In  the  act  passed  by  Congress  in  1862, 
the  very  fact  that  citizenship  was  conferred 
upon  men  who  were  not  naturalized,  and  had 
not  declared  their  intention  of  becoming  natur- 
alized, acknowledges  the  fact  that  they  were 
worthy  of  it. 

I will  read  once  more  from  the  Debates  of  the 
Convention,  and  this  time  from  the  remarks  of 
Mr.  Townshend;  and  though  I must  confess 
that  they  were  not  made  in  support  of  the  claims 
of  the  white  brother,  I cannot  perceive  any  dis- 
tinction based  upon  color  between  the  rights  of 
persons  to  take  part  in  the  affairs  of  govern- 
ments. Mr.  Townshend  says : 

“To  attempt  to  govern  men  without  seeking  their  con- 
sent is  usurpation  and  tyranny,  whether  in  Ohio  or  Aus- 
tria. There  is  a portion  of  the  people  of  this  State  who 
have  the  same  right  to  stand  upon  this  part  of  God’s 
earth,  and  to  breathe  this  free  air,  that  you  or  I have,  and 
yet  you  seek  to  impose  a government  upon  them  without 
consulting  them.  I can  only  say  that  they  are  under  no 
obligation  to  obey  your  laws,  or  to  submit  to  your  author- 


ity. You  burden  them  with  taxation  without  represen- 
tation, and  thus  inflict  upon  them  the  identical  wrong 
for  which  the  thirteen  united  colonies  threw  off  the  yoke 
of  the  mother  country.  To  establish  a government  over 
them  not  based  on  their  consent;  to  subject  them  to  laws 
they  have  had  no  voice  in  framing ; to  tax  them  while  you 
deny  them  representation  is  clearly  and  manifestly  un- 
just; and  I might  stop  here  without  urging  any  further 
objections  to  the  Report,  for  with  governments  there 
should  be  really  but  one  inquiry— what  is  just?” 

This,  gentleman  of  the  Convention,  was  said 
in  defense  of  the  black  man.  Can  any  gentle- 
man tell  me  why  it  does  not  apply  to  the  white 
man  ? Is  it  because  they  were  born  in  a country 
where  all  your  ancestors  were  born  ? It  has 
been  said  that  many  foreigners  do  not  speak  the 
English  language  and  cannot  understand  our 
laws.  Gentlemen,  that  assertion  was  made 
simply  because  the  gentleman  who  made  it 
probably  did  not  understand  any  other  lan- 
guage, for  if  he  did  he  would  have  learned  that 
the  word  liberty  exists  in  other  languages.  He 
would  have  found  freedom  proclaimed- in  every 
tongue  of  civilization.  It  is  not  confined  to 
the  English  language  alone.  Centuries  before 
this  country  was  discovered  William  Tell  slew 
the  Austrian  minions  in  the  mountains  of  Swit- 
zerland, and  established  a Republic.  Long  ago 
the  Republics  of  the  Hanse  Towns  were  estab- 
lished through  Germany.  Who,  I may  ask, 
liberated  England  from  the  yoke  of  the  Roman 
empire  ? It  was  the  hardy  Germanic  tribes  who 
battled  down  that  empire  and  set  England 
free  ? 

Mr.  ROLLINS,  of  Hamilton.  Was  it  not  the 
weakness  of  the  Roman  empire  ? 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  The  Romans  had  become 
effeminate  from  luxury  and  aristocratic  vices. 
The  hardy  emigrant  will  never  destroy  your 
country’s  liberty.  It  will  rather  be  the  effem- 
inate man  who  goes  to  Europe  and  apes  Euro- 
pean courts,  European  fashions  and  European 
manners,  and  who  hankers  after  power.  By 
these  the  liberties  of  the  country  may  he  threat- 
ened, but  not  by  the  men  who,  like  the  emi- 
grants who  landed  at  the  Rock  of  Plymouth, 
seek  a refuge  from  the  oppressions  of  the  Old 
World. 

Gentlemen,  I thank  you  for  your  attention. 
If  I have  said  anything  to  offend  anyone  in  this 
hall,  I ask  his  pardon,  for  I have  not  intended 
to  be  offensive. 

Mr.  FORAN.  I merely  wish  to  occupy  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  but  a few  minutes, 
for  I intend  to  say  but  little;  the  question  has 
been  so  thoroughly  discussed  that  but  little  re- 
mains to  be  said.  I simply  desire  to  say,  Mr. 
President,  that  if  what  is  here  termed  an  inno- 
vation had  not  been  made  until  made  at  my 
suggestion,  it  certainly  never  would  have  been 
made.  The  matter,  however,  having  come  be- 
fore the  Convention  as  it  has,  I feel  compelled, 
of  course,  to  place  myself  on  record.  I shall 
have  to  vote  either  the  one  way  or  the  other.  I 
look  at  the  question  in  this  broad  light — it  is  not 
a question  concerning  the  history  of  the  Kostza 
case,  or  concerning  the  history  of  the  natural- 
ization laws,  but  a question  which  simply  con- 
cerns the  State  policy  of  Ohio.  May  the  State, 
without  danger  to  her  institutions,  without  dan- 
ger to  her  civil  liberties, be  more  liberal  in  deal- 
ing with  foreigners  or  aliens?  That  is  all  I see 
in  the  question,  and  in  looking  at  that  question, 
I see  it  perhaps  from  a different  stand-point 


1916 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUEFRAGE. 

President,  Herron. 


[133rd 

[Monday, 


from  that  which  has  been  taken  by  those  who 
have  preceded  me.  I believe  that  the  number 
of  foreigners  now  coming  into  our  State  may 
be  easily  assimilated  or  digested — if  I may  use 
the  term — by  the  political  polity  of  the  State ; 
and  I base  this  assertion  upon  figures  which  I 
have  taken  from  the  statistics  of  foreign  immi- 
gration into  the  State.  I see  that  in  1850  there 
were,  in  round  numbers,  218,000  persons  of  for- 
eign birth  in  the  State  of  Ohio;  in  1860  there 
were  328,000,  being  an  increase  of  110,000  in  ten 
years.  Coming  down  to  1870,  we  have  over 

372.000,  being  an  increase  in  ten  years  of  only 

44.000,  or  4,400  each  year,  or  about  900  voters 
per  year.  Now,  here  we  find  that  all  the  for- 
eigners that  come  into  the  State,  give  only  an 
average  increase  to  our  foreign  population  each 
year,  during  the  last  ten  years  of  4,400.  Cer- 
tainly, in  view  of  these  facts,  I apprehend  no 
danger  of  the  State  being  overrun  by  foreigners, 
or  paupers,  or  by  any  other  class  of  adventurers 
from  foreign  lands.  I take  it  also  for  granted, 
that  during  the  next  ten  years  the  number  of 
foreigners  coming  to  the  State  will  decrease  in 
the  same  ratio.  Foreign  emigration  is  setting 
towards  the  West,  and  not  towards  the  State  of 
Ohio ; and  I think  that,  without  any  serious 
trouble,  we  can  easily  assimilate  and  digest  all 
the  foreigners  that  come  into  our  State,  without 
requiring  them  to  remain  five  years  before  they 
are  allowed  to  vote. 

One  word,  Mr.  President,  with  regard  to  the 
Chinese.  I myself  am  in  favor  of  allowing  the 
Chinaman  to  vote,  if  he  comes  here  with 
the  same  intention,  and  in  the  same  manner 
that  the  European  foreigner  comes.  If  he  pays 
his  own  passage  here,  and  comes  here  with  the 
express  understanding  that  he  shall  make  this 
place  his  home,  and  stay  here  for  the  remainder 
of  his  life,  I am  in  favor  of  allowing  him  to 
vote.  As  it  is  at  present,  however,  I am  not  in 
favor  of  conferring  on  him  the  right  of  suf- 
frage. He  is  not  an  emigrant.  He  is  an  im- 
ported limitation  slave,  and  nothing  else.  He 
comes  here  in  American  bottoms,  in  vessels  that 
are  granted  subsidies  by  Congress.  He  is  taken 
in  his  own  country,  and  there  sold,  as  it  were; 
for,  after  he  comes  here,  brought  here  by  a 
Chinese  company,  he  has  to  stay  in  this  country 
a certain  number  of  years  as  the  slave  of  that 
company,  and  he  thus  remains  until  he  pays 
back  his  transportation  money.  For  that  rea- 
son, I am  not  in  favor  of  allowing  these  men 
to  vote;  but,  if  they  come  here  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  European  (as  the  German  or 
Irishman),  I say  they  are  perfectly  at  liberty, 
so  far  as  I am  concerned,  to  vote,  under  the 
same  conditions  required  of  other  foreigners. 
I say,  further,  that,  if  you  would  prevent  the 
importation  of  the  Mongolian  by  the  abrogation 
of  the  Burlingame  treaty,  and  let  these  men 
come  here  of  their  own  volition,  and  upon  their 
own  impulse,  upon  money  earned  in  China  by 
themselves,  you  would  not  be  troubled  with 
them  to  any  considerable  extent.  The  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland]  need  have 
no  fears  on  that  score.  If  the  men  who  wish 
to  crush  out  white  labor,  or  free  labor,  in  this 
country,  will  keep  their  money  in  their  pockets, 
or  put  it  to  some  other  use  than  the  importation 
of  Mongolians,  there  will  never  be  any  danger 
of  this  country  being  overrun  by  them. 


With  regard  to  those  persons  who  come  here 
and  who  do  not  understand  our  language,  and 
are,  for  that  reason,  not  entitled  to  vote  on  such 
a short  term  of  probation,  I have  this  to  say : 
These  men  are  from  Germany.  Certainly  they 
are  not  the  Irish,  English,  Scotch  or  Welsh,  for 
these  do  understand  our  language,  and  very  few 
French  or  other  aliens  come  here.  These  Ger- 
mans who  come  here  can  all  read  and  write. 
Mr.  President,  I have  never  yet  met  a German 
who  could  not  read  and  write.  Coming  to  this 
country  they  immediately  take  and  read  Ger- 
man papers,  and  we  have  in  this  country  as 
good  German  papers,  I believe,  as  are  to  be 
found  in  the  old  country.  Thus  they  have  as 
ample  facilities  for  studying  our  institutions 
and  the  peculiar  policy  of  our  government  as 
those  who  understand  our  language.  I see  no 
trouble  on  that  score  whatever.  If  we  are  to 
make  intelligence  the  standard,  however,  per- 
mit me  to  say  to  the  Convention  that,  by  the 
Federal  statistics  taken  in  1870,  there  were  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  persons  of  ten  years  old  and  up- 
wards who  could  not  write  134,000  natives, 
while  there  were  but  39,000  of  foreign  birth. 
Now,  I think  that  the  preponderance  is  in  favor 
of  the  persons  of  foreign  birth,  and  if  we  are 
to  make  intelligence  the  standard  or  qualifica- 
tion for  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  I 
think  there  is  no  danger  in  conferring  it  upon 
foreigners  who  have  been  here  but  one  year. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  to  the  first  sec- 
tion. 

A call  of  the  House  was  demanded.  Objec- 
tion was  raised,  but  the  demand  was  sustained, 
and  sixty-eight  members  answered  to  their 
names,  as  follows : 

I Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Camp- 
bell, Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Dor- 
sey, Ewing,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene, 
Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Mc- 
Cormick, Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis, Pond,  Rick- 
ly,  Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample, 
Sears,  Shultz,  Steedman,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss, 
Tuttle,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle, 
Watson,  West,  White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hock- 
ing, Young  of  Noble,  President. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I move  that  all  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  to 
amend  section  1,  by  striking  out  the  words  : 

“Every  male  person  of  foreign  birth  who  may  have  de- 
clared his  intention  to  become  a citizen,  according  to  law, 
not  less  than  one,  nor  more  than  five  years,  before  he 
offers  to  vote.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  ordered, 
and  resulted — yeas  39,  nays  29,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Campbell,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer, 
Dorsey,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hor- 
' ton,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller, 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 1917 

March  9,  1874.]  Butler,  Kraemer,  Carbery,  President,  Campbell. 


Neal,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Root,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Townsley,  Tuttle, Van  Yorhis,  Yoris, 
Waddle,  West,  President — 39. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery, 
Ewing,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Hill, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Mil- 
ler, Mitchener,  Okey,  Powell,  Rickly,  Steed- 
man,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Tulloss,  Voorhes,  Wat- 
son, White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hocking,  Young 
of  Noble— 29. 

Mr.  Townsend  was  excused  from  voting, 
having  paired  off  with  Mr.  Hoadly. 

Mr.  Sample  was  also  excused,  having  paired 
off  with  Mr.  Mullen. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  I move  that  the  vote  taken  on 
this  amendment  be  reconsidered,  with  a view  to 
voting  down  the  reconsideration. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I move  that  the  motion  to 
reconsider  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion do  now  adjourn. 

Upon  which  motion  a division  was  called  for, 
and  thirty-one  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirma- 
tive, and  thirty-one  in  the  negative. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  laying  the  motion  to  reconsider  upon  the 
table. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  ordered, 
and  resulted — yeas  30,  nays  38,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Coats,  Ewing,  Foran,  Freiberg,  God- 
frey, Greene,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hunt,  Johnson, 
Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener, 
Okey,  Powell,  Rickly,  Steedman,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Yoorhes,  White  of  Brown,  White  of 
Hocking,  Young  of  Noble— 30. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Campbell,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cook, 
Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Gurley, 
Hale,  Herron,  Horton,  McCormick,  Merrill, 
Miner,  Mueller,  Neal,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sears,  Shultz, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Yan  Yoorhis,  Voris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West, 
President — 38. 

So  the  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table  was  not 
agreed  to. 


Mr.  EWING.  I move  that  the  Convention  do- 
now  adjourn. 

Upon  which  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded,  ordered,  and  resulted — yeas  29, 
nays  39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were : 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Carbery,  Ewing, 
Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride, 
Miller,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Okey,  Rickly,. 
Steedman,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Voorhes,  Waddle, 
White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of 
Noble— 29. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Byal,  Campbell,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  De  Steig- 
uer, Dorsey,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Horton, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  Neal,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Powell,  Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Townsley, 
Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Voris,  Watson, 
West,  President — 39. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  question  recurring  upon  the  motion  ta 
reconsider,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded, 
ordered,  and  resulted — yeas  26,  nays  41,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were, 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Ewing, 
Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Hill,  Hunt, 
Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride,  Miller, 
Mitchener,  Okey,  Rickly,  Steedman,  Smith  of 
Shelby, Tulloss,  Voorhes,  White  of  Brown,  White- 
of  Hocking,  Young  of  Noble — 26. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were, 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Campbell,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer, 
Dorsey,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hor- 
ton, McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller,  Neal, 
Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Root,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  Yan  Yoorhis, 
Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West,  President — 41. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I move  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  6:15  p.  m.,)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


1918 


ON  RECORDING  VOTES. 

Hoadly,  President,  Carbery,  Campbell,  Tyler,  Root,  etc. 


[124th 


[Tuesday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY-FOURTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SEVENTY-SECOND  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK,  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled,  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  C.  White,  Poplar  street 
Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called, and  78  members  answered 
to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained  for 
Mr.  Russell,  of  Meigs,  for  to-day  and  to-mor- 
row, and  for  Mr.  Horton  for  an  indefinite  length 
of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read,  and  approved. 

Mr.  SEARS.  It  was  stated  that  I did  not  vote 
on  yesterday  afternoon,  having  paired  off.  That 
was  an  error.  I had  paired  off  with  a member, 
but  we  were  both  here,  and  both  voted. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  in  order,  I would  like  to 
ask,  on  behalf  of  my  friend  from  Cleveland, 
Mr.  Townsend,  who  had  paired  off  with  me, 
that  we  be  permitted  to  record  our  votes,  one  as 
voting  one  way  and  one  the  other. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  entry  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears]  will  be  stricken 
out,  he  having  voted. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I will  ask  leave  that  the 
name  of  the  delegate  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
TownsendI  be  recorded  in  the  affirmative,  and 
my  own  in  the  negative;  that  was  the  under- 
standing. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  the  votes  so  recorded. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Yesterday  evening  a motion 
was  adopted  to  reconsider  the  Proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  and  I 
changed  my  votetfrom  the  negative  to  the  af- 
firmative. I ask  to  change  my  vote  so  as  to 
correspond  with  my  well  known  views  on  the 
subject. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I object.  I think  the 
gentleman  will  be  better  satisfied  to  let  it  re- 
main as  it  is. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  vote  will  be  so  recorded. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I ask  leave  to  record  my  vote. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I object. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  RO.OT.  No,  sir,  I have  the  floor.  I have 
a right  to  object. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  objection? 

Mr.  ROOT.  I object.  We  may  as  well  have  our 
Journal  tell  the  truth  here.  The  gentleman  was 
not  here.  He  does  not  care  enough  about  the  pro- 
ceedings to  be  here.  He  ought  to  have  looked  out 
since  he  had  made  up  his  mind  where  he  would 


Tuesday,  March  10,  1874. 

like  to  stand.  Therefore  he  wants  to  be  put  into  a 
position  which  would  falsify  the  facts,  and  make 
our  record  of  what  did  occur  untrue.  Now,  it  is 
not  on  account  of  any  personal  feeling  that  I 
object,  at  all.  I would  exercise  the  courtesy  to 
the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  as  soon 
as  to  any  member,  but  it  is  because  of  the  evil 
precedent  of  an  evil  practice.  I hope  we  will 
have  no  more  of  this. 

Mr.  TYLER.  If  there  is  objection  on  the 
part  of  the  majority  of  this  Convention  I,  of 
course,  do  not  wish  to  insist  upon  having  my 
vote  recorded,  but  this  proposition  has  been  be- 
fore the  Convention  for  a long  time,  and  my 
mind  was  made  up  as  to  how  I should  vote 
when  the  question  came  up.  It  is  a question  in 
which  I feel  great  interest,  and  shall  feel  very 
much  pleased  to  have  my  name  recorded.  How- 
ever, I presume  that  when  the  question  comes 
up  again,  which  it  certainly  will,  though  in  a 
different  shape,  if  I am  so  fortunate  as  to  be 
here,  I can  cast  my  vote.  The  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root]  says  I did  not  care  enough 
about  the  question  to  be  here.  The  gentleman 
is  mistaken;  what  might  be  said  of  himself? 
When  I left  he  was  not  here.  I suppose  that 
not  one  member  in  twenty  has  been  absent 
from  this  Convention  since  its  commencement 
less  time  than  myself.  I was  home  on  impor- 
tant business,  where  I had  not  been  in  six 
weeks ; however,  my  interest  was  here  with  the 
Convention,  and  I should  be  very  much  pleased, 
if  there  is  no  particular  opposition,  to  record 
my  vote.  I introduced  a proposition  in  the 
fore  part  of  the  session  of  this  Convention,  and 
it  was  properly  referred,  diametrically  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Butler  [Mr.  Campbell],  in  opposition  to  which 
I wish  to  record  my  vote,  and  in  opposition, 
too,  to  the  old  fogy  idea  of  Know-Nothingism 
sticking  out  so  forcibly  in  this  amendment. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  see  why  the  objection 
of  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  arises 
in  this  case  any  more  than  in  the  case  of  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  and 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]. 
Now,  if  this  would  change  the  result  I should 
object  to  the  gentleman’s  recording  his  vote, 
but  I think  it  has  been  the  practice  in  the  Legis- 
lature, and  I think  it  has  been  the  practice  here, 
to  allow  gentlemen  to  come  in  and  record  their 
votes,  but  giving  that  privilege  to  them  did  not 
change  the  result.  It  has  been  done  before, 
and  1 do  not  see  why  any  objection  should  be 
made  now.  Everybody  knows  the  views  of  the 
gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  on  that 
subject;  he  did  not  keep  them  to  himself.  I 


Day.] 

March  10, 1874.] 


ON  RECORDING  VOTES. 

Campbell,  Baber,  Bishop,  Dorsey,  Root,  etc. 


1919 


think,  as  a matter  of  right  and  courtesy,  he 
ought  to  be  allowed  to  record  his  vote. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Allow  me  to  make  a 
suggestion.  At  what  time  shall  the  principle 
of  the  statute  of  limitation  prevail  ? If  we  open 
the  door  in  this  way  this  morning,  why  not 
open  it  to-morrow  morning,  and  keep  up  an 
endless  system  of  changing  the  results  of  all 
former  votes.  Now,  if  this  thing  is  to  go  on, 
this  asking  to  record  votes  on  questions  decided 
when  members  were  absent,  I must  insist  upon 
having  my  vote  recorded  on  the  same  principle 
on  the  question  of  reconsidering  or  rather  in- 
structing the  Select  Committee,  after  the  en- 
grossment of  the  Legislative  Article,  and 
thereby  change  the  entire  action  of  the  Con- 
vention on  the  veto.  There  the  casting  vote 
was  really  given  by  the  President,  properly 
enough.  I was  detained  at  home  by  the  severe 
indisposition  of  my  family  and  myself,  and 
there  is  just  as  much  reason  why  I should  have 
my  vote  now  recorded  on  that,  which  would 
completely  change  the  whole  condition  of  the 
veto,  as  it  now  stands  recorded  on  the  Journal. 

Mr.  BABER.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I have  said  it  would,  Mr. 
President,  because  I can  show  that  the  record- 
ing of  my  vote  would  make  the  record  as  though 
the  vote  had  not  prevailed. 

Mr.  BABER.  That  is  not  so. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I say  the  recording  of 
my  vote  will  show  that ; and  another  gentleman 
who  happened  to  be  called  out  on  business  at 
that  time — the  gentleman  from  Madison  [Mr. 
Phellis] — lost  his  vote.  Had  he  been  present, 
the  result  would  have  been  entirely  different. 
I not  only  could  appeal  to  the  record,  but  I 
can  appeal  to  a private  letter  from  the  gentle- 
man from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  though  I 
would  not  use  a private  letter  to  read  it,  and 
only  refer  to  it  to  show  the  tendency  of  this 
system,  which  is  to  upturn  everything  the  Con- 
vention has  done  heretofore. 

Mr.  BABER.  I maintain  that  the  Conven- 
tion has  the  right  to  permit  any  gentleman  to 
record  his  vote 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I object.  The  gentleman  has 
spoken  on  this  question.  I am  going  to  have 
the  rules  enforced. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  had  the  floor  and  yielded 
it  temporarily  to  the  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell]. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Then  I beg  pardon.  I want 
it  understood  that  gentlemen  can  not  have  two 
speeches  on  the  same  question  with  my  consent. 

Mr.  BABER.  If  it  changed  the  result,  his 
vote  ought  not  to  be  recorded ; but,  as  it  does 
not  change  the  result,  I claim  that  it  is  within 
the  power  of  the  House  to  allow  votes  to  be 
recorded.  • 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  rule  of  the  house  is 
that  gentlemen  may  have  the  right  to  record 
his  vote,  if  the  House  so  decide. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I merely  want  to  say,  Mr. 
President,  that  I hope  the  House  will  accord 
the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  the 
right  to  record  his  vote.  No  one,  of  course, 
ought  to  ask  the  privilege  of  recording  his 
vote  if  it  were  to  change  the  result. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  I object  to  this  as  long  as 
anybody  insists  upon  it. 


Mr.  DORSEY.  When  anybody  talks  about 
opening  the  door,  I say  that  it  has  been  already 
opened  to-day.  The  gentlemen  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  and  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend] 
have  been  allowed  to  record  their  votes.  They 
were  absent,  or  had  paired  off,  which  is  about 
the  same  thing,  so  far  as  concerns  recording 
the  vote  of  the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr. 
Tyler].  If  we  talk  about  falsifying  the  record, 
the  recording  of  their  votes  falsifies  it  just  as 
much  as  the  recording  of  the  vote  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  will  do.  The 
House  having  accorded  it  on  the  one  hand,  I 
say  it  is  right  and  proper,  and  nothing  more 
than  is  due  the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr. 
Tyler]  to  allow  him  to  record  his  vote. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I beg  leave  to  correct  the 
gentleman.  The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Townsend]  was  not  absent. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Constructively,  you  were. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Well,  I do  not  propose  to 
allow  construction  to  interfere  with  facts.  1 
was  here,  and  asked  to  be  paired  off  with  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  and 
was  excused  from  voting.  I do  not  know  how 
the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  would 
have  voted  if  he  had  been  here.  I think  it  is 
establishing  a precedent,  and  one  liable  to  lead 
us  into  trouble ; but,  as  the  gentleman  asks  the 
favor  of  this  Convention,  I think  it  ought  to  be 
granted. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Suppose  it  is  a dangerous 
precedent.  I wish  to  say  that  that  very  thing 
has  been  done  by  my  request.  On  one  occa- 
sion, at  least,  I was  allowed  to  record  my  vote 
on  a question  that  1 had  an  interest  in  after  it 
had  been  passed  over. 

Mr.  WEST.  Allow  me  to  suggest  that  my 
understanding  of  the  rule  is  simply  this : that, 
when  a gentleman  comes  in  after  the  vote  is 
closed,  and  asks  to  record  his  vote,  it  is  simply 
placed  upon  the  Journal  as  the  expression  of 
his  views,  and  does  not  count  at  all.  It  is  only 
the  record  of  what  his  vote  would  have  been 

hnrl  hp  hppn  borp 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  That  is  the  way  I under- 
stand it.  The  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr. 
Tyler]  was  not  here  when  the  vote  was  taken 
(probably  he  was  in  Toledo,  or  near  there),  and 
he  now  comes  in  and  asks  for  this  expression 
of  his  views  by  his  vote,  and  I am  willing  to 
accord  it 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  is  usual,  I believe, 
for  all  parliamentary  bodies  to  allow  members 
to  put  themselves  on  record  in  this  way,  and  to 
the  end  that  this  question  may  be  settled,  I 
move  that  any  member  absent  yesterday  and 
present  this  morning  who  desires  to  record  his 
vote,  be  allowed  to  do  so. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I object  to  the  motion.  There  is 
a question  pending  already. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move  it  as  an 
amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  moved  as  an  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I made  this  objectibn  for  the 
reason  I have  stated.  Why,  sir,  it  is — 

Mr.  BISHOP.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  gen- 
tleman has  made  one  speech  on  this  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  an  amendment 
to  the  question. 

Mr.  ROOT.  My  friend  would  better  keep 


1920 


ON  RECORDING  VOTES. [134th 

Bishop,  Root,  President,  Dorsey,  Cunningham,  Burns,  etc.  [Tuesday, 


cool.  When  he  tries  to  catch  the  gentleman 
from  Erie,  [Mr.  Root]  out  of  order,  he  would 
better  look  into  his  book. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Well,  the  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root],  makes  mistakes  as  well  as 
others.  I think  he  makes  a good  many. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  question  is  on  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cun- 
ningham.] 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I did  not  know  that. 

Mr.  ROOT.  No,  I see  you  did  not.  It  is 
well  enough,  particularly  as  I never  trespass 
upon  the  house,  for  the  gentleman  to  know 
what  question  is  pending  when  he  interrupts  a 
member.  I did  not  intend  to  make  any  lengthy 
remarks,  and  it  was  an  interruption  that  came 
very  unexpectedly  and  without  any  good  cause, 
but  it  is  sufficient  for  me  to  know  that  gentle- 
men are  not  willing  to  hear  me  state  a single 
word  on  the  new  question. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  You  are  mistaken,  because  I 
voted  on  your  side  of  the  question  but  I did  not 
want  any  partiality. 

Mr.  ROOT.  But  I see  these  interruptions 
here  without  any  good  cause. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I said  the  gentleman  made  a 
good  many  mistakes — 

The  PRESIDENT.  Order  gentlemen.  The 
question  is  on  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  does  not  want 
the  result  of  the  voting  changed. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No  sir,  it  is  that  mem- 
bers may  put  themselves  on  record,  but  that  it 
shall  not  affect  the  vote. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Very  well,  then  you  would 

hpttpr  cn  ctotp  if 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  is  that 
they  shall  be  allowed  to  be  recorded  on  the 
Journal  as  they  would  have  voted  had  they  been 
present. 

The  vote  being  taken  the  Chair  expressed 
himself  in  doubt  as  to  the  result. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I object  to  the  yeas 
and  nays  on  the  amendment. 

The  demand  was  sustained. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  the  Convention  in- 
sists upon  the  yeas  and  nays,  I ask  leave  to 
withdraw  the  amendment. 

MEMBERS.  “Leave,  leave;  I object,  I ob- 
ject.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  the 
question : The  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr. 

Tyler]  asks  leave  to  record  his  vote;  the  gen- 
tleman from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  moves  to 
amend,  by  giving  leave  to  all  members  who 
were  absent  yesterday  and  are  present  this 
morning  to  record  their  votes.  On  that  the 
yeas  and  nays  are  demanded  and  the  gentle- 
man asks  leave  to  withdraw  his  amendment. 

MEMBERS.  “Object,  object.” 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  leave  will  be  giv- 
en. I do  not  think  we  should  make  such  a 
general  motion.  1 think  that  those  members 
who  desire  to  record  their  votes  may  request  it. 
1 do  not  think  the  amendment  is  in  a proper 
shape. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  Mr.  Cunningham 
withdrew  his  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 


request  of  the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr. 
Tyler]  to  record  his  vote. 

Upon  which  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
demanded. 

Objection  being  made,  the  call  was  sustained. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I feel  disposed  to  vote  for  this 
motion,  because  the  same  privilege  was  accord- 
ed to  myself  on  one  occasion  not  over  a month 
and  a half  ago  and  no  objection  was  made.  I 
find  on  page  611,  on  the  13th  of  January,  I asked 
leave  to  record  my  vote  “upon  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
to  amend  section  2,  line  nine,  by  striking  out 
the  words,  ‘elected  by  the  electors  of  the  State  at 
large,’  and  inserting,  ‘and  appointed  by  the  Gov- 
ernor, by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate’ — referring  to  the  Supreme  Judges  of  the 
State”  My  name  was  called  and  I voted  “ no.” 
I did  not  understand  at  that  time  that  I made 
this  request,  Mr.  President,  that  my  vote  was  to 
be  counted  either  way  on  the  result  of  that  vote. 
I understand  it  to  be  just  what  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  has  stated;  it  is  sim- 
ply declaring  by  that  record  how  he  would 
have  voted  if  he  had  been  here,  but  cannot 
change  the  result  of  the  vote  either  way,  be- 
cause it  could  not  be  counted  in  the  vote,  that 
vote  having  been  announced  and  recorded. 
For  that  reason  I shall  vote  for  the  request. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  inquire  what  man- 
ner that  entry  is  to  be  made ; is  it  to  be  made  as 
if  the  gentleman  had  been  here  on  yesterday  and 
voted,  or  is  it  simply  to  be  recorded  in  to-day’s 
proceeding  in  the  same  manner  in  which  it  is 
usually  done? 

Another  inquiry  I desire  to  make  is,  whether 
the  rules  of  this  body  do  not  provide  a mode  by 
which,  if  there  be  any  act  of  this  Convention 
from  which  a member  dissents,  that  dissension 
can  be  expressed  upon  the  record  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understands 
the  rule  to  be  this:  That  gentlemen,  by  leave 
of  the  House,  may  enter  upon  the  Journal  no- 
tice to  the  effect  that  he  would  have  voted  thus 
and  so  if  present,  but  that  it  has  no  effect  what- 
ever upon  the  result  as  announced.  If  the 
Chair  is  mistaken  he  would  be  glad  to  be  cor- 
rected. 

Mr.  ROOT.  If  the  gentleman  had  merely 
made  that  request  I never  would  have  objected 
to  that  privilege  being  extended  to  him  or  any- 
body else,  but  he  asked  to  have  his  vote  record- 
ed. If  the  request  is  to  have  his  name  called 
and  his  vote  recorded,  I object  to  that,  but  in 
the  other  case  you  have  none  of  that ; it  is  a mere 
protest,  a statement  that  he  would  have  voted 
so  and  so  on  the  proposition.  If  he  asks  that  I 
would  not  object  to  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  could  be  in  no  other 
way,  because  he  was  not  here  ont  yesterday, 
whatever  he  desired. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  would  then  be  simply 
recorded  upon  the  Journal. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I am  not  aware  that  I am  ask- 
ing any  privilege  that  is  not  granted  to  other 
members  of  the  Convention,  and  why  there 
should  be  such  a hurrah.  I am  at  a loss  to  un- 
derstand this  objection  of  the  gentleman.  If 
there  is  anything  new  or  wrong  in  this  request, 
I would  like  to  know  it.  I presume  that  gen- 
tlemen who  are  so  anxious  about  this  matter 
are  aware  how  I shall  record  my  vote.  Should 


1921 


ON  RECORDING  VOTES— PETITIONS. 


Day.] 

March  10,  1874.]  Root,  Tyler,  Powell,  Van 


that  make  any  difference,  if  the  proposition  is 
correct?  If  they  are  not  well  satisfied  on  that 
question,  just  let  my  name  be  called.  I am 
ready  to  vote  to-day  just  as  I would  have  voted 
yesterday,  had  I been  present.  I shall  vote 
“no” — the  way  I expected  to  vote,  and  would 
have  voted,  had  I been  here  yesterday ; not  only 
on  my  own  account,  but  on  account  of  the 
known  will  and  wishes  of  my  constituents. 
It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  enlarge  upon  this 
question,  which  I would  have  liked  to  have  had 
the  privilege  of  doing  if  I had  been  here  when 
the  question  was  under  discussion,  yesterday. 
The  gentleman  to  my  left  [Mr.  Johnson,  of 
Hamilton],  came  into  the  Convention  one  day 
after  a vote  had  been  taken,  and  asked  the  cour- 
tesy of  the  Convention,  the  same  as  I do  now, 
and  had  the  privilege  of  recording  his  vote,  and 
not  a solitary  voice  was  raised  against  it.  The 
gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  and  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  and 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend], 
and  I would  not  wonder  if  the  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root],  had  not  had  the  same  courtesy 
extended  to  him,  upon  some  occasion,  by  this 
Convention,  who  objects  to  my  proposition  so 
strongly 

Mr.  ROOT.  Would  not  wonder,  sir,  he  never 
did. 

Mr.  TYLER.  Perhaps  he  has  not;  but  I 
know  that  it  is  imposssible  to  say  what  the 
gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  has  not  asked 
for  and  done,  or  tried  to  do,  in  this  Convention. 
He  has,  at  least,  occupied  as  much  time,  unnec- 
essarily, perhaps,  as  twenty-five  members  occu- 
pyingseats  in  this  Convention,  upon  some  very 
small  matters,  myself  included.  I did  not  sup- 
pose that  gentlemen  were  going  to  oppose  and 
discuss  this  proposition,  or  I would  not  have 
made  it.  No,  I beg  pardon;  I do  not  withdraw 
it.  for  I am  asking  nothing  unreasonable,  im- 
proper, or  uncommon,  or  that  which  should 
not  be  granted  to  any  member  of  this  body — a 
request  so  common  in  all  legislative  bodies,  and 
granted  without  a murmur,  when  the  vote  does 
not  change  the  result;  but  look  [pointing  to  the 
clock] — there  has  been  already  a half-hour 
spent  in  needless  talk  upon  this  question.  Why, 
I am  ashamed — actually  ashamed — that  a propo- 
sition of  mine — so  simple  a proposition,  too,  as 
this — should  have  occupied  a half-hour  of  the 
time  of  this  Convention.  If  the  Convention 
does  not  see  fit  to  allow  me  the  privilege  of 
having  my  vote  recorded,  let  it  so  decide;  that 
is  all.  I do  not  want  to  take  up  the  time  of  the 
Convention.  The  time  is  too  important — par- 
ticularly if  we  are  going  to  get  through  and 
adjourn  sine  die  by  the  31st  of  March. 

MEMBERS.  “ Question ! ” “ Question ! ” 

“Question !” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  often  trouble  the 
Convention,  and  I rise  to  make  an  inquiry  of  the 
Chair.  It  is  my  right  to  inquire,  and  I ought  to 
inquire.  I would  ask  the  Chair,  since  he  has 
read  the  Rule  upon  the  subject  of  asking  leave 
by  members  to  record  their  votes,  in  what 
manner  the  votes  of  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  IIoadly],  and  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  are  to  be  recorded : 
whether  they  are  to  go  into  the  vote  of  yester- 
day, as  if  they  were  here,  or  according  to  that 
Rule? 

v.  n-123 


Valkenburgh,  Wilson,  etc. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  record  is  already 
made  and  stands  thus : 

“Messrs.  Townsend  and  Hoadly  asked  leave 
to  be  recorded  on  the  vote  by  which  the  Con- 
vention on  yesterday  agreed  to  Mr.  Campbell’s 
motion  to  amend  section  1. 

Mr.  Townsend  was  then  called  and  voted  in 
the  affirmative. 

Mr.  Hoadly  was  then  called  and  voted  in  the 
negative.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  right,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  does  not  enter  into  the 
count  of  the  vote  of  yesterday;  it  simply  shows 
how  they  would  have  voted  if  they  had  been 
here.  The  question  now  is  upon  permitting  the 
gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler]  to  record 
his  vote  on  the  Journal. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  VAN  VALKENBURGH.  I desire  the 
same  record  to  be  made  with  regard  to  my- 
self. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  On  which  side  do  you 
vote? 

Mr.  VAN  VALKENBURGH.  I vote  “no.” 
Mr.  WILSON.  I desire  the  same  record 
made  for  me.  I would  vote  “no.” 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I do  not  know  but 
I would  have  to  record  my  vote,  as  other  gen- 
tlemen are  thus  favored.  I desire  to  have  my 
vote  recorded  in  the  affirmative. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  I live  about  two  hundred 
and  sixty  miles  from  here,  and  as  it  is  said  that 
“distance  lends  enchantment  to  the  view,”  I 
think  that  I,  too,  shall  ask  to  have  my  vote  re- 
corded, as  I should  have  voted  if  I had  been  in 
the  Convention  on  yesterday.  I vote  “aye.” 
Leave  was  granted. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  HERRON  presented  the  petition  of  S. 
C.  Richey,  R.  H.  Bishop,  and  six  hundred  and 
sixty-four  other  citizens  of  Oxford  township, 
Butler  county,  praying  that  the  sale  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  may  be  prohibited  within  the 
limits  of  lands  granted  to  the  State  for  educa- 
tional purposes. 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  the  same  as 
follows : 

To  the  Honorable , the  Members  of  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention of  the  State  of  Ohio: 

Whereas,  Congress  donated  three  townships  of  land 
for  educational  purposes  to  the  State  of  Ohio,  to-wit: 
Two  townships  of  land  in  Athens  county,  Ohio,  and  one 
township  in  Butler  county,  Ohio,  which  were  placed  under 
the  control  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  the  donation,  and 
Whereas,  the  Legislature  has  taken  such  action  in  the 
matter  that  Miami  University  has  been  located  in  Ox- 
ford township,  Butler  county,  Ohio,  and  the  Ohio  Univer- 
sity at  Athens,  Ohio,  and 

Whereas,  The  usefulness  of  said  Universities  has 
been  greatly  impaired  by  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors, 
at  retail,  in  the  villages  of  Oxford  and  Athens,  where 
said  Universities  are  respectively  located, 

Therefore,  we  respectfully  ask  your  Honorable  Body  to 
incorporate  a provision  in  the  Constitution  empowering 
the  General  Assembly  to  pass  such  laws  as  will  abso- 
lutely prohibit  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  except  for 
medicinal  and  mechanical  purposes,  in  said  township  of 
Oxford,  and  in  said  townships  of  land  in  Athens  county, 
Ohio. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ed- 
ucation. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN  presented  the  petition  of 


1922 


[134th 


PETITIONS— MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Waddle,  Chapin,  Kerr,  Phellis,  Cook,  Baber,  Clark  of  R.,  etc.  [Tuesday, 


Wm.  McCampbell  and  other  citizens  of  Toledo, 
Ohio,  praying  the  Convention  to  incorporate  a 
clause  in  the  Constitution  prohibiting  railroads 
from  giving  passes  to  any  one  except  their  em- 
ployees. 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  the  same,  as 
follows : 

To' the.  Honorable , the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Ohio: 

Your  petitioners  pray  you  to  insert  in  the  Constitution 
a clause  similar  to  that  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  prohibiting  all  railroads  in  the  State  from 
issuing  passes  to  |any  one  not  an  employe  of  the  road, 
each  offense  to  subject  the  road  to  a fine  of  five  hundred 
dollars,  to  be  recovered  before  any  court,  etc. 

This  will  remove  a heavy  expense  to  which  the  roads 
are  now  subjected,  and  save  the  Legislature  from  suspi- 
cion of  undue  influence  from  railroads. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Miscellaneous  subjects. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of  J. 
G.  Strain,  S.  B.  Timmons,  and  one  hundred  and 
eighty-two  other  citizens  of  Delaware  county, 
for  an  acknowledgment  of  Almighty  God  and 
the  Christian  Religion  in  the  Constitution. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Also  the  petition  of  J.  W.  Beckett,  and  fifty- 
seven  other  citizens  of  Harrison  county,  for  a 
clause  in  the  new  Constitution,  to  prohibit  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  alcoholic  liquors  in 
this  State  or  that  the  General  Assembly  may 
have  entire  control  over  the  same. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  CHAPIN  presented  the  petition  of  J.  D. 
Leonard  and  thirty-one  other  citizens  of  Craw- 
ford county,  asking  that  a provision  be  placed 
in  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights  acknowl- 
edging the  Christian  Religion  and  that  it  be 
placed  on  an  undivided  basis. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  KERR  presented  the  petition  of  J.  C. 
Mead,  and  eighteen  other  citizens  of  Licking 
county,  asking  the  acknowledgment  of  Al- 
mighty God  and  the  Christian  Religion  be 
placed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  PHELLIS  presented  the  petition  of  Mrs. 
Col.  G.  E.  Ross,  and  436  other  citizens  of  Madi- 
son county,  asking  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  Constitution  giving  the  Legislature  full 
power  to  regulate,  limit  or  entirely  prohibit 
the  manufacture  and  sale  of  all  intoxicating 
drinks. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Traf- 
fic in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  COOK  presented  the  remonstrance  of  A. 
J.  Gardner,  and  50  other  citizens  of  Grand 
Rapids,  Wood  county,  against  the  adoption  of 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Education,  in 
so  far  as  the  same  proposes  to  reduce  the 
branches  of  learning  taught  in  the  common 
schools. 

Also,  the  remonstrance  of  D.  H.  Avery,  and 
65  other  citizens  of  Weston,  Wood  county;  and 
the  remonstrance  of  D.  K.  Hallinleck,  and  150 
other  citizens  of  Wood  county,  all  on  the  same 
subject. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Education. 


Also,  a resolution  passed  at  a meeting  of  the 
Board  of  Education  of  McConnellsville  school 
district,  which  the  Secretary,  by  request,  read, 
as  follows : 

McConnelsville,  O.,  Feb.  27, 1874. 

At  a meeting  of  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  McCon- 
nellsville school  district,  the  following  was  unanimously 
adopted : 

Resolved , That  we  hereby  heartily  concur  with  the 
change  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Education,  and 
recommend  that  sections  3 and  4 of  said  Report  be 
adopted. 

Thos.  Hammond, 
Clerk  Board  of  Education. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Education. 

Mr.  TOWNSLEY  presented  the  petition  of 
S.  C.  Howell,  and  221  other  citizens  of  Greene 
and|Clarke  counties,  praying  that  the  Legislature 
be  given  ample  power  to  regulate,  limit  or  en- 
tirely prohibit  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  intox- 
icating drinks,  and,  also,  to  declare  what  drinks 
are  intoxicating;  and,  further,  that  the  Legis- 
lature may  pass  laws  empowering  each  incor- 
porated village,  township  and  city  to  regulate, 
limit  or  prohibit  such  sale  and  manufacture. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  or. 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  PROPOSITIONS. 

Mr.  BABER  presented  the  following  Propo- 
sition, which  was  read  for  the  first  time : 

Pi’opostion  No.  222— Woman’s  Suffrage,  By  Mr.  Baber. 

Substitute  for  Proposition  No.  211. 

The  General  Assembly,  at  its  first  session  after  the 
adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  cause  a registration 
to  be  taken  of  all  the  women  in  this  State,  21  years  of 
age,  who  would,  if  males,  be  legal  voters  in  their  respec- 
tive wards  and  townships;  the  returns  of  which  registra- 
tion shall  be  forwarded  to,  and  filed  with,  the  Secretary 
of  State,  and  shall  also  provide  lor  the  submission  at  the 
next  general  election  for  State  officers,  at  separate  polls, 
under  the  same  regulations  and  penalties  now  provided 
by  law  at  other  general  elections,  the  question  of  woman 
suffrage  to  the  women  of  the  State,  who  would  be  legal 
voters  at  the  date  of  the  election  if  they  were  males;  and 
if  a majority  equal  in  number  to  a majority  of  all  the 
women  registered  in  the  State  shall  cast  their  ballots  lor 
“Woman’s  Suffrage — Yes,”  then  the  General  Assembly 
shall  at  its  next  session  submit  to  the  legal  voters  of  the 
State,  at  the  next  general  election  for  State  officers,  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  providing  for  woman 
suffrage,  whieh  sh  til  be  ratified  or  rejected  in  the  same 
manner  as  other  amendments  submitted  by  the  General 
Assembly. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I move  that  Proposition 
206  be  taken  from  the  table — being  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Public 
Works. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I move  that  it  be 
mave  the  special  order  immediately  succeeding 
Proposition  205. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  already  been 
agreed  to  consider  Proposition  No.  168  next  to 
that.  It  may  be  made  to  take  the  place  next  to 
Proposition  168. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  prefer  that  it  be  not 
put  in  advance  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  Education. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Education  is  on  the  table,  I believe. 

Mr.  COOK.  It  was  referred  and  made  the 
order  immediately  after  Proposition  No.  168,  I 
think. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  order,  I re- 


1923 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

March  10,  1874.]  Clark  of  R.,  Ewing,  Rowland,  Cunningham,  Carbery,  etc. 


member  now.  The  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works  would  come 
next  after  the  consideration  of  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  on  Education. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I move,  then,  that  it 
be  considered  next  after  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Education. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  we  now  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  the  orders  of  the  day. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Will  the  gentleman  give 
way  a moment. 

Mr.  EWING.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I had  purposed  to  call  up 
now  the  resolution  with  regard  to  extra  com- 
pensation to  James  Morgan,  but  I do  not  ask 
members  to  consider  it  now  if  they  wish  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  consideration  of  the  Article  on 
Elective  Franchise.  But  I ask  that  it  may  be 
considered  immediately  succeeding  it,  as  I want 
it  out  of  the  way. 

Mr.  EWING.  I now  renew  my  motion  to 
proceed  to  the  orders  of  the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  this  amendment  to  the 
first  section  of  the  Article. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing J proposes  to  amend  sec- 
tion 1,  as  follows : 

The  Secretary  read: 

In  place  of  the  words  stricken  out  insert: 

“And  every  male  person  of  foreign  birth  who  may  have 
declared  his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  according  to  law,  and  resided  in  the  United  States 
three  years  next  preceding  the  election  at  which  he 
offers  to  vote.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“Sec.  1.  Every  male  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and 
every  male  person  of  foreign  birth,  who  may  have  de- 
clared his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  according  to  law,  and  resided  in  the  United  States 
three  years  next  preceeding  the  election  at  which  he  offers 
to  vote , of  the  age  of  twenty -one  years,  who  shall  have 
been  a resident  of  the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the 
election,  and  of  the  county,  township,  or  ward  in  which 
he  resides  such  time  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  shall 
have  qualifications  of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote 
at  all  elections.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  insert- 
ing the  amendment  proposed. 

By  request  of  Mr.  Hoadly,  the  amendment 
was  again  read. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM,  I regard  that  amend- 
ment as  more  objectionable  than  the  report  the 
Committee  originally  made.  It  appears  to  me 
that  the  real  standard  by  which  we  should  be 
guided,  is  the  fact  whether  or  not  citizenship 
exists.  I think,  Mr.  President,  that  the  trouble 
is  not  with  the  State  of  Ohio,  but  if  the  natural- 
ization laws  are  wrong,  and  require  too  long  a 
residence  in  this  country  the  remedy  should  be 
applied  at  Washington  ; then  let  citizenship  fol- 
low the  declaration,  and  the  ballot  follow  citi- 
zenship. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I hope,  sir,  this  may  pre- 
vail. I think  it  is  a compromise  ground  that 
may  be  safely  occupied  by  all  members  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL,  (in  his  seat).  A compro' 
mise  by  giving  up  the  whole  thing. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  No,  I think  not.  The 
gentleman  was  in  favor  of  compromising  on  a 
partial  veto  the  other  day,  in  which  I coincided. 
So  on  this  point,  too,  I think  it  is  a very  happy 


compromise.  The  matter  before  proposed  has 
engaged  the  attention  of  the  Convention  some 
days,  and  the  amendment  now  proposed  proba- 
bly will  not  give  rise  to  so  much  discussion. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  that  this  may  be 
adopted,  if  for  no  other  reason  than  this,  that 
the  State  of  Ohio  may  indicate  that  it  stands  on 
its  own  right,  and  not  be  led  into  the  adoption 
as  a principle  that  which  is  no  true  principle  at 
all,  namely,  that  citizenship  in  the  United 
States  shall  determine  the  status  of  voters  in 
Ohio.  The  United  States  have  no  right  to  do  so. 
It  is  expressly  reserved  and  provided  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  that  this  right 
be  reserved  to  the  States,  and  by  giving  up  this 
principle  we  are  giving  up  a State  right  which 
was  solemnly  reserved  to  us  when  the  Constitu- 
tion was  adopted,  and  has  been  twice  since  re- 
served, namely,  by  the  adoption  of  the  Four- 
teenth and  Fifteenth  Amendments.  My  friend 
Mr.  Rowland,  the  other  day,  in  his  remarks 
upon  the  subject,  declared  that  St.  Paul  was  a 
Roman  citizen.  Does  the  gentleman  suppose 
that  St.  Paul  meant  that  he  was  a voter  in  the 
city  of  Rome?  By  no  manner  of  means.  And 
if  the  gentleman  will  take  the  trouble  to  inquire 
and  examine,  he  will  find  that  Roman  citizen- 
ship did  not  in  the  least  degree  connect  itself 
with  the  principle  of  suffrage.  A man  might 
be  a Roman  citizen  and  not  a voter,  and  never 
be  in  Rome,  as  was  the  fact  with  regard  to  St. 
Paul  at  the  time  that  remark  was  made.  He 
had  never  then  entered  the  city  of  Rome. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way 
for  a question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Every  Roman  who  went  to 
Rome  had  a right  to  vote,  and  on  the  day  of 
election  a large  number  of  people  went  into 
Rome  to  vote.  I have  no  idea  at  all  but  that 
if  Paul  was  at  Rome,  he  might  have  been  a 
voter. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  from  the  time  the  plebeans 
first  gained  power  there  had  been  a connection 
between  suffrage  and  citizenship,  there  might 
be  'some  truth  in  the  gentleman’s  argument. 
But  you  may  search  in  vain  from  the  earliest 
history  of  the  Roman  government  to  find  any 
connection  between  citizenship  and  suffrage.  It 
was,  Mr.  President,  because  it  was  alluded  to  as 
a principle  that  I sought  the  floor,  and  it  is  be- 
cause with  me  it  is  a principle  not  to  surrender 
a right  which  the  Constitution  guarantees  to  the 
State,  and  not  to  adopt  under  the  guise  of  a 
principle,  that  which,  in  effect,  if  adopted,  is 
giving  up  one  of  our  reserved  rights — 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  the 
floor  for  a question  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly,  I will  yield  the 
floor. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  question  I wished  to  ask 
was  this:  Whilst  all  citizens  did  not  vote  in 
Rome,  was  there  anybody  but  citizens  that  did 
vote? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Undoubtedly  not.  The 
principle  is  settled  correctly.  We  have  it  here 
plainly  enough  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Unit- 
ed Stated  of  America.  There  are  three  classes 
of  persons  spoken  of  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States:  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
electors  of  the  States  and  “persons.”  The  sec- 


1924 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Hoadly,  Rowland,  Powell. 


[134th 

[Tuesday, 


ond  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitu- 
tion is  this : 

“The  House  of  Representatives  shall  he  composed  of 
members  chosen  every  second  year  by  the  people  of  the 
several  States,  and  the  electors*  in  each  State  shall  have 
the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of  the  most  nu- 
merous branch  of  the  State  Legislature.” 

Does  the  power  to  establish  a uniform  rule  of 
naturalization  give  to  Congress  the  right  to 
control  the  powers  which  is  reserved  by  this 
section,  namely,  that  the  State  shall  determine 
the  qualifications  of  its  own  electors?  The 
gentleman  is  claiming  as  a principle  that  natur- 
alization must  precede  suffrage.  It  is  because 
this  is  no  principle,  but  the  denial,  the  negative 
of  a principle,  that  I contend  against  this  mo- 
tion. 

The  XIYth  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
provides  that, 

“Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  sev- 
eral States  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  count- 
ing the  whole  number  of  persons  in  each  State,  exclud- 
ing Indians  not  taxed.  But  when  the  right  to  vote  at 
any  election  for  the  choice  of  electors  for  President  and 
Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  Representatives  in 
Congress,  the  executive  and  judicial  officers  of  a State, 
or  the  members  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  is  denied  to 
any  of  the  male  inhabitants  of  such  State,  being  twenty- 
one  years  of  age,  and  citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  in 
any  way  abridged  except  for  participation  in  rebellion  or 
other  crime,  the  basis  of  representation  shall  therein  be 
reduced  in  the  proportion  which  the  number  of  such  male 
citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of  male  citizens  j 
twenty-one  years  of  age  in  such  State.” 

Mr.  Chairman,  how  can  it  be  declared,  in  view 
of  this  explicit  declaration,  that  if  it  be  denied 
to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  the  representa- 
tion shall  be  reduced  ? How  can  it  be  asserted, 
in  view  of  this  so  recently-adopted  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  that  citizenship  in  the 
United  States,  and  suffrage  in  the  State,  are,  in 
any  degree,  allied  in  principle?  It  is  not  a 
matter  of  policy,  except  so  far  as  being  a right 
reserved  to  the  State,  it  becomes,  with  some  of 
us,  a matter  of  principle  not  to  surrender  it. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Sir,  either  the  language 
of  St.  Paul  that  I referred  to  meant  something, 
or  it  meant  nothing.  But  he  was  in  the  habit 
of  knowing  what  he  said  and  there  was  great 
significance  to  every  expression  he  uttered. 
Now,  sir,  what  were  the  rights  of  citizenship  of 
the  Roman  citizen  to  which  I referred  ? Why, 
sir,  it  is  usurper 

arrested  at  once 

It  was  inspired  language  St.  Paul 

simply  used  it  because  he  envied  the  rights  of 
the  Roman  citizen.  These  rights  were  pecu- 
liar as  distinguished  from  the  rights  of  those 
who  were  not  citizens  of  Rome.  It  was  the 
consummation  of  his  glory  that  he  was  a Ro- 
man citizen.  So  it  is  with  suffrage,  for  it  is  the 
completion  of  all  right — not  all  perhaps,  but  it 
is  a consummation  of  his  rights. 

Now  I know  what  the  gentleman  said.  If  we 
travel  back  a few  years,  but  that  is  all  gone, 
torn  to  atoms  and  does  not  count  a 
row  of  pins.  The  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  sir,  never  said  to  Ohio  to  grant  suffrage  J 
to  a class,  that  the  people  in  this  State  declared 
by  a majority  of  fifty  thousand,  were  not  en-  J 
titled  to  it  and  should  not  have  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
if  that  was  not  done  by  virtue  of  the  Constitu- 1 
tion  adopted  by  the  necessary  number  of 
States  ? 


Mr.  ROWLAND.  Adopted  how?  By  pro- 
cess without  parallel  in  modern  times. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Yes,  sir.  We  were  told, 
“if  you  do  not  adopt  it  you  shall  not  exer- 
cise the  rights  of  States.”  Allow  them 
to  come  in,  sir,  to  exercise  the  high- 
est rights  of  sovereinty  in  order  that 
they  might  be  allowed  to  govern  those  who 
gave  them  the  ballot.  It  is  a damnable  record 
upon  this  nation,  and  as  the  gentleman’s  re- 
marks seemed  to  be  directed  to  me,  I will  say 
that  the  record  lias  been  swept  to  the  winds. 
But  that  is  no  matter  to  me.  Congress  may 
break  down  any  of  these  rights ; they  may  give 
the  ballot  to  all  the  Chinamen  or  any  others  they 
wish,  and  override  every  barrier  protecting  the 
rights  of  your  State 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  the  gentleman  claim 
that  we  cannot  deny  suffrage  to  citizens  of  the 
United  States  if  we  choose  to  do  so. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  No.  I say  Congress,  if  it 
sees  necessary,  will  take  it  out  of  our  hands, 
and  there  is  no  power  to  resist  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  the  gentleman  not  ad- 
mit tpiat  we  are  only  restricted  from  denying 
them  the  right  of  suffrage  “on  account  of  race, 
color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude,”  and 
on  no  other  ground  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Well,  sir,  I ask  the  gen- 
tleman, as  a lawyer  and  a man  of  understand- 
ing, as  he  is,  if  it  is  done  in  that  way,  where  in 
the  name  of  Cod  may  it  not  go  ? Where  is  the 
limit  to  which  it  may  not  extend? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  understand  the  gen- 
tleman’s question,  and  therefore  cannot  answer 
it.  But  I do  not  agree  with  his  views  in  regard 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment was  adopted.  It  is  my  opinion  that  it  is 
the  most  glorious  record  which  our  country  has 
ever  made.  All  1 say  is  this : that  the  Four- 
teenth and  Fifteenth  Amendments  limit  the 
right  of  suffrage  on  no  other  grounds  except 
race,  color  and  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Well,  if  Congress  has  a 
right  to  fix  that  limit,  why  has  it  not  a right  to 
fix  any  other  limit?  What  becomes  of  your 
doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  State  ? You  let 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  limit  you  in 
one  respect  and  what  becomes  of  your  sover- 
eignty. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
suggestion  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  can  be  fixed  by  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  if  necessary. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I understand  that.  But 
you  are  subject  to  an  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  that  may  be  gotten 
up  by  party  action. 

I think  the  State  of  Ohio  has  done  wisely  in 
conforming  to  the  naturalization  laws  of  the 
United  States.  Now,  what  is  the  attitude  of 
the  State  of  Ohio  ? A man  comes  here  and  de- 
clares his  intention  to  become  a citizen.  He 
comes,  say,  from  Great  Britain,  or  from  Prus- 
sia, and  his  status  is  fixed  by  treaty  with  those 
powers.  After  voting  in  Ohio,  as  is  proposed, 
on  a simple  declaration,  he  returns  to  his  native 
country.  Without  the  commission  of  any  crime 
known  to  the  common  law,  he  may  be  arrested 
and  held  to  service  in  the  army  there.  Then 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 1925 

March  10, 1874.1  Miner,  Kraemer,  Ewing,  Tuttle,  Cunningham. 


what  position  are  you  in  ? He  may  he  com- 
pelled to  take  up  arms  against  the  United  States, 
and  the  State  of  Ohio  cannot  lift  her  finger ! You 
would  be  in  the  anomalous  position  of  having 
one  of  your  citizens  abroad  held,  not  for  crime, 
but  under  a claim  of  a foreign  government,  es- 
tablished by  treaty,  and  you  unable  to  help 
him.  This  is  the  argument  I make;  and  if 
that  is  true,  it  puts  the  S ate  of  Ohio  in  a most 
ridiculous  attitude.  Whenever  the  United 
States  shall  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the 
period  should  be  shortened,  I will  be  perfectly 
willing  that  we  shall  follow. 

Now,  sir,  a word  or  two  in  regard  to  one  or 
two  allusions  to  my  statements  in  debate.  I 
made  no  statement  to  the  effect  that  if  this 
amendment  were  incorporated  in  the  Constitu- 
tion there  would  be  bloodshed  in  the  State ; but 
I said,  this  objectionable  feature  would  almost 
surely  raise  an  excitement,  and  tend  to  defeat 
the  Constitution  you  propose  to  submit,  and  that 
it  was  impolitic  for  us  to  adopt  it;  but  if  I was 
mistaken,  and  it  did  not  defeat  the  Constitution, 
I would  have  no  fears  that  the  State  of  Ohio 
would  be  torn  upside-down,  but  you  would  have 
a great  commotion,  and  I can  assure  my  friend 
from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  that  it  would  not 
fake  a John  Bishop  Hall  to  find  it  out.  He 
would  be  able  to  find  it  out  if  he  would  open  his 
ears. 

Now,  the  remarks  of  my  friend  from  Ottawa 
[Mr.  Kraemer]  implied  this,  or  else  they  im- 
plied nothing,  that  a German  coming  here,  not 
knowing  anything  of  the  English  language,  is 
better  able  to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  than 
a man  raised  on  this  soil ; better  able  to  under- 
stand the  nature  of  our  institutions;  better 
qualified  to  vote,  than  men  raised  here. 

Mr.  MINER.  On  yesterday  I declared  my 
willingness  to  support  an  amendment  which 
should  allow  aliens  to  vote  after  three  years 
residence  in  the  county  and  a declaration  of  in- 
tention to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
I did  not  then  see  any  sufficient  reason  why  we 
should  require  full  citizenship  under  the  natu- 
ralization laws  of  the  United  States  as  the  con- 
dition to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage  by 
foreign-born  persons.  But  I was  not  then  in- 
formed as  to  the  particulars  of  the  treaty  stipula- 
tions between  the  general  government  and 
certain  European  States  upon  this  subject. 

Now,  in  view  of  such  treaty  stipulations,  nat- 
uralization has  a more  direct  bearing  upon  the 
matter  under  consideration  than  I supposed. 
Whilst  I would  favor  the  shortening  of  the  pe- 
riod of  naturalization  by  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  fixing  the  period  at  three  years, 
at  least,  for  immigrants  from  European  counties, 
I do  not  now  think  it  is  advisable  to  permit  for- 
eign-born persons  to  vote  in  Ohio  until  they 
become  citizens  of  the  United  States.  As  a 
practical  question,  and  in  view  of  the  fact,  that 
one  entitled  to  vote  in  Ohio  under  this  amend- 
ment, going  back  to  Europe  where  he  came 
from,  and  having  exacted  from  him  some  obli- 
gation or  duty  which  he  had  neglected  or  left 
unfulfilled,  we  could  not, and  the  United  States 
could  not,  interfere  for  his  protection.  There- 
fore, I believe  I shall  be  compelled  to  vote 
against  this  amendment,  although  the  period 
and  the  principle  are  otherwise  satisfactory  to 
me. 


Mr.  KRAEMER.  I will  say  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland],  that  if  I 
said  anything  that  led  him  to  the  conclusion 
which  the  gentleman  made,  that  it  certainly 
was  unintentional,  for  all  I ever  claimed  was 
equality  and  not  superiority.  We  do  not  claim 
any  superiority,  and  I must  say,  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  that  on  behalf 
of  the  foreigners  whom  I have  consulted  here, 
I thank  him  for  the  compromise  which  he  pre- 
sents as  a boon,  granted  by  the  generosity  of 
American  citizens  to  foreigners.  The  question 
has  been  well  discussed,  it  is  far  above  party 
interest,  and  it  was  well  said  by  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  that  any  platform  or 
any  party  lash  which  drives  a man  one  side  or 
the  other  of  this  important  question  ought  to 
be  trampled  under  foot  and  spit  upon. 

There  is  but  one  more  argument  I want  to 
make  in  favor  of  this  motion.  It  is  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that 
the  right  of  suffrage  is  a boon  dear  and  inesti- 
mable to  freemen  and  formidable  only  to  ty- 
rants. 

I regret  that  any  unpleasant  feelings  should 
have  been  created  in  this  matter.  And,  per- 
haps, to  illustrate  the  position  which  we  may,  as 
foreign  born  citizens,  more  or  less  occupy,  I will 
relate  the  anecdote  of  the  Irishman.  He  was 
asked,  “What  countryman  are  you?”  “An 
Englishman.”  “Where  were  you  born  ?”  “In 
Dublin.”  “Well,  how  are  you  an  Englishman  ?” 
“Suppose  I was  born  in  a stable,  must  I be  a 
horse?”  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  EWING.  In  preparing  the  amendment 
I desired  to  incorporate  in  it  a clause  that  would 
prevent  a person  who  had  declared  his  intention 
from  keeping  on  voting  indefinitely  without  be- 
coming naturalized,  but  I thought  it  imprac- 
ticable to  insert  a clause  to  that  effect  in  the 
amendment,  and  I would  state  to  the  Conven- 
tion that  if  the  amendment  should  carry  I will 
move  to  add  at  the  end  of  the  section  this  pro- 
vision, “that  no  foreign  born  citizen  shall  vote 
without  being  naturalized,  for  more  than  five 
years.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  state  in 
what  manner  that  would  change  it  from  what 
it  was  yesterday,  or  originally  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  Why,  it  does  not  change  this 
particular  clause,  but  the  two  amendments 
taken  together  will  have  just  this  effect.  That 
would  not  have  been  given  by  the  Article  as 
reported  by  the  Committee. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Cannot  you  put  the 
amendment  in  so  as  to  discuss  them  together  ? 

Mr.  EWING.  It  would  be  impracticable  to 
embody  it. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I think  they  go  to- 
gether. 

Mr.  EWING.  Well,  I do  not  want  to  make 
nonsense  of  the  amendment.  Therefore,  I say 
that  I will  offer  this  subsequently.  I am  sure 
there  will  be  no  objection  to  the  adoption  of 
this  amendment  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of 
this  amendment.  I was  about  to  say,  when  the 
gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  inter- 
rupted me,  that  the  amendment  that  I have 
offered  requires  a residence  in  the  country  for 
three  years  before  the  foreign  born  citizen  shall 
vote,  and  a declaration  of  intention.  I have  no 
intention  to  discuss  this  subject,  as  I know  that 


1926 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE, 

West,  Hoadly,  Baber,  Rowland. 


[134th 

[Tuesday, 


the  Convention  has  heard  it  discussed  until  they 
are  weary  of  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  no  purpose  to  discuss  the 
question,  but  I am  satisfied  that  the  amendment 
is  infinitely  worse  than  the  one  voted  down  yes- 
terday, for  this,  that  there  is  no  limitation  as  to 
the  period  of  time  required  before  voting. 
Three  years’  residence  any  place  in  the  United 
States,  and  a declaration  made  five  minutes  be- 
fore the  ballot  is  offered,  is  sufficient  to  open  the 
door  to  an  unlimited  multitude  of  outrageous 
frauds  of  the  worst  possible  character  that  can 
be  conceived.  And  if  gentlemen  regard  that 
as  a compromise,  then  God  save  the  compro- 
mise, that  is  all.  But  so  far  as  citizenship,  or 
the  principle  of  citizen  is  concerned,  I desire 
to  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  that  the  State  of  Ohio,  under  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  cannot  make  a 
citizen  of  Ohio.  They  cannot  declare  what 
shall  constitute  citizenship  in  Ohio.  That 
power  is  now  fixed  under  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  will  permit 
me,  as  his  remark  is  directed  to  me,  and  lest  my 
silence  might  be  misunderstood,  to  say  that  I 
distinctly  take  the  negative  of  that  proposition. 
I do  not  think  it  can  be  so  construed. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  has  declared  what  shall  constitute  a citi- 
zen of  the  United  States  and  what  shall  consti- 
tute a citizen  of  a State,  and  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  is  the  paramount  law,  no 
authority  in  a State  can  declare  now  what  shall 
constitute  the  citizenship  of  a State.  Congress 
has  the  exclusive  power  to  legislate  upon  that 
subject,  and  all  we  can  do,  now  under  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  is  to  recognize 
what  it  has  declared  and  fixed  to  be  a citizen  of 
a State.  Now,  sir,  what  I object  to  is  that  we 
shall  admit  to  the  right  of  suffrage  in  Ohio  a 
man  who,  after  he  has  voted  in  Ohio,  may  go 
back  to  his  native  country  and  there  be  com- 
pelled to  do  military  service  against  the  State  of 
Ohio,  and  the  United  States,  in  which  he  has 
exercised  the  right  of  an  elector,  and  under  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  and  the  treaty  making 
power  of  the  United  States,  the  foreign  country 
may  legally  do  that  thing,  and  we  have  no  right 
to  object.  Now,  I want  no  man  voting  in  Ohio, 
after  he  has  voted,  going  to  a foreign  country, 
to  be  compelled  to  wage  war  against  my  coun- 
try. That  is  the  point  that  I place  it  upon. 

Mr.  BABER.  I take  issue  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  on  his  law,  and  I 
will  read  the  language  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment.  It  says : 

“All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States, 
and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  the  State  wherein  they  reside.  No 
State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge 
the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  lib- 
erty, or  property,  without  due  process  of  law,  nor  deny 
to  any  person,  within  its  jurisdiction,  the  equal  protec- 
tion of  the  laws.” 

Now,  whilst  it  is  true,  as  intimated  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  that 
a person  naturalized  is  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  and  also  a citizen  of  the  State,  it  does 
not  follow  that  he  may  not  be  a citizen  of  a 
State  without  being  a citizen  of  the  United 
States.  The  negative  of  that  proposition  does 


not  follow.  All  this  prevents  is,  that  those  who 
are  citizens  of  the  United  States — persons  born 
here,  or  naturalized— shall  not,  as  had  formerly 
been  done  by  several  States,  be  deprived  of 
their  citizenship.  But  the  converse  of  that 
proposition  is  not  at  all  true.  A man  may  be  a 
citizen  of  a State,  such  as  the  foreigners  who 
voted  in  the  State  of  Indiana  upon  a declara- 
tion of  intention,  and  it  never  was  intended  to 
interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  State  of  Indi- 
ana, of  the  State  of  Michigan,  of  Kansas,  and 
of  all  those  States  which  voted  for  this  Four- 
teenth Amendment  with  this  understanding. 
The  construction  of  the  gentleman,  therefore, 
is  not  correct,  as  a matter  of  law,  any  more 
than  another  legal  proposition,  which  was  an- 
nounced here  yesterday,  that  a man  might  be  a 
voter  for  State  officers,  and  not  for  President  of 
the  United  States.  You  cannot  beat  into  the 
heads  of  these  Know-Nothing  lawyers  that 
there  is  a distinction  between  citizenship  and 
suffrage.  It  appears  to  be  a proposition  that 
they  are  incapable  of  comprehending.  Just 
like  the  gentleman,  the  other  day,  when  he  in- 
sisted that  we  had  nothing  to  do  with  Know- 
Nothingism.  I voted  with  Mr.  Chase  and  Mr. 
Lincoln,  who  thought  there  ought  not  to  be 
but  one  paper  of  naturalization,  that  paper 
issued  in  three  years,  to  take  full  effect  in  two, 
just  to  prevent  fraud  upon  the  ballot-box.  But 
I hurl  back  the  insinuations  of  Know-Nothing- 
ism,  and  am  willing  to  compare  my  record  with 
his  [West’s].  Mr.  President,  upon  this  ques- 
tion, I hope  that  the  State  of  Ohio  will,  without 
regard  to  political  parties,  negative  the  doctrine 
advocated,  as  here  announced  by  my  friend 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland],  who  represents 
that  this  Fifteenth  Amendment  strikes  down  all 
the  rights  of  the  States.  I do  not  believe  it. 
It  puts  a limitation  upon  the  rights  of  the 
States;  that  is,  that  no  man  shall  be  de- 
prived— 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  ask  whether  it  is 
not  the  theory  of  the  government  that  the 
States  combine  to  put  limits  upon  the  power  of 
Congress,  and  not  that  the  Congress  puts  limit- 
ations upon  the  States.  Where  are  you  when 
the  reverse  has  been  brought  about? 

Mr.  BABER.  That  was  in  time  of  war. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  But  it  has  been  done 
since  the  war. 

Mr.  BABER.  That  was  done  in  time  of  war  • 
But  it  does  not  alter  the  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution.  I do  not  believe  that  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  puts  any  limitation  upon  the  rights 
of  the  States  in  this  matter,  any  further  than 
they  shall  not  disfranchise  any  one  on  account 
of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servi- 
tude. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  give 
way,  that  I may  read  it  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  “ The  right  of  citizens  of 
the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or 
abridged  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any  State, 
on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition 
of  servitude.” 

Mr.  BABER.  That  amendment,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, merely  applies 


Day.] 

March  10,  1874.] 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

West,  Baber,  Hoadly. 


1927 


Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  not  alluding  to  that 
amendment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  will  allow  me,  I under- 
derstood  the  gentleman’s  allusion  was  to  the 
Fourteenth  amendment.  I do  not  understand 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  as  applying  to  citi- 
zenship. 

Mr.  WEST.  Not  at  all.  1 did  not  mean  the 
XI Yth  Amendment.  TheXIVth  Amendment 
declares  who  are  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I beg  pardon ; it  does  not 
declare  who  are  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
It  declares  that  all  persons  born  or  naturalized, 
etc.  It  guarantees  the  rights  of  citizenship,  but 
it  does  not  abridge  the  rights  of  the  States  to 
abridge  rights  of  the  class  of  citizens  within  its 
own  borders. 

Mr.  WEST.  Does  the  gentlemen  as  a lawyer 
pretend  that  two  sovereigns  can  declare  co-ex- 
istence? That  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  can  declare  what  shall  constitute  a citi- 
zen, and  that  the  State  has  power  to  declare 
what  shall  be  a citizen  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  as  a lawyer 
does  not  pretend  to  anything.  But  he  avers 
upon  his  knowledge  and  belief  that  this  first 
section  of  the  XIVth  Amendment  is  not  a defi- 
nition of  citizenship,  but  it  is  a guarantee  to 
to  those  who  are  named  in  it,  of  citizenship, 
without  prejudicing  the  rights  of  a State  to  en- 
large the  sphere  of  citizenship.  It  is  not  within 
the  nature  of  citizenship  at  all. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  as  a lawyer, 
or  citizen,  or  man  of  good  sense,  as  he  is,  ven- 
ture his  reputation  on  inserting  in  our  Consti- 
tution a declaration  that  all  persons  residing 
within  the  State  six  months  shall  be  citizens  of 
the  State? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I entertain  no  doubt  what- 
ever, that  if  the  people  of  Ohio  would  adopt 
that  principle  it  would  be  unquestionably  the 
law  of  the  land,  anything  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  to  the  contrary,  notwith- 
standing. 

Mr.  WEST.  What  would  the  Constitution  in 
one  State  amount  to? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  would  amount  to  this, 
that  you  could  not  take  away  from  those  men 
the  right  to  own  property,  the  privilege  of  in- 
heritance. You  have  forgotten  what  makes 
citizenship.  It  is  not  the  right  to  vote  that 
makes  citizenship,  but  the  right  of  freedom  in 
the  exercise  of  ownership  of  property,  which  in 
Rome,  in  England  and  the  United  States,  is  the 
characteristic  of  citizenship  as  distinguished 
from  alienage. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  point  that  I desire  gentle- 
men to  address  their  attention  to  is  simply  this : 
not  that  the  State  of  Ohio  cannot  withhold  the 
right  to  vote  from  a citizen — 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  I understand. 

Mr.  WEST.  But  that  the  State  of  Ohio  can- 
not create  citizenship  at  all.  It  is  not  within 
its  power  to  create  a citizen. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  will  listen 
he  will  see  what  I mean.  I say  first  that  the 
XIVth  Amendment  is  to  prevent  the  State  of 
Ohio  from  denying  the  right  of  citizenship,  as 
decided  by  Judge  Hunt,  but  not  men  voting. 


Citizenship  belongs  as  well  to  women  as  to  men. 
It  emphatically  prevents  the  State  of  Ohio  from 
denying  the  right  of  citizenship,  but  just  as 
emphatically  it  leaves  the  State  of  Ohio  to  admit 
others  to  the  privileges  of  citizens,  those  who 
have  lived  here  only  six  months,  if  it  choose. 
It  is  within  her  sovereign  power  to  do  so. 

Mr.  BABER.  1 will,  for  the  information  of  my 
learned  friend  from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  read  still 
further  from  the  Fifteenth  Amendment,  so  that 
he  may  construe  it  all  together,  because  this 
clause  fully  sustains  the  position  of  my  friend 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly].  The  Fifteenth 
Amendment  evidently  makes  a distinction  itself 
as  to  the  right  of  voting.  It  reads : 

“But  when  the  right  to  vote  at  any  election,  for  the 
choice  of  electors  for  President  and  Vice  President  of  the 
United  states,  Representatives  in  Congress,  the  executive 
and  judicial  officers  of  a State,  or  the  members  of  the 
Legislature  thereof,  is  denied  to  any  of  the  male  inhabi- 
tants of  such  a State,  being  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  way  abridged,  ex- 
cept lor  participation  in  rebellion  or  other  crime,  the 
basis  of  representation  therein  shall  be  reduced  in  the 
proportion  which  the  number  of  such  male  citizens  shall 
bear  to  the  whole  number  of  male  citizens  twenty-one 
years  of  age  in  such  State.” 

There.  If  the  gentleman  will  read  that  Arti- 
cle, and  will  read  the  report  of  Judge  Bingham 
as  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  he  will  find,  although 
you  cannot  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  indi- 
viduals that  are  citizens,  they  may  either  ex- 
tend the  right  or  lessen  the  right  to  vote  of  any 
male  citizen.  It  has  been  held,  expressly,  that 
this  language  as  to  whom  that  does  not  confer 
the  right  to  vote  on  women.  It  is  because 
these  gentlemen  confound  the  right  of  citizen- 
ship and  the  right  of  voting.  It  is  well  known 
the  two  do  not  go  together. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me? 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  There  has  been  no  gentleman 
on  this  floor  during  this  debate  who  has  ever 
confounded  them  or  declared  any  such  thing. 
The  right  to  vote  is  one  thing  and  the  right  of 
citizenship  is  another  thing.  The  question  we 
have  been  discussing  is,  whether  they  ought  to 
be  separated  in  our  policy.  That  is  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  BABER.  Then  I understand  the  gentle- 
man. I had  supposed  these  rights  were  identi- 
cal. I agree  with  the  gentleman,  it  is  simply  a 
question  of  policy.  I object  to  driving  in  these 
arguments,  which  are  irrelevant  to  the  issue. 
It  is  true  that  under  the  treaties  we  can 
waive  our  rights.  We  can  make  any  concession 
we  choose,  but  this  does  not  touch  the  question 
of  our  rights.  The  whole  legal  argument  piled 
up  on  the  Constitutional  question  is  at  once 
swept  out  of  the  way  by  the  gentleman’s  own 
admission,  and  we  stand  now  upon  the  question 
of  expediency.  Whether  it  is  expedient  that  we 
here  in  the  State  of  Ohio  should  put  these  men  of 
foreign  birth  upon  the  same  footing,  on  the 
same  equality  with  a negro  cotton  hand  from 
the  South.  I say  on  the  mere  ground  of  ex- 
pediency and  good  policy  we  should  do  so.  I 
do  not  wish  to  detain  the  Convention  on  the 
question  of  expediency,  because  that  is  a ques- 
tion every  man  can  judge  for  himself,  but  will 
conclude  by  saying  that  these  gentlemen  have 
swept  down,  by  their  admissions,  every  argu- 
ment they  have  made.  It  is  simply  a question 


1928 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Hale,  Wilson. 


for  the  people  to  decide,  by  their  votes,  whether 
they  think  these  men  are  as  capable  of  voting  as 
those  hordes  of  barbarous  negroes  they  have 
poured  in  to  take  possession  of  the  ballot  box, 
as  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  says, 
simply  to  save  the  Union.  Now,  we  say  the 
result  proves  that  it  was  simply  for  power  and 
plunder.  Let  us  have  a little  more  infusion  of 
the  honest  German  and  foreign  element  to  con- 
front and  control  the  carpet-baggers  and  scala- 
wags now  enthroned  in  place  and  office  by 
means  of  this  degraded  colored  element,  who 
are  being  used  as  the  mere  serfs  of  centralized 
power. 

Mr.  HALE.  I did  not  engage  in  the  general 
discussion  of  this  question  and  I do  not  propose 
to.  It  has  been  discussed  until  it  is  threadbare. 
But  I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Conven- 
tion for  a moment  to  the  amendment  now  offer- 
ed, for,  in  my  judgment,  it  opens  the  door  to 
frauds  unlimited.  The  amendment  struck  out 
yesterday  limited  the  right  to  vote,  dating  from 
the  time  the  declaration  was  made.  Now, 
then,  there  was  something  tangible  you  could 
get  at.  There  was  a record  of  that.  The  man 
signifies  his  intention  to  become  a citizen. 
That  is  recorded.  There  is  the  paper,  and 
when  the  time  comes  for  voting,  you  date  from 
that  definitely  fixed  point.  The  amendment 
offered  here  is,  that  you  shall  date  from  the 
time  that  the  one  offering  to  vote  becomes  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States.  The  man  comes 
up  to  vote.  He  offers  his  vote.  He  has  de- 
clared his  intention  to  become  a citizen,  an  hour, 
half  hour,  or  a minute  before.  That  is  all  that 
is  required.  It  opens  up  then  the  whole  inquiry 
as  to  when  he  became  a resident  of  the  United 
States.  That  question  is  open.  You  have  no 
record  to  go  by.  You  have  only  his  naked  as- 
sertion. He  may  have  been  a resident  three 
years  or  one  year.  He  says  three.  There  is  no 
way  of  determining  that.  There  is  no  record  of 
it,  and  that  objection  is  ample,  in  my  judg- 
ment, without  any  regard  to  the  principle,  to 
prevent  its  incorporation  into  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

Again,  a man  comes  into  the  United  States 
for  a temporary  purpose.  He  lives  in  the  State 
on  the  day  of  election.  He  is  here  for  a tempo- 
rary purpose  only.  He  came  here  for  a tempo- 
rary purpose.  Politicians  get  around  him  on 
that  day  of  election.  He  goes  into  a probate 
judge’s  office  and  declares  his  intention  of  be- 
coming a citizen.  He  never  had  any  intention 
or  desire  to  become  a citizen.  He  files  his  de- 
laration  of  intention  upon  that  day,  and  goes 
straight  from  the  probate  judge’s  office  to  the 
polls  and  deposits  his  vote,  and  then  the  very 
next  day,  or  perhaps  the  very  same  day,  leaves 
the  country.  In  these  two  particulars  the  way 
is  open  for  untold  frauds. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  just  one  question  further. 
The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
says  this  is  a question  of  State  rights,  surrender 
of  State  rights.  What  conflict  is  there  here 
between  the  general  government  and  the  State, 
I would  like  to  know?  Whence  comes  it?  Can 
it  be  said  that  because  we  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
are  following  the  analogy  of  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, are,  therefore,  surrendering  State 
rights?  Why,  the  bare  statement  of  it  is  enough 
to  show  its  absurdity.  Are  we  surrendering 


[134th 

[Tuesday, 


our  power,  giving  it  up  to  the  general  govern- 
ment? We  are  debating  the  policy  as  to  who 
shall  vote  to-day.  The  next  Constitution  may 
change  that  policy.  We  may  change  it  to- 
morrow if  we  choose.  I do  "not  understand 
there  is  any  surrender  about  it,  and  when  the 
gentleman  talks  of  surrendering  State  rights, 
he  wanders  from  the  question.  The  question 
before  us  is  one  of  State  policy  merely. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I am  in  favor  of  this  amend" 
ment.  I had  supposed  that  since  the  adoption 
of  the  XIYth  Amendment  there  could  be  but 
little  question  as  to  the  liberality  engrafted  in 
our  institutions  in  the  nature  of  the  amendment 
now  pending  before  this  Convention.  Some 
animadversions  have  been  made  upon  the  poli- 
cy of  the  government  in  admitting  to  citizen- 
ship, and  the  consequent  right  of  electors,  so 
many  of  our  colored  brethren  in  America.  I 
understand  that  the  principles  settled  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States  and  by  the 
States  in  the  adoption  of  the  XIYth  Amendment 
to  be  this : that  whenever  a man  is  a freeman 
and  not  a slave,  he  is  not  fully  a freeman  until 
he  has  the  right  to  the  ballot  box,  and  that 
when  the  negroes  were  set  at  liberty  it  was  a 
necessary  consequence  that  they  be  admitted  to 
the  ballot  box ; that  we  could  not  submit  to  the 
strange  anomaly  of  having  three  millions  of 
freedmen  in  our  midst  and  denying  them  the 
privilege  at  the  ballot  box.  That,  at  least,  is 
the  spirit  of  the  XIYth  Amendment,  and  I am 
utterly  astonished  that  men  in  this  Convention 
misapprehend  the  broad,  plain  spirit  evidently 
engrafted  in  that  XIYth  Amendment.  What- 
ever might  have  been  the  desires  of  this  man  or 
that  man  with  regard  to  engrafting  that  princi- 
ple upon  the  Constitution  of  our  country, 
there  can  be  no  question  that  when  the 
slaves  were  made  freemen  no  man  would 
dare  deny  them  the  right  to  vote.  But  I 
understand  this  to  be  a proposition  merely 
to  extend  the  same  liberty  and  privilege  to 
white  men  as  well  as  to  our  colored  brethren. 
Who  denies  them  that  right?  You  must  ex- 
tend the  time  of  probation  still  further.  Why  ? 
If  there  is  any  merit  in  it  upon  principle,  I 
would  ask  gentlemen  of  this  Convention 
which  has  the  most  merit  in  it,  per  se , the  act 
of  being  a citizen  because  you  are  born  here 
and  cannot  help  it,  or  coming  here  from  choice? 
Why,  the  doctrine  advocated  by  some  here 
would  exclude  the  Savior  of  the  world  from  the 
ballot  box  were  he  to  set  foot  upon  American 
shores.  I do  not  subscribe  to  any  such  illiberal 
sentiment.  I believe  in  this  broad,  agrarian 
humanity.  Who  made  this  earth  and  caused  it 
to  roll  in  the  immensity  of  space,  and  who  has 
the  right  to  regulate  the  footsteps  of  God’s  men 
upon  earth?  No  one  but  he  who  says,  “I  am  a 
little  better  than  the  foreigner.”  It  is  not  in 
consonance  with  the  spirit  of  the  age.  The 
XIYth  Amendment  was  a death  stroke  to  such 
illiberality.  Who  was  it  that  marched  side  by 
side  with  our  native  born  soldiery  ? While  I 
speak  here  to-day,  sir,  the  blood  of  more  than 
one  hundred  thousand  foreigners  cries  out, 
“stand  by  my  countrymen.”  And  will  we  sit 
here  as  framers  of  a liberal  Constitution  and 
vote  against  a proposition  of  this  kind? 

Something  has  been  said  in  regard  to  the  doc- 
trine of  St.  Paul  on  this  point.  What  his  ideas 


1929 


Day.] CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

March  10, 1874.]  Rowland,  Wilson,  Gurley,  Cunningham,  Hoadly. 


of  political  economy  were  in  this  respect  1 do 
not  know,  but  there  has  one  spoken  with  higher 
authority  than  any  one  that  belongs  to  the 
church.  I belong  to  the  church — the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  would  probably  like  to 
know  what  church  that  is. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  is  a matter  of  privi- 
lege. I suppose,  however,  that  the  gentleman 
belongs  to  the  Democratic  church.  [Laughter.  ] 

Mr.  WILSON.  But  whatever  St.  Paul’s 
opinion  might  have  been  with  regard  to  these 
matters,  there  was  one  that  announced  the 
great  principle  long  before  he  lived,  in  the 
thunders  of  Mount  Sinai,  amidst  the  smoke  and 
lightning,  when  he  said : “ Oppress  not  the 
stranger  in  a strange  land.  Ye  shall  have  one 
law  both  for  him  that  is  born  among  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  and  for  the  stranger  that  so- 
journeth  among  them.”  And  again : “ The 
stranger  that  dwelleth  with  you  shall  be  unto 
you  as  one  born  among  you,  and  thou  shalt  love 
him  as  thyself;  for  ye  were  strangers  in  the 
land  of  Egypt;  I am  the  Lord,  your  God.”  I 
think  that  is  higher  authority  than  St.  Paul. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  is  under  the  old  dis- 
pensation. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I think  we  would  better  go 
back  to  this  old  dispensation  to  learn  democ- 
racy. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  How  long  have  you  known 
that  kind  of  democracy  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  I have  known  it  from  my 
childhood. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  How  long  since  you  have 
been  convinced  of  the  truth  of  it  and  had  your 
eyes  opened  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  WILSON.  With  regard  to  the  evil  of 
oppressing  the  stranger  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I have  learned  this  as  one 
thing  in  my  life,  and  believe  it  to  be  a safe  rule 
to  follow:  that  I never  will  deny  to  man  or 
woman  any  privilege  that  I have  a right  to  ex- 
ercise myself. 

[Members,  “ Good,”  “good.”] 

And  if  we  adhere  to  that  proposition  this 
amendment  will  pass. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  You  are  going  for  woman’s 
rights,  then. 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  gentleman  says  lam  go- 
ing for  woman’s  rights,  then.  In  principle,  I 
suppose  that  to  be  so,  and  I do  not  think  I would 
deny  to  my  good  mother,  if  she  were  alive,  or 
to  a sister  or  wife,  any  rights  I possess.  I think 
I am  too  much  of  a gentleman  for  that. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I reckon  that  it  is 
claimed  by  no  member  of  the  Convention — at 
least,  if  it  is  so  claimed,  I have  no  knowledge  of 
it — that  the  State  of  Ohio  has  not  a right  to  fix 
the  terms  on  which  the  inhabitants  may  exer- 
cise the  ballot.  But  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly],  and  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  and  others,  have  sought 
to  bring  in  the  question  of  citizenship  of  the 
United  States,  basing  their  arguments  upon 
what  I said  at  the  opening  of  this  debate,  that 
there  always  ought  to  be  citizenship  before  the 
ballot;  claiming  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  recognizes  such  a relationship  as 
possible  to  exist  as  citizenship  of  the  State  with- 
out the  citizenship  of  the  whole  Republic. 
Now,  I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  gentle- 


man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  first,  totha^ 
provision  of  the  Constititution  defining  the 
power  of  Congress,  and,  among  these  distinct- 
ive powers,  is  that  to  establish  a uniform  rule 
of  naturalization.  All  persons  who  are  natural- 
ized are  citizens,  and  have  the  rights  of  citizens. 
Mr.  President,  I undertake  to  say  that  no  one 
will  thoughtfully  claim  that  it  is  possible,  under 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  for  any  one 
not  born  within  the  United  States  to  become  a 
citizen  of  any  part  of  the  United  States,  except 
in  pursuance  of  Federal  law, passed  in  pursuance 
of  the  Constitution.  This  power  was  vested  by 
the  people  of  the  States  in  the  general  Govern- 
ment, and,  in  conformity  with  that  power,  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  enacted : “Any 
alien  or  free  white  person  may  be  admitted  to 
become  a citizen  of  the  United  States,  or  any  of 
them,  on  the  following  conditions,  and  not  other- 
wise.This  is  the  first  section  of  the  natural- 
ization law;  and  I undertake  to  say  that  citizen- 
ship can  only  be  conferred  under  the  operation 
of  this  law,  or  by  some  other  law  passed  in  con- 
formity to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
a question?  I understand  the  gentleman  to 
admit  that  we  are  not  bound  to  follow  citizen- 
ship in  granting  the  right  of  suffrage,  or  in  de- 
nying it.  We  may  grant  it  irrespective  of  citi- 
zenship, or  we  may  deny  it  to  citizens.  Am  I 
right? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I believe  the  gentle- 
man is. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I ask  the  gentleman  this 
question:  whether  other  privileges  of  citizen- 
ship— such  as  the  right  to  inherit  property,  pur- 
chase real  estate  irrespective  of  the  interference 
of  the  State,  all  other  privileges  granted  by  the 
State  of  Ohio  to  foreigners  who  have  been  in 
the  State  only  six  months,  or  longer — in  other 
words,  can  the  State  of  Ohio  give  the  privileges 
of  citizenship  to  an  alien  ? Is  the  law  we  have, 
that  does  that,  constitutional  or  not? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I suppose  that  any 
jurisdiction  that  the  State  of  Ohio  may  choose 
to  exercise,  that  does  not  come  in  collision  with 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  may  be 
exercised,  because  it  is  expressed  in  this  Con- 
stitution that  all  the  powers  not  specifically 
granted  are  reserved  to  the  States  and  the  people 
of  the  States.  I will  not  give  way  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  or  any 
other  gentleman  on  this  floor,  in  my  adherence 
to  the  general  doctrine  of  the  rights  of  the 
States  to  control  their  own  concerns  in  their 
own  wajr,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  and  the  laws  passed  in  con- 
formity thereto. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  What  I want  to  get  at,  if 
possible,  is  this : In  1804,  the  State  of  Ohio 
passed  a law,  which  is  printed  on  page  69  of 
Swan  and  Critchfield,  vol.  I.  That  it  shall  be 
lawful  for  any  or  all  aliens  that  now  may,  or 
hereafter  shall  be  entitled  to  have,  within  this 
State,  any  lands,  tenements  or  hereditaments, 
either  by  gift,  devise,  or  descent,  to  hold,  possess 
and  enjoy  the  same,  as  fully  and  completely  as 
any  citizen  of  the  United  States  or  of  this  State 
can  do,  subject  to  the  same  laws  and  regulations, 
and  not  otherwise.  What  I wish  the  gentleman 
to  answer  is  this.  Whether  that  law  and  other 
laws  conferring  upon  aliens  the  privileges  Of 


1930 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUEFRAGE. 

Cunningham,  Hoadly,  West,  Ewing,  Mueller,  etc. 


[134th 

[Tuesday, 


citizens,  are  or  are  not  in  conformity  with  the 
naturalization  laws  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  my  opinion  was 
worth  anything  to  this  Convention,  or  to  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  I 
would  say  that  the  law  he  recites  is  entirely 
constitutional. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Then  what  this  State  can 
not  do  is  simply  to  label  a man  by  the  name 
citizen.  It  can  give  him  all  the  privileges  as 
you  have  just  admitted,  but  can  not  put  the  title 
on  him.  That  is  all  there  is  to  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  can  not  put  the  obligations 
upon  him. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  can  put  the  obligations 
upon  him. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  gentleman,  with 
his  usual  adroitness,  insists  upon  placing  me  in 
a position  that  I have  all  the  time  disclaimed. 
I tell  the  gentleman  now,  and  I hope  he  will 
remember  it,  at  least,  until  I leave  the  floor, 
that  I do  not  deny  this  power  to  the  State  to 
make  an  elector  out  of  one  who  is  not  a citizen, 
but  I do  deny  the  conclusion  that  he  arrives  at, 
that  the  State  of  Ohio  can  make  a citizen  of  a 
man  who  is  not  made  a citizen  by  the  laws  of 
the  United  States.  Nobody  ever  claimed  that 
the  naturalization  laws  of  Congress  are  an  in- 
fringement of  the  rights  of  the  States.  It  was 
never  so  averred  by  the  severest  and  most 
radical  States  Right  man  that  ever  lived  in  this 
Republic.  The  law  has  remained  unchallenged 
so  long  that  it  has  become  venerable.  I have 
no  partizan  interest  to  forward.  I have  no  party 
disaster  to  fear.  My  vote  in  this  matter  is 
governed  and  controlled  by  my  convictions  of 
that  which  is  right.  I do  not  believe  that  it  is 
best  for  the  naturalized  citizens  of  this  country 
that  they  should  be  placed  by  friends,  however 
zealous,  in  the  position  of  asking  more  than  is 
conceded  to  the  native  born  citizen. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  this  as  a substitute  for 
my  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“And  every  male  person  of  foi-eign  birth  who  may  have 
declared  his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  according  to  law,  not  less  than  three  nor  more 
than  five  years  before  he  offers  to  vote.” 

So  that  it  will  read  : 

Every  male  person  of  foreign  birth  who  may  have  de- 
clared his  intention  to  become  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  according  to  law,  not  less  than  three  nor  more 
than  five  years  before  he  offers  to  vote,  of  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the 
State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of  the 
county,  township,  or  ward  in  which  he  resides,  such  time 
as  may  be  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the  qualifications 
of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all  elections. 

Mr.  EWING.  I would  state  to  the  Conven- 
tion that  this  is  the  provision  reported  by  the 
Committee,  word  for  word,  as  it  was  stricken 
out,  with  the  exception  that,  instead  of  requir- 
ing that  the  declaration  of  intention  shall  have 
been  made  one  year  before  the  person  offers  to 
vote,  it  requires  that  it  shall  have  been  made 
three  years  before  he  offers  to  vote.  This 
meets  the  special  objections  made  this  morning 
to  the  amendment  that  I have  just  withdrawn, 
and  I submit  it  as  a fair  compromise  of  the 
opinions  of  the  two  almost  evenly  divided  par- 
ties upon  this  question,  and  as  likely  to  be  more 


satisfactory  to  the  whole  people  of  the  State 
than  the  extreme  views  of  either  party. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I offer  the  following  as  an 
amendment  to  the  amendment,  or  rather  as  a 
substitute  for  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  offers  the  following 
as  a substitute  for  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  The  Sec- 
retary will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Mueller  moves  to  amend  section  1 by  adding: 

“Each  male  person  of  foreign  birth  of  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  years,  who  may  have  declared  his  intention  to  be- 
come a citizen  of  the  United  States,  according  to  law, 
who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the  State  one  year  next 
preceding  the  election,  and  six  months  in  the  township  or 
ward  where  he  offers  to  vote,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at 
all  elections  for  township  and  municipal  officers.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  [Muel- 
ler], that  it  is  not  a substitute  as  he  proposes 
it.  The  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  is  to  insert  in  the 
blank  that  was  made  yesterday,  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Muel- 
ler], is  to  add  at  the  end. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I will  answer  the  gentle- 
man from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns].  I did  not 
want  to  object  to  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing].  If  it 
is  not  in  order  I did  not  want  to  raise  the  point. 
If  the  Convention  is  willing  to  accept  it,  I am 
satisfied.  It  is  the  same  amendment  which 
was  rejected  by  a vote  yesterday,  except  the 
word  three  instead  of  four.  The  proper  way 
to  accomplish  this  purpose  was  to  move  to  strike 
out  the  word  “one”  and  insert  “three.”  This 
not  having  been  done  the  amendment  is  now 
probably  out  of  order.  But  I did  not  intend 
to  raise  any  objection  on  that  account.  The  ob- 
jection to  my  substitute  by  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  is  correct,  and  I will 
not  insist  upon  it.  I have  not  the  least  objec- 
tion to  the  Convention  voting  on  the  substitute 
of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing], 

Mr.  EWING.  I think  it  is  in  order.  If  it  is 
not  I will  not  urge  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  point  of  order  is  not 
made. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I will  not  make  the  point. 
I give  notice  that  I will  offer  my  amendment  if 
the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing],  is  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection 
the  gentleman  has  leave  to  withdraw. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr. 
Russell]  is  called  away  and  I agreed  to  pair 
off  with  him.  I therefore  ask  to  be  excused 
from  voting  on  this  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will  be 
excused. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I have  the  same  exemption 
that  I had  on  yesterday,  the  gentleman  from 
Adams  [Mr.  Mullen]  not  having  returned. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  is  ex- 
cused. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  30,  nays  37,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clay,  Ewing,  Foran,  Godfrey,  Hill, 
Hoadly,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride, 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 

Rowland,  Baber,  Burns,  Mueller. 


1931 


March  10, 1874.] 


Miller,  Mitchener,  Powell,  Rickly,  Smith  of 
Shelby,  Steedman,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Yalken- 
burgh,  Yoorhes,  White  of  Brown,  White  of 
Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  Champaign — 30. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Campbell,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cun- 
ningham, De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Gurley,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  Mueller,  Neal,  Page, 
Phellis,  Pond,  Root,  Rowland,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Townsend,  Towsley,  Tuttle,  Yan 
Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West,  Presi- 
dent—37. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I want  to  call  attention  to 
one  point  in  this  matter,  that  is  this : I believe 

that  it  will  be  conceded  that  there  is  in  this 
country  a growing  disposition  of  liberality  in 
the  matter  of  the  extension  of  the  right  of  suf- 
frage, and  all  other  rights  of  men,  and  of 
women,  too,  and  that  there  is  a rapid  growth  in 
that  direction.  Now,  are  we  not  safe  in  put- 
ting ourselves  simply  upon  the  scale  of  the  na- 
turalization laws,  so  that  whenever  they  are 
changed  we  can  conform  to  them  without  any 
specialties  in  our  Constitution  which  may  in- 
terfere with  them  ? Are  we  not  safer  in  follow- 
ing the  rule  of  the  United  States  in  the  matter? 
If  there  is  a growth  of  public  sentiment  in  that 
direction  why  not  trust  it? 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  for  a 
moment? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BABER.  If  the  Congress  shortens  the 
term  it  will  not  interfere,  because  a citizen  can 
vote  at  any  rate. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Why  the  need  of  your 
special  legislation  here  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Because  we  want  Ohio  to  lead 
the  column  of  reform. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Ah ! 

On  this  question,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded, taken,  and  resulted — yeas  33,  nays  38, 
as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clay,  Ewing,  Foran,  Frieberg,  Godfrey, 
Greene,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
McBride,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Powell,  Rickly, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Tulloss,  Tyler, 
Van  Yalkenburgh,  Yoorhes,  Watson,  White  of 
Brown,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of 
Champaign — 33. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Campbell,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats, 
Cook,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Gur- 
ley, Hale,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mueller,  Neal, 
Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Root,  Rowland,  Sears, 
Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tuttle,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  West, 
President— 38. 

So  the  substitute  of  Mr.  Ewing  was  not  agreed 
to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I have  an  amendment  which  I 
intended  to  offer  as  an  additional  section,  but 
on  examining  the  Proposition  I think  it  would 
more  properly  come  in  as  an  addition  to  the 
first  section,  and  therefore  offer  it  now. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I offered  a substitute. 


The  PRESIDENT.  It  was  withdrawn. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  For  the  purpose  of  allow- 
ing this  to  be  voted  upon. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I yield ; I will  simply  give 
notice  that  I will  offer  it  after  disposition  is 
made  of  this. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  offers  the  following 
amendment  at  the  end  of  section  1.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  to  the  section: 

Each  male  person  of  foreign  birth,  of  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  years,  who  may  have  declared  his  intention  to  becomo 
a citizen  of  the  United  States,  according  to  law,  and  who 
shall  have  been  a resident  of  the  State  one  year  next  pre- 
ceding the  election,  and  six  months  in  the  township  or 
ward  where  he  offers  to  vote,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at 
all  elections  for  township  and  municipal  officers. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  to  strike  out  all  after 
the  word  “elections.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  moves  to 
strike  out  the  words  “for  township  and  munici- 
pal officers.”  It  will  then  read  as  follows : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Each  male  person  of  foreign  birth,  of  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years,  who  may  have  declared  his  intention 
to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States,  according  to 
law,  and  who  shall  ha?e  been  a resident  of  the  State  one 
year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  six  months  in  the 
township  or  ward  where  he  offers  to  vote,  shall  be  enti- 
tled to  vote  at  all  elections.” 

Mr.  MUELLER.  In  pursuance  of  the  notice 
heretofore  given,  I have  offered  this  amendment. 
It  is  of  substantial  merits;  and  if  conclusions 
may  be  drawn  from  the  liberal  spirit  mani- 
fested by  members  of  this  Convention  on  the 
subject  involved  therein,  I should  be  sadly  dis- 
appointed if  the  measure  should  fail  to  meet 
with  your  favorable  consideration. 

In  its  present  form  it  is  not  liable  to  any  of 
the  objections  raised  against  the  proposition 
just  rejected  by  your  vote.  No  principle  of 
sound  State  policy  is  violated  in  granting  to 
non-citizens,  under  certain  restrictions,  the 
right  of  expressing  their  voice  in  the  affairs  of 
municipal  corporations  of  which  they  are  mem- 
bers. The  provision  contemplated  to  be  made 
a part  of  the  constitutional  law  is  just  and 
equitable  in  its  nature,  and  cannot  fail  to  be  at- 
tended with  useful  and  beneficial  results. 

The  engrafting  of  this  provision  into  the  or- 
ganic law  will,  in  the  first  place,  show  the 
good  disposition  of  our  people  towards  those 
who  are  willing  to  emigrate  to  the  State  to  make 
it  their  home.  In  the  second  place,  it  will  have 
the  effect  to  induce  many  new-comers  from  the 
Old  World  to  make  Ohio  their  home,  to  increase 
its  population  and  its  prosperity.  I am  unable 
to  conceive  any  good  reason  why  the  right  to 
participate  in  the  regulation  and  administra- 
tion of  township  affairs  should  be  withheld 
from  such  persons  who,  after  having  declared 
their  intention  to  become  citizens,  have  made 
this  township  their  bona  fide  place  of  home. 

One  year’s  residence  in  the  State,  and  six 
months  in  the  township  or  ward,  may  be  safe- 
ly considered  as  sufficient  to  qualify  them  for  a 
judicious  selection  of  the  respective  officers  to 
be  chosen.  They  are  as  greatly  interested  in 
the  proper  administration  of  justice,  and  in  the 
honest  management  of  school  and  other  muni- 
cipal affairs  as  any  other  of  their  fellow  neigh- 
bors. 


1932 


[134th 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


Burns,  West,  Kraemer,  Mueller. 


[Tuesday, 


The  progress  and  prosperity  of  their  city  or 
township  is  identical  with  their  own.  The  ob- 
jection of  being  disqualified  to  exercise  that 
right  on  account  of  their  want  of  political 
knowledge  and  information,  does  not  apply 
here,  for  obvious  reasons.  Here  they  have  to 
deal  only  with  matters  of  their  own  observa- 
tion, and  by  which  they  are  surrounded. 

The  acquirement  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
needs  and  wants  of  the  special  locality  is  thrust 
and  forced  upon  them.  They  necessarily  be- 
come acquainted  with  their  neighbors,  and  by 
almost  daily  contact  with  them  an  opportunity 
is  offered  for  learning  to  judge  their  character. 
In  short,  they  become  competent  to  use  their 
own  judgment  at  the  election. 

The  fact  that  township  and  city  officers  have 
no  political  bearing  removes  the  danger  that 
partisans  and  political  corruptionists  would  at- 
tempt to  secure  the  votes  of  this  class  of  inex- 
perienced voters  for  the  accomplishment  of 
their  nefarious  purposes. 

Last,  but  not  least,  would  the  adoption  of 
my  amendment  have  a highly  salutary  effect 
upon  those  people  themselves  in  raising  their 
confidence  and  self-esteem,  and  in  causing 
them  to  devote  greater  attention  to  public 
affairs.  It  would  serve  them  as  a preparatory 
school  of  political  education,  and  in  every  re- 
spect produce  beneficial  and  desirable  results. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  I desire  to  say  briefly  that  I 
can  see  no  good  reason  why  foreigners  should 
be  allowed  to  participate  in  elections  for  mu- 
nicipal officers,  and  the  officers  of  the  township, 
and  all  the  affairs  connected  with  the  munici- 
pality, and  yet  prohibit  them  from  voting  at  all 
other  elections.  Why,  Mr.  President,  the  elec- 
tions of  a large  city,  and,  in  fact,  the  elections 
of  small  cities  and  villages,  so  far  as  it  affects 
the  citizens  of  that  city  or  village,  are  frequent- 
ly far  more  important  than  the  election  of 
county  officers,  or  even  state  officers.  Take  the 
city  of  Cincinnati,  or  the  city  of  Cleveland,  and 
I undertake  to  say,  although  not  a resident  of 
either,  that  there  are  elections  held  in  both  of 
those  cities  that,  so  far  as  it  effects  the  material 
prosperity,  so  far  as  it  affects  the  monetary  in- 
terests of  those  cities,  are  far  more  important  in 
a pecuniary  point  of  view,  and  quite  as  impor- 
tant that  the  voter  should  have  an  intelligent 
understanding  of  what  he  is  to  vote  for,  as  if  he 
was  called  upon  to  vote  for  officers  of  the  coun- 
ty or  State.  I shall  vote  for  the  substitute 
cheerfully  and  willingly  if  these  words  are 
stricken  out.  What  I shall  do  if  they  are  not 
stricken  out  I shall  reserve  for  future  consider- 
ation. But  I hope  these  words  will  be  stricken 
out. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  the  gentleman  will  find 
that  his  amendment  ought  to  go  to  the  end  of 
the  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  where  he  pro- 
poses to  put  it. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  The  gentleman  from  Cuy- 
ahoga [Mr.  Mueller],  who  offers  this  amend- 
ment, made,  on  a former  occasion,  some  re- 
marks to  which  I had  not  the  pleasure  of 
listening,  but  I saw  them  afterwards  in  print, 
and  the  principal  reasons  that  were  assigned 
why  foreigners  should  not  vote  was  the  fear  of 
their  falling  into  the  hands  of  demagogues. 
Taking  the  gentleman’s  former  argument  and 


his  present  proposition,  I fail  to  see  the  dis" 
tinction  of  township  and  municipal  demagogues, 
and  Congressional,  county  and  State  dema- 
gogues. If  the  objection  is  good  for  one  set  of 
demagogues,  why,  it  ought  to  be  good  for  the 
others.  Hence,  I conclude  that  if  the  gentle- 
man had  no  other  reason  than  that  to  prevent 
him  from  bestowing  the  privilege  of  voting 
upon  them,  that  this  amendment  is  really  not 
in  conformity  with  the  professed  principles  of 
the  gentleman  himself.  And  being  far  from 
accepting  any  sort  of  compromise  which  this 
Convention  may  finally  please  to  settle  upon,  I 
would  suggest  a further  deficiency  which  would 
prevent  me  from  voting  for  this  amendment  as 
it  now  stands.  It  does  not  provide  that  the 
foreigner  who  is  permitted  by  this  amendment 
to  vote  in  township  and  municipal  elections 
shall  take  the  oath  of  allegiance.  That  is  one 
of  the  [most  formidable  reasons  that  were  as- 
signed by  gentlemen,  that  the  foreigner  owes 
allegiance  to  foreign  potentates  and  powers, 
which  he  should  first  abjure,  but  whatever  it 
is  the  pleasure  of  this  Convention  to  do  in  this 
matter,  that  certainly  ought  to  be  inserted  in  this 
provision;  for  a man  who  does  not  abjure  alle- 
giance to  his  sovereign  cannot  consistently  ex- 
ercise the  right  of  a voter.  Hence,  as  the 
matter  stands  now,  I must  vote  against  this 
Proposition. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? He  says  he  cannot  see  the  dis- 
tinction which  I make.  In  the  first  place,  I do 
not  advocate  here  any  measure  either  for  or 
against  foreigners  for  any  political  purpose 
whatever.  Is  there  not  a difference  ? In  the 
township  elections  a man  is  able  to  judge  what 
man  is  most  suitable  for  constable,  or  trustee, 
or  school  director.  He  is  personally  acquainted 
with  the  candidates  and  personally  interested 
in  the  matter.  And  when  measures  come  up 
in  the  ward  or  township  he  will  take  care  not 
to  be  led  astray.  But  how  is  it  in  county  and 
State  elections  ? Perhaps  it  might  be  well  to 
include  county  officers.  But  when  it  comes  to 
determine  who  is  a good  man  for  Governor, 
member  of  Congress,  or  President  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  a person  who  has  been  in  the  State 
only  one  year  is  entirely  incompetent  to  decide 
that  question.  Then  he  must  rely  upon  the 
politicians,  and  his  vote  will  be  used  in  the  in- 
terest of  a certain  party.  That  is  the  amount 
of  it.  So  I say  there  is  nothing  in  my  amend- 
ment but  what  is  just.  Ought  these  men  to  have 
a vote  in  townships  and  wards  ? But  I am  in 
favor  of  protecting  aliens  against  politicians.  I 
have  seen  enough  of  this  among  my  German 
and  Irish  friends.  I am  sick  of  it.  I want  to 
have  them  equal  to  others,  so  that  they  shall 
not  always  be  lured  into  matters  by  their  na- 
tionality. That  is  what  I want  to  dispose  of  in 
addition  to  what  I have  said.  Not  because  I 
have  any  less  respect  for  them  than  the  gentle- 
man from  Ottawa  [Mr.  Kraemer].  As  far  as 
love  to  my  countrymen  is  concerned,  I think  I 
can  compete  with  any  one  who  is  now  advoca- 
ting this  measure,  and  in  my  position  to-day, 
I believe  I am  representing  four-fifths  of  the 
Germans  of  the  State. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I lay  no  claims  to  any  spe- 
cial representation  of  Germans.  All  I repre- 
sent is  my  constituents  of  Ottawa.  I have  not 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


1933 


Day.] 

March  10, 1874.] 

doubted  the  gentleman’s  hearty  patriotism.  All 
I have  doubted  is  the  propriety  of  putting  for- 
eigners under  tutelage.  This  argument  of 
demagogues,  when  we  sound  it  to  the  bottom, 
what  is  it?  Is  it  the  fear  that  the  aliens  may 
fall  into  the  hands  of  the  gentleman’s  own 
party,  and  he  led  astray  to  his  party?  For,  if 
he  is  sincere  in  his  party  creed,  he  must  believe 
they  are  right.  Then,  where  are  the  dema- 
gogues and  politicians  of  which  the  gentleman 
is  afraid  and  sick  of?  They  must  be  on  the  other 
side.  Then,  the  gentleman  is  unwilling  for  the 
men  to  exercise  their  own  judgment,  for  fear, 
forsooth,  the  demagogues  on  the  other  side  will 
persuade  them  to  go  on  that  side.  The 
gentleman  who  represents  four-fifths  of  the 
Germans,  is  afraid  of  one-fifth  of  the  dema- 
gogues of  the  opposite  side.  If  a man  has  got 
sense  enough  to  vote  amongst  his  neighbors  in  a 
township  or  municipal  election,  why  has  he  not 
sense  enough  to  go  further  and  vote  for  county 
officers.  I do  not  see  any  force  in  the  argu- 
ment. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Is  it  not  a very  different 
proposition?  In  your  township  they  know 
Kreamer,  hut  if  Mueller’s  name  he  used  in 
connection  with  a State  office,  they  know  as 
much  about  it  as  “the  man  in  the  moon.” 
There  is  the  difference.  I want  these  people  to 
exercise  their  judgment  as  far  as  possible  and 
not  rely  on  others. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I understand  that.  But  if 
the  gentleman  were  running  for  Congress  he 
would  have  the  advantage  of  me,  for  nobody 
would  know  me  except  the  people  of  little  Ot- 
towa,  but  everybody  in  Cleveland  would  know 
him.  Four-fifths  of  the  Germans  would  be  in 
that  city  and  not  one-fifth  in  my  county.  I do 
not  wish  to  intimate  that  there  is  any  lack  of 
patriotism  or  any  lack  of  love  of  country  on  the 
part  of  the  gentleman ; he  is  simply  mistaken. 
This  is  a matter  of  individual  judgment.  Each 
of  us  takes  his  position  and  we  maintain  it  by 
argument  if  we  can,  and  if  we  can  find  enough 
members  of  the  Convention  to  support  us,  we 
will  carry  our  point.  I regret  that  there  should 
be  any  feeling  about  it.  Certainly  there  is 
none  on  my  part. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  There  is  none  on  mine. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  What  I wish,  is  simply  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  de- 
ficiency, as  I regard  it,  in  the  measure  offered 
by  the  gentleman,  or  that  advocated  by  any 
other  gentleman  here.  I have  not  doubted  the 
patriotism  and  good  intention  of  any  one  of  my 
native-born  fellow-citizens. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I voted  steadily  for  the 
proposition  to  admit  foreigners  to  vote  on  one 
year’s  residence  in  the  State,  and  voted  also  for 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing],  to  permit  that  class  of  persons  to 
vote  after  being  three  years  in  the  country. 
Now  I look  upon  this  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  merely  as 
a “tub  to  the  whale,”  but  I am  not  going  to 
vote  against  it  for  that  reason.  While  I believe 
that  a foreign-born  inhabitant  of  this  country 
may  be  intrusted  at  any  time  with  the  ballot  as 
safely  as  the  native-born  citizen,  and  I would 
not  vote  to  give  them  this  great  privilege  if  I 
did  not  so  believe,  I say  while  I believe  that  he 
ought  to  have  all  the  rights  which  are  accorded 


Mueller,  Kraemer,  Steedman,  Baber,  Okey. 


to  the  native-born  citizen  in  directing  the  affairs 
of  this  country,  I am  not  going  to  vote  against 
giving  him  even  this  small  privilege  because  I 
cannot  get  for  him  that  which  I think  we  ought 
to  bestow  upon  him.  I therefore  differ  with 
the  gentleman  from  Ottawa  [Mr.  Kraemer.] 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  Perhaps  the  gentleman 
does  not  understand  me.  I did  not  say  that  I 
would  not  finally  vote  for  the  proposition.  I 
said  I would  vote  against  it  in  its  present  shape 
because  it  did  not  have  that  provision  which  is 
eminently  necessary,  the  declaration  of  alle- 
giance. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I misunderstood  the  gen- 
tleman. I thought  he  declared  his  purpose  to 
vote  against  the  Proposition  in  toto , whether 
amended  or  not.  The  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion who  have  by  their  votes  and  speeches  on 
this  floor  steadily  adhered  to  the  original  Prop- 
osition reported  by  the  Committee  have  good 
reason  to  distrust  a proposition  coming  from 
the  other  side.  We  should  distrust  it,  though 
they  come  bearing  presents.  I am  not  going  to 
question  the  sincerity  of  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  and  being  a German, 
has  led  me  to  believe  that  he  is  not  entirely  sat- 
isfied with  the  position  he  occupies  on  that 
question.  Therefore  I characterized  this  as  a 
“tub  to  the  whale.”  But  I am  not  justified  in 
withholding  from  that  class  of  persons  even  this 
small  boon.  I will  not  deny  to  them  a partici- 
pation in  the  local  elections  in  the  communities 
in  which  they  reside,  simply  because  I cannot 
get  for  them  the  great  privilege  of  American 
citizenship.  I think  if  I were  to  give  such  a 
vote  as  that  I would  be  actuated  by  feeling  and 
not  by  judgment.  I shall  vote,  therefore,  first 
for  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns],  and  then  for  the  original 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga 
[Mr.  Mueller],  if  the  amendment  is  defeated. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  strikes  me  that  the  prop- 
osition offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga, 
is  just  to  carry  out  the  absurdity  spoken  of  by 
his  colleague  [Mr.  Townsend],  that  where  we 
have  two  elections  on  the  same  day,  a munici- 
pal, and  a county  or  a State  election,  we  are  to 
have  different  classes  of  voters.  I am  not  in 
favor  of  any  such  distinction  as  that.  It  is 
liable  to  the  very  objection  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  and  the 
gentleman  denounced  it  as  being  the  source  of 
corruption.  I,  therefore,  have  no  confidence  in 
such  a proposition  as  this  to  establish  a class  of 
voters  who  shall  have  the  mark  of  a helot  put 
upon  them.  That  is,  you  are  not  worthy  to  take 
part  in  the  affairs  of  the  State,  or  the  affairs  of 
the  Nation,  but  just  to  peddle  out  your  votes 
on  little  city  and  township  offices.  But  that  is 
not  the  question  now.  The  gentleman  from 
Ottawa  [Mr.  Kraemer]  has  given  us  a substan- 
tial objection  for  voting  against  this  proposition, 
because  it  does  not  contain  the  declaration  of 
intention,  and  I shall  vote  for  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns], 
and  in  favor  of  striking  out  the  words  “ for 
township  and  municipal  officers,”  so  that  this 
may  be  a general  proposition,  and  then  when 
the  modifications  proposed  come  up,  I shall 
reserve  myself  for  proper  action  upon  the  sub- 
ject. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I desire  to  be  excused,  having 


1934 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE. 


Hoadly,  Burns,  Baber,  Kraemer,  Blose,  etc. 


[134th 

[Tuesday, 


paired  off  with  the  gentleman  from  Meigs  [Mr. 
Russell]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  is  ex- 
cused. 

The  Secretary  will  call  the  yeas  and  nays  on 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns]. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  amendment  of  the  del- 
egate from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  is  now  in 
order,  I believe.  I wish  simply  to  say  that  I 
shall  vote  for  it,  simply  on  the  principle  that 
half  a loaf,  or  even  less  than  half  a loaf,  as  I 
regard  this,  is  better  than  no  bread  at  all.  It 
will  be  a measure  of  protection  to  unnatural- 
ized foreigners  within  the  municipalities,  coun- 
ties and  townships,  and  will  be  a power  in 
their  hands  which  will  be  productive,  in  my 
opinion,  of  very  great  good  to  them.  It  is  not 
what  I desire,  yet  if  it  can  be  had,  I believe,  as 
far  as  the  effect  may  extend,  it  will  be  an  un- 
mixed advantage.  Therefore,  I hope  that  the 
friends  who  have  been  voting  together  will  vote 
now  with  the  delegate  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Mueller].  I mean  the  friends  of  the  extension 
of  the  right  of  suffrage  will  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment of  the  delegate  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mu- 
eller]. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I shall  vote  for  the  propo- 
sition as  it  stands.  I do  not  desire  to  take  up 
the  time  of  the  Convention  in  suggesting  any 
further  amendment.  I wish  some  gentleman 
would  do  so,  or  by  general  consent,  the  provi- 
sion which  says  that  he  shall  reside  six  months 
in  township  or  city,  should  be  changed,  and  let 
his  residence  in  the  township  or  the  city  stand 
on  the  same  footing  with  other  electors.  It 
provides  that  he  shall  reside  in  the  State.  Now, 
that  is  all  right.  I think  when  you  come  to  de- 
fine the  time  he  shall  reside  in  the  township  or 
city  he  ought  to  occupy  the  same  position  as 
any  other  elector  in  the  State  and  let  it  be  what- 
ever is  provided  by  law.  I should  prefer  it  in 
that  shape.  I think  an  amendment  ought  to  be 
made,  but  I will  not  take  up  the  time  of  the 
Convention  by  offering  that  amendment. 

Mr.  BABER.  I will  not  vote  to  degrade  a 
class  of  voters  in  this  State  and  make  distinc- 
tions against  voters.  I am  opposed  to  discrim- 
ination. I will  not  vote  for  any  such  a propo- 
sition. I regard  it  as  an  insult  to  those  who 
have  made  a declaration  of  their  intention  to 
become  citizens.  I fail  to  see  any  benefit.  I 
will  not  vote  to  surrender  State  rights  even  for 
Federalism  when  represented  by  a German  upon 
this  floor.  I stand  by  my  principles  on  this 
subject  and  vote  in  good  faith  in  the  matter,  and 
I will  not  cast  a vote  inconsistent  with  them,  it 
being  the  device  of  throwing  a tub  to  the  whale. 
I understand  perfectly  well  why  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller],  holding  the  po- 
sition he  has  already  held,  should  offer  this  just 
to  save  himself  with  the  Germans  who  cannot 
understand  why  they  are  to  be  put  in  a differ- 
ent position  from  the  negroes.  And  I do  not 
propose  to  try  to  help  him  save  himself.  I fall 
back  upon  the  declaration  made  by  his  col- 
league that  it  would  lead  to  more  corruption  in 
these  municipal  elections,  for  the  control  of 
these  votes,  than  anything  that  could  be  possi- 
bly done  by  establishing  a class  of  helot  voters, 
and  I shall  not  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I differ  with  my  friend 


from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  about  the  degrada- 
tion. The  degradation  is  already  as  great  as 
they  can  make  it,  and  it  is  just  a step  in  ad- 
vance, if  we  can  get  that  much.  However,  I am 
pleased  with  the  stand  he  takes  on  behalf  of  the 
foreigner.  I move  that  he  reconsider  his  speech 
and  vote  for  the  measure.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  BURNS.  On  reflection,  I will  offer  the 
motion  to  strike  out  the  words,  “six  months,” 
and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  these  words : “ Such 
time  as  may  be  for  other  electors.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  offers  the  following 
amendment.  The  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Burns  moves  to  amend  the  motion  by  strikingfrom 
the  matter  proposed  the  words  “six  months,”  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  words,  “such  time  as  may  be  pre- 
scribed for  other  electors.” 

The  section  will  then  read : 

“Each  male  person  of  foreign  birth,  of  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years,  who  may  have  declared  his  intention 
to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States,  according  to 
law,  and  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the  State  one 
ear  next  preceding  the  election,  and  such  time  as  may 
e prescribed  for  other  electors,  in  the  township  or  ward 
where  he  offers  to  vote,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all 
elections  for  township  and  municipal  officers.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Objection  being  made,  the  demand  for  the 
yeas  and  nays  was  sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on agreeing  to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I want  to  understand  fully 
that  question.  I have  voted  steadily  in  favor 
of  this  proposition  as  it  came  from  the  Com- 
mittee. I voted  first  for  one  year,  and  not  as 
proposed  for  three  years,  and  did  it  all  in  good 
faith,  because  I believe,  that  a German,  or  an 
Irishman,  or  a man  of  any  other  nationality 
who  comes  here  as  they  do,  burning  the  bridges 
behind  them  and  never  intending  to  turn  their 
backs  upon  our  country,  making,  as  they  do,  our 
roads,  and  rearing  our  tall  steeples,  should  have 
this  privilege  upon  our  country.  And  I trust 
that  they  shall  be  allowed  to  vote  upon  this 
trifling  issue.  But  if  this  means  that  these 
men  can  come  here  and  vote  at  township  and 
municipal  elections  for  the  purpose  of  build- 
ing railroads,  and  such  schemes,  then  I am  not 
in  favor  of  it.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Suppose  they  vote  against 
them  ? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I am  not  in  them,  but  I would 
rather  they  would  vote  that  way  than  the  other. 
I want  to  understand  the  proposition  as  it  now 
comes  down  to  business.  [Laughter.] 

I would  like  to  have  the  amendment  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  Does  that  relieve  the  gen- 
tleman’s conscience? 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Well,  if  it  means  to  vote  for 
the  officers  only,  I guess  I will  give  the  boys 
that  chance.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  BURNS.  1 think  that  section  does  not 
contain  what  the  gentleman  wants  it.  Unless  I 
am  mistaken,  it  requires  a residence  in  the 
State  of  one  year,  and  he  may  make  his  declar- 
ation of  intention  one  day  before  he  offers  to 
vote.  I do  not  think  the  gentleman  intends 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE, 


1935 


Day.] 

March  10,  1874.]  Mueller,  Burns,  Baber,  Gurley,  Neal,  Blose,  etc. 


that.  I think  the  foreigner  should  declare  his 
intention  one  year  before  he  offers  his  vote. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  That  is  what  it  means. 

The  reading  of  the  amendment  was  called 
for. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Each  male  person  of  foreign  birth,  of  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years,  who  may  have  declared  his  intention 
to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States,  according  to 
law,  and  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the  State  one 
year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  six  months  in  the 
township  or  ward  where  he  offers  to  yote,  shall  be  enti- 
tled to  vote  at  all  elections  for  township  and  municipal 
officers.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Is  that  not  as  I claimed  it?  I 
claim  that  the  amendment  is  this : A man  may 
arrive  from  Germany,  or  any  other  foreign 
country,  in  Cincinnati,  on  the  first  day  of  Jan- 
uary, 1874,  and  on  the  second  day  of  January, 
1875,  he  may  vote  at  the  municipal  election  in 
Cincinnati,  provided  he  has,  before  he  has  of- 
fered his  vote,  made  a declaration  of  his  inten- 
tion to  become  a citizen. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  Provided  he  has  resided 
six  months  in  the  township. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly;  but  he  may  have 
resided  five  months  and  twenty-nine  days  in  the 
township  before  he  has  made  a declaration  of  his 
intention.  Then,  declaring  his  intention  on  the 
morning  of  the  election,  he  can  vote.  The  six 
months  refer  to  residence,  and  not  to  his  appli- 
cation to  become  a citizen. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I ask  leave  to  modify  the 
amendment.  I would  insert  the  words : “ after 
such  declaration  shall  have  resided.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  be  no  objection, 
the  modification  will  be  made.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  amendment  as  modified. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Each  male  person  of  foreign  birth,  of  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years,  who  may  have  declared  his  intention 
to  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States,  according  to 
law,  and  who  shall,  after  such  declaration,  have  been  a 
resident  of  the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the  elec- 
tion, and  six  months  in  the  township  or  ward  where  he 
offers  to  vote,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all  elections  for 
township  and  municipal  officers.” 

On  this  question, 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  leave  of  absence  until 
Thursday. 

Leave  was  given. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I move  the  Convention  now 
take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Convention 
(at  12:45  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
section  one,  of  Article  203. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I offer  the  following  to  come 
in  at  the  end  of  the  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“And  whenever  any  of  the  qualified  electors  of  this 
State  shall  be  in  actual  military  service,  under  a requisi- 
tion of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  by  the 
authority  of  this  State,  not  in  the  regular  army,  such 
electors  may  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  in  ail  elec- 
tions by  the  citizens,  under  such  regulations  as  are,  or 
shall  be,  prescribed  by  law,  as  fully  as  it  they  were  pre- 
sent at  their  usual  places  of  election.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I have  no  desire  to  say  but  a 
word  upon  this  subject,  further  than  to  state 


that  it  is  the  same  proposition  which  I gave 
notice  I would  offer  as  an  additional  section, 
but  upon  examining  the  proposition,  I think 
the  most  appropriate  place  for  it  is  to  come  in 
as  an  addition  to  the  present  section.  I have 
changed  the  phraseology  by  inserting  in  it,  not 
including  those  in  the  regular  army.  I think 
I would  not  have  included  those  at  all  events ; 
but  in  order  to  place  it  beyond  a question,  at 
the  suggestion  of  some  gentlemen  who  favor 
the  proposition,  I inserted  these  words.  When 
I offered  the  proposition  a few  days  ago,  I said 
all  that  I desired  to  say  upon  its  merits.  I think 
it  is  such  a proposition  as  will  commend  itself 
favorably  to  the  members  of  this  Convention. 
I submit  it  to  their  consideration.  The  section, 
as  amended,  is  as  follows : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  1.  Every  male  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of  the 
age  ol  twenty -one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident 
of  the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of 
the  county,  township,  or  ward  in  which  he  resides  such 
time  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the  qualifica- 
tions of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all  elections; 
and  when  any  of  the  qualified  electors  of  this  State  shall 
be  in  actual  military  service,  under  a requisition  from  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  or  by  the  authority  of 
this  State,  and  not  in  the  regular  army,  such  electors  may 
exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  in  all  elections  by  the  citi- 
zens, under  such  regulations  as  are,  or  shall  be,  pre- 
scribed by  law,  as  fuhy  as  if  they  were  present  at  their 
usual  places  of  election.” 

Mr.  Burns’  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  further 
amendments  to  section  one,  the  Secretary  will 
read  section  two. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  2.  All  elections  shall  be  by  ballot.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  amend- 
ments to  the  section  the  Secretary  will  read 
section  three. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  3.  Electors,  during  their  attendance  at  elections, 
and  in  going  to  and  returning  therefrom,  shall  be  privil- 
eged from  arrest  in  all  cases  except  treason,  felony,  and 
breach  of  the  peace.” 

Mr.  NEAL.  I move  to  amend  by  striking 
out  “ and”  before  “ breach,”  and  inserting  the 
words  “and  intoxication,”  so  that  the  section 
shall  read : 

“Electors,  during  their  attendance  at  elections,  and  in 
going  to  and  returning  therefrom,  shall  be  pnveleged 
from  arrest  in  all  cases  except  treason,  felony,  breach  of 
the  peace  and  intoxication.” 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man whether  intoxication  is  not  a breach  of  the 
peace  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  MINER.  A man  may  be  drunk  and  yet 
commit  no  depredation  or  breach  of  the  peace. 
I do  not  know  why  he  should  be  arrested  unless 
it  be  to  take  him  to  some  place  for  the  purpose 
of  sobering  him. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  object  of  that  amendment 
is  to  prevent  drunkenness  on  election  day  at 
elections.  I think  it  is  a matter  which  is  high- 
ly desirable.  We  have  upon  our  statute  book  a 
number  of  laws  intended  to  prevent  the  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors  in  such  a way  as  should  be 
injurious  to  individuals.  We  have  one  that  re- 
quires the  closing  up  of  all  places  for  the  sale 
of  intoxicating  liquors  on  election  day.  That 
has  not  been  found  effectual  in  very  many  lo- 


1936 


CONCERNING  ALIEN  SUFFRAGE.  [134th 

Powell,  Neal,  Blose,  Baber,  Root.  [Tuesday, 


calities.  While  the  front  door  is  closed,  nomin- 
ally, the  back  door  is  kept  open,  and  we  often 
see  upon  election  day  voters  in  a most  disgrace- 
ful condition.  In  addition  to  that,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, it  is  one  of  the  means  which  is  used  in 
some  localities  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the 
vote  of  certain  individuals  for  certain  officers. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I make  a suggestion  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  it  not  better  that  the  word 
drunkenness  should  be  used,  and  not  intoxica- 
tion? We  all  know  what  drunkenness  means, 
intoxication  arises  from  various  causes. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I do  not  care  what  word  is  used. 
I only  want  the  Legislature,  if  they  think  pro- 
per, to  authorize  the  arrest  of  a person  in  a 
state  of  intoxication.  We  have  a law  upon  our 
statute  book  which  makes  it  a penal  offense  for 
a man  to  become  intoxicated,  and  yet,  under 
this  Constitution,  as  it  now  stands,  a man  would 
be  arrested  for  that  crime  upon  this  statute.  I 
want  to  stop  that  if  it  can  be  stopped.  I do  not 
care  what  word  is  used,  whether  the  word  in- 
toxication or  drunkenness. 

Upon  Mr.  Neal’s  amendment  the  yeas  and 
nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I am  sorry  this  amendment 
has  come  from  the  locality  which  my  friend 
represents.  I understand  that  to  be  a temper- 
ance locality.  A locality  in  which  there  is  no 
whisky  manufactured.  In  the  neighborhood 
from  which  I hail  we  have  no  trouble  about 
this  matter.  No  whisky  is  sold.  No  whisky  is 
drank  there  from  six  o’clock  in  the  morning 
to  six  o’clock  at  night.  All  straight.  All  so- 
ber. I therefore  shall  not  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  31,  nays  28,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Coats,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Godfrey,  Hale, 
Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Kerr,  McCormick, 
Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Powell,  Root,  Rowland,  Sample,  Smith  of  High- 
land, Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsley,  Van  Voorhis, 
Yoris,  Waddle,  West,  President — 31. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Blose, 
Burns,  Byal,  Campbell,  Clay,  Cunningham, 
Greene,  Gurley,  Hill,  Jackson,  McBride,  Mer- 
rill, Miller,  Okey,  Rickly,  Steedman,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Yoorhes,  Watson,  White  of  Brown, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  Noble 
—28. 

So  Mr.  Neal’s  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
section  4. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power  to 
exclude  from  the  privilege  of  voting,  or  from  being  eli- 
gible to  office,  any  person  convicted  of  bribery,  perjury, 
or  any  other  infamous  crimes” 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  an  amendment  which  I j 
shall  send  up  in  a moment,  it  being  an  amend-  j 
ment  by  way  of  addition.  It  being  an  amend-  | 
ment  by  way  of  providing  that  the  pardon  of  I 
the  Governor  shall  not  restore  the  right  of  hold- 
ing office  to  any  one  convicted  of  the  use  of  or 
the  receiving  of  money  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
trolling an  election. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  as  fol- 
lows : 


Add  to  section  4: 

“No  pardon  by  the  Governor  shall  restore  the  right  of 
holding  office  to  any  one  convicted  of  the  corrupt  use  of, 
or  receiving,  money  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  any 
election,  or  obtaining  any  offiee  under  the  laws  of  this 
State.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  I hope  the  amendment  will  not 
be  agreed  to.  For  what  reasons  are  pardons 
granted  by  the  Governor?  Not  unusually  and 
not  most  infrequently  because  he  has  reasons  to 
believe  that  the  conviction  was  wrongly  had. 
Subsequent  developments  go  to  show  him  that 
the  conviction  was  wrong,  or,  at  least,  that  its 
justness  is  doubtful.  In  such  cases,  however,  a 
man  may  have  been  convicted  of  the  corrupt 
use  of  money,  but  things  may  be  disclosed,  sub- 
sequent developments  may  satisfy  the  Governor 
that  the  conviction  was  wrong,  it  was  not  suf- 
ficiently evidence  of  guilt  in  the  case.  It  is  for 
that  reason  that  the  Governor  is  clothed  with 
the  power  to  grant  pardons,  and  in  such  a case 
"would  it  be  right  that  the  person  who  has  re- 
ceived such  a pardon,  though  convicted  on  such 
a charge  as  this,  should  be  deprived  of  his  right 
to  vote  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  To  hold  office. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  to  hold  office;  would  it 
be  right?  I submit,  to  the  calm  reflection  of  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  whether 
he  may  not  in  his  zeal  to  make  the  punishment 
of  the  use  of  money  to  control  elections  very 
condign,  he  may  not  reach  beyond  his  mark 
and  do  very  great  injustice  to  innocent  persons? 
Leave  the  effect  of  the  pardon  in  this  case  as 
you  leave  it  in  all  others  when  it  is  granted ; let 
it  be ; for  if  it  is  granted  for  good  reasons  and 
only  for  good  reasons,  or  only  to  restore  the  par- 
doned convict  to  his  former  status,  we  are 
bound  to  believe  that  the  pardons  of  late  have 
been  so  warily  and  so  cautiously  granted  that 
very  rarely  have  there  been  instances  that  par- 
dons have  been  prejudicial  to  public  interest. 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  listened  to  the  remarks 
of  my  friend  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root],  upon  this 
matter.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  particular  of- 
fense of  the  use  of  money  for  the  purpose  of 
controlling  elections  for  obtaining  office,  should 
not  be  treated  with  any  leniency,  simply  for  the 
reason  that  it  has  become  a known  fact,  particu- 
larly in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  where  they 
have  had  a ring  in  Philadelphia,  that  they 
have  engaged  in  this  business,  there  have  been 
many  convictions  rendered.  Yery  frequently, 
as  soon  as  the  convict  has  been  shown  to  a pri- 
son door,  the  pardon  has  been  granted  by  the 
Executive,  and  he  is  let  out. 

Although  there  may  be  some  force  in  the 
remarks  of  my  friend  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root] 
upon  this  matter,  that  there  may  be  mistakes 
made,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Governor  should 
not  be  deprived  of  this  use  of  the  pardoning 
power,  I think,  when  you  come  to  weigh  the 
evil  and  the  good  results,  the  balance  is  strongly 
on  the  side  of  the  evil.  It,  perhaps,  may 
not  infrequently  occur  that  the  Governor,  if  he 
happens  to  belong  to  the  ring,  may  think  that 
the  criminal  has  done  God  service — that  the 
end  has  justified  the  means.  He  may  have  been 
elected  to  office  in  that  very  manner.  It  is 
nothing  but  right  and  fair,  when,  after  the  con- 
viction has  taken  place,  after  all  the  forms 
of  the  law  have  been  gone  through  with,  when 
the  criminal  has  had  his  right  of  appeal  and 


AS  TO  WHO  ARE  NOT  QUALIFIED  TO  VOTE. 

Chapin,  Miner,  Baber,  West. 


1937 


Day.] 

March  10, 1874.] 


writ  of  error,  to  presume  that  very  seldom 
such  a conviction  would  take  place  without 
conclusive  evidence.  It  seems  to  me  that  it 
is  nothing  but  right  that  a man  who  should  be 
found  guilty  should,  at  least,  be  deprived  of  the 
right  of  holding  office;  and  I would  be  willing 
to  deprive  him  of  the  right  of  suffrage;  but 
I think  probably  this  provision  goes  far  enough. 
I think  some  steps  should  be  taken  to  curb  this 
growing  evil,  that,  in  the  larger  cities,  is.  be- 
coming very  common,  where  it  is  a notorious 
fact  that  the  use  of  money  is  frequently  resort- 
ed to.  It  is  the  crying  curse  of  our  times,  and 
I hope  that  the  Convention  will  adopt  this  pro- 
vision. 

Mr.  Baber’s  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I move  to  amend  by  adding 
the  following  to  section  four : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Or  habitual  intoxication.” 

So  that  the  section  will  read  : 

“Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power  to 
exclude  from  the  privilege  of  voting,  or  of  being  eligible 
to  office,  any  person  convicted  of  bribery,  perjury,  or  any 
other  infamous  crimes,  or  habitual  intoxication.” 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
the  amendment  be  put  in  after  the  word  “ per- 
jury.’’ 

The  Secretary  read: 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  have  the  power  to  ex- 
clude from  voting,  or  being  eligible  to  office,  any  person 
convicted  of  bribery,  perjury,  habitual  intoxication,  or 
any  other  inlamous  crimes.” 

Mr.  MINER.  I do  not  think  it  comes  in 
right  in  there. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
adding  it  at  the  end  of  the  section. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  28,  nays  37,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were  : 

Messrs.  Albright,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Gurley, 
Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  McCor- 
mick, Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Page,  Phellis, 
Powell, Rowland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson, 
Townslej7-,  Van  Yoorhis,  Voris,  Waddle,  West, 
President — 28. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were : 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Blose,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Byal,  Campbell,  Cunningham,  Foran, 
Gardner,  Greene,  Hale,  Hill,  Jackson,  Johnson, 
Kerr,  McBride,  Merrill,  Okey,  Pond,  Rickly, 
Root,  Sample,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Steedman,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Yalk- 
enburgh,  Yoorhes,  Watson,  White  of  Brown, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  Noble, 
—37. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  there  is  no  objection 
1 would  like  to  record  my  vote  on  the  amend- 
ment to  Section  Three. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  Mr.  Hitchcock  voted 
Aye. 

Mr.  BABER.  I missed  the  train  at  noon 
going  to  Columbus.  I have  in  my  hand  an 
amendment  to  Section  One  which  I wish  to  pre- 
sent to  the  Convention.  I do  not  wish  to  say 
anything  at  present  upon  it,  but  I wish  to  have 
it  submitted  to  the  Convention  so  that  a vote 
may  be  taken  upon  it.  It  is  an  addition  to  the 

y.  n-124 


amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment  for  information. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“And  disabled  soldiers  and  sailors,  legal  voters  in  this 
State,  who  are  inmates  of  any  National  or  State  asylum, 
established  by  law,  either  within  or  without  the  bounda- 
ries of  the  State,  may  exercise  the  riaht  of  suffrage  in 
like  manner,  provided  said  votes  be  made  to  apply  in  the 
county,  township  or  precinct  where  they  resi<  ed  during 
said  military  services,  or  ha  1 a residence  previous  to  be- 
coming inmates  of  said  asylum.” 

Mr.  BABER.  My  object  is  to  put  the  resi- 
dents of  an  asylum  exactly  upon  the  same  foot- 
ing as  the  rules  and  regulations  that  provide  for 
soldiers  voting  in  the  army,  and  not  only  the 
residents  of  Ohio  asylum  in  Dayton,  but  else- 
where. There  is  a judicial  question  which  I 
shall  not  argue  now,  as  to  whether  that  insti- 
tution is  within  the  legal  boundaries  and  juris- 
diction of  our  State  or  not.  I do  not  care  about 
that  question ; it  stands  upon  a mere  judicial 
decision.  I wish  the  disabled  soldiers  and  sail- 
ors to  have  the  privilege  of  voting,  no  matter 
where  they  be  or  in  what  asylum,  provided  they 
vote  under  the  same  rules  and  regulations  that 
relate  to  soldiers  in  the  army ; that  is,  that  their 
votes  be  counted  in  the  wards  and  townships 
where  they  belong,  and  not  be  used  for  the  pur- 
pose of  controlling  local  politics  in  the  ward  or 
county  where  the  asylums  are  situated. 

Mr.  MINER.  Suppose  a disabled  soldier  or 
sailor  goes  to  the  asylum  at  Dayton  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ending  his  days,  not  expecting  to  leave, 
would  you  not  allow  that  man  to  acquire  a res- 
idence and  vote  in  Montgomery  county  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I suppose  if  he  has  no  other 
home,  and  had  been,  and  was,  a legal  voter  in 
the  State  of  Ohio,  he  could  vote  there.  I do  not 
desire  that  the  mere  fact  of  his  being  at  the  asy- 
lum shall  give  him  a right  to  vote  there;  be- 
cause in  that  way  it  is  very  easy  to  colonize 
voters  there,  not  only  from  other  counties,  but 
States;  for  instance,  the  elections  common  from 
which  Gen.  Butler,  the  main  spirit  continually, 
the  Board  of  Directors  is  said  to  have  shipped 
voters  into  Montgomery  before  the  election  to 
control  these  county  offices.  I only  want  the 
privilege  extended  to  Ohio  soldiers  and  sailors. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  this  amendment  under  con- 
sideration now  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  We  objected  all  around  here. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  heard  no  ob- 
jection. 

Mr.  WEST.  Objection  was  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Objection  having  been 
made  the  amendment  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  will  not  escape 
the  record  upon  it  when  it  comes  up. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  gentleman’s  record  does 
not  scare  anybody  any  more.  When  we  come 
to  residence  there  will  be  time  enough  to  decide 
that  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
Section  5. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  5.  For  the  purpose  of  voting  no  person  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost  a residence  by  reason  of 
his  presence  or  absence,  while  employed  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States,  nor  while  engaged  in  the  navigation  of 
the  waters  of  this  State  or  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the 


1938 


AS  TO  WHO  ARE  NOT  QUALIFIED  TO  VOTE. [134th 

Hale,  Dorsey,  Burns.  [Tuesday, 


high  seas,  nor  while  ft  student  of  any  seminary  or  insti- 
tution of  learning." 

Mr.  HALE.  I offer  the  following: 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  the  whole  of  section  five,  after  the  figure 
five,  and  insert  the  following: 

“No  person  in  the  military,  naval  or  marine  service  of 
the  United  States,  shall  be,  by  being  stationed  in  any 
garrison,  or  military,  or  naval  station  within  the  State, 
considered  a resident  of  the  State.” 

Mr.  HALE.  I shall  not  ask  for  the  attention 
of  the  Convention  but  a moment.  I simply  de- 
sire to  state  the  change  that  is  proposed  by  this 
substitute  that  I offer  for  section  five,  which  is 
precisely  the  same  as  section  five  of  the  present 
Constitution.  The  change  made  by  the  Com- 
mittee upon  Elective  Franchise  is  this : It  will 
be  noticed  that  section  one  provides  that  no 
resident  of  the  State,  no  one  who  has  been  a 
resident  of  the  State  less  than  one  year,  shall 
be  allowed  to  vote ; that  is,  for  the  purpose  of 
voting,  one  must  reside  within  the  State  one 
year.  Section  five  of  our  present  Constitution, 
reading  in  the  language  of  the  amendment  that 
I have  offered,  is  a limitation  on  that  section, 
and  provides  that  our  citizens  in  the  military, 
marine  or  naval  service  of  the  country,  by  being 
garrisoned  within  the  State,  or  ordered  to  duty 
within  the  State,  shall  not  thereby  become  a 
resident  of  the  State  under  section  one  of  the 
present  Constitution.  The  Committee  have  ig- 
nored that  rule  of  the  present  Constitution 
which  provides  merely  as  to  the  time  of  resi- 
dence in  the  State,  and  leaves  the  Legislature  to 
regulate  the  residence  in  counties,  townships 
and  wards.  It  is  this  change  made  by  the  Com- 
mittee to  which  I object. 

It  has  always  been  a matter  of  legislation  to 
regulate  the  residence  within  the  subdivision  of 
the  State.  But  it  is  attempted  to  fix  a different 
rule  in  this  Constitution,  by  which  the  resi- 
dence of  students  shall  hereafter  be  determined, 
excepting  that  class  from  all  others.  If  gentle- 
men will  look  at  the  statutes,  as  they  now  exist, 
they  will  find  in  Swan  and  Sayler,  on  pages 
340  and  341,  that  since  1868  we  have  had  a 
statute  upon  this  very  subject,  in  explicit 
language,  providing  penalties  for  its  violation. 
I believe  we  had  better  leave  it  there.  It  is  an 
unjust  discrimination  against  that  class  of 
citizens  who  should  not,  in  my  judgment,  be 
discriminated  against.  I believe  in  putting 
students  upon  the  same  basis  as  all  others.  One 
rule  for  all  residents  of  Ohio,  whether  students 
or  clerk.  I have  no  disposition  to  discuss  this 
proposition.  I merely  introduced  it  to  test  the 
sense  of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Before  the  question  is  put 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain 
[Mr.  Hale]  to  strike  out,  I propose  to  amend 
the  section  by  adding  to  it  the  following  : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “seas”,  in  line  four,  to  the 
end  of  the  section. 

The  words  stricken  out  are  as  follows : 

“Nor  while  a student  of  any  seminary  or  institution  of 
learning.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  this  for  the  purpose  of 
having  the  section  conform,  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible, to  the  words  of  the  old  Constitution.  The 
gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  has  already 
read  to  you  the  section  as  it  reads  in  the  old 
Constitution : 


“No  person  in  the  military,  naval  or  marine  service  of 
United  States  shall,  by  being  stationed  in  any  garrison, 
or  military,  or  naval  station  within  the  State,  be  consid- 
ered a resident  of  the  State.” 

This  section  goes  a little  further,  and,  per- 
haps, a little  further  in  the  right  direction.  It 
states  that  for  the  purpose  of  voting,  no  person 
shall  be  deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost  a resi- 
dence. The  old  Constitution  did  not  allow  any 
one,  by  being  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  or  by  being  placed  in  a garrison  within 
the  State  to  gain  a residence,  but  this  section 
proceeds  further,  by  saying  that  no  person  shall 
be  deemed  to  have  lost  a residence  by  being  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States,  and,  conse- 
quently, citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio  who  leave 
the  State,  being  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  by  this  section  are  secured  their  citizen- 
ship, so  far  as  the  section  goes  in  that  respect. 

I agree  with  the  gentleman,  but  I desire  to 
strike  out  the  latter  part  of  the  section,  because 
it  is  an  unjust  discrimination  against  a class  of 
our  citizens.  You  determine  that  no  person, 
while  a student  of  a seminary  or  institution  of 
learning,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost 
his  residence  in  a particular  locality.  Why  do 
you  not  make  the  same  distinction  apply  to  oth- 
er classes  of  citizens,  persons  who  are  engaged 
in  any  temporary  business  in  any  particular  lo- 
cality of  the  State,  the  class  of, traveling  busi- 
ness agents  and  a vast  class  of  persons  whose 
business  calls  them  for  a time  into  a particular 
locality,  causing  them  to  leave  that  section  of 
the  State  where  their  actual  residence  may  be. 

We  have  a statute,  conservative  in  its  nature, 
that  provides  for  all  this  matter  and  it  is  not 
only  useless  but  it  is  wrong  to  introduce  it  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  State.  I have  no  objec- 
tion to  the  first  portion  of  the  section  as  report- 
ed by  the  Committee.  I think  that  in  some  re- 
spects it  may  be  considered  an  improvement 
upon  the  old  Constitution ; but  I am  decidedly 
opposed  to  this  last  clause,  and  hope  the  Con- 
vention will  strike  it  out. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  know  what  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  this 
proposition  is,  nor  the  opinion  of  any  member 
of  the  Committee,  and,  therefore,  I do  not  feel 
called  upon,  occupying  the  position  that  I do, 
to  champion  this  Report;  but  I hope  the 
amendment  will  not  prevail.  The  great  amount 
of  frauds  which  have  been  committed  in  our 
elections  have  resulted  from  the  custom  that  has 
grown  up,  in  violation  of  the  law,  of  allowing 
students  at  seminaries  and  colleges  to  vote.  We 
have  a statute  upofi  the  statute-book,  passed  in 
1868,  against  allowing  students  to  vote;  but  it  is 
clearly  a dead  letter  upon  the  statute-book.  It 
is  avoided  upon  technicalities.  I know,  to  my 
own  certain  knowledge,  that  in  the  University 
at  Delaware,  nearly,  if  not  quite  all,  the  stu- 
dents, amounting  to  two  or  three  hundred,  are 
not  merely  allowed  to  vote,  but  they  are  pressed 
and  insisted  upon  to  vote;  and  the  judges  of 
election  in  that  precinct  are  generally  elected 
with  a view  and  under  authority  of  allowing 
the  students  to  vote,  without  reference  to  where 
they  live.  Of  course,  they  are  nearly  all 
young,  unmarried  men,  without  families;  but 
they  have  homes,  and  are  domiciled  with 
parents,  in  nineteen  cases  out  of  twenty,  in 
different  precincts  throughout  the  State ; and 


1939 


Day.] AS  TO  WHO  ARE  NOT  QUALIFIED  TO  VOTE. 

March  10, 1874.]  Hale,  Burns,  West,  Dorsey,  Baber. 


this  argument  is  used  : they  say,  you  are  enti- 
tled to  vote,  if  you  go  home ; but,  if  you  vote 
here,  you  save  ten  or  fifteen  dollars’  expense, 
and  three  or  four  days’  time.  I grant  you  that 
at  the  Presidential  election,  or  for  the  Governor 
of  the  State,  or  for  State  officers,  where  the  vote 
counts  by  the  State  at  large,  it  will  make  no 
difference,  and  that,  were  it  limited  to  elections 
of  that  class,  it  would  be  stripped  of  its  greatest 
objection.  But  you  take  county  officers;  you 
take  members  of  Congress ; you  take  members 
of  the  Legislature,  and  you  take  local  elections ; 
the  students  in  these  seminaries,  where  there 
are  two  or  three  hundred  voters,  control  the 
election.  When  the  school  is  out,  their  term  of 
probation  is  ended.  They  scatter,  to  the  four 
winds.  They  have  no  home,  no  domicile,  no 
interest,  no  attachment,  nothing  whatever  at 
the  place  of  voting  to  bind  them  there,  or  to 
induce  them  to  remain. 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HALE.  I understood  the  gentleman  to 
state  that  we  have  a statute  now  regulating  this 
matter,  precisely  as  he  would  have  regulated  it, 
fixing  penalties.  Is  not  that  true? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I believe  it  is  substantially 
true. 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  this  constitutional  pro- 
vision that  you  propose  enforce  itself  without 
additional  legislation  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HALE.  Then,  if  the  present  law  that 
provides  for  certain  penalties  is  disregarded, 
would  not  this  amendment  be  equally  liable  to 
be  abused  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I think  not,  Mr.  President. 
In  addition  to  that.  I think  the  Legislature,  in 
passing  a law  to  carry  into  force  and  effect  this 
constitutional  provision  will  require  it  so  as  to 
absolutely  compel  the  judges  of  elections  to  ob- 
serve its  force  and  effect,  I do  not  think  that  in 
the  locality  that  students  attend  for  the  time 
being,  temporarily,  they  ought  to  be  permitted  to 
vote,  but  you  know,  Mr.  President,  and  every 
man  knows  who  has  observed  the  working  of 
this  statute  that  local  candidates,  men  who  are 
anxious  to  secure  the  election,  press  into  the 
service  these  students  who  know  little  and  care 
less  about  the  local  interests  of  the  place  where 
they  happen  to  be  going  to  school.  They  are 
caught  on  their  way  from  their  boarding  house 
to  the  seminary  with  their  books  under  their 
arms,  the  ticket  is  put  into  their  hands  and  they 
are  pressed  to  vote  for  this  or  the  other  candi- 
date, and  they  turn  aside  to  the  polls  and  the 
man  at  their  elbow  presses  their  vote  in,  and 
perhaps  they  are  able  to  say  honestly  that  they 
have  no  such  abiding  home,  that  they  expect, 
when  they  get  their  diploma  and  go  away  from 
the  college  they  will  not  know  where  they  are 
going.  They  are  going  to  strike  out  into  the 
world  and  seek  a home  where  their  business  or 
inclination  may  lead  them.  Perhaps  they  may 
be  able  to  say  that  and  yet  have  their  residence 
in  another  county  in  another  election  precinct 
with  their  parents  at  home.  I grant  you  that 
there  maybe  instances  where  the  students  at- 
tending these  colleges  or  seminaries  of  learning 
have  no  residence.  This  provision  does  not 
prevent  them  from  voting,  for  they  do  not  come  1 


within  its  purview  at  all ; but  you  take  Lorain 
county,  Wayne  county,  Delaware  county,  or 
any  other  place  where  there  is  a seminary 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  one  question  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  He  says  in  a good  many 
cases  these  students  have  no  home  at  all.  If 
that  is  correct  would  not  they  be  deprived  of 
the  right  of  voting  entirely  if  his  views  were 
carried  into  effect  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I said,  or  intended  to  say,  then 
the  place  where  they  were  attending  school. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  The  gentleman  does  not 
intend  to  prevent  them  from  becoming  legal 
voters  where  they  attend  school  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Not  at  all.  I say  that  if  that 
is  their  legal  place  of  residence,  they  are  entitled 
to  a vote.  How  does  the  section  read  ? “They 
shall  not  be  considered  to  have  gained  or  lost  a 
residence  as  voters  by  reason  of  their  attending 
as  students  any  seminary  or  institution  of  learn- 
ing.” 

Mr.  WEST.  It  does  not  read  that  way. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  does  read  that  way. 

Mr.  WEST.  Our  copy  does  not. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  it  does  not. 

Mr.  BURNS.  “For  the  purpose  of  voting  no 
person  shall  be  deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost  a 
residence  by  reason  of  his  presence  or  absence 
while  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  nor  when  engaged  in  the  navigation  of 
the  waters  of  this  State  or  of  the  United  States, 
or  on  the  high  seas,  nor  while  a student  in  any 
seminary  or  institution  of  learning.” 

I understand  that  all  these  different  clauses  of 
the  Constitution  are  governed  and  controlled  by 
the  first  paragraph  of  the  section. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  cannot  possibly  be. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  has  a different  meaning  as 
to  the  students,  it  has  a different  meaning  as  to 
those  navigating  the  waters  of  the  State. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  it  possible,  having  been  in 
the  service  of  the  government,  to  gain  or  lose  a 
residence  ? Is  it  not  impossible  either  to  gain 
or  lose  a residence  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  This  section  says  it  is. 

Mr.  WEST.  Then  is  it  not  impossible  for  a 
student  either  to  gain  or  lose  a residence 
whether  he  has  any  other  home  or  not? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I admit  it;  but  he  may  have  a 
residence  all  his  lifetime  at  the  place  where  he 
is  attending  school. 

Mr.  WEST.  Suppose  he  goes  to  attend  school 
and  has  no  other  residence  than  that? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Then  he  can  vote  there. 

Mr.  WEST.  This  says  he  cannot. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I understand,  from  the  simple 
fact  of  his  being  in  a seminary,  he  shall  have 
been  held  to  have  either  gained  or  lost  a resi- 
dence. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  will  find,  with 
reference  to  elective  franchise, in  Hough’s  Con- 
stitutions, page  764,  the  provision  of  the  Com- 
mittee is  the  same  as  adopted  by  several  States : 

“For  the  purpose  of  voting  no  person  shall  be  deemed 
to  have  gained  or  lost  a residence  by  reason  of  his  pres- 
ence or  absence  while  employed  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  nor  while  engaged  in  the  navigation  of  the 
waters  of  the  State,  or  of  the  United  States,  nor  while  on 
the  high  seas,  nor  while  a student  in  a seminary  of  learn- 
ing.” 

That  is  the  provision  of  the  Constitutions  of 


1940 


AS  TO  WHO  ARE  NOT  QUALIFIED  TO  VOTE. [134th 

Burns,  Hale,  Sample,  Dorsey,  Cunningham.  [Tuesday, 


North  Carolina,  Kansas,  Missouri,  Michigan, 
Nevada,  New  York,  and  Oregon,  and  I shall 
here  remark,  with  the  permission  of  the  gentle- 
man, that  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  that  it 
is  the  decision  of  the  court,  that  a student,  by 
reason  of  his  being  at  an  institution  of  learning 
is  not  a voter;  and  our  supreme  court,  in  the 
case  of  Collins  at  the  relation  Miner  from 
Xenia — I was  counsel  in  the  case,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  constitutionality  of  the  student  law, 
which  has  never  been  repealed,  was  there 
brought  in  controversy,  and  the  courts  gave  it 
the  same  construction  as  given  by  the  chair- 
man of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  that  a man 
had  no  home  under  that  law,  but  that  the  mere 
fact  of  being  at  the  institution  did  not  give  him 
a vote,  and  this  is  important  to  us  in  the  Con- 
stitution, the  decision  of  this  court. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  what  I understand  that 
to  be.  I am  aware  that  a similar  provision  has 
been  incorporated  into  the  Constitutions  of 
several  States.  I hope  the  amendment  will  not 
prevail. 

Mr.  HALE.  The  decision  referred  to  by  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  was 
based  upon  the  statute  that  reads  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  the  proposed  amendment  to  the 
Constitution.  I shall  read  all  of  section  five  of 
that  statute,  containing  the  distinct  proviso  th?t 
if  that  is  the  only  home,  they  shall  be  entitled 
to  vote,  hut  no  special  provision  is  attempted  to 
he  incorporated  here.  This  Committee  say  that 
while  a student  at  a seminary,  he  shall  not  be 
deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost  his  residence. 
Let  me  put  a case  to  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns.]  Two  boys  come  from  with- 
out the  State  to  the  town  of  Delaware  for  the 
purpose  of  making  the  State  their  permanent 
residence. 

One  goes  into  a store  and  the  other  into  an 
institution  of  learning.  This  provision  says 
that  while  a student  he  shall  not  be  deemed  "to 
have  gained  a residence.  If  he  goes  into  a store 
there  is  nothing  said  about  it.  The  point  I insist 
upon  here  is,  thatil  he  goes  into  a store  he  shall 
take  the  same  chances  that  the  student  does, and 
no  other. 

The  provision  which  we  now  have,  which  has 
been  allowed  to  stand  upon  our  statute  book, 
reads : 

“A  person  shall  not  be  considered  or  held  to  have  gained 
a residence  in  any  township,  city  or  incorporated  village 
of  this  State,  who  may  now  be  in  attendance  upon,  or 
who  shall  hereafter  come  into  such  township,  city,  or 
incorporated  village  to  attend  any  school,  seminary, 
academy,  college,  university  or  other  institution  ol  learn- 
ing, located  or  established  therein,  as  a pupil,  scholar  or 
student,  unless  the  person  in  attendance  upon  such 
school  seminary,  academy,  or  college  was  a legal  quali- 
fied elector  of  the  township,  city  or  incorporated  village 
in  which  the  same  is  located  or  established,  or  unless  the 
pupil,  scholar  or  student  shall,  upon  oath,  declare  that 
he  has  no  other  place  of  residence,  and  that  it  is  his  in- 
tention to  make  said  township,  city,  or  incorporated  vil- 
lage his  permanent  place  of  residence.” 

When  a student  comes  into  an  incorporated 
village  to  attend  an  academy  or  college,  if  he  is 
able  to  say,  that  he  comes  there,  though  a stu- 
dent, to  make  it  his  permanent  place  of  resi- 
dence, he  should  be  entitled  to  vote,  and  that 
there  should  be  no  constitutional  provision  for- 
bidding it.  I want  to  know  if  we  are  here  pre- 
pared to  say,  by  a constitutional  provision,  that 
students  in  our  colleges  and  seminaries  are  so 
degraded  that  there  must  be  an  express  consti- 


tutional provision  made  to  apply  to  them  that 
we  do  not  propose  to  apply  to  any  other  class. 
That  when  these  students  shall  state  upon 
their  oath  that  they  come  into  the  village  or 
town  to  make  it  their  permanent  place  of  resi- 
dence, that  is  not  sufficient,  that  they  must  be 
judged  by  another  rule  because  they  are  more 
likely  to  commit  frauds  upon  the  laws  of 
the  State?  It  is  because  of  this  unjust  dis- 
crimination, that  here  and  now  I protest  against 
it.  I do  not  suppose  that  a student  is  more 
apt  to  perjure  hiipself,  more  apt  to  commit  per- 
jury for  the  sake  of  getting  a vote  in  the  village 
where  he  may  be  residing,  than  any  other  per- 
son. I believe  that  this  class  of  citizens,  by 
their  intelligence,  by  their  moral  worth,  by 
everything  by  which  we  judge  a man  may  well 
be  left  upon  the  same  footing  with  the  residue 
of  the  citizens  of  the  State. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I have  no  peculiar  interest 
in  the  matter  involved  in  this  section.  I think 
it  is  just  and  proper  that  it  should  be  incorpo- 
rated in  the  Constitution.  Gentlemen  seem  to 
become  excited  whenever  a subject  comes  up  in 
this  Convention.  The  gentleman  from  Lorain 
[Mr.  Hale]  becomes  quite  excited,  and  thinks 
that  we  wish  to  deprive  students  of  certain 
rights,  because  they  are  attending  college. 
There  is  no  reason  for  such  apprehension.  I 
think  not.  The  history  of  Ohio  during  the 
past  few  years  has  shown  that  the  institutions 
of  learning  in  the  State,  that  ought  to  be  foun- 
tains of  purity  as  well  as  learning,  have  failed, 
in  at  least  some  instances,  in  accomplishing 
their  high  purposes.  Students,  while  attending 
some  of  these  institutions,  have  been  permitted 
to  violate  the  laws  of  the  State.  That  law  re- 
quires every  man,  in  every  situation  of  life,  to 
vote  at  his  own  home.  This  has  been  disre- 
garded, and  students  have  been  permitted  to 
vote  on  a temporary  residence.  Upon  the  same 
ground,  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey], and  myself,  and  every  member  of  this 
Convention,  might  desire  to  cast  our  ballots  in 
this  city  during  the  session  of  this  Convention, 
rather  than  go  home  to  their  permanent  place 
of  residence ; vote  here,  because  we  happen  to 
be  here  temporarily. 

If  that  is  the  requirement  of  the  law,  and  if 
students  are  in  the  habit  of  violating  that  law, 
it  is  the  duty  of  this  Convention,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  State,  to  step  in  and  prevent  them  from 
leaving  their  home  temporarily,  and,  on  a resi- 
dence thus  acquired,  exercising  the  right  to 
vote  in  violation  of  law. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Does  not  the  law  apply  to 
students  as  well  as  others? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Are  students  more  likely,  or 
do  they,  violate  the  law  more  than  other  per- 
sons? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  More  than  any  other  class  of 
persons  in  Ohio,  as  I believe. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  not  my  experience. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  the  history  of 
the  State. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I say  that  from  information 
on  which  I rely  as  true,  I believe  no  one  class 
of  men  in  Ohio,  have  with  such  impunity  and 


AS  TO  WHO  ARE  NOT  QUALIFIED  TO  VOTE. 

Tuttle,  Hale,  Sample,  West. 


1941 


Day.] 


March  10,  1874.; 


with  as  much  uniformity,  violated  the  law,  as 
the  young  men  who  have  been  attending  col- 
lege, absent  from  their  “permanent  homes,”  as 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  has 
styled  it. 

What  does  the  gentleman  mean  by  a * ‘per- 
manent home”  and  by  complaining  that  it  is 
hard  and  unjust  to  prevent  a man  from  voting 
when  he  is  away  from  such  home?  Where 
shall  a man  vote  but  at  his  “permanent  home,” 
and  where  can  a man  vote  without  being  guilty 
of  perjury,  if  he  is  required  to  swear  to  his  resi- 
dence, but  at  his  home.  No  place  in  the  State 
of  Ohio.  The  only  question  is,  whether  these 
young  men  ought  to  be  exempt  from  the  gen- 
eral law  applicable  to  all  other  electors.  Whether 
they  should  have  the  privilege  of  voting  at  such 
place  as  may  suit  their  convenience,  or  the 
exigency  of  the  party  in  which  they  may  feel 
an  interest.  That  is  the  only  question.  We 
do  not  want  to  deprive  them  of  the  right  to  vote. 
We  do  not  do  anything  of  the  kind  nor  is  the 
section  open  to  the  objection  that  has  been 
urged  against  it.  It  is  said  that  it  prohibits  a 
student  from  gaining  a residence  whilst  he  is 
attending  school,  whilst  if  he  were  engaged  in 
any  other  business,  the  case  would  be  different. 
Nothing  of  the  kind  is  deducible  from  the  pro- 
vision. It  provides  “that  for  the  purpose  of 
voting,  no  person  shall  be  deemed  to  have  gain- 
ed or  lost  a residence  by  reason  of  his  presence 
or  absense  while  employed  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States,  or  shall  he  be  deemed  to 
have  gained  or  lost  a residence  by  reason  of  his 
presence  or  absence  while  engaged  in  the  navi- 
gation of  the  water  of  this  State  or  the  Uni- 
ted States,  or  on  th  high  seas,  nor  shall  he  be 
deemed  to  have  ga  ned  or  lost  a residence  by 
reason  of  his  presence  or  absence  while  a stu- 
dent in  any  seminary  or  institution  of  learn- 
ing.” 

The  only  queston  raised  is,  whether  the  mere 
fact,  apart  from  ny  further  fact  or  considera- 
tion, that  a young  man  is  attending  an  institu- 
tion of  learning,  without  any  reference  to  other 
facts  or  to  residence,  he  shall  be  regarded  as 
having  acquired  a residence  there  which  will 
entitle  him  to  vote.  This  says  he  shall  not  lose 
his  residence  by  such  attendance.  If  he  is  a res- 
ident, then  he  is  not  there  for  the  purpose  of 
attending  college  or  any  institution  of  learning, 
and  for  that  purpose  alone,  having  his  resi- 
dence in  that  particular  locality,  of  course  he  is 
entitled  to  vote  there  by  virtue  of  that  resi- 
dence, not  by  reason  of  his  attendance  at  col- 
lege. 

The  statute  to  which  the  gentleman  from  Lo- 
rain [Mr.  Hale]  has  referred,  contains  the  same 
provision.  The  gentleman  says  it  is  in  force. 
My  belief  is  that  it  has  been  repealed. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Can  a man  gain  a residence  or 
lose  a residence  by  the  mere  fact  of  his  presence 
or  absence  in  certain  places,  unconnected  or  un- 
accompanied by  some  specific  intent  with  re- 
gard to  the  matter? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Certainly  not. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  This  does  change  the  law 
unless  it  means  this.  That  is  what  I want  to 
come  at.  Unless  it  means  that  although  he  may 
go  to  a seat  of  learning  with  the  intention  of 
always  remaining  there,  would  this  prevent 
him  from  acquiring  a residence  ? 


Mr.  SAMPLE.  I think  not.  I think  it 
would  have  no  such  effect;  because  he  might  go 
there  for  the  purpose  of  making  that  his  resi- 
dence, and  not  merely  because  he  went  there 
for  the  purpose  of  attending  that  institution  of 
learning. 

Mr.  HALE.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the 
language,  when  he  says  he  shall  not  be  deemed 
to  have  acquired  a residence  while  a student? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  says  that  for  voting  pur- 
poses he  would  not  be  deemed  to  have  gained 
or  lost  a residence  by  reason  of  his  presence  or 
absence  while  attending  on  any  seminary  or 
other  institution  of  learning.  That  is,  that  the 
mere  fact  of  his  presence  or  absence,  while  en- 
gaged as  a student  in  a seminary  or  other  insti- 
tution of  learning,  shall  not  be  deemed  to  have 
caused  a change  of  his  residence.  But  if  there 
are  other  reasons,  reasons  which,  in  addition  to 
that,  would  give  him  a particular  residence  in 
any  particular  place,  there  is  nothing  to  hinder 
his  change  of  residence.  There  is  nothing  to 
hinder  a man  from  changing  his  residence  while 
in  the  military  service  of  the  United  States,  as 
well  as  if  he  were  not  in  that  service. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me 
one  question  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  not  the  peculiar  construction 
of  this  language  such  as  to  exclude  the  opera- 
tion of  all  other  causes  or  means  of  acquiring  or 
losing  residence? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I think  not. 

Mr.  WEST.  He  cannot  obtain  residence 
while  a student ; that  is,  all  the  cause  that  would 
operate  to  give  him  residence  must  cease  to 
have  operation  during  that  period  of  time.  Let 
me  submit  a question.  Suppose  he  goes  out  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  and  he  votes  outside  of  the 
State  while  attending  a seminary  or  other  insti- 
tution of  learning  outside  of  the  State.  That 
is  while  he  is  a resident  of  this  State.  But  this 
Constitution  says,  while  he  is  a resident  he  shall 
not  lose  his  residence,  although  he  has  exercised 
the  right  of  citizenship  abroad.  Is  not  that 
the  effect  of  it? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  afraid  it  is.  If  we  can  get 
it  put  together  in  proper  shape,  I am  with  the 
gentleman. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I am  sure  there  will  not  be 
any  difficulty  in  that  case,  because  he  would 
not  be  entitled  to  vote  when  he  came  back. 

Mr.  WEST.  He  has  not  lost  his  residence. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  If  he  went  out  of  the  State, 
he  wouid  have  to  swear  before  he  voted,  when 
he  came  back,  that  he  had  not  voted  in  another 
State. 

Mr.  WEST.  Our  statute  provides  that  if  he 
shall  vote  elsewhere  in  the  State,  it  shall  be 
deemed  a cause  for  him  losing  his  residence, 
but  this  constitutional  provision  says  not,  and 
repeals  that. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  does  not  repeal  anything 
of  the  kind.  It  declares  in  substance  that  when 
a young  man  leaves  his  residence  and  goes  to  a 
foreign  seminary  of  learning,  and  remains 
there  to  acquire  a collegiate  education,  and  hav- 
ing left  his  family  and  home  with  the  purpose, 
on  the  close  of  his  educational  course,  to  return 
here,  although  he  be  absent  from  the  State 
for  a number  of  years,  when  he  returns  to  the 


1942 


[134th 


AS  TO  WHO  ARE  NOT  QUALIFIED  TO  VOTE. 


West,  Sample,  Hale. 


[Tuesday, 


domicile  of  his  father,  what  is  the  reason  he 
would  not  be  entitled  to  vote  there  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  He  would,  if  he  had  not  voted 
outside. 

Mr.  S AMBLE.  Then  it  is  not  because  he  has 
a residence  outside  of  the  State,  that  he  is  not 
entitled  to  vote,  but  because  he  did  an  act 
which  the  Legislature  of  Ohio  have  declared 
would  prohibit  him  from  voting. 

Mr.  WEST.  But  this  constitutional  provi- 
sion repeals  that  provision. 

Mr.  SAMPLE,  No,  it  says  that  if  he  has 
gone  to  a college  outside  of  the  State  at  a place 
from  his  permanent  home,  that  shall  not  of  it- 
self work  a change  of  his  last  residence.  That 
is  just  what  it  does  say,  and  that  is  all  it  does 
say  in  reference  to  it,  and  if  he  goes  away  with  j 
that  intention  and  does  an  act  which  would 
prevent  him  from  voting  on  his  return,  he  may 
lose  that  right  to  vote,  although  the  mere  fact 
of  removal  would  not  have  deprived  him  of  it. 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  present  him  this  state  of  facts  ? A young 
man  goes  to  Delaware  to  attend  school,  making 
a contract  at  the  time  he  goes,  that  at  the  end  of 
two  years,  when  he  will  have  completed  his 
education,  he  will  go  into  permanent  business  j 
in  the  city  of  Delaware.  He  has  a father  living  | 
in  an  adjoining  county,  but  he  goes  there  with  j 
the  intention  of  making  Delaware  his  perman-  I 
ent  home  at  the  end  of  the  time  he  would  be  a | 
student.  Now  while  a student  what  would  be  j 
his  condition  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I shall  answer  that  by  asking 
another  question.  Would  he  maintain  a resi- 
dence at  the  home  of  his  father? 

Mr.  HALE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Would  he  be  entitled  to  vote 
at  the  home  of  his  father  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  So  I say,  and  he  would  be 
entitled  to  vote  in  the  town  of  Delaware. 

Mr.  HALE.  But  you  say  while  a student  he  I 
shall  not  gain  a residence. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Not  from  the  mere  fact  of 
being  there  as  a student. 

Mr.  HALE.  It  is  not  the  mere  fact. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  is  the  substance  of  it  j 
and  the  effect  of  it.  That  is  the  proper  con- 1 
struction  of  it.  I do  not  wish  to  deprive  a sin-  j 
gle  man  of  his  vote;. it  is  not  any  jealousy  of  j 
students ; it  is  not  any  conviction  that  there 
ought  to  be  any  invidious  discrimination  against 
them,  it  is  not  because  of  any  desire  that  any 
thing  of  that  kind  would  occur,  but  it  is  from  i 
a conviction  that  I rece  ved  when  my  son  came  j 
home  and  told  me  he  had  been  solicited  when  ' 
he  was  attending  college,  but  six  miles  from  the  : 
place  of  my  residence  and  his  home  in  the  same 
county,  to  vote  at  the  place  in  which  the  college  : 
was  situated,  and  I thought  then  and  still  think, 
that  it  is  time  that  men  should  begin  to  think  [ 
on  that  subject.  He  had  been  requested  to  stay 
and  vote  at  a place  where  he  had  no  right  to 
vote.  These  are  the  reasons  why  these  pro- 1 
visions  are  introduced.  If  that  statute  to  which  | 
the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  refers  is 
in  force,  and  I do  not  think  it  is,  although  1 am 
not  able  to  say  it  is  not,  it  covers  the  whole 
ground. 

Mr.  HALE.  The  gentleman  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber]  says  that  he  had  a case  in  the  su- 


preme court  based  upon  that  statute  and  he 
knows  it  has  not  been  repealed. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  If  it  is  not,  the  gentleman 
will  see  that  it  goes  as  far  as  this  provision,  but 
it  has  not  been  enforced. 

In  relation  to  the  provisions  of  the  other 
Constitutions,  seven  of  them,  I believe,  to  which 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  called 
the  attention  of  the  Convention,  I would  say 
that  they  are  all  late  Constitutions.  You  see 
that  it  is  not  a matter  that  is  limited  to  Ohio. 
It  is  not  a question  that  has  first  attracted  atten- 
tion in  this  State,  but  we  find  it  everywhere, 
and  you  find  new  Constitutions  incorporating 
this  provision,  and  in  the  new  Constitution  of 
Pennsylvania  there  is  precisely  the  same  pro- 
vision. That  Constitution  came,  was  adopted 
long  since  this  Report  was  made.  The  provision 
of  that  Constitution  is  as  follows : 

“For  the  purpose  of  voting  no  person  shall  he  deemed 
to  have  gained  a residence  by  reason  of  his  presence,  or 
lost  it  by  reason  of  his  absence  while  employed  in  the 
service,  either  civil  or  military,  of  this  State  or  of  the 
United  States,  or  while  engaged  in  the  navigation  of  the 
waters  of  this  State  or  of  the  United  States,  or  on  the 
high  seas,  nor  while  a student  of  any  institution  of  learn- 
ing.” 

The  fact  of  such  provision  being  found  in 
those  recently  adopted  Constitutions  shows  that 
this  matter  has  attracted  the  attention  of  the 
nation ; and  it  further  proves  that  there  must  be 
some  occasion  for  it.  It  cannot  be  possible  that 
the  people  of  the  different  States  of  this  nation 
would  be  directing  their  attention  to  this  sub- 
ject if  they  were  not  certain  there  was  some 
necessity  for  it.  What  are  the  necessities  for 
it?  Suppose  it  be  a fact  that  young  men  are 
indulged  in  the  habit  of  putting  their  votes 
where  they  will  do  the  most  good,  and  some 
vote  in  the  locality  of  the  institution  of  learn- 
ing they  are  attending,  and  others  return  to 
their  own  domiciles.  I have  heard  instances  of 
that  character.  Students  are  divided,  and  some 
of  them  vote  at  the  locality  of  the  institution, 
when  the  vote  in  the  precinct  in  which  the 
seminary  or  college  may  be  situated  required 
their  votes,  where  there  was  a close  party  con- 
test. Others  vote  at  home,  when  that  is 
deemed  most  desirable.  If  the  amendment  is 
adopted,  and  this  practice  is  sanctioned,  there 
will  be  a distinction  between  students  and  all 
other  classes  of  individuals.  What  reason  is 
there  for  this  distinction  in  reference  to  stu- 
dents ? He  is  engaged  in  pursuing  an  educa- 
tional course  in  any  locality ; he  is  no  more 
identified  with  the  interests  of  that  locality 
than  we  are  with  the  city  of  Cincinnati.  His 
object  is  to  get  cheap  and  good  board,  and  that 
is  his  only  claim  on  the  community  in  which 
he  is  cast,  and  he  has  no  interest  in  the  success 
or  condition  of  the  affairs  of  the  community. 
He  is  not  identified  by  property,  by  interest,  by 
association  with  the  community  in  which  he 
lives,  and  I say  that  it  is  an  act  of  impudence 
for  the  student  to  usurp  the  local  government  of 
the  community  because  he  has  happened  to  be 
received  into  their  midst  as  a student  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  an  education.  It  has 
nothing  to  justify  it.  Even  a sense  of  delicacy 
on  their  part  would  prevent  their  doing  it. 
Shall  students  vote  who  pay  no  taxes,  who  do 
nothing  that  identifies  them  with  the  interest 
of  the  community  in  which  they  are  located  ? 


AS  TO  WHO  ARE  NOT  QUALIFIED  TO  VOTE. 


1943 


Bosworth,  Dorsey. 


Day.] 

March  10,  1874.] 

Shall  they  have  the  power  of  voting  for  and 
electing  officers  that  control  the  local  affairs  of 
that  community,  to  levy  taxes,  to  expend 
money  and  to  make  improvements?  Shall 
everything  of  this  sort  be  regulated  in  accord- 
ance with  the  caprice  of  young  men  who  have 
no  interest  in  the  matter  ? 

If  there  be  anything  in  this  section  that 
would  do  injustice  to  that  worthy  class  it  ought 
not  to  be  adopted.  I am  not  wedded  to  it;  it  is 
a matter  of  indifference  to  me,  personally, 
whether  it  is  adopted  or  not ; I believe  it  is  right 
but  if  there  be  anything  in  it  that  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  can  correct,  and  that  we  can  agree 
upon  I shall  be  satisfied.  I am  anxious  that 
there  shall  be  no  injustice  done  to  any  class, 
but  that  there  shall  be  common  justice  rendered 
to  all. 

Mr.  BOSWORTH.  I am  unable  to  see  any 
substantial  ground  for  making  a discrimination 
against  students.  I know  of  no  good  reason 
why  students  in  any  college  or  seminary  of 
learning  in  the  State  of  Ohio  are  not  entitled  to 
the  same  rights,  and  ought  not  to  enjoy  the 
same  privileges  without  let  or  hindrance,  that 
other  citizens  of  the  State  have  and  enjoy ; and 
I am  opposed  to  any  constitutional  provision, 
and  equally  so  to  any  provision  of  statute  law, 
which  shall  make  a distinction  between  students 
and  other  men.  They  are  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  that  other  men  enjoy.  They  are 
possessed  of  as  much  intelligence  and  as  high 
moral  qualities  as  any  other  class  of  citizens. 
If  this  provision  is  incorporated  into  the  Con- 
stitution it  will  raise  a most  palpable  and  invid- 
ious distinction. 

I understand  the  purpose  and  object  of  this 
proposition  to  be  to  constitutionalize  the  elec- 
tion law  of  1868  in  relation  to  students,  and 
which  has  been  held  to  be  invalid  under  the 
present  Constitution;  which  law,  although  it 
stands  as  unrepealed  on  the  statute  books,  has 
been  virtually  set  aside  and  abrogated  by  a de- 
cision of  the  supreme  court,  reported  in  the 
Seventeeth  Ohio  State  Reports,  page  665.  This 
statute  was  passed  on  the  seventeenth  of  April, 
1868,  and  is  a twin  brother  of  another  statute 
passed  the  day  before,which  gentlemen  upon  this 
floor  doubtless  have  recollection  and  knowledge 
of,  under  the  somewhat  notorious  title  of  the 
Visible  Admixture  Bill.  That  was  a law  which 
made  manifest  and  most  palpable  distinction 
between  citizens  of  the  State  on  account  of 
color,  and  was  pronounced  in  terms  to  be  a vio- 
lation of  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  by  the 
supreme  court  of  the  State,  and  was,  by  that 
decision,  abrogated,  and  has  since  been  repealed 
by  the  General  Assembly.  The  reasoning  of 
the  court  upon  that  statute  applied  with  equal 
force  to  this,  and,  by  implication,  if  not  in  fact, 
abrogated  it,  and  it  is  generally  understood 
throughout  the  State  that  the  provisions  of  this 
statute  come  within  the  scope  and  reason  of 
that  decision,  and  that  the  statute  was,  in  fact, 
abrogated  by  it,  although  it  has  not  been,  in 
terms,  repealed  by  act  of  the  Legislature.  It 
is  understood  to  be  so  clearly  a violation  of  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State  that 
nobody  has  attempted  to  enforce  it,  and  this  is 
the  reason  it  remains  a dead  letter  upon  the  stat- 
ute book,  so  much  to  the  disgust  and  disturbance 
of  the  venerable  Chairman  of  this  Committee. 


This  statute  makes  most  palpable  and  invidious 
distinction  between  students  of  seminaries  of 
learning  and  other  citizens  of  the  State,  as  I 
will  show  by  a few  brief  extracts. 

Upon  page  340  of  Swan  and  Sayler's  Stat- 
utes will  be  found  the  law  regulating  the  resi- 
dence of  other  citizens  of  the  State  in  reference 
to  the  right  to  vote.  It  is  in  these  words : 

“That  place  shall  be  considered  and  held  to  be  the  resi- 
dence of  a person  in  which  his  habitation  is  fixed,  with- 
out any  present  intention  of  removing  therefrom,  and  to 
which,  whenever  he  is  absent,  he  has  the  intention  of 
returning.” 

That  defines  residence  as  to  the  citizen. 
Now,  upon  the  opposite  page  you  will  find  the 
rule  as  to  students,  and,  to  me,  it  presents  a 
very  odious  distinction.  I shall  not  read  the 
whole  section. 

A student  shall  not  be  allowed  to  vote  unless 
he  shall  have  declared  “ that  he  has  no  other 
place  of  residence,  and  that  it  is  his  intention 
to  make  said  township,  city  or  incorporated 
village  his  place  of  permanent  residence.” 

In  the  one  case,  the  rule  of  residence  is  that 
the  elector  must  have  a fixed  residence,  with 
no  present  intention  of  removing  therefrom. 
In  the  other,  he  must  have  a residence,  with  the 
intention  of  permanently  remaining  there. 
There  is  no  reason  in  principle,  none  in  justice 
or  propriety,  why  the  student  should  be  thus 
discriminated  against;  charged  with  fraud; 
virtually  charged  with  perjury,  and  that  his 
oath  is  unworthy  of  belief,  by  a provision  in 
the  election  laws  of  the  State.  I do  not  believe, 
sir,  that  students  are  more  guilty  of  infraction 
of  the  law  of  the  State  than  any  other  class  of 
citizens,  or  that  any  good  reason  exists  for 
their  being  put  under  a ban  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  State. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  With  the  permission  of  the 
Convention  I would  like  too  add  a few  words  in 
reference  to  this  matter. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I think  that  there  is  more  in 
this  matter  than,  perhaps,  gentlemen  see  at  this 
time,  and  that  there  is  more  importance  in 
having  this  provision  stricken  out  than  many 
gentlemen  are  aware  of.  I beg  leave  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  fact  that 
this  does  prevent  a man  who  goes  to  an  institu- 
tion of  learning,  no  matter  if  he  has  no.  other 
place  of  residence,  from  gaining  a place  of  res- 
idence there,  although  he  may  remain  even  four 
years  in  the  institution,  being  domiciled  there 
and  making  that  his  permanent  home,  having  no 
other  residence.  It  prevents  him  from  acquir- 
ing the  right  to  vote  as  a citizen  of  the  State  of 
Ohio. 

The  words  are  express.  I do  not  think  they 
can  be  mistaken.  The  section  declares  express- 
ly that  “for  the  purpose  of  voting  no  person 
shall  be  deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost  a resi- 
dence by  reason  of  his  presence  or  absence 
while  a student  in  any  seminary  or  institution 
of  learning,”  leaving  out  everything  else,  as  I 
read  it,  and  you  can  make  nothing  else  out  of  it. 
I ask  gentlemen  this  plain,  simple  question.  A 
person  who  goes  from  any  other  county  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  to  Oberlin,  or  who  goes  to  Dela- 
ware, for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  an  educa- 
tion, goes  there  because  the  town  of  Oberlin,  or 
1 the  town  of  Delaware  grants  him  facilities  for 


1944 


AS  TO  WHO  ARE  NOT  QUALIFIED  TO  VOTE. [134th 

Burns,  Dorsey,  Cunningham,  Ewing.  [Tuesday, 


that  purpose  superior,  as  he  thinks,  to  any  other 
place  in  the  State.  Just  precisely  as  a young 
man  may  go  to  practice  medicine,  or  to  practice 
law,  or  to  exercise  any  profession  in  any  town 
or  village  in  the  State  of  Ohio  which  he  thinks 
gives  him  a better  opening.  It  is  because  those 
two  places  offer  him  facilities  which  he  does 
not  find  anywhere  else,  and  yet  if  he  stays 
there  three  or  four  years  he  shall  not  have  the 
privilege  of  voting. 

Mr.  BURN S.  What  does  the  gentleman  mean 
by  “staying  there  three  or  four  years?” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  He  may  remain  there.  He 
has  no  other  home.  He  is  a young  man,  per- 
haps, that  has  been  teaching  school  in  some 
portion  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  goes  to  Ober- 
lin  or  Delaware  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a 
further  education,  and  he  stays  there  for  the 
purpose  of  acquiring  that  education. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  he  attends  the  seminary 
with  a view  of  graduating  he  must  remain  four 
years. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I understand  that.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  states  that 
these  young  men  are  met  as  they  go  from  their 
boarding  houses,  with  their  books  under  their 
arms,  and  they  are  induced  to  go  and  vote. 
Does  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns] 
consider  these  young  men,  who  must  be  of  the 
lawful  age  of  twenty-one,  so  ignorant  that  they 
have  no  opinions  of  their  own.  If  I remember 
correctly,  it  was  only  yesterday  that  the  gentle- 
men from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  was  in  favor 
of  allowing  foreigners  who  had  not  been  natur- 
alized, and  who  had  been  a year  and  a day 
within  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  had  declared  their 
intention  of  becoming  citizens,  to  go  to  the  polls 
and  vote. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir;  at  their  legal  places 
of  voting.  So  I am  of  allowing  all  students  who 
may  be  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  at  their  legal 
place  of  voting,  and  the  gentleman  cannot 
make  a point  by  any  such  question. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  from  Miami 
knows  exactly  what  he  is  saying.  I refer  to 
the  fact  that  he  is  domiciled  at  this  institution 
of  learning  four  years.  He  has  no  other  home. 
He  does  not  know  whether  he  will  remain  after 
the  four  years  are  up  or  whether  he  will  go  to 
some  other  place.  It  is  his  home  for  four  years — 
his  home  to  all  intents  and  purpose — and  he  has 
no  other  home.  He  is  twenty-one  years  of  age 
and  you  exclude  him  from  voting;  at  the  same 
time  you  permit  foreigners  who  do  not  know, 
any  more  than  these  young  men,  whether  they 
will  remain  in  the  places  where  they  have  voted 
after  they  have  given  their  votes  or  not. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me 
to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Would  you  allow  a young  man 
that  lives  in  your  county — for  instance,  your 
own  son,  twenty-one  years  of  age,  who  is  at- 
tending college  at  Delaware — would  you  have 
the  law  of  the  State  so  that  he  could  vote  at 
Delaware  while  attending  school  there? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  speaking  of  young  men 
who  have  no  other  home. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Then  we  agree  exactly. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then  I say  you  have  to  mod- 
ify this  provision,  for  if  the  Constitution  is 
adopted,  then,  plainly — to  every  man  who  can 


understand  the  English  language — it  prevents 
him,  during  the  time  of  his  being  a student  in 
college,  from  voting. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  gentleman  differs  from 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I cannot  help  that.  I have 
very  great  respect  for  the  opinion  of  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee.  So  far  as  that  question 
goes  it  is  plain  to  me  from  the  reading  of  the 
section,  and  I ask  gentlemen  to  listen  to  it  for  a 
moment : 

“For  the  purpose  of  voting  no  person  shall  be  deemed 
to  have  gained  or  lost  his  residence  by  reason  of  his 
presence  or  absence,  while  a student  of  any  seminary  or 
institution  of  learning.” 

If  the  gentleman  can  make  that  any  more 
plain  I would  like  to  have  it  done.  The  gentle- 
man cannot  turn  or  twist  it  in  any  other  way 
than  simply  as  it  stands  as  coming  from  the 
hands  of  the  Committee,  and  the  Chairman  has 
given  the  reason  which  operates  in  his  own 
mind  when  he  declares  that  the  reason  why  he 
wants  this  put  in  here  is  because  those  young 
men  were  more  in  the  habit  than  any  other 
class  of  men  of  violating  law.  I cannot  sub- 
scribe to  that  opinion. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I am  authorized  by 
the  gentleman  from  Warren  [Mr.  Thompson]  to 
give  an  instance  where  the  students  of  an  insti- 
tution in  a single  town,  voted  upon  the  people 
a tax  of  from  $12,000  to  $15,000  in  the  last  six 
weeks. 

Mr.  POND.  I am  creditably  informed  that 
within  the  last  two  years,  under  the  operation 
of  this  railroad  law,  men  have  been  imported 
into  towns  as  employes  and  stayed  there  twenty 
days  for  the  purpose  of  voting  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  aid  to  build  railroads. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Of  course  the  gentleman  can 
find  abuses  under  all  provisions  of  law.  I had 
not  learned  the  facts,  but  if  the  gentleman  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  knows  it  to  be  true,  I 
shall  take  his  word  for  it.  Objections  of  that 
kind  may  apply  to  every  measure.  It  was  only 
this  morning  that  it  was  proposed  to  allow  for- 
eigners to  vote  in  municipal  elections,  without 
having  any  interest  in  the  town  where  they  hap- 
pen to  be  located,  for  railroad  and  other  muni- 
cipal taxes  upon  the  persons  among  whom  they 
live!  I do  not  propose  to  place  the  mark  of 
Cain  upon  the  foreheads  of  these  young  men 
who  go  to  our  seminaries  of  learning  for  the 
purpose  of  acquiring  an  education.  This  is  all 
wrong,  and  I could  not  do  it,  if  there  have  been 
half  a dozen  or  dozen  more  of  the  States  of  this 
Union  that  have  adopted  such  a scheme  as  this, 
by  putting  a provision  of  thisjkind  in  their  Con- 
stitution. I do  not  want  to  see  the  State  of 
Ohio  follow  any  such  example,  and  I trust  it 
will  not  be  done. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  this  as  an  amendment 
to  the  section  before  it  is  stricken  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  an  amendment 
pending  now.  The  question  will  be  taken  upon 
that  first.  The  question  is  upon  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey],  to  strike  out  the  last  clause  of  the 
original  section. 

Mr.  EWING.  I would  like  to  have  the 


1945 


Day.] AS  TO  WHO  ARE  NOT  QUALIFIED  TO  VOTE. 

March  10,1874.]  Steedman,  Dorsey,  West. 


amendment  I proposed  read  in  connection  with 
the  rest  of  the  section,  for  the  information  of 
the  Convention. 

The  Secretary  read : 

After  the  word  “reason”  insert  the  word  “only”. 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“For  the  purpose  of  voting  no  person  shall  he  deemed 
to  have  gained  or  lost  a residence  by  reason  only  of  his 
presence  or  absence  while  employed  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States,  nor  while  engaged  in  the  navigation  of  the 
waters  of  this  State,  or  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the 
high  seas,  nor  while  a student  of  any  seminary  or  insti- 
tution of  learning.” 

Mr.  Townsend  was  excused  from  voting,  he 
having  paired  with  Mr.  Baber. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I intend  to  vote  to  strike 
out  this  section,  and  to  vote  as  I have  already 
voted  against  imposing  any  restraint  upon  suf- 
frage, and  I only  rise  for  the  purpose  of  saying 
that  I shall  support  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  I am  with 
the  gentleman  so  far  as  he  went,  although  he 
did  not  vote  to  give  the  right  of  suffrage  to  for- 
eigners, but  voted  against  it.  He  voted  against 
giving  foreigners  the  privilege  of  becoming 
citizens,  thi3  poor  privilege  of  voting  for  town- 
ship officers  in  the  township  in  which  they  re- 
side, because  he  says  they  are  irresponsible, 
and  may  vote  enormous*  burdens  upon  the 
native-born  population.  He  voted  to  exclude 
men  from  voting  who  in  some  townships  and 
in  some  counties  of  the  State,  and  in  some  wards 
of  the  cities  of  the  State,  own  more  property 
than  half  of  the  native  population  that  vote  the 
taxes,  so  that  he  is  not  so  liberal  as  he  claims  to 
be  in  his  position  upon  this  question. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  No,  sir,  the  gentleman 
occupies  more  time  than  I do  upon  this  floor, 
and  I would  rather  he  would  wait  until  I am 
through.  I can  see  no  reason  for  this  appre- 
hension that  some  gentlemen  express  here  that 
there  is  particular  danger  in  opening  the  door 
and  permitting  young  men  who  are  attending 
school  to  cast  a ballot  in  a county  in  which  these 
institutions  of  learning  are  located.  I do  not 
apprehend  any  danger  to  the  liberties  of  the 
people  in  permitting  any  young  gentleman  to 
acquire  a residence  in  any  county  in  this  State 
in  which  an  institution  of  learning  is  located. 
I think  we  are  not  in  the  slightest  danger  if 
any  young  man  vote  after  coming  into  a county, 
if  he  has  been  in  the  State  a year  and  deter- 
mines to  make  that  county  his  permanent  resi- 
dence. Why  should  he  not  be  permitted  to  do 
it,  and  why  cast  aspersions  upon  these  young 
gentlemen  who  are  attending  school  intimating, 
that  they  are  going  to  commit  perjury.  lam 
opposed  to  all  this  partialty  in  legislation ; I am 
opposed  to  leveling  discriminations  in  reference 
to  any  class  of  our  citizens.  I want  to  put  them 
all  upon  a common  platform  and  upon  a com- 
mon level,  and  let  the  law  regulate  this  ques- 
tion, unless  we  intend  to  assume  by  this  that 
any  class  of  our  people  are  going  to  violate 
the  law. 

Young  men  who  are  going  to  school  are 
just  as  worthy  of  exercising  the  elective 
franchise  and  of  having  the  ballot  as  the 
old  bald  heads  who  are  worth  their  millions, 
and  I would  rather  trust  them,  because  they 


are  moved  by  the  feelings  of  patriotism,  that 
would  make  them  take  the  musket  if  it  were 
necessary,  or  to  put  on  the  sword  to  defend  the 
flag  of  our  country.  The  old  fellows  did  not 
go.  It  was  the  boys  that  went.  Very  few  old 
men  and  very  few  wealthy  men  went.  It  was 
the  laboring  masses.  It  was  the  mechanics  and 
farmer  boys  that  saved  the  Republic.  We  had 
no  wealthy  men  in  the  army.  All  this  talk 
about  the  sacredness  of  wealth  and  the  running 
this  Convention  in  the  interest  of  money,  and 
that  the’Jhonest,  patriotic  poor  man,  that  took  the 
musket  and  went  to  the  front, cannot  be  trusted 
in  imposing  taxes,  I have  no  great  respect  for 
in  this  Convention  or  outside  of  it.  The  Re- 
public is  safe  in  their  hands.  I tell  you  rich 
men  have  too  much  to  live  for.  They  are  afraid 
to  die.  They  stay  at  home;  and  it  is  safe  to 
trust  the  young  men  of  this  country,  the  me- 
chanics and  the  laborers,  to  save  the  Republic 
in  time  of  war.  It  is  safe  to  trust  the  liberty 
of  the  citizen  to  them  in  time  of  peace.  The 
Republic  is  safe  in  their  hands,  and  the  State  of 
Ohio  will  suffer  no  damage  by  permitting  those 
boys  at  school  to  vote  in  the  county  in  which 
the  school  may  be  located,  in  which  they  are 
ready  to  raise  their  hands  and  swear  that  is 
their  present  residence,  from  which  they  have 
no  intention  of  removing,  and  they  have  no 
home  to  which  they  intend  to  go  when  sick  or 
out  of  employment.  That  is  the  true  test,  and  I 
am  ready  at  this  time  to  vote  to  remove  all  re- 
strictions upon  voters,  and  to  say  that  these 
young  men  may  be  trusted  with  the  ballot  and 
the  oath. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Before  the  gentleman  takes 
his  seat  I wish  he  would  answer  me  a ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I simply  wish  to  ask  the 
gentleman  if  it  is  not  true  that  students,  as  a 
general  rule,  have  just  as  much  interest  in  the 
municipalities  in  which  they  reside  as  the  class 
of  voters  that  he  spoke  of,  the  foreigners  who 
are  not  yet  naturalized,  and  who  merely  have 
given  notice  of  their  intention  to  become  citi- 
zens? 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I answer, unhesitatingly, 
yes.  I am  in  favor  of  giving  them  the  ballot, 
and  the  gentleman  is  not  in  favor  of  giving  it 
to  any  but  the  student.  I think  they  have  just 
as  much  interest  and  no  more. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  we  agree  and  go  to- 
gether. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  the  words  are  stricken  out,  I 
shall  move  to  substitute  in  place  thereof : 

Nor  by  reason  of  his  presence  or  absence  for 
any  mere  temporary  purpose  or  employment. 

The  Secretary  will  please  read  the  section  in 
connection  with  this  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  5.  For  the  purpose  of  voting  no  person  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost  a residence  by  reason  of 
his  presence  or  absence  while  employed  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States,  nor  while  engaged  in  the  navigation 
of  the  waters  of  this  State,  or  ot‘  the  United  States,  or  of 
the  high  seas,  nor  by  reason  of  his  presence  or  absence 
for  any  mere  temporary  purpose  or  employment  what- 
ever.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  that  will  avoid  unjust 
discriminations,  which  are  really  exceedingly 
excessive,  and  this  covers  the  same  ground  in 


1946 


[134th 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Ewing,  Hale,  Chapin,  Yoris.  [Tuesday, 


general  terms,  without  making  any  offensive, 
or  disgraceful,  or  unpleasant  discriminations. 

Mr.  EWING.  I shall  be  entirely  satisfied 
with  the  amendment  as  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West].  I believe 
that,  with  that  modification,  it  will  make  it  in 
all  respects  unobjectionable,  and  I shall,  there- 
fore, vote  to  strike  out,  with  the  hope  that  this 
amendment  will  prevail. 

Mr.  HALE.  Should  the  words  be  stricken 
out,  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey],  and  the  words  proposed  to  be  in- 
serted by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  be  added  to  the  original  section,  I shall 
then  ask  leave  to  withdraw  the  amendment 
that  I offered,  leaving  it  to  stand  in  that  way. 

The  question  being  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Dor- 
sey to  strike  out,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded, taken,  and  resulted — yeas  53,  nays  18, 
as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop, 
Bosworth,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Clark  of  Boss,  Coats,  Cook,  De  Steiguer,  Dor- 
sey, Ewing,  Foran,  Greene,  Gurley,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Miner,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Pow- 
ell, Boot,  Bowland,  Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Steedman,  Townsend,  Tuttle,  Tyler, 
Van  Voorhis,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, Young  of  Noble — 53. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Burns,  Campbell,  Clay,  Cun- 
ningham, Freiberg,  Godfrey,  McBride,  Mitche- 
ner,  Mueller,  Sample,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thomp- 
son, Tulloss,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Voorhes,  White 
of  Brown,  President — 18. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  WEST.  I now  offer  my  amendment  as  a 
substitute  for  the  words  stricken  out. 

Mr.  COOK.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  it. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Add  the  words : 

“Nor  by  reason  of  his  presence  or  absence  for  any 
mere  temporary  purpose  or  employment  whatever.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HALE.  With  the  leave  of  the  Conven- 
tion, I now  withdraw  my  amendment. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  the  amendment  was 
withdrawn. 

The  PBESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
section  6. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  6.  No  idiot  or  insane  person  shall  be  entitled  to 
the  privilege  of  an  elector.” 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I propose  to  amend  section  6. 

The  Secretary  read : 

After  the  word  “person”  insert  the  words,  “or  person 
in  a state  of  intoxication.” 

So  that  the  section  will  read : 

“No  idiot  or  insane  person,  or  person  in  a state  of  in- 
toxication, shall  he  entitled  to  the  privilege  of  an  elec- 
tor.” 

Upon  this  amendment,  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  demanded,  taken,  and  resulted— yeas  22, 
nays  49,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of 


Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Hostet- 
ter, McCormick,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Phellis,  Pow- 
ell, Boot,  Bowland,  Sample,  Smith  of  Shelby, 
Thompson,  Yoris,  Waddle,  President— 22. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Blose,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Byal,  Campbell,  Clark  of  Boss,  Clay, 
Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Foran,  Freiberg, 
Godfrey,  Greene,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Mc- 
Bride, Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  Mueller,  Okey, 
Page,  Pond,  Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Steedman,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tut- 
tle, Tyler,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Yan  Yoorhis, 
Voorhes,  Watson,  West,  White  of  Brown, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Young  of  No- 
ble—49. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PBESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  further 
amendments,  the  question  is  upon  the  engross- 
ment of  the  Article  for  a third  reading. 

The  Article  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed,  and 
to  be  read  the  third  time,  to-morrow. 

Mr.  YOBIS.  I believe  that  the  action  which 
has  been  had  on  Proposition  No.  203  finally  dis- 
poses of  it.  I call  the  attention  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  Proposition  No.  211.  I send  up  the 
Proposition  with  the  modifications  that  I pro- 
pose to  make. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“proposition  no.  211. 

“Section.  1.  Every  citizen  of  the  United  States  of  the 
age  of  twenty-one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident 
of  the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of 
the  county,  township  or  ward  in  which  he  or  she  resides, 
such  time  as  may  he  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the 
qualifications  of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all 
the  elections.  And  whenever  any  of  the  qualified  elec- 
tors of  this  State  shall  be  in  active  military  service,  un- 
der a requisition  from  the  President  of  the  United  States 
or  by  the  authority  of  this  State,  and  not  in  the  regular 
army,  such  electors  may  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  in 
all  elections  by  the  citizens,  under  such  regulations  as 
are,  or  shall  be,  prescribed  by  law,  as  fully  as  if  they 
were  present  at  the  usual  places  of  election. 

“Sec.  2.  A separate  ballot  may  be  given,  to  be  depos- 
ited in  a separate  box.  Upon  the  ballots  for  said  proposed 
section  1,  shall  be  written  or  printed  the  words : ‘Article 
5,  Elective  Franchise,  Section  1-Woman’s  Suffrage,  Yes.’ 
And  upon  the  ballots  given  against  said  proposed  sub- 
stitute shall  be  written  or  printed  the  words : ‘Article  5, 
Elective  Franchise,  Section  1— Woman’s  Suffrage,  No.’ 

“If  a majority  of  said  ballots  cast  at  said  separate  sub- 
mission shall  be  in  favor  of  said  proposed  substitute, 
then  the  same  shall  be  adopted,  and  thereupon  become 
Section  1 of  Article  5 of  the  Constitution;  otherwise  not.” 

Mr.  YOBIS.  It  will  be  perceived  that  section 
one  of  the  Proposition  that  has  just  been  read 
at  the  Secretary’s  desk,  is  identical  in  wording 
with  section  one  of  the  Proposition  just  disposed 
of,  with  the  single  exception  that  the  word 
“male”  is  stricken  out,  and  where  the  word 
“he”  occurs,  and  immediately  after  it,  is  added 
“ or  she,”  so  as  to  embrace  females  as  well  as 
males.  That  is  the  only  change  that  is  proposed 
to  be  made  from  the  Proposition  just  acted  upon 
by  the  Convention.  The  Proposition  upon  the 
tables  of  gentlemen  is  incomplete.  The  Propo- 
sition the  Select  Committee  submitted  was  sub- 
stantially the  corresponding  section  of  the 
Constitution,  except  striking  out  and  adding 
the  words  just  mentioned.  It  was  the  under- 
standing of  our  Committee  that  we  should  make 
our  Proposition  conform  to  the  action  of  the 
Convention  upon  the  Proposition  just  adopted 
by  the  Convention,  except  so  far  as  the  limita- 
tion in  the  Proposition  is  concerned  restricting 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Sears,  Voris,  Pond,  Thompson,  Burns. 


1947 


Day.J 

March  10, 1874.] 


the  ballot  to  males,  and  excluding  the  women 
of  the  State. 

Mr.  SEARS.  What  does  the  gentleman  mean 
when  he  says  the  amendments  to  the  Proposition 
that  have  been  adopted  ? When  was  the  Propo- 
sition adopted? 

Mr.  VORIS.  It  was  adopted  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  SEARS.  As  an  amendment  to  this  propo- 
sition ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I say  the  proposition  that  I 
hold  in  my  hand,  so  far  as  it  is  proposed  to  in- 
corporate it  into  the  Constitution,  is  identical 
with  the  first  section  of  the  Proposition  that  we 
have  just  disposed  of,  'except  that  it  leaves  out 
the  restricting  clause  that  confines  the  elective 
franchise  to  the  males  of  the  State  over  twenty- 
one  years  of  age.  The  amendment  referred  to 
was  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns.]  That  applies  to  persons  who  are 
called  into  the  service  of  the  United  States  in 
time  of  rebellion,  and  for  other  exigencies  that 
may  require  their  attendance. 

I have  no  desire  to  occupy  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  any  further  than  simply  to  explain 
the  proposition  submitted  by  the  select  commit- 
tee. Gentlemen  will  perceive,  by  some  mistake 
of  the  printer,  the  separate  submission  is  on  the 
first  page  of  the  Report  of  the  select  committee 
instead  of  following  immediately  after  section 
one  of  the  Proposition.  The  recommendation 
of  the  Committee  is  simply  this:  We  recom- 
mend that  at  the  time  the  Constitution  is  sub- 
mitted to  the  electors  of  the  State  for  their 
approval  or  rejection,  a separate  ballot,  to  be 
put  in  a separate  box,  shall  be  prepared,  so  that 
those  who  are  in  favor  of  female  suffrage  may 
indicate  it  by  a ballot  saying,  Article  5,  Elec- 
tive Franchise,  section  1 — woman’s  suffrage, 
Yes;  and  those  who  are  opposed  to  it  will  say 
upon  their  ballot,  Article  5,  Elective  Franchise, 
section  1 — woman’s  suffrage,  No. 

Thus,  if  upon  the  election,  a majority  of  the 
vote  cast  for  and  against  this  proposition  should 
be  in  favor  of  woman  suffrage,  then  the  section 
we  have  recommended  in  this  proposition  is 
thereupon  to  become  the  first  section  of  Article 
V of  the  Constitution.  I think  that  that  sub- 
stantially explains  all  there  is  in  this  proposi- 
tion. 

Mr.  POND.  If  my  friend  will  allow  me,  I 
wish  he  could  find  it  consistent  with  his  notion 
of  propriety — and  I think  he  will  see  the  pro- 
priety of  what  I suggest — to  change  the  mode 
of  submission  a little  in  regard  to  requiring  a 
separate  ballot-box.  By  what  the  Convention 
has  already  voted,  we  shall  have  two  ballot- 
boxes.  You  now  propose  another;  that  will 
be  three.  Finally,  there  may  be  still  another 
separate  submission;  and  that  will  be  four. 
Whisky  will  probably  require  the  fourth.  I 
apprehend  that  one  ballot-box  is  all  that  is 
necessary,  and  that  the  whole  vote  can  be  taken 
upon  one  ballot  upon  these  separate  proposi- 
tions. 

Mr.  VORIS.  It  occurred  to  me  that  we  should 
follow  the  usual  course  in  these  submissions. 
This  would  put  the  proposition  independently 
upon  its  own  merits,  and  the  gallantry  of  gen- 
tlemen, as  well  as  their  sense  of  justice,  will  be 
squarely  challenged  when  they  come  to  vote 
upon  this  proposition  upon  its  intrinsic  merits. 
It  does  strike  me  that  if  it  has  merits,  it  had 


better  stand  upon  its  own  bottom.  That  was 
my  idea,  and  the  idea  of  the  Committee.  I am 
not  tenacious  of  the  form,  but  it  appears  to  me 
that  this  is  the  best  one  that  we  could  adopt. 
As  I am  now  advised,  I think  it  better  than  any 
that  has  been  suggested. 

Mr.  POND.  I wish  my  friend  would  look  at 
the  proposition  I alluded  to,  and  see  if  that  does 
not  meet  his  views. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I do  not  think  this  proposition 
will  make  any  serious  inconvenience.  If  we 
want  to  vote  for  the  proposition,  we  can ; and  if 
we  want  to  vote  against  it,  we  can  do  so. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I will  suggest  whether  it 
could  not  be  submitted  in  the  Schedule. 

Mr.  VORIS.  This  can  go  into  the  Schedule; 
but  inasmuch  as  it  is  germane  to  the  section 
just  disposed  of  by  the  Convention,  I think  that 
this  is  the  proper  time  to  have  it  put  into  shape 
for  its  third  reading.  It  is  now  open  for  such 
suggestions  or  amendments  as  delegates  may 
see  fit  to  apply  to  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I simply  desire  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
Voris]  to  one  point  in  the  proposition  he  has 
submitted.  How  I shall  vote  on  the  proposi- 
tion to  submit  the  question  of  woman’s  suffrage 
to  the  people,  I am  not  prepared  to  say  at  this 
time ; but  I want  it  to  be  submitted  alone,  with- 
I out  any  other  proposition  being  coupled  with 
it.  The  gentleman  has  coupled  that  proposition 
with  another  on  the  subject  of  soldiers  voting. 

Mr.  VORIS.  No. 

Mr.  BURNS.  It  was  so  read. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I went  to  the  Secretary’s  desk 
and  took  section  one  of  Article  V,  as  adopted 
by  the  Convention.  If  I am  under  a mistake, 
I should  like  to  be  corrected. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I may  be  mistaken. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I am  anxious  to  eleminate  from 
this,  everything  but  the  naked  proposition. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Let  us  see  how  you  have  it. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I will  read  it : 

“Section  1.  Every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of  the 
age  of  twenty-one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident 
of  the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of 
the  county,  township  or  ward  in  which  he  or  she  resides, 
such  time  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the 
qualifications  of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all 
the  elections.” 

Now,  I understand  that,  except  in  respect  to 
the  admission  of  women  to  the  suffrage,  that 
section  is  just  exactly  the  same  as  the  Conven- 
tion has  already  agreed  upon. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly. 

Mr.  VORIS.  And  I propose,  if  a majority  of 
the  votes  cast  at  that  separate  submission  be  in 
favor  of  this  proposition,  to  make  it  identical 
with  the  section  which  the  Convention  have 
just  agreed  upon,  except  that  the  restrictive 
clause  in  regard  to  males  voting  shall  be  elim- 
inated therefrom,  and  so  word  it  as  that  it  shall 
embrace  both  men  and  women  by  its  provi- 
sions. 

Mr.  BURNS.  When  a person  goes  to  the 
polls  to  vote  for  or  against  woman  suffrage,  what 
is  he  shown?  What  paper  or  proposition  is 
handed  to  him, or  put  into  his  possession,  that  he 
may  know  how  he  is  voting  and  what  he  is  vot- 
ing for  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  The  Report  of  the  Committee, 
if  the  gentleman  will  refer  to  it,  gives  the  de- 
tails prescribing  the  mode  of  voting.  I will 


1948 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. [134th 

Burns,  Yoris,  Hale,  West,  Cunningham,  etc.  [Tuesday, 


read  the  part  that  refers  to  the  mode  of  submis- 
sion : 

“Sec.  2.  A separate  ballot  may  be  given,  to  be  depos- 
ited in  a separate  box.  Upon  the  ballots  for  said  proposed 
Section  1 shall  be  written  or  printed  the  words:  ‘Article 
5,  Elective  Franchise,  Section  1— Woman’s  Suffrage. 
Yes.’  And  upon  the  ballots  given  against  said  proposed 
substitute  shall  be  written  or  printed  the  words:  ‘Arti- 
cle 6,  Elective  Franchise,  Section  1— Woman’s  Suffrage, 
No.’  ” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Very  well.  The  object  that  I 
seek  to  accomplish  is,  that  no  person  in  voting 
against  woman  suffrage,  shall  be  held  to  be  vot- 
ing against  allowing  soldiers  to  vote. 

Mr.  VORIS.  If  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
upon  the  general  proposition  at  the  separate 
submission  are  against  this  proposition,  then 
section  one,  as  you  have  agreed  upon  it  to-day 
in  Convention,  becomes  section  one  of  Article 
Y of  the  Constitution ; but  if  a majority  of  the 
votes  cast  in  this  separate  box  are  in  favor  of 
woman  suffrage,  then  the  same  Article  remains, 
with  the  single  exception  that  the  restrictive 
clause  is  stricken  out — nothing  more  and  noth- 
ing less. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I know  that  voting  down  that 
section  does  not  vote  down  the  question  of  al- 
lowing soldiers  to  vote.  I understand  that. 
But  is  not  the  voter  influenced  either  one 
way  or  the  other  by  the  fact  that  his  negative  or 
affirmative  vote  votes  up  or  down  that  section  ? 
It  is  true  that  in  the  result,  it  does  not  effect  the 
question  as  it  now  stands  at  all;  but  is  there 
not  an  uncertaintv  about  what  he  is  voting 
for? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I think  not.  I do  not  see,  Mr. 
President,  how  I can  make  this  matter  any 
plainer  than  the  language  of  the  proposition 
makes  it.  If  this  clause  relating  to  soldiers 
voting  be  not  contained  in  the  proposition  sepa- 
rately submitted,  and  a majority  of  the  votes 
at  the  separate  ballot  should  be  in  favor  of  wo- 
man suffrage,  then  section  one  of  Article  Y 
would  be  without  that  clause,  and  you  would 
lose  in  your  Constitution  all  the  benefit  you 
seek  to  secure  by  this  clause  in  relation  to  sol- 
diers voting.  To  avoid  any  such  result  as  that, 
I thought  fit  to  adopt,  in  all  its  terms,  with  the 
exception  of  the  restrictive  clause,  section  one 
as  agreed  upon  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  HALE.  Is  not  this  the  precise  question 
that  the  voter  is  called  upon  to  answer  in  choos- 
ing between  the  section  which  we  have  adopt- 
ed and  the  i>ther  section  which  is  now  proposed  ? 
The  one  we  have  adopted  gives  the  right  of  suf- 
frage to  the  male,  while  the  other  gives  it  to  the 
woman  also. 

Mr.  YORIS.  That  expresses  the  idea  exact- 
ly, and  in  language  more  apt,  I presume,  that 
I could  have  devised. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I know  that  is  the  distinc- 
tion. 

Mr.  HALE.  The  two  will  be  before  the 
voter.  The  two  contain  the  soldiers’  element, 
and  the  voter  is  to  choose  between  the  two.  The 
only  thing  to  choose  is  female  suffrage. 

Mr.  WEST.  I understand  that  the  elector 
may  vote  for  both  of  these  Propositions,  or  he 
may  vote  against  both  of  them.  If  he  votes  for, 
and  carries  both  of  them,  the  section  providing 
for  woman  suffrage  will  take  the  place  of  the 
one  in  the  regular  Article. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I understand  that/  exactly. 


That  is  just  as  I understand  it.  What  I want 
to  guard  against  is,  that  the  question  of  woman 
suffrage  shall  neither  be  benefited  nor  injured 
by  the  idea  in  the  mind  of  the  voter  that  he  is 
voting  for  or  against  the  right  of  the  soldier  to 
vote. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  he  is  so  stupid  as  not  to  dis- 
tinguish what  he  is  doing,  he  had  better  not  vote 
at  all. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  gentleman’s  logic  is  good, 
but  had  he  not  better  guard  against  any  such 
misunderstanding  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  know  how  you  will  do 
it,  unless  you  transfer  the  soldier  clause  to  an- 
other section. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move  that  the  gen- 
tleman be  taken  before  the  High  Council  of 
Ten,  and  have  the  matter  explained.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  the  gentleman  were  High 
Priest  of  that  Council,  I should  be  happy  to  ap- 
pear before  it. 

Mr.  HALE.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Yoris] — for  I did 
not  catch  all  that  was  read— whether  it  is  re- 
quired that  a majority  of  all  voting  at  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  shall  be  in  favor  of 
this  Proposition,  or  merely  a majority  of  those 
voting  upon  that  one  question. 

Mr.  VORIS.  The  section  reads : “ If  a ma- 
jority of  said  ballots  cast  at  said  separate  sub- 
mission shall  be  in  favor  of  said  proposed  sub- 
stitute, then  the  same  shall  be  adopted,  and 
thereupon,”  etc. 

Mr.  POWELL.  One  of  the  most  serious  ob- 
jections that  I have  against  woman  suffrage  is 
the  conviction  that  rests  upon  my  mind  that  a 
large  portion — a large  majority,  I might  say — 
of  the  women  of  the  State  are  against  it.  Now, 
I say  that  it  is  not  right  either  for  a majority  of 
the  men  or  a minority  of  the  women  to  put  this 
responsibility  and  duty  upon  the  rest  of  the 
women  without  their  consent.  I am  prepared 
to  vote,  as  I said  I would,  for  the  proposition 
that  the  question  should  be  submitted  to  the 
people;  but  when  it  is  submitted  I certainly 
must  vote  against  it,  unless  there  is  a proposition 
further  providing,  in  some  equitable  manner, 
for  taking  the  vote  of  the  women  of  the  State 
upon  the  subject,  because  I hold  that  it  is  wrong 
— decidedly  wrong — that  a minority  of  the  wo- 
men or  a majority  of  the  men  should  put  upon 
a majority  of  the  women,  against  their  consent, 
the  duty  of  attending  to  politics,  the  duty  of 
going  to  the  polls  and  voting,  the  duty  of  taking 
upon  themselves  offices,  when  they  do  not  want 
it,  and  protest  against  it.  Now,  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  has  proposed  here 
a very  fair  way  of  ascertaining  that  vote ; and 
if  we  do  not  adopt  some  proposition  by  which 
the  women  may  decide  the  question  as  well  as 
the  men,  I will  oppose  it  in  every  way  possible, 
because  1 know  that  the  great  body  of  the  ladies 
that  I am  acquainted  with,  including  my  family 
and  others,  are  utterly  opposed  to  it,  and  beg  of 
us  not  to  put  any  such  duties  and  responsibili- 
ties upon  them. 

I would  say, further, that  I have  said  thus  much 
because  it  looks  very  much  as  though,  by  the 
introduction  of  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Summit  [Mr.  Yoris],  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber] 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Voris,  Powell,  Page. 


1949 


Day.] 

March  10,  1874.] 


would  be  cut  from  under  him.  I would  like  the 
two  to  go  together,  if  they  go  at  all. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  remind  the  gen- 
tleman that  the  Constitution  now  in  force  de- 
fines who  are  electors,  and  any  submission  that 
we  may  make,  either  by  special  submission  or 
in  the  submission  of  the  entire  body  of  the  Con- 
stitution in  gross,  must,  before  it  can  become 
operative,  be  passed  upon  by  the  electors  of  the 
State.  The  electors  are  defined  by  the  present 
Constitution,  and  we  all  know  that  woman  is 
not  an  elector  under  the  Constitution,  and 
there  is  no  recommendation  that  we  could  make 
that  could  have  any  force  in  the  premises. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  just  the  thing  I am 
opposed  to.  I say  that  it  never  shall  pass  in 
that  way,  if  it  is  possible  for  me  and  my  friends 
to  prevent  it.  Now,  it  is  in  our  power  to  say 
that  the  men  who  are  the  electors  at  present 
shall  vote  upon  the  question  first;  and  when 
they  have  decided  that  the  women  may  vote, 
then  the  question  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
women  before  the  law  becomes  operative.  The 
two  sections  of  the  human  family  should  vote 
upon  it  before  it  becomes  a part  of  the  law.  It 
is  true,  as  the  gentleman  said,  that  the  Consti- 
tution provides  that  any  question  in  regard  to 
the  Constitution  must  be  decided  by  the  present 
electors — that  is,  the  male  part  of  the  communi- 
ty. That  I know.  But  after  the  men  have 
voted,  then  I insist  upon  it  that  the  other  propo- 
sition shall  be  submitted  before  the  provision  in 
question  shall  become  a part  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  that  the  consent  of  the  women  them- 
selves, or  a majority  of  them,  shall  be  obtained. 
Both  propositions  should  be  put. 

Mr.  PAGE.  This  subject  was  brought  before 
the  British  Parliament  in  1866,  and,  to  the  great 
surprise  of  the  friends  of  the  measure,  it  re- 
ceived eighty  votes.  Among  those  who  voted 
for  it  was  John  Bright,  who,  previously  to  the 
debate,  had  expressed  his  opinion  against  the 
measure,  but  the  discussion  made  such  a strong 
impression  upon  his  mind  that  he  voted  for  it. 

I am  in  favor  of  submitting  the  subject  to  a vote 
of  the  people. 

Is  there  anybody  who  doubts  that  woman  has  I 
sufficient  virtue  and  intelligence  to  exercise  the  ' 
privilege  and  to  discharge  all  the  duties  of  an 
elector?  I have  not  heard  tkiy  fair-minded  man 
make  any  objection  against  her  virtue  and  ca- 
pacity. All  such  objections,  if  made,  will  be 
with  equal  force  against  the  male  portion  of 
humanity.  Admitting  her  fitness  and  ability 
as  an  elector,  the  great  unanswerable  and  over- 
powering reason  for  bestowing  on  woman  this 
privilege  or  right  is  the  fact  that  she  needs  it 
for  self-protection.  Experience  has  shown  that 
in  every  part  of  the  world  the  voter  is  a free 
man,  and  the  non-voter  holds  all  his  rights  at 
the  will  of  others.  In  our  own  country  the 
colored  man  who  did  not  vote  had  no  rights 
that  commanded  respect.  Since  he  became  a 
voter  how  has  he  risen  in  independence,  self- 
reliance  and  public  estimation.  Constituting, 
as  woman  does,  one-half  of  the  race,  with  all 
her  interests  bound  up  in  ours,  she  ought  to 
have  a voice  in  making  and  enforcing  the  laws 
by  which  we  are  indissolubly  bound  together, 
and  ought  not  to  be  dependent  for  protection 
upon  anybody,  as  a child  is  dependent  upon  a 


parent.  This  right  of  self-protection  is  a topic 
of  great  magnitude  and  capable  of  large  ampli- 
fication, but  it  is  not  my  intention  to  pursue  it. 

The  objection  that  the  act  of  voting  may  dete- 
riorate the  character  of  woman  is  not  one  that 
has  been  supported  by  any  experience  of  actual 
trial,  and  is  only  a timid  apprehension.  It 
springs  from  that  class  of  people  who,  like  the 
gentleman  in  the  Vicar  of  Wakefield,  are  con- 
stantly apprehensive  of  a loss  of  our  liberties. 
It  has  given  rise  to  a large  amount  of  senti- 
mental twaddle,  and  enabled  some  persons  who 
are  possessed  of  imaginations  uncontrolled  by 
common  sense  to  indulge  in  eloquent  descrip- 
tions of  the  degrading  effects  of  the  elective 
franchise  upon  woman.  The  same  class  of  per- 
sons were  able,  by  the  same  process  of  reason- 
ing, to  demonstrate  that  liberty  to  the  slave 
would  prove  ruinous  to  him  and  to  the  Republic. 
The  answer  to  this  proposition  is  that  it  is  not 
true.  Has  man  been  degraded  in  character  or 
depressed  in  the  scale  of  civilization  since  he 
became  a voting  animal?  Does  the  foreigner 
sustain  any  loss  of  dignity,  or  worth,  the  day 
he  casts  his  first  ballot?  Does  every  voter  ne- 
cessarily become  a wrangler  or  a brawler  ? Do 
we  not  all  claim  that  voting  is  the  privilege  of 
a freeman  only  and  that  it  augments  his  inde- 
pendence, self-respect  and  dignity  of  character  ? 
If  this  be  the  result  as  to  man,  why  should  the 
elective  franchise  have  a contrary  effect  upon 
woman  ? 

In  conclusion,  I repeat  that  self-protection 
demands  that  woman  should  have  this  power, 
because  she  is  subject  to  all  the  wrongs  that 
man  himself  is  subject  to,  and  should,  like  him, 
have  the  remedy  in  her  own  hands. 

Mr.  POWELL.  When  I was  up  a few  min- 
utes ago,  I alluded  to  a proposition  introduced 
by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]. 
I am  informed  that  he  is  not  in  the  hall;  j 
would  therefore  suggest  that  the  Secretary  pro- 
cure that  paper  which  the  gentleman  presented 
and  read  it.  That  proposition  provides  that  this 
question  should  be  submitted  to  the  women  of 
Ohio  as  well  as  the  men.  With  that  there  is 
j some  possible  prospect  of  its  becoming  a part  of 
the  Constitution.  Without  it,  I think  it  never 
will. 

The  Secretary  informed  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  that  the  proposition  in 
question  had  been  sent  to  the  printer,  but  that 
a copy  of  it  appeared  in  the  Times  newspaper  of 
the  same  day.  Then 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Proposition  No.  222.  Providing  for  the  submission  of 
the  question  of  lemale  suffrage.  A substitute  for  Propo- 
sition No.  211 : 

“The  General  Assembly  at  its  first  session  after  the 
adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  cause  a registration 
to  be  taken  of  all  the  wo  i en  in  this  State,  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  who  would,  if  males,  bo  legal  voters,  in 
their  respective  wards  and  townships;  the  returns  of 
which  registration  shall  be  forwarded  to  and  tiled  with 
the  Secretary  of  State;  and  shall  also  provide  for  the 
submission,  at  the  next  general  election  for  Stale  officers, 
at  separate  polls,  under  th  same  regulations  and  penal- 
ties now  provided  by  law  at  other  general  elections,  the 
question  ot  woman  suffrage  to  the  women  of  the  St^te, 
who  would  be  legal  voters  at  the  date  of  the  election  if 
they  were  males;  and  if  a majority  equal  in  number  to  a 
majoritv  of  all  the  women  registered  in  the  State  shall 
east  their  ballots  ‘For  Woman’s  Suffrage,  Yes,’  then  the 
General  Assembly  shall,  at  its  next  session,  submit  to  the 
legal  voters  of  the  State,  at  the  next  general  election  for 
State  officers,  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  provid- 


1950 


FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. [134th  Day. 

Powell,  West,  Hostettee,  Burns,  Sample,  Andrews.  [Tuesday,  March  10,  1874. 


ing  for  woman  suffrage,  which  shall  be  ratified  or  reject- 
ed in  the  same  manner  as  other  amendments,  submitted 
by  the  General  Assembly.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I move,  Mr,  President,  that 
the  Article  or  Proposition  under  consideration, 
and  the  one  whiGh  has  just  been  read,  as  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber], 
be  referred  to  the  Committee  that  presented  the 
first  proposition,  with  instructions  to  incorpor- 
ate the  two  ideas— first,  that  the  men  shall  vote 
upon  the  question,  and  if  a majority  of  the  men 
are  in  favor  of  it,  then  there  shall  be  a registra- 
tion, as  the  Proposition  states,  and  the  women 
shall  vote  upon  the  subject  before  it  shall  be- 
come a law. 

Mr.  WEST.  I wish  simply  to  make  the  re- 
mark that  registration  and  the  submission  of 
the  question  at  a separate  ballot  cannot  be  done 
at  a cost  less  than  from  three  to  five  hundred 
thousand  dollars.  I do  not  believe  we  should 
go  to  that  expense. 

Mr.  HOSTETTEE,.  I hope  the  Proposition 
will  not  be  recommitted.  I do  not  take  the 
same  view  of  the  question  that  my  friend  from 
Delaware,  [Mr.  Powell]  does.  I hold  that  if 
the  women  of  this  State  have  a right  to  vote, 
that  right  should  not  be  held  contingent  upon 
the  votes  of  the  women.  I hold  that  if  ninety 
out  of  every  hundred  of  the  women  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  refuse  to  vote,  the  remaining  ten  per 
cent,  should  not  be  thereby  barred  from  the 
privilege  of  voting.  If  I,  as  a citizen  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  have  a right  to  vote,  no  number 
of  citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio  have  the  right  to 


bar  me.  They  may  have  the  power,  but  I deny 
that  they  have  the  right  to  bar  me  from  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  privilege  of  voting.  I do  not  pro- 
pose to  discuss  the  matter  at  length  now,  but  I 
do  hope  that  these  propositions  will  not  be  re- 
committed with  instructions,  as  proposed  by 
the  gentlemen  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell.] 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Powell,  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HALE.  I move  that  general  debate  upon 
this  Proposition  now  close. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  I simply  desire  to  say  that  I 
understood  that  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton 
[Mr.  Sample]  desired  to  be  heard  in  general 
debate. 

Mr.  HALE.  I will  move  to  reconsider  the 
vote  just  taken  if  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton 
desires  to  speak. 

The  motion  to  re-consider  was  then  put  and 
agreed  to. 

Mr.  HALE.  I now  withdraw  my  motion 
that  general  debate  now  close. 

No  objections  were  offered  and  the  motion 
was  withdrawn. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I did  not  desire  that  the  vote 
should  be  re-considered  with  a view  of  occupy- 
ing the  time  of  the  Convention  this  evening. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion do  now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:15  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


MR.  McCAULEY  SWORN  IN— FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

West,  Burns. 


1951 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY-FIFTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVEN- 
TION. 


SEVENTY-THIRD  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Wednesday,  March  11,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  C.  White,  of  the  Poplar 
Street  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  eighty-two  mem- 
bers answered  to  their  names. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  the  pleasure  of  present- 
ing to  the  Convention  Mr.  John  McCauley, 
delegate  elect  from  Seneca  county,  to  fill  the 
vacancy  occasioned  by  the  death  of  Dr.  O’Con- 
nor. I know  him  to  be  a sound  lawyer,  of 
good  moral,  scholarly  attainments,  and  attached 
to  the  principles  of  the  government,  and  to  be 
every  way  worthy,  with  the  exception  of  a 
slight  eccentricity  in  his  political  views. 
[Laughter.]  I move  that  the  usual  formalities 
be  waived,  and  that  he  be  immediately  sworn 
in. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  gentleman  from  Seneca  [Mr.  McCauley] 
will  come  forward  and  be  sworn  in. 

Mr.  McCauley  then  came  forward  and  pre- 
sented his  certificate  of  election,  and  took  the 
oath  of  office,  administered  in  the  following 
form,  by  Jerome  Du  Bois,  a notary  public  for 
the  county  of  Hamilton  : 

“You  do  solemnly  swear  that  you  will  support  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State  of  Ohio; 
and  faithfully  perform  your  duties  as  a delegate  in  the 
Convention  to  revise,  alter  or  amend  the  Constitution  of 
this  State,  to  the  best  of  your  knowledge  or  ability,  so 
help  you  God.” 

Mr.  McCauley  then  took  his  seat  as  a mem- 
ber of  the  Convention. 

MEMORIALS  AND  PETITIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON  presented  the  memorial  of 
Thomas  Worthington,  of  Warren  county,  on 
the  subject  of  criminal  jurisdiction  and  prose- 
cution. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  BOSWORTH  presented  the  petition  of 
Hon.  G.  N.  Tuttle,  probate  judge,  and  other 
county  officers  of  the  same  county,  praying 
that  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  as  to  re- 
quire the  taxation  of  all  church  property. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Tax- 
ation. 


SECOND  READINGS. 

The  following  Proposition  was  read  the  sec- 
ond time : 

Proposition  No.  222.  Woman’s  Suffrage— By  Mr.  Ba- 
ber. 

Substitute  for  Proposition  No.  211. 

The  General  Assembly,  at  its  first  session  after  the 
adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  cause  a registration 
to  be  taken  of  all  the  women  in  this  State,  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  who  would,  if  males,  be  legal  voters  in 
their  respective  wards  and  townships;  the  returns  of 
which  registration  shall  be  forwarded  to  and  filed  with 
the  Secretary  of  State,  and  shall  also  provide  for  the  sub- 
mission, at  the  next  general  election  for  State  officers,  at 
separate  polls,  under  the  same  regulations  and  penalties 
now  provided  by  law  at  other  general  elections,  the 
question  of  woman  suffrage  to  the  women  of  the  State, 
who  would  be  legal  voters  at  the  date  of  the  election  if 
they  were  males;  and  if  a majority  equal  in  number  to  a 
majority  of  all  the  women  registered  in  the  State,  shall 
cast  their  ballots  for  “Woman’s  Suffrage— Yes,”  then  the 
General  Assembly  shall,  at  its  next  session,  submit  to  the 
legal  voters  of  the  State,  at  the  next  general  election  for 
State  officers,  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  provid- 
ing for  woman  suffrage,  which  shall  be  ratified  or  reject- 
ed in  the  same  manner  as  other  amendments  submitted  by 
the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  As  I do  not  see  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  in  his  seat,  I take 
the  liberty  to  move  that  it  lie  on  the  table,  and 
be  considered  in  connection  with  the  Proposi- 
tion now  under  discussion. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

FINAL  READINGS. 

The  following  Proposition  was  read  the  third 
time: 

Proposition  No.  203— By  Mr.  Sample,  from  the  Commit- 
tee on  Elective  Franchise.' 

Section  1.  Every  rpale  pitizen  of  the  United  States,  of 
the  age  of  twenty-onb  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resi- 
dent of  the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election, 
and  of  the  county,  township  or  ward,  in  which  he  resides, 
such  time  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the 
qualifications  of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all 
elections;  and  when  any  of  the  qualified  electors  of  this 
State  shall  be  in  actual  military  service,  under  a requisi- 
tion from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  by  the 
authority  of  this  State,  and  not  in  the  regular  army,  such 
electors  may  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  in  all  elec- 
tions by  the  citizens,  under  such  regulations  as  are,  or 
shall  be,  prescribed  by  law,  as  fully  as  if  they  were  pre- 
sent at  their  usual  places  of  election. 

Sec.  2.  All  elections  shall  be  by  ballot. 

Sec.  3.  Electors,  during  their  attendance  at  elections, 
and  in  going  to  and  returning  therefrom,  shall  be  privil- 
eged from  arrest  in  all  cases  except  treason,  felony, 
breach  of  the  peace  and  intoxication. 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power  to  ex- 
clude from  the  privilege  of  voting,  or  of  being  eligible  to 
office,  any  person  convicted  of  bribery,  perjury,  or  any 
other  infamous  crime. 

Sec.  5.  For  the  purpose  of  voting,  no  person  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  gained  or  lost  a residence  by  reason  of 
his  presence  or  absence  while  employed  in  the  service  oi 


1952 


QUALIFICATION  OF  VOTERS— PERSONAL  EXPLANATION.  [135th 


Clay,  Neal,  Kraemer. 


[Wednesday, 


the  United  States,  nor  while  engaged  in  the  navigation 
of  the  waters  of  this  State,  or  ot  the  United  States,  or  of 
the  high  seas,  nor  by  reason  of  his  presence  or  absence 
for  any  mere  temporary  purpose  or  employment  what- 
ever. 

Sec.  6.  No  idiot  or  insane  person  shall  be  entitled  to 
the  privilege  of  an  elector. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Clay  moves  that  a Committee  of  one  be  appointed 
to  strike  from  section  3 the  words,  “and  intoxication.” 

Mr.  CLAY.  But  a word,  Mr.  President.  It 
appears  to  me  that  this  is  a singular  constitu- 
tional provision.  As  to  whether  a man  is  in- 
toxicated when  he  goes  to  the  polls  it  would 
require  a great  discrimination  to  determine. 
In  the  first  place  it  would  give  rise,  probably, 
to  endless  difficulties.  In  the  heat  of  political 
elections,  when  all  persons  desire  to  vote  and 
desire  their  friends  to  vote,  a malicious  person 
might  cause  the  arrest  of  a man  on  the  charge 
of  being  intoxicated,  and  have  him  incarcerated 
in  jail  for  the  simple  purpose  of  preventing 
him  from  voting.  The  like  has  occurred  within 
my  knowledge,  and,  therefore,  I believe  that 
ought  not  to  be  incorporated  into  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State  of  Ohio.  Although  it  is  to  be 
desired  that  all  persons  should  be  sober  when 
they  go  to  the  polls,  yet  there  should  be  no  rule 
that  one  man  may  charge  another  with  being 
intoxicated,  merely  because  he  desires  to  pre- 
vent him  from  voting.  For  that  reason,  I think 
it  ought  to  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I trust  this  motion  will  not  pre- 
vail, for  1 regard  this  amendment  as  a very  im- 
portant provision.  As  every  gentleman  is 
aware,  there  is  a law  upon  the  statute  books 
which  punishes  persons  for  being  found  in  a 
state  of  intoxication,  and  that  law  is  operative 
every  day  in  the  year  except  upon  election  days, 
while  its  enforcement  upon  those  days  is  of 
more  importance  than  at  any  other  time. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  danger  of  any  such 
abuses  of  the  power  thus  conferred  as  is  appre- 
hended by  the  gentleman  from  Montgomery 
[Mr.  Clay].  Sir,  the  eleetor  may  just  as  well 
he  charged  with  a breach  of  the  peace,  and  for 
that  cause  be  taken  aw^y;  tom  the  polls.  The 
object  is  not  to  prevent? a Jinan  from  voting; 
it  is  to  prevent  m&i^;  /under  the  privi- 
lege of  voters,  from  lounging  about 

the  polls  all  day  long,  indulging  immoder- 
ately in  intoxicating  liquors  under  this 
constitutional  immunity  from  arrest.  By  way 
of  illustration,  I will  state  what  I know  to  be 
the  case.  The  law  now  requires  all  rum  shops 
to  close  up  upon  election  days.  In  some  pre- 
cincts, however,  whisky  by  the  jug  full  will  be 
brought  to  the  polls.  Those  fond  of  that  bever- 
age indulge  in  its  use,  and  under  its  malignant 
influence  they  so  conduct  themselves  as  to  bring 
disgrace  upon  the  principle  of  popular  elec- 
tions, of  which  they  care  nothing,  and  deter 
decent  men  from  voting.  Often  personal 
grudges  and  quarrels  are  settled  in  deadly 
fights.  In  these  ways,  and  others  within  the  ex- 
perience and  observation  of  all,  this  exemption 
is  most  grossly  abused  at  the  expense  of  good 
order,  and  to  the  great  detriment  of  the  sacred 


rights  of  self-government.  No  wrong  can  pos- 
sibly result  to  the  honest,  conscientious  voter 
who  exercises  the  right  of  suffrage  with  an  eye 
single  to  the  public  good,  and  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  discharging  this  most  important  duty. 
It  will  affect  those  only  who,  going  to  the  polls 
with  base  motives,  remain  there  after  having 
voted  and  create  disturbances. 

It  appears  to  me  that  no  right-minded  person 
can  object  to  this.  This  constitutional  pro- 
vision will  be  surrouuded  by  such  safe-guards 
by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  as  to  prevent  all 
possible  abuses  as  have  been  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay].  As 
the  Convention  on  yesterday,  with  very  little 
discussion,  voted  by  a very  considerable  ma- 
jority to  incorporate  this  section,  I trust  that 
they  will  not  reverse  their  action  this  morning 
by  striking  it  out. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I do  not  rise  to  advocate 
drunkenness,  but  I desire  to  say  that  there  is 
already  an  article  in  the  criminal  laws  of  this 
State  which  expressly  provides  that  any  person 
who  is  found  in  a condition  of  intoxication  is 
liable  to  be  arrested. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Does  not  the  gentleman  from 
Ottawa  [Mr.  Kraemer]  know  that  the  law  to 
which  he  alludes  cannot  be  enforced  upon  elec-, 
tion  days,  because  the  Constitution  exempts 
electors  from  arrest  for  intoxication  on  that 
day? 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  On  criminal  but  not  on 
civil  process. 

Mr.  NEAL.  How  can  you  arrest  a man  on 
civil  process  for  a crime,  I should  like  to  know? 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  It  is  a criminal  offense  for 
a man  to  get  drunk.  You  will  find  in  the  crim- 
inal code  of  Ohio  that  it  is  a crime,  and  if  you 
put  this  into  the  Constitution  we  may  as  well 
copy  the  whole  criminal  code.  It  is  legislation 
and  not  Constitution  making. 

While  I am  up,  Mr.  President,  I wish  to  make 
a personal  explanation,  if  leave  is  granted.  I 
see  that  this  morning’s  Commercial  quotes  from 
the  German  paper,  the  Volksblatt , which  puts 
me  in  a wrong  position  and,  in  fact,  puts  an  in- 
quiry to  me  which  I do  not  know  whether  it  is 
proper  to  answer  here,  but  as  it  is  a sort  of  priv- 
ileged question  I will  answer  here,  with  the 
leave  of  the  Convention.  I will  read  the  arti- 
cle: 

Mr.  Kkaemek,  in  the  Constitutional  Convention,  has 
spoken  of  traitors  like  Benedict  Arnold,  Aaron  Burr  and 
Jefferson  Davis,  in  respect  to  Davis  and  Arnold  he  may 
be  right,  but  we  would  like  to  know  in  what  respect 
Aaron  Burr  was  a traitor,  and  what  he  betiayed.  He 
may  have  had  great  faults  and  weaknesses,  but  he  had 
also  rendered  services  to  the  Republic  which  cunnot  be 
denied,  and  it  is  therefore  time  to  put  a stop  to  the  sense- 
less echo  which  stamped  him  a traitor. 

Well,  now,  that  is  merely  a misquotation.  I 
will  read  what  I said  about  it : “The  names  of 

Arnold,  Burr  and  Davis  are  historical  exempli- 
fications of  native  attempts  at  treason.”  I did 
not  say  they  were  traitors.  I did  not  insinuate 
that  a man  was  a traitor  or  guilty  of  any  crime 
unless  he  was  legally  tried  and  convicted.  I 
said  they  were  examples  of  attempt;  that  was 
what  I said.  But  what  the  paper  says  of  Burr 
is  equally  true  of  Arnold  and  Davis,  for  before 
they  made  their  attempts  at  treason  they  cer- 
tainly did  a great  many  meritorious  acts.  Now, 

I beg  to  be  excused  by  the  Convention  for  hav- 


Day.] CONCERNING  ARREST  FOR  INTOXICATION. 1953 

March  11,  1874.]  Gurley,  Sears,  West,  Scribner,  Wilson. 


ing  taken  time  in  this  matter  of  a merely  per- 
sonal nature,  but  I would  like  to  be  set  right  on 
this  misquotation. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  1 voted  for  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  on 
yesterday.  My  attention  has  been  called  to  it 
since,  and  I am  apprehensive  that  it  is  a danger- 
ous provision ; that,  in  times  of  great  political 
excitement,  an  evil  may  grow  up  from  it;  that, 
upon  the  pretext  of  drunkenness,  or  something 
of  that  kind,  a man  maybe  arrested  and  thrown 
into  prison,  merely,  sir,  for  the  purpose  of 
keeping  him  away  from  the  polls.  While  I am 
a great  advocate  of  temperance,  and  hate  drunk- 
enness, in  all  its  forms,  as  bad  as  any  man  on 
the  floor  of  this  House,  I certainly,  for  one,  will 
not  vote  to  break  down  any  barriers  or  safe- 
guards that  are  thrown  around  the  elective 
franchise,  and  I will  not  vote,  certainly,  to 
place  it  in  the  power  of  any  man,  or  any  set  of 
men,  or  combination  of  men,  on  any  pretext 
whatever,  so  flimsy  as  this,  to  seize  men,  to  ar- 
rest them,  and  deprive  them  of  this  great  and 
important  right,  for  it  is  the  greatest  boon 
of  freemen  ; it  is  the  only  power  with  which  a 
man  is  armed  to  defend  himself,  to  make  laws, 
and  to  elect  men  who  are  competent  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  those  high  and  lofty  posi- 
tions. Disarm  a man  of  the  ballot,  and  you 
reduce  him  to  the  condition  of  the  slave.  It  is 
an  important  right,  and  invaluable  to  freemen, 
and  it  should  not  be  taken  away  upon  any 
flimsy  pretext.  I say  it  is  placing  a dangerous 
power  in  the  hands  of  bad  men,  who  may  use 
it  for  bad  and  corrupt  purposes,  and  I hope  the 
members  of  this  Convention  will  look  at  this 
matter,  and  not  attempt  here  to  break  down 
these  barriers  that  have  been  erected. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I was  necessarily  absent  on 
yesterday,  when  this  proposition  was  voted 
upon.  In  fact,  I was  not  aware,  until  this 
morning,  that  this  change  had  been  made  in 
the  Report  of  the  Committee.  I should  certainly 
vote  to  strike  out.  I think  there  should  not  be 
an  exception  made  which  would  allow  men  to 
be  arrested  at  the  polls  on  the  mere  charge  of 
drunkenness.  It  is  not  necessary  in  order  to 
preserve  the  purity  of  the  election,  unless 
drunkenness  results  in  a breach  of  the  peace. 
Then  it  may  be  prevented  under  the  clause  as 
it  stands  in  the  old  Constitution,  and  as  reported 
in  the  new.  I think  that  is  going  far  enough, 
and  I think  I can  see  an  impropriety  in  our  in- 
corporating a provision  of  this  kind. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears]  whether  it 
should  not  be  modified  in  some  way,  so  that  a 
man  being  found  in  a state  of  intoxication  after 
having  voted,  should  be  arrested?  Its  object  is 
to  get  rid  of  bad  men  after  having  voted. 

Mr.  SEARS.  If  they  commit  a breach  of  the 
peace  they  can  be  arrested.  If  they  do  not,  I 
do  not  know  any  reason  why  they  should,  after 
having  voted,  be  arrested  in  going  to  or  from 
the  election.  It  seems  to  me  that  such  a power 
is  capable  of  being  misused. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I feel  myself  constrained 
to  support  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay].  I am  exceedingly 
apprehensive  if  this  provision  is  retained  in  the 
Article,  it  will  be  abused — very  greatly  abused. 
Now,  a member  of  a police  court  requires  no 

v.  H--125 


warrant  to  arrest  a man  in  a state  of  intoxica- 
tion. We  see  arrests  of  that  kind  every  day  here 
in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  and  in  other  cities. 
Our  city  marshals,  in  our  cities  of  a lower  grade, 
if  they  find  a man  in  a state  of  intoxication,  do 
not  require  a warrant  to  arrest  him,  but  can 
seize  him  wherever  they  find  him,  and  confine 
him  in  jail  until  he  can  be  put  upon  trial. 
Now,  with  such  power  as  this  vested  in  our 
police  courts  in  cities  and  towns,  it  is  more  than 
probable  that  frequent  occasions  will  arise, 
when,  under  the  pretext  of  arresting  and  con- 
fining a man  upon  a charge  of  intoxication,  they 
will  really  put  him  in  jail  in  order  to  prevent 
him  exercising  the  right  of  the  elective  fran- 
chise. A man  is  seen  coming  to  the  polls,  and 
the  officer  assumes,  and,  perhaps,  may  believe 
that  he  is  intoxicated — and  unless  the  Constitu- 
tion protects  electors — the  officer  may  seize  him 
at  once  before  he  casts  his  vote  and  confine  him 
in  the  city  jail,  and  hold  him  there  until  the 
polls  are  closed.  Well,  now,  no  such  power  as 
that,  it  appears  to  me,  should  be  vested  here  in 
the  Constitution.  I have  no  doubt  in  my  own 
mind  but  that  it  might  be  made  use  of  very 
frequently,  in  order  to  control  elections  where 
the  contest  is  a close  one.  If  a man  be  guilty 
of  a breach  of  the  peace,  as  the  present  Con- 
stitution stands,  he  may  be  arrested.  He  is  not 
protected  from  arrest  if  he  violates  the  public 
peace,  or  commits  a high  crime  or  misdemeanor ; 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  we  ought  not  to  author- 
ize by  constitutional  provision,  that  a man  may 
be  arrested  while  going  to,  or  from,  or  while 
remaining  at  the  polls,  on  the  simple  charge 
that  he  is  in  a state  of  intoxication. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I believe  that  for  several 
years  we  have  had  a statute  on  this  subject,  re- 
quiring that  places  where  intoxicating  liquors 
are  sold  shall,  on  election  days,  be  closed.  I 
believe  it  has  been  the  uniform  custom  and 
practice  to  have  that  law  enforced.  At  all 
events,  it  is  in  our  portion  of  the  State,  and  it 
has  been  generally  observed,  and  its  influence 
has  been  very  beneficial.  Now,  it  is  proposed 
to  put,  substantially,  that  same  matter  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  I am  opposed 
to  placing  this  in  the  Constitution,  and,  there- 
fore, shall  vote  to  strike  it  out.  I think  it  is  a 
very  small,  contemptible  way  of  lecturing  on 
temperance.  It  is  a disgrace  to  the  cause.  If 
we  have  to  get  down  to  common  chicken  feed, 
let  us  legislate  entirely,  and  turn  ourselves  into 
a municipal  corporation.  The  idea  of  putting 
into  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio  so 
small  and  contemptible  a thing  as  that,  is  a 
disgrace  to  every  citizen  of  Ohio,  and  a disgrace 
to  the  great  temperance  cause.  I hope  this 
Convention,  with  the  respect  that  is  due  to 
itself  and  every  member,  will  vote  against  this 
proposition,  and  in  favor  of  striking  that  out. 
It  would  be  a subject-matter  of  ridicule.  I do 
not  understand  the  proposition  entirely.  A 
person  may  be  intoxicated  upon  opium,  it  may 
be  upon  whisky,  it  may  be  upon  religion,  or  he 
may  be  intoxicated  upon  politics.  What  a 
ridiculous  thing  it  would  be  for  each  party  to 
claim  that  the  other  is  intoxicated  upon  its  par- 
ticular views ; and  if  both  should  be  arrested, 
what  would  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal]  think  of  such  a state  of  political 
action  ? 


1954 


[135th 


CONCERNING  ARREST  FOR  INTOXICATION. 

Wilson,  West,  Neal. 


Mr.  BURNS  (in  his  seat).  Who  would  arrest 
the  last  man  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  I would  insist,  if  the  gentle- 
man desires  for  this  to  remain  in,  that  he  would 
adjust  it  so  that  we  can  understand  it  and  get  at 
it.  It  is  so  small  and  so  fine  that  we  cannot  see 
what  the  gentleman  is  at.  Now,  I insist,  if  the 
gentleman  desires  to  have  this  remain  in,  that  he 
show  what  kind  of  intoxication  this  is  to  mean — 
whether  political,  religious,  or  from  whisky, 
ale,  or  this  thing  or  that  thing— so  that  it  may 
be  definable,  and  not  leave  it  to  the  general 
discrimination  of  one  party  to  arrest  the  other. 
I hope,  indeed,  that  we  will  return  to  the  busi- 
ness of  framing  a Constitution  that  will  be 
worthy  of  statesmen,  and  leave  this  small  busi- 
ness to  boys. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Mahoning  [Mr.  Wilson]  for  what  kind  of 
crime  could  a man  be  arrested  on  election  day — 
for  any  that  are  statutory  crimes  ? There  are 
crimes  mentioned  in  that  same  Article. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Of  course,  every  lawyer 
knows  that  any  man  can  be  arrested  on  election 
day,  Sunday,  or  any  other  day,  for  crime. 

Mr.  WEST.  For  statutory  crimes. 

Mr.  WILSON.  There  are  no  others  known 
under  our  law. 

Mr.  WEST.  Do  you  know  of  any  crime, 
known  as  political  intoxication,  that  is  a statu- 
tory crime  ? 

Mr.  WILSON.  There  is  no  statute  that  says 
that  men  intoxicated  on  rum  shall  be  arrested; 
but  if  you  want  a definition  of  intoxication,  it 
is  not  my  place  to  furnish  it.  You  have  got 
yourselves  into  the  difficulty,  and  must  get  out 
of  it  as  well  as  you  can.  The  objection  I urge 
is,  that  it  is  too  small  a business  for  a great 
Convention  in  the  great  State  of  Ohio,  sent  here 
on  important  business,  to  trifle  with ; and  I hope 
that  gentlemen  who  have  heads  on  their  shoul- 
ders, and  brains  in  those  heads,  will  stop  trifling 
in  this  way.  We  have  enough  important  sub- 
jects before  us  here  to  occupy  our  attention. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I am  glad,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  gentleman  from  Mahoning  [Mr.  Wilson] 
can  rise  above  small  things  this  morning,  and 
place  himself  upon  the  high  planes  of  states- 
manship. It  is  really  a satisfaction  to  know 
that  he  can  play  the  statesman  when  he  has 
the  disposition.  I regret  it  is  so  unusual  for 
him  to  do  so. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I would  ask  if  the  gentleman 
has  not  spoken  once  on  this  subject,  though  I 
have  no  objection  to  his  making  two  speeches. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  rule  does  not  apply  in  this 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  has  a 
right  to  speak  again  if  he  desires. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I thank  the  gentleman  for  ris- 
ing to  a point  of  order. 

Now,  it  may  be  considered  a small  matter,  in 
the  estimation  of  some  gentlemen,  to  advocate 
upon  this  floor  a measure  like  this  in  the  inter- 
ests of  good  order,  sobriety,  and  of  an  intelli- 
gent exercise  of  the  elective  franchise.  I shall 
not  question  their  tastes  however  much  I may 
distrust  their  judgment.  It  does  not  seem  to  me 
to  be  a small  or  unimportant  matter  to  plead 
here  in  behalf  of  law  and  order. 

The  gentleman  quibbles  about  the  definition 
of  intoxication.  If  he  will  take  the  trouble  to 


[Wednesday^ 


examine  Webster  or  Worcester,  or  the  statutes, 
he  will  find  it  defined. 

Mr.  WILSON.  If  we  are  to  put  in  this,  let 
us  also  have  a clause  regulating  elections,  by 
which  the  ladies  shall  be  invited  to  pray. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I have  no  doubt  such  a thing 
would  help  the  gentleman  from  Mahoning  [Mr. 
Wilson],  very  materially,  in  the  conscientious 
discharge  of  his  duties  on  that  day.  And  I wish 
the  ladies  would  pray  more  on  election  days, 
for  I believe  we  would  have  soberer  men  and 
fewer  drunkards  as  officers  than  we  have  had 
heretofore  to  disgrace  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Now,  this  third  section  of  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  provides  that  electors  shall  be  free 
from  arrest  for  any  crime  “during  their  attend- 
ance at  elections,  and  in  going  to  and  returning 
therefrom,”  except  for  the  crimes  of  treason, 
felony  and  breach  of  the  peace.  For  these 
crimes  they  may  be  arrested,  and  there  is  just  as 
much  liklihood  of  abuses  in  permitting  arrests 
for  these  crimes  as  for  that  of  intoxication.  Is 
it  not  highly  desirable  that  voters  should  go  to 
the  polls  and  cast  their  ballots,  when  in  the  full 
enjoyment  of  all  their  mental  faculties,  when 
they  are  not  under  the  influence  of  any  stimu- 
lant whatever  which  prevents  them  from  dis- 
charging their  duties  in  an  intelligent  and  effi- 
cient manner? 

Mr.  WILSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  in  regard  to  that  provision? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Does  that  provide  that  there 
shall  be  no  arrest  for  crime  on  election  day  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  No,  sir;  it  does  not  provide 
that,  but  it  provides  that  in  the  attendance  upon 
an  election,  and  in  going  to  or  returning  from 
an  election  there  shall  be  no  arrest  except  for 
the  crimes  specified. 

Mr.  WILSON.  Criminal  pr  civil? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Criminal  or  civil  either. 

I do  not  know  how  it  is  in  the  locality  of  the 
gentleman  from  Mahoning  [Mr.  Wilson],  but  I 
do  know,  as  I have  before  stated,  of  instances 
where  men  would  go  to  the  election  in 
the  morning  with  jugs  filled  with  whis- 
ky, and  remain  there  all  day  long,  violat- 
ing the  law  of  the  land  and  setting  an  ex- 
ample which  ought  not  to  be  permitted  in 
any  civilized  community.  This  provision  cer- 
tainly will  no  more  be  subject  to  abuse  than 
that  which  provides  that  a man  may  be  arrested 
for  treason,  felony  or  breach  of  the  peace.  And 
if  any  officer  should  abuse  the  provision  and 
exercise  an  unwarrantable  tyranny,  he  may  be 
held  responsible,  criminally  and  civilly,  for  his 
abuse  of  power.  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  President, 
that  this  provision  cannot  be  objectionable  to 
any  man  who  wants  to  see  our  elections  con- 
ducted in  a sober,  decent,  respectable  way,  and 
who  wishes  to  see  electors  go  to  the  polls  and 
come  away  from  there  in  such  a way  as  will  re- 
flect credit  upon  our  elective  system.  It  is  not 
a small  matter.  It  is  far  more  important  that 
men  go  there  soberly  and  discharge  their  duties 
than  that  they  should  be  prohibited  from  en- 
gaging in  a free  fight  if  they  choose  to  have 
one.  It  is  also  especially  important  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  “treating”  is  one  of  the  most  pro- 
lific means  used  for  the  purpose  of  debauching 
the  voter  and  persuading  him  to  support  men 


DatJ CONCERNING  ARREST  FOR  INTOXICATION. 

March  11, 1874.]  Chapin,  Neal,  Cunningham,  West,  Pond,  Sample. 


1955 


for  office  he  never  would  have  voted  for  had  he 
been  sober  and  clothed  in  his  right  mind. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question,  if  he  will  permit  me. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  It  is  this : whether  a person 
is  not  liable  to  be  arrested  for  intoxication  on 
every  day  of  the  year  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Every  day  in  the  year,  except 
on  election  days. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  That  is  the  exception  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  That  is  the  exception , made  so 
by  constitutional  law. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I acknowledge  that  I 
experienced  a great  deal  of  surprise  yesterday 
when  the  proposition  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  was  adopted  by  the 
Convention,  and  I am  more  surprised  that  after 
the  lapse  of  several  hours,  there  should  be  in 
the  Convention  a question  whether  the  action 
taken  yesterday  shall  not  be  reconsidered. 
Why,  Mr.  President,  it  appears  that  we  have 
enough  important  matters  to  discuss  and  deter- 
mine in  this  Convention  in  the  short  time  now 
left  us,  without  undertaking  to  determine  the 
subject  matters  of  simple  police,  or  morals,  if 
you  please.  I claim  to  be  only  a tolerably  good 
temperance  man.  I confess  that  I have  a great 
admiration  for  any  one  who  observes  the  pro- 
prieties of  life,  no  matter  under  what  circum- 
stances he  may  be  placed.  But  while  I have 
that  admiration  for  the  proprieties  of  life,  there 
are  very  many  improprieties  of  life  that  are  not 
the  subject  matter  of  constitutional  regulation. 
What  great,  crying  necessity  has  the  experi- 
ence of  the  State  demonstrated  to  exist  now, 
for  the  interposition  of  so  radical  a proposition 
in  the  fundamental  law?  We  all  concede  the 
evils  of  intemperance.  The  Legislature  has 
acted  upon  the  matter,  and  the  church  has  mov- 
ed in  the  matter,  and  the  women  now  are  pray- 
ing all  over  the  State  upon  the  subject,  but  not 
until  it  originated  in  the  bright  brain  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  has  there 
been  a proposition  to  carry  the  idea  to  the  ex- 
tent that  this  proposition  involves. 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  Does  the  gentleman  not  perceive 
that  it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the 
cause  of  temperance  that  this  proposition  is 
introduced,  but  to  prevent  brawling  and  dis- 
order at  the  polls,  after  a man  has  voted,  to  re- 
main upon  the  ground  drinking,  swaggering, 
swearing,  disorderly,  noisy,  commits  no  breach 
of  the  peace,  whether  there  should  be  no  power 
in  the  government  to  get  rid  of  him  ? Ought 
not  the  government  to  have  the  power  to  get 
rid  of  him  in  some  way  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  and  it  has  now 
the  power  and  it  exercises  it  every  day,  and  an 
individual  who  remains  at  the  polls  to  brawl 
and  disturb  the  peace  can  be  disposed  of,  and 
nobody  ever  doubted  it  before. 

Mr.  WEST.  But  you  cannot  arrest  him  for 
it. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  you  can. 

Mr.  WEST.  How? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  As  a disturber  of  the 
peace. 


Mr.  WEST.  No,  sir;  not  for  committing  a 
breach  of  the  peace. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I will  ask  the  gentle- 
man if  h£  does  not  know  that  every  day  brawl- 
ing of  that  sort  occurs.  Mr.  President,  I do 
not  know  that  there  has  been  any  alarming 
demonstration  which  justifies  this  radical,  this 
extraordinary  action.  I understand  that  we  do 
not  change  even  the  law,  unless  there  is  some 
great  public  necessity  for  it,  unless  experience 
demonstrates  the  necessity,  and  yet,  it  is  pro- 
posed to  put  into  the  hands  of  the  police  of  a 
city  the  power  to  interfere  with  citizens  on  their 
way  to  and  from  the  polls,  to  take  from  him  the 
ballot,  upon  the  notion,  if  you  please,  of  a 
drunken  policeman,  for  policemen  drink  some- 
times. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POND.  Does  the  gentleman  pretend 
that  an  arrest  can  be  made  for  language  tending 
to  produce  a breach  of  the  peace  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I have  no  doubt  of  it, 
sir. 

Mr.  POND.  That  would  not  be  a breach  of 
the  peace,  would  it? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  it  would,  un- 
doubtedly, and  you  would  not  find  a court  that 
would  not  hold  the  arrest  good  and  proper. 
Why,  it  is  a subject  matter  of  indictment. 

Mr.  POND.  Of  course,  it  is,  but  it  is  not  a 
breach  of  the  peace. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  it  is  a breach  of 
the  peace. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Montgomery 
[Mr.  Clay]  to  recommit  with  instructions. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Any  interference  with  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  which  have  pre- 
vailed in  the  State  from  the  organization  of  the 
government  to  this  day,  as  affecting  the  liberty 
of  the  elector,  and  interfering  with  the  dischar  ge 
of  that  duty,  ought  to  be  interposed,  if  at  all, 
from  imperative  necessity.  Now,  it  is  con- 
tended that  a man  becoming  intoxicated  at  the 
place  of  election,  and  remaining  there,  becomes 
a nuisance  during  the  day  after  he  shall  have 
voted.  Now,  it  must  be  evident  to  every  man 
that  if  that  is  so,  and  if  the  individual  becomes 
so  noisy,  so  inconvenient,  so  troublesome  and 
so  disorderly,  as  to  mar  the  proceedings,  that 
he  might  be  disposed  of  under  the  present  Con- 
stitution. I do  not  attribute  to  this  section  that 
force  which  is  attributed  to  it  by  gentlemen 
who  advocate  this  proposition.  It  secures  to 
him  a reasonable  opportunity  to  cast  his  ballot. 
When  he  has  once  cast  his  ballot,  discharged  his 
duty  as  an  elector, when  his  attendance  at  the  elec- 
tion is  over,  he  has  filled  the  office  for  which  an 
elector  goes  to  an  election,  he  is  no  longer  under 
the  protection  of  this  statute  or  this  provision  of 
the  Constitution.  He  is  not  attending  at  the 
election,  although  he  may  be  at  the  place  of 
election.  He  is  subject  to  the  operation  of  the 
law  in  the  same  manner  and  to  the  same  extent 
as  he  would  be  on  any  other  day  during  the 
year.  I think  it  will  hardly  be  claimed  here 
that  there  is  any  sacredness  about  election  day. 
A man  is  just  as  liable  to  be  arrested,  except 
during  the  portion  of  the  day  that  is  necessary 
for  him  to  be  employed  in  the  reasonable  dis- 


J 956 


CONCERNING  ARREST  FOR  INTOXICATION. [135th 

Sample,  Tuttle,  Ewing.  [Wednesday, 


charge  of  his  duty  as  an  elector  in  going  to  the 
place  of  election  and  returning  therefrom,  as  on 
any  other  day  in  the  whole  j'ear.  I think  there 
ought  not  to  be  any  change  in  this  provision. 
I am  anxious  as  any  man  that  our  elections 
shall  be  properly  conducted.  I have  no  con- 
scientious scruples  in  doing  anything  that  will 
promote  the  cause  of  temperance,  but  this  is  not 
the  place,  and  it  is  not  calculated  to  do  it.  It  is 
very  rarely  in  my  experience  that  a man  is  ar- 
rested for  drunkenness  until  he  has  become  dis- 
orderly and  actually  committed  a breach  of  the 
peace,  on  any  day  of  the  whole  year,  so  that,  in 
my  judgment,  there  is  but  little  necessity,  real- 
ly no  necessity,  for  this  provision,  and  it  is  one, 
I think,  which  ought  not  to  be  introduced  into 
the  Constitution.  I would  do  anything  calcu- 
lated to  promote  good  order.  That  is  done, 
however,  and  there  is  no  use  for  it  unless  there 
be  a breach  of  the  peace,  unless  something  is 
done  which,  under  the  liberal  provisions  of  the 
statute,  amounts  to  a breach  of  the  peace.  There 
can  certainly  be  but  little  disorder : so  that  it 
seems  to  my  mind  there  is  no  necessity  for  this 
amendment ; and  I,  therefore,  deemed  it  proper  to 
assign  the  reasons  which  will  induce  me  to  vote 
in  favor  of  the  motion. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  1 was  detained  from  the  Con~ 
vention  yesterday,  for  a short  time,  and  this 
amendment  was  adopted,  I believe,  in  my  ab- 
sence, and  I did  not  hear  the  discussion  upon 
the  subject ; but  I desire  to  say  that  I do  not  like 
the  provision  as  it  now  stands,  and  also  to  say 
that  I shall  not  be  satisfied  simply  to  strike  out, 
without  some  other  change;  so  that  I hardly 
know  what  I would  prefer,  if  there  can  be 
no  other  change  than  merely  to  strike  out, 
as  proposed  by  the  present  motion.  I think  it 
would  be  liable  to  very  great  abuse,  if,  upon  the 
simple  fact  of  intoxication,  a man  could  be  ar- 
rested at  the  polls,  or  prevented  from  going  to 
the  polls.  It  would  be  liable  to  very  great  abuse 
in  many  ways.  I think  it  would  be,  perhaps,  in 
many  cases,  a temptation  to  designing  persons 
to  procure  the  intoxication  of  electors,  in  order 
that  they  might  be  prevented  from  attending  at 
the  polls;  and  I think,  further,  that,  whilst  no 
one  can  doubt  the  great  evil  of  a person  exer- 
cising so  high  a privilege  under  the  influence 
of  intoxicating  liquors  to  that  extent  that  would 
come  within  the  reasonable  definition  of  the 
term  intoxication,  yet  there  are  so  many 
degrees  of  it,  there  are  so  many  opinions  in 
regard  to  what  properly  constitutes  intoxica- 
tion, or  would  constitute  it  within  the  meaning 
of  this  clause,  so  many  opinions  of  different 
persons  upon  such  a subject,  that  it  would 
be  not  only  a dangerous  power  to  introduce, 
but  a very  difficult  one  properly  to  exercise. 
It  is  one  of  those  things  that  can  only  be 
judged  of  at  the  moment.  Now,  when  you 
come  to  the  question  of  idiocy  or  insanity,  it  is 
not  a matter  ordinarily  to  be  determined  upon 
by  the  lights  of  the  moment;  but,  if  a man  is 
insane  on  the  day  of  election,  there  are  evi- 
dences, known  to  many  persons,  appearing  on 
other  days.  It  is  not  a difficult  subject  to  ascer- 
tain, and,  if  a vote  has  been  wrongly  cast  under 
the  influence  of  insanity,  if  the  vote  of  any 
sane  person  has  been  wrongly  excluded,  then, 
upon  a contested  election,  the  fact  can  be  deter- 
mined. Not  so,  or  not  probably  so,  in  the 


case  of  intoxication.  On  the  other  hand,  Mr. 
President,  I think  there  ought  to  be  power 
to  prevent  all  disorder  about  the  polls,  making 
it  apparently  dangerous  or  threatening  to  per- 
sons to  visit  the  polls;  so  that  a man,  even 
a weak-minded  man — a man  lacking  in  ordi- 
nary firmness,  or  of  judgment — might  not, 
by  the  threatening  aspect  and  posture  of  per- 
sons about  the  polls,  be  in  just  apprehension,  or 
in  any  apprehension,  from  that  cause;  and  I 
doubt  whether  the  term  “ breach  of  the  peace  ” 
is  extensive  enough  to  include  such  cases  as 
may  often  arise.  The  term  u breach  of  the 
peace  ” has  a somewhat  well-defined  and  limit- 
ed signification,  not  necessarily  confined  to 
cases  of  actual  force,  unlawful  force,  but  to 
that  which  clearly  and  evidently  contemplates 
and  intends  illegal  force,  or  tends  to  the  use  of 
illegal  force,  against  the  person.  And  it  seems 
to  me  that  it  is  too  limited. 

Whilst  I am  speaking  upon  this  subject,  there 
is  another  thing  here  that  it  seems  to  me  ought 
to  receive  attention — the  term  “ felony. ” The 
term  “felony”  was  used  in  the  old  Constitu- 
tions. It  was  somewhat  vague  in  its  meaning 
at  that  time,  I think,  but  I have  no  doubt  it  in- 
cluded cases  of  petit  larceny  and  all  offenses  of 
the  same  rank,  as,  for  instance,  embezzlement, 
when  that  offense  rose  to  the  rank  of  petit  lar- 
ceny. Now,  our  laws  have  been  changed  upon 
that  subject.  We  have  a statutory  definition  of 
felony,  and  by  that  statutory  definition,  as  I re- 
member it,  petit  larceny  is  not  an  offense  that 
would  have  formerly  been  felony,  infamous  in 
its  character,  and  ordinarily  united  with  pros- 
ecution as  promptly  as  grand  larceny,  or  most 
offenses  that  send  a man  to  the  penitentiary. 
All  those  are  excluded  from  the  definition  of 
felony,  and  it  would  be  at  least  a doubtful  pro- 
position to  say  that  in  our  Constitution  the  term 
felony  would  be  more  comprehensive  than  in 
the  statute.  Now,  with  such  a definition  of 
felony  in  the  law,  defining  that  which  wasbe- 
fore  somewhat  uncertain,  it  is  a doubtful  prop- 
osition to  say  that  the  term  felony  would  be  as 
extensive  in  the  new  Constitution  as  it  was  in 
the  old.  I think  that  term  ought  to  be  modified 
to  include  a class  of  cases  that  would  not,  un- 
der the  statutory  definition  of  felony,  be  in- 
cluded. I am  not  prepared  myself  with  any 
amendment  or  proposition  for  that  purpose, 
but  I am  hoping  that  before  we  shall  even  pro- 
ceed to  vote  upon  the  proposition  that  is  now 
before  us,  something  may  be  suggested  which 
would  meet  these  difficulties.  1 think  there 
would  be  evil  liable  to  result  from  this  prop- 
osition, in  the  several  particulars  I have  men- 
tioned, if  it  should  remain  as  it  is  now.  I think, 
also,  another  evil  would  be  likely  to  result  by 
the  simple  change  that  is  proposed,  and  I hope 
to  see  something  suggested  that  will  meet,  and, 
perhaps,  harmonize  views  upon  this  subject, 
for  I do  not  think,  from  what  I have  heard  here 
this  morning,  that  the  difference  is  so  great  be- 
tween the  views  of  members  as  possibly  the 
tone  may  seem  to  indicate. 

Mr.  EWING.  I came  into  the  Hall  yesterday 
afternoon  as  the  roll  was  being  called  upon  this 
amendment,  and  I voted  in  favor  of  it  without 
having  first  examined  the  section.  I am  satis- 
fied now  that  it  is  expedient  to  strike  the 
amendment  out.  Under  the  section  as  it  stands 


Day.] 


PRESERVATION  OF  ORDER  AT  ELECTIONS. 

Ewing,  Tuttle,  Pond,  Burns. 


1957 


March  11,  1874.] 


without  the  amendment,  any  person  committing 
a breach  of  the  peace,  whether  intoxicated  or 
not,  may  be  arrested  on  election  day.  I think 
that  is  sufficient,  and  that  it  would  be  danger- 
ous and  tend  to  the  subversion  of  the  elective 
privilege  to  permit  an  arrest  for  mere  intoxica- 
tion unaccompanied  by  breach  of  the  peace. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  re- 
committing to  a committee  of  one  with  instruc- 
tions. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like,  with  the  per- 
mission of  the  Convention,  to  make  an  inquiry 
before  voting,  in  reference  to  the  motion.  If  I 
understand  the  matter  the  motion  to  strike  out, 
if  carried 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  to  recom- 
mit to  a committee  of  one. 

Mr.  POND.  With  instructions  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Simply  to  recommit  with  in- 
structions without  adding? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken  and 
resulted — yeas  50,  nays  30,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Campbell,  Clay, 
Cunningham,  Ewing,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hoadly,  Hunt,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer,  McBride,  McCauley,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Miner,  Mitchener,  Okey,  Pease,  Rickly,  Sam- 
ple, Scribner,  Sears,  Schultz,  Steedman,  Town- 
send, Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voor- 
hes,  Watson,  White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hock- 
ing, Wilson,  Young  of  Noble — 50. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Hitchcock,  Hos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  McCormick,  Neal, 
Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Root,  Rowland, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson, 
Townsley,  Tuttle,  Van  Yoorhis,  Voris,  Waddle, 
West,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  Pres- 
ident— 30. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  appoint 
the  gentleman  from  Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay] 
that  Committee. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Clay  submits  the  following  Report  of  the  Select 
Committee,  to  which  was  referred  Proposition  203,  Substi- 
tute for  Article  V of  the  Constitution,  with  instructions 
to  amend — reports  the  same  back  amended  as  instructed 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be  on 
receiving  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BURNS.  At  the  request  of  several  gen- 
tlemen of  this  Convention,  and  what  I,  myself, 
believe  ought  to  be ’done,  I ask  that  this  Report 
be  recommitted  to  a Select  Committee  of  one, 
with  instructions  to  change  the  section,  or  put 
section  No.  1,  which  embraces  the  subject  of 
soldiers, so  as  to  make  a separate  section.  Strike 
out  the  word  “ and”  where  it  occurs  before  the 
word  “ whenever,”  and  number  all  the  section 
after  and  including  the  word  “ whenever”  to 
the  end  of  the  section,  as  No.  2,  and  change  the- 
numbers  of  the  following  sections  to  corres- 
pond, so  that  it  will  simply  change  the  number 
of  the  section.  That  is  all. 


The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I appoint  Mr.  Burns 
that  Committee. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I send  up  the  Report  which  I 
submit  to  the  Convention. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Burns,  from  the  Select  Committee  to  which  was 
referred  Proposition  No.  203,  with  instructions,  begs  leave 
to  report  the  same  back  with  the  following  amendment: 

Strike  out  the  word  “and”  where  it  occurs  before 
the  word  “whenever”,  and  number  all  of  section  one, 
after,  and  including,  the  word  “whenever,”  to  the  end  of 
the  section,  as  section  No.  2,  and  change  the  numbers  of 
the  other  sections  accordingly. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  said  amend- 
ment, said  amendment,  without  a division,  was 
agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  agreeing  to  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  move  to  recommit 
the  Proposition  to  a Committee  of  one,  with  in- 
structions to  add  to  section  three,  the  words 
which  I send  to  the  Secretary’s  desk. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“But  the  Legislature  shall  have  power  to  prescribe 
regulations  for  the  preservation  of  order  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  polls,  and  for  the  arrest  of  persons  who  may  not 
conform  thereto.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  simply  to  say  that  I 
hear  it  suggested  that  the  Legislature  would 
have  that  power  now.  I think  not,  sir.  They 
undoubtedly  have  the  power  to  prescribe  regu- 
lations, provided  those  regulations  may  enforce 
themselves.  But,  suppose  they  do  not — suppose 
men  get  around  the  polls,  and  by  their  attitude 
and  their  manner  create  a reasonable  appre- 
hension of  danger  in  the  minds  of  persons  who 
desire  to  vote  there.  No  breach  of  the  peace 
has  been  committed.  It  cannot  even  be  affirmed 
that  any  such  breach  of  the  peace  has  been 
threatened;  so  that  no  person  can  be  charged 
with  being  guilty  of  breaking  the  peace.  I 
maintain,  Mr.  President,  that  the  term  “breach 
of  the  peace”  falls  infinitely  short  of  reaching 
that  very  great  mass  of  cases,  in  respect  of 
which,  in  all  regulated  communities,  and 
especially  where  there  are  numerous  persons, 
it  becomes  a subject  of  legal  provision  and  of 
police  action  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  reg- 
ulations that  shall  prevent — not  punish,  not  ar- 
rest for  a commission  of  breach  of  the  peace — 
a prospective  breach  of  the  peace  of  which  it 
cannot  be  affirmed  that  anybody  has  been  guil- 
ty. When  persons,  standing  upon  the  side- 
walk, are  conversing  in  a loud  and  disorderly 
manner,  such  as  to  indicate  the  existence  of 
passion,  without  there  having  been  ever  [a 
threat  of  breach  of  the  peace,  do  not  the  police 
officers  of  your  city  interfere  ? Is  it  not  reason- 
able that  they  should,  ever  under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances, when  nothing  of  especial  signifi- 
cance has  been  done,  and  all  that  can  be  said 
is  that  the  parties  complained  of  are  standing  in 
the  way,  perhaps,  of  persons  who  wish  to  pass 
along?  Beyond  that  there  is  a well  grounded 
apprehension  that  passions,  being  engendered, 
will  finally  break  out  into  a breach  of  the  peace. 
Do  not  the  police  exercise  a power  of  dispers- 
ing such  assemblies?  Would  any  city  consent 
to  be  without  that  power  ? Is  it  not  a part  of 
the  duty  of  the  officers  of  your  city  to  act  in 
such  cases?  Suppose  these  things  happen 


1958 


PRESERVATION  OF  ORDER  AT  ELECTIONS. 

Tuttle,  Root,  Hitchcock. 


[135th 

[Wednesday, 


about  the  most  important  of  all  places,  the 
place  where  the  voters  attend,  and  attend  but 
one  day  in  the  year — or  as  I believe  it  now  is  to 
be,  one  day  in  two  years — for  the  performance 
of  the  duty  of  voting ; suppose  there  are  per- 
sons there  whose  evil  disposition  is  known, 
who  have  made  no  express  threat,  but  who,  in 
all  the  arts  in  which  men  of  that  character  are 
so  ingenious,  can  yet  deter  even  men  of  ordina- 
ry firmness,  though  they  have,  nevertheless, 
been  guilty  of  no  breach  of  the  peace ; shall 
there  be  no  mode  by  which  an  officer  can  make 
an  arrest,  because  no  breach  of  the  peace  has 
been  committed  ? 

Mr.  President,  I know  something  about  how 
these  things  are.  I know,  sir,  of  communities 
where  such  things  exist,  if  they  do  not  exist  in 
your  cities.  Take  the  case  of  the  strikes  of 
workmen.  It  is  a well  known  fact  that  men  are 
put  in  fear  of  their  lives, in  fear  of  personal  vio- 
lence, in  going  into  mines  or  shops  to  work,  by 
reason  of  what  they  apprehend  from  informa- 
tion of  those  who  are  near  enough  to  know 
what  is  going  on ; yet  it  is  utterly  impossible  to 
fix  upon  any  individual  the  charge  of  having 
broken  the  peace,  or  even  of  having  intended  a 
breach  of  the  peace,  so  as  to  authorize  the  arrest 
of  any  particular  individual.  I have  heard  of 
such  things  being  done  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  polls,  and  I think  that  gentlemen  must  shut 
their  eyes  to  history  if  they  do  not  know  and 
recognize  the  fact  that  such  things  have  been 
done  in  many  communities ; and  whilst  you  say 
that  persons  shall  not,  on  such  occasions,  be  ar- 
rested for  trivial  causes,  or  even  for  many  of 
the  causes  for  which  they  may  be  arrested  upon 
other  days,  or  for  intoxication  even,  yet  it  seems 
to  me  that  you  ought  not  to  say  that  when  there 
is  danger,  though  there  may  have  been  no 
breach  of  the  peace,  where  there  is  illegal  in- 
timidation, whether  in  the  case  of  men  of  ordi- 
nary firmness,  or  of  any  amount  of  firmness, 
who  are  entitled  to  go  to  the  polls  and  vote, 
that  you  will  not  provide  for  the  protection  of 
these  men,  deterred  by  a prospective  evasion  of 
the  law,  from  attending  to  this  duty  on  that  oc- 
casion. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I hope  that  this  proposed  amend- 
ment, will  not  be  agreed  to.  1 think  that  the 
Legislature,  without  any  special  authority,  will 
have  power  to  authorize  the  interference  of 
peace  officers,  so  far  as  is  necessary  or  prudent. 
The  honorable  delegate  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle]  seems  to  suppose  that  the  Legislature 
has  not  authority  to  go  as  far  in  a particular 
case  which  he  instances,  or  in  some  supposable 
case,  where  no  breach  of  the  peace  has  been 
committed,  but  where  there  is  reason  to  appre- 
hend there  will  be.  Who  is  to  be  vested  with 
this  discretion — this  power  of  anticipating  a 
breach  of  the  peace?  Why,  some  officer,  of 
course.  Would  that  not  be  going  rather  far- 
ther than  anybody  ever  thought  of  going,  vest- 
ing in  a police  officer — one  of  your  star  and 
button  men — the  discretion  of  judging  whether 
there  is  danger  of  something  being  done  which 
ought  not  to  be  done?  I hope  we  shall  never 
come  to  that.  We  have  a provision  for  other 
cases,  not  necessarily  connected  with  elections, 
but  whenever  a person  has  reason  to  fear  de- 
struction or  danger  of  life  or  property.  But 
that  must  be  upon  sworn  complaint.  Now,  it 


is  proposed  to  authorize  the  Legislature  to  ap- 
point somebody  who  is  to  guess  whether  there 
will  be  a breach  of  the  peace  or  not.  Really, 
it  seems  to  me  that  we  may  safely  leave  things 
of  this  sort  out  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I wish  to  suggest  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  the  proposition  does  not  go  so  far 
as  he  seems  to  suppose.  It  does  not  go  so  far 
as  to  allow  an  arrest  until  persons  shall  have 
placed  themselves  in  an  attitude  of  opposition 
to  officers  who  have  undertaken  to  enforce 
reasonable  regulations,  not  to  prevent  persons 
from  going  to  the  polls,  nor  to  arrest  any  person 
who  goes  there,  but  simply  in  the  case  of  resist- 
ance to  an  officer,  or  refusal  to  conform  to  rea- 
sonable regulations  upon  this  subject. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Is  there  any  doubt  that  the 
Legislature  will  have  that  power,  without  any 
special  authority  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I beg  the  gentleman  to  in- 
form me  how. 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  has  exercised  this  power, 
without  question,  from  the  beginning  of  our 
State  government. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  But  not  at  the  polls,  sir. 

'Mr.  ROOT.  Yes,  sir;  as  much  at  the  polls  as 
anywhere  else. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  This  is  the  point  I wish  to 
make  clear.  They  cannot  do  it  when  you  pro- 
hibit them  from  making  an  arrest  until  a breach 
of  the  peace  has  taken  place. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Mr.  President,  whenever  there 
is  a breach  of  the  peace,  they  can  arrest;  when- 
ever there  is  a breach  of  the  peace  appre- 
hended, they  are  to  be  authorized  to  arrest. 
Now,  who  is  to  determine  whether  there  is  go- 
ing to  be  a breach  of  the  peace  or  not?  Who 
is  to  guess  ? Why,  your  police  officer,  or  your 
peace  officer,  I suppose.  I would  not  vest  that 
power  in  any  officer,  high  or  low. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  said 
motion  was  not  agreed  to,  no  division  being 
had. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
finally  agreeing  to  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK  sent  a paper  to  the  Secre- 
tary’s desk. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Hitchcock  moves  to  refer  the  Proposition  to  a 
Select  Committee  of  One,  with  instructions  to  amend  by- 
striking  out  from  line  one  the  word  “male,”  ami  from 
line  seven,  as  printed,  the  words  “he  resides,”  and  insert 
the  word  “residing.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  motion  made  may 
not  give  expression  to  the  sentiment  of  any 
other  member  of  the  Convention  than  myself. 
In  giving  reasons  for  its  adoption  but  very  few 
moments  shall  be  occupied. 

Should  this  amendment  b£  agreed  to,  I do  not 
understand  that  without  legislation  it  would 
allow  women  to  vote.  If  mistaken  in  this,  my 
object  is  more  than  accomplished.  Without  sex 
being  at  all  recognized  in  the  Constitution  by  act 
of  the  General  Assembly,  the  exercise  of  suffrage 
by  woman  could  be  provided  for  at  any  time 
when  demanded  by  public  sentiment.  The 
question  submitted,  as  is  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Summit,  should  it  be  rejected  by  the 
votes  of  the  people,  will  preclude  any  exercise 
of  suffrage,  except  it  shall  be  secured  by  change 
of  the  Constitution.  That  rejection  will  be  the 


Day.] 

March  11,  1874.] 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Hitchcock. 


1959 


result  of  submission,  no  one  appears  to  doubt. 
No  one  of  all  those  with  whom  I have  conversed 
upon  this  subject  has  expressed  a different 
opinion  from  this.  To  my  mind  there  is  just  as 
little  doubt  that  the  time  is  coming,  not  far  in 
the  future,  when  with  the  same  opportunity  of 
submission,  the  result  would  be  different. 

Convince  me  that  the  majority  of  the  women 
of  the  State  desire  the  ballot,  and  upon  my  part 
there  would  be  no  hesitation.  Convinced  that 
the  majority  of  these  now  electors  desire  them 
to  have  it,  and  my  assent  might  be  yielded,  but 
not  so  readily  as  in  the  other  instance.  The 
reasons  given  why  the  power  to  vote  should 
not  be  refused  to  those  who  wish  it,  because  all 
or  a majority  do  not  desire  it,  are  very  well  un- 
derstood, but  have  no  force  with  me.  It  is  a 
question  upon  which  my  own  convictions  must 
determine  my  course.  Say  what  may  be  said, 
it  is,  nevertheless,  true,  that  with  conferring  of 
suffrage,  you  impose  weighty  responsibilities. 
Responsibilities  which  cannot  be  thrown  off 
but  must  be  discharged.  In  the  right  to  vote  is 
involved  the  duty  of  voting.  A duty  which  no 
one  having  the  right  can  lightly  decline  or  re- 
fuse to  discharge. 

We,  all  of  us,  selected  by  our  several  constit- 
uencies, in  our  places  here,  upon  the  questions 
arising  before  us,  are  required  to  vote — required 
to  vote  not  alone  by  the  rules  adopted  for  our 
government,  but  more  especially  by  the  obliga- 
tion imposed  upon  us  by  our  constituents  in 
selecting  us  to  represent  their  opinions  in  this 
Convention. 

Not  less  true  is  it,  that  all  persons  everywhere 
charged  with  the  ballot  have  weighty  responsi- 
bilties  thrown  upon  them,  which  they  cannot 
discharge  except  by  casting  that  ballot.  By 
neglecting  to  vote  no  one  is  relieved  from  re- 
sponsibility. He  who  neglects  to  vote  is,  to  the 
extent  of  what  his  vote  might  have  accomplish- 
ed, alike  responsible  for  results  as  he  who  votes 
in  the  wrong.  No  one  can  throw  upon  others 
blame  for  that  he  has  not  done  all  in  his  power 
to  avert. 

Give  to  woman  the  ballot,  and  all  women,  not 
those  alone  who  desire  it,  but  all  women 
throughout  the  State,  will  be  held  responsible  for 
its  use.  All  persons  and  all  parties  will  call 
upon  them  to  vote,  and  from  the  very  necessity 
of  the  case  they  will  be  compelled  to  do  it. 

For  present  purposes,  it  is  unnecessary  for  me 
to  refer  to  any  other  obligations  accompanying 
the  ballot.  In  determining  my  own  course,  it 
is  sufficient  for  me  to  know,  to  be  thoroughly 
persuaded,  that  a very  large  majority  of  the 
women  of  Ohio  are  found  in  opposition  to  this 
proposition.  It  may  be  said  that  this  is  not 
true.  So  far  as  we  can  learn  from  the  best 
mea.ns  we  have  of  ascertaining  the  fact,  it  is 
true  To  my  mind  the  strongest  evidence  is  in 
this : These  women  who  are  actually  engaged 
in  this  effort,  having  very  thoroughly  canvassed 
the  subject,  do  not  wish  it  left  to  the  women  of 
the  State.  Anxious  as  they  are  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  result  sought,  certainly  were 
they  satisfied  a majority  of  the  women  favored 
it,  they  would  be  glad  to  leave  it  in  their  hands. 

The  gentleman  from  Logan  says,  he  would 
prefer  that  the  gallantry  of  the  men  of  the 
State  would  give  this  boon  to  woman,  than  that 
she  should  be  compelled  to  determine  it  for 


herself.  Let  me  inquire  if  it  would  be  gallant 
in  us  to  confer  a boon  upon  a few,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  casting  that  which  would  be  regarded 
as  a very  heavy  burden,  upon  the  many.  If 
correct  in  my  premises,  and  it  seems  to  me  they 
cannot  be  disputed,  and  if  a majority  of  women 
do  not  desire  this,  then  the  conclusion  reached 
is  unavoidable. 

I have  spoken  favorably  of  leaving  this  ques- 
tion to  be  determined  by  woman  herself.  It  is 
said  this  cannot  be  done.  Why  not?  Because 
woman  is  not  a voter ! But  cannot  you  make 
her  such  by  constitutional  provision?  Cer- 
tainly. This  is  what  you  seek.  If  you  can 
make  her  a voter  for  all  purposes,  can  you  not 
for  a specific  purpose  ? Do  you  say  the  electors 
will  not  approve  it?  Will  they  not  be  as  likely, 
nay  more  so,  to  approve  of  her  being  a voter  to 
settle  this  question  for  herself,  as  to  make  her 
a voter  for  all  purposes  ? 

It  is  very  freely  said  by  those  who  favor  the 
submission,  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Summit,  that  they  do  not  expect  it  to  succeed 
before  the  people.  If  not,  why  not  put  it  in 
such  shape  that  a report  will  not  preclude  this 
being  done  hereafter,  if  public  sentiment  shall 
demand  it,  without  the  necessity  of  constitu- 
tutional  change? 

In  regard  to  the  sentiment  of  those  especially 
represented  by  myself  upon  this  floor,  I have  not 
the  least  doubt.  There  is  a small  circle  in  a par- 
ticular locality  in  my  county,  where  they  are 
verv  anxiously  asking  for  Female  Suffrage,  and 
from  those  in  that  circle  was  presented  the  first 
memorial  upon  the  subject  to  this  Convention. 
This  was  presented  by  myself  very  early  in  the 
first  session.  Beyond  that,  a very  large  major- 
ity of  the  people  in  my  county,  men  and  wo- 
men, are  opposed  to  it. 

I have  no  fears,  Mr.  President,  of  evil  result- 
ing to  the  body  politic  from  giving  woman  the 
ballot.  Neither  have  I such  great  confidence 
in  the  good  to  result  therefrom.  Much  is  said 
of  the  importance  of  the  ballot  to  woman  for 
the  protection  of  herself,  and  the  advancement 
of  her  own  interests.  In  this  to  me  there  is  no 
force.  In  it  there  is  no  reason.  While  not  in 
any  sense  intending  to  oppose  conferring  suf- 
frage upon  women,  were  this  the  only  reason 
therefor,  certainly  it  would  be  against,  rather 
than  for  thus  conferring  suffrage.  The  very 
position  of  itself,  implies  antagonism  between 
man  and  woman,  which  is  not  true.  From  the 
very  nature  of  things,  that  which  is  for  the  best 
interest  of  one  is  for  the  best  interest  of  the 
other,  and  the  real  question  is : how  shall  the 
best  good  of  both  be  advanced? 

As  to  the  present  relative  position  of  each 
under  the  law  and  customs  of  society,  I have 
nothing  to  say.  This  has  been  sufficiently  ad- 
verted to  by  others.  While  not  fearing  evil  to 
the  body  politic  from  conferring  suffrage  upon 
woman,  neither  do  I fear  its  degrading  influ- 
ence upon  herself.  My  confidence  in  her 
ability  to  discharge  this  great  responsibility,  if 
imposed  upon  her  in  a judicious  manner,  pre- 
serving her  integrity  and  womanly  character, 
is  very  great.  Yet  my  eyes  cannot  be  closed  to 
the  probability  of  a very  great  change  in  her 
relative  position  in  society,  in  her  influence 
upon,  and  in  deference  to  her,  by  man ; and 


1960 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Hitchcock,  Powell,  Cook,  West. 


fl35tli 

[Wednesday, 


that  in  none  of  the  changes  will  she  be  the 
gainer. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  eulogize  wo- 
man. Was  there  any  disposition  to  do  this,  my 
control  of  words  would  render  insipid  any  at- 
tempt of  the  kind,  following  the  gentleman 
from  Miami,  the  gentleman  from  Logan,  snd 
others. 

For  woman,  and  a truly  womanly  character, 
my  admiration  knows  no  bounds.  If  there  be 
any  influence  irresistible,  outside  of  Omnipo- 
tence, that  influence  is  hers.  It  may  be  old 
fogyism,  but  be  it  as  it  may,  I am  unable  to  di- 
vest myself  of  the  conviction  that  has  thus  far 
accompanied  my  life,  that  appropriately,  in  one 
sphere,  a man  in  the  out-of-door,  rough-and- 
tumble  public  life,  and  labor  discharges  his 
duty,  while  in  another,  woman  quietly 
moulding  character,  shapes  the  destiny  of  man 
and  secures  the  best  good  of  both.  With  this 
remains  the  conviction  that  the  change  pro- 
posed will  not  advance  the  interests  of  either. 

Having  these  convictions  for  one,  as  at  pres- 
ent advised,  I cannot  assent  to  the  proposition 
that  this  question  shall  be  determined  by  the 
men  of  the  State.  Give  to  woman  the  oppor- 
tunity of  settling  this  question  for  herself,  and 
whatever  may  be  its  determination,  therewith 
will  I be  content. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I thank  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  for  his  able  argument, 
and  I say,  so  far  as  the  first  part  of  it  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  unanswerable.  I challenge  the 
friends  of  the  measure  to  answer  the  argument. 
This  question  belongs  to  the  women  to  deter- 
mine, not  to  the  men.  To  be  sure  the  men  must 
determine  first  whether  they  shall  vote  upon 
the  question,  because  they  are  the  rightful  vot- 
ers. It  was  to  them  that  our  fathers  confided 
the  right  of  determining  who  are  the  voters 
and  who  shall  exercise  political  power  in  the 
State,  and,  therefore,  the  men  must  first  vote. 
But  then  comes  the  point  raised  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Geauga,  that  the  women  should  de- 
termine whether  they  will  vote  or  not.  It  is 
not  for  us  to  say  that  they  shall  vote  in  order  to 
give  one-tenth  of  the  women,  as  was  alluded  to 
by  a certain  member,  the  privilege.  But  I doubt 
very  much  whether  one-tenth  of  then  are  dis- 
posed to  vote. 

Now,  if  this  Convention  should  adopt  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
Voris],  that  this  question  should  be  decided  by 
the  men  alone,  and  if  we  should  put  this  respon- 
sibility and  duty  upon  the  women  of  the  State, 
a very  large  majority  of  whom — if  not  so  large 
a majority  as  nine-tenths — are,  I am  satisfied, 
against  it,  we  do  that  which  we  have  no  right 
to  do.  The  voters  of  the  State  have  no  right  to 
put  upon  them  the  duty  and  responsibility  of 
attending  to  the  political  affairs  of  the  State,  or 
put  them  to  the  trouble  and  responsibility  of 
going  to  the  polls  to  vote,  without  their  con- 
sent. 

Now,  when  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  was  read  yesterday, 
showing  how  the  women’s  vote  could  be  fairly 
taken,  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
said  that  it  would  cost — I forget  how  many 
thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  COOK.  From  three  to  five  hundred 
thousand. 


Mr.  POWELL.  I should  be  glad  if  that  gen- 
tleman would  review  the  matter  again.  I know 
it  would  cost  no  such  sum. 

Now,  let  it  be  understood  that  next  October, 
for  instance,  this  Constitution  be  adopted,  and 
that  a majority  of  the  men  should  vote  in  favor 
of  woman  suffrage.  Then,  under  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Ba- 
ber] we  should  have  to  ascertain  how  the  wo- 
men would  vote. 

First,  there  is  a list  to  be  taken  of  the  women 
of  the  State.  That  can  be  done  in  the  several 
townships  in  April,  by  the  assessor.  It  can  be 
done  when  the  assessor  takes  a list  of  the  tax- 
able property,  and  will  cost  almost  nothing.  He 
goes  to  each  house  and  takes  the  list,  and  he  can 
inquire  there  how  many  women  there  are  who 
would  be,  if  men,  entitled  to  vote,  and  it  would 
cost  almost  nothing.  Then,  at  the  next  fall 
election  after  April,  the  women  can  vote,  and  it 
will  cost  us  no  more  than  it  would  at  any  other 
election.  I say,  therefore,  the  assertion  that  it 
would  cost  three  hundred  thousand  dollars,  or 
fifty  thousand,  or  even  ten  thousand  dollars  to 
ascertain  this  vote,  is  all  wrong.  It  is  like  a 
great  many  other  things  that  are  said  in  relation 
to  this  matter,  that  are  untrue  as  anything  can 
be. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  ask  the  gentleman  what 
it  would  cost  to  take  an  official  registration  of 
the  people  of  Ohio.  Ten  thousand  dollars,  do 
you  say  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I say  this : that  the  registra- 
tion of  women  could  be  taken  next  April,  by 
the  assessors  of  the  several  townships  who  take 
a list  of  the  property,  and  make  a return  of  it, 
and  it  would  cost  next  to  nothing. 

Mr.  WEST.  Next  April? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir;  or  any  other  April 
next  after  this  Constitution  is  adopted. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  you  should  have  separate  elec- 
tions, separate  judges,  how  much  will  the  elec- 
tion cost? 

Mr.  POWELL.  No;  all  you  want  is  a sepa- 
rate box,  if  you  are  disposed  to  have  them  vote 
at  the  same  election. 

Mr.  WEST.  Well,  but  you  do  not  want  them 
contaminated  by  voting  in  the  same  ballot-box. 
That  is  the  very  thing  we  are  talking  about. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  no  objection  to  their 
voting  in  any  way  you  please,  because  the  sys- 
tem only  requires  those  to  vote  who  wish  to 
vote.  I understand  the  gentleman  that  the  la- 
dies who  desire  the  suffrage  are  not  afraid  of 
being  contaminated.  The  other  ladies  who  do 
not  want  to  vote  will  keep  away.  Enough  will 
have  to  goto  vote  to  be  a majority  of  them.  So 
the  ladies  who  do  not  wish  to  be  contaminated 
by  the  polls  need  not  go  there. 

Mr.  President,  I owe  my  thanks  to  the  Con- 
vention, for  the  patient  manner  in  which  they 
listened  to  the  written  argument  that  was  read 
for  me  so  well  by  the  Secretary,  the  ocher  day. 
I thank  them  for  it;  but  I became  alarmed  in 
consequence  of  the  great  length  of  time  that 
was  spent  both  by  the  gentleman  from  Summit 
[Mr.  Yoris]  and  myself;  I became  impatient, 
and  went  to  the  Secretary  and  took  off  about 
half  a dozen  pages,  containing  two  of  the  best 
topics  I had  upon  the  subject.  And  now  I do 
not  wish  to  go  into  any  argument  that  was  read, 

I but  there  is  one  thing  that  Iwill  call  the  attention 


Day.] CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE.  1961 

March  11,  1874.]  Powell,  Voris. 


of  the  Convention  to,  as  an  argument  upon  this 
subject  that  was  not  read,  and  that  is  this : All 
over  the  country  wherever  this  question  is  ar- 
gued by  the  friends  of  woman  suffrage,  they 
say  that  women  here  and  there,  in  one 
place  and  another,  and  particularly  some 
ladies  by  the  name  of  Smith,  living  in  Glas- 
tonbury, Connecticut,  are  paying  a consid- 
erable amount  of  tax  on  property  they  own, 
and  they  are  prohibited  from  voting.  Now, 
that  argument  is  no  argument  at  all.  Every- 
where, in  England  and  in  this  country,  to  de- 
termine whether  a person  shall  vote  or  not, 
gentlemen  do  not  put  it  on  the  ground  of 
property,  but  on  the  ground  of  individual  right. 
In  some  instances  they  have  also  required  the 
voter  to  have  a certain  amount  of  property  in 
order  to  qualify  him  to  vote;  but  neither  in 
England  nor  in  this  country  have  they  ever 
said  that  because  a person  pays  taxes  on  proper- 
ty he  should  be  entitled  to  a vote.  They  have 
said  that  a people  of  a country  ought  not  to  be 
taxed  unless  they  are  represented.  How  rep- 
resented ? Why,  in  England,  counties  are  rep- 
resented by  two  knights  of  the  shire,  and  cer- 
tain localities  are  represented  by  their  represen- 
tatives— not  because  there  was  property  there 
subject  to  taxation,  but  because  there  were  peo- 
ple there,  and  all  who  had  property  paid  taxes 
on  it,  whether  they  were  voters  or  not.  If  the 
shire  was  represented,  the  people  were  repre- 
sented, and  all  alike  and  in  common  paid  their 
taxes  whether  they  voted  for  the  representative 
or  not.  When  our  forefathers  contended  that 
we  ought  not  to  be  taxed  without  representation, 
if  we  had  had  one  representative  in  the  British 
Parliament  for  all  America,  they  would  have 
shut  up  their  mouths.  If  Massachusetts  and 
Virginia  alone  had  had  their  representatives  in 
the  British  Parliament  at  that  time,  they  would 
not  have  contended  that  they  were  not  repre- 
sented, but,  perhaps,  that  it  was  not  a fair  repre- 
sentation. The  doctrine  was  never  applied  to 
each  person  who  paid  taxes,  but  to  the  country 
and  people  in  general,  and  then  all  paid  taxes, 
and  who  were  voters  was  entirely  another 
question.  The  question  is,  whether  there  are 
representatives  from  that  county  who  can  give 
their  consent  that  the  property  may  be  taxed 
so-and-so.  If  the  people  are  represented,  and 
every  person  who  has  that  property  pays  the 
tax,  not  because  he  is  a voter,  but  because  the 
people  in  the  aggregate  were  represented,  and 
all  paid  taxes  on  their  property,  whether 
each  was  an  elector  or  not,  and  this 
was  all  the  protection  the  property  had. 
And  that  property  was  taxable,  let  it  be 
in  the  hands  of  a voter  or  in  the  hands 
of  a minor,  or  in  the  hands  of  a trus- 
tee. It  makes  no  difference.  It  is  taxed  and 
ought  to  be ; and  this,  therefore,  is  an  unfounded 
argument  when  they  say  that  they  must  have  a 
vote  because  they  paid  taxes.  If  they  are  enti- 
tled to  vote  at  all  it  is  upon  other  grounds  than 
that,  for  they  are  represented  in  common  with 
all  the  people  of  the  country,  and  who  are  enti- 
tled to  suffrage  is  an  entirely  different  question. 
No  person,  neither  our  fathers  nor  anybody 
else,  ever  contended  that  because  a man  or 
woman  had  property  they  must  vote,  or  because 
they  paid  taxes  on  property  they  were  there- 
fore entitled  to  vote.  What  the  fathers  of  the 


Revolution  contended  for  was,  that  unless  the 
country  and  people  were  represented  they  were 
not  to  be  taxed  by  the  British  Parliament.  This 
was  a claim  set  up  for  the  people  of  the  coun- 
try, and  not  for  the  individual  sufferers.  This 
is  perfectly  plain.  Now,  if  our  country  had 
been  represented  in  the  British  Parliament  by 
one  or  two  persons,  the  question  would  be  still 
open  as  to  who  would  be  voters. 

Mr.  VORIS.  What  are  the  rights  of  the 
country  but  the  rights  of  the  individuals  com- 
posing it? 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  ballot  belongs  to  the 
individual  who  has  become  a voter. 

Mr.  VORIS.  The  question  is  this:  what  are 
the  rights  of  the  country  except  the  rights  of  the 
individual  persons  composing  it? 

Mr.  POWELL.  To  be  sure,  the  rights  of  the 
country  are  made  up  of  the  aggregate  rights  of 
individuals,  and  the  woman  will  vote,  or  not 
vote,  just  exactly  as  those  who  hold  the  politi- 
cal power  of  the  State  will  say  it  may  or  may 
not  be  done.  And  from  the  creation  to  this 
time,  that  power  has  been  in  the  hands  of  the 
men,  and  the  women  have  said,  we  depend  upon 
the  men ; we  depend  upon  our  husbands,  and 
our  fathers,  and  our  brothers,  to  protect  us ; 
and  they  have  protected  them,  and  there  is 
nothing  more  false  in  this  world  than  the  asser- 
tion that  the  women,  in  respect  to  their  prop- 
erty, or  in  respect  to  any  of  their  rights,  are 
oppressed  and  not  rightly  represented  by  their 
friends  in  the  laws,  in  common  with  the  rest  of 
the  people.  But  this  argument  is  used  by  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris],  and  by 
John  S.  Mill.  You  have  heard  my  reply  to  the 
argument  which  John  S.  Mill  puts  in  his  book, 
in  which  he  makes  the  assertion  upon  this  sub- 
ject so  unfounded.  For  instance,  he  says  that 
the  property  of  the  woman  is  absolutely  under 
the  control  of  the  husband;  that  he  can  do  just 
as  he  pleases  with  it.  I say  that  is  not  true, 
even  in  England.  I have  shown  it  to  be  so  in 
my  argument  on  this  subject,  and  he  ought  to 
have  known  it  was  untrue;  and  the  gentleman 
from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  himself  misrepre- 
sented the  laws  of  Ohio,  on  the  same  subject, 
most  egregiously. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  have  the  gen- 
tleman designate  wherein  the  misrepresentation 
consists.  I am  not  aware  of  it  myself. 

Mr.  POWELL.  If  you  will  open  the  stat- 
utes, sir,  you  will  see  that  the  rights  of  women, 
except  the  right  to  use  the  ballot,  are  protected 
in  every  way  they  can  be.  I know  that  women 
and  their  advocates  come  here  to  this  State  from 
other  States  to  argue  the  question.  When  they 
come  to  see  the  laws  of  Ohio,  all  admit  they 
have  been  mistaken,  and  exclaim:  “Well,  we 

have  been  egregiously  mistaken  upon  this  sub- 
ject. We  had  no  idea  that  the  laws  of  Ohio 
were  such  as  they  are.” 

Mr.  President,  it  has  been  my  intention  all 
along,  and  before  I sit  down  I desire  to  make  an 
apology  to  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  and  I hope,  through  him,  to  the  ladies 
who  may  have  been  affected  on  this  subject. 
He  charged  me,  if  I understood  him  right,  with 
making  use  of  language  that  was  gross,  vulgar 
and  abusive.  I see  the  gentleman  shakes  his 
head;  I hope  myself  his  language  was  not 
quite  so  severe.  Now,  I am  very  much  sur- 


1962 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Powell,  West. 


[135th 

[Wednesday, 


prised  that  a gentleman  that  has  lived  through 
the  campaign  of  1840  and  1842  would  object  to 
so  good  an  English  word  as  “petticoat.”  1 did 
not  think  there  was  any  thing  vulgar,  gross  or 
abusive  in  that  word  [Laughter.]  I did  not 
know  it,  and  I am  surprised  that  a gentleman 
wTho  was  very  active  in  the  ^campaign  of  1840 
and  1842  as  well  as  myself,  would  make  that  an 
objection  to  a word  which  was  then  so  common. 
I there  only  referred  to  the  influence  of  my  fam- 
ily jtny  wife  and  my  daughters,  had  over  me — 
that  they  controlled  me,  and  in  every  thing  that 
related  to  social  position  I yielded  to  them  : and  I 
said  that  some  person  might  say  to  me : “Powell, 
you  are  under  petticoat  government.”  “ No,” 
I said,  “ I am  not  under  petticoat  government,” 
though  I said  to  the  President,  and  I intended 
it  to  be  between  him  and  me,  confidentially, 
that  I was  a good  deal  of  a petticoat  man.  Well 
now,  I am  sorry  that  I used  the  word  petticoat 
at  that  time,  so  objectionable  to  the  gentleman; 
and  for  the  sake  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  I will  never  make  use  of  the  word 
petticoat  again.  But  what  I meant  was  this, 
that  I am  very  much  of  a “ladies’  man,”  and 
I ought  to  have  made  use  of  that  word  instead 
of  petticoat. 

Mr.  WEST.  I thought  you  were  never  going 
to  use  that  word  again. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I declare  I forgot  it.  Mr. 
President,  that  was  a confession  between  you 
and  me.  I said  it  to  you  confidentially,  and  I did 
not  think  that  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  would  let  the  cat  out  of  the  bag.  Well, 
now,  I do  hope  that  he,  and  the  ladies  on  that 
side  of  the  question  who  are  so  sensitive  on  the 
subject,  will  forgive  me.  I have  gone  for 
everything  the  ladies  have  asked  me.  I have 
always  been  a favorite  with  them.  [Laughter.] 
They  have  always  patronized  me  in  my  profes- 
sional business,  and  I always  loved  them.  But 
when  my  wife  and  daughters,  and  the  best 
women  l am  acquainted  with,  appealed  to  me 
not  to  bring  this  burden  of  voting  upon  them, 
I do  not  think  I can  refuse  their  instructions. 
The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  says : 
“ Why  shall  they  not  exercise  the  elective  fran- 
chise ? Do  not  women  go  to  the  markets  ? Do 
not  women  go  to  church?”  Why,  certainly 
they  do.  They  protect  the  altars  of  our  fami- 
lies. They  sustain  the  church,  and  it  is  right 
they  should  be  there,  and  vote  there,  because 
the  church  is  theirs,  and,  if  we  ever  go  to 
heaven,  it  will  be  by  their  merits  and  virtues, 
and  not  by  ours.  [Laughter.]  Well,  says  the 
gentleman,  they  always  go  to  corporation 
meetings,  railroad  meetings,  and  such  institu- 
tions. I have  attended  a great  many  railroad 
meetings,  and  a great  many  meetings  in  other 
institutions,  and  I have  never  yet  seen  a lady 
at  those  elections.  They  have  always  a right 
to  be  there  and  vote,  but  choose  to  send  their 
proxy  to  some  friend  to  say  how  they  would 
vote.  I have  never  seen  a lady  at  any  of 
these  meetings,  though  I have  attended  a great 
many.  And  they  have  a right  to  go  there, 
if  they  choose,  but  they  do  not  choose  to  go. 
It  is  very  seldom  you  find  a lady  willing  to 
go  to  an  election.  Now,  at  church  elections, 
a lady  goes  or  not,  just  as  it  suits  her  con- 
venience. But,  if  they  become  electors,  we 
must  recollect  that  there  are  millions  of  money 


that  the  people  of  this  country  hold  in  their 
hands  as  spoils  for  the  politicians.  It  is  not  so 
with  the  church.  Now,  if  you  take  these 
spoils  away  from  politicians,  I would  think 
differently  upon  this  subject.  But  here  are  mil- 
lions of  money  as  spoils  for  politicians  to 
scramble  for,  and  the  women  will  go  into 
the  scramble  for  it,  and  it  is  right  they  should, 
if  they  are  to  be  voters.  Now  the  gentle- 
man says  that  the  women  go  to  the  mar- 
ket. He  has  seen  them  there  by  hundreds. 
You  throw  a bushel  of  small  change  over  the 
ground,  and  see  the  squabble  that  will  be  over 
it.  And  it  will  be  just  so  at  the  polls.  You 
bring  women  there  to  scramble  with  the  men — 
the  vilest  that  are  around  the  polls — for  those 
spoils  that  will  be  there  won  or  lost  by  that 
scramble.  And  then,  what  good  is  there  in  it? 
I was  very  glad  to  hear  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  cry  out,  “ cui  bono" — what 
good  will  it  do?  I ask,  what  good  will  it  do? 

Let  us  see  how  this  will  operate  when  ladies 
become  voters,  and  enter  into  this  political  and 
corrupting  scramble  for  these  spoils ; and  when 
they  become  voters,  they  will  become  candi- 
dates. You  cannot  find  a single  instance  where 
this  is  advocated  but  you  will  find,  following 
upon  it,  that  the  ladies  will  be  candidates  for 
all  the  offices  of  the  country.  Now,  let  us  see 
how  it  will  be.  I have  said  repeatedly,  in  con- 
versation with  my  friends,  if  the  gentleman 
from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  was  within  my  dis- 
trict, and  was  a candidate  for  Congress,  I would 
vote  for  him.  Iam  under  many  obligations  to  him. 
I do  not  know  that  he  is  under  any  obligations 
to  me  at  all,  but  I would  vote  for  him.  But 
suppose,  for  instance,  there  was  some  lady  in 
the  district  that  would  come  up  and  say  she  was 
a candidate  for  Congress  against  the  gentleman 
from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris].  Well,  if  she  was  a 
very  old  haggard  woman,  I doubt  whether  it 
would  have  any  influence  upon  me;  but  if  she 
was  a young  lady  of  twenty-five  or  thirty  years 
of  age,  and  she  would  say  to  me:  “Mr.  Yoris 

is  a man;  he  is  not  deserving  your  vote;  vote 
for  me.”  I put  this  question  to  some  gentle- 
man who  was  advanced  in  life,  not  quite  so  old 
as  myself;  and  I ask  him,  under  these  circum- 
stances, whom  he  would  vote  for — for  Mr. 
Yoris,  or  the  lady?  “Why,  for  the  lady,  of 
course,”  was  the  reply.  That  is  the  difficulty 
with  myself.  I would  not  trust  myself  in  that 
condition.  [Laughter.]  I am  afraid  Mr.  Voris 
would  lose  it;  and  I would  give  it  to  the  lady 
because  she  was  a lady — not  because  she  was 
the  better  man,  or  better  qualified. 

Well,  now,  another  thing.  A few  days  after 
the  great  Convention  here  in  Cincinnati,  that 
nominated  Mr.  Greeley  for  President,  (I  was 
not  at  it  myself,  but  I presume  a great  many 
gentlemen  here  were,)  I saw  in  Harper's  Weekly 
a representation  of  that  Convention.  There 
were  two  ladies  coming  up  the  steps  to  the 
platform,  and  a gallant  trim  young  man  goes 
down  to  help  them  up.  One  was  a beautiful 
young  lady  from  California,  I think.  I do  not 
recollect  her  name.  Behind  her  was  an  old 
lady,  Mrs.  Cady  Stanton,  I think,  who  wore 
spectacles,  and  was  not  quite  so  beautiful  as  the 
young  lady.  Now,  in  ordinary  cases,  a man 
who  goes  down  to  help  persons  on  the  platform 
would  go  for  the  old  person.  They  would  go 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Powell,  Sample. 


1963 


Day.] 

March  11,1874.] 


for  me  for  instance,  being  the  oldest  man  in 
the  Convention,  and  help  me  up.  But  not  so 
there.  The  young  fellow  went  down  to  help 
the  ladies  up,  and  very  naturally  he  was  at- 
tracted to  the  young  lady  and  left  the  old  lady 
with  the  spectacles  to  take  care  of  herself. 
That  is  the  way  it  is.  The  young  lady  would  con- 
trol everything  with  the  young  gallants,  and  we 
would  have  to  give  it  up  to  them.  We  would 
give  them  the  government,  let  them  be  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  Chief  Justice,  and 
everything  else,  all  the  way  down. 

Then  woman  would  become  the  corrupt  poli- 
tician, and  subject  to  all  the  slanders  against 
them.  When  persons  find  fault  with  a woman, 
they  say  she  is  no  better  than  she  should  be ; 
and  that  would  be  an  awful  charge  to  bring 
against  a woman.  But  to  see  the  women  mix- 
ing up  with  the  kind  of  men  we  have  for  poli- 
ticians, now  the  corrupt  politicians  who  resort 
to  all  species  of  iniquity  to  control  the  spoils, 
and  they  will  use  some  of  these  through  ladies 
for  the  purpose  of  keeping  those  spoils  in  their 
own  hands.  Again,  I know  a great  many  ladies, 
and  I know  how  valuable  they  are.  I know 
how  much  we  are  indebted  to  them,  morally, 
religiously,  and  in  every  point  of  view.  But  let 
me  say,  I have  no  great  respect  for  those  ladies 
who  are  asking  for  the  ballot.  The  forwardest 
of  them  are  just  like  Mrs.  Wooclhull  and  her 
sister  Tennie  Claflin,  Miss  Anthony,  and  a 
great  many  other  women  for  whom  I have  not 
that  respect  that  I have  for  the  ladies  of  the 
country.  I have  no  hope,  therefore,  that 
when  the  ladies  come  to  vote  we  will  be 
in  any  better  situation  than  we  are  now. 
Many  of  our  most  corrupt  men  are  the  most 
forward  in  politics,  and  so  it  will  be  with  the 
women,  and  some  of  whom  can  be  even  more 
corrupt  than  the  men.  I say  the  men  will  pro- 
tect the  ladies  of  the  country  as  the  laws  now 
are — will  do  it  as  their  fathers,  their  brothers, 
and  their  husbands. 

Now,  I was  astonished  at  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  the  other  day  when  he  de- 
picted in  lively  colors  the  attachment  be- 
tween him  and  his  wife  and  his  daughter,  and 
immediately  afterwards  he  said  the  women  of 
this  country  were  oppressed  and  tyrannized  over 
by  the  men.  Why,  those  statements  do  not 
hang  together.  Does  he  not  know  that  both  he 
and  I have  labored  to  protect  our  daughters, 
that  they  might  be  protected  by  just  laws  when 
they  came  to  be  women  and  wives?  The 
same  law  that  protects  them  when  they  are 
girls  and  our  daughters,  will  also  protect  them 
when  they  become  women  and  wives. 

I regret  very  much  that  this  subject  has  occu- 
pied the  attention  of  the  Convention  as  much  as 
it  has,  and  I am  sorry  that  I have  used  so  much 
of  the  time  on  this  subject,  and  I hone  the  Con- 
vention will  forgive  me. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  gentleman  from  Sum- 
mit [Mr.  Voris],  was  heralded  in  this  Conven- 
tion as  the  leader  of  the  movement  in  favor  of 
woman’s  suffrage,  not  in  this  body  only,  but 
also  in  the  State.  He  has  devoted  great  labor 
to  the  consideration  of  that  subject,  and  spoken 
his  piece,  under  circumstances,  the  most  favor- 
able. In  my  remarks  I shall  confine  myself  to 
a few  of  his  positions,  believing  that  time  will 
not  permit,  nor  does  the  subject  demand,  an  ex- 


haustive review  of  his  extremely  voluminous 
production. 

A person  unacquainted  with  the  facts,  would 
be  led  to  believe,  from  the  dolorous  representa- 
tions of  the  gentleman,  that  the  women  of  Ohio 
are  borne  down  by  oppression,  and  reduced  to 
a low  state  of  degradation.  How  he  is  enabled 
to  induce  those,  of  whom  he  assumes  to  be  the 
organ,  to  give,  even  a tacit  assent,  to  a presenta- 
tion of  their  case,  involving  such  humiliation 
on  their  part,  is  difficult  to  conceive. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  interests  of  men  and 
women  are  identical.  This  cannot  be  disputed. 
The  married  state  is  the  normal  condition  of 
woman.  In  ancient  times  the  woman  who  was 
not  blessed  with  the  cares,  responsibilities,  and 
enjoyments  of  maternity,  lamented  her  con- 
dition as  one  of  peculiar  misfortune.  So  it  is 
still  with  the  true  woman.  Even  the  cares  of 
maternity  afford  her  the  highest  pleasure. 
Many  women,  who  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,  are, 
without  their  fault,  prevented  from  attaining 
this  highest  end  of  woman’s  life.  Such  may 
be,  and  are,  regarded  with  esteem,  but  always, 
as  unfortunate. 

The  family  is  the  most  ancient  and  uninter- 
rupted social  community.  It  is  the  foundation 
of  the  State.  Such  as  are  the  families  of  which 
the  State  is  composed,  will  it  be.  If  they  are 
regulated  by  the  principles  of  morality  and 
affection  the  State  will  be  prosperous  and  peace- 
ful. 

In  examining  any  proposed  plan  for  improving 
the  political,  social  or  moral  condition  of  the 
State,  the  effect  of  such  proposed  change  upon 
the  primary  communities  of  which  the  State  is 
composed,  is  a fundamental  consideration.  To 
overlook  the  family  and  seek  for  other  tests, 
and  rest  on  conclusions  drawn  from  imaginary 
general  results,  would  be  at  variance  with  the 
principles  of  sound  reason  as  well  as  universal 
experience.  If  the  foundation  be  insecure,  it  is 
vain  to  hope  for  stability  and  beauty  in  the 
superstructure.  All  who  attempt  to  build  on 
such  foundation  will  be  found  to  be  foolish 
builders,  the  fate  of  whom  was  long  since  put 
upon  enduring  record. 

By  the  law  of  our  creation  as  well  as  the 
ordination  of  the  Creator,  the  sexes  are  brought 
together  in  this  relation.  Nor  is  it  a forced  or 
constrained  union.  The  bond  of  attraction  is 
mutual,  and  increases  in  its  power  until  they 
are  brought  together,  when  the  man  and  wife 
are  no  more  twain  but  one  flesh.  Such  is  the 
foundation  of  every  family.  From  that  foun- 
dation spring  all  the  relations  known  by  the 
tender  and  enduring  names  of  home,  mother, 
child. 

In  the  proper  investigation  of  this  subject, 
the  great  question  for  consideration  is:  How 
will  the  proposed  change  affect  the  family? 
When  these  two  hearts,  like  kindred  drops, 
have  mingled  into  one,  what  are  their  rela- 
tions to  each  other,  and  what  are  the  principles 
by  which  the  family  must  be  regulated  to  secure 
the  end  of  its  institution,  and  the  welfare  of  the 
State  ? 

Upon  this  subject  there  might  be  some  contro- 
versy, if  we  were  not  willing  to  appeal  to  a 
common  authority.  The  gentleman, in  his  well- 
merited  eulogy  of  woman,  recites  with  en- 
thusiasm their  efforts  in  sustaining  and  direct- 


1964 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


[135tli 

Sample.  [Wednesday, 


ing  the  operations  of  churches  and  Sabbath 
schools.  In  this  respect  he  and  I are  one,  and 
it  affords  me  great  pleasure  to  be  able,  in  this 
one  instance,  to  express  my  full  concurrence  in 
the  eulogy  so  eloquently  pronounced,  and  my 
high  appreciation  of  the  weight  of  obligation 
resting  upon  the  people  of  this  State  for  the 
services  thus  performed. 

These  self-denying  women  all  draw  their  in- 
spiration from  the  same  fountain.  By  nature 
they  are  ignorant,  and  before  they  can  teach 
require  to  be  taught.  The  only  fountain  from 
which  they  can  draw  neetfld  supplies  is  the  sa- 
cred volume.  By  his  commendation,  the  gentle- 
man impliedly  indorses  the  authority  of  this  holy 
book,  as  I have  no  doubt  he  wouludo  directly, 
if  the  occasion  required.  To  this  vdume  I too 
appeal.  There  we  can  trace  the  history  of  the 
family  during  long  periods,  upon  which  npray 
of  light  from  any  other  source  is  thrown,  be- 
ing accepted  as  authority,  it  becomes,  in  legal 
phrase,  a common  source  of  title,  beyond  which 
inquiry  would  be  useless  and  irrelevant.  In 
this  I cannot  be  mistaken.  All  the  churches  of 
the  State  recognize  the  same  authority,  and  all 
the  Sabbath  schools  are  auxiliary  to  the  chur- 
ches, as  aids  in  the  dissemination  of  Bible  truth. 

Turning,  then,  to  this  accepted  standard,  we 
have  line  upon  line,  and  precept  upon  precept, 
so  that  man  or  woman,  though  weak  of  intellect, 
need  not  err  therein.  The  superiority  of  the 
authority  of  the  husband,  to  be  exercised  in  war, 
and  the  reverence  and  submission  of  the  wife 
to  that  authority,  is  everywhere  recognized  and 
commanded. 

The  husband  is  declared  to  be  the  head  of  the 
wife,  and  it  is  expressly  declared  that  the  man 
was  not  created  for  the  woman,  but  the  woman 
was  created  for  the  man. 

To  remove  all  doubt,  it  is  declared  that  a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  These 
indisputable  principles  may,  therefore,  be  as- 
sumed as  the  true  foundation  of  the  family. 
They  are  resolved  into  the  following : the  com- 
mon bond  of  union  is  love — the  superiority  or 
headship  in  the  husband  to  be  exercised  in 
love — and  to  be  received  with  reverence  and 
submission  by  the  wife.  These  truths  have,  no 
doubt,  been  taught  by  and  through  the  influence 
of  the  women  to  whom  the  gentleman  refers, 
in  the  churches  and  Sabbath-schools,  for  they 
would  not  dare  to  teach  any  other  in  the  face 
of  the  denunciation,  “ if  any  preach  any  other 
gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have  received,  let 
him  be  accursed.” 

Although  these  truths  might  be  assumed  upon 
authority,  still  it  may  not  be  improper  to  call 
attention  to  their  peculiar  adaptation  to  the  ne- 
cessities of  the  family,  and  their  success  in  pro- 
moting the  objects  for  which  they  were  promul- 
gated. They  have  been  recognized  for  many 
•centuries,  and  are  still  recognized  as  in  full 
force  in  this  State.  On  a professed  loyalty  to 
these  principles  every  family  in  Ohio  was 
formed.  In  many  of  those  families  the  faith 
plighted  at  the  hymeneal  altar  has  often  been 
broken,  in  some  instances  by  the  husband,  in 
some  by  the  wife,  and  in  some  by  both.  In  all 
such  cases,  without  exception,  the  results  have 
been  such  as  to  vindicate  the  wisdom  of  the  ob- 
ligation imposed,  and  the  folly  and  wickedness 
of  its  disregard  or  infraction.  On  the  other 


hand,  when  this  faith  has  been  kept  with  fidel- 
ity, no  matter  what  may  have  been  the  diversi- 
ties of  fortune,  peace,  and  love,  and  concord, 
without  which,  gold  and  honor  would  be 
trifling  toys,  reign  within  that  family.  Afflic- 
tions may  invade  its  circle ; a loved  one  may  be 
removed  and  a place  made  vacant,  but  jealousy, 
rivalry,  and  all  malevolent  and  divisive  pas- 
sions are  forever  deterred  from  crossing  its 
threshhold,  by  the  sacred  peace  that  reigns 
within.  Just  in  the  measure  in  which  these 
principles  have  been  carried  into  effect  in  the 
families  of  any  State,  has  been  its  progress  and 
elevation.  The  husband  and  wife  being  one,  it 
is  impossible  for  either  to  acquire  a true  eleva- 
tion to  the  disadvantage  of  the  other.  Fidelity 
to  their  plighted  faith  forbids  it,  and  the  invar- 
iable result  of  such  attempt,  on  either  side,  at- 
tests the  wisdom  of  the  prohibition. 

Having  ascertained  the  true  character  of  the 
marital  relation,  it  is  only  necessary  to  bring 
thfosystem  advocated  by  the  gentleman  to  this 
standard  by  which,  as  a touchstone,  it  must  be 
tried.  And^his  task  is  by  no  means  difficult. 

But  before  encring  further  upon  the  subject, 
I wish  to  reply  to  on\of  the  logical  propositions 
assumed  by  the  gentleman.  He  says  that  the 
onus,  or  burden  of  prooi, rests  upon  those  op- 
posed to  his  theory.  His  p-oposition  stands 
thus : he  seeks  to  overturn  tht  institutions  of 
all  the  past  by  the  introduction  o an  imaginary 
system,  without  any  experience  oiits  success  in 
any  age  or  nation  of  the  world,  sav.ge  or  civil- 
ized, and  then  demands  proof  of  thoe  who  re- 
fuse their  assent  to  his  proposed  systen  that  it 
ought  not  to  be  adopted.  In  answei  to  this 
claim,  I have  only  to  say  that  it  is  made!n  direct 
conflict  with  the  logical,  and  that  exising  in- 
stitutions have  presumptions  in  their  favor. 
On  the  person  who  seeks  to  overturn  theestab- 
lished  usages  and  institutions  of  all  th«  past, 
devolves  the  burden  of  establishing  the  ncessi- 
ty  for  the  proposed  change  and  the  adaptaton  of 
the  remedy  proposed  to  the  accomplishmat  of 
the  desired  reformation. 

But  this  is  a matter  of  little  importance. 
Like  a bold  commander,  he  assails  the  usages 
sought  to  be  overturned  by  undermining  tbir 
foundation.  He  attacks  the  sacred  institution 
of  the  family.  He  seeks  to  convert  that  litle 
state  from  one  of  love,  and  unity,  and  peace,  iito 
one  of  rivalry,  and  contest  and  strife.  He  re- 
nounces in  vehement  terms  the  claim  t>r 
superiority  in  the  husband.  What  his  views  aje 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  substitute  was  not  ver 
distinctly  announced,  but  must  be  inferred.  B; 
Divine  ordination  the  husband  and  wife  are  on. 
flesh.  This  character,  impressed  upon  them  b; 
the  organic  law  creating  the  marriage  relation 
has  been  proved  by  all  experience  to  be  essen 
tial  to  the  existence  of  that  relation.  The  at- 
tempt to  exercise  divided  power  has,  in  mos 
cases,  resulted  in  disaster.  History  abounds  ir 
such  instances.  The  gentleman  cannot  be  as- 
sumed to  entertain  the  idea  of  divided  authority 
in  husband  and  wife  without  superiority  in 
either.  On  the  contrary,  I infer  that  his  pro- 
posed remedy  is  a reversal  of  the  law  I claim 
to  have  established  and  the  investiture  of  the 
wife  with  superiority.  He  did  lay  down  as  one 
of  his  dogmas,  that  it  was  the  prerogative  of 
woman  to  devise  and  man  to  execute.  That  he 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Sample. 


1965 


Day.] 

March  11,  1874.] 


would  advocate  such  a change  in  direct  terms  I 
do  not  believe.  Nor  do  I believe  that  he  will  ad- 
vocate the  monstrosity  of  a family  with  two 
heads.  Whatever  may  be  the  character  of  the 
substitute  to  be  proposed,  no  doubt  can  be  enter- 
tained as  to  his  hostility  to  the  marriage  rela- 
tion, as  it  at  present  exists.  Not  only  does  he 
deny  superiority  to  the  husband,  but  he  de- 
nounces the  relation,  as  now  constituted,  by 
comparing  the  husband  to  the  wolf  and  the  wife 
to  the  lamb.  In  this  utterance  he  does  not 
speak  by  authority  of  any  true  wife.  The  breast 
of  every  one  of  that  class,  who  may  hear  of  this 
attack  upon  her  home,  and  his  charge  of  brutal 
ferocity  against  one  dearer  to  her  than  life,  will 
swell  with  indignation,  and  if  she  permit  her 
lips  to  give  expression  to  the  emotions  of  her 
heart,  will  characterize  the  foul  imputation,  at 
least,  as  a flagrant  violation  of  the  ninth  com- 
mandment. On  this  point  I am  not  left  entirely 
to  draw  upou  my  imagination. 

A lady  who  heard  the  dolorous  lamentation  of 
the  gentleman,  remarked  to  me,  that  she  almost 
shuddered  when  she  learned  the  mortal  peril  to 
which  she  had  been  so  long  exposed,  without 
knowledge  of  its  existence.  She  then  added, 
that  notwithstanding  the  knowledge  she  had  so 
unexpectedly  acquired,  she  would  rather  still 
run  the  risk  of  exposure  to  the  ferocity  of  the 
wolf  than  put  herself  under  the  protection  of 
one  she  knew  to  be  a sheep. 

That  is  a womanly  sentiment.  If  there  is  any 
one  thing  a woman  of  spirit  abhors  more  than 
another,  it  is  a form  of  man  who  accepts  the 
yoke  and  hangs  dependent  upon  a woman.  I 
am  willing  to  incur  the  odium  of  being  one  of 
the  class  denounced  as  wolves,  leaving  the  gen- 
tleman to  the  freedom  of  his  will  in  selecting 
his  banner. 

Passing  to  some  of  the  alleged  grievances  of 
woman,  the  gentleman  refers  to  the  suffering 
she  endures  in  consequence  of  intemperance. 
On  this  subject  I am  peculiarly  susceptible.  I 
have  given  much  more  attention  to  that  vice 
than  most  men  in  my  situation.  I co-operated 
with  temperance  men  in  all  the  forms  which 
that  effort  has  ever  assumed,  and  for  near  forty 
years  have  preserved  an  unstained  and  unim- 
peached record  of  undeviating  consistency  in 
my  habits,  and  devotion  to  the  promotion  of  the 
cause  of  temperance,  by  precept  and  example. 

If  I could  be  made  to  believe  that  conferring 
the  ballot  upon  woman  could  have  the  effect 
attributed  to  it  by  the  gentleman  from  Summit 
[Mr.  Voris],  that  conviction  would  go  far  to 
overcome  objections  which  might,  otherwise, 
exercise  a controlling  influence  over  my  action. 
The  result,  however,  of  my  long  experience, 
and  considerable  means  of  observation  as  a pri- 
vate citizen,  as  well  as  in  official  positions, 
brings  my  mind,  unhesitatingly,  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  gentleman  from  Summit,  as 
well  as  the  more  extravagant  gentlemen  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  and  Hamilton  [Mr.  Row- 
land], have  been  influenced,  in  the  formation 
of  the  opinions  they  have  expressed  of  the 
glorious  results  to  be  expected  from  female 
voting  in  the  suppression  of  intemperance,  by 
over-fervid  imaginations  or  the  paucity  of  solid 
arguments.  Neither  of  them  has  undertaken 
to  show  how  this  result  will  be  secured,  nor  is 
is  it  believed  it  can  be  shown.  They  assert  that 


women  going  to  the  polls  would  exert  a power- 
ful influence.  This  may  not  be  disputed.  But 
what  would  be  the  character  of  that  influence, 
is  mere  conjecture.  One  thing  may  be  assumed 
as  beyond  conjecture;  and  that  is,  that  it  would 
not  dry  up  the  stream  of  iniquity  of  which  this 
vice  is  the  source.  There  is  a thoughtless  im- 
pression abroad  that  if  we  had  stronger  laws 
the  evil  could  be  removed.  That  any  intelligent 
observer  of  the  events  of  the  last  twenty  years 
can  entertain  that  opinion  is  hard  to  believe. 
Laws  are  of  no  value  unless  enforced.  We  have 
laws  upon  the  statute  book,  which,  if  faithfully 
enforced,  would  tend  mightily  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  desired  result. 

But  during  the  whole  of  the  period  named, 
they  have  lain  unexecuted,  and  almost  a dead 
letter.  It  is  doubtful,  whether  in  a single  lo- 
cality in  the  State,  there  has  been  a consistent 
and  sustained  effort  to  carry  them  into  effect. 
Certain  it  is,  that  generally,  throughout  the 
State,  they  have  been  entirely  disregarded,  and 
the  sporadic  efforts  that  have  been  made,  have 
but  sharpened  the  greed  for  increased  gains  to 
an  amount  equal  to  the  penalties  inflicted.  The 
ballot-box  and  the  legislation  of  the  State  have, 
for  the  last  twenty  years,  been  far  in  advance 
of  public  sentiment.  Additional  legislation, 
in  view  of  these  facts,  would  be  as  illy  adapted 
to  the  removal  of  the  evil  as  the  old  practice  of 
denying  cold  water  and  applying  warm  lotions 
to  a patient  suffering  from  a violent  fever.  The 
law  is  now  too  strong  for  the  public  sentiment 
of  the  State.  What  is  the  remedy?  No  one 
need  doubt,  on  that  subject.  Cultivate  a higher 
tone  of  public  sentiment.  Bring  it  up  to  the 
point  of  enforcing  the  laws  we  have,  so  that 
their  efficiency  may  be  tested,  and  imperfections, 
if  any,  ascertained  and  removed.  And  here  is 
the  sphere  of  woman’s  effort.  By  her  will  so- 
ciety is  molded.  Her  edicts,  as  to  social  habits, 
are  law.  She  has  almost  banished  intemperance 
from  her  own  sex.  Why  has  she  not  purified 
ours?  The  answer,  she  has  not  willed  it.  Let  the 
same  rigid  standard  be  adopted,  as  to  the  social 
position  of  men,  as  of  women,  and  the  day  of 
redemption  will  dawn.  If  a woman  falls,  she 
is  lost.  Her  sister  woman  at  once  excludes  her 
from  her  society  as  an  equal,  and  she  is  doomed 
to  weep  in  secret,  if  she  retains  sensibility 
enough  to  produce  tears.  This  is  a hard  lot, 
but  not  cruel.  By  it  multitudes  are  preserved 
who  would  be  lost  if  not  warned  in  time,  by 
their  knowledge  of  the  fatal  result  of  one  false 
step.  But  it  is  entirely  different  with  men.  If 
they  have  means  to  enable  them  to  make  a re- 
spectable appearance,  from  what  society  are 
they  excluded  because  of  the  habit  of  using  in- 
toxicating liquor  ? As  long  as  intemperance  is 
not  declared  to  be  disgraceful,  so  as  to  affect  a 
a man’s  social  standing,  the  ballot  and  the  laws 
are  entirely  impotent.  This  work  can  be  ac- 
complished by  woman  in  her  present  sphere  if 
she  will.  During  the  last  week  of  February, 
the  noble  women  of  my  village,  by  their  kind 
and  Christian  influence,  without  harshness  or 
ill  will,  induced  one-half  of  the  dram-sellers  in 
that  village  to  abandon  the  business  and  pledge 
themselves  not  to  renew  it.  In  this  glorious 
work,  achieved  in  a single  week,  by  their  earn- 
est and  self-denying  labor,  these  women,  in  the 
exercise  of  that  mighty  purifying  influence 


[135th 


1966 CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Sample,  Cook,  Albright. 


which  woman  in  her  present  condition,  and  she 
alone,  does  possess,  did  more  to  promote  the 
glory  of  God,  the  happiness  of  their  own  sex, 
the  purification  and  elevation  of  ours,  and  the 
good  of  the  State,  than  has  been  achieved  by  all 
that  has  been  done,  said,  written  or  sung  in 
favor  of  woman’s  suffrage  from  the  inception 
of  the  movement  to  the  present  hour. 

This  influence  woman  alone  is  enabled  to  ex- 
ert, not  by  reason  of  an  imaginary  equality  with 
man,  but  in  consequence  of  being  different  from 
him.  Let  her  assert  such  imaginary  equality, 
the  ordination  of  her  Creator  will  confound  her 
vain  and  impious  pretention — she  will  still  re- 
main different,  but  shorn  of  her  power  as  wo- 
man, without  having  acquired  that  of  man. 

It  is  objected,  generally,  that  woman  is  not 
on  an  equality  with  man,  and  this  movement  is 
designated  as  one  in  favor  of  female  equality. 
When  the  Ethiopian  can  change  his  skin,  or 
the  leopard  his  spots,  then  may  the  efforts  of 
writhing  restlessness  overcome  the  fiat  of  the 
Creator  and  make  those  equal,  on  whom  were 
impressed  at  their  creation  ineradicable  differ- 
ences, extending  through  their  entire  being. 

In  all  that  constitutes  distinct,  separate  indi- 
viduality, such  difference  is  in  every  part 
clearly  manifest. 

But  it  is  quite  interesting  to  note  the  equality 
for  which  gentlemen  contend.  Is  it  one  of 
privileges  and  burdens?  Not  at  all.  They  all 
concede  that  woman  is  unfit  to  perform  the 
duties,  imposing  burdens  in  the  administration 
of  the  government  and  defense  of  the  State,  but 
insist  that  she  shall  devise  and  man  execute. 
We  read  of  those  who  bound  heavy  burdens  and 
laid  them  on  others  shoulders,  and  if  the  theory 
of  the  advocates  of  their  system  prevails  it  is  to 
be  renewed  in  our  experience.  Whilst  they 
object  to  women  being  taxed,  without  the  ballot, 
as  tyranny,  they  profess  a willingness  to  allow 
them  to  enact  laws  and  impose  burdens  with 
the  distinct  understanding  that  no  part  of  their 
burdens  are  to  be  borne  by  them.  It  would  be 
a refreshing  exhibition  of  equality  to  have 
women  enact  a law  that  every  able-bodied  male 
citizen  should  work  two  days  upon  the  public 
highway.  So  of  every  other  burden  required 
to°be  borne  for  the  State.  The  power  to  enact 
laws  imposing  burdens  upon  others,  and  ex- 
empting the  legislator,  under  whatever  disguise 
it  may  assume,  is  tyranny.  Laws  may  not  bear 
with  equal  weight  upon  every  individual.  All, 
however,  derive  benefit  from  the  government. 
They  are  protected,  alike,  in  their  persons  and 
property.  The  burden  of  taxation  imposed  upon 
women  is  no  greater  than  that  imposed  upon 
men.  Where  laws  have  a uniform  operation 
upon  the  legislator  as  well  as  others,  all  have 
the  highest  security  attainable.  It  is  the 
only  hope  of  minorities,  who,  but  for  this, 
would  often  be  at  the  mercy  of  exasperated  and 
relentless  majorities.  In  Ohio,  women  have 
this  security,  and  in  return  for  the  taxes  re- 
quired to  be  paid,  they  enjoy  full  protection  of 
person  and  property,  in  as  complete  perfection 
as  it  is  enjoyed  by  men,  accompanied  by  exemp- 
tion from  all  other  burdens  on  behalf  of  the 
State.  Here,  then,  is  a full  and  adequate  con- 
sideration returned  for  all  the  taxes  imposed. 
But  it  is  objected  that  women  are  not  permitted 
to  sit  on  juries.  The  duty  of  serving  as  a juror 


[Wednesday, 


is  regarded  as  one  of  the  burdens  imposed  by 
the  State,  and,  as  a means  of  securing  emolu- 
ments of  any  kind,  entirely  fruitless.  All  that 
makes  men  willing  to  bear  this  burden  is  a 
sense  of  duty  to  the  public.  That  women  have 
no  cause  to  complain  of  injustice  at  the  hands  of 
juries,  I have  no  doubt  will  be  attested  by  every 
lawyer.  What  is  the  consideration  for  the  en- 
durance of  the  burdens  proposed  to  be  imposed 
by  women  ? Not  any.  Whenever  benefits  are 
to  be  received,  the  gentleman  would,  no  doubt, 
assign  her  a place ; but  where  any  laborious 
duty  is  required,  she  must  be  exempt  on  the 
ground  of  inability.  I am,  by  no  means,  capti- 
vated with  this  new-found  theory  of  equality. 

It  is  objected  that  women  are  deprived  of 
opportunities  of  employments.  I know  of  no 
employment  to  which  they  are  not  eligible  ex- 
cept political  offices.  It  is  exceedingly  doubt- 
ful whether  that  is  a privation.  It  may  be 
asked,  how  many  men  can  any  one  mention  who 
have,  by  honest  means,  derived  much  net  gain 
from  the  emoluments  of  office?  A few  may  be 
named,  but  those  who  have  wholly  failed  are 
many  times  greater  in  number.  To  her,  the 
avenues  to  all  other  employments  are  open. 

But  it  is  said  women  do  not  receive  wages 
equal  to  men,  for  similar  service.  This  is 
founded  upon  principles  of  political  economy 
so  clear  that  he  that  runs  may  read.  The  price 
of  labor,  as  of  every  other  commodity,  is  regu- 
lated by  the  proportion  between  supply  and  de- 
mand. This  affords  a satisfactory  explanation. 
A very  large  proportion  of  the  entire  male  labor 
in  the  market  is  required  for  services  which 
women  are  wholly  incapable  of  performing. 
The  operation  of  railroads  and  other  thorough- 
fares, as  examples,  are  sufficient.  This  largely 
increased  demand  for  male  labor  necessarily 
leaves  but  a small  part  of  that  labor  to  come  in 
competition  with  the  large  mass  of  female  labor 
in  those  avocations  for  which  they  are  fitted. 
No  other  explanation  of  the  difference  com- 
plained of  is  needed ; and  that  man  who  at- 
tempts to  excite  dissatisfaction  in  the  mind  of  a 
woman  on  this  account,  is  dangerous  to  her 
welfare,  though  actuated  by  good  intentions. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  we  now  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12  : 30  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  When  the  Convention 
took  a’  recess,  the  question  pending  was  upon 
Proposition  No.  203.  The  gentleman  from  Cosh- 
octon [Mr.  Sample]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  POND  asked  a.nd  obtained  leave  of  absence 
for  Mr.  Rickly,  of  Franklin  county. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT,  by  common  consent,  sub- 
mitted the  following  Report: 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  Committee  on  Reporting  and  Publication  respect- 
fully recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolution  No.  183: 

Resolved,  That  the  Superintendent  of  State  Printing  be, 
and  he  is  hereby,  directed  to  have  bound  as  soon  as  prac- 
ticable, the  edition  of  three  thousand  copies  of  the  “De- 
bates and  Proceedings”  ordered  “to  be  printed  and  bound 
in  durable  form,”  by  a resolution  of  this  Convention, 
adopted  May  24,  1873;  five  hundred  copies  to  be  bound  in 


1967 


Day.] CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

March  11,  1874.]  Townsend,  Sample. 


law  binding,  and  twenty-five  hundred  copies  in  substan- 
tial half  sheep  binding,  with  paper  lids. 

C.  J.  Albright, 

Geo.  W.  Hill, 

Geo.  Hoadly, 

G.  H.  Scribner, 

S.  O.  Griswold. 

March  10th,  1874. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND  asked  and  obtained  indefi- 
nite leave  of  absence  for  Mr.  Mueller,  on 
account  of  sickness. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]  is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Mr.  President,  at  the  time 
the  Convention  took  a recess,  I was  considering 
the  objection  or  complaint  that  women  do  not 
receive  as  large  compensation  in  the  way  of 
wages  as  men  do  for  similar  services.  I had 
then  considered  the  argument  based,  as  I sup- 
posed, upon  the  relation  of  supply  and  demand, 
and  endeavored  to  show  that  it  was  in  conse- 
quence of  the  superabundance  of  female  labor 
in  proportion  to  the  demand  for  that  labor. 

Another  consideration  which  must  always 
have  its  influence  upon  female  employment  is 
its  brevity.  As  has  been  said,  her  highest  du- 
ties and  enjoyments  are  expected  in  the  mar- 
ried state.  To  that  she  looks  as  her  ultimate 
and  highest  hope,  and  engages  in  employment 
for  the  intervening  period,  but  without  any  in- 
tention of  adopting  such  employment  as  her 
life’s  work.  In  this  she  is  not  to  be  blamed. 
She  is  but  obeying  the  voice  of  her  Creator,  and 
seeking  her  highest  happiness  and  most  exalted 
position. 

After  she  enters  the  married  state,  the  super- 
vening duties  of  maternity  with  their  con- 
stantly increasing  burdens  and  varieties  en- 
gross her  time  and  attention,  and  she  loses  both 
the  desire  and  ability  to  engage  in  extrinsic 
employments,  either  political  or  other. 

Gentlemen  inquire  what  are  the  objections  to 
woman  exercising  the  elective  franchise  on 
terms  of  equality  with  man.  I answer,  I can 
conceive  of  no  aspect  in  which  it  would  not  be 
objectionable.  She  is  a part  of  the  social  body. 
She  is  fitted  to  exercise  an  influence  upon  soci- 
ety, without  which  it  must  sink  to  degradation. 
Hers  is  the  work  of  love,  tenderness,  counsel, 
persuasion,  and  entreaty.  These  means  she  is 
capable  of  using,  and  has  used  for  the  elevation 
of  men  and  women,  and  they  can  be  used  with 
equal  success  by  no  other  agent.  To  exer- 
cise such  influences  requires  respect,  confi- 
dence and  deference,  on  the  part  of  the  one  to  be 
influenced,  in  and  for  the  advisor.  The  exist- 
ence of  relations  of  equality  is  an  insuperable 
barrier  to  that  exercise.  If  one  be  reproved  or 
admonished  by  an  equal,  his  pride  is  wounded 
and  he  repels  the  intrusion,  as  reflecting  upon 
his  manhood.  To  be  successful,  the  counselor 
must  be  clothed  with  such  recognized  superior- 
ity as  to  disarm  resentment  by  inspiring  confi- 
dence and  commanding  respect.  This  is  the 
present  condition  of  woman.  The  influence 
she  is  now  exerting  in  the  cause  of  temperance 
and  humanity,  demonstrates  this.  She  has  been 
admitted  to  places  where  purity  is  rarely 
found.  At  her  approach,  in  her  character  of 
woman,  she  has  exercised  a power  and  influ- 
ence entirely  beyond  that  of  equals  upon  equals. 
The  continuation  of  her  power  depends  upon 
this  inequality.  If  she  abandon  the  use  of 


those  means  I have  indicated,  and  seek,  by  the 
exercise  of  authority,  to  wield  influence,  she 
will  be  met  by  the  same  resistance  encountered 
by  any  other  asserting  such  claim.  There  is  a 
coercive  power  in  woman’s  kindness,  of  which, 
if  despoiled,  her  influence  as  woman  is  gone. 

This  whole  movement  is  based  on  the  alleged 
necessity  of  arming  woman  with  a weapon  of 
defense  against  the  tyranny  of  man.  It  is  as 
clearly  hostile  and  belligerent  in  its  character 
and  object,  as  the  casting  of  cannon  and  accu- 
mulation of  munitions  of  war  by  a nation. 
Now,  the  interest  of  the  sexes  are  one.  Peace 
and  good  will  prevail.  If  she  arms  herself  for 
aggression,  with  the  extravagant  claims  and 
pretensions  of  the  three  gentlemen  I have 
named,  she  will  be  met  by  resistance.  The  con- 
test will  be  for  the  mastery,  and  the  result  will 
be  neither  distant  nor  doubtful.  In  a contest 
between  the  sexes  as  equals,  woman  must  fail. 

Another  insuperable  objection,  if  more  be 
needed,  is,  that  it  would  degrade  woman.  I 
accept  the  exact  language  so  often  repeated  in 
this  Hall.  Gentlemen  have  devoted  much  time 
and  attention  to  this  objection,  and  the  result  of 
their  efforts  has  been  to  produce  a firm  convic- 
tion in  my  mind  that  it  is  invulnerable.  If  it 
could  have  been  successfully  assailed  in  any 
part,  even  in  the  heel,  it  would  have  been  anni- 
hilated. 

I will  refer  to  one  only  of  the  illustrations 
used  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
as  establishing  his  position  and  refuting  this 
objection. 

With  his  usually  brilliant  coloring,  he  de- 
scribed the  appearance  of  a concourse  of  citi- 
zens, male  and  female,  at  a public  market  on 
Broadway,  and  with  apparent  triumph,  inquired 
whether,  in  such  concourse,  woman  was  de- 
graded? I unhesitatingly  answer,  no.  The  cir- 
cumstances under  which  she  went  into  that 
concourse  were  in  her  favor.  She  went  there, 
not  with  a claim  of  equality,  but  of  that  just, 
modest  and  unassuming  superiority  as  woman 
which  is,  by  common  consent,  recognized  by 
man.  But,  further,  such  casual  concourse  in- 
volves no  necessary  intercourse.  There  the  vir- 
tuous and  the  vile  are  on  a common  level. 
Their  meeting  is  purely  fortuitous  and  their 
mingling  mechanical— of  the  body  only,  not  of 
the  mind  or  heart.  She  neither  knows  nor 
seeks  to  know  the  character  of  those  there  con- 
gregated. They  may  be  debauchers,  or  thieves 
or  murderers,  but  she-  knows  it  not,  nor  is  it 
necessary  she  should. 

But  let  the  scene  be  changed.  Let  these  men 
and  women  be  assembled  in  the  political  caucus, 
to  consult  together  and  devise  ways  and  means 
for  the  successful  management  of  a partisan 
political  campaign— let  them  engage  in  the 
joint  work  of  organizing  and  operating  party, 
all  of  which  must  be  done  on  terms  of  strict 
equality,  and  I will  leave  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  to  say,  whether  she  would  not  be  de- 
graded. In  political  operations,  leaders  are 
usually  the  most  abject  slaves.  To  avoid  the 
appearance  of  superiority  they  often  descend 
to  disgusting  servility  and  degradation.  The 
man  who  disclaims  such  a course,  may  be  res- 
pected for  his  talents  and  probity,  but  his  in- 
fluence . in  directing  party  machinery,  and 
organizing  party  movements,  will  be  very 


1968 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Sample,  Cook. 


easily  estimated.  With  these  scenes  woman 
will  necessarily  be  compelled  to  familiarize  her- 
self. Without  the  power  to  choose  her  society 
— that  being  determined  by  the  exigencies  of 
her  party — she  will  be  compelled  to  associate 
and  co-operate  with  men  from  whom  every 
true  woman  now  turns  away  with  abhorrence. 
The  wise  man  tells  us  that  the  companion  of 
fools  shall  be  destroyed. 

If  gentlemen  rely  upon  experience,  let  them 
produce  examples  having  at  least  some  analogy 
to  the  matter  in  hand. 

One  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  their  il- 
lustrations is,  that  they  all  rest  upon  facts  en- 
tirely different  from  those  involved  in  the  dis- 
cussion in  this  case. 

With  the  conceded  fact  that  the  interests  of 
man  and  woman  are  identical,  the  gentleman 
from  Summit  compares  the  admission  of  supe- 
riority in  the  man  to  the  wolf  and  the  lamb,  the 
authority  of  the  superior  classes  in  England 
over  the  lower,  the  oppression  of  the  colonies, 
and  the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  In  every 
one  of  these  cases  the  interests  of  the  superior 
were  adverse  to  the  other,  and  no  example  has 
been  given  in  which  such  oppression  has  been 
exercised  when  interests  were  identical,  and 
this,  for  a reason  assigned  by  one  who  spoke  by 
authority,  “for  no  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own 
flesh.” 

In  Ohio  the  property  rights  of  unmarried 
women  are  the  same  as  those  of  men. 

In  the  married  relation  the  wife  retains  her 
property,  and  by  virtue  of  that  relation  becomes 
a greater  incumbrance  upon  the  property  of  the 
husband  than  he  does  upon  hers. 

The  position  of  woman  in  Ohio  is  as  high  as 
was  ever  attained  by  her  sex.  Weak  though 
she  be,  like  the  prophet  who  was  surrounded 
with  chariots  of  fire,  wherever  she  may  go, 
those  who  are  with  her  are  more  than  those 
who  are  against.  For  her  protection  from 
insult  and  wrong,  every  manly  arm  will  be 
stretched  forth.  Everywhere  she  is  respected 
and  honored.  The  men  of  Ohio  are  habitual 
in  their  respectful  devotion  to  the  promotion 
of  her  comfort  and  happiness. 

Cases  of  hardship  and  wrong  do  occur.  Men 
forget  that  they  are  men,  and,  therefore,  can- 
not be  expected  to  respect  woman.  As  long  as 
the  scenes  of  life  are  influenced  by  erring  mor- 
tals, such  melancholy  instances  will  occur. 
Nor  is  it  by  any  means  extraordinary  to  find 
instances  in  which  the  fault  is  on  the  side  of 
the  wife.  No  system,  though  devised  by  Infin- 
ite Wisdom,  if  entrusted  to  the  administration 
of  erring,  fallible  men  and  women,  can  be 
hoped  to  produce,  in  every  instance,  its  benefi- 
cent results. 

I know  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  predicts  astonishing  results  from  the  ex- 
ercise of  woman  suffrage.  I read  of  the  time 
when  nations  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plow- 
shares, when  the  leopard  shall  lie  down  with 
the  kid,  and  the  lion  shall  eat  straw  like  an  ox. 
I have  read  the  apocalyptic  vision,  when 
heaven  was  opened  before  the  beloved  disciple; 
but  these  descriptions  all  pale  before  the 
ecstatic  visions  of  that  gentleman. 

Be  not  deceived ; God  is  not  mocked.  If  you 
sow  the  wind  you  shall  reap  the  whirlwind. 

It  is  said  that  this  system  has  been  in  force  in 


[135th 

[Wednesday, 


one  of  the  sparsely  populated  Territories  in  the 
West,  and  that  a certain  chief  justice  there 
commends  it.  He  is  sent  there  without  consul- 
tation with  the  people  over  whom  he  exercises 
authority.  His  opinion  is  no  standard  by  which 
to  ascertain  the  sense  of  that  people.  What 
has  been  the  popular  verdict  on  this  subject  in 
that  Territory  ? It  is  this : After  a brief  ex- 

periment, a Legislature,  elected  by  men  and 
women,  as  I learned,  at  the  time,  from  the  pub- 
lic papers,  passed  a bill  depriving  women  of 
the  privilege  of  voting,  but  it  was  defeated  by 
the  veto  of  the  Governor,  whose  authority  is 
not  derived  from  the  people,  so  that  it  exists 
there  in  opposition  to  the  popular  will,  and  sus- 
tained by  foreign  authority  only. 

Why,  then,  I demand,  shall  this  Convention 
be  drawn  from  the  performance  of  its  legiti- 
mate duties,  to  follow  after  a system  sustained 
only  by  discordant  and  visionary  assertions, 
without  necessity  for  its  adoption,  and  which  I 
claim  to  have  shown  tends  to  overturn  the  only 
foundation  on  which  rests  the  true  happiness 
of  man  and  woman,  and  the  peace,  good  order 
and  welfare  of  the  State? 

Mr.  COOK.  I do  not  agree  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  as  to  the 
effect  of  his  amendment.  While  I shall  most 
cheerfully  vote  to  accomplish  what  that  indi- 
cates, I fear  that  putting  it  in  that  shape  might 
jeopardize  our  work,  and  I shall  therefore  be 
compelled  to  vote  against  what  I would  like  to 
see  in  the  Constitution,  but  I am  in  favor  of  a 
separate  submission  of  the  proposition  intro- 
duced by  the  Special  Committee,  and  my  rea- 
sons for  that  I have  reduced  to  writing. 

The  elective  franchise  is  one  of  the  political 
sights  which  individuals  acquire  on  entering  a 
state  of  society,  and  for  which  they  surrender 
some  of  their  natural  rights.  This  being  the 
case,  all  who  enter  this  state  of  society  should 
be  invested  with  this  right.  This  is  a proposi- 
tion which  cannot  be  logically  denied. 

But  the  objector  says,  do  you  intend  to  clothe 
woman  with  the  rights  of  suffrage?  No  one 
clothes  her  with  it.  The  logic  of  the  transi- 
tion from  a state  of  nature  to  a state  of  society 
invests  her  with  it,  she  derives  it  from  the 
same  source  that  men  do.  Men  acquire  it  on 
entering  a state  of  society,  so  does  she,  and 
nothing  but  the  arbitrary  act  of  man,  enforced 
by  his  superior  physical  power,  deprives  her  of 
its  enjoyment.  But  as  we  all  venerate  the  sa- 
cred name  of  mother  and  the  endearing  title  of 
sister,  and  the  more  holy  relation  of  wife,  how 
comes  it  in  our  minds  to  deny  them  the  exer- 
cise of  a right  to  which  nature  and  the  forma- 
tion of  society  equally  entitle  them  with  our- 
selves ? 

Do  we  indeed  believe  that  the  mother  who 
laid  the  foundation  of  our  education  on  the 
solid  basis  of  a broad  Christian  philanthropy, 
and  thereby  taught  us  how  to  vote  aright, is  less 
capable  of  voting  correctly  than  we  ? Does  the 
young  man  in  the  pride  of  his  strength  believe 
that  she,  whom  he  is  hazarding  all  to  win,  is 
inferior  to  himself?  And  could  the  hazard  of 
| the  die  be  determined  in  his  favor  by  voting  to 
j confer  on  her  the  elective  franchise,  would  he 
not  do  it?  Then  why  has  she  not  long  since 
been  enfranchised?  To  this  there  is  but  one 
j answer,  “ man  is  tyrannical  and  unjust,”  and 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


1969 


March  11,  1874.]  Cook. 


to  retain  power  in  himself  will  withhold  it 
from  the  dearest  companion  of  his  life.  Where 
is  the  son  who  dares  say,  the  mother  who 
taught  his  infant  mind  the  difference  between 
good  and  evil,  and  started  him  on  the  road  to 
greatness  and  glory,  is  less  capable  of  voting 
correctly  than  he?  Reason  and  the  logic  of 
events  having  thus  entitled  woman  to  the  ballot, 
the  burden  of  proof  is  with  our  opponents  to 
show  why  she  should  not  have  the  right  to 
use  it. 

I shall  not  ransack  creation  to  prove  that 
woman  is  competent  to  rule.  The  world’s  his- 
tory is  full  of  proofs  of  this.  She  rules  every- 
where to-day  in  the  government  and  education 
of  the  children,  by  a sister’s  affection,  and  in 
the  possession  of  a husband’s  love. 

Woman’s  right  to  the  ballot  seems  so  clear 
that  it  is  like  some  of  the  mathematical  axioms 
which  it  is  difficult  to  more  clearly  define  than 
by  stating  them.  But  I will  try  again.  Each 
individual  on  entering  a state  of  society  surren- 
ders a portion  of  natural  rights,  and  in  return 
therefor  receives,  among  others,  the  political 
right  of  the  elective  franchise. 

A woman  is  an  individual,  and  when  she  en- 
ters into  a state  of  society  and  thereby  surren- 
ders a portion  of  her  natural  rights,  she  receives 
in  return  therefor  the  right  of  the  elective 
franchise,  equally  with  man,  on  the  axiom  that 
things  equal  to  another  are  equal  to  themselves, 
and  as  she  surrenders  as  much  of  natural  rights 
on  entering  a state  of  society  as  man,  she  should 
receive  equal  rights  in  return. 

If  the  syllogism  be  correct  the  right  inevitably 
follows,  and  where  logic  leads  I cheerfully  fol- 
low, for  the  laws  of  nature  were  framed  by  no 
unerring  hand. 

An  examination  of  the  nature  and  origin  of 
society  shows,  beyond  controversy,  that  wo- 
man, philosophscally  considered,  is  equally  en- 
titled to  the  ballot  with  man,  while  she  has  ever 
been  denied  the  right  to  exercise  it,  excepting 
in  a very  limited  sphere. 

She  not  only  surrenders  an  equal  share  of 
natural  rights  with  man  on  entering  into  a 
state  of  society,  but  she  contributes  equally 
with  him  in  the  maintenance  of  it,  and  sacrifices 
more  of  personal  ease  and  enjoyment  to  give 
happiness  to  those  whom  in  sorrow  she  has 
brought  forth. 

Truly  has  she  obeyed  the  command  to  multi- 
ply and  replenish  the  earth,  and  bitterly  has 
she  suffered  the  same,  in  sorrow  shalt  thou 
bring  forth. 

She  has  furnished  armies  for  ambitious  men 
to  slaughter,  while  her  tears  have  been  unavail- 
ing to  stop  the  carnage,  because  powerless 
without  the  ballot  to  control. 

Not  only  do  reason  and  natural  right  prove 
her  entitled  to  the  ballot,  but  the  matter  is  so 
apparent  that  when  speaking  of  the  rights  of 
citizens,  without  bearing  in  mind  the  intention 
to  exclude  her,  we  always  include  her,  and 
speak  of  her  as  entitled  to  the  right,  by  our 
general  expressions.  In  the  Bill  of  Rights  we 
declare  that  all  political  power  is  inherent  in 
the  people.  Are  not  women  a part  of  the  peo- 
ple ? And  as  this  cannot  be  denied,  it  is  admit- 
ted by  this  solemn  declaration  that  the  political 
power  of  the  State  inheres  equally  in  woman  as 
in  man,  but  what  avail  is  it  to  her,  to  declare 

y.  n-126 


that  she  possesses  this  political  power  when  we 
deny  her  the  right  to  exercise  it.  In  the 
Bill  of  Rights  we  declare  that  the  political 
power  is  inherent  in  the  people,  but  in  the  Ar- 
ticle on  Elective  Franchise  we  say,  “all  male 
citizens  are  electors,”  thus  making  the  promise 
to  the  ear,  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  breaking 
it  to  the  heart  in  the  Article  on  the  Elective 
Franchise.  This  statesmanship  is  eminently 
worthy  the  ancient  logic  from  which  it  was 
derived : 

Resolved , That  the  earth  belongs  to  the  saints. 

Resolved , That  we  are  the  saints,  and  therefore  the 
earth  belongs  to  us. 

Which  will  make  the  Constitution  read  thus : 

All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people : the  men 
are  the  people,  and  therefore  all  political  power  is  inher- 
ent in  the  men. 

Is  the  elective  franchise  so  sacred  a right  that 
the  purity  of  the  ballot  will  be  stained  by  the 
fair  hands  of  our  mothers,  wives  and  sisters  ? 

To  her,  the  Almighty,  in  the  wisdom  with 
which  He  created  worlds,  has  intrusted  the 
dearest  interest  of  mankind,  and  most  sacredly 
has  she  maintained  the  trust. 

You  may  deny  her  political  power,  but  you 
cannot  change  the  order  of  nature.  In  the 
glory  of  your  power  you  are  powerless,  for 

“’Tis  she  who  can  dispose  alone, 

Whether  your  heir  shall  be  your  own, 

Whose  integrity  you  must, 

In  spite  of  all  your  caution,  trust — ” 

With  these  eternal  interests  in  her  keeping 
it  sounds  like  idiocy  to  hear  men  say, 
she  is  not  competent  to  exercise  judiciously 
the  right  of  suffrage.  Is  it  possible  that 
she,  who  has  borne  a nation  in  its  in- 
fancy on  her  bosom,  is  unworthy  to  gov- 
ern it  after  it  has  grown  to  manhood?  En- 
franchise women  and  we  will  hear  less  about  the 
“dirty  pool  of  politics.”  Their  herculean 
labors  will  clean  this  Augean  stable.  Where 
woman  presides  purity  and  order  reign.  With 
what  neatness  and  cleanliness  they  arrange 
their  household  and  clothe  their  children. 
With  what  solicitude  they  provide  for  the  com- 
fort of  their  husbands.  If  women  were  invest- 
ed with  the  elective  franchise  all  this  would  be 
turned  to  the  advantage  of  the  State. 

Woman  is  the  light  of  the  home,  the  life  of  the 
social  circle  and  the  guardian  angel  in  the  sick 
room.  How  dark  is  home  without  her;  how 
cheerless  society  deprived  of  her  presence.  Life 
deprived  of  her  smiles  would  be  cheerless  and 
ray  less,  and  man’s  wanderings  over  the  earth 
without  woman’s  society  would  be  an  aimless 
search  for  personal  gratification.  In  the  house- 
hold purity  and  order  accompany  her,  in  the 
garden  flowers  bloom  around  her,  and  in  the 
church,  to  which  she  invites  a fallen  world,  she 
discourses  music  which  would  charm  Calypso 
and  her  nymphs,  that  the  confessions  of  a sin- 
stricken  heart  may  be  carried  to  the  throne  of 
grace  on  strains  sweet  as  angel  voices. 

After  all  this  devotion  to  your  interest  and 
happiness,  must  she  plead  in  vain  at  your  feet 
for  the  exercise  of  aright  which  God  and  nature 
so  clearly  intended  for  her? 

Give  woman  this  right  and  you  will  drive 
drunkenness  from  many  a home,  and  squalor 
and  disease  will,  to  a great  extent,  be  banished, 


mo 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Cook,  Voris,  Gurley,  Hitchcock,  Barnet,  etc. 


[135th 

[Wednesday, 


and  she  will  be  less  frequently  driven  out  at 
midnight  to  wander  in  the  storm,  her  teardrops 
freezing  as  they  fall. 

But  why  should  she  be  driven  out  at  all? 
Because  she  is  a woman  and  man  is  her  superior, 
and  she  must  go  forth  at  his  command  to  suffer 
lest  she  forget  her  inferiority.  And  has  it  not 
been  said  in  this  debate  that  man’s  chivalry  is  a 
sufficient  protection  to  woman  ? and  perchance 
she  might  forget  she  is  indebted  to  his  chivalry 
for  her  earthly  blessings  did  he  not  occasionally 
show  her  that  she  owes  to  his  great  generosity 
the  right  to  quietly  finish  her  night’s  rest  in 
peace  after  her  long  day’s  toil.  A more  worthy 
tribute  to  woman’s  fidelity  to  the  cause  of  truth 
and  justice  than  the  elective  franchise  cannot  be 
given.  We  have  conferred  it  on  many  who  have 
no  just  appreciation  of  its  importance  and  who 
use  it  to  promote  selfish  ends  of  the  lowest 
order.  The  coward,  the  sycophant  and  the 
hypocrite  alike  enjoy  it  and  honorable  men 
tremble 

“Before  a sensual  bigot’s  nod, 

A wretch  who  shrines  his  lust  in  heaven, 

And  makes  a pander  of  his  God.” 

While  on  the  other  hand  this  right  cannot  be 
conferred  on  one  more  worthy  and  who  will 
appreciate  it  better  than  the  woman. 

“Nor  lives  there,  under  heaven’s  expanse, 

One  who  would  prize,  would  worship  thee, 

And  thy  hold  spirit,  more  than  she.” 

If,  indeed,  you  have  a spirit  worthy  of  wor- 
ship. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I ask  that  the  proposition  be 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

To  recommit  said  Proposition  to  a Select  Committee  of 
one,  with  instructions  to  amend  as  follows : 

Strike  out  from  line  one  the  word  “male”,  and  from  line 
six  the  words  “he  resides”,  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
word  “residing.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“Every  citizen  of  the  United  States  of  twenty-one 
years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the  State  one 
year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of  the  county, 
township  or  ward  in  which  residing,  such  time  as  may  he 
provided  by  law,  shall  have  the  qualifications  of  an  elec- 
tor, and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all  elections.” 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I wish  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  would  withdraw  that 
proposition,  and  let  this  thing  be  submitted  on 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Summit 
[Mr.  Voris].  There  is  a great  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  effect,  even  if  this  amendment 
should  prevail,  that  it  will  accomplish.  It  ap- 
pears to  my  mind  that  it  will  do  no  earthly 
good,  and  I think  the  friends  of  this  measure 
had  better  have  it  withdrawn. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Some  gentleman  at  my 
left  says,  “withdraw  that  foolish  proposition  of 
yours.”  I was  about  to  say,  if  the  Convention 
desired  it,  I have  no  objection  to  withdrawing 
it,  but  I dislike  to  do  it  on  the  suggestion  that 
it  is  a foolish  proposition.  However,  with  the 
consent  of  the  Convention,  I withdraw  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I object. 

Mr.  IIUMPHREVILLE.  I would  like  to 
have  a vote  taken  upon  that  question  to  see  how 


many  men  there  are  in  this  Convention  that  are 
chivalrous  enough  to  say  that  women  shall  have 
equal  rights  with  men.  I am  in  favor  of  the 
amendment  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock].  I am  also  in  favor, 
if  that  fail  here — and  I fear  it  will — of  submit- 
ting the  question  to  the  people  under  the  prop- 
osition proposed  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  this  subject.  I hope  the  amendment 
will  not  be  withdrawn. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I have  no  anxiety  to 
withdraw  it.  As  there  seems  to  be  objection,  I 
do  not  ask  leave  to  withdraw  it,  but  make  this 
request,  if  I may  be  allowed,  that  the  vote  be 
taken  upon  this  question  at  this  point,  and  that 
any  further  discussion  of  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  be  post- 
poned until  the  consideration  of  the  report  made 
by  him. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  gentleman  from  Medina 
[Mr.  Humphreville]  is  a lawyer.  I wish  he 
would  inform  us  why,  in  his  opinion,  if  the 
word  “ male”  be  stricken  out,  it  does  not,  by  the 
Constitution,  absolutely  secure  to  women  be- 
yond the  power  of  legislation,  the  right  to  vote. 
I understood  him  to  suggest  that  he  hoped  then 
some  further  provision  would  be  made  by 
which  they  would  be  enabled  to  vote,  and  I un- 
derstood the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  to  suggest  that  this  would  not  ab- 
solutely secure  the  right,  but  only  enable  the 
Legislature  to  give  it  to  women.  If  I did  not 
misunderstand  him,  that  was  what  he  stated. 
I wish  to  understand  how  or  why  it  fails  to  se- 
cure to  women  just  exactly  in  the  same  man- 
ner that  it  does  to  men  the  right  to  vote  ? 

Mr.  BARNET.  The  gentleman  from  Medina 
[Mr.  Humphreville]  has  made  a proposition 
here  that  makes  it  necessary  for  me  to  say  a 
word.  I object  to  the  test.  The  vote  I shall 
give  upon  that  question  is  no  test  of  my  senti- 
ments. My  sentiments  are  that  if  ladies  wish 
to  vote,  and  we  can  have  a declaration  from  a 
majority  of  them  to  that  effect,  that  they  shall 
then  exercise  that  right.  If  they  do  not  wish 
the  privilege,  I am  not  in  favor  of  forcing  it 
upon  them.  I shall,  therefore,  vote  against  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman,  but  I am  willing 
to  leave  the  question  to  the  ladies  themselves. 

Mr.  VORIS.  As  a matter  of  information 
to  the  gentleman  from  Preble  [Mr.  Bar- 
net],  I would  like  to  say  that  a good  many 
thousand  of  the  women  of  the  State  of  Ohio 
are  petitioning  at  the  hands  of  this  Conven- 
tion that  they  may  so  provide  in  its  opera- 
tion that  they  may  become  voters.  Those  who 
do  not  want  to  vote  will  not  be  compelled  to, 
but  shall  those  who  demand  this  right  be  re- 
fused because  others  do  not  wish  to  assume  the 
responsibility?  If  they  have  (his  right,  if  it 
inheres  in  woman  at  all,  if  a single  woman  de- 
mands at  the  hands  of  the  men  of  the  State  that 
she  should  have  the  right  conferred  upon  her, 
we  do  injustice  to  that  woman  if  we  say  she 
shall  not  have  the  opportunity  of  exercising 
the  privilege  and  performing  the  duties  that 
the  franchise  confers  upon  the  citizen.  Now, 
as  a test,  to  see  how  many  gentlemen  upon  this 
floor  have  the  magnanimity,  the  sense  of  justice, 
to  say  that  the  women  of  the  State  shall  have 
this  right — I mean  those  that  demand  it — I want 
to  have  this  vote  made  here  to-day. 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Powell,  Hill,  Voris. 


1971 


March  11,  1874.] 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
proposition  to  re-commit  to  a Committee  of 
One,  with  instruction  to  strike  out  the  word 
“male.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  that  a motion  to  re-com- 
mit  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris],  or  is  it  the  Article  upon 
the  Elective  Franchise? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  by  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock.] 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  the  proposition  to  re- 
commit, a proposition  to  re-commit  the  general 
Article  in  relation  to  franchise,  or  to  re-commit 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Summit 
[Mr.  Voris.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  general  Proposition 
No.  203,  reported  by  the  Committee  on  the 
Elective  Franchise,  that  is  under  consideration. 
The  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  is,  that  the  Proposition  be  re-com- 
mitted to  a Committee  of  One,  with  instructions. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  Secretary  proceeded  to  call  the  Roll. 

Mr.  HILL,  when  his  name  was  called,  said: 
I am  on  the  Committee  that  has  recommended 
the  Proposition  on  Woman’s  Suffrage.  I signed 
the  Report,  and  I propose  to  vote  for  it ; and  I 
make  this  statement  lest  I may  be  misunderstood 
in  giving  this  vote.  I regard  this  as  not  a 
proper  test.  I vote  No. 

Mr.  VORIS  having  voted  in  the  affirmative, 
when  the  Secretary  had  completed  the  call  of 
the  Roll,  and  before  the  result  was  announced, 
said : I am  satisfied  that  the  vote  which  may  be 
given  upon  this  Proposition  may  be  subject  to 
misconstruction.  I ask  leave  to  change  my 
vote. 

Leave  was  given,  and  Mr.  Voris  voted  No. 

The  result  was  then  announced — yeas  16,  nays 
58,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Carbery,  Chapin,  Cook,  Foran,  Gurley, 
Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  McCor- 
mick, Merrill,  Mitchener,  Pease,  Rowland, 
Sears,  Thompson,  Watson — 16. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Campbell,  Clark 
of  Ross,  Coats,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Dor- 
sey, Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
Kraemer,  McBride,  Miner,  McCauley,  Neal, 
Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Sample, 
Scribner,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Townsend,  Towns- 
ley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh, 
Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young 
of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 58. 

So  Mr.  Hitchcock’s  motion  was  not  agreed 
to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
finally  agreeing  to  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Some  gentlemen  understand 
that  this  vote  is  in  some  degree  connected  with 
woman’s  suffrage.  I desire  to  have  the  Chair 
state  whether  it  is  or  not. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  question  is  not  con- 
nected with  the  Proposition.  The  question  now 
is  upon  agreeing  to  Proposition  No.  203,  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Elective  Fran- 


chise. It  does  not  involve  Proposition  No.  211 
at  ail. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I ask  that  it  be  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  final  reading  has 
been  had.  The  question  is  upon  agreeing  to 
the  Proposition. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted 
— yeas  69,  nays  5,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Campbell,  Car- 
bery, Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer, 
Dorsey,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
Kraemer,  McBride,  McCormick,  McCauley, 
Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Pond,  Powell,  Rowland,  Sam- 
ple, Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Thompson,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Voorhes, 
Voris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West,  White  of  Hock- 
ing, Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young 
of  Noble,  President — 69. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Hoadly,  Steedman,  Tyler,  Van  Val- 
kenburgh, Wilson — 5. 

So  Proposition  No.  203  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Proposition  will  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Revision,  to  be 
embodied  in  the  Constitution.  Miscellaneous 
business  is  now  in  order. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Jefferson.  I offer  the  follow- 
ing Resolution : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Resolution  No.  184: 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Schedule  are  hereby 
instructed  to  report  a plan  for  a separate  submission  of 
each  Article  of  the  Constitution  to  a vote  of  the  people 
for  approval  or  rejection. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I give  notice  that  I wish  to  dis- 
cuss that  resolution. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  resolution  will  lie 
over  under  the  rule. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  that  the  Convention 
now  proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
Proposition  No.  211,  and  general  debate  is  still 
in  order.  Proposition  No.  222  will  also  be  con- 
sidered at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Before  the  discussion  is  re- 
sumed, I shall  ask  unanimous  consent  to  with- 
draw so  much  of  the  Proposition  as  is  contained 
in  the  first  section  of  Proposition  No.  211,  as  re- 
lates to  the  franchise  being  conferred  upon 
soldiers  in  the  service  of  the  United  States.  I 
understand  that  this  morning  that  was  made  a 
separate  and  independent  section  of  the  Propo- 
sition that  has  just  been  adopted,  so  that  it 
would  be  a mere  supererogation  to  embody  it  in 
this  Proposition.  The  Proposition  then  will  be 
simply  section  one  as  reported  by  the  Select 
Committee  on  Woman  Suffrage,  superadded 
thereto  the  question  of  submission  of  this  Pro- 
position to  the  people. 


1972 


[135th 


CONCERNING  THE  MODE  OF  SUBMISSION. 

Herron,  Albright,  Dorsey,  Kerr,  Yoris,  Andrews,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


Mr.  HERRON.  I move  that  general  debate 
on  the  proposition  now  close. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  now 
read  section  one  of  the  Proposition. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  1.  Every  citizen  of  the  United  States  of  the  age 
of  twenty -one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of 
the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of  the 
county,  township  or  ward,  in  which  he  or  she  resides, 
such  time  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the 
qualifications  of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all 
elections.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  amend- 
ments, the  Secretary  will  read  section  two. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  2.  A separate  ballot  may  be  given,  to  be  depos- 
ited in  a separate  box.  Upon  the  ballots  for  said  pro- 
posed section  one,  shall  be  written  or  printed  the  words, 
‘Article  5,  Elective  Franchise,  Section  1— Woman’s  Suf- 
frage, Yes.’  And  upon  the  ballots  given  against  said 
proposed  substitute  shall  be  written  or  printed  the 
wovds,  ‘Article  5,  Elective  Franchise,  Section  1— Woman’s 
Suffrage,  No.’  ” 

If  a majority  of  said  ballots  cast  at  said 
separate  submission,  shall  be  in  favor  of  said 
proposed  substitute,  then  the  same  shall  be 
adopted,  and  thereupon  become  section  one  of 
Article  Y of  the  Constitution  ; otherwise  not. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I move  to  amend  by  strik- 
ing out  the  words  “separate  submission,”  and 
inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  word  “ election.” 

The  SECRETARY.  The  section  will  read  : 

“If  a majority  of  said  ballots  cast  at  said  election  shall 
be  in  favor  of  said  proposed  substitute,  then  the  same 
shall  be  adopted,  and  thereupon  become  section  I of  Ar- 
ticle 5 of  the  Constitution ; otherwise  not.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
ordering  the  Proposition  to  a third  reading, 
and  fixing  the  time. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  like  to  have  the 
Proposition  which  has  just  been  voted  upon, 
read.  I doubt  whether  it  is  thoroughly  under- 
stood. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
it  again  with  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Guernsey  [Mr.  Albright]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  2.  A separate  ballot  may  be  given,  to  be  depos- 
ited in  a separate  box;  upon  the  ballots  tor  said  proposed 
section  one  shall  be  written  or  printed  the  words  ‘Arti- 
cle 5,  Elective  Franchise,  Section  1— Woman’s  Suffrage, 
Yes.’  And  upon  the  ballots  given  against  said  proposed 
substitute  shall  be  written  or  printed  the  words,  ‘Article 
5,  Elective  Franchise,  Sec  1— Woman’s  Suffrage,  No.’ 

“If  a majority  of  said  ballots  cast  at  said  election  shall 
be  in  favor  of  said  proposed  substitute,  then  the  same 
shall  be  adopted,  and  thereupon  become  section  1 of  Ar- 
ticle 5 of  the  Constitution;  otherwise  not.’’ 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That,  then,  is  a separate  elec- 
tion. 

Mr.  KERR.  No,  sir;  it  requires  a majority 
of  all  the  votes  cast  at  that  election. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  All  right. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I wish  that  might  be  read  again 
for  the  information  of  the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  state  for 
the  benefit  of  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
V oris].  The  gentleman  from  Guernsey  [Mr. 
Albright],  moves  to  amend  section  two  in  the 
second  paragraph  by  striking  out  the  words 
“separate  submission,”  and  in  place  of  those 
words,  insert  the  word  “election,”  so  that  it 
will  read : 


If  a majority  of  said  ballots  cast  at  said  election  shall 
be  in  favor  of  said  proposed  substitute,  then  the  same 
shall  be  adopted,  and  thereupon  become  section  1 of  Ar- 
ticles of  the  Constitution;  otherwise  not. 

Mr.  ANDREW'S.  It  should  be  a majority  of 
“the”  ballots,  not  a majority  of  “said”  ballots. 
It  refers  to  the  ballots  cast  for  or  against  the 
proposition.  It  should  be  a majority  of  the 
ballots  cast  at  said  election. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  then  read : 

If  a majority  of  the  ballots  cast  at  said  election  shall 
be  in  favor  of  said  proposed  substitute,  then  the  same 
shall  be  adopted,  and  thereupon  become  section  1 of  Ar- 
ticle 5 of  the  Constitution ; otherwise  not. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I would  like  to  hear  that  stated 
again. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  second  paragraph 
reads  thus : 

If  a majority  of  the  ballots  cast  at  said  election  shall 
be  in  favor  of  said  proposed  substitute,  etc. 

The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  An- 
drewsI  moves  to  strike  out  the  word  “said”  be- 
fore the  word  “ballot”  and  insert  the  word  “the” 
so  that  it  will  read,  “ majority  of  the  bal- 
lots.” 

Mr.  YORIS.  1 am  not  satisfied  with  that. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I did  not  suppose  my  friend 
from  Summit  [Mr.  Yoris],  would  be  satisfied 
with  it. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I do  not  think  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Andrews]  will  be  satisfied 
with  it,  when  he  understands  it. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I do  not  know  whether  I 
perfectly  understand  the  first  section.  I have 
not  read  it,  but  my  idea  is  simply  this : that,  if 
we  are  to  make  a radical  change  in  our  mode  of 
voting,  the  change  should  be  sustained  by  a 
majority  of  all  the  voters,  and  that  this  section 
of  the  Constitution  should  not  be  carried  into 
effect  upon  a smaller  vote  than  the  other  sec- 
tions of  the  Constitution.  This  same  question 
arose  upon  the  consideration  of  the  proposition 
of  my  friend  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  and 
this  very  change  which  is  contemplated  by  my 
friend  was  made  at  that  time — at  the  introduc- 
tion of  that  proposition. 

We  propose  to  submit  every  Article  of  this 
Constitution  to  the  vote  of  a majority  of  the 
people  of  the  State,  and  my  object  is  in  propos- 
ing this  amendment  that  this  shall  also  be  acted 
upon  and  carried  by  a majority  of  the  votes  of 
the  people  of  the  State.  In  the  Article  proposed 
by  my  friend  from  Summit  [Mr.  Yoris],  if  I 
understand  it,  a separate  vote  shall  be  taken  upon 
this  question  of  woman’s  suffrage,  and  this  shall 
be  given  for  and  against  it,  and  then  the  prop- 
osition is,  that  if  a majority  of  said  votes  are 
found  to  be  in  favor  of  it,  it  shall  be  carried. 

Mr.  VORIS.  That  is  it,  sir. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  That  is  not  precisely  my 
idea,  and  I think  that  we  should  not  allow  such 
discriminations  as  this,  that  while  we  carry  the 
important  provisions  in  this  Constitution  into 
effect  by  the  vote  of  a majority  of  the  people  of 
the  State,  you  may  engraft  woman  suffrage 
upon  our  Constitution  by  a vote  of  one-third  of 
the  people  of  the  State,  because  I know  perfect- 
ly well  that  while  men  advocating  reform  are 
always  zealous,  there  are  a great  many  other 
persons  that  will  not  pay  attention  enough  to 
this  matter  to  vote  upon  it  at  all,  and  the  conse- 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  MODE  OF  SUBMISSION. 1973 

March  11, 1874.]  Andrews,  Yoris,  West,  Hoadly,  etc. 


quence  will  be  that  while  we  express  in  terms 
that  this  Constitution,  which  you  are  framing, 
shall  be  adopted  by  a majority  of  the  votes  of 
the  people  of  the  State,  we  are  to  step  to  one 
side  and  allow  this  woman’s  suffrage  to  be  graft- 
ed upon  our  new  Constitution  by  one-third  or 
one-quarter  of  the  votes  of  the  people  of  the 
State.  It  seems  to  me  that  so  radical  a change 
in  our  system  of  suffrage  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
should  not  be  carried  by  anything  less  than  a 
majority  of  the  votes  of  the  people  of  the  State. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I would  like  to  inquire  if  the 
gentleman  voted  for  just  such  a submission  as 
this  in  the  Constitution  that  is  now  in  force? 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I never  voted  for  the  sub- 
mission of  woman’s  suffrage  in  any  Constitu- 
tion. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I mean  for  such  a separate  sub- 
mission as  this? 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I cannot  recollect  about 
that.  1 have  never  voted  for  such  a proposition 
as  this  in  our  Constitution,  and  I have  grown 
wiser  if  I did. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I believe  the  question  contem- 
plated by  this  amendment  is, whether  in  the  votes 
cast  for  or  against  this  question  they  are  to 
decide  the  question  for  the  State,  or  whether 
those  who  do  not  vote  as  well  as  those  who  do, 
shall  be  counted  against  this  proposition.  This 
is  no  change,  this  is  no  innovation  upon  the 
mode  in  which  we  have  submitted  separate  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  to  the  people  for 
their  votes.  In  the  Constitution  of  1850-51, 1 
find  the  question  of  license  or  no  license  was 
submitted  in  a separate  ballot  to  the  electors  of 
the  State  at  the  election  for  the  ratification  of 
that  Constitution.  I simply  want  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  eighteenth 
section  of  the  Schedule.  It  is  as  follows : 

Mr.  WEST.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit 
me,  I shall  state  that  as  I am  on  the  Schedule 
Committee  that  it  is  my  purpose  to  incorporate 
in  the  Report  of  the  Committee  a plan  for  the 
submission  of  these  separate  Articles,  so  that 
they  shall  all  be  voted  for  on  one  ticket,  and 
that  every  man  that  votes  will  be  compelled  to 
vote  for  or  against  every  proposition,  and  it 
would  make  no  difference  whether  you  have  the 
word  “ election”  or  “ separate  submission.”  If 
the  proposition  is  not  erased  from  the  ticket,  it 
will  be  deemed  to  be  voted  for.  The  simple 
erasure  of  a proposition  is  indicative  of  a vote. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  permit  me  a question? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Whether,  at  the  time  pro- 
portional representation  in  the  election  of 
judges  was  under  discussion,  it  was  not  sub- 
stantially agreed,  by  this  Convention,  that,  on 
that  subject,  a majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  at 
that  election  should  be  necessary  to  incorporate 
that  provision  in  the  Constitution  ? And  if  that 
is  true,  ought  it  not  to  be  true  of  this  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  That  is  the  proposition  I am 
submitting.  Everybody  shall  be  required  to 
vote  on  every  proposition  that  is  submitted  to 
that  election. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I am  interested  in  the  ques- 
tion of  minority  representation.  I am  on  that 
Committee  to  which  the  gentleman  refers,  as 
well  as  he.  It  was  not  left  to  us,  but  was  put  in 
that  Article  on  Minority  Representation. 


Mr.  WEST.  But  I think  we  have  the  prerog- 
ative of  bringing  in  a general  plan  of  submit- 
ting propositions. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  But  the  delegate  will  permit 
me  to  state  that  the  plan  must  be  subject  to  the 
instruction  we  have  already  received  from  the 
Convention  in  the  matter  of  minority  repre- 
sentation. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  plan  will  not  be  any  differ- 
ent from  that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hope  not. 

Mr.  WEST.  Strike  out  “this”  and  insert  the 
word  “the”  will  simply  conform  to  it.  But  if  we 
have  all  the  propositions  printed  on  one  ticket 
and  a simple  erasure  is  indicative  of  a vote, 
every  gentleman  will  be  compelled  to  vote  in 
accordance  and  with  that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  that  is  the  gentleman’s 
plan  he  will  find  a member  on  the  Schedule 
Committee  differing  from  him  at  the  start.  If 
he  will  reverse  it,  I shall  agree  with  him. 

Mr.  WEST.  That  is  remarkable. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  is  not  so  remarkable  as 
the  plan  which  makes  every  careless  man  a 
voter  for  the  proposition. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  was  adopted  in  the  Illinois 
Convention,  and  that  Convention  has  been 
quoted  here  as  authority.  This  is  simply 
adopting  that  plan,  that  is  all. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  respectfully  suggest 
to  the  gentleman,  if  he  will  permit  me,  that  the 
fatal  feature  in  his  plan  is,  that  it  makes  every 
careless  man  a voter. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  But  not  against  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  will  make  every  careless 
voter  vote  for  both  of  them. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Yoris]  allow  me? 

Mr.  YORIS.  I will  if  I do  not  lose  the  floor 
by  that  means.  I am  willing  to  be  interrupted 
for  a moment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Summit  [Mr.  Yoris]  yield  the  floor? 

Mr.  YORIS.  Not  unless  I am  entitled  to  it 
again. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  must  de- 
cide for  himself  whether  he  yields  the  floor  or 
not. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I simply  want  to  make  a state- 
ment. I do  not  propose  to  occupy  the  attention 
of  the  Convention  but  for  a moment.  I simply 
want  to  show  the  Convention  by  the  light  of 
history,  that  the  proposition  made  by  the  Select 
Committee  is  one  that  is  sanctioned  by  the  ap- 
proval of  the  voters  of  this  State  as  well  as  the 
Convention  of  which  the  gentleman  from  Cuy- 
ahoga [Mr.  Andrews]  was  a memberj  and  who 
signed  the  Constitution,  and  by  it  submitted 
to  the  approval  of  the  people  in  1851.  The 
eighteenth  section  of  the  Schedule  of  that  Con- 
stitution provides  as  follows : 

Sec.  18.  At  the  time  when  the  votes  of  the  electors 
shall  be  taken  for  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  this  Con- 
stitution the  additional  section  in  the  words  following, 
to  wit:  “ No  license  to  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors 

shall  hereafter  be  granted  in  this  State;  but  the  General 
Assembly  may  by  law  provide  against  evils  resulting 
therefrom,”  shall  be  separately  submitted  to  the  electors 
for  adoption  or  rejection  in  form  following,  to  wit:  A 
separa  e ballot  may  be  given  by  every  elector  and  de- 
posited in  a separate  box.  Upon  the  ballot  given  for  said 
parate  amendment  shall  be  written  or  printed  or  partly 
written  and  partly  printed  the  words:  “License  to  sell 
intoxicating  liquors,  Yes!”  and  upon  the  ballots  given 
against  said  amendment  inlike  manner  the  words : “ Li- 


1974 


CONCERNING  THE  MODE  OF  SUBMISSION. [135th 

Griswold,  Voris,  Dorsey,  Pease.  [Wednesday, 


cense  to  sell  intoxicating  liquors,  No.”  If  at  the  said 
election,  a majority  of  all  the  votes  given  for  and  against 
said  amendment  shall  contain  the  words:  “License  to 

sell  intoxicating  liquors,  No,”  then  said  amendment  shall 
be  a separate  section  of  Article  Fifteen  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  No,  sir.  When  this  question 
of  the  right  of  a doggery  keeper  to  sell  liquors  by 
the  dram,  that  not  only  carries  sorrow  to  almost 
every  family — yea,  to  almost  every  person  in  the 
land,  the  blighting  influences  of  which  curses 
society  from  one  side  of  the  State  to  the  other, 
when  that  question  was  submitted  to  the  voters 
of  the  State,  it  was  sufficient  that  a majority  of 
the  votes  cast  upon  that  proposition  should  de- 
cide whether  the  State  of  Ohio  should  be  cursed 
or  saved  from  the  evils  of  dram  selling.  Now, 
has  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  An- 
drews] become  so  much  wiser  in  the  course  of 
twenty  years,  that  when  the  question  of  the 
right  of  woman  to  be  enfranchised,  and  to  be 
made  the  recognized  equal  of  us  gentlemen 
upon  this  floor,  that  she  may  not  be  put  upon 
as  good  footing  as  he  put  dram  sellers  twenty 
years  ago,  in  the  Constitution  of  1851  ? Gentle- 
men may  take  just  such  a course  as  they  please 
in  this  matter.  I simply  want  to  test  the  judg- 
ment and  magnanimity  of  this  body  by  the  his- 
tory of  this  State  upon  the  mode  of  separate 
submission. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I have  a modification  of 
my  proposition,  to  which  I wish  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Convention  for  a moment;  that, 
I think,  will  save  further  controversy  on  this 
question.  As  a representative  of  the  Select 
Committee,  I desire  to  take  no  unfair  advan- 
tage of  gentlemen  upon  this  floor.  I want  no 
submission  of  this  question  that  does  not  fairly 
submit  it  to  the  people  of  the  State.  All  that  I 
ask  is,  that  fairness  should  characterize  the  acts 
of  the  Convention,  and  when  we  submit  this 
proposition,  that  we  do  it  in  a manner  that  not 
only  shall  be  fair,  but  commend  itself  to  the 
good  sense  of  the  people  of  the  State.  Our  re- 
commendation follows  in  the  line  of  precedent, 
such  as  was  given  by  the  framers  of  the  pre- 
sent Constitution.  I supposed  that  we  were 
doing  what  an  intelligent  sense  of  justice  to- 
day would  approve,  but  if  this  Convention  are 
not  willing  to  go  with  me  on  such  a proposi- 
tion, I am  willing  to  allow  that  the  voters  of 
Ohio  should  determine  this  great  question  as 
they  do  any  other  question  that  may  be  submit- 
ted to  the  people  in  separate  propositions.  In 
behalf  of  the  women  of  Ohio,  I say  to  this  Con- 
vention that  all  that  is  asked  at  your  hands  is, 
that  this  matter  shall  stand  upon  the  same  foot- 
ing as  other  separate  propositions  to  be  sub- 
mitted in  the  Schedule.  I expect  the  magnani- 
mity and  sense  of  justice  of  the  delegates  upon 
this  floor  will  not  deny  to  women  the  privilege 
of  having  her  claim  voted  upon  by  the  intelli- 
gent sense  of  justice  of  the  electors  of  this 
State. 

The  modification  that  I propose,  I will  read 
for  the  information  of  the  Convention  : 

“That  section  one  of  Proposition  No.  211  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  the  Schedule,  with  instructions  that 
the  same  be  separately  submitted  with  the  other  separate 
Propositions,  aud  in  the  same  mode  as  the  other  separate 
Propositions.” 


If  gentlemen  will  take  that  view  of  the  ques- 
tion, it  will  end  all  controversy  here,  and  will 
leave  the  question  of  a separate  submission  to 
be  acted  upon  by  the  Convention  at  that  time. 

I do  not  desire  to  occupy  the  time  of  this  Con- 
vention. The  courtesy  and  kindness  of  the 
Convention  were  extended  to  me  too  long  the 
other  day,  when  I expressed  my  views  at  too 
great  length,  to  make  it  proper  for  me  again  to 
ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Convention  to  affirm- 
atively advocate  or  review  the  arguments  made 
against  this  proposition.  I am  satisfied  to  leave 
this  question  without  further  discussion,  so  far 
as  I am  concerned,  and  I,  therefore,  now,  to 
save  the  consumption  of  time,  offer  the  amend- 
ment as  a substitute  for  the  pending  proposition 
to  section  2. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  substitute  which  the  gentleman  from  Sum- 
mit [Mr.  Voris]  has  offered  for  section  2. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“That  section  1 of  Proposition  211  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Schedule,  with  instructions  that  the  same 
be  separately  submitted  with  the  other  separate  proposi- 
tions, in  the  same  mode  of  such  other  separate  proposi- 
tions.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  per- 
mit me,  I shall  read  a proposition  which  I think 
will  commend  itself  to  him. 

That  the  Committee  on  Schedule  be  instructed 
to  report  a proposition  for  submitting  to  the 
separate  vote  of  the  electors  of  the  State,  at  the 
same  time  and  in  the  same  manner  that  such 
other  propositions  are  submitted  to  a separate 
vote,  the  following  proposition : 

“Every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of  the  age  of 
twenty-one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of  the 
State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of  the 
county,  township  or  ward  in  which  he  or  she  resides  such 
time  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the  qualifica- 
tions of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all  the  elec- 
tions.” 

If  the  gentleman  will  accept  that  as  a substi- 
tute, I shall  offer  it  and  offer  it  at  the  proper  time. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I desire  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  to  the 
present  Constitution.  I do  it  with  the  view  of 
saving  any  confusion  in  the  Article  that  he  pro- 
poses to  submit.  I fear,  from  what  I hear,  about 
the  Convention,  that  there  may  be  some  confu- 
sion about  it.  The  Article  on  ‘‘Amendments  ” 
to  the  present  Constitution,  section  3,  provides : 

“But  no  amendment  of  this  Constitution,  agreed  upon 
by  any  Convention?  held  in  pursuance  of  this  Article, 
shall  take  effect  until  the  same  shall  have  been  submitted 
to  the  electors  of  the  State,  and  adopted  by  a majority  of 
those  voting  thereon.” 

So  that  I apprehend  that  any- provision  that 
may  be  made,  in  whatever  language  it  may  be 
embraced,  if  it  does  not  comply  with  this  prop- 
osition, will  be  a useless  proposition.  I call  the 
attention  of  the  gentleman  to  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I supposed  that  this  matter  of 
the  mode  of  submission  was  settled  when  we 
were  on  the  debate  of  the  Proposition  submitted 
by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing], 
on  the  subject  of  proportional  voting  in  elect- 
ing the  supreme  court  judges  of  the  State.  It 
was  determined  there  that  a majority  of  all  the 
votes  cast  at  the  election  should  be  required,  in 
order  to  carry  the  plan  which  he  proposed. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  there  will  be  a large 
number  of  propositions  submitted  for  a separate 


Day] 


1975 


CONCERNING  THE  MODE  OF  SUBMISSION- 

March  11,  1874.]  Dorsey,  Yoris,  Griswold,  Humphreyille,  etc. 


vote  when  this  Constitution  comes  to  be  sub- 
mitted. I shall  oppose,  as  a matter  of  course, 
the  introduction  of  separate  ballot  boxes  for 
each  of  these  separate  propositions.  We  shall 
not  get  a vote  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio 
in  that  way.  I propose  that  instructions  be 
submitted  to  the  Committee  on  Schedule,  to  so 
prepare  a list  of  the  separate  propositions  to  be 
submitted,  as  to  have  them  printed  on  the  same 
ticket,  and  that  each  and  every  voter  mark  upon 
that  ticket  his  aye,  or  no,  with  regard  to  the 
manner  in  which  he  wants  to  vote  on  these 
propositions;  and  I take  occasion  to  say  here, 
that  when  the  resolution,  introduced  to-day  by 
the  gentleman  from  Jefferson  [Mr.  Clark] 
comes  up,  I shall  vote  for  that.  I desire  to  have 
the  privilege,  as  an  elector  of  the  State  of  Ohio, 
and  I desire  to  grant  the  same  thimg  to  every 
elector  in  the  State,  to  vote  separately  on  each 
and  every  Article  to  be  submitted  to  that  peo- 
ple. I would  ask  if  it  is  in  order  to  move  now 
a substitute  for  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Summit  [Mr.  Yoris]? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  at  present.  There 
are  now  two  amendments  upon  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I give  notice,  when  it  is  in 
order,  I shall  move  an  amendment  to  the  Pro- 
position of  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
Yoris],  which  will  embody  the  idea  that  I have 
expressed  to  the  Convention,  that  the  Committee 
on  Schedule  shall  be  instructed  to  report  on  the 
proposition  to  submit  by  a separate  vote  to  the 
electors,  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  man- 
ner in  which  other  propositions  are  submitted 
for  a separate  vote,  the  Proposition  embodying 
the  subject  of  Woman  Suffrage.  I intend  to 
vote  for  the  submission  of  that  Proposition  to 
the  electors  of  the  State.  I am  opposed  to  the 
thing  myself;  but  I am  perfectly  willing  that 
the  electors  of  the  State  should  have  a right  to  ' 
express  their  opinion  on  the  subject,  at  the 
same  time,  and  in  the  same  place,  and  in  the 
same  manner  that  other  propositions  are  voted 
on.  I expect  to  vote  upon  that,  and  I desire 
that  each  and  every  elector  of  the  State  should 
do  the  same  thing.  Let  the  matter  have  a fair 
showing  for  the  people  of  the  State.  Upon  its 
own  merits,  at  that  time,  let  it  stand  or  fall. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I have  no  objection  to  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Andrews. 1 With  the  consent 
of  the  Convention,  I will  accept  it. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Now  I understand  that  the 
regular  order  in  which  this  thing  should  be 
considered  is  to  take  up  section  one,  and  dispose 
of  it  before  we  go  to  section  two. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Section  one  has  been 
passed  already,  no  amendment  being  offered  to 
it,  and  section  two  has  been  taken  up.  The 
question  is  now  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Summit  [Mr.  Yoris],  to  strike  out 
section  two,  and  insert  the  substitute. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  motion  is  to  refer  the  whole 
Proposition  to  the  Committee  on  Schedule,  to 
report  back. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  to  refer  with  instruc- 
tions to  have  it  submitted.  Can  that  question 
be  got  at  in  that  direct  way  ? I object  to  this, 
as  being  out  of  order.  It  is  ordering  a question 
to  be  submitted  without  having  a vote  upon  the 
question  at  all. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  commit 
supersedes  the  motion  to  amend. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  That  will  not  super- 
sede the  necessity  of  a vote  upon  the  whole 
Article. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  will  supersede  the  ne- 
cessity of  a vote  upon  the  Article  itself. 

Mr.  HUMPHREYILLE.  O,  no. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Yes,  it  does.  It  must  be 
voted  for  with  the  whole  section.  In  that  way 
we  get  rid  of  a vote  upon  this  question,  re- 
quiring fifty-three  members  to  carry  it,  except 
as  it  will  be  voted  for  on  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Revision.  The  instructions  are  re- 
ported back  with  the  clause  for  submission  after 
having  the  Convention  pass  upon  the  question 
whether  it  shall  be  submitted  or  not,  and  I sub- 
mit that  that  indirect  way  of  making  the  Con- 
stitution is  not  within  the  rule. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  instruction  will, 
nevertheless,  involve  the  question,  as  the  gen- 
tleman says,  whether  they  will  give  the  instruc- 
tions or  not. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Then  it  must  have  fifty- 
three  votes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  necessarily. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  the  whole  gordian 
knot  will  be  cut  at  once  if  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Yoris]  will  accept  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey]. That  will  end  the  thing  and  bring  it 
squarely  to  a vote  now. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I wish  that  might  be  read. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  Chair  will  under- 
stand my  point  of  order,  that  it  may  be  a sub- 
mission of  the  question  to  the  voters  without  a 
majority  vote,  unless  the  Chair  holds  it  re- 
quires fifty-three  to  carry  this  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga,  [Mr.  Griswold],  will  see  that  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Schedule  will 
have  to  be  passed  by  fifty-three  votes.  It  is 
competent  to  instruct  the  Committee  to  report; 
whether  the  Convention  will  agree  to  that  re- 
port or  not,  is  another  question. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Let  me  inquire  whether  the 
rule  requires  fifty-three  votes  to  agree  to  the 
Report  of  the  Committee,  or  only  a majority? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Committee  on 
Schedule,  reporting  the  Proposition,  will  re- 
quire fifty-three  votes. 

Mr.  BURNS.  To  adopt  the  Proposition  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir.  The  question 
is,  that  the  Committee  be  instructed  to  report  a 
separate  article  referring  this  article  to  the  peo- 
ple. 

Mr.  WEST.  I hope  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Yoris]  will  withdraw  that  mo- 
tion. 

Mr.  YORIS.  The  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  has  gone  to  the 
Secretary’s  desk  to  be  read.  I would  like  to 
hear  it  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Schedule  be  instruct- 
ed to  report  a proposition  for  submitting  to  a separate 
vote  of  the  electors  of  the  State,  at  the  same  time  and  in 
the  same  manner  which  other  propositions  are  submitted 
for  a separate  vote,  the  following  proposition: 

The  PRESIDENT.  Then  follows  Proposi- 
tion No.  211. 


1976 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. [135th 

Voris,  Humphreville,  Powell,  Griswold,  West,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


Mr.  VORIS.  I have  no  sort  of  objection  to 
that  course  being  taken,  that  I know  of. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  seems  to  me 
that  there  may  be  no  trouble  about  this  matter. 
We  are  passing  upon  the  proposition,  but  be- 
fore it  is  adopted,  as  the  sense  of  Convention, 
must  be  agreed  to  by  a vote  of  fifty-three  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention,  otherwise  it  will  be 
lost  as  a proposition.  Now,  section  one  has 
been  substantially  agreed  to  by  the  Convention 
and  the  only  remaining  question  is,  how  shall 
this  submission  be  made  and  then  the  proposi- 
tion that  is  now  proposed,  either  the  proposi- 
tion by  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Vo- 
ris], or  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey], it  is  immaterial  which  proposition  is 
adopted,  will  become  a part  of  the  proposition 
and  will  be  subject  to  a vote  upon  the  adoption 
of  the  whole  Article  by  this  Convention  and  in 
order  to  pass,  the  whole  thing  must  secure  fifty- 
three  votes  or  it  will  fail. 

Mr.  VORIS.  There  has  been  no  amendment 
offered  to  the  first  section. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  has  been  passed 
substantially  without  amendment  and  with  the 
idea  that  it  is  correct,  if  it  is  to  be  adopted  at 
all. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  if  it  is  now  in 
order  to  move  an  amendment  to  the  mode  in 
which  Proposition  No.  211  is  submitted  to  be 
voted  upon  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Except  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  instructions  of  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  would  come  in  as  a part 
of  his  instructions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  competent  to  amend 
his  instructions. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  sir,  it  is  not  to  amend 
his  instructions,  but  to  amend  the  matter  that 
he  proposes  to  refer. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  would  not  be  in 
order  now. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  there  no  way  in  which 
we  can  amend  at  present,  only  by  amending  the 
instructions?  His  proposition  does  not  meet 
the  matter  which  I propose  to  amend. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order  to 
move  to  amend,  pendiug  the  motion  to  commit. 
The  motion  to  commit  takes  precedence. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I do  not  wish  to  amend  the 
motion  to  re-commit.  My  motion  is  to  amend 
the  matter  that  he  wishes  to  have  re-commit- 
ted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  does  not 
understand  the  Chair.  It  is  not  in  order  to 
move  an  amendment  to  a proposition  which  it 
has  been  moved  to  re-commit.  The  motion  is 
to  commit  with  instructions. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  that  come  back  so  as 
we  can  amend  it? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  will  depend  en- 
tirely upon  whether  the  Convention  agree  to 
commit. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I hope  this  motion  to 
commit  will  not  prevail;  that  this  section  will 
begone  through  with  and  any  amendments  that 
are  needed  may  be  made  and  be  voted  upon, 
and  we  shall  be  done  with  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  There  seems  to  be  a kind  of 
entanglement.  I can  suggest  another  mode  of 
getting  out. 


The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  pause  one  moment?  Has  the 
gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  accepted 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey]? 

Mr.  VORIS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest  that  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris J, 
and  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  be  withdrawn,  and  that  a 
vote  be  taken  upon  the  two  sections  as  they 
now  stand,  and  then  have  the  Proposition  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Schedule,  to  mold 
and  modify  the  submission  so  far  as  to  conform. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I withdraw  my  amendment. 
That  there  may  be  no  misunderstanding  about 
it,  this  withdrawal  is  made  so  that  a square  vote 
may  be  had  upon  the  Proposition,  with  the  first 
and  second  sections  as  they  now  stand,  with  the 
intention  immediately  thereafter  to  have  a 
similar  resolution  or  reference  ordered,  with 
instructions  to  the  Committee  on  Schedule,  after 
the  Convention  have  passed  upon  this. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Is  there  any  amendment 
pending  upon  this  proposition  now,  except  upon 
ordering  it  to  its  final  passage? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  upon  ordering  it  to 
be  engrossed. 

Mr.&HITCHCOCK.  I hope  that  vote  may  be 
taken. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  it  in  order  to  amend? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  now  in  order. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I will  move,  therefore,  the 
substitute  which  I sent  to  the  Chair. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Insert  the  following  after  the  word  “substitute”,  in  the 
last  line  but  one: 

“The  General  Assembly,  at  its  first  session  after  the 
adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  cause  a registration 
to  be  taken  of  all  the  women  in  this  State,  twenty- 
one  years  of  age,  who  would,  if  males,  be  legal  voters,  in 
their  respective  wards  and  townships;  the  returns  of 
which  registration  shall  be  forwarded  to  and  filed  with 
the  Secretary  of  State;  and  shall  also  provide  for  the  sub- 
mission, at  the  next  general  election  for  State  officers,  at 
separate  polls,  under  the  same  regulations  and  penalties 
now  provided  by  law  at  other  general  elections,  the 
question  of  woman  suffrage  to  the  women  of  i he  State, 
who  would  be  legal  voters  at  the  date  of  the  election  if 
they  were  males;  and  if  a majority  equal  in  number  to  a 
majority  of  all  the  women  registered  in  the  State,  shall 
cast  their  ballots  ‘For  Woman’s  Suffrage,  Yes,’  then  the 
same  shall  be  adopted,  and  thereupon  become  section  1 of 
the  Article  of  the  Constitution;  otherwise  not.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  substitute. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I hope  the  vote  may  be  taken 
upon  this  question,  because  quite  a number  of 
the  members  have  declared  themselves  in  favor 
of  this  woman’s  suffrage,  provided  the  women 
have  the  opportunity  to  express  their  vote  upon 
the  subject. 

Upon  Mr.  Powell’s  substitute,  the  yeas  and 
nays  were  taken,  and  resulted— yeas  11,  nays 
6S,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were— 

Messrs.  Barnet,  Coats,  Dorsey,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Mitchener,  Powell,  Shaw,  Townsley,  Tul- 
loss,  Tuttle — 11. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bishop,  Blose, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Campbell,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Clay, 
Cook,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer,  Ewing,  Foran, 
Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley, 


Day.] CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 1977 

March  II,  1874.]  Hitchcock,  Voris,  West,  Hale,  Hunt,  Dorsey,  etc. 


Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphre- 
ville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner,  McCauley, 
Meal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Pond,  Row- 
land, Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Steedman,  Thomp- 
son, Townsend,  Tyler,  Van  Yalkenburgh,  Van 
Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young 
of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble,  President — 68. 

So  the  substitute  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  that  Proposition 
Mo.  211  be  ordered  to  be  engrossed  at  the 
clerk’s  desk,  and  be  read  the  third  time  now. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I wish  the  gentleman  would 
modify  that. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  In  what  form  ? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I want  to  take  the  sense  of  the 
Convention  upon  it,  and  then  have  it  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Schedule  to  report  the  mode 
of  submission. 

Mr.  WEST.  Adopt  it,  and  then  refer  it. 
That  is  the  way  to  do  it. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  Hitchcock’s  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  final  reading. 

Mr.  HALE.  In  order  that  this  Proposition 
shall  be  agreed  to,  must  it  stand  in  the  shape 
that  it  is  now  in?  Can  it  be  changed  after- 
wards ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  a question  the 
Chair  is  not  now  able  to  answer. 

Mr.  BURNS.  By  reference  to  a special  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  HALE.  It  can  now  be  changed  by  re- 
ferring to  a Committee  of  one ; but  if  we  vote 
upon  it  and  adopt  it  now,  it  being  upon  its  final 
reading,  it  cannot  after  that  be  changed,  be- 
cause this  section  2 is  not  in  proper  shape  as  it 
now  stands. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I understand  the  question  is 
upon  the  engrossment  of  the  Proposition. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  now  upon  its  final 
reading. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I would  state  to  the  gentleman 
that  it  can  be  amended  by  a proposition  to  re- 
commit. 

Mr.  HALE.  It  can  now.  What  I was  in- 
quiring was,  whether  it  has  got  to  be  done  now 
or  not  done  at  all. 

Mr.  VORIS.  A motion  to  reconsider  can  be 
made  and  that  motion  can  be  laid  upon  the 
table. 

Mr.  HALE.  I call  the  attention  of  the  gen- 
tlemen who  have  this  matter  in  charge,  to  the 
fact  that  this  section,  as  it  now  stands,  as  it 
reads,  if  a majority  of  the  ballots  cast  at  said 
election,  on  this  section,  provides  a separate 
ballot  shall  be  provided  for  this,  hence  one  elec- 
tor must  cast  at  least  two  ballots,  and  if  this 
proposition  is  to  get  a majority  of  all  the  ballots 
cast,  I fear  it  will  not  be  adopted. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Agreed. 

Mr.  HALE.  I am  satisfied,  but  the  way 
section  2 now  reads,  it  is  provided  for  a sepa- 
rate ballot.  Of  course,  there  must  be  another 
ballot  and  then  it  provides  that  this  to  be  adopt- 
ed must  receive  a majority  of  all  the  ballots  cast 
at  that  election.  If  the  gentlemen  want  it  in 
that  form,  I am  satisfied  with  it. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
the  final  reading. 

Mr.  EWING.  Is  the  question  still  open  for 
discussion  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  Proposition  as  engrossed. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  1.  Every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of 
the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of  the 
county,  township  or  ward  in  which  he  or  she  resides, 
such  time  as  may  be  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the 
qualifications  of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all 
the  elections.” 

“Sec.  2.  A separate  ballot  may  be  given,  to  be  depos- 
ited in  a separate  box.  Upon  the  ballots  for  said  proposed 
section  1 shall  be  written  or  printed  the  words,  ‘Article  5, 
Elective  Franchise,  Section  1— Woman’s  Suffrage,  Yes,’ 
and  upon  the  ballots  given  against  said  proposed  substi- 
tute shall  be  written  or  printed  the  words,  ‘Article  5, 
Elective  Franchise,  Section  1— Woman’s  Suffrage,  No.’ 

“If  a majority  of  said  ballots  cast  at  said  separate  sub- 
mission shall  be  in  favor  of  said  proposed  substitute  then 
the  same  shall  be  adopted,  and  thereupon  become  section 
1 of  Article  5 of  the  Constitution;  otherwise  not.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Is  it  in  order  now  to  move  to 
strike  out  section  two  and  introduce  the  substi- 
tute which  was  sent  to  the  Chair? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  in  order  to 
amend  it  in  that  form.  It  may  be  done  by  re- 
ferring it  to  a committee  of  one,  with  instruc- 
tions. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I move  that  it  be  referred  to 
a committee  of  one,  with  instructions  to  strike 
out  section  two  and  insert  the  substitute  which 
I sent  to  the  Chair  a moment  ago. 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute,  as  fol- 
lows : 

“That  the  Committee  on  Schedule  be  instructed  to  re- 
port a proposition  for  submitting  to  a separate  vote  of  the 
electors  of  the  State,  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same 
manner  in  which  other  propositions  are  submitted,  for  a 
separate  vote  the  preceding  section.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
committing,  with  the  instructions  just  read. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man that  that  was  a substitute  for  section  two. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  you  strike  out  the  latter  part 
of  the  Proposition,  and  so  provide  for  the  sub- 
mission of  the  preceding  section. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  what  I propose.  I 
make  that  the  instruction. 

The  motion  to  commit  to  a committee  of  one, 
with  instructions,  was  agreed  to,  there  being 
upon  a division,  35  in  the  aflirmative,  and  27  in 
the  negative. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  appoint 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  a com- 
mittee of  one. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  Committee  makes  the 
following  report : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“The  Select  Committee  of  one,  to  whom  was  referred 
Proposition  211,  with  instructions  to  amend,  reports  the 
same  back  amended  as  instructed.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  Report. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Let  us  have  the  Report  read 
again,  commencing  with  the  section. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  then 
read  the  original  section  two. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I want  the  original  section 
one. 

The  Secretary  read : 


1978 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 

Burns,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Blose,  Kraemer,  Powell,  Sears. 


“Sec.  1.  Every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  of  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years,  who  shall  have  been  a resident  of 
the  State  one  year  next  preceding  the  election,  and  of  the 
county,  township  or  ward  in  which  he  or  she  resides  such 
time  as  may  he  provided  by  law,  shall  have  the  qualifi- 
cations of  an  elector,  and  be  entitled  to  vote  at  all  the 
elections.” 

That  the  Committee  on  the  Schedule  be  in- 
structed to  report  a proposition  for  submitting 
to  a separate  vote  of  the  electors  of  the  State  at 
the  same  time  and  in  the  same  manner  in  which 
other  propositions  are  submitted  for  a separate 
vote,  the  preceding  section. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  simply  to  make  one 
inquiry.  Suppose  they  submit  a plan  and  the 
section  there  proposed  is  adopted,  1 see  no  pro- 
vision to  determine  what  section  of  the  propo- 
sition we  have  already  adopted  it  is  to  take  the 
place  of,  unless  that  plan  is  embraced  in  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  Committee  on  Schedule 
fix  that. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Of  course,  it  would  take  the 
place  of  section  one,  which  we  have  already 
adopted,  but  it  does  not  say  so. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  Committee  on  Revision 
will  certainly  fix  that  matter.  If  this  is  adopt- 
ed it  takes  the  place  of  section  one,  as  a matter 
of  course. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  of  One,  said  Report  was  agreed 
to,  without  a division. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  agreeing  to  the  Proposition  as  amended. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  question  of  woman  suf- 
frage is,  in  my  opinion,  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant of  the  political  problems  of  this  century. 
No  change  in  our  government  which  we  would 
for  a moment  entertain  the  idea  of  making, 
would  be  of  wider,  deeper  and  more  enduring 
effect  than  this  on  the  State,  and,  perhaps,  also, 
on  the  family.  I have  given  some  attention  to 
the  subject,  but  do  not  feel  prepared  to  say  if  it 
were  left  to  me  to  decide,  that  I would  engraft 
this  proposition  on  the  Constitution  of  the 
State.  Yet,  I shall  vote  to  submit  the  question 
to  the  people ; for  whether  the  change  be  on  the 
whole  beneficial  or  not,  the  discussion  of  funda- 
mental political  questions  tends  to  quicken  the 
intelligence  of  the  electors,  and  to  familiarize 
them  with  the  foundations  of  their  government. 
There  is  no  danger  of  the  male  voters  coming 
to  a rash  decision  in  favor  of  this  proposition. 
They  who  hold  the  entire  political  power  will 
not  inconsiderately  hr  for  trivial  reasons  sur- 
render one-half  of  it.  If  the  electors  shall 
decide  to  grant  suffrage  to  women,  it  will  be 
after  abundant  evidence  that  it  will  not  injure 
the  family  and  will  benefit  the  State.  This  is 
a question  peculiarly  within  the  range  of  the 
common  experiences  and  judgment  of  the 
people.  It  comes  home  to  the  “business  and 
bosoms  of  men,”  and  therefore  I shall  vote  to 
give  its  advocates  an  opportunity  to  present  it 
in  such  manner  as  will  command  the  attention 
of  the  electors,  and  get  their  considerate  judg- 
ment upon  it. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  The  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]  expresses  his  belief  that  this  is 
one  of  the  most  important  problems  to  be  solved 
by  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of 
Ohio.  I shall  be  compelled  to  vote  against  it. 


[135th 

[Wednesday, 


Mr.  KRAEMER.  I shall  give  my  vote  in 
favor  of  this  Proposition,  for  the  reason,  as  I 
have  stated  on  a former  occasion,  that  repre- 
sentation and  taxation  ought  to  go  together.  I 
will  vote  for  it,  because  I am  willing  to  trust 
the  good  sense  of  the  ladies,  and  because  I am 
willing  to  trust  the  question  to  the  voters  of  the 
State  of  Ohio.  It  would  be  unjust  in  this  Con- 
vention to  say  to  the  voters  of  Ohio  that  they 
should  not  pass  their  opinions  upon  the  sub- 
ject. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I wish  simply  to  state  my 
reason  for  the  vote  that  I shall  give.  I shall 
vote  in  favor  of  submitting  this  Proposition. 
When  it  comes  to  voting  at  the  polls  I shall 
vote  against  it,  but  I desire  that  the  people  of 
Ohio  shall  have  a chance  of  expressing  their 
opinions  upon  the  subject,  as  upon  every  other 
subject  connected  with  this  Constitution.  I 
shall  therefore  vote  for  the  submission. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I have  been  hesitating  very 
seriously  what  I should  do  upon  the  coming 
vote.  I think  that  very  probably  it  is  my 
duty  to  vote  against  the  submission.  I an- 
nounced to  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
Voris],  however,  that  I would  vote  for  it,  and  I 
hardly  feel  at  liberty  now  to  withdraw  that 
promise  and  vote  against  it.  I will  vote  for  it, 
because  I am  willing  that  it  should  be  submit- 
ted to  the  people.  But  when  it  comes  to  the 
question  of  the  people  voting  upon  it,  I do  not 
know  upon  what  principle  the  Convention 
voted  against  allowing  the  women  themselves 
to  vote  upon  the  matter.  I shall  vote,  there- 
fore, for  this  Proposition,  but  when  the  ques- 
tion comes  up  to  be  voted  upon  by  the  people  I 
shall  vote  against  it  and  do  whatever  I can 
to  defeat  it. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I shall  vote  for  the  proposition 
now,  and,  unless  I change  my  mind,  about 
which  I am  not  so  confident  as  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  seems  to  be — I shall 
vote  for  it  at  the  polls.  I have  not  participated 
in  the  discussion  upon  this  question  at  all,  nor 
do  I desire  to  make  an  argument  now;  but  I 
propose,  if  the  impatience  of  the  Convention 
will  allow  me,  to  state  briefly  the  considerations 
which  induce  me  to  give  my  vote  and  my  voice 
in  favor  of  this  proposition. 

Our  political  system  is  based  upon  the  doc- 
trine that  the  right  of  self-government  is  in- 
herent in  the  people.  This  right  imparts  the 
duty  of  its  exercise,  and  the  responsibility  of 
exercising  it  correctly.  Women  are  a portion 
of  the  people,  and  possess  all  the  inherent  rights 
which  belong  to  humanity.  They,  therefore, 
have  the  right  to  participate  in  the  government; 
and,  when  that  right  is  secured  to  them,  it  will 
be  their  duty  to  vote,  and  they  will  be  respon- 
sible, to  the  extent  of  their  political  power,  for 
the  government. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I wish  the  gentleman  would 
give  way  a moment.  We  desire  to  hear  the  ar- 
gument of  the  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr. 
Sears],  but  we  are  utterly  unable  to  do  so,  on 
account  of  the  confusion  which  exists  in  this 
part  of  the  Hall. 

I The  PRESIDENT.  There  appear  to  be  two 
or  three  Conventions  in  this  room,  and  it  is  im- 
I possible  for  the  Chair  to  preside  over  all.  It  is 
imperative  that  order  should  be  preserved. 


* 


CONCERNING  FEMALE  SUFFRAGE. 


1979 


Day.] 

March  11,  1874.] 


Seaks. 


Mr.  SEARS.  It  is  rather  difficult  for  me  to 
talk  at  this  time  at  all,  but  I will  do  the  best  I 
can. 

The  world  has  been  gradually  advancing 
toward  universal  suffrage.  We  have  enfran- 
chised everybody  except  women.  Still  the 
millenium  has  not  come.  The  government  of 
the  race  by  our  sex  has  ndt  resulted  in  such  ab- 
solute perfection  as  to  forbid  all  further  experi- 
ment. I am,  therefore,  in  favor  of  giving  to 
woman  her  rightful  share  and  participation  in 
the  common  government — of  permitting  her  to 
have  a voice  in  the  enactment  of  laws  to  which 
she  is  subject,  and  of  doing  away  with  an  anom- 
aly which  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  theory 
upon  which  our  government  is  founded.  There 
should  be,  with  us,  no  subject  class.  In  a gen- 
uine democratic  republican  government,  the 
governed  are  also  the  governors. 

Nor  have  any  of  the  objections  urged  against 
the  enfranchisement  of  women  appeared  to  me 
to  have  such  weight  as  to  change  or  modify  the 
opinion  which  I have  thus  briefly  expressed. 
Much  as  they  have  been  elaborated,  the  objec- 
tions themselves  are  really  few  in  number,  and, 
apparently,  easily  disposed  of. 

In  the  first  place,  we  are  told  that  voting  is 
inconsistent  with  the  marriage  relation.  Well, 
now,  if  that  be  true,  it  does  not  cover  the  whole 
ground.  There  are  unmarried  persons  of  both 
sexes,  and  if  the  proposition  were  to  be  so  modi- 
fied as  that  a married  couple  were  to  count  but 
one,  it  might  be  a question,  then,  who  should 
cast  the  vote.  If  woman  be  the  superior  being 
and  exercises  really  that  paramount  influence 
which  those  who  desire  to  keep  her  out  of  poli- 
tics and  prevent  her  from  acquiring  political 
power,  claim  for  her,  if  she  really  shapes  and 
modifies  the  opinions  of  men  and  directs  them 
how  to  vote,  I think  it  would  be  better  and 
safer  for  her  to  take  the  vote  to  the  ballot  box 
to  see  that  it  meets  with  no  accident  upon  the 
way.  But,  as  I said  before,  there  are  unmarried 
persons  of  both  sexes,  and  why,  when  one  sex 
is  allowed  to  vote,  should  not  the  other? 

Again,  it  is  said  that  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  family  relation,  and  that  the  family  is  the 
oldest  institution  of  society,  upon  which  all 
other  institutions  are  based,  and  from  which 
they  all  have  their  origin.  Now,  we  have  out- 
grown the  patriarchal  form  of  government. 
We  do  not  anywhere  in  our  system  represent 
families.  The  father  of  the  family  votes.  The 
sons  vote.  Why  should  not  the  daughters 
vote?  If  the  family  is  to  be  represented 
simply  by  males,  who  is  to  represent  the  family 
in  which  there  is  no  male  voter  at  all  ? 

Again,  we  are  met  with  the  Scriptural  argu- 
ment. There  is  a great  abundance,  as  we  have 
learned  by  this  discussion,  of  texts  that  are 
directly  opposed  to  female  suffrage.  It  seems 
to  have  been  prohibited  by  prophesy  and  in- 
spired writings  originating  thousands  of  years 
ago,  and  we  are  made  to  believe  that  it  is  ex- 
pressly interdicted  by  the  words  of  Holy  Writ. 
Mr.  President,  I have  heard  that  kind  of  argu- 
ment used  so  often  that  I take  it  as  the  strongest 
acknowledgment  of  the  weakness  of  a cause 
that  needs  such  support.  There  is  no  abuse 
that  has  existed  for  the  last  thousand  years  that 
has  not  been  bolstered  up  in  the  same  way. 
The  divine  right  of  kings  was  based  upon  the 


same  authority.  Kings  were  the  Lord’s 
anointed.  All  the  wrongs  of  government  and 
society  have  been  fostered  and  sustained  by  the 
same  kind  of  argument  from  time  immemorial. 

One  more  objection — and  it  occurs  to  me  that 
it  is  about  the  only  one  that  I have  not  men- 
tioned— is  that  woman  is  too  good  to  vote,  is 
really  too  exalted  a being.  It  would  not  do  for 
her  to  come  down,  superior  as  her  faculties 
may  be,  intuitive  as  her  knowledge  and  percep- 
tion of  the  right  may  be,  important  as  it  may 
be  that  we  should,  in  voting,  follow  her  direc- 
tions and  carry  out  her  will,  nevertheless  she 
is  entirely  too  good  to  exercise,  directly,  that 
power  which  she  is  supposed  to  exercise  in  this 
indirect  manner.  This  is  a species  of  flattery — 
a species  of  cajolery.  It  is  attempted  in  this 
way  to  make  the  woman  satisfied  with  her  pre- 
sent condition.  I do  not  know  how  far  the 
attempt  may  succeed.  In  this  way  they  are  en- 
couraged to  attend  to  fashions  and  frivolities, 
instead  of  troubling  their  minds  with  public 
affairs.  It  is  intended  in  this  way,  while  we 
keep  them  virtually  political  prisoners,  to  gild 
and  ornament  their  cages.  It  is  treating  them 
as  some  pagan  nations,  of  whom  I have  read, 
occasionally  treat  their  divinities.  They  pray 
to  them,  worship  them,  and  treat  them  with  the 
greatest  of  deference,  so  long  as  favorable 
answers  are  accorded  to  their  prayers;  but 
when  that  fails,  they  submit  them  to  flagelation 
and  punishment.  Notwithstanding  the  excel- 
lence, notwithstanding  the  superiority  of  wo- 
man, and  notwithstanding  the  possession  of  all 
these  amiable  qualities,  these  admirable  traits, 
whose  influence  should  be  infused,  if  possible, 
into  our  politics,  woman,  though  worshiped, 
is,  nevertheless,  to  be  kept  in  chains.  Now,  I 
say  to  gentlemen,  once  for  all,  that,  if  it  be  true 
that  there  is  anything  about  our  political  sys- 
tem which  renders  it  improper  for  women  to 
participate  in  our  elections,  if  they  cannot  go 
to  the  polls,  where  the  will  of  the  people  of  this 
country,  which  is  its  governing  power,  is  ex- 
pressed, without  contamination,  without  losing 
their  womanly  characteristics,  their  loveliness 
and  their  virtue,  if  that  is  the  state  of  things  to 
which  this  country  has  arrived,  I say  it  is  time 
we  were  looking  about  for  some  better  influence, 
some  infusion  of  new  light  and  new  virtue 
which  shall  save  us  from  that  destruction  which* 
is  inevitably  impending  over  us. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is,  Shall 
the  Proposition  be  agreed  to  ? 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted 
— yeas  48,  nays  30,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  De 
Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Foran,  Gurley,  Hale, 
Hill,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson, 
Kraemer,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Pond,  Powell,  Rowland,  Sears,  Thompson, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  Watson,  West, 
Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble — 48. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Campbell,  Clay,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Kerr,  McBride, 


1980 


FILLMORE  AND  SUMNER  DEAD.  [135th  Day. 

Yoris,  Hoadly,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  etc.  [Wednesday,  March  11,  1874. 


McCauley,  Sample,  Scribner,  Shaw,  Shultz, 
Steedman,  Smith  of  Highland,  Tulloss,  Tyler, 
Van  Yalkenburgh,  Van  Yoorhis,  Voorhes, 
Yoris,  Waddle,  White  of  Hocking,  President 
—30. 

So  the  Proposition  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I move  a reconsideration  of  the 
vote  by  which  that  Proposition  was  voted 
down,  and  to  lay  that  vote  to  reconsider  upon 
the  table. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I demand  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Objection  was  made,  but  sixteen  gentlemen 
rose  to  support  the  demand,  which  was,  there- 
fore, sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  53,  nays  24,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  De  Steiguer, 
Dorsey,  Ewing,  Foran,  Gurley,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt, 
Johnson,  Kraemer,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miller, 
Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Pond,  Rowland,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Shultz,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tut- 
tle, Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West, 
Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble — 53. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Byal,  Campbell,  Clay,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Hoadly,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCauley,  Pow- 
ell, Sample,  Steedman,  Smith  of  Highland, 
Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yan  Yalkenburgh,  Yan  Yoor- 
his, White  of  Hocking,  President — 24. 

So  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  agreed 
to. 


Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  offer  a 
resolution,  which,  I think,  will  meet  with  the 
approbation  of  all  the  Convention. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Whereas,  On  the  9th  inst.,  Millard  Fillmore,  late 
President  of  the  United  States,  expired  at  his  residence, 
in  Buffalo;  and 

Whereas,  Charles  Sumner,  a Senator  distinguished 
in  the  annals  of  the  country,  deceased  this  day  at  Wash- 
ington; and 

Whereas,  The  departure  from  this  life  of  citizens  so 
eminent  and  good,  is  a subject  of  universal  sorrow; 
therefore 

Resolved , As  a mark  of  respect  for  the  illustrious  dead, 
that  the  flag  over  this  Hall  he  placed  at  half-mast  dur- 
ing to-morrow,  and  that  the  Convention  do  now  adjourn. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningnam]  the  propri- 
ety of  ascertaining,  with  certainty,  that  Senator 
Sumner  is  dead. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  He  died  a few  min- 
utes before  three  o’clock  this  afternoon,  as  an- 
nounced by  a telegraphic  dispatch. 

Mr.  BURNS.  There  was  a statement  on  the 
bulletin  board  at  noon  that  he  died  at  11 : 30  this 
morning. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  has  been  a dispatch 
received  since  that. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I know  there  has;  but  we  all 
felt  as  sure  at  twelve  o’clock  that  he  was  dead 
as  we  do  now. 

Mr.  MINER.  I wish  to  suggest  an  amend- 
ment of  one  word.  Instead  of  applying  to  Mr. 
Fillmore  the  word  “late  President,”  change  it 
to  “ex-President.” 

The  amendment  was  accepted. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  Resolution, 

The  same  was  adopted. 

Whereupon  (at  5:15  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


MORNING  BUSINESS. 

Hunt,  Root,  Coats,  Shaw,  Cook,  Pease,  Waddle. 


1981 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY-SIXTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 


SEVENTY-FOURTH  DAY  OF 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  C.  White,  of  the  Pop- 
lar Street  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  84  members  an- 
swered their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Mr.  HUNT  was  excused  for  past  absence,  and 
granted  leave  of  absence  until  Saturday  next. 

Mr.  ROOT  was  excused  for  absence  yester- 
day, and  granted  leave  of  absence  for  to-day. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Messrs.  White  of  Brown,  Shultz,  and  Young 
of  Champaign,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

petitions  and  remonstrance. 

Mr.  COATS  presented  the  petition  of  J.  M. 
Darling,  and  fifty-three  other  citizens  of  Union 
county,  asking  that  a provision  be  incorporated 
in  the  Constitution,  empowering  the  General 
Assembly  to  regulate,  limit,  and  entirely  pro- 
hibit the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors,  and  declare  what  shall  be  deemed  and 
held  to  be  such  intoxicating  liquors  so  pro- 
hibited. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  SHAW  presented  the  petition  of  N.  Mc- 
Donald, N.  Daily,  and  70  other  citizens  of  Cler- 
mont county,  praying  that  such  religious  ac- 
knowledgments be  placed  in  the  Preamble  of  the 
Constitution  as  shall  indicate  that  this  is  a 
Christian  Commonwealth,  and  shall  place  all 
the  Christian  institutions  and  usages  of  the 
government  on  an  individual  legal  basis,  in  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  COOK  presented  the  remonstance  of 
John  Baily,  and  one  hundred  citizens  of  Mil- 
bur  y,  Wood  county,  against  any  reduction  in 
the  amount  of  education  furnished  in  the 
Common  Schools. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  in  connection  with  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Education. 

Mr.  PEASE  presented  twenty-nine  petitions, 
all  on  the  same  subject,  of  Daniel  Worley,  and 
1,213  other  citizens  of  Stark  county,  remon- 
strating against  the  amendment  to  section  2,  of 
Article  VI  of  the  Constitution,  as  reported  by 
the  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Education, 
and  express  the  opinion  that  the  proposed 
amendment,  if  adopted,  will  strike  a vital  blow 


THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 

Thursday,  March  12,  1874. 

at  the  whole  system  of  popular  education  in 
this  State. 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  one  of  the 
same,  as  follows : 

To  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Ohio: 

The  undersigned,  citizens  of  Canton,  Stark  county,  O., 
respectfully  remonstrate  against  the  amendment  to  sec- 
tion 2 of  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution,  as  proposed  by 
the  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Education  to  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention  now  in  session.  Any  action  to 
prevent  the  people  in  any  of  the  school  districts  of  the 
State  from  establishing  and  supporting  schools  of  a 
higher  grade,  would  be,  in  our  judgment,  a vital  blow  at 
the  whole  system  of  popular  education,  and  put  our 
youth  at  a great  disadvantage  with  those  of  other  States. 
The  efficiency  of  the  common  schools,  below  the  High 
School,  depends  very  largely  upon  the  latter,  and  instead 
of  curtailing  the  privileges  of  High  Schools,  the  estab- 
lishment of  such  schools  should  be  encouraged,  until  not 
only  every  large  town  and  city,  but  also  every  township 
in  the  State,  has  its  central  school  of  a higher  grade. 

They  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Edu- 
cation. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  petitions  in  favor 
of  the  religious  amendment,  from  citizens  of 
Logan,  Muskingum,  Van  Wert,  Preble,  Rich- 
land, Guernsey,  Hardin,  Greene,  Belmont,  Per- 
ry and  Ashland  counties,  aggregating  2,368 
names. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Also,  a paper  from  the  Committee  appointed 
by  the  State  Religious  Amendment  Convention 
at  Dayton,  March  10th,  1874. 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  the  same,  as 
follows : 

We,  the  undersigned  Committee,  were  appointed  by  the 
State  Religious  Amendment  Convention,  at  Dayton, 
March  10, 1874,  to  carry  certain  resolutions  with  accom- 
panying petitions  to  your  Honorable  Body. 

These  same  documents  we  tender  to  you  through  your 
Honorable  member,  W.  G.  Waddle. 

W.  H.  French, 

Chairman, 

H.  H.  Geo  roe, 

S.  S.  Fisher, 

T.  L.  Findley, 

Thos.  Gibson. 

Resolved , That  the  aims  of  the  National  Association  to 
secure  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the 
several  St  ites,  a legal  and  undeniable  basis  for  the 
Christian  laws,  institutions,  and  usages  which  have  ex- 
isted from  the  beginn  ng  of  our  national  history,  are  em- 
inently conservative  and  practical. 

2.  That  the  known  and  acknowledged  want  of  harmony 
between  our  National  and  State  Constitutions,  in  regard 
to  the  subject  of  religion,  and  especially  between  the 
former  and  the  laws  of  the  several  States,  imposes  upon 
the  people  the  necessity  of  deciding  whether  the  latter 
shall  be  conformed  to  the  irreligious  spirit  of  the  former, 
or  the  former  conformed  to  the  Christian  spirit  of  the 
latter. 

3.  That  the  recent  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Ohio  in  relerence  to  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools  of 
Cincinnati,  in  which  it  is  affirmed  that  the  “religion” 


1982 


RELIGION  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION, 


[136th 

Waddle,  Smith  of  H.,  Herron,  Townsend,  etc.  [Thursday, 


which  our  fathers  deemed  “essential  to  good  govern- 
ment” is  not  Christianity,  but  “the  religion  of  man” 
mere  deism,  or  something  lower,  is  revolutionary  m its 
character,  and  at  vai’iance  with  the  history  of  the  legis- 
lation of  the  State  from  its  origin,  and  with  the  practice 
of  the  courts  under  it;  and  that  the  legitimate  and  neces- 
sary effect  of  this  decision,  if  followed  out  to  its  last  re- 
sults, must  be  to  set  aside  all  the  laws  which  rest  for  their 
foundation  on  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion— 
particularly  our  Sabbath  laws,  laws  against  blasphemy, 
and  on  the  subject  of  marriage  and  divorce. 

4.  That  while  it  has  not  pleased  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  Ohio,  thus  far,  to  grant  all  that  Is  asked  in 
our  petions,  our  thanks  are  due,  and  are  hereby  tendered, 
for  the  candid  hearing  accorded  them,  and  for  the  reten- 
tion of  the  religious  clauses  contained  in  our  present 
Constitution.  . , , _ . . 

5 That  this  Convention,  m the  name  and  behalf  of 
themselves,  and  the  petitioners  aforesaid,  respectfully  re- 
quest the  Constitutional  Convention,  that  in  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  before  the  word  “religion”,  they  insert  the  words 
“the  Christian,”  as  explanatory  of  what  religion  is 
meant.  Or,  should  the  Convention  fail  to  concur  in  this, 
that  then  they  will  submit  to  a direct  vote  of  the  citizens 
of  the  Commonwealth  whether  the  words  “the  Christian” 
shall  or  shall  not  be  inserted  before  the  word  “religion” 
in  the  Bill  of  Rights  aforesaid. 

6.  That  we  meet  as  citizens  and  lovers  of  our  country, 
and  that  we  earnestly  invite  and  cordially  welcome  to 
our  ranks  our  fellow-citizens,  of  every  creed  and  party, 
who  believe  with  Washington  that  “religion  and  morality 
are  indispensable  supports  to  political  prosperity,”  and 
that  “morality  cannot  be  maintained  without  religion,” 
and  that  the  highest  duty  of  the  soldier,  as  well  as  the 
citizen,  is  “to  live  and  act  as  becomes  a Christian.” 

7.  That  the  moral  power  which  is  being  directed  against 
the  widespread  and  ruinous  vice  of  intemperance  is  the 
direct  outgrowth  of  Christianity,  and  that  we  deeply 
sympathize  with,  and  will  strenuously  aid,  every  legiti- 
mate effort  to  suppress  the  evil. 

8.  That  we  submit,  through  a Special  Committee,  these 
resolutions  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Ohio,  and 
respectfully  and  earnestly  ask  that  the  existing  Christian 
laws,  institutions,  and  usages  of  the  State  shall  be  guar- 
anteed in  our  fundamental  law. 

9.  That  we  proceed  to  form  a State  organization  to  ad- 
vance the  objects  for  which  this  Convention  has  assem- 
bled, and  recommend  the  formation  of  auxiliary  associa- 
tions in  the  several  counties  of  the  State. 

10.  That  a copy  of  these  resolutions  be  furnished  by  the 
Secretary  to  the  Dayton,  Xenia,  and  Cincinnati  papers, 
and  to  the  Christian  Statesman , for  publication. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland,  presented  the  pe- 
tition of  H.  L.  Hadley,  and  335  other  citizens  of 
Fayette  county,  praying  that  a clause  be  insert- 
ed in  the  Constitution  authorizing  the  Legisla- 
ture by  law  to  regulate,  limit,  or  entirely  pro- 
hibit the  manufacture  and  sale  of  all  intoxica- 
ting liquors  within  the  State,  and  also  to  confer 
power  in  the  Legislature  to  pass  laws  giving  to 
each  township,  county,  and  each  incorporated 
village  and  city,  full  and  adequate  power  to 
regulate,  limit,  or  entirely  prohibit,  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  in  their 
respective  limits,  &c. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  PROPOSITION. 

Mr.  HERRON  introduced  the  following  Prop- 
osition, which  was  read  the  first  time : 

Proposition  No.  223: 

To  amend  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution,  by  adding  an 
additional  section  thereto. 

Sec  — . The  General  Assembly  shall  forever  prohibit 
by  appropriate  fines  and  penalties,  all  traffic  in  intoxi- 
cating liquors,  except  for  medicinal  or  mechanical  pur- 
poses, within  the  limits  of  any  lands  that  have  been  do- 
nated to  or  that  may  be  held  by  the  State  of  Ohio  for 
educational  purposes. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I offer  for  adoption  the 
following  resolution : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 


Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  offers  the  following 
resolution,  which  the  Secretary  will  read: 

The  Assistant  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Resolution  No.  186— By  Mr.  Carbery  : 

Resolved,  That  a Select  Committee  of  five  be  appointed 
by  the  Chair  to  determine  the  amount  of  compensation  to 
the  chief  Secretary  of  this  Convention,  for  extra  services, 
in  preparing  the  index. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  If  there  is  no  further 
miscellaneous  business,  I,  with  the  consent  of 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Revenue  and 
Taxation,  move  that  the  Convention  resolve 
itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  Proposi- 
tion No.  204,  being  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Revenue  and  Taxation. 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  the  motion  I am  about  to 
make  is  in  order,  I hope  the  gentleman  will 
withdraw  his:  it  is,  that  the  Proposition  to 
which  he  refers  be  taken  from  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Well,  Mr.  President,  I 
was  not  aware  that  we  could  do  that,  or  that  the 
Convention  would  acquiesce  in  it,  though  my 
own  views  were  to  take  it  out  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole.  If  it  is  proper  to  take  it  out 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  refer  it 
directly  to  the  Convention,  I will  change  my 
motion,  so  that  Proposition  No.  204,  with  the 
several  propositions  relating  thereto,  be  referred 
to  the  Convention,  and  that  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  be  discharged  from  the  further  con- 
sidaration  of  the  same. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I 
move  that  we  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
Proposition  No.  204,  and  that  it  be  made  the 
special  order  from  this  time  and  until  disposed 
of. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  Proposition. 

The  Secretary  read,  as  follows : 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  REVENUE  AND 
TAXATION. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Highland,  submitted  the  following  Re- 
port: 

The  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation  having  atten- 
tively considered  the  subject  of  taxation,  and  also  the 
several  propositions  in  relation  thereto,  referred  to  said 
Committee  by  order  of  the  Convention,  report  the  follow- 
ing proposition.  No.  204,  as  a substitute  for  Article  XII  of 
the  present  Constitution. 

The  submission  of  the  above  Proposition  for  considera- 
tion and  adoption  by  the  Convention,  has  the  approval  of 
all  the  members  of  the  Committee  now  present. 

Mr.  Pratt,  of  Williams,  is  absent. 

John  A.  Smith, 

Chairman, 

C.  W.  Rowland, 

B.  Burns, 

C.  C.  Russell, 

David  Barnet, 

A.  H.  Tyler, 

Amos  Townsend, 

J.  J.  Rickly, 

Thos.  P.  Townsley, 

R.  M.  Bishop, 

P.  Hitchcock. 

A substitute  for  Article  XII  of  the  Constitution. 

ARTICLE  XII. 
revenue  and  taxation. 

Section  1.  The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  for 
raising  revenue  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  State 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith  of  H. 


L983 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.] 


for  each  year,  including  a sum  sufficient  to  pay  the 
interest  on  the  State  debt,  with  so  much,  at  least,  of  the 
principal  thereof  as  is  provided  for  in  Article  of  this 
Constitution . 

Sec.  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  never  levy  a poll 
tax  for  county  or  State  purposes. 

Sec.  3.  Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  and 
uniform  rules,  all  real  and  personal  property,  so  that  all 
property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation according  to  its  true  value  in  money,  but  providing 
against  double  taxation. 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  for 
exemption  from  taxation,  of  all  burial  grounds,  public 
school  houses,  houses  used  exclusively  for  public  worship, 
institutions  of  purely  public  charity,  public  libraries,  pub- 
lic property  used  exclusively  for  any  public  purpose,  and 
personal  property  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  two  hun- 
dred dollars  for  each  individual,  may,  by  general  laws, 
be  exempt  from  taxation;  but  all  such  laws  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  alteration  or  repeal,  and  the  value  of  all  property 
so  exempted  shall,  from  time  to  time,  be  ascertained  and 
published,  as  may  be  directed  by  law. 

Sec.  5.  The  General  Assembly  may  impose  taxes  by 
license,  excise  or  otherwise,  and  also  provide  by  equita- 
ble rules,  for  taxing  all  income  derived  lrom  investments, 
when  from  any  cause  whatever  the  principal  from  which 
such  income  is  derived  cannot  be  taxed. 

Sec.  6.  Banks  now  existing,  or  hereafter  created,  and 
all  bankers  shall  be  taxed  by  such  equitable  rules,  based 
upon  capital  employed,  and  amount  of  business  done  by 
them,  as  will  require  them  to  share  equally  with  other 
business  interests  in  the  burdens  of  taxation. 

Sec.  7.  No  tax  shall  be  levied  except  in  pursuance  of 
law,  and  every  law  shall  state  distinctly  the  object  of  the 
same  to  which  only  it  shall  be  applied. 

Sec,  8.  The  State  shall  never  contract  any  debt  for 
purposes  of  internal  improvement. 

Sec.  9.  The  General  Assembly  may,  throughout  the 
State,  or  in  any  county  or  counties  thereof,  provide  by 
law  to  regulate,  restrain  or  prohibit,  by  special  tax,  as- 
sessment or  otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring  and  run- 
ning at  large  of  dogs. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Proposition  is  now 
open  for  general  debate.  The  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I do  not  propose 
to  occupy  the  attention  of  the  Convention  for 
any  great  length  of  time.  It  will  be  perceived 
by  referring  to  the  Report,  that  sections  third, 
fifth,  sixth,  and  ninth  are  the  only  new  provi- 
sions or  modifications  of  the  old  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  of  1851.  It  will  be  my  busi- 
ness to  explain  what  was  intended  to  be  accom- 
plished by  these  several  sections,  and  how  far 
we  have  departed  from  the  text  of  the  existing 
Constitution  of  the  State. 

The  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation, 
after  a deliberate  consideration  of  some  six 
weeks,  covering  this  whole  subject,  were  satis- 
fied that  the  existing  system  of  taxation,  ought, 
as  a system,  to  be  adhered  to  in  its  chief  pro- 
visions; therefore,  they  decided  to  retain,  in 
whatever  Report  they  might  submit  to  the  Con- 
vention, the  leading  principles  distinguishing 
the  same.  You  will  find  them  embraced  in  the 
several  sections  of  this  Proposition.  Under  the 
Constitution  of  1802,  there  was  but  one  limita- 
tion fixed  to  the  subject  of  taxation.  The  whole 
matter  was  left  free  to  the  action  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State,  with  but  that  single  limi- 
tation, which  was  the  inhibition  of  a poll-tax. 
Hence,  the  Legislature, under  the  old  organic  law, 
could  adopt  any  scheme  of  taxation  that,  in  their 
wisdom,  they  might  deem  best  to  promote  the 
interests  of  the  State,  and  to  distribute  the 
burdens  of  taxation  upon  the  people  and  prop- 
erty of  the  same.  That  condition  of  things 
existed  until  1845.  The  old  artificial  and  irre- 
gular system  of  taxation  that  was  adopted  by 
the  Legislature,  was  so  adopted,  I suppose, 
because  of  the  existing  state  of  things  which 
then  characterized  the  condition  of  the  young 


but  growing  State,  and  which  then  did  not  have  a 
great  deal  of  personal  property,  but  did  possess 
a large  amount  of  unoccupied,  unimproved,  and 
therefore, unproductive  landed  property  within, 
its  borders.  The  system  they  then  devised  was 
probably,  under  the  circumstances,  wise  and 
good  enough.  In  1845,  however,  it  was  deter- 
mined that  the  true  principle  of  taxation 
ought  to  be  incorporated  in  the  financial 
legislation  of  the  State,  and  become  a part 
of  the  permament  policy  thereof.  Hence, 
under  the  law  known  as  the  “ Kelly  law,” 
the  new  scheme  was  inaugurated,  and  the  leg- 
islative effort  made  to  place  all  the  property  of 
the  State  on  the  grand  duplicate,  and  to  place  it 
there  at  a full  and  fair  appraisement  in  money, 
and  then  to  subject  it  to  a uniform  rule  of  tax- 
ation, so  that  an  equal  distribution  of  the  pub- 
lic burdens  might  be  made  on  the  values  thus 
obtained.  It  was  a complete  change  and  mod- 
ification of  the  old  plan  of  taxation,  and  it 
worked  so  well,  and  met  with  so  cordial  an  ap- 
proval from  the  people,  that  in  1851,  the  Con- 
vention, then  assembled  to  prepare  a new  or- 
ganic law,  incorporated  not  the  details  of  the 
law  of  1845,  but  the  principle  of  that  law  in  the 
text  of  the  new  instrument.  Since  that  period, 
it  has  been  the  controlling  rule,  and  has  been 
successfully  enforced  by  all  subsequent  legisla- 
tion in  the  history  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  It  is, 
in  fact,  and  should  ever  be  recognized  as  the 
true  mode  of  distributing  the  public  burdens, 
for  it  measures  every  man’s  contribution  to  the 
government  by  the  amount  of  protection  which 
the  government  gives  to  him  and  his  property. 
The  principle  of  taxation  should  be,  and  must 
be,  in  all  well  regulated  governments,  where 
there  is  no  privileged  classes  of  property  inter- 
ests, that  all  the  property  should  pay  its  con- 
tributive  share  to  the  support  of  the  govern- 
ment and  to  the  discharge  of  the  public  bur- 
dens, just  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  the 
value  of  the  property  protected  by  the  govern- 
ment and  its  laws.  That  principle,  then,  was 
constitutionally  adopted  in  1851.  It  is  true 
there  are  certain  specifications  contained  in 
that  section — I believe  section  two  of  the  Con- 
stitution— which  the  Committee  on  Revenue 
and  Taxation  thought  advisable  to  strike  out, 
but  it  does  not  substantially  affect  the  principle. 
In  striking  out  we  do  not  change  or  alter  the 
effect  of  the  rule.  All  understand  now,  or  at 
least  those  who  have  given  any  attention  to  the 
subject,  understand  the  special  reasons  of  such 
insertions,  but  time  has  shown  that  there  was 
no  necessity  whatever  for  incorporating  those 
especial  forms  of  property  by  name.  Hence, 
we  struck  them  out. 

Now,  under  the  operation  of  this  system  of 
taxation  the  aggregate  taxes  of  the  State  have 
grown  up  from  the  sum,  I believe,  of  $9,000,000 
to  the  present  sum  of  $26,000,000,  showing  that 
under  this  plan  of  taxation,  such  has  been  the 
outgrowth  and  prosperity  of  the  State,  or  more 
properly  speaking,  such  has  been  the  just  and 
equitable  operation  of  the  rule  of  assessment 
and  valuation  in  Ohio,  on  the  annual  in- 
crease of  property  and  accumulated  wealth  of 
the  State,  that  the  system  of  taxation  has  been 
adequate  to  the  annual  needs  and  wants  of  the 
State.  Now,  under  this  system,  since  1852, 
while  our  taxes  have  grown  from  the  sum  of 


1984 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith  of  H. 


[136th 

[Thursday, 


five  millions  to  twenty-six  millions,  and  while 
the  burdens  have  been  met  and  discharged  by 
the  existing  mode  of  assessment  upon  all  the 
property  of  the  State,  so  far  as  I know,  or  so  far 
as  the  Committee  know,  such  results  were  at- 
tained without  any  sort  of  oppression  upon  any 
special  interest  or  upon  the  general  prosperity 
of  the  people.  It  is  also  true,  that  during  the 
existence  and  operation  of  this  system  for  the 
past  twenty-two  or  three  years,  the  aggregate 
value  of  property  of  the  State  has  increased 
from  the  sum  of  about  five  hundred  million 
dollars  in  the  aggregate  to  one  billion  five  hun- 
dred and  odd  million  dollars.  Showing  that 
while  the  State  has  progressed  in  all  the  ele- 
ments that  constitute  prosperity  in  a civil  state 
of  society,  we  have  been  enabled,  by  steadily 
pursuing  the  principles  of  taxation  embodied 
in  the  Constitution,  to  put  upon  the  tax  dupli- 
cate an  increase  of  the  general  value  of  all 
property  to  the  amount  of  $1,502,129,971.  This 
would  indicate,  therefore,  that  under  the  opera- 
tion of  a uniform  rule  securing  equality  in  the 
distribution  of  taxes,  that  both  the  weight  of 
taxation  and  the  increased  basis  of  the  value  of 
the  property  have  kept  equal  pace.  The  fair 
inference,  therefore,  would  be,  that  the  system 
as  a whole  has  worked  well,  and  has  promoted 
the  common  interests  of  our  people. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  such  difficulty  in  en- 
forcing any  scheme  of  taxation  where  the 
faithful  and  effective  execution  of  the  law  is  so 
dependent  upon  the  individual  opinions,  judg- 
ment and  integrity  of  each  man  in  the  State,  to 
say  nothing  of  official  incapacity  in  its  admin- 
istration, that  inequalities  of  assessment  appear 
almost  inevitable.  The  Committee,  however, 
was  led  to  believe,  that  throughout  the  whole 
course  of  legislation,  since  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  of  1851,  the  difficulty  of  adjusting 
a plan  for  the  practical  application  of  a uniform 
rule,  however  wise  and  just  it  may  be  in  itself, 
the  difficulty  of  enforcing  an  inflexible  rule  by 
legislation  on  the  diversified  property  interests 
of  a State  like  ours,  necessarily  gave  rise 
to  such  errors  and  irregularities  in  application 
as  may  and  probably  do,  on  certain  special  in- 
terests operate  unequally  and  inequitably.  With 
such  views  the  Committee  sought  to  modify  the 
second  section  of  the  present  Constitution  in 
such  a way  as,  in  their  judgment,  would  avoid 
such  results.  If  you  turn  to  the  second  section 
of  the  old  Constitution,  you  will  find  that  it 
provides  that  not  only  all  property,  real  and 
personal,  shall  be  duly  placed  on  the  tax  dupli- 
cate, at  its  true  value  in  money,  but  that  taxa- 
tion shall  be  by  a uniform  rule  upon  that  gene- 
ral appraisement.  Now,  the  Committee,  or  at 
least  a majority  of  the  Committee,  thought  it 
advisable,  in  order  to  avoid  the  difficulties,  and 
escape  from  the  unjust  inequalities  of  taxation 
attributed  to  the  operation  of  an  inflexible  rule, 
to  recommend  a change  in  phraseology  and 
legal  bearing  of  said  section.  While  they  still 
recognize  the  principle  of  putting  all  property 
upon  the  duplicate,  and  of  putting  it  there  ac- 
cording to  its  true  value  in  money,  they  have 
so  modified  the  old  clause  as  to  strike  out  the 
words  “ by  a uniform  rule,”  and  have  incorpo- 
rated instead  the  words,  “ by  equitable  and 
uniform  rules”;  so  that  the  section,  as  now 
reported,  reads  as  follows:  Laws  shall  be 


passed  “taxing  by  equitable  and  uniform 
rules  ” all  real  and  personal  property,  so  that 
all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the 
burdens  of  taxation  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money,  but  providing  against  double  taxation. 
The  amendment,  therefore,  which  the  Commit- 
tee has  offered,  consists  in  providing  equitable 
and  uniform  rules  for  the  taxation  of  all  prop- 
erty, instead  of  a single  uniform  rule  attaching 
to  that  general  value,  and  they  provide  for,  or 
at  least  authorize  such  provision  to  be  made  as 
will  reserve  double  taxation. 

In  the  consideration  of  this  section  quite  a 
diversity  of  opinion  existed  among  us,  and 
probably  the  same  difficulty  will  present  itself 
to  the  members  of  this  Convention,  as  to  the 
practical  application  of  “ equitable  and  uniform 
rules”  on  the  principle  of  equality  of  taxation 
as  recognized  and  introduced  in  said  section. 
We  differed  also  as  to  how  far  the  proposed 
change  would  secure  the  objects  sought  to  be 
obtained  by  its  adoption.  It  is  evident  that  the 
clause  “ equitable  and  uniform  rules”  was  in- 
tended, and  does  confer  on  the  General  As- 
sembly a larger  legislative  discretion  in  the 
adjustment  of  the  general  system  of  taxation 
than  it  possessed  when  but  a single  rule,  and 
that  uniform  and  inflexible,  limited  its  action. 
But  the  question  arose  in  our  consultation,  and 
in  my  judgment  is  still  unsettled,  as  to  how  far 
such  legislative  discretion  can  co-exist  with  and 
be  exercised  in  the  face  of  a subsequent  clause 
in  the  same  section,  which  requires  all  property 
on  its  appraised  value  in  money  to  share  equally 
the  burdens  of  taxation.  Such  were  the  points 
on  which  we  differed  in  opinion.  I now  submit 
the  subject,  with  the  suggestions  made  by  me  to 
the  consideration  of  the  Convention.  What- 
ever may  be  our  differences  of  opinions,  this 
section  clearly  means,  to  some  extent,  a de- 
parture from  the  past  policy  of  the  State  as  to 
taxation.  It  proposes  that  equitable  conditions 
shall  be  considered  in  the  imposition  of  taxes. 
Can  we  wisely  and  safely  give  to  the  Legislature 
such  discretionary  power  in  the  premises  ? 

The  State  of  Pennsylvania,  in  framing  their 
new  Constitution,  adopted  the  idea  probably 
intended  to  be  embraced,  substantially,  in  this 
amendment  to  the  second  section  of  our  old 
Constitution.  It  is  that  by  implication  a classi- 
fication of  the  property  of  the  State  might  be 
obtained.  But  the  new  Constitution  of  Penn- 
sylvania confers  on  the  General  Assembly  the 
right  to  classify  all  the  property  of  that  State 
into  such  classes  as,,  in  their  judgment,  might 
seem  advisable.  And  then,  on  that  classifica- 
tion and  subsequent  appraisement,  they  were 
to  apply  a uniform  rate  of  taxation,  confining 
the  ruie  of  uniformity  to  the  assessment  rate 
imposed  upon  each  classification  of  property. 
But  would  the  General  Assembly  of  Ohio  pos- 
sess the  power,  under  the  proposed  amendment 
of  the  section  under  discussion,  of  classifying 
all  the  property  of  the  State,  and  thereby  to 
furnish  a new  basis  of  taxation,  involving  con- 
ditions of  equitable  consideration?  How  far 
such  a policy  could  be  inaugurated,  and  safely 
inaugurated,  under  the  imputed  construction  of 
this  clause,  is  a matter  I leave  to  the  Conven- 
tion to  determine. 

As  to  the  matter  embraced  in  section  4 of  this 
Proposition,  which  constitutes  the  foundation 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


1985 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.]  Smith  of  H. 


of  all  exemptions  in  Ohio  on  taxation,  I have 
this  to  say:  Numerous  petitions  have  been 
sent  to  this  body,  and  much  discussion  has 
taken  place  in  the  State,  in  reference  to  the  doc- 
trine of  exemption.  They  all  proceed  upon  the 
common  error  that  certain  classes  of  property 
are  exempt  from  taxation  by  constitutional 
provision.  The  Constitution  of  1851,  and  the 
Report  of  the  Committee,  are  identical  upon 
this  subject,  with  the  exception  of  the  addition 
of  the  words  “public  libraries.”  The  great 
error  lies  here,  that  neither  the  Constitution  of 
1851,  nor  the  provision  contained  in  section  4 of 
this  Report,  exempt  anything.  We  do  not 
pretend  to  do  it.  It  never  has  been  done.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  appeal  to  this  Convention  on 
that  subject,  for  this  Report  only  confers,  as  the 
Constitution  of  1851  conferred,  upon  the  Legis- 
lature the  power  to  exempt,  if  in  their  wisdom 
they  deem  it  best  to  do  so.  If  considerations 
sufficiently  and  wisely  entertained  justify  the 
General  Assembly  in  exempting  from  taxation 
any  part  of  the  property  of  the  State  embraced 
in  the  specifications  of  exemption  contained  in 
section  6 of  this  Article,  they  are  authorized  to 
do  so ; otherwise,  it  all  has  to  go  upon  the  du- 
plicate. 

Now,  all  the  petitions  transmitted  to  this 
Convention,  asking  that  no  classes  of  property 
shall  be  exempted,  certainly  are  not  founded 
upon  a full  and  fair  discussion  and  judgment  of 
the  question  by  the  people,  otherwise  they 
would  long  since  have  required  the  Legisla- 
ture to  have  placed  upon  the  duplicate  ail  such 
property  and  made  it  bear  its  proper  burdens. 
The  General  Assembly  is  the  place  where  these 
petitions  ought  to  have  gone.  But  such  is  not 
the  public  opinion  of  Ohio,  that  is,  I think  we 
have  a right  to  so  presume,  or  action  would 
have  been  had  long  since,  through  its  legislative 
agents.  This  I hold  to  be  sufficient  answer  to 
all  those  petitions,  and  a fair  defense  to  our 
continuance  of  the  power  in  the  General  As- 
sembly to  make  such  exemptions  as  are  em- 
bodied in  the  Constitution  of  1851,  and  ought 
to  sustain  us  in  the  Report  we  now  make.  Be- 
sides all  that,  there  is  substantially  nothing  in 
what  they  ask.  If  they  look  over  the  returns 
made  in  1870  of  the  proposed  value  of  all  the 
landed  property,  or  all  the  real  estate — exclu- 
sive of  the  improvements  thereon — belonging 
to  all  the  Christian  denominations  of  Ohio,  they 
will  find  that  one  million  six  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars  constitutes  the  whole  valuation  of 
such  property,  which,  by  virtue  of  the  consti- 
tutional clause  and  the  action  of  the  General 
Assembly,  is  exempted  from  the  burdens  of 
taxation.  That  constitutes  the  whole  of  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  con- 
sult the  Report  of  the  Auditor  of  State  he  will 
find  twenty-five  millions. 

Mr.  HUNT.  (In  his  seat.)  It  is  that  much 
in  Cincinnati. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I beg  pardon,  it  is 
three  millions  and  a fraction  of  a million . I was 
mistaken,  I believe,  as  to  the  value  of  property, 
and  I correct  myself.  You  will  find  that  the 
value  of  all  the  real  estate  of  the  churches — ex- 
clusive of  the  buildings  thereon — of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  in  1870,  was  $3,410,000.  That  is  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  more  than  that  in  Ham- 
ilton county. 


Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I must  take  the  pub- 
lished Report  of  the  State  Auditor  for  1870,  which 
is,  perhaps,  authority  in  the  question.  Individ- 
ual statements  will  not  do  against  the  record. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  turn  to 
page  373,  of  the  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
in  1872,  he  will  find  the  facts  of  the  case.  The 
value  of  church  property  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
is  $25,547,745. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  Yes,  but  let  me  call 
the  gentleman’s  attention.  That  sum  constitutes 
the  whole  aggregate  value  of  the  real  estate  and 
of  the  improvements  thereon.  That  is  it. 
The  point  of  objection,  now,  if  you  will  exam- 
ine it,  is  this.  The  objection  to  exempting 
church  property,  when  you  get  down  to  the 
real  idea,  is  not  that  $35,000,000  of  property, 
mostly  in  brick  and  stone,  are  exempted,  but  it 
is  because  there  is  such  a large  aggregation  of 
the  realty  of  Ohio,  of  the  unimproved  landed 
property  that  escapes  the  burdens  of  taxation. 
Getting  down  to  the  argument,  it  seems  to  me 
a little  strange  that  if  three  million  and  a half 
constitutes  the  whole  value  of  church  realty 
appraised,  irrespective  of  improvements  there- 
on, there  should  be  such  an  extraordinary 
effort  made  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  the 
State  now  to  place  on  the  duplicate  that  small 
amount  of  property  when  it  is  devoted  to  such 
great,  useful  and  benign  purposes.  The  fact 
that  our  Christian  people  build  such  monu- 
ments of  architectural  beauty  and  costli- 
ness may  be  evidence  of  not  only  cultivated 
taste,  but  of  accumulated  wealth,  but  is  really 
not  a matter  of  such  great  complaint.  It  is  the 
acquisition,  the  quietly  drawing  within  the 
power  of  the  several  churches  such  a large  ag- 
gregate of  the  landed  estate  of  this  country,  ir- 
respective of  those  improvements,  that  awaken 
public  apprehension.  But  when  the  people 
understand  that  three  and  one-half  millions  is 
the  total  value  of  such  acquisitions  and  such  ex- 
emption, they  will  be  satisfied.  The  aggregate 
value  of  all  the  realty  upon  which  the  struc- 
tures of  benevolence  are  erected  and  from 
which  most  of  the  public  charities  are  dispens- 
ed, amounts  only  to  one  million  and  a half.  The 
value  of  improvements  made  on  the  same  is  a 
very  different  thing,  but  that  is  only  four  mil- 
lions and  something. 

With  these  considerations  we  thought  it 
hardly  wise  and  prudent  to  advise  that  such 
property,  devoted  to  such  religious  and  benevo- 
lent purposes,  should  be  taken  out  of  the  clause 
of  exemptions,  in  which  the  Constitution  of 
1851  had  placed  the  same.  But  we  thought  it 
best  that  the  whole  matter  might  safely  rest 
where  it  now  rests,  in  the  discretion  of  the 
people.  They  may  continue  its  protection  from 
taxation  in  the  future,  or  they  may  decide  other- 
wise, as  in  their  wisdom  they  may  determine. 
As,  in  fact,  the  people  of  Ohio,  in  1851,  upon 
the  submission  of  the  Constitution,  accepted  this 
class  of  exemptions,  as  provided  for  there,  who 
has  a right  to  complain?  Where  is  the  in- 
justice of  the  act?  If,  by  their  consent,  they 
accepted  of  it,  and  saw  proper  to  carry  this  ad- 
ditional burden  of  taxation,  in  order  that  prop- 
erty dedicated  to  religious  worship  might  be 
relieved  from  any  weight  whatever  of  public 
burden,  the  people  have  made  the  contract, 
and  they  are  not  the  parties  to  complain.  We 


y.  n-127 


1986 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith  of  H. 


[136th 

[Thursday, 


leave  it  in  the  same  way.  If  our  people,  in  the 
liberality  of  their  nature,  see  proper  to  carry 
the  burden,  no  injustice  will  result  to  the  State 
by  reason  thereof. 

“ I come  now  to  section  five,  for  I am  only  pas- 
sing over  irregularly  our  Report,  and  giving  a 
general  interpretation  of  what  it  contains,  with 
an  occasional  reason  that  may  have  controlled 
our  action.  In  section  five  we  stepped  away 
from  the  great  principle  that  has  hitherto  un- 
derlaid the  system  of  taxation  in  Ohio.  We 
pass  away  from  the  doctrine  that  the  property 
of  the  State  shall  bear  the  burdens  of  the  State 
by  equitable  and  just  rules,  and  propose  to  adopt 
the  principles,  to  some  extent,  of  imposing  tax- 
ation in  the  form  of  license  and  excise,  founded 
more  upon  the  character  of  the  employment 
than  the  value  of  the  property  assessed.  We  do 
so  for  this  reason.  The  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  since  1851,  have  generally  refused 
to  enter  into  this  field  of  taxation.  They  have 
generally  disclaimed  the  idea  of  attempting  to 
impose  taxes  by  license  or  excise  upon  the  idea 
that  section  2 of  the  Constitution  precluded  or 
excluded  such  action  upon  the  part  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  They  rather  thought  they  were 
barred  by  the  construction  of  section  2 of  the 
Constitution  of  1851,  from  attempting  to  obtain 
revenues  outside  the  general  principle  of  impos- 
ing it  upon  property,  and,  therefore,  they  have 
declined  to  legislate  either  by  excise  or  by 
license.  We  do  not  expect  to  add  much  to  the 
resources  of  the  State  by  this  action  at  pres- 
ent, but  want  to  put  it  into  the  Constitution  as 
a permissive  power,  so  that  the  General  As- 
sembly, in  the  future  history  of  the  State,  under 
condition  of  policy  that  might  require  it,  would 
be  authorized  to  impose  taxation  by  license,  ex- 
cise, or  otherwise.  No  one  now  sees  the  special 
necessity  of  exercising  such  power.  We  can 
get  along  without  it.  But  in  the  great  future 
of  Ohio,  we  thought  it  wise  that  the  General 
Assembly  should  be  clothed  with  such  power, 
to  be  exercised  in  their  discretion.  The  second 
or  last  clause  of  the  section  introduces, 
probably  for  the  first  time  in  our  history  as  a 
State,  the  principle  of  taxing  incomes.  Con- 
siderations of  good  policy  justify  its  introduc- 
tion. 

It  is  well  understood  in  the  country  that  a 
large  amount  of  the  capital  of  the  State,  and  in 
the  future  still  larger  amounts,  may  be  so  in- 
vested, will  be  put  into  stocks  or  bonds  of  the 
United  States,  and  we  all  understand  that  we 
cannot  reach  such  investments  by  taxation. 
The  statue  of  our  national  securities  as  to  lia,- 
bility  for  State  taxation  is  accepted  as  now  set- 
tled. We  are  precluded  from  taxing  them ; but 
we  wish  to  reach  the  income  that  may  flow 
from  such  a source,  and,  therefore,  we  have 
provided,  by  the  last  clause  in  this  section,  to  tax 
all  incomes  derived  in  that  way.  The  rule  will 
apply  in  cases  only  where  the  principal  from 
which  such  income  is  derived  cannot  be  reached 
by  taxation. 

And  there  is  another  reason  worthy  of  con- 
sideration. Under  the  taxing  power  conferred 
on  the  legislators  of  the  State,  which  I do  not 
deny  goes  along  with  the  system  of  taxation  in 
the  proposition  which  we  offer,  we  are  not  con- 
fined to  the  taxation  of  property  found  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  State,  but  may  go  out 


beyond  the  State  and  search  for  property  be- 
longing to  our  citizens,  and  make  the  same  con- 
tribute to  the  support  of  the  government. 

Without  now  passing  upon  the  propriety  or 
reasonableness  of  the  exercise  of  such  power,  I 
wish  to  say  this,  that  it  is  practically  an  ineffi- 
cient exercise  of  taxation  power.  That  we 
have  been  unable  to  reach  much  property 
which  is  invested  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
State.  But  under  this  clause,  while  this  gen- 
eral provision  in  relation  to  taxes  may  be  in  the 
future  as  in  the  past  totally  insufficient,  still 
we  may  compel  persons  living  within  Ohio  and 
enjoying  the  protection  of  its  laws  and  institu- 
tions, to  contribute  to  the  public  revenues,  by  re- 
porting for  taxation  the  profits  and  incomes 
arising  from  all  investments  foreign  to  our 
jurisdiction.  Such  a consummation  is  worth 
an  effort  to  obtain. 

I now  come  to  the  subject  of  banking,  which 
is  section  6 of  this  Report.  We  propose  to  put 
the  banks  of  Ohio  in  their  true  and  just  posi- 
tion in  relation  to  the  system  of  taxation  in 
this  State..  In  other  words,  we  propose  to  tax 
all  banks  and  bankers  by  such  an  equitable 
rule,  based  upon  two  conditions,  capital  and 
business  done  by  them,  as  will  require  them  to 
share  equally  with  all  other  interests  in  the 
burdens  of  taxation.  Now,  under  this  section 
we  have  based  the  equitable  rule  to  tax  the 
banks  of  Ohio  on  two  facts,  or  two  elements  of 
taxation  : one  is  the  capital  employed,  and  the 
other  is  the  business  done.  Under  this  provi- 
sion it  strikes  us  that  the  General  Assembly 
may  devise  a plan  of  taxation,  so  as  to  subject 
all  banks,  private  and  public,  to  make  a report 
of  all  capital  employed,  and  such  monthly, 
quarterly  and  annual  exhibits  of  all  business 
done  by  them.  If  such  a result  can  be  accom- 
plished, the  Legislature  may  make  that  capital 
and  that  business,  by  equitable  rules  of  assess- 
ment, bear  its  proper  proportion  of  public  bur- 
dens. If  we  can  reach  that,  we  substantially 
put  all  that  class  of  special  business  upon  a 
sound  and  substantial  footing  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  public  taxes. 

And  now,  as  to  the  last  section ; and  here  I 
do  not  propose  to  say  much.  The  purpose  and 
object,  if  I understand  it  aright,  of  this  last 
section,  is  not  a war  to  the  death  against  the 
dogs  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  [Laughter.]  I do 
not  think,  from  what  I know  of  the  members  of 
the  Committee,  of  the  generous  sympathies  of 
their  natures,  that  they  had  any  design  to  wage 
a war  of  extermination  upon  this  class  of  our 
pet  domestic  animals.  Our  purpose,  more  than 
any  other,  was  to  give  protection  to  a certain 
great  interest  in  the  department  of  agriculture 
in  the  State.  Our  object  was  to  protect  the 
wool  interest4n  Ohio.  We  thought,  in  looking 
over  the  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  State  upon 
this  subject,  that  the  amount  of  loss  sustained 
by  the  farmers  of  Ohio,  from  the  destruction  of 
sheep,  was  equal  to  the  sum  of  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars  annually.  And  we  learned 
from  the  same  public  record — and  we  do  not  be- 
lieve all  the  dogs  were  reported — that  about 
one  hundred  and  seventy-seven  thousand  of 
such  domestic  animals,  with  acknowledged 
masters,  rambled  up  and  down  the  broad  land 
of  Ohio,  without  any  legal  control  whatever. 
Our  purpose,  therefore,  was  to  tax  the  dog,  or 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


1987 


Smith  of  H.,  Hitchcock,  Burns,  Ewing,  Rowland. 


Day.] 


March  12, 1874.] 


rather  the  master  of  the  dog,  for  the  high  priv- 
ilege of  being  surrounded  with  his  canine 
friends.  Our  purpose  is  to  make  the  enjoyment 
of  such  peculiar  attachment  dependent  on  a 
reasonable  contribution  to  a fund  that  shall  be 
set  apart  to  meet  the  loss  annually  sustained  by 
the  great  and  growing  wool  interest  of  the 
State.  It  is  the  price  that  hereafter  ought  to  be 
paid  for  liberty  by  dogs  of  the  State.  Enter- 
taining these  views,  we  did  not  conspire,  in 
framing  this  section,  to  destroy  the  lives  or  in- 
terfere with  the  liberties  of  the  dogs,  but  to  en- 
able them  to  live  and  move  under  the  protection 
of  law,  by  virtue  of  a police  tax  or  assessment, 
levied  on  and  paid  by  their  respective  keepers. 
By  the  payment  of  a small  tribute  into  the  com- 
mon treasury,  we  intend  to  secure,  in  the  future, 
both  the  safety  and  liberty  of  our  canine  friends. 

I leave  the  question  now  in  the  hands  of  my 
gallant  friend,  General  Burns,  whose  duty  and 
pleasure  it  will  be,  I have  no  doubt,  to  extend 
his  guardian  care  and  protective  shield  over  the 
dogs  of  the  country;  while  my  young  friend 
from  the  county  of  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  shall 
be  engaged  in  a crusade  with  a ruthless  purpose 
of  destroying  dogs  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 

Mr.  BURNS.  As  Chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee—— 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Mr.  Chairman 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  give 
way? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes ; but  I want  the  gentle- 
man from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  to  include,  as 
my  aid  de  camp , the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock J,  on  the  dog  question. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I hope  the  gentleman 
from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  will  not  insist  upon 
that  proposition — a whiffet  can  be  of  no  ac- 
count in  this  discussion. 

Mr.  EWING.  Make  up  your  own  Constitu- 
tion in  your  own  way. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  While  I cannot  entirely 
agree  with  the  distinguished  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  Com- 
mittee has  changed  the  spirit  df  the  present 
rule  of  taxation,  believing  it  much  greater  than 
he  does,  he  has  fairly  stated  the  position  of  the 
members  of  it. 

A conviction  of  my  duty  to  my  constituents, 
and  a sincere  desire  to  learn  how  I ought  to 
vote,  have  made  me,  in  the  main,  an  attentive 
listener  to  the  debates  in  this  body.  It  is,  per- 
haps, natural  that  those  subjects  in  which  we 
take  a deep  interest  should  be  deemed  of  para- 
mount importance;  that  we  should  magnify 
them  and  disparage  others.  Whether  the  study 
of  Revenue  and  Taxation  has  dilated  or  con- 
tracted my  conception,  certain  is  it,  that  they 
have  grown  upon  me  until  the  horizon  has 
greatly  enlarged ; and  as  I approach  the  discus- 
sion of  them,  there  comes  over  me  an  oppressive 
sense  of  the  magnitude  of  the  task  and  my  own 
inability  to  perform  it.  I will  not  claim  that 
Taxation  overshadows  all  other  subjects;  that 
it  towers  above  them  like  Mont  Blanc  among 
the  Alps  or  Jupiter  among  the  gods.  But  in 
all  truth  and  soberness,  I must  affirm  that 
to  no  subject  which  has  engaged  the  attention 
of  this  body  can  there  be  assigned  a more  im- 
portant place  than  that  of  taxation.  It  is  emi- 
nently a practical  question ; containing  but  few 
of  those  moral  and  political  elements  which 


arouse  and  excite  the  masses.  It  does  not  ad- 
dress the  passions  and  kindle  the  imagination ; 
but  like  the  poor,  we  have  it  always  with  us. 
Other  questions  arise  and  subside,  but  taxation 
ever  remains,  an  interest  all-pervading,  and 
continuously  affecting  the  labor,  the  property 
and  the  welfare  of  the  whole  people.  From  the 
pages  of  ancient  history  we  can  gather  but  lit- 
tle information  about  it.  Gibbon  states  that 
“history  has  never,  perhaps,  suffered  a greater 
or  more  irreparable  injury  than  in  the  loss  of 
the  curious  register  bequeathed  by  Augustus  to 
the  Roman  Senate,  in  which  that  experienced 
prince  so  accurately  balanced  the  revenues  and 
expenses  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Deprived  of 
this  clear  and  comprehensive  estimate,  we  are 
reduced  to  collect  a few  imperfect  hints  from 
such  of  the  ancients  as  have  accidentally  turned 
aside  from  the  splendid  to  the  more  useful  parts 
of  history.  The  introduction  of  customs  was 
followed  by  an  excise,  and  the  scheme  of  taxa- 
tion was  completed  by  an  artful  assessment  on 
the  real  and  personal  property  of  the  Roman 
citizens,  who  had  been  exempted  from  any 
kind  of  contribution  for  a century  and  a half. 
In  the  reign  of  Augustus  and  his  successors,  du- 
ties were  imposed  on  every  kind  of  merchandise, 
which  through  a thousand  channels  flowed  to  the 
great  centre  of  opulence  and  luxury ; and  in 
whatsoever  manner  the  law  was  expressed,  it 
was  the  Roman  purchaser  and  not  the  provin- 
cial merchant  who  paid  the  tax.”  Referring  to 
a time  subsequent  to  the  abdication  of  Diocle- 
tian, the  same  author  states  that : “ about  that 
time,  the  avarice  of  Galerius,  or  perhaps  the 
exigencies  of  State,  had  induced  him  to  make  a 
very  strict  and  rigorous  inquisition  into  the 
property  of  his  subjects  for  the  purpose  of  a 
general  taxation,  both  on  their  lands  and  on 
their  persons.  A very  minute  survey  appears 
to  have  been  taken  of  their  real  estates ; and 
whenever  there  was  the  slightest  suspicion  of 
concealment,  torture  was  very  freely  employed 
to  obtain  a sincere  declaration  of  their  personal 
wealth ; a refusal  to  disclose  every  source  of 
wealth  often  resulted  in  conviction  of  treason 
and  sacrilege.  The  lapse  of  hundreds  of  years 
succeeding  this,  furnishes  but  little  data  con- 
cerning this  subject.  So  far  as  taxation  has 
been  rendered  necessary,  by  the  creation  of 
national  debts  of  magnitude,  we  have  only  to 
travel  back  two  centuries.  Macaulay  says  that 
the  debt  of  England  was  “ the  greatest  prodigy 
that  ever  perplexed  the  sagacity  or  confounded 
the  pride  of  statesmen  and  philosophers.  It 
grew  from  fifty  million  pounds  in  1692  to  the 
enormous  sum  of  eight  hundred  millions  at 
the  termination  of  her  tremendous  struggle 
with  Napoleon  in  1815.  At  every  stage  of  its 
growth  it  was  the  source  of  perplexity  and  de- 
spair to  statesmen  and  political  economists. 
Hume,  and  even  Adam  Smith,  utterly  failed  to 
comprehend  the  capacity  of  England  for  taxa- 
tion sufficient  to  provide  for  the  payment  of  the 
interest  on  the  national  debt.  The  only  states- 
man, active  or  speculative,  who  did  not  share 
in  the  general  delusion  was,  Edmund  Burke. 
The  genius  and  sagacity  of  her  public  men 
were  taxed  to  the  utmost  to  provide  for  the 
payment  of  the  interest,  and  the  current  ex- 
penses of  the  government.  An  attempt  to  im- 
pose a considerable  share  of  this  burden  upon 


1988 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


[136th 

Rowland.  [Thursday, 


the  American  colonies,  and  at  the  same  time 
refusing  them  the  right  of  representation,  re- 
sulted first,  in  their  alienation ; next,  their  re- 
sistance, and,  finally,  in  their  separation  and 
independence.  Notwithstanding  this  serious 
loss,  England  has  steadily  increased  in  her  ca- 
pacity to  bear  the  great  burden  of  debt  which 
was  imposed  upon  her;  to  retain  all  her 
remaining  colonies,  to  extend  her  empire 
to  colossal  proportions,  and  run  with  com- 
parative ease  the  vast  and  complicated 
machinery  of  her  government.  Her  en- 
lightened financial  and  commercial  policy 
has  made  her  the  money  and  trade  cen- 
tre of  the  world.  The  lapse  of  a century 
finds  her  former  colonies  grown  to  a vast  Re- 
public of  thirty-seven  States,  stretching  from 
ocean  to  ocean;  the  home  of  forty  millionsof 
the  freest  and  most  prosperous  people  on  earth. 
And  to-day  finds  Ohio  the  third  State  in  the 
Union,  with  ourselves  assembled  in  her  chief 
city,  to  frame  her  third  Constitution  for  submis- 
sion to  her  people.  Her  advance  in  population, 
art.science,  education  and  material  comforts  still 
leaves  the  subject  of  taxation,  and  its  cognate 
questions,  the  most  complex,  intricate  and  diffi- 
cult of  all  the  problems  of  government.  It 
would  be  worse  than  folly  for  me  to  pretend  to 
have  mastered  these  subjects,  either  in  the  ab- 
stract or  concrete.  In  this  chaos  of  theory  and 
fact,  the  light  of  experience  shows  here 
and  there  a path  that  we  may  travel  with 
safety.  If  we  have  found  in  the  present  Con- 
stitution any  rule  of  taxation  which  has  result- 
ed disastrously  or  oppressively,  it  is  our  duty  to 
attempt  a remedy : to  introduce  in  its  stead  a 
better  principle  under  which  there  may  be 
wiser  and  more  satisfactory  legislation.  The 
rule  under  which  we  now  live  has  been  found 
too  rigid,  too  inflexible,  for  even  the  time  it  was 
adopted,  and  wholly  inadequate  to  meet  the 
great  changes  which  have  since  occurred. 
A great  civil  war  in  our  land  has 
wrought  immense  political  changes;  but, 
perhaps,  in  no  department  has  there  been 
greater  change  than  in  money,  tariffs  and 
taxes.  No  longer  does  a State  issue  a dollar  of 
the  currency.  Tariffs  and  internal  revenue 
have  added  to  the  burdens  of  the  people;  and 
the  material  interests  of  our  country,  not  less 
than  its  political  elements,  have  been  thorough- 
ly reconstructed.  These  burdens  must  and 
will  be  borne,  and  it  is  the  province  of  this 
Convention  to  impose  such  limitations  upon  the 
power  to  tax  as  may  be  necessary,  and  to  pre- 
scribe such  rules  as  will  enable  the  Legislature 
to  distribute  fairly  this  load,  which  must  be 
carried  by  the  people.  The  power  to  tax  inheres 
in  the  government:  it  is  the  duty  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  afford  complete  and  impartial  pro- 
tection to  the  persons  and  property  of  citizens, 
and  taxes  are  levied  in  order  that  such  protec- 
tion may  be  afforded.  Not  what  the  people 
can  give,  but  what  they  ought  to  give  is  defined 
as  the  proper  measure  of  revenue  to  be  exacted ; 
and  what  they  ought  to  contribute,  must  be 
measured  by  the  benefit  they  are  to  derive.  A 
free  people  will  willingly  bear  the  taxation 
necessary  to  maintain  government;  but  they 
ought  to  demand,  in  return,  that  the  burdens  be 
fairly  distributed,  and  the  revenue  honestly 
and  economically  expended.  But  it  may  be 


urged,  that  the  State  has  grown  rapidly  in 
population  and  wealth  under  this  objection- 
able system  of  taxation,  and  hence,  where 
the  necessity  for  change?  She  has  advanced, 
not  by  reason  of,  but  in  spite  of,  a vicious  and 
illiberal  system  of  taxation.  She  has  had  the 
best  materials  of  growth  conceivable.  Fortu- 
nate in  her  early  adoption  of  free  schools,  she 
has  had  a complex,  active  and  intelligent  pop- 
ulation. Her  geographical  position  has  been 
to  her  a great  source  of  growth.  Measuring  the 
whole  breadth  of  free  territory  from  the  north- 
ern boundary  of  the  Union  to  the  northern  line 
of  slave  territory,  she  has  in  a peculiar  manner 
reaped  the  benefit  of  those  great  tides  of  popu- 
lation which  swrept  through  her  toward  the 
northwest,  enriching  her,  as  does  the  overflow- 
ing Nile  the  land  of  Egypt — these  currents  of 
wealth  and  immigration  flowed  through  her, 
north  of  their  natural  channel,  because 
slavery,  like  a dark  and  frowning  wall, 
stood  on  her  border  to  repel  them  from  a 
more  southerly  course.  On  her  surface  were 
constructed  those  great  lines  of  railroad 
which  unite  the  east  with  the  expanding 
west,  and  even  under  an  unwise  system  of 
taxation,  her  rapid  growth  need  excite  no 
special  wonder.  Ohio  may  be  supposed  to  have 
almost  reached  her  maximum  of  agricultural 
production;  but  in  mining,  manufacturing, 
commerce  and  the  accumulation  of  personal 
property  in  its  various  forms,  her  future  opens 
before  the  mind  with  almost  limitless  expan- 
sion. In  these  departments,  must  she  find  the 
main  elements  of  her  future  prosperity?  No 
plan  can  be  devised  by  which  you  can  have 
heavy  expenses  and  light  taxation — if  expen- 
ditures are  large,  if  government  be  admistered 
in  an  extravagant  style,  taxes  will  be  burden- 
some. The  great  end  is  to  distribute  properly 
these  burdens.  Many  difficulties  that  now  per- 
tain to  State  or  local  taxation,  would  be  re- 
moved if  there  were  a uniform  system  through- 
out the  various  States.  But  they  vary  so  wide- 
ly, both  in  their  relative  expenditures  and  in 
their  methods  of  assessment,  as  to  compel  us  to 
adjust  our  system  to  those  of  our  neighboring 
States,  or  suffer  loss.  We  must  take  these  vari- 
ations into  account,  and  in  some  measure,  at 
least,  conform  to  them.  If  the  legislation  of 
adjoining  States  be  such  as  to  invite  capital  and 
enterprise,  while  we  repel  them,  injury  must 
result  to  us.  Capital  will  naturally  seek  those 
channels  where  there  are  the  least  obstructions 
in  the  form  of  stringent  usury  laws,  and  in- 
vidious taxation.  We  may  claim  that  our 
State  affords  superior  protection  to  life  and 
property;  better  schools  and  churches  than 
others;  but  capital  will  avoid  heavy  taxa- 
tion, and  seek  those  places  in  which  “ the 
yoke  is  easy  and  the  burden  light.” 
However  we  may  congratulate  ourselves 
upon  our  advantages,  the  facts  are  that 
we  are  driving  from  us  much  of  that  wealth 
which  has  been  created  on  our  own  soil,  and  by 
the  same  unwise  processes  repelling  such  an 
influx  of  capital,  enterprise  and  labor  as  is 
necessary  for  the  proper  development  of  our 
State.  We  must  have  a more  flexible  system  if 
we  would  stay  this  drain  upon  our  resources. 
One  and  the  same  rule  cannot  be  applied  to  all 
classes  of  business  and  property,  without  work- 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Rowland,  Ewing. 


1989 


ing  unjustly  and  oppressively  on  some  as  com- 
pared with  others.  The  great  task  in  taxation 
is  to  get  the  property  on  the  tax-duplicate  at  a 
proper  valuation,  and  then  to  apply  to  it  such 
rules  as  will  avoid  discrimination  against  certain 
classes  of  property  or  business,  which  can  and 
will  not  remain  with  you  under  such  injustice 
— and  above  all  to  avoid  double  taxation.  Per- 
haps we  shall  always  fall  below  this  ideal,  in 
our  experience ; but  we  think  it  ought  to  be 
much  more  nearly  approximated  than  has  been 
possible  under  the  cast-iron  rule  of  the  present 
Constitution.  The  results  of  that  rule  may  be 
briefly  stated  : they  have  been  to  curtail  our  bank- 
ing capital  far  below  our  wants;  to  drive  from 
the  State  the  ownership  of  almost  all  the  bonds 
of  the  State,  the  cities,  the  railroads  and  other 
corporations,  to  a more  hospitable  clime.  The 
roads  are,  in  consequence,  run  for  the  benefit 
of  residents  of  other  States.  Millions  of  con- 
signed goods,  that  ought  to  come  here,  go  else- 
where. Manufacturers  seek  other  States.  In 
none  of  your  own  bonds  can  a capitalist,  a trus- 
tee or  guardian  invest  a dollar,  because  of  your 
system  of  taxation  ; and  to-day  the  trustees  of 
the  Southern  Railway  are  in  foreign  markets 
negotiating  our  bonds  for  the  construction  of 
that  great  line  of  road  to  the  South,  when  our 
own  citizens  would  invest  in  but  for  that  blind 
policy  which  seeks  to  subject  all  the  forms  of 
property,  as  well  as  all  the  evidence  of  proper- 
ty, to  one  rigid  rule  of  uniformity.  Having 
thus  indicated  the  general  features  of  the  sub- 
ject as  it  has  presented  itself  to  my  mind,  I will 
now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  some  of  the 
separate  sections,  submitted  as  substitutes  for 
those  in  the  present  Constitution. 

Section  1.  This  section  contains  provisions 
so  obviously  proper  as  to  require  no  special 
comments  in  that  connection.  With  this,  as 
with  some  other  sections,  I shall  reserve  any 
special  comment  until  they  come  before  the 
Convention  in  their  order;  or,  at  least,  until 
the  general  debate  shall  call  forth  more  minute 
examination. 

Section  2.  This  section  remains  substan- 
tially as  in  the  present  Constitution;  but  the 
Committee  thought  proper  to  omit  the  preface 
to  the  inhibition  of  the  poll  tax ; which  describes 
it  as,  “ grievous  and  oppressive  ” ; deeming  it 
unnecessary  to  assign — in  the  section — the  rea- 
sons for  such  restriction. 

Section  3.  “ Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing, 
by  equitable  and  uniform  rules,  all  real  and 
personal  property,  so  that  all  property  shall  bear 
an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation,  accor- 
ding to  its  true  value  in  money,  but  providing 
against  double  taxation.” 

Around  this  section  centers  the  greatest 
interest  that  pertains  to  any  portion  of  this 
Article.  Upon  its  proper  settlement  depends, 
more  than  upon  any  other  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution, the  future  welfare  and  material 
prosperity  of  the  people  of  Ohio.  A mistake 
here  will  be  disastrous.  The  Committee 
gave  to  this  section  a most  protracted  and  ex- 
haustive consideration.  As  reported,  it  is  the 
result  of  compromise.  It  is  a greater  departure 
from  the  old  rule  than  was  desired  by  some, 
and  less  than  was  demanded  by  others. 
Among  the  latter,  I must  be  classed ; and  yet 
it  is  so  great  an  improvement  upon  the  present 


Constitution  that  I can  see  no  reason  why  we 
may  not  secure  under  it,  such  legislation  as 
will  materially  mitigate  the  evils  under  which 
we  now  labor.  I am  aware  that  we  shall  be 
asked,  what  is  meant  in  this  section  by  the  ad- 
jectives, “uniform”  and  equitable,”  as'  applied 
to  the  rules  by  which  the  real  and  personal 
property  of  the  State  is  to  be  taxed.  In  ordi- 
nary use,  the  word  “uniform”  has  a more  defi- 
nite meaning  than  “equitable;”  but  my  own 
construction  of  them,  as  we  use  them  in  this 
connection,  is,  that  the  equity  shall  apply  to  the 
proper  classification  of  the  different  subjects 
and  classes  of  property  sought  to  be  taxed,  and 
the  uniformity  shall  obtain  in  the  equality  of 
taxation,  throughout  the  State,  of  all  the  prop- 
erty of  the  same  class — variable  as  to  classes,  but 
uniform  as  to  the  rate  of  tax  on  each  class. 

That  is  my  definition  of  it,  and  if  it  means 
less  than  that  I shall  oppose  it. 

Mr.  EWING.  It  does  mean  less,  I think. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  This  section  does  not,  as 
the  gentleman  understands,  meet  my  views  en- 
tirely; but  certainly  that  is  the  only  construc- 
tion I can  place  upon  it.  Theterm“rules”  implies 
different  classes.  You  cannot  have  one  and  the 
same  rule  applicable  to  all  the  property  of  the 
State,  either  as  to  classification,  valuation,  or 
anything  else. 

Mr.  EWING.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me  to  interrupt  him  one  moment,  I think  that 
is  all  controlled  by  the  further  clause,  that,  the 
rule  shall  be  such  that  all  property  shall  bear 
an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation,  ac- 
cording to  its  true  value  in  money.  It  seems  to 
me  that  it  can  mean  nothing  other  than  that  all 
property  shall  be  taxed  an  equal  percentage 
of  its  true  value  in  money.  I do  not  see  any 
other  construction  that  can  be  put  upon  it. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I agree  with  the  gentle- 
man that  it  does  not  apply  there,  and  is  entire- 
ly incongruous  with  the  remainder.  I,  for  one, 
shall  vote  for  striking  it  out.  It  has  no  meaning 
where  it  is,  if  any  construction  at  all  variable 
from  what  was  in  the  old  Constitution,  can  be 
applied  to  these  terms  upon  which  I have  com- 
mented. 

It  seems  that  we  have  found  no  way  to  cut 
this  gordian  knot  of  uniformity.  Other  States 
appear  to  have  found  a way  out  of  the  difficul- 
ty, but  we  have  not,  either  through  our  Legis- 
lature or  through  our  courts. 

A rule  of  uniformity,  as  we  have  been  com- 
pelled to  apply  it  under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, ^almost  uniformly  works  injustice.  I am 
aware  that  much  of  the  trouble  as  to  taxation 
belongs  to  the  legislation  regarding  it,  and  is 
not  in  all  cases  the  necessary  result  of  consti- 
tutional provision.  But,  sir,  neither  the  Legis- 
lature nor  the  supreme  court  has  been  equal  to 
the  task  of  lifting  from  our  necks  this  incubus 
of  uniformity.  There  has  scarcely  been  the 
pretence  of  a compliance  with  the  rule  requir- 
ing that  all  property  should  be  placed  upon  the 
duplicate  at  its  true  value  in  money.  A system 
has  been  applied  to  real  estate  by  which  it  has 
confessedly  been  taxed  at  about  an  average  of 
fifty  per  centum  of  its  real  value  in  money.  One 
rule  applies  to  real  estate  and  another  to  per- 
sonal property.  The  former  is  valued  by  as- 
sessors once  in  ten  years,  and  values  readjusted 
by  local  and  state  boards  of  equalization.  Per- 


1990 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


[136th 


Kowland. 


[Thursday, 


sonal  property  is  brought  upon  the  duplicate — 
if  brought  there  at  all — by  the  oath  or  affirma- 
tion of  the  owner  or  legal  custodian  thereof. 
Half  of  it  is  never  reached,  and  the 
result  is,  that  the  conscientious  owner  of  that 
which  gets  upon  the  duplicate  is  doubly,  and 
often  trebly,  taxed.  The  very  methods  by 
which  property  is  put  upon  the  list  are  any- 
thing but  uniform  or  just;  and  yet,  when  it 
once  gets  upon  the  duplicate,  there  is  more 
“uniformity”  than  attached  to  the  laws  of  the 
Medes  and  Persians.  The  failure  of  legislatures 
and  courts  to  remedy  the  absurdities  and  injus- 
tice of  our  pet  system  of  “uniformity,”  admon- 
ish us  that  we  must  change,  and  most  radically 
change,  our  plans.  In  no  civilized  country, 
save  our  own,  does  the  theory  prevail  that  real 
and  personal  property  shall  be  either  valued  or 
taxed  alike.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  or  justice 
in  assuming  that  inequality  will  result  by  rea- 
son of  the  application  of  variable  rules.  Our 
adherence  to  such  a theory  is  offering  a pre- 
mium to  dishonesty,  and  by  the  same  measure 
imposing  a grievous  burden  upon  honesty  and 
enterprise.  We  are  not,  perhaps,  ready  in 
Ohio  to  adopt  the  system  recommended  by  the 
Hon.  David  "A.  Wells  to  the  Legislature  of  New 
York,  in  regard  to  taxation;  and  yet,  I am 
constrained  to  believe  that  it  is  the  wisest  plan 
yet  projected  in  this  country.  He  holds  the 
theory  “that  equality  of  taxation  consists  in  a 
uniform  assessment  of  the  same  articles  or  class 
of  property  that  is  subject  to  taxation ; that  all 
taxes  equate  and  diffuse  themselves ; and  that, 
if  levied  with  certainty  and  uniformity  upon 
tangible  property,  and  fixed  signs  of  property, 
they  will,  by  a diffusion  and  repercussion, 
reach  and  burden  all  visible,  and  also  all  invisi- 
ble and  intangible  property,  with  unerring  cer- 
tainty and  equality.”  “Tax  but  a few  things, 
and  then  leave  those  taxes  to  diffuse,  adjust  and 
apportion  themselves  by  the  inflexible  laws  of 
trade  and  political  economy.” 

Since  the  war,  we  have  had  an  enormous  in- 
crease in  property,  or  evidences  of  property, 
in  the  shape  of  bonds,  stocks,  and  securities. 
The  States  of  New  York,  New  Jersey  and 
Pennsylvania  have  been  far  more  liberal  than 
Ohio  in  their  treatment  of  personal  property ; 
and  the  consequence  is,  that  much  of  our  capi- 
tal goes  to  those  friendly  communities,  and  there 
will  it  continue  to  flow  if  we  adhere  to  our 
present  policy.  However  plausible  “uniform- 
ity” may  seem,  we  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the 
fact  that  the  intangible  forms  of  wealth  are 
leaving  us.  We  may  assert  “our  right  to  shear 
the  wolf”  never  so  vehemently ; we  may  resolve 
that  we  will  coerce  an  exhibit  of  all  the  sources 
and  results  of  personal  wealth ; and  yet,  it  will 
all  be  idle  and  nugatory,  because  of  a lack  of 
the  power  to  do  it.  The  tax  on  personal  prop- 
erty is  so  light  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  as 
scarcely  to  be  felt;  hence  her  rapid  growth. 
The  great  influx  of  capital  and  population  into 
her,  is  mainly  attributable  to  this  cause.  It  is 
assumed  that  the  value  of  ground  is  almost  ac- 
curately measured  by  the  value  of  the  build- 
ings and  the  accumulation  of  business  and  per- 
sonal property  upon  it.  The  readiest  method 
within  our  reach  to  enhance  the  value  of  all  our 
lands,  is  to  invite  to  our  State  a large  increase 
of  capital,  machinery,  and  enterprise.  Liberal 


tax  laws  will  produce  this  result.  An  enlight- 
ened self-interest,  if  no  higher  motive,  demands 
of  us  such  action  as  will  enable  the  Legislature 
to  adjust  the  laws  of  taxation  to  those  condi- 
tions of  the  business  of  the  State  which  require 
liberality  and  flexibility,  no  less  than  justice. 

The  concluding  provision  of  the  section  is  in- 
tended to  prevent  an  evil  that  has  long  been 
apparent,  and  for  which  we  seem  to  have 
found,  under  the  present  Constitution,  no 
remedy.  It  is  gratifying,  however,  to  know 
that  the  Supreme  Court  of  California,  under  a 
constitutional  rule  of  uniformity  nearly  simi- 
lar to  our  own,  has  declared  that  all  taxation  of 
mortgages,  and  similar  evidences  of  debt,  is 
double  taxation;  and,  therefore,  illegal  and 
void.  The  result  has  been  that  in  that  State  the 
rate  of  interest  for  money  loaned  upon  such 
investments  has  decreased  in  exact  proportion 
to  the  amount  of  the  tax  imposed.  I will  not 
now  dwell  longer  upon  this  section,  as  the  pro- 
gress of  the  debate  upon  it  will  allow  the  am- 
plest opportunity  for  more  minute  discussion ; 
hoping,  however,  that  the  phrase,  “so  that  all 
property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  bur- 
dens of  taxation  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money,”  will  be  stricken  out,  leaving  the  sec- 
tion congruous,  and  embracing  all  that  is  de- 
sirable. 

Section  4.  This  section  refers  solely  to  the 
exemption  of  property  from  taxation,  and  is 
permissive,  save  as  to  the  publication  of  the 
value  of  such  property  as  may  be  exempted. 
We  discussed  this  at  great  length  in  the  Com- 
mittee, and  different  views  still  remain  as  to  the 
propriety  or  justice  of  the  policy  of  exemption. 
But  as  the  section,  as  it  is  reported,  is  so  flexi- 
ble as  to  leave  the  matter  entirely  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  General  Assembly  with  regard  to 
exempting  the  classes  of  property  enumerated 
— their  power  of  exemption  being  confined  ex- 
clusively to  the  enumeration — that  the  Com- 
mittee very  generally  agreed  to  leave  it,  sub- 
stantially, as  we  found  it.  Should  public  senti- 
ment, at  any  time,  demand  the  repeal  of  any  or 
all  of  these  exemptions  it  has  only  to  apply  to 
the  General  Assembly  for  that  purpose.  There 
does  not  seem  to  be  much  demand  for  change  in 
these  exemptions,  save  in  respect  to  churches. 
There  seems  to  be,  even  among  good 
and  wise  citizens,  a great  diversity  of  opinion 
on  this  subject.  I came  to  the  Convention 
rather  inclined  to  favor  the  taxation  of  church 
property,  but  more  mature  reflection  has 
worked  in  my  mind  a distrust  of  the  inherent 
merits  of  such  a proposition;  and  a fuller  con- 
sideration of  its  effects  upon  the  interests  of  the 
State  has  induced  me  to  oppose  any  change. 
The  taxation  of  church  property  has  a seeming 
of  fairness  upon  its  face,  based  upon  the  theory 
that  all  the  property  of  the  State  should  con- 
tribute its  just  proportion  of  the  taxation 
necessary  to  enable  the  State  to  afford  proper 
protection  to  it.  But  this,  like  many  abstract 
propositions  which  seem  incontrovertible,  when 
brought  to  the  crucial  test  of  experience,  does 
not  prove  to  be  sound  and  logical.  The  money 
contributed  for  the  purchase  of  a lot  and  the 
erection  of  a church,  does  not  stand  on  the 
same  footing  with  the  money  which  even  the 
same  contributors  may  invest  in  houses,  lands 
or  merchandise,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  gain. 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Rowland,  Townsend,  Bishop,  Hale,  Voris. 


1991 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.] 


The  former  is  sanctified  and  consecrated  to 
their  highest  ideal  of  duty  to  God  and  man. 
It  is  an  emanation  of  “ the  Divinity  within 
them  that  shapes  their  ends” ; and  stands  before 
them  as  an  embodiment  of  the  purest  and 
noblest  sentiments  that  animate  the  breast  of 
man.  The  money,  so  given,  is  for  unselfish  and 
exalted  purposes.  No  material  gains  can 
accrue ; rather  does  it  require  additional  outlay 
and  constant  vigilance  to  preserve  it  from  decay, 
and  to  perpetuate  it  as  a sincere  offering  to  God. 
I am  well  aware  that  great  evils  have  resulted 
in  other  countries  from  the  absorption  of  enor- 
mous properties  byjecclesiastical  organizations, 
but  they  were  the  ripe  fruit  of  a union  of 
Church  and  State.  In  many  cases  built  up  by 
taxes  or  confiscations,  they  have,  in  times  of  in- 
vasion and  revolution,  been  seized  by  the  State 
and  converted  to  its  uses.  But  no  such  results 
can  be  apprehended  here.  No  church  can  tax; 
her  only  support  is  the  freewill  offerings  of  her 
adherents.  They  deny  themselves,  and  volun- 
tarily and  unselfishly  set  apart,  to  a noble  pur- 
pose, a portion  of  their  substance.  Shall  they 
be  taxed  on  this  as  on  other  property?  Under 
the  rule  of  assessment , churches  now  contribute 
to  the  construction  of  streets,  roads  and  sewers; 
and  in  default,  they  are  sold  by  the  State. 

In  the  Constitution  of  1851,  we  declare  that 
religion,  morality  and  education  are  essential 
to  good  government,  and  we  have  re-affirmed 
that  declaration  in  the  Bill  of  Rights.  Do  not 
all  the  churches  in  Ohio  contribute  largely  to 
the  establishment  of  these?  Shall  they  receive 
no  consideration  from  the  fact  that,  in  so  great 
a measure,  they  are  the  teachers  of  the  people 
in  all  that  adorns  and  embellishes  civilized  life ; 
that  they  prevent  crime,  and  inculcate  those 
virtues  which  are  the  only  secure  foundations 
of  a free  commonwealth?  Can  it  be  denied 
that,  beyond  all  other  agencies,  they  preserve 
the  morals  and  health  of  the  people?  But,  sir, 
there  are  considerations  of  policy,  which,  at 
present,  should  forbid  an  attempt  at  the  taxa- 
tion of  churches.  So  long  as  sister  States  re- 
frain from  it,  we  should.  A different  course 
would  place  us  at  a great  relative  disadvantage. 
We  would  surely  drive  from  us  some  of  our 
people,  and  repel  emigration ; and  that,  too,  on 
grounds  difficult  to  maintain — a tax  on  that 
which  men  most  prize,  when  at  their  best 
moods.  Will  you  debar  the  religious  and  up- 
right from  residence  among  you,  and  invite  only 
the  godless,  the  indifferent  and  the  vicious  ? 

I believe  that  it  would  be  an  unpopular  meas- 
ure, and  that  it  is  now  in  the  proper  attitude, 
subject  to  the  changes  of  public  opinion,  as  that 
may  operate  through  the  Legislature. 

A word  to  those  who  may  think  that  taxation 
would  cripple  or  destroy  the  churches,  and 
who  may,  on  that  account,  favor  it.  It  would 
oppress  and  cripple  many ; but  men  will  not 
cease  to  build  them ; taxation,  confiscation,  and 
death  itself,  will  be  found  unequal  to  the  task 
of  crushing  out  religion,  whatever  may  become 
of  the  church  edifices. 

There  are  other  sections  of  importance,  but 
Sections  3 and  4 are  all  on  which  I designed 
speaking  in  the  opening  debate.  I thank  the 
Convention  for  the  considerate  attention  with 
which  it  has  heard  me. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Unless  some  other  gen- 


tleman of  this  Convention  desires  to  discuss  this 
subject  at  length,  in  the  general  discussion, 
which  I would  be  very  glad  to  have  them  do, 
there  is  an  opportunity  offered  for  that  purpose 
now — unless  there  is  some  desire  of  that  kind, 
I move  that  general  debate  now  close. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I hope  the  gentleman  will 
not  press  that  motion. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I will  withdraw  it  at  the 
request  of  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I do  propose  to  say  something 
upon  the  subject.  I look  upon  this  as  one  of 
the  important  features  of  this  Convention.  The 
subject  of  Finance  and  Taxation  is  a very  im- 
portant matter — a very  difficult  subject  on 
which  to  come  at  proper  conclusions;  and  I 
am  satisfied  that  there  are  many  members  of 
this  Convention  that  want  to  speak  more  than 
ten  minutes.  Consequently,  having  given  no- 
tice thas  I would  try  to  see  the  rule  enforced,  I 
want  them  to  have  a half  hour.  I propose  to 
occupy  more  than  ten  minutes  myself,  but  not 
until  I hear  from  some  others. 

Mr.  HALE.  Suppose  no  others  desire  to 
speak. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  If  no  others  have  anything  to 
say,  I will  speak,  but  I do  not  want  to  do  it 
now. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  My  impression  is,  that  as 
the  different  sections  come  up,  that  embrace 
almost  distinct  propositions,  there  will  be 
ample  opportunity  to  each  gentleman  to  ex- 
press his  views  on  that  particular  question — 
that  phase  of  the  subject;  and  we  may  be  able  to 
dispose  of  one  subject  before  going  to  another. 
However,  if  there  is  any  gentleman  that  desires 
to  discuss  the  subject  generally,  I will  not  press 
the  motion. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I have  no  doubt  the  Conven- 
tion will  accord  to  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Bishop]  all  the  time  he  desires  when 
he  wishes  to  discuss  the  subject,  and  it  will 
come  up  on  the  consideration  of  the  question  to 
which  he  wishes  to  direct  it. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I would  simply  say  this,  that 
we  have  been  according  to  every  gentleman 
about  all  the  time  he  wanted,  and  it  looks  to 
me,  if  you  will  excuse  the  expression,  like  a 
humbug  to  dispense  with  the  general  debate 
and  then  give  every  man  as  much  time  as  he 
asks.  I think  we  might  as  well  take  it  up  at 
present.  However,  I am  not  disposed  to  be 
captious;  and  although  I was  not  quite  pre- 
pared, I am  ready  to  proceed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  withdraw  his 
motion  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  motion  is  with- 
drawn. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  In  signing  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Finance  and  Taxation,  as  one  of 
that  Committee,  it  was  not  understood  that  I 
was  under  obligations  to  support  and  advocate 
all  its  recommendations.  Nor  was  it  under- 
stood that  other  members  of  the  Committee 
were  under  obligations  so  to  do.  My  colleague 
[Mr.  Rowland]  has  very  correctly  remarked, 
that  on  most  of  the  recommendations  in  the 
Report  there  was  quite  a diversity  of  opinion 
entertained  by  the  several  members  of  the 
Committee.  And,  I,  sir,  in  signing  that  Report 
reserved  the  privilege  of  voting  only  for  such 


1992 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Bishop. 


[136  th 

[Thursday, 


recommendations  as  my  judgment  might  ap- 
prove, after  further  and  more  mature  delibera- 
tion on  the  subject. 

I propose,  now,  therefore,  to  give  my  views, 
in  as  brief  a manner  as  I can,  upon  a portion  of 
section  4,  and  in  so  doing,  permit  me  to  say, 
that  I concur  in  the  remark  of  the  distinguished 
Chairman  of  the  Committee,  in  stating  “ that 
the  Constitution  of  1851  does  not  exempt  from 
taxation,  public  school  houses,  houses  used  ex- 
clusively for  public  worship,  institutions  of 
purely  public  charity,  public  libraries,  &c.” 
But  that  Constitution  gave  permission  to  the 
Legislature  to  exempt  these  species  of  property, 
which  has  been  done.  My  impression  is,  that 
the  Auditor  of  the  State  has  placed  a very  lib- 
eral construction  upon  the  acts  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  permitted  much  abuse  of  the  law. 
The  object  of  my  remarks,  at  present,  is  to  try 
and  induce  the  Convention  to  place  such  re- 
strictions in  the  present  Constitution,  as  will 
prevent  the  repetition  of  such  or  similar  abuses. 
As  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  hasnoticed 
the  section  in  the  Beport  in  a generalway,  and 
my  colleague  [Mr.  Rowland]  has  discussed  the 
Report,  I shall  content  myself  with  giving  my 
views  upon  the  taxation  of  church  property. 

It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  the  subject  under 
consideration  is  one  of  very  great  importance. 
And  in  view  of  this  importance,  I hope  it  will 
not  be  passed  upon  without  first  receiving  the 
gravest  thought  of  this  Convention. 

The  question  of  taxation  has  always  been 
one  somewhat  difficult  to  solve,  and  when  it 
relates  to  property  held  for  religious,  educa- 
tional, and  public  purposes,  the  difficulty  is 
very  considerably  increased.  Recently,  how- 
ever, there  has  been  a growing  sentiment  in  this 
country,  favoring  the  taxation  of  all  property, 
no  matter  for  what  purposes  used ; and  I am  in- 
clined to  the  opinion  that  we  must  finally  come 
to  this  as  the  only  satisfactory  solution  of  all 
the  issues  involved.  For  myself,  I am  ready  to 
take  this  step  now ; but  I fear  that  so  sweeping 
a measure  would  not  command  the  approbation 
of  a majority  of  our  people.  Hence,  we  will 
have  to  be  content  with  such  a compromise  as 
will  relieve  our  present  system  of  some  of  its 
worst  features. 

And  just  here  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  state, 
that  while  I am  in  favor  of  taxing  school  and 
government  property  with  certain  modifications, 
I shall  confine  what  I have  to  say,  on  the  pre- 
sent occasion,  mainly  to  the  question  as  it  relates 
to  church  property;  for  I am  persuaded  that 
this  is  the  tender  point,  and  the  one  upon  which 
the  whole  question  turns. 

I wish,  furthermore,  to  state  that  in  advocat- 
ing the  taxation  of  church  property,  I know  I 
shall  run  counter  to  the  prejudices  of  a great 
many  good  people.  The  habit  of  exempting 
church  property  from  taxation  is  of  too  long 
standing  to  be  given  up  without  a struggle. 
Still  I am  not  without  hope  that  calm  discus- 
sion and  a sufficient  time  for  reflection  will 
bring  us  all  to  one  mind  and  one  judgment 
upon  the  subject.  I now  beg  your  indulgence 
while  I present  a few  reasons  why,  I think, 
church  property  should  be  taxed. 

1.  Such  taxation  would  be  beneficial  to  the 
church. 

This  proposition  will,  doubtless,  appear 


strange  to  many  minds.  It  has  generally  been 
supposed  that  the  present  beneficiary  system  is 
in  the  interest  of  the  church,  and  that  this  is 
one  of  the  grounds  upon  which  the  practice  of 
exemption  is  founded.  Now,  I do  not  wish  to 
appear  peculiar,  but  I cannot  help  the  belief 
that  the  exemption  of  church  property  from 
taxation  has  worked  very  great  evil  to  the 
Church.  Let  us  look  at  this  for  a moment. 

In  the  first  place,  it  presents  the  church  be- 
fore the  world  in  an  unfavorable  attitude.  This 
demand  for  exemption  practically  assumes  that 
the  church  is  not  able  to  pay  its  way,  and  that 
it  cannot  succeed  without  aid  from  the  world. 
This  view  of  the  matter,  I think,  is  not  true,  and 
ought  to  be  abandoned  as  unworthy  the  reli- 
gion of  Christ.  All  the  help  the  church  needs 
from  the  State  is  to  be  let  alone.  If  it  cannot 
pay  its  way  in  the  world  it  ought  not  to  suc- 
ceed. At  any  rate,  it  cannot  succeed  if  it  is 
made  to  depend  upon  the  State  for  support.  I 
find  this  phase  of  the  subject  so  ably  discussed 
in  an  article  in  the  Christian  Quarterly , that  I 
beg  your  indulgence  while  I read  a liberal  ex- 
tract. The  writer  says : 

“It  is  unquestionably  true  that  there  are  some  necessa- 
ry connections  between  Church  and  State.  The  Church 
of  Christ  is  an  imperium  in  imperio—a,  kingdom  within  a 
kingdom.  It  is  not  of  this  world,  but  it  is  in  this  world; 
and,  while  in  the  world,  it  must  be  somewhat  affected  by 
necessary  relations  to  the  governments  of  earth.  But 
the  Church  should  not  accept  any  voluntary  relationship, 
and  certainly  not  that  of  pecuniary  dependence.  Such  de- 
pendence at  once  largely  paralyzes  the  efficiency  of  the 
Church,  and  places  it  in  the  unenviable  attitude  of  being 
a beneficiary  of  the  State.  This  particular  attitude  of 
the  Church  needs  a thorough  ventilation.  Out  of  it  grows 
a very  large  class  of  evils.  This  charity  of  the  State  is 
the  starting-point  of  a long  catalogue  of  infirmities  with 
W'hich  the  church  is  afflicted.  Railroad  and  steamboat 
corporations,  and,  in  fact,  nearly  all  other  corporations, 
are  laid  under  contribution,  in  this  matter  of  charity  to 
the  Church.  If  a thing  is  started  in  the  name  of  religion, 
it  is  at  once  entitled  to  be  dead-headed,  or  passed  at  half- 
fare over  all  the  highways  of  travel.  But  the  evil  does 
not  stop  here.  Ministers  of  the  Gospel  are  supposed  to 
represent,  in  their  proper  person,  the  type  of  the  religion 
which  they  preach.  But  who  does  not  know  that  the 
ministry  has  become  a sort  of  institution  upon  which  to 
display  this  questionable  charity,  growing  out  of  the 
beneficiary  relations  of  the  Church  and  the  State.  In 
fact,  the  habit  of  regarding  preachers  as  a class  of  re- 
spectable beggars  has  become  so  general,  that  it  is  the 
next  thing  to  a sacrifice  of  real  manhood  to  enter  upon 
that  which  ought  to  be  the  most  honorable  of  all  call- 
ings. 

“We  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood  at  this  point.  We 
do  not  object  to  any  one  procuring  favorable  rates  from 
railroads  and  steamboats,  or  from  any  other  corporations 
or  persons,  where  it  may  be  done  lawfully,  and  in  view  of 
proper  considerations.  But  what  we  object  to  is  the  pro- 
curing of  such  favors  in  the  name  of  the  Church  or  min- 
istry. We  object  to  the  usiDg  of  the  Christian  religion 
for  any  such  purpose,— firSt,  because  it  degrades  the  re- 
ligion itself;  and,  secondly,  because  it  places  the  recipi- 
ents of  such  favors  in  a position  of  dependence  upon  the 
world  for  support.  We  do  not  object  to  any  one  receiv- 
ing anything  that  may  be  given  him,  if  ne  chooses  to 
receive  it,  provided  always  it  is  not  given  because  he  is  a 
Christian  or  a minister  of  the  Gospel. 

“The  evils  growing  out  of  a misunderstanding  of  this 
matter  are  manifold.  It  is  understood  that  a minister 
need  not  receive  salary  enough  to  support  him,  since  half- 
fare privileges  and  donation-parties  are  expected  to 
make  up  the  deficit  He  is  to  be  discounted  at  every 
counter,  even  to  the  matter  of  a grocery  bill,  until  both 
he  and  his  work  are  at  considerable  discount  in  the  pub- 
lic estimation.  In  fact,  it  seems  that  his  position  in 
every  way  courts  this  degradation.  The  private  Chris- 
tian may  pay  his  way:  but  as  soon  as  he  is  advanced  to 
the  ministry,  he  must,  in  deference  to  this  public  habit, 
become  a sort  of  beggar.  Certainly  this  thing  needs  a 
remedy,  and  that  remedy  can  be  found  only  in  releasing 
the  Church  from  the  degrading  beneficiary  system  of 
which  we  are  speaking.  Let  every  preacher  receive  a 
competent  salary,  and  then  let  him  pay  his  way  like 
other  men.  As  he  advances  in  Christian  life,  give  him  at 


Day.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


1993 


March  12, 1874.]  Bishop. 


ieast  a fair  chance  to  advance  in  a true  manhood.  Above 
every  thing  do  not  have  it  understood  that,  as  soon  as  he 
receives  his  credentials  as  a preacher,  he  is  now  a bene- 
ficiary of  “the  world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil,”  as  well  as 
of  the  Church.  Whenever  the  ministry  can  be  relieved 
of  this  unholy  alliance,  we  shall  behold  it  animated  with 
a new  inspiration  in  the  great  work  of  converting  the 
world. 

“It  may  be  that  we  have  presented  an  extreme  case; 
but  we  think  that  most  persons  will  agree  that  it  is  not 
an  exceptional  one.  It  will  scarcely  be  denied  that, 
practically  at  least,  ministers  generally  occupy  the  posi- 
tion we  have  indicated,  and  whenever  they  shall  be  cut 
loose  from  this  servile  bondage,  we  shall  hope  for  much 
more  manly  utterances  against  all  forms  of  iniquity  than 
characterize  the  pulpit  to-day.  Give  the  pulpit  that 
freedom  which  conscious  manhood  inspires,  and  its 
power  for  good  will  be  almost  incalculably  increased. 

“But  what  shall  we  say  of  the  Churches  as  a whole? 
These  also,  for  the  most  part,  occupy  a false  position  be- 
fore the  world.  They  ought  not  to  be  the  objects  of  the 
world’s  charity,  but  the  dispensers  of  a Christ- like  char- 
ity to  the  world.  It  is  a humiliating  sight,  and  certainly 
not  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  to  witness 
Churches  replenishing  their  exchequer  by  the  tricks 
which  appeal  to  our  modern  pseudo-charity.  The  Church 
should  be  aggressive;  and  in  order  to  be  this,  it  must  not 
be  placed  under  obligation  to  the  State  or  the  world.  It 
must  be  self-sustaining  on  the  highest  plane  of  business 
transaction.  It  should  be  able  to  meet  every  pecuniary 
obligation,  without  becoming  involved  in  the  doubtful 
expedient  of  secular  aid.” 

That  there  is  a great  deal  of  truth  in  all  this, 
no  one,  I think,  will  seriously  question.  And 
that  the  remedy  for  these  evils  is  to  be  found  in 
divorcing  the  church  from  its  present  relations 
to  the  State,  I do  not  for  a moment  doubt.  If 
we  wish  to  make  the  ministry  and  the  churches 
what  they  ought  to  be,  we  must  begin  at  the 
beginning.  We  must  sever  the  church  from  all 
dependence  upon  the  State  in  pecuniary  mat- 
ters. This  will  at  once  secure  for  the  church 
the  respect  of  the  world,  and  inspire  every 
Christian  heart  with  a new  courage  in  the 
great  work  of  regenerating  the  world.  Hence, 
I conclude,  that  the  taxation  of  church  prop- 
erty would  operate  favorably  upon  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  church,  and  should  therefore  be 
accepted  by  the  church  as  a measure  highly 
beneficial  to  the  development  of  its  spiritual 
power. 

2.  Such  taxation  would  be  beneficial  to  the 
State. 

In  support  of  this  Proposition,  I need  scarcely 
point  you  to  the  pecuniary  benefit  which  the 
State  would  receive.  Still  it  may  not  be  amiss 
to  refer  to  a few  statistics  as  furnished  by  the 
last  census.  We  find  that  in  1870,  there  were 
in  the  United  States  63,082  church  edifices,  val- 
ued at  $354,483,581.  Now,  it  can  be  readily 
seen  how  that  a reasonable  rate  of  taxation 
upon  this  property  would  bring^to  the  govern- 
ment a large  amount  of  revenue.  Now,  let  it 
be  remembered,  that  the  value  of  this  property 
is  rapidly  increasing.  Take  the  last  two 
decades  and  compare  them,  and  we  can  de- 
termine with  tolerable  accuracy  what  we  may 
expect  in  the  future.  In  1850,  the  value  of 
church  property  in  the  United  States  was  esti- 
mated at  $87,328,801;  in  1860,  $171,397,232- 
while  in  1870  it  was  $354,483,581.  This  gives  us 
an  increase  for  the  first  decade  of  96  per  cent  • 
and  for  the  second  decade  106  per  cent;  and  for 
the  two  decades  101  per  cent.  Now  allowing 
this  as  the  probable  increase  for  the  next  decade, 
and  in  1880  the  value  of  church  property  will 
reach  the  very  large  sum  of  $712,511,997. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  ratio  of  increase 
will  be  much  larger  than  this.  So  certain  am  I 
of  this  fact,  that  I confidently  predict  that  the 


Value  of  church  property,  in  1880,  will  have 
reached  the  enormous  sum  of  $1,200,000,000. 

Now,  is  it  just  to  the  State  that  this  immense 
property  should  be  exempted  from  taxation? 
Does  it  not  receive  protection  from  the  State  as 
all  other  property?  And  should  not  the  State 
therefore  receive  a proper  remuneration  for 
this  service  rendered  ? It  is  certainly  passing 
strange  in  a country  where  Church  and  State 
are  so  thoroughly  separate  institutions,  as  they 
are  here,  that  the  State  should  voluntarily  de- 
prive itself  of  this  very  productive  source  of 
revenue. 

But,  I am  told,  in  answer  to  all  this,  that 
church  property  is  non-productive,  and  should 
not,  therefore,  be  taxed.  But  is  it  a fact  that 
church  property  is  non-productive?  Those 
that  make  this  argument  take  for  granted  the 
very  thing  that  should  be  proved.  In  fact,  just 
here  is  one  of  the  greatest  objections  to  the  be- 
neficiary system.  If  we  exempt  church  pro- 
perty from  taxation,  church  corporations  can 
buy  up  all  the  best  lots,  and  by  erecting  very 
cheap  houses  on  them,  can  hold  them  for 
“church  purposes,”  until  the  increase  in  value 
will  make  the  operation  a fine  speculation. 
Hence,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  our  churches  may 
become  immensely  wealthy  in  a real  estate 
business;  and,  instead  of  church  property  being 
unproductive,  under  the  fostering  care  of  State 
charity,  it  becomes  the  most  remunerative  pro- 
perty in  which  a corporation  can  invest. 

On  this  subject,  I beg  to  present  another  ex- 
tract from  the  article  in  the  Christian  Quarterly , 
from  which  I have  already  quoted.  The  writer 
says : 

“Now  we  do  not  object  to  these  Churches,  or  any  other 
Churches,  owning  property  to  any  extent  whatever,  pro- 
vided always  they  pay  like  other  corporations  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  so  doing.  But  for  the  State  to  offer  an  induce- 
meat  to  the  Churches  of  this  country  to  become  specula- 
tors in  property,  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius  of 
either  our  republican  institutions,  or  that  religion  which 
was  taught  by  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus. 

“We  are  aware  that  those  who  advocate  the  exemption 
of  Church  property  from  taxation,  claim  that  the 
Churches  area  benefit  to  the  State,  and  should  therefore 
be  encouraged  by  the  State  in  the  matter  under  cons'd- 
eration.  We  are  quite  willing  to  admit  the  first  part  of 
this  statement,  but  emphatically  deny  the  conclusion.  It 
is  cheerfully  granted  that  the  Church  influence  is,  for  the 
most  part,  a benefit  to  the  State.  We  are  willing  to  even 
go  further  than  this.  We  do  not  believe  that  our  repub- 
lican institutions  could  be  perpetuated  were  in  not  for  the 
influence  of  the  Christian  religion  in  this  country.  But 
this  does  not,  to  our  mind,  militate  against  the  pro- 
position for  which  we  are  contending.  Doubtless  it  is 
true  that  telegraphic  corporations  are  beneficial  to  the 
State,  and  that  railroad  corporations  are  beneficial  to  the 
State,  as  well  as  many  others  that  might  be  enumerated. 
But  shall  these  be  allowed  to  own  vast  quantities  of 
property  upon  which  no  taxes  are  levied,  simply  because 
of  the  benefit  conferred  upon  the  State?  Surely  such  an 
idea  would  soon  reduce  the  State  to  pauperism,  and 
thereby  render  it  incapable  of  doing  for  all  these  corpor- 
ations what  is  strictly  its  legitimate  business.  We  think 
it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  every  thing  that  produces 
physical,  moral,  and  social  advancement  is  beneficial  to 
the  State;  and,  consequently,  the  State  should  see  to  it 
that  all  such  enterprises— whether  of  a scientific,  me- 
chanical, educational,  or  religious  character— should  be 
properly  protected  and  encouraged.  But  this  protection 
is  precisely  the  thing  the  State  should  give.  This  ex- 
presses very  definitely  the  relation  which  the  State  sus- 
tains to  all  such  matters.  But  it  can  not  give  protection 
without  receiving  remuneration.  In  other  words,  the 
State  can  not  become  a charitable  institution.  In  the 
very  nature  of  things,  this  is  simply  impossible.  And 
this  being  true,  the  question  we  are  considering  is  prac- 
tically decided.” 

Bat,  I am  told  that  this  is  a Christian  nation, 
and  that,  therefore,  church  property  should  not 


1994 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


[136th 


Bishop,  Chapin,  Townsend,  Dorsey,  Hoadly.  [Thursday, 


be  taxed.  Now,  if  this  were  true,  we  do  not 
see  how  the  conclusion  follows.  But  it  is  sim- 
ply not  true  that  this  is  a Christian  nation. 
Our  Constitution  protects  all  religions,  but  does 
not  establish  any.  Hence,  the  religion  of  the 
country  is  the  religion  of  the  individual , and  not 
of  the  nation.  And  one  of  the  cardinal  princi- 
ples of  our  government  is,  that  no  man  shall  be 
taxed,  directly  or  indirectly,  or  in  any  way 
compelled,  for  the  support  of  the  religion  of 
another.  But  who  does  not  see  that  the  ex- 
emption of  church  property  does  indirectly  tax 
every  man  to  support  the  churches,  whether  he 
believes  in  them  or  not  ? It  is  easy  to  see  that 
if  the  government  had  the  revenue  that  would 
accrue  from  the  taxation  of  church  property, 
the  tax  upon  other  property  could  be  consider- 
ably decreased.  Hence,  exemption  is  equiva- 
lent to  a direct  tax  laid  upon  all  property-hold- 
ers for  the  support  of  the  churches.  This,  I be- 
lieve, is  wrong,  and  should  not  longer  be 
permitted. 

What,  then,  must  be  done  ? Is  it  possible  to 
tax  church  property  as  all  other  similar  pro- 
perty is  taxed  ? This  is  certainly  the  high  ideal 
towards  which  we  should  work,  but  we  can 
hardly  realize  it  in  the  present  state  of  public 
opinion.  Hence,  we  must  look  to  some  other 
plan  as  the  way  out  of  the  difficulty. 

Waiving  all  plans  that  have  been  suggested,  I 
propose  the  following  as  the  best  solution  I can 
see  of  the  whole  matter: 

Let  all  land,  owned  by  church  corporations, 
be  taxed  as  any  other  similar  property ; and  let 
all  houses  built  thereon  be  free  from  taxation. 
This,  I believe,  practically  solves  the  difficulty. 
It  at  once  completely  cuts  off  the  land  specula- 
tion business.  Then  it  will  encourage  the 
building  of  good  houses  on  all  valuable  lots, 
and  this  is  precisely  what  should  be  done.  In 
this  way  the  State  will  really  lose  nothing.  A 
respectable  church  edilice  will  always  increase 
the  value  of  adjacent  property,  and  this  in- 
crease will  generally  be  sufficient  to  re-imburse 
the  State  for  its  charity  towards  the  church. 

In  the  country  and  villages  this  plan  will 
work  equally  well.  If  fine  houses  are  not 
needed  there,  the  tax  on  the  land  will  be  com- 
paratively little;  and  so  nobody  will  be  op- 
pressed, while  most  of  the  evils  of  the  present 
system  will  be  effectually  overcome. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  are  some  of  the  views 
which  I entertain  upon  this  subject. 

I have  given  the  whole  matter  considerable 
reflection,  and  can  truthfully  say  that  the  sug- 
gestions which  I have  presented  embody  my 
most  mature  judgment.  I hope  that  others 
will  be  able  to  elaborate  more  fully  what  I have 
so  imperfectly  sketched. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I move  the  Convention  take 
a recess. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I will  give  an  opportu- 
nity to  any  other  gentleman  who  desires  to  dis- 
cuss this  question  generally,  and  if  there  is  no 
one,  I will  renew  my  motion  that  the  general 
discussion  now  close. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Mr.  President, 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  withdraw  his  motion  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  been  desirous  of  pre- 


senting some  views  on  this  matter.  I was 
waiting  to  hear  from  members  of  the  Commit- 
tee. I supposed  that  other  members  of  the 
Committee  desired  to  make  remarks  upon  this 
subject,  and  it  was  so  near  the  hour  of  taking  a 
recess,  that  I preferred  taking  a recess  before 
commencing  my  remarks.  However,  the  Con- 
vention is  not  disposed  to  do  that,  and  I will 
proceed,  for  a time,  at  least,  with  what  I have 
to  say  in  the  matter.  I agree  with  gentlemen 
who  have  addressed  the  Convention  on  this 
matter,  that  it  is  a subject  of  very  great  im- 
portance, and  one  that  ought  to  command  the 
very  particular  attention  of  members  of  the 
Convention.  But,  with  all  my  respect  for  the 
very  able  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  and  for 
any  opinion  that  he  may  set  forth  before  this 
Convention,  I must  be  allowed  to  say,  that  I do 
not  think  the  present  system  of  taxation  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  is  one  from  which  we  cannot  vary 
with  advantage.  In  my  opinion,  it  is  one  among 
the  very  worst  systems  of  taxation  with  which 
any  State  in  the  Union  is  afflicted.  It  is  true,  that 
the  system  of  taxation  now  operative  in  the 
State  is  based  very  largely  upon  what  is  known 
as  the  Kelley  Law  of  1845,  and  if  that  had  been 
left  as  the  law  of  the  State  and  subject  to  be 
amended  and  altered  by  the  General  Assembly, 
I apprehend  that  it  would  not  have  been  pro- 
ductive of  the  evils  which  we  have  felt  from  it 
in  the  State.  But  the  misfortune  of  the  whole 
matter  was,  that  the  Convention  of  1850-1, 
taking  the  law  of  1845  as  the  basis  of  their 
action,  incorporated  the  second  section,  on  the 
subject  of  Finance  and  Taxation,  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  State,  thereby  fixing  an  inflexible 
rule  by  which  it  has  been  impossible  for  the 
General  Assembly  at  any  time  to  make  any 
material  changes  in  the  subject  of  taxation 
within  the  State.  And  just  precisely  here,  gen- 
tlemen  of  the  Convention,  lies  the  whole  diffi- 
culty in  the  system  of  taxation  in  this  State; 
and  I say  here  in  the  beginning  that  I would 
prefer  leaving  this  whole  matter  to  the  General 
Assembly,  rather  than  see  our  State  bound  for 
the  next  twenty  years  by  any  inflexible  rule, 
such  as  we  have  had  in  operation  during  the 
last  twenty  years. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Has  not  the  operation  of  the 
svstem  proved  so  vicious  and  such  a total  fail- 
ure that,  notwithstanding  the  start  by  the 
supreme  court  toward  that,  adjudications  could 
not  be  made,  and  the  Constitution  has  been  re- 
pudiated by  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  in 
that  regard  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Practically,  it  has  been  so; 
and  now,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  as  I have  given  some  thought  to 
this  matter,  I propose  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  a few  remarks  on  the  subject. 

Taxation  is  an  act  of  sovereign  power.  In 
its  exercise  the  State  takes  a portion  from  our 
individual  property  and  applies  it  to  the  use 
and  benefit  of  the  whole  community.  In  con- 
sideration of  the  power  so  exercised,  by  which 
we  are  deprived  of  a portion  of  our  individual 
wealth,  the  State  extends  to  us  its  protection 
both  for  our  persons  and  property.  This  is  the 
original  idea  of  taxation.  Men  taking  into  con- 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


1995 


Day.] 


March  12,  1874.]  Dorsey. 


sideration  the  fact  that  associated  power  could 
afford  that  protection  to  individual  rights  which 
separate  effort  could  not  achieve,  agreed  to  sup- 
port in  power  those  who  could  and  would  su- 
perintend and  enforce  the  required  protection. 
Hence  our  courts  have  decided  that  a State  can- 
not tax  what  it  does  not  protect.  But  men  were 
not  long  in  discovering  the  fact  that  by  this 
associated  protection  property  increased  in  val- 
ue, and  that  every  improvement  made  for  the 
use  or  convenience  of  the  community  tended  to 
give  increased  value  to  different  species  of  indi- 
vidual property.  Hence,  they  consented  to  be 
taxed,  not  only  for  protection,  but  also  for  im- 
provements ; not  only  were  walls  and  fortifica- 
tions constructed,  but  roads,  bridges,  and  va- 
rious other  necessary  improvements  for  the  use 
and  benefit  of  a civilized  community.  Of 
course,  the  most  natural  mode  of  assessing  or 
computing  this  tax,  was  according  to  the  value 
of  the  property  of  each  individual  protected  or 
improved.  This  property  consisted  at  first  in 
values  which  were  material  and  visible,  and 
whose  worth  could  be  readily  estimated.  But 
in  time,  when  business  transactions  and  the 
various  relations  of  society  became  more  com- 
plicated, a different  species  of  wealth  grew  up, 
wealth  not  openly  exposed  to  the  public  view, 
and  hence,  readily  estimated  and  properly 
taxed;  but  a wealth  that  was  invisible,  and 
which  grew  out  of  the  varied  relations  which 
men  bear  to  each  other  as  debtors  and  creditors. 
This  wealth,  no  less  actual  than  that  which  was 
readily  perceptible,  and  often  yielding  an  equal, 
or  perhaps  even  greater  profit  to  the  owner,  yet 
managed  to  escape  observation,  and  hence,  was 
not  readily  taxable.  In  fact,  invisible  property 
does  not  receive  known  protection,  and  though 
it  may  not  be  said  to  forfeit  its  legal  protection, 
it  does  really,  morally  speaking,  lose  it. 

It  might  be  entirely  right  to  tax  all  property? 
real  and  personal,  visible  and  invisible,  if  we 
were  able  to  do  so,  but  the  experience  of  every 
country  shows  that  this  cannot  be  done ; that  a 
very  large  part,  nay,  perhaps  the  largest  part 
of  this  invisible  property  totally  escapes  taxa- 
tion. To  tax  it  in  the  hands  of  one  man  who  is 
honest  and  makes  a proper  return  to  the  assess- 
or, while  it  escapes  in  the  hands  of  his  more 
dishonest  neighbor,  is  only  legalized  robbery. 
Hence  it  has  become  the  practice  in  all  the  old 
countries  of  Europe  to  abandon  the  attempt  to 
tax  this  species  of  property,  and  to  find  some 
other  more  equal  and  more  equitable  mode  of 
raising  revenue. 

But  not  only  is  this  mode  of  assessing  taxes 
on  invisible  property  unjust  and  unequal,  from 
the  difficulty  of  tracing  the  property  in  the 
hands  of  the  owner,  but  when  found  and  car- 
ried on  to  the  tax  duplicate, it  is  often  found  to 
impose  the  actual  tax  on  the  poor  man  who  is 
least  able  to  bear  it,  while  the  rich  capitalist 
really  escapes  taxation  altogether.  Our  mode 
of  taxing  notes,  bonds,  mortgages,  &c.,  imposes 
a double  tax  on  the  poor  man,  the  money  bor- 
rower, while  the  money  lender  really  escapes 
all  taxation.  The  tax  on  notes  and  mortgages 
is  always  included  in  the  rate  of  interest 
charged,  and  hence  is  and  must  be  paid  by  the 
borrower,  being,  in  fact,  in  many  cases,  a double 
tax  paid  by  the  poor  man,  who  pays  tax  on  the 
property  for  which  he  has  only  partially  paid, 


and  pays  interest  on  the  deferred  payments,  a 
rate  of  interest,  as  a general  rule,  gauged  by  the 
tax  assessed  on  his  notes  or  mortgages  in  the 
hands  of  the  capitalist  from  whom  he  has  pur- 
chased. This  principle  was  plainly  developed 
by  a decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State 
of  California,  adverse  to  the  right  to  tax  mort- 
gages, when  immediately  after  the  rendering  of 
this  decision,  the  savings  banks  of  the  State 
diminished  the  interest  on  their  loans  by  the 
amount  of  the  tax  removed. 

In  order  that  taxation  may  be  made  to  bear 
equally  on  every  member  of  society,  in  propor- 
tion to  his  property  and  his  expenses,  it  is  not 
at  all  necessary  that  every  item  of  property 
should  be  subjected  to  taxation.  Taxing  cer- 
tain articles  of  manufacture  may  so  increase 
their  price,  as,to  bear  very  heavily  on  the  already 
over-taxed  consumer,  because  we  are  to  re- 
member, that  all  taxes  are  ultimately  paid  by 
the  consumer,  no  matter  on  whom  they  may 
be  originally  assessed.  Not  only  so,  but  taxing 
manufactures  or  merchandise  may  have  the 
effect  of  driving  capital  employed  in  them  from 
certain  localities,  thus  diminishing  the 
value  of  real  estate  in  such  localities, 
by  depriving  its  holders  of  incomes  from 
rents,  and  thus  really  adding  to  the  tax 
on  real  estate.  We  make  these  remarks 
to  show  that  some  other  rule  of  taxation  is  nec- 
essary than  simply  to  assess  a certain  rate  on 
all  property  according  to  its  moneyed  value,  be- 
cause we  may  in  this  way  impose  burdens  on 
one  species  of  property  which  will  result  in  the 
injury  of  another,  or  compel  one  class  of  citi- 
zens to  pay  a tax  of  which  they  will  rid  them- 
selves, by  placing  the  burdens  on  the  shoulders 
of  another  class,  altogeiher  less  able  to  bear  it 
than  themselves.  The  idea  of  just  taxation 
which  usually  presents  itself  to  the  mind,  is, 
that  every  citizen  should  be  taxed  on  all  his 
property,  no  matter  in  what  it  may  consist,  or 
where  it  may  be  situated.  The  latter  idea,  how- 
ever, in  regard  to  the  situs  or  locality  of  prop- 
erty, was  corrected  in  most  of  our  States  by  the 
decisions  of  the  courts,  which  declared  that 
property  could  only  be  taxed  in  the  place 
where  it  was  situated  or  had  its  home  owner- 
ship, as  in  the  case  of  the  Pacific  Mail 
Steamers,  which  it  was  decided  could  not 
be  taxed  in  California,  but  only  in  their 
place  of  home  registry;  and  again  in  the 
case  of  the  Cleveland,  Painesville  and 
Ashtabula  R.  R.  Bonds,  which  it  was  declared 
could  not  be  taxed  in  Pennsylvania,  although 
the  holders  might  reside  in  that  State.  But  the 
error  with  regard  to  the  kind  of  property  to  be 
subjected  to  taxation  was  not  so  readily  cor- 
rected, and,  indeed,  prevails  very  largely  to 
this  day.  It  is  very  little  more  than  a hundred 
years  since  the  English  idea  of  taxation,  like 
our  own,  was  disposed  to  embrace  every  kind  of 
property,  real  and  personal,  visible  and  in- 
visible, but  an  experience  in  the  difficulties  and 
the  injustice  of  this  system,  has  caused  its 
gradual  abandonment,  and  England  now  taxes 
only  a small  number  of  articles,  and  makes  the 
least  possible  personal  inquisition. 

I have  said  already  that  in  spite  of  the  closest 
possible  personal  inquisition,  a large  portion  of 
this  kind  of  property  escapes  taxation,  but  not 
only  is  this  true,  but  it  is  also  well  known  that 


1996 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Dorsey,  Hoadly,  Gurley. 


immense  amounts  of  personal  property  at  the 
present  time  take  refuge  under  our  peculiar 
state  of  monetary  affairs,  it  being  understood 
that  United  States  currency  (commonly  known 
as  “ Greenbacks,”)  and  United  States  Bonds  are 
not  subjects  of_State  taxation ; and  I desire  now 
to  refer  to  this  fact  to  show  us  how  careful  we 
should  be  in  introducing  any  particular  abso- 
lute or  unchangable  mode  of  taxation  into  our 
Constitution,  when  some  unexpected  change  in 
our  financial  or  monetary  system  may  chance 
to  render  its  provisions  nugatory  or  unjust. 
David  A.  Wells  has  stated  in  an  Article  in  the 
Atlantic  Monthly , that  when  our  5-20  bonds  were 
first  issued,  it  was  the  opinion  of  almost  all  the 
prominent  lawyers  of  our  cities  that  they  might 
be  reached  by  State  taxation,  though  now 
scarcely  a single  one  could  be  found  to  enter- 
tain such  an  idea.  When  opinions  thus  change 
with  the  chahging  state  of  our  affairs,  how 
dangerous  is  it  to  introduce  any  inflexible  rule 
into  the  organic  law  of  the  State,  by  which, 
under  all  circumstances, our  system  of  taxation 
is  to  be  bound  for  years  to  come. 

This  third  section,  which  proposes  to  tax  by 
“ uniform  rules,  all  real  and  personal  property” 
— “ according  to  its  true  value  in  money,”  has 
borrowed  these  ideas  from  the  second  section  of 
the  same  Article  in  our  present  Constitution. 
A glance  at  the  history  of  that  Article  may  be 
interesting,  and  may  also  be  of  value  to  us  at 
the  present  time.  In  the  Constitution  of  1802, 
not  a word  was  said  on  the  subject  of  taxation, 
except  to  declare  that  “ the  levying  of  taxes  by 
the  poll  is  grievous  and  oppressive,  and,  there- 
fore the  Legislature  shall  never  levy  a poll  tax 
for  county  or  State  purposes.”  The  founders 
of  our  State  very  wisely  left  all  this  matter  of 
taxation  to  be  fixed  and  regulated  by  the  imme- 
diate representatives  of  the  people.  The  abuses 
which  had  grown  up  under  the  system  of  banks 
and  some  other  corporations  in  the  State,  caused 
the  dominant  party  in  the  Convention  of  1851, 
to  endeavor  to  strike  a blow  at  these  evils,  which 
should  redound  to  the  interest  of  the  people  of 
the  State.  Hence,  the  determination  to  endeavor 
to  tax  every  species  of  value,  visible  or  invisi- 
ble. I need  not  tell  this  Convention  that  so  far 
as  taxing  the  banks  was  concerned,  this  section, 
though  well  meant,  and  passed  with  the  most 
honest  and  correct  intentions,  was  entirely  un- 
successful; while  the  attempt  to  tax  by  uniform 
rules  every  kind  of  property  according  to  its 
true  money  value,  has  been  a cause  of  untold 
mischief  and  injury  to  the  State.  I do  not 
doubt  that  it  has  driven  thousands  of  inhabi- 
tants and  millions  of  capital  from  the  State,  and 
has,  more  than  any  other  one  cause,  retarded 
her  material  prosperity. 

The  attempt  to  tax  invisible  property,  has  not 
only  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places,  been  signally 
unsuccessful,  but  it  has  acted  as  a premium  for 
falsehood,  deception,  perjury  and  fraud.  Of  the 
immense  amounts  of  money  held  in  Ohio,  in 
moneys,  credits,  notes,  bonds,  stocks,  mort- 
gages, &c.,  notone  dollar  in  ten  ever  gets  on  the 
books  of  the  assessor.  If  these  were  simply  a 
loss  of  revenue  to  the  State  it  would  be  a serious 
evil,  but  when,  in  addition  to  this,  it  works 
inequality  and  injustice,  oppression  and  wrong, 
and  promotes  immorality,  lying,  and  all  kinds 
of  fraud,  it  opens  a flood  gate  of  evil,  which,  in 


[136th 

[Thursday, 


time,  may  do  much  to  undermine  the  character 
and  prosperity  of  the  State. 

But,  even  when  this  kind  of  property  is 
reached,  as  a portion  of  it  sometimes  will  be,  and 
a tax  imposed,  it  is  not  paid  by  the  holder  of 
the  property,  but  rather  by  him  against  whom 
the  property  is  held.  As  has  been  already 
said,  the  borrower  pays  the  tax  of  the  money 
lender  in  the  shape  of  interest.  And  not  only 
is  this  true,  but  it  is  equally  true,  that  in  this 
manner  the  rate  of  interest  is  largely  increased 
and  constantly  kept  at  a high  figure,  while  the 
man  who  pays  no  tax  on  his  notes  and  mort- 
gages, uses  the  fact  that  he  is  liable  to  tax,  as 
an  argument  for  exacting  from  the  poor  and 
needy  an  usurious  rate  of  interest.  Hence,  a 
wise  system  of  taxation  would,  in  all  probabi- 
lity, either  wholly  or  to  a very  great  extent, 
abandon  the  attempt  to  tax  this  species  of  pro- 
perty, and  would  thus  certainly  bring  about  a 
large  reduction  in  the  rate  of  interest. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  for 
a motion  to  take  a recess  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12  : 30  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Mr.  President,  when  the 
Convention  took  a recess,  I had  been  endeavor- 
ing to  show  the  difficulty  which  arises  in  sub- 
jecting certain  articles  to  taxation.  I said  that 
with  regard  to  the  value  of  a great  deal  of  in- 
visible property  in  the  State — moneys,  credits, 
bonds,  notes,  mortgages,  and  articles  of  that 
kind — not  one  dollar  in  ten  ever  found  its  way 
on  to  the  books  of  the  assessor.  I think  I was 
remarkably  liberal  in  making  that  statement. 
In  the  State  of  New  York,  it  has  undoubtedly 
been  worse  than  that.  It  was  said  in  the  de- 
bates of  the  Constitutional  Convention  there, 
that  with  regard  to  the  taxation  of  1868,  it  had 
been  clearly  shown  that  thirty  persons  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  holding  principally  per- 
sonal property,  were  worth  a greater  amount 
of  such  property  than  was  returned  for  the 
whole  State  in  that  year ; and  if  we  look  at  the 
returns  in  the  Report  of  the  Auditor  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  in  1872,  we  shall  conclude  that 
a state  of  facts  not  very  dissimilar  exists  in 
this  State. 

The  value  of  moneys  reported  to  the  Auditor, 
in  1872,  as  shown  in  his  Report,  on  pages  60  and 
61,  of  that  year,  makes  the  values  of  moneys 
$32,909,229.  The  value  of  credits,  book  accounts, 
and  so  on,  amount  to  $104,906,942.  Any  man  at 
all  conversant  with  the  facts  of  the  case,  will 
know  that  this  does  not  represent  one  dollar  in 
ten  of  the  moneys,  and  credits,  and  value  of 
book  accounts,  and  so  on,  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  if  it  is  not  a fact,  in  the  State  of 
New  York,  that  they  allow  deductions  for  all 
indebtedness,  not  confining  it,  as  we  do  here  in 
Ohio— a liberal  deduction  from  everything  that 
a man  may  have  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  true  in  the  State  of 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


1997 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.]  Dorsey. 


New  York,  but  it  does  not  account  for  that  dis- 
parity as  it  exists  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I want  to  say  that  in  the 
remarks  which  I shall  make  further  upon  this 
subject,  I shall  bring  forward  facts  and  figures 
to  prove  that  the  State  of  Ohio  has  suffered 
from  the  mode  of  taxation  which  has  been  in 
existence  here  for  the  last  twenty  years ; yet  I 
do  not  want  it  understood  that  I propose  to  in- 
troduce the  system  that  I shall  speak  of  here 
into  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

I simply  wish  to  say,  that  a mode  of  taxation 
can  be  devised,  which,  without  being  oppres- 
sive, unequal  and  unjust,  as  the  present  system 
is,  will  yet  yield  an  equal  amount  of  revenue ; 
and  to  show  you  that  the  best  possible  manner 
of  disposing  of  this  matter  is  to  leave  it  in  the 
hands  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State. 

I now  propose  to  go  on  with  my  argument. 
Any  system  which  imposes  double  taxation,  or 
lays  additional  burdens  on  the  honest  poor,  to  the 
manifest  advantage  of  the  Shylocks  who  are 
ever  ready  to  prey  on  them,  should  find  no  ad- 
vocates among  those  who  frame  Constitutions 
or  laws  for  free  and  Republican  States.  The 
proposal  to  tax  all  property  at  its  true  value  in 
money  is  at  once  wrong  in  principle  and 
fraught  with  incalculable  evil.  There  is  neith- 
er justice  or  right  in  the  system  which  taxes 
the  carriage  of  the  millionaire,  and  the  wagon 
of  the  farmer  at  the  same  rate  on  its  moneyed 
value;  which  taxes  at  their  money  value,  the 
axe  of  the  laborer  and  the  watch  of  the  mer- 
chant or  professional  man ; the  tools  of  the  me- 
chanic or  the  renter  of  a farm  or  garden,  and 
the  jewels,  or  pictures,  or  plate  of  the  capitalist. 
It  matters  not  that  you  propose  to  exempt  for 
each  individual  the  sum  of  two  hundred  dol- 
lars, the  principle  is  wrong,  and  a system 
founded  on  such  a radical  wrong  can 
never  work  out  a beneficial  result.  But  more 
than  this,  there  are  kinds  of  property  and  certain 
investments  in  business  and  manufactures, 
which,  by  this  proposed  system,  will  always  be 
driven  out  where  it  prevails,  and  will  seek  a 
resting  place  in  some  more  favored  locality. 
Investments  in  trade  and  manufactures  may  be 
so  taxed  as  to  drive  them  entirely  from  the 
State.  It  has  been  done,  it  is  now  being  done 
under  this  very  system  in  Ohio.  But  I am 
asked,  how  then  is  revenue  to  be  raised  ? is  real 
estate  to  bear  the  whole  burden  of  taxation  ? 
By  no  means,  but  if  certain  investments  and 
the  improvements  resulting  from  them,  enhance 
the  value  of  real  estate  many  fold,  and  bring 
large  augmentation  of  income  to  its  owners, 
thus  increasing  largely  the  wealth  and  pros- 
perity of  the  whole  State,  we  must  beware  of 
applying  to  these  investments  and  improve- 
ments such  burdens  as  we  banish  them  from 
among  us.  Of  what  value  was  the  real  estate 
of  Ohio,  when  traversed  by  the  savage,  by  the 
deer,  or  by  the  buffalo — of  very  little  indeed; 
but  the  very  moment  capital  entered  from  the 
older  States,  when  mills  and  manufactures 
sprang  up  on  every  water  course  or  wherever 
the  power  of  steam  could  be  advantageously 
applied,  that  moment  every  owner  of  the  soil 
in  the  vicinity  of  such  improvements  found  his 
broad  acres  tripled  or  quadrupled  in  value. 
When  increasing  population  started  the  village, 
or  town  in  every  promising  locality,  the  ingress 


of  capital  invested  in  merchandise,  manufac- 
turing or  mechanical  employments,  gave  their 
value  to  the  well-marked  plats  of  ground 
marked  out  by  enterprising  land-owners.  But 
if  to-day  you  propose  to  tax  such  investments 
up  to  the  full  measure  of  your  county,  town- 
ship, or  town,  or  city  rates  of  taxation,  amount- 
ing, in  many  cases,  to  over  three  per  cent,  of 
the  assessed  value  of  property,  you  forde  all 
those  who  desire  to  commence  such  business 
to  seek  more  favored  and  more  liberal  localities. 
You  drive  out,  as  you  have  been  doing  for 
twenty  years,  population  and  wealth  from  the 
limits  of  your  State.  But  you  tell  me  that  we 
have  all  through  our  State*,  in  every  town,  and 
city,  and  village,  merchants  and  manufacturers 
who  seem  to  be  successful  and  prosperous 
under  this  very  system  of  taxation.  I answer, 
you  force  every  one  of  these  men  to  evade  the 
requirements  of  your  laws;  you  inaugurate  a 
system  of  false  returns,  deception,  fraud,  false 
valuations,  by  which  alone  your  business  men 
can  carry  on  their  business  without  being 
ruined  by  your  exactions.  It  is  notorious  that 
the  mercantile  and  manufacturing  capital  of 
your  State  is  nowhere  fairly  represented  on  the 
books  of  your  assessors.  A wide-spread  demor- 
alization thus  pervades  every  department,  and 
if,  by  chance,  here  and  there  is  found  one  who 
attempts  to  deal  honestly  with  the  State,  he 
finds  very  soon  that  he  is  only  paying  for  those 
who,  by  a certain  kind  of  prevarication,  escape 
their  legitimate  burdens,  and  he  is  forced  either 
to  imitate  their  example  or  withdraw  from  the 
unequal  competition. 

I shall  be  asked,  no  doubt,  what  system  of 
taxation  would  you  then  introduce  into  this 
Constitution?  I answer,  frankly,  none  at  all. 
A proper  system  of  taxation  must  be  founded 
on  too  many  varying  circumstances  to  admit  of 
being  placed  in  an  organic  law.  What  we 
mainly  have  to  observe  in  this  Constitution  is 
not  to  lay  down  any  inflexible  rules,  which,  in 
time,  may  work  great  evil.  The  General  As- 
sembly can  well  be  trusted  to  provide  all 
necessary  rules  and  regulations  on  this  subject. 
In  a large  number  of  the  Constitutions  of  the 
States  of  this  Union,  no  rules  or  systems  of 
taxation  are  introduced.  No  body  of  men  can 
sufficiently  foresee  the  wants,  necessities  and 
financial  condition  of  any  State  to  provide  the 
details  of  a system  of  taxation  in  the  organic 
law. 

I would  be  very  willing  to  substitute  for  this 
third  section  of  the  proposition  under  consider- 
ation, these  words,  taken  from  the  Constitution 
of  Pennsylvania,  lately  adopted,  and  which  go  as 
far  as,  in  my  opinion,  this  Convention  is  justified 
in  going,  in  framing  a system  of  taxation. 
“ All  taxes  shall  be  uniform  upon  the  same 
class  of  subjects,  within  the  territorial  limits  of 
the  authority  levying  the  tax,  and  shall  be  levied 
and  collected  under  general  laws,”  and  “the 
General  Assembly  shall  not  pass  any  law  au- 
thorizing the  levy  of  a special  tax  upon  one 
class  of  taxable  property  for  the  purpose  of 
benefiting  another  class.”  This,  it  will  be  per- 
ceived, provides  for  the  classification  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  all  the  taxable  property 
of  the  State,  and  I am  willing  here  to  indicate 
something  like  the  (classification  which,  I be- 
lieve, ought  to  be  made.  We  have  yet  much  to 


1998 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


[136th 


Dorsey. 


[Thursday, 


learn  on  this  subject  of  taxation,  the  General 
Assembly  has  much  to  learn,  the  people  of  the 
State  have  very  much  to  learn,  and  I think  it  a 
matter  of  grave  doubt  whether,  even  if  we  could 
introduce  a proper  system  of  taxation  into  this 
Constitution,  it  would  be  received  by  the  people 
of  the  State.  A division  of  property  something 
like  the  following  might  be  made,  on  each  class 
of  which  a uniform  tax  should  be  levied,  grad- 
uating the  tax  on  each  class  in  such  wise  as  to 
secure  the  greatest  advantages  to  all,  and  secure 
the  greatest  amount  of  prosperity  for  the  whole 
community : 

1st  Class.  Real  estate. 

2nd  Class.  Rentals  or  valuations  of  domicile. 

3rd  Class.  Articles  of  luxury,  jewelry,  plate, 
pictures,  statues,  watches,  musical  instruments, 
libraries. 

4th  Class.  Horses,  cattle,  all  live  stock  and 
all  farming  implements. 

5th  Class.  Investments  in  manufactures, 
machinery  and  mechanics’  tools. 

6th  Class.  Investments  in  merchandise. 

7th  Class.  The  shares  and  corporate  fran- 
chises of  moneyed  and  other  corporations. 

I do  not  hold  this  classification  to  be  per- 
fect, it  may  be  capable  of  being  much  im- 
proved by  alteration  and  by  reduction.  I 
believe  it  will  be  found,  in  every  community, 
that  investments  in  merchandise,  manufactures, 
machinery,  mechanics’  tools  and  farming  im- 
plements should  be  subject  to  very  light  taxa- 
tion, and,  in  many  cases,  to  none  at  all,  because 
by  them  the  value  of  property  is  increased, 
wealth  and  business  are  extended,  and  money 
is  poured  into  the  hands  of  the  owners  of  real 
estate,  both  in  towns  and  in  the  country.  I 
desire  to  call  particular  attention  to  the  second 
class  for  taxation,  being  rentals  or  valuations  of 
domicile.  Here  we  have  a subject  for  taxation 
heretofore  unknown  in  Ohio,  though  in  England 
it  forms  the  source  from  which,  next  to  real 
estate,  the  principal  amount  of  tax  is  derived. 
The  principle  was  long  ago  laid  down  by 
Adam  Smith,  in  his  “ Wealth  of  Nations,”  that 
the  amount  of  rent  paid  by  any  individual  is  the 
best  index  of  the  extent  of  his  business  or  of 
his  personal  property ; or  if,  instead  of  renting, 
he  owned  the  real  estate  in  which  he  lived  or 
transacted  business,  the  value  of  its  rental  can 
be  used  in  the  same  way  for  ascertaining  the 
amount  of  his  business  or  of  his  personal 
wealth.  If  we  apply  this  principle  to  the  State 
of  Ohio,  taking  the  number  of  her  dwellings,  as 
returned  by  the  census  of  1870,  at  425,672,  the 
number  of  manufacturing  establishments  at 
22,733,  and  the  number  of  houses  used  for  mer- 
cantile and  trading  establishments  estimated  at 
40,000,  making  an  aggregate  of  houses  amount- 
ing to  478,405.  If  we  estimate  the  rental  at  the 
very  moderate  sum  of  $200  per  year  for  each — 
which  is,  probably,  hardly  equal  to  two-thirds 
the  true  value — we  have  the  sum  of  $95,681,000, 
which,  at  a tax  of  six  per  cent,  per  annum, 
gives  an  income  of  $3,340,860,  a sum  twice  as 
great  as  the  State  tax  derived  from  all  the  per- 
sonal property  of  the  State,  while  the  tax  levied 
on  each  individual  will  be  less  than  that  now 
paid  on  personal  property.  This  shows  us  at 
once,  that  by  the  revenue  derived  from  this 
source,  which  is,  perhaps,  the  most  fair  and 
equal  of  a *a«essment  that  can  be  made,  and 


by  placing  a just  valuation  on  the  real  estate  of 
the  State,  by  a just  and  equitable  tax  on  the 
shares  and  corporative  franchises  of  moneyed 
and  other  corporations  of  the  State,  the  whole 
amount  of  tax  now  levied  and  collected  in  the 
State  could  be  raised  without  any  tax  on  any 
other  personal  property. 

To  show  how  readily  the  whole  amount  of 
tax  now  assessed  and  collected  in  Ohio  may  be 
raised  in  a much  more  equal  and  less  oppress- 
ive manner  than  is  now  done,  I beg  leave  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  fol- 
lowing facts  and  figures : The  total  levies  in 
1872,  collectable  in  1873,  amounted,  according 
to  the  Report  of  the  Auditor,  to  $23,810,971.97, 
which  is  a levy  of  nearly  1%  per  cent,  on  the 
total  valuation  of  the  State  for  the  year  1872,  put 
down  at  $1,524,323,118.00.  But  it  will  be  ob- 
served that,  according  to  the  census  of  1870,  the 
actual  value  of  the  real  and  personal  property 
of  the  State  amounted  to  $2,235,430,300,  while 
its  assessed  value  was  only  $1,167,731,007,  being 
a difference  of  almost  100  per  cent,  showing  that 
the  property  of  the  State  was  really  assessed  at 
very  little  more  than  one-half  its  actual  value. 
Now,  in  1872,  the  real  estate  of  Ohio  was  as- 
sessed at  $1,030,163,528,  and  if  we  add  to  this 
only  33  per  cent.,  instead  of  100  per  cent.,  we 
have  $1,373,551,270,  on  which  a tax  of  1 % per 
cent,  gives  $22,320,208.  Add  to  this  $3,340,860 
tax  on  rentals,  $1,873,464  tax  on  railroads,  gas 
companies  and  banks,  and  we  have  $27,534,132, 
or  nearly  $4,000,000  more  than  the  whole  State 
and  local  taxes  of  1873,  including  over  half  a 
million  of  the  delinquencies  of  other  years ; and 
this,  too,  without  one  cent  of  tax  on  the  active 
capital  employed  in  manufactures,  merchan- 
dise or  industrial  implements,  or  on  personal 
property  of  any  kind  whatever.  But,  if  we 
consider  that  a very  considerable  amount  of  tax 
should  be  collected  from  insurance  companies, 
both  life  and  fire,  from  church  property,  from 
stocks  of  various  kinds  other  than  those  already 
taxed,  and  from  licenses  of  various  kinds,  when 
it  is  known  that  the  valuation  of  railroads  in  the 
State  ought  to  be  increased  from  seventy-nine 
millions  to  at  least  one  hundred  millions,  the 
capital  stock  as  returned  to  the  railroad  com- 
missioners being  over  one  hundred  and  twen- 
ty-two millions,  and  the  cost  of  the  roads  and 
equipments  being  over  two  hundred  millions  of 
dollars,  whilst  the  assessed  value  is  less  than 
eighty  millions.  But,  by  making  their  assessed 
value  proportionate  to  that  of  the  real  estate  of 
the  State,  it  would  exceed  one  hundred  mil- 
lions. From  all  these  sources,  then,  we  may 
compute  at  least  one  million  of  dollars  more  of 
tax,  making  the  sum  of  $28,534,000,  being  more 
than  two  millions  more  than  the  estimated 
taxes  of  1874  to  be  collected  in  1875,  including 
all  forfeitures  and  delinquencies. 

I have  made  these  calculations  in  order  to 
demonstrate  how  easily  the  General  Assembly 
may  provide  a scheme  of  taxation  by  which  we 
can  raise  all  the  sums  necessary  for  State,  coun- 
ty and  local  purposes,  without  burdening  any 
of  the  industries  of  the  State,  and  without  im- 
posing on  the  active  capital  engaged  in  manu- 
facture and  in  trade,  such  burdens  as  to  force 
them  to  flee  from  our  own  State  to  some  more 
favored  locality,  if  we  do  not  tie  the  hands  of 


1999 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  12, 1874.1  Dorsey,  Hitchcock,  Gurley,  Hoadly,  Smith  of  H.,  etc. 


this  body  by  improper  Constitutional  provi- 
sions. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  like  to  inquire 
whether  the  gentleman,  by  the  figures  he  has 
been  using,  claims  that  real  estate  would  be 
paying  more  than  one-third  more  tax  under 
that  arrangement,  than  it  does  now  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Ho,  sir.  It  would  be  increas- 
ed in  valuation  thirty-three  per  cent.,  and  then 
it  would  not  come  up  to  anything  like  its  prop- 
er value,  but  the  tax  paid  on  it  would  be  really 
less  than  is  now  paid. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  That  is  not  the  question. 
I was  asking  if  the  gentleman  did  not  say 
so? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  a fact,  and  I am  pre- 
pared to  defend  that  view  of  the  case. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I understand  that  $28,000,000 
will  be  raised  in  addition  to  what  we  are  now 
raising,  and  that  nobody,  in  fact,  will  have  paid 
it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  propose  to  show 
that  we  could  raise  $28,000,000  in  Ohio  without 
taxing  anybody  or  anything.  I would  be  very 
happy  if  that  could  be  done. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hardly  understand  the 
gentleman’s  theory  with  regard  to  rent,  or  his 
figures.  If  I understand,  he  proposes  a tax  of 
six  per  cent,  which  it  appears  to  me  is  an  ex- 
cessive tax. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Six  per  cent,  of  the  value  of 
the  rental. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  that  six  per  cent,  form 
a basis  of  per  centum  or  a basis  of  taxation  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  a man  lives  in  a house 
valued  at  $100  per  annum,  it  would  be  six  dol- 
lars upon  it,  and  that  is  his  whole  person- 
al tax,  independent  of  anything  else. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Six  per  cent,  on  the  annual 
rental.  Then  will  the  gentleman  be  so  kind  as 
to  tell  me  why  he  adopts  six  per  cent,  upon  the 
annual  rental  as  a measure? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  adopt  it  as  a meas- 
ure. I simply  adopt  it  because  it  is  the  legal 
rate  of  interest  in  the  State.  There  is  no  other 
reason  whatever  why  it  should  be  used  as  a ba- 
sis. I am  not  particular  about  it. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I have  no  objec- 
tion to  the  use  of  six  per  cent,  or  any  other  per 
cent,  being  applied  to  the  aggregate  value  of 
rental.  That  is  a mere  matter  of  trial,  but  I 
would  like  to  know  to  what  you  attach  your 
doctrine  of  rental.  Does  it  govern  all  the  per- 
sons in  the  State  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  All  who  have  homes. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  That  being  the 
case,  how  much  of  that  increased  amount  of 
millions  do  you  put  back  on  the  farming  interest 
of  the  country?  because  they  occupy  homes, 
and  if  they  pay  rental,  according  to  your  rule, 
would  not  a large  proportion  of  the  revenue, 
derived  from  this  rental  scheme  of  yours,  fall 
back  on  the  country,  and  be  assessed  on  real 
estate? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  A larger  amount  would  fall 
on  the  cities  than  on  real  estate  in  the  country. 
I propose  to  do  there,  precisely,  as  is  done  in 
England.  I propose,  whether  a man  owns  the 
real  estate  on  which  he  lives,  or  whether  he 
rents  it,  to  consider  it  just  really  at  the  value  of 
what  it  would  rent  for  if  he  did  not  own  it. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  By  your  scheme 


you  not  only  actually  throw  upon  the  real 
estate  the  existing  burdens  which  they  have  to 
carry,  but  three-fourths  of  all  this  rental 
burden,  which  you  now  introduce  for  the  pur- 
pose of  relieving  personal  property  from  tax- 
ation, so  that,  in  fact,  you  heap  up  the  whole 
burden  on  real  estate. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I ask  the  gentleman,  if  it  is 
any  heaping  up  a burden,  when  you  take  off  a 
burden  larger  than  you  put  on  ? You  take  off 
the  whole  burden  from  personal  taxation. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  You  take,  by 
your  scheme,  from  the  personalty  of  the 
country,  the  burdens,  but  you  throw  them  back 
upon  the  real  estate,  by  your  rental  system. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  leave  to  say  that  the 
gentleman  does  not  understand  my  scheme  at 
all.  For  example,  here  is  a man,  let  him  be  the 
owner  of  a farm  which  would  rent,  say,  for  a 
thousand  dollars  a year.  He  may  have  on  that 
farm  stock  of  various  kinds,  cattle  and  farming 
implements ; a variety  of  things  which  are  sub- 
ject to  taxation — the  tax  on  which,  perhaps, 
under  our  present  system,  would  run  up  to  a 
hundred  dollars  or  more.  Under  this  system, 
if  his  farm  would  rent  for  a thousand  dollars, 
and  you  tax  him  six  per  cent,  on  that,  he  pays 
sixty  dollars  in  the  place  of  the  whole  personal 
tax  which  he  would  pay  alone  upon  his  personal 
property.  It  is,  as  I said  before,  a decided  re- 
duction in  the  amount  of  tax  upon  the  farmer, 
so  far  as  his  personal  property  is  concerned, 
without  putting  any  more  burden  upon  his  real 
estate. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  Under  the  tax 
law  of  Ohio,  not  one-fourth  of  the  personalty 
attaches  itself  to  the  real  estate  of  the  country ; 
the  balance  falls  to  the  towns  and  cities,  for 
which  the  gentleman  proposes  to  substitute  this 
rental  system. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Come  to  the  towns  and 
cities,  and  take  a man  who  pays  one  hundred 
dollars  a year  for  his  property.  His  tax  is  six 
dollars,  and  that  is  in  the  place  of  all  taxes  on 
his  personal  property,  on  which  he  pays  more 
than  that  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  POND.  The  owner  of  the  property  is 
taxed  on  the  value  of  the  property. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  He  is  taxed  on  his  real  es- 
tate ; and  it  is  right  and  proper  he  should  be. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  submit  an  in- 
quiry to  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I am  not  well  acquainted  with 
the  practical  results  of  the  scheme  in  Great 
Britain,  but  I would  like  to  have  him  explain  to 
us  how  it  has  affected  the  producing  interests  of 
that  country,  so  far  as  they  depend  upon  real 
estate,  mainly,  for  development  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  say  that  this  is  only 
applying  a very  small  proportion  of  the  English 
tax  system. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  They  do  not,  as  I under- 
stand it,  tax  directly,  at  all,  the  real  estate  in 
England.  The  rental  is  taken  as  the  index  of 
the  value,  and  that  is  the  basis. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  the  basis,  and  it  is 
divided  into  different  classes,  and  they  are 
taxed  as  classes. 

Mr.  YORIS.  What  is  the  effect  of  that  on 
the  farming  and  producing  class  of  Great 
Britain  ? 


2000 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Dorsey,  Voris,  Burns,  Barnet,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  said  this  proposed 
system  follows,  to  some  extent,  the  English 
system;  and  the  English  system  of  taxation, 
so  far  as  the  real  estate  is  concerned,  has  had 
no  bad  effect  on  the  English  population.  It  is 
another  system,  and  a much  more  oppressive 
one,  which  taxes  everything  in  the  shape  of  in- 
come, ar  d everything  which  a man  eats,  drinks 
or  wears,  which  has  been  oppressive,  and  has 
kept  down  the  working  classes ; but  this  system 
of  taxation  of  rentals,  and  the  taxation  of  real 
estate,  as  connected  with  the  rentals,  has  no  bad 
effect  in  England. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Does  not  that  system  of  taxa- 
tion, that  you  speak  of,  bear  more  oppressively 
upon  the  farming  and  producing  interests  of 
Great  Britain  than  other  developments? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  A-  ost  assuredly  not,  nor  will 
it  do  so  in  this  country. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  ask  if  the  land 
is  not  all  rented,  and  the  owner  pays  all  the 
taxes?  They  have  a regular  system  of  rent, 
and  the  renter  pays  all  the  tax.  They  have  a 
regular  system  of  renting,  and  the  land-owner 
pays  no  taxes  at  all. 

Mr,  DORSEY.  That  is  not  exactly  true. 
The  land  is  not  all  rented;  for  there  are  land- 
owners  there,  who  live  upon  their  land,  as  there 
are  here ; and  even  if  that  is  true,  and  it  worked 
badly  on  that  account  in  Great  Britain,  it  would 
not  work  badly  here,  where  the  facts  are  dif- 
ferent. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I want  to  know  of  the  gen- 
tleman simply  this  fact,  whether  the  system 
that  he  has  indicated  here  would  very  much 
cheapen  or  enhance  the  cost  of  collection  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  believe  it  would 
very  greatly  cheapen  or  enhance  it.  I am  very 
certain  it  would  not  enhance  it  any,  and  it 
might,  perhaps,  make  it  a little  cheaper.  I 
know  how  badly  the  assessment  has  been  car- 
ried on  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  our  mode  of 
assessment  certainly  has  been  a bad  one.  I 
recollect  very  well  that  I recommended,  in  one 
of  my  reports,  as  Treasurer  of  State,  to  the 
General  Assembly,  that  a different  system  of 
assessment,  and  a different  class  of  assessors, 
should,  by  some  means  or  another,  be  gotten  in 
Ohio,  in  order  that  we  might  have  a better 
assessment. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Another  suggestion  : I did 

not  intend  to  make  two. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  very  ready  to  hear. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Under  your  system,  you 
would  not  have  to  assess  the  merchant  and  the 
manufacturer  on  their  personal  property  of 
every  description  and  kind  that  was  tangible; 
you  would  not  have  all  that  to  hunt  up. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly  not.  Here  is  a 
merchant  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati — and  I use 
this  as  an  illustration : I consider  that  the 

index  of  the  value  of  his  business,  and  of  the 
capital  which  he  employs,  is  clearly  manifested 
by  the  rent  he  pays.  The  man  who  does  a large 
business,  and  uses  a large  amount  of  capital, 
is  able  and  willing  to  pay  a large  rent.  For 
instance,  take  a man  who  pays  a large  rent; 
that  is  an  index  of  the  extent  of  his  business. 
I take  you  to  the  man  who  pays  ten,  fifteen  or 
twenty  thousand  dollars  a year  rent,  and  that 
is  an  index  of  his  business,  and  I tax  him 
according  to  his  rental.  I suggested  six  per 


[136th 

[Thursday, 

cent.  I am  not  very  particular  whether  you 
make  it  that  or  not.  I am  merely  indicating  a 
plan . 

Mr.  BARNET.  I think  that  the  point  that  I 
suggested  has  not  been  conceived. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  perfectly  willing  to 
hear  the  gentleman  again. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I ought  to  have  made  the 
argument  instead  of  asking  the  gentleman.  I 
think  I perceive  that  the  assessor  will  be  rid  of 
a very  large  burden,  indeed,  under  the  system 
suggested  by  the  gentleman,  that  he  is  now 
compelled  to  perform,  and,  of  course,  he  is  to  be 
paid  for  it.  It  is  a system  which  is  very  costly. 
This,  1 think,  would  very  much  simplify  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I think  so.  There  would  be 
no  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  rent  which  the 
man  pays.  There  is  a great  difficulty,  as  we 
find,  in  ascertaining  what  his  amount  of  busi- 
ness is. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  know  whether 
the  gentleman  would  prefer  to  have  the  inter- 
ruptions all  come  in  at  once  or  not. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  perfectly  willing  to 
answer. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  There  is  a simple  ques- 
tion that  I desire  to  ask,  and  that  is,  what  the 
gentleman  proposes  to  do  with  the  man  who 
has  no  other  real  estate  nor  rents  in  the  build- 
ing but  his  property  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  As  a matter  of  course,  if  he 
owns  any  real  estate,  he  will  pay  a tax  on  his 
property. 

Mr.  POWELL.  In  the  way  you  speak  of, 
and  in  no  other  way. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  How  does  the  gentleman 
develop  his  plan  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Suppose  he  has  money  at 
interest  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  propose  to  tax  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Where  he  has  no  real 
estate  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  the  gentleman’s  par- 
don. If  he  has  no  real  estate,  I should  not  tax 
his  money. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  there  was  a misun- 
derstanding between  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey]  and  the  gentleman  from  Rich- 
land [Mr.  Burns],  and  that  is  this:  I think 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  got 
on  to  the  same  system  contained  in  a publica- 
tion of  Mr.  Wells. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  sir ; it  is  a very  different 
system. 

Mr.  POWELL.  How  different?  I under- 
stand Mr.  Wells  not  to  interfere  particularly 
with  the  system  which  the  several  States  had 
already,  ours  in  particular,  with  regard  to  the 
taxing  of  real  property.  Let  that  stand  as  it  is. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  interfere  with  that 
at  all,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Then,  the  next  question  is, 
how  shall  we  get  along  with  the  personal  prop- 
erty? With  regard  to  personal  property,  he 
said  there  was  so  much  that  you  could  not  get 
hold  of  it;  that  it  was  covered  up,  etc.,  and 
then  he  had  the  rental  of  the  house,  independ- 
ent of  any  other  personal  property  to  answer 
for  the  tax  on  personal  property,  and  let  the 
personal  property  go  untaxed;  but  the  farming 
property,  the  landed  property,  he  did  not  inter- 
fere with,  because  the  rental  upon  the  houses, 


Day.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Dorsey,  Chapin,  Gurley,  Smith  of  H. 


2001 


March  12,1874.] 


&c.,  was  to  satisfy  the  tax  on  personal  property, 
and  did  not  go  to  answer  for  the  tax  upon  real 
property. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  So  far,  the  gentleman  is 
correct.  I believe  the  system  of  Mr.  Wells, 
which  I have  read  and  looked  at  very  carefully, 
taxes  real  estate  in  the  same  way  that  it  is  taxed 
now,  and  adopts,  to  a certain  extent,  the  Eng- 
lish system  of  rental  tax,  in  a different  manner, 
however,  from  what  I have  adopted.  But  so 
far  as  my  system  applies  to  taxirig  real  property, 
as  now  taxed,  except  that  the  tax  would  be 
lighter  than  it  now  is,  and  taxing  rentals  in  the 
place  of  a certain  amount  of  personal  property, 
this,  and  it  is  identical,  or  nearly  so,  with  the 
English  system.  But  I would  not  propose  to 
tax  rentals  as  Mr.  Wells  taxes  them. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  May  I ask  a question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  You  propose  in  your  plan 
to  tax  the  real  estate,  and  also  to  tax  the  man 
who  occupies  his  own  property  by  rental. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir.  In  the  place  of 
personal  tax,  the  gentleman  is  right,  and  it  will 
be  cheaper  for  him  than  by  a personal  tax. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  How  would  you  ascertain 
that? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  By  the  estimated  value ; what 
does  the  property  rent  for.  Just  as  the  assessor 
does  when  he  estimates  the  value  of  his  real 
estate,  precisely  in  the  same  way.  If  there  are 
no  further  questions  I shall  go  on.  I would 
say  that  I am  very  glad  to  answer  any  ques- 
tions that  the  gentlemen  may  put  to  me  in  ref- 
erence to  this  matter.  I think  I understand  my 
own  system,  and  whether  it  be  perfect,  or 
whether  it  be  imperfect,  it  is  one  which  has 
commended  itself  to  my  mind,  and  I bring  it 
before  the  Convention  for  what  it  is  worth. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Is  the  amount  that  a man 
pays  for  rent  simply,  any  correct  index  of  the 
amount  of  business  that  he  is  doing;  may  not 
one  man  have  ten  times  or  a hundred  times  the 
amount  of  capital,  and  do  a hundred  times  the 
amount  of  business,  and  pay  no  more  rental 
than  another  man? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  say  to  the  gentle- 
man that  I do  not  think  so ; and  I refer  him  to 
the  fact  that,  as  basis  of  what  I have  been  do- 
ing here,  I read  the  declaration  of  Adam 
Smith,  in  his  Wealth  of  Nations:  “That  the 
most  correct  basis  upon  which  we  can  estimate 
the  value  of  personal  property  or  the  business 
of  a man,  is  his  rental.”  I think  that,  proba- 
bly, is  correct,  and  I believe  that,  carried  out, 
would  be  found  to  be,  in  the  main,  a correct 
basis  of  taxation.  And  if  there  are  no  iurther 
questions,  I will  again  proceed  with  my  argu- 
ment. 

A single  glance  at  the  condition  of  one  single 
branch  of  industry  in  the  State  will  better  illus- 
trate the  truth  of  these  observations  than  pages 
of  theory.  The  production  of  iron  from  the 
various  furnaces  of  Ohio,  in  1870,  amounted 
in  value  as  nearly  as  could  be  estimated, 
to  $10,722,705,  while  in  our  sister  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  it  amounted  in  the  same  year 
tc  more  than  $60,000,000.  Why  should  this  im- 
mense difference  exist  between  the  first  and  the 
second  iron  State  of  the  Union  ? A word  ans- 
wers the  question.  We  burden  the  active  capital 
employed  in  this  manufacture  with  all  the  local 

y.  n-128 


and  general  taxes  assessed  in  the  various  coun- 
ties of  the  State  where  it  is  carried  on.  Penn- 
sylvania relieves  it  from  this  burden,  hence  those 
persons  anxious  to  invest  capital  in  the  manu- 
facture, choose  Pennsylvania  rather  than  Ohio, 
as  the  place  of  investment.  Place  our  manu- 
facturers on  the  same  favorable  basis  as  those 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  we  shall  soon  see  the 
value  of  the  product  tripled  or  quadrupled  in 
the  State.  But  we  wish  to  encourage  trade  and 
manufactures  of  all  kinds  in  our  State.  We  have 
already  in  the  State  22,733  manufacturing 
establishments,  producing  carriages,  wagons, 
clothing,  flour,  furniture,  castings,  lumber, 
machinery,  sash,  doors  and  blinds,  tin,  copper 
and  sheet  iron  ware,  woolen  and  cotton  goods, 
employing  137,000  persons,  and  a capital  am- 
ounting to  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions 
of  dollars,  and  turning  out  annually  products 
valued  at  two  hundred  and  seventy  millions  of 
dollars.  Extend  to  these  the  same  fostering  care, 
the  same  privileges  and  immunities,  and  you 
increase  almost  beyond  computation  the  popu- 
lation and  wealth  of  the  State ; you  increase  the 
value  of  real  estate,  increase  the  income  of  the 
land-owner,  open  a ready  market  for  the  pro- 
ducts of  the  soil,  increase  the  number  of  manu- 
facturing establishments  and  domiciles,  and 
consequently, your  annual  rental,  in  a very  few 
years,  will  largely  diminish  the  actual  burden 
of  taxation  in  the  State. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I wish  the  gen- 
tleman would  explain  why  it  is,  under  our 
system  of  taxation,  so  onerous  as  compared 
with  Pennsylvania,  Cleveland  has  increased  in 
ten  years,  in  population,  far  beyond  any  city 
in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  that  her  in- 
creased capital  for  taxation  has  kept  up  in  the 
same  ratio  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  answer  the  gentle- 
man that  while  that  may  be  true,  and  is  true 
with  regard  to  the  city  of  Cleveland,  I am 
going  to  show  the  gentleman  and  shall  show 
the  Convention,  by  actual  figures,  that  in  the 
last  ten  years  the  State  of  Ohio,  as  a State, 
lagged  behind  every  one  of  the  principal  States 
of  the  Union  in  wealth,  population  and  devel- 
opment. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  But  all  this 
growth  has  been  in  cities  and  towns,  where 
this  personal  tax  is  oppressive. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I shall  show  to  you  that  the 
increased  value  of  manufactures  and  capital, 
and  in  population,  has  been  behind  every  one  of 
the  great  States  of  the  Union.  The  gentleman 
may  ascribe  it  to  whatever  cause  he  pleases. 

But  it  is  a singular  fact,  and  one  which  ought 
not  to  exist  in  a great  State  like  Ohio,  that  for 
twenty  years  past  we  have  not  kept  up  in  the 
race  of  progress  and  improvement  with  our 
sister  States.  With  all  the  advantages  of  soil, 
climate  and  mineral  wealth,  we  have  permitted 
the  four  other  great  States  of  the  Union  to  out- 
strip us,  and  our  rate  of  increase  in  population 
and  wealth  falls  signally  behind  theirs.  The 
reason  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  industry  and 
energy  of  our  people,  for  this  cannot  be  ex- 
celled. Their  enterprise  and  ardor  have  pushed 
them  out  into  every  new  field  of  action,  but 
cramped  and  oppressed  by  our  unjust  system  of 
taxation,  which,  like  the  wintry  wind,  pene- 
trates into  every  cranny  and  crevice  of  our 


2002 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Dorsey,  Gurley,  Smith  of  H.,  West. 


[136th 


[Thursday, 


industry,  chilling  and  checking  its  growth, 
they  have  sought,  in  other  States,  that  broad 
field  and  liberal  policy  denied  them  at  home, 
and  emigration  from  Ohio  has  filled  the  growing 
States  of  the  West,  even  to  the  shores  of  the 
Pacific,  with  the  strong  hands  and  active  brains 
of  her  noble  sons,  seeking  abroad  the  wealth 
which  could  not  be  won  in  their  native  land. 

A comparison  of  the  increase  in  wealth  and 
population  of  five  of  the  great  States  of  the 
Union,  from  1850  to  1870,  will  tell  the  story  of 
our  loss  better  than  pages  of  argument.  During 
this  period  the  increase  in  population  in  Penn- 
sylvania has  been  52  per  cent. ; New  York,  41 
per  cent.;  Illinois,  210  per  cent.;  Indiana,  70 
per  cent.,  and  Ohio  34  per  cent. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Does  the  gentleman  attrib- 
ute the  loss  of  population  in  Ohio  to  excessive 
taxation  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  stating  facts.  I leave 
the  gentlemen  to  draw  their  own  conclusions. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  In  order  that  the  argument 
may  be  conclusive,  I would  ask  what  the  rate 
of  tax  is  in  Pennsylvania,  New  York  and  Ohio. 
The  argument,  to  prove  anything,  must  be  based 
upon  figures. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  stated  that  the  system 
of  taxation  in  Pennsylvania  is  infinitely  better 
than  it  is  in  Ohio,  and  I think  the  same  thing 
can  be  said  with  regard  to  taxation  in  the  States 
of  New  York  and  Illinois,  but  of  their  systems 
I am  not  so  well  informed. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I would  like  to 
say  to  the  gentleman,  that  the  rate  of  taxation 
per  head  in  Illinois  is  $8.59.  The  rate  of  Ohio 
is  $8.83.  If  an  increase  of  less  than  fifty  cents 
will  account  for  the  increase  of  population, 
the  gentleman  can  have  the  benefit  of  the  argu- 
ment. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  mere  per  capita  of  tax- 
ation in  the  State  shows  nothing  at  all  in  this 
regard.  The  per  capita  of  taxation  in  the  State 
may  be  one-half  larger  than  that  in  another 
State,  and  yet  the  taxation  may  be  so  distributed 
as  to  be  oppressive  in  one  case  and  not  at  all  so 
in  the  other.  You  cannot  draw  anyargument  at 
all  from  the  per  capita  taxation. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  1 under  stand  the 
gentleman’s  argument  was,  that  Illinois,  and 
the  other  States,  had  increased  in  population 
with  a greater  ratio  than  Ohio.  Why  ? Because 
the  system  of  taxation  in  Ohio  was  more  oppres- 
sive than  in  the  other  States,  or  the  argument 
did  not  apply. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  leave  to  say  that  the 
argument  does  apply. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  With  regard  to  a 
thousand  dollars,  the  taxation  in  Illinois  is 
$10.28;  in  Ohio,  $10.52.  Would  that  make  up 
the  difference  in  population? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  might  not;  but  it  is  a dif- 
ference and  the  difference  is  against  Ohio,  as  it 
is  in  every  case;  but  at  the  same  time,  as  I said 
before,  it  is  the  manner  in  which  the  taxation 
is  distributed,  and  not  the  mere  amount  per 
capita,  nor  the  amount  per  thousand  dollars. 
The  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Highland 
[Mr.  Smith]  does  not  apply  in  this  connection 
at  all.  As  I have  shown  you  in  all  these  five 
States,  Ohio  lags  behind  in  her  increase  in  popu- 
lation, I want  to  show  you,  also,  that  she  lags 
vbehind  in  her  increase  in  wealth. 


If  we  look  at  the  increase  in  wealth  the  same 
story  is  told ; we  stand  at  the  foot  of  the  list  of 
the  five  great  States.  During  the  same  period 
of  twenty  years,  the  increase  in  wealth  in  Penn- 
sylvania has  been  427  percent.;  New  York, 
501  per  cent. ; Illinois,  1259  per  cent. ; Indiana, 
527  per  cent.;  Ohio,  343 per  cent. 

These  tables  show  a state  of  things  which 
should  not  exist.  If  we  pursued  the  same  lib- 
eral policy  here  in  regard  to  our  taxation  of 
capital,  and  our  interest  laws,  which  are  found 
in  our  sister  States,  and  more  especially  in 
Pennsylvania,  who  by  her  system  of  taking  off” 
so  largely  the  burden  of  taxation  from  the  man- 
ufacturing capital  of  the  State,  is  becoming  the 
great  centre  of  manufacture  in  the  Union,  it 
connot  be  doubted  that  the  next  ten  or  twenty 
years  would  tell  a wholly  different  tale. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  ask  the  gentleman  with 
regard  to  value,  whether  twenty  years  ago  land 
in  the  State  of  Illinois  could  not  be  bought  for 
two  or  three  dollars  an  acre  which  is  now  worth 
fifty,  seventy-five  or  one  hundred  dollars,  or 
more  per  acre,  ordinary  increase  in  the  value 
of  land  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I presume  that  is  true ; and 
the  same  thing  is  also  true  in  some  parts  of 
Ohio.  It  might  not  be  true  to  that  extent. 
The  increase  in  the  value  of  land  has  been  very 
great  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Mr.  WEST.  I know  of  land  bought  in  Wy- 
andotte county,  twenty  years  ago,  for  $3.50  an 
acre.  That  accounts  for  the  increase  in  popu- 
lation. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
if  the  increase  of  the  value  of  land  in  Ohio  has 
not  also  been  very  great  ? 

Now,  if  we  released  from  taxation,  to  a very 
great  extent,  if  not  wholly,  the  mercantile  and 
manufacturing  capital  of  the  State,  and  all  the 
personal  property  of  every  man  in  the  State, 
except  as  above  indicated,  we  can  scarcely  cal- 
culate the  vast  impetus  which  would  be  given 
to  every  kind  of  industry,  the  door  opened  for 
every  kind  of  improvement,  and  the  rapid  in- 
crease in  population  and  wealth  which  must  at 
once  take  place.  Nothing  is  so  important  as  a 
just  and  equal  system  of  taxation,  and  no  State 
in  the  Union  has  been  farther  removed  from 
such  a system  during  the  last  twenty  years 
than  our  own.  We  have  suffered  beyond  mea- 
sure by  this  evil,  brought  upon  us  to  a very 
great  degree  by  the  unfortunate  article  on  Fi- 
nance and  Taxation  introduced  into  the  Consti- 
tution of  1851.  Let  us  beware  of  repeating  the 
error,  which  we  certainly  shall  do  if  we  place 
this  third  article  in  our  proposed  Constitution. 
The  conclusions  at  which  I have  arrived  have 
not  been  hastily  reached,  they  are  the  result  of 
several  years  of  careful  observation  and  study 
of  various  systems  of  taxation.  In  detail  they 
are  doubtless  imperfect,  but  in  their  general 
principles  I cannot  for  a moment  doubt  their 
correctness.  If  we  do  not  by  unwise  provisions 
in  our  Constitution  shut  out  necessary  reforms, 
the  General  Assembly  can,  in  due  time,  on  this 
basis,  build  up  a system  which  will  reduce  the 
burdens  of  our  people  and  bring  large  acces- 
sions of  population  and  of  wealth  to  the  State. 

I do  not  know  that  I have  anything  very  par- 
ticular to  add  to  these  remarks  which  I have 
made  before  the  Convention.  My  principal  ob- 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Dorsey,  Chapin,  Hoadly. 


2003 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.] 

ject  in  offering  them  was  to  show  that  a system 
of  taxation  could  be  introduced  by  the  General 
Assembly,  which,  I hold,  would  be  superior  to 
that  system  which  has  heretofore  been  prac- 
ticed in  the  State.  I believe  that  the  subject 
of  taxation  is  one  of  too  great  importance  to 
be  attempted  to  be  settled  for  a long  series  of 
years  ahead.  I do  not  think  any  Convention 
could  have  the  foresight  that  would  enable  them 
to  do  it,  and  for  that  reason  I would  desire  that 
this  Convention  should  leave  to  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State  full  and  untrammelled 
liberty  so  to  regulate  our  system  of  taxation  as 
the  people  may,  from  time  to  time,  think  for 
their  best  interests.  I am  perfectly  sure  that  in 
this  way,  the  State  will  go  forward  in  her  career 
of  greatness  and  prosperity  with  less  hindrance 
than  if  we  place  an  inflexible  system  and  an 
unvarying  rule  of  taxation  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  State. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I would  like  to  propound 
another  question. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  There  is  so  much  tax  to  be 
raised  in  the  State  and  if  you  take  it  off  from 
the  notes,  you  must  put  it  somewhere  else. 
You  propose,  as  I understand  your  theory,  to 
put  it  on  to  the  agricultural  interest,  on  to 
farms ; then  in  doing  so,  will  the  people  of  the 
State  of  Ohio  be  willing  to  subscribe  to  any 
such  thing  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  say  to  the  gentle- 
man that  if  he  had  listened  carefully  to  what  I 
have  said,  he  would  have  found  that  my  system 
takes  the  burden  of  taxation  off  the  farming 
interest  of  the*  State;  that  it  taxes  the  real  es- 
tate at  a less  figure  than  it  is  taxed  to-day  in  the 
various  counties  of  the  State.  I endeavored  to 
show  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  that 
a tax  of  one  and  five -eighths  per  cent,  would 
bring  the  whole  revenue,  and  a larger  revenue 
by  about  four  millions,  under  my  system,  than 
that  collected  to-day,  and  the  gentleman  knows 
as  well  as  I do  that  the  average  tax  in  the  State 
is  more  than  two  per  cent. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I understood  that  your  rate 
of  taxation  was  only  made  by  watering  farms, 
or  raising  them  in  value. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  was  not.  A large  portion 
over  $3,000,000  was  made  by  taxing  domicile,  by 
which  you  get  a larger  amount  of  tax  than  you 
have  heretofore  got  from  an  attempt  to  tax  the 
personal  property  of  the  State,  although  you 
have  not  succeeded  in  taxing  it  as  it  ought  to 
have  been  done.  I do  not  propose  to  increase 
the  taxation  over  the  State.  My  system,  while 
it  adds  thirty-three  per  cent,  to  the  assessed 
valuation  of  the  farming  property  of  the  State 
of  Ohio,  still  leaves  it  far  below  its  actual  value, 
reduces  the  amount  of  assessment  over  the 
State  from  over  two  per  cent,  to  one  and  five- 
eighths  per  cent. — a little  more  than  one-half — 
thus  taking  the  burden  off  the  farming  prop- 
erty of  the  State,  and  at  the  same  time  making 
the  farming  property  of  the  State  more  valu- 
able. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  to  state  certain  facts 
of  the  past  history  of  the  State  with  regard  to 
the  subject  of  finance  and  taxation,  not,  how- 
ever, with  the  view  of  suggesting  any  system,  for 
I have  not  sufficient  confidence  in  my  own  judg- 
ment or  wisdom  to  believe  that  I am  capable  of 


framing  a system  of  taxation.  With  entire  re- 
spect to  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey], I do  not  believe  even  he  is  capable  of 
framing  a system,  or  that  this  Convention  is 
capable  of  framing  a system,  in  advance,  which 
will  work  successfully  for  the  next  twenty 
years.  I am  very  thankful  to  the  Committee 
for  what  they  have  done  to  relieve  us  from  the 
effects  of  the  attempt  made  twenty  years  ago  to 
frame  a system.  The  object  I have  in  view  is 
to  show  how  utterly  that  system  has  broken 
down,  how  completely  it  has  failed,  and  how  we 
have  been  able  to  get  along  at  all,  only  by  nulli- 
fying the  Constitution  of  the  State  as  expounded 
by  the  highest  judicial  authorities  of  the  State, 
and  I think  that  the  history  which  I shall  pre- 
sent to  this  Convention  ought  to  be  a warning 
not  to  undertake  to  repeat  so  disastrous  an  ex- 
periment, but  to  leave  this,  which  is  a science 
founded  on  experiment  and  observation,  so  that 
the  Legislature  may,  from  time  to  time,  as  ex- 
perience and  observation  may  dictate,  and  as 
the  effect  of  legislation  may  be  discovered,  sup- 
ply the  remedy.  1 say  that  their  hands  should 
not  be  tied. 

In  1851,  the  Constitution  provided  that  laws 
should  be  passed  taxing  by  a uniform  rule,  and 
I am  very  thankful  to  the  Committee  that  they 
have  changed  that  into  the  plural,  for  by  so 
doing  they  have  undertaken  to  adopt  more  than 
one,  to  adopt,  as  has  been  done  in  Pennsylvania, 
the  principle  that  the  rule  shall  be  uniform  so 
far  as  any  class  of  property  is  concerned  only. 
They  have,  and,  I have  no  doubt,  intelligently, 
adopted  the  plural;  whereas,  most  unintelli- 
gently  the  Convention  adopted  the  singular  in 
1851,  “laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uni- 
form rule,  all  moneys,”  &c.,  <fcc.  Notice  the 
words  “ all  moneys,  credits  and  investments  in 
bonds,  stocks ” — . I desire  to  call  particular  at- 
tention to  that  word  “stocks,”  and  I shall  show 
that  that  word  in  this  Constitution,  six  months 
after  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  by  an  act  of 
the  Legislature,  by  qualification  of  the  Consti- 
tution, by  repudiation  of  its  obligation,  although 
the  Constitution  said  “all  stocks,”  the  Legisla- 
ture interpreted  it  to  mean  all  stocks  in  foreign 
corporations , and  thus  the  interpretation  has 
remained  until  now;  and  when  I undertook 
once,  as  the  attorney  of  the  people  of  this  county 
and  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  whom  I did 
represent  on  that  occasion,  of  which  I shall 
hereafter  speak,  to  recall  the  supreme  court  to 
the  just  construction  of  the  Constitution,  I was 
answered  by  an  evasion.  The  Constitution 
says : “Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uni- 

form rule,  all  moneys,  credits,  investments  in 
bonds,  stocks,  joint  stock  companies,  or  other- 
wise, and  also  all  real  or  personal  property 
according  to  its  real  value  in  money.”  Then 
follows  the  exemption. 

I venture  to  say  there  is  not  a member  of  the 
Convention  who  does  not  know  that  this  at- 
tempt to  tax  all  real  and  personal  property  by  a 
uniform  rule  has  not  only  been  a failure,  every 
year,  but  could  not  prove  to  be  otherwise  than 
a failure.  In  attempting  to  assess  real  proper- 
ty, yes  in  attempting  to  apply  the  rule  to  a sin- 
gle class  of  property,  it  has  failed.  I can  cite 
instance  after  instance  of  the  difficulties  that 
surround  the  subject. 

Hived,  ac  the  time  of  the  assessment  of  1870, 


2004 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


[136th 


Hoadly.  [Thursday, 


in  the  township  of  Mill  Creek,  that  is  to  say, 
the  village  of  Woodburn  in  that  township,  had 
not  then  been  annexed  to  the  city,  and  the  town- 
ship assessor  of  the  township  of  Mill  Creek,  an 
intelligent  gentleman,  undertook  to  appraise 
the  property  of  the  township.  My  colleagues 
know  what  sort  of  a task  it  was,  an  Herculean 
task,  surpassing  the  powers  of  anybody.  He 
appraised  the  north  or  front  part  of  the  tract  on 
which  I live  at  $1400  per  acre,  and  a tract  of 
three  acres  immediately  contiguous,  abutting 
upon  my  property,  which  happened  to  be  sub- 
divided into  lots,  he  assessed  by  the  lot,  so  that 
it  proved  that  the  value,  when  reduced  to  the 
acre,  amounted  to  $3300  an  acre,  yet  I would 
not  give  $100  an  acre  difference  between  the 
tracts  to-day,  and  I would  not  have  given  it 
then.  Behind  my  house  the  property  runs 
down  the  hill  into  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  what 
was  then  the  twentieth  ward  of  the  city ; and 
the  appraiser  of  the  twentieth  ward  appraised 
my  pasture  lot  in  the  rear  of  my  house  at  $2000 
an  acre,  and  right  across  the  street  the  apprais- 
er of  the  seventeenth  ward  appraised  a piece  of 
the  same  kind  of  land,  belonging  to  my  col- 
league [Mr.  Herron]  at  $750  an  acre.  These 
are  instances  within  the  four  corners  of  the 
parallelogram  upon  which  I live,  and  the  same 
thing  has  been  true  all  over  the  State. 

I heard  a man,  who  was  once  an  appraiser  of 
one  of  the  townships  of  this  county,  testify, 
under  oath,  that  when  he  made  an  appraisement 
of  that  township,  in  1859,  he  appraised  all  the 
lands  of  the  township  at  what,  in  his  opinion, 
it  would  have  produced  had  it  been  put  up  at 
forced  sale  for  cash  at  one  time,  and  sold  to  the 
highest  bidder  at  auction.  You  can  imagine 
what  sort  of  a valuation  he  made  of  that  prop- 
erty, for  he  stated  he  had  appraised  it  at  once,  at 
what  it  was  all  worth  at  once,  and  that,  in  his 
opinion,  it  was  not  worth  any  more  than  it 
would  sell  for  at  once.  There  is  this  difference 
in  appraising  realty,  and  everybody  in  Ohio 
knows  it,  that  the  average  price  of  realty  is 
more  than  its  double  taxed  value.  It  has  been 
stated,  time  and  again,  upon  the  floor  of  this 
Convention,  and  the  fact  recognized,  that  the 
taxable  value  of  realty  in  Ohio  does  not  exceed 
more  than  forty  or  fifty  per  cent,  of  its  real 
value.  If  it  be  true  that  such  has  been  the  ex- 
perience of  the  past,  what  sort  of  a rule  has 
been  in  the  past  the  uniform  rule  of  taxation? 
Take  its  true  value,  and  what  sort  of  hope  have 
we  for  the  future,  judging  by  the  past,  in  regard 
to  the  operations  of  our  system  ? When  we  un- 
dertake to  govern  ourselves  by  what  is  called  a 
uniform  rule,  and  when  you  take  two  different 
classes  of  property  and  attempt  to  value  personal 
and  real  property,  and  investments  in  bonds  and 
shares,  by  any  uniform  rule  applicable  to  real 
property,  you  will  be  simply  lost  in  the  begin- 
ning. A rule  that  may  apply  in  the  one  case 
will  not  apply  in  the  other  case.  It  cannot 
apply.  Here  you  have  a subject  of  easy  sale,  or 
easy  conversion  into  money,  like  wheat,  like 
flour,  which  has  an  immediate  cash  value.  The 
product  of  the  country  is  consumed  every  year. 
Here  you  have  cattle  and  horses,  which  can  be 
sold  for  cash  at  once,  but  your  land  cannot  be 
sold  for  cash.  It  is  always  sold  on  time,  and 
your  uniform  rule,  by  reason  of  the  non-uni- 
formity of  the  subject  matter  to  which  the  rule 


is  attempted  to  be  applied,  will  break  down  in 
the  beginning. 

Let  us  go  a little  further  with  this  subject. 
Not  only  is  it  true  that  the  uniform  rule  has 
resulted  in  the  taxation  of  such  personal  prop- 
erty as  has  not  escaped  through  the  large 
meshes — and  they  are  very  large — of  the  net  of 
the  law,  its  actual  value  in  money,  that  is, 
where  a conscientious  man  did  the  swearing, 
where  an  honest  man  held  up  his  hand  and 
took  his  oath,  there  the  property  is  taxed  at  its 
real  value ; yet  other  property,  real  property,  is 
taxed  at  forty  or  fifty  per  cent,  and  the  rogue 
escapes  altogether ; and,  more  than  all  that, 
some  men  who  are  not  rogues,  feeling  the  pres- 
sure and  the  inequality  of  our  system,  have 
resorted  to  shifts  and  devices.  There  are  res- 
pectable gentlemen  in  this  city,  whose  names  I 
shall  not  call,  but  of  whom  the  facts  will  recall 
the  names  to  almost  everybody  who  hears  me — 
men  who  had  distinguished  themselves  by  their 
public  hostility  to  the  currency  of  the  United 
States,  known  as  the  greenback  currency,  were 
the  first  men  in  Ohio  to  lay  in  a stock  of  green- 
backs and  have  them  on  hand,  and  deny  the 
right,  and  deny  it  successfully,  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  to  the  taxation  of  their  moneys  in  hand, 
because  those  moneys  were  in  the  legal  tender 
notes  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  law  allowing  debts  to  be  offset  against 
credits  has  resulted,  in  the  spring  of  each  year, 
in  an  enormous  addition  to  the  debts  of  individ- 
uals, to  money  borrowed  and  invested  in  non- 
tax-paying securities,  in  order  that  the  debts 
might  be  oflset  against  credits,  which  is  itself 
really  not  property,  but  merely  the  representa- 
tive of  property.  On  the  statute  there  is  an  act 
of  the  General  Assembly,  passed  at  the  instance 
of  Dr.  Scott,  which  endeavors  to  correct  this  as 
far  as  Federal  securities  are  concerned.  This 
practice  of  persons  running  into  debt  in  the 
early  part  of  April  or  March,  and  then  making 
an  investment  of  the  borrowed  money  in  5-20 
bonds,  and  offsetting  the  debt  against  credits, 
by  requiring  the  man  who  attempts  to  do  that 
to  return  the  monthly  average  of  his  credits 
and  the  monthly  average  of  his  5- 20s,  so  far  as 
to  prevent  the  buying  up  of  securities  and  run- 
ning into  debt  the  day  before  tax-day,  and  then 
selling  out  the  day  after  tax-day.  The  man 
that  drew  that  law  forgot  that  there  was  non- 
tax-paying  property  besides  the  bonds  of  the 
United  States;  that  the  shares  of  the  corpora- 
tions in  Ohio  are  not  tax-paying  property.  The 
consequence  is  that  a whole  drove  of  horses 
may  be  driven  right  straight  through  that  law, 
and  such  has  been  done,  and  between  now  and 
the  tax-day  in  April  hundreds  of  such  droves 
will  be  going  through  in  this  town  and  in 
Cleveland  and  every  other  center  of  commerce 
in  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Yes,  sir,  the  Constitution  of  Ohio,  as  it  was 
adopted  in  1851,  started  out  by  refusing  to  allow 
taxation  of  every  credit,  and  in  the  case  of  the 
Exchange  Bank  against  Hines,  in  the  third 
volume  of  the  Ohio  State  Reports,  page  one,  the 
supreme  court  of  Ohio,  twenty  years  ago  next 
December,  unanimously  decided — let  me  see 
whether  I am  right  in  saying  unanimously  de- 
cided— yes,  unanimously  decided  that-  neither 
banks  nor  individuals 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

De  Steiguer,  Hoadly,  Rowland,  Smith  of  H. 


2005 


Day.J 


March  12, 1874.] 


Mr.  De  STEIGUER.  I thing  Judge  Ranney 
dissented  from  that  opinion. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Neither  hanks  nor  individu- 
als. It  is  the  decision  of  the  court,  anyhow.  I 
shall  not  stop,  because  the  time  will  not  permit 
me,  and  my  friend  may  be  right  about  it.  I 
have  not  looked  to  see.  The  court  decided  that 
neither  banks  nor  individuals  could  setoff  debits 
against  moneys  and  credits.  At  that  time  the 
tenth  section  of  the  tax  law  attempted  to  permit 
debits  to  be  offset  against  moneys  and  credits, 
and  the  court  decided  that  this,  both  in  the 
case  of  individuals  and  banks,  was  unconstitu- 
tional ; that  it  was  unconstitutional  in  the  case 
of  banks  because  it  was  unconstitutional  in  the 
case  of  individuals,  and  I shall  read  the  syllabus 
of  the  case  to  show  that  I am  right.  The  gen- 
tleman may  be  entirely  right  in  saying  that 
Judge  Ranney  dissented. 

“The  tax  law  of  April  13,  1853,  is  valid  and  constitu- 
tional, in  the  basis  it  provides  for  the  taxation  of  banks, 
bankers  and  brokers.* 

“The  tenth  section  of  that  law,  which  allows  individu- 
als and  certain  corporations,  in  giving  their  tax  lists,  to 
deduct  their  liabilities  from  the  amount  of  their  moneys 
and  credits,  is  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  Ohio,  and 
is  void.  The  Constitution  permits  no  deduction  of  liabil- 
ities from  moneys  and  credits. 

“But  that  section  may  be  treated  as  void  without  affect- 
ing the  validity  of  the  remainder  of  the  Act.  The  re- 
mainder of  the  Act  permits  no  such  deductions.” 

I shall  read  from  the  opinion  on  page  29, 
Judge  Ranney  did  dissent,  I find,  as  I happen 
to  open  at  the  proper  place,  and  perhaps  upon 
the  very  proposition  that  I am  discussing;  but 
the  remainder  of  the  Court  decided  as  already 
read,  and  as  I shall  continue  to  read.  There 
were  two  concurring  opinions  pronounced, 
from  one  of  which  I propose  to  read.  The  first 
opinion  was  by  Judge  Bartley.  The  concur- 
ring opinion  was  by  Judge  Thurman.  Judges 
Corwin  and  Caldwell  assented.  Without 
reading  opinions,  I propose  to  read  one  page 
from  the  opinion  of  Judge  Thurman — page  39 
— to  show  the  ground  on  which  the  Court 
stood,  and  I prefer  to  read  from  the  opinion  of 
Judge  Thurman  rather  than  from  Judge  Bart- 
ley, for  reasons  which  will  be  obvious  to  every 
lawyer  in  my  hearing. 

Mr.  WEST.  Reasons  on  file. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Agreed. 

“This  section  (section  10)  is  impugned  on  the  ground 
that  the  deductions  it  permits  are  forbidden  by  the  Con- 
stitution. The  provisions  of  the  Constitution  tUat  bear 
upon  the  question  are  section  2 and  3 of  Article  XII,  and 
section  4 of  Article  XIII.  By  the  first  of  these  sections  it 
is  ordained  that, 

“ ‘Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rule , all 
moneys,  credits,  investments  in  bonds,  stocks,  joint  stock 
companies,  or  otherwise;  and  also  all  real  and  personal 
property,  according  to  its  true  value  in  money;  but  bury- 
ing grounds,  public  school  houses,  houses  used  exclusive- 
ly for  public  worship,  institutions  of  purely  public  charity, 
public  property  used  exclusively  for  any  public  purpose, 
and  personal  property  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  in 
value  two  hundred  dollars  for  each  individual,  may,  by 
general  laws,  be  exempt  from  taxation;  but  all  such  laws 
shall  be  subject  to  alteration  or  repeal;  and  the  value  of 
all  property  so  exempted,  shall,  from  time  to  time,  be  as- 
certained ana  published,  as  may  be  directed  by  law.’ 

“It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  letter  of  this  section  re- 
quires all  moneys  and  credits  to  be  taxed.  No  part  of 
them,  or  either  of  them,  can  be  exempted,  if  we  follow 
the  plain,  unambiguous  language  of  the  section.  It  can 
not  be  done  by  a direct  exemption,  by  name,  or  by  an  in- 
direct exemption,  under  the  name  of  deductions.  The 
one  is  as  much  a violation  of  the  letter  of  the  section  as 
the  other.  Even  the  two  hundred  dollar  exemption,  au- 
thorized by  the  section  cannot  be  of  moneys  or  credits.  It 
is  confined  to  ‘personal  property,’  and  although  ‘personal 
property’,  in  legal  signification,  includes  moneys  and 


credits,  it  is  apparent  that  wherever  it  is  employed  in 
this  section  it  is  used  in  a limited  sense,  and  does  not  in- 
clude them.  It  is  only  necessary  to  read  the  section  to 
see  that  this  statement  is  correct.  There  it  just  as  much 
reason  for  saying  that  a man  may  deduct  his  debts  from 
his  real  or  personal  property,  as  to  say  that  he  may  do  so 
from  his  moneys  and  credits.  The  language  that  requires 
all  real  and  personal  property  to  be  taxed,  with  certain 
exceptions,  is  no  more  stringent,  no  more  comprehensive 
or  explicit  than  that  requiring  all  moneys  and  credits  to 
be  taxed.” 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I wish  ray  colleague  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  would  show  how  the  definition  of 
the  word  credit  by  Judge  Ranney  finally  went 
into  the  legislation  of  the  State. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  sir.  While  the  State  of 
Ohio  has  been  covering  the  author  of  the  words 
I have  just  read,  with  honor,  and  placing  him. 
in  high  places,  has  seen  him  serve  in  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States  so  acceptably,  that, 
almost  as  I speak,  the  echo  of  the  cannon  that 
announced  his  triumphant  re-election  has  hard- 
ly died  upon  our  ears,  the  author  of  this  opinion 
that  I read,  has  so  far  fallen  short  of  impressing 
its  principles  on  the  people  of  the  State,  that 
afterwards,  by  a slight  change  in  the  statute 
directing  that  debits  should  be  deducted,  not 
from  moneys  and  credits,  but  from  credits 
alone,  a mere  evasive  change  was  made  in  the 
form  of  the  law,  and  that  evasive  change  has 
been  followed  by  the  people  without  demur, 
without  dissatisfaction,  and  the  Constitution  of 
Ohio,  as  expounded  by  the  highest  Court  of  the 
State,  has  been,  for  nineteen  years,  by  one  voice 
and  unanimously,  overthrown,  disregarded,  re- 
pudiated and  annulled.  If  that  is  not  a start- 
ling fact  in  the  history  of  the  State,  I do  not 
know  of  any  fact  that  could  startle  anybody. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  Let  us  under- 
stand that.  The  decision  of  Judge  Thurman,  so 
far  as  it  applies  to  money,  has  been  recognized 
as  a fair  interpretation  of  that  Constitutional 
clause;  that  we  all  agree  to.  But  the  interpre- 
tion  by  Judge  Ranney  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word  “credit”  has  been  accepted  by  the  State  of 
Ohio  as  the  law. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  It  is  a question  of 
construction  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
“credit.”  If  his  interpretation  is  right,  then 
the  present  laws  are  in  conformity  with  a fair 
construction  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I thank  the  gentleman  for 
the  suggestion.  He  is  undoubtedly  right.  The 
single  j udge  of  the  five  has  been  made  the  head- 
stone of  the  corner  of  the  subject  of  finance  in 
this  State. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  Does  the  gentle- 
man deny  the  Judicial  soundness,  and  agree 
with  its  interpretation  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I deny  that  a single  judge’s 
opinion — 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  No  matter  about 
that. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  When  the  gentleman  calls 
for  my  individual  opinion,  I answer  him  that  in 
my  judgment  Judge  Thurman  was  right,  and 
Judge  Ranney  was  wrong;  but  what  has  my 
judgment  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  The  gentleman 
is  making  an  argument,  and  I want  to  under- 
stand his  position. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  argument  I am  making 
is,  that  what  was  unjust  and  wrong  in  policy 


2006 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Hoaply,  Smith  of  H. 


[136th 

[Thursday, 


was,  that  a provision  of  the  Constitution,  dis- 
tinctly brought  to  the  attention  of  the  people 
by  the  opinion  of  four  judges  against  one, 
holding  that  the  Constitution  had  a certain 
meaning,  yet  it  has  been  repudiated,  and  a 
single  judge’s  dissenting  opinion  adopted  by  the 
popular  voice  of  the  law  of  the  State.  That  is  my 
point.  My  object  is  not  to  prove  any  rule  or 
exception  as  to  taxing  property.  I started  out 
by  saying  that  I did  not  pretend  to  have  wisdom 
enough  to  do  that.  My  idea  is, — “hands  off;” 
— give  the  Legislature  power  enough  to  cure 
the  evil  without  repudiating  the  Constitution  of 
the  State.  This  evil  could  only  be  cured  by 
repudiating  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  by  overthrowing  the  opinion  of  the  high- 
est judicial  tribunal  on  whose  judgment  de- 
pend our  lives  and  our  property,  and  by  setting 
a single  man,  certainly  no  wiser  than  the  other 
four,  as  the  better  judge  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  State,  above  his  associates. 

That  is  not  the  only  time  nor  place  in  which 
the  Constitution  of  1851  has  been  overthrown 
in  the  history  of  the  State.  I ask  gentlemen  of 
the  Convention  what  did  the  people  of  Ohio 
mean  when  they  said  that  stocks  shall  be  taxed 
at  their  proper  value  in  money. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  All  that  could  be 
reached  constitutionally. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Exactly;  but  cannot  every 
dollar  of  stock  created  under  the  present  Con- 
stitution be  reached  constitutionally?  Cer- 
tainly. The  stock  of  the  Lake  Shore  Railroad 
Company  is  property,  which  in  the  hands  of 
the  owners,  can  be  placed  upon  the  tax  dupli- 
cate without  any  violation  of  any  faith,  ex- 
pressed or  implied,  of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  and  yet  there  is  not  a dollar  of  it  on  the 
tax  duplicate,  and  there  never  has  been  a dollar 
of  it,  yet  millions  of  it  are  held  by  the  people 
of  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  Subject  to  the 
road  to  the  extent  of  its  present  value. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  where  I am  coming 
to.  I shall  get  there  if  my  friend  from  High- 
land [Mr.  Smith]  will  have  patience.  I shall 
get  there  in  a little  while.  The  Constitution 
says,  Article  XII,  section  two,  “ laws  shall  be 
passed  taxing  all  stocks ,”  and  it  says  in  Article 
XIII,  section  four,  that  “ the  property  of  cor- 
porations now  existing,  or  hereafter  created, 
shall  forever  be  subject  to  taxation  the  same  as 
the  property  of  individuals.”  I ask  gentlemen 
who  are  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  State, 
if  that  was  not  intended  to  reach  the  property 
of  corporations  and  the  interests  of  individuals 
in  the  corporations  as  well.  The  supreme  court 
of  Ohio,  in  the  case  of  Coe  against  the  Colum- 
bus, Piqua  and  Indiana  Railroad  Company,  in 
the  tenth  volume  of  the  Ohio  State  Reports,  de- 
cided that  shares  of  stock  in  a corporation  are 
not  the  property  of  the  corporation,  are  not 
franchises  of  the  corporation,  but  are  the  prop- 
erty and  franchises  of  the  individual  stock- 
holder, and  can  not,  under  the  Constitution, 
be  taken  from  him,  except  by  means  of  the 
power  of  eminent  domain.  And  now,  sir,  in 
face  of  the  fact  that  the  supreme  court  had 
decided  in  the  tenth  Ohio  State  Reports,  that 
a difference  exists  between  the  ownership  which 
the  individual  has  in  the  share  of  stock,  and 


the  ownership  which  the  corporation  has  in  the 
property  which  it,  the  artificial  being,  owns,  the 
supreme  court  in  the  Sixteenth  Ohio  State  Re- 
ports, when  they  were  called  upon  to  adminis- 
ter this  law,  refused  to  pronounce  any  opinion 
upon  it.  The  case  was  this.  By  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  shares  of  individuals  in  National 
banks  are  taxable  by  the  State  at  the  same  rate 
with  the  shares  of  State  banks,  and  it  was  ob- 
jected by  the  share-holders  in  the  National 
banks  that  there  was  no  law  taxing  shares  in 
State  banks,  therefore  there  being  no  ratio  or 
measure  provided  for  taxes  upon  the  shares  held 
in  the  State  banks  there  could  not  be  any  con- 
stitutional tax  on  shares  in  National  banks.  You 
will  see  at  once  that  the  question  was  presented 
by  that  case.  There  were  suits  by  gentlemen  of 
this  city  against  the  Auditor  and  Treasurer  of 
Hamilton  county,  and  two  eminent  gentlemen, 
two  of  our  most  eminent  counselors,  one  of 
them  himself,  the  author  of  the  opinion  pro- 
nounced by  the  supreme  court  in  the  case  of 
Coe  against  the  Columbus,  Piqua  and  Indiana 
Railroad  Company,  I mean  Judge  Gholson, 
brought  several  actions  for  the  holders  of  shares 
in  the  National  banks  in  this  city,  against  the 
Auditor  and  Treasurer  of  this  county,  to  enjoin 
the  collection  of  taxes  on  National  bank  shares 
on  the  ground  that  shares  in  the  State  banks  of 
Ohio  were  not  taxed  under  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  and  that  therefore 
shares  in  the  National  banks  could  not  be  tax- 
ed, and  I was  employed,  with  others,  to  defend 
that  case,  and  found  myself  confronted  at  the 
outset  by  an  express  provision  contained  in  the 
tax  law  of  1852,  and  of  every  tax  law  passed 
since,  in  these  words : “No  person  shall  be  re- 
quired to  include  in  his  statement  as  a part  of 
his  personal  property,  moneys,  credits,  invest- 
ments in  bonds,  stocks,  joint  stock  companies 
or  otherwise,  which  he  is  required  to  list,  any 
share  or  portion  of  the  capital  stock  or  proper- 
ty of  any  company  or  corporation  that  is  re- 
quired to  list  or  return  its  capital  or  property 
for  taxes  in  this  State.” 

Now,  sir,  that  law  was  passed  in  1852,  and 
has  remained  in  force  until  now,  although  the 
Constitution  says,  first,  that  all  stocks  shall  be 
taxed,  and,  secondly,  that  the  property  of  cor- 
porations shall  be  taxed.  This  exemption 
inserted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  has 
relieved  holders  of  shares  in  domestic  corpora- 
tions from  the  duty  of  paying  taxes  on  the 
shares.  1 am  not  arguing  whether  it  is  right 
or  wrong.  I thank  the  Committee  for  the  pro- 
vision against  double  taxation  which  they  have 
inserted  in  this  Article,  and  which  would  pre- 
vent any  such  mischief  as  the  supreme  court,  in 
the  passage  I shall  presently  read,  advise  us  is 
the  consequence  of  not  permitting  exemptions 
of  this  character. 

But  my  proposition  is  that  the  Convention  of 
1851,  as  clearly  as  by  the  use  of  language  they 
could,  viz:  by  the  using  the  words  “ all  stocks ” 
in  the  one  section,  and  by  requiring  the  prop- 
erty of  corporations  to  be  taxed  in  the  other, 
provided  that  the  artificial  being  should  pay 
taxes  on  its  property,  and  that  the  natural  per- 
son should  pay  taxes  on  his  shares  in  its  capi- 
tal ; and  anybody  familiar  with  the  debates  of 
that  body,  or  who  has  read  the  political  writings 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION, 


2007 


Day.] 

March  12, 1874.] 


Hoadly. 


of  that  period  with  regard  to  private  corpora- 
tions, knows  that  their  purpose  was  to  inflict 
double  taxation  (for  this  was  double  taxation), 
and  my  argument  is  that  they  failed  and  broke 
down  utterly,  and  that  it  is  a warning  against 
our  attempting  to  run  a line,  or  make  a narrow 
bed,  and  saying  you  shall  sleep  in  this  little 
bed,  you  shall  walk  by  this  straight  line.  It  is 
a warning  to  us  to  leave  the  legislative  power 
free,  that  the  General  Assembly  may  be  gov- 
erned as  experience  and  observation  shall  teach 
it  best. 

This  case  of  which  I speak,  was  brought  be- 
fore the  Supreme  Court  and  the  decision  is  prin- 
ted in  the  sixteenth  volume  of  the  Ohio  State 
Reports,  and  the  two  pages  of  the  opinion 
which  I shall  read  will  be  found  on  pages  622 
and  623.  It  will  be  seen  in  a moment  what  the 
argument  was.  In  the  case  of  the  Exchange 
Bank  against  Hines,  from  a part  of  which  I did 
not  read,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  the  tax 
of  banks  and  bankers,  under  the  act  of  1852, 
was  constitutional.  They  decided  that  the  ex- 
emption of  debits  was  unconstitutional,  and 
they  read  the  statute  as  if  it  had  been  written 
without  any  such  exemptions.  When  the  case 
of  Frazer  against  Seibern,  of  which  I speak, 
came  on  to  be  heard,  the  fact  was  there  was  no 
tax  actually  levied  upon  shares  held  in  State 
banks  by  individuals,  because  of  the  exemp- 
tion I have  just  read,  but  the  same  argument 
which  the  Supreme  Court  had  used  in  the  case 
of  the  Exchange  Bank  against  Hines,  was  ap- 
plied by  myself  and  my  associates  to  show  that 
if  the  exemption  in  the  third  Ohio  State  Re- 
ports was  unconstitutional,  so  also  this  exemp- 
tion was  necessarily  unconstitutional,  and  the 
consequence  would  be  that  the  general  lan- 
guage of  the  tax  law  was  broad  enough  to  in- 
clude, and  did  tax  shares  held  by  natural  persons 
in  the  State  banks,  notwithstanding  the  un- 
constitutional exemption,  and  the  question  was 
properly  presented  and  argued,  in  print  and 
orally,  before  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  way 
in  which  they  met  it  in  the  year  1866,  will  be 
found  in  the  following  extract  from  the  unani- 
mous opinion  of  the  Court,  delivered  by  Judge 
Welch  : 

“But  it  is  contended,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  Act 
of  1861  imposes  a tax  upon  shares  in  the  State  banks,  as 
well  as  upon  the  capital  of  the  banks.  There  is  no  pre- 
tense that  the  Act  expressly  taxes  shares  in  the  State 
banks.  On  the  contrary  it  is  admitted  by  the  59th  section 
tion  of  that  Act,  they  are  expressly  exempted.  The  ar- 
gument is,  that  the  exemption  i«  unconstitutional,  and 
must  therefore  be  rejected;  that  the  true  meaning  of  the 
Constitution  is,  that  money  employed  in  banking,  by  as- 
sociations who  divide  their  capital  stock  into  shares, 
shall  be  subject  to  a species  of  double  taxation;  and  it 
shall  be  taxed  once  against  the  bank,  as  its  capital , and  a 
second  time  against  the  shareholders  as  stock  in  the  bank. 
We  are  not  called  upon  to  decide  this  constitutional  ques- 
tion. For  the  present  case  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  the 
Constitution  does  not,  on  such  matters,  execute  itself.” 

I wish  gentlemen  would  read  that  sentence 
and  ponder  its  full  import.  What  is  it,  Mr. 
President?  It  is  that  the  whole  of  the  thir- 
teenth Article  of  the  Constitution  of  1851  is 
directory  in  its  character.  That  is  what  that 
sentence  means,  and  you  cannot  read  it  and 
understand  it  in  any  other  way.  It  is  that, 
unless  the  Legislature  adopt  laws  to  carry  out 
this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  the  Constitution 
proprio  vigor e has  no  operation  at  all.  It  is  di- 
rectory. But  to  continue  the  quotation  : 


“It  does  not  levy  taxes,  but  merely  prescribes  the  char- 
acter of  laws  to  be  enacted  for  that  purpose,  by  the  Leg- 
islature. Until  the  laws  are  passed  the  taxes  can  not  be 
levied.  The  Act  of  1861  is  not  a law  imposing  such 
double  taxation,  and  cannot,  upon  any  admissible  prin- 
ciple, be  amended  by  judicial  interpretation  into  such  a 
law.  It  provides  for  a tax  against  certain  corporations 
and  companies  upon  their  capital , and  for  a tax  against 
the  shareholders,  upon  their  stock , in  those  corporations 
and  companies  that  are  not  so  taxed  upon  their  capital. 
No  form  of  words,  or  arrangement  of  sections  and  sen- 
tences in  the  Act,  can  enable  the  court,  by  mere  con- 
struction, so  to  amend  it  as  to  bring  in  a new  class  of  tax- 
payers; that  is  to  say,  stockholders  in  corporations  and 
companies  that  are  taxed,  as  such  upon  their  capital. 
The  meaning  of  the  Act  is  plain,  and  to  alter  it  in  the  re- 
spect indicated  would  be  to  legislate.  The  intention  was 
to  subject  the  capital  employed  by  these  corporations  and 
associations  to  a single  ■ .taxation-  -some  of  them  in  one 
form,  and  some  in  another — and  not  to  tax  any  of  them 
twice.  It  is  the  unmistakable  intention  manifested  in 
our  taxation  for  the  last  twenty  years— the  central  idea 
of  our  system  of  general  ad  valorem  taxation — to  tax  every 
person  upon  what  he  is  worth.  In  a system  like  ours, 
where  intangible  as  well  as  tangible  property  is  taxed, 
some  forms  of  double  taxation  are  unavoidable;  but  the 
object  should  be— and  such  seems  to  be  the  general  aim 
of  all  our  late  legislation  upon  the  subject — to  avoid 
double  taxation,  wherever  it  is  practicable , and  as  nearly 
as  may  be,  to  tax  all  according  to  their  actual  wealth. 
That  object  is  best  attained  in  case  of  a corporation,  or 
joint  stock  company,  by  taxing  the  stockholders — the 
persons  who  own  its  property , upon  the  full  value  of  their 
shares  therein,  including,  of  course,  their  interest  in  the 
franchise  or  privilege,  and  in  all  tangible  property  owned 
by  the  company ; and  by  taxing  the  corporation  also  upon 
the  value  of  such  tangible  property.  The  stockholders  are 
thus  taxed — as  all  other  individuals  who  own  tangible 
and  intangible  property  are  sometimes  unavoidably  tax- 
ed— once  upon  all  he  is  worth , and  a second  time  upon 
that  part  of  his  property  which  is  tangible.  This  is  the 
rule  adopted  by  the  Act  of  Congress  in  question,  and  it 
seems  to  us  to  be  a just  and  fair  rule.” 

I desire  to  call  attention  in  this  Convention  to 
a passage  from  the  opinion  of  Judge  Thurman, 
on  page  forty,  Ohio  State  Reports,  volume 
third.  I read  from  Judge  Welch  what  he 
printed  in  italics  : that  the  central  idea  of  our 
system  of  a general  constitutional  frame  of  taxa- 
tion is  to  tax  every  person  upon  what  he  is 
worth.  I now  cite  Judge  Thurman,  page  forty, 
of  the  third  volume  of  the  Ohio  State  Reports ; 

“The  idea  of  the  Constitution  is  not  that  each  man 
shall  be  taxed  upon  exactly  what  he  is  worth.  That  is  a 
favorite  idea  with  some  political  economists,  but  it  finds 
no  place  in  our  Constitution.  The  objects  of  taxation, 
declared  in  that  instrument,  are  the  real  and  personal 
property,  and  choses  in  action  in  the  State.  The  latter 
are  considered  for  purposes  of  taxation  as  much  property 
as  the  former.  They  are  considered  as  much  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  tax  payers  as  the  former.” 

I have  shown  what  I started  out  to  prove; 
namely,  that  the  words  “all  stocks”  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State,  notwithstanding  Judge 
Thurman’s  emphatic  declaration  that  the  idea 
of  the  Constitution  was  not  to  tax  upon  what  a 
man  is  worth,  but  to  tax  upon  property;  not- 
withstanding the  decision  that  debits  should 
not  be  deducted ; notwithstanding  that  conclu- 
sion was  reached  by  deciding  an  exemption  to 
be  unconstitutional,  and  that  the  Constitution 
did  tax  credits,  and  forbid  the  deduction  of 
debits,  and,  therefore,  that  the  tax  must  be  im- 
posed in  disregard  of  the  exemption.  I repeat 
I have  shown  that  the  words  “all  stocks”  have 
been  construed  to  mean  all  stocks  of  foreign 
corporations.  But,  sir,  that  is  not  the  whole 
of  it.  The  bonds  of  domestic  corporations  have 
been  taxed,  and  to-day  if  my  friend  is  the  owner 
of  shares  of  stock  in  the  Columbus  and  Hocking 
Valley  Railroad  Company,  a corporation  organ- 
ized under  the  present  Constitution,  a most 
prosperous  corporation,  a corporation  which  I 


2008 


[136th 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Hoadly,  Voris,  Powell,  Hitchcock.  [Thursday, 


ation  for  all  purposes,  that  other  personal  property  is 
subject  to  at  the  place  were  located.” 


believe  is  honestly  managed,  and  certainly  has 
greatly  assisted  the  producers  of  wealth  in 
Ohio,  to  the  great  pecuniary  advantage  of  its 
stockholders,  as  well  as  to  the  people  through 
whose  portion  of  the  State  it  passes,  to-day,  if 
my  friend  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  or  any 
other  gentleman  in  this  Convention  he  the 
owner  of  stock  in  the  Columbus  and  Hocking 
Valley  Railroad  Company,  he  holds  it  without 
liability  to  pay  a dollar  of  tax,  and  if  the  owner 
of  bonds  of  that  company,  he  will  be  compelled 
to  return  those  bonds  at  one  hundred  cents  on 
the  dollar,  if  they  be  worth  so  much,  to  the 
office  of  the  Auditor  to  pay  taxes  on  them, 
although,  Mr.  President,  that  company  pay  full 
taxes  upon  all  the  property  represented  by 
those  bonds  and  those  stocks.  I say  this  is  all 
wrong.  It  is  all  wrong  that  you  should  have  a 
Constitution  to  be  disregarded ; it  is  all  wrong 
that  we  should  have  a Constitution  under  which 
there  should  be  any  form  of  double  taxation 
when  by  two  words  we  can  rid  ourselves  of  the 
mischief  and  remove  it.  It  is  all  wrong  that 
it  should  be  left  to  the  courts  to  overrule  pre- 
vious decisions  without  saying  so,  as  the  securi- 
ty of  the  people,  when  they  should  be  secured 
and  can  so  easily  be  secured  by  such  provision 
as  that  . which  this  Committee  has  reported 
against  double  taxation. 

But  that  is  not  the  whole  of  it.  There  is  more 
behind.  Why,  sir,  who  ever  heard  of  income 
taxes  under  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of 
Ohio?  Where  is  there,  in  the  Constitution  of 
1851,  a provision  sanctioning  an  income  tax? 
And  yet,  contrary  to  that  Constitution,  con- 
trary, I am  happy  to  say,  to  the  written  and 
printed  opinion  of  Rufus  P.  Ranney,  not  as 
judge,  but  certainly  not  less  ably  than  when  he 
was  judge,  contrary  to  the  words  and  spirit  of 
the  Constitution,  every  year  there  has  been  im- 
posed in  this  State,  I do  not  say  unjustly,  but 
certainly  contrary  to  the  letter  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, an  income  tax  upon  every  insurance  com- 
pany, every  telegraph  company,  and  every 
express  company  in  the  State,  and,  what  makes 
it  worse,  a tax  upon  gross  income.  The  AEtna 
Insurance  Company,  of  Hartford,  Connecticut; 
the  Connecticut  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Com- 
pany; the  New  York  Mutual;  the  Mutual  Life, 
of  New  York;  the  Mutual  Benefit,  of  New  Jer- 
sey ; the  Equitable,  of  New  York ; I have  named 
five  or  six  life  companies,  and  one  fire  company, 
and  they  have  been  annually  receiving  from 
the  people  of  this  State  enormous  amounts  of  I 
money  as  premiums  of  insurance  against  fire  or 
death,  for  which  they  promised  to  pay,  and  have  | 
been  paying  large  sums,  and  yet,  as  the  Consti- 1 
tution  requires  that  all  property  by  a uniform 
rule — that  is  the  doctrine — shall  be  taxed  at  its 
true  value  in  money,  with  the  two  hundred  dol- 
lars exemption,  and  yet,  sir,  by  a provision 
which  I shall  read,  there  has  been  imposed  a tax 
upon  the  gross  income  of  these  companies.  It 
is  in  a proviso  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  sec- 
ion  : 

“Provided  that  every  agency  of  an  insurance  company, 
incorporated  by  the  authority  of  any  other  State  govern- 
ment, shall  return  to  the  Auditor  of  the  county  in  which 
the  office  of  the  agency  of  said  company  mav  be  kept,  in 
the  month  of  May,  annually,  the  amount  of  gross  receipts 
of  said  agency,  which  shall  be  entered  upon  the  tax  list 
of  the  proper  county,  and  subject  to  the  same  rate  of  tax- 


Now,  with  regard  to  express  and  telegraph 
companies.  The  present  act,  now  in  force,  that 
of  1865,  reads : 

“Each  agent  of  any  express  company  or  telegraph 
j company,  having  its  principal  office  in  any  other  State  or 
! country,  and  doing  business  in  this  State,  shall  annually, 
in  the  month  of  May,  make  and  deliver  to  the  Auditor  of 
the  proper  county  in  which  such  agent  has  his  place  of 
j business,  a statement,  verified  by  the  oath  of  such  agent, 

1 showing:  the  entire  receipts  of  such  agent  for  the  year 
then  next  preceding,  for  and  on  account  of  such  com- 
pany, including  its  proportion  of  gross  receipts  for  busi- 
ness done  by  such  company  in  connection  with  lines  of 
other  companies  outside  of  the  limits  of  this  State;  pro- 
vided, that  the  amount  which  any  express  company  ac- 
tually pays  to  the  railroads  witbin  this  State,  for  the 
transportation  of  their  freight  within  this  State,  mav  be 
deducted  from  the  gross  receipts  of  such  company  as 
above  ascertained,  and  the  balance  thus  found,  as  to  the 
express  companies,  and  the  gross  receipts  as  above  as- 
certained, by  the  telegraph  companies,  shall  be  by  said 
Auditor  entered  upon  the  duplicate  of  his  county  against 
said  company,  and  charged  with  the  same  rate  of  taxes 
for  all  purposes  that  personal  property  is,  or  may  be, 
charged  by  law  at  the  place  where  such  agency  or  agen- 
cies is  or  are  located.” 

So  that  we  have,  under  our  Constitution  re- 
quiring the  taxation  of  property  by  a uniform 
rule,  an  income  tax  on  the  gross  receipts  of 
foreign  insurance  companies,  life,  fire  and  acci- 
dent; on  the  gross  receipts  of  telegraph  com- 
panies ; on  the  net  receipts  of  express  compa- 
nies; and  this  is  the  equal  administration  of 
a uniform  rule  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  or  outside  of  the  Constitution,  I 
do  not  know  which. 

Now,  what  I am  trying  to  do  is  this,  and  this 
only:  to  suggest  these  difficulties  that  have 
arisen ; to  call  attention  to  these  difficulties ; to 
call  attention  to  the  methods  in  which  the  pur- 
pose of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  1851 
has  been  evaded.  To  some  extent,  the  Commit- 
tee have  met  the  necessity.  They  have  pro- 
vided for  an  income  tax,  so  that,  hereafter,  this 
thing  of  income  tax  will  be  under  the  Consti- 
tution instead  of  outside  the  Constitution. 
They  have  provided  against  double  taxation,  so 
that  they  have  sanctioned,  in  some  degree,  the 
deduction  of  debits  from  credits.  They  have 
used  the  words,  “ equitable  and  uniform  rules,” 
using  the  plural,  so  that  the  Legislature,  in 
their  experience,  may,  if  they  see  fit,  adopt  a 
uniform  rule  for  one  class  of  property,  and 
another  uniform  rule  for  another  class  of  prop- 
erty. I have  to  tender  my  thanks,  as  a citizen 
and  tax-payer,  to  the  Committee  for  what  they 
have  done.  I do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as 
indicating  any  purpose  of  voting  against  any 
part  of  their  Report,  but  only  that,  having  had 
a little  experience  in  this  matter,  I think  it  my 
duty  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to 
these  difficulties,  so  as  to  avoid,  if  possible,  any 
amendments  that  might  put  us  back  in  this 
narrow  gauge,  non-moving  railroad  train  that 
the  old  Constitution  adopted.  It  is  a mistake 
to  tie  the  hands  of  the  Legislature  so  tightly 
that  experience  cannot  be  utilized  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reform. 

Mr.  YORIS.  To  facilitate  the  dispatch  of  bu- 
siness, if  no  other  gentleman  desires  to  discuss 
this  in  general  debate,  I move  that  the  general 
debate  be  now  terminated. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I second  the  motion. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  wish  to  urge  any 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Hitchcock,  Voris,  Powell,  Griswold,  Tyler. 


2009 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.] 


objection  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris].  As  a member  of  the  Com- 
mittee making  this  Report,  I do  not  know  that 
I shall  desire  to  occupy  any  of  the  time  of  the 
Convention ; but  I regard  the  question,  if  there 
be  any  change  in  the  present  Article  on  the 
subject  of  taxation,  by  the  Convention,  as  one 
of  very  great  importance,  as  much  so  as  any 
which  has  been  submitted  to  the  consideration 
of  the  Convention.  My  purpose  in  rising  at 
this  time,  before  this  motion  is  put  is,  to  make  the 
suggestion  with  the  request  that  in  the  discus- 
sion of  amendments  to  this  proposition,  as  we 
consider  it,  section  by  section,  there  might  be 
the  same  privilege  granted  as  was  in  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Article  on  the  J udicial  Depart- 
ment, so  that  if  gentlemen  desire  to  occupy 
more  time  than  provided  for  under  the  rule,  they 
might  be  allowed  to  do  so.  I am  in  favor  of 
commencing  the  consideration  of  the  Article, 
section  by  section. 

Mr.  VORIS.  If  there  is  a desire  to  still  con- 
tinue the  discussion,  I withdraw  the  motion. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Do  not  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  from 

Henry  [Mr.  Tyler],  desires  to  speak. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I was  preparing  some  remarks 
upon  this  subject,  but  had  not  completed  them. 
I wish  to  make  the  remarks  in  general  debate, 
but  if  it  is  thought  best  to  close  the  debate  I 
shall  not  make  them. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Henry  [Mr.  Tyler],  may  proceed. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I ask  the  indulgence  of  this 
Convention  for  a short  time,  while  I offer  brief- 
ly a few  suggestions  upon  the  Article  now  un- 
der consideration,  Finance  and  Taxation.  I 
should  not  have  asked  this  indulgence,  perhaps, 
had  I not  have  been  a member  of  the  Commit- 
tee from  whence  this  Report  originated.  It  has 
been  assumed  by  every  member  of  this  Com- 
mittee, thus  far,  who  has  spoken  upon  this 
proposition,  I believe,  that  this  was  a com- 
promise Report.  Whatever  views  the  different 
members  of  the  Committee  entertained  upon 
the  subject  of  taxation,  it  required  no  great 
length  of  time  or  superior  mental  faculties  to 
ascertain  that  some  of  them  were  very  peculiar 
and  uncommon.  After  we  had  been  most  in- 
dustriously engaged  for  nearly  six  weeks  in 
Committee,  we  found  ourselves  but  little  nearer 
a Report  than  when  we  commenced,  and  thus 
it  was,  as  heretofore  stated  by  gentlemen,  that 
through  a spirit  of  compromise,  we  agreed  upon 
and  reported  the  Article  to  the  Convention  that 
is  now  under  consideration. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I am  pleased  to  say,  that 
with  a few  exceptions,  this  Report  meets  with 
my  hearty  approval,  and  I can,  with  equal  pro- 
priety, I believe,  say  that  a large  majority  of  the 
Committee  were  in  favor  of  section  three  of  the 
Report  which  reads  as  follows : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed,  taxing  by  equitable  and  uni- 
form rules,  all  real  and  personal  property,  so  that  all 
property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation according  to  its  true  value  in  money,  but  providing 
against  double  taxation.” 

Now,  sir,  I think  it  is  a well  settled  fact, 
one  conceded  by  all,  that  the  taxing  power  is 
is  the  most  important  power  that  can  ever  be 
exercised  in  any  government.  Under  our 
present  system  of  taxation,  we  lay  heavy  bur- 


den of  taxation  upon  some  descriptions  of  prop- 
erty, while  we  entirely  exempt  other  de- 
scriptions of  property.  Still,  gentlemen  in  this 
Convention  are  proposing  that  the  same  princi- 
ple which  has  heretofore  guided  our  actions, 
shall  be  strictly  pursued  hereafter.  I am  well 
aware  that  it  is  far  easier  for  gentlemen  to  find 
fault  with  our  present  system  of  taxation,  than 
it  is  to  suggest  any  feasible  plan  whereby  it 
can  be  bettered.  But,  sir,  if  I understand  any- 
thing of  the  demands  of  the  people  upon  this 
body,  if  I understand  anything  of  the  objects 
which  have  induced  the  people  to  assemble  this 
Convention,  if  for  one  thing  more  than  another, 
it  was,  sir,  that  they  might  be  provided  with  a 
just  and  more  equitable  system  of  taxation 
than  we  have  at  the  present  time. 

As  I stated  before,  as  a general  principle,  I 
am  in  favor  of  taxing  by  a uniform  rule,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its 
true  value,  in  money — that  is,  that  this  rule 
shall  apply  to  the  taxing  of  all  property  what- 
soever, without  exception,  unless  it  shall  be 
that  of  public  property — and  that  every  person 
in  the  State  shall  be  taxed  upon  just  what  he  is 
worth  and  nothing  more.  In  our  Report  we  say 
laws  shall  be  passed,  “proceding  against  double 
taxation,”  and  gentlemen  say  that  is  easily  done, 
but  they  fail  to  suggest  the  plan  by  which  it 
may  be  done.  Now,  sir,  it  is  notoriously  true, 
that  we  have  gone  on  year  after  year  in  this 
State,  and  levied  and  collected  double  taxes  upon 
different  classes  of  property.  To  illustrate : 
A sells  B a farm  and  takes  a note  and 
mortgage  for  said  farm.  In  a few  days  the 
assessor  calls  upon  A for  a list  of  his  chattels, 
and  under  our  present  law  regulating  taxation, 
A has  to  list  his  note  secured  by  mortgage  upon 
the  farm  sold  to  B,  and  pay  taxes  upon  it. 
while  at  the  same  time  B has  to  pay  taxes  upon 
the  farm,  when,  virtually,  he,  B,  is  not  worth  a 
single  dollar.  Now,  upon  the  principle  that  a 
person  shall  be  taxed  upon  just  what  he  is 
worth  and  nothing  more,  you  certainly  get  rid 
of  this  most  notorious  principle  of  double  taxa- 
tion. Now,  Mr.  President,  much  has  been  said 
by  gentlemen  in  the  discussion  of  this  Article 
upon  the  subject  of  exempting  and  the  taxing 
of  church  property  in  the  State  of  Ohio  belong- 
ing to  the  different  Christian  denominations  of 
the  State. 

Now,  I wfish  to  state  right  here  that  I belong 
to  no  church  denomination,  and  have  no  preju- 
dices against  any  religious  sect,  but  at  the  same 
time  I am  a church-going  man,  and  contribute 
to  the  different  denominations  for  the  support 
of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  so  that  whatso- 
ever I may  say  upon  the  subject  of  taxing 
churches,  may  not  be  attributed  to  me  as  hav- 
ing said  it  through  any  prejudice  I entertain 
against  churches,  church  denominations,  or  any 
religious  sect  whatever;  and  I wish  to  say 
further  in  this  connection  that  the  county  which 
I have  the  honor  to  represent,  has  many 
churches  in  it,  and  some  very  good  ones,  too, 
and  I am  proud  to  say  that  I have  a little  stock 
in  almost  every  one  of  them,  having  contribu- 
ted, in  a small  way,  to  their  erection. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  question  presents 
itself,  shall  church  property  be  exempt  from 
taxation?  It  is,  I believe,  a fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  our  government,  that  there  shall  be  no 


2010 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


Tyler. 


[130th 

[Thursday, 


union  between  church  and  state — that  the  state 
shall  not  attempt  to  control  or  support  the 
church.  But  do  we  not,  when  we  exempt  church 
property  from  taxation,  substantially,  though 
indirectly,  support  them  and  tax  our  citizens 
for  that  support?  Most  assuredly  we  do;  and 
not  only  that,  but  it  is  done  contrary  to  Repub- 
lican principles  and  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  our 
present  Constitution,  which  says  in  section 
seven  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  very  properly, 
too,  “All  men  have  a natural  and  indefeasible 
right  to  worship  Almighty  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences.  No  per- 
son shall  be  compelled  to  attend,  erect,  or  sup- 
port any  place  of  worship,  or  maintain  any 
form  of  worship  against  his  consent.”  That  is, 
as  much  as  to  say,  that  no  person  shall  be  taxed, 
directly  or  indirectly;  to  support  the  church. 
But  do  we  not,  let  me  ask,  when  we  exempt 
church  property  from  taxation,  tax  our  citizens 
for  that  support?  But,  say  gentlemen,  why 
tax  church  property  when  there  is  no  income 
derived  therefrom?  In  answer  to  which,  let 
me  say,  upon  the  same  principle  that  we  tax  a 
gentleman’s  mansion,  his  wife’s  piano,  or  the 
watch  that  he  carries  in  his  pocket.  Now,  sir, 
churches  are  private  property,  and  so  considered 
to  be  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  and  being  used 
for  comfort  and  enjoyment  of  individuals,  they 
should  be  taxed  as  the  property  of  individuals. 
But,  gentlemen  say,  you  tax  church  property 
and  you  tax  churches  out  of  existence.  Not  so. 

Nor  either  do  I wish  to  be  understood  as  ad- 
vocating any  such  doctrine,  as  my  most  sincere 
belief  is,  that  if  all  churches  were  removed  from 
the  State,  every  description  of  real  estate  would 
immediately  degenerate  more  than  fifty  per 
cent,  in  value.  Indeed,  I believe  that  the  great 
State  of  Ohio  would  soon  become  a howling 
wilderness,  if  it  were  not  for  the  very  salutary 
influence  of  churches.  Still,  at  the  same  time, 
I believe  that  when  men  spend  their  time  and 
money  for  this  kind  of  property,  they  ought  to 
pay  a tax  upon  it,  just  as  they  do  upon  any 
other  kind  of  property  they  possess.  Now,  Mr. 
President,  our  churches,  in  some  parts  of  the 
State,  are  becoming,  and  are  now  very  wealthy, 
and  are  growing  more  so  every  year,  under  this 
system  of  exempting  their  property  from  taxa- 
tion; and  they  are  building,  and  have  built 
some  of  the  most  beautiful  and  extravagant 
churches,  that  would  be  an  honor  and  an  orna- 
ment to  any  country,  and  our  citizens  are  build- 
ing, and  have  built  for  themselves  some  splendid 
mansions,  and  I insist  that  they  shall  all  be 
taxed — not  because  I hate  them  or  their  ex- 
travagance, or  their  style  or  magnificence,  but 
upon  the  hypothesis  that  all  private  property 
should  be  taxed.  I am  in  favor  of  taxing  all 
improvements  of  this  nature,  and  when  1 can 
be  convinced  that  church  property  is  public 
property,  as  has  been  asserted,  then,  and  not 
till  then,  will  I favor  their  exemption  from 
taxation.  Sir,  in  this  same  Bill  of  Rights,  be- 
fore referred  to  by  me,  we  read  : “ It  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  General  Assembly  to  pass  suitable 
laws  to  protect  every  religious  denomination  in 
the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  its  own  mode  of 
public  worship.” 

There  is  no  country  in  the  known  world 
where  all  the  churches  of  every  sect  of  religion 
are  so  much  or  more  indebted  to  the  State  as 


they  are  in  tlrs.  We  say  to  them  all,  we  will 
protect  you  in  all  you  possess,  and  also  in  the 
enjoyment  of  such  modes  of  worship  as  you  see 
fit  to  adopt.  No  country  has  said  this  but  our 
own.  It  is  the  proud  eminence  of  the  American 
commonwealth  to  have  said  that  all  religions 
shall  be  equally  protected.  Now,  sir,  we  have 
come  in  with  our  protection,  extending  alike 
over  all  the  property  of  all  the  different 
churches  in  the  great  State  of  Ohio,  and  extend- 
ing alike  to  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the 
State  the  right  of  sitting  down  under  their  own 
vine  and  fig  tree,  and  worshiping  God  accord- 
ing to  the  dictates  of  their  own  consciences.  I 
now  ask,  sir,  would  it  be  anything  unreasonable 
to  ask  these  churches  to  contribute  to  the  sup- 
port of  this  government,  that  thus  offers  to  them 
this  protection  ? We  think  not.  “ But,”  asks 
the  gentleman,  “why  not  exempt  churches  from 
taxation  as  well  as  school  houses  ? ” In  answer 
to  which,  let  me  say,  because  school  houses  are 
public  property,  while  churches  are  private 
property.  The  State  of  Ohio  controls  and 
supports  our  schools  by  a general  tax  upon  all 
the  taxable  property  of  the  State.  I wish  I 
knew  the  real  value  of  all  the  property  owned 
by  the  different  churches  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 
It  must  be  of  the  value  of  many  millions  of 
dollars.  What  an  immense  revenue  would  the 
taxation  of  all  this  vast  wealth  bring  to  the 
State  I Now,  shall  we,  I ask,  tax  this  vast 
amount  of  private  property,  or  shall  we  con- 
tinue to  pay  it  out  of  our  own  pockets,  in  order 
that  it  may  go  to  increase  the  wealth  of  these 
church  organizations,  already  so  wealthy?  I 
learn  from  good  authority  that  the  Bishop  of 
St.  Louis,  Missouri,  holds  church  property  to 
the  value  of  more  than  twenty  millions  of  dol- 
lars, and  the  Archhishop  of  New  York  City  to 
the  amount  of  eighty  millions  of  dollars.  One 
hundred  millions  of  dollars  of  church  property 
owned  by  one  church  denomination  alone  in 
the  cities  of  New  York  and  St.  Louis!  Now, 
then,  would  it  be  idle  to  suppose  that  all  the 
property  of  the  different  church  denominations 
in  the  great  State  of  Ohio  is  not  worth  at  least 
as  much  as  one  denomination  alone  owns  in  the 
cities  of  New  York  and  St.  Louis?  One  hun- 
dred millions  of  dollars — I think  the  estimate 
not  too  large — the  tax  upon  which,  at  two  per 
cent.,  would  amount  to  the  sum  of  two  millions 
of  dollars  per  annum.  In  conclusion,  Mr. 
President,  let  me  ask  if  it  is  not  wise  and 
proper,  as  we  are  now  about  to  start  anew  in 
the  affairs  of  this  government,  if  it  is  not  a 
proper  time  for  the  people  of  this  State  to  take 
this  matter  into  their  own  hands  and  stop  this 
immense  abstraction  of  private  property  from 
the  tax  duplicate?  Would  it  not  be  well  for  us 
to  go  back  to  the  good  old  Jeffersonian  doctrine 
that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal,  and 
that  equality,  with  respect  to  the  principles  of 
taxation  should,  as  far  as  possible,  be  main- 
tained throughout  the  great  State  of  Ohio?  Sir, 
as  I said  in  the  commencement  of  my  remarks, 
this  Report  was,  in  part,  the  result  of  a compro- 
mise. So,  now,  not  from  principle,  but  in  this 
same  spirit  of  compromise,  I am  in  favor  of 
exempting  church  propeity  from  taxation,  be- 
longing to  each  and  every  denomination,  to  the 
amount  of  five  thousand  dollars,  and  when  the 
proper  time  comes  for  offering  an  amendment 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Powell,  Hostetter. 


2011 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.] 


to  that  effect  will  do  so,  unless  offered  by  some 
other  member  of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I renew  the  motion  that 
general  debate  do  now  close. 

Which  motion,  without  a division,  was  agreed 
to. 

The  Convention  then  proceeded  to  consider 
the  Proposition,  section  by  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  1.  The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  for  rais- 
ing revenue  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  State  for  each 

ear,  including  a sum  sufficient  to  pay  the  interest  on  the 

tate  debt,  with  so  much,  at  least,  of  the  principal  there- 
of as  is  provided  for  in  Article  of  this  Constitution.” 

No  amendments  were  offered  to  section  one, 
and  the  Secretary  read : 

“Sec.  2.  The  General  A ssembly  shall  never  levy  a poll 
tax  for  county  or  State  purposes.” 

Mr.  HOSTETTER  offered  an  amendment  to 
section  2,  which  the  Secretary  read,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Add  at  the  end  of  section  2 the  following : 

“Nor  shall  any  person  be  required  to  perform  labor 
upon  the  streets  or  highways,  otherwise  than  in  payment 
of  taxes  or  assessment  upon  property,  or  in  punishment 
of  crime  or  misdemeanor.” 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  I trust  this  amendment 
will  prevail,  and  I will  offer  a very  few  remarks 
in  its  support.  There  may  have  been  a time,  in 
the  early  settlement  of  our  State,  when  the  re- 
sources of  the  country  were  not  developed, 
when  our  population  was  sparse,  when  lands 
were  cheap,  and  owners,  as  a class,  were  poor, 
when  roads  were  yet  to  be  located,  laid  out 
and  established,  and  nearly  all  persons  were 
alike  interested  in  having  them, — in  those  times 
it  may  have  been  necessary  that  all  should  be 
required  to  assist  in  what  was  then  a common 
necessity.  But  such  is  not  the  condition  now. 
All  things  are  now  changed.  Instead  of  an  un- 
settled State,  we  have  now  a settled  State ; our 
resources  are  now  to  a very  considerable  ex- 
tent developed  ; our  population  has  become  com- 
paratively dense ; lands  are  no  longer  cheap ; 
in  the  main,  and  as  a class,  our  roads  are  now 
located  and  established ; and  the  general  ten- 
dency in  our  State  is,  that  the  rich  be- 
come richer  and  the  poor  poorer.  Hence,  I 
claim,  that  notwithstanding  there  may  have 
been  a time  when  every  citizen,  or  every  resi- 
dent in  the  State  should  have  been  required  to 
do  his  share  in  laying  out  and  constructing 
roads,  I think  that  time  no  longer  exists.  It 
is  for  us  to  say,  now  and  here,  whether  we  will 
or  will  not  continue  that  system,  by  which  the 
poor — nay,  the  very  poorest  of  our  citizens — 
shall  be  required  and  compelled  to  contribute 
to  the  construction  and  improvement  of  high- 
ways which  are  used  almost  exclusively  by  the 
more  fortunate  classes,  the  land  owners. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  is  a trivial  matter, 
and  that  it  should  be  left  wholly  with  the  Leg- 
islature. To  the  first  objection  1 would  answer 
that  it  is  a trivial  matter  to  those  who  are  in 
affluent  circumstances,  but  it  is  very  far  from 
being  such  to  those  whose  circumstances  are 
just  the  reverse.  To  those  who  are  dependent 
upon  their  daily  toil,  and  whose  daily  toil  is 
their  sole  capital,  upon  which  they  are  depend- 
ent for  the  support  of  themselves  and  families, 
it  is  not  quite  so  trivial  a matter  as  it  is  to  those 
of  us  who  may  happen  to  possess  property.  We 


may  suppose  it  is  a matter  of  some  consequence 
to  them,  although  it  may  involve  the  toil  of  but 
two  days  per  annum  to  aid  in  the  construction 
of  roads,  which,  as  aforesaid,  are  mainly  for 
our  use  and  not  for  theirs. 

To  the  second  objection,  it  is  a sufficient  an- 
swer to  say,  that  thus  far,  our  Legislature  have 
failed  to  take  action  in  the  matter;  and  it  be- 
hooves us — at  least  those  who  think  as  I do — to 
present  the  matter  to  the  consideration  of  the 
gentlemen  of  this  Convention,  to  know  whether 
the  proposed  change  will  or  will  not  meet  with 
their  approval. 

It  may  be  said  that  each  citizen  should  con- 
tribute his  portion  to  the  general  welfare.  This 
is  true.  But  is  not  mere  labor,  even  if  paid  for, 
an  absolute  necessity  and  real  advantage  to  a 
State  or  community?  Is  not  the  poor  man 
called  upon  to  aid  in  preserving  the  peace,  in 
quelling  riots,  in  defending  his  country,  in 
serving  on  juries,  etc.? 

Gentlemen,  I do  not  propose  to  consume  very 
many  minutes,  and  so  far  as  my  argument  upon 
this  or  any  other  section  of  this  Article  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  not  necessary  for  gentlemen  to 
make  a motion  that  I be  allowed  more  than  the 
ordinary  time  allotted  to  a speaker.  I have 
said  all  I proposed  to  say  in  relation  to  this 
matter.  I have  submitted  it  to  the  considera- 
tion of  this  Convention  as  a matter  of  duty  and 
justice  to  those  who  are  proverbially  quiet,  and 
whose  voice  is  but  rarely  heard  in  public  bodies 
— I mean  the  class  most  entitled  to  the  sympa- 
thy and  protection  of  the  law-makers,  and  I 
may  say,  of  Constitution-makers,  the  class  who 
are  poor,  and  who  are  able,  least  of  all,  to  bear 
even  small  losses. 

In  relation  to  our  tax  law,  I propose  to  make 
one  remark,  and  but  one.  We  exempt  a cer- 
tain amount  of  property  from  taxation.  It  has 
generally  been  considered  that  some  provision 
should  be  made  with  regard  to  the  necessities  of 
the  poor  man,  and,  hence,  by  enactment  of  our 
Legislature,  the  poor  man  is  exempt  to  the 
amount  of  fifty  dollars.  But  what  does  it 
amount  to?  At  the  same  time  that  he  has  that 
exemption  those  who  happen  to  be  more  fortu- 
nate, so  far  as  this  world’s  goods  are  concerned, 
than  he,  have  the  same  exemption.  We  pro- 
pose to  offer  him  that  exemption,  and  then  we 
tax  him  indirectly,  at  least,  three  dollars  per 
annum  in  contributing  aid  for  the  construction 
of  roads  which  are,  really,  for  our  benefit,  and 
are  almost  wholly  useless  to  him.  Take  the 
case  of  a hired  hand  whom  some  gentleman 
here  may  have  upon  his  farm, or  about  his  place. 
I have  such  a hand,  who  has  served  his  country 
in  the  field,  who,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  ex- 
tends, has  never  yet  owned  a horse  or  a vehicle 
for  travel  upon  the  road,  and  so  far  as  I know, 
for  the  last  four  or  five  years,  during  the  time  he 
has  been  in  my  employ,  he  has  never  used  any, 
except  of  mine,  and  that  for  the  benefit  of  my- 
self or  my  family,  in  carrying  produce  to 
market,  or  in  taking  my  family  to  and  from 
Sabbath  school  and  church.  That  is  the  extent 
to  which  he  has  used  the  roads ; and  all  that  I ask 
is,  that,  as  a matter  of  justice  ana  propriety,  he 
and  those  in  like  situation  with  himself,  should 
not  be  subjected  to  the  necessity  of  contributing 
two  days  labor  upon  the  roads,  or  its  equivalent, 
when  he  really  reaps  so  little  benefit  from  them, 


2012 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Hostetter,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Chapin,  Johnson. 


[136th 


and  when,  in  fact,  the  dense  population  of  our 
country,  and  the  advanced  condition  in  which 
we  are  placed,  renders  it  unnecessary  for  us  to 
require  that  kind  of  sacrifice  at  his  hands,  being 
ourselves  amply  able  to  pay  for  the  construction 
and  improvement  of  the  roads  that  we  require. 
I,  for  one,  Mr.  President,  trust  that  this  amend- 
ment may  prevail. 

Mr.  COOK.  I demand  the  yeas  and  nays, 
and  hope  that  the  amendment  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I also  am  one  of  those  who 
hope  that  this  amendment  will  be  adopted. 
That  which  it  is  aimed  to  remove  forms  but  a 
little  petty  exception  to  our  system,  and  is  in 
violation  of  the  general  principles  of  taxation 
adopted  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  No  reason  for  it 
exists  at  the  present  day.  It  is  an  imposition, 
which  falls  in  a burthensome  manner  upon  the 
poor  man,  and,  to  a certain  extent,  exempts  the 
real  estate  and  the  property  of  the  country  from 
burdens  that  ought  properly  to  be  exclusively 
appraised  upon  that  property.  I am  informed, 
and  I have  no  doubt  but  that  it  is  true,  that 
there  are  many  counties  in  the  State  which  rely 
wholly  upon  this  personal  tax  for  the  labor  that 
is  performed  upon  their  highways.  Now,  sir, 
in  my  judgment,  that  ought  not  to  be  so.  The 
duty  of  keeping  up  the  highways  of  the  country 
is  a public  duty,  and  like  any  other  public  duty, 
it  ought  to  be  discharged  and  paid  for  by  the 
property  of  the  country. 

There  is,  sir,  in  my  judgment,  another  very 
good  reason  why  this  exception  ought  not  to 
exist;  and  that  is  this,  that  in  practice,  as  it  is 
carried  out  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  it  is 
not  uniform.  Whilst  it  is  imposed  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  in  a general  law,  that  law  is  not 
made  applicable  to  cities  and  villages,  but  is  left 
entirely  at  their  discretion.  It  is  left  to  the 
passage  of  an  ordinance  in  municipal  corpora- 
tions, and  without  an  ordinance  no  requirement 
of  this  personal  service  is  made.  In  most  of 
the  cities  of  the  State,  and  in  many  of  the  vil- 
lages of  the  State,  no  such  ordinances  have  been 
passed,  and  the  State  law  is  not  enforced.  Now, 
no  good  reason  can  be  given  for  this  distinction. 
If  it  is  a principle  worthy  of  adoption  that  the 
citizens  of  the  State  shall  each  be  required  to 
perform  two  days’ labor  upon  the  highways  of 
the  State,  or  pay  its  equivalent  in  money,  then, 
sir,  it  ought  to  be  made  uniform.  But  I do  not 
view  it  in  that  light.  I view  it  as  a little  petty 
exception,  which  ought  to  be  abolished,  as  being 
in  violation  of  the  general  principles  of  taxation 
adopted  by  the  State. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I had  not  proposed  to  offer 
any  remarks  upon  this,  or  perhaps,  upon  any- 
other  section  in  this  proposition,  but  I will  say 
that  the  amendment  now  under  consideration 
meets  with  my  approbation.  I labored  for  it  in 
the  Committee,  but  was  out-voted.  The  section 
of  which  this  is  merely  a copy,  was  a part  of 
the  Constitution  of  1802,  and  was  copied  by  the 
Convention  of  1851.  It  is  based  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  levying  of  taxes  by  poll  is  griev- 
ous and  oppressive,  and  provides  therefore  that 
the  General  Assembly  shall  never  levy  any  poll 
tax  for  county  or  State  purposes.  That  would 
have  been  all  right.  It  is  set  forth  upon  the 
principle  that  it  is  grievous  and  oppressive,  and 
should  never  be  put  into  practice,  so  far  as 
State  and  county  purposes  are  concerned,  but 


[Thursday, 


they  omitted,  either  purposely  or  accidentally, 
to  say  that  a poll  tax  should  not  be  levied  for 
any  purpose  whatever,  and  therefore  the  system 
of  working  upon  the  roads— of  levying  a poll 
tax  by  labor — was  engrafted  in  the  State  laws 
and  was  practiced  for  a number  of  years.  This 
was  successfully  practiced,  and  no  doubt  was  of 
great  benefit  in  the  early  days  of  our  history  as 
a State,  when  the  country  was  new  and  they 
had  but  very  little  money  to  pay  for  the  con- 
struction of  a road,  preferring  to  meet  together 
and  build  it  themselves.  But  that  is  all  changed. 
The  situation  of  the  country  is  so  changed  that 
this  practice  is  rendered  not  only  useless  but 
also  pernicious.  It  is  demoralizing  in  its  ef- 
fects, and  therefore  should  now  be  done  away 
with.  It  is  unjust  in  principle.  It  is  useless, 
and  worse  than  useless.  The  experience  of  the 
last  fifty  years  of  the  State  has  shown  me  that 
it  is  pernicious  in  its  effects  and  that  it  leads  to 
demoralization.  It  is  a useless  expenditure  of 
time  without  rendering  any  equivalent. 

Furthermore,  the  laws  are  so  framed  that  it 
is  not  one  man  in  ten  from  whom  you  can  col- 
lect the  tax  if  he  refuses  to  pay  it,  and  there- 
fore it  is  entirely  useless  and  nugatory.  There 
is  only  a certain  class  that  you  can  operate 
upon,  and  that  is  the  class  which  pays  a tax 
upon  property ; because  if  a man  has  no  prop- 
erty to  pay  tax  upon,  you  cannot  collect  it  from 
him,  and  therefore  he  does  not  work  upon  the 
road.  There  is  not  one  man  in  fifty  in  our  lit- 
tle township  whom  we  can  compel,  or  whom  we 
attempt  to  compel,  to  work  upon  the  roads. 
Some  fifteen  or  twenty  of  them  we  do  enjoin 
to  work  upon  their  roads,  but  they  have  to  pay 
taxes  like  every  other  person.  I think  it  is  en- 
tirely unjust.  It  is  demoralizing  in  its  effects 
and  is  pernicious  in  all  its  features;  and  we 
should  now  do  away  with  it  entirely. 

I do  not  think  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
Convention  of  1851  to  fasten  upon  the  people 
this  poll  tax.  In  prescribing  that  it  should  not 
be  levied  for  State  and  county  purposes,  I be- 
lieve that  they  supposed  they  would  be  pro- 
hibiting it  for  any  purpose;  but  the  lawyers 
found  out  that  it  did  not  include  townships, 
and  thus  this  law  came  into  operation  and  this 
system  of  working  upon  the  roads  was  adopted. 
Now,  however,  things  are  so  changed  that  it 
becomes  very  important  for  us  to  do  away  with 
it  entirely.  I hope,  therefore,  the  amendment 
will  prevail. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I wish  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man a question  before  he  takes  his  seat.  If  a 
tax  of  this  kind  is  not  imposed,  how  does  he 
propose  to  keep  the  various  roads  of  the  State 
in  repair  ? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  Just  as  we  do  now — by  tax. 
We  do  not  get  anything  out  of  the  road  tax. 
In  our  county  we  are  not  paid  the  expense  of 
collecting  it.  The  labor  done  upon  the  roads 
does  not  defray  the  expense  of  getting  the  men 
to  work  upon  the  roads. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  The  gentleman  says  the  law 
is  useless,  pernicious  and  demoralizing.  I want 
to  know  if  it  is  any  more  useles  or  demoralizing 
or  pernicious  to  require  a man  to  do  a couple  of 
days’  work  upon  the  highways  towards  keeping 
them  in  repair  than  it  is  to  require  the  owners 
of  land  to  earn  the  money  that  is  necessary  to 
pay  somebody  to  do  it.  Is  it  not  just  as  de- 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION.  

Chapin,  Johnson,  Mullen,  Kraemer,  Gurley. 


2013 


Day.] 


March  12,  1874.] 


moralizing  and  pernicious  for  him  as  for  the 
man  who  does  a couple  of  days’  work? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I will  tell  you  how  it  is  de- 
moralizing, and  illustrate  it  by  a little  incident 
that  came  under  my  observation.  I had  occa- 
sion to  go  upon  one  of  the  roads  in  the  neigh- 
borhood where  I reside,  and  I found  twenty  or 
thirty  men  pretending  to  work  upon  the  road. 
I do  not  know  how  many  bottles  of  liquor  they 
had,  hut  I saw  four  or  five.  They  had  calcu- 
lated to  make  just  a general  holiday  and  spree 
out  of  it.  Is  not  that  demoralizing  in  its  effect  ? 
I presume  that  three  good  men  would  have  done 
all  the  work  they  did  upon  the  road,  and  there- 
fore I say  it  is  demoralizing.  They  do  not 
meet  for  the  purpose  of  laying  out  a full  day’s 
work,  but  in  order  that  they  may  have  a holi- 
day and  a drinking  spree.  I do  not  say  that  this 
is  the  character  of  all,  because  I have  no  doubt 
but  that  a great  many  work  faithfully;  but  I 
say  that  in  many  places  it  is  thus  demoralizing 
inits  effects. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Do  they  have  pretty  good 
roads  in  your  neighborhood  ? Are  they  kept  in 
good  repair  ? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I do  not  think  they  are. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I should  think  not,  either. 

Mr.  MULLEN.  I hope  this  amendment  will 
not  prevail.  Ever  since  the  organization  of 
the  State,  the  system  of  working  upon  the  roads 
has  been  adopted  by  the  State,  and  I feel  confi- 
dent that,  at  this  time,  the  people  (or  at  least 
the  farming  interest  of  the  State)  will  not  give 
up  this  system.  I am  satisfied,  from  my  knowl- 
edge of  the  rural  districts,  that  it  is  the  only 
one  by  which  the  township  roads  can  be  kept 
up.  The  idea  seems  to  be  that  it  is  a hardship 
for  a man  who  is  not  worth  anything  to  be 
compelled  to  work  upon  the  roads.  There  is  no 
hardship  in  it.  Such  as  there  is  exists  only  in 
the  imagination  of  the  gentleman  who  charges 
that  there  is.  And  it  is  said  that  the  man  who 
is  not  worth  anything  cannot  be  compelled  to 
work  upon  the  roads.  Now,  there  are  thou- 
sands of  men  worth  nothing  who  perform  this 
labor  upon  the  highways  willingly.  It  is 
nothing  more  than  their  duty.  They  ought  to 
do  it.  They  have  the  benefits  and  luxuries  of 
good  government,  and,  in  this  country,  govern- 
ment is  very  expensive.  Whether  a man  is 
worth  anything,  or  whether  he  is  worthless,  I 
say  that  government  is  a very  expensive  thing. 
I hope,  for  the  interests  of  the  farming  com- 
munity, that  this  amendment  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I hope  this  amendment 
will  not  prevail.  It  has  been  well  said  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  who 
spoke  some  time  ago,  that  we  ought  to  enlarge 
the  powers  of  the  Legislature  for  taxation, 
instead  of  circumscribing  them.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  Constitution  which  provides 
that  such  a road  tax  shall  be  levied,  or  that 
such  labor  shall  be  done.  Not  even  is  there  in 
it  anything  directory  upon  the  subject.  The 
Legislature  has  full  power,  if  the  people  of 
Ohio  desire  it,  to  abolish  this  road  law.  I am 
certain,  however,  that  they  do  not  desire  it. 
A few  years  ago,  an  attempt  was  made  to 
change  the  law  in  relation  to  working  the 
roads,  and  to  abolish  the  supervisors,  but  the 
attempt  was  indignantly  repudiated  by  the 


people  of  Ohio,  and  the  very  next  Legislature 
had  to  reinstate  this  system. 

It  is  said  that  the  poor  man  does  not  use  the 
roads.  Do  not  good  roads  bring  to  his  house, 
and  to  his  very  door,  the  necessities  and  com- 
forts of  life?  I know  the  benefits  of  a good 
road  from  my  own  experience.  I have  trav- 
eled afoot  many  times,  and  I could  appreciate 
the  luxury  and  comfort  of  a good  road  as  well 
when  afoot  as  when  I traveled  in  a carriage  or 
on  horseback.  I hope,  therefore,  that  this 
amendment  will  not  prevail,  and  that  the  Con- 
stitution will  not  be  loaded  down  with  an  arti- 
cle of  legislation  that  does  not  belong  here. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I do  not  desire  to  occupy 
the  attention  of  the  Convention  more  than  a 
few  moments.  I am  well  satisfied  that  we  have 
been  violating  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution, 
and  that  this  exaction  of  two  days  work  is 
nothing  more  or  less  than  a poll  tax.  That  is 
just  what  it  is,  and  it  is  direct  violation  of  the 
whole  principle  of  taxation  as  adopted  through- 
out the  State.  I know  of  no  just  and  equitable 
rule  of  law  by  which  this  two  days  work  can 
be  exacted.  Upon  what  principle  is  it  done?' 
You  say  that  the  poor  man  has  the  benefit  of 
the  road.  Why,  every  man  has  the  entire 
benefit  of  the  protection  of  the  government. 
Why  not  tax  him  for  this  protection  which  he 
receives  at  the  hands  of  the  government? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Right  there  I wish  to  put  a 
question.  Take  the  case  of  a man  who  has  no 
property  that  is  taxable.  How  are  you  going 
to  tax  him,  or  get  from  him  a single  dollar  or 
dime  towards  the  support  of  the  government 
that  fosters  and  protects  him,  and  to  which  he 
is  frequently  double  as  much  expense  as  the 
man  who  is  wealthy  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  That  question  answers  itself. 
If  he  is  not  worth  anything,  how  are  you  going 
to  get  two  days  work  out  of  him? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  By  the  usual  mode,  namely, 
by  notifying  him  when  you  are  going  to  meet 
to  repair  the  roads. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Suppose  they  do  not  go,  what 
then? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Nine  out  of  every  ten  do 
go. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  It  is  not  so  in  our  part  of  the 
State.  The  law  is  not  uniform. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  One  word  more.  Once  in 
a great  while  a man  takes  a notion  that  he  will 
not  pay  the  tax  nor  work,  and  I presume  that  in 
some  cases  he  is  allowed  to  slide  out.  Some 
eighteen  or  twenty  years  ago  I was  a magis- 
trate, and  we  had  a couple  of  men  who  had  been 
in  the  habit  of  being  let  off.  They  refused  to 
work  or  pay  the  tax,  thinking  they  could  get 
off  again.  Suit  was  brought  against  them  be- 
fore me,  and  I had  no  difficulty  in  getting  the 
two  days  work  out  of  them.  I can  take  our 
present  laws  and  get  the  money  or  work  out  of 
nearly  every  man  against  whom  suit  is  brought, 
and  I can  do  it  legally. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I think  the  time  is  coming 
when  a good  many  men  will  refuse  to  observe 
this  law.  I am  opposed  to  it  because  it  is  con- 
trary to  the  entire  principle  of  our  tax  law. 
The  poll  tax  has  always  been  looked  upon  as 
grievous  and  unjust,  and  I can  see  no  good  rea- 
son why  this  exception  should  be  made,  or  why 
a young  man  who  has  not  a cent’s  worth  of 


2014 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION- [136th 

Gurley,  Voris,  Townsend,  Cook,  Griswold,  Powell,  etc.  [Thursday, 


property  in  the  world,  and  who  is  just  starting 
out  in  life,  should  be  compelled,  in  order  to  en- 
hance the  value  of  the  property  of  men  of 
wealth,  to  work  upon  the  roads  or  pay  annually 
the  sum  of  three  dollars,  or  any  other  sum.  He 
receives,  it  is  true,  the  general  benefits  of  gov- 
ernment. Why  not  put  a per  capita  tax  upon 
him,  and  tax  him  in  proportion  to  the  value  of 
the  protection  he  receives  from  the  govern- 
ment. 

I trust  that  this  motion  will  prevail,  and  that 
this  additional  safeguard  will  be  added  to  the 
section. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  move  an  amend- 
ment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Mr.  Voris  offers  the  following  amendment:  Strike 
out  all  of  the  original  section  after  the  word  “levy,”  and 
insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  words  “any  poll  tax.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  is  not  in  order 
at  the  present  time.  It  does  not  come  in  as  an 
amendment  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter],  The  gentleman 
from  Stark  proposes  to  add  certain  words  to  the 
section,  not  to  change  the  original  section. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I propose  to  add  other  words 
and  strike  out  certain  words. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  he 
upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter]. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I think  the  object  of  the 
gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter]  will  be 
accomplished  by  the  amendment  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  and  it 
will  leave  the  section  much  simpler  and  more 
free  from  objections  than  the  other  will. 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  the  section 
as  proposed  to  be  amended  by  the  gentleman 
from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  as  follows : 

“Sec.  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  never  levy  any 
poll  tax.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I prefer  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris].  It 
meets  my  view  of  the  case.  I will  withdraw 
my  demand  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  on  the  mo- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostet- 
ter], and  whatever  the  result  of  that  motion 
may  be,  I hope  that  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Summit  will  be  renewed,  and  that 
we  shall  take  a vote  upon  that. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I hope  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter],  will 
not  be  adopted.  This  practice  of  putting  a ball 
and  chain  upon  a man  and  compelling  him  to 
work  the  highways,  is  a demoralizing  thing, 
and  ought  not  to  be  permitted  anywhere.  This 
is  a permissive  authority  to  do  it,  and  I do  not 
want  anything  in  the  Constitution  which  will 
have  that  effect.  I think  it  is  bad  in  policy  and 
bad  in  its  moral  effects. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  I shall  be  constrained 
tovoteagainstthe  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter].  It  brings  into  the 
Constitution  language  which  would  deteriorate 
the  value  of  that  instrument,  as  it  appears  to  me. 
With  regard  to  working  upon  the  roads,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  Constitution  to  indicate  that  that 
may  be  done,  unless  it  may  be  by  this  very 
amendment.  From  the  beginning  of  this  State, 
up  to  the  present  time,  this  system  has  been  in 
operation.  It  is  within  the  power  of  the  Leg- 


islature to  abolish  it  whenever  they  think  it  is 
well  to  do  so.  I hope,  therefore,  that  the  amend- 
ment may  be  defeated,  with  a view  of  leaving 
that  question  to  the  Legislature  to  abolish  it 
whenever  the  people  of  the  State  call  for  its 
abolition,  and  in  the  hope  that  section  2 will  be 
retained  by  this  Convention  just  as  the  Com- 
mittee have  reported  it.  If  there  is  any  objec- 
tion to  this  road  tax,  the  Legislature  will  abol- 
ish it  whenever  the  people  call  for  it,  and  until 
that  time  it  should  remain. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  It  has  been  suggested  to 
me — and  I accord  with  the  suggestion — that  it 
would  be  proper  to  strike  out  the  latter  clause : 
“ or  in  punishment  of  crime  or  misdemeanor.” 
It  is  very  well  understood  that  the  object  of 
the  amendment  was,  merely  to  exempt  men 
from  liability  to  work  the  roads  or  pay  an  equiv- 
alent. With  the  consent  of  the  Convention,  I 
propose  to  change  my  amendment  as  I have  in- 
dicated. 

Upon  request,  the  Secretary  read  the 
amendment  as  proposed  to  be  modified : 

Mr.  Hostetter  moves  to  amend  section  2 by  adding  at 
the  end  thereof  the  following  words: 

“Nor  shall  any  person  be  required  to  perform  labor 
upon  the  streets  and  highways,  other  than  in  payment  of 
taxes  or  assessments  upon  property.” 

Mr.  VORIS.  To  meet  the  position  taken  by 
the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter], 
that  is,  to  prevent  the  Legislature  from  having 
the  power  to  make  enactments  that  will  force 
persons  to  work  upon  the  public  highways,  it  is 
necessary,  in  my  opinion,  that  there  should  be 
an  expression  in  the  Constitution  making  a 
prohibition  in  that  regard.  A mere  prohibition 
laid  upon  the  General  Assembly,  that  it  shall 
not  levy  any  poll  tax,  does  not  reach  far  enough 
to  meet  that  case;  and,  if  it  is  intended  by  the 
mover  of  this  amendment  to  prohibit  the  Legis- 
lature from  making  any  such  enactment,  it  is 
necessary  that  some  prohibitory  clause  be 
added  to  the  section.  My  object  in  making  the 
amendment  which  I submitted  was  simply  to 
make  the  prohibition  a general  one,  so  far  as 
the  levying  of  a poll  tax  was  concerned ; but, 
if  it  is  intended  to  make  a specific  prohibition 
against  the  Legislature  being  allowed  to  compel 
parties  to  work  upon  the  roads,  it  is  necessary 
for  the  Constitution  to  contain  some  specific 
prohibition  against  requiring  work  to  be  per- 
formed upon  the  highways  in  the  nature  of 
a poll  tax.  I am,  therefore,  in  favor  of  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr. 
Hostetter]. 

No  objection  being  raised  to  the  modification 
of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Stark 
[Mr.  Hostetter],  the  said  amendment  was 
submitted  in  its  modified  form. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  I ask  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  This  is  a proposition  of  no 
great  importance  in  its  general  aspect,  but  it  is 
a matter  of  some  considerable  importance,  I 
have  no  doubt,  to  most  of  the  rural  districts  of 
the  State.  There  has  been  a law  in  force, 
dating  earlier  than  my  recollection,  requiring 
this  labor  to  be  performed  on  the  public  high- 
ways. 

Mr.  POWELL.  From  the  very  commence- 
ment of  the  State. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I suppose  it  is  so.  During 
all  that  time  the  matter  has  been  under  the  con- 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Sample,  Chapin,  Vobis,  Kraemer,  Tyler. 


2015 


trol  of  the  Legislature,  and  it  has  been  compe- 
tent for  that  body,  at  any  session  during  all 
that  time,  to  make  a change  in  the  law.  There 
has  been  no  such  change  made,  so  far  as  I 
know,  and  I am  not  aware  that  any  such  change 
has  been  proposed.  Now,  this  uniform  support 
of  that  law,  and  the  fact  that  it  has  existed 
during  the  whole  history  of  the  State,  when  it 
was  perfectly  competent  for  the  people,  by  the 
exercise  of  their  will,  and  by  a demand  made 
upon  the  Legislature,  to  have  it  changed,  is 
evidence  enough,  as  I think,  that  it  is  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  will  of  the  people  that  it 
should  remain.  Certainly  the  change  is  not  so 
manifest  a necessity  for  the  good  of  the  people, 
or  as  a compliance  with  a popular  demand,  that 
it  is  required  of  this  Convention  that  we  should 
incorporate  in  the  Constitution  a provision 
of  the  kind  proposed. 

This  is  a matter  of  pure  legislation.  It  is 
now,  under  the  present  Constitution,  vested  en- 
tirely in  the  hands  of  the  Legislature.  Well, 
now,  leave  it  there.  Let  it  be  so.  If  it  be  found 
that  it  is  unnecessary  to  have  such  a law  upon 
the  statute  book,  if  it  is  found  to  be  inefficient 
and  of  no  general  utility,  it  can  be  repealed. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  found  not  to  be  use- 
less, it  can  be  retained  and  used  for  the  public 
good.  The  Proposition  before  us  sets  out  to 
create  a prohibition  by  constitutional  provi- 
sion. I submit  that  it  ought  not  to  be  done. 
It  is  not  a matter  of  sufficient  importance  as  to 
require  that  this  Convention  engage  in  the 
work  of  annihilating  the  privilege  that  the 
State  has  to  call  upon  a man  to  work  two  days 
in  each  year  upon  the  public  highways,  when 
the  Legislature  has  the  power  of  giving  up  the 
practice  without  any  such  provision. 

I can  see  no  reason  for  this  provision.  It  is 
no  grievance  for  a young  man,  or  for  any  man, 
who  has  no  property,  to  ask  him  to  work  two 
days  upon  the  roads.  He  may  not  be  willing 
to  "do  it,  and  he  may  escape  in  some  instances, 
but  as  a general  rule,  I have  no  doubt  that  in 
the  rural  districts  a large  amount  of  the  labor 
by  which  the  roads  are  kept  in  repair  and  im- 
proved is  obtained  under  the  road  law.  I have 
wrought  many  days  upon  the  public  highway, 
and  I never  saw  any  of  the  scenes  of  which  the 
gentleman  from  Washington  [Mr.  Chapin], 
complains.  It  may  be  so  in  Washington 
county,  I will  admit,  but  I do  not  think  it  can 
be  so  in  the  county  which  I have  the  honor  to 
represent,  the  county  of  Coshocton.  I have 
never  seen  anything  of  the  kind  there. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I lived  in  the  county  of  Co- 
shocton once,  and  saw  something  of  the  kind. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  may  have  been  so  when 
the  gentleman  lived  in  Coshocton,  but  I hardly 
think  it  is  so  now. 

For  the  reasons  I have  here  given,  I think  the 
amendment  ought  not  to  be  adopted. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man from  Coshocton  [Mr.  Sample]  a question 
before  he  takes  his  seat.  Are  not  a very  large 
number  of  the  citizens  of  the  State  exempted 
by  the  Legislature  from  working  on  the  roads, 
as  the  law  now  exists  ? Is  not  such  a law  in 
force?  Are  not  the  citizens  of  our  corporative 
towns  and  cities  exempt  from  working  on  the 
roads  ? 


Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  cities  and  villages,  I 
suppose,  that  are  organized  into  separate  road 
districts  are  not  under  the  general  law  of  the 
State,  though  I have  given  no  attention  to  the 
matter.  I suppose  that  the  subject  of  municipal 
regulations  depends  upon  the  municipal  law, 
or  upon  ordinances  prescribing  whether  or  not 
men  are  to  be  required  to  work  in  that  way. 
Probably  the  practice  cannot  be  followed  with 
profit  in  cities  of  any  considerable  size,  but  in 
the  rural  districts  I think  the  law  would  find 
operation.  Although  it  may  not  operate  upon 
villages  or  cities  of  any  considerable  size,  still 
I think  it  is  useful  in  the  rural  districts. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  I think  the  gentleman  is 
mistaken  in  saying  that  the  law  does  not  extend 
to  villages  and  cities.  It  does  so  extend.  The 
only  exemption  is  in  favor  of  the  members  of 
volunteer  fire  companies. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I hope  this  amendment  will 
not  prevail.  I do  not  know  what  may  be  for 
the  interests  of  the  people  who  reside  in  the 
older  counties  of  the  State,  but  I assure  the 
Convention  that  in  the  north  west, where  I reside, 
it  is  a matter  of  great  interest,  and  it  strikes 
me,  that  before  we  attempt  to  make  so  radical  a 
change  in  our  organic  law,  we  should  consider 
well  what  we  are  doing.  I wish  to  ask  the 
gentlemen  who  are  so  much  in  favor  of  this 
amendment  how  they  are  going  to  improve  and 
work  the  highways  ? The  gentleman  from 
Washington  [Mr.  Chapin]  says  that  the  men 
who  work  on  the  roads  make  a kind  of  holiday 
of  it.  Really,  I do  not  understand  that  to  be  any 
serious  objection  if  they  do  a good  day’s  work. 
It  is  not  so  in  our  part  of  the  country,  and 
whoever  passes  through  that  region  during  the 
months  of  June  and  July  will  not  unfrequently 
see  many  men  and  teams  industriously  engaged 
upon  the  highways  working  out  their  two  days, 
assessed  to  them,  under  the  law,  to  work  on  the 
roads.  In  Henry  county  alone  we  get  put  in 
on  the  highways  from  two  to  three  thousand 
days’  work  per  year  under  this  law.  They 
commence  in  the  morning  and  work  until 
night,  and  are  not  very  particular,  either, 
whether  they  work  two  days  or  three,  and 
sometimes  four,  mending  their  ways,  if  they 
are  not  very  good,  and  sometimes  they  are  none 
of  the  best. 

I am  over  fifty  years  of  age,  Mr.  President, 
and  ever  since  I was  twenty-one  I have  worked 
upon  the  highway,  or  paid  money  as  an  equiv- 
alent, with  one  exception,  and  then  I was  in 
the  army,  in  the  State  of  Tennessee.  Never 
have  I failed,  at  any  other  time,  to  work  two 
days  a year  upon  the  roads,  or  furnish  a sub- 
stitute, or  pay  the  money. 

Sir,  I really  feel  sorry  for  some  members  of 
this  Convention  who  live  in  the  southern  part 
of  the  State,  that  is,  to  judge  from  their  own 
representation.  Certainly  their  counties  must 
be  inhabited  by  a heterogeneous  mass,  a poor, 
degraded  sort  of  people,  that  cannot  be  got  to 
work  upon  the  highways,  taking  the  represent- 
ations of  the  gentleman  to  be  true.  Gentlemen 
claim  that  men  cannot  be  got  to  work  upon  the 
highway,  for  the  reason  that  they  are  poor  and 
cannot  be  compelled  to  either  work  or  pay.  I 
feel  sorry  for  such  a class  of  people.  It  is  not 
so  in  the  county  where  I live.  Every  man,  no 


2016 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Tyler,  Chapin,  Gurley,  Hostetter,  Burns,  Kraemer. 


[136th 

[Thursday, 


matter  how  poor  he  is,  is  ready  to  work  two 
days  a year  upon  the  highway,  and  we  find  no 
difficulty  in  that  matter.  Give  them  notice,  and 
you  will  find  them  promptly  on  the  ground 
ready  to  work. 

The  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley] 
says  it  is  a tax.  I beg  the  privilege  to  differ 
with  the  gentleman.  It  is  no  tax.  The  man  is 
assessed  to  work  two  days  in  the  year.  It  is  an 
assessment.  If  he  does  not  work  the  two  days, 
he  is  assessed  to  pay  in  money  at  the  rate  of 
one  dollar  and  a half  per  day.  It  is  not  a poll 
tax.  It  is  simply  an  assessment.  I hope  the 
amendment  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  tax 
the  property  and  take  that  in  money  ? Should 
we  not  in  that  way  have  better  roads  at  less  ex- 
pense? 

Mr.  TYLER.  I say  that  it  is  right  to  levy  a 
tax,  hut  in  addition  to  that,  where  individuals 
have  no  property  to  tax  as  well  as  all  other  men, 
we  do  now  under  the  law  assess  them  for  labor, 
and  force  them,  if  possible,  to  work  on  the 
highways;  and  thus,  whatever  you  get  out  of 
that  class  of  people,  is  clear  gain.  It  is  easier 
for  poor  men  to  work  two  days  on  the  public 
highways  than  it  is  to  pay  the  money. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  That  is  not  exactly  the  point. 
Did  not  the  old  Constitution  start  out  by  say- 
ing that  a poll  tax  was  oppressive? 

Mr.  TYLER.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question  now  belore  the  Convention,  which 
has  regard  to  compelling  an  individual  to  work 
upon  the  roads  two  days  in  the  year. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  What  is  the  difference 
whether  you  assess  a man  or  tax  him? 

Mr.  TYLER.  The  one  means  one  thing  and 
the  other  another. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  If  the  argument  of  the 
gentleman  from  Coshocton  means  anything  at 
all,  it  applies  with  equal  force  to  another  sub- 
ject which  has  heretofore  been  thought  worthy 
of  receiving  a very  considerable  share  of  the  at- 
tention of  this  Convention.  I refer  to  the  mat- 
ter of  the  taxation  of  church  property.  It  is 
very  well  known  that  the  Legislature  has  had 
authority  for  many  years  past,  so  far  as  the 
Constitution  is  concerned,  to  tax  church  prop- 
erty, and  yet  we  find  that  individuals  all  over 
the  State  are  taking  an  interest  in  that  subject, 
and  we  find,  moreover,  that  it  is  a matter 
which  has  absorbed  a great  deal  of  the  atten- 
tion of  the  members  of  the  Convention.  The 
Legislature,  forsooth,  has  had  an  opportunity 
of  taxing  church  property  ever  since  we  have 
had  ou~  Constitution,  but  they  have  not  done 
it.  They  have  had  the  same  opportunity  to 
which  the  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr. 
Sample]  referred  in  regard  to  this  matter  of 
working  upon  the  roads;  but,  as  I said  in  the 
course  of  the  remarks  I previously  made,  they 
have  seen  fit  to  take  no  action  in  the  matter. 
Hence  the  necessity  of  acting  upon  it  in  the 
Convention. 

In  reference  to  the  argument  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler],  I have  this  to 
say.  I proless  to  be  what  the  gentleman  from 
Clarke  [Mr.  Blose]  would  call  a “rural  roost- 
er.” I live  in  the  rural  districts,  and  am  a prac- 
tical farmer.  I never  lived  in  a town  or  city 
any  larger  than  the  profession  I once  followed 
required  me  to  live  there. 


Mr.  BURNS.  May  I ask  the  gentleman  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Is  the  gentleman  a Granger? 

Mr.  HOSTETTER,  I am  not.  But  I have 
had  hay-seed  in  my  hair,  and  shall  have  again 
in  June,  if  this  body  terminates  its  labor  by 
that  time,  [Laughter]. 

Well,  the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler] 
says  that  in  the  rural  districts  the  abolition  of 
the  road  law  would  operate  injuriously.  Why, 
it  is  only  in  the  rural  districts  that  the  law  does 
act  and  will  act  in  any  case.  I appeal  to  the 
gentlemen  from  the  larger  towns  and  cities, 
and  ask  them  how  many  days’  work  they  ever 
obtained  from  the  operation  of  this  law?  If 
the  gentleman  from  Muskingum  [Mr.  Russell] 
were  in  his  seat,  I would  ask  him  how  many 
days’  work  Zanesville  gets,  under  this  require- 
ment, from  the  young  men,  or  the  men  without 
property,  there?  I appeal  to  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  to  know  how 
many  days’  work  Cleveland  gets  in  that  way  ? 
I might  appeal  to  any  of  the  gentleman  in  this 
Convention  from  Hamilton  county  to  know  how 
many  days’  work  they  ever  obtained  ? I appre- 
hend, however,  that  there  they  are  controlled 
by  municipal  law,  and  not  by  the  general  law 
of  the  State. 

I proposed  this  amendment  merely  because  of 
its  justness,  and  not  because  it  will  be  to  my  ad- 
vantage. I know  very  well  that  more  from 
luck  than  from  sense  I happen  to  have  acquired 
some  property,  and  would,  in  strict  justice  be 
required  to  pay  much  more  to  support  the  roads 
in  my  county.  I say,  frankly,  that  I ought  to 
be  required  so  to  do.  I remember  the  time 
when,  as  a young  man,  I had  not  a hundred  dol- 
lars worth  of  property,  and  it  became  necessary 
for  me,  according  to  law,  to  go  upon  the  roads 
and  work  two  days  side  by  side  with  the  farmer, 
or  the  sons  of  the  farmer,  who  owned  the  land 
through  which  I aided  in  making  and  repairing 
those  roads.  I thought  it  wrong  then  that  I 
should  be  required  to  contribute  two  days’ labor 
to  make  roads  for  him,  when  I had  neither 
horse  nor  carriage,  nor  any  occasion  to  use  those 
roads,  and  I think  it  wrong  now,  since  times 
and  circumstances  have  changed.  Those  who 
know  my  circumstances  at  home  will  not  charge 
me  with  sinister  motives  or  personal  interest  in 
this  matter.  Since  that  time  it  has  become 
necessary  for  me  to  pay  road  taxes  as  well  as 
others,  but  in  respect  of  righteousness  and  jus- 
tice to  the  class  of  our  community  less  fortunate 
than  gentlemen  here  happen  to  be,  my  mind  has 
not  changed.  I apprehend  that  the  only  oppo- 
sition— or  the  largest  opposition — which  we 
shall  get  to  this  amendment  which  I have  pro- 
posed will  not  come  from  the  rural  districts.  I 
have  more  confidence  in  that  class  who  toil,  in 
their  sense  of  right  and  justice,  than  to  believe 
that  they,  as  a class,  although  but  meagerly  re- 
presented here,  will  vote  against  so  honest,  so 
upright,  so  fair,  so  just  an  amendment  as  the 
one  now  proposed,  regardless  of  the  considera- 
tion that  it  may  militate  against  their  personal 
interest  to  some  extent. 

Mr.  KRAEMER.  The  gentleman  from  Stark 
[Mr.  Hostetter],  says  that  he  comes  from  the 
I rural  district.  Ottawa  county,  for  rusticity, 

1 cannot  be  beaten,  I think  by  any  county  in  the 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Kraemer,  Bishop. 


2017 


Day.] 

March  12,  1874.] 


State.  I would  say  that  if  this  Convention 
shall  undertake  to  put  any  restriction  upon  the 
Legislature  in  this  matter,  and  take  away  from 
them  the  power  to  retain  this  law,  if  they  see 
fit,  and  so  do  away  with  the  practice  of  putting 
two  days’  work  upon  the  highways,  I have 
very  serious  doubts  whether  this  Constitution 
would  not  get  a very  large  majority  against  it 
in  our  county — Ottawa.  There  are,  in  our 

county,  about  two  thousand  persons  who  are 
liable  to  work  upon  the  roads  of  our  county. 
That  gives  four  thousands  days’  work  a year. 
Cut  us  off*  from  putting  that  work  upon  our 
roads  and  how  can  we  keep  them  up?  If  you 
put  it  at  all  upon  the  personal  property  or  upon 
the  land  in  the  form  of  a tax,  I tell  you,  gen- 
tlemen, it  would  become  a very  serious  matter. 
Has  there  been  any  petition  presented  from 
any  locality  in  the  State,  asking  for  this  change? 
I have  seen  none.  This  matter  was  pretty  tho- 


roughly discussed  in  the  Committee  on  Reve- 
nue and  Taxation,  and  I do  not  recall  that  there 
was  a single  petition  presented  from  anybody 
asking  that  this  change  be  made.  It  springs 
from  sheer  generosity,  from  the  fellow-feeling 
which  some  of  these  gentlemen  entertain  to- 
wards the  poor  laborer. 

Now,  I will  not  say  either  that  they  ought  to 
be  exempt  or  that  they  ought  not  to  be  exempt. 
If  it  is  to  be  done,  let  the  Legislature  do  it.  Let 
it  be  done  by  petition,  and  let  us  not  put  it  out 
of  the  power  of  the  Legislature,  or  out  of  the 
power  of  the  people,  to  say  whether  they  want 
it  or  not. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  that  the  Convention 
do  now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:45p.m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


v.  n-12y 


2018 


[137th 


MOBNINfi  BUSINESS. 

Cook,  Shaw,  Clay,  Pond,  Hill,  Chapin.  [Friday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY-SEVENTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 


SEVENTY-FIFTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  the  Rev.  J.  C.  White,  of  the  Pop- 
lar Street  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  eighty-four  mem- 
bers answered  to  their  names. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

REMONSTRANCE. 

Mr.  COOK  presented  the  remonstrance  of 
Oswen  Henry,  and  M.  D.  Chiliote,  and  sixty- 
two  other  citizens  of  West  Millgreene,  Wood 
county,  against  the  adoption  of  the  proposed 
amendment  to  section  two,  Article  VI,  as  re- 
ported by  a majority  of  the  Committee  on  Edu- 
cation. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

PETITION. 

Mr.  SHAW  presented  the  petition  of  William 
Ulmy,  and  170  other  citizens  of  Boston,  Cler- 
mont county,  praying  that  the  Constitutional 
Convention  authorize  the  Legislature  to  pro- 
hibit the  manufacture,  importation  and  sale  of 
all  intoxicating  liquors  within  this  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  CLAY.  I move  that  the  Convention 
now  proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  withhold 
his  motion  for  a moment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Montgomery  [Mr.  Clay]  yield? 

Mr.  CLAY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POND.  I am  informed  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  General  Assembly  are  desirous  of 
ascertaining  as  soon  as  thejr  can,  what  the  ne- 
cessities of  this  Convention  will  be  as  to  the 
expenses  of  completing  its  labors  in  order  to  de- 
termine upon  a further  appropriation.  Per- 
haps we  may  as  well  ascertain  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible, and  I,  therefore,  offer  for  adoption  the 
following  resolution: 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Resolution  No.  187— liy  Mr.  Pond  : 

/tesolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Account?  and  Ex- 
penses be  directed  to  report  forthwith  what  amount,  in 
its  judgment,  will  be  necessary  to  be  appropriated  by  the 
Geueral  Assembly  to  cover  the  probable  expenses  of  this 
Convention,  in  addition  to  the  amounts  already  appro- 
priated. 


Friday,  March  13,  1874. 

Which  was  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  that  Committee  pre- 
pared to  report  ? 

Mr.  HILL.  Our  Committee  would  need  to 
have  a few  days  to  consider  this  before  report- 
ing, of  course.  It  is  not  yet  determined,  I be- 
lieve, when  the  Convention  is  going  to  adjourn. 
We  can  report,  if  the  Convention  desire,  the 
per  diem  expenses  up  to  the  31st  of  March  al- 
most immediately,  but  could  not  undertake  to 
give  the  aggregate  amount  necessary  to  close 
up  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  until  we 
know  when  we  are  going  to  adjourn. 

Mr.  POND.  We  can  estimate  the  probable 
amount  that  would  be  necessary. 

Mr.  WEST.  I would  suggest  to  the  Commit- 
tee that  they  make  the  estimate  reaching  to 
about  the  1st  of  May. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Oh,  no!  Oh,  no! 

Mr.  WEST.  We  are  under  no  obligation  to 
use  the  money,  but  I desire  to  have  the  amount 
large  enough. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Mont- 
gomery [Mr.  Clay]  to  proceed  to  the  order  of 
the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

order  of  the  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  order  of  the  day  is 
Proposition  No.  204,  and  the  question  pending 
at  adjournment  was  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter],  to 
amend  section  2,  as  follows:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same  as  follows : 

Mr.  Hostetter  moves  to  amend  section  2 by  adding  at 
the  end  thereof  the  following: 

“Nor  shall  any  person  he  required  to  perform  labor 
upon  the  streets  and  highways,  other  than  in  payment  of 
taxes  or  assessments  upon  property.” 

Upon  which  the  yeas  and  nays  were  de- 
manded. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  As  this  question  has  elicited 
as  much  discussion  as  the  whole  topic  besides,  I 
would  like  to  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  present  a few  more  remarks,  though  I 
suppose  I have  spoken  once  upon  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Has  the  gentleman  from 
Washington  leave  to  speak  again  upon  this 
question  ? 

MEMBERS.  “Leave,”  “Leave.” 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  My  remarks  upon  yesterday 
were  made  before  there  was  any  reply  in  oppo- 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Chapin,  Johnson. 


2019 


Day.] 


March  13, 1874/ 


sition  offered  that  elicited  a reply ; hut  we  have 
drawn  the  fire  of  the  enemy,  and  we  now  see 
where  their  batteries  are.  I shall  endeavor,  in 
the  few  remarks  that  I have  to  make,  to  show, 
in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  great 
principles  of  American  institutions,  and  that 
enunciated  by  the  Convention  of  1802,  and  fol- 
lowed up  by  the  Convention  of  1851,  and  that 
is,  that  the  levying  of  taxes  by  poll  is  grievous 
and  oppressive,  and  that  the  Legislature  should 
be  forever  barred  from  levying  such  taxes. 
Here  is  the  principle  fairly  and  squarely  laid 
down.  Well,  sir,  the  Legislature  have  taken 
that  into  consideration,  and  with  this  provision 
in  the  Constitution  they  have  enacted  laws  au- 
thorizing labor  upon  the  public  highways. 
Now,  let  me  say,  in  relation  to  that,  that  my 
impression  was,  that  the  Convention  of  1802, 
and  that  of  1851,  but  especially  that  of  1802, 
really  meant  what  they  there  expressed,  that 
such  a tax  as  that  was  oppressive  and  grevious 
and  the  Legislature  should  forever  be  barred 
against  its  exercise;  but  the  condition  of  the 
country  at  that  early  stage  of  its  existence  was 
very  different  from  what  it  is  now.  The  coun- 
try was  comparatively  new,  was  in  a state  of 
almost  unbroken  wilderness,  with  no  roads  and 
without  money.  Every  man  of  my  age  knows 
what  the  condition  of  the  country  was  at  that 
time,  but  it  can  scarcely  be  appreciated  by  these 
younger  men  who  have  lived  in  a different  state 
of  the  country.  Roads  had  to  be  made,  they 
had  to  be  cut  out  and  worked.  It  was  a matter 
of  necessity  that  the  Legislature  seized  upon 
that  omission  which  was  in  that  only  clause  in 
relation  to  taxation  which  was  made  in  1802, 
and  conformed  to  the  necessities  of  the  case. 
Taxes  could  not  be  levied,  because  there  was  no 
money  in  the  country,  and  there  did  not  seem 
to  be  any  other  means  by  which  they  could 
make  roads  except  by  the  labor  of  the  citizens 
who  were  interested  in  those  roads.  Therefore 
they  violated  the  principles  laid  down  in  that 
provision  of  the  Constitution;  they  violated  it, 
they  did  levy  a poll  tax — a per  capita  tax — they 
levied  upon  each  and  every  person  for  two  days 
work  under  this  per  capita  tax,  this  real  poll- 
tax,  if  I understand  the  definition  of  the  word 
“poll.”  They  had  no  right  to  levy  it,  still  they 
did  levy.  I have  no  idea  that  the  members  of 
the  Convention  of  1802  supposed  that  they  had 
included  everything  in  that  provision  that  a tax 
could  be  levied  for.  The  provision  said  “for 
State  and  county  purposes”  but  left  out  “town- 
ship” and  they  seized  upon  that  omission  and 
conformed  to  the  necessities  of  the  times,  and  it 
answered  a very  good  purpose. 

Now,  to  illustrate  the  views  at  that  time,  let 
me  tell  you  what  occurred  about  1822.  One  of 
my  neighbors,  living  in  an  adjoining  county, 
had  a letter  sent  him  from  a friend  in  one  of 
the  Eastern  States.  The  postage  at  that  time 
was  twenty-five  cents.  He  was  very  desirous 
of  hearing  from  his  friends,  but  had  no  money, 
and  in  order  to  get  that  letter  out  of  the  post- 
office,  he  went  and  did  a full  and  faithful  day’s 
work  for  a farmer  for  twenty-five  cents,  and 
got  the  letter  out  of  the  office.  So,  you  see,  it 
was  impossible  at  that  time  to  levy  taxes  for  the 
construction  of  roads.  They  had  the  labor,  but 
not  the  money,  therefore  the  necessities  of  the 
case  required  the  Legislature  to  find  some  loop- 


hole by  which  they  could  evade  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution,  and  devise  means  for 
making  these  roads.  Well,  we  fell  into  that 
method  of  making  our  roads,  but  we  have  out- 
grown that  state  of  affairs,  and  no  necessity  now 
exists  for  it.  No  man  who  can  labor  but  can 
command  more  money  for  a day’s  work  than  is 
now  required  to  discharge  the  obligations  of 
road  work.  There  is  the  principle  of  it,  and 
there  you  see  the  violations  of  that  principle, 
and  there  the  necessities  that  gave  rise  to  this 
violation  of  it;  but  those  circumstances  do  not 
exist  at  the  present  time ; therefore,  we  should 
abandon  the  practice. 

Well,  says  one  gentleman,  it  is  not  a per  capita 
tax,  it  is  not  a poll-tax,  it  is  merely  an  assess- 
ment. Well  now,  I would  ask  any  gentleman 
whether  it  is  not,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a 
per  capita  tax?  I would  ask  any  lawyer, 
whether,  requiring  two  days’  work  on  the  roads 
is  not  levying  a per  capita  tax?  I think  he 
would  answer  this,  if  he  answered  at  all,  “ most 
unquestionably  it  is  an  assessment.”  Now,  in 
all  conscience,  how  do  we  levy  any  tax  except 
by  assessment  and  collection,  and  what  is  the 
difference  whether  it  is  collected  by  a man’s 
labor  or  his  money?  It  makes  no  difference; 
the  principle  is  the  same ; it  is  levying  a per 
capita  tax,  which  is  there  announced  to  be  op- 
pressive and  grievous,  and  the  Legislature 
should  be  prohibited  from  levying  it. 

But  now  comes  the  policy  of  it.  I think  that 
the  time  has  long  since  passed  when  we  fell 
into  this  old  rut  of  doing  business,  and  now  we 
have  the  worst  road  system  of  any  State  in  this 
Union;  we  have  the  poorest  roads  for  the 
amount  of  money  we  expend  for  that  purpose, 
of  any  State  in  this  Union.  We  are  expending 
more  money  upon  the  roads  in  the  State  of 
Ohio  than  a casual  observation  would  disclose. 

[Here  the  gentleman’s  time  expired]. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I have  a word  to  say  before 
the  vote  is  taken  on  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter]. 

I think,  if  adopted,  it  would  operate  detri- 
mentally to  the  best  interests  of  our  people.  It 
could  have  but  one  effect : that  of  exonerating  a 
numerous  class  of  our  citizens,  who  are  charged 
with  no  other  tax  or  contribution  towards  the 
support  of  government  than  the  almost  nominal 
one  of  performing  two  days’  labor  yearly  to- 
wards keeping  our  common  country  roads  in 
repair.  And  if  I understand  the  mover  of  this 
amendment  correctly,  that  is  all  the  one  he  ex- 
pects or  wishes  it  to  have. 

Sir,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  entire 
community  that  all  our  roads  are  kept  in  good 
repair,  and  this  cannot  be  done  without  con- 
stant yearly  attention  and  labor,  with  the  addi- 
tion of  large  annual  assessments  on  the  tax 
duplicate,  to  be  paid  by  the  owners  of  all  taxa- 
ble property  in  money,  or,  if  they  prefer  it,  in 
labor  likewise. 

Now,  sir,  I am  not  a believer  in  either  the 
truth  or  wisdom  of  the  old  adage  that  “the 
world  owes  everyone  a living,  and  he  who  does 
the  most  work  towards  earning  it  is  the  greatest 
fool;”  but  I greatly  prefer  that  other  one, 
which  is  that  “everything  worth  having  is 
worth  paying  for.” 

The  natural  effect  on  the  young  and  rising 
generation  of  teaching  the  former  adage  is  to 


2020 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Johnson,  Powell,  West. 


[137th 

[Friday, 


encourage  them  in  idleness,  dissipation  and 
ultimate  poverty,  while  the  latter  will  lead  to 
habits  of  industry,  economy  and  ultimate  com- 
petence and  wealth. 

Who  is  there  among  you,  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  who  would  not  be  better  satisfied 
with  yourselves  on  reflecting,  that  you  had 
given  your  influence  towards  leading  the  young 
men  of  our  country  into  habits  which  would 
enable  them  to  become  respectable  and  useful 
members  of  society,  rather  than  profligate  beg- 
gars and  vagabonds,  to  be  supported  at  the  ex- 
pense and  great  trouble  of  the  honest  and 
respectable  portion  of  community  ? 

One  member,  I believe  the  mover  of  the 
amendment,  objects  to  requiring  our  young 
men  to  degrade  and  disgrace  themselves  by 
going  out  to  work  two  days  on  the  public  roads. 
Sir,  I really  wish  the  gentleman  would  recon- 
sider, and  recall  that  objection,  for  the  credit  of 
this  Convention,  if  for  no  other  reason.  The 
idea  that  honest  labor  in  any  cause  whatever, 
which  tends  to  promote  the  happiness  or  wel- 
fare of  the  people,  or  produce  the  necessaries  of 
life,  is  disreputable  and  disgraceful,  is  one 
which,  I am  sorry  to  see,  has  an  advocate  in  this 
Convention,  and  ashamed  to  hear  that  it  has 
one  in  a man,  who,  I understand,  follows  my 
occupation  for  a livelihood.  It  could  not  have 
originated,  sir,  with  a true  friend  of  Republican  { 
institutions,  and  is  worthy,  only,  of  some  i 
mourner  over  the  lost  cause  and  admirer  of  that  j 
miserable  institution,  which,  until  recently,  J 
bli'  hted  and  blasted  everybody  and  everything 
which  it  came  in  contact  with,  south  of  Mason  j 
and  Dixon’s  line. 

Teach  our  young  people,  of  both  sexes,  to  j 
both  learn  and  respect  all  kinds  of  manual 
labor,  which  is  necessary  to  promote  their  com- 
fort and  happiness,  and  requisite  in  the  pro- 
duction of  the  necessaries  of  life;  give  them  a 
liberal  and  thorough  education,  and  instill  into 
their  minds,  as  principles,  those  feelings  of 
hope,  love,  and  charity  for  the  feelings  of  their 
fellows,  which  are  the  foundations  of  true 
religion,  and  you  have  left  an  inheritance  which 
is  frequently  of  more  sterling  value  to  them, 
than  the  wealth  of  Astor,  or  Stewart,  in  money, 
could  be. 

One  of  the  surest  ways  of  increasing  the  pro- 
ductions of  the  soil  is  the  construction  and  j 
maintenance  of  good  roads  and  highways, 
over  which  they  can  be  taken  to  good  markets, 
and  increased  supplies  always  insures  them  to  | 
consumers' at  lower  rates.  The  protection  and  ! 
fostering  influence  of  our  wise  and  beneficent  ! 
government  over  all  its  subjects,  the  poor  as 
well  as  the  rich,  should  not  only  be  gratefully  | 
received  by  all,  but,  in  like  manner,  all  should 
be  willing  to  contribute  their  just  proportion  of 
the  labor  and  expense  necessary  to  maintain 
and  support  them. 

It  is  said  the  poor  man  has  no  interest  in 
having  the  roads  worked,  and  should  not  be 
oppressed  by  requiring  him  to  assist  in  doing  it. 

I deny  that  this  is  oppression.  He  has  an  in- 
terest, and  this  is  the  mildest  way  in  which  he 
can  be  assessed  to  pay  for  it. 

For  these,  and  various  other  reasons,  I think 
it  wise  not  to  adopt  the  amendment,  and  I shall 
vote  against  it,  and  really  hope  to  see  this  Con- 
vention vote  it  down. 


Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  to  say  but  a very  few 
words  upon  the  subject,  and  I think  I will  make 
a speech  that  will  be  short  and  to  the  point. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Has  the  gentleman  leave  ? 

MEMBERS.  “ Leave,”  “ Leave.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I hope,  Mr.  President,  that 
this  proposed  amendment  will  not  be  adopted. 
The  State  has  now,  for  more  than  seventy  years, 
been  actually  requiring  that  the  labor  which  is 
called  out  yearly  upon  the  public  highways 
should  be  so  devoted,  or  our  public  roads  could 
not  be  kept  up  and  in  proper  repair.  It  is  true, 
sir,  that  in  the  progress  of  improvements  in 
some  places,  this  has  become  unnecessary,  but 
they  are  comparatively  few.  In  all  the  north- 
west part  of  the  State  that  law  is  as  much  re- 
quired now  as  twenty  or  thirty  years  ago ; just 
as  much  required  for  keeping  up,  or  rather  im- 
proving, the  roads  of  that  section.  It  may  be 
the  time  will  come  when  the  whole  State  may 
dispense  with  that  law,  but  at  present  it  is  not 
the  case.  I know  the  value  of  that  law.  I 
know  the  value  of  that  policy  of  calling  out  the 
people  to  work  two  days  on  the  roads.  I have 
submitted  to  it  for  more  than  fifty  years.  In  my 
own  part  of  the  State  it  cannot  be  dispensed 
with.  I hope,  therefore,  that  it  will  be  left  in 
the  hands  of  the  Legislature,  and  whenever  it 
can  be  dispensed  with,  it  will  be  done  by  the 
Legislature;  but  we  ought  not  to  encumber  the 
Constitution  with  such  a provision  at  the  pre- 
sent time.  I think,  therefore,  that  the  Conven- 
tion should  vote  it  down. 

Mr.  WEST.  I concur  with  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  PowellI  and  I trust  that 
this  time-honored  institution  will  not  be  abol- 
ished. Gentlemen  seem  to  have  the  idea  that 
this  is  of  the  nature  of  a poll  tax.  I beg  leave 
to  say  that  I do  not  so  understand  it.  It  is  sim- 
ply of  the  nature  of  a service.  We  require 
military  service  of  all  the  population  without 
regard  to  wealth,  standing  or  rank;  it  is  a rec- 
ognized obligation  to  the  government.  This  is 
precisely  of  the  same  nature.  It  is  a sort  of 
police  regulation  to  promote  the  general  wel- 
fare ; a reminder  that  each  man  has  an  obliga- 
tion to  the  government  and  ought  to  contribute 
somewhat  to  the  advancement  of  its  interests 
and  the  conveniences  which  all  equally  enjoy. 
There  is  no  reason,  I hold,  why  one  man  who 
has  been  industrious  and  frugal,  and  so  accumu- 
lated a little  property,  should  contribute  his 
means  to  keep  up  the  public  highways,  for  one 
who  is  less  industrious  and  less  frugal  to  use 
and  wear  out.  There  is  nothing  in  it,  in  my 
judgment,  of  the  nature  of  a poll  tax  but  of  a 
service  to  the  State. 

Another  thing  I trust  that  we  will  look  at 
carefully.  This  time-honored  institution  ought 
not  to  be  abolished  because  it  is  the  last  rem- 
nant of  the  revered  past;  and  if  invasion  after 
invasion  continues  to  come  in  we  will  soon  have 
nothing  to  remind  us  of  the  day  of  small  things. 
Working  upon  the  roads,  is  to  mankind  in  gen- 
eral what  the  sacrament  is  to  the  Christian,  the 
Passover  to  the  Jew,  Fourth  of  July  to  the  pa- 
triot, or  the  Christmas  holidays  to  the  Virginia 
negro.  [Laughter.]  It  reminds  us  of  our  rela- 
tions and  our  obligations  which  lie  at  the  very 
foundation  of  our  liberty.  It  is  the  thing  that 
our  prosperity  rests  upon.  It  is  the  very 
corner-stone  of  Republicanism  [Laughter]; 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

West,  Sears,  Pease,  Pratt. 


2021 


Day.] 

March  13,  1874.] 


and  my  judgment  is  that  if  this  institution 
be  abolished  we  will  very  soon  he  like  the 
cities  and  nations  of  the  past.  Where  are 
Baalbec  and  Palmyra?  [Laughter.]  Where  are 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  Babylon  and  Nineveh?  Ex- 
tinguished, overthrown,  demolished  and  hur- 
ried because  they  abolished  working  two  days 
on  the  roads.  [Great  laughter.]  As  long  as 
the  Roman  Empire  continued  to  keep  up  their 
sacred  way — their  Appian  road — and  the  citizens 
of  Rome  felt  an  obligation  to  the  State,  Rome 
prospered;  but  when  Rome  ceased  to  work  the 
roads,  Rome  fell.  [Renewed  laughter.]  Sir,  I 
tremble  for  my  country.  “ Let  not  the  sun  go 
down  upon  your  wrath,  but  be  reconciled  to 
your  brother  whilst  in  the  way,”  which  means 
“ work  upon  the  road  while  the  sun  shines.” 
[Great  laughter.]  1 believe  the  last  hope  of  the 
liberty  of  our  race  depends  upon  maintaining 
and  keeping  up  this  sacred  and  time-honored 
old-fashioned  institution,  and  keeping  fresh  in 
our  minds  the  memories  of  sweet  cider  and 
apple  jack.  [Great  and  prolonged  laughter.] 

Mr.  SEARS.  I would  like  to  have  the  opin- 
ion of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] 
upon  patent  scrapers — whether  he  thinks  they 
are  admissible  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  demanded,  objection 
was  made  and  the  demand  sustained. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Before  calling  the  yeas  and 
nays,  I desire  to  say  a single  word,  if  permitted. 
I shall  vote  for  the  amendment,  but  on  a ground 
differing  from  that  which  has  been  suggested. 
I do  not  believe  it  is  a matter  of  principle  that 
those  persons  who  escape  road  tax  should  be 
excluded.  I vote  for  it  upon  a different  princi- 
ple, which  is  this:  It  makes  those  who  are 
willing,  to  work  the  road  tax,  and  those  who 
are  unwilling  will  not,  and  cannot  be  compelled 
to.  This  tax  should  rest  equally  upon  all  citi- 
zens. All  should  bear  this  equal  burden,  and 
I am  opposed  to  any  law  which  we  know  cannot 
be  enforced.  I believe  the  poor  are  benefited 
by  these  roads.  I believe  they  are  under  just  as 
high  obligations  to  work  them  as  anybody  else. 
They  receive  just  as  direct  benefits  as  anybody 
else.  The  benefit  of  a good  road  is  also  the 
benefit  of  a good  and  cheap  market,  and  results 
in  cheap  produce  and  all  kindred  benefits.  So 
I will  put  it  on  an  entirely  different  basis — that 
is,  it  is  not  enforced,  and  cannot  be  enforced  in 
many  of  the  large  cities  and  towns  in  the  State. 
Unless  we  can  have  this  tax  obligationfso  coupled 
with  some  other  obligations,  as  that  we  can 
enforce  it,  I shall  vote  against  it.  I would  be 
willing  to  say  that  a man  should  not  have  the 
right  to  cast  a vote  who  did  not  perform  his 
proper  and  allotted  work  upon  the  highways, 
or  some  such  provision  as  that,  which  would 
enforce  it. 

But  I rose  for  the  purpose  of  saying  that  I 
have  paired  off  with  the  gentleman  from  Darke 
[Mr.  Miller],  and  ask  to  be  excused  from  vot- 
ing upon  this  question. 

Which  was  granted. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  24,  nays  55,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Campbell, 
Chapin,  Coats,  Cook,  Foran,  Greene,  Gurley, 


Hill,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  McCauley,  Mer- 
rill, Pond,  Steedman,  Thompson,  Townsend, 
Tuttle,  Van  Yalkenburgh,  Yoris,  Watson, Young 
of  Noble— 24. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross,  Clay,  De 
Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Ewing,  Freiberg,  Godfrey, 
Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hunt, 
Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Neal, 
Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly, 
Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Smith  of  Highland,  Smith  of  Shelby,  Townsley, 
Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Waddle, 
West,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Presi- 
dent— 55. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
section  three. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same,  as  follows: 

Sec.  3.  Laws  shall  be  passed,  taxing  by  equitable  and 
unilorm  rule>,  all  real  and  personal  property,  so  that  all 
property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation, according  to  its  true  value  in  money,  but  provid- 
ing against  double  taxation — 

Mr.  PRATT.  I move  to  strike  out  the  con- 
cluding words  of  the  section,  “but  providing 
against  double  taxation.”  It  was  not  my  for- 
tune, Mr.  President,  to  be  here  yesterday  dur- 
ing the  discussion  upon  this  Article,  and  I had 
not,  therefore,  the  privilege  of  hearing  or  en- 
gaging in  the  general  discussion  on  the  Arti- 
cle, and  know  nothing  about  it,  except  what  I 
have  seen  in  the  public  prints.  By  the  report 
in  the  papers,  I infer  this  subject  was  very 
fairly  presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Rowland]  to  the  Convention,  with  his 
usual  frankness.  According  to  the  printed  re- 
port he  avowed  the  purpose  of  this  concluding 
clause  and  put  it  before  the  Convention,  so  that 
there  can  be  no  misunderstanding  about  the 
fact,  that  it  is  intended  to  exclude  from  the  du- 
plicate of  the  State  a large  amount  of  personal 
property.  Ido  not  know,  nor  do  I learn  from 
the  printed  report  of  his  remarks,  that  it  was 
his  expectation  that  the  effect  would  be  that, 
immediately  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Consti- 
tution, there  should  not  go  upon  the  tax  dupli- 
cate any  moneys  secured  by  mortgage,  yet  I un- 
derstand that  is  the  design  and  will  be  the 
effect  of  this  provision.  This  provision  is  simi- 
lar, it  is  claimed,  to  one  contained  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State  of  California,  that  all 
taxes  should  be  uniform  and  equal,  and  would, 
therefore  need  a similar  construction.  Since 
this  Convention  commenced  its  sessions  at  Co- 
lumbus, it  has  been  announced  by  newspaper 
reports,  that  that  State,  through  its  Supreme 
Court,  has  declared  that  the  taxation  of  mort- 
gages, or  moneys  secured  by  mortgage,  does  not 
comply  with  the  requirement  of  their  rule,  that 
taxation  shall  be  uniform  and  equal,  and,  there- 
fore, that  all  money  secured  by  mortgage  upon 
real  ©state  is  excluded  from  the  duplicate  and 
escapes  taxation.  I have  examined,  but  do  not 
find  this  in  the  authentic  published  reports  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  but  such  report  has  come 
through  the  newspapers,  and  will  probably 
appear  in  the  next  volume  of  their  Reports. 
Now,  1 understand  the  purpose  of  this  para- 


2022 


[137th 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pratt,  Powell,  Carbery,  Griswold. 


graph  of  this  section  is  to  adopt  at  once  the 
law  as  decided  by  that  Court,  and  make  it  a 
part  of  the  law  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  The  re- 
sult of  that  would  be  to  immediately  sweep 
from  the  duplicate,  and  at  once  exempt  from 
taxation,  all  moneys  secured  by  mortgages  upon 
real  estate. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  PrattJ  permit  me  to  make  a 
suggestion  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Oh,  yes;  I have  but  a few 
minutes,  however,  to  go  on. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  provision  you  object  to 
is  merely  to  enable  the  Legislature  to  exclude 
from  taxation  in  cases  where  there  is  double 
taxation.  Now,  I will  say  this:  that  it  does 
not  necessarily  exclude  mortgages.  If  money 
is  loaned  upon  mortgages,  it  should  be  taxed 
just  as  much  as  money  in  the  pocket;  but  if  he 
sell  the  land,  and  the  person  owes  him  the 
money  on  it,  it  would  be  very  different 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  is  not  inter- 
rupting me  by  a question,  or  a mere  suggestion, 
as  I supposed  he  intended  to  do,  but  is  making 
an  argument  on  the  subject.  I prefer  that  he 
will  make  his  argument  at  another  time,  in 
proper  order.  It  is  not  such  an  one  as  I wish 
injected  into  my  remarks. 

Mr.  POWELL.  What  I want  to  show  is  the 
difference  between  the  one  and  the  other. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Very  well;  this  provision  does 
not  make  that  distinction,  and  it  is  wholly  too 
airy  to  be  made.  I apprehend  that,  if  this  be 
adopted  by  the  State  of  Ohio,  it  will  become 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land  before  any  Legis- 
lature would  be  called  to  act  upon  *this  subject. 
If  that  be  true,  it  behooves  this  Convention  to 
consider  what  they  are  doing;  for,  if  we  ac- 
complish this  end,  it  will  be  equivalent  to 
a provision  that,  hereafter,  all  moneys  now 
taxed  shall  go  free  and  exempt  from  taxation. 
The  owners  of  money  would  at  once  put  it  into 
that  class  of  securities,  though  the  mortgage 
security  may  be  merely  nominal,  and  the  loan 
made  and  securities  taken  of  a personal  char- 
acter, precisely  as  is  generally  the  case. 

Now,  if  money  is  loaned  by  capitalists  in  this 
manner,  nominally  on  mortgage,  whereby  it 
can  be  called  money  loaned  upon  mortgage, 
it  will  soon  be  the  case  that  all  money  loaned 
out  within  the  State  will  be  excluded  from  the 
duplicate.  Now,  if  this  be  the  rule  that  this 
Convention  desires  to  fix  upon  the  people  of  the 
State  of  Ohio ; if  it  be  the  purpose  of  the  Con- 
vention to  provide  that  personal  property, 
except  it  become  tangible,  shall  escape,  let  it  do 
so;  but  before  doing  so  we  ought  to  consider 
the  consequences  it  would  inflict  upon  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State  of  Ohio.  Reference  to  the 
summary  of  the  duplicate  of  the  past  year  shows 
that  there  was,  of  real  estate,  on  the  tax  dupli- 
cate, $1,041,763,931.  This  includes  the  lands,  at 
their  valuation,  and  the  real  estate  in  cities  and 
towns,  at  their  valuation.  The  total  on  the  du- 
plicate of  personal  property  was  $525,510,708, 
or,  in  other  words,  something  in  excess  of  one- 
third  of  the  total  duplicate  of  the  State,  was 
from  assessments  on  various  kinds  of  personal 
property.  I do  not  know  that  it  is  within  the 
scope  of  any  statistics  that  I could  lay  my 
hands  upon  to  show  what  proportion  of  the 
personal  duplicate  was  for  moneys  and  credits, 


[Friday, 


or,  in  other  words,  moneys  loaned  at  interest* 
but  that  a very  large  proportion  of  the 
$525,510,708  was  of  that  class  is  within  the 
experience  and  knowledge  of  this  body. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Will  the  gentleman  con- 
cede that,  as  a rule,  the  borrower  in  cases  of 
that  kind  not  only  pays  interest  on  his  own  real 
estate,  but  pays  tax  to  the  lender  in  addition  to 
that. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I will  not  concede  that,  but 
even  if  it  does  it  is  the  result  of  his  own  act  and 
with  his  permission,  and  he  has  no  right  to 
throw  this  tax  on  somebody  else  who  is  not  a 
borrower  of  money.  I find,  however,  that 
during  the  year  1872,  by  the  Report  of  the 
Secretary  of  State  for  that  year,  the  amount  of 
moneys  secured  by  mortgages  taken  that  year 
was  $63,619,446,  and  I have  an  indefinite  sort  of 
recollection  that  I have  somewhere  seen  the 
statement  that  the  total  security  upon  real  estate 
by  mortgage  for  moneys  was  in  excess  of 
$384,000,000.  I do  not  vouch  for  the  verity  of 
that  statement  because  I have  not  authoritative 
statistics  at  hand  by  which  to  verify  it.  But  I 
do  not  think  this  is  too  large  a sum.  It  is  like- 
ly that  it  would  reach  four  or  five  hundred 
millions  of  dollars,  and  the  duplicate  must  be  in 
the  neighborhood  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  or 
three  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  Now,  if  that 
be  swept  from  the  duplicate  and  excluded  from 
taxation,  there  must  be  but  one  place  it  can  go. 
It  must  fall  back  upon  the  tangible  personal 
property  and  real  estate.  In  other  words,  if 
this  closing  paragraph  of  this  section 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  the  gentleman  will 
allow  me  to  interrupt  him,  I would  suggest  that 
if  he  turns  to  page  51  of  the  Auditor’s  Report 
he  will  find  that  the  value  of  moneys  is  reported 
at  something  over  $37,000,000. 

Mr.  PRATT.  When  was  that? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Page  51  of  the  Auditor’s 
Report  will  show. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I find  that  for  1872  the  amount 
secured  by  mortgage  during  that  year  was 
nearly  $64,000,000,  without  reference  to  the 
amount  that  was  previously  secured  and  carried 
forward. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  result  is  that  you 
have  $37,000,000  and  a little  more  on  the  tax 
duplicate. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I do  not  believe  such  statistics 
to  be  true. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  the  Auditor’s 
statement.  You  had  better  go  to  the  Auditor  if 
you  think  it  is  not  correct. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  amount  secured  was  near- 
ly $64,000,000  for  one  year — 1872.  If  a less  sum 
got  on  the  duplicate  there  was  wrong  some- 
where. 

There  is  but  one  place,  then,  that  this  amount 
of  property  can  go,  if  the  duplicate  is  to  be 
stripped  of  it  as  it  now  stands.  As  I have 
stated,  it  must  go  back  upon  the  tangible  per- 
sonal property  and  the  real  estate  of  the  State. 

[Here  the  gentleman’s  time  expired]. 

Leave  to  continue  was  granted. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Now,  the  total  valuation  of  the 
whole  property  of  the  State,  as  valued  for  tax- 
ation in  1873,  was  $1,567,274,639.  The  total 
taxation  for  the  year,  including  State,  county, 
and  municipal,  was  $26,131,353,  or  largely  in 
excess  of  one  and  a-half  per  cent,  on  the  dupli- 


2023 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  13,  1874.]  Pratt,  Hitchcock,  Page,  Griswold. 


cate  as  it  is  now  made  up.  If  we  are  to  take 
any  given  amount  of  property,  either  in  the 
present  or  future,  from  the  duplicate,  the  assess- 
ment upon  the  property  remaining  on  the 
duplicate  must  be,  therefore,  so  much  increased. 
If  it  is  oae  and  a-half  per  cent,  throughout  the 
State  on  the  duplicate,  and  one-fifth  of  it  is 
taken  from  the  present  duplicate,  of  course,  it 
will  require  an  additional  amount  of  nearly 
three  mills,  making  nearly  two  per  cent,  which 
must  go  upon  the  duplicate  against  the  property 
that  shall  remain.  Now,  I am  not  of  those  that 
believe  that  this  additional  burden  should  be 
placed  upon  that  class  of  property  which  can- 
not by  any  manner  of  means,  escape  taxation. 
There  is  nobody,  under  our  present  Constitution, 
specially  exempt  from  taxation.  The  great  body 
of  the  property  of  the  State  is  taxed . There  may 
be  complaints  made  of  unequal  taxation  on  real 
estate,  but  that  is  not  the  fault  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1851,  but  it  is  the  fault  of  the  laws 
enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  and  the 
practice  under  those  laws.  It  is  simply  the 
fault  of  the  application  of  the  rule  in  the  Con- 
stitution, and  the  law.  The  rule  is  right,  the 
law  is  right,  and  the  failure  is  only  in  the  appli- 
cation, but  here,  according  to  my  judgment, 
we  propose  to  put  the  wrong  in  the  shape  of  a 
constitutional  provision,  and  give  legal  validity 
to  that  which  is  now  only  the  result  of  a failure 
to  comply  with  a righteous  rule.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I cannot  support  the  section  as  now  re- 
ported, and  shall  oppose  it,  as  I have  done  all 
the  time,  in  the  Committee  in  which  it  was 
framed,  of  which  I am  a member. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  that  in  the  con- 
sideration of  the  third  section  of  this  Article, 
the  Rule  be  suspended. 

A MEMBER.  Oh.  no,  give  them  leave  as  we 
go  along.  I object  to  suspending  the  rule. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman  says  give 
them  leave  as  we  go  along,  but  the  time  may 
come  by  and  by  when  gentlemen  will  object  to 
giving  leave  and  then  when  one  gentleman  has 
been  treated  differently  from  another  there  will 
be  complaint.  It  appears  to  me  that  this  sec- 
tion— if  there  is  to  be  any  change  whatever 
made  in  the  rule  governing  taxation — is  the 
most  important  section  to  the  people  of  the 
State  which  has  been,  or  which  will  be  submit- 
ted for  the  consideration  of  the  Convention. 
The  rule  has  been  suspended  in  the  considera- 
tion of  other  questions.  In  one  case,  in  which, 
previous  to  the  adoption  of  the  rule,  weeks  and 
months  had  been  occupied  in  the  consideration 
of  one  proposition,  and  I think  the  rule  in  this 
case  ought  to  be  suspended. 

The  objection  to  suspending  the  rule  was 
withdrawn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  objection  has  been 
withdrawn  and  the  rule  is  suspended. 

Mr.  PAGE.  Some  reference  has  been  made 
here  to  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court  of 
California,  with  regard  to  the  double  taxation 
of  property.  I must  be  allowed  to  express  my 
doubt  whether  such  a decision  as  has  been  re- 
ferred to  has  ever  been  made.  They  may  have 
decided  in  that  State  that  where  land  had  been 
purchased,  and  the  purchase  money  taken  back, 
it  should  not  be  subject  to  double  tax.  But  if 
they  ever  decided  that  somebody  who  had 
loaned  money,  secured  by  mortgage,  could  not 


be  taxed,  I say  it  is  absurd.  I do  not  think  the 
supreme  court  of  California,  or  any  other  State, 
has  made  any  such  decision.  If  they  have,  it  is 
not  entitled  to  much  respect,  and  is  not  likely 
to  be  followed  in  Ohio. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  from  Wil- 
liams [Mr.  Pratt]  insists  with  great  earnest- 
ness upon  the  necessity  of  retaining  the  uniform 
rule  of  the  present  Constitution.  He  argues 
that  the  rule  is  wise ; yet  he  admits  it  has  failed 
to  bring  upon  the  duplicate  a large  share  of 
moneys  and  credits  of  the  State.  He  says  that 
last  year  there  were  mortgages  recorded  to  the 
amount  of  $63,000,000  and  that  if  this  section  is 
retained  there  will  be  a large  burden  thrown 
upon  the  lands  of  the  State.  If  he  will  turn  to 
the  Auditor’s  Report,  page  51,  he  will  find  that 
the  whole  sum  on  the  duplicate  of  credits,  in- 
cluding mortgages,  is  only  $110,258,264.  It  is 
to  be  remembered  that  this  is  supposed  to  in- 
clude also  all  old  mortgages  not  satisfied  or  dis- 
charged ; all  deeds  for  lands  sold ; all  book  ac- 
counts and  credits  of  every  kind. 

It  is  idle  to  believe  that  this  sum  is  anything 
like  an  approximation  to  the  actual  value  of 
this  kind  of  personal  property.  I notice  in 
this  table  prepared  by  the  Auditor,  that  this 
kind  of  taxable  property  in  Cuyahoga  County 
is  only  $4,348,910,  and  actual  money  taxed  is 
only  $1,715,888.  Why,  sir,  in  my  judgment, 
there  are  many  times  these  amounts  due  on  land 
contracts  alone  in  the  city  of  Cleveland. 

The  gentleman  argues  that  the  defect  is  not 
on  the  rule,  but  in  its  execution.  I submit, 
Mr.  President,  that  when  a rule  does  not  oper- 
ate nicely  that  it  is  an  assumption  to  claim  the 
rule  a good  one,  and  the  assertion  demands 
proof.  Not  only  so,  it  is  a fair  inference  that 
the  rule  is  a bad  one.  It  seems  to  me  that 
when  it  is  confessed  that  under  your  rule  only 
the  simple  and  honest  are  taxed,  and  the  artful 
and  unscrupulous  go  free,  some  new  method 
ought  to  be  adopted.  The  fear  which  seems  to 
be  entertained  by  some,  that  if  the  proposed 
change  be  adopted,  additional  burdens  are  to  be 
cast  on  land,  is  all  imaginary,  I differ  entirely 
from  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]. 
It  is  my  belief,  that  if  a wise  system  of  taxation 
were  adopted  there  need  be  no  levy  on  land 
at  all  for  State  purposes.  There  are  provisions 
in  this  proposed  Article  which,  if  wise  legisla- 
tion carry  them  into  operation,  will  yield  suffi- 
cient revenue  to  relieve  the  land  of  the  State 
from  its  present  heavy  burden.  In  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1872,  the  United 

States  collected  fourteen  millions  of  money 
in  Ohio,  and  neither  made  a levy  on 
real  or  personal  property;  nor  was  this 
tax  at  all  felt  as  a burden,  compared  with  the 
five  millions  raised  by  the  State.  Ought  not 
our  people,  our  General  Assembly  be  permitted, 
at  least,  to  learn  something  from  this  example? 
In  view  of  such  an  experience,  if  we  go  on,  and, 
as  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt] 
desires,  adopt  a rule  which  will  prevent  our 
taking  advantage  of  such  instruction,  in  my 
judgment,  we  will  be  making  a Constitution  to 
a very  poor  end  indeed.  I submit  that  we  ought 
so  to  frame  the  Tax  Article  that  the  State  may, 
as  fast  as  the  general  government  takes  off  its 
feet,  slip  into  its  tracks.  Why,  sir,  there  are  in 
the  State  of  Ohio  1758  persons  engaged  as  dis- 


2024 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Griswold,  Pratt,  Dorsey,  Gurley,  Carbery. 


[137th 

[Friday, 


tillers,  brewers  and  malsters.  So  there  are  many 
thousand  other  occupations  that  are  not  engaged 
in  the  production  of  wealth,  and  if  these  occu- 
pations were  taxed,  as  formerly  done  by  the 
United  States,  the  farming  land  of  the  State 
could  be  relieved  entirely  of  the  State  tax.  Of 
course  this  could  not  be  done  at  once,  but  as 
fast  as  the  pressure  of  the  national  tax  was  re- 
moved we  could  easily  pursue  the  same  method. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I want  to  ask  the  gentleman  a 
question,  if  he  will  permit  me. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Does  not  the  general  govern- 
ment already  tax  the  manufacturers  of  tobacco, 
whisky,  and  the  distillers,  and  when  it  so  taxes 
them  is  not  the  tax  exclusive,  so  that  the  State 
cannot  lay  its  hand  on  that  sort  of  revenue. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I say  simply  this,  that 
when  we  can  reach  them,  we  ought  to  have  the 
privilege  so  to  do.  We  ought  not  to  be  prevented 
from  so  doing  by  the  “ iron  rule  ” which  the 
gentleman  so  favors.  The  general  government 
does  not  now  tax  these  occupations,  and  only 
levies  its  tax  on  the  articles  produced.  There 
is  nothing  to  prevent  the  State  from  taxing  j 
these  occupations.  If  this  policy  were  pursued,  i 
there  would  be  no  need  to  add  to  the  valuation 
of  land  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey.] 

It  is  unwise  to  add  to  the  burden  on  land,  for 
land  in  the  State,  generally,  is  only  productive 
of  wealth  from  the  skill  and  labor  bestowed 
upon  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  was  simply  to  equalize 
taxation. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  We  do  not  want  State 
equalization. 

It  is  perfectly  easy  to  raise  the  State  revenue  I 
without  resort  to  land.  Land  should  only  be 
taxed  for  local  purposes,  and  such  is  only  equal 
and  just  taxation.  Indeed,  in  its  true  sense, 
local  levies  for  roads  and  bridges  is  not  taxa- 
tion, it  is  only  so  much  more  added  to  the  im- 
provement of  the  land . Under  a system  relieving 
the  land  from  State  levy  we  should  escape  the 
inequality  on  valuation.  Let  a proper  tax  be 
levied  upon  all  corporations,  holding  their 
franchise  from  the  State,  upon  all  occupations  ! 
not  wealth  producing,  and  a moderate  tax  on 
personal  estate,  or  a specific  tax  on  articles  of 
luxury,  and  no  tax  on  land  would  be  needed 
for  State  purposes.  There  would  be  no  need 
of  any  double  tax  on  anything.  Indeed,  in  my 
judgement,  a tax  on  land  that  only  produces 
wealth  by  labor  bestowed  upon  it,  or  upon  ma- 
chinery, or  the  stock  of  the  manufacturer  is 
opposed  to,  and  directly  enforce  all  good  ideas 
of  political  economy.  These  general  statements 
and  political  axioms  in  which  so  many  gentle- 
men have  indulged,  have  nothing  practical  in 
them.  Taxes  should  be  so  imposed  as  not  to 
cripple  industry  or  check  the  production  of  I 
wealth,  or  if  this  is  not  absolutely  possible,  all 
effort  should  be  in  that  direction.  I look  upon  ' 
the  report  of  the  Committee  as  having  that  ten-  I 
dency,  or  at  least  giving  liberty  to  the  General  | 
Assembly  to  move  in  that  direction. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I wish  the  gentleman  would 
indicate  a little  further  what  his  ideas  are.  He 
says  it  is  very  easy  to  remove  taxation  from 
the  land.  I would  like  to  know  how  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  you  will  look  to  the  cx 


ample  of  Pennsylvania  you  will  see  that  land  in 
that  State  ;s  not  taxed  at  all  for  State  purposes. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Under  the  old  Constitution, 
but  under  the  new  they  have  abandoned  that 
system. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  have  made  no 
change  of  the  system. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  What  you  recommend  is  that 
our  entire  revenue  be  drawn  from  distillers  and 
brewers,  is  it? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I think  all  brewers, 
malsters  and  distillers,  all  dealers  in  spirituous 
liquors  should  be  taxed  on  their  occupation. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Then  I think  we  will  all 
have  to  be  patrons  of  their  establishments. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Not  at  all.  So  long  as 
these  articles  are  used,  so  long  will  their 
occupations  be  filled,  and  thev  should  be 
compelled  to  yield  a revenue  to  the  State.  The 
idea  of  abolishing  these  articles  is  utopian. 

We  should  legislate  and  make  Constitutions 
for  society  as  it  exists.  The  production  of  malt 
vinous  and  alcoholic  beverages  will  continue  so 
long  as  mankind  indulge  in  their  use,  and  these 
productions  are  considered  by  all  governments 
proper  subjects  of  taxation.  Every  government 
which  raises  a large  revenue  resorts  to  this 
mode,  and  the  taxes  obtained  in  this  way  so  far 
relieve  industry  and  production  of  wealth.  All 
the  governments  of  Europe  derive  a large  por- 
tion of  their  taxes  from  this  source.  It  is  said 
that  we  give  the  support  of  the  government  in 
this  way  to  the  liquor  traffic.  The  argument  is 
altogether  specious.  The  government  recog- 
nizes the  traffic  as  an  existing  fact,  puts  its 
hand  upon  it,  places  it  under  control,  and  levies 
a tax  upon  it.  A tax  of  one  hundred  dollars  on 
each  brewer,  malster  and  distiller  in  this  State 
would  yield  $178,800.  This  is  about  one-half  of 
the  amount  levied  on  all  the  credits  of  the  State, 
including  mortgages.  There  are  many  other 
occupations  of  a similar  kind  which  could  be 
taxed  in  like  manner,  more  than  enough  to  re- 
lieve all  money  and  credits  from  taxation,  if,  as 
against  my  opinion,  these  subjects  should  be 
relieved  from  taxation.  But  this  all  digression 
from  the  matter  now  in  controversy.  The  rule, 
as  now  in  operation,  does  not  touch  the  great 
bulk  of  money  and  credit  in  the  State.  It  is 
farcical  to  believe  that  $147,000,000  is  the  true 
money  value  of  all  money  and  credit  of  the 
State. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  That  is  the  value  on  hand 
on  the  day  they  are  listed. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Of  course,  the  value  is 
taken,  as  if  on  the  day  in  April  on  which  the  list 
is  to  be  returned  to  the  assessor.  But  this 
meagre  amount,  as  compared  with  the  actual 
value,  is  a scandalous  burlesque  upon  our  Con- 
stitution and  law.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Legis- 
lature to  discover  and  put  into  practice,  ways 
and  methods  of  placing  the  entire  personal 
estate  on  the  duplicate.  This  is  only  to  be  done 
by  repeated  efforts  and  trials,  and  by  the  use  of 
all  the  instruction  which  experience  affords.  It 
is  confessed  that  the  uniform  rule  of  the  present 
Constitution  has  been,  to  a great  extent,  a fail- 
ure. Let  us  only  preserve  what  is  good  in  it, 
and  leave  room  for  the  General  Assembly  to  ex- 
ercise their  intelligence  and  experience.  This 
is  the  aim  on  the  part  of  the  Committee,  and  I 
shall  support  it,  although,  in  leaving  freedom 


Day.] 

March  13,  1874.] 


REVEJNUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Bishop,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Carbery. 


2025 


to  the  Legislature,  it  falls  far  short  of  what  I 
should  like  to  see  done. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  The  object  the  Committee  had 
in  view  was  to  give  the  Legislature  power  to 
pass  laws  to  prevent  double  taxation,  and  I need 
only  give  one  instance  that  would  demonstrate 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt,  that  double 
taxation  does  exist  under  the  present  law. 
Whether  the  courts  have  decided  it  legal  or  not 
I am  not  learned  enough  in  the  law  to  tell, 
having  been  in  business  as  a merchant.  I state 
the  merchants  have  been  so  taxed,  but  they 
have  been  so  high-toned  that  they  would  not 
take  their  cases  up  to  see  whether  the  courts 
would  excuse  them,  but  it  is  a self-evident  fact 
that  the  merchants,  as  a class,  largely  pay  dou- 
ble taxation,  and  every  business  man,  every 
man  that  knows  anything  about  the  rules  of 
taxation  knows  this  to  be  true.  What  is  the 
fact?  The  business  man  is  taxed  on  his  ave- 
rage stock,  and  there  are  plenty  of  men  who 
will  do  a very  large  business,  who  are  keeping 
fully  as  much  again  stock  on  hand  as  they  have 
actual  capital  in  the  business.  Such  are  the 
facts  in  the  case  very  often  sir.  He  cannot  de- 
duct his  indebtedness  from  his  average  stock. 
No,  sir,  he  must  pay  on  his  actual  stock.  Now, 
all  we  ask  is  this — justice  and  equity.  I do  not 
want  to  argue  this  point  with  my  friend  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt].  It  is  too  palpable.  My 
friend  can  see  justas  well  as  I can.  All  I want 
is  that  the  Legislature  shall  have  power  in  their 
wisdom  to  prevent  double  taxation  wherever 
it  may  occur,  whether  with  the  farmer,  the  land 
owner,  merchant  or  other  persons. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  This  paragraph  was  put  in  by 
the  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation,  after 
I was  absent  and  the  discussion  was  going  on. 
Will  the  gentleman  answer  my  question, wheth- 
er it  was  not  put  in  with  direct  reference  to  that 
decision  of  the  California  supreme  court  to 
which  I have  referred  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  It  was  put  in  with  direct  ref- 
erence to  doing  justice  to  the  people  of  Ohio 
generally. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Well,  that  does  not  categori- 
cally answer  the  question. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I said  that  this  thing  had  been 
abused  very  much  in  that  there  were  various 
men  escaping  taxation.  They  were  paying 
nothing  for  taxes ; private  bankers  doing  an 
immense  business  were  not  paying  one-fourth 
on  their  capital  according  to  their  own  show- 
ing, whilst  the  merchant  was  paying  double  in 
many  instances.  Our  object  was  to  do  justice 
to  the  people  generally  and  not  to  a class. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
again  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Was  it  not,  again  I ask,  put 
in  with  direct  reference  to  the  exemption  of 
mortgage  securities  from  taxation  and  with 
reference  to  that  decision  of  the  California 
court? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  It  was  not,  according  to  my 
recollection.  I know  it  was  not,  so  far  as  1 was 
concerned. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I think  I may  answer. 
During  the  whole  discussion  of  taxation  last 


summer,  I received  through  Judge  Hoadly, 
and  he  from  David  A.  Wells,  a copy  of  that  de- 
cision, or  an  abstract  of  that  decision,  but  before 
that,  the  gentleman  will  recollect  that  several 
members  of  that  Committee  had  advocated  this 
theory,  repeatedly  advocated  it  before  the  Com- 
mittee. Whatever  affirmation,  whatever  em- 
phasis that  may  have  given  to  their  opinion,  I 
am  not  able  to  say. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  My  colleague,  Mr.  Row- 
land, has,  in  part,  anticipated  the  object  for 
which  I have  arisen.  Although  the  decision  of 
the  California  supreme  court  may  have  precipi- 
tated, perhaps,  the  action  of  the  Committee,  it 
certainly  was  not  the  inspiring  cause,  because 
the  Committee  itself  represented  a very  wide- 
spread conviction  on  the  part  of  the  people  of 
the  State,  and  especially  of  all  the  large  cities 
of  the  State,  that  this  constitutional  double  tax- 
ation was  a very  great  iniquity — one  of  the 
things  which  has  been  fastened  upon  this  State, 
and  which  the  people  have  looked  on  with  sor- 
row and  anger  both,  unable  to  help  themselves, 
on  account  of  this  iron  rule  in  the  Constitution. 
And  here  let  me  say,  Mr.  President,  that  I think 
all  those  elaborate  arguments  with  reference  to 
the  details  of  taxation  are  scarcely  in  order. 
We  are  not  devising  a scheme  of  taxation.  We 
are  endeavoring  to  release  the  Legislature  from 
the  tyranny  of  the  old  Constitution,  and  make 
it  more  elastic,  and  more  responsive  to  the  con- 
victions of  the  people  of  the  State,  from  time 
to  time,  as  their  convictions  and  experience 
may  suggest.  That  is  what  it  appears  to  me 
we  should  do.  And  now,  perhaps,  there  is  no 
more  effective  way  for  a State  to  amend 
its  error  in  this  respect  than  to  study  the  history 
of  States  which  have  escaped  those  cardinal 
errors,  and  copy  after  them,  in  order  that  they, 
too,  may  share  in  the  successes  which  have  fol- 
lowed judicious  and  wise  legislation  in  this  re- 
gard. I have  in  my  hand  a small  work  on 
taxation,  which  I wish  gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention to  take  every  opportunity  to  study. 
It  is  the  report  of  the  Commission  on  the  As- 
sessment and  Collection  of  Taxes,  by  David  A. 
Wells,  Edwin  Dodge  and  George  W.  Cuyler,  to 
the  Legislature  of  New  York. 

Mr.  PRATT.  What  is  the  date  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  May  27, 1872.  In  this  little 
book,  sir,  there  is  an  elaborate  discussion  by 
one  of  the  best  minds  of  our  day,  and  one  of 
the  minds  that  has  given  all  of  its  wonderful 
strength  and  quickness  to  this  subject,  particu- 
larly to  this  subject  that  is  herein  discussed 
(the  principles  of  taxation)  in  a manner  most 
instructive,  it  appears  to  me. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Can  you  tell  me  whether  it  is 
the  second  or  first  report  of  that  Committee? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I do  not  know.  I do  not 
think  that  is  very  essential. 

Mr.  PRATT.  There  are  two  reports. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I do  not  think  the  funda- 
mental principles  will  be  found  antagonistic 
at  all.  I think  it  will  be  found  that  what  is 
true  in  one  report  is  true  in  another.  The  re- 
port is  based  upon  truths  eternal  and  un- 
changeable, and  no  one  mere  incident  in  the 
history  of  the  State,  or  in  any  of  the  industrial 
pursuits,  can  change  those  truths;  and,  i:  these 
truths  are  applied  with  wisdom  by  the  law- 
makers of  the  State,  the  circumstances,  and 


2026 


[137th 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


Carbery,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Townsend. 


[Friday, 


interests,  and  industries  of  the  State  will 
thrive.  Now,  sir,  one  of  the  captions  of  this 
little  book  is  to  this  effect : “ The  effect  of  inju- 
dicious taxation  on  business  development,”  to 
be  found  on  page  30  in  this  report.  If  it  will 
not  weary  the  Convention,  I will  read  it.  It  is 
a great  deal  more  instructive  and  interesting 
than  anything  I can  furnish : 

“The  following  incident,  taken  from  a recent  report  of 
the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Tax  Revision  for  the  city 
of  Philadelphia,  Hon.  Thomas  Cochran,  ah',  rds  a striking 
illustration  of  the  influence  of  iDjuuicious  local  taxation 
upon  business  interests  within  the  sphere  of  its  execu- 
tion. Thus,  during  the  first  quarter  of  this  century,  the 
auction  business  of  Philadelphia,  in  respect  to  teas, 
coffee,  indigo,  drugs,  dry  goods,  etc.,  was  the  most  im- 
portant in  the  country,  and  attracted  to  that  city  mer- 
chants from  widely  different  localities.  In  1826  the  legis- 
lators ol  Pennsylvania,  looking  tor  more  sources  of 
revenue,  increased  the  taxes  on  auction  sales  in  Phila- 
delphia to  such  an  extent  as  to  make  them  one  per  cent, 
higher  than  in  New  York,  on  East  India  goods,  and  three- 
quarters  of  one  per  cent,  higher  on  most  descriptions  of 
other  goods.  The  result  was,  that  merchandise,  in  a 
great  measure,  ceased  to  be  consigned  to  Philadelphia 
and  went  to  New  York,  and  with  the  merchandise  and 
sales  went  also  a large  proportion  of  the  loreign  shipping 
owned  in  Philadelphia,  and  which  formerly  sailed  from 
that  port.  After  the  mischief  was  done  and  the  business 
of  Philadelphia  seriously  injured,  the  Legislature  of 
Pennsylvania  modified  the  law,  and  during  the  past 
year,  with  a wise  regard  for  the  State’s  interest,  swept  all 
such  taxes  from  her  statute  books. 

“The  1 egislature  of  Pennsylvania,  during  the  last 
year  (1871),  also  repealed  all  existing  taxes  on  trades, 
professions  and  employments,  thus  taking  a still  further 
step  in  the  direction  of  concentrating  taxation  to  the  few- 
est and  simplest  elements. 

“The  Commissioners  would  also  call  attention  to  the 
following  resolution,  embodied  during  the  past  year  as 
part  of  the  platform  of  one  of  the  great  political  parties 
of  Pennsylvania: 

“ Resolved,  In  the  judgment  of  this  Convention  the  time 
has  come  when  the  State  tax  on  personal  estate  may  be 
safely  abolished.” 

Now,  sir,  this  book  and  those  sentences  which  I 
I have  read  have  reference  to  one  of  the  most 
prosperous  States  of  this  Union,  and  it  appears 
to  one  with  their  principle  shining  like  a sun  be- 
fore us  that  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  under- 
stand why  this  Convention  “stands  shivering  up- 
on the  brink  ” of  this  very  great  reform  which  is 
recommended  by  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Revenue  and  Taxation.  Gentlemen  are  very 
much  afraid  of  the  effect  upon  real  estate.  Should 
taxes  be  taken  off  personal  property,  what  would 
the  result  be  in  this  city  if  such  were  the  case? 
It  would  be  an  appreciation  of  every  foot  of 
ground  from  twenty-five  to  fifty  per  cent,  in 
value.  It  would  be  the  introduction  of  capi- 
tal untold  in  Cincinnati  that  is  now  seeking  a 
home  elsewhere.  It  would  consequently  be  an 
advance  in  rents  which  would  be  easily  paid  by 
the  man  who  continues  to  do  a prosperous  bus- 
iness ten,  fifteen,  or  twenty  years,  or  by  his  sons, 
if  they  should  continue  it,  and  not  present  the 
spectacle  of  sixty  per  cent,  of  bankrupts  and 
failures  as,  beheld  now,  when  men  succumb  to 
the  tremendous  burdens  that  press  all  the  en- 
ergies out  of  them.  That  would  be  the  effect 
of  it. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  an 
inquiry  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Of  the  $74,627,041  of  chattel 
property  assessed  in  Hamilton  county  last  year, 
how  much  does  the  gentleman  propose  under 
this  reform  on  the  brink  of  which  we  are  trem- 
bling, to  excuse  from  taxation  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I will  answer  the  gentle* 1 


man  by  telling  him  that,  as  I understand  it,  that 
property  ceases  to  contribute  and  it  is  not  found 
on  the  tax  list  in  any  specific  legal  form,  I know 
that  taxes  placed  in  one  particular  place  in  the 
economic  structure,  diffuse  themselves  through 
the  economic  structure  by  natural  law,  and  that 
an  equivalent  might  be  derived  from  this  class 
of  property  in  rents,  which  general  prosperity 
would  enable  it  to  pay. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  If  the  gentleman  will  per- 
mit me,  I will  indicate  the  purpose  of  this  Re- 
port. It  is  to  reach  all  that  class  that  may  seem 
to  be  exempt,  income  tax,  rent,  license,  impost 
or  excise.  No  man  can  escape  taxation  under 
one  of  these  forms. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I scarcely  supposed  that 
the  interrogatory  called  for  an  elaborate  answer. 
I do  not  think  that  anything  escapes  under  the 
plan  of  the  Committee’s  report.  But  I am  not 
going  into  details.  I am  not  prepared  to  enter 
into  the  details  of  the  argument.  I only  want  to 
indicate  the  salient  points  that  occur  to  me,  and 
that  a man  cannot  help  seeing  if  he  does  not  shut 
his  eyes.  I will  leave  to  the  able  Committee 
the  task  of  explaining,  in  detail,  their  plan.  It 
is  perhaps,  as  I said,  sufficient  to  indicate  the 
outlines.  I am  giving  the  reasons  of  my  adhe- 
sion to  their  report,  and  my  opposition  to  the 
views  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams,  [Mr. 
Pratt].  I say,  and  re-iterate  again,  that  the 
effect  of  releasing  this  class  of  personal  property 
that  I have  been  alluding  to,  in  large  cities  like 
ours,  would  be  greatly  to  enhance  the  value  of 
real  estate  and  increase  the  value  of  the  princi- 
pal in  the  hands  of  men,  and  also  increase  its 
productiveness  in  the  shape  of  rents ; therefore, 
instead  of  being  injured  by  the  change,  the 
owner  of  real  estate  would  be  greatly  benefitted 
by  the  practical  operation  of  this  proposed 
change. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  In  the  discussion  of  this 
vexed  question  in  the  Committee  on  Revenue 
and  Taxation  we  found,  the  more  we  com- 
menced going  into  details,  the  more  perplexed 
we  became,  and  I fear  it  will  be  tbe  same  in  this 
Convention.  The  truth  is,  that  a few  simple, 
well  defined  rules  on  this  subject  are  all  we 
want.  The  Legislature,  if  they  had  the  au- 
thority, can  seek  out  these  facts  and  these 
statistics,  and  adopt  such  legislation,  from  time 
to  time,  as  these  may  suggest,  and  as  will  be 
found  necessary  to  reach  all  the  property,  real 
and  personal,  in  the  State,  and  place  it  upon  the 
duplicate,  and  subject  it  to  its  proper  proportion 
of  taxation.  Now,  there  is  no  one  rule  that  can 
be  framed  by  mortal  man  which  will  accom- 
plish that  result.  Perhaps  a law  containing 
twenty  or  thirty  sections  might  do  so,  and,  in 
my  judgment,  can  be  so  framed.  The  question 
now  pending  is  to  strike  out  the  last  portion  of 
this  section,  which  permits  the  Legislature  to 
exempt  from  double  taxation  any  property  in 
the  State.  Now,  that  is  a very  simple  thing.  If 
there  is  no  property  in  the  State  that  is  subject 
to  double  taxation,  then  the  Legislature  will 
have  no  duty  to  perform.  But  if,  in  the  investi- 
gation of  this  thing  they  find  that  upon  the 
duplicate  there  is  property  that  is  going  to  be 
subject  to  double  taxation,  then,  if  we  confer 
the  authority  upon  them,  it  will  be  their  privi- 
lege, as  I believe  it  will  be  their  duty,  to  prevent 
such  double  taxation.  And  that  is  all  there  is 


2027 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  13, 1874.]  Townsend,  Cook,  Byal,  Hitchcock,  Rowland,  etc. 


of  this  portion  of  the  section.  It  is  a question 
whether  here,  in  this  organic  law  of  the  State 
we  shall  confer  the  power  upon  the  General 
Assembly  to  protect  property  from  double  taxa- 
tion, or  whether  we  will  withhold  it.  That  I 
conceive  to  be  all  there  is  involved  in  this  ques- 
tion now  pending,  which  is  the  proper  question 
for  us  to  consider.  When  we  travel  outside, 
and  go  into  statistics,  and  get  Wells’s  theoretical 
essay  on  taxation,  which,  perhaps  applies  better 
to  the  old  countries  of  Europe  than  it  does  to 
our  new  and  growing  nation,  it  opens  up  the 
door  to  a labyrinth  of  discussion  that  we  will 
never  reach  the  end  of.  Let  us  confine  our 
operations,  at  this  time,  at  least,  to  this  single 
amendment.  The  history  of  the  past  has  shown 
that  there  is  to-day,  and  has  been  for  years, 
property  in  this  State  which  pays  taxes  twice, 
and  this  result  is  the  consequence  of  the  strin- 
gent, inflexible  rule  in  the  present  Constitution, 
and  all  we  seek  by  this  provision  is  to  change 
it,  and  we  seek  to  confer  the  power  upon  the 
proper  authority. 

Mr.  COOK.  Does  the  present  Constitution 
require  double  taxation  of  property  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  It  does  not. 

Mr.  COOK.  Then  why  provide  against  it  in 
this  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Simply  because  the  pres- 
ent Constitution  does  not  permit  the  Legisla- 
ture to  prevent  double  taxation.  It  does  not 
require  it,  but  it  prevents  the  Legislature  from 
framing  a law  to  prohibit  it.  It  says  that  all 
property  shall  be  taxed  by  one  uniform  rule. 
Well,  now,  it  has  been  found  that  one  uniform 
rule  of  getting  at  the  value  of  property,  while  it 
exempts  some  property  from  taxation,  it  taxes 
other  property  severely,  and,  in  effect,  imposes 
double  taxation.  Now,  one  rule  is  insufficient, 
but  if  the  Legislature  were  permitted  to  make  a 
dozen  laws,  reaching  a dozen  classes  of  property, 
they  could  adjust  it  and  bring  it  all  on  the 
duplicate,  and  then  its  ascertained  value  in 
money  could  be  taxed  at  a uniform  rate.  I say 
that  property  in  the  State  has  been  taxed  twice, 
is  being  taxed  twice  now,  and  if  this  provision 
is  not  adopted  so  as  to  permit  the  Legislature  to 
provide  against  it,  there  will  be  double  taxation 
in  the  future  on  lands,  personal  property  and 
everything  else.  I do  not  propose  to  go  into 
details,  though  I might  give  many  instances.  I 
therefore  trust  that  this  motion  will  not  pre- 
vail ; that  this  section,  which  I regard  as  a very 
valuable  portion,  will  be  allowed  to  remain  as 
it  is. 

Mr.  BYAL.  I have  an  amendment  that  I 
propose  offering  as  a substitute  in  case  the  sub- 
stitute now  pending  is  not  agreed  to.  I desire 
that  it  shall  be  read  for  information. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Byal  moves  to  amend  by  striking  out  in  section  3, 
line  3,  after  the  word  “but”  the  word  “providing”,  and 
insert  “may  provide*” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“Sec.  3.  Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  and 
uniform  rules,  all  real  and  personal  property,  so  that  all 
property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation, according  to  its  true  value  in  money,  but  may  pro- 
vide against  double  taxation.” 

Mr.  HITCHCCK.  I wish  to  suggest,  merely, 


that  the  amendment  being  a change  of  the  lan- 
guage proposed  to  be  stricken  out  is  in  order  at 
this  time. 

Mr.  BYAL.  I ask  that  it  be  ordered  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Hancock  [Mr.  Byal]  proposes  to  amend  by 
changing  the  phraseology  of  the  language  pro- 
posed to  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I agree  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend]  that,  if 
it  is  our  purpose  to  frame  here  a complete  sys- 
tem of  taxation,  the  task  will  be  found  to  be  a 
hopeless  one ; that  if  we  attempt  to  go  beyond 
the  statement  of  a mere  principle  and  devise 
rules  applicable  to  the  myriad  forms  of  proper- 
ty and  business;  if  we  insist  on  seeing  our 
way  through  all  their  intermniable  labyrinths, 
we  will  assuredly  fail.  And,  sir,  if,  in  the  de- 
bate, I have  advocated  any  theory  different  from 
the  principles  contained  in  this  Report,  it  is 
extrajudicial.  I do  hope  to  secure  as  wide  a 
departure  from  the  old  rule  of  uniformity  as 
can  be  obtained. 

The  section  proposed  contains  a great  advance 
from  the  old  one.  If  we  can  get  nothing  bet- 
ter I must  be  satisfied  with  that.  Especially 
was  I opposed  to  striking  out  the  provision 
against  double  taxation.  The  gentleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  alludes  to  a decision  of 
the  supreme  court  of  California  which  was 
given  in  May  1873.  There  are  some  extracts 
from  that  decision  given  in  an  article  by  David 
A.  Wells,  in  the  “Atlantic  Monthly”  for  Jan- 
uary. I will  read  a few  paragraphs. 

“Pending  these  discussions,  however,  the  Supreme 
Court,  which  had  the  question  before  it  on  a suit  to  which 
one  of  the  savings  banks  of  San  Francisco  was  a party, 
rendered  a decision,  that  in  virtue  of  a clause  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  State,  requiring  all  taxation  to  be  equal 
and  uniform,  the  taxation  of  mortgages  was  unconstitu- 
tional and  illegal;  inasmuch  as  to  tax  a given  property 
and  then  tax  a mortgage  on  it,  which  mortgage  is  not  in 
itself  property,  but  like  a deed  or  a lease,  is  a species  of 
of  conveyance  or  acknowledgement  of  a conditional  in- 
terest or  right  in  the  property,  is  not  equal  and  uniform 
taxation,  but  an  unequal  and  double  tax  on  the  property 
mortgaged,” 

The  law  taxes  in  his  hands  both  money  and 
land,  and  if  the  money  has  passed  out  of  his 
hands  into  the  hands  of  some  other  tax  payer,  it 
is  taxed  in  the  hands  of  the  latter.  Under  our 
system  the  land  is  taxed,  and  the  mortgage,  the 
mere  right  to  assert  a claim  upon  the  land,  is 
also  taxed. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I will  ask  the  gentleman 
whether  the  same  principle  does  not  apply  to 
all  promissory  notes  and  evidences  of  indebted- 
ness, whether  they  are  secured  by  mortgages  or 
not? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  answer  the  gen- 
tleman that  I believe  that  is  the  true  theory, 
that  you  cannot  tax  the  substance  and  the 
shadow  both  at  once;  that  all  “choses  inaction” 
should  be  exempted  from  taxation.  I do  not 
believe  we  will  reach  such  a result  as  that  in 
this  Convention.  But  that  it  will  come  in  this 
country  is  inevitable,  in  my  judgment. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  it  not  the  design  of  this 
paragraph  to  leave  the  power  open,  so  that  the 
Legislature  may  exempt  all  choses  in  action  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I do  not  so  regard  the  in- 
tent and  meaning  of  the  section ; but  what  I de- 
sired is  to  so  change  it  that  the  Legislature  may 
do  so  if  public  policy  shall  require;  that  we 


2028 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Rowland,  Pratt. 


[ 137th 


may  make  the  rule  so  flexible  that  there  shall 
be  some  remedy  in  the  courts,  in  order  that  the 
rights  of  every  man  in  the  community  may  not 
he  overridden  through  any  system  of  taxation 
which  may  be  adopted,  with  no  opportunity  of 
having  his  wrongs  remedied.  Retain  this  pro- 
vision against  double  taxation  and  there  may 
be  some  chance  to  obtain  justice — if  not  in  the 
General  Assembly,  at  least  in  the  courts. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I wish  to  inquire  of  the  gen- 
tleman if  he  desires  to  put  into  the  Constitution 
a rule  that  will  break  up  the  present  rule?  If 
so,  I want  it  understood  in  this  Convention  and 
before  the  people. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  say,  Mr.  President, 
that  the  history  of  the  reform  of  taxation  in 
England  shows  that  all  reform  there  has  been 
obtained  through  the  courts,  and  not  by  legis- 
lative enactment.  One  false  principle  after 
another  has  been  stricken  down  by  judicial  de- 
cisions. A most  gratifying  instance  of  reform 
in  that  direction  is  seen  in  a chapter  of  the  late 
history  of  the  supreme  court  of  California.  But 
unfortunately  the  State  of  Ohio  presents  nothing 
of  that  sort  in  the  last  twenty  years.  No  reme- 
dy has  come  to  us  either  through  the  Legislature 
or  the  courts. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Under  this  rule  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  1851 ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  And  the  design  is  to  break 
down  this  equitable  rule? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  It  is  to  break  down  and 
destroy  that  absurd,  cast  iron  rule  of  uniformity 
which  has  weighed  down,  like  an  incubus,  the 
prosperity  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I might  as  well  not  spend  my 
time  in  vain  then. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  We  well  teach  the  gentle- 
man a more  excellent  way  than  that. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  has  been  try- 
ing it,  but  I have  not  learned  the  lesson  yet. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  gentleman  must  be  an 
incorrigible  scholar. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes;  I am  a dull  scholar. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  very  instances  under 
which  double  taxation  occurs  in  this  State  has 
at  least  commanded  the  attention  of  the  su- 
preme court  of  California.  It  has  received  the 
attention  of  that  court  in  its  deliberate  judg- 
ment, no  matter  how  that  may  be  classed  as  a 
legal  decision  by  the  legal  gentlemen  here,  and 
I will  read  a few  expressions  to  show  the  result 
of  it. 

“The  opinion  was  given  by  Chief  Justice  Crockett, 
who,  after  reviewing  the  history  of  the  case,  is  reported 
to  have  used  the  following  language: 

‘I  come  now  to  the  point  whether  a tax  on  land,  at  its 
full  value,  and  a tax  on  a debt  for  money  loaned,  secured 
by  a mortgage  on  tne  land,  is  in  substance  and  in  fact  a 
tax  on  the  same  property.  We  all  know,  as  a matter  of 

general  notoriety, that  almost  universally,  by  astipulation 
etween  parties,  the  mortgageor  is  obliged  to  pay  the  tax 
both  on  the  land  and  on  the  mortgage.  Practically  he  is 
twice  taxed  on  the  same  value  if  he  has  still  in  hi's  pos- 
session the  borrowed  money,  to  secure  which  the  mort- 
gage was  made.  The  law  taxes  in  his  hand  both  money 
and  laud ; and  by  his  stipulation  he  is  required  to  pay  tax 
on  the  mortgage  debt  and  also,  if  the  money  has  passed 
out  of  his  hands  into  the  possession  of  some  other  tax 
payer,  it  is  taxed  in  the  hands  of  the  latter,  so  that  the 
money  bears  its  share  of  taxation  and  the  land  its  share, 
in  the  hands  ol  whomsoever  they  may  happen  to  be.’ 

“(_)1  the  soundness  of  tnis  decision  there  could  proba- 
be no  more  convincing  illustration  than  the  statement 
that,  upon  its  announcement  the  savings  banks  ot  San 
Francisco  gave  notice  that  they  would  immediately  re- 


[Friday, 


duce  the  rate  of  interest  on  their  loans  secured  by  mort- 
gages, by  the  amount  of  the  tax  on  the  mortgages.  And 
the  Alta- California  of  May  9th,  in  commenting  upon  the 
decision,  says : 

‘When  the  news  arrived  here  yesterday  morning  (that 
the  Supreme  Court  had  given  a decision)  it  was  not  un- 
expected; and  the  ideas  set  afloat,  that  the  decision  was 
adverse  to  the  savings  banks,  was  accepted  as  a decision 
measured  by  expediency,  and  not  based  on  sound  legal 
principles.  Special  dispatches  received  changed  the  re- 
sult; and  when  it  became  evident  that  the  banks  and  the 
mercantile  community  had  triumphed,  a general  feeling 
of  satisfaction  was  everywhere  noticeable.  Merchants, 
bankers  and  tax  payers  generally,  received  the  news 
with  the  feelings  of  men  who  felt  relieved  from  a terri- 
ble incubus. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Does  not  the  gentleman  know 
that  the  Legislature  of  California,  at  the  very 
inception  of  its  session,  since  that  decision  has 
been  given,  I cannot  tell  with  what  result,  has 
been  employed  on  a statute  to  abrogate  that 
rule  of  the  supreme  court? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I do  not  know,  but  I hope 
they  will  not  do  so. 

Mr.  PRATT.  They  have  been  at  it;  I do  not 
know  with  what  results,  but  I hope  they  have 
succeeded. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  There  is  another  practical 
fact  to  which  I wish  to  call  attention.  The 
Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of  New 
York  which  convened  in  1867,  submitted  as 
one  of  the  propositions  to  the  people,  which 
they  reported  upon  separately,  a clause  with 
regard  to  taxation,  containing  this  princi- 
cle  of  uniformity,  and  the  result  was,  that 
it  was  defeated  by  from  forty  to  fifty 
thousand  majority.  It  is  true,  sir,  that  the 
reports  of  Mr.  Wells  and  the  Commission- 
ers contributed  very  largely  to  that  result.  It 
is  true  that  several  other  States  had  appointed 
Commissioners  in  the  years  previous  to  that, 
and  reports  had  been  made  to  the  Legislature, 
but  they  seem  not  to  have  produced  any  prac- 
tical result.  The  Report  of  Mr.  Wells  and  the 
Commissioners  is  the  first  instance  in  America, 
in  which  there  has  been  a complete  analysis 
and  statement  of  this  question ; and  it  would  be 
well  for  members  of  this  Convention  to  read 
these  Reports  and  then  they  may  reasonably 
account  for  their  results  upon  the  minds  of  the 
people  of  New  York.  Now  the  gentleman  ac- 
cord to  me  frankness,  and  I trust  that  nothing 
that  I shall  say  or  do  will  impair  their  judg- 
ment. I do  not  design  that  there  shall  be  any 
escape  from  taxation  by  those  who  onght  to  be 
taxed  or  that  any  property  shall  escape  that 
ought  to  goon  the  tax  duplicate.  We  have 
provided  in  this  Report  a plan  which  I believe 
will  effectually  reach  all  those  persons  who 
may  elude  the  assessor.  That  is  in  the  fifth 
section.  The  General  Assembly  may  impose 
tax  by  license,  excise,  or  otherwise,  and  also 
provide  by  an  equitable  rule — the  same  objec- 
tionable terms  that  the  gentleman  refers  to — for 
taxing  all  incomes  derived  from  investments. 
Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  principle  of  in- 
come tax,  it  is  the  fairest  method  of  taxation 
that  has  ever  been  devised  by  man.  In  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  there  is  an  in- 
hibition, but  that  does  not  apply  to  a tax  within 
our  State.  In  any  section  of  the  State,  we  mav 
apply  the  principle  of  income  without  refer- 
ence* to  population,  and  it  is  the  fairest  princi- 
ple that  was  ever  applied  to  property 
and  business  and  we  may  apply  the  principle 


Day.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Howland,  Hitchcock,  Pratt,  Page,  Sample,  etc. 


2029 


March  13, 1874.; 


of  income  or  such  other  methods  of  taxa- 
tion as  are  expressed  here  by  license,  and  ex- 
cise, and  other  modes  iucluded  in  the  word 
otherwise , which  is  put  in  to  fill  up  the  gap,  in 
order  that  something  else  may  be  authorized 
which  has  not  occurred  to  us.  Then  the  meth- 
ods which  you  are  proposing,  to  tax  all  real 
and  personal  property,  no  man  can  escape  in 
the  State  of  Ohio.  I will  not  trespass  further 
upon  the  time  of  the  Convention,  but  I hope  we 
will  not  entertain  for  a moment  the  idea  of 
striking  out  that  inhibition  of  double  taxation. 
It  is  necessary,  and  if  the  gentleman  will  per- 
mit me  I will  say  that  we  propose  to  remove 
this  weight,  and  try  to  break  down  this  rule 
that  has  worked  such  injustice  in  the  State. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland]  be- 
fore he  sits  down,  unless  I would  be  intruding 
on  the  province  of  the  gentleman  from  Wil- 
liams [Mr.  Pratt]  by  so  doing. 

Mr.  PRATT.  You  were  one  of  my  compeers 
in  this  matter  in  the  Committee,  and  I wish 
you  would.  Although  you  left  your  first  love, 
if  you  will  return  now  I will  be  happy. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman  has  ex- 
pressed frankly  his  purpose  in  retaining  this 
provision  in  regard  to  which  I wish  to  say  noth- 
ing. But  if  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  shall  fail,  I will  ask  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland] 
whether  in  furtherance  of  his  intention  he  does 
not  intend  to  move  to  strike  out  the  words,  “so 
that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of 
the  burdens  of  taxation,  according  to  its  true 
value  in  money. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  answer  that  candid- 
ly, that  unless  some  other  alteration  is  m ide, 
which  will  better  serve  my  own  purpose  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  section,  that  I shall  move  to 
strike  out  those  very  words. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I wish  to  make  a remark  in  ref- 
erence to  the  California  decision.  I find  on 
reference  to  the  Report  that  the  facts  are  very 
obscurely  stated,  and  it  seems  to  be  founded  on 
a peculiar  state  of  things  in  California.  The 
decision  grew  out  of  a state  of  public  excite- 
ment there  on  this  subject  of  taxation,  and  the 
reasoning  of  the  Court  is  based  entirely,  so  far 
as  I can  learn,  from  the  decision  shown  me, 
upon  the  fact  that,  in  California  the  usurer  ex- 
acts the  taxation  from  the  borrower.  That  is  a 
very  wrong  position  for  a judicial  decision,  and 
as  1 said  before,  I do  not  think  that  decision  is 
entitled  to  any  respect. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  This  question  seems  to  be 
attracting  a large  amount  of  interest  here,  and 
it  will  attract  a still  larger  amount  of  interest 
when  the  production  of  this  Convention  is 
submitted  to  the  people  of  the  State.  If  there 
be  any  subject  upon  which  men  are  sensitive, 
it  is  that  involved  in  the  taxation  to  which 
they  are  to  be  subjected.  I do  not  appear  be- 
fore the  Convention  with  the  expectation  of 
propounding  any  theory  for  their  adoption. 
But  there  has  been  a considerable  amount  of 
discussion  upon  this  subject,  and  some  things 
have  come  under  my  notice  during  that  discus- 
sion to  which  my  mind  has  been  attracted, 
which,  it  occurs  to  me,  ought  not  to  be  left 
without  notice.  In  the  first  place,  I do  not 
agree  with  the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the 


eloquent  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoad- 
ly],  in  regard  to  the  action  of  the  supreme 
court  upon  this  subject,  nor  do  I admit  that 
their  decisions  are  inconsistent  with  the  Consti- 
tution. In  my  judgment,  upon  legal  construc- 
tion, there  is  no  conflict  between  the  cases 
which  were  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  as 
establishing  two  different  rules  of  decision 
under  the  same  Constitution.  In  the  act  of  the 
General  Assembly  under  review,  the  case  in 
the  3 Ohio  State  Reports,  the  Legislature  had 
authorized  every  person,  in  making  his  returns, 
to  deduct  from  his  money  and  credits  the 
amount  of  his  indebtedness.  That  section,  in 
that  shape,  came  under  review  before  the  court, 
and  the  court,  by  a unanimous  decision,  decided 
that  that  section  was  not  in  harmony  with  the 
Constitution.  But  some  of  the  judges  did  ex- 
press the  opinion  that  the  Constitutional 
restriction  applied  clearly  to  credits  as  well  as 
money.  The  question  before  them  was 
whether  that  tenth  section,  the  section  then 
under  consideration,  was  in  conflict  with  the 
Constitution.  If  they  decided  that  it  was  in 
any  of  its  provisions  they  could  only  make  the 
decision  that  they  did  make.  Judge  Ranney  in 
that  decision  sustained  the  principle  upon  which 
Judge  Welch  decided  the  case  in  the  Sixteenth 
Ohio  State  Reports,  and  still  concurred  in  the 
judgement  which  was  rendered  by  the  court; 
so  that  the  judgment  in  that  case  was  a unani- 
mous decision  of  the  supreme  court,  although 
one  of  the  judges,  and  one  who  was  entitled  to 
as  much  respect  as  any  of  the  others,  maintain- 
ed the  same  views  exactly,  as  were  afterwards 
maintained  by  Judge  Welch,  as  the  true  con- 
struction of  the  Constitution.  This  construc- 
tion, which  was  announced  as  the  rule  of  deci- 
sion in  the  case  in  the  Sixteenth  Ohio  Statute, 
is  consistent  with  the  unanimous  decision  of 
the  court,  found  in  the  Third  Ohio  Statute. 
The  Legislature  afterwards  passed  a law  allow- 
ing the  deduction  of  debts  from  credits,  which 
excluded  a man’s  indebtedness,  but  not  from 
moneys,  as  in  the  first  law,  and  the  law  from 
that  time  to  this,  has  been  that  a man  might  de- 
duct his  indebtedness  from  his  credits  in  mak- 
ing up  his  return,  and  in  the  case  in  the  Six- 
teenth Ohio  Statute,  that  was  held  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  the  Constitution.  That  practice  has 
prevailed  in  the  State  and  is  in  accordance  with 
the  opinion  of  Judge  Ranney  in  the  decision  of 
the  case  in  Third  Ohio  Statute,  although  he 
concurred  in  that  decision,  from  that  time  to 
this.  So  that  there  is  no  conflict,  I submit  to 
every  lawyer  that  upon  principles  of  fair  legal 
construction  and  judicial  interpretation,  these 
two  decisions  are  not  in  conflict  and  that  they 
are  both  reconcilable  under  the  principles  of 
the  Constitution  as  it  now  is. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  As  I understand  the  gentle- 
man, he  says  the  law  as  it  now  exists  permits  a 
man  to  deduct  his  credits  from  his  debits. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Why  certainly.  Is  there  any 
doubt  about  that? 

Mr.  PRATT.  And  that  law  has  existed,  has 
it  not,  in  contradiction  of  the  ruling  of  the  su- 
preme court  in  the  case  of  the  city  of  Columbus 
against  Hines  ? In  that  case  the  decision  as  an- 


2030 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [137th 


Pratt,  Sample,  Rowland,  Bishop,  Barnet. 


[Friday, 


nounced  that  debts  could  not  be  offset  against 
credits,  nevertheless  the  Legislature  took  the 
view  of  Judge  Ranney  and  not  of  the  majority 
of  the  court,  and  the  exception  has  been  made 
of  a law  passed  by  the  Legislature  that  was  not 
supported  by  the  Constitution  as  interpreted  by 
the  courts,  has  it  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  No,  sir;  I think  not.  The 
Court  decided  that  that  first  act  was  unconsti- 
tutional, and  there  has  never  been  an  attempt 
by  the  Legislature  to  authorize  a deduction  of 
credits  from  moneys  from  that  time  to  this. 
There  has  never  been  an  attempt  by  any  person, 
at  least  I have  no  knowledge  of  any  attempt,  to 
prevent  the  deduction  of  debts  from  credits. 
So  that  the  law  of  the  State  on  that  subject  un- 
der the  present  Constitution,  is  just  as  well  es- 
tablished as  any  other  principal  of  our  financial 
history.  There  is,  then,  none  of  that  discor- 
dance between  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  and  the  present  Constitution  which  ren- 
ders it  obligatory  upon  this  Convention  to  en- 
deavor to  effect  a reconciliation  with  the  prin- 
ciples recognized  by  the  Supreme  Court  by  the 
introduction  of  new  Constitutional  provisions. 
I have  listened  with  much  attention  to  the  views 
of  the  gentlemen.  I do  not  profess  to  have 
much  familiarty  with  this  subject.  It  is  one  to 
which  I have  never  given  much  attention  other 
than  to  provide  means  for  paying  my  taxes  as 
they  semi-annually  accrued.  But  it  is  a matter 
of  importance  now  to  arrive  at  some  system, 
something  that  will  be  adapted  to  the  wants 
of  the  people ; something  that  will  enable  the 
Legislature  to  enact  a law  in  accordance  with  the 
necessities  of  the  people  of  the  State. 
It  is  suggested  that  tangible  property  only 
should  be  subject  to  taxation.  I think  I may 
say  this,  upon  entering  upon  the  discussion  of 
this  subject,  that  it  is  useless  for  this  Conven- 
tion to  expend  its  time  discussing  any  such 
proposition.  I am  very  certain,  just  as  certain 
as  I am  that  I am  here,  that  if  this  Convention 
adopts  that  provision  in  the  Constitution,  it 
might  just  as  well  adjourn  sine  die  the  moment 
it  is  adopted.  There  is  no  use  of  going  before 
the  people  with  any  such  Constitution.  I do 
not  believe  it  ought  to  be  done;  and  I do  not 
believe  there  is  any  use  of  any  man  under- 
taking to  argue  such  a provision  before  the 
land-holders  of  the  State  and  the  holders  of  per- 
sonal property.  The  greater  number  of  the 
farmers  have  no  credits  to  be  taxed.  They  have 
property — they  have  accumulated  a competence 
for  themselves  and  their  families;  they  have 
personal  property,  horses,  they  have  farm- 
ing implements,  they  have  all  that  is 
necessary  to  energetic  and  successful  prosecu- 
tion of  their  occupation.  Go  before  them  and 
tell  them  that  the  banker  who  loans  them  money 
at  twelve  or  fourteen  per  cent,  and  realizes  un- 
questionably twelve  per  cent,  on  the  money  he 
loans  them  to  carry  on  their  business, shall  be  ex- 
empt, while  they  must  pay  taxeson  their  lands, 
houses  and  farming  implements,  on  everything 
that  is  tangible,  which  constitute  the  only 
means  from  which  they  can  derive  any  income, 
and  you  will  not  long  remain  in  doubt. 

It  is  not  a debatable  question.  I am  inter- 
ested in  the  subject.  I would  like  to  see  a pro- 
vision adopted  which  would  relieve  me  of  the 
great  burden  of  my  taxation. 


Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  ask  if  there 
is  any  provision  in  this  Report  to  exempt 
property  from  taxation  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  No,  sir;  not  any;  but  it  has 
been  advocated  here. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  has  only  been  an  ex- 
pression of  mere  theory. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Very  well.  Mine  is  the  ex- 
pression of  a counter  opinion,  an  expression  of 
opinion  as  to  the  effect  of  that  theory. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  has  been  admitted  that  the 
purpose  of  the  clause  was  such  exemption,  has 
it  not? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  No,  sir;  no  such  absurdity 
as  that. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I thought  the  gentleman  ad- 
mitted it. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I said  that  I had  a theory 
of  that  kind.  It  has  not  been  put  in  the  Report, 
and  I do  not  propose  to  go  before  the  people  of 
the  State  with  it.  What  I mean  is  put  down  in 
this  section,  which  speaks  for  itself. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I am  unable  to  see  what 
effect  it  will  have  upon  the  Constitution,  unless 
it  looks  substantially  to  the  accomplishment  of 
that  purpose. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Just  exactly  the  reverse. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  may  be  so.  But  let  us  see 
an  illustration  of  it.  For  instance,  a farmer 
borrows  a thousand  dollars  from  a banker,  to 
invest  in  stock.  He  has  the  stock  on  hand  when 
the  assessor  comes  around.  That  stock  is  as- 
sessed at  its  fair  value  in  money.  Well,  now,  if 
the  thousand  dollars  with  which  he  purchased 
that  stock  is  assessed,  the  obligation  which  he 
gave  for  that  thousand  dollars  in  the  hands  of 
the  money  lender  is  assessed.  Is  not  that 
double  taxation?  What  represents  that  thou- 
sand dollars  ? Is  it  not  the  stock  for  which  the 
the  thousand  dollars  was  paid  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  ask  the  gentleman 
if  the  money  is  not  taxed  too,  so  that  the  thing 
itself  and  the  representative  in  stock  are  both 
taxed  under  our  present  rule?  That  is  what 
we  wish  to  avoid. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  is  undoubtedly  so,  and  you 
cannot  show  it  otherwise.  If  that  thousand 
dollars  in  money  is  taxed,  can  any  thing  which 
has  been  purchased  with  it  be  taxed  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  say  to  the  gentle- 
man that  I can  show  that  there  is  taxation  in 
the  State  where  there  is  not  a dollar  added  to 
the  property  of  the  State. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do  not  doubt  that. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  absurdity  of  the  sys- 
tem is  shown  in  the  very  statement. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do  not  think  there  is  any 
absurdity  in  it. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I do  not  know  whether  I 
understood  the  illustration  the  gentleman  used, 
or  not.  A man  borrows  a thousand  dollars  to 
purchase  stock.  Should  not  that  thousand  dol- 
lars be  deducted  from  credits,  and  would  not 
that  make  it  equitable? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  If  the  gentleman  will  excuse 
me,  the  gentleman  from  Preble  [Mr.  Barnet] 
has  just  remarked  that  a thousand  dollars  would 
be  deducted  according  to  this  equitable  rule. 
This  section  uses  the  words  “equitable  rule,” 
one  which  will  reach  the  bankers.  In  my  re- 
marks, I said,  that  the  private  bankers  of  this 
city  had  not  paid  taxes  on  one-fourth  of  their 


203  L 


Day.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Bishop,  Sample,  Barnet,  Dorsey,  Pratt. 


March  13, 1874.1 


real  capital,  and  I wanted  to  catch  them.  If,  as 
in  the  supposed  case,  a man  borrows  a thousand 
dollars,  and  buys  stock  with  it,  of  course  he 
deducts  the  thousand  dollars  that  he  owes  the 
banker.  We  want  an  equitable  rule  to  meet 
these  very  cases. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  There  is  this  difficulty  in 
allowing  a man  to  deduct  from  property  that  he 
has  on  hand,  that  he  may  owe  to  another — that 
other  may  not  return  it  for  taxation.  One  man 
has  no  right  to  return  what  he  owes  to  another 
man,  and  authorize  tax  to  be  assessed  against 
the  other  man  for  it,  so  that  I do  not  suppose 
that  any  gentleman  in  this  Convention  will  ad- 
vocate the  idea  of  withdrawing  property  from 
taxation,  and  allowing  a man  to  escape  taxa- 
tion on  his  personal  and  real  property  that  is 
visible  and  tangible,  because  he  is  in  debt  for  it, 
and  some  other  individual  may  have  a claim 
against  him,  on  which  the  law  requires  that 
individual  to  pay  tax.  I take  it  for  granted 
that  there  will  be  no  system  adopted,  no  system 
thought  of,  by  this  Convention  that  will  ex- 
empt personal  or  real  property  from  taxation 
on  any  such  theory.  I do  not  think  there  is 
any  injustice  in  the  present  svstem.  I do  not 
see  how  a system  that  is  more  equitable  can  be 
adopted.  I admit  that  it  does  bring  upon  the 
tax  duplicate  a great  deal  of  property ; that  is, 
it  does  give  the  appearance  on  the  tax  duplicate 
of  a large  amount  of  property,  which  does  not, 
in  fact,  exist. 

Mr.  BARNET.  If  it  is  equitable  to  deduct 
debts  from  credits,  (and  what  are  credits  but  a 
species  of  property  ?)  why  may  we  not  deduct 
it  from  property  as  well,  if  we  can  do  it  equita- 
bly ? If  we  can  do  equity  to  deduct  debts  from 
credits,  why  can  we  not  do  equity  so  far  as 
to  deduct  them  from  property  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  There  are  so  many  reasons 
that  I would  not  know  which  one  to  select.  If 
a man  was  allowed  to  deduct  his  indebtedness 
from  his  tangible  property,  all  of  which  the 
assessor  can  take  cognizance,  all  that  he  would 
have  to  do  would  be  to  fabricate  a statement 
that  he  owed  a given  amount  of  money,  and 
was  indebted  in  a given  sum,  in  order  to  have  it 
deducted,  and  thereby  the  basis  of  taxation  in 
the  State  would  be  literally  destroyed. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  If  I understood  him  right,  he 
said  that  this  system  introduced  on  the  assess- 
or’s books  a great  deal  of  property  that  did  not 
really  exist  in  the  State? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Does  not  really  exist;  has  no 
visible,  substantial  representative  in  actual 
property. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Now,  I want  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman if  a system  which  introduces  on  the  tax 
duplicate  a great  amount  of  property  that  has 
no  existence 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  has  no  tangible  exist- 
ence, I mean. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  No  real  existence,  and  allows 
a great  deal  of  property  to  escape  which  has  an 
existence,  but  is  invisible  and  intangible — 
should  such  a system  exist  in  the  organic  law 
of  the  State? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  question  has  two  as- 
pects. I understand  one,  but  the  other  rests 


upon  a fact  which  I by  no  means  ad- 
mit. Now,  I do  not  pretend  to  have  made 

this  subject  a subject  of  investigation  at 
all.  Until  it  was  taken  up  yesterday  morn- 
ing I had  not  given  the  least  attention  to 
it  in  any  way  whatever.  But  I have  looked  into 
these  reports  somewhat,  and  I have  listened  to 
two  or  three  statements  by  gentlemen  upon  the 
subject,  which  have  very  much  tended  to  re- 
concile my  mind  to  the  provisions  of  the  present 
Constitution.  Now  it  is  said,  for  instance,  that 
there  are  two  objections  to  this  intangible  prop- 
erty ; because  it  purports  to  represent  property 
which  has  no  tangible  existence.  That  is  the 
fact.  If  a man  has  a note  taken  for  property 
which  he  has  sold,  and  it  goes  into  the  hands  of 
another  man,  and  is  returned  for  taxation,  and 
the  holder  of  the  note  is  taxed  upon  it,  it  not 
being  property  itself,  but  only  the  representa- 
tive of  property,  the  representative  as  well  as 
the  principal  is  brought  upon  the  tax  duplicate. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  shadow  and  the  sub- 
stance. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir;  the  shadow  and  the 
substance,  if  the  gentleman  please. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  shadow  will  bring  money. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  is  one  of  the  objections. 
Another  objection  is,  that  we  are  not  able  to 
reach  all  this  body  of  property,  and  I under- 
stood the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey] 
to  say — and  I believe  he  repeated  it  several 
times — that  there  was  not  one-tenth  of  all  the 
credits  in  the  State  brought  upon  the  tax  dupli- 
cates of  the  several  counties  and  subjected  to 
taxation.  I would  be  very  sorry  to  come  to 
such  a conclusion.  I am  very  unwilling  to  be- 
lieve that  nine  men  out  of  every  ten  in  the 
State  are  dishonest  and  defraud  the  State. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  look 
at  the  Auditor’s  report,  he  will  be  forced  to  that 
conclusion. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Why  forced  to  that  conclu- 
sion ? The  gentleman  did  not  show  why  I was 
forced  to  that  conclusion.  I am  going  to  show 
why  the  gentleman  was  in  error  and  that  he 
left  out  an  important  principle  in  the  investiga- 
tion of  this  subject.  That  is  the  very  object  for 
which  I undertook  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  the  subject.  Now,  what  does  the 
Auditor’s  report  show  ? It  shows  that  there  are 
$37,000,000  in  money  returned,  and  that  is  all; 
and  $2,335,000  returned  as  the  average  invested 
in  non-taxable  securities ; that  on  hand  at  the 
time  of  the  assessment  was  $37,114,000  in  money 
in  the  hands  of  tax  payers  or  persons  who 
made  returns  to  the  assessors  in  the  State. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  What  amount  of  credits. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  The  amount  is  $110,259,000. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Does  the  gentleman  believe 
that  represents  anything  like  accurately  even 
one  dollar  in  ten  of  the  credits  of  the  State  of 
Ohio? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir.  There  is  nothing 
within  the  range  of  my  knowledge  to  induce  me 
to  believe  that  it  does  not  substantially  repre- 
sent the  truth.  If  the  gentleman  will  go  with 
me  to  the  rural  districts  he  will  find  mortgage 
after  mortgage,  each  one  for  thousands  of  dol- 
lars, upon  the  landed  property.  And  how  are 
they  made.  One  man  sells  his  farm  and  re- 
ceives a payment  of  one-third,  one-fourth,  or 
one-tenth,  and  takes  a mortgage  for  the  balance. 


2032 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [137th 

Sample,  Bishop,  Rowland,  Burns.  [Friday, 


He  then  goes  into  another  neighborhood  and 
buys  an  adiacent  farm,  pays  a part  of  the  pur- 
chase price  and  gives  a like  mortgage  for  the 
balance.  He  just  translates  himself  from  one 
farm  to  another.  These  mortgages  equalize 
each  other.  They  are  just  like  two  equal 
weights  in  opposite  scales.  There  is  not  a dollar 
of  taxation  except  the  difference  between  the 
two  mortgages.  There  are  counties  in  this 
State  where  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars 
are  put  upon  the  record  every  year,  not  a dollar 
of  which  is  properly  required  to  be  returned  for 
taxation  under  the  preseht  laws. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Are  not  all  of  these  mort- 
gages, in  fact,  represented  by  notes  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  According  to  the  system, 
ought  not  those  notes  to  be  shown  on  the  au- 
ditor’s duplicate? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Ho,  sir.  Why  should  they  ? 
The  auditor  has  nothing  to  do  except  to  require 
the  returns  that  are  made  to  the  assessor ; the 
assessor  has  nothing  to  do  but  to  record  the  dif- 
ference between  the  amounts  of  the  two  mort- 
gages. That  is  all  that  man  who  makes  the  re- 
turns is  required  to  return. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  If  he  makes  the  returns  prop- 
erly they  would  make  a very  different  showing. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Ho,  sir;  they  would  show 
that  exactly.  For  instance,  suppose  a man  sells 
a farm  and  takes  a mortgage  for  a part  of  the 
price,  goes  across  the  way  and  buys  another 
farm  and  gives  a mortgage.  When  a blank  is 
put  into  his  hands  and  he  is  required  to  give  the 
amount  of  credits  on  hand  after  deducting  bona 
Jide  debts,  all  he  has  to  do  is  to  put  a cipher  at 
the  end  of  that  statement.  He  is  not  required 
to  say  that  he  has  a dollar  coming  to  him,  be- 
cause he  does  not  own  anything  subject  to  tax- 
ation and  he  returns  the  cipher. 

Mr.  BOWLAHD.  I want  to  ask  a question 
right  there.  Take  the  case  of  a man  selling  a 
farm  on  one  side  of  the  road  and  purchasing  on 
the  other  side.  How  if  he  gives  a mortgage  he 
gets  money  for  that,  and  he  is  taxed  on  the 
money.  So  that  there  is  nothing  in  it. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  may  be,  but  the  gentle- 
man adopts  a very  easy  way  to  get  rid  of  it.  I 
would  like  the  gentleman  to  show  me  why  there 
is  not  something  in  it.  I have  had  practical  ex- 
perience upon  this  subject.  This  is  no  theo- 
retical question,  merely,  it  is  one  of  practical 
experience. 

Mr.  BOWLAHD.  Will  the  gentleman  please 
state  his  proposition  again? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  is  this.  A has  a farm. 
He  sells  it  to  B,  and  takes  a mortgage  for 
$10,000,  and  places  it  upon  record.  He  goes  to 
the  other  side  and  buys  a farm  from  C,  to  whom 
he  gives  a mortgage  for  a like  amount. 

Mr.  BOWLAHD.  What  does  he  get  for  that 
mortgage. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  He  gets  a new  farm,  on 
which  he  has  to  pay  taxes. 

Mr.  BOWLAHD.  There  is  no  more  property 
created. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I know  there  is  not,  and  there 
is  nothing  taxable  created.  The  farms  are  both 
taxed,  and  there  is  not  a dollar  to  go  on  the  tax 
duplicate.  The  proposition  is  as  plain  as  a 
grocer  weighing  out  any  material,  having  the 
weight  in  one  scale  and  the  material  in  the 


other.  They  just  balance.  Every  man  when 
he  is  called  on  makes  out  his  personal  statement, 
and  divests  himself  of  every  extrinsic  consider- 
ation. 

Mr.  BUBHS.  Suppose  A sells  his  farm  to  B, 
and  takes  a note  and  mortgage  for  $10,000,  and 
then  buys  a farm  of  C,  and  gives  his  own  notes 
to  C for  $10,000.  How,  here  are  two  farms  and 
two  sets  of  notes.  How,  do  I understand  that 
these  two  sets  of  notes  are  not  taxed  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I do,  unquestionably, say  so. 

Mr.  BUBHS.  Hot  taxed  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  They  never  were,  except 
under  an  unconstitutional  decision  by  the  State 
auditor. 

Mr.  BUBHS.  I say  that  the  notes  A pays  for 
his  farm  are  taxed. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with 
it.  I am  talking  of  the  man  that  sold  the  first 
farm. 

Mr.  BUBHS.  The  man  that  bought  the  first 
j farm  pays  the  taxes  on  the  farm. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  may  be. 

Mr.  BUBHS.  And  the  man  who  sold  it  pays 
the  taxes  on  the  notes.  A sells  a farm  and  takes 
notes.  B buys  the  farm  and  gives  his  notes  for 
j it.  How,  if  it  is  done  before  the  assessor  comes 
round,  does  not  B who  bought  the  farm,  pay 
the  taxes  ? And  does  not  A who  receives  the 
notes  pay  taxes  on  them  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Probably  he  does. 

Mr.  BUBHS.  Very  well. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  is  not  so  very  well  either. 
Suppose  he  owes  somebody  else  $10,000? 

Mr.  BUBHS.  But,  suppose  he  does  not  owe 
anybody  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  is  not  the  case.  I am 
attempting  to  show  what  I think  I have  shown, 
that  this  great  difference  between  the  actual 
credits  and  the  amount  returned  for  taxation  is 
satisfactorily  explained  by  considering  that 
every  man  wTho  owes  a debt  is  permitted  to  de- 
duct it  from  the  amount  of  his  credits. 

Mr.  BUBHS.  One  word  more.  B buys  a 
farm  from  A,  and  pays  nothing  on  it,  gives  his 
note  for  $10,000;  now  is  B worth  a cent?  He 
has  just  given  his  notes  for  $10,000,  has  bought 
a farm  and  has  not  paid  a dollar  and  yet  he 
pays  taxes  on  $10,000  and  A pays  tax  on  $10,000. 
How,  is  the  wealth  of  the  country  increased  a 
dollar  ? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Certainly  not.  But  whether 
B would  be  worth  anything  or  not  would  de- 
pend upon  the  character  of  the  bargain  he  had 
made  in  the  purchase  of  the  farm.  I am  only 
speaking  of  it  as  a financial  principle.  I am 
giving  it  as  an  explanation  showing  that  it 
woulu  be  unreasonable  to  expect  the  amount  of 
credits  returned  to  be  by  any  approximate 
amount  equal  to  the  actual  credits  of  the 
i country.  Every  man  that  is  in  debt  has  a right 
to  deduct  his  uebts  from  his  credits  and  it  is  only 
the  excess  of  his  credits  over  his  indebtedness 
that  he  is  under  obligation  to  take  any  notice  of. 
Men  of  large  means  and  doing  a large  business 
often  pay  very  little  taxes  on  credits.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  said 
that  taxes  on  incomes  were  the  most  equitable 
taxes  that  could  be  imposed.  They  are  the 
most  inequitable.  The  government  issued 
| orders  to  prevent  the  publishing  of  returns  of 
| income  taxes  made  in  diflerent  localities.  Why  ? 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 2033 

March  13, 1874.]  Sample,  Chapin,  Campbell,  Albright,  Pond. 


I suppose,  because  it  exposed  men.  I know,  as 
it  was  published,  you  would  have  taken  the 
richest  men  to  be  the  poorest.  The  taxes  paid 
bore  no  reasonable  proportion  to  their  real  in- 
come. They  were  the  most  inequitable  to  which 
I ever  gave  any  attention.  There  is  not  any- 
thing, then,  I think,  in  this  objection  that  taxa- 
tion is  double.  I know  there  are  often  large 
amounts  of  credit  that  are  not  brought  upon  the 
tax  duplicate  as  they  should  be,  but  that  there 
is  such  a prevailing  dishonesty  in  the  people  of 
the  State  I am  not  willing  to  admit.  I think 
there  is  not  that  general  depravity  prevailing 
among  the  tax-payers  of  Ohio  that  would  in- 
duce men  to  keep  back  nine-tenths  of  their 
property.  I think  it  is  exaggerated,  and  I offer 
this  fact,  about  which  there  can  be  no  contro- 
versy, as  an  explanation  of  the  small  amount 
which  appears  to  have  been  returned  for  taxa- 
tion. Now,  as  to  the  effect  of  the  present  law 
upon  mortgage  securities,  I do  not  profess  to 
know  anything.  Ido  not  find  the  amount  of  cred- 
its large,  and  of  course  the  burden  of  taxation 
upon  other  property  is  the  greater.  Whatever 
there  is  in  this  matter  that  is  defective  ought  to 
be  reformed.  But  as  to  the  principal  ground 
upon  which  this  objection  to  taxing  invisible 
property  is  based,  1 think  that  we  ought  not  to 
have  anything  to  do  with  it  in  this  Convention. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  In  the  illustration  that  the 
gentleman  used,  I understood  him  to  say  that 
A sells  a farm  to  B for  $10,000,  giving  his  notes, 
and  then  A purchases  a farm  of  C for  $10,000, 
and  gives  his  notes.  B,  in  returning  his  taxa- 
ble property,  offsets  the  note  which  he  has 
given.  I would  then  ask  what  disposition  C 
would  make  of  the  notes  of  A? 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I would  expect  him  to  buy 
another  farm  and  give  a mortgage  on  it  and  off- 
set those  notes  that  he  gave  for  the  farm. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  Then  the  gentleman  admits 
that  there  is  an  increase  of  $10,000  on  thedupli- 

C<it)G  ^ 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  That  depends  on  what  C 
does.  If  he  gives  his  obligations  for  $10,000 
then  there  is  not. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  We  have  to  stop  there. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  Sometimes  it  may  be.  I used 
the  illustration  for  the  purpose  of  accounting 
for  the  discrepancy  of  the  returns,  being  so 
much  below  the  actual  amount  of  credits  of  the 
State. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I thought  the  gentleman  said 
there  was  no  increase  of  taxes. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  It  depends  on  what  the  con- 
dition of  the  man  is  who  has  the  credit.  If  a 
man  has  credits  in  his  hands  in  excess  of  his 
indebtedness,  that  excess  goes  on  the  tax  dupli- 
cate; if  not,  it  does  not  enter,  however  numer- 
ous the  transaction  ma  y be. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  It  is  about  the  time  for 
taking  a recess.  Before  making  that  motion,  I 
ask  leave  to  introduce  a Proposition  simply  for 
the  purpose  of  having  it  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
the  Proposition  will  be  read.  The  gentleman 
from  Burler  [Mr.  Campbell]  introduces  the  fol- 
lowing Proposition : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Proposition  No.  224  -by  Mr.  Campbell: 

In  relation  to  the  Manufacture  and  Sale  of  Intoxicating 
Liquors. 

y.  n--130 


When  the  votes  of  the  electors  shall  be  taken  for  the 
adoption  or  rejection  of  the  Constitution,  the  following 
Propositions  shall  be  severally  submitted  to  the  electors 
for  adoption  or  l-ejection,  to  wit: 

I.  Intoxicating  liquors  shall  neither  be  manufactured 
nor  sold  in  the  State. 

JI.  Intoxicating  liquors  may  only  be  manufactured  or 
sold  in  the  State,  in  quantities  not  less  than  one  gallon, 
on  license  granted  in  such  manner  and  on  such  condi- 
tions as  the  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law. 

I I.  Intoxicating  liquors  may  be  sold  in  the  State  in 
quantities  le6S  than  one  gallon,  only  on  license,  granted 
in  such  manner  and  on  such  conditions  as  the  General 
Assembly  may  provide  by  law. 

A separate  ballot  may  be  given  by  each  elector  upon 
said  several  Propositions,  in  lorm  following,  and  placed 
in  separate  ballot  boxes,  to  wit:  Upon  the  ballots  given 
for  said  first  Proposition  shall  be  written  or  printed,  or 
partly  written  and  partly  printed,  the  words:  “Prohibi- 
tion of  the  Manufacture  or  Sale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors 
—Yes,”  and  upon  the  ballots  given  against,  said  first 
Proposition,  in  like  manner,  the  words:  “Prohibition  of 
the  Manufacture  or  Sale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors— No.” 
Upon  the  ballots  given  for  said  second  Proposition,  in 
like  manner,  the  words:  “License  for  the  Manufacture 
and  Wholesale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors — Yes,”  and  upon 
the  ballots  given  against  said  second  Proposition,  in  like 
manner,  the  words:  “License  for  the  Manufacture  and 
Wholesale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors— No.”  Upon  the  bal- 
lots given  for  said  third  Proposition,  in  like  manner,  the 
words:  “Retail  of  Intoxicating  Liquors— Yes,”  and  upon 
the  ballots  given  against  said  third  Proposition,  in  like 
manner,  the  woi’ds:  “Retail  of  Intoxicating  Liquors— 
No.”  Such  of  said  Propositions  as  may  receive  a majori- 
ty of  the  aggivgate  vote  given  for  and  asrainst  the  ratifi- 
cation of  the  new  Gousritution.  at  said  election,  shall  be 
a part  of  Article  XV.  Should  said  first  and  one  or  both 
of  said  second  or  third  Propositions  be  approved  by  such 
majority,  then  said  first  Pi’oposition  only  shall  be  a part 
of  Article  XV.,  provided  it  receive  a greater  number  of 
votes  than  are  given  for  the  second  or  third  Proposition, 
otherwise  it  shall  be  deemed  rejected,  and  such  of  the 
other  two  as  may  be  approved  by  a majority  of  the  votes 
cast  as  aforesaid  shall  be  a part  of  6aid  Article  XV. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I desire  to  have  it  print- 
ed, so  that  it  shall  be  considered  in  connection 
with  this  subject  when  it  shall  be  brought  be- 
fore the  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Proposition  will  lie 
upon  the  table,  with  an  order  to  print. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I move  we  take  a recess. 
The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12:25  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 :30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  (Mr.  Hunt 
in  the  Chair).  When  the  Convention  took  a 
recess  it  had  under  consideration  the  amend- 
ment of  the  delegate  from  Hancock  [Mr.  Byal], 
to  amend  the  amendment  proposed,  by  striking 
out  certain  words  in  section  three. 

Mr.  POND.  I desire,  if  it  be  in  order,  to 
move  to  strike  out  the  entire  section  and  insert — 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  is 
of  the  opinion  that  it  will  not  be  in  order  now, 
there  being  two  amendments  pending.  The 
delegate  can  send  it  up  to  be  read  for  infor- 
mation. It  will  come  in,  in  its  proper  order. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  section  3 and  insert: 

“The  General  Assembly  shall,  by  just  and  uniform 
rules,  provide  lor  the  valuation  and  taxation  of  prop- 
erty.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  motion  of  the  delegate  from  Han- 
cock [Mr.  Byal].  The  Secretary  will  read  the 
amendment  pending. 

The  Secretary  read : 


2034 


[137th 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pond,  Barnet,  Carbery.  [Friday, 


Mr.  Byal  moves  to  amend  by  striking  out  of  section  3, 
in  line  three,  the  word  “but”  and  the  word  “providing”, 
and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  “may  provide.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“Seo.  3.  Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  and 
uniform  rules,  all  real  and  personal  propertv,  so  that  all 
property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation, according  to  its  true  value  in  money,  and  may  pro- 
vide against  double  taxation.” 

Mr.  FOND.  I am  not  as  thoroughly  posted 
in  the  financial  and  monetary  affairs  of  the 
State  as  many  others.  Still,  I have  given  this 
subject  some  thought.  I have  seen,  to  some  ex- 
tent, as  has  been  said  upon  this  floor,  the  errors 
of  the  system  we  have  labored  under,  still  I do 
not  believe  it  is  wholly  vicious.  We  have  had 
no  experience  as  to  the  system  proposed.  Some 
States  have  adopted  it.  It  has  been  claimed  that 
the  taxation  of  choses  in  action  is  radically 
wrong.  To  that,  as  at  present  educated,  I can- 
not subscribe;  and  while  there  is  reason  for  it, 
to  some  extent,  reasons  why,  perhaps,  it  may 
ultimately  become  the  rule,  yet  I am  satisfied, 
not  only  for  myself,  but  for  the  people  of  the 
State,  that  we  are  not  prepared  for  any  such 
change  as  that.  I am  satisfied  that  if  this  last 
clause  in  this  Article  were  submitted  to  the 
people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  bearing,  as  it  does, 
on  its  face,  the  meaning  which  its  advocates 
claim  for  it;  to-wit,  that  the  lender  shall  not  be 
directly  taxed,  the  people  of  the  State,  with  all 
the  discussion  that  you  can  give  them  from  this 
day  till  the  final  vote  shall  be  taken,  cannot  be 
brought  up  to  the  adoption  of  any  such  prin- 
ciple, but  would  repudiate  it.  The  cry  will  be 
raised  that  the  lender  is  not  to  be  taxed,  that  the 
creditor  is  the  person  that  this  thing  is  to  reach 
directly.  You  may  talk  about  a diffusion  of 
taxes  as  much  as  you  please,  and  that  the  creditor 
is  taxed  as  directly  as  he  has  been,  because  he 
has  been  able  to  recover  the  taxes  from  those  to 
whom 

Mr.  BARNET.  Does  the  gentleman  mean 
what  he  states  ? 

Mr.  POND.  I believe  I do. 

Mr.  BARNET.  That  the  lender  shall  not  be 
taxed,  or  the  borrower  shall  not  be  taxed? 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  so  understand  the 
theory.  I understand  the  theory  to  be  that 
choses  in  action,  in  the  hands  of  the  holder 
shall  not  be  taxed;  that  the  mortgagee  shall  not 
be  taxed  upon  his  mortgage.  I understand  that 
by  the  theory  of  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Rowland].  I have  understood  that  double 
taxation  has  always  meant,  in  this  State,  taxa- 
tion of  identically  the  same  property  twice,  but 
from  the  debate  this  morning,  I am  led  to  un- 
derstand that  is  not  the  object  of  this  language, 
but  that  the  object  of  this  language  is  to  relieve 
from  taxation  property  that  is  invested  in  mort- 
gage securities.  It  is  said  that  it  creates  no 
new  property;  that  the  land  upon  which  it  is 
placed  is  taxed  in  the  hands  of  its  owner;  that 
the  mortgage  security  and  the  money  or  notes 
representing  it,  ought  not  to  be  taxed,  because 
you  are  taxing  the  property  twice ; and  that  is 
the  intention  of  inserting  this  clause. 

Does  the  gentleman  claim  that  in  the  prop- 
position  to  tax  anything  in  the  hands  of  the 
lender  of  money  or  in  the  hands  of  the  man  to 
whom  the  money  is  to  go,  the  property  that 
the  mortgage  represents— the  money  or  credit 


— is  not  to  be  taxed  at  all?  The  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  confines  it  to  this 
limitation,  that  it  shall  only  apply  where  sale 
of  land  has  been  made,  when  part  of  the  pur- 
chase money  has  been  paid.  I admit  that  if  it 
were  possible  to  tax  an  indiviual  who  has  pur- 
chased land  and  been  able  to  pay  only  a por- 
tion of  the  purchase  money,  to  tax  him  for  the 
actual  interest  he  owns  in  the  land  would  be 
equitable  and  just.  But  the  proposition  goes 
farther  than  that.  If  it  meaps  that  it  means 
that  every  person  whose  claim  is  secured  by 
mortgage  upon  any  land,  for  any  purpose,  the 
loan  of  money,  or  as  the  result  of  sale,  shall 
have  his  mortgage  claim  free  from  taxation. 
You  cannot  discriminate  between  the  sale  of 
land  with  the  balance  of  the  purchase  morjey 
unpaid,  secured  by  mortgage,  and  the  actual 
loan  of  money  to  an  individual  who  owns  land 
and  who  has  given  a mortgage  for  security.  If 
the  mortgage  is  to  be  the  touchstone,  the  mort- 
gage is  given  in  the  hands  of  the  mortgagee, 
and  the  claim  secured,  and  is,  therefore,  to  be 
exempt  from  tax,  as  I understand. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Where  a man  borrows 
money  upon  real  property,  it  is  fixed  and  cannot 
be  gotten  out  of  the  way,  and  other  property 
that  he  has  that  may  be  secreted  may  not  be 
taxed  even  once,  and  is  it  not  true  that  where  a 
man  borrows  five  thousand  dollars  on  property 
and  gives  a mortgage  therefor  that  the  person 
lending  him  money  absolutely  puts  the  taxes  as 
well  as  the  interest  on  the  borrower,  and  that 
he  pays  taxes  upon  ten  thousand  dollars  in- 
stead of  five  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  understand  that  it  is 
true  as  a matter  of  fact.  It  is  a pretty  theory. 
I am  not  well  enough  posted  on  lending  money 
to  say  it  will  operate  well  in  practice. 

It  appears  to  me  that  this  proposition  ought 
not  to  be  in  the  shape  in  which  it  is,  and  ought 
not  to  be  sent  before  the  people  in  the  shape  in 
which  it  is  for  the  reason  that  I have  given.  I 
believe  that  the  system  that  we  adopt  here  as  a 
mode  of  taxation  should  be  left  inflexible 
enough  so  that  the  experience  of  the  State  and 
its  people,  represented  as  it  is  by  the  General 
Assembly,  shall  adapt  taxation  to  the  changing 
and  fluctuating  character  of  the  times,  or  of 
future  times,  and  enable  them,  if  they  find  the 
system  that  they  have  adopted  and  acted  under 
for  a series  of  years  past,  has  been  inefficient  to 
correct  it,  and  if  in  the  future  they  shall  ever 
find  a more  just  diffusion  of  taxes  would  arise 
by  simply  taxing  the  real  estate  of  the  country, 
allow  them  to  try  the  experiment.  I see  no 
danger  resulting  therefrom. 

If  one  General  Assembly  should  see  fit  to 
adopt  such  a rule,  and  it  should  be  found  to 
work  badly,  then  it  is  an  easy  thing  for  the 
next  General  Assembly  to  change  it,  and  inau- 
gurate some  other  system.  The  design  of  the 
amendment  that  I had  offered  as  a substitute  for 
the  proposition  was  to  leave  this  matter  flexible 
enough  so  that  such  changes  might  be  made.  I 
object  to  this  Convention  providing  now  and 
here  for  the  direction  of  the  people  with  regard 
to  this  subject  matter  any  rule  that  shall  be  final 
as  to  the  valuation  and  taxation  of  property. 
I believe  in  leaving  it  to  the  experience  of  the 
legislators.  Leave  them  at  liberty  and  perfect 
freedom  to  change  the  present  rule  and  adopt 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pond,  Hitchcock,  Chapin,  Pratt,  Dorsey. 


2035 


Day.] 

March  13,  1874.] 


a new  one,  if  in  their  wisdom,  they  shall 
see  fit,  and  experience  will  justify  them 
in  doing  it.  I am  satisfied  that  it  will  re- 
sult, if  we  put  this  absolute  provision  in  the 
Constitution  providing  that  double  taxation  of 
this  sort  should  be  provided  against,  that  it 
will  be  a suggestion  that  the  people  of  the 
State  who  are  not  now  educated  enough  to  be- 
lieve in  it,  will  not  adopt.  But  I believe  that 
perhaps  the  time  may  come  when  a change  of 
some  kind  may  be  made. 

[Here  the  time  expired.] 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  rule  has  been  dis- 
pensed with  in  the  consideration  of  the  third 
section. 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  wish  to  occupy  the  time 
of  the  Convention  much  longer.  I say  that  I be- 
lieve this  thing  ought  to  be  left  open  to  their 
discretion,  that  we  ought  to  trust  the  General 
Assembly  in  this  matter.  You  have  now  a rule 
that  has  been  in  operation  since  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  of  1851 — 52.  That  rule  we  have 
had  experience  of.  Its  errors  and  defects  have 
been  felt  as  well  by  the  people  at  large  as  by  the 
members  of  this  Convention,  and  if  the  General 
Assembly  should  see  fit  to  adhere  to  it  as  a prin- 
ciple, let  them  do  it.  But  I do  not  think,  as  I 
said  before,  that  in  a section  of  this  sort  in  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  State,  there  should  be  a 
rule  that  should  govern  their  future  conduct. 
Leave  them  perfectly  at  liberty  to  adopt  a new 
rule — experiment  upon  it  if  they  please.  It  is  a 
matter  that  they  may  correct  at  the  next  Gener- 
al Assembly,  if  it  shall  be  found  to  operate  op- 
pressively and  to  the  injury  of  the  people. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
if  the  operation  of  a double  system  of  taxation, 
taxes  the  same  property  twice  ? 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  approve  of  the  State 
taxing  the  same  property  twice. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  Does  the  gentleman  approve 
of  property  being  taxed — what  I want  to  come 
at  is  this : Suppose  I have  a horse ; he  is  sub- 
ject to  taxation.  I sell  it  to  the  gentleman,  and 
he  gives  his  note  for  it.  He  has  to  pay  taxes  on 
the  horse,  and  I who  hold  the  note  would  have 
to  return  that  for  taxation.  That  is  taxation, 
virtually,  upon  the  same  property  twice.  That 
is  what  I want  to  provide  against. 

Mr.  POND.  As  I said,  my  education  in  this 
regard  has  been  very  much  neglected.  I do  not 
think  that  is  taxation  upon  the  same  property, 
and  I very  much  doubt  whether  the  Supreme 
Court  would  say  that  this  is  double  taxation. 
Double  taxation,  as  I understand  it,  is  taxation 
twice  upon  the  identical  property,  and  for 
that  a remedy  can  always  be  had.  If  a person’s 
money  is  wrongfully  taken  by  double  taxation, 
he  can  have  his  remedy.  But  the  theory  is, 
that  choses  in  action  shall  not  be  taxed.  The 
note  which  my  friend  holds  against  me  as  se- 
curity for  the  payment  of  the  money  for  his 
horse,  is  not  the  horse,  but  it  is  a claim  against 
me  generally  for  money.  It  is  property;  it  has 
value.  He  could  put  it  up,  and  if  I were  worth 
anything  he  could  sell  it. 

Mr.  PRATT.  He  would  not  have  taken  it  if 
he  did  not  believe  you  were  worth  anything. 

Mr.  POND.  Probably  not.  I doubt  whether 
he  would  have  let  his  horse  go  out  of  his  hands 
into  mine  anyhow,  without  security.  I appre- 
hend the  note  stands  in  the  place  of  money. 


Suppose  I had  paid  money,  gold,  ought  it  not  to 
be  taxed?  In  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a hun- 
dred it  is  more  valuable  than  money,  if  he  is  dis- 
posed to  carry  the  money  in  his  pocket;  because 
he  has  interest  upon  the  note.  According  to  my 
education  and  to  my  mode  of  viewing  it,  I see 
no  double  taxation  in  it.  But  that  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  proposition  we  are  looking  at. 

The  proposition  that  I suggest  leaves  the  thing 
open  to  the  General  Assembly  to  deal  with  it 
as  experience  may  indicate,  and  if  it  shall  be 
found  to  be  a wrong  system, they  can  adopt  any 
other,  but  if  it  shall  be  found  to  be  the  correct 
one,  they  can  stand  by  it.  I do  not  believe  the 
system  of  my  friend  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey] 
— that  rentals  are  the  proper  basis  of  taxation  in 
this  country — is  correct.  But  I think,  perhaps, 
in  the  settled  system  adopted  in  England  it 
might  do  where  estates  are  held  entailed  from 
generation  to  generation,  so  that  it  adapts  itself 
to  that  state  of  things,  and  rentals  might  be  a 
sound  guide  to  the  business  which  a man  does. 
But  in  this  country  we  know  that  people  have 
frequently  been  ruined  by  paying  rents  too  high. 
With  the  business  growing  as  it  is,  and  the  char- 
acter of  things  in  our  towns  and  cities,  I say  it 
affords  no  rule  to  guide  so  as  to  determine  this 
thing. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  ask  the  gentleman  if 
he  understands  that  I propose  to  introduce  any 
system  of  that  kind  into  the  Constitution? 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  so  understand  the  gen- 
tleman, but  I understand  him  as  making  the  ar- 
gument upon  the  basis  that  Adam  Clarke — 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Adam  Smith. 

Mr.  POND.  Adam  Smith,  I mean.  I hope 
the  learned  theologian  will  excuse  me. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I insist  that  Adam  Clarke  is  right. 

Mr.  POND.  I am  inclined  to  think  that  Adam 
Clarke  would  sustain  me. 

He  based  his  argument  upon  a theory  adapted 
to  the  atmosphere  of  England,  and  there  were 
practical  reasons  for  it  there,  but  I doubt  very 
much  whether  they  would  obtain  here.  I doubt 
very  much  whether  the  people  of  this  country 
are  ready  now  to  introduce  a scheme  of  this 
kind  that  will  last  for  a series  of  years.  That 
is  the  reason  I made  the  motion  to  allow  the 
Legislature  to  provide  uniform  rules  for  the 
valuation  and  taxation  of  property. 

The  language  of  the  amendment  is  this:  that 
“ that  the  General  Assembly  shall  provide  just 
and  uniform  rules  for  the  valuation  and  taxa- 
tion of  property.”  That  is  all  that  there  is  of 
it.  It  leaves  it  so  that  the  General  Assembly  can 
determine  as  experience  may  demand  whatever 
may  be  best  for  the  people  of  the  State. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  very  well  convinced 
from  facts  that  have  been  developed  during  the 
progress  of  this  discussion,  that  the  position 
which  I took  yesterday  is  correct ; that  we  have 
no  business  to  introduce  any  system  of  taxation 
in  this  Constitution;  that  the  Constitution 
which  we  frame  here,  the  organic  law  which 
we  form  for  the  use  of  the  people  of  the  State 
of  Ohio,  should  leave  the  General  Assembly 
perfectly  free  and  untrammelled  to  intro- 
duce any  mode  of  taxation  that  the  varying  cir- 
cumstances of  time  and  of  the  people  may 
demand.  But  there  are  some  general  princi- 
ples as  a matter  of  course,  that  can  be  brought  for- 
ward to  illustrate  and  prove  more  clearly  the  sys- 


2036 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION 

Dorsey,  Powell,  Pond,  Hale. 


tem  which  is  proposed.  I did  propose  a certain 
mode  of  taxation,  not  to  be  introduced  into  the 
Constitution  it  is  true,  but  which  I said  was 
worth  the  consideration  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, in  order  that  they  might  see  that  there  was 
a better  system  of  taxation  possible  to  be  intro- 
duced than  that  with  which  the  State  of  Ohio 
had  been  burdened  for  the  last  twenty  years 

Now,  the  basis  of  taxes,  that  upon  which 
taxation  is  founded,  consists,  first,  of  real  prop- 
erty ; secondly,  of  that  property  which  renders 
real  estate  valuable.  That  is  the  basis  of  all 
taxation.  First,  real  estate,  and  secondly,  that 
which  renders  real  estate  valuable,  and  wheth- 
er that  be  mercantile  or  manufacturing  stock, 
whether  it  be  notes  or  mortgage  bonds,  or 
whatever  article  you  please,  it  is  that  which 
becomes  subject,  in  some  shape  or  form,  to 
taxation.  But  the  fact  comes  up  here,  that 
while  you  can  see  the  real  estate,  while  it 
is  visible  and  tangible,  and  you  can  apply 
your  system  of  taxation  to  it  to  raise 
a revenue  from  it,  here  is  this  matter 
which  renders  the  real  estate  of  the  country 
valuable,  which  you  cannot  see,  which  is  in- 
tangible, which  is  invisible,  which  manages  to 
escape  taxation,  and  consequently  does  not 
bear  its  just  and  fair  proportion.  Now  I can 
see  that  an  equivalent  could  be  given  for  the 
invisible  and  intangible  matter  which  renders 
real  estate  valuable,  by  assessing  taxes  upon 
rentals.  I believe  that  to  be  a true  system.  I 
simply  state  this  to  show  what  the  propo- 
sition was  that  I proposed,  namely,  a tax 
upon  rentals,  because  it  is  something  visible, 
it  is  something  that  you  can  get  at,  and 
it  takes  the  place  of  taxes  upon  the  property 
which  you  cannot  get  hold  of.  I want  to  go  a 
step  further  and  say,  that  while  I do  not  ap- 
prove in  every  particular  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation,  there  are 
many  things  in  that  Report  which  I do  approve, 
and  approve  most  heartily,  and  one  of  the 
things  which  I do  approve  is  this  provision 
which  declares  that  double  taxation  shall  be 
provided  against  by  the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  No,  it  is  not  that  it  shall  be, 
but  the  proposition  is  that  it  may  be. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I understand  perfectly  well 
the  purpose  and  force  of  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Hancock  [Mr.  Byal],  and  I am 
opposed  to  that.  I do  not  propose  to  make  it 
merely  directory  with  the  General  Assembly, 
but  I would  say  that  the  General  Assembly 
shall  provide  against  double  taxation.  It  is 
this  double  taxation,  among  other  things,  under 
which  the  State  of  Ohio  has  labored.  It  has 
rendered  the  industry  of  the  State,  to  a large 
extent,  nugatory,  by  being  improperly  bur- 
dened during  the  last  twenty  years. 

Now,  I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  the  statement  of  double  taxation 
made  by  my  friend  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 
I shall  take  the  case  which  was  presented  to 
him  by  the  gentleman  from  Washington  [Mr. 
Chapin],  the  case  of  the  horse  that  was  sold, 
and  the  note  that  was  given  tor  the  horse.  The 
gentleman  from  Washington  [Mr.  Chapin]  says 
to  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]: 
“ I sell  you  a horse.  You  do  not  pay  me  for  it 
in  greenbacks,  but  you  give  me  a note  for  it.” 
The  note  bears  interest,  I apprehend.  I do  not 


[137th 

[Friday, 


think  my  friend  from  Washington  [Mr.  Cha- 
pin] would  take  a note  that  did  not  bear  inter- 
est. It  is  a note  bearing  interest,  I apprehend, 
and  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond] 
rises  in  his  place  and  says  that  he  does  not 
think  that  any  court  in  the  State  of  Ohio  would 
recognize  that  as  double  taxation,  because  the 
horse  is  one  value,  and  the  note  is  another 
value,  and  a value  bearing  interest.  Let  me  say 
to  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  that 
is  predicated  upon  very  bad  philosophy,  and  I 
apprehend  his  education  in  this  matter  of  tax- 
ation has  been  neglected,  or  he  would  not  have 
made  the  argument  which  he  did.  If  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  had  had  the 
greenbacks  in  his  pocket  with  which  to  pay  for 
the  horse,  I apprehend  he  would  have  paid  for 
him  with  them,  and  the  gentleman  from  Wash- 
ington [Mr.  Chapin]  would  not  have  to  pay 
taxes  upon  that,  but  it  would  be  exempt  from 
taxation  under  the  laws. 

Mr.  POND.  Suppose  I have  traded  with  him 
for  another  horse. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Very  well.  I want  to  go  a 
step  further.  I want  to  show  when  it  becomes 
double  taxation;  when  it  becomes  a burden 
upon  the  industry  of  the  country.  It  is  true 
that  my  friend  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  hap- 
pens to  be  a lawyer,  and  perhaps  he  would  not 
make  exactly  the  same  use  of  the  horse  as  some 
other  person,  who  might  purchase,  would  make 
of  it.  I shall  suppose  that  the  horse  which  my 
friend  from  Washington  [Mr.  Chapin]  sold,  was 
not  sold  to  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr. 
Pond]  but  sold  to  some  poor  man,  a farmer,  a 
gardner,  ora  drayman,  and  he  did  not  pay  for 
the  horse.  Why?  Because  he  had  nothing 
with  which  to  pay  for  him.  He  bought  that 
horse  and  gave  his  note  for  it  because  he  was 
notable  to  pay  for  it.  Now,  what  happens? 
Does  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond] 
stand  up  and  tell  me  that  there  were  two  values  ? 
No,  sir;  the  value  which  exists  in  the  note, 
the  poor  man  has  to  make  by  his  labor,  and  you 
tax  his  industry  double  by  making  him,  not  the 
man  to  whom  the  note  is  given,  pay  a tax  upon 
the  note.  You  ask,  how  does  the  poor  man  pay 
a tax  on  the  note  which  he  makes?  I answer : 
You  make  the  poor  man  who  is  using  the  horse 
for  the  purpose  of  deriving  from  its  labor,  value 
with  which  to  pay  for  the  horse,  pay  a tax  up- 
on the  horse  and  you  make  the  gentleman  from 
Washington  [Mr.  Chapin]  pay  a tax  upon  the 
note,  and  the  gentleman  from  Washington  [Mr. 
Chapin]  knowing  that  he  had  to  pay  a tax  upon 
the  note  added  that  much  more  to  the  interest 
or  to  the  amount  of  the  note,  and  thus  the  poor 
man  is  taxed  double.  If  that  is  not  double  tax- 
ation I would  like  to  know  what  the  gentleman 
from  Morgan  [Mr.  PondI  calls  double  taxation. 

Mr.  POND.  Suppose  he  does  not. 

Mr.  HALE.  If  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
Mr.  Dorsey]  will  allow  me  

Mr.  POND.  Suppose  the  horse  should  die 
on  his  hands  before  the  assessor  came  along. 
There  is  property  there  somewhere  for  my 
friend  from  Washington  [Mr.  Chapin]  has  the 
note. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  it  happens  to  die  upon  the 
poor  man’s  hands,  it  is  only  a stronger  reason 
why  there  should  not  be  double  taxation,  for 
you  make  him  pay  a tax  upon  that  from  which 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  13, 1874.]  Pond,  Dorsey,  Hale,  Rowland,  Pratt,  Johnson,  etc. 


2037 


he  could  no  longer  raise  the  money  in  order  to 
pay  what  is  due  to  the  gentleman  from  Wash- 
ington [Mr.  Chapin]. 

Mr.  POND.  The  gentleman  from  Washing- 
ton [Mr.  Chapin]  is  to  be  relieved  from  paying 
on  that  property. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  think  the  State  of 
Ohio  has  any  right  to  get  a tax  from  a dead 
horse. 

Mr.  POND.  Is  the  note  the  horse? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I apprehend  it  is  not,  but 
the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  wants 
to  make  out  that  it  is,  and  I hold  that  it  is  not. 
That  is  the  strength  of  my  argument,  that  the 
note  is  not  the  horse. 

Mr.  POND.  That  is  my  argument  that  it 
was  not.  That  is  the  reason  I think  the  note 
ought  to  be  taxed. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  true  that  the  horse  no 
longer  exists  out  of  which  the  value  to  pay  the 
note  was  to  be  created. 

Mr.  POND.  The  note  did  not  die  with  the 
horse. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Very  unfortunately  for  the 
poor  man,  it  did  not,  and  the  same  thing 
takes  place  continually  in  this  double  tax- 
ation, and  it  is  a double  taxation.  It  weighs 
upon  the  industry  of  the  country.  It  weighs 
upon  the  poor  man.  Suppose  a poor  man 
purchases  a farm  for  ten  thousand  dollars. 
He  pays  five  thousand  dollars  upon  it  and 
gives  his  notes  and  a mortgage  for  five 
thousand  dollars  more.  He  gives  those  notes 
and  the  mortgage  because  he  is  unable  to 
pay,  and  because  he  proposes  in  due  time,  by 
the  labor  of  his  hands  and  the  sweat  of  his 
brow,  to  create  the  money  out  of  that  farm 
with  which  to  pay  his  notes,  and  with  which 
to  lift  the  mortgage.  If  you  persist  in  making 
the  man  from  whom  he  purchased  that  farm, 
the  gentleman  from  Washington  [Mr.  Chapin] 
perhaps,  pay  taxes  on  those  notes,  or  on  that 
mortgage,  then,  as  a matter  of  course,  he  know- 
ing that  it  is  to  be  taxed  puts  the  amount  of  tax 
on  the  value  of  the  farm,  either  in  the  princi- 
pal or  the  note,  or  adds  it  on  the  interest.  It  is 
the  common  way  of  doing  business. 

Mr.  HALE.  I would  like  to  know  of  the 
gentleman,  before  he  goes  on,  whether  in  the 
case  he  puts,  of  the  horse  being  sold,  or  the  farm 
being  sold,  it  is  proposed  to  exempt  the  horse 
or  the  note,  the  farm  or  the  note?  Who  is  to 
pay  the  tax,  the  poor  man  who  bought  the 
horse  or  the  rich  man  who  sold  the  horse  and 
owns  the  note  ? Is  it  the  man  who  sold  the 
horse  and  the  man  who  sold  the  farm  that  is  to 
pay  ? There  might  be  some  force  in  the  gentle- 
man’s argument  when  he  speaks  of  the  poor 
man  who  holds  the  horse  and  the  poor  man  who 
holds  the  farm  and  pays  the  tax,  if  the  fact  did 
not  stare  him,  and  stare  every  man  in  the  face, 
that  the  rich  man  who  sold  the  horse,  and  the 
rich  man  who  sold  the  farm,  includes  in  the  va- 
lue of  the  horse  and  in  the  value  of  the  farm, 
that  tax  which  he  would  pay  on  the  notes.  In 
the  case  of  the  man  who  sells  the  horse  for  two 
hundred  dollars,  if  he  is  worth  ten  thousand 
dollars,  and  with  that  two  hundred  dollars  added 
to  his  property,  is  worth  ten  thousand  dollars, 
besides  the  horse,  that  is  ten  thousand  two  hun- 
dred dollars,  yet  you  exempt  him  from  paying 
a tax  on  the  two  hundred  dollars. 


Mr.  ROWLAND.  There  is  the  fallacy  of  that 
to  me.  He  cannot  be  worth  that  two  hundred 
dollars,  because  the  consideration  may  fail.  The 
man  may  break  up.  It  is  contingent  and  has 
not  a positive  value. 

Mr.  HALE.  The  horse  may  die. 

Mr.  PRATT.  And  the  house  may  burn  up. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  precisely  the  fact 
which  I want  to  present  to  the  Convention,  the 
certainty  which  the  State  has  in  getting  this 
revenue  depends  upon  the  contingency  of  the 
existence  of  this  property.  There  is  a proposi- 
tion which  I wisfi  to  lay  down  in  the  first  place, 
and  gentlemen  may  over  look  or  go  around  this 
matter  as  much  as  they  please.  I have  been 
thinking  over  it  for  a dozen  years  past,  at  least, 
and  I am  willing  to  stand  up  here  and  answer 
questions. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Then  I shall  ask  one. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Let  me  make  my  statement 
first.  I am  perfectly  willing  to  be  questioned, 
but  I want  to  lay  down  my  premises  as  I go 
along.  I say  that  from  which  the  State  is  to 
gain  a revenue  must  be  visible  and  tangible 
property. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Let  me  ask  here. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  One  step  further  and  I shall 
answer  the  question.  Whenever  the  holder  of 
visible  and  tangible  property  lets  it  go  out  of 
his  hands,  it  becomes  visible  and  tangible  pro- 
perty in  the  hands  of  another  man,  and  he  hav- 
ing use  of  it  is  bound  to  the  State  for  the  pay- 
ment of  his  portion  of  the  revenue  which  comes 
from  the  protection  of  that  property,  and  the 
man  that  owns  something  invisible,  ought  not 
to  be  made  to  pay  for  that,  because  to  a certain 
extent  that  invisible  and  intangible  property 
does  not  receive  the  protection  of  the  State,  as  I 
said  yesterday,  and  if  it  is  to  be  taxed  by  the 
State  he  will  take  care  that  when  he  allows  tan- 
gible property  to  go  out  of  his  hands,  and  takes 
that  which  is  invisible  and  intangible,  he  puts 
upon  that  invisible  and  intangible  property  a 
certain  rate  or  adds  to  it  a certain  amount  equal 
to  the  tax  which  he  expects  to  pay  to  the  State. 
Now  I shall  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  PRATT.  In  the  Convention  of  1850  did 
not  the  gentleman  vote  for  the  iron  rule  that 
that  Convention  made? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  has  expired  by  the 
statute  of  limitations.  The  foolish  things  that 
I did  in  1850,  I am  not  to  be  questioned  for  to- 
day. That  is  my  answer  to  that  question. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I wish  to  ask  a question. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I shall  take  the  transaction 
which  was  referred  to  as  an  illustration  of  what 
I wish  to  say.  My  friend  from  Washington 
[Mr.  Chapin],  owns  a horse  and  his  next  neigh- 
bor has  a hundred  dollars.  They  set  the  value 
of  the  horse  at  one  hundred  dollars.  Then 
there  is  two  hundred  dollars  in  property  of  a 
tangible  value  which  is  owned  by  these  two 
gentlemen,  one  having  the  horse  and  the  other 
the  one  hundred  dollars  which  he  has  paid  for 
it.  Under  this  transaction  the  gentleman  on 
my  left  [Mr.  Chapin],  is  relieved  from  paying  a 
tax  upon  the  horse,  and  in  lieu  of  that  he  has 
one  hundred  dollars  which  he  certainly  ought 
to  pay  tax  for.  The  other  gentleman  has  the 
horse  upon  which  he  pays  a tax.  Now  it  does 


[137th 


2038 REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Dorsey,  Johnson,  Griswold,  Gurley. 


not  appear  to  me  that  there  is  double  taxation 
in  that  transaction. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I wish  to  ask  the  gentleman 
a question. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Let  me  ask,  is  there  double 
taxation  in  that? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Most  assuredly  there  is,  and 
if  the  gentleman  will  answer  my  question  I can 
prove  it  to  him  in  five  minutes.  In  the  first 
place  I ask  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Johnson],  if  there  is  any  more  property  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  after  the  gentleman  sells  his 
horse  and  takes  a hundred  dollar  note  for  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  He  pays  one  hundred 
dollars  in  money. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Has  the  State  of  Ohio  any 
more  property  in  it  than  before  that  transac- 
tion? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I do  not  see  that  it  has. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then,  if  the  State  of  Ohio 
assesses  a tax  for  the  protection  which  it  extends 
to  property,  why  should  the  State  tax  one  hun- 
dred dollars  worth  of  property  which  has  no 
existence  and  that  it  does  not  protect  at  all  ? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  It  does  protect  it.  There 
is  two  hundred  dollars  worth  of  taxable  prop- 
erty. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Johnson]  told  me  that  there  was  no 
more  property  in  the  State  of  Ohio  than  before 
the  horse  was  sold. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  He  took  the  money  for  it. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Let  us  go  a step  farther. 
The  gentleman  from  Washington  [Mr.  Chapin] 
sells  a horse  to  the  gentleman  from  Warren 
[Mr.  Thompson],  and  gets  a note  for  one  hun- 
dred dollars.  Is  there  any  more  value  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  than  before  the  sale  was  made  ? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I think  not. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly  not.  What  do  you 
want  to  get  any  more  taxes  for,  when  you  have 
not  got  any  more  property?  and,  if  you  had 
twice  the  tax,  would  not  that  be  double  taxa- 
tion ? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then  I do  not  understand 
the  meaning  of  the  term. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I do  not  want  to  get  any 
more  tax  than  we  had  before. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Then  you  want  to  divide  it 
equally  between  the  gentleman  from  Washing- 
ton [Mr.  Chapin]  and  the  gentleman  from 
Warren  [Mr.  Thompson]? 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  It  certainly  appears  to  me 
that,  in  this  transaction,  there  are  two  hundred 
dollars  in  property,  and  but  one  hundred  dol- 
lars subject  to  taxation.  I think  that  is  a mis- 
take. The  note  which  this  gentleman  gives  for 
the  horse  is  worth  one  hundred  dollars,  or, 
if  he  did  not  give  his  note,  but  pays  the  money, 
the  hundred  dollars  in  money  which  he  pays  is 
another  hundred  dollars,  and,  instead  of  there 
being  but  one  hundred  dollars  there,  in  money 
or  property,  which  is  liable  for  purpose  of  tax- 
ation, it  appears  to  me  that  it  ought  to  be 
assumed  that  there  is  two  hundred  dollars’ 
worth  of  property  which  should  be  taxed. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I shall  endeavor  to  make  the 

entleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]  un- 

erstand  me.  I laid  down  the  proposition  yes- 
terday that  taxation,  being  a sovereign  power, 
was  exercised  by  the  State  in  consideration  of 


[Friday, 


the  protection  which  it  gives ; that,  for  every 
dollar  of  actual  property  in  the  State,  the  State 
had  a right  to  assess  and  tax ; but  it  is  not  right 
to  assess  and  tax  for  property  which  does  not 
exist.  The  gentleman  from  Coshocton  [Mr. 
Sample]  has  admitted  that  there  are  thousands 
of  dollars  upon  our  tax  lists  that  had  no  exist- 
ence whatever,  and  when  I put  the  question  to 
him  if  that  was  what  he  said,  he  admitted  that 
it  was,  and  I asked  him  this  plain  question: 
Do  you  then  say  that  the  system  of  taxation 
which  puts  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  dollars  on  the  tax  list  which  has  no 
existence  beyond  the  list,  and  allows  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  dollars  to  escape  from  taxation 
which  has  an  existence,  is  a just  and  right  sys- 
tem? and  he  said  he  could  not  think  of  any 
better.  I can  think  of  a better  one,  and  I ask 
the  Convention  to  listen  to  a plain,  simple 
proposition  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  double 
taxation. 

I lay  down  this  proposition  that  the  State  has 
no  right  to  tax  that  which  it  does  not  protect. 
It  has  aright  to  tax  all  the  property  within  its 
borders  over  which  it  exercises  protection.  A 
to-day  holds  a farm  worth  ten  thousand  dollars. 
That  is  ten  thousand  dollars  of  property  which 
the  State  of  Ohio  is  bound  to  protect,  and  from 
which  the  State  has  already  collected  a revenue. 
Every  gentleman  will  agree  to  that.  But  if  A 
sells  his  farm  to  B,  and  receives  ten  thousand 
dollars  in  money,  the  State  of  Ohio  has  precise- 
ly the  same  value  that  she  had  before.  The 
value  has  passed  from  one  owner  to  the  hands 
of  another,  One  man  holds  lands  which  he  did 
not  hold  before,  another  man  holds  money 
which  he  did  not  hold  before,  but  the 
State  has  precisely  the  same  amount  of 
property  that  it  had  before,  and  has  a 
right  to  assess  the  same  amount  for  taxes 
and  no  more.  But  if,  when  A sells  a farm  to  B, 
instead  of  paying  him  the  whole  amount  in 
money,  he  pavs  five  thousand  dollars  in  money, 
and  then  pays  five  thousand  dollars  in  notes 
and  a mortgage,  is  not  the  fact  still  true  that  the 
property  within  the  borders  of  the  State  subject 
to  taxation  has  not  been  increased  by  a single 
penny,  and  therefore  the  State  has  the  right  to 
tax  ten  thousand  dollars  in  the  farm,  and  tax 
the  money  if  it  be  in  taxable  shape,  but  it  has 
no  right  to  tax  anything  else,  and  the  very  mo- 
ment it  levies  such  tax  it  imposes  double  taxa- 
tion ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Does  not  the  State  protect 
the  man  in  holding  these  notes  just  the  same  as 
it  does  the  man  in  holding  the  land?  If  that  is 
the  basis  upon  which  taxation  is  founded,  why 
should  they  not  pay  as  much  on  one  as  on  the 
other?  I want  to  put  a case.  A man  has  fifty 
thousand  dollars  in  money  which  is  subject  to 
taxation.  If  he  sees  fit  to  change  that  fifty 
thousand  dollars  and  invest  it  in  bonds  of  a rail- 
road, and  those  bonds  bring  him  in  ten  or 
twelve  per  cent.,  the  amount  that  is  thus  con- 
verted into  those  securities  would  not  be  taxed, 
while  in  the  one  case  the  money  is  drawing  ten 
per  cent,  and  in  the  other  three  or  four. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  To  save  my  life,  I cannot  see 
anything  at  all  in  the  gentleman’s  argument.  If 
money  is  taxable  in  the  hands  of  A,  it  is  taxable 
when  it  goes  into  the  hands  of  B.  If  it  was  a 
farm  taxable  in  the  hands  of  A that  farm  was 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Dorsey,  Pratt,  Phellis. 


2039 


Day.] 

March  13,  1874.] 


taxable  when  it  goes  into  the  hands  of  B.  But 
if  B pays  A a certain  amount  of  money,  and 
then  gives  his  notes  and  mortgages  for  the  re- 
mainder, to  be  paid  in  one,  two,  three,  four  or 
five  years,  that  has  no  value  until  it  becomes 
actual  money.  Suppose  he  agrees  to  pay  five 
thousand  dollars,  in  sums  of  one  thousand  a 
year,  and  gives  his  mortgage  notes  to  that  effect. 
I say  that  those  five  mortgage  notes  of  a thou- 
sand dollars  each  ought  not  to  be  taxed  in  the 
hands  of  A,  because  they  are  not  yet  value  in 
existence.  They  are  value  to  be  created  by  the 
labor  of  B,  out  of  his  farm.  When  he  creates 
the  thousand  dollars  in  money,  and  pays  it  over 
to  A,  then  A pays  taxes  upon  it.  That  is  all 
right  and  proper.  There  is  an  additional  value 
which  is  protected  by  the  State.  When  he  has 
paid  two  thousand  dollars  there  are  two  thou- 
sand dollars  of  value  created,  and  when  he  makes 
five  thousand  dollars  and  pays  that  over,  there 
are  five  thousand  dollars  of  value  created,  but 
until  he  has  created  that  value  the  State  of  Ohio 
has  no  right  to  tax  upon  it,  and  if  it  does  impose 
a tax  upon  it,  it  does  it  by  a system  of  double 
taxation. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  there  nothing  in  the  five 
thousand  dollars  represented  by  the  notes  and 
mortgages  upon  the  real  estate  that  the  laws  of 
Ohio  protect  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  is  nothing  by  which 
the  laws  of  Ohio,  by  any  act  of  justice  has  any 
right  to  tax,  because  it  is  a thing  in  posse , it  is 
not  a thing  in  esse. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  does  not  answer  the  ques- 
tion. Is  there  any  thing  in  the  notes  and  mort- 
gages that  the  laws  of  Ohio  protect? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  They  protect  in  the  collection 
of  this  money. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Do  they  not  provide  a Record- 
er’s office  by  which  the  record  of  the  mortgage 
is  kept? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Of  course  they  do. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Do  they  not  provide  criminal 
laws  for  the  punishment  of  a theft  of  those  notes 
and  mortgages? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Of  course  they  do.  That  is 
all  right. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  five 
thousand  dollars  of  notes  and  mortgages  require 
more  protection  at  the  hands  of  the  law  than 
the  real  estate  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Even  if  that  were  true 
which  I do  not  admit  for  a single  moment,  it 
does  not  give  one  particle  of  strength  to  the  ar- 
gument of  the  gentleman,  because  the  wealth 
has  not  been  created,  and  the  State  of  Ohio  has 
no  right  to  tax  for  possible  wealth.  Not  a bit 
of  it.  She  has  a right  to  tax  for  wealth  which 
is  in  existence,  and  until  wealth  is  created  she 
does  not  tax  for  that  which  is  merely  possible. 
Now  the  State  of  Ohio  does  do  this.  It  protects 
me,  and  it  protects  every  man  in  the  labor  of 
his  hands,  and  in  that  which  we  expect  to  make 
by  the  labor  of  our  hands.  She  gives  us  protec- 
tion for  our  labor,  but  she  has  no  right  to  tax 
that  labor  before  it  produces  value.  When  that 
labor  produces  value,  and  when  that  labor  goes 
on  the  tax  list  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  then  there  is 
a right  and  a propriety  in  taxing  it,  and  not  be- 
fore. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Did  I understand  the  gentle- 
man correctly  a few  moments  ago  to  say,  that 


he  would  tax  everything  that  the  State  of  Ohio 
would  by  its  laws  protect  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I did  not  make  that  sweeping 
declaration.  I simply  started  out  by  saying 
that  taxation  was  based  upon  two  kinds  of  prop- 
erty. The  property  which  had  a tangible,  real, 
and  visible  existence,  that  is,  the  real  estate  of 
the  State,  and  that  which  is  invisible. 

Then  I said  that  the  real  estate  was  entitled  to 
the  protection  of  the  State,  and  the  State  had  a 
right  not  only  to  that  actual  value  which  was 
in  the  real  estate,  but  to  the  value  which  should 
be  made  out  of  it,  and  a right  to  tax  it  just  as 
fast  as  the  value  is  made  out  of  it,  but  not  the 
prospective  value  to  be  made  out  of  it. 

A gentleman  has  a farm  which  is  worth  a 
hundred  dollars  an  acre.  A railroad  passes 
through  it.  There  is  a convenient  place  for 
making  a depot  on  that  farm.  He  lays  out  a 
town.  He  lays  out  the  farm  which  is  worth  one 
hundred  dollars  an  acre,  into  village  lots,  and 
those  lots  of  one-eighth  or  one- tenth  of  an  acre 
are  worth  $150,  $200,  $300,  $500  or  $1,000  each, 
so  that  instead  of  the  land  being  worth  a hun- 
dred dollars  an  acre,  it  becomes  worth  from 
three  thousand  to  five  thousand  dollars  an  acre. 
Now,  the  State  of  Ohio  protects  that  land,  and 
the  value  of  that  property,  and  the  enhanced 
value  of  that  property,  and  just  as  fast  as  that 
property  comes  up  to  that  value,  when  the 
owner  can  realize  that  advance  out  of  it,  the 
State  of  Ohio  taxes  him  on  it.  It  does  not  tax 
him  on  the  prospective  value  of  the  property, 
although  it  may  be  true,  and  every  man  may  be 
able  to  see  that  in  four,  five,  six  or  ten  years, 
that  that  property  will  be  worth  ten  thousand 
dollars  a lot  instead  of  being  worth  one  hundred 
dollars  an  acre.  The  State  of  Ohio  does  not  tax 
him  upon  that  amount  until  the  property  be- 
comes worth  it.  It  does  not  tax  him  upon  the 
prospective  value,  but  upon  the  actual  value. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  I wish  to  ask  if  it  would  not 
be  easy  for  a man,  under  your  theory,  who  was 
worth  fifty  thousand  dollars,  for  instance,  to 
take  his  fifty  thousand  dollars,  and  lay  it  out  in 
real  property,  in  land,  and  then  sell  out  on  long 
time  at  a high  rate  of  interest,  and  avoid  taxes 
entirely. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly  it  would. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  Are  there  not  plenty  of  men 
in  Ohio  who  would  do  it,  all  the  time,  and  avoid 
paying  taxes? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  There  is  exactly  the  fallacy 
in  this  argument.  I admit  fully  the  point  the 
gentleman  from  Madison  [Mr.  Phellis]  pro- 
poses. I ask  the  gentleman  if  he  is  not  capable 
of  seeing — I know  he  is  capable  of  seeing  this 
thing.  My  argument,  a moment  ago,  was  that 
the  State  of  Ohio  gets  taxes  for  all  of  this  actual 
value.  It  does  not  get  value  for  all  of  this  pros- 
pective value,  and  if  I had  land  worth  ten 
thousand  dollars  to-day,  and  my  friend  from 
Madison  [Mr.  Phellis]  saw  that  some  time  or 
other  this  property  would  be  worth  one  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars,  and  comes  along  and 
gives  me  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  it, 
that  is,  gives  me  his  notes  on  long  time  for  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars,  I tell  him  that  the 
State  of  Ohio  will  first  get  taxes  on  the  ten 
thousand  dollars,  which  is  the  actual  value,  and 
when  it  rises  to  twenty  thousand  dollars,  it 
will  get  a tax  on  that,  and  if  he  holds  the  prop- 


2040 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [137th 

Dorsey,  Phellis,  Voris,  Pratt.  [Friday, 


erty  until  it  rises  to  one  hundred  thousand,  the 
State  of  Ohio  will  get  a tax  on  that,  and  it  is 
perfectly  right  and  proper,  but  the  State  of 
Ohio  has  no  right  to  tax  the  man  who  holds  the 
notes  on  that  property,  which  is  only  going  to 
be  prospectively  worth  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  Here  is  the  point.  I am 
worth  fifty  thousand  dollars.  I have  that  in 
cash  in  my  pocket.  I take  it  out  and  pay  it 
for  that  land. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  That  is  a different  thing.  I 
understood  the  gentleman  to  say  he  gave  his 
notes. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  No.  I am  worth  fifty  thou- 
sand dollars,  and  I pay  for  the  land.  Then  I 
may  sell  that  land  on  long  time,  and  make  a 
mortgage  if  you  please,  and  get  a high  rate  of 
interest  on  the  note.  Do  not  you  see  I avoid 
taxes  on  the  fifty  thousand  dollars  on  your 
theory  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I see  that  the  State  of  Ohio 
gets  all  the  tax  she  is  entitled  to. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  Where  do  I pay  the  tax. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  The  gentleman  may  avoid  it, 
but  the  land  is  taxed,  and  the  money  also  if  in 
the  State  and  in  taxable  shape.  Taxation  is 
founded  upon  general  rules,  and  not  upon  indi- 
vidual cases.  If  a man  pays  fifty  thousand 
dollars  for  a piece  of  property,  it  matters  not 
whether  the  property  is  worth  that  or  not. 
The  State  taxes  the  value  of  the  property, what- 
ever it  may  be.  That  is  all  there  is  of  it.  Now, 
I would  say  to  the  gentleman,  because  it  is 
probably  unnecessary  to  prolong  this  matter,  I 
have  endeavored  to  lay  down  certain  plain, 
obvious,  and,  as  I hold  them,  true,  principles  on 
the  subject  of  taxation.  I do  not  ask  this  Con- 
vention to  incorporate  any  such  principles  into 
the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  The 
great  variety  of  opinions  that  are  existing  here 
to-day,  in  this  Convention,  held  by  well- 
informed  gentlemen  from  all  parts  of  the  State, 
show  conclusively  that  we  are  not  prepared  to 
incorporate  any  system  into  the  Constitution 
upon  the  subject  of  taxation. 

Let  us  leave  that  whole  matter  to  the  General 
Assembly.  The  General  Assembly  is  more 
competent  than  we  are  to  provide  for  it,  and 
as  a matter  of  course,  with  the  varying  circum- 
stances of  the  State,  with  the  changes  which 
take  place  from  year  to  year,  if  the  General 
Assembly  happens  to  make  a mistake  on  the 
subject  of  taxation,  it  will  be  easier  to  correct 
it.  If  we  make  a mistake  it  will  be  vital.  A 
mistake  was  made  twenty  years  ago  by  putting 
an  inflexible  rule  into  the  Constitution,  from 
which  we  have  scarcely  been  able  to  vary.  As 
was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly],  we  have  varied  from  that  rule  because 
we  have  varied  from  that  rule  because  we  have 
been  forced  to  do  it  to  a certain  extent,  but 
when  we  did  do  that  we  did  it  in  violation  of 
law  and  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  I 
propose  to  put  no  such  inflexible  rule  in  this 
Constitution.  I propose  to  leave  the  General 
Assembly  perfectly  free  with  regard  to  this 
matter,  and  if  I have  endeavored  to  lay  down 
certain  principles  of  taxation,  it  is  simply  be- 
cause I want  to  show  that  there  are  certain 
principles  upon  which  taxation  is  founded,  but 
at  the  same  time,  I do  not  desire,  by  any  means, 


to  have  those  principles,  upon  my  authority,  or 
simply  because  it  was  my  opinion,  incorporated 
into  the  organic  law  of  the  State. 

Mr.  VORtS.  I rise  to  inform  the  Convention 
that  what  I do  not  know  upon  this  subject 
would  be  the  foundation  of  a splendid  argu- 
ment, and  in  that  I am  somewhat  different  from 
the  gentlemen  who  have  been  discussing  the 
question;  but  wherein  the  difference  lies  I am 
unable  to  state. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  has  been 
among  the  angels  for  the  last  week  or  so,  and 
has  not  got  down  to  earthly  matters. 

Mr.  VORIS.  That  may  all  be;  but  there  is 
one  thing  that  I do  understand,  and  that  is,  that 
the  simple  question  now  before  the  Conven- 
tion is  whether  it  is  policy  for  us  to  insert  into 
this  portion  of  the  Constitution  a section  au- 
thorizing the  General  Assembly  to  provide 
against  double  taxation.  No  proposition  is  better 
understood  or  none  received  with  the  fuller  con- 
currence of  every  delegate  upon  the  floor  than 
the  fact  that  the  power  of  the  General  Assembly 
to  legislate  upon  this  question  is  sovereign  and 
plenary,  unless  we  fix  some  provision  in  our 
Constitution  against  the  exercise  of  this  power, 
therefore  there  is  no  necessity  on  our  part  of 
affirmatively  stating  that  that  power  does  in- 
here in  the  General  Assembly,  for  it  is  one  of 
the  powers  they  may  exercise  as  of  the  recog- 
nized law  making  powers  of  the  State.  The 
policy  of  inserting  a provision  of  this  kind  into 
the  Constitution  consists  in  this,  that  gentle- 
men upon  this  floor,  though  the  proposition  it- 
self seems  to  be  simple  enough,  the  moment 
they  get  up  to  discuss  the  matter,  take  such  di- 
verse views  upon  it  that  no  two  gentlemen, 
hardly,  seem  to  understand  this  matter  alike. 

Now,  if  we  leave  out  this  latter  clause,  adopt- 
ing the  remainder  of  the  section,  or  leave  the 
general  principle  announced,  and  in  such  a 
manner  that  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  what 
powers  may  be  exercised  by  the  General  As- 
sembly, we  shall  have  done  all  that  vve  ought  to 
do.  I do  not  believe  this  clause  or  that  clause 
or  the  other  clause  upon  the  subject  of  double 
taxation  enters  into  this  discussion  legitimately. 
There  is  not  a gentleman  who  has  addressed 
this  Convention  but  admits  the  power  on  the 
part  of  the  Legislature  to  provide  against  the 
double  taxation  of  property.  There  is  no  man 
here  in  favor  of  it.  The  only  question,  then, 
here  existing  is  between  the  gentlemen  as  to 
whether  this  or  that  or  the  other  mode  of  taxa- 
tion does  in  fact  tax  property  twice.  If  the 
General  Assembly  possesses  any  wisdom  or  any 
sense  of  justice,  there  is  no  danger  that  they 
will  seek  to  fasten  upon  some  property  double 
taxation;  it  is  unjust,  it  is  inequitable,  and  the 
very  section  that  you  are  discussing  contains 
an  inhibition  upon  the  General  Assembly 
against  inaugurating  inequitable  taxation,  and 
it  further  provides,  and  that  covers  the  whole 
ground,  that  property  shall  be  taxed  according 
to  its  true  value  in  money,  so  that  all  may 
equally  share  the  public  burdens. 

Double  taxation  is  not  an  equal  taxation  of 
property,  and  it  would  be  in  direct  contraven- 
tion of  an  express  provision  of  the  Constitution, 
though  the  latter  clause  were  stricken  out. 
This  is  mere  tautology,  surplusage.  It  does  not 
amount  to  anything,  or  if  it  does,  it  is  simply  a 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Voris,  Powell,  Pratt,  Pease. 


2041 


Day.] 

March  13,  1874.] 


reaffirmance  of  what  is  contained  in  the  body 
of  this  section.  We  do  not  want  it  there  unless 
it  amounts  to  something.  We  do  not  want  it 
there  unless  it  answers  some  practical  purpose. 
Gentlemen  who  have  been  urging  that  this 
clause  should  be  retained  here,  have  also  urged 
upon  this  Convention  that  we  should  leave  the 
door  wide  open  so  that  the  discretion  of  the 
General  Assembly  may  be  exercised  at  any 
time  when  the  subject  matter  of  taxation  comes 
before  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Then  I ask  the  gentleman 
why  he  does  not  move  to  strike  out? 

Mr.  VORIS.  There  is  a motion  already 
pending  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Very  good. 

Mr.  VORIS.  But  then  the  amendment  to  the 
amendment  simply  asserts  the  plain,  express 
powers  that  are  already  conferred  upon  the 
General  Assembly.  Not  one  of  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  is  inconsistent  with  the 
exercise  of  this  power  by  the  General  Assembly. 
Reporting  it  here  gives  no  sort  of  force  and 
effect  upon  the  powers  of  the  General  Assembly. 
But  it  is  suggested  here  that  property  in  posse , 
instead  of  property  in  esse,  has  been  taxed  under 
the  provisions  of  your  legislation  now  in  force, 
and  it  is  illustrated  by  saying  that  choses  in 
action,  or  promissory  notes  that  are  given  for 
property,  are  simply  property  in  posse.  I do  not 
know  whether  that  is  true  or  not.  I do  not  care 
whether  it  is  true  or  not.  I have  my  own 
opinion  about  it,  however,  but  if  it  be  simply 
property  in  posse , it  should  still  be  taxed  accord- 
ing to  its  true  value  in  money.  That  would  be 
within  the  provision  of  this  section.  If  it  is 
worth  anything,  it  is  worth  just  so  much  for 
taxation.  If  your  chose  in  action  is  not  worth 
taxing,  it  certainly  is  not  worth  having. 

The  provisions  of  this  section  provides  for 
cases  of  that  kind,  and  there  is  no  necessity  of 
wasting  the  time  of  this  Convention  in  settling 
these  little  distinctions,  when  the  provisions  as 
they  stand,  irrespective  of  this  clause,  provide 
for  equitable  and  equal  taxation  of  all  classes 
of  property. 

I believe  I have  met  fairly  all  there  is  in- 
volved in  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  prop- 
osition now  pending.  I believe  it  is  a question 
of  policy  whether  we  should  or  should  not  re- 
strict the  power  of  the  Legislature  in  that 
behalf.  With  this  clause  stricken  out  you  have 
the  essence  that  is  sought  to  be  incorporated 
into  the  Constitution  with  the  clause  put  in  it. 
I shall,  therefore,  vote  for  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  simply  an  affirmance  of  the 
power  that  already  exists,  and  is  recognized  by 
everybody  as  being  in  the  law  making  power  of 
this  State,  but  I shall  vote  for  the  motion  to 
strike  out  the  whole  clause. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  question  now  before  the 
Convention  is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hancock  [Mr.  Byal],  to  strike  out 
“ providing”  and  insert  “ the  Legislature  may 
provide  against  double  taxation.”  Against 
that  proposition  I shall  most  certainly  vote.  I 
wish  the  section,  as  it  now  stands,  entirely 
stricken  out.  I do  not  want  it  to  stand  as  the 
closing  clause  of  this  section,  sugar-coated  and 
then  permitted  to  remain  at  all— I don’t  wish  it. 

I do  not  wish  to  mislead  anybody  in  the  Con- 1 


vention  as  to  my  purpose  in  making  the  motion 
that  I did  this  morning.  I propose  before  this 
section  has  passed  directly  under  the  revision 
of  the  Convention  to  make  one  motion  further, 
and  that  is,  to  strike  out  in  the  first  line  the 
word  “equitable,”  in  order  that  the  section 
may  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  uniform  rules,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  so  that  all  prooerty  shall 
bear  an  eqin.1  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation  accord- 
ing to  its  true  value  in  money,” 

I hope  to  bring  the  question  squarely  before 
this  Convention  whether  we  shall  reimpose  up- 
on the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Ohio  that 
limitation  of  power  that  has  been  spoken  so 
much  in  derogation  of,  “the  iron  rule  ” of  the 
Constitution  of  1851,  that  all  the  property  of 
the  State  of  Ohio  whatever  kind  and  nature 
shall  stand  equal  and  alike  before  the  law  sub- 
ject to  taxation.  I shall,  therefore,  vote  against 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Hancock 
[Mr.  Byal].  I shall,  at  the  proper  time,  make 
this  motion  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  this 
question  fairly  before  the  Convention,  for  its 
suffrage.  I wish  the  Convention  to  answer  the 
question  squarely  whether  they  do  or  do  not  in- 
tend to  abrogate  that  rule. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I have  two  purposes  in  view 
in  attempting  to  say  anything  on  this  proposi- 
tion. One  is  to  indicate  that  I do  not  know 
anything  about  it,  and  the  other  is  to  tire  the 
Convention  so  that  they  come  to  a very  early 
vote  upon  the  question.  If  I succeed  in  the 
latter  I shall  say  I have  done  well. 

I think  enough  has  already  transpired  here 
to  indicate  that  we  cannot  safely  furnish  a code 
for  the  Legislature  or  for  the  State  of  Ohio  in 
determining  the  mode  of  taxation  in  this  State. 
There  are  probably  as  many  different  opinions 
with  regard  to  this  tax  question  as  there  are 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  none  of  them 
perhaps,  seeing  it  in  the  same  light.  I do  not 
believe  it  would  be  advisable  to  establish  a code, 
if  we  could,  consequently  I think  it  is  not  ad- 
visable to  attempt  it.  I am  in  favor  of  striking 
out  this  clause,  “To  provide  against  double 
taxation,”  for  several  reasons.  I shall  not  at- 
tempt to  enumerate  them  all,  but  shall  refer  to 
enough  to  satisfy  myself. 

The  first  is,  I do  not  believe  anybody  on  earth 
could  get  any  meaning  from  it.  It  would  take 
somebody  higher  than  a Representative  to  know 
what  it  is.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the 
courts  might  do  it.  I do  not  believe  that  the 
supreme  court  can  do  it.  They  may  establish 
an  arbitrary  rule ; they  may  attempt  to  do  it, 
but  they  can  never  squarely  settle  the  question. 

I say  this  difficulty  is  inherent  in  the  very  thing 
itself.  I believe  that  the  idea  of  double  taxation 
itself  enters  into  most  everything  that  is 
taxed,  and  if  you  undertake  absolutely  to  release 
the  property  of  the  State,  in  whatever  form, 
from  what  may  possibly  be  double  taxation, 
you  must  necessarily  impose  a very  heavy  bur- 
den upon  a very  small  part  of  the  property  of 
the  State. 

The  question  of  taxing  promissory  notes, 
received  for  the  sale  of  real  estate,  has  been 
referred  to.  Now,  I apprehend  it  would  be  con- 
ceded that  if,  instead  of  the  real  estate  having 
been  sold  and  promissory  notes  taken  for  it,  you 
had  received  your  pay  in  money,  nobody  doubts 


2042 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pease,  Barnet,  Chapin,  Bishop. 


but  that  money  should  be  taxed.  If  you  tax 
moneys  and  credits  at  all,  it  is  clear  that  notes 
should  be  taxed,  and  should  be  taxed  as  money 
according  to  their  value.  I believe  that  it  is  an 
equitable  and  just  rule  that  all  the  property  of 
the  State  should  be  taxed,  and  that  as  money  is 
the  representative  of  all  values,  that  money  in 
any  form  should  be  taxed,  which  can  be  reached, 
and  so  if  I received  these  promissory  notes  for 
the  sale  of  a farm  or  a horse,  I am  simply  re- 
ceiving, in  another  way,  the  money  for  that 
horse  or  for  that  farm.  It  is  the  representative 
of  money.  It  takes  the  place,  for  the  time 
being,  of  money,  and  if  you  pay  taxes  on 
credits,  that  property  should  be  taxed  as  much 
as  the  horse,  or  the  sheep,  or  anything  else. 

The  difficulty  which  strikes  me  with  regard 
to  that,  and  what  prejudiced  my  mind  against 
the  idea  of  taxing  moneys  and  credits,  is  the 
difficulty  of  getting  at  them  with  any  accuracy 
— that  is,  the  rascality  that  is  practiced  through- 
out the  State  in  bringing  money  and  credits 
upon  the  duplicate.  If  this  can  be  accom- 
plished ; if  the  Legislature,  in  its  wisdom,  can 
bring  these  upon  the  duplicate,  in  such  a man- 
ner as  that  they  shall  bear  their  equal  burdens, 
they  certainly  ought  to  do  it;  but  if  the  Legis- 
lature cannot  succeed  in  doing  that,  if  they  can- 
not succeed  in  bringing  more  than  one-tenth  or 
one-twentieth  of  the  money  or  credits  upon  the 
duplicate,  I say  it  would  be  wisdom  on  the  part 
of  the  Legislature  to  abandon  the  idea  of  taxing 
moneys  and  credits  at  all.  It  indicates  the  want 
of  square  honesty  on  the  part  of  individuals  that 
are  taxed.  I do  not  believe  it  inheres  in  the 
system  itself ; it  inheres  in  the  want  of  integ- 
rity of  the  persons  listing  this  class  of  prop- 
erty. 

We  have  returned  for  taxation  $32,909,000 
in  cash  in  Ohio.  Does  anybody  in  reality  be- 
lieve that  sum  begins  to  cover  or  approximate 
the  value  of  money  in  Ohio?  And  yet  every 
single  dollar  of  money  in  Ohio,  according  to  the 
theory,  and  the  just  theory,  should  bear  equally 
its  just  burdens  of  taxation.  Take  the  credits, 
for  instance,  and,  according  to  the  returns,  they 
amount  to  $110,000,000.  Does  anybody  suppose 
this  amount  begins  to  cover  the  credits  in  Ohio  ? 
I guarantee  that,  in  this  city  alone,  right  here 
in  Hamilton  county,  you  can  more  than  tripli- 
cate that  amount.  Your  private  banks  through- 
out the  State  represent  ten  times  that  amount, 
and  yet  your  private  banks  escape  almost  every 
dollar  of  taxation.  Now,  this  is  not  right;  and 
yet  it  is  very  evident  that  we  cannot  remedy  it 
here.  I do  not  know  that  it  would  be  advisable 
to  attempt  it  here.  For  one,  I believe  in  leaving 
this  subject  entirely  to  the  Legislature.  If 
there  is  any  one  thing  that  the  Legislature 
should  be  capable  of  doing,  it  is  to  exercise  the 
power  of  taxation.  They  come  fresh  from  the 
people,  and  know  their  needs.  They  know  the 
difficulties  of  reaching  this  property,  and  I am 
in  favor  of  leaving  it  in  such  shape  as  that  they 
can,  from  time  to  time,  adjust  it  as  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  case  may  require,  and  then,  it  seems 
to  me,  you  have  done  the  wise  thing. 

But  1 want  to  say  a word  with  regard  to  this 
matter  of  double  taxation.  Gentlemen  pre- 
tend to  say  that  where  a farm  is  sold  and  notes 
are  taken  for  it,  that  to  pay  a tax  upon  the  farm 
and  to  pay  a tax  upon  the  notes  is  double  taxa- 


[137th 

[Friday, 


tion.  Is  that  any  more  a double  taxation  than 
it  is  where,  for  instance,  the  wholesale  dealer  of 
your  city,  a man  having  say,  a million  of  prop- 
erty engaged  in  his  business  or  a half  a mil- 
lion, pays  taxes  upon  that  ? Does  not  your 
merchant,  your  large  wholesale  dealer,  pay  an 
average  monthly  tax?  He  sells  to  another 
wholesale  dealer  in  an  adjoining  county.  That 
dealer  in  the  adjoining  county  buys  no  goods 
perhaps  from  any  other  person  than  from  this 
wholesale  dealer  in  this  city.  He  pays  a tax  on 
the  same  property  that  the  wholesale  dealer  of 
the  city  did.  The  jobber,  as  in  the  county  as  he 
is  called,  sells  to  the  retailer  who  pays  the  tax 
upon  that  same  property  again.  It  is  a month- 
ly average  of  the  value,  and  there  you  have  three 
sets  of  taxes  levied  upon  the  property  in  the 
State  in  three  different  counties.  That  is  true 
with  regard  to  all  the  merchandise  of  the  State. 
To  say  that  this  property  should  be  relieved 
from  the  tax  duplicate  I do  not  believe.  There 
is  no  other  way,  in  my  judgment,  to  adjust  the 
matter  than  to  put  it  upon  a money  basis,  and 
where  you  make  every  dollar  in  the  State  re- 
spond to  the  extent  of  its  just  share,  you  have 
reached  a wise  end. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I wish  to  direct  the  gentle- 
man’s attention  to  one  point.  He  has  referred 
to  the  taxation  of  merchandise  three  times.  Is 
it  not  possible  that  you  are  taxing  it  ten 
times? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Does  not  the  gentleman 
know  that  that  tax  must  be  paid  in  the  end  by 
the  consumers? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Precisely,  the  same  as  in  buy- 
ing a farm  or  in  buying  a horse,  the  man  who 
buys  it  buys  it  without  reference  to  the  fact 
that  it  is  subject  to  taxation,  and  that  helps  to 
form  the  price.  He  buys  his  farm  with  refer- 
ence to  the  known  fact  that  he  has  that  burden 
to  bear  and  you  cannot  relieve  it  if  you  try.  If 
you  could  adopt  a clause  in  this  Constitution 
that  would  reach  the  hearts  of  men  and  lay 
them  open  to  the  tax  gatherer,  as  they  are  laid 
open  to  the  Almighty,  there  would  be  no  difficul- 
ty in  adjusting  an  equal  taxation. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I understand  the  gentleman 
to  say  that  goods  are  taxed  two,  three  or  four 
times. 

Mr.  PEASE.  As  often  as  they  change 
hands. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  The  same  goods?  Now,  I do 
not  understand  it  so.  The  property  is  returned 
for  taxation,  say  on  the  first  Monday  in  April. 
If  the  goods  are  in  the  hands  of  the  whole- 
saler how  can  they  be  in  the  hands  of  the  re- 
tailer at  the  same  time  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Simply  because  they  are  not 
taxed  in  his  hands  on  the  first  day  of  April. 
That  is  the  reason.  They  are  taxed  according 
to  their  value  lor  the  twelve  months. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  The  twelve  preceding 
months? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
one  question  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  If  I know  how  to  answer  it. 
I make  that  reservation  always. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Is  it  not  fairly  presumable 
that  they  are  listed  for  taxation  on  or  about  the 
first  of  April? 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pease,  West,  Smith  of  H.,  Dorsey. 


2043 


Day.] 

March  13,  1874.] 


Mr.  PEASE.  No,  sir,  it  is  not.  Under  the 
law  the  average  is  taken  for  the  year  preceding, 
so  that  just  as  often  as  this  merchandise  changes 
hands  it  is  taxed,  and  very  rightly,  and  I can 
see  no  other  way  of  doing  it. 

Now,  I am  free  to  say,  as  I have  intimated, 
that  unless  there  is  some  way  of  getting  this 
money  and  these  credits  squarely  upon  the  du- 
plicate, so  that  the  dishonest  men,  who  have 
escaped  taxation,  and  the  honest  man,  shall 
hear  the  burdens.  I would  blot  them  all  out. 
I do  not  believe  it  will  be  such  a hardship  as 
has  been  intimated  here.  I understand,  of 
course,  that  there  would  be  a great  hue  and  cry 
raised  among  the  people  against  the  idea  of 
dropping  out  moneys  and  credits,  but  I believe 
that  in  the  end  it  will  adjust  itself — all  prices 
are  adjustable  with  reference  to  the  differences 
that  may  exist  surrounding  them — and  if  mon- 
eys and  credits  were  exempted  from  taxation  I 
believe  that  in  the  end  we  would  get  a better 
system  of  taxation  than  we  can  in  any  other 
way.  I believe  it  would  reduce  the  rate  of  in- 
terest, and  let  us  see  how  that  would  be  done. 

Suppose  that  half  the  people  of  the  State 
should  sell  off  their  real  property,  and  convert  it 
into  money  or  credits,  what  do  you  suppose  they 
can  do  with  that  money  and  those  credits  after 
they  have  got  them  ? they  cannot  sew  them  up. 

Mr.  WEST.  Somebody  would  buy  them. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Buy  them!  How?  they  would 
be  reduced  in  value  in  the  market.  Money 
would  be  dead  stock  upon  their  hands,  they 
would  have  so  much  of  it,  and  it  would  be  nec- 
essary to  reduce  the  price  of  money  or  the  rate 
of  interest,  and  they  being  reduced,  would  it  not 
necessarily  reduce  the  price  of  everything?  so 
that  I believe  in  the  end  you  could  better 
adjust  the  tax  and  escape  the  great  wrong  which 
is  now  committed  upon  the  State.  Escape  the 
infinite  amount  of  perjury  which  is  every  year 
practiced  through  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  State. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I want  to  say  a 
word  or  two  toward  a right  understanding  of 
this  proposition  before  the  Convention. 

In  relation  to  the  question  which  is  before  us, 
that  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams,  [Mr. 
Pratt],  to  strike  out  the  last  clause  of  section 
three,  I wish  to  say,  as  far  as  I am  personally 
concerned,  it  is  a matter  of  entire  indifference  to 
me  whether  it  is  stricken  out  or  retained. 

In  framing  this  section  three,  the  Committee 
found  themselves  encountered  with  two  classes 
of  ideas,  seemingly  in  antagonism  to  each  other, 
and  those  same  classes  of  thought  have  devel- 
oped themselves  in  this  Convention  in  the  dis- 
cussion now  pending.  Those  antagonistic 
opinions  have  in  view  different  and  opposing 
lines  of  policy.  One  seeks  to  retain  on  the  real 
estate  of  Ohio  not  only  what  it  should  bear,  its 
just  proportion  of  the  public  burdens,  but  de- 
sires that  it  should  be  relieved  from  excessive 
taxation  by  bringing  upon  the  duplicate  the  in- 
creased aggregate  of  the  personal  wealth  of  the 
State  in  the  shape  of  personal  property  in  what- 
ever form  it  may  exist.  On  the  other  side,  it  is 
desired  that  we  should  rely  to  a great  extent 
upon  the  tangible  property  of  the  State  for  the 
payment  of  public  buidens,  in  order  to  en- 
courage the  increase  of  population,  and  to  in- 
vite wealth  from  abroad.  It  is  insisted  that  by 


extending  a partial  exemption  from  taxation  to 
the  commercial  and  manufacturing  interests  of 
the  State,  and  further,  as  suggested  and  referred 
to  by  the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond], 
that  by  relieving  owners  of  capital  from 
paying  taxes  on  money  or  choses  in  action, 
loans  of  money  might  be  more  cheaply  obtained, 
and  thereby  we  could  build  up  the  great  manu- 
facturing, commercial  and  trading  interests 
of  the  country,  and  the  result  of  the  prosperity 
of  such  industries  would  inure  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  real  estate  of  Ohio.  Those  two 
classes  of  opinions  manifested  themselves  in  our 
consultation,  and  they  have  manifested  them- 
selves in  this  discussion. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  beg  leave  to  ask  the 
gentleman,  if  the  realty  pays,  what  falls  upon 
the  mercantile  and  manufacturing  interests  of 
the  country,  damages  the  real  estate? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  No,  sir.  That  is 
your  idea. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  sir.  My  idea  was,  that 
whatever  built  up  the  commercial  and  manu- 
facturing interests  of  the  State,  enhanced  the 
interests  of  the  State. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  If  I understood 
the  gentleman’s  idea,  it  was,  that  moneys, 
notes,  mortgages,  and  everything  of  that  kind 
were  agencies  by  which  the  realty  of  the  country 
was  enhanced,  and,  therefore,  they  should  be 
relieved  from  burdens.  That  is  the  gentleman’s 
doctrine. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  They  enhance  the  value  of 
real  property. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  The  real  principle 
is  this.  The  system  of  taxation  of  the  United 
States,  to  a great  extent,  has  followed  closely  the 
great  underlying  idea  of  the  structures  of  our 
government,  and  that  is,  that  public  burdens 
ought  to  be  borne  equally  by  all  forms  of 
property.  This  is  the  great  doctrine  of  equal 
rights  and  underlies  our  civil  structure.  To 
secure  that  end  the  whole  system  of  taxation 
should  be  uniform  on  all  property.  That  is  the 
great  American  idea. 

In  other  countries,  from  which  the  gentle- 
man seems  to  have  drawn  most  of  his  views, 
the  practice  has  been  to  distribute  taxation,  to  a 
certain  extent,  according  to  the  form  and 
structure  of  the  government.  The  contest  has 
been  going  on  for  years  in  England,  whether 
the  realty,  belonging  to  the  nobility  of  the 
country,  to  a privileged  and  fixed  class,  shall 
carry  its  proper  burdens  or  whether  it  should 
be  thrown  off  on  the  accumulated  capital,  the 
result  of  commerce  and  trade  and  the  industry 
of  the  people.  We  have  got  away  from  that. 
We  have  no  such  inherent  original  questions 
here  to  disturb  us.  The  fundamental  idea  our 
fathers  intended  to  incorporate  in  our  policy 
was  that  taxation  should  be  equally  borne  by 
all  classes  of  property.  Hence,  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  1851,  where  the  true  principle  was 
adopted,  the  idea  was  not  to  make  any  discrim- 
ation,  but  to  hold  that  all  property  should  be 
taxed,  no  odds  where  it  was,  nor  what  forms 
might  characterize  it,  or  whether  it  was  tangi- 
ble or  intangible.  The  truth  is,  that  the  old 
idea  used  to  prevail  that  you  had  better  resort 
to  tangible  property,  for  that  could  be  seen  and 
felt  and  handled,  but  incorporeal  or  intangi- 
ble property  could  not  be  reached, — the  very 


“2044 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith  of  H. 


f!37th 

[Friday, 


difficulty  which  lay  in  the  way  of  reaching  it 
was  the  argument  against  attempting  to  get  at  it, 
— therefore  it  was  deemed  better  to  throw  taxa- 
tion back  upon  the  realty,  thus  adopting  the 
principle  of  taxing  property  that  could  be 
reached.  We  have  got  beyond  that,  we  have 
adopted  the  true  principle  as  it  is  incorporated 
in  this  section,  and  which  was  adopted  in  1851, 
and  has  been  accepted  by  our  people,  and  I 
believe  works  justly.  We  have  brought  upon 
the  tax  duplicate,  not  only  the  real  estate  of 
the  country,  but  all  kinds  and  forms  of  per- 
sonal property  at  a fair  and  just  approxi- 
mation to  its  true  value.  Such  appraise- 
ment, however  far  it  may  fall  below  the 
actual  cash  value  of  the  subjects  embraced, 
still  it  is  a just  and  fair  one  to  all  classes  of 
property  in  the  State.  Whatever  errors  may 
exist,  they  are  the  result  of  the  difference  of 
human  judgment,  and  do  not  form  the  system 
imposing  taxes.  We  have,  therefore,  the  real 
estate  ot  Ohio  upon  the  tax  duplicate  at  a just 
appraisement.  It  may  be  forty  per  cent.,  and  I 
believe  such  is  the  fact,  below  what  is  the  esti- 
mated selling  value  thereof. 

But,  sir,  how  have  we  succeeded  under  this 
system  ? The  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey], in  order  to  sustain  his  argument,  stated 
that  we  have  not  anything  like  a just  proportion 
of  the  personal  estate  of  Ohio  upon  the  dupli- 
cate— admitting  that  there  is  an  immense  differ- 
ence between  the  amount  obtained  and  the 
amount  that  ought  to  be  there.  When  we  come 
to  examine  the  statistics  furnished  by  the  records 
of  the  United  States  census,  we  find  that  the 
State  of  Ohio,  under  our  system,  has  upon  the 
duplicate  for  taxation  a larger  amount  of  per- 
sonalty than  is  represented  by  any  State  in  the 
Union,  except  Massachusetts.  That  amount,  as 
now  ascertained,  is  one-half  in  value  of  the 
whole  realty  of  Ohio.  The  amount  which  we 
have  now  upon  the  tax  duplicate  representing 
personal  estate  exceeds  $500,000,000,  which  shows 
very  clearly  that  whatever  may  be  the  evils  of 
our  system  and  our  law,  or  however  you  may 
charge  that  the  people  of  Ohio  seek  to  secrete 
their  personal  assets,  because  they  are  invisible, 
nevertheless,  such  is  the  efficiency  of  our  laws, 
and  the  faithfulness  of  their  execution  that  we 
have  a full  proportionate  share  of  all  the  per- 
sonalty upon  the  duplicate.  I do  not  know  but 
that  it  is  just  as  honest,  and  just  as  equal  an 
approximation  of  the  personalty  of  Ohio  as  the 
duplicate  of  your  realty. 

The  accumulation  of  trade,  the  aggregating 
annual  amount  of  personal  wealth  in  the  great 
commercial  and  manufacturing  points  of  the 
world,  is  far  in  advance  of  the  value  of  real  es- 
tate of  their  respective  localities.  Great  Brit- 
ain furnishes  an  example.  What  may  be  our 
condition  twenty  years  hence?  Who  can  tell? 
It  is  the  policy  of  our  people  to  hold  strictly  to 
the  rule  that  all  property  shall  go  upon  the  du- 
plicate, and  in  a quarter  of  a century  from  this 
time  you  will  find  that  the  balance  sheet  will 
show  that  the  accumulation  of  wealth  in  the 
form  of  an  invisible  estate,  as  you  now  call  it, 
will  compare  well  with  the  value  of  the  realty 
of  Ohio.  And  then  the  burdens  will  be  fairly 
and  properly  distributed.  If  you  adopt  any 
other  theory,  then  your  progress  will  be  back- 
ward instead  of  forward.  Then  you  will  work 


a greater  mischief  to  the  moneyed  and  general 
interests  of  the  State  of  Ohio  than  can  happen 
from  all  the  supposed  evils  of  double  taxation. 

Gentlemen  seem  to  forget  a further  idea 
which  ought  to  be  remembered  in  our  discus- 
sion, and  that  is  this : the  twenty-six  or  twenty- 
eight  millions  of  dollars  of  general  taxes  is 
not  a contribution  solely  to  the  treasury  of  Ohio. 
A large  proportion  of  that  twenty  odd  millions 
goes  back  to  the  people  who  rendered  it,  and 
pays  the  local  expenses  in  the  several  localities 
of  the  State.  More  millions  are  exacted  from 
the  people  of  this  city  and  county  to  manage  its 
local  interests  and  to  pay  its  annual  local  in- 
debtedness, or  as  much  as  it  does  to  maintain 
the  great  State  of  Ohio,  and  there  is  where  the 
burden  of  taxation  goes.  Is  it  wisdom  to  strike 
from  the  duplicate  in  the  City  of  Cincinnati 
the  tax  upon  personal  estate  and  drop  it  upon 
the  real  estate  of  the  city,  and  upon  the  build- 
ings, houses  and  lands  of  the  county?  Where 
would  you  get  your  four  millions  or  your  six 
millions  of  dollars  that  are  required  to  manage 
and  conduct  and  support  the  affairs  of  your  city 
and  county. 

It  is  important,  then,  to  look  to  the  effect  of 
this  proposition.  Shall  not  the  Convention 
keep  closely  to  the  fundamental  principles  that 
are  involved  in  this  question?  Shall  we  not 
adhere  to  the  system  of  taxation  as  it  has  pre- 
vailed in  Ohio,  by  which  all  property, in  what- 
ever form  it  may  exist,  is  placed  upon  the 
duplicate  and  pays  its  share  of  the  public 
burden.  We  cannot  stop  to  adjust  the  indebt- 
edness of  the  country.  We  cannot  stop  to 
regulate  the  rates  which  men  shall  charge  for 
their  money.  All  that  is  beyond  our  power. 
We  cannot  stop  to  encourage  the  increase  of 
population  from  abroad.  We  do  not  stand  in  a 
position  to  do  it.  The  very  moment  the  State 
of  Ohio  begins  any  system  of  taxation  of  that 
sort,  what  will  be  the  effect?  Would  notour 
sister  States  adopt  a similar  policy?  Would  not 
there  be  a collision  of  interests  between  the 
several  States  of  the  Union?  In  attempting 
such  a system,  by  which  to  build  up  our  pros- 
perity we  discriminate  against  the  landed 
interests,  and  in  favor  of  the  personal  interests, 
and  the  result  would  be  complete  folly  and 
failure. 

Now,  1 come  back  to  the  proposition,  in  rela- 
tion to  this  matter  of  double  taxation.  The 
clause  was  adopted  as  a matter  of  compromise 
of  opinion.  None  of  us  believe  that  no  property 
should  be  subject  to  double  burdens  of  taxation 
by  any  mistake  or  blunder  in  legislation,  or  by 
any  rule  which  might  be  employed  in  relation 
to  the  imposition  of  taxes  on  any  class  or  classes 
of  property.  The  difficulty,  however,  is  to 
point  out  any  case  in  which  double  taxation 
occurs.  If  we  adopt  the  construction  which  the 
supreme  court  of  California  gave,  and  say  that, 
practically,  a mortgage  is  not  property  at  all, 
we  might  get  clear  of  all  the  mortgages  of  the 
country,  but  such  a conclusion  is  defeating 
m.»re  than  double  taxation.  The  Constitution 
of  California  provides  that,  by  equal  and  uni- 
form rules,  all  property  should  be  taxed,  but 
that  learned  judge,  in  his  construction  of  what 
is  property  and  what  is  not  property,  arrived 
at  the  conclusion  referred  to,  and  released  all 
mortgages  from  the  burden  of  taxation. 


2045 


I)  AY.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith  of  H.,  Rowland,  Woodbury. 


March  13,  1874.] 


I think  by  the  words  equitable  and  uniform 
rules,  used  in  this  section,  the  question  of 
double  taxation  may  be  a matter  of  a fair  con- 
sideration, as  it  would  be  under  the  words  used 
by  way  of  addenda  to  the  section.  But  1 am 
free  to  admit  that  this  section  three,  in  my 
iudgment,  might  be  a little  improved  in  its 
phraseology. 

1 insist,  as  a part  of  the  system  of  taxation  in 
Ohio,  first,  that  the  rate  should  be  uniform. 
If  we  admit  of  different  rules  we  disturb  the 
uniformity  of  the  system  throughout  the  State. 
By  a uniform  rate  all  corporate  bodies,  all 
localities  clothed  with  taxation,  would  apply 
uniform  rules  of  taxation;  but  if  we  admit  of 
different  rules  of  uniformity,  then  different 
localities  may  have  different  rates  of  assess- 
ment. That  is  a policy  which  in  my  judgment 
is  of  too  doubtful  a character  to  be  incorporate 
in  the  Constitution  of  Ohio.  I therefore  pro- 
pose that  the  right  of  taxation  shall  be  uniform 
all  over  the  State,  upon  all  proporty  embraced 
within  its  influence.  Secondly,  I want  all  the 
property  of  the  State,  tangible  and  intangible, 
real  and  incorporeal,  in  whatever  form  it  may 
exist,  brought  upon  the  duplicate  and  ap- 
praised. I am  willing  to  give  to  the  General 
Assembly  of  Ohio  full  and  ample  discretion  in 
fixing  the  rules  of  appraisement,  so  that  prop- 
erty shall  be  justly  and  properly  subject  to  all 
burdens.  With  that  view,  sir,  I propose,  at 
some  future  time  in  the  progress  of  our  discus- 
sion, to  offer  the  following  amendment  which  i 
now  send  to  the  clerk’s  desk  to  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Law3  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rate,  all 
red  an  l personal  prouerty,  according  to  its  value,  to  be 
ascertained  by  such  equitanl  j rules  of  appraisement  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly. ” 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  ask  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  whether  I understood 
him  rightly,  yesterday,  in  stating  that  up  to 
the  year  1846  there  was  no  taxation  of  personal 
estate  in  Ohio  ? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I said  there  was 
an  irregular  and  artificial  system. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  was  virtually  the 
case. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  So  that  is  the  gentleman’s 
sort  ol  “new  fangled  notion,”  and  ours  is  the 
old  one. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Hancock  [Mr. 
Byal.] 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I am  in  favor  of  striking 
out  the  words,  “provide  against  double  taxa- 
tion,” and  I am  in  favor  of  it  for  the  reason  that 
at  some  time  a construction  has  got  to  be  placed 
upon  this  language.  It  will  be  said  that  we 
have  introduced  this  language  here  for  a pur- 
pose, and  that  was  to  provide  ngainst  some  evil, 
some  wrong  which  had  existed  under  the  pres- 
ent Constitution  of  the  State,  and  the  question 
of  course,  will  come  up,  what  are  those  wrongs? 
What  did  we  mean,  what  did  we  intend  by  the 
insertion  of  this  provision  to  provide  against? 
If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Ohio  shall 
ever  be  called  upon  to  construe  this,  let  us  see 
for  a moment  what  they  must  say  if  they  shall 
ever  come  to  examine  the  debates  of  this  Con- 
vention, as  to  what  these  evils  were  against 


which  we  were  intending  to  provide  by  this 
provision.  It  seems  to  me  that  upon  such  an 
examination  it  must  be  determined  that  what 
we  intended  by  this  question  of  double  taxation 
is  this:  That  when  a man  shall  sell  a piece  of 
property,  and  sell  it  upon  credit,  and  shall  re- 
ceive a note  and  mortgage,  the  taxation  of  both 
pieces  of  property  is  double  taxation.  If  it 
means  this,  I am  opposed  to  it.  If  it  is  to  pro- 
vide against  such  a difficulty  as  this,  then  I am 
opposed  to  it.  Is  there  an  other  evil,  any  other 
wrong  complained  of  in  the  State  for  which  we 
are  inserting  this  provision  to  prevent? 

There  has  been  none  other  talked  of  here.  It 
is  not  claimed  for  a moment  that  a horse  owned 
by  an  individual  has  been  taxed  twice  in  the 
State  of  Ohio,  nor  any  real  or  personal  proper- 
ty, as  such  has  been  taxed  twice  in  the  State  of 
Ohio,  but  it  is  claimed  to  be  double  taxation  if 
you  have  taxed  property  itself  and  the  note  or 
mortgage  which  has  been  given  for  it.  Let  us 
see  how  this  could  be.  It  is  said  when  a.  man 
shall  sell  his  farm  and  shall  receive  a note  or 
mortgage,  that,  under  the  present  system  you 
have  doubled  the  amount  upon  which  taxes  may 
be  assessed,  yet  there  has  been  no  increase  of 
property  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  True,  but  let  us 
suppose  for  a moment,  that  you  shall  sell  per- 
sonal property.  Suppose  that  I own,  to-day, 
$100,000  worth  of  personal  property,  and  I sell 
it  to  a man  who  will  take  it  into  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  I shall  take  his  note  for  it; 
then,  I ask,  shall  the  State  by  that  transaction 
— if  you  shall  not  tax  the  notes  which  I receive, 
and  which  do  not  make  me  any  the  poorer,  al- 
though I may  be  better  off  by  the  transaction — 
lose  by  this,  in  consequence  of  the  personal 
property  having  been  removed  by  reason  of  the 
purchaser  moving  into  Pennsylvania?  Cer- 
tainly not. 

Then,  again,  there  is  another  reason  why  I 
am  opposed  to  this.  When  you  exempt  the  note 
and  mortgage  you  work  an  injustice.  If  there 
is  to  be  an  exemption  as  between  the  indi- 
viduals, the  man  who  purchased  upon  credit, 
and  the  man  who  holds  the  notes  and  mort- 
gage, I say  that  the  man  who  holds  the  notes 
and  mortgages  is  the  man  that  shall  pay  the 
tax,  and  the  man  who  holds  the  land  and  who 
owes  the  last  dollar  for  it  is  the  man  who  shall 
be  exempted  from  taxation.  That  is  another 
reason  why  I am  opposed  to  any  proposition 
introduced  into  this  Constitution  which  shall 
exempt  the  note  and  the  mortgage  from  taxa- 
tion. For  instance,  I ana  a poor  man;  I buy  a 
farm  for  which  I agree  to  pay  $10,000.  I give 
my  notes  and  mortgage  upon  it.  The  man  from 
whom  I purchase  it  is  not  a poor  man;  he  is  re- 
ceiving a rate  of  interest  large,  beyond  what 
can  be  procured  from  the  real  estate  itself,  for 
it  is  a good  investment  in  the  State  of  Ohio  in 
real  estate  that  pays  four  per  cent.  I propose 
to  pay  him  eight  or  ten  per  cent.;  then  why 
should  he,  when  he  is  receiving  an  income 
upon  a value  largely  beyond  what  the  real 
estate  would  pay,  and  can  pay,  why  should  he 
be  exempt  from  taxation  simply  by  that  trans- 
action, and  at  the  same  time  I be  compelled  to 
pay  tax  upon  the  real  property.  Would  it  not  be 
more  just  he  should  pay  upon  the  notes 
and  mortgage  and  at  the  same  time 
that  the  real  estate  itself,  which  I am 


2046 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [137th 

Woodbury,  Dorsey,  West,  Rowland,  Griswold.  [Friday, 


indebted  for,  should  be  exempt;  or,  in  other 
words,  ought  I not  to  have  the  right  to  deduct 
that  liability  from  the  value  of  the  real  estate? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  him  a question  ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Suppose  we  exempt  real 
estate  from  taxation,  and  the  man  with  his  note 
moves  to  California,  where  is  the  State  going  to 
get  her  tax  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  From  California  mines. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I think  that  is  about  where 
you  would  get  it. 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I am  only  arguing  with 
regard  to  the  justness  of  the  proposition,  as  to 
the  taxation  of  one  as  against  the  other.  It  be- 
comes necessary,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  that  you 
shall  tax  in  some  way,  for  we  start  out  with  the 
provision  that  the  Legislature  of  the  State  shall 
provide  for  the  raising  of  a revenue.  In  the 
second  section  we  provide  that  she  shall  not 
raise  that  revenue  by  a poll  tax.  We  are, 
therefore,  to  look  about  in  some  way  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  this,  for  I do  not  conceive,  as 
it  has  been  argued  upon  this  floor,  that  it  is  a 
question  as  to  what  we  have  a right  to  do  and 
what  we  have  not  a right  to  do.  We  are  to  es- 
tablish, in  our  own  way,  and  our  own  manner, 
how  the  revenue  shall  be  raised  in  the  State  of 
Ohio.  We  may  say  that  it  shall  be  levied  upon 
one  class  of  property  and  exempted  from  all 
other  classes ; or,  we  may  say,  that  each  indi- 
vidual in  the  State  shall  pay  his  pro  rata  share 
of  it,  and  exempt  all  personal  property  in  the 
State ; or  we  may  exempt  the  personal  property 
and  the  real  estate  in  Ohio,  and  may  provide 
that  it  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  net  earnings  of 
the  people  of  the  State.  It  is  simply  a question 
of  policy;  it  is  simply  a question  of  equity  and 
justness  and  right  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in 
which  we  shall  do  it. 

In  looking  at  it  in  this  light,  with  a view  of 
determining  what  would  be  the  most  just  and 
equal  way  to  raise  this  revenue  from  the  people 
of  the  State  of  Ohio,  how  can  it  be  done?  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  only  way  it  can  be  done  is 
by  levying  it  upon  the  property  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  of  all  classes,  and  of  all  kinds,  whatever 
maybe  productive  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  whether 
it  be  my  written  promise ; whether  it  be  a bond  ; 
whether  it  be  a mortgage;  whether  it  be  a bank 
bill  or  a silver  dollar;  whether  it  be  a horse  or 
whether  it  be  a farm ; whatever  it  be,  it  shall  be 
levied  upon,  and  no  distinction  shall  be  made 
as  between  any  classes  of  property,  in  any  way 
or  manner  whatever,  and  most  especially  that 
there  shall  be  no  distinction  whatever  made  as 
between  the  moneyed  capital  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  and  the  real  property  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 
Is  there  any  reason  in  the  world  when  I shall 
have  $100,000  invested  in  notes  and  bonds,  etc., 
that  that  $100,000  should  be  exempt  from  tax- 
ation, while  my  neighbor,  who  shall  have  $100,- 
000  invested  in  real  estate,  shall  be  taxed  to  the 
last  dollar  of  it?  Is  there  any  justness  in  such 
a proposition  as  this?  It  seems  to  me  not;  that 
all  values,  all  over  the  State  of  Ohio,  wherever 
invested,  and  in  whatever  they  may  be  invested, 
should  bear  an  equal  burden,  and  that  works 
out  equal  and  exact  justice,  and  nothing  less 
and  nothing  short  of  it  can. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 


amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Hancock 
[Mr.  Byal]. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  If  we  are  to  strike  out  the 
provision  that  the  gentleman  from  Hancock 
[Mr.  ByalJ  proposes  is  immaterial,  for  this  is 
but  directory  to  the  Legislature,  if  we  say  there 
shall  not  be  any  double  taxation,  but  by  law 
passed  by  the  General  Assembly,  as  they  shall 
provide,  it  is  merely  directory  to  the  Legislature, 
and  is  at  their  discretion,  and  it  is  immaterial. 
I would  as  soon  have  one  form  as  the  other,  if 
we  are  to  strike  out. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Byal  moves  to  strike  out  in  section  3,  line  three, 
alter  the  word  “but”  tne  word  “providing”,  and  insert 
“may  provide.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  and  uni- 
form rules,  all  real  and  personal  property,  so  that  all 
propertv  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation, according  to  its  true  value  in  money,  but  may  pro- 
vide against  double  taxation.” 

A division  was  called  for,  and  being  had,  re- 
sulted— affirmative  15,  negative  32. 

No  quorum  having  voted,  the  President 
ordered  a re-count,  which  resulted — affirmative 
26,  negative  33. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt]  to  strike  out  the  last  clause. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Is  it  now  in  order  to  offer  a 
further  amendment  to  the  section? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  in  order  to  offer  it. 
The  question  will  first  be  taken  upon  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  have  the  amend- 
ment I proposed  to  offer  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  is  a substitute 
for  the  entire  section. 

Mr.  POND.  Yes,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey], 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  after  “equitable”  in  line  one. 

So  that  it  will  read  : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  rules,  all 
real  and  personal  propertv,  according  to  its  value,  to  be 
a-certained  by  such  modes  of  appraisment  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly,  but  providing 
against  double  taxation.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  is  not 
germain  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I shall  offer  it  when  it  is 
proper. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wil- 
liams [Mr.  Pratt]  to  strike  out  the  words,  “ but 
providing  against  double  taxation.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I shall  vote  against  strik- 
ing out  the  clause,  but  I shall  vote  in  favor  of 
striking  out  the  whole  section,  in  order  to  sub- 
stitute the  proposition  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith].  It  seems  to 
me  that  this  whole  discussion  has  gone  upon  a 
false  theory,  in  regard  to  the  effect  of  this  lan- 
guage. This  language  has  no  force  except  as  a 
direction  to  the  Legislature.  It  does  not  exe- 


2047 


Day.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Griswold,  West,  Powell,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


March  13, 1874.] 


cute  itself  at  all,  under  the  old  Consititution, 
where  it  provided  that  the  Legislature  should 
pass  laws  restricting  the  power  of  taxation,  it 
has  been  held  that  the  provision  had  no  force 
except  as  directory  to  the  Legislature,  and  laws 
were  needed  to  carry  it  into  effect,  and  so  to 
provide  against  double  taxation ; and  taxation 
which  is  double  certainly  ought  to  be  provided 
against;  does  not,  of  itself,  have  any  effect  fur- 
ther than  as  a direction  to  the  Legislature  by 
proper  enactments.  If  the  rule  adopted  in  re- 
gard to  the  appraisement  and  valuation  of  prop- 
erty, have  the  effect  to  place  the  same  property 
twice  upon  the  duplicate,  the  Legislature  may 
restrict  their  operation,  or  they  may  provide 
against  this,  but  until  they  do,  until  they  enact 
some  law  carrying  the  provision  into  effect,  it 
will  have  no  force  of  itself ; it  is  a mere  direction, 
and  although  gentlemen  have  talked  learnedly 
and  long  upon  all  these  theories  of  the  horse 
and  the  note,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ques- 
tion before  us,  which  is  this:  whether  in  case 
property,  under  the  rules  adopted,  shall  be 
twice  listed,  a provision  may  be  made  against 
such  result.  It  seems  to  me  that  this,  of  itself, 
is  no  very  serious  matter  of  controversy.  The 
General  Assembly  would  have  this  power  with- 
out this  provision,  and  there  is  no  power  in  its 
retention  and  it  is  immaterial  whether  it  be 
stricken  out  or  retained. 

Mr.  WEST.  I apprehend  that  the  gentleman 
from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  is  probably 
mistaken  with  regard  to  the  effect  of  those 
words.  I think  they  are  not  permissive  alone, 
but  they  are  absolutely  mandatory.  “Laws 
shall  be  passed , providing  for  a uniform  rate  of 
taxation,”  &c.  That  is  mandatory. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Don’t  the  same  thing  refer 
to  the  laws  restricting  the  power  of  taxation? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  one  moment? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  This  Convention,  undoubted- 
ly took  the  same  view,  and  for  that  reason 
struck  out  the  word  may,  so  that  it  shall  be  more 
imperative,  and  for  that  reason  I shall  vote  for 
striking  out  that  provision. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  oqly  going  to  call  the 
attention  of  this  Convention  to  this  view,  the 
direction  or  the  command  to  provide  for  tax- 
ation is  mandatory  certainly.  It  is  peremptory 
upon  the  Legislature.  Of  course,  the  Legisla- 
ture might  violate  this  constitutional  obligation, 
and  refuse  to  pass  a tax  law  altogether,  but  if  it 
did  so  it  would  be  in  violation  of  the  oath  of 
office  they  had  taken.  But,  suppose  the  General 
Assembly  goes  forward  and  enacts  a tax  law, 
passes  a law  in  accordance  with  the  provisions 
of  this  Constitution,  what  kind  of  a law  must 
it  pass?  It  must  pass  one  imposing  a uniform 
rate  of  taxation,  by  uniform  rules,  and  provide 
against  double  taxation,  so  that  any  law  which 
it  would  pass,  which,  by  judicial  decision, 
would  be  ascertained  to  contain  provisions  for 
double  taxation,  would  be  an  unconstitutional 
law.  That  is  all ; that  is,  so  far  as  double  tax- 
ation is  concerned  it  will  be  held  to  be  uncon- 
stitutional, because  the  Legislature  can  only 
pass  a law  which  does  not  contain  within  it 
double  taxation,  and  if  a law  provides  for 
double  taxation,  the  court  will  sweep  that  part 
of  the  law  away ; that  is  all. 


Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Do  they  not  have  the 
power  to  tax  without  this  section  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  This  controls  the  taxing  power. 
They  would  have  power  to  tax  without  this 
section,  if  we  did  not  pass  it;  but  if  we  insert 
this  section,  it  then  controls  their  power.  They 
cannot  tax  in  defiance  of  the  section. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  As  there  is  every  indica- 
tion that  the  Committee  will  not  entirely  agree 
upon  this  third  section^-I  am  not  speaking  of 
the  Convention  now,  but  of  the  Committee  that 
made  this  Report — I,  for  one,  am  disposed  to 
stand  by  the  Committee,  until  I see  something 
presented  to  the  Convention  that  will,  on  the 
whole,  better  accomplish  the  object  which  is 
sought,  than  is  accomplished  by  this  third  sec- 
tion. For  the  present,  therefore,  although  I do 
not  feel  like  entirely  separating  from  my  friend 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  as  he  intimated 
that  I did  in  the  Committee,  feeling,  myself, 
that  I stood  by  the  Committee  as  long  as  the 
gentleman  himself  did,  I think  I shall  vote 
against  striking  out  these  words,  and  in  favor 
of  retaining  the  section  in  its  present  form. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  39,  nays  32,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were— 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Bosworth,  Byal, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Foran,  Godfrey,  Greene, 
Gurley,  Hale,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Jackson, 
Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill, 
McCauley,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Root,  Sample,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Thompson,  Tulloss,  Van  Yoorhis, 
Voorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  White  of  Hocking, 
Woodbury— 39. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Barnet,  Beer,  Bishop,  Burns,  Camp- 
bell, Carbery,  Chapin,  Coats,  De  Steiguer,  Dor- 
sey, Ewing,  Freiberg,  Griswold,  Herron,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Row- 
land, Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Sears,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuttle, Tyler, 
Watson,  West,  Young  of  Noble,  President— 32. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POND.  In  order  to  relieve  the  Conven- 
tion, I will  withdraw  the  substitute  which  I 
offered. 

No  objection  was  made,  and  the  substitute 
was  withdrawn. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland,  proposed  a substi- 
tute for  section  three,  which  the  Secretary 
read,  as  follows : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rate,  all 
real  and  personal  property  according  to  its  value,  to  be 
ascertained  by  such  equitable  rules  of  appraisement  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly.” 

Mr.  PRATT  also  offered  a substitute,  which 
the  Secretary  read  for  information,  as  follows : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  uniform  rules  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money,  so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of 
the  burdens  of  taxation.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I wish  now,  before  action 
is  taken  upon  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman 
from  Highland,  to  offer  my  amendment  to  the 
words  proposed  to  be  stricken  out. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Dorsey  moves  to  amend  section  3 by  striking  out 
all  after  the  word  “equitable”,  in  line  one,  and  insert  in 
lieu  thereof  the  words,  “rules,  all  real  and  personal 
property,  according  to  its  value,  to  be  ascertained  by 


2048 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [137th 

Dorsey,  Pond,  West,  Pratt.  [Friday, 


such  modes  of  appraisement  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the 
General  Assembly,  but  providing  against  double  taxa- 
tion.” 

So  that  the  amended  section  would  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  rules,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  value,  to  be 
ascertained  by  such  modes  of  appraisement  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly,  but  providing 
against  double  taxation.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  will  he  perceived,  Mr. 
President,  that  this  amendment  of  mine  bears 
a very  considerable  resemblance  to  the  substi- 
tute offered  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee, 
and  I wish  here  to  acknowledge  my  obligations 
to  that  gentleman  for  a portion  of  what  I have 
incorporated  in  the  words  which  I propose  to 
insert.  I received  the  idea  from  him , but  I want 
to  state  why  I prefer  my  amendment  to  the  sub- 
stitute of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee.  The 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  proposes  that  laws 
shall  be  passed  taxing  by  a uniform  rule  all  real 
and  personal  property.  I propose  that  laws 
shall  be  passed  taxing  by  equitable  rules  all  real 
and  personal  property,  instead  of  binding  the 
General  Assembly  to  one  inflexible,  uniform 
rule,  which  is  precisely  what  I object  to  in  the 
report  of  the  Committee.  I wish  to  give  them 
a larger  and  a more  unrestrained  power,  by 
simply  providing  that  laws  shall  be  passed  tax- 
ing by  equitable  rule — not  a rule^bntrules,  in  the 
plural  number — all  real  and  personal  property, 
according  to  its  value,  that  value  to  be  ascer- 
tained precisely  in  the  manner  provided  for  in 
the  words  used  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee. 1 prefer  the  words  I have  proposed,  how- 
ever, to  the  substitute  of  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee ; and  I think  that  the  very  same  idea 
which  I entertain  existed  in  the  minds  of  the 
gentlemen  of  the  committee  when  they  made 
their  report,  for  it  will  be  observed  that  section 
three  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  reads: 
“ Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing  by  equitable  and 
unilorm  rules  ” — not  a rule , but  rules — giving  a 
larger  discretion  to  the  General  Assembly.  It 
is  because  I do  wish  to  give  this  large  an5  un- 
restrained power  to  the  General  Assembly,  that 
I offer  the  amendment.  I think  it  is  better,  and 
I hope  the  Convention  will  approve  of  it;  but 
if  they  do  not,  I confess  that  I shall  feel  very 
much  like  votiDg  for  the  substitute  of  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee,  though  I like  the  pro- 
position which  I offer  better. 

Mr.  POND.  I rise  to  a point  of  order.  It 
appears  to  me  that  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  is  out  of 
order,  and  that  it  is  really  a substitute.  It 
covers  the  whole  ground  of  the  section,  and 
more  than  that. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  It  is  an  amendment. 

Mr.  POND.  It  strikes  me  that  it  is  hardly 
an  amendment.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  a substi- 
tute for  the  whole  section.  But  if  I am  wrong 
in  that  respect,  I rise  to  a further  question 
of  order.  In  that  amendment  the  gentleman 
incorporates  the  same  language  which  has  just 
been  stricken  out  by  the  vote  of  the  Convention, 
using  the  precise  words  and  having  the  precise 
effect  of  that  language. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  1 ask,  Mr.  President, if  those 
words  we:e  stricken  out? 

The  PRESI  DENT.  They  were,  but  it  is  com- 
petent to  introduce  the  same  words  in  connec- 


tion with  others,  so  as  to  make  the  proposition 
substantially  different.  It  is  proposed,  now,  to 
restore  the  same  words,  but  in  connection  with 
other  words,  making  the  proposition  materially 
different.  The  word  “ equitable  ” is  still  re- 
tained. 

Mr.  WEST.  What  becomes  of  the  word 
“ uniform  ”? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  left  out. 

Mr.  WEST.  Then  it  is  not  a substitute  for 
the  whole  section.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir;  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  DoRSEy]  proposes  to  retain 
the  words  “laws  shall  be  passed  taxing  by  equi- 
table.” So  much  he  retains.  The  Chair  is  of 
opinion  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  is  in  order. 

Mr.  POND.  Then  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  is  not  a 
substitute. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  a substitute  for  the 
entire  section. 

Mr.  POND.  It  commences  with  the  same 
words. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  has  a right  to  amend  the 
original  section  before  another  section  is  sub- 
stituted. 

Mr.  POND.  It  appears  to  me  that  if  one  is 
a substitute  the  other  is  too.  The  point  I make 
is,  that  if  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  is  a substitute, 
then  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  is  a substitute,  inasmuch 
as  it  begins  with  the  same  words. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  words  proposed  to 
be  inserted  may  be  a substitute  for  a material 
part  of  the  section,  but  still  one  feature  of  the 
original  proposition  is  retained,  and  a very  im- 
portant feature. 

By  request,  the  Secretary  read,  a second 
time,  the  proposed  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  as  follows : 

Mr.  Dorsey  moves  to  strike  out  all  after  the  word 
“equitable”,  in  line  one,  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof, 
“rules,  all  real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its 
value,  to  be  ascertained  by  such  modes  of  appiaisement 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly,  but  pro- 
viding against  double  taxation.” 

So  that  the  section  may  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  rules,  all 
real  and  person;.  1 property,  according  to  its  value,  to  be 
ascertained  by  such  modes  of  appraisement  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly,  but  providing 
against  double  taxation.” 

Mr.  PRATT.  I move  to  amend  the  section 
as  it  stands’in  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  by 
striking  out  the  words  “ equitable  and  uniform 
rules,”  in  the  first  line,  and  inserting  the  words 
“a  uniform  rule,”  so  hat  the  section  will  read,. 
“ Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing  hy  a uniform 
rule,”  etc. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  would  not 
be  in  order,  pending  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  The  amend- 
ment just  offered  proposes  to  strike  out  the  word 
“equitable,”  which  the  former  amendment 
leaves  in.  The  question  will  first  be  taken,, 
therefore,  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],. 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  13, 1874.]  Pratt,  Hale,  Dorsey,  Pond,  Powell,  Carbery,  Gurley. 


2049 


Mr.  PRATT.  My  motion  is  to  perfect  the 
original  section,  as  it  now  stands. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman’s  motion 
is  parallel  with  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  or,  rather,  that  is  a 
good  deal  broader  motion.  The  question  is  first 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey].  The  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  will  then  be  in  or- 
der. 

Mr.  HALE.  I suppose  it  is  in  order  to  move 
to  amend  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey], 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  be  in  order. 

Mr.  HALE.  The  concluding  paragraph  of 
that  gentleman’s  amendment  reads,  “ but  pro- 
viding against  double  taxation.”  I move  to 
strike  out  from  the  amendment  those  words. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I accept  that  amendment.  I 
included  those  words  under  the  impression  that 
they  had  not  already  been  stricken  out  by  the 
Convention.  Seeing  that  they  have  been 
stricken  out  by  the  Convention,  after  a full 
discussion,  I would  not  presume  to  offer  them 
again. 

No  objection  was  offered,  and  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Lorain  [Mr.  Hale]  was 
incorporated  in  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami 
[Mr.  Dorsey],  as  amended. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  to  strike  out  the  words, 
in  the  first  line  of  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  “by  equi- 
tabls  rules  ^ 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  words  “ equitable 
rules”  are  not  contained  in  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey].  They 
occur  in  the  original  section. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  to  strike  them  out  of  the 
original  section,  then. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I just  made  a motion  with  that 
effect. 

Mr.  POND.  I understood  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  to  be 
in  that  shape. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  does  not  propose  to  strike 
out  the  word  “equitable,”  in  the  original  sec- 
tion. 

Mr.  POND.  He  strikes  out  the  word  “uni- 
form.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir.  The  Chair 
will  state  the  question.  Gentlemen  will  please 
look  at  the  printed  proposition.  The  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  moves  to  strike 
out  all  in  the  section  after  the  word  “equita- 
ble”— leaving  that  word  in — and  to  insert  the 
words  “rules  all  real  and  personal  property  ac- 
cording to  its  value,  to  be  ascertained  by  such 
modes  of  appraisement  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  the  General  Assembly so  that  the  section 
will  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  rules,  all 
real  and  personal  property  according  to  its  value,  to  be 
ascertained  by  such  modes  of  appraisement  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly.” 

The  question  is  upon  inserting  that  amend- 
ment in  the  place  of  the  words  stricken  out. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  ask  the  Secretary 

y.  n-131 


to  read  the  concluding  words  of  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt].  It  strikes  me  that  those  words 
may  be  added  to  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  with  the  effect 
of  improving  it. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“So  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the 
burdens  of  taxation.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  those  are  the  words.  I 
move  now  that  those  words  be  added  to  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey]. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  as  pro- 
posed to  be  amended,  as  follows : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  rules,  all 
renl  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  value,  to  be 
ascertained  by  such  modes  of  appraisement  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly,  so  that  all  property 
shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation.” 

Mr.  CARBERY.  It  appears  to  me,  that  if 
this  matter  of  taxation  is  determined  by  equita- 
ble rules,  all  property  will,  as  a consequence, 
bear  its  equal  proportion  of  taxation.  The 
words  seem  to  be  superfluous. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I shall  not  vote  for  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell],  although,  as  a matter  of  course, 
I concur  in  the  idea  which  is  therein  embodied. 
My  amendment  proposes  that  laws  shall  be 
passed,  taxing  by  equitable  rules,  all  real  and 
personal  property  according  to  its  value. 
Now,  if  that  be  done,  as  a matter  of  course,  all 
the  property  of  the  State  must  bear  equally  the 
burden  of  taxation ; and,  therefore,  I think  the 
amendment  of  my  friend  from  Delaware  [Mr. 
Powell]  is  tautological,  as,  I think,  he  will  see 
himself.  It  is  not  necessary  that  it  should  be 
there ; but  while  I shall  vote  to  keep  out  those 
words,  I hope  to  have  a favorable  vote  on  the 
rest  of  the  amendment.  I shall  hope  for  it  be- 
cause it  conforms  more  nearly  than  even  the  sub- 
stitute of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  for  the 
original  report;  because  I think  it  is  precisely 
what  I think  the  Convention  is  desirous  of 
doing,  as  manifested  by  the  temper  it  has 
shown  to-day,  namely,  of  leaving  this  matter 
to  the  General  Assembly ; and  because  it  pro- 
vides all  the  restrictions  that  1 think  ought  to 
be  thrown  around  this  matter  when  it  comes 
before  the  General  Assembly. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  the  gentleman  whether 
he  holds  that,  under  the  interpretation  of  the 
term  “equitable,”  the  Legislature  will  have  the 
right.  Nay,  will  it  not  be  their  duty  to  impose 
special  taxes  upon  different  branches  of  in- 
dustry ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  What  I think  to  be  the  duty 
of  the  Legislature  is  a matter  of  no  importance 
whatever,  either,  as  I apprehend,  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley],  or  to  the 
members  of  this  Convention.  Certainly  it  is 
not  a matter  of  any  importance  to  any  General 
Assembly  that  may  hereafter  meet  in  the  State 
of  Ohio.  I leave  the  General  Assembly  to  in- 
terpret the  word  as  they  think  best. 

Mr.  POND.  I desire  to  know,  inasmuch  as 
this  word  equitable  has  been  inserted  here, 
whether  its  effect  is  what  its  friends  claimed  it 
would  be,  or  whether  it  means  anything  or 
nothing. 


2050 


[137th 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Dorsey,  Pond,  Hitchcock,  Powell,  Gurley,  Barnet.  [Friday* 


Mr.  DORSEY.  I think  it  means  a good  deal. 
I apprehend  that  the  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee, when  they  introduced  it  in  their  report, 
thought  that  it  meant  something.  It  means 
that  there  shall  be  a just,  right,  and  proper 
rule  of  taxation. 

Mr.  POND.  Does  it  not  mean  that  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  may  tax  in  their  own  discretion? 
Is  not  that  all  there  is  of  it? 

Mr,  DORSEY.  I hope  it  means  that,  for  that 
is  exactly  what  I think  it  ought  to  mean, 
namely,  that  they  may  tax  in  their  own  discre- 
tion. I believe  that  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  State  of  Ohio  is  an  equitable  body. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  allow  me  a question  be- 
fore he  takes  his  seat? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I wish  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man, whether,  in  his  opinion,  an  “equitable” 
rule  of  taxation,  as  is  provided  for  in  the  amend- 
ment which  he  moves  to  the  section,  would 
place  upon  the  tax  duplicate  all  property,  in 
whatever  form  it  might  exist,  in  the  State. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  General  Assembly 
thought  so,  it  would.  My  opinion  is  of  no  im- 
portance whatever. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Those  words  which  I pro- 
posed to  add  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  are  words  that 
have  been  bandied  about  in  the  Convention  by 
various  persons  who  have  submitted  proposi- 
tions, and  they  struck  my  ear  very  favorably, 
and  I thought  they  would  be  so  received  by  the 
Convention.  I find  it  otherwise,  and  as  I care 
but  very  little  for  those  words  I ask  leave  to 
withdraw  them. 

Objection  was  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Objection  is  made.  The 
question,  therefore,  is  upon  adding  the  words, 
“so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  share 
of  the  burdens  of  taxation.” 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I hope  the  words  will  not  be 
withdrawn.  The  friends  of  this  new-fangled 
idea  of  taxation  claim  that,  under  this  section 
as  it  now  stands, — without  this  safeguard  being 
thrown  around  it — the  Legislature  will  have 
the  right  to  move  the  entire  burden  of  taxation 
upon  the  realty  of  the  State,  and  impose  special 
burdens  upon  particular  branches  of  industry; 
and  if  this  clause  is  not  added,  that  will  be  a 
fair  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  the  sec- 
tion. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  say  that  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  it  will  be  better  to  add 
these  words  to  the  end  of  the  section.  I think 
it  would  be  acceptable  to  many  who  would  oth- 
erwise be  opposed  to  almost  any  proposition 
which  we  may  adopt. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Hitherto  I have  refrained 
from  saying  a word  upon  this  subject,  I believe. 
The  effect  of  the  word  “equitable”  was  dis- 
cussed at  considerable  length  in  the  Committee. 
I had  the  honor  of  introducing  it  there,  for  rea- 
sons which  I thought  I partly  comprehended, 
and,  as  yet,  I have  not  had  any  reason  to  change 
my  views  in  regard  to  the  validity  of  those  rea- 
sons. I am  willing  that  the  Convention  may 
have  the  benefit  of  my  views,  if  there  is  any 
benefit  to  be  derived  from  them. 

I think,  sir,  it  is  very  difficult  to  adopt  a uni- 
form rule  of  taxation  or  of  getting  at  values. 


You  can  appraise  real  estate  in  one  way,  but  you 
may  propose  to  get  at  a bank  by  another  rule, 
and  at  a telegraph  and  express  company  by  still 
other  rules;  and  these  rules,  with  their  va- 
rious ramifications  may  be  largely  diversified. 
But  whatever  the  rule  may  be,  it  is  to  be  gov- 
erned by  equity.  It  shall  be  for  the  purpose  of 
taxing  all  alike,  so  that  all  shall  bear  equally 
the  burdens  of  taxation.  That  was  my  view 
then.  It  is  my  view  now.  I meant  nothing 
more  by  it  then,  and  I mean  nothing  less  by  it 
now.  I think  the  Legislature  should  have,  in 
their  discretion,  power  to  say  by  what  rule  all 
the  property  of  the  State  is  to  be  reached,  if  all 
is  to  be  reached.  How  will  you  get  at  a tele- 
graph company  by  the  same  rule  by  which  you 
appraise  a piece  of  land  or  a horse  ? Will  you 
rate  it  by  its  stock,  or  by  its  office,  its  wires,  its 
posts  and  its  furniture? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Or  its  income? 

Mr.  BARNET.  I have  intimated,  I think, 
just  what  is  enough  to  make  this  Convention 
understand  what  I meant  by  the  use  of  the  term. 
I can  see  nothing  wrong  in  the  proposition. 
Our  rules  ought  to  be  equitable.  They  should 
not  be  so  arbitrary  that  they  are  not  equitable, 
but  they  should  be  in  conformity  with  equity. 
Our  whole  system  should  be  based  upon  that 
principle,  and  if  it  turns  out,  in  the  experience 
of  the  Legislature,  that  they  have  adopted  rules 
that  fail  to  reach  the  great  end  of  equity,  they 
ought  to  modify  and  change  them.  Hence  I am 
in  favor  of  giving  the  Legislatule  discretion  over 
the  whole  subject. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  This  amendment,  as  I un- 
derstand it,  does  not  propose  to  strike  out  the 
word  “equitable.”  It  is  merely  to  make  an  ad  - 
dition to  the  end  of  the  section,  providing  that 
all  property  shall  bear  its  equal  proportion  of 
the  burdens  of  taxation. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I am  entirely  willing  that 
this  Convention  should  adopt  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell], 
and  just  as  willing  that  they  should  not  adopt 
it.  I think  the  Proposition  will  be  as  well  with- 
out as  with  it,  or  as  well  with  it  as  without  it. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
the  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded  by  Mr.  Dor- 
sey. Objection  was  raised,  and  the  demand 
was  not  sustained. 

Upon  a division,  the  amendment  was  not 
agreed  to,  twenty* six  members  voting  in  the 
affirmative,  and  thirty-eight  in  the  negative. 

The  question  was  then  taken  upon  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey]. 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to,  no  divis- 
ion being  had. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 

Mr.  PRATT.  May  not  the  original  section 
be  amended  before  thatsubstitueis  acted  upon? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I move  to  strike  out  of  the 
original  section  the  words,  “ equitable  and  uni- 
form rule,”  and  insert  the  words  “ a uniform 
rule.”  That  is  in  effect  the  provision  of  the 
old  Constitution,  the  old  iron  rule  that  has  been 
complained  of  so  much,  and  the  very  one 
which  I seek  to  secure. 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Rowland,  Johnson,  Pratt,  Bishop,  Dorsey. 


2051 


Day.] 

March  13,  1874.] 


The  Secretary  read  the  section  as  proposed 
to  be  amended,  as  follows : 

Sec.  3.  Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform 
rule,  all  real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true 
value  in  money,  so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal 
share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  have  the 
substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  High- 
land [Mr.  Smith]  read  again. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Smith  moves  to  strike  out  all  of  section  3,  after  the 
words  “Sec.  3”,  and  insert  the  following: 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rate,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  value,  to  he 
ascertained  by  such  equitable  rules  of  appraisment  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly.” 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Would  it  be  in  order  to  have 
another  substitute  for  the  section  read  for  infor- 
mation ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  may  be  read  for  infor- 
mation. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I have  a substitute  which  I 
would  like  to  have  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing  by  equitable  and  uni- 
form rules,  all  real  and  personal  properbv,  so  that  each 
shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation,  ac- 
cording to  its  true  value  in  money.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt],  to  strike  out  the  words  “ equitable  and 
uniform  rule,”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  “ a uniform  rule.” 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  proposition  I now  offer 
brings  the  question  squarely  up,  I believe, 
whether  all  property,  real  and  personal,  accord- 
ing to  its  valuation  in  money,  shall  go  upon  the 
tax  duplicate,  and  be  taxed  equally  and  alike; 
whether  all  rules  claimed  to  be  based  upon 
equity,  leaving  the  matter  referable  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  to  say  what  is  equitable,  and 
leaving  the  subject  entirely  open  for  their  con- 
sideration and  for  their  determination;  and 
whether  all  rules  providing  against  double  taxa- 
tion shall  be  abrogated,  and  the  straight  uni- 
form rule  laid  down  that  all  property  by  whom- 
soever owned,  and  in  whatever  shape,  whether 
real,  personal,  mixed,  tangible  or  intangible, 
shall  stand  alike  before  the  law  as  the  subject  of 
taxation. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Does  the  gentleman  believe 
that  there  is  any  one  uniform  rule  that  can  be 
fixed  by  any  people,  that  can  be  carried  out? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Perhaps  it  cannot  be  wholly 
carried  out,  and  yet  it  is  the  rule  of  right,  and 
the  failure  is  not  in  the  unrighteousness  of  the 
rule,  but  the  iniquity  of  those  by  whom  and  to 
whom  it  is  applied. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  May  I ask  the  gentleman  a 
question? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Does  the  gentleman  believe 
that  he  can  make  tangible  and  intangible  pro- 
perty, visible  and  invisible  property,  stand  on 
the  same  platform  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  I can  make  the  attempt  to  do 
it.  I can  make  the  attempt  to  do  the  right  thing, 
and  can  lay  the  foundation,  so  far  as  the  Consti- 
tutional rule  can  go,  of  applying  and  equal  rule 
to  all  property. 

Mr.  President,  I am  one  of  those  who  believe 
that  the  right  of  taxation  depends  upon  the  fact 


of  protection.  We  take  from  property  a certain 
amount  of  that  property,  as  an  equivalent  for  the 
protection  we  extend  to  it.  I have  heard  here 
to-day  that  intangible  property  does  not  require, 
at  the  hands  of  the  government,  that  degree  of 
protection  which  is  required  by  tangible  prop- 
erty. I controvert  and  deny  the  proposition. 
I say  that  the  species  of  property  alluded  to 
more  frequently  disturbs  your  courts,  more  fre- 
quently applies  to  the  law  for  protection,  than 
that  great  body  of  property  upon  which  it 
stands  admitted  the  weight  of  taxation  must  fall 
unmitigated  and  unbroken.  How  often  is  it, 
that  the  time  of  your  tribunals  is  used  up  in  the 
protection  of  the  rights  of  realty  as  compared 
with  the  rights  of  personalty?  How  much 
time  is  occupied  by  the  former  as  compared 
with  the  latter?  How  many  offences  against 
realty  are  committed  as  compared  with  those 
committed  against  personalty  ? I appeal  to  the 
recollection  and  the  conscience  of  every  lawyer 
upon  this  floor  to  pass  in  review  his  experience 
at  the  bar,  and  say  what  portion  of  the  time  of 
courts,  of  the  tribunals  erected  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice  in  this  country,  is  employed 
in  the  one  case  and  how  much  in  the  other.  I 
think  that  personal  property,  in  whatever  con- 
dition it  is,  whether  tangible  or  intangible,  re- 
quires more  of  the  protection  of  the  law,  and 
more  of  the  time  of  our  courts  and  tribunals  in 
protecting  it,  than  does  realty.  If,  then,  taxa- 
tion should  be  based  upon  protection,  and  any 
difference  between  classes  of  property  should  be 
made,  it  should  be  made  in  favor  of  realty  as 
against  personalty. 

Again,  Mr.  President,  I desire  to  return  to  the 
rule  of  the  Constitution  of  1851,  because  I be- 
lieve it  is  a rule  which  has  met  with  the 
approval  of  the  great  body  of  the  people  of  this 
State.  If  there  has  been  any  complaint,  it  has 
not  been  because  there  has  been  too  much  per- 
sonalty placed  upon  the  duplicate,  not  because 
too  much  money  and  credit  have  been  taxed, 
but  because  they  have  too  uniformly  escaped 
taxation,  and  because  too  great  a proportion  of 
the  burdens  of  taxation  has  fallen  upon  realty. 
That  is  the  complaint  that  can  be  heard  in  every 
corner  of  the  country,  at  every  assessment  of 
taxes.  There  is  no  cry  come  up  from  the  great 
body  of  the  property -holders  of  the  State  to 
this  Convention  to  change  that  rule.  It  is  a 
rule  well  settled  in  the  adjudication  of  the 
State,  well  understood  in  practice  by  the  whole 
taxing  power  of  the  State,  and  well  understood 
and  approved  by  the  people.  Wherein,  then, 
exists  the  necessity  of  class  taxation,  of  special 
privileges,  of  special  exemptions  of  property 
employed  in  one  kind  of  business  or  another? 

We  have  been  told  that  the  interests  of  the 
State  have  been  ground  down  for  the  past 
twenty-five  years  by  an  unjust  system  of  taxa- 
tion. I believe  that  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion of  1851  was  called  as  much  for  the  purpose 
of  instituting  a uniform  and  equal  rule  of  taxa- 
tion in  the  State  as  for  any  other  purpose.  At 
least,  the  judges  of  your  courts  have  declared 
to  that  effect  in  pronouncing  a decision  upon 
the  laws  enacted  under  the  Constitution,  and  so 
I believe  the  fact  to  have  been.  The  struggle, 
for  years  in  this  State,  had  been  between  realty 
on  the  one  side  and  moneys  and  credits  on  the 
other.  If  I recollect  aright,  for  the  first  time  in 


2052 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [137th 

Pratt,  Bishop,  Chapin.  [Friday, 


the  history  of  the  State,  in  the  year  1824, 
moneys  began  to  be  taxed.  Until  1846 — until 
the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  Kelley  law — the 
great  burden  of  taxation  in  the  State  had  been 
thrown  upon  realty.  In  the  Convention  of  1851 
the  rule  which  we  now  seek  to  abrogate  was 
established,  and  afterwards  adopted  by  the  peo- 
ple, and  it  has  operated  with  a great  degree  of 
equality  and  justice  upon  citizens  of  the  State. 
Has  it  hampered,  has  it  trameled  and  ground 
out  the  great  industrial  interests,  has  it  retarded, 
in  the  least,  the  growth  and  development  of  the 
State  ? I assert  that  there  are  few  States  on  the 
American  Continent  that,  during  the  past 
twenty  years,  have  had  meted  out  to  them  a 
greater  degree  of  prosperity  than  has  been 
meted  out  to  Ohio.  When  the  Convention  of 
1851  adopted  the  Constitution  of  that  year,  this 
city  was  the  seat  of  little  more  than  one  hun- 
dred thousand  population.  To-day  there  clus- 
ters around  these  hills  three  hundred  thousand 
people. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Has  the  realty  of  the  State  in- 
creased in  value  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  I think  it  has,  most  amaz- 
ingly. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Let  us  see  what  the  Auditor 
of  State  says  they  are  doing. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  will  have  his 
opportunity  when  I get  through. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I do  not  want  to  occupy  much 
of  the  gentleman’s  time.  The  value  of  the  land 
not  in  the  cities  and  towns,  in  1872,  was  some 
six  hundred  and  ninety-nine  millions  of  dollars, 
while  in  1873  it  was  but  some  six  hundred  and 
ninety-eight  millions.  That  is  going  back,  ac- 
cording to  the  tax  returns,  of  $613,000. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Does  any  man  in  this  Conven- 
tion believe  that  the  real  estate  of  this  State  is 
not  more  than  treble  the  value  of  what  it  was  in 
1851  ? Has  it  not  gone  on  in  regular  enhance- 
ment year  by  year  ? 

I propose  now  to  resume  the  line  of  my  re- 
marks, if  I am  permitted.  When  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1851  was  adopted,  Cleveland  was  a trad- 
ing point  on  Lake  Erie,  with  a population  of 
seventeen  thousand.  To-day  it  has  nearly  ten 
times  that  number,  and  has  grown  up  to  be  a 
great  manufacturing  center.  The  cities  of 
Youngstown,  Canton,  Springfield,  Akron — all 
most  active  manufacturing  cities — have  been 
created  within  that  period  of  time  and  under 
that  rule  of  equal  taxation,  and  the  regular,  un- 
interrupted development  of  manufacturing  in- 
terests has  never  been  paralleled  elsewhere.  If 
we  measure  the  material  prosperity  of  the  State 
by  the  advancement  it  has  made  in  manufac- 
tures under  the  Constitution  of  1851,  there  has 
been  no  obstruction  put  upon  our  growth  by 
the  operation  of  just  and  equal  laws.  But  on 
the  contrary,  the  laws  are  equal  and  just  here, 
as  will  be  found  to  be  the  fact  everywhere,  and 
prosperity  has  been  increased.  It  is  true  that 
we  have  adopted  a regular,  equal  and  uniform 
rule  of  taxation,  or  with  the  closest  approach 
to  uniformity  and  equality  of  practice  of  any 
State  in  the  Union,  unless  it  be  the  State  of 
Massachusetts.  I believe  they  go  one  step 
further  than  we  do.  When  they  tax  the  value 
of  the  personalty,  they  even  include,  in  the 
valuation,  personal  property  beyond  the  juris- 
diction of  the  State.  Other  States,  however, 


have  adopted  other  rules  than  those  of  Ohio  and 
Massachusetts,  and  I am  willing  to  compare  the 
prosperity  of  these  two  States,  under  their 
uniform  and  equal  rules,  with  that  of  any  other 
State  in  the  country. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  ask  him  a question  for  information? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I desire  to  know  whether  the 
same  rule  does  not  apply  to  Ohio.  Do  we  not 
go  beyond  the  State  to  tax  property? 

Mr.  PRATT.  1 believe  not. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  My  impression  is  that  we  do. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I think  not.  I think  we  only 
tax  that  chattel  property  the  situs  of  which  is 
in  the  State. 

The  Constitution  of  1850-51  established  one 
rule  as  fundamental  in  taxation;  and  that  was 
that  property — property  without  any  reference 
to  the  relation  of  the  owner  to  the  property — 
was  the  basis  of  taxation.  It  might  be  just,  it 
might  be  equitable,  if  we  could  practically  ar- 
rive at  any  such  rule,  and  enforce  it,  to  tax  each 
individual  according  to  the  wealth  that  he  pos- 
sesses ; but  nobody  proposes  to  establish  such  a 
rule.  It  would  be  found  impossible  of  execu- 
tion if  the  attempt  was  made.  Nobody  pro- 
poses to  exempt  from  taxation  the  great  real  es- 
tate interests  of  the  State,  or  even  relieve  the 
burden  that  falls  upon  that  interest. 

Here  the  hammer  fell,  but  by  leave  of  the 
Convention,  the  gentleman  was  allowed  to  pro- 
ceed. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  is  admitted  that  real  estate 
must  receive  its  burden  of  taxation  without 
amelioration. 

For  what  purpose,  Mr.  President,  is  it  sought 
here,  in  this  amended  Constitution  which  we 
propose  to  submit  to  the  people  of  Ohio,  to  in- 
troduce any  other  or  any  different  rule  from 
the  one  which  is  established,  and  under  which 
we  have  lived  and  prospered  for  nearly  a quar- 
ter of  a century?  If  I correctly  understand 
the  running  report  of  the  debates  in  this  Con- 
vention yesterday,  as  found  in  the  public  press 
this  morning — unfortunately  I was  not  here  to 
listen — this  Report  of  the  Committee  met  with 
very  general  approbation,  but  more  especially 
from  the  commercial  point,  Cincinnati.  My 
friend  on  the  right  [Mr.  Rowland]  and  his  col- 
league [Mr.  Hoadly]  both  thanked  the  Com- 
mittee for  this  Report,  establishing,  not  a uni- 
form rule,  but  equitable  and  uniform  rules , inas- 
much as  it  would  give  an  opportunity  for  the 
classification  of  property  for  taxation — or,  in 
other  words,  one  class  of  property  might  be 
taxed  in  one  way,  and  at  one  valuation,  and  an- 
other in  another. 

Then,  again,  the  provision  which  has  just 
been  stricken  out,  providing  against  double 
taxation,  met  with  approval,  because  it  allowed 
the  removal  from  the  duplicate  of  large  amounts 
of  money  placed  at  interest  and  secured  by 
mortgage,  the  best  of  all  securities.  Now,  Mr. 
President,  I have  not  been  able  to  see,  and  l do 
not  believe  that  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio 
have  been  able  to  see,  the  injustice  inflicted  upon 
any  interest  by  conforming  to  a uniform  and 
equal  rule  of  taxation.  We  are  told  that  money 
has  been  taken  outside  of  the  State;  that 
after  it  has  been  accumulated  here  it  goes 
abroad  in  order  to  escape  taxation.  The 


2053 


DayJ ESTIMATES  FOR  MORE  APPROPRIATIONS. 

March  13, 1874.]  Pratt,  Dorsey,  Hunt,  West,  Hill,  Pond,  Ewing,  Root. 


very  statement  yields  an  argument  in  favor 
of  the  rule,  for  it  admits  that  Ohio  is  a good 
place  wherein  to  accumulate  money.  The 
property  that  is  thus  carried  beyond  the  State, 
in  order  to  escape  our  taxation,  has  been  accu- 
mulated here  in  the  face  of  the  taxation  com- 
plained of,  and  then,  forsooth,  after  our  laws 
have  extended  their  protection  over  the  person 
engaged  in  the  pursuit  of  wealth,  after  he  has 
obtained  that  wealth  here,  under  the  protection 
of  our  laws  and  in  the  face  of  our  taxation, 
because  he  is  mean  enough  to  go  beyond  the 
State  to  enjoy  the  wealth  which  he  reaped  in  the 
State,  we  must  change  the  rule.  For  my  own 
part,  if  a person  who  has  accumulated  wealth 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  under  the  protection  of  our 
just  and  equal  laws,  is  not  willing  to  still  re- 
main a resident  of  the  State,  I can  bid  him  fare- 
well with  a hearty  good-will ; his  room  is  better 
than  his  society ; his  money  is  better  removed 
than  used  among  us,  if  it  is  to  be  used  only 
upon  the  condition  of  special  privileges  being 
extended  to  it.  I am  one  of  those  who  believe 
that  all  men,  both  in  their  persons  and  in  their 
property,  should  stand  before  the  law  upon  the 
basis  of  exact  and  equal  justice — protection  for 
all,  special  privileges  for  none — and,  believing 
that  the  rules  of  that  old  Constitution,  in  the 
main,  provide  just  such  a condition  with  refer- 
ence to  the  taxation  of  property,  I prefer,  in 
most  respects,  to  adhere  to  the  principles  of  that 
Constitution. 

The  motion  being  taken  upon  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  to 
strike  out  the  words  “ equitable  and  uniform 
rule,”  and  insert  the  words  “a  uniform  rule,” 
said  motion  was  not  agreed  to,  no  division  being 
had. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Highland 
[Mr.  Smith]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I simply  wish  to  make  one 
single  amendment.  I propose  to  insert,  in 
place  of  the  words  “a  uniform  rate,”  the  words 
“uniform  rates.” 

Mr.  HUNT.  I move  that  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn. 

The  motion,  however,  was  withdrawn,  and 
leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained  by  Mr. 
Barnet,  from  and  after  the  following  morn- 
ing, indefinitely ; also  by  Mr.  Carbery,  for  Mr. 
Hoadly,  for  day  of  date ; and  for  Mr.  Kraemer, 
until  Tuesday  following. 

The  question  recurring  on  the  substitute  of 
the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  the 
yeas  and  nays  were  demanded  thereon. 

Mr.  WEST.  This  matter  has  been  under  dis- 
cussion in  the  Committee  six  weeks 

Mr.  PRATT.  Probably  for  more  than  two 
months. 

Mr.  WEST.  And  they  have  debated  the  mat- 
ter to-day  to  such  an  extent,  that  most  of  us 
are  in  such  absolute  confusion  that  we  do  not 
know  anything  about  it.  Now,  there  is  a sub- 
stitute offered,  which  has  not  been  discussed.  I 


beg  of  the  Convention  to  adjourn  till  to-morrow 
morning.  I move,  therefore,  that  the  Conven- 
tion do  now  adjourn. 

Before  the  motion  was  put,  Mr.  HILL  asked 
unanimous  leave  of  the  Convention  to  submit 
the  following  Report : 

The  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses,  to  which 
was  referred  Resolution  No.  187,  directing  said  Commit- 
tee to  report  forthwith  what  amount,  in  their  judgment, 
will  be  necessary  to  be  appropriated  by  the  General  As- 
sembly to  cover  the  probable  expenses  of  this  Conven- 
tion, having  had  the  same  under  consideration,  report  as 
follows: 

Amount  due  and  unpaid  to  members  and  officers, 

March  13, 1874 $9,067 

Amount  required  to  pay  members,  officers, printeis 
and  contingent  expenses,  to  March  31, 1874 16,200 

Total  estimate  to  March  31,  1874 $24,267 

Amount  required  to  pay  members,  officers, 
reporters,  printers  and  contingent  ex- 
penses, to  April  30,1874 $24,000 

Amount  required  to  pay  members,  officers, 
reporters  and  contingent  expenses,  to 
May  15, 1874 12,000—  36,000 

Total  to  May  15, 1874 $60,267 

This  estimate  is  based  upon  the  expenditure  of  $800  per 
day,  which  is  about  the  actual  expense  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

George  W.  Hill, 
Ozias  Merrill, 

Wi.  J.  Young, 

John  H.  Blose, 

Committee. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  that  a copy  of  the  Re- 
port be  transmitted  to  the  General  Assembly. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  send 
it  forward. 

Mr.  POND  withdrew  his  motion. 

Mr.  EWING.  I ask  for  what  length  of  time 
the  pay  of  members  is  calculated? 

Mr.  HILL.  We  calculated  until  the  15th  of 
May,  the  expenses  of  various  parties  connected 
with  the  Convention.  We  close  this  month, 
take  the  month  of  April  for  another  period,  and 
then  calculate  until  the  15th  of  May. 

Mr.  EWING.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Re- 
port carries  with  it  the  inference  that  the  Con- 
vention supposes  that  it  probably  will  sit  until 
the  15th  of  May. 

Mr.  HILL.  We  cannot  tell  precisely  what 
time  this  Convention  will  adjourn.  I would  not 
be  surprised  if  we  are  here  next  harvest,  at  the 
rate  we  are  going.  We  thought  it  better  to  cal- 
culate until  the  15th of  May,  at  any  rate;  and, 
then,  if  there  is  anything  left  over,  it  can  be 
placed  in  the  proper  fund. 

Mr.  EWING.  That  will  be  a matter  of  dis- 
cussion when  we  come  to  the  Report  of  the 
Committee.  I shall  object  to  any  estimate  giv- 
ing pay  to  the  members  until  the  15th  of 
May. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I move  that  the  Report  lie  on  the 
table  and  be  printed. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  was  then  renewed  and 
agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:50  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


2054 


[138th 


DEATH  OF  HON.  EDMUND  SMITH. 

Godfrey,  West.  [Saturday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY-EIGHTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SEVENTY-SIXTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  J.  C.  White,  of  the  Pop- 
lar Street  Presbyterian  Church,  as  follows : 

Almighty  God,  our  Heavenly  Father,  we  assume  to 
come  before  Thee  this  morning  under  circumstances  very 
peculiar,  and  we  pray  that  thou  wilt  grant  unto  us  a 
special  blessing,— the  blessing  of  Thy  presence  and  of 
Thy  Spirit,  to  prepare  us  all  to  learn  the  lesson  which 
Thou  art  teaching  us,  and  to  learn  it  wisely  and  well. 
We  thank  Thee,  oh  God,  that  so  many  of  us  are  per- 
mitted to  gather  here  as  are,  and  as  we  gather  in  the 

resence  of  these  symbols  of  death,  we  pray  that  our 

earts  mav  be  tender,  that  our  minds  may  be  thoughtful 
and  we  better  prepared  for  the  work  that  Thou  hast 
given  us  to  do.  The  angel  of  death  hath  passed  by  and 
left  the  dark  shadow  of  nis  wing  upon  this  Convention. 
Thou  hast  taken  away  very  suddenly  one  of  its  number 
in  the  midst  of  health  and  strength;  and,  Oh  God,  how 
certain  it  is  that  we  know  not  what  will  be  upon  the 
morrow!  No  man  can  boast  himself  of  the  morrow;  and 
we  pray  that  Thou  wilt  help  us  to  realize  the  uncertainty 
of  life  and  the  certainty  of  death. 

We  pray  Thee,  our  heavenly  Father,  that  Thou  wilt  re- 
member the  lamily  of  Thy  servant  whom  Thou  hast  thus 
suddenly  called  away,  and  be  Thou  near  and  dear  to 
them,  and  prepare  them  for  the  sad  information,  ano  for 
the  solemn  and  sudden  event.  Be  Thou  with  all  con- 
nected with  this  sad  death;  ard,  Oh  God,  we  beseech 
Thee  that  Thou  wilt  help  all  the  me  i bers  of  this  Con- 
vention to  sympathize  with  the  afflicted  family,  and  to 
bear  the  body  of  their  deceased  brother  to  his  home  ten- 
derly and  lovingly. 

And  be  Thou,  Oh  God,  with  those  mourning  ones,  and 
with  us  all  in  all  the  future,  and  grant  unto  us  grace  that 
we  may  live  every  day  as  though  it  were  our  last,  and  live 
every  day  as  though  we  were  to  live  forever;  and  pre- 
pare us  all  for  whatever  awaits  us  of  sickness,  of  sorrow, 
of  joy,  of  prosperity,  of  adversity,  of  life,  or  of  death, 
that  when  the  end  comes,  whether  it  come  suddenly  or 
otherwise,  we  may  all  be  prepared  to  render  up  our  last 
account,  sanctified  through  the  blood  of  Thy  dear  Son; 
and  through  this  life  of  probation  do  Thou  so  guide  us  in 
all  we  do,  that  at  its  close  we  may  look  back  upon  that 
life  with  joy  and  not  with  grief,  and  when  it  is  ours  to 
go  hence,  do  Thou  gather  us,  one  after  another,  in  Thine 
own  good  time  and  Thine  own  good  way;  for  Thou  doest 
all  things  well.  May  we  all  be  gathered  thus  in  the 
Heavenly  mansions,  where  all  is  peace  and  love,  and 
where  there  is  no  more  death,  nor  tears,  nor  sorrow,  nor 
parting;  and  Thine  shall  be  the  praise  through  Jesus 
Christ,  our  Redeemer.  Amen. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  75  members  an- 
swered to  their  names. 

leave  of  absence. 

Mr.  Tuttle  was  excused  for  absence  to- 
day. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained  for 
Messrs.  Scribner,  Hale,  and  Coats,  until 
Tuesday  next;  for  Mr.  Foran,  until  Wednes- ; 
day  next ; and  for  Messrs.  Dorse  y,Steedm an  and  , 
De  Steiguer,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time.  I 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  1 rise,  Mr.  President,  to  j 
formally  announce  to  the  Convention  the  death  I 


Saturday,  March  14,  1874. 

of  Edmund  Smith,  member  of  this  Convention 
from  Shelby  county,  who  died  suddenly  at  his 
hotel  last  evening  about  six  o’clock.  I there- 
fore move  that  the  rules  of  the  Convention  be 
suspended,  and  that  a Committee  of  three  be 
appointed  by  the  Chair,  to  draft  and  report  ap- 
priate  resolutions  relative  to  the  death  of  our 
late  member  from  Shelby  [Mr.  Smith]. 

The  motion  was  unanimously  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  name 
as  that  Committee,  Messrs.  Godfrey,  Cunning- 
ham, and  Pratt. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  Mr.  President,  I ask  leave 
to  submit  a Report  from  the  Select  Committee 
of  three,  at  this  time. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  Report. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same,*  as  follows : 

Whereas,  Edmund  Smith,  a member  of  this  Conven- 
tion, from  Shelby  county,  while  in  the  apparent  posses- 
sion of  health,  has  suddenly  passed  from  this  life;  there- 
fore, 

Resolved , That  this  startling  event  reminds  us  of  the 
frail  tenure  by  which  we  hold  this  mortal  existence,  and 
of  the  importance  of  a preparation  for  the  life  which  is  to 
come. 

Resolved , That  we  bear  witness  to  the  fidelity  and  dili- 
gence with  which  our  deceased  associate  discharged  his 
duties  as  a member  of  this  body,  and  the  courtesy  which 
characterized  all  his  intercourse  with  his  fellow-mem- 
bers. 

Resolved , That  the  members  of  the  Convention  offer  to 
the  family  and  relatives  of  the  deceased  their  sincere 
condolence  in  this  overwhelming  affliction. 

Resoloed , That  a copy  of  the  foregoing  preamble  and 
resolutions  be  signed  officially  by  the  President  and  Sec- 
retary, and  transmitted  to  the  family  of  the  deceased. 

Resolved , That  the  Convention  in  a body  will  escort  the 
remains  to  the  depot,  and  that  a Committee  of  eight  mem- 
bers will  accompany  them  to  Sidney,  and  attend  their 
burial. 

Resolved , That  the  Convention  do  now  adjourn. 

T.  J.  Godfrey, 

A.  M.  Pratt, 
t.  E.  Cunningham. 

Mr.  WEST.  I rise  to  perform  the  melan- 
choly duty  of  seconding,  most  heartily,  the  reso- 
lutions which  have  just  been  presented.  An- 
other of  our  members  has  gone.  Hardly  had 
the  funeral  cortege  returned  from  the  sad  obse- 
quies of  our  late  colleague,  Dr.  O’Connor,  until 
a repetition  of  the  mournful  pilgrimage  is  de- 
manded. Mr.  Smith,  member  of  this  Conven- 
tion from  Shelby,  expired  last  evening  at  a few 
minutes  before  6 o’clock,  at  his  hotel  in  this 
city,  without  premonition.  In  the  morning  he 
was  in  full  health,  at  noon  in  unusual  exuber- 
ance of  spirits,  at  eventide  the  cerements  of 
death  wrapped  him  in  the  sarcophagus.  How 
impressive  the  suddenness  of  that  taking  off  ad- 
monishes us  that  while  in  the  midst  of  life  death 
is  very  near. 


Day.] ON  THE  DEATH  OF  HON.  EDMUND  SMITH. 2055 

March  14,  1874.]  West,  Ewing,  Dorsey. 


I had  the  pleasure  of  an  intimate  professional 
and  social  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Smith  during 
the  last  fifteen  years.  Prior  to  that  time  it  was  but 
slight,  and  I did  not  have  the  pleasure  of  learning 
his  previous  history  and  his  peculiar  domestic 
habits  of  life.  My  acquaintance  with  him  was 
of  a professional  and  social  character,  and  has 
grown  up  out  of  professional  relations.  Mr. 
Smith  was  a most  genial  and  pleasant  compan- 
ion, which  may  seem  somewhat  strange  to  those 
who  formed  his  acquaintance  here,  because 
that  trait  of  his  character  and  life  was  so  seri- 
ously impeded,  during  his  latter  days,  by  a par- 
tial loss  of  hearing. 

As  a lawyer,  Mr.  Smith  could  not  be  said  to 
be  profound,  yet  he  possessed  such  adroitness 
and  versatility  and  such  strength  of  common 
sense  as  to  render  him  a most  formidable  adver- 
sary. His  place  will  be  most  difficult  to  fill  at 
the  Bar.  I have  no  means  of  knowing  the 
mere  peculiarities  of  his  domestic  life,  but  I un- 
derstand that  those  relations  were  most  pleas- 
ant, and  that  he  was  a very  ardent  and  devoted 
friend,  father  and  husband. 

In  political  life,  Mr.  Smith  always  adhered  to 
the  faith  which  he  expressed  and  manifested 
upon  this  floor,  and  always  had  a deep  and  pro- 
found interest  in  political  questions,  yet  I be- 
lieve he  never  had  any  aspirations  for  official 
position.  I believe  that  the  position  he  filled  at 
the  hour  of  his  death  was  the  first  he  ever  occu- 
pied, unless  it  may  have  been  some  unimport- 
ant local  one.  He  always  discharged  his  duties  1 
to  society  faithfully,  honestly  and  well,  and  was 
respected  by  all;  was  a friend  to  all  and  was 
beloved  by  all  in  the  community  where  here- 
sided.  He  has  discharged  his  last  duty  to  so- 
ciety and  to  the  State.  He  gave  his  honors  to 
the  world  again;  his  better  part  to  Heaven,  and 
rests  in  peace. 

Mr.  EWING.  The  startling  announcement 
of  the  death  of  our  brother  delegate,  Edmund 
Smith,  of  Shelby  county,  gives  us  abundant  rea- 
son for  pause  and  contemplation.  In  the  prime 
of  life,  healthy,  strong,  of  noble  stature  and 
proportion,  he  occupied  his  accustomed  seat  yes- 
terday, in  his  accustomed  attitude  of  interest  and 
attention.  In  little  more  than  an  hour  after  he 
left  this  hall,  we  were  summoned  to  the  hotel, 
where  we  saw  him  stretched  on  the  floor,  dead  1 
Not  a moment  of  illness,  not  a note  of  warning, 
not  even  the  shadow  of  Death’s  wing,  premoni- 
tory of  the  impending  stroke;  no  chance  to 
summon  wife,  or  child,  or  friend;  no  parting 
look,  nor  warm  clasp  of  hand,  nor  word  of  lov- 
ing farewell, 

“To  cheer  his  spirit  ere  its  hark 

Put  forth  into  the  unknown  dark.” 

To  him,  perhaps,  the  death  was  happier  than 
would  have  been  one  less  sudden.  But  oh  ! the 
agony  of  a loss  so  swift,  unlooked  for  and  un- 
ending to  the  loved  ones  at  home;  to  the  wife 
and  five  children  whose  affections  which  yes- 
terday entwined  about  him,  now  lie  torn, 
bruised  and  prostrate  as  the  tender  vine  when 
the  oak  it  adorns,  and  which  lifts  it  to  the  sun- 
light, is  rent  and  smitten  by  the  lightning’s 
stroke. 

My  acquaintance  with  our  deceased  friend 
was  but  slight  until  we  met  in  this  Convention 
last  summer.  He  was  a just,  fair-minded,  hon- 
orable man.  We  have  all  heard  him  in  debate 


here — a direct  and  forcible  speaker,  well  in- 
formed on  every  topic  he  discussed ; one  who 
spoke  too  little  rather  than  too  much.  Rarely 
absent  from  his  post  in  the  Convention  or  on 
committee ; always  informed  as  to  the  state  and 
movement  of  business,  and  discharging  his 
duties  promptly,  intelligently,  and  without  a 
sign  of  party  bias,  he  well  and  ably  represented 
in  this  assembly  the  whole  people  of  his  county. 
As  his  body  is  borne  hence  to  its  last  resting 
place,  among  those  who  knew  and  loved  him 
best,  we  send  to  them  our  regretful  sympathies, 
and  our  testimony  to  the  faithfulness  of  the  pub- 
lic service  which  ended  and  crowned  his  career 
on  earth. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Again,  almost  before  we 
have  recovered  from  the  shock  caused  by  the 
loss  of  one  honored  and  respected  member  of  this 
body  [Mr.  O’Connor],  Death  comes  among  us, 
and  by  a single  sudden  blow,  removes  another 
from  our  midst. 

The  call  from  life  to  death  has  in  it,  always, 
much  that  is  terrible.  But  when  the  slow  de- 
cay of  body  and  mind  marks  the  gradual  ex- 
tinction of  the  vital  spark  we  prepare  ourselves 
slowly  and  reluctantly  for  the  final  catastrophe, 
and  can  often  welcome  the  departure  of  friends, 
as  a happy  release  from  suffering,  and  a joyous 
translation  to  a more  exalted  state  of  being. 
Not  so,  when  the  strong  man,  without  a mo- 
ment’s warning,  is  stricken  down,  in  his  career 
of  vigorous  labor  and  widely  extended  useful- 
ness, and  passes  from  among  us  suddenly,  as 
the  meteor  falls  from  the  evening  sky.  But 
the  good  and  the  useful  pass  not  away  as  the 
falling  meteor  and  leave  no  trace  behind.  Their 
path  in  society  is  marked  at  every  step  by  the 
beneficial  influences  they  have  exerted  among 
their  fellow-men,  and  when  our  eyes  rest  no 
more  on  the  forms  and  faces  we  have  learned  to 
know  and  to  love,  their  memory  still  lives  in  the 
good  they  have  accomplished.  It  is  not  often 
that  the  lesson  of  mortality  is  so  sternly  taught, 
as  it  is  to  us  to-day.  But  yesterday  we  met 
with  the  gap  lately  made  in  our  ranks,  closed 
up,  and  each  man  in  health  and  vigor  prepared 
to  do  his  work;  but  almost  befoTe  the  evening 
sun  had  set,  death  again  enters  and  claims  an- 
other victim.  Not  ours  to  question,  not  ours  to 
murmur;  for  us  it  is  only  to  submit. 

When  all  is  bright  and  all  is  cheerful  about 
us,  we  may  feel  as  if  in  ourselves  were  strength 
and  power  to  guide  us  on  our  way,  and  deem, 
perhaps,  we  scarcely  need  a superintending 
Providence  to  guard  us  from  impending  ill; 
but  when  one  is  snatched  from  among  us, 
as  our  friend  and  companion  is  to-day,  by  a 
blow  as  unexpected  and  unlooked-for  as  the 
sharp  thunder-clap  in  the  cloudless  sky  of  sum- 
mer, we  start  at  our  weakness  and  our  frailty, 
and  look  around  for  aid  and  succor  from  a 
power  stronger  than  lies  in  any  finite  arm. 
How  comfortably  come  to  us  then  the  words  of 
the  Psalmist,  “ I will  lift  mine  eyes  to  the  hills 
from  whence  cometh  mine  aid.  My  safety 
cometh  even  from  the  Lord  who  hath  made 
Heaven  and  Earth,”  and  leaning  thus  for  sup- 
port on  the  Infinite  we  feel  that  we  can  look 
beyond  the  grave. 

Can  any  one  for  a moment  suppose  that  labors 
thus  suddenly  closed,  a life  thus  terminated, 

' has  not  another  sphere  of  action,  where  that 


2056 


ON  THE  DEATH  OF  HON.  EDMUND  SMITH. [138th 

Dorsey,  Cunningham,  Hill.  [Saturday, 


which  is  left  uncompleted  here,  will  go  onward 
and  onward  to  a higher  and  more  glorious  per- 
fection ? Can  mind  and  soul,  with  all  their  vast 
capacities,  be  thus  hurried  from  earth,  and  find 
no  other  place  where  to  expand  and  grow  and 
work  out  those  vast  and  scarcely  defined  ideol- 
ogies, which  present  themselves  to  us  day  by 
day  in  our  life’s  journey?  We  can  never  hes- 
itate for  an  answer  to  the  momentous  question, 
“ if  a man  die,  shall  he  live  again?”  “ There 
is  a divinity  that  stirs  within  us  and  points  out 
an  hereafter.”  “Shadows,  clouds,  and  dark- 
ness,” indeed,  may  rest  upon  it,  but  this  is  only 
to  the  mind  untaught  by  the  beautiful  lessons  of 
revelation.  By  this,  the  veil  is  lifted,  and  far 
as  finite  vision  can  penetrate,  there  opens  a 
grand  continuance  of  being,  whose  realities 
can  only  be  fully  read  and  understood  when  the 
mortal  is  merged  in  immortality.  But  enough 
of  its  grandeur  and  its  extent  is  opened  to  us, 
even  here,  to  convince  us  that  the  good  old  an- 
chorite was  not  deceived  when  he  sang  in 
scarcely  less  than  inspired  accents : 

“Thou  hast  no  shore,  fair  ocean, 

Thou  hast  no  night,  bright  day; 

Sweet  fountain  of  refreshment 
To  pilgrims  far  away.'* 

Such  be  our  anticipations,  such  be  our  com- 
fort, when  sorrow  falls  upon  us  as  it  has  done 
to-day. 

A few  words  may  be  not  inappropriately  added 
in  regard  to  him  to  whom,  to-day,  we  are  called 
to  pay  the  last  tribute  of  respect.  More  than 
twenty  years  have  passed  since  I first  became 
acquainted  with  Mr.  Smith.  Living  in  contig- 
uous counties  and  belonging  to  the  same  politi- 
cal party,  we  soon  became  friends,  and  that 
friendship  has  never  been  interrupted  by  any 
subsequent  events,  or  by  any  changes  in  our  po- 
litical relations.  During  the  unhappy  days  of 
the  rebellion,  Mr.  Smith,  though  still  retaining 
his  old  party  affiliations,  was  earnest  and  active 
in  the  support  of  his  country.  As  a lawyer  he 
was  active,  industrious,  and  successful ; occupy- 
ing an  enviable  position  at  the  bar  of  his  county, 
where  for  nearly  a quarter  of  a century  he  has 
been  known  as  an  able,  honest,  and  intelligent 
advocate. 

He  was  born  in  one  of  States  of  New  Eng- 
land, studied  law,  I believe,  in  the  city  of  Tif- 
fin, but  while  yet  a young  man,  he  located  at 
Sidney,  the  county  seat  of  Shelby  county.  Mar- 
ried and  surrounded  by  a family  and  a large 
circle  of  friends,  his  life,  if  prolonged,  as  only 
a few  hours  ago  there  seemed  every  prospect 
that  it  would  be,  promised  to  afford  him  unin- 
terrupted scenes  of  enjoyment  and  the  attain- 
ment of  many  of  life’s  coveted  honors.  Mr. 
Smith,  if  I remember  rightly,  has  seldom  al- 
lowed himself  to  be  placed  in  any  official  posi- 
tion, and  many  of  his  friends  were  surprised 
that  he  permitted  himself  to  be  elected  as  a 
member  to  this  Convention.  His  inability  to 
hear  distinctly  what  was  said  around  him  in  the 
Hall  has  prevented  him  from  taking  much  active 
part  in  our  debates,  but,  whenever  he  has 
spoken,  it  will  be  observed  by  all  that  his  re- 
marks were  characterized  by  earnestness  and 
much  sober  good  sense.  He  was  an  ardent 
friend  of  the  cause  of  temperance,  and  was 
particularly  anxious  to  do  here  some  good  work 
that  might  subserve  this  important  interest  of 


our  State.  He  has  passed  from  among  us; 
this  draped  seat  he  will  no  more  occupy,  but 
those  who  have  had  the  good  fortune  to  know 
him  will  long  remember  his  excellent  qualities 
of  head  and  of  heart.  To  his  bereaved  family 
and  friends  we  extend  our  most  heartfelt  sym- 
pathy in  this  sad  hour  of  bereavement  and  trial. 
To  him  we  can  only  say:  Good  friend,  true 
companion,  brave  heart,  farewell. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yesterday  Edmund 
Smith  answered  to  the  roll  call  of  the  Conven- 
tion in  the  apparent  enjoyment  of  health,  but 
ere  the  sun  went  down  the  dreadful  Messenger 
summoned  him  to  another  existence.  It  was  so 
sudden,  so  utterly  without  note  of  warning,  that 
even  now  we  can  scarcely  realize  that  our 
Maker  has  “ changed  his  countenance  and  sent 
him  away.”  In  the  midst  of  a useful  career, 
just  at  the  meridian  of  life,  his  appointed  time 
upon  the  earth  was  struck,  and  “ as  the  cloud 
is  consumed  ” he  has  vanished  away. 

“ If  a man  die,  shall  he  live  again  ?”  This 
question  has  sounded  down  through  the  ages, 
but  along  with  it  has  come  the  answer  that  he 
will.  The  revelations  of  God  to  man,  inspira- 
tion and  nature,  religion  and  the  philosophy  of 
life,  alike  inspire  the  hope  that  this  world  is  not 
all  there  is  of  life. 

Mr.  Smith  was  born  in  the  State  of  Maine,  in 
the  year  1819,  whence  he  removed  with  his 
father’s  family,  to  Huron  county,  Ohio.  When 
he  was  admitted  to  practice  law  he  settled  at 
Sidney,  and  has  remained  there  ever  since.  He 
was  a good  lawyer  and  an  honest  man. 

Mr.  HILL.  My  first  acquaintance  with  the 
deceased  was  at  the  opening  of  the  session  of 
this  Convention  at  Columbus.  Up  to  the  time 
we  re-assembled  in  this  city,  in  consequence  of 
the  physical  infirmities,  which  have  been  al- 
luded to,  and  from  an  apparent  reticence  on  his 
part,  my  acquaintance  with  him  was  very  lim- 
ited. We  met  here  and  took  our  abode  at  the 
same  hotel,  where  we  were  seat-mates  at  the 
table.  There  Mr.  Smith  made  to  me  the  state- 
ment that  he  was  not  naturally  taciturn,  but 
that  his  disposition  was  to  be  agreeable,  and  that 
he  highly  appreciated  the  friendships  and  cour- 
tesies of  those  with  whom  he  was  brought  in 
contact,  and  would  be  glad  on  all  occasions  to 
evince  that  temper,  but  feared  he  would  annoy 
those  who  attempted  to  converse  with  him,  be- 
cause of  his  defect  in  hearing.  For  two  or 
three  months  past  my  sympathies  were  drawn 
towards  him,  and  our  mutual  friendship  grew 
stronger  day  by  day.  I found  him  to  be  a man 
of  warm  attachments,  genial  manners,  and  of  a 
very  friendly  disposition.  Last  evening,  at  our 
adjournment,  he  left  this  Hall  in  fine  spirits,  and 
in  health  and  vigor.  He  went  directly  to  his 
hotel,  and  while  conversing  with  one  of  its  em- 
ployes, on  business,  was  struck  down  by  a shaft 
from  the  Angel  of  Death  without  a moment’s 
warning.  I was  present  when  he  expired.  All 
that  medical  skill  could  suggest  at  the  moment 
was  brought  to  his  relief,  but  the  vital  spark 
had  taken  its  everlasting  flight!  It  seemed  like 
a dream  when  I looked  upon  his  lifeless  body, 
seemingly  reposing  in  a profound  sleep,  the 
blow  was  so  sudden — so  unexpected.  He  had 
left  his  seat  a few  moments  before,  hale,  hearty, 
and  apparently  sound  in  body,  vivacious  and  in 
! high  spirits,  and  now  he  was  dead ! Could  it  be  ? 


Day.] ON  THE  DEATH  OF  HON.  EDMUND  SMITH. 2057 

March  14,  1874.]  Hill,  Sample.  , 


When  we  consider  the  constitution  of  the  hu- 
man mind  it  must  be  apparent  to  all  reflecting 
persons  that  death  is  not  an  eternal  sleep ; that 
although  our  bodies  in  death  put  on  corruption, 
the  immortal  principle,  called  the  soul,  will  ex- 
ist in  another  and  higher  sphere,  as  long  as  the 
Creator  by  whose  will  it  was  united  with  its 
frail  tenement  upon  this  globe.  When  we  call 
up  the  remembrance  of  the  departed  good — 

“Theirs  is  the  lay  that  lightly  floats; 

And  theirs  are  the  murmuring,  dying  notes, 

That  fall  as  soft  as  snow  on  the  sea, 

And  melt  in  the  heart  as  inst  intly; 

And  the  passionate  strain  that  deeply  going, 

Refines  the  bosom  it  trembles  through, 

As  the  musk- wind  over  the  waters  blowing, 

Ruffles  the  wave,  but  sweetens  it  too.” 

I am  convinced  that  our  departed  friend  has 
been  called  to  a higher  state  of  enjoyment.  He 
was  a man  of  sterling  integrity,  highly  esteemed 
in  his  own  county,  frank  and  honest  in  express- 
ing his  opinions  on  public  affairs,  prompt  in  his 
attendance  as  a member  of  this  Convention, — 
nearly  always  in  his  seat,  faithful  in  the  dis- 
charge of  his  duties;  in  private  life,  pure  and 
upright,  a tender  parent  and  a devoted  husband. 
It  will  be  difficult  to  fill  the  seat,  now  vacant 
and  draped,  by  so  able  and  pure  a man.  Itonly 
remains  for  his  fellow-delegates  upon  this  floor 
to  emulate  his  industry  and  integrity.  I am 
sure  we  all  deeply  sympathize  with  his  family 
in  their  irreparable  loss. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  On  this  solemn  occasion,  I 
rise  to  mingle  my  sympathies  with  those  of  the 
gentlemen  who  have  just  spoken.  We  are  all 
mourners  here,  and  brothers  in  more  senses 
than  one.  We  are  all  here  together,  a brother- 
hood, connected  with  each  other  by  the  com- 
mon band  of  humanity.  But  we,  who  have  been 
selected  for  a peculiar  purpose,  representing 
the  people  of  this  State,  are  united  as  a broth- 
erhood of  a more  intimate  character ; so  that 
the  deceased  was  a brother  by  the  ties  of  hu- 
manity and  also  by  reason  of  his  connection 
with  us  in  this  effort  to  improve  the  law  for  the 
good  of  our  people.  Thus  solemnly  connected, 
one  has  been  taken  away  and  this  Hall  has  be- 
come peculiarly  melancholy  on  account  of  this 
visitation,  and  the  words  which  have  been  ut- 
tered here.  Until  recently  we  have  enjoyed 
unusual  exemption  from  the  ordinary  lot  of 
men,  waen  we  consider  the  length  of  time  we 
have  been  assembled  together.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  our  session,  almost  one  of  the 
first  acts  of  this  body  was  to  join  in  doing  honor 
to  the  memory  of  one  who  had  been  a citizen  of 
Ohio,  and  a distinguished  citizen  of  the  Nation, 
[Chief  Justice  Chase]  who  had  passed  away. 
But  a few  days  since,  this  Convention  was  called 
to  express  sympathy  in  behalf  of  the  distressed 
and  afflicted  relatives  of  one  of  our  number  who 
had  been  called  from  earth  [Mr.  John  D.  O’Con- 
nor], and  since  that,  and  but  a very  few  days 
ago,  the  attention  of  this  Convention  was  for- 
mally called  to  the  departure  of  two  eminent 
men,  not  connected  with  Ohio  further  than  as 
they  were  connected  with  the  whole  Nation. 
Scarcely  have  the  echoes  of  that  announcement 
passed  away,  when  we  are  called  this  morning 
to  contemplate,  in  a more  intimate  and  startling 
manner,  another  unexpected  visitation  from  the 
King  of  Terrors.  Yesterday,  when  I had  the 
honor  of  addressing  the  Convention,  sat  the  de- 


parted in  that  chair,  giving  as  particular  atten- 
tion to  what  fell  from  my  feeble  lips  as  any  of 
the  gentlemen  who  are  now  in  this  Hall.  Now, 
that  chair  is  draped  in  mourning.  The  mind 
that  was  directed  to  my  communications  yes- 
terday has  passed  away.  It  has  been  said  that 
that  member  answered  to  the  roll  call  yester- 
day. To  what  voice  does  he  answer  to-day  ? 
To  what  call  has  he  responded  this  morning? 
These  are  questions  which  suggest  reflections 
of  great  importance.  These  are  questions  not 
for  the  dead,  but  for  the  living.  Death  comes 
before  us  in  all  his  modified  forms,  and  there  is 
majesty  in  his  presence,  under  whatever  cir- 
cumstances he  may  make  his  appearance  among 
men.  Yesterday,  we  were  all  intent  upon  the 
various  schemes  for  the  achievement  of  the 
great  work  for  which  we  are  brought  here. 
To-day,  death  has  made  his  presence  known 
among  us,  and  there  is  not  a thought  now 
devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  State.  We  are 
are  all  called  to  contemplate  the  solemn  reali- 
ties of  the  change  which  awaits  man  when  he 
is  summoned  to  leave  this  world.  These  are 
considerations  of  grave  importance,  not  to  the 
dead  but  to  the  living.  It  matters  not  to  the 
member  who  has  now  passed  away  what  may 
be  done  or  said  about  him  by  those  who  sur- 
vive; but  it  is  a matter  of  importance  to  the 
living.  There  are  those  with  whom  we  deeply 
sympathise,  whose  hearts  are  rent  by  the  infor- 
mation of  this  overwhelming  affliction.  There 
is  a bereaved  wife.  The  head  of  the  family  is 
taken  away,  and  they  are  now  left  desolate  and 
in  sorrow.  To  them  we  all  extend  our  most 
cordial  and  our  most  heart-felt  sympathy.  But 
this  is  not  all  that  is  required  on  such  an  occa- 
sion. It  is  not  because  man  dies  that  men  who 
live  are  under  obligation  to  give  heed  to  the 
warning.  It  can  be  of  no  value  to  the  dead. 
But  the  object  of  the  grave  ceremony,  for  which 
we  are  convened  together,  is  that  we  may  draw 
lessons  of  instruction  from  this  visitation.  I 
suppose  that  if,  yesterday,  the  question  had  been 
propounded  to  this  Convention,  who  wa3  most 
likely  to  be  first  called  away  from  its  number, 
it  is  not  probable  that  a single  man  would  have 
selected  Edmund  Smith.  In  the  full  vigor  of 
life,  past  what  is  ordinarily  recognized  as  the 
turning  period  of  life,  and  bidding  as  fair  for 
long  life,  so  far  as  my  observation  extended,  as 
any  man  in  this  Convention,  it  might  reasona- 
bly have  been  expected  that  he  would  attain  to 
a ripe  old  age,  and  be  gathered  home  like  a 
shock  of  corn  in  its  season.  But  he  is  gone. 
The  angel  of  death  has  made  us  a visitation,  and 
he  loves  a shining  mark.  It  shows  the  majesty 
and  power  of  death,  when  the  weak,  and  those 
who  give  indications  of  failing  health  are  pass- 
ed by,  and  men  who  are  in  the  full  vigor  of  life, 
who  may  expect  to  live  long,  and  in  whom  our 
hopes  are  placed,  are  taken  away.  It  shows  the 
majesty  and  power  of  that  agent  by  which  the 
days  of  man  are  terminated. 

These,  then,  are  solemn  considerations  for  us 
who  live.  We  live  not  for  ourselves,  but  for 
others.  We  live  not  for  ourselves  and  for  the 
enjoyment  of  the  present  day,  we  live  for  the 
higher  destiny  for  which  we  are  now  called 
upon  to  make  preparation. 

With  our  brother  who  has  passed  away  I had 
not  the  pleasure  of  intimate  personal  acquain- 


2058 


ON  THE  DEATH  OF  HON.  EDMUND  SMITH.  [138th  Day. 


Sample,  Godfrey.  [Saturday,  March  14, 1874. 


tance.  My  acquaintance  was  only  such  as  was 
made  in  this  Convention,  and,  from  his  pecu- 
liarities of  habit,  that  was  by  no  means  intimate ; 
but  I can  bear  unhesitating  testimony  to  his 
devotion  to  the  duties  which  brought  him  here 
— to  his  uniform  attentiveness,  to  his  courtesy, 
and  the  propriety  of  his  demeanor  in  this  Hall. 
This  we  may  all  treasure  up  in  our  memories, 
and  reduce  to  practice,  with  profit,  in  our  ex- 
perience. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  I ask  that  a vote  be  first 
taken  upon  ail  the  resolutions,  but  the  last.  This 
is  necessary,  as  will  be  seen  in  a moment. 

The  question  was  then  taken,  in  accordance 
with  this  suggestion,  and  the  resolutions  were 
unanimously  adopted. 


The  Chair  appointed  as  a Committee  of  Ar- 
rangements to  attend  the  body  of  the  deceased  : 
Messrs.  Dorsey,  Blose,  Hunt,  Van  Valken- 
burgh,  Rickly,  Pond,  and  Hill. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  requested 
to  state  that  arrangements  have  been  made  by 
which  the  body  of  Mr.  Smith  will  be  taken  from 
the  city  to-day,  at  half-past  two  this  afternoon. 
Gentlemen  who  desire  to  attend  in  pursuance  of 
the  resolution,  are  requested  to  meet  in  this  Hall 
so  as  to  leave  here  punctually  at  half-past 
one. 

The  question  was  then  taken  upon  the  last 
resolution,  which  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Con- 
vention adjourned,  at  10 : 35  a.  m. 


MEMORIAL,  PETITIONS,  AND  REPORT 

Cowen,  Waddle,  Baber,  Pease,  Griswold. 


2059 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY-NINTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVEN- 
TION. 

SEVENTY-SEVENTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Monday,  March  16, 1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Lee,  of  the  Cin- 
cinnati Union  Bethel. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  70  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

MEMORIAL  AND  PETITIONS. 

Mr.  COWEN  presented  the  memorial  of  the 
quarterly  meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends 
held  at  Plainfield,  Belmont  county,  Ohio,  and 
signed  by  Joseph  Mead,  and  Jane  Edgerton, 
(clerks),  remonstrating  against  any  clause  be- 
ing incorporated  in  the  Constitution  calculated 
to  abridge  the  religious  rights  and  privileges  of 
moral  citizens,  which  the  Secretary,  by  re- 
quest, read  as  follows: 

To  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of  Ohio: 

We,  the  Quarterly  Meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends, 
held  at  Plainfield,  Belmont  county,  Ohio,  25th  of  2d  Mo., 
1874,  do  earnestly  remonstrate  against  engrafting  into  the 
future  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  any  clause 
recognizing  any  extraordinary  relation  to  the  Deity,  that 
may  in  any  wise  abridge  the  religious  rights  and  privil- 
eges of  any  class  of  moral  citizens,  believing,  as  we  do, 
that  such  will  prove  the  initiatory  steps  to  a union  of 
Church  and  State. 

The  Clerks  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  are  directed  to 
sign  and  forward  this  petition  to  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention of  the  State  of  Ohio,  held  at  Cincinnati. 

Joseph  Mead, 

Jane  Edgerton, 

Clerks. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  WADDLE  presented  the  petition  of  Rev. 
George  C.  Warvel  and  33  other  citizens  of  Mill- 
ville, Butler  county,  for  an  acknowledgment 
of  Almighty  God  and  the  Christian  Religion  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Pre- 
amble and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  BABER  presented  the  petition  of  Henry 
C.  Noble,  John  W.  Andrews,  Judge  Joseph 
Olds,  W.  R.  Rankin,  and  thirty-seven  other 
members  of  the  Bar  of  Franklin  county,  protes- 
ting against  Franklin  county  being  disconnected 
from  the  circuit  of  the  counties  in  the  Scioto 
Valley,  and  Hocking  valley,  with  which  other 
legal  business  intere&t  has  been  associated, 
which  the  Secretary,  by  request,  read  as  fol- 
lows : 

To  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of  Ohio: 

The  undersigned,  members  of  the  bar  of  Franklin 
county,  Ohio,  do  hereby  respectfully  protest  against  this 


county  being  united  with  the  counties  of  Muskingum  and 
Licking,  and  the  counties  north  of  this,  in  a judicial  cir- 
cuit, as  our  connection  with  these  counties,  in  legal  busi- 
ness, is  of  the  slightest  kind,  never  having  been  united 
in  any  judicial  district  with  these  counties  under  the 
present  Constitution.  Our  natural  connection,  in  legal 
business,  is  with  the  counties  in  the  Scioto  and  Hocking 
Valleys,  with  which  we  have  been  connected,  under  the 
present  Constitution,  judicially,  for  twenty  years,  under 
the  Act  of  Feb.  19, 1852. 

Henry  C.  Noble, 

R.  A.  Harrison, 

B.  F.  Martin, 

L.  G.  Byrne, 

E L.  DeWitt, 

Henry  C.  Taylor, 

John  G.  AlcGuffy, 

J.  C.  Richards, 

J.  D.  Sullivan, 

Stacy  Taylor, 

Joseph  Olds, 

John  M.  Pugh, 

John  D.  Burnett, 

John  H.  Sharp, 

H.  J.  Wylie, 

P.  B.  Case, 

David  Keller, 

H.  B.  Albery, 

F.  F.  D.  Albery, 

B.  F.  Stage, 


J.  N.  Baldwin, 
Lorenzo  English, 

C.  N.  Olds, 

E.  L.  Taylor, 

J.  H.  Heitmann, 

John  W.  Andrews, 

W.  T.  Wallace, 

Geo.  K.  Nash, 

John  C.  Groom, 

G.  F.  Castle, 

Joseph  H.  Outhwaite, 
T.  J.  Duncan, 

M.  A.  Daugherty, 

J.  T.  Holmes, 

W.  R.  Rankin, 
Woodruff  & Stewart, 
G.  J.  Marriott, 

Chas.  E.  Burr,  Jr., 
David  H.  Watson, 
James  L.  Bates. 


Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Judicial  Department. 

Mr.  PEASE  presented  five  petitions,  all  on  the 
same  subject,  of  Frank  G.  Treash  and  210  other 
citizens  of  Stark  county,  remonstrating  against 
the  amen  ment  to  section  2,  Article  VI  of  the 
Constitution  as  proposed  by  the  majority  of  the 
Committee  on  Education. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  in  connection  with  the  Report  ot  the  Com- 
mittee on  Education. 

Mr.  BABER  presented  the  petition  of  J.  M. 
Cowley,  J.  Mithoff,  and  30  other  citizens  of 
Franklin  county,  asking  that  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  relating  to  incorporations  be  so 
formed  as  to  relieve  stockholders  from  undivided 
liability. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  oil 
Corporations  other  than  Municipal. 


REPORT  FROM  STANDING  COMMITTEE — FIRST  READ- 
ING. 


Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I submit  the  following 
Report  from  the  Committee  on  Corporations 
other  than  Municipal : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  Report. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 


2060 


REPORTS  AND  SECOND  READINGS. 

GrRISWOLD,  WATSON,  COOK. 


[I39tl 

[Monday 


REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  CORPORATIONS 
OTHER  THAN  MUNICIPAL. 


transfers  of  such  stock,  and  the  names  and  places  of  resi 
dence  of  the  company’s  officers. 


The  Committee  on  Corporations  other  than  Municipal, 
to  which  was  referred  A rticle  XIII,  and  the  several  propo- 
sitions and  petitions  on  that  subject,  having  had  the  same 
under  consideration,  beg  leave  to  report  the  following 
Proposition,  No.  225,  as  a substitute  for  Article  XIII  of 
•the  present  Constitution.  It  is  due,  however,  to  several 
of  the  members  of  the  Committee,  to  say  that  they  do  not 
•concur  in  recommending  the  adoption  of  all  the  sections 
an  the  proposed  substitute,  but  they  prefer  to  unite  in  the 
Report,  with  this  qualification,  rather  than  make  a sep- 
arate Report. 

S.  O.  Griswold, 

T.  E.  Cunningham, 

F.  B Pond, 

Thomas  Ewing, 

John  W.  Herron, 

A.  C.  Voris, 

Carolus  F.  Yoorhes, 

Adam  Clay. 

Geo.  M.  Tuttle  makes  a separate  Report. 

Proposition  No.  225— By  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Corporations  other  than  Municipal: 

A Substitute  for  Article  XIII  of  the  Constitution. 
Section  1.  The  General  Assembly  shall  pass  no  spec- 
ial act  conferring  corporate  powers. 

Sec.  2.  Corporations  may  be  formed  under  general 
laws;  but  all  such  laws  may,  from  time  to  time,  be  altered 
or  repealed. 

Sec.  3.  Dues  from  corporations  shall  be  secured  by 
such  individual  liability  of  the  stockholders  and  other 
means  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law;  but,  in  all  cases, 
each  stockholder  shall  be  liable  over  and  above  the  stoca 
by  him  or  her  owned,  and  any  amount  unpaid  thereon  to 
a further  sum,  at  least  equal  in  amount  to  such  stock. 

Sec.  4.  The  property  of  corporations  now  existing,  or 
hereafter  created,  shall  forever  be  subject  to  taxation, 
the  same  as  the  property  of  individuals,  except  as  may 
be  otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitution. 

Sec  6.  No  property  shall  be  appropriated  to  the  use  of 
any  corporation  until  full  compensation  therefor  be  first 
made  in  money,  or  first  secured  by  a deposit  of  money  to 
the  owner,  irrespective  of  any  benefit  from  any  improve- 
ment proposed  by  such  corporation ; which  compensation 
shall  be  ascertained  by  a jury  of  twelve  men  in  a court  of 
record,  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  6 No  act  of  the  General  Assembly  authorizing 
the  issue  of  bills,  notes,  or  other  paper,  which  may  circu- 
late as  money,  shall  take  effect  until  it  shall  have  been 
submitted  to  the  people  at  the  general  election  next  suc- 
ceeding the  passage  thereof,  and  be  approved  by  a ma- 
jority of  all  the  electors  voting  at  such  election. 

Sec.  7.  The  directors  of  every  incorporated  company 
shall  be  chosen  annually.  At  all  elections  for  directors 
each  shareholder  shall  have  as  many  votes  as  the  number 
of  shares  held  by  him,  multiplied  by  the  number  of  direc- 
tors to  be  chosen,  and  may  cast  all  his  votes  for  one  can- 
didate, or  distribute  them,  as  he  may  see  fit. 

Sec.  8.  Foreign  corporations  may  be  authorized  to  do 
business  in  this  State,  under  such  limitations  and  restric- 
tions as  may  be  prescribed  by  law;  and  such  corpora- 
tions shall,  as  to  contracts  made  or  business  done  in  this 
State  be  subject  to  the  same  limitation  and  liabilities  as 
like  corporations  of  this  State;  but  no  other  or  greater 
powers,  privileges,  or  franchises,  shall  be  exercised  by 
such  corporations  than  may  be  exercised  by  like  corpor- 
ations of  this  State;  nor  shall  such  corporations  have 
power  to  condemn  or  appropriate  private  property  to 
their  own  use. 

Sec.  9.  The  General  Assembly  may,  by  general  laws, 
extend  the  existence  of  corporations  created  prior  to 
September  1st,  1851,  subject  to  all  the  provisions  of  this 
Article. 

Sec.  10.  The  General  Assembly  shall  prohibit,  under 
proper  penalties  and  forfeitures,  any  director  or  officer  of 
a railroad  company,  during  his  term  of  office,  from  buy- 
ing the  capital  stock  of  6uch  company  at  less  than  par,  or 
being  interested  in  any  contract  with  it,  except  as  an  or- 
dinary shipper  or  passenger. 

Sec.  11.  No  railroad  company  shall  consolidate  with 
another  having  a line  parallel  or  competing  with  its  own ; 
or  lease,  purchase  or  control  such  line;  and  no  officer  of 
a railroad  company  shall  act  as  an  officer  of  any  other 
railroad  company  owning  or  having  the  control  of  such 
parallel  or  competing  line. 

.. 1 r.ailroad  corporation  doing  business  in 
u ii  u ? 8”a'J  maintain  an  office  therein,  where  books 
shall  be  kept  for  inspection  by  any  person  pecuniaiily 
Interested  in  such  corporation,  in  which  shall  be  recorded  < 
the  subscriptions  to  the  capital  stock  of  such  company,  i 
the  amounts  paid  on  them  severally,  the  names  of  the  < 
owners  of  the  stock,  and  the  amount  held  by  each,  the 


Mr.  WATSON".  I am  authorized  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights  to  report 
back  the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights  as  re- 
committed to  us  without  making  any  furthei 
amendment.  Some  verbal  alterations  have  been 
made  by  the  Committee  in  connection  with  gen- 
tlemen who  offered  amendments  with  the  view 
to  making  the  meaning  and  purposes  of  th€ 
amendments  more  explicit.  Otherwise  the  Ar- 
ticle is  reported  back  as  it  was  recommitted  tc 
us,  and  I now  move  that  it  be  ordered  to  be  en- 
grossed for  its  third  reading,  and  that  it  be  read 
the  third  time  to-morrow. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 


SECOND  READINGS. 

The  following  Propositions  were  read  the 
second  time : 

Proposition  No.  223— By  Mr.  Herron  : 

To  amend  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution,  by  adding  an 
additional  section  thereto. 

Sec.  — . The  General  Assembly  shall  forever  prohibit, 
by  appropriate  fines  and  penalties,  all  traffic  iu  intoxi- 
cating liquors,  except  lor  medicinal  or  mechauical  pur- 
poses, within  the  limits  of  any  lands  that  h ive  been 
donated  to,  or  that  may  be  held  by  the  State  of  Ohio  for 
educational  purposes. 

Mr.  COOK.  As  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Herron]  is  not  present,  and  as  the  petitions 
upon  that  subject  was  referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Education,  I infer  that  the  gentleman  de- 
sires that  this  Proposition  go  to  that  Committee, 
and  to  facilitate  what  I believe  to  be  his  desire, 

I will  move  that  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Education,  and  if  it  does  not  meet  with  his 
approbation  it  can  be  referred  back. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Proposition  No  2^'4— By  Mr.  Campbell: 

In  Relation  to  the  Manufacture  and  Sale  of  Intoxicating 
Liquors. 

When  the  votes  of  the  electors  shall  be  taken  for  the 
adoption  or  rejection  of  the  Constitution,  the  following 
Propositions  shall  be  severally  submitted  to  the  electors 
for  adoption  or  rejection,  to  wit: 

I.  Intoxicating  liquors  shall  neither  be  manufactured 
nor  sold  iu  the  State. 

II.  Intoxicating  liquors  may  only  be  manufactured  or 
sold  in  the  State,  in  quantities  not  less  than  one  gallon, 
on  license  granted  in  'uch  manner  and  on  such  conditions 
as  the  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law. 

III.  Intoxicating  liquors  may  be  sold  in  the  State  ini 
quantities  less  than  one  gallon,  only  on  license,  granted 
in  such  manner,  and  on  such  conditions  as  the  General 
Assembly  may  provide  by  law. 

A separate  ballot  may  be  given  by  each  elector  upon 
said  several  propositions,  in  form  following,  and  placed 
in  separate  ballot  b >xes,  to  wit:  Upon  the  ballots  given 
for  said  first  Proposition  shall  be  written  or  printed,  or  i 
partly  written  and  partly  printed,  the  words:  “Prohibi- 
tion of  the  Manufacture  or  Sale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors  : 
—Yes,”  and  upon  the  ballots  given  against  said  flr9t 
Proposition,  in  like  manner,  the  words:  “Prohibition  of 
the  Manufacture  or  Sale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors  No.” 
Upon  the  ballots  given  for  said  second  Proposition,  in 
like  manner,  the  words:  “License  for  the  Manufacture  : 
and  Wholesale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors— Yes,”  and  upon 
the  ballots  given  against  said  second  Proposition,  in  like 
manner,  the  words:  “License  for  the  Manufacture  and 
Wholesale  of  Intoxicating  Liquors— No.”  Upon  the  bal- 
lots given  for  said  third  Proposition,  in  like  manner,  the 
words:  “Retail  of  Intoxicating  Liquors-  Yes,”  and  upon 
the  ballots  given  against  said  third  Proposition,  in  like  I 
manner,  the  words:  “Retail  of  Intoxicating  Liquors— 
No  ” Such  of  said  Propositions  as  may  receive  a major- 
ity of  the  aggregate  vote  given  for  and  against  the  rati- 
fication of  the  new  Constitution,  at  said  election,  shall  be 
a part  of  Article  XV.  Shonld  said  first,  and  one  or  both 
of  said  second  or  third  Propositions  be  approved  by  such 
majority,  then  said  first  Proposition  only  shall  be  a part 
of  Article  XV.',  provided  it  receive  a greater  number  of 
votes  than  are  given  for  the  second  or  third  Proposition, 


Day.]  ESTIMATES  FOR  MORE  APPROPRIATIONS. 2061 

Mabch  16,  1874.]  Kerb,  Cunningham,  West,  Bishop,  Baber. 


otherwise  it  shall  be  deemed  rejected,  and  such  of  the 
other  two  as  may  be  approved  by  a majority  of  the  votes 
cast  as  aforesaid  shall  be  a part  of  said  Article  XV. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  states  that 
the  gentleman  from  Butler  [Mr.  Campbell]  de- 
sires this  Proposition  to  be  laid  upon  the  table 
until  his  return.  If  there  is  no  objection,  it  will 
be  so  ordered. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  KERR.  I offer  for  adoption  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  the  same  as  follows : 

Resolved , That  the  President  of  this  Convention  be  re- 
quested to  notify  the  Governor  of  the  death  of  Hon.  Ed- 
mund Smith,  delegate  from  Shelby  county  to  this  Con- 
vention. 

The  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I offer  the  following 
resolution : 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Resolved , That  the  acknowledgments  of  the  Convention 
are  due,  aud  are  hereby  tendered,  to  the  authorities  of 
Cincinnati  for  the  courtesies  of  the  police  on  the  occasion 
of  the  removal  of  the  remains  of  our  late  associate,  Hon. 
Edmund  Smith. 

The  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted. 

Mr.  WEST.  I move,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Ex- 
penses be  taken  from  the  table. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  Report. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

The  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses,  to  which 
was  referred  Resolution  So.  187,  directing  said  Commit- 
tee to  report  forthwith  what  amount,  in  their  judgment, 
will  be  necessary  to  be  appropriated  by  the  General  As- 
sembly to  cover  the  probable  expenses  ol  this  Conven- 
tion, having  had  the  same  under  consideration,  report  as 
follows: 

Amount  due  and  unpaid  to  members  and  officers, 

March  13, 1874 $9,067 

Amountrequired  to  pay  members,  officers,  reporter, 

printers,  and  contingent  expenses,  to  March  31, 

1814 1 15,200 


$24,267 

Amount  required  to  pay  members,  officers, 
reporter,  printers,  and  contingent  ex- 
penses, to  April  3",  18 '4 $24,000 

Amount  required  to  pay  members,  officers, 
reporter,  printers,  and  contingent  ex- 
penses, to  May  15,  1874 12,000—  36,000 

Total $60,267 

This  estimate  is  based  upon  an  expenditure  of  $800  per 
day,  which  is  about  the  actual  cost  of  the  Convention. 

Geo.  W.  Hill, 

Ozias  Merrill, 

Wm.  J.  Young, 

John  H.  Blose, 

Committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
adopting  the  Report. 

Mr.  WEST.  I suggest,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  Report  be  forwarded  to  the  Governor;  that 
he  be  requested  to  lay  the  same  before  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  ask  that  the  largest  amount 
therein  specified  be  appropriated.  I make  that 
motion. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  It  is  not  probable  that  we  shall 
need  that  amount. 

Mr.  WEST.  We  do  not  know  that  we  shall 


need  it,  but  I think  we  ought  to  have  a suffi- 
cient amount  appropriated. 

Mr.  BABER.  Is  this  a motion  that  we  re- 
quest an  appropriation  of  $60,000? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is. 

Mr.  BABER.  I wish  to  say  that  while  I was 
at  Columbus,  I saw  Dr.  Scott  and  Mr.  Eshel- 
man,  of  the  Finance  Committee,  and  had  some 
conversation  with  them, and  also  the  Auditor  of 
State.  The  Auditor  of  State,  on  Saturday  last, 
furnished  the  Chairman  of  the  Finance  Com- 
mittee with  the  amount  of  money  needed,  as  far 
as  he  could  estimate  it,  on  what  was  due  up  to 
the  15th  inst.,  for  the  expenses  of  this  Conven- 
tion. He  said  he  could  only  tell  from  the  war- 
rants that  had  come  in  and  from  the  estimates. 
He  makes  the  estimate,  which  I hold  in  my  hand, 
a good  deal  larger  than  the  estimate  as  to  what 
is  due  by  this  Committee  which  probably  may 
have  been,  because  the  returns  of  warrants 
have  not  all  come  in.  It  makes  the  amount  due 
March  15th,  $17,137.50,  including  compensation 
for  the  Official  Reporter,  which  he  sent  to  the 
Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee,  with  the 
request  that  for  further  estimates,  as  to  printing, 
he  could  obtain  information  from  Mr.  Lay- 
man. The  appropriation  bill  is  upon  the  table 
and  the  question  was  as  to  what  was  the  prob- 
able time  for  the  adjourment  of  this  Conven- 
tion. The  feeling  there,  of  those  who  have  con- 
trol of  the  appropriation,  with  regard  to  this  is, 
that  there  should  be  a margin  made ; but  I hard- 
ly think  that  it  would  be  best  for  us  to  ask  for 
any  specific  amount  in  the  appropriation.  I 
think  that  this  Report  should  be  forwarded 
without  any  irequest  about  the  matter.  I believe 
the  disposition  of  the  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture is  to  make  the  proper  appropriation.  I 
think  that  all  that  is  necessary  will  be  furnished. 
I hope,  therefore,  that  the  gentleman  will  mod- 
ify his  motion  so  as  to  simply  forward  the  Re- 
port. 

Mr.  WEST,  My  purpose  in  making  the  sug- 
gestion was  simply  this,  Mr.  President,  to  indi- 
cate some  probable  time  at  which  we  may  hope 
to  adjourn.  I presume  it  would  be  impossible 
for  the  General  Assembly  to  make  any  objection 
in  that  regard,  and  unless  we  do  it  they  will  be 
totally  in  the  dark  as  to  the  amount,  and  they 
may  appropriate  a sum  wholly  insufficient  to 
cover  the  expense  for  the  time  that  we  may  be 
here  yet,  and  I thought  it  was  prudent,  at  all 
events,  to  indicate  some  probable  time  and  the 
probable  amount.  I hope  we  will  not  consume 
one-half  of  it;  but  a little  margin  or  surplus 
would  probably  be  better  than  to  leave  a deficit. 
That  was  the  object  in  making  the  suggestion, 
in  order  to  enable  the  Finance  Committee  there 
to  have  some  data  or  basis  upon  which  to  fix  an 
estimate.  If  there  is  no  better  form  suggested 
or  adduced  I should  adopt  it. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  appears  to  me  that 
there  ought  to  be  some  suggestion  made,  and 
yet  it  comes  somewhat  strangely  from  the  Con- 
vention, a resolution  having  been  passed,  and 
not  having  been  reconsidered,  to  adjourn  on  the 
31st  of  March,  to  ask  an  appropriation  to  cover 
up  to  the  middle  of  May.  I would  suggest  to 
the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  that  his 
resolution  be  modified  so  that  the  President 
transmit  this  Report  with  such  suggestions  as 


2062 


ESTIMATES  FOR  MORE  APPROPRIATIONS. 

Cook,  West,  Voris,  Ewing,  Townsend,  Gurley,  Tuttle. 


[139th 

[Monday, 


may  seem  right  to  him  to  make  as  to  the  time  of 
the  probable  adjournment  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  COOK.  I suggest  to  the  gentleman  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  that  it  be  transmitted 
to  the  General  Assembly,  with  the  suggestion  of 
the  President  that  the  amount  there  asked  for 
will  be  ample  to  cover  all  our  expenses,  and  we 
trust  we  will  not  require  all  that  amount. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West]  accept  the  modification  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]? 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  understand  it. 

Mr.  COOK.  Simply  so  as  to  transmit  it  to  the 
Governor  with  the  suggestion  by  the  President, 
that  the  amount  there  asked  will  be  ample  to 
cover  all  our  expenses  and  we  trust  we  will  not 
use  that  much. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  amount  of  sixty  thousand 
dollars.  I accept  that  additional  suggestion 
that  the  amount  of  $60,000,  etc.  That  is  the 
largest  sum  we  will  ask,  a»:d  perhaps  we  had 
better  do  as  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  We  ought  to  specify  some 
amount. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I am  desirous,  Mr.  President, 
of  having  whatever  information  is  communica- 
ted to  the  Governor  to  be  in  such  shape  as  will 
secure  a prompt  and  hearty  co-operation  of  the 
General  Assembly  towards  securing  to  this  Con- 
vention what  it  ought  to  have.  It  appears  to 
me  that  it  would  very  much  strengthen  this 
proposition  if  the  Convention  would  adopt  the 
resolution  offered  by  me  the  other  day  in  rela- 
tion to  absenteeism,  that  provides  in  substance, 
that  after  a given  date  all  leave  of  absence  shall 
be  cancelled  and  forever  held  for  naught,  and 
that  hereafter  no  leave  of  absence  will  be  given 
unless  in  case  of  imperative  necessity.  I think 
if  the  Convention  would  adopt  something  of 
this  kind  that  it  would  tend  to  bring  its  business 
to  a speedy  termination,  and  bring  all  of  its 
working  force  to  bear  upon  the  business  before 
us,  that  we  would  very  much  strengthen  our 
claim  before  the  General  Assembly  for  compen- 
sation that  is  already  due,  as  well  as  that  to  be- 
come due.  We  had  a little  manifestation  of  how 
tenderly  they  felt  in  regard  to  making  appro- 
priations for  past  services.  I would  like  to  have 
the  Convention  indicate  as  soon  as  it  may,  that 
it  intends  to  bring  its  business  to  a speedy  close, 
and  bring  all  its  working  force  to  bear  in  the 
discharge  of  our  business.  I wish,  therefore, 
that  the  Convention,  if  it  now  feels  disposed, 
will  take  that  resolution  from  the  table. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Accounts  and  Expenses  be  re-com- 
mitted, with  instructions  to  make  up  the  esti- 
mates for  the  pay  of  members  until  the  15th  of 
April  only. 

I think  we  can  get  through  with  our  business 
by  that  date,  and  am  exceedingly  unwilling  to 
send  to  the  Legislature  an  estimate  for  pay  un- 
til the  middle  of  May.  I fear  the  tendency  of  it 
would  be  to  fix  that  time  in  our  minds,  as  the 
time  we  must  work  up  to — as  the  time  for  our 
adjournment — and  thus  lengthen  our  session.  I 
think  if  we  do  not  adjourn  until  after  that  date 
we  can  wait  until  the  next  Legislature  shall  as- 
semble, for  the  balance  of  our  pay. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I ask  the  gentleman 
frankly,  if  he  does  not  believe  it  would  facilitate 
the  business  of  this  Convention  if  we  were  to 


work  all  the  time  that  we  remain  here  after  the 
15th  of  April,  for  nothing? 

Mr.  EWING.  It  might. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I ask  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  if  this  Report  does  not  es- 
timate until  the  15th  of  April? 

Mr.  EWING.  No,  sir.  It  makes  an  estimate 
until  the  30th  of  April,  with  an  additional  esti- 
mate until  the  15th  of  May. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  It  makes  it  for  a different 
purpose. 

Mr.  EWING.  Well,  I object  to  the  estimate 
being  sent  to  the  Legislature  for  the  15th  of  May, 
just  as  I would  object  to  one  being  sent  for  the 
15th  of  July.  It  carries  an  intimation  to  the 
Legislature  and  the  people  that  we  will  probably 
sit  until  the  15th  of  May,  and  puts  us  in  a frame 
of  mind  calculated  to  verify  the  intimation. 

The  General  Assembly  want  to  know  the 
probable  time  of  our  adjournment.  I presume 
a very  large  majority  of  the  Convention  would 
say  that  the  15th  of  April  is  as  late  as  there  is 
any  probability  of  our  sitting.  I therefore  make 
the  motion. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I hope  that  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  will 
not  prevail,  and  I hope  that  the  Report  will  not 
be  re-committed.  I presume  that  it  is  as  defi- 
nite now  as  the  Committee  can  make  it.  They 
have  made  an  estimate  of  the  actual  expenses 
of  the  Convention  per  day.  We  can  very  easily  I 
get  at  the  amount  necessary  to  carry  us  to  the  g 
15th  of  April  by  multiplying  the  number  of  I 
days  by  the  expense  per  day,  say  $800.  It  is  I 
impossible  for  that  Committee,  or  any  member  I 
of  this  Convention,  at  this  day,  to  say  at  what  I 
probable  time  it  will  adjourn.  Now,  while  the  i 
matter  is  before  us,  while  the  Legislature  will  I 
make  the  appropriation  for  the  expenses  of  this  j 
Convention,  it  is  better,  far  better,  that  they  H 
make  ample  provision.  I am  one  of  those  who 
do  not  believe  it  would  lengthen  out  this  session  \ 
one  day,  if  an  appropriation  of  two  hundred  ! 
thousand  dollars  was  made.  If  there  is  any- 
thing members  desire  it  is  to  close  up  their  j: 
work  here  as  speedily  as  possible  and  get  away 
from  here.  I do  not  believe  that  a single  mem-  ii 
ber  of  this  Convention,  who,  for  the  simple  pit- 
tance of  five  dollars  a day,  wishes  to  keep  him- 
self from  home  and  from  his  business.  Every  : 
man  here  is  anxious  to  bring  this  Convention  n 
to  a speedy  close.  I hope  there  will  be  no 
further  talk  about  this  matter.  If  there  are  a : 
few  dollars  more  than  are  necessary  to  be  I 
spent,  it  will  remain  there  in  the  treasury.  Go  jj 
on  and  make  the  appropriation  for  a certain  | 
time,  and  then,  perhaps,  we  may  run  beyond,  and 
then  to  have  another  appropriation  would  just  jj 
be  adding  new  difficulties  to  the  whole  matter. 

I hope,  therefore,  that  the  motion  of  the  gentle-  ii 
man  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  will  prevail,  and 
end  this  matter. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  believe  that  the 
members  of  this  Convention  out  to  be  placed  :! 
under  any  stronger  personal  motive  to  finish  up 
their  business  with  the  utmost  practicable  dis-  i 
patch  than  they  are  now  under.  Ido  not  be- 
lieve that  it  is  consistent  either  with  their  own  j 
self-respect  or  with  any  other  reasonable  object  ' 
to  be  attained.  I am  opposed,  Mr.  President, 
in  a work  of  this  kind,  to  practicing  upon  any 
such  maxim  as  is  suggested  by  the  old  adage 


Day.] ESTIMATES  FOR  MORE  APPROPRIATIONS. 2063 

March  16,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Page,  Baber. 


“cut  your  garment  according  to  your  cloth.” 
I do  not  believe  in  proceeding  in  the  work  that 
we  are  to  do,  or  the  manner  in  which  we  shall 
do  it,  governed  by  any  limitation  as  to  time  that 
we  mayhave  allowed  ourselves  inwhich  to  trans- 
act it.  But  on  the  contrary,  I believe  in  taking 
all  the  time  that  economy  and  that  a careful  re- 
gard to  the  interests  of  the  public,  but  prima- 
rily, the  great  matter  to  be  accomplished  makes 
necessary  for  that  purpose.  I do  not  believe, 
sir,  in  placing  ourselves  upon  any  Procrustean 
bed,  such  that  this  great  interest  of  State  must 
be  mangled,  as  it  may  be  found  too  long  or  too 
short  for  the  bed.  I maintain  that  it  is  not  con- 
sistent without  our  self-respect  to  humble  our- 
selves before  any  tribunal  in  this  land  with 
promises  that  we  will  get  through  by  a certain 
time,  when  we  do  not  know  whether  we  can 
properly  do  it  or  not.  We  are  here  to  take  all 
the  time  that  a great  primary,  fundamental  law 
requires,  in  view,  if  if  is  adopted,  of  its  im- 
portance, on  account  of  the  subjects  of  its 
provisions,  and  that  it  must  last  for  years,  pos- 
sibly for  generations. 

I certainly  hope  beyond  anything  else,  any 
other  temporal  matter  that  I am  now  hoping 
for,  that  we  may  get  through  with  this  business 
earlier  than  the  15th  of  April,  but  I do  not  be- 
lieve in  obliging  ourselves  either  to  sacrifice 
our  pecuniary  rights  or  interests,  or  to  cut  off 
our  labor  unfinished.  If  we  are  not  competent 
to  transact  business  on  the  plan  I suggest,  it  is 
due  to  the  people  of  this  State,  and  due  to  our- 
selves, every  man  of  us,  to  resign  our  commis- 
sion and  go  home.  I do  not  believe  in  humbling 
ourselves  in  any  such  manner.  I would  be  in 
favor,  Mr.  President,  of  suggesting  in  connec- 
tion with  this  Report,  that  we  hope  not  to  be 
detained  for  so  long  a period  of  time  as  this 
Report  suggests,  and  that  we  are  not  by  any 
means  to  be  understood  as  claiming  that  it  shall 
detain  us  so  long,  but  I am  opposed  to  any  thing 
that  should  imply  a pledge  on  our  part  to  be 
through  until  we  are  done.  I hope  that  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  will 
not  prevail. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I concur  in  what  has  been  said 
by  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]. 
We  have  not  the  slightest  idea  of  the  time 
necessary  to  finish  this  business.  It  is  mere 
guess  work  on  the  part  of  some  gentlemen,  and 
I am  opposed  to  doing  anything  of  this  kind 
under  any  outside  pressure,  or  in  haste.  It  is 
entirely  too  important.  The  expenses  of  this 
Convention  are  a matter  of  very  little  conse- 
quence to  the  people  of  this  State  provided  we 
do  our  work  well.  There  are  single  propositions 
in  the  Reports  of  Committees  that  are  worth  to 
this  State  ten  times  the  amount  that  this  Con- 
vention  will  cost,  and  we  should  not  act  as  if 
we  were  forced  to  finish  our  business  by  any 
given  time.  Only  the  other  day,  we  passed 
a resolution  that  I regarded  as  exceedingly 
puerile,  to  adjourn  on  the  31st  March.  I voted 
against  it,  because  I thought  it  would  have  no 
effect  whatever,  and  I do  not  believe  that  there 
were  half-a-dozen  gentlemen  that  supposed  we 
would  be  able  to  adjourn  on  the  31st  of  March. 
I do  not  wish  now  to  fix  any  time  in  the  future, 
and  disappoint  the  people  of  the  State.  It  is  of 
no  consequence  as  to  what  the  Legislature  may 
think  about  our  progress  here.  They  are  not  our 


masters.  I do  not  think  that  any  gentleman 
here  would  lengthen  out  this  Convention  for 
the  pitiful  sum  of  five  dollars  a day.  I do  not 
believe  there  is  a man  in  this  Convention  that 
is  making  anything  by  that  sum,  and  I know 
the  large  majority  of  gentlemen  here  lose 
fifteen  dollars  a day  by  abandoning  business  at 
home  and  remaining  here.  I do  not  think  that 
these  resolutions  will  have  any  effect  whatever 
upon  our  progress.  Some  gentlemen  have  an 
idea  that  if  we  fix  a time  to  adjourn  that  that 
will  accellerate  our  speed  somewhat.  These 
resolutions  remind  me  a good  deal  of  the  young 
lady  who  was  reluctant  to  go  to  bed.  Her  usual 
plan  was  to  put  her  knee  on  the  bed  and  then 
say,  “Rats,  rats,”  and  that  scared  her  right 
into  bed.  I say  it  seems  to  be  the  opinion  here 
that  if  we  fix  the  time  to  adjourn  it  will  frighten 
us  into  finishing  our  business  by  that  time.  If 
we  cannot  transact  our  business  in  an  orderly, 
proper  way,  without  some  outside  pressure  of 
this  kind,  we  had  better  imitate  Durdles,  in 
Edwin  Drood,  who,  when  he  was  drunk,  hired 
a boy  to  stone  him  home.  [Laughter.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  re- 
committing. 

. Mr.  BABER.  I am  in  favor  of  the  motion 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr. 
Ewing],  that  when  this  report  be  transmitted  it 
be  transmitted  with  an  estimate  up  to  the  15th 
of  April,  simply  for  this  reason : We  passed, 

by  a large  majority,  a resolution  to  adjourn  on 
the  31st  of  March.  My  observation  has  been 
that  since  that  resolution  has  been  passed  we 
have  disposed  of  and  got  on  with  our  business  a 
great  deal  faster  than  we  did  before.  We  are 
not  any  better  nor  any  worse  than  any  other 
legislative  body.  The  gentleman  from  Butler 
[Mr.  Campbell],  when  that  resolution  was  be- 
fore us  said  there  was  never  anything  done  in 
Congress  until  the  last  two  or  three  weeks  of 
the  session,  and  I have  examined  the  report  of 
the  Illinois  Convention  and  find  the  work  was 
principally  done  within  the  last  two  or  three 
weeks  of  its  close.  I hope,  therefore,  that  we 
will  not  send  any  estimate  up  to  the  Legislature 
beyond  the  15th  of  April,  and  then  we  can  work 
up  to  the  time  of  the  adjournment.  It  seems  to 
me  it  will  have  an  injurious  effect.  This  Con- 
vention with  an  appropriation  of  thirty  thous- 
and dollars,  according  to  the  resolution  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  will 
have  had  an  appropriation  to  the  amount  of 
$150,000,  since  it  commenced  its  session  on  May 
13th  ult.  Now,  when  we  passed  this  resolution 
to  adjourn  on  March  31st,  a very  bad  impression 
was  produced  upon  the  public,  not  by  any  fault 
of  the  Convention,  but  from  the  fact  that  we 
were  left  three  days  practically  without  a quo- 
rum, from  the  day  if  passed.  I think  there  is 
nothing  like  having  a definite  time  fixed  which 
we  are  going  to  work  up  to.  If  we  get  through 
by  the  31st  of  March,  well  and  good,  but  under 
no  circumstances  do  I wish  to  ask  for  an  appro- 
priation beyond  the  15th  of  April.  It  seems  to 
me  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Trum- 
bull [Mr.  Tuttle],  are  not  appropriate  or  in 
good  taste.  When  this  Convention  first  met  he 
was  the  gentleman  that  moved  to  rescind  that 
rule  we  had  in  this  Convention  at  the  com- 
mencement, presented  June  7th,  with  regard  to 
absenteeism,  deducting  pay,  except  in  case  of 


2064 


ESTIMATES  FOR  MORE  APPROPRIATIONS. 


[139th 


Baber,  Bishop,  Tyler,  Ewing,  West,  etc. 


[Monday* 


sickness  of  themselves  or  families,  which  was  I until  the  Legislature  meets  again,  should  we 
found  to  be  necessary  to  be  enforced  in  the  not  get  through  by  the  15th  of  April. 
Pennsylvania  Convention,  and  other  Conven-  The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  objected 
tions,  and  I say  here  now,  on  my  responsibility  to  and  the  demand  was  no  tsustained. 
as  a delegate,  and  I cast  no  imputation  upon  any  j The  motion  to  re-commit  was  not  agreed  to. 
gentleman  here,  for  I think  they  do  what  they  i The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  on 
estimate  to  be  their  duty  in  this  matter,  that  the  i the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 


effect  of  the  repeal  of  that  rule  lias  been  to 
lengthen  out  the  session  of  this  Convention  for 
at  least  six  weeks,  or  two  months,  and  as  the 
matter  stands,  I am  utterly  opposed  to  sending 
up  any  estimate  to  the  Legislature  beyond  the 
15th  proximo.  Let  them  exercise  their  judg- 
ment upon  it.  I think  it  wTill  have  an  injurious 
effect.  I hope,  therefore,  that  the  instructions 
offered  in  the  amended  resolution  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  will  prevail. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  It  is  well  known  to  this  Con- 
vention that  I voted  against  an  adjournment  on 
the  31st  of  March,  simply  from  the  fact  that  I 
believed  then,  as  I believe  now,  that  it  was  got- 
ten up  partly  for  buncombe. 

A MEMBER.  Mostly. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I say  partly,  and  that  is  my 
opinion  ; you  may  take  it  for  what  it  is  worth ; 
and  if  I had  said  wholly  for  buncombe  I do 
not  know  whether  I would  have  missed  it  much. 
I believe  in  completing  the  work  of  this  Con- 
vention. I confess  I am  gratified  to  some  ex- 
tent at  the  success  of  that  motion.  I find  that 
gentlemen  have  curtailed  the  length  of  their 
speeches  considerably  and  have  made  fewer  of 
them,  and  we  have  got  along  more  expeditious- 
ly with  our  business.  Now,  sir,  I do  not  re- 
gard for  a moment,  the  suggestions  that  this 
Convention  will  hold  longer  than  the  15th  of 
April.  I believe  we  can  get  through  with  our 
business  by  that  time,  and  so  far  as  I am  con- 
cerned, I am  willing  to  use  every  reasonable 
effort  to  do  so  by  that  time,  and  if  anything 
should  occur  to  prevent  it,  I am  willing  to  trust 
the  State  of  Ohio  until  the  meeting  of  the  next 
Legislature  for  my  pay.  I believe  it  will  have 
a good  effect  in  causing  us  to  be  as  expeditious 
as  possible  in  winding  up  the  business  of  this 
Convention. 

Mr.  TYLER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TYLER.  Do  you  believe  that  one  mem- 
ber of  this  Convention  voted  for  that  resolution 
for  buncombe? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I gave  my  opinion  for  what  it 


West]. 

Mr.  EWING.  What  is  the  motion  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  that  the 
Report  be  forward  to  the  Governor  with  a re- 
quest— 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  a substitute,  that  the 
Report  be  transmitted  to  the  Governor,  modi- 
fied so  as  to  limit  the  appropriation  to  $36,000. 

Mr.  WEST.  Put  it  $50,000.  I think  we  can 
get  off  at  $25,000. 

Mr.  POWELL.  What  is  the  appropriation 
to  the  last  of  April? 

Mr.  EWING.  It  is  $48,000.  I will  move  to 
amend  so  as  to  limit  the  appropriation  to  the 
amount  needed  up  to  the  30th  of  April— $48,267. 
That  is  the  amount  the  Committee  estimate  up 
the  30th  of  April,  inclusive. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Fairfield 
[Mr.  Ewing]. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 

Mr.  PRESIDENT.  It  is  in  order  to  demand 
the  yeas  and  nays  at  any  time  before  the  vote 
is  commenced. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  32,  nays  30,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop, 
Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Cowen,  Cunningham, 
Ewing,  Freiberg,  Gurley,  Herron,  Hoadly, 
Hostetter,  Johnson,  McBride,  McCormick,  Mi- 
ner, Mitchener,  Mueller,  Okey,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Powell,  Scribner,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Waddle,  President — 32. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Beer,  Bosworth,  Chapin, 
Cook,  McCauley,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Merrill, 
Mullen,  Page,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  ofMusk- 
ingum,  Sears,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thompson, 
Tuttle,  Van  Voorhis,  Yoris,  Wratson,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Woodbury — 30. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West],  as  amended. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I desire  to  hear  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 


ie worth.  I believe  they  have,  for  some  of  them  tleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is,  that  the 
acknowledged  it  to  me,  and  if  necessary  I Report  of  the  Committee  be  agreed  to,  and  a 
could  name  them.  I am  a little  surprised  at  copy  be  transmitted  to  the  Governor,  with  the 
the  gentleman  from  Henry  [Mr.  Tyler],  advo-  request  that  it  be  laid  before  the  General  As- 


cating  a longer  time,  for  he  is  the  gentleman 
who  offered  the  resolution  to  adjourn  on  the  31st 
of  March.  I notice  also  that  the  gentleman  from 
Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley],  voted  for  adjournment 
at  that  time,  but  now  he  is  for  the  longest  time. 
Perhaps,  these  gentlemen  can  explain  their 
reasons  for  the  change.  I find  they  are  both 
recorded  in  favor  of  adjournment  on  the  31st 
of  March.  I am  in  favor  of  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  for  I 
have  become  somewhat  a convert  to  the  shortest 
possible  time.  I wish  to  get  through  our  busi- 
ness by  that  time,  and  for  one,  I am  willing  to 
trust  the  State  of  Ohio  for  my  part  of  the  pay 


sembly.  The  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  is,  that  the  amount 
be  limited  to  $48,267. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Is  it  competent,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, to  offer  an  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  still 
amendable. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I move  to  insert,  in  place  of 
the  amount  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  that 
specified  the  sum  has  been  agreed  to,  and  can- 
not be  further  amended  unless  a reconsideration 
is  moved. 


2065 


Day.]  CONCERNING  ESTIMATES  FOR  APPROPRIATIONS. 

March  16, 1874.]  Page,  West,  Sears,  Humphreville,  Miner,  Ewing,  etc. 


The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded.  Objection 
was  made,  but  the  demand  was  sustained. 

Mr.  PAGE.  Would  it  be  in  order  now  to 
offer  an  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I move  to  amend  by  requesting 
the  President  to  inform  the  Legislature  of  the 
vote  by  which  this  resolution  may  be  passed. 
If  it  is  carried  by  a bare  majority,  I would  like 
to  have  the  Legislature  know  what  the  opinion 
of  the  minority  is  upon  this  subject. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  will  be  more 
in  order  after  the  vote  is  taken  on  the  proposi- 
tion. 

Pending  the  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays,  objec- 
tion was  made  to  the  vote  of  Mr.  Coats,  on  the 
ground  that  the  gentleman  was  not  within  the 
bar  of  the  House  when  the  call  was  commenced. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  a general  rule 
of  parliamentary  law  that  no  member  is  allowed 
to  vote  unless  he  is  within  the  bar  of  the  House 
when  the  call  is  commenced. 

Mr.  WEST.  I think  the  parliamentary  rule 
applies,  unless  the  gentleman  is  within  the  bar 
of  the  House  before  the  vote  is  announced. 

Mr.  SEARS.  The  rule  has  been  very  gener- 
ally disregarded  in  this  Convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  has  not  en- 
forced the  rule,  except  where  objection  has 
been  made. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  If  the  gentleman 
comes  within  the  bar  of  the  House  at  the  time 
of  the  call,  then  he  is  under  the  application  of 
the  rule. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  of  the  gentle- 
man would  be  disallowed  if  he  was  not  within 
the  bar  when  the  question  was  put.  That  is  the 
prevailing  law  everywhere. 

Mr.  MINER.  I hope  the  objection  will  be 
withdrawn  with  reference  to  this  matter.  I 
think  it  ought  to  be. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that  it  is  clear  that  the  gentleman  should  be 
present  within  the  bar  of  the  House  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  call. 

The  result  of  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan,  [Mr. 
West]  as  amended,  was  then  announced — yeas 
31,  nays  32,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop, 
Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Cunningham,  Ewing, 
Freiberg,  Gurley,  Herron,  Hoadley,  Hostetter, 
Johnson,  McBride,  McCormick,  Miner,  Mitch- 
iner,  Mueller,  Oakey,  Pease,  Phellis,  Powell, 
Scribner,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Tyler, 
Waddle,  President— 31. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Bosworth,  Chapin,  Coates,  Cook, 
Co  wen,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Humphre- 
ville, Hunt,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Merrill,  McCauley, 
Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Sears,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thomp- 
son, Tuttle,  Van  Vooris,  Voris,  Watson,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Woodbury — 32. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  EWING.  I offer  the  following  resolu- 
tion. If  I am  allowed,  I will  read  it  myself : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  instructed  to  transmit 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expenses 
to  the  Governor,  with  the  statement  that,  in  the  opinion 

v.  h-162 


of  this  Convention,  its  session  will  be  terminated  during 
the  month  of  April. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I desire  to  dis- 
cuss that  resolution. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Under  the  notice  to  dis- 
cuss, the  resolution  will  lie  on  the  table. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I move  that  the  President 
be  authorized  to  fill  the  vacancies  in  Commit- 
tees occasioned  by  the  death  of  the  late  member 
from  Shelby  [Mr.  Smith]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  are  also  unfilled 
vacancies  occasioned  by  the  death  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Seneca  [Mr.  O’Connor]. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  If  that  is  the  case,  I would 
make  my  motion  to  include  those  also. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  motion,  it 
was  agreed  to  without  a division. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  have  the  reso- 
lution offered  by  myself  the  other  day,  resolu- 
tion No.  177,  taken  from  the  table.  I explained 
in  the  remarks  I made  a few  moments  ago  the 
intention  of  the  resolution.  If  it  is  agreeable  to 
the  Convention,  I would  like  to  have  it  taken 
up  and  acted  upon  this  morning.  I ask  that  it 
be  read  for  information. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Resolution  No.  ITT— By  Mr.  Voris: 

Resolved,  That,  hereafter,  no  leave  of  absence  shall  be 
granted,  unless  in  case  of  sickness  or  extraordinary 
necessity,  and  that  from  and  after  the  sixth  day  of  March 
instant,  all  leaves  of  absence  shall  be  revoked  and  thence- 
forth be  null  and  void. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded  upon  the 
question  of  taking  the  resolution  from  the  table. 
Objection  was  made,  but  eighteen  members 
rose  to  support  the  demand,  and  it  was,  there- 
fore, sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  26,  nays  41,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop, 
Carbery,  Chapin,  Cook,  Cunningham,  Ewing, 
Gurley,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Hunt, 
Johnson,  McBride,  Miner,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis, 
Powell,  Townsend,  Tulloss,  Voris,  Waddle, 
President— 26. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Beer,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal, 
Coats,  Cowen,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Hitchcock,  Humphreville,  Jackson,  Kerr, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  McCauley,  Mitchener, 
Mueller,  Mullen,  Neal,  Pease, Pratt,  Root,  Row- 
land, Russell,  of  Muskingum,  Scribner,  Sears, 
Shaw,  Smith,  of  Highland,  Thompson,  Towns- 
ley,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Watson,  West, 
W;hite,  of  Hocking,  Wilson,  Woodbury.— 41. 

So  the  request  to  take  the  resolution  from  the 
table  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion now  proceed  to  the  special  order  of  the 
day. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to,  without  a divi- 
sion. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  at 
the  time  of  the  adjournment  was  upon  Proposi- 
tion No.  204,  on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  to  adopt  a substi- 
tute in  the  place  of  the  substitute  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith.] 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  was  voted  upon  and 
voted  down. 


2066 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pratt,  Griswold,  Thompson,  Bishop,  Hoadly,  Cook. 


[139th 


[Monday, 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question,  then,  is 
upon  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  substitute  that  I offered — 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  will 
pause  one  moment  until  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  is  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Highland,  moves  to  strike  out  of  section 
3,  all  after  the  words  “section  three,”  and  insert: 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rate,  all 
real  and  personal  property  according  to  its  value,  to  be 
ascertained  by  such  equitable  rules  of  appraisement  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly.” 

Mr.  PRATT.  On  Saturday  morning,  I moved 
to  amend  the  record  on  the  Journal  of  the  day 
before,  in  order  that  it  might  show  the  fact  of 
an  amendment  being  offered,  and  that  there  was 
a substitute  offered  by  myself.  I have  that  sub- 
stitute in  mv  hand  now. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  was  voted  down. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  was  not  voted  upon  at  all. 

I am  certain  in  my  recollection. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  my  recollection 
of  it,  too. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I find  that  the  substitute 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt]  is  before  the  Convention.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  the  substitute. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  uniform  rules,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money,  so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of 
the  burdens  of  taxation.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Convention,  on  Sat- 
urday morning,  expressly  directed  that  the 
minutes  be  corrected,  in  order  to  show  that  the 
gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  did  offer 
a substitute  in  place  of  the  substitute  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 
There  had  been  a previous  motion  to  amend 
section  three  by  striking  out  the  words  “ equi-  ! 
table  and  uniform  rules,”  and  inserting  “a 
uniform  rule.”  The  amendment  was  not  agreed  I 
to.  The  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  j 
then  offered  a substitute  for  the  substitute  of ■ 
the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 
The  question  is  now  upon  the  substitute  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I should  be  glad  to  have  the 
substitute  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  first 
read  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  and  afterwards  the 
substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Wil- 
liams [Mr.  Pratt]. 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute  offered  by  j 
tbe  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  as 
follows : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rate,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  value  to  be  | 
ascertained  by  such  equitable  rules  of  appraisement  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly.” 

Also  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  ; 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  as  follows: 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  uniform  rules,  all  j 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money,  so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of 
the  burdens  of  taxation.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  dele- 
gate from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  a question,  if 
he  will  permit  me.  I would  like  to  know 


whether,  by  a uniform  rule,  he  means  both  the 
rate  of  taxation  and  the  rule  of  assessment? 

Mr.  PRATT.  I intend,  by  the  word  “ rules,” 
to  mean  the  rate  of  assessments,  and,  inasmuch 
as  it  requires  variable  rules  to  assess  property, 
as,  for  instance,  merchants’  stock,  which  is  not 
to  be  assessed  as  it  stands  on  any  particular  day 
of  the  year,  but  upon  the  general  average— and 
also  manufacturers’  stock,  in  the  same  way 
the  word  “rules  ” could  be  applicable  without 
reference  to  the  classifying  of  property  more 
generally,  as  is  supposed  to  have  been  provided 
for  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I did  not  hear  whether  the 
word  is  “ rule  ” or  “ rules  .” 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  is  « rules.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  In  the  plural? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes,  sir.  I tried  to  change  the 
word  so  as  to  read  “ by  a uniform  rule,”  but  was 
defeated  upon  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
substitute  proposed  by  the  gerftleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  for  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 

The  substitute  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  COOK.  Before  a vote  is  taken  on  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  I desire  to  say  a few 
words  in  relation  to  this  subject.  This  debate 
has  taken  a wide  range,  while  the  subject  of  it 
lies  within  a very  small  compass.  I am  unable 
to  account  for  the  latitude  of  the  discussion,  on 
any  other  grounds,  than  that  gentlemen  are 
either  ignorant  of  the  true  basis  of  taxation,  or 
have  willingly  ignored  it,  in  order  to  indulge  in 
untried  theories.  The  basis  of  taxation  is  pro- 
tection, and,  therefore,  everything  which  is 
protected  by  the  State  should  be  taxed.  We  do 
not  tax  property  because  it  is  property,  but  be- 
cause the  State  protects  the  owner  in  his  right 
to  it.  But,  it  may  be  asked,  if  protection  is  the 
basis  of  taxation,  why  not  tax  individuals  who 
are,  equally  with  property,  protected  by  law  ? 
The  answer  is,  we  do  not  recognize  property  in 
persons,  and  as  we  have  no  other  way  of  en- 
forcing the  collection  of  taxes,  except  by  sale 
of  the  things  taxed,  we  would  have  to  sell  the 
person  taxed  if  he  would  not  or  could  not  pay 
the  taxes  levied  on  him.  But,  as  persons  are 
not  property,  and  we  do  not  recognize  any 
forms  of  slavery,  this  cannot  be  done.  Further- 
more, if  poll  taxes  could  be  justified,  they  would 
have  to  be  the  same  on  each  individual,  as  all 
mankind  are  equal  as  well  as  free.  There  is  no 
injustice,  then,  done  by  exemption,  as  each  is 
exempted  equally,  according  to  the  axiom  that 
if  equals  be  taken  from  equals,  the  remainders 
will  be  equal.  Therefore,  there  is  no  injustice 
in  exempting  persons  from  taxation,  although 
they  are  protected  in  their  rights  by  the  State. 
As  protection  is  the  basis  of  taxation,  there  is 
no  force  in  the  claim  that  choses  in  action  or 
intangible  property  as  it  has  been  called,  in 
this  debate,  should  be  exempted  from  taxation. 
As  between  the  two  kinds  of  property,  choses 
in  action  receive  greater  protection  from  the 
State  than  other  property.  The  owner  of  a 
horse,  or  a farm,  may  maintain  possession 
or  control  over  them  without  the  aid  of  law, 
whereas  choses  in  action  would  be  almost,  if 
not  entirely  worthless,  if  it  were  not  for  the 
protection  of  them  by  the  State,  and  the  aid 


Day.] 

March  16,  1874.] 


REYEJNUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Cook,  Bishop. 


2067 


given  to  the  owner  in  the  courts,  by  which 
he  is  enabled  to  enforce  their  collection. 
Gentlemen  who  ask  to  have  this  species  of 
property  exempted  from  taxation,  would  be 
the  first  to  object  if  it  were  proposed  to  repeal 
the  laws  by  which  it  is  protected.  What  would 
those  gentlemen  say  if  it  were  proposed  to  re- 
Deal  the  statute  which  declares  it  to  be  a misde- 
meanor to  steal  a bill,  bond  or  promissory  note  ? 
What  would  they  say  if  it  was  proposed  to  enact 
a law  by  which  Courts  would  be  prevented  from 
rendering  judgment  on  choses  in  action  or  in  any 
other  way  aid  the  owner  to  enforce  the  collec- 
tion of  them  ? As  then,  this  kind  of  property 
derives  its  value  from  the  laws  which  protect  it, 
and  by  the  aid  of  which  it  can  be  reduced  to 
money,  why  should  it  be  discharged  from  bear- 
ing its  just  burden  of  the  institution  from  which 
it  derives  its  value  ? The  claim  of  exemption 
from  taxation  of  this  kind  of  property  is  absurd. 
It  is  not  what  gentlemen  have  denominated 
here  double  taxation.  A note  given  for  a horse 
or  farm,  is  no  part  of  the  horse  or  farm.  It  is, 
indeed,  property,  and  so  recognized  by  the  laws 
of  all  civilized  countries;  but  it  is  a distinct 
species  of  property,  and  by  the  law  entirely 
separate  from  the  other,  and  put  in  a different 
class.  It  is  property  created  by  the  law,  pro- 
tected by  the  law,  and  should  be  taxed  as  other 
property  by  the  law.  The  promise  of  A to  pay 
one  thousand  dollars,  if  he  be  solvent,  is  as  val- 
uable as  the  promise  of  a bank  to  pay  one  thou- 
sand dollars.  The  latter  you  denominate  money 
and  tax  it  accordingly,  and  so  you  should  the 
former,  for  it  is  just~as  valuable,  and  is  made  so 
by  the  protection  of  the  law  equally  with  the 
bank-note.  Both  are  made  valuable  by  the  law. 
Neither  would  be  worth  anything  without  it. 
Gentlemen  support  the  report  of  the  Committee 
because  they  say  they  desire  to  prevent  double 
taxation,  as  it  the  General  Assembly  would 
pass  laws  to  tax  double  if  it  were  not  restrained 
by  the  Constitution;  or,  as  if  the  General  As- 
sembly could  not  pass  laws  to  prevent  double 
taxation  unless  authorized  by  the  Constitution. 
In  both  these  respects  the  gentlemen  are  mis- 
taken. The  General  Assembly  is  not  required 
to  pass  laws  for  double  taxation  of  property, 
nor  does  it  require  any  restraint  to  prevent  them 
from  taking  such  action.  What  gentlemen  have 
denominated  double  taxation  was  not  such. 
Double  taxation  is  the  same  tax  levied  twice  on 
the  same  property  for  the  same  period  of  time. 
These,  I believe,  the  General  Assembly  has  never 
authorized.  This  matter,  however,  should  be 
left  largely  with  the  General  Assembly.  As  I 
believe  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  accomplishes 
that  object,  I shall  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  It  has  been  very  truly  re- 
marked that  the  subject  of  Finance  and  Taxa- 
tion is  one  of  the  most  important  subjects  that 
this  Convention  has  had  under  consideration. 
And,  furthermore,  it  is  one  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult subjects  to  comprehend,  and  especially  to 
agree  upon  a plan  that  will  do  justice  to  all 
classes,  and  oppress  none.  The  object  of  this 
Convention  should  be,  and  doubtless  is,  to  adopt 
a system  equitable  and  just,  and  as  nearly  uni- 
form as  circumstances  will  justify.  But  that 
one  uniform  rule  can  be  carried  out  so  as  to  deal 
justly  and  equitably  with  the  farmer,  the  manu- 
facturer, the  capitalist  and  the  banker,  in  my 


judgment  would  be  an  impossibility.  No  sin- 
gle rule  can  be  adopted  to  suit  all  the  various 
branches  of  industry  and  enterprise.  Hence 
the  Committee,  after  a most  thorough  discussion 
of  the  subject,  in  all  its  phases,  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  was  best  not  to  hamper  and  tram- 
mel the  Legislature  with  any  one  iron  rule,  but 
to  give  them  a discretionary  power  to  legislate 
upon  the  subject  as  their  experience  and  wisdom 
and  circumstances  might  suggest;  allowing 
them  to  adopt  one  rule  for  the  banker  and  cap- 
italist, so  as  to  cause  them  to  pay  taxes  on  what 
they  are  worth;  another  rule  for  the  manu- 
facturers and  merchants,  as  experience  and 
sound  judgment  might  dictate,  and  so  on;  but 
at  all  times  having  equity  and  justice  in  view, 
and  securing  from  every  party,  whether  mer- 
chant or  banker,  farmer  or  mechanic,  lawyer 
or  doctor,  rich  or  poor,  that  which  he  ought  to 
pay,  neither  more  nor  less,  and  not  screening 
any  party  from  paying  their  proper  share  of  the 
expenses  of  sustaining  the  Government. 

From  the  statements  made  on  the  floor  of  this 
Convention,  and  from  intimations  given,  there 
seems  to  be  an  impression  on  the  minds  of  some 
of  the  members  of  this  Convention  that  the 
Committee  had  sinster  motives  in  view  in  intro- 
ducing the  changes  made  from  the  former  Con- 
stitution by  the  present  Report.  I beg  leave  to 
assure  the  Convention  that  the  Committee  had 
but  one  object  in  view,  and  that  was  to  make 
such  rules,  and  such  only,  as  would  empower 
the  Legislature  in  their  wisdom  to  make  such 
laws  and  rules  of  taxation  as  would  make  every 
species  of  industry  and  property  pay  such  taxes 
as  might  prove  necessary  to  carry  on  the  ex- 
penses of  the  Government.  Some  have  intimated 
that  our  object  was  to  oppress  agricultural  in- 
terests by  laying  an  unequal  burden  of  taxation 
upon  lands  and  real  estate.  If  I have  any  di- 
rect or  personal  interest  in  exempting  any 
species  of  property  from  taxation  myself,  it  would 
be  realty,  as  my  interest  is  much  larger  in  real 
estate  than  in  personalty.  But  my  sole  object, 
and  doubtless  the  object  of  the  Committee  was, 
and  now  is,  to  do  justice  to  all  branches  of  trade 
and  industry,  and  oppress  none.  Will  any 
member  of  this  Convention  dispute  the  justice 
of  this  principle? 

Then,  if  this  principle  is  correct,  that  men 
should  be  taxed  upon  what  they  are  really  and 
truly  worth,  why  not  leave  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  untrammeled,  so  they  can  apply  such 
rules  as  may  be  found  necessary  in  order  to 
facilitate  and  execute  the  object  in  view?  I 
shall  not  attempt  to  place  any  definition  upon 
what  the  Committee  have  said.  They  have  ex- 
pressed their  sentiments  in  plain  and  simple 
terms,  allowing  or  requiring  the  Legislature  to 
prevent  double  taxation,  and  to  arrange  for  dif- 
ferent rules,  to  suit  the  exigencies  of  the  case, 
as  they  may  arise. 

I am  willing  to  trust  the  Legislature,  believ- 
ing that,  as  abuses  may  arise  or  develop  them- 
selves, that  they  will  apply  the  proper  remedy. 
It  is  at  all  times  unfortunate  to  see  prejudices 
arise,  and  that  anything  should  occur  to  cause 
suspicion  to  arise  in  the  mind  of  any  member 
that  advantages  were  being  sought.  We  all, 
doubtless,  have  the  same  objects  in  view,  and 
that  is,  to  form  and  present  to  the  people  of 
Ohio,  who  have  sent  us  here  for  that  purpose, 
as  nearly  a correct  and  perfect  Constitution  as 


2068 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. |~139th 

Bishop,  Page.  [Monday, 


is  in  our  power  to  do.  I have  already  stated  to 
the  Convention  that  I am  opposed  to  exemp- 
tions. I am  in  favor  of  taxing  all  the  property 
in  the  State,  and  upon  as  equitable  and  as  nearly 
uniform  rules  as  can  be  adopted.  I am  well 
aware  that  great  abuses  have  arisen  by  having 
an  unfortunate  assessment  system,  and  the  office 
being  frequently  filled  by  incompetent  and 
sometimes  dishonest  men.  This  should  be  rem- 
edied. 

Again,  who  will  dispute  or  controvert  the 
fact,  that  real  estate  is  usually  put  upon  the  tax 
duplicate  at  about  half  and  seldom  to  exceed 
two-thirds  its  true  value.  There  are  excep- 
tions to  this  rule.  But  it  is  a solemn  truth  and 
greatly  to  be  regretted,  that  the  law  and  justice 
is  greatly  evaded  in  this  way.  This  can  also  be 
said  of  personalty,  and  especially  of  moneyed 
assets,  that  are  not  tangible.  Hence  the  im- 
portance of  letting  the  Legislature  make  rules 
to  correct  all  these  abuses.  The  National  banks 
are  compelled  to  pay  taxes,  not  only  upon  their 
actual  capital  as  represented  by  their  stock,  but 
upon  any  surplus  they  may  have.  This  is  just 
and  right.  But  how  is  it  with  the  private 
bankers?  I had  in  my  possession  a list  publish- 
ed in  one  of  our  city  papers  showing  the  taxes 
paid  by  the  private  bankers  of  Cincinnati,  and 
at  the  same  time  stating  the  amount  of  capital 
employed  by  each  of  them.  And  I venture  the 
assertion,  that  they  did  not  pay  taxes  upon  one- 
third  of  the  capital  employed  by  them.  Is  this 
just,  is  it  equitable?  I presume  they  will  claim 
that  they  listed  all  that  the  law  required  them 
to  do.  But,  Mr.  President,  that  was  given  in 
under  the  old  “uniform  and  inflexible  rule.” 
This  is  why  we  want  a change.  We  want  rules 
that  will  stop  all  these  abuses,  so  that  as  soon 
as  it  is  understood  any  of  the  rules  of  taxation 
are  violated  or  evaded,  that  the  Legislature 
may  have  the  power  to  remedy  it.  Will  any 
member  of  this  Convention  deny  that  this  is 
intended  for  justice  and  equity,  and  that  it  is 
the  correct  way  to  carry  it  out  ? 

In  conclusion,  permit  to  say,  I shall  vote  for 
the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Highland 
[Mr.  Smith],  as  I consider  it  a very  great  im- 
provement upon  the  old  Constitution. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  first  great  principle  that 
governs  the  subject  of  taxation  is  equality. 
Every  taxpayer  ought  to  contribute  in  propor- 
tion to  his  ability  to  pay.  This  principle  is  re- 
cognized by  every  just  and  enlightened  govern- 
ment. It  must  always  have  been  practised  by 
every  Governor,  just  or  unjust,  who  was  in- 
fluenced by  intelligence  and  common  sense;  for 
any  other  rule  is  suicidal  and  destructive  of  all 
prosperity.  This  principle  of  equality  is  the 
first  of  the  four  great  rules  which  Adam  Smith 
has  laid  down ; it  is  copied  with  approbation 
by  all  writers  on  political  economy,  and  I do 
not  think  anybody  ever  took  issue  with  Adam 
Smith,  as  to  the  truth  of  it.  To  state  it  is  to 
enunciate  a mere  trueism,  for  as  soon  as  it  is 
stated,  it  is  accepted  by  all  minds,  whether 
learned  or  unlearned.  But  we  have  some  per- 
sons who  argue  that  a certain  species  of  prop- 
erty should  not  be  taxed.  They  maintain  that 
all  intangible  property,  by  which  they  mean  all 
choses  in  action,  all  money  due  by  promissory 
notes,  bills,  bonds,  stocks,  contracts,  or  other 
evidences  of  debt  or  investments,  should  be  ex- 


empted from  taxation.  Now,  the  total  value  of 
such  property  in  Ohio  is  very  large,  amounting 
to  many  millions  of  dollars,  and  the  proposition 
to  relieve  this  vast  amount  from  its  just  propor- 
tion of  taxation,  and  cast  the  burden  upon  the 
owners  of  lands,  and  other  visible  property,  is 
somewhat  startling.  The  first  result  of  such  a 
plan  would  be  to  relieve  from  the  burden  of 
contributing  their  just  share  towards  the 
revenue  of  the  State  all  bankers,  brokers, 
money-lenders,  and  all  other  persons  whose 
wealth  is  of  the  above  described  intangible 
nature.  The  second  result  would  be  to  compel 
land  owners,  a great  majority  of  whom  are 
engaged  in  the  business  of  agriculture,  to 
carry  the  burden  taken  off  the  shoulders  of 
of  bankers  and  money  lenders.  A further  con- 
sequence will  be  to  sink  the  value  of  all  the 
lands  in  the  State  from  twenty-five  to  thirty- 
three  per  cent.  Could  this  be  accomplished 
without  a revolution?  In  China,  Father  Hue 
tells  us,  that  the  rate  of  interest  is  fixed  by  the 
government  at  thirty  per  cent.,  with  the  avowed 
purpose  of  keeping  down  the  price  of  land,  be- 
cause, in  that  country,  the  great  increase  of 
population  and  personal  property  has  a tend- 
ency to  enhance  the  value  of  real  estate  enor- 
mously. But  it  is  not  necessary  in  this  country 
to  depress  the  value  of  lands  by  legislation  in 
favor  of  the  moneyed  classes.  That  this  new 
theory  is  a violation  of  the  principle  of  equality 
of  taxation  is,  I think,  perfectly  evident.  It  is 
a palpable  violation  of  all  that  has  hitherto 
been  recognized  as  reasonable  and  just  on  this 
subject.  What  reasons  are  given  for  the  intro- 
duction of  this  new  plan  of  raising  public 
revenue?  First,  it  is  said  that  it  will  reduce 
the  rate  of  interest  upon  money.  In  answer,  I 
say,  that  the  object  of  taxation  is  to  raise 
revenue  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  govern- 
ment. It  is  no  part  of  that  purpose  to  regulate 
the  price  of  money  as  between  borrower  and 
lender.  In  proportioning  the  burden  of  taxa- 
tion among  its  citizens  the  government  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  question  of  interest.  That 
is  an  incidental  and  secondary  consideration. 
In  the  next  place,  all  land-holders  are  not  bor- 
rowers, and  to  impose  an  additional  burden  of 
taxes  upon  those  who  are  not,  in  order  to  re- 
duce the  rate  of  interest  for  those  who  are 
borrowers,  is  wholly  unjustifiable.  A fur- 
ther reason  for  exempting  intangible  prop- 
erty from  taxation  is  the  alleged  fact  that 
the  owners  of  it  cannot  be  reached  by  the 
law.  It  is  said  that  such  persons  generally 
make  false  and  corrupt  returns  of  this 
species  of  property  for  taxation,  and  that  the 
law  is  a temptation  to  perjury.  The  substance 
and  effect  of  this  reasoning  is  this:  the  owners 
of  this  kind  of  property  are  too  dishonest  to  pay 
their  just  share  of  the  public  revenue,  therefore 
they  should  not  be  taxed  at  all.  This  is  a new 
principle  in  political  economy  and  a new  de- 
duction in  logic.  If  the  dishonesty  of  a citizen 
or  his  unwillingness  to  pay  taxes  is  a reason  for 
his  exemption,  the  principle  might  be  extended 
to  every  class  of  persons  who  desire  to  avail 
themselves  of  it.  The  reasoning  of  this  school 
of  statesmen  might  be  further  stated  thus:  all 
intangible  property  should  not  be  taxed,  be- 
cause, in  the  first  place,  the  lender  in  all  cases 
extorts  from  the  borrower  the  tax  upon  it,  in 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Page,  Rowland,  Cook,  Townsend. 


2069 


Day.] 

March  16,  1874.] 


addition  to  the  interest.  In  the  second  place, 
the  lender  does  not  return  this  kind  of  property 
for  taxation  at  all,  but,  as  soon  as  he  has  exacted 
the  tax  upon  it  from  the  borrower  under  the 
false  pretext  that  he  has  it  to  pay,  he  puts  it  in 
his  pocket  and  cheats  both  the  borrower  and 
the  government.  These  two  arguments  are 
somewhat  inconsistent  with  each  other.  If  we 
should  cease  to  tax  this  species  of  property, 
what  assurance  have  we  that  the  capitalist  will 
not  continue  to  extort  all  the  usury  he  can  out 
of  the  necessities  of  the  borrower,  without  any 
regard  to  the  question  of  taxation?  The  fact 
that  the  lender  exacts  usury  under  pretence  of 
being  compelled  to  pay  the  tax  upon  the  money 
lent  has  lately  been  made  the  basis  of  a judicial 
decision,  and  it  was  held  that  when  the  govern- 
ment imposes  one  tax  upon  the  money  and  the 
usurer  imposes  another,  that  is  double  taxation. 
Such  reasoning  is  puerile.  Thus,  it  will  be  per- 
ceived that  this  new  proposition  to  violate  the 
first  principles  of  taxation  is  not  supported  by 
any  just  reasons  whatever.  There  seems  to  be, 
at  this  time,  a struggle  on  the  part  of  capitalists 
to  obtain  legislation  favorable  to  themselves  at 
the  expense  of  other  citizens.  They  desire  to 
repeal  the  laws  in  regard  to  interest,  in  order  to 
be  able  to  lend  money  at  their  own  rates  with- 
out the  interference  of  the  law,  and  to  collect 
their  money  by  the  aid  of  the  law  when  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  despoil  the  debtor.  They 
desire  to  construct  railroads  by  taxation,  the 
great  burden  of  which  will  fall  upon  land-h  aid- 
ers in  order  to  build  up  cities  and  enrich 
monopolists.  They  are  anxious  to  shift  the 
burden  of  taxation  off  their  own  shoulders  upon 
the  owners  of  visible  property.  All  these  de- 
vices are  well  calculated  to  make  the  rich  richer 
and  the  poor  poorer.  It  may  be  a law  of  nature 
that  the  big  fishes  shall  swallow  up  the  little 
ones,  that  the  wolf  shall  devour  the  lamb,  that 
Shylock  shall  have  his  pound  of  flesh,  but  I 
would  not  render  this  law  more  destructive  by 
legislation  and  execute  it  rigorously  by  the  aid 
of  judge  and  jury  and  sheriff. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  All  the  various  amend- 
ments promulgated  here,  outside  of  the  Report 
of  the  Committee,  must  stand  upon  their  own 
merits.  I am  free  to  say  that  I am  willing  to 
stand  by  and  defend  here  or  elsewhere  anything 
that  I have  advanced  in  the  way  of  opinion  up- 
on the  general  subject  of  taxation,  though  it 
maybe  far  in  advance  of  the  Report  submitted 
to  the  Convention  of  the  Revenue  and  Taxation 
Committee.  And  the  subject  of  taxation  is 
taking  that  direction,  entirely,  as  is  shown  by 
the  sentiments  of  the  people  of  the  States  as 
expressed  in  the  late  Constitutional  Conven- 
tions. But,  sir,  I am  willing  to  accept  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith].  I do  not  wish  to  take 
the  time  of  the  Convention  in  discussing  ab- 
stractions, and  yet  there  is  one  little  point 
which  I wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to,  which  was  alluded  to  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook].  If  choses  in  ac- 
tion be  as  really  and  as  validly  a form  ol  prop- 
erty as  any  other,  where  do  you  obtain  the  rule 
by  which  you  deduct  from  these  your  debts  and 
from  no  other  class  of  property  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  I will  ask  of  the  gentleman,  if 


this  Convention  has  proposed  anything  of  that 
kind  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  You  do  it  now  in  the  State 
of  Ohio. 

Mr.  COOK.  Has  this  Convention  proposed 
anything  of  that  kind?  That  is  not  a question 
before  this  Convention. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  gentleman  cannot  es- 
cape the  logic  of  it. 

Mr.  COOK.  I will  say  to  the  gentleman,  if 
I were  in  the  Legislature  I would  answer  it,  but 
that  question  is  not  before  this  Convention. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  say  in  answer, 
that  under  this  Constitution,  which  we  have 
lived  under  for  twenty  years,  we  have  a rule 
obtained  by  accident,  an  incidental  allusion  in 
the  opinion  of  one  judge — a concurring  opinion, 
if  you  will,  of  Judge  Ranney,  he  and  Judge 
Thurman  concurring  in  the  opinion  of  that 
court,  but  each  using  his  own  language — in 
which  a definition  of  credits  was  given.  And 
upon  that  has  rested  the  tax  legislation  of  the 
State  ever  since  as  to  “debts,”  and  “ credits.” 
And  I ask  you  if  there  be  anything  in  this  as 
real  as  in  other  forms  of  property,  where  that 
principle  ever  obtained  ? It  is  only  necessary 
to  state  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Wood  as  to  the  nature  of  “ choses  in 
action,”  to  show  its  absurdity.  Now,  sir,  I have 
contended  that  not  all  property  is  equal,  and 
being  unequal  and  different,  one  and  the  same 
rule  cannot  be  applied.  For  instance:  Forty 
thousand  dollars  worth  of  property — say  mer- 
chandise— in  the  State  of  New  York;  would 
you  apply  to  that  property  the  same  rule  of 
taxation  that  you  would  apply  to  the  Oneida 
cow  that  brought  $40,000?  Both  have  an  ascer- 
tained cash  value,  but  the  owner  of  the  cow 
cannot  give  the  same  protection  to  her  that  he 
can  to  merchandise  or  bonds.  The  “ Duchess 
of  Oneida”  is  a far  more  precarious  form  of 
property  than  the  other;  the  one  animate,  the 
other  inanimate — death  may  suddenly  destroy 
the  property  of  the  owner  of  the  cow.  He  can- 
not give  her  protection  by  police,  by  insurance 
or  otherwise  at  the  same  cost  which  will  protect 
his  merchandise.  And  yet,  we  are  told  that  all 
property,  on  the  basis  of  cash  value,  must  have 
applied  to  it  the  identical  rule,  assessment  and 
taxation — that  is  the  theory;  but  in  practice, 
you  at  once  abandon  it  by  all  the  processes  by 
which  the  different  classes  of  property  are  placed 
upon  the  duplicate,  resulting  in  great  injustice 
to  some  forms  of  property.  I am  willing  to 
take  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  feeling  that  it  is  as  good 
as  can  be  obtained  in  this  Convention,  and  feel- 
ing that,  some  time  or  other,  the  Legislature 
may,  under  such  a proposition  as  that,  have 
this  rule  so  variable  as  that  they  can  conform 
to  what  will  be  as  certainly  the  necessities  of 
the  future  as  to  the  laws  of  taxation. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I shall  vote  for  the  sub- 
stitute proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  High- 
land [Mr.  Smith],  for  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Finance  and  Taxation.  I prefer  the 
substitute,  because  I think  it  embodies  the 
same  principle  and  expresses  it  in  terms  more 
terse  and  less  liable  to  misconstruction,  or  any 
other  construction  than  that  which  it  purports 
to  have.  It  preserves  the  same  principle  that 
governs  our  present  Constitution,  which  has 


2070 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Townsend,  Hitchcock. 


[139th 


been  reasonably  satisfactory  for  twenty  years, 
and  it  is  the  same  principle  embodied  in  the 
Report  of  the  Committee.  The  principles 
here  enunciated  have  been  very  tersely  and 
forcibly  designated  by  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  as  the  American  princi- 
ple, the  principle  that  sets  forth  that  all  spe- 
cies of  property,  that  receive  the  protection  of 
the  laws  of  the  country,  shall  pay  its  just  and 
equitable  proportion  of  the  burdens  of  taxation 
to  support  and  sustain  those  laws.  It  may  be 
asked,  then  why  change  the  form  as  is  known 
in  the  Constitution?  The  change  proposed 
is  not  very  radical,  but  at  the  same  time  it  is 
very  important.  It  has  been  found  that,  not- 
withstanding this  taxing  of  real  and  personal, 
corporeal  and  incorporeal  property,  it  has  been 
found  to  work  reasonably  well,  yet  the  Legisla- 
ture when  confined  as  the  present  clause 
does  confine  it,  to  one  specific  rule,  to 
value  the  property  of  all  kinds  in  money,  it  has 
been  found  that  one  rule  does  not  work  equita- 
bly, equity  is  not  obtained,  and  this  rule  sim- 
ply contemplates  that  the  Legislature  will  be 
clothed  with  sufficient  authority  to  adopt  as 
many  rules  as  they  find  classifications  of  prop- 
erty. The  same  rule  that  taxes  a merchant’s 
stock  on  hand  to  arrive  at  his  property,  has  not 
been  found  to  tax  equitably  the  effects  of  a pri- 
vate banking  institution,  nor  perhaps  a rail- 
road corporation  or  real  estate  and  many  classes 
of  property.  While  it  seeks  to  tax  one  thing 
fairly,  it  taxes  some  other  species  of  property 
unfairly  and  leaves  other  kinds  without  being 
taxed  at  all.  This  has  been  found  to  create 
great  ' dissatisfaction  in  the  community. 
Everybody,  I think,  as  a rule,  feels  dis- 
posed to  pay  a fair  and  equitable  share 
of  taxation,  but  when  he  is  taxed  for 
the  full  amount  of  his  property,  and  his 
neighbor’s  property  is  left  to  go  almost  entirely 
without  taxation,  he  feels  as  though  there  was 
injustice  put  upon  him  and  he  adopts  all  kinds 
of  subterfuges,  and  under  these  subterfuges 
there  is  much  property  of  the  State  that  escapes 
taxation.  The  grand  levy  does  not  represent 
the  property  of  the  State,  and  it  has,  therefore, 
increased  the  rate  of  taxation.  Now,  under 
the  rules  contemplated,  I think  the  Legislature, 
after  three  or  four  years  experience,  having 
first  framed  the  tax  law  and  found  by  its  ope- 
ration that  it  did  not  bring  all  the  property  on 
to  the  grand  duplicate  of  the  State,  will,  from 
j^ear  to  year  change  it,  and  eventually,  perhaps 
within  five  or  six  years,  nearly  all  the  property 
in  the  State  will  be  listed  for  taxation  and  the 
amount  will  be  largely  increased,  perhaps  one- 
third  or  one-half  added  to  it.  Consequently 
the  rate  of  taxation  will  be  lower  and  the 
same  amount  of  money  collected.  1 think  this 
is  a discretion  that  we  can  wisely  confer  on  the 
Legislature.  If  we  pervent  them  by  unwise  and 
unnecessar}’-  restrictions  from  forming  rules 
and  enacting  laws  govering  those  various  pha- 
ses of  the  subject,  we  will  find  that  we  have 
got  into  difficulties  from  which  we  cannot  ex- 
tricate ourselves.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  estab- 
lish one  well  defined  principle  governing  all  the 
property  and  leave  to  the  Legislature  the  duty 
of  working  out  the  system.  I think  that  the 
substitute  proposed  embodies  this  principle  and 
that  is  the  best  thing  that  this  Convention  can 


[Monday, 


attain.  If  I were  making  it  myself,  perhaps,  I 
should  make  it  different,  but  I must  concede 
something  to  the  views  of  others.  And  I be- 
lieve this  system  will  be  satisfactory  to  the 
Convention  if  they  once  adopt  it;  satisfactory 
to  the  people  at  large;  and  will  prove  entirely 
satisfactory  to  the  people  of  the  State  during 
the  existence  of  this  Constitution . I shall,  there- 
fore, support  the  substitute. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  As  a member  of  the 
Committee  reporting  the  Article  in  the  form  in 
which  it  is  now  before  the  Convention  for  con- 
sideration, and  finding  myself  in  a position  to 
differ  somewhat  from  other  members  of  that 
Committee,  I will  very  briefly  give  my  views 
in  connection  with  the  subject.  My  intention 
is  not  to  go  into  details  in  the  discussion  of  the 
subject  of  taxation,  as,  under  other  circum- 
stances, I might  have  been  inclined  to  do.  It 
seems  to  me  that,  from  indications,  the  Conven- 
tion is  about  to  adopt  the  substitute  proposed  by 
the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  in 
place  of  section  three,  as  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee. Whether  to  adopt  that  section,  having 
agreed  to  the  substitute,  I am  unable  to  say. 
At  this  point  I desire  to  express  what  is  my 
conviction  of  that  which  should  be  sought  in 
the  establishment  of  any  rule  of  taxation  in  the 
State  of  Ohio.  How  that  will  be  applied  is  a 
more  difficult  quuestion,  and  very  largely  is  for 
determination  by  the  Legislative  power,  rather 
than  the  power  which  proposes  the  fundamental 
law,  establishing  the  principle  upon  the  subject 
of  taxation.  That  principle  is  this:  That  all 
men  and  all  property  having  protection  under 
the  laws  of  the  State  should  be  called  upon  to 
contribute  to  support  the  government  of  the 
State  according  to  their  ability.  In  other 
words,  while  I might  not  favor  the  fixing  of 
any  principle  requiring  tax  to  be  paid  by  in- 
come, yet,  really,  the  true  principle  is,  that 
men  should  pay  for  the  support  of  the  Gov- 
ernment under  which  they  live,  according 
to  their  abilitjr — according  as  the  business 
or  the  property  in  their  hands  enables  them  to 
attain  support  and  thereby  contribute  to  the 
support  of  the  government  which  protects 
them  in  their  various  branches  of  business. 
And  I desire  to  express,  in  connection  with 
that,  what  is  my  conviction,  that  the  true  prin- 
ciple, the  one  by  which  we  can  most  nearly  ar- 
rive at  this  result,  is  that  the  property  of  the 
State  shall  thus  contribute  in  proportion  to  its 
value.  That  value  must  necessarily  be  deter- 
mined, not  by  what  may  possibly  be  the  result 
in  one  or  more  instances  in  the  sale  of  that 
property,  but  as  that  property  managed  as 
a whole  in  the  hands  of  those  parties  own- 
ing it,  will  contribute  to  their  support  and 
to  the  amassing  of  wealth  in  their  hands. 
Here  let  me  remark  that  I am  not  yet  sat- 
isfied, as  a member  of  the  Committee,  that  I 
am  prepared  to  vote  for  the  substitute  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith] 
to  the  section  as  reported  by  the  Committee. 
But  if  the  substitute  shall  be  adopted,  and  the 
I question  comes  between  that  and  the  section  in 
our  present  Constitution,  I will  have  to  take 
the  matter  under  further  advisement.  Now  it 
| is  claimed,  and  there  is  no  doubt  some  force  in 
it,  that  a rule  as  precise  in  its  forms,  as  strict 
i in  its  requirements,  as  absolute  in  that  which 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


2071 


Day.] 

Makch  16,1874.] 


Hitchcock. 


it  seeks  to  accomplish,  as  the  rule  of  taxation 
in  our  present  Constitution,  works  badly  in  its 
practical  application.  It  is  true  that  in  the 
changing  condition  of  things  which  is  constant- 
ly going  forward  in  a community  which  has  so 
recently  sprung  into  existence  as  the  State 
of  Ohio,  this  rule  may  bear  hardly,  and 
improperly  restrict  the  legislative  power; 
in  fact  may  prevent  the  perfect  accomp- 
lishment of  that  which  is  believed  to  be, 
as  before  said,  the  true  rule  of  taxation. 
Therefore,  I differ  somewhat  from  my  friend 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  and  was  prepared 
to  agree  to  some  arrangement  of  this  provision 
by  which  there  might  be  supposed  to  be  some 
greater  liberty  in  providing  the  means  whereby 
all  the  property  in  the  State  should  be  com- 
pelled to  contribute  in  proportion  to  its  real 
value  in  money,  its  equal  share  in  the  burdens 
of  taxation.  Now,  whether  this  may  be  better 
accomplished  under  the  substitute  proposed 
than  under  the  section  reported  by  the  Commit- 
tee, I am  unable  to  say.  It  is  only  that  I fear 
it  is  not  so  well  calculated  to  accomplish  the  ob- 
ject suggested,  that  at  present  I stand  by  the 
Report  of  the  Committee.  It  may  be,  Mr. 
President,  and  I incline  to  that  opinion,  that 
the  legislation  of  the  State  has  been  supposed  to 
be  more  closely  confined,  more  surely  re- 
stricted by  the  provision  of  our  present  Consti- 
tution, than  necessarily  it  should  have  been  in 
the  arrangement  of  the  laws  for  purposes  of 
taxation.  However  this  may  be  with  the  Leg- 
islative action  and  the  construction  upon  that 
action  by  the  courts,  I am  willing  that  the  rule 
may  be  somewhat  modified,  believing  that  the 
property  of  the  State,  the  interests  of  the  people, 
will  not  be  jeopardized  thereby,  but  may  be  very 
much  advanced.  In  addition,  1 wish  for  a mo- 
ment to  consider  some  of  the  reasons  which  have 
been  advanced  as  going  to  show  that  there  has 
been  an  incubus  resting  upon  the  industries  of 
the  State,  a hindrance  to  the  development  of  the 
resources  of  the  State,  on  account  of  this  system 
of  taxation.  That  this  burden  is  so  great  that 
while  gentlemen  will  not  undertake  to  do  that 
which  they  are  satisfied  they  are  unable  to  ac- 
complish, yet  has  led  to  the  announcement  of 
opinions  upon  the  subject  here,  as  they  are  an- 
nounced elsewhere,  which  would  entirely  up- 
root the  principle  before  stated.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  result  in  our  State  during  the  twenty 
years  or  more  which  we  have  been  living  under 
our  present  Constitution,  and  the  laws  under 
that  provision  of  the  Constitution  in  rela- 
tion to  taxation,  does  not,  it  seeems  to 
me,  prove  what  gentlemen  claim.  It  may 
prove  the  system  of  taxation  not  the  best  which 
can  be  adopted.  But  if  so,  if  the  result  be  as 
claimed,  then  its  burdens  bear  more  heavily  in 
the  localities  where  the  system  suggested  by 
gentlemen  would  press  still  greater  burdens  if 
it  should  be  adopted.  That  is,  if  that  which 
has  been  urged  here  be  true,  that  the  system  of 
taxation  retards  population  and  the  develop- 
ment of  the  resources  of  the  State,  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  progress  of  population  and  the 
development  of  resources  have  been  most  re- 
tarded where  personal  property  more  largely 
exists,  but  it  is  where  personal  property  does 
not,  but  real  estate  does  more  largely  exist.  It 
would  be  amply  sufficient,  perhaps,  to  refer  to 


the  fact  that  while  Ohio  has  not,  during  the  last 
decade,  made  that  rapid  progress  in  population 
which  has  been  made  by  some  of  the  newer  and 
less  perfectly  developed  States;  while  that  is 
true,  it  is  not  true  that  there  has  not  been  a 
large  increase  in  population.  This  increase  has 
been  largely  within  the  cities  and  large  towns 
of  the  State,  where  it  is  supposed  that  personal 
property  is  more  largely  accumulated  in  pro- 
portion to  the  aggregate  duplicate.  I wish  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  operation  of 
the  rule,  if  true,  as  claimed,  shows  that  the 
burden  of  taxation  has  rested  too  heavily  upon 
the  rural  districts.  It  is  true  with  regard  to 
those  districts  and  not  with  regard  to  those 
more  densely  populated  districts,  to  the  cities 
and  the  large  towns  of  the  State.  A moment’s 
reference  to  a fact  in  this  connection..  It  will 
be  seen  by  the  reports  of  the  Auditor  and 
Secretary  of  State  that  the  full  amount  of  realty 
outside  of  cities  and  incorporated  villages,  as 
returned  for  taxation,  is  $698,815,731;  within 
the  municipal  corporations  of  the  State,  the 
cities,  towns  and  villages,  $342,940,250;  the 
value  of  personal  property  in  the  rural  districts, 
$368,101,214,  as  returned  for  taxation.  In  giving 
this  exhibit,  I am  well  aware  that  it  develops  a 
fact  which  has  been  claimed  as  a reason  for 
abandoning  the  taxation  of  certain  classes  of 
personal  property,  that  this  personal  property 
is  not  on  the  duplicate  as  it  ought  to  be.  This 
is  one  of  the  main  reasons  urged  for  abandon- 
ing the  system.  These  facts  will  demonstrate 
that  to  be  true  without  doubt,  but  as  to  its  being 
a reason  for  or  against  any  system  it  is  my 
purpose  to  say  nothing,  that  having  been  suf- 
ficiently discussed  by  others.  I find  by  the  only 
returns  that  we  have  that  in  the  cities,  including 
fifteen  large  towns.of  the  State,  the  returns  of 
personal  property  amount  to  about  one  hundred 
millions.  To  this  amount  I add  twenty-five 
per  cent.,  as  probably  largely  sufficient  to  cover 
all  the  personal  property  within  the  smaller 
municipalities,  making  $157,419,494,  or  an  ag- 
gregate of  $500,359,744,  within  municipal  cor- 
porations, and  in  the  rural  districts  $1,066,916,- 
945.  Now  what  I say  is  this,  that  upon  the  rule 
adopted  that  the  smaller  increase  of  population 
as  compared  with  other  States  is  owing  to  our 
system  of  taxation  shows  that  by  that  system 
of  taxation  the  real  estate  and  personal  prop- 
erty, as  found  in  the  rural  districts  of  the  State, 
has  been  and  is  paying  more  than  its  propor- 
tionate share  of  taxation.  Facts  as  to  devel- 
opments in  various  branches  of  industry  within 
the  limits  of  municipal  corporations,  and  the 
increase  of  population  therein,  which  I will 
not  take  the  time  to  read,  prove  this  to  be  true. 
One  item  of  information,  derived  from  the  Sec- 
retary of  State’s  Report,  will  show  in  just  one 
branch  of  industry,  in  manufacturing,  an  in- 
vestment of,  in  round  numbers,  one  hundred  and 
forty  millions  capital,  paying  fifty  millions  of 
expenditures,  using  materials  costing  one  hun- 
dred and  filty-seven  millions,  and  realizing 
about  three  hundred  millions  in  products.  That 
branch  of  industry  carried  on  almost  entirely 
within  the  territory  covered  by  municipal  cor- 
porations, while  within  the  very  same  limits 
there  has  been  a much  larger  percentage  in- 
crease in  population.  Thus  it  is  shown  to  be 
true  that  the  rural  districts  have  borne  more 


2072 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Hitchcock,  Bishop,  Rowland,  Pratt. 


heavily  the  burden  of  taxes  than  municipal 
corporations  by  the  rule  which  gentlemen  have 
urged.  If  that  is  the  cause  of  decrease  in  popu- 
lation, certainly  no  rule  should  be  adopted  which 
will  throw  any  larger  share  of  taxation  upon 
those  localities.  Another  thing  in  connection 
with  the  taxation  of  real  and  personal  property. 
It  is  said,  and  it  may  be  true,  that  the  reason 
why  so  little  personal  property  is  found  upon 
the  duplicate  is  not  that  inherent  disposition  in 
men  as  far  as  possible  to  avoid  the  payment  of 
taxes,  and  contribute  to  the  authorities  which 
protect  them  and  their  property ; that  it  is  not 
owing  to  this,  but  to  the  fact  that  the  real 
estate  is  paying  so  small  a proportion  of  taxa- 
tion; that  it  is  assessed  so  low  in  proportion  to 
its  value  that  they  will  not  put  the  personal 
property  on  the  tax  duplicate  to  be  compelled 
to  bear  its  share  of  the  burden.  Now  I venture 
the  assertion,  and  I have  not  the  least  fear  of 
successful  contradiction,  that  the  real  estate 
throughout  the  rural  districts  of  Ohio  to-day  is 
more  nearly  upon  the  duplicate  in  proportion 
to  its  value  than  the  personal  property  which 
is  listed  upon  the  entire  duplicate. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Upon  what  data  does  the 
gentleman  predicate  that  ? Where  does  he  get 
the  evidence?  There  are  none  of  us  that  wish 
the  rural  districts  to  pay  anything  more  than 
they  ought  to  pay.  But  I cannot  find  any- 
thing that  gives  any  evidence  of  that  kind. 
The  advance  of  personal  property  has  been  so 
much  larger  than  the  advance  of  realty  over 
the  country. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  wish  to  con- 
vince the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Bishop],  or  any  other  member  of  the  Conven- 
tion, that  the  rural  districts  have  paid  more 
than  their  share  of  taxation  in  proportion  to 
property ; but  am  only  showing  that  if  the 
rule  that  the  gentlemen  have  urged  as  a reason 
for  the  condition  of  the  State,  be  true,  that 
on  account  of  the  system  of  taxation  popula- 
tion has  not  increased  as  rapidly  as  in  other 
States ; still  there  has  been  an  increase,  while 
in  every  instance,  except  in  the  newer  counties 
of  the  State,  there  has  been  a decrease  in  the 
rural  districts.  Take  any  one  of  those  counties 
where  there  is  an  increase  and  you  will  find  it 
is  in  the  villages  and  towns.  I say  if  the  rule 
be  true,  it  proves  more  than  is  desired,  because 
it  proves  that  the  rural  districts  have  borne  the 
burden.  I do  not  say  that  they  pay  too  much. 
The  gentleman  misunderstood  me,  but  upon 
that  rule  they  pay  too  much. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I understood  the  gentle- 
man to  say  the  property  should  be  the  measure 
of  taxation  and  not  population,  so  that  in  that 
respect  his  argument  is  not  pertinent  so  far  as 
it  may  be  based  on  the  increase  or  decrease  of 
population. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  is  a difficulty  which  I 
always  experience,  not  being  very  clear-head- 
ed, to  make  myself  understood.  My  argument 
was  based  upon  the  rule  of  the  gentleman  him- 
self and  his  colleague  and  other  gentlemen 
upon  the  floor.  They  urged  that  the  fact  that 
the  State  has  not  increased  as  rapidly  in  popu-  ! 
lation  as  other  States  during  the  last  decennial 
period  shows  what  I said,  not  that  I claimed  j 
this  to  be  true,  but  that  gentlemen  have  claimed  ' 


[139th 

[Monday# 


I it  to  be  true.  If  it  be  true,  it  would  show  that 
result.  I was  saying  that  the  real  estate 
throughout  the  rural  districts  is  more  nearly 
taxed  in  proportion  to  its  value  than  personal 
property. 

Now,  what  are  the  facts  in  regard  to  that? 
I have  before  stated  that  the  true  rule  of  esti- 
mating property  for  taxation  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  ability,  as  it  may  be  invested,  to 
return  income  or  profit  to  the  holder.  At  the 
last  appraisal  of  real  estate,  by  returns  of  sales 
In  the  various  counties,  the  Auditor  of  State 
was  able  to  report  to  the  State  Board  of  Equali- 
zation an  average  value  throughout  the  various 
counties  of  the  State  at  which  the  sales  during 
a specified  period  of  time  previous  to  that  had 
been  made.  A comparison  with  those  returns 
showed  that  the  returns  made  by  the  assessors 
for  taxation  were  seventy-seven  and  one-half 
per  cent.,  the  value,  as  shown  by  the  sales  to 
which  I have  referred. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  ask  whether  he  is  comparing  sales  sub- 
sequently to  1870,  as  predicated  upon  the  valu- 
ation of  1870,  and  whether,  in  the  ten  years 
preceding,  there  was  not  a great  advance  in 
real  estate  that  was  not  shown  upon  the  dupli- 
cate at  all  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I will  explain  to  the 
gentleman  so  that  he  will  understand.  The 
Auditor  of  State  had  sent  his  circulars  to 
the  various  County  Auditors  for  these  re- 
turns during  the  year,  and  it  showed  the 
result  referred  to.  Then,  after  the  equali- 
zation had  been  made  by  the  Board,  under 
authority  given  by  the  General  Assembly, 
the  average  was  reduced  by  twelve  per 
cent.,  reducing  it,  in  round  numbers,  to  two- 
thirds  of  the  value,  as  shown  by  sales.  Now, 
another  point  right  here : Those  sales,  in  most 
every  case,  as  every  one  acquainted  with  real 
estate  knows,  are  time  sales.  The  appraisal 
must  necessarily  be  upon  the  estimate  of  those 
making  the  appraisal  upon  the  value  of  the 
property  in  money,  which  the  Constitution  re- 
quires. How  it  may  be  in  other  localities  I do 
not  know,  but  in  my  locality  these  sales  of 
farming  lands  are  scarcely  ever  made  upon  a 
term  of  less  than  five  years — more  frequently, 
if  any  considerable  amount  is  invested  in  a farm, 
a term  of  ten  years — and  sales  are  almost  al- 
ways made  in  that  way — I might  say  always, 
and  at  the  legal  rate  of  interest.  This  makes  a 
very  large  difference  in  the  prices  at  which 
real  estate  sells  as  compared  with  what  it  would 
sell  for  in  cash.  That  is  not  the  only  difference 
to  which  I would  refer.  It  is  this : The  value  of 
property  for  taxation,  as  before  asserted,  is  its 
ability  to  return  to  the  holder  the  means  of 
support,  and  the  amassingof  wealth  for  himself, 
and  the  support  of  his  family.  Now,  the  farm- 
ing lands  of  Ohio  will  not  average  a return  of 
four  per  cent. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Does  the  gentleman  mean  after 
taxes  are  deducted,  or  including  taxes? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  In  any  estimate  which  I 
make,  I mean  return  made  after  paying  all  taxes 
which  the  owner  has  to  pay  for  the  support  of 
the  government. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Will  the  gentleman  per- 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION, 

Hitchcock,  Rowland,  Hoadly. 


2073 


Day.] 

March  16,  1874.] 


mit  me  to  ask  whether  he  does  not  include  the 
use  of  the  family  residence? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  No,  sir ; I do  not  include 
that. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  gentleman  should  in- 
clude the  item  of  rent  for  the  family  domicile. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  know  what  may 
be  the  case  within  a few  miles  of  the  city  of 
Cincinnati,  but  it  is  true  through  the  rural 
districts  of  the  State,  from  the  universal  testi- 
mony of  those  engaged  in  agricultural  pursuits, 
and  from  estimates  based  upon  the  returns,  that 
they  will  not  pay  exceeding  the  amount  I have 
named — four  per  cent.  I know  they  will  not 
pay  three  per  cent,  in  the  locality  in  which  I 
live. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
a question  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  like  to  know  what 
he  means  by  three  or  four  per  cent.  Does  he 
mean  that  amount  saved  after  the  man  has  got 
his  living  out  of  it,  or  is  that  the  gross  outcome 
of  the  property  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I mean  that  is  the  gross 
outcome  of  the  property — the  entire  return  to 
the  man  who  labors  upon  his  farm  for  the  sup- 
port of  himself  and  his  family,  for  the  payment 
of  all  his  expenses  except  taxes,  and  am  not 
afraid  to  include  in  that  estimate  an  estimate 
for  taxes.  Another  thing  is  true.  In  propor- 
tion to  numbers  few  farmers  attain  wealth,  not 
but  that  the  farmers  of  Ohio  live  well,  for  they 
do  thus  live.  They  raise  their  own  living,  and 
live  upon  what  they  raise  comfortably.  Here 
and  there  a farmer  amasses  wealth,  or 
what  in  the  rural  districts  is  regarded  as 
wealth,  but  farmers  do  not,  as  a gen- 
eral rule,  become  wealthy.  Ten  per  cent, 
upon  all  the  property  of  many  of  the 
best  farmers  in  my  locality,  those  who  are  re- 
garded wealthy  in  the  country,  would  not  begin 
to  furnish  them  the  means  of  living  from  year 
to  year  that  are  used  by  men  in  our  cities  and 
larger  towns  and  by  persons  in  this  Conven- 
tion. It  may  be  that  this  has  no  particular 
bearing  upon  the  question  now  before  us,  but  it 
relates  to  the  fact,  if  it  be  true,  that  these  inter- 
ests are  all  the  time  contributing  their  full  share 
of  the  burdens. 

That  the  interests,  like  that  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  made,  the  manufacturing  in- 
terest, in  which,  if  gentlemen  make  the  calcu- 
lation, they  will  find  about  69  per  cent,  of 
products  in  excess  of  expenses,  materials  and 
interest  upon  employed  capital  does  not  bear 
more  than  its  proportionate  share.  Yet  it  is 
urged  upon  this  floor  that  this  class  of  interests 
is  driven  from  the  State  of  Ohio,  on  account  of 
the  unequal  and  oppressive  system  of  taxation 
which  exists,  a fact  in  connection  with  the 
assertion  that  capital  invested  in  manufacturing 
is  being  driven  out  of  our  State  by  this  system 
of  taxation.  It  is  in  the  very  localities  where 
these  manufactures  have  sprung  up ; it  is  in  the 
very  localities  where  it  is  supposed  that  if  we 
had  not  such  a ruinous  system  of  taxation,  they 
would  continue  to  spring  up  and  bless  the 
localities  around  them  by  a vast  increase  of 
wealth,  that  this  increase  of  population  has 
come.  Look  at  the  city  of  Cleveland,  and  what 
has  been  her  increase  in  the  decade  just  past? 


1 Look  at  the  city  of  Youngstown,  which  was  not 
a city  at  all  when  this  system  of  taxation  was 
adopted.  Look  at  the  city  of  Springfield,  look 
at  Mansfield,  look  at  any  town  in  the  State, 
where  the  great  interest  is  the  manufacturing 
interest,  and  you  will  surely  find  there  an  in- 
crease of  population;  and  yet,  while  this 
interest  has  so  developed  itself  and  has  been  so 
prosperous,  it  is  sought  to  exclude  the  capital 
invested  therein  from  taxation. 

But  I find,  Mr.  President,  that  by  the  ques- 
tions asked,  I have  been  carried  farther  into  de- 
tail upon  this  subject  than  was  my  intention.  I 
do  not  wish  more  than  to  reiterate  that  which 
should  be  the  principle  recognized  in  the  Con- 
stitution without  at  this  time  going  any  further 
into  the  discussion  of  this  subject.  So  far  as 
this  one  question  is  concerned,  leaving  it  as  was 
said  in  the  commencement  without  discussion 
of  various  things  which  might  have  been  re- 
ferred to  in  an  earlier  period  of  this  discussion, 
charged  with  submitting  to  the  people  a revi- 
sion of  the  Constitution  of  our  State,  if  we  are 
about  to  change  this  Article,  which  to  some  ex- 
tent at  least,  can  be  advantageously  changed, 
let  us  see  to  it  that  we  do  not  abandon  a tried 
for  an  untried  system,  a system  which  has 
been  tried, — in  its  main  features  has  been 
tried,  and  proved,  at  least,  reasonably  suc- 
cessful. It  may  be  that  under  this  beneficent 
system  or  oppressive  system,  whichever  gen- 
tlemen may  please  to  call  it,  those  who,  as  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Rowland]  have  labored  on  the  soil  of  the  State, 
labored  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State,  la- 
bored under  the  protection  of  the  laws  of  the 
State,  have  amassed  a fortune  and  desire  to  re- 
tire and  live  upon  that  fortune,  will  leave  our 
State.  Our  system  may  be  such  that  it  will 
drive  men  of  that  class  outside  of  the  State. 
But  if  they  are  not  willing  that  the  State  that  has 
protected  them  during  all  these  years  in  which 
they  have  been  amassing  that  fortune,  shall  de- 
rive a benefit  for  the  continued  protection 
thereof,  and  move  out  of  the  State,  let  them 
go.  I appreciate,  not  perhaps  as  much  as  those 
gentlemen  who  live  in  the  little  circles  where 
these  branches  of  productive  industry  are  car- 
ried on,  but  I have  some  appreciation  of  the  im- 
portance of  capital  in  developing  the  resources 
of  the  State.  Capital  is  developing  resources 
that  were  not  thought  of  in  the  early  settle- 
ment of  the  State.  A word  as  to  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey], made  the  other  day  with  regard  to 
the  development  of  the  State,  in  the 
question  he  triumphantly  asked,  What  was 
your  real  estate  in  Ohio  worth  when  cov- 
ered by  its  primeval  forests?  Adding,  if  her 
manufacturing  establishments  had  been  encour- 
aged, how  the  resources  of  the  State  would 
have  been  developed ; how  the  riches  of  its  soil 
would  have  poured  forth  for  the  support  of 
those  who  were  engaged  in  manufacturing,  and 
be  sent  abroad  to  aid  in  supplying  the  wants  of 
the  world.  That  is  about  as  the  gentleman 
expressed  it  in  his  glowing  description.  It 
seems  to  me  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  hardy 
hands,  the  strong  arms  and  resolute  souls,  with 
confiding  trust  in  the  future,  which  struck 
blow  after  blow  upon  the  giant  trees  which 
covered  the  entire  surface  of  our  State,  and 


2074 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


[139  th 


Hitchcock,  Rowland,  Pratt. 


[Monday, 


laid  them  low,  clearing  off  the  debris,  cultivat- 
ing the  fields,  and  developing  the  riches  of  the 
soil,  that  the  gentleman’s  manufacturing  inter- 
ests would  have  been  of  very  little  worth.  The 
resources  of  Ohio  are  not  in  her  agriculture 
alone.  Largely  they  are,  and  ever  will  be, 
yet,  as  remarked  just  now,  she  has  been, 
within  a few  years  past,  developing  other  re- 
sources, and  the  development  of  those  resour- 
ces, while  it  may  not  increase  the  population  in 
the  rural  districts,  has  increased  it  in  the  cities, 
and  made  more  mouths  for  the  rural  districts  to 
•feed.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that.  I appre- 
ciate, as  before  said,  the  importance  of  capital 
for  the  development  of  these  resources,  but  it 
has  ever  been  my  conviction,  and  not  without 
thought,  that  money  placed  in  the  hands  of 
anybody  at  more  than  he  could  afford  to  pay, 
was  worse  than  though  he  had  it  not.  My  im- 
pression ever  has  been,  and  no  doubt  ever  will 
be,  that  capital  invested  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  or 
any  capital  which  seeks  investment  here,  which 
shuns  that  investment  because  it  may  be  com- 
pelled to  contribute  its  proportion  to  the  pro- 
tection of  those  wielding  that  capital,  is  better 
outside  of  the  State  than  in,  and  the  State  is 
well  rid  of  it.  This  declaration  I have  no  hesi- 
tation in  making.  I come  right  back  to  say 
that  the  State,  having  done  so  well,  having  done 
not  alone  what  may  be  inferred  from  the  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr. 
Smith],  not  having  alone  added  to  its  personal 
property,  but  from  year  to  year  continuously 
under  this  system  instead  of  personal  property 
having  been  more  and  more  concealed,  it  has 
been  more  and  more  brought  to  light,  has  more 
and  more  nearly  approached  its  true  value, 
more  and  more  nearly  paid  its  proportion  of 
the  taxes  and  burdens  of  the  State.  By  a con- 
tinuation of  the  same  principle  in  the  time  to 
come,  with  different  latitude  of  rules,  with  dif- 
ferent plan  in  carrying  it  out,  the  system  may 
be  made  more  efficient.  I concur  in  the  pro- 
posed changes,  but  with  this  one  principle  to 
be  kept  constantly  in  view,  that  all  property 
shall  bear  its  equal  proportion  in  the  burdens 
of  the  State.  Then  we  may  confidently  trust 
that  the  prosperity  that  renders  Ohio  unsur- 
passed in  the  wide  circle  of  States  of  which  she 
forms  a part  will  continue  to  the  end. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I have  spoken  once,  but 
would  like  to  make  some  remarks  in  explana- 
tion. 

(The  gentleman  had  leave  to  proceed). 

I wish,  very  much,  sir,  that  same  rule  might 
be  adopted  in  the  Constitution  by  which  we 
could  establish  taxation  upon  some  forms  of 
property  different  from  that  which  may  be  ap- 
plied to  others,  so  as  to  take  from  this  question 
that  friction  between  city  and  country  inter- 
ests which  seems  always  to  operate  adversely  to 
the  real  interests  of  the  State.  And  let  me  say, 
that  having  followed  the  plow,  having  been 
raised  on  a farm,  and  resided  there  until  I 
reached  the  stature  of  manhood,  I would  be  the 
last  man  in  this  Convention  to  impose  any  un- 
necessary burdens  upon  the  agricultural  inter- 
ests of  the  State.  I know  the  importance  of  the 
position  which  it  occupies  and  to  what  an  ex- 
tent it  is  the  foundation  upon  which  the  super- 
structure of  all  other  industries  and  wealth 
must  rest.  But  it  is  not  claimed  that  they  pay 


too  little  in  the  aggregate,  perhaps  they  pay 
more  than  they  are  entitled  to  pay,  but  it  is 
this,  that  you  apply  to  the  owner  of  real  estate 
a rule  which  you  do  not  apply  to  the  owner  of 
personal  property.  Yob  apply  to  the  man  who 
is  selling  goods  a rule  of  par  valuation  in 
money,  and  in  the  case  of  a man  who  will 
make  no  return — I do  not  say  that  it  is  a nec- 
essary result  of  the  rule,  but  it  has  been  adopt- 
ed— the  auditor  may  guess  at  what  the  man  is 
worth  if  he  refuses  to  return,  and  then 
if  he  remains  contumacious  he  may  add 
fifty  per  cent,  upon  that.  That  is  the 
rule  of  taxation,  violating  the  very  one  of 
the  first  principles  of  our  government, 
that  no  property  shall  be  taken  without  due  pro- 
cess of  law.  Neither  the  auditor  nor  the  asses- 
sor has  any  judicial  standing,  nor  can  either  as- 
sume judicial  functions.  It  is  an  ex  parte  pro- 
ceding  from  beginning  to  end,  an  outrage  upon 
the  principle  as  to  private  property  taken  for 
public  use,  laid  down  in  our  Bill  of  Rights.  It 
is  simply  confiscation.  I do  not  claim  that  this 
is  a logical  or  necessary  result  of  the  rule  of 
the  Constitution,  and  yet  it  has  prevailed 
against  the  repeated  and  earnest  protest  of  the 
people.  Let  me  suggest  this  one  proposition, 
that  in  proportion  as  you  make  property  safe 
beyond  ordinary  fluctuations  in  value  and  the 
contingencies  of  fire  and  flood,  in  that  degree 
do  you  lower  the  rate  of  interest  or  have  the 
equivalent,  a small  return  from  such  invest- 
ments. Take  for  instance,  the  government 
bond.  It  is  run  up  by  reason  of  its  inherent 
value ; its  instant  and  universal  convertibility 
and  its  exemption  from  taxation  to  14,  16  and 
perhaps,  20  percent,  at  times,  above  par.  Why? 
Because  it  posseses  those  elements  of  converti- 
bility— safety  and  exemption  from  taxes. 
There  is  no  danger  about  it.  And  in  any  other 
property,  land  or  otherwise,  where  you  can 
concentrate  those  elements  of  availability,  safe- 
ty, you  will  obtain  the  same  result,  you  will 
have  a low  interest  or  small  return.  These 
bonds  yield  about  five  per  cent.,  and  farm  prop- 
erty proper  will  produce  a net  result  of  about 
five  per  cent.,  so  that  the  same  rule  prevails  in 
personal  as  in  real  property.  The  conditions 
of  absolute  safety  inhering  in  such  property 
necessitates  a low  rate  of  interest  or  income. 
The  conditions  are  otherwise  in  those  proper- 
ties which  are  in  their  nature  precarious,  in- 
volving great  hazard,  as  in  merchandising, 
where  one  man  gets  rich  to  a hundred  who  fall, 
by  the  way,  in  bankruptcy,  and  fill  your  insane 
asylums  from  the  care  and  distraction  of  busi- 
ness. There  is  no  uniformity  in  this  State; 
property  is  not  taxed  alike  anywhere;  nor  is 
therein  the  principle  that  prevails  in  our  Na- 
tional politics.  No  uniformity  as  applied  to 
the  tariff.  There  is  a rate  upon  one  article  and 
a different  rate  upon  another,  and  much  robbery 
results  in  the  collection. 

Mr.  PRATT.  And  robbery  all  around. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Robbery  in  the  custom 
houses,  and  I pray  to  God  that  all  of  them  may 
be  blotted  from  the  face  of  the  earth  ! 

Mr.  PRATT.  1 give  you  my  hand  on  that. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I wish  to  see  the  time 
when  there  shall  be  direct  taxation,  and  when 
these  thieving  doors  will  be  closed.  In  the 
tariff  there  is  inequality.  You  require  one 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 2075 

March  16,  1874.]  Rowland,  Smith  of  H.,  Pratt,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


thing  to  come  in  at  one  rate,  and  another  at  a 
different  rate.  So  far  as  principle  is  concerned, 
the  rule  of  uniformity  is  not  the  American 
rule,  but  directly  the  reverse  is  true.  Not  uni- 
formity, but  variety  is  the  rule.  I recollect 
hearing  Mr.  Wells  state  a little  circumstance  ; 
that  he  was  called  before  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means,  to  present  his  views  upon  the 
reduction  of  the  tax  on  whisky  from  two  dol- 
lars to  fifty  cents  a gallon,  and  he  advocated  it 
with  his  usual  ability,  and  he  had  the  Commit- 
tee in  his  hands,  as  he  thought,  when  some 
gentleman  buttoned  his  coat,  and  got  up  and 
stated  that  he  would  swear  by  the  eternal  that 
he  never  was  willing  to  confess,  after  this 
country  had  shown  an  ability  to  crush  the  most 
giant  rebellion  of  modern  times,  and  wiped  out 
slavery,  that  it  could  not  collect  the  insignifi- 
cant sum  of  two  dollars  a gallon  on  whisky ! 
Buncombe  triumphed  over  brains,  and  the  two 
dollars  tax  was  continued  only  to  more  thor- 
oughly demonstrate  its  absurdity. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I would  like  to 
suggest  to  the  gentleman  that  the  true  Ameri- 
can rule  of  taxation  to  support  the  general 
government,  as  originating  under  the  law  of 
1794,  was  an  ad  valorem  system. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  How  long  did  you  stick 
to  it? 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I do  not  know 
whether  they  came  to  right  conclusions  or  not; 
but  in  the  course  of  time  our  great  statesmen 
seemed  to  have  the  idea  that  the  tone  of  com- 
mercial integrity  was  such  in  the  United  States 
that  it  could  not  be  well  trusted,  and,  therefore, 
they  adopted  a specific  duty. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Well,  now,  I want  you  to 
adopt  that  sensible  way,  for  I know  they  can- 
not be  trusted  where  you  have  real  estate  ap- 
praised at  forty  per  cent.,  and  you  attempt  to 
tax  them  at  par.  Human  nature  is  the  same  as  it 
was  then,  and  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  apply 
this  rule  of  uniformity.  The  “ uniform”  or  “ad 
valorem  ” was  found  impracticable  and  there- 
fore abandoned.  Now,  let  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  come  to  the  same  sensi- 
ble conclusion  as  to  the  rule  of  State  taxation, 
and  all  will  be  well. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Because  it  was  found  desirable, 
by  some  parties  here  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati, 
to  protect,  by  the  Harries  ordinance,  against 
prostitution,  would  the  gentleman,  therefore, 
repeal  the  decalogue  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Oh,  no;  that  does  not  fol- 
low at  all.  One  has  no  connection  with  the 
other,  as  taxation  is  not  only  right  but  neces- 
sary; whereas  prostitution  is  neither. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman  seems  to 
repeat  what  was  said  in  the  commencement, 
that  the  real  estate  was  appraised  on  the  basis 
of  forty  per  cent. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I do  not  say  in  all  cases. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I mean  the  average. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I think  it  is  about  fifty  per 
cent.  I know  that  you  present  a fair  return 
upon  the  Auditor’s  books,  but  I do  contend  that 
the  facts  are  otherwise — that  it  is  not  on  the 
duplicate  at  over  fifty  per  cent.  And  then,  it  is 
only  appraised  every  ten  years,  allowing  for  no 
increase  of  value,  and  compelling  me  to  put  my 
personal  property  on  the  duplicate  every  year 


at  a sworn  valuation,  according  to  its  value  in 
money. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Putting  it  on  the  dupli- 
cate every  ten  years  has  occurred  but  once. 
The  law  required  it  to  be  made  every  six  years, 
but  it  was  postponed  in  the  early  part  of  1860, 
on  account  of  the  war. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I am  aware  of  that.  Much 
of  the  discussion  here  does  not  necessarily  per- 
tain to  this  rule.  But  I say  that,  under  this 
rule,  unequal  and  absurd  legislation  has  ob- 
tained, and  the  people  have  failed  to  overturn 
it.  Now  let  us  have  something  else. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12  : 35  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  at 
the  time  recess  was  taken  was  upon  the  substi- 
tute of  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr. 
Smith],  for  section  three. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I venture  to  offer  one  more 
substitute.  I want  to  pass  challenge  to  this 
Convention,  again,  to  return  to  the  principles 
of  the  Constitution  of  1851. 

The  Secretary  read  the  proposed  substitute 
of  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt], 
as  follows : 

“Laws  shall  he  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rule,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  yalue  in 
money,  so  that  all  property  shall  forever  hear  an  equal 
share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation.” 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I desire  to  call  attention 
to  a point  of  order.  With  the  exception  of  the 
word  “ forever,”  I believe  that  is  identical 
with  the  proposition  that  was  voted  down. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  is  mistaken. 
The  proposition  of  this  morning  was  to  tax  by 
“ uniform  rules.”  This  proposition  proposes  to 
tax  by  “ a uniform  rule.”  The  distinction  is 
one  that  the  gentleman’s  colleague  [Mr.  Hoad- 
ly]  very  quickly  caught  at  as  being  a material 
one. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  inquire  whether 
the  term  “ rules  ” does  not  include  the  term 
“ rule,”  as  the  greater  includes  the  less? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  under  the 
impression  that  there  is  a very  material  dis- 
tinction between  the  two.  The  one  is  plural 
and  the  other  singular,  and  although,  as  the 
gentleman  from  Cayahoga  [Mr.  Griswold] 
points  out,  grammatically  the  greater  words  in- 
clude the  less,  yet  in  the  course  of  the  argu- 
ment it  has  been  admitted  that  there  is  a broad 
distinction  between  the  singular  and  the  plural 
in  regard  to  this  question.  The  Chair  considers 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt]  in  order.  The  question,  therefore, 
is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wil- 
liams [Mr.  Pratt]  to  adopt  a substitute  for  sec- 
tion 3 in  place  of  the  substitute  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I barely  wish  to  point  out  the 
fact  that  the  adoption  of  this  proposition  would 
be,  as  I conceive,  positively  a return  to  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution  of  1851 ; for  al- 
though the  same  identical  language  is  not  used 
here,  I believe  that  the  same  identical  idea  is 


2076 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pratt,  West. 


[139th 


[Monday, 


conveyed  by  the  language.  The  rule  provided 
in  that  Constitution  was  set  forth  in  the  follow- 
ing words,  as  found  in  section  2,  Article  XII : 
“ Laws  shall  be  passed  fixing  by  a uniform  rule 
all  moneys,  credits,  investments  in  bonds, 
stocks,  joint  stock  companies,  or  otherwise; 
and  also,  all  real  and  personal  property,  accord- 
ing to  its  true  value  in  money,”  etc.  That  is 
the  opening  paragraph  of  section  2.  The 
words  used  in  the  substitute  that  I propose  are : 
“ Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing  by  a uniform 
rule  all  real  and  personal  property  according 
to  its  true  value  in  money,  so  that  all  property 
shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation.” 

Now,  I apprehend  that  the  general  term  “per- 
sonal property  ” covers  not  only  tangible  person- 
al property,  which  was  undoubtedly  included  in 
the  term  “ personal  property  ” in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1851,  but  also  includes  the  other  prop- 
erty enumerated  in  that  section,  as  “ all  moneys, 
credits,  investments  in  bonds,  stocks,  joint 
stock  companies,  or  otherwise.” 

Mr.  WEST.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Wil- 
liams [Mr.  Pratt]  permit  a question  ? 

> r.  PRATT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WEST.  Do  the  words  “ real  and  per- 
sonal property,”  as  used  in  the  Constitution 
now,  in  their  connection,  embrace  also  the  other 
articles  enumerated. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I so  think.  That  is  my  im- 
pression of  the  import  of  the  language,  and  I 
am  sustained  in  that  view  of  its  import,  I think, 
by  the  criticisms  that  were  given  by  those  very 
able  Judges  who  delivered  opinions  in  the  case 
of  the  Exchange  Bank  of  Columbus  against 
Hines,  in  the  Third  Ohio  State  Reports,  at  the 
December  term  of  1853. 

Mr.  WEST.  Did  they  not  express  them- 
selves of  the  opinion  those  terms  would  proba- 
bly have  been  held  sufficient  to  embrace  all  the 
other  enumerated  articles,  if  the  other  articles 
had  not  been  enumerated  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes,  sir;  they  held  that  the 
term  “real  and  personal  property”  would  have 
embraced  them  had  not  the  other  terms  been 
used. 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes.  Well,  inasmuch  as  the 
other  articles  have  been  enumerated,  they  must 
necessarily  be  excluded  from  the  terms  “real 
and  personal  property,”  as  they  are  used. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I think  they  did  not  go  so  far. 
I know  that  Judge  Thurman  says  personal 
property,  in  legal  signification,  includes  moneys 
and  credits,  but  does  not  in  its  connection  in 
that  section,  and  indicates  very  clearly,  I think, 
the  opinion  that,  taken  in  its  legal  signification, 
the  term  “real  and  personal  property”  covered 
the  same  ground  as  the  expression  used  in  this 
section  two. 

Judge  Bartley,  in  his  opinion,  says : 

“The  section  of  the  Constitution  would  have  expressed 
the  same  thing  had  the  phraseology  been  as  follows: 

‘“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rule,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money.’  ” 

Then,  the  additional  clause — including  “all 
moneys,  credits,  investments  in  bonds,  stocks, 
joint  stock  companies,  or  otherwise” — would 
certainly  indicate  he  thought  that  was  implied 
in  the  term  “personal  property,”  and  that  this 
language  was  only  added,  perhaps,  for  greater 


certainty.  Is  that  all  the  gentleman  desired  to 
inquire  concerning 

Mr.  WEST.  I simply  desired  to  get  the  gen- 
tleman’s opinion. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  being  the  meaning  of  the 
language,  according  to  my  reading,  my  object, 
as  I before  announced,  was  to  return  to  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution  of  1851,  in  one 
respect,  perhaps,  rendering  it  a little  more  ex- 
plicit, but  essentially  incorporating  into  the 
declaration  of  principles  that  shall  be  placed  on 
the  record  of  this  Convention  the  same  identical 
idea. 

Now,  we  are  here  to  revise,  alter  and  amend 
the  Constitution  in  any  respect  wherein  we 
shall  find  it  necessary.  This  has  been  the  rule 
upon  which  our  taxes  have  been  levied  and  col- 
lected for  twenty-three  years.  It  was  a rule 
that  fought  its  way  through  the  history  of  the 
legislation  of  the  State  of  Ohio  until  it  arrived 
at  the  dignity  of  a constitutional  declaration. 
It  is  a rule,  I apprehend,  against  which  there 
was  no  expression,  as  a general  fact,  of  discon- 
tent throughout  the  State  when  this  body  met. 
If,  then,  there  was  no  discontent,  if  there  were 
no  evils  under  that  rule  to  be  remedied,  I appeal 
to  this  Convention  to  say  why  they  should  de- 
part from  that  rule.  It  certainly  is  a rule 
which,  in  my  judgment,  is  founded  upon  the 
great  law  of  equality,  first  declaring  that 
property,  and  property  only — as  we  have 
excluded  already  by  the  section  we 

have  passed  over  the  idea  of  attaching 
taxes  to  the  person — I repeat,  first  express- 
ing the  grand  idea  that  property  only 
is  the  subject  of  taxation;  then,  that  all  prop- 
erty should  be  the  subject  of  taxation;  and, 
further,  that  all  property  should  bear  the  bur- 
den equally  and  alike.  The  rule  is  one  of  uni- 
formity, one  of  equality,  one  that  stands  based, 
in  my  judgment,  upon  the  grand  principle  that 
equal  and  exact  justice  shall  be  done  to  all 
men  through  their  property,  with  special 
privileges  towards  none.  Now,  if  any  argu- 
ment has  been  offered  in  favor  of  a departure 
from  that  rule,  it  has  been  to  the  effect  that 
some  system  of  special  rules  should  be  invent- 
ed, devised,  and  laid  down  by  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  of  Ohio,  and  that  some  special 
exemptions  should  be  made,  in  favor  of  some 
property  and  at  the  expense  of  other  property; 
for  I apprehend  that  the  evils  and  wrongs  of 
double  taxation  can  be  no  more  surely  incur- 
red, or  more  effectually  perpetuated,  than  by 
singling  out  from  the  property  of  the  State  of 
Ohio  a certain  class,  it  may  be  in  amount  one- 
tenth,  one-fifth,  or  one-third  of  the  property  on 
the  tax  duplicate,  and  saying  that  that  prop- 
erty shall  go  scot  free,  whereas  all  the  other 
property  of  the  State  shall  bear  the  burden  of 
taxation.  A given  amount  of  money  is  to  be 
raised  every  year  for  public  purposes.  It 
already  amounts  to  the  enormous  sum  of  twen- 
ty-six millions  of  dollars,  and  every  year  it  is 
growing  greater  and  greater.  While  the  popu- 
lation of  the  State  has  increased,  in  the  last 
twenty-odd  years,  not  in  excess  of  thirty-five 
per  cent,  the  taxation  of  the  State,  the  requisi- 
tion which  the  public  make  upon  the  private 
citizen  for  his  means,  has,  since  the  adoption  of 
this  Constitution,  much  more  than  doubled.  If 
exemption  and  special  privileges  are  to  be  ex- 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pratt,  West,  Smith. 


2077 


Day.] 

March  16,  1874.] 

tended  to  one  class  of  property,  to  the  exclu-  I 
sion  of  another,  this  increased  taxation  is  to  | 
fall  with  increased  weight  upon  the  non- 
excluded  classes. 

It  was  said  here  this  morning,  and  the  state- 
ment, I believe,  was  not  contradicted,  that  the 
gross  profits  of  the  agricultural  property  of  the 
State  were  less  than  four  per  cent.,  or  about 
four  per  cent. ; that  class  of  property  is  already 
burdened  with  an  amount  of  taxation  upon  its 
duplicate  value  of  one  and  a half  per  cent.  If 
exemptions  are  to  go  on  to  include  one-third  or 
one-fifth  of  the  property,  you  will  soon  foot 
up  two  per  cent,  of  taxation  against  the  agri- 
cultural and  real  estate  wealth  of  the  State;  or, 
in  other  words,  to  a sum  equal  to  one-half  of  its 
gross  profits.  The  result  is  inevitable  that 
while,  perhaps,  your  manufactures  may  in- 
crease your  domestic  commerce  can  not,  because 
there  is  no  sale  to  those  who  have  no  means  to 
buy.  While  your  manufacturing  wealth,  and 
your  manufacturing  population  may  increase 
throughout  the  State,  your  agricultural  wealth 
and  your  agricultural  population  will  diminish. 
Now,  is  the  Convention  prepared  to  present  to 
the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  such  a fruition 
of  their  labors  as  that?  Are  they  prepared  to 
attach  to  the  great  middle  class  of  agriculturists, 
to  the  real  estate  owners  in  the  villages  and 
cities,  a burden  that  shall  bear  them  down,  a 
burden  that  shall  be  levied  at  the  expense  of 
the  degradation  of  this  most  valuable  class  of 
our  citizens?  For  my  part,  Mr.  President,  I 
cannot  consent  to  such  a result,  and  I have 
made  this  contest  for  the  past  three  days  simply 
in  deference  to  what  I thought  to  be  my  duty, 
and  in  the  cause  of  justice  and  equality  towards 
every  citizen  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt]. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Upon  that  question  I demand 
the  yeas  and  nays.  I desire  to  have  a record 
made  of  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  I simply  rise  to  ask  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  a question  or  two.  That 
gentleman’s  substitute  proposes  to  tax  all  prop- 
erty by  a uniform  rate.  Now,  what  is  to  be  the 
effect  of  the  employment  of  that  language? 
Must  the  rate  be  uniform  throughout  the  State, 
or  uniform  simply  within  the  district  proposed 
to  be  taxed?  Would  not  the  effect  of  the  lan- 
guage employed  be  to  extend  the  operation  of 
the  term  “ uniform  rate”  throughout  the  State, 
and  to  provide  that  there  shall  be  no  distinction 
as  to  rate  between  different  localities  ? A school 
tax  in  one  township  must  be  the  same  rate  as  a 
school  tax  in  another  township,  and  there  can 
be  no  different  rate  in  one  township  for  one  pur- 
pose from  what  is  proposed  in  another  town- 
ship in  the  State  for  the  same  purpose?  I sim- 
ply suggest  that  matter  to  see  whether  we  are 
getting  into  any  difficulty  upon  that  point  or  not. 

Another  point  to  which  I would  like  to  have 
the  attention  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
called,  is  this : It  is  the  same  question  which  I 
propounded  to  the  gentleman  from  Williams 
[Mr.  Pratt],  when  that  gentleman  had  the 
floor.  If  we  drop  the  enumeration  contained 
in  our  present  Constitution,  and  simply  use  the 
word  “ property” — all  property — will  the  mean- 
ing of  that  term  be  limited  to  what  was  included 
in  the  term  “ property”  in  the  present  Consti- 


tution ? In  order  to  avoid  any  doubt  upon  the 
I subject,  would  it  not  be  better  to  incorporate, 
after  the  word  “property”  the  words  “cor- 
poreal and  incorporeal,”  so  that  the  clause  may 
read  : “All  property,  corporeal  and  incorporeal, 
shall  be  taxed  by  a uniform  rate?”  The  ques- 
tion is — what  is  the  effect  or  limitation  con- 
sequent upon  the  use  of  the  term  “uniform 
rate?”  I would  be  pleased  to  hear  from  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  what  his  opinion 
is  with  regard  to  that  term,  rate;  and  how  far 
it  would  limit  the  powers  of  the  Legislature, 
and  of  different  jurisdictions,  to  vary  the  race 
in  one  jurisdiction  from  what  is  established  as 
the  rate  in  another  jurisdiction,  for  the  same 
purpose. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  With  regard  to 
the  last  branch  of  the  interrogatory,  I have  to 
say  that  the  words,  “ real  and  personal  prop- 
erty,” in  their  genuine  meaning,  comprehend 
property  in  all  possible  forms  in  which  it  can 
exist,  and  the  Committee,  in  presenting  their 
report,  took  that  view.  We  found  the  language, 
“all  real  and  personal  property,”  used  in  a 
great  many  Constitutions.  It  is  true  that  in 
the  Constitution  of  1851,  certain  forms  of  per- 
sonal property  are  particularly  specified,  but 
we  understood  the  purpose  and  object  for  which 
the  specifications  were  made,  and  not  wishing 
to  endorse  or  sustain  those  specifications  in  the 
form  then  made,  we  thought  it  advisable  to 
drop  them  altogether,  and  to  use  the  plain  yet 
comprehensive  terms  which,  in  their  legal 
sense,  mean  all  property  within  the  State- 
property  in  every  form  in  which  it  can  be  held, 
whether  real,  personal,  corporeal,  incorporeal, 
visible  and  invisible.  If  there  can  be  any  pos- 
sible doubt  about  the  legal  signification  of  the 
terms  used,  if,  because  we  have  omitted  the 
words  contained  in  the  clause  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1851,  it  can  be  inferred  that  we  meant, 
by  implication,  to  release  a certain  class  of 
property,  I would  be  willing  to  accept  of  any 
modification  of  the  phraseology  which  the  gen- 
tleman might  suggest.  But  such  were  not  the 
views  of  the  Committee,  and,  in  my  opinion, 
there  exists  now  no  necessity  for  the  use  of 
further  language.  That  is  the  answer  which  I 
have  to  make  to  that  branch  of  the  subject. 

The  word  “ rate,”  in  the  view  of  the  Com- 
mittee, was  used  to  secure  uniformity  in  taxa- 
tion— or,  at  least,  that  was  the  light  in  which  it 
presented  itself  to  my  mind  at  the  time  of  draw- 
ing up  the  amendment — we  wanted  to  make  the 
rate  of  taxation  uniform  in  the  State,  uniform 
for  State  purposes,  upon  all  property,  wherever 
it  might  be  found,  and  where  they  wished  to 
impose  a tax  for  any  specific  purpose  within  a 
special  jurisdiction  it  should  apply  alike  to  all 
the  property  within  that  jurisdiction. 

It  was  with  that  idea  of  the  signification  of 
the  term  that  we  adopted  it.  If,  however,  any 
better  results  can  be  attained,  or  any  more 
careful  and  definite  idea  can  be  attached  to  the 
clause  by  the  use  of  the  term  “ rule,”  I have  no 
objection  to  the  substitution  of  the  word  “rule” 
for  the  word  “ rate.”  My  simple  and  only  pur- 
pose in  offering  this  amendment — and  1 think 
the  same  object  was  sought  by  the  Committee 
in  their  agreed  Report — was  to  embrace  all  the 
property  of  the  State  as  subject  to  taxation,  so 
that  all  should  contribute  its  true  and  just  pro- 


2078 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith,  Hoadly,  Griswold,  Powell,  Rowland,  etc. 


portion  of  the  public  tax.  That  was  the  object 
of  the  Committee. 

In  the  original  proposition,  it  was  our  inten- 
tion by  the  use  of  the  words  “equitable  and  un- 
iform rules,”  to  give  some  latitude  to  the  action 
of  the  General  Assembly.  My  substitute  was 
offered,  not  to  vary  the  original  purpose,  but  to 
make  that  object  more  clear  and  definite.  It 
embraces  all  the  property  of  the  State,  in  what- 
ever form  it  may  exist,  and  proposes  to  subject 
it  all  to  the  same  rule  of  assessment  or  taxation, 
leaving  to  the  General  Assembly  a sufficient 
latitude,  in  the  application  of  the  rules  of  ap- 
praisement, so  as  to  consider  all  equitable  con- 
ditions that  may  connect  themselves  with  the 
property  of  the  State.  It  is  for  that  purpose, 
and  for  that  alone,  that  I offer  this  substitute. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  on  the 
substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt],  and  being  taken, resulted — yeas  27,  nays 
39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Byal,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coates, 
Cook,  Cowan,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gurley, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  McBride,  Mer- 
rill, Mitchener,  Mullen,  Okey,  Phellis,  Pratt, 
Scribner,  Shaw,  Thompson,  Tulloss,  Van 
Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Waddle,  Woodbury — 27. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Beer,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Carbery,  Chapin,  Cunningham,  Ewing,  Frie- 
berg,  Griswold,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly, 
Hostetter,  Jackson,  Kerr,  McCormick,  McCau- 
ley, Miner,  Mueller,  Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Powell, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Musking- 
um, Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tuttle,  Yoris,  Watson,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  President — 39. 

So  the  substitute  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Highland 
[Mr.  Smith.] 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  In  order  to  avoid 
all  possible  ambiguity  about  the  meaning  of  this 
rule,  I propose  to  amend  my  amendment  so  that 
it  may  read  as  follows : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a rate  that  shall  be 
uniform  within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy,  all 
property,  corporeal  and  incorporeal,  according  to  its  true 
value,  to  be  ascertained  by  such  equitable  rules  of  ap- 
praisement as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hope  the  delegate  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  will  not  ask  us  to  adopt 
the  words  “corporeal  and  incorporeal.”  They 
have  a technical  meaning  that  does  not  refer  to 
personal  property  at  all.  In  their  technical 
sense  they  are  descriptive  of  two  different  kinds 
of  real  property.  The  words  “real”  and  “per- 
sonal” are  much  broader  and  better. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I do  not  care 
about  incorporating  the  words.  I proposed 
them  at  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West], 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Why  not  say  simply  “all 
property,”  without  using  the  word  “real”  and 
“personal.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  word  “incorporeal”  ap- 
plies to  both  real  and  personal  property.  There 
is  incorporeal  real  property  and  incorporeal  per- 
sonal property. 


[139th 

[Monday, 


Mr.  ROWLAND.  I hope  the  gentleman 
from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  will  return  to  the 
use  of  the  original  terms,  “real  and  personal.” 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I think  there  will  be  no 
objection  to  that  portion  of  the  amendment  em- 
bodied in  the  words  “within  the  jurisdiction 
making  the  levy.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I will  say  to  the  gentleman 
from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  that  I think  it  will 
be  better  to  leave  it  as  it  was  before. 

Mr.  SMITH,  of  Highland.  I withdraw  the 
amendment,  so  far  as  the  words  “corporeal  and 
incorporeal”  are  concerned. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I think  the  Convention 
will  not  object  to  the  substitute  as  it  now  reads. 

No  objection  being  offered,  the  words  “cor- 
poreal and  incorporeal”  were  withdrawn. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  amendment  proposed 
by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  is  in  pre- 
cisely the  direction  in  which  it  will  work  bene- 
ficially, in  my  judgment,  to  the  State,  and  yet 
there  is  one  subject  that  does  not  seem  to  be  cov- 
ered by  it.  In  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  for  in- 
stance, the  city  limits  have  so  extended  as  to 
embrace  a great  deal  of  farming  land.  She  has 
what  is  called  a city  rule,  and  a suburban  rule 
of  taxation.  Now,  it  is  proposed  in  some  quar- 
ters to  extend  the  limits  of  the  city  of  Cincin- 
nati, to  include  the  whole  county  of  Hamilton., 
If  this  should  be  done,  this  rule  would  act 
hardly  upon  the  farming  districts  so  incorpora- 
ted within  the  city  limits.  You  could  not  make 
the  differences  that  should  prevail  by  simple 
assessment,  and  your  taxation  of  property  by  a 
uniform  rule  would  work  hardly  upon  the  out- 
lying property.  There  could  not  be  such  a 
discrimination  within  the  territory  of  the  ju- 
risdiction levying  this  tax  as  to  enable  the  au- 
thorities to  make  a proper  difference.  If  there 
is  flexibility  enough  in  the  phrase  “equitable 
rule  of  appraisement”  to  accomplish  that  end,  I 
will  make  no  objection  to  the  substitute  in 
other  respects. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
substitute  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  like  to  hear  that 
substitute  read  as  it  is  now  modified. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a rate  that  shall  be 
uniform  within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy,  all  real 
and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  value,  to  be 
ascertained  by  such  equitable  rules  of  appraisement  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  Secretary  now 
read  the  original  section  ? 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  and  uni- 
form rules,  all  real  and  personal  property,  so  that  all 
property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation, according  to  its  true  value  in  money.” 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Before  we  take  a vote,  I ask 
I that  the  substitute  which  I offered  myself,  the 
| other  day,  be  now  read  for  information. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  equitable  and  uni- 
I form  rules,  all  real  and  personal  property,  so  that  each 
| shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation,  ac- 
] cording  to  its  true  value  in  money.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
! substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr. 

I Smith]. 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Hunt,  Townsend,  Andrews,  Mueller. 


2079 


Day.] 

March  16,  1874.] 


Mr.  HUNT.  I ask  for  a division  of  the  ques- 
tion upon  striking;  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A division  of  the  ques- 
tion is  asked.  The  question  is,  therefore,  upon 
striking  out  the  original  section. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  demanded  and 
taken. 

Pending  the  call,  objection  was  made  to  the 
vote  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  An- 
drews], on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  within 
the  bar  of  the  Convention  when  his  name  was 
called,  and  the  President  decided  in  accordance 
with  the  objection. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I understand  that  if  a 
gentleman  gets  in  during  the  call,  he  can 
vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  objection  is  made,  the 
gentleman  has  no  right  to  vote,  except  by  leave 
of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Do  I understand  it  to  be  the  rub 
ing  of  the  Chair,  or  the  decision  of  the  Conven- 
tion, that  no  member  shall  vote  if  he  is  without 
the  bar  at  the  time  when  his  name  is  called? 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  objection  is  made,  no 
one  has  a right  to  vote  who  was  not  in  the  Hall 
when  his  name  was  called. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Is  that  a Rule  of  the  Conven- 
tion or  a general  parliamentary  rule? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  a general  parlia- 
mentary rule.  The  Chair  will  read  from  Cush- 
ing, paragraph  1825 : 

“The  point  of  time  to  which  the  right  of  voting  is  re- 
ferred, as  above  stated,  according  to  the  common  parlia- 
mentary law,  is  the  being  in  the  House  at  the,  time  the 
question  is  put,  and  this  is  the  point  of  time,  unless  other- 
wise regulated  in  each  Assembly  by  a special  rule.  In 
the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  the 
general  rule  requires  members  to  be  present  within  the 
bar  of  the  House  when  the  question  is  put;  but  when  the 
yeas  and  nays  are  taken,  and  any  member  asks  leave  to 
vote,  the  Speaker  is  directed  to  inquire  of  him  whether 
he  was  within  the  bar  when  his  name  was  called.  Until 
the  calling  of  the  roll  is  completed,  and  the  decision  of 
the  House  announced,  members  have  a right  to  be  called 
again  and  change  their  votes,  and  during  this  period  of 
time,  also,  absent  members,  it  allowed,  as  they  may  be, 
if  no  one  objects,  come  in  and  vote  with  the  others.  If 
they  do  not  apply  until  afterwards,  they  can  only  be  per- 
mitted to  record  their  votes  by  leave  ot  the  House,  on 
motion,  and  vote  in  the  ordinary  manner.  The  same  rule 
applies  to  other  votes,  which  by  the  orders  of  the  House 
are  not  receivable.  Votes  accidentally  omitted  may  be 
entered  at  any  time.” 

The  Chair  has  never  enforced  the  Rule,  ex- 
cept when  objection  was  made,  which  has  hap- 
pened but  once  or  twice. 

Objection  was  still  urged  against  the  vote  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Andrews]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Were  you  within  the 
bar  of  the  House  when  your  name  was  called  ? 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I cannot  say  positively.  I 
was  passing  into  the  Hall  at  that  time ; but  can- 
not tell  precisely  whether  I was  within  or  with- 
out the  bar  at  the  moment  of  the  call. 

The  objection  was  sustained. 

The  yeas  and  nays  resulted — yeas  41,  nays  26, 
as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright.  Bos  worth,  Burns, 
Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Cunningham,  Ewing,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Gris- 
wold, Herron,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Jackson,  Mc- 
Cormick, McCauley,  Miner,  Mueller,  Neal,  Page, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Powell,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Shultz,  Smith  of 
Highland,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tattle,  Yoris, 


Watson,  West,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  President 
— 41. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Byal,  Coats,  Greene,  Gurley, 
Hitchcock,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Okey, 
Pratt,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Thompson,  Tul- 
loss,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Waddle, 
White  of  Hocking — 26. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  agreed  to. 

The  question  then  recurred  upon  the  inser- 
tion of  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  51,  nays  17,  as  follows; 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,-  Beer, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cunning- 
ham, Ewing,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Gurley,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Hunt, 
Jackson,  McCormick,  Merrill,  McCauley,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Mueller,  Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Powell, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Musking- 
um, Sears,  Shultz,  Smith  of  Highland,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Yoris,  Watson, 
West,  Wilson,  Woodbury,  President — 51. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Baber,  Coats,  Hitchcock,  Humphre- 
ville, Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  Mullen,  Okey, 
Phellis,  Pratt,  Scribner,  Shaw,  Yan  Yoorhis, 
Yoorhes,  Waddle,  White  of  Hocking — 17. 

So  the  substitute  was  agreed  to. 

No  further  amendments  were  offered  to  sec- 
tion three,  and  the  Secretary  read  section  four, 
as  follows : 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  for 
exemption  from  taxation,  of  all  burial  grounds,  public 
school  houses,  houses  used  exclusively  for  public  worship, 
institutions  of  purely  public  charity,  public  libraries,  pub- 
lic property  used  exclusively  for  any  public  purpose,  and 
per&onal  property  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  two  hun- 
dred dollars  for  each  individual,  may,  by  general  laws, 
be  exempt  from  taxation;  but  all  such  laws  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  alteration  or  repeal,  and  the  value  of  all  property 
so  exempted  shall,  from  time  to  time,  be  ascertained  and 
published,  as  may  be  directed  by  law. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I move  to  strike  out  of  sec- 
tion four,  the  last  three  words  in  line  two,  and 
the  first  three  words  in  line  three.  The  words 
to  be  stricken  out  are  “ houses  used  exclusively 
for  public  worship.” 

The  Secretary  read  the  section  as  proposed 
to  be  amended,  as  follows; 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  for 
exemption  from  taxation  of  all  burial  grounds,  public 
school  houses,  institutions  of  purely  public  charity,  etc. 

Mr.  MUELLER.  I have  reduced  my  remarks 
to  writing,  and  I ask  of  the  Convention  the 
privilege  of  having  my  article  read  by  some 
other  gentleman.  My  throat  is  so  sore  that  I 
am  unable  to  read.  I,  therefore,  ask  that  my 
colleague  [Mr.  GriswoldJ  be  permitted  to  read 
for  me. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  Mr.  Griswold  read 
as  follows : 

Mr.  MUELLER.  The  question  now  under 
consideration,  is  of  such  importance  that  only 
with  great  diffidence  1 enter  upon  its  discus- 
sion. 

But,  fortunately,  does  its  consideration  not 
require  the  solution  of  any  social  or  religious 
problems,  nor  is  it  surrounded  with  difficulties 


2080 


EXEMPTION  FROM  TAXATION. 


[139th 

Mueller.  [Monday, 


and  complications  which  simple  logic  and  com" 
mon  sense  might  not  readily  penetrate. 

The  principles  upon  which  a decision  in  re- 
gard to  it  is  to  he  founded  are  as  simple  and 
clear  as  they  are  unequivocal : 

“Whatever  property  the  State  protects  must 
contribute  its  proportion  to  the  State’s  sup- 
port.” 

Admitting  the  right  of  taxation  to  be  based 
upon  this  principle,  the  question  naturally 
arises,  upon  what  theory  the  exemption  of 
church  property  from  taxation  may  be  justified. 

I am  unable  to  comprehend,  or  even  to  im- 
agine, that  any  such  theory  does  exist,  except 
in  countries  where  State  and  church  are  united, 
where  the  church  is  a State  institution  and  is 
under  the  control  and  superintendence  of  the 
State  government. 

But,  thanks  to  the  wise  forethoughts  of  the 
fathers  of  this  Republic  and  the  framers  of  the 
National  Constitution,  no  such  union  between 
church  and  State  can  and  does  exist  in  this 
country. 

The  exemption  policy,  wherever  it  prevails 
in  this  country,  is  but  a remnant  of  the  state  of 
affairs  existing  prior  to  the  formation  of  the 
Union  and  prior  to  the  separation  of  the  Ameri- 
can colonies  from  England. 

Its  continuance  alter  the  severance  and  dis- 
connection of  the  church  from  the  State  is  ano- 
malous, arbitrary  and  contrary  to  every  rule  of 
justice,  and  subversive  of  the  principles  and 
express  provisions  of  the  constitutional  law. 

The  exemption  of  the  property  of  religious 
associations  trom  taxation  is  practically  taxing 
the  rest  of  the  community  for  the  support  of 
churches,  thereby  increasing,  unjustly,  the 
taxes  of  all  other  property  holders. 

Let  us  examine  the  constitutional  provision 
on  the  subject. 

The  first  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  declares  that  Congress  shall 
make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of 
religion,  and  Section  7,  Article  1,  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  this  State  in  more  emphatic  lan- 
guage provides,  that  “no  person”  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  attend,  erect  or  support  any  place  of 
worship  against  his  consent. 

The  iramers  of  the  Constitution  of  1851  must 
have  felt  the  inconsistency  of  the  exemption 
clause  with  said  Section  7,  in  the  Bill  of 
Rights. 

To  avoid  the  semblance  of  such  contradic- 
tory provisions,  they  did  not,  in  so  many 
words,  exempt  church  property  from  taxation, 
but  simply  authorized  the  General  Assembly  to 
exempt.  But  in  so  doing  they  did  not  shift  but 
only  did  divide  the  responsibility  in  regard  to 
said  tax  exemption.  Delegating  to  another  the 
authority  to  do  an  act  is  not  relieving  us  from 
the  responsibility  of  consequences  of  the  act 
when  done. 

But  right  here  let  me  state  that  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  State  does  not  create  or  con- 
fer, but  simply  limits  and  restricts  the  powers 
of  the  Legislature. 

Why  was  it  that  this  rule  was  disregarded  in 
reference  to  the  exemption  clause? 

Is  it  because  it  was  felt  that,  by  virtue  of  its 
general  power,  the  Legislature  could  not  exer- 
cise the  extraordinary  power  of  arbitrarily  ex- 


empting thirty  to  forty  millions  of  property 
from  taxation. 

If  this  exemption  is  wrong,  then  the  Legisla- 
ture should  not  be  authorized,  by  a constitu- 
tional provision,  to  commit  that  wrong,  and  if 
the  people  of  this  State  are  sought  to  be  taxed 
for  the  support  of  churches  it  should  be  so  de- 
clared openly  and  frankly,  and  the  taxation 
should  be  direct,  so  that  people  may  know  what 
the  section  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  means  which 
expressly  says  that  no  person  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  support  places  of  worship. 

It  may  be  urged  that  the  exemption  from  tax- 
ation of  property  used  for  religious  purposes 
should  be  based  upon  the  ground  that  religious 
societies  did,  as  an  equivalent,  render  to  the 
State  valuable  services  by  the  way  of  elevating 
the  people  to  a higher  state  of  morality. 

The  concession  of  this  claim  does  not 
strengthen  the  case  of  the  exemptionists,  nor 
does  it,  to  any  extent,  diminish  or  weaken  the 
arguments  made  against  the  injustice,  inequity 
and  unconstitutionality  of  the  tax  exemption. 

If  religious  societies  advance  and  elevate  the 
morality  of  the  people  they  will  not  fail  to  en- 
list the  sympathies  and  material  support  of  a 
great  portion  of  the  members  of  community — 
more  than  this  they  ought  not  to  expect  nor 
demand. 

Certain  is  it  that  the  State,  as  such,  cannot 
recognise  any  such  obligation  toward  religious 
societies,  except,  as  I said  before,  churches  to 
be  made  State  institutions,  and  be  placed  under 
its  control. 

I will  not  speak  here  of  the  difficulties  involved 
in  the  question  whether  religion,  in  all  its 
forms,  and  in  all  its  manifestions,  is  conducive 
to  public  morality,  but  I presume  that,  in  the 
eyes  of  many  members  in  this  Convention,  cer- 
tain forms  of  worship  and  belief  already  exist- 
ing or  growing  up  in  the  community  are  not 
only  not  conducive  but  destructive  of  public 
morals ; and  it  might  be  asked  by  whom  are  the 
standards  of  religion,  which  is  to  be  recognized 
as  such  in  the  State,  to  be  erected? 

The  object  of  State  government  is  to  protect 
the  lives,  liberties  and  the  property  of  the  peo- 
ple. Societies,  religious  or  other,  are  to  be 
treated  like  individuals,  and  the  social  compact 
is  necessary  to  be  construed  so  as  not  to  permit 
any  discrimination  between  individuals  or 
classes  of  individuals.  This  rule  is  so  inflexible 
that  only  by  the  assent  of  each  and  every  mem- 
ber of  the  community  it  could  be  changed.  Has 
ever  such  assent  been  obtained,  and  if  not,  by 
what  authority  may  the  General  Assembly  be 
empowered  to  exempt  certain  classes  of  society 
from  bearing  their  proportionate  share  of  the 
public  burdens? 

The  church  property,  if  taxed  like  other 
property,  will  perhaps  yield  a revenue  to  the 
State  of  half  a million  dollars.  When  exempted, 
the  said  amount  is  to  be  made  up  by  levies  on 
the  property  not  exempt,  which  is  virtually 
taxing  the  people  for  the  support  of  churches. 
This  kind  of  taxation  amounts  to  an  appropria- 
tion of  some  person’s  property  for  the  benefit 
of  others. 

But  you  will  have  to  admit  that  the  taking 
away,  by  government,  of  more  of  a man’s  prop- 
erty'than  his  ratable  share,  for  maintaining  the 
State,  is  an  infringement  of  the  man’s  right,  and 


EXEMPTION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 

Mueller,  Hostetter,  Foran. 


2081 


Day.] 

March  16,  1874.] 


a reversal  ot  the  government’s  function  towards 
him. 

The  church  tax  exemption  works,  however, 
not  only  an  injustice  to  the  many  tax-payers 
not  members  of  church  organizations,  but  also 
to  most  persons  who  are  members  of  such  or- 
ganizations. 

The  savings  of  being  exempt  from  taxation 
of  that  class  of  church  property  which  is  of 
moderate  value  are  not  so  large  as  to  compen- 
sate its  individual  members  against  the  increase 
of  their  individual  taxes  consequent  upon  the 
general  exemption  of  all  churches,  irrespective 
of  the  vast  difference  in  value. 

It  is,  therefore,  safe  to  say  that  the  tax  ex- 
emption chiefly  inures  to  the  benefit  of  the 
smallest  number,  and  to  the  wealthiest  classes 
of  church  organizations,  the  value  of  whose 
magnificent  and  luxurious  edifices  are  in  so 
great  excess.  The  lion’s  share  does  naturally 
fall  to  those  corporations,  aggregate  and  sole, 
who  hold  in  their  names,  exempt  from  taxation, 
untold  millions  of  property. 

But  let  me,  for  argument’s  sake,  admit  that 
the  exemption  might  be  granted  without  vio- 
lence to  constitutional  prohibition  and  the 
principles  of  justice — would  it  be,  even  as  a 
matter  of  policy  and  expediency,  advisable  and 
justifiable  for  this  Convention  to  retain  the  ex- 
emption clause?  Certainly  not. 

In  advocating  the  striking  out  of  this  clause, 
I am  not  actuated  by  any  spirit  of  hostility  fo 
churches  or  religions,  though  I wished  to  have 
less  in  quantity  and  more  in  quality. 

My  position  to  the  question  is  unprejudiced 
and  dictated  only  by  what  I conceive  to  be  just 
and  right.  For  me  the  question  is  not  exclu- 
sively one  of  dollars  and  cents,  and  in  my  judg- 
ment its  greater  importance  consists  in  its  moral 
bearing  if  notin  the  aspect  of  its  being  a ques- 
tion of  civilization. 

I assert  that  taxing  ecclesiastical  property, 
so  far  from  being  an  injury  to  the  church,  will, 
on  the  contrary,  strengthen  such  as  are  fit  to 
live;  and  that  the  exemption  of  taxation  of  such 
property,  in  consequence  of  which  one  man  is 
bound  to  pay  taxes  for  the  accommodation  of 
another  man’s  form  of  belief,  is  derogatory  to 
public  and  moral  respect  for  religion  so  far  as  it 
imparts  righteousness,  justice,  and  humanity, 
and  which  teaches  that  good  should  be  done  for 
its  own  sake  and  should  not  form  the  basis  or 
excuse  for  inequity. 

The  tax  exemption  also  affords  means  for 
many  ecclesiastical  bodies  to  increase  sectarian 
wealth  and  power  for  quite  different  purposes 
than  purely  religious  ones ; it  tends  to  avarice 
and  worldly  speculations,  and  stimulates  com- 
petition between  the  various  denominations 
without  subserving  any  public  end. 

If  I may  be  permitted,  in  conclusion,  to  ad- 
vert to  the  lessons  taught  by  the  experience  of 
Europe,  I wish  to  add  that  religion  cannot  in 
any  sense  or  to  any  extent  be  the  pensioner  of 
the  State  with  impunity.  The  true  interests  of 
religion  require  its  absolute  freedom  from  all 
interference  of  the  State,  and  of  this  freedom  its 
total  emancipation  from  all  guardianship,  care 
and  support  of  the  State,  is  the  indispensable 
condition. 

If  the  State  attempts  to  foster  church  organi- 
zations by  directly  or  indirectly  taxing  the  peo- 

y.  n-133 


pie  for  their  support,  it  must  in  some  form  also 
have  the  power  to  determine  whether  such  or- 
ganizations are  pure  enough  to  be  worthy  of 
such  support,  and  the  existence  of  this  power 
having  once  been  granted,  there  is  no  logical 
halting  place  short  of  the  subjection  of  the 
church  to  the  State  or  its  only  alternative  of 
the  absolute  subjection  of  the  State  to  the 
church. 

As  I have  already  remarked,  I do  not  care  to 
inquire  in  what  sense  or  to  what  extent  it  is 
true  that  religion  is  the  basis  of  good  morals, 
and  therefore  an  essential  prop  of  the  body  poli- 
tic. The  same  claim  which  is  thus  made  for 
religion  might  be  preferred  on  behalf  of  the  arts, 
the  various  forms  of  industry,  and  every  other 
agency  by  which  society  is  humanized  and  civ- 
ilized; and  yet  it  will  hardly  be  contended  that 
industrial  establishments  should  be  exempted 
from  taxation  because,  without  them,  society 
would  fall  in  idleness  and  vice. 

The  only  mode  in  which  the  State  is  compe- 
tent to  promote  the  cause  of  religion,  consists  in 
the  maintenance  of  even  and  exact  justice  be- 
tween all  men  of  whatever  condition  or  creed. 

In  this  respect  we  ought  not  to  be  unmindful 
of  the  lessons  taught  by  the  experience  in 
Europe,  in  which  the  very  existence  of  society 
is,  at  this  moment,  threatened  by  contests  arising 
from  the  mutual  dependence  of  church  and 
State. 

The  only  solution  of  the  difficulties  presented 
by  the  European  situation  consists  (as  the  most 
enlightened  statesmen  of  the  old  world  openly 
proclaim)  in  the  disestablishment  and  the  dis- 
endowment  of  the  church;  and  the  policy  of 
exempting  church  property  from  taxation  obvi- 
ously tends  to  produce  a condition  of  things  in 
this  country  which  is,  in  more  respects  than 
one,  analogous  to  the  condition  of  things  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Foran]  is  unavoidably  absent. 
I have  in  my  hand  a short  manuscript  prepared 
by  him  on  this  subject,  which  I ask,  on  his  be- 
half, the  opurtesy  of  the  Convention  to  listen 
to.  I ask  that  the  Secretary  may  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

MR.  FORAN’S  SPEECH. 

Mr.  President — Had  I any  political  aspira- 
tions, I certainly  would  not  place  upon  record 
the  vote  I shall  give  upon  this  question,  or  the 
reasons  therefor ; but,  sir,  I have  ever  endeav- 
ored to  act  upon  convictions  of  right,  utterly 
regardless  of  consequences.  I am  opposed  to 
the  exemption  of  church  property  from  the 
burdens  of  taxation,  and  propose  to  give  a few 
of  the  reasons  upon  which  that  opposition  is 
founded.  I shall  do  so  in  a few  simple  words, 
as  I have  not  time  to  elaborate  them  to  any  con- 
siderable extent.  I desire  to  state  in  limine , 
however,  that  I am  a firm  believer  in  the  mis- 
sion of  all  classes  and  denominations  of 
churches.  I believe  in  religion  practically,  not 
theoretically,  but  I do  so  not  only  because  I 
thereby  acknowledge  the  existence  of  a Su- 
preme Being,  but  also  because  I consider 
religion  a great  moral  agent  in  the  regeneration 
and  elevation  of  humanity.  If  I really  believed 
there  was  no  God  to  whom  man  is  accountable 
for  violations  of  moral  and  natural  laws,  I 


2082 


EXEMPTION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 

Foran,  West. 


[139th 


[Monday, 


would  nevertheless  consider  it  a bounden  duty 
to  foster  and  encourage  religion,  because  of  its 
restraining  effect  upon  the  passions  and  vices 
of  men. 

But,  sir,  I hold  that  religion  is  a matter  that 
pertains  to  each  individual  citizen.  It  is  a mat- 
ter between  man  and  his  God.  It  is  a matter 
peculiar  to  each  individual’s  inner  moral  sense, 
a matter  with  which  the  State  has  nothing  to 
do.  The  State  knows  no  religion ; it  knows  no 
church,  no  form  of  worship,  and  can  not  do 
else  than  recognize  church  entities  as  private 
corporations.  I admit  it  is  policy  to  foster 
and  promote  the  growth  of  morality,  but 
churches  are  not  the  only  agents  through 
which  this  virtue  is  inculcated.  There  are 
various  other  associations,  such  as  Good  Tem- 
plars, Odd  Fellows,  Masons,  and  others  of  that 
class,  who,  through  association,  seek  to  realize 
higher  idealities  and  grander  conceptions  of 
human  perfection.  And  if  the  State  is  morally 
bound  to  exempt  church  property  from  taxa- 
tion, it  is  also  bound  to  exempt  the  property  of 
every  association  whose  object  is  the  well- 
being and  advancement  of  mankind.  I am 
aware,  sir,  that  there  are  two  classes  of  persons 
prominently  identified  with  the  movement  to 
tax  church  property.  One  of  these  classes  has 
no  religion  at  all,  and  the  religion  of  the  other 
is  an  undying  hatred  of  the  church  of  which  I 
am  a member.  The  motive  in  both  these  cases 
comes  from  the  same  source,  bigotry.  I need 
hardly  say,  sir,  I am  not  in  sympathy  with  any 
of  these  classes;  but  there  is  still  another  por- 
tion of  our  people  who  oppose  such  exemption 
on  principles  of  right,  as  they  understand  that 
term,  and  to  that  class  I belong.  Taxation  is  a 
State  necessity;  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  the 
existence  of  government,  and  government  is 
essential  to  the  existence  and  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  property;  hence,  all  property  claiming 
State  protection  can  do  so  only  upon  the 
hypothesis  that  it  pays  for  such  protection.  If 
church  property  demands  exemption  from  tax- 
ation, it  cannot,  by  any  principle  of  right,  de- 
mand protection.  There  are  men  in  Cleveland 
(I  grant  they  are  very  few,  but  there  are  some) 
narrow-minded,  illiberal,  fanatical  bigots,  who 
would,  if  they  followed  their  convictions  of 
duty,  or  blind,  irrational  prejudices,  burn  and 
destroy  the  church  of  which  I am  a member, 
as  well  as  other  churches.  Why  do  they  not  do 
so?  Simply  because  the  State  interposes  her 
great  protective  shield,  surrounds  church  prop- 
erty with  the  majesty  of  the  law,  and  punishes 
all  infractions  of  its  rights.  Now,  sir, 
I am  not  only  willing,  but  anxious  to  pay  the 
State  for  that  protection.  I pay  now  every 
year  my  share  of  $150  to  a private  corporation 
which  guarantees  the  church  congregation 
from  loss  in  case  of  fire.  This  tax  is  paid 
cheerfully,  and  yet  the  State  guarantees  that 
church  protection  from  riots,  from  mobs,  from 
the  violence  of  fanaticism ; and  why,  I ask, 
should  the  congregation  not  cheerfully  pay  the 
State  for  such  protection?  If  some  member 
were  to  introduce  a Bill  into  the  General  As- 
sembly granting  to  the  churches  of  the  State  a 
subsidy  of  $600,000  per  annum,  the  man  would 
be  termed  a lunatic  or  a fool,  and  yet  the  State 
pays  that  amount  yearly  to  our  churches 
in  the  way  of  exemption  from  taxation.  Sup- 


pose we  were  to  tax  church  property,  and  then 
pay  ministers,  bishops  and  priests  an  annual 
salary  out  of  this  $600,000,  would  we  not  be 
practically  'establishing  a connection  between 
the  State  and  religion  ? And  still  we  really  do 
pay  this  amount  of  money  to  churches  and 
claim  there  is  no  connection.  We  are  trying 
to  cheat  ourselves  into  the  belief  that  a subtle 
species  of  political  fiction  is  a truth.  There  is 
to-day  a connection  between  religion  and  the 
State,  and  it  is  because  I desire  to  see  that  con- 
nection severed  that  I am  not  in  favor  of  ex- 
empting church  property  from  the  burdens  of 
taxation.  Sir,  I believe  that  my  right  to  wor- 
ship God  according  to  my  own  innate  convic- 
tions is  above  the  State;  it  is  a right  I do  not 
surrender  when  I enter  into  the  social  compact ; 
it  is  a right  I never  will  give  up  except  with 
my  life ! It  is  the  dearest,  most  sacred  right 
possessed  by  man ; and  whenever  or  wherever 
man  permitted  the  State  to  interfere  with  or 
control  this  right,  or  have  any  connection  with 
it  whatever,  bloodshed,  war,  persecution,  su- 
perstition and  semi-barbarism  was  the  inevit- 
able result.  We  have  only  to  look  to  European 
countries  for  examples  of  the  degeneration  and 
brutalization  of  man  resulting  from  the  com- 
mingling of  church  and  State  matters.  If  re- 
ligion is  from  God,  and  of  God,  it  will  live  and 
flourish  without  aid  from  the  State,  and,  sir,  I 
have  too  much  respect  for  religion  to  send  it 
begging  to  the  State  for  any  assistance  what- 
e^r.  I have  but  one  word  to  say  to  those  who 
proudly  point  to  our  magnificent  and  colossal 
church  edifices  as  evidences  of  the  civilization, 
prosperity  and  advancement  of  our  people ; and 
that  is,  that  whatever  self-adulation  or  gratula- 
tion  we  might  draw  from  that  reflection  is 
rudely  overturned  by  the  fact  that  beneath  the 
very  shadow  of  the  tall  spires  of  these  struc- 
tures can  be  seen  human  habitations  on  a par 
with  that  lowly  temple  in  which  the  humble 
Savior  of  the  world  first  saw  light  through 
incarnate  vision.  I wish  to  also  say,  sir,  that  I 
cannot  understand  why  members  of  churches, 
who  are  taxpayers,  should  complain  of  the  tax- 
ation of  church  property,  since  the  addition  of 
this  class  of  property  to  the  tax  duplicate  will 
proportionately  reduce  the  percentage  of  taxa- 
tion for  all  purposes.  I am  in  favor  of  exempt- 
ing purely  charitable  institutions,  because  I 
believe  they  are  a necessity,  only  because  of  the 
derelictions  of  the  State.  If  our  legislation 
was  perfect,  the  erection  of  costly  poor  houses 
and  institutions  of  that  nature  would  be  un- 
necessary, as  there  would  be  none  to  occupy 
them. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Mueller],  to  strike  out  the  words,  “ houses 
used  exclusively  for  public  worship.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I doubt  very  much  the  propri- 
ety of  striking  out  these  words.  It  is  an  imme- 
morial custom  of  the  people  of  Ohio  to  have 
the  liberty  of  determining  that,  at  their  plea- 
sure, by  and  through  the  General  Assembly, 
and  I think  it  is  of  very  questionable  propriety, 
now,  by  a constitutional  provision  to  do  what 
has  always  been  left  to  the  General  Assembly. 
I fear  very  much  the  consequences  that  may  re- 
sult from  it.  1 have  heard  very  many  expres- 


EXEMPTION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY, 


2083 


Day.] 

March  16,  1874.] 


West. 


sions  in  regard  to  it,  and  I apprehend  that  it  is 
not  necessary  at  this  time  to  incorporate  into 
the  Constitution  anything  that  will  arouse  un- 
necessary hostility  to  the  instrument  we  are 
about  to  frame,  so  that  the  subject  cannot  be  re- 
mitted to  the  General  Assembly,  and  be  placed 
under  the  control  of  the  people.  They  will 
then,  at  least,  have  it  under  their  control,  and 
the  improper  placing  it  in  the  Constitution  be- 
comes apparent,  knowing  that  it  may  lead  us  to 
a very  considerable  amount  of  feeling  against 
the  instrument  when  it  comes  before  the  peo- 
ple for  ratification.  Very  recently,  while  at 
home,  I heard  a gentleman  express  himself 
with  regard  to  that  proposition,  in  very  strong 
terms — a gentleman  from  Shelby  county — the 
county  of  our  late  deceased  member  [Mr.  Smith] 
— a member  of  the  bar  of  that  county  and  a 
gentleman,  I think,  that  belongs  to  no  church — 
expressed  himself  in  very  strong  terms,  that  if 
that  proposition  was  incorporated  into  the  Con- 
stitution, it  would  not  receive  five  votes  in  Shel- 
by county.  Others  have  expressed  themselves 
in  that  way. 

Now,  that  is  a feeling  that  exists.  It  is  not  a 
feeling  existing  among  church  members  alone, 
for  a considerable  number  of  them  are  indiffer- 
ent in  regard  to  that  point.  Some  of  them  are 
really  anxious  that  the  rule  of  taxation  shall  be 
applied.  Others,  again,  very  much  dislike  to 
have  it  incorporated  into  the  Constitution,  and 
whenever  it  becomes  necessary  to  apply  the 
principle,  the  door  is  open  for  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  the  power  can  then  be  exercised. 

Now,  sir,  so  far  as  I am  individually  con- 
cerned, I cannot  vote  for  this  proposition.  It 
might  be  probably  expressed  in  some  modified 
form  in  which  it  would  not  be  so  objectionable, 
but  in  the  mode  that  is  here  suggested  I cannot 
vote  for  it.  If  that  is  incorporated  here,  we 
ought  to  strike  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  these 
words  wherein  it  is  suggested  that  institutions 
for  religion,  morality  and  education  are  essen- 
tial to  good  government,  and  therefore  should 
be  encouraged.  If  this  proposition  is  incorpor- 
ated, I think  we  had  better  strike  this  out.  The 
first  words  of  the  first  clause  of  your  Bill  of 
Rights  declares  that  the  people  of  Ohio  are 
“grateful  to  Almighty  God.”  I do  not  know 
whether  we  express  our  gratitude  to  Almighty 
God  very  appropriately,  if  we  incorporate  in 
the  fundamental  law  a proposition  to  impose 
burdens  upon  all  forms  and  manners  of  wor- 
ship. That  is  the  way  it  looks  to  me. 

Now,  this  whole  theory  of  taxation,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  based  upon  a wrong  idea  by  gentle- 
men, to  some  extent.  I have  sat  here  since 
Friday  last  listening  to  this  discussion,  and  it 
seems  to  me  to  place  the  whole  theory  of  taxa- 
tion upon  the  idea  of  protection.  I do  not  be- 
lieve that  theory  nor  that  idea.  We  have  in  the 
State  to  raise  a revenue  of  a certain  amount 
for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  institutions 
and  government  of  the  State,  and  that  revenue 
must  be  derived  from  the  only  source  from 
which  it  is  derivable — that  is,  the  wealth  of  the 
State.  It  is,  therefore,  derived  from  whoever  is 
able  to  respond  to  the  public  demand,  not  in 
proportion  to  the  amount  of  his  protection,  but 
in  proportion  to  his  ability  to  respond.  That  is 
all  there  is  of  it.  Take  a farmer  who  has  a farm 
— perhaps  it  may  be  out  in  the  country — or  a 


wood  lot,  or  an  unproductive  piece  of  land. 
What  protection  does  that  estate  receive  in  com- 
parison with  some  other  forms  of  property? 
You  cannot  steal  it;  you  cannot  destroy  it;  you 
cannot  consume  it.  The  idea  of  protection  in 
proportion  to  its  value,  when  compared  with 
other  forms  of  property,  is  no  basis  of  taxation. 
It  is  not  the  theory  upon  which  our  taxes  are 
raised ; but  it  is  upon  the  theory,  as  I suggested, 
of  the  ability  to  respond. 

Now,  you  speak  with  regard  to  the  protection 
of  church  edifices.  It  is  not  the  idea,  I say, 
with  which  taxes  are  raised  and  hence  cannot 
be  applied  to  them,  with  any  more  propriety 
than  to  other  forms  of  property.  But  let  me 
suggest  a consideration  why  we  ought  not  to 
incorporate  this  harsh  provision  into  the  Con- 
stitution. I say  to  gentlemen  I care  not  wrhat 
is  their  faith,  their  religion,  their  creed, 
whether  of  belief  or  non-belief,  if  you  blot  from 
existence,  or  enact  laws  that  shall  drive  from 
existence,  the  religious  institutions  of  your 
country,  you  may  as  well  prepare  for  driving  it 
back  or  remitting  it  to  barbarism.  I do  not 
care  whether  your  faith  be  that  of  our  fathers 
or  whether  it  be  the  faith  of  Danton,  Robes- 
pierre, or  Voltaire,  I care  not  whether  it  be  puri- 
tan or  cavalier,  catholic  or  protestant,  without 
a religion  there  cannot  be  any  civilization.  The 
history  of  the  world  from  the  first  has  shown 
it.  It  is  demonstrated  on  every  page.  Wheth- 
er pagan,  or  heathen,  or  Christian,  or  Jewish, 
or  Mohammedan,  no  matter  what  its  character, 
I say  that  the  history  of  mankind,  from  the 
very  dawn  of  its  first  records  to  the  present 
hour,  has  demonstrated  that  no  nation  has  ex- 
isted, that  no  nation  can  exist  in  any  degree  of 
civilized  form,  unless  it  is  founded  upon  the 
church,  and  upon  religion,  and  the  higher  and 
purser  and  better  that  religion,  the  higher  and 
purer  and  better  the  civilization  that  rests  and 
is  founded  upon  it.  Mankind  must  have,  do 
have,  and  will  have  a religion.  Intuitively, 
there  is  within  every  person — and  you  may 
sneer  at  it  as  you  will — an  inborn  longing  for  a 
state  of  future  existence;  and  having  that  in- 
born longing  for  immortality,  he  will  frame  for 
himself,  or  derive  from  inspiration,  or  obtain 
from  some  source,  a theory,  a creed,  a concep- 
tion of  religion,  by  and  through  which  he 
hopes  to  attain  to  that  great  hereafter  to  which 
his  mind,  his  heart  and  his  soul  aspire. 

[Here  the  gentleman’s  time  expired.] 

Leave  was  given  Mr.  West  to  proceed. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  such  be  his  need,  it  is  utterly 
impossible  for  him  to  exist  in  a social  form  on 
this  earth  without  building  around  himself  in- 
stitutions to  correspond  with  that  faith  and 
those  aspirations  that  are  within,  and,  as  I have 
said,  the  better  and  purer  in  form,  the  better  and 
purer  will  be  the  state,  and  you  may  look  through 
all  time,  and  my  words  are  sustained  by  the  re- 
cord. A higher  form  of  religion  developed  it- 
self among  the  Grecian  States,  and  there  was  a 
higher  and  better  form  of  society  developed.  A 
higher  form  developed  itself  among  the  Jews, 
and  a better  form  of  civilization  grew  up  there. 
This  is  verified  by  history.  The  degree  of  civ- 
ilization is  measured  by  the  degree  of  religion 
developed. 

And  now,  sir,  as  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
people  will  have  and  must  have  a religion,  let 


2084 


[139th 


EXEMPTION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 

West,  Burns,  Tuttle,  Bishop.  [Monday^ 


us  permit  them  to  enjoy  their  religion  without 
harsh  imposition,  and  without  a provision  that 
can  onlj7-  be  interpreted  as  being  adverse  to  its 
encouragement.  Why,  sir,  how  many  thous- 
ands, and  tens  of  thousands,  and  hundreds  of 
thousands  within  the  State  of  Ohio,  are  im- 
pressed with  a firm  belief  that  Almighty 
God  is  the  creator  of  this  earth,  and  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  sent  into  the  world,  as  his 
Son,  for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  Now, 
sir,  He,  being  believed  to  be  the  Creator  and 
Preserver  of  all  things,  to  whom  gratitude 
is  due — “ grateful  to  Almighty  God” — how,  sir, 
can  we  send  to  this  people  a provision  that  says 
unto  them  that  instead  of  erecting  temples  and 
altars  to  the  worship  of  Almighty  God  upon 
His  footstool,  you  give  Him  no  spot  or  sanctuary 
upon  the  face  of  this  earth  which  He  has  created, 
and  instead  of  rendering  encouragement  to  re- 
ligion you  discourage  it.  Instead  of  manifest- 
ing by  words  the  gratitude  we  feel,  we  say  that 
Christ  shall  render  tribute  to  Caesar.  The 
State  shall  derive  frcm  the  edifices  erected  to 
pious  devotion,  an  additional  amount  of  taxes. 
Is  there  not  sufficient  space  upon  this,  God  Al- 
mighty’s footstool,  that  He  may,  at  least,  have 
one  altar  that  is  not  devoted  to  mammon,  that  is 
not  to  be  under  tribute  to  Caesar?  and  if  we  shall 
permit  one  little  spot  to  have  erected  thereon  a 
temple  to  His  worship,  in  which  His  al- 
mighty power  and  His  goodness  shall  be 
acknowledged,  shall  it  be  told  to  us,  be- 
cause we  do  not  compel  it  to  pay  tribute 
to  Caesar,  that  Caesar  is  contributing  to  its 
support,  and  that  God  Almighty  is  de- 
pendent upon  us,  instead  of  we  being  depend- 
ent upon  God  Almighty  ? 

Gentlemen,  I cannot,  consistent  with  my 
views  of  propriety,  I could  not,  I dare  not,  go 
home  and  face  my  people  after  having  incor- 
porated such  a proposition  in  this  Constitution. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  uninstructed,  as  far  as 
petitions  are  concerned,  upon  this  subject.  I 
represent  thirty  odd  thousand  people  upon  this 
floor  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  and  on  this  sub- 
ject I shall  have  to  pursue  what  I believe  to  be 
the  sentiment  of  a large  majority  of  my  con- 
stituents. I am  not  willing  to  break  or  sever 
the  unbroken  chain  of  practice  in  this  State 
from  its  first  organization  of  a State  govern- 
ment. I believe  there  is  not  an  instance  on 
record  where  church  property,  used  exclusive- 
ly for  church  purposes,  has  been  taxed  in  the 
State  of  Ohio.  I know,  Mr.  President,  that 
there  is  a fine-spun  theory,  that,  because  church 
property  is  exempt  from  tax,  it  increases,  to  the 
extent  of  that  exemption,  the  burthen  of  taxa- 
tion on  other  property  of  the  State,  and  thus 
compelling,  indirectly,  the  non-professing  tax- 
payer to  contribute  for  the  support  of  the 
church  by  the  State,  and  thus  violate  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  and  which  provides  that  no  person  shall 
be  compelled  to  contribute  to  the  support  of 
any  Religious  denomination,  whatever.  I do 
not  understand,  Mr.  President,  such  to  be  the 
logic  of  the  Constitution  or  the  laws.  I am  as 
willing  and  as  ready  to  go  as  far  as  the  farthest 
in  putting  up  all  the  barriers  that  may  be  nec- 
essary and  proper  to  prevent  a union  of  church 
and  State.  I would  enact  laws  as  stringent  as 
the  wisdom  of  man  could  frame,  to  prevent  any 
attempt  to  connect  the  State  with  the  church ; 


but  I am  unable  to  see  how  this  can  be  brought 
about  by  permitting  the  Legislature  of  this 
State  to  exempt  houses  used  exclusively  for 
public  worship.  The  Bill  of  Rights  of  the  pres- 
ent Constitution  provides  that  “religion,  moral- 
ity and  knowledge,  being  essential  to  good 
government,  it  should  be  the  duty  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  to  pass  suitable  laws  to  protect 
every  Religious  denomination  in  the  peaceable 
enjoyment  of  its  mode  of  worship.”  Now,  I ad- 
mit that  it  does  not  directly  bear  upon  the  sub- 
ject, but  it  has  indirect  reference  to  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  The  inquiry  that  I want  to 
make  is,  whether  the  gentleman  understands 
that  under  the  term  “ houses  of  worship  ” is 
included  the  lands  on  which  they  stand  ? If  it 
does,  whether  or  not  I understand  the  idea, 
which  I think  is  very  extensively  entertained, 
that  in  many  instances  very  large  amounts  in 
value  of  real  estate  are  held  with  only  the 
house  of  worship  thereon,  or  other  building 
within  the  description  given  in  this  section  as 
exempted  property,  or  comparatively  small  in 
amount,  and  in  such  manner  that  the  real 
estate,  by  virtue  of  its  location  or  situation, 
becomes  an  investment  of  a large  amount  of 
property  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  Mr.  President,  I have  for- 
gotten about  half  the  question,  but  I shall  en- 
deavor to  answer  as  much  as  I remember.  I 
asked  the  same  question  of  the  gentleman 
sitting  on  my  left  [Mr.  Herron],  privately,  as 
to  whether  the  words  “ houses  used  exclusively 
for  public  worship  ” included  the  land  on  which 
the  house  was  built.  I am  in  doubt  in  my  own 
mind,  Mr.  President,  upon  it,  and,  therefore, 
cannot  give  the  gentleman,  perhaps,  the  answer 
that  he  desires ; but  my  understanding  of  the 
practice  under  that  provision  in  the  present 
Constitution  is  this,  that  it  does  include  the 
ground  upon  which  the  house  of  public  wor- 
ship stands ; but  it  does  not  include  that  por- 
tion of  the  ground  on  which  the  parsonage,  or 
the  house  in  which  the  minister  may  live,  or 
the  land  on  which  a building  may  be  erected 
that  is  used  for  other  purposes  than  religious 
purposes. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  The  gentleman  will  remember 
a decision  of  the  superior  court  of  this  city  de- 
cided the  grounds  were  exempt,  and  very 
extensive  grounds  at  that. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  may  be,  but  I understand 
that  the  case  is  now  pending  in  the  supreme 
court  on  a writ  of  error.  I think  that  this  pro- 
vision ought  to  be  a little  better  defined,  so  as 
to  define  particularly  what  the  Legislature  may 
exempt,  so  that  litigation  may  be  saved  in  the 
end  oil  that  very  question.  I said,  a while  ago, 
I was  unwilling  to  sever  the  unbroken  chain 
that  has  existed  for  the  last  three-quarters  of  a 
century  on  this  subject.  I do  not  believe 
that  the  people  of  this  State,  even  the  non-pro- 
fessing (and  by  that  I mean  those  who  do  not 
belong  to  any  organized  church)  demand  such 
a provision  engrafted  upon  the  Constitution. 
In  the  little  city  in  which  I live  we  have  eight 
to  twelve  houses  of  religious  worship  of  very 
modest  pretensions,  some  of  them  costing 
from  thirty  to  fifty  thousand  dollars,  and  one, 
perhaps,  costing  seventy-five  or  one  hundred 
thousand  dollars.  The  congregations,  as  a gen- 
eral thing,  are  not  wealthy.  It  has  exhausted, 


EXEMPTION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 

Burns,  Bishop. 


2085 


Day.] 

March  16, 1874.1 


so  far  as  they  are  able  at  present  to  devote  their 
means  for  that  purpose,  about  all  they  have. 
That,  together  with  the  support  of  the  regular 
minister,  and  other  incidental  expenses,  draws 
very  largely,  and,  in  some  instances,  very 
heavily,  upon  the  membership  of  those  differ- 
ent churches.  They  are  subjected  now  to  pay, 
and  do  pay  willingly,  for  the  assessment  for 
street  improvements,  and  pavements  and  side- 
walks fronting  and  abutting  upon  property 
owned  by  these  churches.  The  investment  in 
these  churches  is  of  a non-productive  character. 
It  is  a voluntary  contribution,  a voluntary 
donation  of  the  membership  of  the  different 
churches,  and  sometimes  added  to,  I am  proud 
to  say,  pretty  liberally  by  non-members  and 
friends  of  the  congregation  who  do  not  belong 
to  any  religious  denomination  whatever.  They 
frequently  contribute  larger  or  smaller  sums, 
in  proportion  to  their  means,  for  erecting  a 
church  edifice,  and  sometimes  for  maintaining 
the  minister.  They  give  it  with  the  under- 
standing and  the  belief  that  it  is  a donation, 
and  that  it  is  not  to  be  subjected  to  the  payment 
of  tax.  These  churches  are  open  to  all  who  see 
fit  to  enter  their  doors,  if  they  behave  them- 
selves in  a decent  and  orderly  manner. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  And  pay  their  pew  rent? 

Mr.  BURN'S.  No,  sir;  not  pay  their  pew 
rent.  I grant  you  there  are  some  churches  that 
have  purchased  pews. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell,  but  by  general  con- 
sent, Mr.  Burns  was  allowed  to  proceed.] 

Mr.  BURNS.  I thank  the  Convention.  I 
grant  that  in  some  localities,  and  in  some  large 
cities,  the  pews  are  sold  out,  but,  notwithstand- 
ing all  that,  the  congregation  generally  pro- 
vide a sufficient  number  of  free  seats  for  all 
who  see  fit  to  enter  within  their  doors,  and  if 
there  are  not,  the  congregation  are  always  lib- 
eral enough  to  give  up,  if  not  entirely  their  own 
seats,  sufficient  room,  so  far  as  circumstances 
will  permit,  for  all  who  desire  to  have  a seat  in 
the  house. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  in  the  history  of  this 
State,  from  the  time  it  first  began  to  be  settled, 
and  as  the  hardy  pioneers  pushed  their  way 
into  the  wilderness,  and  settlements  were  com- 
menced, and  neighbor  after  neighbor,  follow- 
ing their  example,  found  their  way  through  the 
trackless  forest  to  some  favored  spot,  and  there 
was  commenced  a settlement,  and  so  soon  as  a 
sufficient  number  of  neighbors  to  found  a set- 
tlement, they  put  together  their  scanty  means 
and  erected  side  by  side  the  log  school  house, 
the  poor  man’s  college,  and  the  log  church,  the 
poor  man’s  sanctuary — the  free  school  house 
sometimes  built  of  rude  logs,  covered  with  rude 
clap-boards  (that  is  a term  which  I learned  in 
my  boyhood  and  was  fully  understood),  punch- 
eon floors  and  rude  doors  and  as  rude  windows. 
These  houses  were  erected  by  the  hardy  pio- 
neers, and  as  time  rolled  on,  and  the  forest  gave 
way  before  the  hand  of  industry,  these  rude 
structures  were  pulled  down,  or  fell  down  by 
reason  of  time,  and  new  structures,  costing 
more,  and  of  larger  pretentions,  took  their  place, 
and  in  time  villages  and  cities  sprung  up  and 
school-houses  and  churches  went  hand  in  hand, 
the  log  school-house  gave  way  to  the  college, 
and  seminary  and  university,  all  over  the  broad 
acres  of  this  State  of  Ohio.  I do  not  believe 


that  the  people  of  this  State,  to  any  large  degree, 
ever  demanded  that  any  such  provision  as  this 
should  find  a place  in  this  Constitution.  Nor 
do  I believe  that  they  desire  the  existing  pro- 
vision should  be  stricken  out.  I believe  the 
non-professing  portion  of  the  people  of  this 
State  are  quite  as  willing  to  pay  their  portion  of 
the  taxes  if  they  are  increased,  the  increased 
portion  of  the  taxes  by  reason  of  their  exemp- 
tion, as  those  who  belong  to  the  churches  them- 
selves. 

I see  no  good  reason,  Mr.  President,  why,  if 
you  exempt  school  houses  and  houses  of  learn- 
ing; if  you  exempt  school  houses  and  universi- 
ties; if  you  exempt  public  libraries,  used  for 
public  purposes,  why  you  should  not  exempt 
houses  of  public  worship,  where  the  rich  man 
and  the  poor  man  meet  on  a level — or  where,  at 
least,  they  ought  to  meet  on  a level — where  the 
man  of  small  means,  equally  with  the  man  of 
large  means ; where  the  man  of  small  family, 
equally  with  the  man  of  large  family,  on  each 
returning  Sabbath  day,  can  quietly  spend  an 
hour  or  two  in  the  sanctuary,  listening  to  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel.  He  is  not  forced  to  go 
there.  He  is  not  compelled  to  go  there,  nor  is 
he  compelled  to  give  of  his  means  to  support 
the  Gospel,  but  he  is  at  liberty  to  enter,  to  pass 
over  its  threshhold  and  quietly  sit  there,  under 
the  droppings  of  the  sanctuary,  and  I do  not 
believe  that  the  people  of  this  State  will  com- 
plain if  these  church  edifices  are  exempted 
from  the  payment  of  a few  dollars  of  paltry 
tax. 

I do  not  believe  that  the  growth  or  prosperity 
of  the  State  will  be  retarded  a particle  if  this 
exemption  is  made.  There  ought  to  be  at  least 
one  place  in  this  world  where  the  wayfarer 
along  life’s  weary  way  may  rest  for  an  hour 
without  being  taxed. 

I did  not  contemplate,  by  reason  of  my  health, 
saying  a word.  I did  not  intend  to  speak  now, 
but  1 have  given  these  reasons,  Mr.  President, 
for  the  purpose  of  placing  upon  the  record 
what  I believe  ought  to  be  the  unanimous  action 
of  this  Convention,  and  I shall  vote  accord- 
ingly. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  It  is  known  to  the  Convention 
that  I made  some  remarks  on  the  subject  of 
taxing  church  property  a few  days  since,  in  the 
general  debate,  and  I have  but  little  to  add  at 
present,  but,  in  order,  sir,  to  test  the  sense  of 
the  Convention  on  the  proposed  change,  I want 
to  offer  an  amendment  to  the  amendment.  The 
present  section  reads : 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  for 
exemption  from  taxation  all  burial  grounds,  public 
school  houses,  houses  used  exclusively  for  public  wor- 
ship, institutions  of  purely  public  charity,  public  libra- 
ries, public  property  used  exclusively  for  any  public  pur- 
pose, and  personal  property  to  an  amount  not  exceeding 
two  hundred  dollars  for  each  individual,  may,  by  general 
laws,  be  exempted  from  taxation;  but  all  such  laws  shall 
be  subject  to  alteration  or  repeal,  and  the  value  of  all 
property  so  exempted,  shall,  from  time  to  time,  be  ascer- 
tained and  published  as  may  be  directed  by  law. 

It  is  now  moved  to  strike  out  the  words  “houses 
used  exclusively  for  public  worship.”  I move 
to  amend  the  amendment  by  inserting  after  the 
words  “ public  worship,”  in  the  third  line,  that 
we  insert  “ but  not  the  grounds  whereon  they 
are  situated.”  It  is  known  to  the  Convention 
that  l took  the  position  to  tax  the  ground  upon 
which  these  buildings  are  erected  as  a com- 


2086 


EXEMPTION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY. [139th 

Bishop,  Cunningham,  Wilson,  Gurley,  Mullen,  Pratt.  [Monday, 


promise  measure,  and  as  a measure  that  could  be 
secured  because  we  all  know  that  the  ground 
on  which  the  church  stands  can  be  gotten  at, 
and  its  value  readily  ascertained,  and  for  that 
reason  I offer  this  amendment  in  order  to  take 
the  sense  of  the  Convention  upon  a plan  that  I 
believe  just,  and  could  be  successfully  carried 
out.  Insert  in  the  third  line  after  the  words 
“public  worship”  the  words,  “but  not  the 
grounds  whereon  they  are  situated;”  that  is, 
they  may  exempt  the  building  but  not  the 
grounds. 

Now,  sir,  I am  fully  aware  of  the  important 
influence  of  churches.  I believe  as  much  in 
the  importance  of  churches  as  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  possibly  can.  I am 
aware,  further,  sir,  that  I take  the  position  con- 
trary to  the  wish  of  a great  many  good,  religi- 
ous people.  But  I do  so  because  I believe  the 
position  to  be  a correct  one. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Bishop]  have  the  amend- 
ment read  now. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Insert  in  the  third  line,  after  the  words  “for  public 
worship”,  “but  not  the  grounds  upon  which  they  are  sit- 
uated.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  for  exemp- 
tion from  taxation  of  all  burial  grounds,  public  school 
houses,  houses  used  exclusively  for  public  worship,  but 
not  the  grounds  whereon  they  aie  situated,  institutions 
of  purely  public  charity,”  &c. 

Mr.  WILSON.  The  gentleman  does  not  wish 
to  exempt  the  ground  upon  which  the  burial 
ground  is  situated  ? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I am  not  speaking  of  burial 
grounds  but  the  grounds  upon  which  churches 
are  erected.  The  object  I have  in  view  is  that 
the  ground  on  which  churches  are  erected  shall 
be  taxed,  and  I was  about  to  remark  that  I am 
fully  aware  the  question  is  a very  difficult  one 
to  settle  satisfactorily.  A great  many  good  and 
intelligent  church  members,  for  whom  I have  a 
high  regard,  differ  with  me  on  this  subject;  but, 
sir,  I do  believe  the  doctrine  which  I endeav- 
ored to  present  to  this  Convention  two  or  three 
days  since,  in  my  more  extended  remarks  upon 
this  subject,  would  inure  not  only  to  the  bene- 
fit of  the  State  but  to  the  churches;  that 
churches  should  not  be  beggars,  in  any  sort  of 
sense,  and  that  they  should  pay  taxes  on  the 
ground  upon  which  the  buildings  are  erected,  I 
am  convinced  would  be  just  and  beneficial  to  the 
community  generally. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman one  question. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Very  well;  you  are  at  liberty 
to  do  so. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Would  it  not  be  a step  in  the 
direction  of  favoring  these  high,  aristocratic 
churches  where  they  are  able  to  erect  a build- 
ing worth  two  or  three  hundred  thousand  or  a 
half  a million  of  dollars,  the  ground  on  which 
it  stands,  perhaps,  might  not  be  worth  anymore 
than  the  ground  belonging  to  some  poorer  con- 
gregation who  are  not  able  to  erect  a church 
worth  more  than  ten  thousand  dollars? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  It  has  been  very  justly  re- 
marked by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  that  these  buildings  are  put  up  by  the 
munificence  of  liberal  men,  and  it  is  a very 


difficult  matter,  as  we  have  all  learned,  to  get 
the  true  value  of  the  buildings.  The  object 
that  I have  in  view  is  to  add  something  tangi- 
ble, and  something  that  we  can  come  at.  Some 
of  the  members  from  the  rural  districts  have 
said  to  me  that  it  would  be  very  unpopular  in 
their  section  of  the  country  to  tax  church  prop- 
erty. I answe~  them  by  saying  that  the  ground 
in  the  rural  districts  is  seldom,  if  ever,  very  val- 
uable. The  ground  in  the  rural  districts  is 
worth  but  little,  and  seldom  would  impose 
much  tax  on  country  churches.  In  the  town 
where  I come  from  we  only  gave  two  hundred 
dollars  for  our  church  lot.  I do  not  suppose  it 
is  worth  more  than  five  hundred  to-day.  Sec- 
ondly, this  is  a middle  ground.  I have  no  de- 
sire to  trespass  further  upon  the  patience  of 
the  Convention.  I wanted  to  state  the  position 
I have  taken.  I believe  it  is  the  true  one.  I 
believe  it  is  the  only  one,  if  we  attempt  to  tax 
church  property,  that  we  can  carry  out.  I 
believe  that  it  will  not  be  as  unpopular  as  the 
gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  has  thought. 
The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller] 
moves  to  strikes  out 

Mr.  MULLEN.  Suppose  the  ground  is  taxed 
and  not  the  church,  and  the  ground  should  be 
sold  for  taxes,  what  would  be  the  result  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  What  would  be  the  result  to 
the  church? 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I would  ask  some  lawyer  to 
settle  that  question,  as  I might  not  be  consid- 
ered good  authority.  I shall  not  undertake  to 
tell  what  will  become  of  it,  but  I am  satisfied  if 
any  church  tax  can  be  collected,  this  one  can. 
I have  endeavored  to  lay  down  a rule  that  will 
be  just,  and  equitable  and  fair  to  every  church, 
of  all  denominations.  It  is  keeping  separate 
Church  and  State,  which  I am  decidedly  in 
favor  of.  I believe  the  principle  is  a correct 
one,  and  I believe  it  can  be  carried  out;  and  if 
the  Convention  agrees  with  me,  we  will  do  it — 
if  they  do  not,  I shall  cordially  submit  and 
acquiesce  in  their  decision. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I believe  I have  not 
taken  any  part  in  this  financial  discussion, 
which  has  occupied  the  Convention  for  the  last 
week,  and  I wish  to  give  the  reasons  which 
| control  my  vote  against  any  proposition  which 
involves  the  taxation  of  property  that  is  used 
| exclusively  for  places  of  public  worship.  In 
the  first  place,  Mr.  President,  it  will  never  be 
| forgotten  that  the  church  property,  the  prop- 
erty used  for  religious  purposes  in  the  State,  is 
built  entirely  by  the  voluntary  contributions 
of  the  people,  and  they  are  supported  by  the 
voluntary  contributions  of  the  people — in  other 
words,  that  the  men  of  property,  more  or  less, 
in  the  State,  by  a voluntary  tax,  erect  buildings 
and  make  these  improvements,  and  if  you,  to- 
j day,  were  to  provide,  in  any  form,  for  the  taxa- 
I tion  of  such  property,  it  would  be  only  raising 
so  much  revenue  by  another  and  objectionable 
[ source.  You  may  take  any  congregation  own- 
ing property.  They  have,  in  the  aggregate,  so 
i much  property.  I mean  individuals  composing 
the  congregation,  and  their  property  is  taxed 
I pro  rata  for  the  support  of  the  State.  Now,  it 
I is  proposed  that,  to  that  shall  be  added  what- 
I ever  the  congregation  owns  in  the  way  of 
j church  property.  When  the  time  comes  around 
I for  the  tax  to  be  levied,  and  so  much  money  is 


Day.] EXEMPTION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 2087 

March  16, 1874.]  Cunningham,  Carbery,  Baber,  Wilson,  Pratt. 


to  be  raised  for  certain  State  purposes,  it  is  dis- 
tributed upon  the  property  of  the  members  of 
the  congregation,  held  by  them  individually. 
If  you  distribute  the  amount  also  upon  the 
church  property,  it  is  only  directly  another 
mode  of  assessing  the  same  persons.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I do  not  see  what  is  to  be  gained  by  it. 

Now,  I have  another  reason.  The  gentle- 
man spoke  of  the  immense  sums  of  money  that 
are  invested  in  church  edifices,  the  massive 
building,  the  ornamentation  of  the  church  prop- 
erty, the  immense  sums  of  money  that  are 
spent  in  erecting  houses  of  worship.  This  is 
only  another  means  of  redistributing  the  gath- 
ered wealth  of  any  community,  and  if  you  do 
not  encourage  men  who  have  amassed  wealth, 
to  redistribute  it  in  that  way,  it  simply  remains 
in  their  hands  and  the  community  get  no  bene- 
fit from  it  whatever.  A church  building  is  pro- 
jected in  the  city  of  Cincinnati  to  costa  million 
of  dollars.  Who  build  it?  The  men  of  wealth. 
The  men  who  from  their  avocations  in  life  have 
gathered  more  than  the  average  property  of 
their  neighbors.  They  furnish  the  means  by 
which  these  buildings  are  erected,  and  that  is 
redistributed  out  in  the  various  channels  of 
trade  and  commerce.  The  man  who  quarries 
the  stone,  and  the  man  who  lays  up  the  wall, 
and  the  lumberman,  and  the  carpenter,  and  the 
hod  carrier,  and  everybody  comes  in  at  the  re- 
distribution of  the  money  that  men  would  oth- 
erwise keep  in  their  own  pockets.  It  takes 
nothing  from  the  wealth  of  any  community. 

These  are  the  reasons  that  indicate  my  course. 
There  is  nothing  to  be  gained  by  the  State,  and 
there  is  much  that  may  offend  the  sensibilities 
of  the  people  who  believe  that  there  ought  to 
be  one  place,  at  least,  where  they  may  worship 
untaxed. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I believe  that  it  is  al- 
most superfluous  to  discuss  this  proposition.  I 
believe  there  is  a sentiment  in  the  Convention 
in  favor  of  taking  away  from  the  Legislature 
the  exercise  of  power  which  this  section  pro- 
poses to  give  it.  I think  in  the  State,  outside, 
there  is  an  overwhelming  sentiment,  the  result 
of  education  and  tradition,  in  favor  of  leaving 
church  property  to  be  exempted  from  taxation, 
and  therefore  it  seems,  in  some  sense,  unneces- 
sary for  any  person  to  speak  long  upon  the 
subject.  I propose  to  offer  one  or  two  reasons 
that  influence  me,  outside  the  strength  of  those 
traditions,  and  the  result  of  which  I have  before 
alluded  to. 

I find  here  in  the  Preamble  language  of  this 
kind : 

“Religion,  morality  and  knowledge  being  essential  to 
good  government,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  General  As- 
sembly to  pass  suitable  laws  to  protect  every  religious 
denomination  in  the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  its  own  mode 
of  public  worship,  and  to  encourage  schools  and  the 
means  of  instruction.” 

I think  the  whole  force  of  the  sentence  which 
I have  read  can  be  only  understood  by  reading 
to  the  end  of  this  particular  clause  which  re- 
fers not  to  churches  alone.  It  being  necessary 
to  perpetuate  good  government  and  keep  invio- 
late the  rights  of  property,  the  rights  of  society, 
it  is  advisable  to  protect  churches,  to  encourage 
schools,  and  in  order  to  carry  out  this  theory, 
the  State  imposes  a tax  for  the  maintenance  of 
public  education,  and  the  highly  logical  gentle- 
men who  are  in  favor  of  taxing  churches  would 


tax  the  stronger  instrument  of  the  two,  which 
has  contributed  in  a far  greater  degree  to  the 
maintenance  of  morality  and  good  conduct  than 
schools.  There  is  here  involved,  it  appears  to 
me,  a radical  contradiction.  Church  and  school 
both  contributing  to  the  welfare  and  happiness 
of  society,  both  should  be  alike  free  from  tax. 
It  struck  me,  long  ago,  that  this  is  so  obvious, 
I did  not  think  there  were  half  a dozen  gentle- 
men in  the  whole  Convention^hat  seriously  pro- 
posed so  very  great  an  innovation  as  is  contem- 
plated by  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  to  strike  out  this  per- 
missive power  in  the  section ; and  it  will  be  re- 
membered that  we  do  not  propose  to  do  any- 
thing else  than  to  leave  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  State  wholly  free  to  respond  to  the  pub- 
lic opinion  of  the  State. 

I have  been  very  well  satisfied  since  the  Con- 
vention first  assembled,  that  they  seemed  to  ad- 
here to  the  principle  of  leaving  the  Legislature 
unbound  by  any  iron  rule  with  reference  to 
matters  on  which  there  may  be  a very  great 
revolution  of  opinion  in  the  next  twenty  years, 
and  that  such  action,  on  the  part  of  this  Con- 
vention, is  proper  and  wise,  and  is  a matter  that 
needs  no  discussion.  It  is  quite  obvious,  and 
here  is  a question  of  all  others  that  appears  to 
me  is  settled  as  the  opinion  of  the  State,  now. 
The  whole  public  are  in  favor  of  letting  this 
thing  alone.  Here  is  an  instrument  of  moral 
operation  in  the  community;  for  it  has  pre- 
served good  order.  What  would  have  been  the 
value  of  property  in  the  City  of  Cincinnati, 
with  its  260,000  inhabitants,  if  there  were  no 
such  agency  here?  As  a merely  moral  and  dis- 
ciplinary agency,  the  churches  of  Ohio  are 
worth  a hundred  fold  the  little  exemption  that 
is  made  in  their  favor  on  their  tax  duplicate. 
I shall  not  insult  the  intelligence  of  this  body 
by  proving  what  is  as  plain  to  me  as  an  axiom 
in  geometry. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  intend  to  detain  the 
Convention,  except  to  say  that,  representing  a 
large  constituency,  who  are  interested  in  this 
question,  having  taken  occasion  to  make  myself 
familiar  with  their  sentiment,  and  also  know- 
ing the  fact  that  the  Legislature  of  the  State 
have  full  power  over  this  subject,  which  they 
can  exercise,  if  there  is  no  prohibition  in  the 
matter,  and  the  further  fact  that  a resolution  (I 
think  in  the  early  part  of  the  session)  was 
introduced  into  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Ohio,  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Hodge],  in  favor  of  church  tax,  and  was  voted 
down  by  a vote  of  16  to  48,  that  I believe  there 
is  no  sentiment  in  the  State  of  Ohio  for  taking 
this  out  of  rhe  hands  of  the  Legislature,  and, 
therefore,  I think  that  the  present  provision  of 
the  Constitution  should  not  be  changed. 

Mr.  WILSON.  I think  it  would  be  wisdom 
on  the  part  of  this  Convention  to  leave  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  as  they  have  left  it, 
without  making  any  change,  but  submitting  the 
whole  matter  to  the  discretion  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. I am  opposed  to  the  taxation  of  church 
property  in  all  churches  except  that  one  to 
which  I myself  and  some  members  of  this  Con- 
vention belong. 

Mr.  PRATT.  To  what  church  does  the  gen- 
tleman from  Mahoning  [Mr.  Wilson]  belong? 
The  Devil’s  church  ? 


2088 


EXEMPTION  OF  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 

Wilson,  Voris,  Russell  of  Meigs. 


[139th 

[Monday, 


Mr.  WILSON.  If  the  gentleman  desires  to 
know  what  my  church  k,  I can  tell  him.  The 
broad  canopy  of  heaven  is  my  church,  the  stars 
the  chandelier,  the  angels  of  glory  the  choir, 
and  the  deep-toned  thunder  the  organ,  and  the 
Great  Jehovah  himself  the  priest.  You  build 
your  little  brick,  and  stone,  and  wooden 
churches  inside  of  mine,  and  do  not  pay  any 
ground  rent,  either,  and  we  do  not  ask  it.  On 
these  other  churches  inside  I am  opposed  to  tax- 
ation, not  because  I belong  to  any  one  of  them, 
but  because  I lean  toward  one  or  more  of  them 
on  account  of  family  association ; that  is,  I am 
a sort  of  “ italic  ” member.  1 think  they  ought 
not  to  be  taxed.  I would  not  wish  to  see  this 
Convention  send  the  tax-gatherer  into  the 
sanctuary  of  the  Most  High.  It  never  has  been 
done  in  this  State,  and  I trust  it  never  will  be 
done.  In  every  community  where  there  are 
different  churches,  you  would  find  a contest 
going  on  as  to  who  should  be  the  assessor 
to  value  the  church  property,  and,  if  we  get 
one  that  belonged  to  the  church  toward  which 
I lean,  we  would  put  a solid  tax  on  all  the  rest, 
and  a very  light  one  on  our  own,  and  it  would 
mix  politics  and  religion.  It  would  have  a 
very  bad  effect,  and  it  would  create  strife,  and 
discontent,  and  back-biting  amongst  the  differ- 
ent denominations. 

I am  not  one  of  those  who  think  that  the  chief 
object  of  the  government  is  to  absorb  all  the 
property  it  can  for  the  purpose  of  taxation. 
Government  is  simply  an  incident  in  human 
life — simply  a conventional  arrangement  for 
the  convenience  of  mankind  in  transacting  their 
important  business.  Where  you  see  a govern- 
ment raking  in  all  species  of  property,  merely 
to  place  it  upon  the  tax  duplicate,  it  is  but  an 
indication  of  the  greed  of  the  age.  Where 
church  property  is  set  apart  as  dead  property, 
except  spiritually,  where  it  yields  nothing  but 
spiritual  benefits,  that  property  ought  not  to  be 
taxed,  and  it  is  unjust  to  tax  it.  It  is  taxing 
the  members  and  supporters  of  that  church 
doubly;  for  every  cent  of  tax  you  place  upon 
it  is  to  be  contributed  by  the  members  and  sup- 
porters of  the  church,  and  makes  a discrimina- 
tion against  those  good  moral  people  who  attend 
church  and  sustain  religion. 

If  church  property  yielded  a rental  or  a pro- 
fit, then,  it  would  become  a question  of  property, 
and  should  be  taxed;  but  as  it  exists  now, 
throughout  the  State,  it  would  be  unjust.  There 
should  be  a quiet  place,  where  a man  can  go  to 
and  thank  God  for  the  blessings  that  he  has  re- 
ceived, and  ask  for  a few  more,  and  should  have 
that  privilege  without,  every  time  he  bends  his 
knee,  to  be  obliged  to  pay  a dollar  or  two  of 
taxes.  I think  it  would  be  preferable  to  leaye 
this  entire  question  to  the  General  Assembly — 
whose  action,  from  time  to  time,  is  supposed  to 
reflect  the  public  sentiment. 

Whilst  churches  exercise  so  great  an  influ- 
ence over  the  welfare  of  mankind  as  they  now 
do,  let  them  alone.  If  you  invade  the  sanctuary, 
and  place  heavy  and  ruinous  taxes  upon  them, 
it  might  be  well  said  : “ The  foxes  have  holes, 
and  the  birds  of  the  air  have  nests,  but  the  Son 
of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  His  head.” 

I am  not  in  favor  of  making  any  distinction 
between  the  superstructure  and  the  ground,  as 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  I 


Bishop].  I do  not  believe  in  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Bishop], 
that  you  may  allow  the  superstructure  to  go 
free,  and  tax  the  ground.  Why  tax  the  ground? 
Why  tax  that  portion  of  the  earth  ? You  would 
tax  that  which  God  gave  you  to  place  the  super- 
structure upon.  You  would  tax  His  real 
estate.  Why,  the  Son  of  Man  does  not  require 
but  a few  places  on  which  to  rest  his  foot  on 
this  earth,  but  you  deny  Him  that  untaxed  free- 
dom. I hope  the  amendment  will  not  prevail. 
I hope  the  Convention  will  all  agree,  unani- 
mously, not  to  tax  anything  which  appertains 
to  the  future  world. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tem.  The  question  is 
upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Bishop]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Insert  after  the  words  “public  worship,”  “hut  not  the 
ground  whereon  they  are  situated.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  for  ex- 
emption from  taxation  of  all  burial  grounds,  public 
school  houses,  houses  used  exclusively  for  public  wor- 
ship, but  not  the  grounds  whereon  they  are  situated,  in- 
stitutions ot  purely  public  charity,”  etc. 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tem.  The  question 
next  turns  upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Mueller]  to  strike 
out  the  words  “ houses  used  exclusively  for 
public  worship.” 

Mr.  Griswold  was  excused  from  voting,  hav- 
ing paired  off  with  Mr.  Hunt. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for  and  or- 
dered. 

Mr.  YORIS,  when  his  name  was  called,  said : 
I am  satisfied  with  the  provision  as  it  came  from 
the  Committee.  If  this  were  a question  to  be 
voted  upon  in  the  General  Assembly,  with  my 
views,  I should  vote  for  taxing  that  class  of 
property.  I do  not  think  it  proper  for  us  to 
fasten  a provision  in  the  Constitution  that 
should  prevent  legislative  discretion.  I,  there- 
fore, shall  vote  “ no.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  taken,  resulted — 
yeas  10,  nays  53,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Bosworth,  Freiberg,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Mueller,  Pease,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Tuttle,  Tyler,  Woodbury — 10. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Beer,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Coats,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Ewing,  Godfrey, 
Greene,  Gurley,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Jackson, 
Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCormick,  McCau- 
ley, Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Neal, 
Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rowland, 
Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith 
of  Highland,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tulloss, 
Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Watson, 
Weaver,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Wilson — 53. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I offer  the  follow- 
ing amendment  to  section  four: 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “purpose,”  in  the  fourth 
line,  and  including  the  word  “individual,”  in  the  filth 
line.” 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I can  see  nc  rea- 
son for  exempting  any  kind  of  property  from 


Day.] EXEMPTION  FROM  TAXATION.  

March  16, 1874.]  Russell  of  Meigs,  Pease,  Pratt,  Rowland,  Powell. 


2089 


taxation,  whatever.  I think  that  all  property, 
whatever  its  amount,  should  bear  its  proportion 
of  the  burden  of  the  government.  In  times  that 
have  passed  we  have  had  a provision  similar  to 
the  present;  it  is,  I believe,  a copy  of  the  old 
Constitution,  and  the  Legislature — for  it  gives 
them  the  power — have  seen  fit  to  exempt  from 
the  duplicate  the  sum  of  fifty  dollars,  which 
amounts  to  a mere  nothing.  It  does  not  exempt 
the  household  furniture,  scarcely  of  any  fami- 
lies in  the  State,  and  it  is  merely  an  attempt  of 
demagogues  and  politicians  to  make  a seeming 
attempt  to  favor  the  poor. 

Scarcely,  I say  there  are  scarcely  any  families 
in  this  State,  with  any  means  at  all,  that  will  be 
benefited  by  any  provision  of  the  kind,  nor 
have  they  been  benefited  by  the  provision  here- 
tofore. If  there  is  any  reason  in  it,  it  should 
be  a provision  large  enough  to  exempt  all  prop- 
erty from  taxation  that  is  now  exempted  from 
execution.  If  you  give  the  poor  anything,  give 
them  the  exemption  of  property  that  they  have 
exempt  from  execution.  There  is  no  reason 
why  fifty  dollars  of  property  should  not  bear 
its  equal  share  of  the  burden  just  as  well  as  ten 
thousand.  dSTo  one  asks  it.  It  is  a provision  that 
is  not  taken  advantage  of  by  one  family  out 
of  a thousand  that  could  do  it  in  times  past,  and 
now  it  is  not  a provision  that  is  taken  advantage 
of  by  scarcely  any  one,  and  becomes  a mere 
dead  letter  on  the  statute  book.  The  protection 
to  that  amount  of  property  which,  according  to 
this  section  the  Legislature  can  give,  there  is  no 
reason  for,  and  it  is  a provision  not  beneficial 
to  any  one,  and  only  exempting  property  of 
those  who  ought  to  pay— giving  those  a chance, 
who  so  desire,  to  secrete  themselves  under  that 
provision,  and  exempt  two  or  three  hundred 
dollars  worth.  That  is  the  practical  working 
and  the  result. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I hope  the  motion  will  not  pre- 
vail. I am  not  hardly  prepared,  after  the  Con- 
vention has,  by  such  a decided  vote,  concluded 
to  exempt  millions  of  property  of  the  rich  man, 
under  a pretext  of  worship,  and,  now,  when  the 
proposition  is  made  to  save  to  the  poor  man,  and 
his  poor  wife,  and  his  poor  children,  a few 
hundred  dollars  of  the  absolute  means  of  sub- 
sistence, you  would  not  exempt  it  from  taxa- 
tion. I think  this  is  a splendid  commentary 
upon  the  religion  of  the  day  and  the  humanity 
of  the  age. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I am  with  the  gen- 
tleman on  the  church  property. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I understand  you  are.  I am 
appealing  to  those  who  voted  the  other  way. 
You  will  vote  to  build  your  millions  worth  of 
churches,  and,  yet,  when  the  poor  sufferers,  the 
poor  human  beings  in  your  city  and  country,  ask 
for  the  pittance  of  two  hundred  dollars  ex- 
emption, which  shall  not  be  seized  by  the  tax- 
gatherer  when  his  few  knives,  his  few  forks, 
his  poor  chairs,  his  poor  bed,  his  worse  cloth- 
ing, his  scanty  supplies  of  provision,  and  all 
this  must  be  turned  out  and  exhibited  to  the 
tax-gatherer,  and  be  subject  to  sale;  for  all 
property  that  is  subject  to  taxation  is  subject  to 
sale. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  Does  not  this  pro- 
vision apply  as  well  to  the  rich  as  the  poor  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Undoubtedly.  It  must  be  so; 


for  we  cannot  exempt  the  rich  because  this 
would  not  make  the  law  uniform. 

Mr.  PRATT.  We  have  broken  up  that  uni- 
form rule ; no  trouble  about  that. 

Mr.  PEASE.  If  we  undertake  to  apply  the 
rule  to  the  poor  and  not  the  rich,  it  would  take 
somebody  higher  than  a tax-gatherer  to  de- 
termine who  the  poor  are.  If  you  attempt  to 
favor  the  poor,  by  taxing  the  rich,  you  cannot 
adopt  any  such  rule.  The  rule  must  be  a uni- 
form one,  as  uniform  as  the  sun’s  light,  as  uni- 
form as  the  air  we  breathe,  and  not  attempt  to 
tax  the  poor  and  compel  the  sale  of  their  meager 
property,  because  the  property  of  the  rich  to  the 
same  amount  will  also  be  exempt.  It  is  sim- 
ply ridiculous,  and  I hope  the  proposition  will 
not  be  entertained  for  a moment. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I feel,  as  a member  of  the 
Committee,  that  it  is  scarcely  incumbent  upon 
us  to  defend,  upon  its  merits,  any  one  single 
proposition  in  this  exemption  section,  because 
it  is  now  within  reach  of  the  public  sentiment, 
through  the  Legislature.  It  is  permissive 
merely.  The  Legislature  may  provide  by  law 
for  this  exemption ; but,  sir,  the  Committee  did 
take  into  account  this  question  of  exemption  of 
personal  property,  and,  as  you  are  all  well 
aware,  the  Legislature  has  never  gone  beyond 
fifty  dollars  in  the  line  of  exemptiion. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Does  the  gentleman  think 
they  ought  not  to  have  gone  beyond  that? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  not.  I say,  tak- 
ing the  amount  of  property,  and  the  ability  to 
contribute  as  a measure  of  taxation,  when  you 
come  down  to  the  sum  of  two  hundred  dollars 
you  strike  at  the  necessaries  of  living;  you 
come  down  to  the  poor  widow,  and  the  poor 
man,  who  are  not  able  to  have  a control  of  that 
kind  of  property  which  ought  to  contribute  to 
the  State.  You  tax  the  little  household  furni- 
ture that  the  widow  has,  and  the  cow  that  gives 
nourishment  for  herself  and  children,  and  it 
will  be  small  in  the  great  State  of  Ohio  to  come 
down  to  a species  of  taxation  that  would  liter- 
ally “ grind  the  face  of  the  poor.”  It  would  be 
nothing  else,  and  the  Committee  thought  that, 
whatever  else  might  be  done,  this  section,  at 
least,  should  remain ; and  if  the  State  is  mag- 
nanimous enough — if  she  pays  so  high  a tribute 
to  religion  and  education  as  to  exempt  churches 
and  school  houses,  she  might  have  enough  con- 
sideration for  the  poor  to  allow  an  exemption  of 
two  hundred  dollars  of  personal  property. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Just  one  word:  I think  it 

would  be  small  business  for  the  State  of  Ohio, 
with  one  hand  to  take  away  the  washtub  of  the 
poor  woman,  and  with  the  other  take  away  her 
cow. 

Mr.  POWELL.  If  this  amendment  is  voted 
down,  would  it  be  in  order  to  move  to  amend 
those  same  words  by  moving  that  two  hundred 
be  stricken  out,  and  five  hundred,  or  any  other 
number,  inserted  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tern.  It  will  not  be  in 
order. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Then,  before  those  words 
are  stricken  out,  I wish  to  amend  them,  and 
make  them  as  acceptable  as  possible.  I move 
to  strike  out  the  word  “two,”  and  insert  the 
word  “ five.”  And,  while  I am  on  my  feet,  I 
shall  say,  that  I think  two  hundred  dollars  is 
too  small  a sum.  If  we  do  anything  in  the  way 


2090 


EXEMPTION  FROM  TAXATION. [139th 

Powell,  Gurley,  Bishop,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Rowland,  Carbery.  [Monday, 


of  liberality  towards  those  who  are  poor,  it 
should  be  a larger  sum;  and  I mention  five 
hundred,  because  five  hundred  is  the  amount 
that  persons  may  retain  against  execution, 
where  they  have  not  homesteads.  Besides,  I 
think  two  hundred  dollars  does  not  go,  nowa- 
days, far  enough  to  give  a poor  man  anything 
that  we  may  consider  articles  of  necessity,  and, 
therefore,  I hope  that  we  may  vote  five  hundred 
instead  of  two. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I hope  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
will  not  prevail.  I think  1 will  go  as  far  as  any 
member  on  the  floor  of  this  Convention  in  be- 
half of  the  poor.  I see  great  danger  that  might 
grow  out  of  this.  These  two  hundred  dollars 
will  cover  six  hundred  dollars  worth  of  prop- 
erty. As  we  all  know,  there  is  danger  in  this 
thing. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question?  In  rural  districts  it  would  not, 
would  it  ? 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I think  it  would.  In  the 
country,  I think,  it  would  cover  a very  large 
amount,  and  the  danger  of  making  this  amend- 
ment is,  that  it  will  open  up  the  doors  for  all 
persons  to  screen  and  keep  back,  and  not  give 
in  their  property ; and  I think  that  two  hun- 
dred dollars  is  ample;  that  will  more  than 
cover  the  amount  of  property  that  poor  people 
generally  have  that  is  tangible;  and  I hope  the 
Convention  will  not  extend  it  beyond  the  sum 
of  two  hundred  dollars. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I am  very  glad 
to  see  such  a feeling  developed  here  in  favor  of 
the  poor  men.  I have  heard  this  same  old  story 
about  the  poor  woman’s  cow  and  the  poor  wo- 
man’s wash-tub,  that  the  gentleman  from  Wil- 
liams [Mr.  PrattJ  brought  forward  a few 
moments  ago.  That  same  old  speech  has  been 
reiterated  over  this  country  for  fifty  years  by 
men  desiring  political  office.  The  gentleman 
from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley]  let  the  cat  out  of 
the  bag  when  he  said  these  two  hundred  dollars 
will  hide  four  hundred  or  five  hundred,  or 
something  to  that  effect,  or  five  hundred  would 
hide  six  hundred,  and  it  is  the  men  who  sneak 
around  the  assessor,  and  get  away  from  him, 
and  hide  their  property,  that  want  this  exemp- 
tion of  two  hundred  dollars.  It  is  not  the  poor 
men.  Did  any  of  you  ever  hear  a poor  man 
demanding  anything  like  that?  Thank  God, 
the  poor  men  of  this  country  are  too  proud  for 
anything  of  that  kind  ! 

They  ask  to  bear  their  equal  burden  of  taxa- 
tion, so  far  as  their  means  will  allow  them, 
and  they  do  not  ask  this  Convention,  or  any 
other  Convention,  or  the  Legislature,  to  eke  out 
to  them  that  small  sum  of  fifty  dollars  as  an 
exemption.  The  Legislature  has  exempted 
fifty  dollars,  and  men  will  find  it  convenient 
who  so  desire  to  hide  two  or  three  hundred 
— not  the  man  who  ought  to  have  it  exempted, 
but  the  man  who  ought  not  to  have  it  ex- 
empted. It  is  not  the  men  who  need  it,  but  the 
men  who  do  not,  that  hide  their  money  from 
the  tax-gatherer.  They  are  the  ones  that  take 
advantage  of  all  these  exemptions,  and  I am 
surprised  to  find  members  of  this  Convention, 
intelligent  as  they  are,  standing  up  here  and 
reiterating  these  old  political  speeches,  that 
have  been  heard  all  over  the  State  for  the  last 


fifty  years.  It  is  simply  done  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  their  point  in  advocating  something 
in  favor  of  the  poor  man,  when,  at  the  same 
time,  it  allows  him  no  protection.  What  pro- 
tection have  they  under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion? The  simple  protection  of  fifty  dollars. 
No  family  with  any  furniture,  no  family  with 
any  means,  but  would  have  more  than  that,  if 
they  had  anything  at  all.  This  fifty  dollars 
does  not  amount  to  anything  when  you  come  to 
buy  the  necessary  implements  for  housekeep- 
ing, and  yet  the  gentlemen  will  get  up  here  and 
say  this  is  an  advantage  to  the  poor  man,  and 
the  poor  woman  will  have  her  wash  tub  and  her 
cow  sold.  Her  cow  is  worth  more  than  fifty 
dollars,  without  her  wash  tub  and  other  para- 
phernalia, so  that  it  does  not  even  exempt  the 
cow,  that  I shall  not  speak  of.  It  is  all  political 
quackery.  There  is  no  justice  in  it,  and  there 
is  no  demand  from  the  poor  in  the  State  for  any 
such  protection  as  that. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I am  aware  that,  perhaps, 
such  sentiments  as  were  uttered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  and  myself, 
may  have  been  often  heard  and  often  reiterated, 
for  aught  I know,  in  this  assembly,  but  it  is  a 
good  old  story,  and  I love  to  tell  it,  and  we  may 
declaim  until  the  crack  of  doom  about  the  ex- 
emption of  the  poor  man  from  taxation.  If  you 
build  a tax  pyramid  high,  your  rich  man  will 
be  at  the  summit,  and  your  workingman  will  be 
at  the  base;  and  you  cannot  alter  that  law  by 
any  political  declamation  of  political  demagog- 
uery in  the  country.  It  is  a fact,  and  you  can- 
not alter  it. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tern.  The  question  is 
upon  the  motion  to  strike  out  the  word  “ two,” 
and  insert  the  word  “five,”  “and  personal 
property  not  exceeding  $500  to  each  individual.” 

Mr.  SEARS.  I call  for  a division  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tern.  The  question  will 
be  upon  striking  out  “ two.” 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to.  There  being 
on  division,  affirmative  six,  negative  not  counted. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tern.  The  question 
now  is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Meigs  [Mr.  Russell]  to  strike  out  “ personal 
property  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  $200  for 
each  individual.” 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I offer  the  following 
amendment  to  section  four  : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Insert  after  the  word  “public,”  in  the  second  line,  the 
words,  “and  other  free.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  for  the 
exemption  from  taxation  of  all  burial  grounds,  public 
and  other  free  school  houses,”  etc. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I desire  to  offer  a few  words 
in  explanation  of  the  motion  I have  made.  It 
is  a matter,  I suppose,  well  understood  by  al- 
i most  every  gentleman  of  the  Convention,  that 
! in  almost  every  city  in  the  State,  there  is  a sys- 
j tern  of  public  schools  running  parallel  with  the 
| State  schools,  that  are  educating  pretty  nearly 
one- half  of  the  children  attending  public 

■ schools  in  cities.  But  quite  recently,  it  will  be 
remembered,  it  was  the  subject  of  litigation  in 

■ the  Superior  Court  of  Cincinnati,  and  is  still 


Day.] EXEMPTION  FROM  TAXATION. 2091 

March  16, 1874.]  Carbery,  Tuttle,  Johnson,  Ewing,  Cunningham. 


undecided  in  the  Supreme  Court,  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  parochial  schools  of  this  city  shall  be 
defined  as  public  schools.  The  auditor  of  this 
county  having  put  that  property  on  the  dupli- 
cate, the  payment  of  the  tax  is  contested  by  a 
representative  of  these  schools  in  the  city,  and 
the  question  having  been  argued  here  it  is  now, 
I think,  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State. 
My  object  here  is  to  place  it  beyond  the  admis- 
sion of  a Court,  by  exempting  all  schools  that 
are  educating  the  children  of  the  people  with- 
out charge. 

I have  been  recently  looking  over  some  statis- 
tics here,  and  I find  that  in  our  own  city,  in  the 
report  which  I have  on  my  desk,  not  a very 
recent  one,  being  the  report  of  our  Cincinnati 
common  schools  for  1871  and  1872,  there  were 
then  in  daily  attendance  22,313  children  at  an 
estimated  cost  per  head  of  $24.37 ; and  if,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  cost  of  tuition,  we  add  interest  on  the 
ground,  and  buildings  erected  thereon,  the 
average  per  capita  cost  is  $29.37.  It  is  a fact 
that  15,000  children  are  attending  the  parochial 
schools  of  this  city;  and,  taking  the  same  rate, 
the  aggregate  cost  for  tuition  and  buildings  will 
be  $440,550 — nearly  half  a million  of  money. 
Add  this  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  public  schools 
of  this  city,  which  is  nearly  a million,  and  you 
will  have  a grand  total  of  nearly  a million  and 
a half.  Now,  sir,  if  the  children  attending 
those  parochial  schools  were  turned  out  on  the 
first  Monday  in  September,  it  would  cost  a sum 
approximating  five  hundred  thousand  dollars 
to  provide  them  with  free  school  houses,  and 
the  proper  number  of  teachers.  I hold,  there- 
fore, that  it  would  be  merely  an  act  of  justice, 
doing  the  very  work  on  which  the  State  imposes 
a tax;  namely,  giving  a good  moral  education 
to  every  15,000  children  in  this  city  alone,  and 
the  same  is  true,  measurably,  of  other  large 
cities  of  the  State ; that  they  should  be  placed 
on  this  free  list. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Who  has  the  selection  of  the 
the  teachers,  and  the  appointment  of  the  course 
of  study? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I have  reference  to  Cath- 
olic schools.  I thought  that  was  a matter  so 
generally  understood  that  there  would  be  no 
doubt  about  it.  I refer  to  the  Catholic  paro- 
chial schools  of  this  city.  I am  willing  to  in- 
clude other  religious  schools,  if  there  are  such. 
I am  not  advised  further  that  there  are  such ; 
but  I know  that  the  large  parochial  Catholic 
schools  of  this  city  are  free. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentleman  will  per- 
mit me,  I will  frankly  avow  that  my  purpose  of 
inquiry  was  to  call  attention  to  what,  I sup- 
posed, is  a very  broad  distinction,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  between  the  schools  which  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  speaks  of  and 
our  ordinary  schools. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I cannot  see  any  great  dis- 
tinction. Every  child  that  chooses  to  ask  for 
admission  into  these  schools  is  admitted  with- 
out  reference  to  his  religion  and  without  refer- 
ence to  any  course  of  training  in  any  religious 
doctrine  whatever.  And  I beg  leave  to  remind 
the  gentleman  that  the  same  thing  was  not  true 
of  any  of  the  public  schools  in  this  city  until 
recently.  The  very  feature  that  he  speaks  of  as 
being  objectionable  to  the  Catholic  system  ex- 
isted in  the  public  schools  of  this  city,  as  a 


fixed  feature,  for  a quarter  of  a century,  to  my 
own  knowledge.  It  was  made  obligatory  upon 
every  child  who  entered  the  doors  of  those 
schools  that  he  should  attend  a certain  form  of 
worship  for  fifteen  minutes  each  morning. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  inquire 
whether  that  was  not  a matter  enlirely  under 
the  control  of  the  Board  of  Instruction,  and  if 
that  Board  was  not  elected  by  the  electors  of  the 
school  districts? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  That  I cannot  answer. 
The  superior  court  of  this  city  decided  not. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  When  that  was  done,  was  it 
not  as  the  result  of  the  direction  for  the  Board 
of  Instruction  that  was  elected  by1  the  Board  of 
Directors  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  The  injunction  allowed  by 
the  superior  court  was  an  expression  of  the 
will  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of  this  city  as 
against  the  law  of  the  land,  as  it  has  been  lately 
interpreted.  The  suspension  of  bible  reading 
was  the  act  of  the  school  board,  and  the  superior 
court  of  this  city  granted  an  injunction  re- 
straining the  Board  of  Education  from  interfer- 
ing with  the  matter,  and  that  injunction  has 
been  dissolved  by  a decision  of  the  supreme 
court. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Do  I understand  my  col- 
league [Mr.  Carbery]  to  say  that  the  parochial 
schools  of  the  citj7-  are  bound  to  give  free  in- 
structions to  all  the  children  of  the  city  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Free  of  expense? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Entirely  free  of  expense. 
If  the  gentleman  has  one  hundred  children,  I 
guarantee  he  can  put  them  to  school  without 
any  expense.  It  is  a distinctive  feature  of  our 
organization ; the  most  liberal  in  the  world.  It 
embraces  everybody. 

Mr.  EWING.  I move  that  the  Convention 
adjourn. 

The  yeas  and  nays  being  called  for,  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  24,  nays  38,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Bishop,  Burns,  Carbery, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coates,  Ewing,  Greene,  Gurley, 
Jackson,  Kerr,  McBride,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mitch- 
iner,  Mullen,  Okey,  Page,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shultz,  Woodbury — 24. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Beer,  Bosworth, 
Byal,  Chapin,  Cook,  Cowan,  Cunningham, 
Godfrey,  Griswold,  Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Johnson,  McCormick,  McCauley, 
Mueller,  Neal,  Pease,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Rowland,  Shaw,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thomp- 
son, Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Watson,  Weaver,  White  of  Hocking — 38. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tern.  The  question  is 
upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Carbery.] 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  say  that  I 
support  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery].  I support  it  simply 
because  I,  as  an  individual  member  of  this 
Convention,  and  as  one  who  belongs  to  the  old 


2092 


EXEMPTION  FROM  TAXATION. 

Cunningham,  Gurley,  Pease,  Carbery,  Sears,  Scribner. 


puritanical  stock,  and  as  evidence  that  there  is 
no  feeling  of  animosity  in  this  Convention,  at 
least,  against  the  Old  Church,  in  the  interest  of 
which  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Car- 
bery], permit  me  to  say,  has  made  this  motion. 
The  gentleman  represents  that  class  of  citizens 
here,  who  insist  that  the  church  shall  educate 
the  children.  I say  this  for  another  reason, 
that  time  is  very  fast  approaching  when  there 
will  be  another  step  asked  on  the  part  of  this 
Convention,  which  I know  very  well  I shall  not 
he  able  to  take.  I hope,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
day  is  not  very  far  distant  when  there  will  be 
no  necessity,  in  the  opinion  of  anybody,  either 
real  or  imaginary,  for  any  other  than  the  secu- 
lar control  of  the  schools ; but  that  time  has  not 
yet  arrived.  It  is  claimed  by  a large  and  re- 
spectable portion  of  the  people  of  this  State  that 
the  church,  with  which  they  are  connected, 
ought  to  have  the  education  of  the  children, 
and,  hence,  they  have,  at  great  expense,  and 
great  pecuniary  sacrifice,  kept  up  their  schools. 

Now,  for  the  sake  of  the  education  that  is  in- 
volved in  this  proposition,  for  the  sake  of  the 
effort  that  is  being  made  to  educate  these  chil- 
dren, I am  willing  to  yield  the  matter  that  their 
school-houses  shall  not  be  taxed.  When  we 
come  to  the  broader  question,  which  we  will 
arrive  at  in  a very  short  time,  I shall  have  rea- 
sons why  I will  not  support  the  proposition 
which  my  friend  will  undoubtedly,  at  that  time, 
bring  forward,  but  this  boon  may  be  safely 
yielded,  and  I should  like  to  see  it  gracefully 
yielded.  As  an  indication  that  whatever  action 
this  Convention  may  take  upon  any  other  mat- 
ter, it  is  not  grounded  upon  any  adverse  feel- 
ing or  prejudice  that  a majority  of  our  people 
maintain,  or  hold  against  the  Old  Church. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I understood  the  gentleman 
to  say  that  he  expected  very  shortly  to  see  the 
time  when  this  matter  of  education  would  be 
entirely  taken  away  from  the  churches  and  left 
to  the  people. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Then,  why  place  in  the  Con- 
stitution a provision  that  keeps  them  entirely 
sectarian  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Nothing  of  the  sort. 
I simply  would  say  that  no  educational  institu- 
tion in  this  State,  that  is  founded  upon  the 
free  education  of  the  youth  ought  to  be  taxed. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I desire  to  say  a word  or  two 
for  what  I shall  feel  myself  compelled  to  do  on 
this  subject.  I represent  a constituency,  in 
part,  largely  interested  in  this  question.  When 
the  question  of  taxing  churches,  etc.,  was  up,  I 
would  have  been  glad  to  have  had  a different 
result  reached  on  that  vote.  I believe  it  would 
have  been  better  for  the  churches,  better  for  the 
people,  better  for  everybody  concerned,  if  all 
property  of  that  kind  were  placed  upon  the 
duplicate  to  be  taxed.  I should  question  some- 
what the  wisdom  of  excluding  any  school 
houses  also;  but  the  Convention  have  taken  a 
different  view,  and  I must  say  that  I feel  my- 
self brought  to  the  conclusion,  that  I have  ar- 
rived at,  with  a great  deal  of  reluctance.  We 
have,  in  our  county,  a great  many  schools  of 
the  kind  referred  to  by  my  friend  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Carbery].  I believe  they  are  doing 
good  service  there.  I believe  they  are  doing  a 
great  deal  of  good  in  the  education  of  the 


[139th 

[Monday, 


children.  They  are  free  schools,  but  I cannot 
shut  my  eyes  to  the  fact  that,  while  they  are  all 
this,  they  are  sectarian,  and  it  is  because  they 
are  sectarian  that  they  are  maintained  in  the 
interests  of  a separate  religion.  I say,  this  I 
regret.  I have  no  religious  bias.  My  religion 
is  broad  enough  to  include  all  the  religions  in 
the  country,  and  I do  not  look  upon  this  ques- 
tion with  any  such  eyes ; and  were  it  not  for 
the  fact  that  engrafting  such  a provision  in  the 
Constitution  would  seem  to  favor  the  idea  of 
sectarianism,  I would  most  heartily  vote  for  it. 
I feel  there  is  some  injustice  done  to  these 
schools,  but,  still,  I feel  that  a greater  injustice 
will  be  done  to  this  Constitution,  and  to  the 
people  of  the  State,  to  recognize  any  form  of 
religious  faith,  or  any  tenets  or  religious  creeds. 
It  is  for  that  reason  that  I shall  feel  myself 
compelled  to  vote,  at  all  times,  against  the  least 
innovation  upon  the  great  doctrine  of  our  Con- 
stitution, that  all  religions  shall  be  entirely 
free,  and  that  we  shall  not,  by  even  inadvert- 
ence or  indirection,  seem  to  favor  any  form  of 
religious  faith ; and  when  the  school  question 
is  before  us,  as  that  has  been  alluded  to,  these 
questions  will  again  have  to  be  passed  upon ; 
but,  for  the  time  being,  I shall  be  compelled  to 
vote  against  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I would  ask  what  is  the 
objection  of  leaving  this  matter  to  the  Legisla- 
ture. The  Legislature  represent  the  people  of 
the  State — the  law-making  power  of  the  State; 
why  not  leave  the  Legislature  free  as  has  been 
asked  here  with  reference  to  a great  many  other 
propositions.  Why  not  leave  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  of  Ohio  free  to  say  whether  they  will, 
or  will  not? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I have  no  douv  t they  might 
have  done  so  under  the  present  Constitution. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Why  leave  it  in  any  such 
way  as  that  there  shall  be  any  doubt  about  it? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I prefer  to  leave  it  to  the  Leg- 
islature in  doubt. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I shall  vote  for  this  amend- 
I ment.  The  Convention,  with  my  concurrence 
and  approbation,  has  with  a great  deal  of  una- 
1 nimity  voted  to  give  the  Legislature  power  to 
exempt  houses  of  public  worship,  without  un- 
dertaking to  designate  or  dictate  the  kind  of 
worship  to  which  these  houses  shall  be  appropri- 
ated, whether  it  shall  be  the  worship  of  the 
Christian  God  or  of  the  Heathen  Gods,  whether 
it  shall  be  a Mahommedan  Temple  or  a Chinese 
Joss  House,  and  I think  gentlemen  are  very 
squeamish  if  they  now  object  to  extending  the 
same  exemption  to  Catholic  schools  upon  the 
ground  that  there  may  be  something  sectarian 
taught  in  them.  It  is  the  policy  of  the  land 
and  the  policy  of  our  Constitution  to  support 
both  education  and  religion,  and  we  have  no 
right  to  prescribe  the  kind  of  religion  that  shall 
be  cultivated  and  protected.  Schools  were 
originally  instituted  for  religious  instruction. 
I shall  support  this  amendment  upon  principle, 
because  I believe  it  to  be  right. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I shall  also  support  this 
amendment,  and  I do  it  because  I believe  it  to 
be  an  act  of  simple  justice.  I do  not  care  what 
the  form  or  creed  of  the  organization  that  will 
open  the  schools  to  teach  the  children  without 
i expense  to  them  or  to  the  public.  I say  it  is  no 


EXEMPTION  FROM  TAXATION. 

Scribner,  Jackson,  Cowen,  Ewing,  Bishop. 


2093 


Day.] 

March  16,  1874.] 


more  than  right  that  the  grounds  or  buildings 
that  are  devoted  to  the  educational  purpose,  of- 
fered to  the  public,  should  be  exempted  from 
the  burden  of  taxation. 

Mr.  JACKSON.  Gentlemen  will  recol- 
lect in  voting  on  this  proposition  that  these 
schools  are  offered  free  to  the  public,  and  are 
created  and  sustained  by  no  public  charge. 
They  are  matters  of  the  private  charity  of  those 
that  contribute  the  funds  to  build  them.  They 
are  matters  in  which  contributions  are  volun- 
tary ; there  is  no  compulsion  placed  on  the  citi- 
zen, no  legal  compulsion  on  any  person  to  build 
them.  They  are  conducted,  to  a very  great  ex- 
tent, by  persons  without  compensation,  persons 
whose  whole  lives  are  devoted  to  that  object, 
and  expect  nothing  in  return  in  the  way  of 
money.  They  are  built  without  expense  to  the 
State,  they  are  very  commonly  taught  by  those 
persons  devoting  their  lives  to  that  object,  re- 
ceiving no  compensation,  no  pay  for  it.  Say 
that  they  are  sectarian,  say  that  they  belong  to 
some  institution  or  organization  of  public  wor- 
ship; after  all  they  are  given  in  charity,  they 
are  conducted  in  charity,  and  it  would  be,  to 
say  the  least,  unjust  to  tax  the  charities  so  given. 
True,  another  section  will  follow  this,  and  on 
that  I shall  differ  with  the  member  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Carbery].  I shall  not  give  my  vote 
for  it  nor  for  any  other  proposition  to  permit 
sectarian  division  of  the  school  fund. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Is  the  gentleman  correct  in 
what  I understand  his  statement  to  be  as  to  the 
mode  in  which  these  free  schools  are  organ- 
ized ? If  they  are  they  are  included  in  the  class 
that  is  given  in  this  section,  the  language  of 
which  is  “institutions  of  purely  public  char- 
ity.” 

Mr.  JACKSON.  It  would  be  my  opinion 
about  it  that  they  would  be  included.  Still,  a 
doubt  has  been  raised  about  it,  and  I would  like 
to  see  it  placed  beyond  a doubt.  This  proposi- 
tion is  not  for  the  benefit  of  any  one  church 
entirely.  It  is  to  relieve  from  taxation  any 
school  house,  open  and  free  to  the  general  pub- 
lic, where  all  are  welcomed  without  charge  and 
without  money.  When  it  comes  to  the  ques- 
tion of  devoting  public  funds  of  the  State  to  be 
raised  by  taxation  for  school  purposes  to  the 


control  of  any  church,  or  so  that  any  part  of 
such  funds  may  be  under  the  control  of-any  de- 
nomination in  this  State,  1 shall  differ  widely 
from  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Car- 
bery]. Under  no  circumstance  would  I vote 
for  such  division.  But  these  schools  to  be 
reached  by  the  pending  amendment  are  created 
by  public  charity,  and,  to  say  the  least  of  them, 
dedicated  to  the  public  good.  I say  that  they 
ought  to  escape  taxation.  By  relieving  the 
State  from  the  expense  of  building  school 
houses  sufficient  to  accommodate  the  children 
now  taught  in  them,  they  every  year  save  the 
State  ten  times  the  amount  of  the  taxes  that 
would  be  raised  by  assessments  against  them. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  24,  nays  39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Beer,  Burns,  Byal,  Car- 
bery, Chapin,  Clarke  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cunning- 
ham, Ewing,  Godfrey,  Jackson,  Merrill,  Miner, 
Mullen,  Okey,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Scribner, 
Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Tulloss,  Weaver,  White  of 
Hocking — 24. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bishop,  Bosworth, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hitch- 
cock, Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
McCormick,  McCauley,  Mitchener,  Mueller, 
Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Row- 
land, Sample,  Smith  of  Highland,  Thompson, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Yoor- 
his,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Watson,  West, 
Woodbury — 39. 

So  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Carbery 
was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  EWING.  I wish  to  give  notice  of  a res- 
olution. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Resolved,  That  Rule  No.  17  be  amended  by  adding  the 
following  at  the  end  of  the  first  sentence: 

“But  any  members  may  vote  at  any  time  before  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  result.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Under  the  rules  the  res- 
olution will  lie  over  one  day. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  the  Convention  ad- 
journ. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  6 o’clock  p.  m.)  adjourned. 


2094 


PETITIONS  AND  PROPOSITIONS. [140th 

Richly,  Hitchcock,  McCauley,  Woodbury,  Root,  West,  Beer,  Burns.  [Tuesday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FORTIETH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

SEVENTY-EIGHTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF  PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Thomas  Lee,  of  the  Cincin- 
nati Union  Bethel. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  seventy-five  members 
answered  to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Thompson  for  to-day;  for  Messrs.  Towns- 
ley  and  Wilson  until  Friday  next;  for  Mr. 
Ewing  during  the  remainder  of  the  week,  and 
for  Mr.  Watson  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  RICKLY  presented  the  petition  of  L. 
Hoster,  J.  E.  Slyh,  and  992  other  citizens  of 
Franklin  county,  asking  fora  stringent  license 
law  for  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK  presented  the  petition  of 
O.  C.  Smith,  F.  D.  Williams,  and  35  other  citi- 
zens of  Parkman,  Geauga  county,  asking  such 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  as  will  bring  all 
church  property  upon  the  duplicate  for  taxa- 
tion. 

Which  was  laid  upon  the  table  to  be  consid- 
ered in  connection  with  Proposition  No.  204. 

Mr.  McCAULEY  presented  the  remonstrance 
of  N.  I.  Brosius,  and  seventy-nine  other  citizens 
of  Seneca  conuty,  against  incorporating  any 
religions  and  beliefs  into  the  Constitution  of 
the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  WOODBURY  presented  the  petition  of 
J.  J.  Freeman,  and  thirty-three  other  citizens 
of  Ashtabula  county,  and  of  W.  S.  Freeman,  and 
fifteen  other  citizens  of  Ashtabula  county,  and  of 
William  J.  Easter,  and  twenty-eight  other  cit- 
izens of  Ashtabula  county,  praying  that  the  fol- 
lowing clause  be  inserted  in  the  Constitution : 
“No  license  shall  hereafter  be  granted  to  traffic  in 
intoxicating  liquors  in  this  State,  but  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  may  have  power  to  legislate 
against  and  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  all  intoxicating  beverages.” 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  ROOT  presented  the  petition  of  J.  F. 
Mack,  and  one  hundred  and  forty-nine  other 
citizens  of  Erie  county,  praying  that  the  Legis- 


Tuesday,  March  17,  1874. 

lature  be  authorized  to  provide  for  a well  regu- 
lated license  system  for  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Commitee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  PROPOSITIONS. 

The  following  Propositions  were  introduced 
and  read  the  first  time : 

Proposition  No.  226— By  Mr.  West: 

When  the  other  amendments  to  the  Constitution  are 
submitted  to  the  electors,  the  following  shall  be  separ- 
ately submitted  for  ratification  or  rejection,  in  the  same 
manner  that  other  amendments  may  be  separately  sub- 
mitted, which,  when  ratified,  shall  supersede  and  stand 
in  lieu  of  Article  XV  of  the  Constitution,  to  wit: 

TEMPERANCE. 

Section  1.  Except  in  compliance  with,  and  upon  the 
terms  and  conditions  presented  by  law,  no  person  shall 
traffic  in,  or  sell,  intoxicating  liquors  within  this  State. 

Sec.  2.  Laws  shall  be  passed  to  prevent  the  evils,  and 
compensate  the  injuries  resulting  from  the  sale  or  fur- 
nishing of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  from  the  intoxica- 
tion consequent  thereon. 

Sec.  3.  County  Commissioners,  Township  trustees  and 
Municipal  authorities,  shall  have  power  severally  to  re- 
strict or  prohibit  the  traffic  in,  and  sale  of,  intoxicating 
liquors  within  their  respective  jurisdiction,  and  to  im- 
pose thereon  terms  and  conditions  other  than  and  in  ad- 
dition to  those  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  4.  Nothing  in  this  Constitution  shall  be  construed 
as  denying  to  the  General  Assembly  the  power  to  restrict 
or  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors,  or  to  regulate  the  same  in  any  manner  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  provisions  of  this  Article. 

Propostion  No.  227— By  Mr.  Beer: 

An  additional  section  to  Article  IV. 

Sec.  — . At  any  time  after  the  expiration  of  five  years 
from  the  date  of  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  the 
General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  for  the  abolition 
of  the  Circuit  and  Probate  Courts,  or  either  of  them,  and 
for  the  transfer  of  the  causes  and  records  therein  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  or  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  and  may  pro- 
vide f^r  the  election  of  one  or  more  Common  Pleas 
Judges  in  each  county  in  this  State;  and  it  may  at  any 
time  put  an  end  to  the  Probate  Court  in  any  counties  com- 
posing a Common  Pleas  district,  and  provide  for  the 
transfer  of  the  causes  and  records  therein  to  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas,  and  for  the  election  of  one  or  more  Com- 
mon Pleas  Judges  in  each  of  the  counties  composing 
such  district. 

BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I desire  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly] 
to  this  Article.  It  is  probably  owing  to  my 
want  of  apprehension,  but  I would  like  to  un- 
derstand a little  better  than  I do  the  meaning 
of  section  19 : “ Private  property  shall  ever  be 
held  inviolate,  but  subservient  to  the  public 
welfare,”  etc.  “ When  taken  in  time  of  war,  or 
other  public  exigency,  imperatively  requiring 
its  immediate  seizure,  or  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing and  repairing  roads,  which  shall  be  open  to 
the  public  without  charge,”  then  comes  in, 
“ other  than  streets  and  highways  in  cities  and 


Day.] 

March  17,  1874.] 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

Burns,  Hoadly,  Johnson,  Watson,  Beer,  etc. 


2095 


incorporated  villages,  a compensation  shall  be 
made  to  the  owner  in  money ; and  in  all  other 
cases,”  etc.  Now,  I want  to  inquire  into  this : 
whether  the  words  “in  all  other  cases”  reaches 
back  and  includes  “streets  and  highways,”  or 
whether  they  may  not  be  excepted  “ under  all 
other  cases  ?” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Undoubtedly  it  does. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I am  in  doubt  whether  that 
class  is  not  left  out  in  the  cold,  and  not  in- 
cluded in  any  other  provision. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all ; that  is  not  the 
force  of  the  sentence.  In  the  first  place  comes 
the  general  provision  that  private  property 
shall  not  be  taken  without  compensation  in 
money.  That  covers  all  cases.  The  rest  of  the 
section  is  involved  with  the  consideration  as  to 
the  time  when  the  payment  shall  be  made; 
first,  as  to  streets  and  highways,  which  shall 
be  open  to  the  public  without  charge,  except  in 
the  case  of  streets  and  highways  in  cities  and 
incorporated  villages,  compensation  need  not 
be  first  made,  but  in  all  other  cases  it  must  be 
first  made.  As  a matter  of  course,  you  take 
the  three  clauses  of  the  section  together.  The 
first  covers  all  cases — compensation  must  be 
made  in  all  cases.  The  second  covers  the  limit 
of  the  class  of  cases — roads,  which  shall  be 
open  to  the  public  without  charge,  other  than 
streets  and  highways  in  cities  and  incorporated 
villages;  and  then  the  third,  which  is  a general 
clause,  provides  that  compensation  must  be 
made  where  it  relates  to  all  other  cases  except 
the  first  class.  That  is  my  understanding  of 
the  meaning  of  the  clause,  and  I think  that  the 
grammatical  construction  of  it  will  bear  that 
out.  if  there  is  any  ambiguity  about  it,  as 
was  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Mueller],  and  as  is  now  suggested 
by  the  gentleman  from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns], 
I desire  that  it  may  be  corrected.  Nobody 
wants  the  streets  and  highways  in  cities  left 
out.  My  object  is  to  do  just  the  opposite — that 
is,  to  force  the  cities  and  corporations  to  pay 
for  their  streets  and  highways  before  they  take 
the  land. 

Mr.  BURNS.  My  fear  is  just  as  I undertook 
to  express  it,  that  this  latter  clause  does  not 
reach  back  and  include  streets  and  highways, 
still  I leave  it  to  those  who  are  better  qualified 
to  put  the  language  in  the  proper  form. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  my  friend  from  Richland 
[Mr.  Burns]  will  permit  me,  I will  suggest  that 
the  whole  difficulty  would  be  relieved  and  re- 
moved by  throwing  the  clause,  “ other  than 
streets  and  highways  in  cities  and  incorporated 
villages”  into  a parenthesis.  Then  nobody 
would  be  in  any  doubt  about  it,  at  least  I 
think  so. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  If  my  colleague  will  allow 
me  a question — 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Suppose  a case  where  a 
part  of  a road  is  washed  away,  where  the  road 
is  located  on  the  bank  of  a river  and  a small 
portion  is  washed  away,  and  you  have  to  apply 
for  a small  additional  strip  of  land  to  be  appro- 
priated ; in  case  that  was  done  by  your  report 
here,  would  the  owner  of  the  land  be  entitled 
to  pay  before  the  public  had  taken  possession 
of  the  road  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY".  That  would  be  left  entirely 


to  the  Legislature ; but  if  in  a city  he  would 
be  entitled  to  be  paid  first.  Under  the  present 
Constitution  it  is  left  to  the  Legislature  whether 
he  should  first  be  paid  or  not.  If  my  colleague 
will  permit  me,  I will  say  that  I am  not  respon- 
sible for  anything  but  the  attempt  to  prevent 
this  language  in  section  19  from  including 
streets  and  highways  in  cities.  The  present 
Constitution,  which  the  Committee  have  not 
thought  best  to  change,  provides  that  compen- 
sation need  not  be  made  in  advance  for  free 
roads.  The  phrase  “county  and  township 
roads  that  are  to  be  traveled  without  paying 
toll”  will  answer  the  same  purpose  in  the  new 
Constitution,  but  my  object  is  to  prevent  this 
from  being  extended  to  streets  in  cities.  This 
rule  of  section  19  ought  not  to  apply  in  cities, 
and  should  not  be  made  so  to  apply  by  the  ac- 
cidental fact  that  we  shall  change  the  Article  on 
corporations.  This  change  operates  so  that  the 
clause  will  only  apply  to  private  corporations, 
instead  of  to  both  private  and  municipal  cor- 
porations, as  in  the  present  Constitution,  and 
this  requires  the  change  I now  propose. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Mv  understanding  is  that 
streets  and  highways  in  cities  are  included  in 
the  last  clause  but  not  in  the  others. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  it  exactly. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I understand  that  to  be  the  ob- 
ject, but  I did  not  know  whether  it  could  be  at- 
tained under  the  wording. 

Mr.  W ATSON.  I think  it  is  attained  if  it  is 
likely  to  be. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  say  that  objection 
was  suggested  by  Lieut.  Gov.  Mueller,  and 
after  some  study  and  investigation  I did  not  see 
that  it  was  ground  enough  to  found  reasonable 
argument  upon.  It  went  to  the  Committee,  and 
they  have  not  changed  the  language,  and  this, 
I suppose,  sufficiently  indicates  that  they  con- 
sidered it  as  fully  accomplishing  the  object. 

Mr.  BEER,  i move  to  refer  it  to  a select 
committee  of  one,  with  instructions  to  amend  the 
section  by  adding  thereto  the  following: 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary: 

Mr.  Beer  moves  to  amend  section  — by  adding  thereto 
the  following: 

“When  real  estate  shall  be  taken  for  public  and  com- 
mon use,  no  part  of  the  compensation  therefor  shall  be 
assessed  upon  the  owner  thereof.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I hope  this  will  not  be 
agreed  to,  Mr.  President.  It  is  the  same  six- 
pence that  we  have  refused  twice.  I think  that 
if  our  friends  in  the  northwest  want  their  ditch- 
ing system  broken  up  they  will  have  a splendid 
opportunity  for  doing  it  now. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I hope  it  will  be  agreed  to.  It 
is  the  same  clause  that  I attempted  to  have  in- 
corporated, and  I hope  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  will  be  more  successful. 

Mr.  BEER.  I hope  it  will. 

Mr.  POWELL.  As  others  are  expressing 
their  wishes  upon  the  subject,  permit  me  to  say 
that  I hope  it  will  not. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  of  little  consequence  as  far 
as  it  regards  ditches,  because  the  land  appro- 
priated for  ditches  does  not  amount  to  a far- 
thing. It  is  a mere  bagatelle. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  but  the  speech 
I made  would  exclude  my  making  any  remarks 


2096 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 


[140th 

[Tuesday, 


Tuttle,  Townsend,  Powell,  Burns. 


at  all,  but  with  the  permission  of  the  Conven- 
tion, I would  like  to  say  that  I think  this  Con- 
stitution ought  to  be  consistent  with  itself.  We 
have  with  labor,  ex  industria , inserted  a pro- 
vision in  this  Constitution  to  insure  to  the 
owners  of  private  property  taken  for  public 
uses,  compensation.  It  shall  be  compensation 
without  deduction  for  benefits.  It  shall  be  com- 
pensation assessed,  when  either  party  requires 
it,  by  a jury  of  twelve  men,  with  solemnity, 
with  care,  and  with  all  the  precautions  that  are 
calculated  to  insure  to  the  party  a just  compen- 
sation for  his  property,  taken  at  the  instance  of 
the  public,  because  the  public  are  supposed  to 
need  it  so  much  that  they  can  afford  to  pay  for 
it;  because,  if  they  do  not  need  it  that  much 
they  have  nothing  better  to  do  than  to  let  it 
alone,  and  leave  it  where  it  will  do  the  owner 
as  much  good  as  it  is  worth. 

Now,  everybody  knows,  or  ought  to,  that  to 
take  a man’s  property  for  the  purpose  of  a 
street,  which  is  to  benefit,  perhaps,  nobody 
else,  or,  perhaps,  two  or  three,  or  half  a dozen 
beside  him,  and  to  profess  to  award  the  owner 
a compensation,  and  then  to  go  to  work  and 
assess  a tax  for  the  purpose  of  paying  that  com- 
pensation upon  that  very  land  that  is  to  be  paid 
for,  is  wrong,  and  I say  that  the  Constitution 
that  has  in  it  this  provision,  or  is  susceptible  of 
a construction  which  would  accomplish  that 
end,  is  but  a constant  and  perpetual  lie.  It  is 
nothing  else.  Nobody  but  must  say  so  as  soon 
as  he  looks  at  it  as  it  is.  It  is  no  compensation. 
The  land  is  taken  and  the  remainder  is  then 
assessed  for  the  full  value  of  what  is  taken,  and 
the  owner  of  that  land  is  made  to  pay  that.  It 
is  no  compensation  at  all. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  If  the  gentleman  will  al- 
low, I would  like  to  ask  him  if  this  Constitu- 
tion, as  now  framed,  says  that  the  owner  shall 
be  assessed  for  the  damages  ? Is  it  not  silent 
upon  that  subject,  and  does  it  not  leave  the 
whole  question  to  the  Legislature  to  determine 
as  best  they  may  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir;  it  leaves  the  whole 
subject  to  the  Legislature,  and  that  is  why  I say 
that  it  is  a living  lie : because,  in  other  parts  of 
it,  it  proposes  to  take  away  from  the  Legisla- 
ture the  power  to  take  land  without  compensa- 
tion, and  yet,  with  this  construction,  which  is 
nowhere  to  be  found  in  words  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, it  gives  to  the  Legislature  power  to  take 
it  only  with  compensation.  Therefore,  I say 
the  Constitution  is  inconsistent  with  itself. 
The  Constitution  purports  to  do  one  thing,  and 
silently  does  another  that  is  entirely  opposed  to 
it.  Therefore,  Mr.  President,  I feel  that  the 
proposed  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  ought  to  prevail. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I am  sorry,  Mr.  President, 
that  this  subject  that  has  been  twice  investigated 
before  this  Convention  and  twice  put  down,  is 
brought  up  here  again  for  the  third  time. 
Now,  the  great  difficulty  that  this  provision,  if 
adopted,  will  exercise  over  the  transaction  of 
business  of  this  kind  is  the  construction  that 
will  be  put  upon  it.  When  private  property  is 
taken  for  public  use  we  understand  that  it  must 
be  paid  for,  and  that  you,  in  so  doing,  are  not 
taking  into  consideration  the  advantages  and 
benefits  that  he  has  in  common  with  every- 
body else,  and  that  is  right;  but  when  the  land 


is  thus  taken  and  paid  for,  the  owner  is  upon  a 
par  with  all  the  rest  of  his  neighbors.  Then 
comes  in  the  question,  when  the  land  for  the 
street  is  thus  taken  and  paid  for,  whether  that 
street  should  be  taken,  paid  for  and  improved 
for  his  benefit  without  his  paying  anything  at 
all  in  common  with  others  who  are  benefited 
by  the  improvement,  but  all  at  the  expense  of 
his  neighbors.  That  is  the  question,  and  is  ex- 
actly what  the  friends  of  this  amendment  have, 
over  and  over  again,  contended  for.  It  is  that 
you  shall  not  go  back  to  the  owner  of  the  land 
for  his  share  of  the  cost  of  the  land  and  the  im- 
proving of  it,  and  by  which  he,  himself,  has 
been  benefited. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I wish  to  correct  the  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  as  I under- 
stand him  to  argue  now.  At  least  one  of  the 
friends  of  this  amendment  has  not  argued  any 
such  thing.  We  have  simply  argued  that  he 
shall  not  be  taxed  back  again— or  assessed  is 
the  word  used — that  he  shall  not  be  assessed 
for  the  land  taken,  but  for  making  the  im- 
provements he  shall  bear  his  proportion  equally 
with  others. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Whether  he  shall  be  assessed 
for  his  share  of  the  land  taken,  as  well  as  for  the 
making  of  the  road,  depends  upon  the  manner 
in  which  the  public  there  interested  are  disposed 
to  put  it.  If  they  put  in  the  cost  of  the  land  as 
well  as  the  making  of  the  road,  it  is  right  that 
the  man  should  pay  his  share  of  it.  If  they 
only  put  in  the  cost  of  making  the  road,  he  has 
only  to  bear  his  proportion  of  that.  Why, 
there  are  members  here,  though  the  gentleman 
from  Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  may  not  so  contend, 
who  claim  that  he  should  pay  nothing.  I have 
heard  individuals  here  contend  that  where  the 
public  takes  stone  and  gravel  out  of  adjoining 
lands  and  puts  it  upon  the  roads,  and  pays  for  it, 
the  full  value  of  it,  that  you  must  not  go  back 
and  make  the  owner  of  that  pay  his  proportion. 
Why,  it  is  a perfect  outrage  when  you  look  into 
it.  Well,  now,  if  the  land  is  taken  and  paid  for, 
that  is  an  end  of  it,  and  if  the  public  go  on  and 
improve  it,  they  may  say  that  the  value  of  the 
land  as  well  as  the  cost  of  improving  shall  be 
put  together,  or  they  may  take  the  cost  of  im- 
proving without  the  value  of  the  land.  If  the 
cost  of  the  land  is  not  added,  then  that  cost 
must  be  paid  by  the  public  generally,  who  may 
not  be  interested,  but  if  added,  then  it  is  paid 
ior  pro  rata,  by  those  interested,  in  proportion 
to  the  amount  each  is  benefited,  and  no  more. 
It  is  immaterial  which  it  is,  the  man  whose  land 
is  taken,  and  received  his  pay,  should  be  put 
upon  the  same  standing  as  to  the  residue  of  his 
property  which  he  retains  as  the  rest  of  his  fel- 
low citizens.  When  they  have  done  this  they 
spread  out  the  whole  cost  on  everybody’s  land 
wno  has  been,  or  will  be,  benefited  by  it,  and  if 
the  owner’s  land  is  benefited  as  well  as  that  of 
others,  it  is  his  duty  to  pay  his  share  of  it.  That 
is  perfectly  plain.  Now,  how  far  will  it  spread  ? 
He  will  have  to  pay  a very  small  proportion  of 
it;  as  it  is  spread  over  every  man’s  land  who  is 
benefited  by  it,  and  why  should  he  not  come  in 
in  common  with  them  ? Certainly  he  should. 

Now,  take  a piece  of  land  where  there  is  a 
line  dividing  two  men’s  property.  A road  goes 
through,  and  you  put  the  road  all  on  one  side 
of  that  line.  You  pay  for  that  land  which  is 


Day.  | 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

Powell,  Tuttle,  Pratt,  Coats,  Gurley. 


2097 


March  17, 1874.] 


thus  taken,  but  you  shall  not  take  into  contem- 
plation the  advantages  that  he  may  derive  from 
the  making  of  the  road,  but  he  is  paid.  Now, 
you  go  to  work  and  improve  the  value  of  that 
land  by  the  improvement  of  the  street.  On  the 
one  side  there  is  no  land  taken  or  paid  for. 
When  the  road  is  opened  the  land  on  each  side 
is  equally  benefited,  but  it  is  put  in  such  a way 
that  the  man  whose  land  is  not  taken  shall 
pay  all  of  the  expenses;  and  the  man  whose 
land  is  taken  to  a small  extent  shall  not  pay  his 
proportion  of  the  benefit  he  derives  from  the 
improvement  on  the  residue  of  his  land.  Shall 
he  go  free  and  the  other  person  make  the  road 
for  him,  and  he  pay  nothing  for  his  share  of  the 
benefits  he  receives?  That  is  the  sequence  of 
it.  I think  it  is  not  only  right  that  the  cost  of 
the  land,  but  the  cost  of  the  improvement  you 
make,  should  be  put  together,  and  then  spread 
all  around  and  assessed  in  proportion  to  the  ad- 
vantage that  every  individual  shall  derive  from 
it ; and  the  man  who  owned  this  land  taken,  and 
paid  for,  ought  to  pay  the  same  as  others  in  pro- 
portion to  the  benefit  he  receives  on  the  land 
retained.  But  I have  seen  attempts  on  the  part 
of  individuals  who  are  thus  benefited  to  the  ex- 
tent of  thousands,  to  get  clear  from  paying  any 
portion,  under  a pretended  construction  of  the 
law  now  under  consideration. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Delaware  allow  me  a question  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Does  he  understand  that  this 
provision  would  prevent  this  property  from 
being  entered  upon  the  duplicate  and  assessed  in 
connection  with  other  property  to  pay  the  cost 
of  making  the  improvement? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  contend  that  it 
ought  not,  but  there  are  plenty  here  who  con- 
tend that  that  is  the  purpose  for  which  it  is 
put  in. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  say  that  I think  it 
clearly  does  not. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  are  a plenty  of  law- 
yers in  this  Convention,  and  outside  of  it,  who 
contend  that  it  does  so,  and  that  the  man  whose 
land  is  thus  taken  shall  not  pay  his  proportion 
of  the  cost. 

Mr.  PRATT.  While  the  gentleman  from 
Trumbull  is  on  the  floor,  will  he  permit  me  an 
inquiry  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Does  he  pretend  to  say  that  it 
could  be  placed  on  the  duplicate  for  assessment, 
under  the  rule  that  is  proposed  to  be  injected 
here  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Not  for  assessment,  but  for 
taxation,  so  that  the  owner  of  the  land  taken 
should  pay  his  equal  share  with  all  other  per- 
sons, and  no  more. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  only  way  that  this  can 
be  done  is  by  assessment,  and  not  by  taxation. 

Mr.  COATS.  I desire  to  say  a few  words  by 
way  of  illustrating  the  principle  involved  in 
the  proposed  amendment,  and  I think  I can 
give  a plain,  practical  illustration  that  came 
under  my  observation : In  my  town,  in  and 

adjoining  the  corporate  limits  of  the  same,  a 
man  was  the  owner  of  about  fifteen  acres  of 
land,  to  which  no  convenient  road  or  street 
had  been  opened.  In  process  of  time— a very 
short  time  after  he  became  the  owner  thereof — 

y.  n-134 


it  became  necessary  that  a road  should  be  con- 
structed, and  improved  by  grading  and  gravel- 
ing. That  road  would  pass  along  the  line  of 
that  fifteen  acres  of  land,  taking  olf,  perhaps,  a 
quarter  of  an  acre,  which  was  detached  from 
the  land,  separating  it  from  the  balance  thereof, 
and  taking  the  entire  road  or  street  from  off 
one  side  thereof.  The  effect  of  making  this  im- 
provement was  to  more  than  quadruple  in  value 
what  had  been  to  him  the  original  cost,  or  the 
then  value  of  that  land.  Under  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  State,  he  was  allowed,  by  an  ap- 
praisement, $190 — if  I remember  rightly  this 
was  the  sum  allowed  for  taking  off  that  amount 
of  ground,  including  the  damage  for  the  small 
piece  detached  therefrom. 

Mr,  POWELL.  How  much? 

Mr.  COATS.  It  took  off  about  one-quarter 
of  an  acre,  which  was  detached,  and  which 
he  sold  at  a considerable  advance  on  the  origi- 
nal cost,  to  square  up  another  man’s  line  on  the 
opposite  side  of  the  road,  and  the  amount  of  the 
assessment  so  made  for  the  land  taken  was 
double  what  it  cost  him  a year  or  so  before. 
The  effect  of  making  that  road  was  also  to  give 
him  easy  access  to  his  land  by  a beautiful 
graveled  way,  and  to  give  him  several  very 
valuable  and  desirable  building  lots,  whereby 
the  value  of  this  entire  tract  of  land  was  more 
than  quadrupled.  He  received  $190,  as  I have 
before  said,  for  having  this  good  done  for  him, 
and  was  taxed,  perhaps,  less  than  that  amount 
by  the  assessments  made  on  him  for  making 
this  improvement.  His  lands  were  assessed 
equally  with  those  of  others  immediately  along 
the  line  of  the  road  to  pay  the  expense  of  mak- 
ing that  improvement. 

Mr.  POWELL.  All  the  expense  ? 

Mr.  COATS.  The  expense  of  making  the 
improvement  referred  to,  after  the  land  had 
been  taken  and  paid  for,  is  what  I am  stating  in 
this  connection.  This  left  him  the  improve- 
ment as  a clear  gain— left  him  really  nothing  to 
pay,  except  the  land  so  taken,  or,  perhaps,  less 
than  the  land  taken  to  make  the  road  or  street 
as  it  really  was.  He  could  have  given  or  do- 
nated the  land,  and  paid  his  assessment  for  the 
improvement,  and  then  been  more  largely  the 
gainer  than  others  who  paid  taxes  and  assess- 
ments therefor.  Now,  in  my  judgment,  the 
effect  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  will  be  to  give  to  all  men 
similarly  situated  still  greater  advantages  than 
those  gained  by  and  in  the  instance  I have 
given.  If  it  will  not  have  that  effect  I might 
support  it,  if  I could  see  that  it  has  merit,  but 
I see  no  necessity  for  its  adoption.  I think  the 
Constitution  as  it  is  sufficiently  guards  and  pro- 
tects the  rights  of  men  whose  property  is  taken 
for  public  use,  and  if  the  proposed  amendment 
leads,  as  I think  it  will,  to  results  such  as  I 
have  indicated,  and  even  to  intensify  such 
results,  then,  I say,  most  clearly,  we  do 
not  want  it,  nor  is  it  needed  for  the  protection 
of  land-owners  further  than  they  are  now  pro- 
tected. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman a question.  In  laying  out  a railroad 
through  a man’s  land,  does  it  not  very  fre- 
quently largely  enhance  its  value,  sometimes 
doubling,  trebling  or  quadrupling  it?  And 
still  no  deduction  is  made  on  that  account. 


2098 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

Coats,  Townsend,  Powell,  Pratt,  Cunningham. 


[140th 

[Tuesday, 


Why  not  apply  it  to  that? 

Mr.  COATS.  In  answer  to  the  interrogatory 
put  by  the  gentleman  from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gur- 
lev],  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  construction 
of  a railroad  through  a farm  will,  in  very  many 
cases,  have  the  effect  to  greatly  enhance  its 
value,  and  frequently  to  the  extent  indicated 
by  him  in  his  inquiry;  yet  his  inquiry  is  not 
directed  to  a case  parallel  to  the  matter  now 
under  consideration,  which  has  special  refer- 
ence to  the  construction  of  public  roads  and 
streets,  which  are,  in  their  nature  and  use, 
public  highways.  The  inquiry,  not  being  ger- 
main  to  the  subject  now  under  consideration, 
needs  no  further  answer. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I do  not  understand  why 
certain  gentlemen  in  this  Convention  seem  to 
bring  this  question  of  subjecting  all  property  to 
taxation  for  local  special  improvements  up  in  all 
its  various  forms,  when  upon  all  occasions  we 
have  voted  it  down,  at  least  four  times  in  this 
Convention,  and  yet  time  must  be  taken  up  in 
trifling  with  this  proposition.  I do  not  see  why 
gentlemen  should  be  so  anxious  to  tax  the 
property  of  poor  men,  of  mechanics,  merchants 
and  manufacturers,  in  towns  and  cities,  for  the 
purpose  of  compensating  millionaires  and  other 
rich  men  for  property  for  which  they  have  al- 
ready been  paid,  for  that  is  the  effect  of  it,  pre- 
cisely. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Exactly  so. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  A street  is  laid  out  along 
the  line  of  their  property,  the  value  of  the 
property  appropriated  is  ascertained  by  twelve 
men,  and  the  owner  is  allowed  full  compensa- 
tion without  reference  at  all  to  the  advantage 
that  the  property  will  receive.  That  is  the 
constitutional  law.  Now,  when  that  is  done, 
why  does  he  not  stand  in  the  same  relation  as 
other  men  who  bear  their  full  share  of  the  ex- 
pense in  case  his  property  is  benefited  ? If  it  is 
not,  then  he  should  not.  But  this  amendment 
seeks  to  place  upon  the  general  duplicate,  and 
to  tax  the  general  fund  of  the  city  for  this  large 
amount  of  money.  What  is  the  effect  of  that? 
It  taxes  the  personal  property,  it  taxes  all  the 
manufacturing  interests,  it  taxes  the  poor  man, 
who,  perhaps,  has  $1,000  invested  in  a manufac- 
turing establishment  where  he  has  two  or  three 
hands  in  his  employ.  His  property  must  be 
taxed  to  supply  the  general  deficiency  in  the 
fund,  this  interest  must  be  laid  under  tribute 
lor  what  ? To  pav  the  rich  land-holder  for  prop- 
erty when  he  has  already  been  benefited  by  it. 
Those  are  the  facts  in  the  case.  We  have  a case 
in  Cleveland — the  opening  of  an  avenue  that 
runs  about  a mile  and  a quarter,  or  a mile  and 
a half.  They  have  appropriated  a certain  por- 
tion of  property,  and  the  amount  assessed  for 
damages  for  that  property  is  $390,000.  Now 
there  are  about  a dozen  of  the  wealthiest  land- 
holders in  Cleveland  not  only  benefited  bjr 
opening  of  this  avenue,  but  who  have  petitioned 
for  it  time  and  time  again,  and  have  finally  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  the  avenue  opened,  and 
three-fourths  of  all  the  cost  comes  off  of  those 
men  themselves,  for  the  reason  that  they  own 
most  of  the  land  abutting  on  or  adjacent  to  that 
avenue.  Those  gentlemen  do  not  complain. 
Now  if  this  rule  should  prevail,  the  effect  would 
be  that  no  streets  could  be  opened  in  the  city  at 
all.  Property  is  valuable;  these  improvements 


cost  a large  amount  of  money,  and  if  the  general 
fund  should  have  to  bear  this  burden  with  so 
many  other  expenditures,  no  streets  would  be 
opened;  or  in  case  there  should  be  once  in  a 
long  while,  it  would  be  at  the  expense  of  the 
poorer  and  smaller  class  of  property-holders  in 
the  city,  and  those  who  are  not  in  any  way  ben- 
efited by  the  opening  of  streets.  The  opening 
of  these  streets  is  a matter  which,  I think,  is 
not  very  well  understood.  They  are  called 
public  streets.  What  is  the  public  when  viewed 
in  this  section?  It  is  those  who  are  in  the  im- 
mediate neighborhood  of  the  streets,  who  are 
benefited,  and  not  the  general  public.  How 
much  would  the  opening  of  one  of  those  streets 
from  Main  to  Walnut,  a distance  of  six  hundred 
feet,  benefit  a great  majority  of  those  living 
here  in  Cincinnati?  Nothing.  A great  many 
would  not  travel  it  once  in  two  years.  It  is  for 
the  benefit  of  those  living  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood  that  it  is  opened  and  improved, 
and  they  should  pay  for  it,  and  if  it  does  not 
benefit  them  enough  to  pay  for  the  cost,  then  it 
should  not  be  opened. 

This  amendment,  in  my  judgment,  would 
bring  a very  large  vote  against  this  Constitution 
in  the  State.  It  is  a question  that  goes  directly 
home  to  the  interests  of  every  man  who  lives 
in  a city,  with  the  exception  of  a few  large 
property-holders,  who,  perhaps,  would  like  it; 
but  when  you  ask  the  people  to  saddle  them- 
selves with  a law  of  this  kind,  and  put  it  in  the 
Constitution,  where  they  cannot  change  it, 
they  would  say,  “No,  we  prefer  the  old  Con- 
stitution. That  is  pretty  good.  It  has  lasted 
twenty-three  years;  we  will  try  it  twenty- 
three  years  longer.” 

Mr.  PRATT.  May  be  the  people  will  come 
to  say,  pretty  soon,  it  is  good  enough. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Well,  it  is  better  than 
this,  so  far  as  regards  this  provision.  Repre- 
senting the  people  that  I do,  and  knowing  their 
sentiments  and  feelings  upon  this  Article,  if 
this  is  put  in  this  Article,  I shall  be  compelled 
to  vote  against  it.  I would  dislike  to  do  so,  but 
it  would  be  fatal,  I think,  because  it  is  a ques- 
tion that  affects  nearly  everybody. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move  to  amend  the 
proposed  amendment  by  striking  out  the  word 
“no,”  where  it  occurs  in  the  third  line,  and  in- 
sert the  words  “only  an  equitable,”  so  that  the 
section  will  read,  “ When  real  estate  shall  be 
taken  for  public  use,  only  an  equitable  part 
of  the  compensation  therefor  shall  be  assessed 
upon  the  owner  thereof.” 

As  the  proposition  now  stands,  I shall  cer- 
tainly vote  against  it;  but  there  ought  to  be  a 
limit  to  the  rule  that  has  been  adopted  in  many 
localities  in  this  State  touching  the  assessment 
of  the  costs  of  opening  the  streets  upon  ap  ad- 
jacent owner.  Until  1869,  under  the  law,  it 
has  been  the  practice  largely  in  various  parts 
of  the  State,  when  land  was  taken  for  streets, 
especially  adjoining  the  villages,  that  all  the 
costs,  after  they  have  accrued  and  been  made 
in  a proceeding  to  condemn,  have  been  assessed 
upon  the  property  immediately  adjoining  the 
land  condemned. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Does  the  gentleman  under- 
stand it  can  be  done  outside  of  corporations? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  It  is  enough  that  it 
can  be  done  in  the  corporations,  for  that  is 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

Cunningham,  Powell,  Hoadly,  Townsend. 


2099 


Day.] 

March  17,  1874.] 


where  the  complaint  comes  from  ; and  I submit, 
Mr.  President,  with  all  respect  for  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Convention,  if  it  does  not  substan- 
tially annul  that  other  provision  of  the  Consti- 
tution, which  provides  that  private  property 
shall  not  be  taken  for  public  purposes,  except 
the  owner  be  compensated  for  it.  You  com- 
pensate him,  certainly,  sir,  and  say  to  the 
owner,  “We  will  guard  your  interests  so  care- 
fully that,  when  the  jury  come  to  estimate  the 
damage  that  will  accrue  to  you  by  reason  of 
taking  your  property,  they  shall  not  even 
take  into  consideration  the  additional  value  that 
may  be  put  upon  the  premises  by  reason  of  this 
road  or  this  street  being  located,”  yet  you  leave 
the  Legislature  the  power,  and  they  have  so 
exercised  it  as  to  make  that  guaranty  worth- 
less. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
a question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  it  possible  when  you 
assess  back  the  cost  of  the  street,  the  amount 
paid  for  the  land,  that  that  should  come  on  the 
same  land,  unless  that  is  the  only  land  benefited 
by  the  improvement? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  that  is  the  case, 
then  there  is  no  public  or  constitutional  reason 
why  the  land  should  be  appropriated  at  all,  for 
you  can  only  appropriate  private  property 
when  the  public  necessity  requires  it. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  me  say  again  that  I put 
the  question  because  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
imagine  such  a case.  It  almost  always  benefits 
others,  and  other  men  help  to  bear  the  ex- 
pense. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I know  that  the  prac- 
tice is  different.  I know  that  it  has  been  the 
practice,  until  recently,  in  some  places,  for 
the  municipal  authorities  of  a town  to  open  a 
street  and  assess  every  dollar  of  cost,  as  well  as 
the  condemnation  money,  upon  the  very  prop- 
erty from  which  the  land  was  taken;  and  so 
does  my  friend  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
know  this  to  be  true. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Suppose  that  others  are  in- 
terested (which  I believe  to  be  the  case  in  nine 
out  of  ten  cases;  they  certainly  are  in  some 
cases),  wron’t  the  effect  of  exempting  this  owner 
simply  be  to  lay  this  burden  upon  others,  mak- 
ing their  burden  more  than  it  ought  to  be,  in 
order  to  relieve  him? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Undoubtedly,  if  you 
exempt  the  owner ; but  I do  not  propose  to  do 
that.  The  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  does.  But  I seek  to  reach 
an  equitable  rule;  I seek  to  lay  a rule  down 
upon  which  a court  of  chancery  could  interfere 
for  an  equitable  adjustment  in  assessing  the 
costs  on  proceedings  of  this  sort,  by  municipal 
authorities. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Is  it  not  true  that  this 
provision  does  not  impose  any  rule?  It  does 
not  say,  shall  be  assessed.  On  this  it  is  silent. 
It  simply  lays  down  the  general  proposition  that 
a man  whose  property  is  taken  shall  be  allowed 


full  value  in  money,  and  that  that  valuation 
shall  not  be  diminished  in  any  way  by  the  con- 
sideration that  the  adjoining  property  shall  be 
benefited  by  it.  The  law  compels  the  jury  to 
give  him  full  value  for  it,  without  reference  to 
that.  Now,  there  it  stops.  Cannot  we  trust 
the  Legislature  to  make  equitable  rules  touch- 
ing these  cases?  They  have  always  done  well, 
and  can  still  do  so. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Now  that  my  friend 
has  asked  me  a question,  I want  to  ask  him  one. 
The  present  Constitution  provides  just  as  the 
gentleman  has  said.  Has  the  Legislature  al- 
ways made  that  equitable  rule? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  They  have. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Then  it  is  equitable 
in  the  full  spirit  arid  letter  of  the  Constitution 
that  you  may  take  a man’s  property,  that  you 
shall  not  estimate  until  the  benefits  accrue,  and 
then  go  right  back  and  assess  upon  him  all  that 
it  ti3,s  cost 

Mr.  TOYVNSEND.  If  you  will  allow  me— in 
the  first  place,  he  is  paid  the  full  value  of  his 
property,  without  reference  to  any  advantages. 
For  that  reason  he  gets  more  than  the  full  value 
of  it.  lie  has  got  his  pay  and  put  it  into  his 
pocket,  that  is  under  that  transaction  with  him. 
Now,  the  law  says  that  all  the  property  abutting 
on  the  street,  and  all  the  property  adjacent 
thereto  that  is  benefited,  shall  share  in  this 
burden. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  “May.” 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  “Shall.” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  “ May”  upon  all  prop- 
erty benefited. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  On  all  the  property  bene- 
fited on  the  street  or  adjacent  thereto.  Now, 
they  travel  all  round"  the  property  benefited, 
and  distribute  these  costs,  and  the  man  who  has 
had  his  land  taken  from  him  has  only  to  bear 
his  fair  proportion  of  the  amount,  and  that  is 
generally  very  little. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Now,  Mr.  President, 
my  friend  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend] 
owns  a twenty  acre  lot 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  That  is  a mistake. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Well,  we  will  imagine 
he  does,  though  it  may  be  a violent  presumption. 
He  owns  a twenty  acre  lot  at  the  end  of  Euclid 
street,  crossing  the  line  of  the  street. 

A MEMBER.  That  is,  at  Buffalo.  [Laugh- 
ter.] 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  city  authorities 
of  Cleveland  conclude  to  extend  the  street,  and, 
as  a consequence,  cut  a road  right  through  his 
twenty  acre  lot.  Now,  the  Constitution  pro- 
vides that  private  property  shall  not  be  taken 
except  for  public  uses.  It  guards  his  property 
very  sacredly.  It  provides,  further,  that  there 
shall  be  no  estimate  of  additional  value  to  be 
put  upon  this  twenty  acres  by  the  city,  and  that 
my  friend  is  entitled  to  five  thousand  dollars 
from  the  public.  The  city  authorities  then  im- 
mediately assess  that  five  thousand  dollars  back 
on  his  twenty  acres.  Now,  what  is  the  result? 
If  that  is  not  “ making  a promise  to  the  ear  and 
breaking  it  to  the  hope,”  I never  heard  an 
illustration  of  the  fact  before. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I will  give  way  en- 
tirely. 


2100 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES, 

Townsend,  Cunningham,  Pond,  Smith,  Hale. 


r 140th 

[Tuesday, 


Mr.  TOWNSEND.  O,  no.  I like  to  talk  to  , 
you,  because  I learn  so  much  on  this  subject. 
In  the  first  place,  the  avenue  abutting  upon  this 
twenty  acres  is  a benefit,  tor,  perhaps,  half  a 
mile,  and  the  property  on  the  streets  beyond 
would  be  assessed,  and  that  on  the  lateral  streets 
would  be  assessed,  and  the  gentleman’s  land 
worth  five  thousand  dollars  would  be  benefited 
four  times  as  much  as  all  those  assessed. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  would  be  right. 
He  might  be  assessed,  under  the  rule  I propose, 
three-fourths.  What  I wish  is  that  the  rule 
shall  be  made  so  that  a court  of  equity  can  in- 
terpose, and  under  the  Constitution  shall  say 
whether  or  not  that  assessment  has  been  equit- 
ably made.  The  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  provides  that  you  shall  not  put 
a dollar  upon  it — not  a dollar. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POND.  Will  this  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunning- 
ham] make  it  incumbent  on  the  General  Assem-  j 
bly  to  change  the  character  of  the  statute 
already  provided  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Whether  it  would  re- 
quire that  or  not,  I would  not  now  undertake  to 
say.  I think,  however,  that  it  would;  but 
whether  the  legislation  would  .be  changed  or 
not  if  this  provision  were  put  into  the  Consti- 
tution, if  a wrong  done  to  the  owner  of  prop- 
erty, he  can  go  into  the  courts  and  say  that  a 
right  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  which  is 
above  all  legislation,  has  been  violated,  and  a 
court  of  equity  would  interfere  and  give  him  a 
remedy. 

Mr.  POND.  If  the  statute  would  be  an  equit- 
able one,  would  it  be  as  flexible  as  it  is  now  ? If 
the  assessment  has  been  made  upon  all  the  prop- 
erty throughout  the  whole  street,  and  if  it  is 
done  equitably,  would  a court  interfere  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  But  suppose  it  is  not 
so  exercised?  The  gentleman  admits  that  mu- 
nicipal authorities  have  made  such  assessments. 
The  remedy  I propose  is  designed  to  meet  that 
state  of  facts,  and  provides  that  municipal  au- 
thorities shall  be  compelled  to  do  an  equitable 
thing  when  they  take  the  private  property  of 
individuals. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I admit,  sir,  that  in  the 
progress  of  our  action  on  this  subject,  that 
the  Convention  has  been  adverse  to  the  appro- 
val of  the  principle  now  sought  to  be  secured 
in  this  amendment.  Nevertheless,  it  strikes  me 
that  it  embodies  so  vital  a principle  in  regard  to 
the  right  of  property  in  Ohio,  that  it  ought  to 
be  met  at  every  point,  and,  if  possible,  sus- 
tained. 

In  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent  do- 
main, which  is  the  only  power  known  in  this 
country  by  which  private  property  can  be 
taken  for  public  uses,  or  by  which  the  rights  of 
property  can  be  violated,  is  a doctrine  so  well 
understood,  and  one  which  it  becomes  the  duty 
of  the  American  people  to  guard  with  so  much 
care,  that  I am  compelled,  just  here,  to  insist 
that  it  shall  be  the  law,  not  only  in  making 
public  highways  that  lead  from  one  section  of 
the  State  to  another,  or  in  the  appropriation  of 
property  for  public  use  by  State  authorities  in 
any  way,  but  that  it  also  shall  limit  and  control 


, the  exercise  of  delegated  authority  to  corpora- 
tions. 

I can  conceive,  abstractly,  of  no  reason  why 
municipal  authorities,  why  incorporated  cities- 
or  towns,  shall  exercise  a power  which  the 
State  itself  cannot  exercise  by  virtue  of  the  ex- 
isting clause  in  the  bill  of  civil  rights.  The 
principle  upon  which  we  act,  sir,  in  taking  the 
private  property  of  an  individual,  and  appro- 
priating it,  is,  that  it  is  for  public  use.  Public 
use  is  the  sole  principle.  Now,  the  doctrine  by 
which  you  propose  to  appropriate  private  prop- 
erty by  virtue  of  the  authority  of  an  incorpo- 
rated city,  is,  that  you  take  it  to  confer  benefits 
upon  the  party  from  whom  it  is  taken.  That  is 
the  anomaly,  sir,  of  your  proposition.  You  do 
not  take  it  for  public  use;  for  if  you  did,  you 
would  pay  him  for  it.  It  is  an  appropriation  of 
his  property,  and  you  must  account  to  him  for 
every  dollar  of  value,  without  any  regard  to 
individual  benefits.  But  under  the  exercise  of 
authority  by  a city  corporation,  you  take  it  not 
for  public  use,  but  you  take  it  to  confer  benefits 
I upon  him;  for  when  you  have  taken  it,  and 
paid  him  for  it,  then  you  levy  an  assessment  on 
the  same  property  to  get  back  the  money  paid  as 
a compensation  at  first.  What  is  an  assessment  ? 
It  is  founded  upon  the  idea  of  conferring  a ben- 
efit upon  the  party  assessed.  In  order  to  pay  a 
man  for  his  property  appropriated  by  municipal 
authority,  the  theory  of  assessment  is  adopted, 
simply  because  it  is  intended  to  appropriate 
private  property  for  the  purpose  of  conferring 
benefits  upon  the  party  from  whom  it  is  taken. 
And  that  is  the  grand  idea  to  which  we  have 
arrived,  at  last,  in  Ohio — that,  while  under  the 
Constitution,  public  use  regulates  the  appropri- 
ation of  property,  when  appropriated  by  State 
authority,  under  authority  delegated  to  a city, 
which  ought  to  be  limited  and  restrained,  prop- 
erty is  taken  that  you  may  promote  the  private 
interests,  the  personal  advantage,  of  the  man 
from  whom  you  take  it. 

If  that  is  not  a new  theory  in  political  phil- 
osophy, I do  not  know  what  is.  It  is,  there- 
fore, upon  the  cardinal  distinction  between 
assessment  and  taxation  that  it  is  proposed  to 
act,  and  which  involves  a total  perversion  of 
the  principle  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain  in 
disturbing  the  sacredness  of  private  property. 
No  man  ought  to  be  authorized — no  local  power 
ought  to  be  authorized — to  invade  the  rights  of 
a private  citizen  and  appropriate  his  property 
against  his  judgment  and  his  wishes,  and  with- 
out his  consent,  unless  full  payment  be  made  of 
of  the  value  of  the  appropriation  thus  forcibly 
taken.  The  State  cannot  exercise  such  power 
for  a public  use  without  full  compensation 
being  made.  But  get  a city  corporation  with 
delegated  powers,  and  then  you  can  abandon  all 
idea  of  the  inviolability  of  private  property, 
aud  if  it  will  only  confer  advantages  upon  the 
party  himself,  you  can  lay  the  strong  hand  of 
power  upon  him  and  appropriate  his  property 
for  what?  Public  use?  No,  but  for  his  benefit, 
against  his  will.  If  that  is  the  philosophy  of 
this  law  to  govern  Ohio,  I think  your  Constitu- 
tion will  not  meet  with  public  approbation. 

Mr.  HALE.  I understand  those  who  favor 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  would  assess  general  im- 
provements upon  the  land  benefited.  Now,  if 


2101 


Day.] PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

March  17,  1874.]  Beer,  Hale,  Pratt,  Tuttle,  Hoadly,  Pond,  Woodbury. 


I am  not  mistaken  in  that,  I think  they  could 
assess  the  costs  of  improvement  upon  the  lands 
benefited. 

Mr.  BEER.  I will  answer  the  gentleman. 
The  amount  is  so  guarded  that  it  only  covers  the 
•cost  of  real  estate  taken.  Of  course,  you  may 
assess  for  the  grading  of  streets,  and  matters  of 
that  sort.  It  does  not  interfere  with  that  at  all. 
But  it  is  merely  the  exercise  of  a principle. 

Mr.  HALE.  That  is  all  I want.  How,  Mr. 
President,  there  are  two  propositions  in  making 
an  improvement.  It  may  or  may  not  involve 
the  appropriation  of  private  property.  The 
gentlemen  all  say  that  when  it  doss  not  involve 
the  appropriation  of  private  property,  then  they 
may  assess  it  upon  the  land  of  the  individual, 
according  to  the  benefits. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  expense  of  the  improve- 
ment? 

Mr.  HALE.  Yes. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  If  the  gentlemen  will  allow 
me,  I am  not  quite  sure  that  I accord  exactly 
with  what  is  said.  I say  that  compensation 
should  be  paid  by  that  community  when  it  de- 
termines that  it  wants  the  land  and  makes  the 
appropriation.  They  ought  to  pay  them. 

Mr.  HALE.  Very  well,  but  the  point  I want 
to  get  at  is,  to  see  where  the  logic  of  gentlemen 
will  lead  them.  They  say,  you  may  make  a 
public  improvement,  you  may  assess  the  tax 
upon  the  lands  improved.  How,  if  it  means 
that  they  will  stop  there,  their  logic  is  with  us. 
If  they  take  the  ground  that  whenever  a public 
improvement  is  made  it  shall  be  paid  by  public 
tax,  then  they  are  logical,  because  the  public 
makes  every  improvement,  whether  it  involves 
the  appropriation  of  private  property  or  not. 
The  public  makes  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  not  their  logic,  carried 
further,  amount  to  this  : that  no  improvements 
ought  to  be  made  unless  it  is  going  to  benefit 
everybody  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  It  is  one  way  or  the  other,  Mr. 
President.  The  public  makes  the  improve- 
ment, and  the  public  make  the  appropria- 
tion of  private  property,  therefore  the  public 
shall  pay,  is  the  proposition.  Every  improve- 
ment made  by  the  public,  whether  it  involves 
the  appropriation  of  private  property  or  not, 
shall  be  paid  by  the  public.  That  is  the  logic 
of  it.  How,  gentlemen  propose  to  go  further. 
Though  you  may  cut  off  a piece  of  land  that 
comes  in  front  of  his  lot  for  the  public,  though 
you  may  tax  upon  the  lot  for  the  cost  of  the  im- 
provement, yet  the  moment  the  improvement 
involves  the  appropriation  of  a little  property 
of  the  one  man  that  the  improvement  may  be 
made  for  the  whole  interest,  then  they  say  that 
item  of  improvement,  to-wit,  the  cost  of  appro- 
priation of  this  private  property,  shall  not  go 
into  the  assessment,  and  that  there  is  no  logic 
in  it  whatever.  Whenever  the  improvement  is 
made  for  the  public,  whether  the  improvement 
involves  the  appropriation  of  one  man’s  land  or 
not,  we  say,  let  the  cost  be  taxed  upon  the  prop- 
erty benefited  by  the  improvement. 

How,  gentlemen  say  here  that,  under  this 
proposition,  we  may  take  a man’s  land,  and  not 
pay  him  for  it,  while  the  Constitution  says  you 


shall  not  appropriate  private  property  without 
paying  the  whole  value.  You  do  that  by  first 
appropriating  the  land,  and  then  assess  upon 
the  same  land  the  value  of  the  land  taken. 
Suppose,  Mr.  President,  that  three  different 
men  own  each  a different  piece  of  land,  each 
piece  being  just  one  hundred  feet  wide,  and  it 
is  proposed  to  appropriate  that  for  the  street, 
and  leave  the  land  owned  by  the  others,  bor- 
dering on  the  street.  You  appropriate  the  land 
of  the  one.  You  pay  him  for  it — every  dollar 
of  its  value.  By  so  doing,  you  have  opened  up 
the  lands  of  the  other  men,  and  benefited  them 
to  a large  extent.  We  can  all  see  very  readily 
that  there  would  be  no  injustice  in  assessing 
them  for  the  benefit.  But  now  suppose,  in- 
stead of  three,  you  have  two,  and  on  the  one 
side  the  land  is  taken.  You  do  not  assess  the 
land  you  have  taken.  You  only  say,  the  other 
man’s  land  has  been  benefited  by  this  improve- 
ment, and  he  may  stand  the  assessment. 

Mr.  POHD.  Suppose  one  man’s  land  is  one 
hundred  and  fifty  feet  wide,  and  they  take  one 
hundred  feet  off,  how  would  it  be  then? 

Mr.  HALE.  Why,  if  he  was  not  benefited,  I 
would  not  tax  him.  The  point  is,  there  is  no 
compulsion  here  unless  a man  is  benefited. 

Mr.  POHD.  Hot  to  the  value  of  the  amount 
of  assessment. 

Mr.  HALE.  If  he  is  benefited  five  dollars, 
tax  him  five. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  ask  if  that  is  not  the 
principle  of  the  old  Constitution,  but  with  the 
possibility  to  add  to  it?  Instead  of  simply  tak- 
ing his  land  and  paying  for  the  benefits,  you 
may  make  him  pay  beside. 

Mr.  HALE.  I do  not  know  whether  it  is  the 
principle  of  the  old  Constitution  or  not.  I be- 
lieve it  is  right.  Y"ou  take  a man’s  land,  and 
you  pay  him  every  dollar  that  it  is  worth ; then 
the  public  own  that  land.  Well,  in  improving 
the  street,  you  may  improve  other  land  in  the 
neighborhood.  If  he  happens  to  own  some 
other  than  that  you  have  taken,  what  is  there 
in  the  law  or  justice  that  should  not  make  him 
bear  his  just  and  equitable  proportion  of  the 
improvement? 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I interrupt  one  mo- 
ment before  you  sit  down  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  In  the  case  of  three  individ- 
uals, if  the  land  of  one  is  wholly  used  up  in 
the  appropriation,  he  holds  his  money  exempt 
from  any  assessment,  doe3  he  not? 

Mr.  HALE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  POWELL.  And  it  goes  upon  the  others. 
But  if  he  has  any  land,  it  is  assessed  to  the  ex- 
tent of  an  equitable  proportion  of  what  he  has 
left,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  HALE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  WOODBURY\  I hope  that  this  proposi- 
tion, or  something  like  it,  will  be  put  into  this 
Constitution.  I believe  there  is  some  necessi- 
ty— that  there  ought  to  be  a limitation  upon  the 
right  and  the  power  to  take  property  belonging 
to  an  individual,  it  matters  not  for  what  pur- 
pose that  property  may  be  taken.  If  the  pub- 
lic shall  take  the  property  of  an  individual — 
whether  it  shall  be  real  estate,  or  whether  it 
shall  be  personal  property — it  seems  to  me  that 
this  should  be  taken  only  when  the  public  de- 


2102 


[140th 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

Woodbury,  Griswold. 


mands,  when  the  public  welfare  requires,  the 
appropriation  of  individual  property. 

Now,  then,  as  has  been  said,  the  public  never 
seeks  to  take  property  when  it  is  only  for  the 
benefit  of  an  individual.  They  take  the  prop- 
erty upon  the  proposition  that  the  public  wel- 
fare and  the  public  good  demand  the  appropria- 
tion of  the  property.  The  proposition  is,  as  it 
now  stands,  that  we  will  pay  for  it  upon  an- 
other principle;  not  upon  the  proposition 
with  which  we  have  taken  the  property ; not 
under  the  rules  by  which  we  have  taken  this 
property  will  we  pay  for  it;  but  under  an- 
other rule,  and  for  another  reason,  we  will 
compel  the  party  who  owns  the  property 
to  pay  for  it.  In  my  judgment,  this  is  inequi- 
table. It  extends  back,  and  compels  the  man 
who  owns  the  property  to  pay  for  improve- 
ments, and  ignores  entirely  the  proposition  as 
to  who  is  benefited  by  it.  It  may  be  a fact  that 
one  or  two  men  shall  own  the  land,  while  there 
may  be  one  hundred  other  individuals  in  that 
immediate  neighborhood,  who  own  no  real 
estate,  that  may  be  vastly  more  benefited  by  that 
improvement  than  the  individuals  who  own 
the  real  estate ; and  yet,  under  this  rule,  you 
will  compel  the  man  who  owns  the  real  estate 
to  pay  for  the  improvements  for  the  man  who  is 
benefited  more  than  he  who  shall  be  so  fortunate 
as  to  own  the  real  estate.  Now,  would  this  be 
right?  Would  this  be  just  and  equitable ? It 
seems  to  me  not.  I want  to  see  some  rule  or 
provision  put  into  this  Constitution  that  shall 
check,  shall  put  a point  beyond  which  the  pub- 
lic shall  not  take  the  property  of  an  individual 
without  compensation. 

It  has  been  urged  here — and  the  cases  are  in- 
numerable in  the  State  of  Ohio — where  assess- 
ments have  been  made  upon  property  for  its  im- 
provement, upon  the  ground  that  it  was  for  the 
public  benefit  and  the  public  good,  and  yet 
assessed  upon  the  individual  owner  a tax  that 
wiped  out  his  entire  property.  Now,  then,  we 
ought  to  put  a limit  to  this  power  of  the  public 
to  steal  the  property  of  an  individual;  for, 
mind  you,  it  is  all  the  time  a contest  between  the 
public  and  the  individual ; and  when  the  indi- 
vidual steps  forward  for  the  purpose  of  fighting 
and  protecting  his  property  as  against  the  pub- 
lic, he  stands  there  to  fight  the  entire  public, 
and  his  interests  are  wiped  out,  and  he  stands 
no  chance  whatever  when  he  undertakes  to 
claim  his  own  as  against  the  public.  When  the 
public  are  acting  as  a body,  they  are  as 
selfish,  so  far  as  their  interests  in  dollars  and 
cents  are  concerned,  as  is  the  individual,  and 
are  just  as  greedy  to  work  the  property,  or  to 
save  expense  in  the  payment^of  tax,  as  is  the 
individual  to  save  his  dollars  and  cents.  A 
committee  is  appointed,  for  instance,  to  get  to- 
gether and  determine  that  the  public  good  and 
the  public  welfare  demands  that  a street  shall 
be  put  through  from  one  street  to  another,  when 
in  fact  it  lies  through  the  property,  and  only 
upon  the  property  of  one  individual.  It  may 
leave  a narrow  strip  of  his  land  upon  each  side 
of  the  proposed  street.  Now,  they  may  assess 
the  value  of  the  property,  they  may  assess  the 
injuries  which  he  may  have  sustained,  and  they 
may  turn  right  round  and  levy  or  assess  the 
value  of  the  land  and  the  value  of  the  improve- 
ment upon  the  two  adjoining  strips  of  land 


[Tuesday, 


owned  by  this  individual,  and  wipe  out  the 
whole  thing  under  this  proposition.  And  yet, 
it  is  urged  here  that  there  should  be  no  limita- 
tion, that  is,  if  the  public  want  to  do  this  they 
ought  to  have  the  power  to  do  it.  Now,  I am 
not  willing  that  any  such  provision  as  this 
should  be  carried  into  the  Constitution.  If  the 
public  want  property,  let  them  pay  for  it,  the 
same  as  an  individual.  It  is  enough  that  we 
have  given  to  municipal  corporations  in  the 
State  of  Ohio  the  power  and  the  right  to  take 
my  property  without  my  consent  and  against 
my  will.  They  ought  to  pay  for  it  like  any  in- 
dividual. I am  in  favor  of  applying  that' rule 
to  every  corporation  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  That 
would  be  what  I would  insist  upon.  I am  not 
willing  that  Cincinnati,  or  any  other  municipal 
corporation  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  should  have 
the  right  to  take  an  individual’s  property  in  a 
city  for  any  purpose,  unless  they  shall  first  pay 
for  it.  Nothing  less  than  this  would  be  right. 
Or,  in  other  words,  I would  not  concede  to  the 
public  that  they  have  the  right  to  say  to  me,  or 
to  any  other  citizen  of  Ohio,  that  we  shall  take 
your  property,  we  will  force  upon  you  benefits 
which  you  do  not  want,  we  will  ruin  your 
property  for  the  purpose  for  which  you  hold  it, 
and  for  the  purpose  for  which  you  bought  it, 
and  for  the  purpose  for  which  you  want  to  use 
it  in  the  future,  but  we  will  say  to  you  that  we 
have  increased  the  value  of  that  land  for  other 
purposes,  we  will  have  the  right  to  say  to  you 
authoritatively  what  that  future  increase  in  the 
value  of  your  property  will  be  worth,  and  we 
will  take  it  from  you,  we  will  estimate  what  we 
will  do  for  you,  we  will  say  what  we  will  do 
with  your  property,  say  what  that  value  is 
worth,  and  compel  you  to  pay  for  it.  Now 
then,  I am  not  willing  that  any  such  provision 
as  this  should  go  into  the  Constitution  of  the 
State  of  Ohio.  If  the  public  want  land  for  a 
railroad,  that  is  for  the  public  welfare,  public 
utility,  let  them  pay  for  it.  If  they  want  it  for 
a highway,  I beg  to  know  why  not  apply  the 
same  rule? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  from  Ash- 
tabula [Mr.  Woodbury]  seems  to  entertain 
great  fear  that  wrong  will  be  done  to  inhabit- 
ants of  cities  unless  this  amendment  is  adopted. 
I thank  him  for  his  sympathy,  but  I would 
suggest  it  is  entirely  wasted.  The  good  he 
would  do  them  would  prove  an  unmitigated 
evil.  In  my  judgment  there  never  were  more 
incorrect  statements  of  principle,  or  more  in- 
consistent attempts  at  logic,  than  the  argu- 
ments of  the  gentleman  and  others  who  sup- 
port the  proposed  amendment.  It  is  said  by 
them  that  the  public  condemns  and  takes  the 
street,  and  let  the  public  pay.  It  would  be 
well  for  the  gentleman  to  define  this  public. 

It  is  true  the  State  delegates  to  the  city  the 
power  to  condemn  land  for  streets,  but  it  is 
the  power  of  the  State  which  takes  the  land. 
Why  do  not  gentlemen  insist  that  the  State 
should  pay.  It  by  no  means  follows  that  all 
the  people  within  the  city  limits  are  interested 
in  the  opening  of  a street. 

Take  for  instance  the  city  of  Cleveland : 
What  interest  has  a resident  of  the  eleventh 
ward  in  the  opening  of  a cross  street  in  the 
sixteenth  ward  ? No  more  than  the  inhabitants 
of  the  whole  county  of  Cuyahoga.  Indeed  no 


Day.] PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 2103 

March  17,  1874.]  Woodbury,  Griswold. 


more  than  the  constituents  of  the  gentleman. 
I ask  the  gentleman,  what  interest  has  the  me- 
chanic or  merchant,  six  miles  distant,  in  a new 
street  to  be  laid  out? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  I will  ask  the  gentle- 
man another  question. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  No,  please  answer  mine, 
and  then  I will  answer  you.  The  people  of  one 
section  of  a large  city  have  no  interest  in  a 
particular  street  in  an  opposite  section,  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  people  of  the  whole  State. 
It  is  opened  for  fhe  use  of  the  general  public, 
not  for  the  use  of  the  people  of  munici- 
pality merely.  Those  city  inhabitants,  remote 
from  the  particular  street,  have  no  interest  in 
street 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Perhaps  no  interest; 
but  I would  say  that  the  authorities  of  the  city 
of  Cleveland  should  have  no  right,  unless  the 
interests  of  the  city  demand  it,  to  put  through 
a street  there. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  just  it,  precisely. 
The  gentleman  is  coming  to  the  proposition 
that  the  power  of  opening  streets  should  be 
left  to  the  county  commissioners,  and  the  city 
authorities  should  not  have  anything  to  do 
with  it.  But  let  us  recur  again  to  this  idea  of 
the  public.  What  is  the  public,  as  concerned 
with  a particular  street  in  a particular  locality  ? 
The  gentleman’s  logic  all  falls  to  the  ground 
when  he  says  that  a city  municipality  is  that 
public.  It  is  true,  the  State  delegates  its  gen- 
eral authority  to  the  city  to  condemn  the  street, 
but  it  is  no  more  for  the  interests  of  the  people 
of  a remote  part  of  the  city  then  it  is  for  the 
interests  of  the  people  of  Ashtabula  county; 
not  a single  particle  of  interest,  and  in  no  way 
benefits  them  any  more  than  the  people  of  the 
State  at  large.  You  might  just  as  well  apply 
the  tax  to  Highland  county  for  opening  a street 
out  in  the  Newburgh  ward  as  to  do  it  six  miles 
distant,  in  any  other  part  of  the  city.  And 
to  say  that  the  personal  estate  of  the  city  shall 
pay  for  land  so  taken  upon  the  petition  of  the 
people  of  Newburgh  ward,  because  they  cannot 
get  it  opened  in  any  other  way  than  by  apply- 
ing to  the  city  authorities,  to  whom  the  State 
has  delegated  that  discretion,  and  to  say  that 
the  people  who  have  no  interest,  directly  or  re- 
motely, with  the  matter,  any  more  than  the  pub- 
lic of  the  State  at  large,  shall  pay  for  it  by  a tax 
on  their  personal  estate,  is  a piece  of  injustice 
and  inequality,  and  so  absurd  that  I am  aston- 
ished that  gentlemen  who  pretend  to  have  some 
sort  of  logic  should  insist  upon  it.  The  truth  of 
the  matter  has  been  plainly  stated.  The  party 
whose  land  is  taken  is  paid  in  money  first.  He 
is  paid  by  the  assessment  of  a jury  of  his  coun- 
try. It  is  fairly  tried,  without  any  reference  to 
anything  remote,  or  anything  connected  there- 
with. It  is  tried,  just  like  any  other  case,  by 
disinterested  tribunals,  and  his  property  is  ad- 
judicated as  to  its  fair  market  value,  and  he  is 
paid  the  compensation,  in  money,  before  a sin- 
gle right  of  the  public  to  take  it  has  been  at- 
tached. You  cannot  enter  upon  it  even  until 
you  have  paid  him  over  the  money.  Now, 
then,  you  say  the  public  has  taken  it,  and  the 
public  should  pay  for  it.  Then  let  the  State 
pay,  for  the  State  is  the  public.  The  city,  in 
taking  the  street,  is  exercising  merely  a delega- 
tion of  State  authority.  The  State,  acting  in 


this  particular  organization,  does  this;  but 
there  is  no  more  justice  or  logic  in  saying  that 
that  portion  of  the  State  which  is  included 
within  that  municipal  boundary  should  pay  for 
the  land  thus  taken,  by  a general  assessment  on 
the  personal  estate,  than  there  is  for  saying  that 
the  people  of  the  county  should  pay  it;  none 
whatever.  Not  only  so;  it  is  of  interest,  out- 
side of  the  county,  to  everybody  who  ever 
travels  in  that  direction.  The  public,  as  repre- 
sented by  the  city,  are  put  in  charge  of  the 
street,  and  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  it  in  re- 
pair, as  a municipality,  they  are  all  taxed.  But 
for  the  purpose  of  paying  for  land,  the  power 
ofthe  State  is  used,  and  there  is  no  question  of 
right,  or  any  philosophy,  of  which  the  gentle- 
man from  Highland  has  talked,  which  requires 
the  whole  city  to  pay.  It  is  a question  of  public 
policy  how  the  tax  shall  be  levied  to  pay  it. 
That  is  all.  If  this  amendment  is  adopted,  it  is 
declared  it  shall  only  be  levied  by  a general  tax 
upon  all  the  property  within  the  municipality 
which  exercises  this  delegated  power  of  the 
State.  I submit  that  there  is  no  justice  in  such 
a rule  and  no  right  in  it,  and  it  will  be  an 
effectual  bar  to  all  local  improvements  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  State.  I tell  you  that  the  peo- 
ple of  the  sixteenth  ward  of  Cleveland  will 
never  vote  for  the  opening  of  a street  in  the 
eleventh  ward,  and  vice  versa , under  such  a 
rule;  and  the  operation  of  it  is,  that  where 
your  cities  are  growing,  you  put  an  effectual 
bar  to  their  progress.  We  simply  say  it  is  a 
matter  to  be  left  to  the  Legislature,  as  to  how 
this  cost  which  the  public  have  paid,  which  has 
been  taken  from  the  city  treasury,  shall  be  re- 
imbursed. That  is  all. 

We  say,  as  a general  rule,  that  the  locality 
which  is  immediately  interested  in  the  street — 
the  locality  through  which  it  passes— is  the  lo- 
cality which  shall  bear  the  burden.  There  is 
no  injustice  in  that.  The  owner  of  property 
which  is  taken  stands  precisely  as  every  other 
man  in  that  locality,  and  it  is  left  to  the  wisdom 
and  discretion  of  the  Legislature  to  carry  into 
effect  the  power,  so  as  to  require  the  particular 
locality  which  has  the  immediate  benefit  of 
travel,  the  immediate  convenience  of  it,  as 
against  the  general  public,  to  pay  for  it;  and 
there  is  no  inequality,  no  violation  of  the  prin- 
ciple laid  down  in  the  previous  paragraph  of 
this  section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  It  is  a pro- 
vision that  is  wise,  just  and  essential  to  the  well- 
fare  and  growth  of  towns  and  villages.  Not 
only  is  it  so,  but,  if  you  permit  this  amendment 
to  be  adopted,  you  leave  it  for  constant  schemes 
to  arise  for  the  plunder  of  the  treasury,  for  the 
benefit  of  private  individuals.  Why,  all  that  has 
to  be  done  is  fora  little  ring  of  men  who  have 
some  land  through  which  they  want  a street 
opened ; they  go  to  work  and  figure  with  the 
city  council,  and  get  it  through  and  pocket  the 
benefit,  sell  their  land,  open  their  streets,  get 
all  the  rise  of  this  property,  and  in  addition  to 
that  they  plunder  your  city  treasury  for  this 
purpose.  We  want  no  such  opportunities  given 
for  these  schemers,  for  these  leeches  to  fasten 
themselves  upon  the  city  treasury.  Un- 
der the  operation  of  the  law  as  it  now  exists, 
no  such  opportunity  is  given.  If  a particular 
street  is  opened,  the  whole  neighborhood  in 
that  locality  understand  that  the  cost  will 


2104 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

Griswold,  West,  Burns,  Hoadly. 


[140  tli 


[Tuesday, 


come  back  to  be  paid ; they  know  the  city 
will  be  reimbursed  by  a local  tax  upon  this  par- 
ticular community.  So  they  are  wide  awake, 
and  they  will  see  to  it  that  nothing  is  done 
which  that  locality  does  not  desire,  and  which 
they  are  not  willing  to  pay  for,  and  in  this  way 
exercise  a healthy  restraint  upon  the  subject. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham.] 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  in  favor  of  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer], 
if  we  can  get  it.  If  we  cannot  get  it,  then  get 
the  best  we  can.  And  my  notions  with  regard 
to  it  are  founded  on  a very  few  simple  consid- 
erations. We  start  out  upon  the  general 
truth,  as  has  been  so  clearly  and  so  fully  stated, 
that  private  property  shall  be  inviolate  and 
subject  only  to  the  public  use,  and  secondly, 
that  it  shall  not  be  taken  from  the  owner  with- 
out compensation.  Those  are  the  fundamental 
propositions,  and  it  is  conceded  on  all  hands 
that  these  propositions  are  sound  and  should  be 
incorporated  into  the  Constitution.  Now,  that 
being  the  case,  shall  we  go  on  and  provide  that 
private  judgment  shall  be  substituted  by  public 
judgment?  Shall  we  clothe  the  municipality 
with  the  power  to  say  to  the  private  individual, 
you  are  standing  in  your  own  light,  you  are 
doing  that  which  is  wrong,  we  desire  to  benefit 
you  by  taking  away  that  which  you  have  and 
compelling  you  yourself  to  pay  the  cost  of 
taking  it  from  you?  Now  that  proposition 
does  not  look  right  at  all.  The  whole  theory 
of  this  doctrine  and  idea  is  based  upon  the 
proposition  that  the  individual  whose  property 
is  to  be  taken  is  to  be  thereby  benefited,  and 
that  he  shall  bear  a portion  or  all  the  expenses, 
according  to  the  judgment  of  the  municipality, 
and  his  own  private  judgment  with  regard  to 
his  own  private  property  shall  be  utterly  ousted 
in  this  regard.  Now  that  is  a false  theory.  It 
is  said  that  the  gentleman  owns  real  estate 
through  which  the  public  municipality  desires 
to  force  a highway  or  a street,  or  an  alley,  ap- 
propriating the  property*  The  owner  of  adja- 
cent premises  or  other  premises  is  to  be  thereby 
benefited,  and  because  he  is  to  be  thereby 
benefited  a portion  or  all  of  his  property  shall 
be  taken  from  him  in  compensation  for  the 
benefits  that  he  is  to  receive  therefrom.  Now 
let  us  see  where  that  logic  runs.  The  owner  is 
in  possession  and  the  title  is  vested  in  him,  and 
having  the  right  it  is  within  his  power  person- 
ally and  individually  to  benefit  himself  by  do- 
nating this  property  to  the  public  if  he  sees 
proper.  Having  it  in  his  power  thus  to  benefit 
himself  by  giving  the  public  his  property,  the 
taking  of  that  identical  property  by  the  public 
does  not  benefit  him  at  all.  It  does  not  do  to 
him  anything  which  he  had  not  in  and  of  him- 
self originally  and  before  possessed  the  power 
of  doing  to  and  for  himself.  Now  the  idea  of 
talking  that  the  public  benefits  him  is  sheer 
nonsense.  It  does  not  do  it.  He  has  within 
himself  all  the  power  of  securing  or  taking  to 
himself  that  benefit  independently  of  and  with- 
out the  public.  He  can  donate  or  dedicate  a 
portion  of  his  lands  to  the  public  if  he  is  to  be 
benefited  by  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  would  save  the  costs  of 
appropriating  it. 


Mr.  WEST.  Saving  the  costs  of  appropriat- 
ing it.  And  he  has  a private  judgment  with  re- 
gard to  the  matter.  He  is  in  the  enjoyment  of 
a right  secured  and  guaranteed  to  him  by  the 
Constitution.  He  does  not  feel  that  he  is  to  be 
benefited,  and,  if  he  is  benefited,  the  benefits 
may  be  less  than  the  inconveniences  that  are 
caused.  That  is  a matter  of  private  judgment 
in  respect  to  his  private  property,  and  to  talk 
about  the  public  benefiting  him  under  such  cir- 
cumstances is  sheer  nonsense,  for  the  public  is 
to  be  benefited.  Others  than  he  are  to  be  bene- 
fited, for,  if  no  one  but  himself  is  to  receive 
the  benefit,  certainly  it  cannot  be  considered  a 
public  benefit.  Now,  if  the  public  desire  to 
benefit  him,  they  will  compensate  the  one  from 
whom  they  realize  the  benefit,  and  to  the  ex- 
tent of  which  they  take  from  his  personal  and 
private  control  that  which  belongs  to  him. 
Now,  I know  the  rule  of  the  country  is  this: 
when  a public  highway  is  applied  for,  the 
board  of  county  commissioners  pass  judgment, 
and,  if  the  public  interest  is  to  be  subserved  to 
a commensurate  extent,  the  whole  cost  of  the 
improvement  is  paid  out  of  the  county  treasury. 
If,  upon  the  contrary,  only  a limited  benefit  is 
to  result  to  the  public,  those  who  are  applying 
for  an  appropriation  are  required  to  make  the 
improvement,  and  the  treasury  is  held  free. 
The  applicants,  or  persons  who  "call  themselves 
the  public,  and  are  acting  in  the  interest  of  the 
public,  are  required  to  make  the  payment,  and 
they  are  the  persons,  and  the  only  persons,  who 
can  be  looked  to  as  being  benefited,  unless  it  is 
of  general  benefit,  such  as  to  justify  the  pay- 
ment out  of  the  county  treasury.  That  is  the 
way  all  our  roads  in  the  country  are  made. 
Now,  if  you  incorporate  in  the  Constitution  the 
power  to  assess  the  costs  of  this  appropriation 
upon  the  adjacent  property-holder,  you  will 
work  injustice,  because  you  substitute  public 
judgment  for  private  judgment,  and  you  place 
it  in  the  power  of  the  municipality,  county, 
township  or  city  to  impose  hardships  and  bur- 
dens unjustly,  unrighteously,  upon  adjacent 
proprietors — a power  that  ought  not  to  be  given 
to  them.  Again,  gentlemen  seem  to  confound 
the  idea  of  making  a public  highway,  a public 
street  or  an  alley  with  an  appropriation. 
After  the  appropriation  is  made,  the  title  to  the 
property  becomes  vested  in  the  public. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Suppose  that  the  street  be- 
comes vacated,  where  does  that  title  go? 

Mr.  WEST.  I do  not  know  where  it  goes  to, 
and  I do  not  care  where  it  goes  to.  We  are  not 
now  talking  about  the  vacation  of  a public  road 
or  public  street,  but  we  are  talking  of  taking 
private  property  from  an  individual  and  vesting 
the  title  thereto  in  the  public. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Exactly.  Will  the  delegate 
permit  me  to  ask  him  whether  we  take  anything 
but  the  easement?  Does  not  it  go  right  back 
again  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes;  you  take  the  fee  simple  by 
that  law.  The  fee  simple  absolute  is  vested  in 
the  municipality  or  the  county. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  For  the  uses  and  purposes? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir,  for  the  uses  and  pur- 
poses; and,  if  you  take  unlimited  easement,  I 


2105 


Day.] PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

March  17,  1874.]  IIoadly,  West,  Tuttle,  Pond,  Griswold,  etc. 


ask  you  what  the  residue  of  that  property  is 
worth  if  the  use  and  easement  is  perpetual  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I answer  that  the  gentle- 
man must  have  known,  as  I have  known,  cases 
of  vacation,  and  must  know  that  his  perpetual 
fee  simple  is,  in  substance,  nothing  but  an  ease- 
ment, a qualified  fee,  for  the  uses  and  purposes, 
hut  when  the  uses  and  purposes  end  the  prop- 
erty goes  right  back  again  to  the  man  that  has 
had  full  compensation  for  the  fee. 

Mr.  WEST.  That  may  be. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Is  the  possibility  of  getting 
the  land  back  again  after  the  public  get  through 
with  it  any  compensation  for  that  which  they 
take  which  is  never  got  back  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  owners  of  the  canal 
found  it  some  compensation. 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  certainly,  I can  imagine  a 
possible  case  where  there  is  a prospect,  after  the 
lapse  of  some  ten  thousand  years,  that  these 
streets  and  alleys  will  be  vacated  in  Cincin- 
nati ; when  the  two  days’  work  on  the  highway 
shall  be  abolished  after  the  present  generation, 
the  next  generation^  the  tenth  generation,  that 
is  to  come.  Is  that  possibility  to  be  placed  in 
the  scale  of  the  balance?  Certainly  not.  Now, 
what  I desire  to  speak  of  is  this:  After  the 
title  to  the  use  (call  it  that)  be  vested  in  the 
public,  a perpetual  title  is  vested  in  the  public, 
in  the  power  of  the  public  alone,  to  dis- 
pose of  hereafter.  Then  the  public  may  be 
regarded  as  the  owner  of  that  right,  what- 
ever it  may  be.  A kind  of  copartnership  then 
exists  in  the  public  a copartner  ownership  of 
the  rights  thus  vested  and  the  copartner,  so  far 
as  the  improvement  or  the  use  or  the  enjoy- 
ment of  that  right  is  concerned,  very  properly 
may  be  required  to  contribute  to  the  control 
and  the  exercise  of  an  authority  over,  and  the 
improvement  of,  and  the  fitting  for  the  enjoy- 
ment of,  that  public  property  which  is  now 
vested  in  the  public.  Before  thus  vested  it  is 
private  property.  How  many  times  have  we 
seen  that  the  benefit  and  result  is  but  a tithe  of 
the  costs  or  expenses.  If  the  public  is  to  be 
benefited  five  dollars  worth  they  can  appro- 
priate the  property,  and  yet  it  may  cost  fifty 
thousand  dollars  to  make  the  appropriation. 
The  magnitude  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  If 
the  benefit  has  an  existence,  no  matter  how 
small,  to  the  public,  the  public  is  vested  with 
the  power  to  make  the  appropriation.  Now 
the  benefit  to  the  individual  may  be  exceed- 
ingly insignificant  compared  with  the  entire 
costs  of  appropriation.  And  yet  you  have 
here  reserved  the  power  of  throwing  back  the 
portion  of  costs  proportioned  to  the  amount  of 
the  benefit,  not  equal  to  the  benefit  but  in  pro- 
portion to  the  amount  of  the  benefit.  The 
benefit  may  be  five  dollars  and  the  costs 
fifty  thousand  dollars.  The  proportion  of  fifty 
thousand  dollars  is  based  upon  that  five  dollars. 
Now  there  is  nothing  right  in  that.  There  is 
no  justice  in  it  at  all.  If  the  cost  of  the  assess- 
ment that  will  be  thrown  back  upon  the  owner 
should  never  exceed  the  amount  of  benefit, 
there  might  be  some  semblance  or  appearance 
of  equity,  but  not  otherwise. 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  ask,  if  the  value 
of  the  appropriation  may  be  assessed  back  upon 
the  owner  of  the  land,  of  what  practical  value 


is  the  original  Constitution  providing  that 
there  shall  be  no  deduction  for  benefits? 

Mr.  WEST.  Not  any  whatever;  not  a par- 
ticle. There  shall  be  no  deduction  on  account 
of  benefits. 

Now  I come  to  the  proposition.  The  gentle- 
man from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  tells  us 
the  owner  is  paid  every  farthing;  every  cent  is 
paid  to  him  out  of  the  public  treasury  or  some 
way. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Out  of  the  public  treas- 
ury. 

Mr.  WEST.  Very  well,  he  is  paid.  I tell  the 
gentleman  that  under  his  declaration  and 
theory,  he  is  not  paid  a farthing,  not  in  fact  or 
in  theory.  It  is  only  a loan.  That  is  all  there 
is  of  it.  The  public  treasury  condescends  to 
lend  to  this  gentleman,  whose  property  is  taken, 
an  amount  about  equal  to  the  value  of  what  that 
public  has  said  it  is,  with  the  privilege  of  re- 
taining it  in  his  pocket  until  the  assessing 
officer  comes  round  and  requires  him  to  dis- 
gorge. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  And  that  assessing 
officer  will  add,  by  way  of  interest,  the  costs  of 
the  improvement. 

Mr.  WEST.  He  will  add  the  costs  of  the 
improvement,  and  the  costs  of  the  appropria- 
tion. Tell  me  that  is  payment.  That  man 
talks  in  riddles,  he  talks  nonsense  when  he  says 
that  is  payment.  It  is  no  payment.  It  is  mock- 
ery to  talk  about  it.  It  is  a simple  loan,  a 
gracious  condescension,  to  lend  a man,  whom 
you  have  robbed,  a portion  of  money,  that  he 
may  please  himself  with  for  the  time  being,  till 
he  is  notified  again  to  disgorge  and  place  it  back 
in  the  treasury.  And  you  call  that  payment. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  would  be  true,  if  the 
law  was  that  it  should  come  back  upon  that 
man,  but  that  is  not  the  law,  nor  is  it  contended 
by  anybody  that  it  is.  He  pays  for  the  land, 
and  there  is  the  end  of  it.  When  the  improve- 
ments come  to  be  assessed,  it  is  taken  out  of  the 
benefits,  in  common  with  those  around  him. 
Therefore,  it  is  only  a small  proportion  that  the 
law  gives  back  to  him. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  the  gentleman  distinguishes 
between  the  compensation  for  the  thing  taken, 
and  the  improvement  made  upon  that  thing 
taken  for  it,  it  is  appropriate.  If  he  will  con- 
cur with  me  as  to  the  compensation,  I will  con- 
cur with  him  as  to  the  improvement;  and  I 
think  we  are  now  coming  together  very  rapidly. 
As  to  the  improvement,  that  belongs  to  the  pub- 
lic. The  public  have  the  right  and  ought  to  be 
empowered  to  control  it,  but  as  to  taking  com- 
pensation, that  which  does  not  belong  to  the 
public,  the  private  judgment  should  be  per- 
mitted to  control,  until  the  public  shall  have 
come  in  and  paid,  not  by  way  of  loan,  but  by 
way  of  final,  complete  and  continuing  payment, 
not  simply  going  round  with  one  hand  to  pay 
and  with  the  other  to  withdraw  payment.  That 
is  not  payment  at  all. 

Mr.  MINER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  catechise  him  a little  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Certainly. 

Mr.  MINER.  Does  the  gentleman  conceive 
that  the  land  and  the  improvement  may  be  put 
upon  the  general  levy,  and  collected  in  that 
wav  by  city  or  corporation  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Yes,  sir. 


2106 


[140th 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 


Miner,  West,  Griswold,  Hoadly.  [Tuesday, 


Mr.  MINER.  That,  you  think,  would  be 
right? 

Mr.  WEST.  I say  it  may  be  done  under  the 
Constitution. 

Mr.  MINER.  Is  there  any  distinction  be- 
tween doing  that  and  raising  it  by  assessment? 
Is  it  not  simply  a different  mode,  but  in  princi- 
ple identical  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  MINER.  Well,  I cannot  see  it  other- 
wise. 

Mr.  WEST.  There  is  a vast  difference.  In 
one  you  have  vested  in  your  municipality  the 
sole  power  of  judgment,  both  in  respect  to  the 
amount  of  compensation  and  the  amount  of 
assessment,  whereas,  when  it  comes  to  a matter 
of  taxation,  that  other  clause  of  this  Constitu- 
tion comes  in  and  says  that  there  shall  be  but 
one  right  of  assessment  upon  the  property  of 
the  public.  Here  you  have  the  discriminating 
power  of  assessment  to  assess  thus  and  so  upon 
one  man,  and  thus  and  so  upon  another  in  pro- 
portion and  according  to  the  benefits  which  it 
is  supposed  he  will  receive,  and  you  are  to  be 
the  judge  of  the  benefits. 

Mr.  MINER.  Do  not  you  fix  your  taxes  with 
reference  to  the  value  of  property  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  You  fix  the  taxes  by  the  gener- 
al principles  of  law,  I know. 

Mr.  MINER.  In  this  also. 

Mr.  WEST.  And  you  fix  that  with  reference 
to  the  public  interests  of  the  country,  and  not 
by  this  one  local  thing. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Why  not  put  the  cost  of 
the  improvement  into  the  State  levy? 

Mr.  WEST.  Why,  there  are  more  municipal- 
ities or  localities  that  may  be  called  the  public 
than  one.  I do  not  care  whether  you  put  it  into 
the  State  levy  or  town  levy  or  what  levy. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  the  power  of  the 
State  that  does  it. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  is  the  power  that  you  are 
placing  in  the  municipality  to  abuse  discretion. 
It  is  an  uncontrolled  power  when  it  is  vested, 
one  from  which  there  can  be  no  appeal  if  regu- 
larity is  pursued,  and  that  municipal  judgment 
shall  control  by  binding  as  against  private  judg- 
ment. The  private  individual  shall  have  no  say 
at  all. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Why  do  you  not  have  the 
cost  levied  on  the  State  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  Oh,  tell  us  why  do  you  not  have 
it  levied  on  the  United  States? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  is  just  as  good. 

Mr.  WEST.  Not  at  all.  I care  not  what  you 
fix  upon  as  the  public.  There  must  be  some- 
thing designated  as  the  public,  and  there  must 
an  applicant  who  is  willing  to  father  the  public, 
who  is  willing  to  be  considered  the  public  and 
to  stand  responsible  for  payment,  and  if  he  is 
interested  and  wants  the  property,  he  must  pay 
for  it.  If  he  is  not  interested  he  will  not  apply 
for  it.  I may  get  others  to  join  with  me.  That 
is  the  rule,  so  far  as  I have  observed  in  the 
country,  and  it  is  the  only  just  and  proper  rule. 
I am  unwilling  that  private  judgment  shall  be 
surrendered  to  a discretionary  power,  an  author- 
ity not  always  scrupulous,  that  may  impose  bur- 
dens in  return  for  imaginary  benefits. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  This  is  a matter  of  no  little 
interest  to  the  people  whom  I represent.  It  is 
proposed  here  by  the  delegate  from  Allen 


[Mr.  Cunningham]  to  adopt  what  I understand 
is  the  effect  of  the  section,  as  it  now  reads, 
namely,  to  leave  to  the  Legislature  the  power 
of  determining  the  equalization  of  assessments. 

I shall  vote  against  the  proposition  of  the  del- 
egate from  Allen  TMr.  Cunningham],  because  I 
do  not  think  it  adds  any  force  whatever  to  the 
section  as  it  reads.  What  the  delegate  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  proposes  is  the  inaugura- 
tion of  a raid  upon  the  tax  payers  of  cities  in 
this  State,  of  a raid  upon  the  merchants  and 
manufacturers,  the  hard  working  men  who 
give  life  to  our  cities,  in  favor  of  a parcel  of 
suburban  obstructives.  That  is  the  whole  of  it. 
It  is  bound,  if  adopted,  to  result  in  one  of  three 
things : either  to  increase  the  burdens  on  the 
adjacent  property-holders,  upon  whom  the  as- 
sessment is  levied,  or  upon  the  tax  payers  at 
large,  who  have  no  general  interest  in  the  sub- 
ject, or  to  stop  the  improvement  altogether. 

Mr.  President,  in  the  first  place,  the  amend- 
ment of  the  delegate  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer] 
proposes  (and  this  is  what  my  friend  from  Lo- 
gan [Mr.  West]  argues  in  favor  of ) to  forbid, 
not  assessments,  he  does  not  propose  to  forbid 
assessments,  his  argument  goes  to  that  length, 
but  he  does  not  propose  to  forbid  assessments ; 
he  only  proposes  to  exempt  the  man  whose 
property  happens  to  be  taken,  and  to  lay  that 
man’s  burden  upon  the  shoulders  of  other  par- 
ties who  may  be  obliged  to  bear  the  assess- 
ment. It  does  them  a double  wrong  for  the 
benefit  of  the  person  who  reaps  the  advantage, 
and  this  iniquity — for  it  is  an  iniquity — is  ex- 
posed no  where  half  as  well  as  in  the  case  of 
the  city  of  Cleveland  vs.  Wick,  18th  Ohio  State 
Reports,  by  the  supreme  court  of  this  State.  I 
shall  read  "again  this  passage.  It  was  read  by 
my  friend  from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing]  once  be- 
fore when  this  matter  was  up  : 

“What  was  the  object  of  the  provision  in  question? 
What  was  the  evil  intended  to  be  remedied  by  it?  Surely 
it  was  no  part  of  its  object  to  remedy  any  supposed  in- 
equality, or  abuse  of  the  power  of  local  taxatimi.  No 
such  evil  was  complained  of.  The  mischief  which  was 
complained  of,  the  mischief  which  existed  under  the 
old  Constitution  was,  that  the  benefits  which  were  com- 
mon to  his  neighbors,  without  charge,  were  deducted 
from  the  price  paid  to  the  owner  of  the  land  taken.  The 
evil  might  well  be  denominated  inequality  of  benefits 
and  burdens  among  adjoining  landowners.  You  paid  for 
the  owner’s  land  in  privileges,  and  left  him  still  liable, 
equally  with  his  neighbors,  whose  lands  were  untaken,  to 
any  and  all  local  assessments  that  might  afterward  be 
imposed.  This  was  unequal,  and  therefore  deemed  un- 
just. Experience  proved,  moreover,  that  it  led  to  much 
abuse  of  the  power  of  condemnation.  A full  remedy  is 
found  for  these  evils  in  the  provision  in  question,  without 
at  all  making  it  to  interfere  with  the  power  of  assess- 
ment. Construed  thus,  it  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the 
leading  principle  of  taxation  in  the  new  Constitution 
uniformity  and  equality  of  burdens.  It  simply  guaran- 
tees to  the  owner  of  land  condemned  a full  price.  \\  hen 
that  is  paid,  he  stands  on  a perfect  equality  with  all  other 
owners  of  adioining  lands,  equally  liable,  as  he  ought  to 
be,  to  be  taxed  upon  his  other  lands  with  them.  He  has 
the  full  price  of  his  land  in  his  pocket,  and  is  an  equal 
participant  with  them  in  benefits  to  adjoining  lauds.  To 
throw  the  whole  burden  upon  others,  in  such  a case, 
would  be  to  do  them  the  precise  injustice  which  was  done 
to  him  under  the  old  Constitution.  To  do  so  would  be  to 
avoid  one  evil  only  to  run  into  another.  It  would  be  to 
avoid  the  evil  of  withholding  from  him  a full  and  fan- 
price  for  his  lands,  only  to  run  into  the  equal  evil  of  pay- 
ing him  two  prices  for  it,  the  second  price  being  at  the 
expense  of  his  neighbors.” 

Suppose  you  take  a strip  of  land  for  a highway, 
from  a single  owner,  a mile  long  and  sixty  feet 
wide.  That  one  man  owns  the  whole  of  the 
land  on  the  right  hand  side  of  this  proposed 


Day.] PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 2107 

March  17,  1874.]  Hoadly,  Cunningham,  West,  Powell,  Gurley. 


street,  and  on  the  left  hand  side  the  land  is 
owned  by  twenty,  thirty  or  a hundred  different 
people,  in  lots  facing  on  the  proposed  avenue. 
You  pay  that  man  from  whom  you  take  the 
land  the  whole  price  of  his  land.  From  what 
source  will  you  collect  the  money  ? There  are 
but  two  sources — either  assessment  or  taxation. 
If  you  collect  by  assessment  you  will  relieve 
that  man  by  this  provision  of  the  delegate  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  from  contribution  for 
any  part  of  the  burden,  and  yet  the  land  own- 
ers on  the  left  hand  side  of  the  street  will  be 
compelled  to  bear  more  than  their  share  of  the 
burden,  in  order  that  he,  who  receives  as  much 
benefit  as  they,  may  be  relieved  from  his  share 
of  the  burden.  That  will  be  the  result — the 
inevitable  result — of  attempting  to  maintain 
the  principle  of  assessment  after  you  adopt  the 
doctrine  contained  in  the  amendment  of  the 
delegate  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
tell  us  how  it  can  be  possible  that  the  owner  of 
the  land  in  one  body  upon  the  right  hand  side 
can  be  as  much  benefited  as  the  twenty  owners 
of  the  land  on  the  left  hand  side? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How  can  it  happen  that  he 
may  not  be  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I will  answer  the  gen- 
tleman : In  this  the  convenience  of  those  twenty 
men  is  involved.  That  is  the  principal  reason. 
The  great  reason  that  leads  persons  living  on 
the  left  hand  side  to  favor  having  a street 
opened  is  the  convenience,  but  the  person  who 
owns  the  property  on  the  right  hand  side  has 
no  such  requirement. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Very  well;  I will  take  a 
simpler  case,  then,  in  order  that  the  gentleman 
from  Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  may  understand 
my  argument.  Suppose  that  there  are  two 
property  owners,  from  one  of  whom  the  whole 
land  is  taken  ; and  now  the  delegate  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer]  proposes  to  exempt  that  man 
whose  land  is  taken,  and,  if  you  maintain  the 
principle  of  assessment,  and  levy  the  whole  of 
that  man’s  half  of  the  burden  on  the  other 
owner,  it  will  result  in  this.  If  you  exempt 
him,  you  ought  to  exempt  the  other,  just  as 
much  as  he.  Why  not?  If  you  levy  upon  the 
other  any  part  of  the  burden,  you  simply  give 
the  first  an  advantage  which  is  in  the  highest 
degree  unjust.  Every  dollar  that  you  charge 
the  other  property-holders  is  a dollar  expended 
to  the  advantage  of  him  whose  property  is 
taken,  and  who  is  exempted,  and,  therefore,  it 
is  an  iniquity. 

Mr.  WEST.  In  the  proposition  stated  of  the 
adjacent  proprietor,  did  not  one  of  them  own 
the  property,  and  might  he  not  use  it  for  any 
purpose  he  deemed  proper? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly  he  did,  and  he 
could;  but  what  difference  does  that  make? 

Mr.  WEST.  Well,  now,  I want  to  say,  if  he 
owns  it,  he  can  appropriate  it  to  the  uses  of  a 
road  to  travel  upon,  or  otherwise.  That  is  his 
exclusive  right  as  yet.  How  can  he  be  said  to 
be  benefited  by  the  public,  when  the  public 
compel  him  to  let  others  travel  upon  it? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How  can  the  others  be  said 
to  be  benefited  any  more  than  he? 

Mr.  WEST.  Answer  my  question  first. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Precisely.  In  this  way: 
The  land  is  taken  from  him,  and  he  is  paid 


every  dollar  it  is  worth.  Now,  the  question  is, 
where  are  you  going  to  raise  the  money  ? You 
take  it  out  of  your  treasury.  How  are  you 
going  to  reimburse  your  treasury  ? Is  not  that 
street  just  as  much  for  his  benefit  as  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  live  across  from  him? 
Just  as  much,  exactly. 

Mr.  WEST.  Did  not  he  own  it  before? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Suppose  he  did.  Had  not 
he  been  paid  for  it? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  just  what  my 
amendment  proposes. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Exactly.  It  has  been  paid 
for.  The  gentleman  fails  to  see,  although  he 
has  the  logic  upon  this  subject  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Ohio,  telling  him  in  so  many  words 
how  it  happens,  but  he  fails  to  see  if  he  exempts 
one  man  on  one  side  of  the  street  he  levies  his 
share  of  the  burden,  or  some  part  of  it,  on  the 
others  on  the  other  side,  so  that  this  one  man 
shall  not  have  anything  to  pay. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I can  speak  of  cases  where  it 
has  operated  beneficially  on  men  and  they  have 
withheld  the  taxes. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  the  class  of  men  I 
meant  when  I said  this  was  a raid  for  suburban 
obstructives;  for  the  fact  is,  that  the  men  that 
wiil  gain  by  this  proposition  are  the  men  who 
will  use  it  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  im- 
provements. 

Mr.  WEST.  Did  you  ever  see  men  hold  back 
their  merchandise  or  produce  for  the  purpose  of 
being  benefited? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I have  seen  men  hold  back 
their  property  from  this  burden  of  taxation 
many  a time.  That  is  the  point. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  When  a man  is  compensated 
for  his  land  that  has  been  appropriated,  do  not 
they  then  turn  round  and  re-assess  him  enough 
to  reimburse  the  treasury  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  the  result  if  you 
take  the  whole  of  his  land  from  him  and  put  the 
whole  burden  upon  him.  In  extremely  rare 
cases  that  might  happen.  It  is  no  doubt  so. 
But  in  that  case  I would  like  my  friend  to  an- 
swer this  question : Suppose  you  tax  him  by 

the  general  process  of  taxation,  are  you  not  vio- 
lating your  own  principles  ? That  is  what  I am 
coming  to  next,  having  shown  that  if  you  use 
the  power  of  assessment  you  are  compelled  to 
use  it  in  an  unfair  discrimination  either  against 
the  other  persons  who  are  jointly  benefited  with 
him  or  in  his  favor,  necessarily  unfair  either 
way.  Then  I come  to  the  question,  is  it  right  te 
raise  the  money  to  reimburse  the  persons 
through  wThose  lands  a suburban  street  is  run 
by  a general  tax  on  the  whole  body  politic?  I 
do  not  think  it  is.  By  the  logic  of  the  delegate 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  as  he  admits, 
he  must  contend  against  all  assessments. 
The  logic  of  all  my  friends  that  de- 
sired to  prevent  the  adoption  of  the 
clause  as  it  now  stands  and  came  from  the 
Committee,  would  lead  them  into  contending 
against  all  assessment.  Is  it  right  to  charge 
the  whole  treasury,  and  thus  load  down  the 
active  life  of  a municipal  corporation  with  the 
cost  of  improvements  which  are  at  most  for  the 
benefit  of  a very  small  circle  of  people  who  live 
in  their  neighborhood?  Take  the  case  of 
Cleveland.  We  are  all  familiar  with  it.  The 
city  is  divided  into  two  parts  by  the  valley  of 


2108 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES 

Hoadly,  Beer,  Neal,  Townsend. 


[140th 

[Tuesday, 


the  Cuyahoga.  I ask  my  friend  who  said  the 
opening  of  Euclid  street  through  twenty  acres 
supposed  to  belong  to  the  delegate  from  Cleve- 
land [Mr.  Townsend],  I ask  w’hat  benefit  that 
street  would  be  to  the  people  of  Ohio  City  on 
the  west  side  of  the  river,  and  with  what  pro- 
priety should  the  people  of  the  west  side  of  the 
river  be  taxed  for  the  opening  of  that  street? 
I live  four  miles  east  of  this  place : with  what 
propriety  should  the  streets  opened  through 
my  land  be  paid  for  by  a tax  upon  the  people  of 
Cincinnati  living  west  of  Mill  Creek?  There 
is  no  sense;  there  is  no  right  in  it.  There  is 
not  only  the  fact  that  the  owners  in  remote  sec- 
tions of  a city  have  no  interest  in  these  streets 
that  justifies  such  taxation,  but  the  additional 
fact  that  the  property  in  the  centres  of  our 
cities  has  all  been  improved  upon  a different 
principle  forbids  the  adoption  of  this  new 
fangled  scheme,  for,  with  all  respect  to  my 
friend  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  I can  tell 
him  that  the  power  of  eminent  domain  in  the 
United  States  has  been  understood  so  clearly  in 
the  other  way,  the  other  direction,  that  he  will 
look  in  vain  for  a single  provision  anywhere 
like  the  one  now  proposed  to  be  adopted 
in  our  Constitution.  It  is  not  the  law  of  New 
York.  It  is  not  the  law  of  any  State  in  which 
there  is  agrowing  city. 

Mr.  BEER.  Will  the  gentleman  tell  me 
whether  this  provision  has  not  always  been  the 
provision  as  it  stands  in  our  Constitution,  to 
prohibit  the  taking  of  a man’s  property  and 
compelling  him  to  pay  for  it  himself,  and 
whether  it  is  not  now  made  necessary  by  the 
peculiar  decision  of  our  supreme  court? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  was  so  understood  in  this 
city.  It  was  not  so  understood  in  Cleveland, 
and  the  result  of  its  being  so  understood  in  this 
city  has  been  that  more  jobs,  more  swindling, 
more  thievery  has  been  practiced  under  the 
idea  that  the  power  was  denied  to  levy  local 
assessments,  and  that  the  money  for  these  things 
had  to  be  taken  out  of  the  treasury,  than  I wish 
to  see  any  city  in  Ohio  afflicted  with  in  the  next 
five  hundred  years.  The  idea  that  Hamilton 
county  should  be  taxed  for  building  Columbia 
avenue,  the  idea  that  the  personal  property  of 
Cincinnati  should  be  taxed  for  building  Gilbert 
avenue  or  McLean  avenue  or  any  one  of  the 
other  jobs  that  I read  in  the  hearing  of  the  Con- 
vention the  other  day,  and  which  amounted  in 
one  single  year  to  more  than  $800,000,  stolen — 
that  is  the  right  word — from  the  hard  working 
tax-payers  of  this  city,  stolen  from  the  poor 
mechanic,  stolen  from"  the  owners  of  personal 
property  for  the  benefit  of  and  to  enrich  subur- 
ban obstructives  on  whom  the  whole  burden 
ought  to  have  rested,  as  they  derived  the  whole 
benefit.  No,  sir,  it  is  an  anomaly  in  the  doc- 
trine of  eminent  domain,  this  thing  of  denying, 
as  part  of  the  cost  of  the  improvement,  the  cost 
of  the  land  that  is  used  to  make  the  improve- 
ment. The  distinction  the  delegate  from  Logan 
[Mr.  West]  takes,  is  a distinction  which  is  not 
founded  in  truth  at  all.  The  land  is  as  much 
part  of  the  cost  of  the  actual  improvement  as 
the  gravel,  as  much  part  of  the  cost  of  the  im- 
provement as  the  labor,  and  when  the  work  is 
done  you  cannot  separate  the  land  from  the 
labor  that  has  been  put  upon  the  land.  It  is 
simply  a measure  to  prevent  improvements  or 


to  load  the  cost  of  improvements  upon  those  who 
derive  no  benefit  from  it  or  divide  it  unequally 
with  those  who  do. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man a question. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  NEAL.  If  the  people  of  the  city  derive 
no  advantage  from  these  improvements,  why 
does  the  city  make  them  against  the  wishes  of 
the  owners  who  derive  all  the  benefits  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Why,  the  municipal  coun- 
cils have  been  ordered  in  our  system  to  stand  as 
the  representatives  of  the  public  interest  in  this 
matter.  I had  to  speak  of  it  once  before.  I 
would  not  object  a particle  if  my  friend  should 
be  elected  to  the  Legislature  to  frame  laws  to 
carry  this  Constitution  into  effect,  if  he  would 
work  out  a scheme  by  which  that  part  of  the 
public  that  pays  the  bill  should  be  consulted 
first.  But  my  friend  will  find,  as  it  always  has 
been  in  this  State,  that  the  representative  of  the 
public,  in  deciding  what  improvements  should 
be  made,  is  the  municipal  council. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  So  far  as  my  knowledge 
goes  about  opening  streets,  I do  not  know  of  a 
single  street  that  has  been  opened  in  the  city 
that  I represent  in  part,  but  what  has  been 
opened  on  the  petition  of  a majority  of  the 
property  owners.  It  has  been  done  for  their 
benefit,  and  at  their  request. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes,  sir.  Our  experience  in 
this  place  is  that  it  is  a regular  strife  between 
people  to  see  which  shall  get  into  the  public 
treasury  deepest  for  their  own  benefit. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  So  far  as  opening  streets 
and  avenues  for  the  benefit  of  suburban  prop- 
erty is  involved  in  this  discussion,  I desire  to 
say,  that  all  sharp  real  estate  men  who  are  not 
anxious  to  make  the  public  open  streets  for 
their  benefit  and  to  improve  their  private  prop- 
erty, open  their  own  streets.  They  not  only 
open  the  avenue,  but  they  improve  it,  grade  it, 
fix  the  sidewalks,  set  out  shade  trees,  and  reap 
all  the  benefit,  and  generally  make  a very  hand- 
some thing  of  it.  Those  who  desire  to  have  all 
this  benefit,  and  force  the  public  to  pay  for  it, 
ask  the  public  to  do  it;  but  in  a very  large  num- 
ber of  cases  now  where  additions  are  made  to 
the  city,  and  new  plats  and  allotments  are  made, 
the  avenues  and  streets  are  not  only  made,  but 
they  are  improved,  and  they  are  improved  upon 
the  theory  that  the  owners  get  very  amply  paid 
for  it.  The  person  wffio  buys  the  lot,  not  only 
pays  for  all  the  improvements,  but  pays  about 
one  hundred  per  cent.  more.  He  is  the  man 
who  pays  it,  and  the  more  the  public  uses  the 
street,  the  more  valuable  it  makes  his  property. 
He  wants  the  public  to  use  it.  If  the  public  did 
not  use  it,  his  property  would  be  of  very  little 
value.  The  public  is  what  he  gets  his  living 
from.  What  good  could  a merchant  do  on  a 
street  if  the  public  did  not  use  it?  He  would 
go  on  some  street  that  the  public  did  use,  and 
leave  that  street  for  the  grass  to  grow  upon. 
The  increase  of  travel  by  the  public  increases 
in  a relative  proportion  the  business,  and  in  like 
proportion  enhances  the  rental  value  of  realty, 
and  the  owner  of  property  on  the  new  street 
reaps  the  advantage,  and  should  not  only  pay 
his  proportion  of  the  cost  of  opening  the  street, 
but  that  proportion  should  be  ascertained,  keep- 
ing in  view  the  great  advantage  to  him  over 


Day.] PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES 210!) 

March  17,  1874.]  Neal,  Hoadly,  Cunningham. 


every  one  else  not  owning  property  on  the  new 
street. 

Mr.  NEAL.  It  has  been  said— perhaps  very 
correctly — we  are  never  too  old  to  learn.  I 
think  we  have  all  learned  something  by  this 
discussion  this  morning,  and  one  thing  we  have 
learned  is  that  the  laying  out  of  streets  in  cities 
and  villages  is  done  simply  for  the  benefit  of 
the  owners  of  the  property  through  which  and 
to  which  the  streets  are  laid  out,  and  not  for 
the  benefit  of  the  public.  That  is  a new  doc- 
trine— something  that  I have  never  heard  of 
before,  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Hoadly]  advanced,  if  I correctly  understood 
him. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I do  not  understand  it  so,  at 
all.  The  gentleman  does  not  seem  to  make  the 
distinction.  I say  to  the  gentleman  that  every 
dollar  that  is  made  in  money  by  the  advance  of 
land  is  made  by  the  man  that  owns  the  tract — 
every  dollar  of  it.  I was  not  thinking  of  the 
incidental  advantages  which  the  public  have. 
For  instance,  here  is  what  happens  in  our  cities : 
A little  village  is  settled  a mile  or  half  a mile 
beyond  the  more  populous  parts  of  the  city,  and 
there  is  a tract  of  land  between,  which  belongs 
to  some  man  who  is  determined  that  he  will  be 
paid  two  prices  before  he  will  open  streets,  or 
it  belongs  to  minor  heirs — at  any  rate,  for  some 
reason  you  have  not  a straight  street,  and  the 
people  have  to  go  half  a mile  around  to  get  to 
the  city.  I say  the  entire  money  advantage 
of  opening  a straight  street  connecting  the 
outside  village  with  the  city  goes  to  the  owner 
of  the  land  through  which  the  street  is  made — 
the  entire  money  advantage,  the  increase  of 
rent  and  the  increased  convenience  of  living  on 
that  land.  And  in  all  the  cases  that  I have 
ever  seen  it  is  an  enormous  advantage. 

Mr.  CU.NNIGHAM.  Is  not  the  property  of 
the  village  enhanced  by  a straight  street? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly;  it  may  be  to  their 
advantage  very  much;  but  the  entire  money 
advantage  of  the  street,  and  the  convenience  of 
living  upon  it  goes  to  the  person  that  owns  the 
land.  There  is  an  incidental  benefit  more 
largely  spread. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Is  this  the  doctrine  of  the  gen- 
tleman, that  all  the  property  through  which  a 
street  is  opened  is  necessarily  benefited  by  rea- 
son of  the  opening  of  the  same  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Generally,  not  always. 

Mr.  NEAL.  It  has  always  been  my  opinion, 
and  I believe  that  experience  bears  me  out  in 
it,  that  every  city  or  village  is  benefited  di- 
rectly by  every  avenue  of  approach  that  is 
opened  up  to  it;  that  the  city  of  Cincinnati  is 
benefited  by  every  road  that  goes  into  it, 
whether  a rail  road,  pike  road,  common  road, 
or  even  a canal.  And  yet,  it  is  contended  that 
the  city  which  receives  this  benefit  shall  pay  no 
part  of  the  value  of  the  land  taken,  and  no  part 
of  the  expenses  necessary  for  the  improvement 
of  the  same. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Nobody  makes  any  such 
proposition.  There  is  no  such  proposition  in 
the  Article.  The  Article  leaves  it  perfectly 
free  for  the  Legislature  to  authorize  councils  of 
cities  to  make  such  equitable  distribution  as 
they  may  see  fit.  The  proposition  is  to  prevent 
the  charge  being  made  on  the  public  where  the 
benefit  is  wholly  to  the  owners. 


Mr.  NEAL.  I thought  I listened  very  care- 
fully to  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  and  I so  understood 
him,  and  the  illustrations  that  he  used  confirm 
my  impression ; as,  for  instance,  he  inquired 
what  benefit  the  opening  up  of  streets  and  ave- 
nues through  his  grounds  in  the  east  end  was 
to  the  people  of  the  west  end,  and  how  was  he 
benefited  by  the  improvements  of  the  west  end?" 
Now,  then,  if  it  is  no  benefit  to  the  city,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  he  does  not  wish  them  to  pay 
any  part  of  the  expense;  and  if  it  is  of  no  ben- 
efit, why,  I inquire,  does  the  city  want  to  open- 
an  avenue  through  his  grounds? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Does  the  gentleman  wisb 
me  to  answer  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Because  I do  not  live  alone; 
because  I am  one  of  a very  large  circle  of  peo- 
ple; and  the  word  “public,”  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  used  here,  does  not  mean  everybody 
in  the  whole  municipal  corporation. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Then  why  should  not  that  whole 
circle  around  about  the  grounds  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  help  to  pay 
the  expenses  of  opening  the  street? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  precisely  what  the 
law  is  to-day,  and  wrho  the  “public”  may  be  is 
determined,  in  every  case,  by  the  council  of  the 
municipal  corporation.  That  is  exactly  the 
law  to-day.  The  proposition  is  that  you  can 
single  me  out,  and  exempt  me  from  being  one 
of  that  public  and  paying  my  share  like  the 
rest,  because  I own  the  land. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Then  the  question  arises,  to 
what  limit  does  this  community  extend  ? ITow 
is  this  important  question  to  be  determined  ? 
Until  the  passage  of  a municipal  corporation 
act,  the  law  provided  that  the  expense  of  an 
improvement  might  be  assessed  by  the  front 
foot  on  the  land  through  which  it  passes. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  is  not  the  law,  and  has 
not  been  for  years. 

Mr.  NEAL.  In  1869  the  law  was  changed. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  has  remained  unchanged 
since. 

Mr.  NEAL.  The  very  next  General  Assem- 
bly may  re-enact  this  law. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  may  be  that  way  now,  if 
those  who  own  property  of  that  sort  constitute 
the  public  interested  in  that  street;  but  not 
otherwise. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Let  us  see,  prior  to  1869,  to 
what  extent  this  legalized  robbery  extended — 
for  it  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  that,  dis- 
guise it  as  you  may.  The  statute  provides  as 
follows : 

They  shall  have  power  to  lay  off,  open,  widen,  straight- 
en, extend  and  establish,  to  improve  and  keep  in  order 
and  repair,  and  to  light,  streets,  alleys,  public  grounds, 
wharves,  landing  places,  and  market  spaces;  to  open,  and 
construct, and  keep  in  order,  and  repair  sewers  and  drains ; 
to  appropriate,  enter  upon  or  take,  for  such  of  the  above 
purposes  as  may  require  it,  land  or  material,  and  to  assess 
and  collect  a charge  on  the  owners  of  any  lots  or  lands 
abutting  on  such  street,  alley,  public  ground,  wharf, 
landing  place  and  market  space,  or  on  the  lots  or  lands 
through  or  by  which  such  street,  alley,  public  highway, 
public  ground,  wharf,  landing  place  or  market  space 
shall  pass,  lor  the  purpose  of  defraying  the  expenses  of 
so  constructing,  improving,  repairing,  extending,  widen- 
ing, opening  or  lighting  such  street,  alley,  etc. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  clause  has  been  re- 
pealed. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Certainly  it  has.  But  that 


2110 


PRIVATE  PORPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

Neal,  Griswold,  Hoadly,  Yoris. 


[140th 


shows  the  necessity  of  this  constitutional  pro- 
vision to  prevent  the  Legislature  from  commit- 
ting another  such  outrage  on  the  private  rights 
of  individuals.  Now,  Mr.  President,  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold]  has 
upon  Euclid  avenue  a very  fine  mansion  wrorth 
its  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands.  Suppose 
the  city  authorities  of  Cleveland  had  under- 
taken under  this  law  to  lay  out  through  that 
mansion  a market  space.  Let  us  see  how  they 
would  pay  for  it.  They  leave  a portion  of  the 
lot  on  each  side  of  this  market  space  sought  to 
he  appropriated,  and  thereupon  the  jury  assess 
the  damages.  The  city  treasurer  pays  over  the 
assessed  damages  $20,000,  and  Mr.  Griswold 
congratulates  himself  with  the  idea  that  he  has 
received  $20,000,  but  the  next  day  the  same 
treasurer  returns  with  an  assessment  of  $20,000 
upon  the  lot. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  submit  it  to  the 
judgment  of  the  council  whether  the  adjoining 
property  is  benefited,  and  do  not  put  the  assess- 
ment upon  me  alone,  but  upon  all  property  ben- 
efited, and  if  the  adjoining  property  that  was 
worth  only  $500  is  made,  by  being  in  front  of 
the  market  place,  to  be  worth  $2,000  a foot,  I 
ought  to  pay. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  delegate  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal]  has  forgotten  that  on  the  motion  of 
the  delegate  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  there  has 
been  adopted  a clause  that  reduces  the  assess- 
ment to  at  least  half  the  taxable  value. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I know  it  does,  but  I am  speak- 
ing of  the  proceedings  under  the  statute  above 
quoted  which  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  present  Constitution,  and 
which  permits  an  absolute  confiscation  of  prop- 
erty. The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]  would  have  no  remedy  whatever. 
They  could  have  laid  out  that  market  place 
right  through  his  lot,  torn  down  his  elegant 
mansion,  and  then  assessed  the  remainder  of 
his  property  bordering  on  the  market  space,  to 
pay  the  damages  he  had  sustained.  This  is  the 
compensation  that  is  here  stated  to  be  a full 
payment  for  a man’s  property  appropriated 
under  the  forms  of  law  for  public  purposes. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  They  can  get  up  a mob 
and  kill  you. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Not  under  the  forms  of  law  but 
in  defiance  of  it,  under  this  statute,  property 
has  not  only  been  entirely  confiscated,  but  ef- 
forts have  been  made  on  more  than  one  occasion, 
to  recover  from  the  owners  of  the  property 
sums  of  money,  which,  it  was  claimed,  the  im- 
provements cost  over  and  above  the  value  of 
the  entire  property.  So  that  what  has  been 
done  once  may  be  done  again.  The  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  has  said  that  the 
people  of  the  west  end  were  not  interested  in 
the  improvements  of  the  east  end  of  this  city 
and  vice  versa.  With  all  due  deference  to  the 
opinion  of  the  gentleman  who  I know  is  a great 
deal  better  informed  upon  this  subject  than  I 
am,  I must  beg  leave  to  differ  with  him.  I say 
that  the  substantial  improvements  of  any  city 
or  village  are  a direct  or  indirect  benefit  to 
every  inhabitant  thereof. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I will  ask  the  delegate  if  he  , 
is  not  aware  of  the  fact  that  in  all  cities  of  the  ' 
United  States — I do  not  believe  there  is  a sin-  j 
gle  exception — the  improvements  of  some  por-  I 


[Tuesday, 


tions  of  the  city,  instead  of  being  benefits  to 
other  portions,  have  actually  destroyed  their 
value. 

Mr.  NEAL.  That  may  be  true  in  some  in- 
stances, but  these  are  exceptions  and  not  the 
rule.  But  admitting  this  is  the  case,  suppose 
that  the  east  end  of  this  city  is  not  inter- 
ested in  the  improvements  that  are  made 
in  the  west  end  and  vice  versa ; is  it  not 
a fact  that  if  to-day  a street  or  avenue 
is  laid  out  in  the  east  end,  to-morrow  another 
street  is  laid  out  in  the  west  end  ? So  that  these 
benefits  are  reciprocal.  Each  inhabitant  de- 
rives, taking  one  year  with  another,  his  pro- 
portional part  of  the  full  benefit  of  all  the  im- 
provements that  are  made.  The  only  argument 
that  is  advanced  against  this  proposition  and  in 
support  of  the  Constitution  as  it  now  is,  is  this, 
that  because  it  is  an  easy  way  to  obtain  the  im- 
provements which  are  deemed  necessary,  and 
which,  if  made  by  a general  tax,  would  cause 
almost  a rebellion  on  the  part  of  the  tax-payers, 
therefore  it  is  desirable  that  this  way  should  be 
continued,  no  matter  to  what  extent  the  private 
rights  of  the  individual  are  trampled  upon.  I 
do  not  endorse  any  such  doctrine.  Let  us  pro- 
vide that  where  cities  are  being  benefited  that 
the  people  of  those  cities  shall  bear  their  just 
proportion  of  that  benefit,  and  that  the  private 
property  of  no  man  shall  be  taken  except  as 
provided  for  in  this  Constitution  by  being  paid 
its  full  value ; that  it  shall  remain  inviolate. 
Do  not  let  us  be  guilty  of  continuing  a provi- 
sion which  justifies  laws  of  the  character  stated. 
For  it  is  mere  mockery  of  the  sheerest  and 
boldest  character,  to  permit  the  public  with  one 
hand  to  compensate  the  individual  for  his 
property,  and  with  the  other  hand  to  take  from 
him  the  entire  sum  which  you  have  thus  paid 
him  by  assessments  upon  his  remaining  prop- 
erty. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I simply  want  to  offer  a consid- 
eration or  two  that  now  occurs  to  me,  why 
neither  of  these  amendments  ought  to  be  adopt- 
ed. I want  to  state  before  I make  my  little 
argument  that  my  private  interests  would  lead 
me  to  adopt  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  All  the 
real  estate  that  I own  in  this  world  is  peculiar- 
ly subject  to  just  such  improvements  as 
are  contemplated  by  the  19th  section  of  the  Bill 
of  Rights,  and  in  making  an  appropriation  of 
this  property — and  it  is  that  sort  of  property 
that  is  liable  to  have  just  such  improvements 
made  out  of  it — it  would  certainly  be  to  my  in- 
terest that  if  the  compensation  that  I might  re- 
ceive for  its  appropriation  to  the  public  use, 
should  be  relieved  from  all  assessments  to  pay 
the  same.  Being  thus  situated,  my  interest 
would  lead  me  to  adopt  these  amendments.  But 
I am  satisfied  that  if  we  make  an  application  of 
this  principle  to  the  19th  section  ol  the  Bill  of 
Rights, wewould  do  injustice  toothers  in  the  com- 
munity. It  would  be  an  inequitable  apportion- 
ment of  this  burden  upon  the  public.  We  shall 
confine  ourselves  in  this  discussion  to  the  mat- 
ters before  us.  This  is  not  a private  purpose 
that  we  are  speaking  of-,  it  is  an  appropriation 
of  private  property  for  the  public  use,  and 
nothing  else.  Well,  now,  who  should  pay  for 
this?  Why,  the  public,  of  course.  Private 
parties  should  not  pay  for  the  appropriation  of 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 


2111 


Day.] 

March  17, 1874.]  Voris,  Cunningham,  Hunt,  Hoadly,  Cowen. 


private  property  to  the  public  use,  but  the  pub- 
lic that  have  the  benefit  of  this  appropriation, 
should  pay  for  it.  Who  are  the  public  ? Is  not 
the  man  who  has  property  made  by  the  accident 
of  appropriation  for  this  public  use,  just  as  much 
one  of  the  public,  is  he  not  just  as  much  a mem- 
ber of  the  body  politic  that  makes  the  appro- 
priation, as  the  man  whose  property  is  not 
reached?  I think  the  answer  to  this  question 
settles  the  whole  matter.  It  certainly  does  so 
far  as  the  equity  of  this  case  is  concerned.  But 
let  us  go  a little  farther.  Suppose  that  this  ap- 
propriation should  be  visited  upon  the  entire 
taxable  property  of  the  city  instead  of  making 
it  an  assessment  upon  the  property  abutting  on 
the  public  improvement,  or  benefited  by  it? 
What  right  would  there  be  to  say  that  a part  of 
this  expenditure  should  not  be  taxed  against 
the  party  whose  property  is  taken,  but  against 
others  who  have  no  more  interest  in  it  than  he 
who  has  his  property  taken?  It  certainly 
would  be  inequitable. 

The  rule  that  ought  to  be  adopted  by  this 
Convention  is  one  of  equality,  so  that  the  pub- 
lic burdens  shall  bear  equally  upon  all.  Now, 
this  amendment,  as  I understand  it,  does  not 
save  tiie  property  appropriated,  but  saves  the 
owner  of  such  property  whatever  property  he 
may  hold,  however  much  it  may  be,  wholly 
from  any  part  of  the  compensation  that  may 
accrue  to  him  by  reason  of  having  his  property 
so  taken.  Your  Constitution  provides  that  he 
shall  receive  an  equivalent  in  money  for  the 
property  taken.  He  is  just  as  well  off  after  the 
property  is  appropriated,  for  he  has  its  value 
in  money.  He  has  identically  the  same  in- 
terest involved  in  the  premises  after  the  appro- 
priation is  made,  that  he  had  before.  Having 
the  same  amount  of  property  interests  involved, 
sustaining  identically  the  same  relations  to  the 
object  of  making  the  improvement,  that  he  did 
before  the  appropriation  was  made,  wherefore 
should  he  be  relieved  from  the  liability  to  pay 
his  share  of  the  contribution,  because  a part  of 
it  has  been  put  into  his  pocket  in  money,  in- 
stead of  existing  as  real  estate,  as  it  originally 
existed?  Why,  he  has  just  exactly  the  same 
amount  of  property  involved  in  the  improve- 
ment as  he  had  before  any  of  his  property  was 
taken. 

Having  the  value  of  his  property  in  money  in 
his  pocket,  therefore  he  should  be  relieved  from 
the  burden,  is  your  logic.  You  propose  to  either 
spread  it  out  on  the  whole  municipality  or  the 
locality  to  be  benefited.  That  casts  the  burden 
of  payment  of  such  appropriations  over  upon 
others  and  relieves  him  from  it.  He  ought  not 
to  be  placed  in  this  position.  It  is  creating  a 
distinction  in  his  favor  and  against  others  in  the 
community,  and  violates  that  equitable  rule 
that  we  have  sought  to  adopt  here,  that  the 
public  burdens,  either  municipal  or  State  should 
be  distributed  so  as  to  bear  equally  upon  all. 
These  are  my  views,  and  entertaining  them  I 
cannot  vote  for  either  of  these  amendments. 
So  far  as  the  amendment  to  the  amendment 
is  concerned,  I have  no  objections  to  it,  because 
it  proposes  to  apportion  equitably  these  bur- 
dens, but  there  is  no  necessity  of  saying  so  in 
your  Constitution.  The  presumption  is,  that 
where  the  legislative  authority  is  exercised  in 
directing  the  mode  of  making  these  appropria- 


tions, it  is  exercised  justly  and  therefore 
equitably. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
say  why  he  assumes  that  the  presumption  is 
that  the  Legislature  will  provide  for  this,  when 
the  whole  history  of  legislation  under  the  pres- 
ent Constitution  is  the  reverse? 

Mr.  VORIS.  I think  the  history  of  legisla- 
tion has  been  equitable.  I can  give  no  other 
construction  to  it.  In  my  brief  history  as  an 
attorney,  I have  frequently  had  this  class  of 
cases  to  manage  both  for  the  city  and  for  claim- 
ants, and  I can  come  to  no  other  conclusion 
from  what  I know  than  that  the  rule  sought  to 
be  carried  into  this  section  by  the  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer]  would  be  inequitable  and  unjust.  For 
the  benefit  of  the  gentleman  from  Allen  [Mr. 
Cunningham]  I am  perfectly  willing  to  say 
that  his  application  of  the  equitable  rule  is  not 
seriously  objectionable.  But  it  carries  no  ad- 
ditional sanctions  or  safeguards  into  this  sec- 
tion of  the  Constitution  by  saying  that  the  rule 
must  be  equitable,  for  you  leave  it  open  entirely 
to  the  discretion  of  the  General  Assembly,  or  to 
the  body  that  determines  what  the  appropria- 
tion shall  be,  what  is  equitable  or  inequitable. 
Their  discretion  is  the  final  resort  upon  this 
matter,  and,  being  so,  I do  not  see  how  he  helps 
us  at  all  in  the  premises,  and  adding  no  force  to 
it.  I therefore  shall  vote  against  it. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12:30  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2:30p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  is 
upon 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I ask  fora  call  of  the  House. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I ask  that  the  gentleman  from 
Perry  [Mr.  Jackson]  be  excused.  He  was 
necessarily  called  away  just  before  the  recess. 
I ask  that  he  be  excused  for  an  indefinite  length 
of  time. 

Mr.  Jackson  was  excused. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  Roll. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  68  mem- 
bers answered  to  their  names,  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Beer,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of 
Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham, 
Doan,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  Johnson,  McBride,  Mc- 
Cormick, Merrill,  McCauley,  Mitchener,  Mul- 
len, Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Root,  Rowland,  Russell 
of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Sco- 
field, Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith, 
Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Watson,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Champaign,  President — 68. 

The  absentees  were — 

Messrs.  Alexander,  Bannon,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Caldwell,  Campbell,  Carberrv,  Clark  of 
Jefferson,  Clay,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey,  Ewing 
Foran,  Gardner,  Hill,  Horton,  Hunt,  Jackson’ 
Kerr,  Kreamer,  Layton,  Miller,  Miner,  Mueller, 


2112 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 


[140th 


Cunningham,  Tuttle,  Griswold,  Beer.  [Tuesday, 


Philips,  Reilly,  Steedman , Thompson,  Tripp, V an 
Valkenburgh,  Weaver,  Wells,  White  of  Brown, 
Wilson,  Young  of  Noble — 36. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move  that  further 
proceedings  under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I ask  the  unanimous  consent 
of  the  Convention  to  present  a proposition 
from  a portion  of  the  Committee  on  Corpora- 
tions other  than  municipal.  I ask  that  it  be 
now  received. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  de- 
sire to  have  it  read. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  No,  sir,  I desire  that  it  be 
set  for  consideration  at  the  same  time  of  the 
Proposition  of  the  majority  of  the  Committee. 

The  reading  was  called  for. 

The  Secretary  read: 

MINORITY  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  COR- 
PORATIONS OTHER  THAN  MUNICIPAL. 

The  undersigned  desire  such,  further  provision  in  the 
proposed  Article  in  regard  to  associations  of  persons  in- 
corporated abroad,  and  undertaking  the  general  transac- 
tion of  any  business  in  this  State,  as  shall  secure  the  fol- 
lowing results;  and  propose  at  some  proper  time  to  offer 
a suitable  amendment  therefor : 

1st.  That  no  association  of  persons  incorporated  abroad 
shall  carry  on  the  general  transaction  of  any  business  in 
this  State  which  corporations  of  this  State  may  not  trans- 
act; nor  shall  any  such  association  of  persons  carry  on 
any  combination  of  different  kinds  of  business  in  this 
State  which  no  single  corporation  of  this  State  is  by  law 
allowed  to  combine  and  transact. 

2d.  To  provide  that  any  person  or  association  of  persons 
incorporated  abroad,  and  lawfully  undertaking  the  gen- 
eral transaction  of  business  in  this  State,  shall  become 
quasi  corporations  thereof,  so  far  as  necessary  to  subject 
them  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of  this  State  in  re- 
gard to  all  liabilities  growing  out  of  the  transactions  of 
such  persons  or  associations  therein. 

Geo.  M.  Tuttle, 

T.  E.  Cunningham, 

C.  F.  Voorhes, 

A.  C.  \ ORIS. 

I approve  of  the  first  section  only. 

F.  B.  POND. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
present  this  as  a Proposition. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  As  a Minority  Report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I ask  that  it  be  set  down  to 
be  considered  in  connection  with  the  Majority 
Report. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  has  not  been  set  for 
consideration. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  pending  at 
the  recess  was  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  to  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer],  to  section  19  of  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I ask  that  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]  be  read  in  connection  with  the 
amendment  which  I offered. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  will  announce 
the  appointments  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  Stand- 
ing Committees. 

On  the  Committee  on  Future  Amendments, 
Mr.  Steedman. 

On  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors,  Mr.  Mc- 
Cauley. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Beer  moves  to  recommit  section  19,  with  instruc- 
tions to  amend  as  follows: 

Add  to  section  19 : 

“When  real  estate  shall  be  taken  for  a public  and  com- 


mon use,  no  part  of  the  compensation  therefor  shall  be 
assessed  upon  the  owner  thereof.” 

Mr.  Cunningham  moves  to  amend  by  striking  out  the 
word  “no”  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof,  “only  an  equita- 
ble.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“When  real  estate  shall  be  taken  for  a public  and  com- 
mon use,  only  an  equitable  part  of  the  compensation 
therefor  shall  be  assessed  upon  the  owner  thereof.” 

Mr.  BEER.  I have  not  had  any  opportunity 
to  say  a word  upon  the  amendment  proposed  by 
myself  this  morning.  I had  no  idea  that  it 
would  draw  out  the  amount  of  discussion  that 
it  has.  If  it  had  not,  I would  not  feel  called 
upon  to  say  a word  at  this  time.  As  the  matter 
of  assessments  and  the  right  of  making  them 
for  any  purpose  seems  to  be  connected  writh 
this,  I desire  to  say,  that  as  a matter  of  princi- 
ple, I am  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  assessments 
for  any  purpose.  It  is  a doctrine  that  cannot 
be  defended  on  first  principles.  I have  never 
yet  been  able  to  find  a defense  of  it  by  any 
court  either  in  this  country  or  in  England. 
The  only  defense  made-  for  it  in  our  own 
supreme  court  is,  that  when  the  question  was 
brought  before  it  after  the  adoption  of  the  pre- 
sent Constitution,  it  was  said  it  had  been  prac- 
ticed, and  that  it  would  be  wrong  now  to  adopt 
a new  rule,  as  that  would  be  unjust  to  those 
who  had  paid  assessments.  That  is  the  only 
defense  that  was  attempted  to  be  made  for  it  by 
our  supreme  court,  and  the  court  intimates — a 
divided  court  at  that — that  there  is  no  defense 
for  it  on  first  principles,  but  because  this  species 
of  larceny  had  been  in  vogue  from  the  com- 
mencement of  our  State  government  down  to 
the  time  of  making  that  decision,  it  would  be 
right  to  allow  those  who  had  been  robbed,  to 
engage  in  robbing  others  in  order  to  get  even 
— that  is  the  only  defense  of  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  to  any  gentleman  who 
may  have  a curiosity  to  examine  the  question,  I 
commend  the  decisions  to  be  found  in  the  case 
of  Sutton’s  heirs  against  Louisville,  5 Dana,  2S; 
the  case  of  Chicago  against  Larned,  34  Illinois, 
page  276;  the  case  of  the  people  against  the 
Mayor,  etc.,  of  Brooklyn,  6 Barbour,  209;  and 
they  will  find  this  matter  discussed  on  first 
principles.  There  are  also  decisions  in  other 
States,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Louisi- 
ana and  Tennessee,  all  looking  in  the  same 
direction. 

To  come,  now,  to  the  question  under  discus- 
sion. It  is  claimed  that  the  party  from  whom 
the  property  is  taken  should  pay  part  of  the 
cost  of  it  out  of  his  own  pocket,  because  he  is 
incidentally  benefited,  and  it  seems  to  be  the 
idea  of  some  gentlemen  here  that  the  only  way 
for  a man  to  get  rich  is  to  turn  over  his  property 
to  some  municipal  corporation.  He  must  turn 
over  sixty  feet  of  it  to-day  for  a street.  That 
doubles  the  value  of  the  rest  of  it.  I know  of 
no  reason  why  he  should  not  turn  over  the 
same  amount  the  next  day  and  quadruple  the 
value  of  the  remainder,  and  go  on  until  he  has 
turned  it  all  over,  and  be  made  an  Astor  in 
wealth.  It  leads  directly  to  that.  Now,  it  is  a 
wonderfully  strange  thing  that  millionaires, 
living  on  the  outskirts  of  a city,  who  receive 
such  vast  benefits  from  the  construction  of 
these  improvements,  do  not  make  the  appropria- 
' tions  themselves.  They  are  generally  thrifty 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 


2113 


Beer. 


Day.] 

March  17,  1874.] 


men,  who  have  succeeded  in  accumulating  a 
large  amount  of  property,  and  if  there  are  such 
vast  amounts  of  money  to  be  made  by  running 
streets  through  their  property,  they  would  not 
be  so  short  sighted  as  to  allow  the  opportunity 
to  pass  of  accumulating  wealth  in  that  way. 
But  they  do  not — although  they  seem  to  under- 
stand the  handling  of  their  property  for  other 
purposes — seem  to  understand  how  to  make 
money  out  of  it,  they  don’t  understand  how  to 
make  money  by  allowing  a municipal  corpora- 
tion to  gobble  up  the  valuable  portion  in  order 
to  confer  this  vast  wealth. 


There  are  some  other  matters  to  be  taken  into 
consideration.  Parties  ought  to  be  supposed  to 
have  some  private  rights  that  ought  not  to  be 
interfered  with  on  slight  provocation  and  for 
slight  causes.  The  courts  on  the  other  side  of 
the  river  protect  the  people  in  their  private 
rights.  They  do  not  take  away  their  property 
without  giving  them  compensation,  and  they 
seem  to  have  a fairer  understanding  of  private 
rights  than  they  do  on  this  side  of  the  river. 
That  accounts  for  the  inability  of  the  citizens  of 
Newport  to  steal  the  Taylor  farm,  so  much  com- 
plained of  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton,  the 
other  day ; and  that  accounts,  also,  for  another 
matter  that  has  been  spoken  of  here — that  the 
capital  of  Cincinnati  goes  over  to  the  other  side 
of  the  river  to  engage  in  manufactures,  where 
the  authorities  cannot  lay  hands  on  it  as  readily 
as  they  can  on  this  side  of  the  river. 

If  any  gentleman  on  the  outskirts  of  this  or 
any  other  city  in  the  State,  wants  a street 
through  his  ground,  all  he  has  to  do  is  to  lay 
out  an  addition  and  record  the  plat  of  it,  and  it 
becomes  a part  of  the  city,  and  he  can  then 
make  the  improvements,  and  secure  the  ad- 
vantages that  gentlemen  claim  always  follow 
the  location  of  a street.  There  is  no  way  under 
heaven  to  prevent  him  from  laying  out  a street 
or  an  avenue  across  his  own  ground,  and  laying 
it  open  to  the  public,  whenever  he  wishes  to. 
But  persons  desiring  to  enjoy  their  private 
rights  go  out  of  the  city,  and  secure  for  them- 
selves a homestead,  where  they  desire  to  spend 
the  residue  of  their  days,  and  live  in  quiet  re- 
tirement. Unexpectedly  to  them,  the  city 
grows,  and  when  it  approaches  the  place  in 
which  they  live,  some  person  of  a speculative 
turn  of  mind  purchases  property  beyond  them; 
and  notwithstanding  these  persons  are  as  weal- 
thy as  they  desire  to  be,  and  wish  no  further 
wealth,  and  desire  to  own  their  homes  in  quiet, 
their  private  rights  must  give  way  to  the  neces- 
sities of  the  public,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  they  do  not  want  to  be  made  wealthy  by 
having  their  property  taken  away  from  them 
under  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent  do- 
main. But  the  streets  are  laid  out  across  their 
property.  In  a case  like  that,  it  would  seem 
right  that  the  owner  of  the  property  should  re- 
ceive full  compensation.  He  does  not  desire  its 
value  to  be  enhanced.  He  desires  to  hold  it  in 
quiet;  but  his  right  must  give  way  to  the 
desire  of  the  public.  When  all  this  is  done, 
and  he  has  received  his  compensation  out  of 
the  public  treasury,  a picked  board  of  asses- 
sors say  how  much  he  shall  return  of  that 
money  which  he  has  received  as  compensation, 
into  the  county  treasury,  and,  under  the  law  of 
this  State,  they  may  compel  him  to  return  the 

y.  n-135 


whole  amount  paid  him,  and  in  addition  make 
him  pay  for  improvements  to  be  made,  and  an 
additional  amount  to  compensate  the  thieves 
that  have  been  put  to  the  trouble  of  taking  his 
property  from  him.  And  that  is  called  justice ! 
He  is  said  to  be  compensated  because  three  or 
four  or  five  gentlemen,  picked  out  by  the  city 
council,  have  assessed  that  value. 

The  city  council,  composed,  I may  say,  of 
thieves — because  it  is  but  a few  days  since,"  that 
the  Cincinnati  Enquirer  stated  that  the  govern- 
ment of  this  city  is  in  the  hands  ot  thieves — se- 
lect the  Committee,  and  this  Committee  award 
the  compensation  and  fix  the  amount  to  be  paid 
for  the  property  taken  from  him.  The  land 
taken  is  taken  for  a public  use,  and  the  public 
should  pay.  The  title  goes  into  the  city  or  it 
goes  into  the  county.  It  goes  to  the  public  and 
the  public  acquire  a right  in  it,  and  a right  that 
is  to  be  exercised  forever,  and  the  owner  loses 
all  control  over  it.  He  has  no  longer  any  title, 
only  the  right  of  reversion,  which  practically 
amounts  to  nothing.  He  loses  all  his  right  in 
it  and  the  public  acquire  it  all.  It  is  said  there 
is  the  right  of  reversion.  How  many  cases  of 
reversion  occur  ? Scarcely  any.  A vacation 
by  the  town  authorities,  if  the  lot  owners  do 
not  see  fit  to  acquiesce  in  it,  amounts  to  nothing. 
You  cannot  make  a vacation  effective  if  the  lot 
owners  see  fit  to  dispute  it.  The  public  only 
may  exercise  this  right  of  eminent  domain,  and 
take  the  property,  and  the  same  public  which 
exercises  the  right  of  eminent  domain  should 
make  the  compensation. 

In  the  Kentucky  case  cited  the  judge  defined 
what  constitutes  the  public  in  a case  of  this 
kind.  It  is  a mere  political  division  of  the 
State.  It  is  a county,  or  township,  or  city,  or 
village,  or  a ward  in  a city.  It  is  a mere  po- 
litical division  of  the  State  that  constitutes  the 
public,  and  that  public  may  exercise  this  right, 
and  when  that  public,  that  political  division  of 
the  State,  has  exercised  this  right  in  accordance 
with  the  law,  it  may  be  called  upon  to  pay  for 
the  property,  which,  by  appropriation,  is  vest- 
ed in  that  political  division — in  that  city  or 
township.  It  must  be  some  political  division 
that  has  the  power  of  taxation.  The  principle 
of  taxation  is  that  of  equality.  There  is  no 
right  of  taxation  that  does  not  carry  with  it  the 
doctrine  of  equality.  It  must  be  equal . Not  ne- 
cessarily upon  all  the  citizens  of  the  county, 
not  necessarily  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of  a 
city,  but  upon  all  the  property  in  the  political 
division  in  which  the  money  is  to  be  expended. 
It  is  admitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Hoadly]  that  the  right  to  assess  the  cost  of 
property  taken  upon  the  owner,  has  never  been 
practiced  in  this  city,  and  except  in  the  case  of 
Cleveland  against  Wick,  I doubt  whether  it  has 
ever  been  exercised  in  the  State,  so  that  there 
can  be  no  such  plea  for  engrafting  it  into  this 
Constitution,  as  was  made  use  of  by  the  su- 
preme court  in  the  case  of  Hill  against  Hig- 
don— that  is,  “thas  it  has  been  practiced.”  This 
has  not  been  practiced,  it  is  a rule  that  has  not 
obtained  here,  or  in  any  portion  of  the  State ; 
and  it  is  a wicked,  unjust  and  unequal  rule,  and 
should  never  be  adopted ; and  now  is  the  time 
to  make  such  an  amendment  of  our  fundamen- 
ial  law  that  it  never  can  be  exercised. 

In  the  Article  upon  county  and  township  or- 


2114 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 

Beer,  Watson,  Baber. 


ganizations,  we  have  conferred  the  right  upon 
counties  and  townships  to  make  assessments  for 
public  improvements,  for  roads,  and  highways, 
for  ditches  and  other  public  purposes.  We 
have  conferred  upon  the  counties  and  town- 
ships as  much  authority  as  is  conferred  upon 
municipal  corporations.  While  gentlemen  are 
threatening  about  what  will  result  in  the  loca- 
tion and  construction  of  ditches,  and  threaten- 
ing that  if  this  power  to  rob  is  not  engrafted  in 
the  Constitution  that  it  will  be  defeated  by  the 
cities — that  they  will  go  home  and  defeat  it  be- 
fore the  people*— while  there  is  no  argument  in 
that,  let  me  remind  gentlemen  that  there  is  an- 
other class  of  our  people  in  the  State  of  Ohio 
that  will  review  this  Constitution  before  they 
come  to  vote  upon  it — the  agricultural  people  of 
the  State.  When  they  discover  that  this  power 
of  assessment  is  conferred  upon  the  township 
trustees,  and  upon  the  county  commissioners, 
and  authority  is  given  to  those  Boards  to  make 
assessments,  and  to  assess  the  cost  of  property, 
taken  for  ditches  and  for  public  highways,  upon 
the  owners,  it  will  be  as  likely  to  suffer  defeat 
at  their  hands  as  at  the  hands  of  the  few  grasp- 
ing men  in  city  councils  who  expect  to  make 
their  little  percentage  out  of  these  appropria- 
tions. I am  not  afraid  of  the  toiling  millions  on 
this  question.  I have  no  idea  that  any  number 
of  people  can  be  found  in  the  State  of  Ohio  who 
can  be  convinced  that  there  is  money  to  be 
made  by  having  their  property  taken  away 
from  them  without  compensation.  It  carries 
falsehood  upon  the  face  of  it,  stamped  so  indeli- 
bly there  that  the  ordinary  reader  can  see  that 
it  is  a fraud;  that  it  is  a base  robbery  that 
should  not  be  tolerated  in  our  country. 

I am  not  afraid  of  the  vote  of  the  cities  on  this 
question,  or  of  the  influence  of  the  tax-paying, 
property-owning  people  of  the  State.  I am  not 
afraid  of  them,  Still,  if  a principle  of  this  kind 
is  engrafted  into  the  Constitution  conferring 
such  unheard  of  power  upon  the  county  com- 
missioners and  township  trustees  to  lay  out 
public  roads  and  assess  the  cost  back  upon  the 
owners,  or,  in  substance,  taking  away  the 
property  without  compensation,  and  compelling 
the  owners  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  appropriation 
on  top  of  that,  I would  have  fears  that  the  Con- 
stitution will  not  be  adopted  by  the  people.  If 
this  principle  is  right  it  ought  to  be  carried  out 
to  its  legitimate  conclusion.  Let  the  State, 
when  a canal  is  to  be  constructed,  when  land  is 
appropriated,  assess  the  cost  of  the  land  back 
upon  the  land  owners.  When  a railroad  is  to 
be  constructed — which  is  a public  highway — 
for  you  cannot  appropriate  private  property  for 
right  of  way  without  first  finding  that  it  is  a 
public  highway,  that  its  construction  is  a pub- 
lic necessity — appropriate  private  property  for 
the  right  of  way  for  the  track,  and  then  assess 
the  cost  of  it  back  upon  the  land  owners.  Carry 
out  the  doctrine  for  every  other  public  work — 
steal  the  property  of  the  people,  and  make  them 
pay  the  thief  for  his  trouble.  That  is  where  the 
doctrine  leads. 

I hope,  Mr.  President,  the  amendment  will 
prevail.  It  ought  to  prevail,  though  I think 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Allen  [Mr.  Cunningham]  destroys  its  force  to  a 
considerable  extent,  for  it  leaves  this  matter  of 


[140th 

[Tuesday, 


equitable  apportionment  where  it  is  now,  and 
it  amounts  to  nothing. 

Mr.  WATSON.  I trust  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  will  not 
prevail.  I hope  gentlemen  will  think  well  be- 
fore they  further  urge  this  motion.  We  have 
been  in  Convention  a great  while.  We  have  been 
working  fairly,  I think,  for  the  purpose  of  ac- 
complishing the  task  that  lay  before  us.  We  can- 
not afford  now,  at  this  condition  of  things,  to 
jeopardize  an  Article  of  the  Constitution.  I 
trust  the  gentleman  will  not  load  this  Article  of 
the  Constitution  with  anything  that  it  cannot 
carry.  The  proposition  that  is  made  has  really 
nothing  to  do  with  the  Bill  of  Rights.  It  is  a 
matter  of  assessment,  and  the  right  to  assess 
belongs  to  the  legislative  department.  If  it  is 
anything  that  appertains  to  the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  eminent  domain,  then  it  belongs  to 
other  departments  of  the  Constitution.  As  a 
general  thing  it  belongs  to  corporations,  for  it  is 
by  them  that  this  right  is  permitted  to  be  exer- 
cised. Wherever  it  does  belong,  it  certainly 
does  not  belong  to  the  Bill  of  Rights.  The  Bill 
of  Rights  is  simply  a declaration  of  principles, 
and  gentlemen  may,  by  persisting  in  this  mo- 
tion, set  us  back  where  we  were  at  the  begin- 
ning. 

Do  gentlemen  believe  that,  if  they  append  this 
to  the  Bill  of  Rights,  it  can  carry  fifty-three 
votes  in  this  Convention  as  it  now  stands  ? I 
ask  them  to  consider  it.  It  appears  to  me  to  be 
utterly  impossible,  and  not  to,be4talked  about  in 
the  condition  of  this  body  at  present,  when 
there  are  not  to  exceed  seventy-five  members  in 
attendance.  Now,  how  could  we  hope  to  secure 
fifty-three  votes  for  this  Article.  There  is  too 
much  opposition  arrayed  against  it,  and  I trust 
gentlemen  will  not  persist  in  loading  it.  I 
trust  they  will  not  take  the  responsibility  at 
this  time,  when  we  are  looking  forward  to  our 
final  adjournment,  and  have  fixed  a day  and 
promised  the  State  that  we  would  then  adjourn. 
I trust  they  will  not  take  the  responsibility  of 
throwing  into  our  work  this  element  of  delay. 
I shall  not  discuss  the  merits  or  demerits  of  this 
question.  It  does  not  lie  in  my  line.  I hope 
to  get  the  Bill  of  Rights  through,  and  get  it  off* 
our  hands  and  adopted. 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  not  engaged  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  amendment,  and  do  not  intend 
to  do  so  now,  but  I hope  that  the  Convention 
will  listen  to  the  appeal  that  has  been  made  by 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  having  in 
charge  this  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights.  It  is 
well  known  that  there  is  a difference  of  opin- 
ion upon  this  floor  in  this  Convention,  and  with 
the  attendance  which  we  have,  if,  by  a bare  ma- 
jority, this  idea  should  be  carried  into  this  Bill 
of  Rights,  it  would  be  obnoxious  to  a large  por- 
tion of  this  Convention.  It  would  operate  in 
my  city  and  in  other  cities  very  injuriously,  if 
we  change  the  law  as  it  now  stands  in  the  old 
Constitution  and  construed  by  the  courts,  and 
I it  will  have  a very  fatal  effect.  Suppose  it  is 
I carried  by  a bare  majority  on  the  final  passage 
1 of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  the  first  Article  of  the 
! Constitution  that  is  to  be  voted  upon,  and  it 
j should  defeat  the  final  passage.  We  have  voted 
j upon  and  finally  passed  into  the  Constitution, 

! the  Legislative  Article,  the  Executive  Article, 

! the  Article  on  Elective  Franchise,  the  Article 


Day.] PRIVATE  PROPERTY  FOR  PUBLIC  USES. 2115 

March  17,  1874.]  Baber,  Burns,  Griswold,  Cunningham,  Pease. 


upon  Public  Institutions,  the  Article  on  the 
Militia,  the  Article  on  County  and  Town- 
ship Organizations.  The  Article  on  Cor- 
porations other  than  Municipal,  Apportion- 
ment, Public  Debt,  and  the  final  vote  on 
the  Judiciary  Article  are,  I believe,  alone 
remaining  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Convention. 
Therefore,  I hope,  whatever  may  be  the  opinion 
of  gentlemen  upon  this  matter,  that  this  amend- 
ment will  not  be  inserted  in  this  Article.  Let 
it  be  put  in  one  of  the  other  Articles. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  the 
friends  of  this  proposition  have  not  tried  in 
vain  to  put  it  into  other  parts  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  we  were  met  by  the  argument  that 
they  were  not  the  proper  places  for  it,  that  we 
should  put  it  into  the  Bill  of  Rights.  That  is 
the  argument  that  we  were  met  with.  Now, 
when  we  ask  to  put  it  into  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
we  are  told  that  it  should  be  put  into  some 
other  proposition. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  so  understand  this.  I 
understand  that  the  gentlemen  attempted  to 
pass  this  Article  through,  and  they  got  voted 
down  in  a full  Convention,  and  if  this  were 
the  feeling  of  the  Convention,  I do  not  think 
their  proposition  would  stand  the  least  chance 
of  being  passed,  but  probably  they  may  acci- 
dentally have  as  many  members  as  the  opposi- 
tion, but  I do  not  believe  the  gentlemen  in  a 
full  Convention  could,  by  a majority  vote, 
put  this  amendment  in  as  a part  of  this  Arti- 
cle. What  I object  to  is,  that  if  they  have  an 
accidental  majority  on  this  floor,  if  they  put 
it  into  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  then  on  its  final 
passage  it  should  fail,  it  would  have  an  exceed- 
ingly bad  effect  on  our  work. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Suppose  it  is  not  put  in,  and 
its  friends  do  not  vote  for  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
and  that  fails,  then  what? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  present  Constitution 
will  stand. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  so  understand  it. 
That  was  not  the  argument  the  other  day. 

Mr.  BABER.  I suppose  the  present  Bill  of 
Rights  will  stand  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Al- 
len [Mr.  Cunningham]. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I think  the  Conven- 
tion has  indicated  that  it  wants  to  take  a tussle 
at,  and  a rugged  issue  with,  this  matter,  and  if 
the  Convention  will  allow  me,  I shall  withdraw 
my  amendment. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  Bosworth  was  excused  from  voting,  he 
having  paired  with  Mr.  Johnson. 

Mr.  Young,  of  Champaign,  having  paired 
with  Mr.  Beer,  was  excused. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  28,  nays  38,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Gurley, 
Hitchcock,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Mullen,  Neal,  Pease,  Root,  Rus- 
sell of  Meigs,  Sample,  Scofield,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Smith,  Thompson,  Tuttle,  Van  Yoorhis,  Weaver, 
West,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  President 
—28. 


Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cowen,  Cunningham, 
Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hoadly,  Hunt,  Merrill,  Miner,  McCau- 
ley, Mitchener,  Okey,  Page,  Phellis,  Pond, 
Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Scribner,  Shultz,  Townsend,  Tul- 
loss,  Tyler,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Watson 
—38. 

So  the  motion  to  re-commit  wdth  instructions 
was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Before  we  pass  from  section  19, 1 
desire  to  make  a motion.  I move  that  section  19 
be  referred  to  a select  Committee  of  One,  with 
instructions  to  amend  by  adding  thereto,  after 
the  words  “ public  welfare,”  in  the  first  para- 
graph, the  words  “ and  for  the  right  of  way  to 
and  from  mines,  mineral  beds  and  quarries,” 
and  also  after  the  words  “ public  use,”  towards 
the  latter  part  of  the  section,  the  words,  “ or 
for  the  right  of  way  to  and  from  mines,  mineral 
beds  and  quarries.” 

I find  upon  examination  of  Proposition  No. 
48,  which  I submitted  to  the  Convention,  early 
in  its  session,  I suggested  another  amendment, 
in  wich  I introduced  these  words  towards  the 
end  of  the  paragraph.  In  presenting  my  mo- 
tion, the  other  day,  I had  forgotten  that  the 
yrords,  “ and  for  the  uses  in  this  section  ex- 
pressed,” were  not  in  the  original  Bill  of  Rights, 
and  for  this  reason  I had  included  them  in  my 
original  proposition.  The  change  that  I now 
suggest  will  be  found  necessary,  so  that  I pre- 
sent, now,  this  amendment,  which  I presented  to 
the  Convention  the  other  day,  but  I introduced 
then  in  another  place  in  the  section.  It  will 
be  seen  this  is  necessary  in  order  to  make  the 
section  complete.  I do  not  care  to  reproduce 
the  argument  which  I presented  to  the  Con- 
vention the  other  day  in  demonstrating  that  this 
is  a necessity.  I then  presented  the  argument, 
showing  that  people  do  not  select  their  mines, 
that  they  were  found,  and,  in  many  instances, 
the  right  to  use  these  mines  might  be  forever 
shut  out  unless  this  privilege  is  given.  I desire 
to  say  one  thing  that  I omitted  to  say  when  upon 
the  floor  presenting  this  proposition  before. 
Early  in  the  session  of  this  Convention,  it  was 
the  expression  of  all  the  members,  I believe, 
that  this  Constitution  should  be  amended  only 
where  observation  and  experience  had  demon- 
strated its  need.  Adhering  to  that  general 
principle,  which  I believe  to  be  correct,  and 
which  I believe  we  should  abide  by  now,  I say 
that  we  have  a demonstration  of  the  fact  that 
throughout  the  State,  where  we  have  mines,  the 
present  Constitution  is  not  broad  enough  to 
reach  the  interests  demanded.  Experience  has 
demonstrated  this,  and  it  is  that  experience 
which  I ask  shall  be  the  law  in  determining 
the  course  of  the  gentlemen  of  this  Convention 
in  their  votes  upon  this  proposition. 

These  mines  are  absolutely  a public  nec- 
essity. Perhaps  you  may  say,  strictly,  that 
these  mines  are  not  for  public  use,  in  a 
restricted  sense  of  that  term,  but  they  are  an 
absolute  public  necessity,  just  as  much  as  sun 
light,  just  as  much  as  water,  or  any  thing  of 
that  kind.  It  is  an  element  that  enters  into  all 
the  interests  of  the  people  at  large.  These 
I mines  are  so  situated  that  it  cannot  be  known 


2116 


[140th 


THE  RIGHT  OF  WAY  TO  MINES. 

Pease,  Watson,  Russell  of  Meigs. 


beforehand  where  they  are.  We  cannot  locate 
railroads  with  reference  to  reaching  all  of  them ; 
we  may  not  be  able  to  negotiate  with  the 
owners  of  lands  between  mines  and  rail- 
roads, or  negotiate  with  competing  lines  of 
railroads  which  have  lines  running  parallel 
with  each  other,  nor  obtain  the  right  to 
cross  one  railroad  to  get  to  another  railroad, 
however  great  the  necessity  may  be.  These 
persons  and  corporations  hold  within  their 
grasp  the  interests  of  all  the  mines  of  the  State. 
I want  simply  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  this  great  fact,  which  it  seems  to  me 
ought  to  impress  every  gentleman,  and  shall 
leave  in  the  hands  of  others,  who  are  alike  in- 
terested, as  we  all  are,  the  further  develop- 
ment of  this  proposition. 

Mr.  WATSON.  This  is  precisely  the  same 
proposition,  almost  word  for  word  the  same, 
that  we  discussed  the  other  day,  and  it  is  noth- 
ing more  nor  less  than  a proposition  to  rob  one 
man  and  give  the  property  to  another  at  a com- 
pensation that  shall  be  assessed.  As  I said  be- 
fore, there  is  no  argument  that  can  be  used  in 
favor  of  a mine,  that  cannot  be  used  in  favor  of  a 
mill,  or  a manufacturing  establishment  of  any 
kind.  If  the  owner  of  a mine  wants  to  get  a 
private  way,  let  him  get  that  way  as  other  men 
get  a road,  by  purchasing  it.  If  he  wants  a 
public  way  free  to  all  the  citizens  of  the  State, 
he  has  a very  plain  mode  of  getting  it.  But 
here  is  a proposition  to  allow  the  owner  of  a 
mine,  quarry,  or  mineral  bed,  because  he  has  a 
mine,  or  a quarry,  or  a mineral  bed,  to  go 
through  the  land  of  a neighbor  and  locate  there 
a private  railroad,  a railroad  for  his  own  bene- 
fit, a railroad  from  which  he  excludes  the  owner 
of  the  land  that  he  appropriates,  and  every  other 
neighbor,  and  every  other  person  in  the  world. 
He  asks  to  convert  the  private  property  of  his 
neighbor  to  his  own  use,  and  then  he  comes  in 
here  and  says  it  is  a necessity. 

This  plea  of  necessity  stands  for  every  act  of 
tyranny  in  the  world,  and  there  never  was  one 
that  had  not  the  same  plea  of  necessity.  The 
proposition  is  in  violation  of  the  principles  of 
our  government  from  our  earliest  history,  and 
there  never  has  been  a departure  from  it,  that 
the  owner  of  one  tract  of  land,  because  he  has 
stone  upon  it,  or  iron  upon  it,  or  coal  deposited 
there,  that  he  may  construct  a railroad,  and  fas- 
ten upon  the  ground  of  his  neighbor  a servitude 
and  exclude  him  from  it,  and  use  it  for  his  own 
private  property.  Now,  Mr.  President,  this 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  is  utterly  at  var- 
iance with  the  first  principles  of  our  govern- 
ment. I trust  I need  not  say  more  on  that  sub- 
ject to  this  Convention.  I have  said  the  same 
thing  once  before,  and  the  gentleman  has  made 
the  same  speech  once  before  that  he  has  now 
made,  and  this  Convention  has  once  before  voted 
upon  it  and  has  condemned  it. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I believe  I have 
not  made  any  speech  on  this  proposition.  This 
proposition  is  exceedingly  important  to  a large 
portion  of  the  people  of  this  State.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Huron  [Mr.  Watson]  speaks  of  a 
man  getting  a right  of  way  from  a mine  or  a 
mineral  bed  to  a railroad  or  a river  as  he  would 
get  a right  of  way  out  from  his  land.  Why,  we 
provide,  by  a statute,  by  which  any  man  who 


[Tuesday, 


has  no  right  of  way  from  his  land  where 
he  resides,  may,  by  making  application 
to  the  township  trustees,  get  a road,  which 
is  his  own  private  road,  but  he  does  it  on 
the  plea  that  it  is  for  the  public;  but,  in 
the  instance  of  this  mine  or  mineral  bed,, 
no  man  can  get  a right  of  way,  no  matter  how 
much  wealth  is  locked  up  in  that  mine.  Why, 
sir,  in  some  portions  of  the  State  parties  have 
been  organized  and  purchased  land  with  a view 
of  shutting  out  everybody  else  living  in  that 
vicinity  and  owning  land.  They  have  bought 
land  along  the  river — they  have  bought  the 
river  front — and  no  man  can  buy  a foot  of 
right  of  way  from  them  for  any  one  hundred 
thousand  dollars.  Take  the  company  that 
operates  in  my  own  city,  and  no  man  can  buy 
a right  of  way  from  them  under  any  consider- 
ations whatever.  There  are  acres  of  land  lying^ 
back  of  them,  and  the  coal  is  perfectly  value- 
less. They  cannot  get  to  the  river.  They  can- 
not get  to  any  place  with  their  coal,  and  the 
parties  owning  land  in  front  refuse  to  sell 
at  any  terms  whatever.  Now,  if  this  is  steal- 
ing, the  Legislature  has  legalized  it,  and  if 
gentlemen  will  turn  to  page  626  of  the  Statutes 
of  Swan  and  Crutchfield,  they  will  find  the 
Legislature  has  undertaken  to  remedy  this  very 
thing.  They  have  passed  a statute  which,  in 
substance,  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease].  But  all  lawyers  will 
admit  that  it  is  unconstitutional  under  our 
present  Constitution. 

The  parties  are  deprived  from  any  benefit 
that  the  Legislature  undertook  to  confer  on 
them.  I know  that  is  a great  invasion  of  a pri- 
vate right,  but  the  public  have  an  interest  in 
the  development  of  the  resources,  mineral  and 
otherwise,  of  the  State,  and  it  becomes  a ques- 
tion of  this  kind ; shall  companies  be  allowed 
to  purchase  the  mineral  lands  along  the  rail- 
roads, along  the  rivers,  and  thus  stand  there  as 
a barrier  over  which  none  can  pass  with  the 
minerals  that  are  back  of  them.  It  certainly  is 
a great  injustice  and,  as  I said  before,  in  my  vi- 
cinity, parties  that  own  land  in  front  buy  the 
land  in  the  rear  for  probably  one-tenth  what  it 
is  worth,  because  the  owners  are  shut  out  en- 
tirely and  cannot  get  a road,  and  the  land,  as 
to  the  minerals  it  contains,  becomes  valueless  to 
them.  Now,  it  is  a question,  shall  we,  in  this 
Constitution,  do  what  the  Legislature  has  un- 
dertaken to  do  for  the  people,  and  what  the 
people  have  said  was  right,  or  shall  we  adhere 
to  the  iron  rule  of  the  old  Constitution,  and  say 
that  these  avenues  of  wealth  shall  be  forever 
closed  to  the  parties  who  own  the  property.  It 
is  a question  of  this  kind ; shall  a man  refuse  the 
right  of  way  under  every  condition,  or  shall  he 
be  compelled  to  give  his  neighbor  the  privilege 
to  convey  his  property  to  market?  That  is  all 
there  is  of  it,  and  there  is  no  comparison  be- 
tween the  right  to  a common  road  and  a man 
having  to  buy  a right  of  way  to  a railroad. 
Every  man  can  get  a township  road  to  his  land. 
Nobody  can  hinder  him  while  it  is  open  to  the 
public,  yet  it  is  as  much  a private  road  as  is  a 
railroad.  It  is  calling  it  by  another  name,  but 
it  is  simply  making  a road  for  one  man.  That 
is  done  every  day.  You  give  a party  power  of 
eminent  domain  over  his  neighbor’s  land  and 
call  it  a public  way,  but  you  refuse  to  grant  the 


Day.] BILL  OF  RIGHTS  AGREED  TO. 2117 

March  17, 1874.]  Sears,  Mullen,  Hoadly. 


right  of  way  when  it  is  called  a private  way, 
which  is  its  right  name. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  recommitting  with  instructions. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I move  to  refer  the  proposition 
to  a Select  Committee  of  One,  with  instructions 
to  amend  section  seven  by  striking  out  “ men,” 
in  the  first  line,  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof 
“ all  persons.” 

When  the  proposition  was  read  this  morning 
at  the  Secretary’s  desk,  I thought  there  had 
been  a mistake  made  in  transcribing  it.  I find, 
however,  that  it  was  correctly  read.  In  this 
compilation  by  Okey  and  Horton,  which  has 
been  published  in  pamphlet  form,  and  laid  up- 
on the  desks  of  members,  and  also  published  in 
the  last  volume  of  the  Ohio  laws,  it  reads,  “ all 
persons  have  a natural  right,”  etc.  I greatly 
prefer  that  reading.  I think  it  a better  one 
than  the  one  which  exists  in  the  present  Con- 
stitution. “Persons”  is  a better  generic  word 
than  “ man,”  and  more  comprehensive  in 
its  meaning.  It  is  not  only  unequivocal,  but 
it  is  used  everywhere  else  throughout  the 
section.  It  occurs  twice  in  the  section.  Men 
is  the  plural  of  man,  and  may  be  doubtless 
construed  to  include  women,  when  necessary; 
but  it  is  also  ambiguous  until  the  construction 
is  settled  by  the  context.  Except  in  this  sec- 
tion, it  is  used  but  once  in  the  entire  Article — 
in  the  first  section,  where  we  read,  “All  men 
are  by  nature  free,”  etc.  In  section  two  we 
read,  “ All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the 
people;”  in  section  three,  “The  people  have 
the  right  to  assemble  together;”  section  four, 
“The  people  have  the  right  to  bear  arms;”  sec- 
tion nine,  “All  persons  shall  be  liable,”  etc, ; 
section  ten,  “ No  person  shall  be  held  to  an- 
swer,” etc;  “ Nor  shall  persons  be  compelled,” 
etc. 

Again,  as  I said,  “ person”  is  used  twice  in 
section  seven,  and  there  is  danger  that,  in  their 
anxiety  to  give  effect  to  all  the  words,  the  courts 
may  hold  that  there  was  an  intentional  distinc- 
tion between  men  and  persons.  It  is  not  im- 
portant that  our  Constitution  should  be  distin- 
guished for  euphony  or  well-turned  sentences, 
but  it  should  be  expressed  in  language  clear, 
-explicit  and  unambiguous.  Besides,  if  we  give 
to  the  women  of  Ohio  no  other  privilege,  I hope 
their  right  to  worship  Almighty  God  will  be 
left  undisturbed  and  exposed  to  no  danger  of 
being  frittered  away  by  construction.  How- 
ever well  they  may  be  represented  by  our  sex 
at  the  polls,  I think  their  consciences  and  their 
religion  will  be  much  better  if  in  their  own 
keeping. 

On  the  motion  of  Mr.  SEARS  to  recommit  to 
a Select  Committee  of  One  with  instructions — 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  49,  nays  21,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Beer, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Doan,  Freiberg, 
Greene,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Hos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Merrill, Mullen,  Okey,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Powell,  Rowland,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Scribner,  Sears, 


Shaw,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tuttle,  Tyler, 
Yoris,  Waddle,  Weaver,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Champaign,  President — 49. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Blose,  Godfrey,  Griswold,  Hoadly, 
Miner,  McCauley,  Mitchener,  Pond,  Pratt, 
Rickly,  Sample,  Scofield,  Shultz,  Smith, 
Thompson,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Van  Voorhis, 
Yoorhes,  Watson,  White  of  Hocking — 21. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
will  appoint  the  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr. 
Sears]  a Select  Committee  of  One. 

Mr.  SEARS.  I ask  leave  to  report  back  the 
proposition,  striking  out  the  word  “ man,”  and 
inserting  the  words  “ all  persons,”  in  the  first 
line. 

The  Report  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
now  is  upon  agreeing  to  the  Proposition. 

Mr.  MULLEN.  Will  it  be  in  order  now  to 
move  to  amend  section  ten  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  will  be  in 
order  to  move  to  refer  to  a Committee  of  One, 
with  instructions. 

Mr.  MULLEN.  I offer  the  following : 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Mullen  moves  to  refer  to  a Committee  of  One,  with 
instructions  to  amend  section  10  as  follows : 

Add  at  the  end  of  line  eleven,  “and  shall  have  the  last 
or  closing  argument  in  trials.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

And  a speedy  public  trial  by  an  impartial  jury  in  the 
county  or  district  in  which  the  offense  is  alleged  to  have 
been  committed,  and  shall  have  the  last  or  closing  argu- 
ment in  the  trial;  nor  shall  any  person,  &c. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is,  Shall  the  Proposition  be  agreed  to?  and  upon 
that  the  Secretary  will  call  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Upon  this  question  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  55,  nays  17,  as  fol- 
lows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Andrews,  Baber,  Bosworth, 
Byal,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cun- 
ningham, Doan,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Greene, 
Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner, 
McCauley,  Mitchener,  Mullen,  Okey,  Page, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Rickly, 
Rowland,  Sample,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Shultz,  Smith,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp, 
Tulloss,  Tyler,  Yoorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Watson, 
Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Young  of  Cham- 
paign, President — 55. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Blose,  Burns,  Chapin,  Hitch- 
cock, Hostetter,  Humphreville,  McBride,  Pease, 
Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Scofield,  Thompson, 
Tuttle,  Yan  Yoorhis,  West,  Woodbury — 17. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Propo- 
sition is,  therefore,  agreed  to ; and  it  will  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Revision. 

Miscellaneous  business  is  now  in  order. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I move  that  the  Convention 
proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  Article  on 
Revenue  and  Taxation. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  are 


2118 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [140th 

Scribner,  Cowen,  Sears,  Hitchcock,  Smith,  etc.  [Tuesday, 


no  other  amendments  to  section  four,  the  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  five. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  5.  The  General  Assembly  may  impose  taxes  by 
license,  excise,  or  otherwise,  and  also  provide,  by  equita- 
ble rules,  for  taxing  all  incomes  derived  from  invest- 
ments, when  from  any  cause  whatever  the  principal,  from 
which  such  income  is  derived,  cannot  be  taxed. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I move  to  strike  out  the 
word  “whatever,”  in  the  third  line.  It  seems  to 
he  superfluous. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I move,  also,  to  strike  from 
the  section  the  words  “from  any  cause,”  in  the 
same  line. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  5.  The  General  Assembly  may  impose  taxes  by 
license,  excise  or  otherwise,  and  also  provide,  by  equita- 
ble rules,  for  taxing  all  ;incomes  derived  from  invest- 
ments when  the  principal,  from  which  such  income  is 
derived,  cannot  be  taxed.” 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore . The  Secre- 
tary will  read  section  six. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  6.  Banks  now  existing  or  hereafter  created,  and 
all  bankers  shall  be  taxed  by  such  equitable  rules,  based 
upon  capital  employed  and  amount  of  business  done  by 
them,  as  will  require  them  to  share  equally  with  other 
business  interests  in  the  burdens  of  taxation. 

Mr.  SEARS.  As  we  are  amending  our  parts 
of  speech,  I move  to  strike  out  the  words  “done 
by  them,”  in  the  third  line.  They  seem  to  be 
unnecessary. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I hope  the  motion  will 
not  be  agreed  to.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  will  be 
indefinite  without  those  words,  and  I think  we 
had  better  retain  them. 

Mr.  SEARS.  It  is  not  at  all  likely  they  will 
be  taxed  upon  business  done  by  others. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I move  to  amend  by  striking 
out  the  words  “by  them so  that  it  will  read  : 
“amount  of  business  done.” 

Mr.  SMITH.  Who  does  the  business  ? Better 
leave  it  as  it  is. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  When  that  section  was 
before  the  Committee,  if  my  memory  serves  me 
rightly,  the  words  “transacted  by  them”  had 
been  used,  and  the  words  “done  by  them” 
were  substituted. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I withdraw  my  amendment, 
with  the  leave  of  the  Convention. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  the  phraseology  of 
that  sentence  can  be  improved  by  making  it 
read,  “tax  all  their  business.” 

The  Secretary  read : 

Based  upon  capital  employed  and  the  amount  of  busi- 
ness done  by  them— it  cannot  be  changed  in  that  way. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  ques- 
tion is  upon  the  amendment  to  strike  out  the 
words  “done  by  them.” 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I move  to  amend  by  leaving 
in  the  word  “done,”  and  striking  out  “by 
them.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  was  my  amendment,  and 
I withdrew  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I renew  it,  and  I ask  the 
Convention  to  consider  and  vote  upon  it. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]  moves  to 


strike  out  the  word  “by”  and  insert  the  word 
“in.” 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  No,  my  motion  is  to  strike 
out  the  words  “by  them”  in  section  six,  line 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
will  be  taken  first  upon  striking  out  the  words 
“by  them.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  language  used  here 
may  not  be  the  best.  If  not,  the  Committee  on 
Revision  can  suggest  better  language.  If  we 
strike  out  the  words  “by  them”  or  “done  by 
them,”  it  will  leave  the  words  “capital  em- 
ployed and  the  amount  of  business,”  without 
saying  who  employs  the  capital  or  does  the 
business,  and  there  should  be  some  language 
used  which  will  refer  to  those  who  are  intended 
to  be  governed  by  the  provision,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  words  we  are  using  now  answer 
every  necessary  purpose.  If  they  are  not  the 
best  words  that  can  be  used,  the  Committee  on 
Revision  can  change  them. 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  strikes  me  that  if  the 
words  “done  by  them”  were  stricken  out  and 
the  word  “their”  inserted  before  “business,”  so 
that  it  will  read,  “based  upon  capital  employed 
and  the  amount  of  their  business,”  it  would  be 
an  improvement  upon  it. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
now  is  upon  the  motion  to  strike  out  the  words 
“done  by  them.”  A division  of  the  question  is 
called  for,  and  it  will  first  be  taken  upon  strik- 
ing out  the  words  “by  them.” 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I think  that  the  sentence 
will  be  very  well  as  it  now  stands,  “based  upon 
capital  employed  and  the  amount  of  business 
done  by  them.”  The  words  referring  to  the 
capital  might  as  well  be  stricken  out  as  the 
words  “done  by  them.”  The  sentence  is  har- 
monious as  it  now  stands,  and  I believe  if  we 
undertake  any  greater  brevity  we  shall  not 
make  it  explicit.  The  only  change  I would 
suggest  would  be,  instead  of  “done  by  them,” 
use  “transacted  by  them,”  but  the  sentence  as 
it  now  stands  is  harmonious. 

Mr.  MINER.  I would  like  to  read  it  in  a 
little  different  way.  I have  not  had  time  to 
write  it  down.  It  involves  considerable 
change. 

Banks  now  existing  or  hereafter  created,  and 
all  bankers,  shall  be  taxed  upon  their  capi- 
tal and  business  by  such  equitable  rules  as  will 
require  them  to  share  equally,  with  other  busi- 
ness interests,  in  the  burdens  of  taxation. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  striking  out  the  words,  “by  them.” 

Mr.  PEASE.  I doubt  very  much  whether 
that  language  is  going  to  cover  what  is  de- 
signed. I apprehend  it  is  not  the  object 
of  this  provision  to  tax  the  business  done 
by  these  banks.  They  collect  a large 
amount  of  money.  That  is  one  part  of 
the  business  done  by  them.  I would  ask  the 
Chairman  if  it  is  the  idea  to  tax  banks  upon 
their  collections  and  the  business  done.  That 
! is  what  this  would  indicate.  I suppose  the 
( object  is  to  reach  all  the  means  employed  in  their 
j special  business.  The  word  “capital”  ought  to- 
to  do  that — the  capital  employed,  but  we  know 
| that  it  does  not  do  it.  One  of  these  private  banks 
i will  start  on  the  little  capital  of  ten  thousand 
I dollars.  That  is  its  capital.  Its  books  show  a 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  17,  1874.]  Pease,  Johnson,  Rowland.  Pratt,  Pond,  Hoadly,  etc. 


2119 


capital  of  ten  thousand  dollars,  or  some  other 
nominal  amount.  That  is  not  one-tenth  of  the 
amount  of  money  they  absolutely  employ  in 
their  business.  They  manage  somehow  to  so 
show  the  thing  as  to  avoid  taxes.  I doubt  very 
much  whether  this  taxing  of  the  business  done 
will  not  cover  the  collections  they  receive,  the 
notes  which  pass  through  their  hands,  and  are 
sent  to  them  for  collection — all  moneys  that 
are  sent  through,  backward  and  forward. 
These  are  a part  of  their  business,  and  I do  not 
believe  that  is  a basis  of  taxation.  I do  not 
believe  it  should  be  a basis  of  taxation. 
We  want  something  that  will  reach  the  amount 
of  money  they  use  in  their  business  as  banking 
capital.  If  the  English  language  is  strong 
enough  or  prolific  enough  to  reach  these  banks, 
I would  be  glad  to  have  it  so,  but  I do  not  be- 
lieve this  language  does  it. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  My  objection  to  section 
three  is  that  the  word  “they”  is  used  twice  too 
closely  together.  The  second  use  of  the  word 
appears  to  be  a repetition.  The  section  as  it 
now  reads  is,  “banks  now  existing  or  hereafter 
created,  and  all  bankers  shall  be  taxed  by  such 
equitable  rules,  based  upon  capital  employed 
and  amount  of  business  done  by  them,  so  as  to 
require  them  to  share,  equally  with  other  busi- 
ness interests,  the  burdens  of  taxation.” 

I think  the  amendment  I proposed  will  leave 
it  to  read  smoothly.  It  will  be  “banks  now 
existing  or  hereafter  created,  and  all  bankers, 
shall  be  taxed  by  such  equitable  rules,  based 
upon  capital  employed  and  amount  of  business 
done,”  &c.  I like  the  language  with  the 
amendment  better  than  without  it.  That  is 
why  I offered  the  amendment. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  As,  perhaps,  some  of  the 
members  of  this  Convention  are  aware,  the 
general  government  imposes  upon  national 
banks,  as  well  as  private  bankers,  a tax  which 
in  the  aggregate  amounts  to  a half  per  cent,  per 
annum  upon  the  capital  employed,  and  upon  the 
deposits,  and  that  is  the  law  of  this  State. 

Mr.  PRATT.  One  per  cent,  upon  the  circu- 
lation of  the  national  banks  and  a half  per  cent, 
upon  the  deposits  of  all  banks. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  It  is  a half  per  cent,  upon 
the  capital  employed,  and  a half  per  cent,  upon 
the  deposits,  and,  as  you  are  aware,  the  instruc- 
tions to  assessors  is  that  whatever  A may  have 
in  a bank  is  not  to  be  returned  by  A,  but  by  the 
bank.  As  to  what  other  departments  of  banks 
may  be  reached,  under  the  rules  of  equity  as 
may  be  employed  by  the  Legislature's  for  them 
to  determine.  The  preceding  section  will  sup- 
ply every  deficiency.  They  may  apply  an  in- 
come tax  where  they  cannot  reach  all  depart- 
ments of  business  under  the  fourth  and  fifth 
section.  So  that  this  is  a mere  matter  of  verbi- 
age. The  language  cannot  be  complained  of. 

The  motion  to  strixe  out  “by  them”  was  not 
agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  striking  out  the  words  “done  by  them.” 

Mr.  SEARS.  I withdraw  the  motion. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  to  strike  out  the  whole 
section. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Before  that  motion  is  put,  I 
move  to  strike  out  “equitable”  in  line  two. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I secpnd  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]. 


Mr.  POND.  The  reason  I make  that  motion 
is  this  : By  the  third  section,  a general  rule  is 
provided  for  the  taxation  of  all  property  in  the 
State. 

“Laws  shall  be  passed,  taxing  by  an  equitable  and  uni- 
form rate  all  real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its 
value,  to  be  ascertained,”  &c. 

Now,  there  is  a rule  as  to  the  valuation  and 
taxation  of  all  property.  I have  yet  to  know 
the  reason  why  a discrimination  or  distinction 
should  be  made  either  in  favor  of  or  against 
banking  institutions.  If  they  are  corpora- 
tions, why  make  a distinction  between  this 
class  of  corporations  and  insurance  companies, 
and  all  that  class  of  corporations,  whose  prop- 
erty is,  to  some  extent,  intangible,  like  this? 
If  they  be  not  corporations,  why  make  a 
distinction  between  the  property  owned  by 
them  and  property  of  a like  kind  owned  by 
private  individuals,  or  any  other  class  of  per- 
sons, unless  some  reason  can  be  given  why 
this  distinction  should  be  made?  I cannot  see 
the  necessity  for  this.  As  has  been  well  said 
by  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland], 
if  any  peculiar  mode  of  taxes  is  to  be  resorted 
to,  so  as  to  get  at  the  capital  of  banks,  and  their 
interests,  so  as  to  tax  them,  so  that  they  shall 
share  equally  in  the  burden  of  taxation  upon 
the  value  of  property,  it  may  be  done  by  section 
five.  It  appears  to  me  that  that  section  is 
amply  sufficient  for  the  taxation  of  banking 
capital,  banks  and  bankers,  as  all  species  of  the 
property  of  these  individuals  are  included  in 
this  Article.  Iwould  like  to  see  what  reason 
there  is,  if  any,  why  this  section  should  be 
inserted  here  at  all. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I seconded  the  motion  of 
the  delegate  from  Hamilton.  I shall  vote,  as  at 
present  advised,  for  the  motion,  for  a reason 
which,  perhaps,  has  not  occurred  to  his  mind, 
and  which  has  not  so  firmly  fixed  in  my  own 
mind  that  the  striking  out  of  the  section  is  the 
remedy,  that  I ought  not  to  reserve  the  right  to 
change  my  view  of  the  proper  remedy.  I am 
sure,  however,  that  there  is  a mistake  here. 
There  ought  to  be  a change  or  correction  of 
some  sort.  If  this  section  stands  as  now,  I am 
afraid  we  shall  exempt  the  entire  banking  cap- 
ital of  Ohio  from  taxation.  I do  not  wish  that 
to  be  done.  The  act  of  Congress  expressly 
provides  the  condition  upon  which  national 
bank  taxes  may  be  imposed.  They  cannot  be 
imposed  upon  banks  at  all.  They  must  be  im- 
posed upon  the  stockholders — on  the  shares. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Not  the  stockholders. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  On  the  shares  of  stock.  I 
shall  read  the  act  of  Congress,  as  given  in  the 
case  of  Frazier  against  Siebern,  16th  Ohio 
State  Reports,  page  617,  from  the  statement  by 
our  own  supreme  court  of  the  conditions  upon 
which  the  national  bank  taxes  are  based  in  the 
federal  act : 

“The  act  of  Congress,  authorizing  national  banks,  pro- 
vides that  ‘•shares'  in  such  banks  may  be  assessed  for  State 
taxes,  and  taxed  as  the  personal  property  of  the  owners 
thereof,  subject  to  two  limitations.  The  first  limitation 
i is,  that  the  assessment  shall  not  be  a greater  rate  than 
that  imposed  upon  ‘other  moneyed  capital  in  the  hands 
of  individual  citizens  of  the  State.’ 

“The  second  is:  ‘That  the  tax  so  imposed,  under  the 
laws  of  any  State,  upon  the  shares  of  any  of  the  associa- 
tions authorized  by  this  Act,  shall  not  exceed  the  rate 
imposed  upon  the  shares  in  any  of  the  banks  organized 
under  authority  of  the  State  where  such  association  is 
located.’  ” 


2120 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Hoadly,  West,  Pratt,  Rowland. 


In  this  case  of  Frazier  against  Siebern,  it 
was  said  that  the  national  bank  taxation  of  j 
Ohio,  provided  for  by  law,  should  be  in  con-  j 
formity  with  the  act  of  Congress,  and  that  j 
taxes  could  not  then  be  assessed  or  collected,  I 
because  there  was  no  law  in  Ohio  in  force  at  j 
that  time  for  taxing  shares  of  stockholders  j 
of  the  State  banks,  such  being  an  essential  con-  | 
dition  of  the  taxation  of  national  bank  shares ; 
that  the  only  tax  we  could  impose  was  the 
same  as  that  of  State  bank  shares ; and  I shall 
read  the  syllabus  of  the  case,  in  order  to  extend 
the  Proposition  I am  making : 

“1st.  The  State  has  power  to  tax  shares  in  the  national  j 
banks  located  in  Ohio,  subject  to  the  limitations  that  such 
tax  shall  not  exceed  the  rate  imposed  upon  other  moneyed  1 
capital  of  individuals,  nor  that  imposed  upon  shares  in  I 
the  State  banks,  as  provided  in  the  Act  of  Congress  of 
June  3, 1864. 

“2nd.  The  shares  in  national  banks,  thus  to  he  taxed, 
are  to  he  understood  as  the  individual  property  or  choses  ! 
of  the  stockholders,  as  contradistinguished  from  aliquot 
parts  of  the  capital  and  property  of  the  bank,  and  as  such  i 
may  he  taxed  at  their  full  value  without  deduction  for  j 
the'franchise,  for  real  estate  otherwise  taxed,  or  for  un- 
taxahle  bonds  owned  by  the  bank. 

3rd.  The  necessary  equivalent  tax  upon  shares  in  State  1 
banks  need  not  be  assessed  upon  shares  therein,  but  may 
be  assessed  upon  the  capital  and  property  of  the  banks,  j 
provided  only  that  it  be  a full  equivalent.  The  limitation  ; 
as  to  ‘other  moneyed  capital,’  refers  merely  to  the  per 
centage  of  tax  to  be  levied. 

“4th.  The  Act  of  April  4, 1861  (Vol.  58  O.  L.,  p.  59),  im-  i 
posing  a tax  upon  the  capital,  profits  and  time  deposits  of  ! 
the  branch  and  independent  banks  of  Ohio,  imposes  no 
tax  upon  the  stockholders  in  said  banks:  and  the  tax  so 
imposed  upon  the  capital,  is  subject  to  a deduction  for  | 
United  States  bonds,  as  well  as  for  real  estate  owned  by  j 
the  banks;  and  the  tax  thus  imposed  is  not  therefore  a 
fall  equivalent  for  the  Btate  tax  so  authorized  upon  ! 
shares  in  the  national  banks,  and  provided  for  in  the  | 
Ohio  Act  of  April  2,  1865. 

“5th.  Said  branch  and  independent  banks,  having  now  | 
no  remaining  corporate  powers,  except  those  necessary  I 
to  closing  their  business,  have  ceased  to  be  banks  within  j 
the  meaning  of  said  Act  of  Congress. 

“6th.  Where  such  shares  in  national  banks  exceeds  the  j 
rate  of  that  imposed  upon  the  banks  of  the  State,  its  col-  > 
lection  will  only  be  enjoined  upon  payment  of  a sum  I 
which  shall  be  a fair  equivalent  lor  the  tax  on  State  [ 
banks.” 


Mr.  President,  the  third  section  of  this  [ 
syllabus,  although  it  be  the  opinion  of  the  j 
supreme  court  of  Ohio,  is,  as  I have  said,  of 
doubtful  authority.  It  is  exceedingly  doutful 
whether  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  | 
has  not  otherwise  held,  and  it  is  exceedingly  j 
doubtful  whether  it  be  true  that  the  tax  upon 
the  banking  capital  of  the  State  banks  is  such  a j 
measure  of  bank  taxation  as  to  be  the  equiva- ! 
lent  of  a tax  upon  the  shares  as  authorized  by  j 
act  of  Congress.  In  my  humble  judgment — j 
for  I ventuie  to  differ  from  the  authority  of  this  , 
opinion  with  very  great  diffidence — the  supreme  I 
court  of  the  United  States  has  indicated  that, ! 
unless  there  be  a tax  upon  the  shares  of  the  1 
State  banks,  there  can  be  no  tax  upon  the  shares 
of  the  national  banks,  and  when  the  Legislature 
of  Ohio  came  again  to  legislate  upon  this  sub- 
ject, fearing  to  stand  upon  that  third  item  of 
this  syllabus,  the  author  of  the  bill  which  1 
hold  in  my  hand,  and  which  I presume,  though 
I do  not  know,  was  submitted  to  the  Legislature 
after  consultation  with  the  learned  gentleman 
who  was  then  attorney- general  of  the  State,  and 
who  is  now  a member  of  this  Convention — I re- 
fer to  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West] — 
who  was  very  familiar  with  this  subject,  with 
whom  I was  associated  in  the  argument  of  the 
case  of  Frazier  against  Siebern,  on  behalf  of  the 


[140th 

[Tuesday, 


auditor  of  this  county.  I presume  this  bill  was 
submitted  to  him  by  Judge  Sadler,  who  was  the 
Chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee  of  the 
Senate. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  bill  was  submitted  to  me. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  bill  was  carefully  pre- 
pared, and  is  to  be  found  on  page  763  of  Swan 
and  Sayler’s  Statutes,  and  in  order  to  put  it 
beyond  all  doubt  or  peradventure,  that  national 
banks  are  liable  to  taxation  in  Ohio,  it  met  the 
case  exactly,  by  providing,  as  Congress  required 
the  State  to  provide,  that  shares  in  the  State 
banks  should  be  taxed.  What  we  should  do 
now  is  to  not  to  provide  that  the  taxation  of 
banks — I mean  incorporated  banks  of  course,  I 
lay  private  banks  aside,  that  is  another  matter 
— but  we  should  not  use  here  any  ambiguous 
language,  we  should  not  leave  our  Constitution 
open  to  double  construction ; we  ought,  I think, 
to  leave  national  bank  taxation  within  the 
power  of  the  Legislature,  either  as  suggested 
by  the  delegate  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  by 
striking  out  the  section,  or  by  a proviso  that 
nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  so  construed  as 
to  prevent  taxes  on  the  shares  of  State  banks. 
In  one  of  these  two  methods,  I respectfully 
suggest  that  we  should  save  ourselves  from  the 
possibility  of  the  disaster  of  a decision  by  the 
supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  that,  inas- 
much as  we  have  not  done  it  unto  the  State 
banks,  we  shall  not  collect  from  the  national 
banks  taxes  upon  their  shares. 

I am  not  quite  certain  whether  we  can  better 
do  this  by  keeping  still  and  saying  nothing,  or 
trusting  to  the  general  grant  of  legislative 
power,  which  invests  the  General  Assembly 
with  all  power  on  this  subject,  or  whether  by 
an  express  proviso  we  should  say  that  nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  prevent  the  taxa- 
tion Of  such  bank  shares.  But  it  does  seem  to 
me  very  clear  that  we  ought  not  to  provide  for 
the  taxation  of  the  property  of  banks,  when 
we  have  no  such  property  of  banks  as  contra- 
distinguished from  bankers,  or  of  incorporated 
banks  as  distinguished  from  incorporated  bank- 
ers. There  is  very  little,  if  any,  of  it.  We 
ought  not  to  run  the  risk,  for  it  may  be  held  that 
by  providing  in  the  Constitution  for  the  taxa- 
tion of  the  property  of  banks  we  have,  by  im- 
plication, relieved  the  shareholders  from  taxa- 
tion. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly]  tell  us  how  long  we  lost 
the  power  of  taxing  banks  by  reason  of  the 
Article  in  the  old  Constitution"? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Two  years. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Three. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  prefer  to  hear 
from  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  upon  that 
subject,  but,  as  I am  up,  I will  state  my  opinion 
as  to  the  purpose  of  the  Committee  in  the  sub- 
mission of  this  section.  During  the  session  of 
the  Committee  I expressed  my  doubt  as  to  the 
propriety  of  having  any  section  referring 
especially  to  banks;  yet  it  was  the  deliberate 
judgment  of  the  Committee  that  we  should 
frame  a section  of  this  kind : but  it  was  with  a 
view  to  the  possibility,  if  not  the  probability, 
that  during  the  continuance  of  this  Constitu- 
tion, which  we  are  proposing  to  make,  the 
whole  system  of  national  banks  might  be  done 
away  with,  and  that  there  might  be  a recurrence 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Rowland,  Miner,  Pratt,  Page,  Hoadly. 


2121 


Day.] 


March  17,  1874.; 


of  the  old  State  banking  system,  or  to  some  dif- 
ferent form  of  State  banks.  But  if  we  are  to 
get  ourselves  in  a tangle  by  any  section  of  this 
kind,  I prefer  leaving  the  whole  matter  to  the 
Legislature,  and  I should  not  object  to  seeing 
this  section  stricken  out  entirely.  The  section 
was  framed  by  the  Committee  not  so  much  with 
reference  to  the  present  status  as  to  provide  for 
probable  changes  in  the  future. 

Mr.  MINER.  So  far  as  I can  now  see,  I am 
clear  that  the  section  ought  to  be  stricken  out, 
therefore  I shall  vote  for  that  motion. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Before  the  motion  is  made  to 
strike  out,  I want  to  make  one  motion,  and  that 
is,  to  strike  out  the  word  “equitable,”  in  the 
second  line,  between  “such”  and  “rules.” 
We  have  had  the  word  equitable  inserted  in 
every  place  in  this  respect.  I have  been  study- 
ing for  six  months  to  find  out  a definition  that 
will  give  it  some  sort  of  force,  and  all  that  I can 
arrive  at  is,  that  the  Legislature,  out  of  their 
own  good  will  and  their  option,  may  do  so 
and  so,  wherever  it  appears  proper  to  them.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  words,  “ equitable  rules  ” 
have  no  force  or  meaning  whatever.  I can 
easily  understand  what  equitable  jurisdiction  is 
in  a court,  because  that  is  well  defined,  and 
what  the  law  of  equity  is  as  applied  to  a court, 
but  what  an  equitable  rule  is,  as  applied  to  a 
legislative  body,  I can  give  no  sort  of  definition 
of  it.  If  others  can  do  it  I shall  be  glad  to  be  a 
learner. 

Upon  Mr.  Pratt’s  motion  to  strike  out  “equi- 
table,” a division  was  had,  and  resulted,  affirma- 
tive 24,  negative  37. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  striking  out  the  section. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I was  going  to  offer  an  amend- 
ment, which  was  suggested  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  and  also  by  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee,  to  add  at  the  end 
of  the  section  these  words:  “Provided  that 

national  banks  shall  be  taxed  in  accordance 
with  the  acts  of  Congress  regulating  the  same.” 

Mr.  MINER.  The  difficulty  of  that  seems  to 
me  to  be  that  the  act  of  Congress  does  not  pro- 
vide for  taxing  national  banks  at  all.  It  pro- 
vides for  taxing  shares  in  the  hands  of  holders, 
and  the  language  should  be  national  bank 
shares,  if  it  is  changed  at  all. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I shall  oppose  the  pro- 
posed addition  to  the  section.  It  seems  to  me  if 
we  have  a right  to  tax,  we  ought  to  avail  our- 
selves of  the  right,  but  if  we  enact  any  law  in 
contravention  of  the  act  of  Congress,  it  will  be 
null  and  void.  I call  attention  to  this  fact,  that 
we  are  now  subjecting  shareholders  of  stock  in 
national  banks  to  rules  differing  from  those 
which  we  apply  to  other  banks.  In  the  first 
place,  the  situs  of  the  property  is  where  the 
bank  is  located,  no  matter  where  the  owner  may 
reside;  and  in  that  respect  it  differs  from  the 
shares  of  any  other  bank.  We  are  now  taxing 
incorporated  banks  and  private  bankers,  and 
we  allow  them  to  avail  themselves  of  the  de- 
ductions under  the  rule  of  debits  and  credits. 
The  national  banks  are  not  allowed  to  deduct 
non-taxable  bonds  as  a credit  from  shares  at  all ; 
but  in  every  other  case  it  is  done. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I ask  permission  to  withdraw 
my  amendment,  which  was  written  in  great 


haste,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  attracting  the 
attention  to  the  subject,  and  I shall  offer  this 
substitute. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Provided  that  nothing  in  this  section  contained  shall  be 
construed  to  forbid  the  taxation  of  shares  of  stock  in  any 
bank. 

So  that  it  will  read : 

Sec.  6.  Banks  now  existing  or  hereafter  created,  and 
all  bankers,  shall  be  taxed  by  such  equitable  rules,  based 
upon  capital  employed,  and  amount  of  business  done  by 
them,  as  will  require  them  to  share  equally  with  other 
business  in  the  burdens  of  taxation,  providing  that  noth- 
ing in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  forbid 
taxation  of  shares  of  stock  in  any  bank. 

Mr.  PRATT.  To  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  to  strike  out,  I 
offer  the  following  substitute. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Capital  employed  by  banks  now  existing,  or  hereafter 
created,  and  all  bankers,  shall  be  taxed  by  such  uniform 
rules,  based  upon  such  capital,  as  will  require  property 
so  employed  to  share  equally  with  all  other  property  the 
burdens  of  taxation. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  just  show  the  gen- 
tleman how  that  will  work.  Your  private 
banker  will  take  his  hundred  or  hundred  and 
five  thousand  dollars,  and  buy  one  hnndred 
thousand  dollars  worth  of  untaxable  bonds, 
and  upon  them  will  borrow  money,  and  by  an 
offset  of  credits  such  as  you  allow  in  your  State, 
will  pay  no  tax  at  all.  The  gentleman  confines 
the  taxation  to  capital  and  does  not  extend  it  to 
business.  The  rule  of  assessment  in  this  State 
has  been  that  a party  depositing  money  in  a 
bank  did  not  make  return  of  that,  but  the  bank- 
er was  compelled  to  make  the  return . The  prop- 
osition of  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt]  will  let  them  all  go  scot  free.  That  will 
be  the  result.  I know,  myself,  a case  in  this  city 
where  parties  having  a capital  of  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars  did  this  very  thing.  They 
bought  United  States  government  bonds  with 
their  two  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  then 
borrowed  money  upon  that ; and  by  your  rule  of 
credit  they  have  escaped  taxation  entirely  in 
this.  If  you  confine  taxation  to  capital,  it  will 
be  likely  to  escape.  Business  must  be  included 
as  well  as  capital. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page.] 

Mr.  MINER.  I ask  that  the  Secretary  read 
the  amendment  again. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Page  moves  to  amend  the  section  by  adding: 

“Provided  that  nothing  in  this  section  contained  shall 
be  construed  to  forbid  the  taxing  of  shares  of  stock  in  and 
bank.’’ 

Mr.  MINER.  Under  the  United  States  sys- 
tem of  national  banks  you  cannot  tax  their  cap- 
ital, but  may  tax  the  shares  in  the  hands  of  the 
stockholder.  It  appears,  to  me  that  under  the 
proposed  amendment  you  could  not  reach,  to  tax, 
either  the  capital  of  those  banks  or  their  shares 
in  the  hands  of  stockholders. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Why  not? 

Mr.  MINER.  Because  you  undertake  to  tax 
them  simply  as  shares  of  the  bank,  that  is,  to 
tax  the  banks. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Let  me  ask  a question. 


2122 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Hoadly,  Miner,  Burns,  Pratt,  Powell,  Smith. 


[140th 

[Tuesday, 


When  you  tax  the  shares  of  stock  in  a hank  do 
you  not  tax  them  in  the  hands  of  the  holder  ? 
Is  not  that  what  it  really  amounts  to?  For  in- 
stance, in  this  State,  in  the  case  of  Coe  against 
the  Columbus  and  Indiana  Railroad  Company, 
has  not  the  distinction  between  the  ownership 
of  shares  and  the  ownership  of  property  been 
so  clearly  drawn  as  that  nobody  can  mistake 
that  a provision  for  the  taxing  of  a share  is  a 
provision  which,  so  far  as  the  individual  is  con- 
cerned, reaches  the  shares  in  the  hands  of  the 
owner  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  That  may  be  so  now  in  Ohio. 
In  the  case  of  Coe,  trustee,  &c.,  referred  to,  it 
was  decided  that  the  selling  out  of  all  the  prop- 
erty of  the  railroad  did  not  divest  the  share- 
holder of  the  franchise  of  being  a corporation ; 
but  this  franchise  was  an  empty  thing;  it  was 
nothing  but  a shadow,  when  the  property  and 
iranchises  belonging  to  the  corporation  were 
sold.  It  was  a thing  you  could  not  tax,  be- 
cause it  had  no  value  that  you  could  estimate  as 
property.  All  that  was  left  in  the  shareholders 
was  the  barren  franchise  of  being  a corpora- 
tion. Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  you  under- 
take to  tax  capital,  you  should  have  the  power 
to  tax  the  bank,  and  make  the  bank  pay  a tax 
on  its  capital.  But  when  you  undertake  to  tax 
the  bank  and  the  shareholders  both,  then  you 
impose  a double  tax.  Shares  may  be  held  by 
individuals  who  are  not  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  State,  and  in  order  to  reach  them  it 
would  be  better,  probably — as  I understand  in 
the  case  of  some  of  our  corporations — to  tax 
the  capital  and  make  the  corporation  pay  it. 
Then  it  comes  out  of  the  dividends  before  they 
get  to  the  stockholders,  and  the  matter  is  made 
right.  But  if  you  undertake  to  tax  the  capital 
which  is  represented,  in  effect,  by  the  certifi- 
cates in  the  hands  of  the  stockholders,  and  also 
to  tax  these  certificates,  or  shares,  in  the  hands 
of  the  stockholders,  you  impose  a double  tax 
and  do  a wrong. 

Mr.  BURNS.  A shareholder  may  live  in  In- 
diana, or  a shareholder  may  live  in  Clermont 
county,  while  the  bank  may  be  located  in  Cin- 
cinnati. The  tax  is  levied  here  for  city  purpo- 
ses. The  man  who  owns  the  capital  is  in  Cler- 
mont county,  perhaps,  and  the  locality  where 
he  resides  gets  no  benefit  from  his  capital  at 
all. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  is  precisely  the  operation 
of  the  present  law. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I know  it  is. 

Mr.  MINER.  That  may  be  so,  but  how  can 
you  remedy  it  ? You  may  tax  the  capital  of  the 
bank,  and  make  the  bank  pay  it.  Then  you 
have  your  property  tax  not  only  upon  the  capi- 
tal of  the  bank  but  upon  the  shares  distributed 
in  the  hands  of  the  individual  stockholders, 
and  certainly  it  is  not  right  to  tax  the  capital 
of  the  bank  and  then  tax  the  same  thing  over 
again  in  the  hands  of  the  stockholders. 

Mr*  HOADLY.  If  my  colleague  will  offer  a 
proposition  against  double  taxation,  he  would 
not  find  anybody  more  ready  to  vote  for  it  than 
I am.  I believe  it  is  about  as  mischievous  as 
anything  that  can  be  suggested.  What  we  are 
in  danger  of,  however,  is  our  taking  the  position 
of  the  dog  in  the  fable — grasping  at  the  shad- 
ow and  losing  the  substance — which  I do  not 
want  to  do.  The  act  of  Congress  says,  that  we 


may  tax  shares  in  national  banks,  provided  we 
tax  shares  in  State  banks.  I do  not  want  any- 
thing to  get  into  this  Constitution  that  looks 
providing  that  we  shall  not  tax  shares  in  State 
banks.  The  proviso  which  the  delegate  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  has  offered,  is  a provi- 
so that  this  language  in  the  sixth  section  shall 
not  be  construed  so  as  to  forbid  that  kind  of 
taxation  which  is  necessary  in  order  that  we 
may  be  able  to  tax  national  bank  shares,  name- 
ly, the  taxation  of  shares  in  State  banks ; and, 
therefore,  I favor  the  adoption  of  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  delegate  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page],  because  it  puts  an  end  to  the  doubt 
which  the  section,  as  it  originally  stood,  left 
open — whether  the  only  taxation  of  the  banks 
in  Ohio  would  not  be  taxation  on  the  capital  of 
the  bank,  and  could  not  be  a tax  on  the  share, 
and  that,  therefore,  there  could  be  no  taxation 
on  national  banks,  there  being  no  such  pre- 
liminary measure  as  is  required  by  act  of  Con- 
gress. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Does  it  not  appear  from  the 
discussion  which  we  have  had  here,  that  the 
only  safe  way  is  to  strike  the  whole  of  it? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  may  be,  but  I want  to 
to  adopt  the  language  of  the  section  that, 
whether  it  be  adopted  or  rejected,  we  shall  have 
a firm  hold  of  the  right  to  tax  national  banks. 

Mr.  SMITH.  This  section  was  drawn  up 
by  one  or  two  members  of  the  Committee. 
The  terms  and  the  language  employed  were 
discussed  at  the  time,  and  we  thought  then 
that  we  understood  the  bearings  of  the  language 
we  used.  To  some  extent  I have  forgotten  the 
process  of  reasoning  through  which  we  went 
at  that  time,  but  I will  make  the  attempt  to  re- 
call it  now,  if  I can. 

Under  the  system  of  creating  banks  which 
prevailed  in  Ohio,  there  was  always  coupled 
with  the  charters  authorizing  the  establishment 
of  State  banks,  or  independent  banks,  a system 
of  taxation  differing  from  the  general  system  of 
taxation  imposed  upon  all  other  property  of  the 
State;  and  for  a long  while,  if  I remember 
right,  it  was  a party  question  between  the 
Democratic  party  and  the  Whig  party  as  to 
whether  the  banks  should  be  compelled  to  give 
up  their  special  mode  of  taxation,  or  whether 
they  should  be  sustained  in  their  claims  under 
their  charters.  The  old  Democratic  party  in- 
sisted that,  under  chartered  privilege,  they  were 
exempted  from  bearing  their  true  proportion 
of  the  public  bufdens,  while  the  other  party 
protected  them,  upon  the  ground  that  a charter 
was  a contract,  and  that,  whatever  were  the 
terms  of  the  contract,  it  should  be  kept  inviolate. 
That  was  the  position  of  the  two  parties,  and 
we  battled  it  over  and  over  again.  When, 
therefore,  the  Committee  came  to  consider  this 
question,  our  object  was  to  make  a rule  by 
which  all  banks  now  in  existence,  or  which 
might  hereafter  be  created  by  State  authority, 
and  all  private  banks,  should  be  compelled  to 
contribute  their  true  proportionate  share  of  the 
public  burdens  of  taxation.  That  was  our  pur- 
pose. 

Secondly,  upon  examining  the  duplicates  of 
the  Reports  made  by  the  Auditor  of  State,  we 
became  satisfied  that  but  a very  small  amount 
of  the  actual  capital  and  of  the  business  done  by 
the  present  State  banks  and  individual  banks 


2123 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  17,  1874.]  Smith,  Pratt,  Hoadly,  Powell. 


was  taxed,  in  proportion  to  the  capital  employed, 
and  to  the  business  which  they  did.  Therefore, 
we  thought  it  advisable  to  make  a separate  sec- 
tion to  include  them,  and  subject  them  to  the 
imposition  of  burdens  in  just  proportion  to  the 
burdens  borne  by  all  other  businesses  of  the 
country. 

The  question  of  national  hanks  came  up,  and 
our  opinion  was  that  the  national  banks,  being 
liable  to  taxation  by  the  terms  of  their  charter, 
or  the  law  authorizing  their  creation,  they 
would  be  taxed  under  these  conditions,  and 
without  any  reference  whatever  to  the  section. 
Now,  if  you  had  no  banks  in  Ohio  authorized 
by  law 

Mr.  PRATT.  Other  than  National. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Other  than  National — and  I 
presume  that  in  the  future  you  will  not 
have,  for  I doubt  whether,  if  this  national 
banking  system,  which  seems  to  promise  per- 
petuity, is  preserved,  banking  authorized  by 
the  State  Legislature  will  ever  become  a part  of 
the  policy  of  your  country 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Permit  me  to  make  a sugges- 
tion. The  gentleman  is  speaking  of  issues  and 
circulation  in  a way  which  anticipates  that 
legitimate  banking  will  not  be  done  by  corpora- 
tions in  Ohio  to  any  extent. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Nobody  denies  the  possi- 
bility of  such  a thing,  but  I can  see  no  nec- 
essity why  there  should  be  a charter  granted 
for  the  mere  purpose  of  discounting  alone.  It 
is  not  going  to  be  resorted  to  in  Ohio — nobody 
wants  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  say  that,  as  a matter  of  fact,  he  is  mis- 
taken. There  are  such  incorporated  banks  in 
this  State — I may  as  well  use  names,  and  say 
that  it  was  the  wish  of  the  Ohio  Valley  Bank 
not  to  go  out  of  existence.  If  it  could  have  re- 
mained in  existence  under  the  laws  of  Ohio 
that  bank  would  have  been  in  existence  to  this 
day.  Because  of  the  difficulties  which  grew 
out  of  the  fact  that  banking  has  always  been 
associated  with  the  making  of  paper  money, 
the  last  Constitution  provided  that  there  should 
be  no  banking  law  except  by  popular  vote,  and 
that  is  equivalenc  to  saying  that  there  shall  be 
no  banking  law  at  all. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Nobody  wants,  now,  a charter 
to  engage  in  private  banking,  because  there 
is  no  power  associated  with  it  to  issue  paper. 
If  this  bank,  to  which  the  gentleman  referred, 
in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  could  have  been 
associated  with  the  national  banking  system 
on  such  terms  as  it  once  desired,  it  would 
have  passed  under  the  operation  of  the  national 
law ; but  failing  to  secure  it  under  such  con- 
ditions as  it  desired,  the  stockholders  preferred 
to  keep  their  organized  capital  in  the  shape  in 
which  they  then  had  it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Permit  me  to  say  that  I am 
informed  that  there  are  more  than  twenty 
banks  in  Ohio  organized  under  the  act  of  last 
winter,  or  the  winter  before  last. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Savings  and  loans  banks. 

Mr.  SMITH.  This  is  a mere  question  of 
opinion.  If  you  had  now  no  banks  in  the 
State,  still  a condition  is  fixed  in  the  charters 
of  national  banks  by  which  they  can  be 
taxed,  and  we  prefer  not  to  get  into  conflict 
with  the  law  regulating  the  taxation  of  such 


institutions.  So  long  as  the  national  act  re- 
mains in  its  present  shape,  fixing  the  share  of 
contribution  that  national  banks  shall  pay  into 
the  State  treasury,  then  you  get  from  your 
national  banks  all  you  could  obtain,  were  you 
to  apply  to  them  the  same  rules  of  taxation  as 
are  contained  in  section  three  in  this  Report  in 
relation  to  all  private  capital  in  the  State.  If 
we  can  secure  that,  if  that  follows  as  a con- 
sequence, then  the  national  banks  of  the  United 
States,  by  virtue  of  the  very  terms  regulating 
taxation,  will  be  compelled  to  contribute,  just 
in  the  same  way  that  the  private  capital  of 
every  individual  in  the  State  will  have  to  con- 
tribute, under  the  section  which  we  have  just 
passed.  If  you  have  no  State  banks  taxable  by 
shares,  still  national  banks  will  have  to  pay 
on  their  capital,  by  the  terms  of  law  creating 
them,  just  in  the  same  proportion  that  private 
capital  will  have  to  pay  under  this  proposition 
for  taxation  in  Ohio. 

Such,  then,  were  our  views.  We  wanted  to 
get  away  from  the  whole  question  of  national 
bank  taxation,  and  to  give  our  attention  to  the 
question  of  State  banks  and  private  banks.  Our 
object  was  to  establish  a rule  that  would  reach 
them,  if  it  could  be  done.  I think  the  question 
is  one  of  great  difficulty.  They  have  some  way 
of  evading  taxation  under  whatever  rule  you 
may  prescribe.  We  thought  that,  by  taking 
their  capital  and  the  amount  of  business  done 
by  them,  compelling  them  to  give  monthly,  or 
quarterly,  or  periodical  exhibits  of  their  busi- 
ness, we  should  be  enabled  to  ascertain  not  only 
the  capital  employed,  but  the  amount  of 
business  which  they  did ; and  these  two  items, 
upon  any  just,  fair,  and  equitable  rule  of  ap- 
praisement, would  constitute  a foundation  of 
taxation  for  the  private  and  incorporated  banks 
now  existing,  or  that  may  hereafter  be  created 
in  Ohio.  I have  no  objection  to  any  amend- 
ments or  modifications  the  Convention  may 
make  to  this  proposition.  The  Committee 
want,  in  no  way,  to  conflict  with  the  right  of 
Ohio  as  to  the  taxation  of  national  banks,  but 
we  do  want  a provision  by  which  the  bank 
capital  of  Ohio,  in  whatever  form  it  may  exist, 
shall  be  brought  to  pay  its  full  proportion  of  the 
burdens  of  taxation.  Every  one  knows  that  by 
some  imperfection  or  other  of  the  tax  law,  we 
have  never  been  able  to  ascertain  from  these 
banks  any  exact  information  about  their  capital 
or  their  business,  as  a basis  of  taxation. 

Therefore,  the  Committee  care  nothing  about 
what  modifications  may  be  made  in  the  section, 
so  that  a provision  be  retained  which  will  en- 
able us  to  control,  in  some  way,  the  great  mon- 
eyed interest  of  Ohio,  which  has  never  yet 
borne  its  just  proportion  of  the  public  burdens. 

Mr.  POVVELL.  Do  you  see  any  difficulty  in 
leaving  this  question  entirely  to  the  Legisla- 
ture— in  striking  out  section  6,  and  leaving  it  ta 
the  Legislature  to  determine  what  taxation 
shall  be  levied,  without  any  provision  of  this 
kind? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  thought  it  best  to  get 
away  from  the  general  rule  which  taxed  prop- 
erty as  property.  We  thought  it  advisable 
to  get  away  from  that  rule  when  we  came 
to  tax  banks,  and  make  them  pay  not  only 
on  their  capital,  which  is  their  property,  but 
also  on  the  amount  of  business  which  they  did. 


2124 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith,  Pond,  Pratt. 


[140th 

[Tuesday, 


Every  one  understands  how  they  are  managed. 
You  start  a hank  with  a capital  of  ten  thousand 
dollars.  All  the  tax  you  pay  is  upon  that  sum, 
and  that  is  all  the  tax  you  can  be  compelled  to 
-pay,  under  the  rule  regulating  taxation  in  sec- 
tion 3.  You  may  do  a half-million  business. 
You  may  open  up  here  on  Third  street  with 
fifty  thousand  dollars  of  capital,  and  secure 
deposits  for  the  amount  of  half  a million  dol- 
lars, and  that  enters  into  your  regular  business 
as  bankers,  upon  which  you  draw  your  divi- 
dends and  make  your  profits.  Our  purpose 
was  to  make  a distinct  rule  for  them,  not  only 
compelling  them  to  pay  on  their  capital,  which 
is  their  property,  but  we  want  to  reach  still 
further,  and  compel  them,  if  possible  by  any 
rule,  to  contribute  in  proportion  to  the  amount 
of  business  which  they  do— business  founded 
upon  the  property  of  others. 

Mr.  POND.  I agree  with  the  gentleman  who 
has  just  spoken  upon  this  subject,  as  to  the  fact 
that  this  class  of  property  owned  by  banks  and 
bankers  should  be  liable  to  State  taxation. 
Where  the  values  of  a banking  institution  are 
represented  by  shares,  there  is  no  doubt  in  the 
world  that  the  true  mode  of  taxation,  and  the 
only  mode  by  which  you  can  reach  the  prop- 
erty of  banking  institutions,  is  by  valuing 
those  shares  and  taxing  them  at  their  market 
value,  and  then  you  get  every  dollar  the  insti- 
tution is  worth.  Shares  represent  simply  the 
property  of  the  bank.  If  they  are  above*  par, 
there  is  a surplus;  if  they  are  below  par,  there 
is  a loss.  At  any  rate,  all  the  property  is  rep- 
resented by  these  shares,  and  they  form  the 
true  basis  of  taxation.  It  appears  to  me,  how- 
ever, that  the  matter  can  be  reached  under  the 
fifth  section,  or  under  the  third  section,  of  this 
Article.  I am  not  aware  but  that  the  certifi- 
cates of  shares  in  a bank  are  as  much  property 
as  are  promissory  notes.  They  are,  properly, 
evidences  of  ownership  merely,  but  still  they 
are  indications  that  property  is  owned,  and 
they  indicate,  also,  the  amount  of  that  prop- 
erty; and  the  mode  by  which  they  can  be 
reached  is  by  taxing  these  shares.  It  appears 
to  me  this  kind  of  property  may  be  reached 
under  section  five  as  well  as  any  other  species 
of  property  that  is  spoken  of  as  of  an  intangi- 
ble character ; or  it  may  be  called  incorporeal 
in  its  character.  If  it  becomes  necessary  to  es- 
tablish any  other  mode  of  taxation  for  the 
purpose  of  reaching  these  banks,  I think  the 
matter  may  be  regulated  under  the  fifth  section 
fully  as  well  as  under  the  section  proposed  to 
be  stricken  out.  We  have  a provision  made  for 
taxing  by  excise  or  license,  and,  under  this 
provision,  a mode  may  be  resorted  to  for  the 
purpose  of  reaching  these  banks. 

There  is  another  fact  to  which  I have  not  ad- 
verted. The  banking,  especially  in  this  State, 
is  continually  changing.  There  is  more  or  less 
of  change  every  year.  The  banking  business 
in  Ohio  is  conducted  under  the  operation  of 
two  or  three  different  statutes  which  authorize 
incorporation  for  the  purpose  of  doing  a bank- 
ing business.  Mechanics’  building  and  loan 
associations,  so  far  as  the  loan  of  other  people’s 
money  is  concerned,  are  banks.  There  are 
three  different  classes  of  banking  powers,  as  I 
understand  it — one  to  issue  circulation ; another 
to  receive  deposits;  and  a third  to  loan  other 


people’s  money.  These  are  all  clearly  banking 
powers.  One  is  as  much  a banking  power  as 
another.  The  act  passed  a year  a°ro  last  winter, 
under  which  more  than  twenty  banks  have  been 
incorporated  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  directly  au- 
thorized the  conferring  of  all  these  banking 
powers  which  I have  spoken  of,  except  the 
power  to  issue  paper.  That  act  fully  authorizes 
banking,  but  I am  quite  satisfied  that  it  is  un- 
constitutional, because  it  was  not  submitted  to 
the  people  for  their  sanction,  in  accordance 
with  the  section  of  the  Constitution  which  pro- 
vides for  the  submission  of  all  acts  authorizing 
the  conferring  of  banking  powers  upon  associ- 
ations to  a vote  of  the  people  before  they  can 
become  effective.  Still  it  would  have  been  easy 
to  have  done  it.  The  act  might  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  a vote  of  the  people,  adopted,  and  be- 
come a permanent  institution  in  the  State  as  a 
bank  incorporation  act,  which  would  have  been 
valid.  Numberless  corporations  might  have 
been  created  all  over  the  State,  and  different 
species  of  banking  authorized,  under  our  cor- 
porate acts. 

Now,  I can  see  no  difficulty  in  this  matter.  I 
see  no  more  difficulty  in  reaching  the  property 
of  a bank  of  this  sort,  than  in  reaching  the 
property  of  any  other  incorporated  association 
whose  property  is  represented  by  shares  of 
stock.  They  are  all  liable  to  the  same  mode  of 
assessment  and  valuation.  You  resort  to  the 
same  mode  in  the  case  of  a bank  as  you  do  in 
the  other  cases.  In  the  case  of  private  banks, 
it  may  be  a little  more  difficult;  but  a mode  is 
prescribed  by  statute  now,  which,  if  fully  and 
faithfully  carried  out,  will  be  as  effective  as 
anything  that  can  be  resorted  to  for  the  purpose 
of  reaching  the  difficulty. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Has  the  gentleman  examined, 
to  see  whether  it  is  fully  and  faithfully  carried 
out? 

Mr.  POND.  I know  that  it  has  not.  I will 
not  say,  however,  that  it  has  not  been  faithfully 
carried  out,  but  I know  that  it  has  not  been 
carried  out  fully  up  to  the  meaning  of  the  stat- 
i ute  passed  for  that  purpose.  I will  give  an 
l illustration  of  it  that  is  a notorious  wrong  in 
j this  State — I will  not  say  notorious,  but  every 
! private  banker  knows  it.  Under  the  statute, 
the  private  banker  is  required  to  list  on  one  side 
of  his  statement  the  assets  of  the  bank,  and  on 
the  other  side  he  may  make  certain  deductions, 
i By  one  provision;,  he  is  required  to  list  among 
| the  assets  all  moneys  in  his  possession.  After 
making  that  list,  he  is  allowed  to  make  deduc- 
j tions,  and  among  those  deductions  he  may  place 
| his  deposits.  That  has  been  done;  and  I tell 
| you  it  is  an  outrageous  wrong  upon  the  State, 
j They  have  never  listed  their  deposits  on  the 
I side  of  their  assets.  They  have  construed  the 
I phrase  “moneys  in  possession”  to  mean  “mon- 
eys owned,”  and  then  from  these  moneys 
; owned  they  have  taken  the  amount  of  their  de- 
- posits.  That  has  been  done,  and  the  blanks  in 
the  Auditor’s  office  will  show  it.  The  attention 
of  the  Auditor  of  State  was  called  to  it  last  fall, 
i and  I think  it  will  be  corrected  now.  I know 
that  these  subterfuges  are  resorted  to  in  order 
to  escape  taxation.  Numbers  of  private  banks 
do  not  pay  one  dollar  of  tax,  which  they  elude 
Just  in  that  way.  Others,  again,  put  their 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pkatt,  Pond,  Smith,  Rowland. 


2125 


Day.] 

March  17,  1874.] 


money  in  bonds,  and  send  them  to  New  York. 
And  so  it  goes. 

Mr.  PRATT.  As  a matter  of  interest,  I 
would  like  to  know  if  they  have  ever  lowered 
their  rates  of  interest  in  order  to  escape  paying 
taxes. 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  understand  that  they 
have.  I can  see  that  there  may,  perhaps,  be 
danger  arising  from  having  a special  section 
leveled  at  the  banking  institutions,  indicating, 
as  it  may,  that  some  special  mode  outside  of  the 
general  and  uniform  practice  of  the  State, 
according  to  which  other  property  is  valued  and 
taxed,  may  be  resorted  to  in  applying  taxation 
to  the  property  of  banks.  I object  to  that  sort 
of  thing,  unless  good  reason  can  be  given  for 
it,  because,  in  the  ever-changing  character  of 
the  times,  such  decisions  may  be  given  as  may 
even  favor  these  banking  institutions,  and  en- 
able them  to  escape  with  still  greater  immunity 
from  taxation.  You  propose  now  to  tax  their 
business 

Mr.  SMITH.  Capital  and  business. 

Mr.  POND.  It  appears  to  be  a little  peculiar 
in  that  regard.  You  propose  to  tax  their  busi- 
ness in  such  manner  as  shall  be  equitable,  so 
that  they  may  be  compelled  to  bear  their  share 
of  the  burdens  of  taxation.  How  much  are  you 
going  to  place  upon  property,  and  how  much 
upon  business?  Are  you  going  to  equate 
them — put  an  equal  amount  upon  each?  Or 
are  you  going  to  put  more  upon  the  one  than 
upon  the  other  ? Or  how  are  you  going  to  do  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  a matter  entirely 
at  the  discretion  of  the  General  Assembly. 
We  laid  down  these  two  points  as  guiding 
stars,  the  one  capital,  and  the  other  business. 
The  General  Assembly  may  devise  a plan  for 
ascertaining  what  the  banks  ought  to  con- 
tribute, and  will  look  to  these  two  regards, 
doing  justice  and  equity,  but  getting  whatever 
the  banks  ought  to  pay.  That  is  a very  differ- 
ent rule  from  the  rule  in  the  third  section. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I will  say  that  the  method 
adopted  by  the  general  government  in  regard  to 
the  taxation  of  private  banks  is  in  pursuance 
of  this  principle  of  equity,  not  of  a rigid,  uni- 
form rule.  They  vary  the  rule  in  its  applica- 
tion. 

Mr.  POND.  I was  adverting  to  this  peculi- 
arity of  taxing  both  property  and  business. 
After  all,  it  is  not  imperative  that  you  shall  tax 
by  both  these  modes.  You  may  resort  to  each, 
either,  or  both,  for  the  purpose  of  arriving  at 
this  equitable  rate. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Where  do  you  get  that  con- 
struction ? You  must  resort  to  both  modes. 

Mr.  POND.  How  m.uch  are  you  to  put  upon 
one,  and  how  much  upon  the  other  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  a question  of  detail. 

Mr.  POND.  The  proposition,  substantially, 
is,  that  you  may  resort  to  the  one,  and  not  to  the 
other,  or  that  you  may  resort  to  both.  It  ap- 
pears to  me,  Mr.  President,  that  a tax  upon 
business  is  one  that  you  ought  not  to  resort  to. 
It  is  a tax  upon  naked  enterprise,  and  no  tax 
ought  anywhere  to  be  levied  upon  that. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I am  a banker  myself,  and 
I do  not  want  to  be  included  under  that 
word  enterprise.  We  all  understand  clearly 


enough  what  is  intended,  and  all  that  I want 
is  to  perfect  this  clause.  I do  not  want  it 
thrown  out,  if  it  can  be  made  to  accomplish  what 
we  are  after.  We  all  understand  that  capital 
employed  in  the  banking  business  is  able  to 
take  care  of  itself,  under  any  system  of  taxation 
that  you  can  devise.  We  cannot,  by  any  equi- 
table rule,  apply  to  the  capital  and  business  of 
a bank  any  regulations  which  will  paralyze  its 
business  or  prevent  its  success.  If  it  cannot 
succeed  in  one  kind  of  investment,  it  will  draw 
out  and  invest  in  some  other  enterprise. 

Mr.  POND.  I desire  to  call  attention  to  an- 
other fact.  As  I understand  it,  the  more  busi- 
ness a bank  has,  the  more  you  propose  to  tax  it. 
That  is  what  I understand  by  taxing  enter- 
prise. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  more  money  it  makes,  the 
better  it  is  able  to  contribute  to  the  support  of 
the  government. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Permit  me  to  reply  to  the 
statement  of  the  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond].  Is  not  the  value  of  the  shares 
made  up  from  the  amount  of  business  the  bank 
does — measurably  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Measurably,  it  is. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  shares  in  a nati 
bank  are  made  up  of  capital  and  surplus. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Has  not  the  business  anything 
to  do  with  the  value  of  the  share,  and  the  amount 
of  money  it  has  to  loan. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  It  is  business  and  profits 
that  bring  values,  but  the  value  is  ascertained 
under  the  rule  which  requires  the  publication  of 
the  capital  and  surplus,  and  that,  divided  by 
the  shares,  designates  the  share  value. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  inform  me 
where  the  rule  is  established  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  It  is  the  rule  under  which 
the  national  banks  make  their  returns. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  jMr. 
Page]. 

The  Secretary  read  the  proposed  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway,  as  follows : 

To  add  at  the  end  of  section  6 the  words,  “provided  that 
nothing  in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to 
forbid  the  taxation  of  shares  in  the  stock  in  any  bank.” 

So  that  the  section  will  read : 

Sec.  6.  Banks  now  existing,  or  hereafter  created,  and 
all  bankers,  shall  be  taxed  by  such  equitable  rules,  based 
upon  capital  employed  and  amount  ot  business  done  by 
them,  as  will  require  them  to  share  equally  with  other 
business  interests  in  the  burdens  of  taxation;  provided 
that  nothing  in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed 
to  forbid  the  taxation  of  shares  in  the  stock  of  any 
bank.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken? 
and  resulted — yeas  68,  nays  0,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Baber,  Beer,  Blose, 
Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,. 
Coats,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Doan,  Freiberg, 
Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Hitch- 
cock, Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt, 
Johnson,  McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Mullen,  Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Root,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Scofield,  Scribner, 
Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith,  Townsend, 
Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tylery 


2126 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Miner,  West,  Pratt,  Page,  Beer,  Clark  of  R. 


[140th 


Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle,  Watson, 
Weaver,  West,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury, 
Young  of  Champaign,  President — 68. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  MINER  sent  up  a substitute,  which  the 
Secretary  read,  as  follows : 

Mr.  Miner  proposes,  in  case  section  6 is  is  stricken  out, 
to  insert: 

“Banks  now  existing,  or  hereafter  created,  and  all 
hankers,  shall  be  taxed  upon  their  capital  and  business 
by  such  equitable  rules  as  will  require  them  to  share 
equally  with  other  business  interests  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation.” 

Mr.  MINER.  I move  that  as  an  amendment 
to  take  the  place  of  all,  except  the  amendment 
just  adopted. 

A division  of  the  question  was  demanded. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A division  of  the  ques- 
tion is  called  for.  The  first  question,  therefore,  J 
will  be  upon  striking  out. 

Mr.  WEST.  I wish  to  call  attention  to  one 
point.  I do  not  know  whether  my  impression 
is  wrong  or  not,  but  the  wording  of  the  original 
section  seems  to  leave  an  implied  possibility 
that  a difference  may  be  made  between  the  mode 
or  rate  of  taxing  business  interests  and  other 
property.  If  you  word  it  that  bankers  may  be 
taxed  as  other  business  interests,  you  imply, 
probably,  that  business  interests  may  be  taxed 
in  a different  manner  from  other  things  that  are 
taxable.  I would  suggest  the  addition  of  the 
words  “ and  property”  after  the  word  “ in- 
terest” in  line  four,  so  that  the  clause  may  read 
“ other  business  interests  and  property.” 

Mr.  PRATT.  How  would  it  do  to  strike  out, 
the  words  “ with  other  business  interests?” 

Mr.  MINER.  The  language  which  I have 
employed  does  not  change  the  meaning  of  the 
section  a particle.  If  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention will  compare  the  two,  they  will  see 
that  the  meaning  is  not  changed  at  all,  only  the 
language  is  improved,  as  I think. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 
the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  striking  out  the  section. 

Mr.  MINER.  My  object  was  to  perfect  the 
language  of  the  section  before  we  take  a vote 
upon  striking  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  understood 
the  gentleman  to  offer  his  proposition  as  a sub- 
stitute. 

Mr.  MINER.  I desire  that  my  proposition 
shall  take  the  place  of  all  in  the  section,  except 
what  was  included  in  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  and  also  in  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page]. 

The  Secretary  read  the  section,  as  proposed 
to  be  amended,  as  follows : 

Sec.  6.  Banks  now  existing,  or  hereafter  created,  and 
all  bankers,  shall  be  taxed  upon  their  capital  and  busi- 
ness, by  such  equitable  rules  as  will  require  them  to  share 
equally  with  other  business  interests  and  property,  the 
burdens  of  taxation,  provided  that  nothing  in  this  sec- 
tion contained  shall  be  construed  to  lorbid  the  taxation 
of  stock  in  the  shares  of  any  bank. 

Mr.  WEST.  I understand  that  the  change 
proposed  consists  simply  in  changing  the  lan- 
guage “ capital  employed  and  amount  of  busi-  I 
ness  done  by  them”  to  “their  capital  and  j 
business,”  leaving  out  the  words  “employed”  | 
and  “done  by  them.” 


[Tuesday, 


The  question  being  taken  upon  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Miner,  said  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon 
the  motion  to  strike  out  section  six. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  10,  nays  60,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Miner,  Phellis,  Pond,  Root, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Tripp, 
President — 10. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Blose,  Bosworth, 
Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Doan,  Freiberg, 
Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Hostetter,  Humphre- 
ville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  McCor- 
mick, Merrill,  McCauley,  Mitchener,  Mullen, 
Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Sample,  Scofield,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Smith 
Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tut- 
tle, Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Waddle, 
Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young 
of  Champaign — 60. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I move  that  the  Convention 
do  now  adjourn. 

The  motion  to  adjourn  was  not  agreed  to. 

No  further  amendments  being  offered  to  sec- 
tion six,  the  Secretary  read  section  seven,  as 
follows  : 

Sec.  7.  No  tax  shall  be  levied  except  in  pursuance  of 
law,  and  every  law  shall  state  distinctly  the  objectof  the 
same,  to  which  only  it  shall  be  applied. 

Mr.  PAGE.  It  seems  to  me  that  in  printing 
that  section  certain  words  found  in  the  old 
Constitution  have  been  omitted — words  which 
should  necessarily  be  inserted,  at  least  for  good 
taste.  The  sentence  is  badly  constructed  as  it 
stands.  After  the  words  “ every  law  ” in  the 
old  Constitution,  occur  the  words  “ imposing  a 
ta?x,”  so  as  to  read,  “ every  law  imposing  a tax,  ” 
because  the  words  “ same  ” and  “ it”  refer,  by 
grammatical  construction,  to  the  word  “law.” 

Mr.  BEER.  I suggest  that  a very  simple 
remedy  would  be  to  insert  the  word  “ such  ” 
after  the  word  “ every,”  in  the  first  line. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  original  section  in  the  old 
Constitution  reads : “ Every  law  imposing  a 
tax.”  I move  to  restore  those  words. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

No  further  amendments  being  offered  to  sec- 
tion seven,  the  Secretary  read  section  eight, 
as  follows : 

Sec.  8.  The  State  shall  never  contract  any  debt  for 
purposes  of  internal  improvement. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I move  to  strike  out 
the  section.  I do  not  make  the  motion,  Mr. 
President,  in  any  spirit  of  hostility  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  section,  but  simply  upon  the  ground 
that  it  is  entirely  unnecessary.  If  gentlemen 
will  refer  to  Article  VIII  of  the  Constitution, 
they  will  find  that  the  first  three  sections  fully 
provide  for  this  matter.  The  third  section  pro- 
vides as  follows:  “Except  the  debts  above 
specified  in  sections  one  and  two  of  this  Article, 
no  debt  whatever  shall  hereafter  be  created  by, 
or  on  behalf  of,  the  State.”  The  two  preced- 
ing sections  specify  certain  kinds  of  debts  that 
may  be  created  on  behalf  of  the  State,  for  in- 
stance, debts  to  repel  invasion,  or  to  suppress 


CONCERNING  PUBLIC  IMPROVEMENTS. 


2127 


Day.] 

March  17, 1874.]  Clark  of  R.,  Hoadly,  Pratt,  Smith. 


insurrection,  and  certain  others  that  are  spe- 
cifically enumerated.  Then  comes  the  third 
section,  with  this  sweeping  provision,  which 
prohibits  the  State  from  contracting  any  other 
debt  whatever. 

Mow,  this  section  has  been  passed  upon  by 
the  supreme  court,  and  its  construction  has 
been  settled.  I will  read  from  page  92  of  the 
Appendix  to  the  Laws  of  Ohio,  for  1873 : 

The  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  first  three  sec- 
tions of  this  Article  applies  their  limitations  to  the  State 
alone,  and  not  to  her  subdivisions.  Cass  v.  Dilton,  2 Ohio 
St.,  608;  Walker  v.  Cincinnati,  21  Ohio  St„  14-52. 

The  Board  of  Public  Works  made  contracts  on  behalf 
of  the  State,  stipulating  to  pay  yearly,  for  the  period  of 
five  years,  for  materials  and  repairs  of  the  State,  an 
amoiint  in  the  aggregate  of  $1,375,000.  Held:  1.  That, 
except  in  certain  specified  cases,  no  debt  of  any  kind  can 
be  created  on  behalf  of  the  State.  2.  That  no  officers  of 
the  State  can  enter  into  any  contract,  except  in  cases 
specified  in  the  Constitution,'  whereby  the  General  As- 
sembly will,  two  years  after,  be  bound  to  make  appro- 
priations either  for  a particular  object  or  a fixed  amount; 
the  power  and  discretion,  intact,  to  make  appropriations, 
in  general,  devolving  on  each  biennial  General  Assem- 
bly, and  for  the  period  of  two  years.  3.  The  contracts  of 
the  Board  of  Public  Works,  creating  a present  obliga- 
tion to  pay  for  the  period  of  five  years  a certain  amount, 
do  not  come  within  said  constitutional  exceptions,  are  in 
contravention  of  the  provisions  of  Art.  VIII,  Sec.  3,  and 
Art.  II,  Sec.  2.  State  v.  Medberry,  7 Ohio  St.,  522. 

Mow,  Article  VIII  is  the  appropriate  Article 
under  which  to  make  provision  for  this  matter. 
That  Article  has  reference  to  the  public  debt 
and  to  public  works,  and  it  is  entirely  out  of 
place  to  insert  a prohibition  in  this  Article.  The 
object  of  the  Article  under  consideration  is  to 
raise  revenue,  and  not  to  place  a prohibition 
upon  the  State  at  all.  Article  VIII  is  the  proper 
and  appropriate  Article,  and  in  that  you  have  a 
general  prohibition  under  which  the  contrac- 
tion of  any  debt  whatever,  except  under  cir- 
sumstances  specified,  is  prohibited,  in  section 
three.  Mow,  why  does  this  Convention  desire  a 
particular  prohibition,  when  it  is  necessarily 
included  in  the  general  prohibition?  The 
major  includes  the  minor.  Why  specify  that 
no  debt  shall  be  contracted  for  the  purpose  of 
constructing  public  works,  when  that  is  already 
prohibited? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from  Ross 
[Mr  Clark]  permit  me  to  make  a suggestion  to 
him  ? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  This  is  only  in  keeping  with 
what  is  found  in  the  sixth  section  of  Article 
VIII. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I understand  that 
perfectly  well,  and  was  coming  to  it.  I am  per- 
fectly well  aware  that  it  is  in  the  Constitution 
as  it  is.  That  did  not  escape  me  at  all;  but  I 
cannot  account  for  it  unless  upon  one  of  two 
reasons. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Superabundance  of  caution. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Yes,  sir,  that  may  be. 
At  that  time  the  State  was  largely  in  debt.  The 
debt  amounted  to  some  seventeen  millions,  there 
having  been  expended  about  twenty-two  mil- 
lions for  public  works.  It  may  have  been  that 
at  that  time  the  Convention  desired  to  make  as- 
surance doubly  sure.  But  it  may  be  accounted 
for,  perhaps,  upon  another  supposition,  namely, 
that  the  attention  of  the  Convention  was  not 
called  to  it  at  the  time,  because  it  is  certainly 
unnecessary  to  have  two  such  provisions  as  this. 
It  is  certainly  unnecessary  to  repeat  in  this 
section  what  is  more  amply  provided  for  in  the  ! 


other  section.  It  is  a matter  that  I care  nothing 
about,  personally,  but  I do  not  see  the  necessity 
of  stuffing  the  Constitution,  or  of  placing  it  in 
language  which  can  serve  no  beneficial  purpose 
whatever;  and  this  certainly  cannot. 

Mr.  PRATT.  It  seems  to  be  assumed  in  the 
remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Ross  [Mr. 
Clark]  that  this  doctrine  is  to  go  into  the  Con- 
stitution somewhere.  He  finds  it  in  the  old 
Constitution,  in  Article  VIII,  section  three,  but 
we  are  now  in  the  progress  of  our  work  attempt- 
ing to  frame  a new  Constitution.  Here,  for  the 
first  time  in  our  work,  we  meet  this  proposi- 
tion. It  occurs  in  the  old  Constitution,  in  Ar- 
ticle VIII,  inserted  earlier  in  the  order  in  which 
that  Constitution  is  arranged  than  it  is  here; 
but  as  yet  this  Convention  has  not  passed  upon 
the  matter  contained  in  Article  VIII.  It  has 
never  been  before  it,  and  for  the  first  time,  as 
I remarked,  we  meet  the  principle  here.  We 
find  it  incorporated  in  the  corresponding  Arti- 
ticle  in  the  old  Constitution,  and  I should  be 
very  unwilling  to  let  it  be  cast  out  here,  upon 
the  supposition  that  it  may  get  in  when  the 
matter  of  Article  VIII  is  before  the  Conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  an  interruption? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  That  is  a matter 
which  I intended  to  have  mentioned.  The  Com- 
mittee upon  Public  Debt  and  Public  Works  do 
not  propose  any  change  in  the  Constitution  as 
it  is,  as  far  as  the  three  first  sections  of  Article 
VIII  are  concerned.  They  propose  to  leave  it 
precisely  as  it  is.  There  is  no  change  proposed, 
and  I presume  there  will  be  none.  I appre- 
hend that  these  sections  will  meet  the  approval 
of  everybody.  Therefore,  when  there  is  no 
proposition  to  make  a change,  they  remain  in 
the  Constitution,  and  I do  not  see  any  necessity 
at  all  for  repetition  here. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Upon  its  face  looks  like 
unnecessary  work  to  insert  this  clause.  I 
imagine,  however,  that  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  put  into  the  Constitution  of  1851, 
was  to  announce  in  explicit  language  that 
no  public  improvements  were  to  be  made  by  the 
State.  That  seems  to  have  been  the  purpose. 
The  section  reads : ‘‘The  State  shall  never  con- 
tract any  debt  for  purposes  of  internal  im- 
provements.” Mow,  under  the  clause  relating 
to  public  debt  and  public  works,  there  is  au- 
thority to  create  a temporary  public  debt.  It 
seems  also  that,  in  addition  to  the  above  powers, 
the  State  may  contract  debts  to  repel  invasion, 
suppress  insurrection,  defend  the  State  in  war, 
or  redeem  the  present  outstanding  debt  of  the 
State.  For  the  reason  that  by  implication  it 
might  be  held  that  a debt  might  be  contracted 
for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a public  work  of 
any  kind,  it  was  deemed  advisable  that  this  sec- 
tion should  be  put  under  the  Article  on  taxation, 
that  the  State  should  not,  under  any  circum- 
stances, create  a debt  for  public  improvements. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  If,  under  the  lan- 
guage employed  in  the  other  Article,  the  State 
cannot  create  a debt  at  all,  how  can  it  create  a 
debt  for  public  improvements? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Under  the  general  clause 
authorizing  appropriations  to  defend  the  State 


2128 


MEMORIALS  AND  PETITIONS. [141st 

Baber,  Albright,  Blose,  Shultz,  Hoadly,  Powell,  Cook.  [Wednesday, 


in  time  of  war,  we  do  not  know  what  might  be 
brought  up  by  implication. 

The  question  being  taken  upon  the  motion  to 
strike  out,  said  motion  was  not  agreed  to,  no 
division  being  had. 


Mr.  BLOSE.  I move  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:50  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FORTY-FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  CONVEN- 
TION. 

SEVENTY-NINTH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  the  Rev.  A.  J.  Hobbs, pastor  of  the 
Sixth  Street  Christian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  78  members  answer- 
ed to  their  names. 

leave  of  absence. 

Mr.  Carbery  was  excused  for  absence  yester- 
day, and  Messrs.  Russell  of  Meigs,  Thompson 
and  Tuttle  were  excused  for  absence  to-day. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained  for 
Mr.  Kraemer,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  BABER  presented  the  memorial  of  Isaac 
Eberly  & Co.,  Brooks  & Houston,  and  of  forty 
other  business  firms  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  repre- 
senting that  the  only  sensible  and  just  method 
of  combating  the  evils  of  intemperance  is  a 
stringent  license  law,  which  the  Secretary,  by 
request,  read  as  follows : 

To  the  Constitutional  Convention , now  in  session: 

We,  the  undersigned  citizens  and  tax  payers,  of  Col- 
umbus, Ohio,  respectfully  represent,  that  the  only  sensi- 
ble and  just  method  of  combating  the  evils  resulting 
from  the  excessive  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  is  a strin- 
gent license  law. 

We,  therefore,  respectfully  petition  your  honorable 
body,  that  the  adoption  of  such  license  law  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  be  required  by  the  Constitution  your  hon- 
orable body  are  now  traming,  and  we  remonstrate  against 
any  prohibition  of  such  license  law. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT  presented  the  petition  of 
Sarah  Taylor,  Margaret  Craig,  and  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-three  other  citizens  of  Guernsey 
county  in  favor  of  woman  suffrage. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Select  Committee 
on  that  subject. 

Mr.  BLOSE  presented  the  memorial  of 
Jerome  Fassler,  and  one  hundred  and  twenty 
other  citizens  of  Clark  county,  protesting 
against  the  incorporation  of  anything  into  the 
Constitution  that  shall  tend  to  open  the  road 
for  uniting  Church  and  State,  or  that  shall  tend 
to  place  any  citizen  in  a prejudicial  or  inferior  J 


Wednesday,  March  18, 1874. 

position,  under  the  Constitution,  on  account  of 
his  religious  convictions. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  BLOSE  also  presented  the  petition  of 
Jerome  Fassler,  and  fifty-two  other  citizens  of 
Clark  county,  asking  that  the  Convention  pro- 
vide for  equal  taxation  of  all  property,  that  of 
church  included. 

Which  was  laid  upon  the  table,  to  be  consid- 
ered with  Proposition  No.  204. 

Mr.  SHULTZ  presented  the  petition  of  Wm. 
Dickly,  W.  S.  Westerman,  and  sixty-five  other 
citizens  of  Montgomery  county,  petitioning  this 
Convention  to  make  such  provision  in  the  Con- 
stitution now  being  framed  as  will  require  the 
General  Assembly  to  provide  for  a license  law. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  HOADLY  presented  the  petition  of  S. 
Lester  Taylor,  and  three  hundred  and  sixty-four 
other  citizens  of  Hamilton  county,  praying  the 
establishment  of  a stringent  license  system, 
and  remonstrating  against  the  prohibition 
thereof. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Also,  of  John  B.  Cornell,  and  473  other  citi- 
zens of  Butler  county;  and  of  James  P.  Curtis, 
and  136  other  citizens  of  Butler  county — both 
on  the  same  subject,  which  received  a like 
reference. 

Mr.  POWELL  presented  the  petition  of  three 
hundred  citizens  of  Delaware  county,  petition- 
ing for  a provision  in  the  Constitution  for  a 
strenuous  license  law,  as  a remedy  against  the 
evils  of  intemperance. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  COOK  presented  the  remonstrance  of 
Smith  Blark,  and  90  other  citizens  of  Tonto- 
gany ; and  also  of  D.  D.  Amos,  and  75  other 
citizens  of  Haskins,  Wood  county,  against  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Education. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  said; 

I Report. 


2129 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  18,  1874.]  Andrews,  Doan,  Griswold,  Townsend,  Hitchcock,  etc. 


Mr.  ANDREWS  presented  the  petition  of 
Chas.  Thompson,  and  305  other  citizens  of 
Cuyahoga  county,  for  the  taxation  of  church 
property,  which 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  as  follows : 

To  the  Honorable , the  Members  of  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention of  the  State  of  Ohio: 

We,  the  undersigned,  citizens  and  taxpayers  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,  believing  that  assessment  for  taxable  pur- 
poses should  be  made  upon  all  species  of  property  accord- 
ing to  its  value,  and  believing  that  no  individual,  sect  or 
corporation  should  hold  property  exempt  from  taxation, 

Therefore  we  pray  your  honorable  body  to  so  amend 
the  Constitution  of  Ohio  as  to  bring  all  church  property, 
now  exempt,  upon  the  tax  duplicate  for  taxable  pur- 
poses. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Revenue  and  Taxation. 

Mr.  DOAN  presented  the  petition  of  M.  Row- 
bach,  and  228  other  citizens  of  Clinton  county, 
praying  for  a provision  in  the  Constitution, 
authorizing  the  Legislature  by  law  to  provide 
for  the  taxation  and  destruction  of  dogs. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Agriculture. 

second  reading. 

The  following  Proposition  was  read  the  second 
time: 


another  having  a line  parallel  or  competing  with  its 
own;  or,  lease,  purchase  or  control  such  line;  and  no 
officer  of  a railroad  company  shall  act  as  an  officer  of  any 
other  railroad  company  owning  or  having  the  control  of 
such  parallel  or  competing  line. 

Sec.  12.  Every  railroad  corporation  doing  business  in 
this  State  shall  maintain  an  office  therein,  where  books 
shall  be  kept  for  inspection  by  any  person  pecuniarily  in- 
terested in  such  corporation,  in  which  shall  be  recorded 
the  subscriptions  to  the  capital  stock  of  such  company, 
the  amounts  paid  on  them  severally,  the  names  of  the 
owners  of  the  stock,  and  the  amount  held  by  each,  the 
transfers  of  such  stock,  and  the  names  and  places  of  res- 
idence of  the  company  officers. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  that  it  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  be  next  in 
order  after  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Education. 

There  being  no  objection  offered,  it  was  so 
referred. 

THE  ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  that  we  proceed 
to  the  special  order  of  the  day,  being  the  con- 
sideration of  Proposition  No/204. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  the  following 
amendment. 

ThePRESIDENTpro  tempore.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 


Proposition  No.  225  -By  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Corporations  other  than  Municipal : 

A Substitute  for  Article  XIII  of  the  Constitution. 
Section  1.  The  General  Assembly  shall  pass  no  spec- 
ial act  conferring  corporate  powers. 

Sec.  2.  Corporations  may  be  formed  under  general 
laws;  but  all  such  laws  may  from  time  to  time  be  altered 
or  repealed. 

Sec.  3.  Dues  from  corporations  shall  be  secured  by 
such  individual  liability  of  the  stockholders  and  other 
means  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law;  but,  in  all  cases, 
each  stockholder  shall  be  liable  over  and  above  the  stock 
by  him  or  her  owned,  and  any  amount  unpaid  thereon,  to 
a further  sum,  at  least  equal  in  amount  to  such  stock. 

Sec.  4.  The  property  of  corporations  now  existing,  or 
hereafter  created,  shall  forever  be  subject  to  taxation,  the 
same  as  the  property  of  individuals,  except  as  may  be 
otherwise  provided  in  this  Constitution. 

Sec.  5.  No  property  shall  be  appropriated  to  the  use  of 
any  corporation  until  full  compensation  therefor  be  first 
made  in  money,  or  first  secured  by  a deposit  of  money  to 
the  owner,  irrespective  of  any  benefit  from  any  improve- 
ment proposed  by  such  corporation;  which  compensa- 
tion shall  be  ascertained  by  a jury  of  twelve  men  in  a 
court  of  record,  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  6.  No  act  of  the  General  Assembly  authorizing 
the  issue  of  bills,  notes,  or  other  paper,  which  may  cir- 
culate as  money,  shall  take  effect  until  it  shall  have  been 
submitted  to  the  people  at  the  general  election  next  suc- 
ceeding the  passage  thereof,  and  be  approved  by  a ma- 
jority of  all  the  electors  voting  at  such  election. 

Sec.  7.  The  directors  of  every  incorporated  company 
shall  be  chosen  annually.  At  all  elections  for  directors 
each  shareholder  shall  have  as  many  votes  as  the  num- 
ber of  shares  held  by  him,  multiplied  by  the  number  of 
directors  to  be  chosen,  and  may  cast  all  his  votes  for  one 
candidate,  or  distribute  them,  as  he  may  see  fit. 

Sec.  8.  Foreign  corporations  may  be  authorized  to  do 
business  in  this  State,  under  such  limitations  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  law ; and  such  corporations  shall,  as  to  con- 
tracts made  or  business  done  in  this  State,  be  subject  to 
the  same  limitation  and  liabilities  as  like  corporations  of 
this  State;  but  no  other  or  greater  powers,  privileges,  or 
franchises,  shall  be  exercised  by  such  corporations  than 
may  be  exercised  by  like  corporations  of  this  State;  nor 
shall  such  corporations  have  power  to  condemnor  appro- 
priate private  property  to  their  own  use. 

Sec.  9.  The  General  Assembly  may,  by  general  laws, 
extend  the  existence  of  corporations  created  prior  to 
September  1st,  1851,  subject  to  all  the  provisions  of  this 
Article. 

Sec.  10.  The  General  Assembly  shall  prohibit,  under 
proper  penalties  and  forfeitures,  any  director  or  officer  of 
a railroad  company,  during  his  term  of  office,  from  buy- 
ing the  capital  stock  of  such  company  at  less  than  par, 
or  being  interested  in  any  contract  with  it,  except  as  an 
ordinary  shipper  or  passenger. 

Sec.  11.  No  railroad  company  shall  consolidate  with 

y.  n— 136 


Mr.  Hitchcock  moves  to  amend  section  8 by  inserting 
in  line  one,  alter  the  word  “never”,  the  words  “levy  a 
tax  or.” 

So  that  it  will  read  : 

“The  State  shall  never  levy  a tax  or  contract  any  debt 
for  purposes  of  internal  improvement.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  change 

Mr.  PRATT.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit 
me,  the  question  might  arise,  perhaps — I am  not 
familiar  enough  with  parliamentary  law  to 
know — whether  we  have  not  already  agreed  to 
the  section  as  it  now  stands  by  refusing  to 
strike  out  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Ross  [Mr.  Clark]. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
did  not  distinctly  hear  the  motion. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  motion  I make  is  to 
insert  after  the  word  “never,”  in  line  1,  the 
words,  “ levy  a tax,  or.”  The  insertion  of  these 
words,  as  I understand,  is  in  accordance  with 
previous  ruling,  that  any  matter  by  addition 
or  insertion,  which  does  not  change  the 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  My  impres- 
sion is  that  the  rule  is,  that  it  shall  not  preclude 
further  amendment  by  way  of  addition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  wish  to  make 
any  question  against  the  Chair. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  My  impres- 
sion is  that  my  predecessor  in  the  Chair  [Mr. 
King]  has  made  the  rule  that  it  shall  be  by  way 
of  addition  at  the  end  of  the  section.  I think 
that  is  a very  fair  construction  of  the  rule, 
though  I have  not  the  rule  before  me  just  now,  so 
as  to  examine  it.  My  impression  is  that  the 
addition  of  any  words  before  the  end  of  the 
section  would  not  be  in  order. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I ask  no  change  of  the 
rule.  I will  modify  my  motion,  if  the  Chair 
think  it  ought  to  be,  so  that  it  shall  be,  to  add 
to  the  end  of  the  section  the  words,  “ nor  levy 
a tax  for  such  purposes.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  is  to 


2130 


TAXATION  FOR  PUBLIC  IMPROVEMENTS. [141st 

Hitchcock,  Pratt,  Clark  of  R.,  Pond.  [Wednesday, 


insert  in  line  1 of  section  8,  after  the  word 
“never,”  the  words,  “levy  a tax,  or.”  The 
Chair  will  entertain  the  motion  if  there  is  no 
objection.  By  unanimous  consent  of  the  Con- 
vention the  question  will  be  upon  the  adoption 
of  this  amendment.  The  section,  if  thus  amend- 
ed, will  then  read : “ The  State  shall  never  levy 
a tax,  or  contract  any  debt,  for  purposes  of  in- 
ternal improvement.”  The  gentleman  from 
Geauga  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  change  sought  in 
this  section  would  have  been  moved  in  a differ- 
ent form  from  this,  but,  supposing  that  the  mo- 
tion made  by  the  gentleman  from  Ross  [Mr. 
Clark]  would  be  agreed  to,  I had  intended  to 
bring  this  subject  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Convention  in  connection  with  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Public  Debt  and  Public 
Works.  But,  as  the  Convention  has  decided  to 
retain  this  provision  in  connection  with  this 
Article,  I wish  to  say  a word  in  regard  to 
the  importance  of  changing  this  section  so 
as  to  preclude  the  making  of  internal  im- 
provements by  the  State.  I understand,  Mr. 
President,  that  the  reason  which  urged  the 
Convention  of  1851  to  adopt  this  provision  in 
the  Constitution,  which  is  found  in  this  section 
of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Revenue 
and  Taxation,  grew  out  of  the  large  debt  under 
which  the  State  was  laboring  for  the  construc- 
tion of  the  public  works  of  the  State.  To  pre- 
vent any  such  subsequent  debt  from  being  cre- 
ated, this  provision  was  inserted.  Nothing  is 
sought  by  this  amendment,  nor  do  I under- 
stand that  it  would  accomplish  anything  with 
reference  to  the  support  of  these  works,  but  it 
is  intended  to  prevent  the  State,  in  the  future, 
from  engaging  in  the  construction  of  anj^  im- 
provements of  the  kind.  It  might  be  sufficient 
to  state  that,  at  the  present  time,  there  are 
plans  developing  themselves  requiring  an  ex- 
penditure of  money  to  a considerable  amount 
by  the  State  for  the  construction  of  works  of 
this  kind,  which  must  be,  from  the  very 
necessity  of  the  case,  as  all  the  public  works 
of  the  State  now  are,  to  a greater  or  less 
extent,  local  improvements — improvements 
which,  if  made  at  all,  will  be  charged  to  the 
treasury  of  the  State,  to  be  paid  from  funds 
raised  by  taxation  upon  the  entire  property  of 
the  State.  The  declaration  which  I would  pre- 
fer to  make  would  be,  in  substance,  that  the 
State  shall  not  engage  in  the  construction  or  in 
the  making  of  internal  improvements.  This 
section,  as  it  stands,  it  is  true,  prevents  the 
contraction  of  any  debt,  but  it  does  not  prevent 
the  expenditure  of  large  amounts  of  money 
raised  by  express  levy.  The  section  of  this 
Article  preceding  this  provides  that  no 
money 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  give  way  to  an  in- 
quiry ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Would  not  the  amendment 
that  you  propose,  if  adopted,  prevent  the  State 
from  further  improvement  of  its  canal  prop- 
erty, and  from  in  any  way  whatever  providing 
any  money  for  any  improvement  on  it,  however 
necessary  it  might  be? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Certainly  it  would. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  may  have  that  effect. 


I have  said  that  1 did  not  expect  nor  intend 
that  it  should  have  the  effect  to  preclude  the 
expenditure  of  money  for  the  repairs  of  the 
public  works  of  the  State. 

Mr.  PRATT.  But  from  what  source  would 
they  derive  money,  if  they  can  neither  levy  a 
tax  nor  contract  a debt? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  My  response  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  is  that  they 
may  derive  it  from  the  revenues  of  the  public 
works  of  the  State.  But  I say  to  him  that  the 
General  Assembly  does  make  appropriations 
repeatedly  for  the  improvement  of  the 
public  works  of  the  State,  and  for  the 
improvement  of  lands  claimed  to  be  dam- 
aged by  these  public  works,  and  appro- 
priation of  large  amounts  where  the  damages 
were  existing  upon  the  lands  before  the  lands 
were  placed  in  market  and  sold  by  the  State, 
and  not  while  owned  by  the  persons  who  now 
hold  them.  This  fact  can  be  proved. 

But,  as  before  said,  it  can  be  derived  from 
the  revenue  of  the  public  works.  Does  the 
gentleman  respond  that  the  revenues  are  not 
sufficient  to  make  these  improvements  ? It  may 
be  true,  but,  if  so,  I ask  the  question,  “Shall  the 
property  of  the  State,  for  all  time  to  come,  be 
charged  with  the  expense  of  improvements 
which  are  only  local  in  their  nature,  and  which 
have  become,  in  the  advancing  condition  of 
things  in  the  State,  only  local  highways?” 

Mr.  POND.  I would  like  to  say 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me  a moment  ? 

In  addition,  in  connection  with  the  question 
raised  by  the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt],  I wish  to  say  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly does  make  appropriations  for  the  improve- 
ment of  these  public  works,  to  be  reimbursed 
from  the  proceeds  of  those  public  works  as  they 
shall  be  received  into  the  treasury.  For  in- 
stance, in  1872  the  General  Assembly  appro- 
priated $32,000  for  making  repairs  upon  the 
public  works.  I have  no  doubt  that  this  in- 
cluded, under  the  head  of  “repairs,”  certain 
improvements,  so-called  repairs,  but  if  repairs 
the  State  is  under  no  obligation  to  make  them, 
because,  under  the  terms  of  the  lease,  the  lessees 
are  to  keep  them  in  repair. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  is  but  a temporary  affair, 
whereas  the  public  works  of  the  State  are  not 
ad  libitum. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  That  is  true.  In  1872 
the  General  Assembly  appropriated  $32,000  for 
the  improvement  or  repairs  of  these  works,  to 
be  paid  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  State  and  re- 
imbursed to  the  treasury  from  the  proceeds  of 
the  public  works;  but  the  proceeds  of 
the  public  works  for  that  year  were  $20,075  and 
and  the  aggregate  appropriations  for  that  year 
were  $44,800.  If  I am  correct  in  the  amount,  I 
have  not  the  exact  figures  before  me,  I think 
that  about  $19,000  were  re-appropriated,  mak- 
ing $63,800  during  the  year  1872,  $32,000,  or  just 
about  one-half  of  which  was  to  be  re-imbursed 
to  the  treasury  from  the  proceeds  of  the  public 
works,  as  before  stated,  while  the  revenue  there- 
from was  only  $20,075.  In  1873  there  was  alike 
appropriation  of  $45,796,  of  which  $12,000  was 
to  be  returned  in  the  same  way,  making  $44,000 
in  two  years  to  be  returned  in  this  way  ; while 
during  the  same  time  the  revenue  amounted  to 


TAXATION  FOR  PUBLIC  IMPROVEMENTS. 

Pond,  Hitchcock,  Pratt. 


2131 


Day.] 

March  18,1874.] 


$40,150.  The  actual  appropriations  for  two 
years  exceeding  the  revenue  by  $69,446. 

The  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  de- 
sires to  ask  a question. 

Mr.  POND.  I wish  to  ask  if  the  words  “in- 
ternal improvement”  would  not  have  the  effect 
to  cover  everything  of  a State  character  that  the 
State  might  undertake ; whether  an  addition  to 
the  State  House,  or  public  buildings  of  all  sorts, 
would  not  come  under  the  head  of  internal  im- 
provements ; or  whether  it  is  restricted  to  the 
technical  meaning  given  it  by  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  unable  to  answer 
the  gentleman,  except  that  the  language  used 
here  is  the  same  as  the  language  used  in  the 
present  Constitution. 

Mr.  POND.  It  might  be  wise  enough  to  re- 
strict the  State  from  going  into  debt  for  this 
purpose,  but  as  the  provision  stands  in  the  pres- 
ent Constitution,  does  it  not  prevent  taxation 
for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  understand  that 
it  does.  What  I desire  is,  to  see  inserted  in  the 
present  Constitution  something  in  regard  to 
that  character  of  works  that  are  understood  to 
be  included  under  the  head  of  “internal  im- 
provements,” because  there  is  an  express  pro- 
vision in  our  Constitution  for  the  incurring  of 
indebtedness  for  the  purpose  to  which  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  refers,  and 
that,  taken  in  connection  with  this,  would  re- 
strict the  meaning  as  I have  assumed,  making  it 
to  refer  to  the  class  of  works  which  are  sup- 
posed to  be  intended  by  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  POND.  To  what  section  do  you  refer? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  To  the  first  section. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  indicate 
the  class  of  works  that  are  included  under  the 
term  “internal  improvements?” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I can  enumerate  what 
were  understood  to  be  included  under  the  term 
“internal  improvements”  in  the  present  Con- 
stitution of  the  State.  I should  include  the  ca- 
nals of  the  State,  the  Western  Reserve  and 
Maumee  road,  and  the  National  road — the  first 
created  under  the  authority  of  the  State,  and  the 
latter  two  under  the  authority  of  the  national 
government,  and  ceded  by  the  national  govern- 
ment to  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Would  not  the  term  “internal 
improvement,”  in  its  broader  sense,  imply  even 
the  including  of  all  public  highwavs? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  so,  Mr.  President,  I 
certainly  w*ould  desire  this  provision  in  the 
Constitution,  because  it  goes  to  the  considera- 
tion of  levying  taxes  by  the  State  for  local  pur- 
poses or  the  contraction  of  debts  by  the  State  for 
similar  purposes.  Now,  does  the  gentleman 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  desire  that  the 
State  shall  enter  into  the  business  of  construct- 
ing highways  in  various  localities  of  the  State 
by  taxation  ? If  he  does,  that  strikes  at  the 
object  sought  in  this  amendment,  that  the  State 
shall  never  engage  in  the  construction  of  high- 
ways in  any  of  the  various  localities  of  the 
State.  In  other  words,  that  the  State  shall  en- 
gage in  no  improvement  whatever — the  funds 
for  which  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  of 
the  State,  which,  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  must  enter  into  competition  with  improve- 
ments made  by  individuals,  and  which  are 


necessarily  local  improvements  and  not  im- 
portant to  all  the  people  of  the  State. 

As  before  said,  the  words  proposed  to  be  in- 
serted would  not  accomplish  the  object  sought 
so  perfectly  as  I would  desire,  but  there  was  no 
other  form  by  which  it  could  be  reached,  since 
the  Convention  had  refused  to  change  the  sec- 
tion. This  is  a matter  of  importance  to  the 
people  of  the  State.  They  have  been  from  1812 
to  the  present  time  laboring  under  a burden  of 
debt  thrown  upon  the  State  by  the  construction 
of  those  public  works  which  have  now  become 
local  highways  entirely,  and  yet  the  State  is 
charged  with  the  debt,  and  the  interest  upon 
that  debt,  and  the  necessary  expenditure  of 
keeping  those  public  works  in  repair.  If  the 
facts  to  which  I have  referred  are  true,  that 
during  the  last  two  years  more  than  one  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  have  been  appropriated 
from  the  treasury  of  the  State  for  these  public 
works — while  the  lessees  are,  by  the  terms  of 
the  contract,  to  keep  them  in  repair — and  only 
$40,150  have  been  received  into  the  treasury 
from  the  public  works,  shall  the  State  in  all 
future  time  be  charged  with  expenditures  of 
this  kind  ? I might  refer  to  the  Hocking  canal, 
for  which  a large  expenditure  of  money  is,  at 
this  time,  asked,  it  being  claimed  that  it  is 
necessary  to  repair  and  enlarge  it  all  the  way 
from  the  coal  fields  to  the  capital  city,  the 
expenses  to  be  paid  out  of  the  treasury  of  the 
State.  To  do  that  would  take,  probably,  about 
one  mill  upon  the  dollar  upon  all  the  property 
of  the  State ; or  might  refer  to  another  project, 
which  is  yet  in  embryo,  but  has  been  a project 
in  contemplation  from  the  time  of  the  vacation 
of  the  lower  extremity  of  the  Miami  canal  up  to 
the  present  time,  and  is  still  in  embryo,  a pro- 
ject to  connect  the  Miami  canal  with  the  river, 
which  connection  has  been  severed.  To  do  this 
would  probably  cost  about  two  and  a half  mills 
upon  the  tax  duplicate  of  the  State,  apparently 
not  a large  levy,  yet  in  aggregate  amounting  to 
$5,500,000.  All  admit  that  the  State  shall  con- 
tract no  debt  for  such  purpose.  Will  it  be  any 
less  a burden  upon  property  to  pay  a tax  directly 
levied  for  tbe  purpose  than  to  pay  a similar 
amount  to  liquidate  a debt  incurred  for  the  same 
purpose?  Shall  we  allow  levies  to  be  made 
upon  all  the  property  of  the  State  to  make  im- 
provements which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
must  be  local  in  their  nature? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
another  question,  as  I do  not  intend  to  make  a 
speech  on  the  subject?  Would  the  gentleman 
allow  the  canals  of  the  State  to  become  entirely 
worthless  ? and  does  he  desire  to  preclude  the 
State  from  making  the  necessary  repairs,  and 
have  it  abandon  the  public  works  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  not  at  all  consider- 
ing the  question  of  the  abandonment  of  the 
public  works.  Thequestion  of  the  proper  dis- 
position of  the  public  works  was  fully  con- 
sidered by  me  many  years  since.  It  is  a subject 
in  regard  to  which  I do  not  wish  to  detain  the 
Convention  now,  nor  with  their  history,  with  a 
view  to  influence  the  action  of  the  Convention. 
But,  as  before  said,  the  disposition  to  be  made 
of  them  is  a subject  to  which  I have  given  con- 
siderable attention,  and  know  that  the  canals  at 
the  time  of  their  being  leased,  could  have  been 
disposed  of  by  the  State  for  a large  amount — 


2132 


TAXATION  FOR  PUBLIC  IMPROVEMENTS. [141st 


Hitchcock,  Townsend,  Clark  of  R.,  Pratt,  Powell.  [Wednesday, 


for  an  amount,  securing  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  under  these  public  works  upon  the 
one  side,  and  the  interests  of  the  State  on  the 
other,  the  annual  interest  of  which  alone  would 
have  exceeded  more  than  three  times  the 
amount  which  the  State  receives  annually  from 
these  works.  By  this  sale  the  State  would  have 
been  entirely  relieved  of  all  this  burden,  except 
the  payment  of  debt  incurred  in  their  construc- 
tion. That,  however,  is  not  the  question  before 
us  at  the  present  time.  The  one  now  introduced 
to  the  attention  of  the  Convention,  is  a question 
which  fairly  merits  our  consideration,  whatever 
may  be  our  conclusion  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  Committee  on  Rev- 
enue and  Taxation  had  this  matter  under  con- 
sideration, and  the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock]  sought  to  engraft  this  amend- 
ment on  the  Article  in  section  eight  at  that  time. 
It  was  very  carefully  considered,  and  the  Com- 
mittee were  of  opinion — a majority  of  them  at 
least — that  the  section,  limiting,  as  it  does,  the 
power  to  create  debts,  was  sufficient.  They 
thought  it  was  not  wise  for  this  Constitution  to 
thus  tie  the  hands  of  the  future  legislation  of 
the  State,  lest  they  might  embarrass  and  cripple 
its  action  in  relation  to  keeping  in  proper  re- 
pair, and  making  necessary  improvements  that 
would  occur  from  year  to  year,  and  in  time,  per- 
haps, put  in  a proper  condition  to  sell.  I un- 
derstand the  State  of  Ohio  would  not  be  author- 
ized to  make  any  new  improvements  or  create 
any  debts  for  public  works  of  this  kind,  or  of  a 
general  character,  or  for  their  improvement. 
But  we  may  trust,  I think,  to  the  future  judg- 
ment of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  to  dispose 
of  this  matter.  I am  not  disposed  to  discuss 
the  question  to  any  considerable  extent  for  the 
reason  that  I believe  the  Convention  is  ready  to 
vote  upon  it  now,  and  gentlemen  have  consid- 
ered it  very  fully  and  fairly  already. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I wish  to  be  indulged 
in  a very  few  remarks  upon  this  question,  as 
my  Committee  has  bestowed  considerable  at- 
tention upon  the  subject.  The  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  might  be  very  detrimental  to  the 
interests  of  the  State.  Under  the  Constitution, 
as  it  now  is,  and,  I suppose,  there  will  be  no 
proposition  to  change  it  in  this  regard,  the 
State  is  not  prohibited  from  making  a public 
improvement,  provided  it  is  paid  for ; but  the 
State  is  cut  off  from  contracting  a debt  for  the 
purpose  of  making  any  public  improvement. 
The  question  was,  very  fully  discussed  in  the 
Convention  of  1850-’51.  At  that  time  this  ques- 
tion of  public  works  was  a very  prominent  one. 
We  have,  sir,  about  eight  hundred  miles  of  pub- 
lic works.  They  are,  at  this  time,  except  the 
Maumee  and  Western  Reserve  Road,  in  the 
hands  of  the  lessees.  They  have  been  leased 
under  the  act  of  1861,  and  the  lease  was  ex- 
tended under  the  act  of  1867.  It  is  true,  sir, 
that,  by  the  terms  of  the  lease,  the  lessees  are 
to  keep  the  works  in  repair;  but  there  is  a ques- 
tion as  to  that  matter,  whether  these  repairs 
may  be  mere  temporary  repairs  or  permanent 
betterments  or  improvements:  For  instance, 
whether,  where  the  public  works  have  been 
washed  away,  the  lessees  would  be  required  to 
rebuild  those  parts  so  destroyed  or  washed 
away.  The  lease  will  expire  in  1881,  and  may 


not  be  renewed.  All  the  public  works  of  the 
State,  then,  which  cost  the  State  some  $22,000,- 
000,  will  be  thrown  back  upon  it.  Now,  I ask 
if  it  be  the  part  of  wisdom  for  this  Convention 
to  undertake  to  say  here,  no  matter  what  kind 
of  repairs  may  become  necessary  to  keep  those 
works  in  order  and  render  them  useful,  they 
shall  not  be  made.  Shall  we  thus  tie  the  hands 
of  the  Legislature  during  the  life  of  this  Con- 
stitution so  that  they  will  not  be  allowed  to 
expend  a single  dollar  for  that  purpose;  be- 
cause, if  you  insert  a provision  of  this  kind, 
preventing  any  tax  for  this  purpose,  where  is 
the  money  to  come  from  to  build  a bridge  where 
one  has  been  swept  away  by  a flood,  or  renew 
a bank  of  the  canal  that  has  been  washed  away, 
perhaps  a half  mile,  or  any  other  distance  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock] 
says  these  works  are  local  in  their  character. 
As  I have  before  stated,  there  are  eight  hun- 
dred miles  of  public  works,  traversing  a large 
portion  of  the  State,  two  of  which  works,  the 
Ohio  Canal,  and  Miami  and  Erie  Canal,  extend 
entirely  across  the  State,  the  former  running 
from  Cleveland  to  Portsmouth,  uniting  the 
waters  of  the  Lake  and  the  Ohio  River,  the 
latter  extending  from  Toledo  to  this  city. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  ask  the  gentle- 
man, how  many  canal  boats  traverse  the  Ohio 
Canal  from  Cleveland  to  Portsmouth  during 
the  year  ? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I know  that  a good 
many  pass  my  place. 

Mr . PRATT.  Limiting  the  distance  to  Akron, 
we  find  that  over  twenty  thousand  loads  of  coal 
are  carried  upon  it  annually. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Does  the  gentleman 
know  of  one  boat  load  passing  from  Cleveland 
to  Portsmouth  during  the  last  year  ? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Perhaps  it  may  be 
that  there  has  been  none.  I cannot  say,  for  I 
have  not  examined  particularly  as  to  that  mat- 
ter, but  I do  know  that  large  quantities  of 
coal  are  transported  over  that  end  of  the  canal, 
and  if  boats  do  not  go  all  the  way  through,  it  is, 
I presume,  owing  to  some  obstruction  or  want 
of  repairs.  But  does  the  gentleman  propose  to 
tie  the  hands  of  the  State,  so  that  it  cannot 
raise  a dollar  of  tax  for  the  purpose  of  repair- 
ing the  public  works,  thus  virtually  abandoning 
these  great  public  improvements,  that  cost 
$22,000,000?  That  would  be  the  effect  of  the 
amendment.  I hope  the  Convention  will  not 
adopt  such  an  amendment.  I think  the  Con- 
vention made  a mistake  in  not  striking  out  the 
section  entirely.  It  is  not  the  place  where  a 
person  would  look  for  such  a thing.  It  is  not 
the  proper  place  for  a limitation  of  this  kind. 
The  Convention,  however,  have  decided  that 
matter  otherwise,  and  let  it  be  so.  I hope  they 
will  not  go  any  further  in  this  direction. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I shall  vote  against  every 
proposition  of  this  kind.  I think  this  question, 
of  internal  improvement,  if  the  State  is  to  do 
anything  on  the  subject,  should  be  left  to  the 
Legislature  and  the  people,  to  determine  for 
themselves  from  time  to  time,  as  the  necessity, 
the  interest,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  State  may 
require.  Mr.  President,  in  all  this  kind  of  leg- 
islation as  now  proposed,  there  is  an  entire  want 
of  statemanship,  an  entire  want  of  it.  It  is  got 
up  by  two  classes  of  people : First,  those  who 


Day.]  TAXATION  FOE  PUBLIC  IMPROVEMENTS.  2133 

March  18,  1874.]  Powell,  Hitchcock,  Phellis. 


think  they  are  not  personally  benefited  by  any 
improvement  that  the  State  may  make.  That 
is,  however,  the  smaller  class.  The  larger 
class  are  the  wealthy  men  of  the  State,  that 
wish  to  have  the  State  improved  at  the  expense 
of  localities  and  of  those  who  are  enterprising 
and  liberal,  without  calling  upon  them  for  their 
proportion  of  the  wealth  which  they  hold  in 
their  hands.  Now,  those  propositions  are  got 
up  by  these  two  classes  of  people.  But  it  is 
contrary  to  every  principle  of  just  statesman- 
ship. There  is  not  a government  now  existing 
in  the  civilized  world  but  which  has  assisted  in 
those  great  improvements  which  individuals 
were  unable  to  accomplish.  They  assist  the  peo- 
ple of  the  country  to  make  those  necessary  im- 
provements that  the  people  of  that  country  de- 
mand, and  are  unable  to  accomplish  by  their 
own  exertion . It  is  done  by  England , it  is  done 
by  France — by  all  countries,  nay,  the  United 
States  are  doing  it  at  this  very  time,  and  if  they 
did  not  do  something  of  the  kind,  they  would 
belike  men  who  had  their  eyes  shut  against 
the  interests  and  welfare  of  the  country.  Now, 
if  the  canals  of  the  country  were  abandoned  at 
this  day,  still  the  State  has  been  greatly  advan- 
taged by  the  expenditure  of  that  money  they 
have  cost.  It  has  increased  the  population  and 
wealth  of  the  State  beyond  calculation.  Some 
will  say  now  that  the  railroads  accomplish  eve- 
rything that  the  canals  can  accomplish.  That 
is  not  exactly  so,  they  help  still  to  chapen  trans- 
portation, and  promote  the  prosperity  of  the 
State.  But  if  we  had  no  canals,  that  have  been 
in  operation,  developing  the  resources  of  the 
State  for  years  before  railroads  were  thought  of, 
the  railroads  would  not  have  brought  Ohio  up  to 
the  position  she  now  occupies.  Now,  I am  my- 
self against  the  State  going  thus  into  public 
improvements,  but  I am  in  favor  of  the  State 
aiding  individual  enterprises  in  the  localities 
calling  for  means  to  aid  their  local  improve- 
ment. Every  country  has  such  improvements 
to  make. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me  a question  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman 
yield  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Do  I understand  the  gen- 
tleman as  saying  that  he  is  in  favor  of  the  State 
aiding  from  the  treasury,  improvements  in  lo- 
calities desiring  improvements? 

Mr.  POWELL.  When  the  locality  requires 
it — and  it  is  a matter  in  which  the  State  is 
largely  interested — I do ; and  I say  that  is  a 
want  of  statemanship  to  attempt  to  tie  up  the 
hands  of  the  Legislature  in  that  respect,  who 
should  be  left  free  to  aid  where  the  interest  of 
the  State  required  it.  It  ought  to  be  in  the 
hands  of  the  Legislature  to  do  what  is  right, 
and  promote  the  best  interest  of  the  State  in 
these  matters. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low another  question  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Does  the  gentleman  be- 
lieve that  the  interests  of  the  State  require  it 
to  pay  from  its  treasury  for  local  improve- 
ments ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  depends  entirely  on  how 


deeply  the  State  is  interested  in  that  local  im- 
provement. All  countries  have  endeavored  to 
improve  their  harbors.  For  instance,  to  illus- 
trate, you  may  say  the  city  should  improve  its 
harbor.  The  city  may  be  unable  to  do  it.  The 
city  is  not  alone  interested  in  the  security  of  its 
harbor.  It  is  the  whole  country;  the  com- 
merce of  the  country  leads  there  to  it,  and  the 
whole  country  is  interested  in  the  improvement 
of  the  harbor  as  well  as  the  city,  and  both 
should  unite  in  the  expense  of  it.  Now,  it  is 
well  known  that  the  harbors  on  the  south  side 
of  Lake  Erie  are  so  shallow,  that  they  do  not 
enable  us  to  use  that  water  to  advantage.  If  it 
were  made  so  that  vessels  of  the  larger  class 
and  deeper  draught  could  use  it,  it  would  be  infi- 
nitely for  the  advantage  of  the  whole  country. 
Well,  now,  a company  may,  for  instance,  be  got 
up  at  Cleveland,  or  Toledo,  or  Sandusky  to  im- 
prove the  harbor,  in  order  to  make  the  waters  of 
Lake  Erie  useful  and  beneficial  to  us,  to  the  ex- 
tent that  the  waters  of  Lake  Erie  would  allow, 
in  carrying  on  our  commerce.  They  find  them- 
selves, after  they  are  an  organized  company  for 
that  purpose,  unable  to  go  on.  Shall  the  State 
lay  by  and  say,  well,  let  it  stand  where  it  is,  or 
will  they  lend  some  aid  to  them  to  enable  them 
to  go  on  with  the  construction  of  what  the  con- 
siderations of  business,  of  commerce,  and 
statesmanship  require  of  them?  It  is  ridicu- 
lous. The  same  demand  upon  the  State  to  make 
the  canals  may  yet  arise  in  the  course  of  time, 
to  demand  of  the  Legislature  the  same  assist- 
ance in  some  other  general  improvement  that 
the  State  would  by  its  best  interest  demand, 
and  would  be  greatly  benefited  thereby. 

Now,  in  regard  to  these  canals.  They  can  be 
enlarged  with  trifling  additional  expense  by 
raising  the  banks  one  foot  and  perhaps  deepen- 
ed another  to  get  deeper  water,  so  as  to  put 
through  larger  boats ; and  thereby  greatly  in- 
crease the  business  capacity,  cheapen  transpor- 
tation, and  promote  the  interest  and  prosperity 
of  the  State.  This  can  be  done  with  little  ad- 
vancement on  the  part  of  the  State.  But  I ask 
what  local  interest  will  do  that  if  the  State  will 
not  do  it?  And  we  all  know  that  canals  will 
transport  goods,  heavy  articles,  such  as  coal, 
ore,  grain,  and  other  things  of  the  like  charac- 
ter, a great  deal  cheaper  than  railroads  will. 
Let  me  tell  you,  too,  that  these  canals  keep  down 
the  high  prices  of  railroads.  Railroads  would 
demand  higher  freight  were  it  not  for  these 
canals,  and  the  same  demand  upon  the  State  for 
canals  may  yet  call  upon  the  State  in  the  future 
for  assistance,  and  it  will  be  the  greatest  want 
of  statesmanship  not  to  do  it.  I,  therefore,  will 
go  against  all  these  propositions  to  tie  up  the 
hands  of  the  Legislature,  and  tie  up  the  hands 
of  the  State  from  making  those  necessary  im- 
provements that  civilization  and  the  interest  of 
our  State  and  nation  require,  and  call  for,  at  our 
hands.  . 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  I desire  to  offer  the  follow- 
ing amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Phellis  moves  to  amend  the  amendment  offered  by 
Mr.  Hitchcock  by  inserting  after  the  word  “tax,”  “ex- 
cept for  keeping  in  repair  the  public  works  of  the  State.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 


2134 


TAXATION  FOR  PUBLIC  IMPROVEMENTS.  [141st 

Hitchcock,  Pond  Pratt.  [Wednesday, 


“The  State  shall  never  levy  taxes,  except  for  keeping 
in  repair  the  public  works  of  the  State,  nor  contract  any 
debt  for  the  purpose  of  internal  improvement.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Madison  [Mr.  Phellis]. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  It  is  suggested  that  that 
would  authorize  the  creation  of  a debt  for  the 
purpose  of  making  repairs,  and  I would  like  to 
hear  it  read  again  to  see  if  there  be  that  objec- 
tion. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment  again. 

Mr.  POND.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  term 
“public  improvements”  used  here  covers  a 
little  more  than  is  referred  to  by  my  friend 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  as  to  what  are 
ordinarily  termed  the  “public  works”  of  the 
State.  I think  it  covers  all  branches  of  public 
improvement.  If  you  put  in  that  term  here, 
limiting  taxation  in  that  manner,  it  seems  to 
me  you  cut  off  all  those  great  internal  improve- 
ments, however  necessary,  in  caring  for  the 
large  number  of  the  unfortunate  persons — the 
deaf  and  dumb,  the  blind  and  insane  in  the 
State,  for  the  buildings  required  for  these  per- 
sons are  as  much  public  improvements  as  are 
the  highways  and  public  thoroughfares  which 
have  been  called  public  works  heretofore.  Sup- 
pose, however,  that  were  not  the  fact,  still  I 
look  upon  the  public  works  of  the  State  as  mat- 
ters of  great  importance  to  it.  Very  many 
were  opposed  to  the  building  of  the  canals 
when  they  were  originally  constructed,  for  the 
same  reason  as  the  gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  would,  perhaps,  allow  them  to  be 
destroyed.  He  says,  it  is  true,  that  is  not  the 
real  question  here,  but  it  appears  to  me  that  is 
the  real  question  at  which  he  is  driving.  It 
appears  also  that  a few  years  ago  these  canals 
could  have  been  sold  for  a considerable  sum. 

I would  like  to  know  who  would  have  bought 
them.  I think  I could  have  told  him. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Who  bought  the  Ohio  and 
Pennsylvania  canal  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Yes,  who  bought  the  Ohio  and 
Pennsylvania  canal  ? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I thought  the  gentleman 
asked  me  that  question. 

Mr.  POND.  I asked  the  general  proposition 
and  propose  to  answer  it  myself.  Great  press- 
ure has  been  brought  to  bear  upon  the  General 
Assembly  year  after  year  to  induce  them  to 
make  a provision  for  the  sale  of  these  public 
works,  and  that  pressure  thus  steadily  brought 
to  bear  has  been  universally  in  the  interest  of 
one  grand  monopoly  in  this  State — that  is  the 
railroad  monopoly.  There  has  been  a continual 
desire  on  their  part  to  crush  out  these  canals,  to 
crush  out  this  sort  of  thoroughfares,  to  enable 
them  to  do  all  the  carrying  trade  of  the  country. 
To-day  the  carrying  trade  of  the  State  is  worth 
looking  at.  It  is  very  large,  and  if  the  canals 
were  deepened  and  widened,  to  a small  extent, 
as  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware 
[Mr.  Powell],  could  carry  double  what  they 
are  carrying  now,  and  would  be  able  to  compete 
successfully  with  the  railroads.  As  I have  said, 
the  building  of  these  canals  was  originally  ob- 
jected to.  That  objection  was  made,  because,  to 
some  extent,  it  was  looked  upon  as  a local  mat- 
ter, because  they  did  not  pass  through  every 
man’s  farm  and  door-yard.  What  was  the  re- 


sult? When  the  State  began  to  be  settled,  the 
settlements  commenced  along  the  Ohio  river — 
the  great  natural  thoroughfare — and  on  the 
lake.  But  when  these  canals  were  built,  the 
country  was  fast  settled  up  along  them,  and  we 
owe  to  those  men  who  originated  and  construct- 
ed these  canals  a great  deal  for  the  settling  up 
of  our  State,  especially  in  the  middle  portion  of 
it. 

Now,  sir,  it  may  be,  in  the  everchanging  char- 
acter of  the  times,  that  improvements  of  another 
character  ought  to  be  fostered  for  the  purpose 
of  adding  to  the  aggregate  wealth  and  popula- 
tion of  the  State.  Another  species  of  transpor- 
tation has  come  into  vogue  of  late  years,  which 
it  may  be  found  useful  and  necessary  to  take 
into  the  fostering  care  of  the  State.  That  time 
may  come  and  the  same  principle  be  applied  to 
it.  We  have  not  yet  reached  the  ultima  thule  of 
prosperity  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  The  wealth 
and  population  of  the  State  should  still  be  great- 
ly increased,  and  everything  that  can  be  done 
that  will  tend  to  encourage  an  influx  of  people 
into  our  borders  should  be  done  by  the  State. 
It  is  wise  for  the  State  to  do  whatever  will  tend 
to  its  prosperity.  I would  not  want  to  say  that 
for  all  time  to  come  the  State  of  Ohio,  in  its  sov- 
ereign capacity,  shall  never  stimulate  by  a tax, 
any  internal  improvement  whatever.  I say  it 
is  unsafe  to  do  this.  It  appears  to  me  that  these 
public  works  of  ours  ought  to  be  kept  up. 
These  canals  ought  to  be,  and  doubtless  will  be, 
widened  and  deepened  so  as  to  compete  with  the 
railroad  monopolies.  The  railroads  are  going 
into  the  hands  of  persons  who  have  no  interest 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  or  in  the  people  in  it.  The 
canals  belonging  to  the  State  of  Ohio  could  be 
so  managed  as  to  add  materially  to  the  wealth 
of  the  State.  Now  it  is  said,  these  canals  are 
leased.  That  is  true.  But  a great  deal  can  be 
done,  and  has  been  done,  by  appropriations  of 
money  made  by  the  State  to  make  repairs  out- 
side of  the  lease.  I will  give  an  instance  of  it : 
Originally,  the  Ohio  canal  passed  into  the  river 
as  it  does  now,  at  Portsmouth,  but  a few  years 
prior  to  the  time  the  lease  was  taken,  the  outlet 
had  been  so  obstructed  by  sandbars  that  boats 
could  not  pass  from  the  canal  to  the  river.  The 
State,  in  order  to  protect  itself,  had  to  remove 
those  obstructions,  and  the  Legislature  made  an 
appropriation  for  that  purpose.  In  one  in- 
stance to  which  I will  refer,  something  has  been 
done  of  which  I am  ashamed — something  which 
no  doubt,  is  well  known  to  our  friends  from 
Cuyahoga  county — when  there  was  surrendered 
and  given  away  by  the  State  of  Ohio,  some  three 
miles  of  canal,  without  the  payment  of  a dollar 
to  the  State.  Others  are  also  watching  and 
greatly  desiring  to  have  the  canals  of  the  State, 
and  public  thoroughfares  belonging  to  the  State 
given  up.  I object  to  such  a proceeding. 

Now,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  it  may  not  be 
necessary  to  raise  a tax,  to  any  great  extent,  in 
maintaining  these  public  works,  but  there  may 
be  times  when  it  may  become  necessary. 

I will  give  another  instance  as  an  illustration : 
In  two  short  years,  what  is  called  the  Mus- 
kingum improvement,  only  two  miles  long, 
was  injured  by  being  washed  away,  so  that  two 
hundred  thousand  dollars  had  to  be  expended 
for  these  repairs.  It  fell  upon  the  lessees,  but 
if  the  State  of  Ohio  had  not  leased  the  canal 


Day.] TAXATION  FOR  PUBLIC  IMPROVEMENTS. 2135 

March  18,  1874.]  Pond,  Hitchcock,  Pratt,  Baber,  Pease. 


out,  then  what?  The  public  works  would  have 
been  gone  if  the  provision  sought  to  he  inserted 
here  had  been  in  force,  as  they  could  not  have 
raised  a dollar  by  taxation  to  keep  in  repair 
those  works. 

That  the  State  has  never  been  directly  repaid 
for  all  the  outlay  for  building  these  works  is, 
perhaps,  true.  But,  sir,  the  wealth  which 
these  improvements  have  brought  into  the  State 
of  Ohio  by  the  increase  of  the  value  of  the 
lands  lying  along  the  margin  of  the  canals,  and 
for  miles  back,  which  increased  value  has  been 
placed  upon  the  tax  duplicate,  has  compensated 
the  State  for  the  outlay,  and  the  section  of 
country  in  which  my  friend  from  Geauga  [Mr. 
Hitchcock]  lives,  as  well  as  those  lying  along 
the  canals,  has  been  benefited  thereby.  The 
tax  duplicate  has  thus  been  swelled,  until  the 
State  has  been  paid  time  and  again  by  this  in- 
creased value  of  property. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  per- 
mit a question  before  he  takes  his  seat? 

Mr.  POND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I understand  the  gentle- 
man to  say  that  the  time  may  come  in  the 
future  when  it  may  be  important  that  the  State 
should  make  additional  public  improvements. 
Is  the  gentleman  opposed  to  retaining  this 
clause  in  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  contract- 
ing debts  ? 

Mr.  POND.  I am  not  opposed  to  that.  It  is 
well  enough.  I think,  however,  that  we  stand 
to-day  in  a different  position  from  what  we  did 
in  the  early  history  of  the  State,  when  the 
people  were  not  able  to  build  works  of  this 
magnitude,  and  it  was  necessary  to  incur  a 
debt  to  do  it.  But  I believe  all  the  works  nec- 
essary now  may  be  made  without  incurring 
debt.  It  may  be  done  by  taxation. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  like  to  ask  an 
additional  question : How  much  less  would 

the  burden  upon  the  people  be  by  paying  a 
debt  of  five  million  dollars  than  paying  a tax 
of  five  million  dollars  ? 

Mr.  POND.  Oh,  I apprehend  it  would  not 
be  much  less,  except  that  it  would  save  the  in- 
terest. But,  then,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned,  I 
am  willing  to  trust  to  the  good  sense  of  the 
General  Assembly.  I do  not  suppose  they 
would  ever  levy  five  millions  at  one  time. 

Mr.  PRATT.  If  the  money  had  to  be  raised 
immediately,  the  Legislature  would  be  more 
careful  about  levying  a tax. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  glad  that  my  friend  from 
Madison  [Mr.  Phellis]  has  introduced  this 
amendment  here,  simply  because  it  will  call 
the  attention  of  this  Convention  to  what  might 
be  the  effect  of  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  I 
am  very  well  satisfied  with  the  reasons  assigned 
by  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  why  this 
amendment  now  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  should  not  be  adopted. 
I think  the  objections  of  the  Committee  are 
amply  sufficient,  and  I fully  agree  with  the 
spirit  of  the  remarks  made  by  my  friend  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond]  that  we  ought  to  trust  to 
the  General  Assembly  on  this  subject. 

It  is  a little  remarkable  that  my  friend  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  who,  on  several  occa- 
sions, has  risen  to  address  this  Convention  as 
the  special  champion  of  the  Legislature,  refer- 


ring everything  to  them,  should  appear  to  have 
such  a distrust  of  the  General  Assembly  upon 
this  matter.  Now,  I believe  that  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  my  friend  from  Madison  [Mr. 
Phellis]  should  be  adopted.  But  perhaps  it 
would  be  best  to  leave  the  question  exactly  in 
the  shape  the  Committee  have  got  it. 

Now,  this  cry  about  the  canals  is  raised  all 
over  the  State,  very  similar  to  the  cry  raised  in 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  where,  by  bringing 
in  the  railroad  influence  of  that  State,  the 
monopoly  ring,  finally  succeeded  in  getting 
possession  of  the  canals,  and  I do  not  want  to 
see  any  such  state  of  affairs  exist  here.  If,  in 
the  management  of  the  canals  by  this  board  of 
lessees,  there  is  anything  wrong,  let  it  be  cor- 
rected, but  do  not  deprive  the  State  of  Ohio  of 
the  power  of  preserving  these  canals  and  keep- 
ing up  these  public  works.  I do  not  imagine 
that  the  amount  needed  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
pairing the  canals  would  be  very  large.  I 
hope,  therefore,  that  this  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  will 
not  be  adopted.  I think  it  is  almost  unneces- 
sary to  say  anything  to  the  Convention  on  this 
subject  with  regard  to  the  improvement  of 
canals.  It  is  well  that  the  Convention  is  awake 
to  the  importance  of  this  subject,  and  I do  not 
think  they  are  going  to  pass  anything  to  com- 
pel us  to  abandon  these  public  works  and  allow 
the  railroad  monopolies  to  buy  them  up. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I am  glad  the  Convention 
seems  watchful  of  anything  which  will  tend  in 
any  degree  to  the  closing  up  of  these  public 
works.  They  have  been  of  immense  interest  to 
the  State.  That,  I apprehend,  will  not  be 
denied.  Why,  it  is  within  the  recollection  of, 
perhaps,  the  youngest  delegate  in  this  Conven- 
tion, when  the  Ohio  Canal  was  the  great  means 
of  transportation  through  the  State.  I can  well 
remember  when,  on  the  Ohio  Canal,  we  used  to 
get  products  of  all  our  sections  of  the  State,  to 
a distance  of  eighty  to  a hundred  miles  on 
either  side  of  the  canal.  All  the  wheat,  or 
nearly  all  of  it,  raised  in  the  wheat-growing 
regions  of  the  central  part  or  portion  through 
which  the  canal  passed,  for  a distance  of  a hun- 
dred miles  either  way,  found  its  way  to  the 
Ohio  Canal.  Suppose  that  canal  had  not  ex- 
isted— that  its  advantages  had  been  wiped  out — 
what  would  have  been  the  value  of  the  wheat  ? 
What  would  have  been  the  value  of  the  farms  ? 
At  one  time,  some  years  after  the  establishment 
of  the  Ohio  Canal,  some  of  the  remote  counties 
along  the  river,  and  other  parts  of  the  State, 
made  a great  complaint  that  they  were  receiv- 
ing no  benefit  from  it,  and  yet  they  were  bur- 
dened with  the  public  debt,  and  the  taxation 
consequent  upon  it,  in  the  keeping  up  of  the 
canal,  and  paying  the  debt  created  for  its  con- 
struction. I remember  that  a committee  was 
appointed  many  years  ago,  by  the  Legislature, 
and  if  the  proper  records  be  examined  a report 
will  be  found,  I think,  which  investigated  that 
matter,  and  it  was  shown,  taking  the  basis  of 
the  value  of  lands  before  the  construction  of 
the  Ohio  Canal,  along  for  fifty  or  sixty  miles  on 
each  side  of  it,  and  the  value  of  these  lands  after 
the  canal  was  constructed  and  went  into  opera- 
tion, and  after  the  people  had  had  the  benefits 
of  it  in  transporting  their  products  to  market, 
and  it  was  found  that  the  increased  value  of 


2136 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Pease,  Pratt. 


[141st 

[Wednesday, 


those  lands  was  so  enlarged  upon  the  tax  du- 
plicate of  the  State,  that  they  not  only  more 
than  bore  their  proportion  of  the  State  tax,  but 
helped  to  pay  the  taxes  of  the  remainder  of  the 
State;  and  when  that  fact  was  made  known 
there  was  no  more  hue  and  cry  against  these 
public  works  of  the  State.  It  will  ever  be  a 
matter  of  regret  to  the  people  of  Ohio,  I think, 
that  the  Legislature,  some  years  ago,  was  in- 
duced to  lease  these  canals.  It  was  a great 
mistake.  I believe  that  it  was  done  under  the 
influence  and  in  the  interest  of  a railroad  mo- 
nopoly. I do  not  speak  of  railroads  as  being 
more  censurable  than  any  other  class  of  com- 
munity, but  it  is  true  that,  wherever  a large 
amount  of  means  may  be  aggregated,  it  becomes 
a monopoly,  and  these  monopolies,  like  indi- 
viduals, seek  their  own  advantage.  They  are 
selfish  in  their  ends.  It  is  so  with  all  these 
great  monopolies.  This  Ohio  Canal,  or  any 
State  improvement,  so  long  as  they  are  owned 
and  controlled  by  the  State,  can  in  no  sense  be 
said  to  be  a monopoly.  It  is  one  of  the 
things,  thank  God,  that  cannot  be  said  to 
be  a monopoly,  and  it  never  can  become  a mo- 
nopoly so  long  as  it  is  kept  in  the  interest 
of  the  State  at  large,  and  so  long  as  it  is  kept 
out  of  the  rings.  So  that  Isay,  anything  that 
tends  to  lessen  the  value  of  these  public  im- 
provements is  a great  wrong  to  the  State.  I had 
some  serious  doubts  about  sustaining  this  eighth 
section  in  this  proposition  : “ The  State  shall 

never  levy  tax  except  for  keeping  in  repair  the 
public  works  of  the  State,  or  contract  any  debt 
for  purposes  of  internal  improvement.”  But  I 
now  believe  that,  in  view  of  the  increased  facili- 
ties for  taxation  the  State  now  has,  if  it  shall 
become  necessary  to  deepen  or  widen,  or  other- 
wise improve  these  canals,  that  we  can  do  it  by 
taxation.  I should  have  been  opposed  to  retain- 
ing that  article  in  the  Constitution,  believing  it 
would  be  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  State  if  there 
were  no  other  mode  of  opening  and  widening 
and  protecting  and  making  them  more  useful 
than  they  are  for  that  purpose.  It  would  be  wise 
for  the  State  to  create  a debt  for  that  purpose. 
It  would  be  wise,  if  it  could  not  be  done  in  any 
other  way.  But  I believe,  under  our  present 
condition,  in  our  prosperous  relations,  as  a State, 
we  may  be  able  to  do  it  without  creating  a pub- 
lic debt,  by  levying  a tax  from  time  to  time,  in 
such  manner  as  may  be  best,  when  needed.  I 
hope  that  when  the  present  lease  of  the  canals 
runs  out  with  the  lessees,  that  the  Legislature 
will  have  the  sense  to  take  hold  of  them  and 
keep  them  up  as  a State  improvement.  Why,  it  is 
intimated  by  some  that  these  canals  are  of  no 
benefit  to  the  State,  that  they  are  slow  coaches 
now  and  entirely  superseded  by  railroads,  and 
that  they  have  no  longer  any  usefulness.  I do 
not  believe  any  such  thing.  I believe  the  Ohio 
canal,  even  as  badly  managed  as  it  is  now,  is  of 
great  service  to  the  State.  Take  away  that 
means  of  transportation,  and  you  give  the  whole 
means  of  the  carrying  trade  of  Ohio  into  the 
hands  of  a single  monopoly — the  railroad  cor- 
porations. It  has  been  well  said  that  this  rail- 
road interest  is  a foreign  interest,  the  greater 
part  of  the  railroad  capital  is  owned  outside  of 
the  State  of  Ohio.  The  State  of  Ohio  has  but 
very  little  capital  in  it.  It  is  the  great  capital- 
ists abroad  that  own,  hold  and  operate  the  rail-  | 


roads  and  public  improvements  of  that  charac- 
ter, and  if  we  would  protect  ourselves  against 
the  moneyed  influence  of  other  States  and  com- 
binations, we  must  keep  up  some  way  of  having 
an  independent  mode  of  transportation  of  our 
own.  I believe  that,  if  we  would  deepen  and 
widen  and  improve  these  canals,  it  will  operate 
as  a great  conservative  principle  in  the  manage- 
ment and  control  of  the  freighting  interests  of 
the  State.  It  would  help  to  do  that.  It  does  it 
in  our  section  of  the  State.  It  will  do  it  every 
where  along  the  lines  of  these  canals,  and  to  a 
great  distance  on  both  sides  of  these  canals,  so 
that  I say  the  public  interests  of  the  State  are 
involved  in  keeping  up  these  canals,  and  they 
should  be  looked  to  in  such  manner  as  that 
these  public  improvements  shall  never  in  any 
degree  be  abandoned. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock]  disclaims  any  purpose  by  this 
amendment  to  pave  the  way  for  the  final  aban- 
donment of  the  canals  of  the  State,  or  denies, 
rather,  that  the  practical  question  now  before 
the  Convention  is  the  abandonment  of  the  ex- 
isting public  works  of  the  State.  Now,  Mr. 
President,  it  seems  to  me  that  where  the  inevita- 
ble consequence  of  a particular  course  of  con- 
duct is  to  produce  a certain  end,  to  reach  a cer- 
tain end,  a certain  and  easily  foreseen  result,  it 
is  but  fair  to  presume  that  the  result  was  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  action  sought  to  be  at- 
tained, and  if  a natural  and  almost  inevitable 
result  of  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  would  be  the  abandonment  of  canals 
and  other  public  works  of  the  State  ultimately, 
then  I say  that  it  is  fairly  within  the  con- 
templated results  of  his  motion  that  that  aban- 
donment should  be  produced,  or,  to  put  it  in  the 
words  of  that  familiar  maxim  of  the  law,  “every 
man  and  every  body  of  men  must  be  presumed 
to  contemplate  the  natural  result  of  their  acts.” 
Now,  Mr.  President,  if  the  canals  and  other  ex- 
isting public  works  of  the  State  are  not  to  be 
supported  either  by  the  incurring  of  any  public 
debt,  or  by  any  public  tax,  then,  indeed,  if  the 
contingency  should  happen  where  their  reve- 
nues would  not  keep  them  in  repair  and  provide 
for  their  proper  enlargement,  there  is  no  other 
resort  than  their  utter  abandonment,  so  that  the 
practical  question  for  this  Convention,  I appre- 
hend, at  this  moment,  is,  whether  they  will  take 
such  steps  as  may  ultimately  lead  to  the  aban- 
donment of  those  public  works,  and  positively 
would  so  lead  in  case  of  any  very  great  damage 
occurring  to  them  from  any  cause.  Then  the 
question  recurs,  Would  that  be  wise?  Would 
it  be  judicious  for  the  people  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  at  this  moment?  And  perhaps 
it  is  of  no  consequence,  in  considering 
that  question,  to  revert  to  the  benefits 
the  canals  have  conferred  upon  the  State  in  the 
past.  Those  benefits,  though  past  in  time,  are 
still  efficient  in  the  vastly  increased  wealth  of 
the  State.  They  have  been  acknowledged,  over 
and  over  again,  by  the  whole  people  of  the 
State.  But  that  rests  with  the  past.  Are  they 
of  no  present  benefit?  Are  they  of  no  such 
great  public  utility  at  this  moment  that  they 
ought  to  be,  for  the  economic  interests  of  the 
State,  maintained  ? Now,  it  is  true  that  their 
ancient  traffic  has  deteriorated  vastly.  The  city 
of  Massillon,  the  residence  of  my  good  friend 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Pratt,  Greene,  Godfrey. 


2137 


March  18,  1874.] 


from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease]  is  no  longer  the  great- 
est internal  wheat  port  in  the  United  States,  as 
she  once  was.  That  great  trade  has  departed 
from  her ; but  another  kind  of  traffic,  as  I un- 
derstand the  matter,  has  succeeded  to  it,  of  no 
less  consequence  and  effect  on  her  growth  in 
population  and  wealth,  in  that  immediate  vicin- 
ity, and  all  the  way  from  that  city  to  the  lakes 
this  new  trade — the  vast  traffic  in  coal — has 
sprung  up,  and  is  rapidly  developing,  and  keeps 
busy  hundreds  of  boats  from  the  city  of  Massil- 
lon and  the  neighboring  city  of  Akron.  I can 
but  express  my  surprise  at  the  showing  of  some 
statistics  I saw  upon  that  subject  in  the  re- 
port of  the  Board  of  Trade  of  Akron,  for  1870. 
If  I recollect  right,  the  shipping  from  the  port 
of  Akron,  alone,  to  Cleveland,  was  equivalent 
to  twenty-one  thousand  car  loads  in  that  single 
year.  A general  report  of  the  entire  produc- 
tive regions,  in  coal,  showing  the  amount 
shipped  from  along  the  canal  to  the  port  of 
Cleveland,  where  it  is  received  and  distributed, 
would  exhibit  to  this  body  how  the  destruction 
of  the  canals  would  cramp  and  limit,  and  meas- 
urably destroy  that  interest;  how  it  would  ef- 
fect that  great  and  growing  city,  the  pride  of 
the  lakes,  advancing  to-day,  in  population  and 
solid  growth,  more  rapidly  than  any  other  city 
in  Ohio,  and  that  growth  and  population  built 
upon  sturdy  industry,  dependent  upon  motive 
power  derived  from  coal.  Allow  the  canal  to 
perish  as  a means  of  transit  from  the  coal  fields 
to  that  port,  allow  the  entire  transportation 
from  the  coal  fields  to  be  thrown  into  the  hands 
of  railroads,  and  what  additional  burdens  would 
not  be  levied  upon  their  industries.  But  that  is 
not  the  only  example  of  the  present  benefits  re- 
sulting from  maintaining  the  canals  of  the  State 
in  Ohio.  It  is  true  they  have  become  rather  un- 
popular of  late  days.  It  is  true  that,  so  far  as 
the  public  treasury  is  concerned,  they  have  been 
father  a matter  of  expense  than  a source  of  rev- 
enue. But  there  underlies  all  this  their  relation 
to  the  economical  traffic  of  the  people,  in  which 
they  are  still  beneficial.  They,  by  their  cheap- 
er transportation,  hold  in  check  the  rapacity  of 
the  railroads.  Now  let  me  instance : The  town 
in  which  resides  my  friend  on  the  right,  the 
gentleman  from  Defiance  [Mr.  Green],  has  the 
advantage  both  of  canal  and  railway  transpor- 
tation to  the  water  of  the  lakes.  The  town  in 
which  I reside  has  no  such  advantage,  but  only 
that  of  a railway,  and  for  seventeen  or  eighteen 
long  years  this  fact  has  existed,  that  a bushel  of 
wheat  could  be  transported  from  his  town,  an 
equal  distance  from  my  own,  to  Toledo,  for  four 
to  five  cents  per  bushel,  whereas,  from  my  town 
the  like  transportation  requires  an  expenditure 
of  eight  or  nine  cents  a bushel.  And  yet  my 
county,  one  the  most  remote  from  all  these 
neans  of  public  transportation  provided  by  the 
State,  is  not  without  its  benefit  derived  from 
that  means  of  transportation.  It  is  true,  his  town 
has  not  been  able  to  take  from  mine  all  the  trade 
in  wheat,  as  might  be  reasonably  expected. 
Their  entire  traffic  would,  doubtless,  have  been 
diverted  from  us  to  Defiance,  in  the  article  of 
wheat,  but  for  a difference  in  grades  of  wheat, 
and  difference  in  price  at  Toledo  of  those  grades, 
that  has  given  us  five  to  seven  cents  per  bushel 
advantage,  and  so  enabled  us  to  maintain  the 
traffic  with  that  town ; but  the  profits  of  that 


traffic  have  chiefly  gone  into  the  hands  of  rail- 
road companies,  and  not  remained  with  the  farm- 
mer.  Doubtless,  but  for  this  difference,  our  cost 
of  transportation  of  wheat,  as  it  has  been  with 
all  other  articles,  would  have  been  only  equal 
to  theirs.  In  other  words,  transportation  by 
fear  of  diversion  of  trade,  has  been  cheapened. 

Mr.  GREENE,  in  his  seat.  Another  thing,  we 
find  it  out  very  soon  when  the  canal  closes  in 
the  winter  season. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes,  we  soon  find  it  out;  in 
both  our  towns  unrestrained  by  the  canals  rates 
of  transportation  are  increased  some  fifty  per 
cent,  immediately.  And  generally,  as  relating 
to  my  own  county,  the  effect  of  that  competition 
in  transportation  between  the  canal  and  Toledo, 
Wabash  & Western  Railway  Company  within 
twenty  miles  can  easily  be  perceived,  and  is 
effective  in  holding  the  line  of  the  Lake  Shore 
railroad  in  check,  and  it  does  not  advance  its 
rates  upon  us  as  it  otherwise  would.  The  canal 
prevents  the  possibility  of  combination  between 
these  two  great  railroads,  the  Toledo  & Wabash 
and  the  Michigan  Southern  & Lake  Shore,  pre- 
vents them  from  doing  what  they  otherwise 
would,  lay  their  hands  upon  us  and  take  tribute 
from  us  ad  libitum.  So,  though  I reside  in  one 
of  the  most  remote  counties  from  these  public 
works— I speak  of  these  great  lines  of  communi- 
cation provided  by  the  wisdom  of  our  prede- 
cessors— I still  must  protest  against  any  step 
whatever  being  taken  that  shall  result  in  the 
final  abandonment  of  these  works.  They  are 
of  great  public  benefit,  now,  in  diminishing 
freights,  and  should  be  preserved. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  I regard  this  debate  as 
somewhat  premature.  I had  supposed  that  we 
would  consider  this  question,  if  at  all,  while 
considering  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Public  Debt  and  Public  Works.  But  it  is  be- 
fore us,  and  we  must  deal  with  it.  The  impor- 
tance of  the  subject  involved  is  such,  to  my 
people,  that  I could  not  sit  quietly  by  and  con- 
sent that  anything  might  be  done  by  this  Con- 
vention that  would  look  to  the  abandonment  of 
the  canals,  or  in  any  wise  lessening  their  effi- 
ciency. These  canals  were  built  in  an  early 
time  in  the  history  of  this  western  part  of  our 
State.  I speak  now  particularly  of  the  Miami 
extension  of  the  Erie  Canal,  extending  to 
Toledo.  That  canal  was  built  at  an  early  period 
in  the  history  of  my  part  of  the  State,  open- 
ing up  the  portion  of  the  country  north  of  the 
county  that  I represent,  being  one  of  the  causes 
of  the  early  improvement  of  those  counties,  en- 
hancing the  value  of  the  land,  and  bringing 
large  amounts  upon  the  duplicate  for  taxation 
that  the  State  would  not  otherwise  have  had 
the  benefit  of.  It  has  given  to  us  the  advantage 
of  cheap  transportation,  but  the  necessities 
which  caused  them  to  be  built  still  exist  in 
favor  of  their  continuance.  Cheap  transporta- 
tion is  a thing  to  be  looked  to,  and  they  are  the 
only  check  upon  the  great  monopolies  of  the 
country  that  we  have  had  to  fight  for  many 
years  past,  and  may  have  to  fight  hereafter. 
It  is  well  known,  perhaps,  to  every  gentleman 
of  observation  and  experience,  that  railroad 
men  do  not  like  to  locate  their  road  along  or 
near  to  a canal.  They  desire  not  to  come  in 
conflict  with  them,  and  they  are  a great  defense 
to  the  people,  and  the  very  necessity  that  called 


2138 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  WORKS.  [141st 

Godfrey,  Hoadly,  Hitchcock,  Pratt,  Bishop.  [Wednesday, 


them  into  existence  still  requires  that  they 
should  be  continued  in  all  their  efficiency. 
Nearly  all  the  heavy  freight  that  passes  from 
my  county  goes  by  canal,  either  north  to  Toledo 
or  south  to  Cincinnati.  Nearly  all  heavy  freight 
that  comes  into  my  county  comes  by  canal,  and 
my  people  would  not  consent,  for  a moment,  to 
their  abandonment, or  in  any  way  lessening  their 
efficiency.  We  would  much  sooner  contribute 
our  share  of  the  expense  in  enlarging,  widening 
and  deepening  those  canals,  and  lengthening  the 
locks,  and  making  them  more  efficient  than  they 
have  ever  been  before.  Encroachments  have, 
from  time  to  time,  been  made  upon  these  canals. 
The  General  Assembly  consented  to  cutting  off 
a considerable  portion  of  the  tow-path  along 
Swan  creek,  near  Toledo.  This  was  done  to 
accommodate  adjacent  land  owners  that  wished 
to  establish  large  lumber  yards  there,  and  they 
have  succeeded  in  abandoning  the  tow-path, 
which  makes  it  necessary  that  every  boat  that 
passes  from  our  section  of  the  State  to  Toledo 
pays,  I believe,  five  dollars  to  be  towed  down  to 
the  market.  There  was  cut  off  in  this  city  a 
few  years  ago  a considerable  section  of  the 
south  end  of  the  canal,  as  far  up,  I believe,  as 
Broadway,  and  now  there  is  another  matter,  as 
I believe,  conceived  in  sin  and  brought  forth 
in  iniquity,  pending  in  the  Legislature,  to  aban- 
don another  section  of  it  from  Broadway  to  the 
Brighton  House,  as  I have  heard  it  claimed,  for 
the  purpose  of  enabling  this  city  to  purchase, 
by  a two-thirds  vote  of  the  Council,  that  portion 
proposed  to  be  abandoned.  Now,  sir,  I 
do  not  believe  one  word  of  the  city’s  in- 
tending to  purchase  that.  I do  not  be- 
lieve it  is  intended  that  that  two-thirds  vote 
required  in  that  bill  would  ever  be  procured,  or 
that  there  would  ever  be  an  effort  to  procure  it. 
The  whole  object  is  to  take  it  from  the  State 
and  put  it  in  the  hands  of  a railroad  company, 
just  as  they  did  the  other  portion  a few  years 
ago. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I wish  the  gentleman  would 
explain  to  the  Convention  what  he  knows  of 
the  Miami  Canal  as  a source  of  water  power  or 
mill  privileges  between  here  and  his  section.  I 
know  he  knows  all  about  it. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  I know  the  revenue  is  very 
considerable,  but  I cannot  fix  the  amount. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  is  a very  great  water 
power. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  It  is  a great  water  power, 
a source  of  revenue  to  the  State.  From  here  to 
Toledo  there  is  scarcely  a county  in  which  it 
does  not  yield  a valuable  waterpower,  and  the 
lessees  of  that  power  pay  an  annual  rent  to 
the  State. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I understood  the  gentle- 
man as  saying  that  that  water  power  was  a 
large  source  of  revenue  to  the  State.  Does  the 
State  receive  anything  for  that  water  power  ex- 
cept the  rental  which  she  receives  from  the 
public  works? 

Mr.  GODFREY.  The  lessees  pay  rental 
value  for  right  of  transportation  and  for  the 
water  power.  There  are  two  mills  running  in 
my  town  by  water  power,  and,  as  in  all  other 
cases,  are  of  great  public  utility,  and  the  mill 
owners  pay  water  rent. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  ask  the  permission 
of  the  delegate  to  state  that,  as  that  lease  will 


expire  in  1881,  unless  renewed  again,  the  State 
will  then  receive  from  this  source  the  rental 
which  the  lessees  receive  now. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  Then  I repeat,  without  de- 
taining the  Convention  on  this  subject,  we  are 
depriving  ourselves  of  cheap  transportation 
which  has  served  as  a check  on  monopolies  ever 
since  the  existenee  of  canals  and  railroads  in 
our  State.  And  I will  say  to  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  that,  in  doing 
anything  whatever  that  tends  to  the  abandon- 
ment of  lessening  the  efficiency  of  canals,  he  is 
bringing  himself  in  direct  conflict  with  cheap 
transportation,  and  that,  in  order  to  make  him- 
self consistent  with  himself,  he  must  either 
abandon  this  attempt  or  comb  the  hay-seed  out 
of  his  hair  and  cease  to  play  on  that  string. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Has  the  gentleman’s  attention 
ever  been  directed  to  the  difference  it  makes  in 
the  cost  of  transportation  of  grain  in  North- 
western Ohio.  Will  it  not  average  five  cents  a 
bushel  ? 

Mr.  GODFREY.  I believe  in  my  county, 
where  it  is  about  the  same  distance  to  Toledo 
that  it  is  to  Cincinnati,  the  difference  in  the 
cost  of  transportation  is  from  five  to  eight 
cents. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I concur  in  the  remarks  of 
the  gentleman  from  Mercer  as  to  the  importance 
of  canals.  I have  realized  their  value  in  my 
business,  and  have  no  doubt  of  their  importance. 
But  a remark  that  the  gentleman  made  was  cal- 
culated to  cast  a reflection  upon  the  city  of  Cin- 
cinnati, and  to  create  a wrong  impression.  I 
will  say  to  the  gentleman  that,  in  the  twenty- 
seven  years  before  that  part  of  the  canal  on 
Broadway  was  abandoned,  the  boats  seldom,  if 
ever,  went  out  into  the  Ohio  river.  The  closing 
of  the  canal  up  to  Broadway  has  not  done  any 
damage  to  the  canal  or  to  the  State.  The  water 
power  remains  as  heretofore.  The  boats  never 
did  go  through  into  the  Ohio  river;  they  gene- 
rally stopped  at  the  elbow.  As  to  the  other 
part,  they  are  now  seeking  to  have  abandoned, 
at  present,  I have  nothing  to  say. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I have  no  objection  to 
the  amendment  moved  by  the  gentleman  from 
Madison  [Mr.  Phellis].  That  is  the  question 
now  pending,  although  remarks  have  been  made 
by  gentlemen  since  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Madison  [Mr.  Phellis]  was  made,  have 
been  directed  to  the  previous  motion,  and  there- 
fore,  while  assenting  to  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Madison  [Mr.  Phellis],  I 
would  not  be  regarded  out  of  order  in  follow- 
ing the  course  which  has  been  pursued  by  other 
gentlemen.  I am  aware  of  having  spoken  once 
upon  the  original  question,  but  not  on  the 
amendment.  It  is  entirely  against  my  incli- 
nation to  say  a word  in  detention  of  the  Conven- 
tion when  there  are  indications  that  what  might 
be  said  would  be  of  no  avail.  But  at  the  pre- 
senttime, having  in  all  sincerity  and  with  good 
purpose  made  the  motion  to  amend,  I find  no 
other  gentleman  upon  the  floor  disposed  to  aid 
me.  At  the  same  time,  having  drawn  down 
upon  myself  anathemas  from  all  quarters  of  the 
hall — I do  not  say  from  all  the  members  of  the 
Convention,  but  from  all  quarters  of  the  hall — 
I desire  briefly  to  respond  to  remarks  made  in 
opposition.  For  sixteen  years  past,  especially 
for  twelve  years,  the  very  arguments  made  by 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  WORKS. 2139 

Marcs  18,  1874.]  Hitchcock,  Pratt. 


the  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  the 
gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt],  the 
gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease],  and  others 
here,  have  been  familiar  to  me.  I never  heard 
before,  never  had  my  attention  called  to 
the  fact,  that,  by  taking  a position  believed 
to  be  right,  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of 
the  State,  not  especially  interested  in  that  for 
which  money  was  to  be  raised,  I was  likely  to 
draw  down  upon  me  the  anathemas  of  that  peo- 
ple. That  is  first  heard  by  me  this  morning 
from  the  gentleman  from  Mercer  [Mr.  God- 
frey]. He  charges  that  my  position  is  in  oppo- 
sition to  cheap  transportation,  and  advises  me 
to  comb  the  “ hay  seeds  ” from  my  hair.  Let 
me  say  to  the  gentleman  that  whatever  of  the 
article  is  found  in  my  hair  came  there  in  the 
natural  way.  There  is  no  necessity  of  any  pat- 
ent right  agency  for  sprinkling  “ hay  seed  ” in 
my  hair  because  as  a “hay  seeder,”  practically 
engaged  for  a life-time  in  tilling  the  soil  with  the 
labor  of  my  own  hands,  I need  no  aid  in  making 
myself  such  for  any  purpose  now  or  at  any 
other  time.  I said,  upon  first  taking  the  floor, 
that  which  was  sought  to  be  brought  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  Convention  would  not  as  prop- 
erly come  in  connection  with  this  section  in  its 
present  form  as  it  would  if  in  order  to  modify 
the  language  of  the  section.  The  charge  of 
aiming  a blow  at  the  public  works  of  Ohio,  I 
pronounce  untrue  in  fact,  and  not  to  be  inferred 
from  anything  said  by  me.  If  this  could  be 
inferred  from  the  motion  made,  the  remarks 
made  in  my  place  upon  the  floor  should  give 
directly  the  contrary  impression.  This  ques- 
tion of  the  public  works  of  Ohio,  what  they 
may  have  done,  what  they  are  now  doing,  what 
they  may  hereafter  do,  in  the  history  of  the 
State,  in  developing  its  resources,  in  bringing 
upon  the  duplicate  property  for  taxation,  and 
in  advancing  the  interests  of  the  people  of  the 
State,  is  not  the  question  before  us  at  the  pres- 
ent time.  It  is  not  a question  of  the  abandon- 
ment of  those  public  works.  It  is  simply 
whether  the  State  of  Ohio  shall  engage  in  the 
construction  of  new  works  of  the  same  kind. 
That  is  all  that  is  now  sought.  I put  it 
to  the  members  of  the  Convention  whether, 
if  it  be  right  to  levy  taxes  for  the  construc- 
tion of  works  of  this  kind,  it  be  not  right  to 
incur  indebtedness  for  the  same  purpose.  If 
it  be  important  to  the  people  of  this  State 
that  there  should  be  constructed  through 
their  State,  from  one  extreme  to  another, 
a public  highway  by  taxation  upon  the  prop- 
erty of  the  State,  may  it  not  be  important,  as 
well,  to  construct  that  by  incurring,  for  the 
time  being,  an  indebtedness?  It  is  not  a ques- 
tion especially  of  taxation,  but  of  construction. 
It  is  a question  whether  the  State  shall  engage 
in  any  operations  of  this  kind.  As  before  said, 

I have,  during  all  these  years  past,  heard  these 
arguments  over  and  over  again  repeated  in 
connection  with  the  public  works  of  the  State. 

I believe  I am  just  as  fully  aware  of  the  good 
done  by  these  public  works,  have  just  as  thor- 
oughly examined  the  statistics  in  connection 
with  them,  and  know  just  as  well  what  they 
have  done  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State  as  other  gentlemen  upon  this 
floor ; may  not  be  able  to  use  as  good  language, 
and  may  not  be  able  to  make  myself  so  well 


understood ; but  I believe  I know  as  thoroughly 
what  has  been  done  in  that  connection  as  other 
members ; know  that,  at  the  time  of  the  incep- 
tion of  these  public  works,  at  the  time  of  their 
construction,  they  were  intended  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  State ; do  not  question  the  pol- 
icy ; it  may  or  may  not  have  been  for  the  best. 
They  were  intended  to  advance  the  interests  of 
the  people  of  the  whole  State;  that  was  the 
purpose  of  their  construction.  They  did  de- 
velop the  resources  of  the  State,  adding  largely 
to  its  aggregate  wealth,  and  thereby  relieving 
the  people  of  my  county,  and  other  counties, 
from  a portion  of  the  burden  of  taxation  which, 
otherwise,  they  would  be  compelled  to  bear 
— this  resulting  from  largely  increasing  the 
value  of  property  in  counties  through  which 
they  run,  and  bringing  a larger  amount  on  the 
duplicate  for  taxation,  and  thus,  to  a larger  ex- 
tent, diffusing  that  taxation,  and  lessening  the 
rate.  I know,  as  well,  they  did  not  accomplish 
what  was  intended  by  those  who  projected 
them  originally.  I know  very  well  that,  in  the 
first  proposition  for  the  construction  of  these 
works,  in  providing  for  the  construction  of  the 
Ohio  Canal,  in  anticipation  of  large  revenues 
therefrom,  it  was  provided  that,  after  a certain 
period,  tolls  should  be  reduced.  It  was  urged 
by  their  projectors  that  the  canals  would  soon 
not  only  pay  all  expense  of  construction,  but 
also  pay  for  schooling  of  the  children  of  the 
State.  All  these  anticipations  were  had  by 
those  who  originated  this  system  of  improve- 
ment. They  have  not  accomplished  that  result. 
From  the  commencement  to  the  present  time, 
they  have  been  a burden  upon  the  treasury  of 
the  State.  They  have  been  a charge  to  the 
State,  and,  instead  of  returning  revenue,  they 
have  been  a burden  on  the  treasury  of  the 
State. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Have  they  not  failed  to  accom- 
plish what  was  anticipated,  simply  because  the 
railroad  system  has  superseded  them  measur- 
ably? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  They  had  failed  to  ac- 
complish that  result  before  railroads  were  con- 
structed in  this  State,  and  they  will  fail  to 
accomplish  it.  Whenver  conducted  by  the  gov- 
ernment, State  or  national,  they  will  fail, 
when  they  come  into  competition  with  private 
capital,  invested  for  similar  purposes.  I do  not 
know  how  far  this  may  be  supposed  to  apply 
to  any  contemplated  action  by  Congress  to 
secure  cheap  transportation,  neither  do  I care, 
because  that,  while  such  improvements  may 
fail  in  returning  revenue  as  anticipated — that 
is  what  I said  the  gentlemen  will  recollect — 
while  they  may  fail,  so  far  as  returning  revenue 
is  concerned,  they  may  not  always  fail  in  ad- 
vancing the  great  interests  of  the  country. 
Also, was  about  to  say  that  they  always  did,  and 
always  will,  so  far  as  the  success  of  the  invest- 
ment and  returns  of  revenue  are  concerned, 
when  they  come  into  competition  with  private 
capital,  invested  and  controlled  by  private  indi- 
viduals or  corporations.  Mr.  President,  from 
the  time  the  first  railroads  were  projected  and 
constructed  in  the  State,  up  to  the  present  time, 
those  roads  have  been  run  along  and  across  these 
public  works  in  all  directions.  They  have  com- 
peted with  them,  and  men  have  adopted,  for 
purposes  of  transportation,  the  canals  or  the 


2140 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Townsend,  Hitchcock,  Chapin,  Yoris. 


[141st 

[Wednesday, 


railroads,  taking  their  own  choice,  but  the  pub- 
lic works  have  not  controlled  or  hindered, 
neither  successfully  competed  with,  private 
enterprise,  where  invested  in  the  carrying  trade 
in  the  State,  through  our  railroad  system. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I merely  want  to  make 
a statement  in  reply  to  the  gentleman  from 
Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  in  relation  to  the  broad 
statement  of  the  State  having  given  to  the  city 
of  Cleveland  a large  portion  of  the  canal.  At 
the  time  the  canal  was  constructed,  it  was 
locked  into  the  Cuyahoga  river  at  a point  where 
the  business  at  that  time  was  concentrated,  and 
that  seemed  to  be  the  most  desirable.  Subse- 
quent years  have  changed  the  location  of  bu- 
siness very  much,  and  the  Cuyahoga  has  been 
dredged  out  and  docked  for  three  miles  further 
up,  and  there  is  no  way  of  getting  into  the 
river  at  any  point.  To  accommodate  the  pres- 
ent business,  the  State  authorities  discovered 
that  the  State  interests  would  not  be  damaged, 
but  on  the  contrary  subserved  by  this  change, 
and,  at  the  request  of  citizens  of  Cleveland,  they 
consented  to  make  it.  TJie  conditions  were,  that 
the  State  should  be  kept  free  from  all  expense, 
that  the  weigh  locks  should  be  moved  and 
placed  above,  and  at  a point  of  the  Cuyahoga 
river  where  it  was  navigable,  and  to  which 
point  the  business  had  concentrated,  that  the 
city  should  lock  them  into  the  river  with  good, 
sufficient  locks,  the  work  to  be  done  under  the 
control,  direction,  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
Board  of  Public  Works,  leaving  the  city  sim- 
ply to  settle  with  the  lessees,  which  they  have 
done.  The  State  of  Ohio,  having  these  canals 
and  public  works  on  hand  and  paid  for — or 
nearly  so — can  well  afford  to  keep  them  in  prop- 
er shape  and  improve  them  from  time  to  time, 
as  circumstances  may  make  necessary.  These 
public  works  have  an  important  influence  over 
the  freighting  interests  of  the  State,  and  over 
the  commerce  of  this  whole  country.  Not- 
withstanding, you  cannot  sit  down  and  figure 
out  the  exact  results,  yet  it  is  diffused  all  over 
the  State.  And  it  is  a fact  that  every  point  on 
the  canal  where  there  are  railroads  intersecting 
to  different  parts,  Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  East 
and  West,  that  the  freight  rates  are  reduced  to 
correspond  with  the  rates  on  the  canal.  Heavy 
freights,  such  as  coal  and  corn,  and  those  things 
that  the  freight  enters  largely  into  the  cost, 
when  it  is  put  into  the  market,  are  enabled  to 
be  placed  in  the  market  at  prices  that  pay  their 
producers  a compensation  for  their  labor.  In 
the  State  of  New  York,  I was  very  much  sur- 
prised to  learn  from  General  Bacheler,  who  was 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Public  Works 
in  that  State  Legislature,  that  the  canals  in  the 
State  of  New  York  carry  more  freight  than 
all  the  railroads  together,  notwithstanding  that 
State  is  checked  all  over  with  railroad  lines, 
and  some  of  the  very  best  in  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low a question  ? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  as  to  the  direction  in  which  the 
canals  in  this  State  run,  and  the  canals  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  as  to  their  being  so  large  a 
competitor  in  carrying  freight? 


Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  members  of  this 
Convention  are  familiar  with  the  geography  of 
this  country,  and  I leave  them  to  carry  that  out 
for  themselves.  I am  aware  that  they  do  not 
run  in  the  same  direction,  but,  nevertheless,  in 
a greater  or  less  degree,  the  same  results  are 
attained.  I supposed  the  canals  were  a burden 
on  the  State,  but  General  Bacheler  tells  me, 
and  he  knows,  for  he  has  figured  it  all  up,  that 
the  receipts  yield  an  amount  equal  to  all  the 
expenditures  of  the  State.  A very  considerable 
portion  of  that  amount  has  been  from  year  to 
year,  for  ten  years,  used  for  enlarging,  improv- 
ing and  bettering  the  condition  of  the  canals ; 
nevertheless,  a considerable  portion  has  gone 
to  defray  the  expense  of  the  State  government, 
and  they  regard  it  as  one  of  the  most  valuable 
improvements  they  have.  It  reduces,  to  a con- 
siderable extent,  the  rate  of  freights  on  rail- 
roads, and  thereby  benefits  the  interests  of  the 
farmers  and  everybody  who  is  interested.  I 
trust  that  this  amendment  will  not  prevail,  that 
the  Legislature  will  be  left  free  to  exercise 
sound  discretion  in  the  future.  We  cannot  tell 
what  is  going  to  happen  ten,  fifteen  or  twenty 
years  from  now.  I am  not  afraid  to  trust  this 
interest  in  the  hands  of  the  Legislature,  who 
are  themselves  the  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  who  will  represent  truly,  I have  no 
doubt,  the  interests  of  the  different  portions  of 
the  State. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
to  ask  him  a question  ? I understood  him  to 
say  that  the  alteration  made  at  Cleveland  was 
made  under  a law  of  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  And  was  done  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Board  of  Public  Works? 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  It  was  to  be  done  under 
their  supervision  and  to  their  satisfaction. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I understood  the  gentleman 
to  say  that  the  sanction  of  the  Board  of  Public 
Works  had  been  secured. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  work  has  not  been 
done  yet.  It  is  now  in  progress. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I had  a conversation  with  a 
member  of  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  and  he 
informed  me  that  that  alteration  had  been  made, 
not  under  their  supervision,  and  very  much 
against  the  interests  of  the  State. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  mistake  in  that  was, 
that  it  has  not  been  made  at  all  yet,  and  is  just 
now  being  inaugurated,  and  the  Board  is  there 
superintending  it.  It  is  to  be  done  in  accord- 
ance with  law,  under  their  direction,  and  to 
their  satisfaction.  So  there  is  not  much  danger 
of  his  being  hurt  yet,  whatever  might  be  in  the 
future.  The  full  State  Board  was  in  Cleveland, 
and  not  only  approved  the  location  for  the 
weigh  locks  and  entrance  into  the  river,  but  as- 
sisted in  selecting  the  location.  The  work  is  to 
be  done  under  their  direction  and  approval. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I represent  a constituency  that 
feel  a deep  interest  in  preserving  the  public 
works  of  the  State  in  at  least  a healthful  and 
vigorous  condition.  I am  sorry  that  I am  not 
better  prepared  than  I am  at  this  time  to  pre- 
sent the  views  of  all  our  business  men  in  rela- 
tion to  this  question.  During  the  last  two  or 
three  years  it  has  been  necessary,  in  connection 
with  my  professional  business,  to  investigate 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  WORKS. 


2141 


VORIS. 


Day.] 

March  18,  1874.] 


matters  connected  with  the  public  works,  and 
in  that  connection  I have  ascertained,  to  my 
own  satisfaction,  from  the  history  of  these 
works,  a good  many  of  the  results  that  have 
accrued  to  the  State  from  keeping  these  public 
works  in  a healthful  condition.  I had  the  fig- 
ures arranged,  but  they  are  not  before  me  at 
present  and  I shall  be  unable  to  give  them,  but 
the  conclusions  that  I give  in  the  premises  are 
satisfactory  to  myself  and  are  supported,  and 
strongly  supported,  by  the  facts  and  figures.  It 
would  be  the  most  unwise  policy  in  the  world 
for  us  to  adopt  in  this  Constitution  any  provi- 
sions that  will  express  an  unfriendly  disposi- 
tion of  the  State  towards  these  public  works. 
I care  not  what  their  benefits  may  have  been, 
but  the  intrinsic  benefits  that  inhere  in  these 
public  works  make  it  of  prime  importance  to 
the  business  interests  of  the  State  that  they 
should  be  kept  in  a vigorous  condition.  It  is 
not  a question  whether  the  revenues  directly 
derived  from  these  public  works  are  sufficient  to 
keep  them  in  a vigorous  business  condition,  but 
the  question  is  whether  they  afford  such  checks 
upon  the  crushing  carrying  monopolies  of  the 
State,  whether  they  offer  such  advantages  to  the 
State,  as  make  it  proper  for  us  to  expend  any 
portion  of  the  revenues  of  the  State  in  their 
support.  Within  the  last  twelve  years — and 
that  embraces  the  whole  time  that  the  canal  has 
been  in  the  hands  of  the  lessees — the  carrying 
business  of  the  northern  half  of  the  canal  is 
greater  than  it  was  in  any  previous  history  of 
these  canals.  The  clearances  from  the  ports  of 
Cleveland  and  Akron  last  year  were  greater 
than  they  ever  were  during  the  time  that  the 
State  had  control  of  these  public  works,  and 
the  value  of  commodities  carried  upon  them, 
and  the  benefits  conferred  upon  the  com- 
munity at  large  in  this  transportation,  were 
greater  to  the  State  than  they  were  when  the 
State  owned  them.  The  city  of  Cleveland  alone 
saves,  by  reason  of  the  competition  in  trans- 
portation of  the  single  item  of  coal  to  that  city, 
more  than  a half  a million  dollars ; and  that  is 
only  one  of  the  items.  If  I recollect  aright,  the 
increase  of  shipments  of  that  single  item  into 
the  port  of  Cleveland  during  the  last  ten  or 
twelve  years  has  been  from  three  hundred  to 
four  hundred  per  cent.  I am  not  absolutely 
certain  as  to  these  figures,  but  I know  it  is  a 
very  large  increase  in  that  direction.  Cheap 
fuel  is  the  very  essence  of  the  manufacturing 
industries  of  the  counties  of  Stark,  Summit 
and  Cuyahoga,  which  embrace  in  value  one- 
seventh  of  the  manufacturing  interests  of  the 
State  of  Ohio.  Why  do  those  counties,  that  em- 
brace less  than  one-twelfth  the  population  of 
the  State,  produce  fully  one-seventh  of  the 
manufactured  productions  of  the  State  ? Why, 
it  is  simply  because  we  have  the  means  of 
bringing  into  our  manufacturing  establish- 
ments, into  our  commerce,  these  commodities, 
through  cheap  transportation.  The  moment 
our  navigation  is  closed  upon  these  canals,  the 
transportation  of  coal  runs  up  at  least  forty  to 
fifty  cents  per  ton  from  our  county  and  Stark 
into  the  port  of  Cleveland.  If  the  carrying 
upon  the  canal  itself  was  taken  away  from  that 
community  to-day,  instead  of  getting  our  coal 
carried  to  Cleveland  at  from  a dollar  to  a dollar 
and  thirty-five  cents  per  ton,  it  would  be  car- 


ried on  the  railroads,  as  it  is,  at  from  a dollar 
sixty  to  a dollar  ninety  per  tun.  That  saving 
alone  is  a benefit  not  only  conferred  upon  the 
manufacturing  centers,  but  every  man  who 
consumes  a pound  of  iron,  or  a dollar’s  worth 
of  any  manufactured  article  that  is  elaborated 
in  these  manufacturing  establishments,  re- 
ceives benefit  out  of  it.  The  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  and  those  whom  he 
represents,  have  a direct  interest  in  keeping 
these  canals  in  a healthful  condition,  for,  as  I 
said  a moment  ago,  they  keep  down  the  price 
of  transportation  of  these  commodities.  And 
what  is  true  of  the  counties  that  I have 
mentioned,  is  true  of  all  the  counties  along 
the  line  of  the  two  canals  that  run  through 
the  State.  I concede  that  very  little  transport- 
ation is  carried  through  from  Portsmouth  to 
Cleveland  on  the  canal,  but  there  are  many 
points  upon  the  canal  that  have  no  other  means 
of  public  transportation  except  that  furnished 
by  the  canal.  Your  canal  from  Cincinnati  to 
Toledo  is  constantly,  during  nine  months  of  the 
year,  carrying  heavy  products  along  its  entire 
line,  to  and  from  the  lake.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  earnest  and  anxious  questions  among 
business  men,  not  only  in  England,  but  on  the 
Continent,  to-day,  whether  they  have  made  a 
mistake  in  abandoning  their  water  lines  of  com- 
munication and  going  to  the  railroads.  The 
policy  adopted  by  the  State  of  New  York  is 
wise,  and  we  to-day,  in  Ohio,  get  millions  of 
advantage  out  of  the  improvements  made  in 
their  water  communications.  Every  farmer  in 
the  State  to-day  is  receiving  the  benefit  of  the 
competition  thus  furnished  in  the  carrying  of 
their  productions  to  the  seaboard,  where  large 
amounts  of  them  go.  Now,  even  if  we  thought 
that  to-day  it  would  be  bad  policy  to  commit 
the  State  to  any  further  expenses  in  behalf  of 
these  public  works,  yet  we  are  not  so  wise,  and 
we  have  not  had  sufficient  experience  yet  to 
satisfy  the  people  that  we  ought  to  commit  the 
State  to  unfriendly  legislation  in  relation  to 
these  public  works.  If  you,  by  constitutional 
provision,  put  it  beyond  the  power  of  the  people, 
excepting  by  amendment,  to  relieve  themselves 
from  any  unfriendliness  that  may  be  foisted 
into  this  Constitution,  by  the  time  they  call  to- 
gether another  Convention  to  change  their  Con- 
stitution it  will  be  too  late,  for  the  canals  will 
go  into  non-existence  on  account  of  this 
unfriendliness,  for  it  only  takes  a few  years 
abandonment  or  neglect  to  let  them  go  into 
utter  ruin.  We  must,  from  the  very  nature  of 
things,  leave  many  great  questions  that  pertain 
to  the  material  interest  of  the  State,  to  legis- 
lative discretion.  It  is  not  proper,  not  expedi- 
ent, not  possible,  for  us  to  look  into  the  future 
and  give  direction  to  these  great  improvements. 
That  can  be  judiciously  given  to  it  by  the  Legis- 
lature, that  comes  together  every  year.  Now, 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Madison  [Mr.  Phellis],  limits  the  State  in  its 
taxation  to  simply  keeping  in  repair  the  public 
works  of  the  State.  That  is  not  sufficient. 
These  public  works  were  made  in  a day  when 
they  answered  well  enough  the  conditions  of 
the  times  in  which  they  were  built,  but  the 
carrying  in  this  State  demanded  greater  and  in- 
creased facilities  than  in  1830,  or  thereabouts. 
If  we  wish  to  give  thorough  effectiveness  to 


2142 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

V oris,  Hitchcock,  Rowland,  Chapin. 


[141st 


[Wednesday, 


these  public  works  instead  of  merely  keeping 
them  in  repair,  they  should  be  greatly  im- 
proved. We  should  adopt  the  same  policy  in 
Ohio  that  is  adopted  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
and  make  them  a great,  I might  say,  almost  a 
national  thoroughfare ; for  the  Erie  canal  is  to- 
day a great  national  thoroughfare.  It  may  be 
the  State  will  be  desirous,  in  the  course  of  a few 
years,  and  especially  when  they  are  again 
brought  into  their  hands,  instead  of  simply 
keeping  them  in  repair,  to  improve  them  so  as 
to  make  them  of  greater  effectiveness  to  the 
State.  I am,  therefore,  opposed  to  this  amend- 
ment, because  it  is  an  unfriendly  limitation 
upon  the  power  of  the  State  to  act  in  the  prem- 
ises. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  May  I accept  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Madison  [Mr. 
Phellis]  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  With  the 
leave  of  the  Convention,  the  gentleman  may 
accept. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  have  the 
amendment  reported  again. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  section  if  amended  will  read: 

Seo.  8.  The  State  shall  never  levy  a tax  except  for 
keeping  in  repair  the  public  works  of  the  State,  or  con- 
tract any  debt  for  purposes  of  internal  improvement.” 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I know  that  it  is  entirely  un- 
necessary to  say  one  word  upon  the  proposed 
amendment  so  far  as  the  result  is  concerned.  I 
do  not  propose  to  offer  to  change  the  mind  of 
one  delegate  upon  this  floor.  I simply  rise  for 
the  purpose  of  placing  myself  upon  the  record 
with  a view  to  the  vote  which  I am  about  to 
give.  The  canal  was  inaugurated  in  about  1826. 
I think  it  must  be  admitted  that  increase  of 
population  and  prosperity  of  this  State  might 
be  dated  from  that  time — from  the  extension  of 
this  system  of  public  improvements.  I wish  to 
say  but  a very  few  words.  I shall  not  attempt 
to  elaborate  upon  the  principles  and  rules  that 
have  been  advanced  by  different  members,  but 
merely  to  state  two  things  which  have  fallen 
under  my  own  observation.  I have  had  a good 
deal  to  do  with  the  public  works.  Living  along 
the  line  of  this  great  thoroughfare,  I was  en- 
abled from  the  first  to  witness  the  great  change 
that  was  wrought  upon  the  country,  and  the  ad- 
vanced prosperity  that  was  brought  about, 
which  I propose  to  give.  It  is  estimated,  and, 
if  I had  the  statistics,  I think  I could  show 
clearly,  that  money  invested  in  public  works 
has  been  more  than  twice  paid  for,  in  the  first 
place,  by  the  increase  of  real  estate  through  the 
country  which  it  has  passed.  It  has  been  more 
than  paid  for  in  another  way ; we  do  not  realize 
it  now,  but  nevertheless  it  is  a fact.  At  the 
time,  and  before  the  public  improvements  were 
located,  produce  was  exceedingly  low.  Farmers 
were  unable  to  raise  at  paying  prices,  for 
the  reason  that  it  would  not  bear  trans- 
portation to  the  markets  of  the  world. 
But  after  the  location  and  construction  of  these 
thoroughfares  through  the  State,  the  farmers 
were  enabled  to  sell  their  produce  at  a fair  re- 
muneration. It  increased  the  value  of  their 
property ; it  spurred  them  up,  it  was  an  incen- 
tive to  industry  and  labor,  and  in  that  way  the 


canals  are  more  than  paid  for.  If  this  increased 
price  that  was  realized  by  the  farmers  along 
these  lines  of  canal  had  been  aggregated,  it 
would  have  more  than  twice  paid  for  the  Ohio 
and  Miami  canals.  That  is  two  ways  in  which 
they  have  been  paid  for.  I know  that  this  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question  under  consider- 
ation, but  I thonght  I would  mention  these 
facts,  as  they  have  fallen  under  my  own  observa- 
tion. Now  the  question  is,  what  disposition 
shall  we  make  of  these  canals  ? Either  one  of 
two  courses  must  be  pursued.  We  must  either 
abandon  them,  or  we  must  keep  them  in  order 
and  make  them  efficient.  Unless  large  expen- 
ditures are  made  upon  these  public  works,  they 
will,  of  course,  run  down.  They  will  be  of  no 
utility,  or  service.  Now,  to  tie  the  hands  of 
the  Legislature,  so  that  they  will  be  unable  to 
make  any  repairs  upon  these  public  works, 
would  be  disastrous  and  unwise  in  the  extreme, 
and  would  lead  to  their  destruction  and  aban- 
donment. And  if  they  are  abandoned,  what  will 
be  the  results  produced  by  the  abandonment  of 
these  great  thoroughfares,  where  there  are  rail- 
roads of  grasping  disposition  that  would  buy 
and  give  a very  fair  compensation  for  the  pub- 
lic improvements — perhaps  more  than  they  are 
worth  in  a pecuniary  point — and  for  the  sake  of 
obtaining  the  object  that  they  would  have  in 
them  in  order  to  destroy  the  competition  that 
they  now  have  in  consequence.  I know  it  has 
been  complained,  and  not  perhaps  without  some 
justice,  that  those  persons  who  live  remote  from 
these  improvements  have  been  compelled  to 
pay  their  proportion  of  taxes  for  the  construc- 
tion and  support  of  these  public  improvements 
without  deriving  any  direct  benefit  from  them. 
I know  it  is  not  without  some  reason  in  it, 
but  shall  they  say  now  that  there  shall  be 
an  entire  abandonment  of  these  public  works 
because  they  are  not  immediately  interest- 
ed? I think  it  is  taking  rather  a narrow 
view  of  the  great  public  improvements  of  our 
State.  I think  they  should  not  do  it.  My  im- 
pression is  that  the  increased  tax  levied  upon 
property  along  the  lines  of  these  canals,  that 
has  been  increased  and  put  upon  the  duplicate — 
the  amount  of  tax  that  has  been  paid  in  conse- 
quence of  that — has  more  than  equaled  the 
amount  of  the  cost  of  public  taxation.  And 
then,  we  cannot  always  get  everything  exactly 
equal.  We  could  not  carry  on  any  public  im- 
provement in  the  State,  in  any  direction,  with- 
out having  it  operate  more  directly  through 
the  region  which  it  passes  than  in  those  coun- 
ties which  are  remote  from  it.  The  burdens  of 
taxation  are  not  always  equally  distributed. 
By  way  of  illustration,  I might  mention  the 
school  fund.  The  Legislature,  in  their  wisdom, 
have  voted  to  levy  a tax  upon  the  whole  State, 
and  then  distribute  it,  according  to  the  number 
of  children  over  the  whole  State.  Now,  in  fact, 
it  would  seem  right  that  every  county  should 
take  care  of  their  own  children,  but  the  State, 
in  their  wisdom,  in  their  magnanimity,  have 
thought  proper  to  levy  a tax  on  the  whole 
State,  aggregated,  and  then  distribute  it,  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  children  in  the  differ- 
ent portions  of  the  State.  I am  perfectly  agreed 
to  that,  but  yet  there  is  a seeming  unfairness 
about  it,  after  all.  The  counties  located  along 
the  lines  of  these  great  thoroughfares  have  be- 


2143 


Day.]  CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

March  18,  1874.]  Chapin,  Scribner,  Hitchcock,  Pond,  Root,  Rowland. 


come  rich  in  population  and  in  wealth,  and  < 
they  have  contributed  largely  to  this  fund,  and  ; 
then  the  State,  very  properly,  has  distributed 
it  throughout  the  whole  State.  Therefore,  it 
has  been  taken  along  the  lines  of  canal,  and 
distributed  a long  distance  from  the  canal.  I 
see  here,  by  the  returns  of  the  Auditor,  that 
Hamilton  county  has  paid  some  ten  or  twelve 
thousand  dollars  to  this  school  fund.  Franklin 
paid  thirteen  thousand,  Licking  seven  thousand, 
and  Cleveland  some  ten  or  twelve  thousand 
more  than  they  received,  and  it  has  gone  out 
from  these  channels  of  internal  improvement, 
and  so  been  distributed.  Would  not  one  in- 
equality balance  the  other?  They  do  not  com- 
plain of  this.  Scioto  county,  for  instance, 
does  not  have  any  advantages  of  canals. 
She  receives  ten  or  twelve  thousand  dollars  a 
year,  and  has  been  receiving  it  for  ten  years, 
which  would  make  a hundred  thousand  dollars 
she  has  received.  Cuyahoga  county  and  the 
others  do  not  complain  of  this,  but  they  do 
complain,  I think  very  unjustly,  because  they 
have  to  contribute  their  proportion  towards 
keeping  up  these  canals,  which  they  say  do 
not  directly  interest  them.  I think  this  is  a 
narrow  view,  and  I think  a more  liberal  course 
should  be  inaugurated.  Therefore,  I am  op- 
posed, both  to  the  amendment  to  the  amend- 
ment and  to  the  amendment  itself.  I am  much 
opposed  to  tying  up  the  hands  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, but  would  leave  them  the  authority,  if  it 
becomes  necessary,  to  improve  and  keep  those 
great  public  works  in  repair.  And  I do  not 
think  the  remote  counties  should  raise  any 
complaint  in  consequence  of  it. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I wish  to  call  attention  to 
a change.  I understand  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Madison  [Mr. 
Phellis],  on  which  the  question  is  now  to  be 
taken,  prohibits  the  levy  of  any  tax  except — 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
will  inform  the  gentleman  that  the  amendment 
to  the  gentleman  from  Madison  [Mr.  Phellis] 
has  been  accepted  by  the  gentleman  from  Geauga 
[Mr.  Hitchcock.] 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  Then  the  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  with  that  pro- 
vision incorporated. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  As  I understand  it,  it  pro- 
hibits the  Legislature  from  levying  any  tax  ex- 
cept for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  public  works 
in  repair.  I think  it  would  be  very  difficult  for 
the  state  to  get  along  with  that  sort  of  a provis- 
ion. That  is  the  effect  of  the  amendment  as  it 
stands. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I was  aware  of  the  awk- 
ward shape  in  which  this  would  leave  the  sec- 
tion, but  if  agreed  to,  knew  the  sense  of  the  Con- 
vention would  be  clearly  enough  indicated  by 
the  vote,  and  the  language  could  be  arranged 
by  the  Committee  on  Revision,  therefore  was 
willing  to  let  the  vote  be  taken  upon  it  in  that 
form. 

I ask  to  be  allowed  to  make  a personal  explana- 
tion, which  I had  intended  to  make  when  upon 
the  floor,  had  not  my  time  expired. 

Leave  was  given. 

The  gentleman  from  Morgan  [Mr.  Pond],  if 
correctly  understood,  said  that  this  was  but  a 


continuation  of  the  same  effort  which  sought  a 
sale  of  the  canals  originally,  and  that  this 
amendment  was  in  the  interest  of  the  railroads. 

Mr.  POND.  I do  not  think  I said  that.  In 
reply  to  the  remark  of  the  gentleman  from 
Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock]  that  he  knew  when 
the  canals  could  have  been  sold  at  a pretty  good 
figure,  I said  I knew  to  whom  the  sale  could 
have  been  made. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman  also  said, 
if  I understood  him,  that  this  was  in  the  same 
direction,  in  the  interest  of  the  railroads. 
What  I wish  to  say  is  this,  that,  at  the  time  to 
which  reference  was  made,  the  same  parties 
desired  to  purchase  the  canals  that  afterwards 
leased  them.  And  T knew  they  could  have  been 
sold,  because  I was  intimately  connected  with 
the  matter  at  that  time,  for  more  than  one  mil- 
lion of  dollars,  guarding  carefully  all  the  in- 
terests of  the  State,  including  a provision 
against  their  going  into  the  hands  of  railroads. 
As  to  myself,  I never  owned  a share  of  stock  in 
a railroad  company,  and  never  expect  to.  In 
all  legislation  upon  the  question  of  railroads,  I 
never  was  regarded  as  one  of  those  to  whom  the 
railroad  men  could  go  with  any  assurance  of  se- 
curing anything  particularly  advantageous  to 
their  interest.  Perhaps  they  might  think  that  I 
would  do  what  was  right,  but  they  did  not  look 
upon  me  as  specially  favorable  to  their  interests. 
I never  lived  in  a county  traversed  by  a rail- 
road, for  which  I am  very  sorry.  Recently, 
one  has  come  so  near  me  that  in  a clear  morning 
I can  hear  the  whistle,  and  I hope  it  will  soon 
be  completed  through  my  county. 

The  question  being  on  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Geauga  [Mr.  Hitchcock],  the 
yeas  and  nays  were  demanded.  The  demand 
was  not  sustained. 

The  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Would  a motion  be  in  order  now 
to  strike  out  this  section  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  motion 
was  made  yesterday,  and  negatived.  I believe 
it  would  not  be  in  order  now. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Is  section  eight  adopted 
now? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  is  simply 
agreed  to  in  the  form  it  is  in. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I propose,  at  some  time, 
to  make  a motion  to  transpose  this  to  its  proper 
place.  It  should  be  in  the  Article  on  Public 
Debt  and  Public  Works.  An  outsider  would 
as  soon  think  of  looking  for  the  sources  of  the 
Nile  in  Asia  as  to  look  for  a section  like  this 
under  Revenue  and  Taxation. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I object  to  this,  because  I believe 
it  is  out  of  order.  There  is  only  one  question 
here — that  is,  whether  we  will  strike  this  out, 
or  leave  it  as  it  is.  Those  who  desire  that 
transfer,  can  vote  to  strike  out,  with  the  inten- 
tion of  offering  it  as  an  amendment  to  the  prop- 
osition coming  from  the  Committee  on  Public 
Debt  and  Public  Works. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
would  advise  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root]  that  there  is  no  question  before  the 
Convention  at  this  time. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I understood  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland]  to  make  the 
motion  to  transpose  this. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I gave  notice  that  I would 


2144 


CONCERNING  THE  TAXATION  OF  DOGS. [141st 

Johnson,  Scofield,  Bishop,  Rowland,  Hostetter.  [Wednesday, 


do  it  at  some  time.  I do  not  object  to  the  sec- 
tion ; I only  object  to  the  place. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  That  objection 
was  made  yesterday,  on  the  motion  to  strike  it 
out  from  this  Article,  and  that  was  negatived, 
so  that  it  would  not  be  in  order  to  make  the 
motion  at  this  stage  of  the  Article. 

The  PRESIDENT#™  tempore.  The  Secretary 
will  read  section  nine. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  9.  The  General  Assembly  may,  throughout  the 
State,  or  in  any  county  or  counties  thereof,  provide  by 
la  w to  regulate,  restrain  or  prohibit,  by  special  tax,  as- 
sessment or  otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring  or  running 
at  large  of  dogs. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I offer  the  following  substi- 
tute for  section  nine. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  9.  The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  for 
the  regulation,  restraint  or  prohibition,  by  tax,  assess- 
ment or  otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring  or  running  at 
large  of  dogs  throughout  the  State,  or  in  any  one  or  more 
of  the  counties  therein.” 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  The  substance  of  the  two 
is  the  same. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]  now  offers 
a substitute  which  the  Chair  has  not  examined 
thoroughly,  but  it  appears  to  the  Chair  that  it 
makes  no  substantial  difference  in  the  section. 
There  may  possibly  be  a little  difference  in  the 
phraseology. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Is  an  amendment  to  the 
substitute  in  order? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  is 
of  opinion  that  an  amendment  to  the  substitute 
would  be  in  order. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I move  to  amend  the  sub- 
stitute by  striking  out  the  words,  “or  in  any 
one  or  more  counties.” 

The  PRESIDENTpro  tempore.  The  gentleman 
from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  moves  to  amend 
the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  JohnsonJ  by  striking  out  the  words,  “ or 
in  any  one  or  more  counties  therein.” 

Mr.  BISHOP.  Before  the  vote  is  taken,  I 
would  like  to  hear  my  friend  give  his  reasons. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I will  do  so  briefly. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I mean  my  colleague  [Mr. 
Johnson],  who  offered  the  substitute. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I shall  vote  against  the 
substitute ; but  the  object  of  my  amendment  is 
that,  if  this  substitute  be  adopted,  I desire  to 
amend  it  so  that  the  operation  of  this  provision 
shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  State.  I can 
see  no  reason  for  making  an  exception  that  the 
General  Assembly  shall  be  authorized  to  make 
special  legislation  in  one  or  more  counties  in 
the  State.  If  we  are  to  have  a provision  regu- 
lating dogs,  let  it  be  uniform  throughout  the 
entire  State. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Convention 
(at  12:25  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 :30  p.  m. 


The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore  [Mr.  Hum- 
phreville]  in  the  chair.  When  the  Conven- 
tion took  a recess,  it  had  under  consideration 
Proposition  No  .204,  thequestion  being  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr. 
Schofield]  to  the  substitute  for  section  nine, 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Johnson]. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  I desire  to  raise  a ques- 
tion of  order  here.  It  is  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  original  section,  with  the  amendment  there- 
to, shall  or  shall  not  take  precedence  of  the 
proposed  section  with  amendments  thereto. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  is 
of  the  opinion,  if  that  had  been  established  as 
the  rule  of  the  Convention,  it  might  have  been 
the  better  rule,  but  as  the  other  mode,  or  rather 
a mixed  mode  has  been  adopted,  this  substitute 
is  offered  for  section  nine ; then  any  proposition 
to  amend  section  nine,  according  to  the  ruling 
heretofore,  it  would  be  in  order  to  entertain  the 
substitute  and  perfect  the  substitute ; but  before 
the  question  can  be  taken  upon  striking  out 
section  nine,  it  will  be  in  order,  of  course,  to 
perfect  section  nine.  The  Convention  cannot 
be  driven  to  a vote  upon  striking  out  section 
nine  until  they  have  had  an  opportunity  to  per- 
fect it. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  May  I ask  whether  this 
is  not  the  state  of  the  case — whether,  having 
disposed  of  section  eight,  there  was  not  made  a 
motion  for  a substitute  for  section  nine,  before 
section  nine  had  been  read,  and  immediately 
after  the  reading  of  section  nine,  whether  I did 
not  offer  an  amendment  to  that  original  section, 
which  should  have  taken  precedence  of  the  sub- 
stitute first  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Johnson]  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  is 
not  aware  that  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr. 
Hostetter]  proposed  an  amendment  until  after 
the  Chair  had  entertained  the  substitute  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  John- 
son]. 

If  the  motion  was  made,  the  Chair  did  not 
understand  it  in  that  way. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  My  idea  is  that  wre  take 
the  section  first  and  perfect  it,  so  far  as  we  can, 
and  if  it  is  still  unsatisfactory,  there  is  a pro- 
priety in  considering  the  substitute. 

The  PRESIDENT#™  tempore.  The  Chair  is 
of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  the  better 
practice  to  complete  the  section  as  it  stands  in 
the  Report,  and  perfect  it  before  entering  into 
the  consideration  of  the  substitute,  but  the 
Chair  did  not  understand  that  any  motion  was  j 
made  to  perfect  the  substitute  until  after  the 
substitute  had  been  proposed.  If  the  Chair  was 
negligent  in  recognizing  the  gentleman  from 
Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter]  it  is  the  Chair’s  fault, 
but,  as  it  now  stands,  the  Chair  did  recognize 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]  in  [ 
offering  the  substitute,  and  he  has  entertained  | 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  j 
Scofield]  to  amend  that  substitute,  and  the  j 
Chair  is  not  disposed,  at  present,  to  change  the 
order  of  business,  but  will  go  on  until  it  is  dis- 
posed of.  Heretofore,  we  have  followed  a mixed  j 
form,  entertaining  both  the  original  and  the  j 
substitute,  sometimes  one  and  sometimes  the  f 
other;  but  it  would  be  better  to  go  through  ( 
with  one,  until  there  are  no  further  amendments  f 


Day.] 

March  18,  1874.] 


CONCERNING  THE  TAXING  OF  DOGS. 

Gurley,  Sample,  Burns,  Powell. 


2145 


proposed,  and  then  take  up  the  other.  The 
question  is  on  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  Would  it  not  be  proper  to 
make  a motion  to  perfect  the  original? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Not  while  the 
motion  is  pending. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I understand  the  gentleman 
from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter]  made  that  motion, 
the  first  motion  that  was  made. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
did  not  so  understand  it.  The  Chair  may  be  in 
the  wrong. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  The  Chair  did  not  catch  it, 
I suppose. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
did  not  understand  it. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I would  like  to  have  the 
question  stated. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  the  substitute  and  the  amend- 
ment. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Johnson  moves  to  amend  section  9 by  striking  out 
all  after  the  words  “section  9”  and  insert: 

“The  General  Assembly  may  provide,  by  law,  for  the 
regulation,  restraint  or  prohibition,  by  tax,  assessment 
or  otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring  or  runniDg  at  large 
of  dogs  throughout  the  State,  or  in  any  one  or  more  coun- 
ties therein.” 

Mr.  Scofield  moves  to  amend  by  striking  out  the 
words,  “or  in  any  one  or  more  counties  therein.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  I can  have  the  attention  of 
the  Convention  for  a few  minutes  I shall  be 
glad. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I regret  that  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Johnson]  has  seen  fit  to 
offer  a substitute,  not  particularly  because  it  is 
a substitute,  but  because  it  is  precisely  the 
same  as  the  original  section  — some  few 
words  transposed,  but  the  same  in  effect 
as  the  original  section.  It  leaves  out  one 
word  which,  perhaps,  has  no  power  or  ef- 
fect rosily,  one  way  or  the  other.  I regret  it 
simply  because  it  takes  the  place  of  the  amend- 
ment which  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr. 
Hostetter]  gave  notice  he  would  offer,  and 
which  he  supposes  he  had  offered ; and  which  I 
would  desire  to  say  a word  upon,  if  it  were  un- 
der discussion  now. 

I hope  the  Convention  will  vote  down,  not 
only  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield],  but  the  substitute,  so 
that  we  may  at  once  approach  the  original  ques- 
tion, and  if  it  is  found  that  the  original  section 
is  not  properly  worded,  or  needs  amendment, 
or  is  wholly  objectionable,  of  course  the-  Con- 
vention can  dispose  of  it  as  the  majority  may  see 
fit. 

This  section,  Mr.  President,  is  a compromise. 
So  far  as  I am  individually  concerned,  as  a mem- 
ber of  the  Committee,  I favored  the  idea  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Hos- 
tetter], that  the  law  upou  this  subject  ought 
to  be  uniform,  it  ought  not  to  be  subject  to  lo- 
cal option  or  to  legislation  in  particular  coun- 
ties one  way,  and  in  another  county  another 
way ; but  there  were  gentlemen  upon  that  Com- 
mittee who  did  not  desire  this  section  at  all,  but 
they  were  willing  to  sustain  the  section  if  this 
clause  were  contained  in  it,  giving  the  Legis- 

y.  n-137 


lature  power  to  exempt  certain  counties  from 
the  operation  of  law,  and  this  clause  “in  one 
or  more  counties,”  was  put  in  at  their  sugges- 
tion and  as  a compromise.  As  I remarked,  so 
far  as  I am  concerned,  as  an  individual  mem- 
ber of  this  Convention,  I prefer  that  that 
clause  of  the  section  should  be  stricken  out,  but 
I would  be  satisfied  to  have  it  in  rather  than 
not  to  have  this  section  at  all. 

The  apparent  necessity  for  a section  of  this 
kind,  in  the  Constitution,  seems  to  me,  must  be 
conceded  by  all.  I am  aware  that,  to  the  minds 
of  many,  and  to  my  own  mind,  to  a certain  ex- 
tent, it  is  objectionable,  to  descend  so  far  into 
particulars  as  to  indicate,  by  proper  name,  the 
animal  dog,  in  the  Constitution,  and  yet  I see  no 
wa}^  to  avoid  it.  The  Committee  availed  them- 
selves of  every  conceivable  and  possible  aid  in 
arriving  at  some  conclusion  that  would  be  sat- 
isfactory. The  Committee  even  called  in  the 
assistance  of  the  prolific  mind  of  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  and  this  section  is,  to 
a very  considerable  extent,  a copy  of  a draft 
that  was  drawn  by  him,  modified  in  one  or  two 
particulars,  it  is  true.  I certainly  have  no 
pride  of  opinion  as  to  what  form  the  section 
shall  take,  or  what  particular  language  shall 
be  introduced  to  bring  about  the  desired  result, 
but  I hope,  as  I said  before,  that  the  substitute 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Johnson],  will  either  be  withdrawn  by  him  or 
disposed  of  summarily,  so  as  to  get  at  the  sec- 
tion as  it  stands. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  Constitution  under 
which  we  are  living  is  sufficient,  without  any 
change  or  attention  whatever.  Everybody 
who  has  given  the  subject  any  attention  knows 
that  the  laws  upon  the  subject,  which  have 
been  passed  by  the  Legislature  from  time  to 
time,  have  utterly  failed  to  accomplish  the  object 
sought  to  be  accomplished  by  it,  resulting, 
mainly,  from  the  fact  that  laws  on  the  subject 
of  taxation  require  to  be  uniform  throughout 
the  State,  on  all  real  and  personal  property. 
Dogs  have  been  decided  by  the  courts  to  be 
personal  property,  and  you  cannot  tax  them  by 
any  different  rule  from  that  assessed  upon  other 
property  of  the  State,  so  that  you  cannot,  under 
the  old  Constitution,  or  the  one  we  are  in  the 
habit  of  calling  the  old  Constitution,  tax  them 
out  of  existence.  You  can  levy  a tax  upon 
them,  but  it  amounts  to  nothing,  unless  the 
owners  are  able  to  pay.  The  result  is  that  the 
tax  is  uncollectible. 

Mr.  POWELL.  There  has  been  another 
difficulty  besides  that.  It  is  this : that  there  is  a 
provision  in  our  Constitution  that  all  property 
shall  be  taxed  according  to  its  value,  and  in 
consequence  of  that  no  tax  can  be  levied  upon 
dogs,  because  they  would  be  valued  at  nothing. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Certainly.  That  is  a part  of 
the  difficulty  that  I refer  to,  taxing  by  uniform 
rule,  according  to  value  in  money,  so  that  all 
laws,  as  far  as  I am  able  to  judge,  have  utterly 
failed  to  accomplish  the  object  sought. 

It  has  been  suggested  to  me,  that  since  the 
change  in  that  subject,  by  the  adoption  of  the 
section  on  yesterday,  by  which  this  Convention 
abandoned  the  idea  of  a uniform  rule  of  taxa- 
tion, that  this  subject  matter  might  be  reached 
under  the  general  provision.  I do  not  think  so ; 
at  least  I am  so  much  afraid  that  it  could  not, 


2146 


CONCERNING  THE  TAXING  OF  DOGS. 

Burns,  Pratt. 


[141st 

[Wednesday, 


that  I desire  something  more  upon  that  subject. 
We  are  legislating,  so  to  speak,  for  the  inter- 
est of  the  people  of  the  State.  We  are  framing 
a law,  fundamental  in  its  nature,  enduring  in 
its  character,  at  least  for  a greater  number  of 
years  than  that  of  an  ordinary  law,  and  the 
people  of  this  State  expect  us  to  accomplish 
something  in  the  way  of  remedying  this  great 
and  growing  evil,  and  we  ought  not,  because 
this  is  said  to  be  a small  thing,  which  I do  not 
admit,  neglect  it,  because  to  a great  many  peo- 
ple of  this  State  it  is  a very  large  thing. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.] 

Leave  was  granted  Mr.  Burns  to  proceed. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  I promise  not  to  occupy  much 
further  time.  We  had  in  Columbus,  before  the 
Committee,  a large  compilation  of  statistics 
which  I have  not  been  able  to  procure  in  this 
city,  but  I have  a portion  of  them  here,  in  the 
statistics  of  1872.  We  had  before  us  at  that 
time,  and  some  other  member  of  the  Committee 
may  have  now,  the  statistics,  showing  for  the 
last  decennial  period,  commencing  at  1862  and 
ending  in  1872,  the  average  during  those  ten 
years,  of  the  amount  of  property  destroyed  by 
dogs  each  year,  which  footed  up  over  $200,000. 
The  gentleman  from  Hancock  [Mr.  Byal],  re- 
minds me  that  for  the  decennial  period  it  was 
over  $3,000,000.  It  was  over  $200,000  a year,  so 
that  the  fractions  multiplied  by  ten  would 
amount  to  another  million — over  $3,000,000 
during  the  period  of  ten  years,  that  were 
actually  destroyed  by  the  depredation  of  these 
animals,  notwithstanding  all  that  time  the 
Legislature  had  been  trying  to  remedy  the 
evil  so  far  as  they  were  able,  and  to  abate  this 
nuisance.  A great  many  of  the  people  of  the 
State  who  owned  land  unfit  for  the  raising  of 
the  different  kinds  of  grain  had  turned  their 
attention  to  grazing,  and  had  made  the  subject 
of  wool  growing  their  business,  and  made  it 
profitable  to  themselves  and  to  the  aggregate 
wealth  of  the  State;  but  in  many  localities 
they  were  absolutely  compelled  to  abandon  it, 
in  consequence  of  this  great  destruction. 

I have  before  me  statistics  of  1872,  giving  the 
items  of  1871  upon  this  subject,  and  during  the 
year  1871  there  were  39,726  sheep  killed,  valued 
at  $126,874.  There  were  26,945  sheep  injured, 
valued  at  $51,043.  The  total  number  of  sheep 
destroyed  or  injured  was  66,071,  valued  at  $177,- 
918.  Another  member  of  this  committee  has 
made  a more  accurate  and  more  detailed  state- 
ment than  I have,  and  I trust  he  will  give  the 
Convention  the  benefit  of  it,  showing,  that 
while  the  State  lost  in  its  material  wealth  dur- 
ing the  year  $177, 91S,  it  realized  from  the  tax 
on  these  worthless  animals  $6,000,  showing  a 
net  loss  of  over  $171,000. 

The  question  is  asked,  why  do  you  single  out 
dogs,  and  name  them  in  the  Constitution?  They 
say  we  are  willing  to  adopt  a Constitution  for 
the  protection  of  sheep,  naming  sheep  in  the 
Constitution.  I am  not  particular  how  you  ac- 
complish it;  as  I have  often  said  before,  lam 
as  willing  that  you  should  name  sheep  as  that 
you  should  name  dogs,  but  I insist  that  one  or 
the  other  should  be  so  designated  as  that  there 
can  be  no  doubt  on  the  subject. 

It  is  claimed,  further,  that  this  section  will 
not  accomplish  the  object  sought.  The  gentle- 
man from  Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  it  will  be  re- 1 


membered,  offered  an  amendment  to  the  entire 
section,  or  another  article,  giving  the  Legisla- 
ture power  to  enact  a law  authorizing  localities 
to  kill  or  destroy  dogs.  If  it  should  be  the  sense 
of  this  Convention  that  this  section  will  not  ac- 
complish that  object,  let  some  gentleman  intro- 
duce the  section  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Fairfield  [Mr.  Ewing],  and  let  us  adopt  that.  I 
think  this  section  is  broad  enough  to  accomplish 
that,  because  it  provides  that  you  may,  by  special 
tax,  assessment  or  otherwise,  prevent  the  keep- 
ing, harboring,  or  running  at  large,  of  dogs.  If 
you  can, by  the  enactment  of  a law  under  the  word 
“otherwise,”  prevent  the  keeping  of  dogs,  that, 
certainly,  is  as  broad  as  if  you  had  a section  by 
which  you  could  kill  them. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  “Restrain,” 
or  “prohibit.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  Restrain  or  prohibit  the  keep- 
ing— you  may  prohibit  the  keeping  of  dogs. 
You  take  the  State  of  Ohio  as  it  is  to-day, and  in 
nine-tenths  of  the  counties,  the  necessity,  if 
there  ever  was  a necessity,  for  keeping  dogs, 
has  wholly  disappeared.  There  was  a time 
when  there  might  be  a necessity,  perhaps,  in 
some  localities,  to  keep  a watch-dog,  to  keep  off 
wolves,  and  protect  the  stock  upon  the  farm,  but 
that  time  has  passed  away,  and  dogs,  now,  in- 
stead of  being  a protection  have  become,  them- 
selves, the  aggressors,  and  they  are  the  preda- 
tory animals,  instead  of  protecting  the  stock  of 
the  farm  against  the  ravages  of  predatory  ani- 
mals. You  occasionally  find  somebody  who 
owns  a little  dog,  who  places  a fabulous  or  fic- 
titious estimate  upon  him,  and  say,  “I  would 
not  give  my  little  dog  for  all  the  sheep  in  the 
country ;”  but  it  is  all  fiction ; it  is  all  a myth  and 
a shadow.  Let  me  give  you  an  instance  in  my 
own  county,  and  my  county  is,  by  no  means  the 
largest  wool  growing  county  in  the  State,  per- 
haps it  hardly  comes  up  to  the  average,  because 
I find  in  the  estimate,  here,  a large  number  of 
counties  that  go  far  beyond  the  county  that  I 
represent,  but  a farmer,  living  two  miles  from 
the  town  in  which  I live,  had  gone  to  the  trouble 
of  procuring  for  himself  a flock  of  about  five 
hundred  fine-wooled  sheep.  He  had  built  him- 
self a large  barn  and  sheep  houses,  for  protec- 
tion in  winter,  and,  in  a single  night,  dogs  from 
the  town  of  Mansfield  made  a raid  upon  the 
flock  of  sheep  to  which  I refer,  and  destroyed 
the  entire  flock.  I do  not  mean  by  that  that 
they  killed  every  sheep  in  the  flock,  but  they 
killed  about  two  hundred,  and  the  residue  of 
the  flock  were  either  worried  and  injured,  or 
frightened  so  that  they  were  valueless.  I never 
owned  a sheep  in  my  life,  and  I do  not  expect  to 
own  any. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Ever  own  a dog? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I owned  one  dog,  but  never 
but  one,  and  1 don’t  expect  ever  to  own  another. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Curtailed  your  interest  in  him  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  My  interest  was  curtailed  for 
me,  for  he  was  killed,  and  I had  no  tears  to  shed. 
But  here  was  a flock  of  sheep  valued  at  from 
three  to  four  thousand  dollars — because  they 
were  extra  fine-wooled — in  a single  night  de- 
stroyed by  four  or  five  dogs  from  the  town  of 
i Mansfield,  mostly  kept  by  one  man.  He  had 
| about  five  children  and  about  ten  dogs,  and  it 
j cost  him  more  to  keep  his  dogs  than  it  did  to  keep 
I his  children. 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  THE  TAXING  OF  DOGS. 

Pratt,  Burns,  Johnson,  Hostetter. 


2147 


March  18,  1874.] 


Mr.  PRATT.  And  he  kept  them  better. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I believe  he  kept  his  dogs  bet- 
ter than  he  did  his  children,  but  he  depended 
mainly  for  his  dogs  upon  what  they  could  steal. 
Now,  the  owner  of  those  sheep  sued  the  owner 
of  those  dogs,  and  he  received  a verdict  of  $900. 
The  verdict  was  not  high  enough.  I was  one 
of  the  attorneys  for  the  plaintiff. 

Mr.  PRATT.  And  acted  the  farce  of  sueing 
a beggar. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Yes,  sir ; and  got  neither  a dog 
nor  a sheep,  but  something  equally  as  valueless 
as  a dog.  We  could  not  sell  the  dogs  on  execu- 
tion, because  they  would  not  bring  anything. 
So  the  man  lost  his  sheep  and  got  his  judgment, 
paid  his  costs  and  his  lawyers’  fees,  and  went 
out  of  court,  and  got  nothing,  and  still  he  was 
not  happy. 

Gentlemen  of  this  Convention  have  seen  fit 
to  call  me  the  father  of  this  section.  I make  no 
such  claim,  but  I confess  to  having  furnished 
some  of  the  materials  out  of  which  the  section 
was  made.  I am  willing  to  divide  the  honor  or 
dishonor,  as  it  may  be,  with  other  gentleman 
of  that  Committee,  but  I undertake  to  say  that 
no  question  of  purely  a local  character  has  in- 
terested the  people  of  my  county  so  much  as 
this  question.  The  truth  is,  that  it  has  nearly 
driven  out  of  my  county  all  interest  in  wool 
growing.  My  county  may  have  worse  dogs 
than  any  others  in  the  State,  but  such  is  the  fact, 
and  I hope — because  I do  not  intend  to  say  any- 
thing more  upon  the  question — I hope  that  this 
Convention  will  adopt  some  means  and  put  it 
into  this  Constitution — some  clause  that  will 
cut  up  by  the  roots,  and  effectually  and  forever 
destroy  this  great  nuisance  that  now  infests 
and  besets  the  people  of  the  State,  destroying 
their  labor  and  their  enterprise  in  this  very 
laudable  and  very  desirable  pursuit. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  My  principal  object  in  of- 
fering this  substitute  was  to  get  the  language 
into  better  shape  than  I thought  it  was,  as  re- 
ported by  the  Committee,  but  there  appears  to 
be  a disposition  to  test  it,  and  as  I do  not  think 
there  is  really  enongh  difference  between  the 
two  to  pay  for  the  time  that  would  probably  be 
taken  up  in  discussing  their  relative  merits,  I 
shall,  with  the  consent  of  the  Convention, with- 
draw the  substitute. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I 
offer  an  amendment  for  the  original  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “may”,  in  the  first  line,  to 
and  including  the  word  “thereof,”  in  the  third  line. 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  to  regu- 
late, restrain  or  prohibit,  by  special  tax,  assessment  or 
otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring  and  running  at  large 
of  dogs.” 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  Mr.  President,  I am  not 
unaware  of  the  fact  that  this  section  has  been 
the  prolific  source  of  much  ridicule  both  in  and 
outside  of  this  body.  I congratulate  those 
whose  peculiar  forte  lies  in  that  kind  of  argu- 
ment, if  such  it  may  be  called,  upon  the  fine 
market  now  opened  up  for  the  vending  of  their 
wares.  Its  introduction  and  consideration  here 
will  be  a special  good  fortune  to  those  who  in- 
dulge in  wit  and  witty  sayings.  It  furnishes  a 
magnificent  opportunity  to  gentlemen  here  for 


the  display  of  ingenuity,  satire,  irony  and  bur- 
lesque. It  is  a convenient  way  some  gentlemen 
have  of  not  answering  argument.  I beg  pardon, 
in  advance,  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]  if,  inadvertently,  I should  quote  a por- 
tion of  his  learned  arguments,  delivered  a few 
days  since.  The  aid  of  ancient  and  modern  his- 
tory may  be  invoked.  Thebes  and  Baalbec, 
Rome  and  Greece,  Herculaneum  and  Pompeii, 
may  all  be  referred  to.  Neither  of  them  fur- 
nishes a precedent  for  this  extraordinary  inno- 
vation. 

We  maybe  told  that  “the  future  prosperity  of 
the  Republic  trembles  upon  the  decision  of  this 
question.”  The  habit  of  letting  dogs  run  at 
large,  unfettered  by  any  restraint,  is  time-hon- 
ored. It  is  as  old  as  the  hills.  It  is  to  the  dog 
“what  the  Fourth  of  July  is  to  the  patriot” — “it 
is  the  corner  stone  of  his  liberties.”  “Let  but 
our  dogs  go  free  and  our  country  is  safe ; our 
people  can  not  be  enslaved.”  All  this  and  much 
more  may,  and  probably  will,  be  said. 

Again,  some  gentleman,  remarkable  for  his 
modesty,  if  for  nothing  else,  “for  the  sake  of 
that  class  to  which  he  is  told  I belong,”  desires 
me  to  withdraw  my  amendment. 

Mr.  President,  I have  already  mentally  dis- 
counted all  these  things.  Neither  ridicule  nor 
impertinence  will  be  likely  to  influence  my 
judgment  or  effect  my  action.  To  make  this 
section  effective  it  must  be  general.  To  that  end, 
either  my  amendment  or  one  similar  in  effect 
must  be  adopted.  Special  legislation — nearly 
always  of  doubtful  propriety — would,  in  this 
instance,  be  grossly  inefficient  and  unjust. 
Dogs  are  not  presumed  to  pay  much  attention 
to  geographical  divisions.  County  lines  have 
no  terrors  for  them.  Mutton,  to  the  taste  of 
the  dog,  is  what  “ sweet  cider  and  apple  jack  ” 
were  to  those  described  by  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  in  his  masterly  effort  the  other  day. 

It  is  proverbial  and  true  that  a dog  rarely 
kills  a sheep  at  home.  I have  never  known  an 
instance.  I do  know  that  they  frequently  go 
half  a dozen  miles  or  more  from  home  to 
commit  these  depredations.  In  view  of  these 
facts,  would  it  not  be  palpably  unjust  to  permit 
the  enactment  of  a law  to  apply  only  to  some 
counties  ? 

But,  is  the  question  of  sufficient  magnitude 
to  challenge  the  attention  of  this  Convention? 

Mr.  President,  Ohio  is  the  banner  State  as  to 
wool-growing,  having  over  a million  more 
sheep  than  any  other  State  in  the  Union.  This 
statement  is  based  upon  the  census  reports  of 
1870.  More  than  one-seventh  of  all  the  sheep 
in  all  the  States  and  Territories  are  in  this 
State. 

A word  as  to  the  county  which  I have  the 
honor,  in  part,  to  represent.  Stark,  in  point  of 
numbers,  is  the  twentieth  sheep  county  in  the 
State.  She  stands  seventh  as  a producer  and 
harborer  of  dogs.  We  have  one  dog  to  twenty- 
one  sheep — nearly.  We  are  bounded  by  eight 
counties.  It  is  plainly  apparent  that  unless  a 
law  applied  alike  to  all  those  counties,  our  re- 
lief would  be  but  partial,  and  hence  the  law 
would  be  unsatisfactory.  It  would  be  almost 
wholly  inefficient  unless  it  applied  to  all  the 
counties.  What  is  true  of  Stark  is  alike  true  of 
all,  or  nearly  all  the  counties  in  the  State. 
Strike  out  “ any  county  or  counties.”  Let  the 


2148 


SHEEP  KILLED  BY  DOGS. [141st 

Hostetter,  Voris,  Griswold,  Phellis,  Hitchcock,  Rowland,  etc.  [WednesdaYj 


section  be  general,  and  not  local  in  its  applica- 
tion. 

I have  the  statistics  of  the  number  of  dogs  in 
the  State  for  the  years  1870  and  1871,  being  the 
only  year  for  which  I have  found  statistics  up- 
on the  subject. 

In  1871  there  were  in  this  State  185,023  dogs. 
During  the  same  year  there  were  killed  and 
wounded  65,971  sheep,  valued,  in  the  aggregate, 


at  $177,917.  Nearly  as  many  dollars  lost  as 
dogs  kept.  What  is  worse  still  is,  that  the  evil 
is  increasing.  Let  us  see. 

DOGS- 

In  1870  there  were 183,424 

In  1871  there  were 185,023 

Increase  in  one  year 1,599 

Amount  of  injury  to  sheep  by  dogs  in  the  year 

1870  $143,009  89 

Amount  of  injury  to  sheep  by  dogs  in  the  year 

1871  177,917  00 

Increase  of  injury  during  one  year $34,908  11 

SHEEP. 

In  1870  there  were  in  the  State 5,052,028 

In  1871  there  were  in  the  State 4,302,904 

Decrease  in  one  yer 749,124 


Now,  in  view  of  the  increased  development, 
population,  and  general  prosperity  of  our  State, 
we  might  reasonably  presume  that  the  wool 
growing  interest  would  go  hand  in  hand  with 
other  industrial  pursuits  in  the  State.  Such, 
however,  is  not  the  case.  It  falls  sadly  behind, 
when  compared  with  many  other  products. 

Taking  the  statistics  as  printed  from  1861  to 
1870  inclusive,  the  yearly  average  number  of 
sheep  for  that  decade  was  5,816,091.  The  num- 
ber reported  in  1872  was  4,464,898,  being  1,351,- 
193  less  than  the  yearly  average  for  the  last  ten 
years. 

Mr.  President,  the  mere  statement  of  these 
facts  seems  to  me  to  be  sufficient.  Comment 
is  unnecessary.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether 
this  Convention  will  ignore  this  great  interest. 
Would  it  be  just  to  do  so  ? Can  we  afford  to  do 
so?  I am  well  aware  that  a large  majority  of 
the  members  of  this  body  are  not  wool  growers, 
and  hence  not  directly  interested  in  that  which 
affects  the  production  of  this  great  staple. 

Mr.  VORIS.  But  we  love  mutton. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  Why  torment  us  before 
our  time?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  VORIS.  We  all  love  mutton. 

Mr.  HOSTETTER.  All  dogs  do.  [Laugh- 
ter]. Yet  I will  venture  to  suggest  that  it  may 
not  be  wise  in  us  to  disregard  the  wishes  of 
those  who  are  thus  interested.  I,  for  one,  will 
not  place  myself  in  antagonism  to  that  large, 
worthy  and  influential  class  of  citizens.  I 
trust  the  amendment  will  prevail. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I am  surprised  at  the 
logic  of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 
but  the  difficulty  he  labored  with  has  been  re- 
moved, and  we  are  brought  back  again  to  the 
original  section,  and  the  crusade  against  the  dog 
is  renewed.  We  have  been  favored  with  statis- 
tics by  several  gentlemen,  all  of  which  have 
been  on  our  tables  for  a long  time,  but  I sub- 
mit, on  behalf  of  the  dog,  these  statistics  are 
very  imperfect.  They  show  us  distinctly  the 
number  of  sheep  killed,  but  it  does  not  appear 
that,  in  the  estimate  of  their  value, any  account  is 
made  for  the  pelts.  The  dogs  left  the  pelt  to 


the  owner,  and  we  all  know  the  pelt  is  of  as 
much  value  as  the  carcass. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me,  I will  say  that  these  statistics  are  taken 
upon  statements  made  under  oath. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Undoubtedly  so,  but  they 
are  statements  by  the  enemies  of  the  dog  and 
ex  parte  affidavits. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  gentleman  says  the 
pelt  is  worth  as  much  as  the  carcass.  I pre- 
sume the  gentleman  is  well  advised,  and  I ask 
him  the  average  price  of  sheep  pelts  in  Ohio. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  You  are  in  the  business, 
and  I must  leave  you  to  answer  your  own  ques- 
tions. I was  only  saying  that  the  value  of  the 
wool  and  skins  were  not  taken  into  account  in 
these  returns.  Besides,  the  best  wooled  sheep 
make  the  poorest  mutton.  I am  not  here  to 
defend  the  dog.  I only  say  that  we  should  not 
be  misled  by  these  statistics.  “Every  dog 
should  have  his  day,”  and  these  returns  make 
no  account  of  the  value  of  the  service  rendered 
by  the  faithful  watch-dog,  or  the  good  dog  who 
saved  the  drowning  boy. 

We  should  not  regard  simply  one  side  of  the 
question.  I desire  fair  play  in  this  “dog  fight.” 
I must  admit  that  the  question  of  hydrophobia 
should  also  be  considered.  We  need  some  pro- 
tection in  cities  on  that  score. 

All  I want  is  to  have  this  matter  fairly  con- 
sidered, and  not  hastily  adopt  a section  out  of 
mere  prejudice  against  the  sheep-killing  dogs. 
But,  seriously,  Mr.  President,  is  not  this  section 
entirely  unnecessary  ? Does  not  the  fifth  sec- 
tion of  the  Article  give  the  General  Assembly 
all  the  power  needed  on  this  subject?  It  au- 
thorizes tax  by  license,  &c.  Under  a proper 
system  of  license  upon  dogs,  the  owner  can  be 
compelled  to  pay  a tax,  and,  in  addition  thereto, 
be  required  to  give  bond  for  the  good  behavior 
of  his  dog.  If  he  fails  to  take  out  his  license, 
or  give  the  required  security,  the  neglect  can 
be  enforced  by  penalties  both  against  the  dog 
and  man.  In* this  way  the  worthless  cur  can 
be  exterminated,  and  the  good  dog  protected. 
It  seems  to  me  this  will  be  all  that  is  necessary 
to  protect  the  sheep,  and  at  the  same  time  allow 
those  who  prefer  to  keep  dogs  to  enjoy  that 
sacred  privilege.  Some  people  think  very 
highly  of  dogs,  and  we  should  not  make  our 
Constitution  having  regard  to  one  interest 
merely.  I am,  therefore,  opposed  to  this  seo- 
tion,  as  being  unnecessary. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns],  spoke  of  this  section  as 
being  a compromise.  I admit  that  among  the 
members  of  our  Committee  it  might  have  been 
so;  but  it  is  a most  uncompromising  section  so 
far  as  the  dog  is  concerned.  It  leaves  him  no 
quarter.  I noticed  this  morning  when  the 
Convention  opened,  that  there  was  a live  dog 
upon  the  floor.  He  must,  by  reason  of  his  keen 
instinct,  have  been  brought  here  upon  this 
declaration  of  war  against  his  species,  he  smelled 
the  battle  afar  off,  and  heard  the  shout  of  the 
captains,  for  all  I know,  he  was  here  and  wist- 
fully looking  around  for  some  friend  to  defend 
him  in  his  battle  where  the  very  existence  of 
his  species  seems  to  hang  trembling  in  the  bal- 
ance. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Does  the  gentleman  say  he  did 
not  bring  him  in  here  for  effect  ? 


CONCERNING  DOGS  AND  SHEEP. 

Rowland,  Burns,  Pease,  Hoadly. 


2149 


Day.] 

March  18, 1874.] 


Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  is  a dogmatic  state- 
ment of  the  case.  When  he  saw  us  tugging  at 
this  internal  improvement  resolution,  he  turned 
and  retired  in  disgust.  But  there  is  enough  im- 
portance in  this  claim  for  protection  of  the  wool 
interest  to  give  it  some  consideration,  and  the 
discussion  in  this  Committee  developed  the  fact 
that  there  was  a great  diversity  of  interest  in 
the  State,  and  while  protection  was  needed  in 
some  counties,  in  others  there  was  no  need  of 
it,  and  even  if  it  were  necessary  in  one  section 
it  could  not  become  applicable  in  another,  and 
it  would  be  unwise  and  impolitic  to  attempt  to 
tax  or  destroy  dogs  in  this  country  where  there 
are  but  few  sheep ; it  would  be  unjust  to  tax  the 
owners  of  dogs  in  that  portion  of  the  State 
where  the  wool  interest  is  inconsiderable,  to 
compensate  for  the  loss  from  their  dogs;  it 
would  raise,  in  the  now  sheep-raising  sections  a 
howl  so  pitious  and  profound  as  to  shatter  this 
Article  before  the  people  when  they  come  to 
vote  upon  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Dogs  cannot  vote? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  They  can  raise  a howl, 
nevertheless,  and  I tell  the  gentleman  from 
Richland  [Mr.  Burns]  that  so  great  is  the  at- 
tachment in  families  for  that  animal,  and  so 
many  are  his  friends,  that  from  thousands  of 
dwellings  where  he  is  appreciated  there  will 
come  up  an  earnest  and  defiant  protest  against 
this  unnecessary  and  cruel  assault  upon  him ; 
and,  sir,  his  own  virtues — his  love,  his  fidelity 
and  courage — “would  plead,  like  angels,  trum- 
pet-tongued,  against  the  deep  damnation  of  his 
taking  off.” 

I do  not  desire  to  say  anything  more  on  the 
dog.  I do  not  wish  to  ignore  the  importance  of 
the  question;  it  is  a very  serious  one.  It  is 
probable,  as  the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]  has  indicated,  that  in  other  sections 
of  this  Report  ample  power  was  conferred ; but 
as  to  our  attempting  to  allow  a law  to  be  passed 
which  will  act  uniformly  throughout  this  State, 
whenever  you  strike  Southern  Ohio  you  would 
assuredly  provoke  opposition  to  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I would  be  greatly  remiss  in 
the  duties  which  I have  to  discharge  if  I did  not 
give  this  subject  the  consideration  that,  in  my 
judgment,  its  importance  demands.  We  have  a 
large  wool  growing  interest  in  our  section  of 
the  country,  and  have  suffered  seriously,  as 
will  be  seen  by  turning  to  the  tables  of  1872  and 
1873,  the  loss  being  considerably  over  four 
thousand  dollars  in  each  year;  there  being  no 
seeming  way  to  prevent  it.  How  far  the  Con- 
stitution which  we  are  now  framing  will  reme- 
dy this  evil,  without  such  an  Article  as  this,  I 
shall  not  undertake  to  say.  Perhaps  it  will  be 
broad  enough  without  it,  but  certainly,  under 
the  Constitution  under  which  we  are  living,  it 
is  entirely  inadequate,  for  the  reason  that  all 
taxes  must,  under  that,  be  uniform.  If  any 
value  is  given  to  a dog  it  must  be  taxed  upon 
that  valuation,  just  as  all  other  property  is 
taxed.  That  is  not  sufficiently  broad. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  is  arguing 
on  the  old  Constitution ; that  provided  that  the 
assessment  should  be  by  uniform  rules,  not 
equitable  rules. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I would  be  glad  to  learn  from 
my  distinguished  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 


Hoadly],  or  somebody  else,  who  is  able  to  tell 
me,  what  “equitable  rules”  mean? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I shall  answer  my  friend 
that  it  is  a maxim  that  equity  regards  as  done 
that  which  ought  to  be  done. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I remember  what  a learned 
Chancellor  once  said  when  he  was  speaking  of 
the  rules  of  equity,  and  how  difficult  it  was  to 
establish  a definite  rule,  or  to  get  a definition  of 
equity.  He  said  you  might  as  well  undertake 
to  definitely  establish  equity  by  the  length  of 
the  Chancellor’s  foot  as  to  undertake  to  say  a 
thing  should  be  governed  by  any  fixed  rule. 
You  cannot  fix,  in  this  Article,  any  rule  of 
equity,  and  it  is  something  that  the  Legislature 
must  adjust.  It  is  proposed  to  have  it  so  fixed 
as  that,  when  the  thing  is  adjusted,  it  will 
fit  the  dog,  and  anything  that  is  short  of  that 
comes  short  of  protecting  the  interests  of  the 
State,  and  especially  the  wool  growing  interests 
of  the  State. 

I do  not  object,  where  a rule  cannot  be  prop- 
erly applied  throughout  the  State,  to  have  cer- 
tain counties  excepted.  I do  not  see  anything 
wrong  in  it,  if  it  could  be  done  with  propriety 
and  safety  to  the  rest  of  the  State.  I say  this 
is  a case  where  it  cannot  so  be  done.  Suppose 
that,  in  one  of  the  counties  of  the  State,  a cen- 
tral county,  for  instance,  it  should  be  provided 
by  a legislative  enactment  that  every  dog  in 
that  county  should  be  destroyed.  It  is  a wool 
growing  county.  The  county  is  surrounded 
on  all  sides,  and  all  the  counties  around  it  have 
dogs.  I would  inquire  what  security  the  wool 
growers  of  that  county  would  have  if  all  the 
dogs  in  the  county  were  destroyed,  while  all 
the  dogs  of  all  the  surrounding  counties  were 
running  at  large.  It  can  be  easily  seen  it  is  no 
protection  whatever.  It  might  possibly  protect 
the  very  central  townships  in  that  county,  to 
some  extent,  but  all  the  outside  townships  in 
that  county  would  be  subject  to  these  canine 
incursions. 

There  is  another  objection  that  I have  to  mak- 
ing this  article  apply  to  some  counties  and  not 
to  others.  I believe  that  all  dogs  are,  by  nature, 
disposed  to  worry  sheep  if  they  have  a good 
opportunity.  I believe,  as  a principle,  that  a 
hungry  dog  will  get  his  food  where  he  can, 
and  I do  not  know  that  they  discriminate  be- 
tween the  owners  of  sheep,  and  I have  never 
known  a case  in  which  any  distinction  was 
made.  They  will  seek  that  which  they  desire. 

I have  a great  fondness  for  dogs.  I have  a dog 
that  I regard  very  valuable.  I regard  him  as  a 
very  sensible  dog;  indeed,  I have  some  notion 
of  sending  him  to  school;  but  I do  not  care  to 
have  my  dog  taxed  and  myself  compelled  to 
pay  a tax  upon  him,  and  my  friend,  Mr.  Her- 
ron,  here,  who  may  be  the  owner  of  a mean 
dog  and  pay  no  tax  upon  him.  I say  it  is  not 
fair ; and  if  the  Legislature,  for  any  purpose 
whatever,  says  it  is  right  to  tax  my  dog,  it  is, 
upon  the  same  principle,  right  to  tax  yours.  If 
it  is  not  right  to  tax  yours,  it  is  not  right  to  tax 
mine.  If  it  is  right  to  kill  my  dog  because  my 
neighbor  has  lost  his  sheep,  it  is  right  to  tax, 
and,  if  the  tax  is  not  paid,  to  kill  yours;  and 
you  cannot  say  this  is  a principle  that  should 
apply  in  one  county,  and  not  apply  equally  in 
all  the  counties.  It  should  apply  throughout 
the  State  irrespective  of  the  residence  of  the 


2150 


CONCERNING  DOGS  AND  SHEEP. 


41st 

[Wednesday, 


Pease,  Hoadly,  Pratt,  Phellis. 


dog.  It  should  reach  the  dog  because  of  his 
natural  habits,  and  because  the  interests  of  the 
State  demand  that  some  protection  of  this  kind 
should  be  extended  to  the  wool  growers.  It 
seems  to  me  this  is  the  only  way  of  reaching 
this  evil.  You  concede  the  principle  as  being 
right  and  just,  when  you  consent  that  it  may 
be  done  in  some  counties. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  How  do  you  propose  to  pro- 
tect Trumbull  and  Mahoning  counties  that  lie 
next  to  Pennsylvania  and  those  counties  which 
border  on  Indiana? 

Mr.  PEASE.  We  shall  have  to  send  delega- 
tions over  into  Indiana  and  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  PE  ATT.  Keep  a patrol  along  the  bor- 
der. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  They  have  a very  stringent 
law  in  Indiana. 

Mr.  PEASE.  If  the  dogs  of  Indiana  and 
Pennsylvania  come  into  Ohio,  they  are  ours  and 
we  will  make  an  early  funeral  of  them.  You 
cannot  prevent  the  horse  thieves  of  Indiana 
and  the  horse  thieves  of  Pennsylvania  (for 
I expect  they  have  thieves  as  well  as  dogs) 
from  coming  into  Ohio,  but  we  can  punish 
them,  if  we  can  catch  them.  But  we  can  pro- 
tect our  own  people  from  these  and  other  dep- 
redations, and,  because  we  cannot  control  all 
the  States  of  the  Union,  and  all  the  dogs  of  the 
United  States,  it  is  no  argument  why  we  should 
not  protect  the  people  of  our  own  State.  I sub- 
mit that  the  proposition  of  my  colleague  is  a 
fair  one  and  that  it  should  be  adopted. 

Mr.  PKATT.  If  this  section  is  to  be  adopted, 
I sincerely  hope  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter]  will 
prevail,  in  order  that  the  section  with  the  laws 
passed  in  pursuance  thereof,  shall  have  uniform 
operation  throughout  the  State.  I shall  be  most 
happy  to  see  some  provision  of  this  Article 
upon  the  subject  of  Kevenue  and  Taxation 
that  shall  be  uniform,  and  so  provided  in  the 
body  of  it  throughout  the  State.  I shall  also  be 
happy  to  see  one  section  of  this  Article  that  is 
not  encumbered  by  that  meaningless  phrase, 
“equitable  rules.”  But,  however,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I hope  this  section  will  not  be  adopted  by 
this  Convention.  I am  one  of  those  who  be- 
lieve in  laying  down  a fundamental  law  of  the 
State  that  shall  curtail  details  as  much  as  prac- 
ticable, and  if  the  same  result  can  be  arrived  at 
in  some  other  way  than  through  the  adoption 
of  this  section  providing  especially  for  dogs 
and  nothing  else,  I heartily  desire  that  result 
to  be  produced ; fori  confess  to  a repugnance 
almost  insurmountable  to  incorporating  into 
the  great  charter  of  our  rights,  the  fundamental 
law  of  our  State,  the  Constitution  under  which 
all  our  laws  are  to  be  enacted,  and  upon  which 
our  whole  social  and  civil  fabric  shall  stand, 
this  word  dog. 

I am  not  opposed,  Mr.  President,  to  giving  to 
the  agriculturists  of  the  State  all  the  protection 
their  interest  demand.  I represent  upon  this 
floor  an  agricultural  community,  I have  been 
appealed  to  by  members  of  that  community  to 
see  that  the  door  was  thrown  open  so  that  the 
Legislature  might  take  action  in  favor  of  the 
interests  of  the  wool  growing  farmers  against 
this  enemy  of  theirs.  I design  to  do  that 
faithfully,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  for  that  pur- 
pose, this  section  is  unnecessary.  I admit  all 


the  force  of  the  argument  drawn  from  the  great 
interests  involved.  The  detailed  statement 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Hos- 
tetter], so  overwhelmingly  proves  that  the 
burden  levied  upon  the  wool  growing  interests 
of  the  State  by  the  destruction  of  property  in 
sheep,  in  the  year  to  which  these  statistics  re- 
late, by  dogs,  is  equivalent  to  a tax  of  two  per 
cent,  upon  the  whole  property  in  sheep,  that  no 
attempt  can  be  made  to  refute  such  proof.  Now 
it  is  very  evidehtthat  such  a tax,  in  addition  to 
the  other  taxes  of  the  State,  would  grind  out 
almost  any  interest  in  the  State ; that,  therefore, 
as  a matter  of  economy,  it  becomes  important 
that  some  provision  should  be  made  in  the  Con- 
stitution whereby  that  interest  can  be  pro- 
tected. 

Now,  what  was  the  objection,  under  the  Con- 
stitution of  1851,  to  the  enactment  of  laws  am- 
ply protecting  sheep-growing  interests  ? Sim- 
ply and  nakedly,  as  it  has  been  stated,  that  no 
assessment  or  license  tax  could,  under  that 
Constitution,  be  levied.  I hardly  believe  my- 
self that  the  objection  really  prevailed,  but  so 
it  has  been  claimed  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State,  by  those  enacting  the  laws,  that  there 
was  no  way  of  reaching  dog  property  other 
than  by  a uniform  rule  of  assessment,  and  that 
taxes  and  assessments  uniformly,  as  upon  their 
value  compared  with  other  property  in  the 
State,  would  amount  to  nothing — would  pro- 
duce no  beneficial  result  as  applied  to  these 
predatory  animals,  the  dog  race.  Well,  now, 
admitting  that  is  true,  this  Convention  has 
already  got  away  from  that  rule,  and  we  have 
provided  for  a system  of  license,  for  the  impo- 
sition of  taxes  by  license.  This  section  does 
scarcely  move  forward,  unless  it  be  in  this,  that 
the  power  is  here  given  to  prohibit  the  keeping 
of  dogs  at  all,  which  can  only  be  made  effectual 
under  penal  statutes  declaring  it  to  be  a misde- 
meanor to  be  the  owner  of  a dog;  but  I submit 
that,  under  the  provisions  of  section  five,  the 
same  identical  results  can  be  produced  that  can 
under  this;  and  let  me,  for  a moment,  enter 
upon  a little  detail  of  a law  that  might  be 
enacted  under  that  provision,  which  pro- 
vides for  licenses.  Suppose,  for  instance, 
that  every  dog  owner  in  the  State  was  required 
by  statute  to  take  out  a license  for  the  keeping 
of  his  dog  for  each  year  at  an  expense  of  five 
dollars.  The  property  is  worthless,  he  might 
excuse  himself  from  so  doing  and  refuse  to  do 
it ; but  let  there  be  had  upon  this  refusal  to  take 
a license,  a personal  penalty  against  him,  mak- 
ing it  an  offense  for  him  to  refuse  to  conform  to 
the  law  requiring  him  to  take  out  a license. 
Enforce  that  penalty  by  fine,  or  imprisonment, 
if  you  please,  because  it  would  be  amply  com- 
petent for  the  legislative  body  to  do  that  thing. 
From  that  source  you  derive  a revenue ; if  you 
compel  by  penal  laws  the  taking  of  a license, 
you  can  derive  a fund  that  can  be  devoted  to 
the  remuneration  of  the  sheep  owners  of  the 
State  whose  property  might  be  destroyed  by 
dogs,  upon  their  proving  their  damages.  Now, 
practically,  this  is  done  in  one  State  of  the 
Union  in  precisely  the  form  I have  indicated. 
A revenue  is  derived  by  license  on  the  dog  from 
his  owner,  enforced  by  penalties  and  lodged  in 
the  public  treasury. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  In  what  State? 


CONCERNING  DOGS  AND  SHEEP. 

Pratt,  Miner,  Townsend,  Phellis,  West. 


2151 


Day.] 

March  18, 1874.] 


Mr.  PRATT.  In  the  State  of  Massachusetts. 
In  a single  township  in  Berkshire  county — my 
native  county — the  sum  amounts  to  more  than 
$500.  So  much  as  will  compensate  for  loss  is 
distributed  to  owners  of  sheep  who  are  able  to 
prove,  under  oath,  before  officers  correspond- 
ing to  our  trustees,  the  select  men  of  the  town- 
ship, their  damages.  Upon  the  proof  being 
made,  they  receive  their  warrant  upon  the 
treasury  and  go  away  satisfied.  All  that  can 
be  done  without  encumbering  this  great  article 
of  our  fundamental  law  by  any  whimseys  what- 
ever, or  anything  that  shall  bring  ridicule  upon 
it,  here  or  elsewhere,  and  so  I hope,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  this  section  of  the  article  will  not  be 
adopted. 

Mr.  MINER.  I made  my  speech  upon  the 
dog  the  other  day,  and  I have  nothing  further 
to  say,  except  to  correct  an  impression  which 
my  colleague  [Mr.  Rowland]  seems  to  enter- 
tain, that  the  wool  interest,  or  the  keeping  of 
sheep,  is  confined  to  a few  counties  in  the  State. 
I had  that  impression  myself,  and  hence  I 
wanted  to  put  in  the  words  making  it  apply  to 
certain  counties,  as  the  Legislature  might  de- 
termine ; but  I was  informed  by  a farmer  of  this 
county  this  morning  that  twelve  of  his  sheep 
had  been  killed  this  winter  and  spring  by  dogs, 
which  he  estimated  to  be  worth  twenty-five  dol- 
lars per  head.  He  is  trying  to  raise  the  South- 
downs  for  mutton.  He  told  me  of  a fancy 
farmer  in  Butler  county  who  had  a buck  killed 
for  which  he  paid  $120,  and  I apprehend  that 
there  is  no  county  in  the  State,  and  so  I believe 
the  statistics  show,  in  which  more  or  less  sheep 
are  not  raised.  In  view  of  these  facts  I am  now  in 
favor  of  striking  out  these  words  and  making 
the  rule  general ; but  I agree  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Williams  [Mr. Pratt],  that  the  thing 
is  amply  provided  for  in  another  part  of  the 
Constitution,  and  shall  vote  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I propose  to  say  but 
little  on  the  dog  question.  I shall  favor 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Stark 
[Mr.  Hostetter].  I think  the  result  desired 
can  be  accomplished  in  no  other  way  and  be  as 
satisfactory.  There  is  a very  large  interest  in 
this  State  engaged  in  wool  growing  pursuits, 
and  are  the  owners  of  large  flocks  of  sheep,  and 
while  we  are  framing  a Constitution,  we  might 
as  well  make  it  to  meet  all  the  interests,  if  we 
can  without  doing  violence  to  any  others.  The 
results  sought  to  be  obtained  by  this  section 
can  probably  be  reached  by  the  fifth  section 
which  has  already  been  adopted.  But  it  would 
be  more  satisfactory  to  the  farming  interest  of 
the  State  if  there  was  a section  directly  on 
that  subject  which  they  could  understand  per- 
fectly. If  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter]  prevails,  it  will 
leave  this  section  in  this  way : “ The  General 
Assembly  may  provide  by  law  to  regulate,  re- 
strain or  prohibit,  by  special  tax,  assessment  or 
otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring  and  running 
at  large  of  dogs.” 

That  is  permissive  to  the  General  Assembly, 
that  they  may  take  such  action  as  they  see  prop- 
er, after  investigating  the  whole  subject,  having 
representatives  from  every  county  in  the  State. 
I think  it  is  not  improbable  they  will  pass  a law 
remitting  this  question  of  taxing  and  restraining 
dogs,  to  counties  themselves,  perhaps  to  the 


trustees  of  townships  and  commissioners  of  the 
counties.  It  would  be  acceptable  to  the  people. 
In  cases  of  taxes  levied  upon  dogs,  what  would 
become  of  the  money  ? Should  it  be  used  to  re- 
imburse owners  of  sheep  for  loss?  I have  no 
doubt  the  subject  can  be  properly  arranged  by 
the  Legislature,  and  I think  the  Constitution,  if 
this  section  is  left  in,  will  be  more  satisfactory 
to  the  farming  interest  of  the  State  generally, 
and  I,  therefore,  shall  vote  for  the  section,  and 
also  the  amendment  of  my  friend  from  Stark. 
We  who  do  not  live  in  the  wool  growing  coun- 
ties can  scarcely  appreciate  the  importance  of 
this  question  to  those  counties  where  the  raising 
of  sheep  is  the  largest  interest,  and  destruction 
of  their  flocks  by  dogs  greatly  dreaded.  There 
is  no  one  thing  in  this  Constitution  that  affects 
them  so  directly  as  this  clause.  It  can  do  no 
harm,  and  will  subserve  an  important  interest 
of  the  State. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  I represent  one  of  the  large 
wool  growing^  sections  of  the  State,  and  what 
the  wool  growers  almost  universally  ask  is,  not 
more  stringent  laws  for  the  restraint  or  exter- 
mination of  dogs,  but  the  power  to  assess  or  tax 
them.  The  laws  are  sufficiently  stringent  now 
for  that  purpose,  but  the  difficulty  is  to  enforce 
them.  If  the  authority  to  levy  a tax  was  suf- 
ficiently large  to  create  a fund  that  would  be 
ample  to  pay  all  damage  done  to  sheep,  it  would 
be  much  more  effectual  than  more  stringent 
laws  to  prevent  their  running  at  large,  or  for 
their  extermination,  as  such  laws  cannot  be  en- 
forced. I have  no  particular  objection  to  ex- 
empting Hamilton,  and  such  counties  as  raise 
no  sheep,  from  the  provisions  of  this  section, 
but  must  insist  that  the  amount  of  capital  in- 
vested in  this  business  in  other  portions  of  the 
State  should  be  in  some  way  effectually  pro- 
tected against  the  depredations  of  these  worth- 
less curs. 

Mr.  WEST.  I was  especially  commissioned 
to  look  after  this  question  by  my  people,  in  this 
Convention,  because  a very  large  interest  in 
my  county  and  the  surrounding  counties  is  con- 
cerned in  wool  growing,  and  the  very  serious 
damages  that  have  resulted  to  that  interest  in 
this  State  in  consequence  of  the  destruction ; 
and,  if  the  Convention  wilLJbear  with  me  a few 
minutes,  I shall  state  some  of  the  difficulties 
that  have  heretofore  existed,  because  I hap- 
pened to  be  present  and  know  of  some  of  the 
troubles  growing  out  of  the  existing  state 
of  the  law.  Prior  to  the  year  1858  attempts 
had  been  made  to  legislate  upon  this  subject, 
and  without  success,  the  Constitution  being  so 
restrained  in  its  provisions  as  to  prohibit  any 
efficient  legislation  upon  this  subject.  After 
unsuccessful  attempts  and  a great  deal  of  ridi- 
cule on  the  habits  of  bad  dogs,  such  as  we  have 
heard  here,  and  always  will  hear,  whenever 
the  subject  of  dogs  is  got  up,  there  will  be  a 
bark  all  around.  In  1858  this  provision  of  the 
law,  requiring  the  statistical  report  of  the 
amount  of  injury  done,  was  incorporated  into 
the  statutes  in  order  that  they  might  have  some 
knowledge,  and  that  the  mere  statement  of 
members  would  not  be  all  the  light  they  had 
upon  the  subject.  It  brought  into  the  statistics 
of  the  State  these  reports  that  have  been  here 
quoted  this  morning,  showing  the  very  fearful 
destruction  which  was  deleterious  to  the 


2152 


CONCERNING  DOGS  AND  SHEEP. [141st 

West,  Griswold,  Burns,  Miner,  Hoadly,  Rowland,  Tyler.  [Wednesday, 


wool  growing  interest  very  largely,  insomuch 
that  the  mere  destruction  that  was  read  of  here 
is  only  a mere  tithe  of  the  consequences. 
You  have  reported  in  these  statistics  simply  the 
amount  of  actual  injury  sustained,  whereas, 
hundreds  and  hundreds  of  people  have  been 
driven  out  of  the  business  altogether.  There  is 
clearly  where  the  injury  comes.  The  serious 
consequences  which  have  been  shown  by  this 
report  to-day  simply  indicate  the  visible  dam- 
age done,  whereas,  to  my  certain  knowledge, 
some  of  our  largest  sheep  growers  have  been 
compelled  to  absolutely  abandon  the  business, 
because  of  the  continued  destruction  of  their 
flocks.  In  1862,  when  my  friend  General 
Reilly  and  myself  happened  to  be  in  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  the  farming  interests  upon  the 
floor  were  determined  to  have  a dog  law  for  the 
protection  of  their  sheep,  and  old  Father 
Crumue,  of  Ashtabula  county,  who  was  Chair- 
man of  the  Agricultual  Committee,  prepared  a 
law,  and  it  was  a very  good  law*  and  I doubt 
not  it  would  have  been  a very  efficient  law  if 
there  had  been  power  to  pass  it.  It  was  refer- 
red to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  of  which  Gen- 
eral Reilly  and  myself  were  members,  with  a 
single  request  that  they  should  report  upon  the 
constitutional  power  of  the  General  Assembly 
to  pass  the  bill.  Our  Committee  reported, 
unanimously,  that  there  was  no  power  under 
the  Constitution  to  do  so,  whereupon  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  gave  us  to  understand 
that  there  was  power  to  do  so,  and  they  carried 
it  over  our  heads  with  a perfect  hurrah  to  show 
us  that  there  teas  power  just  to  do  that  very 
thing. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  And  I defended  it.  It 
was  a police  power,  and  they  had  the  right. 

Mr.  WEST.  It  went  into  the  Senate,  and  the 
Senate  decided  there  was  no  constitutional 
power  to  do  it,  and  it  died  there.  That  is  the 
situation  of  the  law,  and  the  situation 
of  the  legislation  upon  the  subject.  Now, 
it  is  said  the  fifth  section  is  ample  to 
cover  the  case.  I beg  leave  respectfully  to  sug- 
gest that  it  is  probably  an  error  with  regard  to 
that.  The  third  section  authorizes  taxation 
according  to  value,  and  if  a dog  is  personal 
property,  it  must  be  taxed  as  other  personal 
property  under  the  third  section.  If  a dog  is 
real  estate  he  must  be  taxed  as  real  estate,  and 
he  cannot  come  under  the  fifth  section  at  all. 

Mr.  BURNS.  He  don’t  follow  banking? 

Mr.  WEST.  No,  sir,  and  he  don’t  come  in 
that  section. 

Mr.  MINER.  A man  had  a stud-horse — he 
was  taxed  as  personal  property.  Was  not  there 
a time  in  Ohio  that  he  was  required  to  take  out 
a license  to  keep  a stallion  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  That  was  a license  upon  busi- 
ness, not  upon  property.  It  is  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Andrews]  that 
a dog  may  have  an  estate  in  tail. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  remind  the  gentle- 
man that  as  early  as  1811  the  State  adopted  the 
policy  of  cutting  of  estates  tail. 

Mr.  WEST.  Then  the  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Andrews]  is  mistaken,  and  I do  not 
believe  a license  can  be  applied  to  dogs. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
whether  he  would  consider  the  licensing  of  a 
dog  as  making  the  State  a participator  in  the 


immorality  of  the  dog,  on  temperance  princi- 
ples? 

Mr.  WEST.  It  might  be  so,  but  such  prop- 
erty is  not  a thing  that  is  recognized  under  the 
license.  No  man  thinks  of  obtaining  a license 
in  order  to  keep  a milch  cow.  I am  not  speak- 
ing but  what  you  might  make  it  so  under  the 
Constitution,  but  it  is  not  made  so  under  this 
fifth  section,  as  it  now  exists;  that  is  as  contra- 
distinguished from  the  third  section,  and  this 
class  of  property,  if  proper  at  all,  will  fall  under 
the  third  section.  So  far  as  taxation  and  reve- 
nue are  concerned,  you  must  make  some  spe- 
cific provision,  and  without,  we  shall  do  injus- 
tice to  a very  large  interest  that  is  so  deeply 
concerned  in  this  question. 

As  to  striking  out  the  term  one  or  more 
counties.  If  I were  in  the  General  Assembly 
I would  certainly  struggle  to  enact  a law  of 
general  operation  throughout  the  State,  but 
here  we  are  simply  vesting  the  power  in  the 
General  Assembly  to  enact  a law.  We  do  not 
know  whether  the  General  Assembly  will  en- 
act a law  at  all  or  not.  It  may  occur,  as  it  has 
oftentimes  heretofore  occurred  in  the  General 
Assembly,  that  the  dog  interest  preponderates 
over  the  sheep  interest,  and  if  that  is  the  case, 
you  cannot  have  any  law  at  all  unless  you 
may  have  a law  limited  to  particular  counties. 
I think  that  a half-loaf  is  better  than  no  bread ; 
and  if,  peradventure,  the  General  Assembly 
may  be  filled  up  with  those  who  are  interested 
in  protecting  the  canine  race,  or  at  least  have  a 
majority  upon  the  floor,  the  minority  ought  to 
have  such  a flexible  power  as  to  enable  them  to 
have  engrafted  for  certain  counties  where  the 
interests  are  greatly  jeopardized,  and  give  to 
the  raccoon  and  other  interests  of  their  locali- 
ties their  special  privileges.  That  is  the  one 
reason  why  these  terms  should  be  kept  in  the 
fundamental  law.  It  is  not  because  there  may 
be  a discrimination,  but  the  very  interests  which 
ought  to  be  protected  probably  require  it,  other- 
wise you  cannot  pass  a law,  unless  there  be 
some  flexible  power  to  exercise  it  in  this  way, 
and  that  is  the  object  of  incorporating  it.  If 
the  General  Assembly  has  the  power,  I have  no 
doubt  they  will  exercise  it  wisely  and  dis- 
creetly with  regard  to  this  matter  and  sweep  it 
over  the  State,  if  may  be.  1 have  no  doubt, 
however,  that  there  are  counties  out  in  the 
northwest;  my  friend  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt]  probably  has  some  constituents  yet  that 
have  a more  profound  regard  for  a good  coon 
dog  than  they  have  for  a sheep,  a great  deal.  I 
know  that  there  are  some  constituents  not  very 
far  from  my  residence  of  that  very  character. 

Now,  so  far  as  my  friend  [Mr.  Rowland]  is 
concerned,  I speak  his  name  out  frankly,  be- 
cause he  is  a plain,  blunt  man.  I am  afraid 
there  is  something  sinister  in  that  matter.  I 
want  you  to  watch  him.  He  is  in  the  habit  of 
concealing  some  secret  scheme  under  his  proj- 
ects. Now,  the  less  wool  there  is  in  Ohio,  the 
more  cotton  there  will  be  for  the  market.  You 
had  better  watch  him. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  state  to  the  gen- 
tleman that  I very  frequently  sell  cotton  that 
goes  into  all  wool  goods. 

Mr.  TYLER.  I do  not  wish  to  occupy  the 
time  of  the  Convention  but  one  moment  or  two 
upon  this  subject;  still,  when  we  consider  that 


Day.] CONCERNING  DOGS  AND  SHEEP. 2153 

March  18, 1874.]  Tyler,  Pease,  Burns,  Chapin. 


we  have  received  in  this  Convention  hundreds 
of  petitions,  with  thousands  of  names  thereto 
attached,  asking  that  something  may  be  done  in 
this  matter — the  protection  of  sheep  against 
the  ravages  of  dogs — certainly  it  is  a subject 
that  should  require  at  our  hands  some  little  at- 
tention. Some  gentlemen  who  have  spoken  on 
this  subject  appear  to  consider  and  treat  it 
rather  lightly.  I am  not  a granger;  neither 
am  I a farmer;  but  I own  farms,  and  I own 
sheep,  and  I own  a dog.  My  neighbors  are 
some  of  them  grangers,  and  a great  many  of 
them  are  farmers,  and  a great  many  of  them 
keep  sheep,  and  many  more  of  them  would 
keep  sheep,  were  it  not  for  the  bad  usage  their 
sheep  have  received  from  dogs.  If  we  tax  the 
dogs,  we  receive  from  their  owners  a certain 
amount  of  money,  because  they  keep  dogs,  and 
they  will  keep  them,  and,  if  they  keep  them, 
they  should  pay  a tax  upon  them ; and  what- 
ever we  receive  from  many  individuals  that 
own  dogs  we  would  never  receive  from  any 
other  source,  because  many  of  them  are  poor 
and  worthless.  They  have  nothing  under  the 
heavens  to  be  taxed — not  a dollar’s  worth  of 
chattel  property — but  they  will  keep  two  or 
three  dogs,  sometimes  more,  and  at  least  as 
many  dogs  as  children,  and,  as  has  been  re- 
marked by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West],  they  keep  coon  dogs;  and  that  is  true  of 
the  very  poorer  class  of  people. 

Dogs  are  very  peculiar  in  their  nature,  and 
often  very  innocently  chase  sheep.  And  so  are 
sheep  peculiar,  for,  when  chased  by  dogs,  they 
will  immediately  give  up  and  lie  down,  and 
then  it  is  that  dogs  destroy  them.  And  I tell 
you  that,  to  see  a large  flock  of  these  noble  ani- 
mals— a flock  of  sheep — they  look  nobly ; they 
are  splendid;  and  then  to  see  a gang  of  unruly 
dogs  go  in  among  them,  and  worry,  and  run, 
and  kill,  so  that  half  of  your  flock  is  ruined, 
it  is  certainly  deplorable ; but  thus  it  is,  and 
these  dogs  generally  belong  to  individuals  that 
are  not  worth  a dollar.  You  cannot  collect 
one  dollar  from  them  for  the  damage  their  dogs 
have  done.  What  shall  we  do  ? Are  we  going 
to  allow  this  matter  to  remain  as  it  is?  I hope 
not.  But,  as  I said  before,  sheep  are  peculiar, 
and  so  are  dogs.  All  dogs  are  not  sheep-killing 
dogs  by  nature,  any  more  than  all  men  are 
thieves  by  nature;  but  it  is  true  of  a dog,  as  a 
general  thing,  that,  if  they  see  anything  start 
up  and  run,  they  will  run  after  it;  and  thus  it 
is  that  they  ruin  so  many  sheep.  Sheep  soon 
tire  from  running,  give  up  and  lie  down. 

Mr.  PEASE.  What  do  they  run  after  them 
for? 

Mr.  TYLER.  In  the  first  instance,  because 
they  want  some  fun-play.  I understand  them ; I 
had  a young  dog  and  one  day  I took  him  on  my 
farm,  and  a sheep  started  to  run,  and  the  dog 
ran  after  it,  and  I caught  my  dog  and  whipped 
him  most  satisfactorily.  Young  dogs  are  easily 
trained — I never  had  any  trouble  with  him  af- 
terwards in  chasing  sheep. 

Mr.  BURN'S.  Satisfactorv  to  the  dog? 

Mr.  TYLER.  I train  my  dogs  as  well  as  I 
train  my  sheep,  and  I assure  you  that  I do  not 
meet  anything  more  friendly,  when  I go  home, 
than  my  dog.  He  is  the  first  to  meet  me  at  the 
gate,  and  the  last  to  leave  me  at  the  cars,  and  I 
love  my  dog  for  his  friendship,  and  he  also  pro- 


tects my  children  and  my  house  and  barn 
at  night.  I like  my  sheep.  I go  to  my  farm 
and  they  are  just  as  friendly,  they  come 
flocking  around  me  and  I love  to  see  them,  but 
sir,  we  have  to  raise  so  much  revenue  every 
year,  for  the  support  of  the  government.  What 
you  raise  upon  the  dogs  you  would  not  have  to 
raise  upon  something  else,  and,  as  I said  before, 
a great  portion  of  this  revenue  that  would  be 
derived  from  the  tax  on  dogs  would  be  clear 
gain.  As  to  this  tax  being  general,  it  is  a mat- 
ter of  very  little  importance  to  me,  but  as  a 
general  rule,  I am  in  favor  of  general  taxation, 
but  as  has  been  remarked  before  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Stark  [Mr.  Hostetter],  the  law 
might  be  passed  regulating  in  one  county,  and 
the  dogs  from  another  county  might  come  in 
and  kill  your  sheep,  and  before  you  were  up  in 
the  morning  they  would  be  away,  and  it  would 
be  utterly  impossible  to  know  what  dogs  killed 
your  sheep,  consequently,  I think  that  the  law 
ought  to  be  a general  one. 

But,  say  the  gentleman,  if  you  cling  to  this 
amendment  you  will  lose  the  whole  section,  be- 
cause the  delegates  in  this  Convention,  from 
the  cities  of  Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  Toledo, 
Dayton,  and  other  large  places  will  vote  against 
it.  Why?  Because  they  say  they  have  got  no 
sheep-killing  dogs  or  sheep  to  be  killed.  They 
have  got  dogs  but  they  do  no  injury.  Now,  we 
not  only  want  this  law  to  protect  sheep,  but  to 
protect  individuals  and  other  property,  and  it 
is  no  more  than  right  that  he  who  owns  a dog 
should  pay  a tax  upon  him.  I do  not  wish  to 
wage  a war  against  dogs,  only  keep  them  in 
their  proper  places.  Ohio  is  a great  wool- 
growing State,  and  I assure  you  she  has  got  to 
be  a great  dog-growing  State  too.  We  have 
almost  as  many  dogs  in  the  country  as  we  have 
sheep,  and  I am  in  favor  of  taxing  them  to  supply 
the  place  of  those  sheep  that  have  been  killed 
and  destroyed  by  them,  and  I am  in  favor  of 
this  section  and  the  amendment,  and  hope  that 
it  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I am  very  well  aware  that 
there  has  probably  enough  been  said  upon  this 
question  of  taxation  and  that  the  subject  is 
pretty  well  discussed,  but  I desire  to  say  a few 
words  in  order  that  I may  place  myself  upon 
the  record  in  relation  to  the  dog  question.  Iam 
not  situated  as  my  friend  who  has  just  spoken. 
I never  owned  a dog  or  sheep,  and,  therefore,  it 
may  be  supposed  that  I have  no  great  interest  in 
the  dog  question;  but  in  the  discharge  of  my 
duties  as  a Representative  of  a large  wool  pro- 
ducing county,  the  requests  that  have  been  made 
of  me,  not  only  from  one,  but  perhaps  from 
fifty  individuals  who  are  interested  in  the  rais- 
ing of  wool,  requesting  that  I should  not  only 
vote  for,  but  should  use  my  influence  to  pro- 
cure a constitutional  provision  for  the  regula- 
ting, restraining,  taxing  or  extermination  of 
dogs,  if  possible;  and,  in  the  discharge  of  that 
duty,  I have  endeavored,  and  shall  endeavor,  to 
procure  a provision  in  the  Constitution  to  the 
protection  of  that  interest.  I am  interested  in 
another  view  of  this  dog  question.  I live  in  a 
little  village  where  there  are  a few  individuals 
and  a great  many  dogs,  and  they  do  annoy  me 
exceedingly,  and  I noticed  another  thing,  that 
every  individual  who  is  a subject  of  charity  in 
the  place,  keeps  not  less  than  three  or  four  dogs. 


2154 


CONCERNING  THE  TAXING  OF  DOGS. 

Chapin,  Cowen. 


[141st 

[Wednesday, 


Those  dogs  do  not  procure  their  sustenance 
from  their  owners, hut  they  steal  it  from  others, 
and  if  they  cannot  get  enough  to  satisfy  them  in 
that  way  they  will  go  out  into  the  country  and 
help  themselves  to  their  neighbors’  sheep.  They 
sometimes  go  as  far  as  ten  miles,  and  commit 
depredations  upon  sheep. 

I am  interested  in  another  point,  howrever. 
There  is  great  danger  of  these  dogs  biting,  and 
hydrophobia  resulting  therefrom.  Did  it  ever 
occur  to  any  of  you  how  many  individuals 
probably  lose  their  lives  in  the  State  from  the 
bite  of  these  worthless  animals?  I do  not 
know ; I have  no  statistical  account  as  to  the 
number  that  actually  lose  their  lives  every 
year  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 

I have  here  a United  States  Report,  and  from 
the  testimony  of  an  individual  from  the  State 
of  Missouri,  which  is  presented  here,  I propose 
to  read.  I offer  it  to  show  what  his  views  are. 
The  source  from  which  he  draws  his  informa- 
tion I am  unable  to  say,  but  I presume  it  is 
correct.  Judging  from  the  number  of  deaths 
caused  in  that  State,  we  may  make  some  little 
calculation  of  the  number  that  lose  their  lives 
in  the  State  of  Ohio  in  consequence  of  these 
worthless  animals. 

I read  from  page  374,  Agricultural  Reports  of 
the  United  States,  for  1871.  Mr.  D.  R.  King 
states  that  more  than  one  hundred  persons  are 
reported  to  have  died  in  the  State  during  the 
past  year  from  hydrophobia,  caused  by  the  bite 
of  mad  dogs.  That  is  all  he  says.  In  relation 
to  the  number  that  actually  lose  their  lives  in 
the  State  of  Ohio,  w7e  have  almost  twice  as 
many  inhabitants,  and  the  probability  is  as 
many  more  dogs;  about  the  same  ratio  would 
make  it  from  one  to  two  hundred  individuals 
that  actually  lose  their  lives  in  the  State  of 
Ohio  from  the  same  cause.  He  further  states, 
in  relation  to  it : 

In  thirty-two  counties,  10,602  sheep  have 
been  killed  by  dogs.  Statistics  of  counties 
have  been  given  by  individuals  here.  This  is 
in  Missouri.  What  prevails  there  would  be 
applicable  to  this  State,  because  all  are  inter- 
ested in  the  same,  and  the  dogs  have  the  same 
disposition  there,  and  the  same  depredations 
are  committed  here  that  are  there.  He  esti- 
mates that,  allowing  two  dogs  for  each  family, 
which  is  really  less  than  the  actual  number, 
there  would  be  460,000  dogs  in  the  State.  If 
that  is  true,  we  probably  have  500,000  in  the 
State  of  Ohio.  From  the  report  I further 
read,  “ the  amount  of  food  necessary  to  support 
a fair  sized  dog  would  keep  a good  hog  in  a 
good  thriving  condition.  At  twelve  months  he 
will  weigh  two  hundred  pounds,  making  for 
the  whole  number  of  dogs  92,000,000  pounds  of 
pork.  This  would  load  4,600  cars,  ten  tons  to 
a car,  and  if  it  was  worth  six  cents,  according 
to  that  estimate,  it  would  be  worth  $5,520,000, 
nearly  twice  the  value  of  the  school  houses  in 
the  State,  and  more  than  twice  the  amount 
provided  by  the  State  in  1869  for  all  school 
purposes.  The  consequence  is,  that  a great 
amount  of  damage  is  done  by  these  animal®, 
and  it  has  been  proposed  by  the  State  Board  of 
Agriculture  to  recommend  the  Legislature  to 
pass  a dog  law,  by  which  the  owner  shall  be 
required  to  pay  annually  one  dollar  for  every 
male  and  two  dollars  for  every  female  dog.” 


What  is  applicable  to  the  State  of  Missouri 
would  certainly  be  applicable  to  this  State.  I 
do  not  propose  to  occupy  the  time  and  attention 
of  the  Convention  any  longer;  I merely  rose  to 
read  that  paragraph  in  relation  to  Missouri — it 
is  applicable  to  our  own  State — and  state  my 
own  views  in  relation  to  the  propriety  of  this 
Constitutional  provision. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Stark  [Mr.  Hostetteb],  the  lines  two  and 
three,  the  words,  “throughout  the  State,  or  in 
any  county  or  counties  thereof,”  so  that  it  will 
read : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  prov'de  by  law  to  regu- 
late, restrain  or  prohibit,  by  special  tax,  assessment  or 
otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring  or  running  at  large  of 
dogs.” 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  59,  nays  15,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  Andrews, 
Beer,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Cunningham,  Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Gurley,  Hill, 
Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride,  MrCormick, 
Merrill,  Miner,  McCauley,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey, 
Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Rickly,  Root,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample, 
Scofield,  Shaw,  Townsend,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van 
Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Weaver, 
West,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Champaign — 59. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  w^ere — 

Messrs.  Bishop,  Greene,  Griswrold,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hoadly,  Mitchener,  Powell,  Rowland, 
Scribner,  Sears,  Shultz,  Smith,  Tripp,  Tulloss 
—15. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I offer  the  following  amend- 
ment to  the  same  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Strike  out  from  the  third  line  the  words,  “keeping,  har- 
boring and.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  to  regu- 
late, restrain  or  prohibit,  by  special  tax,  assessment  or 
otherwise,  the  running  at  large  of  dogs.” 

Mr.  COWEN.  If  this  section  is  adopted  in 
the  shape  in  which  it  now  stands,  without  this 
amendment,  it  confers  upon  the  Legislature  the 
power  to  absolutely  exterminate  all  the  dogs  in 
the  State.  The  object  of  the  amendment  is, 
that,  if  such  a section  as  this  is  to  be  incorpo- 
rated into  the  Constitution,  the  object  which  I 
think  is  really  sought  by  the  advocates  of  such 
provision  will  be  really  accomplished.  It  was 
said  a short  time  ago  by  the  gentleman  from 
Madison  [Mr.  Phellis]  that  all  which  those 
who  are  looking  especially  after  the  wool  inter- 
ests of  the  State  hoped  to  accomplish,  was  the 
engrafting  upon  the  Constitution  of  such  a 
clause  as  would  justify  a special  tax  upon  dogs. 
That  will  certainly  be  accomplished  if  the 
amendment  which  I have  just  submitted  pre- 
vails. If  it  does  not  prevail,  I think  we  shall 
have  a section  here  that  ought  not  to  receive 
the  endorsement  of  this  Convention.  If  the 
amendment  does  prevail,  it  is  a very  serious 
question  whether  the  section  so  made  ought  not 


CONCERNING  THE  TAXING  OF  DOGS. 

Cowen,  Smith,  Pond. 


2155 


Day.] 

March  18,  1874.] 


to  be  adopted.  A word  or  two  more,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, while  I have  the  floor. 

These  tables  have  been  looked  at,  and  it  has 
been  observed,  and,  perhaps,  commented  upon, 
by  some  of  those  who  have  been  pressing  the 
Convention  upon  the  subject  of  the  wool  inter- 
ests of  the  State,  that  the  county  in  which  I re- 
side is  the  third  county  in  magnitude  of  wool 
productions.  I believe  I understand  the  desires 
and  wishes  of  the  wool  interest  reasonably 
well.  I do  not  know  a single  wool  grower  in 
the  county  of  Belmont  who  desires  that  there 
should  be  a warfare,  to  the  extent  of  extermi- 
nation, inaugurated  by  this  Constitutional  Con- 
vention against  dogs.  1 do  not  know  a wool 
grower  in  that  county,  who  is  engaged  in  the 
matter  to  any  extent,  who  does  not  own  at  least 
one  dog,  and  many  of  them  regard  them  as  be- 
ing indispensable  to  the  care  of  their  flocks  of 
sheep.  I have  never  before  learned  so  much  as 
I have  learned  to-day  about  the  great  objections 
to  dogs,  and  the  great  troubles  that  grew  out  of 
them.  It  does  not  seem  to  occur  to  persons  who 
are  diving  into  these  statistics  that  there  is  not 
in  the  State  of  Ohio,  I am  safe  in  saying,  one 
dog  in  five  hundred  that  ever  killed  a sheep  in 
his  life,  or  ever  attacked  one ; and  yet,  because, 
say,  one  in  five  hundred  kills  some  sheep  once 
in  a few  weeks  of  the  year  (because  they 
scarcely  ever  attack  sheep  only  during  a few 
weeks  of  the  year,  and  that  when  nine-tenths 
of  those  running  at  large  ought  to  be  housed) — 
I say  that  there  is  not  more  than  one  dog  in  five 
hundred  that  ever  attacks  sheep,  and,  because 
they  do  that,  it  is  proposed  here  to  provide  for 
wiping  out  the  whole  race  of  dogs.  I think 
they  have  a right  to  have  a word  said  in  their 
favor. 

It  may  be  that  in  the  county  represented  by 
the  learned  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West], 
as  he  says,  farmers  have  been  driven  wholly 
out  of  the  business  because  they  could  not  pro- 
tect their  sheep  from  dogs.  When  I look  at 
these  statistics  and  see  the  rate  at  which  their 
dogs  are  taxed,  I am  not  much  surprised  at  it. 
It  has  occurred  to  me  that  they  must  have  a 
very  mean  set  of  dogs  in  that  county.  I have 
heard  of  no  person  being  driven  out  of  the 
sheep  business  in  our  part  of  the  State  on  ac- 
count of  that.  Their  business  is  largely  and 
rapidly  increasing,  and  has  grown  greatly 
profitable.  I see  that  our  dogs  are  taxed  about 
three  or  four  times  as  much  as  the  dogs  are  in 
the  county  of  Logan,  and  perhaps  we  have  a 
better  breed  of  dogs.  I do  not  know  how  that 
is,  but  I submit,  without  any  attempt  to  jest 
about  this  matter  at  all,  that  the  dog  is  not  only 
a very  valuable  animal  in  reality,  that  they  not 
only  afford  the  means  of  a great  deal  of  inno- 
cent and  proper  sport  and  exercise,  but  that,  as 
was  suggested  by  one  of  the  gentlemen  from 
Hamilton  here  to-day,  the  members  of  the 
families,  the  owners  of  these  dogs,  and  the 
children  of  families,  form  attachments  to  them 
which  are  very  near  and  dear ; and  the  attempt 
to  incorporate  into  the  Constitution  of  this 
State  a proposition  authorizing  the  extermina- 
tion of  the  whole  race  of  dogs,  as  a nuisance, 
although  it  might  not  raise  a howl,  would 
create  an  opposition  which,  I think,  ought  to  be 
considered  by  this  Convention  before  they  in- 


corporate such  a provision  into  this  Constitu- 
tion. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  it  is  proposed  to  put  a sec- 
tion into  the  Constitution  for  the  purpose  in- 
tended by  the  Committee,  the  amendment  now 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr. 
Cowen]  is  destructive  of  the  whole  end  and 
purpose  for  which  this  clause  was  gotten  up. 
The  proposition  to  confer  upon  the  General  As- 
sembly the  power  to  regulate,  restrain  or  pro- 
hibit the  running  at  large  of  dogs  will  amount 
to  nothing.  That  is  the  plain  proposition. 
If  it  should  be  amended,  as  suggested  by  the 
gentleman,  the  difficulty  of  applying  the  section, 
thus  altered,  so  as  to  amount  to  any  practical 
legislation,  must  strike  the  mind  of  any  one. 
It  is  simply  to  prevent  the  running  at  large  of 
dogs.  The  purpose  for  which  the  original 
clause  was  drawn  was  to  impose  a tax  of  some 
amount  upon  every  dog  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 
Not  that  we  want  to  prohibit  the  keeping  of 
dogs,  not  that  we  want  to  kill  every  dog  in  the 
State,  but  recognizing  the  right  to  keep  dogs, 
we  want  that  class  of  animals  to  be  subserv- 
ient to  the  preservation  of  the  wool  interest 
of  Ohio.  That  is  the  whole  of  it;  otherwise 
there  would  have  been  no  attempt  to  legislate 
upon  that  subject  at  all.  I think  it  was  un- 
fortunate that  we  accepted  the  first  amend- 
ment that  was  offered,  for,  in  my  judgment, 
it  will  render  any  clause,  and  especially  in 
its  present  shape,  an  inefficient  one;  but  the 
Convention  has  deemed  it  wise  to  make  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I would  like  to  make  an  in- 
quiry of  the  gentleman.  I would  like  to  know 
why  this  section,  as  it  would  read  with  his 
amendment,  “ The  General  Assembly  may  pro- 
vide by  law  to  prohibit  by  special  tax,  assess- 
ment or  otherwise,  the  running  at  large  of 
dogs,”  would  not  authorize  the  Legislature  to 
justify  the  killing  of  dogs  if  they  were  found 
running  at  large,  just  as  they  do  now  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir;  but  that  is  not  what 
we  want.  It  is  not  to  kill  the  dog. 

Mr.  POND.  The  State  authorizes  that 
now. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  purpose  that  we  are  after, 
if  we  can  accomplish  anything  at  all,  is  to  tax 
the  dogs  of  Ohio,  but  not  to  kill  them.  It  is  to 
make  the  tax  that  we  impose  upon  that  class  of 
animals  contributory  to  supply  the  loss  that 
the  sheep  interest  are  subjected  to  by  virtue  of 
dogs. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Do  I understand  the  gentle- 
man to  say  that,  if  my  amendment  prevails,  the 
Legislature  will  not  have  the  power  to  tax  all 
dogs? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  can  only  tax  dogs  running 
at  large.  It  can  only  apply  to  wandering  and 
vagabondish  dogs.  I would  suggest  that,  in- 
stead of  that  amendment,  the  gentleman  had 
better  move  to  strike  out  this,  “to  restrain  and 
prohibit,”  and  then  the  section  will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  may,  throughout  the  State, 
provide  by  law  to  regulate,  by  special  tax,  assessment  or 
otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring  and  running  at  large 
of  dogs.” 

That  amendment  would  accomplish  what  was 
intended  to  be  reached  by  the  Committee,  and 
would  do  away  with  the  two  words  “restrain” 
and  “prohibit.” 


2156 


[141st 


CONCERNING  THE  TAXING  OF  DOGS. 

Cowen,  Smith,  Horton,  Yoris,  Rowland,  Burns,  etc.  [Wednesday, 


Mr.  COWEN.  It  may  be.  that  the  amend- 
ment is  open  to  the  criticism  made.  I am 
willing  to  change  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I then  move  to  strike  out  the 
words  “restrain”  and  “prohibit,”  in  the  second 
line,  and  that  leaves  the  whole  question  of  tax- 
ing dogs,  as  a class,  to  the  General  Assembly . 
If  the  gentleman  will  agree  to  the  modification 
of  the  amendment,  I shall  be  willing  to  support 
it. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I ask  leave  to  modify  the 
amendment  by  striking  out  the  words  “restrain” 
and  “prohibit.” 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  striking  out  the  words  “restrain”  and 
“prohibit.” 

Mr.  HORTON.  I was  going  to  make  a sug- 
gestion— 

Mr.  SMITH.  I suggest  that  the  word  “and” 
be  stricken  out  just  before  the  word  harboring, 
in  the  third  line,  and  insert  the  word  “or.” 

Mr.  VORIS.  I object. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  will  not 
be  in  order  if  objection  is  made. 

Mr.  HORTON.  I rise  to  suggest  an  amend- 
ment. It  seems  to  me  as  well  to  meet  the  ex- 
act point  desired  to  be  made.  I understood  that 
the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  had 
withdrawn  his  amendment.  I ask  the  Clerk  to 
read  the  proposition  that  I had  proposed  to  offer. 
It  is  simply  to  strike  out  all  after  the  word 
“may,”  and  insert  what  I now  send  to  the 
Clerk. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Levy  a tax  upon  dogs  per  capita  without  reference  to 
value.” 

So  it  will  read  : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  levy  a tax  upon  dogs  per 
capita  without  reference  to  value.” 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  The  Convention  has  seen 
fit  to  strike  out  the  only  part  of  the  section  that 
made  it  all  palatable  to  me,  and  I cannot  sup- 
port it  in  its  present  shape  or  any  other  that 
does  not  include  what  we  have  stricken  out. 
The  only  reason  why  I favored  it  was,  that  it 
contemplated  a flexible  and  variable  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Legislature,  by  which  that  body 
might,  in  its  wisdom,  adapt  it  to  the  necessi- 
ties of  various  localities,  and  that  it  should  not 
be  sought  to  impose  upon  those  localities,  where 
there  is  no  necessity  for  such  legislation,  a rule 
of  this  kind.  What  would  be  the  result  in  the 
Legislature  ? If  you  had  gone  in  with  that  va- 
riable rule,  counties  that  do  not  want  or  need 
this  might  have  united  with  those  that  did,  and 
thus  enable  you  to  pass  proper  laws ; but  as  it 
is,  they  will  stand  in  solid  phalanx  against  you, 
and  they  ought  to  do  it.  They  will  not  pass 
such  a law  as  this  section  authorizes  and  they 
ought  not  to  do  it,  for  you  are  basing  it  simply 
upon  a question  of  tax  and  making  it  so  expen- 
sive a luxury  that  no  one  but  a rich  man  can 
keep  a dog,  and  I say  you  will  adopt  a very  un- 
wise and  unpopular  measure  in  this  State,  and 
it  will  be  voted  down  by  an  immense  majority. 
Why  should  not  a poor  man  be  entitled  to  keep 
a dog  as  well  as  a rich  man  ? 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  gentleman  has  twice  voted 
down  this  Constitution.  He  voted  it  down,  the 
other  day,  on  the  church  taxing  question. 


Mr.  ROWLAND.  No,  sir ; it  was  about  nat- 
uralization, my  friend,  and  I stand  to  that.  I 
say  one  hundred  thousand  would  not  have 
measured  the  majority  against  it.  I shall  not 
back  down  from  that,  and  I say,  sir,  here,  that 
you  are  attempting  to  impose  a most  unpopular 
measure  upon  the  people.  Why  should  not  the 
people  in  this  section  of  the  State,  where  there 
are  but  a few  sheep,  be  allowed  to  keep  their 
dogs?  Why  should  not  the  poor  man,  who 
lives  secluded,  not  be  allowed  to  keep  a dog  to 
guard  his  family  during  his  absence,  or  through 
the  watches  of  the  night? 

Mr.  COWEN.  I would  like  to  inquire 
whether  a man,  if  he  lives  in  my  county,  if  he 
is  a poor  man,  why  he  has  not  a right  to  keep  a 
dog  as  well  as  the  man  in  your  county  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  is  your  own  business 
— to  care  for  your  own  county;  we  want  no 
such  legislation  in  Southern  Ohio.  If  you 
want  it  you  are  welcome  to  it;  but  we  don’t 
want  to  have  it  imposed  upon  us.  If  you  wish 
to  protect  your  sheep,  do  it  for  yourselves ; it  is 
not  for  us  to  do  it ; and  I tell  you  more,  it  is 
not  for  us  to  submit  to  such  unreasonable  and 
barbarous  laws. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Suppose  a dog  goes  from  But- 
ler county  into  a neighboring  county  and  kills 
sheep.  Where  is  your  remedy  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I have  just  stated  that  is 
not  my  business.  I am  not  proposing  this  legis- 
lation. That  is  none  of  my  funeral.  We  do  not 
need  any  such  law  here,  and  we  won’t  have  it. 
It  is  for  you  who  need  it  to  fix  your  own  terms, 
and  not  for  us  to  do  it.  I am  entirely  willing 
to  give  you  such  protection  as  was  arranged  for 
in  the  section  submitted  by  the  Committee, 
which  contemplated  its  application  only  where 
it  might  be  necessary  to  protect  the  wool- 
growing interests  of  the  State.  I was  willing 
to  yield  that  much,  even  at  the  expense  of  an 
undignified,  if  not  barbarous,  assault  on  the 
dog  in  the  Constitution  of  a great  State. 

I say  that  to  my  mind  it  is  a plain  prop- 
osition that  it  will  render  nugatory  the 
whole  clause.  The  Legislature  cannot  act 
upon  it.  Every  one  of  these  cities  that  do 
not  want  such  legislation  will  combine  against 
you  and  defeat  it,  and  they  ought  to  do  it. 

Mr.  BURNS.  We  do  not  scare  worth  a cent. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I do  not  either. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I hope  that  this  provision 
will  be  adopted  by  the  Convention.  I care  but 
little  about  the  amendment,  and  1 had  not  in- 
tended to  take  up  the  time  of  the  Convention 
by  saying  anything  about  this  question ; but  I 
happen  to  represent  upon  this  floor  a county 
that  is  very  much  interested  in  this  provision — 
a wool-growing  county — and  the  people  of  that 
county  are  very  much  interested  in  this  Con- 
vention adopting  some  such  provision  as  this. 
I know  that  for  the  last  fifteen  years  not  a sin- 
gle year  has  passed  in  which  hundreds  of  dol- 
lars worth  of  sheep  have  not  been  killed  in  that 
county  by  worthless  dogs.  I doubt  very  much 
the  wisdom  of  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen].  I 
think  it  would  be  better  to  adopt  the  section  as 
it  now  stands,  and  as  it  is  at  present  amended ; 
and  I regret  very  much  that  gentlemen  repre- 
senting the  large  cities  of  our  State  on  this 
floor  should  take  such  a stand  in  behalf  of  the 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  TAXING  OF  DOGS. 

March  18,  1874.]  Scofield,  Pease,  Rowland,  Burns,  Pratt,  Tuttle. 


2157 


dogs.  It  may  be  that  to  them  these  dogs  are  of 
great  intrinsic  value.  They  are  not  so  regarded 
in  the  country.  Although  farmers  own  dogs, 
some  of  which  they  regard  as  valuable,  they 
yet  are  willing  to  pay  the  tax  upon  them  as 
they  are  upon  other  property,  and  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  their  conduct;  and  if  a dog  is  so 
very  valuable  to  a gentleman  living  in  the  city 
of  Cincinnati,  I do  not  see  why  the  Constitu- 
tional Convention  of  the  State  should  make  an 
exception  in  his  favor.  I have  been  in  favor  of 
uniform  laws,  operating  alike  throughout  the 
State,  and  I believe  that  the  position  is  based 
upon  just  and  equitable  principles. 

I trust  that  the  Convention  will  not  treat  this 
matter  lightly.  As  I said  before,  I do  not  want 
to  take  up  the  time  of  the  Convention  in  dis- 
cussing it,  but  it  is  a question  in  which  our  peo- 
ple are  greatly  interested.  They  look  to  this 
Convention  to  point  out  a remedy,  for  unless 
there  is  provision  made  in  this  Constitution, 
the  General  Assembly  will  not  be  reminded 
that  they  have  the  power,  and,  therefore,  will 
not  exercise  it.  If  this  pjovision  is  adopted,  I 
know  that  it  will  popularize  this  Constitution 
throughout  the  State  of  Ohio.  There  may  be 
exceptions  in  these  large  cities,  but  the  people 
of  the  country  are  interested  in  this  provision, 
and  they  demand  it. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I want  to  say  a single  word.  I 
hope  that  the  amendment,  in  any  form,  will  not 
pass ; but  I rise  more  especially  to  say  a word 
in  reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Rowland]  . He  seems  to  be  very  much  annoyed 
that  Hamilton  county  cannot  be  excepted,  so 
that  her  people  can  keep  dogs.  I apprehend 
that  making  this  law  uniform  does  not  prevent 
that  county  from  keeping  dogs.  They  may  go 
into  the  business  if  they  choose.  They  are  not 
prevented  from  doing  it  just  as  extensively  as 
they  see  fit. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  If  you,  in  your  section, 
desire  to  go  into  the  sheep  business,  that  is  all 
well  and  good ; if  we  want  to  go  into  the  dog 
business,  that  is  our  matter. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Certainly,  I concede  to  your 
people  that  privilege;  but  the  gentleman,  on 
one  or  two  occasions,  has  seen  fit  to  threaten, 
with  a disastrous  result,  this  Constitution  if  cer- 
tain amendments  should  pass  or  not  pass.  I 
have  to  say,  in  reply  to  the  suggestion  in  regard 
to  the  number  of  votes  the  gentleman  can  secure 
against  this  Constitution  if  this  law  is  made 
uniform,  that  if  the  poor  people  of  Hamilton 
county,  or  the  poor  people  of  the  State,  are  dis- 
posed to  sacrifice  a Constitution  of  the  State  be- 
cause it  taxes  their  dogs,  I have  a very  poor 
opinion  of  the  people  of  the  State.  I undertake 
to  say  that  the  poor  people  of  the  State  have  a 
higher  regard  for  themselves  than  they  have  for 
their  dogs.  A people  whose  religious  liberties 
are  protected,  a people  whose  rights  of  proper- 
ty and  person  are  protected,  although  they  may 
not  contribute  a single  dollar  to  the  support  of 
the  government,  are  not  going  to  throw  away 
that  government  because  their  dogs  are  taxed. 
That  I will  guarantee ; but  if  the  poor  people  of 
Hamilton  county  are  made  of  that  kind  of  stuff, 
and  are  willing  to  sacrifice  these  great  interests 
for  so  trifling  a loss,  why,  sir,  I do  not  think  it 
would  be  any  very  great  loss  if,  in  accordance 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  transmigration  of  souls, 


they  should  early  become  dogs;  and  I do  not 
know  that  it  would  make  very  much  difference 
how  soon  they  became  dogs.  But  there  is  no 
such  feeling  as  that.  It  is  an  attempt  at  a 
scare. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I undertake  to  say  that  there 
is  not  a poor  man  in  Ohio  who  would  hesitate 
for  a moment  to  vote  for  this  Constitution,  even 
though  he  knew  that  it  would  take  away  his  dog. 
He  has  higher  rights  which  are  protected  by  the 
Constitution,  and  it  is  “bosh”  to  make  that  kind 
of  a threat  here  or  elsewhere. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I made  no  threat  what- 
ever. I stated  what  I believed  to  be 

Mr.  BURNS.  I object.  The  gentleman  has 
spoken  once  upon  this  amendment. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  gentleman  represents  a 
gallant  people.  Let  him  speak. 

By  leave  of  the  Convention,  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland]  was  allowed  to 
proceed. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I never  designed,  upon 
this,  or  any  other  subject,  to  make  any  threat. 
That  is  not  the  way  to  make  opinion.  I stated 
what  my  opinion  is,  and  what  I thought  would 
be  the  result  of  this  proposition,  if  submitted. 
If  you  make  the  mere  keeping  of  a dog  an  ex- 
pensive luxury;  if  you  take  the  right  away 
from  one  man  and  give  it  to  another,  it  will 
make  a very  unpalatable  and  very  unpopular 
part  of  your  Constitution.  I make  no  threat, 
whatever,  but  I do  say,  sir,  that  under  this  pro- 
vision, you  will  never  get  any  legislation  such 
as  you  desire.  Counties  that  are  not  interested 
in  this  thing  specially  will  never  allow  you  to 
place  upon  them  a rule  which  does  not  apply  to 
them. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  When  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  was  sta- 
ted by  that  gentleman,  I did  not  hear  it  very 
distinctly.  I thought  it  was  a proposition  to 
prevent  the  keeping  and  harboring  of  dogs. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tem.  It  was  so,  at 
first,  but  was  afterwards  modified. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  So  I am  told;  but  I under- 
stand that  the  modification  was  made  with  the 
same  end  in  view,  and  in  order  to  arrive  at  the 
same  result,  namely : that  of  placing  nothing  in 
the  way  of  keeping  and  harboring  dogs,  but 
only  to  prevent  their  running  at  large.  Now, 
Mr.  President,  if  I was  going  to  strike  out  any- 
thing, or  to  adopt  any  rule  in  reference 
to  the  subject,  what  I would  strike 
out  would  be  the  clause  relating  to  the 
running  at  large  of  dogs,  in  order  to  keep  in  the 
clause  relating  to  the  keeping  and  harboring  of 
dogs.  The  proposition  seeks  to  arrive  in  an- 
other way  at  the  same  result — to  so  provide  that 
there  shall  be  nothing  to  discourage  the  keeping 
and  harboring  of  dogs,  but  that  the  trouble  to 
the  owner  of  the  dog  shall  only  come  when  the 
dog  is  running  at  large.  That  is  exactly  the 
kind  of  policy  I do  not  want  to  pursue.  The 
mischief,  Mr.  President,  is,  that  if  dog3  are  kept 
at  all,  they  will  run  at  large.  I do  not  hear  any- 
body suggest  that  you  can  keep  dogs  shut  up ; 
and  if  such  a suggestion  is  made,  I know  that  it 
is  not  true,  and  so  do  others.  The  talk  about 
keeping  dogs  shut  up  is  a great  humbug.  You 
may  keep  them  shut  up  part  of  the  time ; you 
may  keep  them  shut  up  just  long  enough  to 


2158 


CONCERNING  SHUTTING  UP  DOGS. 

Tuttle,  Blose,  Hoadly. 


[141st 

[Wednesday, 


make  their  tempers  vicious,  and  to  prepare 
them  more  thoroughly  to  do  harm  when  they  get 
out,  and  then  you  let  them  out.  Woe  he  to  the 
sheep  that  fall  in  their  way — and  not  to  the 
sheep  only,  but  oftentimes  to  the  children, 
sometimes  big  children,  too.  They  dodge  you. 
You  cannot  keep  them  shut  up;  and  to  talk 
about  keeping  them  shut  up,  and  allowing  a 
man  to  keep  them  freely,  only  on  condition  that 
he  will  keep  them  always  confined,  is  sheer  de- 
ception. It  is  an  imposition.  It  means  that  a 
man  may  be  allowed  to  keep  about  him  an  un- 
safe animal,  which,  though  he  may  keep  it  shut 
up  part  of  the  time,  will  now  and  then  get  out 
and  do  mischief.  It  is  not  long  since,  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, that  a man  in  my  neighborhood  had  a big 
dog  which  he  kept  “shut  up.”  He  had  about  as 
much  occasion  for  that  dog  as  for  other  orna- 
ments naturally  in  request  in  primitive  societies 
— as  for  rings  in  his  nose.  The  dog  got  out  one 
day.  Of  course  he  got  out  more  than  once. 
Talk  about  dogs  being  shut  up ! They  lie  out- 
side the  door  and  in  the  yard,  and  are  told  not 
to  go  out.  The  family  have  such  confidence  in 
their  dog  that  they  do  not  believe  he  will  do  any 
harm.  Well,  this  dog  got  out.  A little  boy  was 
walking  along  the  sidewalk,  when  out  pitched 
the  dog  upon  him,  and  worried  and  tore  him  till 
it  was  heartrending  to  look  upon.  And  that  is 
a thing  that  does  not  occur  once  or  twice,  alone, 
but  often  and  often ; and  not  merely  in  that  way, 
but  in  a great  many  other  ways,  dogs  do  harm. 
Dogs  run  mad,  sometimes.  I have  never  yet 
heard  of  anybody  keeping  dogs  so  shut  up  when 
they  are  a great  deal  more  likely  to  run  mad — if 
the  physiological  accounts  are  true — but  that 
they  will  get  out.  If  they  do  not  get  out,  they 
will  bite  the  members  of  their  own  household. 
Talk  about  the  protection  afforded  by  dogs ! I 
venture  to  say,  there  have  been  five  men  killed 
for  every  one  protected  by  a dog  in  the  State  of 
Ohio. 

Going  along  the  streets  of  Cincinnati,  ordi- 
narily you  do  not  find  dogs,  but  every  once  in  a 
while  you  can  come  to  a place  where  a dog 
comes  out  and  pitches  at  your  heels.  You  may 
have  great  self-reliance  and  nerve  , and  feel 
little  trepidation,  but  after  all  you  do  not  know 
whether  he  will  really  withhold  execution  of 
the  threat  which  he  makes,  just  as  he  brings  his 
teeth  within  about  six  inches  of  the  calf  of 
your  leg;  or  whether,  when  he  jumps  up  be- 
fore you,  he  is  going  to  stop  about  twelve 
inches  short  or  not.  It  is  not  exactly  pleasant, 
and  I do  not  admit  the  right  of  the  people  to 
keep  dogs  in  that  way.  You  might  just  as 
well  talk  about  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep 
rattle-snakes.  Rattle-snakes  usually  are  kept 
confined  when  kept  at  all,  but  every  once  in  a 
while  one  slips  out  through  a little  hole.  I knew 
of  such  a thing  occurring  once  in  a hotel — a very 
respectable  one,  too.  One  of  the  boarders  had 
a rattle-snake,  which  he  shut  up  in  a box  in  the 
garret,  where  it  was  perfectly  secure. 

A MEMBER.  Was  it  a copper-head? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  A copper-head  rattle-snake. 
[Laughter]. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Not  just  now,  in  the  midst  of 
my  story. 

One  morning  one  of  the  boarders,  on  getting 


up,  saw  lying  down  in  one  corner  of  his  room 
something  or  other  that  looked  like  a rod.  He 
was  about  to  pick  it  up  when  the  thing  began 
to  squirm,  and,  upon  investigation,  it  was  found 
to  be  that  same  rattle-snake  which  the  fellow 
had  kept  shut  up  in  a box  perfectly  safe.  The 
owner  was  doubtless  opposed  to  taxing  rattle- 
snakes, and  believed  in  no  other  restriction 
than  that  they  should  be  kept  from  running  at 
large.  If  there  had  been  a Constitution  then 
about  to  be  made,  and  there  had  been  a propo- 
sition to  insert  a provision  in  the  instrument 
with  a view  to  suppressing  rattle-snakes,  he 
would  doubtless  have  threatened  the  de- 
feat]of  this  Constitution,  as  now  my  apprehensive 
friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Rowland]  prophe- 
sies the  defeat  of  this  if  the  keeping  of  dogs  is  to 
be  interfered  with.  Talk  about  taxing  rattle- 
snakes, with  a view  to  prevent  their  being 
kept,  or  to  prevent  anything  more  than  their 
being  allowed  to  run  at  large ! 

Mr.  President,  I do  not  believe  so  much  in 
dogs,  and  I do  not  believe  in  propositions  to 
remedy  the  evil  of  dogs  by  requiring  them  to  be 
confined.  As  I have  said,  such  an  idea  is  a hum- 
bug. Time  was,  I have  no  doubt,  when  dogs 
were  a valuable  protection  against  stealthy  and 
unarmed  depredators,  and  against  wild  animals. 
In  those  primitive  times  I have  no  doubt  but 
that  a dog  might  be  of  some  use.  But  in  these 
times  the  ingenuity  of  man  has  been  found  suf- 
ficient for  any  counteravailing  device.  He  can 
open  any  kind  of  a lock  which  you  can  contrive. 
Just  so  soon  as  he  finds  there  is  nothing  but  a 
dog  in  the  way,  the  same  ingenuity  which  will 
enable  him  to  baffle  one  of  your  most  approved 
combination  locks  will  contrive  ways  enough 
to  get  rid  of  a dog.  Why,  even  such  a vulgar 
method  as  a little  beefsteak  bated  with  a little 
strychnine,  and  thrown  in  the  way  of  the  dog, 
will  generally  finish  up  the  animal.  You  can 
hardly  get  a dog  so  cunning  that  he  will  not 
eat  beefsteak  when  it  is  offered  him,  even  in 
that  illicit  way. 

Talk  about  keeping  dogs  shut  up!  Talk 
about  the  protection  afforded  by  dogs ! It  is  a 
ridiculous  idea.  It  belongs  to  the  barbarous 
age.  Dogs,  as  a means  of  protection,  are  of  a 
piece  with  man  traps  and  spring  guns.  I know 
there  are  communities  where  they  believe  in 
dogs,  and  where  they  would  not  be  deprived  of 
dogs  for  anything.  I know  one  such  community 
where,  if  you  should  really  attempt  to  cut  off 
dogs  by  this  Constitution,  more  than  twenty 
would  vote  against  it.  I remember  once,  when 
passing  through  it,  I saw  a great  crowd  gathered 
together,  aud  I wondered  what  was  the  matter. 
Directly  I saw  the  object  of  their  attention,  two 
dogs  fighting. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Which  one  whipped? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  is  a subject  in  which  I 
never  felt  curiosity.  But,  as  I passed,  I saw 
men,  women  and  children,  every  one  of  whom, 
with  eyes  starting  from  the  head,  glared  like 
demons  from  the  bottomless  pit.  Every  one 
was  as  fierce  and  excited,  and  as  ready  to  bite 
somebody,  as  the  dogs,  and  every  one  seeming 
to  be  a partizan  of  one  dog  or  the  other. 

A MEMBER.  Which  side  did  you  take  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I took  the  other  side  of  the 
street,  and  not  one  of  them  seemed  to  see  me. 
I venture  to  say  that  if  that  had  been  a hustings 


2159 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  TAXATION  OF  DOGS. 

March  18, 1874.1  Tuttle,  Hale,  Miner,  Cowen,  Bishop,  Rowland,  etc. 


upon  this  Constitutton,  with  a dog  provision  in 
it,  and  if  a vote  had  been  taken  there,  at  that 
moment,  there  would  have  been  little  short  of 
a hundred  unanimous  votes  against  the  Consti- 
tution. They  could  not  have  given  up  the 
luxury  of  having  a dog  fight. 

Here  the  hammer  fell,  but,  by  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Convention,  the  gentleman  was 
allowed  to  proceed. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I hope  that  this  provision 
will  prevail,  just  as  it  stands. 

The  question  was  then  taken  upon  the  amend- 
ment, which  was  not  agreed  to,  twenty-three 
gentlemen  voting  in  the  affirmative  and  forty 
in  the  negative. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore . There  was  a 
motion  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  word  “and” 
in  the  third  line,  and  inserting  the  word  “or.” 
The  Chair  decided  the  motion  not  in  order  at 
the  time  it  was  made.  Is  that  motion  now  re- 
newed? 

Mr.  HALE.  The  Committee  on  Revision 
might  fix  it,  but  it  would  be  changing  the 
meaning  entirely.  The  word  should  certainly 
be  “ or.”  It  seems  to  me  that,  by  common  con- 
sent, the  change  could  be  made. 

No  objection  was  made,  and  the  word  “or” 
was  inserted  in  place  of  the  word  “ and.” 

Mr.  MINER.  I announced,  a few  moments 
ago,  that  I would  vote  against  this  section,  un- 
der the  supposition  that  the  same  thing  was 
provided  for  in  a previous  section.  Now,  how- 
ever, as  a doubt  has  arisen  in  the  minds  of  gen- 
tlemen eminent  in  the  law  as  to  whether  that 
is  the  case,  I shall  be  constrained  to  vote  for 
the  section. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I move  to  strike  out  section 
nine,  and  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  the 
motion. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I rise  to  a point  of  order 
What  is  that  but  indirectly  requiring  us  to  vote 
twice  upon  the  one  question,  whether  we  will 
adopt  this  or  not? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  There  has 
been  no  question  upon  the  adoption  of  the  sec- 
tion, and  no  such  question  is  necessary  there- 
upon, according  to  the  practice  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I would  like  to  have  the  sec- 
tion reported  again. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  9.  The  General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law  to 
regulate,  restrain  or  prohibit,  by  special  tax,  assessment 
or  otherwise,  the  keeping,  harboring  or  running  at  large 
of  dogs. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I shall  vote  for  striking 
out  that  section,  for  the  reasons  which  I have 
given.  I hope  I have  not  offended  any  gentle- 
man here  by  what  I have  said,  for  I had  no 
desire  to  raise  such  a tempest  in  a teapot  as  we 
have  had  in  reference  to  this  dog  question.  I 
will  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Trumbull  [Mr. 
Tuttle],  also,  that  I had  no  idea  of  waking  up 
all  the  rattle-snakes  in  his  region,  and,  if  I can 
do  anything  to  restrain  or  prohibit  our  dogs 
from  barking  at  him  on  the  street,  I assure  him 
it  will  afford  me  great  pleasure  to  do  so. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I rise  simply  to  state  that  I 
shall  vote  against  the  proposition  to  strike  out 
the  section,  because  I do  not  believe  that  dogs 
are  a species  of  property  that  needs  protection ; 
and  I believe,  further,  sir,  that  the  section  will 


not  operate  in  a manner  detrimental  to  the  in- 
terests of  the  people  of  Hamilton  county. 
Hamilton  county  has  been  specially  named,  be- 
cause my  colleague  [Mr.  Rowland]  happened 
to  make  some  remarks  upon  the  subject;  but 
there  are  a great  many  people  in  that  county 
who  are  in  favor  of  the  dog  law,  and  whilst  I 
should  have  preferred  myself  that  the  rule 
should  be  flexible,  as  desired  by  my  colleague, 
the  majority  of  this  Convention  have  decided 
differently.  Believing  that  many  sections  of 
the  country  need  protection  from  dogs,  and  that 
the  law  will  not  injure  us,  I shall  vote  for  it. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  striking  out  section  nine,  and  upon  that 
question  the  yeas  and  nays  are  demanded. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yeas  7,  nays  58 — as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Cowen,  G-reene,  Hoadly,  Mitchener, 
Pratt,  Rowland,  Shultz — 7. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Andrews,  Beer, 
Bishop,  Biose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Car- 
bery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Doan, 
Freiberg,  Godfrey,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  McCauley,  Mullen, 
Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips, 
Pond,  Powell,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Root,  Russell  of 
Meigs,  Sample,  Scofield,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw, 
Smith,  Townsend,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler, 
Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoorhes,  Yoris,  Waddle,  Weaver, 
West,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of 
Champaign — 58. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  not  agreed  to. 

No  further  amendments  were  offered  to  sec- 
tion nine,  which  was  the  last  section  of  the  Arti- 
cle, as  reported  by  the  Committee. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I move  that  Proposition  No. 
204  be  engrossed,  printed,  and  made  the  special 
order  for  Friday  morning,  immediately  after 
the  reading  of  the  Journal. 

Mr.  BEER.  Before  that  motion  is  put,  I de- 
sire, on  the  part  of  several  members  of  this 
Convention,  to  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  the  Convention  agreed  to  section  three,  as 
adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tern.  There  was  no 
vote  taken  upon  the  adoption  of  section  three. 
There  was  a vote  taken  on  the  question  of  strik- 
ing out  that  section,  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
in  a substitute. 

Mr.  BEER.  I understand  that  the  original 
section  was  stricken  out  and  a substitute 
adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  original 
section  was  stricken  out,  and  the  substitute  of 
the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  was 
adopted. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  that  substitute  was  adopted. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I think  that  the  substitute 
was  adopted  by  yeas  and  nays. 

A MEMBER.  How  did  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  vote? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tern.  The  Secretary 
informs  me  that  the  gentleman  voted  in  the 
affirmative  upon  the  insertion  of  the  substitute. 
He  has,  therefore,  the  right  to  make  the  mo- 
tion. 


2160 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Godfrey,  Scofield,  Pratt,  Griswold,  Beer,  etc. 


[141st 

[Wednesday, 


Mr.  GODFREY.  As  this  is  a question  which 
involves  some  thought,  and  as  considerable  de- 
bate was  had  before  the  adoption  of  this  substi- 
tute, I should  like,  before  determining  how  I 
shall  vote  upon  the  question  of  a reconsidera- 
tion, to  hear  what  it  is  that  is  desired  to  be 
brought  up  on  this  reconsideration.  We  have 
spent  a great  deal  of  time  upon  this  subject, 
and  I should  like  to  be  informed  of  the  object  of 
the  reconsideration. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I desire  that  the  substitute 
which  was  adopted  may  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a rate  that  shall  be 
uniform,  within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy,  all  real 
and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  value,  to  be 
ascertained  by  such  equitable  rules  of  appraisement  as 
may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  That  is  sec- 
tion three,  as  adopted.  The  question  is  now  up- 
on the  motion  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  the 
substitute  which  I offered,  and  which  was  voted 
down  immediately  before  the  one  just  read  was 
adopted.  It  covers  the  principles,  I think, 
which  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer]  wishes  to  reach. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  For  informa- 
tion, the  reading  of  the  substitute  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  is 
called  for 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  For  whose  information 
does  the  gentleman  ask  it?  For  his  own? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Yes,  mine. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  gentleman  ought  to 
recollect  what  he  did  himself. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rule,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money,  so  that  all  property  shall  forever  bear  an  equal 
share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation.” 

Mr . BEER.  I made  the  motion  to  reconsider 
at  the  request  of  quite  a number  of  delegates 
upon  this  floor  for  the  reason  that  they  are 
dissatisfied  with  the  last  clause  of  the  sec- 
tion. They  think  the  words  “equitable  rules 
of  appraisement”  afford  too  much  scope,  too 
much 

Mr.  POWELL.  Leeway. 

Mr.  BEER.  Too  much  leeway — that  is  the 
word — to  the  Legislature ; and  it  is  feared  that 
influences  may,  at  some  time  or  other,  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  Legislature  by  which 
an  unjust  system  of  assessment  and  taxation 
may  be  inaugurated.  Upon  an  examination  of 
the  section,  I am  very  much  dissatisfied  with  it 
myself.  If  I had  understood  it,  I should  not 
have  voted  for  it;  and  I would  not  vote  for  it 
again.  I think  when  gentlemen  come  to  read 
and  consider  it,  they  will  find  that  it  ought  to 
be  changed  so  as  to  come  nearer  the  language 
of  the  old  Constitution,  and  so  as  to  contain  the 
language  of  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  William  [Mr.  Pratt.]  It 
ought  to  provide  for  a uniform  and  equal  rate 
of  assessment  and  taxation  upon  all  personal 
and  real  property,  so  that  all  property  shall 
bear  an  equal  share  of  the  burdens  of  taxation, 
according  to  its  true  value  in  money.  These 
words  are  understood,  their  construction 
is  settled,  and  they  have  been  used  in  the 
State  for  a long  time;  but  this  word  “equita- 
ble ” affords  too  much  room  for  the  use  of  dis- 


cretion, and  discrimination  in  favor  of  some 
classes  against  others.  Undoubtedly,  the  true 
rule  is  that  each  species  of  property  shall  bear 
its  equal  burden  with  all  other  property.  One 
species  of  property  should  be  taxed  in  propor- 
tion to  its  value,  the  same  as  all  other  species, 
and  the  rule  ought  to  be  made  fast,  so  that  the 
Legisiature  can  never  escape  it,  and  so  that  any 
attempt  to  escape  from  it  would  make  a tax  law 
unconstitutional. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I was  not  here 
when  this  substitute  was  offered,  and  have  not 
had  opportunity  to  consider  about  it,  and  so  I 
may  be  wrong  in  the  impression  which  I have 
received.  I do  not  understand  some  of  the 
language  which  is  used  here.  The  language 
which  is  employed  in  the  second  line  does  not 
seem  to  me  clear.  I will  state  why  I do  not 
think  there  is  any  necessity  for  it.  The  sec- 
tion reads : “Laws  shall  be  passed,  taxing  by  a 
rate  that  shall  be  uniform  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion making  the  levy,  all  real  and  personal 
property,”  etc.  The  rate  “shall  be  uniform 
within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy.” 
Now,  if  it  is  to  be  within  the  jurisdiction 
making  the  levy,  where  is  that  jurisdiction? 
In  the  several  counties  of  the  State?  If  that 
uniformity  is  to  exist  all  over  the  State,  and  is 
to  exist  in  regard  to  State  taxes,  the  jurisdic- 
tion will  be  the  State.  Therefore,  there  is  no 
necessity  for  the  employment  of  this  language. 

Mr.  WEST.  At  that  point  I wish  to  offer  a 
suggestion.  The  General  Assembly  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  makes  the  levy  for  State  purposes. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  Yes,  sir. 
Very  well? 

Mr.  WEST.  The  county  makes  the  levy  for 
county  purposes;  townships  make  levies  for 
township  purposes ; towns  make  levies  for 
town  purposes ; school  districts  make  levies  for 
school  purposes ; and  road  districts  make  levies 
for  road  purposes.  Each  one  of  these  is  a spe- 
cial jurisdiction ; the  State  is  a general  juris- 
diction. Now,  for  whatever  purpose  the  tax  is 
levied  within  any  of  these  jurisdictions,  it  shall 
have  a uniform  rate  upon  the  property  of  that 
special  locality. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I think  it  is 
liable  to  misconstruction.  If  that  be  the  gen- 
eral rule,  why  make  the  particular  designation  ? 
If  you  provide  by  a general  provision  that 
assessment  or  levy  shall  be  by  uniform  rule,  it 
meets  the  very  question  you  make,  precisely.  I 
have  said  already  that  I have  not  considered  the 
question,  but  it  strikes  me  that  there  maybe  a 
misunderstanding  of  the  rule — “Laws  shall  be 
passed,  taxing  by  a rate  that  shall  be  uniform 
within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy.” 
Now,  the  gentleman  says  that  if  it  be  for  a 
State  tax,  the  State  will  levy  it  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  State;  if  it  be  by  a county  or  a 
municipality,  the  rate  shall  be  fixed  uniform 
within  that  jurisdiction.  It  is  barely  possible, 
however,  that  this  language  may  bear  the  fol- 
lowing construction : The  rate  is  to  be  fixed 
uniform  within  the  jurisdiction  making  the 
levy ; not  uniform  in  the  State,  but  within  that 
| jurisdiction;  so  a rate  may  be  fixed  in  one 
county  that  does  not  exist  in  another;  a rate 
may  be  fixed  in  Hamilton  county  that  does  not 
exist  in  Champaign  county.  When  the  rate  ia 
to  be  fixed  uniform  within  the  jurisdiction 


2161 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  18,  1874.]  Young  of  C.,  Powell,  Clark  of  R.,  Griswold,  West,  etc. 


making  the  levy,  even  for  State  purposes,  it  may 
be  held — perhaps  mistakenly — that  counties 
within  their  jurisdiction  may  make  the  rate 
even  for  State  purposes. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Champaign  permit  me  a question  ? 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  Well,  sir? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  I would  say  that 
there  can  he  no  doubt  at  all  but  that  the  con- 
struction put  upon  the  rule  by  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is  the  true  one, 
namely  : that,  without  these  words,  it  would  be 
very  questionable  whether  you  could  levy  any 
tax  except  what  would  be  uniform  throughout 
the  State,  and  which  could  not,  therefore,  be 
varied  in  the  different  counties  and  townships. 
I think  that  these  words  are  subject  to  no  con- 
struction except  the  exact  construction  put  upon 
them  by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr. 
West]. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  It  may  be  ex- 
actly right,  and  I may  be  mistaken.  I only 
asked  the  attention  of  the  Convention  because 
the  words  struck  me  as  open  to  misconstruction. 
I would  much  rather  the  words  were  left  out. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  There  was  no  such 
difficulty  as  that  suggested  by  the  gentleman 
from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell]  under  the  old 
Constitution, 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  These  words 
were  not  employed  in  the  old  Constitution,  and 
I think  there  was  no  such  construction  put  upon 
the  rule. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  language  was  not 
employed  at  all  under  the  old  Constitution. 
There  was  a different  rule. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  word  “ rate  ” is  not  em- 
ployed in  the  old  Constitution. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  The  words  I 
am  not  clear  about  are  the  words,  “ within 
the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy.” 

Mr.  WEST.  These  words  were  not  necessary 
in  the  old  Constitution,  because  the  word  “rate” 
was  not  employed. 

Mr.  YOUNG,  of  Champaign.  I think  that  as 
these  words  may  possibly  be  liable  to  a wrong 
construction,  they  should  not  be  used.  Why 
might  we  not  dispense  with  these  words,  and 
leave  the  section  so  as  to  read : “ Laws  shall  be 
passed,  taxing,  by  a rate  that  shall  be  uniform, 
all  real  and  personal  property,”  etc? 

Mr.  POWELL.  As  I just  suggested,  it  might 
be  construed  to  prohibit  a difference  in  different 
counties.  We  want  to  levy  different  taxes  in 
different  counties.  Without  these  words,  there 
might  be  difficulty  in  doing  so;  with  them, 
there  is  none. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  the  Convention 
will  reconsider  this  vote.  At  the  time  the  sub- 
stitute was  offered,  I think  a great  many  gentle- 
men voted  for  it  without  due  consideration,  and 
amongst  them,  my  friend  [Mr.  Beer].  1 voted 
against  the  substitute,  because  I was  very  much 
better  satisfied  with  the  Report  made  by  the 
Committee,  which  had  been  well  considered  in 
regard  to  the  language  employed.  I prefer  the 
language  of  the  original  report,  and  the  reason 
why  I am  opposed  to  the  change  is,  that  I no- 
tice that  the  langunge  of  the  old  Constitution, 
with  reference  to  this  taxation,  providing  that 
all  species  of  property  shall  bear,  equally,  the 

y.  n-138 


burdens  of  taxation,  is  omitted.  Gentlemen 
argue  that  that  is  tautology,  and  that  there  is  no 
use  in  having  it  here.  Perhaps  that  may  be  so, 
but  I do  not  want  to  run  any  risks  in  this  mat- 
ter. There  has  been  judicial  construction  put 
upon  the  language  by  the  courts,  fixing  the  rules 
of  interpretation  upon  the  subject.  If  this  lan- 
guage is  dropped  here,  possibly  we  may  have 
the  same  sort  of  thing  which  I alluded  to  once 
before,  when,  by  the  dropping  of  certain 
words  in  the  Constitution  of  1851,  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Revision,  on  the  ground  of  tautology, 
every  single  one  of  the  established  decisions 
upon  the  subject  was  reversed.  I do  not  want 
to  be  thrown  into  a sea  of  doubt  upon  the  mat- 
ter. I am  not  at  all  satisfied  with  this  lan- 
guage, and  I believe  that  if  this  section  is  left  in 
the  shape  in  which  it  now  stands,  instead  of  in 
the  shape  in  which  it  was  originally  proposed  by 
the  Committee,  the  probability  is,  that  when 
we  come  to  require  fifty-three  votes  upon  this 
Proposition,  a great  many  gentlemen  will  not 
vote  for  it.  I do  not  desire  such  a thing  to  take 
place;  I want  to  understand  thoroughly  what 
we  are  doing.  I do  not  know  whether  the 
amendment  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  will  exactly  cover  the 
point,  for  I have  only  just  come  into  the  Hall, 
having  been  in  the  Reporter’s  Room  all  after- 
noon. I desire  that  the  Convention  will  recon- 
sider this  proposition,  in  order  that  we  may 
more  fully  determine  the  effect  of  the  language 
we  place  in  here,  for  I do  not  want,  even  by  im- 
plication, to  give  any  ground  for  the  rule  of 
taxation  contended  for  by  my  friend  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Hoadly],  who,  I understand,  is 
very  well  satisfied  with  the  particular  shape  of 
this  amendment,  as  now  adopted,  and  being  op- 
posed to  that,  I hope  we  shall  reconsider. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  permit  me  to  ask  a ques- 
tion? 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  What  particular  system  of 
taxation  have  I advocated  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Well,  I understand  that  the 
gentleman  has  been  rather  favorable  to  the  idea 
that  was  advanced  in  the  State  of  New  York,  by 
Mr.  Wells. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  is  entirely 
and  totally  mistaken. 

Mr.  BABER.  I am  much  obliged  to  the  gen- 
tleman. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I began  by  saying  when  I 
spoke  the  other  day,  that  I did  not  propose  any 
system,  and  did  not  feel  competent  to  do  it;  but 
I am  opposed  to  tying  the  hands  of  the  Legisla- 
ture so  that  they  cannot  do  what  is  right,  and 
I know  that  a .uniform  rule  of  taxation  and 
assessment,  when  “ rule  ” means  “ assessment  ” 
as  well  as  “ rate,”  is,  and  always  will  be  a fail- 
ure. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  has  admitted, 
in  effect,  just  what  I supposed.  He  does  not 
propose  to  make  any  system.  He  wants  to  leave 
the  matter  open  to  the  Legislature,  so  that  cer- 
tain interests  may  go  up  to  the  Legislature,  and, 
by  their  concentrated  vote  from  the  large  cities, 
get  a system  adopted  that  suits  them,  but  does 
not  suit  the  rest  of  the  State.  I do  not  propose 
to  throw  the  door  open  in  that  way,  at  least 


2162 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [141st  Day. 

Hoadly,  Baber,  Carbery.  [Wednesday,  March  18, 1874. 


without  hearing  further  argument  upon  the 
matter.  Ido  not  say  but  that  I may  ultimately 
do  what  the  gentleman  desires  us  to  do. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  to  interrupt  him  again  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I want  to  say  again  to  the 
gentleman  that  while  I am  in  favor  of  leaving 
the  Legislature  free  to  act,  I do  not  propose  any 
system,  and  am  not  a party  to  any  contemplated 
application  to  the  Legislature  to  make  any  sys- 
tem ; but  the  gentleman  knows  as  well  as  I do 
that  real  and  personal  property  have  never 
been  and  never  will  be  assessed  by  the  same 
rule,  and  that  if  the  courts  were  appealed  to,  to 
enforce  the  constitutional  provision,  that  real 
and  personal  property  should  be  assessed  by  the 
same  rule,  the  result  would  be  the  declaration 
that  the  present  tax  laws,  and  all  that  we  have 
ever  had,  were  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution, 
for  we  never  had  a tax  law  that  pretended  to 
assess  real  and  personal  property  by  the  same 
rule — never. 

Mr.  BABER.  I understand  the  gentleman’s 
position,  and  I recollect  the  decision  made  by 
the  supreme  court  of  California  upon  this  very 
question,  but  I do  not  believe  that  was  very 
sound  law.  Perhaps  I may  differ  with  the  gen- 
tleman in  regard  to  the  legal  aspect  of  this 
question,  and  possibly  the  courts  may  differ 
with  the  gentleman,  too.  But  I do  not  want  to 
throw  this  whole  thing  into  a sea  of  uncer- 
tainty and  contest.  I want  this  Convention  to 
try,  if  possible,  if  they  cannot  adopt  some  sys- 
tem that  will  not  lead  to  this  sort  of  shifting 
construction. 

I happened  to  be  in  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  when  the  equalization  upon  the  real  prop- 
erty was  made  in  this  State  by  a body  presided 
over  by  an  eminent  citizen  of  Cincinnati  [Mr. 
Groesbeck],  and  I recollect  well  the  contest 
that  occurred  with  regard  to  the  question  of  the 
taxation  of  real  property.  I remember,  also, 
the  pressure  that  was  brought  to  bear  by  the 


representatives  of  some  of  the  large  cities  upon 
this  subject;  but  the  Legislature,  after  a very 
full  discussion,  resolved,  by  an  overwhelming 
majority,  not  to  follow  the  ideas  and  the  views 
advocated  by  these  gentlemen.  Why,  Mr. 
President,  gentlemen  talk  about  real  property 
not  being  valued  at  what  it  is  worth.  Now, 
everybody  knows  that  the  productiveness  of 
real  property,  taking  into  account  what  it 
pays — which  is  some  two  or  three  per  cent. — 
does  not  begin  to  bear  any  proportion  at  all  to 
the  amounts  made  upon  money,  or  credits,  or 
personal  property ; in  other  words,  you  want  to 
tax  most  that  species  of  property  which  is  least 
able  to  bear  taxation — namely,  real  estate — and 
to  impose  the  burden  of  taxation  upon  the  farm- 
ing interests  of  the  country. 

It  was  in  1845  that  this  present  system  of 
taxation  was  introduced.  Up  to  that  date,  for 
over  forty  years,  the  farming  interests  had  paid 
nearly  all  the  taxes ; but  when  this  new  system 
was  introduced,  it  was  advocated  by  Mr.  Alfred 
Kelley,  and  endorsed  by  Auditor  Brough,  and 
by  all  the  eminent  financial  men  of  all  parties 
in  the  State.  There  may  be  some  defects  in  that 
system,  and  I am  willing  to  listen  to  arguments 
upon  this  subject;  but  I am  not  willing,  without 
fully  and  thoroughly  understanding  whether 
this  language  does  or  does  not  overthrow  all 
the  decisions  of  the  courts  upon  the  subject,  to 
vote  for  this  section  as  it  stands,  and  I think  a 
very  great  many  other  gentlemen  in  this  Con- 
vention feel  as"  I do — at  least,  I hope  so.  I 
hope,  therefore,  that  the  Convention  will  re- 
consider the  section,  so  that  we  may  fully  un- 
derstand what  we  are  voting  for. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I move  the  Convention  do 
now  adjourn. 

Which  motion,  upon  a division,  was  agreed 
to,  thirty-three  members  voting  in  the  affirma- 
tive, and  thirty-two  in  the  negative. 

Whereupon  (at  5 : 45  p.  m.)  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 


REPORT  ON  TRAFFIC  IN  INTOXICATING  LIQUORS 

Scribner,  Clark  of  J.,  Coats. 


2163 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FORTY-SECOND  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

EIGHTIETH  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Thursday,  March  19,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to 
adjournment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  A.  I.  Hobbs,  of  the  Sixth 
Street  Christian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  77  members  answered 
to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Philips  for  to-day,  and  for  Messrs.  Thomp- 
son and  Waddle  for  an  indefinite  length  of 
time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

INTRODUCTION  OF  PROPOSITIONS. 

The  following  Proposition  was  introduced 
and  read  the  first  time : 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  TRAFFIC  IN 
INTOXICATING  LIQUORS. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER  submitted  the  following  Report: 

The  Committee  on  the  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors 
having  attentivelyconsidered  the  several  Propositions  and 
petitions  referred  to  them,  report  the  accompanying  Pro- 
position, No.  228,  and  recommend  that  it  be  made  part  of 
the  Schedule  of  the  Constitution. 

C.  H.  Scribner, 

Jacob  Mueller, 
Julius  Freiberg, 

John  J.  Rickly, 

John  McCauley. 

It  having  been  suggested  that  the  Committee  on  the 
Schedule,  of  which  I am  a member,  may  be  charged  with 
some  duty  as  to  stating  the  extent  of  majority  to  be  re- 
quired where  propositions  are  separately  submitted,  I ex- 
press no  opinion  upon  tnat  part  of  the  Report  relative  to 
that  subject;  otherwise  the  Report  is  approved  by  me. 

G.  M.  Tuttle. 

The  undersigned  member  of  said  Committee  dissents 
from  the  above  recommendation. 

Wm.  Adair. 

Mr.  Clark,  of  Jefferson,  desires  to  have  the  Proposi- 
tion submitted  in  such  form,  that  in  case  a majority  of 
votes  be  against  the  granting  of  license,  the  following 
shall  be  a section  in  the  Constitution,  viz: 

“The  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  whe- 
ther fermented,  brewed,  or  distilled,  or  any  admixture,  a 
part  of  which  is  alcoholic,  and  adapted  to  be  used  as  a bev- 
erage, is  prohibited.  And  the  General  Assembly  shall, 
within  one  year  from  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
enact  laws,  with  adequate  penalties,  for  the  enforcement 
of  this  provision.” 

Mr.  Coats  can  not  agree  with  the  majority  of  the  Com- 
mittee in  the  foregoing  Report,  and  respectfully  presents 
the  reasons  that  compel  him  to  dissent  thereto: 

“1.  He  is  opposed  to  a license  system  for  the  regulation 
of  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  in  anv  way,  and  all 
forms  proposed  in  that  behalf,  but  would  be  willing  to 
submit  the  question  to  the  people  upon  a fair  basis  of  sub- 
mission of  alternative  Propositions,  which  he  believes  is 
not  secured  in  said  Report,  as  will  be  clearly  seen  by  ref- 
erence thereto,  in  this,  that  it  is  therein  provided  that 
less  than  a majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  for  or  against 
the  Constitution  as  a whole  may  secure  the  adoption  of 


the  license  clause,  and  make  it  an  integral  part  of  said 
Constitution. 

“2.  By  the  plan  of  submission  proposed  and  provided 
for  in  said  Report,  the  friends  of  a license  system  obtain 
all  they  desire,  or  have  asked  for  by  their  petitions  or 
otherwise;  whereas  the  friends  of  temperance,  who  favor 
and  have  asked  at  the  hands  of  this  Convention  for  more 
stringent  and  restrictive  measures  than  are  provided  in 
the  present  Constitution,  clearly  obtain  nothing,  while  by 
this,  or  any  other  plan  of  submission,  they  are  in  immi- 
nent danger  of  losing  all  they  now  have;  therefore,  to 
make  said  Report  such  as  shall  secure  a fair,  equitable 
and  just  presentation  of  alternative  propositions,  it 
should  provide  therein  that  in  case  the  license  clause,  so 
submitted,  shall  not  receive  a majority  of  all  the  votes 
cast  for  or  against  the  Constitution  as  a whole,  then  in 
that  event  the  present  section  of  the  Constitution  shall  be 
retained  in  the  new  or  amended  instrument  with  the  ad- 
dition of  the  following  clause  thereto:  ‘And  the  General 
Assembly  shall  have  full  power  to  regulate,  control  and 
rohibit  the  sale  of  all  kinds  of  intoxicating  liquors  as  a 
everage  within  this  State,’  or  equivalent  words,  which 
would  secure  the  same  or  a similar  restrictive  principle, 
and  thus  in  some  measure,  or  to  some  extent,  at  least, 
compensate  the  friends  of  temperance,  further  restric- 
tions and  safeguards  against  the  evils  growing  out  of  the 
traffic  and  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  as  a beverage,  for 
being  put  in  jeopardy,  as  they  will  necessarily  be,  by  any 
plan  of  submission  ot  the  matter  under  consideration,  in 
any  form  that  can  be  devised.  To  provide,  merely,  as  by 
said  Report,  that  the  failure  of  the  license  clause  shall 
operate  simply  in  securing  the  retention  of  the  present 
section  of  the  Constitution,  secures  nothing  whatever  not 
secured  without  the  use  of  that  form  of  words;  therefore, 
the  words  inserted  for  that  purpose  in  said  Report  are  but 
the  merest  shadow,  without  substance,  and  meaningless 
in  form  and  in  effect.  For  the  reasons  here  given,  the 
undersigned,  as  a member  of  the  Committee  on  Traffic  in 
Intoxicating  Liquors,  can  not  concur  in  the  majority  Re- 
port.” 

John  B.  Coats. 

Proposition  No.  228 — From  the  Committee  on  the  Traffic 
in  Intoxicating  Liquors : 

A Substitute  for  section  18  of  the  Schedule. 

Section  — . At  the  time  when  the  votes  of  the  electors 
shall  be  taken  for  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  this  Con- 
stitution, there  shall  be  separately  submitted  to  tue  elec- 
tors, for  adoption  or  rejection,  an  additional  section  in  the 
words  following,  to  wit: 

Sec.  — . License  to  traffic  in  spirituous,  vinous,  or  malt 
liquors,  may  be  granted  under  such  regulations  as  shall 
be  prescribed  by  law. 

The  vote  for  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  said  section 
shall  be  in  the  manner  following:  A separate  ballot  may 
be  given  by  each  elector,  and  deposited  in  a separate 
box.  Upon  the  ballot  given  for  said  separate  amend- 
ment shall  be  written  or  printed,  or  partly  written  and 
partly  printed,  the  words,  “License  to  traffic  in  intoxi- 
cating liquors,  Yes;”  and  upon  the  ballots  given  against 
said  amendment,  in  like  manner,  the  words.  “License  to 
traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors,  No.”  If,  at  said  election, 
a majority  of  the  votes  given  for  and  against  said  amend- 
ment, shall  contain  the  words,  “License  to  traffic  in  in- 
toxicating liquors.  Yes;”  then  said  amendment  shall  be  a 
separate  section  of  Article  XV  of  the  Constitution.  But 
if  a majority  of  the  votes  given  for  and  against  said 
amendment  shall  contain  the  words,  “License  to  traffic 
in  intoxicating  liquors,  No;”  then  the  following  amend- 
ment shall  be  a separate  section  of  Article  XV  of  the 
Constitution,  to  wit: 

Sec.  — . No  license  to  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors 
shall  hereafter  be  granted  in  this  State;  but  the  General 
Assembly  may,  by  law,  provide  against  evils  resulting 
therefrom. 


2164 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

West,  Beer,  Scribner,  Hoadly,  Powell. 


[142nd 

[Thursday, 


SECOND  READINGS. 

The  following  Propositions  were  read  the 
second  time : 

Proposition  No.  226— By  Mr.  West  : 

When  the  other  amendments  to  the  Constitution  are 
submitted  to  the  electors,  the  following  shall  be  separ- 
ately submitted  for  ratification  or  rejection,  in  the  same 
manner  that  other  amendments  may  be  separately  sub- 
mitted, which,  when  ratified,  shall  supersede  and  stand 
in  lieu  of  Article  XV  of  the  Constitution,  to  wit: 

TEMPERANCE. 

Section  1.  Except  in  compliance  with,  and  upon  the 
terms  and  conditions  prescribed  by  law,  no  person  shall 
traffic  in  or  sell  intoxicating  liquors  within  this  State. 

Sec.  2.  Laws  shall  be  passed  to  prevent  the  evils,  and 
compensate  the  injuries  resulting  from  the  sale  or  fur- 
nishing of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  from  the  intoxica- 
tion consequent  thereon. 

Sec.  3.  County  commissioners,  township  trustees  and 
municipal  authorities,  shall  have  power  severally  to  re- 
strict or  prohibit  the  traffic  in,  or  sale  of,  intoxicating 
liquors  wifhin  their  respective  jurisdiction,  and  to  im- 
ose  thereon  terms  and  conditions  other  than,  and  in  ad- 
ition  to,  those  prescribed  by  law. 

Sec.  4.  Nothing  in  this  Constitution  shall  be  construed 
as  denying  to  the  General  Assembly  the  power  to  restrict 
or  prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors,  or  to  regulate  the  same  in  any  manner  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  provisions  of  this  Article. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore . If  there  is 
no  motion  in  regard  to  the  reference  of  this 
Proposition,  it  will  be  referred  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  WEST.  I desire  that  the  Proposition  lie 
on  the  table  until  the  Report  of  the  Committee 
on  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors  is  considered, 
and  that  it  take  the  same  reference. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  is 
that  the  Proposition  lie  on  the  table.  If  there 
is  no  objection,  it  will  be  so  ordered. 

Proposition  No.  227— By  Mr.  Beer  : 

An  additional  section  to  Article  IY. 

Sec.  — . At  any  time  after  the  expiration  of  five  years 
from  the  date  of  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  the 
General  Assembly  may  provide  by  law,  for  the  abolition 
of  the  Circuit  and  Probate  Courts,  or  either  of  them,  and 
for  the  transfer  of  the  causes  and  records  therein  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  or  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  and  may  pro- 
vide for  the  election  of  one  or  more  Common  Pleas  Judges 
in  each  county  in  this  State;  and  it  may  at  any  time  put 
an  end  to  the  Probate  Court  in  any  counties  composing  a 
Common  Pleas  district,  and  provide  for  the  transfer  of 
the  causes  and  records  therein  to  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  and  for  the  election  of  one  or  more  Common  Pleas 
Judges  in  each  of  the  counties  composing  such  district. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  that  the  Proposition  lie 
on  the  table,  to  be  considered  in  connection 
with  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial 
Department. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  is  no 
objection,  it  will  be  so  ordered. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  SCRIBNER.  I offer  the  following  Re- 
solution. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man from  Lucas  [Mr.  Scribner]  offers  the  follow- 
ing Resolution,  which  the  Secretary  will  read: 
The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

Resolution  No.  192-By  Mr.  Scribner: 

“ Resolved , That  the  Secretary  be  instructed  to  transmit 
to  the  Governor  a copy  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Accounts  and  Expenses  relating  to  the  pi’Obable  expenses 
of  the  Convention,  with  the  information  that  an  addi- 
tional appropriation  of  $60,000  may  be  required  to  enable 
the  Convention  to  complete  its  work.” 

The  Resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  to  take  from  the  table 


the  motion  made  by  me  on  yesterday,  to  recon- 
sider the  vote  by  which  the  Convention  agreed 
to  strike  out  section  three. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
will  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer],  that  if  he  will  move  to  proceed  to 
the  special  order  of  the  day,  Proposition  No. 
204,  his  motion  will  come  up  with  it. 

Mr.  BEER.  I make  that  motion. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  special 
order  of  the  day  is  Proposition  No.  204,  and  the 
question  pending  is  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  to  recon- 
sider the  vote  by  which  a change  was  made  in 
section  three. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  this  on  the  motion  to  re- 
consider section  three  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  is. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  to  say  a word  or  two 
on  that  motion.  The  gentleman  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber] 

Mr.  POWELL.  If  the  gentleman  will  per- 
mit me,  I would  ask  that  the  section  and  the 
matter  which  calls  up  this  question  be  first  read, 
so  that  we  may  understand  it. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  section  as  finally  adopted. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows  : 

Sec.  3.  Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  bv  a rate  that 
shall  be  uniform  within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy, 
all  real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true 
value,  to  be  ascertained  by  such  equitable  rules  of  ap- 
praisement as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  gen- 
tleman desire  to  have  the  original  section  read  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  to  have  the  matter 
that  will  be  brought  up  by  this  motion  to  re- 
consider. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  That  has  just 
been  given. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  whole  of  that  section,  or 
a part  of  it? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  whole  of 
it. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin [Mr.  Baber]  saw  fit  last  evening  to  make  a 
personal  attack  upon  me,  and  gave,  as  a reason 
for  the  reconsideration  of  this  section,  that  I 
was  not  in  favor  of  the  section  as  it  stands,  and 
was  attempting  by  some  sort  of  indirection  or 
fraud  to  accomplish  something  that  does  not 
appear  above  the  surface.  Now,  sir,  I leave 
that  attack  where  it  was  made.  If  it  amounts 
to  anything,  let  it  go  for  all  it  is  worth.  But  I 
will  also  say  that  so  far  from  being  satisfied  with 
this  section  as  it  reads,  I went  to  the  author  of 
this  section  and  labored  with  him  to  change 
one  word,  which,  if  changed,  would  make  me 
satisfied  with  it,  but  which,  if  unchanged, 
renders  me  dissatisfied,  although  I voted  for  it, 
and  will  continue  so  to  do,  as  being  the  best  I 
can  secure.  If  this  word  “appraisement”  read 
“assessment,”  I should  be  satisfied,  but  as  it  does 
not  read  assessment,  1 should  prefer  the  section 
in  another  form.  Therefore,  the  gentleman 
was  wrong  in  attributing  to  me  satisfaction 
with  this  section,  and  if,  m interrupting  him, 
I showed  anything  like  satisfaction,  I wish  to 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION 

Hoadly,  Griswold,  Pratt. 


2165 


Day.J 

March  19, 1874.] 


correct  him.  I prefer  the  word  “assessment,” 
and  I believe  that  the  section  would  be  greatly 
improved  if  that  word  “appraisement”  were 
eliminated,  and  the  word  “assessment”  intro- 
duced. 

A MEMBER.  Give  your  reasons. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Simply  because  the  word 
“appraisement”  refers  to  mere  valuation,  to 
the  translation  of  all  real  and  personal  property 
into  money  values,  and  that  is  all  this  has  ref- 
erence to,  whereas,  in  my  judgment,  the  Legis- 
lature should  be  free  to  adopt  such  separate, 
divisible  and  distinct  methods  of  assessment  as 
well  as  of  appraisement,  as  would  result  in 
bringing  upon  the  tax  duplicate  all  the  real  and 
personal  property  of  the  State  in  a just  and 
equitable  manner. 

Mr.  President,  we  made  two  great  mistakes, 
in  my  opinion,  in  the  Constitution  of  1851 . I 
voted  for  them,  as  a citizen,  upon  the  adoption 
of  that  instrument,  and  for  one  of  these  mistakes 
I have  been  a penitent  ever  since,  and  shall  be 
to  the  end  of  my  days.  One  of  these  mistakes 
was  in  inaugurating  free  trade  in  whisky,  by 
forbidding  the  license  system,  thus  preventing 
the  State  from  realizing  that  large  tax  upon 
the  traffic  which  would  be,  in  some  measure,  a 
compensation  for  the  evils  and  mischief  that  it 
works,  and  the  cost  which  it  entails  on  the  com- 
munity, which  would  be  the  result  of  a judicious 
license  system,  and  while  I do  not  propose  to 
discuss  that  now,  I mention  it  because  it  falls 
incidentally  in  my  way. 

But  we  made  another  great  mistake  in  the 
Constitution  of  1851 ; that  was  in  surrendering 
the  power  to  tax  anything,  except  real  and  per- 
sonal property,  according  to  its  value  in  money, 
and  we  are  in  great  danger  of  surrendering 
that  power  again.  It  will  be  a great  mistake  to 
tie  the  hands  of  the  Legislature  of  Ohio,  so  that 
it  cannot  tax  other  things  than  real  and  personal 
property,  by  its  money  value,  so  that  we  cannot 
do  as  Pennsylvania  does.  She  realizes  the 
greater  part  of  the  State  expenses  by  the  tax- 
ation of  corporate  franchises,  but  the  State  of 
Ohio  extends  to  corporations  the  privilege  to  do 
business  in  their  corporate  capacity  without 
liability  of  their  members,  except  for  double 
their  stock,  and  at  the  same  time  that  it  grants 
this  privilege  it  imposes  no  tax  upon  them,  not 
the  least  in  the  world,  other  than  the  same  tax 
imposed  on  individuals  engaged  in  business. 
They  are  free  from  the  burden  in  Ohio,  whereas 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania  derives  from  the  rail- 
roads and  other  corporations,  in  exchange  for 
the  franchises,  the  larger  part  of  the  revenues 
of  the  State — six  or  seven  millions  a year,  as  I 
am  told  by  a member  sitting  near  me — and  in 
my  judgment,  the  corporate  franchises  of  Ohio 
ought  all  to  be  taxed,  irrespective  of  their 
money  value  as  property.  Another  day  ought 
not  to  pass  before  the  railroad  companies,  gas 
companies,  and  other  corporations  throughout 
the  State  can  be  reached  by  the  Legislature,  by 
requiring  from  them  some  compensation  for  the 
enormous  grants  given  them  to  do  business, 
without  the  full  liability  of  their  members. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Under  the  old  Constitu- 
tion you  could  not  tax  franchises  at  all. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly  you  could  not. 
So  far  from  the  delegate  from  Franklin  [Mr. 
Baber]  having  correctly  guessed  my  opinions, 


I hold  that  the  great  errors  of  the  old  Constitu- 
tion were  not  in  the  line  he  thinks  my  thoughts 
go,  but  in  exempting,  as  it  practically  did,  all 
corporate  franchises,  and  the  traffic  in  whisky 
and  other  intoxicating  liquors  from  the  grasp 
of  the  State.  Mr.  President,  because  I happen 
to  be  the  personal  friend  of  Mr.  David  A.  Wells, 
and  because  I happen  to  hold  him  in  very  high 
esteem,  also,  as  a statesman,  and  because  I la- 
bored to  bring  before  this  Convention  his  views 
on  the  subject  of  taxation,  I am  no  more  re- 
sponsible for  his  judgment  than  I am  for  the 
views  of  any  other  man  of  whose  peculiar  no- 
tions I have  formed  no  opinion  whatever. 
And  I disclaim  further  responsibility  for  the 
views  held  by  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr. 
Dorsey],  views  as  to  which  I have  formed  no 
opinion  at  all. 

I wish  to  say  another  thing.  The  gentleman 
from  Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  and  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  say  that  this  term 
“uniform  rule”  is  a well  understood  term  and 
judicially  construed.  The  gentlemen  were 
never  more  mistaken  in  the  world.  Where  is 
the  judicial  construction  of  these  words,  “a 
uniform  rule?”  Show  it  tome.  I can  say  to 
the  gentleman  that  if  they  put  those  words  into 
the  Constitution,  though  I may  not  agree,  for  I 
think  them  fraught  with  mischief,  I will  be  one 
of  the  first  to  endeavor  to  enforce  their  appli- 
cation. 

In  the  year  1869,  one  of  the  ablest  merchants 
in  Cincinnati,  who  stands  as  near  the  head  of 
the  list  as  any, came  to  me  and  solicited  my  pro- 
fessional assistance  to  endeavor  to  enforce  the 
words  “uniform  rule.”  He  said  to  me : “For 
nine  years  the  real  property  of  Hamilton 
county  has  not  been  appraised,  while  my  mer- 
chandise in  my  store  has  been  appraised  every 
year.  The  cattle,  furniture,  and  ordinary  per- 
sonal property  of  persons  all  over  the  State,  is 
appraised  at  what  they  own,  early  in  April, 
annually,  but  my  merchandise  is  appraised  by 
the  average  throughout  the  year,  irrespective  of 
what  I owned  in  April.’’ 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  join  in  the 
endeavor  to  enforce  upon  the  Legislature  the 
duty  of  causing  a re-appraisement  of  real  estate 
every  one,  two,  or  three  years  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  If  the  gentleman  votes  the 
words  “uniform  rule”  into  the  Constitution,  1 
will  join  in  the  endeavor  to  have  those  words 
“uniform  rule”  made  true. 

I wish  to  continue  my  statement.  That  man 
said  to  me : “The  tax  on  my  merchandise,  ac- 
cording to  this  Constitution,  is  entirely  pro- 
hibited, except  by  uniform  rule,  and  I want  to 
know,”  said  he,  “whether  this  is  a uniform 
rule?  Does  it  not  embrace  the  assessment  as 
well  as  the  rate  of  taxation  ?”  I told  him  it 
did ; that  these  words  referred  to  both  the  rate 
and  the  assessment.  Then  he  said  to  me,  “How 
can  it  be  that  the  real  property  of  this  State 
has  been  exempt  from  taxation  on  its  increased 
value  for  the  last  nine  years,  and  my  mer- 
chandise has  been  appraised  on  its  monthly 
average  money  value  every  year.  Your  fur- 
niture,” he  said,  pointing  to  me,  “is  appraised, 
not  on  the  average  amount,  but  on  the  value  you 
hold  in  April.”  I said  to  him,  “Sir,  I have  no 
doubt  that  if  you  bring  action  you  can  destroy 
this  provision  of  the  statutes,  but,  next  year  we 


2166 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [142nd 

Hoadly,  Tuttle,  Pratt,  Miner,  Page.  [Thursday, 


shall  have  a re-appraisement  of  the  real  estate 
of  the  State,  and  the  year  after  a new  Consti- 
tution, and  there  is  no  use,  in  1869,  of  your 
attempting  a reconstruction  of  the  old  Consti- 
tution in  the  direction  you  desire.  Wait;”  and 
he  did. 

I ask  my  friend  if  a rule  of  uniform  assess- 
ment is  not  bound  to  result  in  destroying  the 
very  equality  desired.  And  whether  the  en- 
forcement will  not  nullify  the  Constitution. 
I do  not  believe  it  is  practicable  to  appraise  all 
property  by  a uniform  rule — by  the  same  rule 
for  real  estate,  credits,  merchandise  and  all  the 
various  interests  which  are  held  in  the  form  of 
property  throughout  the  State  of  Ohio.  No, 
sir,  the  true  plan  of  taxation  is  to  make  the 
burden  fall  equally  on  every  interest  through- 
out the  State,  and  to  give  the  Legislature  full 
power  to  reach  every  interest,  and  not  simply 
to  confine  them  to  a single  method  called  a uni- 
form rule  of  assessment  and  taxation.  And, 
therefore,  my  idea  is,  that  we  should  give  to 
the  Legislature  power  to  grapple  with  the  sub- 
ject, knowing  as  we  do  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly can  not  stray  very  far  off  in  a wrong  direc- 
tion, without  the  opportunity  of  recall. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  like  to  ask  a ques- 
tion if  the  gentleman  will  permit. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  is  with  regard  to  section  5, 
and  relates  to  the  suggestion  made  by  the  gen- 
tleman touching  the  taxing  of  franchises,  or 
corporations  on  account  of  their  franchise.  Is 
not  that  provided  for,  or  with  a slight  change, 
would  it  not  be  conferred  by  section  five? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Yes  it  will,  but  I am  not 
talking  about  the  present  Constitution.  I said 
we  had  made  an  error  twenty  years  ago,  and 
I hold  that  we  are  in  danger  of  repeating  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I understand  the  gentleman 
now;  I thought  he  was  objecting  to  the  section. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  at  all.  I did  believe 
the  other  day,  as  suggested,  that  we  were  in  dan- 
ger of  repeating  that  error.  I am  in  favor  of 
giving  the  Legislature  power  to  reach  all 
species  of  property  and  every  kind  of  advantage 
conferred  by  law,  and  for  which  a bonus  ought 
to  be  paid  in  the  form  of  an  increased  tax,  and 
not  seek  tie  our  hands  and  confine  our  taxation 
to  two  items  without  going  any  further,  and 
then  require  that  they  should  be  appraised  at 
their  true  value  in  money  and  assessed  for  taxes 
by  what  is  called  a uniform  rule,  which,  if  it 
means  anything,  means  simply  that  the  same 
rule  of  assessment  required  by  one  species  of 
property  is  required  by  another. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  is  precisely  what  I mean 
by  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  want  to  make  a 
speech,  but  I want  to  ask  the  attention  of  the 
gentleman  and  other  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  section  five,  to  see  whether  it  does  not 
now  provide  for  this,  and,  if  it  does  not, 
whether  it  should  not  receive  some  slight 
change  for  that  purpose,  so  as  to  give  the  right 
to  do  the  very  thing  suggested  by  the  gentle- 
man— to  tax  corporations  on  account  of  the 
benefits  which  they  have  from  that  which  is 
specially  granted  to  them,  and  not  to  anybody 
else : 

“The  General  Assembly  may  impose  taxes  by  license, 
excise  or  otherwise,  and  also  provide,  by  equitable  rules, 


for  taxing  all  income  derived  from  investments,  when 
from  any  cause  whatever  the  principal  from  which  such 
income  is  derived  cannot  be  taxed.” 

I do  not  know  but  that  the  word  “invest- 
ments ” ought  to  be  stricken  out;  but,  without 
that,  it  seems  to  me  it  would  accomplish  some- 
thing in  that  line 

Mr.  MINER.  I wish  to  inquire  whether  the 
franchise  of  corporations  is  property  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I understand  that  it  is,  most 
clearly,  property,  but  it  may  be  property  which 
is  very  difficult  to  value. 

Mr.  HOADLY  (in  his  seat).  That  is  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  And  the  value  is  rather  to  be 
determined  by  the  income  from  it.  Still,  it 
might  be  said  it  is  not  an  investment,  and  its 
value  was  hardly  to  be  measured  by  the  amount 
of  money  invested  in  it. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  on  the  motion  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I was  waiting  with  the  hope 
that  some  other  gentleman  might  discuss  this 
motion,  and  that  there  would  be  no  necessity 
of  saying  anything,  but  as  they  do  not  seem  dis- 
posed to  do  it,  I wish  to  say  a word  or  two  upon 
the  subject.  I voted  for  the  section  as  adopted, 
but  I have  considerable  doubt  about  the  correct- 
ness of  it,  and  I hope  this  motion  to  reconsider 
will  carry.  The  principal  reason  I give  for  that 
is  this : The  Committee  on  this  subject  had  it 
under  consideration  for  about  six  months,  and 
very  carefully  and  deliberately  prepared  a sec- 
tion— section  number  3 — and  reported  it;  and 
afterwards,  when  this  subject  comes  up  for  dis- 
cussion, they  suddenly  abandon  that  section,  and 
substitute  something  that  seems  to  have  been 
prepared  without  much  care  or  consideration. 
Now,  this  is  one  of  the  most  important  matters 
that  has  been  brought  before  this  Convention,  or 
that  will  be  brought  before  it.  And  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly important  that  we  should  give  to  this 
subject  all  the  consideration  it  demands.  Every 
gentleman  must  admit  that  it  is  a difficult  sub- 
ject to  comprehend  and  legislate  about.  I think 
there  are  are  very  few  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion that  are  acquainted  with  the  practical 
workings  of  the  tax  law.  I admit  that  I am 
not,  and  I am  in  a state  of  uncertainty  as  to  the 
correctness  of  the  provision  we  have  adopted. 
I think  of  all  the  things  we  are  acting  upon,  in 
this  Convention,  this  is  the  one  that  requires 
deliberation,  and  this  provision  ought  not  to 
be  adopted  hastily,  or  forced  down  our  throats. 

I think,  even  if  the  gentlemen  who  are  in  fa- 
vor of  it,  or  the  gentlemen  who  made  the  report, 
are  perfectly  convinced  it  is  right,  and  not  cap- 
able of  improvement,  yet  they  owe  it  to  them- 
selves to  allow  the  Convention  to  give  it  consid- 
eration, in  order  that  others  may  be  satisfied. 
There  is  in  this  Convention,  I know,  a wide- 
spread dissatisfaction  in  regard  to  this  provis- 
ion. There  are  very  few,  if  any,  members  who 
voted  against  it,  that  are  satisfied  with  it,  and 
there  is  a large  number  of  those  who  voted  for 
it  that  are  dissatisfied  with  it.  There  is  a fear 
in  this  Convention  that  there  is  something  lurk- 
ing under  this  provision  that  is  not  perceived; 
that  the  full  bearing  and  results  of  this  provis- 
ion may  be  very  different  from  those  that  stand 
out  upon  its  face.  But  I appeal  to  the  members 
of  this  Convention  not  to  adopt  this  provision 
in  a hurry.  Let  us  carry  this  motion  to  recon- 
sider, and  give  gentlemen  here  time  to  reflect 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 2167 

March  19, 1874.]  Page,  Smith,  Pratt,  Cunningham. 


and  examine.  I say  that  no  provision  before 
this  Convention  ought  to  be  adopted  without 
satisfying,  at  least,  a large  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers. I frankly  admit  that  I never  did  any  law 
business  in  my  life,  in  a hurry,  but  that  I made 
a blunder,  and  I adopted  a rule,  many  years  ago, 
that  I never  would  do  any  important  business 
without  time  for  reflection  and  consideration, 
and  whenever  a client  tries  to  hurry  me  in  doing 
business,  without  granting  me  time  to  attend  to 
it  properly,  I send  him  to  somebody  else.  I 
have  discovered  by  experience  that  no  man  can 
see  the  full  effects  of  a legal  proposition  imme- 
diately, unless  he  has  a hundred  eyes ; if  a law- 
yer had  a hundred  eyes  he  would  need  them  all 
in  the  transaction  of  his  business.  We,  most 
assuredly,  need  them  here.  Now,  I appeal  to 
gentlemen  of  this  Convention  to  give  us,  at 
least,  time  for  further  consideration,  and  let  us 
be  satisfied.  We  are  not  satisfied  with  this  pro- 
vision, as  adopted,  and  I do  not  understand  why, 
after  the  Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation 
had  this  subject  under  consideration  for  six 
months,  they  should  suddenly  abandon  it  and 
bring  in  something  new.  1 hope  the  motion 
will  carry. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I had  hoped  that  when  the 
Convention  had  adopted  this  Article,  our  work 
was  done,  and  that  I would  be  relieved  from 
all  further  responsibility  of  its  care,  but  it 
seems  now  that  it  is  the  desire  on  the  part  of 
the  Convention  that  this  important  clause— and 
I admit  that  it  is  an  important  one — shall  be 
again  a subject  of  discussion.  So  far  as  I am 
personally  concerned,  I really  have  no  objec- 
tion to  the  Convention  discussing  this  question 
from  now  till  the  day  they  close  their  labors 
here.  I belong  to  a class  of  practical  gentle- 
men in  the  country,  and  I think  my  friend  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  claims  some  sort  of  kin- 
ship in  that  respect,  who  are  not  always  and 
absolutely  certain  about  the  truth  of  our  con- 
victions. I never  seemed  to  be  endowed  with  that 
sort  of  intuition  which  belongs  to  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  of  always  seeing 
the  truth  right  before  my  eyes.  The  process  of 
human  thought  through  which  every  think- 
ing man  has  to  go  to  reach  conclusions  depends 
upon  so  many  propositions,  so  many  additional 
facts  and  ideas,  that  but  few  men  in  this  world 
are  so  inspired  with  the  light  of  reason,  clear- 
ness of  conception,  and  truthfulness  of  judg- 
ment as  to  arrive  at  conclusions  which  are  abso- 
lutely certain  in  their  own  minds.  If  that  was 
the  ground  and  simply  the  ground  upon  which 
this  question  was  put  for  reconsideration,  I cer- 
tainly could  not  object.  Nor  shall  I grieve  if 
this  Convention  assent  to  it  from  any  other  con- 
sideration. 

In  regard  to  the  action  of  the  Committee,  it 
is  a mistake  to  say  we  have  been  six  months  in 
the  incubation  of  this  Article.  It  was  the  work 
of  about  six  weeks  of  such  conflict  of  thought 
and  such  antagonism  of  ideas  during  the  con- 
sideration that  this  third  clause,  as  presented 
to  the  Convention,  was  the  patchwork  of  fifteen 
gentlemen,  merely  to  agree  upon  a proposition. 
That  is  the  history  of  it. 

Mr.  PRATT  (in  his  seat).  They  did  not 
agree  very  well  then,  did  they  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  they  did  not  agree  very 
well  then.  But  after  the  Report  was  made  and 


printed,  it  never  received  the  consideration  of 
the  Committee  one  moment,  as  a Committee,  to 
the  day  upon  which  the  Report  was  ordered  for 
discussion. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I would  ask  the  gentleman, 
then,  if  that  is  not  a good  reason  why  this  Con- 
vention should  consider  it  with  great  care  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I will  come  to  that.  Now, 
when  it  came  up  for  discussion,  I thought  I 
saw  in  it  a great  deal  more,  in  my  judgment,  of 
danger  and  difficulty  as  to  the  great  fundamen- 
tal principle  that  ought  to  underlie  a system  of 
taxation  in  Ohio  than  I supposed  was  seen  by 
the  friends  or  advocates  of  the  proposition. 
And,  without  consultation  with  anybody,  I pre- 
pared the  clause  which  I offered  as  a substitute, 
in  its  original  form,  at  my  own  suggestion, 
and  when  I had  it  I did  not  know  I was  right, 
and  I submitted  it  to  my  friend,  the  delegate 
from  Cleveland,  Judge  Andrews,  and  other 
members  of  this  Convention,  to  know  how 
far  the  proposition  covered  the  true 
ground  of  taxation  for  the  State.  1 had 
various  suggestions,  modifications  and  amend- 
ments presented  by  different  members  of 
the  Convention,  almost  all  of  which  I re- 
jected for  the  reason  that  I thought  they  fur- 
nished an  occasion  for  a departure  from  the 
true  spirit  of  what  ought  to  be  a general  pro- 
vision for  taxation.  Now,  sir,  if  you  will  read 
that  Article  fairly  and  attentively,  as  in- 
troduced by  this  Committee,  you  will  see  that 
it  implies — in  my  judgment — a very  dangerous 
feature.  Under  the  Constitution  of  1851  we  in- 
augurated a system  of  taxation  substantially,  I 
think,  meeting  with  the  approval  of  the  coun- 
try. And  I see  no  great  reason  now  for  de- 
parting to  any  great  extent  from  the  spirit  of 
that  system. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
an  inquiry  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore . Will  the  gen- 
tleman give  way  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PRATT.  How  far  does  the  substitute 
get  away  from  the  principle  of  the  original  Ar- 
ticle ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I will  explain  that.  Now,  sir, 
in  the  conflict  of  opinion  in  that  Committee, 
there  was  an  effort  fairly  and  honestly  mani- 
fested to  establish  different  rules  of  taxation 
upon  property  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  That  was 
the  purpose.  It  was  complained  that  the  one 
simple,  uniform  rule  of  taxation  was  an  iron 
rule,  operating  adversely  to  certain  interests  in 
the  State.  An  effort  was  made,  as  I have  said, 
to  incorporate  different  rules,  varied  rules,  a 
number  of  rules,  such  as  the  equity  and  justice 
and  good  sound  policy  of  a system  of  taxation 
might  justify.  That  proposition  met  with  no 
favorable  reception  from  a majority  of  the 
Committee,  in  the  broad,  general  sense  in 
which  they  sought  to  obtain  for  it.  But  they 
finally  succeeded  in  incorporating  this  in  that 
section  : That  is,  that  laws  shall  be  passed — not 
taxing  by  a uniform  rule — but  “taxing  by  equi- 
table and  uniform  rules”  all  property  in  the 
State  of  Ohio. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Will  the  gentleman 
allow  me  to  interrupt  him  a moment  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Will  the  gen- 
tleman give  way  ? 


2168 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith,  Cunningham,  Powell,  Page,  Pratt. 


Mr.  SMITH.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I simply  wanted  to 
make  an  appeal  for  better  order  in  the  Hall. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  appeal 
is  well  taken.  [Laughter.]  I trust  members 
will  preserve  better  order. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  clause  was  incorporated 
there,  “ equitable  and  uniform  rules,”  in  the 
taxation  of  property  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  Now, 
gentlemen  say  that  they  prefer  to  go  back  to 
that  rule.  They  prefer  to  take  that  section. 
That  section,  if  it  means  anything,  means  that 
you  should  have  a vaiiety  of  rules,  and  carries 
with  it,  by  implication,  that  you  may  have  a 
variety  or  number  of  rules,  which,  however,  in 
their  application,  should  be  uniform.  Uniform 
where  ? Why,  it  implies  aud  carries  with  it  the 
idea,  if  reduced  to  practice,  of  having  various 
classes  of  property,  and  then  to  apply  uniform 
rules  to  that  diverse  classification  of  property 
interests  in  Ohio.  Now,  by  the  latter  clause  of 
that  section,  it  was  sought  to  correct  what 
might  be  the  possible  legal  inference  as  to  the 
first  clause,  “ equitable  and  uniform  rules,” 
that  all  property  should  bear  its  equal  share  of 
the  public  burden.  Now,  in  attempting  to 
carry  out  that  provision  by  a variety  of  rules, 
dividing  the  burdens  fairly  and  squarely  upon 
the  property  of  this  State,  so  that  all  property 
should  share  equally  in  the  public  burdens, 
presented  such  difficulties  in  my  mind — even  if 
they  took  the  views  I desired  them  to  take — pre- 
sented such  legal  difficulties  that  I felt  such  a 
rule  would  be  unwise  as  a principle  to  be 
adopted  by  this  body,  and  I w*ent  to  work  to 
work  to  discover,  if  I could,  and  to  devise  a 
clause  that  should  substantially  recognize  the 
fundamental  idea  that  ought  to  underlie  a sys- 
tem for  the  taxation  of  property  in  Ohio,  and 
give  an  opportunity  for  such  discrimination  in 
the  modes  of  appraisement  as  would  secure 
justice  to  each  and  every  property  interest  in 
Ohio. 

[Here  the  gavel  fell.] 

‘‘Leave!”  “Leave!” 

Mr.  PRATT.  1 believe,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  Convention  desires  heartily  to  hear  from 
the  gentleman  at  length. 

Permission  was  given  for  the  delegate  from 
Highland  to  continue. 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  the  condition  of  things 
in  Ohio  under  our  present  tax  system.  And  I 
do  not  mean  now  to  go  into  a refined  legal  dis- 
cussion of  the  matter,  but  I want  to  give  a 
practical  view  of  what  is  now  the  mode  of 
reaching  the  property  of  the  State  of  Ohio  un- 
der this  uniform  rule.  If  that  word  uniformity 
carries  with  it  the  idea  of  equality  in  the  impo- 
sition of  public  burdens,  then  I would  not,  in 
my  proposition,  have  sought  to  depart  from  it. 
Now,  how  do  we  get  at  the  property  of  Ohio  ? 
In  reaching  the  real  estate,  in  all  its  varied 
forms,  we  attempt  to  appraise  it.  Under  our 
laws,  we  appoint  and  clothe  with  power  certain 
individuals  in  Ohio  to  appraise  the  real,  tangible 
property  of  the  State.  Now,  that  is  the  whole 
of  your  appraisement.  When  you  come  to 
that  class  of  property  which  is  hidden  from 
public  inspection,  which  is  concealed  from  the 
gaze  of  the  officer,  which  can  be  secreted  in 
a thousand  ways  from  public  inspection,  how 
do  you  appraise  it?  You  have  no  form  of  ap- 


[142nd 

[Thursday, 


praisement  whatever.  I am  the  appraiser  of 
all  my  estate  which  is  not  in  land  or  brick  and 
mortar,  and  so  is  every  gentleman  in  Ohio. 
You  have  never  attempted  to  adopt  any  rules 
of  appraisement.  You  have  left  each  individ- 
ual to  arrange  his  own  estates,  and  give  his 
own  value  upon  them,  and  that  is  the  rule  of 
appraisement. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I ask  a question  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  it  not  so  because  it  is  im- 
possible that  it  should  be  otherwise  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I am  not  discussing  that  ques- 
tion. Now,  sir,  I admit  to  the  gentleman,  that 
is  one  of  the  inherent  difficulties  of  taxation 
which  sends  us  out  to  prospect  for  concealed 
property  in  this  State.  But  it  is  our  duty  to 
get  open  a road  to  this,  and  I am  one  of  those 
who  are  willing  to  believe  that  we  have  fully 
secured,  to  considerable  extent,  that  property 
in  Ohio ; but  it  is  proper  we  should  have  a sys- 
tem of  taxation  that,  in  the  outward  growth, 
and  increase  of  the  aggregate  personal 
estate,  should  bring  the  invisible  estate  in  Ohio 
upon  the  tax  duplicate  just  as  fast  as  it  is  made 
and  realized.  Now,  sir,  in  the  provision  which 
I offered,  I looked  first  to  the  great  question  of 
bringing  under  its  subjective  influence  all  the 
property,  in  whatever  form  it  may  exist,  or  by 
whatever  tenure  it  may  be  held ; and  I want  it 
all  placed  upon  the  grand  duplicate  of  this 
State,  and  pay,  by  one  common  rate,  one  uni- 
form rate,  its  just  proportion  of  the  burden 
into  the  public  treasury  of  Ohio.  That  consti- 
tutes the  two  fundamental  ideas  of  the  propo- 
sition, and  the  only  modification,  and  I do  not 
see  how — to  be  fair  and  honest  about  it — I do 
not  see  how  any  objection  can  be  urged  against 
it,  that  it  authorizes  the  General  Assembly  to 
provide  equitable  rules  of  appraisement. 

Mr.  PAGE.  May  I ask  if  the  General  As- 
sembly could  not  do  that  under  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1851 ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I was  going  to  say  that.  We 
cannot  confer  upon  the  Legislature,  so  far  as  I 
know,  any  extraordinary,  new  power.  When  I 
put  that  clause  in,  authorizing  them  to  secure 
the  appraised  value  of  all  property  by  such 
equitable  rules,  as  in  their  wisdom,  they  might 
prescribe,  only — and  I may  be  mistaken  in 
that— this:  that  I do  say  that  the  General 
Assembly  must  prescribe  rules  of  appraise- 
ment. I want  that  General  Assembly  to  have 
some  other  way  of  getting  at  my  property  than 
resting  upon  my  personal  report  thereon,  and 
if  it  is  practicable  in  the  future  legislation  of  the 
State  that  rules  can  be  devised  by  which  the 
hidden  estate  can  be  justly  and  fairly  enrolled 
and  exhibited  for  taxation  so  much  the  better, 
and  if  there  is  anything  at  all  in  the  branch  of 
the  proposition  to  which  some  objections  seems 
to  be  taken,  it  lies  in  this,  that  I had  provided 
that  the  General  Assembly  shall,  by  rules  of 
appraisement,  such  as  wisdom  and  experience 
may  suggest,  attempt  to  secure  the  hidden 
property  of  Ohio,  so  that  it  can  be  brought 
to  bear  its  full  burden  according  to  its  value, 
by  a uniform  assessment  and  taxation. 

Mr.  PAGE.  Could  it  not  be  done  now? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Not  if  my  understanding  of  it 
is  correct. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Was  there  ever  anything  but 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith,  Page,  Pratt,  Root. 


2169 


Day.] 

March  19,  1874.] 


uniform  rate  of  taxation  upon  appraisements 
made  heretofore,  attempted  in  this  State  or 
elsewhere? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I said  so  at  the  outset  of  my 
remarks.  But  in  making  the  alteration  or 
modification  of  the  Proposition  offered  by  me, 
that  is  all  I sought  to  accomplish.  Now,  if 
there  is  anything  in  this  proposition  which 
upon  its  face  does  not  present  itself  clearly  to 
the  consideration  and  judgment  of  this  house, 
it  is  because  I was  unable  to  put  in  the  English 
language  the  precise  ideas  that  I entertained. 
It  will  not  do  to  discuss  a question  of  this  kind 
unfairly.  It  involves  too  great  interest  to  dis- 
cuss it  upon  any  such  principle,  as  well  as  it  is 
unworthy  of  fair-minded  gentlemen  in  council 
to  discuss  a proposition  upon  the  imputation  of 
personal  ideas  or  motives. 

Mr.  PAGE.  If  the  gentleman  will  allow,  I 
have  not  even  insinuated  or  intended  or  thought 
that  any  gentleman  had  any  improper  design 
in  framing  this  provision,  but  it  might  still 
have  something  lurking  in  it  that  does  not  ap- 
pear on  its  face,  and  I wish  it  understood  that 
I have  the  highest  respect  for  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee,  and  I did  not  intend  to  say 
anything  that  would  cast  any  reflections  upon 
him  or  any  one. 

Mr.  SMITH.  When  the  proposition  was  be- 
fore the  Convention  I listened  with  pleasure  to 
every  comment  that  was  made  upon  it,  and  I 
listened  also  with  fear  and  apprehension  for 
criticism  that  might  show  that  I was  badly  in 
error,  and  I felt,  as  every  gentleman  ought  to 
feel,  glad  to  avail  himself  of  the  wisdom  of 
any  member.  It  was  in  that  spirit  that  I re- 
ceived suggestions ; it  was  in  that  spirit  that  I 
rejected  suggestions  that  I thought  marred  or 
destroyed  the  unity  of  purpose  and  spirit  of  the 
proposition.  It  was  in  that  spirit  that  I ac- 
cepted the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Logan  [Mr.  West],  although  I feel  now  as 
much  assured  as  when  drafting  the  proposition 
that  the  original  language  in  its  legal  compre- 
hension secured  the  exact  purpose  for  which 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  was  introduced  here  to  secure. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  give  us 
the  original  language  as  drafted  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  if  you  will  look 
at  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
you  will  find  that  their  rule  is  a different  one, 
that  the  whole  idea  of  uniformity  in  that  State 
applies  just  as  I was  fearful  the  idea  of  uni- 
form rules  might  be  used  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 
There  the  word  uniformity  applies  to  the  classi- 
fication of  property,  and  the  rule  was  only  uni- 
form as  to  all  property  comprised  within  a 
specific  class.  But  you  may  have  just  as  great 
a number  of  rules  as  classification  of  property. 
All  that  is  excluded  from  the  length  and  breadth 
of  this  proposition. 

Mr.  PRATT.  By  what  language  is  it?  By 
the  words  “equitable”  rules? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Now,  listen  to  the  language  of 
it:  all  taxes  shall  be  uniform. 

A MEMBER.  That  is  the  Pennsylvania  Con- 
stitution. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes.  “ All  taxes  shall  be  uni- 
form upon  the  same  class  of  subjects  within  the 
territorial  limits  authorized  to  levy  the  taxes, 
and  it  shall  be  levied  and  collected  under  general 


laws.”  The  whole  idea  of  appraisement  is 
thrown  to  the  winds,  and  the  doctrine  of  uni- 
formity is  applied  only  to  classifications  of  prop- 
erty, which  may  be  as  many  as  there  are  dif- 
ferent forms  of  property  in  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania, without  any  reference  whatever  to 
what  I recognize  as  a fundamental  proposition 
in  a system  of  taxation  in  Ohio,  never  to  be 
forgotten,  the  true  value  of  all  its  property.  If 
you  depart  from  that,  if  you  throw  away  the 
idea  of  value,  you  make  the  whole  system  of 
taxation  in  Ohio,  even  with  a uniform  rule, 
vague,  uncertain  and  destructive  as  to  all  honest, 
equitable  and  just  modes  of  distributing  the 
public  burden.  And  if  there  is  anything  in  my 
proposition  at  all  subject  to  criticism,  it  is  that 
question  by  which  I seek,  under  the  doctrine  of 
valuation,  to  arrive  at  a just  and  appreciable 
value  of  all  things  that  ought  to  be  taxed ; and, 
if  I am  right,  and  I flatter  myself — although  I 
may  not  be  able  to  explain — I flatter  myself 
that,  while  I hold  to  the  uniform  rate  on  all 
property,  of  whatsoever  class,  subject  to  equit- 
able rules  of  appraisement,  to  be  applied  by  the 
Legislature,  that  I would  succeed,  or  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  of  Ohio  would  succeed  in  reach- 
ing more  personalty,  more  of  the  concealed,  in- 
visible property  to  be  placed  upon  the  duplicate 
than  she  would  under  any  other  system  that 
has  j’-et  been  devised,  and  if  I succeed  in  that, 
in  a just  and  fair  and  equitable  distribution  of 
the  public  burdens,  I shall  confer  a substantial 
advantage  to  the  whole  taxable  interest  of  the 
State. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  reconsideration. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I am  desirous  that  the  motion  to 
reconsider  should  prevail.  I believe  that  when 
the  intent  of  a large  majority  of  the  Convention 
is  ascertained,  it  can  be  much  better  expressed 
than  it  is  by  the  language  used  in  the  original 
third  section,  or  in  the  third  section  as  it  has  been 
amended.  I believe,  sir,  that  we  had  better  use 
this  form  and  style : declare  in  the  Constitution 
what  shall  be  subjects  of  taxation,  and  that 
nothing,  unless  it  be  dogs,  or  some  other  things 
of  that  sort,  will  not  participate  in  that  matter. 
Dogs  have  all  had  their  day,  and  they  hunted 
their  holes  very  quick  when  my  friend  from 
Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle]  brought  out  his  snakes. 
Everything  of  value  belonging  to  individuals, 
or  voluntary  association  of  individuals,  should 
be  taxed  according  to  its  value.  Now,  whether 
I am  right  or  wrong  in  this  presumption,  let 
the  Convention  determine  for  itself,  and  express 
clearly  in  the  Constitution,  by  a declarative 
clause,  what  shall  be  subjects  of  taxation.  This 
could  be  done  in  very  clear  and  yet  in  very 
general  terms.  Upon  the  Legislature  then  de- 
volves the  duty  of  providing  for  the  execution 
of  this  part  of  the  Constitution  by  proper 
enactments,  and  there  leaves  it.  Now,  this 
would,  in  form,  be  better,  I think,  than  the 
form  originally  reported,  or  the  form  of  the 
section  as  it  now  stands.  We  have  not  done 
that.  We  are  not  proposing  to  do  it.  We  begin 
by  saying  what  the  Legislature  shall  do,  and 
undertake  to  lay  down  specific  rules  for  them. 
What  need  of  this?  When  you  fix  by  a clear 
declaration  in  your  Constitution  what  shall  be 
taxed,  and  that  it  shall  be  taxed  according  to 
its  true  value,  what  need  of  a further  rule  than 


2170 


BEVENUE  AND  TAXATION 

Smith,  Root,  Page,  Bishop. 


[142nd 

[Thursday, 


this,  that  the  Legislature  shall  provide  by  ap- 
propriate enactments  for  the  execution  of  this 
part  of  the  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I want  to  get  at  the  precise 
idea  of  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  I am  not  disposed  to  con- 
ceal it.  I would  prefer  to  leave  the  framing  of 
the  declaratory  clause  to  wiser  men,  men  who 
have  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  this  body  on 
such  subjects  as  this;  indeed,  on  all  subjects 
much  more  than  I do,  to  devise  the  very  form, 
but  this  is  the  substance,  and  I will  repeat  it, 
because  I do  not  want  to  misunderstand  my 
friend  any  more  than  he  is  willing  to  misunder- 
stand me.  It  seems  to  me  the  appropriate  and 
best  way  to  do  it  is  to  declare  in  the  Con- 
stitution what  shall  be  subjects  of  taxation,  and 
that  they  shall  be  taxed  equally  according  to 
their  value.  When  you  devolve  upon  the 
General  Assembly  the  duty  of  providing  for  the 
execution  of  this  part  of  the  Constitution  by  ap- 
propriate enactments,  without  going  into  any 
details,  that,  for  its  simplicity,  would  suit  me 
best.  I believe  it  would  be  best. 

And  now  as  to  the  rule.  My  friend  knows 
that  I have  no  allusion  to  his  motives,  and  that 
it  is  with  very  great  distrust  of  my  own  accuracy 
when  I venture  to  criticise  his  language.  I do 
it  in  no  captious  spirit.  I mean  I say  to  him  as 
I do  what  I say  to  others.  But  there  is  some- 
thing in  this  section  which  I say  in  the  first 
place  does  not  mean  anything,  and  it  has  no 
business  here,  it  has  no  business  anywhere 
where  men  are  willing  to  speak  out  God 
Almighty’s  truth  and  shame  the  devil.  “Laws 
should  be  passed,  that  all  rates  shall  be  uniform 
within  the  jurisdiction,  making  the  levy  of 
realty  and  personalty  according  to  its  true 
value.”  Now,  here,  allow  me  to  say  that  I 
concur  in  the  spirit  of  the  remarks  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton.  I would  tax  franchises 
according  to  their  value.  But,  lest  I be  mis- 
understood, let  me  say  I never  thought,  I never 
would  allow  any  revenue  to  be  derived  as  a 
bonus  for  the  enactment  of  a law  granting  a 
franchise.  When  you  sell  a franchise  for 
money,  you  sell  it  too  cheap.  When  you  grant 
one,  keep  the  right  to  tax  it,  and  that  if  not  re- 
tained in  the  fifth  section  of  this  Proposition 
let  it  be  specifically  denominated  therein — 
“such  equitable  rules  of  appraisement.”  Now, 
what  kind  of  equitable  rules  will  they  be? 
Just  what  the  Legislature  conclude  to  call 
equitable  for  the  time  being.  I remember  once 
something  was  said  about  a judicious  tariff. 
Well,  that  was  just  the  kind  of  a tariff  every- 
body wanted,  but  I believe  that  all  agreed  that 
nobody  got  it.  It  served  its  purpose  for  the 
time  admirably.  Well,  “equitable  rules.” 
That  is  the  kind  of  rules  we  want.  But  how 
much  do  you  do  towards  securing  equitable  rules 
by  providing  this,  and  leaving  the  Legislature, 
as  you  necessarily  must,  to  determine  the  ques- 
tion of  what  is  equitable  or  what  is  inequitable? 
Why,  nothing.  It  is  bosh. 

Mr.  PAGE.  They  are  the  final  judges. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Of  course. 

Mr.  PAGE.  And  there  is  no  appeal. 

Mr.  ROOT.  There  is  no  appeal,  and  it  is  to 
be  equity,  as  they  understand  it.  When  you 
prescribe  the  duty  of  the  Legislature,  I say  you 
are  wasting  your  ink,  you  are  wasting  your  pa- 


per, you  are  wasting  your  time,  and  you  make 
yourselves  ridiculous.  No,  sir,  if  you  want 
any  sort  of  rules  put  them  down  in  the  Con- 
stitution and  then  charge  your  Legislature  to 
conform  to  them;  and  whether  they  do  or  not 
would  be  ascertained,  not  by  their  discretion, 
sir,  but  by  the  decision  of  the  courts.  The 
courts  can  understand  what  the  Constitution 
requires,  and  if  the  Legislature  ventures  to  dis- 
pute and  disregard  the  Constitution,  the  courts 
will  set  it  right.  But  if  you  leave  it  for  the 
Legislature  to  determine  what  equitable  rules 
are,  why  the  courts  will  have  no  more  to  do 
with  them,  and  can  no  more  call  them  to  ac- 
count than  the  Chinese  can. 

Now,  I do  not  undertake  to  say  precisely 
what  these  rules  should  be.  I would  be  glad  to 
hear  wiser  men  speak  out.  I would  be  glad  to 
have  this  question  settled  for  me,  and  to  be  con- 
vinced that  ,when  settled,  it  is  right.  I will  not 
dictate  to  others,  for  on  a matter  of  this  kind  I 
will  confess  to  you  that  I most  distrust  the  man 
who  speaks  with  the  most  confidence.  When  a 
financier,  as  he  is  called,  or  a great  fiscal  agent 
comes  to  testify  before  me,  he  does  so  under 
some  disadvantages.  I have  a prejudice  against 
that  kind  of  folks.  Either  he  is  misled  by  some 
speculative  theory  or  he  is  interested  to  im- 
pose upon  others.  I do  not  say  that  this  ap- 
plies to  all,  but  it  applies  to  a very  large  ma- 
jority of  all  the  financiers  that  ever  fell  under 
my  observation.  I hope,  then,  and  for  reasons 
that  were  urged  so  calmly  and  yet  with  a 
strength,  which  seemed  to  me  unanswerable,  by 
the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  I 
hope  that  the  vote  by  which  that  section  was 
agreed  to  may  be  reconsidered. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man’s time  has  expired. 

Mr.  ROOT.  So  has  my  speech. 

“Leave,  Leave.” 

Mr.  POND.  There  is  no  limit  on  this  section. 
The  Rule  is  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Well,  I should  have  been  cut  off 
if  I could  have  been.  Thanking  gentlemen 
willing  to  give  me  leave,  I yield  the  floor. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I design  making  but  a few 
remarks  upon  this  subject.  I should  have  made 
none,  had  it  not  been  for  the  remarks  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page].  I hope  that 
gentleman  will  listen  to  what  I say.  I have  no 
doubt  the  gentleman  was  very  candid  in  what 
he  said,  and  I cordially  agree,  and  have  so  ex- 
pressed myself  on  this  floor  before,  that  this 
was  a subject  that  should  receive  the  gravest 
consideration.  I asked  it  from  the  Convention 
before  the  subject  came  up.  I agree  with  the 
gentleman  that  it  is  an  important  subject.  The 
gentleman  states  the  Committee  had  this  ques- 
tion under  investigation  some  six  months, 
which  is  a great  mistake.  It  has  been  remarked 
by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  that  it  was 
only  investigated  by  the  Committee  for  six 
weeks,  but  not  six  months.  The  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  means,  1 presume  that, 
it  has  been  six  months  since  it  was  referred  to 
the  Committee,  who  did  investigate  it  thorough- 
ly during  the  time  they  were  in  session.  If 
ever  I undertook  to  learn  or  become  informed 
I on  any  subject  I did  it  on  the  subject  of  revenue 
and  taxation.  I gave  it  such  consideration  as  I 
I was  capable  of  doing,  and  we  presented  an  Ar- 


Day.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Bishop,  Page,  Hitchcock,  Pratt,  Powell. 


2171 


March  19,  1874.] 

tide  that,  to  my  mind,  is  deddedly  more  satis-  | 
factory  than  the  old  one.  If  the  gentleman 
thinks  we  want  to  spring  something  new,  he  is 
entirely  mistaken.  If  it  were  true,  I should 
cheerfully  vote  for  its  reconsideration.  I be- 
lieve it  is  better  than  the  amendment.  I might 
be  mistaken.  I am  like  the  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr,  Root],  I do  not  know  everything. 
But  there  seems  to  be  a feeling,  and  it  is  an  un- 
fortunate feeling— I have  struggled  against  it 
from  the  first  day  I took  a seat  in  this  Conven- 
tion— there  is  a feeling  that  something  under- 
lies these  matters.  It  is  a great  mistake,  so  far 
as  I am  concerned.  I have  but  one  object,  but 
one  design  in  this  Report,  that  is  to  get  a law  by 
which  the  Legislature  can  make  the  burden  of 
taxation  rest  equally  upon  all.  So  far  as  real 
estate  is  concerned,  as  I have  before  said,  I am 
the  last  man  to  try  to  put  unnecessary  or  unjust 
burdens  upon  it,  because  my  interest  is  exactly 
opposed  to  it.  But  that  the  gentleman  may 
know  and  feel  sure  that  there  is  no  feeling  upon  | 
this  subject,  and  no  design  on  the  part  of  the  ; 
Committee,  I would  say  to  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  that  I never  even  saw  | 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  Chairman  of  that  j 
Committee  here.  But  I found  that  some  im- 
portant parts  of  the  Article,  which  we  had 
originally  drafted,  were  stricken  out.  I had 
confidence  in  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
that  he  would  present  a good  thing,  and  when 
I heard  it  read  I "thought  it  better,  and  I pre- 
ferred it  to  the  original  Article  as  amended.  I 
took  it  as  the  best  thing  we  could  get,  under  the 
circumstances,  in  order  to  get  equitable  taxa- 
tion upon  all  classes  of  property.  I instanced 
the  banks  in  this  city — how  one  class  of  banks 
paid  on  their  full  capital  and  surplus,  and  an- 
other class  but  little,  perhaps  not  on  one-fourth 
their  actual  capital.  I am  not  desiring  to  pre- 
judice the  interest  of  farmers.  I am  dependent 
upon  them  for  my  livelihood.  If  I am  depend- 
ent upon  any  one  class  of  people  more  than  an- 
other, it  is  upon  the  farmer  and  the  meehanic. 

I feel  that  the  interests  of  the  people  are  identi- 
cal, and  whenever  we  seek  to  act  against  their 
interests  we  go  against  our  own,  we  cripple 
our  business,  and  the  object  has  been  simply  to 
let  the  Legislature  have  power,  so  that  when 
abuses  present  themselves  they  can  be  remedied. 
We  have  had  amendment  upon  amendment, 
opinion  upon  opinion  brought  in  here,  and  we 
cannot  get  anything  with  which  all  will  be  sat- 
isfied. We  have  had  an  instance  of  that  upon 
the  Judiciary  Article.  There  are  some  sixty 
lawyers  in  this  Convention,  and  in  what  case 
has  there  been  so  much  disagreement  as  with 
them  ? They  have  a right  to  their  opinions,  and 
a right  to  differ.  I have  listened  to  them  with 
a great  deal  of  pleasure.  I do  not  see  any  use 
now  in  changing  again.  We  have  got  what 
suits  best  our  ideas,  and  I want  the  gentleman 
from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  and  everybody  else 
in  this  Convention  to  know  that  so  far  as  the 
Committee  was  concerned  it  was  the  least  of  our 
thoughts  that  we  were  framing  anything 
fraught  with  danger,  neither  did  I think  the 
substitute  offered  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee had  any  danger  underlying  it.  I had 
not  seen  it.  I did  not  know  what  it  was  until 
it  was  read. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I did  not  intend  to  say  that  any 


gentleman  of  that  Committee  acted  from  im- 
proper motives. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  You  remarked,  or  probably 
it  was  some  other  gentleman  said  there  was 
something  underlying  this.  Now  I do  not  be- 
long to  those  who  go  for  one  uniform  rule.  I 
favor  taxation  on  what  a man  is  worth;  and  if 
I am  worth  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  or 
fifty  or  sixty  thousand  dollars,  I want  to  pay 
on  it.  I want  to  reach  these  capitalists.  I am 
in  favor  of  letting  the  Legislature  have  power 
to  reach  private  banks,  general  banks,  farmers, 
mechanics,  merchants,  and  every  other  class  in 
community — even  our  judges,  lawyers,  and 
everybody  else. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I have  no  intention  to 
inflict  a speech  on  the  Convention.  During 
the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Highland 
[Mr.  Smith],  I had  thought  to  follow  him,  giv- 
ing my  views  of  the  effect  of  the  substitute 
which  has  been  agreed  to  by  the  Convention ; 
but  knowing  that  the  Convention  would  be 
restless  under  any  attempt  of  that  kind,  I only 
wish  to  define  my  position  as  a member  of  the 
Committee  making  the  Report  originally,  say- 
ing, as  I did  the  other  day,  that  I care  not  by 
what  means  the  fact  was  arrived  at,  so  that  the 
result  was  reached  that  all  the  property  of  the 
State  should  share  equally  in  the  burdens  of  tax- 
ation, and  feeling  on  the  introduction  of  this  sub- 
stitute, and  having  read  it  repeatedly  before 
its  introduction,  and  studied  it  repeatedly  since 
its  introduction,  being  unable  myself  to  come 
to  any  other  conclusion  than  that  that  princi- 
ple was  entirely  abandoned.  The  effect  of  the 
proposition  being  to  entirely  abandon  the 
principle,  I could  not  sustain  it,  and  did  not 
when  it  was  concurred  in  by  the  Convention. 
I cannot  do  it  hereafter. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I hope  the  gentleman  will  go 
on. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I do  not  wish  to  make 
any  further  remarks. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I must  say  at  this  time,  after 
thinking  considerably  over  the  subject,  that  I 
am  unwilling  to  go  into  any  debate  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  I do  not  believe  that  any  further  de- 
bate will  have  any  other  effect  than  waste  of 
time.  Now,  it  has  been  suggested,  not  by  one 
member  alone,  but  by  a number  of  members  of 
the  Convention,  that  there  were  fears  that  some- 
thing was  covered  up  in  the  proposition  we 
have  adopted,  that  there  was  something 
covered  with  meal,  that  might  cheat  us — 
that  we  are  called  to  suspect  just  exactly  as  rats 
are  called  to  suspect  a pile  of  meal,  that  there 
might  be  a cat  concealed  under  it.  Now,  I do 
not  believe  that  there  is  any  such  thing.  I say, 
further,  that  it  is  impossible  that  there  should 
be  any  such  thing  thus  concealed  under  it. 
Our  attention  has  been  called  to  this,  just  exact- 
ly as  if  we  were  making  a contract  between  two 
parties,  and  were  endeavoring  to  prevent  one 
from  taking  the  advantage  of  the  other.  This 
is  not  our  situation  at  all.  All  we  do  is  to  lay 
down  principles,  and  unquestionably  the  Legis- 
lature, when  they  come  to  pass  laws  in  con- 
formity with  that,  will  not  take  advantage  of 
us  or  anybody  else.  They  will  do  the  best  they 
can;  and  I do  not  think  their  hands  are  tied  up 
by  this  proposition  in  any  other  way  than  ac- 
cording to  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  the  coun- 


2172 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Powell,  Pratt,  Hoadly,  Cowen. 


[142nd 

[Thursday, 


try.  Now,  there  are  various  ways  in  which 
the  taxes  of  the  country  may  he  raised.  They 
may  he  levied  on  every  man  equally,  by  a poll 
tax.  That  is  monstrous  and  unjust,  and  is  pro- 
hibited by  the  Constitution.  Another  way  is, 
the  property  is  listed,  and  each  class  of  proper- 
ty pays  justwhat  the  Legislature  shall  deter- 
mine, without  reference  to  its  value  or  its  use- 
fulness. That  has  been  condemned  here  in 
this  State,  when  the  tax  law  of  1846  was  adopted. 
Before  that  law  we  were  taxed  according  to 
this  kind  of  assessment,  and  not  according  to 
value. 

Mr.  PRATT.  What  prevents  it  under  this  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  It  is  this : We  say  it  shall 
be  levied  upon  property,  according  to  its  value. 
The  whole  State  agrees  to  this — that  it  is  prop- 
erty, and  not  men  or  classes,  that  shall  pay  the 
tax.  All  property,  real  or  personal,  shall  pay 
these  taxes,  according  to  its  value  in  money. 
Now,  there  is  a great  jealousy  and  objection  on 
the  part  of  the  people  of  the  State  with  regard 
to  dividing  property  into  classes  for  taxation, 
and  it  should  never  be  done.  We  ought  to  try 
to  avoid  it  as  far  as  possible.  The  farmer  will 
say,  my  lands,  my  oxen,  my  sheep,  my  stock  of 
every  kind,  is  taxed,  and  too  highly  taxed,  and 
my  neighbor  has  his  property  in  bonds,  or  in 
some  kind  of  stock,  or  other  property,  and  a 
larger  amount  than  I own,  and  more  profitable, 
and  his  taxes  amount  to  nothing,  when  com- 
pared with  mine.  There  is  a great  deal  of 
jealousy  arising  among  the  people  who  own 
considerable  amounts  of  property  as  to  the 
equality  and  justice  of  these  taxes.  And  what 
is  still  worse  than  that,  in  coming  to  a direct 
conclusion  upon  the  subject,  is  the  operation  of 
politicians  in  creating  dissatisfaction  on  the 
subject.  I have  known  politicians  to  go  round 
the  country  and  talk  to  this  man  and  that  man, 
and  raise  difficulties  of  this  kind,  when  they  had 
no  property  of  their  own,  and  their  only  object 
was  to  make  capital  by  talking  in  one  way  with 
one  man  and  in  another  way  with  another,  with 
a view  of  creating  dissatisfaction  and  dissension. 
What  we  have  adopted  here  is  only  these  two 
principles:  that  all  property,  real  and  personal, 
shall  be  taxed ; that  is,  that  the  tax  shall  be 
raised  out  of  the  property,  and  in  no  other  way ; 
and  that  that  tax  shall  be  according  to  its 
value.  Well,  now,  you  say  that  real  and 
personal  property  are  not  properly  taxed  ac- 
cording to  their  true, respective  values.  Well,  I 
admit  it.  It  is  impossible  to  do  it.  It  is  impos- 
sible for  us  to  lay  down  any  rule  that  will 
accomplish  it.  The  Legislature  may  possi- 
bly, from  time  to  time,  as  experience  will 
dictate,  learn  something  that  will  help  bring 
the  property  out  on  the  duplicate  for  tax- 
ation, according  to  its  proper  value.  Now, 
with  regard  to  real  estate,  they  say  it  is 
appraised  below  its  true  value.  I admit 
that  it  is  appraised  below  its  value,  as  held 
by  its  holders — below  the  value  that  peo- 
ple hold  it  at;  because  it  is  permanent 
property,  and  they  hold  to  it  longer  than  they 
will  almost  any  other  property.  But  when 
real  property  is  offered  for  sale,  and  to  be  put 
into  money  at  once,  it  comes  down  to  about 
what  it  is  appraised.  Whenever  real  property 
is  put  up  to  be  sold  for  cash,  under  the  hammer, 
it  sinks  at  least  one-third.  You  cannot  sell  it 


for  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  value  you  gen- 
erally estimate  it  at,  and  it  is  right  that  it  should 
be  so  taxed.  It  is  right  that  property  should 
be  estimated  in  its  value  whatever  it  will  turn 
in  cash,  and  not  what  it  is  generally  held  at  by 
people,  without  reference  to  what  it  will  imme- 
diately command  in  market.  Now  these  two 
rules  are  the  only  rules  this  section  makes  use 
of— that  property  should  pay  the  taxes,  and 
then  according  to  its  value  in  cash — and  it  is 
right  that  we  should  stand  to  these  two  rules. 
I agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root],  that  when  we  go  beyond  the  words  of 
the  law,  “All  property  shall  be  taxed  by  a rate 
that  shall  be  uniform  within  the  jurisdiction, 
making  the  levy  according  to  its  true  value. ” 
If  we  stop  there,  it  would  answer  everything  we 
require,  but  it  goes  on  to  say,  “to  be  ascertained 
by  such  equitable  rule  of  assessment  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly.”  Now, 
that  amounts  to  nothing,  and  it  does  no  harm. 
I will  not  vote  to  put  it  out,  because  it  does  no 
•harm  there,  but  it  amounts  to  nothing. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  not  the  true  valuation  to  be 
ascertained  by  those  equitable  rules,  and  do  not 
you  stop  when  you  apply  the  equitable  rules, 
and  call  that  the  true  value  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  a matter  for  the  Leg- 
islature, and  it  is  right.  To  be  sure  the  people 
will  consider  that.  They  will  express  the  will 
of  the  people,  and  there  is  no  harm  in  it. 

I wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  who  has  ex- 
pressed the  wish  that  the  word  “ appraisement” 
should  be  altered  to  “assessment.”  If  there  be 
any  change  made  at  all,  the  words  “ or  appraise- 
ment” might  be  added  to  it,  but  it  is  improper 
and  unnecessary  that  that  should  be  done. 
Assessment  does  not  come  in  at  all  to  use  until 
after  appraisement  has  been  made.  There  is  no 
such  thing  as  assessment  until  after  appraise- 
ment is  made,  and  the  property  put  upon  the 
duplicate.  Then  the  assessment  is  made. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  me 
to  say  that  I was  using  the  word  assessment  in 
a sense  that  would  include  the  method  of  stating 
the  property  on  the  duplicate  and  fixing  its 
value  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  appraisement. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  My  dictionary  may  be  bad, 
but  that  is  the  way  in  which  I wa3  using  the 
word. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Well,  now,  as  we  use  the 
word,  as  it  has  become  technical  with  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State,  assessment  does  not  come  in 
until  appraisement  has  been  made.  When  a 
corporation  assess  upon  the  people  for  the  mak- 
ing of  a road,  they  assess  it  upon  an  appraise- 
ment that  is  already  made. 

That  is  the  technical  meaning  of  assessment, 
as  we  use  it,  and  as  it  is  used  throughout  the 
State.  Appraisement,  therefore,  is  putting 
property  upon  the  duplicate  according  to  its 
value.  All  that  may  be  left  to  the  Legislature. 
There  is  nothing  here  that  ties  the  hands  of  the 
Legislature,  except  that  we  intimate  to  them 
that  it  should  be  done  equitably,  and  from  their 
notion  of  equity  there  can  be  no  appeal.  There- 
fore, I have  concluded  to  go  against  the  recon- 
sideration of  this  question,  for  I do  not  believe 
it  will  produce  any  improvement. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I have  grave  doubts  as  to  the 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Cowen,  Pratt,  Powell. 


2173 


Day.] 

March  19,  1874.] 


propriety  of  retaining  this  amendment  to  the 
section.  I confess,  as  many  others  have  done,  I 
am  not  yet  able  to  fully  comprehend  the  prob- 
bable  effect  of  it.  I understand  it  to  be  con- 
ceded by  persons  who  are  certainly  much  wiser 
than  I pretend  to  be,  or  ever  hope  to  be,  that  it 
is  a matter  of  great  doubt  as  to  whether  the  ob- 
ject sought  will  be  accomplished  by  this  sec- 
tion. I have  not,  therefore,  taken  the  floor  for 
the  purpose  of  attempting  to  throw  any  light 
upon  this  subject.  I understand  one  of  the 
principal  objections  to  the  reconsideration  of 
this  matter  to  be  the  time  that  will  be  consumed 
in  consequence.  I confess  that  I should  hesi- 
tate for  that  reason,  unless  I could  find  some 
other  good  reason  in  my  mind,  to  support  this 
motion,  but  inasmuch  as  this  Convention  this 
morning,  by  a very  decided  vote,  adopted  a 
resolution  upon  the  subject  of  an  appropria- 
tion, which  indicated  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Convention,  we  will  be  in  session  until  the  15th 
of  May,  I think  we  will  have  ample  time  to 
think  about  this  matter  before  we  adjourn,  and 
come  to  some  satisfactory  conclusion.  I shall, 
therefore,  vote  for  this  motion  to  reconsider. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Just  one  word  more  on  my  be- 
half ; although  it  might  appear  that  I had  said 
enough  already  upon  the  questions  at  issue  be- 
tween the  members  of  the  Committee  and  the 
Convention,  upon  this  amendment  of  the  sec- 
tion. Now,  I apprehend,  Mr.  President,  that 
there  is  nobody  standing  here  questioning  the 
good  purposes  and  intent  of  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  [Mr.  Smith]  in  moving  this  sub- 
stitute, for,  if  there  is  anything  upon  which  his 
declarations  in  the  Committee  have  been  uni- 
form, anything  in  which  his  labors  have  seemed 
to  be  directed  towards  one  end  all  the  while,  it 
has  been  to  procure  such  a rule  of  appraisement, 
valuation  and  taxation  in  this  State,  as  should 
subject,  equally  and  alike,  all  property  and  all 
interests  to  the  burden  of  taxation.  But  we 
have  a right  to  inquire  into,  and  see  whether,  in 
his  efforts,  he  has  reached  the  purpose  that  he 
had  in  view  or  not.  The  intent,  in  offering  this 
substitute,  does  not  relieve  it  necessarily  from 
examination  and  criticism,  to  see  whether  the 
purposes  of  the  mover  have  been  accomplished 
thereby.  Now,  Mr.  President,  if  I could  see 
that  this  often  declared  purpose  had  been  ac- 
complished, I should  be  the  last  man  on  this 
floor  to  vote  for  this  reconsideration,  and  for 
opening  up  this  question.  I am  not  one  of  those 
who  believe  that,  regarding  the  interests  of  the 
State,  we  ought  to  be  hurried  in  the  consider- 
ation of  so  important  a subject  as  this,  a subject 
that  goes  down  to  every  household,  and  to  every 
hovel  in  the  land  in  its  operation,  and  which  is 
of  more  importance  to  every  human  being  upon 
the  soil  of  Ohio,  than  any  other  we  are  sent  here 
to  dispose  of.  The  matter  of  taxation  is  of  general 
and  grave  interest  to  every  person,  and  we  ought 
to  consume  all  the  time  necessary  to  secure  the 
best  results.  Permit  me,  Mr.  President,  to  say 
that  I have  been  astonished,  in  the  course  of  this 
discussion,  at  the  amount  of  professed  igno- 
rance, among  the  very  able  and  intelligent  gen- 
tlemen that  compose  this  Convention,  that  has 
been  pleaded  for  their  want  of  attention  to  the 
subject.  I cannot  but  think  that  gentlemen  do 
themselves  great  injustice,  that  gentlemen  know 
more,  and  have  had  more  thought  upon  this 


subject  than  they  profess,  but  that  modesty  re- 
strains them  from  an  expression  of  their  views, 
and  that  a further  discussion  of  the  question 
will  break  up  that  excessive  diffidence,  and  we 
will  receive  more  light.  We  were  all  well  posted 
upon  the  church  question,  and  upon  the  dog 
question,  and  discussion  was.  free  and  full  on 
those  topics,  but  upon  this  great  question  that 
regards  the  distribution  of  the  burdens  of  taxa- 
tion, there  is  an  amount  of  ignorance  professed 
by  gentlemen  of  the  highest  intelligence,  that 
really  surprises  me. 

I do  not  wish  to  be  uncharitable,  and  so  I 
think  it  is  modesty  that  prevents  them  from 
taking  partin  discussions,  and  from  developing 
the  best  rule  possible,  from  the  intelligence  of 
this  Convention,  and  I appeal  to  gentlemen  to 
overcome  that  modesty.  This  question  is  of 
importance  enough  to  require  it  at  their  hands. 
Now,  Mr.  President,  it  is  said  that  there  are 
just  two  rules  secured  by  this  proposition.  One 
of  them  is,  that  an  equal  rate  of  taxation  shall 
be  assessed  upon  all  property.  Yery  true,  that 
is  declared  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  the 
section  very  plainly;  but  when  was  it  ever 
proposed, ®on  the  soil  of  Ohio,  to  affix  to  equal 
values  of  property  different  rates  or  percentages 
of  taxation  ? or  in  other  words,  as  an  example, 
to  tax  personal  property  appraised  at  a thous- 
and dollars,  at  a different  rate  than  real  estate 
appraised  at  a thousand  dollars  ? 

Mr.  POWELL.  Before  1846  all  the  property 
of  Ohio  was  taxed  by  a different  rule.  Cows 
were  put  in  at  so  much  per  head ; horses  at  so 
much  per  head.  All  the  property  was  appraised 
per  capita,  and  not  ad-valorem. 

Mr.  PRATT.  When  the  value  was  ascer- 
tained, however,  by  whatever  rules  the  percen- 
tage of  taxation  was  equal  to  the  rate  collected 
upon  the  like  valuation  of  any  other  property. 
Then  there  has  no  provision  ever  existed 
against  the  evils  of  which  this  paragraph  was 
designed  to  be  a remedy.  There  was  an  evil  in 
the  appraisement  and  not  in  taxation.  It  is  the 
very  evil  that  is  complained  of  as  existing  now ; 
that  the  rules  provided  by  the  old  Constitution 
have  not  been  carried  out  in  the  spirit  in  which 
they  were  made.  The  evil  was  not  in  the  as- 
sessment of  taxes,  but  in  the  valuation  of 
property  even  prior  to  1846.  If  there  was,  how- 
ever, any  such  wrong  as  that  existing  against 
which  provision  was  necessary,  the  provision 
this  declaration  makes  is  most  ample,  but  I have 
never  heard  of  any  such  evil.  What  is,  then, 
the  second  proposition  that  we  are  informed  is 
secure  by  this  section  ? That  the  rate  of  assess- 
ment should  be  uniform,  that  all  property  real 
and  personal  should  be  assessed  at  a uniform 
rate.  If  that  result  is  secured  by  this  section, 
then  all  my  objection  to  it  ceases.  But  I can- 
not see  it  in  that  light.  I cannot  find  that  prin- 
ciple in  it,  and  I doubt  very  much  whether 
some  others  find  it.  Why,  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly],  this  morning  speaks 
of  the  propriety  of  assessment  on  corporations 
for  their  corporate  existence.  Is  the  language 
here  used,  such  as  would,  in  contradistinction 
from  the  present  rule  of  the  present  Constitu- 
tion, extend  the  authority  for  doing  that  thing? 
Is  there  any  more  authority  in  this  Article 
than  in  the  corresponding  Article  of  the  old 
Constitution  ? If  the  franchise  be  property,  then 


2174 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Pratt,  Griswold,  Carbery,  Clark  of  R. 


indeed  as  property  it  would  be  valued  alike  here 
and  there.  There  was  quite  a sharp  debate 
in  the  old  Convention  whether  it  was  property 
or  privilege,  and  one  of  our  supreme  judges  has 
said,  in  giving  an  opinion,  it  was  a mere  privi- 
lege, and  not  property.  There  has  been  a ques- 
tion upon  that;  and  if  it  be  a privilege,  not 
property,  it  is  not  included  here  any  more  than 
in  that  section.  If  it  be  property,  then  it  was 
alike  included  in  both.  It  is  true  that  the 
words  “true  value”  are  used  here,  “at  its  true 
value;”  but  where  is  the  measure  of  its  true 
value?  Where  is  it  to  be  found?  Where  is  it 
to  be  discovered,  and  how  put  upon  the  dupli- 
cates? Under  the  closing  part  of  the  section, 
the  value  is  to  be  ascertained  by  such  equitable 
rules  of  appraisement  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
the  General  Assembly ; not  by  such  rules  as 
shall  value  the  property  at  its  real  value  in 
money,  but  by  such  equitable  rules  as  shall  be 
established  at  the  free  good  will  and  pleasure  of 
the  Legislature,  without  any  appeal  beyond  their 
discretion  or  beyond  their  judgment.  I beg 
leave  to  say  that,  when  they  have  exercised  their 
discretion  in  establishing  what  to  them,  and  to 
no  other  tribunal,  shall  seem  to  be  equitable 
rules  for  the  appraisement  of  property,  there  is 
no  appeal  whatever  beyond  that  discretion. 
The  assessor  has  merely  to  follow  the  rules 
prescribed  for  him.  If  the  result  be  that  in  one 
case  property  be  assessed  at  twenty  per  cent,  of 
its  real  market  value,  and  in  another  case  at 
eighty  per  cent.,  yet  the  condition  fixed  by  this 
Convention,  in  this  substituted  section,  has  been 
complied  with,  and  there  is  no  power  and  no 
relief  beyond  it.  If  this  be  the  correct  view, 
then  it  is  certain  that  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  has  failed  in  reaching 
the  object  that  I have  credited  him  with,  as 
seeking  at  all  times,  in  the  progress  of  his  duties 
as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  and 
Taxation,  and  in  his  course  in  this  House. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  If  the  real  estate  is  not 
appraised  at  its  true  value  in  money,  can  you 
get  rid  of  paying  tax  by  law  now  ? Can  "the 
courts  go  on  and  determine  whether  it  is  its  true 
value  or  not  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  rule  is  laid  down  by  the 
Legislature,  and  provides  for  its  appraisement 
at  its  true  value  in  money.  If  they  will  not  do 
that,  it  is  a failure  on  their  part,  and  not  on  the 
part  of  the  Constitution,  which  provides  the 
rule  for  them. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  point  is,  if  the  Leg- 
islature fail  to  do  it,  have  you  any  relief  in  the 
courts  ? 

Mr.  PRATT.  We  cannot  do  it  by  any  other 
tribunal  than  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Then  the  same  rule  ap- 
plies to  your  rule  as  to  that. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I understood  the  gentle- 
man to  say  that  there  was  no  resort  after  those 
equitable  rules  had  been  decided  by  the  Legis- 

lnfn  TP 

Mr.  PRATT.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Is  there  no  resort  to  the 
people,  who  send  the  Legislators  there,  if  the 
system  devised  by  the  Legislature  is  an  odious 
one? 

Mr.  PRATT.  Not  from  the  operation  of  law. 
There  is  an  appeal  to  the  people  to  displace  un- 
faithful servants  and  place  others  in  their  stead, 


[142nd 

[Thursday, 


who  may  pass  new  laws.  That  appeal  is  often 
ineffectual  to  secure  the  rights  of  the  minority 
against  the  majority,  or  even  the  majority 
against  the  acts  of  their  legislative  body.  But 
that  interruption  of  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Carbery]  calls  me  to  make  another 
remark.  I have  as  much  confidence  in  the 
people  of  Ohio,  or  in  the  people  of  any  other 
State  as  any  other  man.  I have  heard  on  this 
floor  over  and  over  again  the  people  of  Ohio 
confounded  with  the  Legislature  of  Ohio.  The 
majority  of  the  people  never  were,  and  it  is  not 
provided  by  anything  yet  done  in  this  Conven- 
tion sthat  they  ever  shall  be  represented  gby  a 
majority  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature.  A 
minority  of  the  people  by  their  representatives 
in  that  body,  actually  enact  laws — a minority 
of  less  that  two-fifths  may  do  it — for  the  whole 
people,  and  the  feeble  veto  power  that  you  have 
established  for  the  Governor  may  be  overruled 
by  the  representatives  of  less  than  a moiety 
of  the  people  of  Ohio.  My  objection  is 
that  all  that  can  be  provided  of  rules  is 
left  to  the  sense  of  equity  of  the  Legislature.  We 
do  not  prescribe  that  these  rules  shall  be  equal 
and  uniform,  and  I confess  that  I have  fears 
of  the  action  of  that  body.  I do  not  regard  them 
as  always  and  at  all  times  representing  the  in- 
telligence and  conscience  of  the  people  of  the 
State,  nor  their  action  as  reflecting  that  intelli- 
gence and  conscience.  The  members  of  the 
legislative  bodies  of  the  United  States  do  not 
stand  in  any  too  high  esteem  just  now,  I sorrow 
to  say.  One  great  State  has  been  engaged  for  a 
whole  year  in  measures  to  tie  up  its  Legislative 
body,  and  prevent  them  from  doing  wrong 
against  the  people.  I allude  to  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  and,  practically,  I hope  they 
have  succeeded.  I do  not  wish  to  open  up  in 
Ohio  an  era  of  corruption  and  fraud  in  any 
direction  whatever,  such  as  has  characterized 
the  legislation  of  the  State  of  New  York  and 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  God  forbid  that 
any  such  result  should  ever  accrue;  and,  by 
leaving  this  great  subject  of  finance  and  taxa- 
tion wholly  within  the  discretion  of  the  Legis- 
lature, you  invite  just  such  a result.  You  in- 
vite the  active,  the  vigilant,  the  diligent,  who 
are  looking  out  for  their  interest,  while  the 
great  body  of  the  people  are  engaged  in  labor 
and  sleep  on  their  established  rights,  to  fill  the 
lobbies  of  your  legislative  halls  with  their  min- 
ions, seeking  for  special  privileges  and  exemp- 
tions. To  the  whole  system,  as  thus  developed, 
I object.  Your  equitable  rules  will  be  devel- 
oped under  the  dictation  of  the  lobby,  and  in 
favor  of  special  privileges  at  the  expense  of  the 
people. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I do  not  intend  to  en- 
ter into  a discussion  of  this  matter  at  all.  I 
have  sat  by  and  listened  to  all  that  has  been 
said  upon  this  subject.  I concur  in  what  has 
been  said  as  to  its  importance.  Every  one  of 
us,  I apprehend,  is  aware  of  that.  This  is  the 
important  section  of  the  Article,  and  perhaps 
of  as  much  importance  as  any  section  that  this 
Convention  will  pass  upon.  Now  I do  not  pro- 
fess to  be  learned  in  matters  of  this  kind.  I do 
not  profess  to  have  investigated  the  subject  as 
fully  as  I ought  to  have  done.  But  I am  free 
to  say  here,  that  I have  my  doubts  as  to  the 
policy  of  the  change[proposed  here.  I find  a num- 


Day.] 

March  19,  1874.] 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Clark  of  K.,  Griswold,  Pratt. 


2175 


ber  of  gentleman,  a great  number  of  gentle- 
men, I might  say,  in  this  Convention  who  have 
grave  and  serious  doubts  as  to  the  policy  of 
this  change.  I say,  therefore,  it  behooves  us  to 
pause,  unless  it  is  done  on  sufficient  considera- 
tion and  deliberation.  The  Constitution  of 
1851,  so  far  as  I know,  has  worked  well  enough. 
I have  to  hear  the  first  one  of  my  constituency 
object  to  the  Constitution  in  this  regard.  The 
rule  of  that  Constitution  has  been  one  of  uni- 
formity, of  equality  of  burdens  and  taxation. 
Equality  is  equity;  equality  is  right  and  just. 
Now  if  we  undertake  here  to  make  a change, 
Mr.  President,  what  will  be  the  consequence? 
It  will,  as  a matter  of  course,  be  claimed,  be 
argued,  that  this  Convention  was  dissatisfied 
with  a rule  of  equality,  with  a rule(  of  uni- 
formity, and  that  this  Convention  meant 
something  else  by  the  language  that 
it  uses,  if  we  adhere  to  this  matter. 
Now  the  question  that  is  presented  to  us 

is,  whether  we  had  not  better  let  well  enough 

alone?  If  we  do  not,  then  comes  a question, 
and  it  is  this : When  gentlemen  propose  a 

change,  the  burden,  the  onus  is  upon  them  to 
show  that  the  change  is  for  the  better.  Now,  it 
may  have  been  shown  here.  I,  for  one,  say  it 
has  not  been  shown  to  my  satisfaction  that  it 
will  be  for  the  better.  I learned,  in  the  course 
of  this  discussion,  that  this  Committee,  com- 
posed of  learned  and  intelligent  gentlemen, 
were  six  weeks  in  the  discussion  of  this  matter 
here.  At  the  end  of  those  six  weeks  they  dif- 
fered about  it,  and  were  in  doubt.  They  pre- 
sented a proposition  here  that  did  not  embody 
the  opinion  or  judgment  of  a single  member  of 
that  Committee ; admittedly  so.  Then,  sir,  during 
the  discussion  of  this  matter  here,  my  distin- 
guished friend,  the  gentleman  from  Highland 
[Mr.  Smith],  presented  this  proposition  that 
has  been  adopted,  and  I am  free  to  say,  right 
here,  that  there  is  no  gentleman,  perhaps,  in 
this  Convention  in  whose  good,  sound  sense,  in 
whose  integrity  of  purpose  I have  more  confi- 
dence than  I have  in  that  of  that  gentleman. 
But  what  I am  driving  at  is  this : that  proposi- 
tion was  presented  here,  and  with  but  very  lit- 
tle discussion,  if  I remember  right,  we  adopted 

it.  Now,  if  it  amounts  to  anything,  it  is  a de- 
parture from  the  rule  that  has  been  heretofore 
established.  It  has  been  said  that  judges  differ 
as  to  the  construction  of  the  Constitution 
as  it  is.  It  has  been  said  that  the  Con- 
stitution has  been  violated,  and  these 
things  have  been  brought  forward  here 
as  arguments  for  this  new  adventure,  that  is 
proposed  here.  Sir,  I undertake  to  say  that  the 
decisions  of  the  highest  court  of  the  land  have 
completely  settled  these  questions.  They  have 
become  res  adjudicate  they  have  been  settled. 
What  is  the  proposed  policy  ? To  unsettle  them 
again.  Had  we  not  better  adhere  to  what  we 
have  got,  if  we  have  rules  that  are  settled, 
than  to  launch  out  into  the  uncertainties  of  the 
questions  that  may  arise,  and  have  all  the 
doubts,  difficulties  and  troubles  of  resettling 
matters?  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  we  had  better  do 
so.  But  there  are  some  matters  here  that  I am 
fearful  of;  not  that  I impute  any  improper  in- 
tention to  any  gentleman.  Here  is  the  matter 
as  to  this  assessment.  The  assessment  is  to  be 
made  by  equitable  rules.  Ordinarily,  I admit 


that  equity  means  equality.  But  departing 
from  the  rule  of  the  Constitution,  and  this  rule 
is  settled  by  the  courts,  and  interposing  these 
new  terms,  what  will  be  inferred  from  it?  Will 
it  not  be  said  that  a new  rule  is  intended  to  be 
introduced  by  this  Convention?  Then,  sir, 
what  new  rule?  A rule  not  of  uniformity,  a 
rule  not  of  equality,  a rule  not  to  tax  every 
man’s  property  equally,  but  to  discriminate  in 
favor  of  certain  kinds  of  property,  to  discrim- 
inate perhaps,  sir,  against  the  landed  interest  of 
the  people  of  the  State,  the  fixed  property  of 
the  State,  the  lands  that  cannot  escape  taxation, 
that  are  on  the  tax  duplicate  all  the  time,  and 
in  favor  of  mercantile  capital,  or  of  some  other 
kind  of  personal  property.  Will  it  not  open 
the  door  to  the  argument  to  the  Legislature 
that  it  is  not  equitable  to  tax  property  em- 
ployed in  manufacturing,  in  mercantile  pursuits 
and  other  kinds  of  property,  by  the  same  rate 
that  you  tax  real  estate,  because  if  you  do  you 
discourage  manufacturers,  and  drive  your  busi- 
ness men  from  the  State  ? Therefore,  equitably, 
you  ought  to  discriminate.  You  ought  to  put 
greater  rates  upon  the  real  estate  of  the  coun- 
try. Now,  sir,  I shall  never  consent  to  any- 
thing of  that  kind.  It  has  been  said  here,  that, 
under  the  present  system  there  is  no  equality  in 
taxation;  that  the  real  estate  of  the  State  is 
valued  every  ten  years,  whereas  the  personalty 
is  valued  every  year.  Sir,  that  is  not  the  fault 
of  the  Constitutional  rule,  that  is  the  fault  of 
those  acting  under  that  rule,  if  there  is  anything 
wrong  about  it.  If  real  estate  should  be  apprais- 
ed every  year,  it  is  easy  enough  for  the  Legisla- 
ture to  so  provide.  If  personal  property  should 
be  appraised  every  year,  or  not  so  often,  it  is 
easy  enough  for  the  Legislature  to  so  provide 
under  the  Constitution  as  it  is.  That  is  no  ar- 
gument against  the  principle  of  the  Constitu- 
tion . 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Is  personal  property  ap- 
praised at  all  ? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I thank  the  gentleman 
for  calling  my  attention  to  it.  It  has  been  urged 
here,  by  the  distinguished  gentleman,  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee,  that,  so  far  as  the  person- 
al property  is  concerned,  every  man  is  the  ap- 
praiser of  his  own  personal  property;  that  he 
returns  it.  Suppose  that  is  so.  Is  that  any  ar- 
gument against  the  principle  of  the  Constitu- 
tional rule?  Not  at  all,  sir;  that  is  the  means 
of  arriving  at  the  value  of  the  personal  proper- 
ty. If  that  is  not  the  right  means,  let  the  Leg- 
islature provide  or  apply  another  and  a better 
mode.  The  Legislature  has  ample  and  full  au- 
thority to  do  so.  Let  us  not  embark  in  untried 
experiments.  Let  us  not  introduce  into  this 
matter  propositions  that  are  new ; and  as  a mat- 
ter of  course,  if  we  do  so,  we  will  be  held  to  the 
ordinary  rule,  that,  by  these  provisions,  we 
mean  something.  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that 
this  Convention  inserted  provisions  unless  they 
were  to  have  some  meaning. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Has  he  noted  that,  on  four  dif- 
ferent times,  this  Convention  has  voted  down 
the  proposition  that  assessment  should  be  so 
that  all  property  should  bear  its  equal  burden 
of  taxation  ? 


2176 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [142nd 

Clark  of  R.,  Gurley,  Alexander,  Powell,  Beer,  etc.  [Thursday, 


Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I have  noticed  it,  sir. 

Here  the  time  expired.  Leave  was  granted 
Mr.  Clark  to  proceed. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I thank  the  Conven- 
tion kindly  for  extending  my  time,  hut  I will 
not  further  trespass  upon  the  time  of  the  Con- 
. vention. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I desire  to  be  excused  from 
voting,  having  paired  with  Mr.  Sears. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  is  no 
objection,  the  gentleman  is  excused. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I ask  to  be  excused  for 
the  reason  that  I have  not  been  here  during  the 
discussion,  and  have  not  had  such  opportunity 
to  discuss  the  question  as  I would  like  to  have 
before  voting. 

Some  of  the  members  being  agreed  and  others 
not  agreed,  a vote  was  taken,  and  the  gentleman 
was  excused. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I wish  to  inquire  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Morrow  [Mr.  Gurley]  and  other 
gentlemen  who  ask  to  be  excused  because,  as 
they  say,  they  have  paired  off  with  other  mem- 
bers. Now  it  is  unfair  and  unjust. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I rise  to  a point  of 
order. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  There  is  no 
question  before  the  Convention. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I think  this  is  an  important 
question,  and  I want  to  know  what  the  rule  is. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  would  be 
an  important  question  if  it  had  been  propounded 
before  the  gentleman  was  excused  by  the  Con- 
vention from  voting.  Now  it  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Possibly  some  one  else  may 
ask  to  be  excused,  and  I wish  to  know  the  rule. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  When  there 
is  such  a request,  the  gentleman  can  then  bring 
up  his  question. 

The  question  being  on  the  motion  to  recon- 
sider the  vote  by  which  the  amendment  was 
adopted, 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  47,  nays  23,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Baber,  Beer,  Blose, 
Byal,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Coats, 
Cowen,  Doan,  Godfrey,  Greene,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Johnson,  Kerr, 
McCauley,  McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill, 
Mitchener,  Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Pond,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Root, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Shaw,  Tuttle,- Tyler, 
Yan  Voorhis,  Yoorhes,  Weaver,  West,  White  of 
Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign 
—47. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Carbery,  Cook,  Cunningham,  Freiberg,  Gris- 
wold, Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Miner, 
Powell,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Scribner,  Smith,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tulloss, 
Yoris — 23. 

So  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BEER.  I suppose  the  question  is  now  on 
agreeing  to  the  substitute. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  ques- 
tion is  upon  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  to  section 
three.  I believe  there  was  a division  of  the 
question,  first  on  striking  out,  and  then  on  in- 


serting. If  so,  the  immediate  question  is 
upon  inserting  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]. 

Mr.  BEER.  Would  a substitute  be  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  A substitute 
would  be  in  order. 

Mr.  BEER.  Then  I offer  the  following  sub- 
stitute. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  offers  the  fol- 
lowing as  a substitute  for  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  : 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  providing  for  a uniform  and 
equal  rate  of  assessment  and  taxation  of  all  real  and  per- 
sonal property,  so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal 
share  of  the  burden  of  taxation.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  on  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I move  to  strike  out 
the  words,  “ assessment  and.” 

Mr.  BEER.  I find  that  in  copying  the  section 
I inadvertently  omitted  the  words  at  the  end, 
“according  to  its  true  value  in  money,”  which 
I desire  leave  to  insert. 

Leave  was  given. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  With  the  leave  of 
the  Convention,  I will  withdraw  my  motion  for 
the  present. 

Leave  was  given. 

The  reading  of  the  substitute  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  as  modified, 
was  called  for. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  3.  Laws  shall  be  passed  providing  for  a uniform 
and  equal  rate  ot  assessment  and  taxation  of  all  real  and 
personal  property,  so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal 
share  of  the  burden  of  taxation,  according  to  its  true 
value  in  money. 

Mr.  MINER.  I have  tried  my  hand,  and  I 
would  like  to  have  it  read  for  information. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  3.  All  property  shall  be  taxed  according  to  its 
true  value  in  money,  at  a rate  that  shall  be  uniform  with- 
in the  jurisdiction  imposing  the  levy. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that 
there  might  possibly  be  some  misunderstanding 
by  members  of  the  Convention  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  “assessment,”  as  used  in  this 
section.  It  has  been  intimated  that  it  is  calling 
up  a question  that  has  been  voted  upon  several 
times  by  the  Convention,  that  is,  special  assess- 
ment. There  is  nothing  of  that  kind  in  it.  The 
word  assessment  is  defined  by  Webster  as  fol- 
lows : “ A valuation  of  property  or  profits  of 
business,  for  the  purpose  of  taxation.” 

An  assessment  is  a valuation  made  by  author- 
ized persons,  according  to  their  discretion,  as 
opposed  to  a sum  certain,  determined  by  law. 
It  is  a valuation  of  the  property  of  those  who 
are  to  pay  the  tax,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the 
proportion  which  each  man  shall  pay ; on  which 
valuation  the  law  imposes  a specific  sum  upon  a 
given  amount. — Blackstone,  Burril. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Might  you  not  use  the  word 
valuation  instead  of  assessment? 

Mr.  BEER.  Yes,  I might  use  the  word  valu- 
ation, or  the  word  assessment,  or  any  other 
word,  but  I think  this  word  assessment  is  the 
prettiest  word.  [Laughter.] 


2177 


Day/] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 


March  19,  1874.]  Tuttle,  Beer,  Baber,  Griswold,  Pond,  Powell,  etc. 


Mr.  TUTTLE.  I suggested  it  because  I think 
valuation  has  no  ambiguity,  and  it  is  very  much 
used  in  the  law. 

Mr.  BEER.  I would  say  to  the  gentleman 
that,  upon  search,  I find  that  assessment  is  the 
word  generally  used,  and  it  has  a legal  signifi- 
cation, so  that  there  can  be  no  mistake  about  it. 

Mr,  BABER.  I would  say  that,  like  my 
friend  from  Trumbull  [Mr.  Tuttle],  and  my 
friend  from  Ross  [Mr.  Clark],  I made  some  ob- 
jections to  the  use  of  this  word  “assessment,” 
supposing  that  some  gentleman  might  confound 
it  with  this  question  of  assessing  in  cities, 
which  has  been  voted  down  several  times  by 
this  Convention,  and  which  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  had  favored.  But, 
upon  very  full  examination  of  the  authorities 
upon  the  subject,  and  by  a reference  that  the 
gentleman  gave  me  to  this  (Webster’s)  diction- 
ary, I was  perfectly  satisfied  that  it  was  the 
proper  word.  I hope, therefore,  that, upon  this 
mere  question  of  verbiage,  there  will  be  no 
division  of  opinion  among  those  who  are  in 
favor  of  this  amendment — that  are  in  favor  of 
restoring,  in  effect,  the  language,  the  construc- 
tion of  which  has  been  well  settled  by  the 
courts  under  the  old  Constitution.  This 
amendment  has  been  examined  by  a good  many 
gentlemen,  and  I do  not  believe  we  could  get 
any  language  more  satisfactory.  It  is  the  lan- 
guage of  the  old  Constitution  that  property 
shall  bear  an  equal  burden  of  taxation.  It  will 
negative  the  idea  that  might  be  taken  from  the 
fact  that  this  Convention  voted  that  expression 
down  four  times.  I am  exceedingly  anxious 
to  preserve  that  particular  language,  because  it 
has  undergone  judicial  construction.  Gentle- 
men may  say  it  is  surplusage.  Well,  perhaps 
it  is. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Suppose  there  are  twenty 
or  thirty  millions  of  property  that  you  do  not 
et  on  the  duplicate,  what  good  does  that  rule 
o? 

Mr.  BABER.  The  gentleman  well  knows 
that  that  can  be  remedied  by  passing  proper 
laws. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  What  is  the  benefit  of  the 
words  you  talk  so  much  about  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Simply  because  they  are  the 
words  of  the  old  Constitution.  I am  afraid,  if 
they  are  dropped,  we  will  have  a difficulty,  such 
as  occurred  in  the  Legislature  of  1870,  because 
the  words  “ is  a candidate  for  ” were  dropped 
out,  they  decided  that  the  whole  course  of  ju- 
dicial decision  on  the  clause  as  to  eligibility  to  a 
seat  in  the  General  Assembly  was  changed  in 
Ohio,  and  I do  not  want  to  give  room  for  the 
same  sort  of  implication  in  this  case.  I hope 
the  amendment  will  pass  in  the  shape  it  is. 

Mr.  POND.  Allow  me  to  suggest  to  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  a word  in 
regard  to  the  term  assessment.  The  only  ob- 
jection I see  to  it  arises  from  the  fact  that  we 
use  the  word  assessment  in  another  article  of 
the  Constitution,  perhaps  two  articles,  with  a 
different  signification.  It  appears  to  me  un- 
wise to  use  the  term  in  this  article  with  another 
meaning.  The  courts  might  feel  bound  to  the 
same  signification  throughout  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  BEER.  I will  ask  the  gentleman  if  the 
word  assessment  is  used  elsewhere  ? 

y.  n-139 


Mr.  POND.  It  is  in  the  Article  on  Munici- 
pal Corporations. 

Mr.  BEER.  Does  it  stand  by  itself  ? 

Mr.  POND.  It  stands  by  itself. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  should  be  special  assessment 
there. 

Mr.  POND.  The  word  assessment  is  used  in 
a different  sense  there.  It  is  fixing  upon  prop- 
erty a charge.  That  is  the  sense  in  which  it  is 
used  there. 

Mr.  BEER.  I say  to  the  gentleman  that  I 
read  the  legal  definition  of  assessment  given  by 
Blackstone  and  Burrel.  Neither  the  Legisla- 
ture nor  the  supreme  court  can  misunderstand 
it.  If  the  word  assessment  is  used  in  those 
other  articles  of  the  Constitution  in  any  other 
sense,  it  is  improperly  used.  That  is  special  as- 
sessment, and  that  is  what  it  is  called  all  the 
world  over. 

Mr.  POND.  I admit  that  the  gentleman  is 
right  with  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  that.  But  I suggest 
that,  if  it  is  to  be  used  in  this  section,  it  should 
have  the  same  meaning  wherever  used,  and 
we  may  have  to  go  back  and  change  it. 

Mr.  BEER.  I suggest  that  the  Committee  on 
Revision  can  make  that  change. 

Mr.  POWELL.  The  proper  word  is  assess- 
ment, because  it  has  reference  to  value.  You 
speak  of  it  in  the  section  itself. 

Mr.  BEER.  In  the  Constitutions  of  New 
York,  Illinois,  Kansas,  West  Virginia,  as 
far  as  I have  examined  them,  they  uniformly 
make  use  of  the  word  assessment. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman how  he  would  apply  the  word  “ rate” 
to  assessment  and  tax  at  the  same  time  ? I can 
see  how  a given  rate  of  taxation  may  apply, 
but  how  the  word  rate  can  apply  to  assessment, 
I am  not  able  to  see.  If  he  has  any  solution  I 
would  

Mr.  BEER.  The  same  rule,  the  same  rate. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I am  not  talking  about  the 
rule,  but  the  rate. 

Mr.  BEER.  That  is  rate. 

Mr. ROWLAND.  If  you  have  any  definition, 
I would  like  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  BEER.  The  rate  of  taxation,  the  same 
values  of  the  same  species  of  property. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  Then  it  applies  to  the 
method  of  getting  the  property  on  the  duplicate, 
if  that  is  what  the  gentleman  means.  If  the 
term  rate  means  anything  at  all,  it  is  applied  to 
the  quantity  of  tax.  But  the  term  rate  can  in 
no  sense  apply  to  the  method  by  which  you 
bring  the  propert3r  on  the  duplicate.  It  is  very 
easy  to  apply  a rate  after  you  get  the  property 
all  out,  and  every  body  will  agree  that  a uni- 
form rate  is  the  proper  one,  but  the  whole  diffi- 
culty lies  in  getting  the  property  on  the  dupli- 
cate. 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  tried  my  genius  in  draw- 
ing up  a proposition.  I will  read  what  I have 
drafted,  for  information.  “ Every  subject  of 
value  as  property,  tangible  and  intangible, 
shall  be  listed  on  the  grand  duplicate,  at  its  true 
value ; and  all  taxes  shall  be  assessed  thereon 
at  a rate  which  shall  be  uniform  within  the 
jurisdiction  within  and  for  which  it  is  im- 
posed.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  I suggest  to  the  gentleman 


2178 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

West,  Cunningham,  Baber,  Pond,  Scofield,  Townsend,  etc. 


[142nd 

[Thursday, 


from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  to  add  at  the  end,  “at 
its  true  value.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I have  no  objection  to  that. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move  we  take  are- 
cess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12 : 20  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2:30p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  [Mr.  Hum- 
phreville  in  the  Chair].  When  the  Convention 
took  a recess,  the  question  pending  was  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer],  being  a substitute  for  the  substitute 
for  section  three,  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber].  The  question  is 
upon  the  adoption  of  the  substitute  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer.] 

Mr.  BABER.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  the 
substitute. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  providing  for  a uniform  and 
equal  rate  of  assessment  and  taxation  of  all  real  and  per- 
sonal property,  so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal 
share  of  the  burden  of  taxation.” 

Mr.  BABER.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  fifty-eight 
members  answered  to  their  names,  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  An- 
drews, Baber,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Carbery, 
Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Doan, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  John- 
son, McBride,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mc- 
Cauley, Mullen,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phel- 
lis,  Philips,  Pond,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Sample,  Scofield,  Shaw, 
Shultz,  Smith,  Townsend,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Van 
Voorhis,  Yoorhes,  Weaver,  West,  Woodbury 
—58. 

Those  who  were  absent  were — 

Messrs.  Bannon,  Barnet,  Beer,  Bishop,  Blose, 
Caldwell,  Campbell,  Clay,  De  Steiguer,  Dorsey, 
Ewing,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  Godfrey, 
Gurley,  Hoadly,  Hunt,  Jackson,  Kerr,  Krae- 
mer,  Layton,  Miller,  Mitchener,  Mueller,  Root, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Muskingam,  Scribner, 
Sears,  Steedman,  Thompson,  Townsley,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Yalkenburgh,  Voris,  Waddle,  Wat- 
son, Wells,  White  of  Brown,  White  of  Hocking, 
Wilson,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble, 
President — 16. 

Mr.  POND.  I move  that  all  further  proceed- 
ings under  the  call  be  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  will  not  prevail. 
Fifty-eight  is  a bare  quorum.  We  had  sev- 
enty present  here  this  morning.  I do  not  want 
a vote  taken  before  some  ten  or  eleven  gentle- 
men come  in. 

Mr.  POND.  If  I thought  there  would  be  no 
more  debate,  I would  not  hesitate,  but  the  indi- 
cations are  that  there  will  be. 

Mr.  BABER.  I do  not  like  to  have  a vote 
taken  in  such  a thin  House. 

Mr.  POND.  You  can  move  another  call  when 
a vote  is  to  be  taken. 

Mr.  Pond’s  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  further 
proceedings  under  the  call  were  dispensed  with. 


The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  substitute. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I move  that  the  further 
consideration  of  this  section  be  postponed  until 
Tuesday  next.  I make  this  motion  because  I 
believe  the  question  involved  in  the  considera- 
tion of  this  section  is  one  of  the  most  important, 
if  not  the  most  important  question  in  this  Arti- 
cle. There  are  now  three  propositions  before 
the  Convention.  One  of  them  has  been  con- 
sidered. Two  of  them  were  proposed  this  morn- 
ing, and  it  seems  to  me  there  can  be  nothing 
lost  by  postponing  it  to  a day  certain,  that  we 
may  all  have  an  opportunity  to  investigate  these 
several  propositions,  and  that  the  propositions 
may  be  printed. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  is  a little  unfortunate 
in  not  being  here  for  the  last  week  or  he  would 
have  heard  this  very  section  discu&sed  for  four 
days,  and  I think  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion are  as  well  qualified  to  vote  upon  these  va- 
rious propositions — while  they  differ  in  phrase- 
ology, they,  perhaps,  differ  but  little  in  substance 
— they  are  as  well  qualified  to  vote  to-day  as  a 
week  from  now,  and  perhaps  better,  because  the 
subject  is  fresh  in  their  minds.  Gentlemen 
who  were  unfortunately  absent  last  week,  and 
did  not  listen  to  this  discussion,  have  lost  a 
great  deal,  but  I do  not  think  this  Convention 
can  afford  to  postpone  this  question  four  or  five 
days  for  their  accommodation.  I trust  this  mat- 
ter will  be  disposed  of. 

Mr.  WEST.  I hope  before  the  motion  is  put 
the  gentleman  will  permit  me.  The  proposi- 
tion, which  I offerred  this  morning,  was  pre- 
pared very  hastily,  and  I have  boiled  itrdown  to 
about  one-third,  stating  therein  all  that  propo- 
sition did,  but  only  about  one-third  of  the 
of  the  words,  and  better  words  at  that.  I de- 
sire to  withdraw  that  and  read  the  following. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man’s former  proposition  is  not  before  the  Con- 
vention. 

Mr.  WEST.  If  there  is  any  continuance  I 
ask  that  this  be  printed,  and  I shall  now  read  it 
for  information.  I call  attention  to  the  latter 
part,  which  I have  added.  The  Convention  can 
strike  it  out  if  they  are  not  suited,  but  I think 
it  ought  to  be  in. 

“All  property,  tangible  and  intangible,  not  exempt  by 
law,  shall  be  listed  at,  and  taxed  in  proportion  to  its  ac- 
tual value  in  money.  In  ascertaining  which,  the  excess 
of  indebtedness  over  the  amount  of  non-taxable  notes 
and  securities  held,  may  be  deducted  from  taxable  cred- 
its.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
being  upon  the  postponement  of  this  section  of 
the  Proposition,  it  is  out  of  order  to  ask  to  have 
this  printed  now. 

Mr.  WEST.  I read  it  now  for  information. 

Mr.  PHELLIS.  I hope  this  motion  will  not 
prevail.  I am  satisfied  we  shall  lose  two  or 
three  days’  time,  and  the  whole  discussion  will 
have  to  be  gone  over  again  if  it  is  postponed. 

Mr.  GURLEY.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  what  he  means  by 
“excess  of  indebtedness.” 

Mr.  WEST.  Suppose  a person  has  one  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  of  non-taxable  United 
States  bonds  and  one  hundred  thousand  dollars 
of  credits.  I want,  first,  that  these  non-taxa- 


2179 


Day.]  REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  19,  1874.]  West,  Rowland,  Scofield,  Yoris,  Baber,  Page. 


ble  United  States  bonds  shall  be  offset  against 
whatever  indebtedness  he  may  have,  and  the 
excess  of  indebtedness  only,  offset  against  his 
taxable  credits.  He  shall  not  “whip  the  devil 
around  a stump”  by  converting  his  assets  into 
national  bonds,  and  then  borrowing  money  for 
the  purpose  of  getting  rid  of  taxation. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
will  suggest  that  this  whole  matter  is  out  of  or- 
der. The  question  is  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  to  post- 
pone the  consideration  of  this  subject. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I was  not  in  the  house 
when  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Sco- 
field] presented  the  reasons  for  the  postpone- 
ment of  this  question.  It  seems  to  me  we  might 
as  well  settle  it  now  as  at  any  other  time. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I shall  state  the  reasons 
again,  with  the  permission  of  the  Convention. 
It  is  the  importance  of  the  question  involved  in 
this  section.  I was  not  here  when  the  original 
proposition  was  discussed,  and  there  have  been 
two  additional,  distinct  propositions  presented 
to-day.  I have  listened  attentively  to  the  dis- 
cussion upon  this  question,  and  I have  been 
unable  to  come  to  a conclusion  myself ; and  I 
believe  the  question  is  the  most  important  one 
that  has  been  considered  by  the  Convention.  I 
cannot  conceive  that  any  injury  will  occur  from 
delaying  the  matter  until  Tuesday  next,  to  give 
time  for  a thorough  investigation  of  these  sev- 
eral propositions.  It  is  for  these  reasons,  and 
I believe  it  is  due  to  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention who  have  not  investigated  these  mat- 
ters, and  I think  there  are  but  few  who  have 
given  the  subject  a thorough  investigation,  es- 
pecially the  two  latter  propositions. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way 
for  an  inquiry  ? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Certainly. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  know  if  the 
gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  was 
here  when  this  section  was  discussed  in  Con- 
vention, last  week  ? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I have  said  twice  that  I was 
not  here  when  the  original  section  was  consid- 
ered. I believe  it  to  be  a very  important  ques- 
tion. I would  like  to  investigate  it,  and  I think 
the  Convention  will  lose  nothing  by  postponing 
the  matter  until  Tuesday  next,  when  I hope  we 
shall  have  a fuller  Convention. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I do  not  see  any  reason  for 
such  a delay.  When  Tuesday  will  have  ar- 
rived, the  same  tedious  process  of  debate  will 
have  to  be  pursued  that  we  have  followed  now. 
If  gentlemen  are  not  informed  on  the  proposi- 
tion, the  debate  will  inform  them.  I do  not 
apprehend  that  there  will  be  much  more  light 
on  the  matter.  I think  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  presented  about  as  fair  a proposi- 
tion as  we  shall  get.  The  Committee  spent 
days  and  weeks  on  this  proposition.  Almost 
the  entire  labor  of  that  Committee  was  spent  in 
the  production  of  this  section  of  the  Report,  and 
I apprehend  that  if  gentlemen  want  to  be  in- 
formed, it  is  as  good  a time  for  the  debate  to 
proceed,  and  to  let  them  inform  themselves,  as 
at  any  time. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  this  will  not  be  post- 
poned. I,  like  the  gentleman,  was  away,  and 
did  not  hear  the  discussion.  I think  from  what 
we  heard  from  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee, 


and  have  heard  from  other  gentlemen,  that  their 
minds  are  made  up ; at  least,  they  are  prepared 
to  vote  upon  this  question.  The  substitute  that 
is  now  before  the  Convention  was  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  who 
is  now  absent,  who  expressed  a desire  to  me 
that  the  matter  should  be  disposed  of.  I do  not 
think  we  ought  to  delay  on  account  of  the  ab- 
sence of  members,  and  I hope  we  shall  go  on 
and  vote  upon  the  subject.  I hope  there  will 
be  no  postponement. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Inasmuch  as  there  seems 
to  be  a disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Convention 
to  proceed  with  the  question,  with  the  leave  of 
the  Convention,  I shall  withdraw  my  mo- 
tion. 

Leave  was  granted,  and  the  motion  to  postpone 
was  withdrawn. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  substitute  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  YORIS.  At  the  request  of  the  gentleman 
from  Holmes  [Mr.  Yoorhes],  I offer  the  follow- 
ing substitute,  and  I desire  to  have  it  read  for 
the  information  of  the  Convention.  I under- 
stand it  will  not  be  in  order  at  the  present 
time. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  will  not  be 
in  order  to  offer  it  now.  It  may  be  read  for  in- 
formation. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Taxes  for  all  purposes,  that  may  he  provided  for  by 
the  General  Assembly,  shall  be  raised,  by  a uniform 
rule,  upon  all  property,  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money,  except  in  such  cases  as  are  otherwise  provided 
for  m this  section.” 

Mr.  PACE.  I am  not  altogether  satisfied 
with  the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer],  and  among  other 
objections,  I do  not  like  the  use  of  the  word  as- 
sessment there.  In  the  decisions  of  this  State 
that  word  has  been  used  differently  from  the 
signification  we  have  given  to  it.  In  a case  in 
the  Eighth  Ohio  State,  Reeves  against  the 
Treasurer  of  Wood  county,  the  court  said : 

“Taxes  are  impositions  for  the  purpose  of  general  rev- 
enue. Assessments  are  special  and  local  impositions 
upon  property  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  an  improve- 
ment for  the  public  weltare,  which  are  necessary  to  pay 
for  the  improvement,  and  laid  with  reference  to  the 
special  benefit  which  such  property  derives  from  the  ex- 
penditure.” 

In  that  case,  at  least,  and  in  many  others,  the 
word  has  been  used  in  a very  different  signifi- 
cation from  that  in  which  the  gentleman  from 
Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  uses  it,  and  it  is  used 
with  a different  meaning  in  this  very  Constitu- 
tion. I do  not  like  the  idea  of  using  a word  in  one 
place  to  mean  one  thing,  and  to  mean  another 
thing  in  another  place.  I think  we  can  im- 
prove upon  the  language  that  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  has  used,  and  I 
have  here  something  that  I shall  read  for  the 
information  of  the  Convention,  that  is  partly 
taken  from  Hough’s  Constitutions.  I read  sim- 
ply for  information.  I offer  it  with  a great 
deal  of  distrust,  however.  It  would  satisfy  me 
better  than  anything  that  has  been  offered. 

“Taxes  shall  be  equal  and  uniform.  All  property  shall 
be  taxed  in  proportion  to  its  value  in  money,  to  be  ascer- 
tained in  such  manner  as  may  be  directed  by  law,  except 
as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Article.” 


2180 


[142nd 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

Smith,  Hoadly,  Page,  Baber,  Powell,  Clark  of  R. 


Mr.  SMITH.  I would  like  to  say  one  word 
upon  this 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  permit  me  to  ask  him  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  there  any  difficulty  in 
distinguishing  between  the  levy  of  an  assess- 
ment and  the  assessment  of  a tax  ? Is  there 
any  distinction  between  the  use  of  the  word 
“assessment”  as  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]  uses  it,  and  “assessment”  as  applied 
to  taxes  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  making 
this  distinction. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Has  any  individual  ever  been 
confused  by  the  use  of  the  word  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  I was  talking  about  the  use  of 
it  in  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer], 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  not  the  word  in  the  sub- 
stitute used  strictly  with  reference  to  taxes? 

Mr.  PAGE.  I have  no  doubt  that  is  the  mean- 
ing that  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer],  attaches  to  it.  The  objection  is,  we  are 
using  it  in  one  place  to  mean  one  thing,  and  in 
another  place  to  mean  another  thing. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Is  it  not  understood  that,  un- 
der the  law,  it  is  a word  that  has  two  meanings  ? 
Is  not  a “ levy  of  assessment”  one  thing,  and 
“assessment  of  taxes”  another  thing,  and  the 
meaning  so  distinct  that  nobody  can  be  con- 
fused? 

Mr.  PAGE.  Undoubtedly,  but  there  is  no 
necessity  of  using  the  word  in  this  Constitu- 
tion, meaning  two  different  things,  when  we 
can  use  another  word  that  will  have  the  same 
significance. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Will  the  delegate  permit  me 
to  ask  what  that  other  word  is  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  I have  not  offered  an  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  The  gentleman  from  Morgan 
[Mr.  Pond]  suggests  valuation.  I think  that  is 
not  so  broad  a word  as  assessment.  As  I under- 
stand the  word  assessment,  and  as  I used  it  this 
morning,  it  gave  both  the  method  of  ascertain- 
ing the  valuation  and  the  ascertainment  of  the 
value  itself.  The  word  valuation  only  covers 
the  appraisement,  the  actual  translation  of  the 
article  in  our  ascertaining,  into  this  money 
value,  whereas,  as  I understand  the  word  as- 
sessment, when  it  is  used  with  reference  to  tax- 
ation, it  refers  to  the  inquiry  into,  and  ascer- 
tainment of,  the  subject  matter  taxed,  as  well  as 
the  ascertainment  of  its  value.  Thus,  for  in- 
stance, the  auditor  of  any  county  when,  he 
finds  that  personal  property  has  escaped  taxa- 
tion, after  the  proper  notice  to  the  owner,  as- 
sesses it.  What  is  meant  by  assessing  but  as- 
certaining what  is  to  be  taxed,  and  to  what 
person  it  is  to  be  taxed,  while  the  word  valua- 
tion only  refers  to  the  appraisement  of  the 
price.  That  is  the  difficulty.  The  word  as- 
sessment, as  ordinarily  used,  refers  to  taxation. 
Assessment  of  taxes  is  a phrase  well  understood, 
and  as  well  settled  in  its  meaning  as  any  phrase 
on  the  statute  books. 

Mr.  BABER.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way 
for  a moment? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  With  pleasure. 


[Thursday, 

Mr.  BABER.  The  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  reads 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  providing  a uniform  and  equal 
rate  of  assessment  and  taxation  of  all  real  and  personal 
property,  so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of 
the  burden  of  taxation,  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money.” 

Mr.  PAGE.  I understood  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hoadly]  to  say  that  the 
word  “taxation”  implied  valuation. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  No,  the  word  “assessment”, 
as  it  is  used  in  this  case. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  word  “taxation,”  as  it  is 
used  in  this  proposition  I read,  does  it  not  in- 
clude the  fact  of  the  valuation  of  the  property  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  It  undoubtedly  includes  the 
fact  of  the  valuation. 

Mr.  PAGE.  Then  that  is  another  objection 
to  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer].  He  says  the  “rate  of  assess- 
ment and  taxation”  when  the  word  “taxation” 
includes  valuation. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  definition,  by  Webster,  of 
the  word  “assessment”  is,  “the  valuation  of 
property  or  profits  of  business  for  the  purpose 
of  taxation,  or  the  specified  sum  charged  or 
levied.” 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  say  in  answer  tothe 
various  inquiries  that  have  been  made  here,  that, 
for  some  years  past,  in  Ohio,  to  assess  means  ex- 
actly what  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page]  read  from  the  case  of  Reeves  against  the 
Treasurer  of  Wood  county.  It  is  known  so  by 
the  courts.  It  is  known  so  by  the  officers  of  the 
several  counties,  and,  I think,  by  most  lawyers, 
and  peculiarly  applies  to  certain  demands  upon 
certain  property,  different  from  other  property, 
to  assess  the  amount  to  be  raised  upon  a per- 
son’s property  when  the  whole  State  is  not  to  be 
be  taxed.  Taxation,  generally,  is  intended  to 
refer  to  those  taxes  that  go  through  the  State. 
To  levy  taxes  upon  property  means  when  you 
do  it  by  classes.  But  I think  the  proper  word 
to  be  added  after  property  in  any  proposition  of 
this  kind,  should  be  appraisement,  and  not  as- 
sessment. I would  say  to  the  Convention  that 
I do  not  think  we  can  do  better  than  to  go  back 
to  the  article  we  reconsidered  this  morning,  and 
hold  to  that  and  vote  down  all  the  rest.  There 
is  nothing  that  will  do  better  than  that. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I renew  my  motion 
to  strike  out  the  word  “assessment,”  which  I 
withdrew  this  morning.  I do  not  like  the  word 
“assessment”  in  the  place  in  which  it  is  used 
here. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  is  out  of 
order,  as  it  would  be  an  amendment  to  the 
amendment,  but  if  there  is  universal  consent, 
the  Chair  will  entertain  the  motion,  not  other- 
wise. 

Objection  was  made. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I understand  this  is 
offered  as  a substitute,  and  my  motion  is  an 
amendment  to  the  substitute. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  There  is  a 
substitute  prior  to  this  which  is  an  amendment, 
and  it  is  a substitute  for  that  substitute,  and  as 
the  rules  have  been  construed  by  our  former 
President,  and  by  our  present  President,  and  in 
accordance  with  parliamentary  practice,  we 
have  an  amendment  to  an  amendment,  which  is 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION.  

March  19,  1874.]  Clark  of  R.,  Burns,  Griswold,  Baber,  Page,  Cook. 


2181 


an  amendment  in  the  second  degree  that  cannot 
be  made. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  That  vote  was  recon- 
sidered, and  the  question  is  upon  the  proposi- 
tion offered  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee, 
as  I understand  it.  This  is  offered  as  a substi- 
tute for  that,  and  that  is  one  degree.  I propose 
to  strike  a word  out  of  that  substitute.  That  is 
an  amendment  in  the  second  degree. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
thinks  the  proposition  to  strike  out  is  out  of 
order. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  It  is  in  the  second  de- 
gree. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  third  de- 
gree. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I think  the  Chair  is  mistaken. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  decisions 
that  have  been  enforced  in  this  Convention  in 
this  regard  are  not  in  accordance  with  the  pri- 
vate opinion  of  the  Chair,  but  are  in  accordance 
with  the  law  of  this  Convention  as  it  has  been 
enforced  since  it  has  been  in  session,  and  it  is 
the  opinion  of  a better  parliamentarian  than  I 
am  that  it  is  correct. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  like  to  hear  how  it  is 
that  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  is  an  amendment. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  is  an  amendment  to  the 
original  section. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Which  is  the  original  section  as 
passed  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  “Strike  out 
the  third  section  and  insert.”  That  is  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  It  was  inserted. 

The  PRESIDENTpro  tempore.  That  has  been 
reconsidered,  and  now  the  question  is  upon  in- 
serting those  words,  or  would  be  were  it  not 
superseded  by  this  question  of  a substitute  for 
that  section. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I think  the  private 
opinion  of  the  Chair  is  right. 

The  PRESIDENTpro  tempore.  The  Chair  de- 
sires to  enforce  the  rules  as  they  have  been  en- 
forced heretofore  by  the  presiding  officer  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  BABER.  The  delegate  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer],  when  he  left,  said  to  me,  that  he  had 
no  objection  to  this  amendment  being  made. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Has  the  gen- 
tleman power  to  accept  that  amendment  on  be- 
half of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer]. 

Mr.  BABER.  I have. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I object.  I do  not  believe  he  ap- 
pointed such  an  agent. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Objection 
being  made,  the  amendment  cannot  be  accepted. 

Mr.  BABER.  I appeal  from  the  decision  of 
the  Chair. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  On  what 
point. 

Mr.  BABER.  That  this  amendment  can  be 
made. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Ross  [Mr.  Clark]  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  and  I desire  to  state  my 
reasons  for  that  appeal. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  appeals  from 
the  decision  of  the  Chair,  upon  the  point  of 


order  that  the  Chair  announced  in  deciding  that 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Ross 
[Mr.  Clark]  is  out  of  order.  The  question  is, 
Shall  the  decision  of  the  Chair  stand  as  the 
opinion  of  the  Convention  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I think  the  private  opinion  of 
the  Chair  is  correct  in  this  matter.  It  appears 
to  me  that  there  is  an  entire  misunderstanding 
of  the  proposition.  In  the  first  place,  the  motion 
was  made  to  strike  out  the  original  section  three, 
and  insert  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith].  A division  of  the  question 
was  called  for,  and  the  question  of  striking  out 
was  agreed  to  by  a vote  of  forty-one  to  twenty- 
six.  The  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer] 
having  voted  in  the  negative  on  the  question  of 
striking  out,  he  could  not  have  moved  to  recon- 
sider that  question,  but  upon  the  question  of  in- 
sertion after  the  words  were  stricken  out,  the 
gentleman  moved  to  insert,  and,  therefore,  had 
the  power  to  move  a reconsideration  of  that  in- 
sertion. I submit  to  the  Chair,  and  to  the  Con- 
vention, that  the  only  question  before  the 
Convention  is  upon  this  insertion.  It  was  in- 
serted by  a vote  of  fifty-one  to  seventeen,  and 
is,  in  fact,  section  three,  therefore 

Mr.  BURNS.  I would  inquire  whether  any 
gentleman  seconded  the  appeal. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I seconded  the  appeal. 

Mr.  BABER.  Therefore,  it  is  the  third  sec- 
tion, or  it  stands  in  the  place  of  the  third  section, 
and  this  matter  put  in  as  a substitute  is  an 
amendment  in  the  first  degree,  and  we  have  a 
right  to  amend  it.  The  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford,  to  reconsider  this  question  of 
striking  out,  has  been  settled.  It  is  upon  the 
question  of  insertion,  and  it  appears  to  me  that 
the  decision  which  the  Chair  made  is  erroneous. 
If  such  a decision  is  proper,  the  whole  Conven- 
tion could  be  stopped  by  a captious  objection, 
and  I hope  that  the  rule  established  by  this 
Convention,  that  an  amendment  to  a substitute 
shall  be  considered  as  to  the  original  section, 
will  continue  to  be  acted  upon,  otherwise  we 
shall  lose  ourselves  in  interminable  confusion. 

Mr.  COOK.  I understand  that  question,  if 
there  is  any  question  here  at  all,  is  whether  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  was  au- 
thorized to  make  this  motion  to  reconsider.  The 
question  was  this : Pending  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Revenue  and  Taxation,  the  gen- 
tleman from  Highland  ]Mr.  Smith]  moved  to 
strike  out  section  three  and  insert.  On  the  motion 
to  strike  out,  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer]  voted  “no.”  On  the  motion  to  insert,  he 
voted  “aye.”  Now,  the  motion  which  was  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  was 
an  entire  one.  It  was  to  strike  out  and  insert. 
A division  was  demanded.  On  one-half  of  that 
motion,  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer]  voted  “aye.”  On  the  other  half,  he  voted 
“no.”  He  did  not  vote  with  the  prevailing 
party  on  the  motion  to  strike  out  and  insert;  so 
that  if  you  give  a legal  and  proper  consideration 
to  that  question,  it  was  the  motion  before  the 
Convention,  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  to  strikeout  and  insert, 
which  was  divided  in  taking  the  vote;  but  the 
motion  was  only  one.  When  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  confessed  that  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  voted 
“no”  on  one-half,  and  “aye”  on  the  other  half, 


2182 


AN  APPEAL  FROM  A DECISION. 

West,  Cook,  Clark  of  R.,  Burns. 


[142nd 

[Thursday, 


he  confessed  that  he  did  not  vote  with  the  pre- 
vailing party  on  the  entire  motion. 

Mr.  WEST.  Which  one  did  he  vote  “aye” 
on? 

Mr.  COOK.  On  the  motion  to  insert.  The 
only  question  is,  can  you  reconsider  one-half  of 
the  motion  without  reconsidering  the  other 
half? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  It  was  a separate 
motion. 

Mr.  COOK.  In  a motion  to  reconsider,  can 
we  reconsider  one-half  of  a motion  without  re- 
considering the  whole  motion  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I ask  the  gentleman  from  Wood 
[Mr.  Cook]  whether  it  is  not  a matter  of  fact 
that  we  have  reconsidered  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  I was  simply  suggesting  the 
reasons  why  the  statements  of  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  are  erroneous  in 
arguing  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the 
Chair.  The  motion  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  being  an  entire 
motion,  and  that  being  reconsidered,  the  ques- 
tion is  upon  the  amendment  offered  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  to  section 
three.  Section  three  is  stricken  out,  and  the 
question  is  upon  the  amendment  to  that  section 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr. 
Smith].  The  matter  which  the  gentleman 
from  Highland  seeks  to  introduce  is  an  amend- 
ment to  the  original  section.  The  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  is 
an  amendment  to  that  amendment,  and  that 
makes  it  in  the  second  degree.  The  Chair  has 
decided  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Ross  [Mr.  Clark]  is  out  of  order,  because  it 
would  be  an  amendment  in  the  third  degree. 
That  being  the  case,  the  Chair  must  be  sus- 
tained. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I do  not  claim  that 
an  amendment  in  the  third  degree  would  be 
parliamentary.  It  is  simply  a question  of  fact, 
whether  it  is  an  amendment  in  the  third  degree 
or  not.  I claim  that  it  is  not.  The  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith] 
having  been  adopted,  it  becomes  section  three. 
The  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer],  to  amend  that,  is  simply  in 
the  first  degree.  I propose  to  amend  that  by 
striking  out.  That  is  simply  in  the  second  de- 
gree. It  is  only  an  amendment  to  an  amend- 
ment. I regret  exceedingly  that  there  should 
be  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair. 
I think  the  private  opinion  of  the  Chair  is  cor- 
rect. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
has  no  private  opinion  on  this  subject.  Yester- 
day a motion  was  made  to  strike  out  section 
three,  and  insert  the  subject-matter  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith], 
There  was  a division  of  the  question  called  for. 
The  question  then  turned  upon  striking  out. 
That  prevailed.  Then  another  question  arose 
upon  inserting.  The  idea  that  this  was  all  one 
question,  and  that  each  vote  was  for  half  a 
question,  is  not  perceptible  by  me.  I think  it 
made  two  questions.  Upon  the  question  to 
strike  out,  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer]  voted  with  the  minority.  On  the  ques- 
tion of  inserting  he  voted  with  the  majority,  to 
insert.  The  Chair  is  of  opinion  that  that  was 
a separate  and  distinct  question,  made  so  by 


the  rules  of  the  Convention  upon  a division. 
Then  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  properly 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer],  because  he  had  voted  in  the  affirmative 
to  insert,  and  the  affirmative  were  the  prevail- 
ing party.  Upon  that  question,  when  the  mo- 
tion to  reconsider  prevailed,  the  vote  by  which 
section  three,  as  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  was  inserted,  was 
reconsidered.  The  question  then  recurred  upon 
inserting  the  words  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith],  and  that,  of  course, 
was  in  the  nature  of  an  amendment  to  the 
proposition.  Then  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer]  offered  his  substitute,  which  is 
in  the  nature  of  an  amendment  to  an  amend- 
ment. It  is  an  amendment  in  the  second  de- 
gree, as  has  been  decided  by  President  W aite, 
when  he  was  President,  and  by  our  present 
presiding  officer;  and  I consulted  with  Mr. 
King  upon  this  very  proposition  after  the  ad- 
journment to-day,  and  what  the  Chair  announced 
was  in  accordance  with  the  practice,  as  I 
believe,  of  the  Convention  ever  since  we 
have  been  in  session,  and  I know  that  it  is  in 
accordance  with  the  private  opinion  of  a very 
good  parliamentarian  in  this  Convention,  and 
I have  no  delicacy  in  naming  him — the  gentle- 
man from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  who  I understand 
to  be  as  good  a parliamentarian  as  there  is  in 
this  Convention;  and  now  the  question  is, 
Shall  the  decision  of  the  Chair  stand  as  the 
judgment  of  the  Convention? 

Mr.  BURNS.  I simply  desire  to  state  the 
reasons  for  the  vote  I shall  have  to  give.  The 
thirty-ninth  rule,  as  I understand  it,  will  gov- 
ern my  vote.  A motion  to  strike  out  and  insert 
“shall  be  deemed  divisible.”  That  was  the 
original  status  of  this  question.  “A  motion  to 
strike  out  on  a division  being  negatived,  or  a 
motion  to  insert  being  decided  in  the  affirma- 
tive, shall  be  equivalent  to  agreeing  to  the  matter 
in  that  form,  but  shall  not  preclude  further 
amendments  provided  that  substitute,  for  pend- 
ing propositions  shall,  for  the  purpose  of 
amendment,  be  treated  as  original  proposi- 
tions.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I rise  to  a point  of  order.  In 
an  appeal  from  the  Chair,  the  Chair  always  has 
the  last  argument. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  I want  to  sug- 
gest that  I conversed  with  our  President  at  noon, 
and  he  said  that  Mr.  Waite  considered  this  sub- 
stitute for  the  pending  proposition  to  mean  the 
substitute  for  an  entire  proposition,  and  not  for 
any  particular  portion  of  the  proposition. 

Mr.  BURNS.  That  is  my  understanding  of 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  High- 
land [Mr.  Smith].  I call  it  a proposition.  The 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  offers  a 
substitute  for  that  proposition,  and  for  purposes 
of  amendment  it  should  be  taken  as  an  original 
proposition,  and  that,  in  my  judgment,  permits 
an  amendment  to  be  offered  to  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer].  It 
is  suggested  properly  that  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  is  a 
substitute.  If  it  is,  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]  for  the  sub- 
stitute is  only  in  the  first  degree. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore . It  is  not  a 


Day.] REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  19,  1874.]  Burns,  Clark  of  R.,  Powell,  Townsend,  Baber,  etc. 


2183 


substitute  for  the  proposition,  only  for  the  sec- 
tion. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I do  not  so  understand  that 
section.  I have  great  confidence  in  the  opinion 
of  the  parliamentarian  the  President  referred 
to,  as  well  as  the  President.  My  opinion  may 
be  wrong. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is,  Shall  the  decision  of  the  Chair  stand  as  the 
judgment  of  the  Convention  ? 

The  decision  of  the  Chair  was  sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  substitute  for  the 
section  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Craw- 
ford [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  BURNS.  Let  me  make  an  inquiry,  so 
that  we  may  not  go  astray.  Suppose  this 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]  is  adopted  now,  as  it  stands.  We 
cannot  offer  an  amendment  to  it  under  the 
ruling  of  the  Chair.  Suppose  it  is  voted  in ; 
then  would  it  be  susceptible  of  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore . Under  anoth- 
er rule  of  the  Convention,  “ when  a proposition 
or  an  amendment  has  been  voted  in,  or  refused 
to  be  stricken  out,  it  shall  not  preclude  further 
amendment.”  There  might  be  an  amendment 
proposed  if  this  should  be  voted  in,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Chair.  That  will  be  in  order,  but  is 
notin  order  now. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  May  I inquire  if  a 
motion  to  strike  out  would  then  be  in  order;  or 
would  the  Chair  hold  that  the  amendment  | 
would  have  to  be  by  way  of  addition? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  My  own 
opinion  is,  that  the  amendment  must  by  way  of 
addition. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  it  not  be  amended  by 
referring  to  a Committee  of  One,  with  instruc- 
tions ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Undoubtedly, 
in  another  stage  of  the  proceedings. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
Chair  if  this  amendment  is  adopted,  whether  it 
would  require  another  vote  to  vote  it  into  the  i 
Article. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Whether  the  original 
substitute  which  we  voted  to  reconsider  this 
morning  is  susceptible  of  amendment,  and  if  so, 
at  what  stage  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  I do  not  know 
that  I understand  the  question  of  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  substitute  for  this  sec- 
tion, offered  by  the  chairman  of  the  Committee 
[Mr.  Smith],  which  was  adopted,  and  which  we 
moved  to  reconsider,  and  is  now  before  the  Con- 
vention. Is  that  subject  to  amendment  at  this 
time,  and  if  not,  at  what  time  in  the  stage  of 
our  proceedings  will  it  be? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  is 
of  the  opinion  that  the  words  proposed  to  be 
inserted  by  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr. 
Smith]  are  susceptible  of  amendment. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  At  this  time  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  At  this  time. 

Mn  TOWNSEND.  Before  taking  a vote  up- 
on this  motion  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Before  tak- 
ing a vote  on  this  motion,  because  the  substance 
of  this  motion  amounts  to  this : The  words  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr. 


Smith]  are  to  be  stricken  out,  and  these  other 
words  inserted,  and  before  that  vote  can  be 
taken,  these  words  are  susceptible  of  amend- 
ment. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I move  to  add  the  follow- 
ing words : 

“So  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  proportion  of 
the  burden  of  taxation.” 

The  section  will  read  : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a rate  that  shall  be 
uniform  within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy,  all  real 
and  personal  property,  according  to  its  value,  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  such  equitable  rules  of  appraisement  as  may 
be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly,  so  that  all  prop- 
erty shall  bear  an  equal  proportion  of  the  burden  of  tax- 
ation.” 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  My  reasons  for  offering 
this  amendment  I shall  state  very  briefly,  be1- 
cause  I am  satisfied  that  this  Convention  under- 
stands this  question  as  well  as  I do.  They 
ought  to,  by  this  time.  Quite  a number  of  gen- 
tlemen have  told  me  that,  had  these  words  been 
left  in  the  section,  as  originally  reported,  they 
would  have  favored  this  substitute ; but  having 
been  stricken  out,  they  were  compelled  to  vote 
against  it.  My  judgment  is,  that  it  does  not 
impair  the  strength  or  force  of  this  section,  and 
perhaps  it  is  better  to  leave  the  words  in.  I 
therefore  move  to  replace  them  in  this  substi- 
tute, believing,  as  I said,  that  the  substitute  of 
the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  is 
better,  with  this  addition,  than  anything  that 
has  been  offered  here,  and  will  be  more  satis- 
factory to  this  Convention.  I ask  for  a vote  of 
the  Convention  upon  it,  without  any  further 
discussion. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  suggest  that  the  gen- 
tleman add  “according  to  its  true  value  in 
money.” 

Mr."  ROWLAND.  What  other  standard  of 
value  is  there  than  money  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  I reply,  why  does  the  gentle- 
man want  to  constantly  change  the  language  of 
the  old  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  That  is  no  answer  at  all. 
It  is  the  best  the  gentleman  can  give,  I suppose. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I have  no  objection  to 
making  that  modification. 

Mr.  NEAL.  It  is  unnecessary. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Let  us  have  it. 

Mr.  BABER.  If  the  gentleman  will  modify 
it  in  that  way,  I shall  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  MINER.  The  language  does  not  want  to 
come  in  at  the  end.  It  should  come  in  after  the 
word  “value,”  above  “according  to  its  true 
value  in  money,  to  be  ascertained,”  etc. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Then  strikeout  “equitable,” 
and  we  have  got  it  all. 

Mr.  BURNS.  The  amendment  I feel  dis- 
posed to  vote  for,  but  there  is  tautology  there. 
It  has  “ according  to  its  true  value  in  money” 
twice. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BURNS.  “According  to  its  true  value” 
is  in  twice. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Will  the  Secretary  read 
the  section  ? 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a rate  that  shall  be 
uniform  within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy,  all  real 
and  personal  property,  according  to  its  value,  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  such  equitable  rules  of  appraisement  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly,  so  that  all  property 


2184 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [142nd 

Burns,  Townsend,  Smith,  Pratt,  Hoadly,  Rowland,  etc.  [Thursday, 


shall  bear  an  equal  proportion  of  the  burden  of  taxation, 
according  to  its  true  value  in  money.” 

Mr.  BURNS.  If  you  insert  the  word  “money” 
after  the  word  “ value,”  and  leave  it  out  of  the 
amendment,  you  will  have  it  right.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  be  placed  in  twice. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I do  not  care,  particu- 
larly, what  part  of  the  section  it  comes  in. 
With  the  leave  of  the  Convention  I shall  change 
it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  So  that  the  gentleman’s  amend- 
ment may  come  in,  and  that  certain  doubts  of  a 
serious  character  may  be  set  at  rest,  I am  willing 
that  the  words  “ value  in  money  ” may  be  in- 
serted in  the  original  proposition,  and  I am 
further  willing  that  the  word  “ equitable”  may 
be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  PRATT.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  SMITH.  “ By  such  rules  of  appraise- 
ment.” That  carries  with  it,  by  fair  construc- 
tion, “such  equitable  considerations  as  may 
govern  the  General  Assembly  in  prescribing 
rules. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  Then  the  word  “ money” 
will  not  be  necessary  to  be  put  on  the  end  of 
the  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a rate  which  shall  be 
uniform  within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy,  all  real 
and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money,  to  be  ascertained  by  such  rules  of  appraisement 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly,  so  that 
all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  proportion  of  the  burden 
of  taxation.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  agreeing  to  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  as  he 
has  modified  it. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I was  going  to  say  that  I 
am  willing  to  vote  for  that  section,  as  now 
amended,  if  it  will  satisfy  gentlemen,  and  if  we 
can  end  this  controversy  on  this  section. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  has  not 
been  amended. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I say  I am  willing  to  vote 
for  it  in  the  shape  in  which  it  is  proposed  to  be 
amended. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I have  another  suggestion  to 
make.  We  are  now  coming  back  to  the  original 
proposition,  and  I propose  that  it  shall  read  in 
this  wise : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rate,  all 
property,  tangible  and  intangible,  according  to  its  true 
value  in  money.” 

If  the  Convention  will  agree  to  that,  I shall 
modify  my  original  proposition  in  that  way,  so 
that  the  entire  substitute,  with  the  addition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Town- 
send]— 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Conven- 
tion seems  to  be  getting  into  a little  confusion. 
Tlie  better  way  will  be  to  take  a vote  upon  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  and  then  the  sec- 
tion will  be  open  to  further  amendment,  if  the 
gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  wishes 
to  change  the  phraseology. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  the  suggestion  of  the 
Chair  will  be  followed.  Let  us  have  a vote  on 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga  [Mr.  Townsend],  and  then  if  there  is  any  | 


further  change  of  phraseology  to  be  proposed, 
let  us  consider  that  by  itself.  Let  us  vote  on 
the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Townsend]. 

Mr,  Townsend’s  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Are  there 
any  further  amendments  ? The  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  made  a suggestion, 
changing  some  words,  which  were  not  changed, 
and  if  he  desires  to  make  a motion  to  this  effect 
the  Chair  will  entertain  it.  If  not,  the  next 
question  will  be  on  the  substitute  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I would  like  to  have 
the  matter  reported  as  it  is  now,  so  that  we  can 
see  what  words  are  left  out. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a rate  that  shall  be 
uniform  within  the  jurisdiction  making  the  levy,  all  real 
and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true  value  in 
money,  to  be  ascertained  by  such  rules  of  appraisement 
as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  General  Assembly,  so  that 
all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  proportion  of  the  burden 
of  taxation.” 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  If  the  gentleman  from 
Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  does  not  move  that  modi- 
fication, I move  to  strike  out  “within  the  juris- 
diction.” 

Mr.  SMITH.  I have  proposed  to  amend  it  by 
inserting,  “taxing  by  a uniform  rule  all  prop- 
erty, tangible  and  intangible.” 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Instead  of  saying,  “by  a 
uniform  rate,”  should  it  not  be,  “by  uniform 
rates  ?” 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  creates  a diversity  of 
rates,  which  I am  not  in  favor  of. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I simply  make  the  sugges- 
tion. I think  the  construction  of  the  singular 
will  be  made  to  apply  within  the  jurisdiction, 
but  I think  the  plural  will  be  better. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Will  the  gen- 
tleman from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  repeat  what 
his  amendment  is? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I propose  to  insert,  “by  a uni- 
form rate,”  “laws  shall  be  passed  by  a uniform 
rate,”  &c. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  That  is  a 
mere  literal  amendment,  which  the  gentleman 
has  a right  to  make,  probably. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  section  will  read,  “Laws 
shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rate,  all 
real  and  personal  property,  according  to  its  true 
value  in  money,”  etc. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
now  recurs  upon  the  substitute  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I suggest  whether  the 
words  “real  and  personal”  might  not  be  omitted, 
and  say  “all  property.” 

[“No!  No!”] 

Mr.  GRIS W OLD.  The  point  is  here,  whether 
a franchise  can  be  taxed  under  that  phraseolo- 
gy. We  want  the  franchise  of  these  corpora- 
tions taxed;  and  I suggest  whether  that  in- 
cludes it,  whether  the  phrase,  “all  property”, 
does  not  include  everything,  as  well  real  and 
personal,  as  these  franchises  which  there  is  a 
dispute  about. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Everything  that  has  any 
value  in  it  will  be  included  under  the  words 
“property,  real  and  personal.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  There  is  no 
question  upon  this  subject  before  the  Conven- 


2185 


Day.]  REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. 

March  19,  1874.]  Beer,  West,  Pond,  Voris,  Sample,  Pratt,  Page,  etc. 


tion.  This  discussion  is  merely  permitted ; it  is 
out  of  order.  The  question  is  upon  the  substi- 
tute offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford 
[Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  BEER.  I ask  for  the  reading  of  that 
substitute. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Laws  shall  be  passed  taxing,  by  a uniform  rate  of  as- 
sessment and  taxation  of  all  real  and  personal  property, 
so  that  all  property  shall  bear  an  equal  share  of  the  bur- 
den of  taxation,  according  to  its  true  value  in  money.” 

Mr.  WEST.  I move  to  add  at  the  end  the 
words,  “in  determining  which  the  deduction  of 
debits  from  credits  may  be  authorized.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Which  pro- 
position does  the  gentleman  propose  to  amend, 
the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  High- 
land [Mr.  Smith],  or  the  other? 

Mr.  WEST.  The  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith].  I believe  his 
proposition  ends  with  “money.” 

Mr.  POND.  No. 

Mr.  WEST.  You  will  have  to  change  the 
wording.  I thought  it  ended  with  the  word 
‘money.”  “Provided,  that  the  deduction  of 
debts  from  credits  may  be  authorized.”  Let  it 
read  in  that  way. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I would  ask  the  gentleman 
whether,  under  the  section,  without  that  amend- 
ment, he  does  not  think  the  General  Assembly 
would  have  authority  to  make  such  a law  ? 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  very  certain  they  would 
have  authority  with  it. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  The  other  alternative  is 
what  we  want  to  get  at. 

Mr.  WEST.  I.don’t  believe  they  could,  with- 
out stretching  the  Constitution.  They  may 
do  it. 

Mr.  PRATT.  They  would  have  to  overthrow 
a decision  of  the  supreme  court,  would  they 
not? 

Mr.  WEST.  I am  afraid  so,  and  I want  to  be 
frank  and  bold  enough  to  say  the  word  right 
here. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Logan  [Mr.  West],  which  has  been 
reported. 

Mr.  BABER.  I hope  that  this  amendment 
will  not  prevail.  I do  not  want  to  see  this 
change  made.  I think  the  gentlemen  of  the 
Committee, who  have  introduced  this  preposition, 
have  modified  it  now  to  pretty  nearly  what  we 
can  all  agree  to,  and  I do  not  want  to  see  this 
question  opened  up  about  the  debt  and  credit 
matter.  I want  to  leave  it  squarely  where 
it  is,  in  the  hands  of  the  courts  and  in 
the  hands  of  the  Legislature.  I do  not  desire  to 
have  the  amendment  made,  and  I hope  it  will 
not  be  adopted.  I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays 
on  it. 

Mr.  SAMPLE.  I hope  this  amendment  will 
be  made.  It  is  a question  of  absolute  necessity, 
if  there  is  any  doubt  about  it.  I suppose,  my- 
self, that  under  the  construction  implied  by 
legislative  action,  as  well  as  the  recognition  of 
the  right  to  make  such  deductions  by  the  su- 
preme court,  under  the  present  Constitution, 
that  it  would  not  be  denied,  but  I think  there 
would  be  nothing  more  unjust,  nothing  less 
calculated  to  entitle  any  proposition  to  public 
favor,  than  to  prohibit  such  deductions  from 


being  made,  and,  therefore,  I differ  with  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  and  I 
hope  it  will  not  be  made,  as  it  is  now  presented. 
I would  not  have  deemed  it  necessary  had  it 
not  been  presented,  but  having  been  presented 
now,  the  question  is  required  to  be  passed  upon 
by  the  Convention,  and  it  strikes  me  that  the 
Convention  cannot  pass  upon  it  intelligently 
and  properly,  in  but  one  way,  and  that  is  to 
adopt  the  amendment. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I hope  that  the  amendment 
will  be  made.  There  has  existed  for  seven- 
teen years,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  the  public 
scandal  of  a provision  in  the  Constisution,  con- 
strued by  the  supreme  court  to  mean  one  thing, 
and  the  Legislature  utterly  disregarded  it. 
That  disregard  by  the  Legislature  has  been 
acquiesced  in  by  the  people,  and  this  deduction 
of  liabilities  from  dues  has  been  made  perpet- 
ually since,  I believe,  1857,  in  utter  defiance  of 
the  construction  of  the  Constitution,  as  given 
by  the  supreme  court  in  3 Ohio  State,  page  1, 
City  Bank  of  Columbus  vs.  Hines,  the  Legis- 
lature following  the  dissenting  opinion  of 
Judge  Ranney,  and  the  consequence  has  been 
exhibited  of  an  utter  disregard  of  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Constitution.  There  is  no  way  to 
wipe  that  out;  we  must,  unless  we  adopt  the 
opinion  of  the  court  or  the  Legislature. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I hope  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  will 
be  agreed  to.  It  strikes  me  that  it  is  necessary 
as  the  proposition  stands.  A man  is  required 
to  list  for  taxation  his  property  that  has  to  be 
listed,  according  to  its  value  in  money.  If  he 
has  $10,000  in  book  accounts,  is  not  that  prop- 
erty, and  is  he  not  bound  to  list  it  for  taxation, 
and  is  it  not  taxed  ? and  on  what  theory  can  the 
Legislature  authorize  debts  which  he  may  owe 
to  be  deducted,  without  a provision  in  the  Con- 
stitution. They  might  as  well,  by  implication, 
or  by  some  other  authority,  not  granted  in  the 
Constitution,  authorize  a deduction  from  any 
tangible  property,  as  corn  or  wheat ; we  are  very 
well  satisfied  they  have  not  the  power  to  make 
a deduction  from  property  of  that  nature,  any 
more  than  they  would  from  real  estate.  I do 
not  think  that  this  deduction  can  be  made  at  all, 
without  authority  of  the  Constitution,  and  I 
hope  the  question  will  be  settled  by  this  amend- 
ment being  adopted. 

Mr.  BURNS.  I trust  that  this  amendment 
will  be  adopted ; without  it,  for  one,  I cannot 
vote  for  the  section.  The  section  has  wholly 
omitted  the  word  credit.  The  old  Constitution 
has  that  word  in  it.  I understand  a decision  of 
the  supreme  court,  by  which  debts  are  allowed 
to  be  deducted  from  credits,  was  based  on  the 
word  credit,  which  was  held  to  mean  such 
creditsas  a citizen  owns  over  and  above  his  debts. 
The  section,  as  it  now  reads,  wholly  omits  that 
word,  and  without  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Losran  [Mr.  West],  I cannot  vote  for 
that  section.  I had  anticipated  that  proposition, 
and  had  prepared  an  amendment,  a little  differ- 
ently worded;  but  the  amendment  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  meets  the  same 
question,  and  I hope  it  will  be  adopted,  for 
without  that  provision  the  section,  it  seems  to 
me,  would  result  in  great  injustice,  to  the  tax 
paying  people  of  the  State. 


2186 


REVENUE  AND  TAXATION. [142nd 

Baber,  Page,  Voris,  Clark  of  R.,  Pease,  Root,  Cook.  [Thursday, 


The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  yeas  and 
nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  BABER.  I withdraw  the  demand. 

Mr.  West’s  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
recurs  upon  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman 
from  Crawford  [Mr.  Beer]. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I rise  to  make  a single  remark. 
I think  the  proposition,  as  reported  by  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee,  is  now  satisfactory,  at 
least  to  me,  and  I think  it  is  to  those  gentlemen 
who  acted  with  me  in  demanding  this  reconsid- 
eration, and,  therefore,  so  far  as  I am  con- 
cerned, I shall  vote  against  the  substitute 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Crawford  [Mr. 
Beer],  and  shall  vote  for  the  Report  of  the 
Committee. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I want  to  indorse  the  remarks 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page]. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I think  we  are  about 
satisfied  with  it  now. 

Mr.  Beer’s  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
recurs  upon  inserting,  in  the  blank  which  was 
made  by  striking  out  section  three,  the  section 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Highland  [Mr. 
Smith],  as  it  has  been  amended. 

Mr.  PEASE.  As  there  has  been  some  doubt 
expressed  as  to  the  right  to  tax  franchises, 
would  it  not  be  right  to  include  something  so  as 
to  reach  it? 

Mr.  ROOT.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Stark 
[Mr.  Pease]  allow  me  to  suggest  one  word  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ROOT.  If  he  will  look  at  the  fifth  sec- 
tion, he  will  see  that  is  where  the  addition 
should  be  made,  if  anywhere. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I do  not  care  where  it  is  made ; 
but  I believe  a square  use  of  the  word  “fran- 
chises” would  hit  the  nail  on  the  head. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Put  it  in  section  five. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Put  it  anywhere.  I don’t  care 
where  it  is  put. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  68,  nays  3,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  An- 
drews, Baber,  Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns, 
Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham,  Frei- 
berg, Godfrey,  Greene,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hale, 
Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McBride, 
McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  McCauley,  Mitch- 
ener,  Mullen,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Phil- 
ips, Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Root,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sam- 
ple, Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith,  Thompson,  Town- 
send, Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van 
Voorhis,  Voorhes,  Voris,  Weaver,  West,  White 
of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
— 68. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Neal,  Pond  and  Scofield — 3. 

So  the  section,  as  amended,  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I give  notice  that  I shall,  to- 
morrow, make  a motion  to  refer 

Mr.  NEAL.  Do  it  now. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Very  well.  I move  to  refer  to 
a Committee  of  One,  with  instructions  to  add,  in  j 


section  five,  after  the  word  “taxation,”  the 
words  “franchises  and.” 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  ordering  the  Proposition  to  be  engrossed 
for  final  reading. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I move  that  it  be  engrossed 
and  printed,  and  made  the  order  of  the  day  for 
Tuesday  morning. 

Which  was  agreed  to. 

education. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  that  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  be  discharged  from  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Education. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  COOK.  If  there  is  no  other  miscellane- 
ous business  in  order,  I move  that  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  on  Education  be  made  the  spe- 
cial order  for  this  hour,  and  continued  from 
day  to  day  until  completed. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  General  de- 
bate upon  the  Proposition  is  now  in  order. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  like  to  have  the  Report 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Cook,  from  the  Committee  on  Education,  submitted 
the  following  Report: 

Your  Committee,  after  a careful  consideration  of  all  the 
petitions  and  propositions  referred  to  them,  are  of  the 
opinion  that  the  following,  as  section  3,  should  be  added 
to  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution: 

Sec.  3.  Women,  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  shall 
be  eligible  to  any  office,  under  the  school  laws  of  this 
State. 

The  undersigned  members  of  the  Committee  recom- 
mend that  the  following  clause  be  added  to  section  2 of 
Article  VI  of  the  Constitution,  namely: 

The  power  of  taxation,  conferred  by  this  section,  shall 
be  limited  to  a sum  sufficient  to  educate  all  the  children 
of  the  State,  in  such  common  and  necessary  branches  of 
learning  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Jno.  D.  Sears. 

Henry  F.  Page, 

Wm.  P.  Kerr, 

J.  P.  Carbery. 

The  undersigned  dissent  from  the  above  recommenda- 
tion. 

Asher  Cook, 

R.  DeSteiguer. 

The  undersigned  members  of  the  Committee  are  of  the 
opinion  that  the  following  should  be  added,  as  section  4, 
to  Article  VI  of  the  Constitution: 

Sec.  4.  The  General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  require 
that  every  child,  of  sufficient  mental  and  physical  abili- 
ty, shall  attend  the  public  free  schools,  during  the  period 
between  the  ages  of  and  years,  for  a term 

equivalent  in  the  aggregate  to  years,  unless  educat- 
ed by  other  means  to  the  same  extent. 

Asheb  Cook, 

John  D.  Sears, 

Henry  F.  Page, 

R.  DeSteiguer. 

We  dissent  from  the  rest  of  the  Committee,  in  opinion, 
as  to  the  addition  of  section  4. 

W.  P.  Kerr, 

J.  P.  Carbery. 

Mr.  Carbery  proposes  to  amend  section  2 of  Article  VI 
of  the  Constitution,  so  that  it  shall  read: 

The  General  Assembly  shall  make  such  provisions,  by 
taxation  or  otherwise,  as,  with  the  income  arising  from 
the  school  trust  fund,  will  secure  a thorough  *tnd  efficient 
system  of  common  schools  throughout  the  State. 

Joseph  P.  Carbery. 

Mr.  COOK.  Mr.  President,  in  speaking  on 
this  subject,  I shall  give  my  own  views  rather 
than  those  of  the  Committee  which  made  the 
report. 

Unfortunately,  the  Committee  has  been  una- 
ble to  make  an  unanimous  report,  excepting  in 
one  particular;  and,  while  it  must  be  conceded 


Day.]  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION. 2187 

March  19, 1874.]  Cook. 


the  want  of  unanimity  will  destroy  the  force 
and  effect  of  the  Report,  and  leave  the  matter 
entirely  open  to  the  Convention,  may  I not  ex- 
press the  hope  that  on  the  section  where  we  are 
united  it  will  have  the  greater  weight? 

The  Committee  agree  in  reporting  the  follow- 
ing as  section  three  of  Article  VI  of  the  Consti- 
tution : 

“Sec.  3.  Women  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  office  under  the  school  laws  of  this  State.” 

This  section  embodies  a principle  so  reasona- 
ble and  just  that  the  Committee  entertain  no 
doubt  of  its  adoption  bv  the  Convention.  It  is 
to  extend  the  mother’s  influence  over  her  chil- 
dren while  in  the  school  room,  and  give  to  the 
teacher  her  advice  and  support  in  governing 
and  instructing  them.  That  women  should 
ever  have  been  excluded  from  a vocation  to 
which  they  are  so  well  adapted  by  nature,  can 
only  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  man’s 
love  of  power  makes  him  tyrannical.  And  in 
this  his  tyranny  assumes  a double  form;  for, 
while  the  children  are  at  home,  he  insists  the 
mother  shall  govern  and  teach  them,  but,  when 
they  pass  into  the  school,  he  manifests  his  lordly 
power  by  excluding  her  from  all  participation 
in  the  government  of  the  school  in  which  they 
are  taught,  as  well  as  from  any  participation  in 
the  selection  of  those  to  whose  government  they 
are  to  be  intrusted. 

As  the  mother  is  the  best  teacher,  it  should 
be  conceded  that  she  is  the  most  competent  to 
select  those  who  aie  to  govern  and  teach  her 
children. 

Her  art  and  tact  in  the  management  of  chil- 
dren, a”d  even  those  of  an  older  growth,  emi- 
nently fit  her  for  the  discharge  of  all  the  duties 
pertaining  to  the  management  of  schools. 
And,  if  women  were  in  the  ascendancy  in  our 
boards  of  education,  their  incorruptible  integ- 
rity would  give  assurances  that  the  money 
entrusted  to  them  would  be  faithfully  expended 
and  justly  accounted  for. 

The  next  proposition  contained  in  the  Report 
is  the  clause  which  a majority  of  the  Committee 
concur  in  recommending  to  be  added  to  section 
two  of  Article  VI.  But  of  this  I shall  not  speak 
until  the  last,  and  will  now  proceed  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  proposed  section  four.  This 
section  provides  that  the  General  Assembly 
may,  by  law,  require  that  every  child  of  suffi- 
cient mental  and  physical  ability  shall  attend 
the  public  schools  during  the  period  between 
the  ages  of  — and  — years,  for  a term  equiva- 
lent in  the  aggregrte  to  — years,  unless  edu- 
cated by  other  means  to  the  same  extent. 

Education,  for  the  purpose  of  this  argument, 
may  be  divided  into  two  classes — public  and 
private. 

Public  education  includes  instruction  in  all 
things  necessary  to  flt  the  individual  for  a prop- 
er discharge  of  his,  or  her  duties  as  a member 
of  society,  and  which  directly  tend  to  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  State,  whose  welfare  is  inti- 
mately interwoven  with  the  individual  prosper- 
ity of  each  of  its  members. 

Private  education  pertains  rather  to  matters 
of  opinion  than  to  positive  instruction,  and  in- 
cludes information  on  all  subjects,  wherein  the 
individual  has  a choice,  as  in  sectarian  religion, 
party  politics,  and  the  like,  and  in  which  the 


State  has  no  right  to  interfere,  or  compel  the 
individual  to  embrace  the  one  side  in  preference 
to  the  other. 

But  not  so  in  the  education  of  the  individual 
in  those  things  which  pertain  to  his  prosperity, 
and  through  him  to  the  welfare  of  the  State. 

All  mankind  desire  happiness,  and  if  all  chil- 
dren were  wise,  they  would  pursue  that  course 
of  education  in  youth  which  would  produce  this 
result. 

But,  as  they  are  weak,  and  do  not  know  what 
course  to  pursue  to  attain  this  end,  and  are  more 
likely  to  go  wrong  than  right,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  State,  by  virtue  of  its  superior  wisdom,  to 
see  that  all  are  so  instructed  as  to  promote  their 
best  interests ; and  herein,  as  the  welfare  of  the 
State  is  involved,  it  has  a right  to  interfere,  and 
compel  every  individual  to  become  instructed, 
for  here  the  individual  has  no  choice  except  be- 
tween education  and  ignorance,  and  as  the  State 
cannot  exist  without  intelligence,  it  has,  as  in- 
dividuals, the  right  of  self  preservation. 

It  has  a right  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness,  and  may  compel  every  one  of  its  in- 
habitants to  pursue  such  a course  as  will  secure 
this  to  each  and  all,  and  thereby  to  the  State 
itself. 

We  must  educate  or  the  Republic  will  perish. 
A Republican  form  of  government  cannot  be 
maintained  without  the  education  of  the  people, 
and  this  education  must  be  given  in  the  schools, 
or  in  the  prisons.  In  the  prison  the  course  of 
education  is  short,  but  terrible.  There  the  pu- 
pil learns  that  “the  wages  of  sin  is  death,” 
while  in  the  school  the  secrets  of  nature  are  un- 
folded to  him,  and  he  learns  by  a study  of  the 
harmony  of  her  law,  to  respect  and  obey  the 
laws  of  society. 

In  all  countries,  and  at  all  times,  and  under 
all  circumstances,  the  love  of  liberty  has  been  in 
direct  ratio  to  the  education  of  the  people. 

In  ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  while  education 
was  promoted,  those  republics  flourished,  but 
when  tyrants  sought  and  obtained  control  of  the 
State,  education  was  neglected,  and  with  the  de- 
cline of  letters  the  republics  fell.  The  fall  of 
the  republic  gave  place  to  the  monarchy,  and  the 
shout  of  the  ignorant  mob  placed  cruel  men  on 
bloody  thrones,  and  tore  the  emblems  of  peace 
from  brows  crowned  with  the  affections  of  a 
grateful  people. 

I concurred  in  reporting  this  section  to  the 
Convention  because  I believe  it  to  be  right  in 
principle.  I am  of  opinion,  however,  that  the 
General  Assembly  already  possesses  the  power 
to  make  the  provisions  here  enumerated  with- 
out this  special  grant  in  the  Constitution . 

The  General  Assembly  possesses  all  legisla- 
tive power,  and  may  be  said  to  be  politically  om- 
nipotent, except  in  so  far  as  restrained  by  con- 
stitutional limitation,  the  inalienable  rights  of 
men,  which  cannot  be  taken  from  them  arbi- 
trarily by  legislative  power  and  public  policy, 
which  may  be  denominated  the  inalienable 
rights  of  community. 

And  as  neither  of  these  require  that  the 
power  conferred  by  section  four  should  be  de- 
nied to  the  General  Assembly,  it  must  possess 
it  under  the  general  grant  of  legislative  pow- 
er, and  what  it  already  posseses  by  a general 
grant  need  not  again  be  specially  conferred. 


2188 


THE  REPORT  ON  EDUCATION. 


[142nd 


Cook.  [Thursday, 


But,  as  there  was  some  doubt  on  this  subject  in 
Committee,  a majority  of  the  Committee  thought 
best  to  refer  it  to  the  Convention. 

If  it  is  not  entirely  clear  that  the  General 
Assembly  already  possesses  this  power,  I think 
this  section  should  be  adopted,  to  remove  any 
doubt  which  may  obtain  on  the  subject,  for  it  is 
a necessary  power,  and  the  General  Assembly 
should  have  the  right  to  exercise  it  whenever 
in  their  judgment  the  interest  of  the  State  re- 
quires it. 

I now  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr. 
Carbery,  and  from  which  the  balance  of  the 
Committee  dissented.  This  amendment,  as  pro- 
posed, does  not  show  really  what  it  is.  It  is 
section  two,  of  Article  YI,  of  the  present  Con- 
stitution, with  the  most  important  part  left  out, 
namely,  “ But  no  religious  or  other  sect  or  sects 
shall  ever  have  any  exclusive  right  to  or  control 
of  any  part  of  the  school  funds  of  this  State.” 

When  the  counter  part  is  added  to  this  section, 
the  object  of  the  amendment  becomes  apparent : 
— it  is  to  leave  the  Constitution  so  crippled  that 
the  various  religious  denominations  may  divide 
the  common  school  fund  among  them,  for  the 
support  of  sectarian  schools.  It  is  to  be  hoped 
that  this  amendment  will  not  be  concurred  in, 
as  its  adoption  will  reopen  the  sectarian  quar- 
rels, which  have  been  the  most  bloody  and  de- 
moralizing known  to  mankind. 

The  mental  agony  produced  by  the  strife 
which  must  necessarily  follow  so  unwise  a step 
will  exceed  the  bodily  suffering  produced  by 
the  rack,  under  the  Inquisition.  It  is  little 
creditable  to  mankind  that  differences  in  relig- 
ious opinions  have  engendered  the  most  cruel 
enmity  between  them,  and  the  world  has  wit- 
nessed no  blacker  crimes  than  those  perpetrated 
in  the  name  of  religion ; and  what  makes  it 
incomparably  worse,  and  more  to  be  dreaded 
than  other  crimes,  is  the  fact  that  the  perpetrat- 
ors, under  the  insane  fervor  of  religious  excite- 
ment, believe  they  can  in  no  way  worship  God 
so  acceptably  as  by  baptizing  the  earth  in  what 
their  frenzied  zeal  calls  infidel  blood. 

“ The  babe  may  cease  to  think  that  it  can  play 
With  Heaven’s  rainbow:  Alchemists  may  doubt 
The  shining  gold  their  crucible  gives  out— 

But  faith,  fanatic  faith,  once  wedded  fast 
To  some  dear  falsehood,  hugs  it  to  the  last.” 

Fortunately,  however,  for  the  people  of  Ohio, 
the  framers  of  our  present  Constitution  devised 
a means  to  free  the  State  from  these  unfortunate 
contentions.  The  peace  which  the  State  has 
enjoyed  in  this  regard  is  due  to  those  magic 
words  added  to  the  end  of  this  section — u But 
no  religious  or  other  sect  or  sects  shall  ever 
have  any  exclusive  right  to  or  control  of  any 
part  of  the  school  funds  of  this  State.” 

This  idea  the  framers  of  our  present  Constitu- 
tion took  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  from  a knowledge  of  the  deep  in- 
terest which  the  people  of  Ohio  have  ever 
manifested  in  the  education  of  their  children — 
an  interest  guarded  by  a feeling  which  never 
has  allowed  politics  or  sectarianism  to  interfere 
in  the  family  relation  or  control  in  the  educa- 
tion of  their  children. 

History,  with  her  terrible  lessons,  was  before 
them,  and  with  the  evil  results  of  a misguided 
sectarian  education  staring  them  in  the  face, 


they  could  not  ignore  the  fact  that  sectarian 
education  has  proved  a failure.  Hence  the  pro- 
vision they  made  against  allowing  any  sect  or 
society  having  exclusive  control  over  the  school 
fund.  All  may  enjoy  its  benefits,  but  none  can 
control  it. 

The  control  remains  where  only  it  can  in 
safety  be  left,  in  the  sovereign  power  of  the 
State,  to  which  all  must  yield  obedience. 

To  make  any  other  disposition  of  it  would 
destroy  its  efficiency  and  keep  the  different  sects 
and  denominations  in  perpetual  strife  over  its 
division,  and  thereby  destroy  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  society,  by  setting  up  rival  schools, 
where  the  children  of  each  sect  would  be  taught 
that  the  road  to  heaven  and  respectability  leads 
through  their  school  house.  This  system  would 
engender  among  the  children  a strife  which 
would  increase  the  burdens  of  life  with  their 
unending  contentions.  The  baser  passions 
would  be  constantly  in  exercise,  and,  as  if  the 
increase  of  appetite  grew  upon  what  it  fed  on, 
their  little  minds  would  be  filled  with  jealousies, 
hatred,  revilings,  envy,  and  their  imaginations 
would  be  racked  to  invent  slanders,  detractions 
and  injuries  to  be  heaped  on  each  other. 

God  forbid  that  free  America  should  witness 
these  unholy  scenes. 

How  different  the  education  which  they  re- 
ceive in  the  common  schools ! Here  the  children 
of  a district,  and  often  those  of  an  entire  village, 
are  united  in  one  school,  where  all  cause  of  strife 
and  contention  is  removed,  and  their  minds,  true 
to  the  instincts  with  which  they  are  endued, 
rich  and  poor,  mingle  together,  form  a loving 
group  of  little  friends,  who,  hand  in  hand,  march 
bravely  up  the  rugged  hill  of  science,  making 
the  ascent  easy  by  each  other’s  aid,  and  smooth- 
ing its  rugged  surface  by  glad  peals  of  laughter, 
which  ring  out  merrily  and  clear  over  hill  top, 
across  valley  and  up  the  mountain  side,  until 
their  echoes  wake  up  a joyous  community  to 
thank  God  for  the  common  schools. 

And  you,  gentlemen,  makers  of  this  Consti- 
tution, are  asked,  by  one  stroke  of  your  power, 
to  mar  this  picture,  and  destroy  its  beauty  for- 
ever. 

I now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  amend- 
ment, proposed  by  a majority  of  the  Committee, 
to  section  two.  The  purpose  of  this  amendment 
is  to  reduce  the  standard  of  education  in  the 
common  schools,  and  nearly,  if  not  quite,  legis- 
late the  high  schools  out  of  existence. 

It  requires  that  the  General  Assembly  shall 
prescribe  the  common  and  necessary  branches  to 
be  taught  in  our  schools.  And  as  all  general 
laws  must  have  a uniform  action  throughout  the 
State,  the  laws  prescribing  the  branches  of 
learning  to  be  taught  must,  necessarily,  have  a 
uniform  action,  thus  requiring  the  same 
branches  to  be  taught,  in  the  most  remote  dis- 
trict of  the  country,  as  in  the  largest  cities  and 
villages ; or  the  schools  of  the  cities  must  be  re- 
duced to  the  same  grade  as  those  in  the  most 
rural  of  the  rural  districts. 

I do  not  concur  in  this  amendment.  I am 
opposed  to  making  any  change  in  the  present 
Constitution  on  the  subject  of  education,  where- 
by our  past  excellent  system  of  education  will 
be  injuriously  affected,  or  the  people  deprived 
of  the  opportunity,  which  they  now  enjoy,  of 
educating  their  children.  Indeed,  no  change 


THE  REPORT  ON  EDUCATION 


2189 


Day.] 

March  19,  1874.] 


Cook. 


should  be  made  in  the  present  Constitution 
which  is  not  demanded  by  experience  and  sanc- 
tioned by  reason. 

The  system  of  education  developed  and  ma- 
tured under  the  present  Constitution  is  what 
the  people  have  enjoyed  nearly  from  the  for- 
mation of  the  State;  for  in  the  formation  of  the 
present  Constitution,  little  more  was  done  than 
to  collect  the  customs  and  practices  of  the  peo- 
ple and  codify  them  in  the  Constitution.  It  was 
taken  from  the  homes  and  firesides  of  the  peo- 
ple— the  very  best  way  to  make  Constitutions 
and  laws — by  first  ascertaining  what  the  habits, 
customs,  and  opinions  of  a people  are,  and  then 
making  the  Constitution  and  laws  fit  them. 

Taking  thereby,  as  it  were,  the  measure  of 
the  people,  in  order  to  fit  their  Constitution 
and  laws  to  them,  as  the  tailor  fits  the  garment 
to  his  customer,  and  does  not  require  the  cus- 
tomer to  swell  out,  or  shrink  up  to  fit  the  gar- 
ment. 

This  ascertaining  the  habits,  customs  and 
wants  of  a people,  and  framing  the  laws  in  ac- 
cordance with  them,  gives  the  people  a true 
common  law,  or  gewolenheits  secht , framed  from 
their  life-history,  and  the  legislator  who  follows 
this  rule  is  seldom  in  error. 

To  this  system  of  education  the  people  of 
Ohio  are  attached.  It  was  to  enjoy  its  blessings, 
and  secure  them  to  their  children,  that  many  of 
our  fathers  left  more  comfortable  homes,  and 
endured  the  perils  and  privations  of  frontier 
life.  And  they  will  demand  at  our  hands 
potent  reasons,  before  they  will  acquiesce  in  any 
changes  which  will  cripple  or  destroy  the  use- 
fulness of  their  common  schools. 

These  schools  are  the  State’s  brightest  jewels, 
and  her  patriotic  tax-payers  will  never  allow 
that  crown  to  be  torn  from  her  brow,  or  tar- 
nished, under  a false  plea  for  economy.  They 
will  never  assent  that  the  money,  heretofore 
used  in  the  education  of  their  children,  shall  be 
spent  in  idle  decorations  for  empty  heads,  or  to 
paint  brazen-cheeked  ignorance,  that  the  coun- 
terfeit may  pass  for  genuine  intelligence. 

The  proposed  amendment  is  to  reduce  the 
amount  of  education  now  furnished  the  chil- 
dren of  the  State.  This  can  only  be  justified 
on  one  of  two  grounds — either  it  costs  too 
much,  or  we  educate  too  highly.  But  the  lan- 
guage of  the  amendment  implies  that  the  edu- 
cation must  be  reduced  regardless  of  the  cost. 
It  is,  “taxation  shall  be  limited  to  a sum  suf- 
ficient to  educate  all  the  children  of  the  State  in 
such  common  and  necessary  branches  of  learning 
as  shall  he  prescribed  by  law .”  The  education 
must  be  limited  to  the  common  and  necessary 
branches.  This  limitation  applies  to  the  educa- 
tion. That  must  be  limited,  and  the  taxes  may 
or  may  not  be  limited,  according  to  circum- 
stances. How  much  do  gentlemen  expect  to 
save  by  thus  limiting  the  amount  of  education  ? 
Will  a school  in  which  three  branches  only  are 
taught  cost  less  than  one  in  which  five  are 
taught  ? 

The  present  State  levy  for  school  purposes  is 
one-tenth  of  one  mill,  or  one  dollar  on  a thou- 
sand ; while  the  cost  of  educating  the  children 
of  the  State  is  six  dollars  and  thirteen  cents 
apiece  per  annum.  How  much  do  gentlemen 
expect  to  reduce  this  sum  by  a reduction  in  the 
amount  of  education  under  the  proposed  amend- 


ment? Practically,  I think  the  reduction  in 
the  per  capita  cost  will  not  amount  to  any  sav- 
ing or  reduction  for  this  purpose;  certainly  not 
in  proportion  to  the  mischief  it  will  do.  As  a 
general  rule,  the  cost  of  carrying  on  an  institu- 
tion is  increased  in  proportion  as  its  efficiency 
is  diminished,  and,  in  obedience  to  this  rule,  the 
costs  of  our  common  schools  will  increase  as 
men  of  ability  are  driven  out  of  them,  and  the 
control  is  assumed  by  those  who  have  been  edu- 
cated in  the  common  and  necessary  branches 
provided  for  by  this  amendment. 

In  the  business  world,  when  inefficiency 
assumes  control  of  a business,  its  affairs  become 
deranged  and  its  profits  diminish,  and  its  ex- 
penses increase,  until  bankruptcy  intervenes, 
and  the  business  is  wound  up  by  more  efficient 
men,  through  the  medium  of  the  courts.  By 
what  talismanic  power  do  gentlemen  expect  our 
schools  will  escape  the  operation  of  this  natural 
law?  Either  I am  much  mistaken,  or  gentle- 
men will  do  the  children  of  the  State  infinite 
injury,  and  save  themselves  nothing. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  do  a more  unwise 
thing  than  require  the  General  Assembly  to  pre- 
scribe the  common  and  necessary  branches  of  learn- 
ing to  be  taught  in  our  schools.  To  my  mind, 
it  would  be  quite  as  wise  for  them  to  prescribe 
the  kind  of  grain  a farmer  should  raise  in  his 
fields.  This  would  take  from  the  people  the 
right  which  they  now  enjoy,  of  determining  for 
themselves,  and  at  their  own  doors,  in  what 
manner,  and  to  what  extent,  they  will  educate 
their  children.  To  tyranny,  even  in  this  mild 
form,  the  American  people  will  never  consent; 
and  if  it  were  possible  to  conceive  that  such 
arbitrary  power  would  be  acquiesced  in,  there 
would  be  confusion  worse  confounded.  Each 
member  of  the  General  Assembly  would  have 
his  theory,  and  the  branches  taught  in  our 
schools  would  vibrate  with  the  changes  of 
political  factions,  and  the  changes  in  the  school 
would  keep  pace  with  the  changes  in  the  per- 
sonnel of  the  General  Assembly;  and  political 
aspirants  would  be  rewarded  by  having  their 
ideas  represented  in  the  schools,  until  certain 
branches  would  bear  the  names  of  the  political 
parties  which  advocated  their  use  in  the  schools ; 
and  the  schools  themselves  would  become  nur- 
series for  the  propagation  of  political  notions, 
through  which  aspirants  would  seek  to  elevate 
themselves  to  political  honors.  I beseech  gen- 
tlemen not  to  thus  prostitute  this  heaven- 
blessed  institution. 

On  what  ground  can  we  justify  this?  Can  it 
be  said  we  are  educating  too  much  ? This  spirit 
is  more  in  harmony  with  the  ninth  century  than 
the  nineteenth.  It  is  a movement  looking  to  a 
return  to  the  dark  ages,  and  one  which  no  wise 
people  can  sanction. 

A more  sorrowful  spectacle  cannot  be  imag- 
ined than  the  people  of  Ohio  going  to  the  polls 
to  vote  for  a reduction  in  the  amount  of  educa- 
tion which  thej"  will  give  to  their  children.  If 
you  were  to  submit  this  to  them  in  a separate 
article,  and  ask  them  to  indorse  on  their  tickets 
“Reduction  in  the  amount  of  education  to  be 
furnished  the  children  of  the  State,”  they  would 
spurn  it  as  an  insult.  No  freeman  would  vote  the 
ticket.  No  patriotic  hand  would  dishonor  the 
paper  by  making  the  disgraceful  indorsement. 
Wisdom  cries  out  against  it,  reason  condemns 


2190 


THE  REPORT  ON  EDUCATION. 


Cook. 


[142nd 

[Thursday, 


it,  while  parental  affection  shudders  at  its  adop- 
tion. 

In  the  light  of  the  history  of  the  call  and  as- 
sembling of  this  Convention,  I may  say  this  is 
entirely  outside  of  our  business,  and  uncalled 
for  in  the  discharge  of  our  duties.  The  people 
sent  us  here  to  revise  and  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion in  certain  particulars,  in  which  it  was 
agreed  it  is  defective,  and  not  to  restrain  them 
in  the  discharge  of  their  domestic  duties,  and 
in  the  legitimate  discharge  of  our  duties,  they 
will,  undoubtedly,  respect  our  action.  But  if 
we  go  out  of  our  way  to  find  subjects  in  which 
we  desire  to  compel  them  to  practice  greater 
economy,  especially  in  matters  of  mere  private 
concern,  we  shall  only  bring  ourselves  into 
contempt,  and  lessen  the  respect  which  they 
would  otherwise  have  for  our  labors. 

Our  labors  have  not  been  so  trifling  or  unim- 
portant as  to  render  it  necessary  to  look  beyond 
our  legitimate  duties  for  subjects  of  discussion 
to  prolong  our  stay,  and  we  should  not,  by  going 
into  these  matters,  do  ourselves  the  injustice  of 
causing  such  an  impression. 

The  children  are  the  inheritance  of  the  State? 
and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to  educate  her 
children.  The  State  looks  upon  all  the  child- 
ren as  her  heirs,  entitled  to  her  bounty,  and  she 
considers  them  en  masse , and  not  by  individuals. 
To  her  it  makes  no  difference  whether  they 
were  begotten  by  John  Doe  or  Richard  Roe. 
She  bestows  her  bounties  upon  all  equally,  be- 
cause, in  the  hour  of  peril,  she  expects  every 
man  will  willingly  come  forward  to  the  defense 
of  the  State,  and  if  any  refuse  she  compels  them 
by  draft,  and,  as  she  retains  the  right  to  com- 
mand every  one  of  her  citizens  to  the  front  in 
the  hour  of  danger,  in  prosperity  she  should 
educate  all  from  her  bounty,  that  they  may 
thereby  be  the  happier  and  wiser,  and  more 
capable  of  defending  her  in  the  hour  of  her 
extremity. 

The  subject  of  this  amendment  pertains  less 
to  constitutional  limitations  than  to  domestic 
economy.  It  seeks  to  penetrate  the  sanctity  of 
the  domestic  relations,  and'forbid  the  people  to 
expend  money  in  the  education  of  their  chil- 
dren. It  penetrates  the  household,  and  sets  up 
a golden  altar  upon  the  hearthstone  for  the 
father  to  worship,  while  his  children  grow  up 
in  ignorance,  and  are  allured  by  the  gilded 
vices  of  the  age  into  debauchery  and  crime. 
By  the  adoption  of  this  amendment  you  may, 
indeed,  diminish  your  taxes  for  schools,  but 
you  would  increase  them  for  your  prisons. 

Your  school-houses  would  be  emptied,  but 
your  prisons  filled. 

And  those  magnificent  school  buildings, 
which  the  people  have  taxed  themselves  so 
cheerfully  to  build,  and  which  are  the  pride 
and  ornament  of  every  county  in  the  State, 
would,  to  a very  great  extent,  be  rendered  use- 
less, while  the  money  heretofore  used  in  the 
support  of  the  schools  would  be  squandered  in 
riotous  living  and  the  frivolities  of  fashionable 
life. 

You  may,  in  this  way,  save  some  money,  but 
you  would  lose  your  children.  You  might 
boast  of  your  riches,  but  you  could  not  boast  of 
your  learned  and  useful  men. 

You  would  be  troubled  less  by  the  school- 
master, but  more  by  the  demagogue. 


Your  purses  will  be  relieved,  but  your  hearts 
overburdened.  You  may  stop  the  outflow  of 
money,  but  you  will  be  unable  to  check  the 
flowing  tear  that  falls  over  a ruined  child. 

Is  man’s  life-work  the  accumulation  of 
riches  ? 

And  can  earth’s  most  solemn  obligations  be 
discharged  with  money? 

It  would  be  difficult  to  load  down  the  Consti- 
tution with  a more  unwise  amendment.  It 
bears  in  every  line  the  rich  man’s  hostility  to 
the  poor. 

It  offsets  the  rich  man’s  money  against  the 
ignorance  of  the  poor  man’s  child. 

It  is  to  put  money  into  the  rich  man’s  pockets, 
while  it  sends  the  poor  man’s  child  into,  or 
rather  out  of,  society,  to  struggle  through  along 
life  under  the  curse  of  ignorance,  and  perhaps 
to  fall,  through  the  wiles  of  cunning  men,  which 
a proper  education  would  have  prevented.  I 
trust,  therefore,  this  amendment  will  not  be 
agreed  to  by  the  Convention ; for,  after  all  that 
we  can  do,  the  best  depository  for  this  branch 
of  the  State  government  is  the  hearts  of  the 
people.  It  is  not  like  the  system  of  courts,  whose 
jurisdiction  needs  to  be  accurately  defined. 
Nor  like  the  Legislative  Department,  which 
must  be  guarded  to  prevent  fraud  and  corrup- 
tion. This  is  embalmed  in  the  hearts  of  the 
people,  and  they  will  guard  it  from  abuse  from 
without  and  from  within.  Their  own  watchful- 
ness is  the  only  garantee  they  demand.  And 
if  we  are  wise  enough  to  leave  it  in  their  hands, 
they  will  thank  us  for  the  confidence,  and  most 
sacredly  execute  the  trust. 

Around  all  the  other  institutions  of  the  State 
it  is  necessary  to  provide  safeguards,  but  this 
one  comes  so  near  to  our  homes,  and  commends 
itself  so  strongly  to  our  self-love,  that  it  is  not 
in  the  hearts  of  men  to  abuse  it.  Its  encroach- 
ments need  not  be  feared,  for  they  are  only 
against  ignorance,  which  all  should  rejoice  to 
see  banished  from  the  land. 

No  greater  disgrace  could  be  inflicted  on  the 
fair  name  of  the  noble  State  of  Ohio  than  to  de- 
stroy the  efficacy  of  her  common  schools ; the 
glory  of  which  she  so  justly  boasts  is  the  off- 
spring of  these  institutions.  Deprived  of  this, 
all  her  other  greatness  would  be  a miserable 
mockery. 

Some  of  her  noblest  men,  and  who  reflect  the 
greatest  honors  on  her,  received  their  early 
education  in  her  common  schools.  And  in  no 
one  particular  has  she,  in  so  marked  a degree, 
out-stripped  many  of  the  older  members  of  this 
sisterhood  of  States  than  in  her  educational 
system. 

The  products  of  her  genius  are  admired  in 
every  land;  her  citizens,  active  and  intelligent, 
fill  the  most  honorable  positions  in  the  nation; 
her  manufacturers,  guided  by  a wise  liberality, 
are  giving  employment  to  honest  industry,  and 
sending  hope  to  many  a hearthstone,  around 
which,  prattling  infancy  is  learning  from  ma- 
ternal lips,  to  thank  the  State  for  the  blessings 
of  education. 

These  schools  are  the  people’s  loved  institu- 
tions; youth  comes  hither  to  be  taught;  man- 
hood gathers  around  them  to  guard,  protect  and 
improve  them ; and  old  age  returns  here  to 
bless  the  spot  where  the  foundations  of  useful- 


THE  REPORT  ON  EDUCATION. 

Cook,  Kerr. 


2191 


Day.] 

March  19,  1874.] 


ness  were  laid  strong  in  the  immutable  princi- 
ples of  eternal  truth. 

This  is  a shrine  at  which  all  may  worship, 
and  be  nobler  fcr  the  devotion. 

If  we  can  give  no  better  reason  for  humilia- 
ting the  State,  and  dragging  her  from  the 
proud  position  she  occupies  in  this  briliant 
constellation  of  noble  republics,  than  that  we 
expect  thereby  to  save  a little  money,  it  were 
better  we  had  never  assembled ; for  if  we  de- 
prive the  poor  man’s  child  of  education,  and 
sell  the  honor  of  the  State,  Judas  like,  for  a few 
pieces  of  silver,  to  be  put  into  the  pockets  of 
the  rich,  we  shall  receive  our  reward. 

After  you  have  destroyed  the  efficiency  of 
these  schools,  who  will  educate  the  orphan  ? 

And  as  misfortune  is  as  likely  to  overtake  you 
as  other  men,  would  it  not  be  a consolation  for 
you  to  know  the  education  of  your  children  is 
provided  for?  And  would  not  these  children, 
when  partaking  of  these  blessings,  thank  Cod 
that  their  father  was  a member  of  this  Conven- 
tion, and  that  his  vote  secured  to  them  these  en- 
joyments ? I will  leave  your  imaginations  to  fin- 
ish the  picture,  if  you  vote  against  this  institu- 
tion, I will  not  put  on  paper  the  agony  which 
may  torment  you,  or  the  disgrace  your  children 
may  suffer. 

I make  this  plea  for  others,  not  for  myself.  I 
have  no  children  to  educate,  but  I most  cheer- 
fully consent  to  be  taxed  for  the  education  of 
others’  children ; and  I desire  that  it  may  be 
expended  under  our  present  excellent  school 
system,  for  there  is  no  other  place  where  it  will 
go  so  far  or  bring  more  satisfactory  returns. 

As  to  what  the  people  desire  in  this  matter,  we 
ai  e not  left  to  doubt  or  conjecture,  for  since  this 
Report  has  been  printed,  the  press  has  spoken 
freely  against  it,  and  the  remonstrances  which 
have  already  reached  us  show  what  the  feelings 
of  the  people  are,  and  freemen  who  have  spoken 
so  decidedly  against  this  measure  will  not  be 
found  to  vote  for  it,  though,  to  defeat  it,  they 
are  compelled  to  reject  the  best  Constitution 
that  it  is  possible  for  human  wisdom  to  devise. 
For  no  other  blessing  can  be  enjoyed  where 
education  is  denied. 

Mr.  KERR.  I would  say,  gentlemen,  in  the 
very  outset,  that  I was  in  favor  of  having  the 
Committee  report  the  old  Article  on  Education, 
unchanged,  for  the  consideration  of  the  Con- 
vention ; and  it  was  for  a long  time  understood 
that  that  would  be  the  action  of  the  Committee. 
Finally,  however,  it  was  decided^ otherwise,  and 
when  these  propositions  were  presented  before 
the  Committee,  each  one  of  us  took  our  position 
in  regard  to  the  matter.  I have  taken  mine, 
and  am  about  to  state  it.  I would  say,  however, 
that  I did  not  expect  to  speak  immediately  after 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee. 

The  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears], 
who  took  a special  interest  in  this  question,  is 
not  here  to  sustain  the  position  he  took. 

In  regard  to  the  proposition  to  allow  women 
to  hold  offices  under  the  school  law,  I will  say 
that  I very  cheerfully  concur  in  the  proposition. 
I think  it  will  lead  to  improvement  in  the  effi- 
ciency, thoroughness  and  usefulness  of  our 
public  schools,  for  I am  a friend  to  public  schools, 
notwithstanding  that  the  gentleman  from  Wood 
[Mr.  CookJ  would  put  me  in  opposition  to 
them. 


I shall  speak  only  of  two  points  in  this  Re- 
port, following  somewhat  the  order  which  was 
taken  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee.  I 
speak  first  in  regard  to  compulsory  education, 
as  proposed  in  the  fourth  section  of  this  Report. 

I am  opposed  to  compulsory  education,  be- 
cause we  approximate  the  same  result  under  our 
present  system  as  nearly  as  we  ought  to  expect. 

The  Report  of  the  State  School  Commissioner, 
for  1872,  shows  that  less  than  three-tenths  of 
those  between  the  ages  of  five  and  sixteen  were 
not  enrolled  in  any  of  our  schools  in  1872.  This 
is  a near  approach  to  universal  education, 
especially  when  we  remember  that  in  many 
towns  children  are  not  permitted  to  attend  till 
six  years  old,  and  also  that  many  leave  school 
at  fifteen  years  for  active  duties  of  life.  This 
is  a near  approach  to  universal  education,  as 
near  as  we  ought  to  expect,  in  the  midst  of  the 
busy  life  which  we  as  a people  are  engaged. 

Laws  enforcing  compulsory  education  have 
failed  in  every  State  of  this  country.  In  Massa- 
chusetts they  have  been  a dead  letter.  A promi- 
nent official  in  Massashusetts  says : “ This  law 
for  compulsory  education  was  never  enforced, 
and  it  was  never  supposed  to  be  anybody’s 
business  to  enforce  it.”  And  this  non-enforce- 
ment does  not  arise  simply  from  neglect,  but 
from  a deep-seated  repugnance  to  such  laws  in 
our  country.  They  are  inconsistent  with  the 
spirit  of  our  institutions.  The  rights  of  parents, 
the  independence  of  the  family  relation,  are 
held  sacred,  and  should  not  be  interfered  with. 
This  is  the  first  step  towards  compulsory  sup- 
port of  a compulsory  attendance  on  State  re- 
ligion. The  spectacle  of  constables  entering 
the  family  to  search  for  children  not  in  school, 
dragging  parents  before  magistrates,  and  im- 
posing penalties  on  them  for  not  keeping  their 
children  in  school,  when,  perhaps,  they  arejable 
neither  to  subsist  without  their  service,  nor  to 
feed  and  clothe  them  while  in  school,  is  a scene 
I never  want  to  witness  in  our  beloved  land. 

The  right  to  enforce  compulsory  education 
would  embrace  the  duty  and  obligation  to  feed 
and  clothe  the  children,  and  support,  if  neces- 
sary, in  whole  or  partially,  the  parents,  while 
the  children  are  in  school,  if  the  labor  of  the 
children  is  necessary  to  support  the  parents. 
For  surely,  when  the  State  withdraws  that  sup- 
port, it  should  assume  it  in  some  other  form.  It 
must  assume  it  in  some  form. 

There  is  certainly  no  one  so  wild  as  to  ad- 
vocate that  the  State  should  enter  upon  the 
scheme  of  supporting  the  family  in  all  its 
wants,  while  the  children  are  attending  school. 
Besides,  this  compulsory  education  is  not  con- 
sistent with  the  independence  the  family  should 
enjoy.  Parents  maybe  unwilling  to  send  their 
children  to  a given  teacher,  or  to  the  existing 
school-house,  or  there  may  be  good  reasons  why 
the  parent  does  not  want  his  children  to  attend 
a given  school. 

But  compulsory  attendance  at  a school  may 
not  be  good,  either  to  the  schools  or  to  the 
pupils  thus  forced  to  attend.  There  are  many 
things  which,  if  done  of  our  own  free  will  and 
choice,  will  be  productive  of  good,  but  if  the 
same  things  are  done  from  compulsion,  they  are 
a burden  which  cannot  be  borne. 

Compulsory  education  is  regarded  by  many  as 
the  next  step  of  progress  in  universal  educa- 


2192 


CONCERNING  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 


Kerr. 


tion  of  the  masses.  It  is  argued  that,  as  we  are 
compelled  to  pay  taxes  to  support  schools,  the 
youth  should  be  compelled  to  avail  themselves 
of  the  advantages  of  these  schools,  in  order 
that  their  full  benefit  may  be  realized. 

Compulsory  education  is  not  new  in  this 
country  nor  in  the  old.  In  some  portions  of 
the  old  world,  rigid  rules  are  adopted  for 
securing  attendance  at  public  schools.  Such 
laws  are  in  operation  in  Sweden,  Norway,  Den- 
mark, Switzerland;  and  in  Prussia  it  is  said 
such  laws  have  been  in  force  more  than  one 
hundred  years.  Prussia  has  the  best  system  in 
the  world  to  make  artificial  men — soldiers  for 
the  Emperor  William— those  who  will  grace  a 
despotism.  But  we  do  not  desire  that  kind  of 
men  trained  up  here,  nor  that  system  of  educa- 
tion that  makes  such  men. 

Before  we  undertake  to  establish  compulsory 
education  in  our  State  every  other  means  to  se- 
cure attendance  at  our  schools  should  be  ex- 
hausted. If  all  others  fail,  then  it  might  be- 
come necessary  to  resort  to  this  tyrannical 
method  of  securing  attendance  at  school.  But 
with  more  than  eighty  per  cent,  of  all  the  en- 
rolled children  in  the  State  in  the  public  schools, 
it  does  not  appear  to  me  that  the  time  has  come 
when  we  ought  to  adopt  a system  of  compulsory 
attendance.  One  great  object  of  an  education 
should  he  to  prepare  the  child  for  the  duties  of 
the  citizen . And  what  are  these  ? Self-reliance, 
independence  and  the  feeling  of  individual  re- 
sponsibility, none  of  which  are  cultivated  by 
compulsory  systems  of  education.  Obedience, 
submission  to  arbitrary  authority  and  self- 
abasement  are  more  likely  to  grow  under  com- 
pulsory systems  of  education. 

Many  tax-payers  feel  that  there  is  an  extrav- 
agance both  in  the  general  management  of  the 
schools,  and  in  the  erection  of  school  structures. 
It  is  not  the  legitimate  sphere  of  the  State  to 
engage  in  such  an  extended  scheme  of  educa- 
tion at  such  immense  cost,  while  it  is  wise 
and  legitimate  to  give  such  education  in  com- 
mon and  necessary  branches  of  education,  as 
may  fit  each  one  better  to  discharge  the  duties 
of  the  citizen  and  the  member  of  society. 
While  this  is  admitted,  it  is  denied  that  it  be- 
longs to  the  State  to  enter  on  a grand  scheme 
of  education  in  all  its  various  phases.  There 
must  he  some  limit  to  which  the  State  should 
go.  We  have  been  petitioned  here  to  make 
provision  for  the  establishment  of  some  grand 
crowning  university  in  our  public  school  sys- 
tem, in  which  it  would  he  fit  to  teach  all  the 
higher  branches  of  education,  literary  and 
scientific,  including  law,  medicine  and  per- 
haps theology.  And  this  must  be  the  legiti- 
mate conclusion  of  the  scheme  of  public  educa- 
tion, as  now  carried  on  in  our  State. 

Now,  surely  it  will  be  agreed  by  all  hands 
here  that  our  State  education  should  not  be  car- 
ried to  this  limit.  Where,  then,  is  the  point  the 
State  shall  stop  her  educational  enterprise  ? 

We  need  educational  institutions  in  all  these 
and  other  varied  departments.  But  shall  it  he 
the  policy  of  the  State  to  engage  in  this  grand 
scheme  of  education?  I think  not.  I think 
the  State  should  stop  with  such  common  and 
necessary  branches  of  education  as  shall  be 
prescribed  by  law.  And  I would  exercise  a 
large  liberality  in  the  construction  of  that  lan-  I 


[142nd 

[Thursday, 


guage  if  I were  prescribing  by  law  what  should 
be  taught  in  our  public  schools. 

It  is  charged  that  the  purpose  of  this  amend- 
ment is  intended  for  a blow  at  high  schools.  It 
is  intended  as  a brake  on  the  desire  to  include 
in  our  high  schools  all  the  varied  branches  of 
education.  The  State  should  give  such  educa- 
tion as  will  fit  its  citizens  for  an  intelligent 
discharge  of  their  duties  as  citizens. 

I would  say,  here  and  now,  that  in  localities 
where  there  are  a sufficient  number  of  pupils,  I 
would  not  advocate  the  suspension  of  the  high 
school.  But  1 would  oppose  including  such  a 
varied  list  of  studies  in  the  high  school,  requiring 
such  large  additional  expense  in  furnishing  in- 
struction to  a small  number  of  pupils  in  these 
varied  branches  of  education. 

In  looking  over  the  last  printed  Report  of  the 
State  School  Commissioner,  I see  that  in  all  the 
various  high  schools  of  Ohio,  where,  in  1872,  we 
had,  in  the  public  schools  of  the  State,  an  enroll- 
ment of  about  700,000  pupils,  instruction  was 
provided  in  all  our  high  schools  in  the  State,  in 
Trigonometry,  for  551  pupils;  Surveying,  200; 
Chemistry,  853 ; Geology,  445 ; Astronomy,  494 ; 
Natural  Philosophy,  509;  Rhetoric,  589;  Mental 
Philosophy,  244;  Moral  Philosophy,  123;  Logic, 
105;  Greek,  224;  French,  125.  And  the  instruc- 
tion of  this  small  number  in  these  branches  of 
a higher  education  must  necessarily  be  given  at 
a much  larger  cost  than  the  average  cost  of 
tuition  to  a pupil.  If  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
State  to  engage  in  this  kind  of  education,  we 
certainly  would  not  regret  the  cost.  But  if 
these  branches  should  be  included,  certainly 
the  State  should  not  stop  with  them,  but  should 
include  all  the  varied  branches  of  education. 
But  it  is  unjust  to  the  remaining  699,500,  and 
over,  youth  who  are  in  our  schools  to  provide 
special  instruction  to  as  small  a number  in  the 
several  branches  named,  as  well  as  others  not 
named,  at  such  additional  expense. 

We  are  increasing  our  investment  in  free 
schools  to  such  an  amount,  that,  while  we  ex- 
empt churches,  and  our  school  property  from 
taxation,  and  will  not  exempt  parochial  free 
schools  from  taxation,  we  are  bringing  on  a 
conflict  between  sects  that  may  yet  cause  blood 
to  flow,  as  it  has  done  in  sectarian  conflicts  in 
Europe.  I ask  gentlemen  to  pause  and  reflect 
on  the  logical  consequences  of  building  up,  at 
the  public  cost,  such  a costly  and  extravagant 
system  as  our  publiq  school  system  is  likely  to 
be  under  the  present  scheme.  We  should,  at 
least,  give  others  exemption  from  taxation,  if  a 
large  portion  of  the  youth  of  the  State  are  edu- 
cated by  them,  without  any  cost  to  the  State. 
If  the  other  portion  of  the  youth  are  educated 
wholly  by  the  State,  it  would  seem  reasonable 
that  those  who  undertake  to  educate,  at  their 
own  expense,  the  remaining  portion  of  the 
youth  of  the  State  should  have  the  trifling  favor 
extended  to  them  of  exempting  their  educa- 
tional property  from  taxation. 

I fear  the  consequences  of  such  a course.  The 
system  of  education  should  be  confined  to  what, 
beyond  all  dispute,  is  proper  for  the  State  to  do. 

In  1872,  there  were  paid  into  the  Public 
School  Treasury,  from  all  sources,  $9,813,- 
714.99,  and  for  all  purposes.  This  is  an 
immense  amount  of  money  to  be  received  in  a 
single  State  in  a single  year.  The  local  levies 


THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. 


2193 


Pay.] 

March  19,  1874.]  Kerr,  Powell,  Alexander,  Rowland. 


in  many  localities  are  as  high  as  7 mills,  I see, 
whether  higher  in  others  I do  not  know. 

Brass  knobs  should  be  cut  off  where  possible, 
and  expenditure  should  be  confined  to  the  ab- 
solute necessities  of  the  system. 

I know,  sir,  what  an  ungrateful  task  it  is  to 
say  one  word  against  extravagance  in  any  form, 
or  for  any  purpose.  We  have  seen  that  in  this 
body.  Those  who  would  economize  and  guard 
the  interest  of  the  taxpayer  are  sneered  at, 
hooted,  and  written  down  in  some  way  or  other, 
while  the  whole-souled,  liberal  one  who  will 
indorse  any  expenditure,  is  the  good  fellow. 
Especially  is  this  feeling  dreaded  when  any 
criticism  is  to  be  made  on  a popular  measure, 
one  in  which  large  masses  of  the  people  are 
deeply  interested.  This  is  the  fact  in  regard  to 
our  public  school  system,  as  managed  in  a great 
measure  now. 

I will  allow  no  man  on  this  floor,  not  even 
the  distinguished  Chairman  of  this  Committee 
[Mr.  Cook],  to  be  a more  steadfast  and  con- 
sistent friend  of  popular  education  than  I am ; 
but  I trust  this  interest  in  popular  education 
will  not  blind  my  eyes  to  the  faults  of  the  sys- 
tem as  now  carried  on*  I think  the  effort  is 
to  carry  it  on  in  the  interest  of  the  educational 
ring,  with  an  inflexible  determination  to  in- 
crease salaries  to  the  highest  possible  figure, 
and  in  proportion  decrease  the  amount  of  work 
done — the  higher  the  salary,  the  less  the  work — 
to  build  a magnificent  system,  no  matter  what 
the  cost,  with  more  ambition  to  make  a system 
that  shall  be  the  admiration  and  wonder  of  the 
world,  than  to  give  the  pupils  an  education  in 
those  branches  which  the  State  ought  to  teach, 
and  which  are  necessary  to  prepare  the  citizen 
for  the  enjoyment  and  exercise  of  his  high 
duties. 

It  would  seem  to  me  that  this  question  ought 
to  be  settled  here  and  now — what  the  State  of 
Ohio  proposes  to  do  on  the  subject  of  education  ? 
Some  limits  ought  to  be  defined.  If  these 
Utopian  schemes  of  education  are  to  better  the 
policy  of  the  State,  let  it  be  so  announced.  If 
law,  and  medicine,  and  theology,  and  all  the 
ologies  that  are  subsidiary  thereto,  are  to  be 
taught  by  the  public  school  system,  let  it  be  so 
distinctly  stated.  For  one,  I am  opposed  to  the 
State  extending  its  course  of  education  as  far 
as  has  been  done  already.  Not  because  I think 
this  education  unnecessary  or  unimportant. 
The  State  should  not  do  all  things  that  are  nec- 
essary and  important,  even  in  the  matter  of 
education.  Sabbath-school  instruction,  moral 
instruction,  religious  instruction,  are  all  im- 
portant and  essential  to  the  prosperity  and  wel- 
fare of  the  State,  but  I do  not  for  a moment 
think  that  the  State  should  embark  in  this  work. 
Law,  medicine  and  theology  are  all  important 
branches  of  education,  and  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  the  good  of  society,  and,  perhaps,  can 
be  taught  cheaper  by  the  State  than  in  any  other 
way,  but  no  one,  I hope,  would  admit  that  the 
State  should  undertake  this  work.  Where, 


then,  is  the  limit?  How  far  shall  the  State  go 
in  its  instruction  in  our  public  schools?  How 
far,  under  the  language  of  the  present  Consti- 
tution, is  it  authorized  to  go?  It  is  surely  not 
explicitly  limited.  I do  not  claim  that  those  in 
charge  of  our  public  schools  have  gone  farther 
than  the  present  Constitution  would  authorize. 
But  I do  claim  that  they  have  already  embraced 
a wider  range  of  studies  in  the  curriculum  of 
instruction  than  I am  willing  to  authorize. 

We  want  to  take  no  step  backward,  but  we 
want  to  take  a step  in  the  right  direction.  We 
want  the  State  to  engage  in  those  things  only, 
and  to  that  degree  only,  which  would  be  con- 
sistent with  the  great  object  of  civil  govern- 
ment. Besides,  an  education  does  not  neces- 
sarily require  that  the  pupil  shall  have  gone 
through  the  whole  curriculum  of  study.  I 
would  prefer  that  a child  of  mine  should  know 
one  subject  thoroughly,  well,  exhaustively,  than 
to  have  gone  over  a whole  catalogue  of  studies 
superficially.  I would  rather  that  child  would 
know  mental  arithmetic  alone  in  this  way,  than 
to  have  gone  over  a whole  course  of  mathemat- 
ics by  the  aid  of  others.  A few  branches 
thoroughly  studied  are  far  more  useful  to  the 
pupil  than  a greater  number  imperfectly  mas- 
tered. So  that  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  dif- 
ferent branches  should  be  multiplied  to  secure 
the  best  possible  education. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Before  the  gentleman  sits 
down,  I would  like  to  ask  him  a question  or  two. 
I understand  that  he  has  been  engaged  to  some 
extent  in  the  work  of  education. 

Mr.  KERR.  To  some  extent,  sir. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Have  you  noticed  that  in  the 
higher  schools,  where  the  children  of  wealthy 
persons  are  sent,  a great  many  persons  are  edu- 
cated far  beyond  anything  they  can  afterwards 
use  to  advantage? 

Mr.  KERR.  Yes,  sir ; there  is  no  doubt  of 
that. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Is  there  not  danger  that  the 
public  schools  may  run  into  the  same  excess  ? 

Mr.  KERR.  I think  they  have  already  run 
into  it. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  Would  you  extend  to 
females  the  right  to  hold  school  offices  where 
they  were  elected  by  a constituency  of  the  en- 
tire State,  as,  for  instance,  School  Commission- 
er, or  Superintendent  of  Instruction  ? 

Mr.  KERR.  If  one  were  found,  sir,  who  was 
accounted  as  competent  for  that  place,  I would, 
perhaps,  as  soon  trust  a woman  as  a man.  I 
have  had  considerable  experience  in  the  em- 
ployment of  ladies  as  teachers,  and  my  obser- 
vation, so  far  as  it  has  gone,  has  convinced  me 
that  women  make  better  teachers  for  schools 
than  men,  where  they  are  equally  educated. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I move  that  the  Conven- 
tion do  now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5 :20  p.  m.)  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 


y.  n-140 


2194 


MORNING  BUSINESS. 

Hitchcock,  Russell  of  Mask.,  Freiberg,  Burns,  Cook,  Carbery. 


[143rd 


[Friday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FORTY-THIRD  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 

EIGHTY-FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O'CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  Rev.  A.  J.  Hobbs,  Pastor  of  the 
Sixth  Street  Christian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  79  members  an- 
swered to  their  names. 

leave  of  absence. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Foran,  until  Tuesday  next;  for  Messrs. 
Shaw,  Coats,Voorhes,  Sample  and  McCauley, 
until  Wednesday;  and  for  Messrs.  Scribner  and 
Mullen  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

remonstrance. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK  presented  the  remonstrance 
of  A.  D.  Green,  Geo.  W.  Wilson,  and  forty-one 
other  men  and  women  of  Geauga  county, 
against  the  incorporation  of  religious  opinions 
and  beliefs  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Preamble  and  Bill  of  Rights. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr.  PEASE  presented  seven  petitions,  all  on 
the  same  subject,  of  J.  Hudson  and  ninety-nine 
other  citizens  of  Stark  county,  remonstrating 
against  the  amendment  to  section  two,  Article 
VI  of  the  Constitution,  as  proposed  by  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Committee  on  Education. 

Which  were  laid  on  the  table  to  be  considered 
in  connection  with  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Education. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Muskingum,  presented  the 
petition  of  Baer,  Horkermer  & Co.,  and  one 
hundred  and  forty-two  other  citizens  of  Zanes- 
ville, praying  that  this  Convention  will  not  in- 
sert any  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  would 
directly  or  indirectly  prevent  the  enactment  of 
a stringent  license  law. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  FREIBERG  presented  the  petition  of  J. 
Collins,  and  five  hundred  and  eleven  other  citi- 
zens of  Steubenville,  asking  for  a provision  in 
the  Constitution  to  grant  license  for  the  sale  of 
alcoholic,  vinous  and  malt  liquors ; also,  the  pe- 
tition of  B.  D.  Miller,  and  five  hundred  and 
forty-two  other  citizens  of  Canton ; also,  of  Wm. 
Reynolds,  and  one  hundred  and  seven  other 
citizens  of  Hamilton;  also, of  A.  Gates, and  four 
hundred  and  twenty-eight  other  citizens  of  To- 
ledo ; also,  of  J.  O.  Mason,  and  one  hundred  and 
seventeen  other  citizens  of  Cleveland ; also,  of 


Friday,  March  20,  1874. 

Geo.  Davis  & Co.,  Bagby  & Co.,  and  two  hun- 
dred and  twenty-nine  other  citizens  of  Ports- 
mouth, Ohio;  also,  of  J.  P.  Steely,  and  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-seven  other  citizens  of  Circle- 
ville,  Ohio;  also,  of  J.  J.  Cadot  & Brother,  and 
ninety-two  other  citizens  of  Gallipolis ; and  also, 
of  E.  Gunther  & Co.,  and  one  hundred  other 
citizens  of  Wapakoneta,  all  upon  the  same  sub- 
ject— asking  for  a provision  in  the  Constitution 
to  grant  license  for  the  sale  of  alcoholic,  vi- 
nous and  malt  liquors.  • 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  BURNS  presented  the  petition  of  James 
P.  Henderson,  of  Richland  county,  praying  for 
a recognition  of  Almighty  God  and  the  Chris- 
tian religion  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State, 
which,  by  request,  the  Secretary  read,  as  fol- 
lows : 

To  the  Honorable  Members  of  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion of  Ohio , in  session  at  Cincinnati: 

The  undersigned  citizens  of  the  State  of  Ohio  respect- 
fully petition  your  honorable  body 

1.  That  the  following  clause  in  the  Bill  of  Eights,  in  our 

present  Constitution,  viz:  “Religion,  morality  and 

knowledge  being  essential  to  good  government,  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  * * * to 

encourage  schools  and  the  means  of  instruction,”  may  be 
allowed  to  remain  unchanged,  or  changed  to  Christian 
Religion,  &c. 

2.  That  such  religious  acknowledgments  may  be  placed 
in  the  Preamble  of  the  Constitution  as  shall  indicate  that 
this  is  a Christian  Commonwealth,  and  shall  place  all  the 
Christian  laws,  institutions  and  usages  of  the  govern- 
ment on  an  undeniable  legal  basis  in  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  State. 

Which  was  laid  upon  the  table. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  that  the  Convention  now 
proceed  to  the  special  order  of  the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  order  of 
the  day  is  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Education.  General  debate  is  now  in  order 
upon  the  Report. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  The  proposition  over  my 
signature  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
Education,  is  in  the  following  words:  “The 
General  Assembly  shall  make  such  provisions, 
by  taxation  or  otherwise,  as,  with  the  income 
arising  from  the  School  Trust  Fund,  will  secure 
a thorough  and  efficient  system  of  common 
schools  throughout  the  State.” 

To  the  proposed  additional  section  making 
women  over  twentjT-one  years  of  age  eligible  to 
office  under  the  school  laws  of  the  State,  I am 
fully  and  heartily  committed.  I believe  this  to 
be  a good  starting  place  for  a career  of  public 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. 


2195 


Day.] 

March  20,  1874.]  Carbkry. 


usefulness,  to  which  public  opinion  is  about  to 
invite  the  women  of  our  State.  I have  also 
signed  the  recommendation  as  to  the  proposed 
addition  to  section  two,  of  Article  VI,  of  the 
Constitution,  which  reads  as  follows: 

“The  power  of  taxation  conferred  by  this  section  shall 
be  limited  to  a sum  sufficient  to  educate  all  the  children 
of  the  State  in  such  common  and  necessary  branches  of 
learning  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

I favor  this  restriction  on  the  ground  that  the 
State,  in  my  opinion,  having  no  right  to  educate 
at  all,  but  that  when,  by  a mistaken  public 
sentiment,  such  assumption  is  permitted,  the 
circle  of  mischief  should  be  as  much  confined 
as  possible.  If  the  State  takes  money  from  my 
purse  to  establish  and  support  a system  of  edu- 
cation, whose  benefits  I am  forbidden  by  con- 
scientious scruples  to  share,  I incline  to  reduce 
the  expenditure  to  the  lowest  minimum.  My 
dissent  from  the  proposed  section  four,  which 
proposes  to  initiate  compulsory  education,  is  a 
logical  result  of  my  rejection  of  the  State’s 
claim  as  an  educator.  Assuredly  denying  the 
right  of  the  State  to  assume  a function  bestowed 
upon  the  parent  by  the  law  of  God,  I cannot 
be  found  invoking  the  aid  of  the  constable  in 
violation  of  His  law.  On  the  necessity  of  such 
supplemental  persuasion  as  is  here  recom- 
mended, it  was  originally  my  intention  to  cite 
some  facts  and  figures  which  I believed  would 
entirely  explode  the  whole  scheme,  if,  indeed, 
any  labor  of  that  kind  were  at  all  necessary 
(and  I do  not  believe  in  any  such  necessity)  in 
helping  the  Convention  to  a decision  on  the 
subject.  The  argument  of  my  co-committee- 
man, Mr.  Kerr,  has  rendered  any  contribution 
from  me  on  that  part  of  the  Report  entirely 
superfluous.  I am  confident  that  this  body  will 
absolutely  condemn  the  proposed  innovation  by 
an  overwhelming  vote.  We  do  not  propose  in 
this  State  to  follow  the  inost  vicious  isms  of 
States  of  Europe,  not  famed  for  civil  liberty, 
however  they  may  shine  as  military  powers. 

I believe  I have  now  noticed  in  detail  the 
various  propositions  in  the  Report  of  the  Stand- 
ing Committee  on  Education,  and  propose  more 
particularly  to  invite  the  attention  of  the  House 
for  a few  moments  to  the  reasons  which  in- 
fluenced me  in  the  recommendation  which  I 
have  had  the  honor  to  submit  to  the  Convention. 

Before  entering  into  the  argument,  however, 
I shall  pause  to  notice  the  language  of  the 
Chairman,  in  the  comments  made  by  that  gen- 
tleman on  the  proposition  referred  to.  It  will 
be  recollected  by  the  Convention  that  in  speak- 
ing of  that  part  of  the  Report  which  is  attrib- 
utable to  me,  he  suggested  that  there  was  some 
sinister  design  in  keeping  away  from  the  minds 
of  the  Convention  the  concluding  clause  of  that 
Article,  as  though  it  was  a very  mysterious 
process  on  my  part. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  gentleman  misunderstood 
my  language,  or  he  misrepresents  me.  My 
language  was  that  the  Article  as  printed  did 
not  show  its  real  object,  but  it  was  section  two, 
with  its  most  important  part  left  out,  and  I 
then  quoted  the  part  left  out.  I then  made  this 
remark,  that,  “ when  the  counterpart  was 
added,  the  object  was  very  apparent,”  not  at- 
tributing any  sinister  design  to  the  gentleman 
at  all. 


Mr.  CARBERY.  Well,  I presented  an  inde- 
pendent proposition,  and  I do  not  think  the 
gentleman  was  authorized  in  making  comments 
of  that  kind. 

I cannot  concur  with  the  gentleman  in  the 
conclusion  at  which  he  arrives.  I cannot  see, 
moreover,  that  it  is,  in  any  degree,  more  dan- 
gerous to  leave  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  free  to  deal  with  the  great  subject  than  it 
was  deemed  unsafe  to  do  so  with  regard  to 
other  vital  matters  of  State  policy.  Will  it  be 
claimed  that  on  the  subject  of  education  the 
measure  of  knowledge  and  experience  is  full, 
and  that  in  all  the  long  future  there  can  be  no 
development  of  opinion,  not  to  say  accessions  of 
facts  and  experience,  which  may  not  only  war- 
rant, but  may  demand  a radical  change?  I 
opine  the  most  confident  will  hardly  assume  the 
affirmative.  But,  has  it  ever  occurred  to  the 
friends  of  the  system  as  it  is,  that  the  language 
of  section  two,  Article  YI,  which  provides  that 
“No  sector  sects  shall  have  control  of  the  whole 
or  any  part  of  the  school  fund  of  the  State,”  has 
been  practically  a dead  letter  for  the  last  twenty 
years,  as  regards  a very  large  number  of  the 
people  of  this  State?  And  yet  the  fact  is  so. 
The  non-Catholic  sects  have  had  the  entire  ad- 
vantage of  this  great  fund  from  the  fact  that  it 
has  been  expended  in  support  of  a system  which 
the  Catholics  of  the  State  were  unable  to  utilize. 
I say  unable,  and  I have  no  fears  of  being  mis- 
understood in  this  intelligent  body.  It  is  well 
known  that  Catholics  deem  it  essential  in  the 
education  of  their  children  that  religious  train- 
ing, doctrinal  teaching,  shall  go  hand  in  hand 
with  secular  instruction.  That  every  day, 
and  every  incident  of  the  day’s  work  shall  con- 
tribute to  familiarize  the  tender  mind  of  the 
child  with  the  great  truths  of  religion  in  order 
that  it  may  mingle  with  his  mind-fiber  in  its 
nebulous  condition,  and  grow  and  strengthen 
into  conviction  and  practice  in  his  after  life. 

I say  I know  that  this  is  understood  and  ac- 
cepted by  this  body  and  the  great  bulk  of  the 
public  as  Catholic  doctrine.  If  proof  were  nec- 
essary, I might  point  to  the  tremendous  tax  for 
the  support  of  schools  self-imposed  by  the 
Catholics  of  the  State,  and  the  birth  and  growth 
of  a system  of  public  schools,  conducted  on 
these  principles,  which,  in  every  large  city  of 
the  State,  rival  the  institutions  supported  by 
State  taxation.  And  right  here  I might  say 
that  this  is  the  exact  state  of  things,  the  bare 
contemplation  of  which  filled  the  mind  of  the 
Chairman  with  such  sad  forebodings.  Here 
are  thousands  of  children  of  the  State  who  do 
not  mix  in  this  one  great  school  receptacle  with 
other  children — the  non-Catholic  children  of 
the  State.  They  go  their  different  ways,  part 
on  the  street  corners,  or  break  away  from  their 
common  plays,  each  for  his  different  school. 
They  are  taught  mainly  from  the  same  class- 
books,  their  lessons  in  history,  geography, 
grammar  and  arithmetic  do  not  differ  widely,  if 
at  all,  and  but  for  the  perpetuation  of  old  prej- 
udices by  older  heads,  they  would  never  see 
anything  stranger  in  different  schools  on  secular 
days  than  in  different  churches  on  the  Sunday. 
As  it  is,  the  very  thing  so  much  deprecated  is 
a fact,  a living,  palpable  fact,  and  it  speaks 
well  for  the  tolerance  of  our  day,  that,  although 


2196 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. [143rd 


Carbery,  Voris. 


[Friday 


the  Catholic  is  compelled  to  pay,  first,  a tax  for 
the  tuition  of  his  neighbor’s  boy,  and,  secondly, 
a tax  for  the  tuition  of  his  own,  he  submits  in 
good  humor,  feeling  that  the  day  will  come  at 
last  when  the  injustice  done  them  will  be  at 
length  recognized,  and  his  good  State,  through 
her  General  Assembly,  relieve  him  from  his 
unequal  burden. 

I will  say,  here,  that  I wish  it  to  be  impressed, 
so  far  as  I can  be  the  agent  of  impressing  the 
truth  upon  the  minds  of  the  Convention,  that 
the  Catholics  of  the  State  are  subject  to  a legal- 
ized robbery  every  year.  It  is  a strong  term, 
but  it  expresses  exactly  the  facts  in  the  case. 
They  are  taxed  for  the  support  of  a system  from 
which  they  are  warned  away  as  by  a flaming 
sword.  It  will  not  do  for  gentlemen  to  tell  me, 
as  they  have  done  before  now,  that  they  can 
come  in — that  this  sun  of  the  common  school 
system  shines  for  all — that  it  may  be  enjoyed 
by  everybody.  I say,  in  the  light  of  facts,  facts 
that  I have  been  alluding  to  here,  that  large 
masses — tens  of  thousands  of  persons — have 
conscientious  scruples  which  forbid  them  from 
entering  these  schools.  This  invitation  is  but 
a cheap  farce,  and  is  an  insult  to  the  people  so 
invited. 

And  do  the  children  of  the  public  and  paro- 
chial schools  grow  to  manhood  in  the  least 
estranged  or  hostile  to  each  other?  Is  there 
less  love  of  country,  less  integrity  as  citizens, 
less  purity  as  men  and  women,  in  those  who 
have  passed  through  the  parochial  schools? 
The  experience  of  the  past,  in  peace  and  war, 
utterly  refutes  any  such  assumption  as  to  civic 
virtue,  as  the  facts  of  business  and  social  life 
triumphantly  vindicate  them  in  other  relations. 
I say  gentlemen  need  not  shudder  at  this 
phantom;  touch  it,  and  it  melts  to  air;  chal- 
lenge it  with  courage  and  truth,  in  the  name  of 
God,  and,  like  other  unclean  things,  it  is 
exhaled  by  the  light  of  His  countenance.  So 
that  when  you  come  down  to  the  domain  of 
plain  fact  and  accredited  experience,  you  are 
obliged  to  admit  that  there  is  nothing  graver 
involved  than  a question  of  State  policy  with 
regard  to  the  conduct  of  one  of  our  public  in- 
stitutions. I maintain  that  enlightened  states- 
manship decrees  that  no  public  institution 
should  be  an  engine  of  oppression  as  against 
any  citizens  of  the  State,  and  that,  duty  and 
policy  rightly  apprehended,  there  is  no  reason 
why  any  should  be.  But  it  is  claimed  that,  to 
give  the  Catholic  his  pro  rata  of  the  common 
school  fund  of  the  State,  would  be  to  destroy 
the  public  schools  of  the  State.  How?  It  is 
clear  that  the  public  schools  could  be  injured 
only  by  the  attenuation  of  the  classes.  If  the 
raw  material  presents  itself  to  feed  the  great 
educational  mill  as  of  yore,  why  stop  the 
work? 

But  it  is  admitted  that  the  Catholic  children 
do  not  attend  the  public  schools;  no  withdraw- 
al therefore  will  take  place,  and  the  work  will 
go  on  just  as  usual.  The  change  would  be  ex- 
perienced with  Catholic  schools,  alone  where 
the  labor  of  tuition  would  be  more  evenly  di- 
vided, and  the  increased  revenue  derived  from 
the  State  enable  a more  generous  payment  to 
teachers,  and  a reduction  of  the  number  of  pu- 
pils entrusted  to  each.  But  it  will  be  said  that 
if  the  State  admit  the  right  of  one  class  of  relig- 


ionists to  have  a pqrtion  of  the  common  fund 
allowed  them,  that  others  would  soon  be  found 
clamoring  for  a yet  further  division.  I answer 
that  no  symptom  of  this  kind  has  been  hereto- 
fore observable,  and  that,  moreover,  if  such 
claim  were  made  and  allowed,  the  State  could 
sustain  no  injury.  On  the  contrary,  the  nearer 
the  management  is  to  the  parent,  and  to  a dis- 
tinct community,  the  better  in  the  long  run  lor 
the  child  and  for  the  State.  The  danger  is  in  a 
huge  omnibus  system,  which  first  swallows 
everything  in  the  State,  to  become  lost  in  its 
turn  in  a gigantic  National  Bureau,  with  its 
machinery  concentrated  in  Washington,  and 
which  would  eventually  obliterate  every  feature 
of  individuality  from  the  children  of  the  people. 
This  is  the  grim  monster,  the  rustle  of  whose 
footsteps  might  have  been  heard  at  the  State 
Capitol,  the  other  day,  asking  for  the  right  to 
prescribe  the  text-books  for  all  the  public 
schools  of  the  State,  and  to  make  their  use  obli- 
gatory on  the  people,  without  change,  for  ten 
years.  And  everywhere,  those  high  in  the  ed- 
ucational system  of  this  and  other  States  of  our 
country  are  working  hand-in-hand,  with  the 
view  of  lifting  this  all-important  concern  above 
the  reach  and  control  of  local  management,  and 
seeking  to  vest  its  government  in  highly  paid 
officials,  beyond  and  above  its  supervision,  to  be 
directed  according  to  the  views,  and  to  subserve 
the  interests  of  an  immense  guild,  bound  to- 
gether by  hooks  of  steel  (no  pun  intended  here) , 
and  pervaded  by  one  grand  thought,  to  sing  the 
praises  of  the  system  thus  created  and  guarded, 
and  to  vilipend  and  attack  every  one  who  pre- 
sumed to  question  the  usefulness  of  the  institu- 
tion. Sir,  I am  no  croaker,  but  I think  I am 
cognizant  of  circumstances  which  justify  the 
conclusions  of  my  mind  on  the  subject,  and  to 
whose  examination  I respectfully  invite  the 
members  of  this  Convention.  So  far,  I have 
argued  as  one  accepting  the  theory  of  State  edu- 
cation, and  aiming  at  reform  in  some  features 
of  its  administration.  I now  dare  to  take  higher 
ground.  I deny  in  toto  the  right  ofthe  State  to 
educate.  I assert  that,  in  the  end,  the  practice 
will  result  in  disorder  and  disaffection.  I claim 
that  it  is  done  in  contradiction  to,  and  in  deg- 
radation of  the  law  of  God,  and  that  after  sowing 
the  seed  of  many  troubles  in  our  land,  it  must 
at  last  fail  and  pass  away,  as  have  all  other  hu- 
man contrivances  which  have  attempted  to  set 
aside  or  ignore  the  supreme  law  of  God. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I would  like  to  interrupt  the 
gentleman  to  make  an  inquiry  here.  I would 
like  to  have  the  gentleman  tell  us  what  author- 
ity has  the  right  to  conduct  the  education  of 
the  children  of  the  State  ? If  the  State  may  not 
do  it,  to  whom  shall  we  commit  it? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  It  ought  to  be  left  to  the 
voluntary  efforts  of  the  parents.  The  authority 
rests  with  the  parents,  by  a law  older  than  any 
in  the  State  of  Ohio  or  the  United  States.  God 
does  not  deliver  his  messages  to  States  or  Leg- 
islatures. 

Mr.  VORIS.  Butin  case  they  neglect  it,  then 
to  whom? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  That  is  a point  I am  not 
now  discussing.  I am  discussing  the  general 
proposition.  I have  no  doubt  but  that  any 
want  of  information  upon  that  subject  will  be 


Day.] 


RELIGION  IN  EDUCATION. 

Carbery. 


2197 


March  20,  1874.] 


furnished  the  gentleman  by  others  who  may 
participate  in  the  debate. 

I assert  that  State  education  must  be  purely 
secular.  It  would  be  impossible  for  the  State  to 
select  any  religious  formula  without  displeasing 
and  alienating  some  of  the  children  of  the  State. 
It  will  be  forced  for  its  life-sake,  therefore,  to 
become  colorless — that  is  godless.  Let  us  see  if 
this  is  an  article  of  education  likely  to  be  bene- 
ficial to  the  State,  or  at  all  calculated  to  per- 
petuate morality  and  virtue. 

I ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Convention  while 
I read  some  extracts  from  books,  which  present 
the  subject  in  much  better  language  than  I 
could  furnish. 

Mr.  PRATT.  From  what  book,  Mr.  Car- 
bery? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  This  is  the  Catholic  World , 
a New  York  publication,  Volume  II,  1870, 
pages  782  to  787  inclusive. 

RELIGION  IN  EDUCATION. 

“In  every  century  there  has  arisen  some 
question  which,  by  reason  of  its  intrinsic  im- 
portance, or  immediate  influence  on  society, 
may  be  called  the  problem  of  the  age.  Our 
country,  though  differing  in  so  many  respects 
from  all  the  others,  is  not,  however,  an  excep- 
tion to  this  seeming  law  of  history.  Not  a few 
long-standing  grievances  have  been  righted, 
knotty  political  intricacies  severed,  and  bril- 
liant scientific  triumphs  achieved ; yet  impor- 
tant as  was  the  emancipation  of  1862,  or  the 
disestablishment  of  1869,  the  laying  of  the  trans- 
marine cable,  or  the  cutting  of  Suez,  we  be- 
lieve, with  the  Dublin  Review , that  the  great 
problem  of  our  age  is  the  adjustment  of  the  oft- 
debated  educational  question.  Much  has  been 
said,  many  editorials  have  been  written,  and 
pamphlets  on  this  subject.  It  has  afforded  a 
noble  theme  for  such  orators  as  Lacordaire, 
Montalembert,  and  Archbishop  Hughes ; and  a 
trying  task  for  the  skill  and  practical  wisdom  of 
such  eminent  statesmen  as  Thiers,  Lord  Derby, 
and  Gladstone.  We  know  no  better  proof  of 
the  vital  importance  of  education,  than  the  ac- 
tive part  thus  taken  in  its  discussion  by  men  of 
every  religious  persuasion  and  political  shade. 
In  fact,  few  questions  affect  so  directly  the  wel- 
fare and  interests  of  the  people ; and  assuredly 
in  this  country  there  is  none  of  more  moment, 
as  regards  the  well-being  and  permanence  of 
our  national  institutions. 

Two  centuries  ago,  Leibnitz  declared  the 
proper  training  of  youth  to  be  “the  foundation 
of  human  happiness;”  in  the  last  century, 
Washington  called  it  the  “pillar  of  society;” 
and  in  our  own,  Bishop  Dupauloup  assures  us 
that  it,  and  it  alone,  “forms  the  greatness  of  a 
nation,  maintains  its  splendor  and  prevents  de- 
cay.” But  it  may  be  argued  that  intellectual 
discipline,  without  the  co-operation  of  any  re- 
ligious element,  will  produce  these  great  and 
inestimable  results.  This  we  deny.  Did  polite 
literature,  for  instance,  save  the  most  refined 
nation  of  antiquity  ? Listen  to  the  masters  of 
the  lyre  bewailing  the  degradation  of  their 
countrymen,  and  sighing  for  a purer  and  loftier 
virtue  than  any  their  religion  could  inspire. 
Did  the  plastic  arts  ? Phidias  and  Apelles  will 
return  the  melancholy  answer.  The  eloquence 
of  the  orator  ? The  noblest  appeals  of  duty, 


the  most  patriotic  harangue  or  spirit-stirring 
philippic,  palled  alike  upon  a degenerated 
race.  The  wisdom  of  the  legislator?  All  the 
sagacity  of  Solon  and  Lvcurgus  could  but  re- 
tard the  downfall  of  the  country.  In  fine,  did 
philosophy  ? Its  schools  were  often  sinks  of 
immorality  and  vice.  A few  great  minds,  in- 
deed, rose  above  the  absurd  creations  of  my- 
thology, and  taught  the  precepts  of  natural 
morality;  but,  like  the  dragon-fly  of  the  trop- 
ics, they  flitted  across  the  night  of  paganism, 
lights  to  themselves,  and  mere  ornaments  of 
the  surrounding  darkness.  No  wonder  that 
the  Grecian  States  declined,  that  their  last  day 
soon  “quivered  on  the  dial  of  their  doofn,”  and 
that  they  went  down  into  a night  which  never 
knew  a morrow.  The  Romans  once  added  to 
the  speculative  wisdom  of  the  Greeks  an  al- 
most heroic  practice  of  all  the  natural  virtues. 
Yet  they,  too,  were  swept  by  a torrent  of  vice 
into  the  common  tomb  of  nations;  and  only  a 
few  broken  columns  remain  to-day,  to  tell  the 
traveler  what  was  once  the  seat  of  a world-wide 
empire. 

Separate  religion,  then,  from  education,  as 
Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill  would  fain  do;  banish  it 
entirely  from  the  class  room,  and  you  will  have 
taken  the  most  effective  means  of  insuring  prox- 
imate dissoluteness  and  ultimate  ruin.  Even 
the  author  of  Lothair  recognizes  that,  “ with- 
out religion,  the  world  must  soon  become  a 
scene  of  universal  desolation.”  If,  when 
children  are  asked  how  they  are  occupied  in 
school,  they  cannot  say,  with  the  Joas  of  Ra- 
cine 

“J ’adore  le  Seigneur,  on  m’explique  sa  loi,” 

sooner  or  later,  we  may  have  to  say,  with  Ab- 
ner 

“Juda  est  sans  force,  Benjamin  sans  vertu.” 

Intellectual  culture,  therefore,  even  in  its 
highest  perfection,  can  gain,  at  best,  but  an 
ephemeral  triumph.  It  cannot  perpetuate  the 
civilization  to  which  a people  in  the  meridian 
of  their  greatness  may  attain ; and  it  certainly 
never  has  raised  a fallen  empire,  nor  poured  a 
quickening  stream  through  the  veins  of  a super- 
annuated nation.  This  inefficiency  can  only  be 
accounted  for  by  the  absence  of  that  pure  and 
sublime  faith  which  commanded  the  respect 
of  the  hordes  that  poured  from  the  North,  to 
batter  down  the  last  remains  of  a gigantic 
fabric,  as  well  as  of  that  sublime  moral  code 
which  tamed  these  rude  nomads,  and  raised 
them  from  a savage  state  to  the  loftiest  heights 
of  Christian  Civilization. 

The  term  education  is  from  the  Latin  e,  and 
duco , meaning,  literally,  to  lead  or  draw  out. 
Some  writers  have  attempted  to  define  it,  “ the 
drawing  out  or  development  of  the  mental 
faculties.”  This  may  be  a “ scientific  ” view 
of  head-culture ; but  as  a definition  of  educa- 
tion, it  is  defective  and  very  unphilosophical. 
Defective, because  it  only  embraces  a part;  un- 
philosophical, because  it  substitutes  the  second- 
ary for  the  essential.  We  maintain  that  instruc- 
tion is  but  a branch  of  education,  to  which 
religion  is  as  the  parent  stem.  If  we  consult 
the  masters  of  thought,  and  those  who  shape 
the  destinies  of  nations,  we  shall  be  surprised 
to  find  how  unanimously  they  hold  moral  train- 


2198 


[143rd 


RELIGION  IN  EDUCATION. 


Carbery. 


[Friday, 


ing  paramount  to  intellectual  culture,  and  how 
strongly  they  insist  on  making  the  latter  always 
subservient  to  the  former.  The  better  to  sub- 
stantiate our  assertion  against  the  cavilings  of 
sceptics,  we  will  give  a few  quotations,  select- 
ing only  from  Protestant  authors.  The  end  of 
education, according  to  Milton,  “is  to  fit  man  to 
perform  justly,  skillfully  and  magnanimously 
all  the  offices,  both  public  and  private,  of  peace 
and  war.”  “ The  hard  and  valuable  part  of 
education,”  says  Locke,  “ is  virtue ; this  is  the 
solid  and  substantial  good  which  the  teacher 
should  never  cease  to  inculcate  till  the  young 
man  places  his  strength,  his  glory,  and  his 
pleasure  in  it.”  “The  educating  of  a young 
man,”  writes  Lord  Karnes,  “ to  behave  well  in 
society  is  of  still  greater  importance  than  making 
him  a Solomon  in  knowledge.”  And  “ we  shall 
never  know,”  says  Sir  Walter  Scott,  “ our  real 
calling  or  destiny,  unless  we  have  taught  our- 
selves to  consider  everything  else  as  moonshine 
compared  with  the  education  of  the  heart.” 
And  Lord  Derby  : “ Religion  is  not  a thing  apart 
from  education,  but  is  interwoven  with  its 
whole  system ; it  is  a principle  which  controls 
and  regulates  the  whole  mind  and  happiness  of 
the  people.”  And  Guizot:  “Popular  educa- 
tion, to  be  truly  good  and  socially  useful,  must 
be  fundamentally  religious.” 

Thus,  then,  the  essential  element  of  education 
— its  pith  and  marrow,  so  to  speak — is  the  reli- 
gious element.  To  exclude  it  from  the  school- 
room is,  therefore,  a crying  injustice  to  the  ris- 
ing generation  and  a crime  against  society. 

It  is  not  one  portion  of  the  “triple  man,”  but 
the  whole  — the  physical,  intellectual  and 
moral  being — the  body,  the  mind,  the  head — 
that  must  be  cultivated  and  “brought  up.” 
Neglect  any  one  part  of  man’s  nature,  and  you 
at  once  disturb  the  equilibrium  of  the  whole, 
and  produce  disorder ; educate  the  body  at  the 
expense  of  the  mind  and  soul,  and  you  will 
have  only  animated  clay ; educate  the  intelli- 
gence at  the  expense  of  the  moral  and  religious 
feelings,  and  you  but  fearfully  increase  a man’s 
power  to  effect  evil.  You  store  the  arsenal  of  his 
mind  with  weapons  to  sap  alike  the  altar  and 
the  throne,  to  carry  on  a war  of  extermination 
against  every  holy  principle,  against  the  wel- 
fare and  very  existence  of  society. 

Catiline,  the  polished  patrician,  was  more 
dreaded  by  the  Roman  Senate,  than  the  steel  of 
his  hired  assassins.  The  French  revolution,  the 
most  violent  outbreak  that  ever  convulsed  soci- 
ety, was  ushered  in  bv  a blaze  of  genius ; but, 
like  the  high  intelligence  of  the  “ archangel 
ruined,”  it  brought  desolation  and  death  in  its 
fiery  track.  Science  without  religion  is  more 
destructive  than  the  sword  in  the  hands  of  un- 
principled men.  “Talent,  if  divorced  from  rec- 
titude,” says  Channing,  “ will  prove  more  of  a 
demon  than  a god.”  It  is  these  enlightened 
infidels  that  arrest  the  progress  of  true  civiliza- 
tion, and  prepare  those  terrible  catastrophes 
which  deluge  a country  with  blood.  Who  were 
the  leaders  in  the  work  of  destruction  and 
wholesale  butchery  in  the  Reign  of  Terror? 
The  nurselings  of  lyceums,  in  which  the  cha- 
otic principles  of  the  “ philosophers  ” were 
proclaimed  as  oracles  of  truth.  Who  are  those 
turbulent  revolutionists  who  now  long  to  erect 
the  guillotine  by  the  Tuileries  ? And  who  are 


those  secret  conspirators  and  their  myrmidon 
partisans  who  have  sworn  to  unify  Italy  or  lay 
it  in  ruins  ? Men  who  were  taught  to  scout  the 
idea  of  a God  and  rail  at  religion  ; to  consider 
Christianity  as  a thing  of  the  past  and  a legend 
of  “isms,”  as  the  regenerators  of  the  future; 
men  who  revel  in  wild  chimeras  by  night,  and 
seek  to  realize  their  mad  dreams  by  day. 

The  frightful  excesses  to  which  irreligion 
directly  leads  so  struck  one  of  the  most  frantic 
revolutionists  of  1793  that,  yet  dripping  with 
blood,  he  mounted  to  the  pediment  of  a temple, 
and  with  a pencil  wrote  this  memorable  inscrip- 
tion : “The  French  nation  recognizes  the  ex- 
istence of  a supreme  being;”  and  a few  hours 
before  ascending  the  scaffold  to  suffer  the  just 
penalty  of  his  enormities,  he  cried  out  to  his 
countrymen,  “The  republic  can  only  be  estab- 
lished on  the  eternal  basis  of  morality.”  Ter- 
rible confession,  wrung  from  a regicide  in  the 
most  impious  moment  of  history. 

Robespierre  proclaimed  the  truth  : “The  only 
safety  for  a commonwealth,  the  only  source  of 
greatness  and  prosperity  for  a nation,  as  well 
as  of  tranquility  and  happiness  for  the  individ- 
ual, is  religion.”  When  men  reject  its  heavenly 
guidance,  duty  becomes  as  void  of  meaning  to 
them  as  “honor”  was  to  a well-known  Shake- 
spearean character,  the  most  sacred  obligations 
dwindle  down  into  mere  optional  practices,  and 
the  moral  code  itself  soon  becomes  little  more 
than  the  bug-bear  of  the  weak-minded.  “The 
safeguard  of  morality,”  says  De  Tocqueville, 
“is  religion;”  and  he  concludes  a chapter  of 
his  American  Republic  with  the  following  per- 
tinent remark : “Religion  is  the  companion  of 
liberty  in  all  its  battles  and  triumphs ; the  cra- 
dle of  its  infancy,  and  the  divine  source  of  its 
claims;  it  is  the  safeguard  of  morality,  and 
morality  is  the  best  security  of  law,  as  well  as 
the  surest  pledge  of  freedom.” 

The  philosophers  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
by  their  monstrous  errors  and  shameless  de- 
pravity, have  shown  but  too  clearly  that  science 
without  religion 

“Leads  to  bewilder,  and  dazzles  to  blind.” 

These  vaunted  esprits  forts  had  entered  the 
realms  of  learning  and  returned  as  conquerors 
laden  with  treasures;  but  instead  of  consecrat- 
ing the  spoil  to  the  service  of  the  true,  the 
good,  and  the  beautiful,  they  paid  it  as  a votive 
tribute  to  the  evil  genius  of  license  and  disor- 
der. The  world  then  saw  these  very  men,  to 
whom  princes  had  offered  the  incense  of  adula- 
tion, enthrone  an  impure  goddess  on  the  altar 
of  the  Most  High,  and  fall  prostrate  before  a 
public  harlot. 

If  further  proof  were  needed  of  the  immoral 
tendency  of  science  separated  from  religion, 
we  could  silently  point  to  the  nameless  abomi- 
nations of  the  Communists,  Fourierists,  and 
other  such  vile,  degraded  fraternities.  We 
could  dwell  on  the  cold-blooded  murders  and 
frightful  suicides  that  fill  so  many  domestic 
hearths  with  grief  and  shame;  the  scarcely 
concealed  corruption  of  public  and  professional 
men ; the  adroit  peculations  and  willful  embez- 
zlement of  the  public  money;  those  monopo- 
lizing speculations  and  voluntary  insolvencies 
so  ruinous  to  the  community  at  large;  and, 
above  all,  those  shocking  atrocities  so  common 


RELIGION  IN  EDUCATION. 

Carbery. 


2199 


Day.] 

March  20, 1874.] 


in  unbelieving  countries — the  legal  dissolution 
of  the  matrimony  tie,  and  the  wanton  tamper- 
ing with  life  in  its  very  bud. 

These  humiliating  facts  are  sufficient  to  con- 
vince any  impartial  mind  that  there  can  be  no 
social  virtue,  no  morality,  no  true  and  lasting 
greatness,  without  religion. 

Here  we  meet  the  question,  When  should 
these  salutary  doctrines  be  inculcated?  As 
well  might  be  asked  when  the  builder  should 
lay  the  foundation  of  his  edifice,  or  the  farmer 
sow  his  field.  If  religious  principles  be  not 
laid  broad  and  deep  in  childhood,  there  is  great 
danger  that  the  superstructure  will  topple  and 
fall.  Youth  has  been  called  the  seed-time  of 
life,  and  experience,  as  well  as  reason,  proves 
the  same  law  to  hold  good  in  mental  as  in 
material  husbandry.  “ What  you  sow,  that  you 
shall  reap.”  Men  do  not  seek  grapes  from 
thorns,  nor  figs  from  thistles.  Yet,  by  a strange 
inconsistency,  some  would  expect  virtuous 
youth  from  godless  schools.  But  the  order  of 
nature  cannot  be  reversed.  Like  generates 
like. 

In  childhood,  the  mind  is  simple  and  docile, 
the  soul  pure  and  candid,  and  the  heart  may  be 
easily  cast  into  any  mould.  It  is  of  the  highest 
importance  for  parents  and  educators  to  bear 
in  mind  that  the  first  impressions  are  the  last 
forgotten.  The  pious  child  may,  in  after  life, 
in  an  evil  hour,  be  led  astray  by  the  force  of 
passion  or  bad  example,  but,  at  last,  when  the 
fires  of  youth  have  cooled  with  advancing  age, 
there  is  great  probability  that  he  will  return 
again  to  virtue  and  piety.  With  great  truth 
the  poet  has  said : 

“Take  care  in  youth  to  form  the  heart  and  mind, 

For  as  the  twig  is  bent,  the  tree’s  inclined.” 

One  of  the  greatest  thinkers  of  our  age,  thor- 
oughly convinced  of  the  paramount  importance 
of  early  moral  training,  would  have  the  air  of 
the  school-room,  as  it  were,  impregnated  with 
religion.  “ It  is  necessary,”  says  Guizot,  “ that 
natural  education  should  be  given  and  received 
in  the  midst  of  a religious  atmosphere,  and  the 
religious  impressions  and  religious  observances 
should  penetrate  all  its  parts.”  It  would,  in- 
deed, be  well  if  those  who  ad\ocate  the  exclu- 
sion of  religion  from  our  schools  would  read 
and  maturely  weigh  these  words  of  the  illus- 
trious Protestant  statesman  and  historian.  A 
little  further  on  occurs  the  following  remarka- 
ble passage : “ Religion  is  not  a study  or  exer- 
cise, to  be  restricted  to  a certain  place  and 
certain  hour ; it  is  a faith  and  a law  which 
ought  to  be  felt  everywhere,  and  which  in  this 
manner  alone  can  exercise  all  its  beneficial  in- 
fluences upon  our  minds  and  lives.”  In  the 
same  spirit,  Disraeli  says:  “Religion  should 
be  the  rule  of  life,  not  a casual  incidence.”  It 
is,  then,  absurd  to  devote  six  days  of  the  week 
to  the  teaching  of  human  learning,  and  trust  to 
a hurried  hour  in  the  Sunday-school  for  the 
imparting  of  religious  knowledge.  By  such 
a system  we  may  make  expert  shop-boys,  first- 
rate  accountants,  shrewd  and  thriving  “earth- 
worms,” as  Bishop  Berkeley  says,  but  it  would 
be  presumption  to  think  of  thus  making  good 
citizens,  still  less  virtuous  Christians. 

To-day,  more  than  ever,  we  need  a thorough 
religious  education.  The  enemies  of  Christi- 


anity are  now  making  war  upon  its  dogmas, 
more  generally  and  more  craftily  than  at  any 
former  period.  Their  attacks,  for  being  wily 
and  concealed,  are  all  the  more  pernicious. 
The  impious  rage  of  a Voltaire,  or  the  solemn 
sneer  of  a Gibbon  would  be  less  dangerous  than 
this  insidious  warfare.  They  disguise  their  de- 
signs, under  the  appearance  of  devotion  to 
progressive  ideas,  hatred  of  superstition  and 
intolerance,  all  the  better  to  instil  the  slow  but 
deadly  poison.  By  honeyed  words,  a studied 
candor,  a dazzle  of  eruditions,  they  have  spread 
their  “ gossamer  nets  of  seduction  ” over  the 
world. 

The  press  teems  with  books  and  journals  in 
which  doctrines  subversive  of  religion  and 
morality  are  so  elegantly  set  forth  that  the  un- 
guarded reader,  like  Rogers,  in  Ariosto,  is 
very  apt  to  be  deceived  by  the  fascination  of 
false  charms,  and  to  mistake  a most  hideous  and 
dangerous  object  for  the  very  type  of  beauty. 
The  serpent  stealthily  glides  under  the  silken 
verdure  of  a polished  style.  Nothing  is  omit- 
ted. The  passions  are  fed,  and  the  morbid 
sensibilities  pandered  to ; firmness  in  the  cause  of 
truth  or  virtue  is  called  obstinacy,  and  strength 
of  soul  a refractory  blindness. 

The  bases  of  morality  are  sapped  in  the  name 
of  liberty;  the  discipline  of  the  church,  when 
not  branded  as  sheer  “ mummery,”  is  held  up  as 
hostile  to  personal  freedom,  and  her  dogmas, 
with  one  or  two  exceptions,  are  treated  as  opin- 
ions which  may  be  received  or  rejected  with 
like  indifference. 

Nor  is  this  irreligious  tendency  confined  to 
literary  publications.  It  finds  numerous  and 
powerful  advocates  in  men  of  scientific  pursuits, 
who,  like  Belial,  in  Milton,  “ strive  to  make  the 
worse  appear  the  better  cause.”  The  chemist 
has  never  found  in  his  crucible  that  intangible 
something  which  men  call  spirit;  so,  in  the 
name  of  science,  he  pronounces  it  a myth.  The 
anatomist  has  dissected  the  human  frame,  but 
failing  to  meet  the  immaterial  substance — the 
soul  — he  denies  its  existence.  The  physicist 
has  weighed  the  conflicting  theories  of  his  pred- 
ecessors in  the  scales  of  criticism,  and  he  finely 
decides  that  bodies  are  nothing  more  than  the 
accidental  assemblage  of  atoms,  and  rejects  the 
verv  idea  of  a creator. 

The  geologist,  after  investigating  the  secret  of 
the  earth,  triumphantly  tells  us  that  he  has  ac- 
cumulated an  overwhelming  mass  of  facts  to 
refute  the  biblical  cosmogony,  and  thus  subvert 
the  authority  of  the  inspired  record.  The  as- 
tromoner  flatters  himself  that  he  has  discovered 
natural  and  necessary  laws  which  do  away  with 
the  necessity  of  admitting  that  a divine  hand 
once  launched  the  heavenly  bodies  into  space, 
and  still  guides  them  in  their  course;  the  eth- 
nographer has  studied  the  peculiarities  of  the 
races,  he  has  met  with  widely  different  con- 
formations, and  believes  himself  sufficiently 
authorized  to  deny  the  unity  of  the  human  fam- 
ily ; in  a word,  they  conclude  that  nothing  ex- 
ists but  matter,  that  God  is  a myth,  and  the  soul 
“ the  dream  of  a dream.” 

Thus  do  men  attack  this  sacred  truth,  which, 
in  the  words  of  Balmes,  “ cannot  be  shaken 
without  greatly  injuring  and  finally  destroying 
the  social  edifice.”  What  must  be  done  to  save 
society  from  the  perils  that  menace  it — to  stem 


2200 


THE  CATHOLIC  VIEW  OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION. 

Carbery,  Tuttle. 


the  tide  that  bids  fair  to  sweep  away,  eventually, 
even  civilization  itself  ? What  is  the  remedy 
for  the  profligacy  that  disgraces  some  of  our 
crowded  centres,  and  the  demoralization  that  is 
fast  gangrening  our  rural  districts  ? There  is 
one  and  we  believe  there  is  but  one.  Let  the  ris- 
ing generation  be  “ brought  up,”  in  a religious 
atmosphere. 

If  we  Christianize  our  youth,  we  may  be  sure  of 
having  a virtuous  and  a virile  people ; for  it  is 
an  ethical  truth,  that  “ the  morals  are  but  the 
outward  forms  of  the  inward  life.” 

The  father  of  our  country,  then,  was  right, 
when  he  said,  in  his  farewell  address  to  the 
American  nation,  that  religion  and  morality 
are  the  “props”  of  society  and  the  “pillars” 
of  the  State.  History  tells,  in  its  every  page, 
that  the  decline  and  downfall  of  nations  have 
ever  been  caused  by  immorality  and  irreligion. 

Our  national  institutions,  our  prosperity  and 
civilization  depend  for  their  permanence  and 
perpetuity,  not  so  much  on  the  culture  of  the 
arts,  sciences,  literature,  or  philosophy,  as  on 
the  general  diffusion  of  the  salutary  and  vivi- 
fying  principles  of  religion. 

Let  ug,  then,  diffuse  good  morals  by  the  most 
powerful  of  all  means,  Christian  education ; let 
doctrine  be  taught  simultaneously  with  science; 
let  the  class-room  be  impregnated  with  the 
sweet  and  life-giving  aroma  of  Christianity, 
and  we  shall  soon  check  the  torrent  of  infidelity, 
avert  impending  evils,  and  prepare  the  golden 
age  of  our  republic.” 

[Here  the  gavel  fell.] 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I wish  to  inflict  some  more 
reading  upon  the  Convention. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I shall  now  read  from  Vol- 
ume VIII,  of  the  same  publication,  for  1868-9, 
pages  686  to  697,  inclusive.  The  article  is  en- 
titled 

THE  CATHOLIC  VIEW  OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION  IN 
THE  UNITED  STATES. 

“ We  republish  the  following  article  from  the 
American  Educational  Monthly , with  the  permis- 
sion of  the  editor,  on  account  of  the  importance 
of  the  subject,  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  article, 
and  to  aid  in  giving  it  a wide  circulation. — Ed. 
C.  W.j 

“It  would  be  wholly  superfluous  to  address 
an  argument  to  any  portion  of  the  American 
people  upon  the  absolute  necessity  of  popular 
education.  Upon  that  point  there  is  no  diversi- 
ty of  opinion.  The  fundamental  principles  of 
our  social  system  rest  upon  it  as  a corner-stone; 
such  as  that  government  derives  all  its  authori- 
ty, under  God,  from  the  consent  of  the  govern- 
ed; the  people  possess  the  sovereignty;  public 
officers  are  only  public  servants;  the  multitude 
rules  by  representation ; Congress,  the  Presi- 
dent, and  the  courts  are  the  people — without 
the  people  they  have  no  existence ; constitutions 
and  laws  are  but  the  well-ordered  expressions 
of  the  public  will,  at  all  times  revocable  in  an 
orderly  manner,  and  binding  upon  each  citizen 
as  the  will  of  all,  unless  the  popular  decree  be 
against  the  law  of  God,  when,  of  course,  it 
binds  no  man’s  conscience.  Hereditary  rights, 
class  privileges,  ancient  social  divisions,  and 
distributions  of  power  have  all  disappeared,  or 
rather,  have  never  existed  here.  Even  in  col-  ! 


[143rd 

[Friday, 


onial  times,  the  crown  was  almost  a myth,  and 
j cast  but  a shadowy  reflection  into  the  deep  wa- 
I ters  of  the  Hudson  and  the  Mississippi,  as  they 
j rolled  on  to  the  sea  from  the  illimitable  forests 
where  the  moccasined  hunter  was  then  free  as 
the  red  Indian  had  been  for  unrecorded  centu- 
ries.” 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
an  inquiry?  As  he  is  reading,  perhaps,  it  will 
not  interrupt  the  thread  of  his  argument. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I will  be  happy  to  do  so,  if 
I can  answer  it. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I suppose  the  gentleman  re- 
cognizes, as  I have  otherwise  understood,  that 
the  proposition  laid  down  in  what  he  is  reading 
is,  that  the  authority  of  government  is  derived 
from  God.  Now,  if  the  State  have  an  authori- 
tative expositor  of  the  will  of  God  with  regard 
to  all  government,  why  may  not  the  State  be 
safely  and  properly  entrusted  with  the  educa- 
tion of  its  children? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Well,  I shall  not  stop  here 
to  argue  that.  It  will  be  fully  answered  in  the 
course  of  the  discussion,  and  I shall  be  very 
glad  to  hear  the  gentleman  elaborate  his  views 
when  he  gets  the  floor. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I am  not  on  that  side.  The 
reason  why  I put  it  is,  that  I understand  the 
gentleman  to  claim  that  it  would  not,  but  I sup- 
pose he  will  not  deny,  in  refuting  it,  that  the 
State  is  furnished  with  an  infallible  expositor 
of  the  will  of  God  on  this  subject.  My  reason 
for  putting  the  question  is  to  know,  in  the  gen- 
tleman’s  view  of  the  subject,  the  two  things 
can  be  consistent  with  each  other. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I think  they  travel  in  dif- 
ferent orbits  entirely. 

“The  Revolution  of  ’76  changed  the  govern- 
ment, but  really  left  the  cardinal  points  of  our 
American  civilization  very  much  as  it  found 
them.  In  fact,  our  political  education  is  trace- 
able back  to  the  days  of  Albert  and  Edward  the 
Confessor;  for  the  Norman  king  gave  us  no 
concession  in  Magna  Charta  which  was  un- 
known to  Saxon  liberty.  In  our  Republic,  we 
have  only  drawn  out  these  principles  to  their 
extreme  conclusions.  We  have  gone  back  to 
the  original  hypothesis,  that  society  is  an  asso- 
ciation of  equal  rights  for  mutual  protection ; 
j and  the  power,  under  God,  belongs  to  the  whole 
body  of  corporators — that  is,  the  multitude. 
From  this  postulate  we  are  obliged  to  pass  im- 
mediately to  the  axiom  that  there  can  be  no  fit 
administration  of  power  without  knowledge. 
Knowledge  may  be  acquired  in  several  ways. 
The  most  direct  and  impressive  is  experi- 
ence. Alcuin  was  master  of  books;  but 
Charlemagne  was  master  of  men.  The  great 
Emperor  .could  not  read,  but  he  possessed 
the  wisdom  to  govern.  Who  shall  say  he  was 
not  “educated”  in  the  highest  sense  of  that 
vague  term  ? And  yet,  it  is  very  clear,  that 
knowledge  gained  only  by  the  slow  accretions 
of  experience,  will  not  answer  the  wants  and 
rapid  movements  of  such  a republic  as  ours  in 
the  age  of  steam  and  electricity.  Each  gener- 
ation must  be  trained  from  the  cradle,  and  made 
to  possess,  enlarge,  and  transmit  to  its  succes- 
sor all  the  accumulated  knowledge  of  its  pre- 
decessor. As  no  atom  of  matter  perishes,  but 
is  for  ever  recombining  and  reproducing,  so 
every  true  idea  and  sound  moral  sentimen 


2201 


Day.] THE  CATHOLIC  VIEW  OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION. 

March  20,  1874.]  Carbery. 


must  be  made  the  inheritance  of  society,  and 
never  cease  to  exert  its  power  for  good  among 
men.  Not  that  moral  truth  can  ever  change, 
for  it  is  now  precisely  what  it  has  been  from  all 
eternity;  nor  is  it  better  understood  by  the  di- 
vine to-day,  than  it  was  by  Moses  when  he  came 
down  from  the  mountain ; but  the  multitude 
may  be  made  more  fully  to  comprehend  and 
reverence  it.  Christianity,  although  specially 
revealed  and  miraculously  propagated,  did  not 
suddenly  conquer  and  civilize  barbarous  peo- 
ple. It  has  been  eighteen  hundred  years  strug- 
ling  with  the  powers  of  darkness,  and  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  human  heart,  and  yet,  alas!  how 
very,  very  far  removed  are  not  even  the  most 
polished  nations  from  the  severe  standard  of 
Christian  perfection!  See  the  tyrannies,  the 
oppressions,  the  cruelties,  the  wars,  the 
pride,  the  luxury,  the  folly  and  deceit 
which  fill  the  fairest  parts  of  the  earth 
with  mourning,  and  drag  mankind  down 
into  the  slough  of  sin  and  sorrow ! To  be 
sure,  there  is  a certain  stereotyped  class  of 
saints  and  philosophers  who  cry  aloud,  “ Com- 
pare our  enlightened  era  with  the  rude  times  of 
the  crusaders ; or  place  the  nineteenth  along- 
side of  the  ninth  century ; and  let  the  celestial 
light  of  our  civilization  shine  down  into  the 
abysses  of  monkish  superstition!”  We  shall, 
nevertheless,  refuse  to  close  our  eyes  to  those 
stupendous  sins  which  have  supplanted  the  vio- 
lent crimes  of  our  ancestors.  We  shall  see  how 
their  robber-sword  has  been  put  aside  for  our 
forger’s  pen;  how  their  wild  foray  has  given 
place  to  our  gigantic  stock  speculation  or  bank 
swindle  which  sweeps  widows  and  orphans,  by 
the  ten  thousand,  into  utter  poverty  and  de- 
spair; how  their  fierce  lust  has  been  civilized 
into  the  decorous  forms  of  the  divorce  courts ; 
how  their  bold  grasping  of  power  has  been 
changed  Into  the  art  of  the  whining  demagogue ; 
how  their  undisguised  plunder  of  the  public 
treasure  in  times  of  civil  commotion  has  been 
superseded  by  the  adroit  peculation  and  covert 
bribery  of  our  times  of  peace ; how  their  cour- 
ageous rude  anger  has  vanished  before  the  safer 
and  more  efficacious  process  of  concealed  hatred, 
nestling  like  the  scorpion  among  the  roses  of 
adulation.  We  certainly  shall  be  obliged  to 
remember  these  things  to  the  great  reproach  of 
our  times,  and  in  serious  dread  of  the  future; 
and  we  shall  feel  axious  to  go  to  work  to  find 
the  cause  and  the  remedy.  We  are  all  agreed 
that  education,  that  is,  knowledge  and  moral 
training,  cannot  be  dispensed  with  for  an  hour — 
that  no  nation  can  be  governed  safely,  much  less 
govern  itself  at  all,  without  a clear  head  and 
a sound  heart— that,  if  governed  as  a dumb  brute, 
it  will  kick  against  the  pricks,  fly  iri  the  face 
of  its  hard  master,  and  dash  out  its  foolish  brains 
against  the  stone  wall ! It  will  sing  the  Mar - 
seillaise , and  cover  its  garments  with  the  blood 
of  kings  and  aristocrats,  until,  having  spent  its 
fury,  it  will  return  to  its  crust  and  shout  “Vive 
l’Empereur!”  Should  it  attempt  to  govern 
itself,  it  will  become  the  prey  of  infamous  men, 
who  are  the  spawn  of  its  own  passions.  With- 
out knowledge  the  nation  is  either  a silent 
sepulchre,  where  all  hopes  are  burled,  or  a 
raging  sea,  where  they  are  quickly  wrecked. 
Knowledge,  then,  it  must  have.  But  what 
knowledge?  Shall  we  say  knowledge  of  the 


arts  ? Ask  Phideas  and  Praxiteles  if  the  arts 
saved  Greece.  Shall  we  say  polite  literature? 
Ah ! Let  the  mournful  chorus  of  Sophocles, 
HSschylus  and  Euripides  give  utterance  to  the 
sad  cries  of  those  old  pagan  hearts  for  a higher 
virtue  than  the  sublimest  tragedy  could  teach 
them ! Shall  it  be  the  eloquence  of  the  orator  or 
the  wisdom  of  the  legislator?  We  shall  hear  in 
the  Philippics  how  vainly  the  master  of  ora- 
tors appealed  to  a degenerate  race,  and  we 
shall  read,  in  the  closing  annals  of  Athens  and 
Sparta,  how  utterly  the  wisdom  of  Solon  and 
Lycurgus  had  failed  to  save  polished  and  war- 
like states  from  the  penalty  which  God  has 
affixed  to  the  crimes  of  nations.  Shall  we  take 
refuge  in  philosophy  ? Socrates  and  the  divine 
Plato  had  cast  off  the  degrading  supersti- 
tions of  paganism,  and  had  proclaimed  to  their 
intellectual  countrymen  the  eternity  and  unity 
of  God,  and  the  immortality  of  the  soul  of  man. 
They  had  most  earnestly  enjoined  upon  them 
the  sanctity  of  all  the  natural  virtues,  temper- 
ance, industry,  patience,  courage,  honesty,  be- 
nevolence, patriotism,  continence,  filial  duty, 
conjugal  fidelity — but  what  did  their  philosophy 
avail  ? Why  did  it  not  save  the  Grecian  States  ? 
They  went  down  into  the  night  upon  which  no 
sun  ever  again  shone.  Their  Roman  conquer- 
ors seized  upon  the  rich  treasures  of  their 
knowledge.  The  Senate  listened  with  rap- 
ture to  the  wisdom  of  the  old  Hellenic 
sages  translated  by  Cicero  into  the  noble  Latin 
tongue.  Virgil  and  Livy  sought  to  inspire  the 
Roman  heart  with  grand  ideas  borrowed  from 
the  Greek  masters.  What  did  it  all  avail  ? The 
Roman  Republic  had  practiced  the  natural  vir- 
tues as  fully  as  unregenerated  man  is  capable 
of  doing,  by  the  powers  of  vigorous  and  culti- 
vated reason.  What  did  it  avail?  They  too. 
went  down  into  the  tomb  of  dead  nations;  and 
a few  broken  columns  remain  to  mark  the  seat 
of  their  world-wide  empire ! It  is  very  mani- 
fest, then,  that  intellectual  culture,  even  when 
carried  to  the  highest  development  of  which 
men  are  capable,  can  never  subdue  their  pas- 
sions, nor  enable  them  to  uphold  the  civilization 
to  which  they  may  have  attained  in  the  fresh- 
ness of  their  national  life.  If  this  were  not  so, 
then  we  could  not  clearly  perceive  the  necessity 
of  the  Christian  revelation.  If  man  was  self- 
sustaining,  he  would  not  require  the  arm  of 
God  to  lean  upon.  The  apothegm  of  the  Greek 
sage,  “Know  thyself,”  was  a dead  letter.  It  was 
precisely  to  teach  a man  how  to  know  himself, 
how  our  Savior  came.  And  this  is  the  whole 
knowledge ! No  poetry,  oratory,  history,  philos- 
ophy, arts  or  sciences,  could  teach  that,  else 
the  world  would  have  learned  it  four  thousand 
years  ago,  and  the  primitive  race  would  not 
have  perished.  Even  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, and  in  very  modern  times,  men  and 
nations  have  failed  to  know  themselves,  because 
they  turned  their  backs  on  Christ,  and  placed 
their  hopes  in  human  science  and  natural  virtue. 
And  so  we  have  seen  an  enlightened  nation  in 
our  day  defy  humanity,  refuse  to  adore  God, 
and  prostrate  itself  before  a harlot,  as  the  high- 
priestess  in  the  apotheosis  of  reason ! We  have 
seen  an  anti-Christian  conspiracy,  formed  of 
the  most  learned,  eloquent,  witty,  fascinating 
men  of  modern  Europe,  exerting  the  highest 
arts  of  genius  to  repaganize  the  world.  We 


2202 


THE  CATHOLIC  VIEW  OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION. 

Carbery. 


[143rd 


[Friday? 


have  seen  science,  rudely  torn  from  religion, 
waging  an  insane  war  against  the  peace  of  so- 
ciety. That  terrific  phase  of  blasphemous  infi- 
delity has  passed  from  our  immediate  view ; but 
has  it  left  nothing  more  dangerous  behind? 
We  think  it  has.  The  mass  of  mankind  shrank 
with  horror  from  the  defiant  blasphemy  of  Vol- 
taire; and  they  recoiled  with  alarm  from  the 
ruin  caused  by  his  teachings.  We  love  liberty ; 
but  we  dread  license,  anarchy,  chaos.  Man  is, 
also,  naturally  religious.  Long  after  he  had 
forgotten  the  traditions  of  the  patriarchs,  and 
had  lost  God  in  the  night  of  heathen  idolatry, 
he  still  clung  to 

“The  instinct  of  old  reverence” 

and  his  wretched  soul  yearned  after  its  Crea- 
tor. 

The  false  worship  of  Greece  and  Eome  was 
the  inarticulate  cry  of  a lost  people  for  that 
true  worship  which  was  promised  to  the  Gentile 
at  the  appointed  time.  False  and  hideous  as  it 
was,  who  will  not  say  that  it  was  far  preferable 
to  atheism  ? It  was  only  when  the  Epicurean 
philosophy  had  destroyed  the  faith  of  those 
people  that  they  cast  off  all  moral  restraints, 
and  were  swept  away  in  the  torrent  of  their 
vices.  Man  is  naturally  religious ; and  there- 
fore the  world  will  not  long  patiently  tolerate 
the  presence  of  blatant  infidelity.  The  danger 
is  not  there.  He  who  goes  about  like  a roaring 
lion,  seeking  whom  he  may  devour,  knows 
very  well  that  mankind  is  more  easily  seduced 
under  the  forms  of  virtue  than  by  gross  sin. 
His  incarnate  agents  on  earth  know  this  too. 
Hence  we  find  all  the  world  covered  over  with 
gossamer  nets  of  seduction!  The  press  teems 
with  books  and  journals,  not  confessedly  infi- 
del, yet  working  in  the  interests  of  infidelity; 
fanning  the  passions  and  exciting  the  morbid 
sensibilities  of  youth ; teaching  religious  in- 
difference under  the  pleasing  garb  of  liberty ; 
holding  up  the  discipline  of  the  Church  as  hos- 
tile to  personal  freedom;  depicting  the  doc- 
trines and  ceremonies  of  the  Christian  religion 
as  trammels  upon  mental  activity  and  intellec- 
tual progress ; arraying  the  laity  against  their 
pastors;  insisting  that  to  be  a humane  man,  an 
honest  and  industrious  worker,  a faithful  friend, 
a good  husband  and  father,  a patriotic  citizen, 
is  to  be  all,  and  to  do  all  that  the  highest  Chris- 
tian morality  can  require,  or  the  welfare  of  the 
human  race  demand ; asserting  that  the  spe- 
cific dogmas  of  the  Christian  faith,  with  perhaps 
one  or  two  exceptions,  are  not  essential,  and 
may  be  rejected  without  concern;  receiving 
with  indifference  and  polite  complacency  either 
the  divinity  or  the  humanity  of  Christ ; and  ac- 
cepting him  as  a God-Savior,  a man-prophet,  or 
a harmless,  self-deluded  impostor,  as  your  fancy 
may  please  to  dictate;  in  a word,  deifying  man, 
and  making  this  world,  with  its  wealth,  its 
pleasures,  its  pride  and  pomp,  its  power 
and  magnificence,  its  civilization  and  na- 
tionalities, the  sole  object  of  his  anxiety 
and  love.  Such  we  say  is  the  growing 
evil  of  this  nineteenth  century,  which  is  so 
scornful  of  the  “dark  age;”  an  evil  infinitely 
more  subtle  and  destructive  than  the  rage  or 
gibes  of  Voltaire.  This  poison  has  gone  through 
the  chilled  blood  of  renegade  old  men,  destroy- 
ing the  religious  vitality  which  had  sustained 


their  faith  from  the  baptismal  font  to  the  very 
edge  of  the  grave.  How  must  it  not,  therefore, 
affect  the  hot  veins  of  inexperienced  youth, 
whose  generous  impulses  are  their  greatest 
peril ! See  how,  in  these  European  revolutions, 
gotten  up  by  avowed  enemies  of  religion,  the 
students  of  the  universities  flock  to  the  stand- 
ards of  infidelity,  with  the  seductive  cry  of 
“Liberty!  equality  ! fraternity !”  They  enlist 
with  enthusiasm  under  what  they  believe  to  be 
the  consecrated  banner  of  inalienable  human 
rights.  Their  young,  sympathetic  hearts  are 
justly  moved  by  the  sufferings  of  the  toiling 
millions  caused  by  unequal  laws.  Their  sense 
of  justice  and  human  brotherhood  is  outraged 
at  the  sight  of  domineering  classes  who  monop- 
olize the  blessinrs  of  government.  They  see 
very  clearly  all  the  existing  wrongs,  but  they 
do  not  see  the  practicable  and  wise  remedies ; 
and  when  they  hear  prudent  voices  counseling 
patience,  and  reminding  them  that  the  evil 
works  of  centuries,  like  old  forest  trees,  have 
deep  roots,  and  cannot  be  rudely  torn  out  of 
the  bosom  of  society  without  endangering  its 
life,  they  cry  out,  in  their  enthusiasm,  “ These 
are  the  voices  of  the  enemies  of  the  people — 
the  voices  of  priests  and  aristocrats;  away 
with  them  to  the  guillotine!”  Only  too  late 
do  they  experience  the  retribution  which  God 
invariably  visits  upon  those  who  presumptu- 
ously seek  to  drive  the  chariot  of  His  provi- 
dence. 

Not  one  word  of  what  we  have  said  is  inap- 
plicable to  our  own  land.  We  live,  move,  and 
have  our  whole  being  in  the  midst  of  these 
same  perils.  Steam,  electricity,  commerce  and 
emigration  have  made  us  a part  of  the  great 
European  family.  Every  throb  of  their  heart 
is  felt  in  our  own  bosom.  We  are  of  their  blood 
and  civilization.  We  have  their  laws  and  their 
religion.  We  are  nurtured  by  their  science 
and  literature.  From  us  they  have  received 
more  thorough  ideas  of  democratic  freedom, 
but  from  them  we  have  derived  all  else  that 
constitutes  the  intellectual  life  of  man.  It 
would  be  the  height  of  folly  in  us  to  despise 
the  lessons  of  their  experience.  Our  children 
should  be  carefully  instructed  in  all  of  it. 
They  have  a difficult  task  to  perform  in  perpet- 
uating our  institutions  as  they  were  shaped  by 
the  fathers  of  the  Kepublic.  They  must  be 
well  trained  in  the  knowledge  necessary  for 
that  purpose.  From  what  has  already  been 
said,  it  will  be  at  once  understood  that  we  do 
not  mean  human  science  alone,  nor  principally. 
The  beginning  of  wisdom  is  the  fear  of  the 
Lord. 

This  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of  the  im- 
mediate subject  of  this  article,  which  can  now, 
we  think,  be  briefly  stated,  inasmuch  as  the 
foundation  has  been  properly  laid,  if  our  views 
are  correct  as  to  the  principles  which  we  have 
presented. 

Enlightened  rulers  all  over  Europe  have  been 
profoundly  impressed  with  the  lessons  of  this 
and  the  last  century.  It  was  once  believed  by 
monarchs  that  to  enlighten  their  subjects  would 
be  to  imperil  their  thrones,  it  is  now  very 
clearly  seen  that  “ the  divinity  which  doth 
hedge  a king  ” has  long  ceased  to  be  an  oracle 
to  the  people.  The  French  Emperor  erects  his 
dynasty  upon  popular  suffrage.  Hereditary 


Day.] THE  CATHOLIC  VIEW  OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION. 2203 

March  20, 1874.]  Carbery,  Johnson. 


right  has  come  down  from  its  ancient  pedestal 
to  accept  from  the  people  the  confirmation  of 
its  authority.  It  is  now  too  evident  for  further 
doubt  that  no  ruler  can  rule  /nodern  nations 
by  any  appeal  to  the  mausoleum  of  his  ances- 
tors. The  garish  light  of  the  sun  has  pene- 
trated every  loyal  tomb,  and  has  altogether  an- 
nihilated the  mystery  which  once  filled  the 
hearts  of  nations  with  awe  and  unquestionable 
obedience.  Public  opinion  now  rules  the  ruler. 
Kings  and  their  ministers  have  now  to  elect 
between  intelligent  and  virtuous  opinions  on 
the  one  hand,  or  revolutionary  passions  on  the 
other. 

The  wisest  of  them,  therefore,  are  hastening 
to  educate  the  people;  and  they  are  striving, 
above  all  things,  to  make  such  "education  dis- 
tinctly Christian , and  not  simply  moral ; for 
they  well  remember  the  fate  of  all  nations  who 
have  staked  their  salvation  upon  the  sufficiency 
of  the  natural  virtues.  While  kings  are  doing 
this  to  preserve  the  shadow  of  their  royalty 
from  the  aggressive  spirit  of  the  age,  we,  in 
this  chosen  land,  are  doing,  or  aiming  to  do, 
the  same  thing,  in  order  that  we  may  rear  suc- 
cessive generations  of  virtuous  and  enlightened 
heirs  to  the  rich  inheritance  of  our  constitu- 
tional democratic  freedom.  Ours  should  be 
much  the  easier  task,  as  we  labor  for  no  dynasty, 
but  strive  merely  to  make  a nation  capable  of 
self-preservation.  We  are  no  less  in  earnest 
than  the  kings;  and  we  may  surely  examine 
their  work  and  see  what  is  good  in  it. 
The  kings  tried  the  pagan  idea  of 
intellectual  culture,  adorned  with  the  glittering 
generalities  of  moral  philosophy ; and  they  add- 
ed to  it  the  maxims  ot  the  Christian  gospel, 
whenever  that  could  be  done,  without  getting 
entangled  in  the  conflicting  creeds  of  the  num- 
erous sects.  The  school  was  like  Plato’s  lec- 
ture-room, only  that  the  sacred  voice  of  the 
evangelist  was  heard  occasionally  in  such  pas- 
sages as  do  not  distinctly  set  forth  faith  and 
doctrine,  about  which  the  scholars  could  differ. 
Sectarianism,  as  it  was  called,  had  to  be  ex- 
cluded, of  course,  in  a mixed  system  of  popular 
education,  wherein  freedom  of  conscience  was 
conceded  to  be  a sacred  right,  and  proselytism 
was  disavowed.  The  result  was  two-fold  : First, 
tens  of  thousands  of  children  were  deprived  of 
distinct  religious  instructions  and  doctrinal 
knowledge;  and,  secondly,  in  countries  where 
the  Roman  Catholic  population  was  large, 
though  in  a minority,  other  tens  of  thousands 
were  left  without  secular  education,  because 
their  parents  would  not  permit  them  to  be 
brought  up  in  habits  of  indifferentism,  which 
means  practically  infidelity,  or  trained  in 
knowledge  hostile  to  their  religious  faith. 
Prussia,  though  she  is  the  very  embodiment  and 
representative  of  Protestant  Europe,  soon  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  would  not  do;  that 
education  must  be  Christian;  that  it  must  be 
doctrinal  and  conducive  to  religious  practice; 
that,  as  all  could  not,  or  would  not  believe 
alike,  each  should  have  full  opportunity  to  be 
reared  in  his  own  faith,  to  learn  its  doctrines, 
and  to  fulfill  its  duties  and  discipline;  and, 
therefore,  that  enlightened  government  estab- 
lished the  denominational  system,  giving  to 
each  creed  practical  equality  before  the  law,  a 
separate  school  organization,  wherever  num- 


bers made  it  practicable,  and  a ratable  share  of 
the  public  school  fund,  reserving  to  the  gov- 
ernment only  a general  supervision,  so  as  to 
secure  a faithful  application  of  the  public 
money,  and  to  enforce  a proper  compliance  with 
the  educational  standard.  The  public  schools 
are  organized  so  that  every  citizen  shall  obtain 
the  complete  education  of  his  child  in  the  faith 
and  practice  of  his  own  church.  All  difficul- 
ties have  disappeared,  and  perfect  harmony 
prevails. 

In  France,  by  the  last  census,  the  population 
was  thirty-seven  millions,  divided  about  as  fol- 
lows: 480,000  Calvinists,  267,000  Lutherans, 
30,000  of  other  Protestant  sects,  and  73,000 
Jews:  the  remaining  thirty-six  millions  being 
either  practically  or  nominally  Catholics.  Al- 
though, the  dissenters  from  the  national  faith 
a”e  less  than  one  million,  that  government  has 
provided  for  them  at  the  public  expense,  sepa- 
rate primary  schools,  where  each  sect  is  at  full 
liberty  to  teach  its  own  doctrines.  There  are 
likewise  three  seminaries  for  the  higher  educa- 
tion of  Lutherans  and  Calvinists.” 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  I understood  my  colleague 
to  speak,  a moment  ago,  of  public  schools  being 
so  organized  that  they  permitted  all  religious 
denominations  to  teach  their  own  doctrines; 
was  he  speaking  of  Russia? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I was  speaking  of  Prussia. 
This  is  a certain  review  of  religious  education 
in  Europe,  and  I am  reading  it  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  that  it  is  quite  practical  to  carry 
the  thing  out  in  our  own  State.  Austria  also 
supports  schools,  colleges  and  universities  for  a 
Protestant  minority. 

“The  British  Government  has  likewise  adopted 
the  same  principle  of  public  education  for  the 
Catholic  and  Protestant  dissenters  of  England; 
while,  with  her  traditional  and  malignant 
hatred  of  the  Irish  people,  she  still  denies  them 
the  justice  which  she  extends  to  all  of  her  other 
subjects,  at  home  or  in  the  colonies,  even  to  the 
Hindoos  and  Mohammedans  of  her  Indian  Em- 
pire. 

And  thus  the  most  powerful  and  enlightened 
nations  have  decided  that  Christian  civilization 
cannot  be  maintained  upon  pagan  ideas,  and 
that  the  safety  of  every  commonwealth  depends 
upon  the  Christian  education  of  the  people.” 

I am  giving  you  a very  large  dose  of  Christi- 
anity, gentlemen,  but  1 am  afraid  you  will  have 
to  stand  it. 

“ They  have  also  clearly  seen  that  doctrines, 
discipline,  morals,  and  k‘  the  religious  atmos- 
phere ” must  be  kept  united,  and  made  to  pene- 
trate and  surround  the  school  at  all  times,  and 
that,  however  greatly  the  Christian  denomina- 
tions may  differ  from  each  other,  or  even  err  in 
their  belief,  it  is  far  better  for  society  that  their 
youth  should  be  instructed  in  some  form  of 
Christian  doctrine,  than  be  left  to  perish  in  the 
dreary  and  soul-destroying  wastes  of  deism. 
Experience  has  proved  to  them  that  moral 
teaching,  with  biblical  illustrations,  as  the  piety 
of  Joseph,  the  heroism  of  Judith,  the  penitence 
of  David,  will  not  suffice  to  establish  the  Chris- 
tian faith  in  young  hearts,  or  to  quiet  the 
doubts  of  inquiring  minds.  The  subtle  Gibbon, 


2204 


THE  CATHOLIC  VIEW  OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION. [143rd 

Carbery,  Cook.  [Friday, 


mocking  the  cross  of  Christ,  will  confront  the 
testimony  of  the  martyrs  with  the  heroes  of 
pagan  history.  Voltaire  did  the  same  for  the 
French  youth  of  the  last  century,  to  their  de- 
struction. 

No.  The  experience  of  wise  governments  is 
this : that  morals  must  be  based  upon  faith,  and 
faith  made  efficient  in  deeds  of  practical  virtue; 
for  faith  worketh  by  charity.  And  another  ex- 
perience is  this,  which  is  best  given  in  the 
very  words  of  the  eminent  Protestant  states- 
man and  historian,  M.  Guizot: 

“ In  order  to  make  popular  education  truly  good 
and  socially  useful , it  must  be  fundamentally  re- 
ligious. I do  not  simply  mean  by  this,  that  religious 
instruction  should  hold  its  place  in  popular  educa- 
tion, and  that  the  practices  of  religion  should  enter 
into  it;  for  a nation  is  not  religiously  educated  by 
such  petty  and  mechanical  devices ; it  is  necessary 
that  the  national  education  should  be  given  and  re- 
ceived in  the  midst  of  a religious  atmosphere,  and 
that  religious  impressions  and  religious  observances 
should  penetrate  into  all  its  parts.  Religion  is  not 
a study  or  an  exercise,  to  be  restricted  to  a certain 
place  and  a certain  hour:  it  is  a faith  and  a law, 
which  ought  to  be  felt  everywhere , and  which  after 
this  manner  alone  can  exercise  all  its  beneficial  in- 
fluences upon  our  minds  and  upon  our  lives.” 

The  meaning  of  which  is,  that  not  a moment 
of  the  hours  of  school  should  be  left  without 
the  religious  influence.  It  is  the  constant  in- 
halation of  the  air  which  preserves  our  physi- 
cal vitality.  It  is  the  “religious  atmosphere,” 
which  supports  the  young  soul.  Religion  can- 
not be  made  “ a study  or  an  exercise,  to  be  restricted 
to  a certain  place  and  a certain  hour.”  It  will  not 
do  to  devote  six  days  in  the  week  to  science,  and 
to  depend  upon  the  Sunday-school  for  religious 
training  of  the  child.  M.  Guizot  is  right.  The 
enlightened  governments  of  Europe  have  ac- 
cepted his  wisdom,  and  reduced  it  to  practice  in 
their  great  national  school-system. 

Now,  the  Catholics  of  the  United  States  have 
said  no  more  than  that;  have  asked  no  more 
than  that;  and  yet,  a wild  cry  of  anger  has 
been  raised  against  them  at  times,  as  though 
they  were  the  avowed  enemies  of  all  popular 
education.  They  pay  their  full  quota  of  the 
public  taxes,  which  create  the  school  fund,  and 
yet,  they  possess,  to-day,  in  proportion  to  their 
wealth  and  numbers,  more  parochial  schools, 
seminaries,  academies,  colleges  and  universities, 
established  and  sustained  exclusively  by  their 
own  private  resources,  than  any  other  denomi- 
nation of  Christians  in  this  country ! Certainly 
this  is  no  evidence  of  hostility  to  education ! 
And  why  have  they  made  these  wonderful 
efforts,  these  unprecedented  sacrifices?  It  is 
because  they  believe  in  the  truth  uttered  by  M. 
Guizot.  It  is  because  they  believe  in  the  truth 
established  by  all  history.  It  is  because  they 
believe  in  the  truth  accepted  and  acted  upon  by 
enlightened  men  and  governments  of  this  age. 
It  is  because  they  know  that  revealed  religion 
is  to  human  science  what  eternity  is  to  time. 
It  is  because  they  know  that  the  salvation  of 
souls  is  more  precious  to  Christ  than  the  knowl- 
edge of  all  the  astronomers.  It  is  because  they 
know  that  the  welfare  of  nations  is  impossible 
without  God.  And  yet,  they  fully  understand 
how  religion  has  called  science  to  her  side,  as  an 
honored  handmaid,  how  learning,  chastened  by 


humility,  conduces  to  Christian  advancement, 
how  the  knowledge  of  good  men  and  evil  (the 
fruit  of  the  forbidden  tree)  may  yet  be  made  to 
honor  God,  when  the  sanctified  soul  rejects  the 
evil  and  embraces  the  good.  Therefore,  the 
Catholic  people  desire  denominational  educa- 
tion, as  it  is  called. 

This  is  the  general  view  of  the  question  ; 
but  there  is  a particular  view  not  to  be  over- 
looked, and  which  we  will  now  briefly  con- 
sider. 

The  most  marked  distinction  between  pagan 
and  Christian  society  is  to  be  found  in  the  rela- 
tions which  the  State  bears  to  the  family.” 

I would  like  very  much  to  contrast  these  prin- 
ciples with  those  in  regard  to  the  authority  of 
the  omnipotent  State  which  the  respected  Chair- 
man of  my  Committee  enunciated  on  yester- 
day. 

“Scarcely  was  the  Lacedaemonian  boy  re- 
leased from  his  mother’s  apron  string,  when 
the  State  seized  him  with  an  iron  hand.  The 
State  was  thenceforth  his  father  and  his  mother. 
The  sanctities  and  duties  of  the  family  were 
annihilated.  Body  and  soul  belonged  to  the 
Moloch  of  Power.  Private  conscience  was  no 
more  then  a piece  of  coin  in  circulation ; it  was 
a part  of  the  public  property.  Christ  restor- 
ed the  family  as  it  existed  in  Adam  and  Eve. 
Christian  civilization  denies  that  the  State  can 
destroy  the  family.  The  family  is  primary ; 
the  father  the  head ; the  mother  the  helpmate ; 
the  children  in  subjection,  and  for  whom  the 
parents  shall  give  an  account  to  the  Father  in 
heaven.  The  Christian  state  has  no  authority 
by  divine  or  human  appointment,  to  invade 
this  trust.  It  has,  therefore,  no  mission  either 
to  coerce  conscience  or  to  dictate  the  education 
of  it.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  State,  in  every  way, 
to  facilitate,  but  it  cannot  arbitrarily  control 
the  mental  and  moral  training  of  the  people’s 
children.  That  right  and  that  responsibility 
are  domestical,  and  belong  to  the  parent.” 

Mr.  COOK.  Does  the  gentleman  call  my  at- 
tention to  that  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COOK.  I wish  to  say  to  the  gentleman  that 
that  coincides  with  what  I said  on  yesterday. 
If  he  remembers  my  language,  it  was  this : That 
education  was  divided  into  two  classes — public 
and  private.  Public  education  pertains  to  all 
instruction  about  those  things  necessary  to  tit 
the  individual  to  discharge  his  duties  as  a mem- 
ber of  society.  Private  education,  I said,  per- 
tained to  matters  of  opinion  such  as  sectarian 
religion  and  party  politics,  and  in  this,  the 
State  had  no  right  whatever ; that  I was 

Mr.  CARBERY.  We  are  diametrically  op- 
posed, of  course,  on  the  subject  of  education, 
and  what  it  means ; he  does  not  believe  that  reli- 
gion should  enter  into  it  at  all ; he  thinks  that  we 
have  no  business  to  argue  it  under  that  head. 

“Now,  the  Catholic  parent  is  aware  that  there 
are  between  his  creed  and  all  others  the  widest 
and  most  irreconcilable  differences,  and  that 
it  is  impossible  to  open  the  New  Testament,  at 
almost  any  page,  without  forthwith  encounter- 
ing the  prime  difficulty.  To  read  the  Bible, 
without  note  or  comment,  to  young  children,  is 
to  abandon  them  to  dangerous  speculation,  or  to 
leave  them  dry  and  barren  of  all  Christian 
knowledge.  In  mixed  schools,  there  is  no  other 


Day.] 


THE  CATHOLIC  VIEW  OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION. 


2205 


Carbery. 


March  20,  1874.] 


recourse,  because  it  is  impossible  to  make  any 
comment  upon  any  doctrinal  teaching  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles  without  trenching  upon  the 
conscientious  opinions  of  some  one  or  other  of 
the  listeners. 

“The  Father  and  I are  one;  ” “The  Father 
is  greater  than  I.”  Here  at  once  we  have  the 
Unitarian  and  the  Trinitarian  at  a dead  lock. 
“This  is  my  body;”  “It  is  the  spirit  which 
quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing.”  Here 
we  have  the  primitive  Lutheran,  who  believed 
in  the  real  presence,  consubstantially,  and  his 
Calvinistic  coadjutor  in  reform  squarely  at 
issue.  “Unless  you  be  born  again  of  water  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,”  etc.  Here  we  have  the  Bap- 
tist and  the  Quaker  very  seriously  divided  in 
opinion. 

Nevertheless,  widely  as  they  differ,  the  one 
from  the  other,  there  is  a fundamental  assimi- 
lation between  all  the  Protestant  sects  which 
may  render  it  possible  for  them  to  unite  in  one 
educational  organization;  and,  yet,  we  find 
many  of  the  most  enlightened  and  earnest 
among  the  Protestant  clergy  of  America  now 
zealously  advocating  the  denominational  system, 
such  as  we  find  in  the  European  countries  above 
referred  to. 

They  believe  that  education  should  be  dis- 
tinctly based  upon  doctrinal  religion ; and  they 
are  liberal  enough  to  insist,  that,  by  natural 
rights,  as  well  as  by  the  constitutional  guaran- 
tees of  our  free  country,  no  doctrine  adverse  to 
the  faith  of  a parent  may  lawfully  be  forced  or 
surreptitiously  imposed  upon  his  child.  It  is 
well  known,  however,  that,  between  the  Catho- 
lic faith  and  all  Protestant  creeds,  there  is  a 
gulf  which  cannot  be  bridged  over.  It  would, 
therefore,  be  simply  impossible  to  adopt  any 
religious  teaching,  whatever,  in  mixed  schools, 
without,  at  once,  interfering  with  Catholic  con- 
science. No  such  teaching  is  attempted,  as  a 
general  rule,  we  believe,  in  the  public  schools 
of  the  United  States;  and  hence,  we  have  only 
a vague  announcement  of  moral  precepts,  the 
utter  futility  and  barrenness  of  which  we  have 
already  alluded  to.  Catholics,  agreeing  with 
very  many  enlightened  and  zealous  Protestants, 
believe  that  secular  education  administered  in 
that  way  is  not  only  vain,  but  eminently  per- 
nicious ; that  it  is  fast  undermining  the  Christian 
faith  of  this  nation ; that  it  is  rapidly  filling 
the  land  with  rationalism;  that  it  is  destroying 
the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ; that  it  is 
educating  men  who  prefix  “Reverend”  and 
affix  “D.  D.”  to  their  names,  the  more  effect- 
ually to  preach  covert  infidelity  to  Christian 
congregations;  that,  instead  of  the  saving 
morality  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  which  rests 
upon  revealed  mysteries  and  supernatural  gifts, 
it  is  offering  us  that  same  old  array  of  the  nat- 
ural virtues  or  qualities  which  pierced,  like 
broken  reeds,  the  sides  of  all  heathen  nations. 
And  more  than  this,  Catholics  know,  by  painful 
experience,  that  history  cannot  be  compiled, 
travels  written,  poetry,  oratory,  or  romance  in- 
flicted upon  a credulous  public,  without  the 
stereotyped  assaults  upon  the  doctrines,  dis- 
cipline, and  historical  life  of  their  church. 
From  Walter  Scott  to  Peter  Parley,  and  from 
Hume,  Gibbon,  and  Macaulay,  to  the  mechani- 
cal compilers  of  cheap  school  literature,  it  is 
the  same  story,  told  a thousand  times  oftener 


than  it  is  refuted ; so  that  the  English  language, 
for  the  last  two  centuries,  may  be  said,  without 
exaggeration,  to  have  waged  war  against  the 
Catholic  church.  Indeed,  so  far  as  European  his- 
tory is  considered,  the  difficulty  must  always  be 
insurmountable ; since  it  would  always  be  impos- 
sible for  the  Catholic  and  Protestant  to  accept  the 
same  history  of  the  Reformation  or  of  the 
Papal  See,  or  the  political,  social  and  moral 
events  resulting  from,  or  in  any  degree  con- 
nected with  those  two  great  centers  and  con- 
trolling causes.  Who  could  write  a political 
history  of  Christendom  for  the  last  three  hun- 
dred years  and  omit  all  mention  of  Luther  and 
the  Pope?  And  how  is  any  school  compendium 
of  such  history  to  be  devised  for  the  use  of  the 
Catholic  and  Protestant  child  alike?  And  if 
history  be  philosophy  teaching  by  example, 
shall  we  expel  it  from  our  educational  plan  alto- 
gether ? Or  shall  we  oblige  the  Protestant  child 
to  study  the  Catholic  version  of  history,  and  vice 
versa  ? Certainly  it  is  quite  as  just  and  politic 
to  oblige  the  one  as  the  other!  Shall  the 
“ majority  ” control  this  ? Who  gave  “ majority " 
any  such  power  or  right?  With  us  the  “ma- 
jority” controls  the  “ State;'1  and  we  have  seen 
that  the  “ State"  becomes  a usurper  when  it 
attempts  this!  We  are  quite  sure  that,  if  the 
Catholics  were  the  “ majority  ” in  the  United 
States,  and  were  to  attempt  such  an  injustice, 
our  Protestant  brethren  would  cry  out  against 
it,  and  appeal  to  the  wise  and  liberal  example 
of  Prussia  and  England,  France  and  Austria ! 
Now,  is  it  not  always  as  unwise  as  it  is  unjust, 
to  make  a minority  taste  the  bitterness  of  op- 
pression ? Men  governed  by  the  law  of  divine 
charity  will  bear  it  meekly,  and  seek  to  return 
good  for  evil ; but  all  men  are  not  docile,  and 
majorities  change  sides  rapidly  and  often  in 
this  fleeting  world  ! Is  it  not  wiser  and  more 
politic,  even  in  mere  regard  to  social  interests, 
that  all  institutions  intended  for  the  welfare  of 
the  people  should  be  firmly  based  upon  exact 
and  equal  justice  ? This  would  place  them  un- 
der the  protection  of  fixed  habit , which  in  a 
nation  is  as  strong  as  nature,  and  it  would  save 
them  from  the  mutations  of  society. 

The  strong  of  one  generation  may  be  the 
weak  of  the  next;  and  we  see  this  occurring 
with  political  parties  within  the  brief  spaces  of 
presidential  terms.  Hence  we  must  inculcate 
moderation  and  justice  in  political  majorities, 
under  the  law  of  retribution. 

Profoundly  impressed  with  these  views,  and 
impelled  by  this  commanding  sense  of  duty, 
our  Catholic  people  have  created  a vast  network 
of  schools  over  the  country,  at  a price  which 
the  world  knows  little  of — the  sacrifice  which 
the  poor  man  makes,  who  curtails  the  wheaten 
loaf  that  he  may  give  to  his  child  the  spiritual 
bread  ! Ah  ! how  many  humble  cottages  and 
dreary  tenement  houses  could  testify  to  that! 
There  are  six  millions  of  them  here,  now ; and 
still  they  come  from  the  deserted  hearths  be- 
yond the  seas.  They  are  upright,  industrious, 
and  love  themew  land  like  the  old ! In  war, 
they  shouldered  the  musket ; in  peace,  they  are 
found  filling  every  avenue  of  labor  and  enter- 
prise. They  contribute  millions  to  the  public 
revenue,  and  hundreds  of  millions  to  the  produc- 
tive industry  of  the  country.  Their  own  wel- 
fare and  highest  interest  of  the  country  demand 


2206 


THE  CATHOLIC  VIEW  OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION. 


[143rd 

[Friday, 


Carbery. 


that  their  children  and  their  children’s  children 
should  be  well  instructed  in  secular  learning, 
and  thoroughly  grounded  in  moral  and  relig- 
ious knowledge.  As  we  have  shown,  they 
cannot  avail  themselves  of  the  public  school 
system,  as  now  organized,  though  they  contri- 
bute largely  to  its  support  by  their  taxes.  They 
do  not  desire  to  interfere  with  that  system , as  it 
seems  at  present  to  meet  the  wants,  or  at  least 
the  views,  of  their  Protestant  fellow-citizens ; 
and  they  are,  therefore,  not  “ opposed  to  the 
common  schools,”  in  the  sense  in  which  they 
have  been  represented  to  be.  They  simply  ask 
that  they  may  be  allowed  to  participate  in  the 
only  way  open  to  them,  that  is,  by  the  appor- 
tionment to  them  of  a ratable  part  of  the  funds, 
in  aid  of  their  existing  schools  and  of  such 
others  as  their  numbers,  in  any  given  locality, 
may  properly  enable  them  to  establish,  subject 
to  the  limited  supervision  of  the  State,  as  we 
have  before  explained.  We  need  go  no  fur- 
ther than  Canada  to  witness  this  system  operat- 
ing harmoniously,  and  to  the  best  advantage. 
The  argument  generally  used  against  it  is,  that 
this  would  destroy  the  unity  and  efficiency  of 
the  whole.  Why  is  it  not  so  in  Prussia,  Austria, 
France,  England,  and  the  British  colonies? 
Besides,  the  Catholic  population  in  this  country 
are  very  much  aggregated,  as  in  Baltimore, 
Philadelphia,  Boston,  New  York,  Brooklyn, 
Cincinnati,  St.  Louis,  Chicago,  Milwaukee,  and 
in  the  large  agricultural  settlements  throughout 
the  northwestern  States.  Certainly,  in  such 
localities  there  could  be  no  difficulty.  It  is 
contemplated  by  the  school  law  that  all 
these  are  to  be  educated.  Then,  why  can 
they  not  be  permitted  to  organize  separate 
schools,  as  in  the  countries  referred  to? 
Such  organization  would  be  an  integral  part  of 
the  whole  system,  and  the  cost  would  be  pre- 
cisely the  same.  In  fact,  we  learn  from  the 
Report  of  Assistant  Superintendents  Jones  and 
Calkins,  made  to  Hon.  S.  S.  Randall,  the  City 
Superintendent,  and  also  his  Report  made  to 
the  Hon.  Board  of  Education  in  December, 
1866,  that  the  school  room  provided  in  the  city 
of  New  York  (especially  in  the  primary  depart- 
ment) is  altogether  inadequate,  and  yet  we 
know  that  tens  of  thousands  of  Catholic  chil- 
dren could  easily  be  cared  for,  if  the  means 
were  afforded  those  who,  even  now,  with  the 
scantiest  resources, are  erecting  parochial  schools 
all  over  the  city.  It  would  be  impossible,  in  a 
brief  article,  to  enter  into  details.  Our  pur- 
pose has  been  rather  to  set  this  question  before 
a liberal  public  in  its  great  leading  aspect,  as 
we  are  quite  willing  to  trust  to  the  wisdom  and 
experience  of  our  legislators  to  devise  the 
proper  plan  and  specifications.  They  will  be 
at  no  loss  for  precedents.  The  statute  books  of 
half  a dozen  countries  may  be  consulted  profit- 
ably. All  we  ask  is,  that  this  momentous 
question  may  be  candidly  considered  and  justljr 
and  generously  disposed  of.  We  hope  that  the 
day  has  gone  by  when  such  a question  as  this 
shall  be  met  with  passionate  declamation  or  the 
obsolete  cry  of  “no  Popery.”  Dtsraeli  has 
failed  to  stem  the  tide  of  popular  reform  in 
England  by  reviving  the  insane  clamor  of  Lord 
George  Gordon.  The  world  has  outgrown  such 
narrow  bigotry.  Vital  questions,  affecting  the 
conscience  and  the  rights  of  multitudes  of  men, 


and  deeply  involving  the  welfare  of  nations, 
must  henceforth  be  settled  by  calm  and  just 
decisions.  Christendom  will  tolerate  nothing 
else  now.  And,  surely,  this  free  and  wise  Re- 
public will  not  be  the  last  to  put  into  practice 
those  principles  of  equality  before  the  law, 
justice  and  generous  confidence  in  human 
nature,  which  it  published  to  all  the  down- 
trodden nationalties  of  the  earth  almost  a cen- 
tury ago  over  the  signatures  of  Hancock, 
Livingston  and  Carroll  of  Carrollton.” 

I have  other  books  to  read  from,  but  I think 
I have  taxed  the  patience  of  the  Convention 
long  enough.  They  are  generally  directed  to 
the  same  view,  that  is  with  regard  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  religious  and  secular  education  com- 
mingling together  in  the  schools,  and  the 
feasibility  of  such  a thing  without  injustice  to 
any  party  in  this  State,  coupled  with  a recom- 
mendation to  this  Convention  to  leave  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  State  free  to  respond  to  any  change 
in  popular  sentiment  that  may  occur,  for,  as  I 
said  before,  I do  not  think  that  the  wisdom  on 
this  subject  has  already  culminated. 

Why  interpose  this  majority  ukase  in  the  or- 
ganic law,  and  thus  render  it  impossible  for  the 
Legislature  to  respond  to  the  call  of  a progres- 
sive and  truer  policy  ? Do  you  distrust  the  patriot- 
ism of  your  Catholic  fellow  countrymen  ? On 
what  ground?  Where  is  the  testimony?  Did 
the  Catholic  soldier  bear  his  country’s  flag  less 
bravely  because  he  did  homage  also,  according 
to  the  creed  of  his  fathers  ? 

Look  back  but  a few  years,  and  in  the  crucial 
period  of  the  war,  read  the  names  of  Rosecrans, 
of  Sheridan,  of  Mead,  and  scores  of  other 
Catholic  American  soldiers,  amongst  the  bravest 
of  the  land.  And  not  only  in  her  recent,  but 
also  in  her  earlier  history,  you  will  find  always 
renowned  names,  heroic  lives,  faithful  services 
on  the  part  of  these  great  Catholics,  “Americans 
all,”  who  loved  and  served  their  country  with 
passionate  devotion.  But  this  reasoning  is  un- 
necessary. There  is  not  a man  in  this  Conven- 
tion who  has  not  outgrown,  if  indeed  any  one 
was  ever  dominated  by  this  narrow  prejudice. 

I,  therefore,  a Catholic  American,  standing 
here  amid  my  fellow  citizens,  believing  in  their 
manhood  and  love  of  fair  play,  a citizen  of 
Ohio,  proud  of  my  State,  and  yielding  to  nx> 
man  on  her  broad  bosom  in  love  for  her  fair 
name,  I confidently  ask  of  you  to  take  this  great 
step,  and  place  Ohio  thereby  in  the  vanguard  of 
all  the  sisterhood,  by  the  adoption  of  this  just 
and  enlightened  policy. 

The  plain  reading  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and 
its  right  meaning  in  Catholic  minds,  is,  there- 
fore, to  encourage  such  schools  as  may  be 
established  by  the  spontaneous  action  of  the 
people,  or  any  division  of  the  people,  and  to 
sustain  the  same  in  exact  proportion  to  the 
number  of  children  under  instruction.  This 
would  be  a use  of  the  public  money  which  would 
violate  no  man’s  conscience,  and  would  be  found 
to  act  as  a panacea  for  many  social  troubles. 
It  would,  moreover,  replace  a merely  human 
and  erroneous  system  by  that  ordained  by  God 
himself,  who  gave  children  to  parents,  and  not 
to  the  State,  and  who  will  call  upon  parents,  and 
not  the  State,  for  an  account  of  these  precious 
ones  of  His  Kingdom  entrusted  to  them. 

1 think  I may  claim  to  have  answered  every 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. 

Carbery,  McCormick,  Cunningham. 


2207 


Day.] 

March  20,  1874.] 


just  objection  to  every  consequence  involved  in 
the  change  which  is  contemplated  by  my  prop- 
osition. I have  striven,  so  far  as  my  poor  abil- 
ity*enabled  me,  to  place  before  the  Convention 
the  reasons  for  and  philosophy  of  my  opinions, 
and  the  just  demands  they  authorize. 

Let  me  ask  you  why  the  State  should  not,  in- 
stead of  insisting  on  an  unyielding  uniformity, 
encourage  rather  diversity  and  healthful  rivalry 
of  different  systems?  The  skillful  floricultur- 
ist develops  every  garden  beauty,  each  accord- 
ing to  its  law  and  its  kind,  and  the  mingled 
perfume  ascends  with  no  less  sweeter  odor  from 
the  variety,  nor  does  the  parterre  have  a less 
ravishing  effect  on  another  sense  for  the  glori- 
ous mingling  of  colors  which  flash  their  radi- 
ance in  the  sun.  So,  it  appears  to  me,  the  wise 
legislator  will  strive  to  intensify  the  peculiar 
traits  and  virtues  of  our  people  by  encouraging 
each  in  its  natural  path  of  development,  and 
garner  them  at  last,  with  all  their  strength,  and 
beauty,  and  usefulness,  into  the  great  bosom  of 
the  State. 

Mr.  McCORMICK.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to 
occupy  much  of  the  time  of  the  Convention  in 
the  discussion  of  the  subject  now  under  con- 
sideration. Believing  that  the  Article  on  Edu- 
cation in  our  present  Constitution,  under  which 
our  public  school  system  has  grown  up,  to  be  a 
good  one,  it  would  doubtless  be  wise  proceeding 
on  the  part  of  this  Convention,  not  to  remove  the 
ancient  landmarks. 

We  may  as  well  consider  the  fact,  and  arrive 
at  the  conclusion  at  once,  that  we  are,  to  say  the 
least,  handling  a very  delicate  subject,  and  one 
that  comes  very  near  to  the  people.  We  should 
not  attempt  to  fix,  in  the  fundamental  law,  ex- 
pedients of  a doubtful  character — principles 
unasked  for  by  the  mass  of  our  citizens,  who 
always  may,  through  their  representatives,  have 
redress  of  grievances,  if  such  grievances  exist. 
It  may  be  the  policy  of  the  few,  in  opposition 
to  the  wishes  of  the  many,  to  effect  by  constitu- 
tional provision,  what  they  are  unable  to  ac- 
complish through  the  Representatives  of  the 
people  in  the  General  Assembly ; but  that  is  but 
a poor  argument  in  favor  of  any  measure,  when 
the  will  and  choice  of  the  great  majority  is  to 
be  set  aside.  I believe  the  great  majority  of 
our  citizens  are  utterly  opposed  to  any  change 
in  our  public  school  system,  and  while  they  will 
not  care  to  study  all  the  Articles  in  the  Consti- 
tution we  frame,  the  people  will  very  soon  un- 
derstand what  affects  their  personal  interests, 
and  be  prepared  to  vote  accordingly  in  its  rati- 
fication or  rejection.  Put  your  foot  on  the  poor 
man’s  privilege,  and  you  put  it  too,  on  the 
nation’s  welfare  and  prosperity,  and  the  na- 
tion’s honor.  It  is  to  the  honor  of  the  State, 
that  under  our  present  system  she  seeks  to 
oppress  none,  but  grants  equal  privilege  to  all, 
without  distinction  of  race,  color  or  sect,  and 
those  who  do  not  accept  that  privilege,  do  so 
from  choice,  and  not  compulsion.  I do  not 
deny,  that  there  may  be  abuses  of  power  under 
our  system,  but  these  are  the  exceptions  ra- 
ther than  the  rule.  They  are  not  the  fault 
of  the  system  itself,  but  rather  the  result 
of  local  influences  that  may  possibly  exist. 
I do  not  apprehend  that  schools  of  medicine, 
law  and  theology  are  to  be  built  up  under  our 
present  school  law,  although  gentlemen  argue 


to  that  effect  on  this  floor.  It  may  be  that  some 
small  institutions,  local  in  their  character,  are 
unable  to  cope  with  some  of  our  high  schools, 
under  our  present  system,  giving  rise  to  a feel- 
ing of  jealousy  on  the  part  of  those  institutions; 
yet  this  is  no  argument  that  our  efficient  public 
schools  must  be  narrowed  in  their  field  of  use- 
fulness, or  broken  down  in  their  efficiency.  I 
am  aware  of  the  feelings  that  a large  proportion 
of  the  constituency  which  I have  the  honor  to 
represent  here,  entertain  in  regard  to  any  at- 
tempt to  fetter,  or  in  any  wise  impair  our  pres- 
ent school  system  ; and  believing  it  to  be  a fair 
criterion  by  which  to  judge  other  localities,  I 
would  warn  gentlemen  that  we  tread  on  dan- 
gerous ground  when  we  attempt  to  limit  the 
sphere  of  usefulness  of  our  excellent  public 
schools.  These  schools  have  a noble  mission  to 
be  wrought  out  in  behalf  of  the  high  interests 
of  the  State. 

It  has  been  well  said  by  one  that  “true  educa- 
tion surely  is  that  which  assumes  that  every 
boy  and  every  man  has  need  to  conquer  his  sel- 
fish nature,  to  rise  out  of  it,  to  acquire  the  true 
humanity.  Whatever  teaching  most  assures 
him  that  he  can  do  that;  whatever  most  ex- 
plains to  him  the  help  that  he  has  for  doing  it, 
must  be  the  best  for  the  citizen  and  the  man.” 
The  State  recognizes  the  importance  of  such 
training  for  her  citizens,  and  has  wisely  adopted 
her  present  system  of  schools,  for  her  safety  as 
well  as  for  her  elevation.  I read  an  extract 
from  a paper  entitled  the  “Shepherd  of  the  Val- 
ley,” a Roman  Catholic  organ,  published  at  St. 
Louis,  that  may  indicate,  to  some  extent,  at 
least,  the  force  and  direction  of  some  arguments 
offered  on  this  floor,  and  with  which,  as  a lover 
of  my  country,  while  I admit  fully  the  value  of 
religious  training,  I am  not,  in  the  least  degree, 
in  sympathy: 

“la  the  future,  when  we  shall  have  gained  the  ascen- 
dency in  this  country,  as  we  surely  shall,  then  will  it  be 
true,  even  as  our  enemies  now  predict  about  us,  that 
there  will  be  no  more  religious  liberty— as  there  oujrht 
not  to  he.” 

If  this  prophecy  be  fulfilled,  we  have  only  to 
say,  “with  the  fail  of  religious  liberty  in  our 
country,  God  help  our  civil  liberty  and  political 
freedom.  The  intelligence  and  morality  of  the 
majority  evidently  constitute  the  life  of  the  free 
State,  while  it  has  been  well  said  that  “a  ballot 
in  the  hand  of  an  ignorant,  brutish  man,  is  a 
ballot  aimed  at  the  heart  of  political  liberty.” 
It  is  also  true  that  it  is  a potent  weapon  of  the 
demagogue.  We  candidly  confess  that  we  are 
not  in  sympathy  with  the  idea  advanced  on  this 
floor,  in  discussion  yesterday,  that  we  educate 
too  much;  or,  that  the  citizen  may  be  too  well 
informed,  to  fill  his  station  in  life,  for  his  own 
good  and  for  the  welfare  of  the  State.  Not  too 
much  light,  but  more  light,  is  the  watchword  of 
advancement,  thrift  and  enterprise;  and  sad 
will  be  the  day  when  the  State  arrests  progress- 
ion in  light  and  knowledge.  While  I believe  it 
is  proper  to  let  well  enough  alone,  in  regard  to 
the  article  on  education  in  our  present  Consti- 
tution, I would  not  be  understood  as  opposing 
the  third  section  of  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee, allowing  women  over  twenty-one  years  of 
age  being  eligible  to  any  office  under  the  school 
laws  of  this  State. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I think  the  Conven- 


2208 


[143rd 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. 

Cunningham,  Carbery. 


tion  is  under  very  many  obligations  to  the 
though ttul  delegate  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Car- 
bery] for  the  elaborate  presentation  of  the  case 
of  the  Catholic  church  in  the  common  schools 
of  the  State,  to  which  we  have  been  treated  by 
him  this  morning.  And  the  question  I asked 
of  him  was  not  designed  to  catch  him ; but  I 
proposed  to  bring  out,  in  as  bold  relief  as  I 
could,  the  sentiment  that  I find  expressed  in 
another  part  of  the  book  from  which  he  has 
read  to  the  Convention. 

Mr.  President,  I protest  before  this  Conven- 
tion, and  before  the  people  of  the  State,  that,  in 
so  far  as  my  action  in  this  Convention  is  con- 
cerned upon  this  question,  I am  governed  by  no 
sectarian  prejudices  whatever.  1 believed  when 
the  proposition  was  reported  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton. [Mr.  Carbery],  and  I more  be- 
lieve it  now,  after  the  elaborate  speech  which  he 
has  made,  that  the  whole  basis,  of  the  opposi- 
tion of  the  church  with  which  he  is  connected, 
and  which  he  particularly  represents  on  this 
subject,  to  our  system  of  education,  is,  that  the 
Catholic  religion  is  not  taught  in  the  common 
schools.  The  gentleman  may  insist  that  this  is  a 
construction  of  his  argument  which  is  not  justi- 
fied by  his  language,  but  I assert  that  when  the 
gentleman  declares  the  right  or  superiority  of 
religion  over  the  State,  and  the  duty  of  the 
church  to  educate  the  children  of  the  State,  all 
I have  insisted  upon  must  necessarily  follow.  I 
am  not  left  to  conclude  this  alone  from  the  gen- 
eral conclusion  that  may  be  derived  from  the 
argument  of  the  gentleman ; but  in  the  same 
number  of  the  “Catholic  World” — volume  two, 
1870 — which  he  has  liberally  quoted  from,  I 
find  a discussion  of  the  school  question,  and  if 
the  Convention  will  bear  with  me  for  a moment 
I will  read  liberally  from  the  article.  The 
writer  says:  “The  exclusion  of  the  Bible  would 
not  help  the  matter.  This  would  only  make  the 
schools  purely  secular,  which  were  worse  than 
making  them  purely  Protestant,  for  as  it  re- 
gards the  State,  society,  morality  and  all  the  in- 
terests of  this  world,  Protestanism  we  hold  to 
be  far  better  than  no  religion — unless  you  in- 
clude under  its  name  freeloveism,  free  religion, 
woman’s  rightism,  and  the  various  other  simi- 
lar issues  struggling  to  get  themselves  recog- 
nized and  adopted,  and  to  which  the  more  re- 
spectable Protestants,  we  presume,  are  hardly 
less  opposed  than  we  are.  If  some  Catholics  in 
particular  localities  have  supposed  that  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  Protestant  Bible  from  the  public 
schools  would  remove  the  objection  to  them  as 
schools  for  Catholic  children,  they  have,  in  our 
opinion,  fallen  into  a very  great  mistake.  The 
question  lies  deeper  than  reading  or  not  reading 
the  Bible  in  the  schools,  in  one  version  or  an- 
other. Of  course,  our  church  disapproves  the 
Protestant  Bible  as  a faulty  translation  of  a 
mutilated  text,  but  its  exclusion  from  the  pub- 
lic schools  would,  by  no  means,  remove  our  ob- 
jection to  them.  We  object  to  them  not  merely 
because  they  teach  more  or  less  of  the  Protes- 
tant religion,  but  also  on  the  ground  that  we 
cannot  freely  and  fully  teach  our  religion  and 
train  up  our  children  in  them  to  be  true  and  un- 
wavering Catholics,  and  we  deny  the  right  of 
the  State,  the  city,  the  town,  or  the  school  dis- 
trict, to  tax  us  for  schools  in  which  we  are  not 
free  to  do  so.” 


[Friday, 


Now,  Mr.  President,  I say  that  if  the  claim 
of  the  Catholic  Church  is  a correct  one,  and 
assuming  that  the  church  teaches  the  only  true 
religion,  then  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  if  they  had  the  power,  to  see 
not  only  that  all  the  children 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I think  the  gentleman 
misses  the  point  of  the  argument. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I think  I do  not. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I think  it  was  shown  by  the 
extracts  that  I read  that  it  was  held  to  be  im- 
possible to  commingle  the  children,  because 
you  could  not  teach  any  religion,  Catholic  or 
Protestant,  without  coming  in  contact  with  the 
beliefs  and  prejudices  of  others ; and  therefore 
it  was  much  better  that  the  schools  should  be 
denominational,  and  the  State  should  assess 
them  pro  rata.  I cannot  see  anything  else  in 
the  argument  but  that. 

Mr.  CUNNIN GH AM.  The  gentleman  avoids 
the  logic  of  his  argument  upon  the  common 
schools,  for  he  does  not  deny  the  importance  of 
education.  Now,  if  it  is  so  important  that  the 
Catholic  should  tax  himself  in  order  that  the 
Catholic  religion  shall  go  with  school  education, 
follows,  then,  if  it  were  possible,  and  the 
church  had  the  power,  it  would  be  its  duty, •to 
secure  a Catholic  education  to  Catholic  children 
and  to  all  other  children  in  the  community. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  The  gentleman  asked  me 
a question  for  the  purpose  of  eliciting  an 
entirely  different  answer,  and  I answered  that 
a Catholic  country — notably  France — had  done 
entirely  different. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  We  will  come  to  that 
when  we  come  to  the  history  of  Catholic  coun- 
tries. I submit  to  the  gentleman  that  he  is  not 
borne  out  by  the  facts ; for  I tell  him  that  when- 
ever there  has  been  a system  of  education  in- 
augurated in  Catholic  countries  it  has  been 
because  of  influence  outside  of  the  Church.  I 
ask  the  gentleman,  and  I speak  of  it  in  no  sec- 
tarian sense,  how  much  has  popular  education 
flourished  under  the  shadow  of  the  Vatican? 
There  the  church  has  illustrated  its  fondness 
for  popular  intelligence. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  The  less  godless  education 
grows,  the  better,  there  or  anywhere  else. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Well,  I do  not  propose 
to  enter  into  that  wide  field  with  the  gentleman ; 
I am  simply  defending  the  common  school  sys- 
tem of  this  country  against  the  attacks  of  the 
church,  the  history  of  which  is  shown  to  be 
one  of  opposition  to  popular  intelligence.  Mr. 
President,  we  come  down  to  plain  terms.  It  is 
right  that  we  should  understand  each  other  in 
this  matter.  My  friend,  and  those  who  think 
with  him,  know  full  well  that  no  such  system 
could  be  inaugurated  in  any  State  in  this  coun- 
try; that  is  to  say,  a system  by  which  the 
church  should  teach  its  dogmas  in  the  schools ; 
and,  therefore,  not  being  able  to  absolutely  con- 
trol them,  they  insist  on  the  principle  the  re- 
verse of  that  which  was  understood  as  the 
Spartan  one;  instead  of  the  children  belonging 
to  the  State,  they  belong  to  the  church. 

Mr.  OARBERY.  Permit  me  to  read  an  ex* 
tract  from  the  Catholic  Telegraph  of  January  29th  : 

‘‘The  Common  Council  of  Lexington,  Kentucky,  moved 
by  the  justice  of  the  petition  of  Catholic  citizens,  has 
granted  them  a share  of  the  school  tax  for  the  proper 
education  of  their  children.  This  is  another  bright  spot 
on  the  political  horizon,  diminishing  the  darkness  of  Na- 


2209 


Day.]  CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 


March  20, 1874.1 


Cunningham,  Carbery. 


tional  bigotry,  which,  in  relation  to  education,  is  well- 
nigh  universal.  The  Catholics  of  the  Diocese  of  Coving- 
ton have  reason  to  he  grateful  for  this  recognition  of  their 
rights  by  the  Council  of  Lexington,  at  a time  when  these 
same  rights  are  scoffingly  denied  in  localities  where 
Catholics  are  more  numerous  ” 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  gentleman  misses 
the  point.  I said  that  it  being  impossible  that 
the  church  can  capture  the  schools  entirely, 
they  are  now  seeking  to  divide  with  the  State 
its  supremacy  of  the  schools.  That  is  what  I 
said.  I think,  perhaps,  that  in  the  city  in  a 
neighboring  State,  of  which  the  gentleman 
reads,  it  has  succeeded.  I said,  Mr.  President, 
that  this  is  an  assertion  that  the  children  belong 
to  the  church.  On  one  side,  it  is  claimed  that, 
so  far  as  the  public  schools  of  the  State  are 
concerned,  the  children  should  be  taught  in  all 
that  pertains  to  the  full  and  perfect  discharge 
of  their  duties  as  members  of  the  body  politic, 
leaving  to  the  family  and  leaving  to  the  church 
the  cultivation  of  morals  and  the  religion  of  the 
people.  The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  opposes 
this,  and  insists  upon  the  duty  of  the  State  to  re- 
mit in  form  the  cultivation  of  all  the  children  of 
Catholic  families  of  this  State  to  the  church,  the 
State  at  the  same  time  bearing  the  expense.  We 
insist  that  religion  shall  be  taught  without  ex- 
pense, so  far  as  the  family  is  concerned,  but  that 
it  shall  be  a labor  of  love,  a duty  to  God,  and  to 
the  children  themselves.  I submit  to  the  gentle- 
man that  it  is,  in  so  many  words,  saying  to  the 
Catholic  fathers  and  mothers  of  this  State,  that 
the  church  cannot  permit  them  to  educate  their 
own  children,  and  that  they  must  be  taken  out 
of  their  hands  daily,  and  placed  in  the  hands  of 
the  priesthood. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  That  statement  is  not  war- 
ranted by  any  circumstance  whatever. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Why,  then, do  you  in- 
sist, sir,  that  every  lesson  should  be  a lesson  of 
the  church.  Why  cannot  you  trust  the  family 
and  the  church,  in  its  ordinary  ministrations, 
with  the  cultivation  of  the  morals  and  religion 
of  the  children? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  We  propose  to  supplement 
the  family  teaching  by  the  teaching  of  the 
schools  as  well. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Why  are  you  not  con- 
tented with  the  teaching  of  the  church  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  That  is  a matter  for  our 
conscience. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  This  whole  matter  of 
religion  is  a subject  of  conscience. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  With  which  you  have  no- 
thing to  do. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  No,  sir,  I do  not  pro- 
pose to  have  anything  to  do  with  it;  neither  do 
I propose  that  you  should  have  anything  to  do 
with  me  or  my  children  in  the  public  schools. 
Now,  I say  that  the  proposition  is  reduced  down 
just  to  this : that  it  is  an  assertion,  on  the  part 
of  the  church,  of  supremacy  over  the  rising 
generation,  the  growing  children  of  this  coun- 
try. It  is  admitted  here,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  reading  of  the  Protestant  Bible  is  no 
substantial  reason  why  Catholics  should  op- 
pose their  children  going  to  these  schools. 
Why  do  they  oppose  it?  What  is  there  taught 
in  the  public  schools  of  the  State  that  should 
preclude  Catholic  children  from  attending,  if 
it  is  not  the  mere  fact  of  the  absence  of  the 
teachings  of  the  Catholic  religion  ? 

y.  n-141 


Mr.  CARBERY.  I will  answer  the  gentle- 
man. As  I heretofore  said,  in  the  common 
schools  of  this  city,  with  which  I am  most 
familiar,  the  reading  of  the  Bible  and  the  sing- 
ing of  certain  hymns  at  the  opening  of  schools 
is  a form  of  Protestant  worship  in  which  we 
do  not  believe,  and  at  which,  surely,  the  gentle- 
man is  too  generous  to  compel  us  to  be  present, 
and  ought  to  be  too  generous  to  tax  us  to  sup- 
port. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  supreme  court, 
by  a recent  decision,  has  demonstrated  that  the 
argument  amounts  to  nothing.  It  has  been  de- 
cided that  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
form  of  Protestant  worship  about  which  the 
gentleman  complains,  forms  no  part,  neces- 
sarily, of  the  educational  system  of  the  State. 
The  Bible  is  absolutely  excluded  from  the  schools 
of  this  city.  Now,  I want  to  know  why  the 
gentleman  does  not  want  his  children  to  "go  to 
these  schools  ? Will  he  answer  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I have  answered  that  al- 
ready. We  do  not  want  a Godless  school. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  That  is  it.  Because 
you  cannot  have  a Catholic  school,  you  will  not 
have  any. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Oh,  yes;  we  have  Catholic 
schools,  sir. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes,  at  your  own  ex- 
pense, however,  and  nobody  denies  your  right 
to  have  them  in  that  way. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Exactly,  as  I said  before. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Now  “to  this  com- 
plexion it  comes  at  last.”  There  is  no  doubt  of 
it  at  all.  I wish  I had  time  to  read  many  of 
these  extracts  that  I find  in  this  book.  I tell 
you  that  the  supremacy  of  the  church  over 
all  the  world  is  asserted  in  this  book. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I will  ask  the  gentleman  if 
it  was  not  asserted  by  the  fathers  ? He  is  going 
into  the  domain  of  religion,  while  I carefully 
kept  away. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  If  the  gentleman 
kept  away  from  the  domain  of  religion,  I would 
like  to  know  in  what  domain  he  was  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  In  an  acrimonious  sense, 
at  least,  I kept  out. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I insist  that  the  gen- 
tleman shall  understand  that  I am  not  speaking 
in  an  acrimonious  sense;  but  the  gentleman 
was  frank  enough,  in  the  opening  of  his  argu- 
ment, to  assert  that  religion  and  education 
must  go  together,  and  that  the  church,  not  the 
State,  shall  educate.  We  know  full  well  the 
claim  of  his  church  is  that  it  teaches  the  only 
true  religion;  and  when  he  asserts  that  this 
claim  now,  in  part,  shall  be  publicly  recognized 
by  the  State,  then,  as  a citizen,  I would  protest 
against  it,  as  I would  protest  against  a like  as- 
sertion by  any  Protestant  denomination. 

I wish  to  refer  to  an  objection  or  two  to  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Common  School 
System,  in  another  direction.  We  have  be- 
lieved that,  under  a wise  and  careful  system,  an 
education  such  as  will  fit  an  individual  for  the 
discharge  of  every  duty  in  life,  and  for  orna- 
menting the  learned  professions,  may  be,  or 
should  be,  obtained  in  our  common  schools; 
and*I  regard  this  proposed  added  section  to 
Article  VI  as  a direct  attack  upon  the  efficiency 
of  the  common  school  system,  and  that  it  puts 
us  back  to  where  we  were  before  our  present 


2210 


[143rd 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS, 

Cunningham,  Kerr,  Hitchcock,  Page.  [Friday 


system  was  adopted.  “The  power  of  taxation 
conferred  by  this  section  shall  be  limited  to  a 
sum  sufficient  to  educate  all  the  children  of  the 
State  in  such  common  and  necessary  branches  of 
learning  as  shall  be  provided  by  law.”  It  used 
to  be  a part  and  parcel  of  the  forms  for  binding 
out  a boy  that  he  should  be  sent  to  school  three 
months  of  the  year,  and  be  learned  to  cipher  to 
the  Double  Rule  of  Three.  I suppose  now  that 
the  Legislature,  in  its  wisdom,  in  carrying  out 
the  spirit  of  this  provision,  will  provide  that  for 
all  ordinary  transactions  of  life,  if  the  boy  can 
cipher  to  the  Double  Rule  of  Three,  that  is  such 
a knowledge  of  the  common  and  necessary 
branches  of  learning  as  this  provision  compre- 
hends. If  he  can  read,  and  write,  and  cipher, 
that  is  all  that  is  necessary,  and  therefore  these 
high  schools,  which  are  being  built  up  all 
through  the  State,  and  adorning  the  State,  and 
which  have  become  a marvel  under  the  opera- 
tion of  the  system,  shall  be  set  aside,  and  our 
children  sent  back  to  the  old  system,  with  the 
very  plain  education  that  was  secured  to  them 
by  our  old  common  school  system.  I hope  to 
see  the  day  when  every  child  in  every  school 
district  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  who  has  the  brains, 
may  have  the  opportunity,  at  the  public  ex- 
pense, to  become  thoroughly  educated.  And  it 
has  been  a subject  of  surprise  to  me  that  such  a 
proposition  as  this  should  come  from  a Com- 
mittee made  up  of  the  intelligent  gentlemen 
who  constitute  this  Committee.  This  Commit- 
tee comes  into  the  Convention  by  platoons,  with 
five  different  Reports.  Four  of  the  members  pro- 
pose to  strike  down  the  high  schools  of  the  State ; 
two  of  them  protest  against  this  Report,  and  then 
four  others  propose  a compulsory  system  of 
education.  “The  General  Assembly  may,  by 
law,  require  that  every  child,  of  sufficient  men- 
tal and  physical  ability,  shall  attend  the  public 
free  schools  during  the  period  between  the 
ages  of and  years,  or  a term  equiva- 
lent to .”  I object  to  this  on  principle: 

first,  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  enforce  any 
provision  of  this  sort.  It  will  be  enough  if  the 
State  provides  the  means  for  an  education.  To 
make  such  a provision  effectual  would  require 
more  than  the  mere  facilities  for  an  education, 
such  as  the  school-house,  and  the  school  should 
be  clothed  and  fed  at  the  public  expense. 

Mr.  KERR.  I have  prepared  an  additional 
section,  which  I will  offer  at  the  proper  time, 
which  I desire  to  have  read  for  information. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Seo.  — . No  member  of  the  General  Assembly,  teacher, 
State,  county,  township  or  district  school  officer  shall,  di- 
rectly or  indirebt.y,  be  interested,  nor  receive  any  bonus 
from  those  interested  in  the  sale,  proceeds  or  profits  of 
any  book,  apparatus  or  furniture  used,  or  to  be  used,  in 
any  school  in  this  State,  with  which  such  officer  or 
teacher  may  be  connected,  under  such  penalties  as  may 
be  provided  by  law.  When  any  school  book  shall  have 
been  adopted  by  any;  school,  there  shall  be  no  change  of 
the  same  for  the  period  of  ten  years. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to ; and  the  Conven- 
tion (at  12 : 15  p.  m.)  took  a recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re  assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  under  con- 
sideration when  the  recess  was  taken,  was  the 


Report  of  the  Committee  on  Education,  and 
general  debate  is  still  in  order. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I had  not  intended  to  say  any- 
thing on  this  subject,  because  there  is  not  much 
in  this  Report  that  I feel  any  great  interest  in. 
If  the  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears] 
had  been  present  to  defend  his  favorite  propo- 
sition, I would  have  said  nothing.  In  regard 
to  this  first  proposition,  providing  that  women 
shall  be  eligible  under  the  laws  of  the  State,  we 
find  something  of  that  kind  in  the  Constitution 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Committee  were  una- 
nimously agreed  as  to  that,  and  I hope  it  will  be 
adopted.  I have  myself  great  confidence  in  the 
fitness  and  capacity  of  woman  for  such  posi- 
tions. Some  persons  seem  to  entertain  a low 
opinion  of  the  female  capacity.  Possibly  they 
have  arrived  at  this  conclusion  either  from  a 
consciousness  of  their  own  superiority,  or  from 
having  been  acquainted  only  with  women  of 
an  inferior  grade.  In  either  case,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  dislodge  them  from  the  position  they 
occupy.  Mr.  Mill,  one  of  the  most  profound 
philosophers  of  his  time,  held  a different  opin- 
ion as  to  the  strength  of  the  female  intellect. 
He  thought  that  his  wife  rendered  him  great 
assistance  in  the  investigation  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult philosophical  problems. 

In  regard  to  this  proposition  of  section  four, 
authorizing  compulsory  education,  I have  great 
doubts  as  to  the  propriety  of  that  proposition. 
Some  of  the  Committee  thought  the  Legislature 
possessed  that  power,  independently  of  any 
provision  of  the  Constitution,  and  that  was  my 
opinion,  because  the  State  is  bound  to  furnish 
education,  to  levy  taxes,  to  provide  teachers, 
and  erect  buildings,  to  maintain  a system  of 
schools.  We  thought  the  power  would  follow 
incidentally,  with  regard  to  compulsory  educa- 
tion, at  least  to  some  extent,  and  under  certain 
circumstances.  I am  of  the  opinion  that  this 
power  is  conferred  by  the  present  Constitution. 
It  is  not  very  likely  that  it  will  be  carried  into 
effect.  I am  inclined  to  think  that  it  will, 
probably,  in  practice,  become  a failure.  I 
signed  the  Report,  as  some  other  gentlemen  did, 
simply  to  bring  the  subject  before  the  Conven- 
tion for  discussion.  It  was  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears],  and 
I hope  that  he  will  be  here  before  the  debate 
closes,  to  give  the  Convention  his  own  views. 
I said,  at  the  time,  that  if,  on  further  discussion, 
I changed  my  opinion,  I would  vote  against  it. 

The  proposition  to  limit  the  subject  of  taxa- 
tion I deem  a very  important  proposition,  and 
I shall  give  my  views  upon  that  subject,  at  some 
length,  and  I shall  do  so  because  I think  that 
our  views  have  been  misunderstood  and  mis- 
represented. 

A resolution  was  introduced  here,  calling 
upon  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Schools  for 
some  information  upon  this  subject.  Accord- 
ing to  that  report  the  average  daily  attendance 
in  the  public  schools  is  a little  less  than  five 
hundred  thousand ; in  the  high  schools  a trifle 
under  fourteen  thousand — that  is,  about  one  in 
thirty-five.  Now,  with  regard  to  the  compara- 
tive cost  of  these  two  departments,  the  Commis- 
sioner is  unable  to  give  us  any  exact  informa- 
tion, for  reasons  which  are  set  forth.  So  far  as 
I can  rely  upon  it,  I would  say  that  about  one- 
fourth  the  money  that  is  expended  upon  this 


2211 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

March  20, 1874.1  Cook,  Page,  Kerr,  Griswold,  Alexander,  Yoris. 


subject  is  expended  to  carry  on  these  high 
schools  to  educate  about  one  child  in  thirty-five 
in  the  community. 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  ask  if  that  is  not  based 
upon  the  average  daily  attendance,  and  not  up- 
on the  enrollment  in  the  high  schools? 

Mr.  PAGE.  I stated  it  was,  but  I think  the 
result  would  be  the  same,  either  way. 

Mr.  COOK.  We  have  one  hundred  and  five 
members  in  this  Convention.  What  is  about 
the  average  daily  attendance  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  I do  not  think  that  the  gentle- 
man makes  anything  by  that  interrogatory.  I 
suppose  that  there  is  about  the  same  average 
daily  attendance  in  the  high  shools  that  there  is 
in  the  common  schools.  The  whole  number  is 
given  in  the  report,  though  I have  not  added 
them  together.  The  gentleman  from  Licking 
[Mr.  Kerr],  has  done  so.  If  I understand  the 
gentleman’s  figures,  the  number  of  scholars  at- 
tending the  common  schools  is  about  seven 
hundred  thousand. 

Mr.  KERR.  The  enrollment  is  seven  hun- 
dred thousand,  the  average  daily  attendance  I 
did  not  make  out. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  average  daily  attendance  is 
something  near  five  hundred  thousand. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  the  attention  of  the 

entleman  to  the  amount  paid  teachers  in  the 

igh  schools  and  in  the  primary  schools.  The 
amount  paid  in  primary  schools  is  $3,000,000  and 
over,  and  the  amount  paid  to  teachers  of  high 
schools  is  $355,000;  this  is  from  the  report  of 
the  Secretary  of  State. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  Commissioner  of  Public 
Schools  in  his  Report,  made  the  other  day,  stated 
he  was  not  able  to  give  us  the  information,  be- 
cause the  two  funds  are  not  separate.  I do  not 
know  whether  the  Secretary  of  State  knows  any- 
thing about  it  or  not;  if  the  Commissioner  of 
Schools  cannot  give  this  information,  I have  no 
confidence  in  that  given  by  the  Secretary  of 
State.  I know  nothing  about  it. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  This  is  the  Secretary  of 
State’s  report. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I have  not  seen  that. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I should  think  not. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  Commissioner  says  that  the 
two  funds  are  mixed  and  cannot  be  separated. 
I do  not  pretend  that  these  figures  are  accurate, 
but  I give  them,  so  far  as  I can,  from  the  Report 
of  the  Commissioner,  which  is  now  on  my  table, 
and  which  was  made  a few  days  ago.  I have 
no  doubt  that  a very  large  proportion  of  the  cost 
of  carrying  on  of  these  high  schools  is  incurred 
in  consequence  of  the  high  salaries  of 
teachers  of  these  fancy  branches,  and  I be- 
lieve the  cost  of  the  carrying  on  of  these 
high  schools  could  be  reduced  perhaps  one- 
fourth.  What  is  the  proposition  that  we  have 
introduced?  1 ask  the  attention  of  the  gentle- 
men to  it:  “The  power  of  taxation  conferred 
by  this  section  shall  be  limited  to  a sum  suffi- 
cient to  educate  all  the  children  of  the  State  in 
such  common  and  necessary  branches  of  learn- 
ing as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law.”  Now  upon 
what  theory  is  State  education  founded?  On 
the  theory  of  necessity,  or  it  cannot  be  defend- 
ed for  a moment.  The  State  finds  it  necessary 


to  educate  the  citizens,  to  a certain  extent,  and 
for  a certain  purpose.  There  are  a great  many 
persons  who  doubt  the  policy  of  doing  this  at 
all,  but  I admit  it,  I believe  in  it.  I am  a Iriend 
of  the  common  school  and  the,  education  of  the 
people  at  the  expense  of  thev  State,  provided 
that  is  confined  within  reasonable  limits.  Let 
gentlemen  take  the  converse  of  this  proposition. 
Does  anybody  maintain  that  taxation  shall  not 
be  confined  to  what  is  common  and  necessary; 
but  shall  be  extended  to  what  is  uncommon 
and  unnecessary?  Will  anybody  maintain 
that?  What  is  meant  by  common  branches? 
Do  we  mean  those  branches  that  are  commonly 
taught  in  school,  and  that  are  necessary  to  all 
persons  in  the  community,  or  those  that  are 
necessary  only  to  particular  classes?  If  you 
go  beyond  this  rule,  and  give  education  in 
branches  that  are  not  necessary  to  the  mass  of 
the  community,  then  you  must  select  individu- 
als and  educate  them  for  vocations. 

Mr.  ALEX  AN  DER.  Will  the  gentleman  per- 
mit me  a question  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  What,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Committee,  were  considered  common  and 
necessary  branches  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  I shall  not  stop  to  define  them. 
That  is  a matter  that  would  be  interpreted  by 
the  Legislature  in  a liberal  and  statesman-like 
manner.  Undoubtedly  it  is  not  for  us  to  define 
and  say  how  far  it  would  extend.  It  is  a flexi- 
ble rule  and  depends  upon  circumstances.  What 
is  common  and  necessary  to-day  might  not  be 
so  hereafter,  and  a more  large  and  extended 
education  might  be  necessary  in  the  future. 
These  words  include  everything  that  is  neces- 
sary to  be  taught  by  the  State.  If,  as  I said 
before,  you  do  not  confine  it  to  these  studies 
that  are  necessary  to  all  persons  of  the  com- 
munity, you  must  select  and  educate  classes. 
You  may  educate  lawyers  in  the  law,  #nd  doc- 
tors in  medicine,  and  the  preachers  in  theology; 
you  may  teach  other  persons  astronomy  and 
the  other  higher  branches  of  mathematics. 
The  State  has  no  right  to  do  that. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Was  it  the  intent  of  the  major- 
ity of  the  Committee,  in  making  the  recommend- 
ation they  did,  to  limit  or  enlarge  the  powers  of 
the  Legislature  as  compared  with  what  existed 
under  section  two  of  the  present  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  PAGE.  I cannot  say  what  the  intention 
of  the  other  gentlemen  of  the  Committee  was. 
I can  only  say  t hat,  if  the  present  Constitution 
were  properly  administered,  it  would  restrain 
this  power  of  taxation.  I do  not  believe  that 
common  schools  include  colleges  and  the  high 
schools,  where  the  fancy  branches  are  taught, 
where  they  teach  Greek,  Latin,  French,  Ger- 
man and  music.  Those  branches  are  taught  in 
a great  many  high  schools,  and  they  are  neither 
common  nor  necessary,  and  they  are  taught  at 
a very  considerable  expense  to  the  tax  payers, 
many  of  whom  object  to  such  studies,  although 
I know  they  draw  upon  themselves  the  odium 
of  other  persons  in  the  community.  Such 
branches  are  uncommon  and  unnecessary,  and 
ought  to  be  excluded. 

I shall  proceed  now  to  give  my  views  on  the 
subject  of  taxation.  When  this  Convention 
met,  I laid  before  it  a proposition  on  this  sub- 
ject which  I deemed  of  very  great  importance 


2212 


CONCERNING  TAXATION, 


[143rd 


Page. 


[Friday, 


for  reasons  which  I shall  proceed  to  give ; but 
the  Committee  of  Taxation  rejected  it,  and  I 
was  very  reluctant,  yesterday,  to  occupy  any 
more  time  of  the  Convention  than  I thought 
was  necessary,  and  I did  not  press  it  upon 
their  attention ; but  as  the  question  comes  up 
now,  and  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Education  demands  upon  what  ground  we  place 
ourselves,  in  offering  this  proposition,  I shall 
proceed  to  answer  him  by  reading  a part  of  a 
written  argument  that  I had  prepared  on  that 
proposition.  The  proposition  which  I intro- 
duced was  this : 

“ The  power  of  taxation  is  limited  by  neces- 
sity and  public  use ; therefore,  no  tax  shall  be 
levied  except  for  a public  use,  nor  beyond  the 
necessity  of  such  use.”  I shall  now  show  why 
I thought  that  proposition  very  important,  and 
what  application  it  has  to  the  subject  under 
discussion. 

No  subject  more  important  than  that  of  taxa- 
tion can  occupy  our  attention.  Its  importance 
will  increase  with  the  growing  prosperity  and 
power  of  the  State.  It  is,  consequently,  of  the 
greatest  importance  that  correct  opinions 
should  be  entertained  and  inculcated  on  this 
subject.  If  erroneous  views  are  held  by  legis- 
lators and  jurists,  they  will  frequently  go 
astray,  and  establish  principles  that  are  in  con- 
flict with  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people. 
The  acts  of  our  Legislature,  and  the  decisions 
of  our  courts,  furnish  numerous  instances  and 
illustrations  of  the  truth  of  this  remark.  I have 
frequently  heard  lawyers  and  members  of  the 
Legislature  maintain  arguments  in  regard  to 
taxation  which  proved  that  they  were  ignorant 
of  its  first  principles.  The  number  of  persons — 
I do  not  allude  to  the  ignorant  and  uneducated, 
but  to  educated  men — is  very  large,  who  firmly 
believe  and  maintain  that  there  is  no  limit  to 
the  power  of  taxation,  except  the  will  of  the 
majority*  They  assert  that  all  property  is  held 
at  the  will  of  the  majority,  and  that  the  majo- 
rity, by  a vote,  may  take  the  property  of  any 
person,  to  any  extent,  and  dispose  of  it  at  will 
for  any  public  enterprise.  If  this  be  true,  the 
tenure  of  property  is  as  uncertain  in  the  United 
States  as  it  is  in  Turkey  or  Egypt.  If  there  is 
no  limit  to  the  power  of  taxation  but  arbitrary 
will,  it  matters  not  whether  it  be  the  will  of  one 
tyrant  or  of  many,  in  both  cases  the  principle 
is  the  same,  and  the  consequence  is  despotism. 
If  a tax  be  illegal,  it  does  not  acquire  any  valid- 
ity after  being  confirmed  by  a popular  vote. 
It  is  not  purified  from  the  taint  of  illegality  by 
the  process  of  filtering  it  through  a ballot-box. 
Now,  every  intelligent  man  will  admit  that 
there  must  be  in  every  free  government  a limit 
to  the  power  of  taxation.  And  he  will  also  ad- 
mit that  these  limits  should  be  ascertained  and 
declared  in  the  Constitution.  Let  us  inquire 
what  are  these  limitations.  I propose  to  read 
some  extracts  from  acknowledged  authorities, 
and,  in  doing  so,  I am  aware  that  I am  endeavor- 
ing to  demonstrate  propositions  that,  to  some 
minds,  are  self-evident : 

“What  are  taxes?  This  is  the  question  which  lies  at  the 
heart  of  the  present  case.  I answer,  that,  by  the  concur- 
rent opinion  of  lawyers,  judges,  lexicographers,  and 
political  economists,  as  well  as  by  the  general  and  popular 
understanding,  taxes  are  burdens  or  charges  imposed  by 
the  Legislature  upon  persons  or  property  to  raise  money 
for  public  purposes,  or  to  accomplish  some  governmental 


end.  A tax  is  a portion  of  the  property  of  individuals, 
which  is  taken  from  them  by  the  government  and  dis- 
posed of  by  it.  21  Ency.  Britt.  37.  Tax,  a rate  or  sum  of 
money  assessed  on  the  person  or  property  of  a citizen,  by 

government,  for  the  use  of  the  nation  or  State.  Webst’s 
>ic’t.  Taxes  are  contributions  paid  by  the  inhabitants 
of  a country  for  the  use  of  the  government.  New  Am. 
Ency.,  Yol.  15,  p.  307.  A tax  is  generally  understood  to 
mean  the  imposition  of  a duty  or  impost  for  the  support 
of  government.  Pray  v.  North  Lib.,  31  Penn.  St.  69. 
Taxes  are  burdens  or  charges  imposed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture upon  persons  or  property,  to  raise  money  for  public 
purposes.  Cooley  on  Const.  Lim.,  479.  Again:  Judge 
Cooley  remarks  (ib.  487),  taxation,  having  for  its  only 
legitimate  obj.ect  the  raising  of  money  for  public  pur- 
poses, and  the  proper  needs  of  government,  the  exaction 
of  money  fiom  the  citizen  for  other  purposes  is  not  a 
proper  exercise  of  the  power,  and  must  therefore  be  un- 
authorized. A tax  was  anciently  defined  to  be  certain 
aid,  subsidy  or  supply  granted  by  the  Commons  of  Great 
Britain,  and  constituting  the  king’s  revenue.  4 Inst., 
216-233.  As  the  name  imports  from  its  derivation,  it 
means  tribute,  and  belonged  to  the  king’s  treasury.  And 
I think  the  common  mind  has  everywhere  taken  in  the 
understanding  that  taxes  are  a public  imposition  levied 
by  authority  of  the  government,  for  the  purpose  of  car- 
rying on  the  government  in  all  its  machinery  and  opera- 
tions; that  they  are  in  posed  for  a public  purpose.  Per 
Coulter,  J.,  in  North  Lib.  v.  St.  John’s  Church,  13  Penn. 
8t  104, 107, 1850.  Taxation  is  the  mode  of  raising  money 
for  public  purposes  or  uses.  Matter  of  Mayor  of  N.  Y., 
II  Johns,  77,  and  authorities  cited;  Blackwell  on  Tax 
Titles,  ch.  1,  p.  77  (1st.  ed.)  A tax  is  an  impost  levied  by 
authority  of  government,  upon  its  citizens  or  subjects, 
for  the  support  of  the  State.  It  is  not  founded  upon  con- 
tract or  agreement.  It  operates  in  invitum.  Per  Chief 
Justice  Green.  Camden  v.  Allen,  2 Dutch,  398. 

“In  other  words,  a public  governmental  use  or  purpose 
is  involved  in,  and  is  essential  to,  the  idea  of  a tax.  ‘I 
concede,’  says  Black  Ch.  J.,  in  Sharpless’  Case  (21  Penn. 
St.  167),  ‘that  a law  authorizing  taxation  for  any  other 
than  public  purposes  is  void.’  Again,  he  says:  ‘A  tax 
for  a private  purpose  is  unconstitutional,  though  it  pass 
through  the  hands  of  public  officers.’  This  is  undoubt- 
edly true.  The  reasons  why  such  legislation  is  void  will 
presently  be  stated.  A tax  for  a private  purpose  is,  to 
use  the  strong,  yet  apt  expression  of  Lowe,  J.,  in  the 
Wapello  County  case  (13  Iowa,  405),  ‘a  solecism  in  lan- 
guage.’ That  taxation  must  have  reference  to  the  rais- 
ing of  money  for  public,  as  distinguished  from  private, 
uses  and  ends,  appears  from  the  nature  of  the  power  and 
the  manner  in  which  it  is  exercised.  Other  laws  are 
based  upon  convenience;  but  tax  laws  are  based  upon  an 
imperative  political  necessity,  for  without  revenue  there 
can  be  no  regular  government,  and  without  taxes  no 
revenue.  In  theory  the  tax  payer  receives  a compensa- 
tion for  the  taxes  paid,  in  the  protection  the  government 
affords  him.  This  is  theoretically  true;  but  still  the 
foundation  of  the  taxing  power  is  political  necessity,  and 
taxes  are, in  effect,  as  Mr.  Mill  contends, sacrifices  made  for 
the  public  good,  ‘equality  of  sacrifice’  being  the  rule  dic- 
tated by  justice.  2 Pol.  Econ.,  370,  372.  It  is  the  circum- 
stance that  taxes  are  contributions,  demanded  for  the 
use  of  the  government,  and  not  for  private  uses,  that  con- 
fers upon  the  power  to  tax  its  peculiar  character.  It  ex- 
tends to  all  the  property  and  all  the  persons  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  State.  For  the  non-paymentof  a law- 
ful tax,  the  property  of  the  citizen  may,  without  any  ju- 
] dicial  proceedings,  and  without  personal  notice  to'him, 
be  sold  to  pay  it.  Proceedings  so  rigorous  are  anomalous 
in  tne  law,  and  justify  the  rimark  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Pennsylvania,  that  the  divestiture  of  ownership  by 
tax  laws,  and  sales  thereunder,  exhibit  ‘the  instance  in 
which  a constitutional  government  approaches  most 
nearly  to  an  unrestrained  tyranny.’  Gault’s  Appeal,  33 
Penn.  St.  94,  97. 1859.  ‘It  is  only  because  taxes  are  for  the 
use  of  the  public— of  the  government  or  some  of  its  aux- 
iliaries—that  these  severe  and  stringent  laws  are  not  con- 
demned as  cruel  and  despotic,  and  as  infringements  of 
constitutional  rights.’  See  27  Iowa,  31. 

“Taxation,  in  its  most  extended  sense,  includes  all  con- 
tributions imposed  by  the  government  upon  individuals 
for  the  service  of  the  State.  Bourier’s  Diet.  Kent’s  Com. 
Story’s  Const.  Taxation  is  a mode  of  raising  money  for 
public  purposes  only,  and  as  it  is  said  in  some  cases 
where  it  is  prostituted  to  objects  in  no  way  connected 
with  public  interests,  it  ceases  to  be  taxation  and  be- 
comes plunder.  The  People  v.  The  Township  Board,  9 
Am.  Law  Register,  N.  8.,  p.  488.  The  sovereign  power  to 
levy  and  collect  taxes  grows  out  ot  the  necessities  of  the 
government,  an  urgent  necessity  which  admits  no  prop- 
erty in  the  citizen  while  it  remains  unsatisfied.  All 
property  is  a pledge  to  pay  the  necessary  debts  and  ex- 
penses of  the  government.  9 Georgia  R.,  352.  Taxation 
is  an  arbitrary  power.  It  can  only  be  levied  by  express 
law,  or  the  will  of  the  monarch.  It  is  based  upon  public 


CONCERNING  TAXATION. 


2213 


Day.] 

March  20,  1874.]  Page. 


necessity,  and  proceeds  on  the  ground  that  it  is  essential 
to  the  public  welfare  or  safety.  Unless  confined  within 
its  legitimate  sphere,  it  becomes  despotic  and  subversive 
of  those  liberties  it  was  intended  to  protect.  It  is  in- 
sidious and  demands  constant  watching,  or  under  the 
name  of  public  good  it  will  invade  and  destroy  the  rights 
of  the  people.  4 Green  (Iowa),  1.  Compulsory  taxation 
is  a necessity.  The  individual  must  give  up  a certain 
equitable  share  of  his  earnings  for  the  public  good:  the 
object  of  thus  raising  a revenue  being  to  carry  on  the 
government,  to  which  object  taxation  should  be  confined. 
To  go  beyond  this  is  an  interference  with  natural  rights, 
which  cannot  be  excused  on  the  ground  of  necessity.  North 
American  Review,  Jan.  1870,  p.  6.  It  is  conceded  that 
there  are  certain  limitations  upon  this  power  not  pre- 
scribed in  express  terms  by  any  constitutional  provision 
but  inherent  in  the  subj'ect  itself,  which  attend  its  exer- 
cise under  all  circumstances,  and  which  are  inflexible 
and  absolute  in  their  restraints  as  if  directly  imposed  in 
the  most  positive  form  of  words.  Judge  Cooley.  9 Am. 
Law  Reg  , N.  S.,  488. 

But  to  this  great  power  there  are  limits.  It  cannot  be 
exercised  except  where  it  is  necessary  to  raise  revenue 
for  the  support  of  the  government,  and  it  cannot  be  ex- 
ercised except  for  public  uses  and  purposes.  It  is  limited 
by  the  words  and  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  prin  - 
ciples  of  natural  justice.”  Blackwell’s  Tax  Titles,  p.  10. 

From  the  preceding  authorities,  it  is  clear 
that  there  are  limitations  to  the  power  of  taxa- 
tion. It  is  also  evident  that  these  limitations 
are  those  contained  in  the  proposition  above 
referred  to,  viz:  necessity  and  public  use. 
Another  limitation  of  equality  and  uniformity 
I omit  from  the  proposition,  because  that  is  ex- 
pressed in  another  part  of  the  Constitution. 
But  where  or  in  what  are  these  limitations 
found?  Judge  Cooley  says  they  are  found  in 
the  nature  of  the  subject.  Blackwell  says  they 
are  found  in  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and 
in  natural  justice.  It  must  be  admitted  that 
these  are  extremely  indefinite  limitations. 
What  is  the  nature  of  a subject,  the  spirit  of 
the  Constitution,  or  natural  justice?  I might 
answer,  whatever  is  boldly  asserted  and  plausi- 
bly maintained.  Few  persons  can  be  found  to 
agree  as  to  what  is  natural  justice,  or  the  spirit 
of  a Constitution,  or  the  nature  of  a subject. 
Whenever  judges  or  jurists  are  compelled  to 
resort  to  such  limitations,  they  are  practically 
restrained  by  no  rule  or  law.  When  they  are 
driven  to  discover  restrictions  of  the  power  of 
taxation  in  the  nature  of  the  subject,  the  spirit 
of  the  Constitution,  or  in  natural  justice,  they 
are  like  the  philosopher  in  Rasselas,  who 
recommended  living  according  to  nature,  and 
defined  it  thus : “To  live  according  to  nature 
is  to  act  always  with  due  regard  to  the  fitness 
arising  from  the  relations  and  qualities  of 
causes  and  effects ; to  concur  with  the  great  and 
unchangeable  scheme  of  universal  felicity; 
to  co-operate  with  the  general  disposition  and 
tendency  of  the  present  system  of  things.”  It 
may  be  asked,  What  good  will  be  accomplished 
by  putting  such  a limitation  upon  the  power  of 
levying  taxes  in  the  Constitution  ? I in- 
quire, What  is  the  use  of  the  third  section 
of  the  present  Article  in  that  instrument? 
That  section  declares  that  all  taxation 
shall  be  uniform  and  equal.  Is  not  equality  of 
taxation  one  of  the  limitations  found  in  the 
nature  of  the  subject,  in  the  spirit  of  the  Con- 
stitution, or  in  natural  justice?  If  it  is  sufficient 
to  compel  courts  to  resort  to  these  subjects  for 
restrictions  in  one  case,  why  not  do  so  in  all 
cases?  In  my  opinion,  all  the  great  limitations 
of  this  important  matter  should  be  stated  in  the 
constitutional  law,  in  order  to  keep  them  con- 
stantly in  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  to  dif- 
fuse correct  ideas  in  regard  to  taxation.  Bacon 


says,  there  is  no  such  gain  of  time  as  to  often 
iterate  the  state  of  the  question.  And  there  is 
a great  gain  of  precision  and  certainty  in  the 
administration  of  the  law,  by  defining  as  accu- 
rately as  possible  the  limits  of  power.  When 
the  courts  in  Ohio  undertake  to  declare  a tax 
law  void,  it  is  because  it  is  contrary  to  some 
provision  of  the  Constitution.  I do  not  believe 
that  our  courts  may  set  aside  an  act  of  the  Leg- 
islature, because,  in  their  judgment,  it  is  con- 
trary to  natural  justice  or  the  nature  of  the 
subject.  To  authorize  them  to  declare  that  there 
is  a repugnancy  between  an  act  of  the  Legis- 
lature and  the  nature  of  the  subject,  is  to  confer 
a very  extensive  and  dangerous  authority.  It 
is  equally  dangerous  to  allow  judges  to  annul  a 
law,  because,  in  their  opinion,  it  is  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  unless  by  that 
expression  is  meant  the  intention  of  that  instru- 
ment, as  deduced  by  legal  rules  of  construction. 
When  judges  resort  to  the  spirit  of  the  Consti- 
tution in  any  other  sense,  it  is  mere  usurpation. 
The  proposition  that  taxation  is  limited  by  ne- 
cessity and  public  use,  contains  nothing  new.  It 
is  no  discovery  and  no  innovation.  It  is  simply 
a condensed  declaration  of  an  old  and  well- 
established  principle.  There  is  constant  effort 
making  to  abandon  the  true  principle  of  tax- 
ation, under  plausible  pretexts,  and  to  waste  pub- 
lic money  upon  speculative  and  doubtful  enter- 
prises, which  ought  to  be  checked. 

If  the  preceding  views  are  correct,  it  follows 
that  State  education  rests  upon  necessity.  Such 
education  should  be  limited  to  those  things 
which  all  require,  and  should  not  be  extended 
to  branches  of  learning  which  are  used  by  a 
very  few  persons  who  desire  to  pursue  some 
especial  study.  If  a pupil  has  received  from 
the  hands  of  the  State  that  amount  of  education, 
which  is  offered  to  all  persons,  and  which  all 
require  as  citizens  in  daily  life,  on  what  princi- 
ple can  he  demand  of  the  public  an  education 
in  branches  that  are  merely  ornamental  or  use- 
ful to  himself  alone  in  some  special  vocation  ? 
If  one  may  demand  Latin  or  Greek,  may  not 
another  demand  Hebrew  or  Sanscrit?  Some 
persons  say  that  the  high  schools  furnish  teach- 
ers. Is  it  justifiable  taxation  to  raise  money  for 
the  purpose  of  educating  teachers?  These 
teachers  are  not  bound  to  teach  for  the  State 
that  educates  them,  but  may  go  abroad  to  find 
employment  or  decline  to  teach  at  all.  The 
object,  then,  of  such  taxation  is  to  qualify  a 
very  small  number  of  persons  for  the  profession 
of  teachers.  On  this  principle,  every  person 
has  a right  to  demand  that  the  State  shall  fur- 
nish him  a trade,  profession  or  business.  The 
preacher,  doctor,  lawyer  and  artist  may  just  as 
well  insist  upon  receiving  their  professions  at 
the  hand  of  the  State  as  the  teacher.  On  what 
principle  of  taxation  may  you  furnish  a man 
with  his  trade  or  occupation  ? Why  not  proceed 
a step  further  and  furnish  his  capital  in  busi- 
ness? But  some  persons  argue  that,  if  you 
abolish  the  present  system  of  high  schools,  you 
drive  the  poor  man  out  of  society.  This  state- 
ment is  both  absurd  and  untrue,  for  the  common 
schools  remain,  in  which  all  classes  associate 
together.  There  are  only  a few  of  the  poor  who 
ever  reach  the  high  schools,  perhaps  not  one  in 
fifty.  But  I ask,  is  it  the  object  of  taxation  to 
bring  the  poor  man  into  society  ? If  this  be  so, 


2214 


[143rd 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Page,  Tyler,  Pease.  [Friday, 


why  not  compel  the  rich  to  invite  the  poor  to 
their  balls  and  parties,  into  the  pews  of  their 
palatial  churches,  and  to  the  theatre  and  opera  ? 
Why  not  send  him,  at  the  public  expense,  to 
your  colleges  and  on  the  tour  of  Europe? 
These  are  more  effectual  methods  of  bringing 
the  poor  man  into  society  and  promoting  good 
feeling  between  the  rich  and  poor  than  the 
common  schools.  The  fact  is,  the  poor  man 
does  not  find  much  greater  recognition  in  the 
high  schools  than  he  does  in  the  grand  churches 
and  hotels. 

We  are  informed  that  the  money  saved  by 
limiting  the  power  of  taxation  in  regard  to  ed- 
ucational purposes,  would  otherwise  be  squan- 
dered in  frivolity.  This  argument  explains  the 
ideas  that  some  persons  entertain  on  the  subject 
of  legitimate  taxation.  The  State  may  take  a 
man’s  money  on  the  vague  apprehension  that 
he  will  spend  it  in  a frivolous  manner.  In  des- 
potic countries  they  do  not  resort  to  so  thin 
a pretext;  they  proceed  on  a more  honest  and 
more  simple  plan,  that  they  should  take  who 
have  the  power.  To  seize  a man’s  property  on 
the  ground  that  he  might  make  an  improper 
use  of  it  was  never  proposed  in  any  free  gov- 
ernment. It  justifies  my  declaration  that  there 
are  persons  in  this  country  who  perceive  no 
limits  to  the  power  of  taxation  but  the  will  of 
the  majority.  We  are  further  informed  that 
this  restraint  upon  taxation  for  educational 
purposes  is  a putting  of  money  in  the  rich 
man’s  pocket.  To  abstain  from  plundering  a 
rich  man  under  the  guise  of  taxation,  we  are 
informed  is  putting  money  in  his  pocket.  I 
suppose  the  brigand  who  permits  a traveler  to 
pass  unmolested,  in  the  same  manner  puts 
money  in  the  traveler’s  pocket.  It  is  singular 
what  ideas  are  entertained  on  this  subject. 
Macaulay  says,  when  he  was  in  India,  he  was 
present  at  the  examination  of  a Thug,  who  re- 
proached his  brother,  saying,  how  could  you  ex- 
pect the  favor  of  our  goddess,  when  you  suf- 
fered a traveler,  who  had  fallen  into  your 
hands,  to  escape  with  his  life  ? 

The  desire  of  a majority  of  the  Committee  to 
limit  and  restrain  the  subject  of  taxation,  is 
represented  as  proceeding  from  a spirit  of  hos- 
tility on  the  part  of  the  rich  towards  the  poor. 
This  is  not  the  first  time  the  poor  man  has  been 
dragged  into  the  debates  by  demagogues.  But 
this  topic  is  undeserving  of  further  notice.  I 
leave  it  to  be  answered  by  the  intelligence  and 
sense  of  propriety  of  the  plainest  man. 

I am  aware  that  all  attempts  at  retrenchment, 
in  the  expenditure  of  public  money,  are  received 
ungraciously.  They  never  fail  to  draw  upon 
the  proposer  misrepresentation  and  obloquy. 
Those  persons  who  fill  the  offices  that  it  is  pro- 
posed to  abolish,  who  draw  fat  salaries,  or  enjoy 
the  patronage  and  profit  of  handling  large 
sums  of  public  money,  are  naturally  very  re- 
luctant to  relinquish  these  advantages.  They 
usually  combine  to  resist  all  attempts  of  this 
kind.  Mr.  Burke  said  that,  on  one  occasion, 
when  a reform  in  the  enormous  abuses  in  the 
king’s  household  was  attempted,  it  failed,  be- 
cause the  turnspit  in  the  king’s  kitchen  was 
a member  of  Parliament. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  my  view  of  it  is  this: 
That  there  is  not  more  than  one  pupil  in  thirty 
or  forty  who  ever  reaches  these  high  schools, 


and,  so  far  as  my  observation  extends,  they  do 
not  belong  to  the  poor  classes,  but  to  the  middle 
or  rich  classes.  The  children  of  the  poor  stop 
short  of  the  high  school,  and  go  to  work  to 
make  a living  for  themselves  and  their  parents. 
Those  who  are  able  to  spend  four  or  five  years 
in  the  high  schools,  are  in  very  good  circum- 
stances, and  they  are  getting  their  education  at 
the  public  expense,  when  they  are  able  to  pay 
for  it  themselves. 

As  I said  before,  this  proposition  does  not 
seek  to  aim  any  blow  at  the  public  schools,  only 
the  abuse  of  them.  I object  to  the  uncommon, 
and  not  the  common,  schools.  This  proposition 
aims  to  keep  them  within  proper  limits.  I have 
no  fear  at  all  that  the  Legislature  would  give 
any  narrow  or  destructive  construction  to  the 
words  “common”  and  “necessary  education.” 
I have  no  doubt  that  they  will  be  construed  in 
a liberal  and  statesmanlike  manner. 

Mr.  TYLER.  Mr.  President,  I am  opposed  to 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  upon  the  subject 
of  education,  and  in  favor  of  the  present  Con- 
stitution, as  it  now  is,  believing  that  it  is  per- 
fectly satisfactory  to  the  majority  of  the  people 
of  the  State.  I am  in  favor  of  placing  the 
standard  of  education  as  high  as  possible  in  the 
State  of  Ohio. 

What  matters  it  to  the  different  sections  of 
the  State  what  we  have  in  another  section  of 
the  State,  as  to  our  union  schools,  established 
under  the  very  popular  law  known  as  the 
Akron  Union  School  Law?  Under  this  law 
each  union  school  district  pays  its  own  school 
expenses. 

We  have,  in  the  county  of  Henry,  and  in  the 
town  of  Napoleon,  a union  school  district,  and 
a union  school  building,  which  cost  this  school 
district  over  $60,000 — one  of  the  best,  if  not  the 
very  best,  school  building  in  the  most  north- 
ern part  of  the  State — in  which  is  most  suc- 
cessfully taught  all  the  common  and  most 
of  the  higher  branches  taught  in  union 
schools  in  the  different  parts  of  the  State, 
which  supersedes,  to  a great  extent,  the  neces- 
sity of  sending  our  children  abroad  for  educa- 
tional purposes.  This  report  is  a drive  at  our 
union  and  higher  school  system,  therefore  I am 
opposed  to  it,  or  any  other  system  that  will 
curtail,  in  the  least,  the  successful  operations  of 
our  union  and  higher  school  system  in  the  State 
of  Ohio. 

I am  opposed  to  the  division  of  the  school 
fund,  other  than  it  is  now  divided  by  the  laws 
regulating  our  common  school  system,  and  the 
revenue  provided  for  the  support  of  the  same. 
1 am  opposed  to  the  compulsory  system  of  edu- 
cation recommended  by  a portion  of  the  Com- 
mittee; and  I am  opposed  to  that  part  of  the 
Report  which  proposes  to  make  eligible  women 
to  hold  office  under  the  school  laws  of  the  State 
— not  that  I dislike  or  am  opposed  to  women, 
but  upon  the  principle  that  we  had  better  let 
well  enough  alone.  But,  while  I am  opposed  to 
making  women  eligible  to  holding  office,  I am 
in  favor  of  employing  them  as  teachers,  and 
paying  them  as  you  would  pay  men,  with  like 
qualifications  and  like  ability  to  teach,  for  their 
services. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I do  not  want  to  occupy  much 
time,  and  I do  not  propose  to  make  a speech.  I 
propose  to  give  only  a talk  on  the  subject  now 


Day.] THE  REPORT  ON  EDUCATION. 2215 

March  20, 1874.]  Pease. 


before  the  Convention.  As  you  have  observed, 
my  constituency  feel  themselves  much  interest- 
ed in  the  result  of  this  question.  They  have, 
to  the  extent  of  1,500  or  1,600,  petitioned  this 
body,  protesting  and  remonstrating  against  this 
Report  of  the  Committee,  which,  in  substance, 
takes  off  the  head  of  the  common  school  system ; 
but  I desire  first  to  talk  a little  with  reference 
to  women  occupying  positions  upon  the  Board 
of  Education. 

I hear  no  serious  objection  to  that  proposition 
from  any  quarter  in  the  Convention,  and  I ap- 
prehend no  serious  objection  will  be  urged 
against  it.  There  certainly  can  be  no  reason 
why  women  cannot  discharge  the  duties  of  that 
position  as  creditably  as  men.  That  they  would 
give  it  a great  deal  more  attention,  I have  no 
doubt.  They  have  the  leisure,  and  it  is  conceded 
they  have  the  ability.  I do  not  know  that  it  is  of 
any  advantage  to  refer  to  what  other  nations  are 
doing  in  this  regard,  but  we  ought  to  feel  some 
pride  of  opinion,  and  especially  as  between  our- 
selves and  other  countries.  Great  Britain,  and 
countries  which  we  are  sometimes  in  the  habit 
of  calling  despotisms,  are  making,  perhaps, 
larger  improvements,  larger  advances  in  that 
direction  than  we  are.  A few  years  ago,  as 
early  as  1869,  in  London,  they  elected  two 
ladies  upon  their  school  boards,  Miss  Garrity 
and  Miss  Davis,  and  they  have  continued  to  fill 
those  places,  and  they  have  continued  to  elect 
women  to  discharge  those  duties,  and,  it  is  said, 
they  have  done  it  very  creditably.  It  will  be 
remembered  that,  within  a few  years,  Great 
Britain  has  been  making  much  progress  in  the 
common  school  question,  and  this  is  one  of  the 
results  of  an  awakened  public  sentiment  upon 
that  subject.  If  any  gentleman  can  urge  any 
substantial  argument  why  women  should  not 
be  permitted  to  occupy  this  position,  I would  be 
very  glad  to  hear  it,  and  if  there  is  any  sub-, 
stantial  reason  why  they  should  not,  I shall  be 
very  glad  to  vote  against  it.  But  if  it  is  simply 
the  prejudice  of  early  opinion,  a narrow  mind- 
edness, that  would  not  be  a reasonable  ground 
for  opposing  that  part  of  the  proposition,  and, 
therefore,  I do  not  propose  to  take  any  time  in 
further  presenting  it,  as  I have  heard  no  argu- 
ment against  it. 

I am  in  favor  of  another  feature  of  this  Re- 
port, and  I hail,  always,  with  delight,  every 
measure  that  seems  to  hold  forth  a promise  of 
progress  in  that  direction.  I believe  the  whole 
people  of  the  State  should  be  educated.  I be- 
lieve the  very  foundation  of  our  government 
rests  entirely  and  exclusively  upon  the  people. 
We  have  no  government  except  by  the  people, 
and  in  every  nation  where  that  is  true,  the  qual- 
ity of  that  government,  its  capacity,  its  power, 
everything  that  it  is,  has  got  to  depend  upon 
the  character  of  its  people.  Its  people  will 
manifest  that  character  just  in  proportion,  in  my 
judgment,  as  they  are  properly  educated.  We 
talk  about  religious  influence  upon  the  people. 
I have  no  doubt  it  is  beneficial ; I have  no 
doubt  it  has  great  force,  but  I undertake  to  say, 
you  may  look  over  the  catalogue  of  nations, 
where  you  find  a people  or  government  that  has 
only  religion  for  its  basis — I mean  religion  nowin 
a sectarian  form — where  it  has  that  alone  for  its 
basis,  when  it  neglects  the  education  of  the  peo- 
ple, I undertake  to  say,  then  you  will  find  a 


specimen  of  a government  that  can,  in  no  de- 
gree, compare  with  our  own.  I know  that  just 
in  proportion  as  you  furnish  the  means  for,  and 
insist  upon  the  education  of  the  people,  in  that 
proportion  you  will  have  a just,  a powerful  and 
a stable  government,  a government  that  pro- 
tects the  rights  of  the  people,  and  a government 
which  is  capable  of  protecting  and  defending 
itself. 

These,  it  seems  to  me,  must  be  conceded  prop- 
ositions. We  have  heard  them  on  every  Fourth 
of  July  ever  since  1776,  and  probably  will  con- 
tinue to  hear  them  as  long  as  the  Fourth  of  July 
is  recognized  in  our  land.  If  it  is  right  in 
itself,  then  we  should  adopt  such  regulations 
and  laws  as  will,  with  the  greatest  certainty,  se- 
cure this  end ; we  should  make  it  practicable, 
make  it  of  some  service  to  us.  We  have  been 
doing  that  to  a very  great  extent,  and  I am  glad 
to  learn  from  the  statistics  which  have  been  re- 
ferred to,  that  there  is  not  a very  large  per 
centage  of  our  people  who  have  not  the  advan- 
tages of  these  schools,  the  advantages  of  a public, 
free  education.  I hope  it  may  ever  remain  so, 
and  if  it  does,  we  need  not  be  much  concerned 
about  the  different  theories  or  forms  of  relig- 
ion, or  anything  of  that  sort — and  I speak  of  re- 
ligion in  a sectarian  sense,  not  in  its  broad 
sense — but  the  moment  we  abandon  our  common 
schools,  the  moment  we  begin  to  cut  down  and 
lessen  the  effect  of  this  general  education,  that 
moment  we  submit  ourselves  to  become  a prey 
to  these  theories  and  “isms,”  and  schisms,  and 
divisions,  and  the  anarchy  resulting  therefrom. 

As  I said  a moment  ago,  Great  Britain  Is 
seeing  the  advantages  which  we  are  deriving 
from  this  system  of  education,  and  they  are 
already  making  provisions  for  the  education  of 
their  common  people.  It  is  becoming  very 
popular  there.  Many  years  ago  it  was  only 
the  nobility,  only  the  aristocracy  of  the  nation, 
who  could  be  educated.  The  common  people 
knew  nothing  about  it.  The  earlier  their  his- 
tory, the  more  the  common  people  were  shut 
out  from  either  a common  education  or  an  un- 
common education.  It  was  a class  education. 
If  I had  the  settling  of  this  question  in  Ohio,  I 
would  not  hesitate  to  say  that  every  child  be- 
tween the  age  of  six  and  twelve  or  fifteen  years 
should  bo  compelled  to  attend  the  public  schools 
of  the  State. 

But,  say  gentlemen,  this  Committee,  in  its  re- 
port, has  not  gone  far  enough.  They  say  they 
should  have  provided,  not  only  books,  and 
schools,  and  teachers,  but  they  should  also  pro- 
vide them  with  clothing.  I would  add  food, 
for  I do  not  believe  a scholar  could  go  to  school 
very  long  without  food,  and  I know  they  ought 
not  to  go  without  clothing.  I would  provide 
all  these.  But,  say  some  gentlemen  whose 
purses  are  going  to  be  touched  a little,  whose 
taxes  are  to  be  increased  a little,  “You  impose 
upon  us  a heavy  burden.”  The  burden  will 
not  be  half  so  severe,  not  half  so  heavy  as  it  is 
now.  These  poor  little  ones  have  to  be  clothed 
now.  But  you  say  they  are  not  very  well 
clothed.  I should  judge  so  from  the  specimens 
I have  seen  around  your  cities  and  towns;  I am 
glad  to  say,  not  often  in  the  country;  but  in 
your  cities  you  can  see  destitute  little  urchins, 
barefooted,  half  clad  and  half  starved, 
running  around  your  streets,  and  you 


2216 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Pease,  Godfrey,  Alexander. 


[143rd 


[Friday, 


have  societies  existing  in  all  these 
places  to  feed  and  clothe  all  these  children, 
and  I am  glad  to  say  that,  in  Cincinnati,  I be- 
lieve they  are  entitled  to  a great  deal  of  credit 
for  their  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  poor.  It 
would  certainly  cost  no  more,  or  but  very  little 
more,  to  give  these  children  suitable  clothing 
to  make  them  decent  enough  to  attend  school. 
You  furnish  clothing  for  them  to  go  to  the 
Bethel.  You  will  furnish  clothing  for  those 
children  one  day  in  the  week,  and  you  furnish, 
directly  or  indirectly,  food  for  those  children 
every  day  in  the  week.  Now,  it  will  cost  but 
very  little  more  to  feed  them  and  send  them  to 
school  than  to  let  them  run  around  the  gutters 
of  your  streets,  learning  all  sorts  of  bad  habits, 
picking  up  all  sorts  of  vice,  doing  all  kinds  of 
wrong.  You  will  see  them  upon  the  streets 
every  day.  Now,  if  this  ended  with  the  chil- 
dren ; if  this  wrong  that  is  done  to  them  could 
end  with  their  tender  years;  if  it  could  stop 
when  they  reach  the  age  of  ten,  twelve  or  fif- 
teen years,  although  great  would  then  be  the 
wrong,  yet  it  would  not  cry  with  such  force 
against  the  people  of  the  State  as  it  now  does. 
By  the  time  these  children  have  reached  the 
age  of  ten,  twelve  or  fifteen,  they  are  either 
occupied  in  the  city  by  stealing,  or  they  find 
their  way  into  the  country  and  commit  depre- 
dations. Seldom  is  it  that  they  rise  to  any 
good.  Often  a large  percentage  of  them  is 
found  in  your  work-houses,  found  in  your  jails, 
found  in  your  penitentiaries  and  in  your  alms- 
houses. They  are  a curse  to  themselves,  a bur- 
den upon  the  people,  and  a tax  upon  the  State. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me,  it  would  be  good  policy 
to  take  these  little  ones,  these  little  children,  of 
whom  Christ  said,  “Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,”  take  them  out  of  the  gutters,  and 
clothe  them,  and  feed  them,  educate  them, 
although  it  might  take  a little  more  of  your  in- 
come every  year.  It  would  be  so  small,  if  it  is 
true  that  a rich  man  can  not  get  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  it  would  not  let  him  through. 
It  would  not  take  enough  of  your  means  to 
save  you.  You  would  not  know  it;  you  would 
not  feel  it.  Yet,  if  the  State  never  received  a 
single  dollar  from  it,  the  knowledge  and  satis- 
faction that  you  have  done  a good  act  to  these 
little  ones,  that  you  have  taken  from  the  gutter 
the  fatherless  and  motherless,  and  sometimes 
worse  than  fatherless  and  motherless,  and  pro- 
vided for  them,  and  placed  them  in  a position 
where  they  can  take  care  of  themselves,  and  be 
useful  to  themselves,  and  a benefit  to  society, 
will  be  your  highest  reward.  It  seems  to  me 
that  this  is  a consideration  high  above  the  mere 
question  of  the  present  cost  of  accomplishing 
such  certain  results. 

Prussia  has  been  referred  to  as  an  instance 
where  this  compulsory  education  has  been 
adopted.  It  has  been  adopted  there  for  many 
years,  and  with  the  best  results.  It  is  said,  be- 
cause we  are  a democratic  government,  because 
we  are  governed  by  a majority  of  the  people, 
that  it  is  not  consistent  with  our  form  of  gov- 
ernment to  take  these  little  children  and  force 
them  to  attend  school.  I undertake  to  say  if 
you  will  enable  these  little  children  to  go  to 
school,  if  you  will  open  the  way  for  them,  it 
will  require  no  policeman,  no  bayonet,  nor 
harsh  rule,  to  pick  them  up  and  send  them 


there,  and  keep  them  there.  Try  it.  Prussia  owes 
her  superiority  and  strength  to-day  to  her  com- 
pulsory schools.  She  stands  forth  the  first 
nation  in  the  galaxy  of  nations,  powerful  and 
grand,  and  it  is  because  she  is  so  just  to  her 
poor — her  common  people.  She  has  educated 
them.  She  saw  wherein  lay  her  strength  and 
her  support — that  it  was  in  the  education  and 
proper  training  of  all  her  people.  They  under- 
stand the  philosophy  of  compulsory  education 
and  skilled  labor  for  all  their  people.  France 
has  learned  that.  Every  other  nation  which 
attempts  to  compete  with  Prussia  will  learn 
that.  The  Rebellion  in  this  country  learned  it 
when  she  found  that  the  power  of  our  Northern 
States  rested  upon  the  educated  masses,  coming 
forth  from  the  schools,  colleges,  offices,  profes- 
sions, fields  and  work  shops — capable,  able  and 
ready  to  fill  any  position  assigned  them. 

But  when  I commenced  I promised  not  to 
make  a speech,  and  I must  stick  to  my  promise. 
I fear,  if  I should  talk  here  until  night  of  the 
advantages  growing  out  of  this  compulsory 
education,  I might  not  convince  any  gentleman 
that  it  is  his  duty  to  support  this  proposition, 
and  therefore  shail  leave  further  investigation 
of  that  particular  subject  to  some  gentleman 
who  has  given  it  more  attention,  and  can  do  it 
better  justice  than  I can. 

Mr.  GODFREY.  I understand  the  gentle- 
man, as  well  as  those  who  preceded  him,  to  be 
assuming  that  section  three  should  be  inserted 
because  no  good  reason  can  be  given  why  it 
should  not  be.  I am  in  favor  of  no  departure 
from  the  present  Constitution,  without  sufficient 
reason  can  be  shown  why  the  change  should  be 
made.  I submit  to  the  friends  of  this  section 
that  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  them,  and  they 
must  make  out  their  case.  We  want  to  hear 
the  reasons  why  the  change  should  be  made, 
and  the  burden  is  not  upon  the  other  side  to 
show  why  it  should  not  be  done. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I believe  I gave  some  reasons 
why  it  should  be,  and  I do  not  know  that  it  is  a 
good  reason,  that,  because  this  provision  in  sec- 
tion three  is  not  in  the  old  Constitution,  there- 
fore it  should  not  be  in  this.  I do  not  believe 
that  is  a good  reason,  but  I did  not  count  the 
gentleman  as  one  of  those  who  will  vote  on  the 
other  side.  I did  not  suppose  there  would  be 
more  than  one  or  two.  I do  not  know  that  I 
can  urge  any  other  reason  why  this  matter  of 
eligibility  to  the  board  of  education  may  not  as 
well  be  given  to  women  as  to  men. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  Why  make  them  eligi- 
ble to  become  members  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion, and  not  allow  them  to  participate  in  the 
election  of  that  board  of  education? 

Mr.  PEASE.  If  you  will  let  my  vote  deter- 
mine the  question,  they  shall  have  the  right  to 
vote,  I believe,  although  I have  not  made  an  argu- 
ment on  the  proposition.  I have  voted  twice  to 
give  them  this  right.  I would  be  glad  to  do  so 
until  that  period  arrives,  which,  I think,  will 
not  be  in  the  distant  future.  I have  forgotten 
one  point  with  reference  to  this  compulsory 
education  which  I designed  to  say  a word 
upon,  and  I shall  speak  of  it  now.  If  I under- 
stand the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  he  made  two  objections 
to  the  proposition.  First,  because  it  was  too 
expensive.  That  I have  already  referred  to, 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Pease,  Page,  Freiberg. 


2217 


Day.] 

March  20,  1874.] 


and  shall  not  again  speak  of  it.  The  other  was 
that  he  doubted  the  constitutionality  of  levying 
the  tax  for  this  purpose.  If  I got  his  idea,  that 
was  his  objection.  I may  have  misunder- 
stood the  statement.  But  I got,  as  the  result  of 
his  argument,  and  as  a reason  why  we  should 
not  adopt  the  compulsory  system  of  education, 
that  it  will  be  a misappropriation  of  the  taxes 
for  that  purpose.  If  I am  wrong,  I wish  to  be 
corrected. 

Mr.  PAG-E.  I do  not  think  I said  anything 
of  the  sort. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Then  I did  not  get  the  force  of 
his  argument.  I could  only  hear  a part  of  it.  I 
have  nothing  further  to  say  on  that  part  of  the 
proposition. 

I desire  now  to  call  attention,  for  a moment, 
to  another  branch  of  this  proposition,  signed 
by  a majority  of  this  Committee.  I am  opposed 
to  this  part  of  the  Report,  for  the  reason  that, 
in  effect,  it  abolishes  the  high  schools.  For  a 
great  many  years,  we  have  labored  in  Ohio  to 
establish  a common  school  system.  We  can  all 
remember  when  this  proposition  of  making  the 
schools  free  first  started  in  this  State,  it  met 
with  a good  deal  of  opposition,  as,  I apprehend, 
such  reforms  always  do.  The  common  people 
seemed  to  be  jealous  of  it.  It  was  supposed 
that  it  would  act  injuriously,  that  it  would  be 
oppressive,  and  especially  oppressive  upon  per- 
sons who  had  no  children  to  educate.  It  was 
wrong,  they  said,  to  compel  individuals  to  pay 
taxes  for  the  purpose  of  educating  everybody’s 
children.  Many  years  ago,  I have  heard  it 
said,  and  I believe  it  is  part  of  the  recorded 
history  of  the  times,  in  Pennsylvania,  when 
they  attempted  to  introduce  the  common  school 
system,  it  was  violently  attacked  by  nearly  all 
classes,  some  upon  one  ground  and  some  upon 
another,  but  among  the  grounds  which  were 
urged  against  it  were : that  it  would  be  danger- 
ous to  educate  the  common  people;  they  would 
not  make  good  citizens ; that  they  would  not  be 
so  industrious;  that  they  would  be  disposed  to 
follow  the  employments  in  life  which  were  fol- 
lowed by  a higher  class  of  persons,  and  thus 
those  places  would  be  overloaded,  and  the  com- 
mon industries  of  the  State  would  be  neglected. 
That  was  one  of  the  strong  arguments  which 
was  used  during  that  period.  Another  was,  if 
you  educate  the  children,  teach  them  all  to  read 
and  write,  and  especially,  if  you  make  them  all 
good  writers,  that  they  would  commit  forgery, 
and  it  would  not  do  to  put  such  a temptation  in 
their  way.  Some  of  those  gentlemen,  who 
paid  heavy  taxes,  and,  perhaps,  could  not  read 
themselves,  were  filled  with  horror  with  the 
idea  that  the  common  people  should  learn  to 
write.  The  idea  of  teaching  girls  how  to  write 
was  ridiculous.  Why  should  a girl  want  to 
know  how  to  write,  or  even  to  read.  It  will 
not  help  her  to  do  house  work.  It  will  not  do 
them  any  good ; it  will  spoil  them  entirely ; they 
will  be  perfectly  worthless.  The  idea  of  teach- 
ing girls  to  read  and  write  was  horrible.  I be- 
lieve, in  Pennsylvania  they  have  outlived  these 
old  fears.  Ohio  started  late  enough  in  life  not 
to  be  filled  with  these  apprehensions,  yet  when 
the  common  school  enterprise  first  started  out, 
a great  many  people  objected  to  it,  for  many 
reasons,  not  unlike  those  which  were  urged 
against  it  in  Pennsylvania,  that  it  would  de- 


stroy the  common  industry  of  the  State.  In 
other  words,  it  would  place  those  people  above 
their  business.  Educate  the  farmers’  sons,  and 
they  would  no  longer  hold  the  plow.  They  would 
not  be  willing  to  drive  oxen  and  horses,  and  to 
do  the  work  of  farmers,  but  would  desire  to  set 
themselves  up  as  gilt-edged  merchants — they 
will  want  to  go  to  selling  tape,  or  writing  in 
somebody’s  office,  or  do  some  such  thing  as  that, 
anything  to  avoid  common  labor.  These  were 
all  urged  against  the  common  school  system  of 
Ohio.  We  have  labored  twenty-five  years  at 
least  in  establishing  what  I believe  to  be  as 
good  a common  school  system  as  any  one  of  the 
United  States  possesses.  It  has  taken  years  to 
develop  it.  It  has  taken  all  these  long  years  to 
know  what  its  benefits  are.  Now,  I appeal  to 
every  gentleman  in  this  Convention,  the  Repre- 
sentatives of  every  county  in  the  State,  if  they 
do  not  believe  we  are  in  a better  condition  to- 
day, in  every  possible  regard,  than  they  were 
twenty-five  years  ago. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  The  praying  women  say 
not. 

Mr.  PEASE.  That  is  in  this  wicked  city, 
where  there  is  so  much  whisky.  We  shall  have 
a day  for  that.  When  that  comes,  we  will  take 
care  of  it.  Now,  what  is  it  all  owing  to  ? Some 
gentlemen  might  say  it  is  because  of  the  relig- 
ious influence  of  the  times.  I have  no  doubt 
that  this  religious  influence  is  largely  beneficial, 
but  is  it  not  true  that  the  great  advantages  we 
possess  over  twenty-five  years  ago,  are  more  de- 
pendent upon  our  common  school  system  than 
any  other  one  influence?  We  are  indebted  to 
the  Constitution  of  1851,  somewhat,  but  in  that 
Constitution  there  is  not  a single  word  saying 
that  the  people  would  have  the  right  to  inaugu- 
rate a system  of  education  which  would  edu- 
cate all  the  people  in  the  land,  and  it  was  not 
necessary,  because  I believe  every  State  has,  in- 
herent in  itself,  the  power  of  self-preservation 
and  self-protection,  the  power  of  expansion. 
Now,  it  seems  to  me  a very  unwise  thing,  if  we 
throw  away  what  I believe  to  be  one  of  the 
highest  instrumentalities  in  producing  the  best 
results, growing  out  of  this  common  school  sys- 
tem. 

Gentlemen  say  the  high  school  ought  not  to 
be  retained,  because  so  few  of  the  children  of 
the  State  are  benefited  by  it.  I do  not  so  re- 
gard it.  The  number  is  quite  large  who  are 
benefited  by  it.  I do  not  know  what  statistics 
gentlemen  refer  to,  but  I have  here  before  me 
the  Ohio  statistics  of  1873,  and,  on  page  411, 1 
find  the  number  of  scholars  enrolled  in  the 
high  schools  put  down  at  21,678.  Now,  that  is 
not  a very  small  number,  and  whether  the 
number  be  small  or  large,  if  it  is  small,  it  takes 
but  a small  tax,  and  if  gentlemen  complain  of 
it  because  the  number  is  large,  they  have  ad- 
mitted, by  their  course  of  reasoning,  that  its 
benefits  are  sufficient  to  warrant  the  imposition 
of  these  taxes.  So  it  seems  to  me  that,  in  either 
case,  there  is  no  reason  whatever  for  cutting  off 
this  high  school  system.  The  gentlemen  who  op- 
pose high  schools  admit  that  the  common  school 
system  has  been  advantageous.  They  will  ad- 
mit, to  retain  the  common  branches  would  be 
desirable.  It  is  easily  seen,  whether  advantag- 
eous or  not,  that  just  in  proportion  to  the  sur- 
rounding influences — just  so  far  as  the  State  and 


2218 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. [143rd 

Pease.  [Friday, 


the  people  encourage  education,  in  just  so  much 
a higher  degree  will  it  benefit  the  people  of  the 
State ; and  to  remove  from  the  system  the  high 
school  branches,  I undertake  to  say,  would  take 
away  the  great  stimulus  of  the  lower  depart- 
ments, the  common  school  department.  The  very 
fact  that  there  is  a point  beyond ; the  very  fact 
that  there  is  a high  school,  to  which  they  may 
reach,  is  an  incentive  to  all  the  boys  and  girls, 
small  and  large,  as  they  grow  up,  to  go  forward, 
study  hard,  and  to  know  that  they  may  get 
through  these  "lower  departments,  and  thus 
finally  reach  the  higher  departments.  Suppose 
they  fail  in  reaching  these  higher  departments; 
is  it  not  true  that  they  have  made  better  use  of 
their  time,  and  better  progress  while  in  the 
lower  departments,  than  they  would  have  done 
but  for  this  prospect  of  going  higher?  I say 
this  influence  upon  the  scholar  is  a sufficient 
reason  to  retain  the  high  school  system,  if  it 
have  no  other  effect. 

One  of  the  members  seems  to  urge  that  the 
high  school  should  be  abolished,  and  attempted 
to  show  it  by  carrying  the  system  to  extremi- 
ties. He  says,  why  not  educate  them  for  pro- 
fessions? Why  not  educate  them  for  the  min- 
istry,-for  physicians  and  surgeons,  and  for 
the  law  ? The  gentleman  might  have  saved 
himself  the  time;  but  he  built  up  a man  of 
straw,  that  he  might  easily  knock  it  down. 
Nobody  proposed  any  such  thing.  No  system 
proposes  any  such  thing.  But  we  do  propose, 
so  far  as  I have  any  knowledge  on  the  subject, 
that  the  children  of  the  poorest  man  in  Ohio, 
or  those  of  the  loneliest  widow  in  the  State, 
shall  have  as  good  an  opportunity  for  a good 
and  thorough  education,  in  the  common  schools 
of  the  State,  as  the  rich  man’s  children.  It  is 
but  a small  mite  to  your  millionaire.  It  is  but 
a trifling  matter  to  those  who  have  the  means 
of  educating  their  own  children.  They  can 
send  their  children  away  if  there  were  no  com- 
mon schools.  Say  that  half  of  the  people  of  the 
State  might  do  it.  I apprehend  they  would  not. 
I do  not  believe  that  one-tenth  of  them  would  do 
it.  Without  a good  class  of  schools,  the  in- 
centive to  education  would  be  taken  away,  and 
the  public  sentiment  for  education  would  be 
withdrawn,  and  would  drop  down  to  a low 
level.  If  it  is  a mere  selfishness,  it  seems  to 
me  even  that  class  of  persons,  if  they  will  really 
look  at  their  true  interests,  will  see  that  there  is 
a great  benefit  to  their  children  arising  from 
this  common  school  system  and  the  high  school 
system ; that  it  will  have  a tendency  to  create  a 
higher  standard  of  education ; and  I submit  that 
it  is  to  the  advantage  of  a large  majority  of  the 
families  of  the  State  to  have  their  children  edu- 
cated at  home. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell,  but  Mr.  Pease’s  time 
was  extended.] 

Mr.  PEASE.  I shall  endeavor  not  to  occupy 
much  longer  time.  It  strikes  me  that  in  any 
view  you  are  disposed  to  look  at  this  question, 
it  is  doing  a great  injustice  to  the  people  of  the 
State  to  strike  out  this  high  school  system.  Af- 
ter educating  this  class  of  persons,  when  they 
have  got  through  this  high  school  system,  they 
are  prepared  to  go  back  to  the  common  schools 
and  become  the  educators  of  your  children. 
They  become  the  teachers  of  the  land.  You 
furnish  the  means  and  it  is  a self-regulating 


institution,  and  when  they  have  passed  through 
these  graded  schools,  they  are  qualified  for  it, 
and  in  this  way  the  State  can  be  provided  with 
good  teachers  and  does  not  need  to  import  them. 

Why  go  to  Massachusetts  for  school  teachers, 
when  you  can  raise  them  at  home  ? You  can 
see  without  some  such  system,  you  will  not  have 
a good  class  of  teachers.  It  may  be  said  that 
the  colleges  will  furnish  these  teachers.  It  is 
only  wealthy  persons  who  can  take  advantage 
of  these  institutions.  It  is  only  the  favored 
classes  that  can  do  it.  If  there  is  any  one  thing 
I deprecate  on  earth  more  than  another,  it  is 
the  development  of  any  system,  political  or  re- 
ligious, which  will  favor  any  exclusive  class  of 
institutions.  Do  away  with  all  classes  so  far  as 
the  rights  of  the  common  people  are  concerned ; 
let  them  all  have  an  equal  chance ; furnish  them 
with  these  facilities,  and  when  you  have  done 
that,  the  race  then  may  be  to  the  fleet,  and  the 
battle  to  the  strong. 

Upon  this  branch  of  the  question,  the  gentle- 
man from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page]  says  he  doubts 
the  constitutionality  of  imposing  any  such  tax 
for  any  such  purpose.  I would  not  have  any 
doubt  about  that,  with  the  Constitution  as  it  is, 
and  I think  the  present  Constitution  gives  the 
right  and  power  of  doing  what  is  sought  to  be 
done  in  this  proposition;  but,  for  fear  this 
would  induce  some  Legislature,  some  time,  to 
do  otherwise,  I am  in  favor  of  giving  such  an 
expression  in  this  Constitution  that  nobody, 
hereafter,  will  say  the  power  to  tax  for  this 
purpose  is  doubtful. 

Authorities  have  been  referred  to.  Those  au- 
thorities clearly  would  be  applicable  only 
where  there  is  a doubt  of  constitutional  power. 
Those  authorities  never  were  applicable,  and 
never  can  be  made  applicable,  to  cases  where 
there  is  a clear  constitutional  right,  and  this  is 
what  I propose  to  give  by  adopting  the  present 
amendment.  But  passing  from  that,  I am  re- 
minded, if  I am  not  careful,  I shall  make  a 
speech,  and  that  I insist  I shall  not  do.  I re- 
gret if  I am  getting  tedious,  because,  if  there 
is  anything  I am  sensitive  about,  it  is  a dislike 
to  annoying  any  one. 

Another  proposition  is  urged  in  connection 
with  the  common  school  system,  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery],  who  com- 
mands my  highest  regard  for  the  frankness 
which  he  has  exhibited  in  the  arguments  he 
has  presented,  and  the  fairness  with  which  he 
has  presented  them.  It  is  urged  by  him,  while 
he  is  willing  that  all  taxes  shall  be  levied  as 
they  now  are,  and  that  no  restraint  shall  be  laid 
upon  the  taxing  power,  and  that  education  shall 
become  just  as  universal  as  it  is  possible  to 
become,  that  this  fund,  when  raised,  should  be 
divided,  and  a portion  of  the  fund  should  be 
given  to  the  use  of  one  class  of  people,  and 
another  portion  should  be  diverted  to  another 
class.  I believe  that  is  his  proposition,  fairly 
put.  That  is  his  argument.  To  that,  Mr. 
President,  I am  utterly  opposed,  and  whatever 
views  I may  entertain  with  regard  to  this  ques- 
tion, it  cannot  be  attributed  to  me  that  I do  it 
from  any  religious  or  sectarian  bias,  or  any  re- 
ligious preference,  for  I frankly  say  I have 
none.  If,  in  the  providence  of  God,  I can  learn 
where  the  right  is,  I shall  follow  that  right,  and 
I not  stop  to  inquire  where  it  leads  me.  But  I 


2219 


Day.] CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

March  20,  1874.]  Pease,  Carbery. 


am  utterly  opposed  to  any  division  of  this  fund. 
I do  not  believe  it  is  right  to  recognize  these 
sectarian  schools.  Upon  that  ground,  I voted 
in  favor  of  taxing  these  sectarian  school- 
houses,  and  opposed  an  exemption  of  that  kind, 
the  other  day,  simply  because  I did  not  want 
to  give  a semblance  of  recognition  of  sectarian 
education  as  a part  of  our  school  system.  It  is 
a fund  raised  by  a tax  upon  all  the  property  of 
the  State.  It  is  true,  it  includes  the  Catholic 
people  of  the  State.  They  contribute  equally 
with  all  the  other  people  of  the  State  to  this 
fund. 

Now,  has  the  State  in  any  regard  been  unjust 
to  them  ? It  says  to  the  Catholic,  and  to  the 
Jew,  and  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  who 
are  represented  in  our  State,  of  this  fund  you 
shall  have  an  equal  enjoyment.  They  permit 
every  Catholic  child  in  Ohio,  under  the  age  of 
twenty-one  and  over  the  age  of  six,  to  come 
and  participate  in  that  fund.  The  invitation  is 
held  out  bv  the  law.  It  is  for  all  the  children, 
and  all  alike  are  entitled  to  its  benefits  and  its 
enjoyments.  Now,  if  they  refuse  to  take  these 
benefits,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  State. 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  we  cannot  accept  the 
offer  you  make  to  us.  Why?  “Because  you 
do  not  teach  our  religious  faith.”  That  is  the 
bottom  of  it.  There  is  nothing  else  in  it.  “It 
is  not  because  you  have  the  Bible  in  your 
schools.”  Oh  no.  The  gentleman  was  frank 
enough  to  say  so,  and  the  argument  from  which 
he  read  was  frank  enough  to  admit  that,  to  take 
the  Bible  out  of  the  schools,  would  not  remoye 
the  difficulty.  It  is  admitted  in  so  many  words 
that  “it  is  because  you  do  not  teach  the  tenets 
of  faith.”  That  is  all  there  is  of  it. 

The  Catholic  Church,  as  I think,  recognizes 
no  government  which  is  found  on  earth,  to  be 
superior  to  “the  church.”  The  Catholic  Church 
— when  I speak  of  that  I do  not  mean  the  Catho- 
lic Church  in  Cincinnati,  or  any  portion  in 
Ohio  merely.  I go  to  the  power  behind  the 
throne,  which  is  greater  than  the  throne  itself. 
When  you  come  to  the  ultimate,  they  recognize 
no  form  of  government.  It  is  the  church , and 
every  requirement  of  the  State  which  stands  in 
the  way  of  the  church  must  go  down.  If  the 
form  of  government  is  inconsistent  with  the 
tenets  and  orders  of  the  church,  it  must  be  dis- 
regarded. That  is  the  controversy  going  on  in 
Europe  to-day.  The  question  is,  whether  the 
State  or  the  church  is  the  stronger.  Now,  sir, 
we  shall  transport  that  controversy  into  Ohio 
and  into'the  United  States  the  moment  we  be- 
gin to  recognize  the  right  of  this  demand.  The 
moment  we  begin  to  recognize,  by  the  organic 
law,  the  religious  relations  of  these  individuals 
to  the  church  as  superior  to  the  State,  that  mo- 
ment we  inaugurate  the  initiative  point  of 
what  is  transpiring  in  the  old  world  to-day.  I 
do  not  believe  that  is  wise.  I do  not  believe  the 
Catholic  Church  has  any  right  to  demand  it 
of  us. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  The  trouble  in  Europe  is 
that  the  State  has  interfered  with  the  domain  of 
the  church,  and  that  the  church  does  not  allow 
any  interference  with  her  domain. 

Mr.  PEASE.  What  is  the  domain  of  the 
church  ? 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Matters  purely  spiritual. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I have  no  doubt  they  have  been 


interfering  with  the  powers  of  the  church,  but 
it  is  a conflict  between  the  State  and  the  Pope, 
or  the  church,  which  is  the  same,  whether  the 
State  shall  yield  or  whether  the  Pope  shall 
yield.  Now,  countries  have  been  referred  to 
where  they  have  used  this  fund  by  dividing  it, 
as  contemplated  by  this  proposition.  I am  not 
sufficiently  familiar  with  the  working  of  this 
fund  where  it  is  divided  in  those  countries  re- 
ferred to,  but  I have  some  knowledge  of  the 
effect  ol  the  teachings  and  edqcation  of  the 
church,  derived  from  the  history  of  nations,  and 
I am  not  afraid  to  compare  the  condition  and 
standing  of  the  United  States  with  those  na- 
tions, and  towering  way  above  in  the  scale  is 
the  State  of  Ohio.  I am  not  ashamed  to  make 
the  comparison  between  the  State  which  admits 
of  no  division  of  its  school  fund  with  any  of  the 
nations  which  recognize  nothing  but  the  inter- 
ests of  the  church.  Compare  them  in  any  de- 
partment, schools,  agriculture,  arts,  science, 
progress,  the  great  onward  march  of  civiliza- 
tion, anywhere  or  anything,  and  show  me  one 
of  these  nations  or  countries,  although  centuries 
older  than  our  own,  show  me  one  of  them  which 
can  begin  to  compare  with  our  own  free  and 
independent  country.  Rome  stands  to-day  as  a 
tottering  column,  ready  to  fall  when  the  next 
blast  shall  come.  I do  not  believe  that  a good 
exemplar  to  follow.  I am  willing  to  adopt  the 
good  examples  and  good  customs  of  other  peo- 
ple and  nations,  but  I shall  never,  if  I can  help 
it,  adopt  their  bad  ones.  I shall  never  adopt 
any  system  or  plan  that  leads  to  bad  results,  as 
I think  this  clearly  will.  Let  our  votes  testify 
to  the  gentleman  and  his  friends  that  we  insist 
upon  this  fund  remaining  as  it  is,  not  from  any 
sense  of  hostility  to  them  as  a church,  but  sim- 
ply to  avoid  the  great  evils  which  we  believe 
will  be  brought  upon  us  if  we  depart  from  the 
system  we  have  followed  from  the  foundation 
of  the  government  up  to  the  present  time. 

Why,  sir,  if  the  Catholic  church  have  the 
right,  as  is  claimed  here,  to  demand  that  a sepa- 
rate fund  be  placed  at  their  disposal  for  their 
education,  and  f6r  church  purposes,  then  the 
Methodist — of  whom  my  friend  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Rowland]  is  a representative — can  come 
in  here  and  demand  that  that  church  be  pro- 
tected in  the  same  way.  All  other  churches 
shall  be  set  off  in  the  same  manner,  and  claim 
their  portions  of  fund.  The  Presbyterian — my 
own  church,  which  I have  great  faith  in,  be- 
lieving that  I am  elected — would  claim  the 
right.  Why  ought  not  these  to  educate  in 
their  own  faith  ? My  friend  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Freiberg]  would  have  the  right  to  the 
fund  to  educate  his  oppressed  people.  We  in- 
sist upon  it,  and  if  the  principle  is  adopted, 
the  fund  will  be  divided  up,  and  there  will  not 
be  boxes  enough  in  the  State  to  hold  it,  and  it 
will  require  a bookkeeper  to  ascertain  to  which 
faith  it  belongs,  because  these  institutions  are 
swarming  very  often.  Even  the  Catholic 
church  is  swarming.  The  Jews  have  swarmed ; 
the  different  forms  of  the  Protestant  faith  have 
swarmed  very  often,  and  as  they  grow  large, 
they  will  again  drop  off  other  swarms. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  what  part  of  the  Catholics  have 
swarmed? 

Mr.  PEASE.  I believe  they  have  in  the 


2220 


CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. [143rd 

Pease,  Carbery.  [Friday, 


Catholic  church  some  little  progress,  and  they 
call  themselves  reformers.  Perhaps  I am  mis- 
taken. I thought  there  was  some  reformation 
in  it. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  It  is  your  acceptation  of 
the  word  “reform,”  and  not  ours.  Those  that 
are  not  of  us  are  against  us. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I recognize  the  importance  of 
keeping  this  fund  in  a body,  instead  of  dividing 
it  up  and  dealing  it  out  to  the  different  sects. 
If  these  children  will  leave  their  faith  at  the 
threshold  of  the  common  schools 

Mr.  CARBERY.  It  is  very  doubtful  if  the 
child  does  leave  his  faith  at  the  threshold  he 
will  lose  it. 

Mr.  PEASE.  That  is  where  the  secret  lies. 
The  Catholics  are  afraid  of  trusting  their  child- 
ren beyond  the  threshold.  They  prefer  to  keep 
them  where  there  will  be  pumped  into  them 
this  idea  of  priesthood  and  sectarian  influence, 
for  fear  they  will  forget  it.  I do  not  believe 
there  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  such  a system. 
I believe  the  moment  we  begin  to  talk  about 
agitating  these  questions,  that  moment  we  get 
into  difficulty.  Why,  sir,  the  records  of  the 
past  are  full  of  the  wrongs  done  by  the  church, 
infallible  though  it  be.  The  church  has  been 
uniformly  engaged  in  conflict  with  different 
nations,  and  different  parts  of  the  same  nation. 
Some  of  the  most  outragous  wrongs  that  have 
«ver  been  inflicted  upon  humanity  have  grown 
out  of  the  agitation  of  these  religious  questions. 
You  can  hardly  turn  to  any  history  of  England 
or  other  nations  of  the  world  without  finding 
some  proof  of  it  there,  and  I have  before  me  one 
of  its  terrible,  bloody  records,  growing  out  of 
the  design  or  the  purpose  to  establish  one  faith 
over  an  other.  It  occurred  in  the  reign  of  Eliz- 
abeth. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Is  that  Dickens’  Child’s 
History  of  England? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Yes,  sir;  and  a very  good  his- 
tory. But  do  not  find  fault  with  the  authority 
until  you  see  whether  the  statements  are  cor- 
rect, or  until  you  are  ready  to  dispute  them.  I 
read  it  as  a sort  of  warning  to  any  attempt 
towards  agitating  these  questions: 

“Since  the  Reformation,  there  had  come  to  be  three 
^reat  sects  of  religious  people— or  people  who  called 
themselves  so— in  England;  that  is  to  say,  those  who  be- 
longed to  the  Reformed  Church,  those  who  belonged  to 
the  Unreformed  Church,  and  those  who  were  called  the 
Puritans,  because  they  said  that  they  wanted  to  have 
everything  very  pure  and  plain  in  all  the  church  ser- 
vice. These  last  were  for  the  most  part  an  uncomfortable 
people,  who  thought  it  highly  meritorious  to  dress  in  a 
hideous  manner,  talk  through  their  noses,  and  oppose  all 
harmless  enjoyments.  But  they  were  powerful  too,  and 
very  much  in  earnest;  and  they  were,  one  and  all,  the  de- 
termined enemies  of  the  Queen  of  the  Scots.  The  Protes- 
tant feeling  in  England  was  further  strengthened  by  the 
tremendous  cruelties  to  which  Protestants  were  ex- 
posed in  France  and  in  the  Netherlands.  Scores  of 
thousands  of  them  were  put  to  death  in  those  countries 
with  every  cruelty  that  can  be  imagined,  and  at  last,  In 
the  autumn  of  the  year  one  thousand  flve  hundred  and 
seventy- two,  one  of  the  greatest  barbarities  ever  com- 
mitted in  the  world  took  place  at  Paris. 

“It  is  called  in  history,  The  Massacre  of  Saint  Bartholo- 
mew, because  it  took  place  on  Saint  Bartholomew’s  Eve. 
It  fell  on  Saturday,  the  twenty-third  of  August.  On  that 
day  all  the  great  leaders  of  the  Protestants  (who  were 
called  Huguenots)  were  assembled  together  for  the  pur- 
pose, as  was  represented  to  them,  of  doing  honor  to  the 
marriage  of  their  chief,  the  young  King  of  Navarre, 
with  the  sister  of  Charles  the  Ninth,  a miserable  young 
Xing  who  then  occupied  the  French  throne.  This  dull 
creature  was  made  to  believe  by  his  mother  and  other 
fierce  Catholics  about  him,  that  the  Huguenots  meant  to 
take  his  life,  and  he  was  persuaded  to  give  secret  orders 


that,  on  the  tolling  of  a great  bell,  they  should  be  fallen 
upon  by  an  overpowering  force  of  armed  men,  and 
slaughtered  wherever  they  could  be  found.  When  the  ap- 
pointed hour  was  close  at  hand,  the  stupid  wretch, 
trembling  from  head  to  foot,  was  taken  into  a balcony  by 
his  mother  to  see  the  atrocious  work  begun.  The  mo- 
ment the  bell  tolled  the  murderers  broke  forth.  During 
all  that  night  and  the  next  two  days,  they  broke  into  the 
houses,  fired  the  houses,  shot  and  stabbed  the  Protestants, 
men,  women  and  children,  and  flung  their  bodies  into  the 
streets.  They  were  shot  at  in  the  streets  as  they  passed 
along,  and  their  blood  ran  down  the  gutters.  Upward  of 
ten  thousand  Protestants  were  killed  in  Paris  alone,  and 
in  all  France  four  or  five  times  that  number.  To  return 
thanks  to  Heaven  for  these  diabolical  murders,  the  Pope 
and  his  train  actually  went  in  procession  at  Rome;  and 
as  if  this  were  not  shame  enough  for  them,  they  had  a 
medal  struck  to  commemorate  the  event.  But,  however 
comfortable  the  wholesale  murders  were  to  those  high 
authorities,  they  had  not  that  soothing  effect  upon  the 
doll-king.  I am  happy  to  state  that  he  never  knew  a 
moment’s  peace  afterward,  and  he  was  continually  cry- 
ing out  that  he  saw  the  Huguenots,  covered  with  blood 
and  wounds,  falling  dead  before  him ; and  that  he  died 
within  a year,  shrieking  and  yelling,  and  raving  to  that 
degree  that  if  all  the  Popes  who  had  ever  lived  had  been 
rolled  into  one,  they  would  not  have  afforded  his  guilty 
Majesty  the  slightest  consolation.” 

Yet  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery] 
says  the  Catholic  church  has  not  changed.  I 
do  not  read  this  for  the  purpose  of  making  the 
Catholic  church  responsible  for  any  such  atroc- 
ities to-day,  but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
the  more  we  can  keep  hands  ofl  in  these  rela- 
tions, the  better  it  is  for  us.  When  we  open  the 
doors  of  our  schools,  but  say  we  shall  teach  no 
tenets  of  any  faith,  we  have  done  all  that  any 
nation  or  people  ought  to  require  us  to  do,  and 
all  that,  in  my  judgment,  we  ought  to  do. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I ask,  for  a moment  or  two, 
the  attention  of  the  Convention  for  the  purpose 
of  saying  a few  words  with  regard  to  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  the  speech  of  the  gentleman 
from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease].  I said , in  the  present- 
ation of  the  arguments  which  I had  the  honor 
to  place  before  the  Convention  to-day,  and  I 
strove  to  do  it  without  any  acrimony  whatever. 
I strove  to  do  it  without  digging  up  the  graves 
of  the  past,  /and  rehashing  all  that  has  been 
written  and  charged,  and  again  and  again  dis- 
proved, all  that  has  been  repeated  ad  nauseum 
with  regard  to  those  old  religious  persecu- 
tions. In  making  that  argument,  I said  that  I 
did  not  believe  that  the  requirement  of  any 
proper  discussion  called,  in  any  manner,  for  the 
reproduction  of  these  old  episodes,  for  I assert 
with  perfect  certainty  that  no  charge  of  perse- 
cution can  be  alleged  against  any  one  class  of 
persons  in  times  of  civil  or  religious  strife,  which 
can  not  be  charged,  with  equal  force,  against  all 
others.  I am  of  that  opinion,  sir.  I said,  in 
my  argument  to-day,  that  I believed  there  was 
no  gentleman  in  this  Convention  who  had  not 
outlived  those  narrow  opinions.  I find,  sir, 
that  I would  have  to  remodel  that  speech  if  I 
were  to  repeat  it  again  as  to  the  measure  of  free- 
dom from  bigotry  and  intolerance  of  some  of 
my  colleagues  on  this  floor.  I cannot  account 
for  the  introduction  into  this  discussion  of 
such  bald  assertions  delivered  with  such 
obvious  malignancy.  I cannot  see  what 
they  have  to  do  with  the  argument,  but  if 
the  gentleman  wishes  an  exhaustive  treatise 
upon  the  subject  of  the  massacre  of  Saint  Bar- 
tholomew, I respectfully  refer  him  to  the  files 
of  the  Commercial  and  the  Catholic  Telegraph 
of  the  city  within  the  last  year,  where  the  sub- 
ject is  not  discussed  by  Charles  Dickens,  nor 
Peter  Parle}”,  or  any  of  those  sentimentalists, 


Day.] CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 2221 

March  20, 1874.]  Carbery. 


but  by  much  abler  men,  in  a very  exhaustive 
manner,  and  I have  no  doubt  that  it  will  reform 
the  gentleman’s  conclusions  as  to  whether  that 
was  more  a religious  or  a civil  strife,  and 
whether  or  not  the  persecutions  of  the  Hugue- 
nots wer o based,  very  much,  upon  the  same  sort 
of  reasons  that  have  actuated  us,  for  instance, 
when  we  were  at  war  with  a portion  of  these 
States.  The  Huguenots  were,  perhaps,  less 
Frenchmen  than  they  might  have  been,  and  less 
loyal  to  France  than  they^ might  have  been,  and 
they  incited,  thereby,  the  hatred  of  the  French 
nation.  That  old,  old  story  of  the  medal,  and 
the  old  story  of  the  Te  Deum,  I leave  with  the 
gentleman,  with  the  recommendations  above. 
If  his  inclination  takes  him  to  that  kind  of  study, 
very  well.  Let  him  live  and  learn. 

I have  said  what  I now  again  repeat,  that  the 
Catholic  Church  has  not  varied  the  deposit  of 
faith.  Her  rule  of  faith,  I say,  always  re- 
mains the  same,  unchangeable.  She  believes 
that  she  has  a mission  so  to  preserve  it,  that  the 
children  of  the  world  have  been  given  to  her 
for  the  purpose  of  being  kept  in  possession  of 
the  truth,  and  that  the  Divine  assurance  has 
gone  forth  that  the  Spirit  of  God  will  be  with 
her  to  the  end. 

I know  how  many  things  have  been  done  in 
the  past  at  which  the  Church  has  wept.  I know 
that  in  the  middle  ages  the  Church  was  the  only 
autonomy  that  preserved  anything  like  public 
justice,  or  restrained  public  murder.  I know 
that  she  did  not  always  succeed,  but  I do  know 
that  she  always  nobly  strove,  and  sufficiently 
kept  the  peace,  to  bridge  over  that  broad  chasm 
from  the  wreck  of  the  old  civilization  to  the 
birth  of  the  new,  and  that  she  gave  the  oppor- 
tunity, by  the  laws,  the  literature,  and  the  civil- 
ization thus  preserved,  for  the  reconstruction  of 
society  and  the  possibility  of  freedom.  I think, 
in  claiming  this  I am  claiming  nothing  not 
justified  from  the  pages  of  history.  And 
now,  with  reference  to  those  other  charges  of 
the  gentleman,  I shall  endeavor,  if  I can,  to  re- 
produce his  words.  He  says  that  it  is  because 
Catholics  are  afraid  that  their  children  will  not 
be  stuffed  with  priestcraft,  or  priesthood,  that 
they  refuse  to  patronize  the  common  schools. 

Now,  sir,  I take  exception  to  that  way  of  dis- 
cussing the  question.  The  fear  of  the  Catholic 
is  that  his  child,  because  of  the  action  of  teach- 
ers, may  lose  the  pearl  of  faith.  I would  ask 
the  practical  men  of  this  Convention,  if  a great 
many  children  have  not  lost  the  pearl  of  faith, 
and  whether,  if  the  gentleman  and  I disagree 
upon  the  value  of  it,  I have  not  a perfect  right 
to  consider  it  of  priceless  value,  and  that  if  I 
try  to  keep  my  child  in  possession  thereof,  it  is 
questionable  if  the  gentleman  has  any  right  to 
object?  I think  a man  can  be  an  intelligent 
man  and  a Catholic  at  the  same  time,  and  as  in- 
dependent a man  as  any,  and  a Catholic,  too ; 
and  I maintain  that  we  Catholics  are  so.  I 
maintain  that  we  are  asking  here,  in  this  Con- 
vention, simply  justice.  We  are  asking  noth- 
ing except  that  the  Legislature  of  our  State 
shall  be  left  free  to  give  or  withhold  in  the 
coming  time. 

I said  this  morning  that  it  was  of  no  use  for 
any  gentleman  to  say  to  me,  here  is  a broad 
system  to  which  you  are  invited.  I had  sup- 
posed I was  sufficiently  explicit.  I thought  1 


had  said  this  morning,  that  it  was  well  known 
to  every  intelligent  man,  and  especially  so  to 
professional  gentlemen,  that  Catholics  cannot 
go  into  these  schools.  I do  not  say  whether 
these  schools  are  better  or  worse  therefor.  The 
Catholics  cannot  accept  the  invitation  to  them, 
and  in  order  to  prove  their  sincerity,  they  have 
built  up  a system  of  schools  all  over  the  State, 
and  support  them  at  a vast  expense,  and  all  I 
ask  is,  that  gentlemen  will  look  into  this  mat- 
ter, and  see  whether  there  is  not,  in  our  de- 
mand, a principle  of  justice. 

I cannot  see,  for  the  life  of  me,  what  danger 
there  is  to  come  to  this  Commonwealth,  because 
the  Methodists,  the  pious,  good  Methodists  and 
Presbyterians,  and  all  those  pious  people  may 
ask  for  a division  of  the  school  fund.  I cannot 
see  any  danger  in  that.  I never  could  see  that 
four  or  five  hundred  Methodist  children  at 
school,  together  learning,  not  an  emasculated 
religion,  such  as  was  taught  in  the  public 
schools  until  recently,  but  the  full,  complete,  ex- 
haustive, live  tuition  and  instruction  in  the  mat- 
ters of  their  faith,  which,  when  they  come  up 
to  estate  of  men  and  women,  would,  in  any 
respect,  endanger  the  virtue,  the  integrity,  and 
freedom  of  the  citizen.  It  is  too  late  to  say 
that  a man  is  a very  inferior  citizen,  as  soon  as 
he  becomes  religious.  I think  that  will  not  be 
borne  out  by  any  fact  that  can  be  adduced  here. 
It  will  not  be  asserted  by  the  hardiest  material- 
ist. Then  what  is  the  practical  aspect  of  this 
matter.  There  are  very  many  subjects  on 
which  all  creeds,  not  Catholic,  agree.  As  I 
said  a while  ago,  the  church  catholic  does  not 
change.  She  is  an  old  fashioned  church.  She 
does  not  find  that  she  can  assimilate  with  these 
new  elements,  unless  indeed,  they  come 
within  her  bosom.  At  all  events,  the  non- 
Catholic  sects  have  a good  many  points  in 
common  in  their  creeds.  They  have  no 
ritual,  or  very  little  of  it,  and  they  can  agree 
upon  a system  of  religious  instruction  in  the 
schools  that  will  be  pleasant  to  them  all. 
Now,  sir,  is  that  a fact,  or  not?  I answer  that 
it  is.  No  protest  has  ever  come  from  them  as  to 
former  practice.  The  only  protest  they  ever 
made  is  that  against  the  Catholics  being  accom- 
modated with  a part  of  the  school  fund.  For 
themselves,  they  were  content  with  the  system 
as  it  is.  We  are  not  content.  The  mass  of  the 
Catholics  of  the  State  are  not  content  with  a 
school  without  religion  in  it.  They  are  con- 
strained at  the  present  time,  and  I wish  to  im- 
press it  upon  the  minds  of  the  Convention,  they 
are  constrained,  I say,  by  the  action  of  the 
School  Board,  whether  it  suspend  or  restore 
Protestant  worship,  to  keep  away  from  the  State 
schools.  That  is  the  status  of  the  question.  It 
has  not  been  decided  yet  by  the  supreme  court 
that  it  is  legal  and  permissive  to  have  religious 
teachings  in  the  schools.  When  that  question 
comes  up,  we  shall  be  in  a more  satisfactory  po- 
sition, with  regard  to  this  question  and  this  dis- 
cussion, than  we  are  now.  That  question  has 
not  come  up.  When  a future  School  Board  shall 
restore  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools, 
as  it  may  do  at  any  time,  and  some  citizen  takes 
out  an  injunction  to  restrain  this  service,  the 
question  will  be  up.  So  far  the  question  has 
not  been  touched.  I think,  therefore,  that  the 
non-Catholic  sects  who  are  perfectly  satisfied 


2222 


CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Carbery,  Townsend. 


[143rd 


with  the  system,  and  do  not  ask  a division  o^ 
the  school  fund,  should  be  willing  to  give  the 
Catholics  a pro  rata  share,  and  it  would  not,  in 
the  least,  interfere  with  the  efficiency  and  con- 
duct of  the  public  schools.  They  have  their  pro- 
portion, and  there  is  no  sort  of  interference 
with  the  benefits  by  them  derived,  and  there 
will  be  no  danger  of  disorganizing  and  breaking 
up  the  public  schools,  and  therefore,  the  charge 
of  hostility  to  the  common  schools  is  not  sus- 
tained by  common  sense  and  the  facts  in  the  , 
case.  It  does  not  follow,  by  any  sort  of  ration- 
al reasoning,  that  I pull  down  my  neighbor’s 
altar  when  I build  up  my  own.  I do  not  | 
seek  to  do  it.  There  is  no  man  in  Ohio 
who  would  be  as  glad  as  I would  to  see  those 
churches  in  friendly  rivalry  in  the  matter  of 
education.  I think  the  State  would  be  bene- 
fitted  by  it.  I think  instead  of  paring,  and 
trimming,  and  apologizing  for  the  existence  of 
any  religion  whatever,  that  they  would  have  a 
robust  religion  in  the  schools,  and  we  would 
have  less  apologetic  Christianity  than  we  have  j 
at  present.  I confess  that  I yearn  for  the  com- 
ing of  that  day,  and  I am  not  appalled  by  any 
old  skeleton  which  the  fancy  of  the  gentlemen  , 
of  this  Convention  may  take  out  of  the  old  cos-  j 
tume  rooms  of  the  past  to  frighten  me  with, not  j 
a particle.  I am  not  afraid  of  our  people  losing  i 
their  faith.  No  fear  of  that.  I do  not  find  my-  j 
self  trembling  on  any  such  account  as  that.  The  i 
history  of  the  people  to  whom  I belong,  and  | 
who  know,  I think,  something  of  persecution 
as  well  as  the  Huguenots,  are  not  of  the  family 
of  men  who  sell  their  birth-right  for  a mess  of 
pottage.  I think  their  history  is,  in  this  re- 
spect, proud  enough  to  fortify  me  with  confi- 
dence in  the  future. 

This  very  enlightened  England,  this  puri- 
tanical England,  whose  nursery  historian  has 
been  quoted  here — but  it  is  unworthy  of  a man 
to  descend  to  that  thing  that  is  dead  and  stink- 
eth.  I surrender  a monopoly  of  this  business 
to  my  opponents.  My  people  have  been  perse- 
cuted in  turn  grossly,  but  they  cling  to  that 
faith,  they  came  here  believing  in  it.  They  are 
anxious  that  their  children  shall  go  down  the 
long  future  of  America  warmly  embracing  that 
old  creed  of  their  fathers. 

It  never  can  impair  the  safety  of  the  nation. 
No  better  citizens,  I take  it,  in  the  State  than 
the  Catholics.  They  are  as  good  as  the  best,  j 
No  man  in  practical  life  dreams  of  discrimi- 
nating against  them  or  distrusting  them  on  ac-  ! 
count  of  any  want  of  patriotism.  When  they 
have  been  born  here,  they  are  Americans.  They 
love  this  sod.  It  is  their  native  land ; they  are 
familiar  with  her  history.  What  reason  would 
this  people  have  to  turn  their  thoughts  and 
their  swords  against  the  nation  of  freedom,  or  to 
become  cold  to  the  great  interests  of  the  coun- 
try that  received  their  fathers  to  her  bosom  ? I 
am  anxious  to  relieve  them  at  this  very  hour 
from  the  feeling  that  is  calculated  to  embitter 
them,  to  give  them  a memory  that  it  will  not 
be  pleasant  afterwards  for  them  to  invoke  or 
remember.  I want  to  test  public  justice  as 
early  as  I can  in  the  State.  I want  to  leave  it 
possible  for  the  Legislature  to  do  so.  And 
when  I ask  it,  in  language  that  I strive  to  make 
temperate,  and  an  argument  that  I strove  to 
base  upon  good,  sound  principles,  divested  of 


[Friday, 


exaggerations,  I do  not  want  to  be  assailed  by 
these  old  calumnies  of  the  past  that  we  had 
hoped  that  we  had  lived  down.  If  I am  to  be 
voted  down,  as  I suppose  I shall  be,  I am  not 
dreamer  enough  to  believe  in  any  miraculous 
conversion — I want  it  to  be  done  on  the 
acknowledged  facts  in  the  case,  and  I do  not 
want  the  issue  to  be  hastened  nor  the  result 
affected  by  the  events  of  Saint  Bartholomew,  or 
by  any  other  massacre  or  any  other  strife,  re- 
ligious or  civil,  which  may  disfigure  history. 
I want  gentlemen  to  know  that  no  good  comes 
from  reviving  any  such  old  recollections.  I was 
studious  to  keep  away,  in  what  I had  to  say, 
from  any  old  acrimonies  which,  in  other  days, 
prevented  men  from  coming  near  enough  to 
one  another  to  see  the  color  of  each  other’s  eyes, 
or  the  facts  about  which  they  were  contending. 

I have  to  apologize  to  the  Convention,  if,  in 
in  replying  to  language  that  has  been  used 
about  my  faith,  I may  have  shown  some  heat. 
1 am  sorry  to  have  seen  it  in  the  gentlemen  who 
oppose  me.  I recollect  a sentence  I met  a good 
many  years  ago  in  reading,  “ that  you  scratch  a 
Russian,  and  you  find  a Tartar  underneath.”  I 
am  sorry  to  find,  in  discussion,  sometimes,  that 
when  you  scratch  a non-Catholic’s  professed 
liberalism,  you  find  a bigot  beneath  his  coat. 

Mr.  TOWNSEND.  I think  this  debate  has 
wandered  into  a theological  discussion  instead 
of  one  upon  education.  It  has  taken  a wider 
range  than  I hoped  it  would  have  taken,  and 
wider  than  I believe  has  been  profitable  to  this 
Convention.  I think  the  question  is  one  of 
State  policy,  whether  it  is  best  to  keep  the  Edu- 
cation Fund  together,  or  divide  it  up  between 
different  denominations.  That  will  be  the  re- 
sult of  it,  if  there  is  any  division  made  at  all, 
and  that  is  a question  that  every  gentleman  has, 
perhaps,  entirely  satisfied  in  his  own  mind  in 
reference  to,  and  I think  it  is  not  profitable  to 
discuss  the  tenets  of  the  Catholic  religion,  or 
any  other  religion  ; leave  that  to  other  fields,  it 
has  no  rightful  place  in  this  Convention. 

I am  opposed  to  the  entire  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Education,  with  perhaps  the  ex- 
ception of  the  recommendation  that  females  be 
authorized  to  hold  most  all  the  official  positions 
under  the  school  law.  This  I shall  favor.  Any- 
thing else  I will  vote  against. 

The  Constitution  as  it  now  stands  confers 
ample  authority  on  the  legislators,  whioh  has 
been  wisely  and  prudently,  and  will  continue 
to  be  judiciously  exercised  so  long  as  the  people 
are  permitted  to  elect  their  representatives, 
which  will  certainly  be  the  case  during  the  ex- 
istence of  this  Constitution,  and,  I believe,  so 
long  as  the  government  stands. 

The  amendment  proposed  to  section  two  is 
generally  understood  to  be  a blow  leveled  at  the 
high  schools  of  the  State,  and,  whether  so  in- 
tended or  not,  its  adoption  would  result  in 
greatly  impairing  their  usefulness,  or,  as  I be- 
lieve, entirely  abolish  them.  To  this  I am  abso- 
lutely and  unalterably  opposed. 

This  taking  out  of  the  hands  of  local  Boards 
of  Education  the  power  and  the  duty  (which  has 
been  so  wisely  confided  to  them)  of  adapting 
the  schools  to  the  wants  and  circumstances  sur- 
rounding each  school  district,  is  an  innovation 
that  is  wrong  in  theory  and  will  be  found  un- 
satisfactory in  practice. 


Day.] 

March  20, 1874.] 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Townsend,  Horton. 


2223 


In  many  counties,  and  all  towns  and  cities  the 
high  schools  are  a favorite  branch  of  our  edu- 
cational institutions,  and  the  people  would  be 
very  unwilling  to  lose  them,  or  tolerate  any- 
thing impairing  their  usefulness.  They  afford 
the  poor  and  middle  classes  of  youth  the  only 
means  they  can  have  of  obtaining  a good  edu- 
cation, and  fitting  them  for  commercial  and 
mechanical  branches  of  business.  They  also 
qualify  this  class  of  persons  to  be  the  future 
teachers  of  our  public  schools.  The  rich  parents 
can  afford  their  sons  and  daughters  the  advan- 
tages of  that  thorough  education  money  can 
always  secure. 

It  is  not  so  with  the  poor  man,  who  must  de- 
pend upon  institutions  supported  by  the  State, 
for  the  education  of  his  offspring.  One  great 
advantage,  resulting  from  high  schools,  and 
duly  appreciated  by  all  parents,  even  those  of 
the  wealthier  class,  is  that  they  afford  facilities 
for  educating  youth  without  removing  them 
from  the  moral  influences  of  home  and  expos- 
ing them  to  the  vicious  examples  and  surround- 
ings which  are  so  frequently,  I might  say  uni- 
versally, found  at  those  institutions  where  the 
young  patricians  of  our  commonwealth  are 
educated.  Under  the  present  system,  by  which 
scholars  in  public  schools  were  graded  accord- 
ing to  proficiency  in  their  studies,  and  schools 
established  in  accordance  with  these  grades,  the 
additional  cost  of  the  high  school  being  inci- 
dental to  these  gradations,  will  be  but  slight, 
and  this  additional  expense  was  and  should  be 
cheerfully  met  by  the  largest  class  of  tax 
payers  in  the  State,  who  regard  the  cost  as  tri- 
fling compared  with  the  beneficial  results  ac- 
cruing from  our  present  system  of  high  schools. 
The  public  schools  of  Ohio  are  the  crowning 
glory  of  the  State,  and  the  pride  of  every  citi- 
zen. Do  not  let  us  take  a backward  step,  but 
rather  a forward  one,  keeping  pace  with  the  ad- 
vancing civilization  of  the  age.  We  have  in  this 
State  about  fifteen  thousand  teachers — many  of 
them  graduates  of  our  high  schools ; and  gen- 
tlemen whose  business  it  is  to  investigate  this 
subject  think  nearly  all  the  future  teachers  of 
our  common  schools  will  be  graduates  of  the 
high  schools,  and,  of  course,  made  up  largely 
from  those  who  could  never  have  been  qualified 
for  this  important  duty  unless  the  present  high 
school  system  had  been  sustained. 

I shall  now  do  what  I really  got  up  for,  and 
that  is  to  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  a communi- 
cation wjiich  I received  a few  days  ago,  from 
Mr.  Kickoff,  Superintendent  of  the  public 
schools  of  the  city  of  Cleveland,  and  has  been 
so  for  a number  of  years,  and  was,  at  onetime, 
a resident  of  Cincinnati.  He  has  been  pretty 
well  known  throughout  the  State,  as  one  of  the 
most  earnest,  intelligent  and  successful  edu- 
cators in  the  State.  He  has  given  this  subject 
some  considerable  attention,  and  has  been  some- 
what alarmed  at  the  amendment  to  this  Article 
on  Education,  and  he  wrote  me  upon  the  sub- 
ject, and  as  it  is  somewhat  full,  and  covers  the 
ground,  I ask  the  Secretary  to  read  it  for  the 
information  of  the  Convention,  believing  that 
it  will  be  useful,  at  least,  to  some  members  of 
this  Convention,  and  aid  them  in  arriving  at 
correct  conclusions. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  following 
letter : 


Office  of  the  Sup’t  of  Public  Instruction,) 

236  Superior  Street,  Cleveland,  o.  j 
Hon.  Amos  Townsend,  State  Constitutional  Convention, 
Cincinnati,  Ohio — 

My  Dear  Sir:  The  limiting  clause,  proposed  by  the 
majority  of  the  Committee  on  Education,  viz : “The  power 
of  taxation  conferred  by  this  section  shall  be  limited  to  a 
sum  sufficient  to  educate  all  the  children  of  the  State,  in 
such  common  and  necessary  branches  of  learning  as 
shall  be  provided  by  law,”  is  likely,  under  any  common 
interpretation,  to  close  up  the  hign  schools  of  the  State. 
The  fact  is  thit  to-day  these  high  schools  do  not  educate 
our  young  men  so  that  they  can  compete  in  any  depart- 
ment of  science,  art  or  industry  with  the  educated  young 
men  from  foreign  countries.  This  is  so  generally  the 
case,  at  least,  that  it  is  said  by  the  extensive  manufac- 
turers of  the  East,  that  loreigners  in  their  employ  hold 
the  most  lucrative  positions.  The  reason  is,  that  in 
Europe  they  are  carried  not  only  through  the  lower  or 
rimary  schools,  but  also  through  'the  Scientific  High 
chool,  and  are  then  sent  to  pursue  special  branches  in 
the  Polytechnic  Schools.  Already  below  the  European 
Nations,  then,  as  we  now  are  in  the  facilities  tor  educat- 
ing our  youth,  your  Committee  on  Education  (?)  propose 
to  limit  us  yet  further.  They  propose,  in  effect,  that  the 
schools,  even  what  we  call  the  grammar  schools,  shall  be 
schools  for  the  poor  only,  such  as  they  had  in  Maryland 
and  Virginia  some  years  ago,  and  which  were  avoided  by 
all  who  could  afford  to  send  to  the  pay  schools.  In  a word, 
this  limitation  would  destroy  what  we  have  taken  so 
much  pride  in — our  common  school  system. 

Let  me  call  your  attention,  also,  to  the  fact  that  it 
would  take  from  us,  here  in  Cleveland,  the  only  institu- 
tion to  which  we  now  look  for  the  education  of  our 
teachers.  A very  large  proportion  of  our  teachers,  and 
of  our  very  best  teachers,  are  graduates  of  the  high 
schools.  Take  away  this  supply,  and  we  should  have  to 
go  to  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Massachusetts,  &c.,  for 
our  teachers,  or  take  the  young  girls  of  fourteen  to  six- 
teen years,  children  themselves  to  educate  the  younger 
children  of  the'lower  grades.  It  is  bad  enough  as  it  is, 
but  this  limiting  clause  would  make  it  still  worse. 

It  would  seem  necessary  that  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  State  should  receive  amendment  from  time  to  time,  to 
correct  abuse,  and  to  secure  some  progress,  but  the 
amendment  to  section  2,  proposed  by  the  Committee, 
takes  us  back  fifty  years,  if  not  more. 

Can  not  a section  be  added  to  this  Article,  or  put  in 
some  appropriate  place,  which  would  make  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Education  a constitutional  officer,  and  not  the 
creature  of  legislative  enactment?  Can  not  his  appoint- 
ment be  made  by  the  Governor  of  the  State  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Senate. 

I thank  you  for  the  copy  of  the  Report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Education. 

Truly  and  respectfully  yours, 

A.  J.  Rickoff. 

P.  S.— I have  left  the  strongest  consideration  against 
this  amendment  to  the  chances  of  a postcript.  It  is,  that 
it  takes  the  settlement  of  the  question,  as  to  how  far  a 
community  will  carry  the  education  of  its  youth,  out  of 
its  own  hands  and  places  it  in  the  hands  of  the  State  at 
large.  Respectfully, 

A.  J.  R. 

\:r.  HORTOX.  I have  no  desire  or  design  to 
inflict  a speech  upon  the  Convention  at  this 
time,  and  I might,  perhaps,  be  well  enough  sat- 
isfied to  confine  what  remarks  I have  to  make 
upon  this  subject  to  the  simple  expression  of 
yea  and  nay  upon  the  propositions  as  they  are 
called  for;  but  there  are  one  or  two  things  con- 
nected with  this  Report  upon  which  I desire, 
for  a single  moment,  to  give  more  emphatic  ex- 
pression to  my  feelings  than  I could  by  the 
mere  vote  which  I shall  cast.  I do  not  propose, 
however,  to  enter  into  any  extended  remarks 
upon  the  subject,  in  any  event. 

I indorse  the  report  of  the  Committee,  Mr. 
President,  in  so  far  as  it  seeks  to  take  an  on- 
ward step  in  the  interests  of  the  common 
schools  of  the  State,  and  I disapprove  of  every 
portion  of  this  Report  in  so  far  as  it  fails  to 
take  a forward  step,  and  seeks  to  commit  the 
people  of  the  State  to  a backward  movement  in 
the  cause  of  education. 

To  the  first  proposition — namely,  that  women 
shall  be  eligible  to  all  offices  under  the  school 


2224 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 


Horton. 


law — I give  my  most  hearty  approval.  It  was 
my  fortune,  some  years  ago,  to  be  a member  of 
the  board  of  county  examiners  of  our  county, 
and  we  had,  at  that  time,  some  considerable 
difficulty  in  obtaining  suitable  persons  to  fill 
that  position.  I had  my  attention  called  at 
that  time  to  the  question  of  having  those  offices 
filled  by  women,  and  could  have  procured  the 
consent  of' the  probate  judge  to  their  appoint- 
ment, if  he  could  have  been  satisfied  that,  un- 
der the  Constitution,  it  could  be  done.  I was 
satisfied  then,  and  have  been  satisfied  since, 
that  that  was  a position  which  the  ladies  are 
eminently  well  qualified  to  fill.  It  is  true  that 
nearly  all  the  teaching  in  our  public  schools  is 
done  by  women.  That  is  a fact  which  we  all 
understand.  The  only  offices  to  be  filled  by 
election  or  appointment,  under  the  provisions 
of  our  school  law,  are  upon  the  boards  of  school 
examiners  and  the  boards  of  education  in  the 
several  towns.  The  Convention  has  already 
provided,  by  an  amendment  to  another  Article 
of  the  Constitution,  that  women  shall  be  eligi- 
ble to  offices  by  appointment,  and  that  makes 
them  eligible  to  hold  the  office  of  school  exam- 
iner. There  then  remains  really  but  one  office 
under  the  provisions  of  our  school  law  to 
which  women  are  not  eligible,  and  that  is  a 
position  upon  the  board  of  education.  I under- 
take to  say  that,  within  my  own  personal 
knowledge,  I know  of  more  ladies  than  one — 
very  many  ladies,  indeed — who,  I have  no  hesi- 
tation in  saying,  are  as  well  qualified  to  fill  the 
position  as  any  gentleman  I know  in  the  town 
where  I reside.  They  would  bring  to  the  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  of  that  position  a conscien- 
tious and  intelligent  devotion  to  their  duty  that 
would  fully  equal  anything  we  have  ever  seen 
displayed  in  that  position.  For  that  reason,  sir, 
and  because  I know  that  they  take  a special 
and  an  earnest  interest  in  the  cause  of  educa- 
tion, I hope  to  live  to  be  able  to  see  positions 
upon  the  board  of  education  of  my  own  town 
filled  by  some  of  these  intelligent  women. 

Now,  sir,  a word  as  to  the  provision  by  which 
it  is  proposed  to  confer  upon  the  General  As- 
sembly the  power  to  make  education  compul- 
sory. I have  inquired  of  myself  why  the  State 
proposes  to  educate  at  all.  Why  does  the  State 
of  Ohio  take  upon  itself  the  burden  of  educat- 
ing any  of  its  children?  Does  it  do  it  as  a 
matter  of  charity  ? Does  the  State  propose  to 
take  from  me  my  property,  by  way  of  taxation, 
in  order  to  educate  my  neighbor’s  children  as  a 
matter  of  charity  ? I do  not  so  understand  the 
theory  of  our  law.  It  was  said,  many  years 
ago,  by  one  of  England’s  greatest  poets : 

“For  just  experience  tells,  on  every  soil. 

That  those  who  think  must  govern  those  who  toil.” 

In  a government  like  ours,  which  is  a gov- 
ernment of  the  people,  it  is  of  primary  impor- 
tance— nay,  it  is  of  indispensable  importance — 
if  we  would  have  the  people  govern  themselves, 
that  they  must  first  learn  to  think.  It  is  utter- 
ly idle  to  talk  of  maintaining  a form  of  govern- 
ment like  ours  unless  the  people,  into  whose 
hands  that  government  is  entrusted,  first,  be- 
come so  educated  that  they  can  understand  its 
principles,  its  provisions,  and  its  rules. 

I understand  then,  that  it  is  the  primary  duty 
of  the  government  to  see  to  it  that  its  citizehs 


[143rd 

[Friday, 


are  educated.  Hence,  we  propose  a system  of 
common  education  that  shall  place  within  the 
reach  of  every  child  of  the  State  the  means  by 
which  that  child  may  become  a citizen,  capable 
of  discharging  the  duties  that  devolve  upon  a 
citizen.  But,  sir,  if  it  be  the  duty  of  the  State 
to  see  that  its  citizens  are  educated,  I appre- 
hend that  the  State  has  fallen  far  short  of  its 
duty.  It  has  only  half  done  its  duty  when  it  has 
provided  the  means  by  which  its  children  may 
become  intelligent  citizens.  If  it  be  the  duty  of 
the  State — a duty  which  it  owes  to  itself  and 
people — to  provide  the  means  of  education,  I 
would  thank  any  gentleman  upon  the  floor  of 
this  Convention  to  tell  me  why  it  is  not  equally 
the  duty  of  the  State  to  go  further,  and  provide 
that  the  means  of  education  shall  be  made  effec- 
tive. If  the  State  taxes  me  and  takes  from  me 
my  money  in  order  that  the  child  of  my  neigh- 
bor shall  be  educated  that  he  may  be  able  to 
discharge  the  duties  of  a citizen,  have  I not  the 
right  to  say,  when  the  State  has  taken  my 
money  for  this  purpose,  that  it  shall  see  to  it 
that  the  money  is  applied  to  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  taken  ? And  I can  conceive  of  no 
theory  upon  which  we  can  sustain  the  idea  of 
a school  system  supported  by  the  State  which 
does  not  impose  upon  the  State  the  further  duty 
of  seeing  to  it  that  these  funds  are  appropriated 
and  made  available,  and  that  those  for  whose 
use  they  are  intended  shall  be  benefited  there- 
by. This  much  upon  that  point. 

There  is  one  thing  more,  which  I wish  to 
say — and  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  desire  which 
I have  to  speak  freely  the  feeling  which  I have 
upon  this  subject,  I would  not  have  been  before 
the  Convention  now — I cannot  but  regret  that 
it  should  have  been  found  possible  that  in  a body 
like  this,  representing,  as  I believe  it  does,  so 
fully  the  intelligence  and  public  spirit  of  the 
people  of  our  State,  a Committee  supposed  to 
represent  this  body  to  some  extent,  should  prove 
itself  capable  of  presenting  a Report,  which,  if 
carried  into  the  Constitution,  must,  in  my  judg- 
ment, strike  a blow  that  will  be  almost  fatal  to 
the  common  school  interests  of  our  State.  I 
have,  Mr.  President,  too  much  confidence  in 
the  intelligence  and  enlightened  judgment  of 
this  Convention  to  suppose,  for  a moment,  that 
it  will  be  possible  that  a system  so  utterly  at 
war  with  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  which  we  live, 
and  with  the  policy  of  our  people  as  shown  in 
the  past,  can  ever  be  adopted;  and  I confess 
myself  utterly  unable  to  appreciate  or  under- 
stand the  spirit  which,  at  this  time,  would  seek 
to  cripple  the  efficiency  or  reduce  the  standing 
of  our  common  schools. 

Mr.  President,  the  men  who  settled  the  State 
of  Ohio  understood  full  well  the  importance  of 
education,  and  when  they  came  here  to  found 
homes  for  themselves,  they  brought  with  them 
that  which  they  enjoyed  in  the  New  England 
States — they  brought  their  common  school  sys- 
tem. Hand  in  hand  with  the  pioneer  came 
the  school  master,  and  side  by  side  with  the  log 
cabin  rose  the  humble  school  house,  and  the 
school  master  was  placed  there  to  teach  the 
children  of  the  pioneer  that  they  might  become 
good  citizens  of  the  great  State  which  they  pro- 
posed to  found.  The  pioneers  of  that  State  un- 
derstood full  well 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 2225 

March  20, 1874.]  Horton. 


“What  constitutes  a State? 

Not  high  raised  battlements,  or  labored  mound, 

Thick  walls  or  moated  gate, 

Not  cities  proud,  with  spires  and  turrets  crowned, 

Not  bays  and  broad  armed  ports, 

Where,  laughing  at  the  storm,  rich  navies  ride, 

Not  starred  and  spangled  courts. 

Where  low-browed  baseness  wafts  perfume  to  pride. 
No,  men,  high  minded  men, 

With  powers  as  far  above  dull  brutes  endued, 

In  forest  brake  or  den, 

As  beasts  excel  cold  rocks  and  brambles  rude, 

Men  who  their  duties  know, 

But  know  their  rights,  and  knowing  dare  maintain; 
These  constitute  a State, 

And  sovereign  law,  that  State’s  allotted  will, 

O’er  thrones  and  globes  elate, 

Sits  empress;  crowning  good,  repressing  ill. 

The  fathers  of  our  State  understood  this. 
They  understood  the  necessity  of  seeing  to  it 
that  their  children  were  educated.  We  have 
heard  upon  the  floor  of  this  Convention,  time 
and  again,  enumerated  the  glories  of  our  State. 
The  gentleman  from  Logan  [Mr.  West]  told  us 
the  other  day,  in  words  of  eloquence,  all  that 
the  people  of  our  State  had  done.  Is  she  not 
foremost  in  all  the  councils  of  the  nation  ? In 
the  Executive,  upon  the  Supreme  Bench,  in  the 
Cabinet,  in  the  National  Congress,  at  home  and 
abroad,  wherever  America  and  American  in- 
fluences are  felt,  does  not  Ohio,  to-day,  stand 
pre-eminent?  And  may  we  not,  sir,  safely 
assume  that  much  of  all  this  which  we  so  much 
love,  and  in  which  we  so  much  glory,  in  our 
native  State,  is  the  result  of  the  common  school 
system  so  wisely  adopted  by  our  fathers. 

But,  sir,  the  people  of  Ohio  have  not  been 
contented  with  the  common  school  system 
which  they  established  in  the  first'settlement  of 
our  State.  As  they  have  grown  rich,  as  they 
have  grown  wealthy,  as  they  have  cleared  away 
the  forests  and  built  themselves  homes,  they  have 
felt  the  necessity  of  a higher  order  of  education. 
And  this,  not  by  any  artificial  means,  but  by  a 
natural  growth  and  a natural  combination  of  cir- 
cumstances,have  grown  upthe  high  schools  of  our 
State,  where  our  children  acquire  not  merely 
the  common  and  ordinary  branches  of  education 
as  they  were  known  in  those  early  times.  We 
want  a more  liberal,  a more  enlightened,  and  a 
more  extended  culture.  It  has  been  said  that 
those  who  avail  themselves  of  the  education  of 
the  higher  schools  are  the  children  of  the  rich, 
and  not  of  the  poor.  I venture  to  say  that,  so 
far  as  my  own  locality  is  concerned,  this  prop- 
osition is  entirely  without  foundation  in  truth. 
I know,  sir,  that  in  the  town  where  I live,  the 
children  of  the  poor,  the  children  of  the  labor- 
ing men,  the  children  of  women  who  work 
themselves,  are  foremost  in  the  high  school,  and 
that  the  scholars  who  stand  first  there  are  those 
who  would  find  it  impossible  to  obtain  anything 
like  an  approach  to  a liberal  education  without 
these  opportunities ; and  I know,  sir,  that  there 
is  no  portion  of  the  tax  which  the  people  of  my 
county  are  called  upon  to  pay,  which  they  pay 
more  cheerfully  than  that  which  they  pay  for 
the  support  of  their  high  schools.  I know  that 
with  them  the  high  school  has  grown  to  be 
looked  upon  as  a part  of  our  common  school 
system — almost  part  of  their  domestic  life,  and 
something  which  they  cling  to  and  would  not 
give  up ; and  I would  not  envy,  sir,  the  position 
of  the  man,  who,  representing  the  intelligent 
people  of  the  section  of  the  State  where  I live, 
should  dare  to  stand  up  on  this  floor  and  vote 

y.  n— 142 


to  strike  down  the  high  schools  they  have  been 
building  up  there. 

I do  not  exactly  understand  what  is  meant  by 
the  term  “ common  and  ordinary  branches  of 
learning.,,  We  are  told  by  one  gentleman  up- 
on this  Committee  that  he  proposes  to  give  these 
words  a liberal  interpretation,  and  he  asks  us 
somewhat  triumphantly  whether  we  require 
uncommon  and  unnecessary  branches  to  be 
added.  Most  assuredly  we  desire  no  unneces- 
sary branches  of  education ; but  if  gentlemen 
do  not  seek  to  set  back  the  school  system  of  our 
State,  if  they  do  not  seek  to  reduce  its  efficiency, 
why  this  provision  ? I can  understand,  respect 
and  appreciate  the  position  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton,  who  tells  us  frankly  upon  this 
floor  that  he  is  opposed  to  the  entire  system, 
and  because  he  cannot  strike  it  all  down,  he 
would  cripple  it  to  the  utmost  extent  of  his 
ability.  But  how  gentlemen  can  stand  up  here 
and  say  that  they  are  friends  of  the  common 
school  system,  and  that  they  believe  in  it,  and 
yet  propose  to  make  such  a change  as  would 
cripple  and  destroy  its  greatest  usefulness,  I 
cannot  comprehend.  I do  not  know  what  they 
understand  by  the  term  “ common  and  ordinary 
branches  of  learning.”  I know  that  it  was 
once  said  that  they  were  represented  by  the 
three  R’s,  reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic,  at 
least,  so  far  as  the  male  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity were  concerned.  It  was  generally  be- 
lieved, I think,  that  it  was  unnecessary  for 
woman  to  have  the  third  B,  arithmetic,  but  that 
they  should  learn  to  read  and  write.  I do  not 
know  whether  that  is  what  is  understood  by 
“ common  and  ordinary  branches  of  learning.” 
Perhaps  it  would  be  found  necessary,  in  our 
day,  that  we  should  have  some  knowledge  of 
geography,  and,  perhaps,  of  English  grammar, 
though  I question  somewhat  whether  that 
would  be  deemed  “necessary.”  I have  been 
somewhat  at  a loss,  Mr.  President,  to  know 
where  these  gentleman  have  found  the  type  of 
a school  master  who  would  be  adapted  to  their 
idea  of  a school  that  ought  to  be  maintained  by 
the  people.  It  may,  perhaps,  be  found  in  the 
words  of  an  English  poet.  He  has  given  in  a 
description  of  a school  master,  who,  perhaps, 
would  come  up  to  the  standard  of  one  who  could 
teach  the  “ common  and  ordinary  branches  of 
learning.” 

“The  village  all  declared  how  much  he  knew; 

’Twas  certain  he  could  write  and  cipher  too; 

Lands  he  could  measure,  terms  and  tides  presage, 

And  e’en  the  story  ran  that  he  could  gauge; 

In  arguing,  too,  the  parson  owned  his  skill, 

For  e’en  though  vanquished  he  would  argue  still; 

While  words  of  learned  length  and  thundering  sound, 

Amazed  the  gazing  rustics  ranged  around; 

And  still  they  gazed,  and  still  the  wonder  grew, 

That  one  small  head  could  carry  all  he  knew.” 

Mr.  President,  I am  not  prepared  to  enthrone 
such  a man  at  the  head  of  the  schools  in  the 
town  in  which  I live.  I am  not  prepared  to  go 
backward,  and  take  such  a one  as  the  man  who 
shall  teach  my  children;  and  I know,  sir,  that 
the  intelligent  people  of  the  place  in  which  I 
live  are  not  prepared  for  it.  I know  it  takes 
money  to  educate  children  as  we  would  have 
them  educated.  I know  that  civilization  takes 
money.  I know  that  every  step  we  take  in 
civilization  and  education  brings  with  it  a de- 
mand for  increased  culture,  brings  with  it  finer 


2226 


CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. [143rd 

Horton,  Pratt,  Cook,  Voris.  [Friday, 


tastes  and  enlarged  desires;  and  these  bring 
with  them  the  necessity  of  a greater  expendi- 
ture of  money.  If  men  desire  to  get  along 
without  spending  money,  if  the  spending  of 
money  is  something  that  must  be  avoided  at  all 
hazards,  it  can  be  done  by  going  and  living 
where  money  is  not  required.  In  the  forest, 
where  roamed  the  American  Indian,  money  is 
not  needed.  The  man  who  goes  there  will  be 
troubled  with  no  tax  gatherer;  no  grocery  bill 
will  ever  haunt  his  vision,  and  he  will  never 
have  to  complain  that  the  bills  of  the  dry  goods 
man  are  larger  than  they  ought  to  be.  I tell 
you,  nevertheless,  that  if  we  are  to  enjoy  the 
benefits  of  civilization,  if  we  are  to  enjoy  edu- 
cation, if  we  are  to  live  on  with  the  cultivated 
tastes  and  desires  that  civilization  brings,  we 
must  prepare  ourselves  to  spend  the  necessary 
amount  of  money  to  obtain  these  results;  and 
while  I would  practice  economy,  while  I would 
have  no  respect  for  that  spirit  which  would 
waste  the  people’s  money,  I must  say  that  1 
have  little  sympathy  with  that  disposition  which 
is  continually  complaining  because  these  bene- 
fits cost  money,  and  because  they  cannot  be  ob- 
tained without  money  and  without  price. 

Mr.  PRATT.  The  subject  under  discussion  is 
a very  fruitful  one,  and  will  listen  to  the  produc- 
tion of  a very  valuable  amount  of  literature  in 
the  next  week;  but  inasmuch  as  the  Convention 
is  to  adjourn  on  the  thirty-first  of  this  month, 
I move  that  the  general  debate  do  now  close. 

Mr.  COOK.  While  I am  very  anxious  to  save 
time  upon  this  report,  I desire  that  gentlemen 
should  be  heard  to  the  full  extent  which  they 
desire  upon  this  question;  and  I hope  the  gen- 
tleman will  withdraw  his  motion. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I have  noticed  that  some  gen- 
tlemen have  been  speaking,  but  have  not  ob- 
served that  anybody  has  been  heard  for  the  last 
hour. 

Mr.  COOK.  That  may  be  true;  still,  I do  not 
desire  to  see  anybody’s  head  cut  off  on  that  ac- 
count. I would  say  to  the  gentleman  from 
Williams  [Mr.  Pratt]  that  the  gentleman  from 
Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears],  who,  perhaps,  may  be 
considered  as  the  father  of  this  motion,  wishes 
to  be  heard  in  general  debate,  and  I am  desirous 
of  giving  him  an  opportunity. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I withdraw  the  motion. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I am,  sir,  desirous  of  submitting 
a few  considerations  in  the  hearing  of  this  Con- 
vention, on  this  very  important  question,  but 
before  I do  so,  I would  like  to  have  a few  para- 
graphs from  the  paper,  which  I hold  in  my  hand, 
read  for  the  information  of  the  Convention.  I 
will  state  what  it  is,  so  that  if  gentlemen  should 
object  to  the  reading,  they  may  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  do  so.  It  is  a copy  of  the  Lenten  Pas- 
toral of  Bishop  Gilmour,  of  the  Northern  dio- 
cese of  this  State,  addressed  to  his  charge  about 
one  year  ago — perhaps  a little  over  a year  ago — 
in  which  he  announces  the  position  of  his 
church,  and  the  authority  that  it  assumes  to 
exercise  over  the  educational  interests  of  those 
within  his  spiritual  charge : 

“Though  much  has  been  done,  much  remains  to  be  done ; 
enemies  are  everywhere.  Resistance  to  law  is  the  order 
of  the  day;  revolution  is  triumphant;  and  under  the 
guise  of  progress,  infidelity  and  disobedience  is  the  reli- 
gion of  the  hour.  Liberty,  which  now  means  license,  dis- 
order, robbery,  is  in  every  one’s  mouth,  whilst  God  and 
truth  are  forgotten.  The  Holy  Father  is  a prisoner;  the 


Church  persecuted  and  robbed,  and  her  authority  de- 
fied. Society  is  fast  accepting  the  old  Pagan  doctrine 
that  the  individual  is  for  the  State,  not  the  State  for  the 
individual.  Under  the  specious  plea  of  zeal  for  educa- 
tion, unless  we  make  a bold  stand  for  our  rights,  we 
shall  soon  see  the  child  taken  from  the  parent  and  com- 
pulsory education  inaugurated,  b ew  believe,  and  fewer 
still  care  for  religion.  The  Church  cries  aloud  her  warn- 
ing note,  but  nobody  listens ; whilst  the  devil  goes  on  sow- 
ing the  seed  of  ruin.  We  must  be  up  and  doing,  and 
shoulder  to  shoulder  meet  the  enemy.  Never  was  there 
a time  when  Catholics  needed  unity  more,  or  when  they 
had  a more  dangerous  enemy  to  meet;  dangerous,  be- 
cause he  comes  as  an  angel  of  light. 

“If  we  will  hold  our  own  amid  this  universal  war  that 
is  going  on,  we  must  be  more  united.  There  must  be  less 
petty  jealousies  among  us,  nationalities  must  be  made 
subordinate  to  religion,  and  we  oust  learn  that  we  are 
Catholics  first,  and  citizens  next. 

******** 

“The  question  of  the  day  is  no  longer  Catholicity  and 
Protestantism,  but  Catholicity  and  rationalism  or  infidel- 
ity, which,  under  the  cry  of  education,  carries  on  the 
war. 

******** 

“At  present  we  have  nothing  to  hope  from  the  State. 
Yet,  we  must  not  therefore  cease  to  insist  upon  our  rights 
and  if  needs  be,  at  the  polls  demand  them.  Were  Catho- 
lics alive  and  united  on  the  school  question,  were  they  to 
demand  from  every  man  who  asks  their  vote,  a pledge 
that  he  would  vote  for  our  just  share  of  the  school  fund, 
legislators  would  learn  to  respect  the  Catholic  vote,  and 
give  us  our  just  rights.  Catholics  are  too  timid,  they  seem 
to  go  upon  the  principle  that  if  they  are  tolerated  they 
are  doing  well.  This  is  a mis' ake;  if  we  let  our  rights 
go  by  default,  we  should  not  wonder  if  we  lose  them.  We 
must  be  decided  in  our  demands  and  present  a bolder 
front  to  our  enemies.  It  is  unjust  to  so  organize  the  pub- 
lic schools  that  we  can  not  in  conscience  send  our  chil- 
dren to  them,  and  then  tax  us  for  their  support.  As  well 
create  a State  Church,  and  tax  us  lor  its  support.  The 
honesty  of  the  American  mind  will  no  doubt  in  time  see 
this,  and  give  us  onr  just  demands.  But  in  the  meantime 
what  are  we  to  do?  Fold  our  arms  and  sit  idle?  Let  our 
children  grow  up  in  ignorance,  and  so  be  beaten  in  the 
race  of  life?  Send  them  to  the  public  schools,  where  not 
only  their  faith  will  be  end mgered,  but  their  virtues  ex- 
posed? No,  a hundred  times  no.  We  must  build  Catholic 
schools  everywhere,  and  at  whatever  cost,  support  and  lift 
them  up  till  they  are  equal  to  the  best.  It  is  our  solemn 
injunction  and  most  positive  command,  that  every  church 
in  the  diocese  have  its  school.  Where  a congregation 
cannot  at  once  build  both  church  and  school,  let  them 
build  the  school  house  and  wait  for  the  church.  There  is 
little  danger  of  the  old  losing  their  faith,  but  there  is 
every  danger  that  the  young  will. 

“On  the  school  question  there  can  be  and  must  be  no 
division.  Either  we  are  Catholics  or  we  are  not.  If  we 
are  Catholics  we  must  leave  after  us  a Catholic  youth. 
And  experience  has  clearly  proved  this  cannot  be  done 
unless  the  children  are  early  taught,  and  daily  taught 
that  they  are  Catholics.  We  must  not  sleep  while  our 
enemies  are  working.  Nor  must  we  forget  that  the  pub- 
lic schools  are  organized  and  managed  for,  and  in,  the 
interests  of  Protestantism. 

“We  solemnly  charge  and  most  positively  require  every 
Catholic  in  the  diocese  to  support  and  send  his  children 
to  a Catholic  school.  When  good  Catholic  schools  exist, 
and  where  it  may  be  honestly  said,  a child  will  get  a fair, 
common  school  education:  if  parents,  either  through 
contempt  of  the  priest  or  disregard  for  the  laws  of  tne 
Church,  or  for  trifling,  or  insufficient  reasons,  refuse  to 
send  their  children  to  a Catholic  school,  then,  in  such 
cases,  but  in  such  cases  only,  we  authorize  confessors  to 
refuse  the  sacraments  to  such  parents,  as  thus  despise  the 
laws  of  the  Church,  and  disobey  the  command  of  both 
priest  and  bishop. 

“Parents  sin,  who  in  their  pride  send  their  children  to 
the  public  schools,  because  they  think  it  is  more  genteel 
to  associate  with  Protestants  than  with  Catholics.  No 
gen  ility  will  compensate  for  the  danger  to  their  faith, 
to  which  they  thus  expose  their  children.  Catholics  thus 
acting  have  but  little  faith,  and  if,  against  every  warn- 
ing, they  will  thus  persevere  in  thus  wantonly  and  un- 
warrantably exposing  their  children  to  danger,  they  will 
render  themselves  unworthy  of  the  sacraments,  and  they 
need  not  wonder  if  they  be  denied  them.  We  cannot 
serve  God  and  the  devil.  In  this  age  of  infidelity,  when 
the  world  is  at  war  with  the  Church,  and  every  hand 
turned  against  us,  we  must  stand  by  our  faith,  mindful 
of  what  Christ  has  said:  ‘Whosoever  shall  deny  me  be- 
fore men,  I will  also  deny  him  before  my  Father  who  is 
in  heaven.’ 

“Hereafter  there  are  and  will  be  no  trustees.  The 
Bishop  is  the  only  trustee  in  the  diocese,  and  in  his  name 
all  property  is  held.  Under  no  circumstances  will  we  al- 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Voris,  Cook,  Russell  of  Meigs. 


2227 


Day.] 

March  20, 1874.] 


low  laymen  to  hold  church  property,  or  in  any  way  con- 
trol it.  Titles  to  church  property,  whether  in  the  form  of 
deeds  or  land  contracts,  shall  be  made  directly  to  the 
Bishop,  ‘his  heirs  and  assigns,’  without  qualification  or 
condition.  Nearly  all  the  troubles  we  have  noted  in  the 
diocf  se  have  arisen  from  a failure  to  strictly  comply 
with  the  orders  laid  down  in  the  ‘Rules  and  regulations 
for  the  administration  of  the  temporal  affairs  of  the 
Church  in  the  diocese.'  We  hereby  require  every  priest 
to  have  a copy  of  them,  read  and  explain  them  to  their 
congregations,  and  then  follow  them. 

“We  have  said  there  are  no  trustees,  but  according  to 
the  ‘Rules  and  Regulations’  above  quoted,  councilmen 
shall  be  elected  in  every  congregation;  whose  duty  it 
will  be  to  assist  the  priest— not  govern  him.  Councilmen 
must  not  forget  that  they  are  elected  to  counsel  and  assist, 
not  to  direct  or  govern  the  priest;  that  is  the  Bishop’s  busi- 
ness; nor  will  they  assume  the  right  to  control  or  man- 
age the  money  matters  ot  the  church,  independent  of  or 
against  the  will  of  the  priest.  The  priest  and  the  coun- 
cilmen must  be  one,  and  when  a difference  of  opinion 
arises,  the  priest  must  be  obeyed  till  the  matter  in  dis- 
pute can  be  referred  to  the  Bishop,  whose  decision  is  final. 
Pastors  will  carefully  explain  this  article  to  their  con- 
gregations, and  see  that  its  provisions  are  carried  out  ” 

Mr.  COOK.  It  is  getting  late,  and  is  about 
our  time  to  adjourn.  The  gentleman  from  Sum- 
mit [Mr.  Voris]  is  really  not  prepared  to  make 
his  speech  to-night,  and  I move,  therefore,  that 
the  Convention  do  now  adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  not  agreed  to,  twenty- 
three  gentlemen  voting  in  the  affirmative,  and 
twenty-eight  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I do  not  see  how  I ought  to  ask 
the  Convention  to  adjourn  at  this  time,  on  my 
account,  and  I am  very  much  at  a loss  to  de- 
termine whether  or  not  the  subject  has  not  been 
so  thoroughly  discussed  that  it  might  be  an  act 
of  supererogation  to  say  anything  further 
thereon. 

I must  believe  that  the  convictions  of  this 
Convention  are  settled,  that  it  is  the  right  of  the 
State  to  see  to  the  education  of  its  children. 
When  I put  the  question  to  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery],  upon  the  statement 
that  it  was  not  the  right  of  the  State  to  control 
the  education  of  its  children,  whose  right  it 
was  ? he  replied  that  he  would  remit  this  to  the 
individual  judgment  of  every  parent  in  the  State. 
When  the  question  was  put  to  that  gentleman 
as  to  whose  duty  it  was,  when  the  parent  neg- 
lected it,  he  failed  to  answer.  But  is  it  neces- 
sary for  me  to  appeal  to  the  sense,  judgment  or 
knowledge  of  this  Convention  upon  a question 
that  must  so  thoroughly  impress  itself  upon  the 
conviction  of  this  body?  I think  that,  so  far  as 
that  question  is  concerned,  no  discussion  will 
make  it  more  strongly  felt  than  it  is  now  felt  by 
the  delegation  upon  this  floor. 

If  it  were  not,  as  I believe  it  is,  the  intent  of 
a foreign  despotism  to  control  the  educational 
interests  of  the  State  here,  I would  be  satisfied 
with  my  silent  vote  and  not  think  of  raising 
my  voice  against  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 


man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery].  But  when 
I see  it  attempted  here,  under  the  guise  of  con- 
scientious duty,  under  an  appeal  to  religious 
duty  to  compel  the  State  to  remit  this  matter  to 
the  individual  care  of  the  parents,  or  to  priest- 
ly dictation  from  a power  that  we  do  not  recog- 
nize in  this  State,  it  seems  to  me  that  some  one 
ought  to  protest  against  such  an  appeal  in  this 
body.  Why  is  it  that  the  public  schools  of  the 
State  may  not  be  patronized  by  the  parents  of 
this  church?  I have  in  vain  listened  to  every- 
thing that  has  been  said  here  to-day  upon  the 
subject,  and  I have  been  unable  to  hear  a single 
reason  urged  why  this  system  should  not  have 
the  cordial  support  of  our  people.  It  is  said 
that  the  conscientious  convictions  of  a large 
portion  of  our  people  are  against  the  manage- 
ment of  these  schools.  Wherein?  What  is 
there  in  their  management,  what  is  there  in  the 
system  that  has  a dangerous  or  immoral  ten- 
dency, or  that  pits  itself  against  the  conscien- 
tious convictions  of  any?  Not  a fact  has  been 
given — nothing  but  the  simple  charge  that  has 
been  made  here,  without  a fact  or  a reason  to 
sustain  it.  What  is  the  trouble?  Those  who 
have  urged  a change  in  the  organic  law  of  the 
State  in  this  matter  ought  to  have  been  able 
to  point  out  to  us  their  reasons.  I am  thus  com- 
pelled to  believe  that  the  doctrines  announced 
in  this  paper  just  read  at  the  Secretary’s  desk, 
and  which  has  the  sanction  of  the  head  of  the 
Catholic  church,  contain  the  true  reasons  why 
they  make  this  attack  upon  our  system.  It  is 
because  Rome  has  issued  its  decrees  to  the  peo- 
ple of  our  State,  and  for  no  other  reason,  that 
these  schools  may  not  be  patronized  by  the  pa- 
rents of  these  children.  Now,  I take  it  that  the 
people  of  Ohio  will  not  yield  to  such  dictation 
as  this.  If  they  do,  then  they  are  fit  to  be 
slaves. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs.  I see  there  is  a 
disposition  among  the  members  to  go  away 
anyhow,  and  it  is  getting  time  for  us  to  adjourn. 
I therefore  move  that  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

Before  the  motion  was  put,  leaves  of  absence 
were  asked  and  obtained  as  follows : 

By  Mr.  Gurley,  until  Wednesday  follow- 
ing. 

By  Mr.  Burns,  until  Wednesday  following. 

By  Mr.  Townsend,  indefinitely,  after  Satur- 
day following. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  to 
adjourn. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon  (at  5:  30  p.  m.)  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


2228 


[144th 


PETITIONS  AND  MEMORIALS. 

Russell  of  Musk.,  Byal,  McCormick,  Baber,  Andrews.  [Saturday, 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND 


FORTY-FOURTH  DAY  OF  THE  CON- 
VENTION. 


EIGHTY-SECOND  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


Saturday,  March  21,  1874. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to  ad- 
journment. 

Prayer  by  the  Rev.  A.  J.  Hobbs,  of  the  Sixth 
Street  Christian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  sixty-five  members 
answered  to  their  names. 

LEAVE  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Young,  of  Champaign,  until  Wednesday 
next;  for  Mr.  Kerr,  until  Tuesday  next;  for 
Mr.  Andrews,  until  Wednesday  next;  and  for 
Mr.  Pond,  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 

MEMORIALS  AND  PETITIONS. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Muskingum,  presented  the 
memorial  of  Hon.  M.  M.  Granger,  late  judge  of 
common  pleas  of  that  county,  on  the  subject  of 
providing  in  the  Constitution  for  a system  of 
licenses  for  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

The  Secretary,  by  request,  read  the  same  as 
follows : 

Zanesville,  O.,  March  19, 1874. 

To  the  Honorable  Constitutional  Convention: 

Allow  me  to  respectfully  and  briefly  state  a few  rea- 
sons why  the  Constitution  ought  to  be  so  framed  as  to 
permit  the  Legislature  to  provide  a system  regulating 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  by  a license  law,  and 
making  it  the  duty  of  the  Legislature  to  suppress  tippling 
and  intemperance. 

Under  the  present  Constitution  and  laws  the  above 
named  evils  abound. 

A prohibitory  law  can  never  be  faithfully  and  contin- 
uously enforced. 

Experience  teaches  that  no  law  to  which  any  consider- 
able portion  of  the  people  in  every  county  are  opposed 
can  be  enforced  faithfully  and  continuously. 

A license  law,  framed  in  good  faith,  to  suppress  tip- 
pling and  intemperance,  should 

1.  So  limit  the  number  of  licensed  venders  as  to  permit 
not  more  than  one  to  every  thousand  inhabitants. 

2.  Each  licensed  person  should  prove  to  the  satisfaction 
of  a judge  that  he  is  a law  observing  and  obeying  citi- 
zen; he  should  pay  at  least  $f()0  license  fee  lor  the  first 
year,  and  a reasonable  annual  fee,  and  upon  any  condi- 
tion of  a violation  of  the  law,  his  license  should  cease, 
and  never  be  renewed ; he  should  give  bond  and  security, 
secured  also  by  mortgage  on  real  estate,  in  the  sum  of 
$5,000,  that  he  will  observe  the  law,  and  pay  all  fines  and 
damages  that  may  be  assessed  against  him.  The  law 
should  provide  that  the  building  in  which  the  liquors  are 
sold,  and  the  lot  of  land  on  which  it  stands,  shall  in  all 
cases  be  liable  for  damages,  costs  and  fines  assessed 
against  any  license,  provided  that  the  owner  did  not,  in 
leasing  the  premises,  stipulate  that  no  intoxicating 
liquors  should  be  sold  therein,  and  that  the  lease  should 
be  void  if  any  should  be  sold  therein.  And  in  cases  where 
the  law  so  stipulated  ihe  property  to  become  liable,  as 
aforesaid,  in  case  the  owner  failed  to  re-enter  and  resume 

Eossession,  within  ten  days  after  notice  of  a sale  of  such 
iquor  thereon. 


No  license  to  be  allowed,  to  make  any  sale,  except  in  a 
room  not  more  than  thirty  feet  deep,  on  a level  with  the 
street  (or  not  more  than  one  foot  above  such  level),  pro- 
vided with  large  windows,  towards  the  street,  of  clear, 
unpainted  glass,  no  screens  of  any  kind  to  be  allowed; 
the  view,  from  the  street,  of  the  entire  room,  to  be  unob- 
structed. 

Heavy  penalties,  always  including  imprisonment,  for 
sales  of  any  intoxicating  liquors  to  any  minor,  to  any  in- 
toxicated person,  or  to  any  person  in  the  habit  of  getting 
intoxicated.  The  seller  to  be  liable  for  all  damages  (in- 
cluding exemplary  damages)  caused  by  the  intoxication 
of  any  person  to  whom  an  illegal  sale  was  made,  provided 
such  sale  contributed  to  such  intoxication. 

I am  not  prepared  with  a proposition  for  a constitu- 
tional provision  on  this  subject,  but  I respectfully  ask 
the  attention  of  the  proper  Committee  of  the  Convention, 
and  pray  that  provision  be  made  that  will  secure  such  a 
license  law  as  I have  outlined. 

Respectfully, 

Moses  M.  Granger. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  BYAL  presented  the  remonstrance  of 
Mrs.  Martha  Gale,  Mrs.  Melinda  B.  Perch,  and 
two  hundred  and  forty-four  other  women  of 
Hancock  county,  against  inserting  any  clause 
in  the  Constitution,  which  will  directly  or  in- 
directly authorize  the  licensing  of  the  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

Mr.  McCORMICK  presented  the  petition  of 
A.  G.  Thomas,  and  seventy-two  other  citizens 
of  Gallia  county,  asking  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention to  submit  to  the  citizens  of  this  State, 
a section  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale 
of  spirituous  and  malt  liquors,  except  for 
medicinal  and  mechanical  purposes. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  BYAL  presented  the  remonstrance  of  W. 
H.  Newell,  and  two  hundred  and  two  other 
citizens  of  Hancock  county,  against  inserting 
any  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  will 
directly  or  indirectly  authorize  the  licensing  of 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  BABER  presented  the  petition  of  Rev. 
F.  S.  Thurston,  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  other 
citizens  of  Licking  county,  praying  that  the 
Constitution  be  amended  so  as  to  give  the 
General  Assembly  power  to  prohibit  the  sale 
and  manufacture  of  intoxicating  liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  ANDREWS  submitted  the  following  Re- 
port: 


Day.J  THE  JUDICIAL  ARTICLE  REPORTED  BACK. 2229 

March  21, 1874.]  Andrews,  Beer,  West,  Cook,  Powell,  Yoris. 


REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIAL 
DEPARTMENT. 

The  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department,  to  whom 
was  recommitted  Proposition  No.  185,  as  amended,  and 
to  whom  were  referred  the  amendments  thereto,  proposed 
by  Mr.  Powell,  report  the  same  back  to  the  Convention, 
and  recommend  that  said  Proposition  No.  185  he  amended 
as  follows : 

1.  That  the  blank  in  line  one,  in  section  6,  before  the 
words  “Judicial  Circuits,”  be  filled  with  the  word 
“seven;”  that  the  word  “may”  be  substituted  for  the  word 
“ shall  ,”  and  the  words  “ in  rotation”  be  omitted  in  line 
six  of  the  same  section. 

2.  That  the  blank  in  line  one,  section  8,  before  the 
words  “ Common  Pleas”  be  filled  with  the  word  “twelve,” 
and  that  the  phraseology  of  said  section  be  changed  so 
that  it  will  read  as  follows: 

The  State  shall  be  divided  into  twelve  common  pleas 
districts,  of  contiguous  territory,  bounded  by  county 
lines;  each  district,  composed  of  two  or  more  counties, 
shall  be  divided  into  subdivisions,  not  exceeding  the 
number  of  judges  to  be  chosen  therein,  of  contiguous 
territory,  bounded  by  county  lines,  and  as  nearly  equal 
in  population  as  practicable,  due  regard  being  had  to 
business.  In  each  district  and  in  each  subdivision  there- 
of, such  number  of  common  pleas  judges,  residing  therein, 
as  provided  in  this  Constitution,  shall  be  elected  by  the 
electors  thereof,  who  shall  be  judges  of  their  respective 
districts.  In  each  quarter  of  the  judicial  year,  which 
shall  commence  on  the  first  day  of  March,  annually,  a 
term  of  the  common  pleas  court  shall  be  held  by  one  of 
these  judges,  in  each  county  of  the  several  districts,  and 
more  than  one  court,  or  sitting  thereof,  may  be  held  in 
any  district  or  subdivision  at  the  same  time.  The  judi- 
cial service  of  each  district  shall  be  apportioned  to  the 
several  counties  thereof  according  to  population,  due  re- 

§ard  being  had  to  business.  Not  less  than  seventy-two 
ays  of  open  session,  in  the  first,  third  and  fourth  quar- 
ters respectively,  and  twenty-four  days  in  the  second 
quarter,  shall  be  held  annually  by  each  jud^e,  unless  all 
the  business  standing  on  the  docket  assigned  to  him  shall 
be  sooner  disposed  of;  and  the  General  Assembly  may 
rovideby  law  for  assigning  a judge,  or  judges  of  any 
istrict,  to  hold  said  court  in  any  other  district,  when 
such  assistance  shall  be  necessary. 

3.  That  the  word  “or,”  after  the  word  “circuit,”  in 
line  one  of  section  12,  be  stricken  out,  and  that  the  words 
“or  subdivisions”  be  inserted  in  the  same  line,  after  the 
word  “districts.” 

4.  That  the  words  “for  the  unexpired  term,”  in  line 
four  of  section  19,  be  stricken  out,  and  word  “guberna- 
torial” he  inserted  at  the  end  of  the  line,  before  the  word 
“election.” 

The  Committee  ask  to  be  discharged  from  the  further 
consideration  of  the  amendments  proposed  by  Mr.  Pow- 
ell, for  the  reason  that  the  provisions  of  his  first  amend- 
ment are  contained  substantially  in  sections  6,  8 and  12 
of  the  original  Report,  and  because  his  second  amendment 
is  more  properly  matter  of  legislation  than  of  constitu- 
tional provision. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Ewing,  heretofore  adopted  by 
the  Convention,  ought,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Committee, 
to  be  severed  from  the  Judicial  Article  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  the  Schedule.  They  therefore  submit 
for  the  action  ot  the  Convention  the  following  resolution: 
Resolved,  That  the  amendment  to  Proposition  No.  185, 
offered  by  Mr.  Ewing,  and  adopted  by  the  Convention, 
which  provides  for  submitting  to  the  people,  in  an  alter- 
native form,  a method  of  electing  judges  of  the  supreme 
and  circuit  courts,  by  “proportional  suffrage,”  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Schedule,  with  instructions  to  report 
it  as  a proposition  in  their  Article. 

S.  J.  Andrews, 

D.  D.  T.  COWEN, 

J.  W.  Reilly, 

Henry  S.  Neal, 

B.  Burns, 

John  C.  Hale, 

C.  H.  Scribner, 

W.  H.  West, 

C.  H.  Mitchener, 

J.  D.  Horton, 

Thomas  Beer. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I move  that  the  Report  be 
laid  upon  the  table,  and  be  printed. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BEER.  I would  suggest  to  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee,  that  it  would  be  well  to 
have  the  Article  printed,  with  the  amendments 
in  italics.  Amendments  are  made,  and  I think 
we  should  print  the  Report. 


Mr.  ANDREWS.  My  motion  was  to  print 
the  Report. 

Mr.  BEER.  But  would  it  not  be  better  to 
print  the  Article  with  the  amendments  in 
italics  ? 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  I am  not  sure  but  it  would. 

Mr.  BEER.  It  would  be  more  convenient  for 
members  to  see  how  it  is  amended. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  It  would  be  considerable 
expense,  and  there  are  amendments  only  in 
three  sections. 

SECOND  READING. 

The  following  Proposition,  under  a suspen- 
sion of  the  Rule  for  second  readings,  was  read 
by  its  title  only  : 

Proposition  No.  228  -From  the  Committee  on  the  Traffic 
in  Intoxicating  Liquors:  A Substitute  for  section  18 of  the 
Schedule. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BUSINESS. 

Mr.  WEST.  The  Report  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors,  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  was  it  not  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  was. 

Mr.  WEST.  As  I had  the  honor  of  intro- 
ducing a Proposition  on  that  subject,  I move 
that  it  be  taken  from  the  table,  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  no  objection, 
it  will  be  so  ordered. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  that  we  proceed  to  the 
special  order  of  the  day. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I move  that  general  debate 
upon  this  subject  now  close. 

The  PRESIDENT  The  Chair  would  say  to 
the  gentleman  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell] 
that,  if  he  recollects  right,  the  gentleman  from 
Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  had  the  floor  at  the  ad- 
journment last  evening. 

Mr.  YORIS.  At  the  .time  of  the  adjourn- 
ment last  evening,  I was  referring  to  the  author- 
itative announcement  of  the  position  taken  by 
the  Catholic  church  upon  the  educational  ques- 
tion in  Ohio.  I referred  to  the  orders  and  de- 
crees of  the  Catholic  Bishop  Gilmour,  of  the 
northern  diocese  of  this  State,  to  show  that  it 
was  the  purpose  of  that  church  to  control  the 
education  of  our  children  at  the  expense  of  the 
sanctity  of  the  family  relation,  and  against  the 
authority  and  power  of  the  State  to  control  in 
that  behalf.  I also  referred  to  it  to  show  that 
there  was  a conflict  of  jurisdiction  existing  in 
the  State  of  Ohio  upon  this  very  question ; that 
it  was  pointedly  drawn,  and  that  the  question 
was  so  presented  to  us  that  we  had  to  determine 
whether  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  should 
control  in  this  matter,  or  whether  this  power  of 
control  should  emanate  from  a foreign  power. 
I wish  it  distinctly  understood  that  I have  no 
sectarian  bias  that  prompts  me  to  take  the 
course  I have  in  this  matter,  for,  if  I know  my 
status,  and  I think  I do,  I am  not  at  enmity 
with  any  church  organization.  In  the  estima- 
tion of  the  orthodox  Christian  world,  I am  an 
unregenerate  sinner.  [Members.  “Agreed, 
agreed,”  and  laughter.]  I belong  to  no  secta- 
rian creed.  As  to  the  political  notions  that  I en- 
tertain, they  certainly  ought  not  to  be  charged 
to  any  sectarian  or  religious  bias.  In  fact,  I 


2230 


CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS, 


[144th 

Voris.  [Saturday, 


have  never  been  accused  of  any  very  strong 
religious  bias  one  way  or  another.  I look  upon 
this  as  purely  a question  of  State  policy; 
whether  it  would  be  better  for  the  people,  ex- 
ercising their  intelligent  volition  in  this  mat- 
ter, to  control,  or  whether  it  would  be  better 
that  any  church  or  aggregation  of  churches 
might  overrule  the  just  powers  of  the  State. 

Upon  this  matter  of  State  policy  I propose 
now  to  address  the  Convention. 

I,  “ Richard,  by  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
appointment  of  the  Apostolic  See,  Bishop  of 
Cleveland,  do  most  solemnly  charge  and  most 
positively  require  every  Catholic  in  the  dio- 
cese,” etc.  * * » * 

The  paragraphs  read  at  the  desk  yesterday 
afternoon  are  the  decrees  authoritatively  an- 
nounced to  the  free  citizens  of  Ohio,  in  the 
year  of  grace  1873,  through  the  properly  ac- 
credited exarch  of  a little  despotism  that, 
twenty  years  ago,  embraced  about  17,000  square 
miles  of  territory,  stretching  across  the  Italian 
peninsula  from  the  Adriatic  to  the  Mediterra- 
nean, but  now  confined  to  the  territorial  limits 
of  a single  ward  in  the  ancient  city  of  Romu- 
lus, whose  absolute  and  ambitious  head,  vainly 
believing  in  the  traditions  of  the  Caesars,  that 
Rome  must  govern  the  world,  without  as  much 
as  a decent  request  for  our  consent,  is  dictating 
to  us  what  we  shall  do  with  the  children  of  the 
State. 

This  would  be  so  puerile  as  only  to  provoke 
contempt,  were  it  not  that  this  boasted  attempt 
at  temporal  power  was  backed  by  the  assumed 
sanctions  of  divine  authority,  that  no  man  can 
disobey  and  not  lose  his  soul,  and  bring  the 
most  appalling  calamities  upon  his  household. 

This  subterfuge  of  despotism,  with  many,  has 
no  weight — who  look  upon  it  as  a stupendous 
delusion,  a wicked,  hypocritical  deception,  only 
entitled  to  the  most  unqualified  contempt;  but, 
with  others,  whom  education  has  carefully 
manipulated  into  respect  for  the  power,  rever- 
ence for  the  edicts,  and  unqualified  obedience 
to  all  that  emanates  from  the  Holy  See  as  obe- 
dience to  God,  and  the  contrary  as  incurring 
His  greatest  displeasure,  it  has  irresistible 
force. 

When  we  remember  how  religious  dogmas 
hold  and  control  the  heart  of  man,  and  how 
superstitions,  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  no  mat- 
ter how  unreasonable,  have  swayed  the  minds 
of  men,  and  beyond  all  power  of  reasonable 
control,  and  what  infinite  mischiefs  have  fol- 
lowed their  blind  sway,  and,  above  all,  when  we 
know  that  the  assumed  rights  of  “ apostolic  suc- 
cession,” to  direct  the  conscience  of  mankind, 
has  filled  the  Western  world,  for  the  last  four- 
teen centuries,  with  political  confusion  and 
a moral  slavery  as  abject  as  ever  fell  to  the 
misfortune  of  mortals,  and  now  aims  to  enchain 
the  aspirations  and  consciences  of  this  age  to 
the  behests  of  that  one-man  power  at  Rome, 
backed  by  all  the  traditions  of  the  church,  all 
the  beatitudes  of  the  eternally  blessed,  and  all 
the  horrors  of  the  everlastingly  damned,  and 
all  within  the  exercise,  volition,  power  and  in- 
fallibility of  this  God-head  here  on  earth,  and 
millions  on  millions  of  devout  people  believing 
in  it  as  their  only  way  to  heaven,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  look  at  the  attempted  exercise  of 


dominion  by  the  Roman  pontiffs  here  as  no 
matter  of  trifling  import. 

The  destiny  of  dynasties,  States  and  empires 
are  now  established  or  overturned  by  this 
power,  and  the  American  Republic  is  by  no 
means  beyond  the  machinations  of  this  wily 
despot,  or  the  dangers  of  his  arrogant  assump- 
tions. 

Now,  why  is  this  attack  made  on  our  free 
school  system  ? Is  it  because  our  schools  are 
sectarian  or  intolerant  in  their  teachings,  or 
immoral  in  their  tendencies? 

Is  it  really  because  parents  cannot  conscien- 
tiously send  their  children  to  them  on  account 
of  inherent  evils  in  the  system,  or  because  of 
improper  and  unfair  administration  of  the 
same? 

If  either  of  these  questions,  except  the  first, 
can  be  properly  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
then  I would  frankly  say  that  the  injunctions 
and  denunciations  of  the  bishop  of  Cleveland 
were  proper,  and  if  we  could  not,  or  would  not 
reform  the  evils,  I then  would  say,  God  speed 
to  his  efforts. 

Are  the  public  schools  sectarian  or  intolerant 
in  their  teachings?  I say  no,  most  unquali- 
fiedly. 

The  children  of  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  Greek 
and  Barbarian,  Christian  and  Infidel,  Catholic 
and  Protestant,  have  equally  attended  our  pub- 
lic schools  from  the  founding  of  our  State  as  a 
territory  till  to-day,  and  nobody  but  the  Catho- 
lics ever  urged  that  they  were. 

Among  all  the  denominational  jealousies  that 
exist,  unhappily,  among  our  people,  is  it  not 
strange,  indeed,  that  all  have  cheerfully  sup- 
ported these  schools,  and  been  satisfied,  yea, 
proud  of  them,  except  the  bishop  and  his  fol- 
lowers? The  reason  is  obvious.  The  schools 
are  fairly -non-sectarian  and  wholly  liberal  in 
their  usages.  Like  our  political  institutions, 
the  public  schools  have  been  made,  and  altered, 
and  wholly  managed  by  the  people,  and  that, 
too,  under  home  influences  only — for  the  neigh- 
borhoods, each  for  themselves,  have  had  the  en- 
tire management  of  their  respective  schools;  no 
district  having  any  superior  to  direct  them,  ex- 
cept the  Legislature,  which  made  general  laws 
applicable  to  the  whole  State. 

Any  church  interference  would  have  been 
repelled  as  jealously  as  if  it  had  undertaken  to 
control  our  political  arrangements. 

If  I mistake  not,  it  is  because  these  schools 
are  beyond  the  reach  of  church  control,  that 
this  opposition  to  them  is  made.  No  depart- 
ment of  the  government  is  more  truly  secular 
than  our  public  schools. 

Neither  the  Baptist  or  Anabaptist  ever  con- 
trolled them.  The  Presbyterians  never  domin- 
ated them,  nor  the  Methodists,  nor  Episcopalians, 
nor  Congregationalists,  nor  the  Universalists. 
What  church  does,  or  ever  did? 

If  anybody,  it  must  be  the  Quakers,  for  they 
are  a sly,  silent  set,  who  do  an  immense  amount 
of  quiet  mischief,  and  nobody  under  heaven 
ever  knows  it.  Excepting  the  Catholics,  the 
unanimous  verdict  of  the  wise  and  good  of  the 
whole  people,  both  in  and  out  of  the  churches, 
and  who,  so  far  as  denominational  feeling  is 
concerned,  are  jealous  of  each  other,  for  three- 
fourths  of  a century,  in  their  favor,  ought  to  be 
pretty  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  non-sectarian 


Day  ] CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 2231 

March  21,  1874.]  Voris. 


and  tolerant  tendencies  of  the  public  schools. 
Among  a people  as  restive  as  ours  under  reli- 
gious intolerance,  or  its  very  appearance,  this 
verdict  ought  to  be  taken  as  conclusive.  Not 
being  a member  of  any  church  organization,  I 
feel  tolerably  well  qualified  to  pass  judgment 
upon  the  conduct  of  the  churches  and  their 
members — being  an  enemy  to  none,  nor  the 
partisan  of  any. 

To  satisfy  the  most  exacting  conscientious 
scruples  of  any,  I would,  in  the  Constitution 
we  are  framing,  include  a provision  that  would 
forever  prohibit  any  sectarian  interference  in 
our  public  schools,  and  make  them  thoroughly 
secular  and  beyond  the  possibility  of  denomin- 
ational management. 

For  religious  instruction,  I would  remit  the 
children  to  the  teachings  of  the  churches,  where, 
if  the  teaching  is  founded  on  just  principles, 
its  religion  will  protect  and  foster  itself.  We 
can  have  no  well  grounded  fears  that  any  true 
faith  will  be  seriously  jeopardized  by  the  efforts 
of  any  sectaries  under  heaven  upon  those  who 
are  its  just  recipients.  True  religion  will  guard 
its  votaries  without  the  extraordinary  safe- 
guards Bishop  Gilmour  thinks  must  be  thrown 
round  the  Catholic  faith.  His  efforts  are  a con- 
fession of  the  weakness  of  his  faith.  Divine 
goodness  will  not  abandon  the  children  of  the 
true  faith,  in  the  moment  that  general  and  lib- 
eralizing intelligence  dawns  upon  them. 

Is  the  tendency  of  these  schools  immoral? 
Is  it  indeed  sinful  for  parents  to  send  their 
children  to  our  public  schools  ? Do  not  think  I 
amtrifling,  I put  the  question  because  the  pains 
and  penalties  of  damnation  are  denounced 
against  those  sending  their  children  to  them. 
Not  only  that,  but  they  are  instructed  by  Papal 
authority  that  their  children  had  better  grow 
up  in  ignorance  than  receive  instruction  in 
such  schools. 

I do  not  know  how  I can  better  answer  this 
than  by  instituting  a comparison  between  the 
moral  character  of  those  brought  up  in  Catholic 
schools — institutions  designated  and  managed 
by  the  Infallible  Church — and  those  educated  in 
our  public  schools.  If  I should  go  to  the  alms- 
houses, prisons,  work  houses,  penitentiaries  and 
the  gallows,  and  there  ascertain  the  ratio  of 
those  educated  in  the  Catholic  schools  and  those 
in  ours,  I would  return  with  figures  that  would 
greatly  help  my  argument,  but  I prefer  a 
pleasanter  field  for  my  inquiry. 

Compare,  if  you  please,  thoseeducated  in  the 
Church  States,  under  the  fatherly  eye  of  him 
who  cannot  err,  where  more  holy  prayers  and 
religious  exercises  per  capita  are  employed  than 
any  where  else  in  Christendom,  with  the 
moderately  good  people  of  Ohio,  and  how  stands 
the  matter  ? 

The  turbulence  of  his  dear  children  com- 
pelled the  present  Holy  Father  to  bring  legions 
from  abroad  to  save  his  bodily  as  well  as  his 
apostolic  head. 

The  Revolution  of  1849  drove  him  from  Italy. 
Nppoleon  III,  and  foreign  bayonets,  held  him 
on  his  tottering  throne  for  twenty  years,  and 
no  sooner  was  the  power  withdrawn  than  the 
Eternal  City  revolted  against  him,  and  became 
his  prison-house.  Every  spoliation  of  his  tem- 
poralities has  been  with  the  almost  unanimous 
concurrence  of  his  faithful  children,  whom 


priestly  education  had  marked  for  his  own. 
And  in  his  hours  of  tribulation,  of  all  the 
peoples  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  his  most  loyal 
and  faithful  were  found  in  the  United  States — 
the  land  of  free  schools.  And  why?  The 
reason  is  obvious  enough ; ours  was  the  devo- 
tion of  unadulterated  'religious  feeling,  while 
that  in  Europe  is  corrupted  by  political  compli- 
cations that  the  people  do  not  respect — just 
such  complications  as  this  short-sighted  bishop 
is  trying  to  infuse  into  the  religion  of  our 
country.  It  will  only  have  the  same  results  in 
the  church  here. 

To  the  general  and  independent  intelligence 
o£  our  people  do  we  justly  attribute  the  superior 
excellence  and  virtue  of  American  character 
that  has  led  them  to  develop  in  their  institu- 
tions the  highest  order  of  society  ever  devised 
by  mankind. 

No  where  in  the  history  of  the  world  do  we 
find  any  other  people  who  have  realized  as  fully 
as  we  all  the  elements  of  human  happiness  and 
greatness. 

The  power  of  this  matchless  development  ex- 
ists largely  in  our  public  school  system,  that 
educates  every  child  in  the  State  to  educate 
himself  or  herself  an  independent,  self- 
reliant,  free  moral  agent,  whose  destiny  is 
only  circumscribed  by  the  limits  of  human 
possibilities,  that  may  be  just  as  exalted  as  he 
or  she  wills  it  to  be — a system  that  teaches  self- 
accountability as  well. 

Where  in  all  the  world  are  found  more  noble 
men  and  women,  more  philanthropists  given 
to  the  good  of  their  kind,  of  every  denomina- 
tion? Where  do  you  find  more  devoted  Chris- 
tians or  better  Catholics  ? 

And  here,  of  all  the  places  occupied  by  man, 
in  this  age  of  free  thought,  free  religion,  free 
schools  and  free  men,  and  where  these  free  ele- 
ments have  struck  deepest,  and  borne  their 
fruit  most  abundantly,  do  we  find  the  highest 
order  of  society  and  the  choicest  of  Heaven’s 
blessings  most  bountifully  bestowed.  Why  is  it? 
These  things  do  not  come  of  themselves.  They 
are  the  legitimate  offspring  of  intelligent 
painstaking  and  virtue  of  a people  who  know 
and  answer  the  conditions  that  force  these 
blessings. 

You  may  pray  to  all  the  saints  in  the  calen- 
dar, to  the  sanctified  martyrs,  the  holy  mother 
and  to  Almighty  God,  till  doomsday,  and  unless 
you  intelligently  go  to  work,  the  blessings  will 
fly  from  you.  Faith  without  works  is  nothing. 

Our  Catholic  friends  must  be  aware  that  their 
church,  for  ages  had,  and  still  has,  the  educa- 
tion, both  secular  and  religious,  of  the  children 
of  several  countries  in  Europe  and  America, 
entirely  within  its  keeping,  and  I challenge 
them  to  show  their  results  by  the  side  of  ours. 

Take  Spain,  the  ancient  and  arrogant — a cen- 
tury ago  the  mistress  of  more  colonies  than  any 
other  power  in  Europe,  loaded  down  to  surfeit 
with  wealth,  and  rich  and  glorious  in  traditions 
and  history,  or  beautiful  France,  with  her  peo- 
ple of  rare  vivacity,  energy  and  surpassing 
talent,  or  Italy,  whose  ancestors  wore  the  crown 
of  universal  empire,  for  almost  a thousand 
years — the  pivotal  point  of  apostolic  succes- 
sion for  fifteen  centuries;  or,  if  you  wish  the 
freshness  of  new  world  vigor,  hold  up  Mexico, 
whose  revolutions  have  been  more  numerous 


2232 


CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS, 


[1  44th 


Voris.  [Saturday, 


than  of  all  the  powers  of  Europe  in  the  last  fifty 
years ; or  select  any  other  people  you  please, 
where  the  church  has  had  full  sway,  and  the 
comparison  will  exhibit  a triumphant  demon- 
stration in  favor  of  the  American  school  system. 
Immorality  does  not  bring  such  rewards.  If 
our  schools  indeed  have  the  immoral  tendency, 
they  have  not  yet  developed  their  true  char- 
acter. 

But  if  this  comparison  is  on  too  broad  a scale, 
take  the  children  educated  here  in  their  church 
schools,  and  ours,  in  all  the  humanizing  devel- 
opments, stand  grandly  their  piers,  and  in  the 
great  day  of  accounts  will  shout  loud  hosannahs 
for  the  glorious  founders  and  supporters  of  the 
free  school  system,  that  is  to  fill  the  world  with 
gladness  and  glory. 

But  what  are  the  evils  of  the  system  that 
make  it  sinful  to  support  them?  They  cer- 
tainly do  not  consist  in  teaching  immorality, 
nor  irreligion,  nor  infidelity,  nor  insubordina- 
tion to  justly  constituted  authority,  nor  servility 
to  any  power. 

Aside  from  the  inherent  fallibility  of  all 
things  human,  I do  not  see  wherein  consists 
their  imperfection. 

No  radical  or  dangerous  evil  tendencies  have 
been  pointed  out  to  us.  Defects  there  are,  and 
must  be,  as  in  all  human  arrangements,  but  as 
they  are  discovered,  the  virtue  and  intelligence 
of  the  people  will  remedy  them. 

The  administration  of  these  schools  is  part 
of  the  system,  and  stands  vindicated  by  the  re- 
sults. Their  management  is  the  purest  republic 
on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Every  parent  has  an 
equal  voice  in  their  management,  and  his  agents 
who  act  for  him  are  always  within  his  reach. 
Bishop  Gilmour,  and  all  his  subordinates,  have 
an  equal  voice  in  the  matter.  Modesty  would 
dictate  to  these  that  they  should  be  satisfied 
with  this.  But  wherefore  are  these  minions  of 
a foreign  power  demanding  more?  Do  they 
forget  this  is  a country  of  equal  rights  for  the 
people  as  well  as  the  priesthood  ? or  is  that  what 
troubles  them  ? 

If  any  man  has  conscientious  scruples  about 
sending  his  children  to  these  schools,  it  must 
be  because  they  do  not  teach  his  peculiar  secta- 
rian views — an  utterly  improper  thing  for  any 
State  to  do.  The  moment  the  State  authorities 
undertake  to  teach,  as  part  of  its  public  instruc- 
tion religious  dogmas,  that  moment  it  assumes 
to  do  what  no  State  has  any  right  to  do.  The 
State  is  purely  a human  institution  and  pos- 
sesses no  inherent  power  over  the  conscience  of 
mankind.  All  its  powers  are  delegated  and  de- 
rived from  the  people  composing  the  State,  and 
not  from  any  other  source  whatsoever.  My 
conscientious  convictions  are  my  own,  subordi- 
nate to  the  will  of  no  other  person  or  persons 
whomsoever. 

No  man,  or  aggregation  of  men,  have  any 
right  to  dictate  to  me.  My  religious  faith,  my  free 
moral  agency,  my  individual  obligations  to  the 
Supreme  Being,  that  nobody  can  divide  with 
me,  are  utterly  inconsistent  with  any  such  ex- 
ercise of  power  by  others,  the  State  and  the 
Pope  included. 

Any  effort  on  the  part  of  anybody  within  or 
without  the  State,  or  by  the  State  to  bind  or 
command  my  conscience  to  any  given  class  of 
religious  ideas  or  dogmas,  is  a usurpation,  dan- 


gerous and  wicked,  and  if  attempted  under  the 
guise  of  Papal,  Protestant,  or  Divine  sanction,  is 
an  infamous  imposition,  a holy,  canting  swin- 
dle, and  deserves  the  most  emphatic  condemna- 
tion of  all  men. 

Conscientious  scruples  on  this  account  ought 
not  to  change  the  respect  of  the  people  for  our 
system,  or  cause  us  to  relax  one  iota  in  compla- 
cency to  such  unfortunate  and  unreasonable 
doubts. 

The  truth  is,  there  is  no  rational  ground  why 
any  parent  should  have  any  serious  conscier- 
tious  scruples  about  supporting  our  public 
schools. 

They  are  as  perfect  as  any  other  human  insti- 
tution, the  church  of  Rome  not  excepted,  which 
is  nothing  more. 

The  motive  for  this  religious  attack  on  our 
school  system  is  not  because  of  its  evil  tenden- 
cies, but  because  of  the  peculiar  virtues  of  our 
public  schools,  their  liberalizing  and  self-reliant 
teachings,  because  they  inspire  man  with  a true 
sense  of  his  self-hood,  his  dignity,  equality  and 
rights  as  a free  moral  agent,  as  a citizen,  as  the 
head  of  a family.  It  is  because  they  tend  to  make 
the  most  of  every  individual  member  of  society 
as  a human  being.  It  is  because  they  tend  to 
make  the  most  of  every  indiuidual  member  of 
society  as  a human  being;  it  is  because  they 
tend  to  make  the  conscience,  judgment  and  aspi- 
rations free.  It  is  because  our  education  unfits 
the  man  for  the  fetters  that  priestcraft  must  nec- 
essarily apply,  to  gain  control  over  the  conduct 
and  conscience  of  mankind,  so  as  to  make  their 
commands  and  denunciations  feared. 

“ We  must  leave  after  us  Catholic  youth,”  and 
this  we  cannot  do  if  the  children  are  brought 
up  under  the  liberalizing  influences  of  the  pub- 
lic schools,  is  the  logic  of  this  separation  of 
Catholic  children  from  them,  and  these  chil- 
dren “ must  be  Catholics  first  and  citizens  after- 
terwards.” 

These  commands  of  priest  and  bishop,  and 
they  are  the  decrees  of  Rome,  are  to  be  the 
supreme  law  unto  our  citizens,  and  to  make 
this  subjugation  perfect,  it  is  necessary  to 
educate  the  children  in  Catholic  schools  or  let 
them  grow  up  in  ignorance;  but,  in  any  event, 
are  the  teachings  of  American  independence  so 
pernicious,  that  they  must  be  avoided  under 
the  pains  and  penalties  of  remediless  perdition. 

A religion  that  subjects  its  followers  to  the 
commands  of  either  priests  or  bishops,  is  a 
wicked  fraud  upon  the  rights  of  mankind,  and 
should  be  swept  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 
Infidelity  cannot  be  worse,  for  conscience  can 
have  no  voice,  when  the  commands  of  those 
holding  holy  orders  is  the  standard  for  the 
people’s  conduct. 

Intelligence  that  must  be  confined  to  the  de- 
grading precincts  of  priestly  commands,  and 
cannot  go  beyond  or  above  these  limits,  is  igno- 
rance in  its  truest  sense,  for  it  is  ignorance  of 
thyself,  the  grandest  conception  of  creative 
power.  It  is  ignorance  of  the  sublime  mission 
of  man  on  earth,  and  his  possibilities  as  a free 
moral  agent. 

But  it  not  only  destroys  man’s  nobility  as  a 
free  moral  agent,  but  it  is  pregnant  with  untold 
dangers  to  the  State,  and  with  this,  this  Con- 
vention has  to  do;  and  we  cannot  avoid  the  re- 
sponsibility cast  on  us  by  this  foreign  attempted 


CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 


2233 


Dat.] 

March  21, 1874.] 


Voris. 


interference  with  our  rights  and  destiny  as  a 
State,  and  discharge  the  high  duties  voluntarily 
assumed  hy  each  one  of  us,  as  delegates. 

It  is  an  attack  upon  our  civilization,  under 
the  garb  of  false  pretenses,  as  unblushing  and 
detestable  as  ever  fooled  any  people. 

Why,  your  church,  with  all  its  divine  essence, 
and  it  mustkthen  have  been  infallible,  could  not 
even  withstand  the  decay  of  civilization  in  Eu- 
rope, and,  as  the  dark  and  sanguinary  age  of 
barbarism  fell  upon  the  Western  world  in  the 
medieval  ages,  the  church  sunk  into  a meaning- 
less mummery  of  forms,  that  froze  humanity 
out  of  its  heart,  and  developed  an  intolerant 
bigotry  and  despotism  that  cruelly  denied  and 
trampled  on  every  human  right  with  a blood- 
thirsty fury  that  appalled  the  world.  This  is 
the  church  that  is  seeking  to  get  the  mastery  of 
the  public  educational  system  of  our  free  peo- 
ple, whose  very  civilization  and  liberties  were 
forced  from  this  despotism,  the  fruits  of  long 
continued  and  bloody  struggles. 

It  is  not  a demand  for  the  reformation  or  im- 
provement of  our  public  school  system,  but  its 
utter  overthrow.  That  is  just  what  is  meant. 
Divide  the  public  moneys  among  the  different 
religious  bodies  of  the  State,  or  leave  the  edu- 
cation of  our  children  to  the  caprice  of  each 
parent,  or  to  the  dictation  of  the  churches,  and 
where  would  we  land  ? Where  would  be  the 
unity  of  the  people  ? 

The  demand  is  now  made  for  State  support  to 
Catholic  schools,  but  that  is  only  a cover  for  the 
entire  control  of  the  educational  system,  and 
till  we  give  this,  “Richard,  by  the  grace  of  God, 
and  the  appointment  of  the  Apostolic  See,”  de- 
nounces, with  damnation,  our  citizens,  if  they 
do  not,  with  their  own  means,  support  denomi- 
tional  schools;  and  in  case  of  their  inability  to 
support  them,  then  a hundred  times  better  let 
the  little  ones  grow  up  in  ignorance  than  to  send 
to  the  public  schools. 

The  policy  of  the  State  has  never  gone  further 
than  to  give  equal  liberty  and  protection  to  all 
religious  denominations.  The  State  cannot  give 
denominational  support  to  the  schools  of  its 
various  religious  bodies.  It  is  utterly  impracti- 
cable to  do  it,  and  to  give  to  some  and  not  the 
others  would  be  unjust  and  partial. 

To  give  this  support  at  all  would  be  antago- 
nistic to  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  and 
subversive  of  the  true  principles  of  govern- 
ment. 

Our  theory  of  government  is  established  upon 
the  idea  of  entire  separation  of  Church  and 
State. 

The  history  of  all  State  management  of 
Church  matters  prove  their  utter  failure  to  deal 
justly  with  the  interests  involved,  that  of  the 
Pope  included.  Like  other  men,  the  Popes, 
from  St.  Peter  down  to  Pius  IX,  have  exhibited 
human  frailties,  being  as  liberal,  as  grasping, 
and  as  intolerant  as  the  Roman  Emperors — 
some  have  been  as  benign  as  the  Antonines, 
others  as  merciless  monsters  as  Caligula,  whose 
acts  or  opinions  are  entitled  to  no  more  consid- 
eration than  those  of  the  heathen  pontiffs.  He 
who  claims  anything  more  for  them,  as  against 
the  liberties  of  mankind,  is  either  ignorant  of 
history  and  human  rights,  or  means  to  deceive. 
“In  the  conduct  of  these  ‘Christian  pontiffs’ 
we  may  trace  the  utmost  lines  of  vice  and  vir- 


tue, the  most  exalted  perfection  and  the  mean- 
est degeneracy  of  our  own  species.” — Gibbon’s 
“ History  of  the  Roman  Emperors,  and  Fall  of 
the  Roman  Empire.” 

It  does  appear  to  me  that  the  children  of  par- 
ents who  bow  down  to  this  despotism  have  some 
rights  the  commonwealth  should  protect.  If  they 
wish  to  enjoy  the  full  fruitions  of  a free  man- 
hood, how  can  the  State  refuse  to  step  in  and 
save  them  from  the  terrors  and  humiliations  of 
this  priestly  usurpation  and  tyranny  ? It  is  to 
prevent  this  enjoyment  that  our  free  schools  are 
thus  denounced.  The  children  must  be  Catho- 
lics, and  this  they  will  not  be,  according  to 
Bishop  Gilmour,  if  the  light  of  our  glorious 
public  school  system  illuminates  their  path- 
way. Let  the  light  shine!  The  world  can 
stand  it,  even  though  the  Church  should  fall. 

1 do  not  quarrel  with  the  strictly  ethical 
teachings  of  the  Catholic  church;  they  are 
truly  grand.  But  I,  as  a citizen,  and  high  rep- 
resentative of  the  State,  must  combat  the  intol- 
erable insolence  of  this  church  government, 
that  aims  at  the  total  prostration  of  individual 
independence  to  the  one-man  power  at  Rome, 
that  proposes  to  put  the  education  of  the  chil- 
dren of  our  grand  young  free  State,  whose 
aspirations  are  born  of  God,  under  the  control 
of  the  monkish  minions  of  that  shameless  spir- 
itual despotism,  the  essence  of  whose  power  is 
founded  in  blasphemy  and  falsehood.  It  is  an 
impious  attack  upon  the  advancing  intelligence 
of  the  age,  and  intended  to  check  the  growth  of 
our  liberalizing  aspirations,  and  deliberately 
designed  to  crush  our  manhood,  and  enslave 
our  consciences  to  blind  subserviency  to  the 
dogmas  and  dominion  of  effete  superstitions, 
the  worst  of  all  despotisms. 

They  may  preach,  and  teach,  and  threaten,  I 
care  not  how  much,  if  we  but  educate  the  peo- 
ple so  that  they  can  feel,  know,  judge  and  act 
for  themselves,  for  then  the  liberties  of  the 
people  will  be  safe. 

We  are  willing  all  the  religions  of  the  day 
may  have  their  existence  among  us,  so  long  as 
they  confine  their  teachings  within  the  legiti- 
mate sphere  of  religious  influence,  and  let  them 
all  have  a fair  chance  to  test  their  respective 
merits  by  their  fruits,  but  we  mean  our  people 
shall  have  intelligence  and  perfect  liberty  to 
understanding^  choose  for  themselves  that 
which  is  most  consonant  with  their  individual 
judgment. 

Any  religion  that  cannot  bear  this  test  is 
dangerous,  and  ought  to  be  avoided. 

A religion  that,  to  exist,  must  break  down 
our  people’s  system  of  free  education,  must  be 
careful  how  it  obtrudes  its  commands  upon  the 
people,  or  attempts  to  destroy  the  settled  policy 
of  the  State,  for  we  mean  to  be  free  in  politics, 
education  and  religion,  and  nothing  human 
shall  prevent  us.  They  will  also  fail  in  the  at- 
tempt to  teach  that  soul-hungry  throng  who 
fled  the  despotisms  of  the  old  world  to  enjoy 
the  fullness  of  liberty  here.  After  they  are 
made  as  fully  citizens  as  you,  Mr.  President,  or 
I,  they  will  doubt  that  Rome  is  first,  and  adopt- 
ed country  next. 

We  must,  by  the  most  emphatic  declaration  of 
the  State,  show  these  disturbers  of  our  peace 
that  liberty  is  not  a miserable  sham,  that  the 


2234 


CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS, 


VORIS. 


[144th 

[Saturday, 


State  is  not  a myth,  or  that  individual  con- 
science means  nothing. 

The  sooner  we  do  this,  and  in  terms  that  can- 
not be  questioned,  and  may  not  be  resisted,  the 
better  for  us  all. 

What  a religion,  that  prefers  the  ignorance 
of  its  followers  to  the  liberalizing  education  of 
our  public  schools!  It  is  to  the  soul  what 
chains  and  slavery  are  to  the  State. 

Loyalty  to  the  government  is  not  well  incul- 
cated by  teaching  the  people  that  their  best 
public  institutions  are  sinful,  and  that  secular 
education  is  an  instrument  of  rationalism  and 
infidelity,  that  ought  to  be  avoided,  as  a soul- 
destroying  leprosy. 

Loyalty  to  the  State  is  not  well  secured  by 
the  education  of  its  children  to  blind  obedience 
to  the  commands  of  priests  and  bishops;  nor  is 
the  significance  of  the  citizen  magnified  by  the 
belief  that  the  State  must  be  subordinate  to  the 
decrees  of  Rome. 

If  to  manage  our  schools  in  the  interest  of 
human  liberty,  freedom  of  conscience  and  the 
equality  of  human  rights,  and  in  the  interest  of 
free  religion,  the  religion  of  our  own  choice,  is 
in  the  interest  of  Protestantism  and  against 
Catholicism,  then  I admit  them  to  be  used  in 
the  interest  of  Protestantism.  And  if  I was 
asked  to  abolish  or  modify  them  on  that  ac- 
count, I would  say,  “No!  a hundred  times  no!’* 

That  I may  not  be  charged  with  making  too 
emphatic  use  of  the  word  command,  and  draw- 
ing too  strongly  on  fancy,  as  to  this  priestly 
effort  to  control  the  conduct  of  our  citizens  no- 
lens volens , let  me  read  another  paragraph  from 
this  diocesan  edict:  “There  is  a false  notion 
among  some  of  our  people ; they  assume  pow- 
ers which  they  have  not,  and  undertake  to  do 
what  they  were  never  appointed  for.  Hereaf- 
ter there  are  and  will  be  no  trustees.  The  bish- 
op is  the  only  trustee  of  the  diocese,  and  in  his 
name  all  property  is  held.  Under  no  circum- 
stances will  we  allow  laymen  to  hold  church 
property,  or  in  any  wise  control  it.  Titles  to 
church  property,  whether  in  the  form  of  deeds 
or  land  contracts,  shall  be  made  directly  to  the 
•bishop,  ‘his  heirs  and  assigns,’  without  quali- 
fication or  condition.” 

Here  you  see  the  most  potent  instrumentality, 
property,  without  which  no  important  enter- 
prise, in  church  or  State,  can  be  successfully 
prosecuted,  put  absolutely  into  the  hands  of  the 
hierarchy,  and  that,  too,  beyond  the  power  of 
those  giving  it,  the  members  of  the  church,  to 
hold  or  in  anywise  control  it;  “under  no  cir- 
cumstances may  it  be  held  or  controlled  by  the 
members — the  school  houses  of  the  church  and 
the  money  contributed  for  the  support  of  their 
schools  as  well.”  Not  a Very  palatable  dose  for 
intelligent  men. 

Where  is  the  established  seat  of  this  dictator  ? 
Where  live  the  people  who  are  chained  to  his 
autocratic  throne?  What  is  the  territorial  ju- 
risdiction, and  who  are  the  subjects  of  this  des- 
pot who  rules  by  hell-fire  and  the  Pope? 

The  most  beautiful  city  of  the  western  con- 
tinent, teeming  with  120,000  enterprising  peo- 
ple, is  his  assumed  capital,  his  subjects  live  all 
over  the  northern  part  of  the  great  State  of 
Ohio,  and  the  honorable  delegates  of  this  Con- 
vention, from  all  over  the  northern  portion  of 
the  State,  are  within  his  jurisdiction.  Are  we 


removed  backward  into  the  ages  of  mere  brute 
force?  Are  we  in  Dahomey?  Can  it  be  that 
the  first  century  of  American  liberty  tolerates 
such  despotism  in  its  very  bosom  ? 

No  man  can  be  a good  citizen  who  yields  alle- 
giance to  this  despotism  first,  and  afterward  to 
the  State  what  little  of  his  selfhood,  is  left. 

But  who  is  this  dictator,  and  by  what  au- 
thority does  he  assume  to  nullify  the  civil  and 
religious  liberties  of  the  free  people  of  Ohio? 
Does  he  speak  by  the  authority  of  the  people 
properly  announced,  the  only  power  that  can 
of  right  command  in  the  State;  or,  is  he  the 
mouth-piece  of  some  foreign  despot  who  deals 
in  slaves  and  the  souls  of  men  ? 

“I,  Richard,  by  the  grace  of  God  and  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Apostolic  See,  do  most  posi- 
tively command.”  Appointment  of  the  Apos- 
tolic See!  what  does  that  import?  When  and 
where  did  the  Apostolic  See  get  its  right  or  ju- 
risdiction to  command  the  citizens  of  Ohio? 

I quote  the  warrant  for  this  assumption : 
‘In  order  that  the  government  of  the  church 
should  be  ever  maintained  in  a right  and  well- 
ordered  course,  and  the  whole  Christian  world 
should  uphold  one  sole  faith,  doctrine,  charity 
and  communion,  Christ  promised  His  aid  unto 
the  end  of  time,  and  chose  Peter,  whom  He  de- 
clared to  be  prince  of  the  apostles,  his  vicar  on 
earth,  so  that,  invested  with  this  rank  and 
honor,  and  with  amplitude  of  chief  and  full 
authority,  power  and  jurisdiction,  he  should 
feed  the  sheep  and  the  lambs,”  (what  a pity  it 
is  that  his  apostolic  successors  had  not  been 
confined  strictly  to  that  business,)  “ confirm 
the  brethren,  rule  the  universal  church,  and  be 
the  gate-keeper  of  heaven,  and  arbiter  to  bind 
and  to  loose,  the  effect  of  his  judgment  remain- 
ing unaltered  in  heaven.  And,  that  the  unity 
and  integrity  of  the  church  might  remain  per- 
petually immutable,  therefore,  the  Roman  pon- 
tiffs, successors  of  St.  Peter,  inherit  and  possess 
in  full  vigor  the  very  same  supreme  authority, 
jurisdiction  and  primacy  of  Peter  over  the 
whole  church,”  (Papal  bull,  June  29,  1868,) 
which  extends  not  only  over  individual  men,  but 
nations,  peoples  and  sovereigns. 

This  is  the  authority — as  bold,  detestable  and 
sacrilegious  as  ever  assumed  by  any  despot. 
Commands  emanating  from  this  authority  are 
as  wicked  as  they  are  impudent. 

Do  these  usurpers  forget  the  abdication  of 
Peter,  and  his  failure  to  nominate  a successor, 
on  the  memorable  night  when  the  crowing  of 
the  cocks  awoke  him  so  to  the  folly  of  his  con- 
duct that  he  wept  about  it?  or  have  they  lost 
sight  of  the  Lord  on  the  exceeding  high  moun- 
tain, when  he  refused  to  take  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world  from  the  devil,  and  the  angels 
administered  unto  Him  for  His  renunciation? 
But  the  pontiffs,  ambitious  of  worldly  honors, 
finally  took  the  bribe,  and  have  been  the  ser- 
vants of  the  devil  ever  since.  But  will  we 
obey  ? We  have  the  experience  of  mankind, 
the  judgment  of  all  our  manly  promptings,  and 
all  of  human  rights,  against  it.  When  we 
recognize  the  fact  that  our  limbs  are  made  for 
chains,  our  necks  for  the  yoke,  and  our  con- 
sciences a pool  for  gambling  prelates,  may  we 
tolerate  such  dangerous  usurpations  of  our 
rights,  but  not  till  then;  and  that  Lime  can 
never  come  as  long  as  our  free  schools  are  a 


CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 


2235 


Day.] 

March  21,  1874.] 


VORIS. 


living,  liberty-inspiring  institution,  a vigorous 
constituent  in  our  State  policy,  and  Rome 
knows  it,  and  that  is  what  troubles  her. 

This  is  the  reason  why  this  despotic  saint 
characterizes  the  free  State,  its  free  schools,  its 
free  religion,  and  its  other  institutions  of 
liberty,  as  meaning  “ license,  disorder,  in- 
fidelity, and  robbery,”  and  the  citizens  who  up- 
hold the  rightful  prerogatives  of  the  people  “as 
enemies” — enemies  to  the  church,  to  the  Holy 
Father,  and  therefore  to  God,  and  enemies  that 
the  faithful  must  fight  as  obedience  to  God. 

“Nationalities  must  be  made  subordinate  to 
religion.  We  must  learn  that  we  are  Catholics 
first,  and  citizens  next.”  We  may  thank  this 
zealot  for  his  frankness  in  unfolding  the  designs 
of  his  church  upon  the  political  liberties  of  our 
people.  “Nationalities  must  be  made  subor- 
dinate to  religion,”  and  that  religion  which  is 
to  hold  supremacy  is  just  such  as  apostolic  suc- 
cession through  the  Pope  at  Rome,  and  his  cabal 
of  bishops,  archbishops,  cardinals  and  patri- 
archs may  benignly  grant  to  us  in  consideration 
of  our  prostrating  all  that  in  us  is  free,  manly 
and  noble  to  the  supreme  command  of  this  one- 
man  power  and  his  junta  of  supple  advisers. 

Long  centuries  of  this  religious  rule  over  the 
Western  world,  accursed  with  political  in- 
trigues and  partizan  conflicts  within  itself,  and 
hideous  with  the  tears,  anguish,  blood  and  sac- 
rifice of  the  lives  of  millions  of  human  beings, 
whose  souls  panted  for  liberty,  and  did  not  be- 
lieve in  the  sacrilegious  demands  of  the  Popes, 
tell  us  what  this  infallible  religion  is  ? 

Rather  give  us  the  fallible,  but  free  religion 
of  a people’s  intelligent  choice  that  respects 
the  conscientious  convictions  of  his  neighbor, 
and  I will  risk  Heaven  for  myself,  and  all  who 
will  conscientiously  try  to  gain  the  favor  of  God 
by  doing  all  the  good  they  can. 

Such  religion  needs  no  emissary  of  for- 
eign powers  to  dictate  its  commands  to  us,  nor 
will  it  ever  pollute  the  world  with  such 
wrongs,  cruelties  or  horrors  that  make  papal 
power  execrable  in  the  history  of  the  past. 

The  heedlessness  of  some  of  our  people  and 
this  papal  opposition  to  education,  if  it  must  be 
had  in  our  public  schools,  has  led  me  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  is  time  for  the  State  to  adopt 
a system  of  compulsory  education.  The  de- 
mands of  the  State  for  the  education  of  its 
children  are  infinitely  higher  than  the  demands 
of  a religion,  that  is  better  subserved  by  igno- 
rance than  by  a liberalizing,  self-reliant  educa- 
tion that  makes  the  conscience  free. 

Until  I read  this  sub -'pontifical  bull , I had  sup- 
posed that  in  Ohio  compulsory  education  was 
only  needed  for  the  poor,  aimless  vagabond 
whose  life  was  given  to  shame,  dissipation  and 
crime,  and  who  cared  naught  for  the  future  of 
his  children  or  the  good  of  the  State.  But  here 
and  now  do  we  find  it  necessary  to  prevent 
priestly  power  in  the  interest  of  the  oldest 
Christian  church  extant,  from  being  used  to 
propogate  ignorance,  and  that,  too,  where 
wholesome  education  is  as  free  as  heaven’s  air, 
and  as  vitalizing. 

Were  these  quotations  from  Bishop  Gilmour’s 
pastoral  letter  only  his  individual  utterances 
and  sentiments,  I should  not  feel  warranted  in 
consuming  so  much  of  the  time  of  the  Conven- 
tion in  presenting  this  matter  for  its  considera- 


tion. But  he  speaks  as  one  having  authority, 
and  whose  ecclesiastical  master  has  the  supreme 
right  to  dominate  over  the  civil  authorities  in 
the  matters  considered  in  his  letter. 

He  is  not  only  in  sympathy  with  the  openly 
avowed  sentiments  of  the  Catholic  Church  au- 
thorities throughout  the  country,  but  is  mod- 
erately within  the  “ syllabus  of  the  principal 
“ errors  of  our  times  which  are  stigmatized  in 
“the  consistorial  allocations,  encyclical  and 
“ other  apostolic  letters  of  Pope  Pius  IX,”  and 
announced  with  his  encyclical  letter  of  Decem- 
ber 8th,  1864,  and  is  not  up  with  the  most  ma- 
lignant slanders  that  are  announced  broad  cast 
by  pestiferous  zealots  all  over  the  country 
against  our  public  schools. 

Have  we  not  seen  enough  to  awaken  such 
apprehensions  as  ought,  at  least,  to  prompt  us 
to  take  such  precautionary  measures  as  will 
make  this  unholy  war  upon  our  institutions 
and  the  civilization  of  the  age  disastrous  only 
to  those  plotting  the  overthrow  of  our  liberties  ? 

In  the  80th  proposition  of  errors  of  the  syl- 
labus accompanying  this  encyclical  letter.  Pope 
Pius  IX  reprobates,  denounces  and  condemns, 
generally  and  particularly,  the  doctrine  as  he- 
retical “that  the  Roman  pontiff  can,  or  ought  to 
reconcile  himself  to,  and  agree  with  the  pro- 
gress, liberalism,  and  civilization,  as  lately  in- 
troduced.” 

I do  not  make  this  effort  because  I wish  to 
damage  Catholics  who  are  conscientiously  de- 
voted to  their  religion.  It  is  for  their  deliver- 
ance from  a thralldom  that  not  only  fetters  the 
manhood  and  conscience  of  the  present  mem- 
bers, but  aims  to  chain  down  the  rising  genera- 
tion and  the  State.  I do  it  as  a great  State 
duty  that  may  cost  me  personal  infelicity;  but 
to  me  the  pathway  of  duty  is  plain,  and  I must 
walk  in  it,  whatever  it  may  cost. 

I have  many  personal  friends  among  Catho- 
lics, conscientious,  Christian  people,  devoted  to 
the  good  of  the  human  family,  who  dislike  this 
diocesan  dictation,  and  gladly  would  be  freed 
from  it.  Their  children  will  be. 

The  laity  of  my  city,  in  their  hearts,  rebel 
against  the  power  that  makes  their  churches 
and  their  church  property  and  people  subordi- 
nate to  the  absolute  commands  of  the  Bishop. 
It  is  to  relieve  such  that  I would  by  State  au- 
thority nullify  this  diocesan  power  to  command 
any  citizen  in  the  peace  of  the  State  of  Ohio. 

I would  not  lay  up  against  the  Catholic  church 
its  wrongs  of  the  past,  if  she  now  had  the  can- 
dor to  come  out  and  abandon  her  arrogant  as- 
sumptions and  only  sought  the  spiritual 
good  of  our  race  by  those  Christian 

influences  she  of  right  might  exercise, 
and  adapted  her  dogmas  to  the  requirements  of 
the  age,  and  conscientiously  set  herself  to  work 
as  a power  in  advancing  the  civilization  of  the 
world,  the  most  potent  elements  of  which 
spring  from  human  liberty.  Rome  ought  to 
know  that  she  will  be  a weak,  decaying  church 
so  long  as  she  lusts  for,  and  tries  to  exercise, 
secular  power  over  mankind.  If  the  brains 
and  conscience  of  the  church  are  too  dead  to 
see  this,  she  is  certainly  too  far  behind  the  re- 
quirements of  the  age  to  challenge  respect,  and, 
being  unrepentant,  as  I shall  presently  show, 
cannot  find  fault  if  her  guilty  life  is  held  up  to 


2236 


CATHOLICS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Voris,  Hill. 


[144th 

[Saturday, 


the  criticism  of  those  over  whom  she  attempts 
to  tyrannize. 

That  this  church  still  arrogantly  demands 
that  nationalities  must  be  made  subordinate  to 
the  behests  of  the  Holy  Father,  and  that  it  has 
not  in  the  least  abated  its  ancient  assumed 
powers  in  that  behalf,  let  me  read  a pargraph 
or  two  from  the  Papal  allocution  delivered  at 
the  secret  consistory  of  the  second  of  June,  1868, 
relating  to  the  abolition  of  the  Austrian  Con- 
cordat of  1855.  Says  the  Pope:  “The  Aus- 
trian government  passed  an  odious  law,  to  be 
carried  out  and  strictly  observed  in  every  dis- 
trict of  the  Empire,  even  in  those  districts 
where  the  Catholic  religion  exclusively  pre- 
vails. That  law  establishes  liberty  for  all 
opinions — liberty  of  the  press,  of  all  faith,  and 
no  matter  of  what  confession  or  doctrine;  it 
grants  to  the  members  of  every  confession  the 
right  of  establishing  public  schools  and  col- 
leges, and  members  of  every  confession  are 
allowed  to  be  admitted  on  the  same  footing,  with 
the  sanction  of  the  State.  * * * By  this  law 
this  same  government  has  suppressed  all  the 
authority  and  jurisdiction  of  the  church  on 
matters  relative  to  marriage,  as  also  all  compe- 
tent ecclesiastical  tribunals  on  the  subject.  It 
has  promulgated  a law  on  education  which  sup- 
presses all  the  influences  of  the  church  over 
education,  decreeing  that  the  whole  supe- 
rior supervision  of  education,  literature 
and  science,  as  also  the  inspection 
of  schools,  appertains  to  the  State.” 
* * * “You  see,  consequently,  venerable 
brethren,  how  necessary  it  is  strongly  to  re- 
prove and  condemn  those  abominable  laws 
sanctioned  by  the  Austrian  government — laws 
which  are  in  flagrant  contradiction  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Catholic  religion,  with  its 
venerable  rights,  its  authority  and  that  of  the 
Apostolic  See.  * * * In  virtue,  then,  of 

the  care  of  all  the  churches  intrusted  to  us  by 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we  raise  our  voice  in 
your  most  illustrious  assembly ; we  reprove  and 
we  condemn,  by  our  apostolic  authority,  the  laws 
which  we  have  enumerated,  and  everything, 
general  or  special,  in  those  same  laws,  * * * 
and  we  declare  those  decrees  null  and  power- 
less in  themselves  and  in  their  effect,  both  as 
regards  the  present  and  the  future.” 

Don’t  forget  that  we  are  in  the  nineteenth 
century.  Indeed,  are  not  these  decrees  preg- 
nant with  the  proof  that  the  church  of  Home 
to-day  is  full  of  all  the  despotic  ambition  that 
characterized  it  in  the  days  of  its  highest  power, 
and  that  its  heart  is  set  against  human  progress, 
unless  it  be  conducted  through  and  under  the 
servile  and  deadening  influences  and  permis- 
sion of  this  despotism  ? 

For  such  intolerable  impudence  our  people 
can  have  no  patience.  Even  forbearance,  under 
the  indignities  offered  to  our  people,  is  dis- 
paraging to  our  spirit  and  self-respect. 

It  is  our  duty  and  privilege  to  perfect  and 
jealously  guard  our  public  school  system. 
These  schools  furnish  the  people  with  their 
great  means  of  early  education.  They  are  the 
equalizing  element  that  unifies  the  youth  of  our 
country  and  makes  our  people  homogeneous. 
The  future  hopes  of  our  country  are  centered 
in  them,  for  all  its  hopes  hang  on  the  intelli- 
gence and  virtue  of  the  young. 


These  schools  are  the  offspring  of  a free  peo- 
ple’s grandest  contribution  to  liberty ; and  so 
long  as  we  keep  them  in  healthful  vigor,  our 
people  will  be  free — free  in  politics,  free  in  in- 
telligence, free  in  faith,  and  triumphant  in  all 
the  elements  of  human  greatness. 

May  they  live,  grow,  and  prosper  forever. 

Mr.  HILL.  I will  be  exceedingly  brief  in  the 
remarks  that  I shall  make.  For  nearly  two 
centuries  my  ancestors  and  their  descendants 
have  been  indoctrinated  in  the  creed  and  tenets 
of  the  Scotch  Presbyterian  Church,  and  if  I 
have  any  faith,  it  is  that  the  same  God  created 
and  preserves  us  all,  and  that,  while  He  mer- 
cifully throws  the  broad  mantle  of  His  forgive- 
ness over  our  foibles  and  faults,  we  are  surely 
bound  to  a charitable  toleration  of  the  opinions 
of  each  other.  One  hundred  and  fifty  years 
ago  my  kith  and  kin  found  homes  on  the  banks 
of  the  Shenandoah,  where  their  descendants 
have  ever  since  been  the  champions  of  liberty 
of  speech  and  liberty  of  thought.  I trust,  sir, 
that  the  Scotch  blood  that  still  runs  warm  in 
my  veins  will  never  be  chilled  by  the  thumb- 
screw or  the  illiberality  of  sectarian  bigots  and 
tyrants.  I insist  upon  my  right  to  worship  the 
great  Author  of  my  being  according  to  my  con- 
viction of  duty;  and  while  I contend  for  that 
priceless  boon,  like  a true  Scot,  I will  defend 
the  right  of  all  men  to  do  so.  This  is  a free 
land — an  asylum  for  the  oppressed  of  all  na- 
tions. It  was  the  proud  boast  of  our  fathers 
that  all  creeds  and  religious  denominations 
could  assemble  and  worship  in  this  free  land 
without  molestation.  I am  glad  it  is  so.  The 
bosom  of  every  patriot  should  heave  with  grat- 
itude for  such  liberty.  There  can  be  no  Church 
and  State  here.  They  are,  and  ever  will  be, 
separate.  While  the  State  frames  the  funda- 
mental law,  prohibits  crime,  and  protects  the 
! citizen  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  liberty,  person 
and  property,  it  is  the  separate  function  of  the 
Church  to  give  its  votaries  moral  instruction 
and  religious  training.  The  churches  have 
their  secular  schools  and  colleges.  This  is 
right.  They  are  free  to  build  and  maintain 
them  as  well  as  to  teach  their  respective  theolo- 
gies. But,  while  they  are  untrammeled  in  this, 
I would  not  appropriate  one  dollar  of  the  peo- 
ple’s money  from  the  public  treasury  to  aid  in 
the  erection  or  in  maintaining  secular  schools 
and  colleges.  I think  it  highly  proper  that  the 
common  school  system  of  the  State  should  be 
maintained  at  the  public  expense;  and,  while 
this  is  so,  I am  of  opinion  that  all  secular  school 
books,  revised  and  printed  for  the  especial  pur- 
pose of  propagating  certain  of  the  creeds,  and 
thereby  being  offensive  to  all  the  rest,  should 
be  carefully  avoided.  The  Methodist,  the  Pres- 
byterian, the  Baptist, the  Episcopal,  the  Catholic, 
and  other  denominations,  are  alike  tax  payers, 
and  equally  interested  in  the  proper  religious 
instruction  of  their  children.  To  make  our 
common  schools  a channel  of  propagandism  for 
any  of  the  creeds  is  to  make  them  offensive  to 
all  the  rest.  The  secular  schools,  the  Sabbath- 
school,  and  the  church,  are  the  appropriate 
places  for  such  instruction  and  training.  The 
Presbyterian,  the  Methodist,  the  Episcopal,  the 
Baptist  and  the  Catholic,  all  depend  alike  upon 
ministers,  elders,  and  bishops  as  the  expositors 
i of  their  creeds ; and  synods,  conferences,  asso- 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS.  2237 

March  21,  1874.]  Hill,  Baber. 


ciations  and  assemblies  are  alike  regarded  as 
the  expounders  of  the  creeds  and  the  laws  of 
the  Church;  and  obedience  to  their  decisions 
and  submission  to  their  teaching  is  exacted  of 
all.  If  called  upon  to-day  to  say  to  which  of 
the  Churches  I would  concede  the  right  to  ab- 
sorb all  the  rest,  that  all  men  should  be  required 
to  subscribe  to  one  creed,  I could  not  do  it;  for 
all  would  abuse  that  power,  as  they  have  done 
in  the  past.  My  creed  is,  toleration  to  all — 
favoritism  to  none.  Let  our  common  schools 
be  open  to  all — offensive  to  none.  I am  sure 
the  Catholic  loves  this  free  land  as  dearly  as  the 
Methodist,  and  that  the  Presbyterian  is  as  much 
attached  to  our  free  institutions  as  the  Episcopal 
or  the  Baptist.  Every  ensanguined  battle-field 
of  the  Revolution,  the  War  of  1812,  the  war 
with  Mexico,  and  the  civil  war  of  1862,  found 
the  Catholic  side  by  side  with  the  Protestant, 
contending  for  the  same  principles  and  the  per- 
petuity of  the  same  government.  I feel  equally 
certain  that  in  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  when- 
ever our  free  land  is  invaded  by  a foreign  foe, 
and  our  liberties  are  threatened,  the  Catholic, 
side  by  side  with  the  Protestant,  will  rush  to 
arms  in  defense  of  our  institutions  and  liberties. 
While  this  is  undeniably  true,  let  us  repress  our 
sectarian  prejudices,  frown  upon  every  attempt 
to  foment  sectarian  strifes,  and  thereby  award 
to  all  the  liberty  or  demand  for  ourselves  the 
liberty  to  worship  God  according  to  those  con- 
victions of  duty  that  should  bind  all  men.  To 
this  end  we  should  perpetuate  our  common 
school  system,  and  keep  it  independent  of  sec- 
tarianism ; and  at  the  same  time  aid  by  private 
enterprise  the  erection  of  schools  and  colleges 
that  every  creed  may  have  scope,  and  liberty 
maintained.  I would  give  every  child  in  the 
State,  rich  or  poor,  an  opportunity  to  obtain  a 
liberal  education,  and  thereby  become  an  intel- 
ligent and  useful  citizen  and  member  of  society. 
Some  of  the  brightest  statesmen  that  have 
adorned  our  National  Legislature  have  been 
educated  in  the  country  school-house.  By  pro- 
tecting and  fostering  our  public  school  system, 
we  will  add  to  the  intelligence  of  the  masses, 
the  prosperity  and  greatness  of  the  State. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  appears  to  me,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  this  discussion  is  wandering  away 
from  the  Article,  and  I do  not  propose  to  in- 
dulge in  the  criminations  and  recriminations 
that  have  occurred  between  gentlemen  here  in 
the  argument  of  questions  connected  with  the 
theology  of  the  times.  I do  not  aspire  to  the 
theological  chair,  and  I shall  not,  therefore,  en- 
ter into  any  discussion  with  regard  to  opinions 
passed  upon  religious  subjects;  but  I wish  to 
deal  with  the  present.  I know  that  in  the  re- 
marks made  by  my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Carbery],  he  stands  alone  in  the  Committee 
that  made  this  report,  giving  his  views  upon 
this  subject,  as  he  had  the  right  to  do.  It  ap- 
pears to  have  caused  some  feeling  in  this  Hall. 
It  appears  to  me,  however,  that  the  gentlemen, 
in  the  replies  that  they  have  made,  have  gone 
on  and  brought  up  a question  with  regard  to 
sectarianism,  with  reference  to  the  church.  I 
am  sorry  to  see  it.  While  I am  a Protestant  of 
Protestants,  the  only  son  of  an  Old  School 
Presbyterian  minister,  educated  in  the  strictest 
tenets  of  orthodoxy,  and,  like  my  friend  who 
has  just  addressed  you  [Mr.  Hill],  my  maternal 


ancestor  came  from  the  political  persecutions 
of  England,  a Welchman,  Llewellyn  by  name, 
to  Maryland,  with  Lord  Baltimore,  in  the  first 
settlement  of  that  colony,  and  found  his  home 
in  St.  Mary’s  county,  America,  in  1634;  I can 
also  remember  that  Lord  Baltimore,  a Catholic 
of  Catholics,  was  first  to  proclaim  the  doctrine 
of  religious  toleration  upon  these  shores,  and 
that  a Protestant  Welch  settlement  was  protect- 
ed by  him  on  the  eastern  shore  of  Maryland. 
I should  not,  then,  be  true  to  the  traditions  of 
my  ancestors,  if  I should  endeavor  to  strike 
back,  and  try  to  stir  up  this  religious  or  sectar- 
ian strife  upon  this  floor;  and  I am  sorry  to  say 
that  it  appears  as  if  the  old  fires  and  bitterness 
of  the  Know-nothingism  of  1854  have  been 
opened  afresh  on  this  floor,  and  gentlemen  seem 
as  ready  as  ever  to  pour  out  and  fan  the 
old  prejudices  of  those  times.  Now,  while 
I am  as  much  opposed  as  any  gen- 
tleman in  this  Convention  to,  and  shall 
vote  against,  any  division  of  the  school  fund,  or 
anything  looking  like  it,  it  does  not  seem  to  me 
that  it  is  right  and  proper  for  us  here  to  be 
throwing  in  these  fire-brands,  to  be  inaugurat- 
ing this  system  of  religious  recrimination,  that 
may  lead  to  another  great  strife  between  the 
native  and  the  foreigner,  between  Protestants 
and  Catholics,  all  over  this  country.  It  is  a 
struggle  that  I do  not  desire  to  see.  I shall, 
therefore,  not  enter  into  any  discussion  upon 
this  matter,  but  immediately  proceed  to  the 
Article  that  is  reported. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  this  Article,  reported  by 
the  Committee  on  Education,  contains  two  ad- 
ditions recommended  to  the  present  Article  of 
the  Constitution,  and  it  does  not  appear  to  me 
that  it  is  subject  to  a great  deal  of  the  animad- 
version that  gentlemen,  in  the  discussion,  have 
thrown  upon  the  Committee.  The  idea  has 
been  advanced  that  this  Committee  has  been 
endeavoring  to  depart  from  the  very  wise  pro- 
visions of  the  old  Constitution.  It  is  not  so. 
If  any  gentleman  will  examine  Article  VI  of 
the  Constitution  in  connection  with  this 
Report,  they  will  find  that  the  first  and  second 
sections  of  the  Article  remain  untouched ; and, 
if  gentlemen  do  not  want  to  vote  for  any  of  the 
recommendations  of  this  Committee,  by  way  of 
amendment,  our  religious  liberties  or  the 
cause  of  education  are  not  in  any  such  danger 
that  gentlemen  should  be  rushing  here  pell- 
mell,  to  make  people  believe  that  they  are  the 
men  who  saved  the  cause  of  education  and 
religious  libertv  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  It  is  a 
piece  of  Don  Quixotism  on  their  part.  Now, 
what  is  the  question  before  the  house?  The 
Committee  on  Education  have  recommended,  in 
addition  to  this  Article,  for  the  consideration 
of  this  Convention,  only  two  sections  by  a ma- 
jority— section  three  providing  that  “women 
may  hold  office  under  the  school  laws  of  the 
State  of  Ohio,”  which,  I understand,  is  the 
unanimous  Report  of  the  Committee.  Now, 
Mr.  President,  this  Convention,  by  a very 
nearly  unanimous  vote,  decided  that,  for  ap- 
pointive offices,  women  should  be  eligible,  only 
three  gentlemen  voting  against  it — Messrs. 
Beer,  Burns  and  Johnson.  Now,  while  I am 
not  in  favor  of  woman  suffrage,  while  I shall 
not  even  vote  to  submit  that  question  to  the 
electors  of  the  State,  believing  it  will  be,  per- 


2238 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS 


[144th 

[Saturday, 


Baber. 


haps,  voted  down  by  two  or  three  hundred 
thousand  majority,  and  would  not  tend  to  allay 
agitation,  I shall  Vote  for  this  Article  reported 
by  this  Committee  unanimously,  because  I be- 
lieve that  women  are  peculiarly  suited  to  take 
charge  of  the  education  of  the  young.  I think 
that  it  comes  within  the  province  of  home  and 
the  family  relation,  and  I am  in  favor,  I will 
say  here  upon  this  floor,  of  not  making 
that  distinction  between  the  wages  of  fe- 
male teachers  employed  and  male.  If  they 
are  as  competent,  they  ought  to  receive  the  same 
wrages,  and  I believe,  if  I know  the  sentiment 
of  this  Convention,  that  there  will  be  as  little 
opposition  to  the  passage  of  this  section  as  there 
has  been  in  the  Committee. 

Now,  the  recommendation  in  section  four, 
two  gentlemen  have  avowed  upon  this  floor 
that  they  signed  for  the  mere  purpose  of  bring- 
ing it  before  this  Convention.  Mr.  President, 
I think  that  it  is  right  enough  that  this  matter 
should  be  discussed  here;  but  I do  not  believe 
that  the  people  of  this  State  are  prepared  to 
adopt  this  Prussian  system  of  compulsory  ed- 
ucation, which  makes  men  mere  plastic  figures 
of  the  State,  to  be  moulded  into  a mass  of  uni- 
formity. I do  not  believe  that  the  people  are 
now  prepared  for  it,  although  I confess  I have 
heard  complaint  that,  notwithstanding  schools 
have  been  provided  throughout  the  State  of 
Ohio,  in  a large  number  of  districts  there  are 
persons,  who  are  well  to  do  in  the  world,  that 
are  absolutely  so  mean  that  they  will  not  spare 
time  from  their  labor  to  allow  their  children  to 
go  to  school.  If  this  can  be  prevented  by  law — 
and  in  my  judgment  it  can,  and  I have  con- 
versed with  some  of  the  attorneys  on  this  floor, 
whose  opinions  concur — the  Legislature  of  the 
State  has  power,  by  legislative  enactment,  to 
enforce  compulsory  education  whenever  public 
opinion  demands  it.  There  is  no  necessity  for 
this  constitutional  change,  and  also  for  the  ad- 
ditional reason  that,  according  to  the  census 
returns  in  the  educational  statistics  of  the 
School  Commissioner,  it  appears  that  in  the 
schools  now,  taking  the  enrolled  youth  of  the 
State,  and  taking  those  in  actual  attendance, 
that  there  only  appears  to  be  about  seventeen  or 
eighteen  per  cent,  that  do  not  attend  school. 
According  to  the  Commissioner  of  Common 
Schools’  report,  which  I now  hold  in  my  haud, 
education  is  almost  universal  in  the  State  of 
Ohio.  I,  therefore,  consider  it  utterly  unnec- 
essary for  this  body  to  put  any  such  enactment 
into  the  Constitution. 

But,  Mr.  President,  my  friend  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page]  has  called  attention  to  the  recom- 
mendation made  by  the  majority  of  this  Com- 
mittee, that  “The  powers  of  taxation  conferred 
by  this  section  shall  be  limited  to  a sum  suffi- 
cient to  educate  all  the  children  of  the  State  in 
such  common  and  elementary  branches  of 
learning  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law.”  He 
has  made  an  argument,  and  in  many  things  he 
has  said  I concur.  With  regard  to  the  im- 
mense amount  of  expense,  perhaps  it  is  unnec- 
essary to  have  all  these  fancy  branches  of 
education  in  the  high  schools.  I do  not  be- 
lieve, however,  that  this  is  a matter  to  be  cor- 
rected by  constitutional  enactment.  If  you 
will  examine  the  statistics  upon  the  subject, 
you  will  find  that  of  the  seven  or  eight  millions 


of  dollars  that  have  been  expended  annually, 
some  five  millions  and  over  have  been  raised  by 
local  taxation — a matter  that  is  entirely  within 
the  province  of  the  people  themselves,  and 
which  they  can  control.  I,  therefore,  am  op- 
posed to  the  proposed  amendment,  and  do  not 
believe  it  would  do  any  good.  It  would  tend 
to  prejudice  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution 
for  us  to  interfere  in  this  matter. 

Again,  we  have  these  common  schools.  Is  it 
not  necessary  to  have  these  higher  branches 
taught  in  the  high  schools  where  those  who 
may  become  teachers  hereafter  may  be  prepar- 
ing themselves  to  become  qualified  as  such  in 
the  schools  below  ? Therefore,  I think  it  would 
be  entirely  unwise  for  us  to  disturb  this  section 
of  the  Constitution. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  having  spoken  upon 
the  matter  reported,  I wish  merely  to  refer  to  a 
proposition  that  the  gentleman  from  Licking 
[Mr.  Kerr],  a member  of  the  Committee  on 
Education,  presented  as  an  amendment 
relating  to  abuses  by  teachers  and  those 
in  control  of  the  education  of  the  State, 
in  connection  with  speculation  in  school 
books.  That  amendment  is  not  now 
formally  before  the  Committee,  but  I will  say 
that,  when  it  comes  up,  I think  it  is  a matter 
that  ought  to  be  fully  considered  by  this  Con- 
vention, whether  the  evil  can  best  be  regulated 
by  legislation  or  whether  the  Convention  should 
put  any  section  in  the  Constitution  of  the  kind 
proposed.  I reserve  myself  or  my  vote  upon 
that  subject  when  that  question  comes  up. 

But,  Mr.  President,  there  is  another  subject 
which  I wish  to  call  the  attention  of  this  Con- 
vention to  for  the  purpose  of  giving  notice  that, 
at  the  proper  time,  I shall  offer  an  amendment, 
which  I send  to  the  Chair,  to  be  read  for  the 
purpose  of  information. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  offers  the  following, 
which  the  Secretary  will  read  for  informa- 
tion. 

The  Secretary  read : 

“Separate  schools  shall  he  maintained  for  white  and 
colored  children,  so  as  to  give  each  the  equal  benefit  of  a 
common  school  education;  but  by  a two-thirds  vote  of 
all  the  electors  ot  any  school  district;in  the  Sta^e,  colored 
or  white  children  may  be  admitted  into  the  same  school, 
under  such  regulations  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law.” 

Mr.  BABER.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I simply 
wish  to  say,  in  connection  with  this  amendment, 
that  I want  to  remove  any  misapprehension 
that  may  exist,  as  to  the  purpose  of  offering  this 
amendment.  One  reason  why  I offer  this 
amendment  is  that  I concur  very  much  in  the 
views  expressed  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Carbery]  and  other  gentlemen,  that, 
if  ever  the  school  system  of  this  State  fails, it 
will  be  in  consequence  of  the  insane  desire  for 
a central  bureau  of  education  at  Washington, 
for  civil  rights  bills,  and  other  means  of  inter- 
fering with  the  schooling  of  the  children  under 
State  authority.  I protest  against  it.  I believe 
that  it  is  the  exclusive  right  of  the  State,  and 
yet  at  the  same  time  I am  disposed  to  be  as 
liberal  as  anybody.  Now,  everybody  knows 
that  there  have  been  several  suits  brought  under 
the  law  which  provides  for  separate  colored 
schools,  where  there  have  not  been  enough 
children  to  provide  for  separate  schools.  There 
has  been  a controversy,  and  law  suits  have  been 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS 


2239 


Day.] 

March  21,  1874.]  Baber. 


brought  in  the  county  of  Muskingum,  upon  this 
subject,  and  in  Greene,  whose  loyalty  nobody 
can  doubt,  wherein  a girl,  the  daughter  of  a 
preacher,  had  passed  through  the  separate 
colored  common  school,  and  the  question  was 
raised  whether  she  was  entitled  after  examina- 
tion to  go  into  the  high  school.  The  board  of 
education  did  not  allow  her  to  do  so,  and  hunted 
up  the  thirty-first  section,  which  empowers 
them  to  set  apart  from  the  fund,  so  as  to  provide 
a separate  teacher,  and  voted  upon  it.  Now,  at 
once  to  end  this  controversy,  at  once  to  put  this 
matter  into  the  hands  of  the  school  districts  of 
the  State — because,  I understand,  that  in  the 
northern  parts  of  the  State,  and  also  in  a good 
many  other  places,  where  colored  children  are 
allowed  to  be  admitted  into  the  schools 
without  any  controversy  — where  a large 
majority  of  the  electors  desire  that  to  be 
done,  let  it  be  done  without  any  taxpayer 
coming  forward  and  bringing  suit  for  the 
purpose  of  stopping  it  by  injunction.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  I say  that,  where  the 
people  do  not  desire  it  to  be  done,  and  es- 
pecially in  my  own  locality,  in  the  city  of  Co- 
lumbus, where  they  have  a large  separate  school, 
and  where  all  the  friends  of  education  much 
prefer  it,  I do  not  want  to  see  any  sort  of  inter- 
meddling. Now,  I will  direct  the  attention  of 
the  Convention  to  a case  that  came  up  in  my 
own  county— William  Games  vs.  John  W. 
McCann  and  others,  21  Ohio  State  Re- 
ports, 198 ; and  I want  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Convention  to  the  unani- 
mous opinion  of  the  supreme  court  of 
Ohio,  delivered  by  Judge  Day,  and  concurred  in 
by  the  honorable  member  from  Logan  [Mr. 
WestJ.  The  case  was  this : In  the  school  dis- 
trict No.  9 of  Norwich  township  there  had  been 
a separate  school  provided  for  colored  children. 
One  Games,  under  the  advice  of  certain  persons 
who  would  have  liked  very  much  to  have  got  up 
a law-suit  down  at  Cincinnati  in  the  Federal 
court,  about  which  they,  in  the  first  place, 
talked  and  then  dropped,  finally  made  applica- 
tion for  a mandamus  in  the  supreme  court  of 
the  State,  in  order  that  his  children  might  be 
allowed  to  go  to  the  white  school,  in  spite  of 
the  opposition  of  the  school  directors,  and  upon 
the  facts  of  that  case,  it  being  proved  that  there 
was  a separate  school  there,  that  gave  equal  ad- 
vantages, the  supreme  court  delivered  an  opin- 
ion on  that  question,  wherein  they  held  as  fol- 
lows : 

“Under  the  31st  section  of  the  Act  of  1853,  ‘to  provide 
for  the  organization,  supervision,  and  maintenance  of 
common  schools,’  as  amended  in  1864,  the  proper  hoards 
of  education  constructed  a joint  district  for  the  educa- 
tion of  colored  children,  out  of  two  contiguous  districts 
for  the  education  of  white  ehildren,  and  provided  a 
school  for  colored  children  in  the  joint  district,  equal  in 
every  respect  to  those  for  white  children  in  other  dis- 
tricts, and  which  schools,  for  each  class  of  children,  were 
equally  commodious.  Held,  that  the  Act  authorizing 
such  classification,  on  the  basis  of  color,  does  not  contra- 
vene the  Constitution  of  the  State,  nor  the  14th  Amend- 
ment of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
colored  children  residing  in  either  of  the  districts  for 
white  children,  are  not,  as  of  right,  entitled  to  admission 
into  the  schools  for  white  children.” 

I shall  not  weary  the  Convention,  because 
lawyers  can  examine  this  Report  by  reading  it 
at  length,  but  I simply  wish  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Convention  to  the  language  with  re- 
gard to  this  matter  of  Justice  Day  in  deliver- 


ing the  opinion  on  the  question  of  legislation. 
I read  from  page  207 : 

“But  the  question  of  legislative  power  to  authorize  the 
classification  of  the  youth  of  the  State  for  school  pur- 
poses, on  the  basis  of  color,  has  been  determined  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  this  State,  both  under  the  present  Con- 
stitution and  that  of  1802.  The  25th  section  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  in  the  latter,  contains  express  provisions  guaran- 
teeing ‘equal  participation’  to  all  the  schools  endowed,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  from  the  revenue  arising  from  dona- 
tions made  by  the  United  States  for  the  support  of  schools. 
But  it  was  held  in  the  State,  ex.  rel.  &c.  v.  the  City  of 
Cincinnati  (19  Ohio,  178),  that,  inasmuch  as  ‘the  whole 
subject  of  organizing  and  regulating  schools  is  very 
properly  left  to  the  General  Assemby,  in  the  exercise  of 
its  legitimate  powers, , an  act  to  authorize  the  establish- 
ment of  separate  schools  for  the  education  of  colored 
children  was  constitutional;  and  it  was  said  by  Hitch- 
cock, C.  J.,  in  that  case,  that,  ‘as  a matter  of  policy,  it  is 
unquestionably  better  that  the  white  and  colored  youth 
should  be  placed  in  separate  schools,  and  that  the  school 
fund  should  be  divided  to  them  in  proportion  to  their 
numbers.’  After  this  expression  of  opinion  by  that  emi- 
nent judge,  we  might  at  least  hesitate  to  conclude,  that 
the  classification  of  the  youth  ot  the  State  for  school  pur- 
poses, on  the  basis  of  color,  was  an  unauthorized  or  un- 
reasonable exercise  of  the  legislative  discretion  in  the 
regulation  of  the  public  schools  of  the  State. 

“But  in  Van  Camp  v.  The  Board  of  Education  of  Lo- 
gan (9  Ohio  Bt.,  406),  the  question  under  consideration  was 
expressly  determined  by  this  court,  upon  the  original 
statute,  which,  so  far  as  material  to  the  question,  was  the 
same  as  that  under  which  the  classification  was  made  in 
this  case.  In  that  case  the  legislative  power  of  classifi- 
cation. on  the  basis  of  color,  was  sanctioned,  and  it  was 
held,  that,  inasmuch  as  the  statute  ‘is  a law  of  classifica- 
tion and  not  of  exclusion ,’  colored  children  ‘are  not,  as  of 
right,  entitled  to  admission  into  the  common  schools  set 
apart,  under  said  Act,  for  the  instruction  of  white  youths.’ 
The  application,  however,  made  in  that  case,  of  the  prin- 
ciple settled  by  it,  we  are  not  required  to  approve  or  dis- 
approve in  this,  for  in  that  case  there  had  not  been,  as 
there  was  in  this,  a separate  school  established  for  col- 
ored children. 

“It  would  seem,  then,  that  under  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  this  State,  the  right  to  classify  the  youth  of  the 
State,  for  school  purposes,  on  the  basis  of  color,  and  to  as- 
sign them  to  separate  schools  for  education,  both  upon 
well  recognized  legal  principles  and  the  repeated  adjudi- 
cations of  this  court,  is  too  firmly  established  to  be  now 
judicially  disturbed. 

“But  it  is  claimed  that  the  law,  authorizing  the  classi- 
fication in  question,  contravenes  the  provisions  of  the  14th 
Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
is,  therefore,  abrogated  thereby. 

“The  section  of  the  amendment  relied  upon  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

“ ‘Sec.  1.  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United 
States,  and  subject  to  the  j urisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  State  wherein  they  re- 
side. No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall 
abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States;  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of 
life,  liberty  or  property  without  due  process  ot  law,  nor 
deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  pro- 
tection of  the  laws.’ 

“Unquestionably  all  doubts,  wheresoever  they  existed, 
as  to  the  citizenship  of  colored  persons,  and  their  right  to 
the  ‘equal  protection  of  the  laws,’  are  settled  by  this 
amendment.  But  neither  of  these  was  denied  to  them  in 
this  State  before  the  adoption  of  the  amendment.  At  all 
events,  the  statutes  classifying  the  youth  of  the  State  for 
school  purposes,  on  the  basis  ot  color,  and  the  decisions 
of  this  court  in  relation  thereto,  were  not  at  all  based  on 
a denial  that  colored  persons  were  citizens,  or  that  they 
are  entitled  to  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.  It  would 
seem,  then,  that  these  provisions  of  the  amendment  con- 
tain nothing  conflicting  with  the  statute  authorizing  the 
classification  in  question,  nor  the  decisions  heretofore 
made,  touching  the  point  in  controversy  in  this  case. 
Nor  do  we  understand  that  the  contrary  is  claimed  by 
counsel  in  the  case,  But  the  clause  relied  on,  in  behalf 
of  the  plaintiff,  is  that  which  forbids  any  State  to  ‘make 
or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or 
immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States.’ 

“This  involves  the  inquiry  as  to  what  privileges  or  im- 
munities are  embraced  in  the  inhibition  in  this  clause. 
We  are  not  aware  that  this  has  been  as  yet  judicially 
settled.  The  language  of  the  clause,  however,  taken  in 
connection  with  other  provisions  of  the  amendment,  and 
of  the  Constitution  of  which  it  forms  a part,  affords 
strong  reasons  for  believing  that  it  includes  only  such 
priveleges  or  immunities  as  are  derived  from,  or  recog- 
nized by,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  A 


2240 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. [144th 

Baber,  Pratt,  Cowen.  [Saturday, 


broader  interpretation  opens  into  a field  of  conjecture, 
limitless  as  the  range  of  speculative  theories,  and  might 
work  such  limitations  as  the  range  of  speculative  theo- 
ries, and  might  work  such  limitations  of  the  power  of  the 
States,  to  manage  and  regulate  their  local  institutions 
and  affairs,  as  were  never  contemplated  by  the  amend- 
ment. 

“if  this  construction  be  correct,  the  clause  has  no  ap- 
plication to  this  case,  for  all  the  privileges  of  the  school 
system  of  this  State  are  derived  solely  from  the  Consti- 
tution and  laws  of  this  State.  If  the  General  Assembly 
should  pass  a law  repealing  all  laws  creating  and  regu- 
lating the  system,  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  the  14th 
Amendment  could  be  interposed  to  prevent  so  generous 
an  abridgement  of  the  privileges  of  the  citizens  of  the 
State,  for  they  would  thereby  be  deprived  of  privileges 
derived  from  the  State,  and  not  of  privileges  derived  from 
the  United  States. 

“But  we  need  not  now  further  discuss  this  point,  as  the 
true  meaning  and  exact  limits  of  the  clause  in  question 
are  not  necessarily  involved  in  this  case.  For,  conceding 
that  the  14th  Amendment  not  only  provides  equal  securi- 
ties for  all,  but  guarantees  equality  of  rights  to  the  citi- 
zens of  a State,  as  one  of  the  privileges  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  this  privil- 
ege has  been  abridged  in  the  case  before  us.  The  law  in 
question  surely  does  not  attempt  to  deprive  colored  per- 
sons of  any  rights.  On  the  contrary,  it  recognizes  their 
rights,  under  the  Constitution  of  this  State,  to  equal  com- 
mon school  advantages,  and  secures  to  them  their  equal 
proportion  of  the  school  fund.  It  only  regulates  the  mode 
and  manner  in  which  this  right  shall  be  enjoyed  by  all 
classes  of  pei&ons.  The  regulation  of  this  right  arises 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case.  Undoubtedly  it  should 
be  done  in  a manner  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  all. 
But  this  task  must,  of  necessity,  be  left  to  the  wisdom 
and  discretion  of  some  proper  authority.  The  people 
have  committed  it  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  the  pre- 
sumption is,  that  it  has  discharged  its  duty  in  accordance 
with  the  best  interests  of  all.  At  all  events  the  legisla- 
tive action  is  conclusive,  unless  it  clearly  infringes  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution. 

“At  most,  the  14th  Amendment  only  affords  to  colored 
citizens  an  additional  guaranty  of  equality  of  rights  to 
that  already  secured  by  the  Constitution  of  the  State, 

“The  question,  therefore,  under  consideration  is  the 
same  that  has,  as  we  have  seen,  been  heretofore  deter- 
mined in  this  State,  that  a classification  of  the  youth  of 
the  State  for  school  purposes,  upon  any  basis  which  does 
not  exclude  either  class  from  equal  school  advantages,  is 
no  iniiingement  of  the  equal  rights  of  citizens,  secured 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  State. 

“We  have  seen  that  the  law,  in  the  case  before  us, 
works  no  substantial  inequality  of  school  privileges  be- 
tween the  children  of  both  classes  in  the  locality  of  the 
parties.  Under  the  lawful  regulation  of  equal  educa- 
tional privileges,  the  childrenjof  each  class  are  required 
to  attend  the  school  provided  for  them,  and  to  which  they 
are  assigned  by  those  having  the  lawfuloflicial  control  of 
all.  The  plaintiff,  then,  cannot  claim  that  his  privileges 
are  abridged,  on  the  ground  of  inequality  of  school  pri- 
vileges for  his  children.  Nor  can  he  dictate  where  his 
children  shall  be  instructed,  or  what  teacher  shall  per- 
form that  office,  without  obtaining  privileges  not  enjoyed 
by  white  citizens.  Equality  of  rights  does  not  inyolve  the 
necessity  of  educating  white  and  colored  persons  in  the 
same  school,  any  more  than  it  does  that  of  educating 
children  of  both  sexes  in  the  same  school,  or  that  differ- 
ent grades  of  scholars  must  be  kept  in  the  same  school. 
Any  classification  which  preserves  substantially  equal 
school  advantages  is  not  prohibited  by  either  the  State  or 
Federal  Constitution,  nor  would  it  contravene  the  provi- 
sions of  either.  There  is,  then,  no  ground  upon  which 
the  plaintiff  can  clairr  that  his  rights,  under  the  14th 
Amendment,  have  been  infringed. 

“The  action  of  the  defendants  was  warranted  by  the 
authority  conferred  by  the  General  Assembly  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  its  constitutional  powers.  ‘Where  the  power 
which  is  exercised  is  legislative  in  its  charater,  the  courts 
can  enforce  only  those  limitations  which  the  Constitution 
imposes,  and  not  those  implied  restrictions,  which,  rest- 
ing on  theory  only,  the  people  have  been  satisfied  to  leave 
to  the  judgment,  patriotism  and  sense  of  justice  of  their 
representatives.  Cooley’s  Con.  Lun.,  129.’  ” Mandamus 
refused. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  an 
interrogatory  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Was  not  the  law  under  which 
that  decision  was  made  passed  before  the  negro 
got  the  elective  franchise  in  Ohio? 

Mr.  BABER.  Yes,  and  confirmed  afterward 


by  legislative  power ; and  here  I want  to  say 
to  the  gentleman  that  would  not  make  a differ- 
ence in  a matter  of  law  or  right.  If  he  is  the 
man  to  strike  down  the  rights  of  a man  that 
cannot  help  himself,  I am  not,  and  I would 
stand  by  the  negro,  when  he  had  none  of  these 
rights,  more  than  I would  now  that  he  has  them. 
Some  men  cannot  appreciate  the  idea  that  a 
public  man  can  do  right  unless  he  is  pandering 
for  votes. 

Mr.  COWEN-.  I rise  to  a question  of  order, 
not  out  of  any  disrespect  to  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  but  it  strikes  me  that  he 
has  gone  far  enough,  that  the  gentleman  is  dis- 
cussing now  an  amendment  which  he  proposes 
at  the  proper  time  to  offer  to  this  Article.  I 
claim  that  it  is  not  in  order  now. 

Mr.  BABER.  I reply,  that  in  general  de- 
bate, that  has  been  heretofore  allowed.  It  is 
for  the  purpose  of  saving  time.  I do  not  in- 
tend to  argue  the  matter,  but  it  has  been  done. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that  the  general  purpose  of  the  amendment 
which  he  proposes  to  offer  at  the  proper  time 
may  be  discussed. 

Mr.  BABER.  I simply  wish  to  refer  the 
Conventien  to  a legal  authority — the  decision  of 
our  supreme  court,  which  they  can  examine  for 
themselves.  I do  not  wish  to  discuss  whether 
it  is  right  or  wrong.  The  court  there  held  that 
this  right  of  attending  public  schools  depends 
upon  certain  circumstances.  The  twenty-eighth 
section  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  guarantees  equal 
participation  to  all  the  schools ; and  it  was  said 
by  Hitchcock,  Chief  Justice,  in  that  case,  to 
whose  authority,  as  a lawyer,  I believe  every- 
body in  this  Convention  will  bow,  that,  “as  a 
matter  of  policy,  it  is  unquestionably  better  that 
the  white  and  colored  youth  should  be  placed 
in  separate  schools,  and  that  the  school  fund 
should  be  divided  to  them  in  proportion  to  their 
numbers. 

And  the  court  further  says,  that  “after  this 
expression  of  opinion  by  that  eminent  judge, 
we  might,  at  least,  hesitate  to  conclude  that  the 
classification  of  the  youth  of  the  State  for 
school  purposes,  on  the  basis  of  color,  was  an 
unauthorized  or  unreasonable  exercise  of  the 
legislative  discretion.”  The  court  also  refers 
to  the  case  of  Yan  Camp  vs.  The  Board  of  Edu- 
cation of  Logan  (9  Ohio  st.  406),  where  the  same 
doctrine  was  held.  Now,  what  I want  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  is,  to  the 
claim  that  this  interferes  with  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  under  which  claim  this  Congress 
of  the  United  States,  in  pursuance  of  a cause 
of  usurpation  that  it  has  been  promising  ever 
since  the  time,  now  attempts  to  come  into  the 
State  and  interfere  with  the  right  of  Ohio  to 
control  her  schools.  With  regard  to  that 
amendment  the  court  says ; 

“The  Amendment  reads: 

“ ‘Seo  . 1.  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United 
States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  State  wherein  theyreside. 
No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall 
abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  ; nor  shall  adv  State  deprive  any  person  of 
life,  liberty  or  property  without  due  process  of  law,  nor 
deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  pro- 
tection of  the  laws.’ 

“This  involves  the  inquiry  as  to  what  privileges  or  im- 
munities are  embraced  in  the  inhibition  of  this  clause. 
We  are  not  aware  that  this  has  been  as  yet  judicially  set- 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Baber,  Alexander,  Steedman,  Chapin,  etc. 


2241 


Day.] 

March  21,  1874.] 


tied.  The  language  of  the  clause, however,  taken  in  con- 
nection with  other  provisions  of  the  amendment,  and  of 
the  Constitution,  of  which  it  forms  a part,  affords  strong 
reasons  for  believing  that  it  includes  only  such  privileges 
or  immunities  as  are  derived  from,  or  recognized  by,  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  A broader  interpreta- 
tion opens  into  a field  of  conjecture  limitless  as  the  range 
of  speculative  theories,  and  might  work  such  limitations 
of  the  power  of  the  States  to  manage  and  regulate  their 
local  institutions  and  affairs  as  were  never  contemplated 
by  the  amendment.” 

They  go  on,  and,  by  argument,  show  that 
this  is  a matter  for  the  State,  that  it  is  not  one 
of  the  rights  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  under  which  broad  scope  of 
power  Congress  may  sweep  away  all  our  rights 
and  privileges.  The  court,  therefore,  refused 
the  mandamus,  and  asserts  that  it  is  the  right 
of  the  State  of  Ohio  to  manage  this  matter,  and 
I simply  wish  to  assert  that  it  is  our  right,  and 
at  the  same  time  that  I desire  to  be  liberal,  I 
desire  to  prevent  these  constant  law  suits  in  re- 
gard to  this  matter  by  such  action  that  each 
school  district  may  settle  it  for  itself.  Mr. 
President,  I will  remark  that  this  opinion  was 
delivered  by  Welch,  Chief  Justice,  and  concurred 
in  by  Judges  White  and  Mcllvaine,  and  by  the 
member  from  Logan  [Mr.  West].  I merely  re- 
fer to  this  opinion,  so  that  gentlemen  may  be 
prepared  to  meet  the  question  when  I bring  it 
before  the  Convention. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  Will  the  gentleman 
permit  a question  before  he  sits  down  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I presume  that  the 
amendment  is  intended  to  remedy  some  evil. 
I would  consequently  ask  whether  the  evil  that 
he  intends  to  remedy  is  the  admission  of  colored 
children  to  the  schools  or  their  exclusion  there- 
from? 

Mr.  BABER.  The  evil  I desire  to  remedy  is 
in  order  to  have  the  Constitution  of  Ohio  stand 
up  for  its  own  citizens  against  Federal  usurpa- 
tion ; that  wherever  they  desire  the  admission 
of  these  children,  I want  them  to  come  in ; but 
when  the  people  do  not  desire  it,  I do  not  want 
them  forced  in  to  break  up  the  common  schools. 
Is  the  gentleman  answered  ? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I propose  to  give  my 
vote  for  section  three,  as  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Education,  enabling  the  women  of 
Ohio  to  hold  office  under  the  school  law  of  the 
State ; and,  as  it  has  been  said  that  there  is  a 
certain  inconsistency  of  conduct  in  voting  for 
this  section,  and  voting,  also,  to  withhold  the 
ballot  from  women,  I propose  to  make  a few 
remarks  on  this  point.  I voted  against  female 
suffrage,  and  even  against  submitting  that 
question  separately  to  the  people,  for  the  sole 
reason  that  I believed  then,  as  I believe  now, 
that  the  goodly  women  of  Ohio  do  not  demand 
this  privilege.  Whenever  they  do  demand  it, 
their  husbands,  their  fathers,  their  brothers, 
their  cousins,  all  their  kindred,  and  all  their  ac- 
quaintance, are  going  to  aid  them  in  securing 
it;  the  male  voters  of  Ohio  will  march  up  in 
solid  column  and  secure  it  for  them,  and  no 
power  on  earth  can  prevent  it.  That  is  my  be- 
lief about  this  whole  question  of  woman  suf- 
frage. I have  opposed  it  solely  on  this  ground 
not  because  I have  ever  had  any  apprehension 
that  to  give  women  the  ballot  would  endanger 
our  liberties,  or  unhinge  society.  Looking 

y.  n-143 


upon  women  as  I do— as  the  anchor  of  society 
— I am  unwilling  to  disturb  her  present  sphere, 
and  the  exalted  position  she  occupies  in  that 
sphere,  until  she  demands  it  herself ; but  when- 
ever she  does  demand  it,  I shall  be  as  ready  as 
any  other  male  voter  to  give  my  assent  to  the 
proposition  to  extend  to  her  the  ballot.  I be- 
lieve that  her  highest  duty  on  earth  is  to  edu- 
cate her  offspring,  and  to  fit  them  for  their 
several  duties  in  life,  and  in  no  sphere  can  she 
do  it  better  than  in  the  schools.  That  is  her 
proper  sphere.  In  the  management  and  control 
of  schools  she  can  do  more  good  than  in  any 
other  sphere,  and  I believe  that,  if  we  were  to 
withhold  from  her  the  power  of  stamping  her 
high  moral  qualities  upon  the  male  population 
of  this  country,  we  should  deprive  her  of  a part 
of  the  power  which  God  himself  intended  that 
she  should  exercise  in  fitting  man  for  his  duties 
in  life.  I would,  therefore,  vote  to  give  her 
office  under  the  school  laws,  from  school  com- 
missioner down  to  school  examiner  or  teacher 
in  the  primary  department. 

These  are  the  reasons  why  I shall  vote  for 
this  section,  and  I have  merely  made  these  re- 
marks in  explanation  of  the  vote  I have  given 
and  of  the  vote  which  I intend  to  give  upon 
this  floor  in  relation  to  the  powers  of  women  in 
Ohio . 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I ask  the  gentleman  if  he  is 
aware  that  there  have  been  numerous  petitions 
to  this  Convention  asking  for  the  enfranchise- 
ment of  the  females  of  this  State. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I think  that  about  three 
per  cent,  of  the  women  of  Ohio  have  petitioned. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Not  so  many. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I was  told  it  was  about 
that  number.  I think,  if  the  ladies  of  Ohio 
generally  wanted  the  ballot,  there  would  be 
about  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  petition- 
ers; and,  if  such  had  been  the  case,  I think 
that  every  gentleman  upon  this  floor,  who  is 
open  to  female  influence,  to  which  man  always 
yields  when  it  is  exercised  upon  him  for  proper 
purposes,  and  in  the  right  direction,  would 
have  given  his  vote  to  extend  to  them  the 
ballot.  There  would  not  have  been  a vote 
against  it. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I desire  to  submit  a few  re- 
marks upon  this  question.  I suppose  that  the 
pending  question  is  strictly  upon  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Career y], 

Mr.  HOADLY.  This  is  general  debate. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  There  is  no 
particular  question  now  pending.  The  general 
debate  has  not  yet  closed. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I am  a settled  supporter  of  com- 
mon schools.  I will  not  give  up  the  system, 
and  I will  not  knowingly  do  anything  to  im- 
pair its  efficiency.  I will  stand  by  it  in  spirit 
and  in  truth. 

Now,  sir,  after  the  best  and  most  candid  con- 
sideration which  I have  been  able  to  give  to 
the  question  raised  by  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton — I find  no 
fault  with  him  for  raising  it,  and  I find  no 
fault  with  his  manner  of  presenting  it,  for  lam 
neither  a propagandist  nor  a persecutor — I say, 
after  giving  the  best  consideration  I can,  I 
feel  that  to  adopt  that  amendment  would  be 
to  utterly  and  eternally  destroy  our  common 


2242 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Root,  Pratt,  Chapin. 


[144th 

[Saturday, 


school  system;  and  however  much  I may  he 
willing  to  concede,  however  kindly  I may  feel 
towards  any  religious  denomination  or  sect  or 
church — I will  not  quarrel  about  names — I will 
do,  as  I said,  nothing  to  impair  the  efficiency  of 
the  common  school  system.  Now,  sir,  if  you 
concede  what  is  asked  for  the  Catholics,  with 
what  face  or  with  what  consistency  can  you 
deny  a similar  request  coming  from  any  other 
religious  or  irreligious  organization;  and  it 
does  not  require  any  great  foresight  or  bold- 
ness to  predict  that  if  you  make  a concession  to 
one  denomination,  or  one  church,  or  one  sect, 
you  will  be  called  upon  to  make  similar  con- 
cessions to  other  denominations.  I have  a sin- 
cere regard  for  anybody  who  is  sincere  in  any 
religious  belief,  and  I am  ready  to  make  this 
concession,  personally,  that  anybody  who  sin- 
cerely holds  to  any  religion,  has  as  good  a re- 
ligion as  I have — I will  not  quarrel  with  any 
one  on  that  account. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Is  there  much  of  it? 

Mr.  ROOT.  I desire  not  to  be  interrupted  on 
theological  questions,  because  I have  no  fluency 
of  delivery,  no  gift  for  lecturing  on  this  sub- 
ject. The  gentleman  from  Williams  [Mr. 
Pratt]  belongs  to  the  theological  class  of  this 
Convention. 

I said  that  such  was  the  concession  which  I 
am  willing  to  make,  but  I will  do  nothing  to  the 
disparagement  of  the  common  school  system. 
If  you  make  concessions  to  one  sect  or  church, 
you  will  be  required  to  make  them  to  another ; 
and  then,  sir,  I know  not  why  men  who  pro- 
fess no  religion  at  all,  who  look  upon  all  re- 
ligious creeds  as  mere  human  inventions — some 
men  who  are  deemed  great  philosophers — who 
pity  the  religious  as  ignorant  and  deluded 
or  hypocritical  people — have  numerous  follow- 
ers, and  if  the  school  fund  were  to  be  divided, 
they  would  be  as  likely  as  any,  and  with  as  good 
right  as  any,  to  have  their  share  apportioned  to 
them.  Yes,  sir,  they  will  want  their  share  of 
the  money  to  support  schools  wherein  nothing 
objectionable  to  them  will  ever  be  mentioned. 

But  your  common  schools,  to  be  successful, 
must  be  union  schools,  must  be  open  to  all.  I 
did  not  doubt  the  sincerity  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  when  he  said 
that  the  people  of  his  church  could  not  consci- 
entiously send  their  children  to  the  common 
schools.  I doubt  not  the  gentleman’s  sincerity, 
but  I do  somewhat  doubt  the  fact,  at  least  to 
the  full  extent  of  his  prediction,  but  even  if  it 
be  as  claimed  by  him,  I am  sorry  for  it,  but  I 
cannot  help  it.  The  gentleman  makes  it  a 
question  whether  we  shall  concede  this  to  him 
and  his  church,  and  give  up  our  common  school 
system,  or  whether  we  will  deny  any  such  con- 
cession to  his  church  as  well  as  to  all  other 
churches  and  sects,  and  keep  our  common 
schools.  Come  what  may,  I will  stand  by  the 
common  schools.  Why,  sir,  what  will  become 
of  your  common  school  fund,  if  you  are  to  dis- 
tribute it  out  to  every  sect,  every  church,  every 
set  of  men  who  will  expect  some  of  it — to  every 
form  of  religion,  and  to  the  deist  and  atheist  as 
well?  Who  is  to  enforce  discipline ? Who  is 
to  prescribe  rules?  What  kind  of  a common 
school  system  would  you  have  but  for  uniform 
r ile3  and  uniformity  of  discipline,  and  by  whom 


are  these  to  be  prescribed  ? By  the  legislative 
power — the  highest  power  in  the  State.  They 
may  relegate  the  details  to  certain  officers,  but 
it  must  come  from  them,  disguise  it  as  we  will. 
Certainly  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  was  very  plausible,  but  it  is  utterly 
impracticable  to  have  every  church,  every  sect, 
every  fanciful  division  of  our  people  come  up 
and  claim  their  distributive  and  proportionate 
share  of  the  school  fund,  and  then  run 
their  schools  according  to  their  own  no- 
tions. 

Now,  sir,  without  going  into  any  theological 
discussion,  that  is  my  answer;  and,  if  I may 
be  permitted  to  say  it,  I do  no^see  what  is  to  be 
gained,  or  what  advantage  any  man  in  this 
Hall  can  achieve  over  another*  by  crying  out 
against  that  other,  that  his  church  is  or  has  been 
a persecutor.  Sir,  I am  of  the  old  Puritan  stock, 
and  I am  proud  of  it.  I wmuld  not  exchange 
my  ancestry  for  the  ancestry  of  any  duke  in 
Europe.  They  came  from  the  Nonconformists 
of  Elizabeth’s  time;  they  were  of  the  Indepen- 
dents of  Cromwells’  time ; they  were  the  Con- 
gregationalists  of  New  England;  they  were 
God-fearing  men,  and  God  was  the  only  being 
that  they  did  fear,  and,  sir,  I doubt  not  but  that 
they  recognized  in  the  Narragansetts  and  the 
Mohawks  the  Moabites  and  the  Amalekites  of 
whom  they  had  read  in  the  Scriptures.  They 
girded  up  their  loins,  and  smote  them,  hip  and 
thigh,  and  believed  they  were  doing  God’s 
work.  I say,  1 have  a great  respect  for  any 
person  who  has  any  sort  of  religion  and  is  sin- 
cere in  it.  I have  a respect  for  those  Puritans 
still,  though  they  were  persecuted,  though  they 
left  their  native  land  and  sojourned  awhile  in 
Holland,  and  finally  came  to  America,  that  they 
might  worship  God  in  freedom,  it  was  but  a 
very  short  time  before  they  visited  on  a few  of 
their  fellow  citizens,  who  had  received  with 
favor  the  teachings  of  George  Fox,  a per- 
secution nearly  as  great  as  that  they  had 
themselves  suffered.  They  drove  Roger  Wil- 
liams and  his  associates  out  of  Massachusetts 
into  Rhode  Island 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  What  have  you  to  say  of  the 
Quakers  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  I reckon  those  were  the  Quakers. 
I referred  to,  those  who  had  favorably  received 
the  teachings  of  George  Fox,  and  if  the  gentle- 
man knows  of  any  Quakerism  before  the  time 
of  George  Fox,  I do  not  know  where  he  gets 
his  knowledge.  Roger  Williams,  I think,  was 
about  as  old  a Quaker  as  we  had  in  the  United 
States.  All  this  persecution  is  to  be  regretted, 
but  remember  that  those  good  old  Puritans  were 
sincere  men,  though  they  recognized  not  breth- 
ren but  heathen  in  the  aboriginal  inhabitants  of 
this  country,  and  could  not  tolerate  difference 
of  opinion  among  their  neighbors. 

It  would  ill  become  me,  therefore,  as  one  of 
their  descendants,  to  cry  out  “ persecution  ” 
against  any  church  on  the  face  of  God’s  earth. 
Yet,  I am  proud  of  those  Puritans.  They  were 
as  good  as  the  best  of  their  time.  They  were 
somewhat  in  advance  of  the  sentiment  of  the 
people  of  the  world  at  large  and  the  people  who 
had  previously  emigrated  to  this  country. 

Though  I am  willing  to  concede  that  much  of 
good  citizenship,  much  that  is  pleasant  an^ 


2243 


Day.] 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Root,  Cook,  Hoadly,  Pease. 


March  21,  1874.] 


sound  in  American  character,  is  derived  from 
other  colonists  who  came  from  the  same  country, 
hut  of  a different  class — decayed  tapsters  and 
serving  men,  and  the  younger  sons  of  younger 
brothers — still,  whatever  is  strong,  whatever  is 
enduring,  whatever  is  unconquerable  in  Ameri- 
can character,  comes  from  the  old  Puritan 
stock — God  bless  them ! 

Sir,  one  of  their  contrivances,  one  of  their 
devices,  was  the  common  school,  and  they  ex- 
extended  its  advantages,  even  to  the  sons  of  the 
heathen. 

Now,  one  word  more.  A good  deal  has  been 
said  about  that  part  of  the  Report  which  favors, 
or  rather  hints  at  the  extension  of  the  sphere  of 
usefulness  of  the  high  schools.  I do  not  take 
the  same  view  of  this  which  some  of  its  friends 
have  taken.  I admit  that  there  is  a good  deal 
of  plain,  practical  common  sense  in  the  utter- 
ances of  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr. 
Page],  but  I ask  that  gentleman,  and  I ask  those 
who  feel  that  the  expense  of  these  schools  is 
somewhat  out  of  proportion  to  their  usefulness, 
to  bear  this  one  thing  in  mind — we  lack  really 
good  teachers — we  have  not  enough  such.  No 
step  has  been  taken  to  provide  for  this  want. 
We  have  not  what  are  denominated  in  other 
States,  normal  schools ; the  high  school  is  the 
best,  and  the  only  substitute  for  them  that  we 
have.  To  a very  great  extent,  sir,  the  high 
schools  in  our  more  considerable  towns  do  per- 
form the  office  of  normal  schools,  and  perform 
it  well.  I happen  to  live  in  a town — not  a very 
large  one — which,  in  its  infancy,  projected  and 
carried  out  the  pioneer  plan  for  common 
schools,  union  schools,  and  high  schools ; and 
now,  sir,  there  are  not  less  than  one  hundred 
young  men  and  young  women,  raised  in  our 
town,  and  educated  in  our  schools,  who  are 
filling  the  office,  and  performing  the  noble  work 
of  teachers  in  other  cities.  Whilst,  however, 
we  think  that  seventy  dollars  a month  is  about 
as  much  as  a woman  can  possibly  earn,  these 
lady  teachers  can  go  to  Cleveland,  or  Toledo, 
and  get  ninety,  one  hundred,  and  in  one  case, 
one  hundred  and  fifteen  dollars  a month — and 
that  is  a month  of  four  weeks  only.  Well,  sir, 
such  being  the  success  of  our  high  school,  you 
cannot  get  our  people  to  give  it  up ; though  we 
may  not  derive  the  whole  profit  from  it,  you  i 
cannot  get  our  people  to  give  it  up.  No,  no. 
Indeed,  sir,  the  rich  and  the  poor  may  not  stand 
quite  as  they  should — On  a footing  of  perfect 
equality  as  to  it — yet  many  a poor  girl,  by  the 
respect  and  love  with  which  she  has  inspired 
her  friends,  is  kept  at  school  until  she  gets 
qualified  to  teach,  and  then  she  pays  back  to  the 
uttermost  farthing,  if  her  friends  who  have 
supported  her  in  her  indigence,  will  accept  it. 
If  we  have  not  had  the  full  advantage  of  the 
high  school,  the  surrounding  country  has.  I 
know  not  the  extent  of  the  information  of  my 
friend  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  but  I venture  to 
say  that  he  cannot  have  remained  ignorant  of 
the  facts  which  I am  stating. 

Mr.  COOK.  It  affords  me  great  pleasure  to 
bear  testimony  to  the  efficiency  and  renown  of 
the  schools  of  Sandusky  city. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Exactly.  The  gentleman  from 
Cuyahoga  can  also  bear  testimony  to  the  effi- 
ciency of  our  high  school  work,  and  my  friend 
from  Lucas  county  [Mr.  Steedman],  if  he  is  at 


all  acquainted  with  the  schools  established  in 
his  city,  can  bear  equal  testimony. 

I say,  then,  that  though  this  plan  is  not  per- 
fect, there  is  enough  merit  in  it  to  make  it 
worth  preserving.  Let  us  persevere  in  it,  in 
the  hope  that  they  will  become  more  and  more 
like  normal  schools,  and  less  and  less  the  teach- 
ers of  what  are  called  fancy  branches.  That  I 
am  in  favor  of,  and  will  stand  by. 

There  is  another  part  of  the  Report  which  I 
will  not  stand  by.  I will  not  vote  for  compul- 
sory education.  I know  you  can  say  a great 
deal  in  favor  of  it.  I know  it  is  an  easy  thing 
and  a common  thing,  to  say  it  is  better  to  ex- 
pend a few  dollars,  or  a few  hundreds  or  thou- 
sands of  dollars  in  a large  town  to  educate 
boys  than  it  is  to  spend  a greater  sum  in  send- 
ing them  to  the  penitentiary  or  the  gallows 
when  they  become  men.  All  that  sounds  well. 
Sir,  education  is  a good  thing.  I am  in  favor 
of  it.  I will  not  do  anything  to  impair  the 
means  of  making  it  general,  and  if  any  people 
cannot  accept  its  advantages  on  the  free  terms 
of  perfect  equality  and  no  sectarianism,  why 
God  help  them  and  prosper  them  in  their  own 
chosen  way.  But,  sir,  there  are  somethings 
worth  as  much  as  education.  Liberty,  sir,  is 
worth  something.  If  you  make  education  com- 
pulsory, you  make  an  inroad  into  the  family. 
There  is  too  much  of  that  going  on  now,  and  I 
will  not  countenance  and  support,  but  will  de- 
nounce, on  every  proper  occasion,  every  at- 
tempt, patent  or  covert,  to  intrude  into  the 
family.  You  may  talk  about  your  govern- 
ments, republican,  monarchial  and  despotic,  but 
the  government  which  is  the  foundation  of  all 
government,  is  your  family  government,  and 
for  family  government,  you  must  have  subor- 
dination just  as  much  as  in  any  other  kind  of 
government,  and  what  command,  what  au- 
thority has  the  head  of  a family  over  his  own 
children  and  his  own  household,  if  a meddling 
police  office,  or  a janitor  in  your  public  schools, 
can  go  into  the  house  and  drag  out  a child  ? 

Mr.  HOADLY.  Tithing  men,  they  used  to 
call  them. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Doubtless.  But  we  do  not  have 
any  such  men  here. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Would  the  gentleman  rather 
| have  children  run  the  streets  who  have  no  pa- 
rents to  take  care  of  them  ? 

Mr.  ROOT.  Are  you  going  to  confine  your 
attention  to  the  children  you  find  in  the 
streets?  You  mean  to  exercise  authority  over 
every  man’s  children,  in  spite  of  his  natural 
right  to  control  them  during  their  infancy. 
That  is  what  you  mean,  and  come  what  may,  I 
will  never  consent  to  it.  I will  stand  by  family 
government,  the  good  old  patriarchal  plan.  It 
is  better  than  any  other  kind  of  government 
that  you  can  ever  build  up,  and  I do  not  care  in 
what  form  you  assail  it,  I will  resist  all  assaults 
upon  it. 

Now,  sir,  I do  not  care  to  extend  my  remarks 
further.  These  are  important  questions.  I 
hope  we  shall  act  dispassionately.  If  I know 
myself,  I have  as  little  desire  to  persecute  or  to 
discriminate  between  men  of  different  reli- 
gions, or  between  men  of  religion  and  men  of 
no  religion  at  all,  as  any  other  person.  That  I 
know  nothing  about,  and  I have  nothing  that  I 
wish  to  press  upon  the  consideration,  except  to 


2244 


[144th 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Root,  Miner. 


act  justly  to  all  men.  I have  made  such  slow 
progress  in  that,  I do  not  intend  to  turn  teacher 
now.  I might  have  allowed  this  question  to 
pass  without  saying  a word  upon  it,  but  I felt 
impelled  to  say  what  I have  said,  and  felt  con- 
strained to  avow  that  in  no  other  way  than 
the  way  which  I have  pointed  out  do  I think 
that  the  common  schools  can  be  saved,  and  I 
protest  against  this  exercise  of  power  in  drag- 
ging a man’s  children  out  of  his  house  into 
the  school,  though  it  is  claimed  on  the  score  of 
the  public  good  as  well  as  of  the  good  of  the 
truants  themselves.  I do  not  believe  in  it.  It 
involves  too  much.  Education  may  be  bought 
at  too  high  a price. 

Mr.  MUSTER.  It  has  been  my  intention  t° 
address  the  Convention,  at  some  length,  upon 
the  subject  now  under  consideration;  but  some 
infirmity  of  health  and  the  demands  upon  me 
of  the  current  work  of  the  Convention,  have 
prevented  that  due  preparation  which  would 
entitle  me  to  occupy  the  attention  of  members 
with  any  extended  remarks  of  my  own.  I am 
opposed  to  incorporating  any  provisions  into 
the  Constitution  we  are  framing  which  shall 
impair,  in  one  iota,  the  existing  public  school 
system  of  Ohio;  and,  if  anything  can  be  done  to 
render  that  system  more  complete  and  perfect 
by  any  provision  in  the  organic  law  of  the  State, 
that  I am  in  favor  of  doing.  One  amendment 
proposed  I am  in  favor  of.  I believe  our  boards 
of  education  will,  in  many  localities,  be  made 
more  efficient  by  being  composed  in  part  by 
females.  Much  of  the  practical  work  of  edu- 
cating in  our  common  schools  is  done  by  female 
teachers.  No  one  expects  or  desires  any  mate- 
rial change  in  this  respect.  There  are  many 
women  in  the  country,  heads  of  families,  intel- 
ligent, and  deeply  interested  in  the  education  of 
their  own  and  others’  children,  who  have 
themselves  been  educated  under  this  system, 
and  not  a few  of  them  have  been  teachers.  Such 
women,  in  my  judgment,  are  better  qualified  to 
discharge  many  of  the  important  duties  de- 
volved upon  local  boards  of  education  than  most 
men  who  are  chosen  for  such  positions.  This 
would  be  specially  manifest,  I think,  in 
more  frequent  oversight  which  they  would 
be  able  to  give  to  the  schools  under 
their  charge,  the  importance  of  which 
is  manifest  to  any  one  having  any  experi- 
ence in  matters  of  this  sort.  They  are  gener- 
ally on  the  spot,  and  have  sufficient  leisure  to 
bestow  the  necessary  oversight.  Men  are  more 
absorbed  with  their  own  private  business,  are 
more  from  home,  and,  so  far  as  my  experience 
extends,  inefficiently  discharge  their  duties  in 
this  respect.  I think,  too,  women  will  be  found 
more  conscientious,  more  self-sacrificing  in  the 
discharge  of  these  duties  than  men.  It  is  their 
nature  to  be  so.  I am,  therefore,  decidedly  in 
favor  of  the  provision  in  this  Article  which 
renders  them  eligible  to  any  office  under  the 
school  laws,  except  that  of  State  Commissioner 
of  Common  Schools.  It  may  be  an  objection, 
with  some,  to  such  eligibility  of  women,  that  it 
will  bring  them  before  the  people  as  candi- 
dates, and,  possibly,  as  canvassers  for  office. 
They  are  not  likely  soon  to  become  voters.  The 
matter  will  be  in  the  control  of  the  qualified 
electors  of  the  other  sex,  and  my  only  fear  is 
that  women  will  not  have  an  even  chance  for 


[Saturday^ 

these  offices.  I participate  in  no  alarm  for  the 
sex,  or  the  race,  on  account  of  the  innovation 
in  favor  of  women,  proposed  in  this  section. 

I have  recently  been  shown  a Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Education,  of  the  New  York 
City  Council  of  Political  Reform  upon  Compul- 
sory Education,  prepared  by  Dexter  A.  Haw- 
kins, and  published  December  30,  1873. 

This  report  deals  largely  in  general  statistics, 
which  seem  to  have  been  collected  with  much 
care  and  labor;  and  the  general  principles 
enunciated  by  the  author  are  in  such  accord 
with  my  own  views,  and  so  much  better  ex- 
pressed than  I am  capable  of,  that  I will  occupy 
the  time  of  the  Convention  for  a little  while  in 
presenting  an  outline  of  that  Report. 

“In  a democratic  Republic  like  ours,  where  all 
political  power  resides  in  and  springs  from  the 
people,  no  subject  is  more  important  than  the 
education  of  the  youth.  Universal  education  is 
essential  to  free  government.  Intelligence  in 
the  rulers  is  the  only  safeguard  for  good  gov- 
ernment; with  us  the  rulers  are  the  voters, 
hence  the  necessity  of  fitting  them, by  education, 
to  rule. 

“The  three  cardinal  principles  of  American 
liberty  are,  a free  State,  a free  school,  and  a 
free  church.  Self-preservation  imposes  upon 
our  government  the  duty  of  educating  the  peo- 
ple sufficiently  to  qualify  them  to  exercise  in- 
telligently the  right  of  suffrage.  Conscious  of 
this,  every  free  State  established  a system  of 
free  schools.  So  great  and  beneficent  has  been 
their  influence  upon  the  people,  that  the  na- 
tional prosperity,  intellectual  and  moral  devel- 
opment, respect  for  law  and  obedience  to  it,  in 
each  State,  may  be  relatively  measured  and 
calculated  by  the  condition  of  the  free  public 
schools. 

“The  national  government  has  already  set 
aside  one  hundred  and  forty  millions  of  acres 
of  public  land ; and  the  question  of  devoting  to 
education  the  whole  proceeds  of  the  public 
lands  still  undisposed  of,  is  discussed.  Such  a 
bill  lately  passed  the  House,  and  was  sent  to  the 
Senate.  The  government  has  established  a 
Bureau  of  Education,  with  a Commissioner  of 
Education  at  its  head.  His  Reports  should  be 
in  the  hands  of  every  legislator  and  every 
school  officer  in  the  United  States. 

There  are  fourteen  millions,  five  hundred 
thousand  children  of  school  age  in  the  United 
States.  The  annual  expenditure  for  schools  is 
over  ninety-five  millions  of  dollars,  equal  to  one- 
third  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  real 
and  personal  property,  as  shown  by  the  last 
census,  and  the  number  of  teachers  employed 
is  over  two  hundred  and  twenty-one  thousand. 
This  is  our  standing  army,  these  our  raw  re- 
cruits, and  the  enemy  they  are  enlisted  to 
conquer  is  ignorance  and  bigotry. 

In  New  York  there  are  one  million  five  hun- 
dred thousand  school  children,  twenty-eight 
thousand  teachers,  twelve  thousand  school 
houses,  and  one  million  volumes  in  school  libra- 
ries. Her  school  property  is  estimated  at 
twenty-seven  millions  of  dollars,  and  two  mil- 
lions are  expended  annually  in  adding  to  and 
improving  it.  The  general  levy  for  school 
purposes  is  more  than  two  and  one-half  millions 
a year,  and  the  people  voluntarily  tax  them- 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Miner. 


2245 


Day.] 

March  21,  1874/ 


selves  more  than  four  times  this  amount, 
making  not  less  than  ten  millions  a year. 

In  the  city  of  New  York,  in  1872,  there  were 
two  hundred  and  thirty  thousand  pupils  in  the 
public  schools,  three  thousand  teachers  and 
school  officers,  and  three  million  three  hundred 
thousand  dollars  expended  for  public  educa- 
tion. 

The  American  doctrine  is  that  the  property 
of  the  State  should  educate  the  children  of  the 
State.  Education  decreases  crime,  reduces 
taxes,  improves  labor,  increases  the  value  of 
property,  and  elevates  the  whole  community. 
Reliable  statistics  clearly  show  this. 

In  the  city  of  New  York  it  costs  more  to 
support  police  and  police  courts,  to  restrain  and 
punish  a few  thousand  criminals,  nearly  all  of 
whom  become  such  from  want  of  education, 
than  it  does  to  educate  her  two  hundred  and 
thirty  thousand  children. 

Crime  is  the  consequence  of  ignorance.  In 
France,  from  1867  to  1869,  one-half  the  inhab- 
itants could  neither  read  nor  write,  and  this 
one-half  furnished  ninety-five  per  cent,  of  those 
arrested  for  crime,  and  eighty-seven  per  cent, 
of  those  convicted.  In  the  six  New  England 
States  only  seven  per  cent,  of  the  inhabitants 
above  the  age  of  ten  years  can  neither  read  nor 
write,  yet  eighty  per  cent,  of  the  crime  in  those 
States  is  committed  by  this  small  minority. 

In  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  an  ignorant 
person  commits,  on  the  average,  seven  times 
the  number  of  crimes  that  one  who  can  read  and 
write  commits,  and  in  the  whole  United  States 
the  illiterate  person  commits  ten  times  the 
number  of  crimes  that  the  educated  one  does. 
These  facts  are  derived  from  official  statistics. 

Many  have  supposed  that  churches,  rather 
than  schools,  prevent  people  from  becoming 
criminals,  but  facts,  indicated  by  statistics  col- 
lected by  government,  show  the  contrary.  The 
Kingdom  of  Bavaria  examined  this  question  in 
1870.  In  Upper  Bavaria  there  were  fifteen 
churches,  and  five  and  one-half  school  houses 
to  each  one  thousand  buildings,  and  six  hun- 
dred and  sixty-seven  crimes  to  each  one  hun- 
dred thousand  inhabitants.  In  Upper  Fran- 
conia the  ratio  was  five  churches  to  seven  school 
houses,  and  four  hundred  and  forty-four  crimes 
to  the  same  number  of  inhabitants.  In  Lower 
Bavaria  the  ratio  was  ten  churches  to  four  and 
one-half  school  houses,  and  eight  hundred  and 
seventy  crimes.  In  the  Palatine,  the  ratio  was 
four  churches  to  eleven  school  houses,  and  only 
four  hundred  and  twenty-five  crimes,  or  less 
than  one-half.  In  the  Lower  Palatine  the  ratio 
was  eleven  churches  to  six  school  houses,  and 
six  hundred  and  ninety  crimes,  while  in  Lower 
Franconia  the  ratio  was  five  churches  to  ten 
school  houses,  and  only  three  hundred  and 
eighty-four  crimes.  In  short,  it  seems  that 
crime  decreases  almost  in  the  same  ratio  that 
schools  increase,  while  more  or  less  churches 
seem,  in  Bavaria,  to  produce  very  little  effect 
upon  it. 

These  reliable  guides  of  the  statesman — statis- 
tics— demonstrate  that  the  most  economical, 
effective,  and  powerful  preventive  of  crime  is 
the  free  common  school.  Universal  education 
tends  to  universal  morality.  It  is  also  the  pre- 
ventive of  pauperism. 

An  examination  of  the  statistics  of  England, 


Scotland,  Ireland,  and  of  the  different  countries 
of  Europe,  indicate  that,  other  things  being 
equal,  pauperism  is  in  the  inverse  ratio  of  the 
education  of  the  mass  of  the  people ; that  is,  as 
education  increases,  pauperism  decreases;  and 
as  education  decreases,  pauperism  increases. 
The  same  rule  holds  good  in  our  own  country. 
Taking  the  three  States,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 
and  Illinois,  for  illustration,  we  find  that  of  the 
illiterate  persons,  one  in  ten  is  a pauper ; while 
of  the  rest  of  the  population,  only  one  in  three 
hundred  is  a pauper.  In  other  words,  a given 
number  of  persons  suffered  to  grow  up  in 
ignorance,  furnish  on  the  average,  thirty  times 
as  many  paupers  as  the  same  persons  would,  if 
required  to  get  such  an  education  as  our  free 
public  schools  afford.  Add  to  this,  that  they 
furnish  also  ten  times  the  number  of  criminals, 
and  the  right  as  well  as  the  duty  of  govern- 
ment, as  the  protector  of  society,  to  enforce 
general  education,  is  clear,  for  it  is  the  plain  ob- 
ligation of  government  to  protect  society 
against  pauperism  and  crime;  which  can  be 
most  effectually  done  by  extirpating  the  cause 
of  each — ignorance.  An  educated  man  is  of 
more  value  to  himself,  to  society,  and  to  the 
country,  than  an  ignorant  one.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  prominent  centers  of  labor  in  twenty 
States,  made  three  years  ago,  developed  the  fact 
that  even  such  education  as  our  free  common 
schools  afford,  adds,  on  the  average,  fifty  per 
cent,  to  the  producing  capacity  of  the  citizen ; 
while  a higher  training  increases  it  two  or  three 
hundred  per  cent.  A wTell  educated  common- 
wealth, however  narrow  its  borders  or  poor  its 
soil,  soon  becomes  rich  and  powerful;  while  an 
ignorant  one,  even  under  the  happiest  circum- 
stances of  land  and  sky,  falls  a prey  to  anarchy, 
poverty  and  despotism.  If  government  makes 
ample  provision  for  the  secular  education  of  all, 
has  it  not  the  right  to  require  all  to  be  educat- 
ed, either  in  the  public  schools,  at  public  ex- 
pense, or  in  private  schools  at  private  expense? 
We  think  it  has,  and  that  secular  education  suf- 
ficient for  the  comm  ;n  affairs  of  every  day  life, 
and  to  enable  the  citizen  to  vote  with  intelli- 
gence, should  be  compulsory.  Prussia,  and 
many  of  the  German  States,  have  tried  it  for 
years,  with  the  happiest  results.  It  is  her  vig- 
orous system  of  compulsory  education  that;  in 
sixty  years,  has  raised  her  from  a bank- 
rupt and  conquered  petty  kingdom  to  the 
ruling  empire  of  Europe,  and  made  her 
the  seat  and  home  of  intelligence,  industry  and 
wealth.  Boston  has  had  such  a law  for  twenty 
years,  and  in  the  last  ten  has  reduced  truancy 
from  school  sixty  per  cent.  New  Hampshire, 
Rhode  Island,  Connecticut  and  Michigan  have 
now  adopted  it.  England  has  given  her  school 
boards  power  to  adopt  it,  and  in  London  they 
have  done  so.  The  effect  is  to  increase  the  at- 
tendance at  school  and  decrease  the  number  of 
juvenile  delinquents.  Wherever  it  has  been 
tried  long  enough  to  determine  its  effect,  the 
result  has  been  so  satisfactory  that  it  has  be- 
come a fixed  and  settled  policy.  Prussia, 
Saxony  and  democratic  Switzerland  testify  to 
its  excellence. 

It  is  in  harmony  with  the  true  spirit  of  a 
democratic  republic  to  require  every  citizen  to 
qualify  himself  for  the  right  of  suffrage  and  for 
earning  an  independent  living.  Tax-payers, 


2246 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Miner,  Root,  Beer,  Bishop. 


[144th 

[Saturday, 


who  furnish  the  money  to  educate  all  the  peo- 
ple, have  the  right  to  require  that  all  shall  be 
educated,  in  order  that  crime  and  pauperism, 
and  the  public  burdens  caused  by  them,  may  be 
reduced  to  a minimum,  and  the  ballot  wielded 
only  by  intelligent  voters.  The  ballot,  in  the 
hands  cf  a corrupt  and  ignorant  populace,  is 
the  torch  of  the  political  incendiary;  but  with 
an  intelligent  people  is  the  bulwark  of  liberty. 
The  class  most  in  need  of  school  training  sel- 
dom attend  school  at  all,  to  wit,  those  whose 
parents,  through  ignorance,  poverty,  avarice  or 
crime,  give  them  little  or  no  home  education. 

Our  government  cannot  and  should  not  teach 
religion.  No  government  religion,  State  or 
National — universal  toleration — protection  to 
all,  equally,  but  support  to  none,  is,  on  this 
point,  the  organic  law  of  the  United  States. 

The  parochial  (Roman  Catholic)  school  sys- 
tem of  schools  produces  more  illiterates,  paupers 
and  criminals  than  our  free  school  system.  It 
has  been  tried  for  centuries,  and  in  some  coun- 
tries, as  Italy  and  Spain,  under  the  most  favored 
auspices,  for  there  this  sect  has  had  despotic 
power,  both  civil  and  religious.  What  then 
are  its  fruits  ? 1st.  A highly  educated  few ; 
but  among  the  masses,  general  ignorance  in- 
stead of  general  intelligence.  2.  A low  grade 
of  morality.  3.  A large  pauper  and  criminal 
class.  4.  A tendency  to  despotism,  and  to 
official  selfishness  and  corruption.  5.  A lack 
of  national  progress  and  development. 

Compare  the  fruits  of  the  two  systems,  side 
by  side,  in  our  own  country.  There  are  with 
us  about  five  millions  five  hundred  thousand 
foreign  born  inhabitants  that  have  the  parochial 
or  church  system  of  schools.  Of  these,  the  il- 
literates, above  the  age  of  ten  years,  are  four- 
teen per  cent,  of  the  whole  number ; the  paupers 
four  and  one-tenth  per  cent. ; and  the  criminals, 
oneand  six-tenths  percent.  While,  in  twenty- 
one  Stateshaving  the  American  system  of  non- 
sectarian, free  public  schools,  there  is  a native 
population  of  twenty  millions.  Among  these 
the  illiterates  above  the  age  of  ten  are  three  and  ! 
one  half  per  cent. ; the  paupers,  one  and  seven-  i 
tenths ; and  the  criminals,  three-quarters  of  one 
per  cent. 

Or,  if  we  take  Massachusetts  by  itself,  the 
proportions,  in  every  ten  thousand  of  popula- 
tion, are  as  follows : 

Illiterates.  Paupers.  Criminals. 

Parochial  Schools 1,400  410  160 

Public  Schools,  21  States...  350  170  75 

Public  Schools,  Mass 71  49  11 

The  whole  future  of  our  country,  and  the 
very  existence  of  our  free  government  is 
wrapped  up  in  the  common  school.  Promote 
and  develop  that,  and  every  department  of  in- 
dustry and  intelligence  will  flourish  like  a 
tree  well  watered  and  nourished  at  the  roots. 
Destroy  the  common  school,  and  ignorance, 
poverty,  despotism  and  bigotry  will  soon  per- 
vade the  whole  land.” 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  gentleman  has  alluded  to 
the  effect  of  compulsory  regulations  in  Ger- 
many. 

Mr.  MINER.  Also  in  Boston,  and  in  several 
of  the  New  England  States,  among  the  gentle- 
man’s own  stock. 

Mr.  ROOT.  Very  well;  I ask  the  gentle- 
man if  he  is  desirous  to  see  the  habitations  of 


our  people  generally  subjected  to  that  kind  of 
surveillance  and  espionage  which  this  system 
involves  ? 

Mr.  MINER.  The  gentleman  does  not  un- 
derstand the  subject. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I cannot  understand  every 
thing. 

Mr.  MINER.  It  is  not  the  class  of  house- 
holds which  the  gentleman  has  in  mind  that 
will  be  invaded,  if  such  a system  shall  prevail. 
It  is  the  truants,  the  idlers,  children  who  have 
no  parents,  or  whose  parents  are  so  ignorant 
and  degraded  that  they  permit  them  to  run  at 
large  without  education,  without  parental  train- 
ing, except  in  evil;  the  little  savages  who  are 
found  in  the  streets  of  cities.  Far  better  for 
them,  for  society,  and  for  the  State,  that  they 
be  compelled  to  go  to  school,  than  to  be  sent  to 
houses  of  correction  and  to  prisons. 

Every  parent  that  has  any  self  respect  or  any 
concern  for  the  welfare  of  their  offspring,  will 
send  them  to  school,  when  schools  are  provided. 
It  is  not  to  be  presumed,  not  at  all  to  be  feared, 
that  the  people  of  this  State,  or  of  any  of  the 
States,  will  make  such  a law  oppressive  or 
odious  in  its  features,  or  in  practically  en- 
forcing it. 

But  I see  no  necessity  of  incorporating  any 
provision  in  the  Constitution  upon  this  subject. 
We  should  leave  the  matter  to  the  Legislature. 

I am  utterly  opposed  to  a constitutional  pro- 
vision, or  to  any  legislation,  having  in  view 
the  allotment  of  any  part  of  the  common  school 
fund  to  any  schools  except  those  established, 
maintained  and  controled  by,  or  under  the 
authority  of  the  State.  The  moment  we  con- 
sent to  do  so,  we  deal  the  death  blow  to  the 
system  of  common  schools,  upon  which,  ex- 
panded and  improved  by  increasing  experience 
and  wisdom,  more  than  upon  anything  else,  it 
is  my  profoundest  conviction,  depends  the  per- 
petuity and  efficiency  of  our  American  institu- 
tions and  government. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  that  general  debate  on 
this  proposition  terminate  on  Monday  morning 
at  ten  o’clock. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to,  without  a divi- 
sion. 

Mr.  BEER.  I move  the  Convention  do  now 
adjourn. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  16,  nays  39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Bosworth,  Chapin,  Cunning- 
ham, Griswold,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Hunt,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Townsley,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Wood- 
bury, President — 16. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Byal,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Dorsey,  Greene,  Hale,  Hill,  Hitch- 
cock, Hostetter,  Humphreville,  McBride,  McCor- 
mick, Merrill,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly,  Root, 
Rowland,  Smith,-  Steedman,  Tulloss,  Tyler, 
Voris,  West,  White  of  Hocking — 39. 

So  the  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I move  the  Convention  take  a 
recess. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  33,  nays  23,  as  follows : 


Day.] THE  CONVENTION  WITHOUT  A QUORUM. 2247 

March  21,  1874.]  Beer,  Voris,  Herron,  Cowen,  Hale,  Hunt,  etc. 


Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Bishop, 
Byal,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Cowen,  Dorsey, 
Greene,  Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hos- 
tetter,  Humphreville,  McBride,  McCormick, 
Merrill,  Miner,  Neal,  Okey,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Philips,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Root,  Smith,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  West,  White  of  Hocking — 33. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Beer,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cunningham,  Griswold, 
Hoadly,  Hunt,  Mitchener,  Page,  Powell,  Rickly, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Steedman,  Townsley,  Van  Valken- 
burgh,  Voris,  Woodbury,  President— 23. 

So  the  Convention  (at  12:45  p.  m.)  took  a 
recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 
Mr.  BEER.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 
The  SECRETARYcalled  the  Roll,  and  forty-eight 
members  answered  to  their  names,  as  follows : 
Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Beer, 
Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross, 
Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Greene, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hos- 
tctter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  McBride,  Mc- 
Cormick, Merrill,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly, 
Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Steed- 
man,  Townsley,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van  Voorhis, 
Voris,  Weaver,  West,  White  of  Brown, President 
—48. 

The  absentees  were  as  follows : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Barnet, 
Bishop,  Blose,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Caldwell, 
Campbell,  Carberv,  Clay,  Coats,  De  Steiguer, 
Doan,  Ewing,  Foran,  Freiberg,  Gardner,  God- 
frey, Griswold,  Gurley,  Hoadly,  Jackson,  John- 
son, Kerr,  Kraemer,  Layton,  Miller,  Miner, 
McCauley,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Philips,  Pond,  } 
Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample,  Scofield,  Scrib- 
ner, Sears,  Shaw,  Smith,  Thompson,  Townsend,  j 
Tripp,  Tuttle,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Voorhes, 
Waddle,  Watson,  Wells,  White  of  Hocking,  j 
Wilson,  Woodbury,  Young  of  Champaign, 
Young  of  Noble — 56. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  the  Sergeant-at-Arms 
be  dispatched  for  the  absentees. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I move  the  Convention  now 
adjourn. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I demand  the  yeas  and  nays. 
Objection  was  made,  and  the  call  for  the  yeas 
and  nays  was  sustained. 

Mr.  HALE.  I would  ask  the  Chair  if  this  is 
in  order,  pending  the  call? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  adjourn  is 
always  in  order. 

Mr.  HUNT  asked  and  obtained  leave  of  ab- 
sence for  Mr.  Carbery. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted — 
yeas  10,  nays  39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Beer,  Blose,  Chapin,  Greene,  Hale, 
Herron,  Horton,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz, 
President — 10. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Byal, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Cow- 
en, Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hos- 


tetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  McBride,  McCor- 
mick, Merrill,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly, 
Root,  Rowland,  Steedman,  Towsley,  Tulloss, 
Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voris,  Weaver,  West, 
White  of  Hocking — 39. 

So  the  motion  to  adjourn  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  or- 
dering the  Sergeant-at-Arms  to  bring  in  the 
absentees. 

Mr.  BEER  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Objection  was  made,  but  the  demand  for  the 
yeas  and  nays  was  sustained,  and  being  taken, 
resulted — yeas  42,  nays  7,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messss.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Beer, 
Blose,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark 
of  Ross,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Dorsey, 
Greene,  Hale,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostet- 
ter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  McBride,  Merrill, 
Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Rickly,  Root,  Rowland,  Steedman,  Tulloss,  Ty- 
ler, Van  Voorhis,  Voris,  Weaver,  West,  White 
of  Hocking,  President — 42. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Herron,  Mitchener,  Phellis, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Shultz,  Townsley — 7 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Sergeant-at-Arms 
will  arrest  and  bring  in  all  the  absentees,  with- 
out leave. 

The  Sergeant-at-Arms  brought  before  the 
House  Mr.  Woodbury  and  Mr.  Russell  of 
Muskingum. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  The  gentleman  from  Ashtabu" 
la,  [Mr.  Woodbury],  is  a gentleman  for  whom  I 
have  great  respect.  I roomed  with  him  all  last 
summer,  and  I hope  we  shall  not  be  severe  with 
him. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Has  the  gentleman  any- 
thing to  say  why  sentence  shall  not  be  passed 
upon  him  ? 

Mr.  WOODBURY.  Not  a word. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I would  like  to  know  how  the 
gentleman  voted  this  morning  on  adjourn- 
ment? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  not  in  order.  The 
gentleman  may  state  any  excuse  he  may 
have. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  that  the  gentleman  be 
excused. 

Mr.  REILLY.  I ask  for  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

Mr.  VORIS.  For  the  information  of  the 
House,  I ask  that  the  excuse  be  given,  too,  so  that 
I we  may  be  enabled  to  vote  understandingly 
upon  the  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from  Ash- 
tabula [Mr.  Woodbury],  and  the  gentleman 
from  Muskingum  [Mr.  Russell],  have  liberty 
to  make  any  remarks.  The  question  is  now 
open  for  general  debate. 

Mr.  HALE.  I move  that  general  debate  now 
close. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Objection  was  made,  and  the  demand  was  not 
sustained. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is,  that  the 
gentlemen,  Mr.  Woodbury  of  Ashtabula,  and 
Mr.  Russell  of  Muskingum,  be  excused. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 


2248 MEMBERS  ARRESTED  AND  BROUGHT  IN. [144th 

Cunningham,  Powell,  Humphreville,  Root,  Yoris,  Bishop,  Smith,  etc.  [Saturday, 


Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move  the  Conven- 
tion do  now  adjourn. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  inquire  whether 
there  is  a quorum  present? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  not  a quorum 
present. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  I would  inquire 
whether  a motion  to  adjourn  is  now  in  order, 
during  the  pendency  of  the  call,  until  that  call 
is  dispensed  with  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  has  been  a subse- 
quent proceeding  since  that  time. 

Mr.  ROOT.  The  call  has  commenced. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  had  not  com- 
menced when  I addressed  the  Chair. 

Mr.  ROOT.  It  had,  and  Mr.  Adair  had  an- 
swered to  his  name. 

Mr.  HUMPHREVILLE.  It  is  a question  of 
veracity  between  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root]  and  myself.  I had  addressed  the  Chair 
before  the  Secretary  had  commenced  the  call. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted — 
yeas  18,  nays  34,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Blose,  Cunningham, 
Greene,  Herron,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  McCor- 
mick, Rickly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Scofield,  Shultz,  Steedman,  Townsley, 
Woodbury,  President — 18. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Alexander,  Baber,  Byal,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Dorsey,  Bale,  Hill,  Hostetter,  Humphreville, 
Hunt,  McBride,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Neal, 
Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Powell,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Root,  Rowland,  Tulloss,  Tyler,  Van 
Voorhis,  Voris,  Weaver,  West,  White  of  Hock- 
ing— 34. 

So  the  motion  to  adjourn  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  Sergeant-at-Arms  brought  in  Messrs. 
Bishop,  Scofield,  Smith  and  Philips. 

Mr.  VORIS.  I move  that  the  gentlemen  who 
have  been  brought  in  be  required  to  appear  at 
the  bar  of  the  House. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  We  are  ready  to  appear. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I hope  that  we  shall  proceed 
regularly  in  this  a very  important  though  a 
very  melancholy  duty.  Now,  it  is  in  order  that 
these  gentlemen  be  called  one  by  one,  and  they 
must  offer  to  purge  themselves  of  any  contempt 
of  this  body.  After  having  done  so,  it  is  for 
this  body  to  decide  what  further  proceedings 
shall  be  had  in  their  respective  cases.  But, 
first,  they  should  have  an  opportunity  to  purge 
themselves  of  contempt,  as  I trust  they  may. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentlemen  will  now 
have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  the  order  in 
which  the  Convention  may  designate. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  What  is  the  charge? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Being  absent  without 
leave. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I am  here,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  was  ab- 
sent when  the  call  of  the  House  was  made. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  They  made  the  call  a little  too 
soon.  They  made  it  before  I expected  it.  I 
did  not  expect  it  to  be  quite  so  sudden.  As  I 
came  by  the  store  I stopped  a minute  to  hear 
the  news  from  the  Convention,  and  I find  my- 


self a little  too  late.  I refer  to  the  Democratic 
Convention. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I would  like  to  ask  whether  or 
not  the  gentleman  voted  for  the  Convention  to 
adjourn. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  That  is  out  of  order. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I voted  against  it. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I move  that  the  gen- 
tleman be  excused. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I would  like  to  be  heard  upon 
this  subject. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman’s  time 
has  now  come.  He  has  an  opportunity  of  being 
heard. 

Mr.  SMITH.  As  I have  no  confession  to 
make  upon  the  subject,  I propose  that  this  mat- 
ter be  put  fairly  by  the  first  gentleman  who 
presented  himself.  I admit  that  ordinarily 
absence  from  this  body  does  not  carry  with  it 
the  implication  of  contempt  of  its  rules  and 
orders,  but  as  the  gentleman,  whose  case  has 
just  been  acted  upon,  did  vote  to  hold  this  body 
in  session  this  afternoon,  I look  upon  him  as 
treating  the  Convention  with  that  sort  of  con- 
tempt that  merits  just  punishment,  and  for  that 
purpose  I urge  punishment  for  his  delinquen- 
cy. As  I stand  in  some  doubt  myself,  I admit 
that  it  is  contrary  to  my  usual  action.  I ex- 
pected to  adjourn  on  Saturday  afternoon. 
Having  been  humbugged  into  such  a doubt,  I 
am  willing,  if  necessary,  to  purge  myself  by 
the  payment  of  a fine. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I simply  say,  with  reference 
to  the  vote  against  adjournment,  that  I voted 
against  it 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now 
upon  excusing  the  gentleman  from  Highland 
[Mr.  Smith]. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  The  gentlemen  from  the  rural 
districts  have  found  fault  with  the  city  mem- 
bers so  often  for  moving  adjournments,  I voted 
for  that,  and  I wanted  them  to  try  it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I think,  on  account  of 
the  session  of  the  Democratic  Convention  to- 
day, gentlemen  like  the  one  who  has  just  taken 
his  seat  ought  to  be  excused  for  absence  and 
forgetfulness,  in  that  as  they  did  what  they 
did  intend  to  do  before  taking  a recess. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  like  to  have  the  gentle- 
man give  the  best  excuse  he  can.  Had  he  any- 
thing bet  upon  the  result?  Had  he  any 
unusual  interest? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman 
from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  refer  to  the  gentleman 
from  Highland,  or  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton ? 

Mr.  HERRON.  I move  that  all  further  pro- 
ceedings under  the  call  be  suspended. 

Mr.  BLOSE.  I respectfully  submit  that 
there  are  two  or  three  gentlemen  here  under 
arrest  whose  excuses  we  are  very  desirous  of 
hearing,  they  having  committed  an  offense 
against  this  body. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A motion  to  dispense 
with  further  proceedings  under  the  call  is  in 
order,  and  will  release  those  gentlemen  from 
arrest. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded  on  sus- 
pending the  call,  but  the  demand  was  not  sus- 
tained. 


Day.] CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 2249 

March  21,  1874.]  Cunningham,  Cowen,  Hale,  Herron,  Cook,  etc. 


Further  proceedings  under  the  call  were 
then  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I ask  leave  of  absence 
for  the  gentleman  from  Mercer  [Mr.  Godfrey], 
for  this  afternoon,  as  he  is  confined  to  his  room 
on  account  of  sickness. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  General  debate  on  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Education  is  now 
in  order. 

Mr.  COWEN.  If  there  is  no  one  who  desires 
to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Convention  in  general 
debate  upon  the  pending  proposition,  I 
move  that  the  vote  by  which  it  was  resolved, 
this  forenoon,  to  stop  general  debate  at  ten 
o’clock  on  Monday  next,  be  now  reconsidered, 
and  I make  this  motion,  if  it  is  reconsidered,  if 
it  is  done,  that  the  debate  cease  now. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  but  the 
demand  was  not  sustained. 

Mr.  HALE.  I understand  the  motion  is  to 
reconsider  the  vote  made  this  morning.  Objec- 
tion is  made  by  some  to  closing  general  debate 
and  reconsidering  that  vote.  If  there  is  any 
one  present  who  desires  to  speak  further  upon 
the  pending  proposition  this  afternoon,  let  him 
now  indicate  it.  I shall  be  very  happy  to  vote 
against  it;  otherwise,  I shall  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I withdraw  my  motion,  if 
there  is  any  one  desirous  of  being  heard. 

Mr.  HALE.  I made  this  suggestion  for  the 
purpose  of  elucidating  the  fact  whether  any 
one  desires  to  discuss  this  proposition  further. 

Mr.  HERRON.  My  objection  to  this  propo- 
sition is  this : These  men  that  voted  to  close 
general  debate  on  Monday  morning,  with  the 
understanding  that  there  should  be  no  other 
vote  taken  upon  any  of  these  questions  before 
Monday  morning,  some  have  left  the  Conven- 
tion and  gone  home,  and  some  others  are  not 
here,  but  probably  in  the  city,  with  the  under- 
standing, upon  their  part,  that  no  vote  would 
be  taken  until  Monday  morning;  and  it  would 
be  unfair  to  them. 

Mr.  HALE.  No  leaves  of  absence  have  been 
granted  since  that  vote  was  taken,  and  if  mem- 
bers are  absent  I do  not  see  how  it  can  be  urged. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I do  not  know  what  is  meant 
by  this  word  “understanding,”  that  has  been 
used  here  almost  every  Saturday  afternoon 
since  we  came  to  this  city.  There  was  certain- 
ly no  such  understanding  upon  my  part,  or 
upon  the  part  of  anybody  else,  in  this  part  of 
the  Hall,  that  I am  aware  of. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I simply  say  what  I mean 
by  understanding  is,  that  we  agreed  that  the 
debate  should  close  on  Monday  morning. 

Mr.  COWEN.  The  understanding  of  the 
proposition  is,  that  that  is  a feature  which  we 
have  a right  to  reconsider.  We  have  worked 
here  faithfully  for  half  an  hour,  and  have  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  a quorum  on  Saturday  after- 
noon, and  we  have  got  an  opportunity  now  to 
go  to  work  and  finish  up  this  Article.  If  it 
were  upon  the  final  vote  upon  this  Article,  I 
should  hesitate  very  much  to  undertake  to  press 
a vote  before  the  small  Convention ; but  inas- 
much as  the  Convention  has  fixed  upon  the  third 
and  final  reading  of  this  Proposition  to  submit 
any  amendment  that  may  be  desired,  I do  insist 
that  we  shall  not  now,  after  this  labor  of  from 


half  an  hour  to  an  hour,  fritter  away  this  after- 
noon. 

Mr.  COOK.  I desire  to  suggest  to  the  gentle- 
man this,  in  answer  to  the  point  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron],  The 
motion,  this  morning,  was  that  general  debate 
should  close  at  ten  o’clock  on  Monday  morn- 
ing. 

This  Convention  will  meet  at  half-past  nine ; 
it  takes  half  an  hour  to  do  the  morning’s  work. 
There  will  be  no  discussion  of  the  question  on 
Monday,  and  if  the  gentlemen  desired  to  dis- 
cuss it,  they  must  have  known,  after  that 
motion  was  agreed  to,  that  there  was  no  oppor- 
tunity except  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  BABER.  I supposed  that  motion  to  close 
general  debate  was  agreed  to  with  the  under- 
standing mainly  that  there  should  not  be  any 
vote  upon  the  amendments.  I understand  the 
gentleman  from  Licking  [Mr.  Kerr],  who  is  a 
member  of  the  Committee,  has  an  amendment 
which  he  wishes  to  have  voted  upon,  but  he  will 
not  be  here  until  Monday. 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  BABER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  COOK.  If  the  Convention  will  proceed 
to  vote,  I will  agree  to  put  it  in  shape  so  that 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery] 
and  the  gentleman  from  Licking  [Mr.  Kerr] 
can  both  have  an  opportunity  to  move  their 
amendments  as  additional  sections.  They  are 
not  amendments  to  anything  here,  but  they  are 
in  the  nature  of  additional  sections,  and  I can 
put  it  in  that  shape  this  afternoon,  if  the  gen- 
tlemen will  agree,  so  that,  on  Monday,  they  can 
offer  their  amendments. 

Mr.  BABER.  I have  no  objection  to  that;  I 
do  not  want  those  amendments  cut  off. 

Mr.  COOK.  They  will  not  be  cutoff. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  I wish  the  gentleman 
would  withdraw  his  motion  for  a moment.  I 
would  like  to  say  a few  words.  I do  not  wish 
to  make  an  argument  at  all. 

Mr.  COWEN.  With  the  leave  of  the  Conven- 
tion, and  with  the  understanding  that  it  is  to  be 
renewed. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  As  I shall  not  be  here 
on  Monday,  my  desire  is  simply  to  indicate  my 
opinions  on  some  of  the  sections  of  this  Report. 
I am  in  favor  of  the  proposition  that  is  submit- 
ted, rendering  women  eligible  to  office  under 
the  school  laws.  It  will  be  a matter  of  experi- 
ment, as  a matter  of  course;  but  I,  for  one,  am 
willing  to  try  it.  So  far  as  my  knowledge  and 
experience  upon  this  matter  are  concerned,  I 
have  ever  been  of  the  opinion  that  females  are 
peculiarly  well  adapted  to  perform  the  duties 
of  instructors  of  the  youth.  There  is  a kindness 
and  tenderness  about  them  that  seems  to  pecu- 
liarly fit  them  for  it.  In  addition  to  that,  it  is 
well-known  that  they  take  a deep  interest  in 
the  cause  of  education.  How  far  they  will  suc- 
ceed in  the  duties  that  will  be  executive,  I can- 
not say,  as  a matter  of  course,  but  I am  will- 
ing to  take  the  risk;  and,  if  there  should  be 
any  failure  as  to  that  matter,  the  people  of  the 
State  are  perfectly  competent  to  govern  them- 
selves and  manage  their  affairs,  and  they  will 
elect  persons  that  are  competent,  and  not  in- 
competent persons  in  matters  of  that  kind.  I, 


2250 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. [144th 


Clark  of  R.,  Cook. 


[Saturday, 


therefore,  have  no  fears  of  this  proposition 
working  injury,  and  I hope  that  it  will  be 
adopted.  We  have  already  adopted  a provision 
making  women  competent  to  be  appointed  to 
certain  appointive  offices.  That  was  in  the 
right  direction.  I am  not  at  this  time  in  favor 
of  female  suffrage,  as  it  is  called.  I voted  here 
a few  days  ago  to  submit  the  question  to  the 
people,  because  I am  willing  to  trust  the 
people.  I have  great  faith  in  them,  and  I am 
willing  to  trujet  them  with  the  decision  of  any 
quesiton  that  may  concern  them.  I have  great 
faith  in  their  intelligence,  and  on  that  ground 
alone  I voted  in  favor  of  the  proposition. 

In  the  next  place,  I am  not  in  favor  of  com- 
pulsory education.  There  is  something  about 
that,  to  my  mind,  harsh  and  inconsistent  with 
the  genius  of  our  institutions,  and  inconsistent 
with  our  notions.  The  American  is  fond  of 
freedom;  he  does  not  like  to  be  coerced  or 
driven  to  anything;  and  in  addition  to  that,  sir, 
the  showing  that  has  been  made  here  indicates 
that  there  is  a very  large  attendance,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  number  of  youth  enrolled  in  our 
public  schools,  and,  taking  into  consideration 
the  necessary  absence  from  sickness  and  other 
causes — temporary  absence— the  attendance  is 
shown  to  be  very  large,  amounting  almost  to 
the  enrollment,  or  very  nearly  approaching  it. 
The  people  of  this  State  fully  appreciate  the 
common  school  system.  They  fully  appreciate 
the  advantages  of  this  system,  and  rich  and 
poor  avail  themselves  of  it;  therefore,  I think, 
there  is  no  need  of  any  change  in  that  direc- 
tion, and  I am  opposed  to  that  feature.  It  has 
been  said  here  that  a tax  levied  for  the  support 
and  maintenance  of  high  schools,  and  especially 
for  the  support  of  the  higher  departments 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a 
question  before  he  leaves  that  branch  of  the 
subject  ? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  ask  him,  as  a lawyer,  if 
it  is  his  opinion  that  the  Legislature  now  has 
the  right  or  the  power  to  enforce  compulsory 
education,  if  it  thinks  proper  to  do  so,  without 
this  Article  ? 

Mr.  CLARK,  of  Ross.  Undoubtedly,  sir. 
By  the  first  section  of  the  Legislative  Article  we 
grant  to  the  General  Assembly  the  whole  leg- 
islative power;  the  power  is  full,  ample,  plen- 
ary; and  unless  we  see  proper  here  to  limit  it, 
the  power  is  full  and  ample.  As  I said  before, 
it  has  been  urged  here  that  taxation  for  the 
purpose  of  supporting  our  union  schools,  espe- 
cially so  far  as  the  high  schools  are  concerned, 
is  not  legitimate.  I confess  my  surprise  at  that 
being  presented  by  my  friend  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page].  I do  not  intend,  sir,  at  this  time, 
to  make  an  argument  upon  that  subject;  the 
matter  is  settled  in  Ohio.  Our  common  school 
system  dates  back  of  the  Constitution.  It  has 
been  the  favorite  of  the  people  of  this  State 
during  all  that  time,  and  1 hope  ever  will 
continue  to  be.  If  it  is  a legitimate  purpose  of 
taxation  to  impose  taxes  to  prevent  crime,  to 
prevent  pauperism ; if  it  is  a legitimate  pur- 
pose, where  there  is  pauperism,  to  provide  for 
the  care  of  the  paupers — where  crime  is  com- 
mitted, to  provide  for  the  punishment  of  the 
criminal,  is  it  not  a proper  subject  Or  purpose  of 
taxation  to  commence  at  the  beginning;  to 


strike  at  the  root;  to  prevent  pauperism;  to 
prevent  crime,  by  educating  the  people?  I 
cannot  conceive  of  anything  more  properly 
within  the  province  of  the  government,  or 
within  the  control  and  legitimate  sphere  of 
taxation,  than  this. 

It  has  been  further  suggested  that  we  should 
dispense  with  high  schools.  I,  for  one,  cannot 
consent  to  that.  It  has  been  urged  here  that 
the  high  schools  are  not  attended  in  the  same 
proportion  as  the  primary  schools  are.  Whether 
that  be  so  or  not,  I care  not.  So  far  as  my 
knowledge  has  extended,  the  high  schools  have 
proven  of  the  utmost  benefit  to  the  people  whom 
I represent,  and  others,  so  far  I know.  The 
high  school,  as  well  as  our  whole  school  sys- 
tem, is  an  ornament  and  a blessing  to  the  State. 
The  people  of  the  State  are  proud  of  it,  and 
alongside  of  thei-r  public  institutions  it  is  one  of 
the  brightest  jewels  in  her  crown.  With  our 
union  schools  the  son  of  the  poor  man,  as  well 
as  the  son  of  the  rich  man,  can  get  a good  edu- 
cation. He  can  acquire  an  education  that  will 
fit  him  for  the  discharge  of  any  duties  incum- 
bent upon  a good  citizen,  and  I,  for  one,  by  no 
vote  of  mine,  will  cripple  them  or  place  them 
in  a position  that  might  endanger  the  value  and 
efficiency  of  that  system. 

It  is  said,  however,  that  the  children  of  the 
poor  cannot  or  will  not  avail  themselves  of  the 
benefit  of  the  high  schools  to  the  same  extent 
as  the  children  of  the  middle  classes  and  the 
rich.  I know  not  how  that  may  be  as  a matter 
of  fact.  I know  this,  however,  that  the  schools 
are  open  to  them.  I know  that,  so  far  as  my 
locality  is  concerned,  that  the  sons  and  daugh- 
ters of  the  poor  are  some  of  the  brightest  orna- 
ments of  the  schools,  and  graduate  with  the 
highest  honors.  If  there  are  any  in  so  unfortu- 
nate a condition  that  they  cannot  avail  them- 
selves of  the  benefit  of  these  schools,  I am  sorry 
for  it;  but  I know  this,  that  wherever  the  sons 
or  daughters  of  poor  men  show  that  they  are 
capable  of  being  educated,  show  that  they  are 
bright  and  well  fitted  to  become  good  scholars, 
not  only  the  parents  of  these  children,  but  the 
teacher  and  the  neighbors  are  all  anxious  that 
they  shall  be  continued  at  school  until  they 
have  received  as  good  an  education  as  can  be 
given  to  them.  But  it  is  said  that  the  middle 
classes  and  the  rich  derive  the  greatest  benefit 
from  these  high  schools.  If  this  be  so,  it  proves 
nothing  here.  The,  middle  and  the  rich  classes 
pay  the  greatest  amount  of  tax,  as  has  been 
stated.  Still,  I am  in  favor  of  taxing  every 
person  in  accordance  with  his  property  for  the 
benefit  of  this  common  school  system. 

I am  opposed  to  a division  of  the  school  fund. 
It  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Stark 
[Mr.  Pease],  that  he  voted  the  other  day  against 
exempting  from  taxation  the  schools  of  the 
Catholic  portion  of  our  community,  on  the 
ground  that  he  is  opposed  to  a division  of  the 
school  fund.  Sir,  I take  a different  view  of 
that  question.  I am  opposed  to  a division  of  the 
school  fund,  but  I voted  to  exempt  the  school 
houses  of  our  Catholic  fellow  citizens  from 
taxation,  and,  I think,  I voted  right,  and,  I 
think,  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  that 
vote  and  the  one  that  I shall  give,  if  I am  here, 
when  this  vote  is  taken.  We  all  admit,  at  once, 
that  it  is  better  that  all  the  children,  Catholics, 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS, 

Clark  of  R.,  Smith. 


2251 


Day.] 

March  21, 1874.] 


as  well  as  everybody’s  else  in  the  State,  shall  be 
educated.  By  this  school  fund,  we  provide  the 
means  of  education  for  every  one.  The  taxes 
are  levied  upon  the  Catholic  as  well  as  the 
Protestant.  Now,  if  the  Catholic  portion  of 
our  fellow  citizens  see  proper  not  to  avail  them- 
selves of  the  benefit  of  the  school  fund,  but 
erect,  at  their  own  expense,  their  own  school 
houses,  and  educate  their  own  children,  and 
thereby  make  them  better  citizens,  why  should 
not  their  school  houses  be  exempted  as  well  as 
ours,  or  as  well  as  anybody’s  else,  especially, 
when  we  determine,  at  the  outset,  to  exempt  their 
churches  from  taxation,  and  it  was  upon  that 
ground  that  I gave  that  vote;  but  I cannot  vote 
to  divide  the  school  fund,  sir.  This  is  the  com- 
mon school  fund.  It  is  the  fund  for  the  union 
schools.  The  very  idea  of  it  is,  that  it  is  to  be  a 
common  fund,  a union  school  fund  for  every- 
body— free  and  open  to  everybody.  Now, 
if  the  fact  be  so  that  a portion  of  our 
fellow  citizens,  from  their  religious  belief,  can- 
not or  will  not  avail  themselves  of  the  bene- 
fits of  the  school  fund,  that  is  their  matter.  It 
is  a matter  purely  voluntary,  so  far  as  they  are 
concerned,  and  they  have  the  right  to  do  so  if 
they  think  proper ; but  I will  not  consent,  by 
any  vote  of  mine,  that  there  shall  be  any  divi- 
sion whatever  of  the  school  fund.  The  very 
idea  is  contrary  to  the  object  of  its  creation,  and 
it  would  prove  impracticable  and  destructive  to 
the  whole  object  of  the  fund  of  the  union 
schools.  But  I need  not  enlarge  upon  this 
branch  of  the  argument.  The  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root],  this  morning,  presented  it  in 
such  a forcible  light,  that  it  needs  no  further 
illustration. 

Upon  the  score  of  economy,  why  not  continue 
our  school  system  as  it  is?  Why  undertake  to 
change  it  in  any  way  or  shape,  on  the  mere 
score  of  economy  ? Why  undertake  to  abolish 
the  higher  department  of  the  high  schools  ? I 
have  looked  at  the  Report  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  as  to  my  own  county,  and  I find,  in  the 
year  1873,  the  number  of  youth  between  the 
ages  of  six  and  twenty-one  years  of  age  was 
12,973.  The  number  of  youth  enrolled  in  the 
schools  during  the  year,  8,552.  Paid  for  sites 
and  buildings,  $20,288.84.  Paid  for  fuel  and 
other  contingent  expenses,  $15,864.63,  making 
$36,153.49.  The  population  of  my  grand  old 
county  is  37,097 ; therefore,  for  all  the  benefits 
and  advantages  that  we  have  received  there 
from  this  school  fund  in  the  education  of  our 
children,  the  education  of  the  rich  and  the  poor, 
the  schools  in  which  my  own  sons  and  daugh- 
ters have  been  educated,  in  which  they  have 
graduated  and  received  a good  education ; and 
even  the  one  that  I sent  away  to  another  school 
received  but  little  better  education,  notwith- 
standing the  expense  attendant  upon  her  in- 
struction, and  yet,  for  all  that,  my  people  are 
taxed,  or  the  expense  of  the  schools  to  them  is 
less  than  one  dollar  per  capita.  What  would 
the  people  of  my  county,  the  home  of  Massie, 
of  Worthington,  of  Tiffin,  of  McArthur,  of 
Scott,  of  King,  of  Leonard,  of  Woodside,  of 
Creighton,  of  Douglas,  of  Allen,  of  Taylor,  of 
Thurman  and  Sill,  think  of  me,  if  I should  give 
a vote  here  that  would  in  any  way  cripple  this 
school  system,  on  the  score  of  economy,  when 
the  cost  or  expense  is  so  trivial,  compared  with 


the  immense  benefits  received  by  my  people 
from  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  subject  of  education  is  now 
and  has  been  at  all  times  to  me  one  of  especial 
interest.  I feel  deeply  anxious  that  the  common 
school  system  shall  not  only  be  preserved  in  its 
present  status,  but  shall  meet  with  favor  here, 
and  with  an  earnest  support  from  the  people  of 
the  State.  The  high  purpose  of  such  institu- 
tions, is  to  fit  the  coming  generations  of  men 
and  women  that  may  mark  the  history  of  Ohio, 
for  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  our  national 
destiny.  The  intellectual  development  that  is 
necessary  depends  not  so  much  on  the  accumu- 
lations of  facts  gathered  from  any  particular 
class  of  books  or  educational  forms  that  may  be 
adopted,  as  it  does  on  the  system  that  may  be 
devised  to  give  the  growing  mind  the  free  and 
unfettered  use  of  all  its  powers,  for  then  we 
may  hope  that  the  future  sons  and  daughters 
of  our  country  will  be  enabled  to  pursue,  as  I 
hope  the  Christian  influences  of  our  land  will 
always  persuade  them  to  pursue,  the  sole  acqui- 
sition of  truth  on  all  subjects — civil,  political, 
religious  and  social.  To  this  end  I recognize  in 
the  schools  that  are  scattered  over  Ohio  the 
instrumentalities  for  developing  the  intellectual 
power  of  this  people,  and  for  training  them  by 
processes  in  the  exercise  of  the  laws  of  thought, 
that  they  may  be  able  to  thread  through  all  the 
errors  of  life,  coming  from  what  quarter  they 
may,  and  thus  crystalize,  as  it  were,  the  doctrine 
of  American  freedom  and  education  into  a sub- 
stantial reality. 

Now,  sir,  as  to  these  common  schools.  In- 
stead of  taking  away  from  them  the  highest 
branches  of  education ; instead  of  limiting  in 
any  way  any  of  the  means  of  human  education, 
or  preventing  instruction  in  any  of  the  depart- 
ments of  common  learning,  I would,  so  far  as  I 
am  concerned,  have  every  teacher  of  every 
common  school  educated  up  to  the  highest  pos- 
sible point  of  American  education,  and  I would 
have  taught,  in  all  of  these  schools,  every  pos- 
sible branch  of  human  knowledge.  If  you  do 
not  do  that,  if  you  do  not  make  the  doors  of 
your  school  houses  the  portals  of  all  the  science 
and  learning  of  the  day,  your  school  houses  will 
be  closed  to  even  the  common  education  of  the 
country.  Why,  sir,  it  is  a great  mistake  to  sup- 
pose that  none  but  the  rich,  none  but  those  who 
are  clothed  w4th  wealth  and  prosperity,  enjoy 
the  benefits  of  this  hfgher  education.  That 
principle  existed  before  the  adoption  of  this 
system  of  common  school  education.  Men  of 
wealth  sent  their  children  abroad  to  the  colleges 
of  the  country  for  the  purpose  of  giving  them 
such  education  as  would  enable  them  to  control 
the  destinies  of  those  with  whom  they  associ- 
ated, which  would  enable  them  to  shape  the 
thought  and  direct  the  actions  of  the  American 
people.  If  there  was  any  aristocracy  in  the 
country,  that  was  the  aristocracy  which  was 
growing  up  in  this  land.  But  when  our  fathers 
took  the  position  that  all  the  property  of  Ohio 
should  be  dedicated  to  the  education  of  the 
children  of  Ohio,  they  went  far  beyond  any 
recognized  principles  of  government  of  olden 
times,  and  far  away  from  those  aristocratic  in- 
fluences which  they  thought  education  alone 
could  confer  upon  their  children. 

If  property  is  set  apart  as  a public  trust  to 


2252 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Smith. 


educate  the  popular  mind,  who  shall  limit  the 
extent  to  which  that  education  shall  go  ? Who 
shall  say  that  none  but  the  ordinary  forms  of 
learning  shall  be  taught  ? But,  in  addition  to 
that,  if  you  make  them  simple  seminaries  for 
the  rudiments  of  education,  you  do — what? 
You  take  away  from  them  the  influence  of  the 
men  whose  love  of  learning  leads  to  a desire  to 
educate  their  children,  and  you  will  have  with- 
drawn them  from  the  support  of  and  sympathy 
with  your  system.  If  you  will  turn  to  your 
own  localities,  you  will  find  this  to  be  a grow- 
ing fact,  that  in  a great  many  school  districts  the 
wealthy  men  in  part  are  making  voluntary  con- 
tribution to  build  up  libraries  in  these  various 
common  school  organizations,  which  have  been 
so  successful  in  affording  education,  and  prom- 
ising so  much  for  the  benefit  of  their  children. 
They  are  coming  up  with  their  individual 
wealth,  and  contributing  to  make  more  effi- 
cient this  union  system  organized  by  law,  and 
if  we  do  not  keep  them  up  to  that  point,  we 
throw  away  all  that  sympathy,  which,  when  ex- 
ercised in  behalf  of  your  comjnon  schools,  make 
them  efficient  agents  for  popular  and  scientific 
education. 

This  is  one  reason  why,  to  my  mind,  this 
proposition  is  fraught  with  mischief ; but  sir, 
in  addition  to  that,  you  cannot  teach  these  high- 
er subjects  of  learning  in  any  of  the  common 
union  schools  in  Ohio  without  now  and  then 
causing  the  mind  of  even  the  humblest  poor 
hoy  and  poor  girl  to  awaken  to  all  the  beautiful 
aspiratiohs  of  scholarship,  which  result  in  send- 
ing out  to  the  world  a brilliant  and  educated 
character.  A great  many  of  the  poor,  it  is 
true,  have  to  require  labor  of  their  children  in 
order  to  live.  Nevertheless,  here  and  there, 
now  and  then,  will  awaken  to  intellectual  life 
some  young  mind  caught,  as  it  were,  with  the 
spark  of  learning  and  the  love  of  greater  ac- 
quisition,which  will  grow  up,  under  such  influ- 
ences to  be  a power  in  the  land  for  usefulness  and 
for  good.  One  such  emancipated  mind,  clothed 
with  power  and  directed  aright,  is  a compensa- 
tion for  all  the  expenditure  that  is  required  to 
support  such  a system. 

Now,  sir,  in  addition  to  that,  I shall  say  furth- 
er that  we  cannot,  for  a moment,  so  contemplate 
fairly  this  proposition,  cannot  give  a moment’s 
consideration  to  the  proposition  which  seeks  to 
divide  that  fund,  which  we  need  the  sympathies 
of  the  whole  people  to  Maintain.  We  want  the 
concentrated  efforts  and  the  individual  approval 
of  the  whole  of  its  people  in  the  community  on 
this  system,  in  order  to  give  it  strength.  To 
separate  the  fund,  break  up  the  force  of  that 
unity  by  distributing  contributions  which  the 
property  of  Ohio  pays,  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever, is  fatal  in  policy,  and  would  work,  ulti- 
mately, the  destruction  of  your  whole  system. 

While  I entertain  the  profoundest  respect  for 
the  doctrine  which  now  exists,  and,  I hope, 
ever  is  to  exist,  in  this  country,  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  toleration  (for  that  is  one  of  the  highest 
axioms  of  civil  liberty  of  our  land),  yet,  sir, 
we  never,  never  can  understand,  by  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  “ toleration,”  that  you  are  to 
put  the  conscience  of  any  class  of  people  above 
the  obligations  and  supremacy  of  the  laws  of 
this  country.  When  they  who,  born  abroad, 
under  different  forms  of  government,  and 


[144th 

[Saturday, 


trained  in  different  schools  of  religious  wor- 
ship, come  among  us,  and  take  their  part  in 
building  up  the  destinies  of  this  country,  we 
say  to  them,  as  for  their  religious  convictions, 
they  are  to  be  tolerated,  but  we  have  never  said 
that,  in  the  management  of  our  civil  affairs,  we 
shall  so  construct  our  institutions  as,  in  any 
way,  to  give  a recognition,  by  State  action,  to 
any  religious  thought  or  conviction  that  any- 
body may  entertain.  That  is  not  toleration. 
The  truth  is  that  the  very  first  moment  that 
you  step  away  from  the  grand  idea  that  we  put 
all  religion  upon  the  same  platform,  and  throw 
around  it  the  protecting  power  of  the  govern- 
ment, the  moment  you  recede  from  that,  and 
say  we  shall  recognize  your  religious  convic- 
tions by  making  a distinction  in  the  laws  of 
the  land  for  their  promotion,  you  tram- 
ple upon  the  doctrine  of  toleration,  and 
recognize,  even  in  that  slight  way,  the  fatal 
old  theory,  that  religion  is  a part  of  the  govern- 
ment. Upon  that  theory,  then,  and  with  that 
view,  all  propositions  to  divert  this  fund  in  any 
way  so  as  to  recognize  any  of  the  religious 
convictions  of  the  country,  is  a fatal  blunder, 
politically,  and  full  of  mischief.  Upon  other 
questions  of  like  character,  the  State  of  Ohio 
has  always  kept  herself  aplomb.  The  great 
Quaker  population  of  ours  is  just  as  good  and 
as  honest  and  as  religious  as  any  other,  and 
having  their  religious  convictions,  have  ap- 
pealed to  us,  and  to  the  Legislature  of  the 
State,  to  have  them  recognized  so  they  could 
be  exempted  from  the  discharge  of  certain  pub- 
lic duties  which  the  civil  authorities  of  the 
country  demand.  Have  you  ever  recognized 
them?  Have  you  ever  consented  that,  while 
you  tolerate  that  religion,  you  would  vary 
your  lines  a hair’s  breadth  to  recognize,  and 
sustain,  and  support  that  religious  convic- 
tion? Never.  And  that  is  the  true  ground. 
And  this  other  proposition,  which  would 
seek  to  divert  the  public  fund,  the  great  benev- 
olent contribution  which  the  property  owner 
pays  for  the  cultivation  and  diffusion  of  knowl- 
edge, to  a recognition  of  and  to  a support  of  a 
religious  conviction  in  any  body,  is  just  as  much 
at  war  with  what  is  known  to  be  the  American 
doctrine  of  toleration,  as  it  would  be  to  recog- 
nize the  claim  of  the  Quaker  to  be  protected 
from  any  part  of  the  public  service.  Besides, 
if  you  divide  this  country  up,  and  classify  the 
people  into  their  various  religious  denomina- 
tions— for  that  is  the  principle — and  let  each 
one  have  its  own  school  and  its  own  form  of 
education,  your  effort  to  build  up  a common 
system  of  a common  education,  having  a com- 
mon sympathy  and  a common  support  of  the 
country,  will  be  an  utter  failure.  You  will 
have  as  many  systems  of  education  as  you  have 
diversities  of  religious  opinion,  and  that  will 
result  in  the  breaking  up  and  dissevering  of 
this  people  into  all  the  varieties  of  civil  and 
religious  divisions  that  it  is  possible  to  have, 
and  will  be  an  utter  overthrow  of  your  whole 
system  of  education.  You  might  as  well  blot 
from  the  statute  book  the  original  law  which 
consecrated  the  property  of  Ohio  to  that  great 
purpose.  It  would  be  a useless,  a foolish  expen- 
diture, and,  therefore,  while  I am  willing  to 
say  to  all  who  may  come  among  us:  Pitch 

your  tent  in  our  land,  in  which  it  is  the  glory 


Day.]  CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS.  2253 

March  21,  1874.]  Smith,  Cowen,  Beer,  Cook,  Rowland. 


of  our  civil  organization  that  all  men  are  recog- 
nized as  equal  before  the  law ; but  if  you  un- 
fortunately have  convictions  adverse  to  the 
civil  system  which  we  want  to  build  up,  we  do 
not  promise  you  that  we  shall  break  down  our 
system,  alter,  or  change,  or  modify  it  so  as  to 
make  your  religion  and  religious  convictions  a 
part  of  the  government  of  the  State,  for  that  is 
the  end  to  which  it  comes.  All  such  recogni- 
tion is  but  one  fatal  step  towards  the  doctrine 
of  combining  the  power  of  the  State  with  the 
Church. 

Now,  sir,  I have  passed  hurriedly  over  this 
question.  Being  constitutionally  an  admirer 
of  womanhood  everywhere,  I do  not  want  to 
enter  into  that  subject.  While  I would  do  any- 
thing under  the  impulse,  I believe,  of  that  sort 
of  feeling  which  every  gentleman  ought  to  en- 
tertain for  the  women  of  the  country,  I am  not 
anxious,  not  willing,  not  disposed  to  alter  or 
change  the  policy  of  Ohio  in  recognizing  man 
as  the  corner  stone  of  the  civil  republic.  While 
I shall  do  everything  possible  to  bring  woman 
up  to  the  standard  of  the  highest  possible  in- 
tellectual developments,  that  woman  may 
always  be  by  our  side,  equal  to  us  in  culture, 
influence  and  individual  worth;  yet  I would 
have  her  everywhere,  dwelling  under  the  safe- 
ty, power,  force  and  character  of  the  men  of  the 
country.  While  I would  open  to  her  all  the 
chances  to  become  useful  in  teaching  the  young 
idea;  while  I would  wish  all  the  institutions  of 
the  country  to  benefit  her  intellectual  and 
moral  growth,  yet,  when  I am  asked  to  clothe 
her  with  the  power,  outside  of  her  ordinary 
walk  in  which  I believe  it  is  her  calling  to  go, 
I shall  pause  and  consider  well  before  doing  it. 

Mr.  COWEN.  If  there  are  no  others  who  de- 
sire to  address  the  Convention,  I shall  renew 
my  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  now  is  that 
the  action  taken  this  morning  to  close  debate 
next  Monday,  be  rescinded. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for,  but  the 
demand  was  not  sustained. 

The  motion  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  is  upon 
suspending  the  general  debate  on  Monday 
morning  at  ten  o’clock. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I move  to  amend,  so  that  the 
motion  shall  read,  that  general  debate  shall  be 
suspended  now. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for. 

The  demand  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  not 
sustained. 

Mr.  BEER.  I demand  a call  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

Mr.  COOK.  If  the  gentleman  will  give  way 
and  allow  me  to  take  one  or  two  votes  on  this 
question,  it  can  then  be  put  in  such  shape  that 
we  can  adjourn  much  quicker  than  by  a call  of 
the  House. 

Mr.  BEER.  I waive  the  demand  for  the  call 
of  the  House. 

Mr.  Cowen’s  amendment  was  agreed  to,  and 
general  debate  closed. 

Mr.  REILLY.  I move  the  Convention  ad- 
journ. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  and  the 
demand  was  sustained. 


Mr.  COWEN.  I now  ask  for  a call  of  the 
House. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Pending  a motion  to  ad- 
journ, a call  of  the  House  is  not  in  order. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken,  and  resulted 
— yeas  21,  nays  29,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  Beer, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Cunningham,  Greene,  Hale, 
Hunt,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Page,  Rickly,  Root, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Smith,  Steedman,  Van  Yalkenburgh, 
Weaver — 21. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Bishop,  Byal,  Chapin, Clark  of  Jeffer- 
son, Cook,  Cowen,  Dorsey,  Hitchcock,  Horton, 
Hostetter,  McBride,  McCormick,  Miner,  Neal, 
Okey,  Pease,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Tul- 
loss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  President — 29. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  not  a quorum 
voting. 

Mr.  COOK.  I demand  a call  of  the  House. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  fifty 
members  answered  to  their  names,  as  follows  : 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  Bishop, 
Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Cowen, 
Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Greene,  Hale,  Hitchcock, 
Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  McCormick, 
Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page, 
Pease,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly,  Rickly, 
Root,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Scofield, 
Steedman,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Yan  Yalken- 
burgh, Yan  Yoorhis,  Yoris,  Weaver,  West, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  President — 46. 

The  absentees  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Baber,  Bannon,  Barnet, 
Beer,  Blose,  Bos  worth,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Camp- 
bell, Carbery,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clay,  Coats, 
De  Steiguer,  Doan,  Ewing,  Foran,  Freiberg, 
Gardner,  Godfrey,  Griswold,  Gurley,  Hoadly, 
Horton,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
Layton,  McBride,  Miller,  Mueller,  Mullen, 
Phellis,  Pond,  Russell  of  Muskingum,  Sample, 
Scofield,  Scribner,  Sears,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith, 
Thompson,  Townsend,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Yoor- 
hes,  Waddle,  Watson,  Wells,  White  of  Brown, 
Wilson,  Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of  No- 
ble—58. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  I move  that  we  adjourn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  COOK.  I came  into  the  Convention  this 
afternoon  very  desirous  of  doing  some  work, 
but  I find  that  the  Convention  is  not  in  a tem- 
per to  work,  and  therefore  am  willing  to  meet 
the  inevitable.  I now  move  the  Convention 
adjourn. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I demand  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Objection  was  made. 

Mr.  WEST.  Is  a motion  to  adjourn  debata- 
ble? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  debatable. 

Th^demand  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was  sus- 
tained, and,  being  taken,  resulted — yeas  26, 
nays  25,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Byal, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Clark  of  Ross,  Cook,  Cun- 
ningham, Greene,  Hill,  Hostetter,  McBride, 
Merrill,  Mitchener,  Okey,  Page,  Philips,  Rickly, 


2254 


MORNING  BUSINESS— PETITIONS. 

Smith,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Dorsey,  Powell. 


[145th 


[Monday, 


Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Smith,  Tyler,  Weaver,  Woodbury, 
President — 26. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 
Messrs.  Adair,  Beer,  Bishop,  Chapin,  Cowen, 
Porsey,  Hale,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Humphreville, 


Hunt,  McCormick,  Miner,  Neal,  Pease,  Pratt, 
Reilly,  Scofield  Steedman,  Tulloss,  Van  Yalk- 
enburgh,  Van  Yoorhis,  Voris,  West,  White  of 
Hocking — 25. 

So  the  Convention  (at  4 o’clock  p.  m.)  ad- 
journed. 


ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FORTY-FIFTH  DAY  OF  THE  CONVEN- 
TION. 

EIGHTY-THIRD  DAY  OF  THE  ADJOURNED  SESSION. 


HALF-PAST  NINE  O’CLOCK  A.  M. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  pursuant  to 
adjournment. 

Prayer  by  the  Rev.  O.  A.  Hills,  of  the  Cen- 
tral Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Roll  was  called,  and  sixty-one  members 
answered  to  their  names. 

LEAVES  OF  ABSENCE. 

Leave  of  absence  was  asked  and  obtained,  for 
Mr.  Clark  of  Ross,  and  for  Mr.  Rickly,  for  the 
day. 

The  Journal  was  read  and  approved. 
petitions. 

Mr.  SMITH  presented  nine  petitions  of  H.  F. 
Fullerton,  and  759  other  citizens  of  Highland 
county,  praying  that  the  Legislature  may  have 
power  to  regulate,  limit  or  entirely  prohibit  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors : 

To  the  Members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the 

State  of  Ohio: 

The  undersigned  citizens  of  Highland  county,  Ohio,  in 
view  of  the  great  and  increasing  evils  resulting  from  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  in  our 
midst,  do  respectfully  petition  you  to  insert  a clause  into 
the  Constitution  which  you  are  now  framing,  which  shall 
give  the  Legislature  of  this  State  full  and  ample  power 
to  regulate,  limit,  or  entirely  prohibit,  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  all  intoxicating  drinks,  and  also  declare 
what  drinks  are  intoxicating,  and  within  the  intendment 
and  operation  of  such  legislative  enactment. 

We  further  petition  you  to  insert  an  additional  clause 
in  said  constitution,  which  shall  give  authority  to  the 
Legislature  of  the  State  to  pass  laws  giving  to  each 
township  and  incorporated  village  and  city  full  and  ad- 
equate power  to  regulate,  limit,  and  entirely  prohibit  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  all  intoxicating  drinks,  within 
their  respective  limits,  and  to  declare  all  such  illegal 
manufacture  and  sale  a public  nuisance,  which  may  be 
abated. 

Which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  RUSSELL,  of  Meigs,  presented  the  peti- 
tion of  E.  S.  Trussell  and  329  other  citizens  of 
Meigs  county,  in  favor  of  inserting  a clause  in 
the  Constitution  giving  the  Legislature  power 
to  regulate,  limit  or  entirely  prohibit  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks. 


Monday,  March  23, 1874. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Traffic  in  In- 
toxicating Liquors. 

Mr.  SMITH  presented  the  petition  of  L.  R. 
Dackwall,  and  seventy  other  citizens  of  Dan- 
ville, Highland  county,  asking  that  a clause  be 
inserted  in  the  new  Constitution  to  give  power 
to  the  Legislature  to  regulate,  limit  or  entirely 
prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicat- 
ing liquors. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Traffic  in  Intoxicating  Liquors. 

Mr.  DORSEY  presented  the  petition  of  Lewis 
Hayner,  and  two  hundred  other  citizens  of  Troy, 
Miami  county,  in  favor  of  a stringent  license 
law. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

The  PRESIDENT  laid  before  the  Convention 
a communication  from  the  State  Commissioner 
of  Common  Schools,  in  response  to  Resolution 
No.  182,  transmitting  a statement  of  the  aver- 
age daily  attendance  of  pupils  in  primary  and 
high  schools  in  the  school  districts  of  the  State, 
in  which  high  schools  have  been  established. 

Which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ed- 
ucation. 

Mr.  POWELL  presented  the  petition  of  thir- 
teen hundred  citizens  of  Delaware  county, 
remonstrating  against  a change  in  the  Constitu- 
tion as  to  license  for  traffic  in  intoxicating 
liquors,  but  empowering  the  General  Assembly 
to  regulate,  control  or  entirely  prohibit  the  sale 
of  intoxicating  liquors  as  a beverage. 

Mr.  POWELL.  In  presenting  this  petition 
I wish  to  say  a few  words.  This  is  a very  large 
petition  from  the  citizens  of  Delaware  county, 
containing  from  thirteen  to  fifteen  hundred  sig- 
natures. They  express  themselves  as  being 
much  alarmed  at  something  they  have  seen  in 
the  action  of  the  Convention  upon  this  subject. 
There  is  some  division  of  opinion  among  the 
people,  it  is  true,  in  regard  to  this  question; 
but  the  great  majority  of  the  people  of  Dela- 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Dorsey,  Cook,  Boot. 


2255 


Day.] 

March  23, 1874.] 


ware  county  join  in  this  petition.  I therefore 
ask  that  this  petition  be  read,  as  it  is  short. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

lo  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  State  of  Ohio  : 

We,  the  undersigned  citizens  of  Delaware  county,  O., 
see,  with  regret,  the  efforts  being  made  to  change  our 
present  Constitution,  concerning  the  traffic  in  intoxicat- 
ing liquors,  by  providing,  in  a new  or  amended  instru- 
ment, for  license  to  traffic  in  such  intoxicating  liquors, 
and  do  most  earnestly  and  respectfully  remonstrate 
against  such  change;  and  ask  that  the  present  provisions 
relating  to  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  be  retained 
in  the  new  or  amended  Constitution,  with  an  additional 
proviso,  empowering  the  General  Assembly  to  regulate, 
control  and  prohibit  the  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors, 
as  a beverage. 

The  petition  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  ask  if  the  informa- 
tion contained  in  the  Report  of  the  School 
Commissioner  can  be  found  in  the  printed  Re- 
ports of  the  State.  If  not,  I would  ask  that 
it  be  printed  and  laid  upon  the  table  of  members. 

Mr.  COOK.  If  it  is  to  be  printed,  I would 
ask  that  additional  information  be  furnished, 
and  move  that  the  Report  be  laid  upon  the  table 
and  the  Commissioner  of  Common  Schools  be 
requested  to  furnish  the  number  of  pupils  en- 
rolled in  the  common  schools  in  each  county. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Separating  those  in  the 
high  schools  from  the  other  schools  in  the 
county? 

Mr.  COOK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I would  like  to  make  a sugges- 
tion to  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook] 
if  he  will  listen  to  it. 

Mr.  COOK.  I will. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I think  the  information,  that  by 
the  terms  of  his  amendment  is  suggested,  in 
order  to  be  complete,  should  contain  more.  I 
have  had  some  experience  in  conducting,  and  I 
may  say,  in  managing  schools.  Now,  the  Com- 
missioner speaks  only  of  high  schools  and  pri- 
mary schools.  Why,  sir,  in  a town  of  ten 
thousand  inhabitants,  if  the  schools  are  estab- 
lished on  a sound  basis,  there  will  be  a good 
many  graded  schools,  first  the  primary  schools. 
Now,  a good  primary  school  teacher  who  takes 
an  interest  in  the  schools,  and  learns  what  is 
best  for  them,  often  receives  high  wages. 
Eighty  dollars  a month,  sir,  is  not  too  much  ; if 
a teacher  has  an  aptitude  for  managing  primary 
schools,  her  services  are  almost  invaluable. 
And,  sir,  there  are  teachers  who  manage  schools 
•of  eighty,  ninety,  and  even  one  hundred  and 
twenty  primary  scholars.  It  may  sound 
strange  to  those  who  have  never  seen  the  thing 
tried,  but  I have  known  a young  lady  to  do  this, 
and  do  it  well;  and  when  a Board  finds  such  a 
young  lady,  if  they  can  spare  her  the  amount 
necessary  to  secure  her  services — twenty  or 
twenty-five  dollars  a week— that  is  five  days 
for  the  scholars  and  six  days  for  herself,  for 
she  has  to  attend  the  teacher’s  meeting  every 
Saturday,  they  should  never  let  her  go. 

We  have,  then,  what  are  called  secondary 
schools,  that  is  a grade  higher.  They  require 
more  attention,  that  is,  each  scholar  requires 
more  attention,  and  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that 
a teacher  can  manage  more  than  fifty  or  sixty 
scholars  in  this  grade.  Then  you  come  to  what 
are  called  unclassified  schools,  and  in  those 
schools  you  have  primary  scholars,  secondary 
scholars,  and  some  scholars  that  are  fit  for  the 


lower  grades  of  grammar  schools,  and  who  get 
there  in  this  way  : a boy  or  girl,  a young  man 
or  young  woman,  having  had  no  opportunity  to 
get  an  education  find  that  their  learning  does  not 
raise  them  above  the  primary  scholar;  it  is 
hard  and  unprofitable  to  put  such  a one  on  the 
form  with  little  children  of  from  seven  to  nine 
years  of  age.  Two  years  are  long  enough  for 
any  primary  scholar.  Then  you  have  three 
grades  of  grammar  schools.  All  the  good 
scholars  pass  through  these  pretty  rapidly.  We 
have  the  first  grammar  school,  the  second  gram- 
mar school,  and  third  grammar  school.  Then, 
sir,  comes  your  high  school,  and  then  there  is 
one  other  thing;  in  a boy’s  education  we  all 
know  that  good  penmanship  is  very  necessary, 
and  every  one  that  knows  how  that  is  taught, 
knows  there  is  more  time  and  more  room  wasted 
in  teaching  pupils  to  write  than  all  they  learn 
is  worth. 

Secondly — Every  well  regulated  establish- 
ment has  a writing  school  with  a master,  and 
sometimes  one  and  sometimes  two  assistants. 
Now,  when  you  come  into  grammar  schools, 
and  scholars  there — whether  they  are  in  third, 
second  or  first  grade — are  eligible  to  the  writing 
schools.  If  you  have  in  those  schools  a thou- 
sand scholars,  as  very  well  you  may  have,  they 
are  divided  in  classes  of  two  hundred  and  fifty 
each.  The  teacher  has  all  the  writing  books  to 
take  care  of,  and  they  all  have  easy  seats ; he 
watches  their  every  motion,  sees  that  they  hold 
their  pens  right,  and  that  they  have  good  pens, 
and  are  taught  how  much  and  how  little  ink  to 
put  in  their  pens;  and  sir,  three  months,  with 
a person  who  has  the  use  of  his  eyes  and  right 
hand,  is  sufficient  to  make  an  excellent  pen- 
man of  him  through  life. 

The  first  class  will  come  in  at  nine  o’clock, 
and  will  be  dismissed  at  half-past  ten ; the  sec- 
ond class  comes  in  at  half-past  ten,  and  will  be 
dismissed  at  twelve ; the  third  class  comes  in  at 
one,  or  whatever  hour  may  be  fixed  upon, 
sometimes  half-past  one,  and  they  are  there  an 
hour  and  a half;  and,  finally,  the  other  class 
comes  in. 

Well,  in  making  up  these  classes,  you  do  not 
take  every  one  of  any  school,  but  you  take  part 
from  every  one  of  those  schools  whose  scholars 
are  eligible — that  is,  admissible  to  the  writing 
class.  That  is  the  only  way  in  which  you  can 
teach  writing;  otherwise,  a boy  or  girl  will 
sprawl  their  arms  out,  they  will  upset  their 
ink,  and  teachers  can  pay  no  attention  to  them, 
as  they  have  so  much  else  to  do.  And  their 
efforts  to  learn  are  not  always  made  in  good 
faith — they  are  not  always  diligent.  I do  not 
know  that  in  towns  of  smaller  size  you  can 
have  this,  except  on  a smaller  scale;  but  in  all 
towns  of  as  many  as  a thousand  people  you 
must  have  it.  Now,  I wish  that  my  friend 
[Mr.  Cook],  whose  whole  heart  is  in  this  sub- 
ject, would  take  this  matter  into  careful  con- 
sideration, and  make  inquiries  until  he  has 
fully  informed  himself.  If  we  have  called  for 
information  concerning  common  schools,  as  di- 
vided into  only  two  classes,  primary  and  high 
schools,  then  the  report  of  the  Commissioner  is  a 
full  response  to  the  call;  but  the  in- 
formation which  it  imparts  can  be  of  little 
service  to  us.  I desire  to  have  all  the  facts  on 
the  subject,  which  may  have  been  collected  be- 


2256 


FUNERAL  EXPENSES  OF  MEMBERS. [145th 


Root,  Cunningham,  Cook,  Baber,  Dorsey,  Okey. 


fore  us;  and,  in  order  that  that  may  be  done,  I 
move  that  the  report  be  laid  on  the  table,  until 
we  get  full  information,  and  the  motion  to 
print  be  withdrawn. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I had  no  doubt  in  the 
world  but  that  the  facts  sought  to  be  drawn  out 
would  be  important  to  this  Convention,  if  they 
were  to  consider  for  some  time  the  Report  of 
the  Committee;  but  we  are  now  in  the  last 
stages  of  the  consideration  of  the  Report.  We 
are  also  within  a few  days  of  adjournment,  and 
it  appears  to  me  that  the  best  way  to  dispose  of 
this  whole  matter  is  to  refer  the  Report  to  the 
Committee,  and  let  them  consider  whatever 
facts  there  are  there,  and  have  no  more  of  it 
at  all. 

Mr.  COOK.  Will  you  make  a motion  to  that 
effect  ? 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move,  then,  that  the 
Report  be  referred  to  the  Committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  before  the 
Convention  is  to  lay  the  Report  on  the  table. 

Mr.  COOK.  I withdraw  that  motion. 

Mr.  BABER.  I would  like  to  hear  the  rea- 
son for  this.  Why  can  you  not  have  the  Report 
as  it  stands  at  present  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  re- 
ferring the  Report  to  the  Committee  on  Educa- 
tion. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

REPORT  OF  SELECT  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I beg  leave  to  present  the 
Report  of  the  Select  Committee  appointed  to 
attend  the  funeral  of  Mr.  Smith,  of  Shelby : 

To  Hon.  Rufus  King,  President  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion: 

The  Committee  appointed  to  accompany  the  body  of 
Hon.  Edmund  Smith,  late  a member  of  this  Convention, 
to  the  place  of  interment,  beg  leave  to  report: 

That  they  accompanied  the  body  of  the  deceased  to  his 
late  residence,  at  Sidney,  in  Shelby  county,  and  attended 
his  funeral  on  Monday,  the  16th  inst.,  at  2 o’clock  P.  M. 

The  Committee  further  ask  leave  to  recommend  to  the 
Convention  that  the  same  amount  be  appropriated  to  de- 
fray, in  part,  the  expenses  of  the  interment  of  the 
deceased,  as  was  appropriated  in  the  case  of  the  late 
Hon.  J.  I).  O’Connor. 

We  append  a statement  of  expenses  incurred,  and 
recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  Resolution: 

Resolution  No.  194: 

Resolved,  That  the  sum  of  $222.67  be  appropriated  to  pay 
the  expenses  of  the  funeral  of  Hon.  E.  Smith,  of  Shelby 
county,  late  a member  of  this  Convention. 

STATEMENT  OF  EXPENSES  INCURRED  AT  THE  FUNERAL 

OF  HON.  E.  SMITH,  OF  SHELBY  COUNTY,  LATE  A MEM- 
BER OF  THE  OHIO  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


Undertaker’s  bill  at  Cincinnati $25  00 

Crape  andJBoquet 3 75 

Undertakers  bill  at  Sidney 11  00 

Carriage  hire  for  members  of  Convention 10  50 

Transportation  of  body  from  Cincinnati  to  Sidney..  3 10 
Expenses  of  Col.  Cummings  and  Judge  Wymans  to 
Cincinnati  and  return 16  60 


[Monday, 


There  was  appropriated  for  the  funeral  expenses  of 
Doctor  O’Connor  $222.60.  This  leaves  to  be  applied  to  the 
purchase  of  the  burial  casket  $81.70. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

G.  Volney  Dorsey, 

John  J.  Rickly, 

James  B.  Steedman, 

Geo.  W.  Hill, 

John  H.  Blose, 

J.  S.  Van  Valkenburgh. 

Gen.  Pond  is  absent,  but  is  understood  as  assenting  to 
the  Report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  be 
upon  agreeing  to  the  Report. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  it  is  necessary  to  make  a 
motion  in  regard  to  the  appropriation,  I move 
that  the  appropriation  be  made  in  accordance 
with  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  gentleman  pre- 
pare a resolution  to  that  effect  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DORSEY  then  offered  the  following  reso- 
lution, which  was  read  by  the  Secretary  : 

Resolved,  That  the  sum  of  $222.60  be  appropriated  to  pay 
the  expenses  of  the  funeral  of  Hon.  E.  Smith,  of  Shelby, 
late  a member  of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  In  offering  this  resolution  I 
desire  to  say  that  the  sum  of  six  dollars  which 
was  understood  to  be  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Okey, 
was  substracted  from  the  expenses  of  the  funer- 
al of  Mr.  Smith,  as  handed  to  us  by  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  and  Expen- 
ses. It  was  reported  at  $228.60,  but  having 
been  informed  by  him  that  the  sum  of  six  dol- 
lars of  the  amount  appropriated  for  the  expen- 
ses of  Dr.  O’Connor’s  funeral  was  unexpended 
we  deducted  that,  leaving  the  amount  $222.60. 
There  are,  after  paying  the  necessary  funeral 
expenses,  a balance  of  about  eighty  dollars, 
which  the  Committee  recommend  be  appropria- 
ted in  part  payment  for  the  casket  of  Mr.  Smith’s 
burial. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  OKEY.  As  one  of  the  Committee  appoint- 
ed to  accompany  the  remains  of  Dr.  O’Connor 
to  his  late  residence,  I have  a resolution  which 
I desire  to  offer.  The  order  for  the  payment  of 
the  money  in  that  case  was  drawn  in  my  favor. 
The  bill  of  the  undertaker  was  $125.  In  my 
absence  I left  that  sum  with  the  delegate  from 
Washington  [Mr.  Chapin],  who  called  upon  the 
party  and  supposing  that  the  family  was  pay- 
ing this  expense,  asked  the  undertaker  if  he 
could  not  make  some  deduction.  He  replied 
that  he  could,  and  made  a deduction  of  six  dol- 
lars which  Mr.  Chapin  handed  over  to  me. 
That  sum  I have  in  my  hands,  and  want  to  get 
rid  of  it  properly.  For  this  purpose  I have 
drawn  up  and  offer  this  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  : 

Mr.  Okey  offers  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved , That  the  sum  of  six  dollars,  remaining  in  the 
hands  of  Wm.  Okey,  after  paying  the  funeral  expenses 
of  the  late  Dr.  J.  D.  O’Connor,  be  paid  by  said  Okey  to 
the  undertakers  employed  on  the  death  of  the  late  Ed- 
mund Smith,  and  credited  on  that  bill. 


EXPENSES  OF  COMMITTEE  TO  SIDNEY  AND  RETURN. 


Pond $11  50 

Rickly a 1145 

Hill 13  20 

Blose - 11  20 

Van  Valkenburgh 12  00 

Steedman 6 60 

Dorsey 5 00—  70  95 


$140  90 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  sug- 
gest that  it  be  handed  to  the  Chairman  of  the 
present  Committee. 

Mr.  OKEY.  The  record  shows  that  the 
amount  of  money  I have  named  was  received 
by  me,  and  the  credits  show  that  there  are  six 
dollars  of  that  money  in  my  hands,  and  I want 
the  records  to  show  that  it  is  paid. 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 


CONCERNINGr'THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Freiberg,  Okey,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Tuttle,  etc. 


2257 


Mr.  FREIBERG.  I hope  the  gentleman  will 
withdraw  his  resolution,  as  it  seems  unneces- 
sary for  us  to  adopt  a resolution  in  regard  to  so 
small  a thing  as  the  disposition  of  this  six  dol- 
lars. I would  suggest  that  it  simply  be  paid 
oyer  to  the  Chairman  of  the  other  Committee. 

Mr.  OKEY.  I prefer  to  have  it  go  on  re- 
cord. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

ORDER  OF  THE  DAY. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  that  the  Convention  now 
proceed  to  the  special  order,  the  Report  of  the 
Committee  on  Education. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  now 
read  the  Report,  section  by  section. 

Mr.  COOK.  I believe  the  question  is  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  Report.  I demand  that  the 
question  be  taken  separately  on  each  proposi- 
tion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  will  be  done  under 
the  regular  Rule. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  Chair  will  observe  that  this 
is  in  the  form  of  a proposition,  therefore,  a sep- 
arate vote  is  necessary  on  each  proposition,  and 
I ask  that  a separate  vote  be  taken  now  on  sec- 
tion three,  which  is  the  one  authorizing  women 
to  hold  office  under  the  school  laws  of  this 
State. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I would  ask  the  Chairman 
for  some  reason  why  we  may  not  consider  that 
Report,  section  by  section,  precisely  as  any  other 
Report  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  will  be  done.  Does 
the  gentleman  agree  to  that? 

Mr.  COOK.  Very  well. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I would  suggest  that  to  con- 
sider it,  section  by  section,  is  to  consider  it  in 
the  manner  suggested  by  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee.  The  Report  differs  from  most  Re- 
ports that  have  been  presented,  changing  the 
entire  Article.  This  proposes  certain  amend- 
ments to  the  Article. 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
a question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HALE.  What  difference  does  it  make  ? 
The  gentleman  concedes  that  we  will  take  it 
up  and  consider  it  section  by  section. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I do  not  know  that  there  is 
any  difference  between  us. 

Mr.  COOK.  If  the  gentleman  will  give  way 
I will  make  the  necessary  motion. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I will  do  so. 

Mr.  COOK.  I now  move  that  section  three 
be  concurred  in. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I was  necessarily  absent 
last  Saturday,  and  I have  not  seen  any  report 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  on  that 
day,  but  I am  informed  that  general  debate  has 
ceased  on  this  subject. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  time  for  the  close  of 
general  debate  on  the  Report  has  arrived  by  the 
adoption  of  the  resolution  on  Saturday. 

Mr.  COOK.  Does  the  gentleman  desire  to 
make  a speech  ? 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I desired  to  make  but  a 
few  remarks. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  that  the  rule  be  suspend- 

y.  n-144 


ed  to  give  the  gentleman  an  opportunity  to 
speak. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I submit  whether  the  rules  of 
the  Convention  do  not  require  that  the  Report 
be  considered  section  by  section  ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  to  be  done.  The 
first  section  to  be  considered  will  be  section 
three.  The  Secretary  will  read  the  section. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  3.  Women  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  office  under  the  school  laws  of  the  State. 

Mr.  ROOT.  I wish  to  offer  an  amendment 
which  I have  not  yet  written  out.  It  is  to  this 
effect : “Except  the  Commissioner  of  Common 
Schools.”  I only  desire  to  move  that  the  yeas 
and  nays  be  taken  on  this  question. 

Leave  was  granted  Mr.  Freiberg  to  speak 
upon  the  general  merits  of  the  question. 

EDUCATION  FROM  a HEBREW  STANDPOINT. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  I refrained  from  taking 
part  in  the  general  debate  on  this  question,  in- 
asmuch as  there  are  enough  members  to  speak 
on  it,  as  well  as  on  every  other  question,  to  the 
detriment  of  the  State  treasury,  not  consider- 
ing that  time  is  a precious  as  well  as  costly 
article.  But  representing,  as  I do  to  a certain 
extent,  a class  of  people  not  very  strong,  nu- 
merically speaking,  but  a people  who  always 
considered  education  paramount  to  every  other 
duty,  and  never  considered  any  sacrificee  too 
much  to  obtain  it,  and  I dare  say  with  good  re- 
sult, which  is  proven  by  the  fact  that  there 
scarcely  ever  existed  one  of  them  who  could  not 
read  and  write,  and  a people  who,  next  to  reli- 
gious liberty,  appreciate  nothing  higher  than 
our  excellent  free-school  system,  I feel  called 
upon  to  offer  a few  remarks,  and  define  my 
position  on  this  subject  of  education. 

These  free  schools,  Mr.  President,  are  our 
bulwarks  of  freedom.  Whenever  and  wherever 
I see  one  of  these  school-houses  in  course  of 
erection,  I cannot  help  exclaiming,  there  is 
going  to  be  another  of  those  temples  of  liberty, 
provided  they  are  not  polluted  by  sectarianism. 
In  them  the  children  of  the  high  and  low,  rich 
and  poor,  Protestants,  Catholics  and  Jews, 
mingle  together,  play  together,  and  are  taught 
that  we  are  a free  people,  striving  to  elevate 
mankind,  and  to  respect  one  another.  In  them 
we  plant  and  foster  the  tree  of  civil  and  reli- 
gious liberty,  which,  under  its  far-spreading 
branches,  shall  give  shelter  and  protection  to 
all  who  wish  to  partake  of  its  hospitable  shade, 
without  distinction  of  creed  or  nationality.  It 
is  my  opinion  that  if  you  diminish  their  profi- 
ciency in  the  slightest  degree,  you  will  commit 
an  error  which  you  will  regret  exceedingly 
hereafter.  I have  no  objection  to  electing 
women  as  school  trustees,  since  we  have  had 
female  teachers  in  our  schools  ever  since  the 
establishment  of  the  system,  which  position 
they  have  filled  with  distinction,  with  honor, 
and  to  the  full  satisfaction  of  the  public,  and  the 
number  of  female  teachers  is  steadily  on  the 
increase.  I can  see  no  reason  why  they  should 
not  have  a voice  in  the  management  of  it.  I 
think  that  position  they  could  fill  with  satisfac- 
tion, except,  probably,  that  of  the  building 
committee,  or  the  committee  on  finances,  for 
which,  however,  we  would  always  have  gen- 


2258 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. 

Freiberg,  Chapin. 


[145th 

[Monday, 


tlemen  enough  represented  in  the  school  board 
to  take  this  question  in  hand. 

I will  now  say  a word  on  the  division  of  the 
school  fund,  so  nobly  argued  by  my  most 
estimable  colleague  [Mr.  Carbery],  whose 
opinions  I regard  very  highly,  and  whose  posi- 
tion no  one  can  appreciate  more  than  I do  from 
experience.  In  the  town  where  I was  raised, 
there  were  two  sects— Catholics  and  Jews. 
The  schools  of  the  former  were  supported  by 
the  government,  which  we  had  a right  to  visit 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  Catholics,  and,  be- 
sides learning  the  A B C’s,  we  could  learn  their 
catechism,  go  to  mass  in  the  morning,  and  read 
a chapter  in  the  New  Testament,  and,  if  we 
were  not  satisfied  to  do  this,  we  were  at  liberty 
to  hire  and  pay  our  own  teachers,  which  we 
did.  However,  we  did  not  lose  anything  by  it, 
unless,  perhaps,  a little  money — greenbacks  you 
call  it  here,  but  it  was  silver  and  gold  there — 
and  while  the  sectarian  schools  were  under  the 
influence  of  the  church,  the  teachers  were 
seldom  ever  changed,  in  fact,  never  changed 
until  they  died.  I knew  one  who  was  eighty- 
two  years  old  when  he  died,  and  taught  until 
the  year  before  his  death.  The  consequence 
was  that  we  had  the  advantage  in  the  selection, 
and  instead  of  the  old  rusty  seminarians,  we 
had  teachers  who  went  to  the  university — 
scholars  of  the  highest  merit;  in  fact,  two  of 
my  own  teachers  left  our  school  to  fill  the  place 
of  professors,  but  not  in  Bavaria,  where  our 
town  was  situated;  Jews  could  not  fill  a profes- 
sorship there.  One  of  them  was  called  to 
Weisenberg,  in  Elsas,  and  one  to  Brussels,  in 
Belgium.  I would  like  to  vote  for  the  gentle- 
man’s proposition,  if  it  was  only  to  give  a chance 
to  the  Catholics,  for  whom  I have  the  kindest 
regard,  and  among  whom  I count  my  warmest 
and  best  friends.  Besides,  they  have  the  merit 
of  minding  their  own  affairs,  and  are  con- 
scientious in  their  belief  and  their  faith,  and  do 
not  meddle  with  other  people’s  belief  in  this 
country.  But  the  matter  would  not  rest  here. 
Think  of  the  consequences  if  you  open  the  door 
for  such  legislation.  It  would  create  confusion 
worse  confounded;  and  I could  name  another 
sect  who  would  not  be  slow  to  demand  their 
share,  who  are  far  more  greedy  than  the  Catho- 
lics. The  Jews  are  not  afraid  that  their  children 
will  have  any  foolishness  pumped  into  them  by 
sending  them  to  the  common  schools,  as  they 
believe  that  their  parental  control  is  strong 
enough  over  them  to  pump  all  out  that  might  be 
instilled.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  President,  I think  the  Jews  have  a far 
better  right  to  ask  this  division,  for  the  reason 
that  if  any  religion  should  be  taught  at  all  in 
the  public  schools  it  would  be  the  Christian, 
whether  Catholic  or  Protestant.  No  one  would 
think  of  teaching  the  Talmud  or  the  Old 
Testament  exclusively,  but  I assure  you  the 
Jews  would  be  the  very  last,  and  all  we  ask, 
“ keep  sectarian  hands  off.  ” A little  child  of 
mine,  who  is  only  six  years  of  age,  came  home 
from  school  one  day,  and  asked  me:  “Papa, 
what  is  all  that  story  about  Jesus!  Our  teach- 
er reads  so  much  about  a man  named  Jesus.” 
[Laughter.]  Of  course  I explained  to  her  that 
he  was  the  founder  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  that  Jesus  is  revered  by  them  the  same  as 
we  revere  Moses,  the  founder  of  our  religion. 


The  Jews  are  the  strongest  supporters  of  the 
free  schools,  not  only  by  taxes  but  by  moral 
support;  and  there  exists  a noted  fact  that, 
while  the  Jewish  population  is  only  one  in 
twenty-three  in  Cincinnati — out  of  a population 
of  250,000  only  about  10,000  or  12,000  are  Jews. 
Follow  up  the  pupils  who  go  through  the  pub- 
lic schools  as  far  as  the  high-schools,  you  will 
find  that  at  least  one-fourth  and  sometimes  one- 
third,  of  the  children  attending  the  high-schools 
are  Jewish  children.  I leave  you  to  draw  your 
own  inferences  from  this.  For  the  reasons 
given,  Mr.  President,  I am  for  the  public 
schools  as  they  exist  now,  with  the  only  differ- 
ence of  allowing  females  to  become  trustees. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I have  not  proposed  to  give 
utterance  to  one  word  upon  the  discussion  of 
this  question,  and  I think  that,  perhaps,  I had 
better  not,  had  not  the  gentleman  from  Hamil- 
ton [Mr.  Carbery]  occupied  so  much  time  on 
that  portion  of  the  Report  or  proposition  de- 
manding or  asking  this  Convention  for  a pro- 
vision in  the  Constitution  by  which  the  funds 
would  be  divided,  and  give  the  Catholic  portion 
of  the  community  their  equitable  share,  and 
without  that  provision  their  consciences  would 
prevent  them  from  sending  their  children  to  the 
common  schools,  would  not  permit  them  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  school  fund  into  which  they  paid 
taxes.  Well,  all  that  was  well  enough  and 
appropriate,  but  what  I thought  was  objection- 
able was  his  dragging  into  this  discussion  a 
subject  somewhat  foreign  to  the  matters  under 
consideration.  I understood  him  to  say  that 
the  Catholic  religion  was  indispensable  to  the 
existence  and  perpetuity  of  republican  gov- 
ernments. They  were  the  friends  of  progress 
and  science  and  of  civil  liberty.  He  objected,  in 
very  strong  terms,  to  the  Bible  being  used  in 
the  schools.  Well,  to  this  I have  not  so  much 
objection,  but  I do  take  exceptions  to  his  decla- 
ration that  the  Catholic  religion  has  fostered  to 
that  extent  that  she  might  the  arts,  sciences  and 
the  progress  of  civilization,  and  I think  I am 
borne  out  in  this  opposition  to  his  remarks  by 
the  teachings  of  history.  I think  that  I can 
safely  make  the  declaration  that  they  have 
always  been  opposed  to  the  progress  of  civili- 
zation and  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  that  what- 
ever progress  has  been  made  in  the  Catholic 
countries  has  been  in  direct  opposition  to  that 
religion.  I will  only  mention  a few  instances 
in  relation  to  it,  as  being  communicated  to  us  by 
the  teachings  of  history.  They  were  the  suc- 
cessors of  Rome — and  Greece  came,  with  all  the 
accumulated  knowledge  of  those  countries— they 
were  the  successors,  and,  if  their  declarations 
are  true  that  they  have  been  the  promoters  of 
science  and  the  principles  of  civilization  and 
civil  liberty,  it  would  be  natural  to  suppose  or 
infer  that,  when  they  came  into  possession  of 
these  valuable  relics,  the  arts  and  sciences,  that 
they  would  have  progressed  from  the  moment 
thejr  came  into  possession  of  them,  and  that 
civil  liberty  would  have  been  spread  through- 
out all  Christian  countries.  Now,  was  this 
true  ? Is  it  not  true  ? Does  not  history  teach  us 
that,  from  the  time  that  they  assumed  the  con- 
trol of  almost  all  of  the  European  countries,  both 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  governments,  that  the 
arts  and  sciences  and  civil  liberty  sunk  down  to 
its  lowest  depths,  and  it  was  what  is  justly 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 


THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. 

Chapin,  Griswold,  Powell,  Cowen,  Cook,  Okey. 


2259 


called  the  dark  ages,  and  they  had  then  almost 
the  entire  supremacy  throughout  the  whole 
European  country?  History  teaches  us  that 
almost  every  idea  that  was  calculated  to  ad- 
vance civilization  and  promote  the  interests  of 
progress  and  knowledge  was  met  at  the  very 
threshhold  and  was  put  down.  I will  only 
mention  one  or  two,  as  I intend  to  get  through 
before  the  hammer  falls. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I call  the  gentleman  to 
order.  I do  not  wish  to  interrupt  the  gentle- 
man, but  this  amendment  is  to  prevent  women 
acting  as  State  Commissioner  of  Schools. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I know  that  this  subject  has 
taken  a very  wide  range.  I understand  that 
very  well.  I will  only  mention  one  or  two 
cases,  that  of  Galileo,  when  he  made  the  very 
important  discovery 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  That  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  girls,  I suppose. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I understand  that. 

Mr.  POWELL.  That  is  a part  of  education. 
You  are  right.  Go  on. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I intend  to.  I say  when 
Galileo  made  an  important  discovery  and  was 
about  promulgating  it  to  the  world,  what  was 
done?  What  did  this  Catholic  gentleman  do 
for  it?  Who  had  the  control  of  government  at 
that  time  ? They  made  him  get  down  upon  his 
knees  and  renounce  it ; this  he  did  to  save  his 
life.  This  is  a matter  of  history  which  you  all 
know  and  understand.  I could  mention  a hun- 
dred instances  of  a similar  character.  I will 
only  mention  one  more — the  case  of  Michael 
Servetus,  who  was  executed  in  Austria  for 
heresy,  for  having  made  some  declarations,  and 
among  others  he  suggested  the  circulation  of 
the  blood  through  the  system,  which  Hervey 
afterwards  disclosed.  This  was  one  of  the 
charges  made  against  him,  and  he  was  tried 
and  executed  by  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal. 
Now,  there  have  been  ten  thousand  just  such 
cases  as  that.  I say  that  they  have  always 
opposed  the  arts  and  sciences,  progress  and  civil 
liberty,  that  they  ever  stood  as  a barrier  to 
every  progress  in  that  line. 

The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Car- 
bery]  further  stated  that  we  should  be  under 
great  obligations  to  the  Catholic  religion  for 
bridging  over  a very  important  period,  and 
bringing  the  arts  and  sciences  down  to  the 
present  high  state,  not  only  in  Europe,  but  in 
this  country,  to  which  we  are  indebted  for  our 
civil  and  religious  liberties.  I do  not  admit 
that  to  be  true.  When  all  Europe  sank  to  the 
very  lowest  depths  of  degradation  and  ignor- 
ance, we  are  indebted,  not  to  the  Christian 
religion,  but  to  the  Mohammedan  religion, 
for  gathering  those  arts  and  sciences  that 
were  left  by  Greece  and  Rome.  They  brought 
them  into  their  schools,  and  there  they  rested 
for  a great  number  of  years,  and  while  all  the 
Christian  conntries  were  buried  in  the  depths 
of  darkness  and  pollution,  the  arts  and  sciences 
were  cherished  and  encouraged  by  the  Mo- 
hammedans in  Spain,  and  Charlemagne,  if  I 
recollect  right,  sent  some  men  to  Spain  for  the 
purpose  of  being  educated,  and  there  was  the 
mainspring  of  the  spread  of  the  arts  and 
sciences  in  Europe,  and  not  through  the  Catho- 
lic religion,  as  intimated  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery].  This  is  the 


teaching  of  history.  What  were  they  doing  at 
this  time?  They  were  selling  indulgences 
through  Europe. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  must  beg 
leave  to  remind  the  gentleman  from  Washing- 
ton [Mr.  Chapin],  that  the  question  is  upon  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr. 
Root]. 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I understand  that  very  well. 
This  subject  has  been  taking  a wide  range,  and 
I thought  I might  discuss  it.  [“Leave,  leave.”] 

Mr.  COWEN.  I rise  to  a point  of  order,  and 
insist  that  the  gentleman  shall  be  confined  to 
the  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
Washington  [Mr.  Chapin]  insist  upon  proceed- 
ing? 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I do  not  insist. 

MEMBERS.  “Goon;  goon.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  say  to  the  gentleman 
from  Washington  [Mr.  Chapin]  that  the  time 
will  come  when  he  may  make  his  speech.  I 
shall  move,  at  the  proper  time,  to  strike  out  the 
amendment  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Ham- 
ilton [Mr.  Carbery.] 

Mr.  CHAPIN.  I knew  that  I was  out  of 
order.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  OKEY.  Mr.  President,  I desire  to  occu- 
py but  a few  minutes  of  the  time  of  the  Conven- 
tion on  the  subject  now  under  discussion.  I am 
opposed  to  making  much  change  in  the  present 
Constitution  on  the  subject  of  education.  In 
fact,  I would  have  been  content  with  the  Con- 
stitution as  it  is,  on  that  subject, but  am  willing 
to  vote  for  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
Committee,  giving  females  the  right  to  hold 
office  under  the  school  laws  of  the  State.  I had 
the  honor  of  serving  as  a member  of  the  Board 
of  Education  in  my  town,  for  a number  of 
years,  and  know  something  of  the  workings  of 
the  common  school  system  there ; I am  decided- 
ly in  favor  of  employing  female  teachers  in  our 
public  schools.  My  experience  is,  that  they 
manage  schools  better,  take  a greater  interest 
in  the  advancement  of  pupils,  and  win  and  re- 
tain the  confidence  and  respect  of  the  children, 
and  in  that  way,  advance  them  faster  than  male 
teachers.  I would  have  been  glad,  many  times, 
to  have  had  the  assistance  of  a female  member 
of  the  Board  of  Education  to  assist  in  selecting 
teachers,  and  performing  other  duties  pertain- 
ing to  a member  of  the  Board  of  Education. 

Mr.  President,  I am  opposed  to  fixing  in  the 
Constitution,  or  in  any  manner  limiting  the 
branches  to  be  taught  in  the  public  schools,  but 
am  in  favor  of  leaving  it  where  it  is,  in  local 
boards,  subject  to  the  control  of  the  General 
Assembly. 

I am  opposed  to  compulsory  education.  I re- 
gard it  incompatible  with  the  genius  of  our  free 
institutions  to  attempt  to  compel  parents  to 
send  their  children  to  school.  We  should  give 
them  all  the  encouragement  to  send  their 
children  to  school  we  can,  by  establishing  and 
maintaining  good  schools,  and  by  friendly 
counsel  and  advice,  but  should  not,  in  my 
opinion,  by  constitutional  provision,  attempt  to 
compel  the  children  to  attend  school. 

Mr.  President,  I am  informed  that  in  certain 
parts  of  the  State,  one  of  the  religious  denomi- 
nations of  this  country  refuse  to  send  their 
children  to  the  public  schools,  for  the  reason 


2260 


WOMEN  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Okey,  Pratt,  Alexander,  Bishop,  Dorsey. 


[145th 

[Monday, 


that  they  desire  that  whilst  the  children  are  re- 
ceiving a common  school  education,  they  shall 
at  the  same  time  receive  a religious  training. 
Such  is  not  the  case  in  the  county  I have  the 
honor  to  represent.  The  people  in  my  county, 
irrespective  of  sect  or  denomination,  sustain  the 
present  common  school  system.  The  auditor  of 
my  county,  who  is  a good  and  efficient  officer, 
is  a leading  member  of  the  Catholic  church,  and 
is  a strong  advocate  of  our  present  common 
school  system. 

I took  occasion  to  converse  with  some  of  the 
leading  members  of  the  Catholic  church  in  my 
county,  and  in  the  adjoining  county  of  Noble, 
and,  so  far  as  I was  able  to  learn  the  views  of 
those  persons,  they  were,  without  an  exception, 
in  favor  of  our  present  common  school  system. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Erie  [Mr.  Root]. 

Mr.  PRATT.  How  will  the  section  then 
read? 

The  PRESIDENT  read  the  section  as  pro- 
posed to  be  amended : 

Sec.  3.  Women  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  office  under  the  school  laws  of  the  State, 
except  that  of  State  Commissioner  of  Common  Schools. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  32,  nays  24,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Barnet, 
Beer,  Bosworth,  Byal,  Clark  of  Jefferson, 
Cowen,  Cunningham,  Freiberg,  Griswold, 
Hitchcock,  Hunt,  McBride,  McCormick,  Miner, 
Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Phellis,  Powell,  Reilly, 
Root,  Scofield,  Smith,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler, 
Van  Valkenburgh,  White  of  Hocking,  Presi- 
dent—32. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Bishop,  Chapin,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Greene, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Merrill,  Page,  Pease,  Philips, 
Pratt,  Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Steedman,  Tripp,  Van  Voorhis, 
Yoris,  Weaver— 24. 

So  the  amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I desire  to  offer  the 
following  as  a substitute  for  the  section  under 
consideration. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  substitute. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Women  over  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  and  having 
the  care  and  custody  of  children  entitled  to  participate 
in  the  Common  Scuool  Fund,  shall  be  entitled  ‘to  vote  for 
all  school  officers,  except  such  as  are  elected  by  the  State  at 
large,  and  shall  be  eligible  to  any  office  under  the  school 
laws  of  this  State,  in  their  respective  districts,  sub-dis- 
tricts and  municipal  corporations. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon 
agreeing  to  the  substitute. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I have  not  had  the 
good  pleasure  to  be  in  this  Convention  to  hear 
the  patriotic  and  generous  expression  of  its 
members  in  relation  to  the  women  of  our  land ; 
but  regarding  the  proposition  of  the  Committee 
as  before  the  Convention,  I deem  it  extremely 
illogical,  and  would  like  the  members  of  that 
Committee  to  explain  to  this  Convention  how  it 
is  that  females  are  competent  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  official  positions — and  of  important 
official  positions — within  the  State  of  Ohio,  and 


are  incompetent  to  make  selections  for  those 
positions.  It  is  a proposition  that  I am  unable 
to  demonstrate.  It  is  a course  of  reasoning  that 
I am  unable  to  comprehend,  why  it  is  that  a 
female  may  be  competent,  may  be  a fit  person 
to  act  as  a member  of  a school  board,  and  yet  be 
an  unfit  person  to  select  those  who  shall  act 
as  such.  But  it  may  have  been  considered  by 
the  Committee  as  an  extremely  generous  prop- 
osition. Now,  I think  it  will  be  generally  re- 
garded by  the  women  of  the  State  of  Ohio  as 
not  a generous  proposition,  as  no  advance  upon 
civilization.  Here,  ladies,  you  may  hold  office, 
but  we  will  say  who  of  you  shall  hold  those 
offices.  We  will  not  allow  you  to  participate 
and  make  the  selection.  We  will  make  the 
selections.  You  are  incompetent  to  select. 
You  are  incompetent  to  say  who  shall  hold 
office,  who  shall  direct  and  control  the  educa- 
tion of  your  children.  We  are  competent  to 
select  the  few  among  you  who  are  competent  to 
discharge  the  duties  of  official  positions.  Now, 
while  I may  say  to  the  Convention  that  I shall 
not  be  at  liberty  to  vote  for  the  substitute  I 
offer,  for  the  reason  that  upon  that  subject  I 
have  paired  off  with  Judge  Sample,  a member  of 
this  Convention,  who  is  opposed  to  all  advance- 
ments in  this  direction.  But  it  has  occurred  to 
me,  from  the  first  day  of  the  session  of  this 
Convention,  that  that  would  be  a provision  ex- 
tremely proper  to  be  made. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I understand  that  whilst  you 
do  not  vote,  you  express  yourself  decidedly  in 
favor  it.  You  do  not  offer  it  for  buncombe  ? 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  No,  sir;  I do  not  offer 
it  for  buncombe.  I express  myself  as  decidedly 
in  favor  of  it.  Now,  let  us  see.  Our  school 
election,  as  it  appears,  comes  on  the  third  Mon- 
day in  April.  Our  farmers  are  compelled  to 
labor,  and  are  deterred  from  attending  the  elec- 
tion in  many  instances.  Now,  sir,  their  wives 
may  go.  Undoubtedly  there  would  be  a con- 
sultation between  the  husband  and  the  wife ; 
undoubtedly  the  influence  of  both  the  heads  of 
the  family  would  be  felt.  Take  it  in  your 
cities — and  if  I am  not  correct  I will  be  corrected 
by  gentlemen  residing  in  cities — you  make 
your  nominations  by  caucuses,  the  same  as 
you  do  for  councilmen,  for  street  commissioner, 
and  mayor.  Hence,  your  school  masters  are 
necessarily  thrown  into  politics.  Now,  if  this 
be  adopted,  it  will  necessitate  a change  in  that 
direction.  It  will  be  impossible  to  have  the 
election  upon  the  same  day  and  time  that  you 
have  your  other  elections.  Hence,  your  ladies 
of  the  city  may  participate  in  that.  These  are 
the  only  suggestions  that  I have  to  offer  upon 
the  subject.  If  anything  is  to  be  done  upon 
this  subject,  I say  to  gentlemen  of  the  Conven- 
tion, let  us  do  something  that  is  logical,  some- 
thing that  is  really  an  advance  upon  the  present 
plan  of  election,  and  upon  the  present  persons 
who  are  capable  of  holding  those  offices. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Is  it  in  order  to  offer  an 
amendment  to  the  substitute? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I move,  then,  to  strike  out 
all  after  the  word  “years,”  to  and  including 
the  word  “funds,”  in  line  three,  so  that  it  will 
read 

The  Secretary  read : 


Day.] WOMEN  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

March  23, 1874.]  Dorsey,  Cunningham,  Alexander,  Cook,  Baber,  etc. 


2261 


Women  over  the  age  of  twenty -one  years  shall  be  en- 
titled to  vote  for  all  school  officers,  except  such  as  are 
elected  by  the  State  at  large,  and  shall  be  eligible  to  any 
office  under  the  school  laws  of  this  State,  in  their  respec- 
tive districts,  sub-districts  and  municipal  corporations. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I do  not  think  that  I should  be 
willing  to  vote  either  for  the  original  Article  or 
for  the  substitute ; still,  I prefer  the  substitute  of 
the  gentleman  from  Van  Wert  [Mr.  Alexander], 
to  the  original  Article.  And  if  the  substitute  of 
the  gentleman  from  Yan  Wert  [Mr.  Alexander] 
is  adopted,  I see  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be 
amended  as  I propose  to  amend  it.  I see  no 
reason  why  a rule  should  be  made  applicable  to 
women  as  electors,  which  is  not  made  applicable 
to  men.  You  do  not  prevent  men  from  voting 
who  have  not  the  care  and  custody  of  children, 
and  who  do  not  participate  in  the  common 
school  fund;  and  I know  no  reason,  if  you  al- 
low women  to  be  electors  at  all,  why  you  should 
apply  to  them  provisions  which  you  do  not  ap- 
ply to  men.  If  you  propose  to  do  this  at  all,  I 
propose  to  do  it  in  its  entirety.  I would,  at 
least,  like  to  have  the  clause  made  broad,  so 
that  if  women  are  made  electors,  they  shall  vote 
the  same  as  men. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I shall  support  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  for  all  the  reasons  that  he 
has  given,  and  one  additional  one.  There  is  a 
distinction  made  in  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Yan  Wert  [Mr.  Alexander] 
against  the  women,  when  the  difference  really 
ought  to  be  made  with  the  other  sex.  Now,  it 
is  not  generally  understood  to  be  the  fault  of  a 
woman  that  she  is  not  married,  but  there  is  no 
unmarried  man  in  Ohio  who  ought  not  to  be 
indicted  for  a deliberate  offense. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  If  the  gentleman’s  ar- 
gument is  conclusive,  and  I think  it  is,  with  his 
leave  and  the  leave  of  the  Convention,  I will 
accept  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey.]  (Cries  of  “ Leave, 
leave.  ’ ’ ) 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I will  ask  that  the 
Convention  excuse  me  from  voting,  as  I have 
paired  off  with  Judge  Sample. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  is  ex- 
cused. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  like  to  say  one  word  in 
behalf  of  the  Committee.  The  gentleman  from 
Yan  Wert  [Mr.  Alexander]  accused  the  Com- 
mittee of  being  ungenerous.  We  were  entirely 
willing  to  give  the  women  not  only  the  right  to 
hold  office  in  the  school  board,  but  to  allow  them 
to  vote.  But  we  were  afraid  if  we  asked  too 
much  that  we  might  lose  all.  We  are  very 
glad  to  see  gentlemen  in  the  Convention  come 
up  and  offer  us  more  than  we  ask  for.  I hope 
the  amendment  will  prevail. 

Mr.  BABER.  Tnis  is  not  the  first  time  gen- 
tlemen on  this  floor,  where  they  have  brought 
in  the  Report  of  a committee,  have  failed  to  sus- 
tain it.  I recollect,  in  the  course  of  discussion  of 
some  portions  of  one  or  two  Reports,  that  we 
found  this  the  case,  and  gentlemen  outside  had 
to  carry  the  report  through  regardless,  of  the 
action  of  a majority  of  the  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee signing  the  report,  and  I hope  that  this 
Convention  are  not  going  to  run  off  now,  to 
abandon  the  Report  of  this  Committee,  which  I 
propose  to  sustain.  I am  not  in  favor  of  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Yan 


Wert  [Mr.  Alexander].  I do  not  think  that 
this  Convention — 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  The  gentleman  does 
not  propose  to  oppose  it,  now  that  this  discrimi- 
nation is  stricken  out. 

Mr.  BABER.  I oppose  the  voting  part  of  it. 
l am  seeking  to  answer  the  argument  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Yan  Wert  TMr.  Alexan- 
der], that  there  is  no  reason  in  the  rule  that  we 
should  allow  these  parties  to  be  eligible  to 
office,  which  I think  is  very  right  and  proper, 
although  I am  glad  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  was 
adopted ; but  I think  that  upon  the  general 
question  of  eligibility  to  office,  that  it  would  be 
much  better  to  have  it  left  to  the  electors.  I am 
opposed  totally,  and  shall  oppose  introducing 
this  element  of  woman  suffrage.  I do  not  be- 
lieve the  effect  in  the  State  of  Ohio  will  be  good. 
There  is  a feeling  setting  up  now  with  regard 
to  the  doings  of  this  Convention  in  a good  many 
things,  and  I believe  that  if  you  put  any  propo- 
sition like  that  in  the  Constitution  that  there 
will  be  a very  large  feeling  of  distrust  upon  the 
subject,  particularly  on  the  part  of  the  Ger- 
mans and  that  class  of  our  population  who 
sympathize  with  them  on  the  temperance  cru- 
sade question.  Open  up  this  subject  of  woman 
suffrage,  and  the  effect  of  it  will  be  they  will 
vote  against  it,  and  I believe  there  is  going  to  be 
a large  vote  against  the  Constitution,  anyhow, 
on  that  account.  I will  not  aid  to  increase  it.  I 
appeal  to  gentlemen  here,  even  if  they  are  in 
favor  of  women  voting;  and  if  there  were 
fifty-three  men  upon  this  floor,  and  I in  favor  of 
it,  I would  not  still  put  it  into  the  Constitution, 
because  I believe  it  would  excite  prejudice 
among  all  the  people  of  Ohio  against  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution.  I ask  gentlemen  not 
to  put  this  clause  in  the  instrument.  When  the 
question  comes  up  with  regard  to  the  submis- 
sion of  this  question  of  women  voting  that  may 
be  another  matter.  The  Convention  has  so  far 
even  refused  to  submit  that.  I object,  then,  to 
introducing  this  question  into  the  school  matter, 
leading,  perhaps,  to  wrangling  and  confusion 
all  over  the  State.  I hope,  therefore,  that  we 
wm  stand  by  the  Report  of  the  Committee  and 
refuse  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I think  it  is  the  un- 
kindest  act  of  the  gentleman’s  life,  in  this  Con- 
vention, to  oppose  this  proposition,  made  in 
such  good  faith  by  the  gentleman  from  Yan 
Wert  [Mr.  Alexander],  and  amended  by  the 
gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  and  I 
know  that  he  is  never  governed  by  any  selfish 
motive,  and  he  and  I have  slept  together  in 
various  political  beds. 

A MEMBER.  Any  others?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  We  are  political 
twins,  and  have  been  orphans,  and  I do  not 
want  the  gentleman  to  put  himself  in  an  objec- 
tionable attitude  in  this  Convention — to  be  a 
condition  precedent  to  his  election,  that  he 
presents  a certificate  of  marriage. 

[Members.  “Agreed;  agreed,”  and  laugh- 
ter.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is,  first,  on 
striking  out,  a division  being  demanded. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  I desire  to  know  what  the 
effect  of  striking  out  will  be — whether  it  will 
not  be  to  adopt  the  section,  and  will  not  refus- 


2262 


[145th 


WOMEN  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Griswold,  Vobis,  Cook,  Alexander,  Dorsey,  Neal.  [Monday, 


ing  to  strike  out — whether  if  we  do  not  strike 
out,  the  section  will  be  adopted  ? 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  It  will  be  adopted,  so  far 
as  the  present  debate  is  concerned. 

Mr.  YORIS.  I am  not  going  to  stand  upon 
this  floor  and  oppose  any  measures  that  look 
towards  securing  to  woman  the  rights  she 
ought  to  have  as  a member  of  society.  I do  not 
care  how  small  the  concession  may  be,  if  it  is 
made  in  her  behalf,  I shall  sustain  it  by  my 
vote ; hut  while  that  is  so,  I claim  to  myself  the 
right  to  criticise  the  propositions  that  are  made 
ostensibly  in  her  behalf.  The  proposition  now 
offered  for  the  consideration  of  the  Convention 
is  exceedingly  inconsistent,  and  inconsistent 
in  this : If  she  possesses  the  qualifications,  if 
she  has  inherent  in  her  the  right  to  hold  any 
public  office,  I care  not  how  small,  and  if  she 
have  the  co-ordinate  right  to  support  by  her 
vote  the  candidates  you  put  up  for  that  office, 
the  question  is  wholly  conceded  that  she  pos- 
sesses the  right  to  any  office  and  the  right  to 
support  it  by  her  vote.  It  is  inconsistent  for 
gentlemen  here  to  make  a concession  of  this 
sort  that  concedes  her  perfect  right,  and  then 
stand  here  and  say  she  shall  only  be  partially 
invested  with  those  rights  that  they  concede 
belong  to  her.  If  I had  my  way  here,  I would 
open  the  door  so  that  she  might  hold  any  office, 
and  I would  let  her  vote  for  any  officer,  in  the 
gift  of  the  people.  No  reason  has  been  urged 
why  she  should  not.  I know  of  no  reason  in 
existence  why  she  should  not  fill  any  and  all  of 
the  offices,  and  exercise  all  the  rights  inhering 
in  them.  To  concede  that  she  may  hold  any 
public  office  is  to  concede  to  her  the  whole  ques- 
tion. If  gentlemen  intend  to  go  upon  that 
principle  here,  they  will  open  the  door  to  her 
and  open  it  just  as  wide  as  the  school  system  of 
the  State  requires.  I am  not  going  to  urge  the 
question  of  policy  at  all,  for  that  seems  to  be 
conceded  by  these  gentlemen  who  are  seeking 
to  perfect  this  provision,  that  her  right  is  un- 
questionable, and  if  so,  I simply  ask  gentlemen 
to  be  consistent  here  and  follow  the  legitimate 
consequences  of  their  logic,  and  that  will  open 
the  door  wide. 

Mr.  COOK.  I wish  to  say,  I have  said  in  an- 
swer to  the  gentleman  from  Van  Wert  [Mr. 
Alexander],  that  I was  entirely  willing  to  ac- 
cept his  amendment.  I wish,  however,  to  say 
to  the  friends  of  this  section  as  reported  by  the 
Committee,  inasmuch  as  the  question  has  been 
divided,  and  we  are  to  take  first  the  vote  on 
striking  out,  and  then  the  question  is  to  insert, 
I will  ask  all  the  friends  of  this  question  to  vote 
against  striking  out,  for  the  reason,  if  we  strike 
out,  it  is  extremely  doubtful  if  we  can  insert 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Van  Wert  [Mr.  Alexander].  If  we  fail  to 
make  that  insertion  we  shall  have  lost  the  sec- 
tion. Not  that  I am  opposed  to  women  voting 
for  school  officers,  but  simply  because  gentle- 
men who  are  opposed  to  this  entire  section  will 
unite  with  us  on  voting  to  strike  out,  and  after 
we  have  stricken  it  out  they  will  leave  us  in  the 
lurch,  and  refuse  to  insert  the  substitute  of  the 
gentleman  fromVanWert  [ Mr.  Alexander],  and 
we  will  lose  the  whole.  Therefore,  I hope,  that 
every  one  of  the  gentlemen  who  are  in  favor  of 
this  proposition,  will  vote  against  striking  out. 
If  the  friends  of  the  gentleman  from  Van  Wert 


will  strike  out,  then  they  can  put  it  in,  hut  let 
our  friends  stand  by  the  proposition  as  it  is. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I understand  the  gen- 
tleman to  prefer  the  substitute  as  offered  by  me, 
yet  asks  his  friends  to  vote  against  striking  out, 
to  the  end  that  it  may  be  killed. 

Mr.  COOK.  No,  I hope  that  the  gentleman 
from  Van  Wert  [Mr.  Alexander]  will  under- 
stand me.  All  the  enemies  of  this  section  will 
vote  to  strike  out,  with  the  view  to  defeat  the 
section,  and  when  you  come  to  insert,  they  will 
vote  against  you  and  defeat  both  you  and  us. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I am  glad  the  gentleman 
made  the  motion.  I made  the  motion  for  arriv- 
ing at  that  result  the  other  day.  I think  we 
have  talked  long  enough  on  this  matter  and  be- 
lieve it  is  a well  settled  principle  in  this  Con- 
vention that  the  government  of  this  State 
should  be  kept  with  the  men,  and  I hope  the 
motion  to’strike  out  will  prevail,  and  the  results 
that  he  thinks  will  follow  if  that  motion  pre- 
vails will  also  follow.  I made  the  motion  for 
that  express  purpose,  and  no  other,  and  will 
vote  accordingly. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  exceedingly  obliged  to 
the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris],  and 
the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  for  their 
very  ingenuous  confessions,  or  explanations, 
and  I trust  that  the  members  of  the  Convention 
will  attend  to  the  explanations  which  they  have 
made.  The  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr. 
Voris]  is  very  anxious  to  have  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  car- 
ried as  a kind  of  entering  wedge  to  what  he  ex- 
pects to  introduce  as  an  action  of  this  Conven- 
tion. Having  gained  so  much,  he  expects  then 
to  make  another  step  forward.  Now,  I say  to  all 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention  who  have  been  dis- 
posed to  go  this  one  single  step,  let  them  beware. 
I do  not  propose  to  take  that  step  forward,  just 
as  I do  not  propose  to  take  the  other  step  which 
the  gentleman  from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris]  de- 
sires that  this  Convention  should  take.  I hope, 
therefore,  that  the  Convention,  founding  its 
action  upon  the  explanation  of  the  gentleman 
from  Summit  [Mr.  Voris],  and  the  gentleman 
from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  will  vote  in  the  first 
place  to  strike  out,  and  in  the  second  place  will 
refuse  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  Van 
Wert  [Mr.  Alexander]. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I presumedt  is  in  order  to  per- 
fect the  original  section  before  taking  the  vote 
to  strike  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I therefore  move  the  following 
amendment:  “Shall  be  entitled  to  vote  for  all 
school  officers,  except  such  as  are  elected  by 
the  State  at  large,  and” — 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  gentleman  from 
Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  proposes  to  amend  the 
original  section  as  follows : The  Secretar y will 
read. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Mr.  Neal  moves  to  amend  as  follows: 

“Shall  be  entitled  to  vote  for  all  school  officers,  except 
such  as  are  elected  by  the  State  at  large,  and.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

Women  over  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  shall  be  en- 
titled to  vote  for  all  school  officers,  except  such  as  are 
elected  by  the  State  at  large,  and  shall  be  eligible  to  any 
office  under  the  school  laws  of  this  State,  except  State 
Commissioner  of  Common  Schools.” 


WOMEN  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Voris,  Alexander,  Neal,  Griswold. 


2263 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal.] 

Mr.  VORIS.  That  proposition  is  certainly 
preferable  to  the  original  substitute  as  pre- 
sented. I shall,  therefore,  be  constrained  to  vote 
for  it  in  preference  to  this.  I simply  want  to 
say  one  word  in  reply  to  the  remark  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  that  the  mo- 
tive prompting  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr. 
Cook]  and  myself  was  to  make  an  entering 
wedge  upon  some  other  proposition  that  we 
seek  to  carry  through  this  Convention.  I do 
not  want  the  Convention  to  be  governed  by  any 
such  motive  as  that  alleged  to  be  existing,  upon 
my  part  What  I said  and  I do  in  reference  to 
this  matter  is  based  upon  my  convictions 
of  what  is  right  and  proper  in  the  premises. 
My  argument,  therefore,  was  predicated  upon 
my  convictions.  My  action  upon  this  is  predi- 
cated upon  my  convictions  upon  this  matter  as 
a substantive  proposition,  and  I cannot  see, 
though  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey] may,  that  it  can  have  any  effect  upon  the 
general  question  of  woman  suffrage.  I do  not 
want  to  have  this  affected  at  all  by  that.  It 
should  stand  upon  its  own  merits.  I want  to 
have  it  so  stand.  I want  no  complications  with 
other  questions  to  affect  it.  This  is  a concession, 
and  in  the  estimation  of  some  of  these  gentle- 
men, perhaps,  a general  concession  in  favor  of 
women.  I want  it  adopted.  I want  it  made 
just  as  strong  as  the  Convention  see  fit  to  make 
it,  and^when  they  have  reached  the  highest 
notch  of  what  these  gentlemen  call  their  mag- 
nanimity, I will  support  it.  I want  them  to  go, 
however,  just  as  far  as  they  possibly  can,  but 
be  not  afraid  to  do  fairly  now,  because  it  may 
aid  the  passage  of  the  woman’s  suffrage  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I desire  to  say  this : 
that  the  keen  perception  of  my  friend  from 
Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal]  seems  to  have  avoided 
the  strangling  process  of  my  friend  from  Cuya- 
hoga [Mr.  Griswold],  and  that  the  proposition, 
as  amended  by  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence 
[Mr.  Neal],  I am  perfectly  contented  with.  It 
embodies  every  principle  that  I intended  to  in- 
ject into  the  instrument  by  my  substitute,  and 
therefore  1 will  now,  at  this  point,  to  the  end 
that  no  hindrances  may  occur,  ask  leave  of  the 
Convention  to  withdraw  the  substitute  I of- 
fered. 

The  gentleman  had  leave. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I desire  to  say  one  word  in 
advocacy  of  the  amendment  which  I offer.  Du- 
ring the  time  that  the  question  of  woman  suf- 
frage was  under  consideration  by  this  Conven- 
tion, I listened  very  carefully  and  attentively 
to  most  of  the  remarks  which  were  made  by 
gentlemen  upon  this  floor.  When  I first  be- 
came a member  of  this  Convention,  I was  by  no 
means  an  advocate  of  that  principle,  but  I 
could  not  logically  justify  the  vote  which  I in- 
tended giving  in  favor  of  allowing  men  to  vote 
and  deprive  women  of  the  same  right.  Their 
persons  and  their  property  are  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  law.  They  are  compelled  to  pay 
taxes  to  the  same  extent  that  men  are,  and  to 
obey  the  laws  to  the  same  extent  that  men  are 
bound  to  do,  and  to  see,  so  far  as  they  are  able, 
the  proper  enforcement  of  the  same.  Upon 


that  question  I was  very  glad  to  see  that  so 
many  members  of  the  Convention  agreed  with 
me,  and  I trust  the  time  may  yet  come,  before 
we  adjourn,  when,  having  a fuller  Convention, 
we  may  be  able  to  carry  that  proposition,  not- 
withstanding the  earnest  protest  of  my  vener- 
able friend  from  Delaware  [Mr.  Powell],  and 
the  still  more  earnest  protest  of  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber],  whose  apprecia- 
tion of  the  women  has  been  of  such  a charac- 
ter— or  their  appreciation  of  him — that  he  has 
remained  up  to  middle  life  without  enjoying 
the  pleasures  of  home  and  the  charms  of  the 
fireside. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I submit  that  he  should 
not  be  censured,  when  he  has  done  all  he  can  in 
that  respect.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  NEAL.  I am  not  here,  Mr.  President, 
to  discuss  the  influences  which  have  controlled 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  in  his 
private  relations,  but  I may  be  permitted  to  say 
that  they  are  exceptionable  in  their  character, 
and,  undoubtedly,  account  for  the  singular  fact 
that  upon  this  floor  the  gentleman  in  question 
has  been  found  earnestly  to  oppose  everything 
which  looks  to  the  amelioration,  or  enfran- 
chisement, or  advancement  of  women.  A few 
years  ago  it  was  a general  saying,  that  this 
was  a white  man’s  government,  and  that  the 
colored  man  must  not  be  permitted  to  exercise 
the  elective  franchise,  lest  he  should  become 
the  equal  of  the  white  man,  and  every  school 
house  was  ringing  with  this  fine  saying.  In 
every  school  house  patriot  orators  were  heard 
inflaming  the  passions  and  prejudices  of  their 
hearers  by  miserable  stuff  of  this  character. 
The  inexorable  logic  of  events  the  past  four- 
teen years  has  effectually  dissipated  this  idea, 
and  demonstrated  beyond  any  peradventure 
that  this  is  not  a white  man’s  government  ex- 
clusively, but  is  also  that  of  the  colored  man. 
Thanks  to  a higher  power  than  that  which  is 
human ; thanks  to  the  high  appreciation  of  right 
and  justice  which  dwells  in  the  heart  and  breast 
of  almost  every  man,  the  black  man  is  enfran- 
chised, and  we  find  him  now  enjoying  the  same 
political  rights  and  privileges  that  the  white 
man  enjoys,  of  which  he  can  never  be  deprived. 
Heretofore  woman  has  been  upon  the  same 
level  with  the  colored  man.  Being  a white 
man’s  government,  she  could  not  exercise  the 
elective  franchise,  nor  fill  any  office,  even  by 
appointment.  We  have  elevated  the  black 
man,  and  I propose  now  that  we  elevate  the  wo- 
man. The  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr. 
Griswold]  says  that  he  wants  it  understood 
that  this  is  to  be  a man’s  government.  The 
word  “white”  having  been  stricken  out,  now 
he  raises  his  clarion  voice  and  proclaims  this  a 
man’s  government,  that  women  must  take  no 
part  nor  parcel  in  the  administration  of  affairs. 
We  will  allow  them  very  graciously  to  pay 
their  proportion  of  taxes,  and  force  them  to 
obey  the  laws — but  it  will  be  a profanation  for 
them  to  vote  or  hold  office.  It  will  make  them 
the  equal  of  man  ! 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I would  like  to  know  if 
women  are  capable  of  sitting  up  all  night  on  a 
jury? 

Mr.  NEAL.  We  are  not  now  discussing  that 
subject.  Whenever  the  time  comes  that  the 
people  of  Ohio  determine  that  it  is  best  that 


2264 


WOMEN  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Neal,  Rowland,  Scofield,  Cook. 


[145th 

[Monday, 


women  should  sit  upon  juries,  and  any  are  se- 
lected to  fill  that  important  position,  I trust 
they  will  not  only  be  willing  to  do  it,  but  that 
they  will  exercise  such  judgment  and  good 
sense,  which  I well  know  them  to  be  entirely 
capable  of,  that  even  the  gentleman,  with  all  his 
prejudices  against  woman,  could  find  no  fault 
with  the  verdict  they  might  render. 

Mr.  ROWLAND.  If  we  had  more  women 
on  the  jury,  they  would  have  sense  enough  to 
find  a verdict  without  sitting  there  all  night. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I trust  that  this  amendment 
will  be  adopted.  It  is  in  the  right  direction. 
We  think  that  women  are  abundantly  capable 
of  teaching  our  children  in  the  schools.  We 
think  they  are  capable  of  teaching  not  only  the 
primary  branches,  but  the  very  highest  branches 
that  are  taught  in  the  schools.  We  find  them 
now  filling  places  in  the  astronomical  observa- 
tories of  this  country.  We  find  them  officiating 
as  physicians  in  different  cities,  in  such  manner 
as  to  give  them  the  entire  confidence  of  the 
community.  We  see  them  filling  our  pulpits, 
and  bringing  sinners,  by  scores  and  hundreds, 
to  repentance.  Why,  Mr.  President,  .after  ex- 
acting, and  requiring  them  to  share  all  the  bur- 
dens of  society,  and  when  we  are  willing  to 
trust  them  to  fill  these  important  places,  is  it 
not  slightly  inconsistent  upon  our  part  to  deny 
them  the  right  to  become  directors  in  our 
schools,  simply  because  the  office  is  an  elective 
one?  It  is  a mystery  to  me,  which  I cannot 
fathom,  and  which  no  gentleman  on  this  floor 
has  undertaken  to  explain,  and  I believe  it  is 
founded  entirely  upon  prejudice.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, it  is  on  a par  with  the  blind,  unreasoning 
and  unreasonable  prejudice,  which,  for  years, 
prevented  us  from  according  to  the  colored  man 
the  same  political  rights  we  ourselves  enjoyed 
and  held  sacred. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Do  you  propose  to  allow 
all  women  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  to 
vote? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Without  regard  to  length 
of  residence,  or  naturalization  ? 

Mr.  NEAL.  I suppose  that  the  laws  with 
regard  to  Elective  Franchise,  will  apply  to  fe- 
male electors  as  they  do  to  male.  If  they  will 
not,  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield] 
can  move  such  an  amendment  as  will  make  them 
applicable.  That  is  his  province.  It  is  not 
necessary,  in  the  consideration  of  this  amend- 
ment that  we  should  discuss  the  question  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr. 
Scofield.] 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  If  I should  do  that,  would 
you  vote  for  it? 

Mr.  NEAL.  Introduce  your  amendment  and 
then  it  will  be  time  enough  for  me  to  answer 
your  question.  One  thing  at  a time. 

I find,  upon  examining  the  Constitution  of 
Pennsylvania — I am  not  much  in  favor  of  quot- 
ing Constitutions  of  other  States,  because  1 be- 
lieve we  are  here  to  mark  out  our  own  course, 
and  to  make  such  a Constitution  as  will  be  ade- 
quate to  the  wants  of  our  own  people,  without 
reference  to  what  has  been  done  elsewhere— 
yet  I find  that  this  Constitution,  which  is  the 
latest  emanation  of  human  wisdom  in  this  re- 
spect, has  provided  substantially  what  is  con- 
tained in  the  substitute  in  section  three,  that 


women  over  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  shall 
be  eligible  to  any  office  of  control  oV  manage- 
ment under  the  school  laws  of  that  State.  It  is 
true,  it  does  not  go  so  far  as  to  give  her  the 
right  of  suffrage,  but  we  cannot  logically  deny 
her  the  right  of  suffrage  if  we  permit  her  to 
hold  an  office  to  which  she  can  be  elected  by 
the  electors  of  the  State.  I trust,  therefore, 
that  this  amendment  will  be  adopted,  and  that 
the  third  section  will  be  incorporated  in  this  Ar- 
ticle. 

Mr.  COOK.  In  relation  to  this  Report,  as 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  that  made  it,  I may 
say,  in  answer  to  the  gentleman  from  Franklin 
[Mr.  Baber],  that  the  Committee  did  not  sup- 
pose that  it  contained  all  the  wisdom  of  this 
Convention,  and,  when  it  made  the  Report,  did 
not  instruct  its  Chairman  to  stand  by  that  Re- 
port in  opposition  to  the  wisdom  of  the  Conven- 
tion. But  they  admitted  that  there  was  wisdom 
left  in  the  Convention,  and  that  it  was  possible 
for  the  Convention  to  make  suggestions  and 
offer  amendments  that  would  improve  the  Re- 
port; in  that  spirit  I accept  the  amendment  of 
the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  be- 
cause I believe  it  is  an  improvement.  It  is 
going  a little  further  than  the  Committee  went, 
but  it  is  a step  in  the  right  direction,  and  it  is 
a logical  sequence  of  that  Report.  If  women 
should  hold  office,  clearly  there  is  no  reason 
why  they  should  not  vote  for  those  who  hold 
office.  And,  in  regard  to  the  question  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield],  I 
will  say  that  this  is  not  a matter  of  politics,  and 
hence,  the  question  whether  a woman  shall  be 
naturalized  or  not  is  not  of  primary  importance. 
If  she  has  her  children  in  schools,  and  has  to 
select  the  teachers  who  are  to  govern  them,  she 
has  the  right,  whether  foreign  born  or  native, 
to  say  who  shall  have  control  over  those  chil- 
dren. The  child,  to  her,  is  as  dear  as  if  born  up- 
on this  soil,  and  it  is  as  much  her  duty  to  protect 
and  educate  it.  And  if  the  native  born  woman 
has  the  right  to  cast  her  vote  to  select  the  one 
who  is  to  control  her  child,  with  what  consist- 
ency can  you  deny  the  right  to  one,  simply 
because  she  is  foreign  born  ? She  has  not  the 
control  of  State  affairs.  She  has  nothing  to  do 
in  politics.  Therefore,  the  question  being  free 
from  politics,  there  is  no  force  in  the  gentle- 
man’s argument. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  The  gentleman  says  that 
the  question  has  Nothing  to  do  with  politics. 
Has  not  education  something  to  do  with  politics  ? 
Is  it  not  very  important  that  those  parties,  men 
and  women,  should  be  educated  so  as  to  exer- 
cise political  rights  intelligently  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Then  your  question  lies 
behind.  It  is  of  more  importance  than  any 
political  question. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  fact  that  the  foreign  born 
lady  should  vote  for  the  selection  of  school 
directors  can  have  no  force  or  effect  upon  edu- 
cation, for  she  certainly  votes  to  educate  those 
children,  and  to  prepare  them  to  discharge 
their  duties  well.  There  is  no  danger  in  that 
objection.  The  danger  is  removed,  and  I would 
invite  all  to  participate  in  it.  I do  not  wish  to 
go  into  an  elaborate  argument;  indeed,  I have 
not  the  strength  to  do  it,  but  I think  this  amend- 
ment is  an  improvement  on  the  Report.  It  is 


WOMEN  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 


2265 


Baber,  Hitchcock. 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 

proper  in  this  connection,  and  I trust  it  will  be 
made. 

Mr.  BABER.  I should  not  have  troubled  the 
Convention  again  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr. 
Neal].  If  he  considers  such  remarks  in  good 
taste,  I will  leave  it  to  this  Convention  to  pass 
judgment  on  him.  As  to  any  matter  personal, 
with  reference  to  the  subject  to  which  he  re- 
fers, I submit  that,  perhaps,  every  gentleman 
here  is  the  best  judge  whether  women  who 
make  themselves  notorious  by  stirring  up  poli- 
tical questions,  and  getting  up  the  reputation  of 
professional  agitators,  are  most  desirable  to 
make  home  happy.  I have  no  aspirations  for 
any  favors  from  that  class.  As  far  as  the  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman  are  concerned,  they  do 
not  disturb  me  in  the  least.  Yet  the  gentleman, 
in  that  amendment  he  has  offered,  has  run  ath- 
wart a question  here  that  I have  no  wonder  he 
does  not  know  how  to  meet.  It  is  when  he  is 
asked  whether  the  proposition  advocated  by 
him  would  not  allow  all  these  paupers,  vaga- 
bonds, unnaturalized  alien  women  to  vote.  He 
talks  about  the  unreasoning  prejudice  against 
the  colored  man.  I would  like  to  know  whether 
there  was  ever  more  unreasoning  prejudice 
shown  upon  this  floor  than  there  was  in  the  in- 
tense fire  and  hatred  that  sparkled  in  the  eye 
of  the  gentleman  whenever  he  spoke  of  the  for- 
eign-born. There  was  where  unreasoning  pre- 
judice displayed  itself  in  knownothing  law,  and 
fanatical  declamation  upon  this  floor.  It  is  too 
late  for  those  gentlemen  to  talk  about  prejudice. 
I have  no  prejudice  in  this  matter.  I am  will- 
ing to  make  a proper  concession  as  to  these  par- 
ties holding  office.  I tell  gentlemen  whenever 
they  endeavor  to  force  this  amendment  here, 
they  simply  defeat  the  whole  proposition.  They 
cannot  get  fifty-three  votes  in  this  Convention; 
and  what  they  are  trying  to  do  now,  if  success- 
ful, will  defeat  the  whole  proposition.  I know 
gentlemen  who  are  hostile  to  this  concession, 
allowing  the  women  to  hold  office  in  the  school 
board,  who  will  vote  for  this  amendment,  in  or- 
der to  get  it  in  such  a shape  that  the  whole 
thing  will  be  lost.  I do  not  intend  to  vote  in 
bad  faith  on  this  floor.  I shall  vote  against  the 
amendment,  and  if  the  amendment  is  inserted, 
I shall  vote  against  the  whole  proposition ; but 
if  the  amendment  is  not  inserted  I shall  vote  for 
it. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Will  the  Secretary 
read  the  section  as  proposed  to  be  amended  ? 

The  Secretary  read : 

Women  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  shall  be  entitled 
to  vote  for  all  school  officers,  except  such  as  are  elected  by 
the  State  at  large,  and  shall  be  eligible  to  any  office  un- 
der the  school  laws  of  the  State,  except  State  Commis- 
sioner of  Common  Schools. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  The  section  reads  differ- 
ently from  what  I supposed.  Is  there  any  ques- 
tion as  to  striking  out  now  pending? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I am  disposed  to  vote  for 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal].  Had  I been  pres- 
ent with  the  Committee  at  the  time  the  Report 
was  made,  I should  have  signed  the  recommenda- 
tion in  favor  of  the  addition  of  this  section. 
Since  that  time  reflection  has  convinced  me  that, 
in  doing  so,  I would  have  been  in  the  wrong. 


It  does  not  appear  to  me  that  the  Convention  is 
in  favor  of  engrafting  this  principle  upon  the 
Constitution.  It  seems  to  me  that  to  be  consist- 
ent, if  we  are  to  assign  to  woman  the  holding 
of  office,  we  should  also  assign  to  her  the  power 
of  making  selections  to  fill  that  office.  I,  for 
one,  certainly  cannot  consistently  vote  for  one 
and  not  for  the  other.  These  remarks  are  made 
from  the  fact  that,  having  had  a connection 
with  the  Committee,  and  not  being  present  at 
the  time  of  making  the  Report,  and  having  re- 
peatedly expressed  myself  to  the  members  of 
that  Committee  in  favor  of  this  section,  I could 
not  sit  silently  by  and  cast  a vote  which  would 
be  in  opposition  to  that  Committee  without  ex- 
pressing my  reason  therefor.  The  more  care- 
fully this  is  looked  at,  the  more  carefully  it  is 
scrutinized  in  all  its  bearings,  the  more  I am 
convinced  that  the  best  interests  of  the  whole 
people  of  the  State  will  not  be  secured  by  the 
adoption  of  this  principle.  A majority  of  the 
members  of  this  Convention,  present  at  the 
time  the  vote  was  cast,  decided  in  favor  of  sub- 
mitting to  the  people  of  the  State  the  securing 
of  the  right  to  women  to  vote.  That  question 
will  be  again  before  the  Convention.  Judging 
by  the  vote  already  given,  if  the  Convention  be 
full  when  the  question  is  voted  upon  again,  no 
doubt  this  question  of  female  suffrage  will  be 
submitted  to  the  people  of  the  State.  It  seems 
to  me  that  will  be  sufficient.  If  woman  is  given 
the  right  to  vote  for  all  purposes,  is  made  an 
elector,  she  becomes  eligible  to  office  under  the 
provision  which  regulates  eligibility  to  office 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  State.  And  if  she 
is  not  thus  given  suffrage  by  the  choice  of  the 
people  of  the  State,  by  what  evidence  are  we  to 
conclude  that  the  people  desire  that,  to  a cer- 
tain extent,  and  no  further,  she  should  exercise 
the  right  of  suffrage,  and  should  be  entitled  to 
hold  office  in  the  State?  Not  that  I am,  in  any 
sense,  afraid  of  the  influence  of  woman  upon  the 
educational  interests  of  the  State,  yet  feel  now, 
as  was  said  when  the  question  of  woman’s  suf- 
frage was  being  considered,  that  woman’s  in- 
terest as  woman  is  not,  in  any  sense,  the  ques- 
tion before  us.  If  that  was  the  question, 
woman’s  interests  as  woman  are  likely,  in  no 
way,  to  be  advanced.  It  is  only  as  she  may  be, 
by  her  action,  either  with  or  without  suffrage, 
better  able  to  discharge  her  duties  as  a member 
of  society,  and  better  advance  the  interests  of 
all  the  people  of  the  State,  that  suffrage  should 
be  granted  to  her. 

The  question  being  on  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Lawrence  [Mr.  Neal],  the  yeas 
and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — 
yeas  29,  nays  33,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Barnet,  Beer,  Bishop,  Bos- 
worth,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cook,  Cun- 
ningham, Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Johnson, 
McCauley,  McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mitche- 
ner,  Neal,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pratt, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskin- 
gum, Tripp,  Voris,  Woodbury — 29. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Byal,  Cowen,  Dor- 
sey, Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Guthrie,  Hale, 
Herron,  Hill,  Hoadly,  Horton,  Hunt,  McBride, 
Okey,  Powell,  Reilly,  Root,  Scofield,  Shaw, 
Shultz,  Smith,  Steedman,  Townsley,  Tulloss, 


2266 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM, [145th 

Tuttle,  Griswold,  Cook,  Bishop.  [Monday, 


Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis, 
Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  President— 33. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  further 
amendments  to  the  section  ? If  not,  the  Secre- 
tary will  read  the  next  section. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Is  there  not  a motion  to  sub- 
stitute ? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  was  withdrawn  by 
leave. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I move  to  strike  out  the 
whole  section. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded. 

Mr.  COOK.  I hope  this  will  not  be  done. 
When  the  section  was  first  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee upon  this  subject,  I think  all  were  in  fa- 
vor of  this  section.  I hope,  therefore,  it  will 
be  adopted,  and  that  members  will  vote  down 
the  gentleman’s  motion. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  I understood  there  has  been 
a change  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  was  amended  by  the 
gentleman  from  Erie  [Mr.  Root].  The  gen- 
tleman from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  forgot  it.  The 
section  reads : 

“Sec.  3.  Women  over  twenty -one  years  of  age  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  office  under  the  school  laws  of  the  State, 
except  State  Commissioner  of  Common  Schools.’’ 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I hope  that  section  will  not 
be  stricken  out. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  22,  nays  39,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Bosworth,  Cowen,  Dorsey, 
Greene,  Griswold,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock, 
Hoadly,  McBride,  Reilly,  Scofield,  Shaw,  Smith, 
Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Yalkenburgh,  Van 
Yoorhis,  White  of  Hocking,  President — 22. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Baber,  Barnet, 
Bishop,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cook, 
Cunningham,  Hale,  Hortorf,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  McCormick,  Merrill, 
Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease, 
Phellis,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Root,  Rowland, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Shultz,  Steedmau,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Voris, 
Weaver,  Woodbury — 39. 

So  the  motion  to  strike  out  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  are  no  further 
amendments  to  the  section,  the  Secretary  will 
proceed  to  read  the  next  section  of  the  Re- 
port. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  power  of  taxation  conferred  by  this  section  shall 
he  limited  to  a sum  sufficient  to  educate  all  the  children 
of  the  State  in  such  common  and  necessary  branches  of 
learning,  as  shall  he  prescribed  by  law. 

Mr.  COOK.  I move  to  strike  out  that  pro- 
posed amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  is  on  strik- 
ing out. 

Mr.  BISHOP.  I apprehend  the  subject  un- 
der consideration  is  so  well  understood,  having 
been  well  matured,  and  so  ably  discussed,  that 
further  arguments  may  not  be  necessary.  But 
as  the  subject  is  one  in  which  I feel  so  much 
interest,  1 will  trespass  upon  the  patience  of 
the  Convention,  while  I submit,  in  a very  brief 
manner,  a few  additional  remarks.  I cannot 
believe  that  this  Convention  are  disposed  to 
make  any  radical  change  in  our  common  school 


laws.  It  surely  would  be  unwise  and  inexpe- 
dient to  do  so,  and  well  calculated  to  create 
great  prejudice  against  the  adoption  of  the  Con- 
stitution which  we  propose  to  submit  to  the 
voters  of  Ohio,  for  their  rejection  or  approval. 
I have  examined  the  report  of  the  Committee 
and  attentively  listened  to  the  arguments  upon 
it,  and  I am  unhesitatingly  opposed  to  most  of 
the  report.  I can  see  no  propriety  or  advan- 
tages, whatever,  in  some  of  its  recommenda- 
tions. I am  willing  to  support  that  portion  of 
section  three  which  provides  that  “women  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age  shall  be  eligible  to 
office,  under  the  school  laws  of  this  State.”  I 
do  this  because  I believe  women  are  competent 
to  do  so ; and  I am  disposed  to  grant  them  every 
reasonable  opportunity  to  make  themselves  use- 
ful. The  influence  of  women,  as  teachers,  and 
occupying  suitable  official  positions  under  our 
school  laws,  would  be  a good  one.  But  upon 
this  subject,  it  seems  to  me,  there  is  but  little 
difference  of  opinion.  I,  therefore,  confine  my 
remarks  more  to  another  branch  of  the  report, 
which,  to  my  mind,  is  of  great  importance,  and 
demands  the  most  careful  and  serious  consider- 
ation of  this  body.  I allude  to  the  amendment 
proposed  for  the  purpose  of  reducing  expenses 
of  our  public  schools,  which  seems  to  me,  is  in- 
tended as  an  effort  to  do  away,  at  least,  to  a 
very  great  degree,  with  our  high  schools,  and 
surely,  if  carried  on,  would,  to  a very  consider- 
able extent,  retard  and  injure  their  usefulness, 
if  it  did  not  have  the  effect  to  entirely  abolish 
them.  This,  to  my  mind,  would  be  exceeding- 
ly unfortunate,  and  I sincerely  hope  the  Con- 
vention will  not,  for  a moment,  entertain  the 
idea  of  adopting  any  measure  that  is  liable  to  be 
thus  construed.  I am  well  aware  that  there  are 
many  persons  in  this  community,  as  well  as  in 
others,  that  complain  that  our  common  school 
system  is  too  expensive,  and  carried  to  extremes 
by  establishing  our  high  schools  where  many 
of  the  higher  branches  are  taught.  I beg  leave 
to  differ  with  all  such  persons.  I believe  our 
high  schools  are  the  pride  of  our  city,  and 
our  State  generally,  and  not  only  so, 
but  that  they  are  the  means  of  preparing  indus- 
trious, energetic  and  poor  young  men  and  wo- 
men for  positions  in  society  that  otherwise  they 
could  not  or  would  not  possess.  Strange  as  it 
may  appear,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  most  of 
our  valuable  and  skillful  mechanics,  most  of  our 
successful  business  men,  and  a large  propor- 
tion of  our  eminent  professional  men  emanate 
from  the  poorer  or  medium  class  of  citizens, 
such  as  need  our  public  schools  to  prepare  them 
for  the  stations  in  life  to  which  I have  just  al- 
luded. I do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  my  obser- 
vation has  demonstrated  to  my  mind  that  prom- 
inent and  great  men  are  seldom  the  sons  of 
wealthy  parentage.  Seldom  do  we  see  young 
men  whose  opportunities  are  ample,  who  are 
raised  by  very  wealthy  parents — and  are  in  no- 
wise dependent  upon  their  own  energies  for  a 
livelihood,  succeed  to  high  and  honorable  po- 
sitions. Therefore,  in  order  to  furnish  teachers 
for  our  children,  to  secure  competent  and  relia- 
ble persons  to  fill  the  various  positions  in  life, 
the  high  schools,  in  my  judgment,  are  abso- 
lutely a necessity  for  the  welfare  of  our  coun- 
try. I unhesitatingly  state  that  1 consider  the 
high  schools  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati  are  of 


TAXATION  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Bishop,  Page,  Cook,  Dorsey. 


2267 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 


such  a character  that  even  our  wealthy  citizens 
would  do  well  to  patronize  them,  and  I know 
that  some  of  them  do,  as  they  evidently  are,  in 
many  respects,  equal,  if  not  superior  to  many 
of  our  colleges.  Another  advantage  of  having 
high  schools  in  our  midst,  they  enable  us  to  se- 
cure a liberal  education  for  our  children  with- 
out sending  them  from  home.  Then,  I ask,  why 
should  we  do  anything  that  would  in  the  least 
degree  impair  their  usefulness.  1 might  mention 
many  other  reasons  for  retaining  our  present 
system  of  education.  My  colleague,  Mr.  Mi- 
ner, has,  in  a very  elaborate  speech,  shown 
conclusively,  to  my  mind,  the  advantages  re- 
sulting from  educating  the  masses — by  remov- 
ing ignorance,  suppressing  crime,  preventing 
pauperism,  and  by  improving  and  elevating  so- 
ciety generally.  Thus  we  readily  perceive  that 
a well-regulated  system  of  common  schools, 
such  as  has  been  inaugurated  and  been  in  suc- 
cessful operation  in  the  State  of  Ohio  should 
not  be  interrupted,  and  notwithstanding  some 
of  our  aristocratic  and  wealthy  citizens  do  com- 
plain and  ask  a reduction  in  the  expenses  of 
our  school  system,  yet  I am  convinced  that  the 
majority  of  our  wealthiest  citizens  and  heaviest 
tax  payers,  having  witnessed  the  grand  and 
glorious  results  of  the  public  schools,  they 
would  rejoice  to  see  them  retained  in  the  Con- 
stitution, and  would  very  much  regret  to  see 
our  high  schools  interfered  with.  The  gentle- 
man from  Erie  [Mr.  Root]  very  clearly  de- 
monstrated that,  as  we  have  so  few  normal 
schools  for  the  education  and  preparation  of 
teachers,  that  it  is  of  very  great  importance 
that  the  high  schools  should  be  retained  to  sup- 
ply the  places  that  normal  schools  would,  if  we 
had  a sufficiency  of  them.  The  people  of  Ohio 
have  reason  to  be  proud  of  their  public  school 
system,  and  they  doubtless  are  proud  of  it.  It 
has  always  been  a pleasure  to  me  to  call  the 
attention  of  visitors  to  our  city  to  our  large  and 
commodious  school  edifices,  and  refer  them  to 
their  internal  management,- and  communicate 
to  them  the  grand  results  they  produce.  The 
high  schools  are  important  in  another  respect. 
There  is  but  one  normal  school  in  the  city  of 
Cincinnati,  and  I have  just  been  conversing 
with  one  of  the  trustees  of  the  normal  school, 
who  advises  me  that  its  labors  and  success  have 
been  greatly  facilitated  by  its  pupils  having 
attended  our  high  schools.  These,  with  other 
reasons  which  I might  give,  if  I supposed  it 
necessary,  induce  me  to  vote  to  strike  out  the 
section  now  proposed  to  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  PAGE.  Mr.  Kerr,  of  Licking,  who  is 
not  here,  wished  me  to  offer  an  amendment  to 
insert  after  the  word  “branches,”  “as  well  as 
in  all  the  higher  branches.”  It  comes  in  after 
the  word  “branches”  in  the  third  line. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  amendment  as  proposed. 

The  Secretary  read : 

The  power  of  taxation  conferred  by  this  section  shall 
be  limited  to  a sum  sufficient  to  educate  all  the  children 
in  the  State  in  such  common  and  necessary  branches,  as 
well  as  in  all  the  higher  branches  of  learning,  as  shall 
be  prescribed  by  law. 

Mr.  COOK.  I hope  that  that  amendment 
will  not  be  made,  for  it  will  add  nothing  to  the 
present  Constitution.  I will  ask  the  Secretary 


to  read  section  two,  of  the  present  Constitution, 
that  the  Convention  may  see  how  it  will  read. 
This  is  proposed  as  an  amendment  to  the  pres- 
ent Constitution,  and  gentlemen  will  see  that 
it  adds  nothing  to  the  present  section.  It  would 
leave  the  present  section  as  it  now  is,  which 
will  be  better  without  this  incumbering  amend- 
ment than  with  it. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Sec.  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  make  such  provi- 
sion, by  taxation  or  otherwise,  as,  with  the  income  aris- 
ing from  the  school  trust  fund,  will  secure  a thorough 
and  efficient  system  of  common  schools  throughout  the 
State;  but  no  religious,  or  other  sect,  or  sects,  shall  ever 
have  any  exclusive  right  to,  or  control  of,  any  part  of  the 
school  funds  of  this  State. 

Mr.  COOK.  I will  ask  the  Secretary  to  read 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  Committee,  and 
also  the  one  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page],  so  that  the  Convention 
may  see  how  it  will  read  if  the  two  amendments 
are  concurred  in. 

The  Secretary  read ; 

The  power  of  taxation,  conferred  by  this  section,  shall 
be  limited  to  a sum  sufficient  to  educate  all  the  children 
of  the  State  in  such  common  and  necessary  ( ranches  of 
learning  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  law. 

Mr.  Page  moves  to  add  to  the  amendment,  after  the 
word  “branches,”  the  following  words : 

“As  well  as  in  all  the  higher  branches.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I will  say  that  that  is  simply  an 
incumbrance  upon  the  section,  for  it  comes  back 
just  where  it  now  stands.  We  are  now  having, 
under  the  present  Constitution,  the  common  and 
necessary  branches,  and  the  higher  branches, 
and  this  amendment  proposes  to  confine  it  to 
necessary  branches,  and  also  to  the  higher 
branches.  It  leaves  it  just  where  it  is.  It  is 
only  an  incumbrance,  without  adding  any 
force  to  the  section.  I hope,  therefore,  it  will 
not  be  concurred  in. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  present  clause  of  the  second 
section  of  the  Article  on  Education  requires  a 
thorough  and  efficient  system  of  common 
schools  throughout  the  State.  It  is  very  ques- 
tionable whether  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
framers  of  that  Article  to  give  instructions  in 
branches  which  are  taught  in  the  higher 
schools,  and  the  object  of  this  amendment  is  to 
have  a direct  vote  on  this  question.  As  inter- 
preted now,  the  Constitution  places  it  in  the 
power  of  the  Board  of  Education  to  have  the 
higher  branches  taught;  but  as  it  is  understood 
by  some  gentlemen,  that  was  not  the  intention 
of  the  framers  of  that  Article.  Now,  we  desire 
to  have  a vote  in  this  Convention  on  this  amend- 
ment, offered  by  me,  on  behalf  of  the  gentleman 
from  Licking  [Mr.  Kerr],  on  this  question.  If 
I understand  it,  it  presents  a very  different 
question  from  that  which  the  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  holds  it  would  present. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I am  opposed  to  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page],  and  I am  opposed  to  the  addendum 
to  the  Report  of  the  Committee.  The  section, 
as  it  stands  in  the  old  Constitution,  is  abundant. 
It  provides  for  everything  that  is  necessary 
and  required,  and  I do  not  think  the  meaning 
is  at  all  questionable.  “ The  General  Assembly 
shall  make  such  provision,  by  taxation  or  other- 
wise, as  with  the  income  arising  from  the 
school  trust  fund,  will  secure  a thorough  and 
efficient  system  of  common  schools  throughout 


2268 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Dorsey,  Hoadly,  Scofield,  Cook,  Hale. 


the  State.”  What  is  meant  there  by  common 
schools  ? Schools  to  teach  the  common  branches 
of  learning,  merely — reading,  writing  and  arith- 
metic? Not  so.  The  framers  in  using  there 
the  word  “ common  ” intended  simply  to  say 
that  those  schools  should  be  for  the  common 
use,  and  that  they  should  be  the  common  heri- 
tage of  the  people  of  the  State.  And  a most 
unfortunate  suggestion  is  made  by  the  Report 
of  the  Committee  when  they  speak  of  con- 
fining the  tax  merely  to  the  teaching  of  the 
common  and  necessary  branches  of  school 
education.  They  take  away  from  our  common 
schools  all  that  glorious  prestige  which  they 
have  under  the  old  Constitution,  making  them 
not  common  in  the  sense  of  being  the  heritage 
of  every  child  in  the  State,  but  common  simply 
because  they  teach  the  vulgar  branches  of 
school  education.  Now,  if  there  is  any  thing 
at  all  that  contributes  to  the  glory  of  the  State, 
it  is  our  system  of  common  schools,  belonging 
to  the  whole  people  of  the  State — common,  not 
because  they  teach  the  common  branches  of 
education,  but,  because  they  belong  to  every 
child  in  the  State.  Out  of  that  glorious  system 
of  common  schools  has  grown  our  high  school 
system,  a system  which,  to-day  is  taking  the 
place  of  the  normal  schools  of  the  State,  and  is 
supplying  teachers,  both  male  and  female,  to 
all  the  schools  of  the  State.  Now,  I know  that 
some  objection  is  made  to  the  unnecessary  cost, 
the  extravagant  cost,  as  it  is  stated,  of  these 
high  schools.  Why,  let  gentlemen  look  at  the 
whole  cost  of  the  schools  of  the  State.  What 
is  it  ? I have  not  heard  here  a single  expression 
with  regard  to  the  matter,  except  what  came 
from  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page], 
who  spoke  of  the  enormous  cost  of  these 
schools.  What  is  the  school  tax  of  Ohio  ? The 
enormous  sum  of  one  mill  on  the  dollar  of  the 
whole  taxable  property  of  the  State.  That  is 
all  that  has  ever  been  assessed  as  the  school 
tax  of  Ohio.  I am  not  speaking  of  the  local 
tax.  I am  speaking  of  the  State  levy,  which 
supports  the  common  schools,  and  which  sup- 
ports your  high  schools  in  the  State  throughout. 
One-tenth  of  one  per  cent,  merely,  is  the  tax 
upon  the  whole  property  of  the  State.  Now,  I 
know  that  in  some  cities  there  has  been  a pre- 
judice created  against  this  school  tax,  from 
the  fact  that  some  large  counties,  for  instance, 
the  county  of  Hamilton,  pays  thirty  or  forty 
thousand  dollars  more  into  the  school  fund 
than  is  expended  within  the  limits  of  the 
county. 

Mr.  HOADLY.  That  was  so,  but  it  is  a mis- 
take now.  W~e  have  learned  how  to  count  in 
this  county. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  You  have  learned,  perhaps, 
to  count  more  heads.  I know  they  have  learned 
that  in  some  of  the  other  counties  of  the  State. 
While,  then,  to-day,  the  county  of  Hamilton 
perhaps  does  not  pay  thirty  or  forty  thousand 
dollars  in  excess  of  what  is  expended  within 
her  own  limits,  as  she  did  a few  years  ago, 
when  I was  connected  with  the  finances  of  the 
State,  yet  nearly  all  the  larger  counties  of  the 
State  do  pay  more  of  the  school  tax  than  is  ex- 
pended within  their  limits.  That  is  the  large 
and  wealthy  counties  of  the  State,  and  this  is 
expended  in  the  poorer  and  yet  populous  parts 
of  the  State,  where  they  have  more  children 


[145th 

[Monday, 


than  they  have  wealth.  And  that  is  right  and 
proper.  It  is  one  of  the  elements  by  which  the 
State  shows  herself  to  be  the  educator  of  the 
children  of  the  State.  For  this  reason,  and 
because  this  system  ought  not  to  be  interfered 
with,  and  because,  for  the  last  twenty  years 
and  more,  it  has  bestowed  great  benefits  on  the 
State,  I desire  to  see  the  simple  words  of  the  old 
Constitution  continued  and  no  change  whatever 
made  in  the  provisions  we  are  about  to  place, 
in  our  organic  law.  We  cannot  better  it.  We 
may  make  it  worse.  It  has  done  great  benefits 
for  the  State.  It  has  produced  a system  of 
schools  that  is  an  honor  to  the  State,  and  that  is 
to-day  educating  every  child  in  the  State,  as 
far  perhaps  as  can  be  done  without  an  addition 
of  some  of  the  provisions  which  the  Com- 
mittee propose  to  insert  hereafter,  and  on 
which  I shall  give  my  opinion  when  that  part 
of  the  Report  comes  up. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I will  inquire  if  a substi- 
tute is  in  order  for  the  entire  Report  of  the 
Committee  and  pending  amendments. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A substitute  can  be  now 
received. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I offer  the  following  as  a 
substitute  for  the  Report  of  the  Committee. 
It  is  Article  VI  of  the  present  Constitution. 

Mr.  COOK.  I will  say  to  the  gentleman,  if  he 
will  wait  until  we  have  taken  a vote  on  this 
proposition,  and  a vote  on  section  four,  I pro- 
pose to  offer  the  Article  of  the  present  Constitu- 
tion in  lieu  of  that  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  ]Mr.  Carbery].  The  reason  for 
so  doing  is  this : If  you  offer  it  now,  the  friends 
of  the  present  amendment  will  vote  against  it, 
and  the  friends  of  section  four  will  vote  against 
it.  You  accumulate  the  opposition  all  at  one 
time,  whereas,  if  you  divide,  you  take  them 
separately,  and  call  out  the  strength  of  each 
proposition.  I hope  the  gentleman  will  allow 
me  to  go  through  with  the  Report,  and  I shall 
move  the  present  Constitution  at  the  proper 
time,  as  I might  say,  in  the  place  where  it  will 
do  the  most  good. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I offer  the  entire  Article 
as  a substitute.  I would  be  glad  to  accommo- 
date the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  but 
this  Report  has  taken  up  a good  deal  of  time  in 
the  Convention,  and  there  are  additional  rea- 
sons. I do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  Report  of 
the  Committee.  It  has  been  fully  discussed.  There 
is  this  reason,  however,  why  this  substitute 
should  prevail  in  this  Convention.  The  laws 
passed  by  the  General  Assembly,  under  Article 
VI  of  the  present  Constitution,  have  been  con- 
strued by  the  supreme  court,  and  they  are  well 
understood  by  the  people  of  the  State.  I be- 
lieve that  there  is  no  Article  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  State  in  which  the  people  of  the  State 
take  greater  pride  and  with  which  they  are  bet- 
ter satisfied  than  they  are  with  this  Article  on 
education,  Article  VI.  I,  therefore,  without 
discussing  the  question,  say  to  the  Convention 
that  it  will  save  great  expense,  expense  in  this 
Convention  and  expense  in  legislation,  to  stand 
by  this  Article  without  amending  it. 

Mr.  HALE.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a ques- 
tion ? 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Scofield,  Hale,  Alexander. 


2269 


Day.] 


March  23,1874.; 


Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HALE.  It  is  proposed  by  the  delegates 
in  this  part  of  the  House,  if  you  insist  on  your 
motion  at  the  present  time,  to  offer  as  amend- 
ments to  your  substitute  the  precise  amend- 
ments here  proposed,  so  that  they  will  get  the 
vote  that  they  are  determined  to  have  on  this 
amendment.  Now,  can  we  not  vote  upon  those 
amendments,  and  then  introduce  this  after- 
wards ? 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  If  it  will  save  time  and  ac- 
commodate gentlemen  I will  withdraw  my  sub- 
stitute for  the  present,  giving  notice  that  I will 
offer  it  at  the  proper  time. 

Leave  was  given  to  withdraw. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I desire  to  say  a single 
word,  and  should  not,  had  the  proposed  amend- 
ment not  been  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Pickaway  [Mr.  Page].  I think  that  the  gentle- 
man from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey],  in  the  con- 
struction that  he  places  on  the  word  “common” 
is  correct;  that  it  means  a school,  common  to 
the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  generally,  and 
it  does  not  have  reference  to  the  branches 
taught  therein.  It  occurs  to  me  that  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway 
[Mr.  Page],  might  have  a good  effect,  but  that 
the  attempt  is  to  force  a construction  upon  that 
section  by  a negative  vote  of  the  Convention, 
that  the  higher  branches  were  never  intended 
to  be  taught  in  the  common  schools  of  the  State; 
and  that  is  the  reason  why  I desire  to  say  a 
single  word  on  the  subject.  I do  not  want  my 
negative  vote,  as  I shall  give  it  upon  this  ques- 
tion, to  mean  that  I am  not  in  favor  of  having 
the  higher  branches  taught  in  the  schools  of  the 
State,  but  I want  my  negative  vote  to  mean  that 
I do  not  intend  to  lay  my  hands  upon  the  com- 
mon school  system  of  the  State  as  now  or- 
ganized, in  any  manner  or  form  whatever.  That 
is  the  construction  I want  given  to  it.  And 
why  do  I not  want  to  do  so  ? Because  it  is  satis- 
factory to  the  people  of  the  State.  Because  the 
people  of  the  State,  in  their  local  communities, 
cause  to  be  taught  the  different  branches  that 
they  wish  to  have  taught  in  their  schools.  They 
are  the  sole  and  exclusive  judges  themselves.  In 
my  town  they  see  fit  to  cause  the  higher  branches 
to  be  taught.  They  have  elected  a Board  of 
Education  that  provides  for  that,  and  they  con- 
tinue to  re-elect  that  Board  so  long  as  they  are 
satisfied  with  them.  When  they  become  dis- 
satisfied with  having  the  higher  mathematics 
and  the  languages  taught,  they  will  simply  ex- 
cuse the  acting  members  of  Board  from  service, 
and  will  elect  others  who  will  put  those  higher 
branches  out,  and  will  not  allow  them  to  be 
taught.  Therefore,  under  our  present  system, 
it  is  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  people  of  the 
locality.  Let  us  leave  it  there.  There  has  been 
no  complaint  upon  this  subject.  The  people  of 
the  State  are  not  suffering.  They  will  not  per- 
mit that  the  common  school  system,  the  pride 
of  their  State,  shall  be  in  any  way,  or  in  any 
manner  disturbed.  There  exists  no  evil  which 
we  need  to  remedy.  It  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
people  themselves  in  their  own  local  commu- 
nity. Let  us  leave  it  there,  just  as  it  is.  That 
is  what  I want  my  vote  construed  to  mean  on 
this  subject.  I hope  that  will  be  the  construc- 
tion placed  upon  the  votes  of  the  delegates  who 
vote  as  I do.  The  suggestion  by  the  delegate 


from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield],  has  great  force 
in  it.  We  have  a large  structure  of  legislation 
upon  this  subject.  Our  system  has  been  elu- 
cidated by  the  best  educational  talent  of  the 
State.  Let  us  not,  in  any  manner,  make  a pro- 
vision which  will  require  a revision  or  recon- 
struction of  them,  but  let  them  stand  as  they 
now  are. 

There  is  another  thing.  If  gentlemen  who 
are  advocating  the  proposition  of  the  Commit- 
tee will  look  to  the  State  of  Massachusesetts, 
they  will  find  that  the  per  capita  expense  for 
educating  each  child  enrolled  in  the  State,  is 
$19  or  $20,  while  in  Ohio  it  is  between  $6  and  $7. 
If  the  people  of  Massachussetts  can  stand  $19  or 
$20,  may  we  not  well  stand  $6  or  $7?  We  have 
examples  of  limitation.  If  the  gentlemen  will 
look  to  North  Carolina,  Georgia  and  Alabama, 
they  will  find  by  the  statistics  of  illiteracy,  the 
difference  between  sixty-five  cents  per  capita, 
as  it  is  in  some  of  those  States,  and  six  or  seven 
dollars  per  capita,  as  it  is  in  Ohio.  I say,  gen- 
tlemen of  the  Convention,  let  us  in  no  manner 
make  new  legislation  necessary  for  our  schools. 
Let  us  simply  leave  our  Legislature  free,  as  ex- 
perience, as  an  advancing  civilization  may 
demonstrate  that  legislation  is  necessary,  for 
them  to  act  upon  it. 

The  question  being  on  the  amendment  of  the 
gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page], 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken, 
and  resulted — yeas  7,  nays  53,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 
Messrs.  Albright,  Beer,  Bosworth,  Byal, 
Mitchener,  Pratt,  Scofield— 7. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were— 
Messrs.  Adair,  Alexander,  Baber,  Barnet, 
Bishop,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jefferson,  Cook, 
Cowen,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Hale,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  McBride,  Mc- 
Cormick, Merrill,  Miner,  Neal,  Okey,  Page, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell,  Reilly,  Root, 
Rowland,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Mus- 
kingum, Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith,  Steedman, 
Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van 
Valkenburgh,  Yan  Voorhis,  Yoris,  Weaver, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury,  President — 53. 
So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  on 
striking  out  the  section. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I move  we  take  a recess. 

On  this  question  a division  was  demanded, 
and,  forty  members  voting  in  the  affirmative, 
the  President  declared  the  motion  agreed  to; 
and  the  Convention  (at  12 : 30  p.m.)  took  a recess* 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  2 : 30  p.  m. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK,  President  pro  tempore , in 
the  Chair. 

Mr.  McBRIDE  asked  for  leave  of  absence  for 
Mr.  Root. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  Secretary  called  the  Roll,  and  fifty- 
three  members  answered  to  their  names,  as 
follows : 

Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Barnet, 
Beer,  Bosworth,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark  of  Jeffer- 


2270 


COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. [145th 


Cunningham,  Cook,  Pease,  Hale,  Dorsey. 


[Monday, 


son,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Dorsey,  Frei- 
berg, Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Hill,  Hitchcock, 
Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  Hunt,  Mc- 
Bride, McCormick,  Merrill,  Mitchener,  Neal, 
Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of 
Muskingum,  Scofield,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith, 
Steedman,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Voris, 
Weaver,  White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury — 53. 

Those  absent  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Andrews,  Bannon,  Bishop, 
Blose,  Burns,  Caldwell,  Campbell,  Carbery, 
Clark  of  Ross,  Clay,  Coats,  De  Steiguer,  Doan, 
Ewing,  Foran,  Gardner,  Godfrey,  Gurley,  Her- 
ron, Hoadly,  Jackson,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Kraemer, 
Layton,  Miller,  Miner,  Mueller,  Mullen,  Pond, 
Rickly,  Root,  Rowland,  Sample,  Scribner, 
Sears,  Thompson,  Townsend,  Voorhes,  Waddle, 
Watson,  Wells,  West,  White  of  Brown,  Wilson, 
Young  of  Champaign,  Young  of  Noble,  Presi- 
dent—49. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I move  that  all  fur- 
ther proceedings  under  the  call  be  dispensed 
with. 

A division  was  called  for,  and,  being  taken, 
resulted — affirmative,  29 ; negative  not  counted. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  When  the 
Convention  took  a recess,  it  had  under  consid- 
eration the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Educa- 
tion. The  reading  of  the  fourth  section  of  the 
proposition  is  in  order. 

The  Secretary  read : 

Seo.  4.  The  General  Assembly  may,  by  law,  require 
that  every  child  of  sufficient  mental  and  physical  abili- 
ty, shall  attend  the  public  free  schools  during  the  period 
between  the  ages  of  and  years,  for  a term  equi- 
valent in  the  aggregate  to  years,  unless  educated  by 

other  means  to  the  same  extent. 

Mr.  COOK.  As  I said  in  my  opening  re- 
marks, I signed  this  recommendation  in  order 
to  bring  this  matter  before  the  Convention  for 
discussion.  I was  then  very  strongly  of  the 
opinion  that  the  General  Assembly  already 
possesses  this  power  under  the  general  grant 
of  legislative  authority.  I find  that  that  opin- 
ion has  been  concurred  in  by  many  others  who 
have  spoken  upon  the  question,  no  one  has  said 
but  the  General  Assembly  has  that  power.  If 
it  has  the  power,  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to 
confer  it  the  second  time  upon  them ; and  with 
that  view,  I move  that  this  section  be  stricken 
out. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Before  a vote  is  taken  upon 
that  question,  I ask  to  be  excused,  having 
paired  off  with  Mr.  Sample. 

Mr.  HALE.  There  is  only  a quorum  pre- 
sent. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I have  done  my  duty  in  that 
regard.  The  Convention  will  do  as  they  please. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Objection  being  made, 
the  gentleman  is  not  excused. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Before  a vote  is  taken  on  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wood,  [Mr. 
Cook],  to  strike  out  this  section,  I purpose  to 
perfect  this  section  by  filling  the  blanks  so 
that  it  will  read : “between  the  ages  of  seven 
and  ten  years,  for  a term  equivalent  in  the  ag- 
gregate to  three  years,  that  is,  unless  educated 
by  other  means  to  the  same  extent.”  I am 
opposed  to  striking  out  this  section,  sir.  It 
may  be  true,  sir,  as  is  stated  by  the  Chairman 


of  the  Committee,  that  the  General  Assembly 
have  all  this  power.  If  they  have,  we  lose 
nothing  by  inserting  it  in  the  Constitution. 
One  thing  is  certain,  it  is  a power  which  has 
never  been  exercised  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  State.  I wish  that  it  had  been  so  exer- 
cised, and  I should  prefer  that,  instead  of  this 
section  being  made  merely  declaratory  by  the 
word  “ may,”  that  it  should  be  made  imperative 
by  using  the  word  shall , “that  the  General 
Assembly  shall  provide,  or  shall  by  law  require 
that  every  child  of  sufficient  mental  and  physi- 
cal capacity  shall  attend  the  public  free  schools, 
unless  educated  by  other  means  to  the  same 
extent.” 

Now,  Mr.  President,  it  is  very  plain  to  me 
that  the  intention  of  our  common  school  law  is, 
to  educate  every  child  in  the  State.  That  is 
the  intention  of  the  law.  That  law  is  passed 
because  the  State  is  the  proper  educator  of  the 
children  of  the  State.  Wherever  it  has  been 
left  to  another  power,  wherever  it  has  been  left 
to  the  parent,  wherever  it  has  been  left  to  the 
church,  it  has  been  neglected,  and  the  duty  has 
been  unfulfilled.  That  duty  can  be  performed 
alone  by  the  State.  If  the  parent  fails  to  per- 
form the  duty  which  he  owes  to  the  child,  as  a 
parent,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  State  to  per- 
form that  service,  and  it  is,  or  it  ought  to  be, 
imperative  that  that  duty  should  be  performed. 
The  State  should  permit  no  child  to  grow  up  in 
ignorance  within  its  borders.  “ Ignorance  is 
the  parent  of  vice,”  and  if  the  State  neglects  to 
educate  the  child,  the  State  connives  at  the 
vicious  life  that  is  entailed  upon  the  child,  in 
consequence  of  its  ignorance.  But  I am  told 
that  this  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  our  institu- 
tions— that  we  ought  not,  and  that  we  cannot, 
among  our  people  introduce  this  compulsory  at- 
tendance in  the  common  schools.  I do  not  be- 
lieve it,  Mr.  President.  I believe  that  if  once 
this  system  were  introduced,  our  people,  seeing 
the  great  benefit  that  would  arise  from  it,  by 
gathering  up  in  every  quarter  of  the  State,  in 
every  town,  city,  and  village,  those  children 
who  are  neglected  to  be  sent  to  the  public 
schools,  and  seeing  the  great  advantages  that 
would  arise  from  that,  they  would  stand  up  as 
one  man  in  defense  of  the  law.  Nor  is  it  true, 
as  has  been  said  here,  that  this  is  an  improper 
interference  with  the  rights  of  parents.  Noth- 
ing of  the  kind  is  intended.  Nothing  of  the 
kind  could  be  apprehended  under  this  clause. 
We  must  trust  to  the  General  Assembly  to  pro- 
vide a proper  law.  They  will  provide  proper 
means  for  enforcing  the  law,  enforcing  it  either 
by  the  authority  of  the  county  or  by  the  author- 
ity of  the  State  or  by  the  power  of  the  municipal- 
ity in  which  the  school  is  located.  Enforce  it 
in  such  a way  as  not  to  be  offensive,  and  as  not 
to  be  oppressive.  Do  you  tell  me  that  you  in- 
terfere with  the  right  of  the  parent,  when  that 
parent  neglects  to  perform  the  first,  the  great- 
est, the  most  important  duty  that  he  owes  to 
his  child,  in  sending  him  to  school  and  ena- 
bling him  to  procure  an  education.  You  re- 
claim him  from  vice  and  make  him  a useful 
citizen  during  the  remaining  part  of  his  life.  If 
the  parent  neglects  the  duty  which  he  owes  to 
the  child,  he  forfeits  all  right  or  claim  over  that 
child  and  transfers  his  right  to  the  State.  It 
ought  to  exercise  the  right.  Do  you  tell  me,  on 


COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

Dorsey,  Scofield,  Hale,  Freiberg. 


2271 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 


the  other  hand,  that  cases  may  arise  where  a 
parent  needs  the  services  of  the  child  and  that 
you  should  not  take  away  the  services  of  that 
child  from  the  parent,  because  they  may  be  ne- 
cessary for  the  support  of  that  parent?  I an- 
swer you  that  if  cases  of  that  kind  arise,  and 
there  may  he  such  rare  cases,  and  very  rare  I 
presume  they  will  be,  I say  to  you  that  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  State  to  provide  for  the  support 
of  the  parent,  and  not  to  force  the  child  to 
forego  its  first  education  in  order  to  assist  in 
the  support  of  that  parent.  The  State  has  a 
higher  claim  even  than  the  parent  can  have, 
because  it  is  the  right  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
State  to  educate  the  child  and  save  it  from 
vice. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  Would  the  gentleman  re- 
quire the  General  Assembly  to  enforce  a law 
requiring  children  to  attend  Sabbath  school  on 
Sunday  or  church  or  services  in  some  church? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  No,  sir.  We  do  not  propose 
to  give  religious  instruction.  It  is  not  a neces- 
sary part  of  school  education  to  give  any  par- 
ticular religious  instruction,  or  to  send  children 
to  Sabbath  schools.  That  is  not  a part  of  our 
common  school  system ; but  it  is  a part  of  our 
system  to  provide  a proper  education  for  every 
child  in  the  State,  and  as  I was  saying,  if  it  is 
claimed  on  the  one  hand  that  it  is  necessary 
that  the  services  of  the  child  should  be  given 
for  the  support  of  the  parent,  I say  it  is  better 
and  cheaper  for  the  State  to  support  that  parent, 
and  support  that  child  during  the  three  or  more 
years  that  may  be  necessary  for  obtaining  this 
education.  Why,  gentlemen,  the  whole  amount 
of  money  assessed  for  schools  in  the  State  of 
Ohio,  is  only  one  mill  on  the  dollar,  which  is  all 
the  school  tax  that  the  State  levies.  In  the 
year  1872  it  amounted  to  $1,523,324 — a million 
and  a half  of  dollars,  and  now  let  me  turn  to 
what  was  necessary  for  the  support  of  your  asy- 
lums, $1,630,845,  for  the  support  of  your  idiotic, 
your  lunatic,  your  benevolent  asylums,  the  re- 
form schools  of  your  State,  and  your  penitenti- 
aries. When  you  take  into  consideration  the 
fact  that  a large  amount  of  the  idiocy  of  the 
State,  and  a large  amount  of  the  lunacy  of  the 
State,  and  a very  large  amount  of  the  crime  of 
the  State  arise  from  that  vice  which  follows, 
necessarily,  in  the  track  of  ignorance,  I say  it 
is  an  appalling  statement  of  facts,  that  you  pay 
more  for  the  support  of  the  vicious,  and  for  the 
support  of  the  unfortunate  in  the  State  of  Ohio, 
than  you  pay  for  your  common  school  system, 
and  it  is  a strong  argument  in  favor  of  carrying 
out  and  making  so  efficient  your  common 
schools  that  every  child  in  the  State  shall  be 
brought  to  share  their  benefits.  The  State  is 
the  educator  of  the  children  of  the  State.  The 
children  belong  to  the  State,  and  if  from  any 
circumstances,  whatever,  either  from  poverty  or 
from  willful  negligence  of  parents  by  not  at- 
tending to  the  education  of  their  children,  this 
important  duty  is  neglected,  then  it  becomes 
the  duty  of  the  State  to  see  that  these  children 
are  educated. 

You  talk  about  compulsory  education.  Why, 
Mr.  President,  you  and  I,  and  every  child  in  the 
•State  that  is  worth  a copper,  had  to  be  com- 


pelled to  go  to  school  when  we  were  young, 
and  had  to  be  compelled,  to  avail  ourselves  of 
the  advantages  of  schools,  and  our  parents  com- 
pelled us  to  do  it,  and  if  there  are  parents  in 
the  State  who  do  not  compel  the  children  to  do  it, 
the  State  should  step  in,  and  occupying  the  place 
of  the  parent,  compel  the  attendance  of  the 
child  upon  the  necessary  means  of  instruction. 
It  is  cheaper  to  support  and  clothe  the  children, 
than  it  is  to  support  your  jails,  penitentiaries, 
and  insane,  lunatic  and  idiotic  asylums.  In 
every  point  of  view,  financial,  moral  and  re- 
ligious; in  every  point  of  view  in  which  you 
can  put  it,  it  is  right,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
State  to  compel  the  education  of  its  children. 
There  is  nothing  repulsive  to  me  in  the  idea. 
1 know  that  it  is  right.  I know  that  the  State 
ought  to  do  it,  and  I trust,  for  the  benefit  of 
those  children  in  every  city,  town,  or  village, 
who  are  neglected,  and  who  run  wild,  growing 
up  in  ignorance,  and  with  the  necessary  con- 
sequence of  ignorance,  which  is  vice,  and  in 
that  way  filling  your  jails  and  penitentiaries, 
I hope  it  will  be  done.  I trust  the  State  will  be 
made  to  do  its  duty.  That  its  duty  will  be  en- 
forced, even  by  a constitutional  enactment,  so 
that  all  the  children  of  the  State  shall  receive 
the  benefits  of  the  common  schools. 

Mr.  HALE.  It  is  proposed  to  fill  these  blanks 
with  seven,  ten,  and  three,  so  the  child  would 
be  compelled  to  attend  school  the  entire  time 
from  seven  to  ten  to  make  the  three  years. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Make  it  from  six  to  ten. 

Mr.  HALE.  I would  move,  as  an  amend- 
ment, to  fill  the  first  blank  with  “six”  the 
second  with  “fifteen”  and  the  last  with  “five,” 
so  that  there  might  be  some  portion  of  the  year, 
if  the  child  were  required  to  labor,  in  which  he 
could  do  it,  and  the  remaining  portion  of  the 
time  he  could  attend  school,  that  he  should  be 
required  to  attend  only  a certain  number  of 
years. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  If  the  gentleman  will  limit 
it  to  ten,  I shall  agree  to  it. 

Mr.  HALE.  I do  not  see  any  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  fifteen ; that  would  be  in  conso- 
nance with  any  idea  about  it.  I would  simply 
say  that  I,  probably,  as  now  advised,  shall  vote 
against  this  section,  and  for  the  sole  reason 
that  the  Legislature  of  the  State  have  power  to 
inaugurate  the  system  that  is  proposed  here.  I 
believe  that  sound  policy  requires  that  there 
shall  be  some  system  devised,  so  guarded  as  to 
prevent  injury  to  any  one,  by  which  the  little 
ones  that  you  find  in  every  city  in  the  State,  the 
little  boot-black  and  the  news-boy,  should  be 
taken  up  by  the  authorities  of  the  State  and 
placed  in  the  schools,  and  this,  whether  it  inter- 
feres with  the  family  government  or  not,  I be- 
lieve to  that  extent  it  is  sound  policy  on  the 
part  of  the  State,  and  that  it  can  be  done  with- 
out interfering  with  the  rights  of  any  one.  It 
is  a duty  the  State  owes  to  this  unfortunate 
class  of  little  ones  to  keep  them  in  school  rooms 
for  a certain  length  of  time,  and  if  it  depended 
upon  this  constitutional  provision  to  bring  that 
about,  I would  vote  for  it. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  In  the  first  place,  how 
would  you  carry  out  the  compulsion  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  You  can  not  regulate  that,  of 
course,  in  the  Constitution.  As  I understand  it, 
in  the  large  cities  of  Massachusetts  they  carry 


2272 


[145th 


COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 


Hale,  Freiberg,  Dorsey, 


it  out  something  in  this  way : They  have  what 

is  called  a truant  officer  in  the  city  of  Cam- 
bridge, with  whose  schools  I have  some  ac- 
quaintance ; they  have  a truant  officer  connect- 
ed with  the  police  force,  whose  business  it  is  to 
take  up  these  little  truant  fellows  found  in  the 
streets,  and  place  them  in  the  school  where  they 
belong,  so  that  the  boys  in  that  city  during 
school  hours,  dare  not  be  found  on  the  streets. 
It  is  done  in  that  manner  in  that  city.  They 
have  the  same  truant  officer  in  Boston,  whose 
duty  it  is  to  look  after  these  matters  and  to  see 
that  such  hoys  are  in  school. 

Mr.  FREIBERG . Would  it  not  be  necessary 
to  have  all  the  children  registered  as  soon  as 
they  are  horn  ? 

Mr.  HALE.  Very  likely. 

Mr.  FREIBERG.  And  have  officers  to  look 
after  them  all  the  time. 

Mr.  HALE.  When  you  come  to  inaugurate 
the  policy,  when  you  come  to  carry  into  opera- 
tion the  system  proposed,  it  will  not  he  one- 
tenth  part  as  big  a job  as  when  you  are  talking 
about  it.  But  I did  not  rise  to  discuss  this 
question  here,  I only  wish  to  say  a word,  that 
I might  not  appear  upon  the  record  as  giving 
my  vote  against  this  policy  of  education  that  is 
proposed  here  by  voting  against  the  section, 
because  I believe  it  to  he  the  true  policy. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  By  the 
rules  of  the  Convention,  in  filling  blanks,  the 
longest  time  shall  be  first  voted  upon.  In  this 
case,  the  motion  was  to  fill  the  blanks  with  the 
word  seven,  and  the  amendment  to  fill  it  with 
the  word  six. 

Mr.  HALE.  It  seems  to  be  desired,  on  the 
part  of  some  members,  that  these  blanks  be 
filled  with  six  and  twelve,  and  if  the  gentleman 
from  Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  will  accept  the  sug- 
gestion of  that  kind,  I have  no  objection. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I have  no  objection  to  making 
the  other  blank  four  years.  I am  willing  to  do 
that. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I hope  this  suggestion  will  not 
be  adopted.  The  gentlemen  forget  that  we  are 
making  an  iron  rule  beyond  which  we  cannot 
go.  Make  a graduation,  an  adjustible  rule, 
and  let  the  Legislature  fix  it.  Fifteen  is  better 
than  twelve. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  filling  the  blanks  with  six,  twelve  and 
four. 

A division  was  ordered,  and  being  taken,  re- 
sulted—affirmative  21,  negative  22. 

Mr.  YORIS.  To  make  a decisive  vote,  I call 
for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  COOK.  I think  we  had  better  adopt  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Miami  [Mr.  Dor- 
sey], on  filling  these  blanks.  I have  such  a 
conviction  that  this  whole  section  will  be 
stricken  out,  and  the  matter  referred  to  the 
General  Assembly,  that  it  does  not  make  much 
difference  with  what  numbers  we  fill  it.  We 
might  spend  the  whole  afternoon  filling  these 
blanks,  and  in  the  end  strike  the  section  out. 
I,  therefore,  say  to  the  gentlemen  who  propose 
to  strike  out,  it  will  make  no  difference  with 
what  numbers  we  fill  the  blanks,  and,  therefore, 
we  shall  facilitate  business. 

Mr.  POWELL.  Why  not  move  to  strike  out 
before  this  is  done? 

Mr.  COOK.  A motion  has  been  made  to  j 


Pease,  Yoris,  Cook,  etc.  [Monday, 


strike  out,  and,  pending  that  motion,  the  motion 
was  made  to  fill  the  blanks.  Let  us  have  the 
vote  upon  filling  the  blanks. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Would  it  not  he  the  proper 
policy  to  fill  these  blanks,  and  move  what  they 
ought  to  be,  lest  we  should  fail  to  strike  out 
the  section  without  perfecting  it,  so  that,  if  it 
is  to  be  stricken  out,  it  should  be  what  the 
friends  of  that  section  desire  it  should  be  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  Yery  true;  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  we  ought  not  to  waste  much  time  on  filling 
the  blanks,  that  six,  twelve  and  four  would 
probably  be  as  fair  a report  as  we  can  get,  and 
there  has  been  so  much  dissent  to  this  section, 
that  I feel  that  it  will  be  stricken  out;  therefore, 
this  time  occupied  in  filling  the  blanks  will  be 
wasted.  If,  however,  it  is  adopted,  we  can  very 
easily,  if  we  desire  to  take  any  step  at  all,  take 
these  blanks  and  fill  them  with  numbers. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I move  to  amend,  by  striking 
out  twelve  and  inserting  fifteen.  I believe  we 
should  do  this  to  make  this  section  consistent 
with  itself.  Let  us  give  a reasonable  expression 
of  what  we  have  been  doing. 

The  motion  to  strike  out  twelve  and  insert 
fifteen  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tern.  The  question  is 
on  filling  the  blanks,  the  first  with  the  word 
six,  the  second  with  the  word  fifteen,  and  the 
third  with  the  word  four. 

Mr.  PHILIPS.  I move  an  amendment. 
That  the  third  blank  be  filled  with  the  word 
three.  If  we  are  to  make  a certain  requirement 
let  us  make  it  reasonable, 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I should  feel  very  much  dis- 
posed to  vote  for  that  amendment;  if  we  could 
have  child  in  the  State  attend  three  years  at  a 
public  school,  at  any  time  between  the  ages  of 
six  and  fifteen,  we  shall  have  done  a great  work 
for  the  people.  Three  years’  schooling  is  as 
much  as  is  got  by  what  are  called  the  children  of 
the  State,  and  if  we  can  secure  absolutely  three 
years  good  instruction  for  every  child  in  the 
State,  we  are  doing  a good  work. 

Mr.  BARNET.  Will  the  gentleman  from 
Miami  [Mr.  Dorsey]  take  a suggestion  that  I 
shall  make?  that  is,  that  we  give  as  many  years 
descretion  and  divide  up  the  schooling  into  such 
small  parcels  that  the  education  would  not  be  of 
the  same  advantage  as  if  you  were  to  require 
that  it  should  be  had  in  a less  time.  I think 
there  ought  to  be  not  less  than  six  months  edu- 
cation imposed  in  this  way  in  a year,  if  we  im- 
pose it  at  all,  and  I would  make  the  blanks  ac- 
cordingly if  I had  my  own  wishes  about  the 
matter. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  While  I approve  very  much 
of  the  gentleman’s  suggestion,  I think  that  is  a 
matter  that  the  General  Assembly  will  have  to 
regulate,  and  if  we  can  get  in  three  years’  com- 
pulsory attendance  for  every  child  of  the  State 
I think  we  shall  be  doing  a great  service  to 
them — an  invaluable  service. 

Mr.  Philips’  amendment  was  agreed  to,  and 
the  word  three  inserted  in  the  place  of  the 
word  four. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
now  recurs  upon  filling  the  blanks.  The  first 
with  the  word  six,  the  second  with  the  word 
fifteen,  and  the  third  with  the  word  three. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I do  not  know  yet  whether 
the  Convention  has  excused  me. 


COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

Voris,  Pease,  Smith,  Cunningham,  Hale,  etc. 


2273 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 


Mr.  VORIS.  I object. 

Mr.  PEASE.  If  I am  not  excused,  I shall 
vote  against  the  motion. 

Mr.  VORIS.  That  makes  no  difference. 
There  is  not  a quorum  without  the  gentleman, 
and  a vote  cannot  be  taken. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I would  suggest  that  there  is 
a quorum  without  me. 

Mr.  VORIS.  If  there  is  a quorum  without 
the  gentleman  from  Stark  [Mr.  Pease],  I with- 
draw my  objection . 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  we  are  in  earnest  in  pro- 
posing to  enforce  compulsory  education  in  Ohio, 
this  provision  falls  far  below  anything  like  a 
practical  reality.  Without  now  committing 
myself  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  proposed  rule 
of  enforcement,  I want  to  say  that  it  will 
amount  to  nothing,  and  that  it  is  not  a proper 
way  of  adopting  a constitutional  provision. 
Let  us  meet  it  fairly,  and  let  us  put  something 
here,  if  we  are  in  earnest,  that  means  some- 
thing. This  latter  clause  which  has  been  sug- 
gested, from,  perhaps,  prudential  considera- 
tion— “unless  educated  by  other  means  to  the 
same  extent” — renders  the  whole  thing  inade- 
quate, inefficient,  and  totally  worthless.  When- 
ever you  permit,  in  the  general  system  of  edu- 
cation, a provision  requiring  the  enforcement  of 
the  presence  of  a child  and  at  the  same  time 
agree  that  if  they  are  educated  in  any  other 
way,  by  any  other  form,  in  any  other  system 
under  the  direction  and  discretion  of  parents, 
as  a substitute  for  this  common  school  educa- 
tion under  the  compulsory  law,  you  will  take  all 
vitality  out  of  the  proposition  and  secure  noth- 
ing. Now,  that  is  not  the  way  to  put  a provi- 
sion in  the  Constitution,  and  without  now  dis- 
cussing the  merits  of  the  principle  of  the  prop- 
osition, I want  to  suggest  the  utter  folly  of 
the  proposition,  if  amended  as  proposed. 

Mr.  PEASE.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  gentle- 
man is  entirely  mistaken  about  this.  I would 
hesitate  a little  to  vote  for  it,  as  much  as  I feel 
that  some  such  article  ought  to  be  adopted,  un- 
less this  provision  were  in  it.  I can  see  very 
well  where  the  Catholic  influence  might  be  ex- 
erted with  some  propriety  against  it.  I appre- 
hend this  clause  was  inserted  for  the  purpose  of 
permitting  the  Catholics  of  the  State,  if  this 
provision  is  adopted,  to  educate  their  children 
in  any  school,  if  not  willing  to  educate  them  in 
the  common  schools  of  the  State,  that  they 
would  have  the  right  to  take  their  children  out 
of  the  streets  and  put  them  in  their  own  schools, 
and  this  case,  as  it  seems  to  me,  reaches  that 
exactly,  and  without  it  I believe  the  system 
would  be  a very  imperfect  one. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  to  govern  that  very  thing, 
is 

Mr.  PEASE.  That  is  as  I understand  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  And  for  that  reason  the  whole 
clause  is  rendered  inefficient  and  useless,  and 
that  is  the  ground  I put  it  on. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I understand  that  ground,  and, 
therefore,  am  saying  to  the  gentleman  he  has 
failed  to  impress  me  with  any  such  idea  of  the 
proposition.  It  does  not  have  any  such  failure 
in  it.  It  will  have  to  be  enforced  against  those 
who  are  willing  to  have  their  children  attend 
the  common  schools.  Those  who  are  disposed 
to  have  their  children  educated  in  any  other 
direction  can  pursue  that  other  direction. 

v.  h-145 


Mr.  SMITH.  It  would  leave  it  open  to  every 
classification  of  religious  thought  in  this  State, 
to  withdraw  from  your  common  schools. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Not  so;  there  is  nobody  on 
earth  that  proposes  to  withdraw  from  the  com- 
mon schools,  but  the  Catholics. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Practically  they  can,  under  this 
this  clause,  organize  their  own  religious  system, 
and  your  enforcement  amounts  to  nothing. 

Mr.  PEASE.  If  they  propose  to  organize 
their  distinct  systems,  and  educate  them  at  their 
own  expense,  who  under  heaven  complains? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I do  not. 

Mr.  PEASE.  That  they  can  do  now;  and  it 
does  not  interfere  with  their  right  to  educate 
their  children  now ; but  I undertake  to  say  that 
if  that  clause  is  in  the  Article,  it  would  be  as 
objectionable.  It  is  a good  clause,  and  I hope 
it  will  be  voted  for  by  every  right-minded  man 
in  the  Convention. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I shall  vote  against 
this  proposition,  for  the  reason  that  I do  not 
feel  that  it  is  possible  to  accomplish  anything 
by  it.  Nobody  would  support  it  unless  this 
last  clause  were  included,  for  no  one  proposes 
to  force  any  family  who  have  conscientious  con- 
victions that  those  schools  are  not  the  places 
for  their  children,  to  send  their  children  there. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
now  is  upon  filling  the  blanks. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I know  we  have  been 
sort  of  loose  in  our  talk  all  around  on  this  sub- 
ject. I think  that  the  best  mode  is  to  take  a 
vote  upon  this  proposition,  and  then  dispose  of 
this  whole  thing. 

Mr.  HALE.  Let  us  fill  the  blanks. 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  What  is  the  proposition  to 
fill  the  blanks  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  propo- 
sition is  to  fill  the  first  blank  with  six,  the 
second  with  fifteen,  and  the  third  with  three. 

Upon  the  motion  to  fill  the  blanks, 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and 
resulted — yeas  45,  nays  13,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Adair,  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber, 
Barnet,  Beer,  Bishop,  Bosworth,  Byal,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Dorsey,  Frei- 
berg, Greene,  Hale,  Hill,  Horton,  Hostetter, 
Humphreville,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McCormick, 
Merrill,  Miner.  Mitchener,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis, 
Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Scofield,  Shaw,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Van 
Valkenburgh,  Van  Voorhis,  Yoris,  Weaver, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury — 45. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Cowen,  Cunningham,  Griswold,  Hunt, 
McBride,  Neal,  Okey,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Meigs, 
Shultz,  Steedman,  Smith,  Tyler — 13. 

So  the  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
now  recurs  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Wood  [Mr.  CookJ  to  strike  out  the  entire 
section. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I shall  vote  for  the  mo- 
tion to  strike  out,  and  I shall  do  so  for  this  rea- 
son : I have  no  earthly  doubt  but  what  it  is  a 

subject  over  which  the  Legislature  have  full 
and  perfect  control.  It  is  within  the  legislative 
history  of  this  State  that,  during  the  year  1870, 
a member  of  the  Legislature  from  Hardin  coun- 
ty introduced  a bill,  to  the  end  attempted  to  be 


2274 


COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

Alexander,  Hunt,  Page,  Barnet,  Dorsey,  Smith,  Yoris. 


[145th 

[Monday, 


effected  here,  and,  as  I remember,  there  was  no 
doubt  or  question  in  that  body  but  what  they 
had  a right,  constitutionally,  to  pass  the  bill. 
I have  no  doubt  but  they  have  the  right  to  pass 
it.  If  that  be  the  fact,  what  might  be  done  here 
would  be  merely  surplusage.  It  would  be  of  no 
manner  of  account,  of  no  use,  of  no  advantage 
to  the  State.  I have  not  felt  called  upon  to  in- 
vestigate the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  it 
has  practical  application. 

Mr.  HUNT.  When  that  question  was  before 
the  General  Assembly,  there  was  no  doubt  of 
the  power  of  the  Legislature  to  pass  upon  the 
subject.  It  was  simply  discussed  on  the  ground 
of  expediency. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  There  was  no  doubt  in 
the  Legislature,  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  in 
the  minds  of  a majority  of  this  Convention,  but 
what  they  might  legally  and  constitutionally 
pass  such  a provision.  I feel  that  we  are  not 
called  upon  to  investigate  the  question  as  to  its 
expediency,  for  the  reason  that  we  are  not  a 
legislative  body.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  we 
here,  as  a body,  in  the  aggregate,  place  upon 
record  our  opinions  as  to  its  propriety  or  as  to 
the  expediency  of  carrying  it  into  execution. 
I simply  desire  to  make  these  remarks  for  the 
reason  that  I would  vote  against  no  educational 
reform,  under  any  circumstances,  that  I deem 
to  be  necessary  as  an  educational  reform,  and 
for  that  reason  I have  special  reasons,  and  I 
shall  simply  state  those  reasons  ta  the  Conven- 
tion. One  of  the  philanthropic  citizens  of  the 
town  in  which  I reside  made  a bequest  for  the 
benefit  of  indigent  children,  which  will  more 
than  clothe  and  furnish  books  to  any  number  of 
indigent  children  that  we  expect  to  have,  and 
if  this  were  necessary,  in  order  to  permit  us  to 
group  them  together  and  place  them  in  our 
schools,  I would  certainly  be  the  last  delegate 
upon  this  floor  who  would  vote  against  a reform 
of  that  kind,  and,  therefore,  for  that  reason,  I 
do  not  feel  called  upon  to  investigate  the  ques* 
tion  as  to  whether  or  not  we  may  successfully 
carry  into  effect  and  execution  the  intended 
proposition.  I shall  vote  in  favor  of  striking 
out,  for  the  reason  that  the  Legislature  already 
has  full  and  complete  power  over  it. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I hope  the  Convention  will 
strike  out  this  proposition.  I never  favored  it. 
The  measure  was  suggested  and  prepared  by 
the  gentleman  from  Wyandot  [Mr.  Sears].  I 
felt  it  deserved  discussion,  and  I signed  the  re- 
port simply  for  that  purpose.  1 never  had  made 
up  my  mind  to  vote  for  it,  and  since  I have 
heard  it  discussed,  I see  very  plainly  that  it 
would  be  a bad  measure  to  adopt  and  put  into 
the  Constitution.  I see  what  sort  of  arguments 
might  be  used  against  the  Constitution  before 
the  people,  and  it  would  be  done  with  a great 
deal  of  injury  and  mischief  without  any  good 
results. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I,  too,  sir,  shall  vote  for 
striking  it  out.  I think  the  Legislature  will 
have  full  control  over  this  subject;  the  people, 
through  the  Legislature,  will  have  control  over 
it,  and  I do  not  desire  that  our  work  there  shall 
carry  weight  of  that  kind,  and  I,  therefore, 
shall  vote  for  striking  out. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I want  to  say  a single  word 
in  explanation  of  the  vote  I shall  give.  I shall 
vote  against  striking  this  out,  because,  if  the 


General  Assembly  have  the  power,  they  have 
not  exercised  it  to  the  extent  that  it  should 
have  been  exercised,  and  I want  further  to  say 
that  I would  not  vote  for  this  proposition  ex- 
cept for  the  proviso  that  is  attached  to  the  end 
of  it,  “ unless  educated  by  other  means  to  the 
same  extent.”  I hold  that  to  be  an  exceedingly 
important  part  of  the  proposition,  and  I cer- 
tainly would  not  vote  for  a proposition  that 
would  force  the  parents  of  the  State  to  send 
their  children  to  the  public  schools  if  they  de- 
sired to  educate  them  to  the  same  extent  in  any 
other  way.  I would  allow  our  Roman  Catholic 
friends,  or  I would  allow  any  other  church,  or 

I would  allow  any  parent  in  the  State  to  educate 
his  child  at  home,  or  in  a private  school,  as  they 
now  do,  provided  they  preferred  doing  so  to 
sending  them  to  the  public  schools.  I want  it 
distinctly  understood  that  in  voting  for  this 
proposition,  I vote  for  it  because.it  has  that 
proviso  attached  to  it,  and  I am  very  far  from 
agreeing  with  the  gentleman  from  Highland 
[Mr.  Smith]  who  supposes  that  the  effect  of  the 
proposition  is  nugatory  with  that  addendum  to 
it.  It  is  precisely  what  we  want.  We  wish  to 
have  parents  educate  their  children  in  their 
own  way  if  they  desire  so  to  do,  but  that  they 
shall  give  them  at  least  that  amount  of  educa- 
tion that  they  would  have  obtained  by  three 
years  in  the  public  schools;  and  while  I shall 
vote  for  the  proposition,  and  vote  against  strik- 
ing it  out,  I want  it  distinctly  understood  that 
I would  not  vote  for  it  unless  this  liberty  were 
allowed  to  the  parents  of  the  State. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I want  it  understood  I am,  as 
now  advised,  totally  adverse  to  any  compulsory 
clause  on  the  subject  of  education  being  incor- 
porated into  this  Constitution,  and  the  sugges- 
tion which  I made  regarding  the  effect  of  the 
last  clause,  was  to  show  that  gentlemen  were 
trying  to  enforce  the  doctrine  of  compulsory 
education;  that  clause  rendered  it  entirely  in- 
efficient and  full  of  mischief,  therefore  I sug- 
gested to  make  it  practical  to  strike  out  this 
clause,  thus  putting  the  question  fairly  before 
the  Convention  on  the  question,  Are  you  in  fa- 
) vor  of  compulsory  education?  That  is  what  I 
want.  I am  totally  adverse  to  the  doctrine. 

Mr.  YORIS.  That  my  position  may  not  be 
mistaken  upon  this  proposition,  as  I pretty  de- 
cidedly announced  my  views  on  Saturday  morn- 
ing in  favor  of  compulsory  education,  I wish  to 
( have  it  distinctly  understood  that  I only  favor 
f it  in  that  class  of  cases  where  there  is  an  incli- 
J nation  on  the  part  of  parents,  or  of  those  having 
the  custody  of  children,  to  discharge  their  duty. 

I I have  no  hostility  to  the  parochial  schools  in 
existence  in  the  State.  I have  no  feeling 
against  any  denomination  that  sees  lit  to  edu- 
cate its  children  within  the  pale  of  its  church; 
but  I am  in  favor  of  giving  the  means  of  whole- 
some education  to  those  children  whose  parents 
or  guardians  neglect  or  fail  to  perform  that  duty. 
I do  not  say  that  the  provision  now  sought  to  be 
incorporated  into  the  Constitution,  effects  that 
end;  it  may  tend  to  doit,  but  it  so  slightly 
tends  to  do  it  that  I do  not  want  to  see  the  pro- 
vision go  into  the  Constitution  by  my  vote.  I 
shall  vote  against  it  simply  because  it  does  not, 
to  any  practical  extent,  carry  into  effect  my 
ideas  of  what  compulsory  education  should  be. 

And,  again,  I recognize  the  fact  that  the  Gen- 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. 

Voris,  Neal,  Cook,  Scofield. 


2275 


Day.] 

March  23, 1874.] 


eral  Assembly,  under  the  Constitution,  as  we 
have  framed  it,  and  as  I expect  it  will  be,  has 
plenary  power  upon  that  subject,  and  whenever 
it  sees  fit  to  act  upon  it,  it  may  act  one  way  or 
the  other,  as  its  discretion  may  dictate,  and  hav- 
ing that  right,  for  us  to  incorporate  into  the 
Constitution  this  trifling  provision,  and  I use 
the  word  trifling  because  it  is  simply  that, 
would  be  an  indication  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  and  the 
people  who  ratify  it,  if  it  ever  be  ratified,  did 
not  mean  anything  by  it.  I do  not  want  the 
intention  of  the  people  of  the  State  to  be  mani- 
fested in  that  form  upon  this  subject.  I shall, 
therefore,  vote  against  it  as  a Constitutional 
provision. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I do  not  suppose  there  is  any 
constitutional  lawyer  who  will  say  for  a mo- 
ment, that  by  incorporating  this  provision  into 
the  Constitution,  we  give  the  Legislature  any 
power  other  than  that  which  they  possess  at 
present  without  incorporating  it,  for  it  is  well 
known  to  every  one,  that  the  Legislature  has 
all  authority  which  is  not  expressly  taken 
away  from  it,  by  either  the  Constitution  of 
Ohio  or  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
It  is,  therefore,  worse  than  folly  to  incorporate 
this  provision,  because  it  would  be  an  evidence 
of  a want  of  constitutional  learning  upon  our 
part,  which  would  go  very  far  to  make  this  in- 
strument rather  contemptible  in  the  eyes  of 
sensible  people.  If  you  strike  out  the  word 
“may”  and  say  the  Legislature  shall , by  law,  do 
this,  then  you  make  it  an  imperative  obligation 
upon  their  part ; but  as  long  as  there  is  no  pow- 
er anywhere  to  compel  them  to  exercise  the 
authority  conferred  upon  them,  I cannot  see 
what  possible  good  that  would  do.  I hope, 
therefore,  that  the  section  will  be  stricken  out. 

The  section  was  stricken  out. 

Mr.  COOK.  I now  move  to  strike  out  the 
residue  of  the  Report,  and  insert  the  follow- 
ing, which  is  the  present  article  of  the  Consti- 
tution upon  the  subject  of  education: 

The  Secretary  read : 

ARTICLE  VI. 

EDUCATION. 

Section  1.  The  principal  of  all  funds  arising  from 
the  sale  or  other  disposition  of  lands  or  other  property, 
granted,  or  intrusted  to  this  State,  for  educational  or  re- 
ligious purposes,  shall  forever  be  preserved  inviolate  and 
undiminished;  and  the  income  arising  therefrom  shall 
be  faithfully  applied  to  the  specific  objects  of  the  original 
grants  or  appropriations. 

Sec.  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall  make  such  provi- 
sions, by  taxation  or  otherwise,  as,  with  the  income  aris- 
ing from  the  School  Trust  Fund,  will  secure  a thorough 
and  efficient  system  of  common  schools  throughout  the 
State;  but  no  religious,  or  other  sect,  or  sects,  shall  ever 
have  any  exclusive  right  to,  or  control  of,  any  part  of  the 
the  school  funds  of  this  State. 

Mr.  COOK.  I offer  that  now  as  a substitute 
for  the  residue  ot  the  Report. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  motion 
does  not  include  the  striking  out  of  section 
three  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  Certainly  not.  Section  three 
has  been  agreed  to  by  the  Convention.  That 
portion  limiting  education  has  been  stricken 
out.  Section  four  has  been  stricken  out.  I now 
offer  this  for  a substitute  for  the  remaining 
portion  of  the  Report,  and  if  that  be  adopted, 
we  shall  then  have  the  present  Constitution  on 
the  subject  of  education  with  section  three, 


which  we  adopted  this  morning,  authorizing 
women  to  hold  office  in  school  boards.  I hope 
this  will  be  adopted. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I suppose  it  is  in  order  to 
amend  that  section.  I did  not  understand 
that  this  substitute  was  to  be  offered  for  the 
Report,  or  I should  have  insisted  upon  it  in  the 
forenoon.  I move  to  amend  by  declaring  this 
a substitute  for  the  entire  Report  of  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  NEAL.  That  motion  is  not  in  order,  for 
the  ^Convention  has  already  agreed  to  section 
three. 

Mr.  COOK.  I would  say,  the  only  thing  now 
under  consideration  is  the  remaining  part  of 
this  Report.  We  have  stricken  out  two  portions 
of  it,  agreed  to  one  part  of  it,  and  that  leaves 
only  the  proposition  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  for  our  consid- 
eration. That  is  the  question  before  us,  and  I 
move  as  a substitute  for  that  question  the  pre- 
sent Article  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  So  long  as  there  is  an 
amendment  pending,  I suppose  it  is  in  order  to 
offer  a substitute  for  the  Report  on  the  Article, 
including  the  Report  and  its  pending  amend- 
ments, and  I offer  my  substitute.  This  is  now 
in  the  hands  of  the  Clerk,  for  the  entire  Re- 
port and  the  pending  amendments. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
was  deliberating  upon  the  question  of  whether 
the  motion  was  in  order. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I wish  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  to  the 
fact  that  his  motion  is  not  in  order.  The  Re- 
port of  the  Committee  has  been  gone  through 
with. 

Mr.  COOK.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  NEAL.  What  remains  ? 

Mr.  COOK.  The  recommendation  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]. 

Mr.  NEAL.  That  is  no  part  of  the  Report  of 
the  Committee.  That  is  simply  a recommenda- 
tion by  one  member. 

Mr.  COOK.  That  is  in  the  shape  of  a minority 
Report. 

Mr.  NEAL.  It  is  not  a part  of  the  Proposi- 
tion as  provided  for  by  the  rule. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  is 
of  the  opinion  that  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  is  in  order,  and  the 
Chair  is  deliberating  whether  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  is  in 
order.  Although  section  three  has  been  delib- 
erately voted  in  as  a part  of  the  Article  of  this 
section  of  the  Constitution,  the  Chair  is  not 
clear  in  the  opinion  that  it  would  not  now  be 
in  order  to  include  that  with  other  portions  of 
the  Report  to  be  stricken  out.  The  Chair  is 
inclined  to  believe  that  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  is  in  or- 
der. 

Mr.  NEAL.  I would  inquire  of  the  Chair  if 
I understood  the  Chair  to  rule  that  a minority 
Report  is  a part  of  the  Proposition  to  be  con- 
sidered under  rule  sixty-nine? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
understands  that  this  Report  has  been  made  in 
a little  different  form  from  some  reports  that 
have  been  made,  but  every  proposition  read  has 
been  acted  upon,  whether  recommended  by  a 
majority  of  the  Committee  or  by  a minority ; 


2276 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. [145th 

Neal,  Cook,  Steedman,  Scofield,  Hunt.  [Monday, 


and  the  Convention  would  not  be  treating  the 
minority  of  the  Committee  with  due  considera- 
tion, if  they  should  say  that  their  recommenda- 
tion is  not  a part  of  this  Report. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Then  I understand  the  Chair  to 
rule  that  the  proposition  reported  by  the  mino- 
rity of  the  Committee  is  to  be  considered  as  a 
part  of  the  proposition. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Usually  they 
are  so  construed. 

Mr.  NEAL.  Very  good.  I am  glad  to  have 
a rule  upon  the  question. 

Mr.  COOK.  The  only  difference  between 
this  report  and  those  which  have  been  made 
heretofore  is  in  the  form.  Heretofore  the  ma- 
jority have  reported  one  proposition,  and  then 
the  minority  have  undertaken  to  report  another 
proposition,  and  they  have  both  been  consider- 
ed. We  have  put  these  altogether  on  one  paper. 
That  is  the  only  difference. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  What  is  the  question  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  moves  to  strike  out 
the  residue  of  this  report,  which  includes  only 
the  proposition  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery] — a member  of  the 
Committee — and  insert  the  present  Article  of  the 
Constitution  in  lieu  of  it.  The  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  moves  to  amend  by 
striking  out  the  whole  of  this  report.  There  is 
nothing  to  strike  out  now,  except  section  three, 
which  has  been  agreed  to,  and  this  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbe- 
ry] to  amend  section  two  of  Article  VI  in  the 
present  Constitution.  The  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  moves  to  strike  out  the  pro- 
position of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr . 
Carbery]  to  amend  section  two  of  Article  VI, 
and  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield] 
moves  to  amend  that  motion  by  including  the 
whole  Report. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  Do  I understand  the 
Chair  to  hold  that  section  three,  which  has  al- 
ready been  adopted  by  this  Convention,  can  be 
disposed  of  in  this  manner,  without  a vote  to 
reconsider  the  vote  by  which  it  was  adopted  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  is 
of  the  opinion  that  when  these  words,  which 
have  been  agreed  to  by  the  Convention,  are  in- 
cluded with  the  other  words  proposed  to  be 
stricken  out,  the  motion  might  be  in  order.  It 
would  not  be  in  order  to  move  to  strike  out  the 
section  alone. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  Will  it  be  in  order  to 
amend  the  substitute  of  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  amendment  to  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  as  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  ScofieldJ. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  Is  that  an  amendment,  or 
an  amendment  to  an  amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  is  an 
amendment  to  an  amendment. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  Then  that  precludes 
further  amendments  at  this  time. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  My  object  was  simply  to 
add  the  words,  “except  section  three,”  which 
is  already  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Conven-  | 
tion  will  arrive  at  the  same  result,  if  it  refuses 


to  adopt  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]. 

Mr.  STEEDMAN.  I want  to  vote  for  that, 
but  I want  to  save  section  three. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  gentle- 
man will  save  section  three  by  refusing  to 
agree  to  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield],  and  adopt  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]. 

Mr.  COOK.  I desire  to  say  that  if  the  Con- 
vention vote  down  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield],  they  will 
then  save  section  three,  which  we  adopted  this 
morning.  When  they  come  to  my  motion, 
they  will  vote  upon  the  same  proposition  as 
that  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Marion 
[Mr.  Scofield] — namely,  sections  one  and  two 
— and  also  section  three,  which  we  have  adopt- 
ed. That  will  give  us  sections  one,  two  and 
three.  If  we  adopt  the  motion  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  ScoEiELD],we 
strike  out  section  three,  but  if  we  vote  that 
down,  and  my  motion  comes  up,  and  we  adopt 
it,  we  shall  have  the  present  Constitution  with 
section  three,  authorizing  women  to  hold 
office. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I suppose  it  is  understood 
by  the  Convention,  if  my  motion  prevails,  we 
shall  have  the  same  sections  that  are  now  in 
the  present  Constitution  and  no  more,  and  I 
believe  that  is  all  that  the  people  of  the  State 
of  Ohio  desire.  I believe  it  has  stood  the  test 
of  the  last  twenty  years,  and  has  met  the  uni- 
versal approval  of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Ohio.  They  do  not  want  any  alteration  or 
tinkering.  It  is  good  enough  as  it  is. 

Mr.  HUNT.  Do  I understand  the  Chair 
to  hold  that  the  adoption  of  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Sco- 
field] will  strike  out  section  three,  which  was 
agreed  to  in  its  present  form  this  morning?  I 
cannot  understand  how  we  can  reach  by  indi- 
rection that  which  we  cannot  reach  directly. 
The  Convention  has  already  agreed  to  section 
three,  and  at  the  proper  time,  I would  state  to 
the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield],  I 
intended  to  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  the  Convention  adopted  that  proposition 
this  morning.  For  that  reason,  I changed  my 
vote,  so  that  I might  vote  with  the  prevailing 
side. 

Mr.  SCOFIELD.  I offered  that  Article  of  the 
Constitution  as  a substitute  for  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  and  pending  amendments.  We 
get  precisely  what  we  desire  by  that. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore . The  Chair  is 
of  the  opinion  that  a motion  to  strike  out  sec- 
tion three  by  itself  would  not  be  in  order.  The 
motion  now  is  to  strike  out  the  residue  of  the 
Report,  which  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  to  amend 
section  two  of  Article  VI.  The  Chair  is  of 
opinion  that  as  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  includes  other 
words,  it  is  substantially  to  strike  out  section 
three,  in  connection  with  other  words.  Sup- 
pose there  is  a motion  to  strike  out  A and  B from 
a section  in  the  Constitution,  and  it  is  nega- 
tived. By  our  rules,  it  is  equivalent  to  agreeing 
to  the  matter  as  it  stands.  But  that  does  not 
forbid  a motion  to  strike  out  A,  B and  C. 


2277 


Day.]  WOMEN  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

March  23, 1874.]  Hunt,  Cowen,  Baber,  Neal,  Carbery. 


Mr.  HUNT.  Precisely ; it  forms  a different 
proposition  from  that  already  acted  upon. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  makes  it  a 
different  proposition.  The  Chair  is  of  the 
opinion  that  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield],  to  amend  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  is  in 
order.  If  the  Chair  is  wrong,  he  is  willing  to 
he  advised  by  those  who  understand  parlia- 
mentary rules  better  than  the  present  occupant 
of  the  Chair  does. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I trust  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  will  pre- 
vail. I understand  that  it  is  before  the  Con- 
vention, and  has  been  for  several  minutes.  I 
desire  to  give  the  reasons  for  the  faith  that  is  in 
me  on  this  subject,  in  addition  to  the  reasons 
that  have  already  been  urged  against  the  adop- 
tion of  this  section  three.  They  may  have  been 
suggested.  If  so,  I have  not  heard  them.  This 
section  not  only  proposes  to  engraft  into  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  the  right  of  women  to 
hold  office,  but  it  proposes  to  engraft  another 
new  principle  upon  our  Constitution,  and  that 
is  that  the  only  qualification  required  to  make  a 
person  eligible  to  office  shall  be  that  of  age. 
Women  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  office  under  the  school  laws  of 
this  State.  It  occurs  to  me  that  if  we  are  going 
to  introduce  this  innovation  upon  our  past 
practice,  that  we  had  better  go  at  it  step  by  step, 
at  least.  In  order  to  entitle  a man  to  hold  any 
of  these,  he  must  be  not  only  twenty-one  years 
of  age,  but  he  must  have  been  a resident  of  the 
United  States  at  least  five  years.  He  must  have 
declared  his  intention  of  becoming  a citizen  of 
the  United  States ; he  must  have  taken  an  oath 
of  allegiance,  if  he  was  born  in  a foreign  coun- 
try; he  must  have  resided  in  this  State  at  least 
one  year ; he  must  have  resided  in  the  district 
where  it  is  proposed  to  give  him  office  for  some 
period  of  time,  to  be  fixed  by  law.  Now,  I 
think  that  we  are  getting  along  tolerably  fast 
when  it  is  proposed  to  confer  this  great  power 
upon  women,  and  put  only  this  one  require- 
ment to  the  exercise  of  that  power.  The  Leg- 
islature themselves  will  not  have  the  right,  as  I 
consider  this  section,  to  impose  any  restriction 
upon  the  eligibility  of  women  to  office  other 
than  that  of  age. 

Mr.  BABER.  It  strikes  me  that  the  objec- 
tion of  my  friend  from  Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen], 
comes  rather  late  upon  this  subject.  I think 
that  this  Convention  adopted  a Report  from  the 
Committee  on  Miscellaneous  Subjects  that  had 
a provision  making  men  eligible  to  appointive 
offices,  and  there  were  no  qualifications  re- 
quired of  them.  I remember  that  the  question 
was  raised  whether  there  should  not  be  some 
qualification  put  upon  them  as  to  residence; 
whether  foreigners  might  not  be  appointed.  I 
think  the  record  shows  that  the  gentleman  from 
Belmont  [Mr.  Cowen]  voted  for  it. 

Mr.  COWEN.  Undoubtedly,  it  does,  and  for 
the  express  reason,  at  the  time  given  in  Conven- 
tion, that  it  might  be  advisable  to  bring  in  from 
some  of  the  New  England  States  men  to  occupy 
appointive  offices.  If  the  gentleman  desires  to 
permit  a person  to  travel  from  Castle  Garden 
into  our  school  offices  by  election,  he  has  cer- 
tainly a right  to  his  opinions. 

Mr.  BABER.  That  was  the  objection  made 


by  the  gentleman  from  Adams  [Mr.  Mullen], 
and  the  further  objection  was  made  that  for- 
eigners might  be  appointed;  and  the  answer 
was  that  there  might  be  an  appointment  in 
which  it  was  desirable  that  a foreigner  should 
not  be  debarred  from  such  an  office.  The  Con- 
vention had  full  knowledge  upon  that  subject, 
as  the  examination  of  our  debates  will  show. 
The  question  is,  whether,  with  reference  to 
school  officers,  we  shall  extend  the  privilege  to 
women  being  elected  to  these  offices,  provided 
the  people,  who,  I suppose,  will  exercise  good 
sense  in  this  matter,  shall  vote  for  them,  and, 
therefore,  I think  the  objection  of  the  gentle- 
man not  well  taken,  and  I hope  the  substitute 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr. 
Scofield]  will  not  be  adopted,  but  we  shall 
stand  by  this  Report.  If  this  Report  had  been 
made  in  its  usual  form,  it  would  have  had  a 
first  and  second  section,  and  probably  we  would 
not  have  got  into  this  difficulty.  But  the  Con- 
vention would  be  simply  going  back  upon  its 
vote  of  this  morning,  if  it  adopts  the  substitute 
moved  by  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr. 
Scofield].  I hope,  therefore,  it  will  be  voted 
down,  and  then  we  shall  adopt  the  first  two 
sections,  as  movedjby  the]gentleman  from  Wood 
[Mr.  Cook]. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  whether,  if  an  opportunity  offers,  he 
will  be  willing  to  amend  this  section  so  that  it 
will  include  men  as  well  as  women,  so  as  to 
make  them  eligible  if  they  are  twenty- one  years 
of  age,  without  other  qualification. 

Mr.  BABER.  That  is  not  before  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]. 

Mr.  NEAL.  If  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  is  voted  down,  the 
next  question  will  be  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  to  strike  out  the 
minority  report  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbeby]. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I am  obliged  to  call  upon 
the  Chair  for  some  information.  Will  it  be  in 
order  for  me  to  amend,  at  this  time,  that  which 
is  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  will  be  in 
order  to  amend  that  which  is  proposed  to  be 
stricken  out. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I understand  it  is  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Sco- 
field] to  strike  out  the  whole  Report. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Then  it  will  be  competent 
for  me  to  offer  an  amendment  to  any  part  that 
is  proposed  to  be  stricken  out. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
will  inform  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Carbery],  as  he  was  not  present,  that  the  whole 
of  this  Report  has  been  acted  upon  down  to  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  himself,  the  last 
proposition  in  the  Report.  Section  three  has 
been  amended  and  adopted.  The  residue  of  this 
Report,  down  to  the  proposition  which  the  gen- 
tleman introduced,  has  been  rejected.  The 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr. 
Cook]  is  to  strike  out  the  rest  of  the  Report — 
which  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 


2278 


WOMEN  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. [145th 


Carbery,  Cook,  Page,  Horton,  Beer,  Griswold,  etc.  [Monday^ 


Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  to  amend  section 
two  of  the  present  Article  of  the  Constitution — 
and  insert,  in  lieu  thereof,  the  Article  of  the 
present  Constitution,  sections  one  and  two. 
The  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield] 
then  moved  to  amend  that  motion  by  including 
in  the  words  to  be  stricken  out,  the  whole  of  this 
Report.  It  would  be  only  section  three  as 
amended  and  adopted  by  the  Convention,  for  the 
residue  has  already  been  stricken  out. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Then,  if  I understand  the 
Chair  right,  if  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  fails,  I shall  still 
have  an  opportunity  of  amending  the  propo- 
sition introduced  by  myself. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
thus  understands  the  Rule. 

Mr.  COOK.  I trust  that  this  Convention  will 
not  get  into  this  difficulty  of  adopting  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield].  It  is  a reversion  of  the 
action  of  the  Convention  had  this  morning.  It 
will  be  repealing  section  three,  which  we  have 
adopted.  Therefore,  let  us  vote  down  the  prop- 
osition, strike  out  the  remaining  proposition, 
and  insert  the  present  Constitution. 

Mr.  PAGE.  Is  the  motion  divisible?  Is  it 
not  to  strike  out  and  insert  ? If  it  is,  I ask  to 
have  the  question  taken  separately,  first  on  the 
motion  to  strike  out. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  first 
question  is  upon  the  amendment  to  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  by 
adding  to  that  motion  section  three,  as  it  had 
been  adopted  by  this  Convention.  Really,  that 
is  all  there  is  to  be  added  to  it. 

Mr.  HORTON.  The  gentleman  proposes  it 
as  a substitute  for  the  motion,  as  I understand 
it,  and  it  was  so  stated  at  the  time,  I think. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  That  amounts 
to  an  amendment  to  the  motion. 

Mr.  BEER.  As  I understand  this  question, 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr. 
Cook]  was,  that  the  Convention  now  strike  out 
the  residue  of  this  Report,  and  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  sub- 
stituted the  whole,  instead  of  the  residue.  The 
one  motion  is  to  strike  out  the  remainder  of  the 
Report,  and  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]  is  to  strike  out  the  whole 
of  the  Report. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  And  insert  something 
else. 

Mr.  BEER.  One  is  to  strike  out  the  remain- 
der of  the  report  and  insert  the  article  of  the  old 
Constitution,  and  the  other  is  to  strike  out  the 
whole  of  the  report  and  insert  the  article  of  the 
old  Constitution.  The  amendment  is  to  strike 
out  the  word  “ residue,”  in  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  and  insert 
the  word  “ whole.” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  result  is 
the  same  as  a motion  to  amend  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I shall  vote  in  favor  of  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Sco- 
field] because  by  that  we  get  rid  of  section  three 
of  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  to  which  I am  de- 
cidedly opposed.  I am  opposed  to  it  because  it 
introduces  the  anomaly,  into  the  Constitution  of 
Ohio,  of  allowing  females  to  hold  elective  offices, 
and,  as  the  gentleman  from  Belmont  [ Mr.CowEN] 


has  very  well  stated,  it  introduces  another  an- 
omaly by  allowing  them  to  hold  office  without 
having  any  of  the  requirements  or  qualifica- 
tions imposed  upon  males  who  may  hold  the 
same  office  in  this  State,  with  the  single  excep- 
tion of  being  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  I 
beg  leave  to  say  here  that  the  answer  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin  [Mr.  Baber]  to 
the  argument  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Bel- 
mont [Mr.  Cowen]  was  by  no  means  a proper 
or  correct  one.  In  the  appointment  to  a situa- 
tion in  the  Geological  Corps,  or  as  an  official  of 
the  State  Library,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  un- 
der prior  action  of  this  Convention  those  ap- 
pointments apply  equally  to  men  and  to  wo- 
men. But  you  would  not  allow  men  to  hold 
office  on  the  school  board  of  the  State,  having 
only  the  same  qualifications  which  you  require 
from  women.  For  that  reason  I am  opposed  to 
this  third  section.  At  least,  if  we  permit  fe- 
males to  hold  office  in  the  State,  we  should  re- 
quire them  to  have  the  same  qualifications  for 
holding  those  offices  that  we  require  of  men. 
We  should  require  them  to  be  naturalized  citi- 
zens. We  should  require  them  to  reside  one 
year  in  the  State. 

Mr.  PRATT..  Suppose  they  are  natives. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Suppose  they  are  natives.  I 
suppose  the  one  supposition  is  equal  to  the 
other,  and  has  as  much  right  to  be  taken  into 
consideration.  The  simple  fact  is  that  the  law 
of  appointment  of  foreigners  to  office  does  not 
apply  in  this  case.  There  might  be  some  rea- 
son if  this  included  both  males  and  females,, 
but  it  does  not  include  males.  It  is  an  anomaly 
in  the  legislation  of  Ohio.  It  is  a new  thing, 
now  to  be  first  introduced  into  the  organic  law 
of  the  State.  For  that  reason  I trust  we  shall 
vote  it  down.  I shall  vote  for  the  amendment 
of  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]. 

Mr.  PAGE.  The  provision  contained  in  the 
third  section  is  taken  from  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  is  found  in  that 
Constitution  in  this  form : 

“Women,  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards,  shall 
be  eligible  to  any  office  of  control  or  management  under 
the  school  laws  of  this  State.” 

There  is  no  other  restriction  there ; no  quali- 
fication is  required.  I,  myself,  do  not  perceive 
any  great  anomaly  or  any  great  calamity  in 
allowing  women  to  hold  these  petty  offices 
whether  they  have  resided  in  the  State  twelve 
months  or  not. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Would  you  allow  a man  to 
do  it? 

Mr.  PAGE.  I do  not  know  that  I would  ob- 
ject very  much  in  case  of  these  petty  offices.  I 
do  not  think  this  Convention  ought  to  do  in- 
directly what  they  cannot  do  directly.  The 
Convention  adopted  this  provision  by  a majori- 
ty vote,  and  I think  the  only  way  to  reach  it  is 
by  a motion  to  reconsider.  The  motion  to  strike 
out  a part  of  the  Report  certainly  ought  not  to 
reach  back  so  far  as  to  strike  out  that  part  of  the 
Report  that  has  been  solemnly  adopted.  I do 
not  profess  to  know  much  about  parliamentary 
rules,  and  I have  great  respect  for  the  gentle- 
man who  occupies  the  chair,  and  who  knows 
much  more  than  I do,  but  I would  ask  him  to 
reconsider  his  decision.  It  occurs  to  me  it 
must  be  wrong  upon  principle,  and  it  makes 
confusion  here  in  the  matter  to  be  voted  upon. 


WOMEN  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Page,  Barnet,  Carbery,  Albright,  Griswold. 


2279 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 


The  thing  ought  not  to  be  done  in  an  indirect 
manner.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  gentlemen 
want  to  reconsider  that  matter,  they  ought  to 
make  that  motion  and  not  compel  us  to  vote  upon 
something  that  has  been  voted  upon,  and  passed 
out  of  our  hands  in  connection  with  something 
else.  We  are  putting  two  or  three  matters  to- 
gether that  ought  to  be  divided.  I must  say 
that  the  question  is  presented  in  a very  awk- 
ward shape. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  presents 
the  question  in  a rather  awkward  shape,  but 
still  the  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  ruling 
of  the  Chair  is  correct,  that  it  is  in  order  to 
amend  by  inserting  other  words  to  those  to  be 
stricken  out.  The  motion  is  to  strikeout  the 
section  as  it  has  been  adopted,  with  the  amend- 
ments, so  that  it  is  clearly  a different  question 
after  all. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I have  little  or  no  doubt 
that  the  ruling  of  the  Chair  is  correct,  if  I 
recollect  my  reading  of  both  Jefferson’s  and 
Cushing’s  Manuals,  and  if  we  look  a little 
further  into  this  matter  we  shall  see  some  rea- 
son for  it. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
will  observe  that  the  point  of  order  is  not  now 
under  discussion.  The  question  is  upon  agree- 
ing to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Marion  [Mr.  Scofield]. 

Mr.  BARNET.  I shall  then  confine  my  re- 
marks to  that  question.  I think  there  can  be 
shown  a state  of  affairs,  perhaps,  with  regard 
to  school  and  some  other  matters  that  pertain 
to  the  rights  of  individuals,  that  may  be  made 
to  apply,  and  will  show  a necessity  to  some 
extent,  at  least,  of  the  principle  that  we  are 
proposing  here  to  incorporate  as  section  three. 
Suppose  a whole  neighborhood  were  to  be  set- 
tled by  emigrants  who  were  not  yet  naturalized. 
The  necessity  exists  for  a school,  and  for  the 
necessary  officers  to  manage  that  school.  They 
are  not  citizens,  they  are  not  eligible  to  that 
office  in  the  common  acceptance  of  the  term, 
and  yet  they  would  be  under  the  necessity  of 
taking  such  positions  as  officers.  That  would 
apply  to  male  citizens,  and  if  to  male 
citizens,  why  not,  in  these  matters  of 
schools,  permit  women  to  hold  such  offices 
as  are  necessary  to  conduct  the  educational 
department  of  these  institutions.  It  is  not  cer- 
ain,  by  any  means,  that  no  other  qualification 
could  not  be  enacted  by  the  Legislature.  The 
very  spirit  of  the  rule  would  be  for  the  Legis- 
lature to  enact  the  qualifications  necessary  and 
requisite,  and  if  they  were  not  deemed  to  be 
necessary  they  might  be  dispensed  with. 

Now,  under  our  laws,  with  reference  to  mak- 
ing free  turnpike  roads,  a person  may  be  a 
land-holder  within  the  territory  or  bounds  of 
your  road,  and  may  be  a petitioner,  and  may 
become  a road  commissioner  without  citizen- 
ship. It  is  not,  however,  such  an  office  as  is 
generally  understood  to  be  an  elective  office, 
but  still  it  is  an  office  that  is  necessary.  It  is 
reasonable  in  its  requirements,  and  if  we  look 
over  the  whole  paraphernalia  of  the  necessities 
of  society,  we  shall  find  that  we  ought  not  to  be 
too  exceedingly  exact  about  this  matter  of 
office  holding.  I think  there  is  something 
reasonable  in  the  proposition  that  women  shall 


be  eligible  to  the  management  of  schools. 
They  are  capable ; they  are  mothers ; they  have 
a deep  interest  in  the  education  of  the  chil- 
dren. Their  labor  can  be  had  for  less  money 
than  that  of  men,  while  their  services  may  be 
as  efficient,  and  I am  satisfied  that  no  great  abuse 
will  arise  from  such  privilege.  I have  no  ap- 
prehension on  that  score.  I am  willing  to  vote 
for  it,  because  I have  no  apprehension  of 
harm.  I consider  it  no  infringement  of  the 
rights  of  citizens  with  regard  to  office. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I desire  to  amend  the 
proposition  submitted  by  myself — proposed  to 
be  striken  out  by  the  pending  motion — in  the 
following  words : 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  make  such  provision  by 
taxation  or  otherwise,  as,  with  the  income  arising  from 
the  school  trust  fund,  to  secure  a thorough  and  efficient 
system  of  common  schools  throughout  the  State,  and 
may” 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  will 
inform  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Car- 
bery] that  the  first  question  to  be  taken  is  upon 
the  amendment  to  the  motion  which  has  been 
made  to  strike  out  the  gentleman’s  amendment 
including  other  words;  and  before  the  vote 
shall  be  taken  to  strike  out,  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Carbery]  will  be  in  order,  but  not  now. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  Will  it  be  in  order  at  this 
time  to  amend  section  three,  which  is  proposed 
to  be  stricken  out? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
has  serious  doubts  abouc  it  being  in  order  to 
amend  that. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  It  is  matter  that  is  pro- 
posed to  be  stricken  out.  Is  it  not  subject  to 
amendment? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  is  proposed 
to  be  added  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook].  If  it  should  be  added  to 
that  motion,  it  might  be  in  order  to  amend  it. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I would  like  to  have  the 
amendment  read  for  information. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  may  be 
read  for  information. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Why  is  not  the  amend- 
ment in  order?  The  motion  i3  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  It  comes  in  after  the  words 
“twenty-one  years.” 

“And  shall  have  resided  five  years  in  this  State.” 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  The  motion  is  to  strike 
from  the  report.  Is  it  not  in  order  to  amend 
that  motion  now? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
has  stated  that  the  first  question  is  upon  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr. 
Scofield.] 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  Is  it  not  proper  to  amend 
that  before  the  vote  is  taken  ? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  motion 
now  is  not  to  strike  out  these  words,  but  to 
amend  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Wood 
[Mr.  Cook],  and  insert  these  words  in  the  mat- 
ter to  be  stricken  out.  If  the  words  should  be 
added  to  the  words  proposed  to  be  stricken  out, 
the  Chair  will  then  conside"  whether  it  will  be 
in  order  to  amend  them.  The  question  is  upon 
amending  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Wood  [Mr.  Cook],  by  adding  to  the  words  to 


2280 


CATHOLICISM  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. [145th 

Alexander,  Hunt,  Cowen,  Albright,  Carbery,  Cook,  Page.  [Monday, 


be  stricken  out,  section  three,  which  has  al- 
ready been  adopted  by  this  Convention. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  It  involves  the  same 
question  that  was  voted  upon  this  morning,  and 
the  Convention  excused  me  from  voting  upon 
it.  I ask  to  be  excused  again. 

Mr.  Alexander  was  excused. 

Mr.  HUNT.  I think  there  is  a misapprehen- 
sion in  this  part  of  the  Hall  as  to  the  exact 
question  that  is  now  pending  before  the  Con- 
vention. I would  be  glad  to  have  the  Chair 
state  the  question. 

Mr.  COWEN.  I think  all  the  gentlemen  in 
this  part  of  the  Hall  understand  it,  except  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Hunt]. 

Mr.  ALBRIGHT.  I would  ask  if  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Marion  [Mr.  Scofield], 
is  carried,  if  it  will  carry  section  three  with  it. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore . That  is  all  it 
does  carry  with  it,  substantially. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I really  must  apologize  to 
the  Chair.  I desire  to  have  an  opportunity 
before  my  part  is  stricken  out,  to  amend.  I 
think  now  is  the  time. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  will  be  in 
order  after  this  vote  is  taken,  whether  it  carries 
or  not,  for  the  gentleman  to  amend  his  propo- 
sition. 

On  Mr.  Scofield’s  amendment,  the  yeas  and 
nays  were  demanded,  taken,  and  resulted — yeas 
27,  nays  31,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Beer,  Bosworth,  Byal,  Clark  of  Jeff- 
erson, Cowen,  Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Gris- 
wold, Hill,  Hitchcock,  Hunt,  Kerr,  McBride, 
Powell,  Reilly,  Scofield,  Shaw,  Smith,  Tripp, 
Tulloss,  Tuttle,  Tyler,  Van  Yoorhis,  Weaver, 
White  of  Hocking,  Woodbury — 27. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Baber,  Barnet,  Bishop, 
^Carbery,  Chapin,  Coats,  Cook,  Cunningham, 
Hale,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Humphreville,  John- 
son, McCormick,  Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener, 
Neal,  Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Pratt, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Russell  of  Muskingum, 
Shultz,  Steedman,  Townsley,  Yoris — 31. 

So  the  amendment  was  not  agreed  to. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
now  recurs  upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Wood  [Mr.  Cook]  to  strike  out  all  the  re- 
maining part  of  the  proposition  and  insert. 
The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery] 
offers  to  amend  as  follows : 

To  the  words  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  add,  “but 
may  authorize  a pro  rata  allowance  to  denominational 
schools.” 

So  that  it  will  read : 

“The  General  Assembly  shall  make  provision,  by  taxa- 
tion or  otherwise,  as  with  the  income  arising  from  the 
School  Trust  Fund  will  secure  a thorough  and  efficient 
system  of  common  schools  throughout  the  State,  but 
may  authorize  a pro  rata  allowance  to  denominational 
schools.” 

Mr.  COOK.  I rise  to  a question  of  order. 
That  is  an  amendment  to  the  original  section  of 
the  Constitution,  and  not  an  amendment  to  an 
amendment,  and,  therefore,  not  in  order.  The 
question  now  is  upon  striking  out. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  Chair 
understands  that  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Carbery]  moves  to  amend  the  words  pro- 
posed to  be  stricken  out. 

Mr.  COOK.  I withdraw  the  objection. 


The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  upon  agreeing  to  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  ~Car- 
bery]. 

Mr.  PAGE.  I am  not  certain  but  that  this 
Convention  has  heard  as  much  upon  this  sub- 
ject as  it  desires  to  hear.  But,  notwithstanding 
this,  it  is  a most  extraordinary  proposition,  ana 
I am  not  willing  to  let  it  pass  without  saying 
a few  words  more,  and  I promise  to  be  very 
brief. 

The  direct  tendency  and  eff  ect  of  this  measure 
are  to  destroy  the  common  school  system.  I 
have  no  right  to  attribute  such  a design  to  the 
author  of  the  proposition.  But  it  is  well  known 
that  there  are  persons  who  advocate  similar 
measures  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  down  a 
system  of  education  to  which  they  are  hostile. 
The  maxim  of  tyrants  and  priests,  “ divide,  and 
govern,”  is  to  read,  in  this  case,  “ divide,  and 
destroy.”  Tyrants  and  priests,  who  are  natural 
allies,  and,  like  wolves,  hunt  in  packs,  are 
natural  enemies  of  education.  They  hate  the 
light.  With  them  the  first  and  best  thing  is 
not  to  educate  at  all.  The  next  best  thing  is  to 
educate  only  as  they  please. 

The  first  consequence  of  the  proposition,  if 
adopted,  will  be  the  destruction  of  common 
schools.  The  second  consequence  will  be  to 
place  what  little  education  may  finally  remain 
in  the  hands  of  priests.  The  people  will  be 
taxed  in  order  to  raise  a fund  to  educate  a race 
of  bigots.  Sectarianism  will  be  established  by 
law. 

The  measure  is  artful  and  insidious,  and 
fraught  with  evil  results.  Like  all  the  propo- 
sitions of  the  priestcraft,  it  is  supported  by 
plausible  arguments.  The  church,  like  a tiger, 
proceeds  softly  till  the  victim  is  in  its  power, 
and  then  its  leap  is  unerring  and  deadly.  In 
their  beginning,  all  sects  are  virtuous  and 
meek.  The  arch  enemy,  no  doubt,  frequently 
finds  it  profitable  to  be  extremely  virtuous,  as  a 
man  may  practice  all  the  virtues  under  heaven 
for  wicked  purposes. 

I say  this  is  a proposition  to  put  education  in 
the  hands  of  priests  exclusively.  Gibbon  said 
that  in  Europe  education  had  always  been  in 
their  hands.  The  result  has  been,  kings  like 
Philip  the  Second  and  Charles  the  Ninth ; gen- 
erals like  the  Duke  of  Alva,  inquisitors  like 
Torquemada,  and  nations  of  slaves  who  sub- 
mitted to  their  tyranny. 

Heine,  speaking  of  the  Holy  Church,  says : 

“In  every  respect  that  church  government  was  tyranny 
of  the  worst  sort.  Rome  would  always  rule,  and  when 
her  legions  fell  she  sent  dogmas  into  the  provinces.  Like 
a giant  spider  she  sat  in  tne  center  of  the  Latin  world, 
and  spun  over  it  her  endless  web.  Generations  of  people 
lived  beneath  it  a peaceful  life,  for  they  believed  that  to 
be  a heaven  near  them,  which  was  only  a Roman  web. 
Only  the  higher  stirring  spirits,  who  saw  through  its 
meshes,  felt  themselves  bowed  down  and  wretched,  and 
when  they  strove  to  break  away,  the  crafty  spider  easily 
caught  them,  and  sucked  the  bold  blood  from  their 
hearts.  And  was  not  the  dreamy  happiness  of  the  pur- 
blind multitude,  purchased  too  dearly  by  such  blood? 
The  days  of  spiritual  serfdom  are  over.  Weak  with  age, 
the  old,  cross  spider  sits  beneath  the  broken  pillars  of  her 
Coliseum,  ever  spinning  the  same  old  web,  but  it  is  weak 
and  brittle,  and  catches  only  butterfles  and  bats,  and  no 
longer  the  wild  eagles  of  the  North.” 

Whenever  that  spider  can  spin  her  endless 
| web  over  the  American  world,  there  will  be  a 
t restoration  of  the  same  religious  slavery. 


CATHOLICISM  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 2281 

Page,  Carbkry. 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 


Priestcraft  understands  the  policy  of  catching 
the  human  animal  young,  and  crushing  its  in- 
tellect into  the  required  shape.  The  Flat-head 
Indians  bind  boards  on  the  heads  of  their  in- 
fants, and  cause  them  to  grow  according  to  the 
Flat-head  fashion.  This  distortion  of  shape  by 
them  is  esteemed  a beauty.  What  the  Flat-head 
gentlemen  do  for  the  body,  the  priestly  gentle- 
men do  for  the  mind.  By  the  skillful  appliance 
of  mental  boards,  the  mind  is  fashioned  at 
pleasure. 

It  is  urged  here  that  education  separated  from 
religion  is  dangerous  and  destructive,  and  the 
atrocities  of  the  French  revolution  are  cited  in 
proof  of  this  position.  That  terrible  atrocities 
were  then  perpetrated,  is  undeniable ; but  these 
excesses  were  a necessary  and  unavoidable  re- 
action against  the  wrongs  and  outrages  that 
were  inflicted  on  the  French  people  for  centu- 
ries by  the  aristocracy,  with  whom  the  church 
was  indissolubly  united.  The  existence  of  that 
aristocracy  and  priesthood,  was  incompatible 
with  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  French  peo- 
ple. The  extermination  of  the  priests  and  no- 
bles became  a matter  of  self-defense.  They  had 
attempted  to  raise  all  Europe  and  overwhelm 
the  French  nation.  What  would  have  been  the 
result  if  they  had  succeeded  ? They  would  have 
restored  the  ancient  regime,  with  all  its  abuses, 
and  taken  revenge  by  confiscations  and  massa- 
cres far  exceeding  those  that  were  perpetrated. 
But  what  sort  of  education  had  the  wicked  men 
of  that  revolution  enjoyed?  Were  they  not  all 
brought  up  under  the  influence  of  the  true 
Church?  Can  anybody  assert  that  they  had  in 
youth  received  what  is  designated  here  as  a 
godless  education  ? If  they  became  atheists,  it 
is  not  surprising,  for  the  strongest  argument 
with  these  men  in  favor  of  atheism  was  the  fact 
that  God  permitted  the  existence  of  the  Church ; 
that  he  permitted  that  Church,  for  more  than 
fifteen  centuries,  to  exercise  its  tyranny  and 
outrage,  without  blasting  it  with  His  lightning— 
an  argument  to  which  it  is  difficult  to  make  a 
satisfactory  answer. 

But  if  men  of  godless  education  have  acted 
wickedly,  what  have  men  done  who  were  edu- 
cated in  and  by  the  Holy  Church  ? The  memory 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery] 
can  go  back,  nearly  one  hundred  years,  to  the 
French  Revolution,  but  he  is  justly  and  natur- 
ally disgusted  when  any  one  revives  the  memory 
of  the  Inquisition,  of  St.  Bartholomew,  and  the 
History  of  the  Netherlands.  He  says  they 
stink.  I admit  they  are  foul,  and  smell  to 
heaven.  But  they  never  will,  and  never  ought 
to,  be  forgotten.  Who  did  these  things,  and 
who  is  responsible  for  them  ? Were  they  not 
men  who  had  had  a religious  education  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Church? 

Bacon  says  that  bloody  religious  dissensions 
were  unknown  in  the  world  except  among 
Christian  people.  The  worst  systems  of  casuis- 
try that  were  ever  put  forth  were  advocated  by 
men  who  had  received  a religious  education  in 
the  Holy  Church.  Sterne  says  the  filthiest 
books  that  were  ever  written  were  written  by 
priests.  The  most  immoral,  dissolute  and  cor- 
rupt people  in  Europe  are  precisely  those  who 
have  the  largest  number  of  godly  men  and  the 
largest  amount  of  godly  education.  Formerly, 
when  the  church  had  the  power  to  exercise  I 


cruelties,  they  mercilessly  exercised  them. 
Educated  religious  men  spent  their  lives  in  de- 
signing new  modes  of  exquisite  torture  for  the 
victim,  it  might  be  a woman  or  a child.  They 
sought  to 

“Find  some  cunning  cruelty 

That  might  torment  him  much  and  hold  him  long.” 

No  Roman  Emperor,  no  Asiatic  despot,  no 
American  savage,  no  Fiji  cannibal  ever  in- 
vented more  terrible  tortures  or  inflicted  them 
with  a keener  delight  than  religious  men  who 
had  received  a godly  education. 

We  might  belie  history,  and  designate  St. 
Bartholomew  as  a mere  “political  unpleasant- 
ness,” if  the  Pope  had  not  sung  Te  Deum  on  that 
occasion,  and  rendered  thanks  to  God  for  the 
great  victory. 

It  was  always  the  custom,  when  two  Christian 
armies  in  those  times  butchered  each  other,  the 
victorious  butcher  went  to  church,  sang  Te 
Deum , and  thanked  God  for  His  assistance  in  the 
bloody  business. 

The  safety  of  all  of  us  lies  in  the  division  of 
the  churches.  If  one  church  was  universal,  the 
reign  of  the  dark  ages  would  be  restored.  There 
would  be  no  law  and  no  opinions  but  such  as 
the  church  permitted,  for  every  priest  believes 
in  his  heart  that  heresy  is  the  greatest  of  crimes, 
and  ought  to  be  melted  out  of  the  unbeliever  by 
fire — not  because  heresy  is  hateful  to  God,  but 
because  it  weakens  the  power  of  the  church. 
When  its  authority  is  resisted  by  reason,  it  re- 
torts with  fire  and  sword,  if  it  can.  The  great- 
est atrocities  are  those  which  are  committed  in 
the  name  of  God. 

Whenever  any  church  has  possessed  absolute 
power,  it  has  enforced  a system  of  intellectual 
compression,  and  civilization  and  liberty  ad- 
vance, if  they  advance  at  all,  in  spite  of  the 
church.  If  we  abolish  our  common  schools,  and 
put  the  education  of  our  youths  in  the  hands  of, 
priests,  that  compression  will  continue,  and  our 
fate  will  be  like  that  of  a man  of  whom  I read 
in  an  old  story  : inclosed  in  a prison  with  iron 
walls  which  gradually  drew  together  till  he 
was  crushed. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I really  did  not  intend  to 
say  anything  more  upon  this  much  vexed 
question,  nor  would  I,  had  not  my  innocent 
amendment  which  was  introduced  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  a square  vote  upon  this  subject 
been  the  means  of  getting  an  inpromptu  speech 
from  the  gentleman  from  Pickaway  [Mr.  Page], 
which  he  appears  to  have  read  from  manuscript. 

I shall  only  say  that  it  is  not  a very  successful 
plagiarism  of  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  from 
Stark  [Mr.  Pease],  to  which  I endeavored  to  re- 
ply the  other  day.  That  gentleman’s  speech 
had  the  virtue  of  coming  from  the  heart,  and 
had  not  been  submitted  to  the  action  of  the  in- 
tellect to  any  great  extent,  as  its  looseness  of 
the  argument  showed.  The  gentleman  who 
has  just  taken  his  seat  had  time  enough  to  incu- 
bate the  matter,  and  his  production  might  be 
called  the  “hard-baked  sentiment”  in  that  part 
of  the  Hall,  and  the  Convention  owes  me  a vote  of 
thanks  for  having  elicited  that  expression. 
Sitting  down  herein  this  end  of  the  Hall,  I did 
not  hear  all  of  it,  but  certain  well  known 
words  fell  upon  my  ear,  in  the  fine  musical  tones 
of  the  gentleman.  “Phillip  the  Second,”  “The 
Te  Deum blood  and  thunder  and  persecution 


2282 


CATHOLICISM  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Carbery,  Tuttle. 


[145th 

[Monday, 


generally— all  those  things  I distinguished  in 
the  wordy  torrent. 

Now,  sir,  if  the  Convention  will  have  the 
goodness  to  go  over,  in  their  minds,  the  very 
moderate  language  in  which  my  proposition  was 
couched,  and,  I think,  the  fairness  of  my  state- 
ment observed  in  introducing  it,  they  will  be 
somewhat  at  a loss  to  justify  the  extreme  ve- 
hemence, passion  and  acerbity  that  have  dis- 
tinguished the  gentlemen  who  have  replied  to 
me.  One  would  suppose,  to  hear  gentlemen  ar- 
gue this  question,  that  there  was  a mass  of  peo- 
ple in  the  State  of  Ohio  who  are  hungering  and 
thirsting  for  the  blood  of  their  fellow-citizens, 
that  the  Archbishop  and  his  peaceful  priests 
all  over  the  country  were  going  to  inaugurate 
a crusade  against  the  vast  majority  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  State,  and  subjugate  them,  put  them 
on  so  many  gridirons,  and  then  turn  them  over 
to  the  tender  care  of  Pius  the  Ninth,  for  torture, 
and  then  overthrow  the  whole  civil  superstruc- 
ture. I am  astonished  at  the  hyperbole,  the 
unwarranted  exaggeration,  and  out  of  all  meas- 
ure, the  wrath  that  has  been  poured  out  upon 
this  poor,  little,  puny  proposition  of  mine. 

Why,  sir,  I expressed,  in  my  opening  re- 
marks here,  that  I was  not  dreamer  enough  to 
suppose  that  this  Convention  was  going  to 
adopt  my  suggestion,  although  the  amendment 
went  no  further  than  to  unshackle  the  Legis- 
lature and  leave  it  free,  and  I insist,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, upon  my  inference,  that  this  Convention  is 
more  afraid  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  than 
I am.  They  dare  not  leave  the  people  of  Ohio  free 
upon  this  subject,  and  insist  on  putting  that  in 
the  Constitution  that  will  prohibit,  effectually, 
any  response  by  the  General  Assembly  to  what 
may,  in  the  future,  swell  into  an  emphatic  popu- 
lar demand  for  change — great  and  radical  change 
in  the  administration  of  the  educatioual  system 
■ of  the  State.  Gentlemen  may  blow  their  horns  as 
long  and  as  Joud  as  they  please  about  civil 
liberty,  about  toleration  and  the  right  to  differ 
— I say  their  acts  and  temper  belie  all  such  pro- 
fessions. 

Now,  sir,  whether  you  give  them  a portion  of 
the  public  taxes  or  not,  you  still  have  these 
these  people  amongst  you.  You  cannot  get  rid 
of  them,  and  you  keep  them  in  the  presence  of 
an  injustice,  and  you  add  to  it  the  exaggerated 
statements,  the  studied  and  gratuitous  abuse  of 
their  church  by  many  leading  members  of  this 
Convention,  and  the  vote  of  the  body  apparent- 
ly endorsing  this  abuse.  It  is  well  to  recollect 
that  fact.  These  men  number  a great  many 
hundreds  of  thousands  in  this  State.  There  are 
a good  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  labor- 
ing men  strongly  in  favor  of  this  principle 
who  are  not  divided  by  theories.  There  are  a 
good  many  men  amongst  them  who  think,  and 
it  may  have  been  that  having  become  inoculated 
with  the  habits  of  free  discussion  and  free  talk, 
that  they  may  take  it  into  their  heads  that  the 
Constitution  about  to  be  submitted  to  them,  with 
all  the  attendant  abuse  and  vilification  that  has 
disgraced  this  debate  on  the  subject,  may  not 
be  the  very  highest  recommendation  to  them 
for  their  sovereign  approval.  Gentlemen  may 
say,  we  have  not  sought  to  conciliate  this  in- 
terest or  that  interest.  This  Convention  has 
essayed  to  do  so,  and  the  public  know  it.  To 


use  an  old  saying,  “ you  may  tell  that  to  the 
marines,  but  sailors  would  not  believe  you.” 

Now,  I say,  sir,  you  are  about  to  submit  this 
instrument  to  the  people,  and  a part  of  the  peo- 
ple to  pass  upon  it  are  those  whom  I represent 
here.  It  is  quite  possible  they  may  give  ex- 
pression to  their  opinions  and  vote  down  your 
Constitution.  And  it  is  possible,  also,  that 
they  might  not  do  it  all  if  this  hurtful  emphasis 
were  not  added  to  it  by  the  Convention.  If 
these  criticisms  had  been  made  in  the  temper 
in  which  the  argument  was  introduced,  and  had 
you  voted  it  down  by  a strong  vote  without 
adding  to  the  insult,  well  and  good.  I ex- 
pected nothing  better ; but  I do  not  wish  to  be 
banished  from  this  Convention  with  a howl 
after  me,  neither  do  those  whom  I represent. 

Now,  sir,  I repel  all  those  charges  that  have 
been  made  here,  on  the  part  of  the  church  to 
which  I belong.  And  her  long  history  will 
compare  favorably  with  that  of  any  other 
church,  and  I take  it  for  granted  that  the 
gentleman’s  reference  to  the  priest  and  priest- 
hood was  intended  to  have  a special  application 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  church,  and  on  the  part 
of  that  church,  not  by  any  commission  to  rep- 
resent it — for  I have  had  no  consultations  with 
the  ministers — but  upon  my  own  individual  re- 
sponsibility, and  my  right  as  a free  man,  I re- 
pel all  those  charges. 

Mr.  President,  I ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 
When  the  vote  on  the  proposition  is  taken,  if 
mine  shall  be  the  only  name  in  the  affirmative, 
I wish  it  to  appear  there. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  It  is  said,  Mr.  President, 
that  error  may  be  tolerated  so  long  as  truth  is 
allowed  to  freely  combat  it.  I suppose,  Mr. 
President,  that  the  maxim  is  applicable  here, 
but  that  the  limitation  suggested  is  equally  to 
be  regarded  at  the  same  time.  We  may  very 
properly  and  charitably  hear  any  propo- 
sition, however  absurd  we  may  deem  it,  and  any 
argument  in  its  favor  which  honest  conviction 
or  ingenuity  may  urge  in  its  behalf,  provided 
only  that  with  equal  freedom,  and  equal  plain- 
ness, we  may  be  allowed  to  urge  against  it  the 
truth  itself ; the  truth  itself,  unhampered  and 
untrammelled,  neither  mitigated  nor  softened 
from  mere  apprehension  lest  its  honest  plain- 
ness should  pain  the  ears  of  those  who  are  on  the 
side  of  error;  therefore,  Mr.  President,  in  the 
name  of  truth,  and  of  freedom  of  speech,  I pro- 
test against  any  claim  that,  when  propositions 
are  brought  forward  which  are  believed  to  be 
subversive  of  civil  prosperity  and  of  civil  lib- 
erty, anybody  shall  be  reprobated  for  speaking 
in  support  of  his  convictions  against  them  be- 
cause they  are  deep,  nor  from  citing  history  in 
behalf  of  his  argument  because  it  is  pertinent, 
nor  from  asssailing  motives  which  are  avowed. 

Mr.  President,  I do  not  propose  to  go  into 
this  argument  at  length ; but  one  or  two  observ- 
ations I desire  to  make.  It  was  stated  by  the 
gentleman  who  introduced  this  proposition  [Mr. 
Carbery],  that  he  was  opposed  to  all  education 
by  the  State.  The  church  may  teach  that  the 
State  is  subordinate  to  the  church.  He  denies 
that  the  State  has  the  right  to  assert  or  to  teach 
its  supremacy.  I maintain,  on  the  contrary, 
the  right  to  go  that  fai  not  only,  but  even  to  go 
a great  deal  farther,  and  to  go  farther  than 
many ; but  that  is  not  what  I am  going  to  speak 


Day.]  CATHOLICISM  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 2283 

March  23, 1874.1  Tuttle,  Career y,  Cunningham. 


about  now.  The  gentleman,  I said,  asserted 
his  opposition  to  education  by  the  State,  and 
what  has  repeatedly  been  asserted  here  against 
the  gentleman’s  proposition,  namely,  that  its 
necessary  effect  must  be  to  overthrow  the  com- 
mon school  system  in  Ohio,  is  not  denied. 
What  is  thus  claimed  in  regard  to  education  by 
the  State,  seems  equivalent  to  an  admission  that 
the  objectionable  result  is  desired  and  justified, 
and  to  a further  admission  that  the  result,  at 
least,  is  sure.  If  it  be  said  that  the  apprehen- 
sion is  not  reasonable,  I desire  to  hear  what 
reason  can  be  urged  against  it.  The  charge 
made  seems  to  stand  here  in  default ; it  seems  to 
be  admitted  that  the  thing  is  not  possible,  and 
that  the  people  of  the  State  of  Ohio  will  never 
allow  one-third,  or  one-fourth,  or  whatever 
portion  it  may  be,  of  the  religious  people  of  the 
State,  to  practice  propagandism  at  the  expense  of 
the  rest,  whilst  the  rest  have  no  such  privilege. 
It  has  been  asserted  here  that  the  idea  of  a divi- 
sion of  the  school  funds  among  the  different 
sects  and  denominations  of  the  people  of  Ohio, 
in  proportion  to  their  numbers,  or  otherwise — 
dividing,  also,  the  control  of  it,  and  of  educa- 
tional support  by  it,  was  an  impossibility ; and 
does  not  every  man  know  it  ? Does  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  deny  it?  Do  not  we  know 
that,  whilst  Catholics  might  be  able  to  institute 
schools  for  the  education  of  their  children,  and 
to  use  the  money  derived  from  the  State  for  that 
purpose,  yet,  when  we  come  to  carry  it  any  fur- 
ther than  that,  it  would  not  be  possible  ? Go  out 
into  the  country,  and  see  the  school  districts 
there,  composed  of  Baptists,  Methodists,  Con- 
gregation alists,  New  School  Presbyterian,  Old 
School  Presbyterian,  the  German  Reformed 
Lutherans,  Universalists,  Unitarians,  and  a 
hundred  other  sects,  I might  go  on  to  enumer- 
ate. Could  each  of  these  be  furnished  a portion 
of  the  public  money,  and  be  enabled  to  use  it 
in  support  of  a school  established  by  each  ? Can 
it  be  done?  Of  course  you  cannot  do  it. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  . Will  the  gentleman  permit 
me  a question  ? 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I said,  in  my  opening  re- 
marks, and  I say  so  again,  that  no  such  demand 
was  urged  by  the  non-Catholics  as  is  asserted 
here. 

Mr.  TUTTLE.  There  is  no  such  demand,  be- 
cause they  are  entirely  willing  to  leave  the  thing 
as  it  is.  They  are  entirely  willing  that  money 
shall  be  taken  and  used  for  the  purpose  of  secu- 
lar education  alone,  so  that  one  is  allowed  no 
advantage  above  another  by  the  plan,  but 
when  you  come  to  change  it  and  give  a portion 
to  one  sect  so  that  no  other  shall  have  share  or 
control  in  it,  is  it  pretended  that  other  sects 
will  sit  down  quietly  while  they  can  have  no 
such  share,  and  admit  this  sort  of  propagandism 
to  be  carried  on  at  their  expense  while  they 
have  no  such  opportunity  at  all  ? 

The  gentleman  has  not  asserted  that  it  would 
not  be  so,  and  the  common  sense  of  every  man 
says  it  would  be  so,  and  it  ought  to  be  so ; it 
ought  not  to  be  that,  in  the  State  of  Ohio, 
Protestants  shall  be  compelled  to  afford  facili- 
ties for  the  propagandism  of  Roman  Catholi- 
cism, and,  at  the  same  time,  be  allowed  no 
means  of  counteracting  it,  and  the  people  of 
Ohio  would  not  submit  to  it ; they  would  rather 


overturn  and  break  up  the  system  which  the 
gentleman  says  he  is  opposed  to, and  they  ought 
to  do  it  first.  I say,  therefore,  that  the  propo- 
sition is,  in  effect,  to  accomplish  that  which  the 
gentleman  says  he  would  desire  seeing  done. 
It  is  to  put  an  end  to  the  common  school  system 
of  education  by  putting  an  end  to  contributions 
from  the  State  for  its  support,  and  when  such  a 
proposition  is  made  in  the  interests  of  propa- 
gandism, I maintain  to  show  the  proposition  as 
it  is,  and  more  than  to  exhibit  what  is  to  be 
propagated  as  it  is.  I deny  the  right  of  any  one 
to  demand  that  when  we  undertake  to  combat 
error  with  truth,  we  are  required  to  present  the 
truth  otherwise  than  as  it  is,  nor  error  other- 
wise than  as  it  is,  however  offensive  the  strip- 
ping of  it  of  its  disguises  may  be.  In  whatever 
words  it  may  be  expressed,  this  proposition  is 
and  must  be  considered  an  attempt  to  break 
down  the  school  system  and  place  it  in  the  hands 
of  propagandists,  nothing  else ; therefore  I am 
opposed  to  it. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  I desire  to  say  a sin- 
gle word.  Inasmuch  as  I was  one  of  the  few 
individuals  who  thought  proper  to  differ  from 
the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery], 
I wish  to  say  now,  as  I said  at  that  time,  that  I 
am  not  actuated  by  any  animosity  towards  the 
Catholic  church  as  a religious  organization, 
and  I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  gentle- 
man, and  the  attention  of  the  Convention,  to 
what  I understand  to  be  the  threat  that  he  has 
seen  proper  to  make  on  behalf  of  his  church. 
I scarcely  think  that  he  weighed  the  import  of 
the  language  that  he  uses,  when  he  says  that 
the  church  will  vote  down  the  Constitution. 
Wherefore  will  you  vote  it  down  ? 

It  is  not  proposed  to  make  any  change,  as  far 
as  this  general  subject  of  education  is  con- 
cerned, from  what  it  is  in  the  old  Constitution, 
so  that  nothing  could  be  gained  by  that  means. 
The  intimation  means  simply  that  those  who 
the  gentleman  represents  will  defeat  the  needed 
reforms  for  which  we  are  providing,  because 
the  Convention  will  not  yield  to  their  demands 
for  a division  of  the  school  fund. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Will  the  gentleman  have 
the  kindness  to  permit  me  to  make  a reply. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I distinctly  stated,  when 
on  my  feet,  that  it  was  not  the  rejection  of  the 
proposition  I referred  to,  but  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  treated,  and  the  insulting  manner 
in  which  the  debate  has  been  conducted,  and 
the  charges  upon  my  church  as  a religious  sect 
being  guilty  of  bloodthirstiness.  That  is  the 
reason;  not  the  rejection  of  the  proposition 
itself. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Mr.  President,  we 
are  all  poor,  weak,  frail  mortals  [Members, 
“agreed!”  “agreed!”  and  laughter],  and  when 
an  individual  throws  down  the  glove  he  is  apt, 
very  often  and  very  generally,  to  find  somebody 
to  take  it  up.  While  all  of  us  admit  the  ability 
with  which  the  gentleman  presents  his  case, 
many  of  us  regret  the  severe  criticism  to  which 
he  subjected  the  educational  system  of  the 
State.  I indulged  in  no  severe  criticism  on  the 
history  of  his  church;  and  I regret  now,  at  the 
close  of  this  debate,  that  it  should  end  with  a 
threat  on  his  part  that  the  needed,  acknowl- 
edged, conceded  reforms  involved  in  this  Con- 


2284 


CATHOLICISM  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. [145th 

Cunningham,  Pease,  Carbery,  Dorsey.  [Monday, 


stitution  are  to  be  imperiled,  because  a propo- 
sition is  not  accepted,  or  because,  in  the  heat  of 
debate,  members  have  expressed  themselves 
in  language  to  him  objectionable. 

[A  MEMBER,  in  his  seat].  Not  by  the  Con- 
vention, but  by  individual  members. 

Mr.  CUNNINGHAM.  Yes.  The  language 
complained  of  was  not  the  language  of  the  Con- 
vention or  the  sentiment  of  the  Convention  as  a 
body,  but  of  a few  individuals,  myself  amongst 
them,  which  has  been  offensive  to  him.  He 
may  hold  the  individuals  who  uttered  the  senti- 
ments responsible,  but  not  the  Convention,  j 
wish  to  say,  Mr.  President,  that  it  is  too  late  in 
the  day  now  to  invite  a struggle  with  the  public 
opinion  of  this  State  by  any  church,  no  odds 
how  old  and  venerable  it  may  be. 

Mr.  PEASE.  I desire  to  make  no  extended 
remarks,  but  feel  myself  called  upon  to  say 
that  I ought  to  be  glad  that  my  friend  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  has  given  me  credit 
for  originality,  if  for  nothing  else,  and  for  this 
I feel  under  obligations  to  him ; but  if,  by  what 
he  says  in  addition,  he  designs  to  charge  me 
with  expressing  any  special  acrimony  in  what 
I said,  he  is  considerably  mistaken.  I treated 
his  proposition  with  a great  deal  of  fairness,  in 
my  opinion.  I gave  but  very  little  time  in  the 
argument  which  I presented,  in  reply  to  that 
portion  of  the  gentleman’s  argument.  My  time 
was  occupied  in  considering  other  branches  of 
the  subject.  I read,  it  is  true,  from  history,  as 
did  the  gentleman,  in  presenting  his  argument, 
but  I am  not  responsible  for  history  any  more 
than  the  gentleman  is.  He  had  a right  to  read 
from  his  authorities,  as  he  did  at  much  length, 
and  he  certainly  ought  to  concede  to  us  the 
same  right.  Whether  he  concedes  it  to  us  or 
not,  we  feel  at  liberty,  under  proper  circum- 
stances, to  do  so ; and^I  do  not  know  that  I need 
ask  him,  or  any  one  else,  whether  we  may  or 
not.  Now,  I have  no  doubt  the  gentleman  had 
an  idea  that  he  was  as  cool  and  pleasant,  and 
“child-like”  and  “bland,”  as  it  was  possible  for 
him  to  be,  while  he  was  pressing  his  argument 
here.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea  that  he  sup- 
posed he  went  beyond  the  Christian  graces  in 
presenting  his  side  of  the  case.  I presume  he 
has  an  idea  that  when  he  talks,  for  instance,  of 
our  schools,  and  intimates  that  the  teaching 
which  our  children  receive  in  our  common 
schools,  whether  the  Bible  is  read  in  them  or 
not,  is  Godless,  and  that  these  schools  are  worse 
than  no  schools.  And  it  amounts  only  to  this, 
that  unless  Catholicism  can  be  taught  in  these 
schools,  they  are  Godless  schools  and  nothing 
else;  he  is  drawing  it  very  mild. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Will  the  gentleman  per- 
mit me  a question  ? 

Mr.  PEASE.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  The  gentleman  from  Stark 
[Mr.  Pease]  will  recollect  that  I said  I was  in 
favor  of  sectarian  schools  of  the  most  robust 
kind.  I favored  Methodist,  Presbyterian  and 
other  denominational  schools,  and  said  that  the 
inevitable  logic  of  events  would  bring  about 
all  this  godless  education  as  a State  education, 
and  I say  so  again. 

Mr.  PEASE.  But,  in  reply  to  the  remark 
that  the  schools  were  open  to  all,  and  that  you 
could  send  them  if  you  chose  to  do  so,  you 
said,  the  children  had  better  be  sent  to  none  at 


all,  better  be  sent  to  none  than  to  be  sent  to  the 
schools  under  the  control  of  the  State — that 
these  were  godless  schools — and,  if  you  say 
what  you  believe,  you  will  say  so  now;  and  if 
you  say  what  your  church  teaches,  you  will  say 
so  now. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I will  say,  in  reply  to  the 
gentleman,  what  I said  last  evening.  I said, 
we  have  our  own  schools,  and  intend  to  keep 
them. 

Mr.  PEASE.  That  is  all  well  enough — you 
can  keep  up  your  sectarian  schools  if  you  choose 
— but,  the  gentleman  also  said : “I  do  not 
know  but  our  people  will  vote  against  this 
Constitution  ” — “ certainly  not  from  the  fact 
that  my  proposition  is  excluded,”  oh,  no,  says 
the  gentleman,  it  is  because  of  the  “ manner  of 
its  exclusion.”  Now,  let  us  see,  if  I understand 
that,  if  you  have  clean  hands  on  that.  Let  us 
see  the  manners  of  your  argument.  I under- 
take to  say  to  you  that  the  people  of  Ohio  will 
not  regard  with  the  utmost  good  temper  your 
declaration,  and  the  ideas  presented  in  your 
argument  here,  that  the  taking  of  this  money 
from  the  Catholics  for  the  support  of  the  com- 
mon schools,  was  worse  than  highway  robbery; 
I do  not  believe  the  Legislature  of  Ohio  are 
going  pleasantly  to  submit  to  being  called  high- 
way robbers. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  The  gentleman  is  thrown 
into  a mistake  again.  I will  repeat  exactly 
what  I said,  for  the  truth  of  which  he  may  re- 
fer to  the  notes  of  the  reporter.  I said  the 
Catholics  were  every  year  subjected  to  legalized 
robbery. 

Mr.  PEASE.  Very  well;  it  is  a “ legalized 
robbery  ” then,  which  is  worse  than  “ highway 
robbery.”  There  may  be  some  excuse  for  a 
highwayman  who  is  driven  to  the  necessity  of 
highway  robbery,  but  no  excuse  for  the  cool, 
calculating  modes  of  legislative  robbery.  I de- 
sire to  say  to  the  gentleman,  when  he  comes 
before  the  people  of  Ohio,  and  tells  them  that 
they  are  legalized  robbers,  that  he  must  not  ex- 
pect they  will  kiss  his  toe  in  meek  submission. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  I do  not  want  them  to. 

Mr.  PEASE.  And  when  he  approaches  them 
in  that  way,  and  when  he  introduces  a propo- 
sition, the  very  object,  or  tendency — I ought 
not  to  say  object — the  very  tendency  of  which 
is  to  break  up  every  branch  of  our  whole  sys- 
tem of  government,  I do  not  believe  we  are 
quietly  going  to  submit  to  it,  and  ask  your  par- 
don, or  say,  ‘‘  by  your  leave.” 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I should  have  allowed  the 
vote  to  have  been  taken  on  this  proposition 
without  a word,  as  I have  listened  calmly  and 
coolly  to  all  the  discussions  had  on  this  subject, 
had  it  not  been  for  this  second  proposition 
which  has  been  introduced  b}^  my  friend  from 
Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery],  and  I deplore  as 
much  as  that  gentleman  does,  or  any  gentleman 
on  this  floor  does,  acerbity  and  acrimony, 
which  seems  to  have  crept,  almost  unawares, 
into  this  discussion.  It  is  exceedingly  apt  to 
occur,  when  anything  like  a religious  discussion 
is  brought  before  a deliberative  body.  I trust 
that  in  the  very  few  remarks  I shall  make,  I 
shall  be  able  to  keep  clear  of  any  bitterness  of 
that  kind.  But  I speak  on  this  subject  now, 
simply  because  the  proposition  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Carbery]  strikes  a 


Day.] 

March  23,  1874.] 


CATHOLICISM  AND  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOLS. 

Dorsey,  Carbery. 


2285 


fatal  blow  at  the  school  system  of  the  State  of 
Ohio.  And  as  I represent  one  portion  of  the 
people  of  the  State,  I cannot  be  content  simply 
to  give  my  vote  on  that  proposition,  without  ex- 
pressing my  utter  and  entire  dissent  from  any- 
thing that  has  the  least  tendency  to  overthrow 
that  to  which  and  in  which  are  centered  the 
best  interests  of  the  people  of  the  State.  The 
old  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Ohio  most 
wisely  provided  that  no  religious  or  other  sect 
or  sects  shall  ever  have  any  exclusive  right  or 
control  of  any  part  of  the  school  funds  of  this 
State.  The  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Car- 
bery] comes  in  with  what  he  calls  a very  simple, 
and  a very  quiet  and  very  plausibly  expressed 
proposition,  to  allow  a pro  rata  distribution  of  the 
school  fund  of  the  State  for  sectarian  education. 
Now,  I ask  any  gentleman,  calmly  and  coolly,  to 
consider  what  this  amounts  to.  It  amounts 
simply  to  saying  ( and  this  is  the  dogma  which  the 
gentleman  set  forth  in  the  commencement  of  the 
discussion  of  this  matter)  that  the  State  has  no 
right  to  educate  her  children.  And  if  the  State 
has  no  right  to  educate  her  children,  and  if  the 
State  is  not  to  be  an  educator,  I ask  you  then  who 
is  to  educate  ? There  is  but  one  answer.  The  prop- 
osition of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr. 
Carbery]  sufficiently  indicates  by  the  expression 
“pro  rata  distribution  for  sectarian  education” 
what  he  expects  to  introduce.  He  expects  to  in- 
troduce a church  education  in  the  place  of  State 
education.  Now  I care  nothing  about  any  parti- 
cular church.  I say  nothing  about  the  proposition 
of  any  particular  church  to  educate.  I care  not 
whether  the  proposition  comes  from  the  gentle- 
man from  Hamilton,  as  a representative  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  church,  or  whether  it  comes 
from  any  other  gentleman  upon  this  floor 
representing  any  other  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians. I say  it  is  a blow  struck  at  the  best  in- 
terests of  our  common  school  system,  and  we 
must  throttle  it  in  its  very  commencement,  and 
crush  it  out  before  it  gains  any  hold  upon  the 
thoughts  and  opinions  of  the  people  of  the  State. 
And  it  is  a most  singular  fact  that,  here  in  this 
free  country  of  ours,  in  this  nineteenth  century, 
after  all  the  experience  of  the  world  on  the 
subject  of  education,  and  with  all  the  light 
European  history  is  able  to  throw  upon  this 
subject,  it  is  a most  singular  fact  that  gentle- 
men will  stand  up  here  in  an  intelligent  body 
like  this,  and  tell  us  that  the  State  cannot  edu- 
cate, and  that  the  church  is  the  true  educator 
of  the  people.  I appeal  to  history.  I ask  the 
gentleman  to  look  at  those  countries  where  the 
church  has  educated.  And  what  has  been  the 
result?  What  has  been  the  education  of  Italy  ? 
What  has  been  the  education  of  Spain  ? What 
has  been  the  education  of  France?  What  has 
been  the  education  of  Austria  ? Look  at  Spain 
more  especially,  where  the  church  has  had  full 
sway,  and  what  do  you  see?  But  a small 
number  of  the  people  educated,  while  the 
masses  of  the  people  are  in  the  most  entire,  de- 
grading ignorance.  The  majority  of  her  peo- 
ple are  four  hundred  years  behind  the  rest  of 
Europe,  although  the  church  has  been  educat- 
ing there  for  hundreds  of  years.  Italy,  with 
the  education  of  the  church,  has  succeeded  in 
producing  a few  educated  men,  while  the 
mass  of  her  people  are  uneducated,  and  her 
educated  men — the  mass  of  them — both  in  the 


church  and  out  of  the  church,  to-day  are  infi- 
dels. That  is  the  education  of  the  church. 

And  what  do  you  see  in  Austria,  where  the 
church  for  more  than  two  hundred  years  has 
been  attempting  to  educate  the  people  ? After 
the  war  of  1866,  in  which  Austria  succumbed  to 
the  power  of  Prussia,  what  was  the  declaration 
made  by  the  prime  minister  of  the  empire? 
Yon  Beust,  in  his  report  to  the  Austrian  diet, 
said  Austria  had  been  defeated,  not  so  much  by 
the  needle  guns  of  the  Prussians,  as  by  the  edu- 
cated soldiery  of  Prussia.  And,  said  he,  if  we 
intend  to  bring  up  our  men  to  the  standard  of 
the  Prussians,  we  have  got  to  educate  them. 
Educate  not  as  the  church  educates,  but  edu- 
cate as  the  State  educates,  and  as  it  alone  can 
educate. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Will  the  gentleman  allow 
me  to  ask  a question  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  Certainly,  sir. 

Mr.  CARBERY.  Does  not  a mixed  educa- 
tion exist  in  the  schools  of  Prussia?  And  do 
not  the  children  of  Protestants  and  Catholics 
attend  different  schools,  and  at  different  times 
in  the  day  in  each  school  ? 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I admit  all  that.  But  it  is 
the  State  that  educates. 

The  gentleman  tells  me  again  that  this  God- 
less education  is  that  which  has  been  doing 
harm  in  the  countries  of  Europe,  and  I beg 
leave  to  refer  to  a remark  made  by  him  in  his 
very  able  address  only  a few  days  ago,  when  he 
said  the  horrors  which  were  committed  during 
the  first  French  Revolution  were  committed  by 
men  who  came  out  of  the  schools  and  lyceums 
of  France;  and  he  characterizes  that  as  a God- 
less education,  as  distinguished  from  the  educa- 
tion given  by  the  church.  I will  tell  the  gen- 
tleman who  committed  the  horrors  in  the 
French  Revolution.  They  were  the  men  who 
came  out  from  the  schools  of  the  church.  The 
men  who  came  out  with  the  little  education 
which  the  church  doles  out  to  them.  The 
peasantry  of  France,  who  were  engaged  as  they 
had  been  for  centuries,  as  the  servants  of  the 
nobility,  even  to  beating,  by  night,  the  marshes, 
to  silence  the  croakings  of  the  frogs,  that  sleep 
might  visit  the  eyes  of  the  lady  of  the  noble, 
reposing  in  her  chateau.  It  was  the  terrible 
men  and  the  terrible  women  of  the  Faubourgs, 
headed  by  such  men  as  Danton,  and  Robes- 
pierre, and  Marat,  whom  the  church  had  edu- 
cated, who  reveled  in  the  excesses  of  blood  and 
riot  in  that  desperate  struggle,  which  blotted 
out  all  religious  feeling  from  the  people,  and 
wrote  upon  the  walls,  and  over  the  gate  of 
Pere  la  Chaise,  “There  is  no  God,  and  death  is 
an  eternal  sleep.”  That  is  the  result  of  the  ed- 
ucation of  the  church.  And  seeing  such  results 
growing  up  in  Europe,  I ask  you  if  we  do  not 
well  to  repel  even  the  very  first  inception  of 
anything  like  such  an  education  here  in  our 
State.  The  State  is  the  only  educator.  We 
have  erected  within  the  borders  of  our  State  a 
system  which  will  educate  every  child  in  the 
State — a full,  and  free,  and  noble  education, 
such  as  qualifies  them  to  be  the  worthy  citizens 
of  a free  republic.  But  the  very  moment  that 
you  break  up  this  system  of  our  education,  and 
divide  amongst  the  sects  of  the  State — I care 
not  whether  to  Roman  Catholics,  Episcopalians, 
Methodists,  Presbyterians,  or  any  other  sect — 


2286 


CONCERNING  THE  PUBLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM. 


[145th 

[Monday, 


Dorsey,  Herron,  Alexander. 


that  very  moment  you  destroy  this  great  sys- 
tem of  ours,  and  instead  of  educating  men  for 
the  service  of  the  State,  you  educate  them  as  the 
slaves  of  the  church. 

[Cries  of  “Question ; question.”] 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  re- 
sulted— yea  1,  nays  57,  as  follows : 

Affirmative — Mr.  Carbery — 1. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Barnet, 
Bishop,  Bosworth,  Burns,  Byal,  Chapin,  Clark 
of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cunningham, 
Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold,  Hale,  Her- 
ron, Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostetter,  Hum- 
phreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  McCormick, 
Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal,  Okey,  Page, 
Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell,  Pratt,  Reilly, 
Russell  of  Meigs,  Scofield,  Shaw,  Shultz,  Smith, 
Steedman,  Townsley,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tuttle, 
Tyler,  Van  Voorhls,  Voris,  Weaver,  White  of 
Hocking,  Woodbury — 57. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
recurs  on  striking  out  all  the  remaining  por- 
tion of  the  section,  and  inserting  the  present 
Constitution.  The  Chair  believes  that  there 
was  a division  of  the  question  demanded. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I would  like  to  ask  for  in- 
formation, whether,  after  this  vote  is  taken,  it 
will  be  still  in  order  to  offer  an  additional  sec- 
tion? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  It  will  be  in 
order  to  offer  an  additional  section.  If  this  mo- 
tion to  strike  out  these  words  and  insert  pre- 
vail, it  will  not  be  in  order  to  amend  the  matter 
inserted,  only  by  way  of  addition. 

The  vote  was  then  taken  upon  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Cook  to  strike  out  all  the  remainder  of  the 
section,  and  insert  sections  one  and  two  of  the 
present  Constitution  entire. 

Upon  which  motion  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
taken,  and  resulted — yeas  57,  nays  0,  as  follows  : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Albright,  Alexander,  Baber,  Barnet, 
Beer,  Bishop,  Bosworth,  Byal,  Carbery,  Chapin, 
Clark  of  Jefferson,  Coats,  Cook,  Cowen,  Cun- 
ningham, Dorsey,  Freiberg,  Greene,  Griswold, 
Hale,  Herron,  Hill,  Hitchcock,  Horton,  Hostet- 
ter, Humphreville,  Hunt,  Johnson,  Kerr,  Mc- 
Cormick, Merrill,  Miner,  Mitchener,  Neal, 
Okey,  Page,  Pease,  Phellis,  Philips,  Powell, 
Pratt,  Reilly,  Russell  of  Meigs,  Scofield,  Shaw, 
Shultz,  Smith,  Steedman,  Tripp,  Tulloss,  Tut- 
tle, Tyler,  Van  Voorhis,  Voris,  Weaver,  White 
of  Hocking,  Woodbury — 57. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  question 
is  now  on  ordering  the  Proposition  to  be  en- 
grossed. 

Mr.  HERRON.  I offer  the  following  as  an 
additional  section. 

The  SECRETARY.  Mr.  Herron  offers  the 
following  as  an  additional  section  to  the  Article : 

Sec.  — . The  General  Assembly  shall  forever  prohibit, 
by  appropriate  fines  and  penalties,  all  traffic  in  intoxi- 
cating liquors,  except  for  medicinal  or  mechanical  pur- 
poses, within  the  limits  of  any  lands  that  have  been  do- 
nated to,  or  that  may  be  held  by  the  State  of  Ohio  foi- 
educational  purposes,  so  long  as  said  lands,  or  an  income 
therefrom,  is  used  for  such  purposes. 

Mr.  HERRON.  It  is  known  that  there  are 
two  State  Universities  under  the  control  of  the 
State,  which  are  supported  by  the  income  from 
lands  donated  by  the  United  States  to  the  State 
of  Ohio. 


I presented  a petition  the  other  day  signed  by 
almost  every  adult  person,  male  and  female, 
within  one  of  those  townships,  the  one  devoted 
to  the  support  of  Miami  University,  asking  for 
some  provision  of  this  kind.  Now,  without 
touching  at  all  upon  the  general  subject  of  the 
traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors,  it  does  seem  to 
me  proper  that  upon  the  lands  which  are  held 
by  the  State  for  educational  purposes,  which  are 
used  for  the  support  of  the  two  State  universi- 
ties—that  within  the  bounds  of  those  lands  no 
traffic  whatever  of  that  character  should  be 
permitted. 

I have  for  the  last  fourteen  years  been  a 
trustee,  by  appointment  of  the  Governor  of  the 
State,  of  one  of  these  Universities,  and  there 
has  been  nothing  which  we  have  felt  so  much 
as  our  inability  to  protect  our  young  men 
against  this  evil.  We  have  frequently  seen 
young  men  of  the  finest  prospects  and  most 
brilliant  talents  enter  our  institution,  who 
have  been  ruined  there  under  our  care,  by  means 
of  the  evil  to  which  I have  adverted,  and  we 
have  felt  ourselves  entirely  powerless  to  meec 
the  difficulty. 

Now,  it  appears  to  me,  whatever  may  be  the 
opinion  in  regard  to  this  traffic  generally,  that 
here,  on  the  lands  under  the  control  of  the  State, 
which  were  given  to  the  State  for  educational 
purposes,  and  are  held  in  that  way  now,  all 
traffic  of  this  kind  shall  be  entirely  prohibited 
in  those  townships  and  villages. 

There  is  no  necessity,  I suppose,  for  the  in- 
terference of  a provision  of  this  kind  at  the  pres- 
ent time  and  under  the  peculiar  influences  now 
being  exerted.  I am  informed  that  there  is  not, 
at  this  time,  a single  place  in  the  township  of 
Oxford,  where  liquor  can  be  purchased.  But, 
under  the  law  as  it  is,  if  the  present  influences 
are  removed,  the  evil  may  again  prevail,  and 
therefore,  at  the  request  of  all  the  people  living 
in  that  township,  and  believing  it  to  be  just, 
I have  offered  this  as  an  additional  section. 

Mr.  ALEXANDER.  I would  like  to  ask  a 
question.  I would  like  to  know  if  the  land  re- 
ferred to  is  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  that 
school  ? 

Mr.  HERRON.  The  University  is  in  the 
town  of  Oxford,  and  the  town  of  Oxford  is  in 
the  center  of  the  township;  and  the  same  is  the 
case  with  the  other  one  at  Athens. 

Mr.  DORSEY.  I hope,  sir,  that  this  addi- 
tional section  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Herron]  will  be  adopted,  and  I hope  it 
will  be  placed  as  a section  added  to  this  Article 
on  Education.  It  is  particularly  proper  that  it 
should  be  so  appended.  I am  well  aware,  of 
the  evils  which  the  gentleman  has  men- 
tioned, under  which  the  State  universities  have 
labored,  the  result  of  the  liquor  traffic  in  the  vil- 
lages where  they  have  been  situated.  Like 
my  friend  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron],  I 
have  been  for  nearly  twenty  years,  and  until 
within  a few  years  past,  connected  with  the 
supervision  of  Miami  University,  and  I know 
the  difficulties  under  which  we  have  labored  at 
that  institution.  The  town,  it  is  true,  is  small, 
and  yet  we  have  had,  generally,  from  twelve  to 
fourteen  places  in  that  little  village  where  the 
students  could  obtain  intoxicating  liquors,  and 
it  has  militated  largely  against  the  prosperity 
of  that  institution.  It  is  true,  as  I have  known, 


CONCERNING  COLLEGES  AND  UNIVERSITIES. 

Dorsey,  Griswold,  Pratt,  Hitchcock,  Smith,  etc. 


2287 


Day.] 

March  23, 1874.] 


that  it  has  ruined  several  of  the  best  young 
men  who  have  been  connected  with  that  insti- 
tution, and  the  State  of  Ohio  owes  it  to  herself, 
owes  it  to  those  whom  she  brings  within  the 
bounds  of  her  State  universities,  owes  it  to  the 
cause  of  education,  and  owes  it  to  the  cause  of 
morality,  to  see  that,  in  lands  which  are  under 
her  supervision,  which  are  set  apart  for  educa- 
tional purposes  by  the  State,  that  the  liquor 
traffic  should  be  entirely  excluded. 

I do  not  wish  this  to  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion at  all  with  the  general  question  of  the 
liquor  traffic,  and  I hope  that  it  will  be  sepa- 
rated entirely  by  the  Convention  from  anything 
of  that  kind,  and  that  they  will  look  upon  it 
merely  as  a provision  for  the  protection  of  the 
young  men  who  may  place  themselves  under 
the  supervision  of  the  universities  of  the  State, 
and  that  their  parents  may  feel,  when  they  go 
to  those  places  of  instruction,  that  they  are 
secure  from  one  of  the  greatest  evils  to  which 
our  young  men  are  exposed  in  acquiring  their 
education. 

1 trust,  therefore,  that,  without  any  connec- 
tion whatever  with  the  general  view  of  the 
subject  of  traffic  in  intoxicating  liqnors,  but  as 
a portion  of  the  Article  on  Education,  this  sec- 
tion may  be  introduced  into  the  Constitution  of 
the  State. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I hope  that  this  section 
will  not  be  put  into  the  Article.  To  disconnect 
this  from  the  general  question  of  the  liquor 
traffic,  is  to  undertake  something  which  cannot 
be  done;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  policy  of 
it  is  unwise,  and  will  not  accomplish  the  object 
which  the  gentleman  desires.  The  idea  of  send- 
ing your  boys  to  school,  where  they  are  removed 
from  temptation  by  a town  line,  and  thus  protect- 
ing them  from  intemperance,  is  entirely  illusory, 
and  will  have  no  beneficial  results  whatever. 
You  have  a law  now  on  your  statute-books  pro- 
viding against  places  where  liquor  shall  be 
sold.  Do  you  suppose  that  when  you  prohibit 
the  sale  of  liquor  in  towns  where  the  colleges 
are  situated,  the  boys  will  not  get  liquor  if  they 
want  it? 

Mr.  DORSEY,  The  township  is  six  miles 
square. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I do  not  care  if  it  is  ten 
miles  square;  if  they  want  it,  they  will  get  it. 
Human  nature  in  boys  is  so  constituted  that  if 
you  attempt  to  hedge  them  in,  they  will  make 
a raid  across  the  line  and  come  back  drunk, 
just  because  they  are  prohibited  from  what 
other  boys  have.  Why,  take  the  case  of  Yale 
College,  which  is  situated  right  in  the  midst  of 
a large  city ; I want  to  know  if  any  college  in 
the  United  States  has  ever  brought  forth  better 
men  than  that  institution?  To  exclude  boys 
from  the  temptations  of  life  is  no  way  to  educate 
them.  I should  like  to  see  the  law  enforced 
against  the  keeping  of  places  where  liquor  is 
for  sale  to  be  drank,  and  we  have  a good  law 
upon  that  subject,  but  they  are  suppressed  only 
in  localities  where  the  public  sentiment  con- 
demns them;  and  the  idea  of  undertaking  to 
have  a particular  constitutional  provision  to 
prohibit  the  sale  of  liquors  to  boys  in  colleges 
will,  in  my  judgment,  prove  an  entire  failure. 
I do  not  believe  it  will  accomplish  any  good; 
on  the  contrary,  I fear  it  will  have  a very  bad 
influence.  It  is  in  effect  saying  to  the  boys  at 


Oxford  and  Athens,  you  are  not  equal  in  moral 
calibre  to  the  boys  of  other  colleges — it  is  not 
safe  to  exposse  you  to  the  same  dangers  to  which 
the  other  boys  are  exposed.  Shall  it  be  said 
that  the  Divine  command  forbids  the  leading 
into  temptation  ? It  is  easy  to  pervert  any 
truth.  It  is  not  alone  physical  temptation  that 
laws  should  prevent.  There  are  moral  dangers 
far  worse  for  boys  than  mere  drunkenness  or 
dissipation.  Let  the  boys  of  these  colleges  be 
once  possessed  of  the  idea  they  are  sent  thither, 
because  it  is  dangerous  to  send  them  elsewhere, 
and  the  State  colleges  at  once  become  to  them 
a prison,  and,  ten  to  one,  many  of  them  will 
rush  to  the  next  township,  and  get  drunk  just 
to  assert  their  independence. 

Sir,  I have  seen  the  effect  of  this  in  a very 
practical  and  to  some  in  an  unfortunate  way. 
1 was  educated  at  a college  situated  in  a town 
where  the  sale  of  liquor  was  not  allowed.  It 
often  happened  that  boys  were  sent  there,  by 
their  parents,  because  they  were  wild  else- 
where, and  because  they  foolishly  believed  that 
if  the  boys  were  in  a town  where  liquor  was 
prohibited,  they  would  become  sober.  Now, 
the  boys  understood  this  matter  just  as  well  as 
did  their  parents,  and  the  result  was,  they 
would  contrive  all  sort  of  schemes  to  go 
to  the  county  seat,  and  when  they  arrived 
there,  they  were  sure  to  go  on  a spree. 

Mr.  PRATT.  YYas  it  free  down  at  Elyria? 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I suppose  they  went 
there  because  they  could  get  a good  article 
there. 

Mr.  GRISWOLD.  I say  I am  in  sympathy 
with  the  spirit  of  this  proposition,  yet  it  is  not, 
in  my  judgment,  the  proper  way  to  make  boys 
wise  and  sober  men.  Undertaking  to  fence 
them  out  from  temptation  is  not  the  way  to  do 
it,  and  undertaking  to  make  a rule  for  the  boys 
of  these  universities  different  than  those  of 
other  institutions  in  the  Sthte  will  not,  I think, 
effect  the  object  that  the  gentleman  seeks  to  ac- 
complish, but  produce  bad  results. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I shall  support  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron], 
but  I want  to  make  a suggestion  or  two. 
Under  this  constitutional  protection  which  we 
propose  now  to  give  to  the  institutions  at 
Athens  and  Oxford,  while  we  secure  to  them 
the  benefits  resulting  therefrom,  we  yet  expose 
all  other  college  institutions  in  Ohio  to  the  very 
evils  that  we  seek  to  guard  those  two  institu- 
tutions  from,  and  therefore  I would  like,  and  in 
that,  however,  I see  something  impracticable, 
still  I would  like,  if  possible,  to  so  modify  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  as  to  protect  in 
the  same  way  all  colleges  in  the  State,  wherever 
located. 

Mr.  YORIS.  Agreed;  agreed. 

Mr.  PRATT.  And  then  add  the  common 
schools,  would  you? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No:  you  will  see  the  effect  of 
such  a proposition.  For  instance,  in  the  city 
of  Cincinnati  we  have  more  than  one  college; 
now,  by  so  amending  that  clause  as  to  give  it 
that  general  character,  it  would  necessarily 
forbid  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  within 
the  township  in  which  Cincinnati  is  situated, 
and  so  it  would  in  all  other  localities  in  Ohio 
where  such  an  institution  is  placed.  That  is 
the  difficulty  which  presents  itself.  Still  I see 


2288 


CONCERNING  COLLEGES  AND  UNIVERSITIES.  [145th  Day. 


Smith,  Powell,  Herron.  [Monday,  March  23, 1874. 


no  substantial  reason  why  we  should  protect 
the  institution  at  Oxford  more  than  at  any  other 
place.  It  is  true,  the  land,  which  constitutes  a 
poor  and  small  endowment  that  each  one  of 
these  colleges  claims,  were  lands  given  and 
dedicated  to  educational  purposes,  but  these 
lands  have  passed  out  of  the  hands  of  the  State ; 
we  have  no  title  to  them,  and  have  no  control 
over  them.  Those  who  control  them  by  their 
lease  have  just  as  good  a title  to  them  as  any 
other  in  the  State,  and  that  is  no  over-riding 
reason  why  we  should  interpose  in  the  behalf 
of  these  institutions  more  than  of  others  which 
may  not  be  endowed.  The  institution  atOber- 
lin  is  one  of  the  colleges  of  Ohio,  and  the  in- 
stitution at  Gambier  is  another,  equal  in  char- 
acter and  influence,  and  dispensing  as  great 
blessings  to  the  State  as  the  two  which  are  re- 
ferred to  by  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron]. 

Mr.  POWELL.  May  I interrupt  you? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir;  but  I was  going  to 
say  there  was  also  one  at  your  town,  Delaware. 

Mr.  POWELL.  I would  say  that  the  Ohio 
Wesleyan  University  at  my  town  has  now  be- 
tween six  and  seven  hundred  alumni,  and  is  as 
much  entitled  to  such  protection  as  any  one, 
and  I would  ask  the  gentleman  if  there  is  any 
way  we  can  protect  that  University  at  Dela- 
ware from  the  evil  of  this  traffic.  For  those  I 
who  are  interestsd  there  I feel  deeply,  and  | 
■would  be  glad  to  include  that  institution,  if  j 
any  such  provision  is  made  for  any  University. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  gentleman  is  right.  The 
institution  at  Delaware  ought  to  have  the  same 
protection  and  constitutional  care  thrown 
around  it  which  the  universities  at  Oxford  and 
Athens  claim.  And  besides  that,  it  would  be 
enacting  probably  some  seeming  injustice  if  we 
throw  around  the  institutions  at  Oxford  and 
Athens  that  constitutional  care  which  will  re- 
lieve them  from  the  presence  of  such  an  evil. 
We  would,  practically,  be  conferring  upon  those 
special  institutions  an  advantage  which  others 
would  not  receive  without  that  constitutional 
protection,  and  would  be  discriminating  be- 
tween those  two  colleges  and  all  the  other  in- 
stitutions in  the  State.  Now,  that  would  not  be 
right.  It  might  have  a very  injurious  effect 
upon  the  prosperity  of  other  institutions.  I 
make  these  remarks  for  the  purpose  of  calling 
the  attention  of  the  gentleman  from  Hamilton 
[Mr.  Herron]  to  my  stand-point  or  view  of  the 
subject.  While  I say  I will  vote  for  his  propo- 
sition, even  as  presented,  still  I do  not  like  it 
without  some  additional  amendment  by  which 
all  other  institutions  of  like  character — no  dif- 
ference by  whom  they  were  founded,  nor  what 
sort  of  endowments  they  have,  they  are  insti- 
tutions claiming  this  protecting  care.  By  the 
way,  there  are  so  many  colleges  in  Ohio  that  if 
we  put  this  proposition  into  the  Constitution,  J 
including  them  all,  we  would  almost  have  a [ 
temperance  law  all  over  the  State.  It  would  be  j 
a cunningly  devised  plan  by  which  we  would  1 
enforce  it  in  almost  every  county  and  every  town  j 
ship  in  the  county.  I suggest  this,  hoping  the 
gentleman  from  Hamilton  [Mr.  Herron],  will  j 
think  over  the  proposition  until  morning,  and  I 
see  if  he  cannot  think  of  some  way  by  which  j 
he  can  embrace  all  the  colleges  of  the  State  un- 
der its  protection  in  this  respect. 


Mr.  HERRON . I will  simply  say  that  I have 
thought  of  the  matter  referred  to  by  mv  friend 
from  Highland  [Mr.  Smith]  and  that  if  I saw 
any  practical  means  of  enforcing  such  a provis- 
ion as  he  desires,  I might  add  it  to  my  section 
and  endeavor  to  have  it  adopted ; but  take,  for 
instance,  a university  lying  in  the  city  of  Cin- 
cinnati; I think  it  is  impossible,  in  a case  of 
that  kind,  to  enforce  such  an  entire  prohibition 
as  this. 

Now,  there  is  the  difference  between  colleges 
at  large,  and  these  two  State  universities. 
These  are  under  the  care  of  the  State,  and  the 
others  are  not.  The  State  of  Ohio  has  nothing, 
whatever,  to  do  with  the  other  colleges.  They 
neither  appoint  their  trustees,  nor  do  they  reg- 
ulate them,  but  in  the  case  of  these  State  uni- 
versities, the  State  appoints  the  trustees,  the 
State  manages  them,  and  the  State  is  the  only 
power  that  has  anything,  whatever,  to  do  with 
them;  therefore,  it  is  very  proper  that  some- 
thing of  this  kind  should  be  placed  in  the  Con- 
stitution, and  these  two  universities  being  lo- 
cated in  the  country  where  a law  of  this  kind 
may  be  enforced,  I think  that  we  may  safely 
do  this  without  touching  the  general  subject 
of  the  liquor  traffic  in  the  State.  In  reply  to 
the  gentleman  from  Cuyahoga  [Mr.  Griswold], 
I will  simply  say  this : that  in  a case  like  his 
i own,  of  a boy  that  would  have  liquor,  we  may 
I not  be  able  to  prevent  it.  [Laughter.]  In  the 
I case  of  confirmed  drunkards  we  do  not  often 
succeed  in  effecting  a reformation,  [laughter] 
but  it  is  in  the  case  of  beginners,  when  they  are 
just  starting  out  in  life,  that  we  expect  to  effect 
this,  and  to  save  these  young  men,  who,  unless 
temptation  was  brought  right  to  their  door, 
would  be  in  no  danger  from  it.  Those  are  the 
cases  we  expect  to  meet  by  a provision  of  this 
kind,  and  I take  it  that  there  is  not  a single  man 
in  this  Convention  who  has  had  any  experience 
in  collegiate  education  at  all,  but  knows  that  if 
there  were  no  saloons  in  the  town  where  the 
college  is  located,  nine-tenths  of  the  dissipa- 
tion that  occurs  in  your  colleges  would  not  oc- 
cur. It  will,  and  does,  have  a good  effect  in 
every  town  where  prohibition  is  enforced.  But 
all  we  ask  is  that  for  those  institutions  of  which 
the  State  has  charge,  and  for  which  the  State 
itself  is  responsible,  it  shall,  so  far  as  lies  in  its 
power,  prevent  this  evil. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  has  been  suggested  to 
me  that,  possibly,  the  amendment  which  I offer 
extends  too  far;  that  it  not  only  serves  to  pro- 
tect these  colleges,  but  also  applies  to  section 
sixteen,  and  probably  to  one  or  two  sections  in 
other  parts  of  the  State  which  are  given  for 
educational  purposes.  I would,  therefore,  de- 
sire to  make  this  amendment:  that  instead  of 
saying  donated  “for  educational  purposes,” 
simply,  it  shall  say  “for  collegiate  purposes,” 
so  as  to  confine  it  simply  to  the  lands  which 
have  been  donated  to  the  State  for  the  State  uni- 
versities, and  which  are  used  for  that  purpose. 
It  will  then  read  as  follows  : 

Sec.  — . The  General  Assembly  shall  forever  prohibit, 
by  appropriate  fines  and  penalties,  all  traffic  in  intoxi- 
cating liquors,  except  for  medicinal  or  mechanical  pur- 
poses, within  the  limits  of  any  lands  that  have  been  do- 
nated to,  or  that  may  be  held  by  the  State  of  Ohio,  for  the 
support  of  State  Universities,  so  long  as  said  lands,  or  an 
income  therefrom,  shall  be  used  for  such  purposes. 


